Article | . 2017 Vol. 35, Issue. 4
Comparision of Growth Characteristics and Productivity of Young Trees of a New Cultivar ‘Manpungbae’ Trained to Trellis Systems



Pear Research Station, National Institute of Horticultural & Herbal Science1
Fruit Research Division, National Institute of Horticultural& Herbal Science2
Department of Horticulture, Catholic University of Daegu3




2017.. 393:401


PDF XML




One-year old pear (Pyrus pyrifolia L.) trees of a new commercial cultivar ‘Manpungbae’, recently developed in South Korea, were planted in 2001 (planting year 1) and trained to four trellis systems: Y-trellis, Y-II-trellis, pergola, and vase-pergola. To evaluate training systems in the local area (southern Korea), tree growth responses were compared for each trellis system from planting years 3 to 8. For trees trained to Y-trellis and pergola systems, a high proportion of land covered by tree canopy was maintained over the study duration, with 70–80% coverage in year 8. Eight-year cumulative yield per tree was increased in the vase-pergola system with a low planting density and an additional scaffold. Compared with other systems, cummulative yield use efficiency was greatest in Y-II-trellis and pergola systems in years 5 and 8. Compared with Y-II-trellis and vase-pergola systems, the 8-year cumulative yield per hectare was two fold greater for trees trained to the Y-trellis (103 tons) and pergola systems (101 tons). Use of the pergola system improved average fruit weight and fruit soluble solid contents, as well as net income in year 8. Given that we observed reduced fruit productivity and increased labor hours (pruning and orchard work), we consider the Y-trellis and pergola systems to be less valuable trellis systems than the others evaluated.



1. Cho KS, Kang SS, Cho HM, Koh GC, Hong KH, Son DS, Kim WC, Kim KY (2003) Breeding of a very soft, juicy, large sized, and high quality mid-season pear cultivar ‘Manpungbae’. Korean J Hortic Sci Technol 21:25-28  

2. Choi JJ, Gu M, Choi JH, Han JH, Yim SH, Kim YK, Jung SK, Choi HS (2014) Growth and fruit production of Asian pear trees grown on Y-, T-, and Vase-training systems. Hortic Environ Biotechnol 55:1-8. doi:10.1007/s13580-014-0107-5  

3. Elkins RB, Ende BVD, Stebbins R, Micke WC (2007) Training young trees. In EJ Mitcham, RB Elkins, eds, Pear: Production and Handling Manual. University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources Publishers, Oakland, CA, USA, pp 63-76  

4. Han JH, Cho JG, Son IC, Kim SH, Lee IB, Choi IM, Kim DI (2012) Effects of elevated carbon dioxide and temperature on photosynthesis and fruit characteristics of ‘Niitaka’ pear (Pyrus pyrifolia Nakai). Hortic Environ Biotechnol 53:357-361. doi:10.1007/s13580-012- 0047-x  

5. Jung SK, Choi HS (2010) Light penetration, growth, and fruit productivity in ‘Fuji’ apple trees trained to four growing systems. Sci Hortic 125:672-678. doi:10.1016/j.scienta.2010.05.027  

6. Kishimoto O, Seike S (1972) Effects of training and pruning of Japanese pears. Bull Hort Res Station Ser A 11:15-39  

7. Klinac DJ, Geddes B, Wright S (1995) Wood age and floral bud distribution on four nashi (Pyrus serotina ) cultivars grown on pergola, Y-frame, and centre-leader training systems in the Waikato region of New Zealand. N Z J Crop Hort 23:191-197. doi:10.1080/011 40671.1995.9513886  

8. Lee SG, Cho JG, Shin MH, Oh SB, Kim HL, Kim JG (2015) Effects of summer pruning combined with winter pruning on bush growth, yields, and fruit quality of ‘Misty’ southern highbush blueberry for two years after planting. Hortic Environ Biotechnol 56:740-748. doi:10.1007/s13580-015-0101-6  

9. Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (MAFRA) (2011) Fruit industry development measures (2011 – 2017). MAFRA Publishers, Sejong, Korea, pp 1-151  

10. Moon DG, Joa JH, Moon YE, Seong KC, Kim CH, Ahn YK (2011) Plant growth and fruit quality as affected by canopy locations in ‘Shiranuhi’ mandarin. Hortic Environ Biotechnol 52:443-447 doi:10.1007/s13580-011-0004-0  

11. Policarpo M, Talluto G, Bianco RL (2006) Vegetative and productive responses of ‘Conference’ and ‘Williams’ pear trees planted at different in-row spacings. Sci Hortic 109:322-331. doi:10.1016/j.scienta.2006.06.009  

12. Robinson TL, Lakso AN, Carpenter SG (1991) Canopy development, yield, and fruit quality of ‘Empire’ and ‘Delicious’ apple trees grown in four orchard production systems for ten years. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 116:179-187  

13. Rom CR (1996) Environmental factors regulating growth: light, temperature, water, nutrition. In KM Maib, PK Andrews, GA Lang, K Mullinix, eds, Tree Fruit Physiology: Growth and Development. Good Fruit Grower Publications, Yakima, WA, USA, pp 11-30  

14. Rural Development Administration (RDA) (2011) Pear growing techniques. National Institute of Horticultural & Herbal Science, Rural Development Administration, Suwon, Korea  

15. Sansavini S, Musacchi S (2002) European pear orchard design and HDP management: a review. Acta Hortic 596:589-601. doi:10.17660/ActaHortic.2002.596.103  

16. Sosna I, Czaplicka M (2008) The influence of two training systems on growth and cropping of three pear cultivars. J Fruit Ornam Plant Res 16:75-81  

17. Suo GD, Xie YS, Zhang Y, Cai MY, Wang XS, Chuai JF (2016) Crop load management (CLM) for sustainable apple production in China. Sci Hortic 211:213-219. doi:10.1016/j.scienta.2016.08.029  

18. Wagenmakers PS, Wertheim SJ (1991) Planting systems for fruit trees in temperate climates. Crit Rev Plant Sci 10:369-385. doi:10.1080/07352689109382317  

19. Westwood MN, Roberts AN (1970) The relationship between trunk cross-sectional area and weight of apple trees. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 95:28-30