rootstock-scion relationship in fruits

ROOTSTOCK-SCIO RELATIOSHIP

Prepared by: Subash Dahal, Institute of Agriculture and Animal Sciences, Nepal


Subash Dahal

Department of Horticulture

Institute of Agriculture and Animal Science

Rampur, Chitwan, Nepal

April, 2013

TABLE OF COTETS

COTETS Page o.

1. ITRODUCTIO 1

1.1. Types of rootstocks: 2

1.2. Characteristics of good rootstocks 3

1.3. Major effects of rootstock on scion cultivars 3

2. ROOTSTOCKS OF APPLE 4

2.1. Series of Clonal Rootstocks 4

2.2. Effects of Apple Rootstocks on Scion Cultivars 6

3. ROOTSTOCKS OF PEAR 9

3.1. Major effects of pear rootstocks on the scion cultivars 9

4 ROOTSTOCKS OF CITRUS 12

5. COCLUSIO 14

ACKOWLEDGEMET 14

REFERECES


Prepared by: Subash Dahal, Institute of Agriculture and Animal Sciences, Nepal 1

1. ITRODUCTIO

Controlled perpetuation of plants is known as plant propagation. Plant propagation can be broadly

classified in two types: sexual and asexual. In sexual propagation, the fusion of male and female

gametes gives rise to a new plant, whereas in asexual propagation which is also known as vegetative

propagation, the development of new plants takes place without the fusion of male and female

gametes, that is, the new plant develops from vegetative plant parts. Various techniques of asexual

propagation are adopted in plant propagation, such as: grafting, budding, layering, cutting, etc. So far

cutting and layering are concerned; the new plants are developed on their own root system, but in

grafting and budding on the others’ root system. It means that in these two techniques (grafting and

budding), two plant parts are joined to form new plants; the one which forms the root system is

known as rootstock and the one forming the shoot system is known as scion.

Plant propagation is both a science and an art. The science of plant propagation requires knowledge

of plant physiology, nursery cultural practices, and characteristics of the particular plant that you

want to grow. The art of plant propagation cannot be taught in a book or classroom, however,

because it consists of specific technical skills that must be acquired through innate ability or

experience and often requires a certain feel.

The interactions (relationships) between these two plant parts

(rootstock and scion) are of much significance in the commercial

fruit growing industry. According to (Hartmann et al., 2002),

combining two different plants (genotypes) into one plant by

grafting or budding can produce growth patterns that are different

from those that would have occurred if each component part had

been grown separately. Some of these effects are of major

importance in horticulture and, while others are detrimental and

should be avoided. These altered characteristics may result from

(a) specific characteristics of the graft partners not found in the

other, for example, resistant to certain diseases, insects or nematodes – or tolerance to certain adverse

environmental and soil conditions; (b) interactions between the rootstock and the scion that alter size,

growth, productivity, fruit quality or other horticultural attributes; and (c) incompatibility reactions.

In practice, it may be difficult to separate which of the three kinds of influencing factors dominant in

any given graft combination growing in a particular environment. Long-term results depend on the

rootstock scion combination, environment (climate, edaphic factors such as soil), propagation, and



production management; this affects yield, quality and plant form and the economics of production.

Thus, rootstocks provide growers with a useful tool to manipulate the vigor and performance of

orchard trees. Effects on tree size, precocity, fruit production and maturity are achieved through

complex interrelationships between the roots and canopy of the plant. Rootstocks directly affect the

ability of plants to take up water and nutrients. They are also able to significantly alter the pattern of

canopy development and functions such as photosynthesis.

1.1. Types of rootstocks:

Rootstocks are of different types depending on their multiplication methods or raising methods. They

are:

1.1.1. Seedling rootstocks:

Seedling rootstocks are those developed from germinated seeds, have certain advantages. Production

of seedlings is relatively simple and economical and is well adapted to mass propagation methods.

Most seedlings plants do not retain viruses occurring in the parent plants (although some viruses are

seed transmitted). In some instances (e.g. plum rootstocks), the root system developed by seedlings

tends to grow deeper and to be more firmly anchored than rootstocks grown from cuttings. However,

seedling rootstocks have disadvantage of genetic variation, which may lead to variability in the

growth and performance of the scion of the grafted plants. Such variation is most likely to occur if the

seed is obtained from unknown, unselected sources. The seed source plants may be unusually

heterozygous or may have been cross pollinated with related species. Within the same species, some

seed sources produce much better rootstock plants than others. With careful testing, individual plants

in a species could be selected to be a mother tree seed source, or the start of the clonal rootstock.

Variability among seedling rootstocks can be reduced by careful selection of the parental seed source

regarding its identity, and by its protection from cross pollination. Variation can be reduced if all

nursery trees of the same age are dug from the nursery row at one time, and small or obviously off-

type seedlings or budded trees are discarded. In most nurseries, the young trees are graded by size; all

those of the same grade are sold together. The practice of retaining slow growing seedlings or budded

trees for an additional year’s growth is undesirable as it tends to perpetuate variability. Many fruit

orchards, if grown on uniform seedling rootstocks, show no more variability resulting from the

rootstocks used than from unavoidable environmental differences in the orchard, principally soil

variability (Hartmann et al., 2002).



1.1.2. Clonal rootstocks:

Rootstocks, which are propagated vegetatively, are called clonal rootstocks. Each clonal individual

plant is genetically the same as all the other plants in the clone and can be expected to have identical

growth characteristics in a given environment (Hartmann et al., 2002). Propagation by vegetative

means avoids genetic variations resulting in true to type progenies. In carrying out budding and

grafting, two plant parts are required namely rootstock and scion. However, using, clonal rootstocks

in budding and grafting, multifarious effects can be observed/obtained due to interaction of

rootstocks and scion cultivars. Clonal rootstocks can be raised from micro-propagation in apple,

apricot, almonds, chestnuts, cherries etc. Clonal rootstocks are desirable not only to produce

uniformity but equally important to preserve their special characteristics and the specific influences

they have on scion cultivars, such as disease resistance, dwarfing characteristics, growth, or flowering

habit.

1.2. Characteristics of good rootstocks

Once the rootstocks are used and orchard is raised by heavy investment, it is not possible to change

without incurring serious losses (Rajput and Haribabu, 1995). As rootstocks have its effect on many

aspects of plant growth and development, they are generally used to combat market and field

problems like tree life, adverse conditions (soil, disease, and climate), fruit quality, and crop maturity,

yield and so on. For every rootstock to be utilized in propagation, it should possess the following

characteristics:

• Should exhibit a high degree of compatibility with scion cultivars and give maximum

productive life to the trees.

• Should be well adapted to the agro-climatic conditions of the particular locality like frost, cold

and heat.

• Should be resistant to diseases and pests prevalent in the concerned area.

• Should be tolerant to adverse soil conditions like salt and drought.

• Must exhibit favorable and positive influence on the performance, bearing and quality of scion

variety.

• Should possess good nursery characteristics like germination, high degree of polyembryony,

ability to attend graft-able size in a short period and free from excessive branching.

1.3. Major effects of rootstock on scion cultivars

• Stature of the tree (dwarfing, medium, vigorous)

• Fruiting (size, quality, time of maturity of fruit, yield)



• Cold hardiness

• Disease resistance

• Tolerance to adverse soil condition

• Nutrient uptake

These major effects of rootstocks are being exploited in a beneficial manner in the fruit industry.

However, the knowledge of specific rootstock effects on specific scion cultivars is of utmost

importance to get maximum benefits from the enterprises. This study is mainly focused on the effects

of rootstocks on the scion cultivars of major fruit trees which are grown commercially in Nepal. The

main objective of this study is to know about the effects of rootstocks on the scions of commercially

important varieties of major fruits so that they can be exploited to increase production of such fruits.

The study is solely based on the review of relevant available materials.

2. ROOTSTOCKS OF APPLE

All successful apple rootstocks, either seedling or clonal, are of genus Malus, although the apple can

grow and even come into bearing

on pear roots. In early days, French

Crab seedlings (M. sylvestris) were

widely used in the USA as

rootstocks. Some of the Asiatic

species of apples are apomictic and

breed true from seeds even when

pollinated by other species. These

apomictic species have been used as

rootstocks for commercial apple cultivars with the hope that they might be of value in controlling tree

growth, age of fruiting. M. hupehensis, M. toringoides, M. sargenti and M. sikkimensis are apomictic

(Mitra, 1991).

2.1. Series of Clonal Rootstocks:

The clonal apple rootstocks that are used all over the world have traditionally originated in Europe

(PSCAS, 2004).

(Mitra, 1991) enumerated numerous series of clonal rootstocks, namely:

i. Malling (M) series: developed by East Malling Research Station, Malling. These may be;

a. Dwarfing: M 9, M 27, and M 20.

b. Semi dwarfing: M 2, M 7, M 26.

c. Vigorous: M 12, M 25.



d. Most vigorous: M 16.

ii. Malling Merton (MM) series: in 1928, two institutes in England (John Inns Horticultural

Institute, Merton and East Malling Research Station, Malling) had a joint venture to develop

wooly aphid resistant apple rootstocks like MM 106, MM 109 etc.

iii. EMLA series: Developed by East Malling Long Ashton Research Station in England and is

virus free one.

iv. Polish (P) series: Developed in Poland e. g. P 1, P 2, P 16, P 18, and P 22 etc. P 18 have

considerable resistant to collar rot disease but susceptible to fire blight, whereas P 22 has

dwarfing effect on scion variety.

v. Budagovsky (Bud) series: These selections have been developed with the primary objective

of winter hardiness. All of them have been able to withstand the severe Russian winter.

These are developed at the Michurin College of Horticulture. Some of the rootstocks are Bud

9, Bud 67-490 and Bud 57-491.

vi. Ottawa series: These are the outcome of Canadian researchers and are cold hardy, e. g. O 3

and O 8 etc.

vii. MAC series: Developed by Michigan State University, USA. e. g. MAC 9.

viii. Others clonal rootstocks:

a. Alnarp-2 (A 2): Originated in Sweden, well anchored and has a good tree form.

b. Robusta No. 5: Winter hardy and vigorous one.

c. Bemali: Cross rootstocks developed in Sweden. It is dwarfing as M 26 and has

advantage of easy propagation.

d. Pollintz 80 (Pi 80): Cross between paradise and Doucin, highly productive and easily

propagated.

e. Jork 9 (J 9): Developed in Germany, selected from open-pollinated M 9 seedlings.

f. Northern spy: It is resistant to wooly aphid and is traditional rootstocks of many

countries. It is used in breeding programs.

g. Novole: It is a Geneva selection from a set of open-pollinated seedling of Malus

prunifolia from Japan.

h. Vineland series: These are recently developed rootstocks. Vineland-1 (V 1) has

extremely dwarfing characteristics (PSCAS, 2004).

In Nepal, as stated by (Ranjit and Shrestha, 1998) clonal rootstocks such as M, MM and Edi Mayal

are not available in all the horticultural farms and private nurseries. They also reported that most of

the horticultural farms have tried to maintain the collected apple rootstock germplasm of which some



of the important M and MM series have been lost from horticulture farms of Kirtipur. Seedling

rootstocks are the major apple rootstocks used in Nepal. Recommended rootstocks of apple in Nepal

are Crab apple and Malling Series (Shrestha, 1998).

2.2. Effects of Apple Rootstocks on Scion Cultivars

2.2.1. Tree vigor/tree size

As described by (PSCAS, 2004) rootstocks to control tree size have been used in apple production for

over 2,000 years. The built in size controlling mechanism of the rootstocks affords a relatively cheap

and permanent method of controlling trees within a predetermined size (Mitra, 1991). (Ananda, 1993)

gave details about the influence of rootstocks on the scion cultivars according to their vigor

potentiality; seedling and clonal rootstocks of apple are classified as very vigorous (5m height),

vigorous (4m height), semi-dwarf (3m height), dwarf (2m height) and very dwarf (<2m height).

(Ananda, 1993) have also stated that the stomata distribution as an index for predicting the growth

potential of apple rootstock has revealed that it was high in the vigorous rootstocks like M 25, MM

104 and MM 111 and low in the dwarfing cultivars like M 9. In general, the trees are more vigorous

on MM series clones than on M clones. M 7 rootstocks both as inter-stock and rootstock produced

smaller trees with minimum tree volume and scion girth. Fig.1 shows the relative size of apple trees

on different rootstocks. The rootstocks effects varied widely with different cultivars. The greater

suitability of M 9 and M 26 for standard cultivars and of MM 106 and MM 111 for spur type

cultivars was confirmed (Strada and Fidegheli, 1998). Similarly, MM 106 and M 9 interstocks

dwarfed the trees 37, 40 and 40 % respectively. Highest growth was observed on plants on MM 111

rootstocks (Cepoiu and Marval, 1988). In an experiment carried out by (Lockard, 1974) rootstocks

MM 106 and M 9 dwarfed the trees by 37 % and 40 %, respectively.

Fig.1: Approx. relative size of apple trees on different rootstocks. (Source: Hartmann et al., 2002)

M9 M.7, M.26

MM.106 M 4

M 2 MM 111

M5, M9/M16,

M25 MM109

M.27

M1, M16, MM104, Robusta-5, Alnarp-2,

Seedling



Effects of different apple rootstocks on vigor of scion cultivars can further be displayed by following

table in detail.

Table1. Effects of Apple Rootstocks on Scion Vigor

Very

vigorous

Semi vigorous Semi dwarf Dwarf Very dwarf

Alnarp 2 M 2 M 7 M 8 M 27

Antonovka M 4 M 26 M 9 Bud 54-146

Novele MM 106 Bud 9 M 20 Bud 57-491

M 1 MM 111 P 1 P 2 MAC 39

M 13 Bud 54-118 P 16 P 22

MM 111 Bud 57-490 O 3 MAC 9

O 11 P18 Bemali 1-47-1(NCPI)

MAC 4 O 1 Northern Spy KSC 26

MAC 24 O 2 KSC 28 OAR I

MAC 5 Anis MAC-1

Robusta 5 KSC 11 J 9

(Source: Mitra et al., 1991)

Westwood (1988) reported that M 27 is half the size of trees on M 9 and dwarfing stocks M 27, M 9,

M 26, M 27 needs staking or trellis wire support particularly in early years. Their poor anchorage was

due to brittle nature of roots rather than being shallow rooted. The height and spread of Empire apple

on M 26, M 9/M 106, M 9/MM 111, M 27/MM 106 and M 27/MM 111 were similar and greater than

those on M 9 or M 27. One important benefit of using dwarfing rootstock is its utilization in high

density planting (HDP).

(Om and Pathak, 1983) found that cultivars on Crab C also attained larger plant volume than on M 2

and MM 793. Red Delicious Jonathan and Rymer when grafted on M 13 attend maximum girth,

highest plant height, larger spread and higher plant volume. (Chandal and Chauhan, 1992) reported

that Starking Delicious on MM 111 rootstock had higher stomata resistance and maximum

transpiration rate whereas the minimum stomata resistance and maximum transpiration rate was

recorded on M 25 rootstocks. Similarly, the trees on Bud 490 were larger than on Ottawa 8 and

smaller than on Ottawa 11 but were less efficient than those on Ottawa 8 and on other dwarfing

rootstocks like M 8, M 9, M 26, and Ottawa 3 (Mitra, 1991).



In the context of Nepal the study carried out with M series, rootstocks in Mustang revealed that M 26

included most dwarfing, highest yield and lowest wooly aphid infestation on Royal Delicious group

of apple. (Gautam and Dhakal, 1994) have also mentioned that M 1, M 2, M 3, M 4, M 7, M 9, M 26,

M 27, M 104, MM 106, MM 111 are dwarfing rootstock.

2.2.2. Precocity and flowering

If the tree can be dwarfed by artificial means of an rootstock, the size of the trees can be controlled

and they can be forced to be early, producing better crops (Kanwar, 1995) M. robusta and M. rajek

induced greatest fruiting precocity with 80 % of the tree bearing fruits in the year after grafting.

Flowering of the seedlings was hastened on M 9 and retarded on M 16 rootstock, irrespective of the

influence of rootstock or interstock growth. Even the very unprecocious Northern Spy begins

flowering by the fourth year on M9, when properly trained (Mitra et al., 1991). Visser (1973)

reported that M. sikkimminsis and M. hypenhensis seedlings used as rootstock reduced growth and

retard flowering. One of the most striking attributes of M 9 is its capacity to induce early fruiting

(precocity) in scion cultivars (Mitra et al., 1991).

Table- 2: Effect of Apple Rootstocks on Fruit Bearing Age (Source: Parker, 1993).

ROOTSTOCKS FRUIT BEARIG AGE (Yrs.)

Seedling 6-10

MM 111 4-6

MM 106 3-4

M 7a 3-4

M 26 2-4

MARK 2-3

M 9 2-3

The spur characteristics of Starkspur Supreme were measured on nine rootstocks: M 7 EMLA, M 9

EMLA, M 26 EMLA, M 27 EMLA, M 9, MAC 9, MAC 29, and OAR 1 and Ottawa 3. Spur leaf

number and spur leaf area were both high with vigorous rootstocks, whereas, spur density was low.

The rootstocks MAC 9 and M 9 EMLA had the highest yield efficiencies (Warrington et. al., 1990).

According to Denby (1982), Harold Red Delicious, Golden Delicious, Spartan, McIntosh, Tydeman’s

Red and Quinte apples were compared over a 12 year period on M 9, M 26 and M 7 rootstocks on

variable soil at Summerland. Harold Red Delicious performed well on M 7, poorly on M 26 and M 9.

Golden Delicious was precocious and productive on all rootstocks with fairly uniform performance

on M 7 and M 26, but was extremely variable on M 9. Spartan trees were precocious, productive and



uniform on M 7 but variable on M 27 and of poor habit on M 9. McIntosh performed best on M 7,

being variable on M 26 and M 9. Tydeman’s Red and Quinte lacked precocity and productivity on all

three rootstocks.

2.2.3. Fruit yield and Quality

In a fourteen year test, the dwarfing stocks generally were more efficient than seedling in a number of

cases; the more vigorous clonal rootstocks (M 5, M 2, M 1, and M 16) also were more efficient than

seedlings during the last five years (Westwood, 1988). The spur type delicious strain produced more

fruit per tree than non-spur strain like Red King Delicious with M 7 and MM 106 but not with M 26

rootstocks. Golden Delicious produced more fruit per tree than gold spur on all three stocks. Highest

yield of spurred strains (by 16 years data assessment) were with MM 106 stocks. It is generally

accepted that clonal stocks are efficient producers than seedlings stocks. Similarly, yield of trees on

MAC 9, MM 106, EMLA 9, virus free M 9, PAJAM 1 and virus free PAJAM 2 rootstock were 9.3,

9, 6.7, 8.2, 6.5, and 7.8 kg/tree from (Maillard and Hermann, 1990).

2.2.4. Winter hardiness

Apple rootstocks show winter hardiness in the order MM 8 > Bud 490 > Ottawa 3 > Polish 1 with

hardiness around 120C. Rootstocks of intermediate hardiness included MM 26, Kentville stock clone

3, Mitsusba Kaido, MM 111, EMLA 25 and Beautiful Arcade seedlings (Vasilchenko and

Vasychenko, 1988). Tender rootstocks are EMLA 7, Alnarp 2, Black MAC, MAC 4, Antonovka, and

EMLA 2. Trunk hardiness was greatest in Alnarp 2, M 26, Beautiful Arcade seedlings and O 3; the

least hardy were EMLA 7 and MM 106. Budagovsky series, designated as either ‘Bud’ or ‘B’ are

developed in Soviet Union for winter hardiness (PSCAS, 2004).

3. ROOTSTOCKS OF PEAR

In contrast to apple rootstocks, which are all Malus pumila, pear rootstocks may be of several

different species of Prunus, and a few are even in a different genus. For this reason, more problems

of graft incompatibility and fruit quality exist with pear. In the past, the

propagation by cuttings in majority of fruit trees was not successful making

it imperative to resort to grafting and budding and in that case, the seed of

commercial cultivars was used for raising the rootstock. Since such seedling

rootstock does not impart any specific capability to the scion and efficient

techniques of propagation through cuttings have developed, there is general

trend in modern fruit culture toward growing cultivars on their own roots

(Rathore, 1991).



However, the stress conditions of climate and soil, incidence of

pests and diseases and demands of high-density culture coupled

with the availability of all types of genotypes in pear to combat

these problems make the use of rootstock in pear cultivation

indispensable.

A perusal of the available literature shows that rootstocks for

pear have been used in Nepal without assessing their

performances except for Quince (Pyrus collerana) for crown gall. There is also little evidence to

support the use of quince as an important rootstock in Nepal. Despite the lack of research findings,

experience has shown that Mayal pear is extensively used as rootstocks for the oriental pear (Asia

Sand Pear) in Nepal (Khatiwada and Ghale, 1998). The recommended pear rootstocks in Nepal are

Mayal seedlings and Quince (Shrestha, 1998).

3.1. Major effects of pear rootstocks on the scion cultivars:

3.1.1. Tree vigor

The need of dwarfing rootstocks for high density planting in pear is realized by commercial fruit

growers, but satisfaction has not been achieved yet.

Fig. 2: Approximate relative size of pear cultivars on a number of clonal and seedling rootstocks.

(Source: Westwood, 1988).

Hawthorn

E.M.

Quince A

OH×F51

OH×F34

OH×F40 OH×F69

OH×F87

OH×F9

OH×F217

OH×220 OH×F220

OH×F267

OH×F361

OH×F18

OH×F97

OH×F112 OH×F136

OH×F340

Old Home P.betulaefolia

OH×F198



3.1.2. Yields and quality

In a number of rootstock trials, high yield, efficiency has been obtained in various cultivars: quince,

Old Home X Farmingdale and P. betulaefolia rootstocks. Being vigorous, P. betulaefolia is a

particularly good rootstock for less vigorous scions such as Seckel and not for Anjou. The fruits of

both Bartlett and Anjou were higher in soluble solids than ever all others rootstocks among various

quince rootstocks, EMA induced the lowest fruit acidity. Generally, high soluble solids and acidity

increase the fruit quality. Rootstocks exert more influence on acidity and firmness than on soluble

solids (Westwood, 1988). Yield efficiency is good on quince rootstock and on OH X F51 in high-

density hedgerows. The use of Old Home as a compatible interstem for quince has consistently

resulted in higher yield than when Hardy is used (Westwood, 1988). Of the vigorous rootstock, P.

calleryana induces early yield more than seedlings P. communis. Clonal OH X F rootstocks,

however, were selected for their high-yielding potential, so they are better than unselected seedlings

of the species. P. betulaefolia appears to be too vigorous for Anjou and usually the yield efficiency is

low. Yet, P. betulaefolia is outstanding as a stock for Seckel and some other weak-growing cultivars

(Westwood, 1988). Two fruit disorders related to rootstocks are hard end, caused by P. usseuriensis

and P. pyrifolia and cork spot of Anjou, caused by P. betulaefolia stock (Westwood, 1988). Fruit

quality is generally good on quince, P. communis, P. caleryana, and P. betulaefolia (Westwood,

1988).

In 6-year-old trees, the yields of Cv. Gute Luise on 3-quince rootstock were in the order of Quince A

< Provence < Adams in the 7th year the order was Quince A < Adams < Provence. In William clones,

P 415 an SP 1469, yields on the Quince rootstocks were in the order Adams < Quince A< Province,

while for the Williams clone P 1740 the order was Quince A < Province < Adams (Keepel, 1987).

Similarly, in an experiment conducted in pear cultivars Docteur Jules Guyot and Williams yielded

more in the Pyrus rootstock OHF 333 than on the Cydonia rootstock Provence BA 29. Cultivars

Bartlett and Harvest Queen yielded highest when it is grafted with hybrid rootstock OH X F 87 and

OH X F 69 (Kappel and Quamme, 1988). Westwood (1970) reported that in general, Pyrus

ussuriensis, P. pyrifolia resulted in small, rootstock P. communis, P. calleryana, intermediate and

large P. betulaefolia was resistant.

3.1.3. Pest and disease resistant

The new disease called pear decline has eliminate susceptible P. ussuriensis and P. pyrifolia stocks.

Pear decline is an induced scion/rootstock incompatibility caused by a mycoplasma transmitted to the

tees by pear psylla insects. The pathogen migrates through the phloem downwards to the union. If the

rootstock is susceptible, the phloem just below the union is killed effectively girdling the trunk.



Seedlings stocks appear variable in their tolerance to decline except those of P. betulaefolia which all

seem resistant. P. betulaefolia is the rootstock resistant to fire blight (Rathore, 1991).

3.1.4. Compatibility

Quince and pear often are incompatible and must be double worked with a compatible interstem. Old

Home is better as an interstem than Hardy, which was used for many years. The following list of

cultivars indicates compatibility with quince.

Compatible Incompatible

Anjou Bartlett

Comice Bosc

Packham’s Triumph Winter Nellis

Gorham Eldorado

Flemish Beauty Clapp Favorite

Maxine Forelle

Old Home Farmingdale

Hardy Seckel

As far as other effects of rootstock in case of pear are concerned, its effect on anchorage, suckering

ability is to be mentioned. Trees on quince roots need support for best performance. The root system

is much branched and fibrous, but large roots are brittle and tend to break under the weight of crop

and wind. Similarly, in suckering ability, many good pear stocks tend to sucker profusely and they

include Old Home, some clonal OH X F, quince, imported French, P. faurieri, and to some extent,

domesticated seedlings. Several OH X F clones that tend not to sucker have been selected (Rathore,

1991).

4. ROOTSTOCKS OF CITRUS

The rootstock may be grown from seed, rooted cuttings or layers. An ideal rootstock should be of fast

growing in the nursery, having higher compatibility, long living, bearing numerous seeds in the fruits

and having higher percentage of nucellar seedling (Paudyal, 2003). Among numerous citrus

rootstocks used in the world, trifoliate orange (Poncirus trifoliate), sour orange (Citrus aurantium),

rough lemon (C. jambhiri) and Rangpur lime (C. limonia) etc. are most commonly used.

A very sharp knife is used to make a vertical cut in a smooth area of the rootstock about 2.5-3.5 cm

(1.0-1.5 inches) long through the bark, deeply enough into the wood to be certain the bark has been

completely cut. A horizontal cut about 1 cm (0.5 inch) long is made through the bark at the top (T) or

bottom (inverted T) of the vertical cut, again cutting completely through the bark. At the finish of



this cross cut, the knife blade is turned slightly upward and given a slight twist to open the bark at the

T. The point of the knife can be used to lift the bark along the vertical cut if necessary.

The rough lemon was the most vigorous grower of all rootstocks studied. This was manifested in both

shoots and root growth. Trior-citrange and trifoliate orange were the least vigorous of all rootstocks.

The rest of the rootstocks were intermediate in vigor with Blackman sweet orange ranking second to

rough lemon. Blackman sweet orange rootstock was a more vigorous grower in comparison with

standard sour orange.

Cleopatra mandarin and trifoliate orange had the largest root systems in relation to their tops as

reflected in their least top to root ratios when compared to other rootstocks (Abbadi, 1969). Plants on

Jambheri and Trifoliate orange rootstock produced better growth, yield and survival (Misra et al.,

1995).

Fig: 3 Characteristics of different citrus rootstocks. (Source: www.sunraysianurseries.com.au)



Fig: 4 Characteristics of different citrus rootstocks. (Source: www.sunraysianurseries.com.au)

8. COCLUSIO

Rootstocks are the underground parts that give rise to root system and also exhibit unexpected effects

in the growth and development of the scion variety. Rootstocks are beyond doubt, have manifold

profits in plant perpetuation to exploit their enormous effects on the scion variety. Once the orchard is

established, there is little possibility to reestablish it so it is worthwhile to consider the effects of

rootstock to the scion variety. Mainly, apple rootstocks have been described in detail by various

workers that demand its use in the country like Nepal where rootstocks use is not in farmers’ field.

Here the need arises to use it. In western countries, there are numerous studies regarding the effects

of rootstocks to the scion wood. Furthermore, rootstocks are to be used to increase yield, to impart

pest and disease resistance, to avoid other problems like salinity and low storability. There is

immense scope for increasing production and productivity in many plants by exploiting such effects

of rootstocks on scion cultivars.

ACKOWLEDGEMET

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Associate Professor Ms. Kalyani Mishra for her

valuable suggestions and guidelines to prepare this term paper.

REFERECES

Abbadi, S. 1969. Growth characteristics of new citrus rootstocks of possible potential in the Sweden.

Indian J. Hort., 26(1&2): 1-4.

Ananda, S. S. 1993. Rootstocks of Stone Fruits. In K. L. Chadha and O. P. Pareek (eds). Advances in

Horticulture: Fruit Crops. Malhotra Publishing House, New Delhi, India.

Cepoiu, N. and M. Marval. 1988. Effect of Rootstock and Planting Density on the Growth and

Fruiting of some Apple Cultivars. Horicultura 31(1): 61-68.

Chandal, J. S. and J. S. Chauhan. 1992. Drought Resistant of Starking Delicious Apple Plants on

different Rootstocks. J. Ind. Hort. 49(4): 294-299.

Denby, L. G. 1982. Performance of Six Apple Cultivars on M9, M26, and M7 Rootstocks. J. Amer.

Soc. Hort. Sci. American Society for Horticultural Science, Virginia, USA. 107(1): 14-17.

Gautam, D. M. and D. D. Dhakal. 1994. Fruits and Industrial Crops (In Nepali). Pabitra and Rupa,

Bharatpur, Chitwan, Nepal.

Hartmann, H. T., D. E. Kester, F. T. Davies Jr., and R. L. Geneve. 2002. Plant Propagation Principle

and Practices (6th edn.). Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi.

Kanwar, S. M. 1995. Apple; Production Technology and Economics. Tata McGraw Hill Publishing

Company Ltd, New Delhi, India.

Kappel, F. and H. A. Quamme. 1988. Growth and Yield of Pear Cultivars on Several Rootstocks.

Canadian Journal of Plant Science 68(4): 1177-1183.

Khatiwada P. P. and M. S. Ghale (eds.). Nepal Agricultural Research Council, Khumaltar, Second

National Horticulture Research Workshop 13-15 May, 1998.

Khatiwadwa, P. P. 1998. Potential of Summer Grafting on Pear. Proceedings of the national

horticulture research workshop13-15 may,1998. Nepal Agriculture Research Council. Khumaltar.

Lockard, R. G. 1974. Effects of Rootstocks, Length, and Type of Interstock on Growth of Apple

Trees in Sand Culture. Agriculture Canada: Hort. Abstracts. 6(3):170-173

Millard, A. and P. Hermann. 1990. Experimentation with MARK Rootstock in Castang. Compact

Fruit tree. Hort. Abstracts. 21: 76-78.

Misra, K. K., R. Singh and H. R. Jaiswal. 1995. Effect of rootstocks on growth, yield and survival of

lemon. Indian J. Hort., 52(3): 186-191.

Mitra, S. K. 1991. Apple. In: T. K. Bose, S. K. Mitra and D. S. Rathore (eds). Temperate Fruits.

Horticulture and Allied Publishers, Calcutta, India. pp. 1-122

Om, H. and R. K. Pathak. 1983. Influences of Rootstocks on the Growth and Productivity of Some

Apple Cultivars. J. Ind. Hort. 40(4): 168-172.

PAC. 1990. Pakhribas Agricultural Center. Annual Report 1989-90. Pakhribas Agricultural Center,

Dhankuta, Nepal.

Parker, M. L. 1993. Apple Rootstocks. Available: http://actahort/html.[retrieved: September, 1, 2011]

Paudyal, K. P. 2003. Development and management of citrus fruits in Nepal. In: P. P. Subedi, D. D.

Dhakal and N. P. Khanal (eds.) Workshop on integrated management of citrus decline (in nepali).

IAAS/HARP/DADOs Tanahun, Gorkha and Lamjung. 12-14 Magh, 2059, Damauli, Tanahun,

Nepal. pp.29-35.

PSCAS. 2004. Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences. Pennsylvania Tree Fruit Production

Guide (2004-05). Available: http://tfpg.cas.psu.edu/part13j.htm. [retrived: 5 January,

2005]

Rajput, C. B. S. and R. S. Haribabu. 1995. Citriculture. Kalyani Publisher, New Delhi. pp. 147

Ranjit, M. and G. P. Shrestha. 1998. Apple Production Challenges and Prospects. Proceeding of the

National Horticulture Workshop, Jan 19-21, 1998. Nepal Horticulture Society, Kathmandu,

Nepal.

Rathore, D. S. 1991. Apricots pp. 297-308. In: T. K. Bose, S. K. Mitra and D. S. Rathore (eds).

Temperate Fruits. Horticulture and Allied Publishers, Calcutta, India.

Retrieved on September 5th 2011 from www.cbnllc.com/pears.html

Retrieved on September 5th 2011 from www.thenewfruitgrower.com/new_page_1.htm

Retrieved on September 5th 2011 from www.ultimatecitrus.com/pdf/tncitrus.htm

Retrieved on September 5th 2011 from www.cumminsnursery.com/pearroot.htm

Retrieved on September 5th 2011 from www.gardenaction.co.uk/fruit_veg_diary/pear_tree_1.asp

Retrieved on September 5th 2011 from www.sunraysianurseries.com.au

Shrestha, G. K. 1998. Present Status of Fruit Cultivation. Fruit Development in Nepal – Past, Present

and Future. Technica Concern, Kathmandu, Nepal.

Strada, G. D. and D. Fideghelli. 1998. Vegetative and Fruiting Characteristics of Apple Cultivars

from the Varietal lists for Northern Italy Cultivated in the Rome region. Societa Orticola Italiana.

229-239.

Vasilchenko, I. M. and Z. I. Vasychenko. 1988. Apple Cultivar Rootstock Combinations in Northern

Eastern Ukraine. Hort. Abstracts.11: 11-13.

Vasilchenko, I. M. and Z. I. Vasychenko. 1988. Apple Cultivar Rootstock Combinations in Northern

Eastern Ukraine. Hort. Abstracts.11: 11-13.

Visser, T. 1973. The Effects of Rootstocks on Growth and Flowering of Apple Seedlings. J. Amer.

Soc. Sci. 99(5); 421-425.

Warrington, I. J., D. C. Ferrese, J. R. Schupp, F. G. Dennis Jr., and T. A. Baugher. 1990. Strain and

Rootstock Effects of Spur Characteristics and Yield of Delicious Apple Strains. J. Amer. Soc.

Hort. Sci. American Society for Horticultural Science, Virginia, USA. 115(3): 348-355.

Westwood, M. N. 1970. Rootstock-Scion Relationship in Hardiness of Deciduous Fruit Trees.

HortScience 5(5): 418-421.

Westwood, M. N. 1988. Temperate Zone Pomology. Timber Press Portland, USA.

rootstock-scion relationship in fruits

Documents

scio relatio ship

northern eastern ukraine

pakhribas agricultural center

beautiful arcade seedlings

soluble solids

root system

american society

growing cultivars