Pruning and Rootstock as Factors in the Production of Primary Branches on Apple Trees

Preston, A. P.

doi:10.1080/00221589.1968.11514228

Cited by 28 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous reports have found differences in the insertion angle of shoots induced by apple rootstocks (Crabbé, 1984;Preston, 1968;Warner, 1991). However, there were no signifi cant differences or even trends supporting this concept in this peach experiment (data not shown).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

“…Shoot growth has a large infl uence on the fruitfulness of trees and the amount of vegetative growth removed in summer and dormant pruning (Childers, 1973;Westwood, 1978). In addition, rootstocks can also affect the seasonal pattern and time of cessation of shoot growth (Barlow, 1964;Forshey and Elfving, 1989;Maggs, 1957;Preston, 1958Preston, , 19681957;Swarbrick, 1929;Vyvyan, 1935). There have been relatively few studies on seasonal vegetative growth patterns of peach scion varieties (DeJong et al, 1987) and fewer related to peach rootstock effects.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparative Vegetative Growth Responses of Two Peach Cultivars Grown on Size-controlling versus Standard Rootstocks

Weibel¹,

Johnson²,

DeJong³

2003

jashs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Vegetative growth of two peach (Prunus persica L. Batsch) cultivars Flavorcrest and Loadel growing on six different rootstocks (`Nemaguard', `Hiawatha', K-146-43, K-146-44, P-30-135, and K-119-50) was analyzed during the third season of growth in an experimental orchard at the University of California Kearney Agricultural Center near Parlier, California. Seasonal trunk cross-sectional area, shoot and internode growth, diurnal stem extension growth rate and summer and dormant pruning weights were measured to determine extent of size-control imparted by the experimental rootstocks compared to the trees on the `Nemaguard' control and to characterize the nature of the sizecontrolling response. Trunk cross-sectional area growth of trees on the two smallest rootstocks (K-146-43 and K-146-44) was only 25% to 37% of the growth of trees on `Nemaguard', while trees on the other three rootstocks provided an intermediate level of size control. Generally, the seasonal patterns of shoot growth did not vary substantially among trees on the different rootstocks, but average shoot and internode lengths did correspond with tree size. Vigorous watersprout growth was decreased by more than 80% in the trees on the least vigorous rootstocks compared to trees on `Nemaguard' resulting in major reductions in the extent of summer and winter pruning weights. Variations in vegetative shoot growth appeared to correspond to variations in daily shoot extension growth rates but more research is needed to explore these relationships.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Vegetative Growth Responses of Two Peach Cultivars Grown on Size-controlling versus Standard Rootstocks

Weibel¹,

Johnson²,

DeJong³

2003

jashs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The rapid development of lateral branching in apple trees favors early and increased yields (Ferree and Rhodus, 1987;Preston, 1968;Quinlan, 1978bQuinlan, , 1981Quinlan and Preston, 1978;van Oosten, 1978van Oosten, , 1981Wertheim, 1978). Bioregulators with cytokinin-like activity or which interact with auxin-mediated effects are capable of stimulating lateral shoot development in apple trees under both nursery and orchard conditions (Baldini et al, 1973;Basak et al, 1993;Cody et al, 1985aCody et al, , 1985bElfving, 1984Elfving, , 1985Elfving and Forshey, 1978;Forshey, 1982;Greene and Autio, 1990;Jacyna, 1996;Johann, 1983;Koen et al, 1989;Larsen 1979;Miller, 1985;Plich and Basak, 1978;Quinlan, 1981;Quinlan and Tobutt, 1990;Unrath and Shaltout, 1985;Volz et al, 1994;Wertheim and Estabrooks, 1994;Williams and Billingsley, 1970).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cyclanilide Induces Lateral Branching in Apple Trees

Elfving¹,

Visser²

2005

HortSci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A new bioregulator, cyclanilide (CYC, Bayer Environmental Science, Montvale, N.J.), was tested for growth-related effects on apple trees over three years. Although treatment with CYC produced small reductions in shoot length, its principal effect was to stimulate the formation of lateral shoots on current-season's shoot growth and from spurs on older wood. CYC treatment of `Scarletspur Delicious' apple trees in the nursery more than doubled the formation of well-developed feathers with wide crotch angles (≈60°) and with no effect on final tree height. CYC appeared to flatten the apples and reduce fruit size in one trial. CYC appears promising for lateral branch induction in apple, especially in the nursery. Chemical names used: 1-(2,4-dichlorophenylaminocarbonyl)-cyclopropane carboxylic acid (Cyclanilide); calcium 3-oxido-4-propionyl-5-oxo-4-propionylcyclohex-3-enecarboxylate (prohexadione-Ca, Apogee); N-(phenylmethyl)-1H-purine-6-amine + gibberellins A4A7 (Promalin); polyoxyethylenepolypropoxypropanol, dihydroxypropane, 2-butoxyethanol (Regulaid).

show abstract

“…Early and rapid development of the lateral branches of the fruit plants encourages earlier fruiting with the exponential increase in the yield (Preston, 1968;Quinlan and Preston, 1978;Wertheim 1978). Accordingly, it is preferred that saplings are branched and have the desired amount of lateral shoots spirally distributed having appropriate length and branch angle in relation to the trunk.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%