23.01.2015 Views

sodininkystė ir daržininkystė 25(4)

sodininkystė ir daržininkystė 25(4)

sodininkystė ir daržininkystė 25(4)

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

experiment the differences in yield were observed, the total yield was not differentiated<br />

(Table 5).<br />

Table 5. The total yield (kg/tree) of ‘Jonica’ trees and the<strong>ir</strong> efficiency index (kg/cm 2<br />

TCSA) as influenced by different rootstocks and year of study<br />

5 lentelë. ‘Jonica’ veislës vaismedþiø suminio derliaus (kg/vaismedis) <strong>ir</strong> jo produktyvumo<br />

indekso (kg/cm 2 KSP) priklausomumas nuo poskiepiø <strong>ir</strong> tyrimo metø<br />

Treatment<br />

Yield (kg/tree)<br />

Veislës <strong>ir</strong><br />

Derlius, kg/vaismedis<br />

poskiepio<br />

derinys 1999 2000 2001 2002<br />

Total, 1999-<br />

2002<br />

1999–2002 m.<br />

suminis derlius<br />

Efficiency index<br />

Produktyvumo<br />

indeksas, kg/cm 2<br />

KSP<br />

‘Jonica’/M.9 8.86 c 6.24 a 9.16 a 13.2 b 37.5 a 1.51 a<br />

‘Jonica’/P 60 4.88 a 4.36 a 6.52 a 10.3 ab 26.1 a 1.40 a<br />

‘Jonica’/M.26 6.04 ab 5.90 a 15.71 a 8.8 ab 36.4 a 1.20 a<br />

‘Jonica’/P 22 7.82 bc 5.82 a 8.92 a 10.7 ab 33.3 a 2.96 b<br />

‘Jonica’/P 59 7.50 bc 3.76 a 6.90 a 7.2 a <strong>25</strong>.3 a 2.40 b<br />

7.02 ab 5.21 a 9.44 b 10.03 b<br />

This is in a line with the previous reports of Kviklys et al. (1999) and Skrzyñski<br />

and Poniedziaùek (1999) who did not record any differences between rootstocks<br />

M.9 and P 60. However, many authors (Baab, 1998; Czynczyk, 1998; Sùowiñski,<br />

2001) pointed out that rootstock M.9 yielded better than P 22 and worse in comparison<br />

to P 60. The most productive trees were those grafted on rootstocks P 22 and<br />

P 59 (2.96 and 2.40 kg/cm 2 , respectively). Trees on rootstocks M.9, P 60 and M.26<br />

were less productive, with the yield efficiency index of 1.51, 1.40 and 1.20 kg/cm 2 ,<br />

respectively.<br />

Table 6. Mean fruit weight (g) of ‘Jonica’ apples as influenced by<br />

different rootstocks and year of study<br />

6 lentelë. ‘Jonica’ veislës vaismedþiø vidutinës vaisiø masës (g)<br />

priklausomumas nuo poskiepiø <strong>ir</strong> tyrimo metø<br />

Fruit weight<br />

Mean for<br />

Treatment<br />

Veislës <strong>ir</strong><br />

Vaisiaus masë, g<br />

treatment<br />

poskiepio derinys<br />

Veislës <strong>ir</strong> poskiepio<br />

1999 2000 2001 2002 derinio vidurkis<br />

‘Jonica’/M.9 218 b 206 b 233 b 224 c 220 d<br />

‘Jonica’/P 60 182 a 188 ab 227 b 192 ab 197 bc<br />

‘Jonica’/M.26 196 ab 194 ab 214 ab 210 bc 204 c<br />

‘Jonica’/P 22 169 a 163 a 195 a 186 a 178 a<br />

‘Jonica’/P 59 178 a 169 a 194 a 202 abc 186 ab<br />

190 a 185 a 214 b 204 b<br />

58

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!