Ece TURHAN, Alper DARDENİZ, Nuray Mücella MÜFTÜOĞLU

Bazı Amerikan asma anaçlarının tuz stresine toleranslarının belirlenmesi

Bu araştırma, Marmara ve Ege Bölgeleri'nde geniş çapta kullanılan 1103 P (Berlandieri Resseguier No. 2 x Rupestrisdu Lot (St. George) 1103 Poulsen), 420 A (Berlandieri x Riparia 420 A Millardet Et de Grasset) ve 5 BB (Berlandieri x Riparia Teieki 8 B Seleksiyon Kober 5BB) Amerikan asma anaçlarının tuz stresine toleransla¬rını tespit etmek amacı ile kurulmuştur. Bu araştırmada çelik dikimi 29 Mart 2002 tarihinde yapılmış, dikimden 1 ay sonra bitkilerde 2-3 gerçek yaprağın görüldüğü 27 Nisan 2002 tarihinden itibaren 5 ayrı dozdaki tuz konsantrasyonu (0; 5000; 10000; 15000 ve 20000 mg/L NaCl) verilmeye başlanmış ve 50 gün süre ile uygulanmıştır. Söküm 15 Haziran 2002 tarihinde gerçekleştirilmiştir. Sökülen çeliklerde sürgün uzunluğu (cm), boğum sayısı (adet), yaprak sayısı (a-det), sürgün yaş ağırlığı (g), sürgün kuru ağırlığı (g), kök yaş ağırlığı (g) ve kök kuru ağırlığı (g) belirlenmiştir. Ayrıca anaçların tuza dayanımlarının belirlenmesi için sürgün ve kök kuru ağırlığı bazında tolerans oranı, tolerans indeksi ve canlılık oranı (%) hesaplanmıştır. Sonuç olarak bütün parametreler dikkate alındığında, tuz stresine en çok dayanıklılık gösteren anacın 5 BB, bunun ardından 1103 P ve en dayanıksız anacın da 420 A olduğu sonucuna varılmıştır.

Determining the tolerances to salinity stress of some American grapevine rootstocks

This research was carried out to determine the salinity resistance (salt stress) of 1103 P, 420 A and 5 BB American grapevine rootstocks which all have a widespread use in Aegean and Marmara regions. Cuttings were planted on March 29th, 2002 and sail application was started one month later (April 27th, 2002). Uprooting the cuttings were done 50 days later than the beginning of the salt application, June 15th, 2002. The salt consantration are 0; 5000; 10000; 15000 and 20000 mg/L NaCl. Shoot length (cm), number of nodes, number of leaves, fresh shoot weight (g), dry shoot weight (g), fresh root weight (g), and dry root weight (g) were determined on the uprooted cuttings. Besides, to determine the resistance of the rootstocks to salinity, tolerance rate, tolerance index and liveliness rate (%) were calculated on the basis of shoot and dry root weight. Examination of the parameters revealed no difference between 500 mg/1 salt application and 0 mg/1 salt application to the 1103 P and 5 BB rootstocks ,while, in general, unfavorable effects of salinity increased with incresing rates of salt application. When 420 A rootstock was examined it was determined that 0 mg/1 salt concentrations gave the best results. When tolerance rates, which were aimed to compare three district rootstock were examined, in the base of dry shoot weight, we found no difference between the rootstocks in the 5000 mg/1,10.000 mg/1 and 20.000 mg/1 salt concentrations, but 420 A was the most tolerant genotype at 15.000 mg/l.salt level. When the tolerance rates in the base of dry root weight were examined, no difference was found between rootstocks in the 20.000 mg/fl salt concentration. However, 1103 P and 5 BB rootstocks were grouped together, while 420 A was the least tolerant genotype in 5000 and 10000 mg/1 salt concentrations. In 15000 mg/I salt concentration, 5 BB showed the highest and 420 A showed the lowest tolerance. When the tolerance index in the basis of dry root weight was examined it was seen that 1103 P and 5BB rootstocks were in the same statistics group and 420 A rootstock had lower values. In conclusion, when all parameters were taken into consideration it was determined that 5 BB is the highest in tolerence against to salt stress. 1103 P and 420 A ranked second and third in terms of salt tolerance, respectively.

PDF

___

1. Anonim, 1999. Tarım İl Müdürlüğü İstatistikleri. Tarım ve Köyişleri Bakanlığı, Tarım İl Müdürlüğü, Çanakkale.
2. Anonymous, 2003. Agricultural Primary Crops Production Databases, www.apps. fao.org.
3. Chandler, S. F., B. B. Mandal, and T. A. Thorphe, 1986. Effect of Sodium Sulfate on Titsue Cultures of Brassica napus cv. Westar and Brassica campestris L. Cv. Tobin. J. Plant Physiol, 126 (1) p: 105-117.
4. Desmukh, M. R., S. P. Karkampar, S. G. Patil, 2003. Screening of Grape Rootstocks For Their Salinity Tolerance. Journal of Maharashtra Agricultural Universities, 28:2 p: 122-124.
5. Edreva, A., 1998. Responses of Plants to Stress Factors. Bitkilerde Stres Fizyolojisinin Moleküler Temelleri. 22-26 Haziran 1998. Ebiltem, s 1-33, İzmir.
6. Fan, X. C, Liu, C. H., Pan, X., Guo, J. N. and Li, M., 2004. Evaluation of Salt Tolerance of Grape Rootstocks Under Hydroponic Culture Conditions. Journal of Fruit Science, 21:2 p: 128-131.
7. Gerhard, R., Cheng-Yung Cheng und F. Schneider, 1971. Probleme Der Reben-Vevedlung. Heft 8: 9-27.
8. Hasegawa, P. M., R. A. Bressan- and A. V. Handa, 1986. Cellular Mechanisms of Salinity Tolerance. Hort. Science, 21 (6) p: 1317-1324.
9. Khanduja, S. D., K. N. J. Chaturvedi and V. K. Garg, 1980. Effect of Exchangeable Sodium Percentage on The Growth and Mineral Composition of Thomson Seedless Grapevine. Sci .Hort. 12 (1) p: 47-53.
10. Kısmalı, İ., 1978. Yuvarlak Çekirdeksiz Üzüm Çeşidi ve Farklı Amerikan Asma Anaçları ile Yapılan Aşılı-Köklü Asma Fidanı Üretimi Üzerinde Araştırmalar (Doçentlik Tezi). Ege Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Bahçe Bitkileri Bölümü, Bornova-İzmir.
11. LaRosa, P. C, N. K. Singh,, P. M. Hasegawa, R. A. Bressan, 1989. Stable NaCl Tolerance of Tobacco Cells is Associated With Enhanced Accumulation of Osmotion. Plant Physiol, 91 (5): 855-861.
12. Levitt, J., 1980. Responses of Plants to Environmental Stresses. Volume II, 2nd ed. Academic Press, New York, 607p.
13. Martinez-Barroso, M. C, and C. E. Alvarez, 1997. Toxicity Symptoms and Tolerance of Strawberry to Salinity in The irrigation Water. Scientia Hort., 71:177-188.
14. McKersie, B. D., and Y. Y. Leshem, 1994. Stress and Stress Cooping in Cultivated Plants. Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands. 256 p.
15. Salisbury, F. B., and C. W. Ross, 1992. Plant Physiology. 4th ed. Wadsworth Publishing Com. Behnont, California. 682 p.
16. Samra, J. S., 1985. Sodicity Tolerance of Grapes With Geference to The Uptake of Nutrients. Indian J. Hort, 42 (1/2) p: 12-17.
17. Samra, J. S., 1986. Effect of Soil Sodicity on the Growty of Four Cultivars of Grape. Indian J. Hort. 43 (1/2) p: 60-65.
18. Saraswat, K. B., 1973. Studies on the Effect of Time Planting, Sohking in Water and Precallusing on the Rooting Capacity of Grape Vine Cuttings. Prog. Port, 5(1) p: 57-65.
19. Schwarz, M., 1985. The Use of Saline Water in Hydroponics. Soilless Culture, 1 (1): 25-34. 20. Schwarz, M., 1995. Soilless Culture Management, Advanced Series in Agricultural Sciences, Vol. 24, 197p.
21. Sivritepe, N., 1995. Asmalarda Tuza Dayanıklılık Testleri ve Tuza Dayanımda Etkili Bazı Faktörler Üzerinde Araştırmalar. Uludağ Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Bahçe Bitkileri Anabilim Dalı (Dok¬tora Tezi), Bursa, 176 S.
22. Sivritepe, N., ve A. Eriş, 1998. Bazı Asma Anaçlarında NaCl Uygulamalarının İyon Metabolizması Üzerine Etkileri. Bahçe Dergisi. TC Tarım ve Köyişleri Bakanlığı Yalova Bahçe Kültürleri Merkez Araştırma Enstitüsü. 27(1-2): 23-33, Yalova.
23. Southey, J. M., and J. H. Jooste, 1991, The Effect of Grapevine Rootstock on Performance of Vitis vinifera L. (ev. Colombard) on A Relatively Saline Soil. South African Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 12 (1): 32-41.
24. Southey, J. M., and J. H. Jooste, 1992, Physiological Response of Vitis vinifera L. (cv. Chenin blanc) Grafted Onto Different Rootstocks on A Relatively Saline Soil. South African Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 13 (1): 10-22.
25. Sönmez, B., 1990. Tuzlu ve Sodyumlu Top- raklar. TC Tarım Orman ve Köyişleri Bakanlığı Köy Hizmetleri Şanlıurfa Araştırma Enstitüsü Müdürlüğü Yayınları, 62, 60s.
26. Walker, R. R., 1994. Grapevine Responses to Salinity Bulletin-de-I'OIV., 67:761-762, 634-661.
27. Walker, R. R., D. H. Blackmore, P. R. Clingelleffer, P. Godden, L. Francis, P. Vallente and E. Robinson, 2003. Salinity Effects on Vines and Wines. Bulletin-de-I'OIV., 76:865-866, p: 200-227.