122 



SCIENTIFIC AGRICULTURE 



December, 1921. 



apple tree and a low yielding tree of the 

 same variety, both trees being apparently 

 of equal vigor, but different in the respect ^ 

 that one produced large crops of fine qua- 

 lity fruit, while the other produced small 

 crops of poor or inferior fruit. In report- 

 ing on the results of the yields of the pro- 

 geny of these two trees, Gardner states 

 that there has been no apparent difference 

 in favour of the progeny from the high 

 yielding parent. We apparently have here 

 "positive results from bud selection wdth 

 citrus fruits and negative results from the 

 same type of selection with the apple. In 

 the first case the somatic variations noted 

 have been of such a nature that they are 

 permanent or fixed and may be perpetuated 

 by the means of asexual propagation. In 

 the second instance (that of Gardner) the 

 variations observed were evidently of a 

 fluctuating nature caused either by envi- 

 ronmental influences or nutritional differ- 

 ences within the two parent individuals, 

 unobservable to the human eye. It is evi- 

 dent, therefore, that before final judgment 

 is passed upon the efficacy of or the pos- 

 sibility of improving existing varieties of 

 apples by this method, further experi- 

 mental data will have to be accumulated. 



It is not the intention of this article to 

 take up in detail all the accumulated data 

 for and against bud selection; the fore- 

 going instances are merely cited as exam- 

 ples of opinions, and experimental results 

 having a bearing on this question. 



Attention may now be turned to the i-e- 

 sults of an experiment in bud heredity con- 

 ducted at the Central Experimental Farm, 

 Ottawa. Since 1896 a record of the yield 

 of individual trees has been kept at that 

 Station. In 1906 scions were taken fi'om 

 the heaviest yielding, the poorest yielding, 

 and the heaviest most regular yielding 

 Wealthy trees. The variation of the tlu-ee 

 parents was : 



Heaviest yielding : Total crop for 8 years, 

 104% gallons. 



Poorest yielding : Total crop for 8 years, 

 41 gallons. 



Heaviest most regular yielding: Total 

 crop for 8 years, 7834 gallons. 



With regard to the quality of tlie fruit 

 produced, no apparent difference in favour 

 of either tree was observed, and with re- 

 ference to the comparative size and vigor 

 of the three parents, although all were nor- 

 mally healthy, the poorest yielding tree 



was somewhat smaller than either of the 

 other two, although no record of girth or 

 other measurement was taken. 



The scions taken were root grafted on 

 Rose of Staustead and Dartmouth crab 

 stock and planted in the same orchard on 

 as uniform soil as was possible to obtain. 



The tables on page 123 give the result of 

 each individual tree up to the end of 1920. 

 A discussion of the results follows. 



Discussion. 



It will be noticed that the progeny of tiic 

 poorest yielding tree /las given on the aver- 

 age the lowest yields; that the progeny 

 from the heaviest and most regular bearer 

 has given the second highest; and that the 

 progeny from the heaviest total yielder 

 has given about 62 per cent, more crop on 

 the average than the progeny from the 

 poorest yielding tree. 



Furthermore, it is interesting to note the 

 range of the yields of the individual trees 

 of each lot. For instance, the progeny 

 from the poorest yielding tree runs from 

 24 gallons to 49 gallons, as compared with 

 30.25 gallons to 77.25 gallons from the 

 heaviest yieding prog^eny. Twelve out of 

 a total of seventeen trees from the 

 heaviest yielding parent gave total yields 

 in excess of the highest yielding tree from 

 the poorest jaelding parent. Just what in- 

 fluence the stock may have had is difficult 

 to say, for although all the stock used was 

 grown from Rose of Stanstead and Dart- 

 mouth crab seed, each stock would be dif- 

 ferent in habit and individuality. Xever- 

 tlieless, it is interesting to note the differ- 

 ence in girth or measurement of these lots 

 of progeny. The progeny from the heaviest 

 yielding tree is, from actual observation, as 

 is illustrated by the accompanying photo, 

 far superior in size and vigor to the pro- 

 geny from the poorest yielding parent, 

 wliile the progeny from tlie largest and 

 most regular ber.ring parent are a close 

 second in this respect. The girth measure- 

 ments of the individual trees indicate this 

 in a mathematical form. The row of trees 

 propagated from the poorest yielding par- 

 ent is uniformly lacking in vigor, as is evi- 

 denced by the appearance of the trees and 

 by tlie large percentage of deatlis, viz: 

 45.45 per cent. On tlie south side of this 

 row is the row propagated from the heaviest 

 yielding parent, with only 23.53 per cent, 

 of deatlis to date, and, with few excep- 



