Printer Friendly

Evaluation of Genetic Diversity among Jordanian Pomegranate Landraces by Fruit Characteristics and Molecular Markers.

Byline: Saed Joseph Owais and Adel H. Abdel-Ghani

Abstract

The level of variation in various fruit traits was described among 14 Jordanian pomegranate landraces and the genetic relatedness was investigated using RAPD and SSR markers. Euclidean distances among studied landraces ranged from 3.33 to 12.01, with a mean of 7.65. Fruit and aril traits explained the variation in the first component (28.92%), while other traits were present in the second (17.615) and third (12.81%) components, and therefore contributed less to the variability. Genetic distances based on RAPD scores ranged from 0.24 to 0.66, indicating that considerable level of divergence exists among studied pomegranate landraces. The set of SSR markers used in this study was monomorphic, which might be due to the fact that available SSR markers are too few to identify polymorphic SSR markers to differentiate between landraces present within a small geographic area.

Multivariate analysis showed that dendrograms constructed based on fruit related traits as compared with that based on RAPD scores were not consistent. Pomegranate landraces displayed high variability in fruit and aril related traits, which could be considered a valuable source of genes for commercial uses. Results revealed the presence of small seeded variety that has large arils. High morphological and RAPD variation exist among Jordanian pomegranate landraces could be exploited in pomegranate breeding.

Keywords: Diversity; Fruit traits; Pomegranate; RAPD; SSR

Introduction

Pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) is considered one of the ancient and sacred fruit tree in the Mediterranean zone (Stover and Mercure, 2007), it is believed that the center of origin of pomegranate is the region extended from Iran to the Himalayas in northern India, and then it spread to other parts of the world (Levin, 1994). Pomegranate tree is well known in the Mediterranean countries where high diverse genetic resources are still available in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Arab Peninsula (Barone et al., 2001; Sarkhosh et al., 2009). Pomegranate were used as antimicrobial and antimutagenic agent and has an antioxidant activity (Negi et al., 2003; Seeram et al., 2005), and has been used in commercial cosmetics preparation and could be utilized as therapeutic agent (Kim et al., 2002).

Pomegranate landraces in the world display high diversity level in fruit traits such as fruit size and external fruit color, juice taste and color, seed hardiness, pest resistance and times to maturity (Barone et al., 2001; Sarkhosh et al., 2009). Aril is the edible part of the fruits and constitutes about one half of total fruit mass (Sarkhosh et al., 2006). Aril is very variable in taste and color, and in seed hardness (Zamani, 1990; Sarkhosh et al., 2009).

Varietal identification in pomegranate is based mainly on fruits external and internal features (Barone et al., 2001; Sarkhosh et al., 2009), however, it is not an easy task for many reasons. Firstly, the duration required from seedling until the tree bears fruit is too long (4-5 years in average) and quantitative traits used for varietal identification vary according to the prevailing environmental conditions (Melgarejo et al., 2000). DNA-based markers are not affected by environment and molecular genetic tools may help to quickly and precisely characterize plant varieties. Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphisms (RFLPs) of the total genome (Melgarejo et al., 2009) and Random Amplified Polymorphic DNA (RAPD) were successfully used in characterizing pomegranate germplasm (Baddaf et al., 2003; Sarkhosh et al., 2006). Awamleh et al. (2009) used Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphism (AFLP) technique to evaluate the level of genetic diversity among pomegranate landraces.

SSR markers in pomegranate were developed and characterized by several groups (Curro et al., 2010; Hasnaoui et al., 2010; Pirseyedi et al., 2010).

In Jordan, pomegranate was subjected to genetic erosion during the last decades, because of the replacement of pomegranate with olive plantations and due to unavailability of water for supplementary irrigation due to successive seasons of drought. Many old pomegranate plantations have been removed and a few local varieties are propagated in commercial nurseries and used in the new plantations. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to: (i) estimate the level of polymorphism in economically important traits in Jordanian pomegranate fruit trees landrace collections, (ii) identify pomegranate germplasm with desirable fruit traits for pomegranate improvement, and (iii) studying the extent of DNA variation in pomegranate landraces using RAPD and SSR markers.

Materials and Methods

Localization of Pomegranate Landraces

Field trips were organized to collect stem cuttings from pomegranate landraces according to their local names from Ajloun district, Jordan. In total, 14 pomegranate landraces were localized in farmers' field, namely; 'Khashaby', 'Khdaree Hello', 'Malesse', 'Bradee Sharabee Asfar', 'Hasmasi', 'Hmaree Hmadee', 'Bradee Sharabee Ahmar', 'Zeklabee', 'Zokom Albagel', 'Khratee', 'Ahmar Hello', 'Khdaree Hmadee', 'Lfani Sharabi', 'Zarori and Esari'. The fourteen Jordanian pomegranate landraces were propagated by stem cuttings according to the conditions proposed by Owais (2010). Thereafter, rooted cuttings were planted in plastic bags to be conserved at Mu'tah University Agricultural Station ex situ. From each landrace, stem cuttings were collected from four trees to have 56 accessions in total.

Morphopomological Characterization

Fruits samples of pomegranate landraces were collected from farmers' field from mature trees at Ajloun district, Jordan for two successive seasons 2010 and 2011. Four trees per landrace were evaluated. Each tree was considered as a replicate. Five fruits per replication were harvested at maturity; i.e. 20 mature fruits in total for each landrace were evaluated. Four qualitative traits were recorded with diverse phenotypic classes including peel color (green red, yellow red, red), aril color (white, light pink, pink and red), seed hardiness (soft, semi-hard, hard) and juice taste (sour, sweet-sour and sweet). Twenty seven quantitative fruit traits were recorded and analyzed (Table 1). Fruit, crown and neck dimensions were initially recorded. Thereafter, fruits were weighed and carefully opened to separate arils from pericarp and internal membrane surrounding arils. Afterwards, the total number of arils and their weight per fruit were recorded.

Peel total weight (pericarp) was calculated by subtracting aril weight from fruit weight. Peel percentage was calculated by dividing peel fresh weight by fruit fresh weight. Aril fresh weight percentage was calculated by dividing total aril weight by the total number of arils. Bulbs containing fresh arils were manually squeezed and then the seeds separated from other residues, washed with fresh water and dried with paper towel. Thereafter, seeds number and seed total fresh weight were recorded. Juice percentage was recorded by dividing juice weight by the total weight of fresh arils. One hundred seeds were oven-dried for 48 h at 70C to record seed dry weights.

Amplification of DNA Fragments and PCR Conditions

Genomic DNA was isolated from individual trees (replicate) from fresh leaves using CTAB based protocol described by Murray and Thompson (1980). DNA was diluted to 5 ug/uL for PCR amplification. As an initial step, sixty two primers from Operon kits were screened to identify the primers with polymorphic amplifications as shown in Table 2 (Williams et al., 1990). PCR reaction was performed in 20 uL volumes under the following conditions: 20 ng genomic DNA, 250 nM of 10-mer primer, 200 nM dNTPs, 1 U Taq polymerase and 1.5 mM MgCl2. DNA amplifications were performed using the following program: an initial denaturation step of 94C for 4 min, followed by 35 cycles of 92C for 1 min, 37C for 1 min, 72C for 2 min and a final extension at 72C for 10 min. Agarose gel with a concentration of 1.5% (w/v) was used to separate the PCR products using horizontal gel electrophoresis in TBE buffer (Tris-boric acid-EDTA).

Amplified products were visualized under UV light using ethidium bromide staining.

SSR markers were selected from previous studies (Curro et al., 2010; Hasnaoui et al., 2010; Pirseyedi et al., 2010) as shown in Table 3. PCR was carried out in 20 ul volumes under the following conditions: 50 ng template DNA, 250 nM of each primer, 200 nM dNTPs, 1 U Taq polymerase and 1.5 mM MgCl2. All PCR reactions were performed as recommended in previous studies (Curro et al., 2010; Hasnaoui et al., 2010; Pirseyedi et al., 2010). Amplified fragments were separated using 3.5% (w/v) MetaPhor agarose gel.

Statistical Analysis

Quantitative fruit data were subjected to analysis of variance and some descriptive statistics were calculated. The level of significance was recorded for each trait. Pearson's correlation coefficients were used to determine the strength and direction of interrelationship among pomegranate fruit characteristics. All quantitative data were converted to Z- scores to avoid any differences due to scaling before multivariate analyses. Thereafter, euclidean distance matrix was constructed for pairs of varieties. Euclidean distance matrix was used to construct dendograms based on unweighted pair-group method of arithmetic average (UPGMA), and to perform principle component analysis (PCA). RAPD DNA markers were scored for the presence (1) and absence (0) of homologous amplified products. For RAPD data, Nei's genetic distance (D) matrix was calculated (Nei, 1972), which in consequence used to construct dendrograms and to perform PCA for genotypic discrimination of pomegranate collection.

All data were analyzed using NTSYSY-pc (Numerical Taxonomy and Multivariate Analysis for personal computer) software program version 2.00 (Rohlf, 1998).

Table 1: Fruit characteristics measured for pomegranate landraces characterization

No.###Trait###Unit###Description

1###Peel colour###score###1. Yellow red, 2. Green red and 3. Red

2###Aril colour###score###1. white, 2.light pink, 3. pink, 4. dark pink and 5. red

3###Taste###score###1. sweet, 2.sour, and 3. sweet sour

4###Seed hardiness###score###1. hard, 2. semi-hard and 3. soft

5###100 seed dry weight###g###The weight of 100 dry seeds, drying will be performed at 68 C for 48 hours

6###Aril dry weight percent###%###Total aril dry weight per fruit/total aril fresh weight per fruit, drying will be performed at 68C for 48 hours

7###Aril total weight per fruit###g###Weighing total fresh arils present in each fruit

8###Aril percent per fruit###%###Total aril fresh weight/total fruit fresh weight

9###Peel total weight###g###Total fresh weight of external peel

10###Peel percent###%###Peel fresh weight/fruit fresh weight

11###100 aril fresh weight###g###The weight of 100 fresh arils

12###100 aril dry weight###g###The weight of 100 dry arils, drying will be performed at 68 C for 48 hours

13###Seed dry weight percent###%###Weight of dry seeds/weight of fresh seeds

14###Peel thickness###mm###Thickness of external peel

15###Aril length###mm###The average length of 10 arils

16###Aril diameter###mm###The average diameter of 10 arils

17###Aril length/aril diameter###ratio###The ratio between aril length and aril diameter

18###Seed length###mm###Average length of 10 seeds

19###Seed diameter###mm###Average width of 10 seeds

20###Seed length/seed diameter###ratio###The ratio between seed length and seed diameter

21###100 seed fresh weight###g###Weighing of 100 fresh seeds

22###Fruit weight###g###Average of 5 fruits per tree

23###Fruit length###mm###The distance from crown base to the fruit eye

24###Fruit diameter###mm###The wider width of fruit

25###Fruit length/fruit diameter###ratio###The ratio between fruit length and fruit width

26###Fruit crown length###mm###The length from the top to the base of crown area

27###Fruit crown diameter###mm###The widest part of the crown area

28###Fruit crown length/Fruit crown diameter ratio###The ratio between crown length and crown diameter

29###Fruit neck diameter###mm###The widest part of the neck

30###Juice % in Ariles###%###Juice weightx100/total fresh weight of the sample

31###Total soluble solids (TSS)###%###The percentage of soluble solids present in the juice

Table 2: List of the selected informative RAPD primers and the degree of polymorphism obtained among the 14 studied pomegranate landraces

No.###Primer###Sequence 5' 3'###Total No. of bands###No. of polymorphic bands###Polymorphism%###Bands range (Kb)

4###OPD-02###GGACCCAACC###9###9###100###0.42-1.9

8###OPO-03###CTGTTGCTAC###6###5###83.3###0.44-1.41

9###OPO-12###CAGTGCTGTG###10###9###90###1.25-1.50

27###OPA-05###AGGGGTCTTG###8###5###62.5###0.42-1.42

29###OPA-10###GTGATCGCAG###4###2###50###1.03-1.92

31###OPA-13###CAGCACCCAC###5###3###60###0.42-1.35

38###OPB-05###TGCGCCCTTC###5###4###80###0.42-1.43

54###OPZ-01###TCTGTGCCAC###7###6###85.7###0.36-1.42

56###OPZ-03###CAGCACCGCA###10###6###60###0.76-2.46

57###OPZ-04###AGGCTGTGCT###7###1###14.2###0.39-1.51

59###OPZ-06###GTGCCGTTCA###8###6###75###0.35-1.91

62###OPZ-18###AGGGTCTGTG###7###5###71.4###0.52-1.92

###Total###86###61###70.9

Results

Range of Variation in Morphological Traits

The peel color was highly variable among pomegranate landraces. 'Hmaree Hmadee' was red, while four landraces ('Khdaree Hello', 'Khdaree Hmadee', 'Lfani Sharabi' and 'Zarori') were green red, and the rest were yellow red. Aril color was highly polymorphic ranging from white to red.

One landrace (Malesse) was white, three landraces were light pink ('Hmaree Hmadee' and 'Esari') and three ('Khdaree Hello', 'Zokom Albagel' and 'Zarori') had red arils, while the rest was with pink arils. Differences were also found in seed texture based on panel test, pomegranate landraces were divided into four classes: soft, semi-soft, semi-hard and hard seeded (Table 4). Two landraces ('Malesse' and 'Bradee Sharabee Asfar') were recorded as real soft-seed; three landraces ('Khdaree Hello', 'Zeklabee and 'Zokom Albagel') as semi-soft or semi-hard-seeded, and the remaining landraces were classified as hard seeded (Table 4). The panel test also revealed that six landraces were sweet in taste ('Khashaby, Khdaree Hello, 'Malesse', Hasmasi', 'Zeklabee' and 'Khratee Ahmar Hello'), four landraces ('Hmaree Hmadee', 'Zokom Albagel', 'Khdaree Hmadee' and 'Esari') were with sour taste and the rest had sweet-sour taste.

Table 3: Sequences of the 17 SSR pairs of Punica granatum used in the current study

No.###Name###Sequence 5'3'

1###POM_AAC1###F: GGGTCTTCCTAATTCTCTGG;###R: TACAACTTCGGACTCACTTGC

2###POM_AAC14###F: CGAGAACCGTTAGTCATGC;###R: AGTGACGGCAGGACAAGAAC

3###POM_AGC5###F: TTCGATATTGTTTATTGTGTCG;###R: CAACGAACTAGACGACACAC

4###POM_AGC11###F: CGTCATCCCTTATGTTCTTC;###R: CTGGGGAAGTCGACGAAG

5###ABRII-MP12###F:TTGAGTCCCGATCATATCTC;###R:TCAATCTGTCAGGAACAACA

6###ABRII-MP26###F:TTTCTCGAAGAATTGGGTAA;###R:CTGAGTAAGCTGAGGCTGAT

7###ABRII-MP28###F:ATCCTCTGTCTTTGTGTTCG;###R:TGAGTAATTCCGGTCAGAAG

8###BRII-MP30###F:CCCAGTTTGTAGCAAGGTA;###R:AAGCTGACATTCTTTGAAGC

9###ABRII-MP42###F:GAGCAGAGCAATTCAATCTC;###R:AACAATTTCCCATGTTTGAC

10###Pom006###F-TACTAGGTGGAACCGAACTT;###R-CCTTGACAACCTCATCTCAT

11###Pom021###F-GACTGGAAGAAGCAGAGACT;###R-GAAAAGGAAGTAGCAGAGCA

12###Pom024###F-GGAGATTTGAATTGGGAAGT;###R-GTGGACTAACTCAAGCAAGG

13###ASSR17###R:CCGACTATAACATCCAGAAGG;###F:GGACTGGACTGTGGATTGTTTTTG

14###ASSR46###R:GCGCCCCAAACACCAGAATA;###F:AATGGTCTATGAACACCTCTC

15###ASSR54###R:TCGAGGAGTTGCAGAGTATGAA;###F:CTTGGCTGGCTTCACTGC

16###Pchcmsl###F:GGGTAAATATGCCCATTGTGCAATC;###R:GGATCATTGAACTACGTCAATCCTC

17###Ps9f8###F:GGTTCTTGGTTATTATGA;###R:ACATTTCTATGCAGAGTA

Table 4: The studied pomegranate landraces and their peel and aril colour, taste and seed hardeners

No.###Genotype###Abbrev.###Peel colour###Aril colour###Seed hardiness###Taste

1###Khashaby###Kha###Yellow-Red###Pink###Hard###Sweet

2###Khdaree Hello###KH###Green -Red###Red###Semi-hard###Sweet

3###Malesse###Mal###Yellow-Red###White###Soft###Sweet

4###Bradee Sharabee Asfar###BSAs###Yellow-Red###Pink###Soft###Sweet-Sour

5###Hasmasi###Has###Yellow-Red###Pink###Hard###Sweet

6###Hmaree Hmadee###HH###Red###Light pink###Hard###Sour

7###Bradee Sharabee Ahmar###BSAh###Yellow-Red###Pink###Hard###Sweet-Sour

8###Zeklabee###Zek###Yellow-Red###Pink###Semi-soft###Sweet

9###Zokom Albagel###ZA###Yellow-Red###Red###Semi-hard###Sour

10###Khratee Ahmar Hello###KAhH###Yellow-Red###Pink###Hard###Sweet

11###Khdaree Hmadee###KHm###Green -Red###Pink###Hard###Sour

12###Lfani Sharabi###LS###Green -Red###Pink###Hard###Sweet-Sour

13###Zarori###Zar###Green -Red###Red###Hard###Sour

14###Esari###Esa###Yellow-Red###Light pink###Hard###Sour

Significant (P less than 0.01) differences among the 14 pomegranate varieties were observed for all quantitative traits recorded in this study (Table 5). Across the 14 pomegranate studied, fruit weight, fruit crown diameter, fruit crown length/fruit crown diameter, aril total weight per fruit and peel total weight were with high phenotypic coefficient of variation (CV > 32%), while aril dry weight percent, seed dry weight percent, seed length, fruit length/fruit diameter, juice % in arils showed comparatively low values (CV less than 10%). The other four traits exhibited intermediate CV values (range = 11.12-17.65%). Pomegranate fruits for landraces under study ranged from 110.50 to 353.00 g/fruit (Table 6). 'Zarori ' and 'Bradee Sharabee' had the heaviest fruits (377.25 and 376.00 g/fruit respectively), followed by 'Zokom Albagel', 'Esari', 'Khratee Ahmer Hello', and 'Khashaby' with 353.25, 341.00, 328.50 and 319.00 g, respectively.

The lightest fruits were observed in 'Malesse', 'Hasmasi' and 'Hmaree Hmadee' with average fruit weight of 110.50, 114.25 and 170.25 g/fruit, respectively. Other fruit, seed and aril traits were highly variable (Tables 6 and7). Fruit weight was strongly and positively correlated with fruit dimensions (length and diameter with r= 0.96** and 0.98** respectively), aril total weight (0.89**), hundred aril dry weight (0.56**) and juice percentage (0.623**).

Multivariant Analysis for Morphological Traits

Pomegranate landraces displayed wide euclidean distance coefficients ranging from 3.33 to 12.01, with a mean of 7.65 (Fig. 1A). The most similar landraces (Distance = 3.33) were 'Khashaby' and 'Khratee Ahmar Hello', while the most divergent landraces (Distance = 12.07) were 'Malesse' and 'Bradee Sharabee Asfar'. The dendrogram divided pomegranate genotypes into two main clusters (Fig. 1 B).

The first main cluster contained all pomegranate varieties except 'Bradee Sharabee Asfar' with unique traits such as soft seeds and large fruit, was placed isolated from other landraces. The first sub-cluster within the first main cluster included 'Hmaree Hmadee', 'Hasmasi' and 'Malesse' with relatively small fruits and fruit dimensions, whereas the second sub-cluster included all other landrace varieties with intermediate to large fruit size and fruit dimensions.

Table 5: Measured fruit characteristics, range of variability, means and coefficient of variability among studied pomegranate landraces

No.###Trait###Unit###Min###Mean###Max###CV%###F-value

1###100 seed dry weight###g###1.79###2.52###3.10###17.54###**

2###Aril dry weight percent###%###18.20###21.30###26.67###9.90###**

3###Aril total weight per fruit###g###231.5###160.78###68.00###33.89###**

4###Aril percent per fruit###%###41.28###58.92###68.99###13.33###**

5###Peel total weight###g###32.75###101.22###165.25###35.47###**

6###Peel percent###%###27.65###36.96###49.10###16.61###**

7###100 Aril fresh weight###g###20.25###30.08###38.55###20.17###**

8###100 aril dry weight###g###4.17###6.32###8.01###17.65###**

9###Seed dry weight percent###36.92###45.50###52.23###9.50###**

10###Peel thickness###mm###2.45###3.60###4.58###15.79###**

11###Aril length###mm###6.00###8.79###10.00###14.34###**

12###Aril diameter###mm###5.25###6.46###8.00###12.50###**

13###Aril length/aril diameter###ratio###0.76###1.43###1.75###17.26###**

14###Seed length###mm###5.25**###6.79###7.99###9.41###**

15###Seed diameter###mm###2.35###2.85###4.00###13.71###**

16###Seed length/seed diameter###ratio###2.07###2.44###2.95###11.12###**

17###Fruit weight###g###110.50###278.46###377.25###32.77###**

18###Fruit length###mm###46.55###71.16###81.78###15.89###**

19###Fruit diameter###mm###59.78###80.13###91.03###12.73###**

20###Fruit length/fruit diameter###ratio###0.78###0.89###0.97###5.49###**

21###Fruit crown length###mm###7.55###13.79###20.78###25.85###**

22###Fruit crown diameter###mm###7.16###16.27###28.13###34.53###**

23###Fruit crown length/Fruit crown diameter###ratio###0.53###1.11###2.04###48.18###**

24###Fruit neck diameter###mm###11.68###17.69###23.58###17.16###**

25###Juice % in Ariles###%###65.42###74.14###79.61###5.08###**

26###Total soluble solids###%###10.50###15.13###17.88###12.15###**

PCA was performed to identify traits that contributed most to the phenotypic total variation. The results of the principle component analysis are shown in table 8. The first seven PC explained 88.64% of the morphological variation among the landraces tested. The first function accounted for 28.92% with high load on fruit (fruit weight and dimensions, peel total weight and thickness and fruit neck diameter) and aril (aril weight and dimensions, and aril fresh and dry weight) related traits. The second and third functions accounted for 17.61% and 12.81 of total variation which were explained by seed characteristics mainly 100 seed and aril weights, seed length and seed hardiness. Other traits were consistently present in the other components and therefore contributed less to the variability. Plots of the first three eigenvectors calculated for the 14 pomegranate landraces gave clustering pattern similar to that obtained by UPGMA analysis (Figs. are not shown).

DNA Variation

The preliminary RAPD primers screening was done with 62 RAPD primers. The twelve primers which gave reproducible and polymorphic scorable bands were used in DNA characterization of pomegranate landraces (Table 2). A total of 86 RAPD bands were scored, of which 61 (70.9%) were polymorphic. The number of polymorphic bands varied from 1 in OPZ-04 primer to 9 in OPD-02, with band sizes ranged from 0.36 to 2.46 Kb and with a mean of 5.08 bands per primer. Bands with the same band sizes were considered as identical. All SSR markers used in this study were monomophic, therefore no statistical analyses were performed.

Multivariant Analysis for Molecular Data

Nei's genetic distances (Nei 1972) were calculated for paired comparison of the 14 pomegranate landraces from RAPD scores (Fig. 1B). The mean Nei's genetic distance based on RAPD scores was 0.51, ranging from 0.29 to 0.66. The highest genetic distances (range = 0.65-0.66) was detected between 'Hasmasi' and both 'Khashaby' and 'Malesse' and that between 'Zeklabee' and both 'Khashaby' and 'Khdaree Hello', while the most similar landraces (distance = 0.24) were 'Zokom Albagel' and 'Khratee Hmadee'. The UPGMA tree (Fig. 1B) based on Nei's genetic distance showed that the 14 pomegranate landraces were separated into two subclusters inconsistent with clustering based on euclidean distance matrix (Fig. 1B): the first cluster contained two landraces ('Hasmasi' and 'Zeklabee'), while the second cluster included other pomegranate landraces.

Two subclusters existed within the second main cluster: two landraces were ('Bradee Sharabee Asfar' and 'Malesse') clustered together, while the other ten landraces were placed together in another subcluster. Even though dendrograms based on phenotypic traits compared with that based on RAPD scores were not consistent, however, some common groupings were observed in both dendograms. Seven landraces ('Khashaby', 'Kharatee Ahmar Hello', 'Bradee Sharabee Ahmer', 'Zarori', 'Esari', 'Zokom Albagel', 'Lafani Sharabi' and 'Khdaree Hello') tended to cluster together, and 'Malesse', 'Bradee Sharabee Asfar' and 'Hasmasi' were always very close to each other.

The other three landraces ('Hmaree Hmadee', 'Khdaree Hmadee' and 'Zeklabee') were inconsistently distributed in the both dendograms.

Table 6: Means of fruit traits for the 14 Jordanian pomegranate landraces

No.###Genotype###Fruit###Fruit fruit###Fruit###Fruit###Fruit###Fruit crown###Fruit neck Aril###Peel###Peel###Peel###Juice###Total

###weight###length diameter length/fruit crown###crown###length/Fruit###diameter###percent###total###percent###thickness percent soluble

###(g)###(mm)###(mm)###diameter###length###diameter###crown###(mm)###per fruit###weight###(mm)###age###solids

###(mm)###(mm)###diameter###(g)###(g/l)

1###Khashaby###319.00###76.88 85.68###0.90###14.00###8.25###1.69###19.35###59.65###113.40###35.64###3.53###74.27###13.50

2###Khdaree Hello###256.00###76.33 78.90###0.97###14.25###13.13###1.73###17.78###61.58###93.50###36.49###3.48###67.55###15.13

3###Malesse###110.50###46.55 59.93###0.78###7.55###14.25###0.85###11.68###68.99###32.75###29.26###3.45###72.87###10.50

4###Bradee Sharabee Asfar 376.00###81.78 88.35###0.93###15.75###23.88###0.70###21.43###57.81###165.25###44.61###4.36###75.31###17.88

5###Hasmasi###114.25###51.43 59.78###0.86###12.00###21.50###0.59###14.63###59.71###44.50###38.95###2.45###72.72###15.00

6###Hmaree Hmadee###170.75###58.90 70.50###0.83###11.50###17.35###0.66###17.63###56.17###80.35###49.10###3.20###65.42###16.38

7###Bradee Sharabee Ahmar 231.00###65.05 76.88###0.85###14.50###28.13###0.53###20.00###65.85###92.00###39.88###4.30###73.81###15.13

8###Zeklabee###319.00###76.13 84.80###0.90###20.78###13.63###1.96###23.58###48.12###131.59###44.17###4.58###76.82###15.88

9###Zokom Albagel###353.25###78.13 85.85###0.91###13.00###17.25###0.82###16.13###66.69###123.41###35.72###3.20###77.55###17.44

10###Khratee Ahmar Hello###328.50###80.25 86.40###0.93###12.30###7.16###2.04###18.23###61.53###98.75###30.38###4.08###73.97###16.00

11###Khdaree Hmadee###261.50###70.28 78.75###0.89###17.25###17.25###1.01###15.93###60.88###72.03###27.65###3.33###75.76###13.44

12###Lfani Sharabi###340.50###79.68 86.30###0.92###8.00###13.63###0.64###17.90###66.55###110.00###31.95###3.80###75.57###16.00

13###Zarori###377.25###77.08 88.75###0.87###14.50###18.00###1.01###14.53###50.05###134.33###35.92###3.20###79.61###15.06

14###Esari###341.00###77.80 91.03###0.86###17.75###14.41###1.27###18.98###41.28###125.19###37.64###3.50###76.69###14.44

###LSD0.05###72.76###7.71###8.30###0.06###4.37###8.33###0.95###4.73###13.47###27.18###11.57###0.70###7.80###1.57

Table 7: Means for seed and aril traits for the 14 Jordanian pomegranate landraces

No.###Genotype###100 seed###Aril dry###Aril total###100 Aril###100 Aril###Seed dry###Aril###Aril###Aril###Seed###Seed###Seed

###dry weight weight###weight per###fresh###dry###weight###length###diameter###length/aril length###diameter###length/seed

###(g)###percent###fruit###weight###weight###percent###(mm)###(mm)###diameter###(mm)###diameter

###(g)###(g)###(g)###(g)###(g)

1###Khashaby###2.96###20.24###189.49###33.25###6.74###47.41###9.00###6.00###1.71###7.00###2.92###2.40

2###Khdaree Hello###1.79###18.20###157.50###29.50###5.34###36.92###7.50###6.00###1.29###6.41###2.35###2.74

3###Malesse###2.47###19.97###75.75###32.00###6.39###44.34###7.25###6.50###1.23###6.74###2.53###2.69

4###Bradee Sharabee Asfar###1.83###21.13###231.50###31.00###6.55###45.49###6.00###8.00###0.76###5.25###2.49###2.11

5###Hasmasi###1.96###20.74###68.00###20.25###4.17###38.89###8.50###5.25###1.63###6.64###2.72###2.47

6###Hmaree Hmadee###2.72###26.67###91.62###21.11###5.56###52.23###8.33###5.75###1.47###7.03###2.93###2.45

7###Bradee Sharabee Ahmar###2.67###20.56###151.88###34.00###6.99###47.57###10.00###7.00###1.43###6.10###2.85###2.14

8###Zeklabee###2.79###20.48###144.81###37.54###7.69###39.55###10.00###7.00###1.47###7.99###2.72###2.95

9###Zokom Albagel###2.09###24.80###229.07###24.04###5.89###46.45###9.50###5.50###1.75###6.82###2.68###2.56

10###Khratee Ahmar Hello###3.10###21.39###200.50###35.75###7.65###48.22###10.00###6.75###1.49###7.56###2.77###2.74

11###Khdaree Hmadee###2.36###20.53###159.88###23.75###4.88###49.25###9.00###6.00###1.52###6.91###2.82###2.47

12###Lfani Sharabi###2.76###22.24###226.00###26.00###5.79###47.30###8.00###6.00###1.62###6.88###3.10###2.22

13###Zarori###2.93###20.97###187.96###38.55###8.01###48.59###10.00###7.50###1.34###6.59###3.00###2.20

14###Esari###2.83###20.26###136.99###34.38###6.84###44.74###10.00###7.25###1.38###7.09###4.00###2.07

###LSD0.05###0.30###2.95###41.56###5.39###1.06###5.35###1.51###1.19###0.31###0.54###0.83###0.42

The distances based on morphological and RAPD markers were significantly correlated (r = 0.46**). Plots of the first three eigenvectors calculated for the 14 landraces produced a separation similar to that obtained by UPGMA dendrogram based on Nei's genetic distance matrix. The first three functions account for 28.92, 17.61 and 12.81% of the total genetic variation, respectively while the PC4, PC5, PC6 and PC7 together explained. 29.3% of the total genetic variation (Table 9).

Discussion

Morphological Variation

Most traits used to characterize pomegranate landraces are with economic interest for pomegranate breeding programs and pomegranate consumers. Jordanian pomegranate landraces are a valuable source of genes for commercial uses. ANOVA revealed high significant differences between pomegranate landraces for fruit traits with considerable CV values for most studied traits. Qualitative traits displayed two or more phenotypic classes. Pomegranate landraces characterized in this study were localized in the same geographic site with very minor microclimate effect. Therefore, phenotypic variation is mostly representing genetic difference rather than weather condition effects on studied traits. The results obtained in this study are comparable with the report of other authors (Drogoudi et al., 2005; Sarkhosh et al., 2009) who found that some traits such as juiciness, fruit shape, and aril and seed related traits had highest loading in the first components.

In accordance, fruit size, color and juice characteristics in Tunisian pomegranate displayed high discriminating power as compared to other traits (Mars and Marrakchi, 1999).

Fruit weight is the most pertinent criteria used during the sorting process. Pomegranate fruit destined for the export markets are usually 275-325 g (Najan, 2014). Most landraces under study had an average fruit weight higher than 250 g, which are suitable for marketing, packaging and shipment. In general, fruit weight of Jordanian pomegranate landraces is low to medium in size as compared with other pomegranate collections in the Mediterranean basin (Mars and Marrakchi, 1999; Polat et al., 1999; Al-Maiman and Ahmad, 2002; Yildiz et al., 2003; Ozkan, 2005; Grundogdu, 2006) with a fruit sizes ranging from 192.00 to 806.00 g/fruit.

The shape index obtained from the ratio between fruit length and fruit width indicate that flattened fruit shape is prevailing among pomegranate landraces from Jordan as compared with pomegranate collections from Iran (Sarkhosh et al., 2009) and Tunisia (Mansour et al., 2011) and Turkey (Durgac et al., 2008), but they are very similar in shape as compared with Sicilian pomegranate varieties (Barone et al., 2001). Results showed strong correlation between fruit weight and both fruit dimensions (length and diameter) and fruit components (peel total weight, aril total weight, hundred aril dry weight and juice percentage) indicating that selection for larger fruits will lead to juicy fruits with greater total aril weight and vice versa. Fruits of thick peels might have the ability to resist peel cracks. A thick skin (peel) enclosing the edible arils protects the fruits from pest and pathogens that enters the fruits via these cracks (Jalikop et al., 2006, 2005).

Landraces with thick pericarp might be used to breed for varieties that resist cracking.

Table 8: Loading values of morphological variables on the first three principle components for the 14 Jordanian pomegranate landraces

Trait###PC1###PC2###PC3

100 seed dry weight###0.38###0.70###0.43

Aril dry weight percent###-0.13###-0.25###0.64

Aril total weight per fruit###0.69###-0.03###0.06

Aril percent per fruit###-0.53###-0.19###-0.20

Peel total weight###0.90###-0.36###0.07

Peel percent###0.16###-0.41###0.05

100 Aril fresh weight###0.69###0.39###-0.24

100 aril dry weight###0.74###0.33###0.00

Seed dry weight percent###0.09###-0.04###0.76

Peel thickness###0.68###-0.06###-0.34

Aril length###0.37###0.61###0.39

Aril diameter###0.68###-0.16###-0.09

Aril length/aril diameter###-0.19###0.52###0.35

Seed length###0.12###0.83###0.08

Seed diameter###0.31###0.32###0.66

Seed length/seed diameter###-0.18###0.44###-0.59

100 seed fresh weight###0.41###0.84###0.02

Fruit weight###0.90###-0.16###0.14

Fruit length###0.87###-0.15###0.02

Fruit diameter###0.93###-0.08###0.18

Fruit length/fruit diameter###0.49###-0.26###-0.33

Fruit crown length###0.62###0.00###-0.13

Fruit crown diameter###-0.17###-0.67###0.16

Fruit crown length/Fruit crown diameter###0.48###0.58###-0.48

Fruit neck diameter###0.73###-0.16###-0.21

Juice % in Ariles###0.57###0.09###0.17

Total soluble solids###0.46###-0.59###0.13

Peel colour###-0.26###-0.12###0.44

Aril colour###-0.34###0.07###-0.01

Tast###0.13###-0.32###0.84

Seed hardiness###0.43###-0.66###-0.30

% variation###28.92###17.61###12.81

Cumulative###28.92###46.53###59.34

Table 9: Eigen values and cumulative variances resulted from factor analysis for the first 8 principal components among the 14 pomegranate landraces from Jordan based on RAPD markers

###Components

###1###2###3###4###5###6###7###8

Eigen value###13.69###8.86###7.94###5.99###5.41###4.77###4.20###3.37

% of variance###22.44###14.53###13.01###9.81###8.87###7.81###6.88###5.52

Cumulative%###22.44###36.97###49.98###59.79###68.66###76.47###83.35###88.88

of total

variance

Improvement of juice quality, seed mellowness, and aril and fruit appearance are major recent breeding objectives for pomegranate breeding programs (Crites et al., 2014). Varieties showing pink or red arils with small and soft seeds are targets for pomegranate breeders (Crites et al., 2014; Fawole and Opara, 2013). Three landraces were classified as sour-sweet and six landraces were sweet, while the remaining studied landraces were sour. Sweet and sour- sweet varieties are acceptable for pomegranate fresh consumption. Soft seeds and red fruit peel is the most attractive trait to pomegranate consumers and important quality attribute in pomegranate marketing (Janick and Moore, 1975; Drogoudi et al., 2005; Ashton et al., 2006).

'Malesse' and 'Bradee Sharabee Asfar' were the only genotypes presenting soft seeds. Fruit peel color varied among landraces. One landraces "Hmaree Hmadee" was with red peel, while the rest with yellow red and green red color. The results of these studies revealed that pink- or red- arils are the most common traits among pomegranate landraces, and one of the most desirable traits for commercial cultivars of pomegranates used for fresh fruit consumption and juice making. Varieties with soft seeds, big arils, high juice content, thin peel and no sourness are suitable for the extraction of arils (Zavala and Cozza, 2012).

For example, 'Bradee Sharabee Asfar' landrace shows a combination of desirable traits with attractable yellow-purple skin color at maturity with pink-soft arils that is high in juice with a slightly acid taste.

From industrial point of view, high juice content might be more desirable than fruit size (Holland et al., 2009). Jordanian pomegranate is considered as a rich source of genes for juicing with high percentages of juice to fruit weight, the juice makes up 65.42-79.6% percent of the pulp weight. 'Zarori' showed high juice percentage with red arils and sour taste, while 'Hmaree Hmadee' had the lowest fruit juice (65.42%). In general, juicing in pomegranate is genotype dependent and juice makes up 45-70% of the fruit weight (Ashton et al., 2006). The percentage of fruit juice is relatively higher than those reported for Spanish varieties (range = 50.26% to 64.17%) (Martinez et al., 2006) and Indian varieties (44.96% to 68.55%) (Viswanath et al., 1999).

TSS contents significantly differed among the pomegranate landraces, ranging from 10.50 to 17.88% for "Malesse" and "Bradee Sharabee Asfar", respectively.

"Bradee Sharabee Asfar" displayed also other preferable quality traits such pink aril juice, soft seeds and sweet-sour taste. High TSS content is highly desirable industrial traits in pomegranate fruit juice making as it associates with sweetness and flavor especially if it combined low juice acidity and tannin concentration (Shwartz et al., 2009; Zarei et al., 2011). TSS values of pomegranate aril juice are within the range of TSS values (10-20%) reported in Iranian collections (Akbarpour et al., 2009; Sarkhosh et al., 2011; Nemati et al., 2012) and those reported for pomegranate selections from Tunisia (Mansour et al., 2011).

RAPD Variation

The results indicate that there is wide genetic polymorphism among Jordanian pomegranate landraces. The mean Nei's genetic distance among the studied genotypes was 0.51 (range = 0.24 to 0.66) indicating a high level of divergence among pomegranate landraces. Previous works on pomegranate comparably wider in ranges for Nei's genetic distances (range = 0.10-0.83) (Zamani et al., 2007; Durgac et al., 2008; Sarkhosh et al., 2009; Ercisli et al., 2011). Even though the area cultivated with pomegranate is limited in Jordan, such range of genetic distances clearly indicate the considerable variation present among studied landraces. Such variation could be exploited in pomegranate breeding programs. When the euclidean distances based on morphological traits and that based on RAPD scores were compared, a significant correlation was obtained between the two marker systems. This indicates that RAPD markers might be closely linked with genes controlling such traits.

The set of SSR markers used in this study was monomorphic which might be due to the narrow gene pool or, due to the fact that 17 SSR markers were too few to identify polymorphism among pomegranate varieties within a small geographic area.

Conclusion

Broad phenotypic diversity was existed among pomegranate landraces from Jordan. It is strongly recommended using both morphological and molecular assays as complementary methods to describe diversity in Jordanian pomegranate landraces. Both morphological and RAPD markers revealed considerable variation among pomegranate landraces. The considerable phenotypic variation in fruit traits reported in this study indicates that such collection is valuable genetic resources for pomegranate improvement.

Acknowledgment

The Authors are highly appreciated the financial support granted from Abdul Hameed Shoman Fund for scientific research.

References

Akbarpour, V., K. Hemmati and M. Sharifani, 2009. Physical and chemical properties of pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) fruit in maturation stage. Amer-Eur. J. Agric. Environ. Sci., 6: 411- 416

Al-Maiman, S.A. and D. Ahmad, 2002. Changes in physical and chemical properties during pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) fruit maturation. Food Chem., 76: 437-441

Ashton, R., B. Baer and D. Silverstein, 2006. The Incredible Pomegranate Plant and Fruit. Third Millennium Publishing, USA

Awamleh, H., D. Hassawi, H. Migdadi and M. Brake, 2009. Molecular characterization of pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) landraces grown in Jordan using amplified fragment length polymorphism markers. Biotechnology, 8: 316-322

Barone, E., T. Caruso, F.P. Marra and F. Sottile, 2001. Preliminary observations on some Sicilian pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) varieties. J. Am. Pomol. Soc., 55: 4-7

Crites, A.M., G.D. Robison and L. Mills, 2014. Growing Pomegranates in Southern Nevada

Curro, S., M. Caruso, G. Distefano, A. Gentile and S. la Malfa, 2010. New microsatellite loci for pomegranate, Punica granatum (Lythraceae). Am. J. Bot., 97: 58-60

Drogoudi, P.D., C. Tsipouridis and Z. Michailidis, 2005. Physical and chemical characteristics of pomegranates. HortScience, 40: 1200- 1203

Durgac, C., M. Ozgen, Y.A. Kacar, Y. Kiyga, K. Gunduz and S. Serce, 2008. Molecular and pomological diversity among pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) cultivars in Eastern Mediterranean region of Turkey. Afr. J. Biotechnol., 7: 1294-1301

Ercisli, S., J. Gadze, G. Agar, N. Yildirim and Y. Hizarci, 2011. Genetic relationships among wild pomegranate (Punica granatum) genotypes from Coruh Valley in Turkey. Genet. Mol. Res., 10: 459-464

Fawole, O.A. and U.L. Opara, 2013. Changes in physical properties, chemical and elemental composition and antioxidant capacity of pomegranate (cv. Ruby) fruit at five maturity stages. Sci. Hortic., 150: 37-46

Grundogdu, M., 2006. Selection of local genotypes from the pomegranate (Puncia granatum L.) population grown in Pervari (Siirt) region. Yuzuncu Yil University

Hasnaoui, N., A. Buonamici, F. Sebastiani, M. Mars, M. Trifi and G.G. Vendramin, 2010. Development and characterization of SSR markers for pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) using an enriched library. Conserv. Genet. Resour., 2: 283-285

Holland, D., Hatib, K. and I. Barya, 2009. Pomegranate: Botany, Horticulture, Breeding. Hortic. Rev., 35: 127-192

Jalikop, S.H., P.S. Kumar, R.D. Rawal and K. Ravindra, 2006. Breeding pomegranate for fruit attributes and resistance to bacterial blight. Ind. J. Hortic., 63: 352-358

Jalikop, S.H., R.D. Rawal and R. Kumar, 2005. Exploitation of sub- temprate pomegranate Daru in breeding tropical varieties. Acta Hortic., 696: 107-112

Janick, J. and J. Moore, 1975. Advances in Fruit Breeding. Purdue University Press, Purdue, USA

Kim, N.D., R. Mehta, W. Yu, I. Neeman, T. Livney, A. Amichay, D. Poirier, P. Nicholls, A. Kirby, W. Jiang, R. Mansel, C. Ramachandran, T. Rabi, B. Kaplan and E. Lansky, 2002. Chemopreventive and adjuvant therapeutic potential of pomegranate (Punica granatum) for human breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. Treat., 71: 203-217

Levin, G.M., 1994. Pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) plant genetic resource in Turkamenistan. Plant Genet. Resour. Newslett., 97: 31-36

Mansour, E., A. Ben, M. Haddad, M. Abid and A. Ferchichi, 2011. Selection of pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) in south-eastern Tunisia. Afr. J. Biotechnol., 10: 9352-9361

Mars, M. and M. Marrakchi, 1999. Diversity of pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) germplasm in Tunisia. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol., 46: 461-467

Martinez, J.J., P. Melarejo, F. Hernandez, D.M. Salazar and R. Martinez, 2006. Arils characterization of five new pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) varieties. Sci. Hortic., 110: 241-246

Melgarejo, P., J.J. Martinez, F. Hernandez, R. Martinez, P. Legua, R. Oncina and A. Martinez-Murcia, 2009. Cultivar identification using 18S-28S rDNA intergenic spacer-RFLP in pomegranate (Punica granatum L.). Sci. Hortic., 120: 500-503

Melgarejo, P., D.M. Salazar and F. Arts, 2000. Organic acids and sugars composition of harvested pomegranate fruits. Eur. Food Res. Technol., 211: 185-190

Murray, M.G. and W.F. Thompson, 1980. Rapid isolation of high molecular weight plant DNA. Nucleic Acid Res., 8: 4321-4325.

Najan, V., 2014. Vanashree Agriculture Private Limited. Available at: http: //vanashreeagrotech.trustpass.alibaba.com/product/168558555- 100786874/Pomegranate_Fruit_for_export.html

Negi, P.S. and G.K. Jayaprakasha, B.S. Jena, 2003. Antioxidant and antimutagenic activities of pomegranate peel extracts. Food Chem., 80: 393-397

Nei, M., 1972. Genetic Distance between Populations. Amer. Nat., 106: 283-292

Nemati, Z., A. Tehranifar, M. Farsi, A.M. Kakhki, H. Nemati and M. Khayat, 2012. Evaluation of genetic diversity of Iranian pomegranate cultivars using fruit morphological characteristics and AFLP markers. Not. Bot. Horti Agrobot. Cluj-Napoca, 40: 261-268

Owais, S.J., 2010. Rooting response of five pomegranate varieties to indole butyric acid concentration and cuttings age. Pak. J. Biol. Sci., 13: 51-58

Ozkan, Y., 2005. Investigations on physical and chemical characteristics of some pomegranate genotypes (Punica granatum L.) of Tokat province in Turkey. Asian J. Chem., 17: 939-942

Pirseyedi, S.M., S. Valizadehghan, M. Mardi, M.R. Ghaffari, P. Mahmoodi, M. Zahravi, M. Zeinalabedini and S.M.K. Nekoui, 2010. Isolation and characterization of novel microsatellite markers in pomegranate (Punica granatum L.). Int. J. Mol. Sci., 11: 2010-2016

Polat, A.A., C. Durgac, O. Kamiloglu and M. Mansuroglu, 1999. Studies on determination of pomological characteristics of some pomegranate types grown in Kirikhan district of Hatay Province, In: Proceedings of 3rd National Horticultural Congress, Ankara, pp: 746-750

Rohlf, J.F., 1998. NTSYSpc, Numerical Taxonomy and Multivariate Analysis System Version 2.0 User Guide. Nat. History

Sarkhosh, A., Z. Zamani, R. Fatahi, A. Ebadi, S.Z. Tabatabaei and M.R. Akrami, 2006. Study on relationships among quantitative and qualitative characters of fruit components of pomegranate genotypes. Acta Hortic., 818: 233-238

Sarkhosh, A., Z. Zamani, R. Fatahi and H. Ranjbar, 2009. Evaluation of genetic diversity among Iranian soft-seed pomegranate accessions by fruit characteristics and RAPD markers. Sci. Hortic., 121: 313-319

Sarkhosh, A., Z. Zamani, R. Fatahi, M.E. Hassani, C. Wiedow, E. Buck and S.E. Gardiner, 2011. Genetic diversity of Iranian soft-seed pomegranate genotypes as revealed by fluorescent-AFLP markers. Physiol. Mol. Biol. Plants 17: 305-311

Seeram, N.P., L.S. Adams, S.M. Henning, Y.Niu, Y. Zhang and M.G. Nair and D. Heber, 2005. In vitro antiproliferative apoptotic and antioxidant activities of punicalagin, ellagic acid and a total pomegranate tannin extract are enhanced in combination with other polyphenols as found in pomegranate juice. J. Nutr. Biochem., 16: 360-367

Shwartz, E., I. Glazer, I. Bar-Ya'akov, I. Matityahu, I. Bar-Ilan, D. Holland and R. Amir, 2009. Changes in chemical constituents during the maturation and ripening of two commercially important pomegranate accessions. Food Chem., 115: 965-973

Stover, E. and E.W. Mercure, 2007. The pomegranate: A new look at the fruit of paradise, HortScience, 42: 1088-1092

Talebi Baddaf, M., B. Sharifi Neia and M. Bahar, 2003. Analysis of genetic diversity in pomegranate cultivars of Iran, using random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) markers (in Farsi). In: Proceedings of the Third National Congress of Biotechnology, pp: 343-345. Mashad, Iran

Viswanath, P., A.N. Al-Bakri, S.K. Nadaf and K. Amal, 1999. Correlations and variability in fruit characters of pomegranate. In: Proceedings of a Symposium- Recent Advances in Management of Arid Ecosystem, pp: 361-364. A.S. Faroda and N.L. Kathju (eds.). March 3-5, 1997. Jodhpur, India

Williams, J.G., A.R. Kubelik, K.J. Livak, J.A. Rafalski and S.V. Tingey, 1990. DNA polymorphisms amplified by arbitrary primers are useful as genetic markers. Nucleic Acids Res., 18: 6531-6535

Yildiz, K., F. Muradoglu, H.I. Orguz and H. Yilmaz, 2003. Pomological characteristics of pomegranate varieties grown in Hizan town of Bitlis, In: Proc. Fourth Hort. Congress. Antalya, pp: 238-240

Zamani, Z., 1990. Characteristics of pomegranate cultivars grown in Saveh of Iran (in Farsi). M.Sc. Thesis, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

Zamani, Z., A. Sarkhosh, R. Fatahi and A. Ebadi, 2007. Genetic relationships among pomegranate genotypes studied by fruit characteristics and RAPD markers. J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol., 82: 11-18

Zarei, M., M. Azizi and Z. Bashir-Sadr, 2011. Evaluation of physicochemical characteristics of pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) fruit during ripening. Fruits, 66: 121-129

Zavala, M.F. and F. Cozza, 2012. The Argentinean experience in the cultivation of 1000 ha of pomegranates (5 provinces) test of varieties and management of crop. In: The second International Symposium on the Pomegranate, pp: 47-50. P. Melgarejo and D. Valero (eds.). International Centre for Advanced Mediterranean Agronomic Studies, October 19-21, Madrid, Spain
COPYRIGHT 2016 Asianet-Pakistan
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:Owais, Saed Joseph; Abdel-Ghani, Adel H.
Publication:International Journal of Agriculture and Biology
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:7JORD
Date:Apr 30, 2016
Words:8655
Previous Article:Identification of New Alleles in Salt Tolerant Rice Germplasm Lines through Phenotypic and Genotypic Screening.
Next Article:Effects of Soil Sterilization on Growth of Angelica sinensis Plant and Soil Microbial Populations in a Continuous Mono-cropping Soil.
Topics:

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