PERFORMANCE OF THE LOCAL AND STANDARD HAZELNUT CULTIVARS GROWN IN SAMSUN PROVINCE, TURKEY N. Beyhan and T. Demir Department of Horticulture Faculty of Agriculture Ondokuz Mayıs University 55139 Samsun, Turkey Keywords: Corylus avellana, filbert Abstract This study was carried out on hazelnut cultivars grown in Samsun province in Turkey during 1995 and 1996. Fruit characteristics of seven standard cultivars ('Tombul' 'Palaz', 'Sivri', 'Çakıldak', 'Kalınkara', 'Yuvarlak Badem' and 'Acıfındık') were compared to those of three local varieties ('Hanım', Yerlifındık' and 'Ceviz'). 'Ceviz' ranked highest for nut weight, kernel weight and nut and kernel size (4.01 g, 1.49 g, 23.44 mm and 16.79 mm, respectively). The values of the same parameters for 'Tombul' were 2.16 g, 1.14 g, 17.80 mm and 14.48 mm, respectively. The highest percent kernel (59.59%) and the lowest shell thickness (0.62 mm) were found in 'Hanım' while 'Tombul' was 52.78% and 1.06 mm, respectively. The blanching ratio of 'Tombul' was 96% compared to 99% in 'Palaz'. The highest double kernel frequency was 14% in 'Kalınkara'. and kernel weight, percent kernel, nut and kernel size of some cultivars were lower in 1996 than in 1995. 1. Introduction Hazelnut is one of the most important fruit crops in Turkey. Hazelnuts have been grown for centuries in Anatolia, and have found the most suitable ecological conditions in the Black Sea region (Ayfer et al., 1986; Okay et al., 1986; Mehlenbacher, 1991; Anonymous, 1992). Anatolia is a center of origin of hazelnut, a main source of cultivars, and an area in which valuable wild species are distributed. Furthermore, Turkey possesses both the highest quality hazelnut cultivars in the world and the most suitable ecological conditions for growing high quality hazelnuts (Çalışkan, 1995; Ayfer et al., 1997). As a consequence, research has been conducted to characterize and select hazelnut in the Black Sea region (Ayfer et al., 1986; Çetiner, 1990; Demir and Beyhan, 2000). Some local cultivars have been overlooked in previous studies. This study investigated the performance of seven standard cultivars as well as three local varieties Hanım, Yerlifındık and Ceviz grown in Samsun province in 1995 and 1996. 2. Materials and Methods Seven standard cultivars ['Tombul' ('Yağlı'), 'Palaz', 'Sivri, 'Çakıldak', 'Kalınkara' ('Giresunkarası'), 'Yuvarlak Badem' and 'Acıfındık'] as well as three local varieties ('Hanım', 'Yerlifındık' and 'Ceviz') grown in Samsun province in 1995 and 1996 were studied. The cultivars were grown as bushes, and the orchard was designed with a bed system. samples were harvested in the middle of August. A sample of 100 nuts was used for investigation. For weights and measurements, a scale (sensitive to 0.01 g) and a digital caliper (sensitive to 0.01 mm), respectively, were used. For each sample, the following characters were examined: nut and kernel weight (g), percent kernel, nut dimensions (nut, nut width, nut depth), nut and kernel size (= 3 *width*thickness), nut shape index, shell thickness, blanching (% Proc. V Int. Congress on Hazelnut Ed. S.A. Mehlenbacher Acta Hort. 556, ISHS 2001 227
pellicle removal), good kernel frequency, double kernel frequency, blank nut frequency, shriveled kernel frequency, moldy kernel frequency, nuts with split sutures, kernel fiber, taste, nuts per kg, nuts per cluster, husk, leaf (cm), leaf width (cm) and petiole (cm) were investigated. Blanching was done according to Köksal and Okay (1997). 3. Results and discussion and kernel weight and nut and kernel size are important characteristics of hazelnut, as they are components of yield. Although, Turkish hazelnuts have the highest quality in the world, the nuts aren't large enough (Demir and Beyhan, 2000). Mitrovic et al. (1997) also noted that while 'Barcelona' has large nuts (3.26 g), 'Tombul' has small nuts. According to Ayfer et al. (1986), the nut weight of 'Tombul' is 1.46 g and the nut weight of 'Kargalak', whose nuts are the largest of all Turkish cultivars, is 2.82 g. Although 'Tombul' nuts are smaller than those of some other cultivars, other characteristics of Tombul are highly acceptable. Many people consider 'Tombul' to be the best cultivar in the world (Thompson, 1982). In our study, 'Ceviz' ranked highest for nut weight, kernel weight and nut and kernel size (4.01 g, 1.49 g, 23.44 mm and 16.79 mm, respectively). The values of the same parameters for 'Tombul' were 2.16 g, 1.14 g, 17.80 mm and 14.48 mm, respectively. The highest percent kernel (59.59%) and the lowest shell thickness (0.62 mm) were found in 'Hanım', while 'Tombul' was 52.78% and 1.06 mm, respectively. The lowest kernel percentage (37.16%) was in 'Ceviz' in 1995. Blanching of 'Tombul' was 96% compared to 99% in 'Palaz'. The highest frequency of double was 14% in 'Kalınkara' ('Giresunkarası'). The highest frequency of good was in 'Hanım' (96%) and the lowest frequency of blanks was in 'Tombul' (1%) in 1995. (Table 1 & 2, Figures 1-10). In our study, nut and kernel weight, kernel percentage, nut size, and kernel size of some cultivars in 1996 were lower than in 1995. This occurred because of the high crop load on these cultivars in 1996. The different results for some other cultivars can be attributed to variation in productivity, different ecological conditions, nutritional status, and technical and cultural practices. There are important variations for physical characters among hazelnut cultivars, and also among some clones of the same cultivars (Demir and Beyhan, 2000). The performance of the cultivars grown in Samsun was found to be better than that of cultivars studied elsewhere. This situation can be explained by the suitability of ecological conditions in Samsun for growing hazelnuts, and the younger age of hazelnut orchards in Samsun compared to other provinces. Clones of the cultivars investigated in this research may be important for using in future breeding. References Anonymous. 1992. Fındık Araştırmaları Projesi 1992 Yılı Çalışmaları. T.C. Tarım ve Köyişleri Bakanlığı Tarımsal Üretim ve Geliştirme Genel Müdürlüğü Fındık Araştırma Enstitüsü Müdürlüğü, Giresun. Ayfer M., Uzun A. and Baş F., 1986. Türk Fındık Çeşitleri. Ankara. Ayfer M., Türk R. and Eriş A. 1997. Chemical composition of "Değirmendere" hazelnut and its importance in human nutrition. Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Hazelnut. July 30- August 2, 1996. Ordu, Turkey, Acta Hort. 445, 51-53. Çalışkan T. 1995. Fındık Çeşit Katalogu. Tarım ve Köyişleri Bakanlığı, Tarımsal Üretim ve Geliştirme Genel Müdürlüğü, Ankara. Çetiner E. 1990. Doğu Karadeniz Bölgesinde Fındık Üretiminin Sorunları ve Verimliliği Artırma Yönünde Alınması Gerekli Önlemler, Doğu Karadeniz Bölgesinde Tarımsal Üretimin Verimlilik Sorunları Sempozyumu 28-30 Eylül 1988 (Trabzon), Milli Prodüktivite Merkezi Yayınları: 404. 228
Demir T. and Beyhan N. 2000. Samsun ilinde yetiştirilen fındıkların seleksiyonu üzerine bir araştırma. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry. vol:24(2): 173-183. Köksal A. İ. and Okay Y. 1997. Effects of different pellicle removal applications on the fruit quality of some important hazelnut cultivars. Acta Horticulturae 445:327-333. Mehlenbacher, S. A., 1991. Hazelnuts (Corylus). Genetic researches of temperate fruit and nut crops. Acta Horticulturae 290:791-836. Mitrovic M., Ogasanovic D., Tesovic Z., Stanisavljevic M. and Plazinic R. 1997. Pomological and technological properties of some hazelnut cultivars. Acta Hort. 445:151-156. Okay A.N., Kaya A., Küçük V.Y. and Küçük A. 1986. Fındık Tarımı. T.C. Tarım Orman ve Köyişleri Bakanlığı, Teşkilatlanma ve Destekleme Genel Müdürlüğü, Yayın no: Genel 142, TEDGEM-12. 85p. Thompson M. M. 1982. Breeding for filbert varieties suitable for shelling. Proc. Growers Soc. OR, WA, and BC. 67:35-42. Tables 1. and kernel characteristics of hazelnut cultivars in Samsun, Turkey. Tombul Palaz Sivri Çakıldak Kalınkara Yuvarlak Badem Acıfındık Hanım Yerli fındık Ceviz Years weight (g) Kernel weight (g) Percent kernel width depth size Kernel size shape index Shell thickness Blanching Good 1995 2.16 1.14 52.78 18.80 17.84 16.81 17.80 14.48 1.09 1.06 96 92 1996 1.81 0.89 49.17 17.94 16.75 15.88 16.84 13.28 1.10 1.25 96 90 1995 1.88 0.96 51.06 15.94 18.97 16.46 17.07 13.33 0.90 0.97 96 89 1996 2.03 0.97 47.78 17.27 18.92 16.78 17.63 14.57 0.96 0.85 99 70 1995 1.92 0.99 51.56 19.98 16.26 15.10 16.99 13.42 1.28 0.99 69 91 1996 1.72 0.85 49.42 20.09 16.53 14.44 16.86 12.65 1.30 0.92 68 94 1995 1.77 0.91 51.41 18.55 16.62 15.63 16.89 13.07 1.15 0.79 96 90 1996 1.33 0.60 45.11 19.34 16.05 15.16 16.76 11.66 1.29 0.74 96 84 1995 2.28 1.24 54.39 19.73 17.87 16.40 17.95 14.23 1.15 1.02 55 92 1996 1.77 0.92 51.98 19.37 15.83 15.06 16.65 12.95 1.23 0.85 38 95 1995 2.50 1.20 48.00 24.13 17.15 13.06 17.55 13.45 1.60 1.07 69 95 1996 1.84 0.80 43.48 24.21 15.94 14.60 17.79 13.17 1.59 1.01 90 80 1995 1.57 0.78 49.68 17.86 15.98 14.08 15.90 12.47 1.19 0.87 45 89 1996 1.66 0.78 46.99 19.73 15.82 15.21 16.81 11.62 1.18 1.02 24 82 1995 1.46 0.87 59.59 19.37 15.50 12.82 15.67 12.47 1.37 0.62 93 96 1996 1.38 0.82 59.42 20.22 16.25 14.11 16.68 11.94 1.33 0.72 68 94 1995 1.94 0.89 45.88 18.13 17.85 16.05 17.32 13.06 1.07 0.85 74 76 1996 1.57 0.84 53.50 20.59 14.73 13.62 16.05 12.40 1.13 0.93 91 80 1995 4.01 1.49 37.16 20.69 26.27 23.70 23.44 16.79 0.83 1.19 92 77 1996 3.20 1.36 42.50 19.74 23.32 19.76 20.88 15.35 0.92 1.07 90 95 229
2., kernel, cluster and leaf characteristics of the cultivars Years Double Blank nuts Shrivel Moldy Split Sutures Kernel Fiber* Taste points ** s per kg s per cluster Husk Leaf Leaf width Tombul 1995 4 1 7 0 16 3 8 463 2.85 49.96 10.98 9.60 14.44 1996 0 3 5 2 0 2 9 553 3.49 47.11 10.78 9.50 14.15 Palaz 1995 0 11 0 0 0 1 8 532 2.49 43.65 11.56 10.54 15.67 1996 0 19 9 2 0 1 8 493 2.59 46.57 11.97 10.35 18.48 Sivri 1995 0 8 1 0 0 1 8 521 2.71 42.21 10.28 9.08 16.33 1996 1 4 1 1 0 2 8 581 2.93 41.61 9.98 8.40 13.63 Çakıldak 1995 2 3 7 0 0 1 8 565 1.79 48.61 9.12 8.25 10.84 1996 1 11 4 1 0 1 8 752 2.70 43.08 9.13 7.45 13.10 Kalınkara 1995 14 4 2 2 5 4 4 439 3.72 46.83 8.71 8.39 14.21 1996 7 3 2 0 0 4 4 565 3.71 46.58 8.91 7.67 17.18 Yuvarlak 1995 1 3 0 2 0 3 6 400 1.88 39.78 8.85 7.97 15.76 Badem 1996 2 7 11 2 0 4 6 544 2.17 55.42 11.48 9.44 18.61 Acıfındık 1995 11 5 3 3 0 1 7 637 2.59 38.30 11.25 10.70 20.34 1996 0 3 11 4 0 4 6 602 3.05 43.46 9.13 7.53 13.38 Hanım 1995 2 2 1 1 1 1 6 685 2.11 32.60 9.78 7.98 12.68 1996 0 5 1 0 0 1 7 725 2.88 29.73 8.60 6.80 10.94 Yerli 1995 0 15 7 2 0 3 7 516 2.63 43.77 10.30 8.01 15.70 fındık 1996 0 9 10 1 0 3 8 637 3.69 44.08 9.73 8.68 15.01 Ceviz 1995 0 16 5 2 4 4 8 249 1.77 54.15 12.64 11.34 18.54 1996 0 3 2 0 0 2 8 313 1.87 48.25 12.35 10.05 15.76 * 1: no fiber, 2: little fiber, 3: moderate fiber, 4: much fiber ** 1: worst, 10: best Petiole 230
Figures Figure 1- Tombul (Yağlı) cultivar Figure 2- Palaz cultivar 231 Figure 3- Sivri cultivar Figure 4- Çakıldak cultivar
232 Figure 5- Kalınkara (Giresunkarası) cultivar Figure 6- Yuvarlak Badem cultivar Figure 7- Acıfındık cultivar Figure 8- Hanım variety
Figure 9- Yerlifındık variety Figure 10- Ceviz variety 233