Nội dung

Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry http://journals.tubitak.gov.tr/agriculture/ Research Article Turk J Agric For (2013) 37: 575-584 © TÜBİTAK doi:10.3906/tar-1301-39 Morphological characterization of cherry rootstock candidates selected from Samsun Province in Turkey 1, 1 2 Aysen KOÇ *, Şükriye BİLGENER Department of Horticulture, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Sciences, Bozok University, Yozgat, Turkey 2 Department of Horticulture, Faculty of Agriculture, Ondokuz Mayıs University, Samsun, Turkey Received: 14.01.2013 Accepted: 05.03.2013 Published Online: 28.08.2013 Printed: 25.09.2013 Abstract: Sweet cherry and sour cherry production in Turkey occupies an important place in worldwide production and is still of considerable importance in terms of providing further fruit species and gene resources. In this study, 88 sweet cherry, 16 sour cherry, and 9 mahaleb types displaying potential for cultivar rootstocks were selected from wild cherry populations in Samsun Province of the Central Black Sea Region in Turkey. The morphologic characteristics of the studied genotypes were compared with the standard clone rootstocks PHL-A, MaxMa 14, Montmorency, Weiroot 158, Gisela 5, Gisela 6, and SL 64. A total of 22 morphological and phenotypic characteristics were evaluated in the selected genotypes and clonal rootstocks. The obtained data were analyzed by using principal component analysis, and 7 principal component (PC) axes accounted for 70.37% of the total cumulative variation. The first PC axis, which accounted for 22.4% of the total variation, was represented by leaf blade length, leaf blade width, petiole length, ratio of 1-yearold shoot internodes length, and 1-year-old shoot branching, while the second PC axis, which accounted for 13.55% of the variation, was represented by leaf blade ratio of length to width, 1-year-old shoot length, 1-year-old shoot thickness, and leaf blade shape. Average linkage cluster analysis was also performed, and 7 main clusters were identified. According to the diversity analysis of coefficients, the C 0032 and C 0094 genotypes were identified as being very similar, while the C 0002 and S 0012 genotypes were determined as the most distant genotypes in terms of morphology. In conclusion, the genotypes evaluated in this study may be useful for rootstock breeding programs. Key words: Cherries rootstock, morphological characterization, multivariate analysis, Samsun-Turkey 1. Introduction The use of standard rootstock has become a necessity in modern fruit production. Rootstock selection should be performed in order to increase plant resistance against adverse climatic and soil conditions, to broaden adaptability, and to increase fruit yield and quality, since these characteristics are as important as the control of tree size and dwarfing. Rootstocks have been used in the propagation of temperate fruits for over 2000 years. In addition to allowing convenient propagation, rootstock use also has a positive impact on plant adaptation to different environmental conditions (Webster, 1995). Rootstock breeding has been the main focus of studies aiming to increase the yield of the dwarf cherry rootstock, and also of research that has been conducted during the last 70–80 years for new varieties. The Mazzard and Mahaleb generative rootstocks have been used until the 1990s. As a result of the rootstock breeding program carried out at the East Malling Research Station in the United Kingdom during the 1920s, the F 12 / 1 clone was selected from * Correspondence: aysen.koc@bozok.edu.tr Mazzard, and the Colt clone was selected from the Prunus avium × Prunus pseudocerasus cross. These rootstocks are still used currently today, although their use is no longer very common. The largest breeding program of cherry rootstock clones was initiated in Germany (Giessen) in 1965. At the end of these studies, the Gisela 5 (Prunus cerasus × Prunus canescens) and Gisela 6 (P. cerasus × P. canescens), which are rootstocks of the Gisela series, provided better results compared to the other rootstocks in terms of yield and dwarf growth (Rieger, 2006). In recent years, the P-HL series, Pi-Ku series, Camil (GM 79), Damil (GM 61 / 1), Inmil (GM 9), Gisela, and M × M (MaxMa) hybrid rootstock clones have also been obtained as a result of species and interspecies crosses (Hrotko, 2008). In Turkey, the mahaleb (Prunus mahaleb), wild cherry (Prunus avium), and sour cherry (Prunus cerasus) seedling rootstocks are used in cherry production. Ercisli et al. (2006) reported that 40% of the cherry production in Turkey is carried out on wild cherry seedling rootstocks, 575 KOÇ and BİLGENER / Turk J Agric For with 30% being mahaleb seedlings and 30% being a mix of Gisela 5, Gisela 6, and SL 64 clonal rootstocks. However, as is the case with other species used in fruit production, Turkey does not have its own native cherry clone rootstocks. Turkey is one of the most important genetic sources for cherry in the world and provides an important source of variation for plant breeding. The aim of our study was to investigate genotypic variation among 88 sweet cherry, 16 sour cherry, and 9 mahaleb types, selected from the wild genotype cherry populations in the Samsun Province of the Central Black Sea Region that can potentially be used as rootstocks for cultivars. 2. Materials and methods This study was conducted at the Black Sea Agricultural Research Institute (Karadeniz Tarımsal Araştırma Enstitüsü) in Samsun between 2007 and 2009. The germplasm used in this study was collected from 15 districts within Samsun Province (Table 1). Samsun is located at 40°50′N–41°51′N, 37°08′E–34°25′E. A total of 88 sweet cherry, 16 sour cherry, and 9 mahaleb types, which were selected in 2007 and 2008 from wild cherry populations and which have the potential of being used as rootstocks for cultivars, constituted the materials of this study. The morphologic characteristics of the studied genotypes were compared with PHL-A, MaxMa 14, Montmorency, Weiroot 158, Gisela 5, Gisela 6, and SL 64 standard clone rootstocks. Leaves and shoots of the types grafted by budding in the observation gardens were identified by using the identification and morphological characterization criteria of UPOV (International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, Prunus Rootstocks 2002, TG / 187 / 1 - 03.03.2007). Morphological characteristics of the leaves were determined in July, while the morphological features of the shoots were determined in December. A total of 120 genotypes and cultivars, including the selected genotypes and clonal rootstocks, were evaluated according to a total of 22 morphological and phenotypic characteristics (Table 2). Simple correlations, factor and cluster analyses, and scatter plots were prepared by using SPSS 20.0 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. 3. Results The location data for the wild cherry, sour cherry, and mahaleb types were determined by using GPS. The data were transferred to a GIS database, and a distribution map was created with ArcGIS 9.2 software (Figure 1). 576 Principal component analysis (PCA) was used to assess the variation between cherry genotypes. The first 7 axes accounted for 70.37% of the variability among 120 types (Table 3). The 1st PC axis accounted for 22.4% of the variation, while the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th axes accounted for 13.6%, 10.4%, and 7.4%, respectively. The first axis was mainly related to leaf blade length, leaf blade width, petiole length, 1-year-old shoot internodes length, and 1-yearold shoot branching. The second axis was mainly related to leaf blade ratio of length to width, 1-year-old shoot length, 1-year-old shoot thickness, and leaf blade shape. The remaining 5 axes were related to other leaf, shoot, and plant traits (Table 3). Table 4 provides the correlations among 22 characteristics. One characteristic, plant vigor, was positively correlated with nectary color (0.31), leaf blade width (0.30), petiole length (0.29), and leaf predominant number of nectaries (0.27), while it was negatively correlated with 1-year-old shoot branching (–0.27). One-year-old shoot thickness was positively correlated with 1-year-old shoot length (0.71). One-year-old shoot branching was negatively correlated with leaf blade length (–0.64), leaf blade width (–0.52), and petiole length (–0.68), while it was positively correlated with ratio of length of leaf blade to length of petiole (0.41). Leaf blade length (0.50), leaf blade width (0.49), and petiole length (0.41) showed positive correlation with 1-year-old shoot length of internodes. The populations were grouped into 7 clusters by cluster analysis. The different cherry genotypes, identified based on the similarity of their morphological characteristics and their hierarchical clustering, are shown in Figure 2. These 7 groups and their 15 subgroups can be considered as distinct germplasm pools (Figure 2). The means and standard deviations of the traits for each cluster are given in Table 5. According to diversity analysis of coefficients, the C 0032 and C 0094 genotypes were very similar, while the C 0002 and S 0012 genotypes were determined as the most distant genotypes in terms of morphological variability. The major clusters can be summarized as follows: Group A consisted of 6 subgroups and includes 88 genotypes. Narrow elliptic and elliptic leaf shapes were observed in Group A. Plant vigor was observed as medium and strong, while the upper side coloration of the leaf blade was found to be light and dark green. One-year-old shoots were, on average, 123.0 cm in length and 14.8 mm in thickness, with an internodes length of 4.2 cm. There were only 2 genotypes in Groups B and C. Elliptic leaf shapes were observed in Group B, while narrow elliptic leaf shapes were observed in Group C. The upper side coloration of the leaf blades was found to be dark green in Group B, and both light and dark green in Group C. Leaf stipules were observed to be present in Group C, but absent in Group B. While 1-year-old shoots KOÇ and BİLGENER / Turk J Agric For Table 1. Geographical location data of the types selected from Samsun Province in Turkey (C: P. avium, S: P. cerasus, M: P. mahaleb). District Alaçam Village Selection code Altitude (m) C 0006 683 C 0074 812 Kapaklı C 0070 476 Akyazı C 0054 810 C 0051 678 C 0052 645 C 0053 524 C 0114 780 C 0096 754 Alidede Ayaklıalan Asarcık Dağcılar Hisariye Kesealan Bafra Kamberli Eğridere Çarşamba Güldere Kestanepınar Havza Ladik Küpecik Soğanlı Ondokuz mayıs S 0017 929 C 0005 754 C 0064 954 C 0003 1085 C 0004 1210 Aydınpınar C 0066 884 Çepinler C 0065 247 S 0008 236 C 0122 118 C 0119 490 C 0120 337 Karaman C 0008 382 Muslubey C 0062 74 C 0010 534 Karacaören M 0008 914 M 0009 700 C 0089 689 C 0090 314 C 0117 620 Tahnal C 0116 691 S 0019 630 C 0087 146 C 0115 252 S 0012 173 C 0067 623 C 0068 623 C 0110 401 C 0111 431 C 0112 475 Salıpazarı Taçalan C 0011 834 C 0121 1097 Çamlıyazı S 0001 402 Erikli C 0030 761 C 0024 718 C 0026 738 Kabadüz Samsun Central District C 0027 722 C 0028 824 C 0032 480 Sarıbıyık S 0002 409 S 0003 535 Taflan C 0031 198 C 0132 429 Toygar S 0021 560 C 0134 510 Bakacak C 0123 511 C 0135 544 Çırakman C 0059 332 C 0060 658 C 0061 632 C 0113 418 S 0015 168 S 0018 241 C 0106 274 Çimenli Tekkeköy Erenköy Kazımkarabekir C 0124 126 C 0125 656 C 0126 599 C 0127 599 C 0128 690 C 0129 755 C 0083 287 C 0084 509 C 0107 262 Kocamanbaşı C 0040 427 C 0131 328 Çalkara M 0006 332 Çiftlik C 0055 1033 Hacıbattal M 0004 534 Kirenlik M 0002 705 C 0102 862 C 0057 866 C 0103 791 C 0058 863 M 0003 352 Orhaniye Şerifali Kavak (continued) Karaaptal Düzköy 848 Arasdemirci 964 Central district 799 Yeşilçam 815 S 0014 Central district Ladik Altitude (m) 779 C 0095 Sofualan S 0013 1013 C 0048 Ayvacık Selection code S 0022 Yeniömerli Esenyurt Village Derinöz C 0049 Yeşilköy Çökekli District Yağcımahmut S 0004 821 Atayurt C 0035 797 Çalman Elaldı Vezirköprü Central district C 0105 659 M 0007 681 C 0104 808 C 0118 791 M 0001 351 M 0005 351 Bayraklı C 0038 817 C 0014 735 Bükceğiz C 0093 765 C 0015 749 Karlı C 0092 753 Kozansıkı C 0094 751 Sıralı C 0036 866 Budakdere C 0100 1004 Cüce C 0002 958 C 0099 983 S 0016 909 Deliahmetoğlu Öğürlü Karaaba Yakakent Yeşilköy C 0019 726 C 0020 708 C 0082 593 S 0011 685 C 0080 151 C 0081 246 577 KOÇ and BİLGENER / Turk J Agric For Table 2. Morphological and physiological characteristics used for the characterization of cherry types. Leaf LBL: Leaf blade: length (cm) LBW: Leaf blade: width (cm) RLW: Leaf blade: ratio of length to width PL: Petiole: length (cm) RLP: Leaf blade: ratio of leaf blade length to petiole length LBS: Leaf blade: shape; narrow elliptic (1), elliptic (2), circular (3), ovate (4), obovate (5) LBC: Leaf blade: upper side coloration; light green (1), dark green (2), red (3), reddish brown (4) LBP: Leaf blade: lower side pubescence at apex, weak (3), medium (5), strong (7) LAC: Young shoot: intensity of anthocyanin coloration in young leaves (during rapid growth); weak (3), medium (5), strong (7) LBM: Leaf blade: margin incision; only crenate (1), both crenate and serrate (2), only serrate (3) LS: Leaf: presence of stipules; absent (1), present (9) LN: Leaf: presence of nectaries, absent (1), present (9) LNN: Leaf: predominant number of nectaries; absent (0), 1 (1), 2 (2), more than 2 (3) NC: Nectary: color; absent (0), green (1), yellow (2), red (3), violet (4) One year old shoot SL: One-year-old shoot: length (cm) ST: One-year-old shoot: thickness (mm) SIL: One-year-old shoot: internodes length (middle third of shoot) (cm) SB: One-year-old shoot: branching (at the end of summer) AAC: One-year-old shoot: anthocyanin coloration of apex; absent or very weak (1), weak (3), medium (5), strong (7), very strong (9) BP: One-year-old shoot: position of vegetative bud in relation to shoot; adpressed (1), slightly held-out (2), markedly held-out (3) Plant PV: Plant: vigor; weak (3), medium (5), strong (7) PH: Plant: habit; upright (1), spreading (3), drooping (5) Figure 1. Map of the distribution of cherry (P. avium), sour cherry (P. cerasus), and mahaleb (P. mahaleb) genotypes in Samsun Province. 578 KOÇ and BİLGENER / Turk J Agric For Table 3. Eigenvalues and proportions of variance described by the 7 principal components that correspond to Eigenvalues greater than 1. PC axis 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Eigenvalues 4.93 2.98 2.29 1.63 1.28 1.25 1.13 Explained proportion of variation (%) 22.40 13.55 10.42 7.40 5.80 5.67 5.13 Cumulative proportion of variation (%) 22.40 35.95 46.37 53.77 59.57 65.24 70.37 Characteristic Eigenvectors Leaf blade: length 0.88 –0.23 0.02 –0.17 0.02 –0.03 0.13 Leaf blade: width 0.75 0.20 –0.35 –0.16 –0.05 0.17 0.28 Leaf blade: ratio of length to width 0.38 –0.66 0.48 –0.05 0.12 –0.26 –0.17 Petiole: length 0.86 0.02 –0.24 –0.12 0.05 –0.24 –0.09 Leaf: ratio of leaf blade length to petiole length –0.42 –0.30 0.50 0.03 –0.05 0.29 0.26 One-year-old shoot: length 0.17 0.66 0.37 –0.29 0.22 0.01 –0.21 One-year-old shoot: thickness 0.32 0.61 0.14 –0.51 0.28 0.01 –0.09 One-year-old shoot: internodes length 0.62 –0.01 –0.02 –0.14 0.12 0.11 0.25 One-year-old shoot: branching –0.76 0.17 0.18 –0.11 0.20 0.18 0.07 Leaf blade: shape –0.27 0.61 –0.50 0.17 –0.15 0.23 0.19 Leaf blade: upper side coloration 0.12 –0.27 0.19 –0.27 0.42 0.27 0.39 Leaf blade: lower side pubescence at apex 0.33 –0.12 0.01 0.01 –0.45 0.34 –0.01 Intensity of anthocyanin coloration in young leaves 0.37 0.49 0.60 0.04 –0.32 0.09 0.06 Leaf blade: margin incision 0.46 –0.18 –0.23 –0.15 –0.47 –0.16 –0.10 Leaf: presence of stipules –0.02 0.52 0.37 0.26 0.07 –0.41 –0.15 Leaf: presence of nectaries 0.28 0.15 –0.10 0.79 0.25 0.02 0.01 Leaf: predominant number of nectaries 0.58 0.09 –0.02 0.40 0.28 –0.01 –0.04 Nectary: color 0.49 –0.25 0.22 0.39 0.10 0.17 0.05 One-year-old shoot: anthocyanin coloration of apex 0.27 0.40 0.65 0.14 –0.41 0.07 0.12 Position of veg. bud in relation to shoot 0.08 –0.46 0.37 0.04 0.00 0.15 –0.09 Plant: vigor 0.44 0.22 –0.07 0.15 0.17 0.50 –0.24 Plant: habit –0.01 0.17 0.08 0.11 0.02 –0.47 0.71 579 580 0.21 0.50 –0.64 –0.52 –0.33 –0.68 –0.36 0.22 0.24 0.20 0.42 –0.13 –0.10 –0.07 –0.02 –0.04 0.09 0.43 0.43 0.13 0.12 0.22 –0.03 ST SIL SB LBS LBC LBP LAC LBM LS LN LNN NC AAC BP PV PH 0.00 0.30 –0.14 0.10 0.20 0.36 0.16 0.37 0.18 0.22 0.11 0.19 0.49 0.35 0.10 0.41 0.29 0.11 0.41 –0.17 –0.25 –0.07 –0.05 0.38 0.05 0.38 0.19 –0.07 0.17 0.04 0.09 0.22 0.03 0.29 0.01 0.06 0.32 0.39 0.16 0.39 0.17 0.20 0.08 –0.06 0.05 0.17 0.09 0.71 1.00 SL 0.04 0.07 0.44 0.36 0.21 –0.01 –0.23 0.23 0.07 0.02 –0.18 0.12 0.20 0.05 0.22 0.00 0.19 –0.12 –0.17 0.30 –0.08 –0.10 0.16 –0.16 –0.02 –0.10 0.39 –0.13 –0.04 –0.01 –0.02 1.00 SIL 0.10 0.25 0.09 0.09 0.28 0.32 0.08 –0.12 0.18 0.16 0.17 0.05 –0.16 –0.01 –0.37 0.29 1.00 ST –0.05 –0.01 –0.06 0.14 –0.81 –0.17 –0.16 0.17 –0.15 –0.11 –0.08 0.03 1.00 SL 0.18 –0.70 –0.15 –0.31 1.00 RLP 0.66 0.28 0.76 1.00 PL –0.13 0.52 RLW 1.00 RLP 0.77 PL LBW RLW 1.00 LBW LBL LBL 1.00 LBS 0.01 0.00 0.04 1.00 LBC 0.11 0.07 0.04 –0.27 0.08 0.07 –0.08 –0.33 0.23 0.14 1.00 LBP 0.09 0.02 –0.09 0.02 0.04 0.10 –0.09 0.13 0.06 0.13 0.14 0.11 0.05 –0.18 –0.12 –0.12 –0.05 –0.04 –0.29 –0.25 –0.33 –0.07 –0.23 0.04 –0.44 –0.13 –0.14 –0.18 –0.21 –0.11 –0.01 –0.26 0.20 1.00 SB 0.07 0.18 0.03 0.85 0.14 0.19 0.07 0.32 0.02 1.00 LAC 0.34 –0.01 0.10 0.18 1.00 LS 0.07 0.31 0.55 1.00 LN –0.04 0.06 0.15 –0.02 0.06 0.20 –0.02 –0.17 –0.04 –0.01 0.11 0.21 –0.06 –0.18 1.00 LBM 0.01 0.27 0.03 0.07 0.23 1.00 LNN Table 4. Correlation coefficients between some of the traits of different genotypes/clonal rootstocks. –0.01 0.31 0.17 0.18 1.00 NC 0.12 0.15 0.06 1.00 AAC 1.00 PV –0.10 –0.16 –0.04 1.00 BP 1.00 PH KOÇ and BİLGENER / Turk J Agric For KOÇ and BİLGENER / Turk J Agric For Dendrogram using Average Linkage (Between Groups) Rescaled Distance Cluster Combine 0 C 0032 C 0094 C 0059 C 0036 C 0049 C 0057 C 0092 C 0084 C 0113 C 0026 C 0087 C 0011 C 0070 C 0015 C 0102 C 0030 C 0048 C 0066 C 0083 C 0126 C 0128 S 0003 C 0027 C 0118 C 0116 C 0002 C 0093 S 0002 C 0052 C 0099 C 0127 C 0005 C 0114 C 0061 C 0107 C 0062 C 0106 C 0089 C 0040 C 0100 C 0119 C 0122 C 0051 C 0060 C 0096 C 0024 C 0064 C 0028 C 0121 C 0031 C 0010 C 0065 C 0132 C 0110 S 0021 C 0054 Montmorency C 0053 C 0095 C 0074 C 0081 C 0103 C 0117 C 0115 C 0135 C 0020 C 0055 C 0111 C 0120 C 0129 C 0090 C 0080 C 0104 C 0125 C 0082 C 0019 C 0105 C 0008 C 0068 C 0014 C 0038 C 0131 C 0003 C 0058 C 0035 C 0134 C 0067 C 0004 C 0006 C 0124 C 0112 C 0123 S 0019 S 0022 S 0001 S 0011 S 0017 S 0008 S 0016 S 0013 S 0014 S 0004 S 0015 S 0018 P-H-L A Weiroot 158 M 0002 M 0003 M 0008 M 0005 M 0007 M 0004 M 0006 M 0009 M 0001 SL 64 Gisela 5 Gisela 6 Maxma 14 S 0012 5 10 15 20 25 A B C D E F G Figure 2. Cluster analysis for 120 genotypes and clonal rootstocks based on morphological data. in Group B were on average 147.6 cm in length and 18.9 mm in thickness, with internodes length of 6.6 cm, 1-yearold shoots in Group C were on average 97.1 cm in length and 12.4 mm in thickness, with an internodes length of 3.5 cm. In both groups, only serrate leaf blade margin incisions were observed. Group D included 14 genotypes and consisted of 2 subgroups. Narrow elliptic and elliptic leaf shapes were observed in Group D. The upper side coloration of the leaf blade was found to be both light and dark green. One-year-old shoots were, on average, 126.4 cm in length and 14.8 mm in thickness, with an internodes length of 3.5 cm. Group E consisted of 10 genotypes. These were all mahaleb genotypes and SL 64 clonal rootstocks. Elliptic, circular, and ovate leaf shapes were observed in Group E. Intensity of anthocyanin coloration of young leaves (during rapid growth) was found to be weak. Group F included 3 clonal rootstocks (Gisela 5, Gisela 6, and MaxMa 14). The 1-year-old shoot was measured as 124.3 cm in length and 8.4 mm in thickness, with an internodes length of 2.6 cm. The number of branchings (at the end of summer) was calculated as 9.6. Plant vigor was observed as weak and medium, while plant habit was found to be upright and spreading. Group G consisted of only one genotype (S 0012). The 1-year-old shoot was measured as 134.8 cm in length and 18.4 mm in thickness, with an internodes length of 3.1 cm. The number of branchings (at the end of summer) was calculated 9.6. Unlike the other genotypes and clonal rootstocks, leaf stipules and leaf nectaries were not present in this genotype. The high level of total variance described by the first 3 axes is shown in a 2D and 3D screen plot. Each genotype and clonal rootstock was plotted according to the score of its principal components (the cumulative proportion of variance) for each of the first 3 axes (Figure 3). 4. Discussion A high level of genetic diversity was observed among the wild cherry, sour cherry, and mahaleb genotypes collected from Samsun Province in the Central Black Sea Region of Turkey. Several researchers have reported morphological variations in certain Prunus subgenus cerasus genotypes, such as the sweet cherry (P. avium), sour cherry (P. cerasus), and mahaleb (P. mahaleb) (Moghadam and Khalighi, 2006, 2007; Khadivi-Khub et al., 2008; Perez Sanchez et al., 2008; Rakonjac et al., 2010). Our results in Table 4 show that plant vigor was positively correlated with 1-year-old shoot length and 1-year-old shoot thickness. These data are in agreement with the findings of Moghadam and Khalighi (2006, 2007) with mahaleb, Hrotkó (1996) and Faust and Zagaja (1984) with sweet cherry, and Rakonjac et al. (2010), who also reported a positive correlation between the tree vigor and the tree height with ‘Oblacinska’ sour cherry. 581 582 1-3-5 Plant: habit 1-2-3 One-year-old shoot: position of vegetative bud in relation to shoot 5-7 1-5-7 One-year-old shoot: anthocyanin coloration of apex Plant: vigor 1-2-3 2-3 Nectary: color Leaf: predominant number of nectaries 9 Leaf: presence of nectaries 1-2-3 Leaf blade: margin incisions 1-9 3-5-7 Young shoot: intensity of anthocyanin coloration of young leaf Leaf: presence of stipules 3-5-7 1-2 Leaf blade: upper side coloration Leaf blade: lower side pubescence at apex 1-2 2.6 ± 1.7 One-year-old shoot: branching Leaf blade: shape 4.2 ± 0.8 One-year-old shoot: internodes length 4.0 ± 0.5 Leaf: ratio of leaf blade length to petiole length 14.8 ± 3.4 3.2 ± 0.5 Petiole: length One-year-old shoot: thickness 1.8 ± 1.2 Leaf blade: ratio of length to width 123.0 ± 39.6 7.1 ± 0.8 Leaf blade: width One-year-old shoot: length 12.5 ± 1.3 Leaf blade: length A 1-3 5 2 1-5 2 3 9 1 3 3-5 5 2 2 3.9 ± 3.0 6.6 ± 0.6 18.9 ± 1.4 147.6 ± 31.9 4.2 ± 0.1 3.2 ± 0.3 1.6 ± 0.1 8.7 ± 0.4 13.2 ± 0.9 B 1 3 2-3 1 2-3 3 9 9 3 3 3 1-2 1 0.0 ± 0.0 3.5 ± 0.7 12.4 ± 2.1 97.1 ± 10.8 4.0 ± 1.5 3.8 ± 1.3 2.3 ± 0.0 6.2 ± 0.3 14.2 ± 0.4 C 1-3 3-5-7 1-2-3 1-3-5 2-3-4 1-2-3 9 1-9 1-2-3 3-5 3 1-2 1-2 10.6 ± 2.8 3.5 ± 0.7 14.8 ± 3.2 126.4 ± 37.5 5.5 ± 0.7 1.9 ± 0.2 1.9 ± 0.1 5.4 ± 0.5 10.2 ± 1.3 D Table 5. Mean trait values used for the identification of cherry types. 1-3 3-5 1-2 1 1-2 2-3 9 1-9 1-2-3 3 3 1-2 2-3-4 12.2 ± 5.6 2.5 ± 0.3 15.3 ± 2.9 142.0 ± 25.3 3.4 ± 0.6 2.2 ± 0.3 1.3 ± 0.1 5.8 ± 0.6 7.2 ± 0.4 E 1-3 3-5 2-3 1-5 1-2-3 2-3 9 9 1-3 3-5 3-5 1-2 1-4 9.6 ± 5.0 2.6 ± 0.3 8.4 ± 1.2 124.3 ± 20.1 7.3 ± 2.4 1.0 ± 0.1 1.7 ± 0.1 4.0 ± 1.0 6.9 ± 1.6 F 1 3 2 1 0 0 1 1 3 3 3 2 1 15.8 ± 0.9 3.1 ± 0.6 18.4 ± 5.2 134.8 ± 7.8 5.9 ± 0.5 1.6 ± 0.2 1.9 ± 0.1 4.8 ± 0.3 9.5 ± 0.1 G KOÇ and BİLGENER / Turk J Agric For KOÇ and BİLGENER / Turk J Agric For 2.00 1.00 2.00 .00 1.00 –1.00 .00 –3.00 P. avium P.mahaleb P. cerasus Clonal rootstock –4.00 –3.00 –2.00 –1.00 .00 1.00 PC1: 22.17% 2.00 3.00 –1.00 –2.00 –3.00 –4.00 3.00 2 .00 1.0 0 .00 Factor 2 –1 3.0 0 2.0 0 1.0 0 .00 .00 .00 –2 –1.00 – –3 .00 2.00 –3 .00 3 –2.00 Fa cto r Factor 1 PC2: 13.43% P. avium P.mahaleb P. cerasus Clonal rootstock Figure 3. 2D and 3D scatter diagrams of the relationships among the genotypes and clonal rootstocks (based on morphological traits). PCA was used to identify the most significant variables in the data set. PCA has been used until now to evaluate germplasm of different Prunus species, including peach (Perez et al., 1993; Esti et al., 1997; Wu et al., 2003; Nikolic et al., 2010), apricot (Badenes et al., 1998; Ruiz and Egea, 2008; Yılmaz et al., 2012), mahaleb (Moghadam and Khalighi, 2006, 2007), cherry plum (Horvath et al., 2008; Sedaghathoor et al., 2009; Aran et al., 2012), sour cherry (Krahl et al., 1991; Onal, 2002; Rakonjac et al., 2010), cherry (Hillig and Iezzoni, 1988; Hjalmarsson and Ortiz, 2000; Beyer et al., 2002, Rodrigues et al., 2008; Perez Sanchez et al., 2008; Lacis et al., 2009, Zamani et al., 2012), and Prunus incana (Nazari et al., 2012). Morphological characterization is necessary for germplasm description and classification, and statistical methods such as PCA are useful tools for screening the accessions of a collection (Cantini et al., 1999; Badenes et al., 2000). PCA allows visualization of the differences between the individuals, as well as the identification of potential groups and the relationships of the individuals between variables (Martinez-Calvo et al., 2008). Zhang et al. (2008) observed that the relationships of individuals among different morphological traits, fruit width, leaf length, stem length, branch type, fruit color, and fruit shape were the most useful for assessing the accessions of tomentosa cherries. Nazari et al. (2012) reported that leaf area, fruit weight, petiole length to blade length ratio, fruit length to diameter ratio, and leaf serration were the most useful traits for evaluating P. incana accessions. Cluster analysis clearly separated P. incana accessions from the other Prunus species, and researchers were able separate P. incana accessions according to their geographic locations. Shahi-Gharahlar et al. (2010) reported that a dendrogram obtained from morphological traits clearly distinguished the subgenus Cerasus genotypes from other the genotypes. Perez Sanchez et al. (2008) suggested that a dendrogram obtained from morphological characteristics clearly showed the relationships between cultivars of sweet, sour, and duke cherries. In conclusion, the studied genotypes were diverse and they demonstrated a large range of variations. The collection, evaluation, and characterization of the germplasm of Turkish cherries are a field of interest, and also of considerable economic and ecological importance. Such studies may show that germplasm will potentially provide rootstocks with good adaptations for different climates and soil conditions in Turkey. Acknowledgments The authors are grateful to the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (Project No.: TÜBİTAK 106O031) for financial support. Thanks are also due to Dr Fatih Seyis for his help in statistical analysis. References Aran M, Fatahi R, and Zamani Z (2012). Molecular and morphological discrimination of selected plum seedlings for rootstock breeding. J Fruit Ornam Plant Res 20: 5–19. Badenes ML, Martinez-Calvo J, Llacer G (1998). Analysis of apricot germplasm from the European ecogeographical group. Euphytica 102: 93–99. 583 KOÇ and BİLGENER / Turk J Agric For Badenes ML, Martinez-Calvo J, Llacer G (2000). Analysis of a germplasm collection of loquat (Eriobotrya japonica Lindl.). Euphytica 114: 187–194. Nazari SA, Zamani Z, Fatahi MR, Sofla HS (2012). Morphological characterization of Prunus incana Pall by multivariate analysis. Plant Syst Evol 298:1805–1814. Beyer M, Hahn R, Peschel S, Harz M, Knoche M (2002). Analysing fruit shape in sweet cherry (Prunus avium L.). Sci Hortic Amsterdam 96: 139–150. Nikolic D, Rakonjac V, Milatovic D, Fotiric M (2010). Multivariate analysis of vineyard peach [Prunus persica (L.) Batsch.] germplasm collection. Euphytica 171: 227–234. Cantini C, Cimato A, Sani G (1999). Morphological evaluation of olive germplasm present in Tuscany region. Euphytica 109: 173–181. Onal MK (2002). Evaluation of sour cherry (Prunus cerasus L.) genetic resources collected Aegean region. J Fac Agr Akdeniz Uni 39: 39–44. Ercisli S, Esitken A, Orhan E, Ozdemir O (2006). Rootstocks used for temperate fruit trees in turkey: an overview. Scientific Works of The Lithuanian Institute of Horticulture and Lithuanian University of Agriculture. Sodininkyste Ir Darzininkyste 25: 27–33. Perez S, Montes S, Mejia C (1993). Analysis of peach germplasm in Mexico. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 118: 519–524. Esti M, Messia MC, Sinesio F, Nicotra A, Conte L (1997). Quality evaluation of peaches and nectarines by electrochemical and multivariate analyses: relationships between analytical measurements and sensory attributes. Food Chem 60: 659– 666. Perez Sanchez R, Gomez Sanchez MA, Morales Corts R (2008). Agromorphological characterization of traditional Spanish sweet cherry (Prunus avium L.), sour cherry (Prunus cerasus L.) and duke cherry (Prunus × gondouinii Rehd.) cultivars. Span J Agric Res 6: 42–55. Rakonjac V, Aksic MF, Nikolic D, Milatovic D, Colic S (2010). Morphological characterization of ‘Oblacinska’ sour cherry by multivariate analysis. Sci Hortic Amsterdam 125: 679–684. Faust M, Zagaja SW (1984). Prospects for developing low vigor fruit tree cultivars. Acta Hortic 146: 21–27. Rieger M (2006). Introduction to Fruit Crops. New York: Food Products Press. Hillig KW, Iezzoni AF (1988). Multivariate analysis of a sour cherry germplasm collection. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 113: 928–934. Rodrigues LC, Morales MR, Fernandes AJB, Ortiz JM (2008). Morphological characterization of sweet and sour cherry cultivars in a germplasm bank at Portugal. Genet Resour Crop Ev 55: 593–601. Hjalmarsson I, Ortiz R (2000). In situ and ex situ assessment of morphological and fruit variation in Scandinavian sweet cherry. Sci Hortic Amsterdam 85: 37–49. Horvath A, Christmann H, Laigret F (2008). Genetic diversity and relationships among Prunus cerasifera (cherry plum) clones. Botany 86: 1311–1318. Hrotkó K (1996). Leaf indole content and vigor of cherry rootstocks and scion varieties. Acta Hortic 410: 189–195. Hrotkó K (2008). Progress in cherry rootstock research. Acta Hortic 795:171–178. Khadivi-Khub A, Zamani Z, Bouzari N (2008). Evaluation of genetic diversity in some Iranian and foreign sweet cherry cultivars by using RAPD molecular markers and morphological traits. Hort Environ Biotech 49: 188–196. Krahl KH, Lansari A, Iezzoni AF (1991). Morphological variation within a sour cherry collection. Euphytica 52: 47–55. Lacis G, Kaufmane E, Trajkovski V, Rashal I (2009). Morphological variability and genetic diversity within Latvian and Swedish sweet cherry collections. Acta Uni Latviensis 753: 19–32. Martinez-Calvo J, Gisbert AD, Alamar MC, Hernandorena R, Romero C, Llacer G, Badenes ML (2008). Study of a germplasm collection of loquat (Eriobotrya japonica Lindl.) by multivariate analysis. Genet Resour Crop Ev 55: 695–703. Moghadam EG, Khalighi A (2006). Genetic variation of mahaleb (Prunus mahaleb L.) on some Iranian populations using morphological characters. J Appl Sci Pakistan 6: 651–653. Moghadam EG, Khalighi A (2007). Relationship between vigor of Iranian Prunus mahaleb L. selected dwarf rootstocks and some morphological characters. Sci Hortic Amsterdam 111: 209– 212. 584 Ruiz D, Egea J (2008). Phenotypic diversity and relationships of fruit quality traits in apricot (Prunus armeniaca L.) germplasm. Euphytica 163: 143–158. Sedaghathoor S, Ansari R, Allahyari MS, Nasiri E (2009). Comparison of morphological characteristics of some plum and prune cultivars of Iran. Sci Res Essay 4: 992–996. Shahi-Gharahlar A, Zamani Z, Fatahi MR, Bouzari N (2010). Assessment of morphological variation between some Iranian wild Cerasus sub-genus genotypes. Hortic Environ Biotech 51: 308–318. Webster AD (1995). Rootstock and interstock effects on deciduous fruit tree vigour, precocity, and yield productivity. New Zealand J Crop Horti Sci 23: 373–382. Wu B, Quilot B, Kervella J, Genard M, Li S (2003). Analysis of genotypic variation of sugar and acid contents in peaches and nectarines through the principle component analysis. Euphytica 132: 375–384. Yılmaz KU, Kargı SP, Kafkas S (2012). Morphological diversity of the Turkish apricot (Prunus armeniaca L.) germplasm in the Irano-Caucasian ecogeographical group. Turk J Agric For 36: 688–694. Zamani Z, Shahi-Gharahlar A, Fatahi R, Bouzari N (2012). Genetic relatedness among some wild cherry (Prunus subgenus Cerasus) genotypes native to Iran assayed by morphological traits and random amplified polymorphic DNA analysis. Plant Syst Evol 298: 499–509. Zhang Q, Yan G, Dai H, Zhang X, Li C, Zhang Z (2008). Characterization of tomentosa cherry (Prunus tomentosa Thunb.) genotypes using SSR markers and morphological traits. Sci Hortic Amsterdam 118: 39–47.