2001Journal of the American Pomological SocietyOpen access

Performance of Trees in the 1990 NC-140 Apple Cultivar/Rootstock Planting: Additional Cultivars and Rootstocks

Peter M. Hirst, Wesley R. Autio, John A. Barden, Gerald R. Brown, R.M. Crassweller, Paul A. Domoto, James R. Schupp

Open full text 7 citations

Abstract

In 1990, up to 10 apple ( MalusX domesticaBorkh.) cultivars were planted on four to seven rootstocks at six sites in the midwestern and eastern United States. The growth and field performance of these trees was measured over 10 years. Although some cultivar x rootstock interactions were evident, tree growth and performance was primarily due to the main effects of cultivar and rootstock. Cultivar had no effect on tree size at three sites, while at other sites ‘Rome Beauty’, ‘Jonagold’ and ‘Mclntosh’ trees were the largest. ‘Stayman’ and ‘Empire’ trees were among the smallest trees across sites. Trees growing on M.26 EMLA were among the largest trees at all sites, although trees on M.9 EMLA were similar in size at two sites. The smallest trees were produced by B.9, Mark, P.22 and M.27 EMLA rootstocks. No single cultivar produced the highest yield at all sites. ‘Golden Delicious’ was among the most productive cultivars at three sites, but performed only moderately or poorly at other sites. ‘Empire’ and ‘McIntosh’ trees had the lowest yields per tree at most sites. Yields per tree tended to be closely related to tree size, therefore rootstocks producing the largest trees (M.26 EMLA, M.9 EMLA) also produced the largest yields. ‘York Imperial’ and ‘Stayman’ trees were highly efficient, and although ‘Rome’ trees were efficient in some sites, they were inefficient in others. Consistently the most efficient rootstocks were B.9, P.22, and Mark. M.26 EMLA was among the least efficient trees at each site. A significant negative relationship between tree size and yield efficiency was evident at each site, but the relationship differed among sites.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

In 1990, up to 10 apple ( MalusX domesticaBorkh.) cultivars were planted on four to seven rootstocks at six sites in the midwestern and eastern United States. The growth and field performance of these trees was measured over 10 years. Although some cultivar x rootstock interactions were evident, tree growth and performance was primarily due to the main effects of cultivar and rootstock. Cultivar had no effect on tree size at three sites, while at other sites ‘Rome Beauty’, ‘Jonagold’ and ‘Mclntosh’ trees were the largest. ‘Stayman’ and ‘Empire’ trees were among the smallest trees across sites. Trees growing on M.26 EMLA were among the largest trees at all sites, although trees on M.9 EMLA were similar in size at two sites. The smallest trees were produced by B.9, Mark, P.22 and M.27 EMLA rootstocks. No single cultivar produced the highest yield at all sites. ‘Golden Delicious’ was among the most productive cultivars at three sites, but performed only moderately or poorly at other sites. ‘Empire’ and ‘McIntosh’ trees had the lowest yields per tree at most sites. Yields per tree tended to be closely related to tree size, therefore rootstocks producing the largest trees (M.26 EMLA, M.9 EMLA) also produced the largest yields. ‘York Imperial’ and ‘Stayman’ trees were highly efficient, and although ‘Rome’ trees were efficient in some sites, they were inefficient in others. Consistently the most efficient rootstocks were B.9, P.22, and Mark. M.26 EMLA was among the least efficient trees at each site. A significant negative relationship between tree size and yield efficiency was evident at each site, but the relationship differed among sites.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 7 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

In 1990, up to 10 apple ( MalusX domesticaBorkh.) cultivars were planted on four to seven rootstocks at six sites in the midwestern and eastern United States. The growth and field performance of these trees was measured over 10 years. Although some cultivar x rootstock interactions were evident, tree growth and performance was primarily due to the main effects of cultivar and rootstock. Cultivar had no effect on tree size at three sites, while at other sites ‘Rome Beauty’, ‘Jonagold’ and ‘Mclntosh’ trees were the largest. ‘Stayman’ and ‘Empire’ trees were among the smallest trees across sites. Trees growing on M.26 EMLA were among the largest trees at all sites, although trees on M.9 EMLA were similar in size at two sites. The smallest trees were produced by B.9, Mark, P.22 and M.27 EMLA rootstocks. No single cultivar produced the highest yield at all sites. ‘Golden Delicious’ was among the most productive cultivars at three sites, but performed only moderately or poorly at other sites. ‘Empire’ and ‘McIntosh’ trees had the lowest yields per tree at most sites. Yields per tree tended to be closely related to tree size, therefore rootstocks producing the largest trees (M.26 EMLA, M.9 EMLA) also produced the largest yields. ‘York Imperial’ and ‘Stayman’ trees were highly efficient, and although ‘Rome’ trees were efficient in some sites, they were inefficient in others. Consistently the most efficient rootstocks were B.9, P.22, and Mark. M.26 EMLA was among the least efficient trees at each site. A significant negative relationship between tree size and yield efficiency was evident at each site, but the relationship differed among sites.

Key concepts: Rootstock, Cultivar, Biology, Sowing, Horticulture, Agronomy, Botany

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Performance of Trees in the 1990 NC-140 Apple Cultivar/Rootstock Planting: Additional Cultivars and Rootstocks — Research Paper | ScholarLens