Services on Demand
Journal
Article
text in 
English (pdf)
Article in xml format
Article references
Automatic translation
Send this article by e-mailIndicators
-
Cited by SciELO -
Access statistics
Related links
-
Similars in
SciELO
Share
Permalink
Revista mexicana de ciencias agrícolas
Print version ISSN 2007-0934
Rev. Mex. Cienc. Agríc vol.7 n.8 Texcoco Nov./Dec. 2016
Articles
Effect of pruning on white mango scale and production of mango ‘Ataulfo’
1Campo Experimental Santiago Ixcuintla- INIFAP. Entronque Carretera Internacional México-Nogales, km 6. Santiago Ixcuintla, Nayarit. México. C. P. 63300. Tel. 01 55 38 71 87 00. Ext. 84416. (urias.marioalfonso@inifap.gob.mx; osuna.jorgealberto@inifap.gob.mx; nolasco.yolanda@inifap.gob.mx; garcia.nadia@inifap.gob.mx).
2C. E. Costa de Hermosillo-INIFAP. Pascual Encinas Félix No 21 Col. La Manga. Hermosillo, Sonora. CP. 83220. Tel. 01 55 387 18 700. Ext 81313. (perez.adriana@inifap.gob.mx).
The high bearing and closed crowns in fruit create favorable conditions for the development of pests, yield reduction and hinder management practices. Tree growth can be controlled through pruning, which favors light penetration, high productivity and fruit quality. The objective was to determine the effect of different types and intensity of pruning, alone or combined with detergent, on white mango scale populations, production and fruit quality of mango ‘Ataulfo’. The study was conducted during 20122013 and 2013-2014 in orchards from the municipality of Tepic, Nayarit. Two experiments were established: one to determine the effect of pruning intensity (0, 50 and 75 cm trimming) and others types of pruning (no pruning, cube and pine), with or without detergent application under a completely random design with factorial arragement (3*2). The intensity and types of pruning decreased flowering 15- 20% in the immediate year to prunning, but in the second year it increased in pruned trees. On the second year, trees with light and severe pruning increased yield in 26 and 20%, respectively, compared to controls; with cube and pine pruning the increase was 14% and 21%, respectively. Pruned trees produced fruits of greater weight and had no damage by scale, while no pruning trees and without detergent had low damage by scale. Pruning and application of detergent in mango trees keeps low white mango scale populations in the months of highest incidence.
Keywords: Mangifera indica L.; fluctuation; population; pruning intesity; pruning types; yield
El alto porte y copas cerradas en frutales crean condiciones propicias para el desarrollo de plagas, reducción en el rendimiento y dificultan las prácticas de manejo. El crecimiento de los árboles puede ser controlado mediante la poda, lo que favorece la penetración de la luz, alta productividad y calidad del fruto. El objetivo fue conocer el efecto de diferentes tipos e intensidad de poda, sola o combinada con detergente, sobre poblaciones de escama blanca, producción y calidad de fruto de mango ‘Ataulfo’. El estudio se realizó durante 2012-2013 y 2013-2014 en huertos del municipio de Tepic, Nayarit. Se establecieron dos experimentos: uno para determinar el efecto de intensidad de poda (0, 50 y 75 cm de despunte) y otros con tipos de poda (sin poda, tipo cubo y tipo pino), con o sin aplicación de detergente bajo un diseño experimental completamente al azar con arreglo factorial (3*2). La intensidad y tipos de poda disminuyeron 15- 20% la floración en el año inmediato a la poda, pero en el segundo año ésta se incrementó en árboles podados. Al segundo año, árboles con poda ligera y severa incrementaron el rendimiento en 26 y 20%, respectivamente, respecto a los testigos; con poda tipo cubo y pino el incremento fue 14% y 21%, respectivamente. Los árboles podados produjeron frutos de mayor peso y no tuvieron daño por escama, en tanto que árboles sin poda y sin detergente presentaron leve daño por escama. La poda y la aplicación de detergente en árboles de mango mantienen bajas las poblaciones de escama blanca en los meses de mayor incidencia.
Palabras clave: Mangifera indica L.; fluctuación; intensidad de poda; poblacional; tipos de poda rendimiento
Introduction
In fruit trees, height and closed crow create conditions for the development of pests, reduce yield and hinder management practices (Bally, 2006; Olesen et al., 2013.). Overgrowth can be controlled through pruning, which besides increasing light penetration, productivity and fruit quality, prevents the formation of microclimates for pest development (Crane, 2002; Bally, 2006; Davenport, 2006; Galán, 2009; Olesen et al., 2013).
White mango scale (Aulacaspis tubercularis L.) is an important pest of mango cultivation in Nayarit, Mexico, it spreads with moderate to high infestations and affects all mango cultivars that are for export (González-Carrillo et al., 2008; Urías-López et al., 2010; García-Álvarez et al., 2014). Although it does not cause internal damage to the fruit, but it leads to over 50% loses in exports by the presence of chlorotic spots on the epidermis (Arias et al., 2004, Hodges et al., 2005; Urias-López and Flores Canales, 2005; Le Lagadec et al., 2006; Abo-Shanab, 2012). In Nayarit, this pest passes through three phases of population growth during the year: very low population since late rains (September) to January; in the second population growth occurs from February to early July of up to 2.1 scales per leave and in the third there is a drastic decrease in population during the months of higher precipitation (July and August) (Urias-López et al., 2010). Abo-Shanab (2012) reports four peaks of population fluctuation in Egypt during the months of April, August, October and December.
There is evidence that commercial detergents Roma® and Ariel® (20 g L-1), when applied during the first week after mango flowering, have an efficiency of up to 75.5% in its control (Urias-López et al., 2013). In addition, BautistaRosales et al. (2013) mention that pruning reduces the number of scales (females) present in the leaves (from 1.9 to 0.6 females per leaf).
Pruning after harvest is a common practice in mango to maintain productivity. The annual trimming and the time in which it is performed, prepares the trees for a proper flowering and fruit set (Davenport, 2006; Niz García et al., 2014.); while severe and late pruning leads to excessive vegetative growth reducing flowering and fruit set in various fruit (Maas, 2005; Wilkie et al., 2008; Vázquez-Valdivia et al., 2009; Ashraf and Ashraf, 2014). In mango 'Tommy Atkins', Yeshitela et al. (2005) found that pruning after harvest led to adequate production (26 t ha-1 against 22 from control) in the second year after pruning.
Regarding pruning intensity, several studies agree that the trimming of apical shoots increases fruit production. In Mango 'Amrapali' there was an increase of up to 60 kg tree-1 with trimming of 30 to 60 cm (Sharma and Singh, 2006; Das and Jana, 2012), in 'Zebda' with 10 cm of trim and the application of 50 ppm AG, increased 52% yield (Shaban, 2009), and in 'Mallika' with 60 cm increased 25% (Singh et al., 2010b). In 'Tommy Atkins' there is evidence that moderate pruning (10 to 15 cm of shoot tip) and remotion of branches in the center of the crown, light penetration into leaves increases between 40 - 60%, respectively (Schaffer and Gaye, 1989). At high plantation densities trimming (30 - 60 cm) has been used to improve light penetration, which results in increased photosynthetic rate (7.4 mmol CO2) and therefore increased production and fruit size in cultivars like 'Amrapali' (Sharma et al., 2006), 'Mallika' (Singh et al., 2010a) and 'Gedong Gincu' (Rahayu et al., 2013).
There are numerous studies about the importance of white mango scale as a pest of mango, as well as the effect of pruning on tree growth and production; however, there are no reports of the advantages of pruning on populations of white mango scale and control thereof. Therefore, the objective of this study was to determine the effect of different types of pruning and pruning intensity, alone or combined with detergent in population fluctuation of white mango scalee as well as the production and fruit quality of mango 'Ataulfo'.
Material and methods
The studies were conducted in production cycles 20122013 and 2013-2014 in two commercial orchards of mango 'Ataulfo'/regional creole, located in the municipality of Tepic, Nayarit. The orchards were managed with flood irrigation (one each month from February to April); fertilization with 3 kg of Triple 17 per tree at the beginning of the rainy season (June) and 4 kg of organic fertilizer (manure, chicken manure fermented which is used as compost) applied per tree in September. At the beginning and during flowering, three applications of captan + benomyl (1 + 0.5 g L-1 water) were made every 15 days to prevent the disease cone anthracnose (Colletotrichum gloeosporioides Pens.) and powdery mildew (Oidium mangiferae Berther).
Two experiments were established to determine the effect of intensity and pruning types, with or without scale control. In Experiment 1 (E1), developed in the orchard “Novillero” three trimming intensities were evaluated: 1) without pruning; 2) light pruning (50 cm trim in apical buds); and 3) severe pruning (75 cm), with or without application of detergent in each of the three pruning types. In experiment 2 (E2), developed in orchard “Novillero 2”, pruning types (without pruning, cube type and pine type) with or without detergent application to control scale in each of the three pruning types were evaluated. In both experiments 12 years old trees were used, established at 6*6 m between rows and tree (276 trees ha-1), with a height of 8 m and interwined crowns.
Pruning is performed immediately after the harvest in July 2012, using a pole chainsaw for pruning intensity (E1); while for pruning types (E2) a mechanical trimmer was used in the same period. To control white mango scale Ariel® liquid detergent (10 mL-1 L of water) was used to spray foliage with a motorized sprayer Forza Four with a capacity for 25 L (Swissmex-Rapid, SA de CV, Mexico, DF) . After the flowering period, two applications were made when the incidence of scale exceeded 0.5 colonies (March) and 2 females leaf-1.
In both experiments and production cycles, the experimental design was completely randomized with a factorial arrangement (3*2). In E1 the first factor was pruning intensity with three levels (without pruning, light pruning and severe pruning), in E2 the first factor was pruning type with three levels (without pruning, cube type and pine type). The second factor in both experiments was the control of scale with two levels; with or without application of detergent (CD, SD, respectively). In each experiment six treatments, each with six replications each and a tree as experimental plot were evaluated.
In the 2-year study evaluated variables were:
floral bud break. It was evaluated based on the percentage of flowering for which percentage of inflorescences covering the tree were recorded weekly, from the start of flowering (from 5%) to full bloom (> 80%).
Fruit production. The production was evaluated at harvest time, recording the number of fruits and kg tree-1; for which a digital scale with a capacity of 30-150 kg, Ohaus Defender (Ohaus Corporation, Ohio, USA) was used.
Fresh fruit weight (PF), size and scale damage in fruit. 20 fruits per treatment at the time of harvest were evaluated in ramdon sampling. PF was evaluated with a portable electronic scale Ohaus (Scott II), with capacity of 0.1 to 2 000 g (Ohaus Corporation, Ohio, USA). The size code indicates the number of fruits that can be placed in a package of 4 536 kg, equivalent to 10 pounds of weight, based on the standard NMX-FF-058-SCFI-2006 (Normas Mexicanas, 2006). The damage by scale was assessed at physiological maturity, based on the presence of chlorotic spots caused by colonies and white scale female on the epidermis of the fruit using the following scale: No damage = no chlorotic spots; Mild = 1 to 2 spots, moderate = 3 to 4 spots and severe = 5 or more chlorotic spots.
Population scale. After pruning treatments, bi-weekly monitored the presence of white mango scale, from January to December 2013, for this four outbreaks per tree were marked in north-south, east-west orientation. Of these outbreaks, two leaves per outbreak from the penultimate bud flow were selected, counting the number of colonies and females per leave in each sampling (Urias-López et al., 2010; Bautista-Rosales et al., 2013).
In both experiments, analysis of variance of the results for the variables, floral bud break, fruit production, fresh fruit weight, size and scale damage was performed, and for comparison of means between treatmentsTukey test (p≤ 0.05) was used. For scale populations an analysis of variance (completely randomized design with factorial arrangement) was made in each of the dates recorded and comparison of means between treatments Tukey test (p≤ 0.05) was used. SAS version 9.2 software was used.
Results and discussion
Intensity and pruning types on scale populations
Regarding pruning intensity, signifcant differences were found in the interaction pruning*detergent application (P*AD) in the number of colonies leave-1 in the months of March (Pr= 0.0058), April (Pr= 0.0037), May (Pr= 0.041) and June (Pr= 0.0001). For females, significant differences were found in the interaction P + AD in the same months, March, (Pr= 0.0381); April (Pr= 0.0037); May (Pr= 0.0511) and June (Pr= 0.0041). In the first year after pruning (2013), in control trees (without pruning and without detergent) the number of colonies leave-1 and the number of females leave-1 of white mango scale increased during the months of February to June, then in mid-July until late October and the population was null due to the effect of precipitation (> 1 100 mm), but from November there was a slight increase was not significant (Figure 1A and B). In other treatments the behavior of white mango scale population was similar but with fewer colonies leave-1 (Figure 1A).
Each point represents the average of 48 leaves per treatment ± standard error.
Figure 1 Number of colonies (A) and female (B) of white mango scale A. tubercularis per leave, in mango trees ‘Ataulfo’ by effect of pruning intensity, with or without detergent, during 2013, a year after pruning. Novillero orchard. PP= precipitation; SP= without pruning; PL= light pruning; PS= severe pruning; SD = without detergent; CD = with detergent.
In types of pruning, significant differences were found in the interaction (P*AD) in the months of March, April, May, June and July for the variable number of colonies leaves-1, for female number the differences found were in the months of March to June. In control trees the number of colonies∙leave-1 of white mango scale during the first year after pruning, was high during the months of March to July, while from August to October the population was null due also to the effect of precipitation (> 1 100 mm) and from November to December population increases again. In the other treatments, colonies behavior of white mango scale was similar but fewer colonies leave-1 (Figure 2A). The number of females had a similar behavior to the colonies (Figure 2B).
Each point represents the average of 48 leaves per treatment ± standard error.
Figure 2 Number of colonies (A) and female (B) of A. tubercularis, in mango trees ‘Ataulfo’ by effect of pruning types, with or without detergent during 2013. (Orchard Novillero2). PP= precipitation; SP = without pruning; SD= without detergent; CD= with detergent.
Both intensity and types of pruning, the results obtained in the population dynamics of A. tubercularis are similar to those found by Urias-López et al. (2010) who mentioned that under conditions from Nayarit, this plague passes through three phases of population growth during the year, one of very low population in late rainfall (September) to January, in the second there is an increase in the population during February to early July (2.1 scales leaves-1) and the third a drastic decline in population during the months of higher rainfall (July and August). In this study, during the period from August to October, the presence of scale (colonies and females) was virtually null in all treatments, mainly due to the presence of rain matching with that mentioned by Urias-López et al. (2010) who indicated that precipitation could have a “wash” effect in the immature stages of white mango scale, avoiding the establishment of this pest. In the study of types of pruning, white mango scale population increased during November and December, coinciding with low rainfall, although pruning treatments kept the lowest populations in both colonies and females.
The combined action of pruning and application of detergent maintained the lowest colony population of white mango scale in the months of highest incidence (February-July). This suggests on the one hand, that by bringing down the size of the trees and maintaining their crowns separated avoids the presence of microclimates that favor the presence of pests and on the other hand facilitates the control of the pest because sprayings can reach more parts of the tree making more efficient the use of pesticides (Crane, 2002; Bally, 2006; Davenport, 2006; Galán, 2009), in our case with the use of detergent. In the number of female∙leaves-1 of white mango scales, the results are more conclusive clearly showing that severe pruning and pine type mantain low populations during the period of higher incidence. Similar results by pruning effect were reported by Bautista-Rosales et al. (2013), althought do not mention what kind of pruning or trimming was performed, it only comments that there was an important decrease in the number of females of white mango scale per leave. Meanwhile Urias-López et al. (2013) show evidence that detergent at dose of 20g L-1 is effective to control scale (up to 75%), when applied during the first week after flowering.
Intensity and types of pruning in flowering
In the first year after pruning, flowering percentage was reduced 29 and 45% with light and severe, pruning respectively, compared to control. The decrease was greater with severe pruning (Table 1). Similarly, with pruning cube and pine type the flowering percentage decreased 15 and 20%, respectively. The decrease was slightly higher with pine type, probably because this type of pruning, as severe (75 cm triming) remove greater amount of vegetative growth than with cube type or with 50cm trimming of apical bud. According to several authors severe pruning promotes greater vegetative growth at the expense of reproductive reducing the possibility of flowering (Maas, 2005; Vázquez-Valdivia et al., 2009; Ashraf and Ashraf, 2014). However, in the second year, both with trimming intensity (50 and 75 cm) and type of pruning (pine and cube) the highest flowering percentage was obtained in trees that had been pruned.
Table 1 Percentage of flowering(1) in mango trees (Mangifera indica L.) ‘Ataulfo’ with different intensity and type of pruning, performed in 2012.
| Tratamientos(2) | Floración (%) | Tratamientos | Floración (%) | ||
| 2013 | 2014 | 2013 | 2014 | ||
| Sin poda | 92.6 a** | 70.2 b* | Sin poda | 94.5 a* | 70.2 b** |
| Poda ligera | 65.6 b | 95 a | Tipo cubo | 80.7 b | 82 a |
| Poda severa | 53 c | 87 a | Tipo pino | 75.7 b | 82.2 a |
(1)Medias con la misma letra dentro de columnas no son significativamente diferentes. Tukey p≤ 0.05. (2) Poda ligera, 50 cm de despunte del brote; poda severa, 75 cm de despunte.
Intensity and types of pruning on production
In both cycles, significant differences were found in fruit yield (kg tree-1) by effect of intensity and type of pruning. Pruning intensity, in the first year, had lower fruit production in trees pruned, probably as result of the low flowering percentage obtained after pruning which also led to lower yield per ha, in trees with light and severe pruning (Figure 3). In the second year after pruning, trees with light and severe pruning showed an increase of 26 and 20% respectively, compared to control, achieving a yield of 26 and 24 t ha-1 againts 19 t ha-1 from control. In the first year after pruning, the results obtained in the treatment with light and severe pruning, differ with those reported by Shaban, (2009) in mango 'Zebda' who achieved an increase of 52% in production with light pruning light, with a trim of just 10 cm in the apical bud; whereas in our study the trim performed was with higher intensity (50 and 75 cm).
Figure 3 Fuit production (kg tree-1) in ‘Ataulfo’ trees with different intensity (A) and type of pruning (B).
In types of pruning the production was equal in trees with and without pruning in the first year after pruning (Figure 3B). In the second year, yield decreased in all treatments; but in pruned trees increased 14% with pruning cube type and 21% with pine type compared control. The reduction in yield for the second year, it was because it was an alternating year (year off), caused by the harvest from previous year and the environmental conditions during the months of November and December 2013 (warm temperatures and presence of rain ) which overall caused scarce flowering in 2014.
Both in intensity and types of pruning, the results from the second year after pruning, agree with the increase in production found in mango 'Tommy Atkins' (Yeshitela et al., 2005) and 'Ataulfo' (Váquez-Valdivia et al., 2009). Furthermore, according to Sharma et al. (2006) and Sharma and Singh (2006) by separating the treetops regardless of the intensity and type of pruning, light penetration improves throughout the same, favoring the photosynthetic capacity and therefore yield.
Intensity and type as fruit (fresh weight, size and presence of spots)
By effect of pruning intensity in the first year after pruning, pruned trees produced fruits with higher fresh weight, compared to tree fruits without pruning (Table 2). In the second year, the results were similar. Regarding size, pruned trees with light and severe pruning had larger fruits. Regarding fruit damage by scale, in both years of the study, tree fruits without pruning and without detergent application showed significantly greater damage than tree fruits with pruning.
Table 2 Fresh fruit weight (PF) (1), size(1) and damage(1) by white mango scale on mango fruit (Mangifera indica L.) 'Ataulfo' treated with different pruning intensity and with or without application of detergent.
| Tratamientos(2) | PF (g) | Calibre(3) | Daño por escama(4) | |||
| 2013 | 2014 | 2013 | 2014 | 2013 | 2014 | |
| Sin poda, sin detergente | 352.3 bc** | 225.7 c** | 15.6 a* | 16.1 a* | 1.8 a* | 1.5 a* |
| Sin poda, con detergente | 337 c | 310.6 ab | 15 ab | 14.8 b | 0.8 ab | 0.1 b |
| Poda ligera, sin detergente | 378.8 ab | 300.4 ab | 14.3 ab | 15 ab | 0.2 b | 0.7 ab |
| Poda ligera, con detergente | 353.3 bc | 458.5 a | 13.7 b | 12.8 c | 0.1 b | 0 b |
| Poda severa, sin detergente | 400 a | 290.7 bc | 13.7 b | 15.8 a | 0.3 b | 0.8 ab |
| Poda severa, con detergente | 379.3 ab | 326.1 b | 13.5 b | 14 b | 0.1 b | 0 b |
(1)Medias con la misma letra dentro de columnas no son significativamente diferentes. Tukey p≤ 0.05. (2)Poda ligera, 50 cm de despunte del brote apical; poda severa, 75 cm de despunte. (3)El código de calibre indica el número de frutos que se pueden colocar en un empaque de 4.536 kg, equivalente a 10 libras de peso, con base a la norma NMX-FF-058-SCFI-2006. (4)Con base a la presencia de manchas cloróticas en la epidermis del fruto: Sin daño = sin presencia de manchas, leve= de 1 a 2, moderado= de 3 a 4 y severo= 5 o más manchas cloróticas.
Regarding types of pruning, in the first year after pruning, pruned trees produced fruits with higher fresh weight, higher size and minor damage by white mango scale compared to those that did not received pruning (Table 3). The results in the second year after pruning, were similar to the first.
Table 3 Fresh fruit weight (PF), size and scale damage on mango fruit (Mangifera indica L.) ‘Ataulfo’ treated with different types of pruning and scale control.
| Tratamiento | Peso fresco (g) | Calibre(1) | Daño por escama(2) | |||
| 2013(3) | 2014(3) | 2013(3) | 2014(3) | 2013(3) | 2014(3) | |
| Sin poda, sin detergente | 304 b* | 229 b* | 16 a* | 18 a* | 1 a** | 1.5 a** |
| Sin poda, con detergente | 311 b | 305 ab | 15 ab | 16 ab | 0.4 b | 0.1 b |
| Tipo cubo, sin detergente | 358 a | 300 ab | 13 bc | 16 ab | 0.2 b | 0.5 b |
| Tipo cubo, con detergente | 347 ab | 331 a | 14 bc | 14 b | 0.2 b | 0 b |
| Tipo pino, sin detergente | 366 a | 321 ab | 12.5 c | 15 b | 0.2 b | 0.1 b |
| Tipo pino, con detergente | 384 a | 326 a | 12 c | 15 b | 0.1 b | 0 b |
(1)El código de calibre indica el número de frutos que se pueden colocar en un empaque de 4.536 kg, equivalente a 10 libras de peso, con base a la norma NMX-FF-058SCFI-2006. (2)Con base a la presencia de manchas cloróticas en la epidermis del fruto: Sin daño= sin presencia de manchas, leve= de 1 a 2, moderado= de 3 a 4 y severo= 5 o más manchas cloróticas. (3)Medias con la misma letra dentro de columnas no son significativamente diferentes. Tukey p≤ 0.05.
Both intensity and types of pruning, the decrease in fruit production in the first year after pruning resulted in larger fruits with an increase in fresh weight of 12 and 16% in trees with severe pruning, without and with detergent, from 11 to 14% with pruning cube type cube, without and with detergent, respectively and of 16 and 20% in pruned cube type trees, without and with detergent, respectively. The size achieved may be due to there was less competition for photosynthates between fruits from pruning treatments (Fisher et al., 2012); as well as greater light interception and better photosynthetic rate (Schaffer and Gaye, 1989; Sharma et al., 2006; Sing et al., 2010a; Rahayu et al., 2013).
In the second year after pruning, larger fruits were achieved again in trees that had the two types of pruning; which lead to obtain better size for export. Regarding to damage by scale in fruits, it was observed a light damage in trees without pruning and without detergent application, althought significantly greater than the tree fruits that were pruned but without detergent application; besides in pruned trees and without detergent application, damage by white mango scale was null. Similar results were found in types of pruning (Table 3). In other producing areas of mango in the world, the presence of chlorotic spots causes losses in exports of up to 50% (Arias et al., 2004; Hodges et al., 2005. Le Lagadec et al., 2006), but in our study and under the conditions of Nayarit, damage by scale in ‘Ataulfo’ was light, of up to two chlorotic spots per fruit trees that did not receive pruning, and fruit without damage in those that were pruned and with detergent application.
Conclusions
To maintain production and low populations of white mango scale it is suggested to perform pruning immediately after harvest, in addition to applying liquid detergent Ariel® (10 mL-1 of water) at the time of highest incidence (MarchJuly) of white mango scale, which coincides with fruit development.
The intensity and type of pruning reduce flowering during the first year of study, being higher with severe pruning and pine type. However, during the second year after pruning, flowering increased in pruned trees.
Pruning intensity reduces production in the immediate year, but in the second year, it is similar in trees without and with light pruning, but it achieves to increase with severe pruning. Type of pruning cube or pine does not affect fruit production in the immediate year of pruning, but generally it reduces slightly, in the second year, this is slightly higher in pruned trees.
In both years of study, intensity and types of pruning, in mango ‘Ataulfo’ trees, increases fruit size with sizes suitable for export.
Literatura citada
Abo, S. A. S. H. 2012. Suppression of white mango scale, Aulacaspis tubercularis (Hemiptera: Diaspididae) on mango trees in El-Beheira Governorate, Egypt. Egyptian Academic J. Biol. Sci. (5):43-50. [ Links ]
Arias, de L. M.; Jines, C. A.; Carrera, C.; Bustos, N.; Pluas, M. N. P. y Gutierrez, K. 2004. Biología, dinámica poblacional, muestreo, nivel de daño y alternativas para el manejo de Aulacaspis tubercularis en mango de exportación. Instituto Nacional Autónomo de Investigaciones Agropecuarias. Folleto Técnico Núm. 56. Guayaquil, Ecuador. 19 p. [ Links ]
Ashraf, N. and Ashraf, M. 2014. Summer pruning in fruit trees. Afr. J. Agric. Res. (9):206-210. [ Links ]
Bally, I. S. E. 2006. Mangifera indica (mango), ver. 3.1. In: Elevitch, C. R. (Ed.). Species profiles for pacific island agroforestry. Permanent Agriculture Resources (PAR). Hōlualoa, Hawaii. 1-25 pp. [ Links ]
Bautista, R. P. U.; Ragazzo, S. J. A.; Calderon, S. M.; Cortez, M. M. and Servin, V. R. 2013. Aulacaspis tubercularis Newstead in mango orchards of Nayarit, Mexico, and relationship with environmental and agronomic factors. Southwestern Entomologist. (38):221-230. [ Links ]
Crane, J. H. 2002. Selected cultural techniques to improve production of some subtropical and tropical fruit crops. Acta Hortic. (632):179-187. [ Links ]
Das, B. and Jana, B. R. 2012. Effect of canopy management on growth and yield of mango cv. Amrapali planted at close spacing. J. Food, Agric. Environ. (10):328-331. [ Links ]
Davenport, T. L. 2006. Pruning strategies to maximize tropical mango production from the time of planting to restoration of old orchards. HortSci. (41):544-548. [ Links ]
Fisher, G.; Almanza, M. P. J. and Ramírez, F. 2012. Source-sink relationships in fruit species: a review. Rev. Colom. Cienc. Hortíc. (6):238-253. [ Links ]
Galan, S. V. 2009. El cultivo del mango. 2a. (Ed.). Mundi-Prensa Libros. México. 340 p. [ Links ]
García, Á. N. C.; Urías, L. M. A.; Hernández, F. L. M.; González, C. J. A.; Pérez, B. M. H. y Osuna, G. J. A. 2014. Distribución de la escama blanca del mango Aulacaspis tubercularis Newstead (Hemiptera: Diaspididae) en Nayarit, México. Acta Zool. Mex. (30):321-336. [ Links ]
García, de N. D. A.; Esquivel, G. L.; Montoya, R. B.; Arrieta, R. B. G.; Santiago, G. A.; Gómez, A. J. R and Sao, J. A. R. 2014. Vegetative and reproductive development of ‘Ataulfo’ mango under pruning and paclobutrazol management. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. (16):385-393. [ Links ]
González, C. J. A.; Urías, L. M. A. y García, Á. N. C. 2008. Fluctuación poblacional de la escama blanca, Aulacaspis tubercularis Newstead (Hemiptera: Diaspididae) del mango en Nayarit, México. Entomol. Mex. (7):646-651. [ Links ]
Hodges, A. C.; Hodges, G. and Wisler, G. C. 2005. Exotic scale insects (Hemiptera: Coccoidea) and whiteflies (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) in Florida’s tropical fruits: an example of the vital role of early detection in pest prevention and management. Proceedings of the Florida State Horticulural Society. (118):215-217. [ Links ]
Le Lagadec, M. D.; Louw, C. E. and Labushagne, C. 2006. The control of scale insects and mealybugs on mangoes in South Africa using neo-nicotenoids: a review of experimental work from 2001 to 2005. Acta Hortic. (820):549-557. [ Links ]
Maas, F. M. 2005. Shoot growth, fruit production and return bloom in ‘Conference’ and ‘Doyenne de Comice’ treated with Regalis. Acta Hortic. (671):517-524. [ Links ]
Normas Mexicanas 2006. NMX-FF-058-SCFI-2006 Productos alimenticios no industrializados para consumo humano-fruta fresca-mango (Mangifera indica L.)- especifiaciones (cancela a la NMX-FF-058-SCFI-1999). Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Pesca y Alimentación (SAGARPA)- Secretaría de Economía (SE). México, D. F. [ Links ]
Olesen, T.; Menzel, C. M.; McConchie, C. A. and Wiltshire, N. 2013. Pruning to control tree size, flowering and production of litchi. Scientia Hortic. (156):93-98. [ Links ]
Rahayu, M.; Hidayah, B. N.; Mujiono; Thistleton, B.; Qureshi, S. and Baker, I. 2013. Effects of pruning and fertilizing on production and quality of mango cultivar Gedong Gincu in west nusa Tenggara province - Indonesia. In: 3th International Conference on Chemical, Biological and Environment Sciences, 1, 2013, Kuala Lumpur. International Proceeding of Conference. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 56-58 pp. [ Links ]
Schaffer, B. and Gaye, G. O. 1989. Effects of pruning on light interception, specific leaf density and leaf chlorophyll content of mango. Sci. Hortic. (41):55-61. [ Links ]
Shaban, A. E. A. 2009. Effect of summer pruning and GA3 spraying on inducing flowering and fruiting of Zebda mango trees. World J. Agric. Sci. (5):337-344. [ Links ]
Sharma, R. R.; Singh, R. and Singh, D. B. 2006. Influence of pruning intensity on light penetration and leaf physiology in highdensity orchards of mango trees. Fruits. (61):117-123. [ Links ]
Sharma, R. R. and Singh, Y. R. 2006. Effect of pruning intensity on light penetration and leaf physiology in Amrapali mango trees under high-density planting. Tropical Sci. (46):16-19. [ Links ]
Singh, S. K.; Singh, S. K. and Sharma, R. R. 2010a. Pruning alters fruit quality of mango cultivars (Mangifera indica L.) under high density planting. J. Trop. Agric. (48):55-57. [ Links ]
Singh, S. K.; Singh, S. K.; Sharma, R. R. and Patel, V. B. 2010b. Influence of pruning intensity on flowering, fruit yields and floral malformation in three mango cultivars planted under high density. Indian J. Hortic. (67):84-89. [ Links ]
Urías, L. M. A. y Flores, C. R. 2005. La “escama blanca”, Aulacaspis tubercularis Newstead (Homoptera: Diaspididae) una nueva plaga del mango: fluctuacion poblacional y anotaciones biológicas. Entomol. Mex. (4):579-584. [ Links ]
Urías, L. M. A.; Osuna, G. J. A.; Vázquez,V†. V. y Pérez, B. M. H. 2010. Fluctuación poblacional y distribución de la escama blanca del mango (Aulacaspis tubercularis Newstead) en Nayarit, México. Rev. Chapingo Ser. Hortic. (16):77-82. [ Links ]
Urías, L. M. A.; Hernández, F. L. M.; Osuna, G. J. A.; Pérez, B. M. H.; García, Á. N. C. y González, C. J. A. 2013. Aspersiones de insecticidas en campo para controlar la escama blanca del mango (Hemiptera: Diaspididae). Rev. Fitotec. Mex. (36):173-180. [ Links ]
Vázquez, V. V.; Pérez, B M. H.; Osuna, G. J. A. y Urías, L. M. A. 2009. Intensidad de poda sobre el vigor, producción y peso del fruto del mango ‘Ataulfo. Rev. Chapingo Ser. Hortic. (15):127-132. [ Links ]
Wilkie, J. D.; Sedgley, M.; Robertson, D. and Olesen, T. 2008. The timing of pruning affects flush development and flowering in ‘Honey Gold’ mango. Acta Hortic. (787):241-243. [ Links ]
Yeshitela, T.; Robbertse, P. J. and Stassen, P. J. C. 2005. Effects of pruning on flowering, yield and fruit quality in mango (Mangifera indica). Austr. J. Exp. Agric. (45):1325-1330. [ Links ]
Received: September 2016; Accepted: December 2016
Este es un artículo publicado en acceso abierto bajo una licencia Creative Commons
