ISSN e:2007-4034 / ISSN print: 2007-4034

English | Español

     

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Vol. 22, issue 1 January - April 2016

ISSN: ppub: 1027-152X epub: 2007-4034

Scientific article

Performance of european pear ‘Shahmiveh’ grafted onto different rootstocks

http://dx.doi.org/10.5154/r.rchsh.2015.09.022

Hadad, Mohammad Mehdi 1 ; Jafarpour, Mehrdad 1 * ; Askari-Khorasgani, Omid 1

  • 1Islamic Azad University, Department of Horticulture, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Isfahan, IRAN.

Email: jafarpour@khuisf.ac.ir, mobile number: (+98) 913 130 170 (*Corresponding author)

Received: September 28, 2015; Accepted: February 08, 2016

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License view the permissions of this license

Abstract

Scion-rootstock selection plays an important role in determining orchard performance. Pyrus communis and Cydonia oblonga are the most widely cultivated rootstocks for European pear cultivars. The lack of rootstocks adapted to different edaphoclimatic conditions and scion cultivars is widely acknowledged in pear culture. Hence, this study was designed to investigate the growth characteristics and performance of the ‘Shahmiveh’ pear grafted onto six rootstocks including Quince A, B, C, BA29, ‘Konjoni’, and generative seedling. The experiment was conducted during two consecutive years, 2013-2014, at the Agricultural Research Center of Kabutarabad, Isfahan, Iran. The experimental design was based on a randomized complete block design including three replications of six trees each. The assessed variables were trunk diameter, current season shoot length, tree height, leaf dimensions, the number of flowers and abscised flowers, and also the number and percentage of fruit set. Cumulative data from a 7- to 8-year-old pear orchard showed that rootstock selection markedly influenced trunk diameters, current season shoot growth, leaf length, and fruit set of the endemic ‘Shahmiveh’ pear. The largest trunk diameters were obtained from the ‘Konjuni’ rootstock, whereas the highest current season shoot length was observed on the generative seedling. PQBA29 exhibited the largest leaf length, number of fruits per current season shoot, and percentage of fruit set, whereas Q. A rootstock had the second highest cropping efficiency. This experiment demonstrates the significantly higher performance and compatibility of PQBA29 as a rootstock for endemic ‘Shahmiveh’ pear in the arid condition of Iran.

Keywords:arid; endemic pear; yield efficiency; ‘Shahmiveh’; rootstock

Introduction

After grape and apple, pear is the world’s third most important temperate fruit with a world production of 23.5 million metric tons (FAO, 2012). European pear (Pyrus communis L.) is cultivated commercially throughout the temperate zones of the world and in Iran, and even in the tropical highlands of Guatemala (Cruz-Castillo, Rodríguez-Bracamontes, Vásquez- Samtizo, & Torres-Lima, 2006) and Mexico (Sánchez-Cervantes, Cruz-Castillo, & Inurreta-Aguirre, 2013).

The proper choice of scion-rootstock can influence vegetative growth, quality and quantity of fruit production, plant bearing habit, precocity, and plant tolerance to pest and diseases in unfavorable conditions. Dwarfing rootstocks of pear are widely cultivated in orchards because they have superior advantages over seedling rootstocks such as a high tolerance level to a calcareous soil in semi-arid conditions, high-density planting capacity as well as yield performance and fruit quality (Ikinci, Bolat, Ercisli, & Kodad, 2014). The interaction effects of scion-rootstock and their adaptability to the soil and climatic condition are the key elements of successful commercial production in a new orchard. However, there is insufficient information about the behavior of rootstocks in different environmental conditions. Especially in Brazil, researchers aspire to investigate the behavior of European pear cultivars and Quince rootstocks (Machado, Rufato, Bogo, Kretzschmar, & Mario, 2013).

Iran is a vast country with various climatic conditions and a wide range of temperature. Pear orchards are located over a large area in Iran, including the north to northwest, west, and south central regions. Since seed-based propagation in most traditional Iranian orchards was very common in the past and pears have widespread gametophytic self-incompatibility, there is a high genetic diversity in Pyrus communis and the opportunity for finding commercial cultivars with superior traits (Najafzadeh & Arzani, 2015; Sanzol, 2010; Gharehaghaji et al., 2014). There are some local pears (Pyrus communis L.) in Iran, including ‘Shahmiveh’, ‘Peyghambary’, ‘Sardrood’, ‘Dargazy’, ‘Natanzy’ and ‘Domkaj’ (Arzani, 2002). ‘Shahmiveh’ is the dominant pear cultivar in Iran. This cultivar is similar to the ‘Williams’ and ‘Bartlett’ pear in terms of size and shape (Hedrick, 1995 as cited by Kalbasi-Ashtari, 2004), with a crisp texture, very good taste and slight aroma (Kalbasi-Ashtari, 2004). ‘Sebri’ pear is one of the latest maturing pear cultivars and is grown mainly in Esfahan and Mashhad. Owing to their high fruit quality and long storage life, ‘Natanzy’ (originated from Pyrus communis L.) and ‘Sebri’ (originated from Pyrus serotine Rehd) are the most precious local cultivars in Iran with a high market price of about 7 times more than other pear cultivars (Davarynejad and Davarynejad, 2004).

Due to the self-incompatibility of most pear cultivars (Davarynejad and Davarynejad, 2004), cross-pollination is necessary for Iranian orchards (Davarynejad et al., 1996). Accordingly, choosing the endemic pear cultivars with high compatibility to the rootstock and environmental condition would exert a great positive impact on the commercial production of pear orchards. Therefore, this study was conducted to scrutinize the behavior of Iranian 7- and 8-year-old endemic pear ‘Shahmiveh’ as a scion on different rootstocks. Experimental rootstocks include clonal Quince (Q. A, Q. B, Q. C, and PQBA29), local pear ‘Konjuni’, and also wild generative seedling in the arid region of Isfahan. The vigor, vegetative growth, and the main production traits (e.g., flowering and cropping indices) were examined to find the proper combination.

Materials and methods

The experiment was conducted in 2008 in East-West rows at a spacing of 4 . 3 m with three replications at the Agricultural Research Center of Kabutarabad, Isfahan, Iran, geographically located at 32° 31’ N, 51° 51’ E and 1545 m above sea level. According to the Köppen- Geiger system, Isfahan is classified as an arid or desert-like climate with an average annual temperature of 15.6 °C and average annual precipitation of 125 mm. Despite its altitude, Isfahan has hot summer days and moderate nights. In the winter, days are mild while nights can be very cold.

Iranian local pear ‘Shahmiveh’ (European pear: P. cummunis) seedlings were used as the scion and grafted onto six different one-year-old rootstocks, which were cultivated in late winter 2008 and grafted in late summer of the same year. The examined rootstocks were clonal Quince A (Q. A), Quince B (Q. B), Quince C (Q. C) and PQBA29 as dwarfing rootstalks, in addition to the local pear cv. ‘Konjuni’, and local wild P. communis seedling obtained by sexual propagation method (generative seedling).

Most pear cultivars have self-incompatibility and self-pollinating species produce more fruits near a compatible pollinizer. Therefore, we used ‘Natanze’ and ‘Sebri’ cultivars as the pollinizers for ‘Shahmiveh’ pear cultivar. Trees were pruned and trained based on the espalier system.

The orchard had a clay loam soil with a pH of 7.5. Experimental trees were furrow irrigated at 7- to 10- day intervals in response to the plant’s water needs. Potassium sulphate and urea (each 50 g per year age of each pear tree) were applied as the soil fertilizers.

Growth habit

After leaf abscission in December, trunk growth was measured to estimate vigor, water uptake efficacy of rootstocks (Goldhamer & Fereres, 2004), and graft-compatibility. Using a digital caliper, we measured the trunk diameters (Visser, 1964) at 3 points, including 20 cm above, 5 cm under, and on the graft union. Then, they were reported as the mean trunk diameters of 7- and 8-year-old pears.

Tree height (TH) and current season shoot length (CSHL) were also recorded at the end of the growing season (of dormant plants) and reported as the mean growth rate of 7- and 8-year-old pears. Tree height increment was measured as the distance from the ground up to the plant apex.

Leaf area

Leaf length (LL) and width (LW) were measured using a 20 cm ruler.

Flowering characteristics

The flowering season was in late March. Before the full bloom, the number of flowers per inflorescence and the number per current season shoot were randomly recorded. After 14 days of full bloom, the number of fruit set was noted to estimate the number of abscised flowers on the current season shoots. Finally, they were reported as the mean flowering rate and abscission rate of two years.

Fruiting and yield

Fruit set occurred approximately after April 9 and harvesting time was in September. After one month of fruit set, the number of fruits on current season shoots was estimated. The percentage of fruit set was also calculated based on the following formula (Westwood, 1988):

For each tree, the number of fruits was counted. Using a precision balance, we weighed all of the fruits and calculated the mean fruit weight based on yield per tree (kg·tree-1) and yield per plot (kg·36m-2). Ultimately, they were reported as the mean cropping rate of two growing seasons.

Statistical analysis

The experiment used a randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three replications. Each replication (block) included 6 plots (one treatment in each plot) with 6 trees in each plot. After having been checked for normality, the data were analyzed for statistical significance, using Statistical Analysis System software (2013). Duncan’s multiple range test (P < 0.01) was used for mean separation.

Results and discussion

Graft viability and compatibility

PQBA29 and Q. A rootstocks showed a better status in graft viability percentage compared to Q. C and Q. B rootstocks. Apart from Q. B and Q. C, results showed a high rate of grafting success in the first growing season (data not shown). Among different rootstocks, ‘Shahmiveh’ pear cultivar on Q. B had the lowest leaf dimensions, number of flowers per current season shoot, number of fruits per current season shoot, percentage of fruit set and the highest incompatibility symptoms, which reduced leaf size and productivity (Table 2 and 4).

Growth habit

The aging process had a significant influence on trunk diameter, current season shoot length (CSSL), and leaf width (LW). Similarly, rootstock selection had a substantial effect on trunk diameter, CSSL, and leaf length (LL) (Table 1).

Table 1.. Variance analyzes of growth of ‘Shahmiveh’ pear grafted onto different rootstocks during two years (2013 and 2014).

Source of variation Degree of freedom Mean squares
Trunk diameter
Rootstock diameter (cm) Graft union diameter (cm) Scion diameter(cm) Current season shoot length (cm) Tree height (cm) Leaf length (cm) Leaf width (cm)
Year 1 19.80** 17.500** 21.934** 309.936* 359.734ns 0.007ns 0.284*
Rootstock 5 4.05** 2.435* 4.605** 167.287* 589.700ns 0.896** 0.068ns
Rootstock Year 5 0.094ns 0.0103ns 0.0316ns 133.867ns 815.828ns 0.01ns 0.046ns
Error 20
*Diferencia significativa (P < 0.05). **Diferencia significativa a nivel de probabilidad (Duncan, P < 0.01). nsNo significativo.

Table 2. ‘Shahmiveh’ pear growth data, average of two years of rootstock selections.

Rootstock Trunk diameter
Rootstock diameter (cm) Graft union diameter (cm) Scion diameter (cm) Current season shoot length (cm) Tree height (cm) Leaf length (cm) Leaf width (cm)
Generative seedling 9.88ab* 10.2b 11.03b 65.29a 198.37ab 7.13a 4.73bc
Konjuni 10.65a 11.3a 11.97a 63.15a 206.97a 7.02ab 4.97a
PQBA29 8.57c 9.78b 9.52d 58.65ab 203.08a 7.25a 4.95a
Q. A 9.37b 10.45b 10.38c 50.67 c 204.13a 6.83b 4.80b
Q. B 8.97c 9.67bc 10.03cd 58.07b 209.67a 6.18c 4.72bc
Q. C 8.55cd 9.65bc 10.07cd 55.32b 198.88ab 6.67b 4.80b
* All values are means. Mean values in each column followed by the same lower-case letters are not significantly different (Duncan, P < 0.01).

Trees on dwarfing rootstocks had significantly (P ≤ 0.001) lower scion and rootstock diameters; however, in the grafting point they had no significant differences in relation to the generative seedling. While all recorded trunk diameters of ‘Konjuni’ were at the highest point, the lowest scion diameter was obtained by grafting on PQBA29 (Table 2). The use of Q. A as a rootstock highly reduced CSSL (Table 2). Although generative seedling had the longest CSSL, it had the lowest number of fruit per current season shoot (Table 2 and 4).

With subtle changes among rootstocks, grafting on Q. C provided trees with the lowest height (Table 2). Results showed that vigor and vegetative growth were highly affected by the rootstock selection. The scion and rootstock growth were markedly affected by year and type of rootstock (Table 1). The effect of rootstocks on LW dimension was insignificant, whereas the LL was markedly enhanced by the PQBA29 rootstock. Seemingly, the highest leaf dimension of PQBA29 is an indicator of its compatibility with the climatic and environmental condition of this arid region (Table 2).

Flowering characteristic

While having the lowest current season shoot length and scion diameter, PQBA29 had the highest number of flowers and fruits per current season shoot length (Table 2 and 4). After PQBA29, the highest number of fruits per current season shoot length and fruit percentage were observed on Q. A rootstock (Table 4). Although in PQBA29 the number of flowers per current season shoot was similar to Q. A and Q. C and its number of flowers per inflorescence was even lower than other rootstocks, PQBA29 flowers exhibited higher fruit formation rate and lower abortion rates (Table 4).

Cropping efficiency

A previous study of ‘Santa Maria’ pear cultivar revealed that pear seedling and PQBA29 had a better mineral uptake in highly calcareous soil in semi-arid condition. Ikinci et al. (2014) showed that the highest cumulative yield efficiency (kg·cm-2) was observed on Q. C and PQBA29, respectively. Nonetheless, the highest cumulative yield (ton·ha-1) was recorded on PQBA29 and followed by Q. C at a density of 800 trees·ha-1 for both rootstocks (Ikinci et al., 2014). The highest number of fruits per current season shoot was obtained from PQA29 followed by Q. A and Q. C, respectively (Table 4). Year and rootstock had a significant influence on the number of fruits per current season shoot and fruit set percentage (Table 3). The cropping efficiency markedly improved in the second year of the experiment (data not shown). Considering the productivity, PQBA29 exhibited the highest fruit set followed by Q. A, Q. C, and ‘Konjuni’, respectively. In comparison to generative seedling, PQBA29, Q. A, and Q. C had a significantly higher number of flowers per current season shoot, number of fruits per current season shoot, and fruit set percentage (Table 4).

Table 3. Variance analyzes of flowering and fruit set of ‘Shahmiveh’ pear grafted onto different rootstocks during two years (2013 and 2014).

Source of variation Degree of freedom Mean squares
No. of flowers per current season shoot No. of flowers per inflorescence No. of fruits per current season shoot Fruit set (%) No. of abscised flowers per current season shoot
Year 1 16.00ns 0.00ns 4.00** 5.68** 96.69ns
Rootstock 5 104.57ns 1.04ns 8.20** 5.08** 83.89ns
Rootstock Year 5 5.60ns 0.93ns 0.60ns 0.64ns 10.56ns
Error 20
*Significant difference at 0.05 probability level, **Significant difference at 0.01 probability level, nsNon-significant.

Table 4. ‘Shahmiveh’ pear fruiting and flowering data, average of two years collected data of different rootstock selections.

Rootstock / Portainjerto No. of flowers per current season shoot No. of flowers per inflorescence No. of fruits per current season shoot Fruit set (%) No. of abscised flowers per current season shoot
Generative seedling 95.50b* 6.50a 5.67c 5.92c 86.67c
Konjuni 98.33ab 6.17ab 7.00b 7.17ab 91.17b
PQBA29 103.83a 5.67c 8.17a 7.87a 95.67a
Q. A 101.67a 6.83a 8.00a 7.82a 95.00a
Q. B 95.17b 6.00b 5.50c 5.77c 89.67bc
Q. C 104.83a 6.50a 7.67ab 7.32ab 95.67a
*All values are means. Mean values in each column followed by the same lower-case letters are not significantly different (Duncan P < 0.01).

Results were consistent with those obtained by Rahmati, Arzani, Yadollahi, and Abdollahi (2015), who showed that P. communis ‘Williams Duchess’ and Asian pear cultivar ‘KS’10 produced the highest number of fruits on Q. A rootstock. The highest productivity of the PQBA29 and Q. A indicate that at a high density their performance would be strikingly better. By analyzing flowers and leaves in 2010-2012, it was found that PQBA29 samples had the highest nitrogen concentration compared to other rootstocks (Akbari, Ghasemi, Ebrahimpour, & Branch, 2014). Ikinci et al. (2014) showed that PQBA29 and Q. A on ‘Santa Maria’ had the highest nutrient uptake efficacy in highly calcareous soil in semi-arid climatic conditions. Similar to our results, PQBA29 presented the highest cumulative yield (Ikinci et al., 2014). It has been documented that there is a close relationship between leaf nitrogen concentration, canopy size, fruit development, crop sink strength, leaf age, and leaf distance from fruits with photosynthetic capacity (Kriedemann & Canterford, 1971; Reich, Walters, Kloeppel, & Ellsworth, 1995; Jackson, 2003). Hence, the higher N availability, leaf size, fruit size, and productivity of PQBA29 might correspond to its higher photosynthesis rate and adaptability to the environmental condition of this arid region.

Conclusions

In summary, PQBA29 grafted onto ‘Shahmiveh’ pear cultivar exhibited comparatively high productivity and compatibility symptoms, e.g., large leaf dimensions in addition to cropping efficiency or fruit formation rate, in the arid climatic condition of Isfahan in Iran. In a high-intensity orchard, the beneficiary effect of PQBA29 would be even more promising. Owing to its high nutrient uptake efficacy and adaptability in arid regions and calcareous soils, results suggest that this combination would be the best substitute for the pear seedling in Iran’s traditional orchards.

References

Akbari, H., Ghasemi, A., Ebrahimpour, H., & Branch, S. (2014). Investigations and comparisons of potential efficiency of Quince and loacl rootstocks on nutrient uptake and control vigor of Esfahan Shahmiveh pear cultivar. International Journal of Advanced Life Sciences, 7(4), 603-609.

Arzani, K., (2002). The position of pear breeding and culture in Iran: Introduction of some Asian pear (Pyrus serotina Rehd.) cultivars. Acta Horticulture, 578(587), 167-173. doi: 10.17660/ActaHortic.2002.587.18

Cruz-Castillo, J. G., Rodríguez-Bracamontes, F., Vásquez- Samtizo, J., & Torres-Lima, P. (2006). Temperate fruit production in Guatemala. New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science, 34(4), 341-348. doi: 10.1080/01140671.2006.9514424

Davarynejad, G., & Davarynejad, E. (2004). Comparative performance of graft incompatibility in pear/quince (Pyrus communis/Cydonia oblonga) combinations(pp. 221-225). VIII International Symposium on Canopy, Rootstocks and Environmental Physiology in Orchard Systems. Acta Horticulturae 732. doi: 10.17660/ActaHortic.2007.732.31

Davarynejad, G., Toosi, A., & Ghavam, F. (1996). Effects of artificial pollination on fruit set of some pear cultivars (pp. 359-362). V Temperate Zone Fruit in the Tropics and Subtropics. Acta Horticulturae 441. doi: 10.17660/ActaHortic.1997.441.52

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2012). FAO Statistical Yearbook 2012: World Food and Agriculture. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Recuperado de Recuperado de http://faostat.fao.org/site/342/default.aspx . (Accessed 27 July 2015).

Gharehaghaji, A. N., Arzani, K., Abdollahi, H., Shojaeiyan, A., Dondini, L., & de Franceschi, P. (2014). Genomic characterization of self-incompatibility ribonucleases in the Central Asian pear germplasm and introgression of new alleles from other species of the genus Pyrus. Tree Genetics & Genomes, 10(2), 411-428. doi: 10.1007/s11295-013-0696-7

Goldhamer, D., & Fereres, E. (2004). Irrigation scheduling of almond trees with trunk diameter sensors. Irrigation Science, 23(1), 11-19. doi: 10.1007/s00271-003-0088-0

Kalbasi-Ashtari, A., (2004). Effects of post-harvest pre-cooling processes and cyclical heat treatment on the physico-chemical properties of “Red Haven Peaches” and “Shahmiveh Pears” during cold storage. Agricultural Engineering.

Ikinci, A., Bolat, I., Ercisli, S., & Kodad, O. (2014). Influence of rootstocks on growth, yield, fruit quality and leaf mineral element contents of pear cv. ‘Santa Maria’ in semi-arid conditions. Biological Research, 47(71), 1-8. doi: 10.1186/0717-6287-47-71

Jackson, J. E. (2003). The biology of apples and pears. Reino Unido: Cambridge University Press.

Kriedemann, P., & Canterford, R., (1971). The photosynthetic activity of pear leaves (Pyrus communis L.). Australian Journal of Biological Sciences, 42(2), 197-206.

Machado, B. D., Rufato, L., Bogo, A., Kretzschmar, A. A., & Mario, A. E. (2013). Cultivars and rootstocks on plants vigor of European pear. Ciência Rural, 43(9), 1542- 1545. Recuperado de http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0103-84782013005000105

Najafzadeh, R., & Arzani, K. (2015). Superior growth characteristics, yield, and fruit quality in promising european pear (Pyrus communis L.) chance seedlings in Iran. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, 17(2), 427-442. Recuperado de https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272482926_Superior_Growth_Characteristics_Yield_and_Fruit_Quality_in_Promising_European_Pear_Pyrus_communis_L_Chance_Seedlings_in_Iran

Rahmati, M., Arzani, K., Yadollahi, A., & Abdollahi, H. (2015). Influence of rootstock on vegetative growth and graft incompatibility in some pear (Pyrus spp.) cultivars. Indo-American Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Science, 3(1), 25-32. doi: 10.1186/0717-6287-47-71

Reich, P., Walters, M., Kloeppel, B., & Ellsworth, D. (1995). Different photosynthesis-nitrogen relations in deciduous hardwood and evergreen coniferous tree species. Oecologia, 104(1), 24-30.

Sánchez-Cervantes, M., Cruz-Castillo, J. G., & Inurreta- Aguirre, H. D. (2013). Agronomía y ambiente de la pera (Pyrus communis L.) en la región central de Veracruz. Revista de Geografía Agrícola, 50(51), 55-63.

Sanzol, J. (2010). Two neutral variants segregating at the gametophytic self-incompatibility locus of European pear (Pyrus communis L.)(Rosaceae, Pyrinae). Plant Biology, 12(5), 800-805. doi: 10.1111/j.1438-8677.2009.00277.x

Statistical Analysis System (SAS Institute). (2013). SAS/ETS User’s Guide, versión 9.4. Cary, NC, USA: Author.

Visser, T.(1964). Juvenile phase and growth of apple and pear seedlings. Euphytica, 13(2), 119-129.

Westwood, M. N. (Segunda edición). (1988). Temperate-zone pomology. Portland, Oregon: Timber press.

Tables:

Table 1.. Variance analyzes of growth of ‘Shahmiveh’ pear grafted onto different rootstocks during two years (2013 and 2014).
Source of variation Degree of freedom Mean squares
Trunk diameter
Rootstock diameter (cm) Graft union diameter (cm) Scion diameter(cm) Current season shoot length (cm) Tree height (cm) Leaf length (cm) Leaf width (cm)
Year 1 19.80** 17.500** 21.934** 309.936* 359.734ns 0.007ns 0.284*
Rootstock 5 4.05** 2.435* 4.605** 167.287* 589.700ns 0.896** 0.068ns
Rootstock Year 5 0.094ns 0.0103ns 0.0316ns 133.867ns 815.828ns 0.01ns 0.046ns
Error 20
*Diferencia significativa (P < 0.05). **Diferencia significativa a nivel de probabilidad (Duncan, P < 0.01). nsNo significativo.
Table 2. ‘Shahmiveh’ pear growth data, average of two years of rootstock selections.
Rootstock Trunk diameter
Rootstock diameter (cm) Graft union diameter (cm) Scion diameter (cm) Current season shoot length (cm) Tree height (cm) Leaf length (cm) Leaf width (cm)
Generative seedling 9.88ab* 10.2b 11.03b 65.29a 198.37ab 7.13a 4.73bc
Konjuni 10.65a 11.3a 11.97a 63.15a 206.97a 7.02ab 4.97a
PQBA29 8.57c 9.78b 9.52d 58.65ab 203.08a 7.25a 4.95a
Q. A 9.37b 10.45b 10.38c 50.67 c 204.13a 6.83b 4.80b
Q. B 8.97c 9.67bc 10.03cd 58.07b 209.67a 6.18c 4.72bc
Q. C 8.55cd 9.65bc 10.07cd 55.32b 198.88ab 6.67b 4.80b
* All values are means. Mean values in each column followed by the same lower-case letters are not significantly different (Duncan, P < 0.01).
Table 3. Variance analyzes of flowering and fruit set of ‘Shahmiveh’ pear grafted onto different rootstocks during two years (2013 and 2014).
Source of variation Degree of freedom Mean squares
No. of flowers per current season shoot No. of flowers per inflorescence No. of fruits per current season shoot Fruit set (%) No. of abscised flowers per current season shoot
Year 1 16.00ns 0.00ns 4.00** 5.68** 96.69ns
Rootstock 5 104.57ns 1.04ns 8.20** 5.08** 83.89ns
Rootstock Year 5 5.60ns 0.93ns 0.60ns 0.64ns 10.56ns
Error 20
*Significant difference at 0.05 probability level, **Significant difference at 0.01 probability level, nsNon-significant.
Table 4. ‘Shahmiveh’ pear fruiting and flowering data, average of two years collected data of different rootstock selections.
Rootstock / Portainjerto No. of flowers per current season shoot No. of flowers per inflorescence No. of fruits per current season shoot Fruit set (%) No. of abscised flowers per current season shoot
Generative seedling 95.50b* 6.50a 5.67c 5.92c 86.67c
Konjuni 98.33ab 6.17ab 7.00b 7.17ab 91.17b
PQBA29 103.83a 5.67c 8.17a 7.87a 95.67a
Q. A 101.67a 6.83a 8.00a 7.82a 95.00a
Q. B 95.17b 6.00b 5.50c 5.77c 89.67bc
Q. C 104.83a 6.50a 7.67ab 7.32ab 95.67a
*All values are means. Mean values in each column followed by the same lower-case letters are not significantly different (Duncan P < 0.01).