CC BY
56
SEL’SKOKHOZYAISTVENNAYA BIOLOGIYA
[AGRICULTURAL BIOLOGY1, 2015, V. 50, № 1, pp. 85-91 ISSN 2313-4836 (Online)
Plant plasticity in response to environmental factors
UDC 634.22:631.524.84/85 doi: 10.15389/agrobiology.2015.1.85rus
doi: 10.15389/agrobiology.2015.1.85eng
PRODUCTIVITY AND ECOLOGICAL PLASTICITY OF PLUM (Prunus domestica) VARIETIES UNDER ENVIRONMENTAL
INSTABILITY
R.Sh. ZAREMUK
North-Caucasian Zonal Research Institute of Orcharding and Viniculture, Federal Agency for Scientific Organizations, 39, ul. Pobedy, Krasnodar, 350901 Russia, e-mail zaremuk_rimma@mail.ru
Received March 10, 2014
Abstract
In perennial crops, particularly in plum trees, a genotypic (varietal) ecological plasticity as the ability to respond to external changes and anthropogenic factors is little studied. Plum tree is one of the most adaptive and wide spread fruit crop peculiar in its drought resistance, winter hardiness, high and sustainable fruit production. However, plum varieties significantly differ in valuable traits and ecological plasticity. Here we show the data on yield, fruit size and plasticity of differently originated plum varieties under conditions of four soil and climatic zones of Krasnodarskii krai. The data were obtained by statistical processing results of varietal testing. The main regional varieties Kabardinskaya rannyaya, Renklod Altana, Vengerka italianskaya, Anna Shpet, Vengerka azhanskaya and Tuley Gras were assessed. The role of the genotype in adaptation to environment indicated by fruit size and yield as an integrated parameters of the response to adverse condition was studied. In some varieties the yield varied from 18.0 до 50.0 centner per ha but did not exceed an average value for all varieties in each zone. Higher average yield for all zones was observed in Stenley variety at 165-170 centner per ha, in Anna Shpet variety at 115-145 centner per ha, in Kabardinskaya rannyaya variety at 130.4-147.9 centner per ha, and it was a little bit lower in Renklod Altana and Tuley Gras while the lowest in Vengerka azhanskaya and Vengerka italianskaya varieties. The yield was shown to be specific to genotype as a varietal biological peculiarity influencing the yield at 51.6 % rate, and also it depends on weather condition of the year with 28.7 % influence, and on their interaction at 17.2 % influence. Definite effects were shown for additional factors such as scheme of planting, type of crown, mineral nutrition, protection measures against diseases and pests. Fruit size was shown to be a varietal parameter closely related to the weather conditions and stresses during vegetation such as heat and water deficit at the phases of ovary and fruit formation and maturation. According to fruit size the rate of influence for weather, variety and their interaction was 41.6 %, 37.5 % and 20.8 %, respectively. Calculated regression coefficient b1 for the yield value was > 1, thus the tested plum varieties were characterized as intensive and responding to new technologies such as dense planting schemes, flattened crowns, integrated protection, etc. The Kabardinskaya rannyaya and Stenley plum varieties being the most plastic, adaptive and productive were selected as basic for commercial assortment of plum trees in the conditions of the southern gardening.
Keywords: fruit crops, plum, Prunus domestica, variety, genotype, plasticity, efficiency, stability, technology.
The strategy of modern horticulture shall be based on the use of the adaptive potential of fruit crops and varieties [1-6]. The role of plastic crops becomes more important under unfavorable environmental conditions [7-12]. Therefore, resistance of fruit (perennial) plantings can be improved due to proper selection of more plastic varieties and optimal growing zones [12-17].
The ecological plasticity is defined as genotype (variety) response to change of environmental and anthropogenic factors, and it is understudied with regard to perennial crops, such as the plum tree. The plum tree is one of the most adaptive (wide spread) stone fruit crops; it differs from many other fruit crops in its drought resistance, winter hardiness, high productivity and stable fruiting [8, 18]. However, not all of plum tree varieties exhibit valuable charac-
ters and ecological plasticity [1, 7, 8].
Our study was aimed at assessing plum tree varieties of different environmental and geographical origin in respect to productivity and ecological plasticity in the horticultural zones of Krasnodar Territory.
Technique. The leading released varieties Kabardinskaya Rannyaya, Renk-lod Altana, Vengerka Italianskaya, Anna Shpet, Vengerka Azhanskaya and Tuleu Gras were studied. The data used for analysis included the results of yielding capacity and fruit weight determination for six plum varieties obtained at state crop testing sites in the Kuban, piedmont, steppe and Black Sea horticultural zones of Krasnodar Territory. The genotype-environment interaction was investigated using the analysis-of-variance method [19]. The parameters of ecological plasticity (response b1, stability S12) were determined according to V.Z. Pakudin [20]. The yielding capacity and fruit quality were assessed as described [21].
Statistical data processing was carried out using the Statistika-99 application software package. The variance was calculated in accordance with the method described by B.A. Dospekhov [19].
Results. For some varieties, the yield varied from 18.0 to 50.0 cent-ners/ha, but did not exceed an average value for all varieties in each zone. For variety Anna Shpet in the Kuban and piedmont zones, it was 70.6 and 60.0 centners/ha, respectively; for variety Kabardinskaya Rannyaya in the steppe zone and variety Tuleu Gras in the Black Sea zone, it was 60.8 and 50.0 cent-ners/ha, respectively. Insignificant yield capacity variation was observed for variety Vengerka Azhanskaya in the Kuban and piedmont zones, variety Vengerka Italianskaya in the steppe zone and variety Kabardinskaya Rannyaya in the Black Sea zone. High average yielding capacity was noted in all fruit-growing zones for varieties Stenley (165-170 centners/ha), Anna Shpet (115-145 centners/ha) and Kabardinskaya Rannyaya (130.4-147.9 centners/ha). Yielding capacity was somewhat less in case of varieties Renklod Altana and Tuleu Gras and low in case of varieties Vengerka Azhanskaya and Vengerka Italianskaya (Table 1). High variability of yielding capacity by varieties was observed both within the zone and between zones. This parameter ranged from 18.2 % in the piedmont zone to 65.6 % in the steppe one.
1. The influence of the «variety» and «year» factors on yielding capacity and the parameters of yielding capacity for different plum tree varieties in the fruitgrowing zones of Krasnodar Territory
Variety, factor The influence of Yielding capacity parameter
the factor, % lim R X | V
Variety (А) Year (В) Interaction (А + В) Kabardinskaya Rannyaya Kuban zone 53.8 28.6 15.6 120.5-170.0 49.5 145.3 34.0
Renklod Altana 100.0-130.8 30.8 115.3 26.7
Vengerka Italianskaya 50.0-90.0 40.0 70.0 57.1
Anna Shpet 110.0-180.6 70.6 145.8 48.3
Vengerka Azhanskaya 70.0-90.0 20.0 80.0 25.0
Tuleu Gras 100.0-150.0 50.0 125.0 40.0
Stenley 150.0-190.0 40.0 170.0 23.5
Variety (А) Year (В) Interaction (А + В) Kabardinskaya Rannyaya Pie dmont zo ne 49,8 29.7 17.8 125.0-170.8 45.8 147.9 30.9
Renklod Altana 93.0-136.0 43.0 114.5 37.4
Vengerka Italianskaya 60.0-90.0 30.0 75.0 40.0
Anna Shpet 90.0-150.0 60.0 120.0 50.0
Vengerka Azhanskaya 75.0-95.0 20.0 85.0 23.5
Tuleu Gras 98.0-145.0 47.0 121.5 38.5
Stenley 150.0-180.0 30.0 165.0 18.2
Steppe zone
Table 1 (continued)
Variety (А) 55,4
Year (В) 27,9
Interaction (А + В) Kabardinskaya Rannyaya 16,8 100.0-160.8 60.8 130.4 46.7
Renklod Altana 60.0-100.0 40.0 80.0 50.0
Vengerka Italianskaya 60.0-74.0 14.0 67.0 20.8
Anna Shpet 95.0-143.0 48.0 119.0 40.3
Vengerka Azhanskaya 45.0-89.0 44.0 67.0 65.6
Tuleu Gras 105.0-121.0 16.0 113.0 14.5
Stenley Black 140.0-190.0 S e a z o n e 50.0 165.0 30.3
Variety (А) 49,3
Year (В) 28,9
Interaction (А + В) Kabardinskaya Rannyaya 18,6 130.0-160.1 30.1 145.1 20.8
Renklod Altana 95.0-128.0 33.0 111.5 29.4
Vengerka Italianskaya 98.0-130.0 32.0 114.0 28.1
Anna Shpet 90.0-140.0 50.0 115.0 26.1
Vengerka Azhanskaya 65.0-90.0 35.0 77.5 44.9
Tuleu Gras 100.0-120.0 50.0 105.0 18.8
Stenley 140.0-180.0 40.0 160.0 25.0
N o t e: lim — yielding capacity variation, centners; R — variation range, centners; X — average yielding capacity, centners/ha; V — yielding capacity variation, %.
Plum tree productivity depended on the variety and cultivation zone. Thus, high yielding capacity in all fruit-growing zones was noted for varieties Stenley, Anna Shpet and Kabardinskaya Rannyaya, medium yielding capacity was detected for varieties Renklod Altana and Tuleu Gras, and low yielding capacity was shown for varieties Vengerka Azhanskaya and Vengerka Italianskaya (see Table 1).
The calculation of the share of influence for the «variety» (A) and «year» (B) factors has shown that that the largest effect on yielding capacity in all fruitgrowing zones was exerted by the plant variety or biological potential determining adaptation both to environmental factors and agrotechnological conditions of cultivation. Thus, the influence of factor А on yielding capacity was 49.3 % in the Black Sea zone, 55.4 % in the steppe zone, 53.8 % in the Kuban zone, 49. % in the piedmont zone, and 52.1 % on average for the fruit-growing zones (see Table 1). The influence of factor B combining biotic and abiotic conditions in the plum tree vegetation period on the yielding capacity of the varieties was 28.6-29.7 %. On average, the share of the influence of the year (В) on plum tree yielding capacity was 28.7 %.
The interaction of factors А and В was also substantial. Based on the results of the studies, the share of its influence on plum tree yielding capacity ranged within 15.6-17.8 % (see Table 1).
The fruit size is one of the key elements determining the yielding capacity of a variety. This parameter closely correlated with environmental conditions, especially in the fruit formation period. The range of character variation by fruitgrowing zones turned out to be rather high: from 1.3 for variety Vengerka Azhanskaya in the piedmont zone to 9.0 g for variety Vengerka Italianskaya in the piedmont zone (Table 2).
The range of fruit size variation in the piedmont zone turned out to be significant and was from 5.2 to 26.5 %. It was somewhat less in the Kuban (8.616.6 %) and Black Sea (5.4-22.9 %) zones, and the least values (3.7-13.9 %) were observed in the steppe fruit-growing zone (see Table 2).
With regard to fruit weight, varieties Kabardinskaya Rannyaya, Stenley and Anna Shpet were distinguished in all zones. Medium fruit sizes were noted for varieties Renklod Altana and Tuleu Gras, whereas small sizes were observed for varieties Vengerka Azhanskaya and Vengerka Italianskaya. Varieties Vengerka
Italianskaya and Kabardinskaya Rannyaya exhibited high variability of the fruit weight, and the least variability was noted for Anna Shpet and Stenley. The significant variability of the plum fruit size depending on the environmental conditions of cultivation was indicative of the large share of the influence of external factors (see Table 2).
2. The share of the influence of the “variety" and “year” factors on fruit weight, as well as the parameters of the "fruit weight" character for different plum tree varieties in the fruit-growing zones of Krasnodar Territory
Variety, factor The influence of the factor, % «Fruit weight» parameter
lim R 1 X 1 V
Kuban zone
Variety (А) 33.8
Year (В) 43.8
Interaction (А + В) 18.9
Kabardinskaya Rannyaya 38.0-5.0 7.0 41.5 16.6
Renklod Altana 32.5-38.1 5.6 35.3 15.8
Vengerka Italianskaya 30.1-35.1 5.0 32.6 15.2
Anna Shpet 33.5-36.5 3.0 35.0 8.6
Vengerka Azhanskaya 23.1-25.2 2.1 24.2 8.8
Tuleu Gras 25.5-29.2 3.7 27.4 13.7
Stenley 34.5-38.2 3.7 36.4 10.2
Piedmont zone
Variety (А) 33.6
Year (В) 46.2
Interaction (А + В) 16.3
Kabardinskaya Rannyaya 37.5-43.5 6.0 40.5 14.8
Renklod Altana 33.1-37.9 4.8 35.8 13.3
Vengerka Italianskaya 29.3-38.3 9.0 33.8 26.5
Anna Shpet 33.4-36.6 3.2 35.0 9.1
Vengerka Azhanskaya 24.5-25.8 1.3 25.2 5.2
Tuleu Gras 23.9-26.8 1.9 25.8 7.3
Stenley 35.8-38.8 3.0 37.3 8.1
Ste p pe zo ne
Variety (А) 35.6
Year (В) 41.2
Interaction (А + В) 19.3
Kabardinskaya Rannyaya 35.5-39.5 4.0 37.5 10.6
Renklod Altana 29.8-31.1 1.3 30.5 4.1
Vengerka Italianskaya 26.2-30.1 3.9 28.2 13.9
Anna Shpet 32.4-35.6 3.2 35.0 9.1
Vengerka Azhanskaya 22.1-24.2 2.1 23.2 9.1
Tuleu Gras 22.7-29.8 7.1 26.3 3.7
Stenley 32.0-35.9 3.9 34.0 11.4
Black Sea zone
Variety (А) 34.8
Year (В) 39.5
Interaction (А + В) 22.7
Kabardinskaya Rannyaya 36.5-44.0 7.5 40.3 18.8
Renklod Altana 29.3-33.7 4.4 31.5 13.8
Vengerka Italianskaya 28.1-34.2 7.1 30.7 22.9
Anna Shpet 33.4-36.6 3.2 35.0 9.1
Vengerka Azhanskaya 23.3-25.6 2.3 24.5 9.4
Tuleu Gras 25.5-28.9 3.4 27.2 12.5
Stenley 35.8-37.8 2.0 36.8 5.4
N o t e: lim — fruit weight variation, R — variation range, X — average fruit weight, V— fruit weight variation, %
Thus, on average for the zones, the share of the influence of factors A and B on the fruit weight was 33.8-35.6 % and 39.5-46.2 %, respectively; with regard to interaction of the variety and conditions of the year, this parameter ranged within 16.3-22.7 %.
The index of yielding capacity formation conditions for plum tree varieties ranged from -15 to +45 centners/ha, which indicates that the influence of weather conditions was large enough. It should be noted that the weather conditions in the period of the studies were diverse, incuding droughts in 2005-2007, frosts to -37 °С in the winter of 2005-2006, annual recurrent spring frosts from -2.5 to -4.0 °С, more often in the blossom period.
The yield capacity regression coefficient (bi) for all varieties turned out to be higher than 1, which characterizes them as adaptive and intensive crops (i.e. they are responsive to the improvement of cultivation technology conditions). Thus, the biological potential of variety Vengerka Italianskaya was best perfomed in the Black Sea and piedmont zones, where this crop accumulated about 20 % sugars, consistently fruited and yielded a good harvest. The high regression coefficient (1.48) obtained based on the «yielding capacity» parameter for variety Vengerka Italianskaya confirms that it is especially demanding of cultivation conditions.
The stability of yielding capacity (S12) for the studied varieties significantly varied from 250 for variety Stenley to 850 for variety Vengerka Italianskaya (Table 3).
3. Ecological plasticity of different plum tree varieties in the fruit-growing zones of Krasnodar Territory
Character, variety Ecological plasticity parameter
Li I b1 1 S2
Yielding capacity, centners/ha —15/0/+45
Variety:
Kabardinskaya Rannyaya 1.21 350.0
Renklod Altana 1.36 600.0
Vengerka Italianskaya 1.48 850.0
Anna Shpet 1.25 280.0
Vengerka Azhanskaya 1.12 360.0
Tuleu Gras 1.11 289.2
Stenley Fruit weight, g Decrease from 31 to 29 1.28 250.0
Variety:
Kabardinskaya Rannyaya 1.31 550.0
Renklod Altana 1.33 340.0
Vengerka Italianskaya 1.51 800.5
Anna Shpet 1.21 380.0
Vengerka Azhanskaya 1.43 625.3
Tuleu Gras 1.32 369.8
Stenley 1.27 220.4
N o t e: Li — index of year conditions (with regard to yielding capacity, it means decrease, no crease), b — regression coefficient, S12 — stability of yielding capacity. influence or in-
The low absolute stability index was indicative of the high degree of response and adaptability to changing environmental conditions for varieties Stenley, Anna Shpet and Kabardinskaya Rannyaya. Varieties Renklod Altana and Vengerka Italianskaya were characterized by higher absolute stability parameters and lower adaptiveness.
For the varieties under study, we have not found any decrease of response to changes of conditions in fruit-growing areas.
The indices of fruit weight formation conditions greatly varied depending on the year conditions or variety, but to a lesser extent than in case of yielding capacity formation. The conditions for fruit formation were almost similar in all four zones, which is confirmed by the corresponding indices (i.e. a decrease from 31 to 29 g) (see Table 3).
The coefficient of fruit weight regression (bx) for varieties was higher than the similar parameter for yielding capacity, which is indicative of the significant influence of year conditions on character variation (see Table 3). Maximum (1.51) response to environmental factors was noted for varieties Kabardinskaya Rannyaya and Anna Shpet, whereas a minimum (1.40) value was observed for variety Vengerka Italianskaya. High stability of fruit weight was noted for all the plum varieties studied.
The assessment of plum varieties with regard to plasticity in the fruitgrowing zones of Krasnodar Territory has revealed insignificant differences between varieties Kabardinskaya Rannyaya, Renklod Altana, Vengerka Italian-
skaya, Anna Shpet, Vengerka Azhanskaya, Tuleu Gras and Stenley. Fruit weight stability (S12) was rather high for varieties Stenley, Anna Shpet and Renklod Altana, and lower for varieties Kabardinskaya Rannyaya and Vengerka Italianskaya (see Table 3). The strongest influence on fruit weight in all zones was observed for year conditions with quite high involvement of the genotype.
High yielding capacity, response to improvement of cultivation conditions and insignificant deviation of the «yielding capacity» and «fruit weight» characters from the regression line were noted for varieties Kabardinskaya Rannyaya, Renklod Altana, Vengerka Italianskaya, Anna Shpet, Vengerka Azhanskaya, Tuleu Gras and Stenley cultivated in different environmental conditions (see Table 3).
So, the obtained results have shown that the plum tree is an ecologi-cally-plastic stone fruit crop which can be cultivated in all fruit-growing zones of Krasnodar Territory and can produce a good yield, provided that its varieties are properly selected. We have confirmed a varietal specificity and a need for an ecological variety study in order to distinguish the most adaptive and plastic varieties for a particular zone of cultivation. Based on the obtained results, varieties Kabardinskaya Rannyaya, Stenley and Anna Shpet can be referred to plastic ones, i.e. to the crops which are adaptive and high-yielding under the conditions of Krasnodar Territory.
REFERENCES
1. Volkova L.V., Bebyakin V.M., Lyskova I.V. Doklady Rossiiskoi akademii sel’skokhozyaistvennykh nauk, 2010, 1: 3-5.
2. Doroshenko T.N. Plodovodstvo s osnovami ekologii [Horticulture and its ecological bases]. Krasnodar, 2002.
3. Zhuchenko A.A. Ekologicheskaya genetika kul’turnykh rastenii [Ecological genetics of cultivated plants]. Kishinev, 1980.
4. Zhuchenko A.A. Adaptivnaya sistema selektsii rastenii (ekologo-geneticheskie osnovy): monograliya v dvukh tomakh [Adaptive system in plant breeding: ecological and genetic bases, a monograph. V. 1]. Moscow, 2001. Tom 1.
5. Zhukov V.A., Svyatkina O.A., Dragavtseva I.A. Nauka Kubani, 1999, 7: 6-7.
6. Kashin V.I. Nauchnye osnovy adaptivnogo sadovodstva [Scientific bases for adaptive horticulture]. Moscow, 1995.
7. Pakudin V.Z., Lopatina L.M. Sel’skokhozyaistveimaya Biologiya [Agricultural Biology], 1984, 4: 109-113.
8. Zaremuk R.SH., Bogatyreva S.V. Dostizheniya nauki i tekhniki APK, 2012, 5: 18-20.
9. Bayer I. Interaktionen im Pollenschlauchwachstum zwischen Vuttersorte, Vatersorte und Temperatur. Erwerbsobstbau, 2001, 43(3): 70-76.
10. Bayer I., Stosser R. Wirkung der Selbst- und Fremdbestaubung auf Fruchtansatz und Ertrag sowie Pollenschlauchwacstum bei Pflaumen und Zwetschen. Erwerbs-Obstbau, 2002, 44(4): 97-104.
11. Bozovic D., Jacimovic V. Pomological-technological properties of plum cultivars grown in northern Montenegro. Vocaistvo, 2011, 45(175): 145-149.
12. Cerovi c R., Ru z i D., Mi c i c N. Viability of plum ovules at different temperatures. Ann. Appl. Biol, 2000, 137(1): 53-59.
13. Cosmulescu S., Baciu A., Cichi M. Phenologic changes in plum tree species in the context of current climate changes. Bul. Univ. Agr. Sci. and Vet. Med. Cluj-Napoca. Hoit., 2008, 65(1): 510-515.
14. Dragoyski K., Dinkova H., Spasova T. Growth and fruit-bearing performance of the plum cultivar Cacanska Lepotica grown in the region of the Central Balkan Mountains. Vocaistvo, 2005, 39(3): 271-277.
15. Fischer M., Lieber B., Herzog U., Ernst I. Untersuchungen zur Scharka-Krankheit der Pflaume. Erwerbs-Obstbau, 2002, 44(4): 105-106.
16. Nenadovi c -Mratini c E., Milatovi c D., D urovi c D. Bioloske osobine sorti sljive kombinovanih svojstava. Vocaistvo, 2007, 41(157-158): 31-35.
17. Vitkovskii V.L. Plodovye rasteniya mira [Fruit trees of the world]. St. Petersburg, 2003
(ISBN 5-8114-0477-8).
18. Swierczynski S., Stachowiak A. The usefulness of two rootstocks for some plum cul-tivars. J. Fruit. Omam. Plant Res., 2009, 17(2): 63-71.
19. Dospekhov B.A. Metodika polevogo opyta [Methods of field trials]. Moscow, 1979.
20. Pakudin V.Z. V sbornike: Teoiiya otbora v populyatsii rastenii [In: Theory of selection in plant population]. Novosibirsk, 1976: 178-189.
21. Programma i metodika sortoizucheniya plodovykh, yagodnykh i orekhoplodnykh kul'tur [Program and methods for estimation of fruit, berry and nut crops]. Orel, 1999.
