comparable trees on M.7. Trees on V.2 and V.7 were 

 similar in size to those on M.26 EMLA. Next smallest 

 were trees on V. 1 . In another trial at the UMass Cold 

 Spring Orchard, trees on V.l were somewhat larger 

 thna trees on M.26 EMLA. The smallest trees were on 

 V.3, likely similar in size to comparable trees on M.9. 

 To date, cumulative yield (1998-2001) was 

 highest from the largest trees (Table 1). However, 

 when adjusted for tree size, the most yield efficient 

 trees were on V.3, V.l, and M.26 EMLA (Table 1). 

 The least yield efficient trees were on V.4. In 2001, 



V.4 resulted in significantly larger fruit than did V.7, 

 but overall, there was no consistent effect of rootstock 

 on fruit size 



These trees are too young to make a great number 

 of conclusions, but these results along with those from 

 three other trials at the UMass Cold Spring Orchard 

 suggest that V.l and V.3 are promising, dwarfing 

 rootstocks. Their hardiness, potential disease 

 resistance, and yield efficiency make them worthy of 

 continued trial. 



ic ic i: i: "k 



Fruit Notes, Volume 67, Summer, 2002 



19 



