Stress, its types, different rootstock of temperate fruits for stress condition, fruit species, stress induction mechanism contact: dhota3@gmail.com

1. Shree Ganeshaya Namah

2. Selection Of Fruit Genotypes
For Biotic And Abiotic Stress
Welcome To Credit Seminar 2015-16
Submitted by
DebashishHota
H-2014-31-M

3. STRESS
Some factors of the environment interferes with the
complete expression of genotypic potential , it is
called stress.
To the Biologist: Any environmental factors
potentially unfavorable to a living things.
To the Physiologist: Set of conditions that cause an
aberrant change in physiological processes resulting
in injury.

5. Classification of stresses
Abiotic stress
Biotic Stress
Physical stress Chemical stress
drought
temperature
light
flooding
Radiation
wind
air pollutants
heavy metals
pesticides
insecticides
toxin
soil pH and alkalinity
allelopathy
competition
diseases
pests
viruses
Human activities
Herbivory

6. Why should we study Selection Of Fruit
Genotype For Biotic And Abiotic Stress
Resistance ?
• It is very cheap- Farmers can use resistant varieties
without incurring any extra expenditure.
• It is eco friendly- Fungicides and other pesticides
leave some residual effect. By using resistant
varieties, this reduces the use of pesticides.
• It is more effective as compared to other measure
of stress control.
• In case of soil borne diseases, it is impossible to
cover long area with any other means of disease
control. In this case, resistant varieties are effective
measure to control soil borne diseases.

7. Concept
The plant resistance includes those characters
which enable a plant to avoid, tolerate or
recover from stress under conditions that
would cause greater injury to other plant of the
same species.
Resistance is heritable characteristics
possessed by the plant which influence the
ultimate degree of damage done by the insect .

8. How plants respond to stress
Stress
Continuation
of stresses
Severity
Duration
No. of
exposures
Organ or
tissue
Stage of
development
Genotype
Resistance
Susceptibility
Survival and
growth
Death
Stress
Characteristics
Plant
Characteristics
Response Result

9. Changes in gene expression during stress
Plants respond to stresses as individual cells and as whole
organisms – stress induced signals can be transmitted
throughout the plant, making other parts more ready to
withstand the stress. Buchanan et al. 2003

10. Losses caused by Biotic stress in Fruit Plants
Sl no. Fruit crop Loses (%) Biotic factor
1 Mango
fruit drop (10-70%),
yield loss (10-85%),
storage rot (5-100%)
Bacterial Canker
90% Powdery mildew
10-41% Fruit fly
20-80% Anthracnose
2 Banana 10-30% Insect-pest
3 Papaya 100% Stem rot
4 Guava 10-41% Fruit fly
5 Grapes 80% Insect-pest
6 Sapota 40-90% Seed borer

11. Mechanism of Insect Resistance
Non-preference: Host varieties are unattractive or
unsuitable for colonization, oviposition or both by an insect
pest.
 Antibiosis: It refers to an adverse effect of feeding on a
resistance host plant on the development and or
reproduction of the insect pest.
 Tolerance: An insect tolerant variety is attacked by the
insect pest to the same degree as a susceptible variety. But
the same level of infestation, a tolerant variety produces a
large yield than a susceptible variety.
 Avoidance: It refers to the escape of a variety from insect
attack either due to earliness or its cultivation in the season
where insect population is very low.

12. Mechanism of Disease Resistance
Mechanical: Certain mechanical or anatomical features of
the host may prevent infection.
 Hypersensitivity: Immediately after infection, several
host cells surrounding the point of infection die. This leads
to the death of the pathogen or at least prevent its spore
production. Phytoalexin (specific polyphenolic or
terpenoid chemicals produced by the host in response to
the infection by a pathogen) are responsible for
hypersensitive reaction.
 Nutritional: The reduction in growth & spore production
is generally supposed to be due to an unfavorable
physiological condition within the host. A resistant host
does not fulfil the nutritional requirement of the pathogen
and thereby limits its growth & reproduction.

13. Crop Losses Due To Abiotic Stress
 Reduced seed germination and seedling establishment
 Poor seedling vigour
 Decrease in the root length
 Drying of shoot tips
 Leaf curling and rolling
 Reduced pollen viability
 Senescence of leaves and floral parts
 Poor yield and quality of the horticultural produce.

14. DROUGHT STRESS
• Drought is a meteorological terms that means a lack of precipitation
over a prolonged period of time. Miller (1943)
• To the Physiologist – drought refers to as a situation where the
transpiration rate exceeds the absorption rate.
• To the Agronomist – water stress is due to lack of precipitation over
a prolonged period of time. The area, which receives annual rainfall
less than the average
Types of stress Water potential (MPa)
Mild stress 0.1
Moderate stress -1.2 to –1.5
Severe stress Less than –1.5

15. Fruit cracking of apple due to water stress Shrivelling of olive fruit due to water stress

16. Water stress
(Drought)
Low rainfall
Low soil moisture availability
High evaporation from soil
Restricted root system
Accumulation of salt in top soil i.e.,
osmotic stress, toxin stress Hot dry wind
Low humidity, high air temp,
high transpiration

17. Plant Response to water deficit and Drought
 (i) Decreased leaf area
Reduction in leaf area can thus be considered a first line of
defense against drought.
 (ii) Stimulates Leaf Abscission
 (iii) Water Deficit Enhances Root Extension into Deeper, Moist soil
 (iv) Stomata Close during Water Deficit in Response to ABA
 (v) Water Deficit Limits Photosynthesis within the chloroplast
 (vi) Water Deficit Increases Wax Deposition on the Leaf Surface
 (Vii) Reduced protein synthesis and enzyme levels

18. Plant Adaptations to Drought
Drought escaping
 Ephemerals
 Early variety
Drought resistance
Drought avoidance Drought tolerance
Water saver Water spenders Mitigating stress High tolerance
Early stomata closer
Lipid deposition on
foliage
Reduced leaf area
Leaf morphology
Water storage in plants
Efficient root system
High root/shoot ratio
Resistance to
dehydration
Thick cuticle
Maintenance of high
osmotic pressure
Metabolic strain
Plastic strain
(Reddy and Reddy, 2011)

19. Drought tolerance in fruit plants are characterized by the
following features:
1. Morphological features:
Fruit crops Special features
Aonla, Karonda, Wood apple,
Bael, Tamarind
Reduction in no. and size of leaves
Phalsa and Fig Leaves densely pubescence
Date palm Leaf tips modified into spines
Sapota, Cashew nut,
Pomegranate
Have shining surface due to presence of
thicker cuticle
Mango, Ber, Bael, Wood apple Deep and extensive root system
Wood apple, Mango, Bael Dense arrangements of aerial shoots
Ber, Bael, Wood apple, Fig Radiation reflected by the glittering leaves/
waxy coating/ latex
Ber, Cashew Decreases in stomatal density and frequency
Ber, Pomegranate Low osmotic/ water potential
Fig, Karonda Secretion of latex in leaves
Mango, Cashew High degree of phenol, tannins and oil content

20. Morphological
features

21. 2. Decrease in leaf area:
First line of defense against drought. Decrease in turgor
leads to decrease in growth rate ,decrease in leaf area and
decrease transpiration rate.
Species Leaf Number (%) Total Leaf Area(%)
P. dulcis 10.3 30.9
P. eburnea 33.3 51.9
P. scoparia 36.7 24.6
P. haussknechti 9.0 16.8
P. eleagnifolia 27.3 29.4
Reduction in leaf number and total leaf area under severe
drought stress (Ψs= -1.6 MPa) compared to the control in five
almond species
Source : Khosroshahi et. al., 2014

22. 3. Leaf area adjustment:
Stimulation of leaf abscission with increase in
ethylene level in leaf abscission zone.
4. Root growth:
Second line of defense against drought, Leaf
expansion reduced and more assimilates transported
to root where they support further growth.
5. Stomatal closure :
Stomatal closure act as an third line of defense
against drought. The loss of water from the guard cells
cause stomata to close by a mechanism called hydro
passive.

23. (Sanjeev,2006)
Moisture levels
(bar)
Stomatal
resistance
(Scm-1)
Transpiration
rate
(mmol/m2/S)
Leaf water
potential
Leaf
chlorophyll
content
(mg/g)
Photosynthesis
(µmol/m2/S)
-0.5
-2.5
-5.0
-10.0
120.8
115.8
106.2
97.80
499.0
431.8
389.2
335.5
0.79
0.81
0.83
0.86
785.6
741.0
677.4
620.7
18.60
15.42
12.20
10.63
CD0.05 1.40 40.5 0.02 19.50 0.43
Effect of soil moisture levels on the physiological activity in pear cv. Flemish
Beauty on rootstock Kainth.

24. Tolerant Moderately tolerant Sensitive
Ber
Phalsa
Custard apple
Date palm
Cashew
Pomegranate
Sapodilla
Grafted citrus
Aonla
Avocado
Passion fruit
Litchi
Longan
Carambola
Coconut
Guava
Jackfruit
Sugar apple
Atemoya
Air layered Citrus
Papaya
Banana
Sapota
Carambola
Jack fruit
Rambutan
Apple
Source: Balerdi et al., 2006

25. Drought tolerant cultivars of fruit crops:
Fruits Cultivars Reference (s)
Apple Carola, Afrosiabi, Priscella, Slava, Premozhtsam,
Golden Delicious, Golden Resistant, Kuban, Mutsu,
Pivdenne, Start, Yellow Spur, Stark Spur, Cooper-6,
Tolstolik and Krasulya (2001)
Babino, Strimka, Thorber, Granny Smith, Farsaid Khalin (1989)
Pear Passé - Crassane, Starkrimson, Yantanaya, Victoriya,
Zimova, Beurre Hardy, Clapp’s Favorite, William
Rouge, Delbard, Nanguali
Tolstolik and Krasulya (2001)
Plum Nikita Early, Nevena, Vitanova, Elite Lime N 918, Elite
Lime N 8364, Bluefri, Strinava,
Ryazanava (2002)
Olive Chemlali Ennajeh et al., (2006)
Citrus Orlando, Mortan, Swingle Figveiredo et al.,(2002)
Mulberry 8004, Nongsang 14 Xiangling et al., (2004)

26. Flooding injury or water
logging condition
Moisture injury is caused by soil space filled
with water and without air. Flooding of soil is
the creation of an anaerobic environment
from which plant, and especially plant roots,
cannot obtain oxygen.
Flooding injury: whole plant or part of shoot is
submerged to water while flooding

27. INJURES OF FLOOD TO PLANTS
1) Injury in morphology & anatomy by O2 deficiency:
growth↓，leaf yellowish (nutrition deficiency), root darkness.
2) Injury in metabolism by O2 deficiency
Photosynthesis ↓- stomatal block, inhibition of CO2 entrance. Anaerobic
respiration↑.
(3) Nutrition disorder：
Absorption ↓，soil N, P, K, Ca loss but H2S, Fe, Mn ↑，microelements
poison.
(4) Changes in plant hormones
IAA and CTK ↓. ACC synthesis in root and release of Eth in shoot.

28. Symptoms associated with flooding injury are
• Pattern of yellowing leaves from base to top of
plant
• Drooping of the petioles while plant is still turgid
• Leaf epinasty
• Hypertrophy
• New root formation from the stems
• Wilting under severe condition of flooding

29. Chilling injury
 If the plant grown in hot temperature are exposed to low
temperature, they will be killed or severely injured.
Symptoms of chilling injury
I. Cellular change
II. Altered metabolism (Production of abnormal metabolites due
to anaerobic condition)
 Browning of skin and degradation of pulp tissues in banana
 Blackheart of Pineapple
 Cracking, splitting and dieback of stem

30.  Higher concentration – total soluble salts of Ca
and Mg.
 Predominant salt- NaCl create low water
potential – osmotic inhibition - water availability.
SALT STRESS
Salinity induced chlorosis in citrusTip burning due to chloride injury

31. The salinity of the soil is due to
1. Poor soil drainage
2. Improper irrigation method
3. Poor water quality
4. In sufficient water supply and rise in the ground water table.
5. More evaporation of water in arid-semi arid region.
6. Flooding of sea water in cultivated areas.
7. Highly accumulation of Na salt causes the sodic soil.
8. These soils contain high pH, poor infiltration rate
9. Saline soils normally occurs in Punjab, Haryana, U.P.,Gujarat,
Rajasthan, West Bengal, Maharashstra, A.P, Karnataka and
Tamilnadu

32. PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF
SALT STRESS
1. Nutritional imbalance
2. Effect on germination ( toxicity to the embryo or the growing seedling.)
3. Growth and development (stunting and retardant is the most common effect
of salt stress)
4. Effect on photosynthesis (Structural damage to chloroplasts Inhibition of light
and dark reaction, Reduced transport of photosynthetic assimilates
Chlorophyll content of the leaves are decreased)
5. Effect on respiration (direct effect of Na+ on the respiration chain)
6. Effect on carbohydrates(amylase activity accompanied by decreasing in
starch, accumulation of soluble sugars under salinity. )

33. Salt affected fruit crops in India
Sr. No Salt affected Area Affected fruit crops
1. Punjab Citrus
2. Uttar pradesh Mango and guava
3. Arid and semi arid
region of Rajsthan
and Gujarat
Arid fruit crops
4. Gujarat (Junagarh) Mango, Banana
and bettle vine
5. Maharashtra and
Andhra Pradesh
Grape

34. Highly
tolerance
Medium Tolerance Highly sensitive
Date palm, Ber,
Aonla, Guava
and Sapota
Pomegranate, Fig,
Jamun, Cashew nut
and Phalsa
Mango, Apple, Citrus,
Pear and Strawberry
Relative Salt tolerance Fruit crops
Highly
tolerance
Medium Tolerance Highly sensitive
Strawberry,
Raspberry, Fig,
Bael and Plum
Pineapple, Avocado
and Litchi
Banana, Pineapple and
Jackfruit
Relative Acid tolerance Fruit crops

35. Salt tolerance grades and threshold levels of different fruit
crops.
Sr.
No
Fruit crops EC( dS/m) Salt tolerant
grades
Threshold
1 Date palm, ber, Jamun,
Tamarind & wood apple
4.0 High tolerant
(8-16 dS/m)
2 Sapota, Pomegranate, Fig, Olive,
Guava, Aonla, bael,
1.5 Tolerant
(6-8 dS/m)
3 Peach, Papaya, banana, grape,
mango, C’ apple and Phalsa
1.2 Mod. Tolerant
(4-6 dS/m)
4 Plum, pear, lemon,lime and straw
berry
1.8 Sensitive
(0-4 dS/m)
5 Grape fruit 1.7 “
6 Orange,Almond,Black berry 1.5 “
Palaniappan and Chadha, 1993

36. Sr.
No
Crops Varieties
1. Ber Gola, Seb, Umran, Karaka, Mehrun
2. Pomegranate Dholka, Kandhari, Ganesh, Jodhpur Red
3. Aonla
G.A. -1, Banarasi, N.A. -7, Krishna,
Chakaiya
4. Bael Mirzapur, Basti No.-1
5. Custard apple Balanagar, Red Sitaphal, Mammoth
6. Date palm Halwy, Barhee, Medjool
Commercial varieties suitable for Salt affected soil
Pathak and Pathak, 2001

37. Methods to increase the resistance to abiotic
stress
（1）Selection of cultivars with high resistance to
drought, high yield and quality.
（2）Hardening to specific stress
（3）Suitable fertilizer application: Application of more
P,K to plants.
（4）Chemical regents application
(5) Application of plant substance: ABA,CCC etc.
for drought PP330,AMO-1618 .

38. Antitranspirants
Antitranspirants are of four types namely
1. Film forming type(Eg):- Low viscosity waxes,Silicone
oils,Hexadeconol
2. Stomata closing type (Eg) :- ABA, -napthoxy acetic
acid and Hydroxy quinoline sulphate
3. Reflectant type (Eg):- Kaolinite clay, Lime wash and
Celite
4. Growth retardant type (Eg):- Cycocel
`Davenport et. al.,1969

39. Rubus fruticosus R.occidentalis R.rosifolius R.niveus
E.latifoliaElaeagnus umbellate E.angustifolia E.pungens
Myrica nagi M.rubra M.cerifera Vaccinium corymbosum V.oxycococcos
Fruit Genotype Resistance
to Biotic And Abiotic Stress

40. APPLE

41. VARIETY COLD HARDINESS CROWN ROT FIRE BLIGHT
NOVOLE NA RESISTANT RESISTANT
M.27, EMLA 27 M. HARDY RESISTANT SUSCEPTIBLE
M.9 strains HARDY RESISTANT VERY SUSCEPTIBLE
MM.111 M. RESISTANT RESISTANT TOLERANT
MM.106 VERY SUSCEPTIBLE VERY SUSCEPTIBLE M. SUSCEPTIBLE
EMLA 7 M. RESISTANT S. SUSCEPTIBLE TOLERANT
Ottawa 3 VERY HARDY RESISTANT SUSCEPTIBLE
Bud. 9 HARDY VERY RESISTANT TOLERANT
Antonovka 313 HARDY RESISTANT M. SUCEPTIBLE
Mark HARDY RESISTANT SUSCEPTIBLE
Polish 2 VERY HARDY RESISTANT SUSCEPTIBLE
Polish 16 VERY HARDY RESISTANT SUSCEPTIBLE
Polish 22 VERY HARDY RESISTANT M. SUSCEPTIBLE
SOURCE: Robinson et.al., 2002
Apple Rootstock

42. • Geneva (USA)
 six rootstocks recently released by Dr. Jim Cummins
 The aims of the programme were to produce fire blight,
woolly aphid and Phytophthora resistant rootstocks, the
two most dwarfing releases (size control similar to M.27
and M.9) are not woolly aphid resistant.
 CG202 and CG210 are both resistant to fire blight, woolly
apple aphid and Phytophthora and early work suggests that
CG202 may produce a tree in the M.26 size range.

43. Geneva apple rootstock comparison
Traits G-
65
G-
11
G-16 G-41 G-
214
G-
935
G-202 G-222 G-
210
Woolly Apple Aphid
Resistance
NO NO NO HIGH HIGH NO HIGH HIGH HIGH
Replant Disease
Complex Resistance
NO PARTIAL TOL TOL TOL TOL NO TOL
Cold Hardiness YES YES PARTIAL YES YES PARTIAL YES
Susceptibility to latent
viruses
NO YES NO NO NO NO NO NO
All are resistant to Fire Blight and tolerant to Phytopthora root rot
Source: www.cornelluniversity.com

44. Rootstock Abiotic Stress Reference
M13 and M16 Highly tolerant to
waterlogged condition
Blasse, 1960
M7, M9 and M17 Tolerate drought condition –do-
M7, M16, M25 and MM109 High soil temperature
condition
Holubowicz et al., 1982
M 26 More tolerant to low winter
temperature
Wildung et al., 1973
Ottawa 3,Otawa 4, MM 106
and C-52
Tolerance at -35 °C Holubowicz et al., 1982
Adaptability to Abiotic Stress

45. Rootstocks of apple for Nutrient uptake
M9 rootstock showed higher uptake of Ca and Mn
(Roach, 1947)
M1 and M16 having higher amount of Ca in leaves
of fruiting clones (Awad and Kenworthy, 1963)
Trees of Empire apple showed higher concentration
of Mn in leaves on M27 rootstock (Lord et al.,
1985).
P 2 Higher Ca uptake (Ben and Malgarzata, 2005)

46. On the basis of Drought Injury Index, the apple
varieties are classified into three categories.
Drought tolerant Moderately
Drought tolerant
Drought susceptible
Mac Spur (54.7%) Vance Delicious Oregon Spur
Well Spur Vermound Spur Red Chief
Red Spur Red Gold
Skyline Supreme
Delicious
Royal Delicious
Tydeman’ s Early
Worcestor
Golden Spur
Top Red (88%)
Thakur, 2004

47. Pear

48. Pyrus calleryana
Resistant to Fire Blight, leaf spot wooly
aphid.Moderately resistant to crown gall, collar
rot, powdery mildew. Moderately susceptible
to pear blast and pear decline.
Pyrus communis seedling
Widely adapted to wide range of soil and climate.
Pyrus betulaefolia
Moderately tolerant to fire blight and winter
hardy.
Other important rootstocks
Rhenus(Old home×Bonne Louise d’Avaranches)
Fox 11, Fox 16
Cydomallus (Mallus communis×Cydonia
oblonga)
Pyrus calleryana
Pyrus calleryana

49. Pyrus species Black
end
Pear
decline
Fire blight Wooly
pear aphid
Cold
hardiness
Soil
adaptibility
P. pashia R MR MS VS S SM
P. communis R MR S VS R TM
P. nivalis R MS S R TM
P. calleryana R MR R R S TM
P. betulaefolia R R MR R MS TM
P. ussuriensis MS S R R MR SM
P. pyrifolia S S MR VS MR TM
R-Resistant, S-Susceptible, MR- Moderately Resistant, MS- Moderately Susceptible
VS- Very Susceptible, SM- Susceptible to Soil moisture, TM-Tolerant to Soil moisture
P. ussuriensis P. nivalisP. pyrifolia

50. Root stocks of pear which can be
introduced to India
Strain Example
Drought tolerance Oregon 211, 249,260, 264
Cold hardiness OH*F series
High temperature tolerance Oregon 211, 249,260, 261,264
High soil moisture stress Oregon series
Resistant to powdery mildew Oregon 211,249
Resistant to crown rot OH*F series, Oregon series
Resistant to canker Oregon 260, 261,264, OH*F series
Resistant to crown gall OH*F series, Oregon series
Resistant to nematodes Oregon series,
Dhillon et.al., 2013

51. Adaptability to different kinds of soil
There are several pear rootstocks which are highly adoptable
under different types of soil.
 Pyrus amygdaliformis and P. elaeagrifolia rootstocks perform
well in soil with pH 7.5 - 8.0
 BP1 and BP3 are highly suitable for rich soil and poor soil,
respectively (Zyl and Etsebeth, 1981).
 P. betulifolia is recommended for alkaline soil.

52. Adaptability to different climatic conditions
Pyrus ussuriensis rootstock is preferred for severe climate. It is also used as a
winter hardy rootstock in several regions like Northern Asia and North
America.
D 6 rootstock is highly suitable under drought conditions (Cole, 1966).
Seedling of Williams Bartlett, Winter Nelis, Clonal seedling of Anjou, Bartlett,
Old Home and P. amygdalifolia, P. pashia, seedling of P. calleryana etc. can
suitably grown under warm winter or hot summer conditions.
Old Home, P. ussuriensis can survive under a temperature as low as -400C
A series of OH X F rootstocks, P. caucasia, P. nivalis, Bartlett, Anjou, P. fauriei, P.
pseudopashia etc. can survive under a low temperature of -300C

53. Rootstocks of pear for Nutrient uptake
NUTRIENT ROOTSTOCKS
N P. amygdaliformis, P. eleaegrifolia
P P. amygdaliformis, P. eleaegrifolia, P. pashia
K P. pashia, sorbus spp.
Ca Old Home, OH X F clones, P. betulifolia
Mg Cydonia oblonga, Sorbus spp
Mn Sorbus spp, P. fauriei
Fe P. amygdaliformis, P. eleaegrifolia, P. pashia
B P. eleaegrifolia, P. pashia, P. ussuriensis,
P. betulifolia.
Zn P. betulifolia, P. eleaegrifolia, P. communis
Chaplin and Westwood (1980)

54. Peach
SUNCRESTGLO HAVEN
EARLY GRANDEEARLY WHITE GIANT ANDROSS
MAY FIRE SNOW QUEEN RED GOLD

55. Prunus spp used as root stock
Prunus davidiana
Cold hardy, reddish brown bark
Prunus ferganensis
Parallel leaf vein, parallel grooves on
seed
Prunus kanouensis
Glabrous winter bud
Prunus mira
White flower and smooth stone
Prunus insititia
Prunus davidiana
Prunus fasciculata

56. Peach Rootstocks Characteristics
Bailey Cold hardy rootstock with good overall performance
Guardian Vigorous rootstock with resistance to short life
syndrome.
GF677 (Amandier) A peach-almond hybrid for adaptation to high pH
soils; highly vigorous, tolerant to wet and dry soil
Nemaguard Resistance to root knot nematode
Siberian C Cold hardy rootstock
St Julian Hybrid No 2 Tolerant to wet soil, salts, bacteria canker
Mariana GF 8/1 Resistanat to water logging, viruses, root knot
nematode
Damus GF 1869 Resistant to high soil pH, water logging and
bacteria canker
Kumar et. al. ,2013

57. Effect Peach
Resistance to crown gall Nemaguard,Rutger’s Red Leaf, Rubira
Resistance to bacterial gummosis Bemaguard, S-37, Lovell
Nematode resistance Nemared, Namaguard, Marianna 2624
Mariana GF 8-1 Nemaguard, Hyb. GF. 557
Salt tolerance Hyb. GF 557 Hyb. GF 677
Drought tolerance Hyb. GF 557, Hyb. GF 677,
Resistance to water-logging St Julian Hyb. 2, st Julian Hyb. 1, Damas GF
1869
Cold hardiness Siberian C

58. Plum rootstocks
Root stock characteristics Example
Cold hardy St Julian A, Mariana 2624, Mariana GF 8/1
Tolerant to drought Myrobalan 27
High soil moisture tolerant Mariana GF8/1, Mariana 2621, Damas GF
1869
High soil ph tolerant Myrobalan 29C, Mariana GF 8/1, Damas
GF 1869
Resistant to crown gall Mariana GF 8/1, Mariana 2624,
Myrobalan GF 31, Myrobalan 29C
Resistant to canker Myrobalan B, Pixy
Resistant to nematodes Mariana GF 8/1, Mariana 2624
Sharma et.al.,2013

59. Other plum rootstocks Character
Mr S 2/5 (P cerrasifera × P spinosa) Resistant to water logging soil and
calcarious soil
Ackermann’s Semi dwarf
Brompton Cold resistant
Pershore (Yellow Egg) Semi dwarf
Prune GF 43 Resistant to water logging and root and
colar rot
Beach plum (P maritima) Most dwarf
Nanking cherry ( P tomentosa) Resistant to frost and drought
GF 557 Resistant to drought, root knot
nematodes, and high ph soil
Prunus hortulana Bailey Resistant to brown rot
Prunus munsoniana Weight and Hedre Resistant to brown rot and spring frost

60. Choices for rootstocks used for apricot
Rootstock Common name/variety Characteristics
P. armeniaca apricot seedlings and
commercial varieties
low temperature tolerant, frost
hardy, resistant to nematodes
P. cerasifera,
P. myrobalana
cherry plum, myrobalan
seedlings and clones
resistance to stemborer; wide
soil adaptation; improve
winter hardiness , adaptive to
heavy and calcareous soils,
resistant to iron chlorosis
P. cerasifera x P.
munsoniana
wild-goose plum; GF 8-1,
Marianna 2624
wide soil adaptation, resistant
to water-logging , resistant to
Meloidogne incognita
nematode
P. domestica L European plum winter hardiness
P. persica L peach, Lovell, Nemaguard,
Nemared
some resistance to bacterial
canker and Verticillium;
Nemaguard & Nemared have
root-knot nematode resistance
P. insititia Pollizo Resistance to lime chlorosis

61. Biotic stress Suitable rootstock
Phylloxera V. rotundifolia, V. riparia, V. berlandieri and V. rupestris.
Riparia Glorie, St. George
Nematodes V. champini, V. cinerea, V. longii.
Pierce’s disease V. champini, V. rotundifolia x V. bourquiniana
Some promising rootstock of grape suited for
different stresses
Abiotic stress Suitable rootstock
Lime tolerance Vitis berlandieri and vinifera. 41 B, 333 EM, Fercal
Drought tolerance Hybrids of Vitis berlandieri and V. rupesrtis. 110 R, 140 Ru,
1103 P and 99 R, Dogridge
Salt tolerance Vitis champini. Ramsey, Dogridge, Salt Creek

62. Grape species
Cold
hardiness
Phylloxera
resistance
Chlorosis
tolerance
Drought
tolerance
V. riparia
Good High Susceptible Low
V. rupestris
Good High Moderate Moderate
V. berlandieri
Moderate High Tolerant Tolerant
V. champini
Moderate High Tolerant
Very
tolerant

63. Grape
Rootstock
Species Phylloxera
resistance
Chlorosis
tolerance
Drought
tolerance
St George Rupestris VR S VS
SO 4 Riparia ×berlandieri R MR VS
110 R Rupestris × berlandieri R MR R
1613 C Vinifera×riparia×labrusca S S ?
Dogridge Champini MS-MR S ?
Champanel Champini R R R

64. Characteristics of Citrus Rootstocks
Rootstock Characteristics
Sour Orange
(Citrus aurantium)
resistant to Phytophthora foot rot & gummosis, tolerant to
salt, well suited for heavy moist soils
Sweet Orange
(C. sinensis)
moderately salt and cold tolerant, tolerant to quick decline.
Rough Lemon
(C. jambhiri)
drought tolerant and moderately salt & boron tolerant and is
acceptable for use in alkaline soils. Less cold hardy.
Rangpur Lime
(C. limonia)
Resistant to tristeza, gummosis and does well in heavy soil.
More tolerant to salts than other. Tolerant to quick decline.
Cold resistant.
Cleopatra Mandarin
(C. reshni)
Resistant to gummosis. Moderately cold tolerant. Tolerant to
quick decline and tristeza. Better adopted to saline soils.
Trifoliate Orange
(Poncirus trifoliata)
Resistant to the citrus nimatode, Xyloporosis, tristeza and
Phytophthora.
Swingle Citrumelo
(Duncan Grapefruit X Trifoliate Orange)
Tolerant to tristeza and Phytophthora parasitica and is
moderate tolerant to salts. More cold hardy than Rough
Lemon
Flying dragon (C.trifoliata var.monstrosa) Resistant to tristeza virus, Tolerant to xyloporosis, exocortis
and gummosis
C. unshiu Tolerant to freezing condition

65. K.K. Misra and Ranvir Singh
Dept. of Hort. G.B. Pant university of Agriculture
and Tech. Pantnagr 263 145
Effect of rootstocks on the production of healthy sunscald and
cracked fruits of plant lemon
Rootstocks Type of. fruits (Percent)
Healthy Sunscald Cracked
Karna Khatta 61.37 17.58 (2-1.75) 21.04 (27.28)
Jambheri 53.80 21.64 (27.72) 24.55 (29.69)
Bhadri lemon 64.21 15.21 (22.93) 20.57 (26.91)
Sour orange 58,02 21,14 (27.23) 20.82 (27.12)
Trifoliate orange 63.71 18.24 (25.27) 18.04 (25.09)
Kodakithuli 61.86 17.49 (24.60) 20.64 (26.97)
Troyer citrange 70.18 10.71( 18.85) 19.10 (26.06)
Rangpur lime 67.01 15.42 (23.05) 17.55 (24.41)
Cleopatra mandarin 65.17 13.51 (21.53) 21.29 (27.09)
Own rooted cutting grown 52.32 24.21 (29.30) 23.45 (28.87)
plants of Pant lemon-1
CD. at 5% level 8.97 (4.69) NS

66. Species Special characteristics Source
M. decandra Rootstock for water logged
conditions
Sumatra, Pakambarne
M. gedebe Rootstock for water logged
conditions
C. E. Borneo
M. indica var. mekongensis Fruit twice a year & hence a
good parent in crossing
Saigon
M. inocarpoides Rootstock for water logged
conditions
Papua, Morehead
M. laurina Resistance to anthracnose Bompard (1993)
M. mangifica Fibreless Bompard (1993)
M. Rufocostat and M.
swintonioides
OFF-season bearing habbit Bompard (1993)
M. altissima Unaffected by hoppers, tip
and seed borers
Angeles (1991)
Mukharjee, 1985
Mango Rootstocks

67. Disease Tolerant Or Resistant Varieties
Mango malformation Samar Bahist Rampur, Miam Sahib are tolerant varieties
Bacterial Cancer Bombay green resistant, gene donor
Anthracnose Tommy Atkin’s- moderatly tolerant , Parish and Farichild-
resistant
Mango wilt ‘Carabao’ ‘Manga D’agua’, ‘Espada Vemhelha’ and ‘Voutpa’
(Carvalho et al. 2004).
Powdery mildew •Pairi- susceptible
•Neelum, Zardalu, Banglora, totapauri-tolerant
•Alphanso, tommy atkin, Van Dyke- most tolerant (Dinha et
al 2003)
•Interspecific crosses between M.laurina and M.Indica-
improve genetics of tolerance to disease (Bompard 1993).

68. Banana Genotypes
Name of the clone/cultivars Name of the biotic and abiotic
stress
M. balbisiana Drought
Calcutta -4 Black sigatoka
Pisanglilin Panama wilt race 1
SH3142 (diploid hybrid) Races of fusarium
M.acuminata spp
malaccensis,m.spp barmanica
Race 1 and race 2 of fusarium
SH699 Bacteria wilt race2 ,Moko
disease
Tangat ,Anaikomban Nematodes

69. Different resistant Banana varieties
• H-1(Agnishwar x Pisanglilin): It is resistant to leaf spot,
fusarium wilt and burrowing nematode.
• H-2 (Vannam x Pisanglilin): It is tolerant to leaf spot and
nematode.
• FHIA-1(SH3142 x Dwarf prata):Belongs to AAAB group
highly resistant to black sigatoka fusarium wilt burrowing
nematode.
• Pey kunnan(ABB):Tolerant to biotic and abiotic stresses.
• FHIA-3(SH3386 x SH3320):Belongs to AABB group .
• It is drought tolerant hybrid and resistant to sigatoka
disease.
• BITA-1(BLUGGOE x CALCUTTA-4): Developed at IITA,
Nigeria.
• It is tetraploid and resistant to sigatoka and fusarium wilt.

70. Size, number of stomata and growth in
different Ber rootstocks
rootstock
No. of
stomata
per cm2
Size of stomata
Height of
plant
(mtr)
Spread
Girth
of
stem
(M)
Leaf area
(cm2)
length breadth N.S. (M) E.W. (M)
Z. rotundifolia 36374 24.28 14.28 5.60 6.1 7.0 0.69 22.66
Z. mauritiana 61753 17.14 9.99 6.85 9.2 7.6 0.95 30.19
Z. spinichristii 8333 10.00 7.14 3.90 5.0 4.7 0.63 11.50
Z.numularia 8099 7.14 5.14 3.60 3.5 3.4 0.29 5.34
Bankar and Prasad, 1992

71. Fruit yield and growth characteristics of ber varieties under rainfed conditions of Punjab.
Variety Fruit yield
(kg/ plant)
Plant height
(cm)
Stem girth
(cm)
Plant spread
(cm)
Sanaur No.2 32.3 306.8 52.7 735
Umran 13.0 254.6 33.2 412
ZG 2 11.2 146.6 21.4 210
CD (5%) 4.4 15.1 5.1 25.1
Variety Fruit
yield
(kg/
plant)
Fruit
length
(cm)
Fruit
breadth
(cm)
Stone
weight
(g)
Pulp (%) TSS ( %) Acidity (%) Total
sugars
(%)
Sanaur
No.2
15.3 3.71 2.80 1.19 92.3 19.4 0.23 12.64
Umran 18.7 4.10 2.85 1.26 93.7 15.1 0.26 10.12
ZG 2 10.1 3.30 2.37 0.90 91.7 13.1 0.39 10.01
CD (5%) 1.9 0.31 0.21 0.12 NS 0.98 0.08 0.79
Fruit characteristics and quality analysis of ber varieties under rainfed conditions of Punjab.
Aulakh et al., 2000

72. Xylem water potential, a reliable indicator of
drought tolerance.
Olive varieties Water potential (Kpa) Decline in water
potential
(Compared to
control)
Un-stressed Stressed
Cornicobra -270 -1877 5.95 times
Aglandeau -318 -1921 5.04 times
Frontoio -233 -1944 5.19 times
Pendolino -246 -1907 6.75 times
Coratina -304 -1892 5.22 times
CD0.05 -24 -37
Thakur, 2004

73. ROOT STOCKS SELECTION FOR ABIOTIC AND BIOTIC STRESS
FRUITS ROOT STOCKS SPECIFIC FEATURES
Mango I. Kurrukan,Nekkare
II. 13/1(Israel)
III. Rumani and Dashehari
A. Salt resistant
B. Tolerant to calcareous soils
C. Tolerant to salinity
Guava 1. Pusa srijan,
P.friedrichsthalianum
2.P.cattleium var.lucidum
3. P.molle
a) resistant to wilt
b) Resistant to guava wilt
c) Tolerant to nematode
Sapota Chrysophyllum lanceolatum Wider soil adaptability
Fig Ficus glomerata Resistant to root knot nematode
Papaya C.pentagona and
C.candarcensis
Frost resistant
Jamun Syzygium densiflorum Resistant to termite
walnut J.hindsi Tolerant to waterlogged soils

74. Fruit Root Stock
Apple
Seedling rootstock: Crab apple, Various root stock
Colonal root stocks: Dwarf- M9 and M26
Semi dwarf: M7 and MM 106
Semi Vigorous: MM 111, M 793
Pear
Seedling rootstock- Kainth
Colonal root stock- Quince
Cherry
Colonal root stock- F 12/1, Colt
Seedling rootstock: Paja
Almond
Seedling rootstocks-
Wild peach for lower hills
Bitter almond for high hill
Apricot Seedling rootstock- Wild apricot
Peach Seedling rootstocks- Wild peach
Plum
Seedling rootstock: Wild Apricot
Colonal root stocks: Myro Plum
Nuts Seedling rootstock- Katha
Kiwi Fruit Seedling rootstock- Bruno
Root stock used in Himachal Pradesh

75. CONCLUSION
Stress itself a great obstacles in the increasing productivity of
fruit. Only 10% of world's arable land may be categorized as free from
stress. Losses due to stress may very from 10% to 100%.
Sustainability in fruit production under stress conditions
can be achieved by manipulation of production practices such as soil
management, training and pruning, use of growth regulators and
antitranspirants , but it is costlier from farmer point of view.
Using the various breeding tools we can develop varieties which
are resistant to stress condition as well as having a good yield potential,
so that we can feed the growing population.