Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Vol. 18 No. 1 (2024)

Fruits section

Rootstock/scion compatibility effects on yield components in avocado cv. Hass in three locations in Colombia

https://doi.org/10.17584/rcch.2024v18i1.17074

Published 2024-01-01

  • Oscar de Jesús Córdoba-Gaona
    • ,
  • Juan David Hernández-Arredondo
    • ,
  • Ruby Alejandra Loaiza-Ruíz
    • ,
  • Carlos Felipe Barrera-Sánchez
    • ,
  • Lucas Esteban Cano-Gallego

Oscar de Jesús Córdoba-Gaona
Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Sede Medellín, Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias, Departamento de Ciencias Agronómicas, Medellin (Colombia)

Juan David Hernández-Arredondo
Corporación Colombiana de Investigación Agropecuaria – Agrosavia, Centro de Investigación El Nus, San Jose del Nus (Colombia)

Ruby Alejandra Loaiza-Ruíz
Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Sede Medellín, Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias, Departamento de Ciencias Agronómicas, Medellin (Colombia)

Carlos Felipe Barrera-Sánchez
Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Sede Medellín, Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias, Departamento de Ciencias Agronómicas, Medellin (Colombia)

Lucas Esteban Cano-Gallego
Corporación Colombiana de Investigación Agropecuaria – Agrosavia, Centro de Investigación La Selva, Rionegro (Colombia)

Avocado rootstock/scion incompatibility. Photo: O.J. Córdoba-Gaona

Abstract

This work aimed to evaluate the effects of stem morphological alterations resulting from grafting, defined as compatibility and incompatibility between the rootstock and scion, on fruit yield and quality of avocado cv. Hass in three producing areas in Colombia (Rionegro, El Peñol and Anserma) over two consecutive years. Avocado orchards were established by seedlings obtained by grafting Hass scions upon creole rootstock seedlings. Avocado grafted plants were propagated with tip grafting, with a scion bud of cv. Hass (standard procedure). A split-plot design with a blocking factor per locality was used. Main plot corresponded to the harvest season, and subplots to rootstock/scion degree of compatibility. Results showed that compatibility treatments did not significantly affect yield (kg/tree) and fruit number per tree. In 2020, main harvest presented the highest yield (48.05 kg/tree) and fruit number (321 fruits/tree), while in 2021, secondary harvest presented the lowest yield (7.31 kg/tree) and the fruit number (52 fruits/tree). Main harvests contributed with 71.4% for total average production of each year, while secondary harvests completed the fruit yield with 28.6%. Finally, rootstock/scion compatibility did not affect fruit number, fruit caliber distribution, and yield per tree, while yield was affected solely by harvest season.

Keywords

Graft incompatibility, Fruit quality, Harvest season, Main harvest, Secondary harvest

XML PDF

References

  1. Adhikari, P.B., Q. Xu, and M. Notaguchi. 2022. Compatible graft establishment in fruit trees and its potential markers. Agronomy 12(8), 1981. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12081981
  2. Agronet. 2022. Área, producción y rendimiento nacional por cultivo: aguacate (database). https://www.agronet.gov.co/estadistica/Paginas/home.aspx?cod=1; consulted: July, 2022.
  3. Balducci, F.L., L. Capriotti, L. Mazzoni, A. Medori, B. Albanesi, B. Giovanni, F. Giampieri, B. Mezzetti, and F. Capocasa. 2019. The rootstock effects on vigor, production, and fruit quality in sweet cherry (Prunus avium L.). J. Berry Res. 9(2), 249-265. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3233/JBR-180345
  4. Baron, D., A.C.E. Amaro, A. Pina, A., and G. Ferreira. 2019. An overview of grafting re-establishment in woody fruit species. Sci. Hortic. 243, 84-91. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2018.08.012
  5. Bates, D., M. Mächler, B. Bolker, and S. Walker. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Soft. 67(1), 1-48. Doi: https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
  6. Belda, M., E. Holtanová, T. Halenka, and J. Kalvová. 2014. Climate classification revisited: from Köppen to Trewartha. Clim. Res. 59(1), 1-13. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3354/cr01204
  7. Berdeja-Arbeu, R., L. Aguilar-Méndez, D. Moreno-Velázquez, G. Vázquez-Huerta, A. Ibáñez-Martínez, and R. Ontiveros-Capurata. 2016. Calidad de fruta de lima 'Persa' en diferentes portainjertos en Veracruz, México. Acta Agr. Pec. 2(1), 17-22.
  8. Cano-Gallego, L.E., J.A. Bernal-Estrada, J.D. Hernández-Arredondo, G.A. Correa-Londoño, and O.J. Córdoba-Gaona. 2023. Graft compatibility effects on cv. Hass avocado fruit growth. Ciênc. Agrotec. 47, e014022. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-7054202347014022
  9. Cano-Gallego, L.E., J.A. Bernal-Estrada, J.D. Hernández-Arredondo, G.A. Correa-Londoño, and O.J. Córdoba-Gaona. 2024. Photosynthetic activity in avocado leaf ontogeny as a result of compatibility rootstock/scion in three locations in Colombia. Rev. Ceres 71, e71003. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-737x2024710003
  10. Cañas-Gutiérrez, G.P., L.F. Galindo-López, R. Arango-Isaza, and C.I. Saldamando-Benjumea. 2015. Diversidad genética de cultivares de aguacate (Persea americana Mill.) en Antioquia, Colombia. Agron. Mesoam. 26(1), 129-143. Doi: https://doi.org/10.15517/am.v26i1.16936
  11. Cañas-Gutiérrez, G.P., S. Sepulveda-Ortega, F. López-Hernández, A.A. Navas-Arboleda, and A.J. Cortés. 2022. Inheritance of yield components and morphological traits in avocado cv. Hass from “Criollo” “Elite Trees” via half-sib seedling rootstocks. Front. Plant Sci. 13, 843099. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.843099
  12. CCA, Comisión Del Codex Alimentarius. 2011. Observaciones presentadas en respuesta al proyecto de norma para el aguacate (revisión de la Norma CODEX STAN 197-1995) por: Costa Rica, Jamaica, Kenia, Unión Europea, Nueva Zelanda y Estados Unidos de América. Mexico. CX/FFV 11/16/5Add.1. FAO; WHO, Rome.
  13. De Mendiburu, F. 2021. Agricolae: statistical procedures for agricultural research. R package (1.3-5). In: https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/agricolae/index.html; consulted: July, 2022.
  14. Davies, Jr., F.T., R.L. Genéve, and S.B. Wilson. 2018. Hartmann and Kester's plant propagation: principles and practice. 9th ed. American Society for Horticultural Science, New York, NY. Doi: https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI535bkrev-17
  15. Delmelle, P., S. Opfergelt, J.-T. Cornelis, and C.-L. Ping. 2015. Volcanic soils. pp. 1253-1264. In: Sigurdsson, H. (ed.). The encyclopedia of volcanoes. 2nd ed. Academic Press. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-385938-9.00072-9
  16. Dixon, J., T.A. Elmsly, E.M. Dixon, and A.J. Mandemaker. 2007. ‘Hass' avocado tree phenology 2004-2008 in the Western Bay of Plenty. N. Z. Avocado Growers Assoc. Ann. Res. Rep. 7, 21-29.
  17. Dubey, A.K., R.M. Sharma, Deepak, and A. Kumar. 2021. Long term performance of mango varieties on five polyembryonic rootstocks under subtropical conditions: Effect on vigour, yield, fruit quality and nutrient acquisition. Sci. Hortic. 280, 109944. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2021.109944
  18. FAO. 2022. Faostat Crops and livestock products. In: http://www.fao.org/faostat/es/#data/QC/visualize; consulted: June, 2022.
  19. Gainza, F., I. Opazo, and C. Muñoz. 2015. Graft incompatibility in plants: metabolic changes during formation and establishment of the rootstock/scion union with emphasis on Prunus species. Chilean J. Agric. Res. 75(Supp. 1), 28-34. Doi: https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-58392015000300004
  20. García-Martínez R., J.I. Cortés-Flores, A. López-Jiménez, J.D. Etchevers-Barra, J.A. Carrillo-Salazar, and C. Saucedo-Veloz. 2021. Rendimiento, calidad y comportamiento poscosecha de frutos de aguacate ‘Hass’ de huertos con diferente fertilización. Rev. Mex. Cienc. Agric. 12(2), 205-218. Doi: https://doi.org/10.29312/remexca.v12i2.2232
  21. Garner, L.C., and C.J. Lovatt. 2016. Physiological factors affecting flower and fruit abscission of ‘Hass’ avocado. Sci. Hortic. 199, 32-40. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2015.12.009
  22. Gazit, A. and G. Ish-Am. 2007. Stingless bees can serve as efficient avocado pollinators. pp. 111-112. In: 9th International Pollination Symposium on Plant-Pollination Relationships-Diversity in Acton: Program and Abstracts. Iowa State University, Ames, IA.
  23. Giorgi, M., F. Capocasa, J. Scalzo, G. Murri, M. Battino, and B. Mezzetti. 2005. The rootstock effects on plant adaptability, production, fruit quality, and nutrition in the peach (cv. ‘Suncrest’). Sci. Hortic. 107(1), 36-42. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2005.06.003
  24. Goldschmidt, E.E. 2014. Plant grafting: new mechanisms, evolutionary implications. Front. Plant Sci. 5, 727. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2014.00727
  25. Gullo, G., A. Motisi, R. Zappia, A. Dattola, J. Diamanti, and B. Mezzetti. 2014. Rootstock and fruit canopy position affect peach [Prunus persica (L.) Batsch] (cv. Rich May) plant productivity and fruit sensorial and nutritional quality. Food Chem. 153, 234-242. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2013.12.056
  26. Habibi, F., T. Liu, K. Folta, and A. Sarkhosh. 2022. Physiological, biochemical, and molecular aspects of grafting in fruit trees. Hort. Res. 9, uhac032. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/hr/uhac032
  27. King, S.R., A.R. Davis, X. Zhang, and K. Crosby. 2010. Genetics, breeding and selection of rootstocks for Solanaceae and Cucurbitaceae. Sci. Hortic. 127(2), 106-111. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2010.08.001
  28. Kuznetsova, A., P.B. Brockhoff, and R.H.B. Christensen. 2017. lmerTest Package: tests in linear mixed effects models. J. Stat. Soft. 82(13), 1-26. Doi: https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13
  29. Lazare, S., A. Haberman, U. Yermiyahu, R. Erel, E. Simenski, and A. Dag. 2020. Avocado rootstock influences scion leaf mineral content. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 66(10), 1399-1409. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/03650340.2019.1672163
  30. Lobell, D.B., K.N. Cahill, and C.B. Field. 2007. Historical effects of temperature and precipitation on California crop yields. Clim. Change 81(2), 187-203. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9141-3
  31. Loupit, G. and S.J. Cookson. 2020. Identifying molecular markers of successful graft union formation and compatibility. Front. Plant Sci. 11, 610352, Doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.610352
  32. Nawaz, M.A., M. Imtiaz, Q. Kong, F. Cheng, W. Ahmed, Y. Huang, and Z. Bie. 2016. Grafting: a technique to modify ion accumulation in horticultural crops. Front. Plant Sci. 7, 221552. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.01457
  33. Oka, Y., R. Offenbach, and S. Pivonia. 2004. Pepper rootstock graft compatibility and response to Meloidogyne javanica and M. incognita. J. Nematol. 36(2), 137-141. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2620767/
  34. Okimura, M., S. Matsuo, K. Arai, and S. Okitsu. 1986. Influences of soil temperature on the growth of fruit vegetable grafted on different rootstocks. Bul. Natl. Res. Inst. Veg. Ornam. Plants Tea 9, 43-58. https://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=JP880162888
  35. Pattemore, D.E., M.N. Buxton, B.T. Cutting, H.M. McBrydie, R.M. Goodwin, and A. Dag. 2018. Low overnight temperatures delay ‘Hass’ avocado (Persea americana) female flower opening, leading to nocturnal flowering. J. Pollinat. Ecol. 23, 127-135. Doi: https://doi.org/10.26786/1920-7603(2018)12
  36. Pereira, I.S., J.C. Fachinello, L.E.C. Antunes, Â.D. Campos, and A. Pina. 2014. Incompatibilidade de enxertia em Prunus. Ciênc. Rural 44(9), 1519-1526. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-8478cr20131074
  37. R Core Team. 2021. The R Project for Statistical Computing. In: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna.
  38. Raddatz-Mota, D., O. Franco-Mora, J.A. Mendoza-Espinoza, L.L. Rodríguez-Verástegui, F.D. de León-Sánchez, and F. Rivera-Cabrera. 2019. Effect of different rootstocks on Persian lime (Citrus latifolia T.) postharvest quality. Sci. Hortic. 257, 108716. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2019.108716
  39. Ramírez-Gil, J.G. M.E. Cobos, D. Jiménez-Gacía, J.G. Morales-Osorio, and A.T. Peterson. 2019. Current and potential future distributions of Hass avocados in the face of climate change across the Americas. Crop Pasture Sci. 70(8), 694-708. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1071/CP19094
  40. Rebolledo, A. and M.A. Romero. 2011. Avances en investigación sobre el comportamiento productivo del aguacate (Persea americana Mill.) bajo condiciones subtropicales. Cienc. Tecnol. Agropecuaria 12(2), 113-120. Doi: https://doi.org/10.21930/rcta.vol12_num2_art:220
  41. Reig, G., A. Salazar, O. Zarrouk, C.F. Forcada, J. Val, and M.Á. Moreno. 2019. Long-term graft compatibility study of peach-almond hybrid and plum based rootstocks budded with European and Japanese plums. Sci. Hortic. 243, 392-400. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2018.08.038
  42. Reig, G., O. Zarrouk, C.F. Forcada, and M.Á. Moreno. 2018. Anatomical graft compatibility study between apricot cultivars and different plum based rootstocks. Sci. Hortic. 237, 67-73. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2018.03.035
  43. Rivero, R.M., J.M. Ruiz, and L. Romero. 2003. Role of grafting in horticultural plants under stress conditions. Food Agri. Environ. 1(1), 70-74.
  44. Rubio, M., P. Martínez-Gómez, J. Pinochet, and F. Dicenta. 2008. Evaluation of resistance to sharka (Plum pox virus) of several Prunus rootstocks. Plant Breed. 124(1), 67-70. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0523.2004.01068.x
  45. Salazar-García, S., I.J.L. González-Durán, and L.M. Tapia-Vargas. 2011. Influencia del clima, humedad del suelo y época de floración sobre la biomasa y composición nutrimental de frutos de aguacate ‘Hass’ en Michoacán, México. Rev. Chapingo Ser. Hortic. 17(2), 183-194. Doi: https://doi.org/10.5154/r.rchsh.2011.17.020
  46. Santos, H.G., P.K.T. Jacomine, L.H.C. Anjos, V.Á. Oliveira, J.F. Lumbreras, M.R. Coelho, J.A. Almeida, J.C. Araújo-Filho, J.B. Oliveira, and T.J.F. Cunha. 2018. Sistema brasileiro de classificação de solos. 5.ed. rev. e ampl. Embrapa, Brasilia.
  47. Seid, H., A. Gebrekirstos, K. Hadgu, M. Mokria, N. Hagazi, and W. Dubale. 2023. Adaptation and growth performance of five avocado cultivars in Ethiopia. Heliyon 9(12), e23037. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e23037
  48. Shivran, M., N. Sharma, A.K. Dubey, S.K. Singh, N. Sharma, V. Muthusamy, M. Jain, B.P. Singh, N. Singh, N. Kumar, N. Singh, and S.S. Sharma. 2023. Scion/rootstock interaction studies for quality traits in mango (Mangifera indica L.) varieties. Agronomy 13(1), 204. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13010204
  49. Tamayo-Vélez, A.J., J.A. Bernal-Estrada, C.A. Díaz-Díez, L.E. Cano-Gallego, O.J. Córdoba-Gaona. 2022. Effect of rootstock/scion compatibility on fruit and foliar nutrient composition in avocado (Persea americana Mill.) cv. Hass in Colombia. Rev. Colomb. Cienc. Hortic. 16(3), e14833. Doi: https://doi.org/10.17584/rcch.2022v16i3.14833
  50. Tedesco, S., P. Fevereiro, F. Kragler, and Pina, A. 2022. Plant grafting and graft incompatibility: a review from the grapevine perspective. Sci. Hortic. 299, 111019. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2022.111019
  51. Traka-Mavrona, E., M. Koutsika-Sotiriou, and T. Pritsa. 2000. Response of squash (Cucurbita spp.) as rootstock for melon (Cucumis melo L.). Sci. Hortic. 83(3-4), 353-362. Doi: Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4238(99)00088-6
  52. Wolstenholme, B.N. 2013. Ecology: climate and soils. pp. 86-117. In: Schaffer, B., B.N. Wolstenholme, and A.W. Whiley (eds.). The avocado: botany, production and uses. 2nd ed. CABI, London.
  53. Yilmaz, B., B. Çimen, M. Uysal Kamiloğlu, M. İncesu, T. Yeşiloğlu, and M. Yılmaz. 2014. Different interstock lengths of Minneola Tanjelo on photosynthetic parameters and fruit yield of Star Ruby grapefruit. Turk Tarim Gida Bilim Teknol. Derg. 2(4), 197-202. Doi: https://doi.org/10.24925/turjaf.v2i4.197-202.133
  54. Yeşiloğlu, T., B. Yılmaz, B. Çimen, and M. İncesu. 2014. Influences of rootstocks on fruit quality of ‘Henderson’ grapefruit. Turk Tarim Gida Bilim Teknol. Derg. (Spe. Iss.1), 1322-1325.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Most read articles by the same author(s)

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.