provided by Greg Reighard (Clemson Univer- 

 sity), the coordinator of the NC-140 trial: 



Lovell 



Bailey 



TN 281-1 

 Stark Redleaf 



GF 305 



Higama 



Montclar 



Rubira 



Ishtara 



H7338019 

 BY520-8 



Chance seedling of peach from 

 California named in 1882, 

 propagated by seed; 

 Selection of peach from Iowa 

 named in 1890, propagated by 

 seed; 



Selection in Tennessee of "wild" 

 peach, propagated by seed; 

 Selection by Stark Bro's from a 

 Tennessee Natural-tj^je root- 

 stock, propagated by seed; 

 Selection in 1940 in France 

 from Montreuil peach, propa- 

 gated by seed; 



Selection in France of peach 

 from Japan, propagated by 

 seed; 



Selection in France of peach, 

 propagated by seed; 

 Selection in France of peach, 

 propagated by seed; 

 Selection in France of a plum- 

 peach hybrid, propagated by 

 cutting; 



Selection in Ontario of peach, 

 propagated by seed; 

 Selection in Georgia of peach, 

 propagated by seed; 



Guardian Selection in Georgia of peach, 



propagated by seed; 



Ta Tao 5 Selection in China of peach, 



propagated by grafting, used in 

 the study as an interstem with 

 Lovell as the rootstock. 



After three growing seasons, significant 

 differences existed in trunk cross-sectional area 

 (Table 1, Figure 1). Of the trees with pure 

 peach rootstocks, H7338019 resulted in a tree 

 only half the size of those on Lovell, the largest. 

 Rubira also produced a small tree, and 

 Montclar, Higama, and Guardian also pro- 

 duced large trees. Ishtara, the plum-peach 

 hybrid, resulted in the smallest trees, ones that 

 on average were only 38% of the size of trees on 

 Lovell. Yield varied similarly (Table 1, Figure 

 2), with trees on Higama, Bailey, Stark's 

 Redleaf, GF 305, and Guardian producing the 

 most, and trees on Ishtara producing the least. 

 Because, in general, the largest trees produced 

 the most fi-uit, yield efficiency (the expression of 

 5deld per unit tree size) did not vary 

 significantly among rootstocks (Table 1). 

 Likewise finiit size did not vary significantly 

 among rootstocks (Table 1). 



Although several more years will be 

 required to evaluate these rootstock ad- 

 equately, it is interesting to observe the 

 significant differences that have developed in 

 this first fruiting season. 



♦ mi^ ml^ •i^ •Ia 

 #{« «^ 0^ 0^ 



22 



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



