Kızılçam Klonlarında Çam Kese Böceği Hasarına Karşı Fiziksel Savunma Mekanizmaları: Epidermis ve Kütikula Tabakaları

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 21 Sayı: 2, 29 - 40, 30.12.2025

Ergin Yilmaz , Sezgin Ayan

https://doi.org/10.58816/duzceod.1660473

https://izlik.org/JA78UP39SR

Öz

Bu çalışmada; Türkiye’deki orman ağacı türleri arasında çam kese böceği zararına en çok maruz kalan kızılçamın (Pinus brutia Ten.), böcek zararına karşı fiziksel savunma araçları olan epidermis ve kutikula kalınlığının klonal varyasyonu araştırılmıştır. Bu amaçla; Antalya Düzlerçamı kızılçam klonal tohum bahçesinde zarara yol açan ve Akdeniz havzasındaki en önemli yaprak zararlısı olan çam kese böceğine karşı epidermis ve kutikula kalınlığının dönemsel ve klon bazlı varyasyonu araştırılmıştır. Tohum bahçesinden 2021 yılının Şubat ve Ağustos aylarında 28 farklı klon ve her klona ait üç rametten toplam 84 adet bireyde iğne yaprak numunesi alınmıştır. Örneklenen iğne yapraklar üzerinde epidermis ve kutikula kalınlığı için 1. dönem (Şubat) ve 2. dönemde (Ağustos) elde edilen verilerde değişkenler üzerinde bağımsız değişkenler olan klon ve dönem etkileri R istatistik programı ile SPSS istatistik paket programında Varyans ve Duncan çoklu testleri ile analiz edilmiştir. Analiz sonuçlarına göre dönem faktörü kütikula kalınlığı üzerinde, klon faktörü ise hem Şubat hem de Ağustos dönemlerinde epidermis ve kütikula kalınlığı üzerinde istatistiki anlamda önemli etki yapmıştır. Kese sayısına göre çam kese böceği zarar şiddeti skalası oluşturulmuş ve dayanıklı klonlar belirlenmeye çalışılmıştır. Çalışma sonucunda elde edilen verilerde, 8572, 8566, 8565 ve 8576 klonlarının çam kese böceği hasarına karşı dirençli oldukları düşünülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

çam kese böceği , epidermis , fiziksel savunma , kutikula , Pinus brutia

Destekleyen Kurum

Kastamonu Üniversitesi

Proje Numarası

Kastamonu Üniversitesi Bilimsel Araştırma Projeleri Koordinatörlüğü BAP01/2020/47 numaralı proje

Teşekkür

Ergin YILMAZ, Kastamonu Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Sürdürülebilir Ormancılık Programında Yükseköğretim Kurulu'nun 100/2000 bursuyla desteklenmiştir. Çalışma, BAP01/2020/47 numaralı proje ile Kastamonu Üniversitesi Bilimsel Araştırma Projeleri Koordinatörlüğü’nce finansal olarak desteklenmiştir. Çalışmaya sağladıkları lojistik destek için yazarlar, Orman Genel Müdürlüğüne ve makalenin istatistiki analizlerine verdiği katkılardan dolayı Dr. Orhan GÜLSEVEN’e teşekkürlerini sunar.

Physical Defense Mechanisms Against Pine Processionary Moth Damage in Brutian Pine Clones: Epidermis and Cuticle Layers

https://izlik.org/JA78UP39SR

Öz

In this study focuses on the physical defense mechanisms, namely the epidermis and cuticle thickness variations, against insect damage in Brutian pine (Pinus brutia Ten.), which is most affected by the pine processionary moth, compared to other forest tree species in Türkiye. Specifically, the variation in epidermis and cuticle thickness of clones in clons of Brutian pine was analyzed in relation to pine processionary moth damage. For this purpose, pine needle samples were collected from 28 different clones and three ramets per clone (a total of 84 individuals) from the Düzlerçamı Brutian pine seed orchard in Antalya in February and August 2021. The epidermis and cuticle-dependent variables were analyzed by performing variance analysis and Duncan's multiple range test using the R statistical program and SPSS software to determine the effects of the independent variables (clone and period) on these variables. According to the analysis results, the period factor was found to significantly affect cuticle thickness, while the clone factor had a statistically significant effect on both epidermis and cuticle thickness during both the February and August periods. A damage severity scale for pine processionary moth based on the number of nests was developed, and efforts were made to identify resistant clones. Based on the data obtained, clones 8572, 8566, 8565, and 8576 are considered to be resistant to pine processionary moth damage.

Anahtar Kelimeler

pine processionary moth , epidermis , physical defense cuticle , Pinus brutia

Proje Numarası

Kastamonu Üniversitesi Bilimsel Araştırma Projeleri Koordinatörlüğü BAP01/2020/47 numaralı proje

Kaynakça

• Algan, G. (1981). Microtechnics for the plant tissues. Fırat University.
• Battisti, A. (1988). Host‐plant relationships and population dynamics of the pine processionary caterpillar Thaumetopoea pityocampa (Denis ve Schiffermuller). Journal of Applied Entomology, 105(1‐5), 393–402. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0418.1988.tb00202.x
• Battisti, A., Stastny, M., Netherer, S., Robinet, C., Schopf, A., Roques, A. ve Larsson, S. (2005). Expansion of geographic range in the pine processionary moth caused by increased winter temperatures. Ecological Applications, 15(6), 2084–2096. https://doi.org/10.1890/04-1903
• Biere, A., Marak, H. B. ve van Damme, J. M. (2004). Plant chemical defense against herbivores and pathogens: generalized defense or trade-offs? Oecologia, 140, 430–441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-004-1603-6
• Caldwell, E., Read, J. ve Sanson, G. D. (2015). Which leaf mechanical traits correlate with insect herbivory among feeding guilds? Annals of Botany, 117(2), 349–361. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcv178
• Carus, S. (2004). Impact of defoliation by the pine processionary moth (Thaumetopoea pityocampa) on radial, height and volume growth of Calabrian pine (Pinus brutia) trees in Turkey. Phytoparasitica, 32, 459–469. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02980440
• Cates, R. G. (1980). Feeding patterns of monophagous, oligophagous, and polyphagous insect herbivores: the effect of resource abundance and plant chemistry. Oecologia, 46, 22–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00346961
• Clissold, F. J., Sanson, G. D., Read, J. ve Simpson, S. J. (2009). Gross vs. net income: how plant toughness affects performance of an insect herbivore. Ecology, 90(12), 3393–3405. https://doi.org/10.1890/09-0130.1
• Coley, P. D. (1983). Herbivory and defensive characteristics of tree species in a lowland tropical forest. Ecological Monographs, 53(2), 209–234. https://doi.org/10.2307/1942495
• Conkle, M. T., Schiller, G. ve Grunwald, C. (1988). Electrophoretic analysis of diversity and phylogeny of Pinus brutia and closely related taxa. Systematic Botany, 13(3), 411–424. https://doi.org/10.2307/2419301
• Despland, E. (2018). Effects of phenological synchronization on caterpillar early-instar survival under a changing climate. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 48(3), 247–254. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfr-2016-0537
• Eigenbrode, S. D. ve Espelie, K. E. (1995). Effects of plant epicuticular lipids on insect herbivores. Annual Review of Entomology, 40, 171–194. https://doi.org/cw4ghc
• Eigenbrode, S. D. ve Pillai, S. K. (1998). Neonate Plutella xylostella responses to surface wax components of a resistant cabbage (Brassica oleracea). Journal of Chemical Ecology, 24, 1611–1627. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020812411015
• Felton, G. W. ve Korth, K. L. (2000). Trade-offs between pathogen and herbivore resistance. Current Opinion in Plant Biology, 3(4), 309–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1369-5266(00)00086-8
• Fuentealba, A., Sagne, S., Legendre, G., Pureswaran, D., Bauce, É. ve Despland, E. (2020). Leaf toughness as a mechanism of defence against spruce budworm. Arthropod-Plant Interactions, 14, 481–489. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11829-020-09761-w
• Gong, B., ve Zhang, G. (2014). Interactions between plants and herbivores: A review of plant defense. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 34(6), 325–336.
• Hanley, M. E., Lamont, B. B., Fairbanks, M. M. ve Rafferty, C. M. (2007). Plant structural traits and their role in anti-herbivore defence. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, 8(4), 157–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppees.2007.01.001
• Hatcher, P. E. (1990). Seasonal and age-related variation in the needle quality of five conifer species. Oecologia, 85(2), 200–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00319402
• Huang, T., Jander, G. ve de Vos, M. (2011). Non-protein amino acids in plant defense against insect herbivores: representative cases and opportunities for further functional analysis. Phytochemistry, 72(13), 1531–1537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phytochem.2011.03.019
• Jenks, M. A., Eigenbrode, S. D. ve Lemieux, B. (2002). Cuticular waxes of Arabidopsis. The Arabidopsis Book, 1, e0016. https://doi.org/10.1199/tab.0016
• Johansen, H. (1944). Die Vogelfauna Westsibiriens: II. Teil. Systematik und verbreitung, Oekologie und Biologie der Einzelarten. Journal Für Ornithologie, 92(1-2), 1–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02086329
• Kanat, M., Alma, M. H. ve Sivrikaya, F. (2005). Effect of defoliation by Thaumetopoea pityocampa (Den. & Schiff.) (Lepidoptera: Thaumetopoeidae) on annual diameter increment of Pinus brutia Ten. in Turkey. Annals of Forest Science, 62(1), 91–94. https://doi.org/10.1051/forest:2004095
• Kanat, M., Sivrikaya, F. ve Sezer, M., (2002). Kahramanmaraş yöresindeki Kızılçamlarda (P. brutia) çam keseböceği (T. pityocampa) zararının çap artımına etkisi. Ülkemiz ormanlarında çam kese böceği sorunu ve çözüm önerileri sempozyumu bildiri kitabı içinde (ss. 44-51).
• Kaya, Z. ve Raynal, D. J. (2001). Biodiversity and conservation of Turkish forests. Biological Conservation, 97(2), 131–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(00)00069-0
• Krischik, V. A., Goth, R. W. ve Barbosa, P. (1991). Generalized plant defense: effects on multiple species. Oecologia, 85, 562–571. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00323769
• Kukarskih, V. V., Devi, N. M., Surkov, A. Y., Bubnov, M. O., Gorlanova, L. A., Ekba, Y. A. ve Hantemirov, R. M. (2020). Climatic responses of Pinus brutia along the Black Sea coast of crimea and the caucasus. Dendrochronologia, 64, 125763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dendro.2020.125763
• Laurent-Hervouët, N. (1986). Mesure des pertes de croissance radiale sur quelques espèces de Pinus dues à deux défoliateurs forestiers. I-Cas de la processionnaire du pin en région méditerranéenne. Annals of Forest Science, 43(2), 239–262. https://doi.org/10.1051/forest:19860209
• Lemoine, B. (1977). Contribution à la mesure des pertes de production causeés par la chenille processionnaire (Thaumetopoea pityocampa Schiff.) au Pin maritime dans les Landes de Gascogne. Annals of Forest Science, 34(3), 205–214. https://doi.org/10.1051/forest/19770302
• Loranger, J., Meyer, S. T., Shipley, B., Kattge, J., Loranger, H., Roscher, C., Wirth, H. ve Weisser, W. W. (2013). Predicting invertebrate herbivory from plant traits: Polycultures show strong nonadditive effects. Ecology, 94(7), 1499–1509. https://doi.org/10.1890/12-2063.1
• Lucas, P. W., Turner, I. M., Dominy, N. J. ve Yamashita, N. (2000). Mechanical defences to herbivory. Annals of Botany, 86(5), 913–920. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbo.2000.1261
• Mavi, D. Ö., Doğan, M. ve Cabi, E. (2011). Comparative leaf anatomy of the genus Hordeum L. (Poaceae). Turkish Journal of Botany, 35(4), 357–368. https://doi.org/10.3906/bot-1003-14
• McMillin J. D. ve Wagner M. R. (1996) Season and intensity of water stress effects on needle toughness of ponderosa pine. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 26(7), 1166–1173. https://doi.org/10.1139/x26-130
• Meyer, G. A. ve Montgomery, M. E. (1987). Relationships between leaf age and the food quality of cottonwood foliage for the gypsy moth, Lymantria dispar. Oecologia, 72, 527–532.
• Miles, P. W. (1999). Aphid saliva. Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 74(1), 41–85. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0006323198005271
• Mitchell, C., Brennan, R. M., Graham, J. ve Karley, A. J. (2016). Plant defense against herbivorous pests: exploiting resistance and tolerance traits for sustainable crop protection. Frontiers in Plant Science, 7, 1132. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.01132
• Moreira, X., Abdala-Roberts, L., Parra-Tabla, V. ve Mooney, K. A. (2014). Positive effects of plant genotypic and species diversity on anti-herbivore defenses in a tropical tree species. PLoS One, 9(8), e105438. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0105438
• Nahal, I. (1977). Pinus brutia Ten. subsp. brutia and the climate factors. Journal of Aleppo University, Agricultural Science Series. Nr. 2: 47–65 (in Arabic).
• Paul, N. D., Hatcher, P. E. ve Taylor, J. E. (2000). Coping with multiple enemies: an integration of molecular and ecological perspectives. Trends in Plant Science, 5(5), 220–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1360-1385(00)01603-4
• Pearse, I. S. (2011). The role of leaf defensive traits in oaks on the preference and performance of a polyphagous herbivore, Orgyia vetusta. Ecological Entomology, 36(5), 635–642. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2311.2011.01308.x
• Quézel, P. (1985). Les Pins Du Groupe Halepensis: Ecologie Vegetation Ecophysiologie. In: Ciheam, Editor. Le pin d‟alep et le Pin Brutia dans la sylviculture méditerranéenne. Options Méditerranéennes Série Etudes, 86, 11–66.
• Raupp M. J. (1985) Effects of leaf toughness on mandibular wear of the leaf beetle, Plagiodera versicolora. Ecological Entomology, 10(1), 73–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2311.1985.tb00536.x
• Raven, J. A. (1983). Phytophages of xylem and phloem: A comparison of animal and plant sap-feeders. Advances in Ecological Research, 13, 135–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2504(08)60109-9
• Selitrennikoff, C. P. (2001). Antifungal proteins. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 67(7), 2883–2894. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.67.7.2883-2894.2001
• Wagner M. R. ve Zhang Z-Y. (1993). Host plant traits associated with resistance of ponderosa pine to the sawfy, Neodiprion fulviceps. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 23(5), 839–845. https://doi.org/10.1139/x93-109
• Waller, D. A. (1982). Leaf‐cutting ants and live oak: the role of leaf toughness in seasonal and intraspecific host choice. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 32(2), 146–150. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1570-7458.1982.tb03195.x
• Wink, M. (1987). Quinolizidine alkaloids: biochemistry, metabolism, and function in plants and cell suspension cultures. Planta Medica, 53(6), 509–514. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2006-962797
• Wink, M. (1988). Plant breeding: importance of plant secondary metabolites for protection against pathogens and herbivores. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 75, 225–233. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00303957
• Yena, A., Yena, A. ve Yena, V. (2005). ‘Stankiewicz pine’ in Crimea: Some new taxonomical, chorological and paleo-landscape considerations. Dendrobiology, 53, 63–69.