It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Strawberry fruit quality traits can be affected by genotype-environment interactions, which determine the consumer acceptance of fruits. This factorial experiment was based on completely randomised blocks (RCBD) with two planting dates (5 and 20 April) and cultivars (‘Albion’, ‘San Andreas’ and ‘Portola’) of strawberry with three replications, and some of pomological and qualitative factors of berry were investigated at harvest. The results showed no significant difference on fruit width, length, weight and firmness, while the plant yield and stem diameter (SD) were affected by different cultivars and planting dates. The minimum SD (19.80) was recorded in cv. ‘Portola’ in the planting date of 20 April. Although the lowest fruit yield was achieved in cv. ‘Portola’ at both planting dates, it had the highest titratable acidity (TA) (0.83%) at the first planting date (5 April). The amount of soluble solid concentration (SSC), electrolyte conductivity (EC), pH, TA and chlorophyll were not affected by cultivar and planting dates. The effect of planting dates and cultivar had no significant effect on berry colour. The highest total phenolic (275.44 mg GAE · 100 mL-1 FW) was recorded in cv. ‘San Andreas’ on the planting date of 20 April, while the lowest value (251.22 mg GAE · 100 mL-1 FW) was recorded in cv. ‘Portola’ on the planting date of 5 April. In general, it is suggested that the least fruit yield in strawberry cv. ‘Portola’ can be correlated with the least SD of the cultivar.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Department of Horticulture, Faculty of Agriculture, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Türkiye
2 Department of Horticulture, Faculty of Agriculture, Eskişehir Osmangazi University, Eskişehir 26160, Türkiye
3 Department of Horticulture, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences and Technologies, European University of Lefke, Gemikonagi, Northern Cyprus, Mersin 99780, Türkiye
4 Department of Horticultural Science, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Maragheh, Maragheh, Iran