Influence of Dwarfing Cherry Rootstocks on Fruit Production

Edin, M.; Garcin, A.; Lichou, J.; Jourdain, J. M.

doi:10.17660/actahortic.1996.410.35

Cited by 16 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…'Gisela 5ʼ (P. cerasus L. x P. canescens L.) is one such clonal rootstock that, in the Yakima valley of Washington, induces fl owering in the third leaf and reduces scion vigor by ≈40% compared to 'Mazzardʼ (P. avium L.). However, standard orchard management practices with these highly productive rootstocks tend to result in high yields of small fruit (Edin et al, 1996;Lang, 2000;Lang and Ophardt, 2000). Consequently, commercial adoption of such potentially advantageous rootstocks remains limited.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

`Bing' Sweet Cherry on the Dwarfing Rootstock `Gisela 5': Thinning Affects Fruit Quality and Vegetative Growth but not Net CO2 Exchange

Whiting¹,

Lang²

2004

jashs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ADDITIONAL INDEX WORDS. carbohydrate assimilation, fruit to leaf area ratio, photosynthesis, Prunus avium, sink strength, yield ABSTRACT. Canopy fruit to leaf area ratios (fruit no./m 2 leaf area, F:LA) of 7-and 8-year-old 'Bingʼ sweet cherry (Prunus avium L.) on the dwarfi ng rootstock 'Gisela 5ʼ (P. cerasus L. x P. canescens L.) were manipulated by thinning dormant fruit buds. F:LA infl uenced yield, fruit quality, and vegetative growth, but there were no consistent effects on whole canopy net CO 2 exchange rate (NCER canopy ). Trees thinned to 20 fruit/m 2 LA had yield reduced by 68% but had increased fruit weight (+25%), fi rmness (+25%), soluble solids (+20%), and fruit diameter (+14%), compared to unthinned trees (84 fruit/m 2 ). Fruit quality declined when canopy LA was ≈200 cm 2 /fruit, suggesting that photoassimilate capacity becomes limiting to fruit growth below this ratio. NCER canopy and net assimilation varied seasonally, being highest during stage III of fruit development (64 days after full bloom, DAFB), and falling more than 50% by 90 DAFB. Final shoot length, LA/spur, and trunk expansion were related negatively to F:LA. F:LA did not affect subsequent fl oral bud induction per se, but the number of fl owers initiated per bud was negatively and linearly related to F:LA. Although all trees were thinned to equal fl oral bud levels per spur for the year following initial treatment (2001), fruit yields were highest on the trees that previously had no fruit, refl ecting the increased number of fl owers initiated per fl oral bud. Nonfruiting trees exhibited a sigmoidal pattern of shoot growth and trunk expansion, whereas fruiting trees exhibited a double sigmoidal pattern due to a growth lag during Stage III of fruit development. Vegetative growth in the second year was not related to current or previous season F:LA. We estimate that the LA on a typical spur is only suffi cient to support the full growth potential of a single fruit; more heavily-set spurs require supplemental LA from nonfruiting shoots. From these studies there appears to be a hierarchy of developmental sensitivity to high F:LA for above-ground organs in 'Bingʼ/ʼGisela 5ʼ sweet cherry trees: trunk expansion > fruit soluble solids (Stage III) > fruit growth (Stage III) > LA/spur > shoot elongation > fruit growth (Stages I and II) > LA/shoot. Current season F:LA had a greater infl uence on fruit quality than prior cropping history, underscoring the importance of imposing annual strategies to balance fruit number with LA.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

`Bing' Sweet Cherry on the Dwarfing Rootstock `Gisela 5': Thinning Affects Fruit Quality and Vegetative Growth but not Net CO2 Exchange

Whiting¹,

Lang²

2004

jashs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In traditional sweet cherry orchard systems based on vigorous seedling rootstocks, sweet cherry crop load is balanced well, albeit inadvertently, by dormant pruning for improved canopy architecture and light distribution. However, this approach is insuffi cient for trees on productive and precocious 'Gisela' rootstocks and can result in high yields of small fruit (Edin et al, 1996;Whiting and Lang, 2004a). Recent trials found that 'Gisela 5' and 'Gisela 6' rootstocks are less vigorous and signifi cantly more precocious and productive than Mazzard in many locations (Perry et al, 1998) and across several training systems (Whiting et al 2005).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing Novel Sweet Cherry Crop Load Management Strategies

Whiting¹,

Ophardt²

2005

HortSci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The development of novel crop load management techniques will be critical to the adoption and success of high density sweet cherry orchard systems based on new clonal rootstocks. Herein we report on a comparison of potential means of balancing crop load of 'Bing' sweet cherry grown on the productive and precocious rootstocks 'Gisela 5' and 'Gisela 6'. In 2002, thinning treatments were applied to entire trees and consisted of an unthinned control (C), and manual removal of 50% of the blossoms (B) or 50% of 2-year-old and older fruiting spurs (S), throughout the tree. In 2003 all trees were left unthinned to characterize the carry-over effect of thinning treatment in 2002. In 2002, compared to C, thinned trees had 38% to 49% fewer fruit per tree, 22% to 42% lower yield, 8% to 26% higher fruit weight, and 2% to 10% larger fruit diameter. S and B treatments reduced yield by 42% and 22% on 'Gisela 5' and by 40% and 31% on 'Gisela 6', respectively. 'Gisela 5'-rooted trees showed greater improvements in fruit quality than did trees on 'Gisela 6'. Compared to C-, S-, and B-treated trees on 'Gisela 5' yielded fruit that was 15% and 26% heavier, respectively. Yield of fruit ≥25.5 mm diameter was increased by 240% by S and 880% by B, though yield of this size fruit was still low (1.5 and 5.2 kg/tree, respectively). Neither technique had any benefi cial carryover effect in the year following treatment despite S trees bearing about 25% fewer fruit than B and C trees. In both years, 'Gisela 5'-rooted trees bore about 15% fewer fruit than trees on 'Gisela 6'. Compared to 'Gisela 5', 'Gisela 6'-rooted trees were about 41%, 46%, and 24% more productive for C, S, and B, respectively. Number of fruit/tree in 2003 was within 4% and 8% of the previous year on 'Gisela 6' and 'Gisela 5', respectively. Crop value analyses suggest growers would be rewarded for producing high yields of medium size fruit (e.g., 21.5 to 25.4 mm) compared to low yields of high quality fruit.

show abstract

“…GB did decrease the fruit size of 'Regina' when applied three times or once at pit hardening. Generally, the reduced fruit size may be due to excessive crop loading, deficit irrigation, dwarfing rootstocks, or improper thinning (Edin et al, 1993;Neilsen et al, 2007;Whiting and Lang, 2004;Whiting and Ophardt, 2005). However, 'Regina' typically displays a poor fruit set in Oregon's Mid-Columbia region, and its light bearing results in relatively large fruit at harvest (Warner, 2013).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Preharvest and Postharvest Applications of Glycine Betaine on Fruit Quality Attributes and Storage Disorders of ‘Lapins’ and ‘Regina’ Cherries

Li¹,

Zhi²,

Yu³

2019

horts

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to evaluate whether preharvest or postharvest application of glycine betaine (GB) has the potential to improve fruit quality [fruit firmness (FF), size, skin color, soluble solids content (SSC), and titratable acidity (TA)] and susceptibility to storage disorders (peduncle browning, pitting, and decay) in ‘Lapins’ or ‘Regina’ sweet cherries, and to determine whether factors such as application frequency or timing impacted the efficacy of GB spraying. Adding 2 or 4 g·L−1 GB to hydro-cooling water (0 °C) as postharvest treatment did not affect fruit size, skin color, SSC, TA, peduncle browning, or pitting development; however, it did result in fruit softening and a low incidence of decay. GB applied preharvest at 2 or 4 g·L−1 once at 1 week before harvest (1WBH) was more effective for retaining FF and less peduncle browning and pitting compared with postharvest treatment. Increasing the preharvest GB application frequency from one time (1WBH or pit hardening) to three times (pit hardening, straw color, and 1WBH) enhanced FF and TA levels and resulted in lower pitting. The reduction in fruit size was observed for ‘Regina’, but not for ‘Lapins’. Changes in the contents of phosphorous (P), potassium (K), and magnesium (Mg) were unaffected by GB at harvest, whereas three GB sprays increased the total nitrogen (N) content. Compared with ‘Lapins’, ‘Regina’ allowed more calcium (Ca) uptake by GB and ultimately had firmer flesh. In conclusion, three preharvest applications of 4 g·L−1 GB showed great potential to improve quality attributes, to reduce the susceptibility to storage disorders, and to increase the Ca content of ‘Regina’ cherries.

show abstract

Influence of Dwarfing Cherry Rootstocks on Fruit Production

Cited by 16 publications

References 0 publications

`Bing' Sweet Cherry on the Dwarfing Rootstock `Gisela 5': Thinning Affects Fruit Quality and Vegetative Growth but not Net CO2 Exchange

`Bing' Sweet Cherry on the Dwarfing Rootstock `Gisela 5': Thinning Affects Fruit Quality and Vegetative Growth but not Net CO2 Exchange

Comparing Novel Sweet Cherry Crop Load Management Strategies

Influence of Preharvest and Postharvest Applications of Glycine Betaine on Fruit Quality Attributes and Storage Disorders of ‘Lapins’ and ‘Regina’ Cherries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About