Assessment of Genetic Diversity among Some Southern Tunisian Fig Cultivars Based on Morphological...

Jordan Journal of Agricultural Sciences, Volume 5, No.1, 2009

-1-

Assessment of Genetic Diversity among Some Southern Tunisian Fig

(Ficus carica L.) Cultivars Based on Morphological Descriptors

Aljane Fateh* and Ferchichi Ali*

ABSTRACT

The genetic diversity among southern Tunisian fig (Ficus carica L.) cultivars was studied using morphological descriptors. Eighteen fig cultivars originating from diverse geographical areas in southern Tunisia were analyzed, described and compared to study the diversity observed in local fig germplasm in order to determine the morphological variability and to detect homonymies and synonymies within cultivars. Variance Analysis, Principal Component Analysis and Hierarchical Canonical Analysis of fruit and leaf characters showed a considerable diversity among cultivars. Some of them were selected and some similarities were detected. Characters with high discriminating degree were those related to fruit size, external fruit color and leaf size. Some morphological traits were suitable to be used as descriptors for classifying fig cultivars in Tunisia.

Keywords: Southern Tunisia, Ficus carica, Cultivars, Genetic diversity, Morphological descriptors.

INTRODUCTION The fig (Ficus carica L., Moraceae), a typical

Mediterranean fruit crop is characterized by large adaptive potentialities to various ecological areas. Fig is a gynodiocious species but functionally dioecious with caprifigs or male fig and female fig cultivated for fruit production (Valdeyron, 1979; Vidaud, 1997; Weiblen, 2000).

In Tunisia, it has been cultivated traditionally since ancient times under diverse agroclimatic conditions, in the continental and coastal regions and in many regions inside the country (Minangoin, 1931; Mars, 1995).

In Southern Tunisia, this species is also considered as a

principal fruit tree with olive and some other fruit trees. Traditional plantations are rain-fed and of limited acreage. Local cultivars are numerous and well adapted to agroecological conditions (Aljane, 2004b). Their denominations are relative to local geographic origin or to the color of the fruit. Interchange of plant material was frequent between regions, synonyms and homonyms may be encountered (Ben Salah et al., 1995; Mars et al., 1998; Aljane et al., 2004a; Salhi-Hannachi et al., 2005).

Fig has been considered, for a long time, a secondary fruit tree. In the recent years, its cultivation in Tunisia increased considerably with a total acreage of about 37 774 ha. The annual production is about 25 000 tons (Balance Commerciale, 2006). The fruits are normally sold in the local markets and are consumed fresh or processed into syrup, jam and alcoholic spirit beverage. Fig is also used, traditionally, as medicine (Anonym, 2004).

Fruits produced in traditional orchards are not appropriate for the new markets. Many old plantations

* Laboratoire dAridoculture et Cultures Oasiennes, Institut des Rgions Arides, 4119 Mdenine, Tunisie, Tel/ fax: + 216 75 844 219.

[email protected] Received on 13/12/2006 and Accepted for Publication on 20/5/2008.

2009 DAR Publishers/University of Jordan. All Rights Reserved.

Assessment of Genetic Aljane Fateh and Ferchichi Ali

-2-

are removed and a few local cultivars are propagated in commercial nurseries and used in the new plantations. Thus, the problem of genetic erosion in fig germplasm became real (Salhi-Hannachi et al., 2003 and 2005, Chatti et al., 2004; Aljane, 2004a) and threatening the local germplasm.

This study described and compared the diversity observed in local fig germplasm, evaluated its genetic diversity in southern Tunisia, detected associations among cultivars and determined descriptors with high discriminating degree in the morphological studies.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Plant Material Field surveys were performed in 2003 with the aim of

collecting different fig cultivars throughout southern Tunisia. Four traditional fig zones: Bir Amir, Douiret, Beni Kheddache and Zammour (Table 1) were visited; they are characterized by dry climate and lower rainfall (100- 200 mm/ years), where fig is the main cultivated crop fruit under rain-fed conditions. Eighteen fig cultivars were included in the present study (Table 1). Cultivars are represented by adult trees. Randomly samples of 20 mature fruits and 20 adult leaves were collected from one to three trees depending on the greater or lesser abundance of cultivars in the visited orchards.

Descriptors Studied Morphological variability was based on fruit and leaf

characteristics listed in Table 2. Descriptions of morphometric characters are made in Figures 1 and 2 (IPGRI, 2003). Fruit Shape (FS) was determined following the scale proposed by Condit in 1947 (Fig. 3). Each form received a mark from 1through 10. External Colour (EC) was determined using the following scale: yellow (2), yellow-red (4), purple-yellow (6), green (8), green- yellow (10), green- purple (12), purple (14) and purle-black (16). Another scale

ranging from honey (2) to dark red (14) was used for Internal Colour (IC). Ostiole Types (OT) were: closed (1), semi-open (2) and open (3). Skin cracks were evaluated as follows: smooth (1), fairly rough (2) and rough (3). Shape of the Apex (SA) was determined using the following scale: 1: triangular, 2: sharp, 3: obtuse, 4: rounded, Shape of Lobes (SL) was determined using the following scale: 1: spatulate, 2: lyrate, 3: linear, 4: latate, Foliar Area (FA) was determined by the product of the limb length and its width, Colour of the Leafstalk (CS) and Colour of the Limb (CL) were determined using the following scale: 2: yellow, 4: green-yellow, 6: green, 8: green-dark, 10: green-very dark, Roughness of the Limb (RL) was determined using the following scale: 1: rough, 2: fairly rough, 3: smooth, the limb Contour Serration (CS) was determined using the following scale: 1: crenate, 2: dentate, 3: undulate, 4: serrate, 5: double serrate. Main Vein appearance (MV) was determined using the following scale: 1: apparent, 2: absent, and Limb Pubescence (LP) is determined by; 1: present, 2: absent.

Statistical Analysis Data were subjected to Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)

carried out to compare means of cultivars for all parameters studies by Duncans test (P < 0.05) using SPSS 12.0 software. Mean values registered for each parameter were used to perform a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and Hierarchical Canonical Analysis (HCA). Data processing was performed using STATISTICA 5.0: Multivariate Exploratory Technical.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Mean values of morphological characters studied are

reported in the annexes 1 and 2. A large variability between cultivars for all characters (highly significant difference at P < 0.05) was observed, with the exception for Main Vein


-3-

appearance (MV) and Limb Pubescence (LP) variables. Comparison of means allowed identifying Zidi (ZID)

from the other cultivars according to the Fruits Weight (FW), Limb Length (LL), Limb Width (LW) and Foliar Area (FA). Rogabi (RGB) cultivar is separated for the characters Stalk Length (SL) and Neck Length (NL) but Romani (ROM) presents a large Ostiole Diameter (OD). Duncans test has permitted to separate FLY and ZID from the other cultivars according to the fruit weight and RGB to the fruit length. ROM cultivars were characterized by a fruit with short stalk. Ranking cultivars according to the ostiole size showed that the ROM, MAG and WDL cultivars present the biggest ostiole diameter and opening. Concerning the leaf size, it was possible to separate some cultivars: MKH, BYD, ZID and WDL from the group studied.

Some articles (Salhi Hannachi et al., 2003; Chatti et al., 2004) reported that figs from other areas in Tunisia present a significant difference within cultivars for the fruit and leaf characters. So, many cultivars are identified for some morphological parameters. In Lebanon, inventory and characterization of fig accessions showed that important parameters contributed to a large variability within accessions (Chalak et al., 2005).

PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS (PCA) Grouping of fig cultivars on fruit and leaves using PCA

was based mainly on the first three PC that account for 70. 66 % of the variability observed for fruit which was 31.52 %, 24.14 % and 15 %, respectively to axis 1, 2 and 3. On the other hand, 58.617 % of the variability observed for leaves were 24.19 %, 19.39 % and 7.03 %, respectively to axis 1, 2 and 3 (Table 3).

The most important variables integrated by PC1 were Fruit Weight (FW), Fruit Diameter (FD), Ostiole Type (OT) and Skin Cracks (SC). PC1 separated cultivars which have long and/ or no fruits stalk as Bayoudhi (BYD), Rogabi (RGB) and Zidi (ZID) from those with small and/ or stalk

ones as Magouli (MAG), Minouri (MNR) and Romani (ROM).

PC 2 is correlated with high values to Fruit Length (FL), Fruit Shape (FS) and Neck Length (NL), but the correlation was negative with Fruit Diameter (FD), Stalk Diameter (SD), Ostiole Diameter (OD) and Ostiole Type (OT) (Table 3). According to PC2, it was possible to differentiate cultivars with opened ostiole: Romani (ROM), Wedlani (WDL), Magouli (MAG) from others with less opened ostiole: Bayoudhi (BYD), Felyoui (FLY) and Tayouri Ahmar (TAH).

PC3 integrated characters related with external and internal colour of fruit (Table 3). Correlation between PC3 and External Colour (EC) was negative while it was positive with Internal Colour (IC). PC3 differentiated cultivars with fruits coloured as Minouri (MNR), Rogabi (RGB), Sawoudi (SWD) and Zidi (ZID) from others with light coloration: Bayoudhi (BYD), Jemaoui (JMA), Safouri (SAF) and Tayouri Asfar (TAS).

The first axis defined by the Fruit Weight (FW), Fruit Length (FL), Flesh Thickness (FT), Fruit Shape (FS), Stalk Length (SL), Ostiole Diameter (OD) and External Colour (EC). Cultivars Zidi (ZID), Rogabi (RGB), Wedlani (WDL), Magouli (MAG) and Romani (ROM) are opposed to Felyoui (FLY), Tayouri Ahmar (TAH), Makhbech (MKH) and Bayoudhi (BYD) cultivars (Fig. 4). Zidi (ZID), Rogabi (RGB), Wedlani (WDL), Magouli (MAG), Felyoui (FLY), Makhbech (MKH) and Bayoudhi (BYD) have relatively bigger and coloured fruits. Wedlani (WDL) and Croussi (CRS) cultivars showed important morphological similarities based on fruit characters (Fig. 4).

These results clearly indicate that fruit weight, fruit length, fruit diameter, stalk diameter, neck length, neck diameter, ostiole diameter, ostiole opening and flesh thickness are the most important discriminate characters in fig fruits. These results showed a high degree of genetic variability. Such analyses would be considered as powerful


-4-

suitable tools for fig morphological characterization. Concerning the leaf characters, the first three axis of

PCA, accounted for 58.61 % of the total variability observed on leave variables. The first component explains 24.19 % of the global variation and was negatively correlated to Number of Lobes (NL), Shape of Apex (SA), Shape of Lobes (SL), Main Vein appearance (MV) and Limb Pubescence (PL). It was positively correlated to the other parameters (Table 3). The second component accounts for 19.39 % of the total variation. The most important variables integrated in this axis were Leaf Stalk-length (LS), Limb Length (LL), Limb Width (LW) and Foliar Area (FA).

Figure 5 shows the distribution of fig cultivars according to PC 1 and PC 2 corresponding to 15.03 % of the total variability. A considerable genetic diversity among cultivars was observed allowing differentiation between cultivars with respect to morphology: Zidi (ZID) and Wedlani (WDL) cultivars are opposed to Makhbech (MKH) and Bayoudhi (BYD). Former ones have large foliar area and long leaf stalk.

A wide range of morphological characterization of fig cultivars has been published in the world (Mars et al., 1998; Assafi, 2001; Chatti et al., 2004; Chalak et al., 2005, Oukabli et al., 2005). These results looked in agreement with those of cultivars of the Mediterranean area; PCA revealed that the first 3 components explained comparable values (from 52 % to 72 %) of the total variation, based on morphological traits.

These results are compared with those obtained by (Mars et al., 1998; Hedfi et al., 2003; Salhi-Hannachi et al., 2003; Chatti et al., 2004; Oukabi et al., 2005; Chalak et al., 2005). Furthermore, similar results were obtained for fig germplasm using morphological traits based on fruits and leaves.

HIERARCHICAL CANONICAL ANALYSIS Hierarchical Canonical Analysis on fruit parameters

produced a dendrogram with four main clusters and two separated cultivars; Zidi (ZID) and Rogabi (RGB). The

first one has a high Fruit Weight (FW) and a very low external colour, but Rogabi (RGB) has a long stalk and neck (Fig. 6).

The first group was composed of three cultivars: Romani (ROM), Makhbech (MKH) and Bayoudhi (BYD). The cultivar ROM was associated at d = 16. It has an opened ostiole and a fruit shape different from the other cultivars.

The second group included cultivars: Sawoudi (SWD), Tayouri Ahmar (TAH), Minouri (MNR) and Felyoui (FLY). They have very small fruits, with a closed ostiole and a red-purple external colour.

The third group included Hammouri (HAM), Tayouri Asfar (TAS), Tayouri Akhdhar (TAD), Croussi (CRS), Safouri (SAF) and Jemaoui (JMA), which are characterized by a medium fruit weight. Croussi (CRS) and Tayouri Akhdhar (TAD) were associated at d = 10.5 indicating that they may be considered different cultivars of the same fruit shape.

The fourth cluster included three cultivars: Bither (BTH), Wedlani (WDL) and Magouli (MAG). This group presents a low dissimilarity level (d = 17.2) indicating the close relationship within cultivars, having a low fruit size. Magouli (MAG) and Wedlani (WDL) have a closed, low ostiole diameter (Fig. 6).

Cluster analysis on leave characters reveals a considerable variability within fig cultivars (Fig. 7). The dendrogram obtained on leaf descriptors shows two groups and six separate cultivars: Wedlani (WDL), Zidi (ZID), Hammouri (HAM), Tayouri Akhdhar (TAD), Bither (BTH) and Bayoudhi (BYD). The cultivar Zidi (ZID) and Wedlani (WDL) have a large foliar area but Bayoudhi (BYD) has a small one. The first group included Tayouri Ahmar (TAH), Sawoudi (SWD) and Safouri (SAF), which are grouped at the distance: 38.2. The second group joins cultivars at a distance equal to 34.0 and contained the rest of cultivars. This clustering is in agreement with the distribution of the cultivars according to the first two components of PCA


-5-

analysis (Fig. 7). Cluster analysis of some other studies on fig germplasm,

showed that canonical discriminate analysis behaved an important morphological variability for fruit and leaf traits and some homonymies and synonymies were detected (Mars et al., 1998; Chatti et al., 2004; Chalak et al., 2005; Oukabli et al., 2005).

Mars et al. (1998) and Salhi-Hannachi et al. (2003) reported that hierarchical canonical analysis was carried out on some cultivars from Tunisia; the same results were obtained. Clustering is in agreement with the distribution of the variety according to the first two components of PCA analysis.

CONCLUSION

The present study aimed to characterize the fig cultivars maintained in field traditional orchards in southern Tunisia using morphological descriptors, to evaluate genetic diversity and detect associations among cultivars. Mean values of main fruits and leaf variables showed significant differences among all cultivars. The low diversity within cultivars was confirmed by PCA results.

We can conclude that among the morphological characters studied, those related to fruit size, fruit colour and leaf size show the highest discriminating characters. Morphological diversity was detected and in some cases, synonymies appeared within Wedlani (WDL) and Croussi (CRS), which appeared as similar cultivars. Some cultivars: Tayouri Akhdhar (TAD), Tayouri Asfar (TAS) and Tayouri Ahmar (TAH) present some homonymies. These cultivars varied mostly by the skin colour. It seemed a polyclone variety.

Variability within these cultivars was largely influenced by the breeding system and climatic conditions (Hammrick, 1990; Salhi Hannachi et al., 2003; Aljane, 2004b). A molecular study based on ISSR markers was performed in

our laboratory, using those cultivars by Guesmi et al. (2006). A national collection of fig containing more than 80 cultivars of fig and 15 cultivars of caprifig was established in southern Tunisia (Aljane Fateh, Comm. Pers., 2007). Cultivars studies are currently being analyzed for better characterization, selection of fig germplasm, increase in choice of cultivars and determining the discriminated characters used in morphological, agronomical and chemical studies.

Further investigations including many other cultivars in other areas in Tunisia are necessary to better analyze the distribution of fig germplasm. The use of chemical parameters; acids, sugars, minerals, polyphenols, isoenzymics (Zigo and Stamper, 1995; Hedfi et al., 2003; Aljane et al., 2007a and 2007b; Del Caro et al., 2007), and molecular markers; RAPD, Microsatellites, etc. (Oukabli and Khadari, 2005; Salhi Hannachi et al., 2005; Salhi Hannachi et al., 2006; Chatti et al., 2007) could supply complementary information about the Tunisian fig germplasm characterization.

This study is valued to establish rational management of fig germplasm and also is important for breeding and improvement purposes. Also, assessment of genetic diversity is important for the study of biodiversity, population dynamics and ecological relationships. Additionally, knowledge of available plant genetic resources is fundamental to support programs for the development of new cultivars, as well as to protect existing natural resources.

Therefore, we think it is imperative for researchers to establish such research aiming at the preservation and the evaluation of the germplasm.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank the staff of the Arid Land Institute and the farmers in Southern Tunisia for their help and cooperation.


-6-

Table (1): Names, abbreviations and origins of southern Tunisian fig cultivars. Accession

name Label

Geographic origin

Accession name

Label Geographic

origin Bayoudhi Bither Croussi Felyoui Hammouri Jemaoui Magouli Makhbech Minouri

BTH BYD CRS FLY HAM JMA MAG MKH MNR

Bir Amir Beni Kheddache Beni Kheddache Douiret Zammour Zammour Bir Amir Bir Amir Bir Amir

Rogabi Romani Safouri Sawoudi Tayouri Akhdhar Tayouri Ahmar Tayouri Asfar Wedlani Zidi

RGB ROM SAF SWD TAD TAH TAS WDL ZID

Zammour Zammour Zammour Bir Amir Bir Amir Bir Amir Bir Amir Zammour Bir Amir

Table (2): Characters measured on fruits and leaves in southern Tunisian fig cultivars. Character Label Character Label

Fruit Weight (gr) Fruit Length (mm) Fruit Diameter (mm) Fruit Shape Stalk Length (mm) Stalk Diameter (mm) Neck Length (mm) Neck Diameter (mm) External Colour Ostiole Diameter (mm) Ostiole Type Skin Cracks Internal Colour Skin Thickness (mm) Flesh Thickness (mm) Number of Lobes Shape of Apex Shape of Lobes

FW FL FD FS SL SD NL ND EC OD OT SC IC ST FT NL SA SL

Colour of Leaf Stalk Leaf Stalk Length (mm) Leaf Stalk Diameter (mm) Limb Colour Limb Length (mm) Limb Width (mm) Foliar Area (cm2) Lateral Sinus deep 1 (mm) Lateral Sinus deep 2 (mm) Lateral Sinus deep 3 (mm) Lateral Sinus deep 4 (mm) Lateral Sinus deep 5 (mm) Lateral Sinus deep 6 (mm) Limb Roughness Limb Contour Serration Main Vein appearance Limb Pubescence

CS LS DS CL LL LW FA LS1 LS2 LS3 LS4 LS5 LS6 RL CS MV LP


-7-

Table (3): Eigen-values, cumulated proportion of variation and eigenvectors associated with the first three axis of the PCA on some southern Tunisian fig cultivars.

Principal components

(axis) 1 2 3 Principal components (axis) 1 2 3

Cumulated proportion of variation

31.52 55.66 70.66 Cumulated proportion of variation

24.19 43.58 58.61

Fruit characters Eigenvectors Leaves characters Eigenvectors

FW FL FD FS SL SD NL ND EC OD OT SC IC ST FT

0.774 0.441 0.833 0.042 -0.243 0.870 0.293 0.552 0.258 0.606 0.820 0.743 -0.142 -0.118 0.584

0.168 0.832 -0.129 0.808 0.683 -0.133 0.871 0.579 -0.068 -0.559 -0.229 -0.345 0.072 0.327 0.227

-0.348 -0.097 0.146 0.326 -0.251 0.192 0.091 0.080 -0.344 0.432 0.383 -0.171 0.58

0.848 -0.492

NL SA SL CS LS DS CL LL LW LS1 LS2 LS3 LS4 LS5 LS6 RL CS

-0.493 -0.212 -0.161 0.172 0.716 0.708 0.383 0.893 0.927 0.620 0.378 0.380 0.297 0.042 0.191 -0.376 -0.111

0.608 0.634 0.197 -0.288 0.235 0.140 0.525 -0.009 0.032 -0.454 -0.127 0.167 0.761 0.753 0.420 -0.080 0.686

0.391 -0.064 -0.632 0.644 -0.168 -0.354 0.216 -0.135 -0.100 0.128 0.703 0.687 0.075 -0.010 0.257 0.550 0.015


-8-

Figure(1): Different parameters measured on fig fruit according to Storey (1975), Obenauf et al. (1978) and IPGRI (2003).

Figure (2): Different parameters measured on fig leaf according to IPGRI (1978).


-9-

Figure (3): Different fig fruit shapes according to Condit (1947).

Figure (4): Distribution of cultivars studied according to the first and the second principal components on fruit characters.


-10-

Figure (5): Distribution of cultivars studied according to the first and the second principal components

on leaves characters.

Figure (6): Cluster dendrogram of fig cultivars on fruit characters.


-11-

Figure (7): Cluster dendrogram of fig cultivars on leaves characters.


-12-

Annex (1): Mean values of fruit characters of fig cultivars studied.

CVS FW FL FD FS SL SD NL ND EC OD OT SC IC ST FT

BTH 68.3 48.7 56.2 3.4 3.1 5.8 5.4 9.0 6.0 6.6 2.4 2.4 10.0 0.7 28.0

BYD 24.9 42.9 38.4 1.3 10.4 5.2 0.0 0.0 3.6 4.7 1.1 2.1 10.2 1.0 14.3

CRS 37.2 39.6 45.4 3.3 6.1 6.4 8.3 15.0 12.6 6.9 2.3 2.0 10.6 0.9 14.4

FLY 10.2 26.9 30.6 3.9 6.9 4.3 0.0 0.0 12.0 4.7 1.4 1.75 10.8 0.9 13.2

HAM 24.5 47.9 53.5 4.0 7.5 5.3 13.1 8.3 8.0 5.0 1.2 2.0 10.8 1.0 13.8

JMA 35.7 59.7 41.1 6.9 7.6 6.3 13.1 11.9 4.0 5.0 1.7 2.0 10.6 1.1 14.0

MAG 58.3 47.4 52.9 4.0 3.8 6.5 7.3 9.2 7.7 9.5 2.6 2.3 12.7 1.2 15.4

MKH 29.6 39.7 42.3 3.4 7.9 5.7 0.0 0.0 5.6 5.6 1.2 2.3 13.0 0.9 16.3

MNR 16.9 35.5 34.7 4.7 3.0 5.6 8.3 10.3 14.0 6.3 1.7 2.1 5.8 0.8 11.1

RGB 46.2 72.2 43.1 9.6 12.1 5.8 19.0 11.0 11.8 5.43 1.8 2.1 13.7 1.1 18.3

ROM 36.0 33.6 48.7 3.0 2.5 7.1 0.0 0.0 10.3 12.3 2.5 2.4 9.7 0.8 10.1

SAF 32.4 51.2 41.1 8.1 6.1 5.6 10.5 11.7 4.4 5.8 2.1 1.7 13.3 1.4 14.4

SWD 41.3 62.1 51.0 4.5 8.1 7.4 9.8 12.4 16.0 7.1 2.2 2.4 12.1 0.7 23.3

TAD 40.9 46.9 45.2 4.2 5.0 6.1 7.7 10.5 10.0 6.9 2.2 2.4 12.4 1.0 17.7

TAH 17.7 51.5 31.8 5.4 9.0 4.9 9.4 8.0 6.6 4.8 1.0 1.6 11.9 1.1 12.0

TAS 40.4 51.8 42.9 3.4 7.9 5.5 6.8 9.9 5.5 5.2 1.7 1.8 2.0 0.7 21.6

WDL 56.1 45.2 54.3 3.5 5.5 7.3 6.5 12.2 12.5 8.5 2.7 2.2 10.5 1.1 16.3

ZID 106.7 62.2 43.4 5.0 9.3 6.3 11.7 11.2 16.0 5.1 1.6 2.4 3.4 0.6 21.3

F cal. 105.05 133.70 52.95 71.90 14.96 36.44 90.85 251.34 67.63 60.58 17.76 5.73 36.52 20.40 58.33

NS ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **

For explanation of cultivars and character labels, see Tables 1 and 2.

In bold, maximum and minimum values.


-13-

Annex (2): Mean values of leaves characters of fig cultivars studied. CVS NL SA SL CS LS DS CL LL LW FA LS1 LS2 LS3 LS4 LS5 LS6 RL CS MV LP

BTH 5.0 4.0 4.0 2.0 50.8 3.9 8.0 173.0 172.0 305.16 31.0 65.0 11.0 53.0 28.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0

BYD 7.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 50.0 3.4 8.0 140.0 128.0 198.58 19.0 49.0 65.0 32.0 7.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 1.0 2.0

CRS 5.0 2.2 2.3 2.0 65.8 4.7 8.0 199.8 182.3 337.11 24.6 65.7 66.6 25.3 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.8 1.0 2.0

HAM 5.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 74.5 4.8 8.0 209.0 175.0 290.45 11.0 28.0 30.0 52.0 28.0 0.0 1.0 4.0 1.0 2.0

JMA 5.0 2.6 1.8 4.0 57.8 4.0 8.0 210.8 186.0 364.36 34.8 80.8 76.6 32.2 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.8 1.0 2.0

MAG 4.4 3.1 3.1 2.0 50.0 4.2 7.2 180.1 168.1 303.83 26.1 51.0 53.7 22.2 26.5 0.0 1.4 2.1 1.0 2.0

MKH 5.2 2.7 1.8 2.0 35.7 3.9 7.5 165.7 155.2 265.99 21.7 46.7 58.5 34.5 37.0 14.8 1.5 2.2 1.0 2.0

MNR 4.6 2.6 3.8 2.5 43.9 4.2 7.4 170.1 163.8 208.38 32.9 56.6 54.8 26.5 28.0 0.0 1.5 1.3 1.0 2.0

RGB 3.4 2.3 2.6 3.0 68.6 4.1 8.0 181.9 171.4 317.13 52.5 60.6 72.3 36.7 3.2 2.3 1.05 2.3 1.0 2.0

ROM 4.1 2.05 3.4 2.0 46.4 4.8 7.3 175.8 162.7 291.00 41.5 54.9 62.8 33.4 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.4 1.0 2.0

SAF 4.7 4.0 2.6 2.1 69.2 4.0 8.0 166.4 161.5 271.04 34.6 57.05 69.0 46.0 39.8 18.0 1.2 3.2 1.0 2.0

SWD 4.1 2.5 3.4 2.0 66.5 3.9 7.5 198.1 182.0 364.95 49.2 61.1 64.2 41.8 33.4 24.2 1.8 1.8 1.0 2.0

TAD 2.3 2.2 2.5 2.0 58.6 3.9 7.6 182.1 168.4 309.54 36.9 35.5 15.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.9 1.0 2.0

TAH 4.6 2.2 2.4 2.0 66.2 4.08 8.0 180.6 170.05 309.84 34.3 61.5 66.5 34.9 38.6 50.0 1.0 2.5 1.0 2.0

TAS 3.4 1.6 2.9 2.0 61.2 3.6 7.5 184.05 167.5 310.55 42.5 52.2 66.4 38.2 0.0 0.0 1.2 2.1 1.0 2.0

WDL 4.7 2.9 2.8 2.0 62.9 5.01 8.0 218.05 213.1 565.78 37.4 58.7 97.5 76.6 61.4 19.6 1.4 3.1 1.0 2.0

ZID 3.2 2.6 2.8 2.0 76.08 5.4 8.0 247.5 226.3 481.85 54.4 59.0 62.05 30.7 7.9 2.1 1.2 2.1 1.0 2.0

F cal. 8.73 3.92 3.69 39.86 11.42 16.71 5.17 17.02 14.69 15.5 7.37 3.25 5.51 9.32 51.72 18.53 6.37 4.45 0.0 0.0

DS ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** - -

For explanation of cultivars and character labels, see Tables 1 and 2.

In bold, maximum and minimum values.

MV and LP values were invariable for all cultivars studied.


-14-

REFERENCES

Aljane, F., F. Ali and B. Mekki. 2004a. Analyses de la

diversit gntique de cultivars locaux du figuier (Ficus

carica L.) par les caractres morphomtriques cultivs

dans la chane de Matmata (Sud-est tunisien). Revue

des rgions Arides. N spcial : 95-104.

Aljane F. 2004b. Prospection et Caractrisation des varits

locales du figuier (Ficus carica L.) dans les Jessours

mridionaux des Jebels Matmata. Diplme d'tudes

approfondies, Facult des Sciences de Sfax, Sfax,

Tunisie.

Aljane, F., Toumi, I. and Ferchichi, A. 2007a. HPLC

determination of sugars and atomic absorption analysis

of mineral elements in fresh figs of Tunisian cultivars.

African J. of Biotech., 6 (5) : 599-602.

Aljane F. and A. Ferchichi. 2007. Morphological, chemical

and sensory characterization of Tunisian fig (Ficus

carica L.) cultivars based on dried fruits. Acta Hort.

741: 81-85.

Anonym. 2004. Fig (Ficus carica L). Universit du centre,

Institut Suprieur de Biotechnologie de Monastir,

Monastir, Tunisie.

Assaf, R. 2001. Slection des varits locales et techniques

de culture du figuier en Isral. Fruits, 56: 101-121.

Balance Commerciale. 2006. Institut National de

Statistique, Tunis, Tunisie.

Ben Saleh, M., M. Ancilotti and Loumerem, M. 1995.

Etude pomologique de six varits de figuier (Ficus

carica L.) typiques de Beni Kheddache. Plant Genet.

Res. Newsletter. 104 : 16 - 20.

Chalak, L., A. Chehade, E. Mattar and B. Khadari. 2005.

Morphological characterization in fig accessions cultivated

in Lebanon. Third Intl. Symposium on Fig. Vilamoura.

Portugal. 16-20 May 2005 (Acta Hort., in press).

Chatti, K., A. Salhi-Hannachi, M. Mars, M. Marrakchi and

M. Trifi. 2004. Analyse de la diversit gntique de

cultivars tunisiens de figuier (Ficus carica L.), par les

caractres morphologiques. Fruits. 59(1): 49-61.

Chatti, K., O.Saddoud, A. Salhi-Hannachi, M. Mars, M.

Marrakchi and M. Trifi. 2007. Analysis of genetic

diversity and relationships in a tunisian fig (Ficus

carica L.) germplam collection by random amplified

microsatellite polymorphisms. J. Integ. Pt. Biolog. 49

(3): 386-391.

Condit, I.J. 1947. The fig. ed. Walthams Mass. Published by

the Chronica Botanica Co, U.S.A.

Del Caro, A. and Piga, A. 2007. Polyphenol composition of

peel and pulp of two Italian fresh fig fruit cultviars

(Ficus carica L.). Eur. Food Res. Technol. DOI

10.1007/ s00217-007-0581-4.

Guesmi, F., A. Ferchichi, K. Fars and L. Touil. 2006.

Identification and differentiation of Ficus carica L.

cultivars using inter simple sequence repeat markers,

Afrc. J. of Biotech. Vol. 5 (15): 1370-1374.

Hamrick, J.L. 1990. Isozymes and the analysis of genetic

structure in plant populations. In: Chapman and Hall,

Soltis BD, Soltis PS eds., Isozy. in Plant Biolog. Lon-

don, 87-105.

Hedfi, J., M. Trifi., A. Salhi-Hannachi, A. Ouled Mohamed

Salem, A. Rhouma and M. Marrakchi. 2003.

Morphological and isoeneymic polymorphisms in

Tunisian fig (Ficus carica L.) collection. Acta Hort.

605 : 319- 325.

IPGRI. 2003. Descriptors for fig (Ficus carica L.). Rome,

Italy.

Mars, M. 1995. La culture du grenadier (Punica granatum L.)

et du figuier (Ficus carica L.) en Tunisie. Cah. Options

Mditer. 13 : 85-95.

Mars, M., M. Marrakchi and T. Chebli. 1998. Multivariate

analysis of fig (Ficus carica.L.) germplasm in southern

Tunisia. Acta Hort. 480 : 75-81.

Minangoin, N. 1931. Monographie des varits de figues


-15-

tunisiennes. Dans: Congrs d'Agronomie du

Cinquantenaire, Tome 1, Ed. Imprim. Baconnier, Alger,

Algrie, 336-364.

Onebauf, G., M. Gerdts, G. Leavitt and J. Crane. 1978.

Commercial dried fig production. Univ. Calif. Div.

Agric. Sci., Leaflet.

Oukabli, A., A. Mamouni, M. Laghezali, B. Khadari, J. P.

Roger and F. Kjellberg. 2005. Genetic variability in

Morrocan fig cultivars (Ficus carica L.) based on

morphological and pomological data. Third Intl.

Symposium on Fig. Vilamoura. Portugal. 16-20 May

2005 (Acta Hort., in press).

Oukabli, A., A. Mamouni, M. Laghezali, B. Khadari, J. P.

Roger and F. Kjellberg. 2005. Genetic variability in

Morrocan fig cultivars (Ficus carica L.) based on

morphological and pomological data. Acta Hort. 605:

311- 318.

Oukabli, A. and B. Khadari. 2005. Caractrisation des

varits polyclones marocaines de figuiers, Ficus carica

L. Fruits. 60: 47- 54.

Salhi-Hannachi, A., M. Mars, K. Chatti., M. Marrakchi and

M. Trifi. 2003. Specific genetic markers for Tunisian

fig germplasm: evidence of morphological traits,

random amplified polymorphism DNA and inter simple

sequence repeat markers. J. Genet. and Breed. 57: 125-

136.

Salhi-Hannachi, A., K. Chatti, M. Mars, M. Marrakchi and

M. Trifi. 2005. Comparative analysis of genetic

diversity on two collections fig cultivars based on

random amplified DNA and inter repeat fingerprints.

Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 52: 563 -573.

Salhi-Hannachi, A., K. Chatti, M. Mars, O. Saddoud, M.

Marrakchi, R. Abdelmajid, M. Marrakchi and M. Trifi.

2006. Genetic diversity of different Tunisian fig (Ficus

carica L.) collections revealed by RAPD fingerprints.

Heredit. 143: 15-22.

Storey, W. B. 1975. Figs. In Janick J. and J. Moore (eds).

Advances in fruit breeding. Purdue Univ. Press. Indiana,

568- 589.

Valdeyron, G. and D. G. Lioyd. 1979. Sex differences and

flowering phenology in the common fig. (Ficus carica

L.). Evol. 53 : 673 685.

Vidaud, J., M. Baccaunaud, Y. Caraglio, C. Hutin and J. P.

Roger. 1997. Le figuier. Ctifl. Paris. France.

Weiblen, G. D. 2000. Phylogenetic relationships of

functionally dioecious Ficus (Moraceae) based on

ribosomal DNA sequences and morphology. Am. J. Bot.,

87: 1342-1357.

Zigo, A. and F. Stamper. 1995. Characterization of isozymes

variation in common fig (Ficus carica L.). Res. Reports

Biotechnical Faculty of the University of Ljubjana,

Jamnikarjeva. Croatia.

ilA ihcihcreF dna hetaF enajlA citeneG fo tnemssessA

-61-

(.L acirac suciF)

* *

.

.

: .

( sisylanA lacinonaC lacihcrareiH) (sisylanA tnenopmoC lapicnirP)( ecnairaV fo sisylanA)

. .

... :

.

. :

____________________________________________ *

. 9114 .8002/5/02 6002/21/31

Assessment of Genetic Diversity among Some Southern Tunisian Fig Cultivars Based on Morphological...

Documents

Transcript of Assessment of Genetic Diversity among Some Southern Tunisian Fig Cultivars Based on Morphological...