ABSTRACT Increasing orchard density is an alternative approach for enhancing productivity of the fig tree. In addition to promoting better utilization of productive areas, increased density allows for the optimization of plant management. In some situations, it may be necessary to alter the pruning system. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the practices of reducing spacing and lopping shoots enhance green fig production for industrial purposes. The research was conducted in southern Minas Gerais State, Brazil (21°14’S and 45°00’W, 918 m in height) in an area with a tropical highland climate. A 3 × 2 factorial scheme was adopted, with three different plant spacings (0.50, 0.75, or 1 m, totaling plant densities of 8,000, 5,333, and 4,000 fig trees per hectare, respectively), and plants were managed with and without the lopping of productive shoots. The spacing between planting rows was standardized to 2.5 m. Two productive shoots were retained on all trees. In the lopping treatment, after the emergence of the 16th leaf, the shoot was topped (i.e., the apical bud was removed), and two new shoots were selected per productive shoot. Additional loppings were performed later, always after the emergence of the sixth leaf, totaling three loppings. Data were collected from each plot, which consisted of three useful plants, during two production cycles. It was concluded that smaller spacings decreased production per plant, but they increased green fig productivity. Lopping productive shoots increased fruit weight, the number of fruits per plant, and fig production. tree areas management situations system purposes State 21°14S 2114S S 21°14 21 14 45°00W, 4500W W 45°00 W, 45 00 45°00’W 91 height climate adopted 0.50, 050 0 50 (0.50 075 75 0.75 8000 8 000 8,000 5333 5 333 5,333 4000 4 4,00 hectare respectively, respectively , respectively) 25 2. treatment th leaf i.e., ie i e (i.e. removed, removed removed) later plot cycles weight 14S 2114 21°1 00W 45°00W 4500 45°0 9 0.50 05 (0.5 07 7 0.7 800 8,00 533 33 5,33 400 4,0 i.e. (i.e 211 21° 450 45° 0.5 (0. 0. 80 8,0 53 5,3 40 4, i.e (0 8, 5, (

Abstract The objective of this work was to quantify peach (Prunus persica) tree production in the Y-training and open-vase management systems, subjected to three summer pruning methods. The experiment was set up in a 2x3 factorial arrangement, with two management systems and three summer pruning methods (no summer pruning, summer pruning, and branch bending). The plants were arranged in two spacings: 1.5×5.0 m for the Y-training system, with 1,334 plants per hectare; and 4.0×5.0 m for open-vase system, with 500 plants per hectare. In the early summer of 2019, summer pruning was performed, being repeated in the three following years. In the branch bending treatment, new branches were twisted manually until reaching an angle of 110°. In the treatment without summer pruning, the branches were not removed. The Y-training system increases peach production. The methods of branch bending in summer and no prunning in summer provide an equivalent peach production, whereas the summer pruning treatment results in the lowest production. Prunus persica Ytraining Y training openvase open vase x 2x arrangement bending. . bending) spacings 1550 1 5 0 1.5×5. 1334 334 1,33 hectare 4050 4 4.0×5. 50 2019 performed years 110 110° removed 155 1.5×5 133 33 1,3 405 4.0×5 201 11 15 1.5× 13 3 1, 40 4.0× 20 1.5 4.0 2 1. 4.

Resumo O objetivo deste trabalho foi quantificar a produção de frutos de pessegueiros (Prunus persica) sob os sistemas de manejo Y e vaso aberto, sujeitos a três métodos de poda de verão. O experimento foi instalado em arranjo fatorial 2×3, com dois sistemas de manejo e três métodos de poda de verão (sem poda de verão, poda de verão e dobramento de galhos). As plantas foram dispostas em dois espaçamentos: 1,5×5,0 m para o sistema Y, com 1.334 plantas por hectare; e 4,0×5,0 m para o sistema vaso aberto, com 500 plantas por hectare. No início do verão de 2019, foram realizadas as podas de verão, que foram repetidas nos três anos consecutivos. No tratamento dobramento de galhos, os ramos novos foram torcidos manualmente até atingirem o ângulo de 110°. Já no tratamento sem poda de verão, os ramos não foram retirados. O sistema Y aumenta a produção de pêssego. Os tratamentos dobramento de galhos no verão e sem poda de verão proporcionam equivalente produção de pêssego, enquanto o tratamento poda de verão resulta na menor produção. Prunus persica aberto 23 2 3 2×3 galhos. . galhos) espaçamentos 1550 1 5 0 1,5×5, 1334 334 1.33 hectare 4050 4 4,0×5, 50 2019 consecutivos 110 110° retirados pêssego 2× 155 1,5×5 133 33 1.3 405 4,0×5 201 11 15 1,5× 13 1. 40 4,0× 20 1,5 4,0 1, 4,

Abstract The objective this work was to evaluate the productive performance of fig tree cultivars in the production of green figs for industrialization in Brazil. The Brunswick, Mini Figo, Troyano, Roxo de Valinhos, Bêbara Branca, Lemon, Três Num Prato, and Pingo de Mel fig tree cultivars were evaluated. The experimental design was randomized complete blocks, with four blocks and eight treatments (fig tree cultivars) at a spacing of 3.0×1.5 m (2,222 plants per hectare). The experiment was conducted over two growing seasons (2022/2023 and 2023/2024). Plants were pruned during dormancy. After bud break, two secondary lateral shoots were maintained (12 productive shoots). Green figs were harvested twice a week, and the total number of fruits per harvest and the total harvest weight per plant were quantified. The average production per plant (kg) and estimated yield (Mg ha−1) were calculated for each growing season, as well as fruit dimensions, shoot length and final mass, and harvest duration. The cultivars showed differences in their productive performance. Cultivar Troyano yielded the greatest quantity of fruits and provided a greater production and estimated yield. Brazil Brunswick Figo Valinhos Branca Lemon Prato evaluated 3015 3 0 1 5 3.0×1. 2,222 2222 2 222 (2,22 hectare. hectare . hectare) 2022/2023 20222023 2022 2023 (2022/202 2023/2024. 20232024 2023/2024 2024 2023/2024) dormancy break 12 (1 shoots. shoots) week quantified kg (kg Mg ha−1 ha1 ha season dimensions mass duration 301 3.0×1 2,22 22 (2,2 2022/202 2022202 202 (2022/20 2023202 2023/202 ( ha− 30 3.0× 2,2 (2, 2022/20 202220 20 (2022/2 202320 2023/20 3.0 2, (2 2022/2 20222 (2022/ 20232 2023/2 3. 2022/ (2022 2023/ (202 (20

Resumo O objetivo deste trabalho foi avaliar o desempenho produtivo de cultivares de figueira na produção de figos verdes para a industrialização no Brasil. As cultivares de figo Brunswick, Mini Figo, Troyano, Roxo de Valinhos, Bêbara Branca, Lemon, Três num Prato e Pingo de Mel foram avaliadas. O delineamento experimental foi em blocos ao acaso, com quatro blocos e oito tratamentos (cultivares de figueira), no espaçamento de 3,0×1,5 m (2.222 plantas por hectare). O experimento foi conduzido durante duas estações de crescimento (2022/2023 e 2023/2024). As plantas foram podadas no período de dormência. Após o início da brotação, foram conservadas duas brotações secundárias por haste lateral (12 hastes produtivas). Os figos verdes foram colhidos duas vezes por semana, tendo-se quantificado o número total de frutos por colheita e o peso total de colheita por planta. Foram calculadas a produção média por planta (kg) e a produtividade estimada (Mg ha−1) para cada estação de crescimento, bem como as dimensões dos frutos, o comprimento e a massa final das hastes, e a duração da colheita. As cultivares apresentaram diferenças no seu desempenho produtivo. A cultivar Troyano foi a que produziu maior quantidade de frutos e propiciou maior produção e produtividade estimada. Brasil Brunswick Figo Valinhos Branca Lemon avaliadas acaso figueira, , figueira) 3015 3 0 1 5 3,0×1, 2.222 2222 2 222 (2.22 hectare. hectare . hectare) 2022/2023 20222023 2022 2023 (2022/202 2023/2024. 20232024 2023/2024 2024 2023/2024) dormência brotação 12 (1 produtivas. produtivas produtivas) semana tendose tendo se kg (kg Mg ha−1 ha1 ha 301 3,0×1 2.22 22 (2.2 2022/202 2022202 202 (2022/20 2023202 2023/202 ( ha− 30 3,0× 2.2 (2. 2022/20 202220 20 (2022/2 202320 2023/20 3,0 2. (2 2022/2 20222 (2022/ 20232 2023/2 3, 2022/ (2022 2023/ (202 (20