|
|
|
| Primary Analysis of Fruit Quality of Processing Tomato |
| ZHANG Yu-yang，LI Fang，GUO Ling，YU Jun，YE Zhi-biao，LI Han-xia |
| College of Horticulture and Forestry，National Key Laboratory of Crop Genetic Improvement，Huazhong Agricultural University，Wuhan 430070，China；College of Plant Science and Technology，Tarim University，Ala`er， 843300，China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract In this study, appearance quality, nutrient composition and processing quality were investigated on 31 processing tomato（Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.）varieties and crossing combinations. The results showed that obvious relevance existed between fruit weight and longitudinal diameter, latitudinal diameter, and their multiplication product, with the highest correlation coefficient of 0.970 1. Major differences existed in fruit weight, fruit hardness, red fruit degrees, soluble solids, titratable acid, soluble sugar content and sugar/acid ratio among different tomato cultivars and the crossing combinations. The variation range of these 7 different parameters were between 22.60-137.40 g, 1.90-10.70 kg•cm-2, 9.60-30.71, 3.43 %-5.93 %, 0.21 %-0.67 %, 1.89 %-12.47 % and 7.28-40.73, respectively. The fruit hardness is the highest in‘Changnong 020’and‘Shihong No.15’. The red extent reaches the highest in E6203 and U338×U924. The soluble solids contents are the highest in U338×U924 and U520×U338. The titratable acid content is the highest in U338בJiazhou 2’and U924, and soluble sugar content is the highest in U338×9-1 and‘Jiahe No.9’. Sugar/acid ratio is the highest in ‘Jiazhou 2’×U520 and U338×9-1. The fruit quality of crossing combinations is better than that of parent plants and the main cultivars‘Liger 87-5’. Through the general quality analysis, the comprehensive quality is the best in U338×U924, relatively better in‘Shihong No.15’,‘Jiazhou 2’×U520,‘Jiazhou 2’×U924, while the less comprehensive quality falls into‘Jiahe No.9’and U924×U370. The fruit quality of wildly used cultivar‘Liger 87-5’is not so prominent.
|
|
Received: 07 April 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
