| تعداد نشریات | 286 |
| تعداد نشریات سازمان | 84 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 3,019 |
| تعداد مقالات | 33,731 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 44,967,390 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 46,170,130 |
ویژگی‌های باردهی شش ژنوتیپ امیدبخش زردآلو | ||
| به زراعی نهال و بذر | ||
| مقاله 2، دوره 31، شماره 2، مرداد 1394، صفحه 145-159 اصل مقاله (325.89 K) | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22092/sppj.2017.110571 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| حمید رهنمون* ؛ جلیل دژم‌پور؛ جعفر حاجیلو | ||
| چکیده | ||
| به منظور ارزیابی و شناسائی ظرفیت ژنتیکی ژنوتیپ‌های زردآلوی موجود در ایران آزمایشی در قالب طرح آماری بلوک‌های کامل تصادفی با هفت تیمار و سه تکرار طراحی و از شهریور 1383 در ایستگاه تحقیقات باغبانی سهند به اجرا در آمد. در این تحقیق ژنوتیپ‌های امیدبخش انتخابی به شماره‌های 177، 190، 390، 414، 416، 464 و 269 با رقم تجاری اردوباد 90 (به عنوان شاهد) به مدت هفت سال مقایسه شدند. نتایج نشان داد که بین عملکرد باردهی و تاریخ تمام گل ژنوتیپ و رقم شاهد اختلاف معنی‌دار وجود نداشت. دامنه رسیدن میوه بین زودرس‌ترین و دیررس‌ترین ژنوتیپ حدود 45 روز بود. ژنوتیپ 414 سنگین‌ترین میوه (6/57 گرم) و بیشترین نسبت وزن میوه به هسته (3/30) را داشت. کمترین اختلاف ضخامت گوشت میوه رقم شاهد با ژنوتیپ 464 و بیشترین اختلاف معنی‌دار آن با ژنوتیپ 269 به دست آمد (p≤0.05). بر اساس نتایج صفات بیوشیمیایی، بیشترین اختلاف معنی‌دار با 7/7 درصد بین مقدار قند (TSS) ژنوتیپ‌های 416 و 177 و با 2/1 درصد بین محتوای اسیدهای آلی کل ژنوتیپ‌های 390 و 177 به دست آمد (p≤0.05). اختلاف بین اسیدیته فعال (pH) میوه ژنوتیپ‌ها معنی‌دار نبود. یک همبستگی منفی و معنی‌دار (r2 = 0.8) نیز بین محتوای اسیدهای آلی کل و اسیدیته فعال میوه ژنوتیپ وجود داشت. بر اساس کل نتایج به دست آمده ژنوتیپ 177 به منظور تازه‌خوری، ژنوتیپ‌های 464 و 390 برای فرآوری و ژنوتیپ‌های 190، 414 و 269 برای مصارف دوگانه شناسایی شدند. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| زردآلو؛ دامنه رسیدن؛ صفات بیوشیمیایی؛ عملکرد؛ فرآوری؛ میوه | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Yielding Characteristics of Six Promising Apricot Genotypes | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| H. Rahnemoun؛ J. Dejampour؛ J. Hajilou | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| For evaluation and determination of genetic capacity of existing apricot genotypes in Iran, an experiment was performed in RCB design with seven treatments and three replications on August 2004 in Sahand Horticultural Research Station. Selected promising genotypes with numbers of 177, 190, 390, 414, 416, 464 and 269 were compared with Ordubad 90 cv. (as control) for a period of seven years. The results demonstrated that there was no significant difference between yielding and full blooming dates of the genotypes and control. The range of fruit maturation between the most early and the most late maturity genotypes was 45 days. Genotype 414 had the maximum fruit weight (57.6g) and the highest fruit to stone weight ratio (30.3). From the viewpoint of fruit flesh thickness, the lowest difference was observed between control and genotype 464, and the highest significant difference was detected between control and genotype 269 (p≤0.05). Despite relative height of stigma to anthers in genotypes 269, 414, 464 and 177, no problem was observed in fruit setting of them. Based on the biochemical traits results, the highest significant differences were observed between TSS value of genotypes 416 and 177 with 7.7% and also between total organic acids content of genotypes 390 and 177 with 1.2% (p≤0.05). Difference between fruit active acidity (pH) of genotypes was not significant. There was also a negative and significant correlation (r2 = 0.8) between total organic acids content and pH of the genotypes fruit. Based on all results, genotype 177 was recognized for fresh consumption, genotypes 464 and 390 for processing and genotypes 190, 414 and 269 for dual. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| biochemical traits, Fruit, PROCESSING, ripening range, yielding | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Akin, E. B., Karabulut, I., and Topcu, A. 2008. Some compositional properties of main Malatya apricot (Prunus armeniaca) varieties. Food Chemistry 107: 939-948.## Anonymous. 2012. World Production of Apricot. Available at: www.fao.org/ fao.stat/database.## Asma, B. M. 2008. Determination of pollen viability, germination ratios and morphology of eight apricot genotypes. African Journal of Biotechnology 7(23): 4269-4273.## Balan, V., Tudor, V., Topor, E., Chireceanu, C., Dobrin, I., and Iacomi, B. 2009. Apricot adaptability under the Romanian climatic conditions. Scientific Papers, USAMV Bucharest, Series A, 2: 445-450.## Campbell, E. O., Merwin, I. A., and Padilla-Zakour, O. I. 2013. Characterization and the effect of maturity at harvest on the phenolic and carotenoid content of Northeast USA apricot (Prunus armeniaca) varieties. Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry 61(51): 12700-12710.## Dejampour, J. 2005. Determination of heat and chilling requirements in some commercial apricot cultivars. Seed and Plant 21(1): 12-20 (in Persian).## Dejampour, J., and Rahnemoun, H. 2009. Characteristics of Planted Apricot Cultivars in Iran. Education Center Publications. Karaj, Iran. 53 pp. (in Persian).## Dejampour, J., Rahnemoun, H., Eskandari, S., Mansourfar, H., Bouzari, N., Ganji Moghaddam, E., and Zarrinbal, M. 2013. Maragheh 90, a new high yielding cultivar of apricot suitable for table and industrial purposes. Seed and Plant Production Journal 28-2 (4): 499-501 (in Persian).## Egea, J., Ruiz, D., Dicenta, R., and Burgos, L. 2005. 'Murciana' Apricot. Horticultural Science 40(1): 254-255.## Fajt, N., Kompara, E., and Usenik, V. 1999. Agronomic, yield and quality evaluation of 16 apricot cultivars in Slovenia. Italus Hortus 6(3): 113-114.## Hagen, L., Khadari, B., Lambert, P., and Audergon, J. M. 2002. Genetic diversity in apricot revealed by AFLP markers: species and cultivar comparisons. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 105(2-3): 298-305.## Kramarenko, L. 2006. Apricot breeding in Moscow. Acta Horticulturae 701: 219-922.## Krichen, L., Audergon, J. M., and Neila, T. F. 2014. Variability of morphological characters among Tunisian apricot germplasm. Scientia Horticulturae 179: 328-339.## Krichen, L., Ben Mimoun, M., and Hellali, R. 2006. Identification and characterization of Tunisian apricot cultivars. Acta Horticulturae 701: 241-246.## Ledbetter, C. A. 2008. Apricots. pp. 39-82. In: Hancock, J. F. (ed.) Temperate Fruit Crop Breeding. Springer Science+Business Media B.V. California, USA.## Monstra, F., Fideghelli, C., Grassi, G., Della Strada, G., Pennone, F., Proto, D., and Magliano, V. 1986. Horticultural and Technological of canning apricot in south Italy. Acta Horticulture 192: 469-474.## Rahemi, M. 2002. Pollination and Fruit Set. Shiraz University Publications. Shiraz, Iran. 138 pp. (in Persian).## Rahnemoun, H., Dejampour, J., Eskandari, S., Mansourfar, H., Bouzari, N., Ganji Moghaddam, E., and Zarrinbal, M. 2013. Ordubad 90, a new high yielding cultivar of apricot suitable for industrial purposes. Seed and Plant Production Journal 28-2 (4): 503-505 (in Persian). ## Rodrigo, J., and Herrero, M. 2002. The onset of fruiting in apricot (Prunus armeniaca). Journal of Applied Botany 76 (1-2): 13-19.## Ruiz, D., and Egea, J. 2008. Analysis of the variability and correlations of floral biology factors affecting fruit set in apricot in a Mediterranean climate. Scientia Horticulturae 115: 154-163.## Russo, G., and D'Andrea, L. 2006. Genetic resources of Prunus armeniaca in Apulia. Acta Horticulturae 701: 257-262.## Topor, E., and Burtoiu, M. C. 2006. New apricot selections with very early ripening maturity obtained under Rumanian conditions. Acta Horticulturae 701: 367-370.## Ulger, S., Baktir, I., and Himelrick, D. J. 2001. Evaluation of performance of fresh market apricot cultivars and selection in coastal regions of Turkey. Journal of American Pomological Society 55(3): 185-188.## Vachun, Z. 2001. Evaluation of difference in growth vigor of apricot genotypes from 6 to 11 years after planting. Zahradnictvi 28: 1-9.## | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 501 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 323 |
||