Next Article in Journal
Analysis of the Forecast Price as a Factor of Sustainable Development of Agriculture
Next Article in Special Issue
Exploring the Phenotypic Stability of Soybean Seed Compositions Using Multi-Trait Stability Index Approach
Previous Article in Journal
Performance of Hydroponically Cultivated Geranium and Common Verbena under Salinity and High Electrical Conductivity Levels
Previous Article in Special Issue
Assessing the Genetic Diversity and Population Structure of a Tunisian Melon (Cucumis melo L.) Collection Using Phenotypic Traits and SSR Molecular Markers
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 11
Issue 6
10.3390/agronomy11061238
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Agromorphological Characterization and Nutritional Value of Traditional Almond Cultivars Grown in the Central-Western Iberian Peninsula

by
Rodrigo Pérez-Sánchez
* and
María Remedios Morales-Corts
Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, University of Salamanca, Avda. Filiberto Villalobos, 119, 37007 Salamanca, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2021, 11(6), 1238; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11061238
Submission received: 5 May 2021 / Revised: 2 June 2021 / Accepted: 16 June 2021 / Published: 18 June 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Old Germplasm for New Needs: Managing Crop Genetic Resources)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In this study, 24 traditional almond cultivars grown in the central-western Iberian Peninsula, all of them clearly in decline or close to extinction, were characterized from the agromorphological and chemical points of view. A total of 40 agromorphological and chemical descriptors, mainly defined by the IPGRI and the UPOV, were used to describe the flowers, leaves, fruits and the trees themselves over three consecutive years (2015–2017). Some of the cultivars showed distinctive and interesting agronomical characteristics from a commercial point of view, such as high yields and high quality fruit. This was the case of the almond cultivars called “Gorda José” and “Marcelina”. Their fruits were quite heavy (nuts: >9.1 g; kernels: >1.9 g), with very low percentages of double kernels (<3%) and high nutritional value (>50% lipids; >21% proteins). The results of the PCA and cluster analysis showed that agromorphological and chemical analysis can provide reliable information on the variability in almond genotypes. This work constitutes an important step in the conservation of genetic almond resources in the central-western Iberian Peninsula.

1. Introduction

The almond (Prunus dulcis [Miller] D.A. Webb syn. P. amygdalus (L.) Batsch, Rosaceae, 2n = 2x = 16) is one of the oldest and most important nut crops grown commercially worldwide. It originated in the arid mountainous regions of southwestern and central Asia [1] and spread rapidly towards the Mediterranean Basin via seeds carried by caravans along the old Silk Route [2]. The almond is cultivated for its edible seed (the kernel), which is used for direct consumption and for almond-based products and confections [3,4]. In 2019, world production of almonds was 3.49 million metric tons [5]. The United States, Spain, Iran, Australia, Morocco and Syria are the most important almond-producing countries (approximately 80% of world almond production). Concretely, the Iberian Peninsula (the first European producer) has 717,870 ha dedicated to almond production and produces 373,970 metric tons of fruit per year. The main almond-producing regions in the Iberian Peninsula are close to the Mediterranean Sea, such as Andalusia, Murcia and Valencia, but also include inland regions such as Aragón and Castilla–La Mancha. In these regions, most of the almond orchards are not irrigated (92.2%), resulting in very low productivity [6]. Some of the most common cultivars cultured in the Iberian Peninsula are “Marcona”, “Desmayo Largueta”, “Tuono”, “Cristomorto”, “Ferragnés”, “Ferraduel”, “Guara”, “Belona”, “Soleta”, “Mardía”, “Masbovera”, “Glorieta”, “Francolí”, “Constantí”, “Marinada”, “Tarraco”, “Vayro”, “Parada”, “Bonita” and “Casanova”. Moreover, many other named cultivars of local origin have evolved from localized ecological niches that are found in different valleys extending inland from the Mediterranean coast [7,8,9]. The conservation and characterization of these local cultivars is important to avoid the loss of genetic variability and as a potential source of genetic variation for future almond breeding programs. Some of these cultivars show distinctive agronomic characteristics, such as self-compatibility, late blooming, frost tolerance and shell hardness.
Many studies addressing the agromorphological and biochemical characterization of almond cultivars have been undertaken in countries mainly located around the Mediterranean basin [10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24]. In the Iberian Peninsula, studies have been carried out by Montero-Riquelme et al. [25], Felipe [26], Cordeiro et al. [27], Arquero et al. [28], Kodad and Socias i Company [29,30], Vargas et al. [31], Kodad et al. [32,33,34] and Ramos and Costa [35].
The objective of the present study was to survey, identify and characterize from the agromorphological and nutritional points of view the traditional almond cultivars existing in the central-western region of the Iberian Peninsula in order to avoid their disappearance and so that they can be included in future almond breeding programs.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Plant Material

A survey was carried out in the regions known as “Arribes del Duero” (Salamanca, Spain) and “Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro” (Bragança, Portugal) during 2014. A total of 192 adult almond trees at least ten years old, corresponding to 24 cultivars (“Agapitina”, “Bravía”, “Cascafina”, “Cascona”, “Cornicabra”, “De Convite”, “Desmayo Largueta”, “Desmayo Rojo”, “Esperanza”, “Gorda José”, “Marcelina”, “Marcona”, “Molar de Chavés”, “Mollar de Arribes”, “Pestaneta de Bragança”, “Pestañeta de Arribes”, “Peta”, “Picuda”, “Portuguesa”, “Recia”, “Redondilla”, “Valenciana”, “Verdeal” and “Verdinal”), were selected for study at full fruit maturity. Eight trees were evaluated per cultivar.

2.2. Agromorphological Characterization

The agromorphological description of the almond cultivars was based on 19 descriptors established by the UPOV [36] and IPGRI [37] and a further 14 descriptors that were considered relevant for identification. For the determination of some of the descriptors, samples of flowers, fruits and leaves were taken during 2015, 2016 and 2017, using UPOV guidelines. The measurement for each parameter was performed as follows: Flowers were collected at full bloom. Ten flowers were taken from each of the eight trees studied per cultivar and year, and the following quantitative parameters were measured using an electronic digital caliper (COMECTA 5900603, Barcelona, Spain): open flower diameter (cm), petal length (cm), petal width (cm) and pistil length (cm). The numbers of petals, pistils and stamens were also counted. Leaves were collected at the adult stage, at approximately the end of July. Seven leaves were sampled per tree and year, and the following quantitative parameters were measured: petiole length and leaf blade length and width. Anthocyanin pigmentation of the nectaries was indicated by a reddish tonality observed in leaf glands. Two ratios were calculated: the length/width of the leaf blade and the petiole length/leaf blade length. Almond fruits were collected at maturity. The time of maturity was reached when the mesocarp started to dry off. All observations on dry fruits and kernels were made when the ripe fruits had a water content of less than 8%; that is, at least one month after harvesting. A total of 20 fruits per tree and year were taken to determinate each parameter. The three principal dimensions of the nut and kernel, namely length (L), width (W) and thickness (T), were measured using a digital caliper with a sensibility of 0.01 mm. The geometric mean diameter (Dg), sphericity (ø) and surface area (S) were calculated using the following equations: Dg = (LWT)0.333, ø = [(LWT)0.333]/L and S = π Dg2 [38,39,40,41]. Also, following Jain and Bal [42] and Özgüven and Vursavuş [43], the volume (V) was expressed as follows: V = πB2L2/6(2L-B), where B = (WT)0.5. Shell hardness was evaluated according to the categories established in the guidelines (extremely hard, hard, intermediate, soft and paper). Mass was measured on an electronic balance (Mettler XPR603S, Toledo, Spain) with a sensitivity of ±0.001 g. The percentage of doubles (number of kernels per nut) and kernel taste were also determined. Finally, with regard to whole trees, the vegetative bearing habit of the different cultivars was evaluated by considering growing habits from extremely upright to drooping.

2.3. Chemical Composition

One hundred almonds were randomly selected per cultivar and their shells were removed to obtain the kernel. They were then finely ground by an electric grinder (Moulinex MC3001, Barcelona, Spain) and analyzed, with three replicates, for the following parameters: dry weight, lipids, proteins, dietary fiber, carbohydrates and ash (AOAC procedures [44]). Dry matter (%) was determined in a drying oven (Indelab, mod. IDL.AI 80, Navarra, Spain) at 100 °C using 25 g per sample. The crude protein content (%) of the samples was estimated with the macro-Kjeldahl method, with sulfuric acid digestion (Bloc-Digest 12P SELECTA, Barcelona, Spain) performed prior to the distillation and titration process, which was carried out with IDK132 VELP equipment and a conversion factor (N-Protein) of 5.18. The crude fat/lipids content (%) was determined with a Soxhlet extractor (VELP SER-158 Technilab, Lisses, France) by extraction from a 5 g sample of powdered almond with petroleum ether (boiling point range = 38.2–54.3 °C). The ash content (%) was determined by quantifying the residue after combustion of the dry sample in an analogical muffle furnace (HD230PAD Hobersal, Barcelona, Spain) at 550 ± 15 °C for 6 hours under incineration conditions corresponding to the gravimetric method. Total dietary fiber (%) was measured with an enzymatic–gravimetric method, determining the fiber’s hydrolyzed polysaccharides by HPLC and lignin gravimetrically. Total carbohydrates (%) were estimated through the difference between the dry extract and the rest of the components. The energy value (kcal/100 g) was calculated using the general Atwater coefficients: 4 * (% protein) + 9 * (% crude fat) + 4 * (%total carbohydrates).

2.4. Statistical Analyses

Means and standard deviations were calculated for each of the quantitative parameters studied over the 3 years for the 24 traditional almond cultivars. The unit of measurement of each of the parameters studied was based on the individual value of each of the eight trees sampled per cultivar. Finally, based on all the studied parameters, principal component analysis (PCA) was carried out using the SPSS 17.0 program, and a dendrogram of genetic similarities among cultivars was compiled using the furthest neighbor method (Statgraphics Plus 17.0 program).

3. Results

3.1. Flowers

Flower parameters are shown in Table 1. Open flower diameter ranged from 3.48 to 5.51 cm, the cultivars with the largest flowers being “Peta”, “Marcelina”, “Gorda José” and “Portuguesa”. All genotypes had five petals, except “Picuda” and the “Pestañetas” group.
In all cases, the petal length was highly correlated (0.91) with the flower size. Petal width varied from 1.11 to 2.04 cm. The lowest values were observed for “Pestañeta Arribes”, “Desmayo Rojo” and “Esperanza”. These last two cultivars, together with “Cascafina”, “Cascona”, “De Convite”, “Desmayo Largueta” and “Peta”, showed more than one pistil. The length of pistils ranged from 1.26 to 2.05 cm. “Portuguesa” was the cultivar with the largest pistil. The stamen number varied between 28 and 53.

3.2. Leaves

Leaf parameters are summarized in Table 2. Petiole length varied from 1.46 to 3.40 cm, the cultivars with the shortest and the longest leaf peduncles being “Cornicabra” and “Mollar de Arribes”, respectively. This last cultivar also showed the highest leaf blade length. At the opposite end for this parameter was the “Bravía” genotype. Its leaves were also the narrowest (2.07 cm). The length/width ratio of the leaf blades ranged from 3.76 cm to 7.91 cm. “Valenciana”, “Desmayo Rojo” and “Esperanza” were the cultivars with the highest ratios (5.96, 6.54 and 7.91, respectively). The other ratios calculated (petiole/leaf blade length) had values of around 0.22. The leaf glands showed green or reddish anthocyanin colorations.

3.3. Fruits

Fruit agromorphological parameters are shown in Table 3. Regarding dry fruit, “Gorda José” was the local cultivar that had the largest size and weight parameters, at 4.98 cm length, 3.41 cm width, 2.49 cm thickness and 16.35 g mass. Its nuts had geometric mean diameters close to 3.50 cm and volume and surface area values of around 15.64 cm3 and 38.02 cm2, respectively. At the other extreme was the cultivar “Bravía”, with mean dry fruit dimensions of 2.82 cm (length), 1.82 cm (width) and 1.31 cm (thickness) and a mean mass value of about 2.70 g. Its nuts also had the lowest values of volume (2.42 cm3) and surface area (11.17 cm2). Nut sphericity ranged from 60.31 to 79.00%, the cultivars with the longest and roundest fruits being “Cornicabra” and “Marcona”, respectively. It is also important to point out the relevant differences recorded for this parameter between the two “Mollar” cultivars. The “Molar de Arribes” genotype showed more elongated nuts than “Molar de Chavés” (64.22 and 72.29%, respectively). With respect to shell hardness, high resistance to cracking was observed for all the cultivars studied, except for “Desmayo Rojo”, “Mollar” and “De Convite”. This latter cultivar has dry fruit which can easily be opened by birds. In relation to kernels, “Marcelina” was the traditional cultivar that had the largest size and weight parameters at 2.52 cm length, 1.94 cm width, 0.90 cm thickness and 2.11 g mass. Its kernels recorded geometric mean diameters close to 1.63 cm and volume and surface area values of around 1.56 cm3 and 8.41 cm2, respectively. With respect to sphericity, the kernels of this last cultivar were, together with those of the cultivars “Marcona” and “Agapitina”, the roundest (values close to 65%). The “Marcelina” genotype also recorded low values of double kernels (3%). This tendency to produce only a single, well-formed kernel is a highly desirable cultivar trait. On the other hand, “Desmayo Largueta”, “De Convite”, “Cascona”, “Cascafina”, “Peta”, “Esperanza” and “Desmayo Rojo” registered double kernel values higher than 14%. With respect to the kernel/dry fruit mass ratio, “Cascafina” and “De Convite” were the cultivars with the highest yield values (0.34). It could be interesting to use these cultivars in future almond breeding programs. With respect to taste, all the cultivars were sweet except for the “Bravía” and “Recia” genotypes.
Fruit chemical parameters are summarized in Table 4. The kernel dry weight value was quite similar in all the cases (95.54–96.56%). “Mollar de Arribes” was the cultivar with the lowest water level in kernels. Greater differences were recorded for the rest of the chemical parameters. Lipid content varied from 48.82% to 56.80%, “Mollar de Arribes”, “Cascafina” and “Peta” being the cultivars with the most oleaginous kernels. Lipids content is highly correlated with energy levels (r = 0.95). On the other hand, it is also important to note that the “Molar de Chavés” cultivar, the other genotype called “Mollar” by the local growers, recorded a very low lipids level, close to 49%. Protein content ranged between 15.54% and 23.39%, “Peta” and “Esperanza” being the cultivars with the lowest and the highest values, respectively. It can be observed that protein content is inversely correlated with the lipid fraction (r = −0.87). Dietary fiber content varied from 14.03 to 17.99%. “Picuda”, “Gorda José” and “Peta” were the cultivars that had the highest values. Carbohydrates content varied from 2.86% to 4.82%, “Recia”, “Desmayo Rojo” and “Esperanza” being the cultivars with the highest levels. Finally, ash content ranged from 3.02% to 4.17%. It can be observed that the results were very similar for all the almond cultivars.

3.4. Vegetative Tree Habits

Very different vegetative habits were observed, ranging from very upright or upright to completely drooping. The habit of the “Agapitina” cultivar was between upright and very upright. On the opposite side, “Desmayo Largueta’, “Verdeal” and “Verdinal” were the only almond genotypes that had drooping growth habits. The rest of the cultivars showed vegetative habits between medium and spreading. This was the case for “Mollar de Arribes”, “Pestaneta de Bragança”, “Pestañeta de Arribes” and “Valenciana” (medium-upright); “Cascafina”, “Desmayo Rojo”, “Esperanza”, “Mollar de Arribes” and “Peta” (medium); “Bravía” (medium-spreading); “Cascona”, “De Convite”, “Gorda José” and “Portuguesa” (spreading); and “Cornicabra”, “Marcelina”, “Marcona”, “Picuda”, “Recia” and “Redondilla” (spreading-drooping). Finally, it is also important to note that the two genotypes called “Mollar” by the local growers, “Molar de Chavés” and “Mollar de Arribes”, showed medium-upright and medium growth habits, respectively.

3.5. Statistical Analyses

Principal component analysis (PCA) was used to identify the traits with the highest variation between cultivars and the greatest impact on separation of them in the dataset [45]. PCA results based on flower, leaf, fruit and tree traits showed that more than 54% of the variability observed was explained by the first three components (PC1–PC3). The first component (PC1), accounting for 27.65% of the total variance, was influenced by nut weight and size parameters such as thickness, volume, geometric mean diameter and surface area. The second component (PC2) accounted for 15.27% of total variation and was mainly explained by leaf petiole length and nut and kernel sphericity. Finally, the third principal component (PC3), explaining 11.72% of total variation, was integrated by the kernel thickness and the lipid content. Figure 1 shows a scatterplot of the first two principal components (PCs) for the 24 traditional almond cultivars based on agromorphological and chemical characteristics. It can be observed that there was high variation between genotypes, indicating that the studied germplasm is a good gene pool candidate for breeding programs.
Figure 2 shows a dendrogram of the relationships among the almond cultivars from the analysis of all the agromorphological and chemical parameters studied. It can be observed that the “Gorda José” cultivar showed the greatest differences compared to the rest of cultivars included in the study. Its nuts showed a large size in comparison with the others.

4. Discussion

4.1. Agromorphological and Chemical Characterization

The traditional almond cultivars from the central-western Iberian Peninsula showed great variability from an agromorphological point of view. Many of them, despite being practically unknown in the scientific literature, presented very interesting productive characters. Some previous researchers have provided information about some of the cultivars included in the study (“Marcona” and “Desmayo Largueta”).
With respect to the flowers, Socias i Company et al. [46] also observed that there are important variations among almond cultivars. They indicated that the flower size is frequently related to the nut size and that the numbers of petals and pistils can range in relation to the type flower. With regard to the stamens, they established that their number can oscillate between 20 and 30, but may reach 40. In our study, a reduced number of cultivars showed six petals or two/three pistils and the number of stamens varied between 28.09 and 53.64. Arquero et al. [28] defined the “Marcona” flowers as small and elongated. In our case, the flowers of this last cultivar had a medium size in relation to the rest of cultivars included in the study.
According to Felipe [26], despite there being important differences among cultivars, almond leaves are generally narrow, long and pointed. Leaf characteristics are also affected by environmental conditions and the general health and vigor of the plant [47]. Moreover, leaf size also varies with position, with shoot leaves tending to be large and spur leaves small [48]. Moreover, Grasselly [49] have pointed out that wild cultivars generally have very small leaves, a probable adaptation to the xerophytic conditions under which these cultivars evolved. This was probably the case for the “Bravía” cultivar. Its leaves had the lowest leaf blade length/width ratio (3.76).
Regarding fruit parameters, Socias i Company et al. [46] also observed that the almond parameters are highly variable depending on the cultivar. Moreover, they indicated that traditional cultivars may produce dry fruits of only 2–3 g. This was the case with the cultivars “Bravía” (2.72 g), “Cascafina” (3.17 g) and “De Convite” (3.86 g). It is important to note that the first cultivar showed small nuts (geometric mean diameter = 18.86 mm, surface area = 11.17 cm2 and volume = 2.42 cm3) and the other two had thin and soft shells, respectively. Sorkheh et al. [50] considered small fruit size as one of the most common obstacles to the use of the bitter cultivars for breeding. The weight registered by the almonds of the “Gorda José” cultivar was much higher (16.35 g). It might be said that the nuts of this traditional cultivar are among the heaviest (usual maximum weight of 20 g [46]). Other researchers who have also characterized “Marcona” almonds include Melhaoui et al. [24]. Their productive results were slightly lower than those recorded in this work (almond weight = 3.58 g, geometric diameter = 21.54 mm, volume = 5.28 cm3). These results could have been due to the arid conditions of the cultivation area. With respect to the sphericity, all the nuts were more or less elongated (mean value = 71.24%). Aydin [51] also reported mean sphericity values of almond nuts close to 70%. The “Marcona” cultivar showed the roundest nuts (79%). This result agrees with that obtained by Melhaoui et al. [24] (79.24%). Muncharaz [52] also identified “Desmayo Largueta” nuts as elongated. Finally, an important number of cultivars showed hard or very hard stony shells. This is due to the fact that hard shells are preferred in the Mediterranean region since the cultivars then seem to be more adapted to non-irrigated conditions, and more resistant to depredation by birds and penetration by insect larvae damaging the kernel. Furthermore, the nuts can be stored for a long time, with reduced problems of becoming rancid or excessively dry, thus allowing their sale throughout the year [46]. Moreover, Aydin [51] also stated that the rupture strength of almond nuts decreased with increasing moisture content. Felipe [26], Mañas et al. [53], Muncharaz [52], Arquero et al. [28] and Batlle et al. [47] also reported that the dry fruits of “Marcona”, “Desmayo Largueta” and “Pestañeta” were very hard.
With regard to the kernel, its size and weight are cultivar traits. In general, it can be said that the average weight and size of the almond kernels were quite high (1.36 g and 0.97 cm3). “Marcelina” and “Gorda José” were the cultivars that registered the largest (>1.10 cm3) and heaviest (>1.94 g) kernels. Socias i Compañy et al. [46] indicated that the range of kernel weight varies between 0.5 to 1.5 g, those that exceed 1.2 g being preferred for most uses. They also commented that the general trend in the industry is the preference for large kernels in order to facilitate and cheapen the processes of cracking and blanching. Nonetheless, for some special confectioneries very small sizes are chosen, as well as those with definite shapes. For sugared almonds (“peladillas” or dragées) and for chocolate almonds, large kernels are selected, preferably round to reduce the layer of sugar or chocolate covering the kernel. For chocolate bars, small and particularly flat kernels are preferred to ensure that they are covered by the chocolate and that the thickness of the bar is maintained. In addition, there is a strong environmental and seasonal effect on size, including crop load, tree vigor, soil moisture and weather patterns [47]. With respect to kernel yield, the average value was around to 23%. Concretely, “Marcona” almonds had a shelling percentage of 22%. Identical results for nuts of this cultivar were recorded by Melhaoui et al. [24]. Muncharaz [52] also indicated that the shelling percentages for “Marcona” and “Desmayo Largueta” almonds ranged between 22–28% and 24–28%, respectively. With regard to the sphericity, the kernel values (average data = 59.10%) were lower than those recorded for the nuts. In this sense, Gradziel and Lampinen [54] indicated that very large-sized kernels often bring increased market prices but appear to be associated with lower final tree yields. Felipe [26], Muncharaz [52], Arquero et al. [28] and Melhaoui et al. [24] also defined the “Marcona” kernel as globular and rounded. In addition, a significant number of the almond cultivars showed low percentages of double kernels, among them, the “Marcona” nuts, with a double kernels ratio of 4%. Similar results (0–5%) were obtained for the fruits of this cultivar by Melhaoui et al. [24] and Arquero et al. [28]. However, there is a slight difference between the value recorded in this study and that reported by Muncharaz [52] for “Desmayo Largueta” almonds (14% and 2%, respectively). In this regard, Batlle et al. [47] have noted that, although double kernels are considered to be a negative trait, lowering crop value, organoleptic quality does not appear to be affected. In this sense, Grasselly and Crossa-Reynaud [55] have pointed out a possible dominance effect with strong seasonal differences. Low temperatures before blooming [56] or at flowering time [57,58] have been mentioned as promoting higher percentages of double kernels. In relation to taste, an important number of cultivars had sweet kernels. According to Batlle et al. [47], the main trend under almond domestication was selection of types with sweet, non-poisonous seeds. Most cultivated almonds produce sweet kernels, but some have a slightly bitter flavor. This was probably the case with the “Recia” cultivar. A mild bitter flavor can be detected in some cultivars and can be considered pleasing in some special confectioneries. It is also important to point out that the sweet or bitter taste depends on the cultivar, so all the fruits of each cultivar will be sweet or bitter, regardless of the genotype of the pollen parent. Finally, regarding all these agromorphological fruit parameters, Socias i Company et al. [59] have pointed out that, although the physical traits of the almond do not affect the sensory characteristics of the almond kernel, they are very important for the processing industry and must be taken into account in the ensemble of requirements for any cultivar, together with the production and consumer sectors.
With respect to chemical characterization of the almonds, there were important differences among cultivars. In general, almond kernels are a rich lipid source, essentially composed of mono- and polyunsaturated fatty acids. Concretely, the average value of lipid fractions for the almonds analyzed was 52.42%. This result is in agreement with that reported by Kodad [60] for Spanish almond cultivars (40–67% oil content of the kernel dry weight). As previously mentioned, “Peta”, “Cascafina” and “Mollar de Arribes” were the cultivars that presented the highest levels of lipids in the kernels (>56%). This lipid content is a very important factor in the confectionery industry because higher oil contents result in less water absorption by the almond paste [61]. Kernels with a high percentage of oil can be used to produce nougat or to extract oil, which is used in the cosmetic and pharmaceutical industries. However, kernels with a low percentage of oil are required to produce almond milk [62], almond flour and several kinds of food because of their correlated high protein content [63].
Protein was the second major chemical component of the almond kernels after the lipid fraction. Its average content was 21.13%, with values above 23% in the cultivars “Bravía”, “Molar de Chavés”, “Portuguesa”, “Picuda” and “Esperanza”. This average result is in agreement with that reported by Kodad [60] for Spanish almond cultivars (15.7–21.1% protein content of the kernel dry weight). According to Alessandroni [61], protein content is inversely correlated with the lipid fraction and the ratio between these two components (R1: % lipids/% protein) is important in the preparation of some processed products because the absorption of water by almond paste is dependent on the balance between these two components. For marzipan production, a low index would be desired, whereas for nougat production, a high index would be preferred.
Dietary fiber was the third major chemical component of the almond kernels. Its average content was 15.10%. Ruggeri et al. [64] reported slightly lower dietary fiber contents than those registered in this study for Italian almond cultivars (11–14% dietary fiber content of the kernel dry weight). These contents have positively effects on colonic health and cholesterol levels [65].
The average content of carbohydrates was 3.89%. It can be observed that these results for kernel carbohydrates composition again agree with those reported by Kodad [60] for Spanish almond cultivars (1.8–7.6% carbohydrates content of the kernel fresh weight). In this sense, it is also important to point out that sugars, starch and some sugar alcohols are the only carbohydrate forms present in the almond kernels that can be digested, absorbed and metabolized by humans to provide a source of energy [60]. Moreover, soluble sugars, while present in relatively low amounts, are sufficient to make kernels sweet-tasting [66].
In addition, the average content of ash was 3.60%. The almond kernel is considered a good source of mineral elements, playing an important role in human health [60]. Regarding this, Romojaro et al. [67] and Saura-Calixto et al. [65] also reported low variability for this parameter in Spanish almond cultivars (3.05–3.45%).
In relation to energy, the high nutritive value of almond kernels arises mainly from their high lipid content, which constitutes an important source of calories [68]. The average caloric content of the kernels analyzed was 571.70 kcal per 100 g fresh weight of edible portion. A similar result (578 kcal/100 g FW) was reported by Gradziel [69].
Finally, the growth habits were highly variable among cultivars, ranging from very upright or upright (the “Agapitina” cultivar) to completely drooping (the “Desmayo Largueta” cultivar, among others). Socias i Company et al. [46], Mañas et al. [53], Felipe [26] and Muncharaz [52] have also observed that “Desmayo Largueta” has a fairly common drooping growth habit. Arquero et al. [28] classified the vegetative habits of “Marcona” and “Desmayo Largueta” cultivars as spreading. In this regard, Espada and Connell [70] have indicated that upright trees have better shaking efficiency than trees with roundish or hanging canopies. However, when the habit is very erect, the tree may have a canopy with insufficient spread. This makes orchard management difficult but may be useful in new developments of high density plantings. Generally an upright to spreading habit is preferable, as it facilitates formation of the tree and mechanization of the different operations [46]. Thus, the tree habit of modern European cultivars is generally spreading [47].

4.2. Statistical Analyses

Principal component analysis (PCA) results showed that more than 54% of the variability observed was explained by the first three components. These results agree with those obtained by Gouta et al. [71], Čolić et al. [72] and Khadivi-Khub and Etemadi-Khah [73] for almond cultivars of the Mediterranean area. PCA revealed that the first three components explained comparable values (from 34% to 57%) of the total variation, based on morphological and biochemical traits. Furthermore, Lansari et al. [74], Talhouk et al. [11], and Sorkheh et al. [50], who used a similar analysis to compare kernel, nut and leaf characters in different almond collections, found that the variables contributing to nut and kernel size were more important than leaf traits.
By analyzing the dendrogram, and taking into account all the results shown above, a series of synonymies among the almond cultivars can also be detected. Such is the case with “Pestaneta de Bragança” and “Pestañeta de Arribes”, and with “Verdeal” and “Verdinal”. Significant similarities were observed between the cultivars for these two cases of synonymies for all agromorphological and chemical traits. By contrast, a homonym was also detected: “Molar de Chavés” and “Mollar de Arribes”. Despite their major agromorphological and chemical differences, both names are often used interchangeably by some growers.
The results of the PCA and cluster analysis showed that agromorphological and chemical analysis can provide reliable information on the variability in almond genotypes. In correspondence with our findings, Ledbetter and Shonnard [75], Talhouk et al. [11], Sorkheh et al. [76], Zeinalabedini et al. [77] and Khadivi-Khub and Etemadi-Khah [73] have also shown that morphological evaluation is an efficient tool for characterization of almond germplasm and for species distinction. The overall analysis of all traits illustrates a wide diversity that may have important implications for management of genetic resources.

5. Conclusions

Twenty-four traditional almond cultivars grown in the central-western Iberian Peninsula, all of them clearly in decline or close to extinction, were characterized from the agromorphological and chemical points of view. Some of the cultivars showed distinctive and interesting agronomical characteristics from a commercial point of view, such as high yields and high quality fruit. This was the case for the almond cultivars called “Gorda José” and “Marcelina”. Their fruits were quite heavy (nuts: >9.1 g; kernels: >1.9 g), with very low percentages of double kernels (<3%) and high nutritional value (>50% lipids; >21% proteins). The results of PCA and cluster analysis showed that agromorphological and chemical analysis can provide reliable information on the variability in almond genotypes. Two synonymies (“Pestaneta de Bragança” and “Pestañeta de Arribes”; “Verdeal” and “Verdinal”) and one homonym (“Molar de Chavés” and “Mollar de Arribes”) were also detected. This work constitutes an important step in the conservation of genetic almond resources in the central-western Iberian Peninsula.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.P.-S. and M.R.M.-C.; Methodology, R.P.-S. and M.R.M.-C.; Software, R.P.-S.; Validation, R.P.-S. and M.R.M.-C.; Investigation, R.P.-S. and M.R.M.-C.; Data curation, R.P.-S.; Writing—original draft preparation, R.P.-S.; Writing—review and editing, R.P.-S. and M.R.M.-C.; Project administration, R.P.-S.; Funding acquisition, R.P.-S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the Biodiversity Foundation of the Spanish Ministry of Environment and Rural and Marine Affairs (MARM) and the Spanish Federation of Municipalities and Provinces (FEMP). (Project reference: MARM-FB-2008-012).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the almond growers of the “Arribes del Duero” (Salamanca, Spain) and “Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro” (Bragança, Portugal) for their major contributions to this work.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Watkins, R. Cherry, plum, peach, apricot and almond. Prunus spp. In Evolution of Crop Plants; Simmonds, N.W., Ed.; Cambridge University Press: London, UK, 1976; pp. 242–247. [Google Scholar]
  2. Mohamed, B.S. The contribution of Prunus webbii to almond evolution. PGR Newsl. 2004, 140, 9–13. [Google Scholar]
  3. Kester, D.E.; Gradziel, T.M. Almonds. In Fruit Breeding—Volume III: Nuts; Janick, J., Moore, J.N., Eds.; Wiley-Blackwell: New York, NY, USA, 1996; pp. 1–96. [Google Scholar]
  4. Duke, J.A. Handbook of Nuts; CRC Press: Boca Ratón, FL, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  5. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Faostat: Agriculture Data. 2019. Available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/es/#data/QC (accessed on 28 April 2021).
  6. Gradziel, T.M.; Curtis, R.; Socias i Company, R. Production and growing regions. In Almonds. Botany, Production and Uses; Socias i Company, R., Gradziel, T.M., Eds.; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2017; pp. 70–86. [Google Scholar]
  7. Vargas, F.J. El Almendro en la Provincia de Tarragona; Excma. Diputación Provincial de Tarragona, Servicio Agropecuario Provincial: Tarragona, Spain, 1975. [Google Scholar]
  8. García, J.E.; Egea, L.; Egea, J.; Berenguer, T. Programme d’amélioration de l’amandier au C.E.B.A.S. de Murcie. Options Méditerranéennes 1985, 85, 7–8. [Google Scholar]
  9. García, J.E.; Egea, L.; Egea, J.; Berenguer, T. Étude et sélection de variétés d’amandier dans le sudest de l’Espagne. Rapp. EUR 1988, 11557, 33–46. [Google Scholar]
  10. Nieddu, G.; Chessa, I.; Pala, M.; Lovicu, G. Evaluation of almond germplasm in Sardinia: Further observations. Acta Hortic. 1994, 373, 135–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Talhouk, S.N.; Lubani, R.T.; Baalbaki, R.; Zurayk, R.; Al Khatib, A.; Parmaksizian, L.; Jaradat, A.A. Phenotypic diversity and morphological characterization of Amygdalus L. species in Lebanon. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 2000, 47, 93–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. De Giorgio, D.; Polignano, G.B. Evaluation the biodiversity of almond cultivars from a germplasm collection field in Southern Italy. In Sustaining the Global Farm; Stott, D.E., Mohtar, R.H., Steinhardt, G.C., Eds.; ISCO: West Lafayette, IN, USA, 2001; pp. 305–311. [Google Scholar]
  13. Kaska, N.; Kafkas, S.; Padulosi, S.; Wassimi, N.; Ak, B.E. Characterization of nuts species of Afghanistan: I—Almond. Acta Hortic. 2006, 726, 147–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Chalak, L.; Chehade, A.; Kadri, A. Morphological characterization of cultivated almonds in Lebanon. Fruits 2007, 62, 177–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Arslan, S.; Vursavuş, K.K. Physico-mechanical properties of almond nut and its kernel as a function of variety and moisture content. Philipp. Agric. Sci. 2008, 91, 171–179. [Google Scholar]
  16. Jahanban, A.; Jahanban, R.; Jamei, R.; Jahanban, A. Morphology and physicochemical properties of 40 genotypes of almond (Amygdalus communis L.) fruits. Eur. J. Exp. Biol. 2012, 2, 2456–2464. [Google Scholar]
  17. Hanine, H.; Zinelabidine, L.H.; Hssaini, H.; Nablousi, A.; Ennahli, S.; Latrache, H.; Zahir, H. Pomological and biochemical characterization of almond cultivars in Morocco. Turk. J. Agric. Nat. Sci. 2014, 1, 743–753. [Google Scholar]
  18. Hanine, H.; Zinelabidine, L.H.; H’ssaini, H.; Ennahli, S.; Latrache, H.; Hmid, I. Phenotypic, morphological diversity and biochemical characterization of 14 almond cultivars from Morocco. Moroc. J. Chem. 2015, 3, 394–406. [Google Scholar]
  19. Ardjmand, A.; Piri, S.; Imani, A.; Piri, S. Evaluation of morphological and pomological diversity of 62 almond cultivars and superior genotypes in Iran. J. Nuts 2014, 5, 39–50. [Google Scholar]
  20. Kodad, O.; Estopañán, G.; Fagroud, M.; Juan, T.; Socias i Company, R. Physical and chemical traits of almond kernels of the local almond populations in Morocco: Commercial and industrial end-uses. Acta Hortic. 2014, 1028, 233–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kodad, O.; Lebrigui, L.; El-Amrani, L.; Socias i Company, R. Physical fruit traits in Moroccan almond seedlings: Quality aspects and post-harvest uses. Int. J. Fruit Sci. 2015, 15, 36–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Sepahvand, E.; Khadivi-Khub, A.; Momenpour, A.; Fallahi, E. Evaluation of an almond collection using morphological variables to choose superior trees. Fruits 2015, 70, 53–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Giordani, E.; Berti, M.; Rauf Yaqubi, M. Phenotypic characterisation of almond accessions collected in Afganistan. Adv. Hortic. Sci. 2016, 30, 207–216. [Google Scholar]
  24. Melhaoui, R.; Addi, M.; Houmy, N.; Abid, M.; Mihamou, A.; Serghini-Caid, H.; Sindic, M.; Elamrani, A. Pomological characterization of main almond cultivars from the North Eastern Morocco. Int. J. Fruit Sci. 2019, 19, 413–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Montero-Riquelme, F.J. Caracterización Morfológica del Almendro; Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha: Murcia, Spain, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  26. Felipe, A.J. El Almendro. Volume I. El Material Vegetal; Mira Editores: Zaragoza, Spain, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  27. Cordeiro, V.; Monteiro, A.; Oliveira, M.; Ventura, J. Study of some physical characters and nutritive composition of the Portuguese’s (local) almond varieties. Options Méditerranéennes 2001, 56, 333–337. [Google Scholar]
  28. Arquero, O.; Lovera, M.; Navarro, A.; Viñas, M.; Salguero, A.; Serrano, N. Hábitos de Vegetación y Respuesta a la Intensidad de la Poda de Formación de las Principales Variedades de Almendro; Consejería de Agricultura y Pesca, Junta de Andalucía: Sevilla, Spain, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  29. Kodad, O.; Socias i Company, R. Variability of oil content and of major fatty acid composition in almond (Prunus amygdalus Batsch) and its relationship with kernel quality. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2008, 56, 4096–4101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Kodad, O.; Socias i Company, R. Fruit quality in almond as related to the type of pollination in self-compatible genotypes. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 2008, 133, 320–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Vargas, F.J.; Romero, M.; Clavé, J.; Alegre, S.; Miarnau, X. Variedades de Almendro IRTA; Ibercaja: Madrid, Spain, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  32. Kodad, O.; Mamouni, A.; Lahlo, M.; Socias i Company, R. Implicación commercial e industrial de la variabilidad del contenido en aceite y proteína y de los caracteres físicos del fruto y de la pepita del almendro en las condiciones climáticas mediterráneas. Inf. Técnica Económica Agrar. 2011, 107, 300–314. [Google Scholar]
  33. Kodad, O.; Estopañán, G.; Juan, T.; Socias i Company, R. Genetic diversity in an almond germplasm collection: Application of a chemometric approach. Acta Hortic. 2013, 976, 237–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kodad, O.; Estopañán, G.; Juan, T.; Alonso, J.M.; Espiau, M.T.; Socias i Company, R. Oil content, fatty acid composition and tocopherol concentration in the Spanish almond genebank collection. Sci. Hortic. 2014, 177, 99–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ramos, M.A.; Costa, M.G. Characteristics of the Fruits of Some Varieties of Almond Grown in the Algarve Region; Faculty of Sciences and Technology, University of Algarve: Faro, Portugal, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  36. UPOV. Guidelines for the Conduct of Test for Distinctness, Homogeneity and Stability. Almond (Prunus amygdalus Batsch); International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants: Geneva, Switzerland, 1978. [Google Scholar]
  37. IPGRI. Descriptors List for Almond (Prunus amygdalus) (Revised); International Board for Plant Genetic Resources: Rome, Italy, 1985. [Google Scholar]
  38. Mohsenin, N.N. Physical Properties of Plant and Animal Materials; Gordon and Breach Science Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
  39. Baryeh, E.A. Physical properties of Bambara groundnuts. J. Food Eng. 2001, 47, 321–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Güner, M.; Dursun, E.; Dursun, I.G. Mechanical behavior of the hazelnut under compression loading. Biosyst. Eng. 2003, 4, 485–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Olajide, J.O.; Igbeka, J.C. Some physical properties of groundnut kernels. J. Food Eng. 2003, 58, 201–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Jain, R.K.; Bal, S. Physical properties of pearl millet. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 1997, 66, 85–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Özgüven, F.; Vursavuş, K. Some physical, mechanical and aerodynamic properties of pine (Pinus pinea) nuts. J. Food Eng. 2005, 68, 191–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis, 16th ed.; Association of Official Analytical Chemists: Arlington, TX, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  45. Iezzoni, A.F.; Pritts, M.P. Applications of principal components analysis to horticultural research. HortScience 1991, 26, 334–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Socias i Company, R.; Ansón, J.M.; Espiau, M.T. Taxonomy, botany and physiology. In Almonds. Botany, Production and Uses; Socias i Company, R., Gradziel, T.M., Eds.; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2017; pp. 1–42. [Google Scholar]
  47. Batlle, I.; Dicenta, F.; Socias i Company, R.; Gradziel, T.M.; Wirthensohn, M.; Duval, H.; Vargas, F.J. Classical genetics and breeding. In Almonds. Botany, Production and Uses; Socias i Company, R., Gradziel, T.M., Eds.; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2017; pp. 111–148. [Google Scholar]
  48. Gradziel, T.M. Almond (Prunus dulcis). In Breeding of Plantation Crops; Priyadarshan, M., Jain, S.M., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2008; pp. 1–33. [Google Scholar]
  49. Grasselly, C. Les espèces sauvages d’amandiers. Options Méditerranéennes 1976, 32, 28–43. [Google Scholar]
  50. Sorkheh, K.; Shiran, B.; Rouhi, V.; Asadi, E.; Jahanbazi, H.; Moradi, H.; Gradziel, T.M.; Martínez, P. Phenotypic diversity within native Iranian almond (Prunus spp.) species and their breeding potential. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 2009, 56, 947–961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Aydin, C. Physical properties of almond nut and kernel. J. Food Eng. 2003, 60, 315–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Muncharaz, M. El Almendro—Manual Técnico; Mundi-Prensa: Madrid, España, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  53. Mañas, F.; López, P.; Rodríguez, A. Mejora genética de material autóctono de almendro en Castilla-La Mancha para floración tardía y calidad. Mem. ITAP 2000, 2000, 293–325. [Google Scholar]
  54. Gradziel, T.; Lampinen, B. Defining the limits of almond productivity to facilitate marker assisted selection and orchard management. Acta Hortic. 2011, 912, 47–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Grasselly, C.; Crossa-Raynaud, P. L’Amandier; G.P. Maisonneuve et Larose: Paris, France, 1980. [Google Scholar]
  56. Egea, J.; Burgos, L. Double kernel fruits in almond (Prunus dulcis Mill.) as related to pre-blossom temperatures. Ann. Appl. Biol. 1994, 126, 163–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Rikhter, A.A. Ways and methods of almond breeding (in Russian). Tr. Gos. Nikitsk. Bot. Sada 1969, 43, 81–94. [Google Scholar]
  58. Spiegel-Roy, P.; Kochba, J. The inheritance of bitter and double kernel characters in the almond (Prunus amydgalus Batsch). Z. Pflanz. 1974, 71, 319–329. [Google Scholar]
  59. Socias i Company, R.; Alonso, J.M.; Kodad, O. Fruit quality in almond: Physical aspects for breeding strategies. Acta Hortic. 2009, 814, 475–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Kodad, O. Chemical composition of almond nuts. In Almonds. Botany, Production and Uses; Socias i Company, R., Gradziel, T.M., Eds.; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2017; pp. 428–448. [Google Scholar]
  61. Alessandroni, A. Le mandorle. Panifazione Pastic. 1980, 8, 67–71. [Google Scholar]
  62. Ramusino, F.C.; Intonti, R.; Stachini, A. Analisi del latte di mandorle e dello sciroppo di orzata. Bolletino Dei Lab. Chem. Prov. 1961, 12, 491–504. [Google Scholar]
  63. Longhi, S. High-Protein Animal Feed. Ital. Pat. 1952, 470, 433. [Google Scholar]
  64. Ruggeri, S.; Cappelloni, M.; Gambelli, L.; Nicoli, S.; Carnovale, E. Chemical composition and nutritive value of nuts grown in Italy. J. Food Sci. 1998, 3, 243–251. [Google Scholar]
  65. Saura-Calixto, F.; Bauzá, M.; Martínez, F.; Argamentería, A. Amino acids, sugars, and inorganic elements in the sweet almond. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1981, 29, 509–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Schirra, M. Postharvest technology and utilization of almonds. Hortic. Rev. 1997, 20, 267–292. [Google Scholar]
  67. Romojaro, F.; García, J.E.; López-Andreu, F.J. Estudio sobre la composición química de variedades de almendra del sureste español. An. Edafol. Agrobiol. 1977, 36, 121–131. [Google Scholar]
  68. Sabate, J.; Hook, D.G. Almonds, walnuts and serum lipids. In Lipids in Human Nutrition; Spiller, G.A., Ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1996; pp. 137–144. [Google Scholar]
  69. Gradziel, T.M. History of cultivation. In Almonds. Botany, Production and Uses; Socias i Company, R., Gradziel, T.M., Eds.; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2017; pp. 43–69. [Google Scholar]
  70. Espada, J.L.; Connell, J.H. Almond harvesting. In Almonds. Botany, Production and Uses; Socias i Company, R., Gradziel, T.M., Eds.; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2017; pp. 406–427. [Google Scholar]
  71. Gouta, H.; Mars, M.; Gouiaa, M.; Ghrab, M.; Zarrouk, M.; Mliki, A. Genetic diversity of almond (Prunus amygdalus Batsch) in Tunisia: A morphological traits analysis. Acta Hortic. 2011, 912, 351–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Čolić, S.; Rakonjac, V.; Zec, G.; Nicolić, D.; Fotirić, M. Morphological and biochemical evaluation of selected almond [Prunus dulcis (Mill.) D.A.Webb] genotypes in northern Serbia. Turk. J. Agric. For. 2012, 36, 429–438. [Google Scholar]
  73. Khadivi-Khub, A.; Etemadi-Kah, A. Phenotypic diversity and relationships between morphological traits in selected almond (Prunus amygdalus) germplasm. Agrofor. Syst. 2015, 89, 205–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Lansari, A.; Iezzoni, A.F.; Kester, D.E. Morphological variation within collection of Moroccan almond clones and Mediterranean and North American cultivars. Euphytica 1994, 78, 27–41. [Google Scholar]
  75. Ledbetter, C.A.; Shonnard, C.B. Evaluation of selected almond (Prunus dulcis (Miller) D.A. Webb) germplasm for several shell and kernel characteristics. Fruit Var. J. 1992, 46, 79–82. [Google Scholar]
  76. Sorkheh, K.; Shiran, B.; Khodambashi, M.; Moradi, H.; Gradziel, T.M.; Martinez-Gómez, P. Correlations between quantitative tree and fruit almond traits and their implications for breeding. Sci. Hortic. 2010, 125, 323–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Zeinalabedini, M.; Sohrabi, S.; Nikoumanesh, K.; Imani, A.; Mardi, M. Phenotypic and molecular variability and genetic structure of Iranian almond cultivars. Plant Syst. Evol. 2012, 298, 1917–1929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agronomy 11 01238 g001 550
Figure 1. Scatterplot of the first two principal components (PCs) for the 24 traditional almond cultivars based on agromorphological and chemical characteristics.
Figure 1. Scatterplot of the first two principal components (PCs) for the 24 traditional almond cultivars based on agromorphological and chemical characteristics.
Agronomy 11 01238 g001
Agronomy 11 01238 g002 550
Figure 2. Dendrogram produced using the furthest neighbor method (Euclidean) from the agromorphological and chemical characteristics of traditional almond cultivars included in the study.
Figure 2. Dendrogram produced using the furthest neighbor method (Euclidean) from the agromorphological and chemical characteristics of traditional almond cultivars included in the study.
Agronomy 11 01238 g002
Table
Table 1. Means, standard deviations and ANOVA analyses for some flower parameters in almond cultivars.
Table 1. Means, standard deviations and ANOVA analyses for some flower parameters in almond cultivars.
CultivarOpen Flower Diameter (cm)Number of PetalsPetal Length (cm)Petal Width (cm)Number of PistilsPistil Length (cm)Number of Stamens
Agapitina4.38 (0.18) defg51.89 (0.04) c1.27 (0.03) cd11.83 (0.03) hi32.28 (1.97) bcdef
Bravía4.35 (0.14) cdef51.72 (0.07) b1.61 (0.04) h11.26 (0.05) a31.06 (3.01) abcdef
Cascafina4.91 (0.12) jkl52.25 (0.05) j1.91 (0.02) l1–21.88 (0.04) jk30.84 (1.98) abcde
Cascona3.48 (0.22) a51.45 (0.04) a1.44 (0.05) g1–21.51 (0.02) c28.12 (2.11) a
Cornicabra4.02 (0.11) b51.72 (0.07) b1.23 (0.04) c11.73 (0.03) ef30.87 (2.64) abcde
De Convite4.70 (0.15) hij52.05 (0.05) efg1.71 (0.02) ij1–21.95 (0.02) lm39.38 (1.08) g
Desmayo Largueta4.31 (0.13) cde52.02 (0.06) ef1.45 (0.05) g1–21.65 (0.04) d29.51 (2.06) abc
Desmayo Rojo4.23 (0.16) bcd52.14 (0.04) hi1.17 (0.04) b1–31.79 (0.03) gh28.62 (2.35) a
Esperanza4.26 (0.14) bcde52.15 (0.05) hi1.18 (0.02) b1–31.81 (0.03) hi28.17 (2.54) a
Gorda José5.03 (0.21) kl52.25 (0.06) j2.04 (0.03) m11.83 (0.03) hi41.28 (2.64) g
Marcelina5.11 (0.17) l52.39 (0.05) k1.63 (0.05) h11.76 (0.04) fg29.28 (0.82) ab
Marcona4.62 (0.20) ghi52.12 (0.04) gh1.35 (0.04) f11.48 (0.02) bc28.64 (1.71) a
Molar de Chavés4.60 (0.18) fghi52.10 (0.05) fgh1.32 (0.03) ef11.45 (0.03) b29.64 (1.99) abc
Mollar de Arribes4.81 (0.17) ijk52.22 (0.08) ij1.75 (0.03) j11.71 (0.05) e34.02 (1.82) ef
Pestaneta de Bragança4.16 (0.19) bcd5–61.79 (0.05) b1.16 (0.04) b11.84 (0.03) ij28.09 (1.48) a
Pestañeta de Arribes4.10 (0.20) bc5–61.72 (0.07) b1.11 (0.03) a11.83 (0.02) hi28.14 (1.05) a
Peta5.51 (0.17) m52.49 (0.05) l1.70 (0.02) i1–21.92 (0.03) kl31.02 (1.49) abcdef
Picuda4.52 (0.17) efgh5–61.99 (0.06) de1.28 (0.04) de11.45 (0.04) b53.64 (3.02) h
Portuguesa5.02 (0.22) kl52.21 (0.07) ij1.86 (0.05) k12.05 (0.02) n33.05 (2.64) def
Recia4.99 (0.14) kl52.25 (0.03) j1.62 (0.08) h11.98 (0.02) m34.21 (2.19) f
Redondilla4.31 (0.12) cde51.93 (0.02) cd1.23 (0.02) c11.89 (0.04) k29.15 (1.43) ab
Valenciana4.72 (0.11) hij52.02 (0.05) ef1.71 (0.03) ij11.95 (0.03) lm32.64 (0.97) cdef
Verdeal4.18 (0.16) bcd51.80 (0.04) b1.35 (0.04) f11.75 (0.03) efg30.56 (1.99) abcd
Verdinal4.11 (0.10) bc51.78 (0.03) b1.31 (0.04) def11.72 (0.04) ef30.67 (1.35) abcd
ANOVA, analysis of variance; a–n Different letters in the same column indicate statistically significant differences between cultivars at the 95% confidence level.
Table
Table 2. Means, standard deviations and ANOVA analyses for some leaf parameters in almond cultivars.
Table 2. Means, standard deviations and ANOVA analyses for some leaf parameters in almond cultivars.
Cultivar123456
Petiole Length (cm)Leaf Blade Length (cm)Leaf Blade Width (cm)2/3 Ratio1/2 RatioAnthocyanin Coloration of Leaf Glands
Agapitina2.18 (0.31) cdefgh9.27 (1.27) abcd1.91 (0.34) bcdefg4.85 (0.62) abcd0.24 (0.03) defGreen
Bravía2.06 (0.55) bcdefgh7.79 (1.19) a2.07 (0.38) cdefgh3.76 (0.60) a0.26 (0.05) fReddish
Cascafina2.56 (0.39) ghij10.15 (1.18) bcdefg1.89 (0.21) bcdefg5.37 (0.58) bcd0.25 (0.03) efGreen
Cascona2.29 (0.23) defghi10.90 (1.19) cdefgh2.33 (0.34) efgh4.68 (0.65) abc0.21 (0.02) bcdeGreen
Cornicabra1.46 (0.38) a9.60 (1.93) abcde2.18 (0.50) efgh4.40 (0.69) ab0.15 (0.03) aGreen
De Convite3.06 (0.33) jk8.42 (0.45) ab1.88 (0.11) bcdef4.48 (0.10) ab0.36 (0.02) gReddish
Desmayo Largueta1.95 (0.32) abcd10.21 (1.15) bcdefg1.93 (0.43) bcdefg5.29 (0.90) bcd0.19 (0.02) abcGreen
Desmayo Rojo2.43 (0.40) efghi12.09 (1.21) ghi1.85 (0.36) bcde6.54 (1.15) e0.20 (0.02) bcdReddish
Esperanza2.03 (0.39) abcdefg10.52 (0.92) cdefgh1.33 (0.16) a7.91 (0.90) f0.19 (0.03) abcReddish
Gorda José2.47 (0.22) fghi11.89 (0.98) fgh3.11 (0.35) i3.82 (0.82) a0.21 (0.03) bcdeGreen
Marcelina2.46 (0.39) efghi10.11 (1.02) bcdef2.17 (0.20) defgh4.66 (0.42) abc0.24 (0.02) defGreen
Marcona2.21 (0.27) cdefghi11.07 (0.94) defgh2.47 (0.33) h4.48 (0.58) ab0.20 (0.04) bcdReddish
Molar de Chavés2.30 (0.38) defghi11.52 (2.01) efgh2.51 (0.37) h4.58 (0.72) abc0.19 (0.03) abcReddish
Mollar de Arribes3.40 (0.55) k14.03 (2.34) i2.36 (0.39) fgh5.94 (0.79) de0.24 (0.02) defReddish
Pestaneta de Bragança2.03 (0.21) abcdefg8.51 (0.85) ab1.68 (0.23) abcd5.06 (0.55) bcd0.23 (0.03) cdefGreen
Pestañeta de Arribes1.94 (0.10) abcdef8.37 (0.50) ab1.60 (0.16) abc5.23 (0.62) bcd0.23 (0.01) cdefGreen
Peta2.76 (0.41) ij11.10 (1.10) defgh2.38 (0.30) gh4.66 (0.56) abc0.25 (0.02) efReddish
Picuda2.63 (0.54) hij11.46 (1.10) efgh3.04 (0.40) i3.77 (0.59) a0.23 (0.04) cdefReddish
Portuguesa1.89 (0.28) abcde11.39 (1.04) efgh2.26 (0.28) efgh5.04 (0.51) bcd0.17 (0.02) abGreen
Recia2.45 (0.43) efghi12.49 (1.66) hi2.37 (0.58) fgh5.27 (0.90) bcd0.20 (0.03) bcdGreen
Redondilla2.01 (0.31) abcdefg9.09 (1.31) abc1.60 (0.26) abc5.68 (1.18) cde0.22 (0.02) cdefReddish
Valenciana1.74 (0.19) abcd8.28 (0.96) ab1.96 (0.43) bcdefg5.96 (0.83) de0.21 (0.03) bcdeGreen
Verdeal1.59 (0.27) ab8.03 (1.08) a1.49 (0.38) ab5.38 (0.53) bcd0.19 (0.02) abcGreen
Verdinal1.64 (0.36) abc8.12 (1.21) a1.50 (0.29) ab5.41 (0.86) bcde0.20 (0.03) bcdGreen
ANOVA, analysis of variance; a–k Different letters in the same column indicate statistically significant differences between cultivars at the 95% confidence level.
Table
Table 3. Means, standard deviations and ANOVA analyses for some fruit parameters in almond cultivars.
Table 3. Means, standard deviations and ANOVA analyses for some fruit parameters in almond cultivars.
CultivarNut
Weight (g)Length (cm)Width (cm)Thickness (cm)Volume (cm3)Geometric Mean Diameter (mm)
Agapitina6.49 (1.31) fg3.10 (0.25) abc2.60 (0.15) efg1.64 (0.17) cd5.18 (1.02) bcdef23.62 (2.16) bcd
Bravía2.72 (0.37) a2.82 (0.15) a1.82 (0.28) a1.31 (0.06) a2.42 (0.67) a18.86 (1.94) a
Cascafina3.17 (2.02) ab3.38 (0.19) bcdefgh2.42 (0.15) cde1.56 (0.08) bc4.68 (1.15) bcde23.34 (2.00) bcd
Cascona5.50 (1.15) cdefg3.45 (0.27) cdefghi2.40 (0.22) cde1.61 (0.14) bcd4.88 (1.09) bcdef23.69 (2.08) bcd
Cornicabra5.11 (1.28) cdef3.83 (0.45) ij2.07 (0.17) ab1.56 (0.08) bc4.23 (0.98) bc23.10 (1.96) bc
De Convite3.86 (0.30) abc3.70 (0.09) ghij2.37 (0.21) bcde1.45 (0.10) ab4.44 (1.12) bcd23.32 (2.28) bcd
Desmayo Largueta4.31 (1.33) abad3.56 (0.51) efghi2.21 (0.20) bcd1.34 (0.13) a3.63 (0.94) ab21.90 (1.83) ab
Desmayo Rojo5.00 (0.77) cdef3.24 (0.18) bcdef2.46 (0.13) cde1.64 (0.14) cd4.95 (1.22) bcdef23.53 (2.07) bcd
Esperanza4.80 (0.59) bcde3.38 (0.08) bcdefgh2.52 (0.13) de1.64 (0.11) cd5.22 (1.41) bcdef24.08 (1.96) bcd
Gorda José16.35 (0.87) j4.98 (0.23) k3.41 (0.15) j2.49 (0.11) g15.64 (3.83) j34.79 (2.41) f
Marcelina9.14 (0.52) i3.48 (0.15) cdefghi2.88 (0.10) ghi1.85 (0.10) ef7.26 (1.42) hi26.44 (2.17) de
Marcona5.77 (1.15) defg3.13 (0.20) abcd2.65 (0.20) efg1.83 (0.16) ef6.13 (1.00) efgh24.73 (2.09) bcde
Molar de Chavés5.65 (0.99) defg3.30 (0.39) bcdefg2.54 (0.20) ef1.62 (0.14) cd5.13 (1.08) bcdef23.85 (1.99) bcd
Mollar de Arribes5.43 (0.90) cdefg3.79 (0.60) hij2.40 (0.22) cde1.59 (0.12) bc5.10 (1.14) bcdef24.34 (1.86) bcd
Pestaneta de Bragança6.87 (1.01) gh3.20 (0.21) abcdef2.64 (0.19) efg1.64 (0.10) cd5.37 (1.20) cdefg23.99 (1.99) bcd
Pestañeta de Arribes6.80 (0.56) gh3.13 (0.15) abcd2.63 (0.06) efg1.63 (0.06) cd5.24 (1.05) bcdef23.74 (2.11) bcd
Peta8.22 (1.04) hi4.09 (0.17) j2.67 (0.12) efg1.99 (0.12) f7.92 (1.52) i27.87 (2.30) e
Picuda4.90 (0.85) cdef3.54 (0.21) defghi2.85 (0.20) fgh1.60 (0.06) bcd6.05 (1.29) defgh25.24 (2.04) cde
Portuguesa6.51 (0.92) fg3.61 (0.22) fghi2.68 (0.16) efg1.76 (0.09) de6.37 (1.04) fghi25.70 (2.15) cde
Recia5.43 (0.69) cdefg2.98 (0.24) ab2.19 (0.22) bc1.62 (0.26) cd4.04 (0.97) abc21.93 (1.78) ab
Redondilla6.18 (1.81) efg3.17 (0.47) abcde2.50 (0.33) cde1.72 (0.15) cde5.30 (1.11) cdefg23.86 (1.96) bcd
Valenciana6.51 (0.98) fg3.30 (0.24) bcdefg2.57 (0.18) efg1.85 (0.12) ef6.13 (1.26) efgh25.01 (2.07) bcde
Verdeal6.23 (1.02) efg3.40 (0.20) cdefgh3.17 (0.25) hij1.63 (0.11) cd6.90 (1.47) ghi25.97 (2.13) cde
Verdinal6.38 (0.78) efg3.42 (0.16) cdefghi3.20 (0.28) ij1.65 (0.09) cd7.11 (1.33) hi26.21 (2.24) cde
CultivarNutKernel
Sphericity (%)Surface Area (cm2)Shell HardnessWeight (g)Length (cm)Width (cm)
Agapitina76.19 (6.22) ef17.52 (1.82) bcdHard1.47 (0.23) ef2.26 (0.22) ab1.69 (0.22) ijk
Bravía66.87 (5.16) abcde11.17 (2.03) aHard0.89 (0.14) a2.26 (0.11) ab1.10 (0.18) a
Cascafina69.05 (5.62) abcde17.11 (1.96) bcHard1.09 (0.14) abcd2.43 (0.14) bcdef1.53 (0.07) fghi
Cascona68.66 (5.47) abcde17.63 (2.15) bcdHard1.40 (0.28) def2.43 (0.17) bcdef1.48 (0.13) defg
Cornicabra60.31 (4.98) a16.76 (1.85) bcHard1.27 (0.14) cdef2.65 (0.23) def1.35 (0.20) bcde
De Convite63.02 (5.29) abc17.08 (2.31) bcSoft1.35 (0.12) cdef2.67 (0.12) ef1.50 (0.06) efg
Desmayo Largueta61.51 (5.73) ab15.06 (1.67) bHard1.05 (0.37) abc2.60 (0.24) cdef1.21 (0.13) ab
Desmayo Rojo72.62 (6.00) cdef17.39 (1.95) bcIntermediate1.18 (0.14) abcdef2.30 (0.15) abc1.33 (0.09) bcd
Esperanza71.25 (6.43) bcdef18.21 (2.04) bcdeHard0.92 (0.07) ab2.23 (0.06) ab1.30 (0.08) bc
Gorda José69.85 (5.48) abcdef38.02 (3.52) hHard1.94 (0.18) g2.61 (0.18) cdef1.80 (0.11) kl
Marcelina75.97 (6.11) ef21.96 (2.01) fgHard2.11 (0.23) g2.52 (0.22) bcdef1.94 (0.05) l
Marcona79.00 (5.87) f19.21 (1.93) cdefgHard1.30 (0.14) cdef2.08 (0.10) a1.58 (0.14) ghi
Molar de Chavés72.29 (5.00) cdef17.87 (1.87) bcdIntermediate1.33 (0.16) cdef2.32 (0.21) abc1.55 (0.16) fghi
Mollar de Arribes64.22 (5.42) abcd18.61 (2.26) cdefIntermediate1.39 (0.13) def2.51 (0.24) bcdef1.52 (0.14) fgh
Pestaneta de Bragança74.98 (6.31) ef18.08 (2.38) bcdeHard1.37 (0.11) cdef2.32 (0.16) abc1.76 (0.09) jk
Pestañeta de Arribes75.84 (6.19) ef17.70 (1.68) bcdHard1.36 (0.04) cdef2.30 (0.09) abc1.75 (0.07) jk
Peta68.14 (5.87) abcde24.40 (2.49) gHard1.39 (0.22) def2.72 (0.15) f1.67 (0.09) hijk
Picuda71.29 (6.01) bcdef20.01 (2.09) cdefgHard1.21 (0.11) abcdef2.25 (0.15) ab1.50 (0.08) efg
Portuguesa71.19 (5.99) bcdef20.74 (2.14) defgHard1.48 (0.22) f2.55 (0.13) bcdef1.62 (0.08) ghij
Recia73.59 (6.14) def15.10 (1.52) bHard1.23 (0.17) bcdef2.29 (0.13) abc1.40 (0.08) cdef
Redondilla75.26 (5.62) ef17.07 (1.76) bcHard1.19 (0.21) abcdef2.34 (0.14) abad1.55 (0.16) fghi
Valenciana75.78 (5.76) ef19.65 (1.64) cdefgHard1.15 (0.19) abcde2.24 (0.14) ab1.55 (0.09) fghi
Verdeal76.38 (6.20) ef21.18 (2.37) defgHard1.30 (0.17) cdef2.39 (0.17) abcde1.46 (0.11) cdefg
Verdinal76.63 (6.07) ef21.58 (2.43) efgHard1.31 (0.21) cdef2.41 (0.20) bcdef1.47 (0.13) defg
CultivarKernel
Thickness (cm)Volume (cm3)Geometric Mean Diameter (mm)Sphericity (%)Surface Area (cm2)Doubles (%)Taste
Agapitina0.85 (0.08) bc1.16 (0.21) c14.80 (1.02) cd65.49 (4.94) hi6.88 (0.62) de2Sweet
Bravía0.84 (0.06) abc0.69 (0.23) a12.77 (1.11) a56.54 (3.21) bcd5.12 (0.59) ab6Bitter
Cascafina0.73 (0.06) ab0.91 (0.20) abc13.94 (0.96) abc57.38 (4.89) bcdef6.10 (0.70) abcd17Sweet
Cascona0.85 (0.08) bc1.04 (0.19) bc14.50 (1.20) bc59.70 (3.93) cdefghi6.60 (0.71) abcd16Sweet
Cornicabra0.80 (0.06) abc0.93 (0.20) abc14.19 (0.99) abc53.55 (3.65) abc6.32 (0.68) abcd3Sweet
De Convite0.70 (0.06) ab0.91 (0.22) abc14.09 (1.14) abc52.79 (4.07) ab6.23 (0.67) abcd15Sweet
Desmayo Largueta0.68 (0.09) a0.68 (0.18) a12.88 (0.90) ab49.54 (4.62) a5.21 (0.62) abc14Sweet
Desmayo Rojo0.80 (0.06) abc0.83 (0.21) ab13.47 (0.94) abc58.57 (3.94) bcdefg5.70 (0.66) abcd21Sweet
Esperanza0.70 (0.07) ab0.68 (0.19) a12.66 (1.03) a56.77 (3.82) bcde5.03 (0.60) a20Sweet
Gorda José0.70 (0.04) ab1.10 (0.23) bc14.86 (1.00) cd56.95 (3.81) bcde6.93 (0.72) de0Sweet
Marcelina0.90 (0.06) c1.56 (0.21) d16.37 (1.28) d64.99 (4.83) ghi8.41 (0.78) e3Sweet
Marcona0.78 (0.06) abc0.92 (0.22) abc13.68 (0.97) abc65.77 (5.02) i5.87 (0.70) abcd4Sweet
Molar de Chavés0.80 (0.07) abc0.99 (0.18) abc14.22 (1.09) abc61.30 (4.15) defghi6.35 (0.75) abcd7Sweet
Mollar de Arribes0.82 (0.10) abc1.05 (0.20) bc14.61 (1.04) c58.24 (4.41) bcdef6.70 (0.69) bcd5Sweet
Pestaneta de Bragança0.80 (0.06) abc1.15 (0.23) bc14.83 (1.11) cd63.92 (4.87) efghi6.90 (0.71) cde3Sweet
Pestañeta de Arribes0.80 (0.07) abc1.13 (0.19) bc14.76 (1.13) cd64.17 (5.06) fghi6.84 (0.70) de4Sweet
Peta0.69 (0.09) ab1.02 (0.21) bc14.62 (0.98) c53.78 (3.94) abc6.71 (0.73) bcd17Sweet
Picuda0.85 (0.06) bc1.00 (0.22) abc14.20 (1.17) abc63.12 (4.08) defghi6.33 (0.69) abad4Sweet
Portuguesa0.79 (0.05) abc1.10 (0.20) bc14.82 (1.20) cd58.14 (4.61) bcdef6.89 (0.72) de2Sweet
Recia0.80 (0.08) abc0.87 (0.23) abc13.68 (0.99) abc59.75 (4.19) cdefghi5.87 (0.67) abcd8Intermediate
Redondilla0.79 (0.06) abc0.98 (0.21) abc14.19 (1.02) abc60.67 (3.76) defghi6.32 (0.70) abcd4Sweet
Valenciana0.70 (0.08) ab0.83 (0.22) ab13.44 (0.97) abc60.00 (4.99) cdefghi5.67 (0.68) abcd3Sweet
Verdeal0.79 (0.06) abc0.93 (0.19) abc14.01 (1.06) abc58.64 (4.52) bcdefgh6.16 (0.73) abcd5Sweet
Verdinal0.80 (0.05) abc0.96 (0.21) abc14.14 (1.10) abc58.70 (3.84) bcdefgh6.28 (0.69) abcd5Sweet
ANOVA, analysis of variance; a–l Different letters in the same column indicate statistically significant differences between cultivars at the 95% confidence level.
Table
Table 4. Means, standard deviations and ANOVA analyses for some parameters of nutritive composition in almond cultivars.
Table 4. Means, standard deviations and ANOVA analyses for some parameters of nutritive composition in almond cultivars.
CultivarDry Weight (%)Lipids (%)Proteins (%)Dietary Fiber (%)Carbohydrates (%)Ash (%)Energy (kcal/100 g)
Agapitina95.82 (0.71) ab52.76 (2.06) cd20.81 (0.92) cd15.03 (0.96) ab3.82 (0.42) cde3.55 (0.31) bcdef573.28 (15.07) bcdef
Bravía95.69 (0.86) ab50.87 (2.92) abc23.06 (1.04) efg14.84 (1.13) ab4.04 (0.58) cdef3.03 (0.29) a566.15 (20.11) abcd
Cascafina96.14 (0.79) ab56.13 (2.00) fg18.57 (0.87) b14.81 (1.35) ab3.69 (0.50) c3.16 (0.34) abcd593.83 (12.79) ef
Cascona95.67 (0.69) ab52.67 (2.76) cd21.09 (0.96) cd15.19 (1.27) ab3.97 (0.52) cde3.09 (0.39) abc573.59 (18.34) bcdef
Cornicabra95.76 (0.74) ab52.94 (3.01) cdef20.75 (0.83) cd14.78 (1.76) ab3.76 (0.57) cd3.77 (0.30) efghi574.26 (13.92) bcdef
De Convite96.33 (0.77) ab52.83 (2.61) cde21.63 (0.91) def14.97 (0.92) ab3.91 (0.45) cde3.11 (0.33) ab577.59 (14.67) cdef
Desmayo Largueta95.69 (0.80) ab50.77 (2.42) abc21.64 (0.94) def15.56 (1.51) ab4.05 (0.51) cdef3.82 (0.36) efghi559.49 (16.82) abc
Desmayo Rojo96.21 (0.74) ab52.83 (2.38) cde21.02 (1.02) cd14.33 (1.10) a4.63 (0.47) ef3.55 (0.29) bcdef577.95 (11.30) bcdef
Esperanza95.80 (0.79) b49.08 (1.97) ab23.39 (1.11) g15.07 (1.60) ab4.56 (0.49) def4.09 (0.38) ghi553.28 (17.83) ab
Gorda José96.55 (0.68) ab50.26 (2.49) abc21.64 (0.99) def16.26 (1.09) b4.47 (0.60) cdef4.17 (0.28) i556.50 (14.12) abc
Marcelina95.94 (0.83) ab52.52 (2.61) cd20.95 (0.86) cd14.74 (1.54) ab3.71 (0.58) c4.12 (0.33) hi571.28 (15.99) abcde
Marcona96.03 (0.78) ab52.47 (2.46) cd21.16 (0.94) cd15.03 (1.49) ab4.10 (0.52) cdef3.46 (0.37) abcdef573.27 (21.67) abcde
Molar de Chavés95.54 (0.84) a49.91 (1.95) abc23.21 (0.97) fg14.96 (0.90) ab3.99 (0.43) cde3.64 (0.30) defgh557.63 (17.22) abc
Mollar de Arribes96.56 (0.80) ab56.80 (2.81) g19.67 (0.87) bc15.08 (1.82) ab2.13 (0.46) a3.02 (0.28) a598.28 (10.65) f
Pestaneta de Bragança96.08 (0.75) ab52.73 (3.02) cd20.73 (0.85) cd15.36 (1.74) ab4.04 (0.52) cdef3.36 (0.37) abcde573.49 (18.34) bcdef
Pestañeta de Arribes95.91 (0.87) ab52.97 (2.43) cdef20.57 (0.92) cd15.14 (1.66) ab3.80 (0.44) cd3.64 (0.33) defgh574.21 (13.96) bcdef
Peta95.82 (0.78) ab56.06 (3.07) efg15.54 (0.97) a17.99 (1.04) c2.86 (0.47) ab3.62 (0.30) defg577.90 (19.57) bcdef
Picuda95.59 (0.69) a48.82 (2.09) a23.35 (0.90) g15.64 (0.98) ab4.07 (0.50) cdef3.85 (0.27) fghi548.78 (12.83) a
Portuguesa95.54 (0.68) a50.06 (2.31) abc23.33 (1.00) g14.93 (1.16) ab3.83 (0.53) cde3.53 (0.35) bcdef559.06 (15.71) abc
Recia95.96 (0.81) ab54.77 (2.73) defg18.78 (0.83) b14.04 (1.07) a4.82 (0.56) f3.79 (0.37) efghi587.25 (19.80) def
Redondilla95.94 (0.75) ab51.86 (2.64) abcd21.56 (1.06) de14.82 (0.93) ab3.86 (0.49) cde4.04 (0.33) ghi568.18 (11.82) abcd
Valenciana96.23 (0.70) ab52.24 (2.82) bcd21.82 (0.98) defg14.99 (1.02) ab3.71 (0.47) c3.61 (0.40) cdefg572.24 (21.23) abcde
Verdeal96.17 (0.83) ab52.73 (2.71) cd20.73 (1.11) cd14.88 (1.14) ab3.93 (0.60) cde4.05 (0.36) ghi573.09 (16.79) bcdef
Verdinal96.02 (0.75) ab53.05 (2.00) cdef22.14 (0.94) defg14.03 (0.91) a3.65 (0.54) bc3.38 (0.31) abcdef580.41 (14.27) cdef
ANOVA, analysis of variance; a–i Different letters in the same column indicate statistically significant differences between cultivars at the 95% confidence level.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Pérez-Sánchez, R.; Morales-Corts, M.R. Agromorphological Characterization and Nutritional Value of Traditional Almond Cultivars Grown in the Central-Western Iberian Peninsula. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1238. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11061238

AMA Style

Pérez-Sánchez R, Morales-Corts MR. Agromorphological Characterization and Nutritional Value of Traditional Almond Cultivars Grown in the Central-Western Iberian Peninsula. Agronomy. 2021; 11(6):1238. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11061238

Chicago/Turabian Style

Pérez-Sánchez, Rodrigo, and María Remedios Morales-Corts. 2021. "Agromorphological Characterization and Nutritional Value of Traditional Almond Cultivars Grown in the Central-Western Iberian Peninsula" Agronomy 11, no. 6: 1238. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11061238

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop