Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry
Turk J Agric For
(2015) 39: 286-294
© TÜBİTAK
doi:10.3906/tar-1408-88
http://journals.tubitak.gov.tr/agriculture/
Research Article
Assessment of fruit characteristics and genetic variation among naturally growing
wild fruit Elaeagnus angustifolia accessions
1,
2
2
1
Aydın UZUN *, Buket ÇELİK , Turan KARADENİZ , Kadir Uğurtan YILMAZ , Cafer ALTINTAŞ
1
Department of Horticulture, Faculty of Agriculture, Erciyes University, Kayseri, Turkey
2
Department of Horticulture, Faculty of Agriculture, Ordu University, Ordu, Turkey
Received: 25.08.2014
Accepted: 25.11.2014
Published Online: 06.04.2015
1
Printed: 30.04.2015
Abstract: Elaeagnus angustifolia L. is a deciduous wild-growing fruit species that plays significant roles in maintaining ecosystem functions
in arid regions. In the present study, the fruit characteristics and genetic variations among 56 E. angustifolia accessions collected from
the Central Anatolian region of Turkey were determined. The majority of the variations were observed in fruit characteristics. Results
revealed that fruit weights varied between 0.59 g and 2.56 g, fruit lengths between 1.13 cm and 2.58 cm, fruit widths between 0.86 cm
and 1.67 cm, fruit shape indexes between 0.52 and 0.92, and pedicle lengths between 1.95 mm and 7.74 mm. The seed lengths and widths
varied respectively between 1.02 cm and 2.44 cm and 0.44 cm and 0.62 cm. Seven RAPD and 15 ISSR primers were used for genetic
analysis and the genetic distance among the genotypes was between 0.00 and 0.34. All genotypes except two were distinguished, and
relatively high-level genetic diversity was investigated. This study offers significant information for the evaluation and conservation of
the genetic resources of E. angustifolia. Conservation procedures should be designed and implemented because of the loss of genotypes
by anthropogenic impacts.
Key words: ISSR, oleaster, RAPD, Russian olive, wild fruit
1. Introduction
Turkey has diverse climate conditions ranging from
subtropical to cold temperate. Because of these diverse
conditions, the country has considerable plant genetic
diversity and a great number of fruit tree taxa exist in
the country. Fruit culture plays an important role in the
country’s economy as well. It was reported that 85 fruit
species, including almost all deciduous, most subtropical,
and some tropical fruits, are grown in Turkey (Ercisli,
2004). Deciduous fruits are spread all over the country.
However, the subtropical and tropical fruits are grown
mainly in the south, where the winters are warm and the
summers are hot (Ercisli, 2004).
The family Elaeagnaceae comprises three genera and
nearly 50 species worldwide. Elaeagnus angustifolia (the
common English name is “oleaster” or “Russian olive”) is a
common species of the family Elaeagnaceae (Mohammed
et al., 2006). This species is found in the Mediterranean
region, Asia Minor, Iran, the Himalayas, China, Mongolia,
and India. E. angustifolia grows up to 10 m in height and
its trunk is up to 30 cm in diameter. The crown is patulous,
with reddish brown or silvery branches having spines
about 3 cm long (Ersoy et al., 2013). It is classified as either
*Correspondence: [email protected]
286
a shrub or a small tree. When growing wild and close
together, it forms a dense thicket or shrub-hedge. Single
plants grow as trees. It has silvery leaves and small fruits
that are generally silver in color. It is commonly included
in urban landscape plantings to contrast green foliage
species (Stannard et al., 2002).
It was previously reported that E. angustifolia plays a
very important role in maintaining ecosystem functions in
hyperarid areas because of its tolerance to severe drought,
high salinity, and alkalinity in soils (Wang et al., 2006;
Asadiar et al., 2012). It has various ecological, medicinal,
and economical uses. The ripe fruits of E. angustifolia have
been used to treat amoebic dysentery. In folk medicine,
oleaster fruit or flower preparations are used for treating
nausea, vomiting, jaundice, asthma, and flatulence (Wang
et al., 2006; Asadiar et al., 2012).
E. angustifolia var. orientalis (L.) Kuntze is widely
cultivated for its edible fruits in Central and Eastern
Anatolia. The leaves and flowers of this plant are well
known for their use as a diuretic and antipyretic in folk
medicine, and also the fruits are eaten as an appetizer
in Turkey (Ayaz et al., 1999). In Central Anatolia, E.
angustifolia grows naturally especially along river banks,
UZUN et al. / Turk J Agric For
dry river beds, roadsides, and the edges of fields. The area
around the province of Kayseri is one of the most important
habitats for E. angustifolia and the fruit of this species is
used for local consumption and marketing. In the present
study, the fruit characteristics and genetic variations of E.
angustifolia fruits sampled from Kayseri Province of the
Central Anatolian region of Turkey were evaluated. This
study is the one of the first reports evaluating the fruit
characteristics and genetic diversity among large numbers
of E. angustifolia genotypes, and it may contribute highly
useful information for diversity and conservation of this
species.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Plant materials and fruit analyses
Fifty-six E. angustifolia accessions from various districts
and altitudes of the province of Kayseri in the Central
Anatolian region of Turkey were used as the plant material
for the present study (Tables 1 and 2). These accessions
were growing in their natural habitat along river banks,
roadsides, and the edges of fields.
For fruit analyses, forty fruits of each accession were
collected homogenously from each side of the tree in the
middle of October. All fruit samples were assessed for
fruit weight (g), fruit length (cm), fruit width (cm), fruit
shape index (width/length), pedicel length (mm), seed
length (cm) and seed width (cm). All fruit samples of each
genotype were weighed and the average fruit weight was
estimated. The width and length values of each fruit and
seed were measured with a digital caliper. The fruit shape
index was calculated by dividing fruit width by fruit length.
2.2. Molecular analyses
Young leaves were used for genomic DNA extraction
by the CTAB method as described by Doyle and Doyle
(1990). DNA concentration was measured with a
spectrophotometer (BioTek Instruments, Inc., Winooski,
VT, United States) and 10 ng/µL DNA templates were
made by using a TE solution (10 mM Tris-HCl, 0.1 mM
EDTA, pH 8.0). A total of 7 RAPD and 15 ISSR primers
(Operon Technologies, Huntsville, AL, USA) were used
for all genotypes (Table 3). PCR reaction components and
PCR cycling parameters for the RAPD and ISSR analyses
were determined as described by Uzun et al. (2009), and
a DNA thermal cycler (Sensoquest Progen Scientific Ltd.,
Mexborough, South Yorkshire, UK) was used for the PCR
process. PCR products were separated in a 2% agarose gel
with 1X TBE buffer (89 mM Tris, 89 mM boric acid, 2 mM
EDTA) at 110 V for 2.5–3 h. The fragment patterns were
photographed under UV light for further analysis. A 100bp standard DNA ladder was used in both analyses as the
molecular standard in order to confirm the appropriate
markers.
2.3. Data analysis
Data for fruit and seed characterization were analyzed by
using JMP 5.0 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA) and
the means were separated and grouped using Tukey’s test
(P < 0.05). Molecular analyses were applied as follows:
each clearly reproducible band was scored for RAPD and
ISSR. Data from RAPD and ISSR were combined, the
cluster analysis was performed based on the unweighted
pair group method with arithmetic averages (UPGMA),
and dendrograms were constructed using NTSYS pc 2.11
software (Rohlf, 2000). The genetic relationships among
the genotypes were examined using UPGMA cluster
analysis through Nei’s pairwise genetic distance.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Fruit characterization
The fruit characteristics of the E. angustifolia genotypes
were evaluated. There were significant differences at P <
0.05 among the genotypes for all traits studied (Table 1). A
high level of variation was detected among the fruit weights
of the genotypes. While KI-19 and KI-25 had the highest
fruit weight (2.55 g), KI-14 had the lowest fruit weight
(0.59 g). In a previous study performed in the province of
Isparta in Turkey, the fruit weight of randomly sampled
E. angustifolia fruits from a local market ranged between
0.96 g and 3.80 g (Akbolat et al., 2008). Likewise, Ersoy
et al. (2013) reported an average fruit weight of 2.90 g for
selected Russian olive trees. Current findings were lower
than those reported by Ersoy et al. (2013). Fruit lengths
of 56 genotypes varied between 1.13 cm (KI-12) and 2.58
cm (KI-54), whereas fruit widths ranged from 0.86 (KI18) cm to 1.67 cm (KI-51). Fruit lengths and widths of E.
angustifolia fruits were reported between 17.80 mm and
33.65 mm and 12.25 mm and 22.00 mm, respectively, in a
previous study (Akbolat et al., 2008). Higher fruit lengths
and widths found previously may have been because the
fruits were obtained from a local market. In the present
study, the genotypes were sampled to represent fruit
variation in natural growing sites. The fruit shape indexes
of genotypes were between 0.52 (KI-58) and 0.92 (KI-55)
(Table 2). A shape index value closer to 1.00 indicates a
globular shape. Otherwise, the values distant from 1.00
indicate cylindrical shapes.
Among the investigated fruit characteristics, fruit
pedicel lengths had the greatest diversity. Genotype KI-19
had the longest pedicel (7.74 mm) whereas KI-12 had the
shortest pedicel (1.95 mm). Seed lengths of the genotypes
varied from 2.44 cm (KI-26) to 1.02 cm (KI-12). Such
findings were consistent with the previous reports of
Akbolat et al. (2008), which were between 1.22 cm and
2.46 cm. Ersoy et al. (2013) found the seed lengths of one
selected Russian olive type as 2.42 cm. Compared to other
traits, the seed widths of the genotypes exhibited a lower
287
UZUN et al. / Turk J Agric For
Table 1. List of genotypes studied and their origin, altitude, fruit weight, length, width, and statistically assigned groups.
288
Genotype
Sampling site
district
Elevation of the
sampling site (m)
Fruit weight (g)
Fruit length (cm)
Fruit width (cm)
KI-1
Develi
1134
0.87 p–sa
1.34 w–x
1.17 q–t
KI-2
Sarıoğlan
1161
2.08 a–h
2.32 b–k
1.44 e–l
KI-3
Sarıoğlan
1143
2.08 a–h
2.13 i–o
1.40 g–m
KI-4
Talas
1182
2.01 a–i
2.29 c–l
1.45 e–k
KI-5
Sarıoğlan
1117
2.50 ab
2.40 a–g
1.52 b–g
KI-6
Develi
1261
1.30 k–q
2.04 m–q
1.32 k–p
KI-7
Sarıoğlan
1122
0.82 q–s
1.40 v–w
1.06 s–u
KI-8
Develi
1285
2.00 a–i
2.42 a–f
1.61 a–c
KI-9
Sarıoğlan
1169
2.42 a–d
2.47 a–c
1.63 ab
KI-10
Develi
1267
1.26 k–q
1.85 p–t
1.20 p–s
KI-11
Sarıoğlan
1120
1.13 m–s
1.79 r–t
1.33 k–p
KI-12
Akkışla
1275
0.62 rs
1.13 x
0.89 v
KI-13
Develi
1282
2.14 a–g
2.34 b–j
1.56 a–e
KI-14
Sarıoğlan
1213
0.59 s
1.21 w–x
0.98 u–v
KI-16
Develi
1135
1.03 n–s
1.36 w–x
1.05 t–u
KI-17
Develi
1239
1.63 g–m
2.08 l–p
1.45 e–l
KI-18
İncesu
1083
0.96 o–s
1.21 w–x
0.86 v
KI-19
Develi
1281
2.55 a
2.40 a–g
1.60 a–d
KI-20
Develi
1273
1.23 l–q
1.94 o–s
1.16 q–t
KI-21
Develi
1248
1.95 b–ı
2.23 d–m
1.56 a–e
KI-22
Develi
1280
0.96 o–s
1.80 q–t
1.16 q–t
KI-23
Develi
1276
1.32 j–q
2.35 b–j
1.34 k–n
KI-24
Develi
1281
1.83 e–k
1.98 n–r
1.33 k–o
KI-25
Develi
1078
2.55 a
2.35 b–j
1.64 ab
KI-26
Develi
1281
2.04 a–h
2.53 ab
1.54 b–f
KI-27
Develi
1272
1.18 l–r
2.12 j–o
1.20 o–r
KI-28
Hacıar
1242
2.11 a–h
2.21 f–n
1.35 j–n
KI-29
Sarıoğlan
1112
0.62 rs
1.14 x
0.90 v
KI-30
İncesu
1089
2.04 a–h
2.37 a–i
1.54 b–f
KI-31
İncesu
1081
1.13 m–s
1.55 u–v
1.28 m–q
KI-32
İncesu
1089
1.02 n–s
1.53 u–v
1.17 q–t
KI-33
Develi
1076
2.09 a–h
2.29 c–l
1.59 a–d
KI-34
Develi
1281
0.93 p–s
1.71 t–u
1.07 s–u
KI-35
Develi
1279
1.54 h–o
2.18 g–n
1.38 h–m
KI-36
Kocasinan
1115
1.43 i–p
2.20 f–n
1.42 f–l
KI-37
Sarıoğlan
1130
1.74 f–l
2.07 l–p
1.39 g–m
UZUN et al. / Turk J Agric For
Table 1. (Continued).
KI-38
Kocasinan
1108
2.06 a–h
2.29 b–l
1.51 b–h
KI-39
Sarıoğlan
1142
2.19 a–g
2.35 b–j
1.49 c–i
KI-40
Sarıoğlan
1134
2.39 a–d
2.39 a–g
1.57 a–e
KI-41
Sarıoğlan
1138
1.84 d–k
2.21 e–m
1.36 i–n
KI-42
Sarıoğlan
1139
2.03 a–h
2.09 k–p
1.41 f–m
KI-43
Sarıoğlan
1147
1.90 d–j
2.00 m–r
1.36 i–n
KI-44
Sarıoğlan
1136
1.43 i–p
1.74 s–u
1.28 m–q
KI-45
Sarıoğlan
1149
2.49 abc
2.33 b–j
1.51 b–g
KI-47
Sarıoğlan
1130
2.17 a–g
2.15 h–o
1.45 e–k
KI-48
Sarıoğlan
1130
1.97 b–i
2.18 g–o
1.35 j–n
KI-49
Sarıoğlan
1148
1.83 e–k
2.01 m–r
1.35 j–n
KI-50
Sarıoğlan
1144
1.73 f–l
2.21 f–n
1.31 l–p
KI-51
Melikgazi
1217
2.22 a–f
2.36 a–i
1.67 a
KI-52
Melikgazi
1205
1.62 g–m
2.29 b–l
1.35 j–n
KI-53
Melikgazi
1229
1.92 c–i
2.45 a–e
1.62 ab
KI-54
Melikgazi
1225
2.56 a
2.58 a
1.58 a–d
KI-55
Talas
1117
0.60 rs
1.25 w–x
1.14 r–t
KI-56
Melikgazi
1176
2.25 a–f
2.46 a–d
1.63 ab
KI-57
Kocasinan
1106
1.61 g–n
2.41 a–g
1.47 d–j
KI-58
Hacilar
1234
1.55 h–n
2.37 a–h
1.24 n–r
d
-
-
0.58
2.37
1.33
Mean separation within columns by Tukey’s multiple range test. P < 0.05.
a
level of variation (Table 2). Seed widths of the genotypes
varied between 0.62 cm (KI-5) and 0.44 cm (KI-34). For
fruit rind color, orange was found to be the dominant
color. Fourteen genotypes had orange (O) rinds and 14 of
them had an orange-cream (O-C) color. A light orangecream (LO-C) color was determined in 11 genotypes. Four
genotypes showed a dark orange (DO) rind whereas two
genotypes had light orange (LO) rinds. The fruit pulp color
of the genotypes showed lower variation than rind color.
Most of the genotypes (44 of 56) had a cream (C) pulp
color whereas 12 of them had a white-cream (W-C) color
(Table 2).
3.2. Molecular characterization
3.2.1. RAPD and ISSR amplification
For molecular analyses, a total of 7 RAPD and 15 ISSR
primers were used. In the RAPD analysis, 74 fragments
with high intensity were scored. The amplified fragments
per primer varied from 9 (OPAE 10 and OPAN 14) to 14
(OPAN 19) with an average of 10.57 (Table 3). Average
polymorphic fragments per primer were found to be
9.57. The maximum number of polymorphic fragments
was 13, which was obtained from OPAN 19. The rate of
polymorphic RAPD markers was very high (90.31%). The
number of bands scored per primer for the ISSR analysis
ranged from 2 (GA8YG) to 12 (BDBCA7C and HVHTCC7),
with a mean of 9.0. The number of polymorphic fragments
varied between 1 (GA8YG) and 11 (AG6GC), with a mean of
7.62. The polymorphism rate of ISSR primers was 81.92%.
Asadiar et al. (2012) obtained 8.3 polymorphic fragments
per primer, which is consistent with the number observed
in the present study. Similarly, they found a polymorphism
rate of 79%, which is close to the rate determined in the
present study.
3.2.2. Genetic similarity analysis
The data of the RAPD and ISSR analyses were combined
to perform a genetic diversity analysis among the 56
E. angustifolia accessions. The genetic distance of the
accessions studied ranged from 0.34 to 0.00 (Figure). That
means the genetic similarity of genotypes was between 0.76
289
UZUN et al. / Turk J Agric For
Table 2. Fruit shape index, pedicel length, seed length, width, rind, and pulp color of E. angustifolia accessions
and statistically assigned groups.
290
Genotype
Fruit shape index
Pedicel length
(mm)
Seed length
(cm)
Seed width
(cm)
Rind
color
Pulp
color
KI-1
0.87
a–ba
4.18
l–s
1.24
t–u
0.49
o–v
O-C
C
KI-2
0.62
m–s
5.03
g–q
2.20
b–h
0.54
d–q
O-C
W-C
KI-3
0.66
h–q
6.51
a–i
2.02
h–o
0.53
g–s
O
W-C
KI-4
0.64
k–s
4.32
k–r
2.08
f–n
0.54
d–r
O-C
C
KI-5
0.63
l–s
6.51
a–i
2.33
a–c
0.62
a
O
C
KI-6
0.65
j–s
6.64
a–h
2.00
i–p
0.51
j–t
O-C
C
KI-7
0.76
c–g
3.43
p–u
1.24
t–u
0.51
m–u
DO
C
KI-8
0.66
h–q
4.54
j–q
2.17
c–i
0.54
e–s
O-C
C
KI-9
0.66
i–q
6.36
a–i
2.40
a–b
0.59
a–e
O-C
C
KI-10
0.65
j–s
4.76
ı–q
1.82
p–r
0.49
q–v
O-C
C
KI-11
0.74
d–h
3.47
o–u
1.45
s
0.51
l–u
DO
C
KI-12
0.79
b–e
1.95
u
1.02
v
0.46
t–v
LO-C
C
KI-13
0.67
h–q
6.14
a–j
2.13
c–k
0.52
h–s
O-C
W-C
KI-14
0.81
b–d
2.65
r–u
1.07
u–v
0.49
q–v
LO
C
KI-16
0.77
c–f
4.28
k–r
1.33
s–t
0.55
d–p
LO-C
C
KI-17
0.72
e–k
6.50
a–i
1.96
j–p
0.55
d–p
O
W-C
KI-18
0.71
e–l
3.95
n–t
1.20
t–v
0.55
c–n
O
C
KI-19
0.67
h–q
7.74
a
2.19
c–i
0.57
a–m
LO
C
KI-20
0.60
o–t
5.30
d–n
1.88
n–q
0.49
p–v
O
C
KI-21
0.70
f–m
5.53
c–n
2.17
c–i
0.58
a–h
O-C
W-C
KI-22
0.64
j–s
7.47
a–b
1.74
q–r
0.48
s–v
O-C
C
KI-23
0.57
r–t
6.67
a–h
2.29
a–e
0.54
d–s
O-C
W-C
KI-24
0.68
g–o
5.13
f–p
1.87
o–q
0.53
g–s
O
C
KI-25
0.70
f–n
5.48
c–n
2.16
c–j
0.60
a–d
O-C
C
KI-26
0.62
m–s
6.68
a–h
2.44
a
0.52
i–s
O
C
KI-27
0.57
s–t
7.15
a–c
2.10
e–m
0.51
n–u
O
W-C
KI-28
0.61
n–s
6.02
a–k
2.00
h–p
0.55
d–p
LO-C
C
KI-29
0.79
b–e
2.40
s–u
1.08
u–v
0.57
a–j
LO-C
C
KI-30
0.65
j–r
6.97
a–e
2.26
a–g
0.54
d–q
DO
W-C
KI-31
0.83
b–c
3.30
q–u
1.39
s–t
0.53
g–s
DO
C
KI-32
0.77
c–f
2.59
r–u
1.45
s
0.61
a–c
DO
C
KI-33
0.70
f–n
6.46
a–i
2.14
c–k
0.56
b–n
O-C
C
KI-34
0.63
l–s
7.10
a–d
1.70
q–r
0.44
v
O-C
C
KI-35
0.65
j–s
5.99
a–l
2.12
d–l
0.51
n–u
O-C
C
KI-36
0.65
j–s
6.83
a–g
2.19
c–i
0.57
a–k
LO-C
C
KI-37
0.67
h–p
5.93
a–m
2.06
g–o
0.59
a–f
DO
W-C
KI-38
0.66
h–q
6.95
a–e
2.13
c–k
0.57
a–m
LO-C
C
KI-39
0.63
l–s
5.32
d–n
2.18
c–i
0.54
e–s
LO-C
C
KI-40
0.66
h–q
6.70
a–h
2.28
a–f
0.56
a–n
O-C
C
KI-41
0.62
n–s
5.17
e–p
1.96
j–p
0.48
r–v
O
C
UZUN et al. / Turk J Agric For
Table 1. (Continued).
KI-42
0.67
h–p
5.36
c–n
1.96
j–p
0.61
a–b
O
C
KI-43
0.68
g–o
4.94
h–q
1.95
k–p
0.54
d–s
O
C
KI-44
0.74
d–i
5.95
a–m
1.66
r
0.58
a–i
O
C
KI-45
0.65
j–r
6.51
a–i
2.13
c–k
0.57
a–l
LO-C
C
KI-47
0.67
h–p
4.17
m–s
2.01
h–p
0.55
c–o
O-C
C
KI-48
0.62
m–s
5.90
b–m
2.05
h–o
0.54
e–s
O
C
KI-49
0.67
h–q
5.49
c–n
1.89
n–q
0.58
a–i
O
C
KI-50
0.60
p–t
6.01
a–k
2.02
h–o
0.51
k–u
LO-C
C
KI-51
0.73
d–j
4.24
k–r
1.92
l–q
0.48
r–v
O-C
W-C
KI-52
0.59
q–t
4.48
j–q
1.91
m–q
0.46
u–v
O-C
W-C
KI-53
0.66
h–q
6.89
a–f
2.27
a–f
0.54
e–s
O-C
W-C
KI-54
0.61
o–s
5.67
c–n
2.31
a–d
0.52
i–s
LO-C
C
KI-55
0.92
a
2.36
t–u
1.12
u–v
0.55
d–o
O-C
C
KI-56
0.66
h–q
5.28
e–o
2.27
a–f
0.58
a–g
O
C
KI-57
0.61
o–s
5.81
b–m
2.39
a–b
0.53
f–s
LO-C
C
KI-58
0.52
t
3.29
q–u
2.12
d–l
0.48
r–v
O
C
d
0.08
1.81
0.20
0.058
Mean separation within columns by Tukey’s multiple range test. P < 0.05.
O = Orange, C = cream, LO = light orange, DO = dark orange, W = white.
a
and 1.00. The genetic distance of seven wild populations
of endangered Elaeagnus mollis trees was found to be
between 0.06 and 0.00 in a previous study carried out in
China (Wang et al., 2012). However, the genetic similarity
of 9 Iranian E. angustifolia genotypes was determined to be
between 0.51 and 0.77, according to ISSR data (Asadiar et
al., 2012). The differences among the studies may be caused
by geographic factors, the limited area of the studies, and
a high level of worldwide diversity within Elaeagnus spp.
In the present study, a relatively high level of variation
was detected among the genotypes, and all genotypes
were distinguished except KI-3 and KI-55. Among the
genotypes, KI-4, collected from the Talas district, was the
most distinct genotype from the rest of the accessions used
in this study, with a genetic distance value of 0.34. KI-54
was also clearly separated from the others at about 0.30
in distance. This genotype, sampled from the Melikgazi
district, had the largest fruit weight. The rest of the 54
genotypes were divided into two main clusters. The first
cluster consisted of three genotypes including KI-1,
KI-31, and KI-32. The last two genotypes of this cluster
were sampled from the İncesu district, and the fruit
characteristics of them were also similar.
Another main cluster comprised 8 subclusters,
including varied numbers of genotypes. The genetic
distance among 51 genotypes within this main cluster
varied between about 0.28 and 0.00. In this main cluster
of dendrograms, from bottom to top, the first subcluster
(S1) consisted of KI-29, KI-14, KI-11, and KI-12. The first
accessions of this group were collected from the same
district (Sarıoğlan), and in general these four genotypes
had small fruit sizes. KI-52, KI-53, and KI-58 were in the
second subcluster (S2). Two genotypes (KI-52 and KI-53)
of this subcluster were from same district and had orangecream rinds. The third subcluster consisted of 8 genotypes
(KI-37, KI-42, KI-49, KI-50, KI-51, KI-44, KI-47, and KI48). Among them, KI-47/KI-48 and KI-42/KI-50 were
closely related. All genotypes, except for KI-51, originated
from the Sarıoğlan district. KI-13, KI-18, and KI-57 were
in the fourth subcluster. Eight genotypes comprised the
fifth subcluster, and 6 of them were collected from the
Develi district. The sixth subcluster (S6) was composed of
the genotypes KI-33, KI-34, KI-35, KI-39, KI-40, KI-41,
and KI-45. The first three genotypes had the same rind and
pulp color and were sampled from the Develi district. The
other four accessions had a similar fruit shape (based on
the fruit index) and originated from the Sarıoğlan district.
The seventh subcluster was the largest one, comprising 10
genotypes. In general, there were closer relations within
this group compared to other subgroups. The last subgroup
291
UZUN et al. / Turk J Agric For
Table 3. List of RAPD and ISSR primers, their numbers of total and polymorphic
fragments, and rate of polymorphism range.
Total fragment
number
Polymorphic
fragment number
Polymorphism
rate (%)
OPAE 09
10
9
90
OPAE 10
9
8
88.8
OPAF 13
11
10
90.9
OPAN 07
11
10
90.9
OPAN 14
9
8
88.8
OPAN 17
10
9
90
OPAN 19
14
13
92.8
Mean
10.57
9.57
90.31
Total
74
67
-
RAPD primers
ISSR primers
(AG)6GC
11
11
100
(AG)7YC
10
9
90
(AG)8T
7
4
57.1
BDB(CA)7C
12
10
83.3
(CA)6AC
11
8
72.7
DBDA(CA)7
8
4
50
(GA)8YG
2
1
50
(GAA)6
10
10
100
(GACA)4
10
10
100
(GT)6GG
10
9
90
(GT)8YA
8
6
75
HVH(CA)7T
8
8
100
HVH(TCC)7
12
9
75
(TCC)5RY
7
6
85.7
VHV(GTG)7
10
10
100
Mean
9.0
7.66
81.92
Total
135
115
-
consisted of 8 genotypes and they originated from various
districts. In this group, KI-3 and KI-55 were genetically
identical. In the present study, the fruit characteristics and
genetic diversity of E. angustifolia genotypes were
investigated. This is the first report regarding both the
fruit and genetic characteristics of this species. The fruit
parameters of the investigated genotypes showed high
levels of variation. Similarly, genetic polymorphism was
also high among the accessions. E. angustifolia accessions
are generally propagated in nature with seeds. The seeds
are transported by birds and other wild animals. Thus,
292
genetic variation among these genotypes is expected. This
species is considered a significant species. It is commonly
planted in drier parts of the country and performs well
because it is tolerant to drought and severe soil conditions.
It can also add color to landscapes with its colorful foliage
(Gilman and Watson, 1993).
It was concluded that insufficient funding was often
a problem in plant breeding programs, and preservation
of the most valuable accessions becomes a priority when
resources are limited. These accessions can then be used
to help to conserve the diversity of a crop for future use
by plant breeders and researchers (Garkava-Gustavsson
UZUN et al. / Turk J Agric For
KI-1
KI-31
KI-32
KI-2
KI-3
KI-55
KI-27
KI-43
KI-30
KI-38
KI-16
KI-5
KI-36
KI-6
KI-7
KI-8
KI-9
KI-10
KI-19
KI-20
KI-21
KI-33
KI-34
KI-40
KI-35
KI-39
KI-45
KI-41
KI-10MW
KI-17
KI-22
KI-23
KI-24
KI-25
KI-26
KI-28
KI-56
KI-13
KI-57
KI-18
KI-37
KI-42
KI-50
KI-49
KI-51
KI-44
KI-47
KI-48
KI-52
KI-53
KI-58
KI-12
KI-11
KI-14
KI-29
KI-54
KI-4
0.00
S8
S7
S6
S5
S4
S3
S2
S1
0.09
0.17
Coefficient
0.26
0.34
Figure. UPGMA dendrogram of the 56 E. angustifolia genotypes based
on Nei’s genetic distance and combined RAPD and ISSR data.
et al., 2005). The evaluation of genetic resources of
naturally growing wild species is an important priority
for conservation and domestication. The genetic diversity
of a species is critically important to maintaining its
evolutionary potential to survive in an ever-changing
environment; genetic diversity loss is often associated with
reduced fitness of a species. The maintenance of genetic
variation is a major objective within conservation plans
for endangered species (Hu et al., 2010; Wang et al., 2012).
The present results on E. angustifolia genotypes represent a
large proportion of fruit morphology and genetic variation.
Further research is recommended for in situ and ex situ
conservation processes to conserve and utilize these rich
genetic resources for future progress.
References
Akbolat D, Ertekin C, Menges HO, Guzel E, Ekinci K (2008). Physical
and nutritional properties of oleaster (Elaeagnus angustifolia
L.) growing in Turkey. Asian J Chem 20: 2358–2366.
Asadiar LS, Rahmani F, Siami A (2012). Assessment of genetic
diversity in the Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) based on
ISSR genetic markers. Rev Cienc Agron 44: 310–316.
293
UZUN et al. / Turk J Agric For
Ayaz FA, Kadıoğlu A, Doğru A (1999). Soluble sugar composition
of Elaeagnus angustifolia L. var. orientalis (L.) Kuntze (Russian
olive) fruits. Turk J Bot 23: 349–354.
Doyle JJ, Doyle JL (1990). Isolation of plant DNA from fresh tissue.
Focus 12: 13–15.
Ercisli S (2004). A short review of the fruit germplasm resources of
Turkey. Genet Resour Crop Ev 51: 419–435.
Ersoy N, Kalyoncu IH, Elidemir AY, Tolay I (2013). Some physicochemical and nutritional properties of Russian olive (Elaeagnus
angustifolia L.) fruit grown in Turkey. International Journal of
Biological, Veterinary, Agricultural and Food Engineering 7:
179–181.
Garkava-Gustavsson L, Persson HA, Nybom H, Rumpunen K
(2005). RAPD-based analysis of genetic diversity and selection
of lingonberry (Vaccinium vitis-idaea L.) material for ex situ
conservation. Genet Resour Crop Ev 52: 723–735.
Gilman EF, Watson DG (1993). Elaeagnus angustifolia Russian
Olive. Fact Sheet ST-233. Gainesville, FL, USA: Environmental
Horticulture Department, Florida Cooperative Extension
Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University
of Florida.
Hu YP, Wang L, Xie XL, Yang J, Li L, Zhang HG (2010). Genetic
diversity of wild populations of Rheum tanguticum endemic
to China as revealed by ISSR analysis. Biochem Syst Ecol 38:
264–274.
294
Mohammed FI, Al-Essam K, Shafagojy A, Afifi FU (2006).
Investigation of the direct effects of the alcoholic extract of
Elaeagnus angustifolia L. (Elaeagnaceae) on dispersed intestinal
smooth muscle cells of guinea pig. Sci Pharm 74: 21–30.
Rohlf FJ (2000). NTSYS-pc, Numerical Taxonomy and Multivariate
Analysis System, Version 2.11. Setauket, NY, USA: Exeter.
Stannard M, Ogle D, Holzworth L, Scianna J, Sunleaf E (2002).
History, biology, ecology, suppression, and revegetation of
Russian olive sites (Elaeagnus angustifolia, L.). Plant Materials
Technical Note No. MT-43. Washington, DC, USA: United
States Department of Agriculture.
Uzun A, Gulsen O, Kafa G, Seday U (2009). Field performance and
molecular diversification of lemon selections. Sci Hortic 120:
473–478.
Wang Q, Ruan X, Huang J, Xu N, Yan Q (2006) Intra-specific genetic
relationship analyses of Elaeagnus angustifolia based on RPHPLC biochemical markers. J Zhejiang Univ-SC B 7: 272–278.
Wang Y, Qin Y, Du Z, Yan G (2012). Genetic diversity and
differentiation of the endangered tree Elaeagnus mollis Diels
(Elaeagnus L.) as revealed by simple sequence repeat (SSR)
markers. Biochem Syst Ecol 40: 25–33.