Minutes of the Annual Meeting

 

Project Number:             NC-140

Project Title:                    Rootstock and Interstem Effects on Pome- and Stone-fruit Trees

Period Covered:             October 1, 2001 to September 30, 2002

Date:                                  November 11-12, 2002

 

Presiding:  Dr. Teryl Roper, University of Wisconsin

Meeting convened: November 11, 8:00 am

 

Teryl Roper welcomed the group and presented the agenda.

 

Motion:  A motion was made and seconded to adopt the agenda as presented.  Motion passed unanimously.

 

Motion: A motion was made and seconded to accept the minutes as is.  Motion passed unanimously.

 

Future meeting sites:

2003 – Nova Scotia – Charlie Embree host, Wes Autio chair

2004 – Georgia – Kathy Taylor host and chair

2005 – Indiana – Peter Hirst host and chair

 

Report from the Administrative Advisor

               Dr. Gray complemented the group on its quality and cooperative effort.  He emphasized the importance of the minutes and the annual report.  He congratulated the group in having the project renewed.  While the project was being reviewed, there was strong support from the department heads of horticulture within the north central region.  The one comment that was made, and adopted, was to combine objective 5 with objective 4.  There was also a discussion surrounding the number associated with the project.  The question was asked, why maintain the committee number 140.  The answer was that the industry, which supports the project, knows the number and the research that is associated with it.  This project was voted on and passed. 

               Dr. Gray filled the committee in on the electronic reporting of committee minutes and annual reports that must be followed.  The participants, listed in appendix E of the project, need to take their responsibility seriously and file reports annually. 

               Budgets in Washington are still unknown at this point.  However the Integrated Foods and Agricultural Systems (IFAS) grants will continue from the program that used to be called the Fund for Rural America.  Grants are around $2million and last 2-3 years with a few institutions cooperating.  There needs to be an applied research with outreach component to the grant. 

               Because the minutes of this meeting need to be electronically submitted within 30 days of the meeting, it was proposed that the minutes be electronically approved.  The official representatives would vote – the 28 states (only internal representatives can vote).  They will be posted on the web page, and an email will be sent out directing people to the page to read the minutes and then send an email back voting to approve the minutes.  Changes can be made at that time.  The minutes do have to be electronically submitted for inclusion in the NIMS system. 

 

Reports on Current Planting

1994 Apple

               Dr. Marini reported that he does not have all the data from all the sites.  He also requested that cooperators proof their data before they send it in to him.  There have been errors.  For instance, some cooperators trees have shrunk from one year to the next.  One suggestion was that when data is being taken; take the previous year’s data on the sheet so comparisons can be made.  Marking the trees with paint as to where measurements are being taken yearly can help as well.

               In this planting, yields tend to relate to tree size within the dwarfing rootstocks while there are no differences in the semi-dwarf size trees.  Next year is the last year for this planting.  At the end of the 2003 season, tree height and spread need to be taken.  There was a discussion about counting suckers and that they vary greatly over sites.  It appears that suckering is related to latitude, the farther north the fewer the suckers.  There continued a discussion about whether to rate the number of suckers or continue to count.  It was agreed the cooperators would continue to count suckers in this planting.

 

1994 Peach

               This planting was terminated after 8 years.  The draft of the paper has been handed out.  Dr. Reighard has soil type for 6 or 7 of the 24 cooperators.  The order of the rootstocks was the same at year 8 as it was in year 5 with these seedling rootstocks.  Problems occurred in year 1 and they continued throughout the planting.

 

1998 Cherry

               Dr. Kappel reported on the 3 plantings of cherry.  He requested that cooperators get their data in on time and proof it as well. The 2002 data marks the end of the 5th year.  Cooperators will be asked to take tree height and spread.  Dwarfing on these rootstocks has been 50 to 60% with all the rootstocks yielding higher than the control (Mahaleb).  Bird predation was a problem at some sites.  A discussion ensued about the 1987 results vs. this trial. 

 

1998 Apple

               Dr. Autio announced this is the end of the 5th leaf for this planting.  Cooperators received the protocol for the planting.   Tree height and spread need to be taken on this planting.  Please send all the data from the planting even if all but 1 tree of a particular rootstock combination died.  Instructions for the G16 trees will also be coming.

 

1999 Apple

               Dr. Autio reported that 2001 significant yields were recorded in this planting.  All sites that had data reported were included in the summary table passed out at the meeting.  The 5 year report will be after 2003 season so tree height and spread will need to be taken in addition to the rest of the data.  Data needs to be submitted by Jan. 15 2003.

 

2001 Peach

               There were 16 cooperators at the beginning of the trial and there are now 12.  The protocol will be coming from Greg.  This being a clonal rootstock planting, bloom date and maturity might change so cooperators need to take data on both of those parameters. 

 

2002 Peach

               Scott Johnson is in charge of the planting and Ted DeJong reported for him.  Protocol will be sent out electronically.

 

2002 Apple

               Data needs to be submitted by Jan. 15, 2003.  No problems were reported with trees that were planted.  Weather data is not required and a discussion ensued about whether it should be collected.  It was concluded that urls would be requested from each state for a link to weather data for the site.

 

2002 Pear

               This planting is in 4 sites in the Pacific Northwest.  Tree survival was high.  Trees were about the same size but root systems varied widely.  Additional pear plantings will be delayed until at least 2005.

 

Publications

1988 Pear rootstock – rough tables have been done.  Dr. Mielke will probably submit a paper for the International Pear Symposium in 2003. 

 

1990 Plum – Dr. Anderson (NY) is handling this planting.  There is currently no publication without a timeline established.

 

1990 Gala rootstock – This has been published. The system trial data was also published.  There was another paper published on adjusting for crop load, with yet another paper being published on looking at number of replications and blocks to detect differences.  There was a discussion on using some other data, particularly pack-out from the systems trial for publication.

 

1992 – 1993 Liberty planting – Data has been analyzed and the paper has been written for the Journal of the American Pomological Society.  1993 – The data from the 1993 planting needs to be in by December 31, 2002 for inclusion in the paper.  

 

1994 Peach – Tables and text of paper are done and handed out at the meeting.  There was a lengthy discussion on statistical methods, not just about this planting but about statistics in general with field plantings. 

 

Future plantings

2003 Apple

               Dr. Robinson described this planting.  It will have 17 rootstocks with 8 trees/site, 2 trees/plot, with the 34 trees being randomly assigned within the block.  8 sites will have full plantings with 5 sites with limited numbers of rootstocks.  Spacing will be left up to the investigator based on their site being low or high vigor.  Dr. Marini will coordinate the planting and will be sending the protocol to all cooperators. 

               The next planting will be in 2007 with rootstocks being considered are from the East Malling program, Russia, and Geneva. 

 

2005 Pear

               Dr. Mielke will be coordinating the planting and has ordered 200% of the number of liners the study calls for.  There are 7 states/provinces involved, some with multiple sites.

 

2005 or 2006 Cherries

               This planting is still being considered

 

Web Site:

               Web page has the state leader and contact information.  Members can change their information on the page if it is not correct.  However, if the information is changed, you need to contact the web masters to tell them.  They will then update the front page that is seen by the web site visitor.

               The Coordinators of plantings are asked to visit the web site and to update the plantings that they are coordinating. 

               Publications links are not up to date.  Every member of the committee is asked for refereed and other publications.  Please send to the web masters. 

               Members, protocols are archived on the site and you can look them up.

 

State/Province Reports

 

 

Colorado.  The four NC-140 plantings in Colorado are located at the Western Colorado Research Center_s Roger Mesa and Orchard Mesa sites.  The 2001 Peach rootstock planting at Orchard Mesa is doing well.  A late freeze at the Rogers Mesa site killed all chance of fruit this season on the 1994 Dwarf  Apple and 1998 Cherry plantings.  The late freeze was followed by a fourth year of drought which threatened to decimate the 2002 peach planting, however, rains in September and October should be sufficient to over-winter the trees, and only one tree was lost. 

 

Iowa: The 1993 Cornell/Geneva semi-dwarf apple rootstock planting was maintained an additional year.  Some trees on CG.156 and CG.202 continued to exhibit decline symptoms attributed to an 8 OCT00 freeze (-6.1oC).  Work continues on 1994 dwarf and semi-dwarf apple rootstock trials.  In the dwarf planting, trees have segregated out into four size groups with M.26 EMLA and V.1 being the largest, followed by the M.9 clones, and O.3; P.2, Mark, B.9, B.469 and P.16; and B.491, M.27 EMLA, and P.22.  No difference in cumulative yield efficiency existed within the largest size group, or between the M.9 clones and O.3.  Within the moderately small group, trees on P.16 were the most efficient.  In the semi-dwarf planting, trees on G.30 continue to be the most yield efficient, while trees on P.1 were the least efficient.  An apple cultivar by rootstock trial conducted in western Iowa was concluded and the trees were evaluated for blackheart injury.  Differences between cultivars existed, but not between rootstocks.

 

Kentucky.  All of the NC-140 trials in Kentucky are located at the Research and Education Center in Princeton, KY.  One is the 1994 semi-dwarf apple planting. Trees on G.30 and V.2 have been the most productive ones in this planting.  Kentucky also has the 1999 dwarf and semi-dwarf apple plantings.  Five trees in the former and 7 trees in the latter broke off during the 2002 growing season due to high wind.  Twenty- two of the 31 trees in the semi-dwarf planting have a lean in excess of 30 degrees from vertical, and are now supported by tree stakes.  The 2002 apple rootstock planting consists of ‘Buckeye Gala’ on 9 rootstocks, including M.9, B.9, M.26, P.14, and Supporter 4.  As of today, growth of trunk cross-sectional area is highest for M.26 followed by P.14.  All trees appear to be healthy.

 

Maine. 1994 Gala Apple Planting, 2001.  The 1994 Gala Dwarf and Semidwarf plantings were maintained and data has been collected according to the committee protocol.  In the semidwarf plot, P1 had the largest TCA, but the lowest cumulative yield.  G30 was a little larger and had greater yield than M26 EMLA.  G30 had the largest cumulative yield in this plot.  V2 was similar in size and yield to M26 EMLA.  Cumulative yield of V2 was a little larger than M26 EMLA.  Cumulative yield per tree does not appear to be related to tree size. In the dwarf plot, P2, M9 T337, B469, P16, B491 and P22 were smaller than M9 EMLA.  Pajam1, OT3, Mark, NIC 29, B9, Pajam2 and V1 were larger than M9 EMLA, but smaller than M26 EMLA.  M26 EMLA was the largest rootstock in the plot, but V1 was not much smaller.  Cumulative yield per tree closely paralleled tree size. 1995 Cultivar / Rootstock planting 2001.  The 1995 Cultivar / Rootstock Trail, coordinated by Wes Autio is also still being maintained.  Data will be submitted to him at the end of the study. P22 was the smallest, and V1 and Mark the largest, based on TCA.  V3 was similar in size to M9 EMLA, B9 a little larger than M9 EMLA, and both were smaller than V1.

 

Massachusetts.  In the 1994 NC-140 Apple Rootstock Trial, largest trees in 2002 were on V.1 and M.26 EMLA, and the smallest trees were on P.22, M.27 EMLA, B.491, and P.16.  Cumulatively (1996-2002), the most yield efficient trees were on O.3, M.27 EMLA, B.491, M.9 Fleuren 56, and P.22, and the least efficient were on M.26 EMLA.  TCA varied significantly among the six M.9 strains in this experiment, with trees on M.9 Pajam2 74% larger than trees on M.9 Fleuren 56.  Root suckering was greatest from trees on M.9 Pajam 2 and least from trees on M.9 EMLA. Cumulative yield per tree followed a similar trend to TCA, and trees of the six strains were similarly yield efficient. The 1994 NC-140 Peach Rootstock Trial was discontinued.  At removal, trees were pulled from the ground, and a chainsaw cut was made across the rootstock shank at about the original ground level.  Significant trunk damage occurred during the life of trees on 12 of the rootstocks; however, trees on Ishtara showed significantly less damage than trees on any of the other rootstocks. Rootstock significantly affected TCA after the fifth growing season (2002) in the 1998 NC-140 Apple Rootstock Trial, with trees on G.16 significantly larger than those on M.9 or M.9 EMLA. Cumulative (2000-2001) yield efficiency was not affected by rootstock. In 1995, a trial was established including Rogers Red McIntosh, Cortland, Macoun, and Pioneer Mac on 11 different rootstocks. To date, the relative effects of rootstock are consistent across the four cultivars.  In 2002, largest trees were on V.1 and Mark, and the smallest were on P.16 and P.22.  The most yield efficient trees, cumulatively (1997-2002), were on P.16, and the least efficient were on V.1, Mark, and B.146. In 1995, a trial was established including Ginger Gold on 10 different rootstocks.   At the end of the 2002 growing season, trees on Mark and V.1 were the largest, and those on B.469, P.16, P.22, B.491, and V.3 were the smallest.  Cumulatively (1997-2002), trees on P.16 were the most yield efficient, and those on V.1, B.9, P.2, and V.3 were the least efficient. In 1996, a trial was established McIntosh on V.1, V.2, V.3, V.4, V.7, and M.26 EMLA.   In 2002, trees on V.4 had the largest TCA and the lowest cumulative (1998-2002) yield efficiency. The most yield efficient trees, cumulative (1998-2002), were on V.3.

 

Michigan: M.9 NAKB 337 apple rootstock is the dominating M.9 clonal rootstock in North America today. Data in Michigan NC 140 trials suggests that this rootstock is not as productive and as precocious as many other M.9 clonal stocks. G.30 apple stock still has shown excellent cropping, superior to M.26, but loss of trees to union breakage questions commercial potential. The vigor differences among cherry rootstocks are now readily apparent.  There are 13 rootstocks with Hedelfingen sweet cherry that exhibit less vigor than Mazzard, including what is probably the most dwarfing cherry rootstock yet tested in the NC-140 project (Gi.209/1).  All of these lower vigor rootstocks had greater bloom in the 5th season than Mazzard and the 7 rootstocks with higher vigor than Mazzard.  Spur death was generally highest in those rootstocks with the most bloom.  In the 5th season, all of the rootstocks with Montmorency sour cherry exhibit less vigor than Mahaleb, although bloom is similar.  The production-altering implications of these findings continue to garner interest with both growers and scientists.

 

Minnesota:  The 1999 apple rootstock trial is growing well.  This planting will allow us to test the different rootstocks for winter hardiness, precocity, and size control of the scion.  In the dwarf planting trees on G13 and CG935 are significantly larger than trees on G16N, M26, Supporter 1, CG41, CG179, and M9.  In the semidwarf planting all but one of the Supporter 4 trees have died. M7 trees are very slow to come into bearing, compared to the other rootstocks.

 

Missouri: Data were collected on the 1999 Fuji apple and the 2002 Redhaven peach trial. During a 50 mph storm on 20 June, 11 trees were lost in the 1999 Fuji planting. Two G.16T trees and one Supporter 3 tree broke at the bud union, while all other tree losses occurred because trees were uprooted. Two trees each of G.16N and CG.3041 were dislodged, while one each of Supporter 1 and 2, M.9 NAKB T337, and M.26 EMLA were uprooted. In other related work, a ten year study has been concluded in which the performance of Fuji on eleven M.9 rootstock clones, as well as B.9, M.27 EMLA, V.1 and V.3 was evaluated.

 

New Brunswick.  The 2002 apple growing season could be considered « normal » as both temperature and precipitation were near average.  In both the 1994 Gala dwarf and semi-dwarf plantings, no major differences between other years were found.  In the dwarf planting, both M.9 Pajam 1 and 2, M.9 RN29 and V.1 were the highest yielding while B.9 is the most yield efficient.  Fruit size for all rootstocks was reduced this year because of poor fruit thinning.  In the semi-dwarf planting, G.30 continues to be the best yielding and most yield efficient of the pack.  Cold hardiness testing of the Cornell Geneva and other new promising rootstocks will continue this winter and an apple rootstock factsheet identifying tree, flower and fruit characteristics is being updated for publication and will be placed on the internet this Spring (http://res2.agr.ca/kentville/pubs/fact01-01/index_e.htm).

 

Virginia. In the 1994 semi-dwarf planting G.30 is the smallest tree, but survival is only 30%. V.2 seems very similar to M.26. Both G.30 and V.2 need more testing with other cultivars before they can be recommended. In the 1994 dwarf trial, the largest trees are on M.26 and V.1 and the smallest trees are on P.22, P.16, M.27, and B.491. Fruit set was again heavy and trees required hand thinning. There is a large range in vigor among the M.9 clones: RN29, Pajam 1 and Pajam 2 are the largest, and Fleuren 56 is the smallest. A few years ago Fleuren 56 looked promising, but it now appears to lack adequate vigor except for vigorous varieties on vigorous sites. Based on results from this trial, we  continue to recommend M.9 T337 as the preferred dwarfing rootstock.

 

Ohio--Results from several replicated rootstock trials exposed to severe natural infections of fire blight have shown that trees on B.9 survive better than on dwarfing rootstocks (M.9, M.26, or Mark).  Effort continues to increase five selections of the Morioka rootstocks. 

 

Utah. In the 1994 Gala Apple Dwarf Rootstock Trial, cumulative yield on M.9RN29 was 6% greater than that on M.9EMLA, the standard dwarfing rootstock used in Utah. The cumulative yield on M.26EMLA was about the same as on M.9EMLA, but the tree height and width, as measured in 1998, was smaller than that on M.9RN29 and M.9EMLA. Cumulative yield on Mahaleb in the 1998 Montmorency Tart Cherry Rootstock Trial was greater than that on all other rootstocks in the trial. Data collection was discontinued on the 1998 Bing Cherry Rootstock Trial due to the average mortality rate of 40% among the rootstocks. In the 1998 Jonagold Apple Rootstock Trial, cumulative yield on M.9EMLA was 14% higher than on G16. In the 1999 Fuji Dwarf Rootstock Trial, cumulative yield on CG.4013 was 41% greater than the 2nd highest yielding rootstock (Supporter 3). No trees were lost in either the 2001 or 2002 Peach Rootstock Trials, and the trees grew well.

 

Vermont. Tree maintenance and data collection for the 1999 planting of the NC-140 Cornell/Geneva Apple Rootstock Evaluation continues at the University of Vermont Horticultural Research Center in So. Burlington, VT.  The trees were trained, pruned and maintained according to protocol developed by the Principal Leaders.   The data indicate that the CG series outperforms the EMLA and Supporter series in precocity, fruit weight, and yield.   Cultural practices and data collection will continue under the direction of the Principal Leaders.  No major changes in direction are anticipated.   All collected data will be sent to the Principal Leaders for incorporation into their Annual Report.

 

Wisconsin. In the 1994 Gala dwarf apple rootstock planting, EMLA 26 and EMLA 9 produced the most vigorous trees; EMLA 9 had the highest yield and yield efficiency in 2002.  In the 1994 Gala semi-dwarf apple rootstock planting, trees on P1 were the largest; the highest yielding trees were on CG30.  In the 1999 Montmorency cherry rootstock planting, trees were largest on Gisela 6 and smallest on Edabriz.  Yield and bloom density were highest on Gisela 7; yield efficiency was highest on W 72.

 

Members in Attendance

H

Aldwinkle

Cornell University

 

F

Kappel

Ag., Canada, British Columbia

R

Anderson

Cornell University

 

K

Kosola

University of Wisconsin

W

Autio

University of Massachusetts

M

Kushad

University of Illinois

 

B

Barritt

Washington State University

T.

Lindstrom

Utah State University

 

W

Cowgill

Rutgers University

 

R

Marini

Virginia Tech

 

R

Crassweller

Penn State University

J

Masabni

University of Kentucky

T

DeJong

University of California, Davis

R

Moran

University of Maine

 

P

Domoto

Iowa State University

 

M

Parker

North Carolina State University

C

Embree

Ag., Canada, Nova Scotia

R

Perry

Michigan State University

G

Fazio

Cornell University

 

J

Prive

AAFC, New Brunswick

D

Ferree

Ohio State University

 

G

Reighard

Clemson University

 

P

Forsline

Cornell University

 

T

Robinson

Cornell University

 

E

Garcia

University of Vermont

 

C

Rom

University of Arkansas

G

Greene

Penn State University

S.

Seeley

Utah State University

 

P

Hirst

Purdue University

 

K

Taylor

University of Georgia

 

E

Hoover

 University of Minnesota

M

Warmund

University of Missouri

 

S.

Kadir

Kansas State University