Analysis of similarities and differences of accessions belonging to Prunus domestica L. and P. insititia L. using endocarp dimensions

   The endocarp or stone is the most stable morphological feature of the genus Prunus. However, the identification of plum types, groups and/or genotypes based on endocarp is complicated because of a wide range of variation and morphological transitional states. From this point of view, knowledge on the degree of variability within and between plum species or cultivars is a sine qua non for taxonomists and also for pomologists. In this study, different endocarp morphological traits, such as SW, linear dimensions (L, W and T), D_a, D_g, S, V and shape indexes (φ, SI, E, RS, RO, DE and PI) were determined using analysis of variance and multivariate analysis (correlations and PCA). Results showed significant differences among accessions for all properties evaluated but with high overlaps in values. In most cases, the examined parameters were positively or negatively correlated with each other, indicating developmental relationships between them. Indeed, positive correlations were recorded for most variables, especially related to SW and endocarp linear dimensions. These results showed that the above properties could be a powerful indicator for selecting adequate endocarp size and shape in accessions, which may be used in taxonomic analysis. With an account of these correlations, PCA was employed to correctly estimate the endocarp size and shape and distribution, segregation and dispersion of accessions. All linear measurements and index values showed a normal or low variability at the individual level in most cases, with the exception of SW, V and PI in both European and Damson plums and S in Damson plums. Of the 15 examined parameters, European plum had significantly higher SW, L, T, D_a, D_g, S, E, RO and PI values than Damson plum. In contrast, Damson plum had higher SI, RS and DE values, while W, V and φ were similar.

1. Bawari S., Sah A.N., Tewari D. Discovering the antiurolithiatic potential of wild Himalayan cherry through in vitro and preclinical investigations. S Afr J Bot. 2022;145:218-227. doi: 10.1016/j.sajb.2021.01.020

2. Behre E.-K. Formenkreise von Prunus domestica L. von der Wikingerzeit bis in die frühe Neuzeit nach Fruchtsteinen aus Haithabu und Alt-Schleswig. Ber Deutsch Bot Ges. 1978;91(1):161-179. doi: 10.1111/j.1438-8677.1978.tb03640.x (in German)

3. Burger P., Terral J.-F., Raus M.-P., Ivorra S., Picq S. Assessing past agrobiodiversity of Prunus avium L. (Rosaceae) : a morphometric approach focused on the stones from the archaeological site Hôtel-Dieu (16^th century, Tours, France). Veget Hist Archaeobot. 2012; 20(5):447-458. doi: 10.1007/s00334-011-0310-6

4. Caillavet H., Souty J. Monographie des principales variétés de pêchers. Bordeaux: Sté bordelaise d’imprimerie, 1950 Carrillo-López A., Yahia E.M. Morphology and anatomy. In: Yahia E.M. (Ed.) Postharvest Physiology and Biochemistry of Fruits and Vegetables. Woodhead Publishing; Elsevier, 2019;113-130. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-813278-4.00006-3

5. Cobianchi D., Watkins R. (Eds) Descriptor List for Plum and Allied Species. IBPGR (International Board for Plant Genetic Resources), 1984

6. das Graças Souza A., Smiderle O.J., Spinelli V.M., de Souza R.O., Bian chi V.J. Correlation of biometrical characteristics of fruit and seed with twinning and vigor of Prunus persica rootstocks. J Seed Sci. 2016;38(4):322-328. doi: 10.1590/2317-1545v38n4164650

7. de Figueiredo A.K., Baümler E., Riccobene C., Nolasco S.M. Moisture-dependent engineering properties of sunflower seeds with different structural characteristics. J Food Eng. 2011;102(1):58-65. doi: 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2010.08.003

8. Depypere L., Chaerle P., Mijnsbrugge K.V., Goetghebeur P. Stony endocarp dimension and shape variation in Prunus section Prunus. Ann Bot. 2007;100(7):1585-1597. doi: 10.1093/aob/mcm260

9. Depypere L., Chaerle P., Mijnsbrugge K.V., Goetghebeur P. Classification trees and plant identification: a case study of European Prunus section Prunus taxa. Belg J Bot. 2009;142(2):163-176. doi: 10.2307/41427184

10. Drkenda P., Kurtović M. Pomological characteristics of autochthonous plum genotypes (Prunus domestica) from Bosnia and Herzegovina. Acta Hortic. 2012;968:81-83. doi: 10.17660/ActaHortic.2012.968.10

11. Fıratlıgil-Durmuş E., Šárka E., Bubník Z., Schejbal M., Kadlec P. Size properties of legume seeds of different varieties using image analysis. J Food Eng. 2010;99(4):445-451. doi: 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2009.08.005

12. Ganopoulos I., Moysiadis T., Xanthopoulou A., Ganopoulou M., Avramidou E., Aravanopoulos F.A., Tani E., Madesis P., Tsaftaris A., Kazantzis K. Diversity of morpho-physiological traits in worldwide sweet cherry cultivars of GeneBank collection using multivariate analysis. Sci Hortic. 2015;197:381-391. doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2015.09.061

13. Garnayak D.K., Pradhan R.C., Nalk S.N., Bhatnagar N. Moisture-dependent physical properties of jatropha seed (Jatropha curcas L.). Ind Crops Prod. 2008;27(1):127-129. doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2007.09.001

14. Gezer İ., Haciseferoğullari H., Demir F. Some physical properties of Hacıhaliloğlu apricot pit and its kernel. J Food Eng. 2002;56(1): 49-57. doi: 10.1016/S0260-8774(02)00147-4

15. Glišić I., Milošević N., Tomić J., Milinković M., Đorđević M., Marić S., Radičević S., Popović B. Biological and pomological characteristics of autochthonous plum cultivars collected in western Serbia. J Pomol. 2023;57(215-216):7-16. doi: 10.18485/pomology.2023.57.215_216.1

16. González-García E., Marina M.L., García M.C. Plum (Prunus domestica L.) by-product as a new and cheap source of bioactive peptides: extraction method and peptides characterization. J Funct Foods. 2014;11:428-437. doi: 10.1016/j.jff.2014.10.020

17. Gunes M. Some local plum varieties grown in Tokat province. Pak J Appl Sci. 2003;3(5):291-295. doi: 10.3923/jas.2003.291.295

18. Heidari P., Sahebi M., Azadvari E., Lawson S., Rezaei M., Khadivi A. Morphological variability of indigenous cherry plum (Prunus di­varicata Ledeb.) accessions. Eur J Hortic Sci. 2022;87(1):1-8. doi: 10.17660/eJHS.2022/002

19. Hübner S., Wissemann V. Morphometrische Analysen zur Variabilität von Prunus spinosa L. – Populationen (Prunoideae, Rosaceae) im Mittleren Saaletal, Thüringen. Forum Geobot. 2004;1:19-51. doi: 10.3264/FG.2004.1215 (in German)

20. Jaćimović V., Božović Đ., Lazović B., Adakalić M., Ljutica S. Autochthonous plum cultivars grown in the region of Gornje Polimlje. J Pomol. 2011;45(175-176):109-115 (in Serbian with English abstract)

21. Khadivi A., Mirheidari F., Moradi Y., Paryan S. Morphological and pomological diversity of wild Prunus microcarpa Boiss. germ-plasm. BMC Plant Biol. 2022;22(1):185. doi 10.1186/s12870-022-03572-2

22. Kosina R. A contribution to the variability of Prunus spinosa L. in the vicinity of the mediaeval Castle Kolno, S-W Poland. Biodiv Res Conserv. 2023;70:13-18. doi: 10.14746/biorc.2023.70.2

23. Mansouri A., Mirzabe A.H., Ráufi A. Physical properties and mathematical modeling of melon (Cucumis melo L.) seeds and kernels. J Saudi Soc Agric Sci. 2017;16(3):218-226. doi: 10.1016/j.jssas.2015.07.001

24. Mijnsbrugge K.V., Depypere L., Chaerle P., Goetghebeur P., Breyne P. Genetic and morphological variability among autochthonous Prunus spinosa populations in Flanders (northern part of Belgium): implications for seed sourcing. Plant Ecol Evol. 2013;146(2):193-202. doi: 10.5091/plecevo.2013.762

25. Milošević N., Glišić I., Lukić M., Đorđević M. Biological and pomological characteristics of autochthonous plum cultivars in agoecological conditions of Čačak. In: Proceedings of 22^nd Symposium on Biotechnology with International Participation, Faculty of Agronomy. Čačak, 2017;271-280 (in Serbian with English abstract)

26. Milošević T., Milošević N. Phenotypic diversity of autochthonous European (Prunus domestica L.) and Damson (Prunus insititia L.) plum accessions based on multivariate analysis. Hortic Sci. 2012; 39(1):8-20. doi: 10.17221/99/2011-HORTSCI

27. Milošević T., Milošević N. Determination of size and shape features of hazelnuts using multivariate analysis. Acta Sci Pol Hortorum Cultus. 2017;16(5):49-61. doi: 10.24326/asphc.2017.5.6

28. Milošević T., Milošević N. Plum (Prunus spp.) breeding. In: Al-Khayri J.M., Jain M.S., Johnson D.V. (Eds) Advances in Plant Breeding Strategies: Fruits. Springer International Publishing AG, 2018;165-215. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-91944-7_5

29. Milošević T., Milošević N., Mladenović J. Diversity of plums belonging to P. domestica L., P. insititia L. and Prunus × rossica Erem. Tree vigour, yielding and fruit quality attributes. Sci Hortic. 2023;320: 112220. doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2023.112220

30. Mohsenin N.N. Physical properties of plants and animal materials. New York: Gordon & Breach Science Publishers, 1986;5-8;616-647

31. Munder S., Argyropoulos D., Muller J. Class-based physical properties of air-classified sunflower seeds and kernels. Biosyst Eng. 2017; 164:124-134. doi: 10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2017.10.005

32. Nielsen J., Olrik D.C. A morphometric analysis of Prunus spinosa, P. domestica ssp. insititia, and their putative hybrids in Denmark. Nord J Bot. 2001;21(4):349-363. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-1051.2001.tb00778.x

33. Pérez-Sánchez R., Gómez-Sánchez M.A., Morales-Corts M.R. Description and quality evaluation of sweet cherries cultured in Spain. J Food Qual. 2010;33(4):490-506. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-4557.2010.00339.x

34. Plainfossé H., Burger P., Verger-Dubois G., Azoulay S., Fernandez X. Design methodology for the development of a new cosmetic active based on Prunus domestica L. leaves extract. Cosmetics. 2019;6:8. doi: 10.3390/cosmetics6010008

35. Pollmann B., Jacomet S., Schlumbaum A. Morphological and genetic studies of waterlogged Prunus species from the Roman vicus Tasgetium (Eschenz, Switzerland). J Archaeol Sci. 2005;32(10):1471-1480. doi: 10.1016/j.jas.2005.04.002

36. R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, 2021. Available at: https://www.R-project.org/. Accessed on June 13, 2024

37. Ropelewska E. Diversity of plum stones based on image texture parameters and machine learning algorithms. Agronomy. 2022;12:762. doi: 10.3390/agronomy12040762

38. Sarigu M., Oscar G., Lo Bianco M., Ucchesu M., d’Hallewin G., Loi M.C., Venora G., Bacchetta G. Phenotypic identification of plum varieties (Prunus domestica L.) by endocarps morphocolorimetric and textural descriptors. Comput Electron Agr. 2017;136:25-30. doi: 10.1016/j.compag.2017.02.009

39. Šebek G. Selection of some autochthonous plum cultivars seedling rootstocks in the region of North Montenegro. J Hyg Eng Des. 2013;4:117-121

40. Sheikh M.A., Saini C.S., Sharma H.K. Computation of design-related engineering properties and fracture resistance of plum (Prunus domestica) kernels to compressive loading. J Agric Food Res. 2021;3: 100101. doi: 10.1016/j.jafr.2021.100101

41. Van Zeist W., Woldring H., Plum (Prunus domestica L.) varieties in late- and post-medieval Groningen: the archaeobotanical evidence. Palaeohistoria. 2000;39/40:563-576

42. Watkins R. Cherry, plum, peach, apricot and almond. In: Simmonds N.W. (Ed.) Evolution of Crop Plants. London: Longman, 1976;242-247

43. Woldring H. On the origin of plums: a study of sloe, damson, cherry plum, domestic plums and their intermediate forms. Paleohistoria. 2000;39/40:535-562