Defoliation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Uncle Ben

Uncle Ben

Well-Known Member
Situation420 said:
I wouldn't mind, some people just really know how to ruin a thread.
Click to expand...
Yeah, some people. Pot calling kettle black.

Look, as a new member if you'd lurk and use the Search feature rather than coming into a worthless subject that has been hashed and rehashed a 1,000 times, you'd know what I mean. Every one of the defoliation threads ended up like this one.

Bottom line, the guy that started this thread was too damn lazy to use the search feature. That's why they (admin, programmers) went thru all the time and work to put together a Search feature, so that these lazy numbnuts (or attention ho's, take your pick) would ignore it along with the scientific facts I and few others presented.

UB
 
Uncle Ben

Uncle Ben

Well-Known Member
PJ Diaz said:
It's funny to me that last time I posted this pic, you told me to tell them to "stop the lollipop drills". Your retorts are really all across the board aren't they? The only commonality in your posts seems to be that of negativity.
Click to expand...
Pot calling the kettle black. You libs and your double standards. :roll: BORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRING.

UB
 
Situation420

Situation420

Well-Known Member
Uncle Ben said:
Look, as a new member if you'd lurk and use the Search feature rather than coming into a worthless subject that has been hashed and rehashed a 1,000 times, you'd know what I mean. Every one of the defoliation threads ended up like this one.

https://www.rollitup.org/nutrients/570037-so-you-noobs-hooked-cannabis-17.html
UB
Click to expand...
I looked at that thread, and a couple others that were closed. The only thing that was common between them all was You and Alexander Supertramp. It seems like you guys are always stirring up the controversy and rather than solely providing your input, you add additional insult and arrogance to your posts and belittle the members of RIU continuously. That's great that you guys are so knowledgable but can you use some of that intelligence to control your ego's and what comes out of your mouths? That would probably keep half of the threads that get closed from happening and RIU would be a much more relaxed place for discussion.
 
Fazer1rlg

Fazer1rlg

Active Member
Situation420 said:
His post was just an example of defoliating working for someone, that is all I was saying. I dont do side by sides for the internet because I have already seen it a work a dozen times myself. That requires a whole other setup to do and all I would get out of it is a few people that still don't agree or have their own opinions. I like big buds, how bout you?
Click to expand...
And like I said you "defoliators" never have a side by side. If you did it it would prove your point but your not willing to do that so ill believe it when I see it. I am an open minded person so seeing a side by side would be interesting. Since you do it all RIGHT like I have seen you said many times already in this thread, it shouldn't be too hard for you to do. Yes I like big buds but big buds come from big leaves.
BIG LEAVES = BIG BUDS. lets see your side by side to disprove that Mr. I do everything right.
 
Fazer1rlg

Fazer1rlg

Active Member
Link me some side by sides then. I just googled side by side defoliation and nothing comes up. I have tried defoliation and I will say my leafy plants always did way better this was tried in soil where the nutes aren't readily available. In hydro it may work cause he nutrients are readily available.
 
Sir.Ganga

Sir.Ganga

New Member
Fazer1rlg said:
In hydro it may work cause he nutrients are readily available.
Click to expand...
This statement tells me that your not really looking for help or you would have a better answer than that. Have you even read through this thread...there are many other also. There are many threads on defoliation, take your pick and make up your own mind. Its not hard to find. Believe what you want. I know what works for me.
 
propertyoftheUS

propertyoftheUS

Well-Known Member
Jesus fucking Christ, you guys are absolutely killing me. Why in the FUCK would a plant grow leaves if the fucking plant didn't need/use/depend on them for GROWTH? I mean seriously, have you fucktards ever just sat back and asked yourselves that question? If you have and still think whacking and hacking produce bigger buds yall need to just quit posting here, or any other cannabis forum, all together. Seriously guys, your brains must have as many healthy cells as the plants you're "growing" or I should say stunting. Wait a minute, maybe defoliating only works on Marijuana? That's got to be the reason the other million of gardening forums, magazines, and college courses make no mention of it, and would laugh at you if you did. I've sat back quiet for some time now but perpetuating BULLSHIT like defoliating is about as absurd of concept that I've ever read, well right up there with using super-duper candy space bomb bud blaster 9000, 0-90-0, during flowering. Maybe that's it!!! I've finally got it!! You defoliaters are the same FUCKTARDS who use the 0-90-0 and by the time you are 5 weeks into flowering all of your leaves are shriveled up and fall off, so you all finally got smart and started calling it DEFOLIATING to save face. You all need to move to San Fransico because there is plenty of room for you queery trolls to stay under that Big Ole Bridge, and you'd FIT right in, or they'd FIT right in you, either way get gone.
 
PJ Diaz

PJ Diaz

Well-Known Member
Here's another related to tomatoes: http://www.akimoo.com/2013/effect-of-defoliation-at-three-phenological-stages-on-yield-of-tomato-lyco/

ABSTRACT: A tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill) grown under greenhouse crop WAS in La Plata, Argentina (34 o 58′S lat, 57 o 54′W long) with the AIM of studying the effect on the yield of the Elimination of the third leaf trusses entre in three phenological stages: T1) Check (Without defoliation control), T2) pruning at flowering (all flowers open); T3) at petal fall pruning, T4) pruning with 10 mm diameter fruits. FA 144 and Fortaleza Hybrids Were defoliated up to the fifth truss. Final yield and the commercial classes registered Were up to the 7 th truss. All defoliating Treatments Better Than the control yield. Among commercial classes, only quality fruits third (between 120 and 100 g) show Significant Difference between treatments, founding an interaction entre defoliating Treatments and hybrids. Better yield FA 144 in this class for pruning at flowering.
Key words: leaf pruning, phenology.
ABSTRACT: In La Plata, Argentina (34 ^0 58 ‘lat. South, 57 ^0 54′ W long.) We conducted a tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill) under plastic cover in order to assess the effect on performance the elimination of the third leaf between clusters in three phenological stages of the bunch: T1) control without defoliation, T2) pruning at flowering (all flowers open); T3) at petal fall pruning, T4) pruning with 10 mm equatorial diameter. FA 144 hybrids and Fortaleza were subjected to the defoliation treatments until the fifth cluster. The final yield and the commercial classes were registered to harvest the 7th cluster. All defoliation treatments led to a final performance improvement than the control. Among the commercial categories, only the third quality fruits (fruits from 120 to 100 g) showed significant differences between treatments, an interaction between pruning treatments and hybrids. FA 144 improved performance in this category for pruning at flowering.
Keywords: pruning of leaf phenology.
Introduction
The partition of assimilates in the tomato plant (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill) is related to the distance between sources and destinations (Marcelis, 1996). Tanaka and Fujita (1974) considered that there is a drive source – destination composed of three leaves and a cluster within which the flow is treated preferentially. Experience showed that 14C-assimilates are transported according to a distribution pattern in phyllotaxis involving the 2 / 5 of the plant (Hocking and Steer, 1994). However, when the balance source – destination is changed, as in the case of defoliation, the phyllotaxis is no longer an important factor in regulating the partitioning of dry matter (DM) (Marcelis, 1996). The fruits are similar in all leaves irrespective of their location or d0stancia (Khan and Sagar, 1966; Heuvelink, 1995; Marcelis, 1996).
The leaves have an indirect effect on the partition of MS through the formation of target organs (Marcelis, 1996). Among destinations there is some hierarchy, in which some bodies have less reduction in the availability of assimilates, the fruit being less sensitive than the flowers (Wardlaw, 1990). The fruits are responsible for directing the flow of assimilates (Ho, 1979, Gifford and Evans, 1981) and the strength of themselves as destinations is given by its size, possibly determined by the amount of fixed cells at anthesis and its activity (Ho, 1996; Marcelis, 1996).
The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of pruning of leaves in three different growth stages on crop performance in a long-life tomato conducted under greenhouse.br>
Materials and methods
The experiment was conducted in La Plata (34 ^0 58 ‘lat. South 57 ^0 54′ W long.), Argentina, during the period August 1997 to February 1998. The long-life tomato hybrids were used: FA 144 (Hazera) and Fortaleza (Rogers Seed Co.), both of indeterminate growth habit with three leaves between clusters. The seeds were sown on 08/13/1997 in expanded polystyrene trays of 135 alveoli. We used a substrate consisting of peat, perlite and worm in volume ratio of 50:25:25, previously disinfected with methyl bromide.
On 10/09/1997, at the two true leaves, seedlings were transplanted to a greenhouse polyethylene parabolic LTD of 150 with east – west. The soil used, type argiudol vertic, was sterilized with methyl bromide and covered with black mulch of 50 . Planting was done at 0.40 x 0.70 m in a row. The crop was drip fertigate and taken to a shaft.
Performed weekly weeding and thinning of fruit, leaving 5 per bunch. All basal leaves (to the first cluster) were removed after harvest the fruits of the first cluster. 4 treatments were performed: T1) control without defoliation, T2) pruning at flowering (all flowers open); T3) at petal fall pruning, T4) pruning with equatorial diameter 10 mm. The pruning was cut from the base in the third leaf of each layer formed by the three sheets present between two adjacent clusters. The treatments were performed on all plants in the four strata are listed: 1st layer: leaves located between the 1st and 2nd cluster, the 2nd layer: leaves located between the 2nd and 3rd cluster, 3rd layer: leaves located between the 3rd and 4th cluster, and the 4th layer: leaves located between the 4th and 5th cluster. Thus, each plant was subjected to four defoliation (one sheet per stratum, between the 1st and 5th cluster). The execution time for pruning is decided according to the phenological state of the lower stratum cluster. Table 1 shows the dates of occurrence of developmental stages considered.
Table 1. Dates of occurrence of developmental stages in tomato, La Plata, 1997.
Table 1. Dates of tomato phenological stages, La Plata, 1997.
The experimental design was a split plot with three replications. The main plots were assigned to the hybrids and were composed of 32 floors. Each subplot (4 per plot) was spread over 8 floors found in the treatments of defoliation.
The harvest began on 16/12/1997 and ended on 05.02.1998, made with a frequency of three times weekly. The fruits were harvested at the ripening fruit (Murray and Yommi, 1995) recorded the final yield in weight (kg / plant) until the seventh cluster. The fruits were classified by category of commercial quality according to their weight: C1) first-fruits, fruits with a weight exceeding 150 g; C2) secondary fruit, weighing between 120 and 150 g; C3) fruits of third weighing between 100 and 120 g, D) fruit discards, subdivided into small fruits (weighing less than 100 g), deformed fruit and fruit affected by TSWV (Tomato Spotted Wilt Virus). The values obtained were subjected to analysis of variance and means were compared by Tukey test (P <0.05) when ANOVA gave significance.
Results and discussion
Table 2 shows the values of total and average yields per category (kg / plant) to the treatments. All defoliation treatments resulted in an increased final yield compared to the control without defoliation. Analysis of the different categories shows that only C3 showed significant differences between treatments, having found interaction between pruning treatments and hybrids. Pruning flowering of the hybrid FA 144 differed from petal fall pruning (1.40 vs. 1.16 kg / plant). The rest of pruning x hybrid interactions in C3 levels were minor performance difference compared to the pruning of FA 144 at petal fall, but without being significant between them.

Table 2. Mean yield (kg / plant) and total commercial category for treatment.
Table 2. Total yield (kg / plant) and commercial classes per Treatment mean values.
Different letters indicate significant differences between means (P <0.05).
* Significant P = 0.05, ns: not significant.
References
1T2: pruning flowering T3: petal fall pruning T4: pruning with equatorial diameter 10 mm, T1: control.
2 C1: high quality fruit, C2: second-quality fruit; C3: third quality fruit.
In the tomato plant fruit yield after defoliation is affected both by the intensity of practice and by the growth stage in which it occurs (Slack, 1986). The defoliation level reached in this trial did not exceed 20% of the total of leaves on the ground and generally lenient defoliation, less than 60%, do not affect fruit yield in this crop (Jones, 1979).
The pruning of the third leaf, in any of the three phenological stages evaluated in this study, would be effective in increasing performance in a long-life tomato crop, compared with the control without pruning. Similar results were found by Mendoza Bulnes et al. (1995) and Martinez et al. (1996) to delete the first or third leaf between clusters in a more advanced growth stage of the cluster. The performance increase in C3 for pruning at flowering and at petal fall varietal showed differences that correlated with an increase in weight of the fruits of that category (data not shown), coinciding with those obtained by Martinez et al. (1998) who found a direct effect of leaf pruning on fruit weight.
The potential size of the fruit is defined by the number of cells in the ovary fixed in pre-anthesis, while its actual size is a result of cell elongation during the period of rapid growth (Ho, 1996). At the time of the different defoliation treatments, the potential size of the fruit was already defined. Cell elongation depends on the supply of assimilates to the fruits and climatic conditions (Rylski, 1979; Marcelis, 1996). Under normal weather conditions and nutrition, the tomato fruit production is not restricted by lack of assimilates and there are experiences that demonstrate an increased absolute and relative quantities of assimilates reaching the result by reducing the number of photosynthetic sources (Khan and Sagar, 1969). In a cash crop, leaf removal of the canopy would encourage the production of assimilates by a better distribution and collection of light by reducing the degree of overlap and shading among leaves. This effect would be similar to that caused by the use of wider spacing between plants leading to increased crop yield (Rodriguez and Lambeth, 1975).
Conclusions
Defoliation treatments increased the fruit yield compared to control.
Pruning treatments at flowering and at petal fall increased performance in the category C 3 in the hybrid FA 144.
Literature Cited
Bulnes Mendoza, I., M. Asborno, S. Martinez, S. Seren. 1995. Response of tomato crop cover different types of pruning and its interaction with bioclimatic parameters. p. 140 (Abstract). In XVIII Congreso Argentino de Horticultura, Termas de Rio Hondo, Argentina. 11-14 September. Horticulture Association of Argentina, Santiago del Estero, Argentina.
Gifford, R.M., and L.T. Evans. 1981. Photosynthesis, carbon partitioning and yield. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. 32:485-509.
Heuvelink, E. 1995. Dry matter partitioning in a tomato plant: one common assimilate pool. J. Exp Bot. 46:1025-1033.
Ho, L.C. 1979. Regulation of assimilate translocation entre leaves and fruits in tomato. Ann. Bot. 43:437-448.
Ho, L.C. 1996. The Mechanism of assimilate partitioning and carbohydrate compartmentation in fruit in relation to the quality and yield of tomato. J. Exp Bot. 47:1239-1243.
Hocking, P.J., and LV Steer. 1994. The distribution and identity of assimilate in tomato with special reference to stem reserves. Ann. Bot. 73:315-325.
Jones, J.P. 1979. Tolerance of tomato to manual defoliation. Proc. Florida State Hortic. Soc 92:99-100.
Khan, A., and G.R. Sagar. 1966. Distribution of 14C-labeled products of photosynthesis During The commercial life of the tomato crop. Ann. Bot. 30:727-743.
Khan, A., and G.R. Sagar. 1969. Alteration of the pattern of distribution of photosynthetic products in the tomato by the manipulation of the plant. Ann. Bot. 33:753-762.
Marcelis, L.F.M. 1996. Sink strength as a determinant of dry matter partitioning in the whole plant. J. Exp Bot. 47:1281-1291.
Martinez, S., M. Asborno, I. Mendoza Bulnes, M. Garbi, A. Molteni, L. Tellis, M. Arturi. 1996. Effect of thermal availability and pruning of leaves on tomato cultivars coverage. p.110. (Abstract). In XIX Congreso Argentino de Horticultura. Argentina Association of Horticulture, San Juan, Argentina. 15-19 September.
Martinez, S., M. Garbi, M. Arturi, M. Asborno. 1998. Relationships of weight and number of fruits with the performance and quality in tomato leaf removal treatment. Agro-Science (Chile) 14:201-206.
Murray, R., and A. Yommi. 1995. Points to consider for proper postharvest handling of tomatoes. p.20-24. In 5 th Workshop on protected crops. Universidad Nacional de La Plata, La Plata, Argentina. 23-24 November.
Rodriguez, B.P. and Lambeth, V.N. 1975. Artificial lighting and spacing as photosynthetic and yield Factors in winter greenhouse tomato culture. J. Am Soc Hortic. Sci 100:694-697.
Rylski, I. 1979. Fruit set and Development of seeded and seedless tomato fruits under diverse Regimes of temperature and pollination. J. Am Soc Hortic. Sci 104:835-838.
Slack, G. 1986. The effect of leaf removal on the Development and yield of glasshouse tomatoes. J. Hortic. Sci 61:353-360.
Tanaka, A., and Fujita, K. 1974. Physiological nutrition studies on the tomato plant. Source-sink IV Relationship and structure of the source-sink unit. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition 20:305-315.
Wardlaw, I.F. 1990. The control of carbon partitioning in plants. New Phytol. 116:341-381.
Original publication. Agric. Tec [online]. oct. 2001, vol.61, no.4 [cited June 12, 2007], p.522-526. Available on the World Wide Web: <>. ISSN 0365-2807.
Reproduction authorized by: Technical Agriculture Magazine, hriquelm [at] inia.cl
Martinez2 Susana Maria Cecilia Grimaldi3, Mariana and Michael Artur2 Garbi3
1Recepcion of manuscripts: December 12, 2000 (returned).
2 Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences and Forestry, CC 31 (1900) La Plata, Argentina.
3 research fellows. Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences and Forestry, Agricultural Climatology and Phenology.
Click to expand...
 
propertyoftheUS

propertyoftheUS

Well-Known Member
Too bad you must not ne able to comprehend very well. If you look at the figures it shows 3 different containers: 1st has one plant, 2nd has two plants, and the 3rd has three plants. So they really didn't have a controlled experiment with the same number of plants in each container with different rates of defoliation. Go back to watching your Simpson's, a little more your speed ;) "On the other hand, average number of fruits per unit ground area was influenced significantly by plant densities in experiments 1 and 2, by an average factor of 1.6 and 1.3, respectively" Also tomato plants are A-sexual so one would be stupid not to know planting more tomato plants next to each other, cross-pollinating, will produce more fruits per plant than a single large plant by itself. I guess this experiment would be of some use to trolls that like growing hermaphrodites. Come the fuck on.
 
HeartlandHank

HeartlandHank

Well-Known Member
Sir.Ganga said:
Not only have I backed up my mouth with pictures, side by side studies, There is pages and pages of evidence that has been presented time and time again and you know what...if its not how they do things ...its bunkim or not backed, or this or that...Just read my friend and you will see what the real story is.
Click to expand...
... Where is it? Read what?

I saw that link that OP gave... I saw the ICMAG link that showed the SCROG side by side... Is that the proof and research you speak of?
 
Situation420

Situation420

Well-Known Member
Soo....back to actual plant growth. Defoliation has no definite process or procedure to follow that is the same for every plant, because theirs so many ways to do it and so many different reasons why to do it.
 
Situation420

Situation420

Well-Known Member
propertyoftheUS said:
Jesus fucking Christ, you guys are absolutely killing me. Why in the FUCK would a plant grow leaves if the fucking plant didn't need/use/depend on them for GROWTH? I mean seriously, have you fucktards ever just sat back and asked yourselves that question? If you have and still think whacking and hacking produce bigger buds yall need to just quit posting here, or any other cannabis forum, all together. Seriously guys, your brains must have as many healthy cells as the plants you're "growing" or I should say stunting. Wait a minute, maybe defoliating only works on Marijuana? That's got to be the reason the other million of gardening forums, magazines, and college courses make no mention of it, and would laugh at you if you did. I've sat back quiet for some time now but perpetuating BULLSHIT like defoliating is about as absurd of concept that I've ever read, well right up there with using super-duper candy space bomb bud blaster 9000, 0-90-0, during flowering. Maybe that's it!!! I've finally got it!! You defoliaters are the same FUCKTARDS who use the 0-90-0 and by the time you are 5 weeks into flowering all of your leaves are shriveled up and fall off, so you all finally got smart and started calling it DEFOLIATING to save face. You all need to move to San Fransico because there is plenty of room for you queery trolls to stay under that Big Ole Bridge, and you'd FIT right in, or they'd FIT right in you, either way get gone.
Click to expand...

LOL its a weed because it grows uncontrollably, you gotta tame that bitch and tell it how you want it to grow. Calm down man geez
 
Uncle Ben

Uncle Ben

Well-Known Member
propertyoftheUS said:
Jesus fucking Christ, you guys are absolutely killing me. Why in the FUCK would a plant grow leaves if the fucking plant didn't need/use/depend on them for GROWTH? I mean seriously, have you fucktards ever just sat back and asked yourselves that question? .......
Click to expand...
Obviously not.

Couldn't have said it better. "Fucktards" lol, gotta luv it. :)
 
Situation420

Situation420

Well-Known Member
There is a point in every leaves life where it is no longer beneficial to growth but is consuming more energy than it is producing. The same this goes with stems you remove, sometimes the energy a certain stem uses is more than it is going to produce, so you preemptively remove it before it uses too much. I think defoliation is more of a selective pruning technique rather than some gun ho miracle method.
 
Dboi87

Dboi87

Well-Known Member
hey uncle ben. Since this thread is a waste i figured a lil hijacking cant hurt so bad. :p I'm currently reading mel franks book and its a good read. thanks for the suggestion. however, I had ignorantly started my first crop before doing enough research and I've run into a lot of problems. right now my issue is that my leaves have curled down from the sides to look like claws. I tried the forum but no one seems to have a solid answer and honestly your opinion is the only opinion I trust at this point? any insight?
 

Attachments

Fazer1rlg

Fazer1rlg

Active Member
Sir.Ganga said:
This statement tells me that your not really looking for help or you would have a better answer than that. Have you even read through this thread...there are many other also. There are many threads on defoliation, take your pick and make up your own mind. Its not hard to find. Believe what you want. I know what works for me.
Click to expand...
I have been in this thread since the first couple pages. I have been following along. You sir would know that if you read it. What answer would be up to par with you? What were u expecting I really don't see your point? I want to see more legitimate links on defoliation besides keeftreez bullshit post that I read 2 years ago and none of you guys can pull them up. I ain't gonna just take my pick of some dudes claims when they obviously are stunting the shit out of his plants. Like i said lets see one of you big shots do a side by side you guys want to ramble on well a side by side will end this discussion but you won't be able to find one go ahead and google.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top