Effect of the Rootstock and Cultivar on Graft Success and Sapling Development and Graft Incompatibility in Pear

Abstract

This study was carried out to determine the effects of different rootstocks on graft success, sapling development and graft compatibility/incompatibility of ‘Deveci’ and ‘Williams’ pear cultivars in Samsun ecological conditions between 2014 and 2016 years. Graft incompatibility was attempted to be associated with morphological measurements in the graft union. Rootstock, cultivar and rootstockxcultivar interaction had a significant effect on the all examined parameters. In the study, graft take ratios were between 91.5-100.0%, graft sprout ratios were between 89.2-99.0% and survival ratios were between 83.7-99.0%. The graft sprout ratio was the highest in the OHxF333 and lowest was in the BA29 rootstock. The graft sprout and survival ratios were lower in quince rootstock than in pear rootstocks. Rootstock diameters were higher in the OHxF333 and seedling rootstocks than in the Fox11 and BA29 rootstocks. Graft union diameter and shoot diameter were lower in the Fox11 than the other rootstocks. Shoot length was higher in the OHxF333 than the other rootstocks. Especially considering the graft success and the diameter measurements made in the graft union, it has been found that some scion/stock combinations may show graft incompatibility. The ‘Williams’/BA29 combination may be incompatible due to the lower survival ratio and diameter values in the graft union than other combinations. Although graft success is sufficient, it should be noted that the ‘Williams’/Fox11, whose rootstock diameter and graft union diameter are lower than the others, may show graft incompatibility. ‘Deveci’ cultivar shows good compatibility with all rootstocks due to the higher graft success and sapling performance.

Keywords

• Pear
• rootstock
• graft success
• graft incompatibility
• survival ratio

Anaç ve Çeşidin Armutta Aşı Başarısı, Fidan Gelişimi ve Aşı Uyuşmazlığı Üzerine Etkisi

Öz

Bu çalışma ‘Deveci’ ve ‘Williams’ armut çeşitlerinin aşı başarısı, fidan gelişimi ve aşı uyuşma/uyuşmazlığı üzerine farklı anaçların etkilerini belirlemek amacıyla 2015-2016 yıllarında Samsun ekolojik koşularında yürütülmüştür. Aşı uyuşmazlığı aşı bölgesinde yapılan morfolojik ölçümlerle ilişkilendirilmeye çalışılmıştır. Araştırmada incelenen tüm özellikler üzerine anaç, çeşit ve anaçxçeşit interaksiyonunun etkisi önemli olmuştur. Aşı tutma oranı %91.5-100.0, aşı sürme oranı %89.2-99.0, fidan yaşama oranı %83.7-99.0 arasında değişmiştir. Aşı tutma oranı en yüksek OHxF333 en düşük ise BA29 anacında olmuştur. Aşı sürme ve fidan yaşama oranı ayva anacında armut anaçlarından daha düşük olmuştur. Anaç çapı OHxF333 ve çöğür anaçlarında Fox11 ve BA29 anaçlarından daha yüksek bulunmuştur. Aşı yeri çapı ve sürgün çapının Fox11 anacında diğer anaçlardan daha düşük olduğu belirlenmiştir. Aşı sürgün uzunluğu OHxF333 anacında diğer anaçlardan daha yüksek bulunmuştur. Özellikle aşı başarısı ve aşı bölgesinde yapılan çap ölçümleri de dikkate alındığında bazı kombinasyonların aşı uyuşmazlığı gösterebileceği tespit edilmiştir. Fidan yaşama oranı ve aşı bölgesindeki çap değerlerinin diğer kombinasyonlardan daha düşük olduğu ‘Williams’/BA29 kombinasyonun uyuşmaz olabileceği ortaya konulmuştur. Aşı başarısı yeterli olmasına rağmen anaç ve aşı sürgünü çapı diğerlerine göre düşük olan ‘Williams’/Fox11 kombinasyonunun aşı uyuşmazlığı gösterebileceğine dikkat edilmelidir. ‘Deveci’ çeşidinin aşı başarısı ve fidan gelişim performansının daha iyi olması dolayısıyla tüm anaçlarla iyi bir aşı uyuşması gösterdiği belirlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Armut
• anaç
• aşı başarısı
• aşı uyuşmazlığı
• yaşama oranı

References

1. Akçay, M.E. (2007). Armut yetiştiriciliğinde klon anaç kullanımı. Hasad Bitkisel Üretim Dergisi, 23(269), 50-53.
2. Cetinbas, M., Butar, S., Sesli, Y., & Yaman, B.. (2018). Effects of different cultivar/rootstock combinations on the some seedling characteristics for pear nursery growing. Journal of Agriculture Faculty of Gaziosmanpasa University. 35(special issue), 8-12.
3. Ciobotari, G., Brinza, M., Morariu, A., & Gradinariu, G. (2010). Graft incompatibility influence on assimilating pigments and soluble sugars amount of some pear (Pyrus sativa) cultivars. Notulae Botanicae Horti Agrobotanici Cluj-Napoca, 38,187-192.
4. da Silva G.J., Villa, F., Grimaldi F., da Silva P. S., & Welter J. F. (2018). Pear (Pyrus spp.) Breeding. In J. M. Al-Khayri, S. M. Jain, & D. M. Johnson (Eds.), Advances in Plant Breeding Strategies: Fruits (pp 131-163), Gewerbestrasse, Switzerland: Springer.
5. Darikova, J. A., Savvaa, Y. V., Vaganova, E. A., Gracheva, A. M., & Kuznetsova. G. V. (2011). Grafts of woody plants and the problem of incompatibility between scion and rootstock (a review). Journal of Siberian Federal University Biology, 1(4), 54-63.
6. Davarynejad, G. H., & Davarynejad, E. (2007). Field performance of incompatibility of pear cultivars Natanz, Sebri and Shekari budded on QA rootstock. Acta Horticulturae, 732, 221-226.
7. Davarynejad, G. H., Shahriari, F., & Hamid, H. (2008). Identification of graft incompatibility of pear cultivars on Quince rootstock by using isozymes banding pattern and starch. Asian Journal of Plant Science, 7(1), 109-112.
8. Demirel, G. 2017. Bazı klonal anaçlar üzerine aşılı armut çeşitlerinde fenolik maddelerin değişimi. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Ondokuz Mayıs üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Samsun.

9. Dogra, K., Kour, K., Kumar, R., Bakshi, P., & Kumar, V. (2018). Graft-incompatibility in horticultural crops. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Science, 7(2), 1805-1820.
10. Dolkar, T., Mansoor, A., Agleema, B., Divya, S., Lobzang, S., & Stanzin, K. (2018). Mitigation of temperate fruit crop problems through use of rootstock. International Journal of Chemical Studies, 6(2), 880-887.
11. Dondini, L., & Sansavini, S. (2012). European pear. In M. L. Badanes, & D. H. Byrne, (Eds.), Fruit Breeding (pp 363-413). Series: Handbook of Plant Breeding, Vol. 8, Springer Science+Business Media, New York.
12. Elivar, D. E., & Dumanoglu, H. (1999). The comparison of fall and spring budding for one-year-old nursery tree production of apple, pear and quince in Ayaş (Ankara). Journal of Agriculture Science, 5(2), 58-64.
13. Ermel, F. F., Catesson, A. M., & Poessel, J. L. (1995). Early histological diagnosis of apricot/peach x almond graft incompatibility: statistical analysis of data from 5-month-old grafts. Acta Horticulturae, 384, 497-503.
14. Ermel, F.F., Kervella, J., Catesson, A. M., & Poessel, J. C. (1999). Localized graft ıncompatibility in pear/quince (Pyrus communis/Cydonia oblonga) combination: multivariate analysis of histological data form 5-month-old grafts. Tree Physiology, 19, 645-654.
15. Ermel, F.F., Poessel, J. L., Faurobert, M., & Catesson, A. M. (1997). Early scion/stock junction in compatible and incompatible pear/pear and pear/quince grafts: a histo-cytological study. Annual Bot-London, 79, 505-515.
16. Errea, P. (1998). Implications of phenolic compounds in graft incompatibility in fruit tree species. Scientia Horticulture, 74, 195-205.
17. Francescatto, P., Pazzin, D., Neto, A. G., Fachinello, J. C., & Giacobbo, C. L. (2010). Evaluation of graft compatibility between quince rootstocks and pear scions. Acta Horticulturae. 872, 253-260.
18. Gulen, H., Arora, R., Kuden, A., Krebs, S. L., & Postman, J. (2002). Peroxidase isozyme profiles in compatible and incompatible pear-quince graft combinations, Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science, 127(2), 152-157.
19. Hancock, J. F., & Lobos, G. A. (2008). Pears. In J. F. Hancock (Edt.), Temperate Fruit Crop Breeding: Germplasm to Genomics (pp 299-336). Springer Science+Business Media, New York.
20. Hartmann, H. T., Kester, D. E., Davies, Jr. F. T., & Geneve, R. L. (2011). Plant propagation: principles and practices. 8th Edition. Regents/Prentice Hall International Editions, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
21. Hepaksoy, S. (2019). Meyvecilikte Anaç Kullanımı: Armut Anaçları. Türk Bilimsel Derlemeler Dergisi, 12(2), 69-74.
22. Hudina, M., Orazem, P., Jakopic, J., & Stampar, F. (2014). The phenolic content and its involvement in the graft incompatibility process of various pear rootstocks (Pyrus communis L.). Journal of Plant Physiology, 171, 76-84. Irisarri, P., Pina, A., & Errea, P. (2016). Evaluation of the vegetative characteristics and graft compatibility of pear varieties grafted on 'BA-29' and 'OHF-87' rootstocks. ITEA , 112(3), 243-254.
23. Jackson, J.E. (2003). Biology of apples and pears. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
24. Kadan, H., & Yarılgac, T. (2005). Studies on propagation by dormant t-budding of apples and pears under Van ecological conditions. Yüzüncü Yil University Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 15(2), 167-176.
25. Kuden, A., & Gulen, H. (1997). Propagation of apples, pears and plums by grafted cuttings. Acta Horticulturae, 441, 231-236.
26. Lewis, W. J., & Alexander McE. D. (2008). Grafting & Budding. A Practical Guide for Fruit and Nut Plants and Ornamentals. Landlinks Press, 102, Australia.
27. Machado, B.D., Magro, M., Rufato, L., Bogo, A., & Kreztschmar, A. A. (2016). Graft compatibility between european pear cultivars and east malling “C” rootstock. Revista Brasileira de Fruticultura. 39, e-063.
28. Mezey, J., & Lesko, I. (2014). Callus and root-system formation in cherry rootstock Gisela 5. Acta Horticulturae, 17, 5–7.
29. Milosevic, T., & Milosevic, N. (2011). Influence of cultivar and rootstock on early growth and syllepsis in nursery tress of pear (Pyrus communis L., Rosaceae). Brazilian Archives of Biology and Technology, Curitiba, 54, 451-456.
30. Musacchi, S., Masia, A., & Fachinello, J. (2002). Variation of some enzymatic activities in relationship to scion/stock compatibility in pear/quince combinations. Acta Horticulturae, 596, 389-392.
31. Nimbolkar, P.K., Awachare, C., Reddy, Y.T.N., Chander, S., & Hussain, F. (2016). Role of Rootstocks in Fruit Production–A Review. Journal of Agricultural Engineering and Food Technology, 3(3), 183-188.
32. Özçağıran, R. (1982). Bazı armut çeşitlerinin ayva A anacı ile uyuşma durumları üzerine bir araştırma. Ege Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(2), 77-83.
33. Ozcagiran, R., Unal, A., Ozeker, E., & Isfendiyaroglu, M. (2004). Pear, In: Temperate Fruit Trees, Pome Fruits (Vol. II). Ege University. Agriculture Faculty Publications, Number: 556, Izmir, Turkey.
34. Ozturk, A., & Ozturk, B. (2014). The rootstock influences growth and development of ‘Deveci’ Pear. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Natural Science, 1, 1049-1053.
35. Ozturk, A., Serdar, U., & Balci, G. (2009). The influence of different nursery conditions on graft success and plant survival using the inverted radicle grafting method on the chestnut. Acta Horticulturae, 815, 193-197.
36. Ozturk, B., Ozcan, M., & Ozturk, A. (2011). Effects of different rootstock diameters and budding periods on graft success and plant growth in kiwifruit seedling production. Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 17(4), 261-268.
37. Pektas, M., Canli, F. A., & Ozongun, S. (2009). Winter grafts as alternative methods to T-budding in pear (Pyrus communis L.) propagation. International Journal of Natural and Engineering Sciences, 3(1), 91-94.
38. Pina, A., & Errea, P. (2005). A review of new advances in mechanism of graft compatibility–incompatibility. Scientia Horticulturae, 106, 1–11.
39. Pina, A., & Errea, P. (2009) Morphological and histochemical features of compatible and incompatible stem unions. Acta Horticulturae, 814, 453–456.
40. Pio, R., Chagas, E. A., & Tombolato, A. F. C. (2008). Interspecific and intergeneric pear, apple and quince grafting using Pyrus calleryana as rootstock. Acta Horticulturae, 800, 173-178.
41. Rahman, J., Aftab, M., Rauf, M. A., Rahman, K. U., Farooq, W. B., & Ayub, G. (2017). Comparative study on compatibility and growth response of pear varieties on different rootstocks at nursery. Pure Applied Biology, 6(1), 286-292.
42. Rahmati, M., Arzani, K., Yadollahi, A., & Abdollahi, H. (2015). Influence of Rootstock on Vegetative Growth and Graft Incompatibiiıty in Some Pear (Pyrus spp.) Cultıvars. Indo-American Journal of Agriculture & Veterinary Science, 3(1), 25-32.
43. Rodrigues, A. C., Fachinello, J. C., Sılva, J. B., Fortes, G. R. L., & Strelow, E. 2004. Compatibilidade entre diferentes combinações de cvs. copas e portaenxertos de Prunus sp. Revista Brasileira de Agrociência, Pelotas, 10, 185-189.
44. Rom, R. C., & Carlson, R. F. (1987). Rootstocks for fruit crops. John Wiley and Sons- Interscience Publication, New York, 497, USA.
45. Serttas, S., & Ozturk, A. (2020). Determination of the Stion Development Performances Different Pear Cultivars on Some Pear Clonal Rootstock. Kahramanmaraş Sütcü İmam University, Journal of Agriculture and Nature, 23(4), 842-850.
46. Sharma, R. M., Pandey, S. N., & Pandey, V. (2010). Breeding and Improvement. In: The pear: production, postharvest management and protection. IBDC Publishers, India.
47. Soylu, A., & Basyigit, H. (1991). Growth and branching characteristics of some fruit saplings produced in Bursa Kestel region. The First Turkish Arboriculture Symposium, Ankara, Turkey.
48. Tatari, M., Rezaei, M., & Ghasemi, A. (2020): Quince Rootstocks Affect Some Vegetative and Generative Traits. International Journal of Fruit Science, 1-15.
49. TSMS, (2020). Turkish State Meteorological Service Official Web Sites. https://mgm.gov.tr. Access date: May15, 2020.
50. Webster, A. D. (1995). Rootstock and interstock effects on deciduous fruit tree vigour, precocity, and yield productivity. New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science, 23(4), 373-382.
51. Westwood, M. N. (1995). Temperate-zone pomology, physiology and culture. 3rd ed., Timber Pres, Oregon. Yılmaz, M. (1994). Bahçe Bitkileri Yetiştirme Tekniği. Çukurova Üniversitesi Basımevi, 151, Adana.
52. Zarrouk, O., Testıllano, P. S., Rısuenõ, M. C., Angeles, M. M., & Gogorcena, W. (2010). Changes in cell/tissue organization and peroxidase activity as markers for early detection of graft incompatibility in peach/plum combinations.
53. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science, Geneva, 135, 9-17.
54. Zenginbal, E., & Bostan, S. Z. (2019). Pear sapling production in greenhouse and external environment. Bahçe, 48(2), 57-64.
55. Zenginbal, H., Demir, T., Demirsoy, H., & Beyhan, O. (2017). The grafting success of fourteen genotypes grafted on three different rootstocks on production of sweet cherry (Prunus avium L.) sapling. Acta Scientiarum Polonorum, Hortorum Cultus, 16(1), 133–143.