English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Four pruning techniques were evaluated from 1999 to 2003 in a commercial ‘Concord’ ( Vitis labruscana ) vineyard in Westfield, NY. Manual pruning, mechanical pruning with manual pruning follow-up, mechanical pruning with fruit thinning, and minimal pruning with fruit thinning averaged a 2.4-fold difference in retained nodes per vine. Treatments with crop adjustment required fruit thinning in 3 of 5 years to maintain an acceptable crop size. Manually pruned vines, mechanically pruned vines with manual follow-up pruning, and mechanically pruned vines with crop adjustment had similar yields, juice soluble solids, lignified periderm, juice color, juice titratable acidity, and juice pH in 4 of 5 years. Minimally pruned vines tended to have slightly higher yield and lower juice soluble solids, color, and titratable acidity in 3 of 5 years. Pruning system cost estimates indicated a 56% and 80% cost reduction per acre when comparing manual pruning with mechanical pruning plus manual follow-up or mechanical pruning plus mechanical fruit thinning, respectively. These results support two commercially acceptable and sustainable pruning management options for New York ‘Concord’ grape production.

Susceptibility of Peach Tree Pruning Wounds to Fungal Gummosis as Affected by Time of Pruning