4.7 Article

Inflorescence Traits and Floral Quality Parameters in Promising Olive Clones (cv Leccino): Influence of the Canopy Position

期刊

HORTICULTURAE
卷 8, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/horticulturae8050402

关键词

Olea europaea L; flowers; ovary; pollen; partial shading

资金

  1. University funds from the Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, Pisa, Italy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the inflorescence traits and floral quality parameters of three clones of Leccino olive cultivar. The results showed differences among clones, with L 1.9 being less affected by canopy position and having high female fertility, while L 1.4 showed high pollen viability, indicating its potential use as a pollinator.
In olive (Olea europaea L.), the floral quality is a key feature affecting the final fruit crop. The aim of this study was to evaluate the inflorescence traits and the floral quality parameters of three clones of Leccino cultivar (L 1.3, L 1.4, L 1.9). To assess a possible effect of light limitations on these parameters two canopy zones, internal (IZ) and external (EZ), were considered. The inflorescences were collected over two consecutive years in order to establish: (i) the characteristics of inflorescences (length, flowers per inflorescence) and flowers (open and perfect flowers); (ii) the ovary structure by histological analysis; and (iii) the viability and germination of pollen grains by in vitro culture. The preliminary results highlighted some differences among clones. The L 1.9 was the less affected by the canopy position for inflorescence morphological traits, and the presence of ovaries with at least three fully developed ovules denoting a high female fertility. Regardless of the canopy position, L 1.4 showed the highest pollen viability, suggesting its possible use as pollinator. The lower sensitivity of female and male floral organs to partial shading of L 1.9 and L 1.4 needs further investigations aimed at evaluating their suitability in high-density olive orchards.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据