signature=fd4583a022a9bbdf58f488e20fb98a5c,Avocado rootstock named ‘Steddom’

Latin name of the genus and species: The avocado cultivar of this invention is botanically identified as Persea americanaMill.

Variety denomination: The variety denomination is ‘Steddom’.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

Avocado root rot is the limiting factor for the growth of avocados throughout the world. Avocado root rot is caused by the fungus Phytophthora cinnamomi, which attacks and kills the feeder roots of avocado trees. The resultant lack of roots causes the tree to eventually die from water stress. There are a number of varieties of rootstocks that have some tolerance to the disease. These varieties included ‘Duke 7’ (unpatented), the most commonly planted tolerant rootstock in the world; and ‘Thomas’ (U.S. Plant Pat. No. 6,628), another root rot tolerant rootstock. However, even with these rootstocks, growers must still use a variety of methods, including mounding, mulching and the applications of chemical fungicides, to keep the tress from dying in many soils. More resistant rootstocks are necessary to eliminate avocado root rot as a major disease threat.

Screening and Greenhouse Evaluation of Rootstocks

‘Steddom’ was identified and characterized using the following screening protocol. As it is difficult to breed avocados because only one in approximately one thousand flowers actually set fruit, plant breeding blocks of avocados were isolated to prevent out-crossing with susceptible rootstocks. The breeding blocks were made up of various combinations of selected rootstocks including, ‘Thomas’ (U.S. Plant Pat. No. 6,628), ‘Barr Duke’ (U.S. Plant Pat. No. 6,627), ‘G6’, ‘Duke 7’, ‘Duke 9’, ‘UC 2001’, ‘UC 2011’, ‘Toro Canyon’ (U.S. Plant Pat. No. 5,642), ‘Spencer’, ‘CR1-71’, ‘G 810’, ‘G 875’, ‘G 755A’, ‘VC 256’, and ‘Steyemarkii’. In order to synchronize blooming, attempts were made to girdle late-blooming varieties and spray early-blooming varieties with the pesticide Unicona-zole-P.

Initial screening was carried out by germinating seeds, which were harvested from the breeding blocks, in flats of vermiculite in the greenhouse. Phytophthora cinnamomi-infested millet was placed in rows along with the young roots of the test seedlings. After 8-10 weeks roots were evaluated and those with a high percentage of surviving roots were transplanted to soil mix incorporated with P. cinnamomi-infested millet. Rootstocks that survived this test were planted and grown in P. cinnamomi-infested soils. Survivors were examined more carefully for various types of resistance using asexual propagated material.a. Root survival—Rootstocks were grown in typical California avocado soils, inoculated with P. cinnamomiand evaluated for growth, root length and percent healthy roots.

b. Root regeneration—Rootstocks were grown in soil inoculated with P. cinnamomi, treated with Aliette to halt Phytophthoraroot rot and evaluated for root regeneration.

c. Attraction to P. cinnamomi—Roots of the rootstocks were placed in water baths with motile zoospores of P. cinnamomi. The numbers of spores attracted to the roots were evaluated.

Rootstocks that performed well in the screening and greenhouse evaluations were further tested under field conditions.

Selection of ‘Steddom’

‘Steddom’ was developed at Riverside, Calif. The maternal parent is ‘Toro Canyon’ (U.S. Plant Pat. No. 5,642) avocado variety. The pollen parent is unknown. Specifically, the ‘Steddom’ rootstock variety was selected in 1994 from an agricultural operations land located Riverside, Calif. The fruit were collected from the avocado breeding blocks, the seed removed, and planted in vermiculite. The seeds were grown in a greenhouse. The plants were inoculated with the fungus Phytophthora cinnamomi. After showing tolerance to the disease, ‘Steddom’ was selected as a single plant for further testing. Budwood was collected from the plants and grafted to the stumps of adult avocado trees that had been cut down at Irvine Calif. The new varieties grew into trees which provided budwood for further testing. At least two ‘mother’ trees of the variety are growing in Irvine Calif., along with the germplasm. During screening and evaluation, ‘Steddom’, which was selected and originally designated ‘PP24’, distinguished itself from other varieties, including the maternal parent ‘Toro Canyon,’ by having a high tolerance against Phytophthoraroot rot. The properties of ‘Steddom’ were found to be true to type and transmissible by asexual reproduction.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

This invention relates to a new and distinct avocado variety. ‘Steddom’ is an avocado tree having a rootstock that has a high tolerance against Phytophthoraroot rot. It is a relatively slow growing rootstock and that yields heavily, and has a high yield/canopy volume ratio. ‘Steddom’ has a small degree of salt tolerance and appears to be an all-around, excellent rootstock with small stature and low vigor. For these reasons it may be an excellent choice for high density or hedge-row avocado plantings.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 illustrates a eight-year-old top-worked tree of the ‘Steddom’ variety while growing in Irvine, Calif.

FIG. 2 illustrates typical mature foliage of the ‘Steddom’ variety with dimensions in centimeters shown at the bottom.

FIG. 3 illustrates typical flush foliage of the ‘Steddom’ variety with dimensions in centimeters shown at the bottom.

FIG. 4A illustrates typical inflorescence with dimensions in centimeters shown at the right and FIG. 4B illustrates typical inflorescence by itself.

FIG. 5 illustrates a typical external view of the fruit of the ‘Steddom’ variety, with dimensions in centimeters shown at the bottom.

FIG. 6 illustrates typical internal views of the fruit of the ‘Steddom’ variety, with and without the seed. Dimensions in centimeters are shown at the bottom.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

The following is a detailed description of the new ‘Steddom’ variety, which was taken from an approximately eight-year-old mature tree, with the exception as a rootstock for a specific scion when reference is made to root rot resistance and salinity tolerance. The tree is located in an experimental orchard in Irvine, Calif. and is grafted on a Persea americanaseedling used as a rootstock.

The Royal Horticultural Society (R.H.S.) Colour Chart is used herein for the color description of the rind, seed, bark, leaf, flower, flesh color and other interest of the ‘Steddom’ avocado tree.

Trees, Foliage, and Flowers

Tree: Growth habit.—Vigorous and upright when compared to the rootstock ‘Thomas’.

Vigor.—Below are data on the vigor of ‘Hass’ grafted onto the rootstock ‘Steddom’, as determined by trunk diameter measurements from trees planted in an orchard with Phytophthora cinnamomiin Escondido Calif.

TABLE 1Trunk diameter (cm)Rootstockyear 1year 2year 3year 4year 5

PP # 24.2.373.987.078.6011.23

‘Thomas’2.444.296.758.4010.84

Escondido Ca., with Hass scion

TABLE 2Canopy volume (cubic feet)Rootstockyear 1year 2year 3year 4year 5

PP # 24.14.00100.40376.1478.1257

‘Thomas’13.5684.48388.5367.1076

Escondido Ca., with Hass scion Size.—Medium. The typical canopy size of a three year old top-worked ‘Thomas’ is 388 cu.ft. By comparison the canopy size of a three year old top-worked ‘Steddom’ is 376 cu. ft. The tree is 610-915 cm in height when fully grown at the orchard site in Irvine, Calif.

Branch: Color.—The color of the one year old branch is yellow-green (RHS 144C).

Smoothness.—The bark of a one year old branch is smooth.

Lenticels.—The lenticels of a one year old branch are conspicuous.

Main stem: Color.—Brown (RHS N 200D and 197A).

Texture of bark.—Corky.

Young shoot (flush): Intensity of anthocyanin coloration.—Weak.

Anthocyanin coloration.—Orange-brown (RHS 172A).

Color.—Yellow-green (RHS 145C).

Conspicuousness of lenticels.—Medium.

Color of lenticels.—Red-purple (RHS 61A).

Size of lenticels.—1.0-3.0 mm long.

Concentration of lenticels.—+/−24 lenticels per square cm.

Color of upper side.—Yellow-green (RHS 146A).

Glossiness of upper side.—Medium.

Color of lower surface.—Green (RHS 139D).

Mature leaf: Length.—18.0 cm.

Width.—7.0 cm.

Ratio length/width.—2.6.

Shape.—Lanceolate.

Color of upper side.—Green (RHS 143A).

Color of lower side.—Green (RHS 145B).

Glossiness of upper side.—Medium.

Prominence of veins on lower side.—Prominent and in relief.

Color of veins.—Yellow-green (RHS 151A).

General shape and cross-section.—Asymmetrically folded.

Reflexing of apex.—Present.

Color of petiole.—Yellow-green (RHS 144A).

Anise aroma.—Present.

Margin.—Undulation of margin is weak, and the leaf margin is entire.

Leaf apex shape.—Acuminate.

Leaf base shape.—Lanceolate.

Length of leaf petiole.—Approximately 4.5 cm.

Diameter of leaf petiole.—Approximately 3.0 mm.

Leaf arrangement.—Upright.

Flower: Bud size.—Approximately 5 mm in length and approximately 3 mm in diameter.

Bud shape.—Ovoid.

Bud color.—Yellow-green (RHS 152C).

Opening.—Belongs to group “A”, male opening (i.e. with mature stamens) occurs in the afternoon, the flower closes over night, and female opening (i.e. with mature pistil) occurs the next morning; the flower's opening cycle lasts 20-24 hours.

Petals.—Borne in two whorls of three perianth lobes. The petals possess entire margins and petal coloration is near yellow-green (RHS 150B). Both the upper and lower petal surfaces are near yellow-green (RHS 150B).

Stamen.—There are commonly nine fertile stamens with each having two basal nectar glands that are grayed-orange (RHS 174A) in color and three staminodia. The anthers are tetrathecal.

Pistil.—The single pistil with a slender style and small stigmatic surface has one carpel with one ovule. The ovary is superior.

Sepals.—There are 6 sepals which are approximately 4 mm in length and approximately 2 mm in width, and the color of both sepal surfaces is near yellow-green (RHS 151A).

Pedicel.—Commonly approximately 7 mm in length and approximately 1.8 mm in diameter. The coloration is near yellow-green (RHS 151A).

Peduncles.—Approximately 4.2 cm in length and approximately 5.0 mm in diameter. The coloration is near yellow-green (RHS 151A).

Number of flowers on inflorescence.—Approximately 185-205 flowers per inflorescence.

Fragrance.—Absent.

Bloom.—Bloom period at Riverside, Calif. experiment station varies with cultural conditions. On average ‘Steddom’ has been found to bloom from 1st of February through 20th of March.

Fruit, Fruit and Production Characteristics

Fruit: Length.—9.7 cm.

Width.—5.4 cm.

Ratio length/width.—1.8.

Weight.—78.9 grams.

Shape.—Pyriform, with the fruit apex being pointed with a diameter of approximately 2.4 cm and the base being rounded with a diameter of approximately 5.4 cm.

Color of skin(when ripe).—Green (RHS 141B).

Texture of skin.—Smooth.

Presence of longitudinal ridges.—Absent.

Thickness of skin.—Thin.

Adherence of skin to flesh.—Medium.

Main color of flesh.—Yellow-green (RHS 154D).

Color of intensely colored area of flesh next to skin.—Green (RHS 141C).

Width of intensely colored area next to skin.—3.0 mm.

Conspicuousness of fibers in flesh.—Inconspicuous.

Seed: Length.—4.5 cm.

Width.—4.0 cm.

Weight.—16.9 grams.

Shape(in longitudinal section).—Ovate.

Shape(in cross section).—Circular.

Color of seed coat(fresh).—Grayed-yellow (RHS 162B).

Cotyledon color.—Orange-white (RHS 159B).

Time of harvesting.—‘Steddom’ fruits ripen in September (in Riverside Calif.).

Resistance to pests.—Strong resistance to Phytophthora cinnamomi.

Tolerance to salinity.—Moderate.

Market use.—The fruit of ‘Steddom’ are not intended for market use, but rather the variety is used as a rootstock onto which commercial varieties, such as ‘Hass’ are grafted.

TABLE 3

‘Steddom’ Rootstock Trials as of 2004

San Diego CountySanta Barbara County

Ventura CountySan Luis Obispo County

TABLE 4

Summary of the performance of the ‘Steddom’ avocado rootstock in

Phytophthora-infested soil

Health ranking/#Trials with healthYield ranking/#

rootstocks inrating below 1.51rootstocks in

Rootstock trialtrial (1 is best)(0-5; 5 = dead)trial (1 is best)

San Diego Co.

Location 11/4+1/4

Location 28/15+1/15

Location 35/13+None

Location 41/4+1/4

Location 57/10+3/10

Location 61/3+1/3

Ventura Co.

Location 13/12+3/12

Location 29/10+2/10

Santa Barbara Co.

Location 13/10+3/10

Actual yieldRated higher than

ranking/# rootstocks‘Thomas’2

Rootstock trialin trial (1 is best)(control)

San Diego Co.

Location 1None+

Location 26/15+

Location 3None+

Location 4None+

Location 5None+

Location 6None+

Ventura Co.

Location 1None+

Location 2None-

Santa Barbara Co.

Location 1None+

11.5 health rating is the value that we would assign to trees not meeting grower approval under field conditions.

2‘Thomas’ is considered the best commercial avocado rootstock for planting in Phytophthora-infested soil.

TABLE 5Rootstock rating at Santana,

Ventura County, August 20011Tree ratingCanopyTrunkNo.

(0-5;volumediametertrees

Rootstock5 = dead)(cu ft)(cm)dead

‘Steddom’0.80 a13.89 a1.92 a1

‘Merensky II’0.90 a15.10 a1.48 a1

‘Uzi’0.90 a16.92 a2.02 a0

‘Zentmyer’1.05 a16.48 a2.05 a1

‘G755A (Brokaw)’1.65 a5.55 a1.62 a1

‘Medina’1.90 a12.66 a1.70 a2

‘Berg’2.20 a13.80 a1.29 a4

‘McKee’2.35 a9.05 a1.52 a1

‘Duke 7’2.50 a11.40 a1.24 a4

‘Thomas’2.65 a10.22 a1.15 a4

‘G755 A (C&M)’2.75 a11.66 a1.49 a2

‘UC 2023’3.00 a6.21 a1.25 a3

1Mean values in each column followed by identical letters are not statistically different according to Waller's k-ratio t test.

TABLE 6

Rootstock rating at Santana, Ventura County, November 2002.

Two-year trial to-date.

Tree ratingCanopyTrunkFruit rating

(0-5;volumediameter(0-5;

Rootstock5 = dead)(cu ft)(cm)5 = heavy)

‘Merensky II’0.17 d72.27 abc3.49 ab0.78 bcd

‘Uzi’0.50 cd69.64 abcd3.64 a2.50 a

‘Steddom’1.00 bcd67.95 abcd2.94 abc1.70 abc

‘Medina’1.06 bcd79.89 ab3.26 ab0.00 d

‘Zentmyer’1.50 bcd81.44 a3.19 ab0.60 bcd

‘Duke 7’1.67 bcd32.48 abcde2.31 abcd1.11 abcd

‘Berg’1.72 bcd46.57 abcde2.21 abcd2.00 ab

‘McKee’1.78 abcd30.92 bcde2.24 abcd0.22 cd

‘G755A2.30 abcd19.98 de1.90 bcd0.10 d

(Brokaw)’

‘Thomas’2.60 abc31.50 bcde2.02 abcd0.30 cd

‘UC 2023’2.95 ab25.50 cde1.41 cd0.20 d

‘G755 A (C&M)’4.00 a15.71 e0.82 d0.00 d.

Tip burnCanker ratingNo. trees

Rootstockrating (0-5)(0-5)dead

‘Merensky II’0.00 a0.33 a0/9

‘Uzi’0.33 a0.00 a1/10

‘Steddom’0.25 a0.00 a2/10

‘Medina’0.75 a0.00 a1/9

‘Zentmyer’0.38 a0.63 a1/10

‘Duke 7’0.38 a0.38 a3/9

‘Berg’0.17 a0.83 a3/9

‘McKee’0.43 a0.29 a2/10

‘G755A (Brokaw)’0.29 a0.14 a3/10

‘Thomas’0.17 a1.00 a4/10

‘UC 2023’0.00 a0.00 a5/10

‘G755 A (C&M)’——8/10

TABLE 7Tree rating August 2001Tree ratingCanopyTrunk diameter

Rootstock(0-5; 5 = dead)volume (cu ft)(cm)

‘Thomas’0.00 a2.00 a22.91 a

‘Parida’0.12 a1.08 b15.77 b

‘Steddom’0.24 a0.95 b16.82 b

‘Spencer’0.50 a1.84 a24.53 a

1Mean values in each column followed by identical letters are not statistically different according to Waller's k-ratio t test.

TABLE 8Tree rating, July 2001Tree ratingCanopy volumeTrunk diameter

Rootstock(0-5; 5--dead)(cu ft)(cm)

‘Steddom’0.28 b43.22 ab2.96 a

‘Thomas’0.45 b56.76 a3.59 a

‘Spencer’1.33 ab38.58 ab2.78 ab

‘Parida’2.11 a21.42 b1.73 b

1Mean values in each column followed by identical letters are not statistically different according to Waller's k-ratio t test.

TABLE 9

Tree rating, September 2002

Tree ratingTrunkCanopyFruit rating

(0-5;diamvol(0-5;

Rootstocks5 = dead)(cm)(cu ft)5-heavy)

‘Steddom’0.28 c5.58 a197.9 a1.56 a

‘Thomas’0.64 bc6.55 a277.6 a0.73 ab

‘Spencer’2.06 ab3.31 b105.6 b0.33 b

‘Parida’2.39 a3.44 b102.4 b0.11 b

Salt ratingCanker ratingNo. trees

Rootstocks(0-5; 5 = severe)(0-5; 5 =severe)dead

‘Steddom’0.18 c0.00 a1/18

‘Thomas’1.05 a0.00 a1/11

‘Spencer’0.38 bc0.00 a6/18

‘Parida’0.73 ab0.62 a6/18

TABLE 10

Tree rating, August 2003. Four-ear trial to-date

Tree ratingTrunkCanopyFruit rating

(0-5;diamvol(0-5;

Rootstocks5 = dead)(cm)(cu ft)5-heavy)

‘Steddom’0.11 b7.79 a419.72 a1.14 a

‘Thomas’0.82 b7.38 a417.59 a0.45 ab

‘Spencer’2.39 a3.72 b200.02 b0.17 b

‘Parida’2.61 a3.94 b186.14 b0.11 b

Salt ratingCanker ratingDead trees

Rootstocks(0-5; 5 = severe)0-5; 5 = severe(%)

‘Steddom’0.39 b0.00 a0

‘Thomas’2.05 a0.00 a9

‘Spencer’0.55 b0.71 a41

‘Parida’0.28 b0.40 a44

TABLE 11

Rootstock rating, December 2003. Three-year trial to-date

Tree ratingCanopyTrunkFruit rating

(0-5;voldiam(0-5; 5-

Rootstocks5 = dead)(cu ft)(cm)heavy)

‘Zentmyer’0.313d48.0ab6.45a1.75abc

‘Merensky II’0.556cd71.6a6.49a2.67a

‘Steddom’0.677bcd47.2ab5.18ab2.00ab

‘Parida’1.147abcd50.6ab4.91ab1.53abcd

‘Evstro’1.353abcd49.6ab5.55ab2.29ab

‘Merensky I’1.441abcd48.6ab5.01ab1.41bcd

‘Guillemet’1.588abc39.6b4.58b0.41d

‘Thomas’1.875ab43.4ab4.45b0.72cd

‘UC 2023’2.188a27.2b4.07b0.31d

‘VC 207’2.382a32.4b3.79b1.12bcd

Salt ratingCanker ratingNo. trees

Rootstocks(0-5; 5 = severe)(0-5; 5-severe)dead (%)

‘Zentmyer’0.00a0.00a0

‘Merensky II’0.00a0.00a0

‘Steddom’0.00a0.06a6

‘Parida’0.00a0.07a18

‘Evstro’0.00a0.06a0

‘Merensky I’0.00a0.06a18

‘Guillemet’0.00a0.08a22

‘Thomas’0.00a0.08a29

‘UC 2023’0.08a0.00a19

‘VC 207’0.00a0.00a35

Mean values in each column followed by identical letters are not statistically different according to Waller's k-ratio t test.

TABLE 12

Rootstock ratings of avocado trees planted in root rot soil at

Escondido, July 2002

Tree ratingCanopyTrunkFruit set

0-5;volumediameterrating 0-5;

Rootstocks5 = deadCu ftCm5 = heavy

‘Zentmyer’0.00c397.4abc7.12bcd1.53cd

‘Rio Frio’0.00c313.5cdef6.33cdef2.13bcd

‘Merens I’0.00c543.6a8.74a3.50a

‘Merensk II’0.02c409.0abc7.81abc2.84ab

‘VC 241’0.06c238.4defg6.19defg1.41cd

‘Uzi’0.29bc504.3ab8.57ab2.76ab

‘Steddom’0.36bc376.1bcde7.07bcd2.43bc

‘Thomas’0.44bc388.5bcd6.75cde1.12de

‘Guillemet’0.59bc192.0fgh4.90fgh1.12de

‘Spencer sdlg’0.63bc225.8efg5.24efgh1.56cd

‘Leo’0.67bc288.2cdef5.89defgh1.60cd

‘Spencer clonal’0.69bc163.8fgh4.65gh1.54cd

‘Duke 7’1.00b129.3gh4.38h1.47cd

‘G755A’0.16b294.1cdef5.86defgh1.56cd

‘PolyN’4.12a65.6h1.26i0.24e

Tip BurnCankersDeadRootstocksNumber trees affected

‘Zentmyer’000/15

‘Rio Frio’000/16

‘Merens I’000/14

‘Merensk II’010/17

‘VC 241’000/16

‘Uzi’201/17

‘Steddom’001/14

‘Thomas’001/17

‘Guillemet’312/17

‘Spencer sdlg’002/16

‘Leo’002/15

‘Spencer clonal’005/16

‘Duke 7’003/15

‘G755A’213/16

‘PolyN’0014/17

TABLE 13

Rootstock trial tree ratio April 20031. Four-year trial to-date

Tree ratingCanopy volumeTrunk diam.

Rootstock(0-5;5 = dead)(cu ft)(cm)Salt

‘MerenI’0.00d551ab10.7a0.08cd

‘VC241’0.06d281efgh8.0abc0.03cd

‘Rio Frio’0.07d362efcd8.7abc0.00d

‘Zentmyer’0.07d410bcde9.2ab0.32bc

‘MerenII’0.18d532abc9.4ab0.21dc

‘Spen sdlg’0.36d263efgh6.9bc0.00d

‘Uzi’0.38d669a10.6a0.68a

‘Steddom’0.39d478bcd8.6abc0.32bc

‘Thomas’0.47cd367cdef8.4abc0.62ab

‘Leo’0.77cbd274efgh7.3abc0.13cd

‘Guillemet’0.83cbd190ghi6.2bc0.13cd

‘Duke 7’1.34cb127hi8.8abc0.16cd

‘Spen cl’1.44b211fghi5.3c0.12cd

‘G755A’1.69b322defg7.0bc0.25cd

‘PolyN’4.15a77i1.5d0.06cd

CankerFruitDead trees

Rootstock(0-5; 5 = heavy)rating2(%)

‘MerenI’0a2.97abc0

‘VC241’0a3.41ab0

‘Rio Frio’0a3.73a0

‘Zentmyer’0a3.71a0

‘MerenII’0.1a2.97abc0

‘Spen sdlg’0a3.57ab7

‘Uzi’0a3.47ab6

‘Steddom’0a3.75a7

‘Thomas’0a3.53ab6

‘Leo’0a3.29ab13

‘Guillemet’0a2.90abc13

‘Duke 7’0a1.53de19

‘Spen cl’0a2.35bcd23

‘G755A’0a1.78cd25

‘PolyN’0a0.29e82

1Mean values in each column followed by identical letters are not statistically different according to Waller's k-ratio t test.

2Fruit was rated in November 2003.

TABLE 14Temecula, yield 20031;2. Four year trial to-date.Fruit weight/NumberFruit

Rootstocktree (kg)fruit/treeweight (kg)

‘Zentmyer’15.89a68.64a0.219a

‘Uzi’13.99ab59.24ab0.195ab

‘Spencer seedling’12.52ab56.27ab0.181ab

‘Merensky II’11.83ab51.12ab0.185ab

‘Rio Frio’10.87abc51.33ab0.187ab

‘Steddom’10.01abc46.20abc0.175abc

‘Thomas’8.50abcd40.12abcd0.154abc

‘G755A’8.08abcd34.56abcd0.116bc

‘VC241’7.44bcd31.75bcd0.202ab

‘Guillemet’7.42bcd30.00bcd0.196ab

‘Spencer clonal’6.99bcd32.00bcd0.136abc

‘Merensky I’6.95bcd32.08bcd0.148abc

‘Leo’6.53bcd28.14bcd0.140abc

‘Duke 7’3.33cd14.81cd0.138abc

‘PolyN’1.72d5.71d0.076c

1Mean values in each column followed by identical letters are not statistically different according to Waller's k-ratio t test.

2Only fruit which were grade size were picked; remaining fruit on trees to be picked later.

TABLE 15Tree rating February 20021Tree ratingFruit setCanopyTrunkNo.

(0-5;rating (0-5;volumediametertrees

Rootstocks5 = dead)5 = heavy)(cu ft)(cm)dead

‘Parida’1.00 b0.00 a13.63 a2.37 a0

‘Steddom’1.30 b0.10 a18.46 a2.54 a0

‘Afek’1.50 ab0.00 a21.16 a2.59 a0

‘Thomas’2.13 a0.05 a15.90 a2.41 a1

1Mean values in each column followed by identical letters are not statistically different according to Waller's k-ratio t test

TABLE 16Tree rating, March 20031. Two-year trial to-date.Tree ratingCanopyTrunkSalt tipCankerDead

(0-5; =voldiam0-5;5 =(0-5;5 =trees

Rootstockdead)(cu ft)(cm)severe)severe(%)

‘Steddom’0.92 a61.93 a4.25 ab0.61 b0.00 a5

‘Afek’1.08 a72.04 a4.85 a1.50 a0.33 a0

‘Parida’1.30 a44.31 a3.91 ab0.47 b0.44 a10

‘Thomas’1.95 a39.86 a3.43 b1.85 a0.47 a15

1Mean values in each column followed by identical letters are not statistically different according to Waller's k-ratio t test

TABLE 17Escondido, Tree ratings, July 2002Tree ratingCanopyTrunkNo.No. trees

(0-5;vol.diamtreesw/tipNo. trees

Rootstock5 = dead)(cu ft)(cm)Deadburnw/canker

‘Uzi’0.039 b34.69 a2.43 a060

‘Guillemet’0.042 b22.86 a2.06 a040

‘Zentmyer’0.077 b22.40 a2.25 a020

‘Spencer sdlg’0.536 b27.81 a2.01 a021

‘Steddom’0.615 b18.93 a1.99 a100

‘Berg’0.714 b21.42 a1.98 a012

‘Merensky II’0.750 b32.07 a2.10 a201

‘Elinor’0.786 b29.44 a2.03 a102

‘Thomas’0.846 b23.07 a1.85 a120

‘Pond’1.00 ab30.55 a2.15 a102

‘Crowley’1.083 ab23.78 a1.86 a210

‘G755A’1.231 ab22.64 a1.85 a200

‘Duke 9’2.270 a9.40 a1.07 b500

There were significant differences at P = 0.01 between blocks for all tree parameters analyzed.

TABLE 18

Tree ratings, April 2003. Two-year trial to-date.

Tree ratingCanopyTrunkFruit rating

(0-5;voldiam(0-5;

Rootstock5 = dead)(cu ft)(cm)5 = heavy)

‘Uzi’0.267c88.76 a4.193a0.0 a

‘Berg’0.531c44.16 a2.956bc0.0 a

‘Zentmyer’0.600c54.37 a3.393ab0.0 a

‘Merensky II’0.833bc68.49 a3.333ab0.0 a

‘Steddom’0.867bc56.42 a3.127ab0.0 a

‘Pond’0.906bc55.05 a3.188ab0.0 a

‘Spenser0.906bc51.45 a2.988bc0.0 a

sdlg’

‘Crowley’0.964bc42.05 a3.021bc0.0 a

‘Thomas’1.071bc49.99 a2.900bc0.0 a

‘Guillemet’0.167abc43.64 a2.960bc0.1 a

‘Elinor’1.393abc58.40 a2.864bc0.0 a

‘G755A’2.156ab44.21 a2.819bc0.0 a

‘Duke 9’2.577a32.16 a1.885c0.0 a

Salt ratingCanker rating

(0-5;(0-5;5 =No. trees

Rootstock5 = severe)severe)Dead (%)

‘Uzi’0.933ab0.000 a0

‘Berg’0.633abcd0.000 a6

‘Zentmyer’1.000a0.000 a7

‘Merensky II’0.154cd0.308 a13

‘Steddom’0.321bcd0.286 a7

‘Pond’0.767abc0.200 a6

‘Spenser sdlg’0.300bcd0.200 a6

‘Crowley’0.083d0.000 a14

‘Thomas’0.731abc0.000 a0

‘Guillemet’0.615abcd0.133 a13

‘Elinor’0.333bcd0.167 a14

‘G755A’0.846ab0.077 a13

‘Duke 9’0.313bcd0.500 a38

TABLE 19

Santa Paula, rootstock rating, December 2002

Tree ratingCanopy volTrunk diamFruit

Rootstock(0-5; 5 = dead)(cu ft)(cm)set

‘McKee’0.00 b51.41 a3.45bc0.00 a

‘Merensky II’0.00 b53.45 a3.66ab0.00 a

‘Pond’0.00 b55.08 a3.69a0.00 a

‘Guillemet’0.00 b37.98 b2.71f0.00 a

‘Zentmyer’0.00 b51.92 a3.38cd0.00 a

‘Thomas’0.00 b36.66 b3.15de0.00 a

‘Crowley’0.03 b34.91 b3.17d0.05 a

‘Duke 9’0.05 b31.93 b2.93ef0.00 a

‘Steddom’0.27 a37.14 b2.75f0.00 a

Salt burnTrees dead

Rootstock(0-5; 5-heavy)Cankers(%)

‘McKee’000

‘Merensky II’000

‘Pond’000

‘Guillemet’000

‘Zentmyer’000

‘Thomas’000

‘Crowley’000

‘Duke 9’000

‘Steddom’000

Mean values in each column followed by identical letters are not statistically different according to Waller's k-ratio.

TABLE 20

Santa Paula, rootstock rating, December 2003. Two-year trial to-date

CanopyTrunkFruit rating

Tree ratingvoldiam(0-5;

Rootstock(0-5; 5 = dead)(cu ft)(cm)5 = heavy)

‘McKee’0.025b184.1b5.88bc1.90ab

‘Merensky II’0.000b246.8a6.18abc2.60a

‘Pond’0.000b192.0b6.24ab0.00d

‘Guillemet’0.000b118.8cd5.38de0.00d

‘Zentmyer’0.026b182.8b6.41a1.32bc

‘Thomas’0.237a174.9b5.72cd0.47cd

‘Crowley’0.150ab124.7c5.42de2.15ab

‘Duke 9’0.053ab132.6c5.19e1.89ab

‘Steddom’0.083ab86.3d5.00e2.00ab

Salt burnTrees dead

Rootstock(0-5; 5-heavy)Cankers(%)

‘McKee’000

‘Merensky II’000

‘Pond’000

‘Guillemet’000

‘Zentmyer’000

‘Thomas’000

‘Crowley’000

‘Duke 9’000

‘Steddom’000

Mean values in each column followed by identical letters are not statistically different according to Waller's k-ratio t test.

TABLE 21

Temecula rootstock ratings, Sept 2002

Tree ratingCanopyTrunkFruit rating

(0-5;vol.diam(0-5;

Rootstock5 = dead)(cu ft)(cm)5 = heavy)

‘Zentmyer’0.400c40.70ab2.79a0.00 b

‘Crowley’0.618c40.38ab2.86a0.00 b

‘Elinor’0.824c40.52ab2.54a0.00 b

‘Guillemet’0.882bc39.13ab2.42a0.00 b

‘Steddom’0.969bc29.20bc2.13ab1.16 a

‘Thomas’0.969bc31.46bc2.13ab0.00 b

‘Pond’1.088bc54.08a2.78a0.00 b

‘Uzi’1.188bc35.08ab2.56a0.00 b

‘G755A’2.088ab37.85ab2.41a0.00 b

‘Spencer2.906a11.96c1.39b0.00 b

sdlg’

Salt damageCankersNo. trees

Rootstock(0-5; 5 = heavy)(0-5; 5 = heavy)dead

‘Zentmyer’1.50ab0.00 a0/15

‘Crowley’1.34b0.00 a1/17

‘Elinor’1.59ab0.00 a1/17

‘Guillemet’1.41b0.00 a2/17

‘Steddom’1.54ab0.50 a2/16

‘Thomas’1.50ab0.00 a3/16

‘Pond’1.40b0.00 a2/17

‘Uzi’1.64ab0.00 a2/16

‘G755A’2.50ab0.36 a4/17

‘Spencer sdlg’2.63a0.00 a4/16

TABLE 22

Temecula, rootstock ratings, December 2003. Two-year trial to-date

Tree ratingCanopyTrunkFruit rating

(0-5;voldiam(0-5;

Rootstock5 = dead)(cu ft)(cm)5 = heavy)

‘Zentmyer’0.313c207.27a6.23a2.063a

‘Pond’0.906c307.04a5.75a1.813a

‘Elinor’0.912c170.37a4.80a.1.059a

‘Guillemet’1.059c199.37a5.73a0.882a

‘Uzi’1.094bc206.04a4.35a0.813a

‘Crowley’1.250bc144.14a5.04a1.438a

‘Steddom’1.281bc254.94a4.89a1.188a

‘Thomas’1.313bc226.39a5.16a1.375a

‘G755A’2.438ab175.55a5.23a0.625a

‘Spencer sdlg’2.813a42.12a2.26a0.519a

Salt damageCankersTrees dead

Rootstock(0-5; 5 = heavy)(0-5; 5 = heavy)(%)

‘Zentmyer’1.188ab0.000a0

‘Pond’0.321cd0.000a13

‘Elinor’0.469cd0.000a6

‘Guillemet’0.893abc0.000a18

‘Uzi’0.769abcd0.000a19

‘Crowley’0.731abcd0.000a19

‘Steddom’0.167d0.000a25

‘Thomas’1.308a0.000a19

‘G755A’1.167ab0.000a25

‘Spencer sdlg’0.500bcd0.000a44

TABLE 23

Rootstock rating, December 2003. On-Year trial to-date

TrunkCanopy

Tree ratingdiamvolFruit rating

Rootstocks(0-5; 5 = dead)(cm)(cu ft)(0-5; 5-heavy)

‘Steddom’0.050b3.171a47.54a1.353a

‘VC801’1.750a2.628a38.08a0.556a

‘Thomas’2.688a1.800b17.35b0.063a

Salt ratinCanker ratingNo. trees

Rootstocks(0-5; 5 = severe)(0-5; 5 = severe)dead (%)

‘Steddom’0.088a0.000a0

‘VC801’0.000a0.000a38

‘Thomas’0.100a0.000a11

Mean values in each column followed by identical letters are not statistically different according to Waller's k-ratio t test.