would be artificially low if based solely on mea- 

 sured spread, since they were kept in a spacing 

 of only 11.5 feet. In other words, measured tree 

 spread in 1993 was an assessment of how much 

 the tree grew beyond the 11.5-feet allotted 

 space in 1993, since it was pruned to 11.5 feet 

 during the previous dormant season. Further- 

 more, when trees are planted closer together, 

 tree-to-tree competition likely will inhibit 

 growth and spread, resulting in a further reduc- 

 tion in the ideal spacing. Therefore, spacings 

 presented here are meant only to be rough 

 guides to allow for the estimation of per-acre 

 yields. 



Annual jdeld per tree is given in Figure 3. 

 Yield was variable and in somewhat of a bien- 

 nial cycle, but trees on M.7 EMLA clearly 

 jdelded the most per tree with an average yield 



for the last five years of 5.2 bushels. Trees on 

 M.26 EMLA, 0.3, MAC.9, and M.9 EMLA aver- 

 aged 4.4, 3.3, 2.4, and 2.3 bushels per tree, 

 respectively, over the last five years. Trees on 

 M.27 EMLA averaged only 0.4 bushels per tree. 

 Cumulative yield per tree is presented in Table 

 2, and relationships among rootstocks were 

 similar to that for the average production dis- 

 cussed above. 



More important than yield per tree is yield 

 per acre. Potential 3rield per acre was calculated 

 on an annual basis using the tree densities 

 presented in Table 1, and these data are plotted 

 in Figiire 4. Clearly, this is only a rough esti- 

 mate but does pKjint to some significant results. 

 Trees on MAC.9 produced very high yields from 

 the sixth growing season on, exceeding 1000 

 bushels per acre in three years. 0.3 and M.9 



Fruit Notes, Spring, 1994 



