4.4 Article

Phenotypic variation of baobab (Adansonia digitata L.) fruit traits in Mali

期刊

AGROFORESTRY SYSTEMS
卷 82, 期 1, 页码 87-97

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10457-010-9357-0

关键词

Domestication; Indigenous fruit trees; Parklands; Tree products

资金

  1. Agency for Innovation by Science and Technology in Flanders (IWT)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We analyzed the phenotypic variation of baobab (Adansonia digitata L.) fruits from Mali to define the domestication potential of this species. 269 trees, selected from 10 provenances distributed along a rainfall gradient, were characterized. Five fruits were sampled from each tree. Total individual fruit weight was partitioned into shell, pulp, and seed weight. Ratios were calculated between pulp + seed and total weight, and between pulp and seed weight. For all the measured fruit traits, we detected significant differences between provenances, as well as between trees from the same provenance. Assuming that the measured traits are under genetic control, the latter facts indicate that there are considerable opportunities for tree selection on a local scale. However, candidate plus trees with specific properties, e.g., extremely high pulp or seed weight, were found only in some locations. Mean pulp yield per fruit might be considerably increased by selecting the 5% trees with the highest pulp weight (mean: 45 +/- A 1 g, best 5%: > 100 g). The same might be true for seed production (mean: 71 +/- A 2 g, best 5%: > 150 g). Also the ratio between pulp and seed weight can be an important fruit characteristic for selection: in fruits with a low ratio, relatively more pulp sticks to the seeds when separating the two fruit parts by grinding, and thus more pulp will be lost for further processing. We identified several trees with a high pulp weight combined with a high ratio between pulp and seed weight. It is concluded that there is considerable phenotypic variability in traits of baobab fruit in Mali, offering opportunities for cultivar selection.

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

4.4
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