| Literature DB >> 35497034 |
Anas Hamdani1,2, Lahcen Hssaini1, Said Bouda2, Atman Adiba1,2, Rachid Razouk1.
Abstract
This work investigates response to drought of nine local cultivars alongside two exotic varieties of Japanese plum (Prunus salicina L.) through their yield and fruit quality components. It was carried out at Sais plain, northern Morocco, over two consecutive years (2019-2020). Water stress was imposed by a deficit irrigation (DI) treatment of 50% ETc during the whole fruit growth period, compared to full irrigation of 100% ETc (CI). At their full ripening stage, the cultivars were assessed for their yield, fruit weight and fruit quality attributes, namely total soluble solids (TSS), pH, titratable acidity (TA), maturity index (MI), soluble sugars content (SSC), amino acids content (AAC), total phenolic compounds (TPC) and total antioxidant capacity (TAC). Results displayed significant decrease in yield and fruit weight since the first year of DI application. Owing to calculated stability indexes of the aforementioned traits along with water use efficiency, the local cultivar 'Fortu-43' was the most insensitive to drought, whereas 'Timhdit' and 'Black-D35' showed the lowest drought tolerability. The effects of water stress on fruit chemical and biochemical traits varied significantly among cultivars, exhibiting an overall significant improvement in fruit quality. Two-dimensional clustered heatmap analysis subdivided the cultivars into two distinct clusters, mainly discriminated based on stability indexes of SSC, MI, TPC and TAC. Among the latter, SSC stability index was probably the most significant drought tolerance marker for Japanese plum.Entities:
Keywords: Drought tolerance markers; Fruit quality; Fruit yield; Prunus salicina L.; Water stress
Year: 2022 PMID: 35497034 PMCID: PMC9038554 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09278
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Heliyon ISSN: 2405-8440
Monthly cumulative values of reference evapotranspiration, effective rainfall and amounts of applied water during the two years of the experiment.
| Kc | ET0 (mm) | Effective rainfall (mm) | Applied water (m3 tree−1) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | CI2019 | DI2019 | CI2020 | DI2020 | ||
| Mar | 0.85 | 78 | 79 | 17 | 46 | 0.68 | 0.68 | 0.23 | 0.23 |
| Apr | 0.95 | 91 | 89 | 25 | 44 | 0.85 | 0.24 | 0.53 | 0.00 |
| May | 1.05 | 141 | 128 | 0 | 24 | 2.09 | 1.04 | 1.53 | 0.58 |
| Jun | 1.15 | 142 | 158 | 2 | 2 | 2.28 | 1.13 | 2.53 | 1.25 |
| Jul | 1.15 | 146 | 176 | 0 | 10 | 2.36 | 1.18 | 2.72 | 1.29 |
| Aug | 1.15 | 140 | 145 | 0 | 8 | 2.26 | 1.13 | 2.23 | 1.06 |
| Sep | 1.10 | 107 | 112 | 2 | 4 | 1.62 | 0.79 | 1.67 | 0.80 |
| Oct | 0.90 | 64 | 62 | 11 | 14 | 0.65 | 0.24 | 0.57 | 0.18 |
| Total | - | 955 | 1004 | 84 | 157 | 12.79 | 6.43 | 12.01 | 5.39 |
Kc: crop coefficient; ET0: reference evapotranspiration; CI: control treatment; DI: deficit irrigation.
Yield (kg tree−1) and water use efficiency (kg m−3) of the studied plum cultivars in response to deficit irrigation.
| Yield2019 | Yield2020 | WUEDI | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CI | DI | YSI | CI | DI | YSI | 2019 | 2020 | Mean | |
| Golden Japan | 40.57 ab | 27.18 c | 0.67∗ | 10.51 b | 9.66 ab | 0.92∗ | 5.53 c | 2.28 ab | 3.91 ab |
| Santa Rosa | 71.82 b | 28.01 c | 0.39∗∗ | 45.92 e | 30.30 d | 0.66∗∗ | 5.83 c | 7.20 d | 6.52 b |
| Timhdit | 97.34 bc | 4.87 a | 0.05∗∗ | 4.02 a | 2.89 a | 0.72∗∗ | 1.03 a | 0.70 a | 0.87 a |
| Rosa-34 | 23.69 a | 12.08 b | 0.51∗ | 57.97 f | 46.37 e | 0.80∗ | 2.52 b | 11.01 c | 6.77 b |
| Black-D35 | 42.05 ab | 21.03 c | 0.50∗ | 14.80 bc | 3.25 a | 0.22∗∗ | 3.84 c | 0.72 a | 2.28 ab |
| Red-B38 | 81.90 b | 52.42 cd | 0.64∗ | 9.63 b | 7.70 ab | 0.80∗ | 10.02 cd | 1.83 ab | 5.92 b |
| Black-G40 | 79.42 b | 12.71 b | 0.16∗∗ | 23.97 c | 18.21 bc | 0.76∗ | 2.32 b | 4.03 bc | 3.18 ab |
| Black-A41 | 36.85 ab | 36.11 c | 0.98 | 29.76 de | 20.53 bc | 0.69∗∗ | 6.91 c | 4.87 bc | 5.89 b |
| Obil-42 | 31.00 ab | 3.72 a | 0.12∗∗ | 5.70 ab | 5.07 ab | 0.89∗ | 0.68 a | 1.12 ab | 0.90 a |
| Fortu-43 | 112.19 c | 88.63 d | 0.79∗ | 27.11 d | 23.31 c | 0.86∗ | 16.20 d | 5.16 c | 10.68 c |
| Black-S46 | 46.44 ab | 26.94 c | 0.58∗ | 10.15 b | 6.59 ab | 0.65∗∗ | 5.15 c | 1.56 ab | 3.36 ab |
| ANOVA p-value | 0.025 | 0.006 | 0.009 | 0.007 | 0.006 | 0.008 | 0.011 | ||
CI: control treatment; DI: deficit irrigation; YSI: yield stability index (yield DI/yield CI); WUEDI: water use efficiency under DI treatment.
Within columns of CI, DI and WUE. marked values with different letters are significantly different at P ≤ 0.05 according to SNK test.
Marked TSI values are significantly different to 1 at P ≤ 0.05 (∗) or P ≤ 0.01 (∗∗) by ANOVA.
Fruit weight (g) under the CI and DI treatments and its stability index values in the studied plum cultivars.
| 2019 | 2020 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CI | DI | FWSI | CI | DI | FWSI | |
| Golden japan | 56.36 b | 43.40 ab | 0.77∗ | 32.76 ab | 19.88 a | 0.61∗∗ |
| Santa Rosa | 28.91 a | 21.97 a | 0.76∗∗ | 24.30 a | 17.07 a | 0.70∗∗ |
| Timhdit | 43.62 b | 39.69 ab | 0.91∗ | 40.00 b | 28.75 bc | 0.72∗ |
| Rosa-34 | 28.74 a | 22.42 a | 0.78∗∗ | 28.12 a | 23.91 ab | 0.85∗∗ |
| Black-D35 | 85.91 c | 73.02 bc | 0.85∗∗ | 60.12 c | 41.83 c | 0.70∗∗ |
| Red-B38 | 75.85 bc | 72.06 bc | 0.95∗∗ | 58.70 c | 42.08 c | 0.72∗ |
| Black-G40 | 79.94 bc | 78.34 c | 0.98 | 86.58 d | 32.90 bc | 0.38∗∗ |
| Black-A41 | 66.64 b | 59.98 b | 0.90∗ | 40.30 b | 40.10 c | 0.99 |
| Obil-42 | 72.50 bc | 60.90 b | 0.84∗∗ | 41.38 b | 24.85 ab | 0.60∗∗ |
| Fortu-43 | 74.20 bc | 65.30 bc | 0.88 | 52.25 bc | 26.77 bc | 0.51∗∗ |
| Black-S46 | 89.62 c | 78.87 c | 0.88∗ | 63.32 c | 49.23 d | 0.78∗ |
| ANOVA p-value | 0.036 | 0.016 | 0.003 | 0.003 | ||
CI: control treatment; DI: deficit irrigation; FWSI: fruit weight stability index (weight DI/weight CI).
Within columns of CI and DI. marked values with different letters are significantly different at P ≤ 0.05 according to SNK test.
Marked TSI values are significantly different to 1 at P ≤ 0.05 (∗) or P ≤ 0.01 (∗∗) by ANOVA.
Stability indexes of total soluble solids (TSS). titratable acidity (TA). pH and maturity index (MI) in fruit pulp of the studied cultivars in response to DI treatment.
| TSS index | TA index | pH index | MI index | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | |
| Golden Japan | 1.04 | 1.05 | 0.79∗∗ | 1.05 | 1.05∗ | 1.03∗ | 1.16∗ | 1.32∗∗ |
| Santa Rosa | 1.01 | 1.03 | 0.86∗∗ | 0.84∗∗ | 1.01 | 1.35∗∗ | 1.14∗∗ | 1.14∗ |
| Timhdit | 1.00 | 1.32∗∗ | 0.85∗ | 0.85∗ | 1.07∗ | 1.20∗ | 1.02 | 1.67∗∗ |
| Rosa-34 | 1.04 | 1.05 | 0.99 | 0.86∗ | 1.01 | 1.03∗ | 1.04 | 1.00 |
| Black-D35 | 1.09 | 1.15∗∗ | 0.64∗∗ | 0.73∗∗ | 1.02 | 1.01 | 1.69∗∗ | 1.36∗∗ |
| Red-B38 | 1.04 | 1.01 | 0.98 | 0.94∗ | 1.04∗ | 1.11∗ | 1.02 | 1.18∗∗ |
| Black-G40 | 1.01 | 1.00 | 0.89∗ | 0.89∗ | 1.09∗ | 1.05∗ | 1.12∗ | 1.15∗ |
| Black-A41 | 1.16∗∗ | 1.05 | 0.83∗∗ | 0.85∗ | 1.02∗ | 1.27∗∗ | 1.03 | 1.43∗∗ |
| Obil-42 | 1.17∗∗ | 1.05 | 0.84 | 0.79∗∗ | 1.09∗ | 1.02 | 1.02 | 1.24∗∗ |
| Fortu-43 | 1.01 | 1.14∗∗ | 0.89∗ | 0.90∗ | 1.02 | 1.03∗ | 1.13∗ | 1.27∗∗ |
| Black-S46 | 1.14∗∗ | 1.11∗∗ | 0.54∗∗ | 0.79∗∗ | 1.12∗ | 1.19∗ | 1.64∗∗ | 1.30∗∗ |
Marked values are significantly different to 1 at P ≤ 0.05 (∗) or P ≤ 0.01 (∗∗) by ANOVA.
Stability indexes of soluble sugars content (SSC). amino acids content (AAC). total phenolic compounds (TPC) and total antioxidant capacity (TAC) in fruit pulp of the studied cultivars in response to DI treatment.
| SSC index | AAC index | TPC index | TAC index | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | |
| Golden Japan | 1.47∗∗ | 1.24∗ | 0.76∗ | 0.73∗ | 1.06 | 1.08 | 1.04 | 1.12 |
| Santa Rosa | 1.01 | 1.12∗ | 0.84∗ | 0.72∗ | 1.09 | 1.04 | 1.14∗ | 1.07 |
| Timhdit | 1.46∗∗ | 1.76∗∗ | 0.90∗ | 0.92∗ | 1.13∗ | 1.29∗∗ | 1.03 | 1.15∗ |
| Rosa-34 | 1.45∗∗ | 1.16∗ | 0.94 | 0.72∗ | 1.65∗∗ | 1.36∗∗ | 1.26∗ | 1.07 |
| Black-D35 | 1.35∗∗ | 1.22∗ | 0.37∗∗ | 0.80∗ | 1.13∗ | 1.10∗ | 1.15∗ | 1.10 |
| Red-B38 | 1.13∗ | 1.16∗ | 0.88∗ | 0.77∗ | 1.14∗ | 1.03∗ | 1.05 | 1.33∗∗ |
| Black-G40 | 1.46∗ | 1.20∗ | 0.74 | 0.67∗∗ | 1.43∗ | 1.47∗∗ | 1.22∗ | 1.78∗∗ |
| Black-A41 | 1.26∗∗ | 1.03 | 0.65 | 0.72∗ | 1.02 | 1.01 | 1.63∗ | 1.37∗∗ |
| Obil-42 | 1.04∗ | 1.27∗∗ | 0.82 | 0.76∗ | 1.28∗ | 1.75∗∗ | 1.02 | 1.26∗∗ |
| Fortu-43 | 1.54∗∗ | 1.37∗∗ | 0.56 | 0.77∗ | 1.22∗ | 1.11∗ | 1.07 | 1.29∗∗ |
| Black-S46 | 1.28∗∗ | 1.21∗ | 0.76∗ | 0.80∗ | 1.29∗ | 1.07 | 1.02 | 1.76∗∗ |
Marked values are significantly different to 1 at P ≤ 0.05 (∗) or P ≤ 0.01 (∗∗) by ANOVA.
Matrix of correlation coefficients between mean values of traits stability indexes (TSI) of two experimental years.
| TSI | FY | FW | TSS | PH | TA | MI | SSC | AAC | TPC | TAC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FY | 1 | 0.205 | -0.275 | -0.083 | 0.452 | -0.347 | -0.163 | -0.105 | -0.349 | 0.197 |
| FW | 1 | 0.403 | 0.411 | -0.178 | 0.17 | -0.213 | 0.172 | -0.318 | -0.164 | |
| TSS | 1 | 0.171 | 0.375 | 0.056 | -0.087 | -0.094 | ||||
| PH | 1 | -0.236 | 0.158 | -0.253 | 0.376 | -0.385 | -0.061 | |||
| TA | 1 | 0.092 | 0.346 | 0.109 | -0.088 | |||||
| MI | 1 | 0.266 | -0.349 | -0.416 | 0.033 | |||||
| SSC | 1 | 0.159 | 0.129 | 0.053 | ||||||
| AAC | 1 | 0.257 | -0.281 | |||||||
| TPC | 1 | 0.155 | ||||||||
| TAC | 1 |
TSI: trait stability index; FY: fruit yield; FW: fruit weight; TSS: total soluble solids; TA: titratable acidity; MI: maturity index; SSC: soluble sugars content; AAC: amino acids content; TPC: total phenolic compounds; TAC: total antioxidant capacity.
∗, ∗∗: significant correlation coefficient at p ≤ 0.05 or p ≤ 0.01.
Matrix of correlation coefficients between traits values under CI treatement and traits stability indexes (TSI) based on means of two experimental years.
| TSI | Traits values under CI treatment | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FY | FW | TSS | PH | TA | MI | SSC | AAC | TPC | TAC | |
| FY | 0.012 | -0.237 | -0.16 | 0.253 | 0.009 | -0.105 | -0.127 | -0.129 | -0.342 | 0.081 |
| FW | 0.25 | -0.501 | -0.488 | -0.191 | 0.088 | -0.379 | -0.468 | -0.561 | -0.106 | -0.346 |
| TSS | -0.365 | -0.091 | 0.029 | 0.568 | 0.521 | -0.328 | 0.548 | 0.041 | -0.018 | 0.177 |
| PH | 0.199 | -0.318 | -0.551 | 0.171 | -0.078 | -0.394 | -0.474 | -0.596 | -0.041 | -0.292 |
| TA | -0.025 | -0.145 | -0.187 | 0.151 | 0.401 | -0.386 | -0.338 | -0.307 | -0.026 | 0.069 |
| MI | -0.018 | -0.141 | 0.218 | 0.557 | -0.474 | 0.274 | -0.057 | -0.271 | -0.194 | |
| SSC | -0.457 | -0.025 | 0.074 | 0.503 | -0.266 | 0.128 | -0.106 | 0.369 | ||
| AAC | -0.549 | -0.083 | -0.07 | 0.594 | 0.323 | -0.265 | 0.486 | -0.064 | -0.195 | 0.358 |
| TPC | -0.105 | 0.106 | 0.217 | -0.121 | -0.151 | 0.332 | 0.53 | 0.506 | -0.313 | 0.149 |
| TAC | -0.255 | -0.017 | -0.195 | -0.477 | 0.246 | -0.133 | -0.007 | -0.134 | -0.238 | |
TSI: trait stability index; FY: fruit yield; FW: fruit weight; TSS: total soluble solids; TA: titratable acidity; MI: maturity index; SSC: soluble sugars content; AAC: amino acids content; TPC: total phenolic compounds; TAC: total antioxidant capacity.
∗, ∗∗: significant correlation coefficient at p ≤ 0.05 or p ≤ 0.01.
Eigenvectors of principal component (PC) of PCA based on trait stability indexes of the two experimental years.
| TSI | PC1 | PC2 | PC3 | PC4 | PC5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fruit yield | -0.398 | 0.480 | -0.483 | 0.491 | 0.142 |
| Fruit weight | 0.397 | 0.108 | 0.153 | 0.172 | |
| TSS | -0.102 | 0.263 | 0.288 | 0.116 | |
| pH | 0.370 | 0.250 | -0.248 | 0.288 | |
| TA | 0.185 | 0.146 | 0.335 | -0.080 | |
| MI | -0.187 | -0.178 | 0.104 | -0.085 | |
| SSC | 0.142 | 0.326 | 0.717 | 0.036 | |
| AAC | -0.197 | 0.290 | 0.088 | 0.217 | |
| TPC | -0.369 | 0.428 | -0.281 | 0.312 | |
| TAC | -0.065 | -0.278 | -0.480 | 0.025 | |
| Explained variance (%) | 29.69 | 19.65 | 16.84 | 11.33 | 9.56 |
| Cumulative variance (%) | 29.66 | 49.34 | 66.18 | 77.52 | 87.08 |
TSI: trait stability index; TSS: total soluble solids; TA: titratable acidity; MI: maturity index; SSC: soluble sugars content; AAC: amino acids content; TPC: total phenolic compounds; TAC: total antioxidant capacity.
Significant eigenvectors. higher than |0.5| are marked in bold.
Figure 1Hierarchically clustered heatmap based on the correlation matrix of traits stability indexes (averages of two years). The low color intensity means the highest TSI value and vice versa. FY: fruit yield; FW: fruit weight; TSS: total soluble solids; TA: titratable acidity; MI: maturity index; SSC: soluble sugars content; AAC: amino acids content; TPC: total phenolic compounds; TAC: total antioxidant capacity.