Characterization of promising apricot (Prunus armeniaca L.) genetic ...

Springer 2006

Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution (2007) 54:205–212 DOI 10.1007/s10722-005-3809-9

Characterization of promising apricot (Prunus armeniaca L.) genetic resources in Malatya, Turkey Bayram Murat Asma1,*, Tuncay Kan2 and Ogu¨n Birhanlı3 1

Biology Department, Faculty of Science and Literature, Ino¨nu¨ University, 44280 Malatya, Turkey; 2Apricot Research Centre, Ino¨nu¨ University, 44280 Malatya, Turkey; 3Department of Life Sciences, Faculty of Education, Ino¨nu¨ University, 44280 Malatya, Turkey; *Author for correspondence (e-mail: basma@inonu. edu.tr; phone: +90-422-341-0010, extn 3732; fax: +90-422-341-0037)

Received 20 April 2005; accepted in revised form 30 September 2005

Key words: Breeding, Dry apricot, Fruit quality, Genetic resources, Prunus armeniaca L.

Abstract The study here was conducted on nearly 12,000 apricot seedlings in the Malatya Region in the Eastern part of Turkey. This region is famous for its horticulture based mainly on apricot production and the Country’s highest apricot production originates from this region. The flower and fruit characteristics of all populations, which include apricot seedlings, in the region were evaluated. Based on their horticultural performances, 13 genotypes were selected, of which seven were considered as apricots served in dried form and six as in table consumption form. Among the selected genotypes, the fruit weight ranged between 28.5 and 71.19 g, soluble solids ranged between 12.7 and 26.5%, while the range in total acidity was between 0.35 and 1.80% and fruit development period was between 87 and 183 days. To determine the selected genotypes performance in a similar environment, they were grafted on to 4-year-old rootstocks. The results from these combinations showed that there was some decrease, especially in fruit size and soluble solids, in the genotypes performance when compared to the results of the initial observations. Some differences were also detected in taste, fruit shape, pit shape, fruit flesh firmness, skin and flesh colors. The dry fruit yield was determined as 22.50–28.36% for the selected dry apricot genotypes. The dry fruit yield of all seven genotypes considered for dry consumption were similar to ‘Hacıhalilog˘lu’ and higher than ‘Canino’, which were evaluated as control cultivars.

Introduction Turkey has a great deal of ecological diversity, which contributes not only to a high genetic diversity, but also allows the successful introduction and cultivation of a great number of fruit tree taxa as well (Ercisli 2004). One such fruit species, grown in Anatolia and having a significant economic value is apricot, Prunus armeniaca

L. Apricots are grown in almost all parts of Turkey, except in the very humid region around the Black Sea and cold mountainous area of Anatolia. The most important apricot growing region is Eastern Anatolia (O¨zbek 1978). Malatya is located in the Anatolian region, and is the most important apricot production center of the country. In 2002, Turkey ranked first in fresh apricot production with 580 thousand tons of production (FAO

206 2003). Fifty percent of Turkish fresh apricot production and 90–95% of Turkish dried apricot production are in the Malatya region. Every year in the Malatya region, approximately 250–400 thousand tons of fresh apricot production and 50– 100 thousand tons of dried apricot production are achieved from the total of 6.2 million apricot trees (Anonymous 2004). Local apricots in Turkey have been included in the Iran–Caucasian group for which limited information exists (Mehlenbacher et al. 1991). Many centuries of seed propagation in this region (Turkey) has lead to a rich genetic resource for this crop. Although, a number of native apricot seedlings (known as ‘zerdali’) constituted up to 60% of all apricot trees in 1970s, today this ratio has decreased to about 25% (Asma 2000). The goals of the breeding program are to select promising genotypes from these seedlings for high fruit quality, resistance to late spring frost, late flowering, and an extended ripening season (Akça and S¸en 1993; Ayanog˘lu and Kaska 1995; Bolat and Gu¨leryu¨z 1995; Bostan et al. 1995; Gu¨leryu¨z 1995; Balta et al. 2002; Kazankaya 2002). Characterization of such seedlings for phenological, pomological and botanical traits resulted in selection of some promising genotypes and helped to extend the apricot production area in Turkey. This study was performed to select native apricot seedlings in Malatya region and to characterize them with respect to fruit and tree characteristics for future breeding studies. We were also interested in fruit quality parameters as drying and sulfur treatment.

Materials and methods This study was conducted on approximately 12,000 seedling apricot trees from the Malatya region during 1999 and 2000 (Stage I Selection). For a period of two harvest seasons, 50 fruits from each plant were collected and their pomological characteristics were determined. Fruit properties such as fruit weight (g), pit weight (g), kernel weight (g), soluble solid content (%), total acidity (%), pH, skin color, flesh color, fruit taste, fruit firmness, fruit shape, pit shape, pit separation, kernel flavor, and phenological characteristics such as bud break, first flowering, full flowering, end of flowering, harvest date, and period of fruit

development were described (Guerriero and Watkins 1984; Audergon 1995; Gu¨leryu¨z 1995). Selected apricot genotypes were budded on 4year-old apricot trees in the year of 2000, and first fruits were harvested in 2002. Similar to the Stage I, the Stage II selection was also carried out on the same plants regarding the phenological and pomological traits stated above. Genotypes selected for dry consumption were subjected to drying tests. After harvest, the fruits were treated with sulfur by burning elemental sulfur in an enclosed chamber for 8 h. Ten grams of sulfur per 5 kg fresh fruits was used. After treatment with sulfur, they were dried in the sun, until moisture content was reduced to 25% threshold. Dry fruit yield (%) was calculated according to the following formula: amount of adjusted dried apricot/amount of fresh apricot · 100 (Akça et al. 1999). The fruit skin color in dried apricot germplasm was determined according to the Hunter method and was indicated as CIE L*a*b* (O¨zkan et al. 2003). The sulphur content was determined according to the Monier Williams Method (Anonymous 1992). Several cultivars, ‘Hacıhalilog˘lu’, ‘Hasanbey’, ‘Canino’, and ‘Stark Early Orange’, were evaluated as controls during the study. Seventy-three percent of the tree population in Malatya is ‘Hacıhalilog˘lu’, which is the most important drying apricot cultivar in Turkey. However, ‘Hacıhalilog˘lu’ is susceptible to late spring frost, monilia (Sclerotinia laxa) and temperature fluctuations (Gu¨lcan et al. 1999; Asma 2000). ‘Canino’ is a Spanish cultivar and ‘Hasanbey’ is from Turkey. Fruits from both of these cultivars are consumed both in fresh (table consumption form) and in dry form. The fruit from ‘Stark Early Orange’, an American cultivar, is consumed in fresh form.

Results and discussion Table 1 presents phenological characteristics for apricot genotypes in Stage I Selection. The apricot genotypes bud broke from 15–23 February in 1999 and 1–7 March in 2000. The time of first flowering occurred 9–13 March in 1999 and 17– 22 March in 2000. Full flowering was between 14 and 19 March in 1999 and 22 and 28 March in 2000. Bud break, first flowering, full flowering and end of flowering resembled control apricot

207 Table 1. Phenological characteristics of apricot genotypes (1999–2000). Germplasm

44 K 01 44 K 02 44 K 04 44 K 05 44 K 07 44 K 08 44 K 14 44 K 23 44 K 43 44 K 60 44 K 64 44 K 71 44 K 79 ‘Hacıhaliloglu’* ‘Hasanbey’* ‘S.Early Orange* ‘Canino’*

Bud break

First flowering

Full flowering

1999

2000

1999

2000

1999

2000

1999

2000

1999

2000

1999

2000

17 19 15 23 20 20 19 18 16 20 17 15 16 19 17 20 17

2 1 5 7 5 4 3 3 5 7 5 2 4 2 1 3 2

10 Ma 9 Ma 12 Ma 11 Ma 9 Ma 13 Ma 11 Ma 9 Ma 10 Ma 12 Ma 13 Ma 10 Ma 10 Ma 11 Ma 11 Ma 13 Ma 10 Ma

18 17 21 20 20 21 22 19 20 20 21 19 19 20 19 21 20

15 16 18 18 15 19 17 14 18 19 19 16 15 16 15 17 15

23 25 26 26 24 28 25 22 25 27 27 23 22 25 23 25 24

21 23 25 25 20 27 26 19 22 23 24 20 20 23 22 23 23

28 Ma 30 Ma 2 Apr 1 Apr 30 Ma 3 Apr 2 Apr 26 Ma 28 Ma 2 Apr 2 Apr 26 Ma 27 Ma 29 Ma 28 Ma 30 Ma 28 Ma

12 Jun 15 Jul 4 Jul 1 Jul 2 Jul 28 Jun 5 Jul 13 Sep 1 Jul 3 Jul 3 Jul 3 Jul 5 Jul 4 Jul 23 Jun 23 Jun 16 Jun

18 Jun 23 Jul 13 Jul 8 Jul 11 Jul 6 Jul 12 Jul 20 Sep 8 Jul 10 Jul 9 Jul 8 Jul 12 Jul 12 Jul 28 Jun 28 Jun 22 Jun

89 91 108 105 109 103 110 183 105 106 106 109 112 110 100 98 93

87 90 106 104 108 100 108 181 105 105 105 107 112 109 97 96 90

Feb Feb Feb Feb Feb Feb Feb Feb Feb Feb Feb Feb Feb Feb Feb Feb Feb

Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma Ma



End of flowering



Harvest

Period of fruit development

*The control apricot cultivars were ‘Hacihaliloglu’, ‘Hasanbey’, ‘Stark Early Orange’, and ‘Canino’. Feb, February; Ma, March; Apr, April; Jun, June; Jul, July; Sep, September.

cultivars. An eight to ten day variation in phenological phases was observed during the 2 years of the study. Spring frost adversely affects apricot trees in the Malatya region, and, the total apricot production fluctuates according to occurrence and severity of spring frosts (Kadıoglu 1977; Asma and Kan 2004). In this region, late spring frosts end around mid-April, and as all the genotypes bloom before early April, they were all under the risk of spring frost damage. We experienced such a frost on 4–5 April 2004 during which the temperature dropped to 3.6 C, and saw that apricot cultivars and selections were affected differently. It is promising that some of the selections were less adversely affected by this frost than the cultivars. However, we need quantitative data and some additional research to support our this preliminary findings which were based on one observation. The earliest harvest was for 44 K 01 genotype on 12 and 18 June (1999 and 2000, respectively), with a fruit development period 89 and 87 days (1999 and 2000, respectively). The latest harvest date was 13 and 20 September (1999 and 2000, respectively) for 44 K 23, with a fruit development period of 183 and 181 days (1999 and 2000, respectively), making it a very late cultivar.

Although ripening date of cultivars vary according to altitude, most of them mature between the end of June and the beginning of August (Ercisli 2004). Bolat and Gu¨leryu¨z (1995) reported that the maturation in some wild apricots occurs in late September at the Erzincan Plain. Among the control cultivars, the earliest harvest was 16 and 22 June (1999 and 2000, respectively) on ‘Canino’ with the fruit development period of 93 days in 1999 and 90 days in 2000. The fruit characteristics of apricot genotypes of Stage I selection are presented in Tables 2 and 3. The fruit weight ranged from 28.5 to 71.10 g. The genotypes 44 K 07, 44 K 05, 44 K 43 and 44 K 08 had the highest weights. Of the control cultivars, the highest fruit weight was from ‘Hasanbey’ (47.2 g), while ‘Hacıhalilog˘lu’ had the smallest fruits (32.5 g). In a similar study, the fruit weight among the promising genotypes of the Lake Van region ranged from 24.2–48.3 g (Balta et al. 2002). There were also large variations in pit weight and kernel weight between apricot genotypes. 44 K 07 had the highest pit weight (3.9 g) and kernel weight (0.9 g). Soluble solids varied from 12.7% (44 K 01) to 26.5% (44 K 05). Most of the apricot genotypes, excluding these, had soluble solids values higher than 20%. The lowest acidity was in 44 K 71

208 Table 2. Fruit characteristics of apricot genotypes in Stage I Selection (1999–2000). Genotype

Fruit weight (g)

Pit weight (g)

Kernel weight (g)

Soluble solids (%)

Total acidity (%)

pH

44 K 01 44 K 02 44 K 04 44 K 05 44 K 07 44 K 08 44 K 14 44 K 23 44 K 43 44 K 60 44 K 64 44 K 71 44 K 79 ‘Hacihaliloglu’* ‘Hasanbey’* ‘S. Early Orange’* ‘Canino’*

36.8 ± 1.8 29.1 ± 2.0 31.1 ± 2.6 52.7 ± 2.4 71.1 ± 3.5 40.3 ± 1.5 34.2 ± 2.1 28.5 ± 2.9 42.9 ± 2.1 39.0 ± 1.4 35.8 ± 1.6 31.4 ± 1.2 29.5 ± 2.0 32.5 ± 1.5 47.2 ± 2.1 40.5 ± 1.6 38.5 ± 1.2

2.6 ± 0.1 3.1 ± 0.2 1.9 ± 0.1 3.5 ± 0.2 3.9 ± 0.2 2.7 ± 0.2 2.2 ± 0.2 2.1 ± 0.1 2.9 ± 0.2 2.6 ± 0.1 2.2 ± 0.2 1.9 ± 0.2 1.9 ± 0.2 2.0 ± 0.1 2.5 ± 0.2 2.6 ± 0.2 2.2± 0.1

0.8 ± 0.1 0.8 ± 0.1 0.5 ± 0.1 0.7 ± 0.1 0.9 ± 0.1 0.6 ± 0.1 0.6 ± 0.1 0.6 ± 0.1 0.7 ± 0.1 0.6 ± 0.1 0.5 ± 0.1 0.5 ± 0.1 0.5 ± 0.1 0.6 ± 0.1 0.7 ± 0.1 0.7 ± 0.1 0.6 ± 0.1

12.7 ± 0.9 13.5 ± 0.7 26.2 ± 0.7 26.5 ± 0.6 25.2 ± 0.7 24.5 ± 0.5 25.8 ± 0.8 22.0 ± 0.6 20.1 ± 0.5 21.5 ± 0.4 19.7 ± 0.3 25.2 ± 0.3 26.1 ± 0.3 26.6 ± 0.2 21.1 ± 0.3 14.8 ± 0.2 18.5 ± 0.2

1.80 1.95 0.55 0.45 0.50 0.70 0.52 0.95 0.75 0.65 0.70 0.35 0.40 0.30 0.25 1.15 0.95

3.3 3.3 3.7 3.7 3.5 3.5 3.8 3.7 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.7 3.6 3.9 3.8 3.3 3.5

*The control apricot cultivars were ‘Hacihaliloglu’, ‘Hasanbey’, ‘Stark Early Orange’, and ‘Canino’.

Table 3. Fruit characteristics of apricot genotypes in Stage I Selection (1999–2000). Genotype

Fruit taste

Kernel flavor

Fruit shape

Pit shape

Fruit firmness

Skin color

Flesh color

Pit separation

Usage

44 K 01 44 K 02 44 K 04 44 K 05 44 K 07 44 K 08 44 K 14 44 K 23 44 K 43 44 K 60 44 K 64 44 K 71 44 K 79 ‘Hacihaliloglu*’ ‘Hasanbey’* ‘S. Early Orange’* ‘Canino’*

Middle Middle Good Good Good Good Good Middle Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good

Bitter Bitter Sweet Sweet Sweet Sweet Sweet Bitter Sweet Sweet Bitter Sweet Sweet Sweet Sweet Bitter Bitter

Oblong Ovate Oblong Ovate Oblong Ovate Ovate Elliptic Elliptic Round Elliptic Ovate Ovate Ovate Oblong Round Ovate

Oblong Ovate Oblong Ovate Oblong Ovate Ovate Elliptic Elliptic Round Elliptic Ovate Ovate Ovate Oblong Round Ovate

Soft Good Good Good Middle Middle Good Middle Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Soft Soft

Yellow Orange Yellow Yellow Yellow Yellow Yellow Yellow Yellow Orange Orange Yellow Yellow Yellow Yellow Orange Yellow

Yellow Orange Yellow Yellow Yellow Yellow Yellow Yellow Yellow Orange Orange Yellow Yellow Yellow Yellow Orange Yellow

Semi-Joint Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Free

Fresh Fresh Dried Dried Dried Dried Dried Fresh Fresh Fresh Fresh Dried Dried Dried Fresh + Dried Fresh Fresh + Dried


(0.35%), followed by 44 K 79 (0.40%). The majority of the genotypes had acidity lower than 1%. All genotypes (except 44 K 01, 44 K 02 and 44 K 23) had sweet kernel flavor. Most of the apricot genotypes in Turkey have small fruits, sweet seeds, yellow fruit and flesh color and high soluble solids (Asma and O¨ztu¨rk 2005). Fruit firmness varied from soft to good. The majority of genotypes had good fruit taste and pit separation was free in all

genotypes, except 44 K 01. Skin and flesh colors of selected genotypes were yellow or orange. Attractive, well colored and medium-sized fruits are desired for apricot cultivar breeding (Bailey and Hough 1975). In this study, most of the genotypes have desirable fruit color, fruit size, taste and/or aroma and fruit flesh firmness. Likewise, the genotypes considered as dry type have high soluble solids.

209 The fruit characteristics of apricot cultivars from Stage II Selection are presented in Tables 4 and 5. Some variations were recorded at this stage. Overall, the genotypes in Stage II did not perform as well as genotypes in Stage I in terms of fruit size and soluble solids (Figures 1 and 2). The decrease in fruit size for 44 K 07 and 44 K 05 was most notable. Likewise, soluble solids decreased in 44 K 04, 44 K 05, 44 K 08, 44 K 23, 44 K 43, 44 K 60 and 44 K 79. There were also

differences between Stage I and II for taste, fruit shape, and fruit flesh firmness, and skin and flesh color. The fruit characteristics of post sulfur-treated and dried apricots are presented in Table 6. The dry fruit yield was highest for the genotypes 44 K 14 (28.36%), 44 K 04 (27.34%), and 44 K 71 (27.72%). Among the control cultivars, the dry fruit yield were 27.70% for ‘Hacıhalilog˘lu’ and 19.12% for ‘Canino’.

Table 4. Fruit characteristics of apricot genotypes in Stage II Selection (2003–2004). Genotype

Fruit weight (g)

Pit weight (g)

Kernel weight (g)

Soluble solids (%)

Total acidity (%)

pH

44 K 01 44 K 02 44 K 04 44 K 05 44 K 07 44 K 08 44 K 14 44 K 23 44 K 43 44 K 60 44 K 64 44 K 71 44 K 79 ‘Hacihaliloglu’* ‘Hasanbey’* ‘S.Early Orange’* ‘Canino’*

31.0 ± 1.1 30.4 ± 1.9 33.7 ± 1.5 41.9 ± 1.2 58.4 ± 1.7 38.3 ± 1.1 30.7 ± 1.0 23.5 ± 0.8 45.4 ± 1.6 34.3 ± 1.2 31.3 ± 1.2 25.6 ± 0.9 24.5 ± 0.8 29.4 ± 1.2 51.7 ± 1.8 43.6 ± 1.2 36.2 ± 1.0

2.3 ± 0.1 3.2 ± 0.2 2.0 ± 0.1 2.6 ± 0.2 3.0 ± 0.2 2.6 ± 0.2 2.0 ± 0.1 1.9 ± 0.1 3.0 ± 0.2 2.4 ± 0.1 2.2 ± 0.1 1.8 ± 0.1 1.7 ± 0.1 1.9 ± 0.1 2.5 ± 0.2 2.5 ± 0.2 2.0 ± 0.1

0.7 ± 0.1 0.8 ± 0.1 0.6 ± 0.1 0.7 ± 0.1 0.7 ± 0.1 0.6 ± 0.1 0.6 ± 0.1 0.5 ± 0.1 0.7 ± 0.1 0.6 ± 0.1 0.6 ± 0.1 0.5 ± 0.1 0.5 ± 0.1 0.6 ± 0.1 0.7 ± 0.1 0.7 ± 0.1 0.6 ± 0.1

13.2 ± 0.5 14.3 ± 0.4 24.3 ± 0.3 24.0 ± 0.5 24.1 ± 0.5 22.0 ± 0.5 26.5 ± 0.6 18.6 ± 0.4 17.5 ± 0.4 19.8 ± 0.5 20.6 ± 0.5 26.4 ± 0.4 23.7 ± 0.4 25.7 ± 0.4 21.8 ± 0.5 15.1 ± 0.5 17.6 ± 0.3

1.5 1.65 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.3 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.5 0.25 0.45 0.35 0.25 1.1 0.9

3.5 3.5 3.7 3.7 3.5 3.4 3.8 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.6 3.9 3.5 3.9 3.9 3.3 3.6


Table 5. Fruit characteristics of apricot genotypes in Stage II Selection (2003–2004). Genotype

Fruit taste Kernel flavor Fruit shape Pit shape Fruit firmness Skin color

Flesh color

Pit separation

44 K 01 44 K 02 44 K 04 44 K 05 44 K 07 44 K 08 44 K 14 44 K 23 44 K 43 44 K 60 44 K 64 44 K 71 44 K 79 ‘Hacihaliloglu’* ‘Hasanbey’* ‘S.Early Orange’* ‘Canino’*

Middle Middle Good Good Good Good Good Middle Middle Good Middle Good Good Good Good Good Good

Yellow Light orange Yellow Yellow Yellow Yellow Yellow Yellow Yellow Light orange Light orange Yellow Yellow Yellow Yellow Orange Yellow

Semi-joint Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Free Free

Bitter Bitter Sweet Sweet Sweet Sweet Sweet Bitter Sweet Sweet Bitter Sweet Sweet Sweet Sweet Bitter Bitter

Oblong Ovate Oblong Ovate Oblong Ovate Ovate Ovate Ovate Round-flat Elliptic Ovate Ovate Ovate Oblong Round Ovate

Oblong Ovate Oblong Ovate Oblong Ovate Ovate Ovate Ovate Round Ovate Ovate Ovate Ovate Oblong Round Ovate

Soft Soft Good Good Middle Good Good Middle Good Good Middle Good Good Good Good Soft Soft

Yellow Light orange Yellow Yellow Yellow Yellow Yellow Yellow Yellow Light orange Light orange Yellow Yellow Yellow Yellow Orange Yellow


210

Figure 1. The fruit weights of apricot genotypes in Stage I and II Selection.

Figure 2. The soluble solids of apricot genotypes in Stage I and II Selection.

One of the important fruit quality characteristics for drying apricots is the number of fruits in 1 kg of dry product. The best performing genotypes for this characteristic were 44 K 07 (71 dried fruits/kg product) and 44 K 05 (94 dry fruits/kg product), given that a lower number of dried fruit/kg ratio as an indicator of high quality fruit, mostly explained by both high soluble solid content of the fruit and its size. The dried fruit yield for Hacihaliloglu and Kabaası was reported as 28.45 and 29.80%,

respectively, and while the former one had 118 dried fruits, the latter had 84 dried fruits with removed pits per kg (Akça et al. 1999). Furthermore, it was reported that with extended harvest period, the soluble solid content and dry fruit yield of Hacihaliloglu were increased (Asma and Akça 1996; Bolat and Karlidag 1999). The sulfur content of dry fruits ranged from 1725 to 2125 ppm, which indicates the genotypes absorbed different amount of sulfur gas. Skin color of dry fruits was red or yellow. L values in dry fruits were between L 36.62 (44 K 04) and L 46.88 (44 K 07). A values were between a + 8.98 (44 K 79) and a + 16.36 (44 K 08). B values were between b + 20.95 (44 K 04) and b + 29.14 (44 K 07). The L value refers to index of lightness, while ‘a’ value refers to index of redness and ‘b’ value refers to index of yellowness. High L and ‘b’ values and low ‘a’ value are considered as the ideal color value for dried fruits.

Conclusions The Malatya region produces 70–75% of the world’s dry apricots and is very rich in terms of seed-grown apricot genetic resources. The objective of this study was to evaluate and identify promising apricot genotypes from a large seedgrown apricot population. The selected genotypes exhibited different performances during Stage I and II Selections. It is important that all genotypes must be tested in the same environment to determine their comparable performance, as we did in Stage II. The most notable results were the

Table 6. The most important characters of dried fruits in 7 apricot genotypes in Stage II selection. Genotype

A

B

C

D

E

F

44 K 04 44 K 05 44 K 07 44 K 08 44 K 14 44 K 71 44 K 79 ‘Hacihaliloglu’ ‘Canino’

1.367 1.288 1.331 1.125 1.418 1.386 1.197 1.385 0.956

27.34 25.76 26.62 22.50 28.36 27.72 23.94 27.70 19.12

109 94 71 125 106 153 172 129 152

1725 2050 2110 1980 2080 2125 2100 2080 1950

Red Yellow Yellow Red Yellow Yellow Yellow Yellow Red

L L L L L L L L L

36.62 45.27 46.88 40.22 43.69 44.17 47.15 44.24 41.57

a a a a a a a a a

+ + + + + + + + +

15.98 b 12.57 b 10.15 b 16.36 b 12.04 b 9.51 b 8.98 b 10.75 b 13.10 b

+ + + + + + + + +

20.95 28.55 29.14 21.25 25.92 27.35 26.38 24.11 22.76

*The control apricot cultivars were ‘Hacihaliloglu’ and ‘Canino’, both of which widely cultivated around the world. A: The amount of dry fruit produced from 5 kg fresh fruit (kg), B: Dry fruit yield (%), C: The number of dried fruit per 1 kg, D: SO2 content (ppm), E: Color of skin in dried fruit, F: CIE Lab values.

211 decrease in fruit size and soluble solids content in Stage II. For all genotypes selected, both fruit weight (Figure 1) and soluble solid (Figure 2) from Stage I genotypes were significantly (p < 0.05) higher than that of from Stage II genotypes. Our findings indicate that the selected genotypes offer a great potential to solve some of the important problems of the apricot production in the Malatya region as well as in other areas where apricots are post harvest processed (e.g., dry apricots). For the continuation of this work, we used the genotypes 44 K 01, 44 K 07 and 44 K 23 for their early ripening, best fruit quality, and late ripening characteristics, respectively, as parents in our multi-purpose apricot breeding program at Apricot Research Centre, Ino¨nu¨ University.

Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to Dr. Sedat Serçe, Mustafa Kemal University, and Chrislyn Drake, Michigan State University, for the critical reading and help during the preparation of the original manuscript. We are also grateful to Dr. Hikmet Geckil, Ino¨nu¨ University, for his comments and suggestions on the grammar and style of the revised manuscript. This research was supported by grants from Inonu University (BAP 2002/20), and Malatya Apricot Research–Development Promotion Foundation, and Malatya Apricot Exporters Association.

References Akça Y. and S¸en S.M. 1993. Selecting apricots with good quality and resistant to late spring frost in Gu¨ru¨n. In: Schmidt H. and Kellerhalls M. (eds), in Temperate Fruit Breeding. pp. 177–178. Akça Y., O¨zkan Y. and Asma B.M. 1999. A study on determination of yield and fruit characteristics of certain Turkish dried apricot cultivars and types. XIth Int. Symp. on Apricot Culture, Veria-Makedonia, Greece, May 25–30, 1997, Acta Hort. 488, pp. 129–133. Anonymous 1992. Dried Apricot Standards. Turkey Standards Institute Press, Ankara.TS. 485/June 1992. UDK.634.21. Anonymous 2004. Apricot. Malatya Agriculture Country Department Registers, Malatya. Asma B.M. and Akca Y. 1996. A study on determination effects of harvest time on quality dried apricot fruit and production in apricot cultivar Hacihaliloglu. Yuzuncu Yıl Univ. J. Agri. Facul. 6(2): 181–189 (in Turkish).

Asma B.M. 2000. Apricot Growing. Evin Press, Malatya, Turkey (in Turkish). Asma B.M. and Kan T. 2004. In: Batal S. (ed.), Winter and Late Spring Frost Damages in Some Local and Foreign _ Apricot Varieties. Hasad, Altan Press, Istanbul, pp. 42–46 (in Turkish). Asma B.M. and O¨ztu¨rk K. 2005. Analysis of morphological, pomological and yield characteristics of some apricot germplasm in Turkey. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. (in press). Audergon J.M. 1995. Variety and breeding. Xth Int. Symp. on Apricot Culture, Izmir, Turkey, September 20–24, 1993, Acta Hort. 384, pp. 35–45. Ayanog˘lu H. and Kaska N. 1995. Apricot selection studies in the Mediterranean Region of Turkey. Xth Int. Symp. on Apricot Culture, Izmir, Turkey, September 20–24, 1993, Acta Hort. 384, pp. 177–182. Bailey C.H. and Hough L.H. 1975. Apricots. In: Janick J. and Moore J.N. (eds), in Fruit Breeding, Temperate Fruits. Purdue University Press, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA, pp. 367–384. Balta F., Kaya T., Yarılgaç T., Kazankaya A., Balta M.F. and Koyuncu M.A. 2002. Promising apricot genetic resources from the Lake Van Region. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 49: 409–413. Bolat I. and Gu¨leryu¨z M. 1995. Selection of late maturation wild apricot (Prunus armeniaca L.) forms on Erzincan Plain. Xth Int. Symp. on Apricot Culture, Izmir, Turkey, September 20–24, 1993, Acta Hort. 384, pp. 183–187. Bolat I. and Karlıdag H. 1999. The effects of harvest periods on SO2 content of fruit quality of Turkish dried apricot. XIth Int. Symp. on Apricot Culture, Veria-Makedonia, Greece, May 25–30, 1997, Acta Hort. 488, pp. 615–618. Bostan S.Z., Sen, S.M. and Askın M.A. 1995. Researches on breeding by selection of wild apricot (Prunus armeniaca L.) forms on Darende Plain. Xth Int. Symp. on Apricot Culture, Izmir Turkey, September 20–24, 1993, Acta Hort. 384, pp. 205–208. Ercisli S. 2004. A short review of the fruit germplasm resources of Turkey. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 51: 419–435. FAO 2003. FAO Statistical Database, http://apps.fao.org/page/ collections?subset=agriculture. Guerriero R. and Watkins R. 1984. Revised descriptor list for apricot (Prunus armeniaca L.) International Board for Plant Genetic Resources. AGPG: IBPGR/84/91. Rome, Italy. Gu¨lcan R., Mısırlı A., Asma B.M. and Sag˘lam H. 1999. Preliminary results of characterization in resistant and susceptible apricot hybrids to Sclerotinina laxa. 3rd National Horticulture Congress, Ankara, Turkey, September 14–17, 1999, pp. 213–217. Gu¨leryu¨z M. 1995. Selection of the quality-fruited wild apricot (Prunus armeniaca L.) forms resistant to late spring frosts on Erzincan Plain. Xth Int. Symp. on Apricot Culture, Izmir, Turkey, September 20–24, 1993, Acta Hort. 384, pp. 189–194. Kadıoglu R. 1977. Breeding by Selection of Wild Apricots Late Flowering and Resistance to Late Spring Frosts. Some Researches Completed in Various Agricultural Institutes. Ege Agricultural Research Institute Press, Izmir, pp. 142–150 (in Turkish). Kazankaya A. 2002. Pomological traits of apricots (Prunus armeniaca L.) selected from Bitlis seedling population. J. Amer. Pomolog. Soc. 3(56): 184–189.

212 Mehlenbacher S.A., Cociu V. and Hough L.F. 1991. Apricots (Prunus). In: Moorem J.N. and Ballington J.R (eds), Genetic Resources of Temperate Fruit and Nut Crops. ISHS, Wageningen, Acta Hort. 290, pp. 65–107. O¨zbek S. 1978. Temperature Fruits. Cukurova Univ. Faculty of Agriculture publications: 111. Ankara Univ. Press, Ankara (in Turkish).

O¨zkan M., Kirca A. and Cemeroglu B. 2003. Effect of moisture content on CIE color values in dried apricots. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 216(3): 217–219.