Determination of salt tolerance in some grapevine cultivars (Vinis vitifera L.) under in vitro conditions

Tuz testleri in vitro koşullar altında Çavuş, Müşküle ve Sultani Çekirdeksiz üzüm çeşitlerinde yapılmıştır. Tuz testlerinde kullanılan bitkisel materyal aktif tomurcuk kültürü yöntemi ile çoğaltılmıştır. Tek boğumlu sürgünler MS+5 $mu$ M BA ortamında, iki farklı zaman periyodunda (4 ve 8 hafta), 5 farklı NaCI konsantrasyonuna (960.00. 0.25, 0.50, 0.75 ve 1.00) maruz bırakılmışlardır. Artan NaCI konsantrasyonu ve uygulama süresine bağlı olarak eksplantlarda, çoğalma oranı, büyüme, toplam klorofil miktarı ve canlılığın azaldığı tespit edilmiştir. Ayrıca tuz uygulamalarının eksplantlarda nekrozlara sebep olduğu ve bu zararlanmanın derecesinin çeşide, NaCI konsantrasyonu ve uygulama periyoduna bağlı olarak değiştiği belirlenmiştir. Tuz uygulamalarına en yüksek toleransı Çavuş üzüm çeşidi göstermiş, bunu Sultani Çekirdeksiz ve Müşküle üzüm çeşitleri izlemiştir. Tuza dayanıklı olduğu tespit edilen üzüm çeşitlerinin tuzlu ortamlarda büyüme oranlarını nispeten koruyabildikleri ve klorofil noksanlığı gibi metabolik bozukluklardan sakınabildikleri belirlenmiştir.

In vitro koşullarda bazı asma çeşitlerinde (Vinis vitifera L.) tuza toleransın belirlenmesi

Salinity tests were conducted on Çavuş, Müşküle and Sultani Çekirdeksiz grapevine cultivars under in vitro conditions. Plant materials used in the salinity test were propagated using the axillary bud culture method. Single-node shoots were subjected to five different NaCI concentrations (0.00, 0.25, 0.50, 0.75 and 1.00%) in MS+5 $mu$ M BA medium for two periods (4 and 8 vveeks). Proliferation, grovvth, total chlorophyll content and viability of explants decreased due to the increase in NaCI concentration and length of treatment period. Moreover, it was determined that salt treatment caused necroses in explants and the severity of this injury varied depending on the cultivar, NaCI concentration and the treatment period. The most tolerant grapevine cultivar to salt treatment was Çavuş, and this was follovved by Sultani Çekirdeksiz and Müşküle. İt was determined that salt tolerant cultivars relatively maintained their grovvth rates and could avoid metabolic disordes such as chlorophyll defıciency.

PDF

___

1.Anonymous, Wine. Export Promotion Center of Turkey (IGEME), AGB 04004. Ajans Türk Printing and PublishingCo. Inc., Ankara, Türkiye, 1993.
2.Anonymous, Türkiye istatistik yıllığı. T.C. Başbakanlık Devlet İstatistik Enstitüsü Yayını, Ankara, Türkiye, 1995.
3.Sönmez, B., Tuzlu ve sodyumlu topraklar. T.O.K.B. Köy Hizmetleri ŞanlıUrfa Arşt. Enst. Müd. yayınları, 62.ŞanlıUrfa, Türkiye, 1990.
4.Walker, R.R., Törökfalvy, E., Scoot, N.S., Kriedemann, P.E., An analysis of photosynthetic response to salttreatment in Vitis vinifera. Aust. J. Plant Physiol., 8: 359-374, 1981.
5.Downton, W.J.S. and Millhouse, J., Turgor maintenance during salt stress prevents loss of variable fluorescence ingrapevine leaves. Plant Science Letters, 31(1): 1-7, 1983.
6.Downton, W.J.S. Loweys, B.R., Grant, W.J.R., Salinity effects on the stomatal behavior of grapevine. New Phytol.16: 499-503, 1990.
7.Alsaidi, I.H., Shakir, I.A., Hüssein, A.J., Rooting of some grapevine cuttings as affected by salinity. Ann. Agric Sci.,33(1): 479-499, 1988.
8.Garcia, M., Charbaji, T., The efeect of level of sodium chloride in the medium on the mineral composition ofgrapevines. Agrochemica, 33(6): 412-423, 1989.
9.Alsaidi, I.H., Shakir, I.A., Dawood, Z.A., Alawi, B.J., Effect of saline condition on growth and mineral content indifferent parts of grapevine W. Deiss (V. vinefera L.). Ann. Agric. Sci., 30(2): 1495-1512, 1985
0.Downton, W.J.S., Growth and mineral composition of Sultana grapevine as influenced by salinity and rootstock.Aust. J. Agric. Res., 36(3): 425-434, 1985.
11.Downton, W.J.S., Photosyntheses in salt stressed grapevines. Aust. J. Plant Physiol., 4: 183-192, 1977.
12.Khanouja, S.D., Chaturvedi, K.N.J., Gard, V.K., Effect of exchangeable sodium percentage on the growth andmineral composition of Thompson Seedless grapevine. Sci. Hort. 12(1): 47-53, 1980.
13.Arbabzadeh, F. and Dutt, G., Salt tolerance of grape rootstocks under greenhouse conditions. Amer. J. Enol.Viticul., 38(2): 95-99, 1987.
14.Taylor, R.M., Fenn, L.B., Pety, C.A., Nitrogen uptake by grapes with divided roots growing in differentially salinizedsoils. HortSci., 22(4): 664, 1987.
15.Southey, J.M., Jooste, J.H., The effect of grapevine rootstock on the performance of Vitis vinifera L. (cv.Colombard) on a relatively saline soil. S. Afr. J. Enol. Vitic., 12(1): 32-40, 1991.
16.Lurie, S., Ben-Arie, R., Zeidman, M., Zuthi, Y., David, Y., Irrigation of pomegranates, pear and table grapes withbrackish water: fruit quality and storage potential. Hort. Abst., 62(4): 3475, 1992.
17.Prior, L.D., Grieve, A.M., Cullis, B.R. Sodium chloride and soil texture interactions in irrigated field grown Sultanagrapevines. II. Plant mineral content, growth and physiology. Aust. J. Agr. Res., 43(5): 1067-1083, 1992.
18.Prior, L.D., Grieve, A.M., Cullis, B.R. Sodium chloride and soil texture interactions in irrigated field grown Sultanagrapevines. I. Yield and fruit quality. Aust. J. Agr. Res., 43(5): 1051-1066, 1992.
19.Göktürk, N., Üç değişik Amerikan asma anacının in vitro koşullarda tuzluluğa dayanımlarının belirlenmesi üzerinebir araştırma (Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Ankara Üniv., Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara, Türkiye, 1993.
20.Joolka, N.K., Singh, J., Khera, A.P., Growth of Grapevines as affected by sodium chloride and sodium sulfate salts.Haryana J. Hort. Sci., 5(3/4): 181-189, 1976.
21.Samra, J.S., Sodicity tolerance of grapes with reference to the uptake of nutrients. Indian J. Hort., 42(1/2): 12-17, 1985.
22.Samra, J.S., Effect of soil sodicity on the growth of four cultivars of grape. Indian J. Hort., 43(1/2): 60-65, 1986.
23.Alsaidi, I.H., Shakir, I.A., Hüssein, A.J., Sıdıq, J., Effect of salinity on the rooting of cuttings of Abbasi and Kemaligrape cultivars (Vitis viniferia L.) Hort. Abst., 58(11): 7382, 1988.
24.Charbji, T., Garcia, M., Fallot, J., The effect of sodium chloride on the growth of grapevine in hydroponic cultureand on the distribution of the two constituent elements of this salt. Hort.. Abst., 59(12): 9865, 1989.
25.Eriş, A., Sivritepe, N. In Vitro propagation of Grapevines by Axillary Bud Culture. Symposium über WissenschaflicheErgebnisse Deutsch-Türkischer Universitäts partnerschaften im Argarbereichs (Verbände Deutsch-Türkischer Agrar-und Naturwissenschaftler, Ankara-Berlin), 12-17 September 1995, Ankara. 235-242, 1995.
26.Holden, M., Chemistry and biochemistry of plant pigments. GOODWIN, T.W., (ed.): Volume II. Academic Press,London, 1-37, 1976.
27.LaRosa, P.C., Singh, N.K., Hasegawa, P.M., Bressan, R.A., Stable NaCl tolerance of tobacco cells is associated withenhanced accumulation of osmotion. Plant Physiol., 91(5): 855-861, 1989.
28.Chandler, S.F., Mandal, B.B., Thorphe, T.A., Effect of sodium sulfate on tissue cultures of Brassica napus cv. Westarand Brassica campestris L. cv. Tobin. J. Plant Physiol., 126(1): 105-117, 1986.
29.Alsaidi, I.H. and Alawi, B.J., Effect of different concentrations of NaCl and CaCl2on growth, dry weight and mineralelements of some grapevine cultivars (Vitis vinifera L.). Ann. Agric. Sci., 29(2): 971-988, 1984.
30.Ercan, N., Gülcan, R., In vitro koşullarında bazı asma çeşit ve anaçlarının tuza dayanıklılıkları üzerinde araştırmalar.Türkiye 1. Ulusal Bahçe Bitkileri Kongresi, Bornova-İzmir. Cilt 2, 541-543, 1992.
31.Downton, W.J.S. and Millhouse, J., Chlorophyll fluorescence and water relations of salt stressed plants. PlantScience Letters, 37(3): 205-212, 1985.
32.Neumann, P.M., Volkenburgh, E.V., Cleland, R.E., Salinity stress inhibits bean leaf expansion by reducing turgor,not wall extensibility. Plant Physiol. 88(1): 233-237, 1988.
33.Levitt, J., Responses of plants to environmental stresses. Volume II, 2nd ed. Academic Press, New York, 1980.
34.Garcia, M., Charbaji, T., Effect of sodium chloride salinity on cation equalibria in grapevine. J. Plant Nutrition,16(11): 2225-2237, 1993.
35.Sivritepe, N., Asmalarda tuza dayanıklılık testleri ve tuza dayanımda etkili bazı faktörler üzerinde araştırmalar(Doktora Tezi). Uludağ Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Bahçe Bitkileri Anabilim Dalı, Bursa, Türkiye, 1995.
36.Munns, R., Termaat, A., Whole-plant responses to salinity. Aust. J. Plant. Physiol., 13: 143-160, 1986.
37.Chartzoulakis, K.S., Effects of NaCl salinity on germination, growth and yield of greenhouse cucumber. J. Hort.Sci., 67(1): 115-119, 1992.
38.Haffman, G.J., Catlin, P.B., Mead, R.M., Johnson, R.S., François, L.E., Goldhamer, D., Yield and foliar injuryresponses of mature plum trees to salinity. Irrigation Science, 10(3): 215-229, 1989.
39.Behboudian, M.H., Törökfalvy, E., Walker, R.R., Effects of salinity on ionic content, water relations and gasexchange parameters in some citrus scion-rootstock combinations. Sci. Hort., 28(112): 105-116, 1986.
40.Cao, Z., Grape: Micropropagation. In: Evans, D.A., Sharp, W.R., Ammirato, P.V., Yamada, Y., (eds.), Handbook ofPlant Cell Culture, Volume 1. Collier Macmillan Publishers, London, 1983.