Plant growth, yield, and fruit quality of ‘Fallglo’ and ‘Sunburst’ mandarins on four rootstocks

Scientia Horticulturae 114 (2007) 45–49 www.elsevier.com/locate/scihorti

Plant growth, yield, and fruit quality of ‘Fallglo’ and ‘Sunburst’ mandarins on four rootstocks Francisco de Assis Alves Moura˜o Filho a,*, Erick Espinoza-Nu´n˜ez a, Eduardo Sanches Stuchi b, Edwin Moise´s Marcos Ortega a a

Universidade de Sa˜o Paulo, Escola Superior de Agricultura ‘‘Luiz de Queiroz’’, 13418-900 Piracicaba, SP, Brazil b Embrapa Mandioca e Fruticultura Tropical, 44380-000 Cruz das Almas, BA, Brazil Received 30 January 2007; received in revised form 8 May 2007; accepted 16 May 2007

Abstract Vegetative growth, yield, and fruit quality of ‘Fallglo’ and ‘Sunburst’ mandarins on ‘Rangpur’ lime, ‘Swingle’ citrumelo, ‘Orlando’ tangelo, and ‘Cleopatra’ mandarin were evaluated under subtropical climate of Northern Sa˜o Paulo State, Brazil, from 2000 through 2006 harvest seasons. ‘Fallglo’ mandarin trees had the highest cumulative yield on ‘Rangpur’ lime, and the smallest on ‘Swingle’ citrumelo and ‘Orlando’ tangelo. Plants of this cultivar had the highest yield efficiency on ‘Rangpur’ lime, and the lowest on ‘Orlando’ tangelo. ‘Sunburst’ mandarin trees began to bear fruits later than ‘Fallglo’ mandarin trees, with no differences in yield induced by the rootstocks. ‘Cleopatra’ mandarin induced the most vigorous growth in ‘Fallglo’ mandarin as compared to plants on ‘Swingle’ citrumelo. On the other hand, the largest trees of ‘Sunburst’ mandarin were registered on ‘Orlando’ tangelo, and the smallest on ‘Rangpur’ lime. ‘Sunburst’ mandarin had higher alternate bearing than ‘Fallglo’ regardless the rootstock. Fruit weight and juice content were not affected by the rootstock. These two mandarin scion cultivars may be considered adequate alternatives to produce good fruit quality for the fresh fruit market. ‘Cleopatra’ mandarin and ‘Rangpur lime are suitable rootstocks for ‘Fallglo’ mandarin, whereas all rootstocks evaluated are adequate for ‘Sunburst’ mandarin. # 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Citrus; Cultivar; Tree vigor

1. Introduction The citrus industry in Brazil is focused on orange production for juice processing. Mandarins comprise about 6% of total citrus cultivation in that country (FAO, 2006), whose production is concentrated for the fresh fruit market. ‘Ponkan’ mandarin (Citrus reticulata Blanco) and ‘Murcott’ tangor (Citrus sinensis L. Osbeck  C. reticulata) represent 80% of the total mandarin cultivated area, leading to a short harvest period, and, consequently, higher prices during off-season (Amaro and Caser, 2003). On other hand, higher profits during mandarin cultivation can only be reached with high fruit quality, including adequate size, shape, color, and flavor. Fruits must also have low seed number, and be easy-peeling. Early maturing cultivars are desirable.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +55 19 34294190; fax: +55 19 34294385. E-mail address: [email protected] (F.A.A. Moura˜o Filho). 0304-4238/$ – see front matter # 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.scienta.2007.05.007

‘Fallglo’ mandarin, a hybrid between ‘Bower’ mandarin [C. reticulata  (Citrus paradisi Macf.  C. reticulata)] and ‘Temple’ tangor (C. reticulata  C. sinensis), produces large, easy-peeling, early maturing fruits, which are also resistant to fungal diseases. It does not require cross-pollination. However, average seed number is about 20–40 (Hearn, 1987). ‘Sunburst’ mandarin, a hybrid between ‘Robinson’ mandarin [Citrus clementina Hort. ex Tan.  (C. paradisi  C. reticulata)] and ‘Osceola’ mandarin [C. clementina  (C. paradisi  C. reticulata)], has easy-peeling, early maturing fruits, with about 10– 20 seeds per fruit. Juice quality is adequate, whereas fruit color and juice color are excellent. It is a self-incompatible cultivar; therefore, it does require cross-pollination (Hearn, 1979). The rootstock may influence several aspects of citrus growth and development, including yield, fruit quality, and tolerance to stress caused by biotic and abiotic factors (Medina et al., 2005). ‘Rangpur’ lime (Citrus limonia Osbeck) is the most cultivated rootstock in Southern Brazil, where 80% of citrus is produced. The reasons that make this cultivar the most planted in that region include its adequate performance under moderate water

F.A.A. Moura˜o Filho et al. / Scientia Horticulturae 114 (2007) 45–49

46

stress, induction of early-bearing, adequate yield, and compatibility with most scion cultivars. However, specific diseases affecting ‘Rangpur’ lime and the demand for higher fruit quality have lead to research to increase the number of rootstock cultivars. This work aimed to evaluate the performance of ‘Fallglo’ and ‘Sunburst’ mandarins budded on four rootstocks. 2. Materials and methods 2.1. Plant material and field trial ‘Fallglo’ mandarin [C. reticulata  (C. paradisi  C. reticulata)]  (C. reticulata  C. sinensis) and ‘Sunburst’ mandarin [C. clementina  (C. paradisi  C. reticulata)]  [C. clementina  (C. paradisi  C. reticulata)] were budded on ‘Rangpur’ lime (C. limonia), ‘Swingle’ citrumelo (Poncirus trifoliata Raf.  C. paradisi), ‘Orlando’ tangelo (C. reticulata  C. paradisi), and ‘Cleopatra’ mandarin (Citrus reshni Hort. ex Tan.) rootstocks. The experiment was carried out in the Bebedouro Citrus Experiment Station, in Bebedouro, SP, Brazil (208530 1600 S, 488280 1100 W). The soil is classified as Haplustox of medium texture. The climate, according to Ko¨ppen classification, is of the Cwa type (subtropical with moderate and dry winter, hot and rainy summer), with 28.8 8C maximum temperature, 18.3 8C minimum temperature, 23.5 8C average temperature, and 1522 mm annual rainfall. Trees were planted in October 1997, in a tree density of 595 trees per ha (7.0 m  2.4 m). The experiment was not irrigated nor pruned, and was managed according with regular cultural practices (Donadio et al., 1998). The experimental orchard was surrounded by several other citrus evaluation experiments. 2.2. Yield, fruit quality, and growth measurements Harvest occurred on July of each year. Total fruit mass production was registered for each plant. Cumulative yield was calculated for 2000 through 2006 (7-year cumulative yield). In 2005 and 2006 harvest years, 10 fruits per tree were collected to evaluate fruit quality. Juice was extracted using an extracting machine OIC model OTTO 1800. Juice content (%) was calculated by the relation juice weight:fruit weight. Total soluble solids (TSS) content was determined by direct reading

in a refractometer. Total acids concentration (TA) was determined by titration of 25 ml of juice with 0.3125N NaOH. Ratio was calculated by the relation TSS:TA. Canopy volume (V) was calculated after measuring tree height (H), and width in parallel (Dl) and perpendicular (Dr) directions to the tree row in August 2006, by the formula: V = (p/6)  H  Dl  Dr (Zekri, 2000). Trunk diameter 10 cm above the bud union was measured in August 2006. Yield efficiency was estimated dividing fruit yield by canopy volume for each rootstock in 2006. Due to yield irregularity of the first years, the alternate bearing index (ABI) was calculated between years 2003 and 2006, using the following expression (Stenzel et al., 2003): ABI ¼

1  n1



ja2  a1 j ja3  a2 j jan  an1 j þ þ  þ a2 þ a1 a3 þ a2 an þ an1



where n = number of years, and a1, a2, . . ., an1, an = yields of the corresponding years. 2.3. Experimental design and data analysis The experiment followed a complete randomized design with five replications, and one tree per plot, for each scion cultivar. Data of yield in each year, cumulative yield, canopy volume, trunk diameter, yield efficiency, alternate bearing index, and fruit quality were evaluated by analysis of variance and means were separated by Tukey’s test (P  0.05). 3. Results 3.1. Yield Fruit yield was not affected by the rootstock in both scion cultivars, from 2000 through 2006 (Tables 1 and 2), except for ‘Fallglo’ mandarin in 2001, when trees on ‘Rangpur’ lime had higher yield than those budded on the other rootstocks. ‘Sunburst’ mandarin came into bearing later than ‘Fallglo’, which explains why its production in 2006 represented approximately 50% of the cumulative yield. It is also important to point out that ‘Fallglo’ mandarin trees budded on ‘Rangpur’ lime had higher cumulative yield than those on ‘Swingle’ citrumelo and ‘Orlando’ tangelo, while no differences in ‘Sunburst’ mandarin cumulative yield regarding rootstock were verified (Tables 1 and 2).

Table 1 Annual and cumulative yield, alternate bearing index (ABI), trunk diameter, canopy volume, and yield efficiency of ‘Fallglo’ mandarin trees on four rootstocks, in Bebedouro, SP, Brazil (2000 through 2006) Rootstock

Yield (kg/tree) 2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

‘Rangpur’ lime ‘Swingle’ citrumelo ‘Orlando’ tangelo ‘Cleopatra’ mandarin P>F

7.2 1.8 1.9 0.9 0.32

6.7 a 0.3 b 0.8 b 0.4 b 0.0004

28.7 14.5 12.3 14.5 0.06

19.1 20.6 18.5 23.4 0.92

64.4 23.8 19.9 20.7 0.08

31.3 21.1 23.4 20.3 0.32

2006

Cumulative yield 2000–2006 (kg/tree)

ABI 2003– 2006

Trunk diameter 2006 (cm)

Canopy volume 2006 (m3)

Yield efficiency 2006 (kg/m3)

44.9 25.2 38.9 44.4 0.09

202.3 a 107.3 b 115.9 b 124.4 ab 0.01

0.3 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.36

10.5 ab 7.3 b 12.3 a 12.9 a 0.001

7.7 ab 6.8 b 12.9 ab 13.7 a 0.02

6.2 a 4.5 ab 3.1 b 3.2 ab 0.04

Means followed by the same letter in columns are not significantly different by Tukey’s test (P  0.05).

F.A.A. Moura˜o Filho et al. / Scientia Horticulturae 114 (2007) 45–49

47

Table 2 Annual and cumulative yield, alternate bearing index (ABI), trunk diameter, canopy volume, and yield efficiency of ‘Sunburst’ mandarin trees on four rootstocks, in Bebedouro, SP, Brazil (2000 through 2006) Rootstock

‘Rangpur’ lime ‘Swingle’ citrumelo ‘Orlando’ tangelo ‘Cleopatra’ mandarin P>F

Yield (kg/tree) 2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Cumulative yield 2000–2006 (kg/tree)

5.6 5.9 8.3 3.9 0.70

4 0.3 – – 0.06

– 3.8 0.6 0.4 0.37

12.1 12.6 2.5 9.8 0.63

14.4 14.3 12.6 5.5 0.61

3.8 12.9 11.3 5.0 0.43

45.3 29.3 54.8 42.4 0.28

85.1 79.2 89.9 67.1 0.62

ABI 2003– 2006

Trunk diameter 2006 (cm)

Canopy volume 2006 (m3)

Yield efficiency 2006 (kg/m3)

0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.91

10.0 b 9.8 b 13.8 a 11.7 ab 0.009

9.2 b 12.7 ab 15.9 a 13.7 ab 0.02

5.2 2.5 3.4 3.1 0.12

Means followed by the same letter in columns are not significantly different by Tukey’s test (P  0.05).

Alternate bearing index was not affected by the rootstocks in both scion cultivars. However, ‘Fallglo’ mandarin trees had lower alternate bearing than ‘Sunburst’ (Tables 1 and 2). 3.2. Plant growth Trunk diameter and canopy volume of ‘Fallglo’ mandarin trees on ‘Cleopatra’ mandarin were about 78 and 100% larger than trees budded on ‘Swingle’ citrumelo, respectively (Table 1). The largest ‘Sunburst’ mandarin trees were on ‘Orlando’ tangelo, although trunk diameter was not significantly different of plants on ‘Cleopatra’ mandarin, and canopy volume was not significantly different of trees on ‘Cleopatra’ mandarin and ‘Swingle’ citrumelo (Table 2). Yield efficiency of ‘Fallglo’ mandarin trees on ‘Rangpur’ lime was approximately 100% greater than those on ‘Orlando’ tangelo, but not different than those budded in ‘Swingle’ citrumelo and ‘Cleopatra’ mandarin. ‘Sunburst’ mandarin trees did not show differences regarding rootstock for this variable (Tables 1 and 2).

3.3. Fruit quality Fruit weight and juice content were not affected by the rootstock, in both scion cultivars (Tables 3 and 4). TSS was lower in fruits of ‘Fallglo’ mandarin trees budded on ‘Rangpur’ lime during 2006 season (Table 3). Low values of TSS were also verified in fruits of ‘Sunburst’ mandarin trees on ‘Rangpur’ lime in 2005 harvest, whereas the highest were registered in plants on ‘Swingle’ citrumelo (Table 4). TA and ratio were not affected by the rootstock, in both scion cultivars, in 2005 (Tables 3 and 4). On the other hand, fruits from ‘Falgllo’ trees on ‘Orlando’ tangelo had significantly lower values of TA in 2006 (Table 3). In that same harvest season, fruits of ‘Sunburst’ mandarin trees on ‘Swingle’ citrumelo had higher TA than those on ‘Rangpur’ lime (Table 4). Lower ratio was verified in fruits of ‘Fallglo’ mandarin trees on ‘Swingle’ citrumelo and ‘Rangpur’ lime, as well as in fruits of ‘Sunburst’ budded on ‘Swingle’ citrumelo (Tables 3 and 4).

Table 3 Fruit weight, juice content, total soluble solids (TSS), total acids (TA), and ratio of ‘Fallglo’ mandarin on four rootstocks in Bebedouro, SP, Brazil (July 2005 and July 2006) Rootstock

‘Rangpur’ lime ‘Swingle’ citrumelo ‘Orlando’ tangelo ‘Cleopatra’ mandarin P>F

Fruit weight (g)

Juice content (%)

TSS (%)

TA (%)

Ratio

2005

2006

2005

2006

2005

2006

2005

2006

2005

2006

214.5 213.9 217.5 205.4 0.72

159.3 159.2 184.5 172.5 0.27

39.9 39.9 32.5 38.4 0.26

42.9 49.7 42.9 46.4 0.09

10.9 11.9 11.2 11.3 0.42

11.3 b 12.7 a 12.7 a 13.5 a 0.01

0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.83

1.3 a 1.4 a 1.2 b 1.3 a 0.03

11.8 12.6 12.6 11.9 0.40

8.9 b 9.3 b 10.7 a 10.6 a <0.0001

Means followed by the same letter in columns are not significantly different by Tukey’s test (P  0.05). Table 4 Fruit weight, juice content, total soluble solids (TSS), total acids (TA) and ratio of ‘Sunburst’ mandarin on four rootstocks in Bebedouro, SP, Brazil (July 2005 and July 2006) Rootstock

Fruit weight (g)

Juice content (%)

TSS (%)

TA (%)

2005

2006

2005

2006

2005

2006

2005

2006

2005

2006

‘Rangpur’ lime ‘Swingle’ citrumelo ‘Orlando’ tangelo ‘Cleopatra’ mandarin P>F

143.9 152.9 140.7 141.9 0.81

171.5 158.7 167.9 179.9 0.17

46.1 48.0 48.4 46.8 0.47

55.0 53.9 53.6 53.1 0.42

11.4 b 12.6 a 12.4 ab 12.2 ab 0.03

12.7 12.9 13.1 13.0 0.22

1.2 1.3 1.1 1.0 0.53

0.9 b 1.2 a 0.9 ab 0.9 ab 0.03

9.8 10.0 11.3 11.9 0.49

14.3 a 11.2 b 14.2 a 13.7 ab 0.009

Means followed by the same letter in columns are not significantly different by Tukey’s test (P  0.05).

Ratio

48

F.A.A. Moura˜o Filho et al. / Scientia Horticulturae 114 (2007) 45–49

4. Discussion ‘Rangpur’ lime induced higher cumulative yield in ‘Fallglo’ mandarin trees, however, these plants were not different than those on ‘Cleopatra’ mandarin. In another research, higher cumulative yield was verified in ‘Ponkan’ mandarin trees budded on P. trifoliata when compared with plants on ‘Cleopatra’ mandarin and ‘Rangpur’ lime (Stenzel et al., 2003). On the other hand, no differences were observed in the performance of ‘Fallglo’ mandarin budded on ‘Cleopatra’ mandarin, ‘Swingle’ citrumelo, and ‘Carrizo’ citrange (Bowman, 1998). In the present work, ‘Sunburst’ mandarin had more unstable fruit production throughout the years, without differences among rootstocks in cumulative yield. This result is in agreement with other trials (Figueiredo et al., 2001, 2006; Hearn, 1979; Parente et al., 1993; Souza et al., 1992). The few differences in yield regarding the rootstock are, probably, consequence of the instability of the plant production in the first years (Smith et al., 2004). We have also found that alternate bearing was not influenced by the rootstock, which is supported by previous research. No effect of the rootstock on the alternate bearing was verified in a 26-year experiment with ‘Ellendale’ mandarin in the subtropical region of Australia (Smith et al., 2004). Similar results were registered in ‘Nova’ tangelo on 11 rootstocks (Georgiou, 2000). On the other hand, ‘Ponkan’ mandarin trees had lower alternate bearing when grafted on ‘C13’ citrange and P. trifoliata, in Parana´ State, Brazil (Stenzel et al., 2003). The alternate bearing may be reduced, especially for ‘Sunburst’ mandarin, with the control of the crop load during the ‘‘on’’ years by cultural practices, such as fruit thinning, branch girdling, exogenous application of plant growth regulators, and early harvest (Spo´sito et al., 1998). During the ‘‘off’’ years, the flowering can be increased by foliar urea applications (El-Otmani et al., 2004). In this work, ‘Orlando’ tangelo and ‘Cleopatra’ mandarin induced the most vigorous growth in both scion cultivars, whereas the smallest trees were verified on ‘Swingle’ citrumelo. These results were also found in previous research involving other mandarin cultivars (Figueiredo et al., 2001; Hearn and Hutchison, 1977; Stenzel et al., 2003). ‘Fallglo’ mandarin trees budded on ‘Orlando’ tangelo had lower yield efficiency than those on ‘Rangpur’ lime. ‘Rangpur’ lime and ‘Swingle’ citrumelo induced high yield efficiency in ‘Minneola’ tangelo in California (Roose, 1996) and in ‘Nova’ tangelo in Cyprus (Georgiou, 2000). ‘Cleopatra’ mandarin also induced low yield efficiency in ‘Ponkan’ mandarin trees (Miranda, 2002; Stenzel et al., 2003). Low yield efficiency on ‘Orlando’ tangelo and ‘Cleopatra’ mandarin is probably caused by the bigger canopy size induced by these rootstocks. On the other hand, high yield efficiency associated with small canopy volume induced by ‘Swingle’ citrumelo may turn this rootstock indicated for high-density plantings (Zekri, 2000). Fruit weight and juice content of both mandarin cultivars were not influenced by the rootstocks. These results are similar with previous work, in which fruit weight of ‘Satsuma’

mandarin was not affected when budded on 10 rootstocks (Salibe and Mischan, 1984). A negative relationship between the fruit number and the fruit size is often verified in citrus. However, in this research, the differences in fruit weight among trees on different rootstocks are not attributed to crop load. No evident differences in juice quality were verified in the two harvest seasons for both mandarin cultivars. However, TSS contents were lower in fruits from trees budded on ‘Rangpur’ lime in at least one harvest season for both cultivars. This fact may be caused by the higher fruit juice dilution, typical of this rootstock cultivar (Castle, 1995; Stuchi et al., 1996). ‘Swingle’ citrumelo and ‘Cleopatra’ mandarin induced higher TSS and TA contents in fruits from ‘Fallglo’ mandarin in 2006 harvest season. These differences may be caused by distinct anatomical and physiological characteristics (Castle, 1995). Moreover, fruits from trees on ‘Swingle’ citrumelo had lower ratio for both rootstocks in 2006 harvest season, which it has been already reported (Georgiou, 2000). The deep, well-drained and adequately prepared soil in this research may have contributed to the little effect of the rootstocks on the juice quality. 5. Conclusions ‘Fallglo’ mandarin is a viable alternative to be grown commercially by its high and precocious production, high juice quality, and good fruit external appearance. ‘Rangpur’ lime and ‘Cleopatra’ mandarin are suitable rootstocks for this mandarin. ‘Sunburst’ mandarin produces fruits with adequate quality to be sent to the fresh fruit market, as well as to the industry, due to its rind and juice deep color. All rootstocks evaluated are adequate for ‘Sunburst’ mandarin. References Amaro, A.A., Caser, D.V., 2003. Diversidade do mercado de tangerinas. Informac¸o˜es Econoˆmicas 33, 51–67. Bowman, K.M., 1998. Performance of ‘Fallglo’ citrus hybrid on ten rootstocks in Lake County. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 111, 177–180. Castle, W.S., 1995. Rootstock as a fruit quality factor in citrus and deciduous tree crops. N. Z. J. Crop Hort. Sci. 23, 383–394. Donadio, L.C., Stuchi, E.S., Lima Cyrillo, F.L., 1998. Tangerinas ou mandarinas. FUNEP, Jaboticabal. El-Otmani, M., Lovatt, C.J., Taibi, F., Lmoufid, B., Ait-Oubahou, A., 2004. Improved use of foliar urea on Clementine mandarin to manipulate cropping in a sustainable production system. Acta Hort. 632, 167–175. FAO, 2006. FAOSTAT: Statistical Database, 25 November 2006. http:// faostat.fao.org. Figueiredo, J.O., Pio, R.S., Teo´filo Sobrinho, J., Laranjeira, F.F., Salibe, A.A., 2001. Comportamento de quinze porta-enxertos para o tangor ‘Murcott’ na regia˜o de Porto Feliz, SP. Revista Brasileira de Fruticultura 23, 147–151. Figueiredo, J.O., De Negri, J.D., Mattos Ju´nior, D., Pio, R.M., Azevedo, F.A., Garcia, V.X.P., 2006. Comportamento de 16 porta-enxertos para o tangor Murcott na regia˜o de Itirapina-SP. Revista Brasileira de Fruticultura 28, 76–78. Georgiou, A., 2000. Performance of ‘Nova’ mandarin on eleven rootstocks in Cyprus. Sci. Hort. 84, 115–126. Hearn, C.J., 1979. Performance of ‘Sunburst’, a new citrus hybrid. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 92, 1–3. Hearn, C.J., 1987. The ‘Fallglo’ citrus hybrid in Florida. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 100, 119–121.

F.A.A. Moura˜o Filho et al. / Scientia Horticulturae 114 (2007) 45–49 Hearn, C.J., Hutchison, D.J., 1977. The performance of Robinson and Page citrus hybrids on 10 rootstocks. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 90, 44–47. Medina, C.L., Rena, A.B., Siqueira, D.L., Machado, E.C., 2005. Fisiologia dos citros. In: Mattos Ju´nior, D., De Negri, J.D., Pio, R.M., Pompeu Ju´nior, J. (Org.), Citros. Instituto Agronoˆmico/FUNDAG, Campinas, pp. 147–195. Miranda, M., 2002. Efeito de porta-enxertos na produtividade e vigor da tangerineira ‘Ponkan’ (Citrus reticulata Blanco) no Alto Ribeira-PR. Anais XVII Congresso Brasileiro de Fruticultura, Bele´m, Para´. Parente, T.V., Wechesler, F.S., Borgo, L.A., Rezende, L.P., 1993. Comportamento da tangerineira ‘Ponkan’ (Citrus reticulata Blanco) sobre 14 portaenxertos no Distrito Federal. Revista Brasileira de Fruticultura 15, 35–41. Roose, M.L., 1996. Performance of 4 citrus scions on 21 rootstocks in California. Proc. Int. Soc. Citriculture 141–144. Salibe, A.A., Mischan, M.M., 1984. Effect of ten rootstocks on tree size, early bearing and fruit quality of Satsuma mandarin trees. Proc. Int. Soc. Citriculture 55–57.

49

Smith, M.W., Shaw, R.G., Chapman, J.C., Owen-Turner, J., Lee, L.S., McRae, K.B., Jorgensen, K.R., Mungomery, W.V., 2004. Long-term performance of ‘Ellendale’ mandarin on seven commercial rootstocks in sub-tropical Australia. Sci. Hort. 102, 75–89. Souza, E.L.S., Porto, O.M., Reck, S.R., Braun, J., 1992. Comportamento do tangor ‘Murcote’ em 12 porta-enxertos no Rio Grande do Sul. Revista Brasileira de Fruticultura 14, 105–112. Spo´sito, M.B., Castro, P.R.C., Agustı´, M., 1998. Alternaˆncia de produc¸a˜o em citros. Laranja 19, 293–304. Stenzel, N.M.C., Neves, C.S.V.J., Gomes, J.C., Medina, C.C., 2003. Performance of ‘Ponkan’ mandarin on seven rootstocks in Southern Brazil. HortScience 38, 176–178. Stuchi, E.S., Sempionato, O.R., Silva, J.A.A., 1996. Influeˆncia dos portaenxertos na qualidade dos frutos cı´tricos. Laranja 17, 159–178. Zekri, M., 2000. Citrus rootstocks affect scion nutrition, fruit quality, growth, yield and economical return. Fruits 55, 231–239.