Vegetative and generative properties of two apple cultivars ‘Galiwa’ and ‘Story Inored’ in a multi-row system

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.