1. bookVolume 73 (2019): Issue 3 (July 2019)
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
First Published
14 Sep 2008
Publication timeframe
6 times per year
Languages
English
Copyright
© 2020 Sciendo

Plum Cultivar Evaluation on Myrobalan Rootstock in Lithuania

Published Online: 03 Jun 2019
Page range: 232 - 237
Received: 28 Jan 2019
Accepted: 24 Mar 2019
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
First Published
14 Sep 2008
Publication timeframe
6 times per year
Languages
English
Copyright
© 2020 Sciendo

Twenty plum cultivars on Myrobalan (Prunus cerasifera Ehrh.) seedling rootstock were tested in 2012–2017 at the Institute of Horticulture of the Lithuanian Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry. Plum trees were spaced at 4.5 × 2.5 m and trained as spindles. Orchard floor management included frequent mowing of grass in the alleyways with herbicide strips along tree rows. ‘Duke of Edinburgh’, ‘Kijevas Vēlā’, ‘Dąbrowicka Prune’, ‘Čačanska Najbolje’, ‘and ‘Štaro Vengrinė’ cultivars were the most vigorous plum trees at the end of 6th year. Their trunk diameter achieved 92–96 mm. ‘Valor’, ‘Queen Victoria’, ‘Herman’, ‘Čačanska Najbolje’, ‘Favorita del Sultano’, ‘Ave’, and ‘Jubileum’ cultivars had the lowest trunk diameter — 72–78 mm. The highest cumulative yield of four fruiting years was recorded for ‘Kometa’ and ‘Violeta’ cultivars, respectively, 43.0 and 46.5 kg/tree. ‘Favorita del Sultano’, ‘Rausvė’, and ‘Kijevas Vēlā’ produced the largest fruits — 52–60 g. The smallest fruit occurred on ‘Dąbrowicka Prune’ and ‘Herman’ cultivars, respectively, 22 and 25 g. ‘Dąbrowicka Prune’ had the highest soluble solids content (SSC) — 19.5%. The least SSC was recorded in ‘Kometa’, ‘Violeta’ and ‘Herman’ fruits — 10.6–11.8%. ‘Renklod Rannij Doneckij’, ‘Čačanska Najbolje’, and ‘Valor’ cultivars had the highest fruit flesh firmness.

Keywords

Dēķena, D., Poukh, A.V., Kahu, K., Laugale, V., Alsiņa, I. (2017). Influence of rootstocks on plum productivity in different growing regions. Proc. Latvian Acad. Sci., Section B, 71 (No. 3), 233–236.Search in Google Scholar

Erogul, D., Sen, F. (2015). Effects of gibberellic acid treatments on fruit thinning and fruitquality in Japanese plum (Prunus salicina Lindl.). Sci. Horticult.,186, 137–142.Search in Google Scholar

Glisic, I., Milošević, T., Mratinić, E. Paunovic, G. Glišić, I. (2012). Vigour, yield components and fruit weight of some plum (Prunus domestica L.) cultivars during early years after planting. In: Proceedings of the Third International Scientific Symposium “Agrosym Jahorina 2012”, 1517 November 2012, Jahorina, Bosnia and Herzegovina, pp. 122–127.Search in Google Scholar

Głowacka, A., Rozpara, E. (2017). Evaluation of several dessert cultivars of plum, new under climatic conditions of Poland. Horticult. Sci., 44 (3), 126–132.Search in Google Scholar

Grāvīte, I., Kaufmane, E. (2017). Evaluation of German plum selections in Latvia. Proc. Latvian Acad. Sci., Section B, 71 (3), 166–172.Search in Google Scholar

Hjalmarsson, I., Trajkovski, V., Wallace, B. (2008). Adaptation of foreign plum and cherry varieties in Sweden. In: Proceedings of International Scientific Conference “Sustainable Fruit Growing: From Plant To Product”, 2831 May, 2008 JūrmalaDobele, Latvia, pp. 141–148.Search in Google Scholar

Janes, H., Kahu, K. (2008). Winter injuries of plum cultivars in winters 2005–2007 in Estonia. In: Proceedings of International Scientific Conference “Sustainable Fruit Growing: From Plant To Product”, 2831 May, 2008 JūrmalaDobele, Latvia, pp. 149–153.Search in Google Scholar

Jänes, H., Klaas, L., Pae, A. (2007). Winter hardiness of plum on different rootstocks in winter 2002/2003 in Estonia. Acta Hortic., 734, 295–298.Search in Google Scholar

Kaufmane, E., Skrivele, M., Rubauskis, E., Ikase, L. (2007). The yield and fruit quality of two plum cultivars on different rootstocks. Sodininkystė ir Daržininkystė,26 (3), 10–15.Search in Google Scholar

Lacis, G., Kaufmane, E., Kota, I., Gravite, I., Trajkovski, V. (2012). Genetic diversity and plasticity in selected progeny of plum cultivar ‘Jubileum’. Acta Hortic., 935, 129–135.Search in Google Scholar

Markuszewski, B., Kopytowski, J. (2013). Evaluation of plum in the northeast of Poland. Folia Hort., 25 (2), 101–106.Search in Google Scholar

Milošević, T., Milošević, N., Glišić, I. (2013). Agronomic properties and nutritional status of plum trees (Prunus domestica L.) influenced by different cultivars. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr.,13 (3), 706–714.Search in Google Scholar

Milošević, T., Milošević, N. (2018). Plum (Prunus spp.) breeding. In: Al-Khayri, J. M., Jain, S. M., Johnson D. V. (eds.). Advances in Plant Breeding Strategies: Fruits. Springer, pp. 165–216.Search in Google Scholar

Plich, H. (2006). Ethylene production and storage potential in ‘Cacanska Najbolja’ plums. J. Fruit Ornam. Plant Res., 14 (2), 229–236.Search in Google Scholar

Rakićević, M., Miletić, R., Pešaković, M. (2008). Productive properties of some major plum cultivars grown in the region of central Serbia. In: Proceedings of International Scientific Conference “Sustainable Fruit Growing: From Plant To Product”, 2831 May, 2008 JūrmalaDobele, Latvia, pp. 83–91.Search in Google Scholar

Sosna, I. (2002). Growth and cropping of four plum cultivars on different rootstocks in south western Poland. J. Fruit Ornam. Plant Res., 10, 95–103.Search in Google Scholar

Świerczyński, S., Stachowiak, A. (2009). The usefulness of two rootstocks for some plum cultivars. J. Fruit Ornam. Plant Res., 17 (2), 63–71.Search in Google Scholar

Vangdal, E. (1985). Quality criteria for fruit for fresh consumption. Acta Agricult. Scand.,35 (1), 41–47.Search in Google Scholar

Vangdal, E., Flatland, S., Hjeltnes, S. H., Sivertsen, H. (2007a). Consumers’ preferences for new plum cultivars (Prunus domestica L.). Acta Hortic., 734, 169–172.Search in Google Scholar

Vangdal, E., Døving, A., Måge, F. (2007b). The fruit quality of plums (Prunus domestica L.) as related to yield and climatic conditions. Acta Hortic., 734, 425–429.Search in Google Scholar

Wright, H., Nichols, D., Embree, C. (2006). Evaluating the accountability of trunk size and canopy volume models for determining apple tree production potential across diverse management regimes. Acta Hortic., 707, 237–243.Search in Google Scholar

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo