Budama atıklarının Clementine mandarini (Citrus reticulata Blanco) mikro element bütçesindeki rolü

Year 2022, Volume: 59 Issue: 1, 61 - 66, 30.03.2022

Neriman Tuba Barlas

https://doi.org/10.20289/zfdergi.895531

Abstract

Amaç: Bu araştırmada turunç anacına aşılı Clementin mandarininde (Citrus reticulata Blanco) budama atıkları ile kaldırılan mikro besin elementi (Fe, Cu, Mn ve Zn) miktarının belirlenmesi amaçlanmıştır.
Materyal ve Yöntem: Çalışmada, iki üretim sezonu sonunda (2015 ve 2016) İzmir ve Aydın şehirlerinde bulunan toplam 50 adet bahçeden budama atığı örneği alınarak ölçümleme ve analizler yapılmıştır.
Araştırma Bulguları: Biomass değeri 1.yıl (2015) 2.90 ile 4.90 kg/ağaç arasında değişim gösterirken 2.yıl (2016) 3.00-5.00 kg/ağaç arasında değişim gösterdiği belirlenmiştir. Birinci yıl Fe konsantrasyonu (mg kg-1) : 44-115, Cu: 11-32, Mn: 33-75 ve Zn: 17-26 arasında değişim gösterirken; ikinci yıl ise, Fe: 48-101, Cu: 16-38, Mn: 40-88, Zn ise 20-30 arasında değişim göstermiştir. Verim değerinin ise 1.yıl 64-102 kg/ağaç, 2.yıl ise 65-94 kg/ağaç arasında değişim gösterdiği bulunmuştur.
Sonuç: Budama atıkları ile uzaklaştırılan mikro element miktarları ortalama değerler göz önüne alındığında her iki yılda da Fe > Mn > Zn = Cu sırasını izlemiştir. Budama atıkları ile uzaklaştırılan mikro besin elementi miktarı (g/ağaç) 1. yıl Fe: 0.15-0.41, Cu: 0.04-0.13, Mn: 0.12-0.3, Zn: 0.05-0.13 arasında belirlenirken; 2. yıl Fe: 0.16-0.44, Cu: 0.06-0.16, Mn: 0.15-0.36 ve Zn: 0.07-0.13 olarak belirlenmiştir. Bu değerlerin gübreleme programlarına dâhil edilmesi önerilmektedir.

Keywords

budama, budama atıklarında mikro element konsantrasyonu, budama atıklarında mikro element miktarı, Clementine mandarini

Pruning residuals: their role in the micronutrient budget of Clementine mandarin (Citrus reticulata Blanco)

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study was to determine the micronutrient (Fe, Cu, Mn and Zn) amounts removed with pruning residuals in Clementine mandarin (Citrus reticulata Blanco) grafted on bitter orange.
Material and Methods: In order to meet the above objective , at the end of two production seasons (2015 and 2016), measurements and analyses were carried out by collecting pruning residual samples from 50 groves located in the province of İzmir and Aydın (Turkey).
Results: While the biomass value varied between 2.90 and 4.90 kg/tree in the 1st year, it varied in the range of 3.00-5.00 kg/tree in the 2nd year. The concentration (mg kg-1) values for the first year were as Fe: 44-115, Cu: 11-32, Mn: 33-75, Zn: 17-26, while these for the second year were Fe: 48-101, Cu: 16-38, Mn: 40-88 and Zn: 20-30. The yield value was 64-102 kg/tree for the 1st year and 65-94 kg/tree for the 2nd year.
Conclusion: The mean values of the microelement amounts removed with pruning residuals may be listed as Fe > Mn > Zn = Cu for both years. The micronutrient amount removed with pruning residuals (g/tree) was found to be Fe: 0.15-0.41, Cu: 0.04-0.13, Mn: 0.12-0.3 and Zn: 0.05-0.13 for the 1st year and Fe: 0.16-0.44, Cu: 0.06-0.16, Mn: 0.15-0.36 and Zn: 0.07-0.13 for the 2nd year. It is suggested that these amounts should be included in plant fertilization programs.

Keywords

pruning, Clementine mandarin, microelement concentration in pruning residuals, amount of micro elements in pruning residuals

References

• Badrulhisham, N. & N. Othman, 2016. “Knowledge in Tree Pruning for Sustainable Practices, 210-217”. In: Urban Setting: Improving our Quality of Life. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,. 234 pp.
• CIRCE-CERTH, 2018. Biomass from agricultural pruning and plantation removals. A feasible practice promoted by the uprunning project (Web page:https://www.up-running.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/1st-Monograph_vDEF-2.pdf) (Date accessed: March 2021).
• Clark, J. & N. Matheny, 2010. The research basis to pruning: A review of the literature. Arboriculture and Urban Forestry, 35 (3): 110-120.
• Close, D.D., J.W. Groninger, J. C. Mangun & P.L. Roth, 2001. Homeowners’ opinions on the practice and effects of topping trees. Journal of Arboriculture, 27: 160-165.
• Cohen, J., 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd. Ed.). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 567 pp.
• FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization), 1997. The role of wood energy in Europe and OECD, WETT-Wood Energy Today for Tomorrow. Rome: FOPW, Forestry Department. (Web page: http://www.fao.org/3/w7407e/W7407e03.htm#10 ) (Date accessed: March 2021).
• Gilman, E.F. & J.C. Grabosky, 2006. Branch union morphology affects decay following pruning. Journal of Arboriculture, 32 (2): 74-79.
• Icka, P. & R. Damo, 2018. The Utilization of The Vineyards' Pruning Residuals for Bioenergy. Albanian Conference on Biology & Environment, (KShBM-ACBE 2018): 1-11.
• Jensen, E.V., 2000. The effects of information on Danish forest visitors’ acceptance of various management actions. Forestry: An International Journal of Forest Research, 73: 165-172.
• Kacar, B. & A. İnal, 2008. Plant Analyses (in Turkish: Bitki Analizleri). 2nd Edt. Nobel Press. Ankara. 912 s.
• Kuhns, M.R. & D.K. Reiter, 2007. Knowledge of and attitudes about utility pruning and how education can help. Journal of Arboriculture & Urban Forestry, 33 (4): 264-274.
• Kuhns, M.R. & D.K. Reiter, 2009. Tree care and topping beliefs, knowledge, and practices in Six Western U.S. Cities. Journal of Arboriculture and Urban Forestry, 35 (3): 122-128.
• Lonsdale, D., 1999. Principles of Tree Hazard Assessment and Management. 6th Impression 2008, Forestry Commission, Great Britain, 388 pp.
• Magagnotti, N., L. Pari, G. Picchi & R. Spinelli, 2013. Technology alternatives for tapping the pruning residue resource. Bioresource Technology, 128: 697-702.
• Marschner, P., 2011. Marschner's Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants. (3rd Edition) (Ed. P. Marschner). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier/Academic Press, 684 pp.
• Meade, G. & D. Hensley, 1998. Pruning landscape trees and shrubs. CTAHR CES L-8, 8 pp.
• Millard, P., 1996. Ecophysiology of the internal cycling of nitrogen for tree growth. Z. Pflanzenernähr Bodenk, 159 (1): 1-10.
• Ow, L.F., S. Ghosh & E.K. Sim, 2013. Mechanical injury and occlusion: An urban, tropical perspective. Journal of Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 12: 255-261.
• Picchi, G., C. Lombardini, L. Pari & R. Spinelli, 2018. Physical and chemical characteristics of renewable fuel obtained from pruning residues. Journal of Cleaner Production, 171: 457-463.
• Roccuzzoa, G., D. Zanotelli, M. Allegraa, A. Giuffridaa, B. Francesco Torrisi, A. Leonardi, A. Quinones, F. Intriglioloa & M. Tagliavini, 2012. Assessing nutrient uptake by field-grown orange trees. European Journal of Agronomy, 41: 73-80.
• TÜİK (Turkish Statistical Institute TURKSTAT), 2020. (Web page: https://www.tuik.gov.tr/) (Date accessed: March 2021).
• Velázquez Martí, B., E. Fernández-González, I. López-Corte´s & D.M. Salazar-Hernández, 2011. Quantification of the residual biomass obtained from pruning of trees in Mediterranean olive groves. Biomass and Bioenergy, 35: 3208-3217.
• Velázquez-Martí, B., E. Fernández-González, I. López-Cortés & A.J. Callejón-Ferre, 2013. Prediction and evaluation of biomass obtained from citrus trees pruning. Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment, 11: 1485-1491.
• Welker, C.M., V. K. Balasubramanian, C.P. Petti, K.M. Rai, S. DeBolt & V. Mendu, 2015. Engineering plant biomass lignin content and composition for biofuels and bioproducts. Energies, 8: 7654-7676.