Printer Friendly

Clonal evaluation of new ornamental pineapple hybrids to use as cut flowers/Avaliacao clonal de novos hibridos de abacaxizeiros ornamentais para uso como flores de corte.

Introduction

The flower agribusiness is a promising activity with major growth potential in both domestic and foreign markets. Cut flowers account for 40% of the flower market (Correa et al., 2007), and their high export value has led to increases in production in many countries, including Brazil. Among the species sold, tropical flowers stand out for their beauty and colors. In addition, the Brazilian climate and soil are favorable for large-scale flower production, especially of native species (Lima & Ferraz, 2008).

The market for ornamental pineapple plants as a high-value floricultural product has been growing (Brainer & Oliveira, 2007). The pineapple has been used increasingly in recent years due to its exotic appearance, especially its pleasing colors, as well as long postharvest life (Sanewski, 2009; Souza et al., 2009; 2012; Souza, Costa, Santos-Serejo, & Souza, 2014). In addition, the small fruit at the tip of the stem forms a unique and original product. However, the stem must be uniform and at least 30 cm long, although longer stems, approximately 40 cm, are more desirable. In addition, the pineapple must have a balanced crown/syncarp (fruit) ratio, close to 1 or slightly less, which characterizes a fruit with a slightly shorter crown than the syncarp (Souza et al., 2012).

Embrapa Cassava and Fruits has an active germplasm bank with more than 600 accessions of Ananas and related genera. This company started genetic pre-breeding actions in 2003, aiming to identify and characterize accessions with ornamental potential to be used as parents in a controlled hybridization program (Souza et al., 2007; 2009; 2012). Some hybrids were subsequently obtained and have the potential to be selected as cut flowers and potted plants (Souza et al., 2014).

An important aspect is to know the flowering development of new hybrids because flowering control is a key step for pineapple cultivation such that natural flowering can be avoided and induction procedures can be enabled. Plant age is among the factors that most strongly influence this physiological event (Cunha, Cabral, & Souza, 1999).

In addition, the clonal evaluation of these hybrids is an important step to ensure the genetic stability and homogeneity of plants with respect to the selected traits, as well as ensuring that they are a novelty to the market. The use of quantitative and qualitative morphological descriptors under two cycles of evaluation provides the necessary information to confirm the homogeneity among plants and the genetic stability of clones. This type of approach is also applied to DUS (Distinctness, Uniformity and Stability) tests. Distinctness refers to the capability of a descriptor to demonstrate clear differences in comparison with other registered cultivars. On the other hand, uniformity refers to the intra-cultivar homogeneity, and stability refers to the temporal or spatial variation (Uniao para a Protecao das Obtencoes Vegetais [UPOV], 2002).

The two hybrids reported in this study were obtained from the crossing of two commercial varieties (Ananas comosus var. erectifolius x Ananas comosus var. bracteatus), with the aim of using these as cut flowers.

The objective of this study was to conduct a clonal evaluation of two promising ornamental hybrids using quantitative and qualitative morphological descriptors to recommend them as new ornamental pineapple cultivars, as well as to determine the best phase for floral induction of these hybrids.

Material and methods

The study was conducted at the Embrapa Cassava and Fruits experimental field in the municipality of Cruz das Almas, Bahia, located at 12[degrees]40' south latitude and 39[degrees]06' west longitude. According to the Koppen classification (Koppen, 1936), the climate is a transition between the Am and Aw zones, with an average annual rainfall of 1,143 mm, an average temperature of 24.28[degrees]C and a relative humidity of 60.47%. The soil of the experimental area is a typical dystrophic yellow Latosol, moderate A, with loamy sandy-clayey texture, kaolinitic, hypoferric, subperennial-semideciduous rainforest transition phase, with a slope of 0-3%.

Two hybrids, i.e., PL01 and PL04, were obtained by crossing a female parental (Ananas comosus var. erectifolius) and a male parental (Ananas comosus var. bracteatus) (Figure 1). The parental hybrids were evaluated concurrently under the same growing experimental conditions. The experimental design was completely random with 20 replications per evaluated hybrid and cycle, where each replication consisted of one plant.

The experiment was repeated twice, characterizing two production cycles in different seasons to evaluate the genetic stability of the selected characteristics and to consolidate the response of the hybrids to the evaluation parameters, particularly floral induction. For each cycle, planting was performed under the same growing conditions using seedlings with the same visual appearance.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

After 440 days of growth (approx. 15 months), flowering was induced using the commercial product Etrhel (ethephon 240 g [L.sup.-1]) at a concentration of 500 ppm of the active ingredient, plus 3% urea, which was applied to the leaf rosette. The physiological stages analyzed were: induction/ emergence of floral buds; induction/ first flower opening; planting/ emergence of floral buds; emergence of floral buds/last flower closing; first flower opening/ last flower closing; induction / last flower closing; and planting/ last flower closing. The last flower closing was selected because it is the current harvest point for ornamental pineapples due to enhanced syncarp colors and full fruit formation (Souza et al., 2014)

Thirty quantitative and qualitative morphological descriptors developed by the International Board for Plant Genetic Resources (International Board for Plant Genetic Resources [IBPGR], 1991) were applied and used for clonal evaluation.

Nine descriptors were applied to determine the quantitative aspects: plant height; leaf length; leaf width; peduncle length; peduncle diameter, syncarp length, syncarp diameter; crown length and crown diameter. In turn, 21 descriptors were applied to determine the qualitative features: plant habit; leaf variegation, leaf variegation distribution, main color of the sheet on the upper face, leaf anthocyanin pigmentation, spinescence, color of spines, wavy-edged blades, shape of the peduncle, external color of the shell syncarp, syncarp shape, bract apex shape of the fruitlet, overlapping bracts in relation to the fruitlet, bract color of the fruitlet, bracts at the base of the crown, bract color at the base in relation to the crown, bract color of the crown, crown length/syncarp length ratio, crown diameter/syncarp diameter ratio, number of colors of the crown and the shape of the crown apex. The color chart from the Royal Horticulture Society (RHS) (Royal Horticulture Society [RHS], 2007) was used to identify the colors adopted by the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV, 2002) for ornamental plant protection.

The SAS statistical software system (SAS Institute, 2010) was used to calculate the descriptive statistics: average; minimum value; maximum value; standard deviation and coefficient of variation. Joint analysis of the qualitative and quantitative data was performed to determine the genetic distance, based on the Gower algorithm (Gower, 1971).

The hierarchical groupings were formed using the unweighted pair-group method with the arithmetic mean (UPGMA) based on the average Euclidean distance between clones of the hybrids and parents. The validation of the groupings was determined using the cophenetic correlation coefficient (r) (Sokal & Rohlf, 1962).

The R Development Core Team (2006) statistical software system was used to analyze the genetic distance, hierarchical groupings and cophenetic correlation (R Development Core Team). The significance of the cophenetic correlation and the correlation among matrices (cycle 1 and cycle 2) were calculated using the Student-t and Mantel tests (10,000 permutations). A dendrogram was generated on the basis of the distance matrix using the MEGA program 4 (Tamura, Dudley, Nei, & Kumar 2007).

Results and discussion

The responses of the hybrids to flower induction were relatively uniform, with low standard deviation values in both cycles (Table 1 and Figure 2). Hybrid PL04 proved to be slightly premature, as floral buds emerged 13 and 16 days before PL01 in the first and second cycles, respectively. According to the time from planting to the last flower closing, blossoming time was reduced in the second cycle by 102 days for hybrid PL01 and 108 days for PL04 compared with the first cycle. The second cycle was shorter because seedlings were more developed and had originated from the mother plant.

A comparison of the flower induction results from the two cycles indicated uniform behavior and allowed confirmation of the number of days between two physiological stages. This information is essential for the production system because the grower can surely plan the date of stem harvesting according to the date of flower induction. On the other hand, the last flower closing is a determinant of stem harvesting for stems that meet market quality standards.

According to Cunha et al. (1999), the induction of pineapple blossoming allows the harvest to be scheduled and lowers production costs. Uneven blossoming throughout the growing cycle creates difficulties for production planning (Almeida et al., 2003) and for meeting market demands (Souza et al., 2009). If blossoming is not induced, the harvesting of floral stems may be extended by 60 days due to uneven blossoming. The average number of days from induction to blossoming (emergence of floral buds) of 'Smooth Cayenne' pineapple is 48.3 days and can extend to 115.5 days depending on induction time (Carvalho, Neves, Burkle, & Marur, 2005). The period from induction to harvest for one parental of the ornamental pineapple, A. comosus var. erectifolius, was 71 days (Cavalcante, Mosca, Sousa, Feitosa, & Paiva, 2010), similar to the values found in the hybrids evaluated in this study.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

In both cycles and for most variables, the quantitative morphological characteristics of the parentals (Table 2) and hybrids (Table 3) had low standard deviation, which indicated that the clones had high homogeneity.

Morphological differences were observed between the hybrids and parentals with respect to the size, shape, and color of different parts of the plant, as evidenced by the novelty attribute. This is characterized by the distinction of the hybrids relative to their parentals or existing varieties on the pineapple market (Figure 1 and Tables 2, 3 and 4). The parentals in this study are the only materials used in the ornamental market in Brazil (Brainer & Oliveira, 2007).

The multicategorical analysis performed on the hybrids and parentals allowed the formation of four groups in the two crop cycles (Figures 3 and 4). Here, the UPGMA clustering method based on the average Euclidean distance was used, and the average genetic dissimilarity was the cutoff point (D dg = 0.21).

[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]

The dendrogram of cophenetic correlation coefficients for the first (r = 0.9865, p < 0.0001, 10,000 permutations) and second cycle (r = 0.9814, p < 0.0001, 10,000 permutations) revealed good adjustment between the graphic representation of the distances and the original matrix (Rohlf & Fisher, 1968). The correlation between the matrices of the two cycles was highly significant at 0.659 based on the t test.

The G1 and G3 groups are the parentals, and groups G2 and G4 are the clones of the evaluated hybrids. The G1 group is the female parental (A. comosus var. bracteatus) (Figure 3 and 4). This genotype has large plants with an average height of 95.33 [+ or -] 6.33 cm, semi-erect growth habit, long (89.00 [+ or -] 3.05 cm) and wide (4.13 [+ or -] 0.23 cm) leaves, with differences in the anthocyanin colors between the spines and leaflet strips. The peduncles are 38.33 [+ or -] 2.01 cm in length and 1.87 [+ or -] 0.16 cm in diameter. The syncarps were cylindrical conical in shape, medium to large size (16.73 [+ or -] 2.18 cm and 9.73 [+ or -] 1.04 cm in diameter), with elongated red bracts (FAN1 54B), showing complete overlap in relation to the fruitlets (Tables 2 and 5). Using this same germplasm bank, Souza et al. (2012) analyzed 25 accessions of A. comosus var. bracteatus and noted that this botanical variety has large plants, long leaves, spines with the presence of anthocyanin and thick stalks.

The male parental (A. comosus var. erectifolius) in group G3 had different characteristics relative to A. comosus var. bracteatus (Figures 3 and 4). This genotype had a small size (78.25 [+ or -] 3.12 cm in height), erect habit and purple-gray leaves (FAN4 187A) without spines. The stalk was longer (41.00 [+ or -] 1.12 cm in length) and smaller in diameter (0.78 [+ or -] 0.04 cm). The syncarps were smaller (5.30 [+ or -] 0.45 cm in length by 5.93 [+ or -] 0.21 cm in diameter), with a cylindrical shape and a purple-gray color (FAN4 183B). The bract overlap in relation to the fruitlet was partial. The crown had an acuminate apex shape, smaller than the syncarp, with an average length of 4.15 [+ or -] 0.46 cm and a diameter of 4.08 [+ or -] 0.27 cm (Tables 2 and 4). This botanical variety has been used in floriculture as a cut flower due to the absence of spines, erect leaves, and small red syncarps. As reported by Brainer and Oliveira (2007), this variety has been exported to Europe as a cut flower and it accounts for 75% of ornamental pineapple exports from Ceara state, Brazil.

As evidenced by the dissimilarity dendrogram, the two hybrids showed good homogeneity, demonstrated by a linkage distance close to 0.08 and a low standard deviation in the quantitative morphological traits. The evaluation between the two crop cycles substantiated the genetic stability, with a good correlation between the two matrices. No atypical clones and no variation in qualitative and quantitative morphological traits were detected.

Hybrid PL01 showed similar erect plant habits to its parental A. comosus var. erectifolius, i.e., leaves had distributed variegation at the edges and a low intensity of anthocyanins, which is similar to the parental A. comosus var. bracteatus. The stalk an had erect shape and was 35.10 [+ or -] 1.86 cm long and 1.11 [+ or -] 0.06 cm in diameter, without deformation, i.e., the crown length/syncarp length and crown diameter/syncarp diameter ratios were close to one. These characteristics are good for the sale of stems as cut flowers because they appear balanced and are aesthetically pleasing. A crown/syncarp ratio much greater than one indicates large crowns. Similarly, values smaller than one indicate smaller crowns. Ratios much greater or smaller than one are undesirable because they indicate imbalance. The crown/syncarp ratios for this hybrid were 0.80 and 0.82 for cycles 1 and 2, respectively. These values fully meet the objectives for ornamental pineapple marketing, particularly considering cut flowers and potted plants (Souza et al., 2012). The syncarp had a cylindrical apex, similar to the parental A. comosus var. erectifolius, with long red bracts (FAN1 43D) completely covering the fruitlets. The two colors of the crown exhibit a unique color pattern that is advantageous for sale as ornamental plants.

Although the PL04 hybrid size was smaller and the leaves were shorter and yellow-green in color (FAN3 144A) without anthocyanin or variegation (Table 4), this hybrid featured a semi-erect habit similar to the parental A. comosus var. bracteatus. The stalk was erect and had an average length greater than 40 cm in both cycles, qualifying this hybrid for export because peduncles with smaller sizes are rejected or undervalued by the European market. A long and not very thick peduncle in ornamental pineapples is an interesting characteristic because it has a direct influence on the weight and consequently the shipping cost, which is especially important considering the export market.

Hybrid PL04 could be adapted as a potted plant provided it is adequately managed because it exhibits a semi-erect habit and a much smaller size than the parental.

Souza et al. (2012) defined the category of ornamental potted pineapple plants that was primarily based on plant size. Preferably, these plants must be shorter than 65 cm, with a semi-erect and compact habit, and have a crown/syncarp ratio close to one; spines should be absent, and the syncarp length and diameter should be less than 5 cm and 3 cm, respectively.

Conclusion

The two hybrids exhibited genetic stability and homogeneity. In addition, they were characterized as a novelty in the flower market and can be recommended as new cultivars of ornamental pineapple because they have satisfactory quality and meet the market requirements.

In both hybrids, the time from field planting to harvest of the stem was as long as 17 months in the first cycle and 13.5 months in the second cycle.

Doi: 10.4025/actasciagron.v38i4.26495

Acknowledgements

To the Banco do Nordeste S/A, for the financial support to the project, Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado da Bahia (FAPESB) and Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES), which awarded a Master fellowship to D.S. Costa Jr.

References

Almeida, E. F. A., Morgan, P. W., Saltveit Junior, M. E., Dias, M. S. C., Souza, I. S., Carvalho, M. M., ... Parrela, R. A. C. (2003). Floral induction of the bromeliad Guzmania 'Grand Prix'. Revista Brasileira de Horticultura Ornamental, 9(2), 129-134.

Brainer, M. S. C. P., & Oliveira, A. A. P. (2007). Floricultura: perfil da atividade no Nordeste Brasileiro. Fortaleza, CE: Banco do Nordeste.

Carvalho, S. L. C., Neves, C. S. V. J., Burkle, R., & Marur, C. J. (2005). Epocas de inducao floral e soma termica do periodo do florescimento a colheita de abacaxi 'Smooth Cayenne'. Revista Brasileira de Fruticultura, 27(3), 430-433.

Cavalcante, R. A., Mosca, J. L., Sousa, A. B. O., Feitosa, D. R. C., & Paiva, W. O. (2010). Development and post harvest of ornamental pineapple. Revista Brasileira de Horticultura Ornamental, 16(1), 101-105.

Correa, S., Rigon, L., Beling, R. R., Reetz, E. R., Santos, C., & Lindemann. C. (2007). Anuario Brasileiro das Flores 2007. Porto Alegre, RS: Editora Gazeta Santa Cruz.

Cunha, G. A. P., Cabral, J. R. S., & Souza. L. F. (1999). The pineapple: culture, agribusiness and economy. Brasilia, DF: Embrapa.

Gower, J. C. (1971). A general coefficient of similarity and some of its properties. Biometrics, 27(4), 857-874. doi: 10.2307/2528823

International Board for Plant Genetic Resources (IBPGR). (1991). Descriptors for pineapple. Rome, RM: Bioversity International.

Koppen, W. (1936). Das seographische system der climate. In W. Koppen, & R. Geiger (Eds.), Handbuch der klimatologie. Germany, BE: Gebrfider Borntraeger.

Lima, J. D., & Ferraz, M. V. (2008). Cautions in harvesting and post-harvesting of tropical flowers. Revista Brasileira de Horticultura Ornamental, 14(1), 29-34.

R Development Core Team. (2006). A language and environment for statistical computing [Software]. Vienna, AT: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

Rohlf, F. J., & Fisher, D. R. (1968). Tests for hierarchical structure in random data sets. Systematic Zoology, 17(4), 407-412. doi: 10.2307/2412038

Royal Horticultural Society (RHS). (2007). RHS colour chart. London, UK: Royal Horticultural Society.

Sanewski, G. M. (2009). Breeding Ananas for the cut-flower and garden markets. Acta Horticulturae, 822, 71-78. doi: 10.17660/ActaHortic.2009.822.7

SAS Institute. (2010). The SAS system for Windows -Release 9.2 [Software]. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.

Sokal, R. R., & Rohlf, F. J. (1962). The comparison of dendrograms by objective methods. Taxon, 11(2), 33-40. doi: 10.2307/1217208

Souza, E. H., Costa, M. A. P. C., Santos-Serejo, J. A., & Souza, F. V. D. (2014). Selection and use recommendation in hybrids of ornamental pineapple. Revista Ciencia Agronomica, 45(2), 409-416. doi: 10.1590/S1806-66902014000200024

Souza, E. H., Souza, F. V. D., Costa, M. A. P. C., Costa Junior, D. S., Santos-Serejo, J. A., Amorim, E. P., & Ledo, C. A. S. (2012). Genetic variation of the Ananas genus with ornamental potential. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, 59(7), 1357-1376. doi: 10.1007/s10722011-9763-9

Souza, F. V. D., Cabral, J. R. S., Souza, E. H., Ferreira, F. R., Nepomuceno, O. S., & Silva, M. J. (2009). Evaluation of F1 hybrids between Ananas comosus var. ananassoides and Ananas comosus var. erectifolius. Acta Horticulturae, 822, 79-84. doi: 10.17660/ActaHortic.2009.822.8

Souza, F. V. D., Cabral, J. R. S., Souza, E. H., Santos, O. N., Santos-Serejo, J. A., & Ferreira, F. R. (2007). Morphological characterization of ornamental pineapple. Magistra, 19(4), 319-325.

Tamura, K., Dudley, J., Nei, M., & Kumar, S. (2007). Mega 4: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis (MEGA) software version 4.0. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 24(8), 1596-1599. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msm092

Uniao para a Protecao das Obtencoes Vegetais [UPOV]. (2002). General introduction to the examination of distinctness, uniformity and stability and the development of harmonized descriptors of new varieties of plants. Document TG/I/3. Geneva, SWZ: International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants.

Received on February 4, 2015.

Accepted on April 13, 2015.

Davi Silva Costa Junior (1), Everton Hilo de Souza (2), Maria Angelica Pereira de Carvalho Costa (1), Marcio Eduardo Canto Pereira (2) and Fernanda Vidigal Duarte Souza (2) *

(1) Centro de Ciencias Agrarias Ambientais e Biologicas, Universidade Federal do Reconcavo da Bahia, Cruz das Almas, Bahia, Brazil. (2) Embrapa Mandioca e Fruticultura, Rua Embrapa, s/n, 44380-000, Cruz das Almas, Bahia, Brazil. * Author for correspondence. E-mail: fernanda.souza@embrapa.br
Table 1. Physiological stages between planting and blossoming in
hybrids PL01 and PL04 (Ananas comosus var. erectifolius x A.comosus
var. bracteatus).

Physiological stages                         Hybrid PL01

First cycle (number of days)

Induction / emergence of floral buds     42.40 [+ or -] 3.08
Induction / first flower opening         53.30 [+ or -] 0.47
Planting/ emergence of floral buds       482.40 [+ or -] 3.08
Emergence of floral buds / last flower
  closing                                26.60 [+ or -] 3.08
First flower opening / last flower
  closing                                15.70 [+ or -] 0.47
Induction / last flower closing          69.00 [+ or -] 0.00
Planting / last flower closing           509.00 [+ or -] 0.00

Second cycle

Induction / emergence of floral buds     42.75 [+ or -] 2.47
Induction / first flower opening         52.75 [+ or -] 0.64
Planting/ emergence of floral buds       381.75 [+ or -] 2.47
Emergence of floral buds / last flower
  closing                                25.25 [+ or -] 2.47
First flower opening / last flower
  closing                                15.25 [+ or -] 0.64
Induction / last flower closing          68.00 [+ or -] 0.20
Planting / last flower closing           407.00 [+ or -] 0.45

Physiological stages                         Hybrid PL04

First cycle (number of days)

Induction / emergence of floral buds     29.35 [+ or -] 1.14
Induction / first flower opening         51.65 [+ or -] 2.76
Planting/ emergence of floral buds       469.38 [+ or -] 1.12
Emergence of floral buds / last flower
  closing                                40.75 [+ or -] 1.89
First flower opening / last flower
  closing                                18.45 [+ or -] 2.95
Induction / last flower closing          70.10 [+ or -] 0.41
Planting / last flower closing           510.10 [+ or -] 0.41

Second cycle

Induction / emergence of floral buds     26.72 [+ or -] 2.02
Induction / first flower opening         50.60 [+ or -] 1.08
Planting/ emergence of floral buds       361.72 [+ or -] 1.02
Emergence of floral buds / last flower
  closing                                40.40 [+ or -] 2.12
First flower opening / last flower
  closing                                16.52 [+ or -] 1.42
Induction / last flower closing          67.12 [+ or -] 2.54
Planting / last flower closing           402.12 [+ or -] 1.54

Table 2. Quantitative morphological characteristics of parentals
(Ananas comosus var. erectifolius and A.comosus var. bracteatus) of
the PL01 and PL04 hybrids.

Descriptor                 A. comosus var.       A. comosus var.
                            erectifolius            bracteatus

First cycle

Plant height (cm)        78.25 [+ or -] 3.12   95.33 [+ or -] 6.33
Leaf length (cm)         63.75 [+ or -] 1.65   89.00 [+ or -] 3.05
Leafwidth (cm)           3.03 [+ or -] 0.32     4.13 [+ or -] 0.23
Peduncle length (cm)     41.00 [+ or -] 1.12   38.33 [+ or -] 2.01
Peduncle diameter (cm)   0.78 [+ or -] 0.04     1.87 [+ or -] 0.16
Syncarp length (cm)      5.30 [+ or -] 0.45    16.73 [+ or -] 2.18
Syncarp diameter (cm)    5.93 [+ or -] 0.21     9.73 [+ or -] 1.04
Crown length (cm)        4.15 [+ or -] 0.46     7.03 [+ or -] 0.78
Crown diameter (cm)      4.08 [+ or -] 0.27     6.33 [+ or -] 0.43

Second cycle

Plant height (cm)        80.13 [+ or -] 4.15   101.33 [+ or -] 7.26
Leaf length (cm)         61.44 [+ or -] 1.25   92.00 [+ or -] 2.98
Leafwidth (cm)           3.11 [+ or -] 0.41     4.17 [+ or -] 0.55
Peduncle length (cm)     43.00 [+ or -] 2.44   36.13 [+ or -] 2.19
Peduncle diameter (cm)   0.81 [+ or -] 0.08     1.91 [+ or -] 0.11
Syncarp length (cm)      6.29 [+ or -] 0.63    15.95 [+ or -] 1.45
Syncarp diameter (cm)    6.02 [+ or -] 0.57     8.97 [+ or -] 1.12
Crown length (cm)        4.05 [+ or -] 0.58     6.89 [+ or -] 1.07
Crown diameter (cm)      4.15 [+ or -] 0.38     6.18 [+ or -] 0.40

Table 3. Quantitative morphological characteristics of PL01 and PL04
hybrids (Ananas comosus var. erectifolius x A.comosus var.
bracteatus).

Descriptor               Average   Minimum   Maximum   Standard
                                                       Deviation

A.comosus var. erectifolius x A.comosus var. bracteatus (PL01)

First cycle

Plant height (cm)         96.89     70.00    112.00      11.27
Leaf length (cm)          83.50     60.00     97.00      7.53
Leafwidth (cm)            3.91      3.50      4.50       0.26
Peduncle length (cm)      35.10     32.00     38.00      1.86
Peduncle diameter (cm)    1.11      1.00      1.20       0.06
Syncarp length (cm)       4.69      4.00      5.40       0.34
Syncarp diameter (cm)     3.31      2.80      3.50       0.21
Crown length (cm)         3.76      3.30      4.40       0.30
Crown diameter (cm)       3.80      2.60      4.80       0.66

Second cycle

Plant height (cm)         79.50     57.00    104.00      12.84
Leaf length (cm)          78.65     58.00    100.00      11.82
Leafwidth (cm)            4.43      3.70      5.20       0.38
Peduncle length (cm)      37.85     33.00     40.00      1.75
Peduncle diameter (cm)    1.05      0.90      1.10       0.06
Syncarp length (cm)       4.04      2.70      4.50       0.48
Syncarp diameter (cm)     3.25      2.90      3.70       0.26
Crown length (cm)         3.33      2.60      4.50       0.40
Crown diameter (cm)       4.17      3.50      4.80       0.28

A. comosus var. erectifolius x A. comosus var. bracteatus (PL04)

First cycle

Plant height (cm)         60.75     52.00     77.00      6.44
Leaf length (cm)          53.10     40.00     62.00      6.50
Leafwidth (cm)            3.57      3.10      4.10       0.20
Peduncle length (cm)      40.20     36.00     45.00      2.87
Peduncle diameter (cm)    0.90      0.70      1.10       0.10
Syncarp length (cm)       3.82      3.00      5.80       0.57
Syncarp diameter (cm)     3.82      3.00      5.58       0.57
Crown length (cm)         3.39      2.50      4.50       0.51
Crown diameter (cm)       3.56      2.40      4.20       0.47

Second cycle

Plant height (cm)         62.65     51.00     70.00      5.09
Leaf length (cm)          59.10     47.00     65.00      4.58
Leafwidth (cm)            3.58      2.70      4.50       0.39
Peduncle length (cm)      42.00     36.00     46.00      3.41
Peduncle diameter (cm)    0.91      0.70      1.00       0.08
Syncarp length (cm)       3.74      3.00      4.00       0.24
Syncarp diameter (cm)     3.74      3.00      4.00       0.24
Crown length (cm)         3.14      2.20      4.00       0.45
Crown diameter (cm)       3.79      3.20      4.50       0.38

Descriptor               CV (%)

A.comosus var. erectifolius x A.comosus var. bracteatus (PL01)

First cycle

Plant height (cm)        11.63
Leaf length (cm)          9.02
Leafwidth (cm)            6.75
Peduncle length (cm)      5.30
Peduncle diameter (cm)    4.98
Syncarp length (cm)       7.22
Syncarp diameter (cm)     6.49
Crown length (cm)         8.11
Crown diameter (cm)      17.40

Second cycle

Plant height (cm)        16.16
Leaf length (cm)         15.03
Leafwidth (cm)            8.64
Peduncle length (cm)      4.64
Peduncle diameter (cm)    5.78
Syncarp length (cm)      11.91
Syncarp diameter (cm)     8.08
Crown length (cm)        12.12
Crown diameter (cm)       6.70

A. comosus var. erectifolius x A. comosus var. bracteatus (PL04)

First cycle

Plant height (cm)        10.60
Leaf length (cm)         12.23
Leafwidth (cm)            5.56
Peduncle length (cm)      7.16
Peduncle diameter (cm)   11.73
Syncarp length (cm)      14.86
Syncarp diameter (cm)    14.86
Crown length (cm)        15.01
Crown diameter (cm)      13.18

Second cycle

Plant height (cm)         8.13
Leaf length (cm)          7.74
Leafwidth (cm)           10.82
Peduncle length (cm)      8.14
Peduncle diameter (cm)    8.66
Syncarp length (cm)       6.57
Syncarp diameter (cm)     6.57
Crown length (cm)        14.29
Crown diameter (cm)       9.98

Table 4. Qualitative morphological features of parentals (Ananas
comosus var. erectifolius x A.comosus var. bracteatus) and PL01 and
PL04 hybrids.

Descriptors (1)                         A. comosus var.
                                          erectifolius

Plant habit                                  Erect
Leaf variegation                            Present
Leaf variegation distribution               Marginal
Main color of the sheet on the            Purple-gray
upper face                                  FAN4187A
Leaf anthocyanin pigmentation               Present
Spinescence                                  Absent
Color of spines                                --
Wavy-edged blades                            Absent
Shape of the peduncle                       Straight
External color of the shell syncarp   Purple-gray FAN4183B
Syncarp shape                             Cylindrical
Bract apex shape of the fruitlet             Sharp
Overlapping bracts in relation to           Partial
  the fruitlet
Bract color of the fruitlet               Red FAN 51B
Bracts at the base of the crown             Present
Bract color at the base in relation        Different
  to the crown
Bract color of the crown                 Red FAN1 184A
Crown length/syncarp length ratio             Low
Crown diameter/syncarp diameter               Low
  ratio
Number of crown colors                         2
Shape of the leaf crown apex             Sharp Moderate

Descriptors (1)                         A. comosus var.
                                          bracteatus

Plant habit                               Semi-erect
Leaf variegation                            Present
Leaf variegation distribution              Marginal
Main color of the sheet on the           Yellow-green
upper face                                 FAN3146A
Leaf anthocyanin pigmentation               Present
Spinescence                                 Present
Color of spines                            Different
Wavy-edged blades                           Absent
Shape of the peduncle                      Straight
External color of the shell syncarp       Red FAN146B
Syncarp shape                         Cylindrical Conical
Bract apex shape of the fruitlet             Sharp
Overlapping bracts in relation to            Total
  the fruitlet
Bract color of the fruitlet               Red FAN154B
Bracts at the base of the crown             Present
Bract color at the base in relation        Different
  to the crown
Bract color of the crown                  Red FAN152B
Crown length/syncarp length ratio             Low
Crown diameter/syncarp diameter               Low
  ratio
Number of crown colors                         2
Shape of the leaf crown apex               Acuminate

Descriptors (1)                        Hybrid PL01      Hybrid PL04

Plant habit                               Erect          Semi-erect
Leaf variegation                         Present           Absent
Leaf variegation distribution            Marginal            --
Main color of the sheet on the         Yellow-green     Yellow-green
upper face                               FAN3144A         FAN3144A
Leaf anthocyanin pigmentation            Present           Absent
Spinescence                               Absent           Absent
Color of spines                             --               --
Wavy-edged blades                         Absent           Absent
Shape of the peduncle                    Straight         Straight
External color of the shell syncarp    Red FAN148D      Red FAN152D
Syncarp shape                          Cylindrical      Cylindrical
Bract apex shape of the fruitlet          Sharp            Sharp
Overlapping bracts in relation to         Total            Total
  the fruitlet
Bract color of the fruitlet            Red FAN143D      Red FAN151B
Bracts at the base of the crown          Present          Present
Bract color at the base in relation        Same          Different
  to the crown
Bract color of the crown               Red FAN151A      Red FAN1 50A
Crown length/syncarp length ratio          Low              Low
Crown diameter/syncarp diameter            Low              Low
  ratio
Number of crown colors                      2                2
Shape of the leaf crown apex          Sharp Moderate   Sharp Moderate

(1) Descriptors developed by the (International Board for Plant
Genetic Resources [IBPGR], 1991).
COPYRIGHT 2016 Universidade Estadual de Maringa
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2016 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Costa, Davi Silva, Jr.; de Souza, Everton Hilo; Costa, Maria Angelica Pereira de Carvalho; Pereira,
Publication:Acta Scientiarum. Agronomy (UEM)
Date:Oct 1, 2016
Words:5173
Previous Article:Removal of apical meristem and increase in plant density of soybean plants for the single seed descent method/Remocao do meristema apical e...
Next Article:QTLs identification for characteristics of the root system in upland rice through DNA microarray/Identificacao de QTL para caracteristicas do sistema...

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters