Armut Ağaçlarının Farklı Anaç ve Çeşit Kombinasyonlarının Dormansi ve Aktif Büyüme Süreleri ile Fenolojik Safhalarının Belirlenmesi

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 27 Sayı: 3, 565 - 577

Zaki Ahmad Faızı Ahmet Öztürk

https://doi.org/10.18016/ksutarimdoga.vi.1297283

Öz

Bu araştırma iki ayva klon anacı (BA29 ve QA) ile beş armut klon anacı (FOX9, FOX11, OHxF333, OHxF87 ve FAROLD40) ve armut çöğür anaçları üzerine aşılanmış 'Santa Maria', 'Williams' ve 'Deveci' armut çeşitlerinin fenolojik dönemleri ile birlikte dormansi ve aktif büyüme sürelerini aydınlatmak amacıyla 2021 ve 2022 yıllarında yapılmıştır. Fenolojik evrelerin 2022'de daha erken başladığı belirlenirken aktif büyüme döneminin 2021'de (20 Kasım) 2022'den (29 Kasım) daha erken sona erdiği görülmüştür. Aktif büyüme süresi (AGD) üzerine yıl x anaç x çeşit (Y x R x C) interaksiyonu etkisine bakıldığında, sonuçlar 187.0 - 228.4 gün aralığında olduğu tespit edilmiştir. AGD, 2021 araştırma yılında ‘Santa Maria’/FOX9 kombinasyonunda en düşük (187,0 gün), 2022 araştırma yılında ‘Deveci’/FOX11 kombinasyonunda en yüksek (228,4 gün) olarak belirlenmiştir. Anaçların (R) dinlenme süresi (DD) üzerindeki ana etkisi dikkate alındığında, elde edilen sonuçlar 148.7 - 153.7 gün arasında değişmiştir. En düşük DD (148,7 gün) FOX11 anacında, en yüksek (153,7 gün) BA29 ve FOX9 anacında bulunmuştur. Meyve ağaçlarının AGD ve DD'sini anlamak, meyve bahçelerinin bilimsel ve etkili bir şekilde ideal yönetimi için kritik bir yaklaşımdır. Sonuç olarak, stres faktörlerinin olumsuz etkilerini azaltmak için nemli ılıman bölgelerde daha düşük AGD gösteren anaç ve çeşitlerin kullanılması tavsiye edilebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kültürel Uygulamalar, Nemli Ilıman, Bahçe Yönetimi, Pyrus communis

Proje Numarası

PYO.ZRT.1904.022.026

Determination of the Dormancy and Active Growth Duration of Various Rootstock and Cultivar Combinations of Pear Trees along Their Phenological Stages

Öz

This research was performed to clarify dormancy and active growth durations along with the phenological stages of 'Santa Maria', 'Williams', and 'Deveci' cultivars on eight rootstocks, including two Quince clonal rootstocks (BA29 and QA), five pear clonal rootstocks (FOX9, FOX11, OHxF333, OHxF87, and FAROLD40), and pear seedling rootstock during 2021 and 2022. It has been determined that the phenological stages start earlier in 2022; on the contrary, the active growth period ended earlier in 2021 (20 November) than in 2022 (29 November). In the case of the three combination effects of years x rootstocks x cultivars (Y x R x C) on the active growth duration (AGD), the results were obtained in the range of 187.0–228.4 days. The AGD was determined to be the lowest (187.0 days) in the ‘Santa Maria’/FOX9 combination in the year 2021, while the highest (228.4 days) in the 'Deveci’/FOX11 combination in the research year 2022. Considering the main effect of rootstocks (R) on the dormancy duration (DD), the obtained results varied between 148.7 and 153.7 days. The DD was found to be the lowest (148.7 days) on the FOX11 rootstock, while the highest (153.7 days) on the BA29 and FOX9 rootstocks. Understanding the AGD and DD of fruit trees is a critical approach for the ideal management of fruit orchards scientifically and effectively. Finally, it can be advised to use cultivars with rootstocks that show lower AGD in humid temperate regions; they will be more suitable for mitigating the adverse effects of stress factors.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Cultural Practices, Humid Temperate, Orchard Management, Pyrus communis

Destekleyen Kurum

Ondokuz Mayis University

Proje Numarası

PYO.ZRT.1904.022.026

Teşekkür

We appreciate the support provided for this project (PYO.ZRT.1904.022.026) by the Ondokuz Mayıs University Scientific Research Projects Office (OMUBAP).

Kaynakça

• Atreya, P. N., Dhakal, R., & Shrestha, J. (2021). Evaluation of phenological traits of pear varieties in warm temperate region of Nepal. Agricultural Science, 4(2), 142-153.
• Bisi, R. B., Pio, R., Farias, D. H., Locatelli, G., Barbosa, C. M. A., & Pereira, W. A. (2019). Molecular characterization of the s-alleles and compatibility among hybrid pear tree cultivars for subtropical regions. Hortscience, 54, 2104-2110. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI14261-19
• Bisi, R. B., Pio, R., Locatelli, G., Farias, D. H., & Botelho, F. B. S. (2021). General and specifc combining ability in the selection of polliniser cultivars of hybrid pear trees (Pyrus communis x P. pyrifolia). Scientia Hortic, 277, 109797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2020.109797
• Cong, L., Ling, H., Liu, S., Wang, A., Zhai, R., Yang, C., & Wang, Z., Xu, L. (2023). ‘Yunnan’ quince rootstock promoted flower bud formation of ‘Abbé Fetel’ pear by altering hormone levels and PbAGL9 expression, Journal of Plant Physiology, 282, 153924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jplph. 2023.153924
• Drepper, B., Gobin, A., Remy, S., & Van Orshoven, J. (2020). Comparing apple and pear phenology and model performance: what seven decades of observations reveal. Agronomy, 10(1), 73. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10010073
• Dondini, L., & Sansavini, S. (2012). European Pear. In: Fruit Breeding. Editors: Badanes, M.L., Byrne, D.H., New York: Springer.
• Fernandez, E., Krefting, P., Kunz, A., Do, H., Fadon, E., & Luedeling, E. (2021). Boosting statistical delineation of chill and heat periods in temperate fruit trees through multi-environment observations. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 310, 108652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet. 2021.108652
• Fadon, E., Espiau, M. T., Errea, P., Alonso Segura, J. M., & Rodrigo, J. (2023). Agroclimatic requirements of traditional european pear (Pyrus communis L.) cultivars from Australia, Europe, and North America. Agronomy, 13(2), 518. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13020518
• Hepaksoy, S. (2019). Meyvecilikte Anaç Kullanımı: Armut Anaçları. Türk Bilimsel Derlemeler Dergisi, 12(2), 69-74.
• Kurt, T., Öztürk, A. & Faizi, Z. A. (2022). Determination of Phenological and Morphological Characteristics of Some Standard Pear Cultivars on Different Quince Clonal Rootstocks. Karadeniz Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, 12(2), 782-801. https://doi.org/10.31466/kfbd.1153780
• Kumar, A., Kumar, A., Kumar, V., Tiwari, B., Singh, S., & Pandey, V. (2023). Evaluation of different elite pear (Pyrus communis L.) varieties for north western plain zone of Uttar Pradesh, India. International Journal of Environment and Climate Change, 13(6), 484-492.
• Mumtaz, S., Ganai, N. A., Bhat, K. M., Hamid, M., Ahad, S., Ashraf, S., & Majid, I. (2020). Investigation on Phenological Stages, Blooming Behavior, and Pollen Functional Ability of Different Pear Genotypes under Kashmir Conditions. International Journal of Chemical Studies, 8(4), 3121-3126. https://doi.org/10.22271/ chemi.2020.v8.i4al.10130
• Martinez‐Nicolas, J. J., Legua, P., Melgarejo, P., Martínez, R., & Hernández, F. (2016). Phenological growth stages of ‘Nashi’ tree (Pyrus pyrifolia): codification and description according to the BBCH scale. Annals of Applied Biology, 168(2), 255-263. https://doi.org/10.1111/aab.12261
• Oliveira, I. V. D. M., Lopes, P. R. C., & Silva-Matos, R. R. S. D. (2017). Phenological Characterization of Pear Trees (Pyrus Communis L.) 'Princesinha' under Semi-Arid Conditions in the Northeastern Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Fruticultura, 39(3): 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-29452017598
• Osmanoğlu, A., Şimşek, M., & Şanlı, A. (2013). Bazı Standart Armut Çeşitlerinin Bingöl Ekolojisindeki Performansı Üzerinde Bir Araştırma. Yuzuncu Yıl University Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 23(3), 222-228.
• Öztürk, A., Demirsoy, L., & Demirel, G. (2016). Seçilmiş Bazı Armut Genotiplerinin Samsun Ekolojisindeki Fenolojik Özelliklerinin Belirlenmesi. Bahçe, 45(1), 1084-1089.
• Ozturk, A., Faizi, Z. A., & Kurt, T. (2022). Performance of Some Standard Quince Varieties under Ecological Conditions of Bafra, Samsun. Yuzuncu Yıl University Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 32(2), 320-330. https://doi.org/10.29133/ yyutbd.1058908
• Öztürk, A., & Faizi, Z. A. (2022). Quality Performance of Some Local Pear Cultivars on BA29 Rootstock under High-Density Planting. International Journal of Agriculture and Wildlife Science, 8(3), 440-449. https://doi.org/10.24180/ijaws.1179193
• 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.
• Pio, R., Farias, D. H., Peche, P. M., Bisi, R. B., Fazenda, L. H. V., & Silva, A. D. (2023). Production stability of pear cultivars for cultivation in the subtropical altitude climate. Bragantia, 82, e20230167. https://doi.org/10.1590/ 1678-4499-2023-0167
• Reeves, L. A., Garratt, M. P., Fountain, M. T., & Senapathi, D. (2022). Climate-Induced Phenological Shifts in Pears– A Crop of Economic Importance in the UK. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 338, 108109. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.agee.2022.108109
• Tatari, M., Ghasemi, A., Mousavi, A., & Bahrami, H. (2017). Study on pollination and selection of the most suitable pollinizers for commercial pear cultivars (Pyrus communis L.) in Iran. Journal of Horticultural Research, 25, 49-57. https://doi.org/ 10.1515/johr-2017-0021