Abstract

A 20-year-old camu-camu plot was studied to determine pruning production and stand-thinning techniques with the objective of recovering its productive capacity in a floodable area. The evaluated treatments were as follows: T1 “control” (without pruning and without stand-thinning), T2 (without pruning and with stand-thinning per line), T3 (with pruning and stand-thinning per line), and T4 (with pruning and selective stand-thinning). The distribution of plants in the field was not balanced, and the INFOSTAT program was applied for the non-parametric analysis of Kruskal and Wallis with 8 replicates. The response variables were as follows: “Number of flowers/plant” (NFL), “number of fruits in phase 3” (NFRF3), “number of fruits in phase 5” (NFRF5), “percentage of fallen fruits in phase 3” (% FRCF3), “percentage of fallen fruits in phase 5” (% FRCF5), “average fruit weight” (PPFR), and “fruit yield” (RFR). Significant differences were found between treatments for NFL, NFRF3, NFRF5, % FRCF3, and RFR with values: P = 0.0002, P = 0.0022, P = 0.0009, P = 0.0010, and P = 0.0010, respectively. The percentage of fruits fallen in % FRCF5 and PPFR were not statistically influenced by the treatments. T2 reached higher values in all these variables. In the 10 months of the trial, T2 induced a significantly higher RFR, evidencing the disadvantage of pruning and the efficiency of linear thinning in the short term. It is necessary to continue evaluating the next harvests to observe the RFR trends.

Authors and Affiliations