The Scientific World Journal

Volume 2013 (2013), Article ID 916520, 9 pages

http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/916520

Research Article

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

Aysen Koc,¹ Zumrut Celik,² Mustafa Akbulut,³ Sukriye Bilgener,⁴ Sezai Ercisli,⁵ Mehmet Gunes,⁶ Resul Gercekcioglu,⁶ and Ahmet Esitken⁷

¹Department of Horticulture, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Sciences, Bozok University, Yozgat, Turkey

²Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock, Ataturk Orman Ciftligi, Ankara, Turkey

³Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Science, Recep Tayyip Erdogan University, Rize, Turkey

⁴Department of Horticulture, Faculty of Agriculture, Ondokuz Mayis University, Samsun, Turkey

⁵Department of Horticulture, Faculty of Agriculture, Ataturk University, Erzurum, Turkey

⁶Department of Horticulture, Faculty of Agriculture, Gaziosmanpaşa University, Tokat, Turkey

⁷Department of Horticulture, Faculty of Agriculture, Selcuk University, Konya, Turkey

Received 2 August 2013; Accepted 1 October 2013

Academic Editors: B. Chen and A. C. Manna

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.

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).

Table 1: The map data of types selected from Central and East Black Sea Regions in Turkey (C: sweet cherry, P. avium; S: sour cherry, P. cerasus; M: mahaleb, P. mahaleb; CA: C. angustifolia).

Accession
Collection area

(province-district)
Altitude

(m)

05 C 002
Amasya-Merkez
1002

05 C 003
Amasya-Taşova
640

05 C 004
Amasya-Taşova
640

05 C 005
Amasya-Gümüşhacıköy
821

05 C 006
Amasya-Gümüşhacıköy
826

05 C 007
Amasya-Gümüşhacıköy
875

05 C 009
Amasya-Gümüşhacıköy
956

05 M 001
Amasya-Merkez
449

05 M 006
Amasya-Merkez
846

05 M 007
Amasya-Taşova
1002

05 M 008
Amasya-Taşova
767

05 M 009
Amasya-Taşova
430

05 M 010
Amasya-Taşova
430

08 C 001
Artvin-Yusufeli
1554

08 C 005
Artvin-Yusufeli
1409

08 C 007
Artvin-Yusufeli
1445

08 C 008
Artvin-Yusufeli
1411

08 C 017
Artvin-Şavşat
1674

08 C 018
Artvin-Şavşat
1974

08 C 022
Artvin-Şavşat
1821

08 C 028
Artvin-Şavşat
1622

08 C 033
Artvin-Borçka
475

08 C 037
Artvin-Yusufeli
1488

08 C 039
Artvin-Yusufeli
1448

08 C 044
Artvin-Yusufeli
1499

08 C 045
Artvin-Yusufeli
1567

08 C 046
Artvin-Yusufeli
884

08 C 053
Artvin-Merkez
977

08 C 056
Artvin-Yusufeli
1084

08 C 057
Artvin-Yusufeli
1565

08 S 002
Artvin-Yusufeli
1560

08 S 003
Artvin-Yusufeli
675

08 S 005
Artvin-Yusufeli
1502

28 C 002
Giresun-Çanakçı
427

28 C 005
Giresun-Tirebolu
53

28 C 007
Giresun-Dereli
1014

28 C 015
Giresun-Yağlıdere
256

28 C 016
Giresun-Yağlıdere
68

28 C 020
Giresun-Bulancak
717

28 S 001
Giresun-Çanakçı
417

28 S 002
Giresun-Şebinkarahisar
1247

28 S 003
Giresun-Şebinkarahisar
1121

28 M 001
Giresun-Şebinkarahisar
1450

28 M 003
Giresun-Alucra
1464

28 M 005
Giresun-Şebinkarahisar
1270

28 CA 001
Giresun-Şebinkarahisar
1270

28 CA 002
Giresun-Şebinkarahisar
1217

29 C 001
Gümüşhane-Merkez
1199

29 C 003
Gümüşhane-Torul
1455

29 C 004
Gümüşhane-Kürtün
1276

29 C 005
Gümüşhane-Kürtün
1109

29 C 006
Gümüşhane-Torul
1065

29 S 001
Gümüşhane-Merkez
1287

29 S 003
Gümüşhane-Köse
1654

29 S 004
Gümüşhane-Şiran
1395

29 S 005
Gümüşhane-Torul
1043

29 M 001
Gümüşhane-Merkez
1281

29 M 004
Gümüşhane-Şiran
1229

29 M 006
Gümüşhane-Torul
1363

29 CA 001
Gümüşhane-Kelkit
1464

29 CA 002
Gümüşhane-Kelkit
1578

29 CA 003
Gümüşhane-Kelkit
1710

29 CA 004
Gümüşhane-Şiran
1329

52 C 004
Ordu-Aybastı
771

52 C 005
Ordu-Kabataş
623

52 C 007
Ordu-Mesudiye
1203

52 C 008
Ordu-Gölköy
919

52 C 009
Ordu-Kabadüz
189

52 C 011
Ordu-Fatsa
610

52 C 013
Ordu-Korgan
1525

52 C 014
Ordu-Korgan
1162

52 C 015
Ordu-Kumru
579

52 C 019
Ordu-Kumru
730

52 C 026
Ordu-Kabataş
613

52 C 029
Ordu-Çamaş
155

52 C 030
Ordu-Çamaş
474

52 C 031
Ordu-Çatalpınar
359

52 C 035
Ordu-Çatalpınar
640

52 C 038
Ordu-Mesudiye
1289

52 C 039
Ordu-Mesudiye
1072

52 C 042
Ordu-Gölköy
829

52 C 046
Ordu-Gürgentepe
1015

52 C 050
Ordu-Gürgentepe
1021

52 C 054
Ordu-Ulubey
513

52 C 056
Ordu-Merkez
219

52 C 061
Ordu-Kabadüz
406

52 C 063
Ordu-Gülyalı
195

52 C 065
Ordu-Gülyalı
357

52 C 071
Ordu-Merkez
524

52 C 073
Ordu-Perşembe
229

52 C 074
Ordu-Perşembe
110

52 C 078
Ordu-Perşembe
297

52 C 079
Ordu-Ünye
374

52 C 081
Ordu-Çaybaşı
536

52 C 087
Ordu-İkizce
341

52 C 090
Ordu-Akkuş
1097

52 C 091
Ordu-Akkuş
1198

52 C 093
Ordu-Akkuş
965

52 C 096
Ordu-Fatsa
331

52 C 100
Ordu-Ünye
354

52 S 001
Ordu-Kabataş
450

52 S 002
Ordu-Çamaş
329

52 S 003
Ordu-Mesudiye
1138

52 S 004
Ordu-Mesudiye
1302

52 S 005
Ordu-Mesudiye
1133

52 S 006
Ordu-Perşembe
0

52 S 007
Ordu-Çaybaşı
430

52 S 008
Ordu-Akkuş
1102

52 M 001
Ordu-Kabataş
503

52 M 003
Ordu-Mesudiye
1350

52 M 005
Ordu-Merkez
376

52 M 006
Ordu-Akkuş
1258

52 M 007
Ordu-Akkuş
1125

52 M 008
Ordu-Akkuş
1223

52 M 009
Ordu-Akkuş
1064

53 C 001
Rize-İkizdere
780

53 C 002
Rize-İkizdere
968

53 C 005
Rize-İkizdere
838

53 C 006
Rize-İkizdere
701

53 C 008
Rize-Güneysu
518

53 C 009
Rize-Çayeli
798

53 S 001
Rize-Çamlıhemşin
1315

55 C 002
Samsun-Ladik
958

55 C 005
Samsun-Ladik
754

55 C 015
Samsun-Vezirköprü
749

55 C 027
Samsun-Merkez
722

55 C 040
Samsun-Terme
427

55 C 049
Samsun-Asarcık
1013

55 C 054
Samsun-Asarcık
810

55 C 055
Samsun-Havza
1033

55 C 060
Samsun-Çarşamba
658

55 C 065
Samsun-Ondokuzmayıs
247

55 C 067
Samsun-Bafra
623

55 C 072
Samsun-Alaçam
683

55 C 080
Samsun-Yakakent
151

55 C 081
Samsun-Yakakent
246

55 C 083
Samsun-Terme
287

55 C 092
Samsun-Kavak
753

55 C 093
Samsun-Kavak
765

55 C 105
Samsun-Vezirköprü
659

55 C 111
Samsun-Bafra
431

55 C 116
Samsun-Ayvacık
691

55 C 121
Samsun-Salıpazarı
1097

55 C 124
Samsun-Tekkeköy
126

55 C 131
Samsun-Çarşamba
328

55 C 134
Samsun-Bafra
510

55 S 004
Samsun-Havza
821

55 S 008
Samsun-Ondokuzmayıs
236

55 S 011
Samsun-Yakakent
685

55 S 012
Samsun-Ayvacık
173

55 S 015
Samsun-Çarşamba
168

55 S 016
Samsun-Ladik
909

55 S 019
Samsun-Ayvacık
630

55 S 021
Samsun-Merkez
560

55 S 022
Samsun-Asarcık
779

55 M 001
Samsun-Vezirköprü
351

55 M 003
Samsun-Havza
352

55 M 005
Samsun-Vezirköprü
351

55 M 006
Samsun-Vezirköprü
332

55 M 009
Samsun-Ayvacık
700

60 C 001
Tokat-Reşadiye
1152

60 C 005
Tokat-Pazar
1180

60 M 001
Tokat-Merkez
655

60 M 002
Tokat-Merkez
673

60 M 005
Tokat-Almus
1074

60 M 008
Tokat-Almus
1004

60 M 010
Tokat-Almus
1004

60 M 014
Tokat-Almus
805

60 M 015
Tokat-Almus
796

60 M 016
Tokat-Almus
802

60 M 017
Tokat-Almus
789

60 M 019
Tokat-Almus
817

60 M 028
Tokat-Niksar
710

60 M 030
Tokat-Niksar
672

60 M 031
Tokat-Merkez
676

60 M 033
Tokat-Merkez
834

60 M 036
Tokat-Pazar
1013

60 M 037
Tokat-Pazar
1044

60 M 044
Tokat-Merkez
783

61 C 002
Trabzon-Araklı
215

61 C 015
Trabzon-Maçka
992

61 C 017
Trabzon-Akçaabat
1714

61 C 020
Trabzon-Düzköy
585

61 C 022
Trabzon-Tonya
733

61 C 029
Trabzon-Beşikdüzü
63

61 S 001
Trabzon-Araklı
468

61 S 002
Trabzon-Merkez
10

Table 2: Morphological characteristics used for the characterization of cherry types.

Plant

    Vigor
PV
Weak (3), medium (5), strong (7)

    Habit
PH
Upright (1), spreading (3), drooping (5)

    Branching
PB
Weak (3), medium (5), strong (7)

One-year-old shoot

    Thickness
ST
Thin (3), medium (5), thick (7)

    Length
SL
(cm)

    Length of internodes
SIL
Short (3), medium (5), long (7)

    First branch height
FBH
(cm)

    Branch angle
BA
(°)

    Pubescence (upper third)
SP
Absent (1), present (9)

    Number of lenticels
SLN
Few (3), medium (5), many (7)

    Anth. coloration of apex
SA
Absent or very weak (1), weak (3), medium (5), strong (7), very strong (9)

    Position of vegetative bud
SBP
Adpressed (1), slightly held out (2), markedly held out (3)

    Size of vegetative bud
SBS
Small (3), medium (5), large (7)

    Shape of apex of vegetative bud
BAS
Acute (1), obtuse (2), rounded (3)

    Size of vegetative bud support
BSS
Small (3), medium (5), large (7)

    Branching (at the end of summer)
SB
Number of branching

    Intensity of anthocyanin coloration of young leaf
LAI
Weak (3), medium (5), strong (7)

Leaf

    Length
LL
(cm)

    Width
LW
(cm)

    Ratio length/width
RLW
Very small (1), small (3), medium (5), large (7), very large (9)

    Shape
LS
Narrow elliptic (1), elliptic (2), circular (3), ovate (4), obovate (5)

    Angle of apex (excluding tip)
LAA
Acute (1), right-angled (2), obtuse (3)

    Length of tip
LTL
Short (3), medium (5), long (7)

    Shape of base
LBS
Acute (1), obtuse (2), truncate (3)

    Color of upper side
LUC
light green (1), dark green (2), red (3), reddish brown (4)

    Glossiness of upper side
LUG
Weak (3), medium (5), strong (7)

    Pubescence of lower side at apex
LLP
Weak (3), medium (5), strong (7)

    Incisions of margin
LMI
Only crenate (1), both crenate and serrate (2), only serrate (3)

    Depth of incisions of margin
LMID
Shallow (3), medium (5), deep (7)

    Petiole length
PL
Short (3), medium (5), long (7)

    Petiole presence of pubescence
PUP
Absent (1), present (9)

    Petiole intensity of pubescence
PUPI
Weak (3), medium (5), strong (7)

    Petiole depth of groove
PGD
Shallow (3), medium (5), deep (7)

    Petiole thickness
PT
(cm)

    Ratio length of leaf/petiole
RLPL
small (3), medium (5), large (7)

    Presence of stipules
LSP
Absent (1), present (9)

    Stipule length
STL
Short (3), medium (5), long (7)

    Presence of nectaries
LN
Absent (1), present (9)

    Predominant number of nectaries
LNN
One (1), two (2), more than two (3)

    Position of nectaries
LNP
predominantly on base of blade (1), equally distributed on base of blade and petiole (2), predominantly on petiole (3)

    Nectary color
NC
Gren (1), yellow (2), red (3), violet (4)

    Nectary shape
NS
Round (1), reniform (2)

Figure 1: Map of the distribution for genotypes in Central and East Black Sea Regions in Turkey.

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) [4–7].

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.

Figure 2: Cluster analysis for 188 genotypes/clonal rootstocks based on morphological data.

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).

Table 3: Eigenvalues and proportions of variance described by the 13 principal components that correspond to eigenvalues greater than 1.

PC axis

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Eigenvalues
8,13
3,81
3,36
2,75
1,93
1,66
1,55
1,42
1,34
1,25
1,14
1,06
1,01

Explained proportion of variation (%)
19,35
9,08
8,00
6,54
4,60
3,96
3,68
3,37
3,19
2,98
2,71
2,52
2,41

Cumulative proportion of variation (%)
19,35
28,43
36,43
42,97
47,56
51,52
55,20
58,57
61,76
64,74
67,46
69,98
72,38

Characters
Eigen vectors

Leaf blade: shape
−0,69
0,33
0,10
0,10
0,17
−0,01
0,10
0,00
0,04
0,13
0,09
−0,10
−0,11

Leaf blade: angle of apex
−0,36
0,55
0,14
−0,22
−0,06
−0,02
−0,07
0,07
−0,10
−0,14
0,09
0,32
0,15

Leaf blade: length of tip
0,47
−0,50
−0,05
0,09
−0,08
0,05
0,04
0,14
−0,13
0,03
0,05
−0,32
−0,11

Leaf blade: shape of base
−0,28
0,55
0,13
−0,15
0,26
−0,28
0,03
−0,21
0,09
0,05
0,14
0,00
0,15

Leaf blade: color of upper side
0,24
−0,16
−0,34
0,13
0,15
−0,30
−0,23
0,39
0,19
−0,19
−0,02
−0,21
0,24

Leaf blade: glossiness of upper side
−0,23
−0,12
0,22
−0,01
0,12
0,22
0,47
−0,41
−0,12
0,04
−0,08
−0,01
0,20

Leaf blade: pubescence of lower side at apex
0,36
0,19
−0,21
−0,04
0,03
−0,06
0,16
0,24
0,05
0,37
0,34
0,04
0,33

Young shoot intensity of anth. coloration of young leaf
0,49
−0,01
0,44
0,22
−0,06
0,04
−0,22
−0,26
−0,18
−0,11
0,35
−0,05
−0,09

Leaf blade: incisions of margin
0,48
−0,10
−0,16
0,09
0,10
0,15
0,13
−0,26
0,28
0,40
−0,12
−0,24
−0,10

Leaf blade: depth of incisions of margin
0,42
−0,12
−0,13
−0,10
0,51
−0,25
−0,10
−0,04
0,19
−0,01
−0,09
−0,01
0,23

Leaf: presence of stipules
−0,05
−0,21
0,87
−0,21
−0,06
−0,03
−0,02
0,21
0,05
0,12
−0,13
0,05
0,10

Petiole: presence of pubescence of upper side
−0,03
−0,19
0,87
−0,25
−0,05
0,00
−0,01
0,19
0,06
0,15
−0,14
0,07
0,10

Petiole: intensity of pubescence of upper side
0,16
−0,34
0,79
−0,26
0,10
0,00
−0,04
0,10
0,12
0,13
−0,14
0,03
0,06

Petiole: depth of Groove
0,54
−0,23
−0,06
−0,08
0,41
−0,09
−0,04
0,04
0,03
−0,18
−0,08
0,21
0,14

Leaf: presence of nectaries
0,09
0,18
0,27
−0,19
0,02
0,04
0,56
0,22
0,04
−0,32
0,18
−0,37
−0,09

Leaf: predominant number of nectaries
0,53
0,30
0,13
−0,02
0,10
−0,15
0,33
0,06
−0,08
−0,19
−0,05
−0,31
0,17

Leaf: position of nectaries
0,26
0,43
−0,06
−0,20
−0,31
0,09
0,01
0,37
−0,37
−0,01
0,24
0,07
0,16

Nectary: color
0,67
−0,12
0,03
−0,12
0,05
−0,06
−0,04
0,13
−0,08
−0,07
0,02
−0,26
−0,10

Nectary: shape
0,15
0,20
0,08
−0,08
0,06
−0,17
0,30
0,10
0,42
−0,44
0,09
0,24
−0,25

Leaf blade: length
0,91
0,10
−0,03
0,08
0,06
−0,03
−0,02
−0,09
−0,04
−0,08
−0,14
0,14
−0,02

Leaf blade: width
0,68
0,45
0,01
0,15
0,15
−0,08
0,04
−0,03
0,03
−0,04
−0,16
0,16
−0,11

Leaf blade: ratio length/width
0,71
−0,42
−0,09
−0,07
−0,10
0,09
−0,08
−0,09
−0,11
−0,10
−0,04
0,05
0,12

Petiole: length
0,73
0,54
0,08
0,00
0,04
−0,07
−0,01
−0,14
0,00
0,10
−0,09
0,02
−0,07

Leaf: ratio length of leaf blade/length of petiole
0,07
−0,76
−0,12
0,12
0,01
0,10
−0,03
0,11
−0,05
−0,24
0,00
0,11
0,08

Petiole: thickness
0,84
0,13
−0,01
0,08
0,08
0,02
−0,01
−0,06
−0,02
0,05
−0,11
0,10
−0,03

Stipule: length
0,50
−0,19
0,29
−0,08
0,03
−0,04
−0,07
0,00
0,33
0,01
0,40
0,01
−0,20

Plant: vigor
0,43
0,12
−0,04
0,02
0,10
0,51
0,18
−0,11
0,06
−0,10
0,16
0,08
0,21

Plant: habit
−0,15
0,15
−0,09
−0,04
0,27
0,59
−0,01
0,15
0,32
0,07
−0,03
−0,04
−0,10

Plant: branching
−0,16
0,07
−0,05
−0,02
0,37
0,64
−0,05
0,34
0,02
−0,01
0,02
0,05
−0,05

Pubescence of shoot
−0,11
−0,08
0,05
−0,10
0,61
−0,03
0,14
−0,10
−0,40
−0,02
0,01
0,04
0,05

Anthocyanin coloration of apex
0,53
−0,07
0,38
0,19
−0,07
0,18
−0,25
−0,23
−0,13
−0,17
0,33
0,01
−0,05

One-year-old shoot: pos. of veg. bud in relation to shoot
0,21
−0,43
−0,14
0,14
0,09
−0,12
0,32
−0,05
−0,08
0,33
0,35
0,10
0,12

One-year-old shoot: size of vegetative bud
0,08
0,25
0,04
0,28
−0,50
0,08
−0,06
−0,03
0,34
−0,01
−0,09
−0,18
0,42

One-year-old shoot: shape of apex of vegetative bud
0,01
−0,28
0,05
0,25
−0,24
−0,26
0,52
−0,01
0,03
0,07
−0,06
0,17
−0,10

One-year-old shoot: size of vegetative bud support
0,17
−0,32
−0,16
0,31
−0,10
−0,04
0,20
0,25
0,19
0,15
0,14
0,38
−0,08

One-year-old shoot: length
−0,09
0,08
0,43
0,68
0,21
0,04
−0,04
−0,04
0,06
−0,07
0,08
−0,01
0,22

One-year-old shoot: thickness
−0,10
0,27
0,24
0,75
0,05
−0,04
−0,18
−0,01
0,21
0,04
0,08
−0,05
−0,02

One-year-old shoot: length of internode
0,70
0,27
−0,09
0,07
−0,09
0,19
0,05
0,20
−0,07
0,18
−0,14
0,10
0,03

One-year-old shoot: number of lenticels
0,12
0,11
−0,04
−0,55
0,21
−0,20
−0,25
0,03
0,08
0,31
0,27
−0,09
−0,15

One-year-old shoot: branching
−0,66
−0,24
0,04
0,39
0,32
−0,09
−0,06
0,10
−0,03
−0,06
0,10
−0,04
0,05

First branch height
0,56
0,32
0,18
0,27
0,01
−0,02
0,02
0,22
−0,21
0,16
−0,19
0,00
−0,18

Branch angle
−0,20
0,14
0,17
0,61
0,20
−0,14
0,04
0,30
−0,31
0,13
−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).

(a)

(b)

Figure 3: 2D and 3D scatter diagrams of the relationships between the genotypes/clonal rootstocks (based on morphological traits).

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

Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), February 2013, http://faostat.fao.org/site/567/DesktopDefault.aspx?PageID=567

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.