Survival, Growth, and Yield of Peach Trees as Affected by Rootstocks

Abstract

Effects of 8 peach seedling rootstocks on tree growth, survival, and fruit yield of ‘Redhaven’ and ‘Loring’ peach scion cultivars were tested in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. Lovell seedling rootstock was a standard for comparison. Six years of data indicated that Siberian C was not an acceptable rootstock because tree survival and fruit yield were low. Halford was equivalent to Lovell for tree growth, fruit yield, and survival. Fruit size was unaffected by rootstock. Nemaguard and 2 North Carolina selections were resistant to root-knot nematodes (Meloidogyne spp.) but they were not resistant to ring nematodes [Criconemella xenoplax (Raski) Luc and Raski]. Soil fumigation improved tree survival in nematode-infested soil.

Role of Rootstocks and Spur-type Scions for Controlling Vegetative Growth of Apple and Peach Trees

“…Tree loss due to cold injury, bacterial canker (Pseudomonas syringae pv syringae van Hall), or both, were major causes of death in the cooperative peach rootstock trial conducted in the southeast (5). Trees on Siberian C generally exhibited the greatest amount of tree loss and could not be recommended in the region; however, losses of the other seven rootstocks varied dramatically from site to site.…”

“…Commercially available rootstocks for peach tend to be from seedling sources and do not offer the wide range of tree sizes present with apple (43). A regional cooperative study comparing eight Prunus rootstocks showed only a 10% difference in tree size between the largest and smallest rootstock/scion combinations (5). Layne (36), in a recent review, discussed in detail the capabilities of the rootstocks currently being used for peach around the world and reported that rootstocks were available ranging from about 50% dwarfing to about a 25% increase in tree size.…”

Rating Scales to Assess Cold Injury and Bacterial Canker Development in Peach Trees in the Field

“…A rating system based on a scale from 1 to 9 (0 = no data) reported by Fogle (3) for evaluating fruit tree per formance, seems to be precise, adequately detailed, and logical for use with modem data handling systems. In practice, accurate estimation of tree damage status at a very early stage of injury and good correlation with ultimate tree survival have been possi ble through the trunk cambial browning (TCB) and bacterial canker (BCR) ratings on a 1 to 9 scale (2,7,8). This article provides de scriptive details of key stages of damage se verity and portrays these stages pictorially for further clarity (Table 1, Fig.…”