In e na ional Jou nal o Ho icul u al Science 2022, 28: 34-38.
h ps://doi.o g/10.31421/ijhs/28/2022/11310
Vege a i e and gene a i e p ope ies o wo apple cul i a s
‘Galiwa’ and ‘S o y Ino ed’ in a mul i- ow sys em
Csihon, Á., Gonda, I. & Holb, I. J.
Uni e si y o Deb ecen, Facul y o he Ag icul u al and Food Sciences and En i onmen al Managemen , Ins i u e o Ho icul u e,
138. Böszö ményi s ., Deb ecen, H-4032, Hunga y
Au ho o co espondence: csihonadam@ag .unideb.hu
Summa y: In a i e-yea (2015-2019) s udy, some ege a i e and gene a i e peculia i ies o wo esis an apple cul i a s (‘Galiwa’ and ‘S o y
Ino ed’) we e assessed in a young o cha d wi h a mul i- ow aining sys em. Based on ou esea ch, c . ‘Galiwa’ showed signi ican ly weake
g ow h, han c . ‘S o y Ino ed’, which was mani es ed in lowe unk c oss sec ional a ea (TCSA) and lowe ee heigh . Cul i a ‘S o y Ino ed’
eached he op imal ee heigh (3.1 m) a he age o ou , bu c . ‘Galiwa’ could no achie e i nei he in i e-yea -old ees (2.7 m). Cul i a
‘Galiwa’ showed 28.4-32.6 /ha calcula ed a e age yield, while c . ‘S o y Ino ed’ p oduced 41.3-102.7 /ha. La ge ui size was ound in c .
‘Galiwa’ (72.7-79.1 mm) and smalle in c . ‘S o y Ino ed’ (66.9-69.2 mm). The ui su ace colo was unde 50% o c . ‘Galiwa’ (43-49%),
meanwhile c . ‘S o y Ino ed’ eached highe colo a ion (87-93%) and an excellen colo in ensi y (4.8-5.0). Shape o c . ‘Galiwa’ ui s was a he
la , han globula (0.83-0.84 shape index), as c . ‘S o y Ino ed’ was mo e elonga ed (0.95-1.00 shape index).
Csihon, Á., Gonda, I., Holb, I. J. (2022): Vege a i e and gene a i e p ope ies o wo apple cul i a s ‘Galiwa’ and ‘S o y Ino ed’ in a
mul i- ow sys em. In e na ional Jou nal o Ho icul u al Science 28: 34-38. h ps://doi.o g/10.31421/ijhs/28/2022/11310
Key wo ds: apple, esis an cul i a s, double ow plan ing sys em, young ees, ege a i e g ow h, ui yield, ui quali y
In oduc ion
Inc easing he cul i a ion in ensi y was he mos impo an
end in he de elopmen o wo ld ui p oduc ion in he las
decades, which is ela ed o he inc ease o p oduc i e su ace
in he canopy (Sol ész, 1997; Papp, 2003). Since he 1970s,
esea ches ha e con i med close ela ionship be ween
illumina ion and a ailable yield, esul ing he wide use o
smalle ees wi h be e ligh u iliza ion (Jackson & Palme ,
1972; Palme e al., 1992; Wünsche e al., 1996; Palme , 1997;
Robinson e al., 2013). Nowadays ees wi h cen al leade
ained o slende spindle and supe spindle a e he mos
widesp ead in he Eu opean and domes ic in ensi e o cha ds
(Robinson, 2011; Csihon e al., 2015, 2022; Sus e al., 2018).
Ad an ages o single ow aining sys em ega ding
illumina ion a e emphasized by se e al s udies, ne e heless
mo e ials aimed o e alua e mul i- ow sys ems o be e
u iliza ion o he a ailable p oduc ion a ea and o achie e
highe yields (We heim e al., 1986; Wagenmake s, 1991;
Campbell, 1999; Kie czyńska & Waw zyniak, 2004; Csihon e
al., 2019). T ee numbe pe hec a e can only be inc eased o a
ce ain poin , as densi y o e 3000 ee can esul in a dec ease
o yield and ui quali y (Man inge & Vigl, 1999; Widme &
K ebs, 2001; Liczna Małańczuk, 2004). Al hough o he
p o i able p oduc ion, plan a ions mus ensu e high yields and
app op ia e quali y a he same ime.
F ui quali y is de e mined by gene ic, en i onmen al and
ag onomic ac o s (Musacchi & Se a, 2018). Appea ance o
ui s has a huge impac on consume s in decision making o
consump ion (Kays, 1999). A ac i eness o apples depends
on se e al ex e nal ui cha ac e is ics, such as size, shape,
colo and absence o de ec s.
Consume ’s p e e ence on apple ui size a ies by
coun ies, ype o ma ke , amily income, egion, gende and
age (Hampsen e al., 2002; Bonany e al., 2013). Eu opean
esh ma ke equi es mainly 70-85 mm diame e o apple.
F ui s unde 70 mm size a e no saleable, as apples abo e 90
mm diame e means p oblem in s o ing and packing.
Nowadays shape o he ui s is mos ly globose wi h 0.9-1.0
shape index (leng h/diame e ), while oblong ui s a e equi ed
wi h ce ain spo s (e.g. ‘Red Delicious’). Among cul i a s, ed
skin colo is mo e a o able, as highe ui su ace colo
means inc eased ma ke alue (Gue a & Sansa ini, 2012;
An on & Willen, 2014).
The aim o his i e-yea s udy was o e alua e he
ege a i e accomplishmen , he ui yield and ui quali y o
wo esis an apple cul i a s (c . ‘Galiwa’, ‘Ino ed S o y’) in a
slende spindle canopy wi h a double ow plan ing sys em.
Ma e ials and me hods
Loca ion, o cha d managemen
Measu emen s and obse a ions we e pe o med in a
comme cial apple o cha d, nea o he ci y o Nyí bá o , in
Eas e n Hunga y. Plan a ion soil ype is sandy wi h low humus
con en (0.6-0.7%). The „A any” numbe o hea iness o he
soil is 27-29. Mean empe a u e o he yea is 10-11 °C, while
he sunshine hou s a e 1900-2050 hou s/yea . The annual mean
p ecipi a ion o he a ea is 500-550 mm.
Two p ospec i e cul i a s (‘S o y Ino ed’ and ‘Galiwa’)
we e assessed in he expe imen al o cha d. Cul i a s we e
g a ed on dwa ing M.9 oo s ock and we e plan ed in
35 Csihon e al.
sp ing o 2015 wi h a mul i- ow aining sys em (5357 ee/ha).
Dis ance be ween he plan s is 1.0 me e , while double ows a e
1.4 me e nex o each o he . Space be ween he doubles ows
is 3.5 me e . Du ing canopy aining slende spindle o m was
c ea ed wi h wi ed ellis suppo sys em (Figu e 1-2.). The
plan a ion was i iga ed wi h a d op i iga ion sys em. O cha d
managemen was based on he Eu opean In eg a ed F ui
P oduc ion guidelines. Win e p uning was ca ied ou each
yea a he end o he do man pe iods. Du ing he i e
obse ed yea s (2015-2019) chemical ui hinning was
pe o med only in 2017 and 2018.
Figu e 1. T ees o cul i a ‘Galiwa’ plan ed wi h a mul i- ow aining sys em
(Nyí bá o , Hunga y, 2018).
Figu e 2. T ees o cul i a ‘S o y Ino ed’ plan ed wi h a mul i- ow aining
sys em (Nyí bá o , Hunga y, 2018).
In he expe imen al o cha d, sp ing os s caused yield loss
in wo yea s du ing he assessed pe iod. In 2016, bo h apple
cul i a s su e ed 100% damage. In 2019, o al yield loss
occu ed wi h c . ‘Galiwa’, and pa ial damage wi h c . ‘S o y
Ino ed’. The annual ain all anged om 466 mm o 720 mm
among he yea s.
Assessed pa ame e s
Fo he assessmen s, i e ees ( eplica ed ou imes) we e
selec ed wi h simila plan condi ions and examined pe each
cul i a . Two ege a i e ( unk hickness, ee heigh ) and eigh
gene a i e pa ame e s (yield/ ee, yield/hec a e, ui
numbe / ee, c op load, ui diame e , shape index, ui
su ace colo , ui colo in ensi y) we e e alua ed.
The unk hickness was eco ded a he unk hal way
be ween he g a poin and he main sca old b anches, and he
gi en da a was exp essed in cm2 ( unk c oss sec ional a ea).
Heigh o he ees (cm) was measu ed be ween he g ound and
he op o he canopy wi hou he one-yea -old shoo s a he op
o he ee.
Ha es o he ui s was pe o med wi h one pick each
yea . Du ing ha es ui numbe and ui amoun we e
measu ed o each ee. C op load was calcula ed by di iding
ui numbe pe ee wi h unk c oss sec ional a ea (cm2).
Desc ibing he ui size, ui diame e and ui leng h we e
measu ed, which we e used o calcula e he shape index
(leng h/diame e ). F ui su ace colo was assessed wi h isual
analyses using a colo scale (1-100%). F ui colo in ensi y
shows he in ensi y o he ed skin colo , which was examined
by using a scale anging om 1-5. Based on Csihon & Gonda
(2016) me hods, ui su ace colo and he colo in ensi y we e
used o calcula e an index numbe , he ui colo a ion index,
which desc ibes he skin colo in a complex way. This alue
(1-100) p esen s he colo a ion o he ui s by he way ha
bo h o e colo and bo h he da kness o he ed skin a e aken
in o conside a ion equally.
Resul s
T unk c oss sec ional a ea (TCSA) o he cul i a s, as a
main indica o o ege a i e pe o mance, showed ha c .
‘S o y Ino ed’ had mo e igo ous g ow h, han c . ‘Galiwa’
(Figu e 3). A e he plan ing (2015) unk hickness p esen ed
only sligh di e ences, bu ou yea s la e he di e ence
be ween he wo cul i a s became almos wo old.
Figu e 3. T unk c oss sec ional a ea o wo esis an apple cul i a s ‘Galiwa’
and ‘S o y Ino ed’ (Nyí bá o , Hunga y, 2015-2019). Ba s ep esen SE alues.
Figu e 4. T ee heigh o wo esis an apple cul i a s ‘Galiwa’ and ‘S o y
Ino ed’ (Nyí bá o , Hunga y, 2015-2019). Ba s ep esen SE alues.
4.7
5.9
9.1
10.6
13.4
6.1
10.9
15.7
18.9
24.2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
T unk c oss sec ional a ea (cm2)
Yea s
'Galiwa' 'S o y Ino ed'
168
180
195
238
268
164
224
271
310
308
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
T ee heigh (cm)
Yea s
'Galiwa' 'S o y Ino ed'
Vege a i e and gene a i e p ope ies o wo apple cul i a s ‘Galiwa’ and ‘S o y Ino ed’ in a mul i- ow sys em 36
Table 1. Ripening ime and i e yield pa ame e s o wo esis an apple cul i a s ‘Galiwa’ and ‘S o y Ino ed’ (Nyí bá o , Hunga y, 2016-2019).
'Galiwa'
'S o y Ino ed'
2016
2017
2018
2019
2016
2017
2018
2019
Ripening ime no da a 07/09 05/09 no da a no da a 10/10 02/10 07/10
Yield (kg/ ee) no da a 5.3±0.4 6.1±1.3 no da a no da a 7.7±1.5 19.2±2.1 14.4±1.7
Fui numbe
(numbe / ee)
no da a 25±3 49±14 no da a no da a 50±14 137±20 104±14
Speci ic yield
(kg/cm
2
)
no da a 0.59±0.09 0.59±0.11 no da a no da a 0.49±0.06 1.02±0.09 0.60±0.07
Speci ic yield
(numbe /cm
2
)
no da a 2.7±0.4 4.6±1.0 no da a no da a 3.1±0.6 7.2±0.8 4.3±0.5
Yield ( /ha) no da a 28.4 32.6 no da a no da a 41.3 103 77
Table 2. Six ui quali y pa ame e s o wo esis an apple cul i a s ‘Galiwa’ and ‘S o y Ino ed’ (Nyí bá o , Hunga y, 2016-2019).
'Galiwa'
'S o y Ino ed'
2016
2017
2018
2019
2016
2017
2018
2019
F ui diame e (mm) no da a 79.1±1.1 72.7±1.7 no da a no da a 69.0±0.6 69.2±0.6 66.9±0.4
Shape index no da a 0.84±0.01 0.83±0.02 no da a no da a 1.00±0.01 0.95±0.01 0.95±0.01
F ui weigh (g) no da a 220±14 166±13 no da a no da a 165±4 165±4 150±5
F ui su ace colo
(%)
no da a 49±4 43±5 no da a no da a 93±2 91±3 87±7
F ui colo in ensi y
(1-5)
no da a 4.6±0.31 4.4±0.05 no da a no da a 5.0±0.0 5.0±0.0 4.8±0.09
F ui colo index
(0-100)
no da a 45±6 38±4 no da a no da a 93±2 91±3 85±7
Rega ding ee heigh , c s. ‘S o y Ino ed’ and ‘Galiwa’
p esen ed simila alues (164-168 cm) in 2015, while s onge
igo o c . ‘S o y Ino ed’ esul ed in highe ees in he la e
yea s (Figu e 4). Cul i a ‘S o y Ino ed’ eached he desi able
heigh (3.1 m) in he ou -yea -old ees, bu heigh o c .
‘Galiwa’ ees emained unde 2.7 m e en a he age o i e.
The smalle c opping su ace can be ob iously ela ed wi h
weake gene a i e pe o mance du ing he ime o u ning o
bea ing.
Du ing he assessed pe iod, in 2016 sp ing os caused
o al yield loss in bo h cul i a , while in 2019 c . ‘Galiwa’
su e ed 100% damage due o la e os (Table 1). In he
expe imen al si e he ipening ime o c . ‘Galiwa’ was he i s
week o Sep embe (07/09 and 05/09), as c . ‘S o y Ino ed’
was ha es ed in he i s decade o Oc obe (10/10, 02/10 and
07/10).
Two yea s a e plan ing (2017), c . ‘Galiwa’ p esen ed 5.3
kg/ ee (25 ui / ee), as c . ‘S o y Ino ed’ p oduced 7.7
kg/ ee (50 ui / ee). C op load ( ui amoun pe unk uni
a ea) was 0.59 kg/cm2 o c . ‘Galiwa’ and 0.49 kg/cm2 o c .
‘S o y Ino ed’. F ui numbe pe unk uni a ea was highe
wi h c . ‘S o y Ino ed’ (3.1 numbe /cm2). Cul i a ‘Galiwa’
p esen ed 28.4 /ha calcula ed a e age yield, as ‘S o y Ino ed’
showed 41.3 /ha.
In 2018, di e ences o he cul i a s became mo e e iden .
Cul i a ‘Galiwa’ showed 6.1 kg/ ee (49 ui / ee), while c .
‘S o y Ino ed’ eached much highe alues, 19.2 kg/ ee (137
ui / ee). T ee c op load con i ms also his endency, as ui
amoun pe TCSA doubled wi h c . ‘S o y Ino ed’ (1.02
kg/cm2) compa ed o he p e ious yea (0.49 kg/cm2).
Meanwhile c . ‘Galiwa’ displayed he same c op load
compa ed o he p e ious yea (0.59 kg/cm2). Calcula ed yield
pe hec a e was 32.6 ons o c . ‘Galiwa’, while c . ‘S o y
Ino ed’ achie ed ou s anding 102.7 /ha in he ou -yea -old
ees.
In 2019, only c . ‘S o y Ino ed’ p oduced yields, bu i s
ui amoun was also a ec ed nega i ely by he sp ing os .
Yield (14.4 kg/ ee) and c op load (0.6 kg/cm2) was also lowe
han in he p e ious yea , while a e age yield was 77.4 /ha.
Cul i a ‘Galiwa’ eached he equi ed 70 mm ui size in
bo h bea ing yea s (Table 2). In 2018 ui diame e and weigh
we e la ge (79.1 mm, 220 g am), as in 2019 alues we e
smalle (72.7 mm, 166 g am) due o he highe numbe o ui s
pe ee. Shape o he apples was a he la , han globula
(0.83-0.84 shape index). F ui su ace colo emained unde
50% in bo h yea s (43-49%), while ed skin colo in ensi y was
4.4-4.6.
Based on he h ee-yea da a, c . ‘S o y Ino ed’ can be
cha ac e ized by smalle ui size and weigh . F ui diame e
was be ween 66.9 mm and 69.2 mm, as weigh a ied up 150 g
o 165 g. Shape o he apples was elonga ed (0.95-1.00 shape
index). F ui s eached high pe cen age o su ace colo (87-
93%) and da k ed colo wi h high in ensi y (4.8-5.0).
F ui colo index, as a complex indica o o he colo a ion
peculia i ies, showed ob ious di e ence be ween he cul i a s.
Cul i a . ‘Galiwa’ eached alue o 38-45, while c . ‘S o y
Ino ed’ displayed alue o 85-93, as a ac i e appea ance o
c . ‘S o y Ino ed’ ui s was also p o ed.
Discussions
In his esea ch, we e alua ed some ege a i e and
gene a i e ea u es o wo esis an apple cul i a s in mul i- ow
aining sys em o young ees. Resul s we e in luenced by
ex eme wea he e en s, bu main cha ac e is ics o he
cul i a s we e well mani es ed. The gi en da a o ou esea ch
mainly con i ms he desc ip ions o cul i a s published in
p e ious s udies, despi e he ac ha ees o esea ch and o
also comme cial pu poses a e wo ldwide plan ed mos ly in
single ow sys em.
37 Csihon e al.
Cul i a ‘Galiwa’
Cul i a ‘Galiwa’ is dis inguished by i s la ge o ange- ed
ui , high ui suga con en and esis ance o scab (Kelle hals,
2012). In ou s udy c . ‘Galiwa’ p esen ed 28.4-32.6 on/ha
a e age yield in he h ee- and ou -yea -old ees, as he
cul i a p o ed o be os sensi i e in sp ing. Acco ding o
F anck & Kelle hals (2010) c . ‘Galiwa’ is cha ac e ized by
ea ly yields and p oduce medium-good ui quan i y, no
sensi i e o cold, bu suscep ible o biannual bea ing.
A p e ious s udy by Kelle hals (2012) showed ha c .
‘Galiwa’ p oduce la ge ui s (78 mm), which is con i med by
also Hölle e al. (2017) publishing ui weigh o 218 g, bu
G ego i e al. (2015) emphasised ha he ui size can be
he e ogeneous. Ou esea ch con i med his s a emen , as ui
weigh was 166-200 g and ui diame e was 72.7-79.1 mm in
he bea ing yea s.
F ui su ace colo emained unde 50% each yea (43-
49%), while ed skin colo in ensi y was also lowe (4.4-4.6).
G ego i e al. (2015) epo ed ha ui s o c . ‘Galiwa’ had
less in ense colo han o he p ospec i e Gala clones. S udy o
Rühme (2013) ound ha abou 50% o he ha es ed ui had
less han 50% ui su ace colo . Denzel (2014) no ed ha he
colo ing is weak, and he ma u i y is s agge ed in wa m yea s
and p oduc ion si es.
F ui shape o c . ‘Galiwa’ is sphe ical, sligh ly conical
(F anck & Kelle hals, 2010), while in ou esea ch ui shape
was a he la (0.83-0.84 shape index).
Cul i a ‘S o y Ino ed’
Cul i a ‘S o y Ino ed’ is no able o i s esis ance o scab
and high quali y ui wi h a ac i e appea ance. I is
cha ac e ized by deep ed o e colo on he whole su ace and
excellen la ou (Pi io & Lau ens, 2012; G ego i e al., 2015;
Kiem, 2021). The cul i a is sui able o ho ui -g owing
egions, due o he a o able colo de elopmen (Gue a,
2014).
In ou s udy c . ‘S o y Ino ed’ eached he op imal ee
heigh (3.1 m) du ing ou ege a ion pe iod, as ee igo
ensu es he op imal c opping su ace o he ea ly yields. Pi io
& Lau ens (2012) epo ed also ha he ee igou is a e age,
al hough Alins e al. (2016) complemen s ha i s igou is
clea ly in e io o Golden o Gala.
The ime o u ning o bea ing is e y sho , as 19.2 kg ui
was ha es ed om he h ee-yea -old ees (102.7 /ha) wi h
mul i- ow aining sys em. A he age o ou , ui amoun was
smalle (14.4 kg/ ee; 77.4 on/ha) due o sp ing os . Ugo
(2014) and Gandube (2017) s a ed also ha he cul i a ‘S o y
Ino ed’ is e y p oduc i e, and no suscep ible o al e na ion.
Based on ou examina ions c . ‘S o y Ino ed’ showed
medium ui size, which can be he consequence o he high
plan ing densi y and high c op load. F ui diame e was 66.9-
69.2 mm, as weigh a ied up 150 g o 165 g. P e ious s udy o
Pi io & Lau ens (2012) epo ed 75-80 mm ui size and 200
g am ui weigh o he cul i a . Cullell (2020) con i med ha
s a emen by publishing 75.1-76.7 mm ui diame e .
Ou s udy showed ha c . ‘S o y Ino ed’ eached high ui
su ace colo (87-93%) and excellen colo in ensi y (4.8-5.0),
which is in ag eemen wi h he s udies o Pi io & Lau ens
(2012) who epo ed 75-100% o e colo .
This s udy e ealed, ha shape o he ui s was elonga ed
(0.95-1.00 shape index), which is suppo ed by Gue a (2017)
who desc ibed he ui s as uni o mly cone shaped.
Acknowledgemen s
This esea ch was inanced by he Hunga ian Scien i ic
Resea ch Fund (K 131478) and by he Thema ic Excellence
P og amme o he Minis y o Inno a ion and Technology in
Hunga y (TKP2020-NKA-04), wi hin he amewo k o he
clima e change hema ic p og amme o he Uni e si y o
Deb ecen.
Re e ences
Alins, G., Aleg e, S., Ba llo i, L., Ca bó, J., Escude o-
Coloma , L., Iglesias, I., Lo dan J. Vilajeliu, M. (2013):
Manzanos en ag icul u a ecológica, una opción pa a
di e encia se. Re is a Vida Ru al 371: 32-35.
An on, G., Willen, J. S. (2014): The e ec o empe a u e,
egion and season on ed colo de elopmen in apple peel
unde cons an i adiance. Scien ia Ho icul u ae 173:79–85.
h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.scien a.2014.04.040
Bonany, J., Buehle , A., Ca bó, J., Coda in, S., Dona i, F.,
Eche e ia, G., Egge , S., Gue a, W., Hilai e, C., Hölle ,
I., Iglesias, I. (2013): Consume ea ing quali y accep ance o
new apple a ie ies in di e en Eu opean coun ies. Food
Quali y and P e e ences 30(2): 250–259. p.
Campbell, J. E. (1999): High densi y p oduc ion sys em o
apples. Ho icul u al Resea ch & De elopmen Co po a ion.
Go don NSW. 14. p.
Cullell, E. G. (2020): Poma de mun anya: di e si icació
econòmica i ag icul u a de p oximi a . Dossie Téchnic. La
poma de mun anya. 2020(105): 2-31.
Csihon, Á., Holb, I., Gonda, I. (2015): G owing
cha ac e is ics o apple cul i a s and canopies. In e na ional
Jou nal o Ho icul u al Science 21(1-2): 7-10. p.
h ps://doi.o g/10.31421/IJHS/21/1-2./1150
Csihon, Á., Gonda, I. (2016): F ui colo a ion o apple
cul i a s. In e na ional Jou nal o Ho icul u al Science 22(1-
2): 11-14. h ps://doi.o g/10.31421/IJHS/22/1-2./1176
Csihon, Á., Gonda, I.,, Vámos, P., Ba na, D., Holb. I. J.
(2019): A p elimina y s udy on some ea u es o wo new
esis an apple cul i a s in a mul i- ow plan ing sys em.
In e na ional Jou nal o Ho icul u al Science 25(3-4): 11-14.
h ps://doi.o g/10.31421/IJHS/25/3-4/3929
Csihon, Á., Gonda, I., Szabó, Sz., Holb, I. (2022): T ee
ege a i e and gene a i e p ope ies and hei in e -co ela ions
o p ospec i e apple cul i a s unde wo aining sys ems o
young ees. Ho icul u e, En i onmen and Bio echnology 63:
325-339. h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s13580-021-00405-3.
Denzel, C. (2014): Abgep ü – In e essan es aus de
So enzüch ung. Öko-Obs bau 2014(1): 4-6. p.
F anck, L., Kelle hals, M. (2010): Galiwa: Neue süsse,
scho esis en e ACW - Ap elso e. Schweize ische zei sch i
ü obs - und weinbau 24(10): 10-13.
Gandube , B. (2017): Essais po e g e e e ma e iel ege al
pommie & Poi ie . L’ag icul u e biologique en Pays de la
Loi e. 2017 Decembe , 151: 1-4.
Gue a, W. (2014): Le nuo e a ie à esis en i alla
icchiola u a. F u icol u a 11: 26-32.
Gue a, W. (2017): The hun o new u u e apple a ie ies.
Eu opean F ui Magazine. 2017. (5): 6-13.
Vege a i e and gene a i e p ope ies o wo apple cul i a s ‘Galiwa’ and ‘S o y Ino ed’ in a mul i- ow sys em 38
Gue a, W., Sansa ini, S. (2012): Gala e le sue mu azioni:
una s o ia senza ine. F u icol u a 11:26–32.
G ego i, R., Folini, L., Be a, L., Wal e , G., Sansa ini, S.
(2015): Lis a del melo 2015, le a ie à pe i nuo i impian i.
L’In o ma o e Ag a io 46: 46-50.
Hampsen, C. R., San o d, K., Cline, J. (2002): P e e ences o
Canadian consume s o apple ui size. Canadian Jou nal o
Plan Science 82(1): 165–167.
Hölle , I., Wal e , G., Gumme e ., K. (2017): Spezi isches
Gewich neue Ap elso en. E we bs-Obs bau 59: 85–91. DOI
10.1007/s10341-016-0316-4
Jackson, J. E., Palme , J. W. (1972): In e cep ion o ligh by
model hedge ow in ela ion o la i ude, ime o yea and
hedge ow con igu a ion and o ien a ion. Jou nal o Applied
Ecology 9(2): 341-357. h ps://doi.o g/10.2307/2402436
Kays, S. J., (1999): P eha es ac o s a ec ing appea ance.
Pos ha es Biology and Technology 15(3): 233–247.
Kelle hals, M. (2012): Apple ee named ‘Galiwa’. Plan Pa en
Applica ion Publica ion. Pub. N0.: US 2012/0131706 P1.
Kiem, U. (2021): Va ie à di melo esis en i in Al o Adige –
p oduzione biologica. F u a e Vi a. 2021(5): 16-19.
Kie czyńska, S., Waw zyniak, J. (2004): The le el o apple
p oduc ion cos s and he economic e ec s in he selec ed
o cha d managemen sys ems. Jou nal o Ag ibusiness and
Ru al De elopmen 3(359): 83-89.
Liczna Małańczuk, M. (2004): In luence o plan ing and
aining sys ems on ui yield in apple o cha d. Jou nal o F ui
and O namen al Plan Resea ch. (12): 97-104.
Man inge , H., Vigl J. (1999): I sis emi d’impian o del melo
nel No d I alia. Ri is a di F u icol u a e O o lo icol u a.
LXI(3): 2226.
Musacchi, S., Se a, S. (2018): Apple ui quali y: O e iew
on p e-ha es ac o s, Scien ia Ho icul u ae 234 (14): 409-
430. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/j.scien a.2017.12.057.
Papp, J. (2003): A gyümölcs e mesz és ál alános ké dései. In:
Gyümölcs e mesz ési alapisme e ek. Sze k.: Papp, J.
Mezőgazda Kiadó, Budapes . 11-25. p.
Palme , J. W. (1997): Apples ligh and o cha d design o
enhancemen o yield and ui quali y. P oceedings om
Con e ence ‘97: Sea ching o Quali y. Join Mee ing o he
Aus alian A ocado G owe ’s Fede a ion, Inc. and NZ
A ocado G owe s Associa ion, Inc., 23-26 Sep embe 1997. J.
G. Cu ing (Ed.). 156-172 p.
Palme , J. W., A e y, D. J., We heim, S. J. (1992): E ec
o apple ee spacing and summe p uning on lea a ea
dis ibu ion and ligh in e cep ion. Scien ia Ho icul u ae 52:
303-312. p. h ps://doi.o g/10.1016/0304-4238(92)90031-7
Pi io , C., Lau ens, F. (2012): Apple ee named ‘Ino ed’. Plan
Pa en Applica ion Publica ion. Pub. N0.: US PP22,794 P2.
Robinson, T. L. (2011): Ad ances in apple cul u e wo ldwide.
Re . B as. F u ic. Jabo icabal - SP, Volume Especial, E. 37-47. p.
Robinson, T. L., Hoying, S., Sazo, M. M., Dema ee, A.,
Dominguez, L. (2013): A ision o apple o cha d sys ems o
he u u e. New Yo k F ui Qua e ly 21(3): 11-16.
Rühme , T. (2013): So enp ü ung Resis en e Ap elso en -
E wei e ung de zwei en P ü s u e um Galiwa, Ladina und
Na y a. Haidegge Pe spek i en. 2013(2): 16-17.
Sol ész, M. (1997): Gyümölcsösök lé esí ése. In: In eg ál
gyümölcs e mesz és. Sze k.: Sol ész, M. Mezőgazda Kiadó,
Budapes . 200-226. p.
Sus J., Zeine o á R., Zíka L. (2018): In luence o he p uning
sys em on he g ow h and p oduc i i y o slende spindle apple
ees. Ho icul u al Science (P ague) 45: 55–63. h ps://doi:
10.17221/63/2017-HORTSCI
Ugo, P. (2014): Ag in esa p omuo e la melicol u a biologica.
O o u a No izie. Sep embe 2014. 7. p.
Wagenmake s, P., S. (1991): Simula ion o ligh dis ibu ion
in dense o cha d sys ems. Ag icul u al and Fo es Me eo ology
57: 13-25.
We heim, S. J., Duyzens, M. J. J. P. (1986): Compa ison o
single- ow and mul i- ow plan ing sys ems wi h apple, wi h
ega d o p oduc i i y, ui size and colo and ligh condi ions.
Ac a Ho icul u ae. 160: 243-258. h ps://doi.o g/10.17660/
Ac aHo ic.1986.160.25
Widme , A., K ebsh, C. (2001): In luence o plan ing densi y
and ee o m on yield and ui quali y o ‘Golden Delicious’
and ‘Royal Gala’ apples. Ac a Ho icul u ae. 557: 235-241.
h ps://doi.o g/10.17660/Ac aHo ic.2001.557.30
Wünsche, J. N., Lakso, A. M., Robinson, T. L., Lenz, F.,
Denning, S. S. (1996): The basis o p oduc i i y in apple
p oduc ion sys ems: he ole o ligh in e cep ion by di e en
shoo ypes. Jou nal o he Ame ican Socie y o Ho icul u al
Sciences 121(5): 886-893.