The Effects of NaCl Solution Application Frequency on Hazelnut Sucker Management

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 8 Sayı: 2, 158 - 164, 15.03.2025

Ümit Serdar , Neriman Beyhan , Coşkun Gülser , Burak Akyüz

https://doi.org/10.47115/bsagriculture.1605635

Öz

Hazelnut is a nut species that is strategically important to Türkiye. Hazelnut cultivation has various cost factors, with the highest share belonging to the harvesting. Following harvesting, sucker management, and fertilization are the most significant cost factors. Due to high labor requirements and costs, sucker removal, which is recommended to be performed twice a year, is often conducted only once a year or every two years. This situation leads to reduced yield per hectare and income loss for producers. To reduce costs, some growers use herbicides to remove hazelnut suckers. However, the widespread use of herbicides causes irreversible environmental damage and can lead to erosion, particularly on sloped lands. Moreover, the continuous use of herbicides poses risks such as leaving residues in the soil, harming soil microorganisms, and threatening the health of hazelnut plants. This research aimed to determine the effects of the application frequency of a 15% salt (NaCl) solution on hazelnut sucker removal, focusing on its impact on soil EC and pH. The research was conducted at the Ondokuz Mayıs University Ali Nihat Gökyiğit Research Station from 2019 to 2021. NaCl solution applications were planned to be performed once, twice, and three times a year. The effects of application frequency on the drying rate of suckers, the number and length of newly emerged suckers, and changes in soil pH and EC were evaluated. The results revealed that applying the NaCl solution three times a year was the most effective method for sucker management and did not cause adverse changes in soil pH or EC levels.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Corylus avellana, Sucker, Hazelnut, Salt

Etik Beyan

Ethics committee approval was not required for this study because there was no study on animals or humans.

Destekleyen Kurum

Ondokuz Mayıs University BAP Commission

Proje Numarası

PYO.ZRT.1901.18.019.

Teşekkür

The authors thank Ondokuz Mayıs University BAP Commission for supporting this study with project number PYO.ZRT.1901.18.019.

Kaynakça

• Beyhan N, Serdar Ü, Demir T. 1995. Karadeniz bölgesinde fındık, kestane ve ceviz yetistiriciliginin gelistirilmesi. In: Karadeniz Bölgesi Tarımının Geliştirilmesinde Yeni Teknikler Kongresi, 10-11 Ocak, Samsun, Türkiye, pp: 147.
• Beyhan N, Serdar Ü, Demir T. 1996. 2,4-D ve Paraquat’ın fındık dip sürgünü kontrolünde kullanılabilme olanağı. In: Tarımsal Öğretimin 150. Yıldönümü Fındık ve Diğer Sert Kabuklu Meyveler Semp, 10-11 Ocak, Samsun, Türkiye, ss:154.
• Beyhan N. 1997. Bazı herbisitlerin fındık dip sürgünü kontrolündeki etkileri. Anadolu J Agric Sci, 12(3): 45-55.
• Black CA. 1965. Methods of soil analysis. Part I. American Society of Agronomy, Soil Sci Soci of America, New York, USA, No: 9, 1st ed., pp: 1-38.
• FAOSTAT. 2024. Dünya fındık üretim miktarları. URL: http://www.faostat.org (accessed date: December 3, 2024).
• Figen F, Serdar Ü, Akyüz B. 2021. Palaz fındık çeşidinde dip sürgünü temizleme sıklığının verim ve kalite üzerine etkisi. Akad Ziraat Derg, 10(2): 219-226.
• Karadeniz T, Bostan SZ, Tuncer C, Tarakçioğlu C. 2009. Fındık yetiştiriciliği. Ordu: Zir Odalar İl Koord Kurul Yay, Ordu, Türkiye, No. 1, pp: 1-120.
• Kondiloğlu C. 2018. Üre ve tuz çözeltilerinin fındık dip sürgünü kontrolünde kullanılabilirliği. MSc thesis, Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Samsun, Türkiye, pp: 27.
• Kurnaz Ş, Serdar Ü. 1993. Fatsa ilçesi fındık işletmelerinin genel özellikleri, üretim tekniği ve yetiştiricilik sorunları üzerinde bir araştırma. Anadolu J Agric Sci, 8: 114-135.
• Okay NA, Kaya A, Küçük VY, Küçük A. 1986. Fındık tarımı. T.C. Tarım Orman ve Köyişleri Bakanlığı, Teşkilatlanma ve Destekleme Genel Müdürlüğü, Yayın No: Genel 142, TEDGEM-12, Ankara, Türkiye, pp: 1-65.
• Serdar U, Demir T. 2005. Yield, cluster drop and nut traits of some Turkish hazelnut cultivars. Hortic Sci., 32(3): 96-99.
• Serdar Ü, Gülser C, Akyüz B, Balta A, Çil Y, Yilmaz Figen F. 2022. An alternative sucker management method in hazelnut: Application of nitrogen fertilizer solution. Erwerbs-Obstbau, 64(2): 237-244.
• Tous J, Girona J, Tasias J. 1994. Cultural practices and costs in hazelnut production. In: III. International Congress on Hazelnut, September 14-18, Alba, Italy. Acta Horticulturae, 351: 395-418.
• Tüzüner A. 1990. Toprak ve su analiz laboratuvarı el kitabı. TC Tarım Orman ve Köyişleri Bakanlığı, , Köy Hizmetleri Genel Müdürlüğü, Ankara, Türkiye, pp: 21-27.