| IL | ME | MI | NY-G | VA | BC |
|---|
| Stock | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2000 | 2002 | 2003 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 |
|---|
| M.9 EMLA | -3.6 | -3.5 | -3.8 | 1.4 | -4.6 | -1.3 | -4.4 | -4.5 | -4.5 | -4.0 | -3.6 | -3.3 | -2.9 | -2.0 | -2.9 | 1.9 | 0.1 | 3.5 |
|---|
| M.26 EMLA | -5.4 | -9.0 | -3.4 | 2.7 | -6.0 | 0.5 | -4.1 | -2.1 | -3.5 | -2.0 | -3.2 | -6.6 | -3.9 | -2.9 | -13.9 | -4.6 | -4.9 | -10.6 |
|---|
| M.9RN29 | -6.1 | 3.2 | -9.7 | 9.1 | -6.2 | 5.3 | -2.2 | -4.7 | -6.6 | -3.5 | -3.4 | -3.1 | -2.4 | -4.2 | -1.9 | -4.6 | -9.3 | 1.6 |
|---|
| M.9 Pajam1 | -4.0 | -3.4 | -8.3 | -0.2 | -1.2 | -4.2 | -1.4 | -2.4 | -0.5 | -6.5 | -2.4 | -6.2 | -3.8 | 3.4 | 3.8 | -0.4 | -3.8 | -6.8 |
|---|
| M.9 Pajam2 | -7.1 | -2.5 | -7.6 | 7.6 | 1.8 | -3.7 | -2.4 | -3.8 | -8.4 | -4.9 | -7.6 | -5.3 | -2.8 | -3.8 | -2.6 | -1.9 | -3.6 | -3.4 |
|---|
| B.9 | -11.2 | -2.9 | -10.6 | 8.6 | -2.7 | -6.6 | -1.6 | -1.2 | -8.4 | -0.9 | -2.2 | -6.2 | -7.7 | -4.1 | -8.1 | -2.7 | -5.5 | 0.7 |
|---|
| O.3 | -6.8 | -6.4 | -4.5 | 1.3 | -6.3 | -5.7 | -2.6 | -1.4 | -3.4 | -1.5 | -1.8 | -5.4 | -4.4 | -5.2 | -0.6 | -3.9 | -7.4 | -3.2 |
|---|
| V.1 | -3.6 | -1.9 | -2.9 | 0.1 | -8.4 | -0.3 | -4.3 | -2.7 | -10.6 | -6.1 | -8.3 | -8.5 | -1.2 | -4.0 | -3.6 | 2.6 | -5.9 | -5.3 |
|---|
| Mark | -7.6 | -5.6 | -6.3 | -4.4 | -8.6 | -1.6 | -2.2 | -0.9 | -5.1 | -1.9 | -5.0 | -8.5 | -9.7 | -4.0 | -21.7 | -0.3 | 12.1 | 2.7 |
|---|
| M.9T337 | -1.8 | -3.6 | -8.6 | 6.4 | 6.1 | -12.3 | 0.1 | -1.4 | -7.7 | -2.3 | -3.4 | -3.6 | -4.1 | -2.6 | -3.9 | -6.3 | -0.8 | -0.8 |
|---|
Table 3. Slopes of average fruit weight on crop density (CD) for ‘Gala’ apple on 10 rootstocks at six locations for three seasons. Slopes indicate the change in average fruit weight (g) for an increase of one fruit·cm⁻² in CD. Slopes were estimated from the solution vector provided by SAS’s MIXED procedure.
EFFECT OF DWARF APPLE ROOTSTOCKS ON AVERAGE 'GALA' FRUIT WEIGHT
135