Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative Evaluation of Pear Performances Under High- and Low-Density Planting Systems cv. ‘Santa Maria’

  • Original Article / Originalbeitrag
  • Published:
Erwerbs-Obstbau Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The present study was carried out to determine the effect of rootstocks and planting densities on the performances of ‘Santa Maria’ pear cultivar in 2020–2021. With the exception of acidity, all parameters studied were significantly influenced by rootstocks. The highest fruit weight was obtained from Quince A (QA, 184.92 g), and the lowest was in Quince MC (MC, 143.34 g) and pear seedling (144.60 g). In the study, significant differences were determined for all morphological, pomological, fruit chemical, and color characteristics; also, significant results were obtained in yield and yield efficiency cases under both high-density planting (HDP) and low-density planting (LDP) systems of pear. Trunk diameter, tree height, trunk cross-sectional area (TCSA), leaf area, hue° and yield per crown volume were significantly higher under LDP systems in which seedlings and clonal rootstocks of pear were used. Trunk diameter, tree height, trunk cross-sectional area, leaf area, hue° and yield per crown volume were significantly higher under LDP systems, in which seedlings and clonal rootstocks of pear, remained all characteristics showed significantly better performances under the HDP system that quince rootstocks were used. The yield was higher in the quince rootstocks (27,376.40 kg ha−1) than in the pears (10,247.93 kg ha−1). The highest fruit number (69.18 pieces per tree), yield per tree (10.81 kg per tree), and yield per trunk cross-sectional area (0.99 kg cm−2) was on quince rootstocks, while the highest yield per crown volume was observed on pear rootstocks (45.03 kg m−3). In conclusion, yield and yield efficiency, fruit color characteristics, and fruit physical and chemical traits of ‘Santa Maria’ pear cultivar under HDP that used quince rootstocks were observed to be better. However, tree morphological performance was recorded to be better under LDP that used pear clonal rootstocks.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • FAOSTAT (2022) http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=567#ancor. Accessed 20 May 2022

  • Akcay ME, Buyukyilmaz M, Burak M (2009) Marmara Bölgesi için ümitvar armut çeşitleri-IV. Bahçe 38(1):1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Askari-Khorosgani O, Jafarpour M, Hadad MM, Pessarakli M (2019) Fruit yield and quality characteristics of “Shahmiveh” pear cultivar grafted on six rootstocks. J Plant Nutr 42(4):323–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/01904167.2018.1555592

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bound SA (2021) Managing crop load in European pear (Pyrus communis L.) A review. Agriculture 11(7):637. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11070637

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cabrera D, Rodriguez P, Zoppolo R (2015) Evaluation of quince and selected ‘Farold®’ pear rootstocks for commercial ‘Williams B.C.’ production in Uruguay. Acta Hortic 1094:159–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carrera M, Espiau MT, Gomez-Aparisi J (2005) Pear rootstock trial: behavior of ‘Conference’ and ‘Doyenné du Comice’ on two quince and five OHxF selections. Acta Hortic 671:481–484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Close DC, Bound SA (2017) Advances in understanding apple tree growth: The manipulation of tree growth and development. In: Evans K (ed) Achieving sustainable cultivation of apples. Burleigh Dodds Science, Cambridge, pp 1–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Coban N, Ozturk A (2022) Determination of graft compatibility of pear cultivars grafted on different rootstocks by carbohydrate analyses. Erwerbs-Obstbau 64(2):229–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10341-021-00630-1

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Costa G, Botton A, Vizzotto G (2019) Fruit thinning: Advances and trends. Hortic Rev 46:185–226

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalzochio OÂ, Silvestre WP, Pauletti GF (2021) Effect of the application of prohexadione-calcium on the growth of ‘Packhams Triumph’ and ‘Hosui’ pears (Pyrus communis L.). Res Soc Dev 10(8):e3110816801. https://doi.org/10.33448/rsd-v10i8.16801

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dondini L, Sansavini S (2012) European pear. In: Badanes ML, Byrne DH (eds) Fruit breeding. Handbook of Plant Breeding, vol 8. Springer, New York, pp 363–413

    Google Scholar 

  • Einhorn TC (2021) A review of recent Pyrus, Cydonia and Amelanchier rootstock selections for high-density pear plantings. Acta Hortic 1303:185–196. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2021.1303.27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engin K (2011) OHF 333 ve quince A anaçları üzerine aşılı ‘Santa Maria’ ve ‘Deveci’ armut çeşitlerinde farklı terbiye sistemlerinin vejetatif ve generatif gelişim üzerine etkisi. (Master’s thesis, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü), Gaziosmanpasa Üniversitesi. 1–37

  • Erdem H, Ozturk B (2012) Yapraktan uygulanan çinko’nun BA29 anacı üzerine aşılı armut çeşitlerinin verimi, mineral element içeriği ve biyokimyasal özellikleri üzerine etkisi. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi 7(1):93–106

    Google Scholar 

  • Erturk Y, Güleryüz M, Erdoğan UG (2009) Quince A üzerine aşılı bazı armut çeşitlerinin İspir (Yukarı Çoruh Havzası) koşullarındaki verim ve gelişme durumlarının belirlenmesi. Bahçe 38(1):11–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Francescatto P, Pazzin D, Gazolla Nero A, Fachinello J, Giacobbo C (2014) Evaluation of graft compatibility between quince rootstocks and pear scions. Acta Hortic 872:253–259

    Google Scholar 

  • Hancock JF, Lobos GA (2008) Pears. In: Hancock JF (ed) Temperate fruit crop breeding: germplasm to genomics. Springer, New York, pp 299–335 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6907-9_10

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ikinci A (2017) The effect of different pear rootstocks on the performance of pear cultivars grown in semi-arid climate and high calcareous soil conditions. Asian J Soil Sci Plant Nutr 2(1):1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/0717-6287-47-71

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ikinci A, Bolat İ, Ercisli S, Esitken A (2016) Response of yield, growth and iron deficiency chlorosis of ‘Santa Maria’ pear trees on four rootstocks. Not Bot Horti Agrobo 44(2):563–567. https://doi.org/10.15835/nbha44210501

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson JE (2003) Biology of apples and pears. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jovanovic M, Milosevic T, Milošević N, Ercişli S, Glišić I, Paunović G, Ilić R (2022) Tree growth, productivity, and fruit quality attributes of pear grown under a high-density planting system on heavy soil. A case study. Erwerbs-Obstbau. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10341-022-00671-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kosina J (2003) Evaluation of pear rootstocks in an orchard. Hortic Sci 30(2):56–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kucuker E, Aglar E (2021) The effect of the different training systems on yield and vegetative growth of “Santa Maria” and “Deveci” pear cultivars. YYU J Agr Sci 31(4):870–875. https://doi.org/10.29133/yyutbd.940463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ladaniya MS, Marathe RA, Murkute AA, Huchche AD, Das AK, George A, Kolwadkar J (2021) Response of ‘Nagpur mandarin’ (Citrus reticulata Blanco) to high density planting systems. Sci Rep 11(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-89221-4

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lepaja L, Kullaj E, Lepaja K, Shehaj M, Zajmi A (2014) Fruit quality parameters of five pear cultivars in western Kosovo. Agric Food 2:245–250

    Google Scholar 

  • Lepsis J, Drudze I (2011) Evaluation of seven pear rootstocks in Latvia. Acta Hortic 903:457–462. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2011.903.62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maas F (2008) Evaluation of Pyrus and quince rootstocks for high density pear orchards. Acta Hortic 800:599–609. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2008.800.80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Massai R, Loreti F, Fei C (2008) Growth and yield of ‘Conference’ pears grafted on quince and pear rootstocks. Acta Hortic 800:617–624. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2008.800.82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meland M, Froynes O, Aksic MF, Maas F (2021) Performance of ‘Celina’, ‘Ingeborg’, and ‘Kristina’ pear cultivars on quince rootstocks growing in a Nordic climate. In: XIII International Pear Symposium, vol 1303, pp 197–204 https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2021.1303.28

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mertoglu K, Evrenosoğlu Y (2019) Bazı Elma ve Armut Çeşitlerinde Fitokimyasal Özelliklerin Belirlenmesi. Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi 14(1):11–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Musacchi S (2008) Training systems and soil management for Southern European pear orchards. In: XXVII International Horticultural Congress-IHC2006: International Symposium on Enhancing Economic and Environmental, vol 772, pp 447–457

    Google Scholar 

  • Musacchi S, Iglesias I, Neri D (2021) Training systems and sustainable orchard management for European pear (Pyrus communis L.) in the Mediterranean area: A review. Agronomy 11(9):1765

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ozcagiran R, Unal A, Ozeker E, Isfendiyaroglu M (2005) Pear. Temperate fruit trees, pome fruits. Ege Univ Agri Fac Pub 556(2):73–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Ozturk A (2021a) The effects of different rootstocks on the graft success and Stion development of some pear cultivars. Int J Fruit Sci 21(1):932–944

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozturk A (2021b) Farklı Anaçlar Üzerine Aşılı ‘Deveci’Armudunun Büyüme ve Meyve Kalite Özellikleri. Bağbahçe Bilim Dergisi 8(3):179–187

    Google Scholar 

  • Ozturk A, Cemek B, Demirsoy H, Kuçuktopcu E (2019) Modelling of the leaf area for various pear cultivars using neuro computing approaches. Span J Agric Res 17(4):e206–e206. https://doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2019174-14675

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozturk A, Faizi ZA, Kurt T (2022) Performance of some standard quince varieties under ecological conditions of Bafra, Samsun. Yuzuncu Yıl Univ J Agric Sci 32(2):320–330. https://doi.org/10.29133/yyutbd.1058908

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pasa MDS, Fachinello JC, Schmitz JD, Souza ALKD, Franceschi ÉD (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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pasa MDS, Schmitz JD, Rosa Júnior HFD, Souza ALKD, Malgarim MB, Mello-Farias PCD (2020) Performance of ‘Williams’ pear grafted onto three rootstocks. Rev Ceres 67:133–136. https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-737X202067020006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pasa MS, Fachinello JC, Rosa Júnior HF, Franceschi E, Schmitz JD, Souza ALK (2015) Performance of ‘Rocha’ and ‘Santa Maria’ pear as affected by planting density. Pesq agropec bras 50:126–131. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-204X2015000200004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rom RC, Carlson RF (1987) Rootstocks for fruit crops (No. 634.0432 R6)

    Google Scholar 

  • Sansavini S, Musacchi S (2002) European pear orchard design and HDP management: a review. In: VIII International Symposium on Pear, vol 596, pp 589–601 https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2002.596.103

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sansavini S, Ancarani V, Neri D (2007) Overview of intensive pear culture: planting density, rootstocks, orchard management, soil-water relations and fruit quality. In: X International Pear Symposium, vol 800, pp 35–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern RA, Doron I (2009) Performance of ‘Coscia’ pear (Pyrus communis) on nine rootstocks in the north of Israel. Sci Hortic 119(3):252–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sugar D, Basile SR (2011) Performance of ‘Comice’ Pear on quince rootstocks in Oregon, USA. Acta Hortic 909:215–218. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2011.909.23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • TSI (2022) Türkiye Statistic Institute. https://biruni.tuik.gov.tr/medas/?locale=tr. Accessed 15 May 2022

  • TSMS (2022) Turkısh state meteorological service. https://www.mgm.gov.tr/tahmin/il-ve-ilceler.aspx?m=SAMSUN#/. Accessed: 25 May 2022

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uysal E, Saglam MT, Büyükyılmaz M (2016) Deveci armut çeşidinde farklı azot uygulamalarının verim ve bazı kalite özellikleri üzerine etkisi. Bache 44(1):1–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Webster AD (2002) Breeding and selection of apple and pear rootstocks. In: XXVI International Horticultural Congress: Genetics and Breeding of Tree Fruits and Nuts, vol 622, pp 499–512 https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2003.622.55

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang J, Serra S, Leisso RS, Musacchi S (2016) Effect of light microclimate on the quality of ‘d’Anjou’ pears in mature open center tree architecture. Biosyst Eng 141:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2015.11.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the dean and faculty of agriculture for providing the facilities to carry out the research work.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Horticulture Department, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Ondokuz Mayis, Samsun, Türkiye

    Ahmet Ozturk

  2. Horticulture Department, Institute of Post-graduate, University of Ondokuz Mayis, Samsun, Türkiye

    Zaki Ahmad Faizi

Authors
  1. Ahmet Ozturk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zaki Ahmad Faizi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Research conception and design, material preparation, draft manuscript writing, controlling and corrections were done by [Ahmet OZTURK]. [Zaki Ahmad FAIZI] carried out data collection, data analysis, and wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ahmet Ozturk.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

A. Ozturk and Z.A. Faizi declare that they have no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature oder sein Lizenzgeber hält die ausschließlichen Nutzungsrechte an diesem Artikel kraft eines Verlagsvertrags mit dem/den Autor*in(nen) oder anderen Rechteinhaber*in(nen); die Selbstarchivierung der akzeptierten Manuskriptversion dieses Artikels durch Autor*in(nen) unterliegt ausschließlich den Bedingungen dieses Verlagsvertrags und dem geltenden Recht.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ozturk, A., Faizi, Z.A. Comparative Evaluation of Pear Performances Under High- and Low-Density Planting Systems cv. ‘Santa Maria’. Erwerbs-Obstbau 65, 667–675 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10341-022-00741-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10341-022-00741-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation