Citrus Rootstock Technical Guide – Mature Tree Assessments

Mark Skewes, SARDI, Loxton Research Centre Introduction Materials and methods Original citrus plantings in the Riverland The longevity, tree and cropping were either on own roots, or used pure bred performance and fruit quality of trees in four rootstocks such as Sweet orange, Cleopatra historic rootstock trials were assessed mandarin and Rough lemon, which provided across the 2015 and 2016 harvests. Three some advantages in terms of yield and/or of the trial sites were located on Loxton fruit quality. However, as existing orchards Research Centre, with the fourth being began to be replanted, it was recognised located on a private property between that these rootstocks were unable to cope Loxton and Berri. In all, 21 rootstock with the disease and nematode load in soils genotypes were assessed. which had previously contained plantings, especially citrus. Three of the trial sites had previously been assessed by Peter Gallasch and had Hybrid rootstocks were the answer to this associated datasets available for problem, and breeding programs have been longitudinal comparisons of tree size, yield undertaken across the globe, attempting to and various fruit quality parameters. combine the most advantageous characteristics of a range of Citrus species, In season data were analysed by two-way and other, related genera such as Poncirus. ANOVA using SigmaPlot Version 13 (Systat Software Inc. GmbH, Erkrath, Germany). A range of these new generation rootstocks Longitudinal analysis was performed using have been imported into Australia, or bred the R software (R Core Development Team, here, and SARDI has evaluated a number of version 3.1.3, 2015), and analysis of them under local conditions and with locally variance (ANOVA) was used to statistically selected varieties. During the period 1989 to test for differences between rootstocks and 2002, a range of citrus rootstock trials were time periods within sites. Pairwise-t-tests established in the Riverland, principally at were then employed when there were Loxton Research Centre. Initial evaluation of significant main effects and interactions. these trials was conducted for up to 10 years from planting, although most often Results from the four local trials were measurements were not continued past five compared with published information from or six years of age due to funding limitations. around the world, and performance summarised in Table 1. Performance The now mostly mature trees in these trials summaries were compiled for selected were revisited over two harvests (2015 and rootstocks. 2016), and performance evaluated and compared with data collected during the 1980’s to early 2000’s.

Table 1 Identification of potential issues with scion/rootstock combinations represented in the revisited trials Hockney Summer Gold Washington Imperial Rootstock Navelina Orange Navel Orange Navel Orange Navel Orange Afourer Mandarin Murcott Tangor Mandarin Rough Lemon 7 Rangpur Lime 5,6 Philippine Red Lime 6 5,6 Santa Barbara Red Lime 6 Cleopatra Mandarin Emperor Mandarin Sunki Mandarin 5,6 5,6 5,6 Sweet Orange 6 Taiwanica Volkameriana 5,6 7 4 Trifoliata Swingle Citrumelo 2,4,5,6 2,4,5,6 2 F80-5 Citrumelo 1,2 5,6 F80-7 Citrumelo 1,2,7 Nelspruit 639 2 3 Benton Citrange 5,6 Carrizo Citrange 3 Troyer Citrange 2 3 Troyer 341 C-32 Citrange C-35 Citrange 1,2 5,6 5,6 2,5 2,4 3 1 – Incompatible combination, significant tree death 2 – Bud union exhibits creasing Performing well 3 – Overgrowth by the rootstock, potential for girdling Some concerns 4 – Poor tree health Not recommended 5 – Tree size reduced 6 – Yield depressed 7 – Poor internal fruit quality

 Reports of graft union disorders in Moro Results of citrus rootstock orange Tribulato (1979), and investigations incompatibility with Shamouti orange The matrix presented in Table 1 summarizes Ashkenazi (1988). where issues were identified in specific  Fruit generally susceptible to disorders scion/rootstock combinations found in the such as albedo breakdown (Treeby et trials. In the table, cells coloured green al., 1995), and development of mould indicate that no significant problems were and wastage (Tindale, 1950) and rind identified. Yellow cells identify combinations disorders (Cronje, 2013) under storage. which demonstrate some issues, generally Ritenour et al. (2004) found variable of a moderate nature. Red cells identify performance, with low levels of stem combinations which are not recommended end rind breakdown, but high levels of due to major issues resulting in tree death or decay. very poor tree growth, health and yield.  Not recommended for replant situations White cells are scion/rootstock combinations (Hardy, 2004; von Broembsen, 1985). not present in the trials. Rangpur Lime (Rangpur) The numbers in the yellow and red cells C. limonia Osbeck code for the type of issue identified, and are explained by the key at the base of the table.  In the Loxton trials produced small trees and low yields. Performance summaries  Literature suggests poor to moderate for selected rootstocks fruit quality (Ashkenazi, 1992; Castle, Of the rootstocks summarised in Table 1, a 1987). selection are summarised in more detail  Susceptible to most diseases and below. These include the standard pests (Ferguson et al., 1990), as well rootstocks used within the Australian citrus as albedo breakdown (Treeby et al., industry, based on the list of rootstocks 1995). routinely available from AusCitrus (Auscitrus, Cleopatra Mandarin 2016), as well as selected additional C. reshni Hort. ex Tan. rootstocks which are of particular interest.  Performed well in all of the Loxton trials. Rough Lemon  Navel oranges known to perform well C. jambhiri Lush. (Castle et al., 2000; Ferguson et al.,  Washington navels at Loxton produced 1990), production low in early years but moderate yields of fruit with low levels increases as trees mature (Castle, of Brix and acid. 1987; Forner-Giner et al., 2003).  Low sugar and acid characteristics are  Mandarin performance also known to well documented (Castle, 1987; Castle be good (Ferguson et al., 1990), with et al., 1993; Fallahi et al., 1991; Fallahi the same issue of delayed bearing and Rodney, 1992; Ferguson et al., (Ashkenazi, 1992; Castle and Baldwin, 1990; Tribulato, 1979). 2006).  Reputation for large crops (Castle,  Fruit shows low levels of albedo 1987; Castle et al., 1993; Fallahi et al., breakdown (Treeby et al., 1995), and 1991; Fallahi and Rodney, 1992; low susceptibility to decay under Ferguson et al., 1990) not reflected in storage (Ritenour et al., 2004), but high Loxton trials. levels of weight loss under storage

(Alirezanezhad and Eamin, 2006;  Ferguson et al. (1990) lists Machado et al., 2015). incompatibility with Satsuma mandarins  Only recommended for soils which but provides no source for the finding, have not previously had citrus trees and gives a rating of “Uncertain” in (Hardy, 2004). respect of compatibility with navel oranges and mandarins, due to less Sweet Orange than 10 years of observations being Citrus sinensis [L.] Osbeck available at that time.  Performed well under mandarin scions  The majority of literature reports high at Loxton, consistent with the literature vigour, large tree size and high yields in (Castle, 1987; Castle et al., 1993; trees of a range of varieties (Castle et Ferguson et al., 1990), and adequately al., 2010; Castle et al., 1993; Fallahi under Washington navel orange. and Rodney, 1992; Forner-Giner et al.,  Recognized as being of intermediate 2010; Georgiou, 2000, 2002; Hardy, vigor and producing intermediate yields 2004; Tribulato, 1979; Tsakelidou et al., (Castle et al., 1993), low yield in Loxton 2002; Tuzcu et al., 1999; Waqar et al., navel orange trial may reflect the 2007; Zekri and Al-Jaleel, 2004). relatively close planting distance (6.5 x  Some examples where Volkameriana 3 m) and mature size of these trees, produced the smallest tree size resulting in competition for space, light (Stenzel et al., 2003; Tazima et al., and nutrients. May perform better in a 2013) and lowest yields (Tazima et al., uniform planting all on Sweet orange. 2013, 2015).  Has been shown to produce fruit with  Tribulato (1979) reports disorders of the low susceptibility to albedo breakdown graft union but no impact on tree health (Treeby et al., 1995), but moderate in Moro orange trees, and Ashkenazi susceptibility to mould and wastage in (1988) reports incompatibility with storage (Tindale, 1950), and high Shamouti orange. susceptibility to postharvest disorders  Fruit quality known to be relatively poor (El-Zeftawi et al., 1989). (Castle et al., 1993; Fallahi et al., 1991;  Not recommended for replant situations Fallahi and Rodney, 1992; Hardy, (Gallasch and Staniford, 2003; Hardy, 2004; Tuzcu et al., 1999), Loxton trials 2004). found low juice content and thick rinds in Afourer fruit. Volkameriana (Volkamer lemon)  Produces fruit with good storage C. volkameriana Ten. & Pasq. performance, with low levels of decay, weight loss, juice percentage loss and  Not widely used in Australia, but decline in TSS and acid (Alirezanezhad available commercially. and Eamin, 2006).  Generally considered to have similar characteristics to Rough lemon (Castle, Trifoliata (Trifoliate orange) 1987; Castle et al., 1993; Hardy, 2004; Poncirus trifoliata [L.] Raf. von Broembsen, 1985).  Performed adequately under Murcott  Not commonly used in South Australia tangor at Loxton, but tree size was due to its low tolerance for high pH reduced in Washington navel trees, and soils and saline water (Gallasch and tree health was poor in Imperial Staniford, 2003), but grows well in mandarins. heavier soils (Hardy, 2004).

 Only present in one of the Loxton trial sites, where it gave moderate yields.  Some literature indicates high fruit quality from trees on Trifoliata (Castle, 1987; Castle et al., 1993; Hardy, 2004), moderate quality fruit from trees at Loxton may be the result of the trial being planted in sandy soil.  Compatible with most orange varieties, including Washington navels, but known to express incompatibility symptoms with Roble orange (Garnsey et al., 2001), and some mandarins (Ashkenazi, 1988).  Fruit recognized as having low levels of albedo breakdown (Treeby et al., 1995), and storing well, with low incidence of mould and wastage (Tindale, 1950) and good storage life (Fruit Research Institute Sichuan Agricultural Academy China, 1982).  However, Hifny et al. (2012) found variable results under storage, with good retention of fruit firmness and Figure 1 Murcott tangor tree on Swingle SAR, but declining TSS and acid, and citrumelo, compare health and size with Arras and Chessa (1986) found high trees in background levels of decay.  Similar symptoms in Afourer mandarin Swingle Citrumelo (Citrumelo 4475) at Loxton suggest this problem may P. trifoliata (L.) Raf. x Duncan grapefruit (C. affect many more mandarin types paradisi Macf.) (Ashkenazi, 1988; Garnsey et al., 2001).  Imperial mandarin at Loxton also  Showed early promise as a replant showed signs of development of tissue rootstock for a wide range of varieties abnormalities at the bud-union, but no (Castle, 1987; Castle et al., 1988; von obvious tree symptoms. Broembsen, 1985).  Although the performance of  Over time a range of compatibility Washington navel oranges at Loxton issues have come to light. was adequate, literature indicates that  In the Loxton trials, bud union creasing, symptoms consistent with lack of tree growth, poor tree health incompatibility have also been observed in common orange and navel and depressed yields of Murcott orange trees on Swingle (Ashkenazi, tangors (Figure 1) are entirely 1988; Castle and Stover, 2000; consistent with the weight of published Garnsey et al., 2001; Schneider and material (Ashkenazi, 1992; Barbasso et Pehrson, 1985). al., 2005; Castle and Baldwin, 2006;  However, other reports from some of Castle and Stover, 2000; Garnsey et al., the same authors show positive results 2001). in trials of oranges on Swingle (Castle et al., 2000; Castle et al., 2010), so

incompatibilities appear to be the  Trial trees at Loxton performed well exception rather than the rule. under Imperial and Afourer mandarin  Fruit has performed well for decay and Murcott tangor, but produced small under storage (Ritenour et al., 2004), trees and low yields under Washington but more work is needed. navel.  Under Washington navels in Florida, Nelspruit 639 (x639) produced small trees with moderate Cleopatra mandarin (C. reshni Hort. ex Tan.) yield (Castle et al., 2000), and under x P. trifoliata (L.) Raf. Murcotts in Florida produced  Published information is positive, with inconsistent tree size and was rated as good tree size and cumulative yields “C”-grade, being deemed not promising under Washington navels at eight years enough to progress to yield evaluation of age (Castle et al., 2000), and Murcott (Castle and Baldwin, 2006). tangors at nine years (Castle and  Few compelling reasons to use this Baldwin, 2006). rootstock under Riverland conditions,  Navel fruit size is large (Castle et al., except with Eureka lemon. 2000; Castle and Ferguson, 2003). Carrizo and Troyer Citrange  Susceptible to citrus blight (Castle and Citrus sinensis [L.] Osbeck x Poncirus Ferguson, 2003). trifoliata [L.] Raf.  Performed well under Murcott tangors at Loxton,  Widely considered to have arisen from  Bud union issues under Afourer and the same original selection, and Imperial mandarins, and use under generally demonstrate only minor these varieties cannot be differences in performance (Castle, recommended. 1987; Castle et al., 2000; Castle et al.,  In the absence of local trials under 1993; Hardy, 2004; von Broembsen, navels it is assumed that performance 1985). should be good, based on information  International literature reports high from the USA, but further local vigour and good early cropping (Castle, evaluation is recommended. 1987; Castle et al., 2010; Castle et al.,  Little post-harvest storage work has 1993; Hardy, 2004), although some been carried out, the small amount variable performance (von Broembsen, available shows that fruit performs well 1985) and small fruit size in older trees for levels of decay and stem end rind (Gallasch and Staniford, 2003; Hardy, breakdown (Ritenour et al., 2004). 2004) has been reported.  Washington navels at Loxton Benton Citrange performed well in early harvests, Citrus sinensis [L.] Osbeck x Poncirus producing amongst the highest yields, trifoliata [L.] Raf. but mature trees are no longer among  Originally bred specifically for use with the highest yielding in the trial. Eureka lemon (Hardy, 2004), which  Symptoms of bud union creasing under shows incompatibility with many of the Murcott tangor (Troyer only) and commonly used rootstocks, especially overgrowth of the rootstock under those with Trifoliata parentage. Imperial mandarins (both rootstocks) in  Has been tested with other citrus the Loxton trials are indicators that varieties, but has not performed these combinations may develop exceptionally with any of them. problems over their expected life span.

 Issues with compatibility have been  A limited history of evaluation, but has reported in the literature, for Roble and performed well in all trials reported to Page oranges (Garnsey et al., 2001), date. and for mandarins and their hybrids  In Florida, Hamlin sweet orange trees (Ashkenazi, 1988; Castle et al., 1993), performed equal best (Castle et al., especially Murcott tangor (Castle and 2010), and Washington navel orange Stover, 2000; Garnsey et al., 2001). trees were in the most productive group  This information has arisen since (Castle et al., 2000). Ferguson et al. (1990) published their  Castle and Ferguson (2003) indicate recommendations that these citranges that trees are “consistent in their vigor, are compatible with oranges and large size, and excellent yield”. mandarins in general. Subsequent  Significantly, there have been no experience has identified significant reports of bud union creasing or exceptions to the rule. incompatibility symptoms in the  Increased rind creasing has been literature to date. reported on these rootstocks (Gallasch  At Loxton both Murcott tangor and and Staniford, 2003; von Broembsen, Afourer mandarin trees were large and 1985). healthy, returned high yields of fruit,  Avoid when planting mandarin trees. and showed no evidence of bud union  High early yields of Washington navel creasing. oranges may not be sustained into maturity, evaluate the benefits of high C-35 Citrange yields early in orchard life against Ruby Blood orange (C. sinensis [L.] Osbeck) moderate long term yield projections x Poncirus trifoliata (L.) Raf. when deciding whether to use these  A sibling of C-32 citrange which rootstocks under navel oranges. demonstrated promising characteristics  Shown to produce fruit with moderate in early evaluation. albedo breakdown susceptibility  Failed to live up to early promise at (Treeby et al., 1995), but good Loxton, with less than optimum performance across the board for performance under all scions. storage problems such as rind  Demonstrated bud union creasing disorders (Cronje, 2013), chilling injury under mandarin types, leading to poor (McCollum et al., 2002), decay (Arras tree health and size (Afourer and and Chessa, 1986) and general storage Murcott), and rootstock overgrowth quality (Akpinar and Kaska, 1993). (Imperial).  However, D'hallewin et al. (1994) found  Although Ferguson et al. (1990) that fruit from trees on Troyer characterized it as compatible with performed poorly for decay and mandarins, Castle and Baldwin (2006) declining SAR under storage, and found wide differences in performance Ritenour et al. (2004) found variable of Murcott across soil types, with most results across various citrus varieties trees performing poorly, and an overall and storage conditions. rating of C given to the combination. C-32 Citrange  Roose (2009) found decline in Valencia Ruby Blood orange (C. sinensis [L.] Osbeck) trees from around 10 years of age, and x Poncirus trifoliata (L.) Raf. Garnsey et al. (2001) reported “strong” bud union symptoms and the presence

of canopy effects in incompatibility Further Reading observations of ‘Roble’ sweet orange. Akpinar, I., Kaska, N., 1993. Investigations  Bud union creasing of Navelina orange on the storage of the orange trees (Figure 2) has led to widespread cultivars Washington Navel, Valencia and Moro grown on tree death at Loxton. Forner-Giner et al. different citrus rootstocks. Doga, (2003) did not report development of Turk Tarim ve Ormancilik Dergisi 17, incompatibility symptoms in 10 year old 11-21. trees in Spain, but symptoms at Loxton Alirezanezhad, A., Eamin, A.A., 2006. Effect of eight citrus rootstocks on storage did not appear until around 12 years. life of grapefruit cultivars Marsh and Ruby Red. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 37, Pe447- Pe455, en449. Arras, G., Chessa, I., 1986. The effect of the rootstock on the storage quality of the orange cv. Washington Navel, selection Frost. Notiziario di Ortoflorofrutticoltura 12, 209-215. Ashkenazi, S., 1988. Incompatibility of some stock-scion citrus combinations in Israel. Balaban Publishers, Rehovot, Israel. Ashkenazi, S., 1992. Growing Murcott in Israel. Rootstocks, quality and yield. Alon Hanotea 46, 321-329. Auscitrus, 2016. Citrus Rootstock Seed Order Form. Australian Citrus Propagation Association Incorporated, http://www.auscitrus.com/docs/docu ments/seed_order_form_002.pdf. Barbasso, D.V., Pio, R.M., Carvalho, S.A., Figure 2 Bud-union creasing in Navelina on 2005. Compatibility of mandarin C-35 citrange varieties and some hybrids in 'Swingle' citrumelo. Laranja 26, 59-  Tree size reduction is a known 67. Castle, W.S., 1987. Citrus Rootstocks, in: characteristic of this rootstock (Castle Rom, R.C., Carlson, R.F. (Eds.), et al., 2000; Castle et al., 2010; Castle Rootstocks for Fruit Crops. John and Ferguson, 2003; Forner-Giner et Wiley & Sons Inc., pp. 361-399. al., 2003; Roose, 2009), but tree size Castle, W.S., Baldwin, J.C., 2006. Rootstock effects on Murcott tangor trees reduction is expected to be grown in a calcareous alfisol or a compensated for by higher yield spodosol. Proceedings of the efficiency (Castle and Ferguson, 2003; Florida State Horticultural Society Hardy, 2004). 119, 136-141. Castle, W.S., Baldwin, J.C., Grosser, J.W.,  In the Loxton trials, however, yield per 2000. Performance of 'Washington' trunk cross sectional area (TCSA) was navel orange trees in rootstock trials middle of the range to low under both located in Lake and St Lucie navel oranges and mandarins, Counties. Proceedings of the Florida State Horticultural Society suggesting that planting trees at higher 113, 106-111. density may still not recover yield per Castle, W.S., Baldwin, J.C., Muraro, R.P., hectare to the same level as obtained 2010. Rootstocks and the with other rootstocks at normal spacing. performance and economic returns of 'Hamlin' sweet orange trees. HortScience 45, 875-881.

Castle, W.S., Ferguson, J.J., 2003. Citrus Fruit Research Institute Sichuan Agricultural rootstocks and their on-site Academy China, 1982. Studies on evaluation, IFAS Extension. rootstocks for Xianfeng orange University of Florida, Florida, p. 5. (Citrus sinensis) in Sichuan Castle, W.S., Stover, E., 2000. Rootstock province. Acta Horticulturae Sinica 9, reflections: Swingle citrumelo 1-10. update. Citrus Industry 81, 18-20. Gallasch, P.T., Staniford, M., 2003. Citrus Castle, W.S., Tucker, D.P.H., Krezdorn, A.H., Varieties and Rootstocks for the Youtsey, C.O., 1993. Rootstocks for Riverland. South Australian Florida Citrus, 2 ed. University of Research and Development Florida, Florida. Institute, Adelaide, p. 20. Castle, W.S., Wutscher, H.K., Youtsey, C.O., Garnsey, S.M., Castle, W.S., Tucker, D.P.H., Pelosi, R.R., 1988. Citrumelos as Rouse, R.E., Wutscher, H.K., rootstocks for Florida citrus. Kesinger, M.C., 2001. Budunion Proceedings of the Florida State incompatibilities and associated Horticultural Society 101, 28-33. declines observed in Florida among Cronje, P.J.R., 2013. Postharvest rind trees on Swingle citrumelo and disorders of 'Nadorcott' mandarin other trifoliate orange-related are affected by rootsatock in rootstocks. Proceedings of the addition to postharvest treatment. Florida State Horticultural Society Acta Horticulturae 1007, 111-117. 114, 121-127. D'hallewin, G., Mura, D., Piga, A., Pala, M., Georgiou, A., 2000. Performance of 'Nova' Lovicu, G., 1994. Rootstock effects mandarin on eleven rootstocks in on postharvest physiological and Cyprus. Scientia Horticulturae 84, pathological behaviour of 'Avana' 115-126. mandarin. Acta Horticulturae 368, Georgiou, A., 2002. Evaluation of rootstocks 395-402. for 'Clementine' mandarin in Cyprus. El-Zeftawi, B.M., Peggie, I.D., Minnis, D.C., Scientia Horticulturae 93, 29-38. 1989. Postharvest treatments, Hardy, S., 2004. Growing Lemons in storage temperature and rootstocks Australia - a Production Manual. in relation to storage disorders and NSW Department of Primary fruit quality of 'Valencia' oranges. Industries, Sydney, New South Journal of Horticultural Science 64, Wales. 373-378. Hifny, H.A., Elrazik, A.M.A., Abdabboh, G.A., Fallahi, E., Mousavi, Z., Rodney, D.R., 1991. Sultan, M.Z., 2012. Effect of some Performance of 'Orlando' tangelo citrus rootstocks on fruit quality and trees on ten rootstocks in Arizona. storability of Washington navel Journal of the American Society for orange under cold storage Horticultural Science 116, 2-5. conditions. American-Eurasian Fallahi, E., Rodney, D.R., 1992. Tree size, Journal of Agricultural & yield, fruit quality, and leaf mineral Environmental Sciences 12, 1266- nutrient concentration of 'Fairchild' 1273. mandarin on six rootstocks. Journal Machado, F.L.d.C., da Costa, J.d.P., of the American Society for Teixeira, A.d.S., da Costa, J.M.C., Horticultural Science 117, 28-31. 2015. The influence of rootstock Ferguson, L.F., Sacovich, N., Roose, M., and time of harvest on hte fruit 1990. California Citrus Rootstocks. quality during storage of in two University of California, California. grapefruit cultivars. Acta Forner-Giner, M.A., Alcaide, A., Primo-Millo, Scientiarum Agronomy 37, 341-346. E., Forner, J.B., 2003. Performance McCollum, T.G., Bowman, K.D., Castle, of 'Navelina' orange on 14 W.S., 2002. Effects of rootstock on rootstocks in Northern Valencia fruit quality and postharvest (Spain). Scientia Horticulturae 98, behavior of 'Marsh' grapefruit. 223-232. Proceedings of the Florida State Forner-Giner, M.A., Hueso, J.J., Aguera, Horticultural Society 115, 44-46. J.M., Forner, J.B., 2010. Ritenour, M.A., Dou, H., Bowman, K.D., Performance of 'Clausellina' Boman, B.J., Stover, E., Castle, mandarin on four rootstocks. W.S., 2004. Effect of rootstock on Journal of Food, Agriculture & stem-end rind breakdown and Environment 8, 328-331.

decay of fresh citrus. S.A. Co-operative Citrus Exchange HortTechnology 14, 315-319. Ltd, Pretoria, South Africa, p. 19. Roose, M.L., 2009. Summary of Rootstock Waqar, A., Nawaz, M.A., Iqbal, M.A., Khan, Trials (Roose Program. Updated M.M., 2007. Effect of different 5/12/09). University of California, rootstocks on plant nutrient status Riverside, California. and yield in Kinnow mandarin Schneider, H., Pehrson, J.E.J., 1985. (Citrus reticulata Blanco). Pakistan Decline of navel orange trees with Journal of Botany 39, 1779-1786. trifoliate orange rootstocks. Zekri, M., Al-Jaleel, A., 2004. Evaluation of California Agriculture 39, 13-16. rootstocks for Valencia and Navel Stenzel, N.M.C., Neves, C.S.V.J., Gomes, orange trees in Saudi Arabia. Fruits J.C., Medina, C.C., 2003. (Paris) 59, 91-100. Performance of 'Ponkan' mandarin on seven rootstocks in Southern Brazil. HortScience 38, 176-178. Tazima, Z.H., Neves, C.S.V.J., Yada, I.F.U., Leite Junior, R.P., 2013. Performance of 'Okitsu' Satsuma mandarin on nine rootstocks. Scientia Agricola 70, 422-427. Tazima, Z.H., Neves, C.S.V.J., Yada, I.F.U., Leite Junior, R.P., 2015. Crop production of 'Okitsu' satsuma mandarin on nine rootstocks in Southern Brazil, in: Sabater-Munoz, B., Moreno, P., Pena, L., Navarro, L. (Eds.), Acta Horticulturae. International Society for Horticultural Science (ISHS), Leuven, Belgium. Tindale, G.B., 1950. Storage experiments. Citrus News 26, 134-135, 137. Treeby, M.T., Storey, R., Bevington, K.B., 1995. Rootstock, seasonal and fruit size influences on the incidence and severity of albedo breakdown in Bellamy navel oranges. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 35, 103-108. Tribulato, E., 1979. Osservazioni comparative su sette portinnesti dell'arancio "Moro" [Citrus sinensis (L.) Osbeck]. Tecnica Agricola 31, 15-32. Tsakelidou, K., Papanikolaou, X., Protopapadakis, E., 2002. Rootstock effects on the yields, tree and fruit characteristics of the mandarin cultivar 'clementine' on the Island of Rhodes. Experimental Agriculture 38, 351-358. Tuzcu, O., Yildirim, B., Duzenoglu, S., Bahceci, I., 1999. Degisik turuncgil anaclariiniin Valencia ve Yafa portakal cesitlerinin meyve verim ve kalitesi uzerine etkileri. Turkish Journal of Agriculture & Forestry 23, 125-135. von Broembsen, L.A., 1985. Citrus Rootstocks - The Choice You Have.