Determination of Cold Damage in Field and Laboratory Conditions in Dormant Buds of Karaerik Grape Cultivar

Year 2019, Volume: 50 Issue: 2, 115 - 121, 28.05.2019

Muhammed Küpe Cafer Köse

https://doi.org/10.17097/ataunizfd.522485

Cited By: 2

Abstract

ABSTRACT: This study was conducted to detect cold damage in dormant buds of grapevine under field (by shooting test) and laboratory (by sectioning method)   conditions. In the determination of the low temperature damage, it has been investigated whether there is a difference between the method of sectioning in laboratory conditions and the real shooting level in the field conditions. The study was carried out in the vineyard which was established with the Karaerik (V. vinifera L.)  grape cultivar in the Uzümlü district of Erzincan in 2012, 2013 and 2014. Samples of an old grapevine cuttings from the vineyard was transported to the laboratory on the same day and sections were taken in order to determine the damage level. Cold damage was assessed based on 1-4 bud averages. In addition, cold damage was  evaluated separately in 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th nodes. The mortality rates of primary and secondary buds for the first 1-4 buds average were determined and the vitality rates of tertiary buds were determined in order to determine the ultimate vitality. At the second stage of study, the mortality rates (%) of primary and secondary buds and the viability rates (%) of tertiary buds were determined by counting in spring the shoots come from the primary, secondary, and tertiary buds of the first 4 buds that were left in pruning in vineyard. Secondary and tertiary buds were also considered alive if the primary buds have sprouted in vineyard.In the study that determined the level of damage of the buds, it was found that the difference between the sectioning method and the shooting test was 7.9% in primary buds, 14.56% in secondary buds, and 0.1% in tertiary buds. The mortality rates of primary buds and the viability rates of tertiary buds were found statistically insignificant differences between the methods, but the mortality rates of the secondary buds were found statistically significant differences between the methods.

Keywords

Cold damage, Dormant bud, Grapevine, Sectioning method

Karaerik Üzüm Çeşidinin Kış Gözlerindeki Soğuk Zararının Tarla ve Laboratuvar Koşullarında Belirlenmesi

Abstract

ÖZET: Bu çalışmada asma kış gözlerinde meydana gelen düşük sıcaklık zararları,
tarla şartlarında (sürme testi) ve labaratuvar ortamında (kesit alma metodu)
belirlenmiştir. Düşük sıcaklıklık zararının belirlenmesinde, laboratuar şartlarında kesit alma
yöntemi ile arazi koşullarında gerçek sürme arasında farklılık olup olmadığı
araştırılmıştır. Çalışma Erzinca’ın Üzümlü ilçesinde Karaerik (V. vinifera L.) üzüm çeşidi ile tesis edilmiş bağda 2012, 2013 ve 2014 yıllarında
yürütülmüştür. Bağdan alınan bir yaşlı asma çubukları aynı gün içerisinde
labaratuvara ulaştırılmış ve zarar düzeyinin tespit edilmesi için kesitler alınmıştır.
Soğuk zararı hem 1-4 göz ortalamasına göre, hem de 1., 2., 3. ve 4. boğumlarda
ayrı ayrı değerlendirilmiştir. İlk 1-4 göz ortalamasının primer ve sekonder
tomurcukların ölüm oranları ile nihai canlılığın belirlenmesi için tersiyer
tomurcukların canlılık oranları belirlenmiştir. Çalışmanın
ikinci aşamasında, primer ve sekonder tomurcukların ölüm oranları oranları (%)
ve tersiyer tomurcukların canlılık oranları (%) bağda budama sonrası bırakılan ilk
4 gözün primer, sekonder ve tersiyer tomurcuklarından çıkan sürgünler ilkbaharda
sayılarak belirlenmiştir. Bağda primer tomurcukları süren gözlerin sekonder ve
tersiyer tomurcuklarının da canlı olduğu kabul edildi. Tomurcukların zarar
düzeyinin belirlendiği çalışmada, kesit alma metodu ile sürme testi arasında
primer tomurcuklarda %7,9 sekonder tomurcuklarda %14,56 ve tersiyer
tomurcuklarda %0,1 oranında farklılık olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Primer
tomurcukların ölüm oranı ve tersiyer tomurcukların canlılık oranlarında metotlar
arasında istatistiki açıdan önemli farklılığın olmadığı, fakat sekonder
tomurcukların ölüm oranları için ise mototlar arasında istatistiki açıdan
önemli farklılık olduğu görülmüştür.

Keywords

Soğuk zararı, Kış gözü, Asma, Kesit alma metodu

References

• Çelik, H., Ağaoğlu, Y.S., Marasalı, B., Söylemezoğlu G., Fidan, Y., 1998. General Viticulture. Sun Fidan AŞ. Professional Books Series, Turkey: Ankara, pp. 253. Çelik, S., 2007. Viticulture (Ampeloloji-I). Anatolian Printing House, Vol. I Expanded Edition Turkey: Tekirdağ.
• Çelik, H., Erdemir, D., Değirmenci, D., 2008. Determination of damage caused by winter cold in 2005-2006 winter varieties of grapes grown in Kalecik (Ankara). 04-07 September 2008; Erzurum, Turkey: V. National Horticultural Congress, pp. 451-454.
• Cindric, P., Kovaç. V., 1988. Breeding new grape vine cultivars with high coldhardiness. Annual Report of The Minnesota grape Growers Cooperative, pp. 36-47. Ershadi, A., Karimi, R., Mahdeí, K.N., 2016. Freezing tolerance and its relationship with soluble carbohydrates, proline and water content in 12 grapevine cultivars. Acta Physiol. Plant., 38 : 1–10.
• Fennell, A., 2004. Freezing tolerance and injury in grapevines. In Adaptations and Responses of Woody Plants to Environmental Stresses. R. Arora (Ed.), Binghamton, pp. 201-235.
• Happ, E., 1999. Indices for exploring there lation ship between temperature and grape and wine flavour. The Australian and New Zealand Wine Industry Journal, 14: 68-75.
• Kara. Z., Ağaoğlu, Y.S., 1990. Determination of the ampelogrophic characters of grape varieties grown in Tokat. PhD Ankara University. Graduate School of Natural and Applied Scienses Department of Horticulture, Ankara, Turkey.
• Keller, M., Mills, L.J., 2007. Effects of pruning on recovery and productivity of cold-injured Merlot grapevines. Am. J. Enol. and Viticulture, 58: 351-357.
• Kismali, I., 1984. Investigations on winter bud efficiency of some table grape varieties, 14-17 November 1983; Manisa, Turkey: II. Viticulture and Winery Symposium, pp. 35-48.
• Köse, C., Güleryüz, M., 2009. Frost damage in dormant buds of Karaerik grapevine grown at Üzümlü province of Erzincan during the winter of 2007-2008. Ataturk University. Journal of the Faculty of Agriculture. Turkey. 40: 55-60.
• Köse, C., Güleryüz, M., 2011. Frost damage in dormant buds of Karaerik grapevine grown at Üzümlü province of Erzincan during the winter of 2008-2009. 4-8 September 2011; Şanlı Urfa, Turkey: VI. National Horticulture Congress, pp. 215-220.
• Küpe, M., 2012. Effects of global climate change on viticulture. Ataturk University. Journal of the Faculty of Agriculture. 43:191-196.
• Küpe, M., Köse, C., (2015). Determining suitable pruning level after winter frost damage in Karaerik grape cultivar. Atatürk Univ., J. of the Agricultural Faculty, 46: 21-28.
• Lynn, J.M., Ferguson, J.N., Keller, M., 2006. Cold-hardiness evaluation of grapevine buds and cane tissues. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 57: 194-200.
• Ma, Y. Y., Zhang, Y. L., Shao, H., Lu, J., 2010. Differential physiobiochemical responses to cold stress of cold tolerant and non tolerant grapes (Vitis L.) from China. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science. 196: 212-219.
• Meteorology, 2014. Meteorological data in Erzincan province. Regional Directorate of Meteorology, https://www.mgm.gov.tr (date of access: 1 November 2014).
• Mickelbert, M.V., Chapma,n P., Collier-Christian, L., 2006. Endogenous levels and exo genous application of glicine betaineto grapevines. Scientia Horticulture, 111: 7-16.
• Kalkan, N. N., Kaya, Ö., Karadoğan, B., Köse, C., 2017. Determination of cold damage and lipid peroxidation level of Karaerik (Vitis vinifera L.) grape cultivar having different trunk height in winter buds. Alinteri Journal of Agriculture Science, 32:11-17.
• Odneal, M.B., 1984. Cold hardiness of grapes. State Fruit Experiment Station, College of Health and Applied Sciences, Missouri State University, Bulletin, 41.
• Rekika, D., Cousineau, J., Levasseur, A., Richer, C., Khanizadeh, S., Fisher, H., 2004. The use of a freezing technique to determine the bud hardiness of twenty grape genotypes (Vitis sp.). Acta Hort., 640: 207–212.
• Wample, R.L., Hartley, S., Mills, L., 2000. Dynamics of grapevine cold hardiness. Proceedings of The Asev 50th Anniversary Meeting, Seaatle, Washington. Am. J. Enol. and Viticulture, 51: 81-93.
• Zabadal, T. J., Dami, I. E., Goffinet, M. C., Martinson, T. E., Chien, M. L., 2007. Winter injury to grapevines and methods of protection, Michigan State University Publications on Grape Production, 36-37.