4.7 Article

Autotetraploid trifoliate orange (Poncirus trifoliata) rootstocks do not impact clementine quality but reduce fruit yields and highly modify rootstock/scion physiology

Journal

SCIENTIA HORTICULTURAE
Volume 134, Issue -, Pages 100-107

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.scienta.2011.11.008

Keywords

Citrus; Clementine; Poncirus trifoliata; Autotetraploid rootstocks; Fruit yield

Categories

Funding

  1. Higher Education Commission of Pakistan

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Two autotetraploid (4x) trifoliate orange (Poncirus trifoliata (L) Rat.) rootstocks and the corresponding diploid (2 x) rootstocks were compared for their impact on clementine Commune (Citrus clementina Hort. ex Tan) production and on rootstock/scion physiology. Cumulative fruit yield, fruit quality (sugars, organic acids, carotenoids, hesperidin) and scion physiology (stem growth, leaf starch, sugars, chlorophyll content, phenolic content and gas exchange parameters) were investigated. The cumulative fruit yield over 11 years was lower in 4x rootstock/clementine associations and correlated with reduced vigor of the clementine scion. Fruit quality criteria were not affected by the ploidy level of the rootstocks, with the exception of hesperidin content, which was higher with 4x than 2x rootstock/clementine associations. Leaf chlorophyll and phenolic contents were higher with 4x than 2x rootstock/clementine associations. In leaves, the rate of photosynthesis and stomatal conductance was much higher with 2x rootstocks; however, the maximum electron transport rate was lower when compared to the 4x rootstocks. Similarly, leaf starch and sugar contents were much higher with 4x than 2x. Taken together, these results demonstrate that the use of 4x rootstocks dramatically changes both tree physiology and fruit yield, without promoting large changes in fruit quality criteria. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available