Farklı Sulama Seviyeleri ile Biyoaktivatör Uygulamalarının Çilek Bitkisinin Ekofizyolojik Özellikleri Üzerine Etkisi

Öz

Bu çalışmada, farklı su seviyeleri ile biyoaktivatör uygulamalarının Kabarla çeşidinde ekofizyolojik özellikler üzerine etkileri araştırılmıştır. Sulamalar; tam sulama IR100 konusu, uygulanacak suyun yarısının verileceği konu IR50, %75’inin verileceği konu IR75 ve %125’inin verileceği konu IR125 olarak adlandırılmıştır. Biyoaktivatör uygulamaları ise tam ve kontrol (biyoakivatörsüz) olarak uygulanmıştır. Tesadüf bloklarında bölünen bölünmüş parseller deneme desenine göre 4 yinelemeli olarak yürütülen araştırma sonucunda su stresinin (kısıntılı sulama) çilek bitkisinde ekofizyolojik özellikleri olumsuz etkilediği gözlenmiştir. En yüksek stoma iletkenliği ve yaprak su potansiyeli değerleri IR125 uygulamasından elde edilirken, en düşük değerler ise IR50 uygulamalarından elde edilmiş olup, uygulamalar arasındaki farklar istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bulunmuştur. Biyoaktivatör kullanımının çilek bitkisi ekofizyolojik özelliklerini olumlu etkiledikleri görülürken istatistiksel anlamda da önemli bulunmuştur. Biyoaktivatör kullanılmayan konularda ekofizyolojik özellikler genelde düşüş gösterse de su stresi ile birlikte çoklu stres olarak (su × biyoaktivatör) bitki ekofizyolojik özellikleri üzerine etkisi istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bulunmamıştır. Çalışma sonuçları ışığında güçlü bir ekofizyolojik özellik için her ne kadar istatistiksel olarak fark belirlenememişse de, su ve biyoaktivatör etkileşiminden elde edilecek kombinasyonun kullanılması bitki su kullanım etkinliğini arttırmasından dolayı önerilebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Kuraklık stresi
• yaprak su potansiyeli
• stoma iletkenliği
• biyoaktivatör
• yüksek tünel

Effects of Different Irrigation Levels with Bioactivator Applications on Ecophysicological Characteristics in Strawberry

Öz

In this study, the effects of different irrigation levels with bio activator applications on the ecophysicological characteristics in a variety of Kabarla were investigated. Strawberry plant was subjected to four irrigation water levels (IR125, 1.25 Ep; IR100, 1.0 Ep; IR75, 0.75 Ep; IR50, 0.50 Ep). Bioactivator applications were conducted as full and without bioactivator. As a result of the study, planned as randomized complete block split split plot design with four replications, it was observed water stress affected ecophysicological characteristics adversely. The highest stomatal conductance and leaf water potential were obtained from the IR125, whereas the lowest values were obtained from the IR50 (deficient irrigation) and also the differences between applications found to be statistically significant. Furthermore, the use of bioactivator on the strawberry plant, ecophysicological parameters were observed to affected positively as statistically significantly. Subjects which unused bioactivator were generally observed to decrease the ecophysicological characteristics, besides, they were also not found to be statistically significant on ecophysicological characteristics as multiple stress (applications × irrigation interaction). In the light of the study, it can be advised that the combination obtained from bioactivator × irrigation interaction for improved water use efficiency, although this was not validated statistically.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Drought stress
• leaf water potential
• stomatal conductance
• bioactivator
• high tunnel

Kaynakça

1. Battacharyya, D., M.A Babgohari, P. Rathor and B. Prithiviraj, 2015. Seaweed Exracts as Biostimulants in Horticulture. Scientia Horticulture. 196:39–48.
2. Blanke, M.M. and D.T. Cooke, 2004. Effects of Flooding and Drought on Stomatal Activity, Transpiration, Photosynthesis, Water Potential and Water Channel Activity in Strawberry Stolons and Leaves. Plant Growth Regul. 42:153–160.
3. Blatt, C.R., 1984. Irrigation, Mulch, and Double Roow Planting Related To Fruit Size And Yield of ‘Bounty’ Strawberry. Hort. Science 19, 826–827.
4. Bota, J. Flexas and H. Medrano, 2001. Genetic Variability of Photosynthesis and Water Use in Balearic Grapevine Cultivars. Ann. Appl. Biol. 138:353–361
5. Boyer, J.S., 1970. Leaf Enlargement and Metabolic Rates in Corn, Soybean, and Sunflower at Various Leaf Water Potentials. Plant Physiol. 46:233–235.
6. Chandler, C.K. and D.C. Ferree, 1990. Response of ‘Raritan’ and ‘Surecrop’ Strawberry Plants to Drought Stress. Fruit Var. J. 44:183–185.
7. Çeliktopuz, E., 2014. Farklı Anaç–Aşı Kombinasyonlarının Su ve Fosfor Eksikliği Koşullarında Domates Bitkisinin Su Kullanım Randımanı ile Verim ve Meyve Kalitesine Etkileri (Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Çukurova Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Bahçe Bitkileri Anabilim Dalı, Adana, 85s.
8. Doorenbos, J. and W. O. Pruitt, 1977. Guidelines for Predicting Crop Water Requirements. FAO–ONU, Rome, Irrigation and Drainage Paper No:24 (Rev.), 144p.

9. Gehrmann, H., 1985. Growth, Yield and Fruit Quality of Strawberries as Affected by Water Supply. Acta Hort. 171: 463–469.
10. Grant, O.M., A.W. Johnson, M. J. Davies, C.M. James and D.W. Simpson, 2010. Physiological and Morphological Diversity of Cultivated Strawberry (Fragaria × ananassa) in Response to Water Deficit. Environmental and Experimental Botany 68, 264–272.
11. Grant, O.M., M.J. Davies, C.M. James, A.W. Johnson, I. Leinonen and D.W. Simpson, 2012. Thermal Imaging and Carbon Isotope Composition Indicate Variation Amongst Strawberry (Fragaria × ananassa) Cultivars in Stomatal Conductance and Water Use Efficiency. Environmental and Experimental Botany 76, 7–15.
12. Herralde, F. De, R. Save, C. Biel, I. Batlle, F.J. Vargas, 2001. Differences in Drought Tolerance in Two Almond Cultivars: ‘Lauranne’and ‘Masbovera’. Cahiers Options Me
13. Jorba, J., L. Tapia and D. Sant, 1985. Photosynthesis, Leaf Water Potential and Stomatal Conductance in Olea Europaea under Wet and Drought Conditions. Acta Hort. 171:237–246. Diterraneennes 56:149–154.
14. Klamkowski, K. and W. Treder, 2002. Influence of a Rootstock on Intensity of Transpiration Rate and Dynamics of Changes of an Apple Tree Leader Growing Under Different Soil Water Regimes. J. Fruit Ornam. Plant Res. 10:31–39.
15. Klamkowski, K. and W. Treder, 2008. Response to Drought Stress of Three Strawberry Cultıvars Grown Under Greenhouse Conditions. Journal of Fruit Ornamental Plant Research. 16, 179–188.
16. Krüger, E., G. Schmidt and U. Bruchner, 1999. Scheduling Strawberry Irrigation Based Upon Tensiometer Measurement and a Climatic Water Balance Model. Sci. Hort. 81, 409 424.
17. Kumar, S. and P. Dey, 2011. Effects of Different Mulches and Irrigation Methods on Root Growth, Nutrient Uptake, Water–Use Efficiency and Yield of Strawberry. Sci. Hort. 127, 318–324.
18. Liu, F., A. Shahnazari, M.N. Andersen, S.E. Jacobsen and C.R. Jensen, 2006. Effects of Deficit Irrigation (DI) and Partial Root Drying (PRD) On Gas Exchange, Biomass Partitioning and Water Use Efficiency in Potato. Sci. Hort. 109, 113–117.
19. Liu, F., C.S. Savi, C.R. Jensen, A. Shahnazari, S.E. Jacobsen, C.R. Stiki and M.N. Andersen, 2007. Water Relations and Yield of Lysimeter–Grown Strawberries under Limited Irrigation. Scientia Horticulturae 111, 128–132.
20. Li, H., T. Li, R.J. Gordon, S.K. Asiedu and K. Hu, 2010. Strawberry Plant Fruiting Efficiency and Its Correlation with Solar Irradiance, Temperature and Reflectance Water Index Variation. Environmental and Experimental Botany 68, 165–174.
21. Save, R., J. Penuelas, O. Marfa and L. Serrano, 1993. Changes in Leaf Osmotic and Elastic Properties and Canopy Structure of Strawberries Under Mild and Very Mild Water Stress. Hortscience 28, 925–927.
22. Serrano, L., X. Carbonell, R. Save, O. Marfa and J. Penuelas, 1992. Effects of Irrigation Regimes on the Yield and Water Use of Strawberry. Irrig. Sci. 13, 45–48.
23. Singer, S.M., Y.I. Helmy, A.N. Karas and A.F. Abou–Hadid, 2003. Influences of Different Water–Stress Treatments on Growth, Development and Production of Snap Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Acta Hort. 614:605–611.
24. Şen, B., S. Topcu, M. Turkes, B. Sen and J.F. Warner, 2012. "Projecting Climate Change, Drought Conditions and Crop Productivity in Turkey", Climate Research (Interactions of Climate With Organisms, Ecosystems and Human Societies) International and Multidisciplinary Journal, 52:175–191, 2012, doi:10.3354/Cr1074
25. Şen, Z., 2009. İklim Değişikliği Tatlı Su Kaynakları ve Türkiye. Su Vakfı Yayınları, 272s.
26. Topcu, S., B. Sen and M. Türkeş, 2010. A Pilot Study Assessing Climate Change Impacts on Cereals. Geophysical Research Abstracts Vol.12: Egu.2010–9249.
27. Türemiş, N. ve Y. S. Ağaoğlu, 2013. Çilek. Üzümsü Meyveler (Editör: Y. S. Ağaoğlu, R. Gerçekcioğlu). Tomurcukbağ Ltd. Şti. Eğitim Yayınları No: 1, 55–100, Ankara.
28. Valancogne, C., S. Dayau, T. Ameglio, P. Archer, F. A. Daudet, M. I. Ferreira Gama and M. Cohen, 1997. Relations between Relative Transpiration and Predawn Leaf Water Potential in Different Fruit Tree Species. Acta Hort. 449: 423–429.
29. Yuan, B. Z., S. Nishiyama and Y. Kang, 2003. Effects of Different Irrigation Regimes on the Growth and Yield of Drip Irrigated Potato. Agricultural Water Management, 63(3):153–167.
30. Yuan, B. Z., J. Sun and S. Nishiyama, 2004. Effect of Drip Irrigation on Strawberry Growth and Yield inside a Plastic Greenhouse. Biosyst. Eng. 87, 237–245.