2011
DOI: 10.5897/ajb11.653
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Phenological and pomological properties of promising walnut (Juglans regia L.) genotypes from selected native population in Amasya Province

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3
1

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Weight (WEN), length (LN), width (WIN), thickness (TN), and fruit roundness index (IR) of the tested walnut genotypes varied from 8.43 g (CT1)-13.84 g (BP48), from 33.51 mm (MK1)-50.08 mm (PL1), from 27.12 mm (BP13)-36.38 mm (AN31), from 27.38 mm (BP14)-36.89 mm (BP36), and 0.63 (BP22)-0.93 (MK1). The fruit weight of common walnut genotypes from populations from different parts of Turkey varied within wide limits as determined by Kirca et al [63] in the Trabzon region, from 10.20 to 12.40 g, Kilicoglu and Akca [60] in Turhal and Zile, from 8.16 to 14.72 g, Polat et al [64] in the Bitlis province from 10.42 to 14.25 g, Keles et al [14] in the middle Black Sea region from 8.93 to 13.82 g and Karadag and Akca [65] in Amasya Province in inner Anatolia from 7.46 to 15.21 g. According to Miletić et al [33], genotypes of the common walnut from the natural population in the Timok region in Serbia had a fruit weight in the range of 9.3-13.3 g, and from the Oltenia region in Romania, according to Cosmulescu and Botu [39] 6.8−18.4 g. In these populations, the presence of fruits of different weights vary greatly. It can be noticed that in relation to the results presented in this paper, trees with fruits of smaller and larger weight are presented, which indicates the peculiarity of each population and high variability in the wider regions of growth of the common walnut.…”
Section: Fruit and Kernel Propertiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Weight (WEN), length (LN), width (WIN), thickness (TN), and fruit roundness index (IR) of the tested walnut genotypes varied from 8.43 g (CT1)-13.84 g (BP48), from 33.51 mm (MK1)-50.08 mm (PL1), from 27.12 mm (BP13)-36.38 mm (AN31), from 27.38 mm (BP14)-36.89 mm (BP36), and 0.63 (BP22)-0.93 (MK1). The fruit weight of common walnut genotypes from populations from different parts of Turkey varied within wide limits as determined by Kirca et al [63] in the Trabzon region, from 10.20 to 12.40 g, Kilicoglu and Akca [60] in Turhal and Zile, from 8.16 to 14.72 g, Polat et al [64] in the Bitlis province from 10.42 to 14.25 g, Keles et al [14] in the middle Black Sea region from 8.93 to 13.82 g and Karadag and Akca [65] in Amasya Province in inner Anatolia from 7.46 to 15.21 g. According to Miletić et al [33], genotypes of the common walnut from the natural population in the Timok region in Serbia had a fruit weight in the range of 9.3-13.3 g, and from the Oltenia region in Romania, according to Cosmulescu and Botu [39] 6.8−18.4 g. In these populations, the presence of fruits of different weights vary greatly. It can be noticed that in relation to the results presented in this paper, trees with fruits of smaller and larger weight are presented, which indicates the peculiarity of each population and high variability in the wider regions of growth of the common walnut.…”
Section: Fruit and Kernel Propertiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Because of the open pollination, Turkish walnut populations have high genetic variability consisting of millions of natural hybrids grown on their own roots, which are important sources of genetic diversity for J. regia (Akça, 2016). This genetic variation in the native walnut populations presents many opportunities for walnut breeding (Karadağ and Akça, 2011). Thus, studies of phenological and morphological traits in natural walnut populations have remained for some time, while morphological characteristics often do not indicate clear relationships between genotypes, as the results can be affected by changing environmental conditions (Kumar, 1999).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%