Next Article in Journal
Effect of Corn Cobs Replacing Cottonseed Hulls on the Cultivation of Pleurotus giganteus
Previous Article in Journal
The bZIP Transcription Factor PgbZIP48-3 Gene Regulates Ginsenoside Biosynthesis in Panax ginseng
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Horticulturae
Volume 12
Issue 2
10.3390/horticulturae12020214
horticulturae-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Yields of Strawberry Plants over 20 Years in Subtropical Queensland, Australia

by
Christopher Michael Menzel
Department of Primary Industries, Sunshine Coast Mail Center, P.O. Box 5083, Nambour, QLD 4560, Australia
Horticulturae 2026, 12(2), 214; https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae12020214
Submission received: 17 December 2025 / Revised: 29 January 2026 / Accepted: 3 February 2026 / Published: 9 February 2026
(This article belongs to the Section Fruit Production Systems)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Productivity has a strong effect on the net returns of strawberry production. Returns are higher with high yields than with low yields, with productivity dependent on the cultivar, season and growing system. The main objective of this study was to determine the relationship between productivity and the time of planting and the time of the last harvest in Queensland, Australia. Information was collated on the yields of strawberry plants growing in this area over 20 years. Cultivars from Australia, Florida and California were planted from 2004 to 2024 and data collected on marketable yield (n = 41 cases). The transplants were planted from 16 March to 5 May, with the last harvest ranging from 6 August to 28 October. The fruit were harvested each week until they became small or soft or otherwise non-marketable. Mean yield (±standard deviation or s.d.) was 652 ± 327 g/plant, the median was 675 g/plant, and the range was from 142 to 1123 g/plant. There was a moderate linear relationship between yield and the time of the last harvest (p < 0.001, R2 = 0.43). In other words, yields increased as harvesting was prolonged. There was a positive linear relationship between yield and the length of the growing season, which included the time of planting (p < 0.001, R2 = 0.58). Yields increased as the length of the growing season increased from 108 to 205 days. These results suggest that early plantings (about mid-March for most cultivars) and a long growing season are associated with high yields in Queensland. Warm weather and intermittent rain impact fruit quality and end the harvest in this area. Yields are expected to decrease in the future under global warming in the absence of mitigating strategies.

1. Introduction

Strawberry (Fragaria × ananassa Duch.) is an important and healthy fruit in the berry catalogue, with a total annual production around the world of 8 to 10 million tonnes in the past few years [1,2,3]. China has the largest crop, with 40% of production, followed by the United States with 10% of production. The crop is cultivated throughout much of Europe (22% of production), with Egypt in the Middle East and Mexico in Central America being the top producers in their respective regions. The species is adapted to a wide range of environments, with production in areas with a cool, temperate climate, a warm subtropical climate or a Mediterranean climate [4,5,6,7]. The plants are grown under different cultivation systems, including open-field and protected cropping [8,9]. Most of the crop is grown in the ground using conventional cultivation, although soilless and organic production are becoming more important [10,11,12].
Net returns from the crop depend on the weather, productivity, the growing system and the costs of labour for planting, growing and harvesting the fruit [13,14,15]. Net returns are higher with high yields than with low yields. Harvesting accounts for more than 50% of total growing costs in some locations, and a shortage of labour often hinders industry expansion. The cost of labour is lower in Central and South America than in Australia, Europe and North America. Michuda et al. [13] analyzed the returns on production in California. They found that returns ranged from a loss of USD 23,799/ha to a profit of USD 121,880/ha, depending on conventional or organic cultivation and the use of soil fumigation. Mbarushimana et al. [14] studied the performance of plants under high tunnels and in the open field in Virginia. Nearly all the cultivars under the tunnels gave negative net returns because of heat stress under the plastic. The average net return for the plants in the open was USD 39,816 when the fruit were consigned to the wholesale market. Duan et al. [15] indicated that yield was the primary factor determining the profitability of open-field organic production in Florida. Yields below 10 t/ha gave negative net returns even when the price received for the fruit was high.
The selection of cultivar has a major impact on the success of commercial strawberry cultivation, with continued efforts to breed cultivars suitable for different growing areas [16,17,18,19,20,21]. The plants respond to changes in daylength and temperature, which affect several aspects of plant growth and flowering [22,23]. Cultivars have different times of flowering and ripening in a single location and across different locations. Cultivars have been bred to crop successfully in a range of environments, including Nordic, temperate, subtropical and Mediterranean locations [8,12,24,25].
Various authors have reported on the productivity of strawberry in warm locations in the United States such as Florida and North Carolina [26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35]. These areas have a similar climate to southern Queensland and often use similar cultivars. Mean yield (± standard deviation or s.d.) was 613 ± 171 g/plant, the median was 585 g/plant, and the range was from 370 to 931 g/plant in these studies. Johnson and Hoffmann [32] recorded the productivity of ‘Albion’, ‘Brilliance’, ‘Camino Real’, ‘Fronteras’, ‘Monterey’, ‘Florida Sensation’ and ‘Sweet Charlie’ over two years in North Carolina. Mean yield was 650 ± 54 g/plant in the first year and 417 ± 64 g/plant in the second year. The Florida cultivars ‘Brilliance’ and ‘Florida Sensation’ had more consistent production than the long-day cultivars ‘Albion’ and ‘Monterey’.
High yields are dependent on favourable weather during the growing period. Cold weather damages the plants and the flowers and inhibits pollination, while warm weather reduces floral initiation, fruit development and fruit quality [36,37,38]. Optimum temperatures for high yields range from 15 °C to 25 °C. Heavy rainfall or high humidity affect pollination and promote the development of several crown, leaf and fruit diseases along with direct rain damage to the fruit [39,40,41,42].
Australia produces about 90,000 tonnes of strawberries each year, with major production in Queensland (41% of total production), Victoria and Western Australia and minor production in South Australia, Tasmania and New South Wales [43,44,45]. A range in climatic conditions, cultivars and growing systems provides fruit over the whole year. Production in Queensland is mostly during the cooler part of the year, with the nursery material planted from mid-March to late April [46,47]. Harvesting of the fruit commences in June and continues to September or October, depending on the weather. The fruit are harvested until they become small or soft or otherwise non-marketable due to hot or wet weather.
This paper reports on the yields of strawberry plants growing in Queensland over 20 years. The time of planting ranged from March to May, and the last harvest ranged from August to October. The main objective of the study was to determine the relationship between productivity and the time of planting and the time of the last harvest. Suggestions for producing high yields in this environment are provided.

2. Materials and Methods

Information was collated to examine the productivity of strawberry plants growing in Nambour in south-east Queensland, Australia over 20 years. Cultivars from Australia, Florida and California were planted from March to May from 2004 to 2024 and data collected on marketable yield (Table 1, n = 41 cases). Transplanting occurred from 16 March to 5 May and the last harvest ranged from 6 August to 28 October. The fruit were harvested each week until they became small or soft or otherwise non-marketable. Marketable fruit weighed at least 12 g and were free from defects, including rain damage, diseases and pests. The non-marketable fruit were harvested and discarded. Each experiment was laid out in randomized blocks, with 2 to 6 replicates for each cultivar (mostly 4 replicates) and 10 to 30 plants for each plot (mostly 20 plants).
Nambour has a subtropical climate, with cool, dry winters and warm, wet summers. The average maximum and minimum temperatures in July are 21.6 °C and 10.6 °C, while the averages in December are 29.1 °C and 19.5 °C. Total annual rainfall is 1627 mm, and average solar radiation is 17.8 MJ/m2/day. The soil at the experimental site was a well-drained sandy clay loam.
The transplants were pushed through plastic, in double-row beds 70 cm wide and 130 cm apart from the centres and grown at 30 cm between the rows and 30 cm within the rows. This planting gave a density of 51,282 plants/ha. Irrigation was provided through drip-tape under the plastic when the soil water potential at a 25 cm depth fell below −10 kPa. The plants received a total of 117 kg/ha of N, 24 kg/ha of P, 165 kg/ha of K, 7 kg/ha of Ca and 13 kg/ha of Mg through the irrigation each year.
Data on productivity are presented as mean yields with standard deviations (s.d.) for each experiment. The first analysis included the yields from all the experiments (‘Festival’ plus all the other cultivars). The second included the yields from the experiments with ‘Festival’ only and the yields from the experiments with the other cultivars with and without ‘Festival’. A t-test was employed to determine if the mean yields from the two groups of experiments (‘Festival’ versus other cultivars with and without ‘Festival’) were similar.
Daily maximum and minimum temperatures, monthly rainfall and daily solar radiation data were collected at the site from the Bureau of Meteorology: www.bom.gov.au (accessed on 30 October 2025). Average values for temperature and radiation for each season are presented along with total values for rainfall. The relationships between yield and the date of planting, date of the last harvest and the length of the growing season were analyzed by regression and fitted using the graphical software programme SigmaPlot (Version 15; Grafiti LLC, Palo Alto, CA, USA; www.grafiti.com). The first analysis included the data from all the experiments, the second the data from the experiments with ‘Festival alone, and the third the data from the experiments with the other cultivars (with and without ‘Festival’). The relationships between yield and average temperatures during the season, total rainfall and average solar radiation were also analyzed by regression.

3. Results

3.1. Weather

During the experiments, the average daily mean temperature ranged from 16.5 to 19.0 °C, total rainfall ranged from 57 to 970 mm, and average solar radiation ranged from 12.7 to 15.7 MJ/m2/day (Table 2). The average daily maximum from April to October, which covered the main growing season from 2004 to 2024, was 24.2 ± 0.6 °C, the minimum was 12.9 ± 0.8 °C and the mean was 18.5 ± 0.5 °C. The relevant temperatures from 1967 to 1990 were 23.6 ± 0.5 °C, 10.5 ± 0.9 °C and 17.1 ± 0.6 °C. This period covered the time when weather data were available at Nambour and before the impact of global warming on average temperatures became severe. The analysis indicates that the nights were about 2.5 °C warmer during the experiments than the long-term values. There were significant trends in daily mean temperature (p = 0.001, R2 = 0.40; Figure 1) and daily minimum temperature (p < 0.001, R2 = 0.52) from 2004 to 2024. Mean temperatures increased by 1.31 °C over the period, while minimum temperatures increased by 2.23 °C. Maximum temperatures were stable (p = 0.454; increase of 0.38 °C).

3.2. Yield

Mean yield (±standard deviation or s.d.) across all the experiments was 652 ± 327 g/plant, the median was 675 g/plant, and the range was from 142 to 1123 g/plant (n = 41) (Figure 2). In the experiments with just ‘Festival’, mean yield was 743 ± 220 g/plant, the median was 724 g/plant, and the range was from 268 to 1123 g/plant (n = 23). In the experiments with the other cultivars (with and without ‘Festival’), mean yield was 536 ± 210 g/plant, the median was 499 g/plant, and the range was from 142 to 827 g/plant (n = 18). The results of the t-test indicated that the mean yield with just ‘Festival’ was higher than that with the other cultivars with and without ‘Festival’ (p = 0.004).
There was no clear relationship between yield and the time of planting (p = 0.063, R2 = 0.06). In contrast, there was a moderate linear relationship between yield and the time of the last harvest across all the experiments (p < 0.001, R2 = 0.43, and n = 41; Figure 3). In other words, yields increased as the last harvest was delayed. There was a positive linear relationship between yield and the length of the growing season, which included the time of planting (p < 0.001, R2 = 0.58, and n = 41; Figure 3). Yield increased as the length of the growing season increased from 108 to 205 days. There were also linear relationships between yield and the length of the season with only ‘Festival’ (p < 0.001, R2 = 0.62, and n = 23) and with the other cultivars with and without ‘Festival’ (p < 0.001, R2 = 0.49, and n = 18).
There were no clear relationships between yield and average seasonal maximum, minimum or mean daily temperature (Table 3). There were weak relationships between yield and the total rainfall and average irradiance (Table 3). Higher yields were associated with higher rainfall or higher radiation, although the data were variable.

4. Discussion

The productivity of strawberry plants varied across 20 years in Queensland, Australia. Yields ranged from 142 to 1123 g/plant, with high yields associated with early plantings and a long growing season in this environment. The responses to the length of the growing season were similar across the different cases (‘Festival’ alone versus other cultivars with and without ‘Festival’).

4.1. Yields over the Different Years

There was a large variation in the yields of the strawberry plants over the different years. The mean yield was 652 ± 327 g/plant, the minimum was below 200 g/plant in 2024 and the maximum was above 1000 g/plant in 2008 and 2015. In other words, yields varied by a factor of five or more across the different years. Several authors have shown that there is a strong interaction between cultivar and year on the yields of strawberry plants. Verma et al. [48] studied the performance of crosses amongst 13 cultivars over two years in Poland. There were significant (p < 0.01) effects of genotype, year and genotype × year for marketable yield (kg/plot). Chacon et al. [33] conducted a similar experiment with 12 cultivars planted over seven years at two locations in the United States. The effect of cultivar explained 28% of the total variation in yield, while the interaction term (cultivar × year) explained 25% of the total variation. The results of these studies suggest that cultivars should be evaluated over several years if there are wide fluctuations in environmental conditions in the growing location. These studies should be followed up by on-farm evaluations to test the cultivars under commercial conditions. Variations in the productivity of strawberry cultivars across years probably reflect different weather and growing conditions.

4.2. Relationship Between Yield and the Time of Planting

There was no clear relationship between yield and the time of planting (p = 0.063). In contrast, there was a strong linear relationship between yield and the length of the growing season, which included the time of planting and the time of the last harvest. Yield increased as the length of the growing season increased, with a similar response from ‘Festival’ and from the other cultivars with and without ‘Festival’. In Queensland, the time of planting ranges from mid-March to late April, depending on growing conditions in the commercial nurseries. Harvesting commences in June and continues until September or October, depending on the weather. Producers harvest the fruit until they become small or soft or otherwise non-marketable due to hot or wet weather later in the season.
Research has demonstrated that the time of planting affects the productivity of strawberry plants. Menzel [47] collated data from various warm regions and found that there were linear or quadratic responses between yield and the time of planting. In the linear relationships, yields decreased as planting was delayed (n = 23 studies). In the quadratic relationships, optimum yields occurred with an intermediate planting, with lower yields with earlier or later plantings (n = 7 studies). There was a quadratic relationship between yield and the time of planting when the first planting was in early September in the Northern Hemisphere (e.g., Florida) or in early March in the Southern Hemisphere (e.g., Queensland). Low yields with early plantings were associated with small plants, few stored reserves and inadequate temperatures in the nursery [47]. Low yields with later plantings were associated with a short growing season.
There is a complex relationship between yield, the time of planting and the accumulation of chilling in strawberry nurseries. It is agreed that optimal temperatures for floral initiation are between 12 and 21 °C, with some variation across different cultivars [49,50]. Temperatures below 10 °C and above 25 °C are ineffective. This research suggests that very low temperatures (below 2 or 7 °C) are not required for floral initiation in strawberry nurseries. Longer periods of chilling increase the concentration of stored carbohydrates in the nursery plants, but these periods of chilling are of no benefit if the transplants are planted late [47]. Chilling is more effective for higher yields if the plants are exposed to lower temperatures naturally in the open field rather than in a cold room. Yields are higher for plantings from mid-March to early April in Queensland and a late harvest in mid- to late October (a long growing season).

4.3. Relationship Between Yield and the Weather

Strawberry production is sensitive to the weather during the growing season. The fruit are small, soft or affected by diseases after hot or wet weather, bringing harvesting to an end.
Twitchen et al. [51] studied the impact of temperature on strawberry plants in glasshouses in the United Kingdom. They found that there were moderate negative linear relationships between berry weight and temperature in two ever-bearing cultivars (R2 = 0.44 or 0.48). Fruit weight decreased as the temperature increased from 13 to 28 °C. Chen and Dale [52] conducted similar work to that of Twitchen and colleagues in Ontario and Florida. The results of their studies indicated that the optimum temperature for fruit development was 12 °C, with a daily range from 6 to 18 °C. In the current study, there was no clear relationship between yield and average temperatures during the growing season (Table 3). During the experiments, the average maximum ranged from 22.4 to 24.5 °C and the minimum ranged from 9.6 to 13.6 °C (Table 2).
The flowers and the fruit of strawberry are susceptible to several pathogens promoted by warm, wet weather. Grey mould incited by Botrytis cinerea is one of the most important pathogens of strawberries in the world [53]. Under wet conditions, more than 80% of the flowers and fruit are lost when the plants are not sprayed with fungicides. The other important disease is anthracnose fruit rot (AFR) incited by Colletotrichum acutatum and related species. This disease causes crop losses of up to 70% in commercial fields planted with susceptible cultivars [54]. Wilson et al. [55] demonstrated that the optimal temperature for infection was between 25 and 30 °C with 13 h of leaf wetness. Menzel et al. [56] found that there were strong negative linear relationships between marketable yield and the incidence of unmarketable fruit due to rain damage, AFR and other fruit rots in Queensland (R2 = 0.82 to 0.93). Up to 35% of the fruit was affected by rain and disease. In the current study, there was a weak positive relationship between yield and total rainfall (Table 3). Yield increased as total rainfall for the season increased, but this reflected the length of the growing season. Further experiments are required to determine the relationship between yield and rainfall in this location.

4.4. Effect of Global Warming on Yield

Several reports indicate that global warming will decrease the yields of strawberry in different areas (e.g., Sierra-Almeida et al., 2025 in Chile; da Silva et al., 2024 in Brazil; Unnikrishnan et al., 2024 in California; and Rodríguez-Aguirre et al., 2023 in Mexico) [7,37,57,58]. The impact of global warming on plant growth, flowering and fruit growth varies in different areas. In cool areas (e.g., northern Europe), high temperatures decrease floral initiation, while in warm areas, high temperatures decrease fruit development or induce heat stress in the plants (e.g., southern Queensland or Victoria in Australia). In some regions, the area suitable for commercial strawberry production will decrease over the next 50 to 100 years [7]. In the current research, the average daily maximum temperature from 2004 to 2024 ranged from 22.4 to 24.5 °C, and the minimum ranged from 9.6 to 13.6 °C. Wagstaffe and Battey [59] indicated the highest yields in strawberry occurred with temperatures from 18 to 23 °C. Hopf et al. [60] proposed that the optimum temperature for yield (fruit initiation) ranged between 12 and 16 °C. It can be concluded that temperatures were above those required for good fruit production for part of the growing season in Queensland. The average daily mean temperature has increased by 2 °C during winter on the Sunshine Coast since 1967 (p < 0.001, R2 = 0.69) [61].
Research is required to develop strawberry cultivars with better heat tolerance in different growing areas [62,63]. Other strategies that can be investigated in the short term include protected cropping, the use of shade nets to reduce the impacts of extreme temperature and radiation conditions, earlier times of planting and higher plant densities [37,64,65,66].

5. Conclusions

The mean yield of the strawberry plants in Queensland over 20 years was 652 ± 327 g/plant. There were strong relationships between yield and the length of the growing season, which included the time of planting and the time of the last harvest. Yield increased as the length of the growing season increased from 108 to 205 days. These results suggest that early plantings (about mid-March for most cultivars) and a long growing season are associated with high yields in Queensland. Warm weather and intermittent rain end the harvest in this area. Yields are expected to decrease in the future under global warming in the absence of mitigating strategies such as the breeding of heat-tolerant cultivars and the use of protected cropping.

Funding

The Queensland Government funded the research through the Department of Primary Industries. The research received funds from the Florida Strawberry Research and Education Foundation (FSREF) to support the project “Sustainable strawberry production in Queensland and Florida under a warming climate” (HF12638).

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to the farm staff at Nambour for help with growing the strawberry plants. Thanks also to Jodi Hufer and Donna Blake (DPI) and to Tiffany Dale and Kenneth Parker (Florida Strawberry Growers’ Association).

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Hernández-Martínez, N.R.; Blanchard, C.; Wells, D.; Salazar-Gutiérrez, M.R. Current state and future perspectives of commercial strawberry production: A review. Sci. Hortic. 2023, 312, 111893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Guevara-Terán, M.; Gonzalez-Paramás, A.M.; Beltrán-Noboa, A.; Giampieri, F.; Battino, M.; Tejera, E.; Alvarez-Suarez, J.M. Influence of altitude on the physicochemical composition and antioxidant capacity of strawberry: A preliminary systematic review and meta-analysis. Phytochem. Rev. 2023, 22, 1567–1584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Cianciosi, D.; Diaz, Y.A.; Qi, Z.; Yang, B.; Chen, G.; Cassotta, M.; Villar, S.G.; Lopez, L.A.D.; Garcia, L.R.; Hernandez, T.Y.F.; et al. Strawberry as a health promoter: An evidence-based review. Where are we 10 years later? Food Funct. 2025, 16, 5705–5732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Damba, K.; Purevsuren, M.; Ahmad, T.; Akhtar, S. Assessing productivity of strawberry varieties under Mongolia’s extreme climate. Appl. Fruit Sci. 2025, 67, 357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. De-la-Cruz, I.M.; Batsleer, F.; Bonte, D.; Diller, C.; Hytönen, T.; Izquierdo, J.L.; Osorio, S.; Posé, D.; de la Rosa, A.; Vandegehuchte, M.L.; et al. Genotypic responses to different environments and reduced precipitation reveal signals of local adaptation and phenotypic plasticity in woodland strawberry. Ann. Bot. 2025, 136, 611–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. De-la-Cruz, I.M.; Batsleer, F.; Bonte, D.; Diller, C.; Izquierdo, J.L.; Still, S.; Osorio, S.; Posé, D.; de la Rosa, A.; Vandegehuchte, M.L.; et al. Flowering responses of the woodland strawberry to local climate and reduced precipitation along a European latitudinal gradient. J. Plant Ecol. 2025, 18, rtaf105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Sierra-Almeida, A.; Morales, L.V.; Guerrero, D.; Hasbún, R.J.N.; Retamal, L.; Garrido-Bigotes, A.; Tamburrino, Í.; Maruri, A. Thermal vulnerability and potential cultivation areas of four day-neutral strawberries in Chile: Implications for climate adaptation. Plants 2025, 14, 3205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Altieri, G.; Curcio, D.; Lepore, A.; Grobler, E.; Maffia, A.; Gargano, N.; Tedesco, A.; Graziano, M.L.; Mazzei, P.; Capocasa, F.; et al. Yield and quality of new strawberry advanced breeding selections and commercial cultivars, grown under warm-temperate climatic conditions. Agriculture 2025, 15, 1406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bushakra, J.M.; Jung, S.; Lee, T.; Cheng, C.; Su, M.; Ru, S.; Main, D.; Humann, J.L.; Bassil, N.V. A strawberry (Fragaria L.) crop ontology to enable standardized phenotyping for strawberry breeding and research. HortScience 2025, 60, 784–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kouloumprouka Zacharaki, A.; Monaghan, J.M.; Bromley, J.R.; Vickers, L.H. Opportunities and challenges for strawberry cultivation in urban food production systems. Plants People Planet 2024, 6, 611–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Batke, S.; Thomas, N.; Key, N.; Morley, P. Protected and productive: How greenhouses should deliver UK food security. Plants People Planet, 2025; Early View. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kalorizou, H.; Giannoulis, P.; Koulopoulos, A.; Trigka, E.; Xanthopoulos, E.; Iliopoulou, E.; Chatzikamaris, A.; Zervoudakis, G. Hydroponic thermal regulation for low-energy winter strawberry production in Mediterranean coastal infrastructures. Horticulturae 2025, 11, 1383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Michuda, A.; Goodhue, R.E.; Hoffmann, M.; Fennimore, S.A. Predicting net returns of organic and conventional strawberry following soil disinfestation with steam or steam plus additives. Horticulturae 2021, 11, 149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Mbarushimana, J.C.; Bosch, D.J.; Samtani, J.B. An economic comparison of high tunnel and open-field strawberry production in southeastern Virginia. Horticulturae 2022, 8, 1139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Duan, D.; Nian, Y.; Xu, N.; Zhao, X.; Hong, J.; Rosskopf, E.; Gao, Z. Economic evaluation of anaerobic soil disinfestation with varying carbon and nitrogen application rates in open-field organic strawberry production. HortTechnology 2025, 35, 674–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. López-Aranda, J.M.; Soria, C.; Santos, B.M.; Miranda, L.; Domínguez, P.; Medina-Mínguez, J.J. Strawberry production in mild climates of the world: A review of current cultivar use. Int. J. Fruit Sci. 2011, 11, 232–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Negi, S.; Sharma, G.; Sharma, R. Introgression and confirmation of everbearing trait in strawberry (Fragaria × ananassa Duch.). Physiol. Mol. Biol. Plants 2020, 26, 2407–2416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ahn, M.G.; Kim, D.S.; Ahn, S.R.; Sim, H.S.; Kim, S.; Kim, S.K. Characteristics and trends of strawberry cultivars throughout the cultivation season in a greenhouse. Horticulturae 2021, 7, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Hummer, K.E.; Bassil, N.V.; Zurn, J.D.; Amyotte, B. Phenotypic characterization of a strawberry (Fragaria × ananassa Duchesne ex Rosier) diversity collection. Plants People Planet 2023, 5, 209–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Patel, H.; Taghavi, T.; Samtani, J.B. Fruit quality of several strawberry cultivars during the harvest season under high tunnel and open field environments. Horticulturae 2023, 9, 1084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ernazarova, D.K.; Safiullina, A.K.; Kholova, M.D.; Azimova, L.A.; Hasanova, S.A.; Nematullaeva, E.F.; Rafieva, F.U.; Akhmedova, N.S.; Khursandova, M.S.; Turaev, O.S.; et al. Morphological and molecular insights into genetic variability and heritability in four strawberry (Fragaria × ananassa) cultivars. Horticulturae 2025, 11, 1195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Sonsteby, A.; Nes, A. Short days and temperature effects on growth and flowering in strawberry (Fragaria × ananassa Duch.). J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol. 1998, 73, 730–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Taylor, D.R. The physiology of flowering in strawberry. Acta Hortic. 2002, 567, 245–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Sønsteby, A.; Sadojevic, M.; Heide, O.M. Production methods for high yielding plants of everbearing strawberry in the Nordic climate. Horticulturae 2022, 8, 249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Akter, A.; Rahman, M.M.; Moonmoon, S. Optimization of mulching for growth and yield of strawberry genotypes in a subtropical region. J. Glob. Innov. Agric. Sci. 2026, 14, 27–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Whitaker, V.M.; Chandler, C.K.; Santos, B.M.; Peres, N.; Nunes, M.C.D.N.; Plotto, A.; Sims, C.A. Winterstar™ (‘FL 05-107’) strawberry. HortScience 2012, 47, 296–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Whitaker, V.M.; Chandler, C.K.; Peres, N.; Nunes, M.C.D.N.; Plotto, A.; Sims, C.A. Sensation™ ‘Florida127’ strawberry. HortScience 2015, 50, 1088–1091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Gu, S.; Guan, W.; Beck, J.E. Strawberry cultivar evaluation under high-tunnel and organic management in North Carolina. HortTechnology 2017, 27, 84–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Whitaker, V.M.; Osorio, L.F.; Peres, N.A.; Fan, Z.; Nunes, M.C.D.N.; Plotto, A.; Sims, C.A. ‘Florida Beauty’ strawberry. HortScience 2017, 52, 1443–1447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Whitaker, V.M.; Peres, N.A.; Osorio, L.F.; Fan, Z.; Nunes, M.C.D.N.; Plotto, A.; Sims, C.A. ‘Florida Brilliance’ strawberry. HortScience 2019, 54, 2073–2077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Brym, M.; Fu, Y.; Frade, N.; Baldwin, E.; Chambers, A.H. Strawberry cultivar trials for yield and fruit quality in subtropical southern Florida. HortTechnology 2022, 32, 388–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Johnson, J.; Hoffmann, M. Evaluation of yield, fruit chemistry, and firmness of seven strawberry (Fragaria × ananassa) cultivars in an eastern North Carolina greenhouse. HortScience 2024, 59, 1634–1643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Chacón, J.G.; Fernandez, G.E.; Isik, F. Genetic variation in yield and fruit weight among strawberry (Fragaria × ananassa) cultivars and the interaction with year and location effect. Plant Breed. 2025, 144, 263–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Dalid, C.; Osorio, L.F.; Peres, N.A.; Lee, S.; Plotto, A.; Bai, J. Florida Medallion™ ‘FL 16.30-128’ strawberry. HortScience 2025, 60, 1032–1036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Oliveira, C.J.; Desaeger, J.A. Yield Performance and Nematode Infection of Seven Strawberry Cultivars in a Sting Nematode (Belonolaimus longicaudatus) Field with and Without Soil Fumigation. 2025. Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5396450 (accessed on 2 February 2026).
  36. Ullah, I.; Toor, M.D.; Yerlikaya, B.A.; Mohamed, H.I.; Yerlikaya, S.; Basit, A.; ur Rehman, A. High-temperature stress in strawberry: Understanding physiological, biochemical and molecular responses. Planta 2024, 260, 118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Unnikrishnan, P.; Ponnambalam, K.; Karray, F. Influence of regional temperature anomalies on strawberry yield: A study using multivariate copula analysis. Sustainability 2024, 16, 3523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ozherelieva, Z.; Prudnikov, P.; Zubkova, M. Estimation of the frost resistance of the strawberry. Biol. Commun. 2020, 65, 288–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Gama, A.B.; de Godoy Gasparoto, M.C.; Poole, G.H.; Bock, C.H.; Gottwald, T.R.; Amorim, L.; Peres, N.A.; Dewdney, M.M. Dispersal of Colletotrichum acutatum Sensu Lato conidia from infected citrus and strawberry under simulated rainfall and different laminar and turbulent wind speeds. Phytopathology 2025, 115, 507–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Wesche, J.; Schnabel, G.; Hopkins, J.A. Evaluation of fungicide products to control botrytis fruit rot and anthracnose fruit rot in annual strawberry in South Carolina, 2023 to 2024. Plant Health Prog. 2025, 26, 112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Aldrighetti, A.; Vendrame, N.; Nieri, R.; Zardi, D.; Farina, S.; Rosà, R.; Pertot, I. The role of wind in the spatiotemporal distribution of strawberry powdery mildew in high-tunnel growing systems. Aerobiologia 2025, 41, 609–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Hurtado, G.; Knoche, M. Calcium ions decrease water-soaking in strawberries. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0273180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Mattner, S.W.; Villalta, O.N.; McFarlane, D.J.; Islam, M.T.; Arioli, T.; Cahill, D.M. The biostimulant effect of an extract from Durvillaea potatorum and Ascophyllum nodosum is associated with the priming of reactive oxygen species in strawberry in south-eastern Australia. J. Appl. Phycol. 2023, 35, 1789–1800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. McFarlane, D.J.; Mattner, S.W.; Gomez, A.O.; Oag, D.R. Improved management of charcoal rot of strawberry in Australia with soil fumigation and totally impermeable film. HortTechnology 2025, 35, 202–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Rodriguez Coy, L.; Garcia-Ceron, D.; Mattner, S.W.; Gardiner, D.M.; Gendall, A.R. Integrated assays and microscopy to study the Botrytis cinerea–strawberry interaction reveal tissue-specific stomatal penetration. Horticulturae 2025, 11, 954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Menzel, C.M. Yield and fruit weight of six strawberry cultivars over two seasons in subtropical Queensland, Australia. Horticulturae 2025, 11, 226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Menzel, C.M. A review of time of planting in strawberry: Yields are higher with early to intermediate plantings. J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol. 2025, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Verma, P.; Singh, S.K.; Upadhyay, P.; Singh, S.; Bakshi, M. Evaluation of agromorphological and yield traits in strawberry (Fragaria × ananassa Duch.) genotypes under hydroponic cultivation. Appl. Fruit Sci. 2025, 67, 373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Sønsteby, A.; Heide, O.M. Temperature responses, flowering and fruit yield of the June-bearing strawberry cultivars Florence, Frida and Korona. Sci. Hortic. 2008, 119, 49–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ziegler, F.M.R.; Gaston, A.; Guy, K.; Devers, M.; Krüger, E.; Brauksiepe, B.; Eimert, K.; Osorio, S.; Denoyes, B.; Usadel, B. Molecular mechanisms underlying the early steps of floral initiation in seasonal flowering genotypes of cultivated strawberry. Front. Plant Sci. 2025, 16, 1563658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Twitchen, C.; Johnstone, E.; Hadley, P. Relationship between temperature and PAR on the rate of strawberry ripening. Acta Hortic. 2023, 1381, 221–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Chen, D.; Dale, A. Heat before flowering reduces fruit size in day-neutral strawberries. Can. J. Plant Sci. 2025, 105, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Petrasch, S.; Knapp, S.J.; van Kan, J.A.L.; Blanco-Ulate, B. Grey mould of strawberry, a devastating disease caused by the ubiquitous necrotrophic fungal pathogen Botrytis cinerea. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2019, 20, 877–892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Aljawasim, B.D.; Samtani, J.B.; Rahman, M. New insights in the detection and management of anthracnose diseases in strawberries. Plants 2023, 12, 3704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Wilson, L.L.; Madden, L.V.; Ellis, M.A. Influence of temperature and wetness duration on infection of immature and mature strawberry fruit by Colletotrichum acutatum L. Phytopathology 1990, 80, 111–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Menzel, C.M.; Gomez, A.; Smith, L.A. Control of grey mould and stem-end rot in strawberry plants growing in a subtropical environment. Australas. Plant Pathol. 2016, 45, 489–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. da Silva, L.R.; Araújo, F.H.V.; Ferreira, S.R.; dos Santos, J.C.B.; de Abreu, C.M.; Siqueira da Silva, R.; Regina da Costa, M. Strawberries in a warming world: Examining the ecological niche of Fragaria × ananassa Duch—Across different climate scenarios. J. Berry Res. 2024, 14, 193–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Rodríguez-Aguirre, E.; Badillo-Márquez, A.E.; Aguilar-Lasserre, A.A.; Flores-Asis, R. An agent-based model to evaluate agricultural vulnerability and risk facing climate change in strawberry production. Crop Sci. 2025, 65, e21100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Wagstaffe, A.; Battey, N.H. The optimum temperature for long-season cropping in the everbearing strawberry ‘Everest’. Acta Hortic. 2006, 708, 45–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Hopf, A.; Boote, K.J.; Oh, J.; Guan, Z.; Agehara, S.; Shelia, V.; Whitaker, V.M.; Asseng, S.; Zhao, X.; Hoogenboom, G. Development and improvement of the CROPGRO-Strawberry model. Sci. Hortic. 2022, 291, 110538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Menzel, C.M. Effect of global warming on the yields of strawberry in Queensland: A mini-review. Horticulturae 2023, 9, 142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Mookerjee, S.; Mathey, M.M.; Finn, C.E.; Zhang, Z.; Hancock, J.F. Heat tolerance plays an important role in regulating remontant flowering in an F1 population of octoploid strawberry (Fragaria × ananassa). J. Berry Res. 2013, 3, 151–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Zhou, Y.; Gao, F.; Zhao, W.; Liu, T.; Wang, M. Genome-wide identification and analysis of the nuclear factor Y Gene Family in the woodland strawberry Fragaria vesca. Horticulturae 2024, 10, 755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Menzel, C.M. The relationship between yield and plant density in strawberry: Competition does not impose an upper limit to population-level production. J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol. 2025, 100, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Menzel, C.M. A review of strawberry under protected cultivation: Yields are higher under tunnels than in the open field. J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol. 2025, 100, 286–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Menzel, C.M. Light and shade: The effect of natural and artificial light on photosynthesis and yield in strawberry. J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol. 2026. [Google Scholar]
Horticulturae 12 00214 g001
Figure 1. Changes in average daily mean temperature over the experiments with the strawberry plants in Queensland, Australia from 2004 to 2024 (n = 41 cases). The data were collected from April to October. Temperature (°C) = Intercept + 0.0545 × Year (p = 0.001, R2 = 0.40).
Figure 1. Changes in average daily mean temperature over the experiments with the strawberry plants in Queensland, Australia from 2004 to 2024 (n = 41 cases). The data were collected from April to October. Temperature (°C) = Intercept + 0.0545 × Year (p = 0.001, R2 = 0.40).
Horticulturae 12 00214 g001
Horticulturae 12 00214 g002
Figure 2. Box plot of the yield of strawberry plants in Queensland, Australia from 2004 to 2024 (n = 41 cases).
Figure 2. Box plot of the yield of strawberry plants in Queensland, Australia from 2004 to 2024 (n = 41 cases).
Horticulturae 12 00214 g002
Horticulturae 12 00214 g003
Figure 3. Relationship between yield and the date of the last harvest and length of the growing season for strawberry in Queensland, Australia (n = 41 cases). Yield (g/plant) = Intercept + 9.68 × Day of the last harvest (p < 0.001, R2 = 0.43). Yield (g/plant) = Intercept + 9.32 × Length of the growing season (Days) (p < 0.001, R2 = 0.58).
Figure 3. Relationship between yield and the date of the last harvest and length of the growing season for strawberry in Queensland, Australia (n = 41 cases). Yield (g/plant) = Intercept + 9.68 × Day of the last harvest (p < 0.001, R2 = 0.43). Yield (g/plant) = Intercept + 9.32 × Length of the growing season (Days) (p < 0.001, R2 = 0.58).
Horticulturae 12 00214 g003
Table 1. Details of the experiments examining the yield of strawberry plants in Queensland, Australia from 2004 to 2024 (n = 41 cases). Mean yields are presented with standard deviations (s.d.).
Table 1. Details of the experiments examining the yield of strawberry plants in Queensland, Australia from 2004 to 2024 (n = 41 cases). Mean yields are presented with standard deviations (s.d.).
Exp.YearCultivarsReps./CultivarPlants/PlotDate of PlantingDate of the Last HarvestLength of the Season (Days)Yield (g/Plant)
12004Festival & Sugarbaby21020 April6 August108189 ± 37
22005Festival, Rubygem & Sugarbaby41019 April3 October167703 ± 89
32006Festival & Rubygem42011 April26 September168480 ± 125
4a2007Festival 42022 March9 October201724 ± 26
4b2007Festival4201 April9 October191745 ± 51
4c2007Festival 42015 April9 October177701 ± 43
4d2007Festival42029 April9 October163543 ± 34
5a2008Festival52017 March8 October2051092 ± 82
5b2008Festival5201 April8 October190880 ± 56
5c2008Festival52013 April8 October178675 ± 36
5d2008Festival52028 April8 October163510 ± 28
6a2009Festival52016 March6 October204933 ± 36
6b2009Festival5202 April6 October187727 ± 32
6c2009Festival52014 April6 October175605 ± 65
6d2009Festival52028 April6 October161555 ± 38
7a2010Festival42031 March13 October196875 ± 122
7b2010Festival42014 April13 October182689 ± 102
7c2010Festival42028 April13 October168643 ± 114
8a2010Fortuna4207 April13 October189827 ± 119
8b2010Fortuna42021 April13 October175518 ± 84
8c2010Fortuna4205 May13 October161478 ± 77
9a2011Festival42030 March12 October196966 ± 109
9b2011Festival42013 April12 October182668 ± 48
9c2011Festival42027 April12 October168740 ± 31
10a2011Fortuna4206 April12 October189823 ± 141
10b2011Fortuna42020 April12 October175749 ± 46
10c2011Fortuna4204 May12 October161643 ± 54
112012Festival, Rubygem & two breeding lines43021 March10 October203720 ± 70
122013Festival, Rubygem & two breeding lines43021 March11 September174479 ± 44
132014Festival, Fortuna & Winter Dawn42010 April8 October181796 ± 152
14a2015Festival62020 April21 October1841123 ± 97
14b2015Festival62029 April21 October1751037 ± 98
152016Festival41413 April20 October190991 ± 16
162017Festival41819 April31 August134268 ± 14
17a2019Festival62017 April5 September141390 ± 75
17b2019Fortuna62027 March5 September162357 ± 78
182020Festival, Fortuna, Red Rhapsody, Scarlet Rose & Sundrench62429 April28 October182588 ± 96
192021Festival, Fortuna, Red Rhapsody, Brilliance & Beauty62219 April6 October170458 ± 71
202022Festival, Fortuna, Red Rhapsody, Fronteras, Grenada & Petaluma62420 April19 October182371 ± 49
212023Festival, Fortuna, Brilliance, Red Rhapsody, Sundrench & Suzie62230 March6 September160331 ± 55
222024Festival, Fortuna, Brilliance, Red Rhapsody, Sundrench & Suzie62022 April18 September149142 ± 59
Table 2. Weather conditions during the experiments examining the yield of strawberry plants in Queensland, Australia from 2004 to 2024 (n = 41 cases).
Table 2. Weather conditions during the experiments examining the yield of strawberry plants in Queensland, Australia from 2004 to 2024 (n = 41 cases).
Exp.YearMax. Temperature (°C)Min. Temperature (°C)Mean Temperature (°C)Total Rainfall (mm)Solar Radiation (MJ/m2/Day)
1200423.39.616.45714.2
2200523.111.017.149415.2
3200623.510.717.141415.6
4a200724.111.817.981015.7
4b200723.911.417.679415.4
4c200723.711.017.478115.2
4d200723.410.817.177314.9
5a200823.412.518.076615.3
5b200823.312.317.876615.2
5c200823.112.017.575814.9
5d200822.911.717.372514.7
6a200924.513.419.094715.7
6b200924.212.918.685215.5
6c200924.212.418.356915.7
6d200923.912.118.039915.5
7a201023.313.618.576413.6
7b201022.913.218.172913.4
7c201022.712.917.860813.3
8a201023.113.518.375913.5
8b201022.913.118.066913.3
8c201022.612.717.758912.7
9a201122.412.017.254814.4
9b201122.711.617.243614.4
9c201122.511.116.836714.5
10a201122.811.817.351114.5
10b201122.611.417.038914.5
10c201122.410.916.733114.5
11201223.612.918.252715.4
12201323.713.218.455114.0
13201423.512.418.051814.9
14a201523.312.317.852015.2
14b201523.112.217.751215.2
15201624.213.118.657514.9
16201724.012.818.414714.3
17a201923.312.217.843613.9
17b201923.712.918.360714.0
18202023.512.818.136015.4
19202123.612.017.837915.2
30202222.412.617.597013.6
21202324.312.718.531714.6
22202423.512.718.140614.5
Table 3. Linear relationships between yield and weather conditions during the experiments with the strawberry plants in Queensland, Australia from 2004 to 2024 (n = 41 cases).
Table 3. Linear relationships between yield and weather conditions during the experiments with the strawberry plants in Queensland, Australia from 2004 to 2024 (n = 41 cases).
VariableInterceptSlopeValue of p Value of R2
Maximum temperature (°C)1127−20.30.761-
Minimum temperature (°C)12143.50.310-
Mean temperature (°C)40.4−66.00.537-
Total rainfall (mm)38.30.4710.0080.14
Solar radiation (MJ/m2/day)17.40.410<0.0010.29
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Menzel, C.M. Yields of Strawberry Plants over 20 Years in Subtropical Queensland, Australia. Horticulturae 2026, 12, 214. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae12020214

AMA Style

Menzel CM. Yields of Strawberry Plants over 20 Years in Subtropical Queensland, Australia. Horticulturae. 2026; 12(2):214. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae12020214

Chicago/Turabian Style

Menzel, Christopher Michael. 2026. "Yields of Strawberry Plants over 20 Years in Subtropical Queensland, Australia" Horticulturae 12, no. 2: 214. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae12020214

APA Style

Menzel, C. M. (2026). Yields of Strawberry Plants over 20 Years in Subtropical Queensland, Australia. Horticulturae, 12(2), 214. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae12020214

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop