Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Container production of apple nursery trees is increasingly used in intensive horticulture because it improves transplant survival and allows flexible marketing; however, restricted root volume makes plant performance highly dependent on contai n er design and the physical and agrochemical properties of the growing medium. This study evaluated how container type and substrate composition affect photosynthetic performance of ‘Champion’ apple ( Malus domestica Borkh .) nursery trees grafted on two contrasting rootstocks (‘M.9’ and ‘MM.106’) in Kyiv region (Ukraine). A field container experiment was conducted in 2024–2025 at a commercial nursery site. Trees were grown in 12-L containers of two designs (air-pruning Air-Pot type and standard plastic container C12) filled with three substrates: peat; peat + conifer bark (1:1); and peat + conifer bark + sandy loam (2:1:1). Net photosynthetic productivity was determined in vivo as the 24-h increase in leaf dry matter per unit area, and chlor o phyll a and b contents were quantified spectrophotometrically ; total chlorophyll and the chlorophyll a/b ratio were calculated. Substrate composition was the dominant factor controlling net photosynthetic productivity across rootstocks and ages, with peat ensuring the highest rates and the peat + bark (1:1) mixture causing a significant decline, while container type and interactions were non-significant. Chlorophyll accumulation was rootstock-dependent: ‘MM.106’ showed consistently higher total chlor o phyll and greater pigment stability across treatments than ‘M.9’. Maximum pigment concentration was recorded in the peat + bark substrate in the C12 container, whereas the chlorophyll a/b ratio was significantly influenced by rootstock and container design, reflecting genotype-specific regulation of light-harvesting complexes. Overall, photosynthetic efficiency in container-grown apple nursery trees is primarily determined by substrate composition, and appropriate substrate optimization can co m pensate for differences in container design, supporting stable physiological performance and nursery tree quality.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Романенко et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: