Table 1. Yield, yield efficiency, and fruit weight in 2001 ofGinger Gold trees on several rootstocks 

 planted in 1995.' 



Yield per tree (kg) 



Cumulative 



Yield efficiency 

 (kg/cm^ TCA) 



Cumulative 



Fruit weight (g) 



Average 



fruiting heavily and often stop growing unless special 

 care is taken. Trees on B.9, M.9 T337, and P.2 were 

 similar in size but smaller than those on Mark or V. 1 . 

 The smallest trees were on V.3, P. 1 6, P.22, B.49 1 , and 

 B.469. This last group, m general, was in the subdwarf 

 size category. It is important to note, however, that 

 trees on V.3 in other research trials with different 

 varieties have been in the M.9 range rather than the 

 subdwarf category. 



Yield in 2001 was very low in this trial due to an 

 early May frost. Cumulative yield (1997-2001), 

 however, was significantly differences among 

 rootstocks (Table 1). Generally, however, cumulative 

 yield followed tree size, with the largest trees 

 producing the greatest amount of fruit. Yield 

 efficiency is a statisfic that relates yield to tree size. As 

 might be expected because of the close relationship 

 between cumulative yield and trunk cross-sectional 

 area, there was little difference in cumulative yield 

 efficiency (Table 1). The only statistically significant 

 difference was that trees on P.16 were more efficient 

 than those of V.3. 



Fruit size in 2001 and on average from 1997 

 through 200 1 was relatively consistent among trees on 

 the different rootstocks (Table 1). The only rootstock 

 which appears to affect fruit size negatively was 

 B.469. Fruit from these trees was only two thirds the 

 size of fruit from other trees on average. 



Conclusions 



This trial is still relatively young, and with a poor 

 year in 2001, we are not prepared to make any 

 definitive conclusions at this time. However, it points 

 to a few possible practical outcomes. First, among the 

 subdwarfs, P.16 appears to be the best. It has 

 consistently (among a number of studies) has 

 performed well, producing good yields with good fruit 

 size, both of which are difficult in general for trees on 

 the subdwarf rootstocks. Second, M.9 and B.9 

 continued to perform similarly and well. Last, V.l 

 looks interesting for an M.26-sized tree. In other 

 research trials, trees on V. 1 have yielded significantly 

 more than comparable trees on M.26. 



%9^ %3^ %1^ %1^ %1^ 

 ^{^ #^ ^^ #1^ ^{^ 



Fruit Notes, Volume 66, 2001 



51 



