Abstract
During two consecutive years (2014 and 2015) we investigated tree vigour, productivity, and the main physicochemical attributes of Carmen, Kieffer, Santa Maria, and Williams pears grafted on quince BA.29. Results showed that trunk cross-sectional area (TCSA), yield per tree (Y), yield efficiency (YE), and number of fruits per tree (NFT) were significantly affected by cultivar and years, whereas the interaction of cultivar × year influenced only Y and YE. Carmen and Kieffer had the largest trees and Williams the smallest. Santa Maria and Williams had the best productivity attributes (Y, YE, and NFT). In 2015, TCSA and Y were better, whereas YE was higher in 2014. Kieffer had superior fruit weight, fruit width, and surface area, whereas Carmen had the highest fruit length and flesh firmness. Year-by-year variations of physical properties were not significant, with the exception of length/diameter (L/D) ratio and flesh firmness, whereas the interaction of cultivar × year significantly influenced fruit physical properties, except for L/D ratio. Soluble solids content was not influenced by cultivar, year, or their interaction. Titratable acidity and maturity index were highest in fruits of Santa Maria and lowest in Carmen and Kieffer, respectively. Mean acidity content was higher in 2015, whereas maturity index was higher in 2014. The interaction of cultivar × year affected only acidity content. Significant correlations were found among some pear tree, yield, and fruit quality properties. Principal components analysis showed that there are large variations among varieties in terms of agronomic and fruit quality attributes. It can be said that in terms of positive traits of the tree, productivity, and fruit, Williams and Santa Maria can be singled out, while Carmen and, especially, Kieffer are recommended for growing on a small scale in similar conditions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aggelopoulou KD, Wulfsohn D, Fountas S, Gemtos AT, Nanos DG, Blackmore S (2010) Spatial variation in yield and quality in a small apple orchard. Precis Agric 11(5):538–556. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11119-009-9146-9
Allen FW (1929) Maturity standards for harvesting Bartlett pears for Eastern shipmnet. California agricultural experiment station, bulletin no 470, p 27
Atkinson CJ, Taylor L (1994) The influence of autumn temperature on flowering time and cropping of Pyrus communis L. cv. ‘Conference. J Hortic Sci 69(6):1067–1075. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221589.1994.11516546
Bain JM (1961) Some morphological, anatomical, and physiological changes in the pear fruit (Pyrus communis var. Williams bon Chrétien) during development and following harvest. Aust J Bot 9(2):99–123. https://doi.org/10.1071/BT9610099
Biondi G, Pratella GC, Bassi R (1991) Maturity indexes as a function of quality in apricot harvesting. Acta Hortic 293:667–671. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.1991.293.75
Crisosto CH, Crisosto GM, Garner D (2005) Understanding tree fruit consumer acceptance. Acta Hortic 682:865–870. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2006.712.18
Curi PN, Bisi RB, Salgado DL, Barbosa CMA, Pio R, de Souza VR (2017) Hybrid cultivars of pear in subtropics regions: processing ability in the form of jelly. Cienc Rural 47(11):e20170331. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-8478cr20170331
Demir Z, Işik D (2020) The impact of different cover crops, mechanical cultivation and herbicide treatment on the soil quality variables and yield in apple (Malus domestica Borkh.) orchard with a coarse-textured soil. Tarım Bilim Derg 26(4):452–470. https://doi.org/10.15832/ankutbd.527445
Dierend W, Bier-Kamotzke A (2014) Vergleich von Anbausystemen bei der Birne in Abhängigkeit von Sorte und Unterlage: Schlanke Spindel und Güttinger-V-System. Erwerbs-Obstbau 56(1):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10341-013-0196-9 (in German)
Drake SR, Elfving DC, Drake SL, Visser DB (2004a) Quality of modified atmosphere packed ‘Bartlett’ pears as influenced by time and type of storage. J Food Proc Preserv 28(5):348–358. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-4549.2004.23051.x
Drake SR, Mielke EA, Elfving DC (2004b) Maturity and storage quality of ‘Concorede’ pears. HortTechnology 14(2):250–256. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTTECH.14.2.0250
Elkins RB, DeJong TM (2002) Effect of training system and rootstock on growth and productivity of ‘Golden Russet Bosc’s’ pear trees. Acta Hortic 596:603–607. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2002.596.104
Guneyli A, Eren İ, Onursal CE, Çalhan Ö, Özturk G (2015) Determining the harvest date of ‘Abbe Fetel’ and ‘Kieffer’ pear in the Lake district of Turkey. Acta Hortic 1094:197–204. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2015.1094.25
Hawerrooth FJ, Herter FG, Fachinello JC, Petri JL, Prezotto ME, Hass LB, Pretto A (2011) Aumento da produção de pereira asiática pelo uso de fitorreguladores. Cienc Rural 41(10):1750–1754. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-84782011001000012 (in Portuguese)
Iglesias I (2008) Agronomical and fruit quality of early harvesting pear cultivars in Spain. Acta Hortic 800:249–256. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2008.800.29
Ikinci A, Bolat I, Ercisli S, Kodad O (2014) Influence of rootstocks on growth, yield, fruit quality and leaf mineral element contents of pear cv. ‘Santa Maria’ in semi-arid conditions. Biol Res 47(1):71. https://doi.org/10.1186/0717-6287-47-71
Ingels C (2016) Pear variety evaluation in the Sacramento River district. Pear Research Meeting, UC Cooperative Extension, Sacramento County, University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resource, 3 Feb 2016
Jacobs JN, Cook NC (2003) The effect of rootstock cultivar on the yield and fruit quality of ‘Packham’s Triumph’, ‘Doyenne du Comice’, ‘Forelle’, ‘Flamingo’ and ‘Rosemarie’ pears. S Afr J Plant Soil 20(1):25–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/02571862.2003.10634900
Kader AA (1999) Fruit maturity, ripening, and quality relationships. Acta Hortic 485:203–208. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.1996.434.30
Kappel F, Quamme HA (1988) Growth and yield of pear cultivars on several rootstocks. Can J Plant Sci 68(4):1177–1183. https://doi.org/10.4141/cjps88-146
Kappel F, Hogue E, Fisher-Fleming R (1994) Sensory evaluation of pears. Acta Hortic 367:439–439. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.1994.367.71
Kappel F, Fisher-Fleming R, Hogue EJ (1995) Ideal pear sensory attributes and fruit characteristics. HortScience 30(5):988–993. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.30.5.988
Karacali I (2012) Storage and marketing of horticultural products. Ege University Agricultural Faculty Publication, No 494. Ege University, Izmir
Kaur K, Dhillon SW (2015) Influence of maturity and storage period on physical and biochemical characteristics of pear during post cold storage at ambient conditions. J Food Sci Technol 52(8):5352–5356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-014-1620-3
Kawamura T (2000) Relationship between skin color and maturity of Japanese pear ‘Housui’. Jap J Farm Work Res 35(1):33–38
Kiprjanovski M, Ristevski B (2009) Biological and pomological characteristicks of some pear varieties in republic of Macedonia. Agric Consp Sci 74(2):123–126
Loreti F, Massai R, Fei C, Cinelli F (2002) Performance of ‘Conference’ cultivar on several quince and pear rootstocks: preliminary results. Acta Hortic 596:311–318. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2002.596.48
Lutz JM, Culpepper CW (1937) Certain chemical and physical changes produced in Kieffer pears during ripening and storage. Technical Bulletin No. 590. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., p 39
Magness JR (1920) Investigations in the ripening and storage of Bartlett pears. J Agric Res 19:473–500
Marini RP (2009) Growing pears in Virginia. Virginia cooperative extension. www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/treefruit/422-017. Accessed 29 Nov 2020
McCabe WL, Smith JC, Harriott P (1986) Unit operations of chemical engineering. McGraw-Hill, New York
Mészáros M, Laňar L, Kosina J, Náměstek J (2019) Aspects influencing the rootstock-scion performance during long term evaluation in pear orchard. Hortic Sci 46(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.17221/55/2017-HORTSCI
Milošević T, Milošević N, Glišić I (2021) Early tree performances, precocity and fruit quality attributes of newly introduced apricot cultivars grown under western Serbian conditions. Turk J Agric For 45(6):819–833. https://doi.org/10.3906/tar-2010-39
Milošević T, Milošević N, Mašković P (2015) Do the rootstocks determine tree growth, productivity and fruit quality of pears, which grow on typical heavy and acidic soil? Erwerbs-Obstbau 57(3):125–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10341-015-0239-5
Ozdemir Y, Akcay ME, Ercisli S, Ozkan M, Ozyurt U (2016) Physical, chemical, sensorial, and bioactive characteristics of local and standard pear cultivars in Turkey. Acta Sci Pol Hort 15(3):127–139
Ozturk I, Ercisli S, Kalkan F, Demir B (2009) Some chemical and physico-mechanical properties of pear cultivars. Afr J Biotechnol 8(4):687–693
Pasa MS, Fachinello JC, Schmitz JD, Souza ALK, De Franceschi E (2012) Desenvolvimento, produtividade e qualidade de peras sobre porta-enxertos de marmeleiro e Pyrus calleryana. Rev Bras Frutic 34(3):873–880. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-29452012000300029 (in Portuguese)
Paunović G, Veljković B, Ilić R, Bošković-Rakočević L (2018) Economic analysis of pear orchard establishment. Acta Agric Serb 23(46):157–165. https://doi.org/10.5937/AASer1846157P
Pentzer WT, Magness JR, Diehl HG, Haller MH (1932) Investigations on harvesting and handling fall and winter pears. Technical Bulletin No 290. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington D.C., p 30
Richardson DG, Gerasopoulos D (1994) Controlled atmosphere recommendations for pear fruits and storage chilling satisfaction requirements for ripening winter pears. Acta Hortic 367:452–454. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.1994.367.75
Scalisi A, O’Connell MG (2021) Relationships between soluble solids and dry matter in the flesh of stone fruit at harvest. Analytica 2(1):14–24. https://doi.org/10.3390/analytica2010002
Sete PB, Comin JJ, Ciotta MN, Salume JA, Thewes F, Brackmann A, Toselli M, Nava G, Rozane DE, Loss A, Lourenzi CR, da Rosa Couto R, Brunetto G (2019) Nitrogen fertilization affects yield and fruit quality in pear. Sci Hortic 258:e108782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2019.108782
Silos-Espino H, Fabian-Morales L, Osuna-Castro JA, Valverde E, Guevara-Lara F, Paredes-López O (2003) Chemical and biochemical changes in prickly pears with different ripening behaviour. Nahrung Food 47:334–338. https://doi.org/10.1002/food.200390077
Urbina V, Dalmases J, Pascual M, Dalmau R (2003) Performance of ‘Williams’ pear on five rootstocks. J Hortic Sci Biotechnol 78(2):193–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/14620316.2003.11511605
Vangdal E (1980) Threshold values of soluble solids in fruit determined for the fresh fruit market. Acta Agric Scand 30(4):445–448. https://doi.org/10.1080/00015128009435292
Vercammen J (2002) Influence of the plant and pruning system on the financial results of ‘Conference’. Acta Hortic 596:615–620. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2002.596.106
Wawrzyńczak A, Rutkowski KP, Kruczyńska DE (2006) Changes in fruit quality in pears during CA storage. J Fruit Ornam Plant Res 14(Suppl. 2):77–84
Webster AD (1995) Rootstock and interstock effects on deciduous fruit tree vigour, precocity and yield productivity. N Zeal J Crop Hortic Sci 23(4):373–382. https://doi.org/10.1080/01140671.1995.9513913
Wei T, Simko V (2017) R package “corrplot”: visualization of a correlation matrix (version 0.84). https://github.com/taiyun/corrplot. Accessed 11 Jan 2022
White AG, Alspach PA, Weskett RH, Brewer LR (2000) Heritability of fruit shape in pears. Euphytica 112:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003761118890
Wills RBH, Scriven FM, Greenfield H (1983) Nutrient composition of stone fruit (Prunus spp.) cultivars: apricot, cherry, nectarine, peach and plum. J Sci Food Agric 34(12):1383–1389. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.2740341211
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the Paunović family for enabling us to perform and realise the experiment in their pear orchard.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
M. Jovanović, T. Milošević, N. Milošević, S. Ercişli, I. Glišić, G. Paunović, and R. Ilić declare that they have no competing interests.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jovanović, M., Milošević, T., Milošević, N. et al. Tree Growth, Productivity, and Fruit Quality Attributes of Pear Grown Under a High-Density Planting System on Heavy Soil. A Case Study. Erwerbs-Obstbau 65, 25–34 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10341-022-00671-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10341-022-00671-0