Performance of Eight Strains of ‘Rome Beauty’ Over Nine Years
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.71318/apom.1994.48.4.240Abstract
Eight strains of ‘Rome Beauty’ were planted in 1984 and evaluated over nine years for tree size, growth, fruit size, color, shape, yield and scarf skin. Tree size of ‘Barkley’ tended to be larger and ‘Starkspur Taylor’ smaller than most of tne other strains. ‘Starkspur Taylor’ had more leaves/spur than ‘Stark Red Rome,’ ‘Flamespur’, ‘Lawspur’, ‘Spuree’ and ‘Starkspur Law.’ ‘Starkspur Law’ had smaller spur leaves and leaf area per spur. ‘Starkspur Law’ tended to have the most lateral flowers on one-year wood and ‘Flamespur’, ‘True Brite,’ ‘Lawspur’ and ‘Stark Red Rome’ the fewest. On two-year wood, ‘Barkley’ and ‘Stark Red Rome’ had a greater density of flower clusters than ‘Flamespur,’ ‘True Brite’ and ‘Lawspur’, which had the lowest density. ‘Lawspur’ had a greater density of spurs on two-year wood than any of the other strains. ‘Starkspur Taylor’ had high early yields and one of the highest cumulative yield efficiencies (yield ÷ trunk cross sectional area (TCA) due to its small TCA. In years with heavy crops (1990 and 1992) ‘Spuree’ and ‘Flamespur’ had high yields, while ‘True Brite,’ ‘Starkspur Taylor’ and ‘Stark Red Rome’ tended to have lower yields. Fruit of the following strains were consistently nearly completely red: ‘Flamespur’, ‘Lawspur’, ‘Starkspur Law’ and ‘Stark Red Rome.’ ‘Barkley,’ ‘Spuree’ and ‘Starkspur Taylor’ had a lower percentage of the fruit surface pigmented. ‘Barkley’ consistently produced larger fruit than most of the other strains. In 1988, severe scarf skin occurred and ‘Flamespur,’ ‘Lawspur,’ ‘Spuree’ and ‘Starkspur Law’ had lower levels or scarf skin than other strains. ‘Barkley’ had high levels of scarf skin most years. ‘True Brite,’ ‘Lawspur’ and ‘Starkspur Law’ had scarf skin levels below the economic threshold all years except 1988.
Downloads
Published
License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
The American Pomological Society and Editors cannot be held responsible for the views and opinions expressed by individual authors of articles published herein. This also applies to any supplemental materials residing on this website that are linked to these articles. The publication of advertisements does not constitute any endorsement of products by the American Pomological Society or Editors.