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

Authors: Aysen Koc; Zumrut Celik; Mustafa Akbulut; Sukriye Bilgener; Sezai Ercisli; Mehmet Gunes; Resul Gercekcioglu; Ahmet Esitken
Journal: The Scientific World Journal
 (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.


---

## Body

## 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 (variationwithin 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
10Table 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 somePrunus 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 Figure2 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
−0,16The 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 Figure2. 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 (Figure3).2D and 3D scatter diagrams of the relationships between the genotypes/clonal rootstocks (based on morphological traits).
(a)
(b)


## 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.



---

*Source: 916520-2013-12-18.xml*