'Golden Delicious' clone B trees grafted on eleven apple clonal rootstocks, M 9 EMLA, M 26 EMLA, Burgmer 751 (Cover1), Burgmer 984 (Cover 2), T 337, T 338, T 339, Jork 9, MAC 9, Pajam 1 and Pajam 2, were tested in the field to evaluate their performance in the coastal area of central Italy. In spring 1994, trees were planted on irrigated loam soil at 4.5 × 2.5 m spacing and trained as slender spindles. Phenological and vegetative observations were carried out yearly and, beginning from 1996, yield was recorded. In 1997-98, trunk cross-sectional area, canopy volume, and pruning wood weight showed differences among clones allowing rootstocks to be ranked according to the following order of decreasing vigour: M 9 EMLA > T 339 = Burgmer 751 = Burgmer 984 = Pajam 1 = M 26 EMLA > T 337 = T 338 = Jork 9 > MAC 9 = Pajam 2. In 1998, M 9 EMLA was the most productive (29.6 Kg/tree), followed by Burgmer 751 and Pajam 1 (26 Kg/tree); MAC 9 showed the lowest production (13.7 Kg/tree). Burgmer 751 and Jork 9 showed the highest yield efficiency (1.8 and 1.7 Kg/cm2); in contrast to T 339 and Burgmer 984, which registered the lowest efficiency (1.2 Kg/cm2). M 9 EMLA and M 26 EMLA, assumed as controls, gave a medium yield efficiency, similar to the remaining rootstocks tested. Fruit quality was assessed considering size, firmness, soluble solids (°Brix) and russeting. The different rootstocks did not affect those parameters except the soluble solids, for which MAC 9 determined a constant level in the years (about 15°B), probably due to its low production increment. There were no significant differences in the most important phenological stages (bud break, time of flowering and leaf fall) among rootstocks.

Evaluation of eleven dwarfing apple rootstocks: preliminary results

MASSAI, ROSSANO;FEI, CARLO;CINELLI, FABRIZIO;
2001-01-01

Abstract

'Golden Delicious' clone B trees grafted on eleven apple clonal rootstocks, M 9 EMLA, M 26 EMLA, Burgmer 751 (Cover1), Burgmer 984 (Cover 2), T 337, T 338, T 339, Jork 9, MAC 9, Pajam 1 and Pajam 2, were tested in the field to evaluate their performance in the coastal area of central Italy. In spring 1994, trees were planted on irrigated loam soil at 4.5 × 2.5 m spacing and trained as slender spindles. Phenological and vegetative observations were carried out yearly and, beginning from 1996, yield was recorded. In 1997-98, trunk cross-sectional area, canopy volume, and pruning wood weight showed differences among clones allowing rootstocks to be ranked according to the following order of decreasing vigour: M 9 EMLA > T 339 = Burgmer 751 = Burgmer 984 = Pajam 1 = M 26 EMLA > T 337 = T 338 = Jork 9 > MAC 9 = Pajam 2. In 1998, M 9 EMLA was the most productive (29.6 Kg/tree), followed by Burgmer 751 and Pajam 1 (26 Kg/tree); MAC 9 showed the lowest production (13.7 Kg/tree). Burgmer 751 and Jork 9 showed the highest yield efficiency (1.8 and 1.7 Kg/cm2); in contrast to T 339 and Burgmer 984, which registered the lowest efficiency (1.2 Kg/cm2). M 9 EMLA and M 26 EMLA, assumed as controls, gave a medium yield efficiency, similar to the remaining rootstocks tested. Fruit quality was assessed considering size, firmness, soluble solids (°Brix) and russeting. The different rootstocks did not affect those parameters except the soluble solids, for which MAC 9 determined a constant level in the years (about 15°B), probably due to its low production increment. There were no significant differences in the most important phenological stages (bud break, time of flowering and leaf fall) among rootstocks.
2001
Loreti, F.; Massai, Rossano; Fei, Carlo; Cinelli, Fabrizio; Cecconi, B.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11568/68848
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 8
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 5
social impact