The Scientific World Journal

The Scientific World Journal / 2013 / Article

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2013 |Article ID 916520 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/916520

Aysen Koc, Zumrut Celik, Mustafa Akbulut, Sukriye Bilgener, Sezai Ercisli, Mehmet Gunes, Resul Gercekcioglu, Ahmet Esitken, "Morphological Characterization of Cherry Rootstock Candidates Selected from Central and East Black Sea Regions in Turkey", The Scientific World Journal, vol. 2013, Article ID 916520, 9 pages, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/916520

Morphological Characterization of Cherry Rootstock Candidates Selected from Central and East Black Sea Regions in Turkey

Academic Editor: A. C. Manna
Received02 Aug 2013
Accepted01 Oct 2013
Published18 Dec 2013

Abstract

The use of rootstocks particularly for sweet cherry cultivars is of great importance for successful and sustainable production. Choosing the right cherry rootstocks is just as important as choosing the right cultivar. In this study, 110 sweet cherry, 30 sour cherry, and 41 mahaleb types displaying rootstock potential for sweet cherry cultivars were selected from Central and East Black Sea Regions in Turkey. The morphologic characteristics of the studied genotypes were compared with the standard clonal rootstocks PHL-A, MaxMa 14, Montmorency, Weiroot 158, Gisela 5, Gisela 6, and SL 64. A total of 42 morphological UPOV characteristics were evaluated in the selected genotypes and clonal rootstocks. The obtained data were analyzed by using principal component analysis and it revealed that eigenvalues of the first 3 components were able to represent 36.43% of total variance. The most significant positive correlations of the plant vigor were determined with leaf blade length and petiole thickness. According to the diversity analysis of coefficients, the 05 C 002 and 08 C 039 genotypes were identified as being similar (6.66), while the 05 C 002 and 55 S 012 genotypes were determined as the most distant genotypes (325.84) in terms of morphology.

1. Introduction

Turkey produces 438.550 tons of sweet cherries and 182.234 tons of sour cherries annually playing an important role in world sweet and sour cherry production. According to recent statistics, Turkey takes the first place in both sweet cherry production and export [1]. In Turkey, the mahaleb (Prunus mahaleb), wild sweet cherry (Prunus avium), and wild sour cherry (Prunus cerasus) seedlings are widely used as rootstocks for both sweet and sour cherry cultivars. Ercisli et al. [2] reported that 40% of the sweet cherry production in Turkey is carried out with wild sweet cherry seedlings, 30% with mahaleb seedlings, and 30% with Gisela 5, Gisela 6, and SL 64 clone rootstocks. Sweet cherry scion cultivars have been selected over millennia for many reasons, while rootstocks have only recently received attention. Unlike scion cultivar development, evaluation of rootstock programs may require at least 10 years to be completed. However, improved new technologies have provided significant improvements in evaluation.

Genetic diversity (variation within species) is vital for the evolution of agricultural species and their adaptation to particular environments through a mixture of natural and human selection. In crop agriculture, for some species, this selection has led to the development of many thousands of “landraces” or “farmers” varieties. In addition to domesticated plants, wild species are important nutritionally and culturally to many people [3]. Germplasms collection and characterization are essential stages for breeding programs. Germplasms collection and characterization are generally performed by describing morphological characteristics. The international criteria of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) and the International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI) were created in order to remove unclear situation and to enable researchers to use common descriptive characteristics. The data from morphological traits were evaluated statistically by using principle component analysis (PCA), correlation, and morphological distance index.

Turkey is one of the most important genetic sources for cherries in the world and provides an important source of variation for plant breeding. However, as is the case with other species used in fruit production, our country does not have its own native cherry clonal rootstocks.

The aim of our study was to investigate genotypic variation among 110 sweet cherry, 30 sour cherry, and 41 mahaleb types selected among wild cherry populations in Central and East Black Sea Regions in Turkey that can potentially be used as rootstocks for cultivars in future.

2. Materials and Methods

With an initial extensive survey studies, a total of 459 wild accessions were collected from Central and East Black Sea Regions in Turkey and were preserved at the Black Sea Agricultural Research Institute located in Samsun province during 2006–2009. The survey studies were conducted at Amasya, Artvin, Giresun, Gümüşhane, Ordu, Rize, Samsun, Tokat, and Trabzon provinces of Black Sea region. Selected wild genotypes (P. avium, P. cerasus, P. and mahaleb) were grafted by budding in the observation gardens. All types were identified using morphological characterization criteria of to UPOV (International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, Prunus Rootstocks 2002, TG/187/1-03.03.2007). Among 459 genotypes, we selected a total of 181 promising genotypes consist of 110 sweet cherry, 30 sour cherry, and 41 mahaleb and they were used for further analyses (Table 1). The morphologic characteristics of the studied genotypes were compared with PHL-A, MaxMa 14, Montmorency, Weiroot 158, Gisela 5, Gisela 6, and SL 64 worldwide reference clonal rootstocks. Morphological characteristics of the leaves were determined in July, while the morphological features of the shoots were determined in December. A total of 188 genotypes, including the selected genotypes and clonal rootstocks, were evaluated according to a total of 42 morphological and phenotypic characteristics (Table 2). Simple correlations, factor and cluster analyses, and scatter plots were prepared by using SPSS (version 20.0 for Windows). Factor analysis was performed by using the varimax factor rotating method. A dendrogram of the genetic similarities between the genotypes was compiled using the Ward method. The location data of selected genotypes was determined using GPS in the project area. These data were transferred in the GIS database and the distribution map was created using ArcGIS 9.2 software (Figure 1).


AccessionCollection area
(province-district)
Altitude
(m)

05 C 002Amasya-Merkez1002
05 C 003Amasya-Taşova640
05 C 004Amasya-Taşova640
05 C 005Amasya-Gümüşhacıköy821
05 C 006Amasya-Gümüşhacıköy826
05 C 007Amasya-Gümüşhacıköy875
05 C 009Amasya-Gümüşhacıköy956
05 M 001Amasya-Merkez449
05 M 006Amasya-Merkez846
05 M 007Amasya-Taşova1002
05 M 008Amasya-Taşova767
05 M 009Amasya-Taşova430
05 M 010Amasya-Taşova430

08 C 001Artvin-Yusufeli1554
08 C 005Artvin-Yusufeli1409
08 C 007Artvin-Yusufeli1445
08 C 008Artvin-Yusufeli1411
08 C 017Artvin-Şavşat1674
08 C 018Artvin-Şavşat1974
08 C 022Artvin-Şavşat1821
08 C 028Artvin-Şavşat1622
08 C 033Artvin-Borçka475
08 C 037Artvin-Yusufeli1488
08 C 039Artvin-Yusufeli1448
08 C 044Artvin-Yusufeli1499
08 C 045Artvin-Yusufeli1567
08 C 046Artvin-Yusufeli884
08 C 053Artvin-Merkez977
08 C 056Artvin-Yusufeli1084
08 C 057Artvin-Yusufeli1565
08 S 002Artvin-Yusufeli1560
08 S 003Artvin-Yusufeli675
08 S 005Artvin-Yusufeli1502

28 C 002Giresun-Çanakçı427
28 C 005Giresun-Tirebolu53
28 C 007Giresun-Dereli1014
28 C 015Giresun-Yağlıdere256
28 C 016Giresun-Yağlıdere68
28 C 020Giresun-Bulancak717
28 S 001Giresun-Çanakçı417
28 S 002Giresun-Şebinkarahisar1247
28 S 003Giresun-Şebinkarahisar1121
28 M 001Giresun-Şebinkarahisar1450
28 M 003Giresun-Alucra1464
28 M 005Giresun-Şebinkarahisar1270
28 CA 001Giresun-Şebinkarahisar1270
28 CA 002Giresun-Şebinkarahisar1217

29 C 001Gümüşhane-Merkez1199
29 C 003Gümüşhane-Torul1455
29 C 004Gümüşhane-Kürtün1276
29 C 005Gümüşhane-Kürtün1109
29 C 006Gümüşhane-Torul1065
29 S 001Gümüşhane-Merkez1287
29 S 003Gümüşhane-Köse1654
29 S 004Gümüşhane-Şiran1395
29 S 005Gümüşhane-Torul1043
29 M 001Gümüşhane-Merkez1281
29 M 004Gümüşhane-Şiran1229
29 M 006Gümüşhane-Torul1363
29 CA 001Gümüşhane-Kelkit1464
29 CA 002Gümüşhane-Kelkit1578
29 CA 003Gümüşhane-Kelkit1710
29 CA 004Gümüşhane-Şiran1329

52 C 004Ordu-Aybastı771
52 C 005Ordu-Kabataş623
52 C 007Ordu-Mesudiye1203
52 C 008Ordu-Gölköy919
52 C 009Ordu-Kabadüz189
52 C 011Ordu-Fatsa610
52 C 013Ordu-Korgan1525
52 C 014Ordu-Korgan1162
52 C 015Ordu-Kumru579
52 C 019Ordu-Kumru730
52 C 026Ordu-Kabataş613
52 C 029Ordu-Çamaş155
52 C 030Ordu-Çamaş474
52 C 031Ordu-Çatalpınar359
52 C 035Ordu-Çatalpınar640
52 C 038Ordu-Mesudiye1289
52 C 039Ordu-Mesudiye1072
52 C 042Ordu-Gölköy829
52 C 046Ordu-Gürgentepe1015
52 C 050Ordu-Gürgentepe1021
52 C 054Ordu-Ulubey513
52 C 056Ordu-Merkez219
52 C 061Ordu-Kabadüz406
52 C 063Ordu-Gülyalı195
52 C 065Ordu-Gülyalı357
52 C 071Ordu-Merkez524
52 C 073Ordu-Perşembe229
52 C 074Ordu-Perşembe110
52 C 078Ordu-Perşembe297
52 C 079Ordu-Ünye374
52 C 081Ordu-Çaybaşı536
52 C 087Ordu-İkizce341
52 C 090Ordu-Akkuş1097
52 C 091Ordu-Akkuş1198
52 C 093Ordu-Akkuş965
52 C 096Ordu-Fatsa331
52 C 100Ordu-Ünye354
52 S 001Ordu-Kabataş450
52 S 002Ordu-Çamaş329
52 S 003Ordu-Mesudiye1138
52 S 004Ordu-Mesudiye1302
52 S 005Ordu-Mesudiye1133
52 S 006Ordu-Perşembe0
52 S 007Ordu-Çaybaşı430
52 S 008Ordu-Akkuş1102
52 M 001Ordu-Kabataş503
52 M 003Ordu-Mesudiye1350
52 M 005Ordu-Merkez376
52 M 006Ordu-Akkuş1258
52 M 007Ordu-Akkuş1125
52 M 008Ordu-Akkuş1223
52 M 009Ordu-Akkuş1064

53 C 001Rize-İkizdere780
53 C 002Rize-İkizdere968
53 C 005Rize-İkizdere838
53 C 006Rize-İkizdere701
53 C 008Rize-Güneysu518
53 C 009Rize-Çayeli798
53 S 001Rize-Çamlıhemşin1315

55 C 002Samsun-Ladik958
55 C 005Samsun-Ladik754
55 C 015Samsun-Vezirköprü749
55 C 027Samsun-Merkez722
55 C 040Samsun-Terme427
55 C 049Samsun-Asarcık1013
55 C 054Samsun-Asarcık810
55 C 055Samsun-Havza1033
55 C 060Samsun-Çarşamba658
55 C 065Samsun-Ondokuzmayıs247
55 C 067Samsun-Bafra623
55 C 072Samsun-Alaçam683
55 C 080Samsun-Yakakent151
55 C 081Samsun-Yakakent246
55 C 083Samsun-Terme287
55 C 092Samsun-Kavak753
55 C 093Samsun-Kavak765
55 C 105Samsun-Vezirköprü659
55 C 111Samsun-Bafra431
55 C 116Samsun-Ayvacık691
55 C 121Samsun-Salıpazarı1097
55 C 124Samsun-Tekkeköy126
55 C 131Samsun-Çarşamba328
55 C 134Samsun-Bafra510
55 S 004Samsun-Havza821
55 S 008Samsun-Ondokuzmayıs236
55 S 011Samsun-Yakakent685
55 S 012Samsun-Ayvacık173
55 S 015Samsun-Çarşamba168
55 S 016Samsun-Ladik909
55 S 019Samsun-Ayvacık630
55 S 021Samsun-Merkez560
55 S 022Samsun-Asarcık779
55 M 001Samsun-Vezirköprü351
55 M 003Samsun-Havza352
55 M 005Samsun-Vezirköprü351
55 M 006Samsun-Vezirköprü332
55 M 009Samsun-Ayvacık700

60 C 001Tokat-Reşadiye1152
60 C 005Tokat-Pazar1180
60 M 001Tokat-Merkez655
60 M 002Tokat-Merkez673
60 M 005Tokat-Almus1074
60 M 008Tokat-Almus1004
60 M 010Tokat-Almus1004
60 M 014Tokat-Almus805
60 M 015Tokat-Almus796
60 M 016Tokat-Almus802
60 M 017Tokat-Almus789
60 M 019Tokat-Almus817
60 M 028Tokat-Niksar710
60 M 030Tokat-Niksar672
60 M 031Tokat-Merkez676
60 M 033Tokat-Merkez834
60 M 036Tokat-Pazar1013
60 M 037Tokat-Pazar1044
60 M 044Tokat-Merkez783

61 C 002Trabzon-Araklı215
61 C 015Trabzon-Maçka992
61 C 017Trabzon-Akçaabat1714
61 C 020Trabzon-Düzköy585
61 C 022Trabzon-Tonya733
61 C 029Trabzon-Beşikdüzü63
61 S 001Trabzon-Araklı468
61 S 002Trabzon-Merkez10


Plant
 VigorPVWeak (3), medium (5), strong (7)
 HabitPHUpright (1), spreading (3), drooping (5)
 BranchingPBWeak (3), medium (5), strong (7)
One-year-old shoot
 ThicknessSTThin (3), medium (5), thick (7)
 LengthSL(cm)
 Length of internodesSILShort (3), medium (5), long (7)
 First branch heightFBH(cm)
 Branch angleBA(°)
 Pubescence (upper third)SPAbsent (1), present (9)
 Number of lenticelsSLNFew (3), medium (5), many (7)
 Anth. coloration of apexSAAbsent or very weak (1), weak (3), medium (5), strong (7), very strong (9)
 Position of vegetative bud SBPAdpressed (1), slightly held out (2), markedly held out (3)
 Size of vegetative budSBSSmall (3), medium (5), large (7)
 Shape of apex of vegetative budBASAcute (1), obtuse (2), rounded (3)
 Size of vegetative bud supportBSSSmall (3), medium (5), large (7)
 Branching (at the end of summer)SBNumber of branching
 Intensity of anthocyanin coloration of young leaf LAIWeak (3), medium (5), strong (7)
Leaf
 LengthLL(cm)
 WidthLW(cm)
 Ratio length/widthRLWVery small (1), small (3), medium (5), large (7), very large (9)
 ShapeLSNarrow elliptic (1), elliptic (2), circular (3), ovate (4), obovate (5)
 Angle of apex (excluding tip)LAAAcute (1), right-angled (2), obtuse (3)
 Length of tipLTLShort (3), medium (5), long (7)
 Shape of baseLBSAcute (1), obtuse (2), truncate (3)
 Color of upper sideLUClight green (1), dark green (2), red (3), reddish brown (4)
 Glossiness of upper sideLUGWeak (3), medium (5), strong (7)
 Pubescence of lower side at apexLLPWeak (3), medium (5), strong (7)
 Incisions of marginLMIOnly crenate (1), both crenate and serrate (2), only serrate (3)
 Depth of incisions of marginLMIDShallow (3), medium (5), deep (7)
 Petiole lengthPLShort (3), medium (5), long (7)
 Petiole presence of pubescence PUPAbsent (1), present (9)
 Petiole intensity of pubescence PUPIWeak (3), medium (5), strong (7)
 Petiole depth of groovePGDShallow (3), medium (5), deep (7)
 Petiole thicknessPT(cm)
 Ratio length of leaf/petioleRLPLsmall (3), medium (5), large (7)
 Presence of stipulesLSPAbsent (1), present (9)
 Stipule lengthSTLShort (3), medium (5), long (7)
 Presence of nectariesLNAbsent (1), present (9)
 Predominant number of nectariesLNNOne (1), two (2), more than two (3)
 Position of nectariesLNPpredominantly on base of blade (1), equally distributed on base of blade and petiole (2), predominantly on petiole (3)
 Nectary colorNCGren (1), yellow (2), red (3), violet (4)
 Nectary shapeNSRound (1), reniform (2)

3. Results and Discussion

Great genetic diversity was observed among the wild sweet cherry, sour cherry, and mahaleb genotypes collected from Central and East Black Sea Region of Turkey. Several researchers have reported the morphological variation between some Prunus subgenus cerasus genotypes such as for sweet cherry (P. avium), sour cherry (P. cerasus), and mahaleb (P. mahaleb) [47].

The morphological traits assessed showed a wide variation. Differences among cherries genotypes based on similarity of morphological characters are shown in Figure 2 using the hierarchical clustering. Unweighted pair group method with arithmetic mean cluster analysis revealed distance indexes between 6.66 and 325.84. A total of 188 genotypes including the selected genotypes and clonal rootstocks were examined for morphological distance. The closest sweet cherry rootstock candidates were 52 C 071 and 52 C 079 (12.79), while the most distant were 05 C 002 and 08 C 039 (184.29). The closest sour cherries were 53 S 001 and 61 S 001 (8.75), while the most distant were 08 S 002 and 55 S 021 (44.38). The closest mahalebs were 28 M 001 and 55 M 005 (6.66), while the most distant were 05 M 001 and 52 M 007 (72.14). The most distant genotypes among species were 05 C 002 and 55 S 012 (325.84). According to the analysis of the morphological index, all of the genotypes were distinguishable from one another. The dendrogram had eight main groups, which had twelve subgroups. The first group consisted of four subgroups and included one hundred seventy five genotypes and Gisela 5, Gisela 6, and Maxma 14 clonal rootstocks. The second group consisted of 08 C 056 genotype and PHL-A, Weiroot 158, and Montmorency clonal rootstocks. Other six groups consisted of only one genotype/clonal rootstock, respectively, 61 C 017, 28 C 005, 52 M 001, 08 C 039, SL 64, and 55 S 012.

Correlations between pomological traits were observed, but these data are not given in the tables in this paper. A characteristic such as plant vigor was positively correlated with leaf blade length (0.38), petiole length (0.34), and petiole thickness (0.36). One-year-old length of internodes was positively correlated with leaf blade length (0.60), petiole length (0.58), and petiole thickness (0.56), while it was negatively correlated with leaf shape (−0.40). One-year-old branching (at the end of summer) was negatively correlated with leaf blade length (−0.57), petiole length (−0.58), petiole thickness (−0.53), and one-year-old length of internodes (−0.51). Information regarding the associations and correlations between different plant characteristics are valuable for breeding programs.

Principal component analysis (PCA) was used to examine the variation of cherries genotypes/clonal rootstocks. Morphological characterization is necessary for the description and classification of germplasm and statistical methods like principal components analysis are useful tools for screening the accessions of a collection [8, 9]. It allows for visualization of the differences among the individuals, identification of possible groups, and relationships among individuals and variables [10]. The first thirteen axes accounted for 72.38% of the variability among 188 accessions (Table 3). The first PC axis accounted for 8.13% of the variation, whereas the second, third, and fourth axes accounted for 3.81%, 3.36%, and 2.75%, respectively. The first axis was mainly related to leaf blade length (0.91), petiole: thickness (0.84), petiole length (0.73), leaf blade: ratio length/width (0.71), and one-year-old shoot: length of internodes (0.70). The second axis was concerned with leaf: ratio length of leaf blade/length of petiole (−0.76). The third axis was mainly concerned with leaf: presence of stipules (0.87), petiole: presence of pubescence of upper side (0.87), and petiole: intensity of pubescence of upper side (0.79). The remaining ten axes were related to other leaf, shoot, and plant traits (Table 3).


PC axis
12345678910111213

Eigenvalues8,133,813,362,751,931,661,551,421,341,251,141,061,01
Explained proportion of variation (%)19,359,088,006,544,603,963,683,373,192,982,712,522,41
Cumulative proportion of variation (%)19,3528,4336,4342,9747,5651,5255,2058,5761,7664,7467,4669,9872,38

CharactersEigen vectors

Leaf blade: shape −0,690,330,100,100,17−0,010,100,000,040,130,09−0,10−0,11
Leaf blade: angle of apex −0,360,550,14−0,22−0,06−0,02−0,070,07−0,10−0,140,090,320,15
Leaf blade: length of tip0,47−0,50−0,050,09−0,080,050,040,14−0,130,030,05−0,32−0,11
Leaf blade: shape of base−0,280,550,13−0,150,26−0,280,03−0,210,090,050,140,000,15
Leaf blade: color of upper side0,24−0,16−0,340,130,15−0,30−0,230,390,19−0,19−0,02−0,210,24
Leaf blade: glossiness of upper side−0,23−0,120,22−0,010,120,220,47−0,41−0,120,04−0,08−0,010,20
Leaf blade: pubescence of lower side at apex0,360,19−0,21−0,040,03−0,060,160,240,050,370,340,040,33
Young shoot intensity of anth. coloration of young leaf 0,49−0,010,440,22−0,060,04−0,22−0,26−0,18−0,110,35−0,05−0,09
Leaf blade: incisions of margin0,48−0,10−0,160,090,100,150,13−0,260,280,40−0,12−0,24−0,10
Leaf blade: depth of incisions of margin0,42−0,12−0,13−0,100,51−0,25−0,10−0,040,19−0,01−0,09−0,010,23
Leaf: presence of stipules−0,05−0,210,87−0,21−0,06−0,03−0,020,210,050,12−0,130,050,10
Petiole: presence of pubescence of upper side−0,03−0,190,87−0,25−0,050,00−0,010,190,060,15−0,140,070,10
Petiole: intensity of pubescence of upper side0,16−0,340,79−0,260,100,00−0,040,100,120,13−0,140,030,06
Petiole: depth of Groove0,54−0,23−0,06−0,080,41−0,09−0,040,040,03−0,18−0,080,210,14
Leaf: presence of nectaries0,090,180,27−0,190,020,040,560,220,04−0,320,18−0,37−0,09
Leaf: predominant number of nectaries0,530,300,13−0,020,10−0,150,330,06−0,08−0,19−0,05−0,310,17
Leaf: position of nectaries0,260,43−0,06−0,20−0,310,090,010,37−0,37−0,010,240,070,16
Nectary: color0,67−0,120,03−0,120,05−0,06−0,040,13−0,08−0,070,02−0,26−0,10
Nectary: shape0,150,200,08−0,080,06−0,170,300,100,42−0,440,090,24−0,25
Leaf blade: length0,910,10−0,030,080,06−0,03−0,02−0,09−0,04−0,08−0,140,14−0,02
Leaf blade: width0,680,450,010,150,15−0,080,04−0,030,03−0,04−0,160,16−0,11
Leaf blade: ratio length/width0,71−0,42−0,09−0,07−0,100,09−0,08−0,09−0,11−0,10−0,040,050,12
Petiole: length0,730,540,080,000,04−0,07−0,01−0,140,000,10−0,090,02−0,07
Leaf: ratio length of leaf blade/length of petiole0,07−0,76−0,120,120,010,10−0,030,11−0,05−0,240,000,110,08
Petiole: thickness0,840,13−0,010,080,080,02−0,01−0,06−0,020,05−0,110,10−0,03
Stipule: length0,50−0,190,29−0,080,03−0,04−0,070,000,330,010,400,01−0,20
Plant: vigor0,430,12−0,040,020,100,510,18−0,110,06−0,100,160,080,21
Plant: habit−0,150,15−0,09−0,040,270,59−0,010,150,320,07−0,03−0,04−0,10
Plant: branching−0,160,07−0,05−0,020,370,64−0,050,340,02−0,010,020,05−0,05
Pubescence of shoot−0,11−0,080,05−0,100,61−0,030,14−0,10−0,40−0,020,010,040,05
Anthocyanin coloration of apex0,53−0,070,380,19−0,070,18−0,25−0,23−0,13−0,170,330,01−0,05
One-year-old shoot: pos. of veg. bud in relation to shoot0,21−0,43−0,140,140,09−0,120,32−0,05−0,080,330,350,100,12
One-year-old shoot: size of vegetative bud0,080,250,040,28−0,500,08−0,06−0,030,34−0,01−0,09−0,180,42
One-year-old shoot: shape of apex of vegetative bud0,01−0,280,050,25−0,24−0,260,52−0,010,030,07−0,060,17−0,10
One-year-old shoot: size of vegetative bud support0,17−0,32−0,160,31−0,10−0,040,200,250,190,150,140,38−0,08
One-year-old shoot: length−0,090,080,430,680,210,04−0,04−0,040,06−0,070,08−0,010,22
One-year-old shoot: thickness−0,100,270,240,750,05−0,04−0,18−0,010,210,040,08−0,05−0,02
One-year-old shoot: length of internode 0,700,27−0,090,07−0,090,190,050,20−0,070,18−0,140,100,03
One-year-old shoot: number of lenticels0,120,11−0,04−0,550,21−0,20−0,250,030,080,310,27−0,09−0,15
One-year-old shoot: branching −0,66−0,240,040,390,32−0,09−0,060,10−0,03−0,060,10−0,040,05
First branch height0,560,320,180,270,01−0,020,020,22−0,210,16−0,190,00−0,18
Branch angle−0,200,140,170,610,20−0,140,040,30−0,310,13−0,07−0,04−0,16

The populations were grouped into seventeen clusters by cluster analysis. These are composed of six groups and eleven single genotypes. The different cherry genotypes identified based on the similarity of their morphological characteristics and their hierarchical clustering are shown in Figure 2. These seventeen groups can be considered as distinct germplasm pools (Figure 2). According to diversity analysis of coefficients, the 28 M 0001 and 55 M 0005 genotypes were found to be very similar (6.66), while the 05 C 0002 and 55 S 0012 genotypes were determined as the most distant genotypes (325.84) in terms of morphological variability. Shahi-Gharahlar et al. [11] reported that dendrogram obtained from morphological traits clearly distinguished the Cerasus subgenus genotypes from the other genotypes. Pérez-Sánchez et al. [4] suggested that a dendrogram obtained from morphological characteristics clearly showed the relationships between cultivars of sweet, sour, and duke cherries.

The high total variance explained by the first three axes was shown in a 2D and 3D screen plot; each genotype/clonal rootstock was plotted based on its principal components score (the cumulative proportion of variance) for each of the first three axes (Figure 3).

4. Conclusions

As a result, it can be said that the studied genotypes are diverse and display great variations. The collection, evaluation, and characterization of Turkish cherries germplasm are a field of interest and are of economical and ecological importance. This provides rootstocks with good adaptations to diverse climatic and soil conditions of Turkey. The results may serve as a significant reference for the comparison of genetic resources, the characterization of cherry genotypes, and the cherry rootstock breeding programs to select the best parents with the highest variation. In conclusion, the genotypes evaluated in this study may be useful for both breeders and rootstock breeding programs.

Acknowledgment

The authors are grateful to the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (Project no.: TUBİTAK 106O031) for the financial support.

References

  1. Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), February 2013, http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=567.
  2. S. Ercisli, A. Esitken, E. Orhan, and O. Ozdemir, “Rootstocks used for temperate fruit trees in Turkey: an overview,” Sodininkyste ir Darzininkyste, vol. 25, pp. 27–33, 2006. View at: Google Scholar
  3. E. Cromwell, “Agricultural, biodiversity and livelihood: issue and entry point: final report,” April 1999, http://www.odi.org.uk/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/8286.pdf. View at: Google Scholar
  4. R. Pérez-Sánchez, M. A. Gómez-Sánchez, and R. Morales-Corts, “Agromorphological characterization of traditional Spanish sweet cherry (Prunus avium L.), sour cherry (Prunus cerasus L.) and duke cherry (Prunus × gondouinii Rehd.) cultivars,” Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 42–55, 2008. View at: Google Scholar
  5. A. Khadivi-Khub, Z. Zamani, and N. Bouzari, “Evaluation of genetic diversity in some Iranian and foreign sweet cherry cultivars by using RAPD molecular markers and morphological traits,” Horticulture Environment and Biotechnology, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 188–196, 2008. View at: Google Scholar
  6. E. G. Moghadam and A. Khalighi, “Relationship between vigor of Iranian Prunus mahaleb L. selected dwarf rootstocks and some morphological characters,” Scientia Horticulturae, vol. 111, no. 3, pp. 209–212, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  7. V. Rakonjac, M. F. Akšić, D. Nikolić, D. Milatović, and S. Čolić, “Morphological characterization of “Oblačinska” sour cherry by multivariate analysis,” Scientia Horticulturae, vol. 125, no. 4, pp. 679–684, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  8. C. Cantini, A. Cimato, and G. Sani, “Morphological evaluation of olive germplasm present in Tuscany region,” Euphytica, vol. 109, no. 3, pp. 173–181, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. M. L. Badenes, J. Martínez-Calvo, and G. Llácer, “Analysis of a germplasm collection of loquat (Eriobotrya japonica Lindl.),” Euphytica, vol. 114, no. 3, pp. 187–194, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  10. J. Martínez-Calvo, A. D. Gisbert, M. C. Alamar et al., “Study of a germplasm collection of loquat (Eriobotrya japonica Lindl.) by multivariate analysis,” Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, vol. 55, no. 5, pp. 695–703, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. A. Shahi-Gharahlar, Z. Zamani, M. R. Fatahi, and N. Bouzari, “Assessment of morphological variation between some Iranian wild Cerasus sub-genus genotypes,” Horticulture Environment and Biotechnology, vol. 51, pp. 308–318, 2010. View at: Google Scholar

Copyright © 2013 Aysen Koc et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


More related articles

 PDF Download Citation Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder
Views1501
Downloads753
Citations

Related articles

We are committed to sharing findings related to COVID-19 as quickly as possible. We will be providing unlimited waivers of publication charges for accepted research articles as well as case reports and case series related to COVID-19. Review articles are excluded from this waiver policy. Sign up here as a reviewer to help fast-track new submissions.