Effects of genotype and harvest year on phytochemical and fruit quality properties of Turkish fig genotypes

Abstract

This study was conducted over three harvest years to determine effects of Turkish fig genotypes grown in the eastern Mediterranean region of Turkey on phytochemical and fruit quality characters. Fruit quality characters such as fruit weight, fruit width, fruit neck length, total soluble solids (TSS), pH, acidity, and TSS/acidity were examined. Total phenolics (TP), total anthocyanins (TA), antioxidant capacity (TAC), fructose (FRUC), glucose (GLUC), sucrose (SUC), and variables describing fruit skin and flesh colors (L*, a*, C, and hº) were also determined. Analysis of the data obtained from 12 fig genotypes, and three harvest years demonstrated a highly significant influence of genotype on phytochemical and fruit quality characters. 'Bursa Siyahı', which has dark black fruit skin, had the highest levels of TA (113.6 μg cy-3-rutinoside g -1 fw), TP (105.2 mg GAE/100 g fw), and TAC (10.9 mmol Fe 2+ kg -1 fw). Three yearly averages of fruit weight ranged from 22.8 g ('Sarı İncir') to 57.5 g ('Bursa Siyahı'), and ostiole width ranged from 0.9 mm ('Bursa Siyahı') to 3.7 mm (31-IN-16). These results indicate that TP (r = 0.77) contents correlated moderately to TAC, more so than with TA (r = 0.56). Both FRUC and SUC were negatively correlated with TA (r = -0.34 and r = -0.42, respectively). These data demonstrate that genotype is the main influence on the phytochemical and fruit quality characters of figs.Additional key words: antioxidant capacity; Ficus carica; fruit characters; fruit color; genotype; harvest year. ResumenEfectos del genotipo y el año de cosecha en las propiedades fitoquímicas y de calidad de la fruta de genotipos turcos de higueraEste trabajo se llevó a cabo para determinar los efectos que producen distintos genotipos turcos de higuera cultivados en la región mediterránea del este de Turquía sobre los caracteres fitoquímicos y de calidad de la fruta (como peso del fruto, ancho del fruto, longitud del cuello del fruto, sólidos solubles totales (TSS), pH, acidez y TSS/acidez). También se determinaron los fenoles totales (TP), antocianinas totales (TA), capacidad antioxidante (TAC), fructosa (FRUC), glucosa (GLUC), sacarosa (SUC) y las variables que describe la piel del fruto y colores de su carne (L*, a*, C y hº). El análisis de los datos obtenidos con 12 genotipos en tres años de cultivo demostró que hay una influencia altamente significativa del genotipo sobre los caracteres fitoquímicos y de calidad de la fruta. 'Bursa Siyahı', que tiene la piel del fruto negro oscuro, tuvo los niveles de TA más altos (113,6 μg de cianidina-3-rutinósido g -1 peso fresco), TP (105,2 mg GAE/100 g peso fresco) y TAC (10,9 mmol Fe 2+ kg -1 peso fresco). Las tres medias anuales del peso del fruto variaron entre 22,8 g ('Sarı İncir') y 57,5 g ('Bursa Siyahı'), y el ancho del ostiolo varió entre 0,9 mm ('Bursa Siyahı') y 3,7 mm (31-IN-16). Los contenidos de TP (r = 0,77) estuvieron moderadamente correlacionados con los de TAC, más que con los de TA (r = 0,56). Tanto FRUC como SUC se correlacionaron negativamente c...

Evaluation of agronomic and fruit quality traits of fig tree varieties (Ficus carica L.) grown in Mediterranean conditions

“…'De Rey' was the variety with the highest TSS values for both crops, followed by 'Cuello Dama Blanco' and 'Tres Voltas L'Any'. In general, these values were lower than those obtained by Çalişkan & Polat (2008Çalişkan & Polat ( , 2012 in different varieties grown in Turkey. However, the TSS values obtained in this study for 'Cuello Dama Blanco', 'Brown Turkey' and' Cuello Dama Negro' were higher than those obtained by Crisosto et al (2010) for the same varieties grown in California.…”

Agronomic behaviour and quality of six fig cultivars for fresh consumption

“…Thus, fruit yield was influenced by genotype, growth conditions and harvest year, although cultivar was the main source of variance among them. On the other hand, the crop year influenced the behaviour of cultivars mainly in terms of yield and fruit quality due to the climatic conditions of the area (Botti et al, 2003;Flaishman et al, 2008;Ç aliskan and Polat, 2012).…”

“…Therefore, 'Brown Turkey' showed the highest values for fruit weight and width for both kinds of fruit. These findings are similar to those obtained by other authors for main crop figs for accession 'KZTP-38' (Ş imş ek and Yildirim, 2010) Table 4 Pomological and quality characteristics of the breba and main crops of the six fig cultivars during the studied period (2011)(2012)(2013) Neck length (mm) 13 ± 4 c 11.7 ± 5 d 14.5 ± 4.8 b 10.2 ± 3.8 e 36.1 ± 7.8 a 9.5 ± 3.4 e 0 *** * ns Ostiole width (mm) 7.1 ± 2.8 d 11.7 ± 3.6 a 8.1 ± 2.2 c 8.5 ± 4.5 c 6.6 ± 2.3 e 10.2 ± 2.3 b 0 *** *** ** TSS ( • Brix) 18.7 ± 2.6 a 16.4 ± 1.1 d 18.1 ± 1.7 b 16.6 ± 1.2 d 15.6 ± 1.4 e 17.6 ± 1.7 c 0 *** *** *** pH 6.0 ± 0.3 a 5.7 ± 0.3 b 5.5 ± 0.3 c 5.7 ± 0.2 b 5.6 ± 0.4 d 5.3 ± 0.4 e 0 *** *** *** TA (g citric acid 100 g −1 fresh weight) 0.1 ± 0.03 d 0.1 ± 0.02 d 0.1 ± 0.04 c 0.1 ± 0.02 d 0.2 ± 0.05 b 0.2 ± 0.05 a 0 *** ** *** Firmness N mm −1 1.1 ± 0.5 d 1.3 ± 0.6 b 1.5 ± 0.6 a 1.2 ± 0.5 c 1.5 ± 0.7 a 1.2 ± 0.6 c 0 and for the cultivar 'Bursa Siyahi' (Ç aliskan and Polat, 2012), which are several genotypes grown in Turkey. Nevertheless, these findings are in contrast to those obtained by Crisosto et al (2010) for these cultivars grown in California.…”

Mediterranean Figs (Ficus carica L.) Functional Food Properties

“…Thus, figs are an ideal addition to adults' and children's diets because they represent an excellent source of naturally sweet and fiber-rich food that may help with weight reduction [11]. In one study, Ç alişkan and Polat [14] indicated that the predominant sugars present in figs were fructose ($56%) and glucose ($43%), as determined by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). The fructose (FRUC), glusose (GLUC), and sucrose (SUC) contents of brown and purple fig accessions were higher than those of other color groups.…”

“…These characteristics are affected at different levels by genotype, harvest year, and genotype-by-year interaction, but the effect of the genotype on TA, TP, and TAC (50-96%) appear to be higher than harvest year (1-9%) and genotype- by-year interaction (2-16%). In addition, variance components analysis displayed that genotypic effect (29-67%) contributed more than year (1-11%) and genotype-by-year (17-49%) to the overall variation in FRUC, GLUC, and SUC [14]. (Table 5).…”