1986Physiologia PlantarumRequires access

Effect of rootstock on apple (Malus domestica) tree water relations

William C. Olien, Alan N. Lakso

Open publisher page 88 citations

Abstract

The effects of rootstock on mid‐season water relations, under orchard conditions of non‐limiting soil moisture, were determined for bearing ‘Empire’ apple trees (Malus domestica Borkh.) on the clonal rootstocks M9, M26, M7, MM106, and MM104 (most to least dwarfing) in their sixth and seventh growing seasons. Stem water potentials (ψstem) of trees on M9 and M26 were more negative at midday, under warm, sunny conditions, than were the trees on the other three rootstocks. However, change in ψstem per change in stem distance through the canopy (water potential gradient) did not vary among rootstocks at midday. There was no rootstock effect on diurnal variation in transpiration or stomatal conductance. Differences in water storage capacitance, relative to tree size, were determined in a separate study but did not account for the differences observed in ψstem. Calculated hydraulic conductivities of xylem water transport suggest that rootstocks differ in their ability to conduct water to the scion, but hydraulic conductivity of the scion was not affected by rootstock. Root‐stock differences in hydraulic conductivity were not accounted for by differences in tree size.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The effects of rootstock on mid‐season water relations, under orchard conditions of non‐limiting soil moisture, were determined for bearing ‘Empire’ apple trees (Malus domestica Borkh.) on the clonal rootstocks M9, M26, M7, MM106, and MM104 (most to least dwarfing) in their sixth and seventh growing seasons. Stem water potentials (ψstem) of trees on M9 and M26 were more negative at midday, under warm, sunny conditions, than were the trees on the other three rootstocks. However, change in ψstem per change in stem distance through the canopy (water potential gradient) did not vary among rootstocks at midday. There was no rootstock effect on diurnal variation in transpiration or stomatal conductance. Differences in water storage capacitance, relative to tree size, were determined in a separate study but did not account for the differences observed in ψstem. Calculated hydraulic conductivities of xylem water transport suggest that rootstocks differ in their ability to conduct water to the scion, but hydraulic conductivity of the scion was not affected by rootstock. Root‐stock differences in hydraulic conductivity were not accounted for by differences in tree size.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 88 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The effects of rootstock on mid‐season water relations, under orchard conditions of non‐limiting soil moisture, were determined for bearing ‘Empire’ apple trees (Malus domestica Borkh.) on the clonal rootstocks M9, M26, M7, MM106, and MM104 (most to least dwarfing) in their sixth and seventh growing seasons. Stem water potentials (ψstem) of trees on M9 and M26 were more negative at midday, under warm, sunny conditions, than were the trees on the other three rootstocks. However, change in ψstem per change in stem distance through the canopy (water potential gradient) did not vary among rootstocks at midday. There was no rootstock effect on diurnal variation in transpiration or stomatal conductance. Differences in water storage capacitance, relative to tree size, were determined in a separate study but did not account for the differences observed in ψstem. Calculated hydraulic conductivities of xylem water transport suggest that rootstocks differ in their ability to conduct water to the scion, but hydraulic conductivity of the scion was not affected by rootstock. Root‐stock differences in hydraulic conductivity were not accounted for by differences in tree size.

Key concepts: Rootstock, Malus, Transpiration, Xylem, Dwarfing, Orchard, Canopy, Biology

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Effect of rootstock on apple (Malus domestica) tree water relations — Research Paper | ScholarLens