4.7 Article

The Influence of Rootstock and High-Density Planting on Apple cv. Auksis Fruit Quality

Journal

PLANTS-BASEL
Volume 10, Issue 6, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/plants10061253

Keywords

Malus domestic; carbohydrates; organic acids; mineral elements

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study evaluated the influence of rootstock and high-density orchards on fruit quality of cv. Auksis apples. The super dwarfing P 22 rootstock was found to accumulate higher content of organic acids but lower free radical scavenging activity compared to the P 60 dwarfing rootstock. Selecting the right rootstock and spacing can increase antioxidants, magnesium, and potassium content in the apples.
Global demand for food is increasing each year, but the area of land suitable for farming is limited. Thus, there is a need to grow not only larger quantities of food but also higher quality food products in the same area. This study aimed to evaluate the influence of rootstock and high-density orchards on cv. Auksis fruit quality. Two rootstocks were selected for this experiment, P 22 super dwarfing and P 60 dwarfing. Apple trees cv. Auksis were planted in the year 2001 in single rows spaced 1.00 m, 0.75 m, and 0.50 m, apart with 3 m between rows. High-density planting and rootstock combination was found to have no significant effect on sugar accumulation and most of the elements in apple fruits. However, super dwarfing P 22 rootstock accumulated significantly higher (up to 45%) content of organic acids and up to 33%-44% lower DPPH free radical scavering activity compared to P 60 dwarfing rootstock. After summarizing the obtained results, apples which accumulated the most antioxidants (according to the activity of phenolic compounds, DPPH center dot and ABTS(center dot)), magnesium, and potassium were collected from cv. Auksis apple trees which was grafted on super dwarfing P 22 rootstock and planted at 3 x 0.75 m distances.

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