← pomperSRASHS08fin3.pdf
Rebuilt HTML — PaddleOCR-VL (Baidu)
Content placed at each item's bbox to mirror the original PDF layout (font sizes are estimated). overlay · view JSON
Page 1
Download HTML
Page 2
Download HTML
Introduction:
What is Pawpaw?
Pawpaw: Asimina triloba (L.) Dunal.
Native tree fruit in the southeastern U.S.
Tropical-like flavor
mixture of banana,
mango, and pineapple.
Early stages of commercial production.
Page 3
Download HTML
Pawpaw Flowering and Harvest
Flower on 1 year old wood
Cross-pollinate
Pollinated by flies and beetles
Ripe fruit should yield when squeezed and give way with a gentle tug
Color change not a reliable indicator of ripeness
Fruit may be harvested from the same tree over several weeks
Page 4
Download HTML
Pawpaw Propagation and the Nursery Industry
Historically, pawpaw has been a difficult tree species to propagate
Seed stratification needed
Desiccation sensitive
Commercial clonal propagation is via chip budding
Seedling rootstock
No clonal rootstocks available
Page 5
Download HTML
Pawpaw Propagation and the Nursery Industry
High tree prices are limiting development of an industry
Seedlings $5-$10
Grafted trees $15-$30
Our goal is to identify seedling rootstocks that would enhance scion growth, improve tree establishment, and promote precocity.
Page 6
Download HTML
Pawpaw Training and Pruning
Tend to form narrow-angled weak branches at the trunk.
Therefore, pawpaws are prone to wind damage.
A central leader training system would develop a strong framework and a desirable form for harvesting.
Will pruning dwarf a young tree and delay bearing in pawpaw?
Will fruit suffer sunburn?
Page 7
Download HTML
Objective
To determine if cultivar, rootstock, and training method would influence early flower bud production in pawpaw
Page 8
Download HTML
Materials and Methods
The rootstock trial was planted on May 10, 2004.
Rootstocks: 5 seedling
rootstocks
Scions: 'Sunflower' and 'Susquehanna'
Two pruning systems: minimal pruning versus central leader
8 replicate blocks with each
treatment combination for a
total of 160 trees (2 x 5 x 2 x
8 = 160).
Page 9
Download HTML
Why Did We Choose These Selections?
Scions:
Sunflower
Noted to flower and produce fruit in 4^{th} year in Princeton, KY trial.
Susquehanna'
Slow to flower and to come into production.
Seedling rootstocks:
Cultivars vigorous: Sunflower and PA-Golden
Cultivars lack vigor: Susquehanna and K8-2
Commercial mixed seed: RVT
Studies with seedlings in containers
Seed size and genetic background important
Page 10
Download HTML
Page 11
Download HTML
Page 12
Download HTML
Page 13
Download HTML
Page 14
Download HTML
Page 15
Download HTML
Page 16
Download HTML
KENTUCKY STATE UNIVERSITY
After 2005 Growing Season
| Scion | Survival % | TCA (cm2) | % of trees flowering | Number of flower buds per tree | Flower density (Tot flw tr/TCA) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Susquehanna | 63 | 3.4 | 8% b | 0.4 b | 0.09 b |
| Sunflower | 71 | 3.5 | 51% a | 3.7 a | 0.93 a |
| Significance | 0.37 NS | 0.75 NS | 0.0000*** | 0.001** | 0.006** |
| Rootstock | Survival % | TCA | % of trees flowering | number of flower buds per tree | Flower density (total flowers/TCA) |
| RVT | 77% a | 3.4 | 40% | 2.1 ab | 0.50 |
| Sunflower | 90% a | 3.2 | 25% | 2.2 ab | 0.70 |
| PA-Golden | 84% a | 3.9 | 36% | 3.4 a | 0.74 |
| K8-2 | 77% a | 3.3 | 21% | 0.8 b | 0.14 |
| Susquehanna | 52% b | 3.4 | 33% | 1.7 ab | 0.51 |
| Significance | 0.004** | 0.40 NS | 0.63 NS | 0.58 NS | 0.71 NS |
TCA=Trunk Cross-sectional Area
Page 17
Download HTML
After 2006 Growing Season
| scion | survival | TCA | % of trees flowering | ||
| Susquehanna | 68% | 6.4 b | 62% b | ||
| Sunflower | 82% | 8.5 a | 83% a | ||
| Significance | 0.06 NS | 0.006** | 0.002** | ||
| rootstock | Survival | TCA | % of trees flowering | number of flower buds/tree | Flower density |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RVT | 77% a | 7.4 ab | 78% | 11 b | 1.09 |
| Sunflower | 90% a | 9.0 a | 75% | 11 b | 0.95 |
| PA-Golden | 84% a | 9.0 a | 74% | 21 a | 1.57 |
| K8-2 | 73% a | 6.7 ab | 60% | 8 b | 0.89 |
| Susquehanna | 52% b | 5.1 b | 82% | 11 b | 0.98 |
| Significance | 0.005** | 0.01* | 0.33 NS | 0.03* | 0.07 NS |
Page 18
Download HTML
After 2007 Growing Season
| Scion | Survival % | TCA | Percent of Trees Flowering | Flower Density (Tot flw tr/TCA) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Susquehanna | 68% | 14.3 | 94% b | 1.6 b |
| Sunflower | 82% | 14.3 | 100% a | 6.0 a |
| Significance | 0.06 NS | 0.64 NS | 0.04* | 0.0000*** |
| Rootstock | Survival % | TCA | Percent of Trees Flowering | Flower Density (Tot flw tr/TCA) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RVT | 77% a | 13.8 | 96% | 3.8 |
| Sunflower | 90% a | 14.0 | 96% | 4.2 |
| PA-Golden | 84% a | 15.7 | 100% | 4.1 |
| K8-2 | 73% a | 14.0 | 95% | 3.5 |
| Susquehanna | 52% b | 13.7 | 100% | 4.7 |
| Significance | 0.005** | 0.32 NS | 0.63 NS | 0.13 NS |
Page 19
Download HTML
After 2007 Growing Season
| Training Method | Survival % | Percent of Trees Flowering | Number of Flower Buds Per Tree | Flower Density (Tot flw tr/TCA) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TCA | Flowering | Tree | |||
| Minimal Pruning | 72% | 17.4 a | 98% | 63 a | 3.8 |
| Central Leader | 79% | 11.5 b | 97% | 50 b | 4.3 |
| Significance | 0.20 NS | 0.0000*** | 0.63 NS | 0.015 * | 0.18 NS |
Page 20
Download HTML
Conclusions
Genetic background of seedling rootstock did not influence scion precocity or growth.
Survival of Susquehanna seedling rootstock was poor.
Sunflower was more precocious than Susquehanna.
Central leader training tended to reduce vigor (TCA) and the number of flowers/tree.
Page 21
Download HTML