Next Article in Journal
Viroid GYSVd1 Exhibited Different Regulations on the Qualities of Berries and Wines from 6 Grape Varieties
Next Article in Special Issue
Effects Elicited by Compost Tea on the Primary Metabolome and the Nutraceutical Quality of Radish Root
Previous Article in Journal
Optimizing Planting Density for Increased Resource Use Efficiency in Baby-Leaf Production of Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) and Basil (Ocimum basilicum L.) in Vertical Farms
Previous Article in Special Issue
Impact of Different Shading Conditions on Processing Tomato Yield and Quality Under Organic Agrivoltaic Systems
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Horticulturae
Volume 11
Issue 4
10.3390/horticulturae11040344
horticulturae-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

Yield, Morphological, and Qualitative Profile of Nine Landraces of Unripe Melon from the Puglia Region Grown in Open Field

by
Adriano Didonna
1,
Annalisa Somma
1,*,
Onofrio Davide Palmitessa
1,
Maria Gonnella
2,
Beniamino Leoni
1,
Angelo Signore
1,
Massimiliano Renna
1 and
Pietro Santamaria
1
1
Department of Soil, Plant and Food Sciences, University of Bari Aldo Moro, 70126 Bari, Italy
2
Institute of Sciences of Food Production, National Research Council of Italy, 70126 Bari, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Horticulturae 2025, 11(4), 344; https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae11040344
Submission received: 13 February 2025 / Revised: 10 March 2025 / Accepted: 20 March 2025 / Published: 22 March 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Productivity and Quality of Vegetable Crops under Climate Change)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In recent years, increasing attention in regional and national markets has been given to the Puglia region’s traditional landraces of unripe melon (Cucumis melo L.). However, distinguishing these landraces is challenging due to their significant variability. A detailed morphological characterization is crucial to identify the unique features of each variety, while also assessing their productive potential. This study evaluated nine Puglia landraces of C. melo: ‘Barattiere’, ‘Carosello leccese’, ‘Carosello scopatizzo’, ‘Cucumbr di Martina Franca’, ‘Carosello di Polignano’, ‘Carosello striato tondo di Massafra’, ‘Spuredda bianca’, ‘Spuredda nera’, and ‘Spuredda fasciata’. The aims of the work were to identify specific and distinctive characters for these landraces, subdivided into traditional macro-groups (“Barattiere”, “Caroselli”, and “Spuredde”), and to evaluate productive and quality traits that could be interesting for future commercial promotion. The main findings revealed distinct characteristics among the “Barattiere” group and the other two macro-groups across all the parameters considered. The differentiation of the “Caroselli” and “Spuredde” macro-groups, on the other hand, was more challenging because of similar intragroup characteristics. In particular, a case of synonymy was found between the landraces ‘Carosello leccese’ and ‘Spuredda bianca’, and a high degree of dissimilarity was identified between ‘Carosello di Polignano’ and the other landraces.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

The Puglia region (Southern Italy) is a treasure trove of horticultural agrobiodiversity [1,2,3]. Among the most important vegetables grown in this region—such as the tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.), artichoke (Cynara cardunculus L.), rapini (Brassica rapa L. subsp. sylvestris L. Janch. var. esculenta Hort.), broccoli and cauliflower (Brassica oleracea L. var italica and Brassica oleracea L. var. botrytis), and fennel (Foeniculum vulgare Mill.) [4]—Puglia is particularly renowned for its melon production (Cucumis melo L.), especially unripe melons (Figure 1), traditionally consumed as an alternative to cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) [5,6]. Its fruits are harvested when the seeds are only faintly outlined and sold as “whole-edible” fruits so that the exocarp and placental parts, apart from the mesocarp [5,7], can be consumed.
From a nutritional point of view, the ability to eat all parts of the fruit is remarkable considering that the placenta is rich in polyphenols and tocopherols, especially α-tocopherols. These compounds provide health benefits, in particular for the cardiovascular system [7,8,9,10].
In the Puglia region, hundreds of hectares are committed to the cultivation of landraces producing unripe melons (Cucumis melo L.) [11]. These are locally classified into three macro-groups: the “Caroselli” and “Barattiere” groups, primarily cultivated in the Bari and Taranto areas of Puglia, and the “Spuredde” group, characteristic of the Salento zone, corresponding to the Brindisi and Lecce areas in the south of Puglia [5,11,12]. Regarding the first two groups, a study from 2017 [13] showed that “Barattiere” and “Caroselli” belong to two distinct genetic subpopulations, confuting the assumption that “Barattiere” is a variant of “Caroselli”. In particular, the landraces belonging to the macro-group “Caroselli” were classified under the taxonomic group chate [13]. However, the taxonomic classification of the macro-groups “Barattiere” and “Spuredde” remains unclear, as does the distinction between “Caroselli” and “Spuredde”. These unripe melons, as local populations selected annually by small farmers, are identified by dialectal names that often vary from farmer to farmer [12,14]. Consequently, the classification of a landrace into one macro-group or the other depends more on socio-territorial factors than on morphological or productive difference, with frequent occurrences of homonyms and synonyms [6,12,15].
These unripe melon landraces are characterized by a high degree of intraspecific variability [6,13,16,17], typical of C. melo landraces [18,19]. For this reason, these landraces do not meet the minimum requirements for inclusion in the Common Catalogue of varieties of vegetable species, which is the catalogue of marketable varieties in Europe [20,21,22,23]. These populations can be placed on the market as a “commercial” category, for which registration in the Common Catalogue is not required, and are commercially identified only by the species (the producer is free to specify a variety denomination, if they deem it appropriate). In fact, these landraces are labelled with a specific label by seed companies that report essential data to protect the farmer (including germination and purity of the seed). The large intraspecific variability and high fragmentation of the production areas, in addition to the lack of detailed identification on commercial labels, has led to confusion among producers and consumers [6].
On this basis, it is essential to identify the diverse landraces through morphological and agronomic traits to provide clear and unambiguous information [24,25,26]. This is in line with the proposals of the main programmes for the protection of agricultural biodiversity such as the Italian National Plan for Biodiversity of Agricultural Interest (PNBA). Among the essential actions for the protection of agrobiodiversity, PNBA reserves a fundamental role for the morphological characterization of landraces according to common principles and techniques [27].
Furthermore, although most unripe melon landraces are cultivated on small plots and by individual farmers, there has been increasing interest in recent years from both productive-commercial and historical-traditional perspectives. Regarding the first aspect, several studies have focused on the yield and quality of C. melo landraces [7,28,29,30]. For instance, Somma et al. [6] and Palmitessa et al. [30] demonstrated that certain unripe melon landraces can achieve production levels comparable to those of commercial cucumber (C. sativus L.) varieties. Additionally, some C. melo landraces exhibit tolerance to specific pathogens, highlighting their potential use as rootstocks for other susceptible cucurbit crops [31,32]. From a cultural and traditional perspective, it is important to highlight that some unripe melon landraces have recently been recognized as Traditional Agrifood Products (TAP) of the Puglia region. This designation formalizes their intrinsic link to the local population, customs, and traditions of the region where they are cultivated, and represents a valid tool for the promotion of agrifood products [33,34].
On the other hand, some of Puglia’s landraces of unripe melon are at a serious risk of genetic erosion or extinction today, as demonstrated by the inclusion of some of them in regional catalogues and national registers aimed at protecting plant biodiversity [35,36]. It is therefore essential to study their characteristics and properties to preserve vegetable biodiversity and the traditions of their areas of origin.
The aims of this research, with reference to nine landraces of the Puglia region’s unripe melons, were as follows: (i) to identify the specific and distinctive characters able to univocally distinguish the landraces; (ii) to evaluate productive and quality traits that could be interesting for future commercial promotion; and (iii) to explore possible differences between macro-groups of these unripe melons (“Barattiere”, “Caroselli”, and “Spuredde”).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Location

The experiment was carried out between May and July 2022 (spring–summer) at the experimental farm “La Noria” of the Institute of Sciences of Food Production, National Research Council, located in Mola di Bari (BA, Puglia region, Southern Italy, 41.062156° N, 17.066914° E) in open-field conditions.

2.2. Plant Material and Growing Conditions

Nine landraces of C. melo traditionally cultivated in the Puglia region (Italy) were tested: ‘Barattiere’ (BT); ‘Carosello leccese’ (CAL); ‘Carosello scopatizzo’ (‘Scopatizzo’—CAS); ‘Cucumbr di Martina Franca’ (CUM); ‘Carosello di Polignano’ (‘Tomentoso’—CAP); ‘Carosello striato tondo di Massafra’ (CAM); ‘Spuredda bianca’ (SB); ‘Spuredda nera’ (SN); and ‘Spuredda fasciata’ (SF).
Seedlings were provided by a local plant nursery using seeds self-produced by local farmers. Transplant was carried out at the two-true-leaves stage on 9 May 2022 at 100 cm between rows and 40 cm within row (with a final density of 2.5 plants/m2). The main stem of each plant was vertically trained. Based on the pruning approach, two different growing systems were tested for each landrace: “wild” and “cut”. The wild treatment did not involve any topping but rearing of the main stem and free growth of the primary, secondary, and possible tertiary side shoots. The cut treatment involved rearing of the main stem and topping of the side shoots after the second node bearing a female or hermaphrodite flower. For the landrace BT, the treatment was developed by topping the main stem at the second node and growing one of the primary side shoots in vertical as the main stem. This treatment was developed in accordance with local cultivation practices and the sexual expression of BT, in which the main stem does not produce fruiting flowers [5,6,11,37].
Plants were grown according to local practices and irrigated daily with a micro-irrigation system.
Daily temperature and relative humidity values were recorded at 15 min intervals for the entire duration of the experiment. Day/night temperatures were 29 ± 7.0/26 ± 5 °C and day/night relative humidity was 71.0 ± 23/66 ± 22%.

2.3. Experimental Design

The experimental design was a split-plot with three repetitions, considering the growing system as the main plot and the nine varieties as the sub-plot. The elementary unit consisted of five experimental plants.

2.4. Morpho-Physiological Descriptors

The landraces of C. melo were described according to the descriptor model of the GIBA (Gruppo di Lavoro Nazionale sulla Biodiversità Agraria, i.e., the Italian “National Working Group on Agricultural Biodiversity”) for melon (Rif. CPVO TP/104/2) and the guidelines to conduct tests of distinctness, uniformity, and stability of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV, TG/104/5 Rev. 2) [27,38]. These guidelines were integrated with further morphological descriptors of the International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI) and other studies focused on the morphological characterization of C. melo varieties [39]. The following plant organs were considered: seeds, true leaves, flowers, young fruits, and harvested fruits.

2.5. Seed Biometrics

For each landrace, biometric descriptors were recorded on an adequate seed sample, namely seed length, seed width, seed thickness, and the ratio between length and width.

2.6. Leaf Biometrics and Chlorophyll Content

Leaves between the fifth and eighth node of the vertically grown stem (the main stem for “Carosello” and “Spuredde” groups and a primary side shoot for BT) of the plants with at least eleven nodes were considered for analysis and data collection, in accordance with the reference guidelines [27,38,39]. The following descriptors were measured on fully grown leaves at the end of the experimental cycle: leaf area (LA, calculated considering only the leaf blade excluding petiole), leaf petiole length, fresh weight (FW), dry weight (DW), dry matter (DM), and specific leaf area (SLA). The DW was measured after drying fresh samples in a forced draft oven at 65 °C until constant weight was reached. The dry matter content (DM) of leaves was calculated as a percentage of the DW in FW; the SLA was calculated as a ratio of leaf area to leaf DM. Furthermore, the chlorophyll content of 54 plants (six plants for each landrace) was measured using an Apogee chlorophyll metre (MC-100, LI-COR instrument, Ecosearch s.r.l., Montone, Perugia, Italy) on fully expanded leaves.

2.7. Fruit Yield and Biometrics

The growing cycle lasted eleven weeks, from 9 May 2022 (transplantation date) to 25 July 2022; fruits were harvested three times a week, approximately every two days. The unripe fruits of about 200–350 g were treated as the stage of commercial maturity, according to the local practices.
The following yield descriptors were measured: number of fruits harvested per plant (in weight and in number), fruit fresh weight (FW) and dry weight (DW). The DW was measured after drying fresh samples (half of each fruit) in a forced draft oven at 65 °C until constant weight was reached. The dry matter content (DM) of fruit was calculated as a percentage of the DW in FW. Subsequently, the biometric characteristics of the fruits were measured, also considering the morphological descriptors requested by the descriptive guidelines: equatorial diameter (diameter of the maximum cross section of the fruit), polar diameter (diameter of the cross section of the fruit near the peduncular extremity, approximately 1 cm from the peduncular extremity), fruit length (distance between the two poles of the fruit in longitudinal section), endosperm length and width, mesocarp thickness, and peduncle length [6,7]. Moreover, five descriptors characterizing the fruits’ exocarp were considered: colour, rind hairiness, grooves, wrinkling, and the presence of patches.

2.8. Fruit Quality and Commercial Descriptors

To determine the quality and commercial values of the nine landraces of C. melo, the following descriptors were analysed: total soluble solids content, measured using a digital refractometer (DBR 55-0/55 Brix; Giorgio Bormac s.r.l, Napoli Italy) (TSS), fruit firmness (FF), measured using a portable analogic durometer (53207, Turoni, Forlì, Italy), and colour descriptors. The colour analysis was carried out on the exocarp and mesocarp of 12 freshly cut fruits of each landrace using a portable colorimeter (Minolta Chroma Meter CR-400; Minolta Camera Co. Ltd., Osaka, Japan), expressing the results using the CIELAB colour scale (L, a*, b*). This scale consists of three coordinates: “lightness” (L), whose value varies between 0 (black) and 1 (white); “red/green chromaticity or redness” (a*), where positive values tend to red and negative values tend to green; and “yellow/blue” chromaticity or yellowness” (b*), where positive values tend to yellow and negative values tend to blue. Furthermore, derived colour descriptors were calculated: hue angle (h° = tan−1 b*/a*), indicating the dominant colour, and colour saturation or chroma (C = [(a*)2 + (b*)2]½. The colorimeter was calibrated with a standard reference having L, a* and b* values of 104.34, 0.07, and 2.39, respectively.

2.9. Statistical Analysis

All data underwent an analysis of variance (ANOVA) using the General Linear Model procedure of SAS software (SAS version 9.1, SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA). According to the research objectives, the means were compared using orthogonal contrasts with one degree of freedom (eight contrasts): (i) BT vs. others; (ii) (“Caroselli”: CAL, CAM, CAP, CAS, CUM) vs. (“Spuredde”: SB, SF, SN); (iii) SB vs. (SF and SN); (iv) SF vs. SN; (v) (CAL and CAP) vs. (CAM, CAS, CUM); (vi) CAL vs. CAP; (vii) CAS vs. (CAM and CUM); and (viii) CAM vs. CUM. Since none of the results were statistically influenced by the pruning system and the interaction between landrace and pruning system, the means of the two growth systems are reported in the tables.
For a visual analysis of the data, a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) (XLStat, version 2023.2.1414, Addinsoft, Paris, France) was performed on the mean centred and standardized (unit variance scaled) data prior to the analysis. The data matrix submitted to the PCA was made up of nine observations (one for each landrace) and 32 variables (fruit yield per plant; number of fruits per plant; fruit fresh weight; fruit dry matter; fruit length; fruit equatorial diameter; fruit polar diameter; endosperm length; endosperm width; mesocarp thickness; fruit peduncle length; mesocarp brightness; mesocarp redness; mesocarp yellowness; mesocarp hue angle; mesocarp saturation; exocarp brightness; exocarp redness; exocarp yellowness; exocarp hue angle; exocarp saturation; leaf area; leaf petiole length; leaf fresh weight; leaf dry matter; specific leaf area; leaf chlorophyll content; seed length; seed width; seed thickness; soluble solids content; epicarp hardness). The results of the PCA are shown as biplots of scores (landraces) and loadings (variables). Finally, the Agglomerative Hierarchical Clustering (AHC) method was used to group the elements according to their similarity, starting from a bottom-up approach. The data were analyzed to quantify the dissimilarity between the observations. Subsequently, clusters were iteratively formed by joining the two most similar groups at each step, using a linkage criterion such as the single, complete, or average linkage method. The result was represented by means of a dendrogram, which illustrates the hierarchical structure of the clusters.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Pruning Effectiveness

In this research, the pruning practice was tested to fit the plants in a vertical training system at a higher density compared to the common non-trained system in open field. Shortening the lateral shoots at two nodes was a common practice also observed in previous work [6,28,29] that largely advantaged the cultural practices and the manual harvest compared to non-pruned plants. The results in terms of morphology, production, or fruit quality vary from variety to variety and depending on the cultivation technique [40,41,42]. In this research, no substantial differences were found between pruned and unpruned plants in any of the descriptors considered. Thus, in light of the benefits in terms of facilitating harvesting, aeration of the foliage, and reduction in shading in the row, the pruning system used made it possible to improve operations without affecting harvesting results.

3.2. Morphological Analysis

The complete morphological characterization of the nine landraces is reported in the Supplementary Materials (Table S1).
The landraces of C. melo present a high level of intraspecific distinctness, which determines numerous individual differences at the phenotypic level; nevertheless, some characteristics of the populations may be very similar to each other. In this regard, with the support of the morphological characterization tools, the varieties studied were described and compared with each other in order to identify their distinctive characteristics.

3.2.1. Plant Morphology

Melon plants showed prostrate growth habit. With the exception of BT plants, the C. melo landraces showed the formation of shortened internodes and female flowers in the first growth phase, commonly called “basal rosette” (Figure 2). At this stage of growth, an initial distinction is made between the macro-group “Barattiere”, which does not develop female flowers during the basal rosette stage, and the macro-groups “Caroselli” and “Spuredde”, which, by contrast, exhibit this characteristic.
The number of shortened internodes in the basal rosette phase was approximatively up to five nodes for CAM, CAS, CUM, and SF; seven nodes for CAL, SB, and SN; and ten nodes for CAP. The length of the elongated internodes on the vertically trained main stem (primary side shoot for BT) was on average 6.75 cm for CAL, CAM, CAS, CUM, SF, and SB and 9.20 cm for CAP, SN, and BT. Fruits of C. melo landraces were generally developed on the shortened internodes in the basal rosette phase, on the main stem, and at the first or second node of side shoots.

3.2.2. Seeds

The seeds generally had a so-called “pine-nut” shape, with the apex tending to be rounded (Figure 3). The only exception were CAS seeds, which had a more pronounced apical protrusion, clearly visible in lateral section (Figure 3). The colour of the seed tegument varies between creamy-white and creamy-yellow; specifically, BT and CAS seeds tend to the latter colour compared to the others (Figure 3).
BT seeds were 10% shorter and 3% wider than “Caroselli” and “Spuredde” seeds (Table 1); similarly, seeds from the “Caroselli” group were found to be 2% wider than seeds from the “Spuredde” group (Table 1). Moreover, BT seeds were 7% thinner and had a length/width ratio 12% lower than the other two groups (Table 1). These differences were also found when comparing “Caroselli” and “Spuredde”, with the seeds of the former group being 20% thicker and having a 2% lower length/width ratio than the seeds of the latter group (Table 1).
Within the “Spuredde” group, SB presented a seed length 5% greater than SF and SN while SF, in turn, exhibited the same percentage difference compared to SN (Table 1). In addition, a 20% lower seed thickness was found in SB, compared to SF and SN (Table 1). An 8% variation in thickness was also observed between SF and SN (Table 1). Considering the “Caroselli” group, CAP and CAL seeds were less thick than CAM, CAS, and CUM seeds (1.89 and 2.18 mm, respectively). Moreover, CAL seeds were 20% thicker than those of CAP (Table 1). Appreciable differences were found in the comparison of CAS vs. (CAM and CUM), where CAS seeds were 30% shorter and 13% tighter than CAM and CUM seeds and presented a 19% lower length/width ratio (Table 1). CAS seeds were 20% thicker than the other two “Caroselli” landrace seeds (Table 1). Finally, the seed sizes of CAM (length, width, thickness, and length/width ratio) were always greater than those of CUM (28%, 14%, 8%, and 12%, respectively (Table 1). The other differences between groups and landraces, all being <10%, were not treated as significant as they could result from different fruit ripening stages or plant stress conditions.
Based on these data, it can be stated that visually distinguishing the seeds of these landraces is challenging; however, some of them exhibit distinctive seed characteristics that facilitate such identification. Specifically, BT and CAS seeds can be distinguished by their characteristic colour and shape; in the case of CAS, they can be distinguished by their smaller size as well. Furthermore, the data suggest the potential for identifying CAM seeds, which are significantly larger compared to those of the other varieties. Indeed, CAM seeds were longer and wider by at least 22% and 11%, respectively, than those of other varieties.

3.2.3. Leaves

BT leaves showed a chlorophyll content 24% higher than “Caroselli” and “Spuredde” (Figure 4a), while the leaf area of BT was 13% lower than that of “Caroselli” and “Spuredde” (Figure 4b). In contrast, the leaf area of SB was 37% higher than SF and SN (Figure 4b). Within the “Caroselli” group, CAP and CAL reported a 49% higher leaf area than CAM, CAS, and CUM; CAS presented an 11% lower value than CAM and CUM (Figure 4b). BT also showed a petiole 33% shorter compared to the “Caroselli” (19.3 cm, on average) and “Spuredde” (17.0 cm, on average) groups (Figure 4c). The petiole was longer in CAP than in CAL by 18%, and both presented an average petiole length 48% longer than the other “Caroselli” landraces (CAM, CAS, CUM; Figure 4c). Moreover, the leaf DM of BT was 22% higher than the other two macro-groups and 19% lower in SF than SN (Figure 4d). Finally, leaf FW was 39% higher for CAP and CAL compared to the group formed by CAM, CAS, and CUM (Figure 4d); the complete data are available in Table S2.
These results highlight the fact that leaf descriptors make it possible to discriminate BT from the other two macro-groups (“Caroselli” and “Spuredde”). In contrast, distinguishing the leaves of “Caroselli” from those of “Spuredde” was more challenging. However, within the macro-groups, some significant differences were identified, particularly in terms of leaf area and petiole length (Figure 4b,c).
Nevertheless, on the basis of common shape and morphological descriptors of the leaves, the nine landraces analyzed may be divided into three hypothetical groups: group 1 (BT, CAM, CAP, and CUM), group 2 (CAL, SB, SF, and SN), and group 3 (CAS) (Figure 5).
Group 1 shows an intermediate lobe development, the presence of a poorly pronounced terminal lobe, and generally penta-lobed leaves (Figure 5). All the landraces of this group shared the characteristic of a blistered leaf. The lamina colour can vary between green (tending to be darker green in BT) and light green (CAM, CAP, CUM; Figure 5). BT presented a dentate margin and pronounced dentation, while CAM, CAP, and CUM—although presenting a dentate and uneven margin—have weak or almost no margin dentation (Figure 5). On the other hand, group 2 includes the landraces characterized by a leaf with more marked/pronounced and distinguishable lobes, of which there are five (Figure 5). The terminal lobe is more elongated compared to the other groups. The leaves appeared fairly blistered, except for SN, which showed a smoother leaf than the other landraces of group 2 (Figure 5). The lamina colour was between green and light green. The margin dentation was more pronounced for CAL, SB, and SF than for SN (Figure 5). CAS can be considered a group apart from the other varieties due to the unique characteristics of the leaves (Figure 5). Specifically, the leaves were uniform, trilobed with weak or almost no lobe development and a poorly developed terminal lobe, albeit of medium size; the margin did not present dentation, the lamina was slightly blistered and light green (Figure 5). In this empirical observation of leaf shape and morphology, it is useful to note that the groups 1, 2, and 3 were composed differently among the three macro-groups “Barattiere”, “Caroselli” and “Spuredde”, despite previously analyzed data. This highlights the critical role of data in distinguishing between the landraces, which may appear to share similar leaf shapes and characteristics upon visual and empirical evaluation.

3.2.4. Fruits

BT differs from the “Caroselli” and “Spuredde” macro-groups in peduncle length and fruit size (Table 2). In particular, BT had peduncles 24% longer than “Caroselli” and “Spuredde” and its fruits were 20% wider (equatorial diameter) than the other two macro-groups (Table 2). However, BT had lower fruit and endosperm length measurements compared to the other landraces, by 20% and 26%, respectively (Table 2). These differences were reflected in BT’s lower fruit length/equatorial diameter ratio (L/Eq) (37%) and endosperm length/width ratio (L/W(end.)) (34%) in comparison to the other landraces. Furthermore, BT presented the highest mesocarp thickness (Table 2).
Similarly, the fruits of the “Caroselli” group had 27% longer peduncles than the fruits of the “Spuredde” group (Table 2). The “Caroselli” group presented wider (equatorial diameter, polar diameter, and endosperm width greater by 11%, 9%, and 23%, respectively) but shorter fruits (fruit and endosperm length 18% and 14% shorter, respectively) compared to the “Spuredde” group. Finally, L/Eq and L/W(end.) were both 22% lower for “Caroselli” (Table 2).
Within the “Spuredde” macro-group, SB showed lower values for four descriptors (fruit length, endosperm length, L/eq, and L/W(end.)) compared to SF and SN (20%, 17%, 26%, and 28%, respectively; Table 2). For the same descriptors, SF had lower values than SN (29, 16, 37, and 25%, respectively; Table 2). Other differences, all <20%, were found in endosperm width when comparing SB vs. (SF and SN) and between the latter for equatorial diameter and mesocarp thickness (Table 2). These differences underline that increasingly elongated and narrow fruits were produced in the order SB, SF, and SN.
In the comparison (CAP and CAL) vs. (CAM, CAS, CUM), a double L/Eq and a 2.5 times higher L/W(end.) of the first group over the second one emerged, with CAP and CAL having more elongated fruits than the more roundish fruits of CAM, CAS, and CUM (Table 2). The difference between CAP and CAL and the one between the CAM, CAS, and CUM group were reflected in all length and width descriptors considered: equatorial (5.1 vs. 6.9 cm, respectively) and polar (3.7 vs. 4.7 cm) diameter, fruit length (13.3 vs. 9.2 cm), endosperm length (10.4 vs. 6.5 cm), and endosperm width (2.6 vs. 3.9 cm; Table 2). In addition, CAP and CAL presented 61% longer peduncles and 18% less thick mesocarps than CAM, CAS, and CUM (Table 2). Similar differences—including a longer peduncle length and less mesocarp thickness—were found in the comparison between CAP (more elongated fruit) and CAL (wider fruit; Table 2).
Finally, values for CAS were 13% smaller in endosperm width and 19% greater in mesocarp thickness than CAM and CUM (Table 2). Among the latter, endocarp length and width were 27% and 12% greater in CAM, respectively (Table 2). In contrast, a 22% lower mesocarp thickness was calculated for CAM than for CUM (Table 2).
All these results highlight that fruit descriptors make it possible to discriminate the three macro-groups (“Barattiere”, “Caroselli”, and “Spuredde”). However, within these macro-groups, there are further differences that do not allow the detection of fully homogeneous characteristics within the groups. For example, an analysis of other fruit traits, such as colour and exocarp descriptors, reveals further intragroup differences.
In fact, concerning an empirical observation of fruit exocarp colour (Figure 6; a complete analysis can be found in Section 3.3.2), BT, CAL, CAP, CAS, and SB were uniformly yellow-green in colour, while SN fruits had a uniform dark-olive green skin. The skin of the other landraces showed mixed colour traits (Figure 6). CAM had a ground colouration similar to SN but with yellow-green vertical stripes and patches (Figure 6); CUM showed a predominant yellow-green colouration and dark-olive green patches, which are smaller and reduced compared to CAM (Figure 6); SF showed alternating vertical streaks of olive green (ground colour, slightly lighter than the other populations) and yellow-green (Figure 6). In terms of rind hairiness, the fruits were generally glabrous or lightly hairy, which is typical of C. melo populations [6]; the only exception was CAP, which revealed a very pronounced and characteristic hairiness. Finally, grooves were clearly present in CAP and less pronounced in SF and CAM (Figure 6). Furthermore, BT differed from the other eight landraces in the presence of wrinkles on the fruit-skin, a characteristic that is not found in the other landraces.
These differences are displayed in Figure 6 for fruits harvested before commercial maturity (“young fruits“) (Figure 6a) and fruits harvested at commercial maturity (Figure 6b).

3.3. Yield and Quality Descriptors

3.3.1. Yield

The beginning of the harvest period varied according to the landraces considered. The first landraces to enter production were CAL, CAM, CAS, CUM, SB, SF, and SN (33 days after transplanting); CAP and BT needed more days to enter in production. Both started to produce after seven days compared to the previous landraces (40 days after transplanting); for BT, this was already observed in previous research [6,37].
BT produced 25% less than the other landraces (Figure 7a) and 33% fewer fruits compared to the other macro-groups (Figure 7b).
As reported in Somma et al. (2021), these results are explained by the biology of the BT reproductive apparatus, resulting in a retarded germination and, consequently, fruit growth compared to the other landraces [6,11,28]. This delay in production, combined with the limited duration of the growing cycle of this experiment can explain the lower yield recorded for BT. No differences were detected between the “Caroselli” and “Spuredde” groups.
Regarding fruit FW, it was 11% more for BT compared to the “Caroselli” and “Spuredde” groups (Table S3); the “Caroselli” group had a 7% lower fruit FW than the “Spuredde” group. Within these macro-groups, SB reported a 10% lower fruit FW than SB and SF, the same difference was found in the comparison (CAP and CAL) vs. (CAM, CAS, CUM; Table S3). Finally, CAM presented 27% heavier fruits than CUM (Table S3).

3.3.2. Quality Analysis

BT fruit differed from the other landraces across all the descriptors assessed (Figure 8 and Figure 9). This landrace reached the highest content of TSS, DW, and DM. It was 14, 27, and 37% more than the “Caroselli” and “Spuredde” groups, respectively (Figure 8a–c). In contrast, the FF was 11% lower in BT (Figure 8d). Further differences were found in the “Caroselli” group: CAP registered lower TSS and FF (6 and 17%, respectively) than CAL (Figure 8d). Considering CAS vs. (CAM and CUM), the first contained 26, 28, and 35% more DW, DM, and TSS, respectively (Figure 8a–c). The last difference was finally found in the “Caroselli” group, where CAM presented a 10% higher FF than CUM (Figure 8d). The complete data are available in Table S4.
Regarding colour analysis, it is important to highlight that the colour in vegetables is one of the most important quality descriptor for consumers, as the first impression provided by the colour may influence the acceptance of the product [43]. Especially for unripe melon landraces, the exocarp colour is an important quality indicator that can greatly influence consumer choice [5,43]. In this regard, some studies seem to suggest that consumers prefer fruit vegetables with a higher chroma, which indicates a more vivid colour (saturation, “C”) [44,45,46]. BT registered almost 34% more colour saturation (“C”) of the exocarp than the “Caroselli” and “Spuredde” groups, making it the most appealing landrace in terms of the commercial aesthetic of the colour (Figure 9). In addition, SB registered 41% more of exocarp “C” compared to the other “Spuredde”, while CAS had 53% higher than CAM and CUM (Figure 9). The chroma of the mesocarp was similar in all landraces (Table S5).
Concerning L and h° values, our findings indicate that the overall flesh colour can be described as a light green-yellow, with minimal variation among different landraces. It is well established that melon development involves a reduction in chlorophyll content and a concurrent increase in carotenoids as the fruit matures [47]. Consequently, the pale green-yellow colour of the flesh in the landraces studied can be attributed to their unique characteristic of being harvested and consumed before reaching full ripeness. Furthermore, it is important to note that, beyond the changes in chlorophyll and carotenoid levels during fruit development and ripening, the genotype also plays a significant role in determining flesh colour. For example, wild melons typically have light green flesh, while cultivated varieties may exhibit green (due to a recessive gf allele), white (from a recessive wf allele) or orange flesh (associated with β-carotene, influenced by the dominant gf + and/or wf + alleles) [48]. Although there is limited literature on the CIELab colour attributes of these landraces, Elia and Santamaria [1] described the flesh of BT as light green, even in fully ripe fruits. Thus, our study suggests that the light green-yellow colouration of these landraces represents a distinctive trait, shaped by centuries of selective cultivation by farmers.

3.4. PCA

To better summarize the results of the ANOVA analysis, the biplot in Figure 10 was developed with PCA. In the graph, it is possible to visualize the influence of each variable analyzed with reference to the nine unripe melon landraces. The biplot between the first two principal components (PC1 and PC2) was considered representative, explaining 62.42% of the total variability of the data examined.
The PCA allows a unique graphic representation of the variables previously considered (loadings—in red) and their effect on C. melo landraces (scores—in blue). The first representation that the graph reports is a clear distribution of the landraces in four groups (Figure 10). The first group—on the left side, on the negative side of PC1—includes SN, SF, and CAM; the latter is located further away from the other two points, but all three share a relatively similar position on the left side of the biplot, associated with descriptors such as seed size and colour indices (a*Mes and a*Exo, mesocarp and endocarp redness). Another descriptor associated with this area of the biplot is the hardness of the epicarp, influencing SN and SF equally (Figure 10). The second group, composed of CUM, SB, and CAL, is located on the right-hand side of the graph, around the origin of the axes (Figure 10). In particular, CAL and SB are moderately influenced by the chlorophyll content in leaf (Leaf_chloro) and leaf dry matter (Leaf_DM) and are very close together, almost overlapping (Figure 10). CUM is slightly displaced to the left in relation to CAL and SB but is also in a central position (Figure 10). It is influenced by variables such as number of fruits produced per plant (N_fruit) and Leaf_DM. In general, the group represents landraces with balanced descriptors, given their biplot position away from the influence of more extreme variables. The third group is composed of the “outlier” landraces; CAP and BT, indeed, are placed in outer areas of the biplot, suggesting very specific and distinctive descriptors (Figure 10). In particular, CAP is located in the bottom right corner, and it is strongly influenced by variables such as the length of peduncle (Fruit_p_I), leaf fresh weight (Leaf_FW), and saturation of mesocarp (CMes), while BT is in the upper right corner, far from CAP, but also quite isolated (Figure 10). It is influenced by mesocarp thickness (Meso_t) and soluble solids content (°Brix). The last group exclusively comprises CAS; this is very close to the second group but is influenced by other variables such as Meso_t, which bring it closer to BT than the other varieties (Figure 10). CAS, therefore, could either be included in the second group or form a separate group with BT.
To better understand and summarize the outcomes of the PCA, it is useful to consider the dendrogram in Figure 11—obtained with the Agglomerative Hierarchical Clustering (AHC) method—that reports, on the horizontal scale, the landraces divided into groups according to their similarity and, on the vertical scale, the level of dissimilarity between landraces and groups.
The dendrogram suggests that CAS belongs to the same group as CUM, CAL, and SB and confirms the other groups formed in the biplot (SF, SN, and CAM in the first group; CAP and BT as outliers). Also, it is worth mentioning the high similarity between CAL and SB, for which the level of dissimilarity is around zero (Figure 10). The results suggest that these two landraces are probably synonyms used in the provinces of Bari (‘Carosello leccese’, CAL) and Lecce (‘Spuredda bianca’, SB) for the same landrace. Finally, it should be noted that BT is the variety with the highest level of dissimilarity among those considered, followed by CAP (Figure 10).
In light of these results, the traditional subdivision into the groups “Barattiere”, “Caroselli”, and “Spuredde” was only partially confirmed by the analysis of the data. As stated above, only the “Barattiere” group was found to be fully distinct from the others, a result perfectly in line with the genetic characterisations developed in Pavan et al. [13]. Conversely, the “Caroselli” and “Spuredde” groups lack sufficiently uniform descriptors to allow them to be aggregated into single statistical groups. On the contrary, the results suggest similarities between mixed groups of “Caroselli” and “Spuredde”. In the first group, this mixed aggregation is mainly determined by the high similarity between SB and CAL—with SB being aggregated with the “Caroselli” group. In the “Spuredde” group, however, it is CAM that shows similarities with SF and SN, probably due to similar seed size and exocarp colours. These results confirm how the division between “Caroselli” and “Spuredde” is not so clearly defined from a morphological-productive point of view, but rather derives from factors such as traditions, territories, and local dialects. Accogli et al. [12] emphasize that in the Salento region, “Spuredde” are often also called “Carosidd”—a dialectal name peculiar to southern Puglia, very similar to the word “Caroselli”—confirming, again, that the landraces of these macro-groups could be evolutions of the same landraces, adapted to different territories.

4. Conclusions

The characterization of the nine landraces of Cucumis melo L. of the Puglia region provided a comprehensive morphological and agronomic description. The data revealed clear differences between BT and the landraces belonging to the “Caroselli” and “Spuredde” groups across all analyzed descriptors. However, differentiating between the “Caroselli” and “Spuredde” macro-groups was more challenging, as the most significant differences were limited to fruit descriptors: CAM, CUM, and CAS fruits can be distinguished from the fruits of other landraces of “Caroselli” and “Spuredde” by their rounded shape and, specifically for CAM and CUM, the presence of patches on the exocarp. In contrast, CAP is easily identifiable by its elongated, narrow shape and a very pronounced hairiness. The “Spuredde” fruit type is characterized by an elliptical to elongated shape and a predominantly glabrous exocarp, whereas SN and SF are notable for their predominantly dark olive-green colouration.
The dissimilarity analysis uncovered new groupings of these landraces compared to the traditional “Spuredde” and “Caroselli” macro-groups. Notably, the analysis revealed a high degree of dissimilarity for CAP compared to the other “Caroselli” landraces. Conversely, the dissimilarity index calculated for SB and CAL was nearly zero, indicating a clear case of synonymy due to the geographical dispersion of the same local variety. Further analysis is warranted for the CAM, SB, and SN groups to determine whether the observed similarities are attributable to shared genetic and/or evolutionary factors in addition to the previously identified morphological traits.
In light of these considerations, a molecular analysis of the varieties analyzed is suggested in order to better understand the differences between “Caroselli” and “Spuredde” and identify any common evolutionary lines. Similarly, a more in-depth analysis of these landraces from a qualitative and nutritional point of view could support the analysis presented.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/horticulturae11040344/s1, Table S1: Morpho-physiological characterization of nine landraces of unripe melon (Cucumis melo L.); Table S2: Chlorophyll content, biometric, and biomass parameters of leaf of nine unripe melon (Cucumis melo L.) landraces; Table S3: Yield parameters of nine unripe melon (Cucumis melo L.) landraces; Table S4: Qualitative parameters of commercially mature fruits (immature stage) of nine unripe melon (Cucumis melo L.) landraces; Table S5: Colour analysis (CIELab scale) of exocarp and mesocarp of the fruits of nine unripe melon (Cucumis melo L.) landraces.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.D., A.S. (Annalisa Somma), O.D.P., M.R., and P.S.; methodology A.D., A.S. (Annalisa Somma), O.D.P., M.R., and P.S.; software M.G. and P.S.; validation M.R. and P.S.; formal analysis M.G. and P.S.; investigation A.D., A.S. (Annalisa Somma), O.D.P., B.L., A.S. (Angelo Signore), M.R., and P.S.; resources P.S.; data curation M.G. and P.S.; writing—original draft preparation A.D. and A.S. (Annalisa Somma); writing—review and editing M.R. and P.S.; visualization A.D., A.S. (Annalisa Somma), and O.D.P.; supervision P.S.; project administration, P.S.; funding acquisition P.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

Project funded under the Regione Puglia Administration, Rural Development Program 2014–2022, Measure 10, Sub-Measure 10.2, Operation 1 “Program for the Conservation and Valorisation of the Genetic Resources in Agriculture”, Project ‘Biodiversity of Apulian Fruit Vegetables’ (BiodiverSO Karpos, DDS n. 04250178565, CUP: B97H22003670009)—n. 8.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Acknowledgments

POC PUGLIA FESR-FSE 2014/2020—azione 10.4 “Interventi volti a promuovere la ricerca e per l’Istruzione Universitaria”, Programma regionale RIPARTI (Assegni di Ricerca per riPAR-Tire con le Imprese)—d.R.n. 3622 10/10/2022 Progr. n. 07.250—H93C22000480002. We thank Nicola Gentile for providing assistance during the field experiments.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Elia, A.; Santamaria, P. Biodiversity in Vegetable Crops, a Heritage to Save: The Case of Puglia Region. Ital. J. Agron. 2013, 8, e4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Renna, M.; Montesano, F.; Signore, A.; Gonnella, M.; Santamaria, P. BiodiverSO: A Case Study of Integrated Project to Pre-serve the Biodiversity of Vegetable Crops in Puglia (Southern Italy). Agriculture 2018, 8, 128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Laghetti, G.; Bisignano, V.; Urbano, M. Genetic resources of vegetable crops and their safeguarding in Italy. Hortic. Int. J. 2018, 2, 72–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. ISTAT Vegetable Production in Italy in 2023. 2024. Available online: http://Dati.Istat.It/Index.Aspx?QueryId=37850 (accessed on 3 March 2024).
  5. Renna, M.; D’Imperio, M.; Gonnella, M.; Parente, A.; Santamaria, P.; Serio, F. Barattiere: An Italian Local Variety of Cucumis melo L. with Quality Traits between Melon and Cucumber. Plants 2020, 9, 578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Somma, A.; Palmitessa, O.D.; Leoni, B.; Signore, A.; Renna, M.; Santamaria, P. Extraseasonal Production in a Soilless System and Characterisation of Landraces of Carosello and Barattiere (Cucumis melo L.). Sustainability 2021, 13, 11425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Palmitessa, O.D.; Durante, M.; Leoni, B.; Montesano, F.; Renna, M.; Serio, F.; Somma, A.; Santamaria, P. Enhancement of a Landrace of Carosello (Unripe Melon) through the Use of Light-Emitting Diodes (LED) and Nutritional Characterization of the Fruit Placenta. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Maeda, H.; DellaPenna, D. Tocopherol Functions in Photosynthetic Organisms. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2007, 10, 260–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Rodríguez-Pérez, C.; Quirantes-Piné, R.; Fernández-Gutiérrez, A.; Segura-Carretero, A. Comparative Characterization of Phenolic and Other Polar Compounds in Spanish Melon Cultivars by Using High-Performance Liquid Chromatography Coupled to Electrospray Ionization Quadrupole-Time of Flight Mass Spectrometry. Food Res. Int. 2013, 54, 1519–1527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Silva, M.A.; Albuquerque, T.G.; Alves, R.C.; Oliveira, M.B.P.P.; Costa, H.S. Melon (Cucumis melo L.) by-Products: Potential Food Ingredients for Novel Functional Foods? Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 98, 181–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Conversa, G.; Gonnella, M.; Santamaria, P.; Bianco, V.V. Caratterizzazione e Valorizzazione di due Ortaggi Tipici Pugliesi: Carosello e Barattiere. Colt. Protette 2005, 34, 4–13. (In Italian) [Google Scholar]
  12. Accogli, R.; Nicolì, F.; De Bellis, L. Traditions and knowledge around some local varieties of Cucumis melo L. in Salento (Apulia). Thalass. Salentina 2014, 36, 43–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Pavan, S.; Marcotrigiano, A.R.; Ciani, E.; Mazzeo, R.; Zonno, V.; Ruggieri, V.; Lotti, C.; Ricciardi, L. Genotyping-by-Sequencing of a Melon (Cucumis melo L.) Germplasm Collection from a Secondary Center of Diversity Highlights Patterns of Genetic Variation and Genomic Features of Different Gene Pools. BMC Genom. 2017, 18, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Laghetti, G.; Accogli, R.; Hammer, K. Different Cucumber Melon (Cucumis melo L.) Races Cultivated in Salento (Italy). Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 2008, 55, 619–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Lotti, C.; Albo, M.; Ricciardi, L.; Conversa, G.; Elia, A. Studio della Diversità Genetica tra Ecotipi di Carosello e Barattiere (Cucumis melo L.). Colt. Protette 2005, 34, 44–46. (In Italian) [Google Scholar]
  16. Ricciardi, L.; De Giovanni, C.; Dell’Orco, P.; Lotti, C.; Marcotrigiano, A.R. Phenotypic and Genetic Characterization of Cucumis melo L. Landraces Collected in Apulia (Italy) and Albania. Acta Hortic. 2003, 623, 95–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Hammer, K.; Hanelt, P.; Perrino, P. Carosello and the Taxonomy of Cucumis melo L. Especially of Its Vegetable Races. Die Kult. 1986, 34, 249–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Lázaro, A.; Fernández, I.C.; Borrero, M.J.; Cabello, F.; López-Sesé, A.I.; Gómez-Guillamón, M.L.; Picó, B. Agromorphological Genetic Diversity of Spanish Traditional Melons. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 2017, 64, 1687–1706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Flores-León, A.; Peréz Moro, C.; Martí, R.; Beltran, J.; Roselló, S.; Cebolla-Cornejo, J.; Picó, B. Spanish Melon Landraces: Revealing Useful Diversity by Genomic, Morphological, and Metabolomic Analysis. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 7162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Didonna, A.; Bocci, R.; Renna, M.; Santamaria, P. The Conservation Varieties Regime: Its Past, Present and Future in the Protection and Commercialisation of Vegetable Landraces in Europe. Horticulturae 2024, 10, 877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Spataro, G.; Negri, V. The European Seed Legislation on Conservation Varieties: Focus, Implementation, Present and Future Impact on Landrace on Farm Conservation. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 2013, 60, 2421–2430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Pimbert, M.P. Participatory Research and On-Farm Management of Agricultural Biodiversity in Europe; IIED: London, UK, 2011; ISBN 978-1-84369-809-8. [Google Scholar]
  23. Lorenzetti, F.; Negri, V. The European Seed Legislation on Conservation Varieties. In European Landraces: On-farm Conservation, Management and Use; Veteläinen, M., Maxted, N., Negri, V., Eds.; Bioversity International: Rome, Italy, 2009; ISBN 978-92-9043-805-2. [Google Scholar]
  24. Renner, S.S.; Schaefer, H.; Kocyan, A. Phylogenetics of Cucumis (Cucurbitaceae): Cucumber (C. Sativus) Belongs in an Asian/Australian Clade Far from Melon (C. melo). BMC Evol. Biol. 2007, 7, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Pandey, A.; Ranjan, P.; Ahlawat, S.P.; Bhardwaj, R.; Dhariwal, O.P.; Singh, P.K.; Malav, P.K.; Harish, G.D.; Prabhu, P.; Agrawal, A. Studies on Fruit Morphology, Nutritional and Floral Diversity in Less-Known Melons (Cucumis melo L.) of India. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 2021, 68, 1453–1470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Chikh-Rouhou, H.; Tlili, I.; Ilahy, R.; R’Him, T.; Sta-Baba, R. Fruit Quality Assessment and Characterization of Melon Genotypes. Int. J. Veg. Sci. 2021, 27, 3–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Forestry. National Plan on Biodiversity of Agricultural Interest. 2008. Available online: https://www.mase.gov.it/sites/default/files/archivio/allegati/biodiversita/piano_nazionale_biodiversita_interesse_agricolo.pdf (accessed on 3 March 2025). (In Italian)
  28. Parente, A.; Buttaro, D.; Conversa, G.; Serio, F.; Santamaria, P. Confronto Tra Sistemi Di Coltivazione Di Carosello e Barattiere in Serra. I. Aspetti Produttivi. Colt. Protette 2005, 34, 19–27. (In Italian) [Google Scholar]
  29. Serio, F.; Florio, G.; Parente, A.; Santamaria, P. Confronto Tra Sistemi Di Coltivazione Di Carosello e Barattiere in Serra. II. Aspetti Qualitativi. Colt. Protette 2005, 34, 28–35. (In Italian) [Google Scholar]
  30. Palmitessa, O.D.; Renna, M.; De Angelis, D.; Signore, A.; Serio, F.; Summo, C.; Santamaria, P. Moderate Saline Waters Are Effective to Enhance a Landrace of Unripe Melon Cultivated in a “Water Culture System” with High Input Efficiency. Sci. Hortic. 2024, 337, 113599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Mastrochirico, M.; Spanò, R.; Mascia, T. Grafting to Manage Infections of the Emerging Tomato Leaf Curl New Delhi Virus in Cucurbits. Plants 2022, 12, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Gallo, M.; Ciccarese, A.; Ciccarese, F.; Jaupi, M. New Source of Resistance to Fusarium-Wilt in Local Germplasm of Cucumis melo. Acta Hortic. 2012, 960, 83–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Didonna, A.; Renna, M.; Santamaria, P. Traditional Italian Agri-Food Products: A Unique Tool with Untapped Potential. Agriculture 2023, 13, 1313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ministerial Decree, n. 350 of 8 September 1999. Regulation Containing Rules for the Identification of Traditional Products Pursuant to Article 8, Paragraph 1, of Legislative Decree n. 173 of 30 April 1998 (Published in the Official Journal n. 240 of 12 October 1999). 1999. Available online: https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/1999/10/12/099G0423/sg (accessed on 3 March 2025). (In Italian).
  35. Law, No. 194 of 1 December 2015. Provisions for the Protection and Enhancement of Biodiversity of Agricultural and Food Interest. 2015. Available online: https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2015/12/11/15G00210/sg%20 (accessed on 3 March 2025). (In Italian).
  36. Apulia Region. Regional Law 11 December 2013, n. 39. Protection of Native Genetic Resources of Agricultural, Forestry and Zootechnical Interest (Published in Official Bulletin of the Apulia Region n. 166 of 17 December 2013). 2013. Available online: https://biodiversitapuglia.it/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/B.U.R.P.-n.166-del-17122013.pdf (accessed on 3 March 2025). (In Italian).
  37. Bonasia, A.; Montesano, F.; Parente, A.; Signore, A.; Santamaria, P. Morfologia e Produzione di Quattro Popolazioni di Melone da Consumo Verde. Colt. Protette 2005, 34, 14–18. (In Italian) [Google Scholar]
  38. UPOV DUS System Test Guidelines. Available online: https://www.upov.int/test_guidelines/en/ (accessed on 3 March 2025).
  39. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI) Descriptors for Melon (Cucumis melo L.). 2003. Available online: https://cgspace.cgiar.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/2a70fc55-0d62-46ae-977b-06f735621b5e/content (accessed on 3 March 2025).
  40. Ferreira, R.M.D.A.; Aroucha, E.M.M.; Medeiros, J.F.D.; Nascimento, I.B.D.; Paiva, C.A.D. Effect of Main Stem Pruning and Fruit Thinning on the Postharvest Conservation of Melon. Rev. Bras. Eng. Agríc. Ambient. 2018, 22, 355–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ferreira, R.M.D.A.; Aroucha, E.M.M.; Paiva, C.A.D.; Medeiros, J.F.D.; Barreto, F.P. Influence of the Main Stem Pruning and Fruit Thinning on Quality of Melon. Rev. Ceres. 2016, 63, 789–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Jani, S.; Hoxha, S. The Effect of Plant Pruning on Production of Melon Grown Under PVC Greenhouse Conditions. Acta Hortic. 2002, 579, 377–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Pathare, P.B.; Opara, U.L.; Al-Said, F.A.-J. Colour Measurement and Analysis in Fresh and Processed Foods: A Review. Food Bioprocess Technol. 2013, 6, 36–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Lee, S.-M.; Lee, K.-T.; Lee, S.-H.; Song, J.-K. Origin of Human Colour Preference for Food. J. Food Eng. 2013, 119, 508–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Schifferstein, H.N.J.; Wehrle, T.; Carbon, C.-C. Consumer Expectations for Vegetables with Typical and Atypical Colors: The Case of Carrots. Food Qual. Prefer. 2019, 72, 98–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Shen, J.; Xu, X.; Zhang, Y.; Niu, X.; Shou, W. Genetic Mapping and Identification of the Candidate Genes for Mottled Rind in Cucumis melo L. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 769989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Reid, M.S.; Lee, T.H.; Pratt, H.K.; Chichester, C.O. Chlorophyll and Carotenoid Changes in Developing Muskmelons. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 1970, 95, 814–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Pitrat, M. Phenotypic Diversity in Wild and Cultivated Melons (Cucumis melo). Plant Biotechnol. 2013, 30, 273–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Horticulturae 11 00344 g001
Figure 1. Fruits of some unripe melon (Cucumis melo L.); landraces of the Puglia region (Southern Italy).
Figure 1. Fruits of some unripe melon (Cucumis melo L.); landraces of the Puglia region (Southern Italy).
Horticulturae 11 00344 g001
Horticulturae 11 00344 g002
Figure 2. Example of the “basal rosette” phase in ‘Spuredda bianca’ (SB), a Puglia region unripe melon (Cucumis melo L.) landrace.
Figure 2. Example of the “basal rosette” phase in ‘Spuredda bianca’ (SB), a Puglia region unripe melon (Cucumis melo L.) landrace.
Horticulturae 11 00344 g002
Horticulturae 11 00344 g003
Figure 3. The seeds of nine unripe melon (Cucumis melo L.) landraces: BT, ‘Barattiere’; CAL, ‘Carosello leccese’; CAM, ‘Carosello striato tondo di Massafra’; CAP, ‘Carosello di Polignano’; CAS, ‘Carosello scopatizzo’; CUM, ‘Cucumbr di Martina Franca’; SB, ‘Spuredda bianca’; SF, ‘Spuredda fasciata’; SN, ‘Spuredda nera’.
Figure 3. The seeds of nine unripe melon (Cucumis melo L.) landraces: BT, ‘Barattiere’; CAL, ‘Carosello leccese’; CAM, ‘Carosello striato tondo di Massafra’; CAP, ‘Carosello di Polignano’; CAS, ‘Carosello scopatizzo’; CUM, ‘Cucumbr di Martina Franca’; SB, ‘Spuredda bianca’; SF, ‘Spuredda fasciata’; SN, ‘Spuredda nera’.
Horticulturae 11 00344 g003
Horticulturae 11 00344 g004
Figure 4. Visual representation of significant contrasts between C. melo landraces: BT, ‘Barattiere’; CAL, ‘Carosello leccese’; CAM, ‘Carosello striato tondo di Massafra’; CAP, ‘Carosello di Polignano’; CAS, ‘Carosello scopatizzo’; CUM, ‘Cucumbr di Martina Franca’ (CUM); SB, ‘Spuredda bianca’; SF, ‘Spuredda fasciata’; and SN, ‘Spuredda nera’, with respect to the following parameters: (a) leaf chlorophyll content (µmol·m−2), (b) leaf area (cm2), (c) leaf petiole length (cm), and (d) leaf dry matter (g·100 g FW−1). The term “others” refers to the group comprising the landraces CAL, CAM, CAP, CAS, CUM, SB, SF, and SN. Significance of contrasts: ***, ** and * for p ≤ 0.001, p ≤ 0.01 and p ≤ 0.05, respectively. Full data are available in Table S2.
Figure 4. Visual representation of significant contrasts between C. melo landraces: BT, ‘Barattiere’; CAL, ‘Carosello leccese’; CAM, ‘Carosello striato tondo di Massafra’; CAP, ‘Carosello di Polignano’; CAS, ‘Carosello scopatizzo’; CUM, ‘Cucumbr di Martina Franca’ (CUM); SB, ‘Spuredda bianca’; SF, ‘Spuredda fasciata’; and SN, ‘Spuredda nera’, with respect to the following parameters: (a) leaf chlorophyll content (µmol·m−2), (b) leaf area (cm2), (c) leaf petiole length (cm), and (d) leaf dry matter (g·100 g FW−1). The term “others” refers to the group comprising the landraces CAL, CAM, CAP, CAS, CUM, SB, SF, and SN. Significance of contrasts: ***, ** and * for p ≤ 0.001, p ≤ 0.01 and p ≤ 0.05, respectively. Full data are available in Table S2.
Horticulturae 11 00344 g004
Horticulturae 11 00344 g005
Figure 5. Comparison of representative leaves of nine unripe melon (Cucumis melo L.) landraces: BT, ‘Barattiere’; CAL, ‘Carosello leccese’; CAM, ‘Carosello striato tondo di Massafra’; CAP, ‘Carosello di Polignano’; CAS, ‘Carosello scopatizzo’; CUM, ‘Cucumbr di Martina Franca’; SB, ‘Spuredda bianca’; SF, ‘Spuredda fasciata’; and SN, ‘Spuredda nera’. According to the morphological characterization, they can be grouped in three groups. The leaves sizes are not in proportion.
Figure 5. Comparison of representative leaves of nine unripe melon (Cucumis melo L.) landraces: BT, ‘Barattiere’; CAL, ‘Carosello leccese’; CAM, ‘Carosello striato tondo di Massafra’; CAP, ‘Carosello di Polignano’; CAS, ‘Carosello scopatizzo’; CUM, ‘Cucumbr di Martina Franca’; SB, ‘Spuredda bianca’; SF, ‘Spuredda fasciata’; and SN, ‘Spuredda nera’. According to the morphological characterization, they can be grouped in three groups. The leaves sizes are not in proportion.
Horticulturae 11 00344 g005
Horticulturae 11 00344 g006
Figure 6. Fruits of nine unripe melon (Cucumis melo L.) landraces: BT, ‘Barattiere’; CAL, ‘Carosello leccese’; CAM, ‘Carosello striato tondo di Massafra’; CAP, ‘Carosello di Polignano’; CAS, ‘Carosello scopatizzo’; CUM, ‘Cucumbr di Martina Franca’; SB, ‘Spuredda bianca’; SF, ‘Spuredda fasciata’; and SN, ‘Spuredda nera’. On the left (a), photos of the “young fruits” (harvested at an average weight of 80–120 g); on the right (b), photos of the commercially mature fruits (harvested at an average weight of 200–350 g).
Figure 6. Fruits of nine unripe melon (Cucumis melo L.) landraces: BT, ‘Barattiere’; CAL, ‘Carosello leccese’; CAM, ‘Carosello striato tondo di Massafra’; CAP, ‘Carosello di Polignano’; CAS, ‘Carosello scopatizzo’; CUM, ‘Cucumbr di Martina Franca’; SB, ‘Spuredda bianca’; SF, ‘Spuredda fasciata’; and SN, ‘Spuredda nera’. On the left (a), photos of the “young fruits” (harvested at an average weight of 80–120 g); on the right (b), photos of the commercially mature fruits (harvested at an average weight of 200–350 g).
Horticulturae 11 00344 g006
Horticulturae 11 00344 g007
Figure 7. Visual representation of significant contrasts between “Barattiere” (BT) and the “others”, i.e., C. melo landraces: CAL, ‘Carosello leccese’; CAM, ‘Carosello striato tondo di Massafra’; CAP, ‘Carosello di Polignano’; CAS, ‘Carosello scopatizzo’; CUM, ‘Cucumbr di Martina Franca’ (CUM); SB, ‘Spuredda bianca’; SF, ‘Spuredda fasciata’; SN, ‘Spuredda nera’, with respect to the following parameters: (a) fruit yield (g/plant) and (b) fruit number (n/plant). The term “others” refers to the group comprising the landraces CAL, CAM, CAP, CAS, CUM, SB, SF, and SN. Significance of contrasts: * for p ≤ 0.05. Full data are available in Table S3.
Figure 7. Visual representation of significant contrasts between “Barattiere” (BT) and the “others”, i.e., C. melo landraces: CAL, ‘Carosello leccese’; CAM, ‘Carosello striato tondo di Massafra’; CAP, ‘Carosello di Polignano’; CAS, ‘Carosello scopatizzo’; CUM, ‘Cucumbr di Martina Franca’ (CUM); SB, ‘Spuredda bianca’; SF, ‘Spuredda fasciata’; SN, ‘Spuredda nera’, with respect to the following parameters: (a) fruit yield (g/plant) and (b) fruit number (n/plant). The term “others” refers to the group comprising the landraces CAL, CAM, CAP, CAS, CUM, SB, SF, and SN. Significance of contrasts: * for p ≤ 0.05. Full data are available in Table S3.
Horticulturae 11 00344 g007
Horticulturae 11 00344 g008
Figure 8. Visual representation of significant contrasts between landraces for the qualitative descriptors: (a) fruit dry weight (FW) (g/fruit); (b) fruit dry matter (DM) (g/100 g FW); (c) total soluble solids (°Brix); (d) epicarp hardness (kg/cm2). CAL, ‘Carosello leccese’; CAM, ‘Carosello striato tondo di Massafra’; CAP, ‘Carosello di Polignano’; CAS, ‘Carosello scopatizzo’; CUM, ‘Cucumbr di Martina Franca’ (CUM); SB, ‘Spuredda bianca’; SF, ‘Spuredda fasciata’; and SN, ‘Spuredda nera’. The term “others” refers to the group comprising the landraces CAL, CAM, CAP, CAS, CUM, SB, SF, and SN. Significance of contrasts: ***, ** and * for p ≤ 0.001, p ≤ 0.01 and p ≤ 0.05, respectively. Full data are reported in Table S4.
Figure 8. Visual representation of significant contrasts between landraces for the qualitative descriptors: (a) fruit dry weight (FW) (g/fruit); (b) fruit dry matter (DM) (g/100 g FW); (c) total soluble solids (°Brix); (d) epicarp hardness (kg/cm2). CAL, ‘Carosello leccese’; CAM, ‘Carosello striato tondo di Massafra’; CAP, ‘Carosello di Polignano’; CAS, ‘Carosello scopatizzo’; CUM, ‘Cucumbr di Martina Franca’ (CUM); SB, ‘Spuredda bianca’; SF, ‘Spuredda fasciata’; and SN, ‘Spuredda nera’. The term “others” refers to the group comprising the landraces CAL, CAM, CAP, CAS, CUM, SB, SF, and SN. Significance of contrasts: ***, ** and * for p ≤ 0.001, p ≤ 0.01 and p ≤ 0.05, respectively. Full data are reported in Table S4.
Horticulturae 11 00344 g008
Horticulturae 11 00344 g009
Figure 9. Visual representation of significant contrasts between Cucumis melo L. landraces for the descriptor “C” (saturation). “Ex.” indicates the C values of the exocarp; “Mes.” indicates the C values of the mesocarp. CAL, ‘Carosello leccese’; CAM, ‘Carosello striato tondo di Massafra’; CAP, ‘Carosello di Polignano’; CAS, ‘Carosello scopatizzo’; CUM, ‘Cucumbr di Martina Franca’ (CUM); SB, ‘Spuredda bianca’; SF, ‘Spuredda fasciata’; and SN, ‘Spuredda nera’. The term “others” refers to the group comprising the landraces CAL, CAM, CAP, CAS, CUM, SB, SF, and SN. Significance of contrasts: *** and ** for p ≤ 0.001 and p ≤ 0.01, respectively. Full data are reported in Table S5.
Figure 9. Visual representation of significant contrasts between Cucumis melo L. landraces for the descriptor “C” (saturation). “Ex.” indicates the C values of the exocarp; “Mes.” indicates the C values of the mesocarp. CAL, ‘Carosello leccese’; CAM, ‘Carosello striato tondo di Massafra’; CAP, ‘Carosello di Polignano’; CAS, ‘Carosello scopatizzo’; CUM, ‘Cucumbr di Martina Franca’ (CUM); SB, ‘Spuredda bianca’; SF, ‘Spuredda fasciata’; and SN, ‘Spuredda nera’. The term “others” refers to the group comprising the landraces CAL, CAM, CAP, CAS, CUM, SB, SF, and SN. Significance of contrasts: *** and ** for p ≤ 0.001 and p ≤ 0.01, respectively. Full data are reported in Table S5.
Horticulturae 11 00344 g009
Horticulturae 11 00344 g010
Figure 10. PCA biplot (PC1 vs. PC2) describing the distribution of the morphological and agronomic parameters of nine unripe melon (Cucumis melo L.) landraces: BT, ‘Barattiere’; CAL, ‘Carosello leccese’; CAM, ‘Carosello striato tondo di Massafra’; CAP, ‘Carosello di Polignano’; CAS, ‘Carosello scopatizzo’; CUM, ‘Cucumbr di Martina Franca’; SB, ‘Spuredda bianca’; SF, ‘Spuredda fasciata’; and SN, ‘Spuredda nera’. Fruit_yield, fruit yield per plant; N_fruit, number of fruits per plant; Fruit_FW, fruit fresh weight; Fruit_DM, fruit dry matter; Fruit_l, fruit length; Fruit_deq, fruit equatorial diameter; Fruit_dpl, fruit polar diameter; Endo_l, endosperm length; Endo_w, endosperm width; Meso_t, mesocarp thickness; Fruit_p_l, fruit peduncle length; LMes, mesocarp lightness; a*Mes, mesocarp redness; b*Mes, mesocarp yellowness; h°Mes, mesocarp hue angle; CMes, mesocarp saturation; LExo, exocarp lightness; a*Exo, exocarp redness; b*Exo, exocarp yellowness; h°Exo, exocarp hue angle; C Exo, exocarp saturation; Leaf_area, leaf area; Leaf_p_l, leaf petiole length; Leaf_FW, leaf fresh weight; Leaf_DM, leaf dry matter; SLA, specific leaf area; Leaf_chloro, leaf chlorophyll content; Seed_l, seed length; Seed_w, seed width; Seed_t, seed thickness; °Brix, soluble solids content; Ep_hard, epicarp hardness.
Figure 10. PCA biplot (PC1 vs. PC2) describing the distribution of the morphological and agronomic parameters of nine unripe melon (Cucumis melo L.) landraces: BT, ‘Barattiere’; CAL, ‘Carosello leccese’; CAM, ‘Carosello striato tondo di Massafra’; CAP, ‘Carosello di Polignano’; CAS, ‘Carosello scopatizzo’; CUM, ‘Cucumbr di Martina Franca’; SB, ‘Spuredda bianca’; SF, ‘Spuredda fasciata’; and SN, ‘Spuredda nera’. Fruit_yield, fruit yield per plant; N_fruit, number of fruits per plant; Fruit_FW, fruit fresh weight; Fruit_DM, fruit dry matter; Fruit_l, fruit length; Fruit_deq, fruit equatorial diameter; Fruit_dpl, fruit polar diameter; Endo_l, endosperm length; Endo_w, endosperm width; Meso_t, mesocarp thickness; Fruit_p_l, fruit peduncle length; LMes, mesocarp lightness; a*Mes, mesocarp redness; b*Mes, mesocarp yellowness; h°Mes, mesocarp hue angle; CMes, mesocarp saturation; LExo, exocarp lightness; a*Exo, exocarp redness; b*Exo, exocarp yellowness; h°Exo, exocarp hue angle; C Exo, exocarp saturation; Leaf_area, leaf area; Leaf_p_l, leaf petiole length; Leaf_FW, leaf fresh weight; Leaf_DM, leaf dry matter; SLA, specific leaf area; Leaf_chloro, leaf chlorophyll content; Seed_l, seed length; Seed_w, seed width; Seed_t, seed thickness; °Brix, soluble solids content; Ep_hard, epicarp hardness.
Horticulturae 11 00344 g010
Horticulturae 11 00344 g011
Figure 11. Dendrogram reporting the degree of dissimilarity of nine unripe melon (Cucumis melo L.) landraces, grouped according to PCA: BT, ‘Barattiere’; CAL, ‘Carosello leccese’; CAM, ‘Carosello striato tondo di Massafra’; CAP, ‘Carosello di Polignano’; CAS, ‘Carosello scopatizzo’; CUM, ‘Cucumbr di Martina Franca’; SB, ‘Spuredda bianca’; SF, ‘Spuredda fasciata’; and SN, ‘Spuredda nera’. The graph is the result of a classification obtained with the Agglomerative Hierarchical Clustering (AHC) method.
Figure 11. Dendrogram reporting the degree of dissimilarity of nine unripe melon (Cucumis melo L.) landraces, grouped according to PCA: BT, ‘Barattiere’; CAL, ‘Carosello leccese’; CAM, ‘Carosello striato tondo di Massafra’; CAP, ‘Carosello di Polignano’; CAS, ‘Carosello scopatizzo’; CUM, ‘Cucumbr di Martina Franca’; SB, ‘Spuredda bianca’; SF, ‘Spuredda fasciata’; and SN, ‘Spuredda nera’. The graph is the result of a classification obtained with the Agglomerative Hierarchical Clustering (AHC) method.
Horticulturae 11 00344 g011
Table 1. Morphological data of seeds of nine unripe melon (Cucumis melo L.) landraces: BT, ‘Barattiere’; CAL, ‘Carosello leccese’; CAM, ‘Carosello striato tondo di Massafra’; CAP, ‘Carosello di Polignano’; CAS, ‘Carosello scopatizzo’; CUM, ‘Cucumbr di Martina Franca’ (CUM); SB, ‘Spuredda bianca’; SF, ‘Spuredda fasciata’; and SN, ‘Spuredda nera’. The term “others“ refers to the group comprising the landraces CAL, CAM, CAP, CAS, CUM, SB, SF, and SN.
Table 1. Morphological data of seeds of nine unripe melon (Cucumis melo L.) landraces: BT, ‘Barattiere’; CAL, ‘Carosello leccese’; CAM, ‘Carosello striato tondo di Massafra’; CAP, ‘Carosello di Polignano’; CAS, ‘Carosello scopatizzo’; CUM, ‘Cucumbr di Martina Franca’ (CUM); SB, ‘Spuredda bianca’; SF, ‘Spuredda fasciata’; and SN, ‘Spuredda nera’. The term “others“ refers to the group comprising the landraces CAL, CAM, CAP, CAS, CUM, SB, SF, and SN.
LengthWidthThicknessLength/Width
Ratio
Landracesmmmmmm
BT11.16 ± 0.545.20 ± 0.241.80 ± 0.162.15 ± 0.14
CAL12.34 ± 0.534.85 ± 0.112.11 ± 0.162.55 ± 0.14
CAM15.56 ± 0.495.79 ± 0.242.13 ± 0.152.69 ± 0.11
CAP12.07 ± 0.504.84 ± 0.201.68 ± 0.132.50 ± 0.14
CAS9.71 ± 0.454.72 ± 0.152.44 ± 0.162.06 ± 0.09
CUM12.13 ± 0.505.07 ± 0.181.98 ± 0.162.39 ± 0.11
SB12.79 ± 0.395.18 ± 0.221.47 ± 0.152.47 ± 0.10
SF12.43 ± 0.464.94 ± 0.191.77 ± 0.162.52 ± 0.12
SN11.87 ± 0.294.81 ± 0.191.92 ± 0.162.47 ± 0.06
Significance
BT vs. others************
(CAM, CAP, CAS, CAL, CUM) vs. (SB, SF, SN)ns*****
SB vs. (SF and SN)*********ns
SF vs. SN***ns*ns
(CAP and CAL) vs. (CAM, CAS, CUM)**********
CAP vs. CALnsns***ns
CAS vs. (CAM and CUM)************
CAM vs. CUM***********
Significance of contrasts: ***, ** and *, for p ≤ 0.001, p ≤ 0.01 and p ≤ 0.05, respectively; ns = not significant.
Table 2. Morphological and biometric descriptors of fruit of nine unripe melon (Cucumis melo L.) landraces: BT, ‘Barattiere’; CAL, ‘Carosello leccese’; CAM, ‘Carosello striato tondo di Massafra’; CAP, ‘Carosello di Polignano’; CAS, ‘Carosello scopatizzo’; CUM, ‘Cucumbr di Martina Franca’; SB, ‘Spuredda bianca’; SF, ‘Spuredda fasciata’; and SN, ‘Spuredda nera’. The term “others“ refers to the group comprising the landraces CAL, CAM, CAP, CAS, CUM, SB, SF, and SN.
Table 2. Morphological and biometric descriptors of fruit of nine unripe melon (Cucumis melo L.) landraces: BT, ‘Barattiere’; CAL, ‘Carosello leccese’; CAM, ‘Carosello striato tondo di Massafra’; CAP, ‘Carosello di Polignano’; CAS, ‘Carosello scopatizzo’; CUM, ‘Cucumbr di Martina Franca’; SB, ‘Spuredda bianca’; SF, ‘Spuredda fasciata’; and SN, ‘Spuredda nera’. The term “others“ refers to the group comprising the landraces CAL, CAM, CAP, CAS, CUM, SB, SF, and SN.
Peduncle LengthEquatorial
Diameter		Polar
Diameter		LengthEndosperm
Length		Endosperm
Width		Mesocarp
Thickness		Length/
Equatorial
Diameter Ratio		Endosperm
Length/
Width Ratio
Landracescmcmcmcmcmcmcm
BT2.5 ± 0.97.1 ± 0.54.5 ± 0.59.4 ± 0.66.3 ± 0.43.2 ± 0.11.9 ± 0.11.3 ± 0.12.0 ± 0.1
CAL2.3 ± 0.85.7 ± 0.64.2 ± 0.511.5 ± 1.18.0 ± 0.93.0 ± 0.41.5 ± 0.12.0 ± 0.12.7 ± 0.4
CAM1.8 ± 0.66.9 ± 0.74.7 ± 0.710.0 ± 1.17.4 ± 1.04.3 ± 0.41.3 ± 0.21.5 ± 0.31.7 ± 0.4
CAP3.3 ± 0.54.5 ± 0.53.2 ± 0.615.0 ± 1.412.7 ± 1.32.3 ± 0.41.2 ± 0.23.4 ± 0.45.7 ± 0.9
CAS2.0 ± 0.37.0 ± 0.74.5 ± 0.49.3 ± 0.46.4 ± 0.63.5 ± 0.31.8 ± 0.31.3 ± 0.11.8 ± 0.2
CUM1.4 ± 0.46.8 ± 0.24.7 ± 0.28.3 ± 0.55.8 ± 0.43.8 ± 0.21.7 ± 0.21.2 ± 0.11.5 ± 0.1
SB1.8 ± 0.45.8 ± 0.34.0 ± 0.211.4 ± 1.08.2 ± 0.93.0 ± 0.41.4 ± 0.22.0 ± 0.22.7 ± 0.3
SF1.8 ± 0.65.8 ± 0.44.0 ± 0.611.8 ± 0.99.1 ± 0.52.8 ± 0.31.6 ± 0.12.0 ± 0.23.3 ± 0.5
SN1.5 ± 0.75.12 ± 0.23.7 ± 0.316.6 ± 7.810.8 ± 0.92.5 ± 0.21.4 ± 0.23.2 ± 1.54.4 ± 0.4
Significance
BT vs. others****ns****ns*********
(CAM, CAP, CAS, CAL, CUM) vs.
(SB, SF, SN)		***************ns******
SB vs. (SF and SN)nsnsns*****ns*****
SF vs. SNns*ns******ns*******
(CAP and CAL) vs. (CAM, CAS, CUM)***************************
CAP vs. CAL************************
CAS vs. (CAM and CUM)nsnsnsnsns******nsns
CAM vs. CUMnsnsnsns*******nsns
Significance of contrasts: ***, ** and *, for p ≤ 0.001, p ≤ 0.01 and p ≤ 0.05, respectively; ns = not significant.
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Didonna, A.; Somma, A.; Palmitessa, O.D.; Gonnella, M.; Leoni, B.; Signore, A.; Renna, M.; Santamaria, P. Yield, Morphological, and Qualitative Profile of Nine Landraces of Unripe Melon from the Puglia Region Grown in Open Field. Horticulturae 2025, 11, 344. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae11040344

AMA Style

Didonna A, Somma A, Palmitessa OD, Gonnella M, Leoni B, Signore A, Renna M, Santamaria P. Yield, Morphological, and Qualitative Profile of Nine Landraces of Unripe Melon from the Puglia Region Grown in Open Field. Horticulturae. 2025; 11(4):344. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae11040344

Chicago/Turabian Style

Didonna, Adriano, Annalisa Somma, Onofrio Davide Palmitessa, Maria Gonnella, Beniamino Leoni, Angelo Signore, Massimiliano Renna, and Pietro Santamaria. 2025. "Yield, Morphological, and Qualitative Profile of Nine Landraces of Unripe Melon from the Puglia Region Grown in Open Field" Horticulturae 11, no. 4: 344. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae11040344

APA Style

Didonna, A., Somma, A., Palmitessa, O. D., Gonnella, M., Leoni, B., Signore, A., Renna, M., & Santamaria, P. (2025). Yield, Morphological, and Qualitative Profile of Nine Landraces of Unripe Melon from the Puglia Region Grown in Open Field. Horticulturae, 11(4), 344. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae11040344

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