Sientifi ppers, R.I.F.G. Pitesti, Vol. XXVII, 211 I. RESURSE GENETICE, AMELIORAREA SPECIILOR POMICOLE GENETIC RESOURCES, BREEDING OF DECIDUOUS FRUIT TREES SPECIES EVALUAREA CALITĂŢII FRUCTELOR LA SELECŢIILE VALOROASE DE LONICERA FRUCTIFERĂ (LONICERA CAERULEA VAR. KAMTSCHATICA) EVALUATION OF FRUIT QUALITY AT FRUIT SELECTIONS VALUABLE OF BLUE HONEYSUCKLE (LONICERA CAERULEA VAR. KAMTSCHATICA) Irin Anu, Gheorghe Mldin, Pulin Mldin, Sergiu Anu Reserh Institute for Fruit Growing Pitesti, Romni Abstrt After 17 yers of breeding nd seletion, in the yer 24 it ws obtined the vriety. Further breeding nd seletion hd resulted in obtining 73 hybrids. The fruits of this speies re less known in Romni, to the gret mss of onsumers, nd most fruits re used in to the drugs mke bsed on nturl extrts. The lst three yers t RIFG Pitesti-Mrineni we onduted study on number of 11 elites, in order to identify the most vluble elites with the better qulity of fruit to promote t the onsumers menu. After three yers of study on the fruit qulity t 11 elites, we reommended the SL 57 for fresh fruit onsumer. Key words: er erule, berry fruit firmness, soluble solids, qulity fruit Cuvinte heie: er erule, fermitte frutelor, substnţă ustă, litte frutelor 1. Introdution The interntionl interest for the fruits of this speies begn to inrese due to inresed ontent of sugrs, ids, mro nd mironutrients espeilly in nthoynins (Mlodobry, 21). Also, the reent reserhes to nimls hve shown sientifilly tht regulr onsumption of fresh fruits of blue honeysukle resulted in derese in tumour dimeter (Grui, 28). In Romni blue honeysukle ws introdued in 1985 by Mldin George from Northern Russi (Mldin, 1997), following n expedition to ollet seeds from wild genotypes. After breeding nd seletion work in the yer 24 he obtined the v. Further breeding nd seletion work hd resulted in obtining of 73 elites. Sine the fruits of this speies in Romni re less known to the gret mss of onsumers, nd most fruits re used in to the drugs mke bsed on nturl extrts, the lst three yers t RIFG Pitesti-Mrineni we onduted study on number of 11 elites, in order to identify the most vluble elites with the better qulity of fruit to promote the fruit of this speies t the onsumers menu. 2. Mteril nd methods The study regrding the qulity of blue honeysukle fruit elites ws performed in the experimentl fields of the Smll Berry Deprtment of the Reserh Institute for Fruit Growing Pitesti, during 29 211. From lot of 73 hybrids we hve hosen 11 with the best fruit tste. On these elites were mde the following determintions from n esting with 5 fruits in three repetitions. The study regrding the qulity of blue honeysukle fruit elites ws performed in the experimentl fields of the Smll Berry Deprtment of the Reserh Institute for Fruit Growing Pitesti, between 29 nd 211. From lot of 73 hybrids we hve hosen 11 with the best fruit tste. On these elites were mde smples of 5 fruits / bush in three repetitions the following determintions: verge weight of fruit ws determined by grvimetri method, height nd dimeter of fruit were determined by mesuring with the liper. The index size ws lulted by formul: (height +lrge dimeter +smll dimeter)/3, nd shpe index by the formul: (lrger dimeter + smller dimeter)/ 2 height (fter Botu nd Botu, 1997) the fruit firmness ws determined with SHIMPO DFS pprtus on 25 rndomly seleted berries from eh replition. Soluble solids ontent ws determined in berry juie obtined from 1 fruits from every replition, by mens of digitl refrtometer (PR Series). The results were sttistilly lulted by Dunn s Test t signifine level=.5.
Sientifi ppers, R.I.F.G. Pitesti, Vol. XXVII, 211 3. Results nd disussions On verge of the three experimentl yers the fruit verge weight to the blue honeysukle, showed tht the elites 5,, SL 5,, nd 7 reorded the biggest fruit, over 1 g / fruit, these elites re signifintly by 18% greter thn nd who hd verge weight of fruit.56 g/fruit, respetively.59 g / fruit (fig.1). The edited with the highest verge weight per fruit ws 5 (1.44 g / fruit) tht is signifintly higher by 25.7% versus the verge fruit weight reorded to vriety (Fig. 1). On verged over three yers of study the SL 57 hs reorded the best vlue of the fruits height, this ws signifintly by 16.8% versus v. In exhnge, no signifint differenes hve reorded the 7 versus the nd. The SL 57 versus SL 44, nd 5 were signifint different by 12.6% higher (Fig. 2). The evlution on the fruits dimeter showed tht the v. hs reorded the lowest fruit dimeter (7.9 mm); this ws signifintly lower versus the seletions,,, 5, SL 6 where dimeter of the fruit ws bout 1 m (Fig. 3). The nlysis of the fruits qulity bsed on size index showed tht the vriety nd elite reorded the smllest size of size index; they re signifintly differentited versus ll other elites studied. However the lrgest index size ws reorded t SL 57(1.54 m), it is no signifintly versus index size reorded to nd, but signifintly versus ll the other eight studied elites (Fig. 4). On verge on the three yers of study the elites nd SL16 hve the highest vlue of the index form, but the differenes were no signifintly versus vlue reorded. The lowest index form ws reorded t the 7 (.3 m) this vlue ws signifintly lower with 6.7% versus v. (Fig.5) The nlysis on three yers of study on the number of seeds / fruit showed tht the SL 57 nd SL 64, reorded the highest number of seeds per fruit, this ws signifintly higher versus the other elites studied, nd the lowest no. seed / fruit ws reorded to SL 63 (fig.6). Evlution of soluble solids ontent to the fruit elites showed tht on verge in the three yers, the highest vlue ws reorded to SL 57 (17.2% Brix), nd the lowest vlue to the SL 63, who is signifintly lower versus the other studied seletions (Fig.7). On verge in the three yers of study the highest vlue of firmness ws reorded to SL 2, this ws signifintly different versus ll other studied elites, but versus the reorded signifintly differene with 13.6%. The lowest vlue of firmness ws reorded to the SL 64 (15.2 gf) (fig.8). 4. Conlusions The SL 65 reorded the highest verge weight per fruit (1.44 g / fruit) tht ws signifintly higher by 25.7% versus the vlue reorded to v. The SL 57 hs reorded the best vlue of the fruits height, the lrgest index size, nd the highest ontent of soluble solids (17.2% Brix), therefore we reommend the SL 57 for fresh fruit onsumption. The highest vlue of firmness ws reorded to SL 2 nd v. 5. Referenes 1. Botu, I. Mihi Botu, (1997). Metode şi tehnii de eretre în pomiultură, Ed. Conphys 2. Grui ML, Opre E., Grui I., Negoit V.,Frsnu IC., 28. The ntioxidnt response indued by lonier erule berry. Extrts in nimls bering experimentl solid tumors, Moleules 13:1195-126. 3. Mldobry M., Bienisz M., Dziedzi E., 21. Evlution of the yield nd some omponents in the fruit of blue honeysukle (er erule vr. edulis Turz.Freyn.), Foli Hortiulture, Ann 22/1 (21):45-5 4. Mldin Gh.1997. er lbstr (er erule vr. kmtshti) o nouă speie de rbusti frutiferi pentru ondiţiile eologie din Romni. Rev. Fermierul nr. 6:32-34.
Sientifi ppers, R.I.F.G. Pitesti, Vol. XXVII, 211 Tble nd Figures g/fruit 1,6 1,4 1,2 1,8,6 1,44 1,35 1,3 1,3 1,29 b 1,7 b,87 b b,83,79,59,56,4,2 5 7 LSD5%=,57 Fig. 1. Averge weight of fruit height fruit (mm) 35, 3, 25, 2, 15, 1, 28,7 b b 25,2 25,2 b b b d 23,1 23,1 de 22, 2,8 de 2,2 19,8 de e 17,2 17, 5,, 7 5 LSD 5%=3,46 Fig. 2. The fruit height
Sientifi ppers, R.I.F.G. Pitesti, Vol. XXVII, 211 dimeter fruit (mm) 12, 1, 8, 6, 4, 2, 1,3 1,3 b 1, 9,9 9,8 9,7 b 8,9 8,7 8,7 8,1 7,9, 5 7 LSD5%=,87 Fig. 3. The dimeter of fruit index size (m) 1,8 1,6 1,4 1,2 1,8,6,4,2 b b 1,54 1,53 1,53 LSD 5%=,138 b 1,39 1,35 1,35 1,35 1,33 1,3 d d 1,11 1,9 7 5 Fig. 4. The index size of fruit
Sientifi ppers, R.I.F.G. Pitesti, Vol. XXVII, 211 indie de form (m),6,5,4,3,2,1 b,49 b b,48,48,47,46,45 b b,41,41 LSD5%=,58,38,38 d,31 5 7 Fig. 5. The index form of fruit 25 LSD5%=2,25 nr seminţe/ frut 2 15 1 19,2 19 b 16,4 b bd bd 15 bd 14,4 de def 14,3 14,2 13,3 12,3 ef 11,6 f 1,81 5 7 5 Fig. 6. The number of seeds in fruit
Sientifi ppers, R.I.F.G. Pitesti, Vol. XXVII, 211 Brix (%) 2 18 16 14 12 1 8 6 4 2 b 17,2 16,4 b b b b 15,1 15,1 14,9 14,8 LSD5%=2,68 b b b b 14,2 13,9 13,8 13,8 13 7 5 Fig. 7. The ontent of soluble solids (%Brix) in fruits 4 37,3 LSD5%=5,44 firmness(gf) 35 3 25 2 15 b 3,5 b b b 27,6 b 27,3 26,7 26,6 b b b 25,3 25 24,5 2,9 d 15,2 1 5 5 7 Fig. 8. The firmness of fruits