Ehime University Institutional Repository

堤, 純

Japanese

WebGIS Experience to Discover Regional Culture in Ozu City : A Case Study of Tomisu Junior High School and Teikyo Daigo Tomisu Senior High School

澄田, 道博

映像視聴とインターネット資料検索による講義の試み

岡村, 茂

The "Second Stage" of Decentralisation and Multiple Office-Holding : An Analysis of Local Democratic Power in France

榊原, 正幸

中井, 芳恵

千葉, 悦子

近石, 沙知子

佐野, 栄

堀, 利栄

愛媛県砥部町の万年変質安山岩体のボーリングコアにおける硫化鉱物の産状および砥素濃度

PAWILEN, Greg Tabios

SUMIDA, Manabu

English

A Comparative Study of the Elementary Science Curriculum of Philippines and Japan

渡辺, 広人

佐藤, 公代

The research about the play of the child : The relation to the social skill, the kindness,the undertaking sense

渡辺, 弘純

Reconsideration of the Psychology of Hope : Study Notes

王, 珂

中村, 雅彦

A cross-cultural study about interpersonal values between Chinese and Japanese university students : On the structure of Individualism, Collectivism, and Contextualism.

曽我, 亘由

心理的要因が受診の行動および市場均衡に与える影響

HOSSAIN, A. B. M. Sharif

MIZUTANI, Fusao

ONGUSO, J. M.

EL-SHEREIF, A. R.

－ 11 －
愛媛大学農学部農場報告
（Bull. Exp. Farm Fac. Agr., Ehime Univ.）27：11－17（2005）
Effect of Late Summer Pruning and Cheesecloth Shades on 
Shoot Regeneration, Flower Bud Formation and 
Blooming Time of Peach Trees
A. B. M. Sharif HOSSAIN，Fusao MIZUTANI，J. M. ONGUSO and Ali R. El-SHEREIF
Summary
　Effects of late summer pruning and cheesecloth shade on shoot regeneration, flower 
bud formation and blooming time of ‘Hikawahakuho' peach trees grafted on wild form 
vigorous rootstocks were examined by using potted one-year-old trees. Summer prun-
ing was performed on September 1 and the trees were placed under the black and 
white cheesecloth shade. The number of regenerated shoots was higher in summer-
pruned （SP） alone trees than SP+black and white cheesecloth shaded trees. However, 
the growth of regenerated shoots and total shoot length were greatest in SP+black 
cheesecloth shaded trees. Chlorophyll content （SPAD value） was also greatest in re-
generated leaves of SP+black cheesecloth shaded trees. The percent of flower buds 
was lower in SP trees than non-SP trees. Moreover, the greater the shading degree, 
the less the percentage of flower buds. No flower bud was produced in the regener-
ated shoots. Leaf drop was earlier in non-SP trees. Shading tended to delay flowering 
time the following spring. 
Inrtoduction
　The light is an important factor for plant growth and development. The quantity and quality of 
light have significant effects on tree growth and architecture that can be highly variable depending 
on the shade tolerance of the species ２）. Maqbool et al.11）stated that mayapple shoots that 
developed under increasing levels of shade （30%, 55% and 80%） tended to produce larger shoots 
that persist for long durations than those under full sun. Photosynthetic capacity and light 
compensation points were lower for shade （30% of full sun light over a 30 days period） of forage 
grasses （Brachiria humidicola）． Total leaf chlorophyll content was higher in shade treatment than 
full sunlight５）． Conover and Poole３） reported that plant height was higher in （63% shade of full 
sun light） shade than sunlight treatment over 10 weeks and trunk diameter was lower in shade 
trees （Ficus species）． They also reported that the number of leaves dropped was higher in sun 
light treatment than shade treatment. In snapdragon, the increasing light intensity significantly 
shortened the flowering time and decreased leaf numbers４, ８）． The shaded plants （54% or 68%） 
produced larger leaves and taller stem in order to capture more light, probably because of a shade 
avoidance mechanism which resulted in decreasing the number of flower buds and delaying 
－ 12 －
flowering time１）. Munir et al.16）described that the number of flower buds in Snapdragon decreased 
significantly with increase in shading percentage. They also reported that leaf numbers per plant 
below the inflorescences were also significantly affected by different shading materials and control 
plants produced less number of leaves （17） than the shaded plants (18-25）. Plants without shading 
took minimum time to flower （95 days） while those receiving minimum of light （68% shade）
throughout their development delayed flowering by 38 days. Plants that received high light 
intensity were dense and produced maximum branches per plant in control. Plant height was 
significantly increased as the light intensity decreased. Griffin et al. ７） stated that leaf chlorophyll 
content （SPAD value）of Illicium species was lower in full sun than shading treatment （plant 
covered by woven shade cloth）. Shade grown plants often have relatively large antenna complexes 
for maximum light capture10）. Medina et al.13）reported that higher stomatal conductance and higher 
CO₂ assimilation rate were observed in shaded plants, so that integrated daily net CO₂ uptake was 
approximately 20% higher than in exposed plants. 
　Hossain et al. ９）reported that the initial growth of shoot and floral organs was enhanced in peach 
trees that had been summer-pruned compared with winter-pruned trees by using peach trees 
grafted on vigorous wild form peach rootstocks and trained as slender spindle bush type. They 
presumed that the shoots used for fruit bearing near the trunk in winter-pruned trees had been 
shaded during summer and autumn season due to mutual shading of branches. On the other hand, 
the shoots used for bearing in summer-pruned trees had been exposed to sun light after summer 
pruning. Therefore, in this work, we determined whether the shading of trees during autumn 
delays the subsequent initial growth of shoot and floral organs by using young potted peach trees.
Materials and Methods
Site 
　The experiment was carried out in an orchard in the Ehime University Farm located in southern 
Japan, 33° 57 N, 132° 47 E at an elevation of about 20 m above sea level. There is mild temperate 
climate characterized by hot humid summer and cold dry winter. 
Plant materials
　One-year-old peach （Prunus persica var. ‘Hikawahakuho’） trees grafted on wild form vigorous 
rootstocks were used in this experiment. The trees were transplanted to the pot （φ 30cm） in mid 
March, 2003. Fertilizers （N, P₂O₅, K₂O =15%, 15%, 15%）  were applied after transplantation at the 
rate of 30g per pot, respectively. Weeding, irrigation and pesticides were applied as required. There 
were total 18 trees used in the experiment. The treatments were control （no pruning and exposed 
to sunlight）， white cheesecloth shade alone, black cheesecloth shade alone, summer pruning alone 
（exposed to sunlight）， summer pruning+white cheesecloth shade, summer pruning+black 
cheesecloth shade. White and black cheesecloth were used as two sheets. Summer pruning was 
conducted on September l, 2003. As summer pruning, all the current shoots were cut back to 5cm 
length from the shoot base. Fertilizers （N, P₂O₅, K₂O =15%. 15%. 15%） were applied at the rate of 
15g per pot on September 1, 2003. The pots were placed under or outside the shade until April 
－ 13 －
2004. The shade was made 75 cm above from the ground to protect sunlight. The number and 
length of regenerated shoots, leaf drop, flower bud formation and flower time were determined. 
Leaf chlorophyll in the middle portion of the shoot was measured with a Chlorophyll Meter 
（SPAD-502, Minolta Co. Japan）． Three leaves per trees were measured, in which leaves of 
regenerated shoots and those of spring flushes were selected for SP-trees and non-SP trees, 
respectively.
Results and Discussion
　The effect of summer pruning and shade treatments on the number of regenerated shoots is 
shown in Fig. l. The generated shoot number was highest in SP alone trees. However, in SP alone 
trees, the average length of their regenerated shoots was only 5 mm （Fig. 4） and there was no leaf 
expansion （Fig. 3）．The growth of generated shoots and the number of leaves were greatest in SP 
+ black cheesecloth shade （Figs. 2, 3 and 4）．This might be due to late summer pruning conducted 
in September. Marini12）reported that only 2% of the shoots in summer pruning peach trees 
exhibited regrowth and the length of regrowth was 7.3 cm. Ferree et al. ６）reported that the 
amount of re-growth increased when the earlier pruning was done during the growing season. This 
phenomenon may be due to higher levels of cytokinin and other growth promoting hormones early 
in the season. The potential for re-growth is diminished as levels of promoters decline and inhibitors 
increase as the season advances. These plant hormone levels are also linked with flower bud 
formation. Hossain et al. ９） reported that early-mid July after fruit harvest might be the best time 
for summer pruning of peach trees to make small size. On the other hand, in SP+black and white 
cheesecloth shade treated trees, more leaves and longer stems were produced than non-shaded 
trees. In this regard, Ballare １）reported that shaded plants produced larger leaves and longer 
stems in order to capture more light. 
　Leaf chlorophyll content was measured twice in September and November 2003 （Fig. 5）．In 
September after one month of shading, there was little difference in SPAD value among treatments. 
However, in November shading tended to increase leaf chlorophyll content both in summer-pruned 
and non-pruned trees. Moreover, SP trees showed the greater chlorophyll content than non-SP trees 
（Fig. 5）． Griffin et al. ７）found that leaf chlorophyll content （SPAD value）was lower in full sun 
than shading treatment. Mierowska et al.14）also reported that in apple spur leaves total chlorophyll 
content was higher in summer pruned-trees than non-pruned trees during November-March. Leaf 
drop rate percentage was higher in non-SP trees than SP-trees （Fig. 6）． 
　The percentage of flower buds was lower in SP-trees than non-SP trees and the greater shading 
tended to decrease the percentage of flower buds（Fig. 7）． There was no flower bud in generated 
shoots of summer-pruned trees. The percentage of flower buds as a whole tree basis was lower in 
SP-trees than non-SP trees. Mizutani et al.15）found the decrease in flower bud formation with the 
delay of summer pruning in apple trees. Munir et al.16）described that the number of flowering buds 
decreased significantly with increase in shading percentage.
　The greater shading tended to delay blooming （Fig. 8）．By using spender spindle type trained 
－ 14 －
0 1 2 3
Control
WC shade alone
BC shade alone
SP alone
SP + WC shade
SP + BC shade
Leaf numbers /regenerated shoot 0 10 20 30 40 50
Control
WC shade alone
BC shade alone
SP alone
SP + WC shade
SP + BC shade
Total regenerated shoot length (mm)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
September November
S
P
A
D
 
va
lu
e
Control
WC shade alone
BC shade alone
SP alone
SP + WC shad  e
SP + BC shad　e
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
・
／／／／／／／／／／／／／／
／／／／／／／／／／／／／／
／／／／／／／／／／／／／／
／／／／／／／／／／／／／／／
・　・・
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan.
%
 
L
e
af
 
dr
o
p
Control
WC shade alone
BC shade alone
SP alone
SP + WC shade
SP + BC shade
Fig. 3　Effect of late summer pruning and shade on 
leaf initiation in regenerated shoot of peach 
trees. SP=summer pruning, WC=white cloth, 
BC=black cloth. Bars indicate SE （n=3）．
Fig. 4　Effect of late summer pruning and shade 
on total regenerated shoot length of peach 
trees. SP=summer pruning, WC=white cloth, 
BC=black cloth. Bars indicate SE （n=3）．
Fig. 5　Effect of late summer pruning and shade on 
leaf chlorophyll of peach trees. In SP alone, 
there was no leaf expansion. SP=summer 
pruning, WC=white cloth, BC=black cloth. 
Bars indicate SE （n=3）．
Fig. 6　Effect of late summer pruning and shade on 
leaf drop in peach trees from late September 
to late January. Vertical bars represent SE 
（n=3）． SP=summer pruning, WC=white cloth, 
BC=black cloth. SP alone had no expanded 
leaves.
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Control
WC shade alone
BC shade alone
SP alone
SP + WC shade
SP + BC shade
No. of  regenerated shoots
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 2 4 6
Weeks
R
e
ge
n
e
ra
te
d 
sh
o
o
t 
gr
o
w
th
 
(m
m
)
Control
WC shade alone
BC shade alone
SP alone
SP + WC shade
SP + BC shade
Fig. 1　Effect of late summer pruning and shade 
on the number of regenerated shoots. Bars 
represent SE （n=3）．SP=summer pruning, 
WC=white cloth, BC=black cloth.
Fig. 2　Effect of late summer pruning and shade 
on regenerated shoot growth of peach 
trees. Vertical bars represent SE （n=3）．
SP=summer pruning, WC=white cloth, 
BC=black cloth.
－ 15 －
peach trees grafted on vigorous wild form peach rootstocks, Hossain et al. ９）reported that three or 
four days earlier bud break and flowering were observed in summer-pruned trees compared with 
winter-pruned trees. In their work they presumed that in summer pruned trees, shoots which are 
supposed to be used for bearing the following season are exposed to sunlight by summer pruning, 
whereas in winter pruned trees those which are supposed to be used for bearing are shaded due to 
mutual shading of branches during summer and autumn. The present results confirmed such 
presumption. In snapdragon, the decreasing light intensity significantly delayed the blooming time 
４, ８）．
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Control
WC shade alone
BC shade alone
SP alone
SP + WC shade
SP + BC shade
% Flower bud
 
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Control
WC shade alone
BC shade alone
SP alone
SP + WC shade
SP + BC shade
% Flower bloomed
2004/4/6 2004/4/12
Fig. 7　Effect of late summer prunng and shade 
on flower bud formation of peach trees. 
SP=summer pruning, WC=white cloth, 
BC=black cloth. Bars indicate SE （n=3）．
Fig. 8　Effect of late summer pruning and shade on 
bloomimg of peach trees. Data were taken 
twice on April 6 and April 12, 2004. Bars 
indicate SE （n=3）．
Acknowledgments
　The authors are grateful to Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, 
Japan for providing fund in this research. 
Literature Cited
⑴　Ballare C. L. 1999. Keeping up with the neighbours：phytochrome sensing and other signaling 
mechanisms. Trends Plant Sci. 4：97-102.
⑵　Bartlett G. A. and W. R. Remphrey. 1998. The effect of reduced quantities of photosynthetically 
active radiation on Fraxinus pennsylvanica growth and architecture. Can. J. Bot. 76：1359-1 
365.
⑶　Conover, C. A. and R. T. Poole. 1991. Light and fertilizer recommendations for indoor 
maintenance of acclimatized plants. Univ. of Florida, IFAS, CFREC-Apopka Res. Rpt. Rli-9 1-7. 
⑷　Cremer, F., A. Havelange, H. Saedler and P. Huijser. 1998. Environmental control of flowering 
time in Antirrhinum majus. Physiol. Plant. 104：345-350. 
－ 16 －
⑸　Dais-Fillo, M. B. 2002. Photosynthetic light response of the grasses Brachiara brizantha and B. 
humidicola under shade. Sci. Agr. 59：159-168.  
⑹　Ferree, D. C., S. C. Myers, C. R. Rom and B. H. Taylor. 1984. Physiological aspects of summer 
pruning. Acta Hort. 146：243-252. 
⑺　Griffin, J. J., T. G. Ranney and D. M. Pharr. 2004. Photosynthesis, chlorophyll fluorescence and 
carbohydrate content of Illicium taxa grown under varied irradiance. J. Amer. Hort. Sci. 129：
46-53. 
⑻　Hedley, C. L. 1974. Response to light intensity and day length of two contrasting flower 
varieties of Antirrhinum majus. J. Hort. Sci. 49：105-112. 
⑼　Hossain, A. B. M. S., F. Mizutani and J. M. Onguso. 2004. Effect of summer pruning on 
maintaining the shape of slender spindle bush of peach tree grafted on vigorous rootstock. J. 
Japan. Soc. Agr. Tech. Man. 11：55-62. 
⑽　Lambers, H., F. H. Chapin and T. L. Pons. 1998. Plant Physiological Ecology. Springer-Verlag. 
New York. 
⑾　Maqbool, M., K. Cushman, E. Bedir, I. A. Khan and R. M. Moraes. 2003. The effect of shade on 
growth and podophyllotoxin content of mayapple. Missi. Agr. For. Exp. Sta. Infor. Bull. 398：
358-362. 
⑿　Marini, R. P. 1984. Vegetative growth of peach trees following the pruning treatments. Acta 
Hort. 146：287-292. 
⒀　Medina, C. L., R. P. Souza, E. C. Machado, R. V. Ribeiro and J. A. B. Silva. 2002. Photosynthetic 
response of citrus grown under reflective aluminized polypropylene shading nets. Sci. Hort. 96：
115-125. 
⒁　Mierowska, A., N. Keutgen, M. Huysamer and V. Smith. 2002. Photosynthetic acclimation of 
apple spur leaves to summer pruning. Sci. Hort. 92：9-27. 
⒂　Mizutani, F., T. Kogami, D. G. Moon, R. C. Bhusal, K. L. Rutto and H. Akiyoshi. 2000. Effects of 
summer pruning on the number of apical buds near the trunk in slender-spindle-trained apple 
trees grafted on semi-dwarfing rootstocks. Bull. Exp. Farm, Coll. Agr., Ehime Univ. 22：1-10. 
⒃　Munir, M., M. Jamil, J. Baloch and K. R. Khattak. 2004. Impact of light intensity on flowering 
time and plant quality of Antirrhinum majus L. cultivar Chimes White. J. Zhejiang Univ. Sci. 5：
400-405.
－ 17 －
遅い夏季剪定と寒冷紗による遮光がモモの枝の再生、
花芽分化、開花時期に及ぼす効果
Ａ. Ｂ. Ｍ. シャリフ　フセイン・水谷房雄・Ｊ. Ｍ. オングソ
アリ　Ｒ. エル-シェリフ
摘　　　　　要
　野生モモ台木に接ぎ木したポット植えの1年生‘日川白鳳’を用いて、遅い時期の夏季剪定と寒冷
紗による遮光が、枝の再生、花芽分化、翌年の開花に及ぼす効果を調査した。９月１日に夏季剪定を
行い、遮光区は樹を白と黒の寒冷紗の下においた。枝の再生は遮光をしない夏季剪定のみの区で、最
も多かったが、再生した枝の生長は夏季剪定＋黒色寒冷紗区で最大であった。葉のクロロフィル含量
（ＳＰＡＤ値）も夏季剪定＋黒色寒冷紗区で最も大きかった。花芽形成率は夏季剪定をしない区に比
べて、夏季剪定をした区で低かった。また、遮光程度が大きくなるにつれて、花芽形成は抑制される
傾向が見られた。再生した枝には花芽形成は見られなかった。落葉速度は夏季剪定をしない区で早かっ
た。遮光は翌年の開花時期を遅らせる傾向があった。


Effect of Late Summer Pruning and Cheesecloth Shades on Shoot Regeneration, Flower Bud Formation and Blooming Time of Peach Trees

Not a member yet