Berra, L.

Carli, C.

Manino, Aulo

Patetta, Augusto

Pellegrino, S.

Porporato, Marco

English

Institutional Research Information System University of Turin

POLLINATION REQUIREMENTS OF APRICOT:TEN YEARS RESEARCH IN PIEDMONT (ITALY)Aulo Manino*, Marco Porporato*, Augusto Patetta*Lorenzo Berra**, Cristiano Carli**, Silvio Pellegrino*** Di.Va.P.R.A. – Entomologia e Zoologia applicate all’ambiente “Carlo Vidano”, Università di Torino, Grugliasco TO, Italia** CReSO, Consorzio di Ricerca e Sperimentazione per l’Ortofrutticoltura piemontese, Cuneo, ItaliaA caged branch (on the right) compared with a free one (on the left) after the fruit had set and before thinning.A caged branch.Pollinating insects recorded during blossom. Consorzio di Ricerca e Sperimentazione per l’Ortofrutticoltura piemonteseApricot (Prunus armeniaca L.) is usually auto-compatible, while lately some auto-incompatible cultivars have spread because of their quality excellence. The introduction of new cultivars needs therefore the evaluation, besides of agronomic and productive requirements, also of the necessity of insect pollination so to adopt adequate planting and control strategies compatible with the accomplishment of the pollination service.Observation and test were carried out on 25 newly established cultivars in three localities of the province of Cuneo (north-western Italy): the CReSO Experimental Stations of Spinetta di Cuneo (2000-2004) and Manta (since 2008) and the fruit-growing farm Quaranta of Costigliole diSaluzzo in 2005. In any case there were a lot of plants supplying compatible pollen, and beehives were placed close to the experimental orchards in order to grant adequate insect pollination. For each cultivar and year, 3-5 trees were selected. On each tree 2 fruit-bearing branches of similar size were chosen; one of them was isolated with a net mesh sufficient to prevent the passage of pollinating insects, without hampering sensibly the wind action, while the other one was left free. For each branch, flowers, set fruits, and ripe fruits were counted; the latter were also weighed.7-9 September 2010Metu – Ankara, Turkey® trade mark; ◊ cultivar under patent protection; ‡ the fruits were not singled; † 2002 only; evidenced areas point out statistically significative differences. During the blooming period, observations were made on the presence of pollinating insects. They were counted on the flowers along a 200 m long transect. Honeybees were the most abundant, while wild pollinators were rather scanty. Relatively few wild bees were recorded and most of them were Osmiacornuta (Latreille, 1805) females and bumblebee queens belonging to the species Bombus hortorumhortorum (Linnaeus, 1761), B. hypnorum ericetorum (Panzer, 1801), B. pratorum pratorum (Linnaeus, 1761), and B. terrestris terrestris (Linnaeus, 1758).Most cultivars produced none or very few fruits on the caged branches, although these fruits were often bigger than those produced on the free branches; such cultivars were completely or nearly completely auto-incompatible and require therefore the presence of pollinating cultivars, combined with the beneficial action of the honey bee. On the contrary the remaining cultivars were clearly auto-compatible or, at least, their partial auto-incompatibility did not hamper the production of enough fruits to be commercially acceptable; as a matter of fact, auto-compatible cultivars often needed extensive thinning of small fruits to produce ripe fruits of commercial size.When auto-incompatible cultivars are grown, an adequate presence of pollinating insects is needed; this can be readily achieved by placing honeybee hives in the orchards, but also mason bees or bumblebees could be used. Whatever pollinating insect is used, the risk of poisoning them by using pesticides during or close to blossom must be taken into due account and pest management schemes should be adapted accordingly.Manta ●Costigliole di Saluzzo●Spinetta di Cuneo ●The  three localities in the province of Cuneo (Piedmont, Italy) wherethe trials were carried out.Results of pollination trials carried out on 25 newly established apricot cultivars. Percentages are relative to flower number.set flowers (%)  fruits before singling (%)  ripe fruits (%)  ripe fruit weight (g) Cultivar testing year(s) caged branches free branches  caged branches free branches  caged branches free branches  caged branches free branches selfing pollination needed Goldrich 2000-2001 24.7±24.0 38.0±15.2  ‡ ‡  1.1±1.0 26.2±17.7  51.8±6.3 60.6±19.7 no yes Hargrand 2000-2001 36.3±36,9 53.3±9.8  ‡ ‡  0.9±1.1 19.2±17,7  57.0±16.0 59.3±27.8 no yes Laycot◊ 2000-2001 9.7±8.5 38.3±7.2  ‡ ‡  0 23.3±17.0  0 43.6±12.0 no yes Orange Red® Bhart◊ 2000-2001 5.2±9.5 37.3±12.7  ‡ ‡  0.1±0.1 32.7±14.1  54.3 29.2±7.2 no yes Pinkcot® Cotpy◊ 2000-2001 3.9±4.0 24.2±5.8  ‡ ‡  0.1±0.3 15.6±5.1  86.0 58.5±17.7 no yes Robada◊ 2001-2002 16.6±12.7 37.5±7.0  0† 21.0±2.3†  0 16.6±11.7  0 44.1±18.1 no yes Bobcot® Norcot◊ 2002-2003 27.1±14.7 21.9±21.0  15.2±10.4 8.2±7.3  8.2±7.2 5.4±5.2  44.2±13.2 42.1±18.0 yes no Golstrike® Toyesi◊ 2002-2003 22.8±13.0 33.3±20.9  0.7±0.8 20.8±12.9  0.3±0.6 12.4±5.3  35.5±10.9 32.8±20.8 no yes Sweetcot® Toyuda◊ 2002-2003 11.0±10.1 28.0±13.8  1.1±1.0 21.3±11.9  0.7±0.6 12.1±3.9  49.4±18.0 47.3±15.7 no yes Tomcot® Toyaco◊ 2002-2003 24.1±18,2 31.7±23.0  14.7±9.1 19.9±11.8  11.0±7.9 12.4±5.3  26.1±12.6 29.8±15.4 yes no Flavorcot® Bayoto◊ 2002-2003-2004 20.7±7,9 41.9±10.8  14.8±5.3 29.8±17.3  8.1±2.2 13.8±6.1  32.9±7.5 28.5±7.4 yes no Goldbar® Toyiba◊ 2002-2003-2004 20.3±15.2 41.7±13.9  2.0±2.0 27.9±11.8  1.8±1.9 15.7±9.0  62.6±18.8 44.8±23.5 partial yes Incomparable de Malissard® Valsard◊ 2002-2003-2004 33.5±17.3 60.8±17.8  14.4±4.4 52.3±14.1  12.4±4.8 25.1±7.0  39.8±7.1 28.4±5.5 no yes Kyoto◊ 2004 22.8±14.1 71.7±12.4  15.1±9.3 31.1±11.7  9.2±3.7 16.0±8.0  41.7±7.0 42.1±7.7 yes no Jenny Cot® Larclyd◊ 2005 69.4±9.6 69.0±17.1  64.5±10.4 61.1±15.6  0 16.0±3.8  0 38.80±2.19 no yes Larqueen◊ 2005 37.9±13.5 42.1±10.9  30.4±8.3 36.4±13.7  9.3±1.3 18.4±3.2  50.26±7.42 55.18±6.47 yes no Mango Cot® Rustey◊ 2005 20.3±15.6 48.0±24.7  14.0±11.3 29.7±18.1  0 12.2±6.3  0 67.72±4.95 no yes Yamato◊ 2005 19.7±6.8 39.6±21.6  9.3±2.0 29.7±16.8  0 12.2±6.3  0 89.57±2.25 no yes Zebra® Priboto◊  2005 22.2±19.6 30.0±16.8  17.9±10.6 24.0±13.1  0.2±0.3 6.2±3.2  87.00±0.00 88.50±5.25 no yes Wondercot◊ 2008 1.5±1.8 5.9±0.1  0.4±0.5 4.4±0.4  0 3.0±1.5  0 85.0±1.4 no yes Lilly Cot◊ 2008 4.0±0.2 6.0±5.4  1.2±0.9 5.1±4.0  0.9±0.6 3.6±1.5  73.3±10.9 68.4±15.1 partial yes Lady Cot◊ 2008 8.9±0.5 33.8±10.7  6.3±0.2 18.0±10.3  0 11.5±6.1  0 93.0±2.4 no yes Sunny Cot◊ 2009 40.2±13.8 57.4±0.9  6.7±1.4 11.6±0.3  5.5±3.1 7.4±2.2  72.4±10.0 69.4±12.7 yes no Tropic Blush A 1537◊ 2009-2010 52.2±26.0 61.4±21.8  6.6±1.3 29.1±13.4  4.8±0.7 14.0±6.7  37.6±6.7 33.0±4.7 partial no Tropic Blush A 2858◊ 2009-2010 46.1±29.9 51.9±24.4  2.4±2.6 17.5±7.9  0.6±0.8 7.6±4.2  34.8±6.3 29.8±5.7 no yes  

Pollination requirements of apricot: ten years of research in Piedmont (Italy)

https://iris.unito.it/bitstream/2318/77722/1/Pollination%20Requirements%20of%20Apricot....pdf

Pollination requirements of apricot: ten years of research in Piedmont (Italy)

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Institutional Research Information System University of Turin