Pear Rootstocks & Training Systems

12/2/214 Practical Strategies to Improve Management and Profitability of Pear Orchards Todd Einhorn 214 WSHA Annual Meeting Pear Rootstocks & Training Systems 1

12/2/214 A Recent 1-year Evaluation of 7 Promising Pear Rootstocks (low-density trial; 272 trees/a) Yield (kg/tree) Yield (kg/tree) 3 25 2 15 1 5 3 25 2 15 1 5 d Anjou, OR OHxF4 OHxF87 78-36 Fox11 Nellis Pyro 2-33 Pyrodwarf d Anjou, WA OHxF4 OHxF87 78-36 Fox11 Fox16 Pyro 2-33 Pyrodwarf A 211 21 29 28 27 26 25 B 21 29 28 27 OH F 87 has consistently produced the highest cumulative yields whencompared to other Pyrusrootstocks evaluated in the PNW Yield (kg/tree) 3 25 2 15 1 Bosc, WA C 29 28 27 26 25 24 5 OHxF4 OHxF87 78-36 Fox11 Fox16 Pyro 2-33 Pyrodwarf Relative comparisons among OH F clones ROOTSTOCK FRUIT SIZE YIELD TREE SIZE COMMENTS OH F 4 Inconsistent Good OH F 69 OH F 87 OH F 97 OH F 333 Good Good to Excellent Excellent Poor Good to Excellent Moderate to Good Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent Moderate Moderate Moderate No longer commercially propagated Propagation issues Too Precocious for Bartlett? Excessive vigor for some scions No longer commercially propagated 2

12/2/214 OH F 87 vs. OH F 97: 15-& 16-year-old Bartlett RS/ Scion 21 Yield 211 Yield 21 Fruit wt. 211 Fruit wt. 21 Bins/a 211 Bins/a OH F87 Bartlett 122 149 a 198 211 34 41 OH F97 Bartlett 117 12 b 199 29 32 33 OH F 87 produced higher yields but similar fruit size as OH F 97 Thinning is crucial during early cropping OH F 87 vs. OH F 97 6 Trunk circumference (cm) 5 4 3 2 1 Red Anjou 97 Red Anjou 87 Bart 97 Bart 87 3

12/2/214 OH F 87 vs. OH F 97: 15-& 16-year-old Red D Anjou RS/ Scion 21 Yield 211 Yield 21 Fruit wt. 211 Fruit wt. 21 Bins/a 211 Bins/a OH F87 Red Anjou OH F97 Red Anjou 84 b 76 b 18 b 184 23 21 141 a 124 a 197 a 194 39 34 OH F 87 produced lower yields and smaller fruit size in comparison to OH F 97 213 D Anjou Systems X Rootstock Trial 3 Factors - Rootstocks: OH F87, OH F69, Pyro 2-33 - Training Systems: V, Bi-axe, Single axe -In-row Spacings: 3, 4.5, 6 ft. 12 ft. 4

12/2/214 2nd Leaf d Anjou Bi-axe Spacing (3 ft. x 12 ft.) Height (1-11 ft.) 2nd Leaf d Anjou Bi-axe Spacing (6 ft. x 12 ft.) Height (1-11 ft.) 5

12/2/214 2nd Leaf d Anjou V 1-15 from vertical Adjacent trees leaned opposite each other 2nd Leaf d Anjou Single axe Trunk size Flower clusters no./tree Treatment Effects Above graft union Below graft union 2 2 (cm ) (cm ) Rootstock OH F 69 11.6 24 a 2.2 OH F 87 11 21.2 ab 1.6 Pyro 2-33 9 2.1 b 1.6 Training system Bi-axe 7.2 b 21.9 3.5 a Single-axe 12.6 a 22.5 1.1 b V 11.8 a 21.8 b In-row spacing 3 ft. 9.9 2.5 1.6 4.5 ft. 1.9 22.4 2 6 ft. 1.8 22.5 1.6 6

12/2/214 Horner Rootstock On-Farm Evaluation Trials Horner Series Population derived from 5 open pollinated OH F clones (however, pollen sources not controlled) Initial evaluation with d Anjou Horner fruit size and yield 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 OHxF 97 H-1 H-3 H-4 H-6 H-9 H-1 H-14 H-18 H-19 H-36 H-51 H-53 H-79 Fruit size(g) Fruit No Yield lbs Mielke and Sugar, 24 7

12/2/214 Horner Rootstock Trial: Bartlett Bartlett' Yield Proj. production Fruit wt. TCA Yield effic. Wapato (lbs/tree) (bins/a) (g) (cm 2 ) (kg/cm 2 TCA) OH F87 55.5 a 55 219 a (9) 26.98 a Horner 4 48.6 b 48 216 a (9) 24.92 ab Horner 1 44.5 b 44 24 b (1) 25.81 b 5 th leaf production; 189 trees/acre OH F 87 produced the highest yields Horner 1 yield & fruit size were reduced Tree size not influenced by rootstock Horner Rootstock Trial: Bosc Bosc' Yield Proj. production Fruit wt. TCA Yield effic. Wapato (lbs/tree) (bins/a) (g) (cm 2 ) (kg/cm 2 TCA) OH F87 43 a 43 31 b (7) 32.63 a Horner 4 32 b 32 322 a (6) 35.43 c Horner 1 34 b 34 295 b (7) 28.55 b 5 th leaf production; 189 trees/acre 2% higher yields on OH F 87 Horner 4 produced the largest fruit Tree size slightly larger on Horner 4 8

12/2/214 Horner Rootstock Trial: d Anjou d'anjou Yield Proj. production Fruit wt. TCA Yield effic. Hood River (lbs/tree) (bins/a) (g) (cm 2 ) (kg/cm 2 TCA) OH F87 17 a 42 214 b (9) 58 b.85 a Horner 4 19 a 42 225 a (9) 87 a.57 b Horner 1 74 b 29 15 c (135) 55 b.63 b 6 th leaf production; 427 trees/acre Horner 1 produced 3% less fruit -inadequate fruit size D Anjou trees were 5% larger on Horner 4 Alternative Genera Cydonia(Quince) and Amelanchier 9

12/2/214 Quince: Cold Hardy Screening Rank Accession Oxidative Browning Score (1-6) Hardiness Temperature C 1 C. oblonga - Arakseni, Armenia 1.5-3 2 Aiva from Gebeseud 2.39-3 3 Akhtubinskaya O.P. seedling (B) 2.42-3 4 Tashkent AR-232 seedling 4 (B) 2.75-3 5 Skorospelka O.P. seedling 2.86-3 6 Quince S 3. -3 7 Quince W 3. -3 8 C. oblonga - Megri, Armenia 3.3-3 9 C. oblonga - Seghani, Armenia 3.8-3 1 Tashkent AR-232 seedling 2 (A) 3.14-3 11 Van Deman 3.5-3 12 C. oblonga - Babaneuri, Georgia 3.61-3 13 Krukovskaya O.P. seedling 3.64-3 Oxidative browning < 5% 14 W-4 3.69-3 15 Trentholm 3.75-3 16 WF-17 3.75-3 17 Bereczki [Beretskiquitte] 3.78-3 18 Kashenko No. 8 3.81-3 19 Quince C7/1 3.86-3 2 Pyronia veitchii (= IGC 9) 3.89-3 21 Quince A 4. -3 22 Sorbopyrus 'Smokvarka' 4. -3 Over 3 years, 22 accessions consistently attained equal or greaterhardiness than commercial Pear rootstocks (OH F) Aiva from Gebeseud OH F 87 C -1 C -2 C -3 C -4 C 1

12/2/214 216 Trials Coming d Anjou & Bartlett +/- interstems Alternative Genera: Amelanchier Clones Dr. Michael Neumüller, Bavarian Centre for Fruit Crops Excellent root quality Pear decline/fire blight tolerant Compatible with BeurrreHardy and Comice 11

12/2/214 3rd Leaf d Anjou /Amelanchier Clones 3rd Leaf d Anjou /Amelanchier Clones 12

12/2/214 Rootstock Total leaves Total leaf area Avg. leaf area Leaf:fruit Rootstock Bloom Fruit set Fruit size Fruit size Fruit Proj. Production Trunk size Yield Effic. Shape SSC TA A1 A2 A7 OH F 87* clusters/tree 54 a 46 a 66 a 5b OHxF87 % g 28 26 249 248 na no./44 lb box no./tree 7 2.3 8 12.3 8 16.8 na no./tree 41 277 753 m 2 bins/acre 13.6 7.4 1.1 1.52 TCA (cm2) kg/cm22tca Height:width 1.1.58 1.16 8.6.36 1.17 7.4.57 1.16 12.1 1.18 cm 19.7 % % 13.8 13.9 12.1.43.39.33 ratio 13.9.37 753 *OHxF 87 / Anjou data for FF, Shape, SSC and TA are from another block and are for comparative purposes since there were no fruit on OHxF87 trees in this trial A1 825 1.27 15.3 4 2nd leaf flower bud 3rd leaf tree height (~5 ft.) & development graft union ( d Anjou /Amelanchier) 13

12/2/214 Bartlett /87 Bartlett /A4 Comice /A1 Localized incompatibility (combination dependent) A new planting with interstems ( Comice ) scheduled for 216 3rd Leaf d Anjou /Quince Eline Rootstock A1 A2 A7 Quince E Bloom clusters/tree 44 a 54 a 47 a 2 b Fruit size g 266 a 265 a 26 a 217 b Fruit size no./44 lb box 8 a 8 a 8 a 9 b Fruit no./tree 1.6 a 1.1 a 12.3 a 4.4 b Proj. Production bins/acre 6.8 a 6.2 a 7.6 a 2.6 b Trunk size TCA (cm2) 8.5 7.8 7.8 9.5 Yield Effic. Shape kg/cm2 TCA Height:width.35 a 1.12.35 a 1.11.41 a 1.13.13 b 1.14 SSC % 14.2 14 14.2 14.4 TA %.35 b.37 b.36 b.51 a 14

12/2/214 Tools for Managing Vigor & Improving Fruiting 1. Root Pruning Hormonal Balance Greater return bloom Root Carbon balance Plant water status REDUCED Improved light Higher fruit set VIGOR Plant Pruning nutrition Root loss & regeneration Increased Yield Efficiency 15

12/2/214 5 th Leaf (1 ft 14 ft; 311 trees/acre) Year 1 Vegetative Growth Shoot length (cm) 5 45 4 35 3 25 2 15 1 5 Control 1-side root pruning 2-side root pruning -4% 2 4 6 8 1 Days after full bloom No. of fruit/tree 2 16 12 8 4 Fruit set (%) Control 5 th Leaf (1 ft 14 ft; 311 trees/acre) Year 1 Fruit Relations 12 1 8 6 4 2 1-sided root pruning Yield Components Control 2-sided root pruning 1-side root pruning 2-side root pruning Year 1 Net Result: More manageable/balanced trees with a net loss of $1, per acre Fruit size (g) 25 2 15 1 5 64.8 N n.s. 63 N n.s. 65.7 N n.s. Control 1-sided root pruning 2-sided root pruning 16

12/2/214 6 th Leaf (1 ft 14 ft; 311 trees/acre) Year 2 Return Bloom and Fruit Set *Root Pruning was NOT applied in Year 2* 1 8 Spurs with return bloom Fruit Set Percent 6 4 2 Control 1-side root pruning 2-side root pruning 6 th Leaf (1 ft 14 ft; 311 trees/acre) Year 2 Fruit Relations Yield (Lbs/tree) 8 6 4 2 Yield (Lbs/tree) 1 75 5 25 Fruit size (g) 3 25 2 15 1 5 Control 1-sided root pruning 2-sided root pruning Control 1-sided root pruning 2-sided 212 root 213 Control pruning Root Pruned Not Root Pruned 1-sided root pruning 2-sided root pruning Higher yield of double-sided root-pruning in Year-2 did not fully compensate for Year-1 loss Shoot growth reduced by 2% and 1% for double and single-sided treatments, respectively 17

12/2/214 3 rd Leaf (4 ft 12 ft; 98 trees/acre) Year 1 4 th Leaf (4 ft 12 ft; 98 trees/acre) Year 1 Vegetative Growth 6 Shoot length (cm) 5 4 3 2 1-2% Control 1-side root pruning 2-side root prunimg 5 1 15 Days after full bloom 18

12/2/214 4 th Leaf (4 ft 12 ft; 98 trees/acre) Year 1 Fruit Relations No. fruit/tree 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 b Untreated b 1-side root pruned b 2-side root pruned a a AVG AVG + 1- AVG + 2- side root pruned side root pruned a Fruit weight (g) 3 25 2 15 1 5 a Untreated ab 1-side root pruned ab 2-side root pruned b b AVG AVG + 1-AVG + 2- side root side root pruned pruned b AVG increased per acre yields from 13 bins to 23 bins Shoot length (cm) 5 45 4 35 3 25 2 15 5 th Leaf (4 ft 12 ft; 98 trees/acre) Year 2 Vegetative Growth 214 1 5 2 4 6 8 Days after full bloom Vegetative growth recovery -3% 213/214 Untreated 213/214 Untreated 213 Untreated/214 2-side root pruning 213 1-side root pruning/214 Untreated 213 1-side root pruning/214 Untreated 213/214 1-side root pruning 213 2-side root pruning/214 Untreated 213 2-side root pruning/214 Untreated 213/214 2-side root pruning Vigor reduction was positively related to tree age at time of root pruning 19

12/2/214 1 Return Bloom 9 * * * * 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 213/214 213 213 root 213/214 1-side 213 root 213: Untreated Untreated Untreated Untreated/214 2-1-sided pruning/214 root 1-sided pruning pruning/214 2-sided root 2-sided pruning 214: Untreated 2-sided root pruning Untreated 1-sided Untreated 2-sided Percent 5 th Leaf (4 ft 12 ft; 98 trees/acre) Year 2 Fruit Set Fruit Set 213/214 2-side Realized Potential: A significant increase in flowering also observed for fruit set of 2-sided root pruned trees Double-Sided Root Pruning Markedly Increased Return Yield 213 Treatment 214 Treatment 214 Yield lbs/tree Untreated Untreated 29.2 b 214 Production bins/acre 24.1 b Untreated 2x 31.4 b 25.9 b 1x Untreated 3.7 b 25.3 b 1x 1x 28.7 b 23.7 b 2x Untreated 49.3 a 4.6 a 68% 2x 2x 47.1 a 38.9 a 2

12/2/214 Root Pruning Conclusions 2-sided Root Pruning consistently improved return bloom and fruit set in all trials No benefits from Single-sided root pruning Vigor control dependent upon tree age at time of pruning Carbon Deficits reduce fruit size Root pruning effective when applied early, once canopies have filled space Fall or early spring applications The Negative Effects of Shade 21

12/2/214 Variation in Fruit Set within Large Canopies Treatment Exterior (-3 ft.) <8 ft. height Mid (3-6 ft.) <8 ft. height Yield (fruit number) Interior (6-9 ft.) <8 ft. height Control 788 b 167 b 46 b Extenday 1157 a 41 a 112 a Shading of 8+Year-Old D Anjou Trees Shade Significantly Reduces Fruit Size 22

12/2/214 Total Yield Treatment 29 21 211 212 Projected Production Projected Production (lbs/tree) (lbs/tree) (11 lb bins/a) Control-No Fabric 75 b 829 b 66 a 791 b 2931 b 29 Extenday FB-75 DAFB 858 a 856 ab 556 a 856 ab 3126 ab 39 (+19) Extenday Full Season 893 a 924 a 566 a 937 a 3317 a 328 (+38) 6 % Shade 525 c 381 bc 349 b 823 b 278 c 25 (-85) ShadeReduced Tree Yields by 55% Only applied in 29 and 21 but carryover effects observed in 211 Shade Increases Fruit Drop 6% shade reduced fruit set >5% 23

12/2/214 Tools for Managing Vigor & Improving Fruiting 2. PGRs - Kudos (P-Ca) - ReTain(AVG) - NAA/Ethephon Control Kudos 25 ppm 24

12/2/214 Kudos Reduced Shoot Length by ~45% Shoot length (cm) 9 Control 8 Kudos 12 oz/a 2x 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 11-Apr 1-May 21-May 1-Jun 3-Jun 2-Jul 9-Aug 29-Aug Treatment Tree Yield Fruit wt. (lbs) (g) Control 29 251 Kudos 25 ppm 2x 23 235 Apogee applications to highvigor portions of canopies Shoot length (cm) 6 5 4 3 2 Control Surfactant + water Apogee 25 (5 cm) Apogee 25 (5 cm & Regrowth) A 1 2 4 6 8 1 12 14 16 18 Translocation of P-Ca is limited 25

12/2/214 ReTain(AVG) Treatment Yield (lbs per tree) Fruit no. per tree Control 88 b 172 c 8 ppm ReTain (8% FB) 52 c 111 cd 4 ppm ReTain (8% FB) 57 c 118 cd 8 ppm ReTain (2 WAFB) 198 a 558 a 4 ppm ReTain (2 WAFB) 16 a 49 b ReTain(AVG) Ethylene production rate (µl kg -1 h -1 ) 12 1 8 6 4 2 Comice Control AVG at 3 ppm AVG at 6 ppm AVG at 12 ppm 1 2 3 4 5 6 Days from AVG applied at 5% Full Bloom 26

12/2/214 ReTain(AVG) ReTain interferes with ethylene production Ethylene is linked to fruit abscission Ethylene production was highest in fruitlets ~7-14 d after full bloom Timing: Petal fall (7-1 dafb) at 1 pouch/acre 6% of ReTainTrials (212-214) resulted in significant increases in fruit set and yield ( Comice and d Anjou ) 4% did not Applications prior to high-stress events Ethephon& NAA Ethephon applied at flower initiation NAA trialed 214: 5 ppm beginning 45 dafb once per week for 4 weeks 27

12/2/214 New Direction New Cultivar: US 71655-14- Gem Precocious& productive Moderately resistant to fire blight Non-russeting Crisp/juicy non-browning flesh at harvest Good storability (4.5 months RA) & Ripening 28

12/2/214 Gem Pollination Experiments Gem Pollination Experiments Pollen source 'GR Bosc' 'd'anjou' 'Bartlett' 'Comice' 'Starkrimson' 'Gem' Fruit set (%) 65.1 a 64.7 a 55.5 a 65.4 a 55.4 a 28.4 b Seeds/fruit no. 5.8 a 5.8 a 5.6 a 6.6 a 5.3 a 1.2 b ~2 Gem flowers were pollinated per pollen source All pollen was forced and prepared under lab conditions Pollen was applied to emasculated flowers 29

12/2/214 Frequency (%) Gem Pollination Experiments 5 45 4 35 3 25 2 15 1 5 2 4 6 8 1 Seeds/fruit 'd'anjou' 'Bartlett' 'GR Bosc' 'Comice' 'Gem' 'Starkrimson' Gem s inherently high precocity and productivity attributed to its propensity to set parthenocarpic fruit Misdiagnosed PVY Gem presently undergoing heat therapy-a small amount of clean wood is expected by fall of 215 3

12/2/214 Thanks For Thank Your YouAttention Acknowledgements Funding Provided by: Special Thanks to: Columbia Gorge Fruit Grower Commission NW Pear Bureau/Fresh pear research committee Washington Tree Fruit Research Commission Extenday/Fine Americas Janet Turner, Tom Auvil, Chuck Peters, Don Kiyokawa, Mateus Pasa, Richard Bell, Steve Castagnoli, Juan Rojas, Matthew Arrington, Aritz Kerman, Stefano Musacchi, Ana Lima, John Benton, Mike McCarthy, Gorham Blaine, Herbie Annala, Mike Sandlin, Don Gibson, Verlyn Burgers, Eric vonlubkin, Yongjian Chang, Barbara Reed, Joseph Postman, Yan Wang, Todd Erickson, Dave Weil, Kevin Forney, Amit Dhingra 31