Vincent:
As I understand your most recent explanation, both the untreated and
the ReTain-treated trees
produced greater fruit size at harvest if they were borne on trees most
heavily-set at start of
experiment. And that the ReTain treated trees showed a greater size/initial
number of fruit than did the
untreated. If the difference in fruit size for treated versus untreated is
small, I would not be much
bothered by it. Can you tell us how much different they were?
David Kollas
On Jan 14, 2014, at 12:26 PM, Vincent Philion <vincent.phil...@irda.qc.ca>
wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Thank you all for your input!
>
> I did not explain why I was looking at drop and fruit size: it was an
> experiment on the use of ReTain.
>
> In the end I’m not sure I can pinpoint the reason this increased fruit size
> on trees with more apples (notwithstanding ReTain), but your input underlined
> that a number of variables can be involved! I liked Duane’s idea.
>
> If you’re curious, the report will read: ReTain Treatments significantly
> increased harvested McIntosh yield as compared to the control (p<0.0001).
> Average fruit size at harvest was proportional to the total number of fruits
> on the trees present at the start of the experiment (p=0.01) and fruits
> treated with ReTain were larger than in the control (p=0.02).
>
> The effect of ReTain on harvest was expected (drop prevention) but the effect
> on fruit size was undetectable if the model was not adjusted to the initial
> crop load (thus my question)
>
> So the next question is now: why are ReTain treated fruits bigger than
> untreated fruit at harvest?
>
> bye for now,
>
> Vincent
>
>
> On 14janv., 2014, at 10:06, Duane Greene <dgre...@pssci.umass.edu> wrote:
>
_______________________________________________
apple-crop mailing list
apple-crop@virtualorchard.net
http://virtualorchard.net/mailman/listinfo/apple-crop
