Bulletin UASVM Horticulture, 66(1)/2009 Print ISSN 1843-5254; Electronic ISSN 1843-5394 Effect of Rootstocks on Growth and Yield of Carmen Sweet Cherry Károly HROTKÓ, Layos MAGYAR, Márta GYEVIKI Faculty of Horticultural Science, Corvinus University of Budapest, Villányi Str. 29-43. H-1118, Budapest, Hungary; karoly.hrotko@uni-corvinus.hu Abstract. Rootstock evaluation for sweet cherry is still important, especially for new cultivars, since there are specific reactions known in productivity. Carmen is a new promising Hungarian sweet cherry cultivar of moderate vigor so there is a need of information on growth and yielding performance on different rootstocks. In 2001 rootstock trial was planted with Carmen in high density conditions: spacing is 4x2 m and the trees are trained to Hungarian spindle. The following rootstocks are tested: Prunus mahaleb seedlings CEMA (C500), clonal P. mahaleb SL 64, Bogdány, Egervár, Magyar; interspecific hybrids: Colt, Brokgrow (MaxMa 97), P. cerasus CAB 11E. The orchard is planted on light sandy soil, lime content is around 2.5 %, ph 7.7 and the soil compactness index (K A ) is 24. The climate is typical to the central Hungarian flatland, yearly average temperature is 11.3 C, total sunshine is 2079 hours in a year, and rainfall is 560 mm/year. The trial is planted in randomized blocks; one plot consists of three trees, repeated four times. Based on the results the rootstocks significantly affected the tree growth, the cumulative yield and the single fruit weight. Largest trees are grown on Prunus mahaleb seedling CEMA (C500), followed by Egervár, Bogdány, and SL 64. Trees are moderate vigorous on Magyar, CAB 11E, Colt and Korponay. Smallest tree size was measured on Brokgrow (MxM 97). Best producing trees are on moderate vigorous Magyar and CAB 11E but the productivity of vigorous Egervár and CEMA was close to them. Keywords: clonal rootstock, fruit weight, Prunus mahaleb L., Prunus cerasus L., rootstock vigor, seedling rootstock, yield efficiency INTRODUCTION During the last two decades rootstock evaluation for sweet cherry (Prunus avium L.) became an important issue, as more new rootstocks and cultivars appeared. As result of the Hungarian sweet cherry breeding program Carmen seems to be a new promising sweet cherry cultivar of moderate vigor (Apostol 2005) so there is a need of information on its growth and yielding performance on different rootstocks. More series of rootstocks appeared on the market, but some of them do not fit to the poor site conditions. In Hungary sweet cherry growing is located mainly on sites, which need special rootstock selection: light sandy soils, calcareous soils, dry and hot summer and low precipitation. In such conditions Prunus mahaleb L. is the usually recommended rootstock. Some Prunus cerasus L. and P. mahaleb hybrids (MaxMa series, Westwood 1978) also proved to be adaptable to those conditions (Hrotkó et al. 1999). Besides the commercially used seedling (CEMA, C 500, Nyujtó 1987) some clonal mahalebs are selected in Hungary (Hrotkó 2004). Their selection was carried out by their growth characteristics and nursery value. Evaluation of clonal mahalebs is under process (Hrotkó et al. 2009), from among them Bogdány proved to be vigorous, but moderate precocious and productive rootstock for Vera and Axel cultivars. Our paper presents the results of rootstock evaluation with Carmen. 143
MATERIALS AND METHODS In 2001 rootstock trial was planted with Carmen in high density conditions. Spacing is 4x2 m (1250 trees ha -1 ). The following rootstocks are tested: Prunus mahaleb seedlings CEMA (C500) commercially used in Hungary as control, Korponay seedling (less vigorous, Hrotkó 1990), clonal P. mahaleb SL 64 (Thomas and Sarger 1965), Bogdány, Egervár, Magyar, selected in Hungary (Hrotkó 2004); interspecific hybrids: Colt (Webster 1980), Brokgrow (MaxMa 97, Westwood 1978), P. cerasus CAB 11E (Faccioli et al. 1981). Carmen is a Hungarian bred sweet cherry cultivar [1.], ripening time is in the third cherry week, early June in Hungary. Fruit is large and the tree vigour is moderate. The orchard is planted on light sandy soil, lime content is around 2.5 %, soil organic matter is low (0.8 0.9 %), ph 7.7 and the soil compactness index (K A ) is 24. The climate is typical to the central Hungarian flatland, yearly average temperature is 11.3 C, total sunshine is 2079 hours in a year, rainfall is 560 mm year -1. The trial is planted in randomized blocks; one plot consists of three trees, repeated four times. Trees were planted in spring 2001, headed and trained to Hungarian spindle (Hrotkó et al 2007). During winter 2003/04 a severe frost damaged the buds on the central leader, which delayed the tree training. Trees turned to bearing in 2006, and after they reached the final height (4,5-5 m) in summer 2008, they were headed at 3,5-4 m. Every year the tree size (trunk circumference at 60 cm height, canopy width and length, as well as canopy height) is measured, from the data trunk cross sectional area (cm²), canopy area projected to the ground (m²) and canopy volume (m³) is calculated. Crop is harvested by trees and measured (kg). From each tree 50 fruits is randomly collected, single fruit weight and from the fruit juice soluble solid content (Brix ) is measured. Cumulative yield efficiency is calculated summing up the yearly crop, on basis of current trunk cross sectional area (kg cm² -1 ), current canopy area (kg m² -1 ) and current canopy volume (kg m³ -1 ). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Sweet cherry trees on various rootstocks grew differently (Fig 1.), from the year 2005 their growth vigor expressed in trunk cross sectional area showed significant differences. When analyzing the trunk thickness data from 2008, significant differences are found in the trunk cross sectional area (TCSA) of trees on different rootstocks (Table 1). Rootstocks of Carmen trees could be divided into two groups by TCSA. The following rootstocks did not produce significantly different trunk thickness compared to the most vigorous mahaleb seedling CEMA: Egervár, Bogdány and SL 64. These rootstocks we consider as vigorous rootstocks. This performance of rootstocks is in correspondence to results of Nyujtó (1987), De Salvador et al (2005), Bujdosó and Hrotkó (2007), Hrotkó et al (2009), however the vigor of clonal mahaleb Egervár is a new information. The TCSA of trees of other rootstock group did not differ from Brokgrow: Magyar, CAB 11E, Colt, and Korponay. These are considered as moderate vigorous rootstocks, in correspondence to Webster 1980, Sansavini and Lugli (1996), Hilsendegen (2005), Stehr (2005),De Salvador et al (2005), Godini et al 2008, Usenik et al (2008), however the vigor of clonal mahaleb Magyar is a new information. 144
cm 2 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 Bogdány Brokgrow CAB 11E CEMA Colt Egervár Korponay Magyar SL 64 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Fig 1. Growth of trunk cross sectional area of Carmen trees on different rootstocks Still significant but less differences are between the trees on different rootstocks considering the canopy size (CA=canopy area and CV= canopy volume). Since the spacing and the applied pruning restrict the spreading of the canopy, the canopy sizes are a limited characteristics in such a high density orchard. Canopy size is more or less in correspondence with TCSA, exceptions are rootstocks Magyar and CAB 11E, which produced more spreading canopy (Tab. 1). Tab. 1 Growth of Carmen sweet cherry in 2008 on different rootstocks Rootstock TCSA cm² Canopy area m² Canopy volume m³ CEMA 130.73 d 6.33 b 12.63 b Egervár 120.60 cd 5.45 b 10.73 b Bogdány 107.12 bcd 5.79 b 12.34 b SL 64 102.82 bcd 4.96 ab 9.64 ab Magyar 90.72 abc 5.90 b 11.58 b CAB 11E 77.15 ab 5.15 ab 10.21 b Colt 76.85 ab 5.38 b 9.83 b Korponay 75.55 ab 4.84 ab 8.54 ab Brokgrow 57.40 a 3.42 a 5.93 a Means are separated by Duncan s Multiple Range test at P<0.05 The trees turned to bearing in 2006, because of the delay caused by bud frost damage in 2004; cumulative yields (CY) and data on yield efficiency see in Tab. 2. There are significant differences between the trees on different rootstocks. Highest CY is produced by trees on CEMA mahaleb seedling followed by Magyar clonal mahaleb. Lowest yield is harvested from trees on Brokgrow; trees on other rootstocks produced CY in between the two groups without any considerable differences (Table 2). Largest yield efficiency is calculated by TCSA basis on CAB 11E rootstock, followed by Magyar clonal mahaleb. By both canopy area and canopy volume basis highest yield efficiency was found on Magyar rootstock. This confirms the positive effect of rootstocks CAB 11E (Sansavini and Lugli 1996, Stehr 2005, De Salvador et al 2005, Quarteri et al 2008, Usenik et al 2008), which similarly affects on productivity of Carmen too. Our clonal mahaleb Magyar proved to be similarly productive to CAB 11E, especially when efficiency is calculated on canopy area (CA) or canopy volume 145
(CV) basis (Fig 2.). In contrary to results with Vera and Axel cultivars (Hrotkó et al 2009), the efficiency of Carmen trees on Bogdány rootstock is rather low. This confirms the opinion that cherry rootstocks considering the productivity do not perform uniformly with all cultivars (Hrotkó 2008), and emphasize the importance of testing the different rootstock/scion combinations. Tab. 2 Cumulative yield and yield efficiency of Carmen sweet cherry on different rootstocks (2009) Rootstock Cumulative yield Yield efficiency kg tree 1 kg / TCSA cm² kg/ CA m² kg/ CV m³ CEMA 24.91 b 0.19 a 3.93 ab 2.00 ab Egervár 21.39 ab 0.18 a 3.87 ab 1.97 ab Bogdány 15.85 ab 0.14 a 2.58 a 1.21 a SL 64 15.78 ab 0.15 a 3.06 ab 1.61 ab Magyar 24.47 b 0.27 bc 4.67 b 2.36 b CAB 11E 21.62 ab 0.28 c 4.29 ab 2.18 ab Colt 13.87 ab 0.18 a 2.58 a 1.43 ab Korponay 13.52 ab 0.18 a 2.80 ab 1.60 ab Brokgrow 12.33 a 0.21 ab 3.23 ab 1.92 ab Means are separated by Duncan s Multiple Range test at P<0.05 It is worth to mention that the productivity of vigorous mahaleb seedling CEMA and clonal mahaleb Egervár was close to the best producer Magyar, which confirms that both mahaleb seedlings and clonal rootstocks may positively influence the yield-starting and orchard productivity of sweet cherry in high density conditions (Hrotkó 2009). Yield efficiency of rootstocks Brokgrow and mahaleb seedling Korponay was high when calculated on TCSA basis, but on CA and CV basis did not reach the level of control CEMA seedlings. Tab. 3 Single fruit weight and soluble solid content (Brix ) of Carmen on rootstocks Rootstock Single fruit weight, g 2007 2009 Brix (2009) % Bogdány 14.3 c 9.0 c 16.32 abc Brokgrow 12.0 a 6.9 a 15.17 ab CAB 11E 12.8 ab 9.3 cd 14.57 a CEMA 12.7 ab 10.1 d 16.62 abc Colt 13.0 abc 8.8 bc 17.17 bc Egervár 12.6 ab 9.5 cd 17.24 c Korponay 13.9 bc 7.9 ab 16.10 abc Magyar 13.2 abc 9.5 cd 15.78 abc SL 64 13.4 bc 9.1 cd 16.87 bc Means are separated by Duncan s Multiple Range test at P<0.05 Single fruit weight varied between 6.9 g and 14.3 g, which confirms data of Apostol (2005). Fruit weight is considerable affected by rootstocks. Largest fruit weight in 2007 was produced on Bogdány rootstock, followed by Korponay, SL 64, Magyar and Colt, without significant differences. In 2009 on CEMA rootstock was largest the fruit weight, followed by 146
CAB 11E, Egervár, Magyar and SL 64. This confirms the positive effect of CAB 11E on fruit weight (De Salvador et al. 2005) and the opinion of Hrotkó et al. (2009), that vigorous mahaleb rootstocks produce good fruit size. In both years Brokgrow produced the smallest fruits, which is in correspondence with previous results of Simon et al (2004). % 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Brokgrow Korponay Colt CAB 11E Magyar SL 64 Bogdány Egervár CEMA TCSA CYE by TCSA CYE by CA CYE by CV Fig 2. Comparison of rootstocks by growth vigor (TCSA) and cumulative yield efficiency (CYE) in percentage (control: CEMA = 100%) We conclude that in intensive orchards in dry climate and light sandy soil for Carmen the moderate vigorous Magyar clonal mahaleb could be recommended. REFERENCES 1. Apostol, J. (2005). New Sweet Cherry Varieties and Selections in Hungary. Acta Hort. 667. 59-64. 2. Bujdosó, G. and K. Hrotkó (2007). Performance of three sweet cherry and one sour cherry cultivars on dwarfing rootstocks in Central Hungary. Acta Hort. 732. 329-334. 3. de Salvador, F.R., G. di Tommaso, C. Piccioni and P. Bonofiglio (2005). Performance of New, and Standard Cherry Rootstocks in different Soil and Climatic Conditions. Acta Hort. 732. 191-200. 4. Faccioli, F., G. Interieri, and B. Marangoni (1981). Portinnesti nanizzanti del ciliego: le selezione CAB. Atti. Giorn. Sulle scelte varietali in frutticoltura. 19.12.125-128. 5. Godini, A., Palasciano, M., Camposeo, S. and Pacifico A. (2008). A nine-year study on the performance of twelwe cherry rootstocks under non-irrigated conditions in Apulia (Southern-Italy). Acta Hort. 795. 191-198. 6. Hilsendegen, P. (2005). Preliminary Results of a national German Sweet Cherry Rootstock Trial. Acta Hort. 667. 179-188. 7. Hrotkó, K. (1990). The effect of rootstocks on the growth and yield of Meteor korai sour cherry variety. XXIII. Int. Hort. Congress. Abstr. 2. No. 4165. 8. Hrotkó, K. (2004). Cherry rootstock breeding at the department of Fruit Science, Budapest. Acta Hort. 658. 491-495. 9. Hrotkó, K. (2008). Progress in Cherry Rootstock Research. Acta Hort. 795:171-178. 10. Hrotkó, K. and L. Magyar (2004). Rootstocks for cherries from Department of Fruit Science, Budapest. Inter. J. Hort. Sci. 10: 63-66. 11. Hrotkó, K., L. Magyar and M. Gyeviki (2009). Effect of rootstocks on vigor and productivity in high density cherry orchards. Acta Hort. 825. 245-250. 147
12. Hrotkó, K., L. Magyar and G. Simon (1999). Growth and yield of sweet cherry trees on different rootstocks. Inter. J. Hort. Sci. 5: 98-101. 13. Hrotkó, K., L. Magyar, G. Simon and M. Gyeviki (2007). Development in intensive orchard systems of cherries in Hungary. Int. Journal of Horticultural Science, 13.(3) 79-86. 14. Nyújtó, F. (1987). Az alanykutatás hazai eredményei. Kertgazdaság 19(5). 9-34. 15. Sansavini, S., and S. Lugli (1996). Performance of the sweet cherry cultivar Van on new clonal rootstocks. Acta Hort. 363-371. 16. Simon G., K. Hrotkó and L. Magyar (2004). Fruit quality of sweet cherry cultivars grafted on four different rootstocks. Int. Journal of Hort. Sci. 10.3. 59-62. 17. Stehr, R. (2005). Experiences with dwarfing sweet cherry rootstocks in Northern Germany. Acta Hort. 667:173-177. 18. Thomas, M. and J. Sarger, (1965). Selection de Prunus mahaleb porte greffe du cerisier, Rapport general du Congress Pomologique de Bordeaux, 175-201. 19. Usenik, V., F. Stampar, and N. Fajt (2008). Sweet cherry rootstock testing in Slovenia. Acta Hort. 273-276. 20. Webster, A. D. (1980). Dwarfing rootstocks for plums and cherries. Acta Hort. 114. 201-207. 21. Westwood, M. N. (1978). Mahaleb x Mazzard hybrid cherry stocks. Fruit Var.J. 32-39. 148