PL EN


Preferencje help
Widoczny [Schowaj] Abstrakt
Liczba wyników
2011 | 10 | 2 |

Tytuł artykułu

Quantitative analysis of the main biological and fruit quality traits of F1 plum genotypes (Prunus domestica L.)

Treść / Zawartość

Warianty tytułu

PL
Analiza ilościowa głównych cech wartości biologicznej oraz jakości owoców genotypów F1 śliwy domowej (Prunus domestica L.)

Języki publikacji

EN

Abstrakty

EN
Prunus domestica L. is the most important fruit crop in the Europe and the most important within the genus Prunus. Serbia is the third world producer, after USA and China, of that friut. The seven F1 plum genotypes (Prunus domestica L.) which originated from three cross-combinations (‘Čačanska Lepotica’ ב Stanley’, ‘Čačanska Najbolja’ ב Stanley’, ‘Stanley’ ב Stanley’) and these cultivars as controls were planted in the experimental orchard in Prislonica, near Cacak, in spring 2000. In 2005–2007 several biological (blooming period, harvest date and yield) and main fruit quality traits were evaluated. Considerable variation was observed among the F1 genotypes, i.e. cross-combinations. All genotypes begun blooming later than their parents. The earliest harvest date was observed in ‘P4’ and the latest in ‘P7’. The highest yield was observed in ‘P5’. The genotype ‘P4’ had better values for some fruit quality traits (fruit weight, fruit rate, flash rate, fruit height, suture diameter, cheek diameter, soluble solids, fructose and total sugars content), when compared with other F1 genotypes and control cultivars. The genotypes with better biological and fruit quality traits were included in the ‘Čačanska Lepotica’ ב Stanley’ cross-combinations.
PL
Prunus domestica L. jest najważniejszym gatunkiem drzew owocowych w Europie, a także najważniejszym w obrębie rodzaju Prunus. Serbia jest trzecim po USA i Chinach światowym producentem owoców tego gatunku. Siedem genotypów śliwy (Prunus domestica L.) F1, pochodzących z trzech połączeń krzyżowych (‘Čačanska Lepotica’ × ‘Stanley’, ‘Čačanska Najbolja’ × ‘Stanley’, ‘Stanley’ × ‘Stanley’) i te same odmiany jako rośliny kontrolne posadzono w sadzie doświadczalnym w Prislonicy, koło Cacaku, wiosną 2000 r. W latach 2005–2007 oceniono kilka cech wartości biologicznej (okres kwitnienia, termin zbioru oraz plon), a także główne cechy jakościowe owoców. Znaczną różnorodność zaobserwowano wśród genotypów F1, tj. połączeń krzyżowych Wszystkie genotypy zaczynały kwitnąć później niż ich rodzice. Najwcześniejszy termin zbioru zaobserwowano u ‘P4’, a najpóźniejszy u ‘P7’. Najwyższy plon stwierdzono u ‘P5’. Genotyp ‘P4’ miał wyższe wartości niektórych cech jakościowych owoców (masa owocu, współczynnik owocu, współczynnik miąższu, wysokość owocu, średnica szwu, średnica policzka, rozpuszczalne ciała stałe, fruktoza i całkowita zawartość cukrów), w porównaniu z innymi genotypami F1 oraz odmianami kontrolnymi. Genotypy z lepszymi cechami biologicznymi i cechami jakościowymi owoców zaliczono do połączeń krzyżowych ‘Čačanska Lepotica’ ב Stanley’.

Słowa kluczowe

Wydawca

-

Rocznik

Tom

10

Numer

2

Opis fizyczny

p.95-107,fig.,ref.

Twórcy

autor
  • Department of Fruit Growing and Viticulture, Faculty of Agronomy, University of Kragujevac, 32000 Cacak, Cara Dusana 34, Republic of Serbia
autor

Bibliografia

  • Blażek J., Vavra R., Pistekova I., 2004. Orchard performance of new plum cultivars on two rootstocks in a trial at Holovousy in 1998-2003. Hortic. Sci. 31, 37-43.
  • Blazek J., Vavra R., 2007. Fruit ąuality in some genotypes of plum varieties with tolerance to PPV. Acta Hortic. 734, 173-182.
  • Blażek J., Pistekova I., 2009. Preliminary evaluation results of new plum cultivars in a dense planting. Hortic. Sci. 36, 45-54.
  • Cobianchi D., Watkins R., 1984. Descriptor list for plum and allied species. Comission of the European Communities, Directorate General Information Market & Innovation, Luxembourg and for the IBPGR, Rome.
  • Colaric M., Veberic R., Stampar F., Hudina M., 2005. Evaluation of peach and nectarine fruit ąuality and correlations between sensory and chemical attributes. J. Sci. Food Agric. 85, 2611— -2616.
  • Crisosto C.H., Garner D., Crisosto G.M., Bowerman E., 2004. Increasing ‘Blackamber’ plum (Prunus salicina Lindley) consumer acceptance. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 34, 237-244.
  • Crisosto C.H., Crisosto G.M., 2005. Relationship between ripe soluble solids concentration (RSSC) and consumer acceptance of high and low acid melting flesh peach and nectarine [Prunus persica (L.) Batsch] cultivars. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 38, 239-246.
  • Crisosto C.H., Crisosto G.M., Echeverria G., Puy J., 2007. Segregation of plum and pluot cultivars according to their organoleptic characteristics. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 44, 271-276.
  • Daza A., Garcia-Galavis P.A., Grande M.J., Santamaria C., 2008. Fruit ąuality parameters of ‘Pioneer’ Japanese plums produced on eight different rootstocks. Sci. Hortic. 118, 206-211.
  • Decroocą V., Hagen S.L., Fave G.M., Eyąuard P.J., Pierronnet A., 2004. Microsatellite markers in the hexaploid Prunus domestica species and parentage lineage of three European plum cultivars using nuclear and chloroplast simple-seąuence repeats. Mol. Breed. 13, 135-142.
  • Dirlewanger E., Moing A., Rothan C., Svanella L., Pronier V., Guye A., Plomion C., Monet R., 1999. Mapping QTLs controlling fruit ąuality in peach [P. persica (L.) Batsch]. Theor. Appl. Genet. 98, 18-31.
  • Ercisli S., 2004. A short review of the fruit germplasm resources of Turkey. Genet. Resour. Crop Ev. 51, 419-435.
  • Esmenjaud D., Dirlewanger, E., 2007. Plum. In: Genome Mapping and Molecular Breeding in Plants, Vol. 4, Fruits and Nuts. Cole C. (ed), Springer-Verlag-Berlin-Heidelberg, 119-135.
  • FAOSTAT, 2010. Available: http://www.faostat.fao.org
  • Forni E., Erba M.L., Maestrelli A., Polesello A., 1992. Sorbitol and free sugar contents in plums. Food Chem. 44, 269-275.
  • Funt R.C., 1998. Plums: A guide to selection and use. Fact Sheet, Ohio State University Extension, 1-2.
  • Hartmann W., Neumuller M., 2006. Breeding for resistance: breeding for Plum pox virus resistant plums (Prunus domestica L.) in Germany. EPPO Bullet. 36, 332-336.
  • Jacob H.B., 2007. Ripening time, quality and resistance donors of genotypes of Prunus domestica and their inheritance pattern in practical plum breeding. Acta Hortic. 734, 77-82.
  • Jakubowski T., Lewandowska G., 2004. Evaluation of fruit size and quality of plum seedlings (Prunus domestica L.). Acta Hortic. 663, 309-312
  • Kobel F., 1954. Lehrbuch des obstbaus auf physiologischer grundlage. Goreberg-Heidelberg, Berlin.
  • Kumar J., Rana S.S., Verma H.S., Parmar D.K., 2001. Long-term effects of intercrops on growth, yield and fruit quality of plum (Prunus salicina). Indian J. Agric. Sci. 71, 687-690.
  • Meredith I.F., Senter D.S., Forbus R.W.Jr., Robertson A.J., Okie R.W., 1992. Postharvest quality and sensory attributes of ‘Byrongold’ and ‘Rubysweet’ plums. J. Food Qual. 15, 199-209.
  • Milosevic T., Zornic B., Glisic I., 2008. A comparison of low-density and high-density plum plantings for differences in establishment and management costs, and in returns over the first three growing seasons. J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechn. 83, 539-542.
  • M-STAT, 1990. A microcomputer program for the design, management and analysis of biological research experiments. Michigan State University, EL.
  • Nergiz C., Yildiz H., 1997. Research on chemical composition of some varieties of European plums (Prunus domestica) adapted to the Aegean district of Turkey. J. Agric. Food Chem. 45, 2820-2823.
  • Paunovic A.S., Misic D.P., 1975. The study of inheritance in the plum genotypes. Acta Hortic. 48, 67-78.
  • Robertson J.A., Meredith F.I., Senter S.S., Okie W.R., Norton J.D., 1992. Physical, chemical and sensory characteristics of Japanese-type plums growing in Georgia and Alabama. J. Sci. Food Agric. 60, 339-347.
  • Ruiz D., Egea J., 2008. Phenotypic diversity and relationships of fruit quality traits in apricot (Prunus armeniaca L.) germplasm. Euphytica 163, 143-158.
  • Scott K.J., Yuen C.M.C., Kim G.H., 1993. Sensory quality of Australian D’Agen prunes in relation to fruit maturity and chemical composition. J. Sci. Food Agric. 62, 95-97.
  • Sosna I., 2010. Effect of pruning time on yielding and fruit quality of several early ripening plum cultivars. Acta Sci. Pol., Hortorum Cultus 9(1), 37-44.
  • Sturm K., Koron D., Stampar F., 2003. The composition of fruit of different strawberry varieties depending on maturity stage. Food Chem. 83, 417-422.
  • Tomas-Barberan F.A., Gil M.I., Cremin P., Waterhouse A.L., Hess-Pierce B., Kader A.A., 2001. HPLC-DAD-ESIMS analysis of phenolic compounds in nectarines, peaches and plums. J. Aric. Food Chem. 49, 4748-4760.
  • Vargas F.J., Romero M.A., 2001. Blooming time in almond genotypes. Options Mediterran. 56, 29-34.
  • Vitanova I., Dimkova S., Ivanova D., 2004. Biological characterization of the plum cultivars ‘Gabrovska’ and ‘Goulyaeva’. J. Fruit Ornamen. Plant Res. 12, 269-274.
  • Wert T.W., Williamson J.G., Chaparro J.X., Miller E.P., Rouse R.E., 2007. The influence of climate on fruit shape of four low-chill peach cultivars. HortScience 42, 1589-1591.
  • Zanetto A., Maggoni L., Tobutt R.K., Dosba F., 2002. Prunus genetic resources in Europe: Achievement and perspectives of a networking activity. Genet. Resour. Crop Ev. 49, 331-337.

Typ dokumentu

Bibliografia

Identyfikatory

Identyfikator YADDA

bwmeta1.element.agro-8236d2c3-f3b6-4318-b344-b92c23a23076
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.