International Journal of Horticulture 2015, Vol.5, No.12, 1
-
10
5
Table 3 Morphological (leaf area, fruit weight, fruit length, fruit firmness), chemical (S.S.C., ascorbic acid) characterization of the
fourteen squash genotypes evaluated in this study
Genotypes
Leaf Area
(cm
2
)
Fruit Weight
(g)
Fruit Length
(cm)
Fruit Firmness
(Ib/in
2
)
S.S.C
(%)
Ascorbic Acid
(mg/100 g FW)
PI 506466
296.11 cf*
70.51 fg
9.56 b
3.08 def
4.49 abc
9.66 f
PI 292014
239.67 gh
68.94 fg
9.33 bc
3.29 cde
4.33 abc
13.50 bc
PI 518688
269.78 fg
147.56 bc
13.22 a
2.71 f
5.07 a
11.34 def
PI 506467
418.56 a
70.06 fg
12.44 a
3.27 cde
4.42 abc
12.72 bcde
PI 615119
227.11 hi
103.11 cde
7.78 c
3.34 cd
4.51 abc
11.46 def
PI 136448
314.78 de
64.06 g
10.11 b
2.82 ef
4.09 cd
15.30 a
PI 518687
196.11 i
153.00 b
13.35 a
4.31 a
3.43 d
11.52 def
PI 216032
215.89 hi
86.44 efg
7.62 c
2.60 f
4.16 bcd
2.94 g
Matrouhy
343.67 cd
53.39 g
8.67 bc
3.34 cd
4.16 bcd
11.37 def
Butternut
229.44 hi
283.94 a
13.11 a
3.98 a
4.98 ab
10.86 ef
Yellow Crookneck
222.56 hi
89.33 ef
12.22 a
3.29 cde
4.58 abc
3.84 g
Shamamy
406.33 ab
125.33 bc
9.39 bc
3.09 def
4.20 bcd
13.17 bcd
Copi
425.00 a
147.50 bc
8.56 bc
3.61 bc
4.24 abc
11.97 cde
Eskandrani
376.44 bc
116.39 cd
13.00 a
3.93 ab
4.24 abc
14.52 ab
*For each trait, means followed by the same letter in each column are not significantly different at (
p
≤5%)
Table 4 Phenotypic correlation (
r
) and significance level between morphological and chemical characters in 14 squash genotype
Fruit Firmness
S.S.C
Fruit Length
Fruit Weight
Leaf Area
-0.16 ns
Fruit Weight
-0.39*
0.46*
Fruit Length
0.14 ns
0.17 ns
0.05 ns
S.S.C
- 0.2*
0.07 ns
0.09 ns
0.06 ns
Fruit Firmness
0.15 ns
- 0.03 ns
0.29*
0.02 ns
0.42*
Ascorbic Acid
*= Significantly different at
p
≤ 0.05.ns= Non-significantly different
in two or more squash genotypes while none of the
fragments showed monomorphic behavior among
squash genotypes (Figure 2) (Table 5).The highest
number of bands with polymorphism was observed
with primer A01 (with 45 bands), while, the lowest
primer was A10 (with 3 bands). The similarity matrix
showed that the lowest similarity (0.674) was between
the genotypes PI 506467 and PI 518687, while the
highest similarity (0.891) was between the genotypes
Copi and Eskandrani and also between genotypes PI
518688 and PI 615119 (Table 6). According to the
dendrogram (Figure 3), at a similarity level of 82% the
genotypes were divided into two clusters. The first
cluster consisted of eight genotypes (PI 506466- PI
292014- PI 518688- PI 615119- PI 136448- Butternut-
Copi- Eskandrani). The second cluster contained only
two genotypes Yellow Crookneck and Shamamy
When the cluster analysis of RAPD patterns was
associated with morphological and chemical evaluation of
squash genotypes used in this study, there was a notable
degree of agreement (Table 1 and 3) (Figure 3). From
the dendrogram, genotypes Copi and Eskandrani
showed a high degree of similarity according to RAPD
data and both belong to the same Egyptian origin. In
addition, both genotypes possess non-significantly
different morphological and chemical characters such as
plant leaf area, fruit firmness and fruit S.S.C. and
similar fruit length and weight.
Discussion
Molecular techniques have revolutionized the ability
to characterize genetic materials and helped provide
knowledge of genetic diversity and means of making
predictions of how diversity may change (Karp et al.,
1997). Molecular tools have significant applications in
classification, identification and evaluating genetic
resources as well as understanding the structure and
history of diversity (Karp, 2000).
Knowledge of the genetic diversity of a crop is essential
for the parental selection in order to maximize genetic
improvement. More accurate and complete descriptions of
