Canopy growth, yield, and fruit quality of 'Royal Gala' apple trees grown for eight years in five tree training systems

In 1993, a planting of virus-free 'Royal Gala' apple (Malus xdomestica Borkh.) on 'M.9' rootstock was established at Summerland, B.C., Canada, to determine whether angled-canopy training systems could improve orchard tree performance relative to slender spindles. The trees were trained in one of five ways: slender spindle (SS), Geneva Y-trellis (GV), a modified Solen training we called 'Solen Y-trellis' (SY), or V-trellis (LDV), all at the same spacing (1.2 m x 2.8 m), giving a planting density of 2976 trees/ha. In addition, a higher density (7143 trees/ha) version of the V-trellis (HDV) was planted to gauge the performance of this system at densities approaching those of local super spindle orchards. The plots were drip-irrigated and hand-thinned. No summer pruning was done. After 8 years, differences among training systems at the same density and spacing were small and few. The two Y-shaped training systems had 11% to 14% greater cumulative yield/ha than the SS, but did not intercept significantly more light at maturity. No consistent differences occurred in fruit size or the percentage of fruit with delayed color development among the four training systems at the same density. Relative to the LDV, the HDV yielded less per tree, but far more per hectare, particularly in the first 3 years. After 8 years, the cumulative yield/ha was still 65% greater than with LDV. Yield efficiency was unaffected by tree density. Fruit size on HDV ranked lowest among the systems nearly every year, but was still commercially acceptable. The HDV intercepted more light (73%) than SS (53%). The percentage of fruit with delayed color development in HDV was not significantly different from that for LDV in most years. The trees in HDV were difficult to contain within their allotted space without summer pruning. The substantially similar performance of all the training systems (at a given density, and with minimal pruning) suggests that cost and ease of management should be the decisive factors when choosing a tree training method.