Next Article in Journal
Preharvest Water Restriction Improves Physicochemical and Nutraceutical Postharvest Attributes of Actinidia chinensis cv. Gold3
Previous Article in Journal
Analysis of Flower Color Diversity in Phalaenopsis Based on Anthocyanin Metabolism
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Horticulturae
Volume 12
Issue 5
10.3390/horticulturae12050637
horticulturae-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Performance of Plum Cultivars on Myrobalan (Prunus cerasifera Ehrh.) and ‘Wangenheim Prune’ (Prunus domestica L.) Seedling Rootstocks in a Nordic Climate

by
Juozas Lanauskas
1,*,
Ilze Gravite
2 and
Darius Kviklys
1,3
1
Department of Orchard Plant Genetics and Biotechnology, Institute of Horticulture, Lithuanian Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry, Kaunas District, LT-54333 Babtai, Lithuania
2
Institute of Horticulture, Graudu Iela 1, Ceriņi, Krimūnu Pagasts, LV-3701 Dobeles Novads, Latvia
3
Division of Food Production and Society, Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomy Research, NIBIO Ullensvang, NO-5781 Lofthus, Norway
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Horticulturae 2026, 12(5), 637; https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae12050637
Submission received: 2 March 2026 / Revised: 21 April 2026 / Accepted: 18 May 2026 / Published: 20 May 2026
(This article belongs to the Section Fruit Production Systems)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

This study evaluated the agronomic performance of 15 plum cultivars grafted on both P. cerasifera and ‘Wangenheim Prune’ (P. domestica) seedling rootstocks over nine years at the Lithuanian Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry. Trees on P. cerasifera were planted 4.5 m × 2.5 m apart, while those on ‘Wangenheim Prune’ were 4 m × 1.5 m apart. On average, trees on ‘Wangenheim Prune’ developed 23% smaller trunk diameters and produced 42% less pruning mass than those on P. cerasifera yet demonstrated higher yield efficiency, except for the ‘Valor’ cultivar, which performed better on P. cerasifera. Mean plot yield was about 40% higher on ‘Wangenheim Prune’. Based on productivity, survival, and fruit quality, the most promising cultivars for Nordic climates are ‘Čačanska Najbolja’ and ‘Jubileum’ on ‘Wangenheim Prune’, while ‘Valor’ was productive on both rootstocks. Leaf nutrient analyses revealed rootstock-dependent differences: leaves on P. cerasifera contained more P, K, Ca, and Mn, whereas Mg, Cu, and Zn were higher on ‘Wangenheim Prune’. Regardless of rootstock, trees grown in calcareous, high-pH soils were deficient in Fe and Mn.

1. Introduction

Temperate fruits are predominantly cultivated in mid-latitude regions between 30° and 50° N, and S. Plum cultivation can extend to lower latitudes, down to approximately 15° N and S; however, the short dormancy period and insufficient accumulation of chilling hours in these areas may limit successful production [1]. At higher latitudes, low winter and spring temperatures restrict plum cultivation, although large bodies of water can moderate the microclimate and create suitable conditions for commercial plum production [2]. A good example of the latter case would be Norway, where commercial plum and other fruit production is possible in the southwestern fjord district and around lakes in the eastern part of the country, at latitude around 60° N [3,4].
Commercial cultivation of plums in the Baltic States, situated along the northeastern coast of the Baltic Sea, remains limited mainly because of low and highly variable temperatures during the winter–spring period [5,6]. This is reflected in statistical data: in Lithuania, plum orchards cover about 740 ha, in Latvia—70 ha, and in Estonia—20 ha [7]. Nevertheless, expanding domestic fruit production is important for local economies, shortening supply chains and ecological sustainability. The global trend toward consuming locally produced food encourages the cultivation of more local fruits.
Cultivars and rootstocks form the foundation on which fruit-growing technologies are developed, and each of these components is subject to different requirements. Plum fruits can be used both for fresh consumption and for processing [8]. The fresh fruit market is usually much more profitable. Plums grown for fresh consumption must be large, attractive, and tasty [9]. Fruit intended for processing must meet certain biochemical and technological characteristics necessary for the appropriate processing method and a high-quality final product [10,11,12].
The most cultivated plum cultivars in Europe belong to Prunus domestica L., followed by P. cerasifera Ehrh. [13]. The choice of plum cultivars is quite large [14], but their biological characteristics and economic significance usually vary depending on environmental conditions [15,16,17,18]. In some regions, only a limited number of cultivars are grown [19], which already poses an obstacle to the successful development of the industry. Despite the risks associated with adaptability, the introduction of new cultivars is often successful [20,21], underscoring the continued need for cultivar testing in different climatic conditions. In northern climates, plant winter hardiness and tolerance to fluctuating temperatures are particularly important [22,23]. In Lithuania, both indigenous and introduced cultivars are cultivated [24,25,26].
By choosing different rootstocks, growers can have different resources regarding tree survival, yield, and fruit quality. Because rootstock effects vary across environments, the interaction between rootstocks and local growing conditions can substantially influence long-term orchard performance [27]. P. cerasifera seedlings are the most common rootstock for plums in Lithuania. Although the rootstock is characterized by vigorous growth, delayed yielding, low productivity and some other shortcomings [28,29], it is still widely used in leading plum-growing countries [30,31,32]. The rootstock is most valued for its adaptability across diverse growing conditions [33]. Proper rootstocks alleviate orchard maintenance, enhance fruit tree productivity and improve fruit quality. In search of a more dwarf and yield-efficient rootstock in Lithuania, seedlings of P. tomentosa, clonal St. Julien A (P. insititia L., selected at East Malling, United Kingdom), St. Julien GF 655-2 (P. insititia L., selected at INRA, France), and Marianna GF-8 (P. cerasifera Ehrh. × P. munsoniana Wight, selected at INRA, France) have been assessed, but none of them have surpassed standard P. cerasifera [34]. Recently, as a rootstock, ‘Wangenheim Prune’ (P. domestica) seedlings have received good reviews in neighboring countries [35,36], where the dwarfing effect, precocity, and high yield efficiency of this rootstock have been emphasized. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the productivity and fruit quality of potentially important plum cultivars on P. cerasifera and ‘Wangenheim Prune’ seedling rootstocks.

2. Materials and Methods

Planting material, experimental design, orchard management and soil conditions. A field experiment was carried out at the Institute of Horticulture, the Lithuanian Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry from 2012 to 2020. One-year-old plum trees of the ‘Ave’, ‘Čačanska Najbolja’, ‘Čačanska Rana’, ‘Duke of Edinburgh’, ‘Jubileum’, ‘Kijevas Vēlā’, ‘Kubanskaya Kometa’, ‘Oda’, ‘Opal’, ‘Oullins Gage’, ‘Renklod Rannij Doneckij’, ‘Stanley’, ‘Valor’, ‘Violeta’ and ‘Zarechnaya Rannyaya’ (Table S1) cultivars were used. The examined cultivars on P. cerasifera Ehrh. and ‘Wangenheim Prune’ (P. domestica L.) seedling rootstocks were planted in the experimental orchard in the spring of 2012. The experiment was designed in two adjacent blocks with the same soil type, for each rootstock separately and with cultivars randomly arranged within blocks. For fruit trees on ‘Wangenheim Prune’, a rootstock support system was established. Each scion–rootstock combination was represented with 4 plots including 3 fruit trees. Fruit trees on P. cerasifera were planted 4.5 m × 2.5 m (889 trees/ha) apart, and for ‘Wangenheim Prune’, 4 m × 1.5 m (1667 trees/ha) apart. Fruit trees were trained as spindles. The orchard floor was maintained using a system that combined frequently mowed sward between the rows with 1.7 m-wide herbicide strips along the tree rows. The soil at the experiment site was Epicalcari–Endohypogleic cambisol, containing 255 mg kg−1 of P2O5, 190 mg kg−1 of K2O, 7410 mg/kg of CaO, 1850 mg/kg of MgO, 2.8% of humus, pH1MKCl—7.2. In the first three years, nitrogen fertilizers were applied every spring depending on the tree age at the rate of 50, 100 and 150 g of ammonium nitrate (33.4% N) per tree. In subsequent years, ammonium nitrate and potassium sulphate (50% K2O) at the rate of 50 kg/ha N and 80 kg/ha K2O were applied on herbicide strips.
Meteorological conditions. Meteorological conditions were favorable for most of the experiment. Exceptions were observed in the spring of 2017 and 2019. In 2017, the average air temperature (measured at a height of 2 m) in March exceeded the perennial average by 3.2 °C (Table 1), and vegetation began earlier than usual. In the middle of April, cold weather settled, and the negative temperatures lasted for several hours per day. The minimum daily temperature reached −4.6 °C. Negative temperatures were recorded in April for 9 days. Negative temperatures were also recorded in May. The flower buds of most cultivars were damaged, and the harvest was very small. A similar situation was observed in 2019, when the temperature in March and April exceeded the standard temperature norm. During flowering, the temperature dropped to −3.2 °C and damaged the blossoms of the fruit trees.
Biometrical measurements. For growth assessment, trunk diameter measurements were performed each autumn at 25 cm above the graft union. In 2015–2020, in the spring, the weight of the pruned branches in each test plot was measured and converted into kg per tree. The number of fruit trees that survived is expressed as a percentage of the initial number of planted trees.
Yield and fruit quality. The yield of sound (marketable) fruits was recorded for the whole experimental plot and recalculated to t/ha. Fruits damaged by brown rot (Monilinia spp.) were identified based on visual symptoms as described by Ogawa et al. [37], harvested, and their quantity recalculated to t/ha. Cumulative yield efficiency was calculated as a sum of yield efficiencies in 2014–2020. Total yield, including sound and damaged fruit, was used for yield efficiency calculations. It is expressed as a fruit weight ratio with a trunk cross-section area (kg/cm2 of TCSA).
Average fruit weight (g) was determined on a representative sample of 100 plums per each experimental plot. Laboratory measurements were conducted on random samples of 10 sound typical fruits from each experimental plot. Fruit flesh firmness (kg/cm2) was measured on two opposite equatorial positions of each fruit using a penetrometer (FT-53205 SP, TR Turoni, Forli, Italy) with an 8 mm diameter probe. After assessing firmness, fruit juice was extracted by homogenizing the fruit pulp in a blender. Soluble solids content (SSC, % Brix) was measured using a digital refractometer (ATAGO 101, Atago Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan). Sensory fruit quality was examined at harvest in 2015 and 2016 by a panel of 7–9 trained judges. Fruits from trees on ‘Wangenheim Prune’ rootstock were analyzed. Fruit appearance, stone adherence, taste and overall rating were rated on a scale of 1–5 points where 1 denotes the lowest quality and 5—the highest.
Agrochemical leaf analysis. The composite samples of 50 leaves from each test plot were collected for the analysis of leaf nutrient content in the first decade of August 2019–2020. One to two fully developed leaves were taken from the middle of current-season terminal shoots located on different sides of the tree canopy at a height of approximately 1.5 m. The cultivars ‘Čačanska Najbolja’ and ‘Opal’ were not included in the leaf analysis. Laboratory analyses were performed at the Agrochemical Research Laboratory of the Lithuanian Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry, which is accredited according to the LST EN ISO/IEC 17025: 2018 standard [38]. Leaf macronutrient (nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), calcium (Ca) and magnesium (Mg)) and leaf micronutrient (iron (Fe), copper (Cu), manganese (Mn), zinc (Zn) and boron (B)) contents were measured. Leaf N content was measured via the Kjeldahl method using a DK 20 Tecator Digestion System (VelP Scientifica, Usmate, Italy) and a UDK139 Semi-Automatic Distillation Unit (VelP Scientifica, Usmate, Italy). Leaf P was quantified colorimetrically with the phosphomolybdovanadate method using a spectrophotometer (Metertech VIS SP-850 Plus; Metertech Inc., Taipei, Taiwan). Leaf K content was determined by flame photometry with a Jenway PFP7 (Bibby Scientific Limited, Stone, UK), and the contents of Ca and Mg by atomic absorption spectrophotometry using an AAnalyst 200 (Perkin Elmer, Shelton, CT, USA). Leaf Fe, Cu, Mn, Zn and B after digestion were extracted with aqua regia and determined with an inductively coupled plasma spectrometer ICP Optima 2100 (Perkin Elmer, Shelton, CT, USA). Macronutrient concentration is expressed as dry weight (DW) % and micronutrient concentration as mg kg−1 DW.
Statistical analysis. Data on biometrical traits, yield, instrumentally measured fruit-quality parameters, and leaf nutrient concentrations were analyzed using two-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA), while sensory fruit-attribute data were evaluated using one-way ANOVA. Statistical analyses, including calculation of the least significant difference (LSD) and Duncan’s multiple range test, were performed with the XLSTAT add-on. Mean comparisons were conducted using the LSD test at p ≤ 0.05 or Duncan’s multiple range test. All main tree and fruit characters were used for the clustering of cultivar–rootstock combinations into similarity groups using the statistical program Minitab® 16 (Minitab Ltd., Coventry, UK).

3. Results

3.1. Fruit Tree Growth

The average trunk diameter of fruit trees grafted on ‘Wangenheim Prune’ rootstock was 23% smaller than that of fruit trees grafted on P. cerasifera (Table 2). The smallest decrease in trunk diameter was observed in the cultivars ‘Čačanska Rana’, ‘Opal’, ‘Renklod Rannij Doneckij’ and ‘Valor’ (17–18%), whereas the largest one was recorded for ‘Čačanska Najbolja’, ‘Stanley’, ‘Zarechnaya Rannyaya’ and ‘Violeta’ (27–32%). According to the average data of both rootstocks, the thickest trunks were of fruit trees of the cultivars ‘Čačanska Rana’, ‘Čačanska Najbolja’, ‘Kijevas Vēlā’ and ‘Opal’, while the cultivars ‘Ave’, ‘Jubileum’ and ‘Stanley’ had the thinnest trunks. The average weight of pruned branches from fruit trees on ‘Wangenheim Prune’ rootstock was 42% lower than that of branches from trees on P. cerasifera. The weight of pruned branches decreased the most in fruit trees of the ‘Kubanskaya Kometa’, ‘Zarechnaya Rannyaya’, ‘Jubileum’, ‘Violeta’ and ‘Stanley’ cultivars—by more than 50%. Based on the average data of both rootstocks, the greatest pruning mass (>2 kg per tree) was recorded for the ‘Čačanska Najbolja’ and ‘Opal’ cultivars.

3.2. Tree Survival

All trees of the cultivars ‘Duke of Edinburgh’, ‘Kijevas Vēlā’, ‘Opal’, ‘Valor’ and ‘Zarechnaya Rannyaya’ survived on both tested rootstocks (Table 3). Overall, fruit tree survival was similar on both rootstocks, although the ‘Oda’ and ‘Violeta’ cultivars performed better on ‘Wangenheim Prune’. Fruit tree dieback of ‘Kubanskaya Kometa’, ‘Renklod Rannij Doneckij’, and ‘Stanley’ was observed on both rootstocks. The first instances of tree dieback were recorded in the third year after the orchard was established (Table S2).

3.3. Productivity

The average sound fruit yield per tree was 36% higher on P. cerasifera rootstock (Table 4). The yield differences in rotten fruit between rootstocks were even more pronounced—about 71%. The most productive cultivars were ‘Čačanska Najbolja’, ‘Duke of Edinburgh’, ‘Jubileum’, ‘Kubanskaya Kometa’, ‘Opal’, ‘Stanley’, ‘Valor’, and ‘Violeta’.
The strongest rootstock-induced reduction in yield per tree was recorded in the cultivars ‘Čačanska Najbolja’ and ‘Valor’, where trees grafted onto the ‘Wangenheim Prune’ rootstock produced 66% and 75% lower yields, respectively. Fruit trees of ‘Čačanska Rana’, ‘Renklod Rannij Doneckij’, and ‘Zarechnaya Rannyaya’ produced almost the same yield on both rootstocks.
Among the tested cultivars, the ‘Čačanska Najbolja’, ‘Duke of Edinburgh’, ‘Jubileum’, ‘Kubanskaya Kometa’, ‘Opal’, ‘Stanley’, ‘Valor’ and ‘Violeta’ cultivars produced the highest average marketable yield per hectare, exceeding 10 t/ha (Table 5). On average, trees on ‘Wangenheim Prune’ rootstock, unlike yield per tree, produced 40% higher yields per plot than those on P. cerasifera. The yield of ‘Čačanska Rana’, ‘Zarechnaya Rannyaya’ and ‘Renklod Rannij Doneckij’ on ‘Wangenheim Prune’ rootstock was nearly double, whereas ‘Čačanska Najbolja’, ‘Kijevas Vēlā’, ‘Stanley’ and ‘Valor’ gave similar yields on both rootstocks. It is worth noting that the first two yields per unit area in 2014 and 2015 were higher on trees grafted on P. cerasifera rootstock (Table S3).
Fruit rot incidence varied significantly among the tested cultivars. The highest yields of rotten fruits were recorded in ‘Čačanska Najbolja’, ‘Duke of Edinburgh’, ‘Valor’, ‘Stanley’, ‘Kijevas Vēlā’ and ‘Jubileum’. The cultivars with the least rotten fruit yield were ‘Zarechnaya Rannyaya’, ‘Čačanska Rana’, ‘Oullins Gage’, ‘Kubanskaya Kometa’, ‘Ave’ and ‘Oda’. Fruit rot incidence of the ‘Opal’ cultivar was higher on trees with ‘Wangenheim Prune’ rootstock. No significant differences in rootstock effects on rotten fruit yield were found for other cultivars.
The cultivars ‘Violeta’ and ‘Jubileum’ had the highest yield efficiency, while ‘Oullins Gage’ and ‘Čačanska Rana’ were the least yield efficient (Table 6). Yield efficiency of ‘Čačanska Najbolja’, ‘Oda’, ‘Opal’, ‘Stanley’, ‘Violeta’ and ‘Zarechnaya Rannyaya’ on ‘Wangenheim Prune’ rootstock was significantly higher than that on P. cerasifera. In general, plum trees on ‘Wangenheim Prune’ rootstock were more yield efficient, except the ‘Valor’ cultivar, which was more efficient on P. cerasifera rootstock.

3.4. Fruit Quality

‘Kijevas Vēlā’ produced the largest fruits, averaging nearly 70 g (Table 7). The average fruit weight of ‘Čačanska Najbolja’, ‘Čačanska Rana’, ‘Jubileum’, ‘Oullins Gage’ and ‘Valor’ exceeded 50 g. ‘Opal’ produced the smallest fruits—about 30 g. Overall, rootstock had no effect on average fruit weight, although some cultivar-specific differences were significant: fruits of ‘Čačanska Najbolja’, ‘Jubileum’, ‘Kubanskaya Kometa’ and ‘Valor’ were bigger on P. cerasifera seedlings, while ‘Oullins Gage’ produced larger fruits on ‘Wangenheim Prune’.
The fruits of the cultivars ‘Renklod Rannij Doneckij’ and ‘Valor’ had the firmest flesh—almost 3 kg/cm2. The softest fruits were of the ‘Ave’, ‘Kubanskaya Kometa’, ‘Opal’ and ‘Zarechnaya Rannyaya’ cultivars—well below 2 kg/cm2. The fruits of ‘Kubanskaya Kometa’ and ‘Stanley’ were firmer from trees on ‘Wangenheim Prune’ rootstock, ‘Oda’ and ‘Valor’—on seedlings of P. cerasifera. In general, rootstock had no effect on fruit flesh firmness.
The lowest SSC was in ‘Kubanskaya Kometa’ fruits, and the highest was in ‘Valor’ fruits (Table 8). On average, across all the cultivars studied, rootstock did not affect the SSC in the fruit; however, for particular cultivars, the rootstock effect was significant. Fruits of ‘Čačanska Rana’, ‘Jubileum’, ‘Oullins Gage’ and ‘Valor’ had a higher soluble solids content on P. cerasifera, while ‘Čačanska Najbolja’ had a higher level on ‘Wangenheim Prune’.
Sensory evaluation was carried out over two consecutive years in a fully bearing orchard to minimize fruit-quality variation, which is more pronounced in young trees with fewer fruits. All cultivars on both rootstocks were evaluated in the first year; however, sensory differences between fruits from the two rootstocks were practically indistinguishable. Therefore, Table 9 presents average results on ‘Wangenheim Prune’ rootstock.
Sensory evaluation identified ‘Čačanska Najbolja’, ‘Čačanska Rana’, ‘Jubileum’, ‘Kijevas Vēlā’, ‘Oda’, ‘Valor’ and ‘Zarechnaya Rannyaya’ fruits as the most attractive (Table 8). The highest taste scores were received by ‘Čačanska Najbolja’, ‘Čačanska Rana’, ‘Jubileum’, ‘Kijevas Vēlā’, ‘Oda’, ‘Stanley’ and ‘Valor’ fruits. The pit detachment was easiest in ‘Čačanska Najbolja’ fruits, followed by ‘Jubileum’ and ‘Čačanska Rana’, and it was the most difficult in ‘Kijevas Vēlā’ and ‘Zarechnaya Rannyaya’ fruits.

3.5. Fruit Tree Mineral Nutrition

A higher nitrogen content in leaves of ‘Jubileum’, ‘Kubanskaya Kometa’ and ‘Renklod Rannij Doneckij’ was recorded on P. cerasifera rootstock, while ‘Kijevas Vēlā’, ‘Oda’ and ‘Oullins Gage’ accumulated more leaf nitrogen on ‘Wangenheim Prune’ seedlings (Table 10). The lowest nitrogen (N) content in leaves was determined for ‘Jubileum’ on ‘Wangenheim Prune’ and ‘Kijevas Vēlā’ on P. cerasifera. According to the average data, rootstock had no significant effect on the N content in plum leaves. P. cerasifera rootstock had a positive effect on phosphorus (P) uptake. This was most noticeable in the leaves of ‘Jubileum’, ‘Kijevas Vēlā’, ‘Kubanskaya Kometa’, ‘Stanley’, ‘Oullins Gage’ and ‘Zarechnaya Rannyaya’. The lowest leaf P content was in the ‘Oda’ cultivar on both rootstocks. Higher leaf potassium (K) content was also found in trees on P. cerasifera rootstock, with significant differences established in the ‘Ave’, ‘Oullins Gage’, ‘Valor’ and ‘Zarechnaya Rannyaya’ cultivars. Relatively low levels of K were found in the leaves of the ‘Kubanskaya Kometa’ cultivar regardless of rootstocks. Fruit trees on P. cerasifera rootstock accumulated more calcium (Ca) in the leaves than those on ‘Wangenheim Prune’, and the largest differences were recorded for the ‘Duke of Edinburgh’ and ‘Stanley’ cultivars. Relatively low Ca content was determined in the leaves of the cultivar ‘Kijevas Vēlā’ on both rootstocks and the cultivars ‘Ave’, ‘Kijevas Vēlā’, ‘Oullins Gage’ and ‘Zarechnaya Rannyaya’ on ‘Wangenheim Prune’ rootstock. Leaf magnesium (Mg) content was higher in trees on ‘Wangenheim Prune’ rootstock, and the most pronounced increase was found in the leaves of the ‘Ave’ and ‘Jubileum’ cultivars.
Rootstock did not affect iron (Fe) content in the leaves, except for the cultivar ‘Čačanska Rana’, where leaf Fe content was significantly higher when grown on ‘Wangenheim Prune’ rootstock (Table 11). Very low Fe content was found in the leaves of ‘Kijevas Vēlā’, especially on P. cerasifera rootstock. Plum trees on ‘Wangenheim Prune’ rootstock had higher leaf copper (Cu) and zinc (Zn) contents; meanwhile, trees on P. cerasifera rootstock had a higher manganese (Mn) content. The biggest difference in Mn concentration was found in the leaves of the ‘Violeta’ cultivar. Boron (B) content was generally not affected by the rootstock, but the ‘Valor’ cultivar had significantly higher leaf B content when grown on P. cerasifera rootstock.

3.6. Cluster Analysis

Cluster analysis was used to divide tested cultivar–rootstock combinations into groups of increasing dissimilarity. Four clusters were identified (Figure 1) corresponding to the evaluated tree and fruit characteristics. Cluster 1 included most of the combinations where the rootstock effect on the main tested parameters was not evident. Other clusters distinguished the rootstock effect. The cultivars ‘Duke of Edinburgh’, ‘Kubanskaya Kometa’, ‘Opal’ and ‘Violeta’ were separated depending on rootstock into clusters 2 and 4. Cluster 3 included cultivars only on ‘Wangenheim Prune’ rootstock. All these cultivars had high productivity and good fruit quality.

4. Discussion

Several theories explain how rootstock induces fruit tree dwarfing, including hormonal regulation, carbohydrate partitioning, nutrient and water transport, changes in vascular anatomy and gene expression. The most comprehensive research has been performed on apple rootstock effects on tree growth and productivity [41]; emerging studies increasingly provide insights into the performance and physiological impacts of other rootstock species [42].
Dwarf fruit trees are preferred when growing fruit for the fresh fruit market. Dwarf rootstocks facilitate orchard maintenance practices, particularly pruning and harvesting. In the present study, plum trees were trained to occupy their allocated canopy space, with tree height maintained at approximately 3.0 m on P. cerasifera and 2.5 m on ‘Wangenheim Prune’. The results of the study confirmed the expectations that ‘Wangenheim Prune’ seedlings would reduce the growth of fruit trees, while our previous experiments searching for growth-controlling vegetative rootstocks were unsuccessful [43]. Similar findings were reported in Norway, where ‘Wangenheim’ seedlings produced the smallest trees compared with several clonal rootstocks [44]. Trunk cross-sectional area is commonly used to compare the growth of fruit trees because it is little affected by pruning and planting distances [45]. The dwarfing effect depends on the scion–rootstock combination and can vary. ‘Wangenheim’ rootstocks proved to be dwarfing for the ‘Toptaste’ and ‘Topfive’ cultivars, compared to Myrobalan seedlings and some clonal rootstocks [45]. In the Czech Republic, vigor reduction due to ‘Wangenheim’ rootstock was in the range 9.2–53.5% [46]. In the Polish trials, ‘Wangenheim Prune’ seedlings also induced the weakest growth among six tested rootstocks [47]. In our experiment, the ‘Wangenheim’ rootstock reduced the growth of fruit trees by 17–32%, providing further evidence that ‘Wangenheim Prune’ is an efficient growth-controlling rootstock.
Due to lower growth vigor, the average weight of pruned branches from fruit trees on ‘Wangenheim Prune’ rootstock was about 40% lower than that on P. cerasifera. However, because planting density was higher on ‘Wangenheim Prune’ rootstock (1667 trees/ha vs. 889 trees/ha on P. cerasifera), pruned biomass per plot was similar between rootstocks—1.7–1.8 t/ha. Similar data on pruned biomass have been provided even at low planting distances of 280 trees per ha [48].
Based on trunk diameter, the ‘Opal’, ‘Čačanska Najbolja’, ‘Čačanska Rana’ and ‘Kijevas Vēlā’ cultivars could be classified as the most vigorous in our experiment. In addition, ‘Opal’ and ‘Čačanska Najbolja’ had the highest pruning mass, while fewer branches were pruned from ‘Čačanska Rana’ and ‘Kijevas Vēlā’. Fruit trees of ‘Ave’, ‘Jubileum’ and ‘Stanley’ were the least vigorous. Other studies also indicate that the cultivars ‘Čačanska Najbolja’ and ‘Čačanska Rana’ exhibit vigorous growth, whereas ‘Opal’ demonstrates intermediate vegetative growth, likely attributable to the rootstocks employed [49]. Findings reported by Milošević and Milošević [50] confirm our results, indicating that the cultivars ‘Čačanska Najbolja’ and ‘Čačanska Rana’ exhibit greater vegetative vigor compared with ‘Stanley’ or ‘Violeta’.
The longevity of fruit trees is a very important characteristic, as it ensures a good yield per unit area. All trees of the ‘Duke of Edinburgh’, ‘Kijevas Vēlā’, ‘Opal’, ‘Valor’ and ‘Zarechnaya Rannyaya’ cultivars survived on both tested rootstocks, while ‘Oda’ and especially ‘Violeta’ survived better on ‘Wangenheim Prune’ rootstock. The exact causes of tree dieback have not been determined; however, the available evidence suggests that it was most likely induced by environmental factors. Possible incompatibility with some cultivars on P. cerasifera rootstock may also contribute to the decline [29]. Some fruit trees of the ‘Kubanskaya Kometa’, ‘Renklod Rannij Doneckij’ and ‘Stanley’ cultivars were lost regardless of rootstocks, suggesting cultivar-dependent factors rather than the rootstock effect.
Trees of the ‘Kubanskaya Kometa’, ‘Violeta’ and ‘Opal’ cultivars produced the highest average yield of marketable fruits—more than 13 t/ha. ‘Ave’, ‘Čačanska Najbolja’, ‘Duke of Edinburgh’, ‘Jubileum’, ‘Stanley’ and ‘Valor’ also gave relatively good yields, while ‘Oullins Gage’, ‘Kijevas Vēlā’ and ‘Čačanska Rana’ were low yielding. These findings align with previous studies. In the conditions of western Serbia, the cultivars ‘Opal’, ‘Valor’, ‘Jubileum’ and ‘Victoria’ were also distinguished by good yields and were recognized as suitable for commercial cultivation [51], while ‘Valor’ and ‘Jubileum’ were productive in Poland [52,53], and ‘Čačanska Najbolja’—in the Czech Republic [54]. Similar to our results, low yields of ‘Čačanska Rana’ have also been recorded in other locations [54,55,56]. The adaptability of fruit trees to specific soil and climatic conditions varies [17,18,57]. Near Čačak, ‘Čačanska Rana’ was more productive than ‘Opal’ [49] despite the opposite results in our study. The high yields of the diploid variety ‘Kubanskaya Kometa’ in our study are in the line with results from Latvia, where the cultivar produced about 20 t/ha [6].
Fruit rot incidence was the highest in the ‘Čačanska Najbolja’, ‘Duke of Edinburgh’, ‘Valor’, ‘Stanley’, ‘Kijevas Vēlā’ and ‘Jubileum’ cultivars. ‘Kijevas Vēlā’, ‘Duke of Edinburgh’ and ‘Opal’ have been characterized as susceptible to fruit rots caused by Monilinia spp. infections in Latvia, but ‘Jubileum’, on the contrary, was relatively resistant [58]. Special fruit tree sprays against rots were not applied, so the marketable yield of the mentioned cultivars could likely be increased. The increased incidence of fruit rot in the ‘Opal’ cultivar on ‘Wangenheim Prune’ rootstock can be explained by the vigorous growth of fruit trees: their trunks had the largest diameter, and the fruit trees required the most intensive pruning. The period of leaf wetness is longer in denser canopies, which promotes infection [59]. On average, of all cultivars, the rootstock effect on rot incidence was not revealed, except for ‘Opal’.
Despite a higher yield per tree on P. cerasifera the average yield per unit area was nearly 40% higher on ‘Wangenheim Prune’ rootstock. The trial was planted at different distances because the tested rootstocks are known to differ in vigor. Dwarf rootstocks typically result in higher yield per unit area rather than per individual tree. The biggest yield differences were recorded for the ‘Čačanska Rana’, ‘Zarechnaya Rannyaya’ and ‘Renklod Rannij Doneckij’ cultivars, while ‘Čačanska Najbolja’, ‘Kijevas Vēlā, ‘Stanley’ and ‘Valor’ gave similar yields on both rootstocks. Since rootstock affects the growth of trees, fruit trees of weaker growth are planted more densely. In our experiment, fruit yield per tree on P. cerasifera rootstock was higher, but due to the denser planting of fruit trees on ‘Wangenheim Prune’, the yield per unit area showed the opposite trend. Sitarek et al. [60] also reported the highest cumulative yield per tree on P. cerasifera seedlings and the lowest on ‘Wangenheim Prune’ seedlings. However, trees on ‘Wangenheim Prune’ seedlings had a higher productivity index.
Higher fruit tree yield efficiency on ‘Wangenheim Prune’ rootstock is an important advantage reported in other studies [54,61], including those conducted in the neighboring countries of Latvia, Estonia, and Belarus [35]. Differences in yield efficiency among cultivars were also established. ‘Oullins Gage’ and ‘Čačanska Rana’ displayed low efficiency regardless of the tested rootstock, in line with previous studies [54,62]. According to Milatović et al. (2018) [55], ‘Opal’ was almost twice as yield efficient as ‘Čačanska Rana’ when grown on P. cerasifera rootstock, and this observation is consistent with our data. On the other hand, ‘Čačanska Rana’ and ‘Opal’ had similar yield efficiencies when grown on ‘Belosljiva’ (P.domestica) rootstock in acidic soil conditions [63]. Only ‘Valor’ was more efficient on P. cerasifera rootstock; however, it is difficult to explain the actual reasons for the higher efficiency. A study conducted in Poland showed that ‘Valor’ yield efficiency is higher on ‘Wangenheim Prune’ rootstock [60]. The same was reported in Czech trials [46], though during some seasons, ‘Valor’ was more yield efficient on Myrobalan. Our study revealed significant differences in rootstock effect on ‘Valor’ leaf mineral content, pointing out that both rootstocks are not equally efficient in mineral transport; however, the nutrient concentration of both combinations fell within the optimal range and did not affect yield efficiency.
Yield-efficient cultivars in our study showed similar results in other locations: ‘Jubileum’ in western Norway [44] and Poland [47], and ‘Violeta’ and ‘Stanley’ in Serbia [49,50]. Different experimental conditions and methodologies may lead to somewhat different results, so a wider geography of research allows for a more complete picture.
In addition to tree yield and productivity, fruit quality remains a very important factor for consumer acceptance, with fruit size, appearance, taste, SSC and acidity strongly influencing fruit marketability and consumer decisions [64,65]. Large fruits are generally more appreciated for fresh consumption [66]. In our study, ‘Kijevas Vēlā’ had the largest fruits, but the productivity of this cultivar with both tested rootstocks was very low. The fruit weight of ‘Čačanska Najbolja’, ‘Čačanska Rana’, ‘Oullins Gage’ and ‘Valor’ exceeded 50 g, and all except ‘Oullins Gage’ received high sensory evaluation scores. It should be noted that sensory evaluation in our study was carried out only on ‘Wangenheim Prune’ rootstock. Unfortunately, trees of ‘Čačanska Rana’ had low productivity. ‘Valor’ fruits also had the highest flesh firmness and SSC. Consumers’ acceptable plum flesh firmness is about 1.8–3.6 kg/cm2 [67]; for ‘Oullins Gage’, this value is at least 2 kg/cm2 [68]. Average fruit flesh firmness in our study fell within this range. In a study investigating consumer acceptance, Vangdal [69] found that plums containing less than 12.5% soluble solids were not acceptable to most consumers. ‘Kubanskaya Kometa’, the only cultivar in our study that was below this limit, also produced soft fruits with a poor sensory rating. The ‘Opal’ cultivar, despite high productivity, produced small fruits, which makes them unattractive for fresh consumption. The rest of the productive cultivars ‘Duke of Edinburgh’, ‘Stanley’ and ‘Violeta’ produced fruits of similar weight—around 35–40 g—but sensory quality varied. The fruits of ‘Duke of Edinburgh’ and ‘Violeta’ were rated poorly, while ‘Stanley’ performed better, although tree mortality raises concerns for long-term cultivation. Despite moderate productivity, the cultivar ‘Oda’ should be mentioned for its quite good fruit quality.
Rootstocks differ in root system development. Scion cultivar and rootstock interact physiologically, so both rootstock and cultivar can affect leaf nutrient content [70,71]. Our experiment revealed a rootstock effect on leaf P, K, Ca, Mg, Cu, Mn and Zn content. A higher content of P, K, Ca and Mn was established in leaves from trees on P. cerasifera rootstock, whereas Mg, Cu and Zn were higher on ‘Wangenheim Prune’. Rootstock–scion interaction on nutrient content was observed. Six cultivar–rootstock combinations were distinguished by significant differences in N, P and Zn content; 4 combinations—in K content; 2 combinations—in Ca, Mg and Zn content; and 1 combination—in Fe, Mn and B content. The most pronounced deviations from optimal nutrient levels were found for Fe and Mn, both of which were deficient across rootstocks. This may be attributed to the high soil pH, which inhibits Fe and Mn uptake [72] because of bicarbonate ions present in calcareous, high-pH soil solutions. Font i Forcada et al. [73] reported restricted uptake of these nutrients by plum and peach rootstocks, resulting in leaf concentrations below optimal levels but without visible deficiency symptoms, which was also observed in our study.
The average Mg and Zn content in the leaves of the P. cerasifera rootstock was also deficient. Our observations confirm the information that ‘Wangenheim Prune’ rootstock has poorer potassium absorption than P. cerasifera [74]. K is the most accumulated nutrient in plum fruit [75]. Researchers in central Poland have reported that trees grafted onto _P. cerasifera_ rootstock exhibit a leaf potassium content of about 3.5% [76], a level regarded as slightly excessive. Fruit K accumulation in heavily fruiting trees is usually accompanied by potassium depletion from leaves and perennial tree parts [77]. The higher productivity of fruit trees on ‘Wangenheim Prune’ rootstock should be considered, and attention should be paid to a possible correction of K nutrition. While Olszewski et al. [74] reported lower Mg uptake on ‘Wangenheim’, our study found the opposite pattern. Despite high Mg content in the soil, leaf Mg concentration was at the lower limit of the optimal range on ‘Wangenheim Prune’ and was less than optimum on P. cerasifera rootstock.
Most deviations from the optimum of leaf macronutrients were observed in ‘Kijevas Vēlā’ and ‘Kubanskaya Kometa’, whereas optimal macronutrient content was found in ‘Čačanska Rana’, ‘Duke of Edinburgh’, ‘Renklod Rannij Doneckij’, ‘Valor’ and ‘Violeta’. Minor deficiencies occurred in ‘Oda’ and ‘Stanley’. The leaves of all cultivars were deficient in iron. ‘Duke of Edinburgh’ and ‘Violeta’ were deficient in Mn, and ‘Oda’ in Zn. The rest of the tested cultivars exhibited two to four micronutrient deficiencies.
Finally, the results from this mature orchard somewhat differ from earlier observations in the young orchard, where average fruit yield per plot and yield efficiency were higher on P. cerasifera rootstock [78]. This indicates that fruit trees on ‘Wangenheim Prune’ rootstock were not initially precocious, but yield efficiency and fruit tree productivity per plot area increased over time, surpassing P. cerasifera rootstock. Overall, ‘Wangenheim Prune’ rootstock significantly reduced fruit tree vigor, enhanced yield efficiency and maintained good fruit quality, making it a more promising rootstock than earlier tested clonal rootstocks St. Julien A, St. Julien GF655/2 and Marianna GF8/1 [34].

5. Conclusions

‘Wangenheim Prune’ seedling rootstock can be successfully used in commercial plum production. Fruit trees grafted on this rootstock exhibit significantly reduced vegetative vigor, lower pruning requirements, and enhanced yield efficiency compared with those on P. cerasifera, while maintaining favorable fruit quality attributes.
Based on productivity, survival, and fruit quality, the most promising cultivars for Nordic climates are ‘Čačanska Najbolja’ and ‘Jubileum’ on ‘Wangenheim Prune’, while ‘Valor’ is productive on both rootstocks. As all three cultivars were susceptible to fruit rot, protection against Monilinia spp. is recommended.
The productive cultivars ‘Violeta’, ‘Kubanskaya Kometa’, ‘Oda’ and ‘Stanley’ exhibited poor fruit quality or high tree mortality. Distinct rootstock-dependent patterns in leaf nutrient composition were identified. Trees on P. cerasifera accumulated higher leaf P, K, Ca, and Mn, whereas those on ‘Wangenheim Prune’ showed increased Mg, Cu, and Zn concentrations. Elevated tree productivity on ‘Wangenheim Prune’ rootstock may lead to potassium deficiency. Independent of rootstock, trees grown in calcareous, high-pH soils consistently exhibited Fe and Mn deficiencies. These findings highlight the necessity of refining nutrient management strategies.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/horticulturae12050637/s1, Table S1: Information about tested plum cultivars; Table S2: Share of surviving fruit trees (%); Table S3: Fruit yield (t/ha).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.L. and I.G.; Methodology, J.L. and I.G.; Software, D.K.; Investigation, J.L. and D.K.; Resources, D.K.; Data Curation, J.L.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, J.L.; Writing—Review and Editing, J.L., I.G. and D.K.; Visualization, J.L. and I.G.; Supervision, D.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article/Supplementary Material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

TCSA—trunk cross-section area; SSC—soluble solids content; DW—dry weight; PC—P. cerasifera seedling rootstock; WP—‘Wangenheim Prune’ seedling rootstock; LSD05—the least significant difference at the probability level p ≤ 0.05.

References

  1. Hamdani, A.; Yaacoubi, A.E.; Bouda, S.; Erami, M.; Adiba, A.; Outghouliast, H.; Charafi, J. Chilling and heat requirement for dormancy breaking and flowering of the plum accessions belonging to the living collection of Morocco. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 2024, 155, 7245–7258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Rai, R.; Joshi, S.; Roy, S.; Singh, O.; Samir, M.; Chandra, A. Implications of changing climate on productivity of temperate fruit crops with special reference to apple. J. Hortic. 2015, 2, 135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Sekse, L. Plum Production in Norway. Acta Hortic. 2007, 734, 23–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Fotirić Akšić, M.; Cerović, R.; Hjeltnes, S.H.; Meland, M. The Effective Pollination Period of European Plum (Prunus domestica L.) Cultivars in Western Norway. Horticulturae 2022, 8, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Jänes, H.; Kahu, K. Winter injuries of plum cultivars in winters 2005–2007 in Estonia. In Sustainable Fruit Growing: From Plant to Product, Proceedings of International Scientific Conference, Jūrmala—Dobele, Latvia, 28–31 May 2008; Dimza, I., Eihe, M., Ikase, L., Lanauskas, J., Libiakova, G., Lopez, M., Stanys, V., Tirzītis, G., Venskutonis, R., Zurawicz, E., Eds.; Latvia State Institute of Fruit-Growing: Dobele, Latvia, 2008; pp. 149–153. [Google Scholar]
  6. Kaufmane, E.; Grāvīte, I.; Ikase, L. Plum Research and Growing in Latvia. Proc. Latv. Acad. Sci. B 2019, 73, 195–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. FAO. FAOSTAT Database. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 2020. Available online: www.fao.org/faostat/ (accessed on 23 January 2020).
  8. Wangchu, L.; Angami, T.; Mandal, D. Plum:Temperate fruits, production, processing and marketing. In Temperate Fruits: Production, Processing and Marketing, 1st ed.; Mandal, D., Wermund, U., Phavaphutanon, L., Cronje, R., Eds.; Apple Academic Press & Taylor Francis: Palm Bay, FL, USA, 2021; pp. 297–331. [Google Scholar]
  9. Butac, M.; Militaru, M.; Plopa, C.; Sumedrea, M. Evaluation of some new plum cultivars for fresh consumption in correlation with consumer preferences. Fruit Grow. Res. 2014, 31, 38–43. [Google Scholar]
  10. Walkowiak-Tomczak, D. Characteristics of Plums as a Raw Material with Valuable Nutritive and Dietary Properties—A Review. Pol. J. Food Nutr. Sci. 2008, 58, 401–405. [Google Scholar]
  11. Nunes, C.; Rato, A.E.; Barros, A.S.; Saraiva, J.A.; Coimbra, M.A. Search for suitable maturation parameters to define the harvest maturity of plums (Prunus domestica L.): A case study of candied plums. Food Chem. 2009, 112, 570–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bohačenko, I.; Pinkrova, J.; Komárková, J.; Paprstein, F. Selected processing characteristics of new plum cultivars grown in the Czech Republic. Hort. Sci. 2010, 37, 39–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Blazek, J. A survey of the genetic resources used in plum breeding. Acta Hortic. 2007, 734, 31–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Milošević, T.; Milošević, N. Plum (Prunus spp.) Breeding. In Advances in Plant Breeding Strategies: Fruits; Al-Khayri, J., Jain, S., Johnson, D., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 165–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Oltenacu, V.; Petrișor, C. Yield and Fruit Chemical Composition of Some Plum Cultivars Affected by Different Soil Types. Sci. Pap. Ser. B Hortic. 2021, 65, 198–203. [Google Scholar]
  16. Eskimez, I.; Polat, M.; Kankaya, A.; Mertoglu, K. Adaptation of Stanley Plum Variety to the Ecological Conditions of Isparta. In 13th International Conference on Agriculture, Animal Science and Rural Development, Uşak, Türkiye, 28–29 November 2023; Çolak, A.M., Seydoşoğlu, S., Mertoğlu, K., Eds.; IKSAD Publishing House: Ankara, Turkey, 2023; pp. 1638–1647. [Google Scholar]
  17. Hamdani, A.; Bouda, S.; Adiba, A.; Outghouliast, H.; Charafi, J. Agro-Morphological Characterization of Adaptive Ability of Four Plum Varieties under Two Climate Environments. Agric. Conspec. Sci. 2024, 89, 233–242. [Google Scholar]
  18. Korićanac, A.; Milatović, D.; Popović, B.; Tomić, J.; Mitrović, O.; Glišić, I.; Pešaković, M.; Rusjan, D.; Veberic, R.; Smrke, T.; et al. How do plums ripen in two weather different years? A deep insight into the metabolomic profile. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2025, 222, 113362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Sottile, F.; Caltagirone, C.; Giacalone, G.; Peano, C.; Barone, E. Unlocking Plum Genetic Potential: Where Are We at? Horticulturae 2022, 8, 128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Hjalmarsson, I.; Trajkovski, V.; Wallace, B. Adaptation of foreign plum and cherry varieties in Sweden. In Sustainable Fruit Growing: From Plant to Product, Proceedings of International Scientific Conference, Jūrmala—Dobele, Latvia, 28–31 May 2008; Dimza, I., Eihe, M., Ikase, L., Lanauskas, J., Libiakova, G., Lopez, M., Stanys, V., Tirzītis, G., Venskutonis, R., Zurawicz, E., Eds.; Latvia State Institute of Fruit-Growing: Dobele, Latvia, 2008; pp. 141–148. [Google Scholar]
  21. Grāvīte, I.; Kaufmane, E. Evaluation of German Plum Selections in Latvia. Proc. Latv. Acad. Sci. B 2017, 71, 166–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Neumüller, M. Fundamental and Applied Aspects of Plum (Prunus domestica) Breeding. Fruit Veg. Cereal Sci. Biotech. 2011, 5, 139–156. [Google Scholar]
  23. Butac, M. Plum Breeding. In Prunus; Küden, A.B., Küden, A., Eds.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Sasnauskas, A.; Bendokas, V.; Karklelienė, R.; Juškevičienė, D.; Šikšnianas, T.; Gelvonauskienė, D.; Rugienius, R.; Baniulis, D.; Sikorskaitė-Gudžiūnienė, S.; Mažeikienė, I.; et al. Breeding Trends of Fruit and Vegetable Crops for Organic Production in Lithuania. Horticulturae 2017, 3, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Lanauskas, J.; Kviklys, D.; Uselis, N.; Buskienė, L. Plum cultivar evaluation on Myrobalan rootstock in Lithuania. Proc. Latv. Acad. Sci. B 2019, 73, 232–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Antanynienė, R.; Šikšnianienė, J.B.; Stanys, V.; Frercks, B. Fingerprinting of Plum (Prunus domestica) Genotypes in Lithuania Using SSR Markers. Plants 2023, 12, 1538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Lawrence, B.T.; Fazio, G.; Nieto, L.G.; Robinson, T.L. Rootstock effect on horticultural performance and fruit quality is not uniform across five commercial apple cultivars in western New York. Front. Plant Sci. 2025, 16, 1552625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Czinege, A.; Soltész, M.; Nyéki, J.; Szabó, Z. The use of rootstocks for European (Prunus domestica) and for Japanese (Prunus salicina) plums (review). Int. J. Hortic. Sci. 2012, 18, 7–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Zamfirescu, B.; Hoza, D.; Butac, M.; Nicolae, S.; Mazilu, C.; Chitu, E.; Sumedrea, D.; Militaru, M.; Chivu, M. Orchard Performance of Some Plum Cultivars Grafted on Different Rootstocks. Sci. Pap. Ser. B Hortic. 2019, 63, 149–154. [Google Scholar]
  30. Tomić, J.; Glišić, I.P.; Ilić, R.; Pešaković, M.; Karaklajić-Stajić, Ž.; Paunović, S.M. Variation in productivity and fruit quality of the plum depending on rootstock. Acta Hortic. 2021, 1322, 163–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Butac, M.; Zamfirescu, B.; Nicolae, S. Results regarding compatibility of some plum cultivars grafted on different rootstocks. Rom. J. Hortic. 2023, 4, 77–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kajtár-Czinege, A.; Osztényiné Krauczi, É.; Hrotkó, K. Cropping and Fruit Quality of Plum (Prunus domestica) Varieties on Different Rootstocks in a Young Orchard. Appl. Fruit Sci. 2024, 66, 505–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Bolat, I.; Ak, B.; Acar, I.; Ikinci, A. Plum culture in Turkey. Acta Hortic. 2017, 1175, 15–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Lanauskas, J.; Kviklys, D. Stone fruit rootstock research in Lithuania. Sodinink. Daržinink. 2006, 25, 170–178. [Google Scholar]
  35. Dēķena, D.; Poukh, A.V.; Kahu, K.; Laugale, V.; Alsiòa, I. Influence of Rootstocks on Plum Productivity in Different Growing Regions. Proc. Latv. Acad. Sci. B 2017, 71, 233–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Szymajda, M.; Żurawicz, E. ‘Kalipso’ European Plum. HortScience 2017, 52, 316–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ogawa, J.M.; Zehr, E.I.; Biggs, A.R. Brown rot. In Compendium of Stone Fruit Diseases; Ogawa, J.M., Zehr, E.I., Bird, G.W., Ritchie, D.F., Uriu, K., Uyemoto, J.K., Eds.; American Phytopathological Society: St. Paul, MN, USA, 1995; pp. 7–10. [Google Scholar]
  38. LST EN ISO/IEC 17025:2018; Tyrimų, Bandymų ir Kalibravimo Laboratorijų Kompetencijai Keliami Bendrieji Reikalavimai (Meets ISO/IEC 17025:2017 General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories). Bulletin of the Lithuanian Standardization Department: Vilnius, Lithuania, 2018; p. 4.
  39. Sadowski, A.; Nurzyński, J.; Pacholak, E.; Smolarz, K. Determination of the need for fertilization of fruit plants. II. In Principles, Compositional Standards and Doses of Fertilization; SGGW Press: Warszawa, Poland, 1990. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  40. Heckman, J. Leaf Analysis for Fruit Trees; FS627; Rutgers Cooperative Research and Extension, NJAES, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey: New Brunswick, NJ, USA, 2004; pp. 1–2. [Google Scholar]
  41. Anthony, B.; Musacchi, S. Dwarfing mechanisms and rootstock-scion relationships in apple. Italus Hortus 2021, 28, 22–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Hayat, F.; Iqbal, S.; Coulibaly, D.; Razzaq, M.K.; Nawaz, M.A.; Jiang, W.; Shi, T.; Gao, Z. An insight into dwarfing mechanism: Contribution of scion-rootstock interactions toward fruit crop improvement. Fruit Res. 2021, 1, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Lanauskas, J. Effect of rootstock on growth and yield of plum tree cvs. ‘Stanley’ and ‘Kauno Vengrinė’. Sodininkystė Daržininkystė 2006, 25, 243–249. [Google Scholar]
  44. Meland, M. Performance of six European plum cultivars on four plum rootstocks growing in a northern climate. Acta Agric. Scand. B Soil Plant Sci. 2009, 60, 381–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kajtár-Czinege, A.; Krauczi, É.O.; Hrotkó, K. Growth Characteristics of Five Plum Varieties on Six Different Rootstocks Grown in Containers at Different Irrigation Levels. Horticulturae 2022, 8, 819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Blazek, J.; Pistekova, I. Final evaluation of nine plum cultivars grafted onto two rootstocks in a trial established in 1998 at Holovousy. Hort. Sci. 2012, 39, 108–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Grzyb, Z.S.; Sitarek, M.; Rozpara, E. Evaluation of Vigorous and Dwarf Plum Rootstocks in the High Density Orchard in Central Poland. Acta Hortic. 2010, 874, 351–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Bilandzija, N.; Voca, N.; Kricka, T.; Matin, A.; Jurisic, V. Energy potential of fruit tree pruned biomass in Croatia. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2012, 10, 292–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Milošević, T.; Milošević, N.; Glišić, I. Agronomic properties and nutritional status of plum trees (Prunus domestica L.) influenced by different cultivars. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2013, 13, 706–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Milošević, T.; Milošević, N. Growth, fruit size, yield performance and micronutrient status of plum trees (Prunus domestica L.). Plant Soil Environ. 2011, 57, 559–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Milošević, N.; Milinković, V.; Mitrović, M.; Lukić, M.; Glišić, I.; Milošević, T. Productive Traits of Some Newly Introduced Plum Cultivars Grown under Environmental Conditions of Cacak (Western Serbia). Acta Hortic. 2012, 968, 87–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Markuszewski, B.; Kopytowski, J. Evaluation of plum cultivars grafted on ‘Wangenheim Prune’ rootstock in the northeast of Poland. Folia Hortic. 2013, 25, 101–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Głowacka, A.; Rozpara, E. Evaluation of several dessert cultivars of plum, new under climatic conditions of Poland. Hort. Sci. 2017, 44, 126–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Blažek, J.; Vávra, R.; Pišteková, J. Orchard performance of new plum cultivars on two rootstocks in a trial at Holovousy in 1998–2003. Hort. Sci. 2004, 31, 37–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Milatović, D.; Đurović, D.; Zec, G.; Boskov, D.; Radovic, M. Evaluation of early plum cultivars in the region of Belgrade (Serbia). In Agrosym 2018, Proceedings of the IX International Agricultural Symposium, Jahorina, Bosnia and Herzegovina, 4–7 October 2018; Kovačević, D., Ed.; University of East Sarajevo, Faculty of Agriculture: Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2018; pp. 612–617. [Google Scholar]
  56. Milatović, D.; Đurović, D.; Zec, G.; Boškov, Đ. Evaluation of growth and productivity of some European plum cultivars. Acta Hortic. 2021, 1308, 229–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Sherman, W.B.; Beckman, T.G. Climatic Adaptation in Fruit Crops. Acta Hortic. 2003, 622, 411–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Grantiņa Ieviņa, L.; Stanke, L. Incidence and severity of leaf and fruit diseases of plums in Latvia. Comm. Appl. Biol. 2015, 80, 421–433. [Google Scholar]
  59. Casals, C.; Torres, R.; Teixidó, N.; De Cal, A.; Segarra, J.; Usall, J. Brown rot on stone fruit: From epidemiology studies to the development of effective control strategies. Sci. Hortic. 2022, 301, 111096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Sitarek, M.; Grzyb, Z.S.; Koziński, B. Effect of Four Different Rootstocks on the Growth, Yield and Fruit Quality of ‘Valor’ Plum Trees. Acta Hortic. 2007, 734, 413–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Gąstoł, M.; Poniedziałek, W. ‘Garla’—A new promising rootstock for plums. Acta Hortic. 2007, 732, 257–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Glišić, I.; Milošević, T.; Glišić, I.; Paunović, G.; Milošević, N. Tree vigour and yield of plum grown under high density planting system. Acta Hortic. 2016, 1139, 131–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Milošević, T.; Milošević, N.; Glišić, I. Vegetative growth, fruit weight, yield and leaf mineral content of plum grown on acidic soil. J. Plant Nutr. 2012, 35, 770–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Hoehn, E. Consumer Expectations and Soluble Solids, Acidity and Firmness of Plums (Prunus domestica ‘Cacaks Beauty’). Acta Hortic. 2005, 682, 665–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Crisosto, C.H. Establishing a Consumer Quality Index for Fresh Plums (Prunus salicina Lindell). Horticulturae 2023, 9, 682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Scedei, D.N.; Iordanescu, O.A.; Dobrei, A.G.; Duma-Copcea, A.C.; Mihut, C.; Alda, S.; Nistor, E.; Dobrei, A. Increasing the Efficiency of Plum Breeding in Family Orchards by Introducing into the Varietal Assortment of Some Universal Varieties with Valuable Physicochemical Properties. Sci. Pap. Ser. B Hortic. 2023, 67, 151–157. [Google Scholar]
  67. Crisosto, C.; Garner, D.; Crisosto, G.; Bowerman, E. Increasing ‘Blackamber’ plum (Prunus salicina Lindell) consumer acceptance. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2004, 34, 237–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Casquero, P.A.; Guerra, M. Harvest parameters to optimise storage life of European plum ‘Oullins Gage’. Food Sci. Technol. 2009, 44, 2049–2054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Vangdal, E. Quality Criteria for Fruit for Fresh Consumption. Acta Agric. Scand. B Soil Plant 1985, 35, 41–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Mestre, L.; Reig, G.; Betrán, J.A.; Moreno, M.Á. Influence of Plum Rootstocks on Agronomic Performance, Leaf Mineral Nutrition and Fruit Quality of ‘Catherina’ Peach Cultivar in Heavy-Calcareous Soil Conditions. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2017, 15, e0901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Milošević, N.; Glišić, I.; Đorđević, M.; Marić, S.; Radičević, S.; Milinković, M.; Milošević, T. Influence of cultivar on macro- and micronutrient composition, potential toxic elements accumulation and their interrelationships in leaves and fruits of European plum (Prunus domestica L.). J. Food Compos. Anal. 2025, 147, 107979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Sarkar, A.; Wynjones, R. Effect of rhizosphere pH on the availability and uptake of Fe, Mn and Zn. Plant Soil 1982, 66, 361–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Font i Forcada, C.; Reig, G.; Mestre, L.; Mignard, P.; Betrán, J.Á.; Moreno, M.Á. Scion × Rootstock Response on Production, Mineral Composition and Fruit Quality under Heavy-Calcareous Soil and Hot Climate. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Olszewski, T.; Grzyb, Z.S.; Rozpara, E. The influence of cultivar and rootstock on content of minerals in leaves of plum trees. Acta Hortic. 1998, 478, 267–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Milošević, T.; Milošević, N. Factors influencing mineral composition of plum fruits. J. Elem. 2012, 17, 453–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Lisek, J.; Stępień, T. Macroelements concentration in plum tree leaves and soil in response to orchard floor management. Acta Sci. Pol. Hortorum Cultus 2021, 20, 115–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Weinbaum, S.A.; Niederholzer, F.J.A.; Ponchner, S.; Rosecrance, R.C.; Carlson, R.M.; Whittlesey, A.C.; Muraoka, T.T. Nutrient uptake by cropping and defruited field-grown ‘French’ prune trees. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 1994, 119, 925–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Lanauskas, J.; Uselis, N.; Kviklys, D.; Gravite, I.; Kaufmane, E.; Rubauskis, E. Influence of rootstock on plum trees performance during the early years after grafting. Acta Hortic. 2018, 1228, 293–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Horticulturae 12 00637 g001
Figure 1. Cluster analysis corresponds to the evaluated tree and fruit characteristics.
Figure 1. Cluster analysis corresponds to the evaluated tree and fruit characteristics.
Horticulturae 12 00637 g001
Table 1. Air temperature (°C) in March–May in 2017 and 2019. Records from the iMETOS® (Pessl Instruments GmbH, Weiz, Austria) meteorological station in Babtai.
Table 1. Air temperature (°C) in March–May in 2017 and 2019. Records from the iMETOS® (Pessl Instruments GmbH, Weiz, Austria) meteorological station in Babtai.
Month.20172019Perennial Average
MinMaxAverageMinMaxAverage
March−2.413.83.9−5.613.93.40.7
April−4.624.06.0−4.226.19.36.1
May−3.329.613.3−3.228.511.712.3
Table 2. Final fruit tree trunk diameter (cm) in 2020 and average weight of pruned branches (kg) in 2015–2020.
Table 2. Final fruit tree trunk diameter (cm) in 2020 and average weight of pruned branches (kg) in 2015–2020.
CultivarTrunk DiameterPruned Branches
PCWPPCWP
Ave8.8 ± 0.506.9 ± 0.611.47 ± 0.530.88 ± 0.22
Čačanska Najbolja11.2 ± 0.758.2 ± 1.422.96 ± 0.271.53 ± 0.13
Čačanska Rana10.5 ± 0.338.7 ± 0.571.83 ± 0.111.11 ± 0.13
Duke of Edinburgh10.4 ± 0.438.2 ± 0.491.63 ± 0.330.95 ± 0.20
Jubileum9.2 ± 0.427.1 ± 0.451.20 ± 0.230.58 ± 0.07
Kijevas Vēlā11.2 ± 0.368.6 ± 0.512.39 ± 0.361.52 ± 0.40
Kubanskaya Kometa10.2 ± 0.398.0 ± 0.672.31 ± 0.551.15 ± 0.21
Oda9.7 ± 0.357.8 ± 0.611.48 ± 0.371.01 ± 0.21
Opal11.1 ± 0.339.1 ± 0.432.86 ± 0.301.80 ± 0.34
Renklod Rannij Doneckij9.9 ± 0.898.1 ± 0.891.66 ± 0.221.26 ± 0.40
Stanley9.4 ± 0.156.9 ± 0.791.71 ± 0.220.79 ± 0.24
Oullins Gage10.4 ± 0.298.0 ± 1.232.38 ± 0.311.23 ± 0.36
Valor9.6 ± 0.387.9 ± 1.011.43 ± 0.181.01 ± 0.19
Violeta10.6 ± 0.627.2 ± 0.621.62 ± 0.440.77 ± 0.23
Zarechnaya Rannyaya10.4 ± 0.237.6 ± 0.792.06 ± 0.211.01 ± 0.37
LSD05 (cultivar—rootstock interaction)0.8640.430
Average10.2 a7.9 b1.93 a1.11 b
PC—P. cerasifera seedling rootstock; WP—‘Wangenheim Prune’ seedling rootstock; LSD05—the least significant difference at the probability level p ≤ 0.05; average values in the last row marked with the same letter do not differ significantly.
Table 3. Share of surviving fruit trees (%), Babtai, 2012–2020.
Table 3. Share of surviving fruit trees (%), Babtai, 2012–2020.
CultivarPCWP
Ave10092
Čačanska Najbolja84100
Čačanska Rana10092
Duke of Edinburgh100100
Jubileum83100
Kijevas Vēlā100100
Kubanskaya Kometa7592
Oda75100
Opal100100
Renklod Rannij Doneckij9283
Stanley9275
Oullins Gage10092
Valor100100
Violeta58100
Zarechnaya Rannyaya100100
LSD05 (cultivar—rootstock interaction)21.1
Average91 a95 a
PC—P. cerasifera seedling rootstock; WP—‘Wangenheim Prune’ seedling rootstock; LSD05—the least significant difference at the probability level p ≤ 0.05; average values in the last row marked with the same letter do not differ significantly.
Table 4. Average yield of sound and rotten fruits (kg/tree), Babtai, 2014–2020.
Table 4. Average yield of sound and rotten fruits (kg/tree), Babtai, 2014–2020.
CultivarSound FruitsRotten Fruits
PCWPPCWP
Ave6.2 ± 1.155.1 ± 1.010.9 ± 0.160.7 ± 0.26
Čačanska Najbolja11.1 ± 2.756.7 ± 0.226.1 ± 1.543.0 ± 0.24
Čačanska Rana3.6 ± 0.173.4 ± 0.450.5 ± 0.180.2 ± 0.08
Duke of Edinburgh10.4 ± 2.287.7 ± 0.235.1 ± 0.942.8 ± 1.52
Jubileum11.2 ± 1.207.8 ± 0.523.5 ± 1.301.6 ± 0.48
Kijevas Vēlā3.2 ± 0.572.2 ± 0.562.9 ± 0.552.3 ± 0.35
Kubanskaya Kometa12.3 ± 1.499.2 ± 1.140.4 ± 0.290.5 ± 0.26
Oda8.4 ± 1.246.8 ± 0.751.2 ± 0.430.8 ± 0.08
Opal11.8 ± 0.959.7 ± 1.481.3 ± 0.741.4 ± 0.97
Renklod Rannij Doneckij4.0 ± 1.344.1 ± 0.952.1 ± 0.561.3 ± 0.12
Stanley10.2 ± 1.106.6 ± 0.913.4 ± 0.992.1 ± 0.39
Oullins Gage2.8 ± 1.501.9 ± 0.650.7 ± 0.280.6 ± 0.25
Valor11.4 ± 0.866.5 ± 0.905.2 ± 1.781.9 ± 0.16
Violeta13.0 ± 1.619.0 ± 0.902.3 ± 0.751.0 ± 0.14
Zarechnaya Rannyaya5.2 ± 0.795.2 ± 1.250.4 ± 0.130.2 ± 0.05
LSD05 (cultivar—rootstock interaction)1.641.02
Average8.3 a6.1 b2.40 a1.40 b
PC—P. cerasifera seedling rootstock; WP—‘Wangenheim Prune’ seedling rootstock; LSD05—the least significant difference at the probability level p ≤ 0.05; average values in the last row marked with the same letter do not differ significantly.
Table 5. Average yield of sound and rotten fruits (t/ha), Babtai, 2014–2020.
Table 5. Average yield of sound and rotten fruits (t/ha), Babtai, 2014–2020.
CultivarSound FruitsRotten Fruits
PCWPPCWP
Ave5.5 ± 1.038.4 ± 1.680.8 ± 0.141.2 ± 0.44
Čačanska Najbolja9.9 ± 2.4511.2 ± 0.375.5 ± 1.375.0 ± 0.40
Čačanska Rana3.2 ± 0.155.6 ± 0.750.4 ± 0.160.4 ± 0.14
Duke of Edinburgh9.2 ± 2.0212.9 ± 0.384.6 ± 0.844.6 ± 1.53
Jubileum10.0 ± 1.0713.0 ± 0.873.1 ± 1.162.7 ± 0.80
Kijevas Vēlā2.9 ± 0.503.7 ± 0.932.6 ± 0.493.9 ± 0.58
Kubanskaya Kometa10.9 ± 1.3215.4 ± 1.900.4 ± 0.260.8 ± 0.43
Oda7.5 ± 1.1011.3 ± 1.260.9 ± 0.381.4 ± 0.13
Opal10.5 ± 0.8516.2 ± 2.471.1 ± 0.662.4 ± 1.02
Renklod Rannij Doneckij3.6 ± 1.196.9 ± 1.581.9 ± 0.502.1 ± 0.19
Stanley9.1 ± 0.9811.0 ± 1.523.0 ± 0.883.5 ± 0.66
Oullins Gage2.5 ± 0.543.2 ± 1.080.6 ± 0.250.9 ± 0.41
Valor10.1 ± 0.7710.9 ± 1.503.8 ± 1.093.1 ± 0.26
Violeta11.6 ± 1.4315.0 ± 1.502.0 ± 0.661.6 ± 0.24
Zarechnaya Rannyaya4.6 ± 0.708.7 ± 2.090.3 ± 0.120.3 ± 0.09
LSD05 (cultivar—rootstock interaction)1.911.17
Average7.4 b10.2 a2.10 a2.30 a
PC—P. cerasifera seedling rootstock; WP—‘Wangenheim Prune’ seedling rootstock; LSD05—the least significant difference at the probability level p ≤ 0.05; average values in the last row marked with the same letter do not differ significantly.
Table 6. Cumulative yield efficiency (kg/cm2 TCSA), Babtai, 2014–2020.
Table 6. Cumulative yield efficiency (kg/cm2 TCSA), Babtai, 2014–2020.
CultivarPCWP
Ave1.01 ± 0.261.37 ± 0.18
Čačanska Najbolja1.40 ± 0.241.81 ± 0.55
Čačanska Rana0.44 ± 0.020.61 ± 0.09
Duke of Edinburgh1.51 ± 0.301.64 ± 0.23
Jubileum2.15 ± 0.362.48 ± 0.33
Kijevas Vēlā0.69 ± 0.090.80 ± 0.22
Kubanskaya Kometa1.74 ± 0.141.92 ± 0.16
Oda1.39 ± 0.261.79 ± 0.44
Opal1.20 ± 0.091.59 ± 0.12
Renklod Rannij Doneckij0.69 ± 0.150.98 ± 0.28
Stanley1.68 ± 0.252.33 ± 0.44
Oullins Gage0.38 ± 0.240.45 ± 0.19
Valor1.95 ± 0.341.58 ± 0.20
Violeta1.93 ± 0.262.83 ± 0.31
Zarechnaya Rannyaya0.66 ± 0.101.23 ± 0.38
LSD05 (cultivar—rootstock interaction)0.370
Average1.26 b1.56 a
PC—P. cerasifera seedling rootstock; WP—‘Wangenheim Prune’ seedling rootstock; LSD05—the least significant difference at the probability level p ≤ 0.05; average values in the last row marked with the same letter do not differ significantly.
Table 7. Average fruit weight (g) and flesh firmness (kg/cm2), Babtai, 2014–2020.
Table 7. Average fruit weight (g) and flesh firmness (kg/cm2), Babtai, 2014–2020.
CultivarFruit WeightFruit Flesh Firmness
PCWPPCWP
Ave45.5 ± 1.3745.2 ± 1.481.75 ± 0.101.73 ± 0.08
Čačanska Najbolja57.5 ± 3.8249.4 ± 2.632.19 ± 0.282.17 ± 0.04
Čačanska Rana53.5 ± 0.9356.0 ± 1.912.07 ± 0.081.94 ± 0.19
Duke of Edinburgh37.4 ± 1.4136.5 ± 2.031.93 ± 0.181.91 ± 0.14
Jubileum58.1 ± 1.2253.1 ± 3.572.57 ± 0.132.39 ± 0.20
Kijevas Vēlā67.5 ± 1.2269.7 ± 2.822.37 ± 0.182.47 ± 0.12
Kubanskaya Kometa42.5 ± 3.8437.7 ± 1.281.49 ± 0.171.77 ± 0.07
Oda42.3 ± 0.7341.9 ± 1.172.36 ± 0.172.09 ± 0.11
Opal30.4 ± 1.3830.8 ± 2.071.71 ± 0.091.54 ± 0.04
Renklod Rannij Doneckij45.9 ± 2.3346.4 ± 4.973.07 ± 0.122.85 ± 0.18
Stanley35.6 ± 1.0535.7 ± 2.412.65 ± 0.272.93 ± 0.17
Oullins Gage48.5 ± 0.9055.8 ± 1.132.27 ± 0.102.28 ± 0.27
Valor53.7 ± 1.9150.5 ± 2.703.16 ± 0.292.80 ± 0.34
Violeta39.6 ± 3.6638.6 ± 3.072.18 ± 0.132.41 ± 0.22
Zarechnaya Rannyaya45.4 ± 1.8145.0 ± 2.261.69 ± 0.141.74 ± 0.13
LSD05 (cultivar—rootstock interaction)3.1250.241
Average46.9 a46.2 a2.23 a2.20 a
PC—P. cerasifera seedling rootstock; WP—‘Wangenheim Prune’ seedling rootstock; LSD05—the least significant difference at the probability level p ≤ 0.05; average values in the last row marked with the same letter do not differ significantly.
Table 8. Average fruit soluble solids content (% Brix), Babtai, 2014–2020.
Table 8. Average fruit soluble solids content (% Brix), Babtai, 2014–2020.
CultivarPCWP
Ave13.9 ± 0.3614.0 ± 0.09
Čačanska Najbolja14.6 ± 0.4215.3 ± 0.40
Čačanska Rana14.5 ± 0.5713.9 ± 0.53
Duke of Edinburgh14.8 ± 0.2214.8 ± 0.26
Jubileum16.1 ± 0.3515.6 ± 0.58
Kijevas Vēlā15.0 ± 0.3215.4 ± 0.43
Kubanskaya Kometa11.8 ± 0.1611.9 ± 0.55
Oda15.4 ± 0.2915.3 ± 0.33
Opal14.3 ± 0.2814.2 ± 0.27
Renklod Rannij Doneckij13.5 ± 0.1313.3 ± 0.15
Stanley14.8 ± 0.2314.4 ± 0.38
Oullins Gage14.9 ± 0.2113.9 ± 0.31
Valor17.4 ± 0.6316.5 ± 0.40
Violeta13.4 ± 0.1713.2 ± 0.15
Zarechnaya Rannyaya12.9 ± 0.3913.3 ± 0.11
LSD05 (cultivar—rootstock interaction)0.50
Average14.5 a14.3 a
PC—P. cerasifera seedling rootstock; WP—‘Wangenheim Prune’ seedling rootstock; LSD05—the least significant difference at the probability level p ≤ 0.05; average values in the last row marked with the same letter do not differ significantly.
Table 9. Sensory fruit quality assessment indicators (1–5 score scale), Babtai, 2015–2016.
Table 9. Sensory fruit quality assessment indicators (1–5 score scale), Babtai, 2015–2016.
CultivarAppearancePit Detachment from the FleshTasteOverall Rating
Ave4.4 b4.0 d4.0 bc4.1 c
Čačanska Najbolja4.7 a4.9 a4.7 a4.7 a
Čačanska Rana4.8 a4.4 bc4.6 a4.7 a
Duke of Edinburgh4.0 c4.2 cd3.9 bc4.0 cd
Jubileum4.8 a4.6 b4.5 ab4.6 a
Kijevas Vēlā4.6 ab3.0 g4.4 b4.3 b
Kubanskaya Kometa4.2 bc3.8 de3.9 bc4.1 c
Oda4.6 ab3.7 e4.5 ab4.5 ab
Opal4.1 bc4.3 c4.2 b4.2 bc
Renklod Rannij Doneckij4.1 c4.2 cd3.7 c3.9 d
Stanley4.3 b4.0 d4.5 ab4.5 ab
Oullins Gage4.1 c3.9 de4.3 b4.2 bc
Valor4.6 ab4.1 cd5.0 ab4.5 ab
Violeta4.4 b3.6 ef4.1 b4.2 bc
Zarechnaya Rannyaya4.5 ab3.4 f3.9 bc4.3 b
Average values within the columns marked with the same letter do not differ significantly at probability level p ≤ 0.05.
Table 10. Leaf mineral macronutrient content (%), Babtai, 2019–2020.
Table 10. Leaf mineral macronutrient content (%), Babtai, 2019–2020.
CultivarNPKCaMg
PCWPPCWPPCWPPCWPPCWP
Ave2.292.250.260.252.602.281.551.490.220.29
Čačanska Rana2.302.210.240.233.103.071.951.840.320.33
Duke of Edinburgh2.112.140.270.242.782.531.951.650.340.33
Jubileum2.111.900.260.202.382.201.791.670.230.33
Kijevas Vēlā1.932.430.270.212.232.021.311.220.250.26
Kubanskaya Kometa2.512.210.320.261.801.721.721.620.270.28
Oda2.032.250.220.192.562.432.041.880.340.33
Renklod Rannij Doneckij2.462.270.290.272.372.201.651.690.340.36
Stanley2.172.330.340.293.062.781.841.620.300.33
Oullins Gage2.162.340.270.233.232.841.571.360.280.30
Valor2.432.310.310.292.932.181.691.630.310.31
Violeta2.312.260.260.232.612.432.052.040.340.35
Zarechnaya Rannyaya2.302.250.390.292.652.321.651.440.290.32
LSD05 (cultivar—rootstock interaction)0.1740.0400.3110.2120.06
Average of cultivars2.24 a2.25 a0.28 a0.24 b2.64 a2.38 b1.75 a1.63 b0.29 b0.32 a
Optimum *2.01–3.600.20–0.601.65–3.251.50–3.000.31–0.70
PC—P. cerasifera seedling rootstock; WP—‘Wangenheim Prune’ seedling rootstock; LSD05—the least significant difference at the probability level p ≤ 0.05; average values in the row marked with the same letter do not differ significantly. * Reference for optimal values—Sadowski et al. (1990) [39].
Table 11. Leaf micronutrient content (ppm). Babtai, 2019–2020.
Table 11. Leaf micronutrient content (ppm). Babtai, 2019–2020.
CultivarFeCuMnZnB
PCWPPCWPPCWPPCWPPCWP
Ave64.759.58.1910.2919.117.417.922.127.829.2
Čačanska Rana56.069.29.8311.1421.519.517.924.436.936.1
Duke of Edinburgh64.265.49.269.8420.419.420.223.728.527.4
Jubileum62.560.810.759.3921.018.121.619.325.728.6
Kijevas Vēlā48.157.37.687.8117.914.415.017.328.628.5
Kubanskaya Kometa65.966.97.658.3015.115.815.317.626.527.1
Oda73.867.29.459.5320.021.618.720.726.730.5
Renklod Rannij Doneckij73.467.08.899.4618.615.322.424.630.432.0
Stanley62.066.89.2911.4319.119.317.623.831.034.1
Oullins Gage66.464.68.5010.9115.913.414.315.428.027.0
Valor69.068.87.838.7016.916.520.526.537.331.9
Violeta67.269.58.9310.1323.018.020.224.230.129.5
Zarechnaya Rannyaya71.566.08.789.0123.021.414.316.229.426.9
LSD05 (cultivar—rootstock interaction)12.122.5364.943.054.90
Average of cultivars65.0 a65.3 a8.85 b9.69 a19.3 a17.7 b18.1 b21.2 a29.7 a29.9 a
Optimum *100–2505.0–10.020.0–140.020–5026.0–60.0
PC—P. cerasifera seedling rootstock; WP—‘Wangenheim Prune’ seedling rootstock; LSD05—the least significant difference at the probability level p ≤ 0.05; average values in the row marked with the same letter do not differ significantly. * Reference for optimal values—Heckman (2004) [40].
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lanauskas, J.; Gravite, I.; Kviklys, D. Performance of Plum Cultivars on Myrobalan (Prunus cerasifera Ehrh.) and ‘Wangenheim Prune’ (Prunus domestica L.) Seedling Rootstocks in a Nordic Climate. Horticulturae 2026, 12, 637. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae12050637

AMA Style

Lanauskas J, Gravite I, Kviklys D. Performance of Plum Cultivars on Myrobalan (Prunus cerasifera Ehrh.) and ‘Wangenheim Prune’ (Prunus domestica L.) Seedling Rootstocks in a Nordic Climate. Horticulturae. 2026; 12(5):637. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae12050637

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lanauskas, Juozas, Ilze Gravite, and Darius Kviklys. 2026. "Performance of Plum Cultivars on Myrobalan (Prunus cerasifera Ehrh.) and ‘Wangenheim Prune’ (Prunus domestica L.) Seedling Rootstocks in a Nordic Climate" Horticulturae 12, no. 5: 637. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae12050637

APA Style

Lanauskas, J., Gravite, I., & Kviklys, D. (2026). Performance of Plum Cultivars on Myrobalan (Prunus cerasifera Ehrh.) and ‘Wangenheim Prune’ (Prunus domestica L.) Seedling Rootstocks in a Nordic Climate. Horticulturae, 12(5), 637. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae12050637

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop