Stone Fruit Rootstocks: Current Status Fruit Industry
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
CONTENTS N E W Y O R K Should New York Growers Plant Higher Density Peach Orchards? Stephen A. Hoying, Terence L. F R U I T Q U A R T E R L Y Robinson and Robert L. Andersen ... 3 The Changing Northern Editorial Fresh Market Peach Picture Stone Fruit Research in New York State Bill Shane ........................................ 9 Peach And Nectarine Cultivars: A New Jersey Perspective oth this, and the previous issue of the New York Fruit Quarterly feature Jerome L. Frecon ........................... 13 Bcollections of papers that were presented at the stone fruit symposium held this past spring in Geneva in honor of Dr. Robert Andersen’s contributions to the stone Stone Fruit Rootstocks: Current Status fruit industry. As you can see from the content and quality of these articles, there is And Overview For The Future a lot going on in stone fruit research in the Eastern United States. It is also evident Gregory L. Reighard ...................... 25 that there is a great deal of work that still needs to be done. Many growers that have the soils, micro-climates and markets to grow stone Peach Rootstock Trials at Geneva: fruit and are seriously looking into the possibility of diversifying their operations A Progress Report or expanding their current acreage of stone fruits. This is evident by the recent Robert Andersen, Jay Freer and Terence expansion of acreage of peaches and sweet cherries in New York State. All growers Robinson ....................................... 29 need reliable, proven, and practical information on how to successfully and profitably grow stone fruits on their farms. Theory and Practice of Genetically On behalf of the stone fruit growers of New York, I would like to thank Bob Manipulating Peach Tree Architecture Andersen for the research he has done and guidance he has provided us over the Ralph Scorza.................................. 31 years, and wish him well in retirement. To adequately express our appreciation for all he has done would probably take the rest of this page. Instead, let me outline Developing Multi-Virus Resistant Stone Bob’s legacy’– the continuing work being done at the Geneva Experiment Station. Fruit Cultivars Zongrang Liu ................................. 37 •Dr. Susan Brown will continue to evaluate the sweet cherry selections that have been bred at Geneva with the hope some winners will be found in that group. It is unlikely that new crosses will be made in the future. FRONT COVER: New fresh market peach varieties are larger and redder •Dr. Terence Robinson will continue to work on stone fruit planting systems than Redhaven, highly productive and and evaluate new rootstocks. very high quality. •Dr. Courtney Weber is evaluating the plum selections that are at Geneva and BACK COVER: New processing peach making some new crosses. varieties from the Vineland Reseach Station in Ontario. • Jay Freer, Bob’s longtime technician, is helping all three of with their stone fruit work. N E W Y O R K These individuals are dedicated to, and very interested in the stone fruit work F R U I T Q U A R T E R L Y they are doing. How much research gets done in the future though, will be dictated VOLUME 13 • NUMBER 4 • WINTER 2005 by the amount of funding that can be found for the work. We, as growers, are going to have to work together to ask for, and help secure the funding for the needed This publication is a joint effort of the New York State Horticultural Society, Cornell University’s New York research. The success or failure stone fruit industry’s future in New York depends State Agricultural Experiment Station at Geneva, on it. the New York State Apple Research and Development Program, and the NYSBGA. Jim Bittner Fruit Grower, Singer Farms Appleton, NY Editors: Terence Robinson and Steve Hoying Dept. of Horticultural Sciences New York State Agricultural Experiment Station Geneva, New York 14456-0462 Telephone: 315-787-2227 Fax: 315-787-2216 Subscriptions: $20/year. Contact Karen Wilson, NYSHS, PO Box 462, Geneva, NY 14456 or call: 315-787-2404 Advertising: Karen Wilson: 315-787-2404 Production: Communications Services, NYSAES, Geneva NEW YORK FRUIT QUARTERLY • VOLUME 13 NUMBER 4 • 2005 1 Should New York Growers Under the moderate growth conditions of Plant Higher Density New York State and the relatively short orchard Peach Orchards? lifespan of peach, 1 2 high density orchard Stephen A. Hoying , Terence L. Robinson and planting systems offer 2 Robert L. Andersen significant early yield, 2Cornell Cooperative Extension, Lake Ontario Fruit Program, Newark, NY and mature yield 2 Department of Horticultural Sciences, NYSAES, Cornell University, advantages over the Geneva, NY traditional Open Center system. In our study, the ew York State is on the northern Materials And Methods Perpendicular-V system limit of successful peach and the Tri-V system had Nproduction areas. Peach trees in In 1999, a replicated field trial NY suffer from perennial cankers comparing six peach orchard training yields and high economic (Cytospora spp.) and winter cold damage systems (Open Center, Quad-V, Tri-V, in some years. This limits the useful life Perpendicular-V, Central Leader and returns compared of a peach orchard to about 15 years. Slender Spindle) with three varieties to the traditional Traditionally, peach trees have been [Allstar (yellow peach), Blushingstar grown using the open center system at (white peach) and Flavortop (nectarine)] Open Center system. densities of 350-400 trees/ha. Mature tree all on Bailey rootstock was planted at height has been limited to 2.5m and tree Olcott, New York. Tree densities and spread has extended up to 5m in spacings are given in Table 1. was removed. Two of the four scaffolds diameter. This results in rather short trees The Open Center System was were oriented to each side of the row and that can be harvested largely from the developed based on heading the leader oriented to opposite quadrants of the tree. ground. However, the low tree density at 40cm at planting. In the second year, In the dormant seasons of the second results in poor yield during the early four well-placed scaffold branches were through fourth years, the four scaffolds years. In addition, the low tree stature of selected and headed by one third and the were pruned to an angle of 65° above the the NY open center system results in low leader was removed. Each of the four horizontal and allowed to extend to a mature yields that do not exceed 20 Mt/ scaffolds was bifurcated at two-foot height of 3.25m. In the late dormant ha. Warmer peach producing areas have intervals by heading successively in the season of each year, all secondary significantly higher yield than NY dormant seasons of the second through branches that were not fruiting twigs (DeJong, et al., 1994). The relatively cool fourth years. The scaffolds were pruned were removed back to a side shoot or bud summers of NY State result in moderate to an angle of 50° above horizontal. In the near the scaffold. This resulted in shoot growth and relatively slow tree fifth year, tree height was limited to 2.5m columnar scaffold branches with the development during the early years of a by lowering the top branches down to a fruiting twigs produced on or near the new orchard. Under these conditions of horizontal side branch. scaffolds. slow tree growth and short orchard life, The Quad-V system also was The Tri-V system was developed in high- density orchard systems have great developed by heading the leader at 40cm a manner similar to the Quad-V system potential to improve yield and at planting. In the second year, four well- except only three scaffolds branches were profitability of peach orchards (Loreti and placed scaffold branches were selected allowed to develop. They were oriented Massai, 2002). and headed by one third and the leader perpendicular to the row with two on one TABLE 1 Six orchard planting systems evaluated in the New York peach systems trial. Tree Density/ Tree Spacing Initial Tree Heading System Name Description Ha (m) Height (cm) Open Center 4 scaffold branches with 3 bifurcations. 384 4.3 X 6.1 60 Quad-V 4 scaffold branches without bifurcation and with renewal pruning. 538 3.0 X 6.1 45 Tri-V 3 scaffold branches without bifurcation and with renewal pruning. 905 2.1 X 5.2 45 Central Leader Central trunk with permanent lower tier of 4 branches. 1,098 2.1 X 4.3 100 Perpendicular-V 2 scaffold branches without bifurcation and with renewal pruning. 1,583 1.2 X 5.2 45 Slender Spindle Central trunk with no permanent lower tier branches. 1,922 1.2 X 4.3 100 2 NEW YORK STATE HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY 40 Open Center 120 A Quad-Vee Open Center Tri -Vee ) Quad-Vee Perp-Vee 2 30 100 Central Leader Slender Spindle Tri-Vee 80 20 Central Leader Yield (kg/tree) Perp-Vee Trunk X-Sectional Area (cm 60 10 Slender Spindle 40 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 0 Planting Density (trees/ha) 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Year Figure 1. Effect of increasing planting density on peach tree size after 6 years in the orchard. 40 Open Center B Quad-Vee side and one on the other, alternating down the row. In the Tri -Vee dormant seasons of the second through fourth years, the scaf- 30 Perp-Vee folds were headed each year by one third to a side branch that Central Leader continued in the 65° upward direction. The scaffolds were al- Slender Spindle lowed to extend to a height of 3.25m.