4.7 Article

Comparative analysis of assimilate synthesis, translocation and partitioning between two Cucurbita maxima cultivars Atlantic giant and Hubbard

Journal

SCIENTIA HORTICULTURAE
Volume 289, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scienta.2021.110411

Keywords

Giant pumpkin; Fruit size; Cell number; Cell size; Photosynthesis; Phloem; Stachyose

Categories

Funding

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2018YFD1000800, 2019YFD1000300]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Atlantic Giant pumpkin, bred through continuous crosses and strict selections, shows significant differences in morphology, anatomy, and physiology compared to other common cultivars, requiring more leaves and longer translocation time to support its huge fruit growth.
Atlantic Giant (AG), the world largest pumpkin, was bred through continuously crosses and strict selections from the small fruit ancestor. To understand the change caused by the artificial cross and selection in the recent 100 years, differences of morphology, anatomy and physiology between two cultivars with distinct fruit size in Cucurbita maxima, AG and Hubbard were investigated. Comparing with Hubbard, AG owns more fruit cell number and larger fruit cell volume at harvest stage, accompanied by larger leaves, higher net photosynthetic rate, lower leaf total sugar concentration, higher leaf stachyose level, larger peduncle vascular cross area and higher phloem sap sugar concentration. Further theoretical calculation indicates that AG needs more leaves and longer translocation time per day to support its huge fruit growth. In addition, considerable glucose and stachyose were found in the phloem sap and sarcocarp of AG respectively, suggesting different loading and unloading mechanisms are involved in the giant pumpkin growth. These results provide useful cues for improving cultivation and breeding techniques of giant pumpkins.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available