Root Distribution Patterns of Nine Apple Rootstocks in Two ...

Root Distribution Patterns of Nine Apple Rootstocks in Two ...

volumes wen: 350 ami ::!.~lJem' for the samples from the \1arlcneand Canfield soils. Ten soil cores were t"I :n cm for Ihis soil. The bulk dl'llsiliesreconkd ff)J "oil cures l;.U-JJ J.412IJII .'0-5 ~ ·m·H 1.4h21312 ~U 6:- 51-; as re~lncd In .o\nllnymou\ (197lJ, IIIXI).'1 "I> at /' = 0.05.7

Tank 2 Average number of roots/dnr' over all depths for roral roots ;lnd each size category for the Murleuc and Canfield soils,vtarlenc sru] CUlfic Id ,oj 1Rootstock Tnlal Small Medium Large Tolal Small Medium LugeROUi\:d",:MAC2~ s.m 4.i5 u I5 0.11 4.1LA perfonnJJlg I)cucr In the\1arlcllc sot! and 1'.1.7EMLA pcrformmg pumly in the Marlellesoil with the other rootstOl'ks not alleeted by ~niltype a, far a, lotalnumhcr of roots.Although roolstock alleuetl numhn nf ro()t,/dm' ami depth nffOoting, Ihe ~oi I cnvironment had ml)fl~ inllur.:nl:e un the rootdistrihutiOIl pall I'm oy depth. Dcpthof rootillg was rl"strict~d hy thefrag.ipan ill the Canfidd ~I)il ami lIIost roots werc in soil layersabove 60 cm sinee highly r:olllpacted pans pr(',cnl a physicalhamer that severely limit mot penetration

O· IS15·3()3(). 4~45·6060· 757S- 909(). lOS....... lOS· 120eI)'-' 0.0 1.0 20 3.0 40 5.0 6.0 0.0 0.1 0': 003 0.4.cs, O· 15~15-3030·4$4~ - 1\060-7575·909(). lOSIOS- 1200.0 1.0 2.0 ).0 ".0 SO 6.0 0.0 01 0.2 0.)Roou s dm :!f'il!!. 1. 'lullli>l:r of [OI)I,{.I",: lor each ,lcplh tor the I'vb.rlclh' ""I ""r lowl 1.-'). "",,11(8). rncrlium (e I. and larr.:' 1I)). I ,r';l1 P = ().(,~ fur companvon nf rnols'"cb wirhmIkp4h flIT i\ ,10

o . 1515·303O.4.S4S ·6060·157S·9090· lOSE illS· 120 A~"[0 8 10 12 1-' 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 OR 1.0 I.:~ o· 1515· 3030·454. tJ.o~rur J~ I,,'~klll.IJ..1Il.Il.4!).IUW,. (I.Il) roll (~) lu 7~ em. 0 III. (I 20. (Hl~. (l1l2 tor 7' I" ')II l'ln;1l [Il. n )0. 1I.(l~.ll.Ilr l"r'lO ,,, [0:\ 0.1 O. nn; IW2 tor )o~ IU 120 cru. I_'t>al I' _ 0 05 lur comparison "I depth '" 1(h;1)rootstock: r.:1 fl,r r.!/\l· 2-' l.'; 0 'I fnr OAR J (.): 1.0 rl'r M.:!h);r.U .:\ ( .. ); 0.7h>T \1.1"'.\11. ~ IfJ_): n.h f"r \t.'IE'\\li\ I' » Jnd 0 3 ({\ I. n5 fur \1') !lIght diamond ) and .\1:\(' ') rdaft.. dialllllfl

Table .l Relationship bcrv 10lal mol number ami rool ,i/o: call'gory havuu; the 11I!1h~..r cod'ici~rtl 0' lkl.:rTIIIII~IIion vx. scionvigor ,1IIe! yich] Ior all rootstocks.y ParamctcrTree hl'ighl un)Canopy spread (1lI)Tree height (rn)('anop} "prel)1< + 7. 7X')~ () he; (WIl Iy= 1."·19 + 0.(4)1:-0; O.2X n.llo Iy= I 7~:! + I) Ol4x () 51< O.O() I) = 2.702 t 0.0(1)\ (UJ~ o.oon)..., 2.251 + ().oJ 1,\ 042 o ()OIY= 1419'1 + O.IUhx 0.22 O.l)()~y= ·U73 + 0.516~ O.~·1 1).001Y= '}~.4')X + Il.lI'JO.\ 1123 ().04l'i)- - XIU;()9 + J .20q.\ 0.4:\ O.Il(J ITable ·1. Rclariunslnp between number of combined medium and hlr~e fllolS vs.fl)ots v~. (;ofllh'IICd lTlO:l.l!UJIl antllilf~(, r,,(ll~ for all rnol~tnck ...,civil vigur iUl < 0.0 I) e.'(I;cptfor Intal and small rools VS. l:,lnilPY spread. Ma:r.imum R-' value"wcre fl)Unc..lfor medium or I,nge H)(lls \' .... the vi,.!llT i\lld yieldparameters for trees in the Canfidd snil. Thesc two caw,I!nries wert'analYled together as combined medium and large Tl)\W,alili were(()l11par~~dwith the vigor and yield t'()mponellt" Iisled abovc. 'J11l'Ws fOT comhined medium and large TOots were hil!her thall formedium or large roots alone for Irees in Ihe Canfield soil. ~cgres·sion models for lotal roots and I:ombincd medium an!llarge rool~\'s. vigor and yield paramctcrs for the Canfield -"l)il are Shl)Wn inTank 3.Scioll vigor and the illh:nsity and cxtcnsivenes ... of the HIl)1sysll~m has occn shown 1(1 be pl)~itivdy corrdatell fnr many appkTootslm:ks (Alkinson. I')~O; A ....ery. I97D; Coker. 1958; Rogersand Vyvyan. I\)~4). The po!iti\'crelalionship found for TCA. treehcight. anc..lcanopy "pre ad of Ihe scion vs. number of roots coullteddemonslrales that trt>e vigor can bt~u-;l~d to givt> a rough estimateof HlOt ,yslem Site of thl'se fl)ot,t()l:b With Ihe cxccption ofM.7EMLA for thcsc soils. The highcr wrre1ation coefficients withmedium and I;lrge TUOIs(ould rdlect Ih{"ir longe\'it}'. which mayindicale a cumulative measurc of mot "ystl."lII ...ite in the ....ame Wilythai TeA. trec hei!!ht. 3). The hi~hercorrelation ht-twccn medium ilnt! large roots" ith yield parameters111 thc Canfield "oil nJay he related to over-winter rarhohydratt>slorag\.· in Ihl'~e rools a~ largcr mots arc more likely to owr winlerand stl>r\.·lilrgl~rilmounts of l'iI!"fJ\lhydralc~ Ihilll"'lIIall rools (KrillJlerand Kot.lowski, 1979: I\txxJ and Wchstcr. 11)1)1). Also.lhe cOlltri·hUllon of nlder roots III WOller and nutrient uptake during l!Jl'summer and early fiJII can be substanllal when water demand ishi!!he~l. wh~n new rool growth I()w\.~-;tand Ihl~rl' is a hi~h fruitgrowth rale (1\Ikin~on. 1980: Rom, Il)X7). No signifkant wrrektion wa!found for yidd paramelers and root IlUIllht-rs in theMarlette ..oil. This 1II,Iy lx' due to a ,malkr percentage Ill' mediumJ. A",'~. SOC HOl

and large roots corupared to small roots III [he Marlene soil than theCanfield soil (Fernandez ct al.. 19(1).It was noticed that \1. 7EMLA displayed a 1I~!!il[i\"l:sloJX~ Oilmost of the regression lines where all rolJt~ltX"ks were included.Therefore. individual rootstocks were subjected to regressionanalysis for total ruot-, and all size categories vs. growth ami yieldparumctcrs. All rootstockv were found [0 have a positive ornonsignificant relationship individually (data not shown) exceptM.7FMLI\. A strong negative relationship W,IS found for~.7EMLA between TCA. tree height, 19lN yil'ld. and I() yearcumulative yield compared with rout data for the CanfIeld ~oil.Maximum W WitS h>und for growth and yield parameters vs.cOlllhinnl number of medium and large rools (Tahk 4). Negative ..slopes aho were de[ec[l'd for tree height, canopy sprrad and Il)Xl)yield, s. L'Omhined medium ami large root~ for [he \-1arletre "oil.although Ihl' rcla[ion:-.hips wen~ nol signitil'anl (iniltiollof ahigh TI)()I density ill it shallow soil volumt~ l:ould alter planlrl~spollSC 10 soil slresse'" sudl;J!'o ll11o(ling or drought slrl~s'"hy II1tlTl~rapid Jeplclion of soil water and gasc~. J>ll~itive rcliltionships Wcrl.'fount! for vigor ami yield pilralnt~ters l'l>mpared with numher ofrools for all fl)ot"tlX"KS e»l'ept \1. 7EMI _1\ where a posslhle COIllpctith'ceffct:t was found bctween vigor, yield. and small rools vs.wmbineJ Illcdium ami large TOotS. Rased on relativt" rallking offl)nting illh:Jl~ily rur Ihl.' IWl) soil types M.l)E\1Lt\, \1,\('.1), and\1.7EMLA werl.: affected by snillYpe. [I i!>important to cOIl~iderthe abilit), of plants 10 alter rool ciislrihutiull pilllcrn~ wilhoUIapparent reductions in Ihe overall size of Ihe root sy~tem inrespon"e to challgc" in thl~soill'nvironrm'nl as found in Ihi~ studywhrn selecting n)()lsllx:ks .lfId mallagemenl systems hOlh rororchilTdis[s and re:-.can:hers,Lil~ratunnthe !!rOwlh Ill' apple In."l's\)n fl)urrno[~lIl1.·kvariclic~. New Phytol. hi): Il) ~tl.COl"krofr. Rand J.e. W"IIt>rink. t9(">().Roor Ih.'lribu[i()n "f Ufl'hilrlJtrce~.Au:-.'r;lt. J. i\gri. J{cs. 17:~~-~~.Coker. r.G. Il).~!(.J{o..>1 studit's. XI), J{l)(.tsystclll~ of ,lpplc on MallIn!!fl)otstocl..\ nn fi\'~ WII series. J. 11011. Sci .. ~.~:71 N.blvls. B. W. anll n. Pityn..,. l~hK. Soil physil:al"'()ntlitions and root growth.p. 2'\6- 20--2()~. In: W.J. Whittington (l,J.). Root growlh.HUI!l''''''llnh~, I.l>ndon.Imam'. II .. J. Vkcn[e ("'handler. and S. S))\·il. IQKJ. Rno[ di.'lrihution ofplalliains grvwing 011 Ihl.: suil typC). J. Agri. lJni\". of Puerto Ri

1J. Amcr. SOl', Hort. SCI. 111:6 7n-o 77.Mikhail. l::.H. and R.M. El-Zcftawi. 1971L Effect of soil tYl~~ androotstock s on root distribution and lear composition of citrus trees. Pf

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines