Comparing Different Methods for Pruning Pitaya (Hylocereus undatus)
Recently there have been new trends in global consumption toward fresh foods that are sources of healthy bioactive compounds, as is the case with pitaya. However, pitaya cultivation is a relatively recent phenomenon and little is known about its management. The objective of this work is to determine...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI
2022
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/10835/13919 |
| _version_ | 1789406315498438656 |
|---|---|
| author | Arredondo Navarro, Emilio Chiamolera, Fernando M. Casas, Marina Cuevas González, Julián |
| author_facet | Arredondo Navarro, Emilio Chiamolera, Fernando M. Casas, Marina Cuevas González, Julián |
| author_sort | Arredondo Navarro, Emilio |
| collection | DSpace |
| description | Recently there have been new trends in global consumption toward fresh foods that are sources of healthy bioactive compounds, as is the case with pitaya. However, pitaya cultivation is a relatively recent phenomenon and little is known about its management. The objective of this work is to determine the most appropriate annual fruiting pruning method for pitaya in order to obtain a regular annual yield of quality fruit and an intense shoot renewal that guarantee future production. This study compared the response of Hylocereus undatus to spur, cane, and combined pruning. As control plants, we left some plants where only sanitary pruning was performed. The results indicate that spur pruning greatly reduced flowering (seven times less than controls) and did not promote intense vegetative growth. Cane pruning, on the contrary, allowed greater flowering which is compatible with a higher number of new shoots (8% more than controls). The vigor of the new shoots was equal in all treatments. Fruit size and quality did not differ either among treatments. Spur pruning only seems applicable as a rejuvenation pruning. Combined pruning gave an intermediate response and seems of no interest given the good shoot renewal provided by cane pruning. Performing sanitary pruning alone may be an interesting option, but only in the first years of cultivation. |
| format | info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
| id | oai:repositorio.ual.es:10835-13919 |
| institution | Universidad de Cuenca |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2022 |
| publisher | MDPI |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oai:repositorio.ual.es:10835-139192023-10-31T09:56:58Z Comparing Different Methods for Pruning Pitaya (Hylocereus undatus) Arredondo Navarro, Emilio Chiamolera, Fernando M. Casas, Marina Cuevas González, Julián Hylocereus undatus dragon fruit vegetative growth flowering fruit quality Recently there have been new trends in global consumption toward fresh foods that are sources of healthy bioactive compounds, as is the case with pitaya. However, pitaya cultivation is a relatively recent phenomenon and little is known about its management. The objective of this work is to determine the most appropriate annual fruiting pruning method for pitaya in order to obtain a regular annual yield of quality fruit and an intense shoot renewal that guarantee future production. This study compared the response of Hylocereus undatus to spur, cane, and combined pruning. As control plants, we left some plants where only sanitary pruning was performed. The results indicate that spur pruning greatly reduced flowering (seven times less than controls) and did not promote intense vegetative growth. Cane pruning, on the contrary, allowed greater flowering which is compatible with a higher number of new shoots (8% more than controls). The vigor of the new shoots was equal in all treatments. Fruit size and quality did not differ either among treatments. Spur pruning only seems applicable as a rejuvenation pruning. Combined pruning gave an intermediate response and seems of no interest given the good shoot renewal provided by cane pruning. Performing sanitary pruning alone may be an interesting option, but only in the first years of cultivation. 2022-07-27T10:32:18Z 2022-07-27T10:32:18Z 2022-07-20 info:eu-repo/semantics/article 2311-7524 http://hdl.handle.net/10835/13919 10.3390/horticulturae8070661 en https://www.mdpi.com/2311-7524/8/7/661 Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internacional http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess MDPI |
| spellingShingle | Hylocereus undatus dragon fruit vegetative growth flowering fruit quality Arredondo Navarro, Emilio Chiamolera, Fernando M. Casas, Marina Cuevas González, Julián Comparing Different Methods for Pruning Pitaya (Hylocereus undatus) |
| title | Comparing Different Methods for Pruning Pitaya (Hylocereus undatus) |
| title_full | Comparing Different Methods for Pruning Pitaya (Hylocereus undatus) |
| title_fullStr | Comparing Different Methods for Pruning Pitaya (Hylocereus undatus) |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparing Different Methods for Pruning Pitaya (Hylocereus undatus) |
| title_short | Comparing Different Methods for Pruning Pitaya (Hylocereus undatus) |
| title_sort | comparing different methods for pruning pitaya (hylocereus undatus) |
| topic | Hylocereus undatus dragon fruit vegetative growth flowering fruit quality |
| url | http://hdl.handle.net/10835/13919 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT arredondonavarroemilio comparingdifferentmethodsforpruningpitayahylocereusundatus AT chiamolerafernandom comparingdifferentmethodsforpruningpitayahylocereusundatus AT casasmarina comparingdifferentmethodsforpruningpitayahylocereusundatus AT cuevasgonzalezjulian comparingdifferentmethodsforpruningpitayahylocereusundatus |