Content levels of various fruit metabolites in the ‘Conference’ pear response to branch bending
- 作者：M. Colaric ; F. Stampar ; M. Hudina
- 关键词：Pear ; Pyrus communis ; Branch bending ; Fruits ; Carbohydrates ; Organic acids ; Phenolic
- 刊名：Scientia Horticulturae
- 出版年：2007
- 期刊代码：93_03044238
- 类别：abs
- 出版时间：20 July 2007
- 卷：113
- 期：3
- 页码：261-266
- 文件大小：130 K
摘要
The response of ‘Conference’ pear subjected to branch bending in the content levels of various metabolites in its fruit was investigated. The fruits in commercial maturity were sampled in 2004 and 2005 from branches bent in the late summer of 2003 (the summer treatment), from branches bent in the late spring of 2004 (the spring treatment) and from control branches. The content levels of carbohydrates, organic acids and phenolic compounds were compared among treatments in two successive years. The fruit revealed various responses in content levels of metabolites. In the first year after bending, no significant differences were found in the content of each carbohydrate, but in 2005 by far the highest content level of glucose and fructose and the lowest content level of sucrose were found in fruits from the control. The control fruit showed significantly higher content levels of malic acid and lower content levels of some phenolics (chlorogenic and vanillic acid) in the first year after bending, but in the next year the opposite reaction occurred—the control fruit had the lowest content level of malic acid and the highest content level of epicatechin, quercetin-3-d-galactoside and quercetin-3-β-d-glucoside. The comparison of the two bending treatments alone in 2004 showed that the summer treatment often produced a slightly higher value of each phenolic in comparison to the spring treatment. However, in 2005 the significantly highest content of chlorogenic acid was in fruit from the spring treatment. Sorbitol, as well as citric acid, catechin and sinapic acid showed no clear tendency among treatments, neither in 2004 nor in 2005. It is suggested that these variations of ‘Conference’ fruit subjected to different bending treatments could not be the result of bending alone, but that they could be indirectly affected by other physiological responses of the fruit tree. However, it seemed that variations are affected by the time of bending and by the year-to-year, and such responses can be attributed to the ‘Conference’ genotype only.