Evaluation of Pear Rootstocks for the Cultivar ‘Suvenirs’ in the Baltic Region

Abstract

In 2001, investigations were carried out on the Latvian origin cultivar ‘Suvenîrs’ grafted on seven pear rootstocks (MA, MC, BA29, Pyrodwarf, Brokmal, Kirchensaller Mostbirne and Kazrauðu bumbiere) in Polli (Estonia), Pûre (Latvia) and Babtai (Lithuania). The aim of the investigation was to evaluate pear rootstocks in different climatic conditions in the Baltic region. In Polli, all trees were planted in a dense planting, and therefore, trunk cross section area did not differ significantly between trees on different rootstocks. The most vigorous tree habit was observed in Lithuania for trees grafted on the rootstocks Kirchensaller Mostbirne and Brokmal, but in Latvia on Kirchensaller Mostbirne and Kazrauðu bumbiere. The highest dwarfing effect was observed for rootstock MC in both places. The highest cumulative yield from the orchard area was found for trees grafted on rootstocks of the quince group in all three locations of investigation. Nevertheless, the winter hardiness of the quince group rootstocks was not sufficient for Baltic climatic conditions. Good overwintering in Latvia and Lithuania was observed for trees on Pyrodwarf. Survival rate of trees grafted on Pyrodwarf in Estonia was unsatisfactory. The worse overwintering in Lithuania was observed for trees grafted on Brokmal. There was a dwarfing effect on trees and better yield on the vegetative propagated rootstocks included in the investigation, but none one of them can be recommended as perspective for commercial orchards in Baltic agro-climatic conditions.

Do the Rootstocks Determine Tree Growth, Productivity and Fruit Quality of Pears, which Grow on Typical Heavy and Acidic Soil?

“…Therefore, 'Conference' and 'Abbé Fetel' can be planted at shorter distance apart, resulting in reduced tree vigor of pears. These data are in accordance with previous works who all reported that the effect of cultivar accounted for the highest percentage in the tree growth (Pitera and Odziemkowski 2004;Sosna and Kortylewska 2012;Lepsis et al 2013).…”

“…These opposing responses in tree development may be due to a better or worse adaptation of both quinces MA and BA.29 to a different environment, cultural practices and tree age (Webster 1995). For example, Lepsis et al (2013) reported high impact of geographical region on rootstocks performance, because in their study BA.29 in Estonia and Latvia induced similar pears tree vigor as compared to MA, whereas in Lithuania had significantly higher than that. Iglesias et al (2004) reported similar tendency for different pear rootstocks under Spain environment.…”

“…Contrary to our results, Kiprijanovski and Ristevski (2009) noted that 'Conference' on BA.29 gave the highest cumulative yield per tree and cumulative yield per hectare, 'Abbé Fetel' intermediate, and 'Starking Delicious' the lowest. It seems that early and high productivity of pear trees first of all depends on cultivar, rootstock and maiden tree quality (Sosna and Szewczuk 2006;Milošević and Milošević 2011), and also on environment (Sosna and Kortylewska 2012;Lepsis et al 2013), cultural practices, such as training and pruning system (Elkins and De Jong 2002;Vercammen 2002;Dierend and Bier-Kamotzke 2014) or fertilization and irrigation (Salem et al 2010;Dar et al 2012). Impact of planting distance on the cumulative yield was also previously obtained by Robinson (2011), being higher under higher density with group of quince rootstocks as compared to others (Iglesias et al 2004;Botelho et al 2012).…”

“…(Salem et al 2010;Lepsis et al 2013). Therefore, choosing the right rootstock for pear, also cultivar, is an important decision when planting a new intensive pear orchard.…”

“…Generally, rootstocks play an important role for pear production because influenced tree vigor, precocity, yield components (Pitera and Odziemkowski 2004;Sosna and Szewczuk 2006;Sosna and Kortylewska 2012), fruit quality attributes Štampar 2002, 2005;Marini 2009;Predieri and Gatti 2009;Botelho et al 2012), resistance to unfavorable biotic and environmental factors (Browning and Miller 1992;Lepsis et al 2013), nutrient uptake and leaf nutrient composition (Stassen and North 2005), leaf dimensions and its size (Salem et al 2010), etc.…”