{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022192028985507248, 'fraction_numerical': 0.018115942028985508, 'mean_word_length': 4.986449864498645, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Current-year and subsequent-year effects of crop-load manipulation and epicormic-shoot removal on distribution of long, short and epicormic shoot growth in Prunus persica.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS
The distribution of canopy growth among different shoot types such as epicormic, long and short shoots is not well understood in the peach tree. In this experiment, the effects of crop load and early epicormic sprout removal on current and subsequent-year distribution of vegetative growth among epicormic, long and short shoots was investigated in Prunus persica.


METHODS
Field trials were conducted in Winters, California, in 2003-2004. Crop load was manipulated with fruit thinning in 2003 to produce trees that were de-fruited, commercially thinned or full crop, and half of the trees in each cropping treatment had all current year epicormic sprouts removed at the time of fruit thinning. Yield was recorded and trunk and root carbohydrates were sampled to confirm the effect of 2003 crop load differences on tissue carbohydrate concentration. All current-season vegetative-shoot extension growth was harvested from half of the trees in each treatment in the autumn of 2003 and from the other half in the autumn of 2004. Epicormic, long and short shoots were separately evaluated for dry weight, node number and leaf-stem parameters.


KEY RESULTS
In 2003, long-shoot dry weight and node number were significantly affected by crop load; however, short-shoot dry weight and node number were not significantly affected. The 2003 crop-load treatments did not affect 2004 vegetative growth of any shoot type. Some re-growth of epicormic shoots followed early epicormic sprout removal: by the end of the 2003 season, trees in the early shoot-removal treatment had approximately one-third of the epicormic-shoot dry weight as unpruned trees.


CONCLUSIONS
Fruit thinning promoted distribution of growth similar to that of de-fruited trees. While thinning was effective in increasing fruit size, it exacerbated the problem of epicormic sprouting. Early epicormic sprout removal did not stimulate the excessive epicormic re-growth in the same or subsequent year relative to previously studied summer pruning methods.