Comparative Agronomic Performance of 15 Saskatoon ( Amelanchier AlnifoliaNutt.) Cultivars During Their First Seven Years of Growth
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.71318/apom.2002.56.2.118Abstract
This study quantitatively characterizes 15 different saskatoon cultivars grown in replicated trials at two sites (University of Saskatchewan and Moonlake, SK) during their first seven years of growth from 1992 to 1998. The 15 cultivars included ‘Bluff’, ‘Buffalo’, ‘Forestburg’, ‘Honeywood’, ‘JB30’, ‘Martin’, ‘Nelson’, ‘Northline’, ‘PAR 90’, ‘Parkhill’, ‘Pearson II’, ‘Pembina’, ‘Smoky’, ‘Success’, and ‘Thiessen’. Data were collected on survival, shoot growth, stem growth, suckering, blossoming time, fruit size, and yield. Growth as measured in this study, did not differ among the cultivars in most years. However, in 1994, ‘Thiessen’ had a greater current season's shoot growth than most of the other cultivars. Cultivars that produced the fewest suckers (4 to 10/plant in total over the seven years) included ‘Forestburg’, ‘Martin’, ‘Nelson’, ‘PAR 90’, ‘Pembina’, ‘JB30’, and ‘Thiessen’. ‘Buffalo’, ‘Bluff’, and ‘Parkhill’ produced the most suckers with a mean of 34, 36 and 64 suckers per plant, respectively, over seven years. Cultivars that tended to bloom earlier in the season included ‘Bluff’ and ‘Parkhill’; ‘Thiessen’ and ‘Martin’ also blossomed relatively early. ‘Pembina’, ‘Success’, ‘Northline’ and ‘JB30’ were among the last of the cultivars to blossom. ‘Martin’ and ‘Thiessen’ had the largest fruit with mean diameters of 14.2 and 13.9 mm, respectively. The cultivars, ‘Success’, ‘Bluff’ and ‘Parkhill’ had the smallest fruit with mean diameters of 10, 10.9 and 11 mm, respectively. The top yielding cultivars included ‘Pearson II’, ‘Smoky’ and ‘Honeywood’, with a mean cumulative yield over the seven years of 8.5 kg per plant. The yield of ‘Pembina’ was unusually low with a mean cumulative yield of just over 2 kg per plant.
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.