Performance of 'Gala' at Year 5 With Eight Apple Rootstocks in an 8-Location North American Nc-140 Trial

Barritt, B. H.; Barden, J. A.; Cline, John A.; Granger, R. L.; Kushad, Mosbah M.; Marini, Richard P.; Parker, M. L.; Perry, R. L.; Robinson, Terence L.; Unrath, C.R.; Dilley, M. A.

doi:10.17660/actahortic.1997.451.11

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In other rootstock trials, average fruit weight was often inconsistently affected by rootstock. During the fourth and fifth years of the current study, after adjusting for crop load, rootstock influenced average fruit weight in only four of 16 location/ year combinations (Barritt et al, 1997). During the fourth year in New York the smallest fruit were produced by trees on P.1 and Mark; in Ontario P.1 produced the smallest fruit; and in Quebec P.1 and M.26 produced the smallest fruit.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 58%

“…During the fifth year in Virginia, P.1 and Mark produced the smallest fruit (Barritt, et al 1997). In several trials, the rootstocks that tended to produce the smallest fruit included P. 1, Mark, and M.27 (NC-140, 1996;Barritt et al, 1995Barritt et al, , 1997. During four years of a rootstock trial in Massachusetts, trees on OAR.1 consistently produced small fruit, whereas trees on M.9 EMLA produced large fruit, after adjusting for crop load (Autio, 1991).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…justed for CD, were reported for several rootstock experiments (Autio, 1991;Barritt et al, 1995Barritt et al, , 1996Barritt et al, , 1997Marini et al, 2001).…”

mentioning

confidence: 79%

“…During the fourth year in New York the smallest fruit were produced by trees on P.1 and Mark; in Ontario P.1 produced the smallest fruit; and in Quebec P.1 and M.26 produced the smallest fruit. During the fifth year in Virginia, P.1 and Mark produced the smallest fruit (Barritt, et al 1997). In several trials, the rootstocks that tended to produce the smallest fruit included P. 1, Mark, and M.27 (NC-140, 1996;Barritt et al, 1995Barritt et al, , 1997.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

Marini¹,

Barden²,

Cline³

et al. 2002

jashs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The influence of rootstock on average fruit weight was evaluated for a subset of data from a multilocation NC-140 apple [Malus sylvestris (L.) Mill. var. domestica (Borkh.) Mansf.] rootstock trial. Data for eight dwarf rootstocks were collected at four locations for 2 years. Analysis of covariance was used to evaluate the effect of rootstock on average fruit weight when crop density or number of fruit per tree was included in the linear model as a covariate. When number of fruit harvested per tree was used as a covariate, average fruit weight was not affected by rootstock in either year in Ontario. In Michigan and Virginia, rootstock and number of fruit per tree, but not the rootstock × number of fruit interaction, were significant, so common slopes models were used to estimate least squares means for average fruit weight. In general, trees on M.27 and P.1 produced the smallest fruit, and trees on B.9, M.9 EMLA, and Mac.39 produced the largest fruit. In New York the interaction of rootstock × number of fruit was significant, so least squares means were estimated at three levels of number of fruit per tree. Both years, at all levels of number of fruit, trees on M.26 EMLA produced the smallest fruit and trees on M.27 EMLA produced the largest fruit. Average fruit weight was most affected by number of fruit per tree when Mark was the rootstock. In general, results were similar when crop density was used as the covariate, except that trees on M.27 EMLA did not produce small fruit in Michigan and Ontario.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 58%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…justed for CD, were reported for several rootstock experiments (Autio, 1991;Barritt et al, 1995Barritt et al, , 1996Barritt et al, , 1997Marini et al, 2001).…”

mentioning

confidence: 79%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations