Rootstock Trials in Utah and the U.S.

Rootstock Trials in Utah and the U.S. Brent Black Extension Fruit Specialist Utah State University Thor Lindstrom Kaysville Experiment Station Utah State University

NC-140 Regional Research Project Multi-state cooperative research Funded through the State Agricultural Experiment Stations Organized by the North- Central region Experiment Station Directors

NC-140 Regional Research Project: Current participants (30 states, 6 non U.S. entities) U.S. Arkansas California Colorado Georgia Iowa Illinois Indiana Kansas Kentucky Massachusetts Maryland Maine Minnesota Missouri North Carolina Nebraska New Jersey New York Ohio Oregon Pennsylvania South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Utah Vermont Virginia Washington Wisconsin West Virginia Outside U.S. Canada British Columbia Ontario New Brunswick Nova Scotia Quebec Mexico

NC-140 Regional Research Project: Objectives 1. To evaluate the field performance of pome and stone-fruit rootstocks in various environments and under different management systems. 2. To improve propagation techniques. 3. To develop improved rootstocks through breeding and genetics, and to acquire new rootstocks from worldwide sources. 4. To understand the developmental and stress physiology of rootstock/scion interactions.

Crops of interest to NC-140 Pome fruits Apple Pear Stone fruits Peach Sweet Cherry Tart Cherry Apricot Plum

How it works Crop coordinator oversees experiments for each crop Terrence Robinson coordinates apple trials Scott Johnson and Greg Reighard coordinates peach trials Coordinator proposes new experiments for that crop and develops specific guidelines for running the experiment Representatives from each state decide whether or not their state will participate Utah s representative was Dr. L. Anderson and then T. Lindstrom Participating states then carry out a standardized multisite experiment

Crops of interest: Utah Utah s current participation Apple (5) Peach (2) Sweet cherry (1) Tart cherry (1)

Evaluation criteria Plant survival and vigor under different conditions in multiple environments Productivity yield and fruit size Precocity how soon will it begin to produce Potential incompatibility Graft union failure Root suckering Yield efficiency Fruit per wood Determines potential for high density planting Units = yield per trunk area

Apple Study

Apple Study Planted in 1999 Scion variety Fuji (7) Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Pennsylvania (2), South Carolina, Utah McIntosh (10) Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New York (2), Nova Scotia, Ontario, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Wisconsin

Apple Study Two sets of rootstocks Dwarf Trained to supported Vertical Axis Spacing ~ 10 x 16 (270 trees per acre) 12 rootstocks Semi-dwarf Trained to unsupported Central Leader Spacing ~ 13 x 20 (170 trees per acre) 3 to 9 rootstocks (Utah has 5)

Apple Study Dwarf stocks M.9 T337 M.26 EMLA Supporter 1, 2, and 3 CG.4013, CG.5179, G.202, G.41, G.935, G16N, G16T Semi-dwarf M.7 EMLA M.26 EMLA G.30N CG.4814, CG.7707

Apple Study: Survival Started with six trees of each Dwarf Rootstock Study M.26 EMLA 1 tree to fireblight M.9 T337 3 trees to fireblight G.16T 2 weak trees, died during establishment CG.3041 1 tree, possible Phytophthora Semi-dwarf Rootstock Study M.26 EMLA 3 trees to fireblight

Dwarf Apple: Tree size all sites 100 80 60 40 20 TRUNK AREA (TCSA) (cm2) 0 CG.4013 M.26EMLA G.202 G.16T CG.179 G.16N G.41 M9.T337 Supporter 3 Supporter 2 Supporter 1

Dwarf Apple: Tree size - Utah 120 100 80 60 40 TRUNK AREA (TCSA (cm2) 20 0 CG.4013 G.202 M.26EMLA Supporter 3 CG.179 G.16T Supporter 2 Supporter 1 G.41 M9.T337 G.16N

Supporter 2 Supporter 1 Supporter 3 M9.T337 Dwarf Apple: Yield Dwarf Apple: Yield 400 300 200 YIELD 01-05 (lbs/tree) 100 0 CG.4013 G.16T CG.179 G.41 G.16N G.202 M.26EMLA

Dwarf Apple: Yield Dwarf Apple: Yield 400 300 200 100 0 National Utah Supporter 2 Supporter 1 Supporter 3 M9.T337 YIELD 01-05 (lbs/tree) CG.4013 G.16T CG.179 G.41 G.16N G.202 M.26EMLA

Dwarf Apple: Yield efficiency. Dwarf Apple: Yield efficiency. 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 Differences were not statistically significant YIELD EFFICIENCY (01-05) (kg/cm 2) G.41 M9.T337 Supporter 1 G.16N G.16T Supporter 3 CG.179 Supporter 2 G.202 CG.4013 M.26EMLA

Dwarf Apple: Yield efficiency Dwarf Apple: Yield efficiency 3.0 UTAH 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 YIELD EFFICIENCY (01-06). 0.0 G.202 G.16N M9.T337 G.16T G.41 Supporter 1 CG.179 Supporter 3 M.26EMLA Supporter 2 CG.4013

Dwarf Apple: Fruit size 225 UTAH M9.T337 220 CG.4013 FRUIT SIZE (g) 215 210 205 G.202 M.26EMLA Supporter 3 G.16T Supporter 2 Supporter 1 G.41 G.16N 200 CG.179 195 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 YIELD EFFICIENCY (kg/cm 2 )

M.26EMLA Supporter 2 G.16N Dwarf Apple: Suckering Dwarf Apple: Suckering All Sites 5 4 3 2 1 0 SUCKERING (#/year/tree) G.202 CG.4013 CG.179 M9.T337 Supporter 1 G.16T G.41 Supporter 3

Supporter 2 M.26EMLA Dwarf Apple: Suckering Dwarf Apple: Suckering 14 Utah 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 G.202 CG.179 CG.4013 Supporter 1 M9.T337 G.41 G.16T G.16N Supporter 3 SUCKERING (#/year/tree)

Dwarf Apple: Summary For Utah, G.16, M.9 T337 and G.41 were the smallest trees, followed by the Supporter series. M.9 T337 and G.16 had the highest yield efficiency. M.9 T337 had the largest fruit size. Why consider others?

2001 Peach study

2001 Peach study Scion variety: Redhaven, Cresthaven, or Redtop depending on location Locations: Redhaven: Indiana, Missouri, New Jersey, Ontario, Utah Cresthaven: Colorado, Texas, Washington Redtop: California, Georgia, Maryland, South Carolina

2001 Peach study: 14 Rootstocks Peach seedling: Bailey Lovell Guardian BY520-9 (Selection SC-17) Clonal: BH-4 Cadaman Cornerstone (SLAP) Controller 5 (K146-43) Controller 9 (P30-135) Hiawatha Jaspi Julior K146-44 Krymsk 1 (VVA-1) Pumiselect

2001 Peach study: layout Plant spacing 16 x 20 (135 trees per acre) Training Open vase Water sprouts removed during both summer and winter pruning 50% of fruiting wood removed each year Thinning Through 2005: 4 to 6 fruit spacing 2006: 1 to 2 fruits per branch

Krymsk 1 2001 Peach study: Survival 2001 Peach study: Survival ALL LOCATIONS 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 SURVIVAL (%) Lovell Controller 5 P30-135 k146-44 SC-17 Bailey BH-4 Julior Cadaman Jaspi Pumiselect Hiawatha Cornerstone

2001 Peach study: Survival 2001 Peach study: Survival 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Utah Comparison Lovell Controller 5 Controller 9 K146-44 Bailey SC-17 BH-4 Cadaman Julior Jaspi Hiawatha Pumiselect Cornerstone Krymsk1 SURVIVAL (%)

Krymsk1 Jaspi 2001 Peach study: Tree size 2001 Peach study: Tree size 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 TRUNK CIRCUMFERENCE (cm) Cadaman Lovell SC-17 Cornerstone BH-4 Hiawatha Julior Pumiselect Bailey Controller 9 k146-44 Controller 5

Krymsk1 Jaspi 2001 Peach study: Tree size 2001 Peach study: Tree size 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 TRUNK CIRCUMFERENCE (cm) Cadaman Lovell SC-17 Cornerstone BH-4 Hiawatha Julior Pumiselect Bailey Controller 9 k146-44 Controller 5

k146-44 Krymsk1 Jaspi 2001 Peach study: Yield 2001 Peach study: Yield 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 CUMULATIVE YIELD 03-05 (kg/tree) 10 0 Cadaman SC-17 Lovell BH-4 Bailey Cornerstone Hiawatha Julior Controller 9 Pumiselect Controller 5

2001 Peach study: Yield efficiency 2001 Peach study: Yield efficiency 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 YIELD EFFICIENCY 03-05 (kg/cm2) 0.2 0 Bailey SC-17 Lovell Cadaman BH-4 Controller 5 Controller 9 Cornerstone Hiawatha Julior Jaspi K146-44 Pumiselect Krymsk1

2001 Peach study: Yield efficiency 2001 Peach study: Yield efficiency 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 YIELD EFFICIENCY 03-05 (kg/cm2) 0.2 0 Bailey SC-17 Lovell Cadaman BH-4 Controller 5 Controller 9 Cornerstone Hiawatha Julior Jaspi K146-44 Pumiselect Krymsk1

Krymsk1 2001 Peach study: Fruit Size 2001 Peach study: Fruit Size 250 200 150 100 50 0 Cornerstone Bailey Cadaman BH-4 Controller 9 Julior SC-17 Jaspi Lovell Hiawatha K146-44 Controller 5 Pumiselect FRUIT SIZE (g)

2001 Peach study: Fruit Size 220 UTAH 210 Cadaman FRUIT WEIGHT (g) 200 190 180 170 160 SC-17 Lovell Controller 5 Bailey 150 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 YIELD EFFICIENCY (kg/cm2)

Peach study - Summary Highest yield efficiency found in Bailey, followed by SC-17, Lovell, Cadaman and Cornerstone Bailey tree size is 20% smaller than Lovell, had good survival rate, large fruit size. SC-17 and Cornerstone tree size is the same as Lovell. SC-17 had good survival rates at all locations and large fruit size. Survival rates of Cornerstone were good at Kaysville, but below average elsewhere.

Peach study - Summary Cadaman tree size is 10% larger than Lovell, with good survival rates. Controller 5, Jaspi, K146-44 and Krymsk1 were 30 to 50% smaller than Lovell. Of these, Controller 5 had the highest yield efficiency, but the smallest fruit size. Survival at Kaysville was below average (75%) Krymsk1 had the lowest survival rate. Cadaman may be more tolerant of alkaline soils. Trial at Goshen site to be planted in 07.

Cherry Study: Montmorency

Cherry Study: Montmorency Locations Michigan, Traverse City New York, Geneva Ontario, Vineland Pennsylvania, Biglerville Wisconsin, Sturgeon Bay Utah, Kaysville

Montmorency Cherry Study 11 rootstocks at all sites (13 in Utah) Mahaleb Gisela: Gisela 5, Gisela 6, Gisela 7 Edabriz GI.195.20, GI. 209.1 Weiroot: W.10, W.13, W.53, W.72, W.158 P.50 8 replicate trees of each rootstock 10 x 15 (290 trees/acre)

Cherry study Survival Tree size Yield Yield efficiency Fruit size Suckers

GI.195.20 W.53 P.50 GI.209.1 Cherry Study: Survival Cherry Study: Survival 100 80 60 40 SURVIVAL (%) 20 0 Edabriz Gisela 5 Gisela 6 Gisela 7 Mahaleb W.10 W.13 W.158 W.72

Gisela 5 GI.209.1 Gisela 7 W.72 Cherry Study: Tree size Cherry Study: Tree size 150 125 100 75 TRUNK AREA (cm2) 50 25 0 W.10 Mahaleb W.13 P.50 W.158 Gisela 6 GI.195.20 Edabriz W.53

P.50 W.53 Gisela 5 GI.209.1 Gisela 7 W.158 Cherry Study: Yield Cherry Study: Yield 60 50 40 30 20 10 AVERAGE YIELD '03-'06 (lbs/tree) 0 Mahaleb W.10 W.13 Gisela 6 Edabriz W.72 GI.195.20

P.50 Cherry Study: Yield Efficiency Cherry Study: Yield Efficiency 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 YIELD EFFICIENCY (kg/cm2) 0 W.53 Gisela 5 W.72 Gisela 7 Edabriz GI.209.1 GI.195.20 Gisela 6 Mahaleb W.13 W.10 W.158

Gisela 5 Gisela 6 P.50 GI.195.20 Cherry Study: Suckers Cherry Study: Suckers 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 W.72 W.13 Gisela 7 W.10 Mahaleb W.158 GI.209.1 Edabriz W.53 SUCKERS (#/tree/year)

Montmorency Cherry Study 1.8 1.6 1.4 Gisela 5 Gisela W.72 7 Edabriz GI.209.1 GI.195.20 YIELD EFFICIENCY (kg/cm 2 ) 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 W.53 Gisela 6 W.158 W.13 Mahaleb W.10 0.4 0.2 0.0 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 P.50 TREE SIZE (TCSA) (cm 2 )

Cherry study - Summary Mahaleb has the largest tree size and the highest yields. Only the most dwarfing stocks had significantly higher yield efficiency than Mahaleb. How do you harvest high density tarts?

Where do we go next? Rootstock trials represent a long-term research investment Is Kaysville representative of Utah orchards? If not Kaysville then where? Apple rootstocks in Santaquin Peach rootstocks in Goshen 2009 Apple rootstock planting

Announcements Utah Berry Growers Meeting February 6 Bridgerland Applied Technology Center Brigham City Campus 1:00 pm to 5:00 pm http:www.utahhort.org is the Association website, where many of the talks will be posted within a few weeks.