EVLUTION OF CHNDLER CLONE WLNUT TREES ON VRIOUS ROOTSTOCKS INCLUDING ITS OWN ROOTS - 2004 ill Olson, Joe Connell, Jed Walton, and Samuel Metcalf STRCT Reports that own rooted Chandler walnuts (Chandler clone) out preformed grafted trees stimulated the creation of this replicated trial to investigate the performance of Chandler clone trees, Chandler clone grafted to Chandler clone rootstock, Chandler clone grafted to three selections of paradox rootstock and Chandler clone grafted to a vigorous English rootstock. Rootstock trees were planted in March 1999 at the California State University Farm in Chico. Tops were grafted with graft wood collected from mature Chandler clone trees in the spring of 2000. Initial survival, yield and trunk cross sectional area (TCS) data collection began in 2001. Catkin abundance, tree yield, yield efficiency, and TCS data was collected in 2004 and reported. OJECTIVES The objectives of this trial are to validate or refute the following hypothesis: 1. Graft union has a limiting effect on tree growth and productivity. 2. Chandler is a superior English rootstock. 3. Clonal paradox has less variation than paradox seedling rootstocks. 4. Chandler clone trees are superior to Chandler on paradox. PROCEDURES The following six treatments are being evaluated: 1. Chandler clone via tissue culture. 2. Chandler clone via tissue culture grafted to Chandler clone. 3. English (Waterloo) rootstock grafted to Chandler clone. 4. Common paradox rootstock grafted to Chandler clone. 5. Trinta paradox rootstock grafted to Chandler clone. 6. Clonal paradox (PX1), grafted to Chandler clone. Small (3/8 diameter) rootstocks for these six treatments were planted on March 19, 1999 in a randomized block design with six replicates made up of two trees per replicate. Top working (grafting) took place in the spring of 2000. Graft wood was collected from mature Chandler clone trees. Initial tree survival data was collected in 2000. 2004 catkin abundance, tree growth expressed as trunk cross sectional area (TCS), nut quality data, and yield data was collected. Yield efficiency was calculated and is presented as well.
RESULTS Initial tree survival in 2000: Treatment 1 = 100 % Treatment 4 = 58 % Treatment 2 = 100 % Treatment 5 = 75 % Treatment 3 = 92 % Treatment 6 = 100 % In 2003 one tree from treatment five died making the % survival 67%. Presence of crown gall: Treatments four (common paradox) and six (clonal paradox-px1) each had one visible crown gall. Catkin abundance: Using a rating system of: 1 = no catkins; 2 = low number of catkins; 3 = moderate number of catkins; 4 = high catkin abundance and 5 = very high catkin abundance observations were that Chandler clone trees had an average catkin abundance rating of 1.1 while all other treatments averaged between 2.4 and 3.0. The catkin abundance on the Chandler clone tree was significantly less than that of all other treatments. (Graph 1). Graph 1. Catkin bundance 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 1 = None 2 = low 3 = Moderate 4 = High 5 = Very High
Tree growth - Trunk cross sectional area (TCS): Where measurements were taken 36 inches above the ground Chandler clone trees (treatment 1) was significantly larger in TCS than all other treatments and treatments two (Chandler clone grafted to Chandler clone), four (common paradox grafted to Chandler clone) and six (clonal paradox PX1 grafted to Chandler clone) were significantly larger than treatment five ( Trinta paradox grafted to Chandler clone). The Trinta paradox rootstock trees were similar in size to the English rootstock trees grafted to Chandler clone (treatment 3). (Graph 2). Graph 2. Mean TCS (cm2) 400.00 350.00 300.00 250.00 200.00 150.00 100.00 50.00 0.00 C C Treatment Nut quality data: Nut quality data was not available in time to include in this report. Yield: verage yield per tree was the same for all treatments except for treatment five ( Trinta paradox grafted to Chandler clone). Treatment five had significantly less yield than did all other treatments however this was primarily related to smaller tree size. (Graphs 2 & 3).
Graph 3. Mean Yield Per Tree (Lbs) Lbs 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 Treatment level according to Duncan s Multiple Range Test for Mean Separation. Yield Efficiency: Yield efficiency is tree yield divided by TCS. Treatment two (Chandler clone grafted to Chandler clone rootstock) had the highest yield efficiency and this was significantly greater than treatments one (Chandler clone), five (Chandler clone grafted to Trinta paradox rootstock) or six (Chandler clone grafted to clonal paradox PX1). Treatment one (Chandler clone) had the lowest yield efficiency and this was significantly lower than all treatments except treatment five (Chandler clone grafted to Trinta paradox rootstock) (Graph 4). Graph 4. 2004 Yield Efficiency 0.25 0.2 C #'s/tcs 0.15 0.1 0.05 C 0
DISCUSSION The Chandler clone trees are now six years old and although the Chandler clone graft wood was collected from mature trees it is suspected that, by now, the age difference between these two sources of wood has been overcome. The data so far suggest that the presence of a graft union has: 1) positive influence on catkin abundance (Chandler clone trees without a graft union had significantly fewer catkins). 2) negative effect on tree size (Chandler clone trees without a graft union were significantly larger). 3) No effect on tree yield (ll treatments had the same yield). 4) positive effect on yield efficiency. (Chandler clone trees with a graft union had the highest yield efficiency). There is no evidence that Chandler clone rootstock is a superior English rootstock as compared to the English Waterloo rootstock used in this trial in any of the parameters measured. Clonal paradox appears to be similar to the common paradox rootstock in all traits compared except there was much more mortality in the common paradox and Trinta paradox rootstock than with the clonal paradox rootstock. oth the clonal paradox rootstock and common paradox rootstock were superior to the Trinta paradox rootstock in terms of tree size (TCS) and tree yield. There was no tree mortality from Chandler clone trees, Chandler clone trees grafted to Chandler clone rootstock or with Chandler clone trees grafted to the clonal paradox rootstock. Chandler clone trees on common paradox and on the clonal paradox rootstock each had one tree with visible crown gall. ny advantage of having Chandler clone trees is not apparent from this trial unless having fewer catkins and larger trees at a young age is an advantage. There is no yield advantage in these sixth leaf trees. However, a yield advantage could show up as the trees become older and larger. Less tree mortality could be an advantage but a larger trial with many more trees would be necessary to confirm these early results.