ORGANİK OLARAK YETİŞTİRİLEN KÜTAHYA VE MONTMORENCY VİŞNE ÇEŞİTLERİNİN MEYVE KALİTE ÖZELLİKLERİ

Bu çalışma organik olarak yetiştirilen Kütahya ve Montmorency vişne çeşitlerinin meyve kalite özelliklerini belirlemek amacıyla gerçekleştirilmiştir. Çalışma, 7 yaşlı ve Maxma 14 anacı üzerine aşılı Kütahya ve Montmorency çeşitlerinin yer aldığı organik bahçede (Karapınar/Konya) sürdürülmüştür. Çalışma kapsamında, çeşitlerin meyve ağırlığı (g), meyve eni (mm), meyve boyu (mm), meyve hacmi (ml), kabuk kalınlığı (mm), meye eti sertliği (kg-kuvvet), meyve sap uzunluğu ve kalınlığı (mm) suda çözünebilir kuru madde (SÇKM), pH ve asitlik ölçümleri yapılmıştır. Ayrıca, Minolta renk ölçer ile meyve kabuk renk ölçümleri (L, a, b, C ve h°) incelenmiştir. Çalışma sonucunda vişne çeşitlerinin meyve ağırlığı, meyve eni, meyve boyu ve meyve hacim değerleri arasında istatistiksel olarak farklılık tespit edilmemiştir. Bununla birlikte, Kütahya (19.38 mm) çeşidinin meyve yüksekliği Montmorency (17.83 mm) çeşidine göre daha yüksek bulunmuştur. En yüksek meyve sap uzunluğu ve sap kalınlığı değerlerine Kütahya çeşidi sahip olmuştur (sırasıyla 65.82 mm ve 1.13 mm).

FRUIT QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS OF ORGANIC GROWN KÜTAHYA AND MONTMORENCY SOUR CHERRY CULTIVAR

This study was carried out to determine the fruit quality characteristics of organically grown Kütahya and Montmorency sour cherry cultivars. The study was conducted in the organic orchard (Karapınar/Konya) where Kütahya and Montmorency cultivars were grafted on 7-year-old MaxMa 14 rootstock. Fruit weight (g), fruit width (mm), fruit length (mm), fruit volume (ml), skin thickness (mm), flesh firmness (kg-force), fruit stalk length (mm) and thickness (mm), total soluble solids (TSS), pH and acidity were measured. In addition, skin color measurements were examined with the Minolta colorimeter. As a result of the study, no statistically significant difference was found between fruit weight, fruit width, fruit length and fruit volume values of sour cherry cultivars. However, fruit height of Kütahya (19.38 mm) was higher than Montmorency (17.83 mm). The highest fruit stalk length and stalk thickness values were Kütahya cultivar (65.82 mm and 1.13 mm respectively).

PDF

___

1. Anonim, 2019. https://www.tarimorman.gov. tr/konular/bitkisel-üretim/organiktarim/ istatistikler (Erişim Tarihi: 10.11.2019).
2. Anonymous, 2019a. http://www.fao.org/fao stat/en/#data/qc (Erişim Tarihi: 09.11.2019).
3. Anonymous, 2019b. https://statistics.fibl.org/ world/selected-crops-world (Erişim Tarihi 09.11.2019)
4. Arıkan, Ş., Pirlak, L., 2016. Effects of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) on growth, yield and fruit quality of sour cherry (Prunus cerasus L.). Erwerbs Obstbau 58:221-226.
5. Burak, M., Erbil, Y., 2005. Clonal selection of ‘Kütahya’ sour cherry. Proc. 4. IS on Cherry Ed. G.A. Lang Acta Hort. 667.23.
6. Christensen, J.V., 1988. Evaluation of 14 sour cherry cultivars. Danish J. Plant & Soil Sci. 92:345-349.
7. Christensen, J.V., 1990. A review of an evaluation of 95 cultivars of sour cherry. Danish J. Plant & Soil Sci. 94:51-64.
8. Grzyb, Z.S., Rozpara, E., 2004. Field evaluation of the susceptibility to Blumeriella jaapi and Glomerella cingulata and some biological properties of newly selected sour cherry genotypes. Journal of Fruit and Ornamental Plant Research 12:313-319.
9. Grzyb, Z.S., Rozpara, E., 2010. Charakterystyka pomologiczna iwstępna ocena gospodarcza niektórych odmian wiśni hodowli węgierskiej, zgromadzonych w kolekcji Instytutu Sadownictwa i Kwiaciarstwa w Skierniewicach. Zeszyty Problemowe Postępów Nauk Rolniczych 555:509-516.
10. Glowacka, A., Rozpara, E., Danelski, W., 2016. Growth, yielding and fruıt quality of three sour cherry cultivars under organic orchard conditions. Journal of Research and Applications in Agricultural Engineering 61(3):139-143.
11. Gul, M., Oktem, H., 2017. Marketing structure and problems of sour cherry farmers: Afyonkarahisar and Konya province example. Scientific Papers Series Management, Economic Engineering in Agriculture and Rural Development 17:147-155.
12. Kafalı, G., Sivrioğlu, T.O., Bahadır, O., 2003. Kiraz & vişne yetiştiriciliği standardizasyonu ihracatı. Dış Ticaret Müsteşarlığı, Ankara, 70s.
13. Kılıç D., Çalışkan, O., 2019. Situation of organic fruit growing in Turkey and the world. 1. International Congress on Sustainable Agriculture and Technology, 1-3.04.2019, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep, 413-427.
14. Milić, D., Sredojević, Kalanović Bulatović, B., 2016. Comparison of economic indicators different ways of cultivation sour cherry (Prunus cerasus L.) on family holdings. Biblid 20:143-146.
15. Milośević, T., Milośević, N., 2011. Fruit quality attributes of sour cherry cultivars. ISRN Agronomy, doi:10.5402/2012/593981.
16. Önal, K., N. Gönülşen, 1992. Vişne çeşit seçimi. Türkiye 1. Ulusal Bahçe Bitkileri Kongresi, Ege Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi, İzmir, (Meyve):491-494.
17. Özçağıran, R., A. Ünal, E. Özeker, M. İsfandiyaroğlu, 2005. Ilıman iklim meyve türleri sert çekirdekli meyveler. Ege Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Yayın No:553, 1:229.
18. Özdem, A., Kilincer N., 2009. The effectiveness of the trap types and lures used for mass trapping to control cherry fruit fly Rhagoletis cerasi L. (1758) (Diptera: Tephritidae). Mun. Ent. Zool. 4:371-377.
19. Papp, N., Szilvassy, B., Abranko, L., Szabo, T., Pfeiffer, P., Szabo, Z., Nyeki, J., Ercisli, S., Stefanovits-Banyai, E., Hegedus, A., 2010. Main quality attributes and antioxidants in Hungarian sour cherries: identification of genotypes with enhanced functional properties. International Journal of Food Science and Technology 45:395-402.
20. Poll, L., Petersen, M.B., Nielsen, G.S., 2003. Influence of harvest year and harvest time on soluble solids, titratable acid, anthocyanin content and aroma components in sour cherry (Prunus cerasus L. cv. Stevnsbaer). Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2016:212-216.
21. SAS Institute, 2005. SAS Online Doc. Version 9.1.3. SAS Inst., Cary, NC, USA.
22. Whang, L., Vestrheim, S., 2002. Controlled atmosphere storage of sour cherry (Prunus cerasus L.). Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. B, Soil and Plant Sci. 52:143-146.