Farklı Anaçlar Üzerine Aşılı ‘Deveci’ Armudunun Büyüme ve Meyve Kalite Özellikleri

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 3, 179 - 187, 31.12.2021

Ahmet Öztürk

Öz

This study was carried out to investigate the effect of different rootstocks on growth and fruit characteristics of 'Deveci' pear cultivar during 2013-2016. Rootstock diameter, stem diameter, plant height, stem cross-sectional area and canopy volume were found to be higher in plants that were grafted on BA-29 than other rootstocks. Rootstocks had a significant effect on fruit sizes. Fruit weight, fruit width and length were highest in plants grafted on BA29 while, lowest values were recorded in the pear seedling rootstocks. Fruit firmness was lower in the MC rootstock than the others. The highest total soluble solids (TSS) and titratable acidity were determined in the seedling rootstock. The highest pH was determined in the MC rootstock and the lowest in the pear seedling rootstock. Color traits such as a*, chroma and hueo were significantly affected by rootstocks, except for L* and b* values. Generally, a* value was found to be highest on BA-29 and lowest on MC rootstock. Chroma and hueo values were found to be highest in the MC rootstock and lowest in the BA-29. According to the obtained results during 2013-2016, BA-29 quince clonal rootstock can be recommended as the best treatment out of others due to more positive effects on both growth and fruit size. However, it is necessary to continue such kind of studies for many years in order to be able to make more precise recommendations.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Deveci, Fruit weight, Pyrus communis, Color traits,, TSS,

Kaynakça

• Akçay, M.E., Büyükyılmaz, M. ve Burak, M. (2009). Marmara Bölgesi İçin Ümitvar Armut Çeşitleri – IV. BAHÇE 38 (1): 1 – 10.
• Askari-Khorasgani, O., Jafarpour, M., Hadad, M.M. & Pessarakli, M. (2019). Fruit yield and quality characteristics of “Shahmiveh” pear cultivar grafted on six rootstocks, Journal of Plant Nutrition 42(4): 323-332. DOI: 10.1080/01904167.2018.1555592.
• Cabrera, D., Rodriguez, P. & Zoppolo, R. (2015). Evaluation of Quince and Selected ‘Farold®’ Pear Rootstocks for Commercial ‘Williams B.C.’ Production in Uruguay. Acta Horticulturae 1094: 159-162.
• Canlı, F.A., Pektaş, M. ve Kelen, M. (2009). Effects of Pre-harvest Plant Growth Regulator Sprays on Fruit Quality of ‘Deveci’ Pear (Pyrus communis L.). Journal of Applied Biological Sciences 3 (1): 81-84.
• Carrera, M., Espiau, M.T. & Gomez-Aparisi, J. (2005). Pear Rootstock Trial: Behavior of ‘Conference’ and ‘Doyenné du Comice’ on Two Quince and Five OHxF Selections. Acta Horticulturae 671: 481-484.
• Costes E., Lauri P.E. & Regnard J.L. (2006): Analyzing fruit tree architecture: implications for tree management and fruit production. Horticultural Reviews 32: 1–61.
• Dondini, L. & Sansavini, S. (2012). European Pear. In: Badenes, M.L., Byrne, D.H., (edts). Handbook of Plant Breeding: Fruit Breeding. pp: 369-414 Springer Science+Business Media, New York, USA.
• du Plooy, P. & van Huyssteen, P. (2000). Effect of BP1, BP3 and Quince A rootstocks, at three planting densities, on precocity and fruit quality of ‘Forelle’ pear (Pyrus communis L.). South African Journal of Plant and Soil 17(2): 57-59. doi: 10.1080/02571862.2000.10634867
• Ercisli, S. (2004). A short review of the fruit germplasm resources of Turkey. Genetic Resource Crop Evoluation 51: 419-435. Erdem, H. ve Öztürk, B. (2012). Yapraktan uygulanan çinko'nun BA-29 anacı üzerine aşılı armut çeşitlerinin verimi, mineral element içeriği ve biyokimyasal özellikleri üzerine etkisi. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi 7(1):93-106.
• Ertürk, Y., Güleryüz, M. ve Erdoğan, U.G. (2009). Quince A üzerine aşılı bazı armut çeşitlerinin İspir (Yukarı Çoruh Havzası) koşullarındaki verim ve gelişme durumlarının belirlenmesi. BAHÇE 38(1): 11-17.
• Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2021). http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=567#ancor (15.07.2021)
• Francescatto, P., Pazzin, D., Nero, A.G., Fachinello, J. & Giacobbo, C. (2014). Evaluation of graft compatibility between quince rootstocks and pear scions. Acta Horticulturae 872: 253–259.
• Giacobbo, C.L., Neto, A.G., Pazzin, D., Francescatto, P. & Fachinello, J.C. (2010). The Assessment of Different Rootstocks to the Pear Tree Cultivar ‘Carrick’. Acta Horticulturae 872: 353-358.
• Hancock, J.F. & Lobos, G.A. (2008). Pears, In: J.F. Hancock (ed.). Temperate fruit crop breeding: germplasm to genomics. p. 299–335. Springer, New York. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4020-6907-9_10.
• Hepaksoy, S. (2019). Meyvecilikte Anaç Kullanımı: Armut Anaçları. Türk Bilimsel Derlemeler Dergisi 12 (2): 69-74.
• Hooijdonk, B., Woolley, D. & Warrington, I. (2011) Rootstocks modify scion architecture, endogenous hormones, and root growth of newly grafted ‘Royal Gala’ apple trees. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 136: 93-102.
• Iglesias, I. & Batlle, I. (2011). Agronomical Performance and Fruit Quality of ‘Conference’ on Some Cydonia and Pyrus Rootstocks. Acta Horticulturae 909: 195-200.
• İkinci, A., Bolat, İ., Ercisli, S. & Kodad, O. (2014). Influence of rootstocks on growth, yield, fruit quality and leaf mineral element contents of pear cv. ‘Santa Maria’ in semi-arid conditions. Biological Research 47(1): 1–8. doi: 10.1186/0717-6287-47-71
• İkinci, A. (2017). The Effect of Different Pear Rootstocks on the Performance of Pear Cultivars Grown in Semi-Arid Climate and High Calcareous Soil Conditions. Asian Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition 2(1): 1-8.
• İkinci, A., Bolat, İ., Ercişli, S. & Eşitken, A. (2016). Response of Yield, Growth and Iron Deficiency Chlorosis of ‘Santa Maria’ Pear Trees on Four Rootstocks. Notulae Botanicae Horti Agrobotanici Cluj-Napoca 44(2): 563-567. Doi:10.15835/nbha44210501 Jackson, J.E. (2003). Biology of apples and pears. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.
• Kawamura, T. (2000). “Relationship Between Skin Color and Maturity of Japanase Pear ‘Housui’. Japanese Society of Farm Work Research, 35: 33-38.
• Kılıç, O., Çopur, Ö.U. ve Görtay, Ş. (1991). Meyve ve Sebze İşleme Teknolojisi Uygulama Kılavuzu. Uludağ Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Ders Notları, No: 7, Bursa.
• Kosina, J. (2003). Evaluation of pear rootstocks in an orchard. Horticultural Science (Prague) 30(2): 56–58
• Küçüker, E., Öztürk., B., Özkan, Y. ve Yıldız, K. (2015). Yapraktan Üre Uygulamasının Farklı Armut (Pyrus communıs L.) Çeşitlerinde Verim, Meyve Kalitesi ve Bioaktif Bileşikler Üzerine Etkisi. Niğde Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi 4(2): 78-86.
• Lepsis, J. & Drudze, I. (2011). Evaluation of Seven Pear Rootstocks in Latvia. Acta Horticulturae 903: 457-462. Lombard, P.B. & Westwood, M.N. (1987). Pear rootstocks, In: R.C. Rom and R.F. Carlson (eds.). Rootstocks for fruit crops. p. 145–183. John Wiley and Sons. Inc. NewYork.
• Loreti, F., Massai, R., Fei, C. & Cinelli, F. (2002). Performance of ‘Conference’ cultivar on several quince and pear rootstocks: preliminary results. Acta Horticulturae 596: 311–18. doi: 10.17660/ActaHortic.2002.596.48.
• Maas, F. (2008). Evaluation of Pyrus and quince rootstocks for high density pear orchards. Acta Horticulturae 800: 599-609.
• Massai R., Loreti, F. & Fei, C. (2008): Growth and yield of ‘Conference’ pears grafted on quince and pear rootstocks. Acta Horticulturae 800: 617–624.
• McGuire, R.G. (1992). Reporting of objective color measurements. HortScience 27: 1254-1255.
• Meszaros, M., Lanar, L., Kosina, J. & Namestek, J. (2019). Aspects influencing the rootstock-scion performance during long term evaluation in pear orchard. Horticultural Science (Prague) 46(1): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.17221/55/2017-HORTSCI
• Meteoroloji Genel Müdürlüğü (MGM). (2021). https://www.mgm.gov.tr/tahmin/il-ve-ilceler.aspx?m =SAMSUN#/
• North, M., de Kock, K. & Booyse, M. (2015). Effect of rootstock on ‘Forelle’ pear (Pyrus communis L.) growth and production. South African Journal of Plant and Soil 32:2, 65-70. DOI: 10.1080/02571862.2014.981881
• Özçağıran, R., Ünal, A., Özeker, E. ve İsfendiyaroglu, M. (2005). Armut. Ilıman İklim Meyve Türleri (Yumuşak Çekirdekliler) Cilt-II. 73-126. Ege Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Yayınları, Yayın No: 556, Bornova-İzmir, Türkiye.
• Öztürk, A. ve Öztürk, B. (2014). The rootstock influences growth and development of ‘Deveci’ Pear. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Natural Science 1: 1049-1053.
• Öztürk, A. ve Serttaş, S. (2021). Karadeniz Bölgesinin Yumuşak Çekirdekli Meyve Üretiminde Mevcut Durumu ve Potansiyeli. Iğdır Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi 11(3): 1671-1685.
• Pasa, M.S., Fachinello, J.C., Rosa Júnior, H.F., Franceschi, E., Schmitz, J.D. & Souza, A.L.K. (2015) Performance of ‘Rocha’ and ‘Santa Maria’ pear as affected by planting density. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira 50:126-131.
• Stern, R.A. & Doron, I. (2009). Performance of ‘Coscia’ pear (Pyrus communis) on nine rootstocks in the north of Israel. Sci Hortic., 119:252–256.
• Sugar, D., Basile, S.R., 2011. Performance of ‘Comice’ Pear on Quince Rootstocks in Oregon, USA. Acta Horticulturae 909: 215-218.
• Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu (TÜİK). (2021). https://biruni.tuik.gov.tr/medas/?locale=tr (15.07. 2021)
• Urbina, V., Dalmases, J., Pascual, M. & Dalmau, R. (2003). Performance of `Williams' pear on five rootstocks. Journal of Horticultural Science & Biotechnology 78(2): 193-196.
• Uysal, E., Sağlam, M.T. ve Büyükyılmaz, M. (2015). Deveci Armut Çeşidinde Farklı Azot Uygulamalarının Verim Ve Bazı Kalite Özellikleri Üzerine Etkisi. BAHÇE 44 (1): 1 – 13.
• Webster, T. (2002). Dwarfing rootstocks: past, present and future. Compact Fruit Tree 35: 67-72.
• Wertheim, S.J. (2002) Rootstocks for European pear: a review. Acta Horticulturae 596: 299-309.