1998 NC-140 Cherry Rootstock Trial Update

Accompanying 1998 NC-140 Cherry Rootstock Trial PowerPoint Presentation

Kappel, F., G. Lang, R. Perry, R. Andersen, L. Anderson, A. Azarenko, R. Crassweller,

F. Eady, T. Facteau, A. Gaus, G. Greene, B. Lay, S. Southwick, and T. Roper

Introduction

New rootstocks are needed to keep the cherry industries in North America competitive. For sweet cherry, we are still in need of dwarfing rootstocks that can reduce the size of sweet cherry trees by 20-70 % and produce large high quality fruit. A smaller canopied tree can reduce expensive harvest labor costs. A smaller tree can improve pest management practice efficiencies and facilitate new strategies in avoiding fruit cracking. The standard rootstock for sour cherry is mahaleb. This rootstock is productive as demonstrated in the 1987 NC-140 cherry rootstock trial. However, we are still in need of a stock that can be longer-lived where soil maladies such as Armillaria and Phytophthora root rot exist and where soils are heavy or shallow. The NC-140 Regional Rootstock Committee has served well in developing uniform trials to evaluate new elite rootstocks for stone and pome fruit. The 1987 NC-140 rootstock trial located in 16 sites indicated that there are several promising rootstocks that could improve cherry production. The members of the NC-140 cherry rootstock subcommittee organized a followup trial and established it among cooperator sites in 1998. Individual cooperators found financial support from local sources, the Rootstock Research Committee of the IDFTA and Gisela Inc.

Materials and Methods:

Plots were established in the spring of 1998 with cooperator sites noted in Table 1. Most sites were assigned enough trees for a full complement of rootstock treatments. Some sites received only a partial planting and are so designated. F. Kappel, B.C. and G. Lang, WA, facilitated the procurement of propagules and monitored the propagation which was done by Meadow Lake Nursery, McMinnville, OR (all treatments except one) and ProTree Nursery, Brentwood, CA (P.50). Sites are testing from 8 to19 rootstocks each (Table 2). The trees were arranged in randomized complete block designs with single plant plots and generally 8 replications per rootstock. The trial is separated into 3 distinct trials, according to scion cultivars; "Bing" in the West, "Hedelfingen" in the East and "Montmorency" sour cherry. Pollenizers ("Van" and "Lapins" in "Bing" trials and "Blackgold", "Vandalay" and "Kristin" for "Hedelfingen") were randomly established in the trials. All trees were of relatively small caliper, which required them all to be whipped and headed at 32". Cooperators are following a standard Central Leader protocol as devised by the NC-140 Cherry subcommittee. All other management practices are being followed according to local recommendations. Data for the trials will be submitted by cooperators to be processed and summarized by Kappel, BC for the "Bing" trial and by Perry, MI for the "Hedelfingen" and "Montmorency" trials. Standard data submitted will include the following annual measurements:. trunk caliper, survival, yield per tree, average fruit size, fruit to trunk vigor ratio (yield efficiency), bloom density (yrs 2&3) and canopy volume (yrs 5 and 10).

Table 1. Cooperators and rootstock research sites in the 1998 NC-140 Cherry rootstock trials.

Sweet Cherry

"Bing"
State/Province	Cooperators/Institutions	Site Locations
British Columbia	F. Kappel; Ag Canada	Summerland
California	S. Southwick; U.C. Davis	Winters
Colorado	A. Gaus; Colorado State University	Grand Junction
Oregon	T. Facteau; OSU, Hood River & A. Azarenko; OSU, Corvallis	The Dalles and Corvallis
Utah	L. Anderson; Utah State University	Farmington
Washington	G. Lang; Washington State University	Prosser
"Hedelfingen"
Michigan	R. Perry; Michigan State University	Traverse City
New York	R. Anderson; NY Ag Exp Station	Geneva
Ontario	B. Lay & F. Eady; Hort Res. Inst.	Vineland
Pennsylvania	R. Crassweller; Penn State University	Erie County
"Montmorency" Sour Cherry
Michigan	R. Perry; Michigan State University	Traverse City
New York	R. Anderson; NY Ag Exp Station	Geneva
Ontario	B. Lay & F. Eady; Hort Res. Inst.	Vineland
Pennsylvania	G. Greene; Penn State University	Biglerville
Utah	L. Anderson; Utah State University	Farmington
Wisconsin	T. Roper; University of Wisconsin	Sturgeon Bay

Rootstocks	Bing	Hedelfgn.	Mont.
CT.2753		y
CT.500		y
Edabriz	x	x	x
Erdi V		y
Gi.195/20	x	x	x
Ci.209/1	x	x	x
Gi.318/17	x
Gi.473/10	x
Gi.5	x	x	x
Gi.6	x	x	x
Gi.7	x	x	x
Mah	x	x	x
Mazz	x	x
MXM 2		x
MXM 60		x
P.50	y	y
W.10	x	x	x
W.13	x	x	x
W.53	x	x	x
W.72	x	x	x
W.154	x
W.158	x	x	x