Effects of Vegetative and Seedling Pear Rootstocks on Growth Characteristics and Water Potential of Pear Cultivar

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

• Fariborz Alizadeh Zarmehri ¹
• Gholamhossein Davarynejad ¹
• Reza Khorasani ¹
• Seyyed Hossein Nemati ¹
• Peyman Keshavarz ²

¹ Ferdowsi University of Mashhad

² Khorasan Razavi Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center

https://doi.org/10.22067/jhorts4.v31i4.60360

Abstract

Introduction: Pear producers around the world are looking for faster return of capital and saving in labor costs, achieved well by high density orchard planting. Choosing a good combination of scion and rootstock is critical for production of fruit trees because the relationship between the rootstock and scion has a decisive effect on plant water relations, leaf gas exchange, plant size, flowering, fruit production, fruit quality and production efficiency. Nowadays in some regions, growers are using quince rootstock for pear orchard establishment. Using the quince rootstock alleviates many problems in pears orchard, but graft incompatibility between pear scion and the quince rootstock, and resistance to frost and alkaline soils are some problems restricting the use of this rootstock. In most pear-producing regions in Iran, pear seedling is used for pear propagation. Due to the problems of pear including overgrowth and late precocity (after 4 -5 years), this research evaluated the effects of pear clonal rootstock (Pyrodwarf, OHF and Quince c) on some growth characteristics in comparison to pear seedling (Pyrus communis).
Materials and Methods: This research was conducted during 3 years from 2014-2016 in Chenaran (36.6, 59.1) in northeast of Mashhad. Maximum and minimum temperatures were 40 and -22 ˚C, respectively, elevation 1176m and the average annual rainfall 240mm. The same tissue culture rootstocks from two cultivar Pyrodwarf and OHF with Quince rootstock and annual seedling from Dragazi pear were selected in August 2013 and T-budded with three commercial cultivars Spadona, Ntanz and Sebri. In the spring of 2014, after relieving frost danger, the trees were planted in field with row space 4×2m. In order to investigate dwarfing effect of rootstock on scion cultivar, some important vegetative factors that represent dwarfing effect of rootstock including trunk cross sectional area, height of tree, amount of lateral branch growth, tree growth rate during growth season, mean of growing buds on each lateral branch, and stem and leaf water potential were measured. This test was conducted in factorial based on randomized complete block design with 4 replications. Each plot was included one hybrid combination. MSTATC and Excel software were used for data analysis, and differences among means were compared by using LSD test.
Results and Discussion: Different rootstocks did not show any significant difference in terms of leaf water potential. Leaf water potential during the seasons had a constant time course about scion cultivar on all rootstock so while temperatures rise throughout the season it reduced the amount of leaf water potential. The effect of cultivar was significant on leaf water potential so that the highest water potential was related to Natanz and the least water potential was related to Serbi cultivar. The effect of rootstock and scion both on stem water potential was significant. Therefore the highest and lowest stem water potential was recorded for cultivars grafted onto the seedling and quince rootstock, respectively. In this study, a significant relationship was observed between minimum stem water potential (mid-day) and branch growth rate during the growing season. With reducing stem water potential as a result of temperature increase, the amount of branch growth reduced. The effect of both scion and rootstock on chlorophyll index was significant. In this investigation, all 4 rootstocks had different effects on chlorophyll index. The highest chlorophyll index was related to cultivar Natanz and the least was related to Spadona. Sebrie had medium chlorophyll index. Rootstock effect on vegetative growth of the scion was not significant but the effect of scion was significant at 5% level. Pear seedlings with vigorous growth had more long branches than other rootstocks. In the present research, seedling rootstock also induced higher growth of lateral branches. Furthermore, quince rootstock induced the least growth of lateral branch during 3 years of the investigation. In addition, quince rootstock had the minimum tree height and pear seedling had the maximum tree height. Internode length in dwarfing rootstock was less than seedling. Both scion and rootstock had significant effect on trunk sectional area so that at the end of three years, cultivars grafted on seedling rootstock had the highest trunk cross sectional area, and cultivars on quince rootstock had the lowest TCSA. Two vegetative pear rootstocks (Pyrodwarf and OHF) did not show significant difference from each other. Pyrodwarf and OHF rootstock showed good compatibility with Natanz and Spadona scions like seedling rootstock. On the other hand, the survival percentage on quince rootstock was really low.
Conclusion: This investigation showed that pear rootstock had less vegetative growth than seedling rootstock and induced dwarfing effect on scion growth during 3 years but quince rootstock had more dwarfing effect.

Keywords

• Dwarfing effect
• OHF
• Pyrodwarf
• Quince c

20.1001.1.20084730.1396.31.4.11.9

References

1- Atkinson C. J., and Else M. A. 2003. Enhancing harvest index in temperate fruit tree crops through the use of dwarfing rootstocks. p. 118-131. In: International Workshop on Cocoa Breeding for Improved Production Systems. 19-21 Oct. Accra, Ghana.

2- Barritt B.H., Konishi B.S., and Dilley M.A. 1995. Performance of three apple cultivars with 22 dwarfing rootstocks During 8 Seasons in Washington. Fruit Varieties journal, 49:158-170.

3- Basile B., Marsal J., and DeJong T.M. 2003. Daily shoot extension growth of peach trees growing on rootstocks that reduce scion growth to daily dynamics of stem water potential. Tree Physiology, 23:695–704.

4- Berman M.E., and DeJong T.M. 1997. Diurnal patterns of stem extension growth in peach (Prunus persica): temperature and fluctuations in water status determine growth rate. Physiologia Plantarum, 100:361–370.

5- Bosa K., JadczuK-ToBJasz E., and KalaJi M. H. 2016. Photosynthetic productivity of pear trees grown on different rootstocks. Annali di Botanica, 6: 1–7.

6- Brown C.L., Sommer H.E., and Wetzstein H. 1994. Morphological and histological differences in the development of dwarf mutants of sexual and somatic origin in diverse woody taxa. Trees, 9: 61–66.

7- Castro H.R., and Rodriguez R.O. 2002. The behavior of quince selections as pear rootstocks for ‘Abate Fetel’ and ‘Conference’ pear cultivars in the Rio Negro Valley, Argentina. Acta Horticulturae, 596: 363-368.

8- Cohen S., and Naor A. 2002. The effect of three rootstocks on water use, canopy conductance and hydraulic parameters of apple trees and predicting canopy from hydraulic conductances. Plant, Cell and Environment, 25:17–28.

9- Georgio A. 2001. Evaluation of rootstocks for clemantine mandarin in Cyprus. Scientia Horticulturae, 93: 29-38.

10- Haak E., Kviklys D., and lepsis J. 2006. Comparison of cydonia and pyrus rootstock in Estonia, lativa and Lithuania. Sodininkyste Ir Daržininkystė. 25(3):322-326.

11- Heinicke D. R. 1964. The micro-climate of fruit trees. III. The effect of tree size on light penetration and leaf area in Red Delicious apple tree. Proceedings of the American Society for Horticultural Science, 85: 33-41.

12- Higgs K.H., and Jones H.G. 1990. Response of apple rootstocks to irrigation in south-east England. Journal of Horticultural Science, 65(2):129–141.

13- Jacob H.B. 2002. New pear rootstocks from geisenheim, Germany. Acta Horticulturae, 596: 337-344.

14- Kobělus V., Řezniček V., and Salas P. 2007. Cydonia Mill. As a pear rootstock and its effect on the young plant quality of pears in the nursery. Acta Horticulturae, 732: 233-237.

15- Loreti F., and Massai R. 2002. Mipaf targeted project for evaluation of peach rootstock in Italy: results of six years of observation. Acta Horticulturae, 592:117-124.

16- Meland M., Frøynes O., and Kaiser C. 2014. Performance of 'clara frijs' pear on quince rootstocks growing in a cool, mesic Nordic climate. Acta Horticulturae, 1058: 627-631.

17- Morinaga K., and Ikeda F. 1990. The effects of several rootstocks on photosynthesis, distribution of photosynthetic product, and growth of young satsuma mandarin trees. Journal of the Japanese Society for Horticultural Science, 59: 29-34.

18- North N., Kock K., and Booyse B. 2015. Effect of rootstock on ‘Forelle’ pear (Pyrus communis L.) growth and production. South African Journal of Plant and Soil, 32(2): 65–70.

19- Reed R.C., Brady S.R., and Muday G.K. 1998. Inhibition of auxin movement from the shoot into the root inhibits lateral root development in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiology. 118(4):1369–1378.

20- Salas P., Kobělus V., and Řezniček V. 2007. Cydonia Mill. As a pear rootstock and its effect on the young plant quality of pears in the nursery. Acta Horticulturae, 732: 233-237.

21- Scheible W., Lauerer M., Schulze E., Caboche M., and Stitt M. 1997. Accumulation of nitrate in the shoot acts as a signal to regulate shoot-root allocation in tobacco. The Plant Journal, 11:671–691.

22- Seleznyova A., Thorp T., White M., Tustin S., and Costes E. 2003. Application of architectural analysis and amapmod methodology to study dwarfing phenomenon: the branch structure of 'royal gala' apple grafted on dwarfing and non-dwarfing rootstock/interstock combinations. Annals of Botany, 91(6): 665-672.

23- Singh Kamboj J., and Quinlan J.D. 1998. The apple rootstock and its influence on endogenous hormones. Acta Horticulturae, 463: 143-152.

24- Solari L.I., Johnson S., and DeJong T.M. 2006. Relationship of water status to vegetative growth and leaf gas exchange of peach (Prunus persica) trees on different rootstocks. Tree Physiology, 26: 1333–1341.

25- Sotiropoulos T. E. 2006. Performance of the apple cultivar "Golden Delicious" grafted on five rootstocks in Northern Greece. Agronomy and Soil Science, 52: 347-352.

26- Tagliavini M., Bassi D., and Marangoni B. 1993. Growth and mineral nutrition of pear rootstocks in lime soil. Scientia Horticulturae, 54:13–22.

27- Tombesi S., Johnson R.S., Day K.R., and DeJong T.D. 2010. Relationships between xylem vessel characteristics, calculated axial hydraulic conductance and size-controlling capacity of peach rootstocks. Annals of Botany, 105: 327–331.

28- Watson A. E., Seleznyova A.N., Dayatilake G. A., and Stuart T.D. 2012. Rootstocks affect pear (Pyrus communis) tree growth through extent of node neoformation and flowering with key differences to apple. Functional Plant Biology, 39: 493–502.

29- Webster A. D. 1995. Rootstock and interstock effects on deciduous fruit tree vigour, precocity, and yield productivity. New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science, 23: 373-382.

30- Webster A. D. 2004. Vigor mechanisms in dwarfing rootstocks for temperate fruit trees. Acta Horticulturae, 658:29-41.

31- Weibel A., Johnson R.S., and DeJong T.M. 2003. Comparative vegetative growth responses of two peach cultivars grown on size-controlling versus standard rootstocks. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science, 128:463–471.

32- Wertheim S.J. 2002. Rootstocks for European pear. Acta Horticulturae, 596: 299-309

33- Westwood M. N., and Roberts A. N. 2000. The relationship between trunk cross-sectional area and weight of apple trees. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science, 95: 28–3.