yield efficient than trees 

 on M.26 EMLA. 



Fmit size averaged 

 over the fruiting life of 

 the trial, like yield effi- 

 ciency, was not affected 

 by M.9 strain ( Figure 7). 

 Interestingly, fruit from 

 trees on M.26 EMLA 

 were larger than those 

 from trees on three of 

 the M.9 strains, and fruit 

 trom trees on M.27 

 EMLA were signifi- 

 cantly smaller than those 

 from trees on any of the 

 .\1.9 strains. 



Conclusions 



Dramatic differ- 

 ences in tree size and 

 relatively similar differ- 

 ences in per-tree yield 

 resulted from the six 

 different M.9 strains. 

 Differences in yield effi- 

 ciency and fruit size did 

 not result from the 

 different strains. So, the 

 important M.9 qualities 

 of high yield and large 

 fruit did not vary among 

 the strains evaluated 

 here. The degree of 

 dwarfing, however, did 

 \ary. Growers must 

 therefore be careful not 

 so much in the choice of 

 M.9 strain but in the 

 planting system and tree 

 spacings utilized with 

 the particular M.9 strain. 



M.26 

 EMLA 



M.9 

 Pajam 1 



M.9 

 EMLA 



M.9 

 T337 



M.9 M.27 



Fleuren EMLA 

 56 

 Figure 6. Cumulative yield efficiency of Gala apple trees on various strains of M.9 

 and on M.26 EMLA and M.27 EMLA, over eight fruiting seasons. Bars topped by 

 different letters are signficantly different at odds of 19:1. 



%1« %X^ %1^ %i^ %1^ 



^f* ^J^ ^^ #y% *^ 



Fruit Notes, Volume 68, Spring, Summer, & Fall, 2003 



25 



