Evaluation of agronomic and fruit quality traits of fig tree varieties (Ficus carica L.) grown in Mediterranean conditions

Cristina Pereira, Manuel J. Serradilla, Fernando Pérez-Gragera, Alberto Martín, María C. Villalobos, Margarita López-Corrales

Abstract


In this work, the agronomic behaviour and fruit quality of ten varieties of common fig were evaluated for the establishment of new commercial orchards destined for fresh consumption. The following traits were measured: annual yield, cumulative yield, trunk cross sectional area (TCSA) and yield efficiency of each variety, as well as weight, width, total soluble solids (TSS), pH, titratable acidity (TA) and maturation index (MI) of brebas and figs. The results show that ‘Banane’ and ‘Brown Turkey’ were the earliest to enter into production, and ‘Banane’ showed the highest annual yield in the 7th green (2014), with 76 kg/tree, followed by ‘Brown Turkey’ (57.6 kg/tree), ‘Cuello Dama Blanco’ (52 kg/tree) and ‘Colar Elche’ (39 kg/tree). On the other hand, 'Cuello Dama Blanco' and 'De Rey' exhibited the better organoleptic traits, with TSS and MI values ranged from 18.7 ºBrix and 203.3 MI (‘Cuello Dama Blanco’) to 20.4 ºBrix and 187.1 MI (‘De Rey’) for brebas and from 21.4 ºBrix and 278.7 (‘Cuello Dama Blanco’) to 23.3 ºBrix and 255.6 (‘De Rey’) for figs. This study will allow the fruit grower to select the most interesting and appropriate range of varieties based on market needs taking into account the ripening season (early, middle or late) and fruit colour (green, purple or black).

Keywords


yield; brebas; fresh consumption; Spain

Full Text:

PDF

References


Abo-el-ez AT, Mostafa RAA, Ibtesam FMB, 2013. Growth and productivity of three fig (Ficus carica L.) cultivars grown under Upper Egypt conditions. Aust J Basic Appl Sci 7: 709-714.

Assaf R, 2001. Sélection des varieties locales et techniques de culture du figuier en Israël. Fruits 56 (2): 101-121. https://doi.org/10.1051/fruits:2001118

BOE, 2011. Order ARM/2935/2011, that established the inclusion of several varieties of different species in the Register of Commercial Varieties. Boletin oficial del Estado nº 262, 31/10/ 2011.

Botti C, Franck N, Prat L, Ioannidis D, 2003. The effect of climatic conditions on fresh fig fruit field quality and type of crop. Acta Hort 605: 37-42. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2003.605.4

Çalişkan O, Polat AA, 2008. Fruit characteristics of fig cultivars and genotypes grown in Turkey. Sci Hort 115: 360-367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2007.10.017

Çalişkan O, Polat AA, 2012. Effects of genotype and harvest year on phytochemical and fruit quality properties of Turkish fig genotypes. Span J Agric Res 10: 1048-1058. https://doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2012104-2652

Crisosto CH, Bremer V, Ferguson L, Crisosto GM, 2010. Evaluating quality attributes of four fresh fig (Ficus carica L.) cultivars harvested at two maturity stages. HortSci 45: 707-710.

Crisosto CH, Ferguson L, Bremer V, Stover E, Colelli G, 2011. Fig (Ficus carica L.). In: Postharvest biology and technology of tropical and subtropical fruits; Yahia EE (Ed.) Vol 3, pp: 134-158. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1533/9780857092885.134

Flaishman MA, Rodov V, Stover E, 2008. The Fig: Botany, horticulture and breeding. Hortic Rev 34: 113-197.

Giraldo E, Hormaza JI, López-Corrales M, 2008. Selection of morphological quantitative variables in the characterization of Ficus carica L. Acta Hort 798: 103-108. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2008.798.12

Giraldo E, López-Corrales M, Hormaza JI, 2010. Selection of the most discriminating morphological qualitative variables for characterisation of fig germplasm. J Am Hortic Sci 135 (3): 240-249.

Goldhamer D, Salinas M, 1999. Black Mission fig production improved by heavier irrigation. Calif Agric 53 (6): 30-34. https://doi.org/10.3733/ca.v053n06p30

Jones JB Jr, Wolf B, Mills HA, 1991. Plant analysis Handbook II. Micro-Macro Pbs. Athens. GA, USA. 253 pp.

Khamis MA, Bakry KA, El-Sayed ME, El-Husseiny AM, 2006. Evaluation of some fig cultivars in Egypt. 2- Fruiting and fruit quality. J Biol Chem Environ Sci 1: 105-116.

Kong M, Lampinen B, Ken S, Crisosto CH, 2013. Fruit skin side cracking and ostiole-end splitting shorten postharvest life in fresh figs (Ficus carica L.), but are reduced by deficit irrigation. Postharvest Biol Tec 85: 154-161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2013.06.004

Küden AB, Bayazit S, Çömlekcioglu S, 2008. Morphological and pomological characteristics of fig genotypes selected from Mediterranean and south east Anatolia regions. Acta Hort 798: 95-102. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2008.798.11

López-Corrales M, Gil M, Pérez F, Cortés J, Serradilla MJ, Chome PM, 2011. Variedades de higuera: descripción y registro de variedades. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Medio rural y Marino, Madrid.

">http://www.magrama.gob.es/

MAGRAMA, 2015. Anuario de estadística agroalimentaria 2014. Ministerio de Agricultura, Alimentación y Medio Ambiente, Madrid, Spain.

">http://www.magrama.gob.es/

Melgarejo P, 1996. La higuera (Ficus carica L.). Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, Orihuela, 83 pp.

Melgarejo P, 1998. El cultivo de la higuera (Ficus carica L.). Madrid Vicente A (ed), IRAGRA SA, Madrid.

Pearce SC, 1952. Studies in the measurement of apple trees. I. The use of trunk girth to estimate tree size. Annual Report of East Mailing Research Station for 1951. pp: 101-104.

Pereira C, Serradilla MJ, Martín A, Villalobos MC, Pérez-Gragera F, López-Corrales M, 2015. Agronomic behaviour and quality of six cultivars for fresh consumption. Sci Hort 185: 121-128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2015.01.026

Puebla M, Toribio F, Montes P, 2003. Determination of fruit bearing pruning date and cutting intensity in "San Pedro" (Ficus carica L.) type fig cultivars. Acta Hort 605: 147-157. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2003.605.23

Serrano M, Guillén F, Martínez-Romero D, Castillo S, Valero D, 2005. Chemical constituents and antioxidant of sweet cherry at different ripening stages. J Agric Food Chem 53: 2741-2745. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf0479160

Stover E, Aradhya M, Crisosto C, Ferguson F, 2007. Overview of the California fig industry and new interest in varieties for fresh fruit. Proc. Calif Plant Soil Conf: Opportunities for California Agriculture, Sacramento, CA, USA. pp: 169-175.

Tapia R, Botti C, Carrasco O, Prat L, Franck N, 2003. Effect of four irrigation rates on growth of six fig tree varieties. Acta Hort 605: 113-118. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2003.605.17

Valdés G, Escartín N, Lorente M, Malagón J, Bartual J, 2009. Evaluación agronómica y caracterización morfológica de material seleccionado de higuera para producción de brevas en Alicante. Acta Hortic 54: 135-138.

Valero D, Serrano M, 2013. Growth and ripening stage at harvest modulates postharvest quality and bioactive compounds with antioxidant activity. Stewart Postharvest Rev 3 (5): 1-8. https://doi.org/10.2212/spr.2013.3.7

Villalobos MC, 2015. Estudio para la prolongación de la vida útil de variedades de higos y brevas interesantes para consumo en fresco y seco y estudio de técnicas alternativas para el secado de higos. Doctoral thesis. Univ de Extremadura, Badajoz, Spain.

Villalobos MC, Serradilla MJ, Martín A, Ruiz-Moyano S, Pereira C, Córdoba MG, 2014. Use of equilibrium modified atmosphere packaging for preservation of 'San Antonio' and 'Banane' breba crops (Ficus carica L.). Postharvest Biol Tec 98: 14-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2014.07.001




DOI: 10.5424/sjar/2017153-10403