Page 443 - Biosystems Engineering

420 Cha pte r F i f tee n

No. Treatments Week after Blooming
1 Control, untreated —
2 GA 2
3
3 IAA 2
4 IAA 4
5 PB (shoots and fruits) 2
6 PB (shoots and fruits) + IAA 2
7 PB (shoots and fruits) + IAA 4
8 SADH (shoots and fruits) 2
9 SADH (shoots and fruits) + IAA 2
10 SADH (shoots and fruits) + IAA 4
11 SADH (shoots only) 2
12 SADH (shoots only) + IAA 2
13 SADH (shoots only) + IAA 4
14 Shoot thinning 2
Description of treatments to Figures 15.1–15.3.

the amount of nitrogen in fruit and seeds (data are not shown here).
The auxin alone, as well as gibberellin and shoot tipping, did not
change N content.
The results presented here suggest that retardants can improve
fruit supply in calcium. However, this concerns several factors. 26
Daminozide did not affect Ca uptake in calcium-rich fruits. Diamino-
zide did not change its calcium uptake power in fruits, although it
diminished the fruits’ competition for Ca through weakened shoot
growth. At that time, fruits were small and supposedly seeds pro-
duced a sufficient amount of auxin to enable transportation of an
adequate volume of calcium to the fruits.
There is much evidence that diaminozide reduces the growth of
shoots and fruits. Thus, diaminozide could influence the flow of cal-
cium to these parts of the plant. 26,59 The results presented here show that
direct contact of daminozide with fruits has often changed calcium
uptake by fruit and leaves. Usually, leaf and seed uptake has been
changed insignificantly. In fruits, calcium uptake was slightly increased,
and decreased or did not change the amount of calcium, depending on
their physiological stage during treatment with retardant. Presumably,
in one experiment at the time of treatment, fruitlets were larger,
although they were more resistant to retardant than in other experi-
ments. In small fruits that are rich in calcium, the retardant did not affect
the calcium content in fruit, regardless of its mode of application.