Bazı Hibrit Kestane Genotip ve Çeşitlerinin Aşı Performanslarının Belirlenmesi

Öz

Bu çalışma, yeni tescil edilen bazı hibrit kestane çeşitlerinin ve genotipinin aşı uyuşma durumunu belirlemek amacıyla yapılmıştır. Çalışma 2012-2018 yılları arasında Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi ve Karadeniz Tarımsal Araştırma Enstitüsü'nde yürütülmüştür. Çalışmada 'Marigoule', Akyüz', 'Ali Nihat' ve 'Macit 55' çeşitleri kalem ve anaç olarak, A41 genotipi ise sadece anaç olarak denenmiştir. 2014 yılında generatif anaçlarda, 2015 yılında da ana bitkilerde yongalı göz aşısı kullanılarak aşılamalar yapılmıştır. Aşı başarısı (%), aşılamadan 30 gün sonra ve yaşama oranı (%) vejetasyon sonunda belirlenmiştir. Ayrıca vejetasyon sonunda dijital kumpas yardımı ile anaç, aşı bölgesi ve kalem çapı ölçülmüştür. Çalışma sonucunda ‘Ali Nihat’ ve A41 generatif anaçlarıyla oluşturulan kombinasyonlarda aşı başarısı ve yaşama oranı düşük bulunmuştur. Bitkiler arasında aşı başarısı ve yaşama oranı açısından en iyi generatif anaç ‘Macit 55’ çeşidi olmuştur. "Macit 55" anacının hem kendisi ('Macit 55'), "Akyüz" hem de "Ali Nihat" çeşitleri ile aşı uyumunun iyi olduğu görülmüştür. 'Marigoule' çeşidi genellikle çalışmada denenen karmaşık melezlerle ciddi aşı uyuşmazlığı göstermiştir. Ana bitkilere yapılan aşılarda Ali Nihat anacının kendisi (‘Ali Nihat’), ‘Akyüz’ ve ‘Macit 55’ çeşitleri için uyumlu bir anaç olduğu belirlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Castanea spp.
• Yongalı göz aşı
• Ana bitki
• anaç

Determination of The Grafting Performance of Some Hybrid Chestnut Genotypes and Cultivars

Abstract

This study has been carried out to determine the graft compatibility of newly registered some hybrid chestnut cultivars and genotype. The study was conducted between 2012-2018 at the Ondokuz Mayıs University and the Black Sea Agricultural Research Institute. In the study, ‘Marigoule’, Akyüz’, ‘Ali Nihat’ and ‘Macit 55’ cultivars were tested as scion and rootstock, and A41 genotype was tested only as rootstock. Grafting studies were carried out on generative rootstocks in 2014 and mother plants in 2015 using the chip budding method. Graft success (%) was determined 30 days after grafting and survival ratio (%) at the end of the vegetation period. Also rootstock, graft area and scion diameter were measured at the end of the vegetation period by digital caliper. As a result of the study, graft success and survival ratio were low in combinations created with ‘Ali Nihat’ and A41 generative rootstocks. Among the plants, the best generative rootstock was the ‘Macit 55’ cultivar in terms of graft success and survival ratio. ‘Macit 55’ rootstock had good graft compatibility with both itself (‘Macit 55’), ‘Akyüz’ and ‘Ali Nihat’ cultivars. ‘Marigoule’ cultivar has generally shown severe graft incompatibility with complex hybrids tested in the study. In the grafts made on clone plants, the ‘Ali Nihat’ rootstock was determined as a good rootstock for itself (‘Ali Nihat’), ‘Akyüz’ and ‘Macit 55’ cultivars.

Keywords

• Castanea spp.
• chip budding
• mother plant
• rootstock

Kaynakça

1. Akyüz, B., & Serdar, U. (2020). Generative rootstock potential of some hybrid chestnut genotypes. Anadolu Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 35, 185-191. https://doi.org/10.7161/omuanajas.653388
2. Bueno, S. C. S., Tokunaga, T., Berti, A. J., Coutinho, E. L., Maia, A. H., & Yamanishi, O. K. (2009). Grafting compatibility among eleven chestnut cultivars and hybrids. Acta Horticulturae, 844, 127-132. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2009.844.17
3. Chapa, J., Chazerans, P., & Coulie, J. (1990). Multiplication végétative du châtaignier. L’Arboriculture Fruitière, 43, 41–48.
4. Chapa, J., & Verlhac, A. (1978). Principales varietes fruitieres de chataigner cultiees en France. INRA Centre de Recherches de Bordeaux Stat. de Recherches d’Arboriculture Fruitiere Pont-de-La-Maye, 33, 65.
5. Craddock, J. H., & Bassi, G. (1999). Effect of clonally propagated interspecıfıc hybrid chestnut rootstocks on short-term graft compatibility with four cultıvars of Italian “Marrone”. Acta Horticulturae, 494, 207-212. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.1999.494.31
6. Çil, Y. (2018). Bazı kestane çeşit ve genotiplerinin kestane gal arısına hassasiyetlerinin belirlenmesi. [Yüksek lisans tezi, Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi]. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/
7. Dayong, G., Qi, T., & Renxue, X. (2004). Studies on relationship between phenol content and graft compatibility in chestnut. Journal of Agricultural University, 23(3), 341-343.
8. Ertan, E. (1999). Seleksiyon ile belirlenmiş Ege bölgesi kestane (Castanea sativa Mill.) tiplerinin anaçlık özelliklerinin belirlenmesi üzerine araştırmalar. [Doktora tezi]. Aydın Adnan Menderes Üniversitesi, Aydın.

9. FAOSTAT. (2021). Dünya kestane üretim miktarı. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/. [Erişim tarihi: 10 Ekim 2021]. Hartmann, H. T., Kester, D. E., Davies, F. T., & Geneve, R. L. (2014). Hartmann and Kester’s Plant Propagation: Principles and Practices. Pearson Education UK.
10. Huang, H. W., Norton, J. D., Boyhan, G. E., & Abrahams, B. R. (1994). Graft compatibility among chestnut (Castanea) species. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science, 119(6), 1127-1132. https://doi.org/10.21273/JASHS.119.6.1127
11. Hulcr, J., & Stelinski, L. L. (2017). The ambrosia symbiosis: from evolutionary ecology to practical management. Annual Review of Entomology, 62, 285-303. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ento-031616-035105
12. Ishibashi, H., Watanabe, S., & Ino, Y. (1983). Studies on the graft compatibility in" Tamatsukuri" chestnut trees. Bulletin of the Chiba-ken Foundation Seed and Stock Farm (Japan), 15-27.
13. Johnson, G. P. (1988). Revision of Castanea sect Balanocastanon (Fagaceae). Journal of the Arnold Arboretum, 25-49.
14. Macit, I., Serdar, U., Er, E., & Akyuz, B. (2018). Some chestnut interspecific hybrids from Turkey. Acta horticulturae, 1220, 67-70. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2018.1220.10
15. Mendel, Z., Lynch, S. C., Eskalen, A., Protasov, A., Maymon, M., & Freeman, S. (2021). What determines host range and reproductive performance of an invasive ambrosia beetle Euwallacea fornicatus; lessons from Israel and California. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, 4, 29. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2021.654702
16. Oraguzie, N. C., McNeil, D. L., & Thomas, M. B. (1998). Examination of graft failure in New Zealand chestnut (Castanea spp) selections. Scientia Horticulturae, 76(1-2), 89-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4238(98)00123-X
17. Pereira-Lorenzo, S., Costa, R., Anagnostakis, S., Serdar, U., Yamamoto, T., Saito, T., Ramos-Cabrer, A. M., Ling, Q., Barreneche, T., & Robin, C. (2016). Interspecific hybridization of chestnut. In A. S. Mason (Eds), Polyploidy and hybridization for crop improvement (pp. 377-407). CRC Press.
18. Pereira-Lorenzo, S., & Fernández-López, J. (1997). Propagation of chestnut cultivars by grafting: methods, rootstocks and plant quality. Journal of Horticultural Science, 72(5), 731-739. https://doi.org/10.1080/14620316.1997.11515565
19. Pereira-Lorenzo, S., & Ramos-Cabrer, A. M. (2004). Chestnut, an Ancient Crop with Future. In R. Dris & S. M. Jain (Eds.), Production Practices and Quality Assessment of Food Crops Volume 1 (pp. 105-161). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2533-5_5
20. Santamour, F. S. (1988). Graft incompatibility related to cambial peroxidase isozymes in Chinese chestnut. Journal of Environmental Horticulture, 6(2), 33-39.
21. Serdar, U., Demirsoy, H., Macit, I., & Ertürk, U. (2010). Graft compatibility in some Turkish chestnut genotypes (C. sativa Mill.). Acta horticulturae, 866, 285-290. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2010.866.34
22. Serdar, Ü. (2000). Kestanelerde değişik aşı yöntem ve zamanlarının aşılı fidan üretimi üzerine etkileri. [Doktora tezi]. Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi, Samsun.
23. Serdar, Ü., Akyüz, B., & Fulbright, W. (2014, Nisan 7-9). Graft success of hybrids on European chestnut rootstock and development of chestnut blight disease [Sözlü bildiri]. 2nd Symposium of Turkey Forest Entomology and Pathology, Türkiye.
24. Serdar, Ü., & Soylu, A. (2005). The effect of grafting time and methods on chestnut nursery tree production. Acta Horticulturae, 693, 187-194. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2005.693.22
25. Thomas, A. L., Avery, J. D., Byers, P. L., Easter, S., & Hunt, K. (2015). Ozark chinkapin demonstrates compatibility as a scion grafted to Chinese chestnut rootstocks: implications for ex situ conservation. Native Plants Journal, 16(2), 117-125. https://doi.org/10.3368/npj.16.2.117
26. Tokar, F., & Kovalovsky, D. (1971). Grafting of Castanea sativa Mill. in the open air. Pol'nohospodarstvo Agriculture, 3, 164-172.
27. Ufuk, S., & Soylu, A. (1999). Researches on stock-scion compatibility between some important chestnut cultivars and hybrid rootstocks. Acta Horticulturae, 494, 223-230. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.1999.494.33
28. Viéitez, M. L., & Viéitez, A. M. (1982). Observaciones sobre el injerto juvenil del castano. Anales de Edafologia y Agrobiologia, 41(9), 1999–2002.
29. Warmund, M. R., Cumbie, B. G., & Coggeshall, M. V. (2012). Stem anatomy and grafting success of Chinese chestnut scions on ‘AU-Cropper’and ‘Qing’ seedling rootstocks. HortScience, 47(7), 893-895. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.47.7.893
30. Zhang, Y. H., Wang, F. D., Gao, X. Y., & Zao, Y. X. (1987). Chestnuts. China Forestry Publishing House.