Characteristics of promising apricot (Prunus armeniaca L.) genetic resources in Central Serbia based on blossoming period and fruit quality

Abstract

Milošević T., Milošević N., Glišić I., Krška B., 2010. Characteristics of promising apricot (Prunus armeniaca L.) genetic resources in Central Serbia based on blossoming period and fruit quality. Hort. Sci. (Prague), 37: 46-55.This study presents results on the performance of apricot (Prunus armeniaca L.) genotypes in Central Serbia. The research included observation and recording of biological (i.e. phenological) traits and in situ sampling of fruits from 1,210 grafted trees for determination of pomological and sensorial traits. A total of 14 genotypes were selected and compared with Hungarian Best (control cultivar). The difference in blossoming time between two years was one month. In 2006, blossoming time was found to be earlier in three genotypes, simultaneous in five genotypes and later in six as compared to the control. In 2007, bloom was earlier in four genotypes, simultaneous in four and later in six genotypes. Average fruit weight ranged from 41.34 ± 0.8 to 81.50 ± 4.1 g, T-5 being the only genotype having the fruit weight lower than Hungarian Best (49.07 ± 2.2 g). The content of soluble solids, total sugars, and mineral matter ranged from 15. 72-18.88%, 11.53-14.99%, and 0.29-0.43%, respectively, and total acidity was 0.77-1.08%. The appearance and the skin colour of the genotypes were highly attractive. They have promising traits which suggest that they can be useful parents in apricot breeding programmes.

Evaluation of apricot fruit quality and correlations between physical and chemical attributes

“…According to Ishag et al (2009), the TA content of fresh fruit in the apricot cultivars grown in Azad Jammu and Kashmir was 0.94%. The range of TA values obtained in this study is in agreement with the previous works on apricot (Audergon et al 1990;Mehlenbacher et al 1991;Egea et al 1997;Milošević et al 2010).…”

“…On the other hand, FW negatively correlated with SU content (r = -0.498). It has been reported that larger fruits have a smaller capacity to accumulate SU, as previously described by Milošević et al (2010). In general, FW was negatively correlated with SS, SS/TA ratio, RS and TS, and positively correlated with MP, Y, TA, and pH, but the correlation was not significant (Badenes et al 1998;Asma & Ozturk 2005;Hernandez et al 2010).…”

“…The FW of six genotypes ranged between 30-40 g, 40-50 g, and 50-60 g, respectively. Previous studies on apricot also reported a high variability among cultivars regarding this parameter (Badenes et al 1998;Ruiz & Egea 2008b;Hernandez et al 2010;Milošević et al 2010). In addition, FW is a major quantitative inherited factor determining the yield, fruit quality, and consumers' acceptability (Dirlewanger et al 1999).…”

“…Therefore, new apricot cultivars or genotypes must be characterised by high fruit quality attributes which satisfy the consumers (Ruiz & Egea 2008b). However, fruit quality attributes are affected by a number of pomological traits (Bailey & Hough 1975;Crossa-Raynaud & Audergon 1991;Milošević et al 2010) that cannot be analysed separately from the biological properties of the fruit tree and the yield obtained (Balta et al 2002;Asma & Ozturk 2005;Asma et al 2007), agronomic and ecological factors (Guerriero et al 2006) and their correlations (Badenes et the field conditions (in situ), the control cultivar was grown at the apricot collection orchard of the Fruit Growing Institute, Skopje. The control cultivar was grafted onto Myrobalan (Prunus cerasifera Ehrh.)…”

Genetic Diversity in Apricot

“…Traditionally germplasm collection and characterization had been done discribing phenological, pomological and morphological characteristics such as tree vigor and growth habit (Perez-Gonzales, 1992;Badanes et al 1998;Asma & Ozturk, 2005), fruit quality features (Rehder, 1940;Bailey & Hough, 1975;Audergon et al 1990;Souty et al 1990;Crossa-Raynaud & Audergon, 1991;Parolari et al 1992;Bassi & Bartolozzi, 1993;Badanes et al 1998;Gurrieri et al 2001;Ledbetter & Petterson, 2004;Asma & Ozturk, 2005;Ruiz & Egea, 2008;Milosevic et al 2010), leaf (Bailey, 1916;Hou, 1983;Rostova & Sokolova, 1992), stone (Felföldi et al 2009;Malik et al 2010), flower (Rodrigo et al 2006;, stigma and stylus (Viti et al 2000) and pollen (Dezhong et al 1995;Davarynejad et al 2005;Arzani et al 2005;Asma, 2008) comparing and combining the results of characaterization researches published by different groups is a difficult tusk since different variety of morphological, phenological and pomological characteristics have been assessed by the research groups. International UPOV and IPGRI criteria was created in order to overcome this unrequred situation and to enable researchers use common descriptor characteristics.…”