EVALUATION OF NEW USDA ADVANCED FIRE BLIGHT-RESISTANT PEAR SELECTIONS

Similar documents
EVALUATION OF THE EFFECT OF AMELANCHIER SP. AND QUINCE ELINE AS ROOTSTOCKS ON 1- TO 2-YEAR-OLD EUROPEAN PEAR TREES

Evaluation of Potential New, Size Controlling Rootstocks for European Pears. Rachel Elkins, U.C. Cooperative Extension, Lake and Mendocino Counties

Tim Smith; Dana Faubion and Dr. William Proebsting,

GROWTH AND PERFORMANCE OF OWN-ROOTED CHANDLER AND VINA COMPARED TO PARADOX ROOTED TREES

Evaluation of new low- and moderate-chill peach cultivars in coastal southern California

Sweet Cherry Rootstock Traits Lynn E. Long, Oregon State University

Postharvest Handling. Ripening. Storage

Training Young Walnut Trees

FRUIT TREES: CARE AND MAINTENANCE ~ WINTER AND SUMMER PRUNING Charles Davis & Kim McCue, UC Master Gardeners

New Cherry Training Systems Show Promise Lynn E. Long, Extension Horticulturist Oregon State University Extension Service/Wasco County

Summary of the 2002 Pacific Northwest of USA Pear Rootstock Trials: Performance of 'd'anjou' and 'Golden Russet Bosc' Pear on Eight Pyrus Rootstocks

Performance of Apple and Pear Cultivars in Northern Mississippi,

UC Agriculture & Natural Resources California Agriculture

FRUIT TREES: CARE AND MAINTENANCE ~ WINTER AND SUMMER PRUNING Charles Davis and Kim McCue, UC Master Gardeners

Apple Rootstock Trials in British Columbia, Canada

East Malling Rootstock Club Policy Group meeting 15th September 2017

AVOCADO INARCH GRAFTING TRIALS WITH ROOT ROT RESISTANT VARIETIES

Hawaii Agriculture Research Center -1- Vegetable Report 2. Hawaii Agriculture Research Center Vegetable Report 2 January 2000

The primary reasons for pruning apple trees are to control

Recommended Resources: The following resources may be useful in teaching this

Keywords: thinning, apples, organic, rope thinner, lime sulphur

CS Walsh, JM Harshman, M Newell, A Wallis, GR Welsh and A Barton-Williams. University of Maryland College Park, MD USA

Using Heading vs. Notching With or Without BA Application to Induce Branching in Non-feathered, First-leaf Apple Trees

Peach Genetics and Breeding for the Future.

Evaluation of Pyrus and Quince Rootstocks for High Density Pear Orchards

Pruning Ornamental and Fruit Trees

One Shields Avenue Madera CA Davis CA USA

Developing and Optimizing Sweet Cherry Training Systems for Efficiency and High Quality Fruit Part 1. Gregory Lang Michigan State University

EVALUATION RESULTS OF FINNISH APPLE ROOTSTOCKS IN LATVIA

A COMPARISON STUDY OF MICRO-PROPAGATED CLONAL WALNUT ROOTSTOCK GROWTH FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS OF MICROBIAL AND HUMECTANT SOIL AMENDMENTS

FIRE BLIGHT INFECTIONS OF SHOOTS (SHOOT BLIGHT) FOR SUSCEPTIBLE APPLE VARIETIES

EVALUATION OF DELAYED-DORMANT COPPER AS A COMPONENT OF A FIRE BLIGHT IPM PROGRAM

A study of the plants produced by different methods of vegetative propagation in mango (cvs. Amrapali and Gopalbhog)

Training and Pruning Almond Trees

ANNUAL REPORT TO NC DWARF APPLE ROOTSTOCK TRIAL SUMMARY FOR THE 2010 SEASON

UPDATE ON CHERRY ROOTSTOCKS

Tree Fruit. Pome Fruits. Fire Blight 1/18/2012. Apples Pears

Pruning Fruit Trees. Vince Urbina Colorado State Forest Service

Tree growth over multiple years

Integration of Tree Spacing, Pruning and Rootstock Selection for Efficient Almond Production

The introduction of dwarfing cherry rootstocks, such as

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Research Service Washington, D.C

FUTURE ORCHARDS Crop Loading. Prepared by: John Wilton and Ross Wilson AGFIRST Nov 2007

Growing Fruits in the Home Garden. Dr. Elena Garcia, PhD

Evaluation of the Fair Oaks Horticulture Center and its Educational Programs

Apple I. Tuesday afternoon 2:00 pm

Field Evaluation of Rootstocks in USDA Program

FRUIT TREES Selection and Site Preparation. Gary Gorremans WSU Lewis County Master Gardener

Modern Apple Training Systems. Terence L. Robinson Dept. of Horticultural Sciences, Cornell University Geneva, NY 14456

Chemical Blossom Thinning of Peaches and Nectarines 1997 CTFA Report

Rootstocks. Rootstocks for intensive pear production. Pear (Pyrus) rootstocks. OHF series

Comparison of Rootstocks Geneva 16, M9 and CG11 under organic cultivation at the LVWO Weinsberg B. Pfeiffer 1

2009 NC-140 Peach Rootstock Trial in Massachusetts

Project Leaders Curt R. Rom University of Arkansas Dept of Horticulture 316 PTSC, Fayetteville AR

Update on new cherry rootstock possibilities from Michigan State Univ. Amy Iezzoni Department of Horticulture Michigan State University

Unit D: Fruit and Vegetable Crop Production. Lesson 4: Growing and Maintaining Tree Fruits

The Italian Plum Rootstock Trial: Results for Sicilian Environmental Conditions

Wave of the Future: Espalier for Production and Pest Management

EVALUATION OF ROOTSTOCKS FOR PISTACHIO PRODUCTION

Potassium Applications and Yellow Shoulder Disorder of Tomatoes in High Tunnels

High Tunnel Tomato Production Horticulture and Armstrong Farms 2007

DORMANCY, CHILL ACCUMULATION, REST-BREAKING AND FREEZE DAMAGE what are the risks?

VENTURA COUNTY AVOCADO ROOT ROT RESISTANCE PLOT

California Avocado Society 1955 Yearbook 39: PHOSPHATE RESPONSE IN AVOCADO TREES

Walnut Marketing Board Final Project Report December Project Title: Irrigation Management and the Incidence of Kernel Mold in Walnut

Can You Reduce Tree Height of Super Spindle Apple Trees with Pruning? Naphthalene Acetic Acid May Help

Evaluation of grafting for the mature green tomato production system

Growing Pears in Virginia

Backyard Tree Fruit. Chuck Hoysa Retired Extension Agent Fruit Tree Hobbiest

NOTICE TO FRUIT GROWERS AND NURSERYMEN RELATIVE TO THE NAMING AND RELEASE OF THE US-942 CITRUS ROOTSTOCK

3. M9 NIC29 A virus-free Belgian subclone of M9 that is slightly more vigorous than most others M9 clones.

California Cling Peach Board ANNUAL REPORT-2010 IMPROVED ROOTSTOCKS FOR PEACH AND NECTARINE. Ted DeJong, Professor, University of California, Davis.

FIRST YEAR RECOVERY FOLLOWING A SIMULATED DROUGHT IN WALNUT. D. A. Goldhamer, R. Beede, S. Sibbett, D. Ramos, D. Katayama, S. Fusi, and R.

Tree Fruit for the Home Gardener

High Tunnel Bramble Production

The Effects of Precooling Temperatures and Durations on Forcing of Lilium longiflorum, Nellie White

Steps in the Solution of Avocado Problems

Irrigation Management in Walnut. Allan Fulton, Farm Advisor UC Cooperative Extension Tehama, Glenn, Colusa, and Shasta Counties

Increasing the growth rate by any means decreases the juvenile period

Project Title: Cold hardy quince: Propagation, rapid multiplication and field trials. PI: Todd Einhorn Co-PI: Barbara Reed

Getting fruit trees off to a good start. Bill Shane Tree Fruit Extension Specialist SW Michigan Research and Extension Center, Benton Harbor, MI

Apple Rootstocks. John Cline, University of Guelph, Horticultural Experiment Station, Simcoe

Training and Pruning Florida Peaches, Nectarines, and Plums 1

Home Orchard Care for Master Gardeners. Jeff Schalau Associate Agent, ANR University of Arizona Cooperative Extension, Yavapai County

Training and Pruning Florida Peaches, Nectarines, and Plums 1

Louise Ferguson, Extension Pomologist, University of California, Davis at Kearney Agricultural Center

Training and Pruning Florida Peaches, Nectarines, and Plums 1

Wave of the Future: Espalier for Harvest and Pest Management

Deciduous Fruit Trees Fall & Winter Care

43 Hoop House. Great Lakes Fruit, Vegetable & Farm Market EXPO Michigan Greenhouse Growers EXPO. December 4-6, 2018

Recommended Resources: The following resources may be useful in teaching this

Effect of Nitrogen and Potassium on Growth and Development of Curcuma alismatifolia Gagnep.

Selecting Fruit Trees for Alameda

Critical Weed Control Requirements in High Density Apple Orchards

Rootstock and Interstem Effects on Pome Fruit Trees

walnuts on system and

A Sunny Disposition: Managing Light in Orchard Systems. Tom Kon Southeastern Apple Research Specialist

Breeding New Pears for the Modern Consumer

EVALUATION OF CHANDLER CLONE WALNUT TREES ON VARIOUS ROOTSTOCKS INCLUDING ITS OWN ROOTS

Prevention of Disease in Home Apple Trees

Transcription:

EVALUATION OF NEW USDA ADVANCED FIRE BLIGHT-RESISTANT PEAR SELECTIONS Rachel Elkins, U.C. Cooperative Extension, Lake and Mendocino Counties Richard Bell, USDA-ARS, Kearneysville, West Virginia ABSTRACT Bartlett accounted for 81% of California production and 76% of pear acreage in 2013, being used for both fresh and processing (USDA-NASS 2014). All other cultivars comprised 19% of production and 24% of acreage, with Bosc the majority (NASS 2014). Growers and marketing organizations see promise in growing new cultivars for specific markets and customers, and industry is thus supportive of trialing new selections (Boyd 2013). Five new USDA numbered fire blight-resistant selections and one newly-released named cultivar on OHxF 87 rootstock were planted May 2, 2013 in a replicated trial on deep Russian loam soil along the Russian River in Hopland, Mendocino County, California: US 71655-014 ( Gem 1 ), US 69426-038, US 84907-069, US 84907-078, US 84907-166, with Bartlett as the control. Trees were headed to 30 inches with no further pruning except removing growth below the first wire to avoid herbicide damage. There have been no losses except for Gem, which was removed in fall 2014 after being found to be infected with pear vein yellows. Data collected in 2014 included trunk cross sectional area (TCSA), height, and fruit number. Bartlett trees tend to be taller than the numbered selections, but there are significant block differences, possibly due to planting down the row. US 84907-166 was the only selection to flower and bear fruit (average 4 per tree). Number of newly-formed spurs averaged 1-2 per tree but few new laterals formed (1-3 per tree). Data collection will continue in 2015 and results will be compared to those from a similar trial in the Sacramento Delta, as well as from other U.S. locations. INTRODUCTION The number of commercially-available pear cultivars is very few relative to apples (Karst 2013, Schrack 2007). California primarily markets six specific cultivars: Bartlett, Bosc, Buerre Prococe Morettini (aka Sunsprite, Comice, Forelle, and Seckel. There are also a number of red skinned cultivars grouped as Red Pears for marketing purposes, among them, Hailey Red TM Bartlett, Red Sensation Bartlett, and Red Clapp s Favorite (aka Starkrimson, Super Red ) (CPAB 2015). Bartlett accounted for 81% of California production and 76% of the acreage in 2013 being used for both fresh and processing (USDA-NASS 2014). All other cultivars comprised 19% of production and 24% of acreage, with Bosc the majority (NASS 2014). Also in contrast to apple, none of the seven cultivars or cultivar categories is recently developed or released, despite the availability of multiple possibilities, including the USDA fire blight-resistant cultivars Sunrise and Blakes Pride (Bell 2014), fully russeted Bartlett sport Cinnamon from Fowler Nurseries, and fire blight resistant Ag Canada releases AC TM Harrow Sweet and Harovin Sundown. These, as well as

others, have been favorably received in consumer taste tests (Elkins 2006 and 2005, Elkins et al 2008). Sunrise and Cinnamon in particular continue to perform well in local trials (Ingels 2014). Despite the slow pace of industry acceptance, some growers and marketing organizations see promise in growing new cultivars for specific markets and customers, and industry is thus supportive of trialing new selections (Boyd 2013). In this context, five new numbered fire blight-resistant selections and one newly-released named cultivar were planted in a replicated trial on deep Russian loam soil along the Russian River in Hopland, Mendocino County, California. Fire blight resistance is derived from Seckel and eating quality from Bartlett and others. This trial succeeds a previous similar one of five selections planted in Scotts Valley (Lakeport), Lake County in 1995, from which Blakes Pride and Sunrise emerged as potential commerciallyacceptable cultivars. 1 Gem was released by USDA in 2014 and is being propagated for commercial sales in Hood River, Oregon. Unfortunately, trees were discovered to be infected by pear vein yellows, and removed from the Hopland location in November 2014.

PROCEDURES Selections originally included US 71655-014 ( Gem 1 ), US 69426-038, US 84907-069, US 84907-078, US 84907-166, with Bartlett as the control, and OHxF 87 the rootstock (Figure 1). Trees were planted May 2, 2013 in a randomized complete block design (4 single tree replicates) north to south down a portion of one row and headed to 30. No other formal pruning has been done to date except removal of all growth below the first wire to avoid damage by herbicides. Data collected in 2014 included trunk cross sectional area (TCSA), height, and fruit number. 2014 RESULTS AND 2015 PLANS (Table 1) Trees have grown well and there have been no losses except for Gem (see footnote). Bartlett trees tend to be taller than the numbered selections, but there are significant block differences, possibly due to planting down the row. US 84907-166 was the only selection to flower and bear fruit (average 4 per tree). Number of newly-formed spurs averaged 1-2 per tree but few new laterals formed (1-3 per tree). Data collection will continue in 2015. Minimal pruning will consist only of removing crossing, broken, or poorly placed branches. Results will be compared to those from the Sacramento Delta trial overseen by U.C. Cooperative Extension Farm Advisor Chuck Ingels. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank cooperating grower Kurt Ashurst and his field crew (Shadowbrook Farms) and UC field assistants Gustavo Barajas, Lynn Eutenier, Joe Evans, Ryan Keiffer, Alberto Ramos Luz (Visiting Doctoral Student), Sam Metcalf, Makaila Rodrigues, and Carolyn Shaffer for collecting, summarizing, and presenting data. We thank the California Pear Advisory Board for partial funding. REFERENCES Bell, Richard. 2014. USDA Pear Cultivars. 2 pp. http://www.ars.usda.gov/sp2userfiles/person/382/usda%20pear%20cultivars%20- %20BARC%20and%20AFRS.pdf. Boyd, Vickey. 2013. Bartletts are just the beginning. The Packer, July 16, 2013. California Pear Advisory Board. http://www.calpear.com/our-fruit/varietiesavailability.aspx. Accessed January 3, 2015. Elkins, R. 2006 and 2005. Evaluation of alternative varieties for California pear orchards. 2006 and 2005 California Pear Research Reports, California Pear Advisory Board, Sacramento, California, pp. 129-147 (2006); 144-182 (2005).

Elkins, R., J. Turner, C. Seavert, S. Castagnoli, E. Mitcham, W. Biasi, A. Colonna and R. Bell. 2008. Evaluation of potential alternative European pear cultivars for U.S. West Coast pear growers. Acta Hort 800:483-489. Ingels, C., D. Burkhart and R. Elkins. 2007. Varieties. In: Pear Production and Handling Manual. University of California Agriculture & Natural Resources Publication 3483, pp. 25-32. Karst, Tom. 2013. Variety change slow for pears. The Packer, August 27, 2013. Schrack, Dan. 2007. Process slow but steady for new pear varieties. The Packer, July 28, 2007. USDA-NAAS. 2014. Non-citrus Fruits and Nuts 2013 Summary (July 2014). National Agricultural Statistics Service, pp. 62-63.

Table 1. Effect of cultivar selection on number of spurs and feathers, number and size of fruit, tree heights, and cultivar trunk crosssectional area (TCSA) of 2 nd leaf pear trees on OHxF 87 rootstock, Hopland, Mendocino County, California, 2014. No. of Spurs (per tree) No. of Feathers (per tree) Total Clusters No. Fruit Fruit Size Tree Ht. Cultivar TCSA New Old New Old (per tree) (per tree) (g) (cm) (cm 2 ) (3/11) (3/11) (5/6) (6/12 & 8/6) (6/12 & 8/6) (10/21) (10/22) CULTIVAR SELECTIONS 1 US 69426-038 1.7 0.0 2.3 4.0 0.0 0.0 b 0.0 b 136 ab 5.0 ab US 84907-069 1.5 0.0 2.7 3.3 0.0 0.0 b 0.0 b 124 b 2.9 b US 84907-078 1.7 0.0 1.7 4.0 0.0 0.0 b 0.0 b 144 ab 4.8 ab US 84907-166 1.3 0.0 1.0 3.7 3.3 4.3 a 30.5 a 171 a 4.6 ab Bartlett 1.1 0.0 1.0 3.3 0.0 0.0 b 0.0 b 153 ab 6.2 a ANOVA 2 Cultivar Selections (P-value) NS (0.33) ~ NS (0.39) NS (0.83) NS (0.46) * ( 0.05) NS(0.08) NS (0.23) NS (0.13) Block (P-value) NS (0.19) ~ NS (0.12) NS (0.31) NS (0.41) NS (0.41) NS(0.41) * ( 0.05) ** (0.01) 1 Within columns, cultivar treatment means significantly different (Duncan Multiple Range test, P<0.05. P<0.1 for fruit size and tree height.) 2 *, ** Indicate significance at P<0.05 and 0.01 respectively. NS indicates not significant.

MICHIGAN-US 437 US 309 US 84907-069 US 84907-078 US 56112-146 ROI CHARLES DE WURTEMBURG US 84907-166 OPEN-POLLINATED US 65062-040 MICHIGAN-US 437 US446 DOYENNE DU COMICE MICHIGAN-US 437 US 309 US 56112-146 ROI CHARLES DE WURTEMBURG OPEN-POLLINATED US 69426-038 MICHIGAN-US 437 DAWN DOYENNE DU COMICE Figure 1. Pedigrees of advanced USDA fire blight resistant pear selections, planted in Hopland, Mendocino County, California, 2013.