4.7 Article

Morphological and pomological characterization of edible fig (Ficus carica L.) to select the superior trees

Journal

SCIENTIA HORTICULTURAE
Volume 238, Issue -, Pages 66-74

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scienta.2018.04.031

Keywords

Fig (Ficus carica); Morphological and pomological diversity; Dried fruits; Germplasm; Breeding; Fruit quality

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Fig (Ficus carica L.) is one of the oldest traditional crops and sacred fruit tree widely present in the world. In the present investigation, the morphological and pomological variability of edible fig genotypes belonging to the Smyrna-type was evaluated from Estahban region located in Fars province in Iran. The studied genotypes exhibited significant variability in the characteristics analyzed and most of the measured traits showed the coefficient of variations (CV) more than 20.00%, revealing a high level of phenotypic diversity among the genotypes. Leaf length varied from 62.20 to 138.00 mm, while leaf width ranged from 41.00 to 153.00 mm. Ripening time ranged between very-early and late. The dried fruit weight ranged from 1.86 to 7.15 g and most of the genotypes showed high fruit quality. Simple correlation coefficient analysis revealed significant correlations among the variables measured. Dried fruit weight was positively correlated with leaf density, leaf dimensions, dried fruit length and dried fruit width. Cluster analysis revealed grouping of genotypes into two main clusters, where cluster II contained a large number of genotypes. While most of the genotypes studied showed high potential, nine genotypes were superior in terms of the fruit characters and are valuable gene pools. Further and future breeding programs with these genotypes can provide the better-quality cultivars. The results of the current work are framed in the context of a proper management of fig genetic resource.

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