I have several jabos, Sabara and Hybrid are fruiting year round. The Red Hybrid is a very prolific producer at an early age.
I was able to get fruits every month up until winter.
I would have to say Sabara increases production every year as it ages.
The Hybrid seems to have a consistent amount once it starts producing, haven't seen any major increase in harvest.
Long term I'd have to say they're both equal in accordance to the size and age of the tree.
Due to the fact that the sabara's harvest increases to catch up with the hybrid production.
My zone gets really cold, below 30's so I'm sure if it's in a warmer climate it'll produce better.
Thanks, that's great information.
Only places that produce these fruits commercially are going to have these kinds of figures you seek.
Hence the request for simply comparative estimates. I know that nobody here is actually going to be measuring tonnes per hectare.
Also you should note that a jaboticaba in Brazil, it's native habitat and soil and ideal fertilization, is going to produce far more than a plant grown in a greenhouse in Iceland
Indeed - hence the reason I'm not trying to collect figures for "greenhouse production in Iceland"
Nor would it matter. I'm purely looking for general productivity figures that can be compared vs. each other - relative figures, not absolutes. But of course, there has to be a baseline for relative figures (since there's so much randomness involved) - hence, I use "optimum conditions" as the baseline, so we don't get, say, someone trying to grow cherimoya in Florida balancing their meagre results off against their atemoyas
I am not sure why you want these figures?
I'm building an exotic plants database storing hundreds of attributes of thousands of plants. Aka, can be used for general queries, looking up cultivation details, all sorts of things - everything from the temperature and humidity a plant prefers, what kind of soil, what kind of soil moisture, how well it performs in differing lighting conditions, whether it has thorns, whether it coppices, whether it's dioecious, what pollinates it, flowering times and triggers, time to fruit maturity, floral scent, leaf scent, medical utility (both traditional and researched), interesting stories, rarity.... just hundreds of different factors that can be looked up at will. Beyond that, having the database lets me create formulae to evaluate different plants vs. each other over a huge range of different factors - including things like how hard seeds are to acquire, how difficult plants are to cultivate, appearance (flowers, fruit, plant form, etc), scent, and countless other factors. Relative (not absolute) productivities are obviously a very important factor in this.
So for example, with Annonas, with the current formulas (which I can readily change the ratings at will), cherimoya comes out on top, with a food rating (taking into account quality, productivity, etc) of 48,7, appearance rating of 7,9, "other properties" rating of 9,5, and penalties/bonuses score of 2,02, for a net score of 49,5 (the final score isn't simply a sum, it tries for a balance of all factors). Something like annona spraguei comes in with a food rating of 12,4, appearance rating of 14,1, other rating of 7,8, penalties/bonuses of 3,6, and a net score of 16,3. So if I were to uprate the importance of appearance or rarity, for example, A. spraguei would earn a higher score, while if I uprated, say, penalties for difficulties of acquisition or cultivation or the like, its rating would fall.
Now it would be simple enough just to, say, look at Annonas and say, "A, B, and C are the best annonas". But of course, the world is not just annonas; there's hundreds upon hundreds of interesting genuses, and more to the point, you can't just put any plant in any location. Each location needs to be constrained by temperature / humidity requirements, available light, and available space (particularly height), and may (or may not) impose root space or soil constraints. And certain types of plants - say, medicinal plants, or attractive plants, or rare plants, or aquatic plants, or whatnot - may be desirable in certain locations. With a database, I can group out plants by specific properties, and then select the best ones from each. Of course, it only serves to create a shortlist; nothing can beat a human for making final selections!
So the short of "why do you want these figures".... the significance of measurements of a fruit (taste, texture, flesh to weight ratio, appearance, etc) is proportional to how much of it is actually produced. E.g. without productivity figures, it'd treat some mass-produced high-yield fruit the same as some uncultivated jungle fruit that's lucky to produce a couple fruits once every few years. Clearly you can see how that's a non-starter! So while there's absolutely no realistic way to assess "actually achievable" production figures, having comparative figures (using the baseline of "relative yields in optimum conditions") gives some way to help compare species with each other. And actually, for a surprising number of species, even ones you might think would be too esoteric, they can be gotten or calculated! But here in the case of Plinias and Myrciarias, I only could dig up results for two species, and they weren't good for helping narrow things down.
Also you should know that when they say mature jaboticabas, they can be taking about plants that are 50-100 years old. Sabara is very slow growing plant
Indeed! I have growth tables that estimate size by years, and when production starts (on the presumption of increases over time as plants mature), and the longer these times are, the more it hurts that plant's score. This is weighed off against the area that the plant takes up - aka, if a plant takes a decade to first yield something, but during that time it only grows a meter or two, it may still be justifiable. But if a plant takes only four years, but becomes a monster during that time, it may well not be. At the same time, there are some plants we'll
want to become large early on, even if the plan is to replace them later.
Building estimated growth tables also helps show where it might be more optimal to import more mature plants rather than starting from seed.
It's all, of course, just approximation.