Next Article in Journal
Identification, Expression, and Functional Characterization of ScCaM in Response to Various Stresses in Sugarcane
Previous Article in Journal
Mitigation of Cadmium Induced Oxidative Stress by Using Organic Amendments to Improve the Growth and Yield of Mash Beans [Vigna mungo (L.)]
Previous Article in Special Issue
Optimizing Peach Tree Canopy Architecture for Efficient Light Use, Increased Productivity and Improved Fruit Quality
 
 
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 11
10.3390/agronomy11112154
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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Lecciana, a New Low-Vigour Olive Cultivar Suitable for Super High Density Orchards and for Nutraceutical EVOO Production

by
Salvatore Camposeo
1,*,
Gaetano Alessandro Vivaldi
1,
Cinzia Montemurro
2,
Valentina Fanelli
2 and
Marisa Cunill Canal
3
1
Department of Agricultural and Environmental Science, University of Bari Aldo Moro, Via Amendola 165/A, 70126 Bari, Italy
2
Department of Soil, Plant and Food Sciences, University of Bari Aldo Moro, Via Amendola 165/A, 70126 Bari, Italy
3
Agromillora Iberia S.L.U., C/El Rebato s/n, Subirats, 08770 Barcelona, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2021, 11(11), 2154; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11112154
Submission received: 23 September 2021 / Revised: 12 October 2021 / Accepted: 22 October 2021 / Published: 27 October 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Innovation in New Varieties, New Rootstocks and Training Systems: Towards Higher Efficiency and Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Cultivar is the key factor for sustainability of the olive super high density planting system (SHD). ‘Lecciana’ is a new olive cultivar for oil production obtained in 1998 by a controlled cross between cv. Arbosana (♀) and cv. Leccino (♂) in a breeding program as part of an international research agreement between Agromillora Iberia S.L.U. and University of Bari. ‘Lecciana’ is the first olive cultivar of Italian descent suitable for SHD, featuring all the vegetative and productive traits required for efficient, sustainable olive growing intensification. Thanks to low vigor, early bearing (3rd year after planting), high yield efficiency (about 0.5 kg of fruits cm−2 of trunk section area) and good fruit size (3.5 g), ‘Lecciana’ could be planted with tree densities over 1,200 trees per hectare for an efficient continuous mechanical harvesting. High frost resistance, very low pistil abortion (3%), high fruit set (3%), oil content (over 19% fw) and, above all, good unsaturated fatty acids profile, polyphenols content (over 450 mg kg−1) and fruitiness median are the main distinctive characters of this new cultivar. The oils of ‘Lecciana’ fall into the category ‘nutraceutical EVOOs’ which can benefit from the specific functional health claim.

1. Introduction

Traditional olive orchards are increasingly devoted to landscape safeguarding and cultural heritage enhancement [1,2], but they have lost in general their economic sustainability [3,4,5]. In order to face the increasing production costs and the scarcity of manual labor, 25 years ago olive growing moved to super high density planting systems (SHD), characterized by hedgerow tree canopies suitable for continuous mechanical harvesting by straddle machines. Currently, more than 400,000 ha of SHD olive orchards are scattered all over the world, half in Spain where these new systems were born [6]. Intensification of olive planting systems represents a very interesting approach to enhance olive orchard environmental sustainability, reducing water footprint and other agronomical inputs [7,8,9]. Making the new olive industry economically and environmentally sustainable is the main challenge for the future, and it can only be achieved through significant increases of orchard efficiency [10,11]. The agronomic and environmental sustainability of these new planting systems depend strongly on the availability of cultivars with specific traits: first of all, low vigor, early bearing and high yield efficiency [3]. Cultivars showing all these traits are currently a limited varietal pool. At first, Arbequina, Arbosana and Koroneiki were the only three varieties cultivated in SHD orchards, on which SHD systems have been calibrated [12,13]. These cultivars belong to the traditional Spanish and Greek olive platform [14]. Later, Spanish breeding programs added ‘Sikitita’ (patented in 2007) and ‘Oliana’ (patented in 2012), two novel cultivars obtained by controlled crosses of Spanish cultivars: ‘Piqual’ × ‘Arbequina’ and ‘Arbequina’ × ‘Arbosana’, respectively [15,16]. In the last decades the Italian breeding programs on olive tree licensed two new cultivars suggested for SHD orchards: FS-17/Favolosa (patented in 1993) and Urano/Tosca (patented in 1998 and 2012), both obtained by free pollination of cv. Frantoio [17,18]. The former shows yield parameters fitting an olive genotype suitable for SHD orchards, such as early and high fruit bearing traits, but it has unwanted vegetative traits, first of all a spreading habit and sparse canopy density [19,20]. On the contrary, the latter provides interesting vegetative characters, such as weak vigor and dense canopy, but features erratic and inadequate yields [21,22]. The diffusion of SHD olive orchards in Italy is still small, being limited to some 4,000 ha (i.e., 0.3% of the national growing area) [6]. The main constraint seems to be the limited availability of suitable cultivars, currently all of foreign origin. Actually, an olive genotype of Italian origin providing all the vegetative and productive traits fitting for SHD growth is still lacking. At the same time, the international olive oil market is characterized by increasing competition, which encourages producers to differentiate their products [23]. Evidence from the United States and Europe indicates that the introduction of health claims can increase the market share for different nutraceutical products [24]. Among the list of claims approved by the EFSA, four are applicable to EVOO (European Commission, 2014; European Community, 432/2012). Three of the four claims are authorized as functional health claims (Art.13 (1) of Regulation (EC) No. 1924/2006). In particular, one of them is specific to olive oil and relates to the level of ‘polyphenol’ compounds. The claimed health function concerns the protection of blood lipids from oxidative stress. The claim “olive oil polyphenols” can be used only for an olive oil that contains at least 300–350 mg·kg−1 of phenolic compounds [25]. The total concentration of phenolic compounds in oils belonging to the class marketable as EVOO varies widely, between 40 mg·kg−1 and 1,000 mg·kg−1 [26]. The cultivated genotype also has a great effect on nutraceutical value of EVOOs extracted in SHD olive orchards [27,28]. In all cases, the polyphenols of EVOO make it more stable [29] and healthy and contribute to its sensory characteristics [30]. Providing a growing global population with healthy diets from sustainable agrifood systems is an immediate challenge [31]. At the end of the last century, Agromillora Iberia S.L.U. started a controlled crossbreeding program aimed to obtain new cultivated olive genotypes suited for SHD planting systems, while coping with high agronomic efficiency and with market demands of nutraceutical oils as well.

2. Origin and Selection

In 1998 a controlled cross between cv. Arbosana (♀) and cv. Leccino (♂) was made in Catalonia (Spain) in the context of the Agromillora Iberia S.L.U. crossbreeding program using Italian parents, as part of an international research agreement with the University of Bari (Italy). Before the discovery of its full suitability for SHD orchards, cv. Arbosana was a critically endangered olive genotype: indeed in 1995 only 200 trees remained in the Penedés region of Spain where it is autochthonous [32]. The large use of ‘Arbosana’ as a low vigor valuable parent in most of the international breeding programs is a successful model to safeguard the biodiversity of olive cultivars at risk of extinction [3]. On the contrary, ‘Leccino’ is a well-known Italian cultivar spread worldwide, which oils are particularly appreciated for its organoleptic characteristics and high polyphenol contents [33]. The first seedlings screening in the nursery was based on two parameters: resistance to olive leaf spot [Spilocaea oleagina (Cast.) Hugh] and early bearing. The former was considered the key disease, even if the following agronomic management proved useful to control it successfully. The latter is the key agronomic aspect to keep for suitability in SHD planting systems [34]. Then, tree vigor and oil content were the parameters used for the second screening in nursery, applied to those seedlings that passed the first one. Subsequently, the selected progenies were multiplied by semi-hardwood cutting and planted in test orchards located in different growing areas, using the Arbequina, Arbosana and Koroneiki cultivars as reference genotypes. This first field evaluation occurred for six bearing years; olive leaf spot, olive fly (Bactrocera oleae, Rossi), olive tree mange (Pseudomonas savastasnoi pv. savastanoi), frost resistance and oil quality were the parameters applied for the selection. Finally, only the promising progenies were multiplied and planted in olive farms, as pre-commercial selections. OAC9806-10, coded as ‘Lecciana’, was identified in the commercial farms that tested it starting from 2013 in Italy. ‘Lecciana’ is not a GMO.

3. Description

3.1. Materials and Methods

3.1.1. Site and Orchard

The comparison orchard is located in Foggia (Southern Italy, 41°40′70″ N, 15°67′70″ E, 39 m a.s.l.). The climate is typically Mediterranean, with an annual rainfall of 522 mm concentrated from autumn to spring; the lowest amount of monthly rainfall occurs in August (21 mm) and the highest one (60 mm) in December. The annual average temperature is 16.6 °C; the hottest month is July (27.3 °C) and the coldest one is January (7.2 °C). The soil is clay-loam, with pH 6.8 and properly expanded roots. One thousand trees of the pre-commercial selection OAC9806-10 and the same number of trees of cv. Arbequina, multiplied by semi-hardwood cutting, were planted in May 2013, with a tree spacing of 4.0 × 1.5 m (1670 trees ha−1) and a N-S row orientation. Yield, vigor and yield efficiencies were compared to ‘Arbequina’ as the standard variety currently used for SHD olive orchards. A randomized block design with three replicates was used; each block consisted of five rows per cultivar (ten rows per block), in which the three central rows were the sampling area. The trees were trained according to Smartree® criteria (SHD 2.0) and they were managed using common practices in the area; drip lines were used and controlled deficit irrigation was applied, with a mean seasonal irrigation volume of 3000 m3·ha−1. The plots were supplied annually with 110 kg·ha−1 of N, 50 kg·ha−1 of P and 120 kg·ha−1 of K.

3.1.2. Molecular Markers

Fresh leaves were collected from both parents (Arbosana, Leccino) and F1 (Lecciana). DNA extraction was performed following the protocol of [35]. DNA quality and concentration were assessed through 1% agarose gel electrophoresis and a Nano-Drop™2000C spectrophotometer (Thermo Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA). Samples were genotyped using two highly polymorphic simple sequence repeats (SSR): EMO 90 [36] and GAPU101 [37], selected among a panel of 12 SSR markers. PCR reactions were performed in a final volume of 12 μL according to [38]. In order to verify PCR efficiency, PCR products were checked by 1% agarose gel electrophoresis. The amplification products were detected by an ABI PRISM 3100 Avant Genetic Analyzer automatic sequencer (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA), and the allele sizes were assigned through the GeneMapper Software version 3.7 (Life Technologies, Carlsbad, CA, USA). GeneScan 600 LIZ (Applied Biosystems) was used as internal molecular size standard.

3.1.3. Morphological Markers

In order to assess the distinctness of this new cultivar, we selected 26 morphological markers with high genetic expression according to UPOV Guidelines [39], that require a minimum quantity of five trees (§ 2.3) to be tested for a minimum of two growing cycles (§ 3.1), normally at one place (§ 3.2). The marker/characteristic number referring to UPOV Table TG/99/4 is reported. All makers were determined on 10 healthy bearing trees of ‘Lecciana’, randomly chosen in each experimental plot among the trees of the sampling area. The test was performed for four growing cycles (2015–2018).

3.1.4. Genetic Sterilities and Blooming Phenogram

Pistil abortion and self-incompatibility are undoubtedly the main varietal characteristics responsible for the fruit setting of olive tree [40]. These two genetic sterilities were evaluated on the same trees of ‘Lecciana’ used for the morphological markers for two growing cycles (2015–2016). The percentage of gynosterility was evaluated on 60 inflorescences per tree taken from three different canopy layers (0.5–1.0 m; 1.0–1.5 m; 1.5–2.0 m) at the start of blooming. Self-incompatibility was assessed by the methodology already described by [41] on 600 inflorescences per tree, divided into two groups for each side of canopy (East and West): the inflorescences of the first group were isolated with non-woven bags prior to anthesis and were left to unassisted self-pollination by wind buffeting of branches throughout the blooming time. The inflorescences of the second group were left to open-pollination by wind. The fruit set was evaluated at veraison. The open flowers percentage, left to open-pollination, was measured weekly in order to describe the blooming phenogram (10% = start, 50% = full, 90% = end).

3.1.5. Ripening Indexes and Harvesting Time

In order to establish the optimal time to harvest ‘Lecciana’, different ripening indexes were monitored during four ripening times (expressed as days after full bloom) of two subsequent seasons (2015–2016). Fifty olives of ‘Lecciana’ from each tree were randomly sampled to determine eight fruit ripening indices—fresh and dry weight (g), detachment force (cN), firmness (cN cm−2), Jaen pigmentation index (n), detachment index (N g−1), oil content (% fw) and humidity (%)—following the methodology reported by [42]. In hedgerow olive trees the efficiency of continuous mechanical harvesting changes in time especially as a function of fruits detachment force and fresh weight: these are, in fact, the parameters most correlated to the harvesting yield [43]. The detachment index, defined as the ratio between these two indexes, represents the main index that characterizes the SHD olive orchard mechanical harvesting efficiency [44].

3.1.6. Yield, Vigor and Yield Efficiencies

These agronomic parameters were evaluated on the same trees of ‘Lecciana’ used for the morphological markers and on the same number of trees of ‘Arbequina’, for four growing cycles (2015–2018). The fruits were harvested when the Jaen index reached values between 2 and 3. At harvesting time all the fruits for each tree were collected to measure the fruit yield (FY; kg tree−1). Canopy volume (m3 tree−1) was calculated considering the parallelepiped volume as:
(tree high − 0.5 m) × tree depth × 1.5
where 0.5 is distance from the soil where branches start and 1.5 is the width between trees on the row. Trunk diameter (TD; cm) was measured after harvesting at 0.5 m from the soil. Tree section area (TS; cm2) was calculated as:
TS = π TD2/4.
Fruit yield efficiency (FYE; kg cm−2) was calculated as:
FYE = FY/TS.
Oil content (%; OC fw) and olive moisture (%; OM) were calculated on the fruits harvested per tree by means of Soxhlet method. Oil yield was calculated on a fresh weight basis (OY fw; kg fw tree−1). Oil content on dry weight (OC dw; kg dw tree−1) was calculated as:
OC dw = OC 100/(100 − OM)
Oil yield efficiency on dry weight basis (OYE; kg dw cm−2) was calculated as:
OYE = FYE OC dw.

3.1.7. Oil Quality

The main fatty acids composition (%) of the oil samples extracted from the fruits harvested from each tree of ‘Lecciana’ and ‘Arbequina’ was determined for four growing cycles (2015–2018) following the international standard method (Regulation EC No 2568/1991 and subsequent EU amendments and additions). Total polyphenols content and median fruitiness of ‘Lecciana’ oils extracted at four ripening times in 2015 and 2016 were determined. Polyphenol content (mg caffeic acid kg−1 oil) was quantified colourimetrically following the Folin-Ciocalteu method and measured spectrophotometrically at a wavelength of 726 nm. Median fruitiness was obtained by an official panel test as provided for in Regulation (EC) No 2568/1991 and (EU) subsequent amendments and additions.

3.2. Data Analysis

Field and lab data collected were analyzed by one and two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by a post hoc testing (Siegel-Tukey protected test) using the R 2.15.0 software (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Boston, MA, USA); the standard error (se) was also calculated.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Molecular Markers

The microsatellite analysis (SSRs) aimed to select molecular markers polymorphic between parents and to confirm the hybrid nature of the Lecciana genotype. Among the well-established SSR set used for genetic fingerprint and parentage analysis [45,46] we selected two molecular markers with simple profile and easy to follow. The profile of EMO90 and GAPU101 markers is reported in Table 1. Among them, GAPU 101 showed the most informative profile with four totally different alleles between the two parents. Lecciana showed the allele 181, coming from Arbosana and the allele 197 from the male parent Leccino.

4.2. Morphological Markers

Morphological markers of ‘Lecciana’ are reported in Table 2. Young and adult trees (Figure 1), leaves and inflorescences on bearing shoot (Figure 2), fruit and stone (Figure 3) photos are also reported. ‘Lecciana’ is a weak vigor cultivar.Moeover, its upright growth habit and medium canopy density make it suitable for SHD orchards [47,48]. Indeed, these ‘Lecciana’ genetic characteristics lead to the optimal training form in SHD hedgerows, thus reducing intra-row competition and pruning operations [49]. The juvenile period of ‘Lecciana’ is 2 years, with a significant yield at the 3rd year after planting. A tendency to alternate bearing it was observed in some growing areas, but it is always related to a sub-optimal canopy management, in terms of pruning, water and nutrients. The standard fruit weight is 3.5 g. Considering this good fruit size and that the flesh is freestone, Lecciana is a potential table olive cultivar, even if other parameters should be considered.

4.3. Genetic Sterilities and Blooming Phenogram

Due to different winter-spring weather patterns in 2015 and 2016, the blooming occurred in different dates that ranged from the end of April to the second decade of May. The blooming dates just shifted by 2–4 days so that the phenogram duration was 14–17 days (Table 3). Full bloom date (FB; 50% of open flowers) could be around on May 10, with a mean blooming duration of 15 days.
The mean number of flowers per inflorescence is 14.5, without differences among positions in the canopy (Table 4). The gynosterility percentage is 3%, with the maximum values (5%) in the middle part of the canopy (Table 4). In all cases, ‘Lecciana’ shows a very low pistil abortion [50].
The fruit set mean value of 0.1% by self-pollination (Table 5) points to the fact that ‘Lecciana’ is a self-incompatible cultivar, as are most olive cultivars [51]. The pollinators should be the same of the parent cultivars, i.e., Leccino and Arbosana [52]. However, in the case of very large monovarietal areas with self-incompatible cultivars, like southern Italy, Spain, Portugal, North Africa, the introduction of pollinizer cultivars to make more effective cross-pollination is of limited importance, since the availability of large amount of pollen transferred by wind from neighboring districts with different cultivars may assure naturally optimal fruit sets [53]. The association of compatible cultivars for cross-pollination retains all its importance in the case of new, small and/or isolated olive districts, such as sub-desert regions of California, Israel, Australia [41]. Open-pollination of ‘Lecciana’ gives an optimal fruit set of more than 3% on both exposures of the canopy (Table 5).

4.4. Ripening Indexes and Harvesting Time

During ripening period, olives fresh and dry weight varied little (Figure 4). Fresh fruit tended to slightly reduce from 179 DAFB to 193 DAFB, when it assumed the final value of about 3.5 g. Dry weight stayed around 1.0–1.1 g during all periods.
In general, detachment force and firmness decreased significantly (Figure 5). ‘Lecciana’ showed progressively reduced fruit detachment force from 484 cN to 392 cN and fruit firmness from 503 cN cm−2 to 341 cN cm−2, changing from 179 DAFB to 208 DAFB, respectively. However, detachment force after it reached the minimum value at 208 DAFB tended to increase to 487 cN at 222 DAF.
Detachment index varied around values of 1.5 N g−1 to 2.0 N g−1 from 193 to 222 DAFB, while Jaen index increased significantly from 1.3 at 179 DAFB to 2.0 in the last sampling time (Figure 6). The mechanical harvesting efficiency is maximum (90–95%) when the detachment index is less of 2.0 N g−1 [42].
Olive humidity ranged around 57% to 64%, while oil accumulation increased significantly from 17.2 % at 179 DAFB to 19.7% as mean in the last dates of ripening period. (Figure 7).
At 208 DAFB fruit drop started. Indeed at 222 DAFB an increase of detachment index (Figure 5) due to the concurrent raise of detachment force (Figure 5) and decrease of fresh weight (Figure 4) of the standing sampled olives was highlighted. However, in this last ripening period other ripening indexes, as Jaen index (Figure 6), oil content and humidity (Figure 7) did not vary, remaining significantly unchanged. These ripening pattern data are useful for assessing the optimal harvesting time for this new cultivar.
In order to maximize both the efficiency of the continuous mechanical harvesting and the olives/oil harvestable, the evaluation of the optimal harvesting time was carried out determining for ‘Lecciana’ the moment when: (1) the detachment index falls under the threshold value of 2 N·g−1, (2) the oil accumulation ends and (3) just before the fruit drop starts, so the optimal ripening time to harvest olives results between 193 and 208 DAFB, when Jaen index is 2 and detachment index is 1.5 N·g−1 (Figure 8).
Under the prevalent environmental conditions of Apulia, the optimal harvesting time occurs during the second decade in November, just after cv. Arbequina and before cv. Arbosana [42]. At this time (around 200 DAFB) ‘Lecciana’ achieves the standard performances of 3.5 g of fruit fresh weight and 19.3% of oil content (fw). Moreover, the good fruit size allows efficient mechanical harvesting by both straddle harvesters and trunk shakers as well [44]. Finally, with this cultivar it is possible the cover the gap in harvesting time between cultivars Arbequina and Arbosana, thus optimizing harvester machine use.

4.5. Yield, Vigor and Yield Efficiencies

‘Lecciana’ is more productive than ‘Arbequina’ in terms of both mean (about 1.0 kg olives tree−1 more) and cumulated fruit yield, but it shows a +15% higher vigor than the reference cultivar in terms of canopy volume, even if much less (3%) in terms of trunk section area data (Table 6), confirming what reported in Table 2. Moreover, this new cultivar yields about 1.0% of oil content less than ‘Arbequina’. Nonetheless, ‘Lecciana’ provides higher fruit yield efficiency (0.48 vs. 0.42 kg olives cm−2) and cumulated oil yield (4.5 vs. 4.0 kg oil fw tree−1) than the reference cultivar. Finally, ‘Lecciana’ and ‘Arbequina’ feature the same values of oil yield efficiency (0.20 kg oil dw·cm−2).

4.6. Oil Quality

‘Lecciana’ oils showed medium contents of palmitic, palmitoleic and linoleic acid and high contents of oleic acid (Table 7). Moreover, the oils’ fatty acids profile of this new cultivar is very closer to the reference values of the Italian monovarietal extra virgin olive oils (EVOOs) [54] than that of ‘Arbequina’ oils, except for linoleic and linolenic acids.
At harvesting time, around 200 DAFB, the total polyphenols content is 460 mg·kg−1 and median fruitiness of ‘Lecciana’ oils is 4.4/7.0 (Table 8). These are much higher values of those reported for Arbequina and Arbosana, the cultivars commonly planted in SHD olive orchard [47,55,56]. Moreover, ‘Lecciana’ oils fall into the category ‘nutraceutical EVOOs’ and so they can benefit from the specific functional health claim (Regulation EFSA No. 432/2012).

5. Conclusions

The challenges of olive intensification are linked to environmental, social and economical sustainability [57]. On the other hand, the cultivar is the key factor for sustainability of the olive SHD cropping system. ‘Lecciana’ is the first olive cultivar of Italian descent (cv. Leccino) suitable for super high-density orchards, featuring all the vegetative and productive traits needed for efficient, sustainable olive growing intensification. Thanks to its low vigor, early bearing (3rd year after planting), high yield efficiency (about 0.5 kg of fruits per cm−2 of trunk section area), good fruit size (3.5 g), ‘Lecciana’ could be planted with tree densities over 1,200 trees per hectare for efficient continuous mechanical harvesting. The new cv. Lecciana could be included in the Italian PDO regulations and it can yield Made in Italy oils with a reduction of 50% of production costs with respect to the best current intensive orchards, thanks to possible full mechanization of cultivation operations [58]; so it should help to support the olive oil supply chain economic sustainability. Moreover, the ‘Lecciana’ oils fall into the category ‘nutraceutical EVOOs’ which can benefit from the specific functional health claim (Regulation EFSA No. 432/2012); in addition, its fatty acids profile is very close to the reference values of the Italian monovarietal extra virgin olive oils.
Medium-term field observations in different growing areas (data not shown) indicate that ‘Lecciana’ is much more tolerant to frost and olive leaf spot than cv. Arbequina. On the contrary, olive fly infestation of ‘Lecciana’ olives seems to be slightly higher than those of cultivars Arbequina, Arbosana and Koroneiki, considering its bigger fruit size. Resistance/tolerance to Xylella fastidiosa subsp. pauca (OQDS disease) is currently under evaluation.
Finally, as SHD planting systems seem to reduce water footprint and other agronomical inputs [7,8,9], the diffusion of cv. Lecciana in new orchards could represent a very interesting approach to enhance the environmental sustainability in olive growing intensification as well.

6. Patents, Diffusion and Availability

A European Community plant variety patent (CPVO n. A201702935) for ‘Lecciana’ has been submitted in 2017 for and it enjoys a U.S. plant patent since 2019 (US PP no. 30,208 P2). Now it is submitted for registration in Australia, Turkey, Israel, Chile and Morocco. Up until 2020, about 2 million plants have been spread, 40% in Spain, 45% Italy, 15% Portugal and around 1,200 hectares have been planted. In other countries, plantations are still at the pre-commercial level. No licenses have been given at nurseries for the multiplication or propagation of the variety and only the Agromillora subsidiaries have it. Nursery plant production of more than 1 million plants per year is expected for the next few years.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.C. and M.C.C.; methodology, S.C., M.C.C., V.F. and C.M.; software, G.A.V.; validation, S.C. and M.C.C.; data curation, S.C. and M.C.C.; writing—original draft preparation, S.C.; writing—review and editing, S.C., M.C.C., G.A.V., V.F. and C.M.; supervision, S.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the “Azienda Agricola Oleificio Cericola” in Borgo Incoronata-Foggia (Italy) for the availability of olive orchards and logistic support and all the other Italian and Spanish olive growers for their precious observations and suggestions, in particular Alfonso Di Pietro of Andria (Italy). We would like also to thank Simone P. Garofalo, Leonardo Costanza and Francesco Pasanisi for their support in statistical analysis and graphical elaboration.

Conflicts of Interest

Authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Clodoveo, M.L.; Camposeo, S.; De Gennaro, B.; Pascuzzi, S.; Roselli, L. In the ancient world, virgin olive oil was called “liquid gold” by Homer and “the great healer” by Hippocrates. Why has this mythic image been forgotten? Food Res. Int. 2014, 62, 1062–1068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Lombardi, A.; Carlucci, D.; Cavallo, C.; De Gennaro, B.; Del Giudice, T.; Giannoccaro, G.; Paparella, A.; Roselli, L.; Vecchio, R.; Cicia, G. Do consumers understand health claims on extra-virgin olive oil? Food Res. Int. 2021, 143, 110267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Lo Bianco, R.; Proietti, P.; Regni, L.; Caruso, T. Planting Systems for Modern Olive Growing: Strengths and Weaknesses. Agriculture 2021, 11, 494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Pellegrini, G.; La Sala, P.; Camposeo, S.; Contò, F. Economic sustainability of the oil high and super-high density cropping systems in Italy. Glob. Bus. Econ. Rev. 2017, 19, 553–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Tous, J. Olive production systems and mechanization. Acta Hortic. 2011, 924, 169–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Olint. Available online: https://www.agromillora.com/olint/en/ (accessed on 30 August 2021).
  7. Anifantis, A.S.; Camposeo, S.; Vivaldi, G.A.; Santoro, F.; Pascuzzi, S. Comparison of UAV photogrammetry and 3D modelling techniques with other currently used methods for estimating of the tree row volume of a super-high-density olive orchard. Agriculture 2019, 9, 233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Pellegrini, G.; Ingrao, C.; Camposeo, S.; Tricase, C.; Contò, F.; Huisingh, D. Application of Water Footprint to olive growing systems in the Apulia region: A comparative assessment. J. Cleaner Prod. 2016, 112, 2407–2418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Russo, G.; Vivaldi, G.A.; De Gennaro, B.; Camposeo, S. Environmental sustainability of different soil management techniques in a high-density olive orchard. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 16, 498–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Garnett, T.; Appleby, M.C.; Balmford, A.; Bateman, I.J.; Benton, T.G.; Bloomer, P.; Burlingame, B.; Dawkins, M.; Dolan, L.; Fraser, D.; et al. Sustainable intensification in agriculture: Premises and policies. Science 2013, 341, 33–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Petersen, B.; Snapp, S. What is sustainable intensification? Views from experts. Land Use Policy 2015, 46, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Tous, J.; Romero, A.; Hermoso, J.F.; Msallem, M.; Larbi, A. Olive orchard design and mechanization: Present and future. Acta Hortic. 2014, 1057, 231–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Connor, D.J.; Goméz-del-Campo, M.; Rousseaux, M.C.; Searles, P.S. Structure, management and productivity of hedgerow olive orchards: A review. Sci. Hortic. 2014, 169, 71–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Barranco, D.; Cimato, A.; Fiorino, P.; Rallo, L.; Touzani, A.; Castañeda, C.; Serafini, E.; Trujillo, I. World Catalogue of Olive Varieties, 1st ed.; Mundi Prensa: Madrid, Spain, 2000; p. 360. ISBN 978-84-8476-714-5. [Google Scholar]
  15. Rallo, L.; Barranco, D.; de la Rosa, R.; Léon, L. ‘Chiquitita’ olive. HortScience 2008, 43, 529–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Butler, J. New Olive Variety Launched by Agromillora. Olive Oil Times. 2014. Available online: https://www.oliveoiltimes.com/production/oliana-variety-launched-agromillora/39022 (accessed on 28 August 2021).
  17. Fontanazza, G.; Bartolozzi, F. Vergati, G. FS-17. Riv. Frut. 1998, 5, 61. [Google Scholar]
  18. Sonnoli, A. Una nuova varietà di olivo a dimensione ridotta. Olivae 2001, 88, 46–49. [Google Scholar]
  19. Camposeo, S.; Godini, A. Preliminary observations about the performance of 13 varieties according to the super high density oliveculture training system in Apulia (southern Italy). Adv. Hortic. Sci. 2010, 24, 16–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Lodolini, E.M.; Polverigiani, S.; Sirugo, M.; Neri, D. Damage to several olive cultivars by two over-the-row harvesters in high-density orchards. Acta Hortic. 2018, 1199, 415–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Vivaldi, G.A.; Strippoli, G.; Pascuzzi, S.; Stellacci, A.M.; Camposeo, S. Olive genotypes cultivated in an adult high-density orchard respond differently to canopy restraining by mechanical and manual pruning. Sci. Hortic. 2015, 192, 391–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Godini, A.; Vivaldi, G.A.; Camposeo, S. Olive cultivars field-tested in super high-density system in southern Italy. Calif. Agric. 2011, 65, 39–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Roselli, L.; Clodoveo, M.L.; Corbo, F.; De Gennaro, B. Are health claims a useful tool to segment the category of extra-virgin olive oil? Threats and opportunities for the Italian olive oil supply chain. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 68, 176–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. De Gennaro, B.C.; Roselli, L.; Bimbo, F.; Carlucci, D.; Cavallo, C.; Cicia, G.; Del Giudice, T.; Lombardi, A.; Paparella, A.; Vecchio, R. Do Italian consumers value health claims on extra-virgin olive oil? J. Func. Foods 2021, 81, 104461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Servili, M. The phenolic compounds: A commercial argument in the economic war to come on the quality of olive oil? OCL 2014, 21, D509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Clodoveo, M.L.; Camposeo, S.; Amirante, R.; Dugo, G.; Cicero, N.; Boskou, D. Research and innovative approaches to obtain virgin olive oils with a higher level of bioactive constituents. In Olives and Olive Oil Bioactive Constituents; Boskou, D., Ed.; AOCS Press: Urbana, IL, USA, 2015; pp. 179–216. ISBN 978-1-630670-41-2. [Google Scholar]
  27. Allalout, A.; Krichène, D.; Methenni, K.; Taamalli, A.; Oueslati, I.; Daoud, D.; Zarrouk, M. Characterization of virgin olive oil from super intensive Spanish and Greek varieties grown in northern Tunisia. Sci. Hort. 2009, 120, 77–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Polari, J.J.; Mori, M.; Wang, S.C. Virgin olive oils from super-high-density orchards in California: Impact of cultivar, harvest time, and crop season on quality and chemical composition. Eur. J. Lipid Sci. Technol. 2021, 123, 2000180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Bouaziz, M.; Jemai, H.; Khabou, W.; Sayadi, S. Oil content, phenolic profiling and antioxidant potential of Tunisian olive drupes. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2010, 90, 1750–1758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Gutiérrez-Rosales, F.; Rios, J.J.; Gomez-Rey, M.L. Main polyphenols in the bitter taste of virgin olive oil. Structural confirmation by on-line high-performance liquid chromatography electrospray ionization mass spectrometry. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2003, 51, 6021–6025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Willett, W.; Rockström, J.; Loken, B.; Springmann, M.; Lang, T.; Vermeulen, S.; Garnett, T.; Tilman, D.; DeClerck, F.; Wood, A.; et al. Food in the Anthropocene: The EAT-Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 2019, 393, 447–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Barranco, D.; Caballero, J.M.; Martin, A.; Rallo, L.; Del Rio, C.; Tous, J.; Trujillo, I. Variedades de Olivo en Espana, 2nd ed.; Mundi-Prensa: Madrid, Spain, 2004; p. 47. ISBN 978-84-8476-192-1. [Google Scholar]
  33. Farinelli, D.; Tombesi, S. Performance and oil quality of ‘Arbequina’ and four Italian olive cultivars under super high density hedgerow planting system cultivated in central Italy. Sci. Hortic. 2015, 192, 97–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. León, L.; De La Rosa, R.; Barranco, D.; Rallo, L. Breeding for early bearing in olive. HortScience 2007, 42, 499–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Spadoni, A.; Sion, S.; Gadaleta, S.; Savoia, M.; Piarulli, L.; Fanelli, V.; Di Rienzo, V.; Taranto, F.; Miazzi, M.M.; Montemurro, C. A simple and rapid method for genomic DNA extraction and microsatellite analysis in tree plants. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2019, 21, 1215–1226. [Google Scholar]
  36. De la Rosa, R.; James, C.M.; Tobutt, K.R. Isolation and characterization of polymorphic microsatellites in olive (Olea europaea L.) and their transferability to other genera in the Oleaceae. Mol. Ecol. Notes 2002, 2, 265–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Cipriani, G.; Marrazzo, M.T.; Marconi, R.; Cimato, A.; Testolin, R. Microsatellite markers isolated in olive (Olea europaea L.) are suitable for individual finger-printing and reveal polymorphism within ancient cultivars. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2002, 104, 223–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Saddoud Deddabi, O.; Montemurro, C.; Ben Maachia, S.; Ben Amar, F.; Fanelli, V.; Gadaleta, S.; El Riachy, M.; Chehade, A.; Siblini, M.; Boucheffa, S.; et al. A hot spot of olive biodiversity in the Tunisian oasis of Degache. Diversity 2020, 12, 358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. UPOV. 2011. Available online: https://www.upov.int (accessed on 20 September 2021).
  40. Seifi, E.; Guerin, J.; Kaiser, B.; Sedgley, M. Flowering and fruit set in olive: A review. J. Plant Physiol. 2015, 5, 1263–1272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Camposeo, S.; Ferrara, G.; Palasciano, M.; Godini, A. About the biological behavior of cv. Coratina. Acta Hort. 2012, 949, 129–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Camposeo, S.; Vivaldi, G.A.; Gattullo, C.E. Ripening indices and harvesting times of different olive cultivars for continuous harvest. Sci. Hortic. 2013, 151, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Farinelli, D.; Tombesi, S.; Famiani, F.; Tombesi, A. The fruit detachment force/fruit weight ratio can be used to predict the harvesting yield and the efficiency of trunk shakers on mechanical olive harvesting. Acta Hortic. 2012, 965, 61–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Sola-Guirado, R.R.; Aragon-Rodriguez, F.; Castro-Garcia, S.; Gil-Ribes, J. The vibration behaviour of hedgerow olive trees in response to mechanical harvesting with straddle harvester. Biosyst. Engin. 2019, 184, 81–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Baldoni, L.; Cultrera, N.G.; Mariotti, R.; Ricciolini, C.; Arcioni, S.; Vendramin, G.G.; Buonamici, A.; Porceddu, A.; Sarri, V.; Ojeda, M.A.; et al. A consensus list of microsatellite markers for olive genotyping. Mol. Breed. 2009, 24, 213–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Montemurro, C.; Dambruoso, G.; Bottalico, G.; Sabetta, W. Self-incompatibility assessment of some Italian olive genotypes (Olea europaea L.) and cross-derived seedling selection by SSR markers on seed endosperms. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Camposeo, S.; Vivaldi, G.A. Yield, harvesting efficiency and oil chemical quality of cultivars Arbequina and Arbosana harvested by straddle machine in two Apulian growing areas. Acta Hortic. 2018, 1199, 397–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Caruso, T.; Campisi, G.; Marra, F.P.; Camposeo, S.; Vivaldi, G.A.; Proietti, P.; Nasini, L. Growth and yields of the cultivar Arbequina in high density planting systems in three different olive growing areas in Italy. Acta Hortic. 2014, 1057, 341–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Gomez-del-Campo, M.; Connor, D.J.; Trentacoste, E.R. Long-term effect of intra-row spacing on growth and productivity of super-high density hedgerow olive orchards (cv. Arbequina). Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 1790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Wu, S.B.; Collins, G.; Sedgley, M. Sexual compatibility within and between olive cultivars. J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol. 2002, 77, 665–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Alagna, F.; Caceres, M.E.; Pandolfi, S.; Collani, S.; Mousavi, S.; Mariotti, R.; Cultrera, N.G.M.; Baldoni, L.; Barcaccia, G. The Paradox of self-fertile varieties in the context of self-incompatible genotypes in olive. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Mariotti, R.; Pandolfi, S.; De Cauwer, I.; Saumitou-Laprade, P.; Vernet, P.; Rossi, M.; Baglivo, F.; Baldoni, L.; Mousavi, S. Diallelic self-incompatibility is the main determinant of fertilization patterns in olive orchards. Evol. Appl. 2021, 14, 983–995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Rallo, L.; Cuevas, J. Frutification y produccion. In El cultivo del Olivo, 7th ed.; Barranco, D., Fernandez-Escobar, R., Rallo, L., Eds.; Mundi Prensa: Madrid, Spain, 2017; pp. 162–163. ISBN 978-84-8476-714-5. [Google Scholar]
  54. Rotondi, A.; Magli, M.; Morrone, L.; Alfei, B.; Pannelli, G. Italian National database of monovarietal extra virgin olive oils. In The Mediterranean Genetic Code. Grapevine and Olive; Sladonja, B., Ed.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2013; pp. 179–200. ISBN 978-953-51-1607-5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Borges, T.H.; Pereira, J.A.; Cabrera-Vique, C.; Seiquer, I. Study of the antioxidant potential of Arbequina extra virgin olive oils from Brazil and Spain applying combined models of simulated digestion and cell culture markers. J. Funct. Foods 2017, 37, 209–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Marino, G.; Macaluso, L.; Marra, F.P.; Ferguson, L.; Marchese, A.; Campisi, G.; Volo, P.; Laudicina, V.A.; Caruso, T. Horticultural performance of 23 Sicilian olive genotypes in hedgerow systems: Vegetative growth, productive potential and oil quality. Sci. Hortic. 2017, 217, 217–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Fraga, H.; Moriondo, M.; Leolini, L.; Santos, J.A. Mediterranean olive orchards under climate change: A review of future impacts and adaptation strategies. Agronomy 2021, 11, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Freixa, E.; Gil, J.M.; Tous, J.; Hermoso, J.F. Comparative study of the economic viability of high- and super-high-density olive orchards in Spain. Acta Hortic. 2011, 924, 247–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agronomy 11 02154 g001 550
Figure 1. Young (left) and adult (right) ‘Lecciana’ trees.
Figure 1. Young (left) and adult (right) ‘Lecciana’ trees.
Agronomy 11 02154 g001
Agronomy 11 02154 g002 550
Figure 2. Leaves and inflorescences on bearing shoot of ‘Lecciana’.
Figure 2. Leaves and inflorescences on bearing shoot of ‘Lecciana’.
Agronomy 11 02154 g002
Agronomy 11 02154 g003 550
Figure 3. Fruit and stone of ‘Lecciana’.
Figure 3. Fruit and stone of ‘Lecciana’.
Agronomy 11 02154 g003
Agronomy 11 02154 g004 550
Figure 4. Fresh and dry weight (g) of olives of ‘Lecciana’ during ripening (DAFB = days after full bloom). Mean values of two subsequent seasons (±se). Lower case letters denote statistical differences at p = 0.05 (Siegel-Tukey test).
Figure 4. Fresh and dry weight (g) of olives of ‘Lecciana’ during ripening (DAFB = days after full bloom). Mean values of two subsequent seasons (±se). Lower case letters denote statistical differences at p = 0.05 (Siegel-Tukey test).
Agronomy 11 02154 g004
Agronomy 11 02154 g005 550
Figure 5. Detachment force (cN) and firmness (cN cm−2) of olives of ‘Lecciana’ during ripening (DAFB = days after full bloom). Mean values of two subsequent seasons (±se). Lower case letters denote statistical differences at p = 0.05 (Siegel-Tukey test).
Figure 5. Detachment force (cN) and firmness (cN cm−2) of olives of ‘Lecciana’ during ripening (DAFB = days after full bloom). Mean values of two subsequent seasons (±se). Lower case letters denote statistical differences at p = 0.05 (Siegel-Tukey test).
Agronomy 11 02154 g005
Agronomy 11 02154 g006 550
Figure 6. Jaen index (n) and detachment index (N g−1) of olives of ‘Lecciana’ during ripening (DAFB = days after full bloom). Mean values of two subsequent seasons (±se). Lower case letters denote statistical differences at p = 0.05 (Siegel-Tukey test).
Figure 6. Jaen index (n) and detachment index (N g−1) of olives of ‘Lecciana’ during ripening (DAFB = days after full bloom). Mean values of two subsequent seasons (±se). Lower case letters denote statistical differences at p = 0.05 (Siegel-Tukey test).
Agronomy 11 02154 g006
Agronomy 11 02154 g007 550
Figure 7. Oil accumulation (% fw) and humidity (%) in olives of ‘Lecciana’ during ripening (DAFB = days after full bloom). Mean values of two subsequent seasons (±se). Lower case letters denote statistical differences at p = 0.05 (Siegel-Tukey test).
Figure 7. Oil accumulation (% fw) and humidity (%) in olives of ‘Lecciana’ during ripening (DAFB = days after full bloom). Mean values of two subsequent seasons (±se). Lower case letters denote statistical differences at p = 0.05 (Siegel-Tukey test).
Agronomy 11 02154 g007
Agronomy 11 02154 g008 550
Figure 8. Olives of ‘Lecciana’ at the optimal ripening phase to harvesting, around 200 days after full bloom.
Figure 8. Olives of ‘Lecciana’ at the optimal ripening phase to harvesting, around 200 days after full bloom.
Agronomy 11 02154 g008
Table
Table 1. Allelic profile of two polymorphic molecular markers for ‘Lecciana’ and for its parental cultivars Arbosana and Leccino. Allele size is reported in base pairs (bps).
Table 1. Allelic profile of two polymorphic molecular markers for ‘Lecciana’ and for its parental cultivars Arbosana and Leccino. Allele size is reported in base pairs (bps).
GenotypeEMO90GAPU101
Arbosana (♀)181183181187
Leccino (♂)183189195197
Lecciana (F1)183183181197
Table
Table 2. Main morphological markers of ‘Lecciana’. Values of four subsequent seasons. The characteristic numbers referring to UPOV table TG/99/4 are reported for each marker in brackets.
Table 2. Main morphological markers of ‘Lecciana’. Values of four subsequent seasons. The characteristic numbers referring to UPOV table TG/99/4 are reported for each marker in brackets.
TreeVigor (1)Weak
Growth habit (2)Upright
Canopy density (3)Medium
LeafShape (7)Elongated
Blade longitudinal curvature (9)Straight
InflorescenceLength (11)Short
FruitLength (14)Medium
Width (15)Narrow
Weight (16)Medium
Shape (17)Elliptic
Size of lenticels (20)Medium
Number of lenticels (21)Few
Over color at full maturity (22)Dark violet
Symmetry in position A (23)Weakly asymmetric
Shape of apex in position A (24)Rounded
Nipple (25)Absent
Shape of base (26)Truncate
StoneShape in position B (28)Elliptic
Length (29)Medium
Width in position B (30)Narrow
Weight (32)Medium
Symmetry in position A (33)Weakly asymmetric
Number of grooves on basal end (35)Between 7 and 10
Shape of apex in position A (37)Acute
Mucron (38)Present
Rugosity of surface (40)Strong
Table
Table 3. Blooming phenogram of ‘Lecciana’ in two subsequent seasons. Full bloom corresponds to the date with 50% of open flowers.
Table 3. Blooming phenogram of ‘Lecciana’ in two subsequent seasons. Full bloom corresponds to the date with 50% of open flowers.
Open Flowers (%)20152016
10May 3April 29
50May 12May 9
90May 16May 15
Table
Table 4. Flower per inflorescence (n) and gynosterility (%) of cv. Lecciana as effect of inflorescence position along the canopy. Mean values of two subsequent seasons (±se). Lower case letters denote statistical differences at p = 0.05 (Siegel-Tukey test); ns = not significant.
Table 4. Flower per inflorescence (n) and gynosterility (%) of cv. Lecciana as effect of inflorescence position along the canopy. Mean values of two subsequent seasons (±se). Lower case letters denote statistical differences at p = 0.05 (Siegel-Tukey test); ns = not significant.
Position (m)Flowers Per Inflorescence (n)Gynosterility (%)
1.5–2.015.8 ± 2.3 ns1.68 ± 0.8 c
1.0–1.5 14.4 ± 2.0 ns5.01 ± 2.1 a
0.5–1.013.2 ± 2.1 ns2.56 ± 1.9 b
mean14.5 ± 2.53.08 ± 2.2
Table
Table 5. Fruit set (%) of cv. Lecciana at veraison as effect of pollination type (Self/Open) and exposure (Est/West). Mean values of two subsequent seasons (±se). Lower case letters denote statistical differences at p = 0.05 (Siegel-Tukey test).
Table 5. Fruit set (%) of cv. Lecciana at veraison as effect of pollination type (Self/Open) and exposure (Est/West). Mean values of two subsequent seasons (±se). Lower case letters denote statistical differences at p = 0.05 (Siegel-Tukey test).
Pollination TypeExposureFruit Set (%)Mean
SelfEst0.10 ± 0.05 b0.10 ± 0.05 b
West0.09 ± 0.04 b
OpenEst2.92 ± 0.67 a3.24 ± 0.78 a
West3.56 ± 0.83 a
Table
Table 6. Canopy volume, fruit and oil yield, trunk section area and yield efficiencies of ‘Lecciana’ compared with ‘Arbequina’ (fw = fresh weight; dw dry weight). Mean values of 4 years (±se). c = cumulated values; * = statistical significance at p = 0.05 (Siegel-Tukey test); ns = not significant.
Table 6. Canopy volume, fruit and oil yield, trunk section area and yield efficiencies of ‘Lecciana’ compared with ‘Arbequina’ (fw = fresh weight; dw dry weight). Mean values of 4 years (±se). c = cumulated values; * = statistical significance at p = 0.05 (Siegel-Tukey test); ns = not significant.
ParametersLeccianaArbequina
Canopy volume (m3·tree−1)6.6 ± 1.05.7 ± 0.6*
Fruit yield (kg·tree−1)6.1 ± 1.15.0 ± 1.2*
c Fruit yield (kg·tree−1)23.3 ± 3.419.7 ± 2.1*
Trunk section area (cm2)48.5 ± 0.547.0 ± 0.7*
Fruit yield efficiency (kg·cm−2)0.48 ± 0.050.42 ± 0.08*
Oil content (% fw)19.3 ± 1.220.5 ± 1.5*
Olive Moisture (%)58.4 ± 2.457.2 ± 2.5ns
c Oil yield (kg fw·tree−1)4.50 ± 0.594.04 ± 0.36*
Oil yield efficiency (kg dw·cm−2)0.20 ± 0.030.20 ± 0.04ns
Table
Table 7. Main fatty acids composition of ‘Lecciana’ oils compared to ’Arbequina’ ones. Mean values of 4 years (±se). * = statistical significance at p = 0.05 (Siegel-Tukey test); ns = not significant. Italian monovarietal EVOOs reference values are reported.
Table 7. Main fatty acids composition of ‘Lecciana’ oils compared to ’Arbequina’ ones. Mean values of 4 years (±se). * = statistical significance at p = 0.05 (Siegel-Tukey test); ns = not significant. Italian monovarietal EVOOs reference values are reported.
Fatty AcidsLeccianaArbequina Italian
Palmitic acid (C16:0; %)15.1 ± 0.316.9 ± 1.0ns12.01
Palmitoleic acid (C16:1; %)1.1 ± 0.12.0 ± 0.3*1.1
Stearic acid (C18:0; %)2.3 ± 0.41.6 ± 0.4*2.2
Oleic acid (C18:1; %)73.7 ± 2.470.2 ± 1.0ns73.0
Linoleic acid (C18:2; %)6.2 ± 0.113.2 ± 1.5*10.3
Linolenic acid (C18:3; %)0.6 ± 0.00.6 ± 0.2ns0.3
Table
Table 8. Total polyphenols content (mg caffeic acid·kg−1) and fruitiness median of ‘Lecciana’ oils during ripening (DAFB = days after full bloom). Mean values of two subsequent seasons (±se). Lower case letters denote statistical differences at p = 0.05 (Siegel-Tukey test).
Table 8. Total polyphenols content (mg caffeic acid·kg−1) and fruitiness median of ‘Lecciana’ oils during ripening (DAFB = days after full bloom). Mean values of two subsequent seasons (±se). Lower case letters denote statistical differences at p = 0.05 (Siegel-Tukey test).
Ripening Time (DAFB)Polyphenols
(mg·kg−1)		Fruitiness
(n/7.0)
20152016
177180442.5 ± 6.6 c4.1 ± 0.3 b
191194470.3 ± 1.5 a4.5 ± 0.3 a
206209458.1 ± 5.4 b4.4 ± 0.2 a
220223451.0 ± 9.3 b4.3 ± 0.3 ab
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Camposeo, S.; Vivaldi, G.A.; Montemurro, C.; Fanelli, V.; Cunill Canal, M. Lecciana, a New Low-Vigour Olive Cultivar Suitable for Super High Density Orchards and for Nutraceutical EVOO Production. Agronomy 2021, 11, 2154. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11112154

AMA Style

Camposeo S, Vivaldi GA, Montemurro C, Fanelli V, Cunill Canal M. Lecciana, a New Low-Vigour Olive Cultivar Suitable for Super High Density Orchards and for Nutraceutical EVOO Production. Agronomy. 2021; 11(11):2154. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11112154

Chicago/Turabian Style

Camposeo, Salvatore, Gaetano Alessandro Vivaldi, Cinzia Montemurro, Valentina Fanelli, and Marisa Cunill Canal. 2021. "Lecciana, a New Low-Vigour Olive Cultivar Suitable for Super High Density Orchards and for Nutraceutical EVOO Production" Agronomy 11, no. 11: 2154. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11112154

APA Style

Camposeo, S., Vivaldi, G. A., Montemurro, C., Fanelli, V., & Cunill Canal, M. (2021). Lecciana, a New Low-Vigour Olive Cultivar Suitable for Super High Density Orchards and for Nutraceutical EVOO Production. Agronomy, 11(11), 2154. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11112154

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