Int. J. Nuts Related Sci. Vol. 1, No. 1, Summer 2010, pp. 30-40
Phenotypic Correlation between Some Nurserphelogical Traits among 60
Cultivars and the Genotypes of Almond
A. Imani
Horticultural Department of Seed and Plant Improvement Institute (SPII), P.O. Box31585-4119 Karaj, Iran
Abstract
This research was carried out for evaluating phenotypic diversity and traits correlation in 60 almond
genotypes and cultivars in nursery conditions. After preparation land and the bitter seeds of
Shahroud22 genotype as seedling rootstocks planted in the autumn 2005. After the seed germination in
the spring of the next year, the results of recorded data in 3rd may of 2006 showed that the planted
bitter seeds in the nursery had the 90-95 percent of germination. By the end of July 2006, 60 almond
genotypes and cultivars in nursery on the considered rootstocks were propagated by budding. The
results of recorded data by the end of October 2006 showed %85-90 graft satisfactory. To simplify the
study, we gave the code of A1-A60 to 60 genotypes and the cultivars of the almond. Also, the results
of obtained data from 9 main vegetative and physiological characters of 60 cultivars and the genotype
of almond experimented in clouding the diameter the trunk from the 5 cm above the place of the graft ,
the height of the plant , the numbers of the branch on the trunk, the number of the leaves on the branch
of the current year , the length of the blade of the leaf , the width of the blade of the leaf , the length of
the petiole , the amount of the chlorophyll and the contamination by the bloody aphid, in 2007 showed
that among 60the cultivars and the genotypes of almond , there was significant difference in the
mentioned traits . The biggest diameter of the trunk from upper than 5 cm , the length of the petiole ,
the percent of the contamination by the bloody aphid, height of the plant, the numbers of the branches
on the plant , the numbers of the leaves on the shoot of the current year , the length of the blade of the
leaf , the width of the blade leaf , the amount of the chlorophyll were in the cultivars and the genotypes
with A16, A5, A39, A24, A1, A16, A43, A2 and A11, respectively and the least diameter of the trunk
upper 5 cm, the length of the petiole, the percentage the contamination by the bloody aphid, the height
of the plant , the numbers of the branch on the plant , the numbers of the leaves on the branch in the
current year , the length of the blade of the leaf, the width of the blade of the leaf , the amount of
chlorophyll were in the cultivars and the genotypes with A46, A16, A9, A44, A56, A7, A44, A38 and
A29 were observed, respectively. The correlation of the studied traits in 60the cultivars and the
genotypes of almond showed that between the length of the blade of the leaf and the length of its
petiole at level p<0.01, there was the positive and significant correlation (r=0/63), and this correlation
was the most correlation between the studied traits in 60the cultivars and genotypes of almond.
Key words: the phenotypic diversity, the correlation of the traits, almond and the nursery.
30
Introduction
(Barbera et al., 1994). The study of the reaction
Iran is one of the most important centers of the
of 24 cultivars of the self fertility almond in the
plantation and the production of almond in the
ecological condition of the South Eastern of
world. In Iran, almond has the relatively good
French have showed that among 24 cultivars, two
benefits because of the suitable ecological
cultivars of Steliette and Lauranne were selected
conditions and its resistance to the drought and
as the best self- compatible cultivars from the
the calcareous conditions. Also, the trees of
point of view of the habit of the growth, the late
almond have the long age about 20-40 years, and
flowering and the excellent performance (Duval
they begin to bear fruit since 3-4 years old. So
and Grasselly, 1994).
besides the selection of the suitable place of the
The study of the bioagronomical reaction of 22
orchard and its management, we must pay
famous cultivars of the world in Italy showed that
attention to select the suitable cultivar carefully.
the late flowering cultivars have better efficiency
The recognition and the evaluation of the
in the years that there was late frost of the spring
genotypes of almond can be base for the future
and the index of the fertility was higher in the
studies and for obtaining the desirable cultivars
cultivars of the self compatible with the adverse
or the cultivars having the special traits including
conditions of the pollination (Viti and Loreti,
habit of the desirable growth , the resistance to
1994). The study 30 superior genotypes and
the coldness or the pest or the diseases (kester et
cultivars in California showed that the cultivars
al.,
seedling
and the genotypes be have differently because of
rootstocks and recognizing the cultivars have one
the vegetative traits particularly the habit of the
or some excellent traits and their usage in the
growth (Ledbetter and Palmquist, 2002). The
programs of the breeding and the cropping is
evaluation of the biotic diversity of 88 cultivars
very
and the genotypes of almond in the collection of
1991).Obtaining
important
the
(Kester
suitable
and
Asay,
1975;
Grasselly, 1986).
the university of Bari in Italy showed that the
Beside the recognizing and collecting the
cultivars
superior genotypes among the native population
reproductive and vegetative traits have the
(seedling orchards) of almond and also making
different characteristics and these diversity
new
indices are very important
hybrids
,
the
evaluation
and
their
and
genotypes
because
of
the
comparison along with the important and
in helping to choose of the breeder( De Giorgio
commercial cultivars to obtain the cultivars with
and Polignano, 2001).Lansary et al. (1994) could
the desirable traits can make the great change in
obtain the indices to distinguish the present
the industry of almond .So ,the study of the
cultivars and the present closes in the collections
reaction of two cultivars of almond named
of almond of California by the analysis of
Ferragnes and Tuono along with 50 cultivars and
multivarians
genotypes in the ecological condition of the
morphological parameters .The study of the
South Italy showed that the phenological traits
history of the search in Iran also shows that some
and performance of cultivars have been different
cultivars are better than other cultivars in the
of
the
biochemical
and
the
experimental conditions , so in the primary study
studied in a similar environmental condition of
of the native and foreign cultivars in the Station
the nursery. For this, after providing of the field
of Sahand after 14 years of studies revealed one
and its preparation, the bitter seeds were planted
native cultivar Sahand and 5 foreign cultivars (
in the autumn of 2005 in the nursery to produce
Nonpareil , Ne Plus Ultra , Ferragnes, A 200 and
the necessary seedling rootstocks. After the seed
A230) and 2 hybrid ( Azar and Shokoufeh ) as
germination in the spring of the next year, in 3rd
the superior cultivars .Also study of some
May of 2006, percent of germination of planted
commercial
Shahrekurd(Rabie,
bitter seeds in the nursery was recorded. By the
Mamaie and Sefid cultivars), shahrood (Shahrood
end of July 2006, 60 almond genotypes and
12, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 21) and Karaj [(Genco,
cultivars in nursery on the considered rootstocks
Falsa Bares, Philip Ceo, Feragilo, Super nova and
were propagated by budding. Percent of graft
Tuono imported from Italy as the self compatible
satisfactory recorded by the end of October 2006.
cultivars and Marcona as self incompatible
To simplify the study, we gave the code of A1-
cultivar from Spain) and 35 superior selective
A60 to 60 genotypes and the cultivars of the
genotypes from almond breeding programs in
almond (Table 5). Also, the results of obtained
Karaj (specially resistant to the cold)] showed
data from 9 main vegetative and physiological
that some cultivars had performance better than
characters of 60 cultivars and the genotypes of
other cultivars((Imani et al, 2006). But up to
almond experimented in clouding the diameter
now, inside the country about the phenotypical
the trunk from the 5 cm above the place of the
behavior of these almond cultivars in a similar
graft , the height of the plant , the numbers of the
environmental condition of the nursery haven’t
branch on the trunk , the number of the leaves on
been performed, because in some of the cultivars
the branch of the current year , the length of the
of almond, they are used as the suitable seedling
blade of the leaf , the width of the blade of the
rootstock due to the habit of the vertical growth
leaf , the length of the petiole , the amount of the
and being the single trunk and good characters
chlorophyll and the contamination by the bloody
other. The aim of this study was to consider the
aphid were recorded in 2007. In order to
phenotypic behavior and the correlation of the
evaluation of characteristics of 60genotypes and
traits of 60 genotypes and the selective cultivars
cultivars, 10 samples of plants were used for
of almond in the similar conditions of nursery.
every genotype and cultivar by3 replication.
cultivars
in
The statistical analysis was performed using
Materials and Methods
Microsoft Excel (2007) and SPSS (14.0)
The research works of this study were begun by
Statistical Software.
preparation and the plantation of the bitter seeds
of Shahroud22 genotype as rootstock seedlings in
Results and Discussion
the autumn 2005. In this research for the
The results of obtained data from 9 main
phenotypic diversity, the number of 60 superior
vegetative and physiological characters of 60
genotypes and the cultivars of the almond were
cultivars
and
the
genotypes
of
almond
experimented in clouding the diameter the trunk
chlorophyll , the contamination by the bloody
from the 5 cm above the place of the graft , the
aphid , the color of two end leaves and the color
height of the plant , the numbers of the branch on
of the tip of the branch were shown in tables 1,
the plant ,the number of the leaves on the branch
2.3and 4. Also To simplify the study, we gave the
of the current year , the length of the blade of the
code of A1-A60 to 60 genotypes and the cultivars
leaf , the width of the blade of the leaf , the
of the almond (Table 5).
length of the petiole , the amount of the
Table.1 Analysis variance of deferent traits in 60almond genotypes and cultivars
The
source of Degree of
the
freedom
variance
Genotype
59
Error
120
Coefficient of the
variances
The numbers of the
leaves on the shoot
of the current year
183.5422
3.47778
Mean Square
Width of the
The length of the
blade leaf
blade of the leaf
3.2302
4.8618
0.3215
1.2518
0.2922
Length
of the
petiole
1.2518
0.2922
7.2210
22.0943
13.1627
Bloody
aphid
48.6915
0.0000
0
Mean Square
The
source of
the
variance
Degree of
freedom
Genotype
Error
Chlorophyll
Diameter of the
trunk
Height of the
plant
The numbers of the
branches on the
plant
59
47.3160
0.1838
35370.324
566.9476
120
0.0000
0.0328
0.0328
2.5944
Coefficient of the
variances
13.2931
13.8007
3.230
8.2335
As it was shown in Table 1, there was a
In Table 2, the comparison of the average of the
significant difference between genotypes and the
different traits in 60 cultivars and the selective
cultivars of the almond according to the studied
genotype
traits in the ecological conditions of the nursery.
of
almond
was
presented.
Table.2 Mean comparison of traits in 60almond genotypes and cultivars
trait
2.11 Height of the plant
Mean
135.333a
130.000b
126.333c
120.000d
120.000d
115.667de
110.333ef
109.667ef
107.667efg
106.333 efgh
106.333efgh
106.333efgh
105.775efghi
105.667efghi
105.123efghi
104.000fghij
103.333ghijk
102.000ghijkl
102.000hgijkl
101.333hgijklm
101.000hgijklm
101.000hgijklm
100.667hijklm
100.000hijklm
98.667ijklmn
97.667jklmno
97.667jklmno
95.333jklmnop
95.333jklmnop
94.667klmnopq
94.333klmnopq
94.333lmnopq
93.667mnopq
93.000nopqr
92.667nopqr
92.000opqr
92.000opqr
91.667opqr
91.667opqr
91.333opqr
90.667pqrs
90.000opqrst
90.000qrstu
90.000qrstu
90.000rstu
89.000stuv
89.000tuv
88.667uvw
88.333uvw
88.000uvw
87.333vwx
87.333vwx
86.667vwxyz
86.000wxyz
85.333xyz
85.000yz
85.000yz
84.000yz
79.333z
75.000z
var
A24
A40
A16
A43
A17
A32
A30
A13
A41
A15
A4
A20
A49
A21
A60
A52
A7
A35
A2
A42
A51
25
A54
A6
A28
A29
A3
A55
A31
A5
A11
A18
A47
A14
A9
A19
A36
A50
A53
A1
A34
A26
A23
A58
A38
A10
A59
A37
A45
A12
A46
A57
A22
A39
A56
A8
A48
A33
A27
A44
2.5 Width of the blade leaf(cm)
2.6The length of the blade of the
leaf (cm)
Mean
Mean
6.0333 a
3.4667b
3.4000bc
3.3333bcd
3.1000 bcd
3.0333 bcdef
3.0333 bcdef
3.0000 bcdefg
2.9333 bcdefgh
2.9000 bcdefgh
2.8333 bcdefghi
2.8333 bcdefghi
2.8000 bcdefghij
2.7667 bcdefghij
2.7667 bcdefghijk
2.7000 bcdefghijk
2.7000 bcdefghijk
2.6000 bcdefghijk
2.5000 bcdefghijk
2.5000 bcdefghijk
2.4667 bcdefghijk
2.4333 bcdefghijk
2.4333 bcdefghijk
2.4333 bcdefghijk
2.4000 bcdefghijk
2.3667 bcdefghijk
2.3667 bcdefghijk
2.3667 bcdefghijk
2.3667 bcdefghijk
2.3333 cdefghijk
2.3333cdefghijk
2.3000cdefghijk
2.3000cdefghijk
2.2667 defghijk
2.2667 defghijk
2.2333 defghijk
2.2000 efghijk
2.1667 efghijk
2.1667 efghijk
2.1000 efghijk
2.1000 efghijk
2.0667 efghijk
2.0667 efghijk
2.0667 efghijk
2.0333 efghijk
2.0333 efghijk
2.0333 efghijk
2.0000 efghijk
2.0000 efghijk
1.9667 fghijk
1.9333 fghijk
1.9000ghijk
1.9000 ghijk
1.9000 ghijk
1.8667hijk
1.8333 hijk
1.7667ijk
1.7000ijk
1.6667k
1.6667k
var
A2
A3
A4
A7
A9
A33
A54
A43
A24
A30
A45
A58
A5
A36
A52
A10
A37
A40
A60
A15
A46
A42
A22
A14
A48
A53
A19
A49
A6
A35
A51
A32
A21
A20
A25
A1
A11
A56
A12
A59
A23
A57
A39
A18
A27
A29
A44
A31
A23
A34
A17
A26
A16
A55
A13
A47
A50
A8
A28
A38
10.8333a
10.2667ab
10.1667abc
10.0000abcd
9.9333abcde
9.8667abcde
9.4333 bcdefg
9.2000 acdefgh
9.2000 acdefgh
9.1667 cdefgh
9.1667 cdefgh
9.0000 defghij
8.9333 defghij
8.9333 defghij
8.8667 efghij
8.8333 fghij
8.6667ghijk
8.6000 ghijkl
8.6000 ghijkl
8.5000 ghijkl
8.4333 ghijklm
8.3333 ghijklmn
8.3333 ghijklmn
8.1667hijklmno
8.1000 ghijklmnop
8.1000 hijklmnop
8.0667 hijklmnop
8.0333 ijklmnop
7.9333 jklmnopq
7.9333 klmnopq
7.5667 klmnopqr
7.5000 lmnopqr
7.5000 lmnopqr
7.5000 lmnopqr
7.5000 lmnopqr
7.5000 lmnopqr
7.3333lmnopqrs
7.3333 mnopqrs
7.3333 mnopqrs
7.3000 mnopqrs
7.2333 nopqrs
7.1667opqrst
7.0000 pqrst
6.9000pqrstu
6.8333 pqrsu
6.8333 pqrstu
6.8000 pqrstu
6.8000 qrstu
6.7667rstu
6.7667rstu
6.7333rstu
6.6667rstu
6.5000rstuv
6.4333 rstuv
6.3333stuv
6.3333 stuv
6.0667tuv
5.8333vu
5.6000v
4.5000w
var
A43
A4
A41
A3
A4
A5
A54
A45
A45
A40
A14
A2
A32
A10
A33
A6
A36
A42
A21
A37
A35
A9
A18
A12
A46
A19
A20
A25
A39
A38
A23
A15
A48
A24
A53
A58
A1
A49
A47
A16
A27
A30
A26
A55
A17
A34
A11
A8
A51
A29
A31
A22
A52
A59
A60
A50
A56
A57
A28
A44
2.7 The numbers of the leaves on
the shoot of the current year
Mean
var
75.000 a
74.667a
68.000b
64.000c
63.333c
62.000c
62.000c
62.000c
58.000d
57.000de
7.000de
56.333def
56.333 def
5.667defg
55.333defgh
55.000 defghi
55.000 defghi
54.333 defghij
54.000 defghij
54.000 defghij
53.667 efghij
53.333 fghij
53.000 fghij
53.000 fghij
53.000 fghij
53.000 fghij
52.667 fghij
52.667 fghij
2.667 fghij
52.333 ghij
52.333 ghij
.333 ghij
52.333 ghij
51.667 hij
51.667 hij
51.333 ij
51.333 ij
51.000 jk
48.000 lk
47.333 lk
47.333 lk
47.000mnl
47.000 mnl
46.000 mnlo
45.667 mnop
45.000 mnlopq
45.000 mnlopq
44.333 mnopqr
44.000 mnopqr
43.667 nopqr
43.000 opqr
43.000 opqr
42.667 opqr
42.333pqr
42.333pqr
42.000qr
42.000 qr
2.000 qr
41.000r
37.333s
A16
A40
A50
A21
A28
A26
A55
A18
A17
A2
A20
A31
A3
A49
A23
A53
A8
A30
A60
A15
A13
A11
A32
A43
A35
A51
A4
A9
A25
A34
A54
A38
A39
A29
A47
A42
A52
A41
A14
A19
A1
A48
A5
A37
A59
A24
A46
A10
A57
A44
A12
A45
A56
A36
A6
A58
A22
A27
A33
A7
Con.Table.2 Mean comparison of traits in 60almond genotypes and cultivars
2.10 The numbers of the
branches on the plant
Mean
var
31.67a
A1
25.00 b
A16
19.67c
A28
17.67bcd
A50
16.67bcde
A11
15.00bcdef
A18
15.00 bcdef
A20
15.00 bcdef
A32
14.67 bcdef
A17
14.25 bcdef
A29
14.11 bcdef
A55
14.00 bcdef
A31
13.67 bcdef
A12
13.00 bcdef
A40
13.00 bcdef
A26
13.00 bcdef
A36
12.56 cdef
A19
12.41 cdef
A8
12.11 cdef
A13
12.11 cdef
A9
12.11 cdef
A23
12.11 cdef
A7
12.11 cdef
A48
12.00 cdef
A49
11.67 cdef
A22
11.00 cdef
A53
10.33 cdef
A21
10.00 cdef
A52
10.00 cdef
A14
10.00 cdef
A60
9.67 cdef
A51
9.33 cdef
A6
9.00 cdef
A34
9.00 cde
A4
9.00 cdef
A42
9.00 cdef
A5
9.00 cdef
A3
8.33 cdef
A41
8.33 cdef
A15
8.00 def
A58
8.00 def
A59
8.00 def
A27
8.00 def
A57
8.00 def
A54
8.00 def
A33
7.33 def
A30
7.00 def
A45
7.00 def
A24
7.00 def
A47
7.00 def
A35
700 def
A38
6.00 ef
A10
5.00 ef
A44
5.00 ef
A2
5.00 ef
A39
5.00 ef
A43
4.00 ef
A37
4.00 ef
A25
3.67 ef
A46
3.67 ef
A56
2.1 f chlorophyll level
Mean
27.367a
24.600ab
23.433bc
23.133bc
22.933 bc
19.933dc
19.133de
18.733def
18.600def
18.433def
18.300defg
17.700 defgh
17.500 defghi
17.100 defghij
16.867 defghijk
16.733 defghijk
16.567 defghijk
16.100 defghijkl
16.067 defghijkl
15.967 efghijklm
15.867 efghijklm
15.867 efghijklm
15.800 efghijklm
15.767 efghijklm
15.733 efghijklm
15.667 efghijklm
15.567 efghijklm
15.567 efghijklm
15.533 efghijklm
15.500 efghijklm
15.133 efghijklm
14.933 fghijklmn
14.900 fghijklmn
14.733 fghijklmno
14.300 ghijklmnop
14.100 hijklmnopq
13.800 hijklmnopqr
13.433 ijklmnopqr
13.267jklmnopqrs
12.867 klmnopqrs
12.833klmnopqrs
12.467 lmnopqrst
12.433 lmnopqrst
12.333lmnopqrst
12.200 lmnopqrst
12.167 lmnopqrst
12.067lmnopqrst
12.033 lmnopqrst
11.900 mnopqrst
11.100 nopqrst
10.767opqrst
10.667 pqrstu
10.567 pqrstu
10.233 qrstu
10.100 qrstu
9.933 rstu
9.300stu
8.800tu
8.533tu
7.13U
var
A11
A7
A6
A59
A54
A1
A10
A23
A44
A15
A3
A20
A16
A2
A39
A27
A17
A47
A37
A60
A4
A12
A49
A14
A29
A50
A8
A51
A26
A34
A13
A40
A43
A48
A9
A30
A5
A21
A18
A33
A42
A36
A46
A57
A52
A22
A31
A25
A38
A53
A55
A19
A41
A35
A28
A58
A56
A45
A32
A29
traits
2.2 The numbers
aphid on plant
Mean
var
21.00a
A39
14.00b
A15
12.00c
A12
11.00d
A23
11.00d
A17
11.00d
A34
11.00d
A24
10.00e
A11
9.00f
A14
9.00f
A21
9.00f
A40
9.00f
A16
8.00g
A13
8.00g
A20
8.00g
A35
7.00h
A43
7.00h
A41
7.00h
A31
6.00i
A25
6.00i
A32
6.00i
A19
6.00i
A33
5.00j
A10
5.00j
A38
5.00j
A22
5.00j
A18
5.00j
A48
5.00j
A36
5.00j
A42
5.00j
A7
5.00j
A29
5.00j
A50
4.00k
A3
4.00k
A46
4.00k
A49
3.00l
A37
3.00l
A53
3.00l
A45
3.00l
A8
3.00l
A27
3.00l
A60
3.00l
A54
3.00l
A58
2.00m
A44
2.00m
A28
2.00m
A30
2.00m
A51
2.00m
A2
2.00m
A59
2.00m
A52
2.00m
A56
2.00m
A6
1.00n
A5
1.00n
A47
0.00o
A57
0.00o
A26
0.00o
A1
0.00o
A4
0.00o
A55
0.00o
A9
2.3
Diameter of the trunk (cm)
mean
2.3000a
2.0333ab
1.8000bc
1.7667bcd
1.6867bcd
1.6100cdef
1.5667 cdefg
1.5333 cdefgh
1.5033 cdefghi
1.5000 cdefghi
1.4633 cdefghij
1.4600 cdefghij
1.4533 cdefghij
1.4400 defghijk
1.4000 efghijkl
1.3767 efghijkml
1.3700 efghijkml
1.3667 efghijkml
1.3500 efghijklmn
1.3467 efghijklmn
1.3333 efghijklmn
1.3333 efghijklmn
1.3233 fghijklmn
1.3200 fghijklmn
1.3100 fghijklmn
1.3033 fghijklmn
1.3000 fghijklmn
1.3000 fghijklmn
1.2933 fghijklmn
1.2900 fghijklmn
1.2700 fghijklmn
1.2667 fghijklmn
1.2667 fghijklmn
1.2667 fghijklmn
1.2667 fghijklmn
1.2333 ghijklmn
1.2300 ghijklmn
1.2167 ghijklmno
1.2067 ghijklmno
1.2067 ghijklno
1.2033 ghijklno
1.2000 ghijklmno
1.2000 ghijklmno
1.2000 ghijklno
1.1767 hijklmno
1.1667 hijklmno
1.1667 hijklmno
1.1367 ijklmno
1.1333 ijklmno
1.1333 ijklmno
1.1333hijklmno
1.1000 jklmno
1.1000jklmno
1.0967jklmno
1.0667 klmno
1.0567lmno
1.0133mno
1.0122no
1.0033o
1.0000o
var
A16
A2
A18
A9
A32
A60
A8
A10
A58
A4
A56
A41
A52
A59
A20
A50
A38
A12
A55
A54
A5
A29
A53
A36
A40
A57
A24
A43
A33
A31
A48
A3
A13
A17
A14
A7
A35
A51
A30
A45
A6
A19
A49
A21
A47
A11
A1
A34
A22
A27
A23
A26
A15
A44
A25
A37
A42
A28
A39
A46
2.4 Length of the petiole(mm)
Mean
2.6333a
2.4333a
2.2667bc
2.1667bcd
2.1667bcd
2.0667ecde
2.0667 cde
2.0667 cde
2.0333f cde
2.0000 fcdeg
1.9667 cefdeg
1.9000 cefdegh
1.8667defgih
1.8000 defgijh
1.7667 degfijkh
1.7667degfijkh
1.7333 degijkh
1.7000 egfijghkm
1.6667 ehgfijgklmn
1.6333hgfijgklmno
1.6333h gfijgklmno
1.6333hgfijgklmno
1.6333hgfijgklmno
1.6333hfijgklmno
1.6000hfijgklmno
1.5333hijklmnoqp
1.5333hijklmnoqp
1.5000hijklmnoqpr
1.4667 ijklmnoqprs
1.4667 ijklmnoqprs
1.4667 ijklmnoqprs
1.4333 jklmnoqprs
1.4333 jklmnoqprs
1.4333jklmnoqprs
1.4333 jklmnoqprs
1.4000 jklmnoqprst
1.4000 jklmnoqprst
1.3667 klmnoqprst
1.3667 klmnoqprst
1.3667 klmnoqprst
1.3333lmnoqprst
1.3333lmnoqprst
1.3333 lmnoqprst
1.3000 mnoqprst
1.3000mnoqprst
1.2667noqprst
1.2667noqprst
1.2667 noqprst
1.2333 oqprst
1.2333oqprst
1.2333oqprst
1.2000 qprst
1.1667 qrst
1.1667 qrst
1.1333 qrst
1.1000 st
1.0667 st
1.0000t
1.0000t
1.0000t
var
A5
A54
A43
A33
A36
A35
A4
A25
A2
A41
A3
A19
A7
A45
A42
A15
A18
A28
A6
A40
A37
A48
A8
A9
A52
A16
A53
A39
A13
A20
A12
A55
A32
A30
A10
A22
A38
A29
A31
A21
A60
A1
A27
A51
A23
A11
A49
A56
A14
A47
A34
A46
A24
A17
A57
A26
A59
A44
A50
A16
As it was shown in Table2, the biggest diameter
The studied traits in 60 cultivars and the selective
of the trunk from upper than 5 cm , the length of
genotypes of almond base on the minimum,
the petiole , the percent of the contamination by
maximum, the deviation of the standard, the
the bloody aphid, height of the plant, the numbers
mean, and their index of diversity has bean
of the branches on the plant , the numbers of the
presented in Table 4.
leaves on the shoot of the current year , the length
of the blade of the leaf , the width of the blade
leaf , the amount of the chlorophyll were in the
cultivars and the genotypes with A16, A5, A39,
A24, A1, A16, A43, A2 and A11, respectively
and the least diameter of the trunk upper 5 cm,
the length of the petiole, the percentage the
contamination by the bloody aphid, the height of
the plant , the numbers of the branch on the plant
, the numbers of the leaves on the branch in the
current year , the length of the blade of the leaf,
the width of the blade of the leaf , the amount of
chlorophyll were in the cultivars and the
genotypes with A46, A16, A9, A44, A56, A7,
A44, A38 and A29 were observed, respectively.
The results of the correlation of the studied traits
in 60 cultivars and genotypes of almond have
been shown in Table3 that between the length of
the blade of the leaf and the length of its petiole
at level p<0.01, there was the positive and
significant
correlation
(r=0/63),
and
this
correlation was the most correlation between the
studied traits in 60 the cultivar and genotype of
almond. Also the correlation of between the
length of the leaf and its width of the leaf was
positive (%49.15) that showed important leaf and
its area in increasing assimilation in fruit,
because of most almonds with larger leaves have
bigger fruits (Kester and Gradziel, 1996;
Ledbetter and Palmquist, 2002; De Giorgio and
Polignano, 2004).
Table 3 The traits correlation among studied 60almond genotypes and cultivars in nursery condition
The length of the
Trait
The diameter of the
plant ( cm )
The diameter of the plant ( cm )
1.00000
The height of the plant ( cm)
0.03517ns
The height of the plant
( cm)
The numbers of the
branch on the plant
The numbers of the
leaves on the current
year branch
The length of the
blade of the leaf (
cm )
The width of the blade
of the leaf ( cm )
petiole ( cm )
The amount
of
chlorophyll
The numbers
of the bloody
aphids
1.00000
The numbers of the branch on the
the plant
0.15680*
-0.01938 ns
1.00000
The numbers of the leaves on the
current year branch
0.24632**
-0.01047 ns
0.25747**
1.00000
The length of the blade of the leaf (
cm )
0.11000 ns
-0.06225 ns
-0.15427*
-0.06225 ns
1.00000
The width of the blade of the leaf (
cm )
0.25500**
0.10418*
-0.17927*
-0.12789 ns
0.49152**
1.00000
0.13680 ns
-0.07787 ns
-0.14359*
-0.07787 ns
0.63844**
0.41464**
1.00000
The amount of chlorophyll
-0.03916 ns
-0.05348 ns
0.07557 ns
-0.02776 ns
0.04252 ns
0.07547 ns
-0.08756 ns
The numbers of the bloody aphids
-0.15101*
0.21785**
-0.02867 ns
0.15390*
0.11151 *
-0.13708 ns
-0.05813 ns
The length of the petiole ( cm )
1.00000
0.10442*
**: significant (at level p<0.01); * significant (at level p<0.05); ns: no significant
34
1.00000
Table.4 Minimum, maximum, standard deviation, mean, diversity index of traits in 60almond
genotypes and cultivars
Dependent variable
Diameter of the trunk (cm)
The height of the plant ( cm)
The numbers of the branch on
the plant
The numbers of the branches
on the plant
Length of the petiole(mm)
The width of the blade of the
leaf ( cm )
The length of the petiole (mm )
Number of
observations
180
180
chlorophyll level
The numbers of aphid on plan
Mean
2.60
166.00
Standard
deviation
0.28
13.02
1.31
97.22
Diversity
index (%)
21.37
13.39
0
51.00
14.29
18.29
78.13
180
35.00
76.00
7.92
51.83
15.78
180
3.50
11.20
1.34
7.85
17.07
180
1.50
4.20
0.78
2.44
31.96
180
0.80
3.00
0.39
1.56
25
180
180
6.50
0. 00
29.50
21.00
4.27
4.00
15.10
5.20
28.27
76.92
Minimum
Maximum
0.81
62.00
180
As in table 4 has been shown, the highest
Anyway, these diversity indexes can help to
and lowest deviation of standard were the
breeder selection in areas of heredity studies
numbers of the branch on the plant (14.29)
and molecular markers.
and diameter of the trunk (0.28). In table
(1994),using morphological variation within
4, diversity index can be important to help
collections of Moroccan almond clones and
the breeder selection. The highest and
Mediterranean and North American cultivars;
lowest diversity index relate to the
Kodak
numbers of the branch on the plant
phenotypic
(%78.13) and diameter of the trunk
agrochemical traits of the almond kernel and
(%21.37).
Daneshvar and Sardabi (2006) variation of
These results concord with other results
flowering period among 60 almond genotypes
from phenotypic diversity investigation of
obtained the indexes for distinguishing of
almond
in
almond cultivars and genotypes. The results of
California (Ledbetter and Palmquist ,
present research obtained indexes and different
2002), bio diversity of 80 almond cultivars
habitats of growth in various almond cultivars
in Italy (De Giorgio and Polignano, 2004).
and genotypes in nursery conditions
cultivars
and
genotypes
Lansari,
et
al.,
and Socias i company (2005)
correlation
between
some
Table.5 Codes of 60almond genotypes and cultivars
code
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
A7
A8
A9
A10
A11
A12
A13
A14
A15
A16
A17
A18
A19
A20
Var./geno.
K-6-8
K-4-6
K-5-27
K-2-34
K-4-14
K-1-21
K-1-32
D-101
K-16-25
K-8-4
K-13-1
K-16-8
K-15-5
K-14-7
K-8
K-13-22
K-16-23
K-11-9
K-13-40
K-9-7
code
A21
A22
A23
A24
A25
A26
A27
A28
A29
A30
A31
A32
A33
A34
A35
A36
A37
A38
A39
A40
Var./geno.
Shahrood13
K-14-a4
K-11-10
K-16-30
Shahrood16
Shahrood21
K-10-2
‫باال‬9
8-a34
Shahrood8
K-9-2
K-9-24
Shahrood15
K-9-20
K-11-8
K-10-14
K-10-16
K-9-36-32
Shahrood12
K-9-37
code
A41
A42
A43
A44
A45
A46
A47
A48
A49
A50
A51
A52
A53
A54
A55
A56
A57
A58
A59
A60
Var./geno.
K7-17
K-10-11
Flipe Ceo
K-5-13-2
K-4-7
Falsa Bares
Genco
Fragilo
tuono
Marcona
Supernova
Mamaie
Rabie
Sifid
Azar
Nonpareil
Sahand
A-230
Shekofeh
A-200
References
Barbera, G., Martini, L. & Monastra, F.
(1994) Response of Ferragnes and Tuono
almond
cultivars
to
different
environmental conditions in southern
Italy. Acta Horticulturea, 373: 99-103.
Daneshvar, H. A. & Sardabi, H. (2006)
Variation of flowering period among 60
almond genotypes. Acta Horticulturea,
726: 273-278.
De Giorgio, D., Polignano, G. B. (2001)
Evaluating the biodiversity of almond
cultivars ... Symposium on Olive
Growing, 27 September–2 October 2004.
Izmir, Turkey
Duval, H., Grasselly, C. (1994) Behaviour of
some sel-fertile almondselection in the
south east of France. Acta Horticulture,
373: 95-98.
Grasselly, C. (1986) Recent advences an
breeding potentialy of almond species,
application to the french climatic situation
in CR.Acad, Agric.fr.724. pp. 343-352.
Imani, A., Hassani, D. & Rahemi, A. (2006)
Following almond footprints in Iran. In:
Avanzato D. & Vassallo I. (Eds.).
Following almond footprints (Amygdalus
communis) cultivation and culture, folk
and history traditions and uses. ISHS.
Scripta Horticulturae, 4: 71-79.
Kester, D. E. & Asay, R. A. (1975) Almond
breeding, pp. 382-719. Inj Janick and
J.N.Moore (Eds) Advances in fruit
breeding.purdue university press. west
lafa yette IN.
Kester, D. E., Gradizl, T. M. & Grasselly, C.
(1991) Almond. Acta Horticulturae,
N.290.
Kester, D. E., Gradziel, T. M. (1996)
Almonds. In: Janick J. & Moore J. N.
Fruit breeding. Vol. III: Nuts: 1-97. John
Wiley & Sons, New York (USA).
Kodak, O., Socias i company, R. (2005)
Phenotypic correlation between some
agrochemical traits of the almond kernel.
Acta Horticulturea, 726.
Lansari, A., Iezzoni, A. F. & kester, D. E.
(1994) Morphological variation within
collections of Moroccan almond clones
and Mediterranean and North American
cultivars. Euphitica, 78: 27-41.
Ledbetter, C. A., Palmquist, D. E. (2002)
Evaluation of advanced almond (Prunus
amygdalus Batsch) selection relative to
the commercial almond cultivars Mission,
Nonpareil and Padre II. Vegetative and
carpological characteristics. Journal of
Genetic and Breeding, 56: 37-41.
Palasciano, M., Godini, A. (2001).
Garibaldina, an additional Promising selfcompatible Apulian almond variety.
Options Mediterraneennes, series Ghiers,
59: 329-331.
Socias I company, R. (1992). Breeding Selffertile almonds . Pant Breeding Reviews,
8: 313-38.
Viti, R., Loreti, F. (1994) Research on the
bioagronomic behaviour of 22 almond
cultivars of various origins. Acta
Horticulturae, 373: 65-71.