Volume 19(1), 141- 146, 2015 JOURNAL of Horticulture, Forestry and Biotechnology

www.journal-hfb.usab-tm.ro

141

The influence of climatic factors on the vegetation development phases of peach species (partial observations)

Dămureanu Andreea Ionela*, Baciu A.A. University of Craiova, Faculty of Agriculture and Horticulture

*Corresponding author. Email: pretorianandreea@yahoo.ro

Abstract Studies on the impact of environmental factors on tree species phenology allow decisions about the appropriate choice of product for different areas of culture, according to ecological conditions.

This paper has proposed to study the influence of climatic factors changes lately on the development phases of vegetation peach Prunus persica L. species (Batsch) in terms of Oltenia Romania). The observations refer to the second stage of fruit bud rest, the optional rest. The impact assessment of climate variability on tree species involves the use of thermal agroclimatic indices that can quantify the producing of a major thermal risk in tree species during the spring season, while the risk to late frosts is major for fruit growing production. The climatic factors of the previous year, the exit out of deep rest (winter) and temperatures of the first months have produced severe damage to the experimental field research SCCCPN peach groves.

Key words phenological observations, climatic variations, peach

The interest for phenology is one of the oldest, since in

the past, the possibilities for human survival and, in

particular, agricultural activities, were directly related

to the understanding of the relationship between the

environment and the development of flora and fauna

(14 ).

Currently in the context of climate change,

due to the possibilities of monitoring based on plant

species sensitivity to record and respond to

environmental conditions, phenology is undergoing a

revival phase (13; 16; 22; 3; 23).

The profound changes that have occurred in

air temperature after the 1980s have led to sharp

reactions on plant phenology in many regions of the

world (3). The temperature rise, caused by the

greenhouse effect, is manifested by diurnal and annual

changes and even during the same day (1) which can

lead to plant phenological changes (18, 6, 5, 7, 1).

Many tree species are susceptible to spring frosts

during flowering. Warming downgrades both last

springs frost date and the time of flowering, whilst the

risk of late frosts on damage buds remains broadly

unchanged (19).

For some species with short deep sleep

(apricot, almond), warm weather in late winter, with

temperatures above the biological limit, determine the

moisturizing and drawing of their buds.

Regarding the autumn phenophases (23),

these show that they tend to be much more difficult to

define, being under the influence of weather events

such as isolated frosts or strong winds, information on

the relationship between meteorological factors and

coloring / fall of the leaves are still vague (16). If, for

example, for predicting spring phenological phases are

many models, for the fall phenological phases has not

yet been developed a model (10, 4).

In particular, spring phenophases are

temperature-sensitive (21), implying that their long-

term analysis can provide information on changes in

temperature in winter and spring (16). In this sense,

analyzing long-term records on the Prunus avium

flowering, Sparks and Menzel (23) found a very strong

correlation with spring temperatures, which means that

the observed variability can be attributed to them.

Peach, as we know, was formed as a species

in regions with warm and relatively dry climate, with

plenty of sun. Therefore, it has higher requirements to

heat than other tree species grown in our country, being

exceeded only slightly in this regard by the almond and

apricot.

The influence of temperature as a limiting

factor of peach culture is manifested differently,

whether it's high or low temperatures, or the alternation

of these two.

Peach succeeds in areas where the average

annual temperature is between 10ºC and 11,5ºC. (17).

The resistance of the fruit bud at low temperatures is

conditioned by the genetic characteristics of the

variety. However, damages caused by winter frosts on

different varieties are recorded at various temperatures,

because, for the genetic traits, are added many other

factors, such as the state of preparation for the winter

142

trees, low temperature duration, how the temperature

drops in early winter and temperature fluctuations

during winter, as well as the date when the

temperatures are lower than the winter rest. Flowering

peach buds, at rest, resist from -23ºC to 25ºC ....- (17).

If in January-February appear warm periods,

over the biological threshold, the peach being 6.5 ° C, a

frost return may affect the fruit only at ...- 11ºC -10ºC.

(17).

By classifying counties in Romania by size

and direction of the potential effects of climate change,

by Downing and Patwardhan (9), Szőcs Emse (24)

classified them by their vulnerability, and scored Dolj,

Olt County, Buzau, Virginia, Giurgiu, Tulcea ,

Calarasi, Ialomita, Braila, Vrancea, in highly

vulnerable areas.

In the south of Romania, also light, as a factor

of vegetation, has a decisive influence on the

production process of trees (12). But it depends on the

morphology and photosynthetic efficiency of the leaf,

vegetative growth, induction, differentiation, binding

and fruit growth (11).

Materials and Methods For the study of this paper, it was analyzed the

behavior of seven peach varieties grown in southern

Oltenia (CCDCPN Dăbuleni-Romania), the plantation

being in the fifth year after planting.

Phenological observations focused on the

second stage of fruit bud rest, the optional, every two

weeks, with the help of a portable digital microscope,

Motic-DS-2. Sections were performed by flowering

buds placed in the lower third, middle and upper third

of the mixed branches.

The Peach varieties studied are: Springold,

Springcrest, Collins, Cardinal, Jerseyland, Redhaven

and Southland, and interpretation of phenological

observations were possible using climatic data

provided by the weather station unit.

Results and Discussions From a climate perspective, the sandy soils,

left of Jiu, is framed by Köppen in the climatic

province CFAX, having a strong continental

characteristic, with slight Mediterranean influence,

manifested by increased dryness in the months from

July to September and a normal quantity of rainfall in

May and June. The average annual temperature in the

area has increased from 11.3ºC to 12,1ºC in recent

years, which favor the onset of phenological phases of

earlier vegetative organs, fruit and beyond for the

peach species

Trends in the beginning of the vegetation

season in Europe (1969-1998 period), correspond to an

early production , on average of 8 days, related to

changes in the air temperature in early spring

(February-April) and a positive growth phase of the

NAO index . Also, a warming with 1 ̊ C during this

period leads to the onset of the growing season earlier

with 7 days, while the annual heating of 1 ̊ C increases

the growing season by 5 days (2).

From specialty textbooks we learn that the

peach enters the winter sleep in the second half of

November and ends in late February. Thus, winter rest

is between 125-145 days. (8).

We can characterize the average temperatures

from November to December (date of entry into the

rest of peach) in the area as being positive (INM

Ratings) with a deviation of the average air

temperature normal to climatological averages of

previous years (Table 1).

Table 1

Annual climatic data C.C.C.D.C.P.N. Dăbuleni (2014)

Climatic

element

I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII Media

Average

temperature 1,93 1,99 9,93 12,61 16,6 20,7 23,10 23,7 15,3 12,0 5,43 1,15 12,29

Maximum

temperature 15,9 20,8 25,9 25,5 30,2 33,7 34,9 37,6 30,6 27,2 13,7 17,6 26,13

Minimum

temperature -14,1 -12,5 -1,2 2,5 6,3 5,2 12,5 8,2 5,1 -0,3 -3,5 -20,4 1,02

Precipitations

mm 41,9 27,8 62 123,8 117,4 92 125,6 16,5 165,9 52,8 40 138,8 83,71

Humidity % 94,24 95,36 71,91 80,34 76,5 76,92 77,89 79 82,32 87,14 93,10 93,03 83,64

Average

multiannual

temperature

1956-2015

-1,29 0,77 5,69 11,79 16,77 21,62 23,07 22,38 17,75 11,39 5,46 0,45 11,37

Multiannual

precipitation

amount mm

32,35 32,99 36,23 46,71 61,57 68,46 54,23 37,70 47,38 33,67 46,65 51,05 45,75

143

Specialized studies tell us that, harmful for the peach,

are also heat and rainfall during the mandatory rest

entry of the peach, so we can see from Table 1 that in

the sandy area in Southern Oltenia the rainfall

deviation in November 2014 was negative, compared

to the climatological normal (1961-1990 NIM.)

From the climate data presented in January

2015 (table 2), we see that the minimum is -23,1̊ C

recorded on the 1st of January 2015 and the

consequence of this temperature was the peach species

flowering buds frostbite, 60-70%, depending on the

variety.

In the temperatures of February 2015 from the

third decade (Table 3), a period that is indicated

leaving the Winter rest , for the species of peach , the

fruit bud was conducive to conduct this phenomenon ,

the maximum temperatures being 14,5̊ C and the

minimum temperature decade being 8,6̊ C, thus

representing reaching the species biological threshold.

Table 2

Climatic data January 2015

Decade T ̊C U% Precipitations

Average Minimum Maximum

I -3,33 -23,1 11,4 86,32 20,6

II 1,9 -6,3 19,2 89,61 1,6

III 3,35 0,4 15,3 94,71 23,6

M 0,64 -23,1 19,2 90,21 16,8

Table 3

Climatic data February 2015

Decade T ̊C U% Precipitations

Average Minimum Maximum

I 0,9 -9,4 9,8 90,26 20,4

II -1,46 -10,2 10,2 82,42 1,8

III 7,05 -2,7 14,5 92,78 9,8

M 2,18 -10,2 14,5 88,49 31,2 March with its temperatures (Table 4) did not

prove favorable for the peach species, its oscillations

between day and night temperatures causing a wound

in the south and south west of the tree trunk due to

excessive heating during afternoons and sudden

cooldowns at nights with negative temperatures.

Table 4

Climatic data March 2015

Decade T ̊C U% Precipitations

Average Minimum Maximum

I 5,65 -2,3 16,5 82,4 4,6

II 5,23 -1,2 12,5 82,74 6,6

III 9,55 -2,3 20 75,57 31,2

M 6,8 -2,3 16,5 80,24 52,6

The influence of climatic factors has been

confirmed by observations of fruit buds (flowering) by

longitudinal sections on different periods, with breaks

of three weeks between observations.

From the first observations (28.02.2015) it can

be seen (photos 1-3) the enlargement of anthers and

carpel, thus finding out the exiting of the winter rest

(the binding one) and the entry into forced one

(optional), but some bud necrosis was observed.

144

Foto.1 Soiul Collins-28.02.2015 Foto.2 Soiul Cardinal-28.02.2015 Foto.3 SoiulSouthland-28.02.2015

Observations determined at three weeks away

(photos 4-12) confirm and demonstrate the

consequences of -23̊ C temperature recorded, much of

the buds, in particular the branches of the middle part,

suffering necrosis.

Foto.4. Soiul Springcrest-21.03.2015 Foto.5. Soiul Springold-21.03.2015 Foto.6- Soiul Jerseyland-21.03.2015

Foto.7 Soiul Redhaven- 21.03.2015 Foto.8 Soiul Jerseyland-21.03.2015 Foto.9 Soiul Spindgold -21.03.2015

Foto.10 Soiul Sprincrest-21.03.2015 Foto.11 Soiul Cardinal-21.03.2015 Foto.12 Soiul Collins-21.03.2015

After another three weeks (03.04.2015) for

achieving the report of loss of flowering buds, there

were counted viable buds on the branches of the peach

from the plantation, leading to the conclusion that

peach plantation suffered losses of 95% of flowering

buds, leaving the peach plantation in the area, in 2015,

without the hope of production.

145

Conclusions

1. Although in specialty literature we find that the

peach flowering buds -22̊ withstand temperatures

between -22o

C and C -24̊ C, it seems that in the

south of Oltenia peach fruit buds were affected in

amounts exceeding 60% at -23,1C̊.

2. The higher amplitude of temperatures (18-20oC) in

short intervals, both in January and in February,

sensitized flowering buds, which led to the

destruction of the reproductive organs (ovaries and

anthers)

3. For the peach, a species with short rest periods, in

late winter warm temperatures, above the biological

threshhold, determined the moisturizing of buds,

which resulted in increased sensitivity to low

temperatures -10.2 ° C on February 11, 2015 ; -9.4

° C to 18 February 2015.

4. A cause regarding the frostbite of the fruit bud was

due to several factors, including: the readiness of

trees for the winter, bud development phase, soil

and atmospheric humidity, low temperatures and

especially its oscillation, the cultivated variety but

also the rootstock.

5. Frostbite to 60-70% of the peach fruit buds does not

cause prejudice to the harvest, provided that during

flowering to stop interfering other climatic

accidents, but the loss of 95% of the peach fruit

buds will harm the harvest of 2015, representing the

2nd year of the last four years, a similar situation

being in 2012 when temperatures above the

absolute minimum of -27̊ C destroyed the skeleton

branches.

Bibliography

1.Baciu A.,2005. Pomicultură generală. Editura

Universitaria, Craiova, 234-240.

2.Chmielewski, C. M. , Rötzer, T., 2001. Response of

tree phenology to climate change across Europe. Agric.

For. Meteo., 108: 101-112.

3.Chmielewski, F.M., Müller, A., Bruns, E., 2004:

Climate changes and trends in phenology of fruit trees

and field crops in Germany, 1961–2000. Agricultural

and Forest Meteorology 121(1-2): 69-78.

4.Chuine, I., Kramer, K. , Hanninen, H., 2003. Plant

development models. In: M. D. Schwartz, Phenology:

an integrative environmental science Dodrecht, Boston,

London, Kluwer, pp.217-235..

5.Cosmulescu, S., Baciu, A. (2002): Climatic factors

effect on flowering of fruit tree species. Journal of

Environmental Protection and Ecology 3 (4): 856-862.

6.Cosmulescu, S., Baciu, A., Gruia, M. (2007):

Environment factors influence on some physiologic

processes running in apple tree. Analele Universitatii

din Craiova, seria Biologie, Horticultură, Tehnologia

Prelucrării Produselor Agricole, Ingineria Mediului XII

(XLXIII): 49-53.

7.Cosmulescu, S., Baciu, A., Cichi, M., Gruia, M.,

Ciobanu, A. (2008): Phenologic changes in plum tree

species in the context of current climate changes.

Bulletin UASVM, Horticulture 65(1): 510.

8.Croitoru Mihaela, Durău Anica, Tudor A., Ploae P.,

Măcărău Viorica, Fetoiu Adriana, Marcu Florentina,

Diaconeasa A., 1999. Rezultate ale cercetării în

domeniul pomiculturii pe solurile nisipoase. Lucrări

științifice SCCCPN Dăbuleni, vol. XI, 246-250.

9.Downing, T., Patwardhan, A. (2003): Vulnerability

Assessment for Climate Adaptation, UNDO Adaptation

Policy Framework Technical Paper No.3.

10.Estrella, N., 2000. On modelling of phenological

autumn phases. In: A. Menzel, A. (eds.), Progress in

Phenology Monitoring, Data Analysis, and Global

Change Impacts. Conference abstract booklet, pp. 49.

11.Fideghelli C., Rigo G., 1995. Modelli di impiantă e

forme di allevamento del pesco. L'informatorio

Agrario, nr. 30.

12.Hoza D., Dobrescu Aurelia, Delian Elena, 1998.

Cercetări privind influența distanței de plantare asupra

cantității de lumină recepționată în coroană și a

conținutului de pigmenți clorofilieni din frunzele unor

soiuri de prun. USAMV București. 50 de ani de la

înființarea Facultății de Horticultură – volum omagial.

13.Kramer, K., 1994. Phenology and growth of

European trees in relation to climate change. Ph.d.,

Wageningen, 210 p.

14.Keatley, M. R., T. D. Fletcher, I. L. Hudson, and P.

K. Ades, 2002: Phenological studies in Australia:

Potential application in historical and future climate

analysis. Int. J. Climatol., 22, 1769-1780.

15.Mănescu Creola, Baciu Eugenia, Cosmin Silvia,

1975. Controlul biologic în pomicultură. Editura

CERES, Bucureşti, pag. 87-93.

16.Menzel A. 2000. Trends in phonological phases in

Europe between 1951 and 1996. Int.J.Biometeorol.44:

76-81.

Popescu M., Milițiu I., Cireașă V., Godeanu I., Drobotă

Gh., Cepoiu N., Ropan G., Parnia P., 1993.

Pomicultură generală și specială. Editura Didactică și

Pedagogică R.A., București, pag. 319-320.

17.Peiling, Lu., Qiang, Y., Jiandong, L., Xuhui, L.

(2006): Advance of tree-flowering dates in response to

urban climate change. Agricultural and Forest

Meteorology 138 (1-4): 120-131.

18.Rochette, P., Belanger, G., Castonguay, Y.,

Bootsma, A., Mongrain, D. (2004):Climate change and

winter damage to fruit trees in eastern Canada.

Canadian Journal of Plant Science 84: 1113-1125.

19.Rötzer T, Chmielewski Frank-M. - Phenological

maps of Europe. Climate research Vol. 18, 2001

Published November 2. 249–257. 20.Sarvas, R. 1972. Investigations on the annual cycle

of development of forest trees. Active period.

Commun. Inst. For. Fenn. 76:1-110.

21.Sparks, T. H., Jeffree, E. P., Jeffree, C. E., 2000. An

examination of the relationship between flowering

times and temperature at the national scale using long-

146

term phenological recordsfrom the UK. Int. J.

Biometeorol., 44: 82-87.

22.Sparks H. A, and Menzel A., 2002. Observed

changes in seasons: an overview. International Journal

of Climatology:. 22: 1715–1725.

23.Szőcs Emese, 2011- Impactul modificării climei

asupra unor indicatori economico-sociali naţionali şi

regionali., Teză de doctorat, Universitatea Babeş-

Bolyai Cluj-Napoca.