Rootstock and Interstem Effects on Pome Fruit Trees - 2006
Joseph Masabni and Dwight Wolfe, Department of Horticulture

Introduction
Apple is the principal tree fruit grown in Kentucky because of generally favorable weather and other growing conditions. Still, the hot and humid summers and heavy clay soils make apple production more difficult in Kentucky than in neighboring apple-producing regions with more favorable conditions. The hot and humid summers are also a factor in high disease and insect pressure in Kentucky orchards.

In spite of these challenges, productive orchards are high per-acre income enterprises, suitable for rolling hills and upland soils. Furthermore, orchards in these sites have less soil erosion potential. Unfortunately, Kentucky imports more apples than it produces.

Identification of improved rootstocks and cultivars is fundamental for advancing the Kentucky apple industry. For this reason, Kentucky cooperates with 39 other states and three Canadian provinces in the Cooperative Regional NC-140 Project entitled, "Rootstocks and Interstem Effects on Pome Fruit."

The NC-140 trials are critical to Kentucky growers, allowing them to gain access to and test new rootstocks from around the world. The detailed and objective evaluations allow growers to select the most appropriate rootstocks for Kentucky.

The 1999 apple rootstock trial was designed to compare the adaptability of the slender-spindle and the French vertical-axe systems in orchards on Kentucky soils. In addition, the semi-dwarf rootstocks in this trial evaluate the rootstocks’ abilities to support trees without a trellis. The 2002 apple rootstock trial provides information on performance differences among newly-released rootstock clones. The 2003 apple rootstock trial evaluates the adaptability of some new rootstocks to Kentucky climates and soils. The 2003 apple rootstock physiology trial primarily evaluates the relationship between different environments (sites), crop loads, and fruit size.

The NC-140 orchard trials are demonstration plots for visiting fruit growers, extension personnel, and researchers. The data collected from these trials will help establish base-line production and economic records for the various orchard system/rootstock combinations that can be used later by Kentucky apple growers.

Materials and Methods
Grafts of known cultivars on various rootstocks were produced by nurseries and distributed to cooperators for each planting. The University of Kentucky has three NC-140 rootstock plantings at the UK Research and Education Center (UKREC) at Princeton:

I. The 1999 dwarf and semi-dwarf apple rootstock trial consists of two groups (both have ‘Fuji’ as the scion cultivar):

i) 11 dwarfing rootstocks with six replications per rootstock. Trees are planted on 10 ft x 16 ft spacing.

ii) six semi-dwarfing rootstocks with six replications per rootstock. Trees are planted on 13 ft x 20 ft spacing.

Eight of the dwarfing and three of the semi-dwarfing rootstocks have not been tested previously at UKREC.

II. The 2002 apple rootstock trial compares nine rootstocks: three clones of M.9, two clones each of B.9 and M.26, and one clone each of Supporter 4 and of P.14. All have ‘Buckeye Gala’ as the scion. Seven replications of each rootstock were planted in a randomized complete block design. The planting has seven rows with a pollenizer tree at the ends of each row. A trellis was constructed and trickle irrigation installed a month after planting. Trees are spaced 8 ft apart within rows 15 ft apart.

III. The 2003 apple rootstock trial compares eleven rootstocks with ‘Golden Delicious’ as the scion cultivar. Two trees of each rootstock were planted in a generalized randomized complete block design with four replications (blocks). Trees are planted on 8 ft x 15 ft spacing.

Orchard floor management consists of a 6.5 ft herbicide strip with mowed sod alleyways. Trees are fertilized and sprayed with pesticides according to local recommendations (1, 2). Yield and trunk circumference measurements are recorded for all of the rootstock trials. Tree height and canopy spread (the average of the within row and across row tree widths) are recorded at the end of the 5th and final (usually the 10th) seasons of each trial. Fruit size is calculated as the average weight (oz) of 50 fruits.

Results and Discussion
The winter of 2006 was generally mild. Temperatures in the 60’s and 70’s in January were followed by a cold snap where temperatures dropped to 5ºF on February 19. Rainfall was near normal for most months, but September was one of the wettest and coolest on record.

I. 1999 Dwarf and Semi-Dwarf Apple Rootstock Trial

At planting time, we received 90 trees of a possible 102 because 12 trees were not available (one each of G.16N, CG.4814, and CG.5202, two CG.4013, three CG.3041, and four CG.30N). Three trees among the dwarfing group never leafed out after planting (one G.16T, one G.16N, and one CG.3041), and one tree among the semi-dwarfing group on CG.7707 had the wrong scion for our trial.

The number of root suckers per tree varied significantly among both groups of rootstocks (Table 1). Trees on CG.5179 and CG.4013 had the most root suckers among the dwarfing rootstocks. Trees on M.26 EMLA and M.7 EMLA had the least and most root suckers, respectively, among the semi-dwarfing rootstocks.

Cumulative yield has been greatest for scions on CG.4031 and CG.3041 among the dwarf stocks, and CG.30 and CG.7707 among the semi-dwarf stocks. Yield in 2006, fruit size, and trunk cross-sectional area varied significantly only among the dwarf rootstocks, while tree mortality did not vary significantly by rootstock for either the dwarf or semi-dwarf group. Trees on the Supporter Series of dwarf rootstocks (Supporter 1, 2, and 3) have all survived. Conversely, only 17% of the trees on Supporter 4 have survived in the free-standing, semi-dwarf trial.

II. 2002 Apple Rootstock Trial

Sixty-three trees of ‘Buckeye Gala’ were planted. A few trees have been lost to fire blight and wind breakage, but significant differences in tree mortality have not been observed to date (Table 2). Significant differences were observed for cumulative yield, yield in 2006, fall trunk cross-sectional area, tree height, canopy spread, and number of root suckers, but no difference was observed in fruit size as measured by average fruit weight (Table 2). The cumulative yield over the past three years was greatest for trees on M.9 Burg756, P.14, and M.9 T337. Scions on these three rootstocks also yielded the most fruit in 2006. P.14 and B.9 Europe rootstocks have produced the largest and smallest trees, respectively, in this trial.

III. 2003 Apple Rootstock Trial

Tree survival, cumulative yield, 2006 yield, average fruit weight and trunk cross-sectional area all varied significantly among the trees in this trial (Table 3). Trees on PiAu56-83 yielded the most fruit in 2006, and are the biggest trees in this trial. Mortality has been greatest for scions on G.16.

Literature Cited
1. Jones, R.T., J.G. Strang, J.R. Hartman, R.T. Bessin, J.G. Masabni. 2006 Commercial Tree Fruit Spray Guide. University of Kentucky College of Agriculture Cooperative Extension Service, Publication ID-92.
2. Midwest Tree Fruit Pest Management Handbook. University of Kentucky College of Agriculture Cooperative Extension Service, Publication ID-93.

Table 1. 2006 results for the 1999 NC-140 dwarf and semi-dwarf apple rootstock trial, UKREC, Princeton, Ky.
Rootstock

Percent Survival (number of trees planted)

Cumulative Yield (lbs/tree)

2006 Yield (lbs/tree)

Fruit Weight (oz)

Trunk Cross-Sectional Area (sq. in.)

Number of Root Suckers

Dwarf1
CG.4031

100 (4)

511

55

7.8

17.0

8.3

CG.3041

50 (2)

494

20

.

11.1

0.0

G.16T

100 (5)

454

60

7.8

11.7

1.8

CG.5179

83 (6)

434

57

7.9

10.5

9.2

G.16N

100 (4)

417

46

7.7

11.6

3.3

CG.5202

80 (5)

390

71

8.1

10.5

3.5

M.9NAKBT337

83 (6)

370

66

8.4

9.7

6.0

Supporter 1

100 (6)

335

40

8.1

8.2

0.0

Supporter 2

100 (6)

320

20

6.2

6.4

1.0

Supporter 3

100 (6)

302

7

3.2

7.2

2.0

M.26 EMLA

83 (6)

287

53

8.1

8.9

0.0

Mean

91

377

44

7.7

9.8

3.2

LSD (5%)

NS

139

49

1.2

2.5

4.4

Semi-Dwarf1
CG.30N

100 (2)

571

62

8.5

14.5

5.5

CG.7707

60 (5)

459

55

7.6

13.6

3.3

M.7 EMLA

100 (6)

362

66

7.9

11.7

4.3

CG.4814

80 (5)

331

33

6.9

11.3

8.0

M.26 EMLA

67 (6)

313

35

7.7

11.6

0.5

Supporter 4

17 (6)

123

18

.

2.5

1.0

Mean

67

373

46

7.7

11.7

4.5

LSD (5%)

NS

198

NS

NS

NS

3.6

1 Arranged in descending order of cumulative yield.

 

Table 2. 2006 results from the 2002 NC-140 rootstock trial, UKREC, Princeton, KY.

Rootstock1

Percent Survival (number of trees planted)

Cumulative Yield (lbs/tree)

2006 Yield (lbs/tree)

Fruit Weight (oz)

Trunk Cross-Sectional Area
(sq. in.)

Tree Height (ft)

Canopy Spread (ft)

Number of Root Suckers

M.9 Burg 756

29 (7)

173

77

6.0

6.8

12.9

9.8

2.0

P.14

71 (7)

157

91

5.8

9.8

15.0

10.5

0.6

M.9 T337

57 (7)

154

79

6.0

5.4

11.2

8.9

1.5

M.26 EMLA

57 (7)

139

57

6.3

5.0

9.4

8.1

0.0

M.26 NAKB

57 (7)

137

45

5.9

6.0

10.4

8.3

0.0

Supporter 4

86 (7)

131

57

6.1

5.6

10.8

8.7

1.7

M.9 Nic29

86 (7)

130

42

6.2

4.4

10.1

7.9

5.3

B.9 Treco

86 (7)

92

31

5.7

2.5

7.7

7.6

1.8

B.9 Europe

86 (7)

57

19

5.2

1.5

6.9

5.4

2.0

Mean

71

124

52

5.9

5.0

10.2

8.2

1.7

LSD (5%)

NS

48

28

NS

2.3

2.6

1.4

2.3

1 Arranged in descending order of cumulative yield.

 

Table 3. 2006 results for the 2003 NC-140 apple rootstock trial, UKREC, Princeton, Ky.
Rootstock1

Percent Survival (number of trees planted)

Cumulative Yield
(lbs/tree)

2006 Yield
(lbs/tree)

Fruit Weight (oz)

Trunk Cross-Sectional Area
(sq. in.)

PiAu56-83

100 (8)

139

123

7.3

11.4

CG.5935

63 (8)

134

88

6.2

4.1

J-TE-H

100 (8)

128

99

6.6

5.1

PiAu51-4

100 (7)

112

97

7.4

10.2

Bud.62-396

100 (8)

106

75

7.0

4.4

CG.3041

88 (8)

88

60

7.5

3.7

M.9T337

88 (8)

88

62

6.2

4.1

M.9Pajam2

100 (8)

88

68

6.9

4.9

G.16

50 (8)

86

60

6.5

4.1

M.26

88 (8)

73

55

7.1

4.2

B.9

88 (8)

24

15

6.0

1.3

Mean

87

99

75

6.8

5.4

LSD (5%)

24

35

29

0.8

1.0

1 Arranged in descending order of cumulative yield.

Back to Research Reports  HOME