RESPONSE OF 'SWELLING' PEACH TO CHEMICAL THINNING IN COMPARISON WITH HAND THINNING

"<lno \t"\\I\r;w'd 0f                                                  'Sweillrg" j:"eJ'.}) [pr~.·nt.s oersic« lL.) Balch] was
C0l110ar",rJ wj!i1 cherrrcat blcsaom tllinring u~:ng i];nmOlllum thiosulfate (ATS) T
Topsu., urea + Topsin, and urea, or Tcpsr .... 1 Ir.dlvijwally during the 1999/2000 and
2000i200 i seasons WI\h regard to soma veqetative characters, yield, and some [rllil
quality characters. In both seasons, hand thinning mduced the least significant shoot
growlh Increment. percentage of fruit retenucrr, frurt firmness, and fruit acidity; whsle II
gave the hlgl1est significant values of IDC'l1 area, Yield (ill terms of weighl and number
c.f !rui\s per tree), and fruil weight. size, polar and .:qualonal diameter, colour flesh
thickness, and total soluble solids (TSS) content Blossom thinning with ATS + Topsin
Iollowed hand thinning in all the measured characters. but it was significantly inferior
to hand thinning in yield. as weigh\ and number 0\ In.l\\s, ar,d fruil ISS, signlflcanlly
higher than Ilemd lhmninq in shoot growlh increments and [ruil firmrress. and nut
significarrUy Cllfferenl from hand thinning Ill, at least, one of the two seasons In the
rernalrunq characters The other blossom thinning Ireatments were inferior to hand
thinning. regarding all above-listed characters The applied thinning treatments had
no significant effect on leaf chlorophyll readiflgs.