Optimization of ‘Tainongyihao’ Mango Inflorescence-Cutting Technology
by
, , and
Chenyu Jiang
1,2,†
,
Yijia Gao
1,2,†,
Jiabing Jiao
1,2,†,
Ling Wei
1,2,
Shaopu Shi
1,2,
Tahir Hassam
1,2,
Minjie Qian
1,2,
Kaibing Zhou
1,2,* and
Yuanwen Teng
3,*
1
Sanya Institute of Breeding and Multiplication, Hainan University, Sanya 572025, China
2
College of Tropical Agriculture & Forest, Hainan University, Danzhou 571737, China
3
Hainan Institute of Zhejiang University, Sanya 572025, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Horticulturae 2025, 11(3), 239; https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae11030239
Submission received: 28 January 2025
/
Revised: 18 February 2025
/
Accepted: 22 February 2025
/
Published: 24 February 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Fruit Production Systems)
Abstract
:Inflorescence cutting is a critical cultural practice that enhances yield and fruit quality in mango cultivation. This study evaluated four treatments with the “Tainongyihao” mango: no cutting (CK), 1/3, 1/2, and 2/3 cutting of the central inflorescence axis, classified as light (L), medium (M), and heavy (H) cutting, respectively. Inflorescences were categorized by length, and field experiments were conducted during the growth periods of autumn–winter and winter–spring fruit in under-regulated and conventional harvest systems. The measured indicators include yield efficiency per unit trunk circumference, average fruit weight, reduced sugar content, total soluble solids (TSS), total titratable acids (TA), vitamin C content (Vc), and the TSS/TA ratio. Results indicated that light cutting was optimal for yield efficiency of autumn–winter fruit, while medium and heavy cutting were most effective for winter–spring fruit. Comprehensive fruit quality improved most under heavy cutting across all inflorescences. Long inflorescences benefited from heavy or medium cutting, medium inflorescences benefited from heavy cutting, and short inflorescences benefited from medium cutting. Interactive effects were observed between inflorescence-cutting treatments and inflorescence length, with fruit quality consistently improving under inflorescence-cutting treatments. Heavy cutting is recommended for manual operations, and all the results of this paper provide a foundation for developing artificial intelligence (AI)-based inflorescence-cutting technologies that enable precise and efficient mango cultivation practices.
1. Introduction
Flower thinning is a widely used cultivation technique in various fruit trees, such as Malus pumila Mill., Citrus maxima Burm. Merr., Vitis vinifera L., Prunus persica L. Batsch, Litchi chinensis Sonn., Dimocarpus longan Lour., and many others. This practice is crucial for optimizing flower and fruit management, enhancing yield, and improving fruit quality [1,2,3,4,5,6]. However, with advancements in science and technology, traditional manual flower thinning has become less suitable for modern fruit production. This is due to rural labor migration, increasing labor shortages, and rising agricultural costs. As a result, alternative techniques, such as chemical flower thinning, mechanized thinning, and artificial intelligence-based thinning technologies, have been developed to meet the needs of contemporary fruit tree cultivation [7,8,9,10,11,12].
Chemical flower-thinning technology, which typically relies on pesticide-based formulations to achieve its effects, faces significant challenges. These include concerns about food safety, potential tree damage, environmental pollution, inconsistent efficacy, and comprehensive adjustments based on various factors. Developing and screening an environmentally friendly chemical flower-thinning agent remains arduous and is not considered an innovative or optimized direction for advancing flower-thinning technologies [13,14]. Mechanical flower thinning, while an alternative, suffers from limitations. These include a singular working mode, low precision, high requirements for orchard standardization, and a narrow scope of application. As a result, it is not considered to be a mainstream approach for the innovation and simplification of flower-thinning technology [14,15,16]. Intelligent pruning effectively improves fruit tree pruning efficiency and reduces production costs [17].
By contrast, the application of artificial intelligence (AI) in flower-thinning technology has shown significant promise. AI advancements have enabled precise identification of flowering branches, inflorescences, and flowers, facilitating accurate and efficient flower-thinning measures [14,15,16]. This innovation replaces human labor and achieves higher efficiency and precision, positioning AI as the leading direction for the future development of fruit tree flower thinning.
The AI-based flower-thinning technology builds upon traditional manual flower-thinning methods. It requires establishing clear parameters, including identifying suitable flower-thinning targets and determining the quality and quantity requirements for fruiting branches, flower buds, inflorescences, and flowers. These parameters are essential for AI systems to recognize and execute thinning operations quickly and accurately, enabling light simplification and the standardization of flower-thinning practices [11,18,19]. Consequently, research into the innovation and optimization of manual flower-thinning techniques for fruit trees should be conducted simultaneously with, or even precede, the development of AI-powered flower-thinning robots. This approach ensures that AI systems are built on a robust foundation of optimized thinning strategies, leading to greater efficiency and precision in fruit tree management.
Inflorescences of the mango (Mangifera indica L.) are large, typically containing 100–2000 florets, with a high number of male flowers and fewer bisexual flowers. The flowers open sequentially over a long period, and the natural fruit set is relatively low [20,21,22]. As a result, artificial flower thinning has been shown to enhance yield and improve fruit quality [23,24,25]. In a flower thinning trial with the “Tainong No. 1” mango, treatments were applied when the flowers at the base of the inflorescence began to open. The main inflorescence axis was cut to 1/2 or 1/3 of its length, with no cutting used as the control. The results indicated that the 1/3 shortening treatment was more effective, significantly improving both the average fruit weight and the tree yield, suggesting that this method should be promoted in production [23]. A similar flower thinning treatment for the “Aiwen” mango grown in a shed involved removing 1/3 of the inflorescence length during flowering. This approach led to larger fruit with improved commercial value and increased yield [24]. For the “Guifei” mango, mechanical and chemical flower thinning methods were applied. The mechanical method cut the central inflorescence axis below the dense nodes, leaving approximately 25 cm of the axis. Both treatments increased yield per tree by enhancing the fruit weight and improving economic returns. The optimal chemical thinning agent, indoxacarb, was identified, with a recommended application of 1–2 sprays of a 400 mg/L solution between the end of the first physiological fruit drop and the final fruit drop [25].
Manual flower thinning typically increases labor costs, while mechanical thinning is challenging to implement due to a lack of standardization in many orchards. Furthermore, applying chemical flower thinning methods has been inconsistent [13,14], which has hindered its widespread adoption in seedling fruit production. However, with the increasing integration of AI technology, notable breakthroughs have been achieved in AI-driven flower thinning for fruit trees [14,15,16]. As a result, AI-based flower-thinning technology is poised to become a crucial method for managing fruit and flower production, emphasizing the need for further research to optimize precise mango flower-thinning techniques. This study explores the effects of various inflorescence-cutting treatment intensities on single-plant yield and fruit quality. We first classify the “Tainong No. 1” mango inflorescences based on the length of the central inflorescence axis. Following this, a bifactorial experimental design is employed to investigate how different inflorescence types and cutting intensities influence plant yield and fruit quality. The interactive effects of these treatments, including the impact of varying inflorescence lengths, are also analyzed. Ultimately, this research seeks to establish a precise inflorescence-cutting strategy for the “Tainong No. 1” mango, providing key technical parameters that will support future research and AI-driven flower-thinning technology advancement.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Experimental Site
Field trials were conducted from early October 2023 to mid-May 2024 over two consecutive production seasons at the Sanya Yulong Agricultural Development Co., Ltd. Additionally, from mid-December 2023 to mid-April 2024, field trials were carried out in the Xingxing Orchard, located in Longmen Village, Yingzhou Town, Lingshui Lizu Autonomous County, Hainan Province. The orchard is situated at a latitude of 18°25′ N and longitude of 109°51′ E, characterized by a 60° slope with equidistant terraces (4-m wide ladder). The fruit trees are planted in single rows with 3 m spacing, consisting of gravel-bearing brick-red loam sandy-loam soil. Both orchards are within a tropical oceanic monsoon climate, with high temperatures and humidity, long summers, and no distinct winters. The region experiences a rainy season from May to October and a dry season from November to April. The area enjoys more than 300 sunny days annually, with intense solar ultraviolet radiation, averaging a daily radiation dose of approximately 83.47 kJ·m−2·d−1.
2.2. Experimental Materials
The two orchards were planted with the “Tainongyihao” mango, using Changjiangtumang mango rootstocks from Hainan Island. The trees were 16 years old as of 2023. A total of 20 healthy plants with uniform growth, no pest or disease issues, and strong vigor were selected for the trials. At the Sanya Youlong Agricultural Development Co., Ltd. (Shengchang Village, Haitang District, Sanya City, China), regulated harvest technology was applied in the orchard. The phenological periods were as follows: in the 2023–2024 production season, flowering occurred in early October 2023, followed by physiological fruit drop from late October to early November, fruit expansion from early November to early January 2024, and harvesting in mid-January, yielding autumn–winter fruit. In 2024, flowering occurred in late January, physiological fruit drop took place from mid to late February, fruit expansion spanned from late March to late April, and harvesting was conducted from early to mid-May, yielding winter–spring fruit. The Xingxing Orchard followed conventional orthocultural practices with the following phenological periods: flowering in early December 2023, physiological fruit drop in early to mid-January, fruit expansion from late January to late March, and harvesting in early to mid-April, also producing winter–spring fruit.
2.3. Experimental Methods
2.3.1. Experimental Design Methods
Five productive trees were randomly selected, and a total of 461 inflorescences were measured for length. A normality test was conducted on the inflorescence lengths, resulting in their classification into three categories: long (A), medium (B), and short (C). The classification was based on the standard distribution graph, box plot, and stem-and-leaf diagram. The median values from the stem-and-leaf diagram, which corresponded to the 3/4 and 1/4 whiskers of the box plot, were used to define the minimum length for long inflorescences and the maximum length for short inflorescences, respectively. For the treatment, twenty productive trees were randomly selected, grouped into sets of five, and divided into four treatment levels: light inflorescence cutting (L), medium inflorescence cutting (M), heavy inflorescence cutting (H), and a control group with no cutting (CK). The experimental design was a completely randomized block with single factor plots and five replications per treatment. The effects of different inflorescence-cutting intensities were compared. Additionally, five inflorescences of each length (long, medium, and short) were randomly selected from each experimental tree to form a two-factor vertical orthogonal treatment combination. This allowed for the comparison of the main effects of the different inflorescence lengths and cutting intensities and an analysis of the interaction effects between the two treatment factors.
2.3.2. Experimental Treatments Methods
The twenty productive trees were randomly selected and grouped into four sets of five plants each, based on the intensity of inflorescence-cutting treatment, on 5 October 2023, 18 December 2023, and 31 January 2024. The experimental treatments and replications were clearly indicated on the boards. The inflorescences were subjected to different cutting intensities: heavy cutting (removing 2/3 of the main axis of the inflorescence from the top to the base), medium cutting (removing 1/2 of the main axis), and light cutting (removing 1/3 of the central axis). A control group with no cutting of the main axis was also included.
2.3.3. Sampling and Sample Pre-Treatment Methods
Fruit samples were collected on 15 January and 11 May 2024 (100 days after flowering) at the Sanya Youlong Agricultural Development Co., Ltd. and the Xingxing Orchard, and on 10 April 2024 at the Xingxing Orchard. Five fruit were randomly harvested from the middle quadrant of the tree canopy to assess the effects of different intensities of inflorescence-cutting treatments. Additionally, all fruit on the fruiting branches were harvested and weighed in the field to record the number of fruit on each branch. The fruit samples were then transported to the laboratory, where they were ripened at room temperature. After postharvest ripening, the peel was removed, and the pulp was frozen using liquid nitrogen before being stored in an ultra-low-temperature freezer at −80 °C.
2.3.4. Experimental Measurement Methods
A measuring tape was used to determine the length of the inflorescence and the trunk circumference at 5 cm above the grafting union. A 0.10 g electronic scale was used to weigh the fruit, and the average fruit weight was multiplied by the total number of fruit on the tree or the inflorescence to calculate the single-plant or the single-inflorescence yield. The ratio of the single-plant yield to the trunk circumference was used to determine the yield efficiency per unit of trunk circumference. The colorimetric method was employed to measure the reduced sugar content in the pulp using acetylsalicylic acid. The total acid content was measured using a Brix-Acidity Meter (PAL-BX/ACID15, Tokyo, Japan), and the ascorbic acid content was determined by the 2,6-dichlorophenol indophenol method.
2.3.5. Statistical Analysis
The data were analyzed using SAS 9.4 statistical software (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). Normality testing was conducted using the univariate procedure. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to analyze the effects of different intensities of the inflorescence-cutting treatments, and two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to analyze the main effects of the cutting intensity, the inflorescence length, and the interactive effect between them. Additionally, Duncan’s multiple range test was applied for comparisons to assess significant differences among the treatment groups or combinations.
3. Results and Analysis
3.1. Analysis of the Effects of Different Intensities of Inflorescence-Cutting Treatments in Single-Factor Experiments
The effects of different intensities of inflorescence-cutting treatments are summarized in Table 1. For yield efficiency per unit trunk circumference, all inflorescence-cutting treatments were either significantly higher than or comparable to the control. Among the treatments, light, heavy, and medium inflorescence-cutting treatments demonstrated the highest yield efficiency in three separate experiments. This indicates a consistent trend of yield improvement across all inflorescence-cutting treatments. Specifically, the light inflorescence-cutting treatment yielded the highest efficiency for autumn–winter fruit, whereas the medium and heavy inflorescence-cutting treatments led to better yields for winter and spring fruit.
Regarding the average weight per fruit, all inflorescence-cutting treatments produced significantly higher or comparable fruit weights, except for the heavy inflorescence-cutting treatment in the winter–spring fruit season at the Xingxing Orchard, which resulted in significantly lower weights than the control. At the Sanya Youlong Agricultural Development Co., Ltd., the light inflorescence-cutting treatment yielded the heaviest fruit during the autumn–winter season, while the heavy inflorescence-cutting treatment was optimal for the winter–spring fruit season. At the Xingxing Orchard, the medium inflorescence-cutting treatment resulted in the heaviest fruit during the winter–spring season. Overall, inflorescence-cutting treatments generally maintained or improved the average fruit weight. Specifically, light inflorescence-cutting treatments produced the heaviest fruit in autumn–winter.
By contrast, heavy and medium inflorescence-cutting treatments were most effective in winter–spring, aligning with the trends observed in yield efficiency per unit trunk circumference. This improvement in fruit characteristics could contribute to the increased yield per plant. For the reduced sugar and the soluble solids content, as well as the TSS/TA ratio, all inflorescence-cutting treatments were either significantly higher or similar to the control, except for the soluble solids content of the winter–spring fruit under the light inflorescence-cutting treatment at the Xingxing Orchard, which was significantly lower than the control. Generally, the heavy inflorescence-cutting treatment was consistently the most significant. By contrast, the control consistently showed the lowest trend. However, there was no significant difference between the control and the medium inflorescence-cutting treatment, such as on the TSS and so on. For titratable acid content, the inflorescence-cutting treatments generally showed significantly higher or comparable values to the control, except for the medium inflorescence-cutting treatment for the autumn–winter fruit at the Sanya Youlong Agricultural Development Co., Ltd., which had significantly lower values than the control. Overall, all the inflorescence-cutting treatments exhibited a trend higher than the control; light and heavy inflorescence-cutting treatments exhibited the highest trend, while medium inflorescence-cutting treatments showed an intermediate trend.
Regarding vitamin C (Vc) content, all inflorescence-cutting treatments were significantly higher or not substantially different from the control, except for the medium inflorescence-cutting treatment in the winter–spring fruit at the Sanya Youlong Agricultural Development Co., Ltd., which was considerably lower than the control. Among all treatments, the light inflorescence-cutting treatment exhibited the highest trend. In summary, compared to the control, inflorescence-cutting treatments showed a significant improvement in both the external fruit size and the fruit’s internal nutritional and flavor qualities.
3.2. Normality Test of Inflorescence Length and Determination of Classification Thresholds
The results of the normality test for inflorescence length are presented in Figure 1. The stem-and-leaf plot demonstrates a distribution that closely resembles a symmetrical unimodal curve. The box plot shows that the height of the 1/2 quantile line is nearly centered between the 1/4 and 3/4 quantile lines, further supporting the normality of the data. Additionally, the probability distribution map reveals 15 positive points (+), accounting for 3.25% of the total, indicating that the inflorescence length follows a highly significant normal distribution. Based on the box plot, the quartiles at 1/4 and 3/4 align with the groupings observed in the stem-and-leaf plot and the probability distribution map. The median values of these groups are 19 cm and 31 cm, respectively. Therefore, inflorescences shorter than 19 cm are classified as short, those longer than 31 cm as long, and those between 19 cm and 31 cm as medium. In subsequent analyses, this classification of inflorescence length will be consistently applied.
3.3. Analysis of the Effects of Bifactorial Experiments Including Different Intensities of Inflorescence-Cutting Treatments and Inflorescence Length
3.3.1. Average Yield per Inflorescence
As shown in Table 2, the different inflorescence-cutting and length significantly influenced the average yield per inflorescence, with a higher interaction effect between the two factors. All inflorescence-cutting treatments resulted in significantly higher yields than the control or showed no significant difference. Specifically, light, heavy, and medium inflorescence-cutting treatments produced the highest yields for autumn–winter fruit and winter–spring fruit from the Sanya Youlong Agricultural Development Co., Ltd. and the Xingxing Orchard, respectively. These results align with the effects of different inflorescence-cutting treatments on yield efficiency per unit trunk circumference. Across all experiments, long inflorescences consistently exhibited the highest yields. For winter–spring fruit from the Sanya Youlong Agricultural Development Co., Ltd., medium inflorescences showed no significant difference from long inflorescences, and both outperformed short inflorescences significantly. However, for autumn–winter fruit and winter–spring fruit from the Xingxing Orchard, medium inflorescences showed no significant difference from short inflorescences. Due to the significant interaction effect between the inflorescence cutting and the inflorescence length, appropriate inflorescence-cutting treatments can improve the yields of medium and short inflorescences. All treatments, including the control, consistently resulted in lower yields. For autumn–winter fruit from the Sanya Youlong Agricultural Development Co., Ltd., the light inflorescence-cutting treatment increased the yield of medium inflorescences to a level comparable to long inflorescences, which represented the highest yield. It also raised the yield of short inflorescences to the second-highest level. For winter–spring fruit, a heavy inflorescence-cutting treatment significantly increased the yield of long and medium inflorescences, while a medium inflorescence-cutting treatment of long inflorescences also promoted yield to the highest level. At the Xingxing Orchard, the heavy inflorescence-cutting treatment of long inflorescences showed the best yield-increasing effect, with the medium inflorescence-cutting treatment also demonstrating a noticeable trend. However, inflorescence-cutting treatments of different intensities had no significant impact on the yield of short inflorescences for autumn–winter fruit from the Sanya Youlong Agricultural Development Co., Ltd. or winter–spring fruit from the Xingxing Orchard. A comprehensive analysis suggests that the light inflorescence-cutting treatment is suitable for autumn–winter fruit with inflorescences of varying lengths.
By contrast, the heavy inflorescence-cutting treatment is recommended for the long and medium inflorescences of winter–spring fruit, and the medium inflorescence-cutting treatment is also effective for long inflorescences. No cutting treatment is needed for short inflorescences, as treatments did not significantly improve yield. These findings highlight the importance of tailoring inflorescence-cutting intensity to inflorescence length and fruiting season to optimize yields.
3.3.2. Average Weight per Fruit
Different inflorescence-cutting treatments significantly affected the average fruit weight. By contrast, the main effect of inflorescence length and its interaction with inflorescence-cutting treatments were non-significant, as shown in Table 3. The impact of various inflorescence-cutting treatments on average fruit weight was consistent with previous plant-level observations. For autumn–winter fruit, light inflorescence-cutting treatment significantly increased the average weight per fruit. By contrast, the other treatments significantly increased the fruit weight or showed no significant difference compared to the control. For winter–spring fruit, heavy and medium inflorescence-cutting treatments at the Sanya Youlong Agricultural Development Co., Ltd. and the Xingxing Orchard either significantly increased or had no significant effect on the average fruit weight of long and medium inflorescences. The inflorescence-cutting treatments did not significantly affect the average fruit weight of short inflorescences at the Sanya Youlong Agricultural Development Co., Ltd. However, they significantly increased the average fruit weight of short inflorescences at the Xingxing Orchard, with the most notable effect observed in the medium inflorescence-cutting treatment. These results indicate that appropriate inflorescence-cutting treatments can significantly enhance the external size of mango fruit, ultimately contributing to increased inflorescence production and overall plant-level yield.
3.3.3. Content of Reduced Sugar in Fruit
The different inflorescence-cutting treatments and the inflorescence length significantly influenced the reduced sugar content in fruit, with a significant interaction effect between the two factors, as shown in Table 4. All inflorescence-cutting treatments resulted in significantly higher reduced sugar content than the control. Heavy and light inflorescence-cutting treatments yielded the highest reduced sugar content for autumn–winter fruit, while the control showed the lowest, and the medium inflorescence-cutting treatment ranked intermediate. No significant differences were observed among inflorescence-cutting treatments for winter–spring fruit at the Sanya Youlong Agricultural Development Co., Ltd. By contrast, at the Xingxing Orchard, heavy and medium inflorescence-cutting treatments produced significantly higher reduced sugar content than the light cutting treatment, with no significant differences between the heavy and medium treatments. These trends align with previous observations on single fruit reduced sugar content. The effects of inflorescence length varied across production seasons and regions, but short inflorescences consistently exhibited intermediate values. Regarding treatment combinations, a heavy inflorescence-cutting treatment for long and short inflorescences and light cutting for medium inflorescences were optimal for autumn–winter fruit. For winter–spring fruit at Sanya Youlong Agricultural Development Co., Ltd., heavy cutting for long and medium inflorescences and medium or light cutting for short inflorescences were appropriate. At the Xingxing Orchard, heavy cutting for medium and short inflorescences and medium cutting for long and medium inflorescences were most effective. These results highlight the interaction between the inflorescence-cutting treatment and the inflorescence length, indicating that optimal treatment combinations vary across production seasons and regions and cannot be generalized from the best levels of each factor.
3.3.4. Content of Soluble Solids (TSS) in Fruit
As shown in Table 5, the various inflorescence-cutting treatments and the inflorescence length significantly influenced the TSS content in fruit, with a significant interaction effect between the two factors. All inflorescence-cutting treatments resulted in TSS values that were either significantly higher than or not substantially different from the control, indicating that inflorescence cutting did not negatively impact the TSS. A heavy inflorescence-cutting treatment for autumn–winter fruit produced the highest TSS. By contrast, for winter–spring fruit at the Sanya Youlong Agricultural Development Co., Ltd., a heavy inflorescence-cutting treatment also resulted in the highest TSS. At the Xingxing Orchard, both heavy and light inflorescence-cutting treatments significantly increased the TSS. These trends are consistent with earlier observations on single-fruit TSS. The impact of inflorescence length varied by production season and region; for autumn–winter fruit, short inflorescences had significantly lower TSS compared to long and medium inflorescences, which exhibited similar values. For winter–spring fruit, short inflorescences demonstrated higher TSS, reversing the autumn–winter trend. Regarding treatment combinations, heavy inflorescence cutting across all inflorescence lengths was optimal for autumn–winter fruit. For winter–spring fruit at the Sanya Youlong Agricultural Development Co., Ltd., heavy cutting for long and medium inflorescences and light cutting for short inflorescences were most effective. At the Xingxing Orchard, heavy and light inflorescence-cutting treatments were suitable for inflorescences of all lengths. These findings highlight the importance of tailoring inflorescence cutting to both inflorescence length and production season to maximize the TSS content. These findings suggest that the interaction between different inflorescence-cutting treatments and the inflorescence length implies that the optimal treatment combinations are not merely the highest levels for each factor. Instead, the best outcomes depend on the specific inflorescence cutting and length combination, which varies across production seasons and regions. This emphasizes the importance of adapting the treatments to local conditions and seasonal variations for the best results.
3.3.5. Content of Titratable Acid (TA) in Fruit
Both the various inflorescence-cutting treatments and the inflorescence length significantly affected the total titratable acidity (TA) in the fruit, with an interaction effect between these two factors, as shown in Table 6. For autumn–winter fruit, the TA decreased with increasing intensity of the inflorescence-cutting treatments, with the control group exhibiting the highest values. By contrast, heavy and medium inflorescence-cutting treatments for winter–spring fruit resulted in significantly higher TA content, while light cutting and the control showed considerably lower values. Inflorescence length effects varied between the production seasons: in autumn–winter fruit, short inflorescences had significantly lower TA content than long and medium inflorescences, which showed no significant difference. In winter–spring fruit, this trend reversed, with short inflorescences displaying higher TA content. Treatment combinations revealed regional and seasonal variations: at the Sanya Youlong Agricultural Development Co., Ltd., autumn–winter fruit treated with heavy and medium inflorescence-cutting treatments showed lower TA content across all inflorescence lengths, while winter–spring fruit exhibited lower TA content under light cutting for long and short inflorescences and medium cutting for medium-length inflorescences. At the Xingxing Orchard, light inflorescence cutting consistently reduced the TA for all inflorescence lengths. These results highlight that the best treatment combinations are context-dependent, influenced by both production season and region, and suggest that inflorescence-cutting treatments improving yield, average fruit weight, reduced sugar content, and total soluble solids (TSS) often coincided with higher TA levels in the fruit.
3.3.6. TSS/TA Ratio
As shown in Table 7, the different inflorescence-cutting treatments and the inflorescence length significantly affected the TSS/TA ratio in the fruit, with an interaction effect between these factors. Heavy inflorescence cutting resulted in a substantially higher TSS/TA ratio than the control, while medium cutting showed either a significant increase or no significant difference. At the Sanya Youlong Agricultural Development Co., Ltd. orchard, light cutting achieved a considerably higher TSS/TA ration than the control, whereas the opposite trend was observed at the Xingxing Orchard. The effects of inflorescence length varied across production seasons and regions. At the Sanya Youlong Agricultural Development Co., Ltd., medium inflorescences exhibited a significantly higher TSS/TA ratio, while the relative differences between long and short inflorescences differed between production seasons. At the Xingxing Orchard, the TSS/TA ratio followed a decreasing trend in the order of short, medium, and long inflorescences. Optimal treatment combinations also varied. At the Sanya Youlong Agricultural Development Co., Ltd., medium inflorescences with heavy or medium inflorescence-cutting treatments were optimal for autumn–winter fruit.
By contrast, light cutting was ideal for long inflorescences, and medium cutting was best for short inflorescences. For winter–spring fruit, light cutting for long inflorescences, heavy cutting for medium inflorescences, and medium or light cutting for short inflorescences were recommended. At the Xingxing Orchard, heavy inflorescence cutting was appropriate for all inflorescence lengths. These findings emphasize that the interaction between the inflorescence-cutting treatments and the inflorescence lengths necessitates tailored treatment combinations depending on the production season and region.
3.3.7. Vitamin C (Vc) Content in Fruit
As shown in Table 8, the inflorescence-cutting treatment and the inflorescence length significantly influenced the fruit’s vitamin C (Vc) content. Heavy inflorescence cutting resulted in considerably higher Vc for autumn–winter fruit, and medium cutting was the second. By contrast, light inflorescence cutting and the control made no significant difference and were the significantly lowest. For winter–spring fruit, the trends in which a medium inflorescence-cutting treatment was the highest and a light inflorescence-cutting treatment was the lowest were exhibited. A medium inflorescence-cutting treatment made a significant difference compared to a light inflorescence-cutting treatment at the Xingxing Orchard, while heavy inflorescence cutting and the control both displayed no significant difference compared to medium and light inflorescence cutting. At the Sanya Youlong Agriculture Development Co., Ltd. orchard, heavy inflorescence cutting and the control were not significantly different from one another. Still, both displayed significant differences compared to medium and light inflorescence cutting. No significant differences in the Vc content were found among the different inflorescence lengths. Regarding treatment combinations, all inflorescence-cutting treatments generally maintained or enhanced the Vc content compared to the control across inflorescence lengths. For autumn–winter fruit, heavy and medium inflorescence-cutting treatments were the most effective. For winter–spring fruit, the light inflorescence-cutting treatment was optimal for long inflorescences, while the medium inflorescence-cutting treatment was suitable for medium inflorescences. The no inflorescence cutting control was optimal for short inflorescences at the Sanya Youlong Agricultural Development Co., Ltd., whereas the heavy inflorescence-cutting treatment had the best results at the Xingxing Orchard. These findings suggest that, without significant interaction effects, the optimal treatment combinations for increasing the Vc content in fruit align with the best levels of each factor.
4. Discussion and Conclusions
4.1. Effects of Different Inflorescence-Cutting Treatments on Single Tree Yield and Fruit Quality
The ratio of bisexual flowers to total flowers in the mango is critical in determining yield [20,21,22]. The formation of bisexual flowers requires high and suitable temperatures during flower bud differentiation, primarily distributed along the central inflorescence axis on the middle and upper branches of the panicles [22]. Mango flowers bloom sequentially, starting with the middle branches of the main inflorescence axis, then the base and middle branches, and finally the top branches [21]. This blooming habit implies that the characteristics of the fruit set vary depending on the harvest period, especially in the Hainan-producing area. For autumn–winter fruit harvested around the Spring Festival, the flowering stage occurs in November when lower temperatures hinder bisexual flower differentiation, reducing the proportion of bisexual flowers [21,22]. These flowers are concentrated at the top of the inflorescence and its branches, and the low winter temperatures are unfavorable for pollination and fertilization [20,21,22]. Consequently, a light inflorescence-cutting treatment is recommended for autumn–winter fruit, aligning with previous studies [23].
By contrast, the full bloom occurs in February during warmer temperatures for winter–spring fruit harvested around Tomb-Sweeping Day or before May Day. These conditions promote higher bisexual flower differentiation and increase the number of bisexual flowers at the base and middle of the inflorescence. The higher temperatures and dry weather after blooming also favor pollination and fertilization [20,21,22]. Therefore, medium and heavy inflorescence-cutting treatments are more suitable for winter–spring fruit, as they significantly enhance the yield per inflorescence at the single-plant level.
Early flower thinning in fruit trees effectively reduces unnecessary nutrient consumption caused by mass blooming, maintains a reasonable tree load, enhances nutrient supply to the fruit after the fruit set, and promotes fruit growth and development. This practice increases the average fruit weight, the yield, and the overall fruit quality, making it a widely adopted measure in fruit production [10,26,27,28,29,30]. Over the long term, maintaining a balanced tree load also supports robust tree growth and extends the tree’s economic lifespan [31]. As a species characterized by abundant flowering but a low fruit set, the mango requires rational flower thinning to achieve higher yields and an improved fruit quality [20,21,22]. Previous studies have demonstrated that mango thinning can promote yield and quality, a finding corroborated by the results of this study [23,24,25]. The experiment revealed that inflorescence-cutting treatments significantly improved the fruit weight, the yield per plant and per inflorescence, and the overall fruit quality, aligning with earlier research. Furthermore, considering the positive correlations between average fruit weight and edible rate, soluble sugar content, and the sugar-to-acid ratio, alongside a negative correlation with TA in the ”Tainong No. 1” mango, the results suggest that inflorescence-cutting treatments enhance comprehensive fruit quality by increasing the average weight per fruit [32].
4.2. Interaction of Inflorescence-Cutting Treatments and Inflorescence Lengths on Inflorescence Yield and Fruit Quality
Different inflorescence lengths of the mango exhibit varying bearing capacities, leading to differences in the yield and the fruit quality, which have been extensively studied in other fruit crops, such as grapes [33,34,35,36]. This study also confirmed that the length of the inflorescences significantly influenced other yield and fruit quality parameters, except for the average fruit weight. These variations contribute to the differences in fruit quality at the individual plant level and result in uneven fruit quality. The results demonstrated that the intensity of the inflorescence-cutting treatments, and the length of the inflorescences significantly affected the yield efficiency per unit trunk circumference and key fruit quality attributes, including the reduced sugar content, the TSS, the TA, and the TSS/TA ratio. Moreover, the significant interaction between these two factors underscores the importance of tailoring inflorescence-cutting strategies based on the length of the flowers to achieve high-quality fruit production. This indicates that adopting specific inflorescence-cutting treatment intensities for different inflorescence lengths is essential to produce more consistent and superior-quality fruit. Reasonable and targeted inflorescence-cutting treatments should be implemented to optimize the yield and fruit quality for mango trees.
The main points of this study are summarized as follows:
- (1)
- To enhance fruit quality, it is recommended to apply a heavy or medium inflorescence-cutting treatment to long inflorescences, a heavy inflorescence-cutting treatment to medium inflorescences, and a medium inflorescence-cutting treatment to short inflorescences when targeting higher yields.
- (2)
- Based on the trend of increased yield in autumn–winter fruit inflorescences after inflorescence-cutting treatments, it is recommended to use heavy inflorescence cutting for better fruit quality. Though not the highest, this treatment resulted in a significantly higher TSS in both long and short inflorescences compared to the control. Other quality indicators showed optimal performance, and the reduced sugar content in medium inflorescences was significantly higher than in the control, though not the highest. Therefore, a heavy inflorescence-cutting treatment is appropriate for autumn–winter fruit inflorescences to achieve better overall fruit quality.
- (3)
- Based on the trend of increased yield per inflorescence of winter–spring fruit after inflorescence-cutting treatments, it is recommended to use heavy inflorescence cutting for long inflorescences. Although the TSS/TA ratio in these fruit was not the highest, it was significantly higher than that of the control group. The TSS/TA ratio was the highest when treated with medium inflorescences, and other quality indicators showed the best performance. Therefore, a heavy inflorescence-cutting treatment should be applied to both long and medium inflorescences, with medium inflorescences accounting for more than half of the total inflorescences of a single plant. At the Sanya Youlong Agricultural Development Co., Ltd., light inflorescence-cutting treatments produced better overall nutrition and flavor quality, so light cutting should be used. By contrast, at the Xingxing Orchard, except for no significant difference in the reduced sugar content, the other quality indicators were best or better under the heavy inflorescence-cutting treatment.
The results also indicated that the various inflorescence lengths did not significantly affect the fruit’s vitamin C (Vc) content. However, a trend among the inflorescence-cutting treatments appeared, in which all the inflorescence-cutting treatments increased the Vc content in the fruit. The highest Vc content was observed in the autumn–winter fruit inflorescences treated with heavy inflorescence cutting, although no significant difference was found when compared to the control in the winter–spring fruit. The reasons behind these findings warrant further investigation.
4.3. Comprehensive Evaluation of the Different Intensities of Inflorescence-Cutting Treatments
This experiment demonstrated that inflorescence-cutting treatments for mango trees did not reduce tree yield or overall fruit quality. Instead, these treatments effectively increased yield and improved most conventional quality indicators, making inflorescence cutting an efficient method for enhancing the economic profitability of mango cultivation. Since medium inflorescences accounted for more than half of the total inflorescences on the tree, and both long and short inflorescences accounted for less than one-quarter each, the analysis revealed that a heavy inflorescence-cutting treatment consistently produced the highest and most stable levels of the reduced sugar content, the TSS, and the TSS/TA ratio. The average fruit weight was significantly higher or second-highest under heavy cutting, indicating that it has the most effective role in improving fruit quality. For winter–spring fruit, the best treatment for increasing yield is also aligned with quality enhancement, making heavy inflorescence cutting the optimal approach. For autumn–winter fruit, while the increase in yield was not as pronounced with heavy cutting, the improvement in fruit quality was the best, suggesting that heavy cutting should also be advocated for these fruit. Given that manual inflorescence cutting is one of the most labor-intensive and complex tasks in fruit tree cultivation, applying heavy cutting to all inflorescences in practice is recommended, as it simplifies the process and is more easily adopted [37].
Considering the interaction between different intensities of inflorescence-cutting treatments and inflorescence lengths in determining yield and fruit quality, as well as the variations across the origin and cultivation purposes, it is essential to tailor inflorescence-cutting strategies accordingly. Given the lack of standardization in current mango production techniques, which are often cumbersome, complex, and unsuitable for manual implementation, the application of mechanical flower-thinning technology has faced challenges in adoption [14,15,16]. Advancing AI-powered flower-thinning technology offers a promising solution, with notable progress already achieved in its innovation and development [11,14,15,16,17,18,19]. It has been reported that the robot is controlled by an interactive controller for the precise pruning of fruit trees [38]. In addition, the robotic pruning of different cutting structures has been applied to apple trees [39]. Based on the findings of this study, which highlight the interaction between inflorescence-cutting treatment intensities and lengths, practical recommendations are proposed for optimizing inflorescence-cutting strategies under varying conditions. These insights provide a scientific foundation for developing a comprehensive AI-driven inflorescence-cutting (flower-thinning) technology system, paving the way for its broader application in mango cultivation.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, K.Z. and Y.T.; methodology, C.J. and Y.G.; software, C.J., Y.G. and J.J.; validation, K.Z.; formal analysis, C.J., Y.G., J.J. and L.W.; investigation, C.J., Y.G. and J.J.; resources, L.W., S.S. and M.Q.; data curation, C.J., Y.G. and J.J.; writing—original draft preparation, C.J. and Y.G.; writing—review and editing, C.J., Y.G., J.J., L.W., S.S., M.Q., T.H. and K.Z.; visualization, C.J. and Y.G.; supervision, K.Z.; project administration, K.Z. and Y.T.; funding acquisition, K.Z. and Y.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research was funded by Key Research and Development Program of Hainan Province grant number ZDYF2021XDNY272. And The APC was funded by Hainan University Mango Research System.
Data Availability Statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Storp, M. Thinning of flowers/fruitlets in organic apple production. J. Fruit Ornam. Plant Res. 2004, 12, 77–83. [Google Scholar]
- Purwantono, A.S.D.; Suparto, S.R. The influence of fruit thinning on fruit drop and quality of citrus. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 250, 012096. [Google Scholar]
- Zheng, L.; Han, Z.; Zhu, M. Effects of flower thinning on the content of anthocyanin in ‘Meirenzhi’ grape fruits and its quality. Bull. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2022, 5, 211–214. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Stem, R.A.; Benarie, R. GA3 inhibits flowering, reduces hand thinning, and increase fruit size in peach and nectarine. J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol. 2009, 84, 119–124. [Google Scholar]
- Li, Y.; Gu, Y.; Tu, H.; Liu, D.; Lv, B.; Yu, F. The experiment of ‘Feizixiao’ litchi flower thinning. South Agric. 2022, 16, 204–207. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Li, Q. Effects of Different Thinning Methods on Flowering and Fruit Sitting and Fruit Quality of Dimocarpus longan. Agric. Technol. Equip. 2024, 413, 99–101. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Murashita, K.; Nonaka, M.; Yokota, K.; Hirai, K. Ethychlozate as a new chemical thinner on Fuji apple. Hortic. Sci. 1992, 27, 690. [Google Scholar]
- Balkhoven-Baart, J.M.T.; Wertheim, S.J. Thinning response of Elstar apple to the flower thinner ammonium thiosulphate. Acta Hortic. 1998, 463, 481–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martin-Gorriz, B.; Torregrosa, A.; Brunton, J.G. Feasibility of peach bloom thinning with hand-held mechanical devices. Sci. Hortic. 2011, 129, 91–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Solomakhin, A.A.; Blanke, M.M. Mechanical flower thinning improves the fruit quality of apples. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2010, 90, 735–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wouters, N.; De Ketelaere, B.; Deckers, T.; De Baerdemaeker, J.; Saeys, W. Multispectral detection of floral buds for automated thinning of pear. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2015, 113, 93–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Horton, R.; Cano, E.; Bulanon, D.; Fallahi, E. Peach flower monitoring using aerial multispectral imaging. J. Imaging 2017, 3, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roger, B.L.; Thompson, A.H. Chemical thinning of apple spurtype Delicious apple trees. Va. Fruit 1969, 65, 23–24. [Google Scholar]
- Pan, Y.; Zhou, Y.; He, L.; Wang, Q.; Song, Z.; Song, L. Research progress of flower and fruit thinning in orchard management. J. Chin. Agric. Mech. 2021, 42, 198–204. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, Z.; Lei, X.; Wang, W.; Herbst, A.; Lv, X. Research progress of flower thinning technology and equipment in orchard mechanization. J. Chin. Agric. Mech. 2024, 45, 344–352. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Chi, J.; Zhang, Q.; Li, S.; Hu, C.; Hqan, Y.; Liu, D.; Deng, P. Analysis and experiment of image recognition applied to flower thinner for fruit trees. J. Qingdao Agric. Univ. (Nat. Sci.) 2024, 7, 1–6. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Tong, S.; Zhang, J.; Li, W.; Wang, Y.; Kang, F. An image-based system for locating pruning points in apple trees using instance segmentation and RGB-D images. Biosyst. Eng. 2023, 236, 277–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhattarai, U.; Bhusal, S.; Majeed, Y.; Karkee, M. Automatic blossom detection in apple trees using deep learning. IFAC-Pap. OnLine 2020, 53, 15810–15815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Palacios, F.; Bueno, G.; Salido, J.; Diago, M.P.; Hernández, I.; Tardaguila, J. Automated grapevine flower detection and quantification method based on computer vision and deep learning from on-the-go imaging using a mobile sensing platform under field conditions. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2020, 178, 105796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sirgh, R.N. Sex, pollination and post-fertilisation problem in mango. Word Crops 1966, 1, 67–68. [Google Scholar]
- Lin, G. Biological characteristics of mango flower and fruit. Fujian Trop. Crops Sci. Technol. 1981, 2, 34–39. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Lin, S.; Chen, Z. Observation on the biological characteristics Mangifera indica L. in west Hainan island. Chin. J. Trop. Crops 1981, 2, 82–92. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Zang, X.; Ge, Y.; Kang, Y.; Jing, T.; Zhou, Z.; Ma, W. Effects of cutting intensity on yield and quality of Tainong 1, a mango variety. Guizhou Agric. Sci. 2018, 46, 30–32. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, Y. Effects of flower thinning on the yield and the benefit of mango planted in the shed. Inf. World Trop. Agric. 2004, 7, 22. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Hua, M.; Guo, L.; Deng, H.; Feng, X.; Chen, L. Research on the mechanic and the chemical flower thinning of ‘Guifei’ mango. Chin. Trop. Agric. 2020, 4, 75–78. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Iwanami, H.; Moriya-Tanaka, Y.; Honda, C.; Hanada, T.; Wada, M. Apple thinning strategy based on a model predicting flower-bud formation. Sci. Hortic. 2019, 256, 108529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ju, Z.; Duan, Y.; Ju, Z.; Guo, A. Corn oil emulsion for earlybloom thinning of trees of delicious apple, Feng Huang peach, and Bing cherry. J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol. 2001, 76, 327–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hehnen, D.; Hanrahan, I.; Lewis, K.; McFerson, J.; Blanke, M. Mechanical flower thinning improves fruit quality of apples and promotes consistent bearing. Sci. Hortic. 2012, 134, 241–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iwanami, H.; Moriya-Tanaka, Y.; Honda, C.; Hanada, T.; Wada, M. A model for representing the relationships among crop load, timing of thinning, flower bud formation, and fruit weight in apples. Sci. Hortic. 2018, 242, 181–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bound, S.; Jones, K. Ammonium thiosulphate as a blossom thinner of Delicious apple, winter cole pear and hunter apricot. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 2004, 44, 931–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spornberger, A.; Buvac, D.; Hajagos, A.; Leder, L.; Böck, K.; Keppel, H.; Vegvari, G. Impact of a mechanical flower thinning on groeth, yeld, diseases and fruit quality of sweet cherries (Prunus avium L.) under organic growing conditions. Biol. Agric. Hortic. 2014, 30, 24–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, S.; Wang, M.; Yuan, M.; Zhou, K. Determination of fruit volume of mango Tainong l and the relationship between mango volume and fruit flavor quality. J. Trop. Biol. 2016, 7, 444–449. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Guo, L.; Deng, H.; Chen, L.; Wu, X.; Cheng, N.; Hua, M.; Feng, X. Research on floral cluster short-cutting technology of variety ‘Jinhuang’. Chin. Fruits 2024, 9, 64–70. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Rural Culture Association Japan. Fruit Encyclopedia of Fruit Tree Horticulture 3-Grape; Fujiwara Publishing House: Tokyo, Japan, 2000; pp. 443–447. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, X.; Chen, T.; Lei, L. Comparisons of the floral cluster pruning among 3 ‘Yangguang’ grape varieties. South China Fruits 2020, 49, 97–100. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Chen, D.; Qi, S.; Chen, J.; Guo, H.; Zhang, W.; Zhang, Y.; Li, Z. Study on Floral Cluster Pruning of ‘Shine Muscat’ Grape. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2019, 21, 33–40. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Schupp, J.R.; Baugher, T.A.; Miller, S.S.; Harsh, R.M.; Lesser, K.M. Mechanical thinning of peach and apple trees reduces labor input and increases fruit size. HortTechnology 2008, 18, 660–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- You, A.; Kolano, H.; Parayil, N.; Grimm, C.; Davidson, J.R. Precision fruit tree pruning using a learned hybrid vision/interaction controller. In Proceedings of the 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Philadelphia, PA, USA, 23–27 May 2022; pp. 2280–2286. [Google Scholar]
- Zahid, A.; Mahmud, M.S.; He, L.; Schupp, J.; Choi, D.; Heinemann, P. An Apple Tree Branch Pruning Analysis. HortTechnology 2022, 32, 90–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.
The normality analysis of the inflorescence length. Note: 1. (A) represents the stem-and-leaf plot, (B) represents the box plot, and (C) represents the probability distribution plot. 2. In (A), * indicates a value not exceeding 2; in (C), * indicates consistency between theoretical and observed values, while + indicates a deviation of observed values from theoretical values.
Figure 1.
The normality analysis of the inflorescence length. Note: 1. (A) represents the stem-and-leaf plot, (B) represents the box plot, and (C) represents the probability distribution plot. 2. In (A), * indicates a value not exceeding 2; in (C), * indicates consistency between theoretical and observed values, while + indicates a deviation of observed values from theoretical values.
Table 1.
Effects of the different intensities of inflorescence-cutting treatments on the yield and the main qualities of fruit.
Table 1.
Effects of the different intensities of inflorescence-cutting treatments on the yield and the main qualities of fruit.
| Treatment | Production Season | Yield Efficiency per Unit Trunk Circumference/kg/cm | Average Weight per Fruit/g | Reduced Sugar Content/% | Soluble Solids Content/% | Titratable Acid Content/% | Sugar-to-Acid Ratio | Vc Content/mg/gFW |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H | 2023–2024Y | 0.30 b | 43.75 b | 2.53 a | 13.73 a | 0.66 bc | 20.38 a | 249.48 b |
| 2024Y | 0.95 a | 75.74 a | 4.84 a | 15.00 a | 0.60 a | 26.61 a | 537.49 a | |
| 2023–2024X | 0.49 bc | 123.31 b | 4.66 a | 18.22 a | 0.62 a | 29.15 a | 404.66 b | |
| M | 2023–2024Y | 0.30 b | 43.45 b | 3.36 b | 13.28 ab | 0.57 c | 17.09 ab | 259.46 b |
| 2024Y | 0.87 b | 73.13 b | 4.28 c | 13.60 b | 0.54 b | 24.23 b | 501.40 b | |
| 2023–2024X | 0.64 a | 138.37 a | 4.36 b | 15.28 bc | 0.64 a | 26.82 ab | 447.00 a | |
| L | 2023–2024Y | 0.51 a | 90.03 a | 2.42 ab | 13.39 a | 0.99 a | 13.53 b | 278.14 a |
| 2024Y | 0.80 c | 67.49 c | 4.66 b | 14.63 a | 0.62 a | 26.17 a | 530.76 a | |
| 2023–2024X | 0.58 ab | 147.32 a | 4.32 b | 14.25 c | 0.61 b | 29.05 a | 434.51 ab | |
| CK | 2023–2024Y | 0.17 c | 36.01 b | 2.20 c | 12.40 b | 0.84 ab | 12.71 b | 260.34 b |
| 2024Y | 0.81 c | 66.39 c | 4.29 c | 13.40 b | 0.52 b | 24.76 b | 541.68 a | |
| 2023–2024X | 0.40 c | 139.06 a | 4.21 c | 15.92 b | 0.26 c | 26.19 b | 423.01 ab |
Note: The letter “Y” following the production season indicates “Sanya Youlong Agricultural Development Co., Ltd.” while “X” indicates “Xingxing Orchard”. The same notation applies to all subsequent tables. The small letters after the means show a significant difference (p < 0.05), and the same letters after the mean show a non-significant difference.
Table 2.
Effects of the treatments of the different intensities of inflorescence-cutting treatments and the other length of inflorescence on the inflorescence average yield (unit: g).
Table 2.
Effects of the treatments of the different intensities of inflorescence-cutting treatments and the other length of inflorescence on the inflorescence average yield (unit: g).
| Production Season | Inflorescence-Cutting Treatments | Inflorescence Lengths | Average Value of Different Inflorescence-Cutting Treatments | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | B | C | |||
| 2023–2024Y | H | 171.22 c | 121.13 cde | 148.07 cd | 146.97 b |
| M | 100.65 de | 84.31 e | 93.77 de | 92.91 c | |
| L | 272.63 a | 249.33 ab | 212.24 bc | 245.42 a | |
| CK | 90.08 de | 76.88 e | 77.40 e | 81.45 c | |
| Different inflorescence average length | 159.67 a | 132.91 b | 132.87 b | * | |
| 2024Y | H | 176.09 a | 163.03 ab | 105.30 cd | 148.14 a |
| M | 154.34 ab | 119.70 cd | 112.60 cd | 128.88 ab | |
| L | 116.02 cd | 112.80 cd | 98.14 d | 108.99 b | |
| CK | 136.36 bc | 111.81 cd | 99.55 d | 115.91 b | |
| Different inflorescence average length | 145.70 a | 126.84 a | 103.90 b | * | |
| 2023–2024X | H | 344.29 a | 240.39 bcd | 230.47 bcd | 271.72 a |
| M | 274.38 b | 248.31 bcd | 260.39 bc | 261.03 a | |
| L | 242.95 bcd | 223.02 bcd | 205.66 cd | 223.88 b | |
| CK | 232.87 bcd | 190.57 d | 209.48 cd | 210.97 b | |
| Different inflorescence average length | 273.62 a | 225.58 b | 226.50 b | * | |
Note: * indicates a significant interaction effect.The small letters after the means show a significant difference (p < 0.05), and the same letters after the mean show a non-significant difference.
Table 3.
Effects of the treatments of the different intensities of thinning flower and the different inflorescence lengths on the average weight per fruit (unit: g).
Table 3.
Effects of the treatments of the different intensities of thinning flower and the different inflorescence lengths on the average weight per fruit (unit: g).
| Production Season | Inflorescence-Cutting Treatments | Inflorescence Lengths | Average Value of Inflorescence-Cutting Treatments | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | B | C | |||
| 2023–2024Y | H | 51.32 b | 36.45 bc | 45.37 bc | 44.38 b |
| M | 39.17 bc | 41.22 bc | 39.67 bc | 41.18 b | |
| L | 77.92 a | 79.63 a | 79.84 a | 79.13 a | |
| CK | 31.47 c | 30.39 c | 30.37 c | 30.74 c | |
| Different inflorescence average length | 49.97 | 48.82 | 47.67 | ns | |
| 2024Y | H | 86.01 a | 78.32 ab | 68.35 bc | 77.69 a |
| M | 64.83 bc | 63.41 c | 62.56 c | 63.59 b | |
| L | 63.24 c | 60.62 c | 69.44 bc | 64.43 b | |
| CK | 68.61 bc | 65.20 bc | 64.99 bc | 66.44 b | |
| Different inflorescence average length | 70.67 | 67.11 | 66.33 | ns | |
| 2023–2024X | H | 128.33 d | 140.47 b | 143.16 b | 137.32 b |
| M | 139.99 bc | 141.03 b | 149.13 a | 143.38 a | |
| L | 138.31 bc | 134.95 cd | 138.51 bc | 137.25 b | |
| CK | 130.04 de | 125.23 e | 125.14 e | 126.80 c | |
| Different inflorescence average length | 134.17 | 135.42 | 138.98 | ns | |
Note: The letters ns indicates a non-significant interaction effect. The small letters after the means show a significant difference (p < 0.05), and the same letters after the mean show a non-significant difference.
Table 4.
The effects of the treatments of the different intensities of inflorescence-cutting treatments and the different length of inflorescence on the content of reduced sugar in fruit (unit: %).
Table 4.
The effects of the treatments of the different intensities of inflorescence-cutting treatments and the different length of inflorescence on the content of reduced sugar in fruit (unit: %).
| Production Season | Inflorescence-Cutting Treatments | Inflorescence Lengths | Average Value of Inflorescence-Cutting Treatments | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | B | C | |||
| 2023–2024Y | H | 2.39 a | 2.07 c | 2.21 b | 2.22 a |
| M | 2.08 c | 2.15 bc | 2.19 bc | 2.14 b | |
| L | 2.12 bc | 2.34 a | 2.16 bc | 2.20 a | |
| CK | 2.20 b | 1.91 d | 1.94 d | 2.02 c | |
| Different inflorescence average length | 2.20 a | 2.12 b | 2.12 b | * | |
| 2024Y | H | 4.11 a | 4.07 ab | 3.65 cd | 3.94 a |
| M | 3.49 d | 3.62 d | 4.16 a | 3.75 a | |
| L | 3.69 cd | 3.73 bcd | 4.25 a | 3.89 a | |
| CK | 4.00 abc | 2.98 e | 2.63 f | 3.20 b | |
| Different inflorescence average length | 3.82 a | 3.60 b | 3.67 ab | * | |
| 2023–2024X | H | 3.90 d | 4.24 b | 4.64 a | 4.26 a |
| M | 4.21 bc | 4.37 b | 4.21 bc | 4.26 a | |
| L | 3.94 d | 4.05 cd | 3.67 e | 3.89 b | |
| CK | 3.56 e | 3.38 e | 3.28 e | 3.41 c | |
| Different inflorescence average length | 3.90 b | 4.01 a | 3.95 ab | * | |
Note: * indicates a significant interaction effect. The small letters after the means show a significant difference (p < 0.05), and the same letters after the mean show a non-significant difference.
Table 5.
The effects of the treatments of the different intensities of inflorescence-cutting treatments and the various lengths of inflorescence on the TSS in the fruit (unit:%).
Table 5.
The effects of the treatments of the different intensities of inflorescence-cutting treatments and the various lengths of inflorescence on the TSS in the fruit (unit:%).
| Production Season | Inflorescence-Cutting Treatments | Inflorescence Lengths | Average Value of Inflorescence-Cutting Treatments | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | B | C | |||
| 2023–2024Y | H | 15.94 a | 15.11 b | 14.68 bc | 15.24 a |
| M | 13.92 de | 14.52 bcd | 14.57 bcd | 14.35 b | |
| L | 13.71 e | 14.05 cde | 12.44 e | 13.40 c | |
| CK | 13.69 e | 12.51 f | 12.71 f | 12.92 d | |
| Different inflorescence average length | 14.32 a | 14.05 a | 13.60 b | * | |
| 2024Y | H | 14.47 a | 14.30 a | 13.33 c | 14.03 a |
| M | 13.27 cd | 13.13 cde | 13.83 b | 13.41 b | |
| L | 12.60 f | 12.77 ef | 14.57 a | 13.31 b | |
| CK | 12.80 def | 11.83 g | 13.30 c | 12.64 c | |
| Different inflorescence average length | 13.28 b | 13.00 b | 13.75 a | * | |
| 2023–2024X | H | 16.69 a | 16.63 a | 16.79 a | 16.70 a |
| M | 15.15 b | 15.06 b | 15.43 b | 15.21 b | |
| L | 16.24 a | 16.77 a | 16.61 a | 16.51 a | |
| CK | 14.27 c | 13.90 c | 16.40 a | 14.86 c | |
| Different inflorescence average length | 15.59 b | 15.59 b | 16.31 a | * | |
Note: * indicates a significant interaction effect. The small letters after the means show a significant difference (p < 0.05), and the same letters after the mean show a non-significant difference.
Table 6.
The effects of the treatments of the different intensities of inflorescence-cutting treatments and the different length of inflorescence on the TA in the fruit (unit:%).
Table 6.
The effects of the treatments of the different intensities of inflorescence-cutting treatments and the different length of inflorescence on the TA in the fruit (unit:%).
| Production Season | Inflorescence-Cutting Treatments | Inflorescence Lengths | Average Value of Different Inflorescence-Cutting Treatments | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | B | C | |||
| 2023–2024Y | H | 1.13 abc | 0.70 c | 0.96 bc | 0.93 b |
| M | 0.95 bc | 0.98 bc | 0.95 bc | 0.96 b | |
| L | 0.91 bc | 1.06 abc | 1.17 abc | 1.05 ab | |
| CK | 1.58 a | 1.46 ab | 0.81 c | 1.28 a | |
| Different inflorescence average length | 1.14 a | 1.05 b | 0.97 b | * | |
| 2024Y | H | 0.84 cd | 0.93 bc | 0.93 bc | 0.90 a |
| M | 1.17 a | 0.76 de | 1.00 b | 0.98 a | |
| L | 0.63 f | 0.92 bc | 0.47 g | 0.67 c | |
| CK | 0.86 cd | 0.92 bc | 0.67 ef | 0.81 b | |
| Different inflorescence average length | 0.88 a | 0.88 a | 0.77 b | * | |
| 2023–2024X | H | 0.86 c | 0.86 c | 0.76 de | 0.83 b |
| M | 1.22 a | 0.57 g | 0.98 b | 0.92 a | |
| L | 0.63 gf | 0.58 g | 0.68 ef | 0.63 c | |
| CK | 0.77 d | 0.47 h | 0.37 i | 0.54 d | |
| Different inflorescence average length | 0.87 a | 0.62 c | 0.70 b | * | |
Note: * indicates a significant interaction effect. The small letters after the means show a significant difference (p < 0.05), and the same letters after the mean show a non-significant difference.
Table 7.
The effects of the treatments of the different intensities of inflorescence-cutting treatments and various inflorescence lengths on the TSS/TA ratio in the fruit.
Table 7.
The effects of the treatments of the different intensities of inflorescence-cutting treatments and various inflorescence lengths on the TSS/TA ratio in the fruit.
| Production Season | Inflorescence-Cutting Treatments | Inflorescence Lengths | Average Value of Different Inflorescence-Cutting Treatments | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | B | C | |||
| 2023–2024Y | H | 15.57 cd | 25.25 a | 14.48 de | 18.43 a |
| M | 16.26 c | 24.32 a | 15.64 cd | 18.73 a | |
| L | 21.72 b | 12.71 f | 13.12 ef | 15.85 b | |
| CK | 6.93 g | 7.68 g | 12.38 f | 9.00 c | |
| Different inflorescence average length | 15.11 b | 17.49 a | 13.91 c | * | |
| 2024Y | H | 13.64 gh | 21.29 a | 14.85 de | 16.59 a |
| M | 14.19 fg | 15.33 cd | 15.50 cd | 15.00 c | |
| L | 17.55 b | 14.36 ef | 15.46 cd | 15.79 b | |
| CK | 13.36 h | 14.96 de | 15.73 c | 14.69 c | |
| Different inflorescence average length | 14.68 c | 16.48 a | 15.39 b | * | |
| 2023–2024X | H | 20.23 f | 28.71 b | 30.47 a | 26.47 a |
| M | 18.14 g | 20.63 f | 28.12 c | 22.29 b | |
| L | 16.78 h | 26.70 d | 20.64 f | 21.37 c | |
| CK | 16.41 h | 24.72 e | 25.14 e | 22.09 b | |
| Different inflorescence average length | 17.89 c | 25.19 b | 26.09 a | * | |
Note: * indicates a significant interaction effect. The small letters after the means show a significant difference (p < 0.05), and the same letters after the mean show a non-significant difference.
Table 8.
The effects of the treatments of the different intensities of inflorescence-cutting treatments and the different length of inflorescence on the content of Vc in the fruit.
Table 8.
The effects of the treatments of the different intensities of inflorescence-cutting treatments and the different length of inflorescence on the content of Vc in the fruit.
| Production Season | Inflorescence-Cutting Treatments | Inflorescence Lengths | Average Value of Different Inflorescence-Cutting Treatments | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | B | C | |||
| 2023–2024Y | H | 273.97 b | 332.56 a | 251.81 b | 286.11 a |
| M | 293.42 ab | 290.14 ab | 239.76 b | 274.44 b | |
| L | 256.81 b | 251.75 b | 280.34 b | 263.04 c | |
| CK | 239.64 b | 272.33 b | 271.07 b | 261.01 c | |
| Different inflorescence average length | 265.96 | 286.70 | 260.80 | ns | |
| 2024Y | H | 496.40 d | 493.83 d | 544.11 c | 511.45 c |
| M | 630.81 a | 587.50 b | 591.90 b | 603.40 a | |
| L | 538.98 c | 563.82 c | 550.41 c | 542.07 b | |
| CK | 527.34 cd | 560.61 bc | 549.02 c | 545.66 b | |
| Different inflorescence average length | 548.38 | 544.69 | 558.86 | ns | |
| 2023–2024X | H | 385.74 b | 438.24 ab | 390.00 b | 404.66 b |
| M | 461.49 a | 462.61 a | 416.98 ab | 447.00 a | |
| L | 460.78 a | 405.66 ab | 437.00 ab | 434.51 ab | |
| CK | 390.55 b | 433.47 ab | 445.02 ab | 423.01 ab | |
| Different inflorescence average length | 424.64 | 435 | 422.25 | ns | |
Note: ns indicates a non-significant interaction effect. The small letters after the means show a significant difference (p < 0.05), and the same letters after the mean show a non-significant difference.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Jiang, C.; Gao, Y.; Jiao, J.; Wei, L.; Shi, S.; Hassam, T.; Qian, M.; Zhou, K.; Teng, Y. Optimization of ‘Tainongyihao’ Mango Inflorescence-Cutting Technology. Horticulturae 2025, 11, 239. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae11030239
AMA Style
Jiang C, Gao Y, Jiao J, Wei L, Shi S, Hassam T, Qian M, Zhou K, Teng Y. Optimization of ‘Tainongyihao’ Mango Inflorescence-Cutting Technology. Horticulturae. 2025; 11(3):239. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae11030239
Chicago/Turabian StyleJiang, Chenyu, Yijia Gao, Jiabing Jiao, Ling Wei, Shaopu Shi, Tahir Hassam, Minjie Qian, Kaibing Zhou, and Yuanwen Teng. 2025. "Optimization of ‘Tainongyihao’ Mango Inflorescence-Cutting Technology" Horticulturae 11, no. 3: 239. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae11030239
APA StyleJiang, C., Gao, Y., Jiao, J., Wei, L., Shi, S., Hassam, T., Qian, M., Zhou, K., & Teng, Y. (2025). Optimization of ‘Tainongyihao’ Mango Inflorescence-Cutting Technology. Horticulturae, 11(3), 239. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae11030239
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
