Literature Cited Proc. Int. Soc. Citriculture. (In press) 3. Reece, P. C, and F. E. Gardner. 1959. Robinson, Osceola and Lee- 1. Hearn, C. J., P. C. Reece, and R. Fenton. 1968. Effects of pollen new early maturing tangerine hybrids. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. source on fruit characteristics and set of four citrus hybrids. Proc. 72:48-51. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 81:94-98. 4. , , and C. J. Hearn. 1963. Page orange—a prom 2. Krezdorn, A. H. 1977. Influence of rootstock on mandarin cultivars. ising variety. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 76:53-54. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 90:47-49. 1977. THE PERFORMANCE OF 'NOVA' AND 'ORLANDO' TANGELOS ON 10 ROOTSTOCKS D. J. Hutchison and C. J. Hearn1 The rootstocks were Carrizo (CAR), Rusk (RSK), and Agricultural Research Service, Troyer (TROY) citranges (C. sinensis (L.) Osbeck X U.S. Department of Agriculture, Poncirus trifoliata (L.) Raf.); Estes rough lemon (RL) (C. Orlando, FL 32803 Union (L.) Burm. L); Milam (MIL) (rough lemon hybrid?); Seville sour orange (SO) (C. aurantium L.); Cleopatra mandarin (CLEO) (C. reticulata); Large Flower trifoliate Additional index words. Citrus. orange (LETO) (P. trifoliata); Orlando tangelo (ORL); and Sanguine Grosse Ronde sweet orange (SANG) (C. Abstract. 'Nova' and 'Orlando' tangelos were evaluated sinensis). on 10 rootstocks during 1968-1976. 'Nova' and 'Orlando' tangelos propagated on rough lemon rootstock produced the largest trees. The highest yields were 'Nova' on rough lemon Results and Discussion and 'Orlando' on Troyer rootstocks. The highest total soluble The time of bloom indicated by percentage petal drop solids were produced by 'Nova' on sour orange and 'Or in 1969 and 1971 is shown in Table 1. In 1969, the amount lando' on Rusk citrange. The lowest total acids and juice con of bloom of 'Nova' on all rootstocks was more advanced tent were produced by 'Nova' and 'Orlando' tangelos on than that of 'Orlando'. In 1971, 'Nova' and 'Orlando' rough lemon rootstock. Petal drop information indicated that initiated bloom at approximately the same time. However, 'Orlando' tangelo is an effective pollinizer for 'Nova'. For all their bloom periods overlapped sufficiently for adequate characteristics evaluated, 'Nova' and 'Orlando' trees on cross-pollination. These data agree with a previous report Troyer citrange, Carrizo citrange and Cleopatra mandarin on pollinizer requirements (1). The influence of rootstock produced good yields of high-quality fruit. on petal drop is somewhat variable, however, for both dates and scions; trees on RSK and LFTO bloomed later than the 'Nova* tangelo (Citrus reticulata Blanco X (C. paradisi other rootstocks. If 'Orlando' is used as pollinizer for 'Nova', Macf. X C. reticulata)) and 'Orlando' tangelo (C. paradisi both cultivars should be on the same rootstock to eliminate X C. reticulata) are citrus hybrids released as cultivars in the possible rootstock effect on bloom date. 1964 and 1931, respectively (3, 6). Information of their per Table 1. Percentage petal drop of 'Nova' and 'Orlando' tangelos on 10 formance on different rootstocks was not available when rootstocks. these cultivars were released. Therefore, rootstocks for these cultivars were chosen on the basis of observations in com petal drop mercial mandarin orchards. Subsequently, rootstock infor Avg. % Orlando - -- mation for 'Nova' and 'Orlando' has been summarized by Nova Apr. 11 Mar. 31 Apr. 11 Mar. 31 Krezdorn (2) and Robinson (4). Rootstock 1969 1971 1969 1971 This report presents information on the performance of 'Nova' and 'Orlando' tangelos over the period 1968-1976. SO 99az 19bcd 86a 35ab CLEO 98a lOd 75ab 38ab Materials and Methods SANG 98a 9d 75ab 18abc TROY 98a 40a 78a 34ab Nursery trees of 10 mandarin or mandarin hybrid scions, MIL 95a 14cd 74ab 18abc propagated on 10 rootstocks, were planted in an Astatula CAR 94ab 25bc 90a 33ab 61ab 40a fine sand soil in 1965 near Leesburg, Florida. Trees were RL 94ab 30ab ORL 94ab 31ab 67ab 40a spaced 4.5 m x 5.4 m in 4 randomized blocks with 3-tree RSK 85bc 15cd 61ab 8c plots. The experimental planting was given commercial LFTO 84c 8d 45b 15bc grove maintenance. Data were not collected from all scions, rootstocks, and replications every year. This report includes 'Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the only petal drop, tree size, fruit quality, and fruit produc .05 confidence level tion data from 'Nova' and 'Orlando' trees. The extent of The largest trees were 'Nova' and 'Orlando' on "RL petal drop was visually estimated per 3-tree plot with 4 (Table 2). The smallest trees were on RSK and LFTO. replications. Trunk circumference was measured 20 cm Yield and fruit size of 'Nova' are shown in Table 3. In above ground level, fruit quality was determined by stand 1968, the most productive trees were on RSK and RL, while ard methods, and fruit production was expressed as 90 lb trees on ORL were the least productive. In 1976, trees on (40.8 kg) field boxes. TROY and CAR were the most productive followed by trees on ORL, SANG, LFTO, RL, and CLEO. The least *The authors express their appreciation to VV. R. Conybear and productive trees were on MIL, SO, and RSK. Four-year- R. Fenton for their assistance in the collection and analysis of data total fruit yields were highest on TROF followed by those. during the experiment. Proc. Fla. States JJort, Soc. 90: 1977. 47 Table 2. Tree size of 'Nova' and 'Orlando' tangelos on 10 rootstocks. Table 4. Fruit yield and diameter of 'Orlando' tangelo on 10 rootstocks. Avg. trunk circumference (cm) Avg no. Nova fruit Orlando Avg fruit Rootstock 1966* 1976^ 1966." 1976? per Avg boxes fruit Avg fruit size 6.9 cm tree8 per tree7 diam or larger Rootstock 1968 1973 1976 (cm)* (%) RL 8.5 a* 59.0 a 9.6 a 65.4 a CLEO 8.0 ab 56.2 a 6.7 cd 53.9 ab RSK 7.4 ab 40.0 be 8.3 abc 38.7 cd RL 175 3.9 aw 8.7 a 7.4 100 MIL 7.3 abc 53.1a 8.6 ab 56.9 ab MIL 90 3.2 abc 6.5 b 7.4 96 ORL 6.8 bed 53.8 a 6.1 de 47.6 be ORL 82 2.9 abc 5.8 be 7.4 99 TROY 6.5 bede 49.8 ab 7.7 be 40.6 cd CAR 111 3.5 ab 5.7 be 7.2 92 SANG 5.7 cdef 53.1a 6.9 cd 54.2 ab CLEO 101 2.7 bed 5.7 be 7.2 93 CAR 5.6 def 46.7 abc 6.8 cd 46.8 be SANG 95 3.4 ab 5.5 bed 7.2 91 SO 5.0 ef 47.7 abc 7.3 bed 50.5 be SO 80 2.3 cd 5.2 bed 7.4 97 LFTO 4.5 f 37.3 c 5.1 e 34.6 d TROY 105 1.8 de 5.1 cd 7.3 91 RSK 132 2.7 bed 4.7 cd 7.4 99 LFTO 66 1.2 e 4.3 d 7.4 100 "Average of 12 trees. N.S. yAverage of 6 trees. xMeans followed by the same letter are not significant at the 0.05 con fidence level. zAverage of 12 trees. yOne box is 90 lb or 40.8 kg. Average of 6 trees per year. trees on RL, CLEO, MIL, CAR, ORL, SANG, and LFTO. xAverage of 200 fruit per rootstock for each of 2 years (1971 and 1973). Trees on RSK and SO were the least productive. The fruit wMeans followed by the same letter are not significantly different at the .05 confidence level. yield data in this experiment indicated that alternate bear ing is not a serious problem for 'Nova* tangelo. Trees on est TSS, followed by RSK, CLEO, and LFTO. Next in order TROY, RL, MIL, and SANG produced the largest fruit. were trees on GAR, TROY, ORL, SANG, and MIL. Trees Trees on ORL, CAR, and CLEO yielded intermediate-sized on RL had the lowest TSS. For 2 of the 6 years of data re fruit, while the smallest fruit was produced by trees on ported for TSS, 'Nova' trees on RL failed to meet the mini LFTO, SO, and RSK. Trees on TROY, RL, and MIL had mum percentage TSS (8.5%) required to market Florida the highest percentage of fruits 6.9 cm or larger and trees tangelos before December 1 (Citrus Fruit Maturity Chart on RSK produced the lowest percentage of larger fruit. 1974-1975 as compiled by the Florida Department of Agri culture). Total acids of 'Nova' fruit were highest on SO Table 3. Fruit yield and fruit diameter of 'Nova' tangelo on 10 root stocks. rootstock and lowest on LFTO rootstock. The juice content of 'Nova' fruit was lowest on RL rootstock. Avg Table 5. Total soluble solids, total acids, and juice content percentage Avg. no. fruit size of 'Nova' and 'Orlando' tangelos on 10 rootstocks. fruit Avg 6.9 cmw per Avg boxes fruit per treey fruit or tree8 4-year diam larger Nova2 Orlandoy Rootstock 1968 1972 1973 1974 1976 total (cm)- (%)v Avg% Avg% total total soluble Avg% % soluble Avg) % Avg % TROY 67 2.5 3.0 2.1 5.3 12.9 a 7.4 96 Rootstock solids acids juice solids acids juice RL 84 4.2 3.7 0.3 4.3 12.5 ab 7.6 97 CLEO 53 2.5 3.0 2.8 4.1 12.4 ab 7.3 90 MIL 45 2.8 2.9 2.7 3.7 12.1 ab 7.5 97 SO 11.07 a* 0.82 a 53.0 a 8.85 be 0.80 ab 58.0 CAR 47 2.1 3.1 1.7 5.1 12.0 ab 7.3 83 RSK 10.49 ab 0.80 ab 52.0 a 9.48 a 0.81a 57.0 ORL 17 2.4 3.0 1.8 4.7 11.9 ab 7.3 82 CLEO 10.52 be 0.78 abc 52.0 a 8.93 abc 0.80 ab 56.0 SANG 30 1.6 3.1 2.4 4.4 11.5 ab 7.4 92 LFTO 10.33 be 0.75 c 49.0 a 8.86 be 0.77 abc 55.0 LFTO 49 CAR 1.9 1.9 3.1 4.4 11.3 ab 7.2 78 10.08 bed 0.78 abc 51.0 a 9.06 abc 0.77 abc 56.0 RSK 73 2.6 2.4 2.3 2.9 10.2 ab 7.2 77 TROY 10.00 bed 0.79 abc 50.0 a 9.13 ab 0.78 abc 56.0 SO 30 ORL 1.8 2.3 1.6 9.0 b 7.2 85 9.96 cd 0.76 be 50.0 a 8.64 bed 0.75 be 56.0 N.S.