43 J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 14(1) : 43-47, 2019 Original Research Paper Sweet cherry cultivars influencing the growth and productivity under HDP K.K. Srivastava*, Dinesh Kumar and P. Barman ICAR-Central Institute foe Temperate Horticulture, Old Air Field, Srinagar, J&K 190 007. *E-mail: kanchanpom@gmail.com ABSTRACT In a field experiment, to identify the best sweet cherry varieties for high density orcharding, maximum canopy volume (18.94 cm3) was recorded in variety ‘Steela’ and minimum in ‘Lambert’ while, ‘Bigarreau Napoleon’ had maximum TCSA (213 cm2). Trees grown under HDP have lower TCSA in comparison to normal density. Primary and secondary branch girth were maximum in ‘Bigarreau Napoleon’ whereas, annual extension growth and shoot thickness were high in ‘Steela’. Yield, yield efficiency and cumulative yield efficiency were registered maximum in ‘Bigarreau Napoleon’ and ‘Bigarreau Noir Grossa’ cultivars. Largest fruit weight, fruit length and fruit diameter were found maximum (10.16 g/fruit), (25.51 mm) (25.20 mm) respectively in ‘Bigarreau Napoleon’. Total soluble solids were found maximum in ‘Bigarreau Noir Grossa’ (17.30 0Brix) among the studied cultivars. Correlation matrix showed that TCSA had positive correlation with canopy volume, primary branch girth and secondary branch girth and fruit weight showed positive correlation with fruit length and fruit diameter. Key words: Sweet cherry, Prunus avium, high density planting, TCSA, quality attributes, yield efficiency INTRODUCTION Sweet cherry (Prunus avium L.) an important stone fruit growing world-wide in temperate zone. Fruits are harvested in May-June, when no fresh fruits are available in the market, so it is sold at premium price. Sweet cherry fruits are consumed fresh as well as for processing purpose. The fruit has high medicinal properties and offers a good source of antioxidants. Total world’s sweet cherry production was 2.25 mt out of it Turkey produced almost 20% of the world sweet cherry, whereas, highest sour cherry produced by Russia (1.98 MT), other important sweet cherry pr oducer s ar e USA, Ir a n, Spa in, Ita ly, Chile, Romania, Uzbekistan, Russia, Greece (Anonymous, 2014). India produces 2.92 t ha-1 sweet cherry, which is far below than world average. Jammu and Kashmir is leading sweet cherry producer in India, accounting 2835 hectare area and 8282 mt production (2016- 2017) (Anonymous, 2016). It is mainly grown in Srinagar, Ganderbal and Shopian, and sizeable area in Baramulla, Budgam, Anantnag in Jammu and Kashmir.. Cherry fruits are mainly used for table purpose and only 10% produce are used for processing purpose. Sour cherry fruits are smaller in size and bears 1-2 fruit per spur with acidic in taste. It is abundantly found at higher altitudes of Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand. The fruits are used for processing purpose and seeds for raising rootstock. The rootstock raised from the sour cherry have deep well developed tap root system, suitable for establishing orchard at adverse soil conditions where, clonal rootstocks won’t do well. Most of the sweet cherry orchards in India have been raised on seedling r ootstock of sour cher r y (Prunus pseudocerasus), hence, they are heterozygous in nature. With the introduction of clonal rootstocks, most of the new plantations are coming up on high density system. Rootstock has impact on growth, yield and quality attributes of the tree and hence, selecting a suitable rootstock is imperative for success of orchard. Dwarf trees have a greater proportion of well illuminated ca nopy, low spr a y solution a nd higher la bor efficiency. Rootstock influenced the tree growth (Cantin et al., 2010; Blazkova and Hlusickova, 2007), yield performance (Moreno et al., 2001), fruit quality (Whiting et al., 2005, Usenik et al., 2010, Lanauskas 44 Srivastava et al J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 14(1) : 43-47, 2019 et al., 2012). Sansavini et al., (2001), reported, when ‘Burlat 1’, ‘Durone Compatta di Vignola’, ‘Lapins’ and ‘Van’ grafted on 20 clonal rootstock and planted in HDP system, bearing starts 4-5 years after planting and tree attained full bearing (10 kg tree-1 ) after 7-8 years. The short statured trees are prone to frost damage. Semi dwarf rootstock gave best result rather dwarfing rootstock in apple. Apple cultivars ‘Golden Reinders’, ‘Jonagored’, ‘Staymared’, ‘Braeburn’ and ‘Fuji’ on M.9 rootstocks planted under HDP, orchard under HDP began early cropping, than low density (Guglielmo et al. , 1997 and similar view wa s expressed by Wertheim et al (2001), that high density allows greater early productivity and earlier return on capital investment. High early productivity in HDP is partly based on the fact that, greater leaf area per unit land area r eceived gr ea ter light inter ception of photo synthetically active radiation (PAR), compared to lower density (Jackson, 1989). Tree height and canopy shape also influenced the light interaction and light penetration within the canopy. The present experiment was carried out with an aim to identify the best sweet cher r y cultiva r s for intensive orcharding. MATERIALS AND METHODS Present experiment was carried out on 6-7 years old sweet cherry orchard at ICAR-Central Institute of Temperate Horticulture, Srinagar, J&K, during 2011 to 2013. The orchard was established in early spring 2003-04 on sour cherry (Prunus reases) rootstock. Well feathered grafted plants of ‘Van’, ‘Lambert’ ‘Steela’, ‘Bigarreau Noir Grossa’ and ‘Bigarrean Napoleon’ were planted at 3 x 3m (1111 trees ha-1 ) at north-south row orientation, trained on modified central leader. Dormant pruning was carried out in February-March regularly for making balance in tree growth and flowering. Trunk girth was recorded 20 cm above union and primary and secondary branch girth, annual shoot thickness, annual shoot extension growth were recorded at cessation of tree growth by digital vernier caliper of 0-6 inch capacity. For recording total yields (t ha-2), individual tree was ha r vest a nd weighted the yield on tr ee ba sis calculated. Yield efficiency and cumulative yield efficiency were determined as per the methods descr ibed by Fior a va nço et al. (2016). Yield efficiency (YE) = Average yield per tree (kg)/ average T CSA (a rea of tr unk cr oss section (cm2) a nd cumulative yield efficiency (©YE) = sum of annual yield, area of trunk cross section (average of 3 years). Trunk cross sectional area was calculated by using standard formulae, TCSA=Girth2/4π (Westwood 1970). Canopy volume (V) was determined from individual measurements of tree height (H) and width in parallel (Dl) and perpendicular (Dr) directions to the tree row, assuming that the tree shape was one half prolate spheroid, using the formulae: V = (pi/6) × H × Dl × Dr (Zekri, 2000). Other routine cultural practices were performed uniformly in all the trees. Fruits were harvested at proper maturity and twenty fruits were taken randomly for recording the fruit length (mm) and fruit breadth (mm) using digital vernier caliper. Weight of the fruit (g) was recorded as mean of 20 fruits using digital electronic balance. Total soluble solids contents (0Brix) were assessed with hand refractometer at 200 C. Experiment were la id out in r a ndomized block design with 4 replications and each replication comprised 2 trees. Data recorded were subjected to statistical analysis using O P Stat software for drawing the conclusion. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Significant variations were observed on the canopy volume, maximum volume ( 18.94 m3 ) was recorded in ‘Steela ’ which wa s sta tistica lly on pa r to ‘Bigarreau, Noir Grossa’ and ‘Bigarreu Napolean’, minimum volume (5.39 m3 ) noted in Lambert. As expected high TCSA (0.213 cm2) were recorded in ‘Bigarreau Napoleon’ and ‘Steela’ (0.213 cm2), whereas, minimum TCSA (0.086 cm2) in Lambert. Variations in tree canopy volume and TCSA with respect to cultivars may be due to difference in genetic constituents of the cultivars. Higher the planting density lower the trunk cross sectional area (T CSA), as the tr ee density incr ea ses, T CSA decreases because of the competition among the closely pla nted tr ees (Musacchi et al. , 2015). Melosevic et al., (2014) reported similar variation with respect to TCSA in different sweet cherry cultivars on semi dwarf and vigorous root stocks. Primary and secondary branch girth were found maximum in ‘Bigarreau Napoleon’ (49.61 and 33.14), which was on par to ‘Bigarreau Noir Grossa’ and ‘Steela’, and it was minimum (27.43 cm) and (15.44 cm) in Lambert (Table 1). AEG, tree canopy and annual shoot 45 Sweet cherry performance under HDP thickness (AST) have direct effect on tree canopy growth. AEG and AST were found maximum in ‘Steela’. 79.17 cm and 8.47 cm and minimum 35.08 and 4.08 cm respectively found in ‘Van’. Overall results showed that the cultivars which are vigorous in nature have higher AEG and AST. Tree growth parameters Variety Canopy Primary Secondary Annual volume (m3) TCSA (m2) branch girth branch girth AEG (cm) shoot (cm) (cm) thickness (cm) Van 7.41±0.23 0.103±0.003 39.52±1.12 19.79±0.44 35.08±0.78 4.08±0.12 Lambert 5.39±0.31 0.086±0.002 27.43±0.88 15.44±0.90 52.11±0.61 6.32±0.27 Steela 18.94±5.36* 0.208±0.003 48.40±1.71* 55.68±20.25 79.17±1.32* 8.47±0.17* Bigarreau Noir Grossa 13.43±0.86 * 0.164±0.003 45.73±0.59 27.06±0.57 68.30±3.80 7.65±0.24 Bigarreau Napoleon 12.84±0.20 * 0.213±0.003* 49.61±0.80* 33.14±0.33 46.44±1.11 6.01±0.17 SEM ± 2.43 0.006 1.25 - 1.84 0.23 LSD (p= 0.05) 7.30 0.002 3.66 NS 5.47 0.69 Table 1. Tree growth parameters of sweet cherry varieties under HDP (3 years pooled data) It is obvious from Table 2 that maximum yield (10.83 t ha-1) was recorded in ‘Bigarreau Napoleon’ followed by ‘Bigarreau Noir Grossa’ (7.18 t ha-1), which was statistically on par to ‘Steela’ and minimum yield (4.42 t ha-1) was registered in Lambert. This indicated that ‘Bigarreau Napoleon’, ‘Bigarreau Noir Grossa’ and ‘Steela’ are most suitable cultivars for growing under HDP so for as yield attributes are concerned. The responses to yield efficiency and cumulative yield per tree was significantly affected by cultivars (Table 2) being highest in ‘Bigarreau Noir Grossa’ (43.27 kg cm-2 TCSA) which was statistically on par to ‘Bigarreau Napoleon’ and ‘Van’. The cumulative yield efficiency, more or less followed the pattern of yield efficiency over the years. ‘Bigarreau Noir Gr ossa ’ exhibited highest (129. 80 kg cm-2) cumulative yield efficiency which was on par to ‘Biga rreau Napoleon’ and ‘Van’, ‘Steela ’ a nd ‘Lambert’ showed minimum YE and cumulative yield efficiency (Table 3). Quality parameters showed significant variations, maximum fruit weight (10.16 g/fruit), fruit length (25.51 mm) and fruit diameter (25.20mm) were noticed in ‘Bigarreau Napoleon’, while as total soluble solids were found maximum in ‘Bigarreau Noir Grossa’. Correlation matrix showed that TCSA had positive correlation with canopy volume, primary branch girth and secondary branch girth. AEG a lso exhibited significant positive corr elation with AST a nd fr uit weight showed positive cor relation with fruit length and fruit diameter. Fruit weight has negative correlation with TSS as fruit weight increase TSS decreases (Table 4). These results are in consonance with the findings of Szot and Meland (2001) and Kappel et al. (1996). Similarly Manolova and Kolev (2013) observed that high density of Sweet cherry he observed that HDP exhibited greater precocity, high annual yield per unit area along with faster financial returns. Similar results were reported in some previous studies by Radunic et al., 2011, Aglar et al., 2016; in contrary Srivastava et al. (2017 ) noticed low YE in HDP apple having 1600 trees ha-1 and high YE in 952 trees ha-1. It can be concluded that Steela exhibited maximum canopy volume, annual extension growth and annual shoot thickness over the yea rs; however, yield efficiency, cumulative yield efficiency and TSS were found maximum in ‘Bigarreau Noir Grossa’. Larrgest fr uits were pr oduced by ‘Bigar rea u Napoleon’ cultivar. The ‘Steela’, ‘Van’, ‘Bigarreau Noir Grossa’ and ‘Bigarreau Napoleon’ can be selected for high density planting on the basis of tree growth, yield and quality attributes. J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 14(1) : 43-47, 2019 46 Variety Yield (t/ ha) YE (kg/cm2) ©YE (kg/cm2) Van 5.39±0.11 43.08±1.88* 129.23±5.63* Lambert 4.42±0.16 31.93±1.28 95.78±3.85 Steela 7.05±0.39 31.27±2.30 93.80±6.91 Bigarreau Noir Grossa 7.18±0.23 43.27±2.15* 129.80±6.45* Bigarreau Napoleon 10.83±0.45* 43.13±1.57* 129.38±4.73* SEM ± 0.31 2.03 6.10 LSD (p= 0.05) 0.93 6.04 18.13 Note: Value represents mean ± S.Em; * indicates significant difference at LSD (P d” 0.05) Table 2. Yield attributes of sweet cherry varieties under HDP (3 years pooled data) Factor Canopy TCSA PBG SBG AEG AST Yield Fruit Fruit Fruit T.S.S volume (cm2) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (t/ ha) length diameter weight (0 Brix) (m3) (mm) (mm) (g) Canopy volume (m3) 1.00 TCSA(cm2) 0.90* 1.00 PBG (cm) 0.84 0.91* 1.00 SBG (cm) 0.95* 0.83 0.72 1.00 AEG (cm) 0.78 0.52 0.36 0.72 1.00 AST (cm) 0.75 0.57 0.36 0.69 0.98* 1.00 Yield (t/ ha) 0.54 0.85 0.81 0.43 0.06 0.17 1.00 Fruit length (mm) -0.14 0.32 0.20 -0.13 -0.49 -0.33 0.72 1.00 Fruit breadth (mm) -0.12 0.33 0.22 -0.10 -0.49 -0.34 0.73 1.00* 1.00 Fruit weight (g) 0.08 0.50 0.31 0.08 -0.24 -0.06 0.81 0.96* 0.96* 1.00 T.S.S (0 Brix) 0.31 0.14 0.47 0.07 0.21 0.11 0.05 -0.46 -0.47 -0.48 1.00 Note: * and NS indicate significant and non-significant difference at LSD (P d” 0.05) Table 3. Pearson’s correlation matrix for tree growth and yield attributes Variety Fruit length Fruit diameter Fruit wt. T.S.S (mm) (mm) (g) (° Brix) Van 21.99±0.26 21.49±0.33 5.00±0.07 15.11±0.28 Lambert 22.50±0.08 21.89±0.14 6.44±0.20 11.11±0.44 Steela 21.25±0.28 20.75±0.32 5.70±0.15 13.73±0.50 Bigarreau Noir Grossa 21.54±0.06 20.80±0.10 5.50±0.19 17.30±0.13* Bigarreau Napoleon 25.51±0.14* 25.20±0.08* 10.16±0.46* 12.68±0.36 SEM ± 0.21 0.25 0.23 0.35 LSD (p= 0.05) 0.65 0.75 0.69 1.03 Table 4. Fruit quality attributes of sweet cherry varieties under HDP (3 years pooled data) Srivastava et al J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 14(1) : 43-47, 2019 47 Aglar E, Yildiz K and long L E. 2016. The effect of root stocks and training system on the early performance of ‘0900 Ziraat’ sweet cherry. Notulae Botanicae Horti Agrobotanici Cluj- Napoca. 44 (2):573-578. Anonymous. 2016-17. District wise estimated area production of ma jor hor ticultura l cr ops. Department of Horticulture, J&K, Srinagar India. pp 1-2. Anonymous. 2014. FAOSTAT, Stastics Division r etr ieved 12 th Sep 2017 fr om htt p// www.fao.org. Blazkova, J., and Hlusickova, I., 2007. Results of an orchard trial with new clonal sweet cherry rootstocks established at Holovousny and evaluated in the stage of full cropping. Hortic. Sci., 2:54-64 Cantin Celia, J.P., Pinochet J., Gogorcena Y., Moreno, M. A. 2010. Growth, yield and fruit quality of Van and Star k Hardy Giant sweet cherry cultivars as influenced by grafting on different root stocks. Scientia Hort., 123: 329-335. Fioravanço J C , Czermainski A. B. C. and de Oliveira P. R .D. 2016. Yield efficiency for nine apple cultivars grafted on two rootstocks. Ciência Rural, 46(10): 1701-1706. Guglielmo Costa, Emilio, Beltrame, Zerbinipaola eccher and Pianezzola, Alberto. 1997. High pla nted a pple or cha r d effect on yield performance and fruit quality. Acta Hort. 451:505-508. Kappel K., Fisher-Fleming, B, Hoghe E. 1996. Fruit characteristics and sensory attributes of an ideal sweet cherry. Hort Sci. 31:443-446. Lanauskas J., Uselis N., Kviklys, D., Kvikliene N. and Buskiene L. 2012. Rootstock effect on the performance of sweet cherry cv. Lapins. Hort. Sci., 39:55-60 Manolova V and Kolev K, 2013. Economics results from growing cherry in differ ent level of intensification. Acta Hort. 981:719-723. Milosevic Tomo, Milosevic Nebojsa, Milivojevic Jelena, Glisic Ivan and Nikolic Radmila. 2014. Experience with Mazzard and Colt sweet cherry rootstocks in Serbia which are used for high density planting system under heavy and acidic conditions. Sci. Hort.. 176: 261-270. Moreno, M.A., Adrada, R., Aparicio, J., Betran, J.A. 2001. Performance of Sunburst cherry grafted on differ ent r ootstocks. J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol., 76:167-173. Jackson, J.E. 1989. World-wide development of high density planting in research and practice. Acta Hort. 243: 17-28 Musacchi S, Gagliardi F, Serra S. 2015. New training systems for high density planting of sweet cherry. Horticultural Sci.. 50: 59-67. Radunic M, Jazbec A, Pecina M, Cosic T and Pavicic N. 2011. Growth and yield of the sweet cherry (Prunus avium L) as affected by training system. African J. Bot. 10 (24): 4901- 4906. Sansavini S, LugliS, Grandi M, Gaddoni M,Correale R(2001). Impianto ad altadensita di ciliegi llevati a V: confronto fra portinesti nanizzanti. Rivista di frutticoltura N.3:63-73. Srivastava K.K., Singh D.B., Kumar Dinesh, Singh S R, Sharma O C and Lal S. 2017. Effect of planting densities and varieties on yield and yield associated characters of apple (Malus domestica) on semi-dwarfing rootstock. Indian J. Agri. Sci. 87(5):593-6. Szot I and Meland M.2001 . Influence of root stock on size distribution and fruit quality of sweet cherry cultivars. Int. Agrophysics. 15: 207- 214. Wertheim, S. J., Wagenmaker, P. S., Bootsma, J. H., Groot, M. J. 2001. Orchard system for apple and pear: condition for success. Acta Hort., 557: 209-227 Westwood M N a nd Rober ts A N. 1970. T he relationship between trunk cross sectional area and weight of apple tree. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 95:28-30. Whiting MD, La ng G. a nd Ophar dt, D. 2005. Rootstock and training system affect sweet cherry growth, yield and fruit quality. Hort Sci., 40 (3): 582-586 Zekri M. 2000. Citrus rootstocks affect scion nutrition, fr uit quality, growth, yield and economical return. Fruits, 55: 231–239. REFERENCES (MS Received 16 March 2019, Revised 15 May 2019, Accepted 20 June 2019) Sweet cherry performance under HDP J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 14(1) : 43-47, 2019 00 contents.pdf 01. RMS copy 62(17) Gauva.marketing & phl-pinflesh.pdf 02. RMS copy 63(17) Soft wood grafting – A novel and rapid multiplication technique in Coorg mandarin (Citrus reticulata Blanco).pdf 03. RMS copy 25(18) Evaluation of Solanum species and eggplant cultivated varieties for bacterial wilt resistance.pdf 04. RMS 18(18).pdf 05. RMS_II _24_18.pdf 06. RMS copy 26 (18) Metabolite Paper-edited_04.05.2019.pdf 07. RMS copy 1(19).pdf 08. RMS copy 2(19) Revised Heterosi and combining effects ridge gourd 2019.pdf 09. RMS copy 5(19) Digital Repository - Revised.pdf S1. RMS 45(17) Effect of trichomes in cowpea on infestation by spotted pod borer.pdf S2. RMS copy 65(17) performance of Anthurium (Anthurium andreanum Lind) cultivars in hill zone of.pdf S3. RMS copy 2(18) langsat paper revised.pdf S4. RMS 3(19) Mineral content of red skinned potatoes of Eastern India-REVISED.pdf SPH -JHS Coverpage Jun 2019 Issue 14(1).pdf Page 3 Page 4 SPH -JHS Coverpage Jun 2019 Issue 14(1).pdf Page 1 Page 2