Fruit characteristics of fig cultivars and genotypes grown in Turkey

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Scientia Horticulturae 115 (2008) 360–367 www.elsevier.com/locate/scihorti

Fruit characteristics of fig cultivars and genotypes grown in Turkey Oguzhan C¸alis¸kan, A. Aytekin Polat * Mustafa Kemal University, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Horticulture, Antakya, Hatay 31034, Turkey Received 27 June 2007; received in revised form 27 September 2007; accepted 17 October 2007

Abstract In this study, fruit quality characteristics of some cultivars and types of fig (Ficus carica L.) were determined in Dortyol, Hatay, Turkey, which has a Mediterranean climate. The main fig cultivars grown in Turkey (‘Sarilop’, ‘Bursa Siyahi’, ‘Goklop’, ‘Yediveren’, ‘Yesilguz’, ‘Morguz’, ‘Sari Zeybek’, and ‘Ufak Yesil’) were evaluated along with 24 selections from a larger collection from the Mediterranean Region of Turkey. Several pomological characteristics of the genotypes were determined on 5-year-old trees during the 2001 and 2002 growing season. Averaged over the 2 years, fruit weight ranged between 22 and 52 g, total soluble solids content (TSS) ranged between 20.1 and 27.4%, and acidity ranged between 0.09 and 0.26%. ‘Bursa Siyahi’, ‘Goklop’, 31-IN-17, 31-IN-11 and 31-IN-09 produced the largest fruits in terms of fruit weight and dimensions. 31-IN01, 31-IN-02, ‘Yesilguz’, ‘Morguz’ and ‘Ufak Yesil’ had the highest TSS. ‘Yediveren’, ‘Goklop’, ‘Bursa Siyahi’ and 31-IN-16 scored the highest in overall quality according to the weighted ranked method. Based on the results obtained ‘Yediveren’, ‘Goklop’ and 31-IN-16 could be alternatives to ‘Bursa Siyahi’, currently the most favored fresh table fig cultivar. These alternatives appear to have potential for both local consumption and export markets. Our results also indicate extensive diversity among Turkish figs permitting marketing of a broad range of fresh fig traits. # 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Ficus carica L.; Mediterranean climate; Table fig; Fruit quality; Cluster; Selection

1. Introduction Turkey is the world’s largest fig producing country. According to FAO statistics world fig production is 1,056,820 tonnes (t). Turkey’s production of 285,000 t is 27% of the world’s total production and, Turkey’s 177,900 t of fig exports represents 52% of total world fig exports (Anon, 2005a). About 70% of Turkey’s total fig production is for dry consumption (Aksoy et al., 2003). Because of environmental effects on fruit quality, it is commonly believed that the highest quality dried figs are grown in limited areas of the Big and Small Meander valleys where temperature, relative humidity and wind conditions are optimum for production of high quality ¨ zbek, 1978). Fresh fig production, although still dried figs (O environmentally sensitive, appears to be less demanding in terms of climate characteristics. Figs are well adapted to Mediterranean climates. Fig cultivation on the coastal region of the Mediterranean in Turkey has a long history and a promising future (Kas¸ka et al., 1990; Aksoy et al., 1994; Balcı, 2003). Fresh fig production in Turkey is seldom found in dedicated orchards except in the regions of * Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 326 245 56 05; fax: +90 326 245 58 32. E-mail address: [email protected] (A.A. Polat). 0304-4238/$ – see front matter # 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.scienta.2007.10.017

Bursa, I˙c¸el (Mut), Manisa (Turgutlu-Salihli) and Hatay (Fig. 1). Bursa is the largest fresh fig region in Turkey with extensive ¨ zeker and Isfandiyarfresh fig exports (Aksoy et al., 1992; O og˘lu, 1998). However, Turkey’s fresh fig production has not yet fulfilled its export potential. Recently, the fresh fig trade, confined primarily to local markets, has gained international importance (S¸ahin, 1998). Turkey’s fresh fig exports only increased 150 t from 1980 to 6123 t in 1999 and to 10,376 t in 2004 (Anon, 2004). To increase fig production it will be necessary to extend the harvesting period by planting in diverse ecological regions to utilize cultivars that differ in their harvest period, and finally to improve quality and increase diversity. Hatay province located in the eastern Mediterranean Region in Turkey contains 223,345 fig trees producing 5403 t of fresh fig product (Anon, 2005b). Most fig trees are not in solid orchards but are inter-planted with olive trees. The objective of this study was to evaluate quality and other characteristics of Turkey’s most important fig cultivars compared to several interesting selections from Turkey’s Mediterranean Region in a common environment. In addition, the study aimed to identify superior-quality fig genotypes as alternatives to ‘Bursa Siyahi’, the most prevalent table fig cultivar grown, as well as to help fig breeders identify potential parents for future fig improvement efforts.

O. C¸alis¸kan, A.A. Polat / Scientia Horticulturae 115 (2008) 360–367

361

Fig. 1. Map of Turkey and its important table fig growing areas.

2. Materials and methods The study was conducted on the Mustafa Kemal University, Agriculture Faculty, Dortyol Research Station in Hatay, Turkey, during 2001 and 2002. Dortyol has a typical Mediterranean climate; the yearly average temperature is 19.3 8C, with 925 mm precipitation which primarily falls during winter and spring. Eight cultivars (‘Sarilop’, ‘Bursa Siyahi’, ‘Goklop’, ‘Yediveren’, ‘Yesilguz’, ‘Morguz’, ‘Sari Zeybek’ and ‘Ufak Yesil’) and 24 selections were included in the study. The cultivars are the most widely grown and the genotypes were selected from the Mediterranean Region of Turkey described in ¨ zkaya, 1997). All genotypes were a previous study (O propagated by cuttings and the experimental orchard was established in five replicates with 6 m  6 m in 1997. The experiment was conducted with plants in a randomized complete block design with five blocks. The orchard was established in January 1997 and managed for the standard cultural practices for Turkish fig cultivation. No caprification was done in the experimental orchard as there were other fig orchards with caprifigs nearby. Pomological characteristics were determined for mature summer crop fruits. From each fig cultivar and types, 30 fruits were randomly selected from the fig trees. Harvested fruits were immediately transferred to ice boxes and then stored at 0 8C. After that, fruits were evaluated for pomological properties. There were three replicates each consisting of 10 fruits. Fruit weight was measured with a scale sensitive to 0.01 g (Precisa XB 2200 C). Fruit size (length and width), neck length, ostiole width were measured by a digital compass (BTS, 0– 150 mm). Soluble solids were determined with a hand-held refractometer (N.O.W., 0–32% Brix) and pH was determined by a pH-meter. Acidity (expressed as % citric acid) was determined by titrating with 0.1 N NaOH to an endpoint of pH 8.10. The soluble solid/acidity ratio was calculated. The fruit

index was calculated by dividing the width by length. Abscission of the stalk from the twig, ease of peeling, fruit skin cracks, fruit shape, the shape of the fruit stalk, fruit ribs, the thickness of the fruit skin, the texture of skin, the fruit internal cavity and plant growth habit, tree vigor, suckers, number of lobes and leaves per shoot were determined based on the fig descriptor developed by Aksoy (1996). Fruit quality characteristics of types and cultivars were determined according to table fig characteristics in this descriptor. Mediterranean Region where we conducted this research is not suitable for dried fig growing due to weather and soil conditions (i.e. high relative humidity). Therefore it is not possible to evaluate types or cultivar for commercial dried fig production. To compare overall performance of each genotype studied, an evaluation scale was developed based on weighting fruit characteristics considering both local and global consumer preferences (Table 1). The data were subjected to analysis of variance using SAS (SAS Inst., 1990). The means were separated by Tukey’s HSD multiple comparison test at 0.01. To evaluate similarity among genotypes, cluster analysis was carried out using PROC CLUSTER with AVERAGE option of SAS for the pomological and fruit characteristics traits. 3. Results 3.1. Pomological variables Some fruit and morphological characteristics of cultivars and genotypes are presented in Table 2. All pomological characteristics were significant at 1% level. 3.1.1. Fruit weight and width Averaged over the 2 years, 31-IN-17 had the highest fruit weight (52.5 g), followed by ‘Bursa Siyahi’ and 31-IN-11 with 50.0 and 45.8 g, respectively. The lowest fruit weight values

362

O. C ¸ alis¸kan, A.A. Polat / Scientia Horticulturae 115 (2008) 360–367

Table 1 Weighted classification and its point system for the fig genotypes collected from eastern Mediterranean Region of Turkey and some Turkish cultivars Character

Weighting factor

Classification

Points 0 2 4 6 8 10

Fruit size (g)

20

<20.0 20.1–30.0 30.1–40.0 40.1–50.0 50.1–60.0 >60.0

Maturity period

20

<20 July 20–30 July 1–15 August 15–30 August >30 August

8 6 2 6 8

Fruit shape

9

0.9 0.9–1.1 >1.1

8 10 6

Neck length (mm)

6

<5 5.1–10 10.1–15 >15

0 10 6 2

Fruit skin cracks

10

None Scarce Minute

10 6 0

Easy of peeling

10

Easy Intermediate Hard

10 6 0

0.0–2.0 2.1–4.0 4.1–6.0 >6.1

10 8 6 2

Ostiole width (mm)

5

Total soluble solids (%)

10

<13.0 13.1–16.0 16.1–20.0 20.1–25.1 >25.1

2 4 10 8 6

Acidity (%)

10

0.050 0.051–0.12 0.126–0.225 0.226–0.300 >0.301

0 6 8 10 4

Total

100

were observed on ‘Ufak Yesil’ (22.2 g) and 31-IM-12 (23.2 g). The average fruit width for 31-IN-11 was 44.2 mm, 43.2 mm for ‘Bursa Siyahi’ and 42.6 mm for ‘Yediveren’. The lowest value was 31.9 mm for ‘Ufak Yesil’. 3.1.2. Fruit and neck length, ostiole width For fruit length, the highest values were observed for ‘Bursa Siyahi’ (45.8 mm), 31-IN-17 (44.9 mm) and 31-IN-15 (44.3 mm) while 31-IN-12 had the lowest (30.2 mm). Neck length was longest on 31-IN-15 (8.9 mm) followed by ‘Sarilop’ (6.4 mm) and ‘Goklop’ (6.0 mm), whereas 31-IN-19 had the shortest neck length at 1.0 mm. Ostiole width was greatest on 31-IN-17 (4.9 mm). This genotype was followed by 31-IN-11 (4.2 mm) and 31-IN-15 (4.2 mm). ‘Ufak Yesil’ had the lowest width (1.1 mm) (Table 2).

3.1.3. Soluble solids, pH, acidity and sugar/acid ratio For the soluble solids, 31-IN-01, ‘Yesilguz’ and 31-IN-02 had the highest values at 27.4%, 26.2%, and 25.8%, respectively (Table 2). ‘Bursa Siyahi’ had only 20.1% soluble solids and this was the lowest among all genotypes tested. The pH of the fruit juice was highest for genotypes 31-IN-01 (5.4), 31-IN-08 (5.3) and ‘Morguz’ (5.3). Juice acidity was highest in the genotypes of 31-IN-05 (0.26%), 31-IN-13 (0.24%), 31-IN-22 (0.23%) and 31-IN-12 (0.23%). Acidity was lowest for 31-IN-10 (0.09%). In this study, the highest sugar/ acid ratio was observed on the genotypes of 31-IN-01 (257.3) and 31-IN-10 (245.0) (Table 2). The lowest ratios were recovered from 31-IN-05 (81.3) and ‘Goklop’ (93.7) (Table 2). 3.1.4. Harvest time and yield In general, the genotypes were harvested in August, although there were some, 31-IN-12, 31-IN-15, 31-IN-22, 31-IM-12, and ‘Bursa Siyahi’ had harvest windows from August to September. Averaged over the 2 years, yield values ranged from 2.85 to 0.50 kg per tree. 31-IN-16 (2.85 kg per tree) and 31-IN-08 (2.65 kg per tree) had the highest yield, followed by ‘Goklop’, 31-IN-12 and ‘Sarilop’ (2.46, 1.68 and 1.67 kg per tree, respectively) (Table 2). The lowest yield values were observed for 31-IM-01 (0.50 kg per tree), 31-IN-17 (0.51 kg per tree) and 31-IN-19 (0.55 kg per tree). 3.2. Fruit and plant characteristics 3.2.1. Fruit shape and stalk The fruit shape differed among the genotypes and cultivar studies (Table 3). 31-IN-15 (0.84) and ‘Ufak Yesil’ (0.47) were oblong while two genotypes were oblate (31-IN-11 and 31-IN12) and the rest were globose (Table 3). Fruit stalk shape was short and thick for 20 genotypes and variously enlarged for 8 genotypes but 31-IN-05 and 31-IN-17 had no stalks. 3.2.2. Abscission of stalk, peeling and cracking Generally, abscission of the stalk from the twig was easy for almost all genotypes. There was no difference in ease of peeling; all of the genotypes were easy to peel (Table 3). Little variation was detected in skin cracking as genotypes usually had none, minute or scarce cracks. 31-IN-17, 31-IN-11, 31-IN09, 31-IM-05, ‘Goklop’ and ‘Yediveren’ genotypes which has the largest fruit weight had showed similarity to abscission of stalk, peeling and cracking compared to ‘Bursa Siyahi’ which is most important fresh fig. 3.2.3. Skin thickness, rib, texture and color The skin thickness was thin or medium, while the skin ribs were absent or intermediate. The skin textures were soft and fruit internal cavities were either small or medium. The fruit skin color ranged from yellow to black. Two cultivars had yellow skin colors. Fifteen genotypes and two selections were yellow–green, two selections and two cultivars were green, while two selections and one cultivar was purple and one cultivar, ‘Bursa Siyahi’ was black.

O. C¸alis¸kan, A.A. Polat / Scientia Horticulturae 115 (2008) 360–367

3.2.4. Plant growth habit, tree vigor, suckers, number of lobes and leaves per shoot Plant growth habits were obtained very spread for 31-IN-12, 31-IN-14, 31-IM-12, very erect for 31-IM-01, erect for 31-IN02, 31-IN-06, 31-IN-07, 31-IN-11, 31-IN-17 and ‘Sarilop’. Other genotypes were found spread and weeping habit (data not presented). Tree vigor were found high for 31-IN-02, 31-IN-05, 31IN-08, 31-IN-11, 31-IN-12, 31-IN-15, 31-IN-16, 31-IN-22, 31-IM-01, 31-IM-05, 31-IM-12, ‘Goklop’, ‘Yesilguz’ and ‘Morguz’. 31-IN-18 and ‘Ufak Yesil’ had low vigor, while the other genotypes were found to be intermediate. Tendency to form suckers had intermediate for 31-IN-13, 31-IN-17, 31IN-19, 31-IM-12, ‘Sarilop’, ‘Bursa Siyahi’ and ‘Yediveren’. Number of lobes per leaf was evaluated with three lobes for 31-IN-08, 31-IN-10, 31-IN-14, 31-IN-22, 31-IM-12, ‘Goklop’ and ‘Yediveren’. Other genotypes were determined with five lobes. Number of leaf per shoot was ranged from 6.7 to 13.8. Highest number of leaf per shoot for 31-IN-16 was 13.8, 13.0 for 31-IN-13 and 12.4 for 31-IN-05. The lowest number of leaf per shoot were observed as 6.7 for 31-IN-10 and 7.0 for ‘Sari Zeybek’

363

3.2.5. Cluster analysis Fig selections and cultivars were sorted into clusters, based on the pomological and fruit characteristic traits presented in Tables 2 and 3 (Fig. 2). The 22 selections and 6 cultivars clustered into 3 main groups (A, B and C). Group A consisted of only selections 31-IN-01, 31-IN-07, 31-IN-10, 31-IN-19 and 31-IN-20. In Group B, there were six selections, three cultivars: ‘Sarilop’, ‘Morguz’ and Yesilguz’. Group C was the largest group with seven selections and the cultivars ‘Ufak Yesil’, ‘Sari Zeybek’, ‘Goklop’, ‘Yediveren’ and ‘Bursa Siyahi’. Among these cultivars, ‘Sari Zeybek’, ‘Yediveren’ and ‘Bursa Siyahi’ are all table fig cultivars. The most apparent fruit characteristic, skin color, was not a determinant in clustering genotypes as different colored genotypes were grouped together. For example, 31-IM-05 was black and 31IN-11 was green of Group B and 31-IN-17 was green and ‘Bursa Siyahi’ was in Group C. 3.3. Weighted characterization When all the characteristics were evaluated together using the weighted analysis ‘Yediveren’ was calculated as having the

Table 2 Pomological characteristics for the fig genotypes collected from eastern Mediterranean Region of Turkey and some Turkish cultivars (average of years 2001–2002) Genotype

Fruit weight (g)

Fruit diameter (mm)

Fruit length (mm)

Neck length (mm)

Ostiole width (mm)

Soluble solids (%)

pH

31-IN-01 31-IN-02 31-IN-05 31-IN-06 31-IN-07 31-IN-08 31-IN-09 31-IN-10 31-IN-11 31-IN-12 31-IN-13 31-IN-14 31-IN-15 31-IN-16 31-IN-17 31-IN-18 31-IN-19 31-IN-20 31-IN-22 31-IM-01 31-IM-05 31-IM-12 ‘Sarilop’ ‘Bursa Siyahi’ ‘Goklop’ ‘Yesilguz’ ‘Morguz’ ‘Sari Zeybek’ ‘Ufak Yesil’ ‘Yediveren’ D (1%)

28.3 25.0 36.1 33.7 36.7 36.4 45.6 33.4 45.8 23.6 31.6 26.8 31.8 40.2 52.5 33.0 25.0 31.6 28.7 26.2 44.3 23.2 40.7 50.0 42.5 26.3 28.4 37.9 22.2 40.8 11.0

34.5 33.8 38.8 38.7 39.2 39.1 41.4 38.2 44.2 34.1 35.7 33.7 37.3 40.1 42.4 38.8 33.0 36.6 33.9 35.7 40.4 37.1 42.1 43.2 40.2 35.4 35.3 39.5 31.9 42.6 6.7

38.3 30.9 35.2 38.3 38.0 40.8 41.6 37.8 33.9 30.2 35.1 33.3 44.3 41.9 44.9 30.9 33.6 36.0 34.6 33.4 39.6 34.7 40.7 45.8 41.6 36.0 35.4 39.0 33.1 40.0 9.6

4.4 1.2 3.6 5.2 5.0 4.0 4.4 2.8 3.2 2.3 2.3 2.2 8.9 5.5 4.9 3.7 1.0 2.8 5.0 4.0 2.8 2.4 6.4 4.5 6.0 2.3 3.2 3.3 1.9 5.1 2.9

2.5 1.5 3.8 2.9 2.9 2.6 2.7 2.8 4.2 3.5 4.4 2.3 4.2 4.2 4.9 3.7 1.4 3.0 3.4 3.3 2.8 3.8 3.6 1.7 2.6 1.4 1.3 1.9 1.1 1.7 2.2

27.4 25.8 21.3 24.4 21.3 22.8 23.3 23.2 24.7 22.0 23.7 21.7 22.0 21.5 21.1 22.3 24.2 22.0 24.0 20.5 22.4 22.8 23.0 20.1 20.2 26.2 24.7 22.0 24.3 21.7 6.4

5.4 4.8 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.3 5.0 5.2 5.1 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.1 4.8 5.2 5.1 4.8 4.6 5.0 4.9 4.6 4.8 4.7 4.7 5.3 4.7 4.6 4.6 0.9

f–i hi c–g d–h c–g c–g abc d–h abc hi e–i ghi e–i b–e a e–i hi e–i f–i ghi a–d hi b–e ab a–e ghi f–i c–f i b–e

f–i ghi a–h a–h a–h a–h a–e a–i a f–i d–i ghi b–i a–g abc a–h hi c–i f–i d–i a–f b–i a–d ab a–g e–i e–i a–h i abc

a–f ef b–f a–f a–f a–d a–d a–f def f c–f def abc a–d ab ef def b–f c–f def a–f c–f a–d a a–d b–f b–f a–f def a–e

b–h ij b–j b–e b–g b–i b–h d–j c–j e–j f–j g–j a bcd b–g b–j j d–j b–g b–i d–j e–j ab b–h abc e–j c–j c–j hij b–f

b–i f–i a–d a–i a–i b–i b–i a–i abc a–g ab c–i abc abc a a–e ghi a–i a–h a–h a–i a–e a–f e–i b–i ghi hi d–i i e–i

a ab ab ab ab ab ab ab ab ab ab ab ab ab ab ab ab ab ab b ab ab ab b b ab ab ab ab ab

a ab b ab ab ab ab ab ab b ab ab ab ab ab ab ab ab ab b ab ab ab ab ab ab ab ab b ab

Significantly different means, determined as using Tukey’s HSD at 1% are presented by different letters.

Acidity (%)

Soluble solids/ acid

Maturity period

Yield (kg)

0.11 0.17 0.26 0.16 0.11 0.14 0.11 0.09 0.19 0.23 0.24 0.19 0.20 0.13 0.18 0.16 0.11 0.13 0.23 0.21 0.16 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.21 0.20 0.18 0.21 0.21 0.22 0.12

257.3 156.7 81.3 153.9 191.2 164.5 204.3 245.0 134.3 94.3 101.8 111.5 112.3 160.5 116.2 135.8 241.3 176.9 103.5 97.7 143.0 127.8 125.4 111.4 93.7 129.8 140.1 108.9 114.7 99.4 95.9

1–15 Aug. 1–15 Aug. 1–15 Aug. 1–15 Aug. 1–15 Aug. 1–15 Aug. 1–15 Aug. 1–15 Aug. 1–15 Aug. 1–15 Aug. 1–15 Aug. 1–15 Aug. 15–30 Aug. 1–15 Aug. 1–15 Aug. 1–15 Aug. 1–15 Aug. 1–15 Aug. 1–15 Aug. 1–15 Aug. 1–15 Aug. 15–30 Aug. Aug. Aug.–Sept. 1–15 Aug. 1–15 Aug. 1–15 Aug. 1–15 Aug. 1–15 Aug. 1–15 Aug.

0.73 0.41 1.18 1.20 0.78 2.65 0.56 0.90 1.57 1.68 0.90 1.13 0.79 2.85 0.51 0.90 0.55 0.82 1.04 0.50 1.11 0.74 1.67 0.80 2.46 1.08 0.82 1.07 0.75 0.77 0.79

cd a–d a a–d cd bcd cd d a–d ab ab a–d a–d bcd a–d a–d cd bcd ab abc a–d a–d a–d a–d abc a–d a–d a–d abc abc

a b–e e b–e a–d a–e abc ab cde e de cde cde a–e cde cde ab a–e de de cde cde cde cde e cde cde cde cde de

e e cde cde de a e cde de bc cde cde de a e cde e de cde e cde e c de a cde de cde e e

364

Table 3 Fruit characteristics for the fig genotypes collected from eastern Mediterranean Region of Turkey and some Turkish cultivars (average of years 2001–2002) Fruit width/ length

Fruit shape

Shape of the fruit stalk

Abscission of the stalk from the twig

Ease of peeling

Fruit skin cracks

Thickness of the fruit skin

Texture of skin

Fruit ribs

Fruit internal cavity

Fruit skin color

31-IN-01 31-IN-02 31-IN-05 31-IN-06 31-IN-07 31-IN-08 31-IN-09 31-IN-10 31-IN-11 31-IN-12 31-IN-13 31-IN-14 31-IN-15 31-IN-16 31-IN-17 31-IN-18 31-IN-19 31-IN-20 31-IN-22 31-IM-01 31-IM-05 31-IM-12 ‘Sarilop’ ‘Bursa Siyahi’ ‘Goklop’ ‘Yesilguz’ ‘Morguz’ ‘Sari Zeybek’ ‘Ufak Yesil’ ‘Yediveren’

0.90 1.10 1.09 1.01 1.03 0.96 1.00 1.01 1.30 1.13 1.03 1.01 0.84 0.96 0.94 1.03 0.98 1.02 0.98 1.07 1.01 1.07 1.03 0.94 0.97 0.99 1.01 1.01 0.47 1.04

Globose Globose Globose Globose Globose Globose Globose Globose Oblate Oblate Globose Globose Oblong Globose Globose Globose Globose Globose Globose Globose Globose Globose Globose Globose Globose Globose Globose Globose Oblong Globose

Short and thick Short and thick None Variously enlarged Variously enlarged Short and thick Variously enlarged Short and thick Short and thick Variously enlarged Short and thick Short and thick Short and thick Short and thick None Short and thick Variously enlarged Variously enlarged Short and thick Variously enlarged Short and thick Short and thick Short and thick Short and thick Short and thick Short and thick Short and thick Short and thick Variously enlarged Short and thick

Easy Easy Easy Hard Easy Hard Hard Hard Easy Hard Hard Hard Easy Easy Hard Hard Easy Easy Easy Hard Hard Hard Easy Easy Easy Easy Easy Easy Easy Easy

Easy Easy Hard Intermediate Easy Intermediate Easy Intermediate Easy Easy Intermediate Easy Easy Easy Intermediate Intermediate Easy Intermediate Easy Easy Hard Easy Intermediate Easy Easy Easy Easy Easy Easy Easy

None Minute Minute Minute Minute Minute None Minute Minute Minute Scarce longitudinal Scarce longitudinal Minute Minute Scarce longitudinal None Minute Scarce longitudinal None None Scarce longitudinal Minute Minute None Minute None None Scarce longitudinal None Minute

Thin Thin Thin Intermediate Thin Thin Wide Wide Thin Intermediate Thin Thin Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Thin Thin Thin Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Thin Intermediate Thin Intermediate Intermediate Thin Thin Intermediate

Soft Soft Soft Intermediate Soft Soft Intermediate Soft Firm Intermediate Soft Soft Firm Soft Intermediate Intermediate Soft Firm Firm Intermediate Intermediate Soft Soft Firm Soft Soft Soft Soft Soft Soft

None Intermediate None None Intermediate Intermediate None None Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate Intermediate None None None Intermediate None Intermediate Intermediate None None Intermediate Intermediate None Intermediate Intermediate None Intermediate Intermediate

Medium Small Medium Small Medium Medium Small Small Medium Small Small Medium Medium Small Medium Small Small Small Medium None None Small Small Small Small Medium Small Small Small None

Yellow–green Yellow–green Green Yellow Yellow–green Yellow-green Yellow–green Yellow–green Yellow–green Yellow–green Yellow–green Yellow–green Yellow–green Yellow–green Yellow–green Yellow Green Yellow–green Yellow–green Black Purple Purple Yellow Black Green Yellow–green Purple Yellow Yellow–green Green

O. C ¸ alis¸kan, A.A. Polat / Scientia Horticulturae 115 (2008) 360–367

Genotype

O. C¸alis¸kan, A.A. Polat / Scientia Horticulturae 115 (2008) 360–367

365

Fig. 2. Cluster analysis conducted by pomological (Table 2) and fruit characteristic (Table 3) traits, of several fig selections and cultivars grown under Mediterranean climates.

highest fruit quality (830 points) followed by ‘Goklop’ (810), ‘Bursa Siyahi’ (804) and 31-IN-16 (790) (Table 4). Additional promising genotypes were 31-IN-16 (790), 31-IN-09 (764), 31IN-05 (734), 31-IN-11 (730) and 31-IN-17 (724).

4. Discussion Fig is grown in nearly all subtropical climates. A number of cultivated and wild forms of fig can be found in Turkey with a

Table 4 The results of weighted characterization for the fig genotypes collected from eastern Mediterranean Region of Turkey and some Turkish cultivars (average of years 2001–2002) Genotype

Fruit size

Maturity period

Fruit shape

Neck length

Fruit skin cracks

Ease of peeling

Ostiole width

Total soluble solid

Acidity

Total

31-IN-01 31-IN-02 31-IN 05 31-IN-06 31-IN-07 31-IN-08 31-IN-09 31-IN-10 31-IN-11 31-IN-12 31-IN-13 31-IN-14 31-IN-15 31-IN-16 31-IN-17 31-IN-18 31-IN-19 31-IN-20 31-IN-22 31-IM-01 31-IM-05 31-IM-12 ‘Sarilop’ ‘Bursa Siyahi’ ‘Goklop’ ‘Yediveren’ ‘Yesilguz’ ‘Morguz’ ‘Sari Zeybek’ ‘Ufak Yesil’

50 50 100 100 100 100 150 100 150 50 100 50 100 150 200 100 50 100 50 80 150 100 150 150 150 150 50 50 100 50

90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 60 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 60 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90

60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 36 60 60 60 48 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 48

54 18 54 90 54 54 54 18 54 18 18 18 90 90 54 54 18 18 54 54 54 18 90 54 90 90 54 18 54 18

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 60 60 100 100 60 100 100 60 100 100 60 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 60 100

100 100 100 60 100 60 100 60 100 100 60 100 100 100 60 60 60 60 100 100 0 100 60 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

30 40 50 40 30 40 30 30 40 40 50 40 40 40 40 40 30 30 50 40 40 40 40 50 40 40 40 40 40 40

60 60 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 60 100 100 100

80 100 80 80 80 80 80 80 60 80 60 80 60 60 60 80 100 80 80 60 80 80 80 100 80 100 100 100 100 100

624 618 734 720 714 684 764 618 730 638 598 598 698 790 724 684 608 598 684 684 634 658 770 804 810 830 654 658 704 638

366

O. C ¸ alis¸kan, A.A. Polat / Scientia Horticulturae 115 (2008) 360–367

great diversity of color, shape and flavor, primarily for fresh ¨ zbek, 1978). The Mediterranean shore and consumption (O Southeast Anatolia have suitable conditions for fresh fig production (Kas¸ka et al., 1990). Because of increasing demand for fresh consumption cultivars, any method to increase fig production is would be of value (Aksoy et al., 1992). The plant and fruit characteristics of fig genotypes we studied were reported in a previous experiment (Polat and ¨ zkaya, 2005). However, the data presented in this study come O from the trees grown on their sampling locations. The genotypes were then planted on the same orchard. The results we present herein come from the same genotypes planted on the same orchard. Therefore, the present phenotypic values do not include an environmental component. Moreover, the leading fig cultivars for Turkish fig production were also included as check varieties. Fruit weight is very important for fresh consumption in figs (Aksoy et al., 1992). In this study fruit weight values ranged from 22.15 to 52.47 g (Table 2). All pomological characteristics were significant at 1% level. In similar studies of fig cultivars, ¨ zeker and the fruit weights ranged from 30 to 90 g (O Isfandiyarog˘lu, 1998), 24 to 92 g (S¸ahin et al., 2001), and 28 ¨ zkaya, 2005). The lower mean maximum to 107 g (Polat and O fruit size in our study might be because of the inherently smaller size of the genotypes selected. In addition, the relatively young age of trees (Botti et al., 2003) in this study may have further depressed fruit size. To quantify the length, width, and fruit size were measured as well as fruit weight (Eisen, 1901; Condit, 1941; Aksoy et al., 1992). For all three evaluation methods, the genotypes 31-IN17, ‘Bursa Siyahi’, 31-IN-11, 31-IN-09, 31-IM-05, ‘Goklop’ and ‘Yediveren’ were among the largest. Our results concerning fruit dimensions (width and length) were lower than those of ¨ zkaya (2005). Fruit index (width/length) is of great Polat and O importance in packing and transportation (Condit, 1941). In our study, neck length was longest on 31-IN-15 (8.86 mm) and Sarilop (6.39 mm) (Table 2). In other studies, the longest neck ¨ zeker and Isfandiyarwas 14.5 mm (Ilgın, 1995), 8.70 mm (O ¨ ˘ oglu, 1998) and 8.01 mm (Polat and Ozkaya, 2005). A large ostiole on the fig is an undesirable characteristic as pests and pathogens enter the fruit (Can, 1993). Ostiole width was reported as 0.6–9.1 mm (Aksoy et al., 1992), 1.5–4.0 mm ¨ zkaya, (Koyuncu et al., 1998), and 1.0–9.4 mm (Polat and O 2005). In our results, ostiole width’s were lower. In this study, total soluble solid contents, titratable acidity, and pH were 20.1–27.4%, 0.09–0.26% and 4.6–5.4%, respectively, which were in agreement with other reports (Aksoy et al., 1992; Koyuncu et al., 1998; Mars et al., 1998). The sugar/acid ratio is one of the most important factors in fruit taste (Karac¸alı, 2002). Preferred ratio will vary with the use of fig fruits, but ratios will provide guidance in selecting cultivars for specific uses (Can, 1993). The genotypes with high soluble solids/acid ratios, 31-IN01 (276), 31-IN-10 (254), 31-IN-19 (248) and 31-IN-09 (214) produce high dried for quality (Table 2). In general, yield values were lower than usually reported (Table 2), but this can be explained due to the fact that plants were very young. S¸ahin et al. (2001) explained that fig plants

produced optimum yields at 7 years of age. Most entries were harvested in August. Fruit shape is very important for packaging and transportation. The most suitable fruit shape is globose (Condit, 1941). Therefore, most of the genotypes in the present study have acceptable fruit shape and ease of peeling (Table 3). Ease of peeling is critical for local and global customer preferences (Can, 1993; Ilgın, 1995). In this study, the fruit skin color ranged from yellow to black. Genotypes with similar origin were clustered in the same groups (Fig. 2). We believe that diversity is dependent upon selection from natural populations. Indeed, Papadopoulou et al. (2002) and Amel et al. (2006) indicated that fig cultivars have a rather narrow genetic base. It is possible that several genetically distinct fig cultivars with similar morphological characteristics were uniformly named (Cabrita et al., 2001; Papadopoulou et al., 2002; Amel et al., 2004). Low genetic variation among accessions has been reported before in a study involving 21 cultivars from south France (Khadari et al., 1995). The present study indicates that even cultivars with very diverse geographic origin exhibit high genetic similarity. Since fig trees usually are vegetative propagated, probably utilizing the same propagation material in different areas of southern Italy, the fig clones in existence today should have a low level of genetic heterogeneity (Galderisi et al., 1999). Therefore, fig genotypes for distinct not only genetic characteristics but also morphological characteristics should be used. Besides the fruit size and shape, ostiole width, acidity and TSS (Mars et al., 1998), plant and leaf characteristics as plant growth habit, plant vigor, number of leaf and lobe per shoot, leaf shape are very important for genotype selection by grower and breeders (Papadopoulou et al., 2002). With regard to these characteristics were determined to very high variety between genotypes. ‘Bursa Siyahi’ is the most commonly grown fig cultivar in Turkey (Aksoy et al., 2003). However, differences in fruit quality such as the ripening period and sugar/acid ratio among the entries could help selections fill different market niches. The results suggest ‘Yediveren’, ‘Goklop’, ‘Bursa Siyahi’, and 31-IN-16 should be strongly considered for planting new orchards in the Mediterranean Region. This study also demonstrates broad phenotypic diversity existing among fig genotypes. Further breeding with these cultivars may provide fig cultivars with higher quality and diversity. To fulfill that, the promising genotypes should be tested on multi-locations with high fig production. These genotypes should also be included in National Fig Experimental Station currently having 271 genotypes (Nalbant et al., 1998). References Aksoy, U., Seferog˘lu, G., Mısırlı, A., Kara, S., S¸ahin, N., Bu¨lbu¨l, S., Du¨zbastılar, M., 1992. Selection of the table fig genotypes suitable for Egean Region. I. In: Proceedings of the First National Horticultural Congress. (in Turkish), pp. 545–548. Aksoy, U., Seferog˘lu, G., Mısırlı, A., Kara, S., Can, Z.H., Du¨zbastılar, M., Bu¨lbu¨l, S., S¸ahin, N., 1994. Improvement of fig cultivation in Aegean Region. TAOG Project no. 578, I˙zmir, Turkey (in Turkish).

O. C¸alis¸kan, A.A. Polat / Scientia Horticulturae 115 (2008) 360–367 Aksoy, U., Balci, B., Can, H.Z., Hepaksoy, S., 2003. Some significant results of the research-work in Turkey on fig. Acta Hortic. 605, 173–181. Aksoy, U., 1996. Descriptors For Figs (Ficus carica and related Ficus sp.) Ege Uni. Faculty of Agri. Dept. of Hortic, I˙zmir, Turkey. Amel, S.H., Mokhtar, T., Salea, Z., Jihene, H., Messaound, M., Abdelmajid, R., Mohamed, M., 2004. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 51, 269–275. Amel, S.H., Chatti, K., Saddoud, O., Messaound, M., Rhouma, A., Marrakchi, M., Trifi, M., 2006. Genetic diversity of different Tunisian fig (Ficus carica L.) collections revealed by RAPD fingerprints. Hereditas 143, 15–22. Anonymous, 2004. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. http://apps.fao.org/page/collections?subset=agriculture. Anonymous, 2005. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. http://apps.fao.org/page/collections?subset=agriculture. Anonymous, 2005b. Hatay Province Agricultural Records. Hatay, Turkey, (in Turkish). Balcı, B., 2003. Marketing of C ¸ ukurova fruits to Europe. Cine Tarım 50, 3–5 (in Turkish, with English abstract). Botti, C., Franck, N., Prat, L., Ioannidis, D., Morales, B., 2003. The Effect of climatic conditions on fresh fig fruit yield, quality and type of crop. Acta Hortic. 605, 37–43. Cabrita, L.F., Aksoy, U., Hepaksoy, S., Leitao, J.M., 2001. Suitability of isozyme, RAPD and AFLP markers to assess genetic differences and relatedness among fig (Ficus carica L.) clones. Sci. Hortic. 87 (2001), 261–273. Can, H.Z., 1993. The investigation of some horticultural characteristics of some selected fig genotypes in Aegean Region. Master Thesis, Ege University, I˙zmir, Turkey (in Turkish, with English abstract). Condit, I.J., 1941. Fig characteristics useful in the identification of varieties. Hilgardia 14, 1–69. Eisen, G., 1901. The Fig. Its history, culture and curing. USDA Bull. 9, 201–283. Galderisi, U., Cipollaro, M., Di Bernardo, G., Galano, G., Cascino, A., 1999. Identification of the edible fig ‘Bianco del Cilento’ by random amplified polymorphic DNA analysis. Hortscience 34, 1263–1265.

367

Ilgın, M., 1995. The investigation of fertilization biology of some fig genotypes selected from Kahramanmaras¸ region. PhD Thesis, Cukurova University, Adana, Turkey (in Turkish, with English abstract). Karac¸alı, 2002. Storage and marketing of horticultural products. Ege Uni., Agric. Fac., Publication no: 494 (in Turkish). Kas¸ka, N., Ku¨den, A.B., Ku¨den, A., C ¸ etiner, S., 1990. The investigation of adaptation of Aegean figs and figs selected from Cukurova region. J. C ¸ ukurova Uni. Agric. Fac. 5, 77–86 (in Turkish, with English abstract). Khadari, B., Lashermes, Ph., Kjellberg, F., 1995. RAPD Fingerprints for identification and genetic characterization of fig (Ficus carica L.) genotypes. J. Genet. Breed. 49, 77–86. Koyuncu, M.A., Bostan, S.Z., I˙slam, A., Koyuncu, F., 1998. Investigation on physical and chemical characteristics in fig cultivars grown in Ordu. Acta Hortic. 480, 87–89. Mars, M., Chebli, T., Marrakchi, M., 1998. Multivariate analysis of fig (Ficus carica L.) germplasm in southern Tunisia. Acta Hortic. 480, 75–78. Nalbant, M., S¸ahin, N., Aydın, S¸., 1998. Fig genetic resources at the Fig Research Institute (Aydin/Turkey). Acta Hortic. 480, 43–45. ¨ zbek, S., 1978. Ozel Meyvecilik. Cukurova Universitesi, Ziraat Fakultesi O Yayinlari, vol. 128, Adana, p. 486 (in Turkish). ¨ zeker, E., Isfandiyarog˘lu, M., 1998. Evaluation of table fig cultivars in C O ¸ es¸me Peninsula. Acta Hortic. 480, 55–60. ¨ zkaya, M., 1997. Selection studies on fig genotypes grown in Antakya region. O Master Thesis, Mustafa Kemal University, Antakya, Hatay (in Turkish). Papadopoulou, K., Ehaliotis, C., Tournal, M., Kastanis, P., Karydis, I., Zervakis, G., 2002. Genetic relatedness among dioecious Ficus carica L. cultivars by random amplified polymorphic DNA analysis, and evaluation of agronomic and morphological characters. Genetica 114, 183–194. ¨ zkaya, M., 2005. Selection studies on fig in the Mediterranean Polat, A.A., O region of Turkey. Pak. J. Bot. 37 (3), 567–574. S¸ahin, N., 1998. Fig adaptation studies in western Turkey. Acta Hortic. 480, 61–70. S¸ahin, N., C ¸ abanog˘lu, F., S¸ahin, B., 2001. Fig report. T.R. Prime ministry state planning organization. Planning of development with five years. Plant production (fruits). Report of special committee. Ankara, pp. 548 (in Turkish).