Effect of Apple Rootstocks on Average `Gala' Fruit Weight at Four Locations after Adjusting for Crop Load

Marini, Richard P.; Barden, J. A.; Cline, John A.; Perry, Ronald L.; Robinson, Terence L.

doi:10.21273/jashs.127.5.749

Cited by 30 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…5A). Marini et al (2002) described good tree survival, high annual yields, and adequate fruit size as attributes of the ideal rootstock; all of these traits were exemplifi ed by 'CG.6210' in our study. Crop density on 'CG.6210' also exceeded that of other rootstocks, although this trait varied among PPSTs (Fig.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 56%

Rootstock Selection, Preplant Soil Treatments, and Tree Planting Positions as Factors in Managing Apple Replant Disease

Leinfelder¹,

Merwin²

2006

HortSci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Apple replant disease (ARD) is a common problem typified by stunted growth and reduced yields in successive plantings of apple (Malus ×domestica Borkh.) in old orchard sites. ARD is attributed to biotic and abiotic factors; it is highly variable by sites, making it difficult to diagnose and overcome. In this experiment, we tested several methods of controlling ARD in a site previously planted to apple for >80 years. Our objective was to evaluate practical methods for ARD management. We compared three different experimental factors: four preplant soil treatments (PPSTs) (compost amendments, fumigation with Telone C-17, compost plus fumigation, and untreated soil); two replanting positions (in the old tree rows vs. old grass lanes); and five clonal rootstocks (`M.26', `M.7', `G.16', `CG.6210', and `G.30') during 4 years after replanting. The PPSTs had little effect on tree growth or yields during 4 years. Tree growth was affected by planting position, with trees planted in old grass lanes performing better than those in the old tree rows. Rootstocks were the most important factor in overcoming ARD; trees on `CG.6210' and `CG.30' grew better and yielded more than those on other rootstocks. Rootstock selection and row repositioning were more beneficial than soil fumigation or compost amendments in controlling ARD at this orchard.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 56%

Rootstock Selection, Preplant Soil Treatments, and Tree Planting Positions as Factors in Managing Apple Replant Disease

Leinfelder¹,

Merwin²

2006

HortSci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The effects of rootstock genotype on fruit yield and quality and tree vigor have been well documented in many tree species, especially apple (Malus ×domestica Borkh.) (Autio and Southwick, 1986;Fallahi et al, 2002;Marini et al, 2002;Schecter et al, 1991;), but also for peach (P. persica L.) (Kappel and Bouthillier, 1995;Layne, 1994) and citrus (Roose et al, 1989;Wheaton et al, 1991). New rootstocks for sweet cherry have recently been developed and adopted commercially (Lang, 2000;Perry et al, 1997), albeit on a limited basis in North America.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Rootstock and Training System Affect Sweet Cherry Growth, Yield, and Fruit Quality

Whiting¹,

Lang²,

Ophardt³

2005

HortSci

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Traditional sweet cherry (Prunus avium L.) training systems in the United States are based upon vigorous rootstocks and multiple leader vase canopy architectures. The sweet cherry research lab at Washington State University has been investigating the potential of new rootstocks and training systems to improve production efficiency and produce high quality fruit. This paper describes the effects of three rootstocks—Mazzard (P. avium), `Gisela 6', and `Gisela 5' (P. cerasus × P. canescens)—and four training systems—central leader, multiple-leader bush, palmette, and y-trellis—on `Bing' sweet cherry tree vigor, fruit yield and quality over a seven year period. Compared to trees on Mazzard, trees on `Gisela 5' and `Gisela 6' had 45% and 20% lower trunk cross-sectional areas after 7 seasons, respectively. Trees on `Gisela 6' were the most productive, yielding between 13% and 31% more than those on `Gisela 5' and 657% to 212% more than trees on Mazzard, depending on year. Both Gisela rootstocks significantly improved precocity compared to Mazzard, bearing fruit in year 3 in the orchard. Canopy architecture had only moderate effects on tree vigor and fruit yield. Across rootstocks, bush-trained trees were about 25% less productive compared to the other systems, which exhibited similar cumulative yields (102 kg/tree). Fruit weight was negatively and closely (r2 = 0.84) related to tree yield efficiency (kg·cm–2). Crop value was related positively to fruit yield.

show abstract

“…This becomes important when analyzing experimental data using covariance analysis. Covariance analysis should only be used if the slopes of the regression lines of the response variable as function of the covariate are not statistically different among treatments (Marini et al, 2002). This is likely to be true only when the treatments have relatively similar crop load as was the case for the cling peach experiment in season 3.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predicted Crop Value for Nectarines and Cling Peaches of Different Harvest Season as a Function of Crop Load

Reginato¹,

Cortázar²,

Robinson³

2007

horts

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several field experiments to assess the effect of tree size and crop load on fruit size and yield efficiency were conducted in cling peach and nectarine orchards of different harvest seasons in Chile. Trees were randomly selected in each orchard and then hand-thinned at the beginning of pit hardening to a wide range of crop loads. The fraction of above-canopy photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) intercepted by the canopy (PAR i) was determined at harvest. All fruits were counted and weighed and average fruit weight calculated. Crop load and yield were normalized by tree size measured by intercepted PAR i. For each orchard, the relationship between crop load and fruit size or crop load and yield efficiency was assessed by regression analysis. Fruit size distribution was calculated from fruit size adjusted for fruit load assuming a normal fruit size distribution and valued according to shipment date and price obtained from a Chilean export company. Using crop load as a covariate, fruit size adjusted for crop load was compared for nectarine and peach cultivars. Fruit size adjusted for fruit load and yield efficiency was greater with late season cultivars than the early or midseason cultivars. Predicted crop value (PCV), normalized in terms of PAR intercepted, was calculated for all the cultivars. Large differences in predicted crop value were found for early, midseason, and late ripening nectarines. Early and late ripening cultivars had the highest predicted crop value, especially at lower crop loads and larger fruit sizes. The early season cultivars had high crop value as a result of higher fruit prices, whereas the late season cultivar had high crop value as a result of higher production. With cling peaches, the early season cultivar ‘Jungerman’ had a lower predicted crop value than the late season cultivars ‘Ross’ and ‘Davis’. For cling peaches, the highest PCV was achieved at a relatively high crop load with high yield and small fruit size.

show abstract

Effect of Apple Rootstocks on Average `Gala' Fruit Weight at Four Locations after Adjusting for Crop Load

Cited by 30 publications

References 3 publications

Rootstock Selection, Preplant Soil Treatments, and Tree Planting Positions as Factors in Managing Apple Replant Disease

Rootstock Selection, Preplant Soil Treatments, and Tree Planting Positions as Factors in Managing Apple Replant Disease

Rootstock and Training System Affect Sweet Cherry Growth, Yield, and Fruit Quality

Predicted Crop Value for Nectarines and Cling Peaches of Different Harvest Season as a Function of Crop Load

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About