Survival Rate of Young Pear Trees in Different Rootstock and Cultivar Combinations under Field Conditions: Preliminary Results

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 37 Sayı: 2, 405 - 420, 30.06.2022

Tahsin Kurt , Ahmet Öztürk , Zaki A Faızı

https://doi.org/10.7161/omuanajas.1091137

Cited By: 6

Öz

This study was carried out to determine the effects of 7 different rootstocks on rootstock diameter (mm), stem diameter (mm), and plant survival ratio (%) of some pear cultivars between 2019-2021. Rootstocks, cultivars, research years, and their interactions significantly affected all examined parameters in the study, except for the interaction of year x rootstock x cultivar. The ‘Deveci’/BA29 and ‘Deveci’/OHxF333 had the largest rootstock and trunk diameters, while the 'Williams'/MC had the smallest. The Fox11 and OHxF333 rootstocks had the highest plant survival ratios, whereas the MC rootstocks had the lowest. In terms of cultivar, the maximum plant survival ratio was found in the ‘Deveci’. At the end of the first 3 years after planting, there was a decrease in the survival ratio of the plants. ‘Williams’ had the lowest rootstock diameter, trunk diameter and survival ratio. The highest trunk diameter was in the OHxF333, BA29, Fox11 and Farold40 rootstocks, and the cultivar was in the ‘Deveci’. Plant survival ratios in quince clonal rootstocks were slightly lower than in pear rootstocks. This is due to the graft incompatibility between quince rootstocks and some pear cultivars. Compatible inter-stock with rootstock and cultivar should be employed to overcome this incompatibility problem caused by localized graft incompatibility. According to the findings of this study on young plants, it is required to extend the research and conduct additional observations in order to give more precise recommendations.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Pear, Rootstock, Cultivar, Rootstock diameter, Trunk diameter, Survival ratio

Kaynakça

• Arzani, K., 2004. Progress in the national Asian pear project: A study on the adaptation of some Asian pear (Pyrus serotina Rehd) cultivars to Iranian environmental conditions. In IX International Pear Symposium 671: 209-212.
• Askari-Khorasgani, O., Jafarpour, M., Hadad, M. M., Pessarakli, M., 2019. Fruit yield and quality characteristics of “Shahmiveh” pear cultivar grafted on six rootstocks, Journal of Plant Nutrition 42(4): 323-332. doi: 10.1080/01904167.2018.1555592.
• Baviera, J. A., Garca, J. L., Ibarra, M., 1988. Commercial in vitro micro-propagation of pear cv. Conference. In V International Symposium on Pear Growing 256: 63-68.
• Bodens M. L., Byrne D. H., 2012. Fruit breeding. In: Handbook of plant breeding. Wien, Springer, p. 875.
• Chen, Z., Zhao, J., Qin, Y., Hu, G., 2016. Study on the graft compatibility between ‘Jingganghongnuo’ and other litchi cultivars. Scientia Horticulturae, 199: 56-62.
• Ciobotari, G., Brinza, M., Morariu, A., Gradinariu, G., 2010. Graft incompatibility influence on assimilating pigments and soluble sugars amount of some pear (Pyrus sativa) cultivars. Notulae Botanicae Horti Agrobotanici Cluj-Napoca, 38(1): 187-192.
• Costes E., Lauri P. E., Regnard, J. L., 2006. Analyzing fruit tree architecture: implications for tree management and fruit production. Horticultural Reviews 32: 1-61.
• Da Silva, G. J., Villa, F., Da Silva P. S., Welter, J. F., 2018. Pear (Pyrus spp.) breeding, Advances in plant breeding strategies: Fruits. Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland. 3: 131-164.
• Dolkar, T., Mansoor, A., Agleema, B., Divya, S., Lobzang, S., Stanzin, K., 2018. Mitigation of temperate fruit crop problems through use of rootstock. International Journal of Chemical Studies, 6(2): 880-887.
• Dondini, L., Sansavini, S., 2012. European pear, Handbook of Plant Breeding: Fruit Breeding. Springer, New York. 11: 369-413.
• Ermel, F. F., Kervella, J., Catesson, A. M., Poessel, J. L., 1999. Localized graft incompatibility in pear/quince (Pyrus communis/Cydonia oblonga) combinations: multivariate analysis of histological data from 5-month-old grafts. Tree physiology, 19(10). 645-654.
• Ertürk, Y., Güleryüz, M., Erdoğan, U. G., 2009. Quince A üzerine aşılı bazı armut çeşitlerinin İspir (Yukarı Çoruh Havzası) koşullarındaki verim ve gelişme durumlarının belirlenmesi. BAHÇE 38(1): 11-17.
• Francescatto, P., Pazzin, D., Gazolla Neto, A., Fachinello, J. C., Giacobbo, C. L., 2010. Evaluation of graft compatibility between quince rootstocks and pear scions. Acta horticulturae, 872: 253-260.
• Gercekcioglu, R., Gencer, S., & Oz, O. (2014). Tokat ekolojisinde yetiştirilen “Eşme” ve “Limon” ayva (Cydonia vulgaris L.) çeşitlerinin bitkisel ve pomolojik özellikleri. Tarım Bilimleri Araştırma Dergisi 7 (1), 01-05.
• Giacobbo, C. L., Neto, A. G., Pazzin, D., Francescatto, P., Fachinello, J. C., 2010. The assessment of different rootstocks to the pear tree cultivar ‘Carrick’. Acta Horticulture, 872: 353-358.
• Goldschmidt, E. E., 2014. Plant grafting: new mechanisms, evolutionary implications. Frontiers in plant Science, 5: 727.
• Habibi, F., Liu, T., Folta, K., Sarkhosh, A., 2022. Physiological, biochemical, and molecular aspects of grafting in fruit trees. Horticulture Research. Horticultural Sciences Department, University of Florida, Gainesville FL 32607 USA, 1-27.
• Hancock, J. F., Lobos, G. A., 2008. Pears. In Temperate fruit crop breeding, Springer, Dordrecht, 299-336.
• Hartmann, H. T., Kester D. E., Davies, F. T., Geneve, R. L., 2011. Plant propagation: Principles and practices. 8th ed. Regents/Prentice Hall International Edition. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
• Hepaksoy, S., 2019. Meyvecilikte Anaç Kullanımı: Armut Anaçları. Türk Bilimsel Derlemeler Dergisi, 12(2): 69-74.
• Hudina, M., Orazem, P., Jakopic, J., Stampar, F., 2014. The phenolic content and its involvement in the graft incompatibility process of various pear rootstocks (Pyrus communis L.). Journal of Plant Physiology, 171(5): 76-84.
• Iglesias, I., Batlle, I., 2011. Agronomical Performance and Fruit Quality of ‘Conference’ on Some Cydonia and Pyrus Rootstocks. Acta Horticulture, 909: 195-200.
• Jackson, J. E., 2003. Biology of apples and pears. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511542657.
• Lepsis, J., Lepse, L., Kviklys, D., Univer, N., 2013. Evaluation of pear rootstocks for the cultivar ‘Suvenirs’ in the Baltic region. In Proceedings of the Latvian Academy of Sciences. Section B. Natural, Exact, and Applied Sciences, 67(2): 145-150.
• Loreti, F., Massai, R., Fei, C., Cinelli, F., 2002. Performance of ‘Conference’ cultivar on several quince and pear rootstocks: preliminary results. Acta Horticulturae, 596: 311–18. doi: 10.17660/ActaHortic.2002.596.48.
• Maas, F., 2008. Evaluation of Pyrus and quince rootstocks for high density pear orchards. Acta Horticulturae, 800: 599-609.
• Machado, B. D., Magro, M., Rufato, L., Bogo, A., Kreztschmar, A.A., 2016. Graft Compatibility between European Pear Cultivars and East Malling “C” Rootstock. Rev. Bras. Frutic., 39(3): (e-063) DOI 10.1590/0100-29452017 063.
• Massai, R., Loreti, F., Fei, C., 2008. Growth and yield of ‘Conference’ pears grafted on quince and pear rootstocks. Acta Horticulturae, 800: 617-624.
• Mauro, R. P., Perez-Alfocea, F., Cookson, S. J., Ollat, N., Vitale, A., 2022. Physiological and Molecular Aspects of Plant Rootstock-Scion Interactions. Frontiers Media SA, 11: 71.
• Meszaros, M., Lanar, L., Kosina, J., Namestek, J., 2019. Aspects influencing the rootstock-scion performance during long term evaluation in pear orchard. Horticultural Science (Prague) 46(1): 1-8. https://doi.org/10.17221/55/2017-HORTSCI
• Moore, R., 1984. A model for graft compatibility-incompatibility in higher plants. American Journal of Botany, 71(5): 752-758.
• Mosse, B., Herrero, J., 1951. Studies on incompatibility between some pear and quince grafts. Journal of Horticultural Science, 26(3): 238-245.
• Okubo, M., Sakuratani, T., 2000. Effects of sodium chloride on survival and stem elongation of two Asian pear rootstock seedlings. Scientia Horticulturae, 85(1-2): 85-90.
• Ozturk, A., 2021a. The Effects of Different Rootstocks on the Graft Success and Scion Development of Some Pear Cultivars. International Journal of Fruit Science, 21(1): 932-944.
• Ozturk, A., 2021b. Farklı Anaçlar Üzerine Aşılı ‘Deveci’ Armudunun Büyüme ve Meyve Kalite Özellikleri. Bağbahçe Bilim Dergisi, 8(3): 179-187. 10.35163/bagbahce.999637
• Ozturk, A., Ozturk, B., 2014. The rootstock influences growth and development of ‘Deveci’pear. Turkish Journal of Agricultural and Natural Sciences, 1(1): 1049-1053.
• Ozturk, A., Serdar, Ü., Balci, G., 2009. The Influence of Different Nursery Conditions on Graft Success and Plant Survival Using the Inverted Radicle Grafting Method on the Chestnut. Acta Horticulturae, 815: 193-198.
• Pasa, M. S., Fachinello, J. C., Rosa Júnior, H. F., Franceschi, E., Schmitz, J. D. Souza, A. L. K., 2015. Performance of ‘Rocha’ and ‘Santa Maria’ pear as affected by planting density. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira 50:126-131.
• Rahman, J., Aftab, M., Rauf, M. A., Rahman, K. U., Wasim Bilal, F., Ayub, G., 2017. Comparative study on compatibility and growth response of pear varieties on different rootstocks at nursery. Pure and Applied Biology, 6(1): 286-292.
• Rasool, A., Mansoor, S., Bhat, K. M., Hassan, G. I., Baba, T. R., Alyemeni, M. N., Ahmad, P., 2020. Mechanisms underlying graft union formation and rootstock scion interaction in horticultural plants. Frontiers in Plant Science, 1778.
• Reig, G., Zarrouk, O., Forcada, C. F., Moreno, M. Á., 2018. Anatomical graft compatibility study between apricot cultivars and different plum based rootstocks. Scientia Horticulturae, 237: 67-73.
• Shaltiel, H, L., Gerchman, Y., Ibdah, M., Kedoshim, R., Rachmany, D., Hatib, K., Holland, D., 2018. Grafting on resistant interstocks reduces scion susceptibility to pear psylla, Cacopsylla bidens. Pest management Science, 74(3): 617-626.
• Sharma, S., Rehalia, A. S., Sharma, S. D., 2009. Vegetative growth restriction in pome and stone fruits-A review. Agricultural Reviews, 30(1): 13-23.
• Stern, R. A. Doron, I., 2009. Performance of ‘Coscia’ pear (Pyrus communis) on nine rootstocks in the north of Israel. Sci Hortic., 119: 252-256.
• Stiropoulos, T. E., 2006. Performance of the pear (Pyrus communis) cultivar William’s Bon Chretien grafted on seven rootstocks. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 46: 701-705 Sugar, D., Basile, S. R., 2011. Performance of ‘Comice’ Pear on Quince Rootstocks in Oregon, USA. Acta Horticulturae, 909: 215-218.
• Tatari, M., Rezaei, M., Ghasemi, A., 2020. Quince Rootstocks Affect Some Vegetative and Generative Traits, International Journal of Fruit Science, 20(2): 668-682, doi: 10.1080/15538362.2020.1764462.
• Urbina, V., Dalmases, J., Pascual, M., Dalmau, R., 2003. Performance of `Williams’ pear on five rootstocks. Journal of Horticultural Science & Biotechnology, 78(2): 193-196.
• Webster, T., 2002. Dwarfing rootstocks: past, present and future. Compact Fruit Tree, 35: 67-72.