Rootstocks for 'Tahiti' lime 151

ROOTSTOCKS FOR ‘TAHITI’ LIME

Neusa Maria Colauto Stenzel1*; Carmen Silvia Vieira Janeiro Neves 2

1
IAPAR - Área de Fitotecnia, C.P. 481 - 86001-970 - Londrina, PR - Brasil.
2
UEL - Depto. de Agronomia, C.P. 6001 - 86051-990 - Londrina, PR - Brasil.
*Corresponding author <[email protected]>

ABSTRACT: The ‘Tahiti’ lime (Citrus latifolia Tanaka) is an important commercial citrus cultivar in Brazil.
‘Rangpur’ lime has being used as its main rootstock, but it is susceptible to root rot caused by Phytophthora,
reducing tree longevity. An experiment was set up in a randomized block design, with three trees per plot of
each rootstock and four replicates, and run for 12 years, aiming to compare the performance of ‘IAC-5
Tahiti’ lime, budded on ‘Rangpur’ lime (Citrus limonia Osb.); ‘C-13’ citrange (Citrus sinensis (L.) Osb. ×
Poncirus trifoliata (L.) Raf.); ‘African’ rough lemon (Citrus jambhiri Lush.); ‘Volkamer’ lemon (Citrus
volkameriana Ten. & Pasq.); trifoliate orange (Poncirus trifoliata (L.) Raf.); ‘Sunki’ mandarin (Citrus sunki
Hort. ex Tan.) and ‘Cleopatra’ mandarin (Citrus reshni Hort. ex Tan.). Eleven years after the establishment of
the orchard, trees with the greatest canopy development were budded on ‘C-13’ citrange and ‘African’ rough
lemon, and both differed significantly from trees budded on trifoliate orange, ‘Sunki’ and ‘Cleopatra’
mandarins, which presented the smallest canopy development. Trees budded on ‘Rangpur’ lime and ‘C-13’
citrange had the highest cumulative yields, and were different from trees budded on trifoliate orange, ‘Cleopatra’
and ‘Sunki’ mandarins. There was no rootstock effect on mean fruit weight and on the total soluble solid/acid
ratio in the juice. The ‘Rangpur’ lime and the ‘Cleopatra’ mandarin rootstocks reduced longevity of plants.
Key words: Citrus latifolia, ‘Rangpur’ lime, ‘Volkamer’ lemon, trifoliate orange, citrange

PORTA-ENXERTOS PARA A LIMEIRA ÁCIDA ‘TAHITI’

RESUMO: A lima ácida ‘Tahiti’ (Citrus latifolia Tanaka) é uma importante variedade comercial de citros no
Brasil e o limão ‘Cravo’, seu principal porta-enxerto, apresenta suscetibilidade à gomose de Phytophthora,
reduzindo a longevidade das plantas. Este experimento foi implantado em blocos ao acaso, contendo sete
tratamentos, três plantas por parcela e quatro repetições, e avaliado por 12 anos com o objetivo de comparar
o comportamento de plantas de lima ácida ‘Tahiti IAC-5’, enxertadas em limão ‘Cravo’ (Citrus limonia
Osb.), citrange ‘C-13’ (Citrus sinensis (L.) Osb. X Poncirus trifoliata (L.) Raf.), limão ‘Rugoso da África’
(Citrus jambhiri Lush.), limão ‘Volkameriano’ (Citrus volkameriana Ten. & Pasq.), Trifoliata (Poncirus
trifoliata (L.) Raf.), tangerina ‘Sunki’ (Citrus sunki Hort. ex Tan.) e tangerina ‘Cleópatra’ (Citrus reshni
Hort. ex Tan.). Onze anos após o plantio, as limeiras com maior volume de copa foram aquelas enxertadas em
citrange ‘C-13’ e limão ‘Rugoso da África’, sendo que ambos diferiram das plantas em Trifoliata, tangerinas
‘Sunki’ e ‘Cleópatra’, que mostraram os menores volumes. Plantas enxertadas em limão ‘Cravo’ e citrange
‘C-13’ apresentaram as maiores produções acumuladas, com diferença daquelas em Trifoliata e tangerinas
‘Sunki’ e ‘Cleópatra’. Não houve efeito dos porta-enxertos no peso médio dos frutos e na relação sólidos
solúveis totais e acidez do suco dos frutos. O limão ‘Cravo’ e a tangerina ‘Cleópatra’ induziram baixa
longevidade.
Palavras-chave: Citrus latifolia, limão ‘Cravo’, limão ‘Volkameriano’, trifoliata, citrange

INTRODUCTION mestic and foreign retail markets, as well as for the in-
dustry, for the production of juice concentrate and essen-
‘Tahiti’ lime (Citrus latifolia Tanaka), also known tial oils (Figueiredo, 1991).
as Persian lime or Bearss lime, is a hybrid citrus, one of The most frequently utilized rootstock for the ‘Ta-
its parents being the Mexican lime and the other a lemon hiti’ lime in the USA is C. macrophylla (Castle et al.,
(C. limon (L.) Burm.) or, more likely, a citron (C. medica 1989), whereas in Brazil the preferred rootstock is the
L.) (Hodgson, 1967). This cultivar has been grown espe- ‘Rangpur’ lime (Pompeu Jr., 1991). Even though the
cially in Mexico, South America, Central America, USA ‘Rangpur’ lime provides good agronomic characters to
(Florida), and India (Campbell, 1991). In Brazil, ‘Tahiti’ ‘Tahiti’ trees and presents tolerance to the citrus tristeza
lime is an important commercial variety, resistant to cit- virus, it is susceptible to root rot caused by Phytophthora
rus canker (Leite Jr., 1992). ‘Tahiti’ lime fruits are used citrophthora and P. parasitica, thus decreasing plant lon-
as replacement for lemon, and are sold fresh in both do- gevity (Salibe & Moreira, 1984).
Sci. Agric. (Piracicaba, Braz.), v.61, n.2, p.151-155, Mar./Apr. 2004
152 Stenzel & Neves

Reports on rootstocks for ‘Tahiti’ lime in Brazil efficiency for the studied period was estimated by divid-
are scarce, and no records exist on studies on rootstocks ing yield (kg per plant) by the canopy volume (m3) for
for ‘Tahiti’ lime in the State of Paraná. Some studies con- each rootstock. Yield fluctuation was expressed as alter-
ducted in the State of São Paulo indicated as alternative nate bearing index (I), calculated as I = 1/(n-1) x {|(a2-
rootstocks to ‘Rangpur’ lime for ‘IAC-5’: ‘EEL’ trifoli- a1)|/ (a2+a1) + |(a3-a2)|/(a3+a2)+...+ |(a(n)-a(n-1))|/(a(n)+a(n-1))},
ate orange, ‘Swingle’ citrumelo, ‘Orlando’ tangelo, where n = number of years, and a1, a2, ..., a(n-1), a(n) = yield
‘Morton’ citrange, and ‘Volkamer’ lemon (Figueiredo et of the corresponding years (Pearce & Dobersek-Urbanc,
al., 2000; 2002). However, the behavior of rootstocks may 1967). In February, 1995, 30 fruits per plot were har-
vary depending on soil type, climate, diseases, and crop- vested for quality evaluation. Fruits were weighed juiced
ping practices. This work had the objective of evaluat- with an electric squeezer, for evaluation of juice yield;
ing the performance of ‘Tahiti’ lime trees budded on total soluble solids (TSS), measured as Brix degrees us-
seven rootstocks, in the North of the State of Paraná, dur- ing a manual refractometer; total titrable acidity (TTA)
ing a 12 years period. by titration with NaOH 0.1 mol L-1, expressing results as
percentages of citric acid the TSS/TTA ratio. The num-
MATERIAL AND METHODS ber of dead trees in the experimental period was also
counted.
The experiment was set up in Maringá, PR, Data on effects of rootstocks on traits of ‘Tahiti’
(23º25’S, 51º25’W; altitude 555 m), in December, 1988, lime trees and fruits were analyzed with the aid of SAS
and run for 12 years. The soil is a Typic Hapludox, with statistical software package (SAS Institure, 1989). Means
600 g kg-1 clay, 70 g kg-1 silt, and 330 g kg-1 sand in the were separated by the Duncan multiple range test
(0.0 - 0.25 m) soil layer. The climate is classified as a (P = 0.05).
Cfa according to Köppen, with mean annual precipitation
of 1,504 mm, concentrated in the Spring and Summer, RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
with a mean annual temperature of 21ºC and relative hu-
midity ranging from 70 to 75% (Caviglione et al., 2000). In 1992, the trifoliate orange and the ‘Sunki’
The experimental design consisted of randomized mandarin were the rootstocks of smallest height for ‘Ta-
blocks, with seven treatments (rootstocks), three trees per hiti’ lime trees, with differences in relation to ‘African’
plot and four replicates, spaced of 8.0 m × 6.0 m. ‘Ta- rough lemon (Table 1). Diameter and canopy volume
hiti’ lime trees buded on other rootstocks were used as were smaller for trifoliate orange and ‘Sunki’ mandarin
external border. The following rootstocks were tested: trees, being different from those budded on ‘Rangpur’
‘Rangpur’ lime (Citrus limonia Osb.), ‘C-13’ citrange lime, ‘African’ rough lemon and ‘Volkamer’ lemon. In
[(Citrus sinensis (L.) Osb. × Poncirus trifoliata (L.) 1999, the shortest trees were those budded on ‘Sunki’
Raf.)], ‘African’ rough lemon (Citrus jambhiri Lush.), mandarin, which presented differences in relation to the
‘Volkamer’ lemon (Citrus volkameriana Ten. & Pasq.), other rootstocks. With regard to canopy diameter and vol-
trifoliate orange (Poncirus trifoliata (L.) Raf.), ‘Sunki’ ume, the ‘Sunki’ mandarin had also the lowest values,
mandarin (Citrus sunki Hort. ex Tan.), and ‘Cleopatra’ with differences relative to the ‘C-13’ citrange, ‘African’
mandarin (Citrus reshni Hort. ex Tan.). Rootstocks were rough lemon, ‘Rangpur’ lime and ‘Volkamer’ lemon,
propagated by seeds and the seedlings were budded with which presented greater vigor in descending order, but
‘IAC-5 Tahiti’ lime buds. Seeds and buds were obtained with no differences among themselves. The trifoliate or-
from productive, indexed trees of the citrus collection of ange, ‘Sunki’ mandarin, and ‘Cleopatra’ mandarin did not
Instituto Agronômico do Paraná (IAPAR). The trees were show differences among themselves and presented the
grown without irrigation and managed according to tech- smallest plant development values. In similar studies with
nical recommendations for commercial citrus growing rootstocks for ‘Tahiti’ lime, trees with great vigor were
(INSTITUTO AGRONÔMICO DO PARANA, 1992). obtained on ‘African’ rough lemon (Foguet et al., 1994),
Tree height and diameter were measured every ‘Volkamer’ lemon (Valbuena, 1994), and ‘Troyer’ and
year, from June/1992 to June/1999. The canopy volume ‘Carrizo’ citranges (Grisoni et al., 1989). Donadio et al.
was calculated based on the formula: V= 2/3 π R2 H, (1993) reported that ‘Tahiti’ lime trees of the ‘IAC-5’
where V represents the volume (m3), R is the canopy ra- clone had low vigor when budded on ‘Cleopatra’ man-
dius (m), and H is plant height (m) (Mendel, 1956). Tree darin.
size data presented refer to 1992 and 1999. The cumula- Regarding annual yield, evaluated from 1992 to
tive yield was obtained by summing up the yields from 1999 (Table 2), trees on ‘Rangpur’ lime, ‘C-13’ citrange,
1992 through 1999. Fruits were harvested and weighed ‘African’ rough lemon and ‘Volkamer’ lemon had the
biweekly, during the period from December to August of highest yields but did not differ among themselves in
each cropping season, due to the multiple bloomings that most years. The 1998 cropping season had a smaller yield
are characteristic of the ‘Tahiti’ lime. The average yield than other years because of premature shedding of young
Sci. Agric. (Piracicaba, Braz.), v.61, n.2, p.151-155, Mar./Apr. 2004
 Rootstocks for 'Tahiti' lime 153

Table 1 - Plant height, canopy diameter and volume of ‘Tahiti’ lime trees budded on seven rootstocks.
Plant height Canopy diameter Canopy volume
Rootstock
1992 1999 1992 1999 1992 1999
----------------------------- m ----------------------------- ----------- m3 ---------
'Rangpur' Lime 3.5 ab z 4.9 bc 4.3 a 6.8 ab 33.6 a 122.4 ab
'C-13' Citrange 3.3 ab 5.4 a 4.1 ab 7.0 a 29.9 ab 140.3 a
'African' Rough Lemon 3.6 a 5.1 ab 4.3 a 7.0 a 34.3 a 134.0 a
'Volkamer' Lemon 3.5 ab 5.0 bc 4.4 a 6.6 abc 35.0 a 117.3 abc
Trifoliate Orange 3.0 c 4.7 c 3.7 c 6.3 bcd 21.5 c 98.9 bcd
'Sunki' Mandarin 3.2 b 4.3 d 3.8 bc 5.6 d 25.2 bc 74.0 d
'Cleopatra' Mandarin 3.3 ab 4.8 bc 3.9 bc 6.1 cd 27.2 b 93.8 cd
CV (%) 5.0 5.0 5.3 6.6 12.2 15.9
z
Values in the same column, followed by a common letter, do not differ by Duncan´s multiple range test (P = 0.05).

Table 2 - Mean annual yield for eight cropping seasons (1992 to 1999) of ‘Tahiti’ lime trees budded on seven different
rootstocks.
Annual yield
Rootstock
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
------------------------------------------ kg per plant ------------------------------------------
'Rangpur' Lime 127.4 az 77.2 a 103.8 a 120.1 a 86.7 a 90.0 ab 31.2 a 164.3 a
'C-13' Citrange 118.8 ab 53.9 abc 101.1 a 129.3 a 79.2 ab 112.4 a 28.9 a 132.3 ab
'African' Rough Lemon 104.8 abc 55.6 abc 97.8 a 93.6 ab 76.2 ab 75.2 bc 21.2 a 106.9 ab
'Volkamer' Lemon 92.4 bcd 64.2 ab 88.4 a 100.9 ab 80.5 ab 59.1 c 20.2 a 102.3 ab
Trifoliate Orange 76.8 cd 42.0 bc 86.8 a 96.2 ab 52.0 c 82.3 bc 18.5 a 116.5 ab
'Sunki' Mandarin 90.6 bcd 74.6 a 87.2 a 68.3 b 64.5 bc 56.2 c 15.3 a 67.2 b
'Cleopatra' Mandarin 61.8 d 34.1 c 77.8 a 83.7 b 57.2 c 71.1 bc 15.6 a 98.7 ab
CV (%) 21.6 25.8 16.9 22.2 16.7 22.0 44.8 36.2
z
Values in the same column, followed by a common letter, do not differ by Duncan´s multiple range test (P = 0.05).

fruits, caused by Colletotrichum acutatum. There were The alternate index estimated with the formula
differences between rootstocks regarding cumulative proposed by Pearce & Dobersek-Urbanc (1967) can vary
yield, yield efficiency, and alternate bearing index (Table between 0 and 1; the closer to zero the values, the smaller
3). Trees budded on ‘Rangpur’ lime and ‘C-13’ citrange the yield fluctuation. As indices ranged from 0.25 to 0.38,
presented the highest cumulative yields, without differ- no marked tendency for yield alternation was verified in
ing among themselves, and were both superior to those any of the rootstocks. However, trees budded on
budded on trifoliate orange, ‘Sunki’ mandarin and ‘Rangpur’ lime, ‘Volkamer’ lemon and ‘Sunki’ manda-
‘Cleopatra’ mandarin, which were less productive. The rin presented less alternation, differing from those grafted
cumulative yield of trees on ‘C-13’ citrange did not dif- on ‘C-13’ citrange, trifoliate orange and ‘Cleopatra’ man-
fer from those on ‘African’ rough lemon and ‘Volkamer’ darin.
lemon. Figueiredo et al. (2002) also observed low cumu- There was no effect of rootstocks on mean fruit
lative yields for ‘Tahiti’ trees of the ‘IAC-5’ clone bud- weight and on the TSS/TTA ratio (Table 4). Juice yield
ded on ‘Cleopatra’ and ‘Sunki’ mandarins, and a high was highest for ‘Rangpur’ lime, differing from ‘African’
yield for ‘Morton’ citrange, in an experiment conducted rough lemon, ‘Volkamer’ lemon, trifoliate orange and
in the State of São Paulo. Similarly, Campbell (1979) also ‘Cleopatra’ mandarin. TSS contents ranged from 6.85 to
obtained low yield in Florida (USA) when utilizing the 7.42 ºBrix, and the highest values were obtained for fruits
‘Cleopatra’ mandarin rootstock for ‘Tahiti’ lime. In spite from trees budded on ‘Rangpur’ lime, ‘C-13’ citrange,
of their low cumulative yield, trees budded on ‘Sunki’ trifoliate orange and ‘Sunki’ mandarin, without differ-
mandarin and trifoliate orange obtained the same yield ences among themselves, differing, however, from ‘Af-
efficiency as those on ‘Rangpur’ lime and ‘C-13’ rican’ rough lemon and ‘Volkamer’ lemon, which had the
citrange, exceeding those budded on ‘African’ rough lowest contents without difference between them. The
lemon, ‘Volkamer’ lemon’ and ‘Cleopatra’ mandarin. lowest TTA content was found for fruits from trees bud-
Sci. Agric. (Piracicaba, Braz.), v.61, n.2, p.151-155, Mar./Apr. 2004
154 Stenzel & Neves

ded on ‘Volkamer’ lemon, which differed from the other trees. The ‘Cleopatra’ mandarin proved to be an inad-
rootstocks, except from trifoliate orange. Similar results equate rootstock for ‘Tahiti’ lime, since the trees had the
were obtained by Foguet et al. (1994) in relation to TSS lowest cumulative yield and a short longevity. Figueiredo
content in ‘Tahiti’ lime fruit budded on different et al. (2002) also noticed inadequate affinity of the ‘Ta-
rootstocks: 7.4 for ‘Rangpur’ lime, 6.7 for ‘African’ hiti’ lime budded on ‘Cleopatra’ mandarin, and observed
rough lemon, and 7.3 for ‘Cleopatra’ mandarin. Iriarte- a high mortality rate of trees on ‘Rangpur’ lime as well.
Martel et al. (1999) also observed that ‘Tahiti’ lime trees The ‘C-13’ citrange and the ‘Volkamer’ lemon elicit
budded on ‘Cleopatra’ mandarin had smaller mean fruit greater longevity when utilized as rootstocks for
weight than on ‘Rangpur’ lime, while rootstocks ‘Siciliano’ lemon (Porto et al., 1992).
‘Rangpur’ lime, trifoliate orange, ‘Sunki’ mandarin,
100
‘Cleopatra’ mandarin, and ‘Volkamer’ lemon did not

Cumulative mortality of 'Tahiti' lime trees

Trifoliate orange ‘Cleopatra’ mandarin
90
present differences in their ratio values. 80 ‘Rangpur’ lime ‘C-13’ citrange
From the 6th year forth, mortality of trees bud- 70
‘Volkamer’ lemon ‘African’ rough lemon
ded on trifoliate orange and ‘Cleopatra’ mandarin started 60
‘Sunki’ mandarin

(%)
to occur (Figure 1). For trees budded on ‘Rangpur’ lime, 50

40
the first deaths were observed on the 8th year. The
30
‘Rangpur’ lime and ‘Cleopatra’ mandarin rootstocks de- 20
termined greater percentages of dead ‘Tahiti’ lime trees 10

on the 12th year, and the cause of death of trees grafted 0

6º 7º 8º 9º 10º 11º 12º
on ‘Rangpur’ lime was root rot. Trees budded on Year
‘Cleopatra’ mandarin produced rootstock suckers and pre-
Figure 1 - Cumulative percentage of mortality of ‘Tahiti’ lime trees
sented differences between the diameters of the rootstock budded on seven rootstocks, from the 5th to the 12th year
and the scion, suggesting inadequate affinity of this root- after the planting of ‘Tahiti’ lime trees. Maringa, PR
stock with ‘Tahiti’ lime was the cause of death of the (1993 to 1999).

Table 3 - Cumulative yield for eight cropping seasons (1992 to 1999), yield efficiency, alternate bearing index and relative
cumulative yield of ‘Tahiti’ lime budded on seven rootstocks.
Rootstock Cumulative yield Yield efficiency Alternate bearing index Relative cumulative yield
-3
kg per plant kg m %
'Rangpur' Lime 800.7 a 1.6 a 0.27 c 160
'C-13' Citrange 756.2 ab 1.6 a 0.35 ab 151
'African' Rough Lemon 631.6 bc 1.2 b 0.30 bc 126
'Volkamer' Lemon 608.0 bc 1.2 b 0.27 c 121
Trifoliate Orange 571.3 c 1.6 a 0.38 a 114
'Sunki' Mandarin 523.9 c 1.8 a 0.25 c 105
'Cleopatra' Mandarin 500.3 c 1.2 b 0.35 ab 100
CV (%) 15.2 9.9 13.9
z
Values in the same column, followed by a common letter, do not differ by Duncan´s multiple range test (P = 0.05).

Table 4 - Fruit quality of ‘Tahiti’ lime trees budded on seven rootstocks (February/1995 harvest).
Mean fruit Juice Total Soluble Solids Total Titrable Acidity TSS/TTA
Rootstock
weight yield (TSS) (TTA) Ratio
g % ºBrix %
'Rangpur' Lime 108.0 az 47.3 a 7.25 a 5.8 a 1.2 a
'C-13' Citrange 100.7 a 41.1 ab 7.35 a 5.8 a 1.3 a
'African' Rough Lemon 111.5 a 40.0 b 6.87 bc 5.6 a 1.2 a
'Volkamer' Lemon 113.5 a 36.7 b 6.85 c 5.0 b 1.4 a
Trifoliate Orange 106.7 a 39.9 b 7.42 a 5.3 ab 1.4 a
'Sunki' Mandarin 103.5 a 41.0 ab 7.22 a 5.6 a 1.3 a
'Cleopatra' Mandarin 96.5 a 40.1 b 7.17 ab 5.6 a 1.3 a
CV (%) 13.8 10.0 2.9 5.9 7.5
z
Values in the same column, followed by a common letter, do not differ by Duncan´s multiple range test (P = 0.05).

Sci. Agric. (Piracicaba, Braz.), v.61, n.2, p.151-155, Mar./Apr. 2004

 Rootstocks for 'Tahiti' lime 155

REFERENCES INSTITUTO AGRONÔMICO DO PARANÁ. A citricultura no Parana.

Londrina: IAPAR, 1992. 288p. (Circular, 72).
IRIARTE-MARTEL, J.H.; DONADIO, L.C.; FIGUEIREDO, J.O. Efeito
CAMPBELL, C.W. Rootstocks effects of yield of ‘Tahiti’ lime. Hortscience,
de onze porta-enxertos sobre a qualidade dos frutos e desenvolvimento
v.14, p.470, 1979.
das plantas da lima ácida ‘Tahiti’. Revista Brasileira de Fruticultura,
CAMPBELL, C.W. Rootstocks for the ‘Tahiti’ lime. Proceedings of the
v.21, p.235-238, 1999.
Florida State Horticultural Society, v.104, p.28-30, 1991.
LEITE JR, R.P. Cultivares copa e porta-enxertos. In: INSTITUTO
CASTLE, S.W.; TUCKER, D.P.H.; KREZDORN, H.A.; YOUTSEY, C.O.
AGRONÔMICO DO PARANÁ (Ed.) A citricultura no Paraná.
Rootstocks for Florida citrus. Gainesville: Institute of Food and
Londrina: IAPAR, 1992. cap.4, p.91-116.
Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, 1989. 47p.
MENDEL, K. Rootstock-scion relationships in Shamouti trees on light soil.
CAVIGLIONE, J.H.; KIIHL, L.R.B.; CARAMORI, P.H.; OLIVEIRA, D.
KTAVIM, v.6, p.35-60,1956.
Cartas climáticas do Paraná. Versão 1. Londrina: IAPAR. 2000. 1 CD-
PEARCE, S.C.; DOBERSEK-URBANC, S. The measurements of
Rom.
irregularity in growth and cropping. Journal of Horticultural Science,
DONADIO, L.C.; CABRITA, J.R.M.; SEMPIONATO, R.O.; PARO, M.
v.42, p.295-305, 1967.
Tangerineira Cleópatra: vantagens e desvantagens como porta-enxerto
POMPEU JR., J. Porta-enxertos. In: RODRIGUEZ, O.; VIEGAS, F.C.P.;
na citricultura. Laranja, v.14, p.565-579, 1993.
POMPEU JR., J.; AMARO; A.A. (Ed.) Citricultura brasileira. 2.ed.
FIGUEIREDO, J.O. Variedades copa de valor comercial. In: RODRIGUEZ,
Campinas: Fundação Cargill, 1991. v.1, p.265-280.
O.; VIEGAS, F.C.P.; POMPEU JR., J.; AMARO; A.A. (Ed.)
PORTO, O.M.; MORAES, L.A.H.; BRAUN, J. Porta-enxertos para limoeiro
Citricultura brasileira. 2.ed. Campinas: Fundação Cargill, 1991. v.1,
‘Siciliano’ (Citrus limon Burmann) no Rio Grande do Sul. Revista
p.228-264.
Brasileira de Fruticultura, v.14, p.119-124, 1992.
FIGUEIREDO, J.O.; POMPEU JR., J.; TEÓFILO SOBRINHO, J.; PIO,
SALIBE, A.A.; MOREIRA, C.S. Performance of rangpur lime as rootstock
R.M.; LARANJEIRA, F.F.; LIMA, J.E.O.; SALIBE, A.A. Porta-enxertos
for citrus in Brazil. Proceedings of the Internacional Society of
para a lima ácida ‘Tahiti’ na região de Aguaí, SP. Revista Brasileira de
Citriculture, v.1, p.29-33, 1984.
Fruticultura, v.22, p.435-439, 2000.
SAS Institute. SAS/STAT user´s guide. Version 6. 4.ed. Cary: Statistical
FIGUEIREDO, J.O.; STUCHI, E.S.; DONADIO, L.C.; TEÓFILO
Analysis System Institute, 1989.
SOBRINHO, J.; LARANJEIRA, F.F.; PIO, R.M.; SEMPIONATO, O.R.
VALBUENA, M. Comportamiento agronómico de algunas combinaciones
Porta-enxertos para a lima ácida ‘Tahiti’ na região de Bebedouro, SP.
copas-patrones de cítricos, en la zona media del río Guasare, Zulia,
Revista Brasileira de Fruticultura, v.24, p.155-159, 2002.
Venezuela. Revista de la Faculdad de Agronomia, v.11, p.1-12, 1994.
FOGUET, J.L.; BLANCO, A.; VINCIGUERRA, H. La lima en Tucumán.
Avance Agroindustrial, n.57, p.43-45, 1994.
GRISONI, M.; CABEU, P.; AUBERT, B. Résultats de douze années d’um
essai de comportement de cinq porte-greffe em association avec quatre
cultivars d’agrumes à l’île de la Réunion. Fruits, v.44, p.529-538, 1989.
HODGSON, R.W. Horticultural varieties of Citrus. In: REUTHER, W.;
WEBBER, H.J.; BATCHELOR, L.D. (Ed.) The citrus industry. Received March 07, 2003
Riverside: University of California, 1967. v.1, cap.4, p.431–591. Accepted February 05, 2004

Sci. Agric. (Piracicaba, Braz.), v.61, n.2, p.151-155, Mar./Apr. 2004