Morphological diversity on fruit characteristics among some selected mulberry genotypes from Turkey.
Byline: K. U. Yilmaz, Y. Zengin, S. Ercisli, M. N. Demirtas, T. Kan and A. R. Nazli
ABSTRACT
Turkey has important mulberry genetic resources. In contrast to the other mulberry producing countries, in Turkey mulberry tree is used only for fruit production not for sericulture purposes. Some selected morphological fruit characteristics such as seed formation, fruit weight, SSC (Soluble solid content), titratable acidity, juice yield and pH of 34 selected mulberry genotypes found together in an ex-situ collection parcel in Malatya Fruit Research Institute in Turkey were investigated. The collection parcel has been established in 1996 year with 3×5 m row spacing. The morphological fruit characteristics are represented of 3 years average data (2006-2008). The results showed that there were big differences among genotypes in terms of most of the fruit characteristics.
Fruit weight varied from 0.66 (Istanbul dutu 2) to 3.07 (Gumushaci beyaz); SSC varied from 17.33% (Erzincan karadut 16) to 30.67% (Lokum dut); titratable acidity varied from 0.06% (Angut 9) to 1.62% (Gumushaci karadut 8) and pH varied from 2.19 (Kemaliye karadut 9) to 5.86 (Mersin mor dut), respectively.
Key words: Mulberry, biodiversity, plant science, fruit characteristics.
INTRODUCTION
Mulberries are found from temperate to subtropical regions of the Northern hemisphere to the tropics of the Southern hemisphere and they can grow in a wide range of climatic, topographical and soil conditions. These are widely spread throughout all regions from the tropics to the sub-arctic and from sea level to altitudes as high as 4000 m in the world (Tutin 1996).
Morus is a complex genus, which belongs to Moraceae. According to plant scientists, it’s includes 12 (Freeman 1978); 14 (Huo 2002); 30 (Martin et al. 2002) or 68 species (Datta 2002). Among species, Morus alba (white mulberry), Morus nigra (black mulberry) and Morus rubra (red mulberry) are wide spread throughout world. Morus alba originated in Southwest China, Morus rubra originated in North America and Morus nigra originated in Iran (Datta 2002; Ercisli 2004; Machii et al. 2000).
Turkey is accepted an important germplasm center for mulberries and almost all parts of Anatolia has own characteristic mulberry production. Mulberry trees from M. alba (white or purple colored mulberry), M. nigra (black bulberry), M. rubra (red bulberry), and M. laevigata (long-fruited mulberry) can be found in Turkey but among them M. alba is the dominant species in cultivation (95%) (Ercisli 2004). Indeed, mulberry species have been known and cultivated in Turkey for more than 400 years (Ercisli and Orhan 2007).
In Turkey, mulberry trees are mainly grown for fruit production. A few mulberry trees are used for sericulture purposes in Bursa and Eskisehir provinces. Therefore productivity of trees and fruit characteristics both in quantitative and qualitative aspects is the long- term goal for mulberry breeders in Turkey. As well known, the genetic improvement of any fruit species depends on the availability of genetic variability in germplasm. Selection of suitable genotypes from gene pool requires a thorough knowledge on fruit characters of different genotypes for utilizing them in hybridization studies.
The breeding efforts on mulberries in Turkey made so far were restricted to selection of relevant genotypes from different regions (Cam 2000; Erdogan 2003; Koyuncu 2004). In fact the mulberry improvement programme on sound scientific base have just started in the early 1990’s in Turkey, the scientist could able to identify a lot of promising clones in different part of Turkey (Erdogan 2003; Gunes and Cekic 2004; Koyuncu 2004; Lale and Ozcagiran 1996; Ozdemir and Topuz 1998). Different research institutes belongs to Ministry of Agriculture and collaboration with different universities selected promising mulberry genotypes mostly from Morus alba (white mulberry), Morus nigra (black mulberry) and Morus rubra (red mulberry) through conventional selection breeding studies. A few germplasm collections in different parts of Turkey with selected promising genotypes have been established.
However there was no study on the morphological characterization of mulberry germplasm collections in Turkey so far. Therefore the aim of this study to make morphological characterization of mulberry germplasm found in Malatya-Turkey.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Collection and preparation of mulberry fruit samples: In 1988 year, the mulberry survey and selection studies were started aimed to find mulberries which had high productivity capacity and better fruit characteristics. Up to 1996 years, 34 promising genotypes has been selected and in 1996 year a collection parcel with these selected genotypes has been established with 3×5 m row distances including 3 trees per genotypes. During 2006, 2007 and 2008 years, several fruit characteristics of these 34 genotypes were investigated. There were no statistical significant differences in the fruit characteristics being analyzed in consequence three years; therefore the data of the different years were pooled. All berries were picked ripe stage which selected according to uniformity of shape and color then transported to laboratory for analysis.
Determination of seed formation, fruit weight, SSC (Soluble solid content), titratable acidity, juice yield and pH of mulberry fruits: 50 fruits from each genotype were used for analyses. Fruit weight was measured by using a digital balance with a sensitivity of 0.001 g. The fruit juice yield and titratable acidity were determined by AOAC (1). Soluble solid contents (SSC) were determined by a refractometer. The pH measurements were made using a digital pH meter. Panelists determined seed formation.
Statistical analysis: The experiment was a completely randomized design with four replications. Data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) and means were separated by Duncan multiple range test at P less than 0.05 significant level.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Species, seed formation, fruit weight, SSC (Soluble solid content), titratable acidity, juice yield and pH in the mulberry fruits: Among 34 mulberry genotypes, 28 genotypes were belonging to Morus alba, 4 genotypes belongs to Morus nigra and 2 genotype belong to Morus rubra (Table 1). In fact, among mulberry species found in Turkey, Morus alba is the dominant species in cultivation (95%) (Ercisli 2004). Turkish growers prefer this species because of its better fruit properties for processing into very special mulberry products such as ‘Mulberry pekmez’, ‘Mulberry kome’ and ‘Mulberry pestil’ (Ercisli and Orhan 2008; Ozgen et al. 2009).
The seed formation, fruit weight, SSC (Soluble solid content), titratable acidity, juice yield and pH of selected 34 mulberry genotypes are given in Table 1. There were statistical differences in terms of seed formation, fruit weight, SSC (Soluble solid content), titratable acidity, juice yield and pH content among mulberry genotypes (Table 1).
Among mulberry genotypes Angut 4, Angut 9, Meloz 10, Topuz beyaz 2, Istanbul dutu 1, Istanbul dutu 2 and Lokum dut was found to be seedless (Table 1). The other genotypes had low, medium and high level of seeds. The seedless mulberry fruits are preferred for dried in Turkey. However these fruits can not be used to produce seedling rootstocks Average fruit weight values of mulberry genotypes ranged between 0.66 g (Istanbul dutu 2, 24-12) and 3.07 g (Gumushaci beyaz) (Table 1). Previously, fruit weight of mulberry genotypes grown in different agro- climatic region of Turkey was reported between 0.90-3.82 g (Aslan 1998; Cam 2000; Lale and Ozcagiran 1996; Ozdemir and Topuz 1998).
The highest SSC content was observed in Lokum dut genotype as 30.67%, while the lowest was in Erzincan karadut 16 (17.33%). The SSC content of genotypes belongs to Morus alba were average over 25%. Fan et al. (1988), Gerasopoulos and Stavroulakis (1997) and Gunes and Cekic (2004) reported that SSC content strongly varied among mulberry species. Lale and Ozcagiran (1996) and Ozdemir and Topuz (1998) indicated that SSC content was the highest in Morus alba genotypes compared to Morus nigra and Morus rubra.
According to 3 years average values, the pH of genotypes were the highest in Morus rubra genotype ‘Mersin mor dut’ as 5.86 and the lowest in Morus nigra genotype ‘Kemaliye karadut 9’ as 2.19 (Table 1). According to Gunes and Cekic (2004) pH is strongly varied among Morus alba, Morus rubra and Morus nigra. Lale and Ozcagiran (1996) and Ozdemir and Topuz (1998) revealed that Morus species can be classified according to pH values in order Morus alba greater than Morus rubra greater than Morus nigra.
The differences in fruit juice yield among different genotypes were statistically significant (p less than 0.05, Table 1). The genotype ‘Erzincan karadut 16’ had the highest fruit juice yield (72%). The lowest fruit juice yield was observed in genotype ‘Gumushaci beyaz’ as 39% (Table 1). All black mulberries (Morus nigra), except Hikmet 1 had the higher fruit juice yield ratio than Morus alba and Morus rubra genotypes. Morus nigra preferred for processing into mulberry juice in Turkey. Indeed, mulberry fruit juice industry is a new developing industry in Turkey, not surprisingly, using only Morus nigra fruits. Morus nigra fruits are also has good combination of SSC and acidity and therefore it is also preferred as fresh fruit (Ercisli and Orhan 2007). Traditionally Morus nigra fruits have been frequently
Table 1. Fruit characteristics of mulberry genotypes
###Species###Seed###Fruit weight SSC###Acidity###Juice yield###pH
Genotypes###formation###(g)###(%)###(%)###(%)
Sebinkarahisar###M. alba###Medium###1.40g-j###27.50a-d###0.23ef###64.67b###5.11abc
Poser###M. alba###Low###1.64d-g###23.50c-h###0.16fg###56.00e-h###4.87bc
Kolik###M. alba###Low###1.20ijk###28.40abc###0.17fg###49.67ij###4.86bc
Gemirgap 5###M. alba###Low###1.14jk###25.00b-g###0.19fg###46.67jkl###5.23abc
Gemirgap 6###M. alba###Low###0.86lmn###26.27a-e###0.15fg###55.67e-h###5.31abc
Akdut 2###M. alba###High###2.53b###19.00h-j###0.13gh###46.67jkl###5.22abc
Angut 3###M. alba###Medium###2.57b###24.67b-g###0.31d###45.33j-m###4.57c
Angut 4###M. alba###Seedless###1.16jk###26.83a-e###0.13gh###53.00f-i###5.49ab
Angut 7###M. alba###Low###2.03c###22.33e-i###0.13gh###61.67b-e###5.41abc
Angut 9###M. alba###Seedless###0.75mn###25.50b-f###0.06h###56.00e-h###5.30abc
Arapgir 11###M. alba###Low###2.39b###27.97abc###0.16fg###50.33hij###5.21abc
Arapgir 12###M. alba###Medium###2.08c###26.83a-e###0.13gh###61.67b-e###5.32abc
Meloz 10###M. alba###Seedless###0.98klm###22.77d-h###0.14gh###56.33e-h###5.53ab
Topuz beyaz 1###M. alba###Low###0.94k-n###29.40ab###0.15fg###57.33def###5.51ab
Topuz beyaz 2###M. alba###Seedless###0.97klm###26.07a-f###0.15fg###58.67c-f###5.37abc
Istanbul dutu 1###M. alba###Seedless###0.68mn###27.67a-d###0.17fg###51.00g-j###5.19abc
Istanbul dutu 2###M. alba###Seedless###0.66n###24.67b-g###0.13gh###42.00lm###5.37abc
Tosya beyaz###M. alba###Low###3.04a###25.00b-g###0.14fgh###54.67f-i###5.46abc
Kastamonu beyaz###M. alba###Medium###2.07c###19.03hij###0.11gh###62.33bcd###5.39abc
Gumushaci beyaz###M. alba###Low###3.07a###17.80ij###0.15fg###40.67m###5.41abc
Amasya beyaz###M. alba###Low###1.40g-j###26.50a-e###0.13gh###51.00g-j###5.43abc
Sebil beyaz dut###M. alba###Low###1.69d-g###24.17c-g###0.27de###57.67def###5.36abc
Lokum dut###M. alba###Seedless###1.20ijk###30.67a###0.18fg###43.33klm###5.15abc
Yediveren###M. alba###Low###2.56b###25.00b-g###0.90c###57.67def###5.17abc
Elazig iri cekirdekli M. alba###Medium###0.96klm###28.33abc###0.13gh###53.00f-i###5.11abc
Elazig cekirdekli###M. alba###Medium###0.79mn###27.00a-e###0.13gh###48.67ijk###5.46abc
Cekirdekli 6-14###M. alba###Medium###1.75def###26.00a-f###0.15fg###53.00f-i###5.36abc
cekirdekli mor dut###M. alba###Medium###1.29hij###24.67b-g###0.17fg###49.00ijk###5.30abc
Mersin mor dut###M. rubra###Low###1.51fgh###25.67a-f###0.12gh###50.33hij###5.86a
Dortyol mor dut###M. rubra###Medium###1.88cd###25.17b-f###0.12gh###42.00lm###5.60ab
Erzincan karadut, 16###M. nigra###Medium###1.60d-g###17.33j###1.44b###72.00a###3.10d
Kemaliye karadut 9###M. nigra###Medium###1.49f-i###18.00ij###1.48b###65.33b###2.19e
Gumushaci karadut 8###M. nigra###Medium###1.80cde###20.17g-j###1.62a###63.67bc###2.25e
Hikmet 1###M. nigra###Medium###1.58e-h###21.17f-j###0.86c###57.00d-g###3.29d
Values in the same column with different lower-case letters are significantly different at P less than 0.05.
using to treat mouth lesions in Turkey so a long time as well (Baytop 1996; Kafkas et al., 2008).
The titratable acidity values of mulberry genotypes are shown in Table 1. The highest acidity was observed in Morus nigra genotype ‘Gumushaci Karadut’ as 1.62%, while the lowest acidity was in Morus alba genotype ‘Angut 009’ as 0.06%. In general, Morus nigra genotypes had higher acidity values compared to Morus rubra and Morus alba genotypes (Table 1). Gerasopoulos and Stavroulakis (1997), Lale and Ozcagiran (1996), Ozdemir and Topuz (1998) and Gunes and Cekic (2004) reported that Morus nigra genotypes had the highest acidity values.
Our fruit weight, SSC, titratable acidity, juice yield and pH results in general were within limits of these studies. The variation of fruit weight, SSC, acidity, juice yield and pH in mulberry fruits could be due to different species, genotypes and rootstocks used as well. However the difference of the mulberry genotypes in terms of above characteristics is supposed to its genetic derivation as well because all plants found same age and ecological conditions. It is previously reported that plant genotype (Scalzo et al. 2005) effect the content of berry group fruits.
As a conclusion it can be said that the most divergent genotypes obtained in this study can be used in future breeding studies.
REFERENCES
AOAC. (1984) Officials methods of analysis (14th edition). VA, USA: Association of Official Analytical Chemist, Arlington.
Aslan M. M. (1998) Selection of promising mulberry genotypes from Malatya, Elazig, Erzincan and Tunceli region of Turkey. MSc Thesis. Cukurova University, Department of Horticulture, Adana, p. 69.
Baytop T. (1996) Turkiye’de Bitkiler ile Tedavi. I.U. Yayinlari No:3255, Eczacilik Fak., 40:444 (in Turkish).
Cam I. (2000). Selection of promising mulberry genotypes from Edremit and Gevas district of Turkey. MSc Thesis. Yuzuncu Yil University, Department of Horticulture, Van, p 53.
Datta R. K. (2002) Mulberry cultivation and utilization. in India. Mulberry for Animal Production, FAO. Animal Production and Health Paper 147: 45-62
Ercisli S. (2004) A short review of the fruit germplasm resources of Turkey. Genet. Res. Crop Evol., 51, 419-435.
Ercisli S and E. Orhan (2007) Chemical composition of white (Morus alba), red (Morus rubra) and black (Morus nigra) mulberry fruits. Food Chem., 103, 1380-1384.
Ercisli S and E. Orhan (2008). Some physico-chemical characteristics of black mulberry (Morus nigra L.) genotypes from Northeast Anatolia region of Turkey. Sci. Hort., 116, 41-46.
Erdogan U. (2003) Selection of mulberries (Morus spp.) naturally grown in Ispir and Pazaryolu districts. Ataturk University 190 p, Erzurum-Turkey.
Fan K. Z., H. Z. Song, R.Y. Sun (1988) Mulberries for fruit in shandong province. Zuowu Pinzhong Ziyuan 67,5, 40-49.
Freeman W. H. (1978) Temparate-zone pomology. W. H. Freeman and Company, San Fransisco. 428. Gerasopoulos D., G. Stavroulakis (1997) Quality characteristics of four mulberry (Morus sp.) cultivars in the area of Chania, Greace. J. Sci. Food Agric. 73 (2), 261-264.
Gunes M., C. Cekic (2004) Some chemical and physical properies of fruit of different mulberry species commonly grown in Anatolia, Turkey. Asian J. Chem. 16 (3), 1849-1855.
Huo Y. (2002) Mulberry cultivation and utilization in China, mulberry for animal production, FAO Animal Production and Healt Paper 147, 11-44.
Kafkas S., M. Ozgen, Y. Dogan, B. Ozcan, S. Ercisli, S. Serce (2008) Molecular characterization of mulberry accessions in Turkey by AFLP Markers. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 133, 593-597.
Koyuncu F. (2004) Morphological and agronomical characterization of native black mulberry (Morus nigra L.) in Sutculer, Turkey. IPGRI News Lett. 138, 32-35.
Lale H., R. Ozcagiran (1996) A study on the phonological, pomological and fruit properties of mulberry species. Derim, 13(4),177-182.
Machii H., A. Koyama, H. Yamanouchi (2000) FAO Electronic Conference: Mulberry for animal production. Available from http:// www. fao. org/ livestock/agap/frg/mulberry.
Martin G., F. Reyes, I. Hernandez, M. Milera (2002) Agronomic studies with mulberry in Cuba. Mulberry for animal production, FAO animal production and health paper, 147, 103-114.
Ozdemir F., A. Topuz (1998) Some chemical composition of mulberries grown in Antalya. Derim, 15 (1), 30-35.
Ozgen M., S. Serce, C. Kaya (2009) Phytochemical and antioxidant properties of anthocyanin-rich Morus nigra and Morus rubra fruits Sci. Hort. 119, 275-279
Scalzo J., A. Politi, N. Pellegrini, B. Mezzetti, M. Battino (2005) Plant genotype affects total antioxidant capacity and phenolic contents in fruit. Nutrition, 21, 207-213.
Tutin G. T. (1996) Morus L. In: Tutin, G.T., Burges, N.A., Chater, A.O., Edmondson, J.R., Heywood, V.H., Moore, D.M., Valentine, D.H., Walters, S.M., and Webb, D.A., editors. Flora Europa, Vol 1. Psilotaceae to Platanaceae, 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press, Australia.
Erciyes University, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Horticulture 38039 Kayseri, Turkey; Malatya Fruit Research, Institute, 44100 Malatya, Turkey; Ataturk University, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Horticulture, 25240, Erzurum, Turkey; Inonu University, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Horticulture, 44200 Malatya, Turkey; Corresponding Author email: sercisli@gmail.com
