Regrowth of Buds and Flower Bud Formation in Kiwifruit as Affected by Early Defoliation

• Published in: Korean Journal of Environmental Agriculture Vol. 32; no. 3
• Main Authors: Kwak, Y.B., Rural Development Administration, Namhae, Republic of Korea, Kim, H.L., Rural Development Administration, Namhae, Republic of Korea, Chae, W.B., RDA, Suwon, Republic of Korea, Lee, J.H., Rural Development Administration, Namhae, Republic of Korea, Lee, E.H., Rural Development Administration, Namhae, Republic of Korea, Kim, J.G., Gyeongsang National University, Jinju , Republic of Korea, Lee, Y.B., Gyeongsang National University, Jinju , Republic of Korea
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: Korean
• Published: 01.09.2013
• Subjects: ACTINIDIE; Bud break,Floral bud; DEFOLIACION; DEFOLIATION; KIWI (FRUTA); KIWIFRUITS
• ISSN: 1225-3537

BACKGROUND: Kiwifruit, which was introduced to Korea in late 1970s, is a warm-temperate fruit tree, whose leaves are easily damaged by wind because of their large size. To produce high quality fruits, efficient windbreak is necessary to protect leaves until harvest. In Korea, typhoons from July onwards usually influence the production of kiwifruit. Damages from typhoons include low fruit quality in the current year and low flowering ratio the following year. This study was conducted to investigate the effect of early defoliation of kiwifruit vines from July to October on the regrowth of shoot axillary buds the current year and bud break and flowering the following year. METHODS AND RESULTS: Scions of kiwifruit cultivar Goldrush were veneer grafted onto five-year-old Actinidia deliciosa rootstocks, planted in Wagner pots (13L) and grown in a rain shelter. Kiwifruit leaves in the proximity of leaf stalk were cut by lopping shears to simulate mechanical damage from typhoon since only leaf stalks were left when kiwifruit vines were damaged by typhoons. Kiwifruit vines were defoliated from July 15 to October 14 with one month-intervals and degrees of defoliation were 0, 25, 50, 75 and 100%. All experiments were conducted in the rain shelter and replicated at least five times. Defoliation in July 15 resulted in a high regrowth ratio of 20-40% regardless of degree of defoliation but that in August 16 showed only 5.8% of regrowth ratio in the no defoliation treatment; however, more than 25% of defoliation in August 16 showed 17-23% of regrowth ratio. In September 15, regrowth ratio decreased further to less than 10% in all treatments and no regrowth was observed in October 14. Percent bud break of all defoliation treatments were not significant in comparison to 64.7% in no defoliation except for 42.1% and 42.9% in 100% defoliation in July 15 and August 16, respectively. Floral shoot in the no defoliation treatment was 70.2% and defoliation of 50% or less resulted in the same or increased floral shoot ratio in July 15, August 16, and September 15; however, defoliation in October 14 showed no difference in all treatments. In flower number per floral shoot, 2-3 flowers appeared in no defoliation and only 1 flower was observed when the vines were defoliated more than 50% in July 15 and September 15. In October 14, contrary to the floral shoot ratio, flower number decreased with increased defoliation. CONCLUSION: Therefore, it is suggested that dormancy of Goldrush axillary buds, which was started in August and completed in October, was not affected by abiotic stresses such as defoliation. The effect of defoliation on bud break of axillary buds the following year was insignificant, except for 100% defoliation in July 15 and August 16. From July 15 to September 15, floral bud ratio was significantly reduced when more than 50% of leaves were defoliated compared to no defoliation. Also, the number of flowers per flower-bearing shoot the following year decreased by less than 50% when compared to no defoliation, and this decrease was more prominent in September 15 than July 15 and August 16.