Phenotypic Diversity of The Chestnut Genotypes in Yağlıdere District (Giresun, Türkiye)

Öz

Phenotypic diversity and population relationships of chestnut genotypes (Castanea sativa Mill.) growing spontaneously in forested areas of Yağlıdere district (Giresun, Türkiye) were investigated according to fruit traits. In 7 different populations where chestnut trees are dense in the region, 15 healthy genotypes and 105 genotypes in total were evaluated for 14 fruit traits. It was determined that the coefficient of variation was less than 20% except for nut and kernel weight. Correlation analysis revealed that 56 out of 91 relationships were significant and 51 of them were positive. The highest positive relationships were found between nut weight, kernel weight, kernel percentage, nut height and nut length. Only nut height/nut length ratio and stalk base length showed significant variation among populations. In within-population principal component analysis, the first four principal components explained 77.38% of the total variance. The relationships between the first principal component and nut width, nut length, nut height, the distance from the base to the largest section of the nut, nut weight and kernel weight were found to be high and positive. In the principal component analysis between populations, the first four principal components explained 88.98% of the total variance. The highest positive correlation was shown by scar length/scar width and nut height in the first principal component, nut length and distance from the base to the largest section of the nut in the second principal component, scar length and scar length/nut length in the third component and nut width in the fourth component, respectively. Cluster analysis divided genotypes into 12 clusters and populations into 2 clusters. In conclusion, principal component and clustering analysis explained the phenotypic diversity of 105 chestnut genotypes in the natural population in Yağlıdere district according to fruit traits and population relationships explained the whole phenotypic variation among genotypes.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Castanea sativa
• Clustering
• Correlation
• Population
• Principal component
• Variation

Yağlıdere ilçesindeki (Giresun, Türkiye) kestane genotiplerinin fenotipik çeşitliliği

Öz

Yağlıdere ilçesi (Giresun, Türkiye) ormanlık alanlarda kendiliğinden yetişen kestane genotiplerinin (Castanea sativa Mill.) meyve özelliklerine göre fenotipik çeşitliliği ve populasyon ilişkileri araştırılmıştır. Yörede kestane ağaçlarının yoğun olduğu 7 farklı populasyonda sağlıklı durumda olan 15’er genotip ve toplamda 105 genotip 14 meyve özelliği yönünden değerlendirilmiştir. Kabuklu ve iç meyve ağırlığı dışındakilerin %20’nin altında varyasyon katsayısına sahip olduğu belirlenmiştir. Korelasyon analizi toplam 91 ilişkiden 56 tanesinin önemli olduğunu ve bunların da 51 tanesinin pozitif yönlü olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. En yüksek pozitif ilişkiler meyve ağırlığı, iç ağırlığı, iç oranı, meyve yükseliği ve boyu arasında ortaya çıkmıştır. Sadece meyve yüksekliği/meyve boyu oranı ve sap tabanı uzunluğu populasyonlar arasında önemli değişim göstermiştir. Populasyon içi temel bileşen analizinde ilk dört temel bileşen toplam varyansın %77.38’ini açıklamıştır. Birinci temel bileşenle meyve eni, meyve boyu, meyve yüksekliği, meyve tabanı ile en geniş yeri arasındaki mesafe, meyve ağırlığı ve iç ağırlığı arasındaki ilişkilerin yüksek ve pozitif yönde bulunmuştur. Populasyonlar arası temel bileşen analizinde ilk dört temel bileşen toplam varyansın %88.98’ini açıklamıştır. En yüksek pozitif ilişkiyi, sırasıyla, birinci temel bileşende meyve tabanı boyu/meyve tabanı eni ve meyve yüksekliği, 2. temel bileşende meyve boyu ve meyve tabanı ile en geniş yeri arasındaki mesafe, üçüncü bileşende meyve tabanı boyu ve meyve tabanı boyu/meyve boyu ve dördüncü bileşende meyve eni göstermiştir. Kümeleme analizi genotipleri 12 kümeye, popülasyonları da 2 kümeye ayırmıştır. Sonuç olarak, temel bileşen ve kümeleme analizi ile Yağlıdere ilçesindeki doğal populasyondaki 105 kestane genotipinin meyve özelliklerine göre fenotipik çeşitliliği ve populasyon ilişkileri genotipler arasındaki fenotipik varyasyonun tamamını açıklamıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Castanea sativa
• Kümeleme
• Korelasyon
• Populasyon
• Temel bileşen
• Varyasyon

Kaynakça

1. Alizoti PG, Aravanopoulos FA, 2005. Genetic variation of fruit traits in hellenic chestnut (Castanea sativa Mill.) populations: A first assessment. Acta Horticulturae 693: 413-420. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2005.693.51
2. Anonim, 2022. Giresun İli Meteoroloji Verileri. Meteoroloji Genel Müdürlüğü, Ankara.
3. Aravanopoulos FA, Drouzas AD, Alizoti PG, 2001. Electrophoretic and quantitative variation in chestnut (Castanea sativa Mill.) in Hellenic populations in old-growth natural and coppice stands. Forest Snow and Landscape Research 76(3): 429-434.
4. Aravanopoulos FA, 2005. Phenotypic variation and population relationships of chestnut (Castanea sativa) in Greece, revealed by multivariate analysis of leaf morphometrics. Acta Horticulturae 693: 233-240. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2005.693.28
5. Atar F, Turna İ, 2018. Fruit and seedling diversity among sweet chestnut (Castanea Sativa Mill.) populations in Turkey. Šumarski list 142(11-12): 611-619. https://doi.org/10.31298/sl.142.11-12.5 Atefe K, Kambiz TA, Javad T, 2015. Variations in leaf and fruit morphological traits of sweet chestnut (Castanea Sativa) in Hyrcanian forests, Iran. International Journal of Plant Research 1(4): 155-161.
6. Beccar, GL, Botta R, Marinoni DT, Akkak A, Bounous G, 2005. Application and evaluation of morphological, phenological and molecular techniques for the characterization of Castanea sativa Mill. cultivars. Acta Horticulturae 693: 453-458. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2005.693.57
7. Bilgen Z, Bostan SZ, 2018. Selection of chestnut (Castanea sativa Mill.) genotypes in İnegöl County (Bursa province, Turkey). Acta Horticulturae 1220: 61-66. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2018.1220.9
8. Bolvansky M, Mendel L, 2001. Revised descriptor list for the evaluation of genetic resources of European chestnut (Castanea sativa Mill.). Forest Snow and Landscape Research 76(3): 439-444.

9. Bostan SZ, Üçkardeş F, Koç Güler S, 2018. Classification of chestnut genotypes (Castanea sativa Mill.) by morphological traits. Acta Horticulturae 1220: 13-22. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2018.1220.3
10. Bruschi P, Grossoni P, Bussotıı F, 2003. Within and among tree variation in leaf morphology of Quercus petraea (Matt.) Liebl. natural populations. Trees 17: 164-172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00468-002-0218-y
11. Cousens JE, 1963. Variation in some diagnostic characters of the sessile and pedunculate oaks and their hybrids in Scotland. Watsonia 5(5): 273-286.
12. Cruz CD, Regazzi AJ, Carneiro PCS, 1994. Modelos biometricos applicados ao melhoramento genetico. Universidade Federal de Vic¸osa, Vic¸osa.
13. Cutino I, Marchese A, Marra FP, Caruso T, 2010. Genetic improvement of sweet chestnut in Sicily (Castanea sativa Mill.) by the selection of superior autochthonous genotypes. Acta Horticulturae 866: 175-180. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2010.866.20
14. Diamandis S, Perlerou C, 1996. Biological control of chestnut blight and resin top disease of scots pine in Greece. In Proceedings of the Greek-Bulgarian Conference. Drama: Geotte Publ., 93-99.
15. Ertan E, 2007. Variability in leaf and fruit morphology and in fruit composition of chestnuts (Castanea sativa Mill.) in the Nazilli region of Turkey. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 54: 691-699. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-006-0020-6
16. Glushkova M, 2007. Distribution of sweet chestnut (Castanea sativa Mill.) genetic resources in Belasitza Mountain. Sustainable Management of Sweet Chestnut Ecosystems CAST Bul., 127-135.
17. Grygorieva O, Klymenko S, Brindza J, Schubertová Z, Nikolaieva N, Šimková J, 2017. Morphometric characteristics of sweet chestnut (Castanea sativa Mill.) fruits. Potravinárstvo: Slovak Journal of Food Sciences 11(1): 288-295. https://dx.doi.org/10.5219/684
18. Grygorieva O, Klymenko S, Vinogradova Y, Ilyinska A, Piórecki N, Brindza J, 2018. Leaf characteristics as important morphometric discriminators for chestnut (Castanea sativa Mıll.) genotypes. Agrobiodiversity for Improving Nutrition, Health and Life Quality 2018: 146-158. https://doi.org/10.15414/agrobiodiversity.2018.2585-8246.146-158
19. Huang HW, 1998. Review of current research of the world castanea species and importance of germplasm conservation of native castanea species. J. Wuhan Bot Res. 16: 171-176.
20. Huang H, Dane F, Norton JD, 1995. Seguin chestnut: a precocious, draft chestnut species for chestnut breeding program and food source for wildlife. Northern Nut Growers Association, Annual Report 87: 21-23.
21. Kremer A, Dupouey JL, Deans JD, Cotterell J, Csaıkl U, Finkeldey R, Espinel S, Jensen J, Kleinschmit J, Van Dam B, Ducousso A, Forrest I, De Heredia UL, Lowe AJ, Tutkova M, Munro RC, Stenhoft S, Badeau V, 2002. Leaf morphological differentiation between Quercus robur and Quercus petraea is stable across western European mixed oak stands. Ann. Forest Sci. 59: 777-787.
22. Lang P, Huang H, 1999. Genetic variation and population structure of three endemic castanea species in China. Acta Horticulturae 494: 269-276. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.1999.494.40
23. MacKey J, 1988. A plant breeder’s aspect on the taxonomy of cultivated plants. Biologisches Zentralblatt 107: 369-379.
24. Mujagić-Pašić, A., & Ballian, D. (2012). Variability of the sweet chestnut (Castanea sativa Mill.) based on the morphological properties of the leaf in natural populations of Bosanska Krajina. Radovi Šumarskog fakulteta Univerziteta u Sarajevu, 42(1), 57-69.
25. Neophytou CH, Palli G, Dounavi A, Aravanopoulos FA, 2007. Morphological differentiation and hybridization between Quercus alnifolia Poech and Quercus coccifera L. (Fagaceae) in Cyprus. Silvae Genetica 56 (1-6): 271-277. https://doi.org/10.1515/sg-2007-0038
26. Olsson U, 1975. A morphological analysis of phenotypes in populations of quercus (Fagaceae) in Sweden. Botaniska Notiser 128 (1): 55-68.
27. Oraguzie NC, McNeil DL, Klinac DJ, Knowles RD, Sedcole JR, 1998. Relationships of chestnut species and New Zealand chestnut selections using morpho-nut characters. Euphytica 99 (1), 27-33.
28. Ormeci Y, Akca Y, Ercisli S, 2016. Selection of promising chestnuts (Castanea sativa) among wild growing trees from southern Mediterranean region forests of Turkey. Journal of Forestry Research 27: 349-355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-015-0142-9
29. Özçağıran R, Ünal A, Özeker E, İsfendiyaroğlu M, 2014. Ilıman İklim Meyve Türleri, Sert Kabuklu Meyveler Cilt-III. Ege Üniversitesi Yayınları, Ziraat Fakültesi Yayın No: 566.
30. Pandit AH, Mir MA, Kour A, Bhat KM, 2013. Variability and selection of chestnut (Castanea Sativa Mill.) genotypes in Srinagar District of Kashmir Valley. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Sciences 50(2): 205-209.
31. Peeters, J. P., & Martinelli, J. A. (1989). Hierarchical cluster analysis as a tool to manage variation in germplasm collections. Theoretical and applied genetics 78: 42-48.
32. Pereira-Lorenzo S, Fernández-López J, Moreno-González J, 1996. Variability and grouping of Northwestern Spanish chestnut cultivars. I. morphological traits. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 121(2): 183-189.
33. Peterson AT, Patricia Escalante P, Adolfo Navarro S, 1992. Genetic variation and differentiation in Mexican populations of Common Bush-Tanagers and Chestnut-capped Brush-Finches. The Condor, 94(1), 244-253. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1368813
34. Pigliucci M, Paoletti C, Fineschi S, Malvolti ME, 1991. Phenotypic integration in chestnut (Castanea Sativa Mıll.): Leaves versus fruit. Botanical Gazette 152(4): 514-521. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2995253 Poljak I, Vahˇci´c N, Vidakovi´c A, Tumpa K, Žarkovi´c I, Idžojti´c M, 2021. Traditional sweet chestnut and hybrid varieties: Chemical Composition, morphometric and qualitative nut characteristics. Agronomy 11 (516): 1-20. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11030516
35. Poljak I, Vahˇci´c N, Liber Z, Šatovi´c Z, Idžojti´c M, 2022. Morphological and chemical variation of wild sweet chestnut (Castanea sativa Mill.) populations. Forests 13(55): 1-20. https://doi.org/10.3390/f13010055
36. Qin L, Feng YQ, Xu HM, Dong QH, Gao XH, 2005. The diversity of castanea resources and cultivars ımprovement in China. Acta Horticulturae 693: 421-430. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2005.693.52
37. Queijeiro JM, Blanco D, De la Montaña J, Miguez M, 2005. Identification and morphological description of chestnut cultivars of the Region of Verín-Monterrei (Ourense, Spain). Acta Horticulturae 693: 285-292. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2005.693.35
38. Serdar Ü, Kurt N, 2011. Some leaf characteristics are better morphometric discriminators for chestnut genotypes. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology 13: 885-894.
39. Serdar Ü, Mercan L, Okumuş A, Soylu A, 2014. Morphological and molecular comparison of selected chestnut (Castanea Sativa Mill.) genotypes from Black Sea Region of Turkey. Anadolu Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi 29(1): 54-62. http://dx.doi.org/10.7161/anajas.2014.29.1.54
40. Serdar Ü, Bounous G, Ertürk U, Akyüz B, Fulbright DW, 2018. Evaluation of the descriptive characteristics of chestnut. Acta Horticulturae 1220: 35-44. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2018.1220.6
41. Skender A, Kurtović M, Hadžiabulić S, Aliman J, 2013. Pomological and genetic analysis of chestnut (Castanea sativa Mill.) in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Genetics, Plant Breeding and Seed Production. 48th Croatian & 8th International Symposium on Agriculture, Dubrovnik, Croatia. Proceedings: 318-322.
42. Solar A, Podjavoršek A, Osterc G, Štampar F, 2001. Evaluation and comparison of domestic chestnut (Castanea sativa Mill.) populations in Slovenia. For. Snow Landsc. Res, 76(3), 455-459.
43. Solar A, Podjavorsek A, Stampar F, 2005. Phenotypic and genotypic diversity of European chestnut (Castanea sativa Mill.) in Slovenia-opportunity for genetic improvement. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 52: 381-394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-005-2252-2
44. Soylu A, 1984. Kestane Yetiştiriciliği ve Özellikleri. Atatürk Bahçe Lüktürleri Araştırma Enstitüsü Yayın No: 59
45. Soylu A, Serdar Ü, 2009. Relationships between some morphological traits in chestnuts (Castanea sativa Mill.). Acta Horticulturae 844: 243-248. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2009.844.33
46. Stojanović M, Magazin N, 2020. Variability of sweet chestnut (Castanea Sativa Mill.) in Montenegro according to morphological traıts of fruits and upov descriptors. Genetika 52(2): 571-584. https://doi.org/10.2298/GENSR2002571S
47. Şahin T, 1989. Seleksiyonla elde edilmiş bazı önemli kestane çeşitlerinin yaprak morfolojileri ve stoma dağılımları üzerinde araştırmalar (Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Uudağ Üniversitesi, Bursa, Türkiye). https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezSorguSonucYeni.jsp
48. Tuğ A, Hodžić MM, Ballian D, 2022. Correlations among morphological traits of sweet chestnut (Miller) from Bosnia and Herzegovina. Folia Forestalia Polonica 64(1): 49-57.
49. UPOV, 2017. Chestnut-Guidelines for the Conduct of Tests for Distinctness, Uniformity and Stability. TG/124/4. International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants.
50. Zarafshar M, Akbarinia M, Bruschi P, Hosseiny SM, Yousefzadeh H, Taieby M, Sattarian A, 2010. Phenotypic variation in chestnut (Castanea sativa Mill.) natural Populations in Hyrcanian forest (north of Iran), revealed by leaf morphometrics. Folia Oecologıca 37(1): 105-113.
51. Zenginbal H, Ertürk U, Koşar MB, Ahı D, 2018. Evaluation of chestnut genotypes from Düzce vicinity, Turkey. Acta Horticulturae 1220: 29-34. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2018.1220.5