Effect of Rootstock on Fruit Characteristics and Tree Productivity in Seven Red-Fruited Pear Cultivars

Authors

  • David Sugar Author
  • Kate A. Powers Author
  • Sally R. Basile Author

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.71318/apom.1999.53.3.148

Abstract

Seven red pear cultivars on seedling Pyrus betulifolia, P. calleryana, P. communis‘Winter Nelis,’ clonal ‘Old Home’ x ‘Farmingdale’ (OH x F) 18 or 97 ( P. communis), or Quince BA-29C ( Cydonia oblonga) rootstocks were evaluated over a ten-year period. The effects of rootstock on fruit characteristics and tree productivity were specific to each cultivar. Rootstock tended to affect tree productivity more than it affected fruit characteristics. For ‘Starkrimson,’ fruiting began one year earlier with quince than with the other rootstocks. For ‘Red Anjou,’ fruiting began two years earlier with P. calleryana, and for ‘Canal Red’ fruiting began one year earlier with P. calleryanathan with the other rootstocks. Fruiting of ‘Sensation Red Bartlett’ and ‘Crimson Gem Cornice’ began one year later with ‘Winter Nelis’ than with the other rootstocks. Fruit from trees growing on P. calleryanaseedling had the smallest length:diameter ratio in four of the seven cultivars tested. Cumulative yield efficiency in ‘Red Anjou’ and ‘Crimson Gem Cornice’ was greatest on quince and P. calleryana. Yield efficiency in ‘Sensation Red Bartlett’ was highest on P. betulifoliaand OH x F 97, although yield efficiency on P. betulifoliawas not significantly different than on ‘Winter Nelis.’ For ‘Canal Red,’ yield efficiency was highest on quince and P. calleryana, although differences between P. calleryanaand OH x F 18 were not significant. For ‘Cascade,’ yield efficiency was highest on quince, P. calleryana, and OH × F 97, although yield efficiency was not significantly different between OH x F 97 and ‘Winter Nelis.’

Downloads

Published

1999-07-01

Issue

Section

Articles

Categories

How to Cite

Effect of Rootstock on Fruit Characteristics and Tree Productivity in Seven Red-Fruited Pear Cultivars. (1999). Journal of the American Pomological Society, 53(3), 148-154. https://doi.org/10.71318/apom.1999.53.3.148