4.7 Article

Hydraulic conductance characteristics of peach (Prunus persica) trees on different rootstocks are related to biomass production and distribution

Journal

TREE PHYSIOLOGY
Volume 26, Issue 10, Pages 1343-1350

Publisher

HERON PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1093/treephys/26.10.1343

Keywords

dry matter partitioning; dwarfing rootstocks; hydraulic resistance; size-controlling rootstocks

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We investigated hydraulic conductance characteristics and associated dry matter production and distribution of peach trees grafted on different rootstocks growing in the field. A single scion genotype was grown on a low ('K146-43'), an intermediate ('Hiawatha') and a high ('Nemaguard') vigor rootstock. 'K146-43' and 'Hiawatha' rootstocks had 27 and 52% lower mean leaf-specific hydraulic conductances, respectively, than the more vigorous 'Nemaguard' rootstock. Tree growth rates and patterns of biomass distribution varied significantly among rootstocks. Mean dry mass relative growth rates of trees on 'K146-43' and 'Nemaguard' were 66 and 75%, respectively, of the rates of trees on 'Nemaguard', and the scion to rootstock dry mass ratios of trees on 'K146-43' and 'Hiawatha' were 63 and 82%, respectively, of the ratio of trees on 'Nemaguard'. Thus, differences in dry matter distribution between the scion and rootstock, which may be a compensatory response to the differences in leaf specific hydraulic conductance among rootstocks, appeared to be related to differences in growth rates. Correspondingly, there was a positive linear relationship between the scion to rootstock dry mass ratio and the rootstock to scion hydraulic conductance ratio when conductance was normalized for dry mass. This study confirms that rootstock effects on tree water relations and vegetative growth potential result, at least in part, from differences in tree hydraulic conductance associated with specific peach rootstocks.

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