Morphological evaluation of Pyrus genotypes of Kaghan Valley, Pakistan through quantitative parameters

Paper Details

Research Paper 01/12/2012
Views (276) Download (4)
current_issue_feature_image
publication_file

Morphological evaluation of Pyrus genotypes of Kaghan Valley, Pakistan through quantitative parameters

Mohammad Islam, Habib Ahmad
Int. J. Biosci.2( 12), 1-6, December 2012.
Certificate: IJB 2012 [Generate Certificate]

Abstract

In the present study, 14 genotypes of Pyrus were evaluated and compared for quantitative parameters viz. Petiole length, Leaf Area, Pedicle length, Fruit length, Fruit width and Fruit weight with the help of local names belonging to Kaghan Valley, Pakistan. The study revealed that the genotypes are highly significant with respect to above parameters except leaf area. Mean value shows that genotypes Kushbago, Atti Bating and Shardi Tanchi have maximum value while genotypes Black batangi and Glass batangi have minimum value while all others have intermediate values with respect to petiole length. For Pedicle length, genotypes Black batangi, Brown batangi, Nak Hard Skin, Shardi tanchi have minimum value (ranges 15-20 mm), genotype kushbago has maximum (65.5mm), Tanchi and Glass batang have similar (55.8mm) values and all others ranges from 21.5-30 mm. Similarly for fruit length, genotypes Glass Batang has highest value fallowed by genotypes Kado and China batang while genotypes Black Batangi, Golden Batangi and Shardi have minimum value. For fruit weidth, genotype Chiana batang has highest value, genotypes black batangi, golden batangi and Shardi tanchi have the lowest value while genotypes Kado and Glass batang have similar values and all others genotypes have values ranges from 35.17-46.1 mm. For fruit weight, genotypes China and Glass batang have maximum value, followed by genotypes Kado, Kushbago and Nak Hard Skin batang while the minimum values showed by genotype black batangi, Golden batangi and Shardi Tanchi. From above discussion it is concluded that these parameters play an important role in the identification of these genotypes belonging to the genus Pyrus.

VIEWS 3

Abe K, Sato Y, Saito T, Kurihara A, Kotobuki K. 1993. The relationship of inheritance between maturation date and fruit weight in Japanese pear. Breeding 43, 439–447.

Anonymous. 2005. China Shere of Global Pear Export, Ist Expanding Rapidly. Global Trade Atlas.

Anonymous. 2006. World Pears situation: Driven by growing out put in China, Global production continues increase. Horticultural and tropical Product Division. USDA/FAS.

Bailey LH. 1917. Pyrus, in. Standard cyclopedia of horticulture, Vol. V. Macmillan, New York.

Bell RL. 1996. Pears (Pyrus) in. Moore J. N., Ballington, J. R. (eds) Genetic Resources of Temperate Fruit and Nut Crops II. International Society for Horticultural Science, Acta Hort 290, 657–697.

Bell RL. 1990. Pears (Pyrus). in. J. N. Moore and J. R. Ballington Jr. (Eds.), Genetics Resources of Temperate Fruit and Nut Crops I, 655-697.

Boratyňska K. 1990. Systematyka geograficzne rozmiesz-czenie. Grusza pospolita – Pyrus communis L. In: BIALOBOKS. (ed.), Dzikie drzewa owocowe. Poznaň, Arcadia: 81–91.

Boucek B. 1954. Hrusen. Lesn. Prace. 33, 57–62.

Challiee JS, Westwood MN. 1973. Numerical Taxonomic studies of the genus Pyrus using both chemical and botanical characters. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 67, 80-83.

Cuizhi G, Spongberg SA. 2003. Flora of China. 9, 173

Edizer Y, Gunes M. 1997. Some pomological properties of local apple and pear cultivars grown in Tokat region of Turkey. Proceedings of Pome Fruit Symposium. 259-266.

Guleryuz M, Ercisli S. 1997. Some pomological properties of local pearcultivars grown in Kagizman district of Turkey. Proceedings of Pome Fruit Symposium. 37-44.

Hofmann H. 1993. Zur Verbreitung und Ökologie der Wildbirne (Pyrus communis L.) in Süd-Niedersachsen und Nordhessen sowie ihrer Abgrenzung von verwilderten Kulturbirnen (Pyrus domestica Med.). Mitt. Dtsch Dendrol. Gesell., 81, 27–69.

Hussain F, Islam M, Zaman A. 2006. Ethnobotanical Profile of plants of Shawar valley, District Swat, Pakistan. Int. J. Biol. Biotech. 3, 301-307.

Kikuchi  A. 1948. Horticulture of Fruit Trees. Vol. 1. Yokendo. Tokyo.

Kühn R. 1998. Wildobst und Naturschutz. In: Kleinschmit J., Soppa B., Fellenberg U. (eds.), Die Wildbirne, Pyrus pyraster (L.) Burgsd. Tagung zum Baum des Jahres am 17. and 18. 3. 1998 in Göttingen. Frankfurt am Main, J. D. Sauerländers. 18–31.

MINFAL. 2006. Ministery of Food and Agriculture, Islamabad.

Muller F, Litschauer R. 1994. Suche nach Wildformen von Walnub, Birne und Apfel. osterr. Forstz. 105, 33.

Peng S, Iwahori S. 2000. Variety, distribution and major cultivars of domesticated Pyrus spp. In China. Agiculture and Horticulture 75, 763-772.

Peniastekova M. 1992. Pyrus L. Hruska. In: Bertova L.(ed.), Flora Slovenska, IV/3. Bratislava, Veda: 381–388.

Rittershoffer B. 1998. Forderung eltener Baumarten im Wald. Auf den Spuren der Wildbirne. Allg. Forstz. /Der Wald, 16, 860–862.

Roloff A. 1998. Der Baum des Jahres 1998: die Wildbirne (Pyrus communis L. sp. pyraster Gams.). In: Kleinschmit J., Soppa B., Fellenberg U. (eds.), Die Wildbirne, Pyrus pyraster (L.) Burgsd. Tagung zum Baum des Jahres am 17. und 18. 3. 1998 in Göttingen. Frankfurt am Main, J. D. Sauerländers: 9–15.

Teng Y, Tanaba K. 2004. Reconsideration on the origin of cultivated pears native to East Asia. Acta. Hortic. 634, 175-182.

Terpo   A.   1960.   Magyroszagh    vadkörtei  (Pyri hungariae).Annales Academiae Horti et Viticulturae, Budapest, Mezö-gazdasagi Kiado 22, 1–258.

Wagner I. 1995. Identifikation von Wildapfel (Malus sylvestris (L.) Mill.) und Wildbirne (Pyrus pyraster (L.) Burgsd. Forstarchiv 66, 39–47.