(Figure 4). Cumula- 

 ti\ ely, trees on Pajam 

 2 produced 42 suck- 

 ers on average; 

 whereas, those on 

 EMLA produced only 

 14. The differences 

 in suckering were not 

 strictly related to tree 

 vigor, since trees on 

 Fleuren 56 were the 

 least vigorous but 

 produced the second 

 most root suckers. As 

 a comparison, trees 

 on M.26 EMLA pro- 

 duced only nvo suck- 

 ers on average in the 

 10 years of this trial. 

 Cumulative yield 

 per tree (Figure 5) 

 was closely related to 



Results 



tree size. The more vigorous the M.9 strain, the greater 

 the yield. When the yield was adjusted for tree size. 



After 10 growing seasons, differences among the that is was assessed as yield efficiency, the strains of 

 six M.9 strains were striking, particularly related to M.9 were similar (Figure 6). It is mteresting to note 

 tree size. Of the six, the largest trees were on Pajam 2, that trees on all strains of M.9 were significantly more 

 and the smallest were 

 on Fleuren 56 (Figures 

 1, 2. and 3). Trees on 

 Pajam 2 were nearly 

 VC/o larger than those 

 on Flueren 56. The 

 order of tree size from 

 largest to smallest was 

 Pajam 2, RN29, Pajam 

 I, EMLA, 



NAKBT337, and 

 Fleuren 56. Trees on 

 Pajam 2 were some- 

 what smaller than 

 those on M.26 EMLA, 

 and trees on Fleuren 

 56 were substantially 

 larger than those on 

 M.27 EMLA. 



Root suckering 

 varied greatly over the 

 10 years of the trial 



24 



Fruit Notes. Volume 68, Spring, Summer, & FalU 2003 



