Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10532/3664
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorMestre Moreno, Lucíaes_ES
dc.contributor.authorReig, Gemmaes_ES
dc.contributor.authorBetrán Aso, Jesúses_ES
dc.contributor.authorMoreno Sánchez, María Angeleses_ES
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-08T11:01:15Z-
dc.date.available2017-05-08T11:01:15Z-
dc.date.issued2017es_ES
dc.identifier.citationSpanish Journal Of Agricultural Research, 15(1)en
dc.identifier.issn1695-971X*
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10532/3664-
dc.description.abstractThe agronomic performance and leaf mineral nutrition of the non-melting clingstone peach cv. ‘Catherina’ was evaluated on seven hexaploid plum rootstocks, as well as one Prunus persica seedling. They were assessed over a period of 15 years in a field trial at the Experimental Station of Aula Dei-CSIC (Zaragoza, Spain), located in the Ebro Valley (NE Spain). Growing conditions generated varying levels of tree mortality, the highest with Constantí 1, Monpol and Montizo, whereas all Adesoto, GF 655/2 and PM 105 AD trees survived well. GF 655/2 and P. Soto 67 AD proved to be the most dwarfing rootstocks, while Constantí 1 and Monpol were the most invigorating and generated greater cumulative yields. However, the highest yield efficiency was recorded on GF 655/2 and Montizo, although they did not differ significantly from Adesoto and P. Soto 67 AD. The highest average values for fruit weight were observed on PM 105 AD and the lowest on GF 655/2, but they did not differ significantly from the rest of the rootstocks. The highest average values for the soluble solids content was observed on the Pollizo rootstocks Adesoto and PM 105 AD, followed by P. Soto 67 AD. All rootstocks induced N deficiency, with the exception of Constantí 1, GF 655/2 and Montizo, and iron deficiency, except PM 105 AD. The invigorating rootstock Constantí 1 seems to induce higher SPAD values. According to the ΣDOP index, Montizo presented the most suitable balanced nutritional index, but it did not differ significantly from the rest of the rootstocks except GF 655/2 and P. Soto 67 ADen
dc.language.isoenes_ES
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/es/*
dc.subject.otherhortofruticulturaes_ES
dc.titleInfluence of plum rootstocks on agronomic performance, leaf mineral nutrition and fruit quality of ‘Catherina’ peach cultivar in heavy-calcareous soil conditionsen
dc.typeJournal Contribution*
dc.bibliographicCitation.volume15(1)es_ES
dc.subject.agrovocFruticulturaes
dc.subject.agrovocPortainjertoses
dc.subject.agrovocClorosises
dc.description.statusPublishedes_ES
dc.type.refereedNon-Refereedes_ES
dc.type.specifiedArticlees_ES
dc.bibliographicCitation.titleSpanish Journal Of Agricultural Researchen
dc.relation.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2017151-9950es_ES
Appears in Collections:[DOCIART] Artículos científicos, técnicos y divulgativos

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
2017_085.pdf350,86 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons