taiiftaMi;:.jan>.watu-.->H^,.. >^j.t. ,*■,.... - ^1 a.^>v^^.>. 



ISli^^^^****'^ 



M.9 Pajam 1 



M.9 Fleuren 56 



M.9 EMLA 



M.9 NAKBT337 



M.9 RN29 



M.9 Pajam 2 ^^^ 



60 70 80 90 100 110 120 

 Fruit size (average box count) 



Figure 3. Fruit size in 1996 of Gala on six clones of M.9 in the 1994 NC-140 Apple Rootstock 

 Trial in Massachusetts. 



plating includes Gala on 17 dwarf rootstocks, 

 replicated 10 times. The Massachusetts 

 planting is located in Belchertown at the 

 University of Massachusetts Horticultural 

 Research Center. This article will give a brief 

 update on tree performance through the third 

 growing season. 



After three growing seasons, the largest 

 Gala trees were on V.l, M.9 Pajam 2, and M.26 

 EMLA (Table 1). The smallest trees were on 

 P.22, B.491, and M.27 EMLA. The range in 

 trunk cross-sectional area from smallest to 

 largest was more than four fold. Yield per tree 

 in 1996 (Table 1) was greatest for trees on V.l, 

 M.9 Pajam 2, and Mark (ignoring the 

 pollenizers) and least for trees on M.26 EMLA, 

 P. 16, M.27 EMLA, and P.2. Relating yield to 

 tree size, jdeld efficiency (Table 1) was greatest 

 for trees on Mark and P.22 (ignoring the 

 pollenizers) and smallest for trees on M.26 

 EMLA and P.2. Fruit size (Table 1) was 

 greatest for trees on M.9 Pajam 2 and least for 

 trees on M.26 EMLA, M.9 Pajam 1, 0.3, and 



B.491. 



Among these 17 rootstocks, it is 

 particularly interesting to look at the differ- 

 ences among the six M.9 clones in the study. 

 The range was more than expected. Trees on 

 M.9 Pajam 2 were the largest of the M.9-rooted 

 trees, nearly double the trunk cross-sectional 

 area of trees on M.9 Fleuren 56 (Figure 1). M.9 

 EMLA resulted in a tree intermediate in the 

 range. Yield followed a similar pattern, with 

 trees on M.9 Pajam 2 producing nearly three 

 times the fi-uit of trees on M.9 Fleuren 56 

 (Figure 2). Trees on M.9 Pajam 2 produced the 

 largest fruit, averaging between 80 count and 

 96 count (Figure 3). Fruit from trees on M.9 

 Pajam 1, on the other hand averaged only a bit 

 larger that 120 count. 



Clearly these data are only preliminary. 

 A few more years will be required to begin solid 

 evaluation of these rootstocks, but it is 

 interesting to observe significant differences in 

 these young trees. 



%1a %i« •Im «1« «£• 



rj% ry» 0^ 0^ rj% 



Fruit Notes, Volume 62 (Number 2), Spring, 1997 



19 



