Plant Growth Regulation 31: 113119, 2000. 2000 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

113

Fruit thinning of peach trees

Guglielmo Costa1 & Giannina Vizzotto2
di Colture Arboree, University of Bologna, Via Filippo Re 6, 40126 Bologna, Italy; 2 Dipartimento di Produzione Vegetale e Tecnologie Agrarie, University of Udine, Via delle Scienze 208, 33100 Udine, Italy
1 Dipartimento

Key words: bloom thinning, bud thinning, correlative inhibition, fruit growth

Abstract The present review deals with the importance of fruit thinning in peach. The date of treatment, the severity and the criteria underlying the practice are discussed. Methods of fruit thinning are described, with particular emphasis on the use of chemical treatment as an alternative to hand thinning. Strategies for chemical thinning are advanced.

1. Introduction In peach fruit, thinning must be performed every year. The advantages of this technique are well known viz. reducing the number of owers or fruits increases fruit size, improves quality, prevents alternate bearing and balances the fruit-to-shoot ratio, leading to an increase in assimilates to fruits and shoots [18, 33, 39, 40, 42, 57]. The practical consequences of thinning include an increase in individual fruit weight, fruit maturity enhancement and better ower bud formation [53], all of which lead to higher prices and crop value. Thinning responses are closely related to environmental and soil conditions and management practices, especially pruning. Reproductive and vegetative performance is closely linked to thinning severity and timing. Research focusing on alternatives to hand thinning is topical because of increasing labour costs and the high fertility of currently grown cultivars.

their demand for assimilates remains high for endocarp hardening. Delaying fruit thinning until after this stage eliminates fruits and the assimilates that could be used to optimise the current and subsequent seasons cropping potential [71]. To ensure a proper supply of assimilates right from the moment of fruit formation, earlier thinning, such as during Stage I of fruit growth or even during bloom, can be a viable option. While manual ower thinning has only been adopted for experimental purposes [26, 42], it can steadily increase fruit yield with respect to thinning later in the season, although its cost makes it unlikely that it will become standard orchard management practice. It could become cost-effective for a very early-cropping cultivar that commands a high enough market price, although such a cultivar usually yields small-size fruits because of its shortened growing season. Thinning at bloom also reduces competition between fruits and vegetative sinks and enhance fruit size [8, 9, 10]. 2.2 Scheduling criteria The fruit growth curve can be used as a tool to establish the optimum thinning date vis vis the given cultivar. In peach it has a double sigmoid pattern with three distinguishable stages [14]. Stage I, which represents the period of rapid pericarp and seed development, is marked by exponential growth. Stage II (the so-called lag-phase) usually is coincident with a reduction in fruit growth, thought to be linked to

2. Treatment Scheduling 2.1 Date Thinning time is critical to achieve the desired results. Manual fruit thinning is usually carried out towards the end of fruit growth Stage II (pit-hardening) or the beginning of Stage III. After natural abscission, only the excess fruits on the tree need to be thinned. During Stage II, the fruits slowly increase in size and

114 endocarp lignication. Stage III is a second phase of exponential growth featuring rapid cell expansion and maturation of the mesocarp. This three-stage model is based on fresh weight accumulation (or increase in transversal diameter) and can readily be applied to mid- and late-ripening cultivars. Note, however, that for early ripening cultivars determining the three stages of this construct is difcult, as Stage II is too short to be distinguishable. Note too that these three development stages do not necessarily correspond to fruit dry-weight development, the basis for another model [13]. While the dimensions reached by fruit during Stage II (14 days after the onset of pit hardening) have been shown to be well correlated to nal fruit size [3] under optimum or sub-optimum carbon supply, late-ripening cultivars may be limited by insufcient assimilate supply (e.g. nutritional starvation) [37]. Indeed, for the efciency of the tree it is better to thin fruits marked by a slower growth rate and, hence, a greater probability of abscising [58]. However, as noted above, in the case of early ripeners, the three-stage model is inadequate because of the brevity of Stage II [17]. In an attempt to identify criteria with universal application, other growth models can be examined. Four phases of fruit growth (P1P4) can be distinguished [17] using the rst and second derivatives of the double sigmoid curve. These phases cannot be clearly identied in all peach cultivars because the fruit growth pattern is related to the time required to reach maturity. An analysis of fruit growth kinetics of three cultivars with different ripening dates shows that while the length of P1 was similar in all, P2 and P3 were much shorter in the early ripeners than in the mid- and late-ripening ones (Table 1) [17]. Another method to describe peach fruit growth kinetics employs the daily fruit demand for photosynthates throughout the season (sink strength) [23]. Relative growth rates of fruits (in terms of dry weight) are plotted against degree days to yield a biphasic model in which the shift between the two phases is related to the end of a period of active cell division and differentiation and to the onset of a phase primarily marked by cell expansion. This fruit growth model can be readily adopted to predict cultivar behaviour in different years, although the physiological processes normally associated with the two phases in very early ripeners are not clearly associated with two separate RGR (relative growth rate) phases [55]. Thus, the optimum time to carry out thinning may not be strictly related to endocarp lignication per se, but to the sudden increase in sucrose content of the mesocarp or the time after which the marginal cost of a fruit greatly increases. To prevent a signicant dispersion of assimilates, it may be better to eliminate excess fruits before the demand for carbohydrates exceeds the supply, and before an undesiderable competition between fruits and other sinks or among fruits occurs.

3. Severity of thinning Fruit thinning affects fruit size and yield [68]. The proper amount of fruit to remove depends on genetic traits and on the value of incremental increases in fruits size and yield. The bearing capacity is associated with the trees age and size and is also inuenced by such external factors as pruning. Clingstone trees require less severe thinning than freestones or nectarines. Indeed, the standard size required for the former is usually smaller than the latter. Note too that nectarines frequently show a natural fruitlet abscission during the season. Regardless of species, an increment in fruit number reduces fruit size and increases yield [25]. Sourcesink relationships and the allocation of assimilates to different organs play a central role in the determination of crop yield [25]. Since fruit size depends on the ratio of leaf number to fruit number, there is a close relationship between canopy size and bearing capacity [73]. Reducing the number of fruits per tree by thinning increases the leaf-to-fruit ratio and increases fruit size [27, 70]. That early thinning at bloom or soon after pollination results in larger fruits [71] indicates that peach fruit growth is source-limited during the early and late periods of development [41, 56]; during the mid-period of fruit growth sink limitations may be present (at least in late-maturing cultivars) [24]. However, the period in which such growth limitations take place differs depending on cultivar bloom to harvest dates. Competition among fruits may be more evident in early ripeners and may be present throughout fruit development, although such other factors as environmental conditions (water and carbohydrate availability, plant nutrition, etc.) can stie fruit growth with respect to its genetic potential [56]. An important factor in determining tree response is light shading inuences several vegetative and reproductive plant traits [12, 52]. That ower buds are mainly found at the top and near the outer edge of the canopy means that these zones are conducive

115
Table 1. S II 7 22 27 P III 23 36 52 1 28 30 28 2 14 19 31 3 14 31 41 4 9 3 12 1 33 33 33 2 FW 3 15 20 30 DW 3 13 20 35

I Springcrest Redhaven Cresthaven 35 35 33

4 10 13 12

1 33 48 48

4 10 13 12

Total 65 93 112

7 27 37

9 12 17

to fruit development in regard to nal size, color and soluble solids content (shading induces early fruit drop). However, as vegetative and reproductive buds are usually present on the same node in peach, there can be competition in the apical parts of the tree between young fruits and growing shoots [15]. A study on the thinning effect of shading was carried out on cultivars of different ripening dates [12]. The period of maximum sensitivity ranged from 45 to 58 days after full bloom (AFB), depending on harvest date and crop load. This approach suggests that the sensitivity of the developing fruit to canopy manipulation (e.g. pruning, shading) differs and provides a potential factor controlling reproductive or vegetative growth that can be used as a tool to determine thinning date and severity. Pruning can elicit contrasting effects [34, 35]. It reduces the trees total dry matter and rate of accumulation, stimulating vegetative growth in the local area of the cut. The manipulation of the plants sourcesink ratio can alter carbohydrate and phytohormone levels [43], which in turn can affect the relationship between vegetative and reproductive growth. Stonefruit response to pruning has been studied extensively [7, 36, 59], the effect being dependent on the time of application, tree vigor and planting density [50]. Summer pruning reduces growth to a greater extent, without inducing an invigorating effect as compared to winter (dormancy) pruning [35]. It also promotes new shoot development, improves light penetration into the canopy and can reduce reproductive development the following season, thereby acting as a contributory factor to limiting ower number [36].

competition among fruits [40], although this period is not appropriate for all cultivars. Especially for early ripening cultivars, which are generally characterized by small fruit size [17], ower as opposed to fruit thinning is preferred since early reduction of competition among reproductive sinks leads to large fruit size [9, 42, 69]. Yet the economic benets of bloom thinning are to be weighed against the higher prices paid for larger fruits, the desired yield level, the risk of spring frost, etc. [8]. Thereafter, other parameters like the leaf-to-fruit ratio, lignication, type of shoot, position of fruit in the canopy and type of winter pruning can be taken as additional criteria. 4.2 Mechanical Both owers and fruits can be removed by mechanical means. Flower number can be reduced by dormancy pruning, physical removal by hand or specialized brushes, rope drags, high pressure water streams [8]. Fruit removal has also been performed by mechanical shaking [16], although because it selectively thins fruit based on their mass it removes the largest fruit and thereby decreases fruit yield and value [4]. 4.3 Chemical No satisfactory chemical thinning results in peach and nectarine have been achieved despite the numerous agents (3-CPA, CGA, Orthonil, Morphactins, NAA, NAAm, Ethrel) employed and the extensive body of research devoted to the subject up to the 1980s [1, 6, 16, 19, 29, 60]. However, at present, there are several viable ways of reducing fruit or ower number by applying chemicals with a thinning effect at specic phenological stages. 4.3.1 Flower-bud differentiation. Gibberellin (GA) sprays reduces ower bud number when applied from bloom to September. This was shown some years ago [28, 44, 66, 67] and recently reproposed [9, 48, 63, 64]. Gibberellins must be applied when ower-bud

4. Thinning Methods 4.1 Manual Thinning by hand is usually carried out 40 to 60 days AFB when natural abscission takes place because of

116
Table 2. Treated No. fruit/TCA Total fruit wt/ (DAFB) (n/cm2 ) TCA (g/cm2 ) 44 0 0 12 36 47 3.3 6.4 4.9 4.3 1.7 1.3 325.2 455.5 390.8 327.0 207.0 159.3 Table 5. Treatment Fruit abscission (%) 18 73 97 100

Treatment Hand-thinned Bloom thinned Bloom thinned + GA3 Bloom thinned + GA3 Bloom thinned + GA3 Bloom thinned + GA3

Hand thinned 1% Hydrogen cyanamide 2% Hydrogen cyanamide 3% Hydrogen cyanamide

Table 6. Table 3. Application date GA conc Thinning Reduction in (mg/L) time/tree thinning time (min) (%) June 15 July 9 July 27 Hand thinned 50 to 120 50 to 120 50 to 120 0 15.1 20.2 21.4 100 28.2 5.5 0 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132 144 Hours from pollination Ca Hours between pollination and 3% ArmoThin treatment 0b 0c 24 48 72 96 120

Pollen tube growth (% of total style length) 33 71 78 83 85 81 100 91 95 100 100 40 60 83 42 79 84 85 90 93 100

differentiation can be affected. Some investigations have indicated that GA application from 0 to 47 days AFB inhibits ower bud formation and reduces the subsequent years cropping [9] (Table 2). More recently, Southwick et al. [62] show that ower reduction occurred when GA3 was applied from mid-June to early July; spray applied in mid-June means no thinning the following year (Table 3). The inhibition of ower bud differentiation is also clearly related to spray concentration (Costa et al., unpublished) (Table 4). Flower bud inhibition has not become widely accepted because of the potential subsequent winter or spring frost damage to buds, which further reduces cropping [9].

55 62 67 79 100 93 100 87 100

75 100 86 100 100 100 100

100 96 95 100 100

100 100 100

a untreated control b ArmoThin applied before pollination c ArmoThin applied immediately after pollination

Table 4. Treatment Concentration No. of owers/ m shoot 32.64a 21.38 17.34 28.46 16.33

Control Mid-June Mid-July

60 ppm 80 ppm 60 ppm 80 ppm

a Average of three cultivars

4.3.2 Autumn and dormancy. In October and November, GA and Ethrel sprays have been used to delay owering and prevent the risk due to winter or spring frost. These sprays also caused ower bud-mortality [74], an effect related both to date of application and concentration of the active ingredients. Gianfagna et al. [38] found that 100 and 200 ppm of Ethrel applied in autumn can delay owering by several days and, at the same time, have a direct effect on ower bud mortality. During the dormant period, bud-dormancy breaking agents are applied when the chilling requirement is not completely met. Normally, under such conditions, compounds like hydrogen-cyanamide or nitrogen and surfactant mixtures are applied 6040 days before expected bud-break. The application of hydrogen cyanamide close to bloom (less than 40 days) can inhibit ower-bud burst. Where the chilling

117

Figure 1.

requirement is usually met, treating with hydrogen cyanamide may result in ower bud abscission or inhibition of ower opening [32] (Table 5). 4.3.3 Bloom. Some chemicals [surfactants, endothal, X77, D88, and fertilizers such as ammonium thiosulfate (ATS)], when applied 2 or 3 days after peach ower opening, can interfere with pollination and fertilization of the ovule [8, 11], causing owers and fruits to abscise. ATS burns blossoms and young shoots, especially when applied with fungicides in tank mix [54]. Thiourea and urea applied at the beginning of bud swell have caustic effects on ower parts, resulting in thinning of early ripeners [26, 30]. Other compounds applied in full bloom as endothalic acid (Endothal) or pelargonic acid (Thinex) effectively thinned blossoms reducing peach fruit set [31]. In the last 56 years, one of the most extensively studied surfactants is a fatty amine polymer called ArmoThin, which has been tested on several stonefruit species with interesting results [20, 21, 48, 49, 61]. This compound induces early anther dehiscence, a marked reduction in pollen germination and pollen tube growth within the stylar tissue soon after germination has occurred (Table 6). The data on pollen tube growth suggest the efciency of the compound in relation to ower stage: the earlier the treatment, the more effective the compound (Figure 1) [2]. Application of the chemical at a 23% concentration when 7080% of the owers have opened has yielded interesting results in several climatic areas of cultivation and on different cultivars.

4.3.4 Fruit thinning by bioregulators. Since 1970, numerous trials in several countries have studied ethephon as a chemical fruitlet thinner for peach and other stonefruits. However, while some trials have provided very interesting results, ethephon use has not become widespread since its effectiveness is closely related to a number of internal and external factors [16, 29, 45, 46, 47, 57, 65]. Compounds capable of inhibiting photosynthesis (terbacil) cause fruit abscission when applied 30 to 40 days AFB [12] and even thereafter [22]. PP333, a well known growth retardant for stonefruit, also induces some fruit abscission in peach when treatment is performed at the shuck-off stage [5], although the effects of such sterol- and gibberellin inhibitors do not hold for all cultivars and growing conditions [51].

5. New perspectives It is difcult to nd a winning strategy for chemical thinning in peach. The attempts to nd a single chemical compound as an alternative to hand fruit thinning have failed. A possible approach to solving this problem in peach may lie in the strategy adopted for other species, e.g. apple [72]. In this species, it is possible to thin fruits using substances (i.e. DNOC, NAA, NAAm and SEVIN) which are applied at specic and successive phenological stages on the same trees. With the chemicals already available, it might be possible even in peach to carry out treatments at ower differentiation (GA), or during bud dormancy

118 (dormancy-breaking agents), evaluate their efcacy at bloom and still be able to spray at bloom (surfactant as blossom thinner) and even repeat the application with ethephon at the fruitlet stage.
20. Costa G, Vizzotto G, Malossini C and Bomben C (1996) Nuove possibilit nel diradamento chimico del pesco. Atti Progetto Finalizzato Frutticoltura, Miglioramento genetico e tecnica colturale, MACFRUT AGROBIOFRUT Cesena, 10 11 Maggio Costa G, Vizzotto G, Malossini C and Ramina A (1995) Biological activity for a new chemical agent for peach ower thinning. Acta Hortic 394: 123128 Del Valle TBG, Barden JA and Byers RE (1985) Thinning of peaches by temporary inhibition of photosynthesis with Terbacil. J Amer Soc Hort Sci 110: 804807 DeJong TM and Goudriaan J (1989) Modeling peach fruit growth and carbohydrate requirements: Reevaluation of double-sigmoid growth pattern. J Amer Soc Hort Sci 114: 800804 DeJong TM and Grossman WL (1995) Quantifying sink and source limitations on dry matter partitioning to fruit growth in peach trees. Physiol Plant 95: 437443 Dennis FGJr, Dilley DR and Cook R (1983) Improving fruit quality and yield. Proc Michigan Soc Hort Sci 113: 199201 Di Marco L, Caruso T, Marra FP and Motisi A (1992) Research on ower thinning of early-ripening peach and nectarine with urea. Fruit Var J: 186190 Dorsey MJ and McMunn RL (1927) Relation of the time of thinning peaches to the growth of fruit and tree. Proc Amer Soc Hort Sci 24: 221228 Edgerton LJ (1966) Some effects of gibberellic acid and growth retardants on bud development and cold hardiness of peach. Proc Amer Soc Hort Sci 88: 197203 Edgerton LJ and Greenhalgh WJ (1969) Regulation of growth, owering and fruit abscission with 2-chloroethanephosphonic acid. J Amer Soc Hort Sci 94: 1113 Erez A (1975) Thiourea, a new thinning agent for earlyripening peaches and nectarines. HortSci 10: 251253 Fallahi E (1997) Application of endothalic acid, pelargonic acid, and hydrogen cyanamide for blossom thinning in apple and peach. HortTech 7: 395399 Fallahi E, Kilby M and Moon JW (1990) Effects of various chemicals on dormancy, maturity and thinning of peaches. Deciduous Fruit and Nut- A College of Agricultural Report, Series P-83, December: 121128 Farley AJ (1923) Factors that inuence the effectiveness of peach thinning. Proc Amer Soc Hort Sci 20: 145151 Faust M (1989) Physiology of temperate zone fruit trees. John Wiley & Sons, New York Flore JA (1992) The inuence of summer pruning on the physiology and morphology of stone fruit trees. Acta Hortic 322: 257264 Flore JA and Layne DR (1996) Prunus. In: Zamski E and Schaffer A (eds) Photoassimilate Distribution in Plants and Crops. Source: Sink Interactions. New York: Marcel Dekker, pp 825849 Gnard M and Bruchou C (1993) A functional and exploratiory approach to studying growth: The example of the peach fruit. J Amer Soc Hort Sci 118: 317323 Gianfagna TJ, Marini R and Rachmiel S (1986) Effect of ethephon and GA3 on time of owering in peach. HortSci 21: 6970 Giulivo C (1974) Conoscenze sullaccrescimento dei fruitti e loro contributo alla tecnica del diradamento delle pesche e delle mele. Incontro Frutticolo SOI, Bologna 3 Maggio: 2128 Giulivo C, Ramina A and Costa G (1981) Il contributo del sottoprogetto 5 alle conoscenze dei processi di abscissione e maturazione dei frutti. Seminario su I toregolatori nel

21.

References
1. Aitken JB, Buchanan DW and Sauls JW (1972) Thinning short-cycle Florida peaches with N-1-Naphylphtalamic acid. HortSci 7: 255256 Baroni G, Ramina A and Costa G (1995) Nuove possibilit per il diradamento chimico del pesco. Atti XXII Convegno Peschicolo, Cesena, 2830 Settembre: 134136 Batjer LP and Westwood MN (1958) Size of Elberta and JH Hale peaches during the thinning period as related to size at harvest. Proc Amer Soc Hort Sci 72: 102105 Berlage AG and Lanmo RD (1982) Machine vs hand thinning of peaches. Trans Amer Soc Agr Eng 25: 538543 Blanco A (1987) Fruit thinning of peach trees (Prunus persica L Batsch): The effect of paclobutrazol on fruit drop and shoot growth. J Hort Sci 62: 147155 Buchanan DW, Biggs RH, Blake JA and Sherman WB (1970) Peach thinning with 3 CPA and Ethrel during cytokinesis. J Amer Soc Hort Sci 95: 781784 Brown DS and Harris RW (1958) Summer pruning trees of early maturing peach varieties. Proc Amer Soc Hort Sci 72: 7984 Byers RE (1989) Response of peach trees to bloom thinning. Acta Hortic 254: 125132 Byers RE, Carbaugh DH and Presley CN (1990) The inuence of bloom thinning and GA3 sprays on owers bud numbers and distribution in peach trees. J Hort Sci 65: 143150 Byers RE and Lyons CG Jr (1984) Flower thinning of peach with desiccating chemicals. HortSci 19: 5456 Byers RE and Lyons CG Jr (1985) Peach ower thinning and possible site of action of desiccating chemicals. J Amer Soc Hort Sci 110: 662667 Byers RE, Lyons CG Jr, Del Valle TB, Barden JA and Young RW (1984) Peach fruit abscission by shading and photosynthetic inhibition. HortSci 19: 649651 Chalmers DJ and van den Ende B (1977) The relation between seed and fruit development in peach (Prunus persica L). Ann Bot 41: 707714 Connors CH (1919) Growth of fruits of peach. New Jersey Agr Expt Sta Annu Rpt 40: 8288 Corelli-Grappadelli L and Coston DC (1991) Thinning pattern and light environment in peach tree canopies inuence fruit quality. HortSci 26: 14641466 Costa G (1978) Diradamento chimico e meccanico delle pesche. Riv Ortoorofrutt Ital 1: 6386 Costa G, Baraldi R, Ramina A and Tonutti P (1986) Growth analysis in peach varieties with different ripening time. XXII IHC, UCDavis HortSci 21, Session 144, Abstract #559 Costa G, Giulivo C and Ramina A (1983) Effects of the different ower/vegetative buds ratio on the peach fruit abscission and growth. Acta Hortic 139: 149160 Costa G and Grandi M (1974) Risultati sperimentali di alcuni diradanti chimici e di diversi sistemi di diradamento meccanico delle pesche in Emilia-Romagna. Atti Incontro Frutticolo SOI 74: Diradamento chimico e meccanico dei frutti nel pesco e nel melo: 4552

22.

23.

2.

24.

3.

25. 26.

4. 5.

27.

6.

28.

7.

29.

8. 9.

30. 31.

10. 11.

32.

12.

33. 34. 35.

13.

14. 15.

36.

16. 17.

37.

38.

18.

39.

19.

40.

119
controllo della produzione degli alberi da frutto, Ferrara 26 Marzo: 107117 Grossman YL and DeJong TM (1995) Maximum fruit growth potential and seasonal patterns of resource dynamics during peach growth. Ann Bot 75: 553560 Havis AL (1962) Effect of time of fruit thinning of Redhaven peach. Proc Amer Soc Hort Sci 80: 172176 Herold A (1980) Regulation of photosynthesis by sink activity the missing link. New Phytol 86: 131144 Intrieri C and Sansavini S (1972) Ricerche sul controllo della differenziazione delle gemme nel pesco Southland mediante lacido gibberellico. Riv Ortoorofrutt Ital 5(6): 433447 Lavee S and Martin GC (1974) Ethephon (1,2-14 C(2chloroethyl)-phosphonic acid) in peach fruits I. Penetration and persistance. J Amer Soc Hort Sci 99: 9799 Lavee S and Martin GC (1974) Ethephon (1,2-14 C(2chloroethyl)-phosphonic acid) in peach fruits II. Metabolism. J Amer Soc Hort Sci 99: 100103 Lavee S and Martin GC (1975) Ethephon (1,2-14 C(2chloroethyl)-phosphonic acid) in peach Prunus persica L. fruits III. Stability and persistance. J Amer Soc Hort Sci 100: 2831 Lemus G (1996) Raleo quimico de duraznos, nectarinos y ciruelas japonesas en Chile. Curso Internacional Manejo de Frutales de Caroso, Santiago de Chile, 45 Marzo Lichou J, Jay M, Gonsolin L and Du Fretay G (1996) Armothin: A new chemical agent for peach blossom thinning. Acta Hortic 451: 683692 Marini RP (1985) Vegetative growth, yield, and fruit quality of peach as inuenced by dormant pruning, summer pruning, and summer topping. J Am Soc Hort Sci 110: 133139 Marini RP (1987) Growth and cropping of Redhaven peach trees following soil application of paclobutrazol. J Am Soc Hort Sci 112: 1821 Marini RP and Sowers DL (1990) Peach growth weight is inuenced by crop density and fruiting shoot length but not position on the shoot. J Am Soc Hort Sci 119: 180184 Myers SC, King A and Savelle AT (1993) Bloom thinning of Wimblo peach and Fantasia nectarine with monocarbamide dihydrogensulfate. HortSci 28: 616617 Olien WC, Miller RW Jr, Graham CJ, Taylor ER Jr and Hardin ME (1995) Effects of combined applications of ammonium thiosulphate and fungicides on fruit load and blossom blight and their phytotoxicity to peach trees. J Hort Sci 70: 847854 Pavel EW and DeJong TM (1993) Relative growth rate and its relationship to compositional changes in nonstructural carbohydrates in the mesocarp of developing peach fruit. J Am Soc Hort Sci 118: 503506 Pavel EW and DeJong TM (1993) Source- and sink-limited growth periods of developing peach fruits indicated by relative growth rate analysis. J Am Soc Hort Sci 118: 820824 Ramina A (1981) La dinamica della cascola ed alcuni aspetti siologici della abscissione nel diradamento chimico dei frutti di pesco (Prunus Persica, L Batsch). I toregolatori nel controllo della produzione degli alberi da frutto Ferrara, 26 Marzo: 932 58. Ramina A and Masia A (1980) Level of extractable abscisic acid in the mesocarp and seed of persisting and abscising peach fruit. J Am Soc Hort Sci 105: 465468 Rom CR and Ferree DC (1984) The inuence of summer pruning current-season shoots on growth, oral bud development, and winter injury of mature peach trees. HortSci 19: 543545 Shaybany B, Costa G, Brown SS, Obenauff G, Martin GC and Gerdts M (1979) Effects of 2-(3-chlorophenoxy)propionamide applications on fruit size and maturity of peach. J Amer Soc Hort Sci 104: 3436 Southwick SM, Weis KG and Yeager JT (1996) Bloom thinning Loadel cling peach with a surfactant. J Amer Soc Hort Sci 121: 334338 Southwick SM, Weis KG and Yeager JT (1996) Chemical thinning of stone fruits in California. Good Fruit Grow 47: 3435 Southwick SM, Weis KG, Yeager JT and Zhou H (1995) Controlling cropping in Loadel cling peach using gibberellineffects on ower density, fruit distribution, fruit rmness, fruit thinning and yield. J Amer Soc Hort Sci 120: 10871095 Southwick SM and Yeager JT (1991) Effects of postharvest gibberellic acid application on return bloom of Patterson apricot. Acta Hortic 293: 459466 Stembridge GE and Gambrell CE (1971) Thinning peaches with bloom and post-bloom applications of 2-chloroethilphosphonic acid. J Amer Soc Hort Sci 96: 79 Stembridge GE and Gambrell CE (1972) Peach fruit abscission as inuenced by applied gibberellin and seed development. J Amer Soc Hort Sci 97: 708710 Stembridge GE and La Rue JH (1969) The effect of potassium gibberellate on ower bud development in the Redskin peach. J Amer Soc Hort Sci 94: 492495 Tukey HB and Einset O (1939) Effect of fruit thinning on size, color and yield of peaches and on growth and blossoming of the trees. Proc Amer Soc Hort Sci 36: 314319 Weinbaum SA, Giulivo C and Ramina A (1977) Chemical thinning: Ethylene and pre-treatment fruit size inuence enlargement auxin transport and apparent sink strength of french prune and Andross peach. J Amer Soc Hort Sci 102: 781785 Weinberger JH (1931) The relation of leaf area to size and quality of peaches. Proc Amer Soc Hort Sci 28: 1822 Weinberger JH (1941) Studies on time of peach thinning from blossoming to maturity. Proc Amer Soc Hort Sci 38: 137140 Wertheim SJ (1997) Chemical thinning of deciduous fruit trees. Acta Hortic 463: 445462 Westwood MN (1978) Temperate-Zone Pomology. San Franciso: WH Freeman and Company, pp 199219 Williams KM (1989) Peach bloom delay using fall applications of ethrel and Pro-Gibb. Acta Hortic 254: 151154

41.

59.

42. 43. 44.

60.

61.

45.

62.

46.

63.

47.

64.

48.

65.

49.

66.

50.

67.

51.

68.

52.

69.

53.

54.

70. 71. 72. 73. 74.

55.

56.

57.