Anaç ve Çeşitlerin Bağda Mineral Beslenmesine Etkisi

Öz

Bu çalışma, asmanın mineral beslenmesi üzerinde anaç, çeşit ve anaç-çeşit etkileşiminin etkisini belirlemek amacıyla yürütülmüştür. Fercal ve 140 Ruggeri anaçlarına üzerine aşılanmış Merlot, Cabernet Franc, Cabernet Sauvignon ve Syrah çeşitlerinin bitki besin konsantrasyonları araştırılmıştır. Asmanın beslenme durumunu karşılaştırmak için yaprak ve meyve örneklerinde N, P, K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Cu, Mn ve Zn analizleri yapılmıştır. Anaçlar arasında, 140 Ruggeri anaç yapraklarında K, Mg, Ca, Cu ve Mn konsantrasyonları daha yüksek iken, Fercal anaç yapraklarında N, P, Fe ve Zn konsantrasyonları daha yüksek bulunmuştur. Çeşitlerin besin konsantrasyonları incelendiğinde, Cabernet Sauvignon çeşidinin yaprakları en yüksek N, P, K, Ca, Fe ve Mn konsantrasyonlarına sahipken, Cabernet Franc Mg, Syrah Zn ve Cu besin konsantrasyonları açısından yüksek seviyelerde bulunmuştur. Çalışma sonucunda, asmanın anaç, çeşit ve anaç-çeşit etkileşiminin mineral beslenmesi açısından önemli bir etkiye sahip olduğu görülmüştür. Asmanın gübrelenmesi açısından o bölgenin anaç ve çeşit özelliklerinin dikkate alınması ve gübreleme programının hazırlanması gerektiği ortaya çıkmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Meyve
• mineral besin
• anaç
• çeşit
• bağ

Rootstock and Variety Effect on Mineral Nutrition in Vineyard

Öz

This study was conducted to determine the effect of rootstock, variety, and rootstock-variety interaction on the mineral nutrition of the vine. Plant nutrient concentrations of Merlot, Cabernet Franc, Cabernet Sauvignon, and Syrah cultivars grafted on Fercal and 140 Ruggeri rootstocks were investigated. To compare the nutritional status of vineyard, N, P, K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Cu, Mn, and Zn analyses were performed on leaf and fruit samples. Among rootstocks, while the 140 Ruggeri rootstock leaves K, Mg, Ca, Cu, and Mn concentrations were higher, the Fercal rootstock leaves N, P, Fe, and Zn concentrations were higher. While the nutrient concentrations of the cultivars were examined, the Cabernet Sauvignon cultivar leaves had the highest N, P, K, Ca, Fe, and Mn concentrations, while Cabernet Franc Mg, Syrah Zn, and Cu were at high levels in terms of nutritional concentrations. As a result of the study, it was seen that the rootstock, cultivar, and rootstock-variety interaction of the vine had an important effect in terms of mineral nutrition. It had been revealed that the rootstock and cultivar characteristics of that region should be taken into consideration and a fertilizing program should be prepared in terms of fertilizing the vine.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Fruit
• Mineral nutrition
• Rootstock
• Variety
• Vineyard

Kaynakça

1. Anonymous, 2020. FAOSTAT. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home. Accessed 26 December, 2020
2. Anonymous, 2022. Accessed 15 December 2022, http://plantgrape.plantnetproject.org
3. Aras Ö, 2006. Determination of Total Carbohydrate, Protein, Mineral Substance and Phenolic Compound Content of Grapes and Grape Products. Suleyman Demirel University Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences Department of Horticulture Master Thesis, 34p, Isparta.
4. Assimakopoulou A, Nifakos K, Kalogeropoulos P, Salmas I, Agelopoulos K, 2016. Response of ungrafted rootstocks and rootstocks grafted with wine grape varieties (Vitis sp.) to ‘lime-induced chlorosis’. Journal of Plant Nutrition 39(1): 71-86. doi:10.1080/01904167.2015.1086792
5. Bavaresco L, Poni S, 2003. Effect of Calcareous Soil on Photosynthesis Rate, Mineral Nutrition, and Source‐Sink Ratio of Table Grape. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 26:10-11.
6. Bavaresco L, Giochino, E, Pezzutto S, 2003. Grapevine rootstock effects on lime-induced chlorosis, nutrient uptake, and source-sink relationships. Journal of Plant Nutrition 26: 1451-1465.
7. Bergmann W, 1992. Colour Atlas. Nutritional disorders of plants. Gustav Fischer Verlag Jena. Stuttgart New York, 386p.
8. Bhargava BS, Raghupathi HB, 1999. Multivariate diagnosis of nutrient element norms for grape. Journal of Plant Nutrition 22(2): 219-227, DOI:10.1080/01904169909365620

9. Bonomelli C, Ruiz R, 2010. Effects of Foliar and Soil Calcıum Application On Yield And Quality of Table Grape cv. ‘Thompson Seedless’. Journal of Plant Nutrition 33(3):299-314.
10. Cahoon GA, 1970. Survey of Foliar Content of American and French Hybrid Grapes in Fourteen Reseach-Demostration Vine yards in Southern Ohio Rest. Summ., Ohio Agricultural Research Development Center 44: 24-27.
11. Carson PL, 1980. Recommended Potassium Test In: Recommended Chemical Soil Test Procedures for the North Central Region. (Ed. Dahnke, W.C.), Regional Publication, USA, 20-21p.
12. Çelik H, 2002. Üzüm Çeşit Kataloğu, Ankara Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Bahçe Bitkileri Bölümü, Sun Fidan A.Ş. Mesleki Kitaplar Serisi: 2, 87-127s, Ankara.
13. Erdal İ, Kepenek K, Kızılgöz İ, 2005. Effect of elemental sulphur and sulphur containing waste on the iron nutrition of strawberry plants grown in a calcareous soil. Biological Agriculture & Horticulture 23 (3): 263-272.
14. Fallahi E, Shafii B, Jeffrey CS, Fallahi B, Hafez SL, 2005. Influence of vine grape cultivars on growth and leaf blade and petiole mineral nutrients. Hort Technology 15(4): 825-830.
15. Flynn R, Ball ST, Baker RD, 2004. Sampling for plant tissue analysis. College of agriculture and home economics, New Mexico State University and U.S. Department of Agriculture Cooperating. U.S.A.
16. Fregoni M, 1984. Nutrient Needs in Vine Production, 18th Coll. Int. Post. Ins. Bern, 319-332.
17. Ibacache GA, Sierra BC, 2009. Influence Of Rootstocks On Nıtrogen, Phosphorus and Potassıum Content In Petioles Of Four Table Grape Varieties. Chılean Journal Of Agrıcultural Research 69(4): 503-508.
18. Jones Jr JB, Wolf B, Milis HA,1991. Plant Analysis Handbook. Apractical sampling, preparation, analysis and interpretion guide. Micro-macro Publishing, Inc. 183 Paradise Blvd, Suite 108, p.213, Georgia 30607 USA.
19. Klein I, Strime M, Fanberstein L, Mani Y, 2000. Irrigation and fertigation effects on phosphorus and potassium nutrition of wine grapes. Vitis 39(2): 55-62.
20. Kucukyumuk Z, Erdal I, 2011. Rootstock and Cultivar Effect on Mineral Nutrition, Seasonal Nutrient Variation and Correlations among Leaf, Flower and Fruit Nutrient Concentrations in Apple Trees. Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science 17(5): 633-641.
21. Levy JF,1968. L’application du Diagnostic Foliaire a la Determination de Bessions Alimantaires des Vignes, le Controle da la Fertilization Des Plantes Cultuves (III. Collog. Evr. Medit.Sevilla), 295-305.
22. Lindsay WL, Norvell WA, 1978. Development of a DTPA soil test for zinc, iron, manganese, and copper. Soil Science Society of America Journal 42(3): 421-428.
23. Loeppert RH, Suarez DL, 1996. “Carbonate and gypsum”. Methods of Soil Analysis Part 3 Chemical Methods. Editör: Sparks, D. L. vd. Madison, Wisconsin, USA: Soil Science Society of America, Inc. American Society of Agronomy, Inc.
24. Mills AH, Jones JB, 1996. Plant analysis handbook 11, apractical sampling, preparation, analysis and interpreparetion guide, Micro Macro Publishing, Athens.
25. Moyer MM, Sungur SD, Davenport JR, Hoheisel GA, 2018. Vinegard Nutrient Management in Washington State. Washington State University. 1-44.
26. Nachtigall GR, Dechen AR, 2006. Seasonality of nutrients in leaves and fruits of apple trees. Sci. Agric (Piracicaba, Braz.) 63 (5): 493-501.
27. Navarro SM, Leon L, Roca-Perez R, Boluda L, Garcıa-Ferriz P, Perez-Bermudez IG, 2008. Characterisation of Bobaland Crujidera grape cultivars, in comparison with Tempranillo and Cabernet Sauvignon. Evolution of leaf macronutrients and berry composition during grape ripening. Food Chemistry 108:182-190.
28. Olsen A, 1954. Estimation of available phosphorus in soils by extraction with sodium bicarbonate Us Dep. Of Agr. Circ. 939 Washington DC.
29. Reuter DJ, Robinson JB, 1986. Plant Analysis. An Interpretation Manuel. Inkata Pres. Melbourne, Sydney, 131p.
30. Rhoades JR, 1996. “Salinity: electrical conductivity and total dissolved solids”. Methods of Soil Analysis Part 3 Chemical Methods. Editor: Sparks, D. L. vd. Madison, Wisconsin, USA: Soil Science Society of America, Inc. American Society of Agronomy, Inc.
31. Suzuki A, Argenta LC, 1994. Teores minerais na polpa de maçã das cultivars. Gala, Golden Delicious e Fuji. Revista Brasileira de Fruticultura 16: 92-104.
32. Temminghoff EE, Houba VJ, 2004. Plant Analysis Procedures,1-178, Kluwer Academic Publishers Boston, USA.
33. Thomas GW,1996. “Soil pH and soil acidity”. Methods of Soil Analysis Part 3 Chemical Methods. Editör: Sparks, D. L. vd. Madison, Wisconsin, USA: Soil Science Society of America, Inc. American Society of Agronomy, Inc.
34. Tsipouridis C, Simonis AD, Bladenopoulou S, Isaakidis A, Stylianidis D, 1990. Nutrient Element Variability in The Leaves of Peach Trees, in Relation to Cultivar and Rootstocks. In 23 rd international Horticulture Congress. Firenze, August.
35. Walkley A, Black LA, 1934. An examination of the Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter, and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Science 37(1): 29-38.
36. Xia EQ, Feng Deng G, Guo Y-J, Li H-B, 2010. Biological Activities of Polyphenols from Grapes. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 11: 622-646. doi:10.3390/ijms11020622