Evaluation of Pomological and Morphological Characteristics and Chemical Compositions of Local Pear Varieties (Pyrus communis L.) Grown in Gumushane, Turkey

  • Ozgun Kalkisim
  • Zuhal Okcu
  • Besim Karabulut
  • Duygu Ozdes
  • Celal Duran
Original Article
  • 172 Downloads

Abstract

The aim of the present research was to investigate the fruit quality of twenty different local pear varieties (Pyrus communis L.), namely Ahlat, Ankara, Arpa, Bıldırcın, Çermai, Cinci, Gelin Boğan, Hacı Hamza, Hahır, Kabak, Kızıl, Kokulu, Mehrani, Menendi, Sulu, Şalgam, Tokat Sultanı, Turşu, Yaz, and Yaz Meyriği, grown in Gumushane province in terms of pomological and morphological characteristics and chemical compositions. The fruit mass, fruit width and length, fruit stem thickness and length, fruit kernel width and length, hardness of pulp, number of seeds, leaf width and length, leaf stem length and thickness, and water soluble dry matter (WSDM) of the pear fruits have been determined as pomological and morphological characteristics. On the other hand, the chemical compositions of the pear varieties have been evaluated in terms of protein, ash, sucrose, fructose, glucose, total sugar, titratable acidity, moisture, and mineral element levels.

Both pomological and morphological results demonstrated that the local pear varieties are important in terms of rehabilitation studies and detailed selection studies on these local varieties should be performed. The chemical analyses result of the pear varieties revealed that there is no component that may be harmful to human health when consumed, and also these varieties contains the necessary amount of mineral elements.

Keywords

Local pear Pomological and morphological properties Chemical composition Gumushane Pyrus communis L 

Pomologische und morphologische Eigenschaften sowie Inhaltsstoffe lokaler Birnensorten (Pyrus communis L.) in Gumushane (Türkei)

Zusammenfassung

Das Ziel dieser Arbeit war es, die Qualität der Früchte von zwanzig lokalen Birnensorten, namentlich: Ahlat, Ankara, Arpa, Bildircin, Cermai, Cinci, Gelin Bogan, Haci Hamza, Hahir, Kabak, Kizil, Kokulu, Mehrani, Menendi, Sulu, Salgam, Tokat Sulatani, Tursu, Yaz und Yaz Meyrigi, die alle in der Provinz Gümüshane vorkommen, hinsichtlich ihrer pomologischen und morphologischen Eigenschaften und chemischen Zusammensetzung zu untersuchen. Die Fruchmasse, -größe, -länge, -kerndicke und -kerngröße, Härte des Fruchtkerns, Anzahl der Kerne, Blattgröße und Blattlänge, die Länge und der Durchmesser des Stammes und die lösliche Trockensubstanz der Birnenfrüchte wurden als pomoligsche und morphologische Eigenschaften bestimmt. Weiterhin wurden der Protein‑, Aschegehalt, der Gehalt an Saccharose, Fructose, Glucose und Gesamtzucker und tritierbarer Säure, der Feuchtigkeitsgehalt und der Gehalt an Mineralstoffen bestimmt.

Sowohl pomologische als auch morphologische Eigenschaften zeigen, dass detaillierte Selektionsstudien zu diesen lokalen Sorten durchgeführt werden sollten. Die chemischen Analysenergebnisse der Birnensorten zeigen, dass es keine Inhaltsstoffe gibt, die für die menschliche Gesundheit schädlich sein könnten, wenn die Früchte verzehrt werden. Weiterhin enthalten diese Sorten auch nennenswerte Mengen an mineralischen Elementen.

Schlüsselwörter

Birnen Pyrus communis L Inhaltsstoffe Lokalsorten Gumushane 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the Research Council of the Gumushane University (Project No: 16.B0123.02.01) for the financial support of this study.

Compliance with ethical guidelines

Conflict of interest

O. Kalkisim, Z. Okcu, B. Karabulut, D. Ozdes and C. Duran declare that they have no competing interests.

References

  1. Anonim (2012) http://faostat.fao.org
  2. Akçay ME, Büyükyılmaz M, Burak M (2009) Marmara Bölgesi İçin Ümitvar Armut Çeşitleri-IV. Bahçe 38(1):1–10Google Scholar
  3. Az Ö (2015) Eğridir (Isparta) Ekolojisinde Yetiştirilen Geççi Yerli Armut (Pyrus communis L.) Tiplerinin Pomolojik, Morfolojik ve Fenolojik Özelliklerinin Belirlenmesi. Master Thesis, Süleyman Demirel University Institute of Science and Technology, IspartaGoogle Scholar
  4. Bayazit S, Caliskan O, Sümbül A (2016) Morpho-pomological diversity of Turkish pear (Pyrus communis L.) accessions in eastern mediterranean region of Turkey. Acta Sci Pol Hortorum Cultus 15(5):157–171Google Scholar
  5. Bağbozan R (2015) Eğridir Ekolojisinde Yetiştirilen Erkenci Yerli Armut Tiplerinin (Pyrus communis L.) Fenolojik, Pomolojik ve Morfolojik Özelliklerinin Belirlenmesi. Master Thesis, Süleyman Demirel University Institute of Science and Technology, IspartaGoogle Scholar
  6. Blanke M, Kunz A (2009) Effect of climate change on pome fruit phenology at Klein-Altendorf – based on 50 years of meteorological and phenological records. Erwerbs-Obstbau 51(3):101–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bostan SZ, Acar Ş (2012) Ünye’de (Ordu) Yetiştirilen Mahalli Armut Çeşitlerinin Pomolojik Özellikleri. Akademik Ziraat Dergisi 1(2):97–106Google Scholar
  8. Campeanu G, Neata G, Darjanschi G (2009) Chemical composition of the fruits of several apple cultivars growth as biological crop. Not Bot Horti Agrobo 37(2):161–164Google Scholar
  9. Davidescu V, Davidescu D (1999) Agrochemical Compedium (in Romanian). Romanian Academy Press, Buchurest, Romania.Google Scholar
  10. Davis PH (1972) Flora of Turkey. Edinburg University Press, EdinburgGoogle Scholar
  11. Demirsoy L, Öztürk A, Serdar Ü, Duman E (2007) Saklı Cennet Camili’de Yetiştirilen Armut Çeşitleri. Türkiye V. Ulusal Bahçe Bitkileri Kongresi, s: 396–400, Erzurum.Google Scholar
  12. Duran C, Ozdes D, Akcay HT, Serencam H, Tufekci M (2015) Simultaneous Separation and Preconcentration of Cd(II), Co(II) and Ni(II) Ions in Environmental Samples by Carrier Element Free Coprecipitation Method Prior to Their Flame Atomic Absorption Spectrometric Determination. Desalin Water Treat 53:390–397Google Scholar
  13. Durić G, Mićić N, Salkić B (2014) Evaluation of pear (Pyrus communis L.) germplasm collected in Bosnia and Herzegovina using some pomological and ecophysiological characteristics. Acta Hort 1032:105–116Google Scholar
  14. Durić G, Mićic N, Pašalic B (2015a) Lenticels as pomological characteristic of apple and pear fruits. Acta Hort 1099:771–776Google Scholar
  15. Durić G, Žabić M, Rodić M, Stanivuković S, Bosančić B, Pašalić B (2015b) Biochemical and pomological assessment of European pear accessions from Bosnia and Herzegovina. Hort Sci 42(4):176–184Google Scholar
  16. Ertürk Y, Güleryüz M, Erdoğan Ü (2009) Quince a Üzerine Aşılı Bazı Armut Çeşitlerinin İspir (Yukarı Çoruh havzası) Koşullarındaki Verim ve Gelişme Durumlarının Belirlenmesi. Bahçe 38(1):11–17Google Scholar
  17. Faust M, Shear CB, Brooks HJ (1969) Mineral Element Gradients in Pears. J Sci Food Agric 20(5):257–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fischer M (2005) Naumburg-Pillnitz pear rootstock breeding program. Erwerbs-Obstbau 47(1):6–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gündoğdu M, Yılmaz H (2013) Bazı Standart Nar (Punica granatum L.) Çeşitleri ve Genotiplerine Ait Meyvelerin C Vitamini, Şeker ve Besin Elementleri İçeriklerinin Belirlenmesi. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi. J Agric Sci 23(3):242–248Google Scholar
  20. Harker FR, Marsh KB, Young H, Murray SH, Gunson FA, Walker SB (2002) Sensory interpretation of instrumental measurements 2: sweet and acid taste of apple fruit. Postharvest Biol Technol 24:241–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hulme AC, Rhodes JC (1970) Pome fruits. In: Hulme AC (ed) The biochemistry of fruit and their products. Academy Press, London-New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Karadeniz F (1999) Armut Suyunun Kimyasal Bilesimi Üzerine Araştırma. Turk J Agric For 23:355–358Google Scholar
  23. Karadeniz T, Çorumlu MS (2012) İskilip Armutları. Akademik Ziraat Dergisi 1(2):61–66Google Scholar
  24. Karlıdağ H, Eşitken A (2006) Yukarı Çoruh Vadisinde Yetiştirilen Elma ve Armut Çeşitlerinin Bazı Pomolojik Özelliklerinin Belirlenmesi. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi. J Agric Sci 16(2):93–96Google Scholar
  25. Kiprjanovski M, Ristevski B (2009) Biological and pomological characteristics of some pear varieties in Republic of Macedonia. Agric Conspec. Sci 74(2):123–126Google Scholar
  26. Lukic M, Maric S, Radicevic S, Mitrovic M, Milosevic N, Djordjevic M (2012) Importance of resistant/Tolerant fruit genotypes for environmental protection. J Environ Prot Ecol 13(1); 1, pp 20–127Google Scholar
  27. Mitre I, Mitre V, Ardelean M, Sestras R, Sestras A (2009) Evaluation of Old Apple Cultivars Grown in Central Transylvania. Romania Not Bot Horti Agrobo 37(1):235–237Google Scholar
  28. Morgan J (2015) The Book of Pears. Ebury. Press, USAGoogle Scholar
  29. Muradoğlu F, Balta F (2010) Ahlat (Bitlis) Yöresinden Selekte Edilen Cevizlerin (Juglans regia L) Bazı Fiziksel ve Kimyasal Özellikleri. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi. J Agric Sci 20(1):41–44Google Scholar
  30. Özrenk K, Gündoğdu M, Kan T (2010) Van Gölü Havzası Yerel Armutları. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi. J Agric Sci 20(1):46–51Google Scholar
  31. Sestras A, Sestras R, Lazar V, Mitre V, Mitre I, Ropan G, Barbos A (2009) The Influence of Fruit Position in the Crown of Trees on the Sugar Content and Morphological Traits of Apple Fruits. Bulletin UASVM. Horticulture 66(1):170–176Google Scholar
  32. Westwood MN (1978) Temperate-Zone Pomology. W.H. Freeman and Company, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  33. Yarılgaç T (2007) Edremit ve Gevaş (Van) Yöresi Armutlarının Seleksiyon Yolu ile Islahı. Türkiye V. Ulusal Bahçe Bitkileri Kongresi, s: 551–55, ErzurumGoogle Scholar
  34. Yarılgaç T, Yıldız T (2001) Adilcevaz İlçesinde Yetiştirilen Mahalli Armut Çeşitlerinin Bazı Pomolojik Özellikleri. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Tarım Bilimleri Dergisi. J Agric Sci 11(2):9–12Google Scholar
  35. Yilmaz KU, Ercisli S, Cam M, Uzun A, Yilmaztekin M, Kafkas E, Pinar H (2015a) Fruit Weight, Total Phenolics, Acidity and Sugar Content of Edible Wild Pear (Pyrus elaeagnifolia Pall.) Fruits. Erwerbs-Obstbau 57(4):179–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Yilmaz KU, Uzun A, Cam M, Ercisli S (2015b) Some morphological and fruit characteristics of naturally grown Pyrus elaeagrifolia Pall. of Kayseri Province (Central Anatolia, Turkey). Genet Resour Crop Ev 62(5):711–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Deutschland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ozgun Kalkisim
    • 1
  • Zuhal Okcu
    • 2
  • Besim Karabulut
    • 3
  • Duygu Ozdes
    • 1
    • 4
  • Celal Duran
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Agricultural Biotechnology, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural SciencesRecep Tayyip Erdogan UniversityRizeTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Food Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Natural SciencesGumushane UniversityGumushaneTurkey
  3. 3.Department of Plant and Animal Production, Gumushane Vocational SchoolGumushane UniversityGumushaneTurkey
  4. 4.Department of Chemical and Chemical Processing Technologies, Gumushane Vocational SchoolGumushane UniversityGumushaneTurkey
  5. 5.Department of Chemistry, Faculty of SciencesKaradeniz Technical UniversityTrabzonTurkey

Personalised recommendations