DYNA
0012-7353
2346-2183
Universidad Nacional de Colombia
https://doi.org/10.15446/dyna.v89n223.100129

Recibido: 15 de diciembre de 2021; Revision Received: 29 de junio de 2022; Aceptado: 19 de julio de 2022

Effect of pruning on apical dominance, agronomic traits, and post-harvest quality of pitaya in the Amazon forest biome

Efecto de poda sobre la dominancia apical, características agronómicas y postcosecha de pitaya en el bioma de la selva Amazónica

C. Fernandes Lisboa, a A. Bicioni Pacheco, a F. Jesus, a M. Silva, a I. Teixeira, b A. Sanches, c E. Santana Miyagawa, a L. Sousa, a J. Freitas, a

a Universidade Federal Rural da Amazônia, Department of Agricultural Engineering, Tomé-Açu - PA, Brazil. cristiane.lisboa@ufra.edu.br, adriano.pacheco@ufra.edu.br, fernanda.lamede@ufra.edu.br, magnun.penariol@ufra.edu.br, edisonmasato01@gmail.com, lukas1005sousa@gmail.com, freitasjm22@gmail.com Universidade Federal Rural da Amazônia Universidade Federal Rural da Amazônia Department of Agricultural Engineering, Tomé-Açu Brazil
b Universidade Estadual de Goiás, Department of Agricultural Engineering, Fazenda Barreiro do Meio, Anápolis - GO, Brazil. itamar.texeira@ueg.br Universidade Estadual de Goiás Universidade Estadual de Goiás Department of Agricultural Engineering Brazil
c Universidade Federal da Grande Dourados, Department of Agricultural Engineering, Unit II, Dourados-MS, Brazil. arthursanches@ufgd.edu.br Universidade Federal da Grande Dourados Universidade Federal da Grande Dourados Department of Agricultural Engineering Brazil

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate the influence of cladode pruning on apical dominance in the production and post-harvest of pitaya fruits. The experiment was carried out at the Sítio das Pitaya do Pará, which is in the city of Tomé-Açu, State of Pará, Brazil. A randomized block design (RBD) in a 3 x 2 factorial scheme was used, with four replications for each treatment. Treatments consisted of three stand positions in the field (beginning, middle, and end of row) and two pruning regimes (with and without pruning). The interaction of factors Pruning and Stand position (P*SP) inhibited sprouting, while the Pruning factor provided heavier fruits and with a better pulp/peel ratio. Thus, cladode pruning provided benefits to plant management, production parameters, and post-harvest quality.

Keywords:

fruit, quality, Amazon biome, degrees brix, fruit production, dragon fruit, exotic fruit.

Resumen

El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar la influencia de la poda de cladodios sobre la dominancia apical en la producción y poscosecha de frutos de pitaya. El experimento se llevó a cabo en el Sitio Pitaya do Brasil, ubicado en el municipio de Tomé-Açu, Estado de Pará, Brasil. Se utilizó un diseño de bloques al azar (RBD) en un esquema factorial 3 x 2 con cuatro repeticiones de cada tratamiento. Los tratamientos consistieron en tres posiciones de rodales en campo (inicio, medio y final de hilera) y dos tipos de poda (con y sin poda). La interacción de los factores Poda y Posición del Stand (P*SP), inhiben la brotación, mientras que el factor Poda proporciona frutos con mayor masa y mejor relación pulpa/cáscara. Así, la poda de cladodios proporcionó beneficios para el manejo de la planta, los parámetros de producción y la calidad poscosecha.

Palabras llave:

fruta, calidad, Amazon biome, grados brix, producción de frutas, dragon de fruta, fruta exótica.

1. Introduction

Pitaya is a plant originating in Central and South America, more precisely in Mexico [1]. It is among the various species of epiphytic cacti [2], belonging to the botanical family Cactaceae and being divided into four main genera: Stenocereus, Cereus, Selenicereus and Hylocereus [3]. According to [3], the most well-known species of the genera are: Selenicereus megalanthus (yellow bark and white pulp); Hylocereus polyrhizus (red bark and red/purple pulp); Hylocereus sp. (red bark with white or red/purple pulp).

Brazilian pitaya production is currently about 1,493.19 tons per year, with the Southeast region being responsible for the largest share, around 812.64 tons in 2017 [4]. Data from the 2017 Agricultural Census [4] reveal that pitaya production in the state of Pará is equivalent to 156.39 tons, with production concentrated northeastern, mainly in the city of Tomé-Açu, where it reaches 92.70 tons per year.

Among agricultural practices pitaya cultivation, pruning is used to stimulate plant production and prevent some pests and diseases. For [5], pruning is the selective removal of plant parts providing advantages such as production stimulation, correcting physical damage caused.

A proper fruit handling is essential to ensure quality and market acceptance. Therefore, care must be taken with harvesting, storage, and transport conditions. [6] summarized pitaya post-harvest processes as follows: transport to the processing line, pre-cooling, washing and disinfection, selection, and classification, drying, waxing, packaging, box labeling and storage.

[7] examined postharvest changes in pitayas picked commercially immature pitaya and observed increased respiratory after harvest and, six days after harvest, fruit characteristics were similar to those of on-plant ripened fruits. They also noted that fully ripe harvested fruits have soluble solids/titratable acidity ratio, as well as betacyanin and ascorbic acid content, similar to those of fruits harvested commercially immature. This information can guide farmers on the most suitable fruit destination.

For pitaya (Hylocereus sp.) cultivation, there are few studies on pruning and its influence on agronomic and post-harvest traits. This species has been commercially grown for a short time in Brazil. As a result, producers often rely only on empirical information from management of other species, also known as pitaya [8]. Accordingly, this study aimed to evaluate the influence of pruning on apical dominance in pitaya cladodes and its influence on fruit agronomic and postharvest traits.

2. Material and methods

2.1. Experimental area

The present experiment was carried out in a red pitaya (Hylocereus polyrhizus) cultivation from July to October 2020, at the Sítio das Pitaya do Pará located in the city of Tomé-Açu, Pará State, Brazil.

The pitaya orchard was 4 years old, grown under full sun, non-irrigated, and visually healthy. Cladodes from the upper region, without physical or biological damages, were chosen to conduct the experiment.

2.2. Experimental design

A randomized block design (RDB) in a 3 x 2 factorial scheme was used, with four replications for each treatment. Treatments consisted of three stand positions within the field (beginning, middle, and end of plant row) and two pruning regimes (1-cm pruning from the tip and no pruning). The experiment was carried out in triplicate, with each block consisting of an average of three replications. Each block comprised 9 fence posts with pruning at the cladode tip and 9 platforms without it, in each platform 5 cladodes were chosen for the evaluations.

2.3. Agronomic characteristics

Fruit diameter and length were measured with the aid of a 0.01-mm precision digital caliper and a measuring tape. The number of flowers, number of abortions, and number of sprouts were also counted. These parameters were evaluated weekly for 3 months.

Pitaya fruits were characterized in the UFRA postharvest laboratory, before and after harvest, in terms of: length and diameter, mass, water content, peel thickness, pulp/peel ratio, titratable acidity, soluble solids (Brix), hydrogen potential (pH), and production per cladode.

2.4. Statistical analysis

The data obtained were subjected to analysis of variance using the F-test at 5% probability and, when relevant, the means were compared using the Tukey’s test at 5% probability. The statistical analysis was performed using the SISVAR 5.0 software [9].

3. Results and discussion

Table 1 displays the results of the analysis of variance of the factors: stand position (SP), pruning (P), and their interaction (SP x P).

Table 1: Summary of the analysis of variance for the effect of the factors: stand position (SP), pruning (P), and their interaction (SP*P) on the number of flowers (NFL), number of abortions (NA), number of sprouts (NS), number of fruits (NFR), fruit diameter before harvest (FDBH, in mm), fruit length before harvest (FLBH, in mm).

Factor DF Mean Square
NF NA NB NFR DFAC CFAC
Block 3 2.63ns 1.45ns 0.02ns 0.25ns 106.90ns 76.58ns
Stand Position (SP) 2 2.17ns 1.55ns 0.24** 0.06ns 4.87ns 29.70ns
Pruning (P) 1 6.01ns 2.26ns 0.23** 0.92ns 1.138.22ns 1.255.12ns
SP*P 2 1.78ns 1.24ns 0.23** 0.92ns 762.80ns 700.43ns
Error 15 2.08 2.44 0.029 0.29 373.98 454.76
Total 23 - - - - - -
CV(%) - 58.41 55.88 175.81 66.90 59.35 59.87
* *significant at 1% probability level (p<0.01); *significant at 5% probability level (0.01≤ p<0.05); ns non-significant (p≥0.05); Coefficient of Variation (CV); Degree of Freedom (DF).

Source: own authors.

Table 2 shows that the characteristic number of sprouts was significantly influenced by the factors Position (P) and Pruning (PD), as well as by their interaction Position * Pruning (P*PD).

Table 2: Summary of the analysis of variance for the post-harvest effects of the factors: stand position (SP), pruning (P), and their interaction (SP*P) on the parameters: fruit diameter after harvest (FDAH, in cm), fruit length after harvest (FLAH, in cm), fruit mass (FM, in g), fruit production per cladode (PC, in kg/cladode), peel thickness (PT, in mm), pulp/peel ratio (PPR), titratable acidity (AT, in %), soluble solids (Brix), and hydrogen potential (pH).

Factor DF Mean Square
DFAC CFAC MF PC EC RPC AT Brix pH
Block 3 158.55ns 193.86ns 1685.35ns 154.33ns 4.45ns 0.02ns 222.82ns 1.04ns 0.66ns
Stand Position (SP) 2 3.42ns 1.72ns 48.09ns 54.12ns 0.35ns 0.00ns 33.98ns 2.26ns 0.17ns
Pruning (P) 1 1,460.74ns 1,628.72ns 22.500* 2,488.80ns 8.63ns 0.28** 1,515.27ns 27.95ns 3.39ns
SP*P 2 795.66ns 818.79ns 10,933.86ns 1,689.94ns 10.35ns 0.07ns 949.22 ns 13.96ns 2.44ns
Error 15 420.50 446.60 456.20 619.60 8.89 0.03 656.50 6.21 2.02
Total 23 - - - - - - - - -
CV(%) - 59.69 58.06 59.55 70.82 61.28 71.54 59.75 63.46 60.35
* *significant at 1% probability level (p<0.01); *significant at 5% probability level (0.01≤ p<0.05); ns non-significant (p≥0.05); Coefficient of Variation (CV); Degree of Freedom (DF).

Source: own authors.

According to the second criterion of [10], coefficients of variation above 30% are considered high for agricultural experiments. In this study, this can be explained by the fact that pitaya has not yet undergone significant plant breeding, leaving plant stands unequal in terms of many parameters related to production.

Table 2 highlights that fruit mass and pulp/peel ratio at postharvest were significantly influenced by the pruning factor. This effect was proven by [11], who stated that pruning, in addition to stimulating new flower and bud branches, also increases fruit quality and size.

Table 3 shows the means of number of sprouts for SP*P interaction, in which pruning inhibited sprouting at the beginning, middle, and end of plant rows, while no-pruning showed significant differences among stand positions, and the middle of the line showed a significant difference for this characteristic.

Table 3: Mean values of number of shoots for position x pruning interaction.

Factor With pruning No pruning
Beginning 0.00 Aa 0.00 Ba
Middle 0.00 Aa 0.58 Ab
End 0.00 Aa 0.00 Ba
Mean 0.00 0.19

Means followed by the same uppercase letter in the column and lowercase letter in the row do not differ statistically from each other, by the Tukey's test at 5% probability.

Source: own authors.

The results presented in Table 3 are contrary to those found by [12] in a study with white-pulp pitayas. Such divergence may suggest variations derived from different genetic materials, as well as other conditions such as physiological factors, as well as climatic and nutritional conditions [13].

The position in the middle of the line showed increased sprouting (Table 4), which may have been caused by a greater exposure to light. [14] reported that pitaya is a long-day plant, requiring more than 12 hours of light, which may stimulate the growth of secondary cladodes.

Table 4: Means of number of sprouts for each position factor.

Position Sprouts
Beginning 0.00 b
Middle 0.30 a
End 0.00 b
Mean 0.10

Means followed by the same uppercase letter in the column and lowercase letter in the row do not differ statistically from each other, by the Tukey’s test at 5% probability.

Source: own authors.

Table 5 demonstrates that the number of sprouts was smaller in pruned plants. This result corroborates [6], who reported that apical meristem removal in lateral phyto-cladodes inhibits sprout emergence and stimulates cladode thickening and fruiting.

Table 5: Means of number of sprouts, fruit mass, and pulp/house ratio for pruning factor.

Pruning Sprouts Fruit Mass Pulp/peel
With pruning 0.0 a 144.03 a 0.36 a
No pruning 0.20 b 82.79 b 0.14 b
Mean 0.10 185.42 0.25

Means followed by the same uppercase letter in the column and lowercase letter in the row do not differ statistically from each other by Tukey's test at 5% probability.

Source: own authors.

Still in Table 5, pruned plants had heavier fruits than non-pruned ones, corroborating the results found for other fruit trees such as bark nut [15] and Physalis peruviana L. [16].

Finally, pitaya fruit pulp increased with pruning, which corroborates the results found by [8], who observed that fruit tree pruning increases and improves the quality of fruits.

4. Conclusions

  1. Cladode pruning reduces sprouting in pitaya plants.

  2. Plant positioning within the field influences the number of sprouts.

  3. Cladode pruning increases fruit mass and pulp/peel ratio.

  4. In brief, cladode pruning is recommended to reduce sprouting, increase production, and improve the post-harvest quality of pitaya fruits.

Acknowledgements

Acknowledgment

The authors thank the company Sítio das Pitayas do Pará and the Federal Rural University of Amazônia (UFRA) for contributing to this study.

References

  1. [1] Perween, T., Mandal, K. and Hasan, M., Dragon fruit: an exotic super future fruit of India. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry. 7(2), pp. 1022-1026, 2018. 🠔
  2. [2] Pitaya Do Brasil. Sobre a Pitaya. [online]. [Acesso em: 19. mar. 2018]. Disponível em: https://www.pitayadobrasil.com.br/sobre-a-piatya/.. [URL] 🠔
  3. [3] Moreira, R.A., Ramos, J.D., Silva, F.O.R. and Moreira, R.A., Produção de mudas de Pitaya. Boletim Técnico. (103), pp. 1-11, Lavras/MG, 2017. 🠔
  4. [4] IBGE - Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatistica. Resultados do Censo Agropecuário [online]. 2017. [Acesso em: 01 jun. 2020]. Disponível em: Disponível em: https://censos.ibge.gov.br/agro/2017/ [URL] 🠔
  5. [5] Baitelle, D.C., Poda programada de ciclo no cafeeiro arábica. Dissertação (Dissertação em Produção Vegetal). Universidade Estadual do Norte Fluminense Darcy Ribeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil, 2018. 🠔
  6. [6] Queiroga, V.P., Girão, Ê.G., Gomes, J.P., Queiroz, A.J.M., Figueirêdo, R.M.F. e Albuquerque, E.M.B., Pitahaya (hylocereus spp.) sistema produtivo de cactos trepadeiras. Revista eletrônica a barriguda, 1° ed., 2021. 🠔
  7. [7] Martineli, M., Castricini, A., Maial, V.M. and Maranhão. C.M.deA., Post-harvest physiology of pitaya at different ripening stages. Semina: Ciênc. Agrár. Londrina, 42, pp. 1033-1048, 2021. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5433/1679-0359.2021v42n3p1033 [URL] 🠔
  8. [8] Brito, L.P.S., Poda, tamanho e inserção de cladódios na produção de pitaia (Hylocereus sp.). Orientador: Leonardo Pereira da Silva Brito. (Doutorado em Produção Vegetal). Universidade Federal de Lavras, Minas Gerais, Brasil, 2019. 🠔
  9. [9] Ferreira, D.F., Sisvar: a guide for its bootstrap procedures in multiplecomparisons. Ciências e Agrotecnologia, Lavras, 38(2), pp. 109-112, 2014. 🠔
  10. [10] Scapim, C.A., DE Carvalho, C.G.P. and Cruz, C.D., Uma proposta de classificação dos coeficientes de variação para a cultura do milho. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira, 30, pp. 683-686, 1995. 🠔
  11. [11] İkinci, A., Kuden, A. and Bekir, E.A., Effects of summer and dormant pruning time on the vegetative growth, yield, fruit quality and carbohydrate contents of two peach cultivars. African Journal of Biotechnology, Kenya, 13, pp.84-90, 2014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5897/AJB09.1614 [URL] 🠔
  12. [12] Laredo, R.R., Ramos, J.D., Dos Santos, V.A., De Oliveira, E.R., Moraes, K.S. and Tostes, N.V., Desponte de Cladódios de Pitaia Vermelha de Polpa Branca. Uniciências, 22(1), pp. 8-11, 2018. 🠔
  13. [13] Sato, S.T.A., Ribeiro, S.C.A, Sato, M.K. and Souza, J.N.S., Caracterização física e físico-química de pitayas vermelhas (Hylocereus costaricensis). Journal of Bioenergy and Food Science. Macapá, 1(2), pp. 46-56, 2014. DOI: https://doi.or/10.18067/jbfs.v1i2.15 [URL] 🠔
  14. [14] Trindade, A., Reis, A., Sabbo, L., Trindade, D., Paiva, P. and Duarte, A., Pitaia: pespectivas e dificuldades. Agrotec. pp. 32-34, 2019. 🠔
  15. [15] Hellwig, C.G., Poda e desbaste no cultivo de nogueira-pecã em plantios adensados. Embrapa Clima Temperado-Tese/ Dissertação (Mestre em Ciências) - Faculdade de Agronomia Eliseu Maciel, Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas, Brasil, 2020, 95 P. 🠔
  16. [16] Pellizzaro, V., De Paula, J.C.B., Furlan, F.F., Omura, M.S. and Takahashi, L.S.A., Qualidade dos frutos de Physalis peruviana L. em função de diferentes tipos de tutoramento e poda. Brazilian Journal of Food Technology, 23(1), pp. 1-10, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-6723.07319 [URL] 🠔
How to cite: Lisboa, C.F., Pacheca, A.B., de Jesus, F.L.F., da Silva, M.A.P., Teixeira, I.R., Sanches, A.C., Miyagawa, E.M.S., Sousa, L.L.F. and de Freitas, J.M., Effect of pruning on apical dominance, agronomic traits, and post-harvest quality of pitaya in the Amazon Forest biome. DYNA, 89(223), pp. 75-78, July - September, 2022.
C.F. Lisboa, is Bsc Eng in Agricultural Engineering in 2015, MSc. in Agricultural Engineering in 2017, from the Universidade Estadual de Goiás, Brazil, and PhD. in Agricultural Engineering, in 2019 from the Universidade Federal de Viçosa, Brazil. She is currently a full professor at the Federal Rural University of Amazônia, Brazil. She has experience in the field of agricultural engineering. ORCID: 0000-0002-9930-8800
A.B. Pacheco, is PhD. in Agricultural Systems Engineering in 2019, from the Escola Superior de Agricultura “Luiz de Queiroz”/ Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil, and MSc. in Agricultural Engineering in 2017, and BSc Eng in Agricultural and Environmental Engineer in 2015, from the Universidade Federal do Mato Grosso Brazil. He is currently an agricultural engineer and works as administrative technician in education at the Universidade Federal Rural da Amazônia (UFRA). ORCID: 0000-0001-5991-7997
F.L.F. de Jesus, is BSc. Eng in Agricultural and Environmental Engineering, in 2013, from the Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais -UFMG, Brazil, a degree in English in 2008, from the Instituto Superior de Educação Ibituruna Brazil, a MSc. in Agricultural Engineering in 2016, from the Universidade Federal de Viçosa - UFV Brazil, and a Dr. in Agricultural Systems Engineering in 2019, from the Universidade de São Paulo - ESALQ/USP Brazil. She is currently a professor at the Federal Rural University of Amazônia-UFRA. ORCID: 0000-0002-9183-6326
M.A.P. da Silva, is BSc. Eng in Agricultural and Environmental Engineering in 2011, from the Universidade Federal do Mato Grosso Brazil, MSc. in Agronomy (Energy in Agriculture) in 2013, from Universidade de São Paulo “Júlio de Mesquita Filho”, Brazil, and PhD. in Agronomy (Energy in Agriculture) in 2016, from Universidade de São Paulo “Júlio of Mesquita Filho” Brazil. He is currently an adjunct professor at the Universidade Federal Rural da Amazônia (UFRA), Campus de Tomé Açu (PA), Brazil. ORCID: 0000-0002-4375-5783
I.R. Teixeira, is BSc. in Agronomy in 1995, MSc. in Agronomy (Fytotechnics) in 1998 all of them from the Universidade Federal de Lavras Brazil, Dr. (2002) and PhD. (2006) in Phytotechnics (Vegetable Production), from the Universidade Federal de Viçosa Brazil. ORCID: 0000-0001-6936-5823
AC Sanches, is Professor Dr. at the Universidade Federal da Grande Dourados, Dourados/MS. He has a BSc. in Agronomy in 2009 from the State University of Maringá Brazil. MSc. in Agricultural Engineering from the Universidade Federal da Grande Dourados, in the Water and Soil Engineering area. Dr. by the Agricultural Systems Engineering program at Escola Superior de Agricultura “Luiz de Queiroz”/Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil. ORCID: 0000-0003-2379-0634
E.M.S. Miyagawa, is BSc. Eng in Agricultural Engineering from the Universidade Federal Rural da Amazônia (UFRA-Tomé-Açu), Brazil. Member of the Pitaya project (Hylocereus sp and Selenicereus sp): an example of management in Tomé-Açu/PA. It works in the areas of management and cultural treatments of pitaya. ORCID: 0000-0003-1056-1365
L.L.F.Sousa, is BSc. in Agricultural Engineering from the Universidade Federal Rural da Amazônia (UFRA), Brazil. ORCID: 0000-0003-1471-9123
J.M. de Freitas, she is studying the Agricultural Engineering course at the Universidade Federal Rural da Amazônia (UFRA), Brazil. ORCID: 0000-0001-5618-3107