The THESIS Studies On Response of Guava (Psidium Guajava L.) Trees To Different Pruning Techniques

Studies on Response of Guava (Psidium guajava L.
) to
Pruning Techniques.
Studies on Response of Guava (Psidium guajava L.)
Trees to Different Pruning Techniques.
By
Mudathir Abdalla Hussein (M.Sc. Agric. ١٩٩٢)

By
Mudathir Abdalla Hussein (M.Sc. Agric., ١٩٩٢)

A thesis
submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D. ) Agric.
A thesis
submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

Supervisor(Ph.D. ) in Agriculture.
degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Professor Saad Ahmed Besher Abbadi
Supervisor
Professor Saad Ahmed Beshir Abbadi

Department of Horticulture
Faculty of Agriculture
University of Khartoum
Dec. ٢٠٠٥
Department of Horticulture
Faculty of Agriculture
University of Khartoum
Sudan
Fig April ٢٠٠٦ Page

ABSTRACT
This investigation was initiated to shed some lights on the response of guava
crop to different pruning techniques carried out at both nursery and orchard
conditions.
Under nursery conditions, four pruning techniques were utilized, namely,

removal of ٢٠٪ and ٤٠٪ of the total leaves, root pruning and the combination
of removal of ٣٠٪ of leaves plus root pruning. The results reaveled that all
pruning techniques resulted in significantly greater increases in plant height

and stem diameter than the control. No clear pattern was noted regarding
other growth parameters in terms of number of leaves and relative growth rate;
however, root pruning resulted in greater values than the rest of the
treatments. Removal of ٤٠٪ of leaves associated with greater values of both
fresh and dry weights compared to the other treatments. No significant

differences were noted among the treatments regarding CHO, N and C/N
ratios.
Under orchard conditions, techniques of fruit thinning, twig pruning and root
pruning were used. Fruit thinning experiment consisted of four treatments,
namely, thinning to one fruit per cluster, thinning ٢٥٪ and ٥٠٪ of fruits per
cluster and control. Generally, thinning technique of ٥٠٪ resulted in greater
yield (number and weight of fruits) compared to the other treatments. No

significant differences were noted in fruit quality (fruit weight and TSS) as
well as the values of both fresh and dry weights of leaf samples among the
treatments.
weight and TSS were not significant among the treatments; however,
the greatest values were associated with ٤٠٪ twig pruning and the lowest
with control. Generally, ٤٠٪ twig pruning resulted in the greatest values
of both fresh and dry weights of leaf samples collected at different times.
the differences in the values of CHO, N and C/N ratios were not
significant among the treatments.
The detected levels of auxins and gibberellins in the leaves demonstrated

that all pruning techniques tended to increase these levels. Generally,
the aboveground pruning techniques resulted in greater increases than
root pruning.
Pruning carried out in mid June, mid July and mid August months showed
variations in the recorded parameters. Pruning trees in mid June resulted in
significantly greater number of flushes than control. Root pruning carried out
in mid July resulted in significantly greater flushes compared to the other
treatments. Mid August pruning showed no significant differences in the
number of flushes among the treatments. Yield tended to vary among the
treatments depending upon the time of pruning. No significant differences
were noted in fruit quality (weight of fruit and TSS) among the treatments,
regardless of month of pruning.
Generally, it seems that guava at different stages of growth tended to

respond to pruning techniques; however, this response varies with the time of
pruning.
‫ﺃﺴﻔﺭﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﺎﺌﺞ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺤﺼﻠﺔ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﺼﻴﻔﻰ ﻭﺠﻭﺩ ﻗﻴﻡ ﻤﻌﻨﻭﻴﺔ ﻋﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻓﻰ ﻁﻭل ﻭﺴﻤﻙ ﺍﻟﺠﺫﻉ‬
‫ﻋﻨﺩ ﺇﺴﺘﺨﺩﺍﻡ ﺘﻘﻨﻴﺔ ‪ %٢٠‬ﺘﻘﻠﻴﻡ ﺃﻓﺭﻉ ﻤﻊ ﺘﻘﻠﻴﻡ ﺠﺫﻭﺭ ﻤﻘﺎﺭﻨ ﹰﺔ ﺒﺎﻟﻤﻌﺎﻤﻼﺕ ﺍﻷﺨﺭﻯ‪ .‬ﻋﻤﻭﻤﹰﺎ ﻻﺘﹸﻭﺠﺩ‬
‫ﻅﺎﻫﺭﺓ ﻭﺍﻀﺤﺔ ﻓﻰ ﺍﻹﻨﺘﺎﺠﻴﺔ ﻭﻟﻜﻥ ﻓﺎﻥ ﺃﻗل ﻋﺩﺩ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﺜﻤﺎﺭ ﻭﺠ‪‬ﺩ ﻤﻊ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﻫﺩ ‪ .‬ﻨﺘﺞ ﻤﻥ ﺇﺴﺘﺨﺩﺍﻡ‬
‫ﺘﻘﻨﻴﺔ ‪ %٢٠‬ﺘﻘﻠﻴﻡ ﺃﻓﺭﻉ ﺃﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﻴﻡ ﻤﻌﻨﻭﻴﺔ ﻓﻰ ﻭﺯﻥ ﺍﻟﺜﻤﺎﺭ ﻤﻘﺎﺭﻨ ﹰﺔ ﺒﺎﻟﻤﻌﺎﻤﻼﺕ ﺍﻷﺨﺭﻱ ‪ .‬ﻻﺘﹸﻭﺠﺩ‬
‫ﻓﺭﻭﻕ ﻤﻌﻨﻭﻴﺔ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻤﻼﺕ ﻓﻰ ﻗﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﺫﺍﺌﺒﺔ ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺭﺒﻭﻫﻴﺩﺭﻴﺕ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻨﻴﺘﺭﻭﺠﻴﻥ ﻭﻨﺴﺏ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻜﺭﺒﻭﻥ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﻴﺘﺭﻭﺠﻴﻥ ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻭﻀﺤﺕ ﻨﺘﺎﺌﺞ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﺼﻴﻔﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺄﺨﺭ ﻋﺩﻡ ﻭﺠﻭﺩ ﻓﺭﻭﻕ ﻤﻌﻨﻭﻴﺔ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻤﻼﺕ ﻓﻰ ﻗﻴﺎﺴﺎﺕ‬
‫ﻁﻭل ﻭﺴﻤﻙ ﺍﻟﺠﺫﻉ ‪ .‬ﺃﺩﺕ ﻜل ﺘﻘﺎﻨﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﻡ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺯﻴﺎﺩﺍﺕ ﻤﻌﻨﻭﻴﺔ ﻓﻰ ﺍﻹﻨﺘﺎﺠﻴﺔ ﻤﻘﺎﺭﻨ ﹰﺔ ﺒﺎﻟﺸﺎﻫﺩ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺇﻥ ﺇﺴﺘﺨﺩﺍﻡ ﺘﻘﻨﻴﺔ ‪ %٢٠‬ﺘﻘﻠﻴﻡ ﺃﻓﺭﻉ ﻗﺩ ﺃﻋﻁﺕ ﺇﻨﺘﺎﺠﻴﺔ ﻤﻌﻨﻭﻴﺔ ﻋﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻤﻘﺎﺭﻨ ﹰﺔ ﺒﺎﻟﺘﻘﺎﻨﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﺨﺭﻯ ‪.‬‬
‫ﻻﺘﹸﻭﺠﺩ ﻓﺭﻭﻕ ﻤﻌﻨﻭﻴﺔ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻤﻼﺕ ﻓﻰ ﻗﻴﻡ ﻭﺯﻥ ﺍﻟﺜﻤﺎﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﺫﺍﺌﺒﺔ ‪،‬ﻭﻟﻜﻥ ﺘﻡ ﺘﺴﺠﻴل‬
‫ﺃﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﻴﻡ ﻟﻬﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻴﻴﺭ ﻤﻊ ﺘﻘﻨﻴﺔ ‪ %٤٠‬ﺘﻘﻠﻴﻡ ﺃﻓﺭﻉ ﻭﺃﻗل ﻗﻴﻡ ﻤﻊ ﺍﻟﺸﺎﻫﺩ‪ .‬ﻋﻤﻭﻤﹰﺎ ﻓﺎﻥ ﺃﻋﻠﻰ ﻗﻴﻡ‬
‫ﻟﻸﻭﺯﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﺭﻁﺒﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺠﺎﻓﺔ ﻟﻌﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﺍﻷﻭﺭﺍﻕ ﺍﻟﺘﻰ ﺠ‪‬ﻤﻌﺕ ﻓﻰ ﻓﺘﺭﺍﺕ ﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﺘﻡ ﺭﺼﺩﻫﺎ ﻋﻨﺩ ﺇﺴﺘﺨﺩﺍﻡ‬
‫ﺘﻘﻨﻴﺔ ‪ %٤٠‬ﺘﻘﻠﻴﻡ ﺃﻓﺭﻉ‪ .‬ﻻﺘﹸﻭﺠﺩ ﻓﺭﻭﻕ ﻤﻌﻨﻭﻴﺔ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻤﻼﺕ ﻓﻰ ﻗﻴﻡ ﻤﻭﺍﺩ ﺍﻟﻜﺎﺭﺒﻭﻫﻴﺩﺭﻴﺕ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻴﺘﺭﻭﺠﻴﻥ ﻭﻨﺴﺏ ﺍﻟﻜﺭﺒﻭﻥ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﻴﺘﺭﻭﺠﻴﻥ ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻅﻬﺭﺕ ﻤﺴﺘﻭﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻷُﻜﺴﻭﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﻭﺍﻟﺠﺒﺭﻟﻠﻴﻨﺎﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺍﺍﻷﻭﺭﺍﻕ ﺃﻥ ﻜل ﺘﻘﺎﻨﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﻡ ﻗﺩ ﺃﺩﺕ ﺇﻟﻰ‬
‫ﺯﻴﺎﺩﺍﺕ ﻓﻰ ﺘﻠﻙ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻭﻴﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﻭﻋﻤﻭﻤﹰﺎ ﻓﺎﻥ ﺘﻘﺎﻨﺎﺕ ﺘﻘﻠﻴﻡ ﺍﻷﻓﺭﻉ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻨﺘﺠﺕ ﻋﻨﻬﺎ ﺯﻴﺎﺩﺍﺕ ﻜﺒﻴﺭﺓ‬
‫ﻓﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻭﻴﺎﺕ ﻤﻘﺎﺭﻨ ﹰﺔ ﺒﺘﻘﻠﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﺠﺫﻭﺭ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻅﻬﺭﺕ ﺘﻘﺎﻨﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﻰ ﺍﹸﺠﺭﻴﺕ ﻓﻰ ﻤﻨﺘﺼﻑ ﻜل ﻤﻥ ﺸﻬﺭ ﻴﻭﻨﻴﻭ ﻭﻴﻭﻟﻴﻭ ﻭﺃﻏﺴﻁﺱ ﻋﻥ‬
‫ﻭﺠﻭﺩ ﺇﺨﺘﻼﻓﺎﺕ ﻓﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻴﻴﺭ ﺍﻟﺘﻰ ﺘﻡ ﺘﺴﺠﻴﻠﻬﺎ ‪ .‬ﺘﻘﻠﻴﻡ ﺍﻷﺸﺠﺎﺭ ﻓﻰ ﻤﻨﺘﺼﻑ ﻴﻭﻨﻴﻭ ﻨﺘﺞ ﻋﻨﻪ ﺯﻴﺎﺩﺍﺕ‬
‫ﻤﻌﻨﻭﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻋﺩﺩ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺠﺩﻴﺩﺓ ﻤﻘﺎﺭﻨ ﹰﺔ ﺒﺎﻟﺸﺎﻫﺩ‪ .‬ﻭ‪‬ﺠﺩﺕ ﺯﻴﺎﺩﺍﺕ ﻤﻌﻨﻭﻴﺔ ﻓﻰ ﻋﺩﺩ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭﺍﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺠﺩﻴﺩﺓ ﻋﻨﺩ ﺇﺴﺘﺨﺩﺍﻡ ﺘﻘﻨﻴﺔ ﺘﻘﻠﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﺠﺫﻭﺭ ﻓﻰ ﻤﻨﺘﺼﻑ ﻴﻭﻟﻴﻭ ﻤﻘﺎﺭﻨ ﹰﺔ ﺒﺎﻟﺸﺎﻫﺩ‪ .‬ﻻﺘﹸﻭﺠﺩ ﻓﺭﻭﻕ ﻤﻌﻨﻭﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻓﻰ ﻋﺩﺩ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺠﺩﻴﺩﺓ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻤﻼﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻰ ﺃُﺠﺭﻴﺕ ﻓﻰ ﻤﻨﺘﺼﻑ ﺃﻏﺴﻁﺱ ‪ .‬ﺇﺨﺘﻠﻔﺕ ﺍﻹﻨﺘﺎﺠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻤﻼﺕ ﻭﺫﻟﻙ ﺇﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩﹰﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺯﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﻡ ‪ .‬ﻻﺘﹸﻭﺠﺩ ﻓﺭﻭﻕ ﻤﻌﻨﻭﻴﺔ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﻤﻼﺕ ﻓﻰ ﺠﻭﺩﺓ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺜﻤﺎﺭ )ﻭﺯﻥ ﺍﻟﺜﻤﺭﺓ ﻭ ﺍﻟﻤﻭﺍﺩ ﺍﻟﺼﻠﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﺫﺍﺌﺒﺔ ( ﺒﻐﺽ ﺍﻟﻨﻅﺭ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﺸﻬﺭ ﺍﻟﺫﻯ ﺃُﺠﺭﻯ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﻡ ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻋﻤﻭﻤﹰﺎ ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻟﺠﻭﺍﻓﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻤﺭﺍﺤل ﻨﻤﻭ ﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﺘﻤﻴل ﺇﻟﻲ ﺍﻹﺴﺘﺠﺎﺒﺔ ﻟﺘﻘﺎﻨﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ‪ ،‬ﻭﻫﺫﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺴﺘﺠﺎﺒﺔ ﺘﺨﺘﻠﻑ ﺇﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩﹰﺍ ﻋﻠﻲ ﺯﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﻡ‪.‬‬
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to

my supervisor Prof. Saad Ahmed Beshir Abbadi
for his excellent guidance, advice and
constructive criticism through out this study.
Special thanks and appreciation are extended to

Dr.Farouk Hassan El Tahir for his most
important help during this study
Special thanks are due to the members of my

committee: Prof. Elsadig Hassan Elsadig and Dr.
Abdel Wahab Hassan Abdallah, for their
valuable help.
Profound appreciation is extended to the

Agricultural Research Corporation (ARC) for the
financial support.
The help and hospitality accorded to me during

my study by members of Department of
Agriculture, University of Horticulture, Faulty of
Khartoum are greatly appreciated.
Lastly, I wish to express my sincere gratitude

and thanks to the members of my family, my
wife and brothers for their support,
understanding and continuing encouragement.
Table of Contents
Content Page
No.
Chapter One: Introduction ١
Chapter Two: Literature Review ٣
Chapter Three: Materials and Methods ٢٠
Chapter Four: Results ٣٤
(١) Experiment One …….٣٤

(٢) Experiment Two…٤٢
(٣) Experiment Three ٤٦
(٤) Experiment Four...٥٤
(٥) Experiment Five…٦٢
(٦) Experiment Six… ٧٠
(٧) Experiment Seven.٧٢
List of Tables
Chapter Five: Discussion ٧٧
Ser. Table Page
No. No.
١ EffectChapter
of usingSix: Summary&
different Conclusions
pruning techniques ٨٠
on fresh and dry
weights of leaves, stems and roots of guava plants grown
٤٠
under nursery conditions.
٨٣
٢ Effect of using different pruningReferencestechniques on leaf
carbhydrates and nitrogen contents and C/N ratio of guava
٤١
plants grown under nursery conditions.
٣ Effect of using different fruit thinning techniques on yield

(first & second harvests) of guava trees grown under
٤٣
orchard conditions.
Ser. Table Page
No. No.
١١ Effect of using different summer pruning techniques on
weight and total soluble solids (TSS) of fruits harvested at
different times from guava trees grown under orchard ٥٩
conditions.
١٢ Effect of using different summer pruning techniques on fresh
and dry weights of leaves of guava trees grown under
٦٠
orchard conditions.
١٣ Effect of using different summer pruning techniques on

contents of carbohydrates (CHO) and nitrogen (N) and C/N
ratio of leaves of guava trees grown under orchard ٦١
conditions.
١٤ Effect of using different late summer pruning techniques on

yield (first & second harvests) of guava trees grown under
٦٦
orchard conditions.
١٥ Effect of using different late summer pruning techniques on

weight and total soluble solids (TSS) of fruits of guava trees
٦٧
grown under orchard conditions.
١٦ Effect of using different late summer pruning techniques on
fresh and dry weights of leaf samples collected at different
٦٨
times from guava trees grown under orchard conditions.
١٧ Effect of using different late summer pruning techniques on

carbhydrates (CHO) andListnitrogen (N) contents and C/N ratio
of Figures ٦٩
of leaves of guava trees grown under orchard conditions.
Ser.
١٨ Effect of using differentFigure
pruning techniques on auxins Page
and
No. gibberellins levels detected in the leaves of guava trees No.
١ Linear increases in height of guava plants grown ٧١
grown under orchard conditions.
under ofnursery
١٩ Effect of usingconditions in relation
different pruning to different
techniques carried out٣٦at
pruning techniques.
different times on growth (recorded as number of new
٧٤
٢ flushes) of guavain trees
Mean increases stem grown under
diameter of orchard conditions.
guava plants
grown under nursery conditions in relation to different
٢٠ Effects of using
pruning different pruning techniques carried out٣٧at
techniques.
different times on yield (number and weight of fruits) of
٧٥
٣ guava trees
Increases grown of
in number under orchard
leaves conditions.
of guava plants grown
under nursery conditions in relation to different
٢١ Effect of using
pruning different pruning techniques carried out٣٨at
techniques.
different times on weight and total soluble solids (TSS) of
٧٦
٤ fruits ofgrowth
Relative guava trees
rate grown
(RGR)under orchard
of guava conditions.
plants grown
under nursery conditions in relation to different
٣٩
pruning techniques.
٥ Effect of using different winter pruning techniques on
trunk height of guava trees grown under orchard
٤٨
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Guava ( Psidium guajava L., Family: Myrtaceae) has attained a

commercial importance in the tropical and subtropical regions of the
world because of its wide adaptability to varied soil and climatic
conditions. In the Sudan, guava is considered one of the most popular and
important fruit crops grown on small scale in different parts of the
country for fresh consumption.
Despite the importance of guava as a cash crop in the Sudan, there is a

paucity of information concerning improved management practices.
There is no adoption of modern production technologies and accordingly
yield and fruit quality of guava are still poor and far below the potential
of this fruit crop. The cultural practices and care of guava trees in the
Sudan are inadecuate and these might have adverse effects on the
production as well as fruit quality.
Pruning fruit trees is one of the most important cultural practices that
has been developed into a skilled, accurate technology derived from the
visual effects of pruning techniques. The effects of pruning operations on
growth of shoots and roots, fruit bud formation, flowering, fruit set, yield
and fruit quality have been investigated by several research workers
working with different fruit crops species (Batjer, ١٩٦٣; Hilkenbaumer,
١٩٦٤;Sansuvini, ١٩٦٩; Mika et. al., ١٩٨٠; Norton, ١٩٨٠; Wertheim, ١٩٨٠;
Mika, ١٩٨٦; Cline, ١٩٩١; Cook, ١٩٩٢). Pruning is a well-known strategy

adopted in trees production systems and has been conventionally used as
a practice to accomplish several purposes in tree growth and production
systems, such as inducing of flowering, fruiting and fostering a high
quality yield of deciduous trees. The studies on the impacts of pruning on
the physiological processes of fruit trees such as photosynthesis,
respiration, mineral nutrition and hormonal status of the tree tissues are
very meager (Mika, ١٩٨٦).
Generally with evergreen trees, pruning is used mainly for training of

trees to provide strong framework and scaffold branches suitable for
bearing a heavy remunerative crop without damaging the branches,
removing of dead and diseased wood and as well as for rejuvenation of
old trees. Very recently some research works have been initiated to study
the effects of pruning on flowering and consequently on production of
evergreen trees. Regarding guava (an evergreen tree), research efforts for
improving management systems to produce yield of high quality are very
meager. To stimulate guava crop production and makes it commercially
viable research efforts should be directed towards recogizing,
investigating and solving the problems facing guava industry, so as to
enable guava growers to increase their yield and produce good quality
fruits to the local consumers and for export.
Since there is no systematic research to study the impacts of pruning on

guava, the present investigation was undertaken in an attempt to shed
some lights on the response of young and mature guava trees to different
pruning techniques carried out at different times of the year for the
purpose of enhancing and improving yield and fruit quality.
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
I. Terminology, Types and Reasons for Pruning:

Generally, pruning is defined as the removal of plant parts to maintain
a desirable form by controlling the direction and amount of growth.
Pruning is one of the most important cultural practices for maintaining
woody plants, including ornamental trees and shrubs, fruits and nuts. It
involves both art and science: art in making the pruning cuts properly,
and science in knowing how and when to prune for maximum benefits.
Proper pruning requires a basic understanding of how plants respond to
various pruning cuts. The fruit growers prune to shape a tree and to
regulate the bearing of a tree for the purpose of producing annual crops of
quality fruits (Tukey ١٩٦٤).
There are two basic types of pruning cuts, heading back and thinning
out. Each type results in a different growth response and has specific
uses. Heading back is a process of the selective cutting of the terminal
ends of excessively long branch or shoot or twigs back to an axillary's
bud or node. This technique produces a denser tree or shrub because it
usually increases the number of shoots and leaves. Thinning out is the
complete removal of an entire branch, limb or shoot at its junction (point
of origin) with a lateral branch or to the main branch or trunk or to the
ground. Thinning cuts are less invigorating, improve light penetration,
and can redirect the limb.
The response of shoot growth to pruning is influenced not only by the

amount of wood being removed (based on shoot length or wood weight),
but also by the type and the size of cust (Mika et al. ١٩٨٠ and Mika ١٩٨٢).
Numerous small cuts tended to stimulate more new shoots growth than
few large cuts when comparable amounts of wood were pruned (Mika
١٩٨٢).
Several types of pruning, have been described, namely:

(١) Pinching is a type of heading back of young shoots (removal
of the stem tips of new growth), and it encourages side
branching (John ١٩٩٩).
(٢) Stubbing: refers to cutting of ٢،٣ or ٤-year-old wood or the
first spur of fruit

(٣) Water sprout removal: is the elimination of water-sprouts,
usually before the base of the shoot is lignified.

(٤) Girdling at the time of pit (endocarp): is an established cultural
practice for increasing fruit size in peaches (Fernandez et l.١٩٨٧).
(٥) Training is a special type of top pruning.
(٦) Severe topped pruning: the tree is severly topped to ١-١,٥m
above ground level to rejuvenate it (Young and Crocker

١٩٨٢).
(٧) Hedging: refers to simple cuts on tree branches (Ferree ١٩٨٤).

(٨) Rejuvenation is a drastic method of pruning old shrubs that
have become much too large or have a large amount of non-

flowering wood.
(٩) Drop-crotching: a form of thinning used to reduce the size of
large trees, involves the removal of a main branch (or leader)

by cutting it back to a large, lateral branch. (Wade and Robert
١٩٩٩).
Pruning is required for the following reasons (Richard et.al. ١٩٩٨):
• To develop a strong framework capable of supporting large crops.

• To maintain the proper balance between vegetative growth and
fruit production to obtain high yields of quality fruit each year.
• To maintain tree height and spread.
• To maintain an open canopy for adequate penetration of light i.e.
expose a large amount of the leaf surface to optimum light
conditions.
• To remove broken or diseased limbs or branches.
• To maintain fruiting wood throughout the tree canopy.
• To partially adjust the crop load before bloom to reduce the amount
of fruit that must be removed by post-bloom hand-thinning.
• To facilitate production of the greatest yield of fruit of desirable
size and quality while maintaining the tree in an efficient, compact
structure for many years.
• To aid the development of strong flower buds and highly colored
fruits.
Pruning is an invaluable tool for developing and maintaining woody

plants. Developing clear pruning objectives is important. By combining
these objectives with a basic understanding of pruning and how plants
respond, maximum benefit could be derived from the efforts.
II.Historical Background:
Pruning fruit trees and bushes is an old- age - old cultural practice.
Knowledge of pruning and training of grapevines was the first to develop
in antiquity.
The effects of pruning on growth, fruit bud formation, fruit set, yield,
and fruit quality had been studied during the past ٨٠ years but there were
very little data on the effects of pruning on physiological processes such

as photosynthesis, partitioning between tree parts, respiration, mineral
nutrition and hormonal status of tree tissues ( Mika ١٩٨٦). Grubb (١٩٣٨)
outlined that winter pruning of plants influenced number of blossoms,

number of fruits, fruit quality and susceptibity to diseases.
Tubbs (١٩٥٥) in a review on the control of vegetative growth and
reproduction of fruit trees tried to explain the responses to pruning on the

basis of tree physiology. He presented the hypothesis of Vyran, which
was based on a postulated mechanism for restoring the balance between
meristematic and non-meristematic tissues disturbed by pruning. He, also,
pointed out that the reponse of mature trees to pruning was related to tree
vigor and the balance between vegetaive and reproductive processes.
During the early ١٩٠٠, the American pomologists were very interested
in summer pruning, primarily as a method of inducing flowering in young

apple trees. Summer pruning sometimes supressed tree growth more than
comparable dormant winter pruning , and usually yield was not adversely
affected.
Removal of a portion of a plant's top (stem, branches, or leaves)

temporarily changes the top/root ratio. Bassi and Dima (١٩٩٤) in a recent
review reported that removal of ٦٠٪ of the annual growth was found to be
essential to stimulate the development of new shoots and to ensure that

fruiting shoots develop throughout the canopy. Summer pruning was
reported by Covelli and Sanasavini (١٩٨١) as a practice required for
removing excess growth following winter pruning.
Working on avocado (Persea americana), Cutting et. al. (١٩٩٤) found
that properly targed and timed pruning could replace the need for growth
retardant chemicals in the manipulation of the vegetative: reproductive
balance.
III. Time and Intensity of Pruning:
The effect of pruning on fruit trees depends partially on the type and
time of pruning. Time of pruning varies with plant species. Pruning needs
to be done at times that best complement the growth characteristics,
flowering, and other objectives. Pruning time should be dictated by
specific requirements or characteristics of the plant such as flowering
date, susceptibility to cold weather, etc. (Wade and Robert ١٩٩٩).
Summer Pruning:
The term summer pruning is ambiguous and implies only that pruning is
performed while leaves are on the tree, without referring to the type or
severity of pruning.
It had been noted that pruning during the summer when the trees were
in leaf was more dwarfing than dormant pruning and could be utilized
only when a dwarfing effect was desirable however, excessive summer
pruning (removal of all terminal growth exceeding ١٠ cm length - about ٤
inches) resulted in yield reductions and decreased fruit size (Richard et.al.
١٩٩٨).
Various types of summer pruning have been utilized to eliminate

vigorous, nonproductive, upright shoots and allow adequate light
pentration for the production of quality fruits (Taylor and Ferree ١٩٨٢).
Summer pruning has a minimal effect on growth in subsequent years.

Whether using young trees grown in containers or trees in an orchard,
there is a general agreement that summer pruning is not devitalizing or
more dwarfing than dormant pruning (Taylor and Ferree ١٩٨٤). Barden
and Marini (١٩٨٤) reported adverse effects of manual summer pruning on
fruit size. Ferree (١٩٨٤) found that summer hedging decreased fruit size
when compared to either hedging or hand pruning during the dormant

season.
Summer pruning is generally thought to suppress tree growth by

lowering the photosynthetic capacity of the tree, thereby reducing the
carbohydrate reserves (Ferree ١٩٧٩). In summer pruning, indirect
evidence indicated that carbohydrate reserves are reduced by the
treatment (Marini et al ١٩٨٢ a; Rom and Ferree ١٩٨٥).
Dormant Pruning:-
Mika (١٩٨٦) reported that when a shoot apex was headed back during
the dormant stage, three things happened: removal of dominant buds,
change in the proportion of buds to the remaining tree parts, and the
lower buds, which were less developed and not predisposed to fast
growth, became dominant.
Knight (١٩٣٤) found that dormant pruning decreased thickening of the
old stem so much that new shoot growth was unable to counter balance it,
thus total growth of the aboveground part of the tree decreased. Van de
Haas and Hein (١٩٧٣) demonstraed that dormant pruning decreased the
growth of new roots.
In experimental studies with dormant and summer pruning of apple

trees, Maggs (١٩٦٥) found that with increasing pruning severity the
weight of new shoot growth increased while the trunk cross-sectional

increment decreased, and consequently the total weight of the
aboveground parts of the tree tended to change only a little. It had been
reported that a small reduction in trunk growth of a tree each year might
lead to a signifcant dwarfing effect on the whole tree after several years
(Preston ١٩٦٨) .
Winter Pruning:
Bassi and Dima, (١٩٩٤ ) found that severe winter pruning (removal of
٦٠٪ of the annual growth) was required to stimulate the development of
new shoots, and to ensure the development of fruiting shoots through the
canopy.
In a study on nectarine trees, Day and Dejong (١٩٩٠) found that pruning
increased fruit size when done at the beginning of fruit growth.
Pruning during Different Times of a Year:

A trial was conducted by Gorakh et.al. (٢٠٠١) in Uttar Pradesh, India,
to determine the effect of pruning dates on guava fruit yield. Compared to
pruning in February and March, pruning from April through June,
enhanced the number of shoots and flowering percentage. Shoot growth
was reduced in May- and June-pruned trees. The total yield during winter
increased significantly in May- and June-pruned trees than the unpruned
trees. May pruning significantly increased the harvest in the winter
season. Pruning from February to March did not respond well for winter
fruiting. In all the years, May pruning significantly increased the quantum
of fruit yield harvestable in December and January. .
Yunus (١٩٩٢) studied the responses of guava var. JP ١ to different

training and pruning intensities. The effects of training of ١٨-month-old
marcotted plants were noticeable in the second year. The yield (total fruit
weight and total fruit number) was more significant under light training
than medium training. Plants under light pruning had significantly higher
yields than those under medium or heavy pruning. There was, however,
no difference in the average fruit weight and percent total soluble solids.
In terms of new shoot growth heavy pruning produced the most new
shoots. Fruits developed on the new shoots at the point farthest from the
point of cut.
IV. Pruning Techniques:

Twig Pruning:
Tree crowding hinders orchard operations, while productivity and fruit
quality decline as tree canopy becomes heavily shaded. Several attempts
have been tried by fruit growers to control tree size by means of size-
controlling rootstocks, chemical growth retardats, spur-type strains, or
dormant pruning.
Root Pruning:
Root pruning is the practice of removing a portion of a tree’s root
system or severing the roots of a tree, all the way around the tree's
circumference at the drip line. Root pruning is very seldom recommended
or adopted in practice except at the time trees are lifted from a nursery
and planted in the permanent site. It has been proposed that root pruning
of bearing trees could be used as a way to re-establish a corrective
balance within a tree after pruning of tree canopies. Root pruning as a
horticultural practice might cause dwarfing of trees and stimulation of
new roots necessary to sustain shoot growth when compared to the other
pruning techniques (Auchter and Knapp ١٩٤٦; Gardener et al. ١٩٥٢;
Yashiroda ١٩٦٠). Root pruning is also sometimes used to maintain a
dwarfed size and to encourage flowering of a fruit tree or slow to bloom

vine.
(http://gardening.about.com/od/gardenprimer/g/RootPruning.htm).
Root pruning was once widely practiced in European gardens to reduce
fruit tree size and promote flower bud initation and fruiting (Rivers ١٩٦٦).
Ghani (١٩٩٢) reported that root pruning of durian (Durio zibethinus
Murr.) significantly increased root: shoot dry weight ratio by ٢٢٪, and the
ratio of stem circumference: plant height increased by ١٣٪ compared to
unpruned plants.
Pruning tree roots reduces their vigour and promotes the formation of
flowers instead of shoots. Root removal is thought to lead to more
carbohydrates in the shoots, which induces flower bud formation.
The principle behind root pruning is the same as with branch pruning.
Pruning the tips of shrubs and trees tended to force the development of
side branches due to the redistribution of the growth hormone auxins.
(http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-
bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/٢٠٠٣/١٠/٢٩/HO٢٢٢٤٨١.DTL). The same holds
true for root pruning. Only here, the hormones are primarily gibberellins.
Like auxins on stems, gibberellins are concentrated at the tips, with lesser
amounts on the smaller, secondary roots. As a result of pruning roots, the
heaviest concentrations of gibberellins are removed, allowing the lesser
amounts in the secondary roots to become dominant, so side growth
occurs(http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-
bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/٢٠٠٣/١٠/٢٩/HO٢٢٢٤٨١.DTL.
Studies show that another responsibility of the hormone gibberellins is

to play an active role in forcing a flower bud to break dormancy. This is
why it's recommended to root prune flowering shrubs that refuse to
bloom; by doing so, you are forcing the development of these secondary
roots. Theoretically, the more roots the plant has, the more gibberellins
hormones are present and the greater the opportunity for this hormone to
act as a breaker of bud dormancy (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-
bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/٢٠٠٣/١٠/٢٩/HO٢٢٢٤٨١.DTL).
Leaf pruning
Gorakh et. al. (١٩٩٩) reported that complete removal of leaves, along
with decapitation of shoots, promoted flower bud differentiation (FBD),
while ringing with partial or complete defoliation along with decapitation
of shoots did not promote FBD. Decapitation of leafy shoots also
promoted FBD. In many cases, defoliation did not promote flowering
compared with controls. Defoliated shoots put forth terminal extension or
axillary's growth, while in undefoliated ones only terminal growth took
place. There is a strong indication that in guava, leaves play a favorable
role in flower bud formation and longevity of the tree (Gorakh et. al.
(١٩٩٩).
Two schools of thought exist regarding top-pruning bare root seedlings.

One school favors top-pruning due to the economic advantages. Top-
pruning can reduce the production of cull seedlings (increase crop value)
as well as increase the chance of survival after out planting. Benefits of
top-pruning appear greater when seedlings experience stress after
planting and when non-pruned seedlings have low root weight ratios (root
dry weight/total seedling dry weight). One school advises against top-
pruning in the nursery. Some believe the concern for a balance between
roots and shoots at planting has been greatly overemphasized. Others
believe that top-pruning is not natural and that cutting the shoot will
anthropomorphically hurt the seedlings (David ١٩٩٨).
V. Physiologyical Responses of Fruit Trees to Pruning:
Pruning of fruit trees influences most physiological processes. Mika
(١٩٨٦) reviewed the effects of pruning on fruit tree physiology. The main
reason for pruning of mature trees is to foster high quality yield. Pruning
fruit trees performed in special way is directly or indirectly influenced
many physiological processes. A careful investigation of pruning
suggests that it results from a well functioning communication system
within the tree. Growth promoting hormones probably play the main role
in the functioning of the communication system by switching certain
genes on mersitems.
V.١. Effects of Pruning on Growth:

The effect of pruning on shoot growth tended to depend partly on the
type and time of pruning (Jankiewicz and Stecki ١٩٧٦).
Richard et.al. (١٩٩٨) reported that certain growth responses occured

when trees were pruned, no matter what training or pruning system was
used. The overall size of the tree and the relative size of the pruned limb
was reduced by pruning, although growth near the cut was stimulated. All
leaves on a tree contributed carbohydrate necessary for growth, and any
pruning reduced leaf surface. Generally, the more severe the pruning, the
greater the dwarfing effect and the greater the growth stimulation in close
proximity to the cut.
V.٢. Effects of Pruning on CHO Reserves

Hooker (١٩٢٤) reported that dormant pruning decreased starch and
soluble sugars content in branches of apple trees but increased water and
nitrogen leaf contents. Cameron (١٩٢٣) showed that dormant pruned pear
and peach trees started to accumulate starch and soluble sugar later in the
season than unpruned trees. In contrast, Aldrich and Grim (١٩٣٨) found
that dormant pruning pear trees did not change significantly

carbohydrates reserves of spur in the spring. A long-term study by
Soczek et al. (١٩٧٠) indicated that dormant pruning did not change
carbohydrate reserves nor the ratio of carbohydrate to nitrogen in leaves

and shoots on young apple trees. Grochowska et al. (١٩٧٧) reported that
dormant pruning and disbudding did not significantly change total

carbohydrate levels in the shoots and roots of maiden apple trees.
However, the metabolisms of carbohydrate of pruned trees differ from
that of unpruned trees, particularly at the beginning of the growing
season.
Faust (١٩٨٩) reported that pruning could alter carbohydrate levels and
substances within the tree. He, also, found that dormant pruning
decreased starch and soluble sugar contents in apple branches, and
dormant pruned pear and peach trees accumulated starch and soluble
sugars later in the season than un pruned trees.
Working with one-year-old peach trees (Prunus persica L.), Batsch,

Mediene et.al. (٢٠٠٢) observed no significant effects of severe pruning
(removal of ٦٠٪ of the shoots) on N concentrations, whereas N
concentrations increased in several organs of the pruned trees during the
first growth period.
Mika (١٩٨٦) reported that pruning tended to change total dry weight
partitioning in such a way that more dry weight was added to new shoots
than to the remaining wood of the frame, trunk and root. The high
production of new shoot was expected to decrease the reserve of
nutrients, particularly carbohydrates stored in the remaining parts of the
tree, which were indispensable for such important processes as fruit bud
formation.
A study was carried out by Walt et.al. (١٩٩٦) to determine the effect of
pruning to different structural forms (central leader, open vase or
palmette) on seasonal starch reserve patterns of five-year-old mango c.v.
Sensation trees. They concluded that pruning had a positive effect on
carbohydrate production, delayed flowering and increased its synchrony
without affecting yield or fruit size.
V.٣. Effects of Pruning on Fruit Set and Yield
Dormant pruning has been shown to increase the percentage of

blossoms that set fruit (Aldrich and Work ١٩٣٥; Sansuvini,١٩٦٩; Faust
١٩٨٩) , and excessive pruning that stimulated vigorous growth could

cause a tree to become vegetative and less fruitful (Faust ١٩٨٩). Since
hormonal levels are modified by pruning , it is possible that pruning
increases fruit set as a result of growth hormone action (Grochowska et
al. ١٩٨١). However the studies of Chalmer et al. (١٩٧٨) showed that the
role of hormones in fruit retention must be considered jointly with

nutrient distribution.
The results of numerous experiments have shown that pruning has a
great influence on yield and the regularity of bearing. Yield tended to
vary depending on the tree age, rootstock, cultivar, growing conditions
and type of pruning (Mika, ١٩٨٦). Dormant pruning of young trees
suppressed cropping and pruning that prolonged the vegetative phase

delayed the fruiting process (Faust ١٩٨٩). Mika (١٩٨٢) reported that the
type of pruning that stimulated growth would decrease fruiting, and
dormant pruning decreased yield more than summer pruning
Working with Olinda orange mature trees, Hussein. (١٩٩٧) found that
using different pruning techniques resulted in a reduction of yield

obtained after pruning; however, significant increases in yield were
obtained in the following years (second and third years).
Mika et.al. (١٩٩٢) treated young apple trees of ‘McIntosh’ and ‘Melba’
cultivars with different methods of shoot heading or thinning or left
untouched as a control. They noted that dormant shoot heading had the
most stimulative effect on shoot growth and reduced the number of spurs
and flower buds and, consequently, yield. Shoot thinning and summer
shoot heading did not influence the growth, fruit bud formation, or yield
as much as shoot heading. At the beginning of the growing season,
pruning decreased dry matter content in wood by about ١٥٪, but later in
the season the average content of soluble sugars, starch and total
carbohydrates was almost equal for treated and control trees. These
results indicated that photosynthetic ability tended to adjust to the
demand of the heavily pruned trees.
In Sudan, Dinar (١٩٩٥) studied the effects of two types of pruning,
namely, severe pruning (٨ nodes pruned distal from fruit terminal) and
light pruing (٤ nodes pruned distal from fruit terminal) on yield of guava
trees. He noted that light pruing resulted in higher yield as number and
weight of fruits compared to the lowest total yield was given by intact
branches (control) and by severe pruning. On the other hand, Dawood
(١٩٩٢) found in his study on pruning guava trees that pinching treatment
resulted in greater fruit set compared to the other treatments (heading

back and control).
V.٤. Effects of Pruning on Fruit Quality
Dormant pruning was found to decrease the number of fruit per tree but
resulted in an increase in fruit size (related to crop load adjustment).
Fruit color could be decreased by dormant pruning due to increased shoot
growth if pruning consisted of heading cuts (Mika ١٩٨٢).
Dormant pruning tended to decrease the number of flower buds, and

consequently the number of fruits and increased fruit size (Grubb ١٩٣٢,
Oskamp ١٩٣٥, Preston ١٩٦٨, and Christensen ١٩٦٩). Improvement in fruit
color was noted in the pruned apple trees (Rogers and Preston, ١٩٤٧;
Cutting et al., ١٩٩٤).
The effect of dormant pruning appears to vary depending on factors

such as type of pruning cuts, tree vigor and fruit load. Ibrahim Ahmed et
al. (١٩٨٣) demonstrated that large thinning cuts, which facilitated light
penetration into the interior parts of tree canopy and increased the rate of
photosynthesis, might increase the content of soluble solids in fruits
indirectly; this effect could be observed in improved fruit coloration. In
contrast, small heading cuts which stimulated much new shoots growth
and great shading, might decrease soluble contents in fruits. Such an
effect was observed in a densely planted apple orchard that required
severe pruning.
V.٥. Effects of Pruning on Hormonal levels

Studies on changes in the level of hormones of dormant- pruned and un
pruned young Mclntosh apple trees were carried out by Mike et al. (١٩٧٨,
١٩٨١) who demonstrated that the levels of growth-promoting hormones
(auxins, gibberellins and cytokinins) were significantly higher in the

pruned trees than in unpruned trees and that pruning increased cytokinin
activity about ٩٠٪, auxin like activity about ٦٠٪ and gibberellin like
activity about ١٩٠٪.
Mika, et. al., (١٩٩٢) showed that three hormones (cytokinins, auxins
and gibberellins) were at high levels in xylem and phloem tissues of the
trunk and branches of heavily pruned apple trees. After a month of
growth, auxin-like substances in the pruned trees rose to much higher
levels than in controls. The high levels of auxins in shoots and trunk were
followed by high levels of gibberellins from middle of June to the end of
July. At that time the content of gibberellic acid in the shoots of pruned
trees was almost twice as high as in the control.
Nancy (٢٠٠٣) reported that pruning of roots resulted in the removal of
heaviest concentrations of gibberellins allowing the lesser amounts in the
secondary roots to become dominant, so side growth occurred.
V.٦. Effects of Pruning on Nitrogen Content

Results of several studies revealed that both dormant and summer
pruning influenced the mineral content of leaves and fruits (Perring and
Preston ١٩٧٤; Struklec ١٩٨١; Lemmens ١٩٨٢). Olszewski and Slowik
(١٩٨٢) showed that heavy dormant pruning of young Mcintosh apple trees
increased the content of nitrogen, potassium and phosphorus in fruits.
Perring and Preston (١٩٧٤) reported that summer pruning raised the
concentration of calcium in apple trees but lowered potassium,

phosphorus and nitrogen. Ibrahim Ahmed et al. (١٩٨٣) reported that
fruits from densely planted severely pruned had a higher content of

nitrogen, postassium and phosphorus on apple trees than fruits from trees
planted at lower densities and lightly pruned.
CHAPTER THREE
MATERIALS AND METHODS
٣-١ Experiment One
This experiment was undertaken to find out the influence of using

different pruning tecniques on growth characteristics and C/ N ratio of
guava plants grown under nursery conditions.
٣-١-١ Plant Materials:
Seeds were obtained from ripe and uniform fruits collected from white -
flashed local guava (Baladi) trees grown in an orchard located in New
Halfa, Kassala State, Sudan. The collected seeds were thoroughly washed
with tap water and then allowed to dry under shade for one day.
Thereafter, uniform seeds were selected for sowing in a plastic tray and
allowed to germinate under nursery conditions. Uniform and well-
established seedlings were transferred from the growing medium to
individual plastic pots (٢٠ cm in diameter) containing ٤ kg of a soil mix
(٢ river silt: ١ sand, by volume). The seedlings were allowed to grow and
establish for two months under a partial shade prior to the initiation of the
differential treatments. The seedlings were irrigated at three-day interval
with equal amounts of water.
٣-١-٢ Pruning Techniques:
Three pruning methods (techniques) were adopted in this experiment,

namely, top vegetative pruning, root pruning, and a combination of top
and root pruning. Top vegetative pruning technique consisted of
removing ٢٠٪ and ٤٠٪ of the total number of mature leaves from the
middle part of the plant. Root pruning technique consisted of removing

some roots from one side of the plant, ١٠ cm away from the stem to a
depth of ١٠ -١٥ cm. The combination of top and root pruning technique
consisted of removing some roots and ٣٠٪ of the total number of leaves.
The differential treatments were initiated after ٥ months from
transplanting the experimental plants. The experiment continued for ١٥
months.
٣-١-٣ Growth Parameters:
The initial plant height, stem diameter, number of leaves and plant fresh
weight were recorded. At the termination of the experiment, growth
parameters were evaluated in terms of plant height, stem diameter,
number of leaves, relative growth rate (RGR), as well as both fresh and
dry weights of different plant parts. Plant height was measured from a
marked point up to the terminal bud of the plant using a tape meter. Stem
diameter was recorded at a specific point using a vernier caliper. Relative
growth rate (RGR) was estimated using the equation of Loneragen et.al.
(١٩٦٨) as follows:
RGR = In W٢- InW١× ١٠٠
t ٢ - t١
where w١ and w٢ are the initial and the final fresh weights of whole
plants recorded at t١ and t٢ in days, respectively.
At the termination of the experiment, plants were harvested and

separated into leaves, stems and roots for determination of their fresh and
dry weights. The different plant parts were dried in a forced draft oven at
٧٠° C for ٤٨ hours. After complete drying, dry weights of all plant parts
were recorded separately.
٣-١-٤ Determination of Nitrogen and CHO Contents:
The dried leaf samples were ground using a glass mortar and allowed
to pass through a ٤٠- mesh screen and then thoroughly mixed before
taking representative sub-samples for determination of nitrogen and

carbohydrate contents. Total nitrogen (N %) content was determined
using the macro- Kjeldahl method and total available carbohydrate (CHO
%) by using the procedure of Clegg Anthrone (١٩٥٢).
٣-١-٥ Experimental Design:
Each treatment was replicated four times in a randomized complete

block design (RCBD). Mean separation was computed using Duncan's
Multiple Range Test at ٥٪ level of significance (Snedecor and Cochrany,
١٩٨٢).
٣-٢ Experiment Two
This experiment was initiated to study the effects of using different

manual fruit thinning techniques on yield, total soluble solids (TSS) and
fruit weight of guava trees grown under orchard conditions
٣-٢-١ Plant Materials:
This experiment was conducted in an orchard located in New Halfa at

Kassala State, Sudan. Six- years- old guava trees of nearly uniform in size
growth, vigor, and bearing habits were selected to serve as the
experimental material for this study. The selected trees were planted at
spacing of ٧ × ٧ m and received the normal cultural practices prior to the
initiation of the differential treatments.

The areas (hods) surrounding each tree were prepared in such a way that
they were equal in diameter. During the investigation, trees were
regularly irrigated every ten days, and during the rainy season (July –
October), water was not applied to the trees except when needed.
٣-٢-٢ Fruit Thinning Techniques:
Three manual fruit thinning techniques were used in this study, namely:
(١) Thinning to one fruit per cluster (thinning all fruits and leaving
only one fruit per a cluster).

(٢) Thinning to ٢٥٪ of fruits per cluster (thinning ٢٥٪ of the total
number of fruits from each cluster).

(٣) Thinning to ٥٠٪ of fruits per cluster (thinning ٥٠٪ of the total
number of fruits from each cluster).
٣-٢-٣ Parameters Recorded:
Parameters recorded were: fresh and dry weights of leaf samples, yield
(total number of fruits and total fruit weights) and fruit quality (fruit
weight and total soluble solids).
٣-٢-٣-١ Fresh and Dry Weights of Leaf Samples:
Leaf sampling for determination of both fresh and dry weights were
carried out after nine and then eleven months from initiation of the
treatments. Since two leaves having opposite phyllotaxy emerge
simultaneously they were considered a single leaf. Leaf samples were
collected from the third pair (from the top) from the actively growing and
healthy shoots of the current season’s growth. Twenty leaves of uniform
size located at a height of about ١,٥ –٢,٠ meters from the ground level
were collected from all directions (sides) to form a composite sample for
determination of both fresh and dry weights. The same procedure used for
handling and drying of leaf samples in the experiment number one was
followed in this experiment.
٣-٢-٣-٢ Yield:
Harvesting of guava fruits was done twice a year; the first harvest was
done during the month of June and the second harvest during the month
of October. Total yield was expressed as the total number of fruits
produced per tree during the two harvests and total fruit weights (total
number of the harvested fruits multiplied by the mean of fruit's weight).
٣-٢-٣-٣ Fruit Quality Measurements:
Fruit quality was evaluated in terms of fruit weight and total soluble
solids (TSS) at the time of harvest. A random sample consisting of ١٠ ripe
fruits per tree was collected at each harvesting date for determination of
fruit quality. Total soluble solids (TSS) were measured using a hand
refractometer.
٣-٢-٤ Experimental Design:
The experimental design used for statistical analysis was a randomized

complete black, with four replications per treatment. Duncan’s Multiple
Range Test at ٥٪ level of significance was used to separate the treatments
means.
٣-٣ Experiment Three
The objective of this experiment was to study the effects of using

different pruning techniques carried out during winter time (January) on
growth, contents of CHO and N, fresh and dry weights of leaves, yield,
and fruit quality of guava trees grown under orchard conditions.
yield, fruit quality and C/N ratio of guava trees grown under orchard
conditions.
٣-٣-١ Plant Materials:
This investigation was carried out in an orchard located at New Halfa,

Kassala State, Sudan. Seven- year -old guava trees (baladi, white-fleshed
type) were selected for their uniformity in growth, size, vigor and fruiting
habits. The trees were spaced at ٧ × ٧ m. All the experimental trees
received uniform cultural practices during the period of the study.

Cultivation was done regularly at a monthly interval.
٣-٣-٢ Pruning Techniques:
Four different pruning techniques were carried out, namely:

(١) Pruning of ٢٠٪ of a twig.
(٢) Pruning of ٤٠٪ of a twig.
(٣) Root pruning.
(٤) A combination of root pruning and pruning of ٢٠٪ of a twig.
of ٣٠٪ of a twig (branch).
Twigs or branches located at a height of ٢-٣ m and having diameter of
almost ١,٥ cm were selected for different pruning techenques. The
selected twigs or branches were shortend (pruned using a heading back

technique) according to the required percentage (٢٠, ٣٠ or ٤٠٪) in each
treatment
The technique of root pruning was carried out at one side of the
experimental tree by digging a trench ٥٠ cm away from the main trunk to
a depth of ٤٠ –٥٠ cm. Roots of different sizes located along the west side
of the tree in an area of almost one meter were pruned. Immediately after
root pruning, the trench was refilled and the trees were watered to avoid
leaving air pockets.
٣-٣-٣ Parameters Recorded:
٣-٣-٣-١ Growth:
Growth was expressed in terms of increases in tree height and trunk

circumference. The measurements were recorded prior to the imitation of
the differential treatments (initial measurements), after ٥ months and then
after ١٧ months from pruning
٣-٣-٣-٢ Fresh and Dry Weights of Leaf Samples:
Leaf samples were collected twice during the course of the experiment;
the first leaf sampling was done after ٥ months and the second one after
١٤ months from the initiation of the treatments. The procedures used for
handling of the leaf samples for determination of both fresh and dry
weights and contents of nitrogen and carbohydrates carried out in the
experiment two were followed in this experiment.
٣-٣-٣-٣ Yield:
Total yield was expressed as the total number of fruits produced per
tree during the two harvests and total fruit weights (total number of the
harvested fruits multiplied by the mean of fruit's weight). Harvesting of
guava fruits was done twice a year; the first harvest was done during the
month of June and the second harvest during the month of October.
٣-٣-٣-٣ Fruit Quality Measurements:
fruits per tree was collected at each harvesting date (during June and
October). Total soluble solids (TSS) were measured using a hand
refractometer.
٣-٣-٤ Experimental Design:
The experimental trees were arranged in a randomized complete block

design with four replications. Mean separation was done using Duncan’s
Multiple Range Test at ٥٪ level of significance.
٣-٤ Experiment Four
This experiment was designed to investigate the effects of different

pruning techniques carried out during summer time (April) on growth,
contents of CHO and N, fresh and dry weights of leaves, yield, and fruit
quality of guava trees grown under orchard conditions.
٣-٤-١ Plant Materials:
The experiment was carried out using another set of seven-year-old

guava trees (baladi, white fleshed- type) grown in an orchard in New
Halfa, Kassala State, Sudan. All experimental trees were selected for their
uniformity in growth, size, vigor and fruiting habits.
٣-٤-٢ Pruning Techniques:
Pruning techniques in experiment (٣) were adopted in an other set of
guava trees during summer (April).

٣-٤-٣ Parameters Recorded:
٣-٤-٣-١ Growth:
Growth was expressed in terms of increases in tree height and trunk

circumference. The measurements were recorded prior to the imitation of
the differential treatments (initial measurements), and then after ١٤
months from pruning.
٣-٤-٣-٢ Fresh and Dry Weights of Leaf Samples:
Leaf samples were collected after ١٤ months from the initiation of the
treatments. The procedures used for handling of the leaf samples for
determination of both fresh and dry weights and contents of nitrogen and
carbohydrates carried out in the experiment three were followed in this
experiment.
٣-٤-٣-٣ Yield:
tree and total fruit weights (total number of the harvested fruits multiplied
by the mean of fruit's weight). Harvesting of guava fruits was done four
times: after ٦, ١٠, ١٢, and ١٤ months from initiation of the differential
treatments.
٣-٤-٣-٣ Fruit Quality Measurements:
fruits per tree was collected after ٦ and then ١٤ months from pruning.
Total soluble solids (TSS) were measured using a hand refractometer.
٣-٤-٤ Experimental Design:
The experimental trees were arranged in a randomized complete block

design, replicated four times. Duncan's Multiple Range Test at ٥٪ level of
significance was used to compare treatments means.
٣-٥ Experiment Five
This experiment was designed to study the effect of using different

pruning techniques carried out at late summer in June on growth, contents
of CHO and N, fresh and dry weights of leaves, yield, and fruit quality of
guava trees grown under orchard conditions.
٣-٥-١ Plant Materials:

guava trees (baladi, white fleshed- type) grown in an orchard in Kassala
area, Kassala State, Sudan. All experimental trees were selected for their
uniformity in growth, size, vigor and fruiting habits.
٣-٥-٢ Pruning Techniques:
Pruning techniques in experiment (٣) were followed in an other set of
guava trees during late summer (June).

٣-٥-٣ Parameters Recorded:
٣-٥-٣-١ Growth:
Growth was expressed in terms of increases in tree height, trunk

circumference and the new sub-branches (flushes). The measurements of
both tree height, trunk circumference were recorded prior to the imitation
of the differential treatments (initial measurements), and then after ١٢ (a
year) months from pruning.
Ten branches of ١,٥ cm in diameter located at different sides of the
experimental trees were selected randomly and then labeled for counting
the number of new sub- branches produced or emerged after two months
and then after six months from the treatments.
٣-٥-٣-٢ Fresh and Dry Weights of Leaf Samples:
Leaf samples were collected at the initiation of the treatments, after two
and then sex months from pruning. The procedures used for handling of
the leaf samples for determination of both fresh and dry weights and
contents of nitrogen and carbohydrates carried out in the experiment three
were followed in this experiment.
٣-٥-٣-٣ Yield:
by the mean of fruit's weight). Harvesting of guava fruits was done twice
a year; the first harvest was done during the month of December (after
sex months from pruning) and the second harvest during the month of
June (after a year from pruning).
٣-٥-٣-٣ Fruit Quality Measurements:
fruits per tree was collected after sex months from pruning. Total soluble
solids (TSS) were measured using a hand refractometer.
٣-٥-٤ Experimental Design:
The experimental trees were laid out in a randomized complete block

design, with four replications. Means of treatments were separated using
Duncan's Multiple Range Test at ٥٪ level of significance.
٣-٦ Experiment Six
In this experiment the impacts of using different pruning techniques on

concentrations of both auxins and gibberellins of leaves of guava trees
grown under orchard conditions were investigated.
٣-٦-١ Plant Materials:
Seven-year-old guava trees (baladi, white fleshed- type) were used as

the experimental trees. The selected trees were grown in an orchard in
Wad Medani, Gezira State, Sudan. All experimental trees were selected
for their uniformity in growth, size, vigor and fruiting habits.
٣-٦-٢ Pruning Techniques:
Pruning techniques used in experiment (٣) were carried out in this
experiment during summer time in April.
٣-٦-٣ Leaf sampling:
Twenty mature leaves from each treatment were collected after a week
and then after two weeks from the initiation of the differential treatments
for determination the concentrations of both auxins and gibberellins. The
collected leaf samples were stored in liquid nitrogen prior to analysis. The
analysis was done in Germany using the technique of Radio Immuny
Assay (RIA).
٣-٦-٤ Experimental Design:
The experimental design used for statistical analysis was a randomized

complete black, with four replications per treatment. Duncan’s Multiple
Range Test at ٥٪ level of significance was used to separate the treatments
means.
٣-٧ Experiment Seven
This experiment was designed to study the effects of carrying out

pruning techniques at different times of the year on growth, yield, and
fruit quality of guava trees grown under orchard conditions.
٣-٧-١ Plant Materials:

guava trees (baladi, white fleshed- type) grown in an orchard in Wad
Medani, Gezira State, Sudan. All experimental trees were selected for
their uniformity in growth, size, vigor and fruiting habits.
٣-٧-٢ Pruning Techniques:
Pruning techniques in experiment (٣) were followed in an other set of
guava trees during mid June, mid July and mid August.
٣-٧-٣ Parameters Recorded:
٣-٧-٣-١ Growth:
Growth was expressed in terms of number of new sub-branches

(flushes) emerged after the initiation of the treatments. Ten branches of
١,٥ cm in diameter located at a height of ٢-٣ meters from the ground and
at different sides of the experimental trees were selected randomly and

then labeled for counting the number of new sub- branches produced or
emerged.
٣-٧-٣-٢ Yield:
by the mean of fruit's weight).
٣-٧-٣-٣ Fruit Quality Measurements:
fruits per tree was collected each treated trees for quality measurements.
Total soluble solids (TSS) were measured using a hand refractometer.
٣-٧-٤ Experimental Design:
The experimental trees were laid out in a randomized complete block

design, with four replications. Means of treatments were separated using
Duncan's Multiple Range Test at ٥٪ level of significance.
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS
٤-١ Experiment One:
Linear increases in height measurements of guava plants grown under

nursery conditions as affected by using different pruning techniques are
shown in Fig. (١).
After five months from the initiation of the differential treatments,
significanly greater increases were associated with the root pruning
technique than the other treatments, which in turn showed no significant
differences among them. At the termination of the experiment (fifteen
months after pruning), no significant differences were noted in height
measurements among the pruning techniques, however, all these pruning
techniques resulted in significantly greater values than the control.
Stem diameter measurements showed the same trend as that of height

measurements (Fig. ٢).
Increases in the number of leaves of guava plants grown under nursery

conditions as affected by using different pruning techniques are displayed
in Fig.٣. Significantly greater increases in leaves nubmber were
associated with the root pruning compared to the pruning techniques of

removing ٢٠٪ of leaves, removing ٣٠٪ of leaves plus root pruning and the
control. The differences in number of leaves between the pruning

technique of removing ٢٠٪ of leaves and removing ٤٠٪ of leaves were not
significant and, also, between the latter pruning technique and the
tecnique of removing ٣٠٪ of leaves plus root pruning and the control.
Significantly greater values of relative growth rate (RGR) were

associated with the pruning techniques of removing ٤٠٪ of leaves and
root pruning compared to the other treatments, which in turn sowed no

significant differences among them (Fig.٤).
The data in Table ١ show the impacts of using several pruning
techniques on fresh and dry weights of different parts of guava plants

grown under nusery conditions. Significantly greater values of fresh
weights of different plant parts and that of the total were associated with
the treatments of removal of ٤٠٪ of leaves, root pruning and removal of
٣٠٪ of leaves plus root pruning compared to the other treatments.
No significant differences were noted in the values of dry weights of

different plant parts (except leaves) among treatments, however, greater
values were associated with treatments of removal of ٤٠٪ of leaves, root
pruning and removal of ٣٠٪ of leaves plus root pruning than the other
treatments. The differences in the values of ratios of fresh and dry

weights were not significant among the treatments. Generally, the greater
values of both fresh and dry weights were associated with the treatment
of removal of ٤٠٪ of leaves than the rest of the treatments.
No significant differences were noted in the recorded values of contents

of carbohydrates (CHO) and nitrogen as well as C/N ratios among the
treatments (Table ٢).
a a
a
40
35
a
30
b
25
Plant
Height 20
(cm)
15
10 a
b b b
b
5
0
5 months after pruning 15 months after pruning
Letters on bars indicate mean separation using Duncan's Multiple Range Test, 5% level
٢٠٪ leaf pruning ٤٠٪ leaf pruning Root pruning
Control
٣٠٪ leaf pruning + root pruning
Fig (١) Linear increases in height of guava plants grown under nursery
conditions in relation to different pruning techniques.

0.7
a
0.6
a
a a
0.5
b
0.4
Stem
diameter
(cm)
0.3
a
0.2 a
ab
0.1 b
b b
0
Control
Fig (٢) Mean increases in stem diameter of guava plants grown under
nursery conditions in relation to different pruning techniques.

90
a
ab
80
b
70 b
b
60
a
Number 50
of ab
Leaves 40
30 b
b
20 b
10
0
Letters on bars indicate mean separation using Duncan's Multiple Range T est, 5% level
Control
Fig (٣) Increases in number of leaves of guava plants grown under
nursery conditions in relation to different pruning techniques.

6 a
a
5 ab
b
b
RGR 3
0
Control
Fig (٤) Relative growth rate (RGR) of guava plants grown under nursery
conditions in relation to different pruning techniques.

Table ١. Effect of using different pruning techniques on fresh and dry weights of
leaves, stems and roots of guava plants grown under nursery conditions
Pruning Techniques Fresh Weight (g) Dry Weight (g)
Leaves Stems Roots Total Leaves Stems Roots Total
Removal of ٢٠٪ of leaves
٨,٦b* ١٨,٧b ١٧,١b ٤٤,٤b ٥,٠b ١١,٢a ١٢,٦a ٢٨,٨a
Removal of ٤٠٪ of leaves

١٤,١a ٢٧,٩a ٢٤,١a ٦٦,١a ٧,٦a ١٥,٥a ١٤,٦a ٣٧,٧a
Root pruning
١٣,١a ٢٦,٦a ٢٠,٤a ٦٠,١a ٦,٣ab ١٥,٣a ١٤,٩a ٣٦,٥a
Removal of ٣٠% of
leaves+Rootprunig ١٠,٦a ٢٧,٠a ٢٤,٣a ٦١,٩a ٥,٤b ١٥,٧a ١٣,٥a ٣٤,٦a
Control ٩,٠b ٢٢,١b ١٨,٠b ٤٩,١b ٤,٧b ١٢,٩a ١٢,٩a ٣٠,٥a
*Means in the same column having the same letter (s) are not significantly different at P =٠,٠٥,
according to Duncan’s Multiple RangeTest.

Table ٢ Effect of using different pruning techniques on leaf carbhydrates (CHO) and
nitrogen contents and C/N ratio of guava plants grown under nursery
conditions.
Pruning Techniques CHO% N% C/N ratio

Removal of ٢٠٪ of leaves ٢٣,٧a* ١٤a ١٦,٩a
Removal of ٤٠٪ of leaves ١٩,٠a ١٤a ١٣,٦a
Root Pruning ٢٠,٧a ١٣a ١٥,٩a
Removal of ٣٠٪ of leaves + Root pruning ٢٠,٣a ١٣a ١٥,٦a
Control ٢٣,٧a ١٣a ١٨,٢a
*Means in the same column having the same letter (s) are not significantly different at P =
٠,٠٥, according to Duncan’s Multiple Range Test.
٤-٢ Experiment Two:
Results of the effects of different fruit thinning techniques on yield are

shown in Table ٣. Yield data in terms of number of fruits collected in the
first harvest were not significant among the treatments. In the second
harvest, significantly greater numbe of fruits was associated with the
technique of ٥٠٪ fruit thinning than that of the technique of ٢٥٪ fruit
thinning and the control, and the same pattern was noted regarding the
total yield of the two harvests.
Significantly grater values of weights of fruits collected in both first and

second harvests and that of the total were associated with the technique of
٥٠٪ fruit thinning compared to the other treatments.
The recorded values of fruit quality in terms of weight and total soluble
solids (TSS) of fruits collected in the first and the second harvests were
not significant among the treatments (Table ٤).
The effects of using different fruit thinning techniques on fresh and dry
weights of leaf samples collected at different times were not significant
among the treatments (Table ٥).
Table ٣ Effect of using different fruit thinning techniques on yield (first & second
harvests) of guava trees grown under orchard conditions
Yield
Fruit Thinning Number of Fruits/tree Fruit Weight (kg/tree)
Techniques
First Second Total First Second Total
Harvest Harvest Harvest Harvest
١٥٦a* ٢٤٥ab ٥,٨b ١١,٠b

Thinning to one fruit /cluster ٤٠١a ١٦٫٨b
b
١٣٨a ١٧٧b ٧,٩b ٩,٠b

Thinning to ٢٥٪ fruits/cluster ٣١٥b ١٦٫٩b
١٦٢a ٣١٣a ٨,١a ١٣,٤a

Thinning to ٥٠٪ fruits/cluster ٤٧٥a ٢١٫٥a
١٥٩a ١٧٢b ٦,٦b ١٠,٦b

Control ٣٣١b ١٧٫٢b
٠٫٠٥, according to Duncan’s multiple Range Test.
Table ٤ Effect of using different fruit thinning techniques on weight and total soluble
solids (TSS) of fruits harvested at different times from guava trees grown under
orchard conditions
Fruit weight (g) TSS
Fruit Thinning Techniques First Second First Second
Thinning to one fruit /cluster ٣٧a* ٤٤a ١٣,٠a ١٦,٨a
Thinning to ٢٥٪ fruits/cluster ٤٧a ٥٠a ١٢,٧a ١٥,٠a
Thinning to ٥٠٪ fruits/cluster ٤٧a ٤٢a ١١,٣a ١٤,٠a
Control ٤١a ٥٦a ١١,١a ١٤,٠a

Table٥. Effect of using different fruit thinning techniques on fresh and dry weights of
leaves of guava trees grown under orchard conditions

Fresh Wt. (g) Dry Wt. (g) Fresh/dry Wt. ratio
Fruit Thinning Techniques First Second First Second First Second
Sample Sample Sample Sample Sample Sample
Thinning to one fruit /cluster

١٥,٨a* ٢١٤a ١٢,٢a ٨,٣a ١,٣a ٢,٦a
Thinning to ٢٥٪ fruits/cluster

١٧,٤a ١٩,٧a ١٣,٤a ٨,٦a ١,٣a
٢,٣a
Thinning to ٥٠٪ fruits/cluster

١٧,٥a ٢١,٦a ١٣,٣a ٨,٨a ١,٣a
٢,٥a
Control
١٥,٩a ٢١,٣a ١٢,٧a ٨,٧a ١,٣a
٢,٥a
*Means in the same column having the same letter (s) are not significantly different at P= ٠,٠٥,
according to Duncan’s Multiple Range Test.

٤-٣ Experiment Three:
After ٥ months from the initiation of the differential treatments, no
significant dufferences were recorded in the measurements of trunk

heights among the treated tress (Fig. ٥).
After ١٧ months, all pruning techniques resulted in significantly greater
increases in trunk height compared to the control. No significant

differences were noted in the recorded measurements of trunk height
between pruning techniques of removal of ٤٠٪ of twig and root pruning,
and also between the pruning techniques of removal of ٢٠٪ of twig and
the combination of removal of ٣٠٪ of twig plus root pruning; however, the
former two pruning techniques resulted in significantly greater values than

the latter two pruning techniques.
Regarding the measurements of trunk circumference taken at different

times, the differences among the treatments were not significant (Fig. ٦).
Yield recorded in terms of number of fruits collected in both first and

second harvests and the total yield of trees receiving pruning technique of
removal of ٢٠٪ of twig or unpruned trees (control) was noted to be
significantly greater than the other treatments (Table ٦). More or less,
similar trend was noted regarding yield data in terms of fruits weight.
Table ٧ represents the effects of pruning techniques on fruit quality in
terms of weight and total soluble solids (TSS). Significantly greater

weight of fruits of the first harvest was associated with the combination
treatments of removal of ٣٠٪ plus root pruning compared to the other
treatments, which in turn showed no significant differences among them.

In the second harvest, removal of ٢٠٪ of twig resulted in significantly
greater values of fruit weight than the rest of the treatments, which in turn
demonstrated no significant differences among them. No significant
differences were recorded among the treatments as far as total soluble
solids (TSS) was concerned, regardless of the harvesting time.
There were no significant differences among the treatments regarding

the recorded values of fresh and dry weights as well as the ratios of fresh
to dry weight of leaves sampled at different times (Table ٨).
The differences in the recorded values of leaf contents of carbohydrates

(CHO) and nitrogen as well as C/N ratios were not significant among the
treatments (Table ٩). Generally, greater values were associated with the
first leaf samples than the second leaf samples, regardless of the
treatments applied.
Fig (٥) Effect of using different winter pruning techniques on trunk
height of guava trees grown under orchard conditions.
Fig (٦) Effect of using different winter pruning techniques on trunk
circumference of guava trees grown under orchard conditions.

Table ٦ Effect of using different winter pruning techniques on yield (first & second

Yield
No. of Fruits/ tree Fruit Wt. (kg/tree)
Pruning First Second First Second
Techniques Harvest Harvest Total Harvest Harvest Total
٢٠٪ twig pruning ١٠٥b* ٢٠٠a ٣٠٥a ٥,٠a ٩,١a ١٤,١a
٤٠٪ twig pruning ٧٠c ١٠١c ١٧١b ٤,١b ٥,٣b ٩,٤b
Root pruning ٩٠b ١٤٤b ٢٣٤ab ٤,٤b ٧,٨ab ١٢,٢b
Root pruning +٣٠٪ twig
pruning ٦٦c ٧٩d ١٤٥b ٥,٤a ٢,٨c ٨,٢b
Control (unpruned) ١٥١a ١٨٩a ٣٤٠a ٨,٨a ٧,٠b ١٥,٨a
*Means within the same column having the same letter (s) are not significantly different at P =
Table٧. Effect of using different winter pruning techniques on weight and total soluble
solids (TSS) of fruits harvested at different times from from guava trees grown under
orchard conditions
Fruit weight Total Soluble Solids
Pruning (g) (TSS)
Techniques First Second First Second
٢٠٪ twig pruning ٤٧,٤b* ٦٦,٣a ١٣,٥a ١٧,٤a
٤٠٪ twig pruning ٥٩,٨b ٥٠,١b ١٣,٣a ١٨,٤a
Root pruning ٥١,٣b ٤٩,١b ١٢,٥a ١٦,٨a
Root pruning +٣٠٪
twig pruning ٨١,٩a ٤١,٠b ١٣,٠a ١٩,١a
Control (unpruned) ٥٨,٢b ٤٣,٠b ١٢,٣a ١٨,٣a
*Means within the same column having the same letter (s) are not significantly different at P=
Table ٨: Effect of using different winter pruning techniques on fresh and dry weights of
leaves sampled at different times from guava trees grown under orchard conditions
Fresh wt. Dry wt. Fresh/Dry Wt.

(g) (g) ratio
Pruning First Second First Second First Second
Techniques Leaf Leaf Leaf Leaf Leaf Leaf
٢٠٪ twig pruning ٢٧a* ٢٣a ١٥a ١٦a ١,٨a ١,٤a
٤٠٪ twig pruning ٢٢a ٢٠a ١٣a ١٤a ١,٧a ١,٤a
Root pruning ٢٥a ٢٠a ١٤a ١٤a ١,٨a ١,٤a
pruning ٢٤a ٢٤a ١٣a ١٧a ١,٨a ١,٣a
Control (unpruned) ٢٤a ١٩a ١٣a ١٤a ١,٨a ١,٤a
*Means within the same column having the same letter (s) are not significantly different at P
=٠,٠٥, according to Duncan’s Multiple Range Test.
Table ٩ Effect of using different winter pruning techniques on contents of carbohydrate
(CHO) and nitrogen ( N) and C/N ratio of leaves sampled at different times from
guava trees grown under orchard conditions
CHO (%) N (%) C/N ratio

Pruning First Second First Second First Second
Techniques Leaf Leaf Leaf Leaf Leaf Leaf
٢٠٪ twig pruning ٢٥,٥a* ٢,٢a ٢,٢a ١,٦a ١١,٦a ١,٤a
٤٠٪ twig pruning ٢٧,٨a ٢,٢a ٢,٣a ١,٥a ١٢,٥a ١,٥a
Root pruning ٢٢,٠a ٢,٣a ٢,٢a ١,٦a ١٠,١a ١,٤a
Root pruning +٣٠%
twig pruning ٢٤,٠a ٢,٠a ٢,٣a ١,٤a ٩,٩a ١,٣a
Control (unpruned) ‫ﺵ‬٢٢,٠ ٢,٢a ٢,٢a ١,٥a ١٠,٠a ١,٥a
*Means within the same column having the same letter (s) are not significantly different at P= ٠,٠٥,

٤-٤ Experiment Four:
The combination pruning techniques of removal of ٣٠٪ of twig plus
root pruning resulted in significantly greater measurements of trunk

height compared to the other treatments, which in turn showed no
significant differences among them (Fig. ٧).
Fig. ٨ shows that the measurements of trunk circumference followed
the same trend as that of trunk height measurements.
Total number, total weight and percentages of fruits harvested at

different times from the initiation of the treatments are presented in Table
١٠. Generally, no clear pattern was noted among the treatments as far as
total number, total weight and percentages of fruits. The highest number
of fruits was recorded after ٦ months from the initiation of the treatments,
regardless of the treatments used, and the lowest values were recorded
after ١٠ months. As the season advanced, the number of fruits tended to
increase. Significantly greater total number and weight of fruits were

associated with the pruning techniques of pruning of ٤٠٪ of twig and
pruning of ٢٠٪ of twig compared to the other treatments, which in turn
showed no significant differences among them. Unpruned trees (control)

gave the lowest total number of fruits.
The data in Table ١١ show the effects of pruning techniques on fruits
quality in terms of weight and total soluble solids (TSS). Removal of ٢٠٪
of twig resulted in significantly greater fruit weight of the first harvest

than the rest of the treatments. In the second harvest, significantly greater
fruit weight was associated with the pruning technique of pruning of ٤٠٪
of twig than the other treatments, which in turn showed no significant

differences among them. Generally, the values of fruit weight of the
second harvest were greater than those recorded in the first harvest,
regardless of the treatments used. The lowest values of fruit weight in
both harvests was noted in trees receiving the root pruning technique. The
differences in the values of total soluble solids (TSS) of fruits of both
harvests among the treatments were not significant.
The values of fresh and dry weights as well as fresh/dry weights ratios
of leaf samples are shown in Table ١٢. Values of fresh weight of leaf
samples collected from trees receiving the pruning technique of pruning

of ٤٠٪ of twig were significantly greater than the other treatments, which
in turn showed no significant differences among them. No significant

differences were noted in the recorded values of dry weights of leaf
samples collected from trees receiving the pruning technique of pruning
of ٤٠٪ of twig, root pruning and the combination of pruning of ٣٠٪ of
twig plus root pruning; however, these three treatments were significantly
greater than the other treatments.
Data in Table ١٣ show no significant differences among the treatments
regarding the contents of both carbohydrates (CHO) and nitrogen as well

as C/N raios.
b
100
90
a b
80 b
70
b
60
Trunk Height
50
(cm)
40
30
20% Twig pruning
20 40% Twig pruning
Root pruning
10
Root pruning+30% Twig pruning
0 Control
Fig (٧) Effect of using different summer pruning techniques on trunk

b
20
ab
18 b
16
a b
14
12
Trunk
Circumference 10
(cm)
8
2 20% Twig pruning

40% Twig pruning
0 Root pruning
Letters on bars indicate mean separation using Duncan's Multiple range Test, 5% level Control
Fig (٨) Effect of using different summer pruning techniques on trunk

Table ١٠ Effect of using different summer pruning techniques on number and percentages of fruits
harvested at different times (yield) from guava trees grown under orchard conditions
* Means in the same column having the same letter(s) are not significantly different at P=٠,٠٥ , according
to Duncan's Multiple Range Test.

Total Number and Percentages of Fruits per Tree Harvested at Different
Times from Pruning
Pruning ٦ ١٠ ١٢ ١٤ Total
Techniques months months months months Number
NO. % NO. % NO. % NO. % of Fruits
٢٠٪ twig pruning ٤٩٣a* ٤٥a ٢٣b ٢b ٢٠٢b ١٨b ٣٩٠a ٣٥a ١١٠٨a
٤٠٪ twig pruning ٣٧٦a ٣٦b ٧٦a ٧a ٣٢٦a ٣١a ٢٧٢a ٢٦a ١٠٥٠a
Root pruning ٣١١a ٣٥b ٤٢ab ٥a ٢٢٠b ٢٥a ٣١٠a ٣٥a ٨٨٣ b

٤٥٠a ٤٦a ١٩b ٢b ٢٥٧b ٢٦a ٢٥٣a ٢٦a ٩٧١b
twig pruning
Control (unpruned) ٤٩٦a ٦١a ١٦b ٣b ١٠٣ c ١٣b ٢٠٦ b ٣٣a ٨٢١b
Yield (kg/tree and percentages) Harvested at Different Times from Pruning
Pruning ٦ ١٠ ١٢ ١٤ Total
Techniques months months months months Weight
of Fruits
kg % kg % kg % Kg % Kg/tree
٢٠٪ twig pruning ٣٣a ٤٣b ١,٥b ٢,٠b ١٤b ١٩b ٢٧a ٣٦a ٧٥,٥a
٤٠٪ twig pruning ٢٠b ٢٥d ٤,٠a ٥,٠a ٣٠a ٣٨a ٢٥a ٣٢a ٧٩,٠a
Root pruning ٢١b ٤٠b ١,٩b ٤,٠a ١٢b ٢٣b ١٧b ٣٢a ٥١,٩b

٣٥a ٥٠a ١,١b ٢,٠b ١٧b ٢٤b ١٧b ٢٤b ٧٠,١b
twig pruning
Control (unpruned) ٢٤a ٣٧c ٠,٨b ١,٠b ٨c ١٢b ٣٢a ٤٩a ٦٤,٨b
Table١١. Effect of using different summer pruning techniques on weight and total
soluble solids (TSS) of fruits harvested at different times from guava trees grown under
orchard conditions
Fruit Weight Total Soluble Solids
Pruning (g) (TSS)
Techniques First Second First Second
٢٠٪ twig pruning ٦٧,٠a* ٧٠,٠b ١٣,٠a ١٢,٠a
٤٠٪ twig pruning ٥٣,٠a ٩٣,٣a ١٤,٠a ١٠,٧a
Root pruning ٣٦,٠c ٥٦,٠b ١٤,٠a ١٢,٣a
Root pruning +٣٠٪ twig pruning

٥٧,٠b ٦٧,٠b ١٤,٠a ١١,٠a
Control (unpruned) ٤٩,٠c ٧٩,٧b ١٤,٠a ١٢,٣a
Table ١٢ Effect of using different summer pruning techniques on fresh and dry weights of
leaves of guava trees grown under orchard conditions

Fresh Dry Fresh/Dry
Pruning Techniques Weight Weight wt.
(g) (g) Ratio
٢٠٪ twig pruning ١٤,١b* ٦,٣b ٢,٢ a
٤٠٪ twig pruning ١٩,١a ٩,١a ٢,٠ a
Root pruning ١٨,٩a ٨,٨a ٢,١ a
twig pruning ١٨,١a ٨,٣a ٢,٢ a
Control (unpruned) ١٣,٥b ٦,٥b ٢,١ a
Table ١٣ Effect of using different summer pruning techniques on carbohydrates
(CHO) and nitrogen (N) contents and C/N ratio of leaves of guava trees
grown under orchard conditions
Pruning Techinques CHO (%) N (%) C/N ratio

٢٠٪ twig pruning ١٧,١a* ٢,١a ٨,١a
٤٠٪ twig pruning ١٩,١a ١,٨a ١٠,٦a
Root pruning ١٧,٥a ١,٨a ٩,٧a
Root pruning +٣٠٪ twig pruning ١٧,٥a ١,٥a ١١,٧ a
Control (unpruned) ١٦,٩a ١,٨a ٩,٤ a
٤-٥ Experiment Five:
No significant differences wree noted in the recorded measurements of

trunk height (Fig. ٩) as well as measurements of trunk circumference (Fig.
١٠) among the treatments.
The effects of late summer pruning techniques on yield are shown in

Table ١٤. All pruning techniques resulted in significantly greater yield in
terms of total number and weights of harvested fruits than control.

Significantly greater yield was associated with of pruning of ٢٠٪ of twig
compared to the other pruning techniques. Generally, higher values of

yield were recorded in the second harvest than the first harvest, regardless
of the treatments.
No significant differences were recorded in the values of fruit weight

and total soluble solids (TSS) among the treatments; however, the greater
values of fruit weight were associated with the pruning technique of
pruning of ٤٠٪ of twig and the lowest values with the unpruned trees
(control) (Table ١٥).
Table ١٦ shows the data of both fresh and dry weights of leaf samples
collected at different times as affected by the treatments. No significant

differences were noted in the values of both fresh and dry weights of leaf
samples collected in June among the pruning techniques of pruning of
٤٠٪ of tweig, root pruning and the combination of pruning of ٣٠٪ of twig
plus root pruning; however, these treatments resulted in significantly

greater values than the rest of the treatments. Significantly greater values
of both fresh and dry weights of leaf samples collected in August were
associated with the pruning technique of pruning of ٤٠٪ of twig compared
to the other treatments, which in turn showed no significant differences

among them. The recorded values of both fresh and dry weights of leaf
samples collected in December showed no significant differences among
the treatments. No significant differences were noted in the values of
fresh/dry weights ratios among the treatments, regardless of the sampling
dates. Generally, the pruning technique of pruning of ٤٠٪ of twig resulted
in the greatest values of both fresh and dry weights of leaf samples
collected at different times.
The recorded values of contents of both carbohydrates (CHO) and

nitrogen as well as C/N ratios were found to be not significant among the
treatments (Table ١٧).
a a a
18
a
16
a
14
12
10
Trunk Height
(cm)
8
2 20% Twig pruning

40% Twig pruning
0 Root pruning
Letters on bars indicate mean separation using Duncan's Multiple Rang Test, 5% level
Control
Fig (٩) Effect of using different late summer pruning techniques on trunk

a
7
a
6
a
5 a a
4
Trunk
Circumference
(cm) 3
1
20% Twig pruning
40% Twig pruning
0 Root pruning
Letters on bars indicate mean separation using Duncan's Multiple Rang Test, 5% level
Control
Fig (١٠) Effect of using different late summer pruning techniques on trunk

Table ١٤ Effect of using different late summer pruning techniques on yield (first & second

Yield
No. of Fruits/ tree Fruit Wt. (kg/tree)
Pruning First Second First Second
Techniques Harvest Harvest Total Harvest Harvest Total
٢٠٪ twig pruning ٦٨ b* ٦٥٠ a ٧١٨ a ٢,٩ab ٢٨,٦a ٣١,٥ a
٤٠٪ twig pruning ٥٤ b ٢٨١ c ٣٣٥ b ٣,٦a ١٨,٨b ٢٢,٤ b
Root pruning ٣٦ c ٣٤٥ b ٣٨١ b ٢,٣b ٢٢,١ab ٢٤,٤ b
pruning ٨٩ a ٤٦٠ b ٥٤٩ b ٣,٢a ١٦,٦b ١٩,٨ b
Control (unpruned) ٩١ a ٢١٩ c ٣١٠ c ٣,٧a ٨,٩c ١٢,٦ c
*Means within the same column having the same letter (s) are not significantly different at P = ٠,٠٥,

Table ١٥ Effect of using different late summer pruning techniques on weight and total
soluble solids (TSS) of fruits of guava trees grown under orchard conditions
Pruning Fruit weight Total Soluble Solids
Techniques (g) (TSS)
٢٠٪ twig pruning ٤٤ a* ١٣,٣ a
٤٠٪ twig pruning ٦٧ a. ١٤,٧ a
Root pruning ٦٤ a ١٢,٣ a
Root pruning +٣٠٪ twig pruning ٤٣ a ١٣,٣ a
Control (unpruned) ٤١ a ١٤,٣ a
*Means with in the same column having the same letter (s) are not significantly different at P=
Table ١٦ Effect of using different late summer pruning techniques on fresh and dry weights of
leaf samples collected at different times from guava trees grown under orchard
conditions.
Pruning Leaves fresh Leaves dry Fresh/ dry wt
Techniques weight (g) weight (g) Ratio
June Aug Dec June Aug Dec June Aug Dec
٢٠٪ twig pruning ١٤,١b* ١٢,٩b ١٧,٩a ٦,٣b ٦,٣b ١٣,٣a ٢,٢ a ٢,٠ a ١,٤ a
٤٠٪ twig pruning ١٩,٢ a ١٨,٦a ٢١,٤a ٩,٢a ٦,٧a ١٤,٣a ٢,٠ a ٢,٨ a ١,٤ a
Root pruning ١٨,٩a ١٤,٦b ٢٠,٠a ٨,٨a ٥,٥b ١٢,٣a ٢,١ a ٢,٦ a ١,٦ a
Root pruning +٣٠٪ ١٨,١a ١٥,٤b ١٨,٣a ٨,٣a ٥,٧b ١٣,٣a ٢,٢ a ٢,٧ a ١,٣ a
twig pruning
Control (unpruned) ١٣,٥b ١٣,١b ٢١,١a ٦,٥b ٤,٣b ١٤,٣a ٢,٠ a ٢,٩ a ١,٤ a
Table ١٧ Effect of using different late summer pruning techniques on carbohydrates (CHO)
and nitrogen (N) contents and C/N ratio of leaves of guava trees grown under
orchard conditions.
Pruning
Techniques CHO (%) N (%) C/N ratio
June Aug Dec June Aug Dec June Aug Dec
٢٠٪ twig pruning ١٨,١a* ٧,٠a ٩,١a ٢,١a ١,٧a ١,٤a ٩,٠a ٤,١a ٦,٦a
٤٠٪ twig pruning ١٨,١a ٩,٠a ٩,٨a ١,٨a ١,٩a ١,٥a ١٠,٦a ٤,٤a ٦,٥a
Root pruning ١٧,٥a ٨,١a ١٠,٧a ١,٨a ١,٨a ١,٧a ٩,٤a ٤,٥a ٦,٣a
Root pruning +٣٠٪ ١٧,٥a ٨,٠a ٩,٩a ١,٩a ١,٧a ١,٥a ٩,٢a ٤,١a ٦,٦a
twig pruning
Control (unpruned) ١٦,٩a ٩,٢a ٨,٨a ١,٨a ٢,٠a ١,٥a ٩,٤a ٤,٢a ٥,٩a
٤-٦ Experiment Six:
Pruning seemed to have profoundly effect on the pattern and

consequently levels of hormones. The results displayed in Table ١٨
revealed that all pruning techniques tended to increase the levels of both
auxins and gibberllins in the leaves more than the control.
The aboveground pruning techniques resulted in higher levels of both

auxins and gibberllins compared to root pruning, regardless of the
sampling dates. Higher levels of both auxins and gibberllins were
detected after one week than after two weeks from pruning, regardless of
the pruning techniques used.
Table ١٨: Effect of using different pruning techniques on auxins and gibberellins levels
detected in the leaves of guava trees grown under orchard conditions.

Percent Increase
Pruning After a week from After two weeks from
Technique pruning pruing
Auxins Gibberellins Auxins Gibberellins
٢٠٪ twig pruning ٩٠ ٦٠ ٣٠ ٣٠
٤٠٪ twig pruning ٨٥ ٤٠ ٢٠ ٢٠

Root pruning ١٠ ١٥ ١٠ ٥
Root pruning +٣٠٪ twig pruning ١٥ ٤٠ ١٠ ٣٠
٤-٧ Experiment Seven:
Results in Table ١٩ show the production of new flushes as a result of
using different pruning techniques at different times of the year. Pruning

trees in mid June resulted in significantly greater number of new flushes
than the unpruned trees (control). Root pruning carried out in mid July
resulted in significantly greater new flushes compared to the other
treatments, which in turn showed no significant differences among them.
Pruning done in mid August showed no significant differences in the
number of new flushes among the treatments
Effects of using different pruning techniques on guava's yield are shown

in Table ٢٠. All pruning techniques carried out in mid June resulted in
significantly greater number of fruits per tree and fruits weight than the
unpruned trees. The greatest number of fruits per tree was associated with
the pruning technique of removal of ٢٠% of twig and the lowest with the
root pruning. Significantly greater fruits weights were recorded in the

treatments of removal of ٢٠٪ and ٤٠٪ of twig than the treatments of root
pruning and removal of ٣٠٪ of twig plus root pruning.
Pruning carried out in mid July demonstrated no significant differences

in the values of number and weight of fruits among the treatments;
however, the highest values were associates witth unpruned trees
(control). In the mid August pruning, unpruned trees resulted in
significantly greater number of fruits compared to the other treatments,
which in turn showed no significant differences among them. No
significant differences were noted in the values of fruit weight among the
treatments of root pruning, combination of removal of ٣٠٪ of twig plus
root pruning and unpruned trees, and also between removal of ٢٠٪ and
٤٠٪ of twig; however, the former three treatments resulted in significantly
greater values than the latter two treatments.
Using different pruning techniques carried out at different times

revealed no significant differences among treatments in the values of fruit
quality in terms of weight and total soluble solids (TSS) (Table ٢١).
Table ١٩: Effects of using different pruning techniques carried out at different times on
growth (recorded as number of new flushes ) of guava trees grown under

orchard conditions.
Time of Pruning
Pruning
Mid June Mid July Mid August
Techniques
٢٠٪ twig pruning ٢٢ a* ١٢ b ١٧ a
٤٠٪ twig pruning ٢٠ a ١١ b ١٥ a

Root pruning ٢١ a ١٩ a ١٧ a
Root pruning +٣٠٪ twig pruning ١٩ a ١١ b ١٦ a
Control (unpruned) ١٢ b ١٤ b ١٥ a
Table ٢٠ : Effects of using different pruning techniques carried out at different times on yield
(number and weight of fruits) of guava trees grown under orchard conditions
Time of Pruning
Mid June Mid July Mid August
Pruning No.of Fruits No.of Fruits No. of Fruits
Techniques fruits/tree wt. fruits/tree wt fruits/tree wt.
(kg.) (kg.). (kg.)
٢٠٪ twig pruning ٢٦١a* ١٠,٤ a ١٨٥a ٧,٠ a ١١٥b ٣,٧ b
٤٠٪ twig pruning ٢٣١b ١٠,٠ a ١٧٦a ٦,٧ a ١١٩b ٣,٨ b
Root pruning ٢٢٣b ٨,٩ b ١٦٤a ٦,٧ a ١٢٢b ٥,٦ a
Root pruning +٣٠٪ twig pruning ٢١٧b ٨,٣ b ١٨٤a ٧,٤ a ١٣٦a ٦,١ a
Control (unpruned) ١٤٣c ٥,٧ c ٢٠٢a ٧,٧ a ١٥٦a ٦,٢ a
*Means within the same column having the same letter (s) are not significantly different at P= ٠,٠٥,
Table ٢١ Effects of using different pruning techniques carried out at different times on
weight and total soluble solids (TSS) of fruits harvested from guava trees
grown under orchard conditions
Time of Pruning
Pruning Mid June Mid July Mid Augast
Techniques Fruit wt. Fruit wt. Fruit wt.
(g) TSS (g) TSS (g) TSS
٢٠٪ twig pruning ٤٠a* ١٣ a ٣٨a ١٤a ٣٩a ١٤ a
٤٠٪ twig pruning ٤٦a ١٣ a ٤١a ١٣a ٤٦a ١٣ a
Root pruning ٣٦a ١٤ a ٣٩a ١٣a ٤٥a ١٣ a
Root pruning +٣٠٪ twig pruning ٤٥a ١٣ a ٤٠a ١٤a ٤٠a ١٣ a
Control (unpruned) ٤٠a ١٤ a ٣٨a ١٤a ٤٠a ١٣ a
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION
Pruning fruit trees is one of the most important cultural practices that
have been developed into a skilled, accurate technology derived from the
visual effects of pruning techniques. Pruning is a well-known strategy
adopted in trees production systems and has been conventionally used as
a practice to accomplish several purposes in tree growth and production
systems.
Despite the importance of guava as a cash crop in the Sudan, there is a
paucity of information concerning improved management practices.
Regarding guava (an evergreen tree), research efforts for improving
management systems to produce yield of high quality are very meager.
Fruit growers have insufficient information on the impacts of pruning on
growth, yield and fruit quality of guava trees. Therefore, the present
investigation was undertaken in an attempt to shed some lights on the
response of young and mature guava trees to different pruning techniques
carried out at different times of the year for the purpose of enhancing and
improving yield and fruit quality.
The results obtained from the nursery experiment demonstrated that

guava plants tended to response to the pruning techniques (removal of
leaves or root pruning) used. The response was expressed in greater
increases in height and diameter measurements of stem compared to the
control. Root pruning resulted in greater number of leaves and relative
growth rate than the other treatments. In agreement with these results
were those reported by Mika et al., (١٩٨١) and Perring et al., (١٩٧٤).
Greater values of both fresh and dry weights of leaves were associated
with the treatment of removal of ٤٠٪ of leaves compared to the rest of
treatments. No significant differences were noted among the treatments

regarding contents of carbohydrates and nitrogen as well as C/N ratios.
The overall results indicated that guava plants grown under nursery
conditions seemed to respond to pruning techniques; however, more
research work is needed to shed some lights in this area so that the plants
at early stages of growth could benefit from pruning for establishing and
developing strong frameworks and serving other purposes of pruning.
David (١٩٩٨) reported that two schools of thought existed as far as
the technique of top-pruning bare root seedlings was concerned; one
school favored the technique because it reduced the production of cull
seedlings (increase crop value) as well as increase the chance of survival
after out planting, and the other school believed that the concern for a
balance between roots and shoots at planting has been greatly
overemphasized. It seems that the impacts of pruning tended to vary
according to the plant species and at what stages of growth pruning will
be carried out, whether during the growth or after transferring the plants
to the permanent site.
Under orchard conditions, mature guava trees tended to show some

responses to pruning techniques which were reflected in increases in
growth and yield.
Using different fruit thinning techniques tended to show increases in

yield data (number and weight of fruits). These results confirmed earlier
findings obtained by other investigators (Batjer ١٩٦٣, Hilkenbauner
١٩٦٤, Menzies ١٩٨٠, Mika et al. ١٩٨٠ and Byers et al. ١٩٩٠). It was
noted that the treatment of ٥٠٪ fruit thinning resulted in greater yield than
the other treatments, especially in the second harvest of the crop.
The effect of pruning on guava trees might depend partially on the
type of technique and the time of pruning. In agreement with this result
was the findings reported by Jankiewicz and Stecki (١٩٧٦). Winter
pruning techniques seemed to have some effects on trunk height. Using

winter technique of ٢٠٪ pruning resulted in significantly greater values of
yield and fruit quality compared than other techniques. This indicated that
guava trees might respond to some extent to pruning during winter time,
especially when light pruning (٢٠٪) was carried out. Similar findings
were reported by Yunus (١٩٩٢) working with guava trees using different
training and pruning intensities. There was, however, no significant
difference in contents of carbohydrates and nitrogen and C/N ratios. In
agreement with these results were those reported by other investigators
(Aldrich and Grim ١٩٣٨ and Soczek et al. ١٩٧٠) who indicated that
dormant pruning did not change carbohydrate reserves or the ratio of

carbohydrate to nitrogen in leave shoots on young apple trees. However,
Faust (١٩٨٩) reported that pruning could alter carbohydrate levels and
substances within the tree.
Guava trees tended to show more clear responses to pruning techniques

carried out durning summer time than winter time. Winter pruning might
tend to decrease the number of flower buds, and consequently the number
of fruits (Grubb ١٩٣٢, Oskamp ١٩٣٥, Preston ١٩٦٨, and Christensen ١٩٦٩).
The response of trees to summer pruning was reflected in increases in all

recorded parameters, especially yield and fruit quality. Light pruning
(٢٠٪) or the combination of both ٣٠٪ pruning and root pruning gave
better results than the other treatments. Pruning techniques carried out in
late summer seemed to have no significant effects on all recorded
parameters. This shows clearly that time of pruning is of utmost
inportance.
Pruning seemed to have a profoundly effect on the pattern and

consequently levels of hormones. All pruning techniques tended to
increase the levels of both auxins and gibberellins in the leaves more than
the control. More or less similar findings were reported by Mika et. al.
(١٩٧٨, ١٩٨١, and ١٩٩٢) who detected higher levels of auxins, gibberellins
and cytokinins in pruned than in unpruned apple trees. Grochowska et al.

(١٩٨١) reported that since hormonal levels were modified by pruning, it
was possible that pruning tended to increase fruit set as a result of growth
hormone action. However, the studies of Chalmer et al. (١٩٧٨) showed
that the role of hormones in fruit retention must be considered jointly

with nutrient distribution. The aboveground pruning techniques resulted
in higher levels of both auxins and gibberellins compared to root pruning,
regardless of the sampling dates. However, this area needs further
investigation to detect the hormonal patterns, especially during the time
of flowering and fruiting. Higher levels of both auxins and gibberellins
were detected after one week than after two weeks from pruning,
regardless of the pruning techniques used.
Efforts are needed to be devoted for conducting more research in this

area to extend both technical and practical knowledge about pruning and
its impacts on guava trees so that full potential of pruning may be
achieved.
SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS
Several experiments were initiated under both nursery and orchard

conditions to study the response of guava seedlings and mature trees to
different pruning techniques (removal of leaves, fruit thinning, top
pruning, and root pruning) at different times of the year. Generally, the
response was evaluated in terms of growth, yield, fruit quality and other
parameters. The following findings could be drawn from the present
investigation:
• Under nursery conditions, guava seedlings seemed to respond to

the applied pruning techniques, and this response was reflected in
increases in some measured growth parameters.
• The results obtained from the experiment of fruit thinning

techniques showed a response of guava trees to the treatments.
Thinning technique of ٥٠٪ resulted in greater yield (number and
weight of harvested fruits) compared to the other treatments. No

significant differences were noted in the values of fruit quality
parameters as well as fresh and dry weights of leaf samples among
the treatments.
• Generally, the use of different pruning techniques (٢٠٪ and ٤٠٪
twig pruning, root pruning, ٣٠٪ twig pruning plus root pruning) at
different times of the year (winter, summer, late summer and other
months) indicated a response of guava trees to the pruning
techniques.
• It seems that the effect of pruning on guava trees might depend
partially on the type and time of the year in which pruning was
carried out.
• Not only the response of guava trees to pruning techniques was

reflected in growth parameters, yield and fruit quality, but also in
the increases of auxins and gibberellins levels detected in leaves.
However, this area needs further investigation to detect the
hormonal patterns, especially during the time of flowering and
fruiting.
• Based on the results obtained from theses experiments, more

efforts are needed to be devoted for conducting more research in
this area to extend both technical and practical knowledge about
pruning and its impacts on guava trees (growth, yield and fruit
quality) so that full potential of pruning may be achieved.
REFERENCES
Aldrich, W.W. and Work, R.A. (١٩٣٥). Evaporating power of the air and
top-root ratio in relation to rate of pear fruit enlargement. Proc:

Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. ٣٢: ١١٥-١٢٣.
Aldrich, W.W., and Grim, I.H.(١٩٣٨). Further investigation on the
relation of pruning to set of fruit in Pears. Proc. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci.
٣٦: ٣٢٨-٣٣٤.
Auchter, E.C. and Knapp, H.B. (١٩٤٦). Orchard and Small Fruit Culture.
Willy, New York.
Baldini, E. (١٩٧٤). Trends in training systems for deciduous trees. Proc.
١٩th Int. Hort. Congr. ٣:١١٥-١٢٤.
Barden, J.A., and Marini, R.P. (١٩٨٤). Summer and dormant pruning of
apple a four year summary. Acta Hort. ١٩٤٦: ٢٦٣-٢٦٨.
Barlow, H.W. and Hancock, C.R. (١٩٦٠). The experimental modification
of branch form in an apple root stock.. Bot. Ga. ١٢١ (٤): ٢٠٨-٢١٥.
Barlow, H.W. and Hancock, C.R (١٩٦٢). The infuence of the leaf upon
the development of its axillary meristem. Annu. Rep. E. Malling

Res. Stn. (١٩٦١), pp.٧١-٧٦.
Bassi. D. and Dima, A. (١٩٩٤). Tree structure and pruning response of six
peach growth forms. J . Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. ١١٩ (٣): ٣٧٨-٨٢.
Batjer, L.P. (١٩٦٣). Effect of pruning, nitrogen and scoring on growth and
bearing characteristics of young Delicious apple trees. Proc. Am,

Sec, Girt, Sci. ٨٢: ٥-١٠.
Byers, R. E., Carbaugh, D.H., and Presley. (١٩٩٠).The influence of bloom
thinning and GA٣ sprays on flower bud number and distribution in
peach trees. J. Hort. Sci. ٦٥:١٤٣- ٥٠.
Cameron, S.H. (١٩٢٣). Storage of starch in the pear and apricot. Proc.
Am. Soc. Hort. Sci ٢٠: ٩٨.
Carr, D. J., Reid, D.M. and Skene, K.G. (١٩٦٤). The supply of gibberllins
from the root to the shoot. Planta, ٦٣: ٣٨٢-٩٢.
Chalmer, D.J., Wildes, R.A., Dann, I.R. and Hunter, C.C. (١٩٧٨). Control
of assimilate distribution between fruit and vegetative growth in

peach trees. Int. Hort. Congr. ( abstr. ١٩٢٤).
Christensen, J.V. (١٩٦٩). The influence of pruning on the fruit quality of
the apple cultivar Cortland. Tidsskr. Planteavl ٧٣: ٤٢٩-٤٣٣.
Clegg, K.M. (١٩٥٢). Determination of total available, (CHO) (Manual
Clegg Anthrone Method). J. Sci. Food Agric ٧: ٤٠.
Cline, M. G. (١٩٩١). Apical dominance. Botanical Reviews ٥٧:٣١٨-٥٨.
Cook, N.C. (١٩٩٢). A study of vegetative and reproductive development
in Clementine Citrus reticulata Blanco. Thesis, University of

Stellen-bosch. South Africa.
Covelli and Sunsavini (١٩٨١). Fore di alvamento efficienza
degliimpiantie quality delle pesche. Frutticltura ٦: ١٣-١٤. (Cited by
Jules Janick, Purdue University, Hort. Rev. ٨: (١٩٨٦).
Crowe, A.D. (١٩٨٠). Containment pruning in intensive, medium density
orchards. Compact Fruit Tree ١٣: ٩١-٩٦.
Cutting, J.G.M.,Cocker, B. and Wolstenholme, B.N. (١٩٩٤). Time and
type of pruning cut affect shoot growth in avocado (Persea

americana) Mill. J. Hort. Sci. ٦٩ (١): ٧٥-٨٠.
David B. South. (١٩٩٨). Effects of top-pruning on survival of southeren
pines and hardwoods. School of Forestry, Auburn University, AL
٣٦٨٤٩-٥٤١٨.
http://www.forestry.auburn.edu/sfnmc/pubs/manuscri/nurs_mgt/tp.
html
Dawood, H.D. (١٩٩٣). Effect of different pruning levels on growth rate,
yield and fruit quality of Pakistani Guava. New Halfa Sta Annu.
Report, Agricultural Research Corporation (ARC). Sudan.
Day, A. and Dejong, J. (١٩٩٠). Girdling of early season on five nectarine
trees. J. of Hort. Sci. ٦٥: ٥٢٩-٣٤.
Dinar, H. M. (١٩٩٥). Development of fruiting twigs of guava. Shambat
Sta. Annu. Rep. (p.٣٦-٣٩), Horticultural Research Section,
Agricultural Research Corporation (ARC), Sudan.
Faust, M., and Korcak, R. (١٩٧٨). Effect of herbicides on calcium uptake
by apple seedling. Proc. ٨th. Int. Collag. Plant Annu. Fertility
problems. Aucklund, N. Z.١:١٢٣-٣٠.
Faust, M. (١٩٨٩). Pruning and related manipulations: Physiological

Effects. In: Physiology of Temperate Zone Fruit Trees. John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Fernandez, A., Escbar, R., Nartin, R. Lopez-Rivares, P. and Pazsaures,
M. (١٩٨٧). Girdling as a means of increasing fruit size and earliness
in peach and nectarine cultivars. J. of Hort. Sci. ٦٢: ٤٤٣-٩٨.
Ferree, D.C. (١٩٧٩). Influence of slotting saw mechanical pruning and
Alar on apple fruit size and quality. Ohio Agric.Res. Dev. Ctr. Res.
Cir, ٢٢٠: ٣-٧
.
Ferree, D.C. (١٩٨٤). Influence of various times of summer hedging on
yield and growth of apple trees. Ohio Agric. Res. Dev. Ctr. Res.
Circ. ٢٨٣: ٣٣-٣٧.
Ghani, M.A. (١٩٩٢). Effect of root pruning on the quality of durain

(Durio zibethinus Murr.) planting matrial. Acta Hort. (ISHS),
٣٢٢:٢٦٩-٢٧٦.
Gorakh S., Singh, A. K. and Shailendra R. (٢٠٠١). Influence of pruning

date on fruit yield of guava (Psidium guajava L.) under subtropics.
Jour.Appl. Hort. Society for Advancement of Horticulture, ٣(١):
٣٧-٤٠.
Gorakh S., Singh, A. K. and Rajan, S. (١٩٩٩). Effect of defoliation,
decapitation and deblossoming on fruit bud differentiation in guava

(Psidium guajava L.).Central Institute for Subtropical Horticulture,
Rehmankhera, P.O. Kakori, Lucknow ٢٢٧١٠٧. Indian Jour. Appl.
Hort., ١(٢):٩٧-١٠٠.
Grasland, J. (١٩٨٠). Fruit thinning. V. Experiments with chemicals and
mechanical thinning of Plums. Tridsskr Plonteavl, ٩٤:٥١٩-٢٩.
Grochowska, M. J., Mika, A. and Karaszewska, G. (١٩٧٧). Studies on
physiological aspects of pruning apple trees. (I) The effects of

pruning and disbudding on the level of carbohydrates in maiden
trees. Fruit Sci. Rep. ٤ (٣): ٧-١٣.
Grochowska, M.J., Mika, A. and Karaszewska, G. (١٩٨١). Comparative
studies on the pattern of endogenous growth hormones in pruned

and unprouned apple trees. Rep. For ١٩٧٥-١٩٨١ PLARS-٦٣, FG-
Po-٣٣٩/JB-٤:٧٩-١٣٣. Research Institute of Pomalogy Skierniewice,
Poland.
Grubb, N.H. (١٩٣٢). The pruning and renovation of apple trees. Annu.
Rep. E. Malling Res. Sta.١٩٣١: ٦١-٦٩.
Grubb, N.H. (١٩٣٨). Winter pruning of apple trees. Some advice based
on the Fast Mulling Experiments. Annu. Rep. E. Malling Res. Sta

١٩٣٧: ٢٣٧-٤١.
Hilkenbaumer, F. (١٩٦٤). Zur Frage der Schnittgestaltung. Obstbau ٨٣:
٢١-٢٤ (Cited by Jules Janick, Purdue University, Hort. Rev. ٨:
١٩٨٦).
Hooker, H.D. (١٩٢٤). Changes produced in apple trees by various type of
pruning. Missouri Stn. Res. Bull. ٧٢ (٣).
Hussein, M.A. (١٩٩٧). Effect of pruning methods on Olida orange trees.
New Halfa. Sta. Annu. Rep., Agricultural Research Corporation

(ARC), Sudan (unpublished).
Ibrahim A., Mika, K.A., and Platkowski, M. (١٩٨٣). Fruit quality and
storage ability of two apple cultivars as affected by root stocks

planting systems, irrigation and growth retardants. (١)-Effect of
orchard treatments on fruit quality and mineral content of apples.

Fruit Sci. Rep. ١٠ (٤): ١٦١-٧٢.
Jankiewicz, L.S. and Stecki, Z.J. (١٩٧٦). Some mechansim responsible for
differences in tree form. In: Tree Physiology and Yield

Iimprovement. M.G.R. Cannel and F.T. L. AST (eds.), pp: ١٥٧-٧٢
Academic Press, London.
John, B. (١٩٩٩). Pruning Shrubs. Arizona Daily Star Gardening Column,
College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, University of Arizona,

٥٢٠-٦١٦-٥١٦١.
Kinght, R.C. (١٩٣٤). The influences of winter pruning on subsequent and
root development in the apple. J. Pomol. ١٢: ١-١٤.

Lemmens, J.J. (١٩٨٢). Zomersnoei een hulpmiddel tot Kwuliteitsverbets
ring. Fruitteclt ٧٢ (٦): ١٩٦-١٩٨.(Cited by Jules Janick, Purdue
University, Hort. Rev. ٨: ١٩٨٦).
Loneragen, J.F., Showbull, K. and Simmons, W.J. (١٩٦٨). Response of
plants to calcium concentration in solution culture. Austral. J.

Agric. Res. ١٩: ٨٤٥-٨٥٧.
Maggs, D.H. (١٩٦٥). Dormant and summer pruning compared by pruning
young apple trees once on a succession of dates. J. Hort. Sci. ٤٠:
٢٤٤-٦٥.
Marini, R. P. and Barden, J.A. (١٩٨٢a). Growth and flowering of vigorous
apple trees as affected by summer or dormant pruning. J. Am.Soc.

Hort. Sci. ١٠٧: ٣٤-٣٩.
Mediene, S., Jordan, M.O., Pagès, L., Lebot, J. and Adamowicz,

S. (٢٠٠٢). The influence of severe shoot pruning on growth, carbon
and nitrogen status in young peach trees (Prunus persica). Tree

Physiology, ٢٢:١٢٨٩–١٢٩٦.
Menzies, A. R. (١٩٨٠). Timing selectivity and response to mechanical
thinning of apples and pears. J. Hort. Sci. ٥٥ : ١٢٧-٣١.

Mika, A. (١٩٨٢).The relation between the amount and type of pruning and
the yield of apple trees. Proc. ٢١st. Int. Hort. Cong, ١: ٢٠٤-٢٢١
Mika, A. (١٩٨٦). Physiological responses of fruit trees to pruning. Hort.
Reviews. ٨:٣٣٧-٣٧٨.
Mika, A., Grochowska, M.J., and Karaszewska, A. (١٩٧٨). Studies on
physiological aspects of pruning of apple trees. Fruit Sci. Rep., ٤
(٣): ١-٥.
Mika, A., Jackiewicz, A. and Potocka, M. (١٩٨٠). WP/yw dwoch
sposobow ciecia Koron no Wzrost I Plonowania mlodych jabloni.

Pr. Inst. Sabow (Ser. A) ٢٢: ٢٥-٣١.(cited by Jules Janick, Purdue
University, Hort. Rev. Vol ٨: (١٩٨٦).
Mika, A., M. J., Grochowska, A. Kavaszewska, and Maksy, J. (١٩٨١).
Physiological aspects of pruning and other treatments promoting

flower formation and fruit retention in the apple trees. Rep. for
١٩٧٥-١٩٨١ plans- ٦٣ FG- Po-٣٣٤/J١٣-٤. Research Institate of
Pomology and Fruitology, Skierniewice Poland
Mika, A., Grochowska, M. and Karaszewska, A. (١٩٩٢). Effect of

pruning of young apple trees on content of nutrients and growth
regulators in relation to fruit bud formation. Acta Hort. (ISHS),
٣٢٢:٢٦٥-٢٦٦.
Naidenov, L. N., Gorchukov, S. A., and Nesteronoko, A. A., (١٩٨٠).
Effect of pruning on grape yield and quality. Sadovod. Vinograd.

Vinodl. Miod. G :٣٢-٣٤.
Nancy O'Donnell (٢٠٠٣). Shrubs need root pruning to avoid transplant

shock. Home and Garden. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-
bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/٢٠٠٣/١٠/٢٩/HO٢٢٢٤٨١.DTL
Norton, R.L. (١٩٨٠). Managing pruning problems in high density
planting. Annu. Rep. N.Y. State. Hort. Soc. ١١٠: ٣٥-٤٧.
Olszewski, T. and Slowik, K. (١٩٨٢). Effect of pruning on the calcium
contents in apple leaves and fruits of cv. McIntosh. Proc. ٢١st Int.
Hort. Congr., ١ (abstr. ١١١٤)
Oskamp, J. (١٩٣٥). Investigation on pruning mature apple trees. Cornell
Univ. Agric Exp. Sta. Bull: ٦٢٤.
Perring, M.A., and Prston, A.P. (١٩٧٤). The effect of summer pruning and
nitrogen on growth, cropping and storage quality of cox’s orange

pine apple. J. Hort. Sci. ٤٤: ٧٧-٨٣.
Phillips, I.D. (١٩٦٩). Apical dominance. In: Physiology of Plant Growth
and Development. M.B. Wilkins (ed). P. ١٦٥-٢٠٢. Mc Graw Hill,
London..
Preston, A.P. (١٩٦٨). Pruning and fruit thinning trials with laxton’s superb
apple on two root stocks. Annu. Rep. E. Malling Res. Sta. ١٩٦٨:
٧٥-٧٩.
Richard, W. K., and Brown, D. S. (١٩٩٨). Summer pruning mature Merril
Beauty peach trees. Proc. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. ٧١-٨٨
Richard C. F., David C. F., Robert G. H., Jr. (١٩٩٨). Training and
Pruning Fruit Trees. Cooperative Extension Service, West
Lafayette, IN ٤٧٩٠٧ Purdue University
Rivers, T. (١٩٦٦). The miniature fruit garden. ١٣th English (ed). Orange
Judd, New York.
Rogers, W.S. and Preston, A. P. (١٩٤٧). Renewal and established spur
pruning of mature apple trees. A Progress Annu. Rep. E. Malling

Res Sta. ١٤٤٦: ٤٩-٥٤.
Rom, C.R., and Ferree, D.C. (١٩٨٥). Time and severity of summer
pruning influences on young peach tree net photosynthesis,

transpiration, and dry weight distribution. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci.
١١٠: ٤٥٥-٦١.
Sako, J. and Laurinen, E. (١٩٨٢). Effect of summer pruning on the growth
and yield of apple trees. Annu. Agric. Fenniae ٢١: ٨-١٢.
Sansuvini, S. (١٩٦٩). Ricercha sulla Potatura di produzione del pero
Arboree. Univ. Bologna Publ. ١٧٥: ٢٦٧-٣٠٢. (Cited by Jules Janick
, Purdue University, Hort. Rev. ٨: ١٩٨٦).
Soczek, Z., Klossowski, W., Slowik, K., Mika, A. and Reszezyx, W.

(١٩٨٠). Studies on nitrogen and carbon content in young apple trees
as influenced by their bearing age. Pr. Inst. Sadar Skierniewi-cach.,

١٤:٤٣-٧٠.
Strukclec, A. (١٩٨١). Einfluss des schnittermins beim sommerschnitt auf
Blatt and Frucht beim Apfel. Gartenbau wissenschaft, ٤٦: ٢٦٣-٢٧٦.
(Cited by Jules Janick, Purdue University, Hort. Rev. Vol. ٨: ١٩٨٦).
Taylor, B. H. and Ferree, D.C. (١٩٨٢). The influence of summer pruning
on photosynthesis, transpiration, leaf abscission and dry weight

accumulation of young apple trees. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. ١٠٦:
٣٨٩-٩٣
Taylor, B.H. and Ferree, D.C. (١٩٨٤). The influence of summer Pruning
and cropping on growth and fruiting of apple. J. Am. Soc. Hort.

Sci. ١٠٩: ١٩-٢٤.
Thimonn, K.V. (١٩٣٧). On the nature of inhibition caused by auxins. J.
Am.. Bot. ٢٤: ٤٠٧-١٢.
Tubbs, F.R. (١٩٥٥).The control of the vegetative growth and reproduction
of perennial plants. Poc. ١٤th Int. Hort.Congr. ٣٩-٥٠.
Tukey, H.B. (١٩٦٤). Dwarfed Fruit Trees. Macmillan, New York.
Van de Hass P. and Hein, K. (١٩٧٣). Uber die Beeinfussung des
Wachstumsver-laufes von Apfelwurzeln durch verschiedene

Bomschnitt massnahmen and durch Entblatterung.
Erwerbsobstbau, ١٥:١٣٧-٤١. (Cited by Jules Janick, Purdue
University, Hort. Rev. ٨: ١٩٨٦).
Wade. G.L. and Robert, R. (١٩٩٩). Basic principles of pruning woody
plants.. The University of Georgia, College of Agricultural and

Environmental Sciences, Department of Agriculture. The
Cooperative Extension Service. Bulletin ٩٤٩.
Walt, M. van der; Davie, S.J.; Stassen, P.J.C. (١٩٩٦). Further

development of the mango growth model. ١. The effect of pruning
to different structural forms on the yield and carbohydrate reserves
of the mango tree. ٢. Determination of total tree mass without
excavation. Inligtingsbulletin Instituut vir Tropiese en Subtropiese
Gewasse ٢٨٤: ١٠-١٦.
Wertheim, S.J.(١٩٨٠). High-density planting: development and current
achievements in the Nether land, Belyium and West Germany.

Acta. Hort. ١١٤: ١٨-٢٥.
Young, M.J and Crocker, T.E. (١٩٨٢). Severe postharvest topping of high
density peach and nectarines. Hort. Sci. ١٧: ٢٢٠-٢٢.
Yunus, N. (١٩٩٢ ). Effect of intensity of training and pruning on growth,
yield and quality of guava var. JP١. Acta Horticulturae (ISHS),
٣٢٢:٢٩١-٢٩٢. I International Symposium on Training and Pruning
of Fruit Trees
References from Internet
Root Pruning Trees. From Marie Iannotti, Your Guide to Gardening:

http://gardening.about.com/od/gardenprimer/g/
(http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/commsvcs/planning/treebylaw/treeroot.
htm).
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-
http://gardening.about.com/od/gardenprimer/g/RootPruning.htm
http://www.forestry.auburn.edu/sfnmc/pubs/manuscri/nurs_mgt/tp.html
http://www.forestry.auburn.edu/sfnmc/pubs/manuscri/nurs_mgt/tp.html

The THESIS Studies On Response of Guava (Psidium Guajava L.) Trees To Different Pruning Techniques

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

The THESIS Studies On Response of Guava (Psidium Guajava L.) Trees To Different Pruning Techniques

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Studies on Response of Guava (Psidium guajava L.

Mudathir Abdalla Hussein (M.Sc. Agric. ١٩٩٢)

Mudathir Abdalla Hussein (M.Sc. Agric., ١٩٩٢)

submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of

submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

Professor Saad Ahmed Beshir Abbadi

Fig April ٢٠٠٦ Page

Under nursery conditions, four pruning techniques were utilized, namely,

pruning techniques resulted in significantly greater increases in plant height

fresh and dry weights compared to the other treatments. No significant

cluster and control. Generally, thinning technique of ٥٠٪ resulted in greater

yield (number and weight of fruits) compared to the other treatments. No

The detected levels of auxins and gibberellins in the leaves demonstrated

Generally, it seems that guava at different stages of growth tended to

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to

Special thanks and appreciation are extended to

Special thanks are due to the members of my

Profound appreciation is extended to the

The help and hospitality accorded to me during

Lastly, I wish to express my sincere gratitude

Chapter One: Introduction ١

Chapter Two: Literature Review ٣

Chapter Three: Materials and Methods ٢٠

Chapter Four: Results ٣٤

(١) Experiment One …….٣٤

٣ Effect of using different fruit thinning techniques on yield

١٣ Effect of using different summer pruning techniques on

١٤ Effect of using different late summer pruning techniques on

١٥ Effect of using different late summer pruning techniques on

١٧ Effect of using different late summer pruning techniques on

Guava ( Psidium guajava L., Family: Myrtaceae) has attained a

Despite the importance of guava as a cash crop in the Sudan, there is a

Mika, ١٩٨٦; Cline, ١٩٩١; Cook, ١٩٩٢). Pruning is a well-known strategy

Generally with evergreen trees, pruning is used mainly for training of

Since there is no systematic research to study the impacts of pruning on

I. Terminology, Types and Reasons for Pruning:

The response of shoot growth to pruning is influenced not only by the

Several types of pruning, have been described, namely:

(٢) Stubbing: refers to cutting of ٢،٣ or ٤-year-old wood or the

first spur of fruit

usually before the base of the shoot is lignified.

practice for increasing fruit size in peaches (Fernandez et l.١٩٨٧).

(٥) Training is a special type of top pruning.

(٦) Severe topped pruning: the tree is severly topped to ١-١,٥m

above ground level to rejuvenate it (Young and Crocker

(٧) Hedging: refers to simple cuts on tree branches (Ferree ١٩٨٤).

have become much too large or have a large amount of non-

large trees, involves the removal of a main branch (or leader)

Pruning is required for the following reasons (Richard et.al. ١٩٩٨):

• To develop a strong framework capable of supporting large crops.

Pruning is an invaluable tool for developing and maintaining woody

very little data on the effects of pruning on physiological processes such

outlined that winter pruning of plants influenced number of blossoms,

Tubbs (١٩٥٥) in a review on the control of vegetative growth and

reproduction of fruit trees tried to explain the responses to pruning on the

in summer pruning, primarily as a method of inducing flowering in young

Removal of a portion of a plant's top (stem, branches, or leaves)

essential to stimulate the development of new shoots and to ensure that

removing excess growth following winter pruning.

Working on avocado (Persea americana), Cutting et. al. (١٩٩٤) found

III. Time and Intensity of Pruning:

Various types of summer pruning have been utilized to eliminate