Сhlorophyll fluorescence induction in 'Сhampion' apple saplings as an indicator of the efficiency of various substrate types and containers
Abstract
Purpose. To assess the physiological status of apple (Malus domestica Borkh.) nursery trees of the cultivar ‘Champion’ using chlorophyll fluorescence induction as a rapid diagnostic tool for evaluating the effectiveness of different substrates and container types in container-based production. Methods. The study was conducted in 2024–2025 at the “Pisardi” garden center (Bucha district, Kyiv region, Ukraine) on the M9 and MM106 rootstocks. Nursery trees were grown in two 12-L containers: Air Pot (ERCOLE “SP30”) and C12 (“B28”), using three substrate formulations: high-moor peat; peat with shredded conifer bark (1:1); and peat, bark, and sandy loam soil (2:1:1). Substrate acidity was adjusted by liming to pH 6.7–6.8. Rapid diagnostics were carried out in the third decade of July using chlorophyll fluorescence induction measured with a portable chronofluorometer “Floratest” in five replications. The parameters F₀, Fp, F₀/Fp, Fv, Ki (Fv/Fp), and Rfd ((Fp–Ft)/Ft) were analyzed. Factor effects were evaluated by three-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s post-hoc test (p≤0.05) and correlation analysis. Results. The minimum fluorescence F₀ showed no statistically significant changes under the effects of container type, substrate composition, or sample morphotype (shoot/spur) on either rootstock (p>0.05), indicating the absence of a destructive impact of the tested technological combinations on primary photochemical processes. For the M9 rootstock, F₀ ranged from 208 to 283 a.u., Fp from 596 to 955 a.u., Ki from 0.594 to 0.753, and Rfd from 1.08 to 1.88; substrate composition was the only factor that significantly affected Rfd (F=5.21; p=0.035), with substrate 2 causing a decrease in the vitality index. For the MM106 rootstock, the parameters ranged as follows: F₀ 218–288 a.u., Fp 640–1072 a.u., Ki 0.614–0.778, and Rfd 1.07–2.29; container type was a significant factor for Ki (F=10.73; p=0.01), whereas the effects of substrate and sample type were observed only as trends. Correlation analysis revealed a strong relationship between Fp and Fv (r=0.984) and a high consistency of Ki with Fv (r=0.915) and Fp (r=0.834), confirming the diagnostic value of integral indicators. Conclusions. The results substantiate the feasibility of using chlorophyll fluorescence induction parameters for rapid screening of “container × substrate” combinations in the production of apple nursery trees with a closed root system. The most sensitive diagnostic markers were Rfd for the M9 rootstock and Ki for the MM106 rootstock.
References
2. Amoroso G., Frangi P., Piatti R., Ferrini F., Fini A., Faoro M. Effect of container design on plant growth and root deformation of littleleaf linden and field elm // HortScience. 2010. Vol. 45, No. 12. P. 1824–1829. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.45.12.1824
3. Blok C., Urrestarazu M. Substrate growing developments in Europe 2010–2027 [Electronic resource]. Horticom. Available at: https://www.horticom.com/portada/ (accessed: 19.01.2026).
4. Burnett S. E., Mattson N. S., Williams K. A. Substrates and fertilizers for organic container production of herbs, vegetables, and herbaceous ornamental plants grown in greenhouses in the United States. Scientia Horticulturae. 2016. Vol. 208. P. 111–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2016.01.001
5. Danjon F., Danquechin Dorval A., Meredieu C. Pinus pinaster root architecture 2 to 5 years after container rearing and outplanting: tropism loss, root clustering and resilience. Plant and Soil. 2025. Vol. 508. P. 441–467. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-024-06807-3
6. Ellis B. W. Container and small-space gardening for the South: How to grow flowers and food no matter where you live. Chapel Hill : UNC Press Books, 2024. 320 p.
7. ELsysy M., Einhorn T. Air root pruning containers alter root architecture and increase canopy and root growth of apple trees compared to field grown liners. Acta Horticulturae. 2020. No. 1281. P. 251–256. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2020.1281.34
8. Gilman E. F., Paz M. Root system morphology influenced by container design, retention time, and root pruning. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 2014. Vol. 40. P. 16–26. DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2014.002
9. Gilman E. F., Paz M., Harchick C. Effect of container type and root pruning on growth and anchorage after planting Acer rubrum L. into landscape soil. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 2016. Vol. 42, No. 2. P. 73–85. DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2016.006
10. Gilman E. F., Paz M., Harchick C. Effect of eight container types and root pruning during nursery production on root architecture of Acer rubrum. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 2016. Vol. 42, No. 1. P. 31–45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.48044/jauf.2016.003
11. Gruda N. Sustainable peat alternative growing media. Acta Horticulturae. 2012. No. 927. P. 973–979. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2012.927.120
12. Gruda N. Increasing sustainability of growing media constituents and stand-alone substrates in soilless culture systems. Agronomy. 2019. Vol. 9, No. 6. P. 298. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9060298
13. Gruda N., Caron J., Prasad M., Maher M. J. Growing media. In: Encyclopedia of Soil Sciences. 3rd ed. Boca Raton : CRC Press, 2016. P. 1053–1058.
14. Hassan M. K., Kataja R., Pappinen A. State-of-the-art and business development of a tree seedling nursery: A guidebook on an advanced forest nursery management. Helsinki, 2024. 180 p. Available at: http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-61-5255-4
15. Havryliuk O. S., Kondratenko T. Y., Mezhenskyj V. M. et al. Photosynthetic potential of Malus domestica columnar group. Regulatory Mechanisms in Biosystems. 2024. Vol. 15, No. 1. P. 3–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15421/022401
16. Гаврилюк О., Кондратенко Т., Китаєв І. Діагностика функціонального стану рослин колоноподібних сортів яблуні. Plant and Soil Science. 2019. Т. 10, № 2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31548/agr2019.02.070
17. Гаврилюк О., Шевчук Н., Мазур Б. Якісні показники однорічних саджанців яблуні колоноподібного типу. Наукові доповіді Національного університету біоресурсів і природокористування України. 2023. Т. 19, № 5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31548/dopovidi5(105).2023.005
18. Kasampalis D. S., Tsouvaltzis P., Ntouros K. et al. The use of digital imaging, chlorophyll fluorescence and Vis/ NIR spectroscopy in assessing the ripening stage and freshness status of bell pepper fruit. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture. 2021. Vol. 187. P. 106265. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2021.106265
19. Kim H. S., Kim K. H. Physical properties of the horticultural substrate according to mixing ratio of peatmoss, perlite and vermiculite. Korean Journal of Soil Science and Fertilizer. 2011. Vol. 44, No. 3. P. 321–330. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7745/KJSSF.2011.44.3.321
20. Kim J. K., Shawon M. R. A., An J. H. et al. Influence of substrate composition and container size on the growth of tissue culture propagated apple rootstock plants. Agronomy. 2021. Vol. 11, No. 12. P. 2450. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11122450
21. Kormanek M., Małek S., Tabor S. Resistance to pulling seedlings out of the nursery container. Forests. 2024. Vol. 15, No. 12. P. 2157. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/f15122157
22. Larcher F., Scariot V. Assessment of partial peat substitutes for the production of Camellia japonica. HortScience. 2009. Vol. 44, No. 2. P. 312–316. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.44.2.312
23. Majsztrik J., Owen J. S. Improving nutrient management in the cultivation of ornamental plants in greenhouse, container and field production. Achieving Sustainable Cultivation of Ornamental Plants. Cambridge : Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing, 2020. P. 279–302. DOI: https://doi.org/10.19103/AS.2020.0066.11
24. Мамонова Р. Ю., Китаєв О. І., Шихалєєва Г. М., Слюсар С. І., Колесник Ю. С. Функціональна діагностика адаптивності інтродукованих видів роду сніжноягідник (Symphoricarpos Duhamel) в умовах києва. Наукові доповіді Національного університету біоресурсів і природокористування України. 2018. Т. 71, № 1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31548/dopovidi2018.01.010
25. McGrath D., Henry J., Munroe R., Williams C. From propagation to field: Influence of tray design on tree seedling quality and performance. Journal of Environmental Horticulture. 2021. Vol. 39, No. 1. P. 33–40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24266/0738-2898-39.1.33
26. Nazim S., Gruda N. Increasing sustainability of growing media constituents and stand-alone substrates in soilless culture systems. Agronomy. 2019. Vol. 9, No. 6. P. 298. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9060298
27. Raviv M. Can compost improve sustainability of plant production in growing media?. Acta Horticulturae. 2017. No. 1168. P. 119–133. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2017.1168.16
28. Салаш П., Вальтера Ю. Субстрати для розсадників. Садівництво. 2005. №. 57. С. 367–371.
29. Savvas D., Gianquinto G., Tüzel Y., Gruda N. Soilless culture. Good agricultural practices for greenhouse vegetable crops. Rome : FAO, 2013. P. 303–354.
30. Совакова М., Соваков О.,Китаєв О. Екологічна толерантність видів липи (Tilia L.) за фото- та термоіндукованими змінами флуоресценції хлорофілу листків. Український журнал лісівництва та деревинознавства. 2014. № 198, Ч. 2. С. 285–293.
31. Телепенько Ю.Ю., Сіленко В.О. Структурно-функціональний стан листків нових сортів ожини (Rubus L.) в умовах Лісостепу України. Plant and Soil Science. 2019. № 286. С. 260–266.
32. Tuxun A., Xiang Y., Shao Y. et al. Soilless cultivation: precise nutrient provision and growth environment regulation under different substrates. Plants. 2025. Vol. 14, No. 14. P. 2203. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14142203
33. Vasylenko O., Kondratenko T., Havryliuk O. et al. The study of the productivity potential of grape varieties according to the indicators of functional activity of leaves. Potravinarstvo Slovak Journal of Food Sciences. 2021. Vol. 15. P. 639–647. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5219/1638
34. Venig A., Teușdea A. C., Peticilă A. Optimizing nursery production of apple trees: assessing the dose response to water and fertilizer in two cultivars. Horticulturae. 2025. Vol. 11, No. 12. P. 1425. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae11121425
35. Larcher F., Scariot V. Assessment of partial peat substitutes for the production of Camellia japonica. HortScience. 2009. Vol. 44, No. 2. P. 312–316. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.44.2.312
36. Kim H. S., Kim K. H. Physical properties of the horticultural substrate according to mixing ratio of peatmoss, perlite and vermiculite. Korean Journal of Soil Science and Fertilizer. 2011. Vol. 44, No. 3. P. 321–330. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7745/KJSSF.2011.44.3.321
37. Tuxun A., Xiang Y., Shao Y., Son J. E., Yamada M., Yamada S., Tagawa K., Baiyin B., Yang Q. Soilless cultivation: precise nutrient provision and growth environment regulation under different substrates. Plants. 2025. Vol. 14, No. 14. P. 2203. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14142203
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
