Evaluation of Nursery Traits in Japanese Plums on Five Different Rootstocks
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
Plant Material-Rootstocks
3. Results
3.1. Evaluation of the Effect of Rootstock on Selected Nursery Traits
3.2. Evaluation of the Effect of Varieties on Selected Nursery Traits
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Topp, B.L.; Russell, D.M.; Neumüller, M.; Dalbó, M.A.; Liu, W. Plum. In Fruit Breeding, Handbook of Plant Breeding; Badenes, M.L., Byrne, D.H., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 571–622. [Google Scholar]
- Wolf, J.; Göttingerová, M.; Kaplan, J.; Kiss, T.; Venuta, R.; Nečas, T. Determination of the pomological and nutritional properties of selected plum cultivars and minor fruit species. Hortic. Sci. (Prague) 2020, 47, 181–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, W. Plum production in China. Acta Hortic. 2007, 734, 89–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reig, G.; Salazar, A.; Zarrouk, O.; Font i Forcada, C.; Valb, J.; Moreno, M.A. Long-term graft compatibility study of peach-almond hybrid and plum based rootstocks budded with European and Japanese plums. Sci. Hortic. 2019, 243, 392–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Czinege, A.; Soltész, M.; Nyéki, J.; Szabó, Z. The use of rootstocks for European (Prunus domestica) and for Japanese (Prunus salicina) plums (review). Agroinform Publishing House, Budapest. Int. J. Hortic. Sci. 2012, 2, 7–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Andersen, R.; Freer, J.; Robinson, T. Plum rootstock trial at Geneva: A progress report. N. Y. Fruit Q. 2006, 1, 27–28. [Google Scholar]
- Mezzetti, B.; Sottile, F. MI. PAF. Targeted project for evaluation of European and Japanese plum rootstocks in Italy: Results of Six Years of Observations. Acta Hortic. 2004, 734, 149–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferlito, F.; Continella, A.; Nicolosi, E.; Dimauro, B.; Brugaletta, M.; Cicala, A.; La Malfa, S. Bio-agronomic characterization of twelve plum varieties on two clonal rootstocks in a semi-arid environment in Sicily. Fruits 2015, 70, 249–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sitarek, M.; Grzyb, Z.S.; Guzowska-Spaleniak, B.; Lis, J. Performance of tree rootstocks for plums in two different soils and climatic conditions. Acta Hortic. 2004, 658, 273–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bělíková, H.; Laňar, L.; Mészáros., M. Opatření zmírňující vliv půdní únavy na růst podnože St.Julien A. VŠÚO Holovousy s.r.o; Research and Breeding Institute of Pomology Holovousy Ltd.: Holovousy, Czech Republic, 2015; Volume 24, pp. 177–187. ISBN 978-80-87030-41-7. (In Czech) [Google Scholar]
- Mészáros, M.; Kosina, J.; Laňar, L.; Náměstek, J. Long-term evaluation of growth and yield of Stanley and Cacanska lepotica plum varieties on selected rootstocks. Hort. Sci. (Prague) 2015, 42, 22–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bolat, I.; Dikilitas, M.; Ikinci, A.; Ercisli, S.; Tonkaz, T. Morphological, physiological, biochemical characteristics and bud success responses of myrobolan 29C plum rootstock subjected to water stress. Can. J. Plant Sci. 2016, 3, 485–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kajtár-Czinege, A.; Krauczi, É.O.; Hrotkó, K. Growth characteristics of five plum varieties on fix fifferent rootstocks grown in containers at different irrigation levels. Horticulturae 2022, 8, 819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nečas, T.; Göttingerová, M.; Wolf, J.; Kiss, T.; Ondrášek, I. Srovnání vybraných pomologických znaků a obsahu nutričních látek u evropských a asijských odrůd meruněk. In Genetické Zdroje Rostlin, Moderní Technologie Konzervace a Hodnocení; Ministerstvo Zemědělství: Praha, Czech Republic, 2018; pp. 75–85. ISBN 978-80-7434-483-1. (In Czech) [Google Scholar]
- Vachůn, M. Meteorological Data from the Automatic Meteorological Mendel Station in Lednice; ÚKZÚZ Praha, Tisk Tomos: Praha, Czech Republic, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Kalášek, J.; Jermatová, E.; Richter, M.; Schubert, V. Metodiky Státních Odrůdových Zkoušek—Ovocné Plodiny; ÚKZÚZ Praha, Tisk Tomos: Praha, Czech Republic, 1980; p. 186. (In Czech) [Google Scholar]
- Nečas, T.; Göttingerová, M.; Ondrášek, I.; Náměstek, J.; Wolf, J.; Kiss, T.; Laňar, L.; Mészáros, M.; Nečasová, J.; Letocha, T. INOVACE OVOCNICKÉHO ŠKOLKAŘSTVÍ Moderní Postupy Rozmnožování a Dopěstování, 1. vyd; Ediční Středisko Mendelovy Univerzity v Brně: Brno, Czech Republic, 2019; p. 154. ISBN 978-80-7509-636-4. (In Czech) [Google Scholar]
- Vachůn, Z. Ovocnictví—podnože ovocných dřevin; Mendelova Zemědělská a Lesnická Univerzita v Brně: Brno, Czech republic, 1999; p. 66. ISBN 80-7157-217-9. (In Czech) [Google Scholar]
- Moreno, M.A.; Tabuenca, M.C.; Cambra, R. Adesoto 101, A plum rootstock for peaches and other stone fruit. Hortic. Sci. 1995, 6, 1314–1315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zarrouk, O.; Gogorcena, Y.; Moreno, A.M.; Pinochet, J. Graft compatibility between peach varieties and prunus rootstocks. Hortic. Sci. 2006, 6, 1389–1394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodrigues das Neves, T.; Mayer, N.A.; Ueno, B. Graft incompatibility in Prunus spp. preceded by SPAD index reduction. Semin. Ciências Agrárias 2017, 2, 635–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jalal, A.; Ghulam, N.; Nawab, A.; Muhammad, M.A.; Hazrat, U.; Muhammad, O.I. To study the bud take success and budding growth of plum cultivators on peach swat local root stock. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Nat. Res. 2017, 4, 555–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nečas, T.; Lébl, K. Evaluation of selected nursery traits in combination rootstocks and variety in asian pear trees. Acta Univ. Agric. Et Silvic. Mendel. Brun. 2012, 8, 171–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Thomidis, T.; Tsipouridis, C. Evaluation of BC Williams and PI1/6 pear varieties for their compatibility with 49 quince genotypes and their susceptibility to fire blight: Short communicaton. Hort. Sci. (Prague) 2006, 4, 163–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Adhikari, P.B.; Xu, Q.; Notaguchi, M. Compatible graft establishment in fruit trees and its potential markers. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Errea, P.; Felipe, A.; Herrero, M. Graft establishment between compatible and incompatible Prunus spp. J. Exper. Botany 1994, 3, 393–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Usenik, V.; Krška, B.; Vičan, M.; Štampar, F. Early detection of graft incompatibility in apricot (Prunus armeniaca L.) using phenol analyses. Sci. Hortic. 2006, 109, 332–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gainza, F.; Opazo, I.; Muñoz, C. Graft incompatibility in plants: Metabolic changes during formation and establishment of the rootstock/scion union with emphasis on Prunus species. Chil. J. Agric. Res. 2015, 75, 28–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Reig, G.; Zarrouk, O.; Font i Forcada, C.; Moreno, M.A. Anatomical graft compatibility study between apricot varieties and different plum based rootstocks. Sci. Hortic. 2018, 237, 67–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neumüller, M.; Hartmann, W. The phenotypically quantitative nature of hypersensitivity of European plum (Prunus domestica L.) against the Plum pox virus and its description using the hypersensitivity index. Hort. Sci. (Prague) 2008, 2, 50–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Varieties of Plums | Botanical Origin | Geographical Origin |
---|---|---|
Pink Saturn | P. salicina | Italy |
T.C. Sun | P. salicina | USA |
Flavor Queen | Pluot P. salicina × P. armeniaca | USA |
Aphrodite | P. salicina | USA |
October Sun | P. salicina | USA |
Golden Japan | P. salicina | USA |
Autumn Giant | P. salicina | USA |
Black Star | P. salicina | USA |
Stanley | P. domestica | USA |
Chrudimská | P. domestica | Czech Republic |
Rootstocks | Varieties | Affinity of Saplings (%) | Yield of Saplings (%) | Height of Saplings (mm) ** | Thickness of Saplings (mm) | Number of Suckers (Pieces) ** | Intensity of Branching (Points) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Adesoto | Aphrodite | 82.2 b–g/8.01 * | 77.8 a–j/6.69 | 1450.0 | 18.0 a/0.42 | 0.0 | 5.3 a–d/0.88 |
Autumn Giant | 86.7 b–g/3.85 | 86.7 d–j/3.85 | 1580.0 | 19.3 a–d/0.33 | 0.3 | 6.3 a–d/0.67 | |
Black Star | 100.0 g/3.67 | 100.0 j/3.83 | 1546.7 | 19.7 a–e/0.33 | 1.0 | 6.3 a–d/1.33 | |
Flavor Queen | 88.9 b–g/4.44 | 84.4 a–d/4.44 | 1633.3 | 18.0 a/0.42 | 0.3 | 7.0 a–d/0.71 | |
Golden Japan | 95.6 e–g/4.44 | 86.7 d–j/7.70 | 1373.3 | 18.3 ab/0.33 | 1.0 | 6.3 a–d/1.33 | |
Chrudimská | 97.8 fg/2.22 | 93.3 g–j/6.67 | 1863.3 | 22.7 g–k/0.33 | 0.7 | 4.3 a–c/0.67 | |
October Sun | 93.3 d–g/3.85 | 88.9 e–j/5.88 | 1480.0 | 18.3 ab/0.42 | 0.0 | 7.7 a–d/0.71 | |
Saturn | 93.3 d–g/3.85 | 88.9 e–j/5.88 | 1496.7 | 20.0 a–f/0.42 | 0.0 | 7.0 a–d/0.71 | |
Stanley | 97.8 fg/2.22 | 95.6 h–j/2.22 | 1620.0 | 20.0 a–f/0.58 | 0.0 | 3.7 ab/0.33 | |
Te Sun | 84.4 b–g/5.88 | 82.2 a–d/4.44 | 1256.7 | 19.0 a–d/0.42 | 0.3 | 5.0 a–d/0.71 | |
Average | 92.0 c | 88.5 c | 1530.0 ab | 19.3 a | 0.4 a | 6.0 b | |
Brompton | Aphrodite | 82.2 b–g/4.44 | 77.8 a–j/5.88 | 1956.7 | 22.3 f–k/0.33 | 1.3 | 7.7 b–d/0.67 |
Autumn Giant | 80.0 a–g/3.85 | 80.0 a–j/3.85 | 1810.0 | 22.3 f–k/1.20 | 1.3 | 9.0 d/0.71 | |
Black Star | 84.4 b–g/5.88 | 82.2 b–j/4.44 | 1860.0 | 21.3 d–i/0.67 | 1.3 | 8.3 cd/0.67 | |
Flavor Queen | 73.3 a–d/13.33 | 73.3 c–j/13.33 | 1836.7 | 20.7 b–g/0.33 | 1.7 | 7.0 a–d/0.71 | |
Golden Japan | 77.8 a–f/8.89 | 77.8 a–j/8.89 | 1466.7 | 20.7 b–g/0.33 | 1.0 | 7.7 b–d/0.67 | |
Chrudimská | 68.9 ab/11.76 | 60.0 ab/6.67 | 2143.3 | 24.3 j–l/0.67 | 2.0 | 4.3 a–c/0.33 | |
October Sun | 75.6 a–e/8.01 | 68. a–f/4.44 | 2043.3 | 22.0 e–j/0.42 | 1.0 | 7.0 b–d/0.67 | |
Saturn | 68.9 ab/5.88 | 62.2 a–c/8.01 | 1903.3 | 23.7 i–l/0.33 | 1.3 | 7.0 a–d/0.71 | |
Stanley | 75.6 a–e/14.57 | 71.1 a–g/12.37 | 1500.0 | 23.3 h–l/0.33 | 1.0 | 5.0 a–d/0.71 | |
Te Sun | 75.6 a–e/5.88 | 68.9 b–j/8.89 | 1436.7 | 21.0 c–h/0.42 | 1.0 | 8.3 cd/0.67 | |
Average | 76.2 a | 72.1 a | 1795.7 c | 22.2 c | 1.3 b | 7 c | |
St. Julien A | Aphrodite | 73.3 a–d/7.70 | 71.1 a–g/8.01 | 1490.0 | 19.0 a–d/0.58 | 0.3 | 5.3 a–d/0.88 |
Autumn Giant | 95.6 e–g/2.22 | 93.3 g–j/3.85 | 1436.7 | 19.7 a–e/0.33 | 0.0 | 5.0 a–d/0.71 | |
Black Star | 93.3 d–g/3.85 | 84.4 c–j/4.44 | 1560.0 | 20.3 a–g/0.33 | 0.7 | 4.3 a–c/0.67 | |
Flavor Queen | 71.1 a–c/5.88 | 68.9 a–f/4.44 | 1456.7 | 20.3 a–g/0.33 | 0.0 | 4.3 a–c/0.67 | |
Golden Japan | 73.3 a–d/6.67 | 66.7 a–e/6.67 | 1350.0 | 18.7 a–c/0.33 | 0.0 | 5.7 a–d/1.33 | |
Chrudimská | 75.6 a–e/5.88 | 73.3 a–h/6.67 | 1780.0 | 24.3 j–l/0.33 | 0.3 | 4.0 ab/0.71 | |
October Sun | 60.0 a/6.67 | 57.8 a/5.88 | 1323.3 | 20.0 a–f/0.42 | 0.3 | 3.7 ab/0.67 | |
Saturn | 73.3 a–d/6.67 | 64.4 a–d/2.22 | 1383.3 | 22.3 f–k/0.33 | 0.3 | 3.0 a/0.71 | |
Stanley | 95.6 e–g/4.44 | 93.3 g–j/3.85 | 1283.3 | 22.3 f–k/0.33 | 0.0 | 4.7 a–c/1.20 | |
Te Sun | 88.9 b–g/5.88 | 84.4 c–j/5.88 | 1156.7 | 18.7 a–c/0.33 | 0.0 | 5.0 a–d/0.71 | |
Average | 80.0 ab | 75.8 ab | 1422.0 a | 20.6 b | 0.2 a | 5 a | |
Torinel | Aphrodite | 88.9 b–g/5.88 | 84.4 c–j/8.1 | 1773.3 | 24.0 j–l/0.58 | 0.3 | 7.0 a–d/1.15 |
Autumn Giant | 91.1 c–g/5.88 | 86.7 d–j/3.85 | 1543.3 | 23.67 i–l/0.67 | 0.7 | 9.0 d/0.71 | |
Black Star | 97.8 fg/2.22 | 88.9 e–j/2.22 | 1880.0 | 24.7 kl/0.33 | 0.7 | 8.3 cd/0.67 | |
Flavor Queen | 80.0 a–g/10.18 | 77.8 a–j/9.69 | 1760.0 | 22.0 e–j/1.00 | 0.0 | 7.7 b–d/0.67 | |
Golden Japan | 91.1 c–g/4.44 | 91.1 f–j/4.44 | 1340.0 | 20.3 a–g/0.33 | 0.7 | 8.3 cd/0.67 | |
Chrudimská | 91.1 c–g/4.44 | 91.1 f–j/4.44 | 1993.3 | 25.7 l/0.33 | 0.7 | 4.7 a–c/0.33 | |
October Sun | 100.0 g/3.67 | 97.8 ij/2.22 | 1650.0 | 22.3 f–k/0.58 | 0.3 | 5.7 a–d/0.67 | |
Saturn | 82.2 b–g/2.22 | 80.0 a–j/3.85 | 1696.7 | 24.7 kl/0.33 | 0.7 | 6.33 a–d/0.67 | |
Stanley | 100.0 g/3.67 | 93.3 g–j/3.83 | 1693.3 | 24.0 j–l/0.42 | 1.0 | 5.7 a–d/0.67 | |
Te Sun | 77.8 a–f/8.89 | 71.1 a–g/9.69 | 1360.0 | 22.0 e–j/0.58 | 0.3 | 7.0 a–d/0.71 | |
Average | 90.0 c | 86.2 c | 1669.0 bc | 23.3 d | 0.5 a | 7 c | |
Wavit | Aphrodite | 80.0 a–g/7.70 | 75.6 a–i/5.88 | 1500.0 | 19.0 a–d/0.42 | 0.7 | 5.0 a–d/1.15 |
Autumn Giant | 82.2 b–g/8.01 | 80.0 a–j/6.67 | 1390.0 | 20.0 a–f/0.42 | 0.0 | 4.7 a–c/0.33 | |
Black Star | 97.8 fg/2.22 | 91.1 f–j/4.44 | 1560.0 | 19.0 a–d/0.42 | 0.7 | 5.0 a–d/1.15 | |
Flavor Queen | 77.8 a–f/5.88 | 71.1 a–g/5.88 | 1523.3 | 19.3 a–d/0.33 | 0.0 | 7.7 b–d/1.33 | |
Golden Japan | 93.3 d–g/3.85 | 88.9 e–j/5.88 | 1220.0 | 19.3 a–d/0.88 | 0.0 | 3.0 a/0.71 | |
Chrudimská | 88.8 b–g/5.88 | 86.7 c–j/6.67 | 2023.3 | 24.0 j–l/0.58 | 0.7 | 4.3 a/0.33 | |
October Sun | 91.1 c–g/5.88 | 86.7 d–j/7.70 | 1606.7 | 18.7 a–c/0.67 | 0.0 | 5.0 a–d/0.71 | |
Saturn | 75.6 ab/5.88 | 71.1 a–g/4.44 | 1610.0 | 21.0 c–h/0.42 | 0.7 | 5.7 a–d/0.67 | |
Stanley | 77.8 a–f/9.69 | 73.3 a–h/6.67 | 1646.7 | 22.0 e–j/0.42 | 0.3 | 4.7 a–c/0.33 | |
Te Sun | 68.9 a–e/5.88 | 66.7 a–e/3.85 | 1176.7 | 20.3 a–g/0.33 | 0.0 | 5.7 a–d/0.67 | |
Average | 83.3 b | 79.1 b | 1525.7 ab | 20.3 ab | 0.3 ab | 5 ab |
Varieties | Affinity of Saplings (%) | Yield of Saplings (%) | Height of Saplings (mm) | Thickness of Saplings (mm) | Number of Suckers (Pieces) | Intensity of Branching (Points) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Saturn | 78.7 ab * | 73.3 a | 1618.0 c | 22.3 d | 0.6 ab | 6 bc |
Te Sun | 79.1 ab | 74.7 ab | 1277.3 a | 20.2 a–c | 0.3 a | 6 c |
Flavor Queen | 78.2 a | 75.1 ab | 1642.0 c | 20.1 ab | 0.4 a | 7 c |
Aphrodite | 81.3 a–c | 77.3 ab | 1634.0 c | 20.5 a–c | 0.5 ab | 6 bc |
October Sun | 84.0 a–d | 80. 0 a–c | 1620.7 c | 20.3 a–c | 0.3 a | 6 bc |
Chrudimská | 84.4 a–d | 80.9 a–c | 1960.7 d | 24.2 e | 0.9 b | 4 a |
Golden Japan | 86.2 b–d | 82.2 b–d | 1350.0 ab | 19.5 a | 0.5 ab | 6 c |
Autumn Giant | 87.1 c–e | 85.3 cd | 1552.0 bc | 21.0 c | 0.5 a | 7 c |
Stanley | 89.3 de | 85.3 cd | 1548.7 bc | 22.3 d | 0.5 a | 5 ab |
Black Star | 94.7 e | 89.3 d | 1681.3 c | 21.0 c | 0.9 b | 6 c |
Years | Affinity of Saplings (%) | Yield of Saplings (%) | Height of Saplings (mm) | Thickness of Saplings (mm) | Number of Suckers (Pieces) | Intensity of Branching (Points) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Year 2019 | 72.2 a | 71.6 a | 1523.0 a | 21.2 a | 0.54 a | 6 a |
Year 2020 | 91.7 b | 87.5 b | 1598.0 a | 21.1 a | 0.52 a | 6 a |
Year 2021 | 86.0 c | 82.0 b | 1644.4 a | 21.1 a | 0.56 a | 6 a |
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. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Nečas, T.; Wolf, J.; Zezulová, E.; Ondrášek, I. Evaluation of Nursery Traits in Japanese Plums on Five Different Rootstocks. Horticulturae 2023, 9, 318. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae9030318
Nečas T, Wolf J, Zezulová E, Ondrášek I. Evaluation of Nursery Traits in Japanese Plums on Five Different Rootstocks. Horticulturae. 2023; 9(3):318. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae9030318
Chicago/Turabian StyleNečas, Tomáš, Jan Wolf, Eliška Zezulová, and Ivo Ondrášek. 2023. "Evaluation of Nursery Traits in Japanese Plums on Five Different Rootstocks" Horticulturae 9, no. 3: 318. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae9030318
APA StyleNečas, T., Wolf, J., Zezulová, E., & Ondrášek, I. (2023). Evaluation of Nursery Traits in Japanese Plums on Five Different Rootstocks. Horticulturae, 9(3), 318. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae9030318