EFFECT OF CERTATN FALL TREATMENTS
UN PEACH AND APPLE NUPSERY TREES

Thesis for the chrcc of M. 3.

Walter Toenjes
1928

1T; 1
"A 'U’i
19‘}. fr“, E .4

5%

 

w? .,
. x Lva.
. .3: . .
,. 5?...

{ti

m

 

EFFECT OF ERTAIN FALL TLEATKENTS
ON PEACH AKD APPLE
NURSERY TREES.

THESIS

Submitted to the Faculty of the Hichigan State
College of Agriculture and Applied Sci-
ence in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree
of master of Science.

by

Walter Toenjes
June I928—

 

THESIS

ngRODUCTION

 

The production of a high percentage of vigorous
A-grade trees is one of the nurseryman's most important
problems. Such trees produced on desirable stocks not
only are in greater demand at higher prices, but they
are preferable from the orchardist’s point of view.

Many nurserymen are attempting to produce trees of this
character through the liberal use of green manuring
crops and of nitrogenous fertilizers applied in the
spring, and by employing vigorous growing stocks. They
have had partial success, but are constantly seeking
further improvement. Hence, any other applicable cultural
practices that could be successfully employed would be
of considerable value to the nurseryman and the fruit
grower. In this investigation various practices involv-
ing fall fertilization, partial defoliation, and partial
root pruning were employed in an effort to produce apple
and peach trees, which, when taken from the nursery and

transplanted to the orchard would make a more rapid and

total growth.

‘5’]
fl 0

393-9

As

flT‘

gavmw or LITERATURE

A review of the literature dealing with the
carbohydrate-nitrogen ratio in plants shows rather
conclusively that certain plant responses are definite-
ly related to the relative amounts of carbohydrates
and nitrogen found in their tissues. Fisher (3) ob-
served that when N was abundant in respect to carbo-
hydrates, vegetative responses were predominant, while
if abundant carbohydrates were accompanied by an
inadequate N supply for vegetative activity, reproduc-
tion took place. These findings agree closely with the
more extensive work of Kraus and Kraybill (ll) who
recognized four classes into which a plant could be
placed, based on the relative amounts of its available
carbohydrates and H. Closely following these findings
GurJar (4) published similar results for the turnip,
tomato, and radish.

Since the work on carbohydrate-nitrogen relations
by Kraus and Kraybill, other investigators have sought
the application of this theory to woody plants and have
found that by changing the proportion of carbohydrates
and N’within the plant by various practices, they could
obtain fairly definite responses. Harvey (5) found that

defoliation of apple spurs in June seriously restricted

 

the differentiation of fruit buds presumably by lower-

ing the ratio of carbohydrates to N. His chemical

analyses showed that defoliation caused a relative
increase of reducing sugars and soluble nitrogen, and

a decrease of total carbohydrates in spurs, which changes
are commonly associated with increased vegetative activity.
Hooker (8) noticed that fruit-bearing spurs that developed
leaf buds had a low starch and a high nitrogen content,
while the barren spurs contained a low starch and a low
nitrogen content. Harvey (6) in a later work, on the
growth of apple shoots, showed that partial defoliation
accelerated or retarded growth, according to the stage

of development of the shoot, and that defoliation very
early in the season retarded the growth.

Murneek (14) observed that the different degrees
of defoliation of apple spurs in April, had a direct
effect upon the setting of fruit, and upon changing the
c/N ratio largely by decreasing the amount of nitrogen.

That this ratio may also be modified by early fall
defoliation seems plausible. Thomas (20) found that the
N content of the woody tissue remained constant during
the growing season, but that the N begins to be trans-
located from the leaves to the branches in September,
increasing their content during the fall months. This
is also substantiated by the work of Richter (15) who

observed a rapid translocation of N from the leaves to
the branches during September and October in the case

of apple and pear trees. However, Wehmer (22) Schulze
and Schutz (18) are not convinced that the mineral sub-
stances are translocated from the leaves to the branches.
Lincoln (13) who studied the loss of N from pear leaves,
takes the point of view that the migration of N from the
leaves actually fulfills a need or satisfies a deficiency
in the tree and that the amount of N returning to the
tree is determined by this deficiency. From his data he
concludes that the persisting parts of the tree were able
to hold only about half of the N that was absorbed from
the soil.

It is quite generally accepted that the N content
of trees can be increased with nitrogenous fertilizers
under certain conditions. Becker (10) feund that the
spurs of 16-year-old York trees fertilized in September,
of their off year, showed a slightly higher K content in
December than did the check trees. In another report
(9) he presents data showing an increase in N in spurs
of 7-yearwold Jenathan and Ben Davis trees in may, follow-
ing an application of a nitrogenous fertilizer in march.
He‘was also able to increase the N in spurs of 20-year-
old York trees in March by applying nitrate of soda the

previous September.

Schrader and Auchter (17) who applied nitrogenous
fertilizers to 20-year-old Ybrk trees growing in sod,
either in the spring or fall, noted good growth responses
the following spring and found a higher K content in
spurs. They state "bearing apple trees which are growing
poorly from a lack of a H supply will respond with
increased feliage color, terminal growth, spur growth
and trunk circumference from applications of either
nitrate of soda or ammonium sulphate----."

Alderman (1) states, ---" trees respond differently
to fertilizers under different cultural treatments. So
great is the difference that under cultivation they may
make no response whatever, while under sod treatment
they may be remarkably stimulated by fertilization."
Tukey (21), Hedrick and Anthony (7) and Anthony (2)
hold the same views.

Roberts (16) writes, only----" a small amount of
plant food is removed from the soil by the growth of
nursery stock,---- any ordinary soil, cultivated as
nursery lands are, should easily furnish in three years,
ten times the plant food used by the tree." Lewis (12)
says, "In general, under normal conditions, orchards
from one to five years of age in Oregon do not need
any fertilizer. If good stock has been chosen and proper
methods of pruning, tillage and spraying are followed,

trees should make a sufficient growth."

Stewart (19) concludes that, "The mineral require-
ments of wood are comparatively low. This largely
accounts for the fact that young trees usually do not
make a profitable response to fertilizer applications--."

Little is known. however, regarding the influence
of such cultural practices as root pruning, defoliation
and fertilization, when employed in late summer or fall
in the nursery, on the later behavior of the tree. Con-
ceivably some of them may be harmful or beneficial to
such a degree as to be of considerable importance to
the nurseryman or the fruit grower. It was with the
object of obtaining information on certain aspects of

these questions that this investigation was outlined.

ragga IALS am) BETHODS

 

Uniform apple and peach trees one year from the
bud (budded August, 1925) were chosen for this work in
the fall of 1926. In addition to these, seedling trees
Just budded (August, 1926) were selected and given the
same treatments as the one-year-old trees. However, in
the course of the experiment, the peach seedling plots
had to be discarded, due to carelessness of workmen,
who, in cutting back the seedlings in the spring of
1927, removed most of the tags, making it impossible to

secure any data of value.

A total of 1% plots were made of each of the
one-year-old apple trees, apple seedlings, and one-
year-old peach trees. The plots from one to six
inclusive, in each of these series, were given individ-
ual treatments the first week in September, 1926.

These treatments were duplicated on plots eight to
thirteen inclusive, the first week in October, 1926.

Plot 7 was retained as a check against all other plots.

Trees Under Investigation

 

One-year-old apple trees.- These were one year old

 

from the bud at the time this work began in September,
1926. They were of the Winter Banana variety, budded on
the French crab seedling stock, and were grown in the
Greening Brothers' Nursery at Monroe, Michigan. Their
uniformity in size throughout a large field appeared as
quite good evidence of a rather homogeneous soil. The
soil is a fertile silt loam and previous to the growing
of these trees, had been in alfalfa sod for over ten
years. These trees were planted in rows four feet apart
and would average about 18 inches in the row. They
received thorough cultivation during the course of the
experiment. No fertilizers of any kind had been applied
to the soil previous to this work. All large and small
trees were eliminated, since only trees having a uniform

height and diameter were desired.

One-year-oldpeach trees.- The peach trees used

 

in this experiment were grown by S.E.Hawley at Fenn-

ville, Michigan. They were of the South Haven variety,

budded in late August, 1925. The trees were uniform

in size, growing in rows four feet apart, and about

two feet in the row. The soil was a sandy loam of fair
fertility, had received good cultivation, and an applica-
1

tion of ammonium sulphate at the rate of 300 pounds per

acre early in the spring of 1926.

Transplanted apple and peach trees.- The 10 trees

 

from each of the one-year-old apple and peach plots,
selected for transplanting were planted at South Haven,
Hichigan, on April 16, 1927, on a sandy type of soil

of fair fertility, four feet apart each way. Growth
measurements were made at intervals during the growing
period. All trees received good cultivation during their

period of observation.

Apple trees not transplanted.- These are the trees

 

which remained in the plots in the nursery from which
the transplanted trees were taken. Only one measurement
of these trees was secured during the season of 1927,
but it was thought these furnished useful information
to the work at hand.

Apple seedling§.- These trees, which were

 

French crab seedlings, had just been budded to the
Winter Banana variety when this work started. They
were also grown in the Greening Brothers' Nursery at
Monroe, Michigan. They were planted adjacent to the
one-year-old apple trees and had received the same

cultural treatments.

Chemical analyses.- The results of the chemical

 

analyses, given as variations from the check, will be
included in the tables with the growth measurements.
However, the chemical analyses, as made, are given
complete in Tables 7 and 8.

Data showing the effects of the various treatments,
given the peach and apple trees the previous fall, are

given in Tables 1 to 6.

Treatments Given

 

Defoliation.-Alternate leaves were removed.

 

Fertilization.- Ammonium sulphate at the rate

 

of 400 pounds per acre was applied in a narrow band
four to six inches from the base of the trees, on both
sides of the row.

Root Pruning.- All roots on one side of the tree
were cut off with a spade. Roots were severed two

inches from the stock.

The plots received the following treatments:

Sept.(1926) Oct.(l926)

Plots 1 and 8 Defoliation only.

Plots 2 and 9 Defoliation and Fertilization.
Plots 3 and 10 Fertilization only.

Plots 4 and 11 Defoliation and Root Pruning.
Plots 5 and 12 Root Pruning.only.

Plots 6 and 13 Root Pruning and Fertilization.
Plot 7 Check To treatment.

Each tree was measured for height and diameter at
the time these treatments were given.

Ten trees from each plot, in the one-year-old
apple and peach trees, were selected to be grown at
South Haven, Hichigan, the following season. The apple
trees were pruned back to about 2.5 feet, in addition
to the usual root pruning given before planting. All
buds in excess of five were rubbed off, after growth
had started, in order to establish a uniform number of
branches on all trees. The peach trees were also given
a light root pruning before planting, while the tops
were pruned to six or eight branch stubs five inches in
length. No attempt was made to limit the number of
branches growing on these trees. All apple and peach
trees were weighed after pruning and previous to plant-
ing. Weights were again secured at the time of lifting

these trees Hovember 26, 1927.

10

Collection‘and Preservation of material

1. One-year-old apple trees - Two representative
trees from each plot were dug December 22, 1926 for
chemical analyses. These were pruned back to 2.5 feet
in height and were root pruned to four to six inches.
They were then brought to the laboratory and cut into
small pieces, weighed, and placed in wide mouthed
bottles, put into the oven at 90°C. for two hours, then
dried at 65°C. until a constant weight was obtained.

The samples were then weighed again, bottled and stoppered
tightly. The tops (that portion above the point of union
of bud and stock) and roots (that portion below this
point) were analyzed separately. Ho analyses were made

of the apple seedlings.

2. Peach trees - These trees were dug October 24,
1926. At that time two average sized sample trees from
each plot were taken for analysis. They were handled
the same as the apple trees, except that the tops were
pruned back, leaving six to eight branch stubs five
inches long on each tree. In both lots of trees, apple
and peach, the trees were pruned the same as those that

were to be grown for another year at South Haven.

11

Chemical Analyses

 

The dried sample tissue was ground to pass a
60-mesh sieve. A 5.gram portion of this ground material
was placed in a casserole and repeatedly extracted in
hot 80% alcohol. The extract when cool was decanted and
filtered into a 500 cc. volumetric flask until 400 cc.
of extract was obtained. The residue was placed on a
filter and washed several times with 80% alcohol. The
extract, after it had come to room temperature, was
then made up to volume with 80% alcohol. The residue
was dried in the oven at 65°C. and saved for the
determination of total acid-hydrolyzable polysaccharides.

Total Soluble Sugars.- A 100 cc. portion of the

 

alcohol extract was freed from alcohol, then taken up
with distilled water and placed in a 250 cc. volumetric
flask, neutralized with dilute KaOH, and clarified with
lead acetate. This was made up to volume with distilled
water and filtered. Two-hundred cc. of this filtrate was
then placed in another 250 cc. volumetric flask and
deleaded with finely powdered Hazco3, after which it was
neutralized with either ammonium hydroxide or acetic
acid as was necessary. It was then made up to volume
with distilled water, filtered and labeled "Combined
Extract."

Fifty cc. of the combined extract was pipetted

12

into a 100 cc. volumetric flask and brought to neu-
trality with dilute HCl, where necessary. Five cc. of
concentrated HCl (spec. gravity 1.19) was added and the
flask was then held at 70°C. for 10 minutes in a water
bath. It was removed, cooled, neutralized with NaOH
and brought up to volume with distilled water. A 25 cc.
portion was used to determine total soluble sugars in
terms of dextrose by the Munson and Walker method of
determining reducing sugars.

Total Acid HydrolyzablefiBolysaocharides.- A one-

fivwv‘ ivfiv

 

fifth aliquot of the dried residue from the alcohol
extraction was placed on a filter paper and washed
repeatedly with distilled water to remove any remaining
soluble sugars. The filter was punctured and the residue
washed into a 500 cc. Erlenmeyer flask. Then 8 cc. of
concentrated H01 (spec. gravity 1.19) was mixed with
142 cc. of distilled water and this was added to the
Erlenmeyer containing the residue. The flask was con-
nected to a reflux condenser and refluxed for two and one
half hours in boiling water. It was then removed, cooled,
filtered into a 500 cc. volumetric flask, neutralized
with NaOH, clarified with lead acetate, made up to
volume and filtered.

Two-hundred cc. of this filtrate was then placed

in a 250 cc. volumetric flask, deleaded with Ha2003,

15

neutralized with ammonium hydroxide or acetic acid,
made up to volume and filtered.

A 50 cc. portion of this solution was used to
determine the total acid hydrolyzable polysaccharides
in terms of dextrose by the Munson and Walker method
of determining reducing sugars.

All carbohydrate determinations were made in
duplicate from and including the point where Na2003
was added in the deleading process.

Total Hitrogen.- Total nitrogen determinations
were also made on both tops and roots separately.
These determinations were made by the Experiment

Station chemists.

Presentationfiof Results.

1. Deféliation

 

1. Growth - Data on the effect of defoliation
on the trees under consideration are presented in
Table 1. It is apparent that defoliation retarded,to
a greater or less degree, increase in trunk diameter
and in length of shoots in all of the apple trees.
This general effect appears to be more pronounced in
those trees receiving October defoliation than it does
in those treated in September. This also holds true for

the peach trees. However, the September defoliated peach

l4

.usospmenpcnop00oo 00>Hooom #
psospmonpnnoQSopmom 00>Hooom *

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

n o.n 0.0: n.au $0.: Inca o.ch o.waa tuna m.+ nosom
2 06 04 0.- «mt... H. 0.3. 0.3 .3..- Htsmpeflmmeana
not can nuts tot an: nun: tun: >.¢ 0 $0.: H * dopsmammsmsp
poz
H 0.0 0.m.. s6- 8.- 3.- 0.3.10.0? m0... 0+
0a 0.0 0.0 e.0 ea. 00.: a--- 0.m n H0.c H * empqsammcsns
.msmsm .omnp.mososH poam deacon: som.TWoena
mpoom mace mpoom mmoa mpoom mqoa pgmfios mom .smHn
anon anon memos“
somv 9mm. swsosb.
w. m m. m. a. a m a a
.L D. Q. on Q. J 9.. n- J
pk J a s a. no .a s o
a m. I a ... a a _. a
o r“ “V . m0 d. s n+
0 Z O T. U
"u‘ by T? n e
s 0. he a.
u. a. I
P e
9
8 )|)I|
Moose Sony sofiusfinms Moons Song
I ”unwaoe and omspsoeaomv momhamsm Hdowsoso msowpmfiseb u spsonw

poam Moose on» on somasmmsoe nfixwwaso soapmwaowoc

msa>fiooon mpoam aw moon» Ho momhamss Hmofisose use mpsososdmmos museum u.H magma

9| 0.. 0. CI

15

trees show an increase in top growth and weight over

that of the check trees. Although not great, these
differences may lead one to believe that defoliation

in the fall is not a beneficial practice, and may actually
prove harmful to the tree, by decreasing its vigor,and
consequently the following season's growth.

2. Chemical analysis - It is evident from these
analyses that the total carbohydrate content is consider-
ably greater in the roots of the September-defoliated,
transplanted apple and peach trees than in the check
trees, with a fair increase in the tOps of the September-
treated, transplanted apple trees. The October-defoliated
plots in both the transplanted apple and peach trees,
show an appreciable decrease in soluble sugars, and a
slight increase in polysaccharides. The N content of the
roots in both September- and October-defoliated and
transplanted apple trees show a distinct increase, with
a decrease in the tops, while the opposite is true of
both peach plots with the exception of the October-
defoliated peach plot.

11. Fertilization

1. Growth - In Table 2.arc the data showing the
effect of fall fertilization on the apple and peach
trees studied. The increase in shoot growth, as shown
by the September and October fertilized apple trees,

not transplanted, seems rather significant. It appears

l6

.uqoSusonp-nopOpoo 00>Hooom a
.psospsosp-nopsopmom 00>Hooom e

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, 0.0 0.0 0.0- s. 0H.- -uw- ., 00- 0.e0- -00.- 0H1. ,r. cease
0.e 5.0 H.H- 0. mm.- 50. 0 0.HH- 00. 0 - easesHmmcece
-- -- -- 3-: use ass: un- nuns I-tn n * mmsfiadoom
-- -- -- -- .r- -- -- 0.0a s0. 0H+ a -
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.0a e0.- 0 - easesHQmsses
pom oases
0.0 0.0 e.- «amp 00. r, H.- em 0.w .. e0. 0ww
0.0 H.H- e.m 0. 00. 00.- 0a- 0.5 - -- 0 - sopesammcsne
Twwmoon mqop macaw ..mmda mwoom ..mm¢w .Hmsmnm- .00 p .moeoqm. «cam saddens eom moose
ammo ammo psmfios Mom .smfin
hem Mom moses“
-T T- T T TTT T .- nuanmmlfr- TT
0. 0... m. m. .0 0. m a. 0.
.L D. n+ n+ J a. n+ J
.A a o. “e e o .a e o
S O T. J T. 9 O T. 9
w an v. m as w. Aw mw
. z w m. n.
w. m. n. n
a T. "a
1- e T.
b. 9
9
m TT
Moose Sony macaumasmb goose aonw -
Annmaos and ommpsoosomv momhflmsm amo«80su msofiumwseb unusosw

) EEE

can Moono on» ousomwsmmaoo a“ shade sowwwNHHHunow
msa>woeon mpoaq nu moose mo nomhamsm HmoHSoso was mpsoaondmmos sueono t.m manna

 

 

17

that in these two plots of trees, fertilization was
beneficial, and suggests that, October fertilization
especially, may profitably be employed on trees one
year from the bud which are to remain in the nursery
another season. This response is not evidenced by any
of the other plots to any degree, which may presumably
be taken as an indication that fall fertilization of
these trees is of doubtful value, and may actually
appear to retard shoot growth in the September-and
October-fertilized peach plots.

2. Chemical analysis - The H content in the tops
of the September and October-transplanted apple trees
shows a decrease, while an increase is noted in the
roots, especially in the September-fertilized plot.

The opposite result is evident in the September- and
October-treated peach trees. A small increase in soluble
sugars is shown in the September-fertilized, tranplanted
apple trees while a slight decrease is found in the
transplanted apple trees receiving October-fertilization.
The peach trees receiving the fertilizer in September
and October show a small increase of soluble sugars in
the tops and a decrease in the roots, with a rather even-
ly distributed amount of polysaccharides in the teps and

roots.

18

111. Root Pruning

 

1. Growth - Data presented in Table 5 show

the results of root pruning on apple and peach trees.
The general negative response in growth of these trees
which were root pruned is apparent. The increase in the
September-treated apple trees, not transplanted, is
small and may not be considered significant, while the
September root pruned peach trees show an appreciable
increase in shoot length that perhaps should be regard-
ed as significant. This response may, presumably, be
taken as indicating that root pruning of peach trees
in September produced conditions within the tree favor-
able for a greater vegetative activity the following
season. This condition, however, was apparently not
produced in the October root pruned peach trees, as
they show less shoot growth than the check trees. There-
fore, from these data root pruning in October does not
appear to be of value.

2.Chemical analysis - Although the transplanted
apple trees, receiving September root pruning, show
a decrease in shoot growth, they show an increase, in
both tops and roots, of H, soluble sugars, and poly-
saccharides. The transplanted apple trees receiving
treatment in October only show an increase of N in the

roots, and polysaccharides in both tops and roots. The

.pnosumoapsnepOpoo 00>«0oem.-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9
1. psospsonp-anSoumom 00>Hooom e
0.0 0.0 0.0- 0.0 00.- .- H.- 00 0.HH- -- .wat 00000
5.& 0.5 n.m- N.n- 5H.1 dd. n0 o.am no. 0 * dopssflmmnsne
.rw- -- -- In an: In: In 0.0: -LH. max.
II III III II III III II OomI III 0 * awnwfldvom
ell. 'I-I- I.-- -- --- -‘sw .II 00 n.) --- “HI?
- -- -- - -- -- - 0.0 Ho. 0 - espesaemsscs
pom mamas
0 0.5 0.0- 0..- 00. w-ul 0¢---u, 00. 00+ rt
00 0.0 5.0 0. 0H. 00. 0 0.e - Ho. 0 - 000000000000
r- spoon mmop mpoom mace muoom mmmy .msmnm, .oonpwwmwosfi poamw- doadsms 30m moose
name name pnmaoa son .6009
nom nom memes“
yr -, nmsosb...
$13 I H To a
.0 .0 0 s 0 0 0 o .
.A J a %w .L s .a m. m
s o T. s n 0 O .L e
e r. a "a e 90 u
0 ”w 0. .. 0. m” m .4
w. w. mu
J T. m.
.L. 9 Q.
n. s
e T.
8
- Moose Bony msoapmfismb #0030 scum
Annmaos and ommpnmonmmv momhamsm Hmofisoso msowpmasmb - museum

 

0°00

.-oomMIMoezo one Op somasmmsoo s0 .hwso meandmm.-
mna>aooon mpoaq a“ soon» 90 monhassw Hmowamno 0nd mpsososdmmoa museum 0.0 manna

20

September and October root pruned peach trees also show
an increase in polysaccharides in both tops and roots,

with a decrease of H and soluble sugars in the roots.
IV. Defoliation and Fertilization

1. Growth - Data regarding the effect of defolia-
tion and fertilization on the plots receiving this
treatment are presented in Table 4. All plots, with the
exception of the September treated apple trees, not
transplanted, show a decrease in shoot growth. This
general decrease is pronounced in all plots, and
indicates that these treatments, in general, produced
very unfavorable conditions within the trees, which
had the effect of being inhibitory to vegetative growth.

2. Chemical analysis - From the chemical analyses
it will be seen that the N content in the roots of the
transplanted apple trees receiving October treatment
show a considerable gain over that of the check, with
a small decrease in the tops of both the September and
October treated plots. An appreciable decrease of N in
the roots of both the September and October treated
peach trees is also of considerable value. There is
also a decrease of soluble sugars in the tops of
September treated peach trees, and in the tops of the

October treated, transplanted, apple trees. Ho decrease

21

08080000050090000 00>0000m 5
usespsonp-hmpaepqom 00>0000m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*
0.0 0.5 0.0- In: 50.: In- .00: 0.00: 00.: m + 00000
0.0 0.5 n-- at 00.: 00. «m 0.00- -- m * 000800008009
el-‘ -'- --' --- -'-- 'ee- '- ODD - ‘II' 0 L.
-- -- -- -- -- -- - 0.0 - -- 0 0 000000000
-II I." .l‘- '-.l on--- In" cl- 00¢H- T WOO- 0 £1 )
-- -- -- -- -- -- - 0.0 00.- 0 - 000000000000
00% 00000
0.0 0.0 0.0 0- 00.0 .00.- 0-t 00¢ --- 0.. T
0.0 0.0 tun m 00. 00.: .5 0.5 I 00. m « 000800008009
00000 000» mpoom mmoe mpoom mmoa .08000 .0000 .000080 000m 000080: 30m 00009
00800 0800 000000 000 .8000
000 00m 000080
-1 #03000.
m .0... 0. m. 0. 0. m 0. w
.0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 .. 0
s o I n q a o m. e
e T. 8 -L U 00 u
0 .A V 9 d. 9 Q.
s z 00 u
0 0 0 0
a T. n-
m e 0
e T.
r. 0 rr rTTT - -
T. M0000 800% 80000000> Moose 800%
0000003 and 00008000000 00000080 00008000 80000000» I 003000

E E

0000 000:0 0:0 00 8000000800 80 .8000000000009 080
80000000000 080>00000 00000 80 0000» Ho 00000080 00008000 000 000080080008 spsonw 3.0 00909

22

of soluble sugars is evident in the roots of any

of the plots. A general increase of polysaccharides

is again shown in the tops and roots, of the trans-

planted apple trees receiving September and October

treatment, and the peach trees which were also given

September and October treatment.

V. Defoliation and Root Pruning

 

1. Growth - The data in Table 5 show the effect
of fall defoliation and root pruning on the apple and
peach trees so treated. The September treated peach
trees show a distinct gain in trunk diameter, shoot
length, and weight over that of the check plot. The
October treated apple trees which were transplanted
also show a slight gain but this is not significant.
Aside from these two exceptions, all other plots show
a very marked decrease in shoot growth and trunk
diameter in relation to the check trees. This treat-
ment has produced a greater inhibitory effect on the
growth of the trees than any of the other treatments
given. The seedling apple trees in both the September
and October treated plots show the greatest decrease
in growth compared to the number of growing points of
the various lots of trees. These effects indicate
that in general the cutting of roots with tree diggers,

and the stripping of trees, in late September or early

25

080800080:nopopoo 00>00000 0
080800080:0098000om 00>00000 *

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0. : 0.0 0.: ::: 500: 00.: 00: 0.00: 00.: 00» 00000
0.0 m 0.0 0.0: 00.: ::: 00 0.00 no. 0 * 000000008080
:::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: :: 0.0 : 00.: 000
:::: ::: --- ::: ::: ::: n: 0.0 : 00.: 0 0 000000000
:::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: :: 0.00: 00.: 00%
:::: ::: ::: ::: ::: ::: :: 0.00: 00.: v 0 000800008080
000 00000
0.00 0 0.0 0.0: 00. 00.: 00 0.0 00. 00+
0.00 n 0.0 0.0 00.: 0.: m 0.00: 00.: 0 * 000800008080
00008 0000 00000 0000 00000 0000 .08000 .0090 .000080 0000 0000800 300 00000
0800 p800 pnm00t M00 .8000
800 800 000080
w03080

a H 00 S a "n m a

0.00 m”; 000

K 1 e n n o a e o

SOT 0.9 OT.9

m 0M 3 at u 9 u

0 W. On... 8 a...

a

0.0.. t

a Q P o

J I 4

TO B

D I

9

8

00000 8000 800000800 00000 8090
0000003 000 00008000000: 00000080 00008000 800000000 : 003080

 

0000 00000 0:» 00 8000800800 80 .m808800 0008 080
80000000000 w80>00000 00000 80 00000 no 00000080 00008000 080 008080880008 003090 :.0 00p00

24

October as practiced by some nurserymen, tends to
reduce the tree growth the following season.

2. Chemical analysis - There is also a general
decrease of N shown in the tops and roots of the trans-
planted apple trees receiving September treatment, and
the tops and roots of the peach trees treated in
September and October. The transplanted apple trees
which were given defoliation and root pruning in
September show a good gain, in the tOps and roots, of
soluble sugars over that of the check, while the tops
of the September treated, and the roots of the October
treated peach trees show as large a decrease in
soluble sugars. However, a considerable gain in poly-
saccharides is evident in the tOps and roots of the
transplanted apple trees and the tops and roots of
the peach trees receiving September and October defolia-

tion and root pruning.

 

VI. Root Pruning and Fertilization

1. Growth - From the data in Table 6 it is
apparent that root pruning and fertilization in
September, and especially October, had a general
retarding effect upon the shoot growth in all plots,
with the exception of the September treated apple
trees, not transplanted, and the peach trees receiving

treatment in September. This retarding of growth is

25

080800000:000o000 00>00omm L
080800000:800800000 00>00omm *

}} - L ’t I?

 

 

 

 

 

 

I

}} ’t’l’ }}' ’>}L

0.0: 0.0. [0.0: 0.0.. 0:0... 00. 00.. OMS? 2:... 00+ ASN.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0: ::: 00. 00 0.00- 00.; 0 * 000000000000
r: :::M: :Hw: w:: r. :Hw.: :Lwr. -::: : :Lw::r» Orww rr.wwwyr.:rwwww : .v
-I.-- -nv- --- '0'- -QI' -‘nl -l.-- 00¢- -l-DI' o * ”mgfinfidoam
---- --.?D '00-- O'Neil-t i'.>. i “v.5 i .'.I- ? 00w.t>?'I-}.H' in-HH ti}! } LI?
llll It! til It- ill Ill III! Oobfi $0.! 0 * dedeHmmfldHu
000 00000
z ma, 3 0.:... , 04:01:09: 00: :00“: a», 8., E ,
0.00 0.0 :::: 0.0: 00. mo. :::: 0.0: :::: 0 * 000800000089
r: 0.308: No.00 00 cow : 0090 000000 {wager $0030.00 00M>0+L8w00 :..0:00:W8:0i.wown0 .Wo:00.00w >060» “0:089
0800 0000 000003 000080 .8000
r» 80m, :.09H;[ ->>:r :L,-LL - - : L» :-:b0smmo .,- :: r .,:L,»bt:-r+r
To 70 -
0 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0A J B 0.0 T. I Q. n... J
S O .L E n O J B O
s .L J nu o 0 0L 9
nu nn V. 00 .L u 90 u
0 Z O 9 n... 9 a...
u. a r: 70 u
s nu D. o
J T. a.
T» e s
w. T.
refr

 

#0000 8000 000000800
:0000003 000 0m008000000 00000080 00008000

0000 00000 000 00 0000w0080000 ~800000MW0mm0w0&0mrwwmmwnmn:

00000 8mww
800000800 : 008000

" ‘7’} "’ LI'*"

” i

0000 m00>00000 00000 80 00000 Mo 00000000 00008000 080 008080080008 003000 :.0 00009

Q.

26

most pronounced in the October treated peach trees
which show the least shoot growth and weight gain
of all plots given root pruning and fertilization.
Here again, as previously noted in connection with
Tables 3 and 5, the peach trees receiving September
treatment, in which root pruning was a factor, show
a considerable gain in shoot growth and weight over
the check plot. This would indicate that peach trees,
given partial root pruning in September, would pre-
sumably make a greater growth response the following
season.

2. Chemical analysis - The transplanted apple
trees given September treatment show a good increase
in N in the roots, a decrease of soluble sugars in
the tops, and an increase of polysaccharides, to
quite a degree, in the roots. The apple trees which
were transplanted and which received October treat-
ment show slightly less N in the tops, with a fair
increase in the roots. There also is a greater amount
of soluble sugars and polysaccharides in both tops
and roots of these same trees. The peach trees given
September, and October treatments have a higher N
content in the tops, with a decrease in the roots of
the October treated trees. They also show a greater
amount of polysaccharides in both tops and roots, with

the exception of the roots of peach trees receiving

October treatments.

27

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

00-0 00-0 0.00 00.0 00. 0.00 «0.0 0.00 00.0 00. 0.00 0000000000000
0000000 0000 00
00-0 00-0 0.00 00000 00. 0.00 00.0 0.00 00.0 00. 0.00 0000000 0000 00
00-0 00-0 0.00 00.0 00. 0.00 00-0 0.00 00.0 00. 0.00 0000000 0000
00000000000 00
00-0 00-0 0.00 00.0 00. 0.00 00-0 0.00 00.0 00. 0.00 0000000000000 00
00-0 00-0 0.00 00.0 00. «.00 00-0 0.00 00.0 00. 0.00 0000000000000
00000000000 0
00-0 00-0 0.00 00000 00. 0.00 «0.0 0.00 00.0 00. 0.00 00000000000 0
000300
00-0 00-0 0.00 00.0 00. 0.00 00-0 0.00 0000 00. 0.00 I. 00000 0
00-0 00-0 0.00 00.0 00. 0.00 00-0 0.00 00.0 00. 0.00 0000000000000
08080.00 0000 0
00-0 00-0 0.00 00.0 00. 0.00 00.0 0.00 00.0 00. 0.00 0000000 0000 0
00-0 00.0 0.00 00.0 00. 0.00 00.0 0.00 00.00 00. 0.00 0000000 0000
00000000000 0
00-0 00-0 0.00 00.0 00.0 0.00 00-0 0.00 00.0 00. 0.00 0000000000000 0
«0-0 «0-0 0.00 00.0 00. 0.00 00.0 0.00 00.0 00. 0.00 0000000000000
00000000000 0
00-0 00.0 0.00 00.00 00. 0.00 00.0 0.00 00.00 00. 0.00 00000000000 0
000 0.00 0.0 0. 00 00 0 0. 00 M0 000 00 .000 2.
Dawn. T. a... I... J 41 I... T. a. J J 1.“ I:
a t. I t. to 0 .00 so .4 t. o no u so
EEO 830 80 .49 OO O 3 O W m 3“ a.“
mom. meme mm. 9m... Wm. WM. mm” on. 30.. m4 ma. 080800080.
.ml mmn Q% % % mvn m% % %
O n“ 2. a... a... 0+ 0..
. I. I. B 3 I. m 1.9 n. B
M p. M 0...... I I 0. Pt I
O O O O
I I 8 3
i 0 0 w I! 0.008 , v v vi rm 1 + omrr , 0
000000.- HS 0%0800005 .00 0.0000 0.80

30000000000003 0000050800000 0000 00000 3.0095 0008000 0000800000 3.00900 00000 0.0. 000.09

 

28

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

00-0 00-0 0.00 00.0 00.0 0.00 00-0 0.00 00.0 00.0 0.00 0000000000000
0000000 0000 00
00-0 00-0 0.00 00000 00.0 0.00. 00-0 0.00 00.0 00. 0.00 0000000 0000 00
00-0 00.0 0.00 00.0 00.0 0.000 00-0 0.00 00.0 00. 0.000 0000000 0000
. 00000000000 00
00:0 00.0 0.00 00.0 00.0 0.00 00-0 0.00 00.0 00. 0.00. 0000000000000 00
00.0 00-0 0.00 00.0 00.0 0.00 00-0 0.00 00.0 00. 0.00 0000000000000
, 00000000000 0
00:0 00.0 0.00 00000 00.0 0.00 00.0 0.00 00.0 00. 0.00 00000000000 0
00.090900
00-0 00-0 0.00 00.0 00. 0 0.00 00-0 0. 00 00.0 00. 0.00 00000 0
00-0 00-0 0.00 00.0 00. 0 0.00. 00-0 0. 00 00000 00. 0.00. 0000000000000
0 0808000 0000 0
00-0 . 00-0 0.00 00.0 00.0 0.00 00-0 0.00 00.0 00. 0.00 0000000 0000 0
00-0 00-0 0.00 00.0 00.0 0.00 00-0 0.00 00000 00. 0.00 0000000 0000
g T 80000000000 0
00-0 0 00-0 0.00 00.0 00.0 0.00 00-0 0.00 00.0 00. 0.00 0000000000000 0
00-0 . 00-0 0.00 00.0 00.0 0.00 00-0 0.00 00000 00. 0.00 0000000000000
. 0 00000000000 0
00-0 A 00.0 0.00 00.0 00.0 0.00 00-0 0.00 00.0 00. 0.00% 00000000000 0
00 0 0. 00. 0 .00 0.0. 0 0 0m 0 00. 0... 020...... 0.0.0.
m44 IWwQ Tu 0m... 4M 1.: A IN? .10 m0; 0+1 Ta
0.0.0.. .000. .00 an .00 00 A .000. 0.0 0...... .00 00
u. 98 an an can Wu 0000 “a. an Sn mu 9808960000.
0A O O 0 On... 0... 00+ 0... O O O a... 00... 0+
W lg W3; mm m at 0 “WI W% m u-
00 am. no 0 0.. than na. o 0.0".
0+ 0H J H. a. 1. 0+ A J 9 0+ 0+
0 +0 Tc? 9 8 0b 0bT; B t
a 00 DLL 0L T. n. 0+ 09 T. T.
o a... 0 0+ 0 O O O
O a o 3 ~ 8 s
00 00%., IE If IthHiII I I, - T r
000 00: 00 00008000000 .0 00000 080

.000000000000000 000000000000 0000 00000 .000000 0000000 0000800000 T 00009 80000 a.m 00000

29

It should be remembered that in work of this
type the experimental error is large and should be
given recognition if the data are to be interpreted
correctly. Small variation from the check plot there-
fore, should not be considered of much significance,
and the larger variations should be interpreted with

discretion.

SUIMARY

1. Partial defoliation in the fall apparently
hindered shoot growth and increase in trunk diameter
the following season, with the exception of peach

trees defoliated in September.

2. Fertilization increased the trunk diameter
and shoot growth of the apple trees not transplanted,
while it produced a greater or less retarding effect

upon all the other trees.

5. Root pruning in general apparently had a
retarding effect on the shoot growth of the trees.
However, the peach trees receiving September root
pruning responded favorably with an increased shoot

length and gain in weight.

4. Defoliation and root pruning together

hindered shoot growth and increase in trunk diameter

30

the following season. The September treated peach
trees, however, again made a considerable gain over
the check, both in shoot growth and increased size

of trunk.

5. Root pruning and fertilization together
was not conducive to greater shoot growth the follow-
ing season, with the exception of the September
treated peach trees and perhaps the apple trees not
transplanted which received September treatment, as

they made a greater growth than the check.

6. Defoliation and fertilization together in
both September and October treatments retarded the
shoot growth and increase in trunk diameter in

practically all cases.

7. All treatments, taken collectively, had a
retarding effect upon the growth response of the
trees the following season. This, however, does not
hold true with the September and October fertilized
apple trees that were not transplanted, and the
peach trees which had received treatment in September
in which root pruning was envolved. Both of these
lots of trees made a favorable response to the treat-
ments, which would indicate that these may presumably
be employed to produce a more vigorous growing tree in

the nursery and in the orchard.

51

AC ITO‘C'ILED G32" CENT S

 

The work described herein was
started at the suggestion of Professor
V.R.Gardner, of the Department of Hort-
iculture, Michigan State College. The
writer wishes to express to him and to
Doctor John W. Grist and to Professor
F.C.Bradford of the same Department,
his thanks for the helpful suggestions
and kindly criticisms offered during

this investigation.

32

Literature Cited

 

l. Alderman, W.H., Proc. Amer. Soc. Hert. Sci. (1919)-
pp. 109-113. "The Status of Orchard Fertiliza-
tion Experimentation."

2. Anthony, R.D., Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. (1919)-
pp. 113-117. "Methods of Interpreting Results
in Orchard Fertilizer Experiments."

3. Fischer, H, Gartenflora 65: 232-237. (1916)
"Zur Frags der Kohlensaure - Ernahrung der
Pflanzen."

4. GurJar, A.M., Science 51:351 (1920)
"Carbon-Nitrogen Ratio in Relation to Plant
Metabolism."

5. Harvey, E.M., Ore. Agri. EXp. Sta. Bul. 176,(1921)
1. "Effect of Spur Defoliation on the Formation
of Fruit Buds."

6. Harvey, E.M., Ore. Agri. Exp. Sta. Bul. 200, (1923)
"A Study in Growth of Summer Shoots of the
Apple with Special Consideration of the Role
of Carbohydrates and Eitrogen."

7. Hedrick, U.P. and Anthony, R.D., N.Y. (Geneva) Agri.
Exp. Sta. Bul. 460. (1919)
"Twenty Years of Fertilizers in an Apple Orchard."

8. Hooker, H.D.,Jr., Kc. Agri. Exp. Sta. Res. Bul. 40,
(1920)

9. Hooker, H.D. Jr., Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. (1921)
pp. 150-152.
"The Season of Application of Nitrogenous
Fertilizer as Affecting the Chemical Composition
of Spurs and Bark."

10. Hooker, H.D. Jr., K0. Agri. Exp. Sta. Res. Bul. 50.

ll. Kraus, E.J., and Kraybill, H.R., Ore. Agri. Exp.

"Vegetation and Reproduction with Special
Reference to the Tomato."

12. Lewis, C.V., Ore. Agri. Exp. Sta. Bul. 166. (1919).

35

13. Lincoln, F.B., Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. (1927).
' pp. 207-209.
"The Loss of Nitrogen from Pear Leaves Associated
with Eatural Defoliation."

l4. murneek, A.E., Ore. Agri. Exp. Sta. Bul. 176. (1921).
2. "Effects of Spur Defoliation on the Setting of
Fruit."

15. Richter, L., Landw. Vers. Stationen 73:457-478. (1910)
16. Roberts, I.P., N.Y. (Cornell) Bul. 103. (1895).

"Soil Depletion in Respect to the Care of
Fruit Trees."

17. Schrader, A.L. and Auchter, E.C., Proc. Amer. Soc.
Hort. Sci. 1927. pp. 229-233.
"The Comparative Effects of Different Nitrogen
Fertilizers on Bearing Apple Trees Low in Vigor."

18. Schulze, B. and Schutz, J., Landw. Vere. Stationen
71; 299. (1909).

19. Stewart, JoPo, Pa. Agri. EXP. Sta. Bu10 121. (1913).
"The Fertilization of Apple Orchards."

20. Thomas, W., Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. (1926).
pp. 73-80.
"The Eitrogenous Ketabolism of Pyrus Ealus."

21. Tukey, H.B., Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. (1925).
PP. 13-200
"Pruning and Fertilizing Young Apple Trees at
.Planting."

22. wehmer, C., Landw. Jahrbucher Bd. 2:513. (1892).

 

Ill}

 

 

 

Mil u'_—i