000256961 001__ 256961
000256961 005__ 20180123010237.0
000256961 037__ $$a1887-2017-777
000256961 041__ $$aeng
000256961 245__ $$aEVALUATION OF TWO YELLOW PASSION FRUIT (Passiflora edulis var. flavicarpa) TRELLIS SYSTEMS
000256961 260__ $$c1997
000256961 269__ $$a1997-07-06
000256961 300__ $$a7
000256961 336__ $$aConference Paper/ Presentation
000256961 520__ $$aA garden of Passiflora edulis var. flavicarpa was plantes 19 Aprill 994. The purpose of the planting was to compare two types of trellis systems: cross or "T" and back or fence. The cross shaped trellises were made up of metal pipes 1.5 m. high from the ground to top crossed by .9 m. pipes at a hèight of 1.2 m. Three wires ran parallel to each other from cross to cross, separated .3 m. from one another. The back trellis system used the same metal pipes 1.5 m high, without the cross. Two wires ran from pipe to pipe, one .9 m. and the other 1.2 m. from the ground. This type of trellis system is less expensive. The experiment of two treatments (the trellis systems) and three replications. Each treatment carried 45 plants, that is, 15 plants per replication per treatment. The vines were planted 3.7 m. within the row, and 3.7 m. between rows, using five plants per row. Results were analysed by LSD tests. Cross shaped trellises do promote a significantly higher production (290 kgs vs 226 kgs). The reason why so many local growers use the fence trellis system may have more to do with reducing expenses.
000256961 542__ $$fBy depositing this Content ('Content') in AgEcon Search, I agree that  I am solely responsible for any consequences of uploading this Content to AgEcon Search and making it publicly available, and I represent and warrant that: I am either the sole creator and the owner of the copyrights and all other rights in the Content; or, without obtaining another’s permission, I have the right to deposit the Content in an archive such as AgEcon Search. To the extent that any portions of the Content are not my own creation, they are used with the copyright holder’s express permission or as permitted by law. Additionally, the Content does not infringe the copyrights or other intellectual property rights of another, nor does the Content violate any laws or another’s rights of privacy or publicity. The Content contains no restricted, private, confidential, or otherwise protected data or information that should not be publicly shared. I understand that AgEcon Search will do its best to provide perpetual access to my Content. In order to support these efforts, I grant the Regents of the University of Minnesota ('University'), through AgEcon Search, the following non-exclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free, world-wide rights and licenses: to access, reproduce, distribute and publicly display the Content, in whole or in part, in order to secure, preserve and make it publicly available, and to make derivative works based upon the Content in order to migrate the Content to other media or formats, or to preserve its public access. These terms do not transfer ownership of the copyright(s) in the Content. These terms only grant to the University the limited license outlined above.
000256961 546__ $$aEnglish
000256961 650__ $$aCrop Production/Industries
000256961 650__ $$aFarm Management
000256961 700__ $$aColon, R. Velez
000256961 700__ $$aSantiago, A. Aponte
000256961 700__ $$aHenriquez, S. A.
000256961 8560_ $$fweidm015@umn.edu
000256961 8564_ $$s2308667$$uhttp://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/256961/files/33-13.pdf
000256961 909CO $$ooai:ageconsearch.umn.edu:256961$$pGLOBAL_SET
000256961 980__ $$a1887