The Rootstock and Scion Interaction Effects on Growth and Bearing Characteristics of Young Pear Trees

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

• Mostafa Alizadeh ¹
• Mehrab Yadegari ²
• Gholamhossein Davarynejad ³
• Seyyed Hossein Nemati ³

¹ Department of Agronomy and Medicinal Plants, Faculty of Agriculture, Shahrekord Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrekord, Iran

² Medicinal, Spicy and Aromatic Plants Research Center, Islamic Azad University, Shahrekord Branch, Shahrekord, Iran

³ Department of Horticultural Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22067/jhs.2022.73938.1112

Abstract

Introduction
 Pear (Pyrus communis L.) is one of the major fruit trees in the world which grown in temperate zones. In pear breeding program the bigger fruit size with better quality as well as market acceptability are usually in interest. In fruit trees, the size and yield of fruit are closely depended on cultivar and rootstocks. The variations of nutrient uptake, water use efficiency, photosynthesis performance, and resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses have been reported among different combinations of cultivars and rootstocks. Therefore there is a close relation between cultivar and rootstock with yield and quality of produced fruits. In recent years the semi dwarf clonal rootstocks of pear including OH×F, Pyro and FOX series have received more attention. However the performance of these rootstocks varies depending on scion cultivar, climatic condition, soil type, and planting system.
Materials and Methods
 This experiment was conducted to assay the growth characters and fruit yield of Dargazi and Louise Bonne (Beyrouti) grafted onto PyroDwarf and OH×F69 rootstocks at the Orchard of Astan Quds Razavi, Mashhad, Iran (36°17' N, 59°36' E; altitude. 985 m) during 2018-2019 and 2019-2020. The experiment in both consecutive years was done as a factorial in the base of randomized complete blocks with four replications. The studied cultivars were grafted onto PyroDwarf and OH×F69 rootstocks in late spring 2016. The used water was pit water with 695 µSiemens/cm EC and pH 7.17. Evaluation of plant growth was carried out at the end of the season. The studied traits were included tree height, internode length, vertical and horizontal growth of shoots in the current season, trunk diameter above, below and in the grafting line, leaf area, shoots angel and the number of sucker per tree. These characters were assayed in three trees per each replication. The trunk diameter at the below and above the grafting line was calculated according to trunk circumference that was measured at 10 cm above and below the grafting point. Leaf area in each tree was assayed with area measuring device. Flowering characteristics (start blooming and end of bloom) were determined. Fruit ripening season was also recorded. Yield of trees was assayed by weighting of produced fruits in each tree with a digital scale. The combined analysis of obtain data was conducted by SPSS and differences among means of data were determined by Duncan's multiple ranges test at P≤0.05. The reported data was the mean of two studied years.
Results and Discussion
 The obtained results showed the variation in growth and bearing properties of different combinations of Beyrouti and Dargazi cultivars with PyroDwarf and OH×F69 rootstocks throughout the studied years. The analysis variance showed the significant effect of year, cultivar and rootstock on growth characteristics of pear tree. Also the interaction effects of cultivar and rootstock were significant on tree growth response with exception of internode length. The most studied parameters showed a significant increasing during the two consecutive years. During the studied years the height and width of pear trees were increased up to 10.44 and 14.54%, respectively and the trunk diameter was increased by 10%. According to obtained results the growth of Dargazi cultivar was higher than the Beyrouti cultivar. The effect of OH×F69 rootstock on growth increasing of studied cultivars was prominent than PyroDwarf regards to tree height, shoot length and internode length. However the highest trunk diameter and leaf area density of both cultivars was found in PyroDwarf rootstock. Although the time of blooming and fruit ripening of each cultivar was not influenced by the rootstock but the bearing characters were varied between the Dargazi and Beyrouti cultivars. The highest yield of pear fruit was obtained in Dargazi cultivar and grafting onto PyroDwarf rootstock significantly enhanced the fruit yield in both cultivars.
Conclusion
 The rootstocks have a key role on growth and yield of pear trees as well as their responses to abiotic stress. Rootstocks through influencing the physiological characteristics of grafted scions regulate the quantity and quality of produced fruits. The results of present study showed the variation in growth and bearing properties of different combinations of Beyrouti and Dargazi cultivars with PyroDwarf and OH×F69 rootstocks throughout the studied years. The PyroDwarf rootstock greatly reduced the tree growth and enhanced fruit yield of both Dargazi and Beyrouti cultivars. According to the obtained results the PyroDwarf rootstock is recommended for Dargazi cultivar to reach the highest pear fruit yield under similar environmental condition of present study.
 

Keywords

• Dargazi cultivar
• Flowering
• Fruit set percent
• Grafting combination
• PyroDwarf rootstock

20.1001.1.20084730.1401.36.2.14.3

Main Subjects

• Pomology

جلد36 شماره3

References

1. Abdollahi H., and Mohammadi Gramaroudi M. 2018. Evaluation of growth and bearing of several commercial pear (Pyrus communis) cultivars on semi-dwarfing Pyrodwarf rootstock. Technology of Plant Productions 10: 179-190. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22084/ppt.2017.8023.1458.
2. Abdollahi , Atashkar D., and Ali Zadeh A. 2012. Comparison of the dwarfing effects of two hawthorn and quince rootstocks on several commercial pear cultivars. Iranian Journal of Horticultural Sciences 43: 53-63. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22059/ijhs.2012.24860.
3. Abdollahi , Mohammadi M., Atashkar D., and Alizadeh A. 2018. Comparison of growth and yield of some commercial pear cultivars on two dwarf hawthorn (Crataegus atrosanguinea) and quince rootstocks. Seed and Plant Production Journal 34: 1-21. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22092/sppj.2018.118099.
4. Alonso M., Gomez-Aparisi J., Anson J.N., Espiau M.T., and Carrera M. 2011. Evaluation of the OH × F selections as an alternative to quince rootstocks for pear: Agronomical performance of ‘Conference’ and ‘Doyenné du Comice’. Acta Horticulturae 903: 451-456.
5. Atkinson C.J., and Else M.A. 2003. Enhancing harvest index in temperate fruit tree crops through the use of dwarfing rootstocks. In: International Workshop on Cocoa Breeding for Improved Production Systems. Accra, Ghana. pp. 118-131.
6. Bakshi P., and Singh D.R. 2010. Rootstocks. p. 147-161. In: Sharma R.M., Pandeyand S.N., Pandey V. (eds) The Pear: Production, Post-Harvest Management and Protection. IBDC Publishers, Punjab, India. Publisher: CBS PUBLISHERS AND DISTRIBUTORS PVT LTD.
7. Botelho R., Schneider E., Machado D., Piva R., and Verlindo A. 2012. Quince‘CPP’: New dwarf rootstock for pear trees on organic and high density planting. Revista Brasileira de Fruticultura 34(2): 589-596. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-29452012000200034.
8. Brewer L.R., and Palmer J.W. 2011. Global Pear breeding programs: goals, trends and progress for new cultivars and new rootstocks. Acta Horticaulturae 909: 105-120. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2011.909.10.
9. Campbell J. 2003. Pear rootstoc AGFACTS. The State of New South Wales Agriculture, Australia. ISSN 0725-7759. http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture/horticulture/pomes/pear-rootstock.
10. Du Plooy , Jacobs G., and Cook N.C. 2002. Quantification of bearing habit on the basis of lateral bud growth of seven pear cultivars grown under conditions of inadequate winter chilling in South Africa. Scientia Horticulturae 95: 185-192. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4238(02)00009-2.
11. Elkins R., Bell R., and Einhorn T. 2012. Needs assessment for future US pear rootstock research directions based on the current state of pear production and rootstock research. Journal- American Pomological Society 66: 153-163. https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern/articles/tm70mv99q.
12. Elkins B., Castagnoli S., Embree C., Parra-Quezada R., Robinson T.L., Smith T.J., and Ingels C.A., 2011. Evaluation of potential rootstocks to improve pear tree precocity and productivity. Acta Horticaulturae 909: 183-194. https://doi.org/10.17660/ACTAHORTIC.2011.909.19.
13. Erfani , Abdollahi H., Ebadi A., Fatahi Moghadam M.R., and Arzani K. 2013. Evaluation of fire blight resistance and the related markers in some European and Asian pear cultivars. Seed and Plant Production Journal 29: 659-672. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22092/sppj.2017.110477.
14. Esmaili , Abdollahi H., Bazgir M., and Abdossi V. 2020. Growth and nutrients uptake in commercial pear cultivars on seedling, Pyrodwarf and OH × F69 rootstocks. Seed and Plant 36(4): 403-420. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22092/sppi.2021.123892.
15. Galli , Ancarani S., Serra S., and Musacchi S. 2011. Training systems and rootstocksfor high density planting (HDP) of the cultivar ‘Abbé Fétel’: Developmental trials in Italy. Acta Horticulturae 909: 277-280. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2011.909.30.
16. Iglesias I., and Asin L. 2005. Performance of ‘Conference’ pear on self-rooted trees and several Old Home× Farmingdale, seedling and quince rootstocks in Spain. Acta Horticulturae 671: 485-491. https://doi.org/17660/ActaHortic.2005.671.69.
17. Ikinci , Bolat I., Ercisli I., and Kodad O. 2014. Influence of rootstocks on growth, yield, and fruit quality and leaf mineral element contents of pear cv. ‘Santa Maria’ in semi-arid conditions. Biological Research 47: 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1186/0717-6287-47-71.
18. Iravani , Baninasab B., Ghobadi C., Etemadi N., Ghasemi A.A., and Shams M. 2015. Effect of different rootstocks on vegetative growth and photosynthetic parameters of pear ‘Shahmiveh’ and ‘Natanz’ cultivars. Journal of Crop Production and Processing 5 (16): 53-63 (In Persian). https://doi.org/‎10.1001.1.22518517.1394.5.16.4.5.
19. Karbasi M., and Arzani K. 2018. Scion/rootstock interaction in some European (Pyrus communis) and Asian (Pyrus serotina Rehd.) pear cultivars on vegetatively propagated “Pyrodwarf” rootstock. Seed and Plant Production Journal 34-2(2): 191-205. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22092/sppj.2018.118944.
20. Kviklys D., and Kvikliene N. 2008. Investigations on pear rootstocks at North European climatic conditions. Acta Horticulturae 800: 671-674. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2008.800.90.
21. Lewko , Ścibisz K., and Sadowski A. 2007. Performance of two pear cultivars on six different rootstocks in the nursery. Acta Horticulturae 732: 227-231. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2007.732.32.
22. Machado D., Rufato L., Kretzschmar A.A., Bogo A., Silveira F.N., and Magro M. 2014. Effect of plant densities and cultivars on vegetative and productive variables of European pears in Southern Brazil. Acta Horticulturae 1058: 193-197. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2014.1058.22.
23. Meszaros , Lanar L., Kosina J., and Namestek J. 2019. Aspects influencing the rootstock-scion performance during long term evaluation in pear orchard. Scientia Horticulturae 46: 1-8. https://doi.org/10.17221/55/2017-HORTSCI.
24. North , de Kock K., and Booyse M. 2015. Effect of rootstock on ‘Forelle’ pear (Pyrus communis L.) growth and production. South African Journal of Plant and Soil 32: 65-70. https://doi.org/10.1080/02571862.2014.981881.
25. Pittenger D.R. 2002. California Master Gardener Handbook. University of California Agricultural Publications, California, USA. 702 pp. https://doi.org/1601078579, 9781601078575.
26. Rahmati , Arzani K., Yadollahi A., and Abdollahi H. 2015. Influence of rootstock on vegetative growth and graft incompatibility in some pear (Pyrus spp.) cultivars. Indo-American Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Science 3: 225-232. http://www.iajavs.com/currentissue.php.
27. Robinson T. 2011. High density pear production with Pyrus communis Acta Horticulturae 909: 259-269. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2022.1333.50.
28. Rufato , Machado B.D., Kretzschmar A.A., Bogo A., Luz A.R., and Marcon Filho J.L. 2014. Effect of high plant density on growth and production variables of European pear cultivars and quince rootstock combinations in southern Brazil. Acta Horticulturae 1058: 71-76. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2014.1058.6.
29. Tahzibi Hagh , Abdollahi H., Ghasemi A.A., and Fathi D. 2011. Vegetative and reproductive traits of some Iranian native pear (Pyrus communis L.) cultivars based on DUS descriptor. Seed and Plant Improvement Journal 27-1: 37-55. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22092/spij.2019.119544.
30. Tatari , Ghasemi A., and Rezaei M. 2016. Evaluation of vegetative and reproductive traits of some commercial pear cultivars on quince clonal rootstocks in Isfahan climatic conditions. Seed and Plant Improvement Journal 32: 45-62. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22092/sppj.2017.110578.
31. Zamorskyi V. 2011. Features of anatomic structure of the grafted young apple trees as the factor which forms potential efficiency. Acta Horticulturae 903: 897-902. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2011.903.125.
32. Zohouri , Abdollahi H., Arji I., and Abdossi V. 2020. Variations in growth and photosynthetic parameters of clonal semi-dwarfing and vigorous seedling pear (Pyrus spp.) rootstocks in response to deficit irrigation. Acta Scientiarum Polonorum Hortorum Cultus 19: 105-121. https://doi.org/10.24326/asphc.2020.2.11.