Next Article in Journal
Adoption of Integrated Pest Management for Red Palm Weevil Control among Farmers in Saudi Arabia
Next Article in Special Issue
Autochthonous Cherry Rootstock Germplasm in the Context of Sustainable Sweet Cherry Production
Previous Article in Journal
Tracing Superior Late-Leafing Genotypes of Persian Walnut for Managing Late-Spring Frost in Walnut Orchards
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effects of Different Rootstocks and Storage Temperatures on Postharvest Quality of Eggplant (Solanum melongena L. cv. Madonna)
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Horticulturae
Volume 8
Issue 11
10.3390/horticulturae8111004
horticulturae-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Vegetative Characteristics of Three Apricot Cultivars Grafted on Six Different Rootstocks

by
Edina Mendelné Pászti
1,
Géza Bujdosó
2,* and
Ákos Mendel
1
1
Research Centre for Fruit Growing, Institute for Horticultural Sciences, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, 2700 Cegléd, Hungary
2
Research Centre for Fruit Growing, Institute for Horticultural Sciences, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences, 1223 Budapest, Hungary
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Horticulturae 2022, 8(11), 1004; https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8111004
Submission received: 29 September 2022 / Revised: 25 October 2022 / Accepted: 26 October 2022 / Published: 28 October 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New Insights into Rootstock - Scion Interactions in Horticultural Crops)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

The continuous innovation in the aspect of apricot cultivars and rootstocks requires comparative trials, which can be evaluated by precise and repeated measurements. An experiment is established, initiated from the recent trends for the Central-European region. Our aim was to evaluate the characteristics of the observed rootstock-scion combinations during their non-bearing period under irrigated conditions. ‘Montclar’, ‘Myrobalan 29C’, ‘Wavit’, ‘Rootpac R’ and ‘Fehér besztercei’ were used as rootstock, in addition to the apricot selected seedling. Evaluation of rootstocks was carried out in combination with ‘Bergarouge’, ‘LilyCot’, and the traditional Hungarian cultivar called ‘Gönci Magyar kajszi’. The control combination was ‘Gönci Magyar kajszi’ grafted on apricot selected seedling. The experiment was established in spring of 2018 with 3 × 5 m spacing. The results showed strong influence of rootstock on the vigor of grafted scions. The regression relationships between the total height of trees and the canopy diameter, and the shoot length were linear. Furthermore, relationships between the trunk cross-section area and the total height of trees, the canopy diameters, the shoot lengths, as well as the canopy volume were positive and non-linear.

1. Introduction

Apricot (Prunus armeniaca L.) is a mesotonic diploid fruit tree species belonging to the Rosaceae family and originated from Central Asia [1]. The crop came to Europe through the Irano-Caucasian diffusion route, and then separated to three different subgroups [2]. The Mediterranean subgroup is the most prosperous, and it can be distinguished from the Continental European, North-American, Chinese, and other groups [3]. Apricots are the third most economically important stone fruit species worldwide, and are mostly cultivated in regions with Mediterranean climate conditions. More than the half of the global apricot production (2.2 million tons) originated from Turkey, Uzbekistan, Iran, Italy, and Algeria, respectively [4].
Apricot is cultivated on 560 thousand hectares worldwide, and the total yearly harvested quantity is approximately 4 million tons [4]. In the Mediterranean region apricot is widely grown on seedling wild apricot or myrobalan rootstocks [5,6].
In Hungary, apricot is produced in commercial orchards on 5 thousand hectares yielding 22 thousand tons yearly in average. There is large fluctuation in the harvested yield year on year due to the late spring frosts. Total area of commercial orchards is increasing between 100 to 200 hectares every year, resulting in increasing production. Intensive apricot orchard planting density is greater than 667 trees per hectare, and make up 10% of the total Hungarian apricot orchard industry. Sixty percent of the total orchard area are irrigated. The tree training systems used are: canopy is usually open vase (45%) or spherical (40%), but intensive vase (10%) and tall spindle (5%) are in the practice too. The area of organic apricot production reaches 5% of the total orchard surface. Three major Hungarian bred cultivars (‘Gönci Magyar kajszi’, ‘Magyar kajszi’ and ‘Ceglédi óriás’, respectively) cover almost half of the total Hungarian production. Usage of rootstock is unbalanced: 73% of the apricot trees are grafted on myrobalan selected seedlings, and further 10% is on apricot seedlings. The ratio of clonally propagated rootstocks in apricot production is 16.5% [7].
In response to production and industrial pressures, large-scale renewal of apricot orchards is taking place by the introduction of numerous new cultivar releases worldwide in the recent years [8]. Breeding programs from several countries have released a large number of new cultivars [9,10,11].
Globally, orchard systems are shifting from medium-low planting densities (600–750 trees/ha) to high-density (1000–1250 trees/ha) plantings [12]. Vertical axe canopies, with one or more vertical axes, are increasingly being adopted in modern commercial apricot orchards [13,14,15,16,17]. With these systems 1100–1600 apricot trees can be planted per hectare [18]. In the vertical axe training system both winter and summer pruning are required for the regulation of plant vigor, development of the floral buds for the following season, and to maintain fruit quality [19]. The adoption of grafting has increased the importance of rootstocks [20]. Rootstocks affect the phenology and vegetative growth of the scion (tree yield, fruit quality), and tolerance to soil, abiotic factors and nematodes [21,22,23,24].
From the point of view of national agricultural research, it is crucial to have reliable origin and quality of plant materials in order to be able to carry out proper analysis [25]. According to Pászti and Mendel [26], the most used rootstocks for apricot growing are apricot selected seedlings [27,28]. These are fully compatible with every apricot cultivar [29]. Due to the limited adaptation capability of scions and rootstocks derived from different climate conditions (especially in term of apricot), it is critical to evaluate the climatic adaptation of the different rootstocks [30].
During evaluation of large-scale rootstock experiments, Southwick and Weis [31] concluded, usage of some myrobalan rootstocks increased mortality of apricot when compared to other species. This kind of incompatibility was previously detected by Crossa-Raynaud and Audergon [32]. Though several trials, were carried out with apricot rootstocks, these results cannot be generalized [33,34,35]. We have to find those rootstock-scion combinations which are suitable for the production in our growing area [36].
This trial, comparing three apricot scions grafted to 6 rootstocks of diverse background, was established to assess tree performance under dry Hungarian conditions. We take the opportunity to investigate the relationship between a range of canopy measures to identify appropriate measures of early tree growth.

2. Materials and Methods

The experimental orchard was planted at the Cegléd Research Station, Research Centre for Fruit Growing, Hungarian University for Agriculture and Life Sciences (GPS coordinates: N 47°10′35.0, E 19°50′28.6) at an altitude of 96 m above sea-level. The trial was established on chernozem soil with high lime content and a humus content of 3.27%. Fifteen soil samples were collected at May, 2022, and sent to laboratory for analysis. Limits and soil parameters were evinced by Hungarian Standards (MSZ-08—0206-2:1978 and MSZ 20135:1999). Table 1 shows the mean values of soil parameters of the orchard. Arany-type cohesion index [37] of Ka = 40.27 would be considered to be of medium compactness.
The region has a temperate, continental and semi-arid climate (Table 2). Albeit, one third of Hungarian apricot fields are situated in similar locations, this area is not optimal for apricot growing, due to the hazard of late spring frosts.
The trees were planted in spring of 2018, with planting distance of three meters in the row and five meters between the rows (665 trees/ha). Mulch was laid between the rows after planting. Drip irrigation was implemented 4 to 5 times during the vegetative period with 40 mm irrigation applied at a time. Pruning was performed twice in a year (in March, before flowering, and in August, after harvesting). Canopies were formed to intensive vase. Every rootstock-scion combination was pleaded by at least six replicates in two blocks. The blocks were allocated in a totally random arrangement [38].
Five rootstocks were compared in the trial (Table 3). ‘Feher Besztercei’, plum cultivar selected from local population, is a semi-dwarfing rootstock for apricot. Tree size on this rootstock is 35 to 40% smaller than on apricot seedling [39,40]. In the 19th century, ‘Fehér besztercei’ was used widely in Hungary as a seedling apricot rootstock, but due to its incompatibility with some cultivars [41], therefore apricot selected seedlings became commonly used [42]. ‘Myrobalan 29C’ came into use in the last decade, because of its early fruit induction and wide climatic adaptability, particularly for grafted trees planted out on the calcareous soils [43]. The use of ‘Wavit’ compared to the other rootstocks is increasing in popularity. This is a selection from seedling populations of ’Wangenheim’ and it is recognized in the orchard for its uniformity. Trees on ‘Wavit’ start cropping early, and regularly produce high yields. It reduces the tree vigor of plum cultivars, and increases fruit size [44,45]. ‘Montclar’ induces high vigor trees, that are early to bear, with large fruit size [46]. ‘Rootpac R’ is introduced by Agromillora (Barcelona, Spain), and has a good tolerance against various soil and climatic conditions and is often used replanting [47]. Evaluation of rootstocks was carried out in combination with ‘Bergarouge’, ‘LilyCot’, and the traditional Hungarian cultivar called ‘Gönci Magyar kajszi’ was used as control. ‘Bergarouge’ is a French selection from a ‘Bergeron’ derived polulation, and is considered as a PPV resistant cultivar. It has good vigor, upright habit late ripening time, and great yield [23]. ‘LilyCot’ is originated from the USA. It has a spreading habit, good yielding, and fair fruit quality [18]. ‘Gönci Magyar kajszi’ is a selected clone of the traditional ‘Hungarian best’ cultivar. It has a moderately spreading habit. Excellent taste and medium size mark the fruits [25]. All scions were grafted on every investigated rootstock on the soil level.
Data was collected in the 4th growing season after planting (in November, 2021). Survival rate of trees by plots (%) was calculated from the number of the originally planted trees and the number of living trees at the end of the 4th growing season. Trunk circumference (at 35 cm above the graft union) and whole length of one-year-old shoots were measured by measuring-tape. Canopy diameters and tree height were also measured. Shoot length and canopy diameter were measured also in row-direction and in cross-direction.
Trunk cross-section area (TCSA) was calculated from circumference measures, as a surrogate of induced rootstock vigor:
TCSA = [trunk perimeter/2π]2 × π
Canopy projection area (CA) was calculated from canopy diameters:
CA = ¼ [row-directional canopy diameter + cross-directional canopy diameter]2 × π
and canopy volume (CV) is calculated as [48,49]:
CV = [Tree height−trunk height] × cross-directional canopy diameter × row-directional canopy diameter/3
To estimate the canopy filling (CF) of the space between trees, the proportion of the total area for each tree (5 × 3 m) and canopy projection area were expressed:
CF = (CA/15) × 100
Furthermore, to estimate the canopy space filling (CF) for the exploitation a new index was introduced to calculate the effectiveness of space occupation (CO) of each along within the row. Effective width and height of canopies in apricot orchards is also 3 m, hence canopy space occupation was calculated from the ratio of canopy volume and the total available space (3 × 3 × 3 m = 27 m3):
CO = (CV/27) × 100

3. Statistical Analysis

Data were statistically evaluated using standard deviation and MANOVA methods, and represent the mean values of at least three measurements [49,50]. The data were tested by one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) regarding seven vegetative properties: the total height of trees, the canopy diameters (cross-directional and row-directional), the shoot length (cross-directional and row-directional), the trunk cross section area and the canopy volume. Given the significance of the overall test, the univariate main effects were examined with Bonferroni’s correction. The normality of the residuals was proved by skewness and kurtosis. Homogeneity of variances was checked by Levene’s test. Post hoc and contrast methods carried out for factor level comparisons. Since the Levene’s test was mainly significant (p < 0.05), and the between-subject effect showed significant differences, the vegetative properties could be separated by Games-Howell post-hoc test [51]. All statistical procedures were conducted using the software IBM SPSS v.27 (IBM Corporation, New York, NY, USA) [52].

4. Results

The statistical analysis shows that all cultivars and rootstocks significantly affected the total height of trees (TH), the canopy diameters (row-directional and cross -directional) (CDR, CDC), the shoot lengths (row-directional and cross -directional) (SLR, SLC), the trunk cross sectional area (TCSA), the canopy projection area (CA), the canopy space filling (CF), the canopy volume (CV), the canopy space occupation (CO) and the survival rate (SR) (Wilk’s λ = 0.48; p < 0.0001). Figure 1. displays TH, TCSA and SR of the rootstock-scion combinations.
The trees grafted on ‘Wavit’ (254 cm) and ‘Fehér besztercei’ (281 cm) had the shortest tree height (TH), and were significantly different from others (Figure 1a). Mean TH of trees grafted on ‘Myrobalan 29C’ reached 314 cm in height, followed by plants on ‘Rootpac R’ (327 cm). Height of the trees grafted on control apricot seedling and ‘Montclar’ rootstocks were very similar to each other (337 cm and 338 cm), so no statistical difference was observed. The weakest scion height was observed at ‘Lili Cot’ (288 cm), the strongest one was ‘Bergarouge’ (346 cm), and ‘Gönci Magyar kajszi’ had an intermediate height of 291 cm height. In general, ‘Gönci Magyar kajszi’ on ‘Wavit’ had the shortest (227 cm), and ‘Bergarouge’ on apricot seedling the tallest (380 cm) total height.
Trunk cross sectional area (TCSA) ranged from 12.80 cm2 (‘Gönci Magyar kajszi’ on ‘Fehér besztercei’) to 51.58 cm2 (‘Bergarouge’ on ‘Rootpac R’) four years after planting (Figure 1b). The trees on ‘Rootpac R’ (40.99 cm2) reached the greatest value, followed by plants grafted on ‘Montclar’ (36.75 cm2), apricot seedling (36.25 cm2), ‘Myrobalan 29C’ (33.21 cm2), and ‘Fehér besztercei’ (15.71 cm2). Trees on ‘Fehér besztercei’ and ‘Wavit’ were significantly different from others with their 17.46 cm2 and 16.04 cm2 TCSA values, respectively. Among the scions ‘Bergarouge’ had the largest TCSA (35.58 cm2), followed by ‘Lily Cot’ and ‘Gönci Magyar kajszi’ (27.30 cm2 and 27.47 cm2 respectively).
After the 4th leaves (finishing the non-bearing period), the average survival rate (SR) was 81% across all treatments (Figure 1c). The lowest SR belonged to the trees grafted on ‘Wavit’ (63%). It was followed by those on ‘Myrobalan 29C’, ‘Fehér besztercei’ and apricot seedling (74%, 81% and 84% respectively). The highly vigorous trees grafted on ‘Montclar’ and ‘Rootpac R’ rootstocks had the best survival rate in the experiment so far. Eighty-nine percent of trees on ‘Montclar’ and 92% of ‘Rootpac R’–combinations survived the first four seasons. In aspect of scions, the ranking of SR from the lowest to the highest was: ‘Bergarouge’ (77%), ‘Lily Cot’ (79%) and ‘Gönci Magyar kajszi’ (85%). The survival of each scion is rather diverse based on the rootstock. ‘Bergarouge’ had great vitality on ‘Montclar’ and ‘Fehér besztercei’. ‘Gönci Magyar kajszi’ performed the best on ‘Rootpac R’, ‘Myrobalan 29C’, ‘Fehér besztercei’ and ‘Wavit’, while ‘Lily Cot’ preferred ‘Montclar’ and apricot seedling. The graft combination, with the lowest survival rate was ‘Bergarouge’ grafted on ‘Wavit’ (50%), while the best was ‘Gönci Magyar kajszi’ grafted on ‘Rootpac R’ was characterized with the maximal SR (100%). On Figure 2. CDR, DCD, SLR and SLC is observable.
The canopy diameters (CDR, CDC) had a very large range after the 4th year. CDR ranged from 98 cm (‘Gönci Magyar kajszi’ on ‘Wavit’) to 294 cm (‘Lily Cot’ on ‘Rootpac R’) (Figure 2a), while CDC varied from 93 cm (‘Gönci Magyar kajszi’ on ‘Fehér besztercei’) to 293 cm (‘Lily Cot’ on ‘Rootpac R’) (Figure 2b). The widest canopy belonged to trees grafted ‘Rootpac R’ (CDR 269 cm, CDC 261 cm), followed by plants grafted on ‘Montclar’ (CDR 230 cm, CDC 235 cm) which belonged to the same group concerning the statistical significance. After these two rootstocks trees on ‘Myrobalan 29C’ (CDR 219 cm, CDR 225 cm) and apricot seedling came with 211 cm CDR and 220 cm CDC. Trees grafted on ‘Fehér besztercei’ (CDR 143 cm, CDC 138 cm) and ‘Wavit’ (CDR 123 cm, CDC 133 cm) rootstocks induced the two smallest canopies which differed significantly from the others. The ascending order of scions regarding both in CDR and CDC was ‘Bergarouge’, ‘Gönci Magyar kajszi’ and ‘Lily Cot’.
In the case of mean lengths of row-directional one-year-old shoots (SLR), slightly smaller differences were observed (Figure 2c). The trees on ‘Fehér besztercei’ had the smallest shoot growth (163 cm), followed by the plants grafted on ‘Wavit’ (174 cm), ‘Rootpac R’ (212 cm) ‘Myrobalan 29C’ and ‘Montclar’ (218 cm both). Apricot seedling induded the largest SLR (225 cm). The trees grafted on the last four mentioned rootstocks significantly belonged to the group of the same statistical significance. The trees on ‘Wavit’ and ‘Fehér besztercei’ were significantly different from the others. ‘Gönci Magyar kajszi’ produced the shortest (187 cm), while ‘Bergarouge’ the longest (226 cm) shoots row directionally. SLR of ‘Lily Cot’ was 191 cm. Overall, ‘Gönci Magyar kajszi’ on ‘Fehér besztercei’ had the smallest value (123 cm), and ‘Bergarouge’ on ‘Rootpac R’ had the largest (244 cm) (Figure 2d).
The cross-sectional shoot lengths of trees (SLC) ranged from 153 cm (‘Gönci Magyar kajszi’ on ‘Wavit’) to 238 cm (‘Bergarouge’ on ‘Rootpac R’). The SLC values on ‘Montclar’ were the highest with the average of 217 cm, followed by the values obtained on the apricot seedling (212 cm), ‘Rootpac R’ (210 cm) ‘Myrobalan 29C’ (202 cm). The trees on the last four mentioned rootstocks grouped by the same statistical significance. The trees on ‘Fehér besztercei’ (190 cm) and ‘Wavit’ (172 cm) rootstocks formed a significantly different group. In average, both SLC of ‘Gönci Magyar kajszi’ and ‘Lily Cot’ was also 192 cm, while ‘Bergarouge’ reached 217 cm. Figure 3. contains data of CA, CF, CV and CO.
Canopy projection area (CA) represents the area above the ground that was covered by the canopy (Figure 3a). As with other measures of canopy size (Figure 1 and Figure 2), trees on ‘Wavit’ had the smallest canopy projection area (1.03 m2), followed by the trees grafted on ‘Fehér besztercei’ (1.88 m2). The intermediate group begins with plants on ‘Myrobalan 29C’ (5.83 m2), apricot seedling (5.88 m2) and ‘Montclar’ (8.98 m2). The peak area was resulted by trees on ‘Rootpac R’, which is 14.03 m2. The scion means CA of ‘Bergarouge’ was 3.99 m2, ‘Gönci Magyar kajszi’ reached 4.99 m2 and ‘Lily Cot’ 9.83 m2. The smallest CA (0.33 m2) was produced by the ‘Gönci Magyar kajszi’ grafted on ‘Wavit’, the largest was ‘Lily Cot’ on ‘Rootpac R’ (24.43 m2).
We computed the canopy space filling (CF), which is similar to the CA calculation, but it provides another insight (Figure 2b). As a matter of course, the ranking is the same as it is presented in Figure 2. Trees grafted on ‘Wavit’ fills the 7% of the available 15 m2 area of a tree, while those on ‘Fehér besztercei’ doubles at 13%. Trees on apricot seedling and ‘Myrobalan 29C’ both ocuppied 39%, and on ‘Montclar’ 60%. All of them belonged to a strong intermediate subgroup. The largest canopies were resulted by the trees grafted on ‘Rootpac R’: these covered 94% of the space. The CF sequence of the scions was: ‘Bergarouge’ (27%), ‘Gönci Magyar kajszi’ (33%) and ‘Lili Cot’ (66%). The smallest CF (2%) was produced by the ‘Gönci Magyar kajszi’ on ‘Wavit’, the largest one (163%) was ‘Lily Cot’ on ‘Rootpac R’.
The canopy volume (CV) had a considerable range by the 4th year, when mean of the rootstock-scion combinations was 18.57 m3 (Figure 3c). The most expansive canopy belonged to trees grafted on ‘Rootpac R’ (42.36 m3), followed by ‘Montclar’ (27.21 m3), apricot seedling (18.66 m3) and ‘Myrobalan 29C’ (15.79 m3) were significantly in the same group. After these rootstocks, plants on ‘Fehér besztercei’ (5.08 m3) and ‘Wavit’ (2.30 m3) rootstocks followed, which had the smallest canopies, and formed a significantly different group with each other. Sequence of scions was the same as in case of CA and CF: ‘Bergarouge’ (13.40 m3), ‘Gönci Magyar kajszi’ (14.37 m3) and ‘Lili Cot’ (27.92 m3). The smallest CV (0.70 m3) was produced by the ‘Gönci Magyar kajszi’ and ‘Wavit’ combination, (52.79 m3) ‘Lily Cot’ on ‘Montclar’ had the largest value.
Canopy space occupation is derived from CV; therefore, the ranges of the data were very similar. CO represents the percentage of the canopy volume of the trees by the available effective space (27 m3) (Figure 3d). Trees on ‘Wavit’ filled 9% and ‘Fehér besztercei’ 19% of the available space of the tree wall. Plants on ‘Myrobalan 29C’ and apricot seedling followed the plum rootstocks, with significantly larger values (58% and 69% respectively). Trees grafted on ‘Montclar’ provided a much greater cover (101%) after the 4th growing season. The largest proportion of space is filled by the trees on ‘Rootpac R’ rootstock, representing an individual group with 157%. ‘Bergarouge’ (50%) had the smallest value, followed by ‘Gönci Magyar kajszi’ (53%) and ‘Lili Cot’ (103). The smallest CO (3%) was produced by the ‘Gönci Magyar kajszi’ on ‘Wavit’, the largest (264%) had ‘Lily Cot’ on ‘Rootpac R’ combination.
To interpret the results further, we evaluated the regression relationship between some variables, with total height and trunk cross sectional area. The regression relationship of the total tree height and various vegetative properties is shown in Figure 4.
As expected, these were positive and significant relationships. The regression relationships between the total tree height and the canopy diameter (cross-directional R2 = 0.564 and row-directional R2 = 0.530), the shoot length (cross-directional R2 = 0.694 and row-directional R2 = 0.664) were linear, while the trunk cross sectional area (R2 = 0.779) and the canopy volume were non-linear (R2 = 0.773).
The regression relationships between the trunk cross sectional area and the total tree height (R2 = 0.779), the canopy diameters (cross-directional R2 = 0.773 and row-directional R2 = 0.782), the shoot lengths (cross-directional R2 = 0.612 and row-directional R2 = 0.643), the canopy volume (R2 = 0.866) were positive and significant non-linear relationships. These regression relationships showed in Figure 5. Increase of the other vegetative characteristics can be inferred from the growth of total height of trees and the trunk cross sectional area.

5. Discussion

’Fehér besztercei’ is a Hungarian plum (Prunus domestica L.) landrace, which can be used as a growth moderating rootstock in apricot orchards, and it is adequate for interstem as well. Tree height on this rootstock is lower than on apricot seedling by 35 to 40%. Trunk splitting is less frequent on ’Fehér besztercei’ than on apricot seedlings or myrobalans [39,40], we neither can affirm it yet. In this experiment, the moderate growing vigor is proved for trees grafted on ’Fehér besztercei’.
The most commonly used rootstocks for apricot growing are apricot seedlings in Middle- and Eastern-Europe, and in Asia. Apricot seedling is compatible with most scions and usually has a vigorous growing habit. Strong and vigorous habit is confirmed by the SR, TH, CDR, CDC, SLR and SLC values obtained in this study. This rootstock tolerates droughts better than most others [27]. They are fully compatible with every apricot cultivar, but in term of tolerating soil conditions, they remain between the limits of the species [53,54].
Moderate growing vigor and extenuate cumulative yield of apricots on ‘Myrobalan 29C’ is widely known. In contrast, ‘Kayisi Erigi’ and ‘Tokaloglu Erzincan’ Turkish cultivars had strong growth on ‘Myrobalan 29C’. These outcomes were confirmed by Spanish researchers too [55]. From our data, we found ‘Myrobalan 29C’ to be a moderately low vigorous rootstock compared to others at at 4th leaf.
Reports on the growth of the apricot scions grafted on ‘Wavit’, is fairly limited, but a low rate of tree mortality has been reported [56,57]. Based on a nursery experiment, ‘Wavit’ was characterized as a moderately vigorous rootstock. Thickness of the rootstock was also 10 to 15% lower in case of ‘Wavit’ then ‘Myrobalan 29C’. Similar effect was observable for tree height [58]. In this study, this behavior of this rootstock could be evinced, we got similar results.
Previous experiments investigated ‘San Castrese’ grafted on ‘Montclar’ rootstock. Ondratu et al. [59] demonstrated the high growing vigor and low tree mortality of ‘Montclar’. Pennone and Abbate [60] pointed that the TCSA, pruning wood weight and cumulative yield of ‘Montclar’ were the greatest in the experimental orchard. This high vigor seems to be helpful in our dry climate to establish the desired canopy volume.
‘Rootpac R’ has very similar traits: tolerating non-adverse soil and climatic conditions of Spain, over and above has a vigorous growth habit. It comes from a selection of Prunus cerasifera myrobalana L. × Prunus dulcis Mill. progeny population, and reommended for replanting in orchards [47]. The similar vigor as ‘Montclar’, and the good SR makes it a decent choice of rootstock for our plantations.
Previously Dhaliwal and Dhillon [61] found a positive and linear correlation between TCSA and canopy volume, which was confirmed by Kumar et al. [62]. Regression also indicates a strong relationship, and based on our analysis, we can use TCSA to describe the growth vigor of a rootstock-scion combination. TCSA and the regression models were useful methods to get insight of the vegetative traits of a tree. It can be used in selection programs of cultivars and in rootstock breeding and evaluation.
Investigating vegetative traits of apple cultivars (‘Red Delicious’ and ‘Golden Delicious’) Westwood and Roberts found strong linear regression between TCSA and fresh tree weight. This lineage indicates higher yields per tree in correspondence with greater TCSA. They stated, that this strict relation weakens with pruning [63].
The measured values, which observed in the trial, might vary during the bearing period, therefore more bearing years need to have suitable results about the usage of the novel bred apricot cultivars and rootstocks for apricots among dry Hungarian climate conditions. As the trees fill the available space in the orchard later, tree size must be contained by pruning. Total height of trees (TH), the canopy diameters (CDR, CDC), canopy projection area (CA), canopy space filling (CF), the canopy volume (CV), canopy space occupation (CO) and survival rate (SR) is mainly affected by pruning through the seasons. At some point, measuring of most of the vegetative parameters becomes pointless, once the available canopy volume is filled. TCSA remains a useful parameter in the evaluation of growth vigor of trees affected by pruning [64].

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Á.M. and G.B.; methodology, Á.M. and E.M.P.; software, E.M.P.; validation, Á.M., G.B. and E.M.P.; formal analysis, G.B.; investigation, Á.M.; resources, G.B.; data curation, E.M.P.; writing—original draft preparation, Á.M.; writing—review and editing, G.B.; visualization, Á.M.; supervision, G.B.; project administration, E.M.P.; funding acquisition, Á.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Janick, J. The origins of fruits, fruit growing, and fruit breeding. Plant Breed. Rev. 2005, 25, 255–320. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bourguiba, H.; Audergon, J.M.; Krichen, L.; Trifi-Farah, N.; Mamouni, A.; Trabelsi, S.; D’Onofrio, C.; Asma, B.M.; Santoni, S.; Khadari, B. Loss of genetic diversity as a signature of apricot domestication and diffusion into the Mediterranean Basin. BMC Plant Biol. 2012, 12, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Herrera, S.; Hormaza, J.I.; Lora, J.; Ylla, G.; Rodrigo, J. Molecular characterization of genetic diversity in apricot cultivars: Current situation and future perspectives. J. Agron. 2021, 11, 1714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. FAOSTAT. Available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/ (accessed on 18 September 2022).
  5. Ercisli, S. Apricot culture in Turkey. J. Sci. Res. Essay 2009, 4, 715–719. [Google Scholar]
  6. Miodragović, M.; Magazin, N.; Keserović, Z.; Milić, B.; Popović, B.; Blagojević, B.; Kalajdžić, J. The early performance and fruit properties of apricot cultivars grafted on Prunus spinosa L. interstock. Sci. Hortic. 2019, 250, 199–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Hungarian Statistics Office. Available online: https://www.ksh.hu/docs/hun/xstadat/xstadat_eves/i_omn006h.html (accessed on 18 September 2022).
  8. CPVO. Community Plant Variety Office. Available online: https://cpvo.europa.eu/en (accessed on 18 September 2022).
  9. Herrera, S.; Lora, J.; Hormaza, J.I.; Herrero, M.; Rodrigo, J. Optimizing production in the new generation of apricot cultivars: Self-incompatibility, S-RNase allele identification, and incompatibility group assignment. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Krška, B. Genetic Apricot Resources and Their Utilization in Breeding. In Breeding and Health Benefits of Fruit and Nut Crops; Soneji, J.R., Nageswara-Rao, M., Eds.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  11. Zhebentyayeva, T.; Ledbetter, C.; Burgos, L.; Lláce, G. Apricot. In Fruit Breeding; Badenes, M.L., Byrne, D.H., Eds.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  12. Giovannini, D.; Neri, D.; Di Vaio, C.; Sansavini, S.; Del Vecchio, G.; Guarino, F.; Mennone, C.; Abeti, D.; Colombo, R. Efficienza gestionale degli impianti di pesco in un confronto Nord-Sud. Riv. Fruttic. Ortofloric. 2010, 7–8, 16–26. (In Italian) [Google Scholar]
  13. Dorigoni, A.; Lezzer, P.; Dallabetta, N.; Serra, S.; Musacchi, S. Bi-axis: An alternative to slender spindle for apple orchards. Acta Hortic. 2011, 903, 581–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Meland, M. Early performance of European plum high density production systems. Acta Hortic. 2001, 557, 265–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Musacchi, S. Bibaum®: A new training system for pear orchards. Acta Hortic. 2008, 800, 763–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Robinson, T.L.; Hoying, S.A.; Reginato, G.H. The tall spindle planting system: Principles and performance. Acta Hortic. 2011, 903, 571–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Stănică, F. New tendencies in fruit trees training and orchard planting systems. Sci. Pap. 2019, 2, 25–34. [Google Scholar]
  18. Stănică, F.; Butcaru, A.C.; Mihai, C.A.; Florea, I.M.; Şerban, D. Preliminary results regarding the behavior of some new apricot cultivars in Bucureşti area. Rom. J. Hortic. 2020, 1, 59–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Montanaro, G.; Dichio, B.; Xiloyannis, C. Pesco: Sfruttare bene la luce per migliorare qualità e rese. Inf. Agrar. 2011, 26, 48–51. (In Italian) [Google Scholar]
  20. Taaren, M.J.; Abbasi, A.N.; Rahman, H. Tree vigor, nutrients uptake efficiency and yield of ‘Flordaking’ peach cultivar as affected by different rootstocks. In Proceedings of the Pakistan Society for Horticultural Science, Faisalabad, Pakistan, 18–20 February 2016; pp. 134–143. [Google Scholar]
  21. Beckman, T.G.; Okie, W.R.; Meyers, S.C. Rootstocks affect bloom date and fruit maturation of ‘Redhaven’ peach. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 1992, 117, 377–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Boyhan, G.E.; Norton, J.D.; Pitts, J.A. Establishment, growth, and foliar nutrient content of plum trees on various rootstocks. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 1995, 30, 219–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Duval, H.; Masse, M.; Jay, M.; Loquet, B. Results of French apricot rootstock trials. Acta Hortic. 2012, 966, 37–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Layne, R.E.C. Prunus rootstocks affect long-term orchard performance of ‘Redhaaven’ peach on Brookston clay loam. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 1994, 29, 167–171. [Google Scholar]
  25. Mendelné Pászti, E.; Mendel, Á. Frost tolerance of flower buds of Hungarian apricot cultivars. In Őshonos—és Tájfajták—Ökotermékek—Egészséges Táplálkozás—Vidékfejlesztés; Tóth, C., Ed.; University of Nyíregyháza: Nyíregyháza, Hungary, 2021; pp. 37–43. [Google Scholar]
  26. Pászti, E.; Mendel, Á. Életképességi vizsgálatok összehasonlítása csonthájas alanyok magvain. Kertgazdaság 2018, 50, 15–21. (In Hungarian) [Google Scholar]
  27. Hrotkó, K. Alanyhasználat a Kajszitermesztésben. In Gyümölcsfaiskola; Hrotkó, K., Ed.; Mezőgazda Kiadó: Budapest, Hungary, 1999. (In Hungarian) [Google Scholar]
  28. Hrotkó, K.; Nagy, Á.; Csigai, K. A gyümölcsfajták és alanyok szaporítása a magyar faiskolákban. III. Őszibarack, kajszi, dió és mandala. Kertgazdaság 2006, 38, 29–38. (In Hungarian) [Google Scholar]
  29. Hernández, F.; Pinochet, J.; Moreno, M.A.; Martínez, J.J.; Legua, P. Performance of Prunus rootstocks for apricot in Mediterranean conditions. Sci. Hortic. 2010, 124, 354–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bujdosó, G.; Magyar, L.; Hrotkó, K. Long term evaluation of growth and cropping of sweet cherry varieties on different rootstocks under Hungarian soil and climatic conditions. Sci. Hortic. 2019, 256, 108613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Southwick, S.M.; Weis, K.G. Selecting and propagating rootstocks to produce apricots. HortTechnology 1998, 8, 164–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Crossa-Raynaud, P.; Audergon, J.M. Apricot Rootstocks; Rootstocks for Fruit Crops: New York, NY, USA, 1987; pp. 295–520. [Google Scholar]
  33. Darikova, J.A.; Savva, Y.V.; Eugene, A.; Vaganov, E.A.; Grachev, A.M.; Kuznetsova, G.V. Grafts of woody plants and the problem of incompatibility between scion and rootstock (a review). J. Sib. Fed. Univ. Biol. 2011, 4, 54–63. [Google Scholar]
  34. Milatovic, D.; Keserovic, Z.; Milosevic, T. Savremeni Sortiment i Tehnologija Gajenja Kajsije. In Proceedings of the 50th Conference “Savramena Proizvodnja Voća”, Banja Koviljača, Serbia, 9 December 2017; pp. 23–26. (In Serbian). [Google Scholar]
  35. Yilmaz, C.H.; Remzi, U.Ğ.U.R.; Sünbül, M.R.; Özelçi, D. Performance of some Prunus rootstocks to transmit micronutrients to leaves. Int. J. Agric. Environ. Food Sci. 2021, 5, 656–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Oprita, V.A.; Gavat, C. Behavior of some apricot cultivars grafted on new vegetative rootstocks. Sci. Pap. 2018, 62, 115–117. [Google Scholar]
  37. Dobos, E.; Bialko, T.; Micheli, E.; Kobza, J. Legacy Soil Data Harmonization and Database Development. In Digital Soil Mapping. Progress in Soil Science; Boettinger, J.L., Howell, D.W., Moore, A.C., Hartemink, A.E., Kienast-Brown, S., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2010; Volume 2, pp. 309–323. [Google Scholar]
  38. Mendelné Pászti, E.; Mendel, Á. Vegetative growth of apricot (P. armeniaca L.) cultivars and rootstocks. Columella 2021, 8, 5–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Nagy, P.; Lantos, A. Breeding stone fruit rootstocks in Hungary. Acta Hortic. 1996, 484, 199–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Nyujtó, F. Apricot rootstock research in Cegléd. Acta Hortic. 1973, 85, 97–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Nagy, P. Szilva Klónalanyok Kajszi Számára. In A Csonthéjas Gyümölcsűek Termelésének Fejlesztése (Újabb Kutatási Eredmények a Gyümölcstermesztésben); GYDKI: Érd, Hungary, 1979; Volume 7, pp. 37–45. (In Hungarian) [Google Scholar]
  42. Sitarek, M.; Bartosiewicz, B. Influence of a few seedling rootstocks on the growth, yield and fruit quality of apricot trees. J. Fruit Ornam. Plant Res. 2011, 19, 81–86. [Google Scholar]
  43. Foschi, S.; Bassi, D.; Lama, M.; Buscaroli, C.; Rizzo, M. Nuovi portinnesti dell’albicocco: Meno polloni e buona affinità. Inf. Agrar. 2012, 21, 56–59. (In Italian) [Google Scholar]
  44. Stefanova, B.; Dragoyski, K.; Dinkova, H. Reaction of some rootstocks for plums to soil and climatic conditions of Troyan. Acta Hortic. 2009, 825, 435–440. [Google Scholar]
  45. Murri, G.; Massetani, F.; Giusti, S.; Funari, A.; Neri, D. Yield and fruit quality of ‘Fortune’ plum grafted on 17 rootstocks in replant soil conditions of Central Italy. Acta Hortic. 2013, 985, 121–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Bassi, D.; Foschi, S. Trends in Apricot and Peach Industries in Italy. In Proceedings of the 4th Conference “Innovations in Fruit Growing-Improving Peach and Apricot Production”, Belgrade, Serbia, 11 February 2013; pp. 49–73. [Google Scholar]
  47. Agromillora Group. Available online: https://www.agromillora.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Agromillora_Rootpac_English.pdf (accessed on 18 September 2022).
  48. Bujdosó, G.; Ercisli, S.; Ratiu, A.; Cseke, K. Walnut ‘Esterhazy kesei’ for small-scale cultivation. HortScience 2022, 57, 523–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Mendelné Pászti, E.; Mendel, Á. Ceglédi bájos: A new apricot cultivar of Hungary. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 2021, 56, 10. [Google Scholar]
  50. Bujdosó, G.; Fodor, A.; Végh, A. BD6 walnut. HortScience 2020, 55, 1393–1394. [Google Scholar]
  51. Games, P.A.; Howell, J.F. Pairwise multiple comparison procedures with unequal n’s and/or variances: A Monte Carlo study. J. Educ. Stat. 1976, 1, 113–125. [Google Scholar]
  52. IBM Corporation. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 27.0; IBM Corporation: New York, NY, USA, 2020.
  53. Nyujtó, F.; Surányi, D. Kajszibarack; Mezőgazdasági Kiadó: Budapest, Hungary, 1981. (In Hungarian) [Google Scholar]
  54. Suranyi, D. Wild apricot and myrobalan (generative) rootstocks for apricot cultivars. Acta Hortic. 1999, 488, 445–449. [Google Scholar]
  55. Pérez-Romero, L.F.; Arroyo, F.T.; Santamaría, C.; Camacho, M.; Daza, A. Comparative fruit quality parameters of ‘Ninfa’ apricot (Prunus armeniaca L.) grafted on two different rootstocks in a newly established organic orchard. Acta Aliment. 2014, 43, 273–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Wurm, L. Efficiency test of new cultivars and rootstocks for apricot. Mitt. Klosterneubg. Rebe Wein Obstbau Fruchteverwert. 2014, 64, 30–38. [Google Scholar]
  57. Wurm, L.; Staples, M.; Riedle-Bauer, M. Influence of plant protection strategies and variety on tree soundness as well as vegetative and generative development with apricot. Mitt. Klosterneubg. Rebe Wein Obstbau. Fruchteverwert. 2018, 68, 46–66. [Google Scholar]
  58. Yordanov, I.A.; Tabakov, G.S.; Kaymakanov, V.P. Comparative study of Wavit® rootstock with two plum and two apricot cultivars in nursery. J. Agric. Sci. 2015, 60, 159–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Ondradu, G.; Casula, G.; Scalas, B. The influence of the rootstocks on the behavior of ´San Castrese´ apricot cultivar in south Sardinia. Acta Hortic. 2001, 701, 673–678. [Google Scholar]
  60. Pennone, F.; Abbate, V. Preliminary observations on the biological and horticultural behavior of different apricot rootstocks. Acta Hortic. 2001, 701, 347–350. [Google Scholar]
  61. Dhaliwal, G.S.; Dhillon, S.K. Effect of tree size on physico-chemical characteristics of fruits of guava cv. Sardar. Indian J. Hortic. 2003, 60, 312–317. [Google Scholar]
  62. Kumar, D.; Ahmed, N.; Srivastava, K.K.; Dar, T.A. Effect of trunk cross sectional area of rootstock on growth, yield, quality and leaf nutrient status in apricot (Prunus armeniaca) cv CITH-Apricot-2. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 2014, 84, 236–240. [Google Scholar]
  63. Westwood, M.N.; Roberts, A.N. The Relationship Between Trunk Cross-sectional Area and Weight of Apple Trees1. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 1970, 95, 28–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Hartmann, H.T.; Kester, D.E. Plant Propagation: Principles and Practices; Prentice-Hall Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
Horticulturae 08 01004 g001
Figure 1. (a) tree height (TH), (b) trunk cross sectional area (TCSA) and (c) survival rate (SR), as assessed in 2021, of three apricot cultivars grafted to six rootstocks grown at the Cegléd Research Station, Hungary. (As—‘Apricot seedling’, Fb—‘Fehér besztercei’, Mc—‘Montclar’, My—‘Myrobalan 29C’, RR—‘Rootpac R’, Wv—‘Wavit’) Different letters indicate significantly different subsets by scion as factor (Games-Howell, p < 0.05).
Figure 1. (a) tree height (TH), (b) trunk cross sectional area (TCSA) and (c) survival rate (SR), as assessed in 2021, of three apricot cultivars grafted to six rootstocks grown at the Cegléd Research Station, Hungary. (As—‘Apricot seedling’, Fb—‘Fehér besztercei’, Mc—‘Montclar’, My—‘Myrobalan 29C’, RR—‘Rootpac R’, Wv—‘Wavit’) Different letters indicate significantly different subsets by scion as factor (Games-Howell, p < 0.05).
Horticulturae 08 01004 g001
Horticulturae 08 01004 g002
Figure 2. Canopy diameters ((a) CDR—row-directional, (b) CDC—cross-directional) and shoot lengths ((c) SLR—row-directional, (d) SLC—cross-directional), as assessed in 2021, of three apricot cultivars grafted to six rootstocks grown at the Cegléd Research Station, Hungary. (As—‘Apricot seedling’, Fb—‘Fehér besztercei’, Mc—‘Montclar’, My—‘Myrobalan 29C’, RR—‘Rootpac R’, Wv—‘Wavit’) Different letters indicate significantly different subsets by scion as factor (Games-Howell, p < 0.05).
Figure 2. Canopy diameters ((a) CDR—row-directional, (b) CDC—cross-directional) and shoot lengths ((c) SLR—row-directional, (d) SLC—cross-directional), as assessed in 2021, of three apricot cultivars grafted to six rootstocks grown at the Cegléd Research Station, Hungary. (As—‘Apricot seedling’, Fb—‘Fehér besztercei’, Mc—‘Montclar’, My—‘Myrobalan 29C’, RR—‘Rootpac R’, Wv—‘Wavit’) Different letters indicate significantly different subsets by scion as factor (Games-Howell, p < 0.05).
Horticulturae 08 01004 g002
Horticulturae 08 01004 g003
Figure 3. (a) canopy projection area (CA), (b) canopy space filling (CF), (c) canopy volume (CV) and (d) canopy space occupation (CO), as assessed in 2021, of three apricot cultivars grafted to six rootstocks grown at the Cegléd Research Station, Hungary. (As—‘Apricot seedling’, Fb—‘Fehér besztercei’, Mc—‘Montclar’, My—‘Myrobalan 29C’, RR—‘Rootpac R’, Wv—‘Wavit’) Different letters indicate significantly different subsets by scion as factor (Games-Howell, p < 0.05).
Figure 3. (a) canopy projection area (CA), (b) canopy space filling (CF), (c) canopy volume (CV) and (d) canopy space occupation (CO), as assessed in 2021, of three apricot cultivars grafted to six rootstocks grown at the Cegléd Research Station, Hungary. (As—‘Apricot seedling’, Fb—‘Fehér besztercei’, Mc—‘Montclar’, My—‘Myrobalan 29C’, RR—‘Rootpac R’, Wv—‘Wavit’) Different letters indicate significantly different subsets by scion as factor (Games-Howell, p < 0.05).
Horticulturae 08 01004 g003
Horticulturae 08 01004 g004
Figure 4. Regression of canopy diameters, shoot lengths, TCSA, canopy volume with total height of trees, as assessed in 2021, of ‘Bergarouge’, ‘LilyCot’, and ‘Gönci Magyar kajszi’ apricot cultivars grafted to ‘Montclar’, ‘Myrobalan 29C’, ‘Wavit’, ‘Rootpac R’, ‘Fehér besztercei’ and apricot seedling rootstocks grown at the Cegléd Research Station, Hungary. Formula and goodness of fit (R2) value are given for each curve.
Figure 4. Regression of canopy diameters, shoot lengths, TCSA, canopy volume with total height of trees, as assessed in 2021, of ‘Bergarouge’, ‘LilyCot’, and ‘Gönci Magyar kajszi’ apricot cultivars grafted to ‘Montclar’, ‘Myrobalan 29C’, ‘Wavit’, ‘Rootpac R’, ‘Fehér besztercei’ and apricot seedling rootstocks grown at the Cegléd Research Station, Hungary. Formula and goodness of fit (R2) value are given for each curve.
Horticulturae 08 01004 g004
Horticulturae 08 01004 g005
Figure 5. Regression of canopy diameters, shoot lengths, total height, canopy volume with trunk cross-section area, as assessed in 2021, of ‘Bergarouge’, ‘LilyCot’, and ‘Gönci Magyar kajszi’ apricot cultivars grafted to ‘Montclar’, ‘Myrobalan 29C’, ‘Wavit’, ‘Rootpac R’, ‘Fehér besztercei’ and apricot seedling rootstocks grown at the Cegléd Research Station, Hungary. Formula and R2 value are given for each curve.
Figure 5. Regression of canopy diameters, shoot lengths, total height, canopy volume with trunk cross-section area, as assessed in 2021, of ‘Bergarouge’, ‘LilyCot’, and ‘Gönci Magyar kajszi’ apricot cultivars grafted to ‘Montclar’, ‘Myrobalan 29C’, ‘Wavit’, ‘Rootpac R’, ‘Fehér besztercei’ and apricot seedling rootstocks grown at the Cegléd Research Station, Hungary. Formula and R2 value are given for each curve.
Horticulturae 08 01004 g005
Table 1. Physical and chemical properties of the top 30 cm of chernozem soil at the Cegléd Research Station, Hungary, where evaluation of six rootstocks occurred.
Table 1. Physical and chemical properties of the top 30 cm of chernozem soil at the Cegléd Research Station, Hungary, where evaluation of six rootstocks occurred.
Soil PropertiesValueLimitsEvaluation
pH (KCl)7.240–14Slightly alkaline
Organic matter (%)3.271–5Medium
Total saline (%)0.030.01–0.50Non-saline
CaCO3 (%)7.251–20High
Available nitrogen (mg × kg−1)5.061–10Medium
Available phosphorous-pentoxide (mg × kg−1)197.130–350Excellent
Available potassium-oxide (mg × kg−1)257.870–350Medium
Available sodium (mg × kg−1)70.930–100Medium
Available magnesium (mg × kg−1)246.6040–300Good
Available sulphate sulphur (mg × kg−1)15.684–35Medium
Available manganese (mg × kg−1)36.0010–50Good
Available zinc (mg × kg−1)1.500.7–3Good
Available copper (mg × kg−1)4.110–6Good
Arany-type cohension index40.271–100Medium
Table 2. Mean meteorological data collected between 2018 and 2021 at the Cegléd Research Station, Hungary, where evaluation of six rootstocks occurred.
Table 2. Mean meteorological data collected between 2018 and 2021 at the Cegléd Research Station, Hungary, where evaluation of six rootstocks occurred.
ParametersValue
Average yearly temperature10.7 °C
Average yearly temperature during the growing season 15.7 °C
(between April and September)
Average yearly precipitation536 mm
Annual mean number of shine hours2100
Mean number of sunshine hours during the growing season850
Table 3. The five apricot rootstocks and their genetic background, grafted with [insert scion cultivar] scions, planted at the Cegléd Research Station, Hungary.
Table 3. The five apricot rootstocks and their genetic background, grafted with [insert scion cultivar] scions, planted at the Cegléd Research Station, Hungary.
Rootstock CultivarSpecies
‘Fehér besztercei’ (Fb)Prunus domestica L.
Apricot seedling (As)Prunus armeniaca L
‘Myrobalan 29C’ (My)Prunus cerasifera myrobalana Ehrh.
‘Wavit’ (Wv)Prunus domestica L.
‘Montclar’ (Mc)Prunus persica L.
‘Rootpac R’ (RR)P. cerasifera myr. X P. dulcis Mill.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mendelné Pászti, E.; Bujdosó, G.; Mendel, Á. Vegetative Characteristics of Three Apricot Cultivars Grafted on Six Different Rootstocks. Horticulturae 2022, 8, 1004. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8111004

AMA Style

Mendelné Pászti E, Bujdosó G, Mendel Á. Vegetative Characteristics of Three Apricot Cultivars Grafted on Six Different Rootstocks. Horticulturae. 2022; 8(11):1004. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8111004

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mendelné Pászti, Edina, Géza Bujdosó, and Ákos Mendel. 2022. "Vegetative Characteristics of Three Apricot Cultivars Grafted on Six Different Rootstocks" Horticulturae 8, no. 11: 1004. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8111004

APA Style

Mendelné Pászti, E., Bujdosó, G., & Mendel, Á. (2022). Vegetative Characteristics of Three Apricot Cultivars Grafted on Six Different Rootstocks. Horticulturae, 8(11), 1004. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8111004

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop