Textbook Plant Growth Regulating Chemicals Volume 1 First Edition Nickell Ebook All Chapter PDF

Plant Growth Regulating Chemicals -
Volume 1 First Edition Nickell

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/plant-growth-regulating-chemicals-volume-1-first-editi
on-nickell/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Plant Growth Regulating Chemicals - Volume 2 First

Edition Nickell
https://textbookfull.com/product/plant-growth-regulating-
chemicals-volume-2-first-edition-nickell/
Plant Phenolics in Sustainable Agriculture Volume 1

Rafiq Lone
https://textbookfull.com/product/plant-phenolics-in-sustainable-
agriculture-volume-1-rafiq-lone/
Brassinosteroids Plant Growth and Development Shamsul

Hayat
https://textbookfull.com/product/brassinosteroids-plant-growth-
and-development-shamsul-hayat/
Plant Genome Diversity Volume 1 Plant Genomes their

Residents and their Evolutionary Dynamics 1st Edition
Lex E. Flagel
https://textbookfull.com/product/plant-genome-diversity-
volume-1-plant-genomes-their-residents-and-their-evolutionary-
dynamics-1st-edition-lex-e-flagel/
Plant Peptide Hormones and Growth Factors Andreas
Schaller
https://textbookfull.com/product/plant-peptide-hormones-and-
growth-factors-andreas-schaller/
Plant Health Under Biotic Stress Volume 1 Organic

Strategies Rizwan Ali Ansari
https://textbookfull.com/product/plant-health-under-biotic-
stress-volume-1-organic-strategies-rizwan-ali-ansari/
Identifying and Regulating Carcinogens First Edition

Lewis Publishers
https://textbookfull.com/product/identifying-and-regulating-
carcinogens-first-edition-lewis-publishers/
Salt Stress Microbes and Plant Interactions Causes and

Solution Volume 1 Mohd Sayeed Akhtar
https://textbookfull.com/product/salt-stress-microbes-and-plant-
interactions-causes-and-solution-volume-1-mohd-sayeed-akhtar/
Natural Polymers for Pharmaceutical Applications Volume

1 Plant Derived Polymers 1st Edition Amit Kumar Nayak
(Editor)
https://textbookfull.com/product/natural-polymers-for-
pharmaceutical-applications-volume-1-plant-derived-polymers-1st-
edition-amit-kumar-nayak-editor/
Plant Growth
Regulating Chemicals
Volume I
Editor
Louis G. Nickell, Ph.D.

Vice President
Research and Development
Velsicol Chemical Corporation
Chicago, Illinois
Boca Raton London New York
CRC Press is CRC Press,

an imprint of the Inc.
Taylor & Boca Raton,
Francis Group, Florida
an informa business
First published 1983 by CRC Press
Taylor & Francis Group
6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 33487-2742
Reissued 2018 by CRC Press
© 1983 by CRC Press, Inc.

CRC Press is an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business
No claim to original U.S. Government works
This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reasonable efforts have been made to publish
reliable data and information, but the author and publisher cannot assume responsibility for the validity of all materials or the
consequences of their use. The authors and publishers have attempted to trace the copyright holders of all material reproduced in this
publication and apologize to copyright holders if permission to publish in this form has not been obtained. If any copyright material has
not been acknowledged please write and let us know so we may rectify in any future reprint.
Except as permitted under U.S. Copyright Law, no part of this book may be reprinted, reproduced, transmitted, or utilized in any form
by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying, microfilming, and recording,
or in any information storage or retrieval system, without written permission from the publishers.
For permission to photocopy or use material electronically from this work, please access www.copyright.com (http://www.copyright.
com/) or contact the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400. CCC is a
not-for-profit organization that provides licenses and registration for a variety of users. For organizations that have been granted a
photocopy license by the CCC, a separate system of payment has been arranged.
Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and
explanation without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Main entry under title:
Plant growth regulating chemicals.
Includes bibliographies and index.

1. Plant regulators. I. Nickell, Louis G.,
1921-
QK745.P56 1983 631.8 82-22832
ISBN 0-8493-5002-6 (v. 1)
ISBN 0-8493-5003-4 (v. 2)
A Library of Congress record exists under LC control number: 82022832
Publisher’s Note
The publisher has gone to great lengths to ensure the quality of this reprint but points out that some imperfections in the original copies
may be apparent.
Disclaimer
The publisher has made every effort to trace copyright holders and welcomes correspondence from those they have been unable to
contact.
ISBN 13: 978-1-315-89665-6 (hbk)

ISBN 13: 978-1-351-07575-6 (ebk)
Visit the Taylor & Francis Web site at http://www.taylorandfrancis.com and the
CRC Press Web site at http://www.crcpress.com
PREFACE
The need to increase the world food supply substantially by the end of this century poses
one of the greatest challenges yet faced by man. Many agricultural scientists believe that
this challenge can be met , and it is expected that plant growth regulators will play an
increasingly important role in meeting this challenge.
Plant growth regulating chemicals are used to modify crops by changing the rate or pattern
or both of their response(s) to the internal and external factors which govern all stages at
crop development from germination through vegetative growth, reproductive development,
maturity, and senescence or aging , as well as post-harvest preservation.
The purpose of this two-volume work is to make available both to the investigator and
to the user , on a crop by crop basis, the latest information on the use of chemicals to regulate
plant growth and development. Emphasis is given to the major crops and to those with which
the most success has been achieved. Since the degree of practical success with each crop
varies, primary attention is given to chemicals registered for specific use(s) with the particular
crop discussed. Also included is information concerning chemicals not yet registered , but
for which practical results are available. In some cases information concerning active com-
pounds in the exploratory stages is included. Where known and pertinent, information
concerning mode of action is included .
The obvious classifications to use in presenting data on effectiveness of plant growth
regulating chemicals are (I) by crop, (2) by chemical class, and (3) by plant function or
process . Essentially all major summary or survey publications to date have been based on
the plant function or process approach . This is primarily an academic approach and is not
nearly as useful for practical purposes as a presentation by crops, as is done in this publication .
THE EDITOR
Louis G. Nickell, Ph.D., Vice President of Research and Development, Velsicol Chem-
ical Corporation, Chicago, Illinois, was born July 10, 1921, in Little Rock, Arkansas. He
received his B.S. degree in botany from Yale University in 1942. After serving 4 years in
the U.S. Marine Corps as a regular commissioned officer, he returned to Yale University,
receiving his M.S. in microbiology in 1947 and his Ph.D. in plant physiology in 1949. He
is married to Natalie Wills Nickell and has three children and four grandchildren. His first
professional experience was as Research Associate at the Brooklyn Botanic Garden from
1949 to 1951 where he was engaged in research on plant tissue culture and plant growth
substances. He joined industry in 1951, going to Pfizer, Inc. in Brooklyn as its Plant
Physiologist and Assistant Mycologist. There he specialized in antibiotics and their effects
in agriculture as well as plant tissue and cell culture. In 1953 he became Head of Pfizer's
Phytochemistry Laboratory and received the first patent issued for the use of plant cell
cultures for the production of secondary products. In 1961 he moved to Hawaii to become
Head of the Plant Physiology and Biochemistry Department of the Hawaiian Sugar Planters'
Association, becoming its director of research in 1965. His first commercial success with
plant growth regulating chemicals was the registration of diquat for the prevention of flow-
ering in sugarcane in the early 1960's. This was followed successively by the registration
of gibberellic acid for increasing the sugar yields in cane and later by the development of
the first commercial product for the ripening of sugarcane, glyphosine. In 1975, he joined
the Research Division of W. R. Grace & Company as Vice President of its Research Division
in charge of agricultural, biological, and medical research, development, and commercial-
ization. In 1978, he joined Velsicol Chemical Corporation as Vice President of Research
and Development- his present position. His publications (over 300) and patents (over 30)
have been primarily in the area of plant cell and tissue culture and the regulation of plant
growth through the use of chemicals. He is the author of a book published in early 1982
entitled Plant Growth Regulators -Agricultural Uses.
He has served as President of the Hawaii Academy of Science, as Chairman of the Hawaiian
Section of the American Chemical Society, as Vice Chairman and Chairman of the Plant
Growth Regulator Society of America, as Council Member of the Society for Economic
Botany, and has been the Treasurer of the American Society of Plant Physiologists since
1976. He has served as Chairman of the Governor's Advisory Committee on Science and
Technology in Hawaii, as a member of the National Academy of Sciences - National
Research Council Committee on Agricultural Production Efficiency, and is Chairman of
the "The Forward Edge" Session of CHEMRA WN II, the International Conference on
Chemistry and World Food Supplies: The New Frontiers, and a member of the Editorial
Board of the Journal of Plant Growth Regulation.
CONTRIBUTORS
James E. Baker, Ph.D. Martha Davis, Ph.D.

Research Plant Physiologist Postdoctoral Research Associate
Plant Hormone Laboratory Agronomy Department
Plant Physiology Institute University of Arkansas
Agricultural Research Service Fayetteville, Arkansas
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Beltsville , Maryland E. F. Eastin, Ph.D.
Professor of Weed Science
Duane P. Bartholomew Texas Agricultural Experiment Station
Associate Agronomist Beaumont, Texas
Department of Agronomy and Soil
Science Donald M. Elkins, Ph.D.
Unversity of Hawaii Professor of Plant and Soil Science
Honolulu, Hawaii Southern Illinois University
Carbondale, Illinois
Wolfgang D. Binder, Ph.D.
Tree Physiologist Gail Ezra, Ph.D.
Research Branch Research Associate
British Columbia Ministry of Forests Department of Environmental Biology
Victoria, British Columbia University of Guelph
Canada Guelph, Ontario
Canada
Kenneth Bridge
E. Hayman, Ph.D.
Product Development Manager
Research Chemist
Plant Growth Regulators
Agricultural Research Service
Union Carbide Agricultural Products
Fruit and Vegetable Chemistry Laboratory
Company, Inc.
Raleigh , North Carolina
Pasadena, California
George W. Cathey
W. J. Hsu
Plant Physiologist
Research Chemist
Cotton Physiology and Genetics Research
Unit
Pasadena, California
Stoneville, Mississippi
Johannes Jung, D.Sc.
John A. Considine, Ph.D. BASF Agricultural Research Center
Senior Viticultural Research Officer Limburgerhof
Department of Agriculture Federal Republic of Germany
Ferntree Gully , Victoria
Australia Darold L. Ketring
Plant Physiologist
Richard A. Criley, Ph.D. Agricultural Research Center
Professor of Horticulture U .S . Department of Agriculture
Department of Horticulture Department of Agronomy
University of Hawaii Oklahoma State University
Honolulu, Hawaii Stillwater, Oklahoma
N. E. Looney, Ph.D. Gilbert F. Stallknecht, Ph.D.
Pomologist and Plant Physiologist Superintendent! Agronomist
Agriculture Canada Research Station Montana State University
Summerland, British Columbia Huntley, Montana
Canada
George L. ·Steffens
Louis G. Nickell, Ph.D.
Plant Physiologist
Vice President
Plant Hormone and Regulators Laboratory
Research and Development
U.S . Department of Agriculture
Velsicol Chemical Corporation
Beltsville, Maryland
Chicago, Illinois
EdwardS. Oplinger, Ph.D. Gerald R. Stephenson, Ph.D.

Professor of Agronomy Professor of Weed Science
University of Wisconsin Department of Environmental Biology
Madison, Wisconsin University of Guelph
Guelph , Ontario
Richard P. Pharis, Ph.D. Canada
Professor of Biology
University of Calgary
Charles A. Stutte, Ph.D.
Calgary, Alberta
Distinguished Professor
Canada
Altheimer Chair for Soybean Research
Agronomy Department
S.M. Poling
University of Arkansas
Chemist
Fayetteville, Arkansas
U.S. Department of Agriculture W. C. Wilson
Pasadena, California Research Scientist III
Acting Harvest Coordinator
Wilhelm Rademacher, D.Sc. Florida Department of Citrus
BASF Agricultural Research Center Lake Alfred, Florida
Limburgerhof
Federal Republic of Germany
S. H. Wittwer, Ph.D.
Director
Stephen A. Ross, Ph.D.
Agricultural Experiment Station
Senior Tree Physiologist
Michigan State University
British Columbia Ministry of Forests
East Lansing, Michigan
Research Branch
Victoria, British Columbia
Canada Henry Yokoyama, Ph.D.
Research Chemist
Otto John Schwarz, Ph.D. Fruit and Vegetable Chemistry Laboratory
Associate Professor of Botany Agricultural Research Service
University of Tennessee U.S. Department of Agriculture
Knoxville, Tennessee Pasadena, California
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Volume I
Chapter 1
Growth Regulator Usage in Apple and Pear Production .. . . .. ........................... .
Norman E. Looney
Chapter 2
Growth Regulator Use in the Production of Prunus Species Fruits ........ ..... . . . . . . ... 27
Norman E. Looney
Chapter 3
Plant Growth Regulator Use in Natural Rubber (Hevea brasiliensis) .............. . ..... 41
Kenneth Bridge
Chapter 4
Bioregulation of Rubber Synthesis in Guayule Plant ... . . . . ....... ................... . .. 59
H. Yokoyama, W. J. Hsu, E. Hayman, and S.M. Poling
Chapter 5
Tobacco . ... . ... . .. .. .... . . . . .. . ... . .. . . . . . .... . . . .. ... . . .. . .. .. . . . . ..... . ... . ....... . . .. 71
George L. Steffens
Chapter 6
Concepts and Practice of Use of Plant Growth Regulating Chemicals in Viticulture . . . . 89
John A. Considine
Chapter 7
Sugarcane .............. .. . .... .. ... .. ... . . . . .. .... .. ..... . . ... . ... ..... . ...... .. ....... 185
Louis G. Nickell
Chapter 8
The Use of Exogenous Plant Growth Regulators on Citrus .............. . ......... ... .. 207
W. C. Wilson
Chapter 9
Cotton ............... ... . . . ... . ... . . ... ................ ... .. .... . . .. ............. . . ... .. 233
George W. Cathey
Chapter 10
Cereal Grains .. ....... . .. . . .. .. . . .. .. .. ....... . . . .. .. .. . . . . ............. .... . . . ... . . .. . . 253
J. J ung and W. Rademacher
Index ...... . ........... ... ... . ... . ........................... . .......................... 273
Volume II
Chapter I
Tropical Fruit and Beverage Crops ..... .. . ..... . . ..... . . . ... .. . . ..... . . ...... . . . . . ... ... .
D.P. Bartholomew and R. A. Criley
Chapter 2
Growth Regulators and Conifers: their Physiology and Potential Uses in Forestry .. .. .. 35
S. D. Ross, R. P. Pharis, and W. D. Binder
Chapter 3
Paraquat-Induced Lightwood Formation in Pine ............ . . .. ......................... 79
Otto J. Schwarz
Chapter 4
Growth Regulators in Soybean Production .... .... . .. . ........ .... . . . . . .. . ... . ... .. . . .. . 99
Charles A. Stutte and Martha D. Davis
Chapter 5
Growth Regulating Chemicals for Turf and other Grasses .. . .. . ....... . ...... . ... . .. ... 113
Donald M. Elkins
Chapter 6
Com . .............. . .......... ..... . . ................. . ........... .. ...... . ......... . .. . 131
Edward S. Oplinger
Chapter 7
Peanuts . . .. . .. .. ..... .. . .. .. . . . .. . .. . ... .. ... . ... .. . .. . . . ... . ... .. . . . .... .. .. . ... . ...... 139
Darold L. Ketring
Chapter 8
Plant Growth Regulators in Rice . ....................... . . . ..... . .............. . .... ... 149
E. Ford Eastin
Chapter 9
Application of Plant Growth Regulators to Potatoes: Production and Research .. . ... .. . 161
Gilbert F. Stallknecht
Chapter 10
Preservation of Cut Flowers . . .. .. .. .................. . .. . . ... . ... ................ ...... 177
James E. Baker
Chapter 11
Herbicide Antidotes: A New Era in Selective Chemical Weed Control ........... . . .... 193
G. R. Stephenson and G. Ezra
Chapter 12
Vegetables . . .. . . . .. . . ... . .. . . .. .. . . .. ... . . . . . .. . . .. .. . . . . .. . . .. . . ... .. .. . .. .. . . ... .. . . . . 213
S. H. Wittwer
Index . ................. .. .. . .. . ........................ . . .. . . . . .................... ..... 233

Volume I I
Chapter 1
GROWTH REGULA TOR USAGE IN APPLE AND PEAR PRODUCTION
Norman E. Looney
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction ............ . ... .. ...... . . . ... .. . . .... . . . . . .. .. ...... .. ...... . .... . .. . 2
II. Growth Regulator Usage in the Nursery .. .... . . ... ..... ...... ....... ... ..... . . .. 2
A. Production of Clonal Rootstocks and Self-Rooted Trees . .... .. .. . .. ... .. . 3
B. Defoliation of Nursery Stock ........ . ............ .. ...... . ............... 5
C. Promotion of Feathering of Nursery Trees . . . . .. ... . . .......... ..... . . .. .. 6
III . Controlling Growth and Modifying the Structure of Orchard Trees ... .. . . . . .. . .. 6
A. Regulation of Tree Branching Habit . ... ..... ....... ....... . .. . ....... .... 6
B. Promotion of Spur Development and Flower Initiation . ..... . .. .. ........ 9
C. Suppression of Root Suckers . ...... .. .... . .... .... . . . . . ..... . . ... . ... . . .. 9
D. Suppression of Water Sprouts ... . ....... . ............ .. .. . ... . .......... 10
IV. Regulation of Flowering and Fruit Set .......... .. . . .... ...... ................. . 11
A. Improving Return Bloom . ... ......... . .. . ..... . .. . .... ... ......... . . . . .. 11
B. Increasing Fruit Set ... . . .. . . .. . . .. . .... . . .. . . . . . ... . ... .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . ... 11
C. Chemical Thinning ... ... ..... ..... .... .... ... .. ...... .. ...... .. ......... 12
l. Blossom Thinning of Apples .. .... ...... .. ....... .. ... .. ... . .... . 14
2. Postbloom Thinning with Hormone Materials .... ... ....... . . .. . . 15
3. Postbloom Thinning of Apples with Carbaryl . . ..... ... .. .. .... . . 16
4. Flower and Fruit Thinning with Ethephon . .... ........ .. .. . ..... . 16
V. Improving Fruit Condition and Appearance .... ..... ... ....... ....... . .. . ... . . .. 17
A. The Effects of Daminozide on Apple Fruits ........... .. .... .... ........ 17
B. Preventing Premature Softening of Pear Fruits .... ...... . .. . ..... .... . ... 18
C. Reduction of Fruit Russeting . .. ...... .. ....................... ..... ..... 18
D. Increasing the Length to Diameter Ratio of Apples . . .. ..... . .. ... ....... 19
VI. Preventing Preharvest Fruit Drop .. ..... . .. . . .... ..... .. . . ..... . . . . . . . .......... . 19
A. Control of Fruit Drop with Synthetic Auxins ...... ..... .... ... .. .. .... .. 19
B. Control of Fruit Drop with Daminozide ..... ...... .. .. .. .... . .. .. ....... 21
VII. Regulation of Fruit Ripening . ... .... . . . . .. . . ... . . ............ . ... .. .... . .. . ..... 22
A. Delay of Fruit Ripening with Daminozide ..... .. .............. .. ........ 22
B. Advancing Fruit Ripening with Ethephon ... . .. .... ..... .... ...... ....... 22
C. Product Interactions . . . ... . . . .... .. .. .. . . ................... . .... .. . . . . ... 22
VIII. Future Development Opportunities .... . . . ....... . ... . ..... . . . . . . . ............... 23
References .. . .. . ... . . .... ..... . . .. ...... .. . .. . .. .... . .. . .. . .. . . . ... . . .. . .. ... ....... .. .. . 25

2 Plant Growth Regulating Chemicals
I. INTRODUCTION
The range of plant growth regulating chemicals used by apple producers around the world
is unmatched by any other crop. Plant growth regulators are used in the production of nursery
trees, to regulate the shape and size of orchard trees, to promote flowering, and to increase
and reduce fruit set. Other treatments control the growth of unwanted shoots or suckers,
and still others prevent preharvest fruit drop, regulate fruit ripening, and influence various
aspects of fruit quality . The number of products and practices available to pear growers is
smaller but still impressive.
This high degree of interest among apple and pear producers in chemical growth regulation
is quite understandable. These are high value crops produced on expensive land with in-
creasingly intensive management systems and costly equipment. A relatively small increase
in orchard productivity or improvement in fruit quality will cover the cost of the treatment.
Secondly, apples and pears are produced on long-lived trees. The use of a growth regulator
to overcome a tree productivity or fruit quality deficiency in an existing planting is almost
always more economical than replanting the orchard. Thirdly, there are strong market pref-
erences for a few established apple and pear cultivars and introducing new cultivars is a
very slow process. Some growth regulator techniques have been developed specifically to
improve the performance of these well-established cultivars which , of course, perpetuates
both the cultivar and the growth regulator procedure. And finally , fresh market sales of all
fruits depend heavily on their appearance. Treatments that either directly or indirectly enhance
fruit appearance and condition are valued highly by producers and their marketing agents .
This discussion of growth regulator usage in apple and pear production is organized by
practice rather than by chemical. There are several reasons for choosing this format, an
important one being that some materials are used to achieve very diverse aims. For example,
naphthaleneacetic acid (NAA) in various formulations promotes the rooting of cuttings, is
an ingredient of fruit setting mixtures for some cultivars yet is used to reduce set of both
apples and pears, and it prevents abscission of mature fruits of both species. Applied as a
paint , NAA prevents the growth of unwanted sprouts and suckers.
The reader is cautioned that some of the practices and several of the materials mentioned
are either unimportant or unavailable to some large sections of the fruit growing community .
An example is the thinning of pear fruits. Producers in many areas use NAA or naphtha-
leneacetamide (NAAm) yet this practice is considered unnecessary in California, the state
that produces the most pears in North America. Obviously, it is difficult to generalize about
growth regulator practices . The materials, and especially the procedures for their use, differ
considerably from region to region. On the other hand, it is impossible to be as thorough
as the subject deserves. It is hoped that by surveying these practices and regional differences
the reader will see some opportunities for expanding the useful role of plant growth regulators
in worldwide apple and pear production.
II. GROWTH REGULATOR USAGE IN THE NURSERY
Commercial orchardists usually purchase finished trees from a local nurseryman. These
trees are produced by grafting or budding a scion piece of the cultivar of interest onto a
seedling or, preferably, a clonal rootstock with known characteristics. This rootstock is 1
or 2 years old before it is budded or grafted and the two-part tree is grown for at least
another year before it is sold to the orchardist. The production of self-rooted trees by tissue
culture methods may shorten this operation somewhat, but it introduces still other oppor-
tunities for error into what is already a highly technical business . Obviously, the successful
operation of a fruit tree nursery requires highly skilled technicians and constant attention to
detail. It is not surprising that nurserymen are keenly interested and innovative participants
in the plant growth regulator field .
Volume I 3
FIGURE I. Commercial production of fruit tree rootstocks by in vitro meristem culture. (Bottom) Mother cultures
of various apple and cherry rootstock clones held in a controlled environment room. (Top left) A proliferating
culture of EMLA 7 apple ready to ''harvest''. Rooting of these harvested shoots is accomplished by placing them
first on an auxin-containing and then on an auxin-free medium. (Top right) Rooted plants ready for potting.
(Courtesy of Dr. D . I. Dunstan , Kelowna Nurseries Ltd. , Kelowna , British Columbia.)
A. Production of Clonal Rootstocks and Self-Rooted Trees

The clonal rootstocks so important in modem apple and pear culture are mainly produced
by stooling or layering procedures. However, the growth regulator-assisted rooting of hard-
wood cuttings is growing in importance, a development stemming from problems with the
stool-bed procedures ranging from low productivity to a lack of flexibility in responding to
changing market demands .
Successful techniques for rooting large winter cuttings of various rootstock clones have
been developed by English researchers in the last decade. 1 The specific recipe varies some-
what with cultivar and location, but one essential step is the treatment of the basal end of
the cuttings with an auxin - most commonly 0.25 to 0.50% indoyl-3-butyric acid (IBA)
- to encourage root initiation. Rooting occurs within 2 weeks in a carefully constituted
rooting medium held at 21°C. Ideally, these rooted cuttings can then be handled like rooted
FIGURE 2. Defoliation of Cox's Orange Pippin nursery trees with a 2%

CuEDT A spray applied September 25, 1981. The trees in the left row were
untreated. The photograph was taken October 14 , 1981. (Courtesy of Dr.
J. N. Knight , East Mailing Research Station, Maidstone , Kent , England.)
layers, but more commonly they require additional attention to encourage the development
of a strong root system before being used as rootstocks by the nurseryman. Several important
apple rootstock clones, including M26, M27, MM106, and MMlll, respond well to this
procedure . The quince rootstocks used to control pear tree size and the Old Home x
Farmingdale series of Pyrus communis rootstocks are also readily propagated by hardwood
cuttings .
It is also possible to produce self-rooted trees of a number of commercially important
apple and pear cultivars by the rooting of hardwood cuttings. 2 It has been suggested that
the cost of finished trees can be reduced by this technique, but commercial application to
date has been very limited .
Perhaps the most exciting developments in fruit tree propagation technology are occurring
in the in vitro propagation area. Production of virus-free rootstock materials of apple and
pear and of own-rooted trees of important cultivars of each species is now a commercial
reality in both North America and Europe (Figure 1). This procedure offers great flexibility
in adjusting to market demands since plants of desirable clones can be rapidly multiplied
from mother cultures maintained by the laboratory .
The procedure 3 ·4 is to culture surface-sterilized shoot meristems on a nutrient medium
Volume I 5
1M
FIGURE 3. Feathering of Gloster apple trees following a single spray

of 1000 ppm propyl 1-3-t-butyl phenoxyacetate (M & B 25-105) applied
at approximately 60-cm tree height. The tree on the right was not treated.
(Courtesy of Dr. Henk van Oosten, Research Station for Fruit Growing,
Wilhelminadorp, The Netherlands.)
containing enough 6-benzyladenine (BA) (about 5 X I0- 6 M) to stimulate shoot proliferation

from axillary buds. These shoots are periodically harvested and "planted" on a second
medium lacking BA but containing NAA or IBA to stimulate root initiation. A third transfer
onto a medium free of cytokinins or auxins encourages root development. These small
complete plants are eventually potted and grown into salable trees using standard nursery
practices.
B. Defoliation of Nursery Stock

Finished nursery trees intended for autumn or spring orchard planting, or rootstock layers
intended for sale or further use by the nursery, are dug in the autumn after the plants have
stopped growing and are largely defoliated. However, since nursery stock is encouraged to
grow very vigorously, these physiological processes are delayed. Natural defoliation may
occur too late to make trees available for autumn planting, or in some locations, to permit
digging before the soil freezes.
Therefore, there is great interest among nurserymen in chemical treatments to advance
defoliation although no universally suitable procedure has been developed yet. Most effective
defoliants also cause bark and bud injury from time to time. Furthermore, the results obtained
with a given procedure can differ greatly from year to year, and a number of important
apple and pear cultivars are remarkably resistant to chemical defoliation. Nonetheless, there
are chemical defoliation procedures in commercial use in Europe and North America that
are worthy of mention here.
A I% CuEDT A spray applied in mid-October effectively defoliates nursery trees of Cox's
Orange Pippin apple as well as some other cultivars and is finding acceptance among
nurserymen in England (Figure 2). All apple rootstock clones also respond satisfactorily to
CuEDT A, but certain other apple and pear scion cultivars will sustain bark and bud injury
yet resist defoliation. 5
In North America the combination of a particular wetting agent (Du Pont® WK at about
1.5%) with I00 to 200 ppm (2-chloroethyl)-phosphonic acid (ethephon), applied two or
three times in late autumn, has led to satisfactory defoliation in Washington State. 6 Another
material, 2,3-dihydro-5 ,6-dimethyl-1 ,4-dithiin-1, I ,4,4-tetraoxide (Harvade®, Uniroyal
Chemical Co.), combined with DuPont WK is reported to give comparable results. 7 How-
ever, commercial experience is still quite limited, and variable defoliation and occasional
tree injury continue to be serious concerns.
C. Promotion of Feathering of Nursery Trees

In some fruit growing regions of the world, especially in Europe, orchardists are accus-
tomed to planting trees that have five to ten side branches or "feathers" when they come
from the nursery. Some cultivars branch readily (e.g., the Cox's Orange Pippin shown in
Figure 2), while others branch reluctantly. Feathered nursery trees develop a greater fruiting
volume early in the life of the orchard and are therefore more productive. 8
A growth regulator introduced in the mid-1970s by May and Baker Ltd., n-propyl-3-t-
butylphenoxyacetate marketed as M & B 25-105, is proving to be a highly effective promoter
of feathering in nursery trees (Figure 3). Applied early in the growing season of the final
nursery year at a concentration of about 750 ppm, this material can increase the number of
feathers by threefold or more (Table I). This treatment is even more beneficial if the feathers
developing too low on the trunk are removed by hand. 9
M & 8 25-1 05 is effective on several important apple and pear cultivars, but is considerably
less promising with others. 10 It acts by temporarily interfering with basipetal auxin movement,
thus reducing apical dominance. 11 The feathering effect is achieved most satisfactorily on
vigorously growing nursery trees.
In North America there appears to be greater interest in a treatment to promote branching
of young trees after they are established in the orchard. The growth regulator techniques
being developed for this purpose will be discussed in a later section, but this difference in
attitude toward the production of well-branched nursery trees warrants a brief discussion
here.
Tree planting in Europe occurs in the autumn or very early spring. In the latter case the
trees remain in the nursery over winter or are heeled-in in the orchard in the autumn. Thus,
cold storage of finished trees is less common than is the case in much of North America.
Feathered trees are more difficult and expensive to store than tight bundles of nonbranched
trees. Furthermore, the European climate is generally more conducive to the establishment
of young trees, and less severe pruning is practiced at the time of planting. Thus, feathered
trees are less of a problem for nurserymen and relatively more beneficial to the orchardist.
III. CONTROLLING GROWTH AND MODIFYING THE STRUCTURE OF

ORCHARD TREES
The growth regulator treatments discussed in this section are those applied to orchard
trees, but generally not to fruits or flowers. They are applied to young nonbearing trees to
assist in tree training and to promote spur development; to nonbearing parts of the tree (such
as treatments to control the growth of root suckers); or they are applied to the upper tree
parts during the dormant season.
A. Regulation of Tree Branching Habit

Unfortunately, materials like M & B 25-105 used by nurserymen in Europe to induce
Volume I 7
Table 1
FEATHERING OF NURSERY TREES AS INFLUENCED BY A
SINGLE EARLY SUMMER SPRAY OF M & B 25-105
Number of branches
per tree
M&
B 25·
Untreated 105
Apples on MM106 (850

ppm)
Spartan 3.2 9.3
Crispin (Mutsu) 3.2 9.6
Bramley's Seedling 2.0 10.2
Pears on Quince A (750
ppm)
Conference 0.0 3.5
Williams (Bartlett) 1.3 6.5
Doyenne du Cornice 1.1 3.7
From Quinlan, J. D. , Acta Hortic ., 120, 55, 1981. With permission .
Table 2
STIMULATION OF GROWTH AND BRANCHING OF YOUNG MACSPUR APPLE
TREES TREATED WITH MIXTURES OF 6-BENZYLADENINE (BA), GA 4 + 7 AND
GA 3
Total
No. of new growth
Concentration shoots per Average shoot per tree
No. Treatment (ppm) tree length (em) (em)
I No spray 5.5 7.61 41.9

2 BA 500 12.0 8.28 99 .3
GA. ", 250
3 BA 500 20.8 4.30 89.3
GA" +' 250
GA, 250
From Costante, J. F .. Proc. New Engl. Fruit Meet., 86, 65, 1980. With permission.
feathering of maiden trees are much less effective when applied to trees in the orchard.
Therefore, considering that poorly branched nursery trees are the norm in many countries
and that the value of early branching is being increasingly recognized , treatments to encourage
branching of young orchard trees are beginning to emerge .
With many strong-growing cultivars and strains of apple and pear, not only the number
but also the location and angle of attachment of lateral branches can cause concern . When
a young unbranched tree is planted, the height at which it is headed (cut back) depends to
a large extent upon where the first whorl of lateral branches is desired. Unfortunately, these
branches often emerge from a very narrow zone below the heading cut, with two or more
upright shoots competing for leadership. These branches are often spaced too closely and
are otherwise unsuitable as scaffold branches unless they are mechanically spread.
This unsatisfactory growth habit can be altered by treating dormant buds well below the
heading cut with a mixture ofbenzyladenine (BA) and GA 4 + 7 in a lanolin paste. 12 Treatments
QC
v'
/
,,_ , _,-
". ""~.....
-~ :' ·~~ .._
'~ ......-. ~,. -- .-._ ,..- " - ..... J ~· --
-~ .... - ..,
iS"
~
CJ
....
<:::>
~
::-
~
~
:0:::
""
iS"
§·
~
Q
::!
""
§'
1:;"
FIGURE 4. Modification of growth and fruiting habit of Cox's Orange Pippin apple trees with annual daminozide spray treatments. Both trees were planted in
November 1970 and photographed late in the summer of 1973. The tree on the right was treated with 1700 ppm daminozide in 1971 and 1972 and 1000 ppm in
1973. (From East Mailing Research Station Report for 1973. 64, 1974. With permission.)
Volume I 9
applied to individual buds or to all of the buds and bark in the desired trunk zone give
comparable results. The result is more branches , wider branch angles, and increased total
shoot growth. However, to date there has been very little use of this promising technique
in commercial orcharding . Correct timing is important and may be difficult to achieve ; or
perhaps the treatment method is considered too costly and tedious.
Quite a different tree branching problem is encountered with some of the increasingly
popular "spur type" cultivars of apple. These compact trees tend to form fruiting spurs
rather than branches, particularly when tree vigor is low. It is not uncommon for trees of
these cultivars to resemble a "fruiting pole", thus making very inefficient use of the allotted
orchard space.
An early season application of Promalin® (Abbott Laboratories Inc.) , a proprietary mixture
of BA and gibberellins A4 and A 7 (GA 4 + 7 ), is showing considerable promise in tests in
North America and Belgium. It stimulates the development of lateral branches and increases
the total length of shoot growth on treated trees (Table 2). The addition of a third gibberellin
(GA 1 ) may further enhance treatment effectiveness. 13
B. Promotion of Spur Development and Flower Initiation

Several important apple cultivars (e.g., Rome Beauty, Cox 's Orange Pippin, Tydeman's
Early Worcester) form long thin branches with a paucity of fruiting spurs. This condition
can be partly corrected, and long-term tree productivity improved, by annual applications
of butanedioic acid mono-(2,2-dimethylhydrazide) (daminozide or Alar-85®, Uniroyal Inc.) .
A program of 500 to I 000 ppm daminozide applied for several years within a month of bud
break leads to shorter, sturdier branches supporting more spurs per unit of branch length
(Figure 4). Flower initiation is also increased by these treatments but the more important
aim is to modify growth habit.
Other apple cultivars, while displaying a suitable compact and potentially productive tree
shape and growth habit, are nonetheless reluctant to commence full bearing. The growth
regulator treatment prescribed in Washington State and elsewhere in the U.S. is a combination
of daminozide and ethephon applied 4 to 5 weeks after bud break. Typical rates are 1000
to 1500 ppm daminozide and 300 ppm ethephon in a high volume spray. When the flowering
problem is less severe, daminozide alone (applied somewhat earlier) is the more common
treatment. These are likely to be one-time treatments occurring in the fourth or fifth orchard
year.
A comparable reluctance to commence flowering and fruiting occurs in young pear trees.
A chemical registered in several European countries to control vegetative growth and improve
flowering of pear trees is (2-chloroethyl) trimethylammonium chloride (chlormequat, Cy-
coceJ®, Cyanamid Inc.). The Dutch recommendation for controlling growth and improving
fruitfulness of Cornice pear is to apply I 000 to 1600 ppm chlormequat when the new shoots
have five to eight leaves and repeat in 2 to 3 weeks if necessary .
C. Suppression of Root Suckers

A troublesome characteristic of some otherwise desirable apple and pear rootstocks is
their tendency to initiate strong growing shoots from adventitious buds near the soil surface
(Figure 5). Root suckers are unproductive and unsightly ; they hinder access to the tree and
can harbor a wide range of orchard pests. Fire blight entry through root suckers is a particularly
serious concern in some countries.
Procedures for the chemical control of root suckers are slowly being developed. A product
originating in England and marketed in western Europe and the Southern Hemisphere com-
bines 12.7% by weight of the free acid of NAA in an emulsion with decanol. Tipoff® (Midox
Ltd., U.K.) is applied at a rate of about 4% in water when the suckers are about 10-cm
long (Figure 5) . At least 4 weeks should have elapsed since full bloom and spray drift must
be avoided.
FIGURE 5. Control of sprout and sucker growth with NAA-based products. Top: Control of sprout growth on
the trunks of 15-year-old Delicious apple trees with Trehold Inhibitor A-112® in 20% white latex paint applied in
April. The active ingredient is the NAA ester at 10000 ppm. (Courtesy of Dr. T. J. Raese, USDA Tree Fruit
Research Laboratory, Wenatchee, WA). Bottom: Control of root suckers on 14-year-old Beurre Hardy/Quince A
pear trees with 4'7< Tipoff'"' applied in early summer. The active ingredients are alpha naphthaleneacetic acid (2240
ppm) and N-decanol (2.78%). (Courtesy of Dr. S. J. Wertheim, Research Station for Fruit Growing, Wilhelmi-
nadorp, The Netherlands). The treated tree (both top and bottom) is on the right.
In North America the material more commonly used for this purpose is Trehold Sprout
Inhibitor A-112® (Union Carbide Inc.). This product contains 13.2% of the ethyl ester of
NAA and is diluted to a concentration of 0.5 to 1.0% NAA with water or white latex paint,
depending on use. For root sucker control it is usually diluted with water and used as
described for Tipoff®. With both materials, best results are obtained when the sucker growth
from previous seasons is cut back so that only current season growth is treated.
D. Suppression of Water Sprouts

Water sprouts are strong upright-growing shoots arising from the trunk and major scaffold
Volume I 11
limbs. They are particularly prevalent in vigorous trees subjected to containment pruning.
On less vigorous trees they may be confined to regions near major pruning cuts. Water
sprouts interfere with spray movement and coverage within the tree and seriously reduce
light penetration. Removing them by hand significantly increases annual pruning costs.
Trehold Sprout Inhibitor A-I J2® diluted with 25 to 50% white latex paint in water to a
final NAA concentration of 0.5 to 1.0% is used commercially in North America and parts
of Europe to control water sprouts. It is applied as a paint to problem areas on the trunk
and scaffold limbs. This may involve a complete coverage or spot applications to major
pruning cuts . NAA applied to uncut surfaces is not translocated so thorough coverage is
essential. However, applied to cut surfaces it will move about 30 em into the tree and towards
the root system , concentrating in the outer ring of xylem . 14 This NAA paint treatment is
about equally effective on apple and pear trees. 15
IV. REGULATION OF FLOWERING AND FRUIT SET
Apple and pear growers also use chemicals to regulate cropping by increasing "return"
flowering of cultivars tending to bear biennially; by promoting fruit set on certain problem
cultivars; and perhaps most importantly, by reducing set on trees that tend to overcrop in
any given season. Interestingly, the use of one practice does not necessarily preclude the
use of either of the others on the same tree and even in the same season.
A. Improving Return Bloom

Early fruit thinning is a powerful tool for increasing return flowering. However, the
growth-retarding chemicals, daminozide, ethephon, and chlormequat, when applied during
the flower initiation period provide additional help in this regard. Daminozide is the favored
material for bearing apple trees because, unlike ethephon, early season use does not involve
the risk of excessive fruit abscission. On cultivars tending to flower biennially, daminozide
is often applied with one of the fruit thinning sprays. However, in England and parts of
Europe a slightly different use pattern is developing . Annual mid-summer daminozide sprays ,
at considerably reduced rates , are said to improve flower strength or "quality" and thus
improve cropping the following year.
With pears, increasing numbers of European growers are using multiple applications of
chlormequat to improve the productivity of mature trees . Relatively low rates of chemical
(generally less than 500 ppm) are applied several times at about 2-week intervals commencing
shortly after petal fall. This treatment regime effectively controls shoot growth and improves
return cropping without any appreciable reduction in fruit size. Increases in both flower
numbers and fruit set explain the improved cropping. 16
B. Increasing Fruit Set

Spring frosts and other climatic hazards periodically reduce the set of pome fruits in all
major producing regions . This, coupled with the fact that growth regulator techniques have
been developed to improve fruit set on crops as diverse as tomatoes and grapes, has en-
couraged the search for fruit setting aids applicable to apples and pears. Unfortunately,
progress to date, especially with apples, has been rather disappointing with cultivars differing
widely in their responsiveness to the various chemicals. Furthermore, treatments developed
specifically for a given cultivar and region all too frequently fail to achieve the desired result
in wider commercial practice .
Probably the most successful practice now in commercial use aims at improving the
cropping of pears with blossom-time sprays of GA 3 or GA 4 + 7 . 17 Rates of 15 to 25 ppm
in a high volume spray are commonly suggested . Cultivars which normally set a high
proportion of seedless fruit, such as Triomph de Vienne and Beurn! Hardy, respond partie-
ularly well to gibberellin treatments and are treated annually by many orchardists in England ,
Holland , and Belgium. Some other cultivars (e.g . , Conference) are treated only when spring
frost has been severe enough to prevent the natural production of seeded fruits. This rescue
operation can be highly cost effective even though some fruits may be misshapen, and
blossom density the following season is likely to be reduced.
A second method for increasing fruit set of pears involves the use of 2,4,5-trichloro-
phenoxypropionic acid (fenoprop) as a postharvest (5 to 10 ppm) or a blossom-time (3 to
6 ppm) spray. This spray is safely applied to a small number of cultivars and dates back to
early work in Washington State with Anjou pears. 18 This use of fenoprop no longer appears
in North American spray guides , perhaps because positive responses often reveal other
cultural ills , such as inadequate pollination , but it continues to find favor in some other
countries. South African and Australian growers of Packhams Triumph pears continue to
use fenoprop in this manner.
Chemical promotion of apple fruit set is even more problematic. The severity of the fruit
set problem with Cox's Orange Pippin apples has led a group of English researchers to seek
a growth regulator solution. 19 · 20 The present state-of-the-art fruit setting mixture for Cox
combines GA 4 + 7 , N 1N 1-diphenylurea, and 2-naphthoxyacetic acid. Applied at blossom
time, it has increased the set of seedless fruits in a number of experiments. However, seedless
fruits, or those with very few seeds, compete poorly with normally seeded fruits and the
aim of increasing yields year in and year out by setting a proportion of such fruits is proving
difficult to achieve. The key to success may be to grow Cox without cross-pollination and
rely completely on hormone-induced set. This novel approach is now under test.
Clearly, the development of chemical techniques to reliably improve apple and pear fruit
set is an important area for continued research. Early results with the ethylene biosynthesis
inhibitor, aminoethoxyvinylglycine, have been outstanding in this regard. 21 This use of an
inhibitory rather than promotive growth substance could be the conceptual breakthrough that
will lead to some long-awaited practical solutions.
C. Chemical Thinning
Each year it becomes more difficult to sustain apple and pear production where fruit
thinning is done entirely by hand. Hand thinning is costly , and because of labor availability
problems, it is increasingly difficult to achieve at any price. However, chemical thinning is
more than simply a cost-effective way of removing excess fruit. Its major advantage over
hand thinning is that fruit removal is accomplished early in the growing season when the
return bloom and fruit sizing benefits are greatest.
With the exception of the more recent introduction of ethephon, the chemicals now in
commercial use for flower and fruit thinning have been widely available since the 1950s.
Not surprisingly, some very localized usage patterns have evolved during these years of
field experience. Table 3 illustrates the range of chemical thinning advice directed at growers
of a single widely grown apple cultivar, Golden Delicious, in a number of countries and
regions within countries . Unfortunately, a more complete presentation of the latest published
advice concerning chemical thinning of apples and pears cannot be attempted here . The
sheer volume of information indicates the importance placed on chemical thinning technology
around the world and suggests an interest in, if not an absolute requirement for, a great deal
of local advice.
However, some important regional differences are worthy of elaboration. For example,
blossom thinning with sodium 4,6-dinitro-ortho-cresylate (DNOC) is an integral part of the
apple thinning programs used by growers in western North America, yet its use is rare in
other regions. Some interesting exceptions include Victoria, Australia, and Nova Scotia,
Canada. Of the postbloom thinners, NAA is applied at petal fall to a range of apple cultivars
in Queensland and Western Australia, although the common advice elsewhere is for a much
Volume I 13
Table 3
CHEMICAL THINNING OF GOLDEN DELICIOUS APPLES: "SPRAY
CALENDAR" ADVICE FROM 12 LOCATIONS
Concentration
Location Chemical Timing (g/100 t)• Remarks
Canada
British Columbia DNOC Full 40 For "concentrate" spraying apply
bloom 4. 7 kg/ha in 1700 {; of water
NAAm 8-12 days 1.7 Use a wetting agent; for "concen-
AFB' trate " spraying apply 118 g/ha as
above
NAA plus 15 days AFB 0.5 Apply as a full volume spray
carbaryl 50
U.S.
Washington DNOC See remarks 25-38 Apply when 3 blossoms per spur
cluster are open on the N side of
the tree
NAAm 7-14 days 1.7-3.4 Add a wetting agent
AFB
NAAm plus I 0---20 days 1.7-3.4 Ethephon enhances thinning and re-
ethephon AFB 30---40 tum flowering
NAA plus 15-25 days 0.3
carbaryl AFB 45---60
Ohio NAA 14--21 days 1.7-2.0 Reduce to 0.8 g if a wetting agent is
AFB added; NAAm not recommended
New York NAA Up to 21 days 1.5-2.0 Without a wetting agent
AFB or 18-
mm fruit
length
NAA plus As above 0.5-1.0
carbaryl 60
Virginia NAA 14--18 days 0.8 Add a wetting agent; carbary I use
AFB can lead to russeting
England Carbaryl 80% petal fall 50 Wet the tree thoroughly and apply
to 21 days under slow drying conditions
AFB
The Netherlands NAAm 7 days AFB 6.0 Without wetting agent; apply as a
full volume spray
Carbaryl 12-mm fruit di- 75 As above
ameter; 19-
28 days AFB
France NAAm 7-10 days 5.0 Apply at least 1500 £/ha
AFB
NAA 9-mm fruit 1.7 As above
diameter
Carbaryl 15- to 16-mm 150 Apply 1500---2000 t/ha
fruit diameter;
18-25 days
AFB
West Germany NAAm 75% petal fall 5.0---5.8 NAA is not available for use in
to 7 days AFB Germany
South Africa NAAm Full bloom to 7.0 Reported to thin less than carbaryl
90% petal fall
Carbaryl 14--24 days 75 May aggravate russeting
AFB
Table 3 (continued)
CHEMICAL THINNING OF GOLDEN DELICIOUS APPLES: "SPRAY
Concentration
Location Chemical Timing (g/100 £)• Remarks
Australia
Tasmania NAA Full bloom to 1.0 Add a wetting agent
14 days AFB
Western Australia NAA Late petal fall 1.0 Add a wetting agent; carbaryl aggra-
vates russeting
" Values are grams of active chemical. These values multiplied by 10 yield ppm.
" After full bloom.
later spray. North Carolina growers are specifically advised that early NAA sprays may
stick the fruit on rather than remove it. And in British Columbia, Canada successful thinning
is achieved using low volume or "concentrate" spray equipment, whereas only 100 km
away in Washington State the advice is to apply all chemical thinning sprays to run-off.
Some of these procedural differences relate direct! y to climate. Others relate to the orchard
management systems used in various regions. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated re-
peatedly that cultivars of both species differ greatly in their responsiveness to various chemical
thinning agents.
Undoubtedly, other explanations for this diversity could be listed, but suffice it to say
that widely applicable recommendations for chemical thinning are seldom attempted. The
following paragraphs describe in general terms the more important procedures.
I. Blossom Thinning of Apples

This is predicated on the following general observations:
1. Apple trees normally produce 5 to 20 times more blossoms than are required to produce
a full crop.
2. Individual fruiting spurs produce 5 or 6 flowers yet should support no more than 2
fruits.
3. If a tree is to maintain annual cropping, a sizable proportion of these spurs should
"rest" in any given season.
4. The flowers in each cluster open predictably, i.e., the central flower opens first.
5. With certain cultivars the position of the fruit within this cluster influences an important
aspect of fruit quality, i.e., fruit shape.
Selective blossom thinning can be achieved with DNOC since: (I) fertilized flowers (fruits)
are resistant to DNOC because the stigmatic tissues have achieved their function; (2) uno-
pened flowers are protected from the spray; and (3) open but unfertilized flowers are damaged
and therefore fail to set.
Obviously, timing of the spray is very important. Factors to consider include the stage
of bloom and the conditions for pollen transfer and pollen tube growth that existed during
the 24- to 48-hr period preceding the spray. If the spray is too late, very few flowers will
be affected. If it is too early, the "king" or central flower may be thinned but too many
lateral flowers will persist. This would be unwise for Delicious apples where the elongated
"king-bloom" fruits are valued, but may be the correct procedure for Mcintosh where this
fruit is often misshapen. Weather conditions at the time of, and following spraying are also
important in that wet weather extends the activity of DNOC. It is not surprising that DNOC
is not widely used in maritime fruit growing regions.
Volume I IS
Table 4
THINNING OF PEAR FRUITS WITH NAA AND NAAm: "SPRAY
Concentration
Location Cultivar(s) Chemical (ppm)• Timing"
Canada
British Columbia Bartlett NAAm 16 13-21
Ontario Bartlett and NAAm or 10 2-3
Anjou NAA 10 5-9
Keiffer and NAAm and 15-20 2-3
Winter Nelis NAA 10 5-9
U.S.
New Jersey Bartlett and Bose NAAm 25-50' 7-10
New York Bartlett NAAm or 25 3-5
NAA 2 5-10
Ohio Bartlett NAAm 25-35 3-7
Washington Bartlett NAAm or lG--15 15-21
NAA lG--15 15-21
Denmark Conference and NAA 15' 3-10
Bonne Louise
Clapps Favorite NAA 22' 3-10
Australia
New South Williams NAA lG--15 lG--14
Wales
Concentration of chemical in a full volume spray with added wetting agent.

• Days after full bloom.
Wetting agent requirement not clearly specified.
Some suggested rates and times for DNOC application to thin Golden Delicious are listed
in Table 3. Short-season cultivars and those prone to biennial bearing are most commonly
treated with DNOC. Evidence to date suggests that pear trees cannot be safely thinned with
this chemical.
2. Postbloom Thinning with Hormone Materials

Postbloom thinning with hormone materials, primarily NAA and naphthaleneacetamide
(NAAm), is the most widely used approach to chemical fruit removal. These chemicals are
sold under numerous trade names. NAA has greater auxinic activity than NAAm and this
is usually reflected in lower application rates. Because of its attenuated auxinic activity
NAAm is less likely to overthin, but because it appears to retain its auxinic activity for a
longer period, NAAm usage can lead to some unexpected side effects. The thinning activity
of both NAA and NAAm is usually enhanced when they are applied with wetting agents.
The mode of action of NAA and NAAm in inducing selective fruit abscission is far from
clear. One would expect the same mode of action yet, as was suggested above, certain
cultivars respond differently (e.g., NAAm is more likely than NAA to lead to "pygmy"
Delicious apples). NAAm is typically, but not always, applied somewhat nearer blossom
time than is NAA.
Most cultivars of apples appear to be responsive to NAA and NAAm as fruit thinning
agents commencing at petal fall and continuing for 2 or 3 weeks. 22 Early sprays are suggested
in some regions; later ones in others. Rather typical advice for thinning apples with NAA
and NAAm on the eastern seaboard of North America is found in the 1981 Virginia Spray
Bulletin for Commercial Tree Fruit Growers. For Grimes, Jonathan, Stayman, York Im-
perial, and Rome Beauty apples this bulletin suggests 50 ppm NAAm applied between 4
and 18 days after full bloom or 5 ppm NAA plus a wetting agent applied between 14 and
18 days. It suggests that early NAAm sprays (between 4 and 8 days) are particularly
appropriate for short-season apples such as Yellow Transparent, but can also be used for
the above-mentioned cultivars. NAAm is not recommended for Delicious or Golden Delicious
and NAA is not recommended for the summer apples. The comparable bulletin from the
neighboring state of North Carolina warns growers that NAA at rates higher than 5 ppm
can lead to the retention of pygmy Delicious fruits.
Growers in New Jersey are advised that NAAm levels can be reduced to 25 ppm if Tween
20 is added to the spray mixture. This bulletin, 1981 Commercial Tree Fruit Production
Recommendations for New Jersey, also suggests that Golden Delicious apples can be thinned
with 8 to 10 ppm NAA (plus Tween 20) applied 14 to 16 days after full bloom. This material
is also suggested for petal-fall sprays for the early maturing apples and in the 7- to 14-day
time period for mid-season apples like Mcintosh, Spartan, and Empire.
Both NAA and NAAm are used to thin Bartlett or Williams pears in North America and
parts of Australia and a number of other cultivars are similarly thinned in Europe and
elsewhere (Table 4). And, as has been shown for apples, the specific advice concerning
timing and application rates can vary rather widely, particularly within North America. It
is interesting, for example, that in Washington State and Ontario, Canada NAA and NAAm
are applied at the same rates (10 to 15 ppm), whereas in New York the suggested NAA rate
is lower by a factor of I 0. The recommended time of application of each of these chemicals
ranges from petal fall in several eastern states to 15 to 21 days after full bloom in the west.
Generally speaking, the use of chemicals to thin pear fruits is less successful and less
common than with apples. In some very important pear growing regions such as California
and Victoria, Australia chemical thinning is either considered unnecessary or not reliable
enough to recommend.
3. Postbloom Thinning of Apples with Carbaryl

Postbloom thinning of apples with carbaryl (!-naphthyl N-methylcarbamate), and more
recently with carbaryl-containing combinations, is practiced worldwide. It dates back to the
observation by Batjer and Westwood 23 that carbaryl, applied as an insecticide, reliably
reduces fruit set. Advantages of carbaryl include the fact that it seldom causes overthinning
yet is active well into the postbloom period. It is widely used on the Delicious cultivar
because, unlike NAAm, it does not encourage the retention of pygmy apples. The insecticidal
activity of carbaryl is a disadvantage when it leads to the destruction of beneficial insects
and mites. However, careful monitoring of insect and mite populations can be used to avoid
problems. For example, the excessive reduction of predaceous mite populations can lead to
severe problems with spider mites, but mites resistant to carbaryl are becoming increasingly
common. Consequently, this problem occurs less frequently.
The mechanism by which carbaryl causes fruit thinning, while not completely understood,
appears to differ from that of NAA and NAAm. 22 ·24 Therefore, more effective and reliable
thinning can be achieved by combining carbaryl with NAA (Table 5). This approach is
rapidly gaining popularity.
Carbaryl is not a satisfactory pear fruit thinner.
4. Flower and Fruit Thinning with Ethephon

Applied as a blossom-time or postbloom spray, ethephon can be used to induce flower
and fruit abscission. However, despite early promise as a thinning agent, ethephon is not
widely used for this purpose in commercial fruit growing. It has proven more likely to
overthin than the alternative materials, a problem that researchers hope to overcome by
refining the procedures for its use. One of the very few published suggestions for its use as
a fruit thinner in commercial orcharding appears in the 1981 Spray Guide for Tree Fruits in
Volume I 17
Table 5
CHEMICAL THINNING OF
SPARTAN APPLES WITH
CARBARYL AND/OR NAA,
SUMMERLAND, BRITISH
COLUMBIA 1979 TO 1981
Final fruit set as a

percent
of the water controls"
Treatment• 1979 1980 1981
Carbaryl (500 ppm) 86 95 74

NAA (10 ppm) 71 84 63
Carbaryl plus NAA 50 69 51
Sprays applied IS days after full bloom each year

in the same orchard.
• The control fruit set values (fruit per 100 blossom
clusters) were 88.9, 129.2, and 199.0 in 1979,
1980, and 1981, respectively.
Eastern Washington. A combination of NAAm (17 to 34 ppm) and ethephon (300 to 400
ppm) applied 10 to 20 days after full bloom is suggested for Golden Delicious to help
counteract a biennial bearing tendency.
V. IMPROVING FRUIT CONDITION AND APPEARANCE
Modifying fruit condition and appearance is a relatively new but steadily expanding area
of growth regulator usage in apple and pear production. Growth regulators can be used to
improve the firmness, color, and shape of apples and to decrease the incidence or severity
of several disorders of apple and pear fruits. Daminozide, introduced in the mid-1960s, is
responsible for many of these effects, but some imaginative new uses for gibberellins and
cytokinins are gaining in importance.
A. The Effects of Daminozide on Apple Fruits

Daminozide is now available in most fruit growing countries and, as will become in-
creasingly apparent, is proving to be a very useful chemical. Its effects on fruit color and
condition are still generally viewed as welcome side effects of sprays applied for more urgent
reasons such as fruit drop control or the promotion of flowering. However, it is increasingly
common for apple growers to apply daminozide in early to mid-summer with the primary
aim of improving red color, increasing fruit firmness, or perhaps protecting the crop from
a specific disorder such as "watercore" (Table 6). 25 - 33
Daminozide is usually applied as a full volume spray containing 500 to 2000 ppm of
active chemical. Low volume sprays have also proven effective in many regions. The amount
of chemical applied is usually less with mature trees and is commonly reduced after several
years of use on the same tree.
Some adverse carry-over effects of daminozide on fruit size, shape, and length of the
pedicel have been noted and these are more likely to occur if the chemical is applied at high
rates or too late in the growing season. Apple cultivars differ considerably in their suscep-
tibility to these carry-over effects.
Another precaution is that a few storage disorders of apples can be advanced or intensified
by daminozide treatment. These effects are often specific for a given cultivar and location,
Table 6
THE EFFECT OF DAMINOZIDE TREATMENT ON
SOME APPEARANCE AND CONDITION
PARAMETERS OF MCINTOSH AND DELICIOUS
APPLES
Control Treated Ref.
Mcintosh
Surface red color(%) 63 75' 25
37 62 26
62 80 27
Flesh firmness (kg) at harvest 8.1 8.7 28
6.9 7.5 25
Flesh firmness (kg) after 3--4 5.3 5.9 28
months of 0°C storage 7.9 7.7 n.s. 29
Flesh firmness (kg) after 5 months 4.3 4.9 29
of CA storage 4.5 5.7 25
Titrateable acidity (mt 0.1 N 34.3 25.6 28
NaOH/25 mt of juice)
Juice soluble solids(%) 11.8 11.6 n.s. 28
Development of brown core in 0°C 30 53 30
storage (% afflicted)
Delicious
Flesh firmness (kg) at harvest 7.8 8.6 31
8.7 9.1 28
8.0 8.5 32
Flesh firmness (kg) after 3--{i 6.7 8.4 33
months of 0°C storage 7.3 7.5 n.s. 28
Titrateable acidity (mt 0.1 N 11.4 11.4 n.s. 28
NaOH/25 me of juice)
Juice soluble solids (%) 12.6 12.0 31
II. I 10.9 n.s. 28
Incidence of water core at harvest 56 8 31
(% afflicted)
Incidence of storage scald (% 84 20 33
afflicted)
Differences due to treatment are statistically significant at the 5% prob-

ability level unless indicated by n.s.
but nonetheless can be of serious concern. For example, daminozide sprays are reported to
shorten the storage life of Mcintosh apples in New York because they promote internal
browning. 30 This effect has not been observed with Mcintosh grown in British Columbia.
B. Preventing Premature Softening of Pear Fruits

A disorder of Bartlett pear fruits referred to as "pink-end" can be avoided or reduced by
a daminozide spray (about 1000 ppm) applied 18 to 24 days before anticipated harvest.
Pink-end is characterized by softening of the calyx end of fruits still on the tree and is
induced by field temperatures below 10°C during the month preceding harvest. 34 This use
of daminozide is presently confined to Oregon and Washington.
C. Reduction of Fruit Russeting

Most apple cultivars are susceptible to skin russeting when grown in humid climates.
Severe fruit russeting frequently reduces the value of Golden Delicious apples, and an
effective protectant would receive widespread acclaim. Australian work indicating that GA4 + 7
sprays reduce the severity of russet 35 is very promising and is being followed up at other
Volume I 19
Table 7
REDUCTION OF APPLE FRUIT RUSSETING BY 4
SPRAYS OF GA 4 + 7 APPLIED WITHIN 1 MONTH OF
BLOOM
Orchard: 2 3 4 5 6
Cultivar: Karmijn de Sonnaville Golden Delicious
No spray 82" 50 79 58 18 40
GA4 + 7 (10 ppm) 41 10 68 42 4 17
Values are the percentage of moderately to severely russeted fruits in

each treatment and orchard lot.
From Tromp, J. and Wertheim, S. J., Proc. 15th Colloq. Int. Potash lnst.,
p. 137, 1980. With permission.
locations. 17 •36 Relatively high concentrations of GA 4 + 7 and multiple applications appear to

be necessary for complete control, 36 but considerably lower rates can lead to a marked
improvement in fruit finish (Table 7). 17 Assuming no adverse side effects, eventual regis-
tration and widespread commercial use can be anticipated. Interestingly, GA 3 is considerably
less effective and very recent evidence suggests that it is the GA 4 in the GA4 + 7 mixture that
reduces russeting. And since GA 7 is the mixture component most likely to inhibit flower
initiation, 38 a pure GA4 product for russet control would be ideal.
D. Increasing the Length to Diameter Ratio of Apples

A proprietary mixture of GA4 + 7 and 6-benzyladenine (6-BA) (Promalin®, Abbott Lab-
oratories) is now registered in several countries and is used primarily to promote fruit
elongation of Delicious apples. Historically, elongated or angular fruit of this cultivar have
received a premium in the marketplace, and it has been clearly demonstrated that blossom-
time sprays of Promalin® can lead to longer, more "typey" fruit. 39 It is also suggested that
Promalin® treatment increases average fruit weight without noticeably reducing fruit num-
bers, However, other reports show quite clearly that this treatment enhances fruit thinning; 40
in fact, this effect is sometimes viewed as being beneficial and can be enhanced by adding
DNOC to the spray mix. 41
The time of Promalin® application has a great influence on the fruit elongation effect. 39 ,4 1 .4 2
It is presently suggested that the spray be applied at the 80% bloom stage and that, unless
fruit thinning is desired, high volume sprays and rainfall near the time of application are to
be avoided. A medium volume spray containing 25 ppm of the active ingredients in Pro malin®
(approximately equal amounts by weight of 6-BA and GA4 + 7 ) is used by Washington State
apple growers.
VI. PREVENTING PREHARVEST FRUITDROP
A major production problem with a number of important apple and pear cultivars is the
tendency for fruits to loosen and drop before harvest can be completed. It is not uncommon
for crop losses of 20 to 30% to be experienced unless some form of chemical protection is
provided.
One of the earliest nonherbicidal uses of plant growth regulators was the use of synthetic
auxins to control preharvest drop of apples and pears and these uses continue today (see
Edgerton43 for a review of this subject), More recently, daminozide has proven to be effective
in this regard and, while more costly than the auxinic materials, is gaining in popularity.
A. Control of Fruit Drop with Synthetic Auxins

NAA and 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxypropionic acid (2,4,5-TP or fenoprop) are the synthetic
Table 8
SOME SELECTED "SPRAY CALENDAR" ADVICE FOR CONTROLLING
PREHARVEST DROP OF APPLES AND PEARS WITH SYNTHETIC AUXINS
Location Crop Material Specific advice
Canada
British Columbia Bartlett pear NAA 20 ppm in a high volume spray or 1.4 kg
Early- to mid-season of a 6.34% active NAA product per hec-
apples tare; apply 2 days before expected drop
Ontario Apples NAA 10 ppm applied before drop commences;
repeat in 7 days if necessary
England Conference pear NAA 10 ppm in a high volume spray
Early apples Fenoprop 10--15 ppm in a high volume spray
Other apples NAA I 0 ppm 6-14 days before expected drop
The Netherlands Apples and pears NAA 5-7.5 ppm for early apples and pears-
10 ppm for all others; apply under fast-
drying conditions to cultivars susceptible
to skin damage (e.g., Boskoop); also, ap-
ply as a high volume spray 7-10 days
before expected harvest
South Africa Apples and pears NAA 20 ppm in a high volume spray at first sign
(all cultivars) of drop; normally 10--14 days before
harvest
Delicious and Granny Fenoprop I 0 ppm as above
Smith apples
Israel Apples Fenoprop 10-20 ppm depending on cultivar; NAA
added when quick action is desired
Japan Japanese pear 2,4-DB' 10--15 ppm 7-14 days before
(all cultivars) plus harvest; 30--40 ppm just before harvest
MCPBh
U.S.
North Carolina Delicious apple Fenoprop 10 ppm in a high volume spray 10--14
days before peak harvest date
Delicious and other NAA I0 ppm 4--6 days before expected fruit
apples drop
Ohio Early apples NAA 5 ppm 4---5 days before heavy drop
Apples later than NAA I0 ppm as above; repeat in 7 days if
Mcintosh necessary
Delicious and Grimes Fenoprop 10 ppm in a high volume spray 10 days
apples before peak harvest
Late apples Fenoprop 20 ppm as above
Washington Bartlett pear NAA 10 ppm in a high volume spray or 0.46-
0.94 f of a 5.6% active NAA product per
hectare in a low volume spray
Delicious and Winesap Fenoprop 10 ppm in a high volume spray 7-12 days
apples before expected drop; concentrate spray-
ing can lead to blind wood
Delicious apple NAA 15-20 ppm in a high volume spray or 218
g actual NAA per hectare applied by
aircraft
2,4-Dichlorophenoxybutyric acid.
2-Methyl-4-chlorophenoxybutyric acid.
auxins used most widely for this purpose (Table 8). Important advantages of these materials
are their low cost and quick action. Relatively low levels of chemical (10 to 20 ppm),
applied just before fruit drop commences, will delay abscission for several weeks. NAA
provides fast but relatively short-lived protection whereas fenoprop, thought to be somewhat
slower acting, gives excellent fruit drop control for up to 1 month.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
The unfortunate major was traced to the house of Rainhill, where,
entering the garden, the pursuers soon found him. Gillespie, who
had got one of Anderson’s pistols, accompanied by Stevenson,
advanced upon the murderer, who came up with a fierce
countenance, asking what was the matter. 1694.
Paterson told him there had been a man
slain in Glasgow, and the murderer was supposed to be here: ‘If you
be he,’ added Paterson, ‘may God forgive you!’ Menzies replied: ‘It is
no business of yours;’ whereupon one of the others called out:
‘Dowhill, here is the man.’ Then the major, drawing his sword, and
using a horrible imprecation, came forward, crying: ‘What have the
rascals to do with me?’ The men retreated before him, and a pistol
was fired in self-defence, by which Menzies was slain. When
Paterson returned a minute after, he found him lying on his back,
dead, with his drawn sword across his breast.
Strange to say, Henry Fletcher, brother of Lord Salton, and
Lieutenant-colonel Hume, for the interest of his majesty’s forces,
raised a prosecution against the three Glasgow citizens for murder. It
ended in a verdict of Not proven.[133]
Previous to 1705, when the first professor Oct.

of anatomy was appointed in the university
of Edinburgh, there were only a few irregular attempts in the
Scottish capital to give instructions in that department of medical
education. We first hear of dissection of the dead body in our city in
the latter part of the year 1694, a little before which time the
celebrated Dr Archibald Pitcairn had left a distinguished position as
professor of medicine in the university of Leyden, and marrying an
Edinburgh lady, had been induced finally to settle there in practice.
On the 14th October, Pitcairn wrote to his friend, Dr Robert Gray of
London, that he was taking part in an effort to obtain subjects for
dissection from the town-council, requesting from them the bodies of
those who die in the correction-house called Paul’s Work, and have
none to bury them. ‘We offer,’ he says, ‘to wait on these poor for
nothing, and bury them after dissection at our own charges, which
now the town does; yet there is great opposition by the chief
surgeons, who neither eat hay nor suffer the oxen to eat it. I do
propose, if this be granted, to make better improvements in anatomy
than have been made at Leyden these thirty years; for I think most or
all anatomists have neglected or not known what was most useful for
a physician.’
The person ostensibly moving in this matter was Mr Alexander
Monteith, an eminent surgeon, and a friend of Pitcairn. In
compliance with his request, the town-council (October 24) gave him
a grant of the dead bodies of those dying in 1694.
the correction-house, and of foundlings who
die on the breast, allowing at the same time a room for dissection,
and freedom to inter the remains in the College Kirk cemetery, but
stipulating that he bury the intestines within forty-eight hours, and
the remainder of the body within ten days, and that his prelections
should only be during the winter half of the year.
Monteith’s brethren did not present any opposition to his
movement generally; they only disrelished his getting the Council’s
gift exclusively to himself. Proposing to give demonstrations in
anatomy also, they preferred a petition to the town-council, asking
the unclaimed bodies of persons dying in the streets, and foundlings
who died off the breast; and the request was complied with, on
condition of their undertaking to have a regular anatomical theatre
ready before the term of Michaelmas 1697.[134]
Such were the beginnings of the medical school of Edinburgh.
The Bass.
REIGN OF WILLIAM III.: 1695–1702.
During this period, the affairs of Scotland were in a marked degree

subordinate to those of England. The king, absorbed in continental
wars and continental politics, paid little attention to his northern
kingdom; he left it chiefly to the care of its state-officers, using as a
medium of his own influence, William Carstares, a Presbyterian
minister of extraordinary worth, sincerity, and prudence, who had
gained his entire esteem and confidence, and who usually attended
him wherever he was. A parliament which sat in May 1695, was
chiefly occupied with the investigation of the Glencoe massacre, and
with measures connected with the rising commercial enterprise of
the country, including the formation of a native bank, and that of a
company for trading with Africa and the Indies. The latter of these
speculations was worked out in an expedition to Darien, and an
attempted settlement there, which, through English mercantile
jealousy, and the king’s indifference to Scottish interests, ended so
unfortunately as greatly to incense the Scottish nation, and increase
the party disaffected to the Revolution government. The misery
hence arising was increased by a dearth from a succession of bad
seasons. Nevertheless, this period will be found in our chronicle to
have been remarkable for the establishment of manufactories of
various kinds, and for various other industrial enterprises, shewing
that the national energies were beginning to take a decidedly new
direction. At the same time, instances of deplorable superstition,
cruelty, and intolerance were sufficiently numerous to attest that the
days of barbarism were not past.
Incessant efforts were made by the Jacobite party to procure the
restoration of King James, and the discontents excited by Darien
were greatly favourable to their views. Yet the heart of the middle
class throughout the more important provinces remained firm in
Presbyterianism, for which the Revolution government was the sole
guarantee; and in this lay an insuperable bar to all reactionary
projects. A war against France, which had begun immediately after
the Revolution (May 1689), was brought to a conclusion in
September 1697, by the treaty of Ryswick, which included an
acknowledgment by Louis XIV. of the title of King William to the
English throne. The exiled king, old and abandoned to ascetic
devotion, indulged a hope that he would outlive William, and be then
quietly recalled. He died, however, in September 1701, with only the
assurance of the French king in favour of the restoration of his son.
William survived him but a few months, dying of a fever and ague on
the 8th March 1702. His vigorous talents, his courage, his essential
mildness and tolerance, abated as they were by an unpopular
coldness of manners, are amply recognised in English history;
among the Scots, while Presbyterians thank him for the
establishment of their church, there is little feeling regarding the
Dutch king, besides a strong resentment of his concern in the affairs
of Glencoe and Darien.
This day, being Sunday, the Catholics of 1695. Feb. 17.

Edinburgh were so bold as to hold a
meeting for worship in the Canongate. It was fallen upon and
‘dissipat’ by the authorities, and the priest, Mr David Fairfoul, with
James De Canton and James Morris, fencing-masters, and John
Wilson of Spango, were committed to prison, while the Lord
Advocate obtained a list of other persons present. The Privy Council
ordered the four prisoners to be carried from the Canongate to the
Edinburgh Tolbooth, and appointed a committee to take what steps
it might think meet regarding the list of worshippers.
On the 28th February, the Council permitted the liberation of the
two fencing-masters, on assurance of their doing nothing offensive to
the government in future, under a penalty of five hundred merks. At
the same time, they ordained ‘Harry Graham, and his landlord,
James Blair, periwig-maker in Niddry’s Wynd; James Brown, son to
Hugh Brown, chirurgeon, and the said Hugh his father; John
Abercrombie, merchant in Edinburgh, and John Lamb in the Water
of Leith, to give bond in the same terms and under the same penalty;’
else to be kept in prison. Orders were given to search for John Laing,
writer, John Gordon, writer, and James Scott in the Canongate,
‘who, being also at the said meeting, have absconded.’ The priest
Fairfoul was treated with unexpected mercy, being liberated on
condition of banishment, not to return under a penalty of three
hundred pounds sterling.[135]
Robert Davidson, merchant in Ellon, Feb. 19.

Aberdeenshire, represented to the Privy
Council that he had been in a good way of merchandise, and
proprietor of a two-story house, when in the beginning of December
last some of Lord Carmichael’s dragoons were quartered upon him,
and deposited their powder in one of his low rooms. As they were
one morning dividing the powder, it caught 1695.
fire, and demolished the house, together
with his whole merchandise and household plenishing, carrying the
bed whereon he and his family lay to the top of the house, and
seriously injuring a relative who was living with him at the time, and
for the cost of whose cure he was answerable. Robert petitioned for
some compensation, and the Council—following its rule of a
vicarious beneficence—allowed him to raise a voluntary collection at
the church-doors of Aberdeenshire and the two adjacent counties.[136]
There never, perhaps, was any mystic Feb.

history better attested than that of ‘the
Rerrick Spirit.’ The tenant of the house, many of his neighbours, the
minister of the parish, several other clergymen, the proprietor of the
ground living half a mile off, all give their testimonies to the various
things which they ‘saw, heard, and felt.’ The air of actuality is helped
even by the local situation and its associations. It is in the same
parish with Dundrennan Abbey, where Queen Mary spent her last
night in Scotland. It is upon the same rock-bound coast which Scott
has described so graphically in his tale of Guy Mannering, which was
indeed founded on facts that occurred in this very parish. Collin, the
house of the laird, still exists, though passed into another family.
Very probably, the house of Andrew Mackie himself would also be
found by any one who had the curiosity to inquire for it; nor would
he fail, at the same time, to learn that the whole particulars of this
narration continue to be fresh in popular recollection, though four
generations have passed away since the event. Few narrations of the
kind have included occurrences and appearances which it was more
difficult to reconcile with the theory of trick or imposture.
Andrew Mackie, a mason, occupied a small farm, called Ring-croft,
on the estate of Collin, in the parish of Rerrick, and stewartry of
Kirkcudbright. He is spoken of as a man ‘honest, civil, and harmless
beyond many of his neighbours,’ and we learn incidentally that he
had a wife and some children. In the course of the month of February
1695, Andrew was surprised to find his young cattle frequently loose
in the byre, and their bindings broken. Attributing it to their
unruliness, he got stronger bindings; but still they were found loose
in the morning. Then he removed the beasts to another place; and
when he went to see them next morning, he 1695.
found one bound up with a hair tether to
the roof-beam, so strait, that its feet were lifted off the ground. Just
about this time, too, the family were awakened one night with a smell
of smoke; and when they got up, they found a quantity of peats lying
on the floor, and partially kindled. It seemed evident that some
mischievous agent was at work in Ring-croft; but as yet nothing
superhuman was in the surmises of the family.
On Wednesday, the 7th of March, a number of stones were thrown
in the house—‘in all places of it’—and no one could tell whence they
came, or who threw them. This continued during day and night, but
mostly during the night, for several days, the stones often hitting the
members of the family, but always softly, as if they had less than half
their natural weight. A kind of fear began to take possession of the
little household, and the father’s fireside devotions waxed in
earnestness. Here, however, a new fact was developed: the stone-
throwing was worst when the family was at prayers. On the Saturday
evening, the family being for some time without, one or two of the
children, on entering, were startled to observe what appeared a
stranger sitting at the fireside, with a blanket about him. They were
afraid, and hesitated; but the youngest, who was only nine or ten
years of age, chid the rest for their timidity, saying: ‘Let us sain
[bless] ourselves, and then there is no ground to fear it!’ He
perceived that the blanket around the figure was his. Having blessed
himself, he ran forward, and pulled away the blanket, saying: ‘Be
what it will, it hath nothing to do with my blanket.’ It was found to be
a four-footed stool set on end, and the blanket cast over it.
Attending church on Sunday, Andrew Mackie took an opportunity,
after service, of informing the minister, Mr Telfair, how his house
had been disturbed for the last four days. The reverend gentleman
consequently visited Ring-croft on Tuesday. He prayed twice,
without experiencing any trouble; but soon after, as he stood
conversing with some people at the end of the barn, he saw two
stones fall on the croft near by, and presently one came from the
house to tell that the pelting within doors had become worse than
ever. He went in, prayed again, and was hit several times by the
stones, but without being hurt. After this there was quiet for several
days. On Sunday it began again, and worse than before, for now the
stones were larger, and where they hit, they gave pain. On the
ensuing Wednesday, the minister revisited 1695.
the house, and stayed a great part of the
night, during which he was ‘greatly troubled.’ ‘Stones and several
other things,’ says he, ‘were thrown at me; I was struck several times
on the sides and shoulders very sharply with a great staff, so that
those who were present heard the noise of the strokes. That night it
threw off the bed-side, and rapped upon the chests and boards as one
calling for access. As I was at prayer, leaning on a bed-side, I felt
something pressing up my arm. I, casting my eyes thither, perceived
a little white hand and arm, from the elbow down, but presently it
evanished.’
The neighbours now began to come about the house, to gratify
their curiosity or express sympathy; and both when they were within
doors, and when they were approaching or departing, they were
severely pelted. Mackie himself got a blow from a stone, which
wounded his forehead. After several apparent efforts of a visionary
being to seize him by the shoulder, he was griped fast by the hair of
the head, and ‘he thought something like nails scratched his skin.’
This, however, was little in comparison to what happened with some
of the neighbours, for, as attested by ‘Andrew Tait in Torr,’ they were
seized and dragged up and down the house by the clothes. ‘It griped
one John Keig, miller in Auchencairn, so by the side, that he
entreated his neighbours to help: it cried it would rive [tear] the side
from him. That night it lifted the clothes off the children, as they
were sleeping in bed, and beat them on the hips as if it had been with
one’s hand, so that all who were in the house heard it. The door-bar
and other things would go thorough the house, as if a person had
been carrying them in his hand; yet nothing seen doing it. It also
rattled on chests and bed-sides with a staff, and made a great noise.’
‘At night it cried, “Whisht! whisht!” at every sentence in the close of
prayer; and it whistled so distinctly, that the dog barked and ran to
the door, as if one had been calling to hound him.’
At the request of the laird, Charles M‘Lellan of Collin, a number of
ministers put up public prayers on account of these strange
occurrences, and on the 4th of April two came to the house to see
what they could do in behalf of the family. They spent the night in
fasting and prayer, but with no other apparent effect than that of
rendering the supposed spirit more ‘cruel.’ One of the reverend
gentlemen got a wound in the head from a stone, and the other had
his wig pulled off, and received several sore blows, which, however,
were healed quickly. A fiery peat was 1695.
thrown amongst the people, and in the
morning when they arose from prayer, ‘the stones poured down on
all who were in the house to their hurt.’
Two days after, the affair took a new turn, when Mackie’s wife was
induced to lift a stone which she found loose at the threshold of the
house, and perceived underneath ‘seven small bones, with blood, and
some flesh, all closed in a piece of old soiled paper;’ the blood being
fresh and bright. She presently ran to the laird’s house, about a
quarter of a mile distant, to fetch him; and while she was gone, the
spirit became worse than ever, ‘throwing stones and fire-balls in and
about the house; but the fire, as it lighted, did evanish. It thrust a
staff through the wall above the children in bed, shook it over them,
and groaned.’ The laird came and lifted the bones and flesh, after
which the trouble ceased for a little time. Next day, however, being
Sunday, it recommenced with throwing of stones and other heavy
articles, and set the house twice on fire. In the evening, when the
eldest boy was coming home, ‘an extraordinary light fell about him,
and went before him to the house, with a swift motion.’
On the ensuing morning, the 8th April, Mackie found in his close a
letter written and sealed with blood, superscribed thus: ‘3 years tho
shall have to repent a net it well.’ Within he read: ‘Wo be to the
Cotlland Repent and tak warning for the door of haven ar all Redy
bart against the I am sent for a warning to the to fllee to god yet
troublt shallt this man be for twenty days a 3 rpent rpent Scotland
or els tow shall.’[137]
Following up the old notion regarding the touching of a murdered
person in order to discover the murderer, all the surviving persons
who had lived in the house during the twenty-eight years of its
existence, were convened by appointment of the civil magistrate
before Charles M‘Lellan of Collin, ‘and did all touch the bones,’ but
without any result.
On a committee of five ministers coming two days after to the
house, the disturbing agency increased much in violence. According
to the parish minister, Telfair, who was present on this occasion, ‘It
came often with such force, that it made all the house shake; it brake
a hole through the timber and thatch of the 1695.
roof, and poured in great stones, one
whereof, more than a quarter weight, fell upon Mr James Monteath
his back, yet he was not hurt.’ When a guard was set upon the hole in
the roof, outside, it broke another hole through the gable from the
barn, and threw stones in through that channel. ‘It griped and
handled the legs of some, as with a man’s hand; it hoised up the feet
of others, while standing on the ground; thus it did to William
Lennox of Millhouse, myself, and others.’
After this, the disturbances went on with little variation of effect
for a week or more. A pedler felt a hand thrust into his pocket.
Furniture was dragged about. Seeing a meal-sieve flying about the
house, Mackie took hold of it, when the skin was immediately torn
out. Several people were wounded with the stones. Groaning,
whistling, and cries of Whisht—Bo, bo—and Kuck, kuck! were
frequently heard. Men, while praying, were over and over again lifted
up from the ground. While Mackie was thrashing in the barn, some
straw was set fire to, and staves were thrust at him through the wall.
When any person was hit by a stone, a voice was heard saying: ‘Take
that till you get more;’ and another was sure to come immediately.
On the 24th of April, there was a fast and humiliation in the parish
on account of the demonstrations at Ring-croft; and on that day the
violences were more than ever extreme, insomuch that the family
feared they should be killed by the stones. ‘On the 26th, it threw
stones in the evening, and knocked on a chest several times, as one to
have access, and began to speak, and call those who were sitting in
the house witches and rooks, and said it would take them to hell. The
people then in the house said among themselves: “If it had any to
speak to it, now it would speak.” In the meantime, Andrew Mackie
was sleeping. They wakened him, and then he, hearing it say: “Thou
shalt be troubled till Tuesday,” asked, “Who gave thee a
commission?” It answered: “God gave me a commission, and I am
sent to warn the land to repent, for a judgment is to come, if the land
do not quickly repent;” and commanded him to reveal it upon his
peril. And if the land did not repent, it said it would go to its father,
and get a commission to return with a hundred worse than itself, and
it would trouble every particular family in the land. Andrew Mackie
said: “If I should tell this, I would not be believed.” Then it said:
“Fetch [your] betters; fetch the minister of 1695.
the parish, and two honest men on
Tuesday’s night, and I shall declare before them what I have to say.”
Then it said: “Praise me, and I will whistle to you; worship me, and I
will trouble you no more.” Then Andrew Mackie said: “The Lord,
who delivered the three children out of the fiery furnace, deliver me
and mine this night from the temptations of Satan!” It replied: “You
might as well have said, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.”’ On a
humble person present here putting in a word, the voice told him he
was ill-bred to interfere in other people’s discourse. ‘It likewise said:
“Remove your goods, for I will burn the house.”’
The house was actually set on fire seven times next day, and the
care of the inmates preventing damage of this kind from extending,
the end of the house was pulled down in the evening, so that the
family was forced to spend the night in the barn. On the second next
day, the house being again set fire to several times, Mackie carefully
extinguished all fires about the place, and poured water upon his
hearth; yet after this, when there was no fire within a quarter of a
mile, the conflagrations, as was alleged, were renewed several times.
The period announced in the bloody letter of the 8th instant was
now approaching, and in a conversation with Mackie, the supposed
spirit good-naturedly informed him that, ‘except some casting of
stones on Tuesday to fulfil the promise,’ he should have no more
trouble. Tuesday, being the 30th of April, was the twenty-third day
from the finding of the letter. That night, Charles M‘Lellan of Collin
and several neighbours were in the barn. As he was at prayer, he
‘observed a black thing in the corner of the barn, and it did increase,
as if it would fill the whole house. He could not discern it to have any
form, but as if it had been a black cloud; it was affrighting to them
all. Then it threw bear-chaff and mud in their faces, and afterwards
did grip severals who were in the house by the middle of the body, by
the arms, and other parts of their bodies, so strait, that some said for
five days thereafter they thought they felt those grips.’ Such,
excepting the firing of a sheep-cot next day, was the last that was
seen, heard, or felt of the Rerrick Spirit.
So great was the impression made by these incidents, that early in
the ensuing year Mr Telfair published an account of them in a small
pamphlet, which went through a second edition in Scotland, and was
reprinted, with alterations of language, in 1695.
[138]
London. At the end appeared the
attestations of those who ‘saw, heard, and felt’ the various things
stated—namely, ‘Mr Andrew Ewart, minister at Kells; Mr James
Monteath, minister at Borgue; Mr John Murdo, minister at
Crossmichael; Mr Samuel Stirling, minister at Parton; Mr William
Falconer, minister at Kelton; Charles M‘Lellan of Collin, William
Lennox of Millhouse, Andrew and John Tait in Torr, John Cairns in
Hardhills, William Macminn, John Corsby, Thomas Macminn,
Andrew Paline, &c.’ It may be remarked, that for each particular
statement in the Relation, the names of the special witnesses are
given; and their collected names are appended, as to a solemn
document in which soul and conscience were concerned.
The degree of respect felt by the Mar. 19.

authorities of this age for the rights of the
individual, is shewn very strikingly in a custom which was now and
for a considerable time after largely practised, of compromising with
degraded and imputedly criminal persons for banishment to the
American plantations. For example, at this date, thirty-two women of
evil fame, residing in Edinburgh, were brought before the
magistrates as a moral nuisance. We do not know what could have
been done to them beyond whipping and hard labour; yet they were
fain to agree that, instead of any other punishment, they should be
banished to America, and arrangements for that purpose were
immediately made.
In the ensuing June, a poor woman of the same sort, named Janet
Cook, residing in Leith, was denounced for offences in which a father
and son were associated—a turpitude which excited a religious
horror, and caused her to be regarded as a criminal of the highest
class. The Lord Advocate reported of Janet to the Privy Council, that
she had been put under the consideration of the Lords of Justiciary,
as a person against whom ‘probation could not be found,’ but that
the Lords were nevertheless ‘of opinion she might be banished the
kingdom,’ and she herself had ‘consented to her banishment.’ The
Lords of the Privy Council seem to have had no more difficulty about
the case than those of the Court of 1695.
Justiciary had had; they ordered that Janet
should depart furth of the kingdom and not return, ‘under the
highest pains and penalties.’
In January 1696, a woman named Elizabeth Waterstone,
imprisoned on a charge identical in all respects with the above, was,
in like manner, without trial, banished, with her own consent, to the
plantations.
On the 7th of February 1697, four boys who were notorious
thieves, and eight women who were that and worse, were called
before the magistrates of Edinburgh, and ‘interrogat whether or not
they would consent freely to their own banishment furth of this
kingdom, and go to his majesty’s plantations in America.’ ‘They one
and all freely and unanimously consented so to do,’ and
arrangements were made by the Privy Council for their deportation
accordingly. It was only ordained regarding the boys that Lord Teviot
might engage them as recruits for Flanders, in which case he was
immediately to commence maintaining them.
On the 15th February 1698, Robert Alexander, ‘a notorious horse-
stealer,’ now in prison, was willing to appease justice by consenting
to banishment without trial. He likewise made discoveries enabling
several countrymen to recover their horses. The Privy Council
therefore ordained him to be transported by the first ship to the
plantations of America, not to return thence under pain of death.
William Baillie, ‘ane Egyptian,’ prisoner in the Tolbooth of
Edinburgh, but regarding whom we hear of no specific offence and
no trial, was summarily ordered (Sep. 12, 1699) to be transported in
the first ship going to the plantations, the skipper to be allowed a
proper gratuity from the treasury, and at the same time to give
caution for five hundred merks that he would produce a certificate of
the man being landed in America.[139]
It was long before justice in Scotland took any qualm about this
free-and-easy way of dealing with accused persons. So late as 1732,
two men of humble rank—Henderson, a sedan-carrier, and
Hamilton, a street-cadie—suspected of being accessory to the
murder of an exciseman, having petitioned for banishment before
trial, were sent from the jail in Edinburgh to Glasgow, there to wait a
vessel for the plantations.[140]
The Earl of Home, as a dangerous person, 1695. Apr. 3.
had for some time been confined to his
house of the Hirsel, near Coldstream; but now he was required to
enter himself prisoner in Edinburgh Castle. He represented himself
as under such indisposition of body as to make this unendurable, and
the Council therefore ordered Dr Sir Thomas Burnet, the king’s
physician, to take a chirurgeon with him to the Hirsel, and inquire
into the state of his lordship’s health. The doctor and surgeon
reported in such terms that the earl was allowed to remain at the
Hirsel, but not without caution to the extent of two thousand pounds
sterling. For their pains in travelling fifty miles and back, and giving
this report, the Council allowed Dr Burnet two hundred merks (£11,
2s. 2d.), and Gideon Elliot, chirurgeon, one hundred merks.[141]
A hership of cattle having taken place on May 20.

the lands of Lord Rollo, in Perthshire, the
Master of Rollo was pleased to prosecute the matter a little more
energetically than was convenient to some of his neighbours. He
seems to have particularly excited the resentment of James
Edmonstoun of Newton, one of whose tenants was found in
possession of a cow reclaimed as part of the hership. Newton, being
soon after at the house of Clavidge, spoke some despiteful words
regarding the Master, which were afterwards taken notice of. At the
same house, about the same time, Patrick Graham, younger of
Inchbrakie, spoke in the like angry terms of the Master. ‘It has been
noised in the country,’ said he, ‘that I have courted the Master of
Rollo, and fawned upon him; but when occasion serves, something
different will be seen.’
These two hot-headed men spent a couple of days together at
Ryecroft, a house of young Inchbrakie, and probably there inflamed
their common resentment by talking over their grievances. On the
day noted in the margin, hearing that the Master of Rollo was to go
in the afternoon to Invermay House, they rode to his house of
Duncrub, and from that place accompanied him to Invermay,
together with the Laird of Clavidge and a gentleman named
M‘Naughton. Inchbrakie was remarked to have no sword, while his
companion Newton was provided with one. Supping at the
hospitable board of Invermay, these two conducted themselves much
in the manner of men seeking a quarrel. Inchbrakie said to the
Master: ‘Master, although John Stewart killed and salted two of your
kine, you surely will not pursue him, since 1695.
your father and his Miss ate them!’
Hereupon Clavidge remarked that this was not table-talk; to which
Newton made answer: ‘I think you are owning that.’ Then Inchbrakie
and Newton were observed to whisper together, and the latter was
heard saying: ‘I will not baulk you, Inchie.’ Afterwards, they went out
together, and by and by returned to table. What was the subject of
their conversation during absence, might only too easily be inferred
from what followed.
At ten o’clock the party broke up, and the strangers mounted their
horses, to ride to their respective homes. The Laird of Invermay,
having observed some mischief brewing in the mind of Newton,
endeavoured to make him stay for the night, but without success.
The Master, Clavidge, and M‘Naughton rode on, with Inchbrakie a
little in front of them. When Newton came up, Inchbrakie and he
turned a little aside, and Newton was then observed to loose his belt
and give his sword to Inchbrakie. Then riding on to the rest of the
party, he contrived to lead Clavidge and M‘Naughton a little ahead,
and commenced speaking noisily about some trivial matter. Hearing,
however, the clashing of two swords behind them, Clavidge and
M‘Naughton turned back, along with Newton, and there saw the
Master of Rollo fallen on his knees, while Inchbrakie stood over him.
The latter called out to Newton, ‘He has got it.’ Clavidge rushed to
sustain the sinking man, while Inchbrakie and Newton went apart
and interchanged a few hurried sentences. Presently Newton came
up again, when Clavidge, perceiving that the Master was wounded to
the death, cried out: ‘O God, such a horrid murder was never seen!’
To this Newton, standing coolly by, said: ‘I think not so—I think it
has been fair.’ The poor Master seems to have died immediately, and
then Newton went again aside with Inchbrakie, gave him his own
hat, and assisted him to escape. In the morning, when the two
swords were found upon the ground, the bloody one proved to be
Newton’s.
Inchbrakie fled that night to the house of one John Buchanan,
whom he told that he had killed the Master of Rollo, adding, with
tokens of remorse: ‘Wo worth Newton—wo worth the company!’ and
stating further that Newton had egged him on, and given him a
weapon, when he would rather have declined fighting.
Inchbrakie escaped abroad, and was outlawed, but, procuring a
remission, returned to his country in 1720. 1695.
[142]
James Edmonstoun of Newton was
tried (Aug. 6, 1695) for accession to the murder of John Master of
Rollo, and condemned to banishment for life.[143] It is stated that,
nevertheless, he carried the royal standard of James VIII. at the
battle of Sheriffmuir, and even after that event, lived many years on
his own estate in Strathearn.[144]
The Estates at this date advert to the fact May.

that sundry lands lying along the sea-coast
had been ruined, in consequence of their being overwhelmed with
sand driven from adjacent sand-hills, ‘the which has been mainly
occasioned by the pulling up by the roots of bent, juniper, and broom
bushes, which did loose and break the surface and scroof of the sand-
hills.’ In particular, ‘the barony of Cowbin and house and yards
thereof, lying in the sheriffdom of Elgin, is quite ruined and
overspread with sand,’ brought upon it by the aforesaid cause.
Penalties were accordingly decreed for such as should hereafter pull
up bent or juniper bushes on the coast sand-hills.[145]
A remarkable geological phenomenon, resulting in the ruin of a
family of Morayland gentry, is here in question. We learn from an act
of parliament, passed two months later, that, within the preceding
twenty years, two-thirds of the estate of Culbin had been
overwhelmed with blown sand, so that no trace of the manor-house,
yards, orchards, or mains thereof, was now to be seen, though
formerly ‘as considerable as many in the country of Moray.’
Alexander Kinnaird of Culbin now represented to the parliament,
that full cess was still charged for his lands, being nearly as much as
the remainder of them produced to him in rent; and he petitioned
that his unfortunate estate might, in consideration of his
extraordinary misfortune, be altogether exempted from cess. Three
years after this date, we hear of the remaining fourth part of Culbin
as sold for the benefit of the creditors of the proprietor, and himself
suing to parliament for a personal protection. In time, the entire ruin
of the good old barony was completed. Hugh Miller says: ‘I have
wandered for hours amid the sandwastes of this ruined barony, and
seen only a few stunted bushes of broom, and a few scattered tufts of
withered bent, occupying, amid utter 1695.
barrenness, the place of what, in the middle
of the seventeenth century, had been the richest fields of the rich
province of Moray; and, where the winds had hollowed out the sand,
I have detected, uncovered for a few yards-breadth, portions of the
buried furrows, sorely dried into the consistence of sun-burned
brick, but largely charged with the seeds of the common cornfield
weeds of the country, that, as ascertained by experiment by the late
Sir Thomas Dick Lauder, still retain their vitality. It is said that an
antique dove-cot, in front of the huge sand-wreath which enveloped
the manor-house, continued to present the top of its peaked roof
over the sand, as a foundered vessel sometimes exhibits its vane over
the waves, until the year 1760. The traditions of the district testify
that, for many years after the orchard had been enveloped, the
topmost branches of the fruit-trees, barely seen over the surface,
continued each spring languidly to throw out bud and blossom; and
it is a curious circumstance, that in the neighbouring churchyard of
Dike there is a sepulchral monument of the Culbin family, which,
though it does not date beyond the reign of James VI., was erected by
a lord and lady of the lost barony, at a time when they seem to have
had no suspicion of the utter ruin which was coming on their house.
The quaint inscription runs as follows:
VALTER : KINNAIRD : ELIZABETH : INNES : 1613 :
THE : BVILDARS : OF : THIS : BED : OF : STANE :
AR : LAIRD : AND : LADIE : OF : COVBINE :
QVHILK : TVA : AND : THARS : QVHANE : BRAITHE IS : GANE :
PLEIS : GOD : VIL : SLEIP : THIS : BED : VITHIN :
I refer to these facts, though they belong certainly to no very remote

age in the past history of our country, chiefly to shew that in what
may be termed the geological formations of the human period, very
curious fossils may be already deposited, awaiting the researches of
the future. As we now find, in raising blocks of stone from the
quarry, water-rippled surfaces lying beneath, fretted by the tracks of
ancient birds and reptiles, there is a time coming when, under thick
beds of stone, there may be detected fields and orchards, cottages,
manor-houses, and churches—the memorials of nations that have
perished, and of a condition of things and a stage of society that have
for ever passed away.’[146]
The same advantages of situation which June 4.

are now thought to 1695.
adapt Peterhead
for a harbour of refuge for storm-beset vessels—placed centrally and
prominently on the east coast of Scotland—rendered it very
serviceable in affording shelter to vessels pursued by those French
privateers which, during the present war, were continually scouring
the German Ocean. Very lately, four English vessels returning from
Virginia and other foreign plantations with rich commodities, would
have inevitably been taken if they had not got into Peterhead
harbour, and been protected there by the fortifications and the
‘resoluteness’ of the inhabitants. The spirit manifested in keeping up
the defences, and maintaining a constant guard and watch at the
harbour, had incensed the privateers not a little; and one Dunkirker
of thirty-four guns took occasion last summer to fire twenty-two
great balls at the town, nor did he depart without vowing (as
afterwards reported by a Scottish prisoner on board) to return and
do his endeavour to set it in a flame. The people, feeling their danger,
and exhausted with expensive furnishings and watchings, now
petitioned the Privy Council for a little military protection—which
was readily granted.[147]
As political troubles subsided in Scotland, June.
the spirit of mercantile enterprise rose and
gained strength. The native feelings of this kind were of course
stimulated by the spectacle of success presented in England by the
East India Company, and the active trade carried on with the
colonies. These sources of profit were monopolies; but Scotland
inquired, since she was an independent state, what was to hinder her
to have similar sources of profit established by her own legislature.
The dawnings of this spirit are seen in an act passed in the Scottish
parliament in 1693, wherein it is declared, ‘That merchants may
enter into societies and companies for carrying on trade as to any
sort of goods to whatsoever countries not being at war with their
majesties, where trade is in use to be, and particularly, besides the
kingdoms of Europe, to the East and West Indies, to the Straits and
Mediterranean, or upon the coast of Africa, or elsewhere,’ and
promising to such companies letters-patent for privileges and other
encouragements, as well as protection in case of their being attacked
or injured. Amongst a few persons favouring this spirit, was one of
notable character and history—William Paterson—a native of
Scotland, but now practising merchandise 1695.
in London—a most active genius, well
acquainted with distant countries, not visionary, animated, on the
contrary, by sound commercial principles, yet living, unfortunately
for himself, before the time when there was either intelligence or
means for the successful carrying out of great mercantile adventures.
Paterson, in the early part of this year, had gained for himself a
historical fame by projecting and helping to establish the Bank of
England. For his native country he at the same time projected what
he hoped would prove a second East India Company.
At the date noted, an act passed the Scottish parliament, forming
certain persons named into an incorporation, under the name of The
Company of Scotland Trading to Africa and the Indies, who should
be enabled to ‘plant colonies, and build cities and forts, in any
countries in Asia, Africa, or America, not possest by any European
sovereign,’ ‘by consent of the natives and inhabitants thereof,’ and to
take all proper measures for their own protection and the
advancement of their special objects, only acknowledging the
supremacy of the king by the annual payment of a hogshead of
tobacco. It was scrupulously arranged, however, that at least one half
of the stock of this Company should be subscribed for by Scotsmen
residing either at home or abroad.
Although the war pressed sorely on the resources of England,
Paterson calculated securely that there was enough of spare capital
and enterprise in London to cause the new Scottish trading scheme
to be taken up readily there. When the books for subscription were
opened in October, the whole £300,000 offered to the English
merchants was at once appropriated. By this time, the fears of the
East India Company and of the English mercantile class generally
had been roused; it was believed that the Scottish adventurers would
compete with them destructively in every place where they now
enjoyed a lucrative trade. The parliament took up the cry, and voted
that the noblemen and gentlemen named in the Scottish act were
guilty of a high crime and misdemeanour. Irritated rather than
terrified by this denunciation, these gentlemen calmly proceeded
with their business in Scotland. The subscription books being opened
on the 26th of February 1696, the taking up of the stock became
something like a national movement. It scarcely appeared that the
country was a poor one. Noblemen, country gentlemen, merchants,
professional men, corporations of every kind, flocked to put down
their names for various sums according to their ability, till not
merely the £300,000 devoted to Scotsmen 1695.
was engaged for, but some additional
capital besides.[148] In a list before me, with the sums added up, I find
the total is £336,390 sterling; but, of course, the advance of this large
sum was contemplated as to be spread over a considerable space of
time, the first instalment of 25 per cent. being alone payable within
1696.
Meanwhile the furious denunciations of the English parliament
proved a thorough discouragement to the project in London, and
nearly the whole of the stockholders there silently withdrew from it;
under the same influence, the merchants of Hamburg were induced
to withdraw their support and co-operation, leaving Scotland to work
out her own plans by herself.
African Company’s House at Bristo Port, Edinburgh.
She proceeded to do so with a courage much to be admired. A

handsome house for the conducting of the Company’s business was
erected; schemes for trade with Greenland, with Archangel, with the
Gold Coast, were considered; the qualities of goods, possible
improvements of machinery, the extent of 1695.
the production of foreign wares, were all the
subject of careful inquiry. Under the glow of a new national object,
old grudges and antipathies were forgotten. William Paterson,
indeed, had set the pattern of a non-sectarian feeling from the
beginning, for, writing from London to the Lord Provost of
Edinburgh in July 1695, we find him using this strain of language,
hitherto unwonted in Scotland: ‘Above all, it is needful for us to make
no distinction of parties in this great undertaking; but of whatever
nation or religion a man be, he ought to be looked upon, if one of us,
to be of the same interest and inclination. We must not act apart in
anything, but in a firm and united body, and distinct from all other
interests whatsoever.’
The design of Paterson presents such indications of a great, an
original, and a liberal mind, as to make the obscurity which rests on
his history much to be regretted. The narrow, grasping, and
monopolising spirit which had hitherto marked the commerce of

Textbook Plant Growth Regulating Chemicals Volume 1 First Edition Nickell Ebook All Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Textbook Plant Growth Regulating Chemicals Volume 1 First Edition Nickell Ebook All Chapter PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Plant Growth Regulating Chemicals -

Volume 1 First Edition Nickell

Plant Growth Regulating Chemicals - Volume 2 First

Plant Phenolics in Sustainable Agriculture Volume 1

Brassinosteroids Plant Growth and Development Shamsul

Plant Genome Diversity Volume 1 Plant Genomes their

Plant Health Under Biotic Stress Volume 1 Organic

Identifying and Regulating Carcinogens First Edition

Salt Stress Microbes and Plant Interactions Causes and

Natural Polymers for Pharmaceutical Applications Volume

Louis G. Nickell, Ph.D.

Boca Raton London New York

CRC Press is CRC Press,

Reissued 2018 by CRC Press

© 1983 by CRC Press, Inc.

No claim to original U.S. Government works

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Plant growth regulating chemicals.

Includes bibliographies and index.

A Library of Congress record exists under LC control number: 82022832

ISBN 13: 978-1-315-89665-6 (hbk)

James E. Baker, Ph.D. Martha Davis, Ph.D.

EdwardS. Oplinger, Ph.D. Gerald R. Stephenson, Ph.D.

Index ...... . ........... ... ... . ... . ........................... . .......................... 273

Index . ................. .. .. . .. . ........................ . . .. . . . . .................... ..... 233

GROWTH REGULA TOR USAGE IN APPLE AND PEAR PRODUCTION

I. Introduction ............ . ... .. ...... . . . ... .. . . .... . . . . . .. .. ...... .. ...... . .... . .. . 2

VIII. Future Development Opportunities .... . . . ....... . ... . ..... . . . . . . . ............... 23

References .. . .. . ... . . .... ..... . . .. ...... .. . .. . .. .... . .. . .. . .. . . . ... . . .. . .. ... ....... .. .. . 25

II. GROWTH REGULATOR USAGE IN THE NURSERY

A. Production of Clonal Rootstocks and Self-Rooted Trees

FIGURE 2. Defoliation of Cox's Orange Pippin nursery trees with a 2%

FIGURE 3. Feathering of Gloster apple trees following a single spray

containing enough 6-benzyladenine (BA) (about 5 X I0- 6 M) to stimulate shoot proliferation

B. Defoliation of Nursery Stock

C. Promotion of Feathering of Nursery Trees

III. CONTROLLING GROWTH AND MODIFYING THE STRUCTURE OF

A. Regulation of Tree Branching Habit

Apples on MM106 (850

From Quinlan, J. D. , Acta Hortic ., 120, 55, 1981. With permission .

I No spray 5.5 7.61 41.9

B. Promotion of Spur Development and Flower Initiation

C. Suppression of Root Suckers

D. Suppression of Water Sprouts

IV. REGULATION OF FLOWERING AND FRUIT SET

A. Improving Return Bloom

B. Increasing Fruit Set

I. Blossom Thinning of Apples

Concentration of chemical in a full volume spray with added wetting agent.

2. Postbloom Thinning with Hormone Materials

3. Postbloom Thinning of Apples with Carbaryl

4. Flower and Fruit Thinning with Ethephon

Final fruit set as a

Treatment• 1979 1980 1981

Carbaryl (500 ppm) 86 95 74

Sprays applied IS days after full bloom each year

V. IMPROVING FRUIT CONDITION AND APPEARANCE

A. The Effects of Daminozide on Apple Fruits

Control Treated Ref.

Differences due to treatment are statistically significant at the 5% prob-

B. Preventing Premature Softening of Pear Fruits

C. Reduction of Fruit Russeting

Values are the percentage of moderately to severely russeted fruits in