Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-20T17:15:41.418Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Fruiting, Defoliation and Ring-Barking on the Accumulation and Distribution of Dry Matter in Branches of Coffea Arabica L. in Kenya

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

M. G. R. Cannell
M. G. R. Cannell
Affiliation:
Coffee Research Station, Ruiru, Kenya
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Whole branches were removed from trees in the field, at regular intervals, to follow the increase in dry weight of fruits and new vegetative growth. Information on the partition of carbohydrates was gained by comparing the growth of untreated, defoliated, de-blossomed and ring-barked branches. Untreated branches increased in weight rapidly when their fruits began to expand, probably because they imported carbohydrates, and their net photosynthetic capacity increased. More young fruits were shed from defoliated than from untreated branches, thus partially compensating for loss of leaf. Non-fruiting, and sometimes fruiting, branches exported a considerable amount of assimilate during the dry seasons, when the trunk-root system was a relatively important dry matter sink. When there were many fruitless branches on fruiting trees, the fruiting branches imported carbohydrates from them during the whole period of fruit growth, whereas fruitless branches imported carbohydrates only when there was a ‘flush’ of shoot growth.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , January 1971 , pp. 63 - 74
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Cannell, M. G. R. & Huxley, P. A. (1969). Ann. appl. Biol. 64, 345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cannell, M. G. R. (1970). Turrialba, 20, 15.Google Scholar
Cannell, M. G. R. (1971). Ann. appl. Biol. 67, in press.Google Scholar
Cooil, B. J. & Nakayama, M. (1953). Hawaii Agr. Exp. Sta., Progress Notes, 91, 14.Google Scholar
Huxley, P. A. & Cannell, M. G. R. (1969). In Proc. Sem. Int. coffee growing in Kenya, 123. (Ed. Huxley, P. A.).Google Scholar
Huxley, P. A. & Ismail, S. A. H. (1969). Turrialba, 19, 345.Google Scholar
Montoya, L. A. & Sylvain, P. G. (1962). Turrialba, 12, 100.Google Scholar
Neales, T. F. & Incoll, L. D. (1968). Bot. Rev. 34, 107.Google Scholar
Priestley, L. A. (1962). Comm. Bur. Hort. and Plantation Crops, Tech. Comm. 27.Google Scholar
Wormer, T. M. (1964). Ann. Bot. 28, 47.Google Scholar
Wormer, T. M. & Ebagole, H. E. (1965). Expl Agric. 1, 41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wormer, T. M. (1966). A.R. Coffee Res. Sta., Ruiru, 1965/1966, 7.Google Scholar