From

Location

Message

Date Posted

Deer Park, WI

alrighty, theres been a little disagreement amongst growers concerning the role of plant material "in front of" the pumpkin and plant material "behind" the fruit. This whole idea that vegetative growth in front of the fruit does not significantly contribute to fruit growth really strikes some dischord in me. So i would like to lay this thing to rest before some misguided growers start putting themselves at a disadvantage. Im sticking my neck out here and run the risk of pissing some people off, but frankly i dont care, because i have seen no proof supporting this idea. Logic shall run its course, and hopefully in the end reign supreme.

There are a number of instances in the plant world where organisms shuttle photosynthate from a source WAY IN FRONT of a sink. How does a tree trunk expand from year to year? Water and nutrients are drawn up thru the trunk into the leaves, this is then photosynthetically converted to carbohydrates and shipped back down the trunk, where it is deposited on the outside of the trunk, and solidifies as wood. Logically, not much different that a pumpkin. How does a potato, onion, carrot, or any other root crop develop? Once again, water and nutrients are shuttled to the leaves, converted to carbohydrates, and sent back down the pipe for storage. Were getting remarkably similar to pumpkin growth here eh?

Please keep in mind that gravity does not have an effect on photosynthate translocation. If that was the case, how would we explain redwoods? However, LOCALITY does have an effect on photosynthate translocation. If you are pruning your plant in such a way that all the plant material is behind the fruit, you are forcing photosynthate to take a long path to get to the fruit. This may be a disadvantage. Logically, a central location of your fruit in the growing area is ideal.

Continued....

4/8/2004 10:08:33 AM

Deer Park, WI

Now, of course there are organisms in nature where all the vegetative material is behind the primary sink. Sunflowers, for example, or peonies, and many other flowers for that matter. However, these organisms have been evolutionarily (or created) to adapt this way. They are programmed as such. We as pumpkin growers are in a unique advantage where we can influence the position of our fruit. Hence the reason to consider logic and evidence when pruning your plants.

I dont want to force my ideas on anyone here, all i ask is that you look at things from a logical point of view. Nature provides proof that plant material ahead of the fruit is indeed useful, if not essential to the growth of the organism. Just becuase an idea sounds new or different doesnt mean it makes logical sense.

As a side note, the leaves behind my fruit last year had all succumb to the effects of powdery mildew by early sept. I basically had nothing but stalks in the "stump" half of the plant The only nice green I had was the outer fringes of material 10-15 feet in front of the fruit. I put on over 200lbs in Sept. I'd like to think that provides some evidence supporting my side of this deal.

If I have left a hole in my rant, please bring it to my attention. I welcome all constructive criticism.

4/8/2004 10:12:55 AM

Montoursville, PA

Taht's a 'goot rant! To that you may rave! :)

4/8/2004 10:34:35 AM

Ljubljana, Slovenia

I guess that one point might be also considered: the growing shoot (or shoots) in front of the fruit is also a sink for photoassimilates and besides that produces hormones. Just a thought.. Jernej

4/8/2004 10:46:45 AM

Hudsonville, Michigan ([email protected])

Joe:
Here's a question I've been wondering about: how does a plant know where to send the carbs it manufactures through photosynthesis? I know, I know, it's the natural function of the plant to store them in the fruit. But scientifically speaking, is there a hormone or something in the fruit that draws the carbohydrates to that location? And, if you set more than one fruit, how does the plant distinguish which fruit gets the juice? Proximity? If one were to set a fruit 10 feet out on the main vine, and another fruit at 20 ft., would the fruit at 10 ft get fed by the first 15 ft. of vine and the 20 ft. fruit get everything from 15 ft. out?
As for me, I tend to think 'most' juice comes from behind the fruit, but I have no scientific evidence to support that. I just know that one year I had a bad stem split and was forced to cut off everything beyond that pumpkin & still grew a personal best....but I still wonder how much better I might have done with more vine past the fruit...
Frank

4/8/2004 11:17:59 AM

Indiana

So are you saying that both parts before and after the fruit are equally important or just the part after the fruit is important???
Steve

4/8/2004 11:33:40 AM

Hudsonville, Michigan ([email protected])

I'm saying I think the vine behind the fruit (between stump & fruit) is more important in feeding the fruit that the vine beyond (after fruit set). I would tend to think the fruit is capable of drawing from both directions, but primarily takes from the stump side. In Joe's case, perhaps when the plant canopy collapsed behind the fruit, the fruit began to draw more heavily from beyond to get the extra 200 pounds...
Just a theory, I'm no expert...
Frank

4/8/2004 11:59:18 AM

Deer Park, WI

Thank you for the replys thus far, i certainly appreciate the feedback. Frank- you have answered your own questions very well...within the fruit (most notably the developing embryos-seeds) there exists a relatively high concentration of specific hormones that act as magnents for photosynthate. This also applies to other sinks like vine tips, flowers, etc. Photosynthate allocation on a plant with multiple fruit is determined by a number of factors, proximity, sink strength, and others. Unfortunately one cannot assume that fruit A gets nutrients from the first 10 feet and fruit B gets nutrients from the outer 10 feet. This type of thing has not be shown to any scientific degree that im aware of.

Steve- I am saying that both halves of the plant, front and back, are equally important.

4/8/2004 12:04:59 PM

Indiana

I have to agree that both before and after are equally important, but one or the other if large enought could support the growth of the fruit.
Steve

4/8/2004 12:40:10 PM

Bemidji, MN

Interesting discussion. My input is this... several years ago on my 690 sproule plant, I had fruit set at 15' from stump, and then 7' vine growth after fruit. About 4' before fruit, my wife accidently stuck a shovel through vine and did not inform me. At end of season when harvesting, i noticed the vine cut(then she told me). Anyway, the fruit reached 750 + and only had the the last 7' of vine to pull nutrients from. I was impressed by that(also wondered about what IF it had full vine). I still believe most nutrients come prior to fruit, but this experience sometimes has me questioning that. Steve

4/8/2004 12:51:47 PM

[email protected]

Deciduous trees make an interesting comparison. Onions too. While these plants are distinctly different in nature, they do share some similarities.

I've been thinking about this a bit since Niagara & our last discussions about this matter. You previously indicated a desire to try food coloring as a visible indicator for evidence of this theory. I argued that food coloring might not transport the entire distance if at all. I was wrong.

You can use food coloring. But to insure thorough pickup, the dye should be delivered in a soluble Nitrogen liquid fertilizer. Like all higher plants, Cucurbita will scavenge all luxury Nitrogen it encounters. The dye will go along for the ride. Light to moderate rates are all that is needed. Even a teaspoon of high (20-30%) N soluble per gallon of water/dye would be fine.

Do not discourage if the dye still fails to transport entirely to the sink (fruit). Along the way back toward the sink (from the outward source area at the bitter end of the main), photosynthates (ps here after) are being "used" in "other tissues" along the journey. But this utilization just means the other more locally produced ps & the crown (I hate the term stump) produced ps is that much more destined to the sink. Closer dye placement at well developed secondary roots closer to the sink might better demonstrate this.

continued

4/8/2004 1:13:02 PM

[email protected]

In other words, the entire plant has young tissues that are always part sink & part source. We can expect all this tissue to always serve as at least part of both for much of the year. Properly trained plants will have more mature tissue behaving more like source, more of the time. So the sink benefits.

The youngest tissues are those most likely to still behave "sink-like".

Of course there is always the little understood role that PGRs play that might also be "altered" to advantage. But we're not entirely in agreement as to the hows, whens, & whats.

I would treat both ends of a plant to the dye treatment. Thus to compare speed, rate & distance.

Joe, whatever you do, take many digital photos of whatever uptake & translocation occurs. I'll buy access to good images for a future Power Point.

Steve

4/8/2004 1:13:11 PM

Knopp, Germany

remember, that for what ever reason, the plant should appear as though it is feeding one sink. behind the sink, in front of the sink, i do not know, but i believe that how you treat the "secondary" sinks will be a factor.

4/8/2004 1:21:01 PM

C N Y

yes, i must agree with this, and thank you for sticking
your neck out and offering this neat little discussion
for discussion...it all makes sense.
centrally-located fruit when possible, well-pruned and buried vines, and keeping shovel-wielding helpers under control = monster fruit at season's end. cool! 'pal2

4/8/2004 1:26:27 PM

Western Pa.

Won't your wives be upset when they find all the sinks out in the pumpkin patch?

4/8/2004 1:51:38 PM

[email protected]

I'll bet that's true Kilr. Especially when the food coloring ends up out there too.

4/8/2004 1:57:09 PM

White Plains, NY

Part of this discussion involves why we "remove" fruit I think.

This allows all the good stuff to makes one GIANT fruit instead of a bunch of smaller fruits. Is it possible that in the beginning of the season the run between the stump and fruit is the main provider and in the later season the run in front could be the main provider?

I will keep my sink in the house and the fruit in the yard.

4/8/2004 7:16:36 PM

Garden State Pumpkins

I think That sinks get wired in like brain neurons and if you remove half the brain the brain will rewire itself. So if in early season the sink is wired in tight with the stump end it will do good, as these leaves die off the sink starts to rewire itself to whatever part of the plant is still supplying the desired material. Hence a pumpkin equidistant from both ends and no competition will draw from the entire plant including secondaries. If a second pumpkin disrupts this rewire effort and ties into the vine it will take over the second half of the season..Not scientific at all just from observing what I've seen. If the stump end to first pumpkin stay good it will keep its existing pipeline and the second fruit will suffer.

4/8/2004 8:08:58 PM

Montoursville, PA

This is a great line. All levels of intellect should enjoy what is good enough for me. Each time you cut and bury a secondary the plant thinks....Holy crap I'm gonna die so support the reproductive thing now! Each time you remove an early reserve fruit the same thing takes place. Each and every time you trim anything...vine growth, excess flowers and even a single leaf the same thing happens. When it comes down to only one fruit left all energys go to the only soul saving location, that being the existing remaining single fruit.

I am absolutely sure I heard a little voice say oneday..."cripes the damn fool cut off another arm"!

4/8/2004 9:09:04 PM

Belmont, CA

Not a scientific contribution here either in fact another question. What effect would secondary roots, (especially the ones that originate from the secondary vines) have on the pipeline? Depending on placement can they interrupt the sink/source pathways to the detriment of the established fruit, since, if the vine were severed that point, that part of the plant could continue on, on its own?

Also, I was going to leave this one alone but,
Does the plant respond to the removal of of its limbs with the reproductive thing or can it cull the (potentially) larger established fruit in order to replace the vegetative growth that is lost and produce a smaller more manageable replacement?

I had a 200+# pumpkin just plan old quit growing mid September when the plant was stressed (my bad). The main had already slowed way down, the leaves were comming in progressively smaller. When the plant finally recovered, @Oct 1st, the main grew another 12 to 15 feet with both male and female flowers and the new leaves once again came in huge. It was still alive and well until the end of November. The pumpkin never did mature. (It weighed in at 241# after less than 5 weeks of measureable growth. Oh to think what could have been.)

4/8/2004 10:37:03 PM

Indiana

I basically agree with Joe on this one. I dont think he made it clear if he thought before or after the fruit was equal, I do think that the plant before the fruit is more valuable, but that is only because the plant after the fruit never seems to root as well for me, and it is not as extensive. If I end up with 60 sq feet after the fruit I am happy.

Tom

4/9/2004 1:15:31 AM

Caceres, mid west of Spain

Very interesting discussion. What I found and think is very close to Joe's point.
It seems that the plant before the fruit take a much bigger place feeding the fruit, when it is young. Just because it is has more, larger and stronger leaves in July. But in late August and September, the older leaves are falling for many reasons, sun, pm, etc, and the front part take its advantage.
So one can think that the middle of the plant could be the best place to set the keeper, and I believe in most of cases it is. But we should considerer the mature speed of the fruit, which mostly depends on the climate. When a fruit decides it is done, it won't grow any more, with a lot of plant in front or not. So, for warm and sunny climates and early pollination, it seems to be better to have some more plant before the fruit, in order to provide it more growing speed. I believe that is what happened with my 1036(it was pollinated July 4).
But for cooler climates and for late pollination fruits, it should be better for the keeper to be set on the middle of the plant rather than forward. I believe that had my 800, from the 790 Daletas, been closer to the stump (it was pollinated July 17), it would be much bigger.

But maybe all this is not so important; at least it is not essential. I feel so when I look to the two biggest fruits ever grown, and realize that both of them were set at very different distances. 1458 (pollinated 7/1) was at 11.5' and 1383 (pollinated 7/4) was at 23'. Then a healthy plant with lasting leaves in any place of the plant should be our goal. And to get that we have to provide a perfect water management, a good disease prevention program and a radical weed fight.

Carlos


Carlos

4/9/2004 4:19:07 AM

Caceres, mid west of Spain

I think this year I will set the fruits a little closer to the stump than last year. This is in a more central position. If the plant will have 30' long, I'll try to set the keepers more or less at 15', or from 12-18 I should say, depending on many things of course, but not over 20 as I did last year.

4/9/2004 4:24:59 AM

Saegertown Pa.

I'm one that feels the plant after the pumpkin does very little for the over all growth of the fruit, notice I said over all growth. once I get a fruit set I want to terminate all plant growth as soon as possible and put all the energy into the pumpkin not growing plant. If I would let a lot of growth past the pumpkin I would be sacrificing growth at the beginning of fruit growth to gain growth at the end of the season. I'm putting on a extra 300 LB in the beginning of the season and getting a 100 at the end were if I grow more plant I'm loosing that 300 to gain that 200 at the end instead of my 100 at the end. Now this is my observation in my patch and what works for me with my soil. other people seem to still get good growth and grow more plant after the fruit, so fare it doesn't work for me, my two cents worth.

4/9/2004 6:25:58 AM

huntsburg,ohio

I'm with quinn.Even if i let the plant grow most of the time it prunes itself meaning most vines after fruit are little runts or maybe no vines at all and if you would have seen my 1370 the vine coming out of stem was half as big as where it went in.Jerry

4/9/2004 9:38:51 AM

Cologne / Germany

Last year my 1260 Weir plant was underdeveloped for whatever reason, and the only fruit that took was 40 inch from the stump. I finally got a 500+ pumpkin though. Where was the fruit getting its power from?
I guess there´s some sort of distribution process inside the plant, similar to what happens in a human body. If you cut your finger, the healing process is directed to that point. Cut your toe and you find the same thing happening there.
If you prune your plant, you scale down the system, but there still seems to be a closed process going on over the entire remaining plant. So in my humble opinion I wouldn´t divide the growing process into before/behind anything.

4/9/2004 10:25:48 AM

Ljubljana, Slovenia

I see that the spring has arrived. Many interesting points but I will comment the idea of Alexdad that fruits (sinks) get wired in like brain neurons.
You may know that sugars in plants are transported inside long interconnected living cells called sieve tubes. This is in contrast to animals where body fluids are transported outside the cells: in the lumen of the veins, which is surrounded by endothelial cells. The interesting consequence of transport inside the cells in plants is that cell signals, which are in animals restricted to within the cell, can be transported over the entire plant. Recently it becomes more and more obvious that plants communicate on the whole plant level by the same signals like single cells do. These signals include mRNA and protein transcription factors. So, if you take in consideration the vast number of different signals (potentially one mRNA for every gene) and their transport in cellular tubes which interconnect all the plant parts, you get a very complex information network. This network may in principle function similar to network of neurons in brain but on a completely different basis.
Who knows, maybe plants have brains? Think of that next time when you talk to your pumpkins! :-)
Jernej

4/9/2004 12:43:18 PM

Caceres, mid west of Spain

Hey Jerry,

Your 1370 was set at 13' from the stump and the total plant area was 600 sq ft. If you didn't get much growth after the pumpkin, I deduce that it has to be more or less 40' width, and then, the secondaries 20' long. Am I rigth?
If so, it is much longer than the secondary length I let(10' long), and maybe is a better system, just looking to your results.

Carlos

4/9/2004 3:27:30 PM