Prunus cerasus and Prunus fruticosa as Interstocks for Sweet Cherry Trees

Prunus cerasus and Prunus fruticosa as Interstocks for Sweet Cherry Trees L. Magyar and K. Hrotkó Department of Pomology Corvinus University of Budape...
Author: Joleen Perry
2 downloads 3 Views 284KB Size
Prunus cerasus and Prunus fruticosa as Interstocks for Sweet Cherry Trees L. Magyar and K. Hrotkó Department of Pomology Corvinus University of Budapest H-1518 Budapest, Pf. 53 Hungary Keywords: Prunus avium, fruit weight, growth reduction, overgrowth, rootstock, sour cherry Abstract In suboptimal soil conditions, vigorous seedling rootstocks grafted with a dwarfing interstock may provide an appropriate rootstock solution. As Prunus cerasus (L.) cultivars have been reported to serve as dwarfing interstems, a trial was established in 1990 to examine the effect of sour cherry cultivars as interstems compared to some P. fruticosa selections on growth and productivity of sweet cherry (P. avium L.) trees. Trees of ‘Van’ and ‘Germersdorfi óriás’ were planted on mahaleb (P. mahaleb L.) seedling rootstocks intergrafted with ‘Érdi bőtermő’, ‘Pándy meggy’ and the P. fruticosa × P. mahaleb hybrid ‘Prob’, and on sour cherry seedlings intergrafted with ‘Meteor korai’ and ‘Debreceni bőtermő’, for comparison to trees on ‘Mahaleb’ and ‘Mazzard’. The trees were planted at a spacing of 5 x 3 m and trained to a central leader (modified Brunner-spindle). Five cm of the rootstock, and all of the interstock part (30 cm), was exposed above the soil line. Intergrafted sour cherries on both mahaleb and sour cherry rootstocks reduced tree vigour. P. fruticosa ‘Selektion 1’ and ‘Prob’ drastically reduced tree size, but these combinations had poor longevity with only a few trees alive in the 15th leaf. On the basis of the cumulative yield efficiency, promising intergrafted combinations are: ‘Van’ and ‘Germersdorfi óriás’ with ‘Meteor korai’ and ‘Pándy meggy’, as well as ‘Germersdorfi óriás’ with Érdi bőtermő, sour cherry interstocks on both mahaleb and sour cherry seedling rootstocks. Fruit size on all P. cerasus interstems was larger than on mahaleb SL 64 or Mazzard seedling rootstocks. INTRODUCTION In suboptimal soil conditions, vigorous seedling rootstocks intergrafted with a dwarfing stem piece (interstem) may provide an appropriate rootstock solution. Further reasons may be to avoid suckering and to improve anchorage. Cherry interstem trees have been tested in many trials, but have never been widespread in sweet cherry (Prunus avium L.) production. In Germany, first Plock (1970) and later Stolle et al. (1981), reported growth reduction and increased yield efficiency of intergrafted cherry trees with the sour cherries (P. cerasus L.) ‘Schattenmorelle’ and ‘Köröser’. Vogt (1986) reported large scale cherry orchards in former East Germany were planted with interstem trees. Similar reports have been made in the USA (Larsen et al., 1987), in Eastern Europe (Rozpara et al., 1990; Ogošanovič et al., 1996). Mainly sour cherry varieties (‘Montmorency’, ‘Schattenmorelle’, ‘Kelleriis 16’, ‘Morellenfeuer’, ‘Köröser’, ‘Nefris’, ‘North Star’, ‘Oblačinska’) and steppe-cherry (P. fruticosa Pall. Oppenheimer, Selektion 1, Decker 1, 7, 16 and other local selections) were used as interstocks in trials (Hein, 1979; Stolle et al., 1981; Vogt, 1986; Larsen et al., 1987; Rozpara et al., 1990, 2001; Ogošanovič et al., 1996). The growth reduction effect of intergrafted P. cerasus varieties never exceeded 30% in comparison to seedling rootstocks and in certain combinations no dwarfing effect was found. Tree size reduction with P. fruticosa was generally more pronounced. All the authors reported increased yield efficiency as an effect of interstocks. Rootstock or interstock effects other than growth reduction and higher yield efficiency were rarely Proc. 5th IS on Cherry Eds.: A. Eris et al. Acta Hort. 795, ISHS 2008

287

mentioned. Graft incompatibility of sweet cherry with sour cherry interstocks was scarcely mentioned in the literature; however, in Germany, the Russian variety ‘Valery Tschkalow’ proved to be incompatible with all sour cherry interstem combinations. On Oppenheim P. fruticosa interstem, ‘Van’ and ‘Sam’ were incompatible (Webster and Schmidt, 1996). Certain interstem combinations increased suckering of otherwise nonsuckering mahaleb or mazzard seedlings (Vogt, 1986). In a series of cherry rootstock trials in 1990, ‘Van’ and ‘Germersdorfi óriás’ sweet cherry trees were planted on different rootstocks and interstocks to evaluate their performance in a modified Brunner-spindle training system (Hrotko et al., 1998) at a medium dense planting system. MATERIAL AND METHODS The orchard was located on a sandy soil with low (1.2%) humus content, layered on a flooded soil next to the river Danube. The soil pH and calcium content were high, 7.82 and 28%, respectively. The 50-year average annual temperature was 10.8°C, total annual sunshine is 1,998 h, and annual precipitation is 520 mm. Trees of ‘Van’ and ‘Germersdorfi óriás’ were planted on P. mahaleb rootstock (in tables abbreviated: mah) intergrafted with ‘Érdi bőtermő’, ‘Pándy meggy’ and P. fruticosa hybrid ‘Prob’; on sour cherry seedling rootstocks (in tables abbreviated: sch), the same varieties were intergrafted with ‘Meteor korai’ and ‘Debreceni bőtermő’ to compare interstock trees to trees on ‘Mahaleb’ Sainte Lucie 64 and C 2493 ‘Mazzard’ seedling. The trees were planted at a spacing of 5 x 3 m and trained to central leader modified Brunner-spindle (Hrotko et al., 1998). Five cm of the rootstock was exposed above the soil line and the entire interstock (30 cm) was above the soil line. The following data were collected annually: scion trunk circumference above the interstem, canopy size and total yield/tree. The following data were calculated: trunk cross-sectional area (TCSA), canopy area (CA), canopy volume (CV), cumulative yield efficiency CYE (total cumulative yield divided by TCSA, CA and CV). Fruit weight was measured in a 100 fruit sample collected from five trees as five replicates. Data were statistically analyzed and means were separated by Duncan’s multiple range test. RESULTS Survival of trees planted in 1990 is shown in Table 1. Differences between the rootstocks were considerable, with only a few trees on the drastically dwarfing interstocks (Oppenheimer Selektion 1 and Prob) still alive in the 15th leaf. ‘Van’/‘Érdi bőtermő’ on mahaleb seedling had similar survival, with all trees lost in 2000 on this intergrafted combination, indicating incompatibility between the scion and the intergrafted sour cherry. Based upon tree size (Table 2), ‘Van’ cherry trees could be divided into three groups: vigorous, which include trees on ‘Mazzard’ seedling medium vigor, including interstem trees with all sour cherry interstems; and small trees on Prob interstems. Tree vigor of ‘Germersdorfi óriás’ (Table 3) also could be divided into three groups. The Oppenheimer Selektion 1 interstem combination reduced tree size in comparison to Sainte Lucie 64, while the sour cherry interstem combinations differed significantly only in TCSA. By canopy size, trees on ‘SL 64’ rootstock, ‘Pándy meggy’ interstock on mahaleb seedling, and ‘Debreceni bőtermő’ interstock on sour cherry seedling rootstock were the most vigorous. Medium vigor groups were on ‘Érdi bőtermő’ interstock on mahaleb seedling rootstock and ‘Meteor korai’ interstock on sour cherry seedling rootstock. The Prob intergrafted on mahaleb rootstock was the smallest. Based on TCSA, cumulative yield efficiency of ‘Van’ (Table 4) on ‘Mazzard’ seedling C 2493 was significant lower than on ‘Meteor korai’/sour cherry and the ‘Pándy meggy’/’Mahaleb’ combination. Cumulative yield based on canopy area produced a similar pattern. Higher productivity on a TCSA basis was found for the trees of ‘Germersdorfi óriás’ (Table 5) with the intergrafted sour cherries ‘Meteor korai’, ‘Érdi bőtermő’ and ‘Debreceni bőtermő’. On a canopy basis, there were no significant 288

differences found. Fruit weights are shown in Table 6. ‘Van’ trees on ‘Mazzard C 2493’ rootstock produced the smallest, while trees on ‘Érdi bőtermő’ interstock on mahaleb and ‘Meteor korai’ interstock on sour cherry had the largest fruit. Similar results were found for fruit weight of ’Germersdorfi óriás’. Fruit of trees intergrafted with sour cherries were larger than on mahaleb Sainte Lucie 64 and Prob interstem on mahaleb seedling. It is worth mentioning that considerable overgrowth of scion varieties was observed on interstem trees. The ratio of overgrowth was larger in combinations with larger tree size reduction. On interstem trees with larger tree size reduction (e.g., P. fruticosa), increased suckering of mahaleb rootstocks occurred by the 6th year. DISCUSSION Among the rootstocks examined, ‘Mahaleb’ Sainte Lucie 64 and C2493 were the most vigorous, which is in accordance with the data presented in the literature (Perry, 1987; Webster and Schmidt, 1996). The greatest tree size reduction occurred on trees intergrafted with P. fruticosa Selektion 1 and Prob, but the survival of these combinations was the lowest. In contrast to our preliminary results (Hrotkó et al., 1998), but corresponding to the literature (Stolle et al., 1981; Faccioli et al., 1981; Vogt, 1986; Larsen et al., 1987; Rozpara et al., 1990; Ogošanovič et al., 1996), the tested interstocks reduced tree size of ‘Van’ and ‘Germersdorfi óriás’ sweet cherry. The greatest tree size reduction was achieved using P. fruticosa as an interstock. Certain P. cerasus cultivars as interstocks increased the productivity of the sweet cherry cultivars. Based on the results for ‘Van’, ‘Meteor korai’ and ‘Pándy meggy’, for ‘Germersdorfi óriás’, interstocks ‘Meteor korai’, ‘Debreceni bőtermő’ and ‘Érdi bőtermő’, seem to be most promising. No records were found in the literature regarding fruit weights for interstem trees. The larger fruit weight on trees intergrafted with sour cherries was conspicuous. Except for ‘Prob’ and ‘Érdi bőtermő’ interstocks there were no incompatibility problems observed during the first few years. A few trees showed incompatibility symptoms with ‘Van’, beginning in the 1996 growing season with yellowish leaves, smaller fruit size and weak growth. All ‘Van’ trees on ‘Érdi bőtermő’/‘Mahaleb’ seedling combination died in 2000. Similar symptoms occurred with ‘Prob’ and ‘Selektion 1’ interstem combinations with ‘Germersdorfi óriás’. The low survival rate of the combinations, P. fruticosa ‘Prob’, ‘Selektion 1’ with both and P. cerasus ‘Érdi bőtermő’ with ‘Van’ should be considered in interterm selection; the latter may be due to delayed incompatibility. The overgrowth in the budding unit that was observed may cause disturbances in sapflow, and the increased suckering of mahaleb rootstocks with interstem combinations is worth mentioning. P. fruticosa ‘Prob’ as a direct rootstock did not sucker, but similarly to previous observations (Vogt, 1984), dwarfing interstocks increase suckering even on usually non-suckering rootstocks. In suboptimal soil and climate conditions, the promising P. cerasus interstem trees provide advantages as moderately vigorous trees with soil and climate adaptability and may be an option for growers. CONCLUSIONS - Intergrafted sour cherries on both P. mahaleb and sour cherry rootstocks reduced tree vigour and increased yield efficiency. - Considering tree longevity, P. fruticosa ‘Selektion 1’ and ‘Prob’ (P. fruticosa × P. mahaleb hybrid) intergrafts cannot be recommended. - Promising intergrafts are: - ‘Van’/‘Meteor korai’ and ‘Pándy meggy’ sour cherry - ‘Germersdorfi óriás’/‘Meteor korai’, ‘Debreceni bőtermő’ and ‘Érdi bőtermő’ sour cherry interstock on both rootstocks (P. mahaleb and P. cerasus seedling). - Fruit sizes on all P. cerasus interstems were larger. 289

Literature Cited Faccioli, F., Intrieri, C. and Marangoni, B. 1981. Portinnesti nanizzanti del ciliego: le selezioni CAB. Atti Giorn.sulle scelte varietali in frutticoltura. Ferrara, 19.12.1981. p.125–128 . Hein, K. 1979. Zwischenbericht über eine Prüfung der Steppenkirsche (P. fruticosa) und anderen Süßkirschenunterlagen und Unterlagenkombinationen, Erwerbsobstbau 21:217–219. Hrotkó, K., Magyar, L. and Simon, G. 1998. Growth and productivity of sweet cherry interstem trees. Acta Hort. 468:353–362. Hrotkó, K., Simon, G. and Magyar, L. 1998. Modified Brunner-spindle as a training system for semi-intensive sweet cherry orchards. Acta Hort. 468:459–464. Larsen, F.E., Higgins, S.S. and Fritts, R. Jr. 1987. Scion/interstock/rootstock effect on sweet cherry yield, trees size and yield efficiency. Sci. Hort. 33:237–247. Ogošanovič, D., Mitrovič, M., Nikolič, M., Plazinič, R. and Papič, V. 1996. The possibility of using ‘Oblačinska’ sour cherry as a rootstock or interstock in highdensity sweet cherry plantings. Acta Hort. 410:537–542. Perry, R.L. 1987. Cherry rootstocks. p.217–264. In: R.C. Rom and R.F. Carlson (eds.), Rootstocks for Fruit Crops. John Wiley & Sons. Plock, H. 1970. Süßkirschenanbau auf der Pr. fruticosa Pall. Mitt. Klosterneuburg, 20(4):319. Rozpara, E., Grzyb, Z. and Olszewski, T. 1990. The mineral content in the leaves of two sweet cherry cvs. with interstem. Acta Hort. 274:405–412. Rozpara, E. and Grzyb, Z. 2001. Frutana – a new interstock for sweet cherry trees. 4th Intl. Cherry Symp. Hood River – Richland, Programme and Abstracts. Stolle, G., Meier, G. and Reichel, M. 1981. Prüfung einiger Süßkirschensorten auf Cerasus mahaleb und C. avium mit und ohne Zwischenveredlung in Prussendorf. Arch. Gartenbau 29:425–436. Vogt, A. 1986. Standortanpassung und Ertragsergebnisse mit Zwischenveredlungen im Anbau von Süßkirschen. Gartenbau 33:177–178. Webster, A.D. and Schmidt, H. 1996. Rootstocks for Sweet and Sour Cherries. p.127– 166. In: A.D. Webster and N. Looney (eds.), Cherries, CAB International. Wallingford, Oxon, UK.

Tables Table 1. ‘Germersdorfi óriás’ and ‘Van’ sweet cherry tree number and survival (1990– 2005). Rootstock Prob/mah. Sel. 1/mah. Meteor k./sch. Debr. bőt./sch. Pándy m./mah. Érdi bőt./mah. SL 64 C 2493 maz. 290

Germersdorfi óriás 1990 1998 2004 2005 4 2 0 0 2 2 1 0 13 12 11 11 10 10 8 7 8 8 7 6 6 6 5 5 2 2 2 2 -

% 0 0 85 70 75 83 100

1990 6

1998 5

9 6 9 4

9 6 9 4

9

9

Van 2004 2005 1 1 7 7 6 6 8 8 0 0 9 9

% 17 78 100 89 0 100

Table 2. Tree size (trunk cross sectional area –TCSA-, canopy size) of ‘Van’ sweet cherry (2004). Rootstock Prob/mah.* Meteor k./sch. Debr. bőt./sch. Pándy m./mah. C 2493 maz.

TCSA cm² % 67 19 182 a 53 225 a 65 240 a 70 345 b 100

Canopy area m² % 1 10 6 a 52 7 a 56 9 a 69 12 b 100

Canopy volume m³ % 1 5 11 a 43 13 a 48 16 a 62 26 b 100

*only one tree.

Table 3. Tree size (trunk cross sectional area –TCSA-, canopy size) of ‘Germersdorfi’ sweet cherry (2004). Rootstock Sel. 1/mah.* Meteor k./sch. Érdi bőt./mah. Debr. bőt./sch. Pándy m./mah. SL 64 mah.

TCSA cm² % 184 47 228 a 58 234 a 60 247 a 63 342 ab 87 393 b 100

Canopy area m² % 1 18 6 a 84 6 a 85 7 a 102 8 a 113 7 a 100

Canopy volume m³ % 2 13 9 a 74 10 a 75 13 a 99 14 a 112 13 a 100

*only one tree.

Table 4. Cumulative yield (CY) and cumulative yield efficiency (CYE) of ‘Van’ sweet cherry (2004). Rootstock Prob/mah.* Meteor k./sch. Debr. bőt. /sch. C 2493 maz. Pándy m./mah.

CY (kg/tree) 7.3 45.1 a 52.5 ab 53.7 ab 65.8 b

CYE (kg/cm²) 0.125 0.327 b 0.264 ab 0.177 a 0.315 b

*only one tree.

291

Table 5. Cumulative yield (CY) and cumulative yield efficiency (CYE) of ‘ Germersdorfi’ sweet cherry (2004). Rootstock Pándy m./mah. SL 64 mah. Érdi bőt./mah. Debr. bőt./sch. Meteor k./sch. Sel. 1/mah.*

CY (kg/tree) 55.3 a 77.2 b 52.9 a 51.3 a 52.5 a 71.5 -

CYE (kg/cm²) 0.209 a 0.213 a 0.263 b 0.267 b 0.286 b 0.388 -

*-only one tree

Table 6. Mean sweet cherry fruit weight (MFW) in g/fruit (1997). Rootstock C 2493 maz.. Prob/mah. SL 64 mah. Sel. 1/mah. Debr. bőt./sch. Meteor k./sch. Pándy m./mah. Érdi bőt./mah.

292

Germersdorfi 7.2 a 7.8 ab 8.3 bc 8.5 bc 8.5 c 8.6 c 8.8 c

Van 6.7 a 7.4 b 7.3 b 8.4 c 7.7 b 8.3 c

Suggest Documents