Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (7)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by MILES, D. B.
Right arrow Articles by MILLER, S. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by MILES, D. B.
Right arrow Articles by MILLER, S. A.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by MILES, D. B.
Right arrow Articles by MILLER, S. A.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Annals of Botany 78: 289-294, 1996
© 1996 Annals of Botany Company

Within Plant Sampling Procedures—Fruit Variation in Kiwifruit Vines

D. B. MILES+, G. S. SMITH and S. A. MILLER

The Horticulture and Food Research Institute of New Zealand, Ruakura Research Centre, Private Bag 3123, Hamilton, New Zealand

June 5, 1995 ; January 4, 1996

Costs of fruit assessment often dictate that only a sample of fruit is taken for analysis. To ensure the sample results are consistent with those expected from the whole fruit population, selected fruit must be representative of the fruit population under investigation and the sample estimate should be unbiased.

Samples of fruit from kiwifruit (Actinidia deliciosa var. deliciosa) vines grown on T-bar trellis systems were harvested and the mass of each individual fruit within the sample recorded. The choice of an individual fruit was completely objective and consisted of systematically selecting fruit based on their hierarchical location within the vine. Fruit not included in the sample were also harvested and weighed. The fruit were assigned to a zone based on their position within the vine canopy. Comparison of the sample estimates with the expected values showed the sample gave a reliable estimate of the average harvest mass. Errors in sampling technique were identified by the comparison of the locations of the sampled fruits with the those from the expected sample set. These operator errors were divided into two classes; incorrect lateral choice within a cane and wrongly sampled fruits within an individual lateral. With respect to fruit weight, analysis of the two classes of error indicated that neither source had any significant effect on the reliability of the sample.

Fruit sampling; fruit variability; plant architecture; Actinidia deliciosa ; kiwifruit


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.