Fruit Characteristics of In Situ Collected Sweet Cherry (Prunus avium L.) Genotypes
by
, , ,
Sorina Sîrbu
1,
Lăcrămioara Oprică
2,*, 
Lucia-Florina Popovici
3,
Culiţă Sîrbu
4,
Iulia Mineață
1
,
Ionuț Vasile Ungureanu
1 and
Iuliana Elena Golache
1 1
Research Station for Fruit Growing, 3 Ion Vodă cel Viteaz Street, Miroslava, 707305 Iasi, Romania
2
Faculty of Biology, “Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University, 20A Carol I Bdv, 700506 Iasi, Romania
3
Department of Agricultural Sciences and Food Engineering, “Lucian Blaga” University of Sibiu, 7–9 Ion Ratiu Street, 550024 Sibiu, Romania
4
Department of Plant Science, “Ion Ionescu de la Brad” Iasi University of Life Sciences, 3 M. Sadoveanu Alley, 700490 Iasi, Romania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Horticulturae 2025, 11(3), 340; https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae11030340
Submission received: 20 February 2025
/
Revised: 14 March 2025
/
Accepted: 19 March 2025
/
Published: 20 March 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue From the Field to the Table: Unearthing Wild Fruit Species for Enhanced Prospecting and Utilization)
Abstract
:Native genotypes of fruit species are an important source of phenotypic variability for breeding and provide valuable material for the creation of new cultivars. Therefore, the present study was conducted to characterize and decipher the phenotypic variability of 39 native cherry genotypes (Prunus avium L.) with some bitter taste from spontaneous or cultivated flora from the Northeast European region, in Romania. The research was conducted during 2018–2022 and aimed to analyze the biochemical composition and physical characteristics of the fruits in order to identify the most useful traits for dissemination. All genotypes presented small fruits but with exceptional nutraceutical properties. The highest fruit weight was observed in G10 and G11 (3.2 g). The highest total soluble solids was found in G19 and G25 (28.2°Brix and 26.0°Brix, respectively), and in terms of antioxidant capacity, the highest level was observed in G32 and G33 (98.22% and 96.71%, respectively). In the cluster analysis, wild cherry accessions were clustered into five groups of related genotypes, indicating that they were useful for evaluating the characterization of cherry germplasm due to the superior fruit weight and phenolic compounds content. The genotypes studied represent valuable phenotypic resources for enriching the cherry gene pool and improving important horticultural traits for increasing production and thus nutrition.
1. Introduction
Sweet cherry (Prunus avium L. syn. Cerasus avium L.) is a diploid self-incompatible species (2n = 16) which belongs systematically to the Rosaceae family, sub-family Prunoideae, genus Cerasus, and avium species [1]. Originally, the cherry tree is from the areas adjacent to the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea, from where it has spread to many regions around the world [2] and grows both as a wild and cultivated plant [3]. Depending on the agronomic and pomological properties of the trees and fruits, several local genotypes have been selected from natural cherry populations (popularly named wild cherry).
Although most of these in situ collected genotypes are self-incompatible and require mandatory association with other cultivars to ensure adequate production, in recent decades, a large number of new cherry genotypes have been created with valuable characteristics, medium chilling requirements, low susceptibility to fruit cracking, early fruit maturity and high resistance to stress factors, and a high level of polyphenolic compounds [4,5,6,7]. In Romania, cherry cultivation fulfills its agrobiological potential, due to favorable environmental conditions [8], occupying an average (2014–2023) area of 6252 hectares and with a production of 72,602 tons per year [9]. It also has a history of genetic improvement of the most valuable cherry biotypes from the spontaneous flora [10]. Wild cherry (Prunus avium L.) is mainly used as a rootstock in the cultivation of cherry and sour cherry cultivars, but all of them have also been of particular importance for their fruits as a source of food and for medical purposes for thousands of years [11].
Wild fruits, predominantly with a bitter taste, vary in shape, weight, taste, and color and may have superior nutritional and organoleptic characteristics [3,7,12].
Genetic and phenotypic conservation and subsequent valorization strategies to prevent the loss of variety genes involve morphological evaluation and characterization of the germplasm fund using in situ collection methods [5,13]. Characterization helps to record and compile data for important characteristics that distinguish genotypes between species or cultivars and allows for easy and rapid differentiation between them, leading to a better understanding of the collection composition and phenotypic diversity [2].
Prunus avium is a fruit tree species with great economic importance, mainly due to its fruits, which are used both fresh and also for the food industry in the form of frozen fruits, juices, nectars, syrups, liqueurs, jams, etc. [14,15]. Native cherry genotypes are also recognized as a valuable source of food phenolics and antioxidants [16,17].
Thus, the main objective of this work was to evaluate fruit traits, both qualitatively and quantitatively, from local cherry populations in situ collected from several areas in Romania, Northeastern Europe, in order to select genotypes that will be used and incorporated into future breeding strategies.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Experimental Protocol and Research Area
In Romania, Prunus sp. is spread over almost the entire territory [18], the distribution and frequency of genotypes being achieved through direct field observations or through documentation and botanical methodology (Figure 1) [19,20].
The study was conducted over a period of five consecutive years (2018–2022), in which fruits from 39 cherry (Prunus avium L.) genotypes were collected from the spontaneous or cultivated flora from different geographical areas with abundant sweet cherry genetic and phenotypic resources in the north–east of Romania (Northeastern Europe). The samples (marked by red dots in Figure 1) were collected in situ from the following five different counties: Iași (19 genotypes), Neamț (3 genotypes), Suceava (8 genotypes), Vrancea (1 genotype), and Vaslui (8 genotypes). The studied cherry genotypes were noted from G1 to G39, found in Table 1, and were chosen as representative for the phenotypic variability observed in the field. All trees were approximately 30–40 years old and selected primarily to have a high production yield, attractive fruits, and natural resistance to diseases and pests.
The genotypes were marked in the field, and the fruits were collected for evaluation of physicochemical characteristics during the maturity period (May–June) of each year. The period of full ripening was determined based on visual appearance and color characteristics. Samples of 100 fruits were randomly collected from various height levels and positions of the tree for a uniform evaluation. The data presented represent the average value of over five years of study (n = 5).
2.2. Physical Traits of the Fruit and Stone
Fruit, stone, and peduncle dimensions (mm): length and width represent the two median diameters, perpendicular to each other, and were determined by measuring using a Luumytools LT15240 (LUMY TOOLS TRANS SRL, Suceava, Romania) digital caliper with an accuracy of 0.02 mm. The weight (g) of all samples was determined using an electronic analytical Radwag WLC C/2 Precision Balance (RADWAG Development Studio, Radom, Poland) with an accuracy of 0.01 g.
Studied physical parameters were as follows: fruit weight (FW), fruit length (FL), fruit width (FWD), fruit thickness (FT), fruit geometric diameter (FGD) (Formula (1)), sphericity (Ø) (Formula (2)), stone weight (SW), stone length (SL), stone width (SWD), stone thickness (ST), flesh weight (FlW) (Formula (3)), and peduncle length (LP) [7].
Geometric diameter (mm) = ((FL × FWD × FT)0.333)
Sphericity (mm2) = (FGD/FL)
Flesh weight (g) = (FW − SW)
2.3. Chemical Composition
The total soluble solids (TSS) content represents the sugar content of the fruit as well as a small amount of organic acids, soluble amino acids, and minerals [21]. It was determined using the digital refractometer HI96800 from Hanna Instruments (Woonsocket, RI, USA). The results were expressed in °Brix.
For the extraction of total polyphenols (TPs), total flavonoids (TFs), and antioxidant activity (AA%) via the DPPH % method, an ultrasound-assisted method for the extraction of phytochemicals was used. Thus, 1 g of the sample was mixed with 10 mL 70% ethanol and subjected to an ultrasound with a frequency of 40 kHz at a maximum of 30 °C for 35 min. The resulting extract was then subjected to centrifugation at 6000 rpm for 10 min at 4 °C.
To determine the TP content, the Folin–Ciocalteu method was used by reading on a spectrophotometer (Specord 210 PLUS UV–VIS spectrophotometer, Analytik Jena, Jena, Germany) at an absorbance measured at 750 nm [22]. The results obtained were expressed in mg gallic acid equivalents per g dry weight (mg GAE·g−1 f.w.).
The TF content of the samples was determined via a colorimetric method by mixing 0.25 mL of the sample extract with 0.075 mL of 5% NaNO2 (sodium nitrate solution) and 2 mL of distilled water. After 5 min, 0.15 mL of 10% AlCl3 solution (aluminum chloride) was added. After another 6 min, 0.5 mL NaOH (sodium hydroxide) 1M and 0.775 mL of distilled water were added. Readings were taken on spectrophotometer (UV–Vis, Specord 210 Plus, Analytik Jena, Jena, Germany) at a wavelength of 510 nm [23]. The results were expressed in milligrams of catechin equivalent per gram of dry weight (mg EC·g−1 f.w.).
Regarding AA%, it was determined using the DPPH % (2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl) method [24]. Thus, 100 µL of the diluted extract was mixed with 3.9 mL of DPPH solution and shaken for 30 sec. After a 30 min incubation at room temperature, the reading was performed on a spectrophotometer (UV–Vis, Specord 210 Plus), at a wavelength of 515 nm. For the control, 100 µL of methanol was mixed with 3.9 mL of DPPH using a standard calibration curve with Trolox (R2 = 0.992). The results were expressed in %, represented as µg Trolox·g−1 f.w., and were obtained using Formula (4), where Ablank is the absorbance (515 nm) of the DPPH solution, and Asample is the absorbance (515 nm) of the DPPH solution mixed with the fruit extract.
DPPH-scavenging activity (%) = (Ablank − ASample)/(Ablank) × 100
2.4. Statistical Analysis
The results are expressed as means obtained by repetitions and performed for five consecutive years (n = 5). All selected variables were interpreted via cluster analysis. The distance chosen to estimate the phenotypic dissimilarity component was Euclidean, and the Ward method was used for agglomerative hierarchical clustering (AHC), XLSTAT statistical software (https://www.xlstat.com/en/) [25]. The dendrogram comprises partitions resulting from combined data from both quantitative and qualitative traits. Standard deviation (STDEV) and coefficient of variation (COVAR) were also determined, and to estimate the relationship between qualitative and quantitative indices, the Pearson correlation coefficient (r2) was also calculated (p ≤ 0.05).
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Physical Traits of the Fruit and Stone
The characterization of the physical traits of the fruits included several parameters of interest from a commercial or food industry point of view. Regarding the weight and size of the fruits, a significant variability was observed between the studied genotypes (Table 2). Thus, the FW ranges from 0.6 g for G32 and 3.2 g for G10 and G11, and the fruit geometric diameter is between 9.18 mm (G32) and 20.27 mm (G39).
FL averaged 13.85 mm. Both weight and length were similar to other studies performed on wild sweet cherry genotypes from spontaneous flora from other geographical areas where fruits had an average weight of 1.08 g and a length of 0.95–1.18 mm [26] or 0.8–2.4 g weight and an average length of 1.1 mm [3,11,12].
Regarding fruit sphericity, almost all genotypes are of a flattened shape with a value higher than 0.95 mm2; only five genotypes (G5, G6, G7, G12, and G30) had more elongated fruits, with Ø < 0.90 mm2. This aspect was also found in the study of some cherry genotypes grown in situ carried out by Baji et al., 2021 [7]. Regarding the fruit stone, the weight oscillated between 0.09 g (G25) and 0.32 g (G38) depending on the genotype, with a standard deviation of 0.06.
The stone weight variability was also found in other studies conducted on wild sweet cherry genotypes, from 0.12 to 0.20 g [26], 0.19 to 0.75 g for 146 sweet cherry cultivars evaluated [27], or 0.22 to 0.46 g [7]. Thus, the useful weight for industrial use of the fruit, the flesh, had the lowest weight values at G32 (0.51 g), and the highest values were recorded at G11 (2.94 g). The percentage of covariance was 48.72%. Regarding the peduncle, it had an average length of 46.0 mm (36.3–63.8 mm), considered long, an aspect found predominantly in local or wild cultivars [5], making for easier hand picking of fruits [28].
3.2. Chemical Composition
The results on the biochemical content (TSS, TP, TF, and AA%) of cherry fruits collected in situ at the stage of full consumption maturity in the years 2018–2022 are presented in Table 3.
Fruits of the Prunus genus are known for being rich in nutrients; thus, the potential for using cherries with high content of bioactive compounds as a source for integration into more complex food or pharmaceutical products is continuously developing [29].
TSS is one of the most important characteristics of fruits, as it provides information about the sugar content [3]. In the fruits analyzed, TSS had values ranging from 11.2°Brix at G7 to 28.2°Brix at G19. Of the 39 genotypes studied, 24 of them recorded TSS values higher than 20°Brix. Reported in other studies, cherries from wild genotypes or from spontaneous flora have a higher TSS content compared to commercial cultivated cultivars [5,26,30,31,32].
The TP content (Table 3) of cherries varied significantly depending on genotype and environmental conditions (COVAR = 101.58), with values ranging from 0.15 mg GAE·g−1 f.w. (G30) to 3.97 mg GAE·g−1 f.w. (G8). The results obtained show a high variability between fruits, an aspect also found in other studies [5,26,33], which mentioned a polyphenol content in cherries ranging from 0.23 mg GAE·g−1 f.w. to 26.4 mg GAE·g−1 f.w. depending on genotype. Being dark-colored, the higher content of phenolic compounds is due to anthocyanins, thus contributing to increasing the organoleptic and sensory qualities of the fruits [34] but also with beneficial effects on health [35].
Regarding the total flavonoid content, the fruits had average values of 0.41 mg EC·g−1 f.w., with a minimum of only 0.08 mg EC·g−1 f.w. at G30 and a maximum value of 0.96 mg EC·g−1 f.w., at G13. This range was also found in bitter cherries (Prunus avium var. sylvestris), where TF was, on average, 0.35 mg EC·g−1 f.w. [36]. In analyses carried out on commercial sweet cherry cultivars, higher TF values were noted, ranging between 2.4 and 4.5 mg EC·g−1 f.w. [37].
The AA% of the fruits of the 39 cherry genotypes resulting from the reaction with the free radical DPPH (2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl) had values ranging from 42.84% (G14) to 98.22% (G30), with a standard deviation between genotypes of 15.68. Similar results were also found in other cherry cultivars fruits, known for their good antioxidant capacity [31,38].
Wild sweet cherries can also be considered valuable sources of natural antioxidants, with analyses indicating that certain wild varieties exhibit higher AA% compared to cultivated forms [3,39].
Applying cluster analysis on physical and chemical traits (TSS and TP) of the fruits, the evaluation of similarities or dissimilarities was carried out, clarifying some of the relationships between the 39 in situ collected genotypes, being a widely used method to study the germplasm fund of a species. Thus, the dendrogram of the 39 examined sweet cherry genotypes presented in Figure 2 presented their interrelation with certain hierarchical levels.
Based on the Euclidean distance, five cluster groups of related genotypes were isolated. The first cluster consists of five genotypes (G1, G3, G4, G5, and G8). The second cluster comprises five genotypes (G6, G7, G9, G10, and G11). In the third cluster, five more genotypes (G2, G39, G38, G12, and G20) were chosen. The fourth cluster consists of 15 genotypes (G13, G14, G17, G36, G16, G18, G19, G29, G15, G33, G23, G37, G24, G33, and G25). The fifth cluster includes eight genotypes (G21, G22, G26, G27, G28, G30, G31, G34, and G35). The most significant features for classifying genotypes in these cluster groups were fruit weight and TP content. The highest fruit weight values were recorded in genotypes G10 and G11 in the second cluster, which also had a high level of phenolic content. The highest level of phenolic content was recorded in genotypes G8 and G5 in the first group, but the fruit weight was lower than the genotypes in the second cluster group.
Cluster analysis showed high phenotypic diversity among the studied populations, with genotypes being classified according to qualitative and quantitative fruit traits by genotype, without separating any genotype groups according to their geographical origin. This was similar to other algorithmic studies performed on wild cherry [12,26] or cultivated sweet cherry cultivars [7,27,40], which reported that there were no specific groups according to geographical area.
The obtained dendrogram showed a high diversity among the 39 cherry genotypes, thus indicating that it can be considered a valuable germplasm collection and could suggest the value for enriching the cherry gene pool and improving horticultural traits important for increasing production and thus nutrition.
The analysis of the interrelationship between the monitored fruit indices (physical traits and chemical composition) of the 39 cherry genotypes in situ collected was presented in Figure 3. Pearson’s correlation between all fruit quality parameters analyzed during the study revealed significant and highly significant interactions, regarding the physical characteristics of fruits and stones (FW, FL, FWD, FGD, FlW, SW, and SL) and mostly insignificant interactions between chemical (except TP) and physical characteristics.
The most significant positive correlation was between weight and fruit geometric diameter, including fruit length, width, and thickness, where r2 > 0.93. Similar correlations of these variables were found in other studies conducted on cherries [7,12,27,41]. Not-significant correlations were recorded between chemical and physical characteristics.
4. Conclusions
The results obtained highlighted a wide variability and diversity between the physical traits but also the biochemical content of some cherry genotypes collected in situ from both spontaneous and cultivated flora.
Among the 39 cherry genotypes, superior properties for genetic improvement were highlighted in the genotypes G10 and G11, which recorded the highest fruit weight values and the highest level of phenolic content. In terms of physico-chemical composition, bitter cherry cultivars studied have a high content in phenolic compounds, representing a significant antioxidant source.
Sweet cherry genotypes can be characterized as having high levels of biological activity, thus being a valuable source for improving the germplasm fund and for use in future breeding strategies. The agronomic, morphological, and fruit quality traits may confirm the need to conserve these unique phenotypic resources and to continue studies for a more detailed and complete description of such a germplasm source.
The recommendations are particularly relevant for the scientific research sector in genetics and breeding in order to conserve and capitalize on the indigenous phenotypic resources of Prunus avium L. Also, with agronomic performance, yield, and disease resistance being crucial factors for the development and release of commercially viable varieties for profitable orchards, further study taking into account these indicators is necessary and advisable.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, S.S., L.O. and L.-F.P.; data curation, S.S., C.S., L.O. and L.-F.P.; investigation, I.V.U., I.E.G. and I.M.; methodology, L.O., L.-F.P. and C.S.; resources, S.S., C.S. and I.V.U.; software: C.S.; validation, S.S.; visualization, writing—original draft: S.S. and I.M.; writing—review and editing: S.S., L.O. and L.-F.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement
The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Acknowledgments
This research work was carried out with the support of the Thematic Plan on the Implementation of the ‘A.S.A.S. Strategy on Research—Development—Innovation in Fruit Growing’ for the period 2021–2027, research topic: 3.4. Dissemination of scientific results through technology transfer actions.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
- Ducci, F.; De Cuyper, B.; De Rogatis, A.; Dufour, J.; Santi, F. Wild cherry breeding (Prunus avium L.). In Forest Tree Breeding in Europe: Current State-of-the-Art and Perspectives; Pâques, L., Ed.; Managing Forest Ecosystems; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 463–511. [Google Scholar]
- Dangi, G.; Singh, D.; Chauhan, N.; Dogra, R.; Verma, P.; Sharma, S. Characterization of Selected Sweet Cherry (Prunus avium L.) Varieties using DUS Test Guidelines. Indian J. Plant Genet. Resour. 2021, 34, 290–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karlidag, H.; Ercisli, S.; Sengul, M.; Tosun, M. Physico-Chemical Diversity in Fruits of Wild-Growing Sweet Cherries (Prunus Avium L.). Biotechnol. Biotechnol. Equip. 2009, 23, 1325–1329. [Google Scholar]
- Sansavini, S.; Lugli, S. Sweet Cherry Breeding Programs in Europe and Asia. Acta Hortic. 2008, 795, 41–58. [Google Scholar]
- Pérez Sánchez, R.; Gómez Sánchez, M.A.; Morales Corts, R. Agromorphological characterization of traditional Spanish sweet cherry (Prunus avium L.), sour cherry (Prunus cerasus L.) and duke cherry (Prunus × gondouinii Rehd.) cultivars. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2008, 6, 42–55. [Google Scholar]
- Benková, M.; Čičová, I.; Benedikova, D.; Mendel, L.; Glasa, M. Variability of Old Sweet Cherries Found in Slovak Regions and Their Preservation. Proc. Latv. Acad. Sci. Sect. B Nat. Exact Appl. Sci. 2017, 71, 184–189. [Google Scholar]
- El Baji, M.; Hanine, H.; En-Nahli, S.; Socias I Company, R.; Kodad, O. Morphological and Pomological Characteristics of Sweet Cherry (Prunus Avium L.) Grown In-situ under South Mediterranean Climate in Morocco. Int. J. Fruit Sci. 2021, 21, 52–65. [Google Scholar]
- Budan, S.; Petre, L.; Gradinariu, G. Evaluation of Some Native Sweet Cherry Genotypes Collected Ex Situ into Romanian National Germplasm. Acta Hortic. 2009, 814, 157–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Food and Agriculture Organization. 2023. Available online: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL (accessed on 16 January 2025).
- Quero-García, J.; Lezzoni, A.; Puławska, J.; Lang, G. Cherries: Botany, Production and Uses; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2017; Available online: https://www.cabi.org/bookshop/book/9781780648378 (accessed on 16 January 2025).
- Karaat, F.E.; Gündüz, K.; Saraçoğlu, O.; Yıldırım, H. Pomological and phytochemical evaluation of different cherry species: Mahaleb (Prunus mahaleb L.), wild sweet cherry (Prunus avium L.) and wild sour cherry (Prunus cerasus L.), sweet and sour cherry cultivars. Acta Sci. Pol. Hortorum Cultus 2019, 18, 181–191. [Google Scholar]
- Rakonjac, V.; Mratinic, E.; Jovkovic, R.; Fotiric, A.M. Analysis of morphological variability in wild cherry (Prunus avium L.) genetic resources from Central Serbia. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2014, 16, 151–162. [Google Scholar]
- Gregorius, H.R.; Kownatzki, D.; Höltken, A.M. Spatial patterns of mating relations in wild cherry (Prunus avium L.). Perspect. Plant Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2011, 13, 37–45. [Google Scholar]
- Webster, A.; Looney, N. Cherries: Crop Physiology, Production and Uses; CAB International: Wallingford, UK, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Jensen, M. Processing for Industrial Uses. In Cherries: Botany, Production and Uses; Quero-García, J., Lezzoni, A., Puławska, J., Lang, G., Eds.; CABI: Boston, MA, USA, 2017; pp. 485–505. [Google Scholar]
- Ferraj, B.; Hodaj, B.; Shahini, Z.; Kukali, E.; Susaj, L. Evaluation of autochthonous cherry cultivars ‘Zhitome’ and ‘Red Belice’. Nat. Montenegrina 2010, 9, 1007–1012. [Google Scholar]
- Di Matteo, A.; Russo, R.; Graziani, G.; Ritieni, A.; Di Vaio, C. Characterization of autochthonous sweet cherry cultivars (Prunus avium L.) of southern Italy for fruit quality, bioactive compounds and antioxidant activity. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2016, 97, 2782–2794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Perju, I.; Mineață, I.; Sîrbu, S.; Golache, I.E.; Ungureanu, I.V.; Jităreanu, C.D. Fruit Quality and Production Parameters of Some Bitter Cherry Cultivars. Horticulturae 2025, 11, 87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dulloo, M.E.; Hunter, D.; Borelli, T. Ex situ and in situ conservation of agricultural biodiversity: Major advances and research needs. Not. Bot. Horti Agrobot. Cluj-Napoca 2010, 38, 123–135. [Google Scholar]
- Oprea, A.; Sîrbu, C.; Goia, I. The vegetation of the natural reserve Valea Fagilor-Luncaviţa (Tulcea County, Romania). Contrib. Bot. 2011, 46, 17–32. [Google Scholar]
- Ricardo-Rodrigues, S.; Laranjo, M.; Agulheiro-Santos, A.C. Methods for quality evaluation of sweet cherry. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2022, 103, 463–478. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Dziadek, K.; Kopeć, A.; Piątkowska, E.; Leszczyńska, T.; Pisulewska, E.; Witkowicz, R.; Bystrowska, B.; Francik, R. Identification of polyphenolic compounds and determination of antioxidant activity in extracts and infusions of buckwheat leaves. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2018, 244, 333–343. [Google Scholar]
- Dewanto, V.; Wu, X.; Adom, K.K.; Liu, R.H. Thermal Processing Enhances the Nutritional Value of Tomatoes by Increasing Total Antioxidant Activity. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2002, 50, 3010–3014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rop, O.; Jurikova, T.; Mlcek, J.; Kramarova, D. Sengee Antioxidant activity and selected nutritional values of plums (Prunus domestica L.) typical of the White Carpathian Mountains. Sci. Hortic. 2009, 122, 545–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Landau, S.; Chis Ster, I. Cluster Analysis: Overview. In International Encyclopedia of Education; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2010; pp. 72–83. [Google Scholar]
- Mratinic, E.; Fotiric-Aksic, M.; Jovkovic, R. Analysis of wild sweet cherry (Prunus avium L.) germplasm diversity in south-east Serbia. ABI Genet. 2012, 44, 259–268. [Google Scholar]
- Ganopoulos, I.; Moysiadis, T.; Xanthopoulou, A.; Ganopoulou, M.; Avramidou, E.; Aravanopoulos, F.A.; Tani, E.; Madesis, P.; Tsaftaris, A.; Kazantzis, K. Diversity of morpho-physiological traits in worldwide sweet cherry cultivars of GeneBank collection using multivariate analysis. Sci. Hortic. 2015, 197, 381–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bujdosó, G.; Hrotkó, K.; Feldmane, D.; Giovannini, D.; Demirsoy, H.; Tao, R.; Malchev, S. What kind of sweet cherries do the final consumers prefer. S.-West. J. Hortic. Biol. Environ. 2020, 11, 37–48. [Google Scholar]
- Chockchaisawasdee, S.; Golding, J.B.; Vuong, Q.V.; Papoutsis, K.; Stathopoulos, C.E. Sweet cherry: Composition, postharvest preservation, processing and trends for its future use. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 55, 72–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garcia Montiel, F.; Serrano, M.; Martinez-Romero, D.; Alburquerque, N. Factors influencing fruit set and quality in different sweet cherry cultivars. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2010, 8, 1118–1128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hayaloglu, A.A.; Demir, N. Phenolic compounds, volatiles, and sensory characteristics of twelve sweet cherry (Prunus avium L.) cultivars grown in Turkey. J. Food Sci. 2016, 81, 7–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perju, I.; Mineaţă, I.; Ungureanu, I.V.; Sîrbu, S.; Golache, I.E.; Iurea, E. Agroproductive Evaluation of Some Sweet Cherry Cultivars in the Pedoclimatic Conditions of NE Romania. Sci. Pap. Ser. B. Hortic. 2024, 68, 105–110. [Google Scholar]
- Gonçalves, B.; Landbo, A.K.; Knudsen, D.; Silva, A.P.; Moutinho-Pereira, J.; Rosa, E.; Meyer, A.S. Effect of Ripeness and Postharvest Storage on the Phenolic Profiles of Cherries (Prunus avium L.). J. Agric. Food Chem. 2004, 52, 523–530. [Google Scholar]
- Ferretti, G.; Bacchetti, T.; Belleggia, A.; Neri, D. Cherry Antioxidants: From Farm to Table. Molecules 2010, 15, 6993–7005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tomás-Barberán, F.A.; Espín, J.C. Phenolic compounds and related enzymes as determinants of quality in fruits and vegetables. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2001, 81, 853–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Craciunescu, O.; Seciu-Grama, A.-M.; Mihai, E.; Utoiu, E.; Negreanu-Pirjol, T.; Lupu, C.E.; Artem, V.; Ranca, A.; Negreanu-Pirjol, B.-S. The Chemical Profile, Antioxidant, and Anti-Lipid Droplet Activity of Fluid Extracts from Romanian Cultivars of Haskap Berries, Bitter Cherries, and Red Grape Pomace for the Management of Liver Steatosis. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 16849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sirbu, S.; Oprica, L.; Poroch, V.; Iurea, E.; Corneanu, M.; Grigore, M.N. Physical Parameters, Total Phenolics, Flavonoids and Vitamin C Content of Nine Sweet Cherry Cultivars. Rev. Chim. 2018, 69, 125–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Usenik, V.; Fabčič, J.; Štampar, F. Sugars, organic acids, phenolic composition and antioxidant activity of sweet cherry (Prunus avium L.). Food Chem. 2008, 107, 185–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cosmulescu, S.N.; Trandafir, I.; Cornescu, F. Antioxidant Capacity, Total Phenols, Total Flavonoids and Colour Component of Cornelian Cherry (Cornus mas L.) Wild Genotypes. Not. Bot. Horti Agrobot. Cluj-Napoca 2018, 47, 390–394. [Google Scholar]
- Farsad, A.; Esna-Ashari, M. Genetic diversity of some Iranian sweet cherry (Prunus avium) cultivars using microsatellite markers and morphological traits. Cytol. Genet. 2016, 50, 8–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodrigues, L.C.; Morales, M.R.; Fernandes, A.J.B.; Ortiz, J.M. Morphological characterization of sweet and sour cherry cultivars in a germplasm bank at Portugal. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 2007, 55, 593–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.
Graphical distribution and map of Prunus sp. on the surface of Romania. The dots represent the distribution of cherry trees the territory and relief of Romania. The red dots represent the location of the chosen genotypes.
Figure 1.
Graphical distribution and map of Prunus sp. on the surface of Romania. The dots represent the distribution of cherry trees the territory and relief of Romania. The red dots represent the location of the chosen genotypes.
Figure 2.
Dendrogram using agglomerative hierarchical clustering (AHC) for 39 sweet cherry genotypes based on ten quantitative and two qualitative traits (total sum of squares: 9.679; percent chaining = 3.68).
Figure 2.
Dendrogram using agglomerative hierarchical clustering (AHC) for 39 sweet cherry genotypes based on ten quantitative and two qualitative traits (total sum of squares: 9.679; percent chaining = 3.68).
Figure 3.
Correlation matrix between qualitative and quantitative characteristics of fruits (n = 39). ***: high significant correlation at p < 0.05; **: distinct significant correlation at p < 0.05; *: significant correlation at p < 0.05; ns: not significant correlation; fruit weight (FW); fruit length (FL); fruit width (FWD); fruit thickness (FT); fruit geometric diameter (FGD); sphericity (Ø); stone weight (SW); stone length (SL); stone width (SWD); stone thickness (ST); flesh weight (FlW); peduncle length (LP); total soluble solids (TSS); total polyphenols (TP); total flavonoids (TF); antioxidant activity (AA).
Figure 3.
Correlation matrix between qualitative and quantitative characteristics of fruits (n = 39). ***: high significant correlation at p < 0.05; **: distinct significant correlation at p < 0.05; *: significant correlation at p < 0.05; ns: not significant correlation; fruit weight (FW); fruit length (FL); fruit width (FWD); fruit thickness (FT); fruit geometric diameter (FGD); sphericity (Ø); stone weight (SW); stone length (SL); stone width (SWD); stone thickness (ST); flesh weight (FlW); peduncle length (LP); total soluble solids (TSS); total polyphenols (TP); total flavonoids (TF); antioxidant activity (AA).
Table 1.
Coding and origin of the studied cherry trees genotypes.
| Genotype | Location | Genotype | Location | Genotype | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| G1 | Vaslui-Hupca (46°24′ N, 27°42′ E) | G14 | Suceava-Mariței (47°45′ N, 26°08′ E) | G27 | Iasi-Miroslava (47°07′ N, 27°31′ E) |
| G2 | Vaslui-Hupca (46°24′ N, 27°42′ E) | G15 | Suceava-Șerbăuți (47°49′ N, 26°08′ E) | G28 | Iasi-Miroslava (47°07′ N, 27°31′ E) |
| G3 | Vaslui-Hupca (46°24′ N, 27°42′ E) | G16 | Suceava-Dărmănești (47°44′ N, 26°06′ E) | G29 | Iasi-Miroslava (47°07′ N, 27°31′ E) |
| G4 | Vaslui-Hupca (46°24′ N, 27°42′ E) | G17 | Suceava (47°39′ N, 26°15′ E) | G30 | Suceava-Roșiori (47°21′ N, 26°24′ E) |
| G5 | Vaslui-Bîrlad (46°13′ N, 27°40′ E) | G18 | Suceava-Putna (47°52′ N, 25°36′ E) | G31 | Iași-Breazu (47°13′ N, 27°31′ E) |
| G6 | Vaslui-Bîrlad (46°13′ N, 27°40′ E) | G19 | Suceava-Călinești (47°46′ N, 26°08′ E) | G32 | Iași-Breazu 4 (47°13′ N, 27°31′ E) |
| G7 | Neamț-Căciulești (46°57′ N, 26°28′ E) | G20 | Vaslui-Bunești (46°49′ N, 27°58′ E) | G33 | Iași-Breazu 3 (47°13′ N, 27°31′ E) |
| G8 | Vrancea-Dragosloveni (45°33′ N, 27°04′ E) | G21 | Iași-Dacia 1 (47°09′ N, 27°35′ E) | G34 | Iasi-Breazu 1 (47°13′ N, 27°31′ E) |
| G9 | Neamt-Piatra Neamt (46°55′ N, 26°22′ E) | G22 | Iași-Dacia 2 (47°09′ N, 27°35′ E) | G35 | Vaslui-Floreni (46°14′ N, 27°58′ E) |
| G10 | Neamt-Piatra Neamt (46°55′ N, 26°22′ E) | G23 | Iasi-Miroslava (47°07′ N, 27°31′ E) | G36 | Iasi-Breazu 4.1 (47°13′ N, 27°31′ E) |
| G11 | Iași-Prisăcani (47°04′ N, 27°52′ E) | G24 | Iasi-Miroslava (47°07′ N, 27°31′ E) | G37 | Iasi-GB Iasi (47°04′ N, 27°37′ E) |
| G12 | Iași-Comarna (47°04′ N, 27°48′ E) | G25 | Iasi-Miroslava (47°07′ N, 27°31′ E) | G38 | Iasi-Miroslava R1PII (47°07′ N, 27°31′ E) |
| G13 | Suceava-Călinești (47°46′ N, 26°08′ E) | G26 | Iasi-Miroslava (47°07′ N, 27°31′ E) | G39 | Iasi-Maxut (47°26′ N, 26°53′ E) |
Table 2.
Weight and dimensions of fruits, stones, and peduncles of in situ collected sweet cherry genotypes (RSFG Iasi, 2018–2022).
Table 2.
Weight and dimensions of fruits, stones, and peduncles of in situ collected sweet cherry genotypes (RSFG Iasi, 2018–2022).
| Genotype | FW | FL | FT | FWD | FGD | Ø | FlW | SW | SL | SWD | ST | LP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (g) | (mm) | (mm) | (mm) | (mm) | (mm2) | (g) | (g) | (mm) | (mm) | (mm) | (mm) | |
| G1 | 1.97 | 15.92 | 13.56 | 15.03 | 14.76 | 0.93 | 1.79 | 0.18 | 9.45 | 7.24 | 5.38 | 45.00 |
| G2 | 2.56 | 15.72 | 15.06 | 15.82 | 15.49 | 0.99 | 2.31 | 0.25 | 9.33 | 7.99 | 6.36 | 45.10 |
| G3 | 1.97 | 16.52 | 12.91 | 15.34 | 14.81 | 0.90 | 1.77 | 0.20 | 9.82 | 7.20 | 5.51 | 43.00 |
| G4 | 2.15 | 12.07 | 13.99 | 14.33 | 13.39 | 1.11 | 1.96 | 0.19 | 8.58 | 7.42 | 6.32 | 45.00 |
| G5 | 1.40 | 16.56 | 11.61 | 12.54 | 13.37 | 0.81 | 1.23 | 0.17 | 8.37 | 7.18 | 5.68 | 45.67 |
| G6 | 2.60 | 18.51 | 14.89 | 15.45 | 16.16 | 0.87 | 2.40 | 0.20 | 8.74 | 7.56 | 5.98 | 45.20 |
| G7 | 3.04 | 18.51 | 16.07 | 15.27 | 16.51 | 0.89 | 2.75 | 0.29 | 9.48 | 8.70 | 6.87 | 40.72 |
| G8 | 1.69 | 13.79 | 13.10 | 13.22 | 13.33 | 0.97 | 1.45 | 0.24 | 8.70 | 7.92 | 6.57 | 48.14 |
| G9 | 2.93 | 16.55 | 15.19 | 15.89 | 15.82 | 0.96 | 2.61 | 0.32 | 9.52 | 8.46 | 6.94 | 45.28 |
| G10 | 3.20 | 18.52 | 16.58 | 15.05 | 16.61 | 0.90 | 2.93 | 0.27 | 8.88 | 8.51 | 6.51 | 45.00 |
| G11 | 3.20 | 18.12 | 16.28 | 16.57 | 16.92 | 0.93 | 2.94 | 0.26 | 9.60 | 8.24 | 6.17 | 44.90 |
| G12 | 2.32 | 17.06 | 14.28 | 14.06 | 15.03 | 0.88 | 2.13 | 0.19 | 8.22 | 7.54 | 6.00 | 36.89 |
| G13 | 1.49 | 13.26 | 12.53 | 12.25 | 12.64 | 0.95 | 1.27 | 0.22 | 8.45 | 7.95 | 6.06 | 45.00 |
| G14 | 1.79 | 13.54 | 13.14 | 13.69 | 13.42 | 0.99 | 1.59 | 0.20 | 8.65 | 7.75 | 5.84 | 45.00 |
| G15 | 1.15 | 11.97 | 11.23 | 11.84 | 11.65 | 0.97 | 0.99 | 0.16 | 8.45 | 6.99 | 5.30 | 36.28 |
| G16 | 1.28 | 11.74 | 11.32 | 13.54 | 12.13 | 1.03 | 1.08 | 0.20 | 9.14 | 6.74 | 5.46 | 44.11 |
| G17 | 1.56 | 13.61 | 12.14 | 12.47 | 12.69 | 0.93 | 1.41 | 0.15 | 7.68 | 6.72 | 5.37 | 46.81 |
| G18 | 1.53 | 12.52 | 12.27 | 12.74 | 12.48 | 1.00 | 1.34 | 0.19 | 8.67 | 7.37 | 5.92 | 42.22 |
| G19 | 1.21 | 11.93 | 10.83 | 12.67 | 11.76 | 0.99 | 1.01 | 0.20 | 9.10 | 6.82 | 5.52 | 53.42 |
| G20 | 2.48 | 15.88 | 14.10 | 15.08 | 14.96 | 0.94 | 2.26 | 0.22 | 9.40 | 7.86 | 5.77 | 42.67 |
| G21 | 0.92 | 11.76 | 8.76 | 11.64 | 10.60 | 0.90 | 0.75 | 0.17 | 9.30 | 7.48 | 6.09 | 47.39 |
| G22 | 0.70 | 10.56 | 9.58 | 10.71 | 10.25 | 0.97 | 0.54 | 0.16 | 8.24 | 6.81 | 5.96 | 46.36 |
| G23 | 1.19 | 12.56 | 11.50 | 11.71 | 11.89 | 0.95 | 1.02 | 0.17 | 7.92 | 7.80 | 6.24 | 53.72 |
| G24 | 0.78 | 10.80 | 9.54 | 9.95 | 10.06 | 0.93 | 0.68 | 0.10 | 7.30 | 6.44 | 5.17 | 42.72 |
| G25 | 0.77 | 9.47 | 9.13 | 10.62 | 9.70 | 1.02 | 0.68 | 0.09 | 8.41 | 5.99 | 4.83 | 41.36 |
| G26 | 0.96 | 10.51 | 10.05 | 12.10 | 10.83 | 1.03 | 0.71 | 0.25 | 9.48 | 7.48 | 6.03 | 63.83 |
| G27 | 1.14 | 12.11 | 10.69 | 11.64 | 11.44 | 0.94 | 0.96 | 0.18 | 8.52 | 8.48 | 5.93 | 56.56 |
| G28 | 1.44 | 12.98 | 11.90 | 12.70 | 12.49 | 0.96 | 1.17 | 0.27 | 8.83 | 7.82 | 6.76 | 44.75 |
| G29 | 1.13 | 11.59 | 10.86 | 11.61 | 11.32 | 0.98 | 0.90 | 0.23 | 8.21 | 7.95 | 6.48 | 44.83 |
| G30 | 1.73 | 15.12 | 12.82 | 12.85 | 13.52 | 0.89 | 1.52 | 0.21 | 8.19 | 7.38 | 6.69 | 56.08 |
| G31 | 1.10 | 12.10 | 11.40 | 11.40 | 11.60 | 0.96 | 0.92 | 0.18 | 8.17 | 6.11 | 6.01 | 46.72 |
| G32 | 0.61 | 9.96 | 8.66 | 9.02 | 9.18 | 0.92 | 0.51 | 0.10 | 6.88 | 6.90 | 5.19 | 51.94 |
| G33 | 0.96 | 11.10 | 10.27 | 11.88 | 11.04 | 0.99 | 0.79 | 0.17 | 8.87 | 6.62 | 5.22 | 50.58 |
| G34 | 0.99 | 12.10 | 10.15 | 11.61 | 11.23 | 0.93 | 0.84 | 0.15 | 7.93 | 6.80 | 5.12 | 55.00 |
| G35 | 1.26 | 12.19 | 11.40 | 12.26 | 11.91 | 0.98 | 1.12 | 0.14 | 8.50 | 6.91 | 5.48 | 44.92 |
| G36 | 1.48 | 13.51 | 12.61 | 12.68 | 12.89 | 0.95 | 1.35 | 0.13 | 7.88 | 6.30 | 5.59 | 36.33 |
| G37 | 1.00 | 11.59 | 9.81 | 10.77 | 10.67 | 0.92 | 0.87 | 0.13 | 7.31 | 8.83 | 4.89 | 40.47 |
| G38 | 2.82 | 16.70 | 15.38 | 16.52 | 16.14 | 0.97 | 2.50 | 0.32 | 9.84 | 7.75 | 7.10 | 52.47 |
| G39 | 2.65 | 21.17 | 18.49 | 21.48 | 20.27 | 0.96 | 2.36 | 0.29 | 10.49 | 7.75 | 6.32 | 46.33 |
| Average | 1.67 | 13.85 | 12.41 | 13.23 | 13.10 | 0.95 | 1.47 | 0.20 | 8.68 | 7.43 | 5.91 | 46.35 |
| Min | 0.61 | 9.47 | 8.66 | 9.02 | 9.18 | 0.81 | 0.51 | 0.09 | 6.88 | 5.99 | 4.83 | 36.28 |
| Max | 3.20 | 21.17 | 18.49 | 21.48 | 20.27 | 1.11 | 2.94 | 0.32 | 10.49 | 8.83 | 7.10 | 63.83 |
| STDEV | 0.76 | 2.86 | 2.38 | 2.31 | 2.42 | 0.05 | 0.72 | 0.06 | 0.77 | 0.71 | 0.58 | 5.71 |
| COVAR | 45.44 | 20.62 | 19.15 | 17.45 | 18.44 | 5.53 | 48.72 | 28.96 | 8.85 | 9.58 | 9.84 | 12.32 |
fruit weight (FW); fruit length (FL); fruit width (FWD); fruit thickness (FT); fruit geometric diameter (FGD); sphericity (Ø); stone weight (SW); stone length (SL); stone width (SWD); stone thickness (ST); flesh weight (FlW); peduncle length (LP).
Table 3.
Biochemical composition of in situ collected sweet cherry genotypes.
| Genotype | TSS | TP | TF | AA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (°Brix) | (mg GAE·g−1 f.w.) | (mg EC·g−1 f.w.) | (%) | |
| G1 | 17.02 | 2.55 | 0.37 | 83.20 |
| G2 | 14.00 | 0.87 | 0.18 | 83.29 |
| G3 | 21.00 | 2.49 | 0.45 | 89.95 |
| G4 | 16.80 | 2.12 | 0.41 | 78.01 |
| G5 | 26.00 | 3.85 | 0.87 | 55.06 |
| G6 | 20.40 | 1.14 | 0.48 | 72.26 |
| G7 | 11.20 | 1.61 | 0.34 | 74.11 |
| G8 | 21.00 | 3.97 | 0.79 | 54.11 |
| G9 | 16.60 | 2.70 | 0.46 | 51.10 |
| G10 | 15.00 | 3.06 | 0.63 | 81.43 |
| G11 | 22.00 | 2.72 | 0.60 | 73.89 |
| G12 | 16.80 | 0.24 | 0.24 | 82.02 |
| G13 | 24.60 | 0.79 | 0.96 | 71.73 |
| G14 | 22.50 | 0.82 | 0.67 | 42.84 |
| G15 | 20.40 | 0.57 | 0.52 | 75.00 |
| G16 | 22.40 | 0.55 | 0.44 | 76.32 |
| G17 | 22.00 | 0.98 | 0.81 | 46.28 |
| G18 | 22.40 | 0.57 | 0.57 | 62.88 |
| G19 | 28.20 | 0.61 | 0.55 | 44.79 |
| G20 | 21.40 | 0.35 | 0.26 | 70.74 |
| G21 | 21.20 | 0.24 | 0.14 | 97.52 |
| G22 | 23.00 | 0.30 | 0.22 | 84.76 |
| G23 | 20.00 | 0.40 | 0.25 | 73.19 |
| G24 | 26.00 | 0.81 | 0.56 | 54.39 |
| G25 | 24.00 | 0.42 | 0.28 | 91.47 |
| G26 | 16.00 | 0.28 | 0.16 | 96.20 |
| G27 | 14.30 | 0.27 | 0.17 | 90.79 |
| G28 | 22.60 | 0.28 | 0.23 | 79.91 |
| G29 | 18.20 | 0.67 | 0.58 | 73.39 |
| G30 | 16.33 | 0.15 | 0.08 | 98.22 |
| G31 | 12.50 | 0.17 | 0.13 | 96.71 |
| G32 | 22.70 | 0.88 | 0.60 | 70.40 |
| G33 | 22.00 | 0.51 | 0.37 | 79.21 |
| G34 | 11.40 | 0.18 | 0.15 | 87.35 |
| G35 | 21.40 | 0.16 | 0.10 | 93.06 |
| G36 | 22.20 | 0.63 | 0.38 | 92.63 |
| G37 | 18.60 | 0.47 | 0.26 | 85.28 |
| G38 | 23.10 | 0.50 | 0.38 | 75.41 |
| G39 | 19.00 | 0.64 | 0.45 | 51.45 |
| Average | 19.90 | 1.04 | 0.41 | 75.39 |
| Min | 11.20 | 0.15 | 0.08 | 42.84 |
| Max | 28.20 | 3.97 | 0.96 | 98.22 |
| STDEV | 4.07 | 1.06 | 0.22 | 15.68 |
| COVAR | 20.44 | 101.58 | 54.27 | 20.80 |
total soluble solids (TSS); total polyphenols (TP); total flavonoids (TF); antioxidant activity (AA%).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Sîrbu, S.; Oprică, L.; Popovici, L.-F.; Sîrbu, C.; Mineață, I.; Ungureanu, I.V.; Golache, I.E. Fruit Characteristics of In Situ Collected Sweet Cherry (Prunus avium L.) Genotypes. Horticulturae 2025, 11, 340. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae11030340
AMA Style
Sîrbu S, Oprică L, Popovici L-F, Sîrbu C, Mineață I, Ungureanu IV, Golache IE. Fruit Characteristics of In Situ Collected Sweet Cherry (Prunus avium L.) Genotypes. Horticulturae. 2025; 11(3):340. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae11030340
Chicago/Turabian StyleSîrbu, Sorina, Lăcrămioara Oprică, Lucia-Florina Popovici, Culiţă Sîrbu, Iulia Mineață, Ionuț Vasile Ungureanu, and Iuliana Elena Golache. 2025. "Fruit Characteristics of In Situ Collected Sweet Cherry (Prunus avium L.) Genotypes" Horticulturae 11, no. 3: 340. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae11030340
APA StyleSîrbu, S., Oprică, L., Popovici, L.-F., Sîrbu, C., Mineață, I., Ungureanu, I. V., & Golache, I. E. (2025). Fruit Characteristics of In Situ Collected Sweet Cherry (Prunus avium L.) Genotypes. Horticulturae, 11(3), 340. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae11030340
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
