Jordan Journal of Agricultural Sciences, Volume 5, No.

1, 2009

Assessment of Genetic Diversity among Some Southern Tunisian Fig

(Ficus carica L.) Cultivars Based on Morphological Descriptors
Aljane Fateh* and Ferchichi Ali*

ABSTRACT
The genetic diversity among southern Tunisian fig (Ficus carica L.) cultivars was studied using morphological
descriptors. Eighteen fig cultivars originating from diverse geographical areas in southern Tunisia were
analyzed, described and compared to study the diversity observed in local fig germplasm in order to determine
the morphological variability and to detect homonymies and synonymies within cultivars. Variance Analysis,
Principal Component Analysis and Hierarchical Canonical Analysis of fruit and leaf characters showed a
considerable diversity among cultivars. Some of them were selected and some similarities were detected.
Characters with high discriminating degree were those related to fruit size, external fruit color and leaf size.
Some morphological traits were suitable to be used as descriptors for classifying fig cultivars in Tunisia.
Keywords: Southern Tunisia, Ficus carica, Cultivars, Genetic diversity, Morphological descriptors.

principal fruit tree with olive and some other fruit trees.

INTRODUCTION

Traditional plantations are rain-fed and of limited acreage.

Local cultivars are numerous and well adapted to

The fig (Ficus carica L., Moraceae), a typical

Mediterranean fruit crop is characterized by large adaptive

agroecological

conditions

(Aljane,

2004b).

Their

potentialities to various ecological areas. Fig is a

denominations are relative to local geographic origin or to

gynodiocious species but functionally dioecious with

the color of the fruit. Interchange of plant material was

caprifigs or male fig and female fig cultivated for fruit

frequent between regions, synonyms and homonyms may

production (Valdeyron, 1979; Vidaud, 1997; Weiblen,

be encountered (Ben Salah et al., 1995; Mars et al., 1998;

2000).

Aljane et al., 2004a; Salhi-Hannachi et al., 2005).

In Tunisia, it has been cultivated traditionally since

Fig has been considered, for a long time, a secondary

ancient times under diverse agroclimatic conditions, in

fruit tree. In the recent years, its cultivation in Tunisia

the continental and coastal regions and in many regions

increased considerably with a total acreage of about 37 774

inside the country (Minangoin, 1931; Mars, 1995).

ha. The annual production is about 25 000 tons (Balance

Commerciale, 2006). The fruits are normally sold in the

In Southern Tunisia, this species is also considered as a

local markets and are consumed fresh or processed into

*

Laboratoire dAridoculture et Cultures Oasiennes,

Institut des Rgions Arides, 4119 Mdenine, Tunisie,
Tel/ fax: + 216 75 844 219.

fateh_aljane@yahoo.fr
Received on 13/12/2006 and Accepted for Publication
on 20/5/2008.

syrup, jam and alcoholic spirit beverage. Fig is also used,

traditionally, as medicine (Anonym, 2004).
Fruits produced in traditional orchards are not
appropriate for the new markets. Many old plantations

-1-

2009 DAR Publishers/University of Jordan. All Rights Reserved.

Assessment of Genetic

Aljane Fateh and Ferchichi Ali

are removed and a few local cultivars are propagated in

ranging from honey (2) to dark red (14) was used for Internal

commercial nurseries and used in the new plantations.

Colour (IC). Ostiole Types (OT) were: closed (1), semi-open

Thus, the problem of genetic erosion in fig germplasm

(2) and open (3). Skin cracks were evaluated as follows:

became real (Salhi-Hannachi et al., 2003 and 2005, Chatti et

smooth (1), fairly rough (2) and rough (3). Shape of the Apex

al., 2004; Aljane, 2004a) and threatening the local

(SA) was determined using the following scale: 1: triangular,

germplasm.

2: sharp, 3: obtuse, 4: rounded, Shape of Lobes (SL) was

This study described and compared the diversity

determined using the following scale: 1: spatulate, 2: lyrate,

observed in local fig germplasm, evaluated its genetic

3: linear, 4: latate, Foliar Area (FA) was determined by the

diversity in southern Tunisia, detected associations among

product of the limb length and its width, Colour of the

cultivars and determined descriptors with high discriminating

Leafstalk (CS) and Colour of the Limb (CL) were

degree in the morphological studies.

determined using the following scale: 2: yellow, 4: greenyellow, 6: green, 8: green-dark, 10: green-very dark,
Roughness of the Limb (RL) was determined using the

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Plant Material

following scale: 1: rough, 2: fairly rough, 3: smooth, the

Field surveys were performed in 2003 with the aim of

limb Contour Serration (CS) was determined using the

collecting different fig cultivars throughout southern Tunisia.

following scale: 1: crenate, 2: dentate, 3: undulate, 4: serrate,

Four traditional fig zones: Bir Amir, Douiret, Beni

5: double serrate. Main Vein appearance (MV) was

Kheddache and Zammour (Table 1) were visited; they are

determined using the following scale: 1: apparent, 2: absent,

characterized by dry climate and lower rainfall (100- 200

and Limb Pubescence (LP) is determined by; 1: present, 2:

mm/ years), where fig is the main cultivated crop fruit under

absent.

rain-fed conditions. Eighteen fig cultivars were included in

the present study (Table 1). Cultivars are represented by adult

Statistical Analysis

trees. Randomly samples of 20 mature fruits and 20 adult

Data were subjected to Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)

leaves were collected from one to three trees depending on

carried out to compare means of cultivars for all parameters

the greater or lesser abundance of cultivars in the visited

studies by Duncans test (P < 0.05) using SPSS 12.0

orchards.

software. Mean values registered for each parameter were

used to perform a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and

Descriptors Studied

Hierarchical Canonical Analysis (HCA). Data processing

Morphological variability was based on fruit and leaf

was performed using STATISTICA 5.0: Multivariate

characteristics

listed

in

Table

2.

Descriptions

Exploratory Technical.

of

morphometric characters are made in Figures 1 and 2

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

(IPGRI, 2003). Fruit Shape (FS) was determined following

the scale proposed by Condit in 1947 (Fig. 3). Each form

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)

received a mark from 1through 10. External Colour (EC) was

Mean values of morphological characters studied are

determined using the following scale: yellow (2), yellow-red

reported in the annexes 1 and 2. A large variability between

(4), purple-yellow (6), green (8), green- yellow (10), green-

cultivars for all characters (highly significant difference at

purple (12), purple (14) and purle-black (16). Another scale

P < 0.05) was observed, with the exception for Main Vein

-2-

Jordan Journal of Agricultural Sciences, Volume 5, No.1, 2009

ones as Magouli (MAG), Minouri (MNR) and Romani

appearance (MV) and Limb Pubescence (LP) variables.

(ROM).

Comparison of means allowed identifying Zidi (ZID)

from the other cultivars according to the Fruits Weight (FW),

PC 2 is correlated with high values to Fruit Length (FL),

Limb Length (LL), Limb Width (LW) and Foliar Area (FA).

Fruit Shape (FS) and Neck Length (NL), but the correlation

Rogabi (RGB) cultivar is separated for the characters Stalk

was negative with Fruit Diameter (FD), Stalk Diameter (SD),

Length (SL) and Neck Length (NL) but Romani (ROM)

Ostiole Diameter (OD) and Ostiole Type (OT) (Table 3).

presents a large Ostiole Diameter (OD). Duncans test has

According to PC2, it was possible to differentiate cultivars

permitted to separate FLY and ZID from the other cultivars

with opened ostiole: Romani (ROM), Wedlani (WDL),

according to the fruit weight and RGB to the fruit length.

Magouli (MAG) from others with less opened ostiole:

ROM cultivars were characterized by a fruit with short stalk.

Bayoudhi (BYD), Felyoui (FLY) and Tayouri Ahmar

Ranking cultivars according to the ostiole size showed that

(TAH).

the ROM, MAG and WDL cultivars present the biggest

PC3 integrated characters related with external and

ostiole diameter and opening. Concerning the leaf size, it was

internal colour of fruit (Table 3). Correlation between PC3

possible to separate some cultivars: MKH, BYD, ZID and

and External Colour (EC) was negative while it was positive

WDL from the group studied.

with Internal Colour (IC). PC3 differentiated cultivars with

Some articles (Salhi Hannachi et al., 2003; Chatti et al.,

fruits coloured as Minouri (MNR), Rogabi (RGB), Sawoudi

2004) reported that figs from other areas in Tunisia present a

(SWD) and Zidi (ZID) from others with light coloration:

significant difference within cultivars for the fruit and leaf

Bayoudhi (BYD), Jemaoui (JMA), Safouri (SAF) and

characters. So, many cultivars are identified for some

Tayouri Asfar (TAS).

morphological parameters. In Lebanon, inventory and

The first axis defined by the Fruit Weight (FW), Fruit

characterization of fig accessions showed that important

Length (FL), Flesh Thickness (FT), Fruit Shape (FS), Stalk

parameters contributed to a large variability within

Length (SL), Ostiole Diameter (OD) and External Colour

accessions (Chalak et al., 2005).

(EC). Cultivars Zidi (ZID), Rogabi (RGB), Wedlani (WDL),

Magouli (MAG) and Romani (ROM) are opposed to Felyoui

PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS (PCA)

(FLY), Tayouri Ahmar (TAH), Makhbech (MKH) and

Grouping of fig cultivars on fruit and leaves using PCA

Bayoudhi (BYD) cultivars (Fig. 4). Zidi (ZID), Rogabi

was based mainly on the first three PC that account for 70. 66

(RGB), Wedlani (WDL), Magouli (MAG), Felyoui (FLY),

% of the variability observed for fruit which was 31.52 %,

Makhbech (MKH) and Bayoudhi (BYD) have relatively

24.14 % and 15 %, respectively to axis 1, 2 and 3. On the other

bigger and coloured fruits. Wedlani (WDL) and Croussi

hand, 58.617 % of the variability observed for leaves were

(CRS) cultivars showed important morphological similarities

24.19 %, 19.39 % and 7.03 %, respectively to axis 1, 2 and 3

based on fruit characters (Fig. 4).

These results clearly indicate that fruit weight, fruit

(Table 3).
The most important variables integrated by PC1 were

length, fruit diameter, stalk diameter, neck length, neck

Fruit Weight (FW), Fruit Diameter (FD), Ostiole Type (OT)

diameter, ostiole diameter, ostiole opening and flesh

and Skin Cracks (SC). PC1 separated cultivars which have

thickness are the most important discriminate characters in

long and/ or no fruits stalk as Bayoudhi (BYD), Rogabi

fig fruits. These results showed a high degree of genetic

(RGB) and Zidi (ZID) from those with small and/ or stalk

variability. Such analyses would be considered as powerful

-3-

Assessment of Genetic

Aljane Fateh and Ferchichi Ali

first one has a high Fruit Weight (FW) and a very low

suitable tools for fig morphological characterization.

external colour, but Rogabi (RGB) has a long stalk and

Concerning the leaf characters, the first three axis of

neck (Fig. 6).

PCA, accounted for 58.61 % of the total variability observed

on leave variables. The first component explains 24.19 % of

The first group was composed of three cultivars: Romani

the global variation and was negatively correlated to Number

(ROM), Makhbech (MKH) and Bayoudhi (BYD). The

of Lobes (NL), Shape of Apex (SA), Shape of Lobes (SL),

cultivar ROM was associated at d = 16. It has an opened

Main Vein appearance (MV) and Limb Pubescence (PL). It

ostiole and a fruit shape different from the other cultivars.

was positively correlated to the other parameters (Table 3).

The second group included cultivars: Sawoudi (SWD),

The second component accounts for 19.39 % of the total

Tayouri Ahmar (TAH), Minouri (MNR) and Felyoui (FLY).

variation. The most important variables integrated in this axis

They have very small fruits, with a closed ostiole and a red-

were Leaf Stalk-length (LS), Limb Length (LL), Limb Width

purple external colour.

The third group included Hammouri (HAM), Tayouri

(LW) and Foliar Area (FA).

Figure 5 shows the distribution of fig cultivars according

Asfar (TAS), Tayouri Akhdhar (TAD), Croussi (CRS),

to PC 1 and PC 2 corresponding to 15.03 % of the total

Safouri (SAF) and Jemaoui (JMA), which are characterized

variability. A considerable genetic diversity among cultivars

by a medium fruit weight. Croussi (CRS) and Tayouri

was observed allowing differentiation between cultivars with

Akhdhar (TAD) were associated at d = 10.5 indicating that

respect to morphology: Zidi (ZID) and Wedlani (WDL)

they may be considered different cultivars of the same fruit

cultivars are opposed to Makhbech (MKH) and Bayoudhi

shape.
The fourth cluster included three cultivars: Bither (BTH),

(BYD). Former ones have large foliar area and long leaf

Wedlani (WDL) and Magouli (MAG). This group presents a

stalk.
A wide range of morphological characterization of fig

low dissimilarity level (d = 17.2) indicating the close

cultivars has been published in the world (Mars et al., 1998;

relationship within cultivars, having a low fruit size. Magouli

Assafi, 2001; Chatti et al., 2004; Chalak et al., 2005, Oukabli

(MAG) and Wedlani (WDL) have a closed, low ostiole

et al., 2005). These results looked in agreement with those of

diameter (Fig. 6).

cultivars of the Mediterranean area; PCA revealed that the

Cluster analysis on leave characters reveals a

first 3 components explained comparable values (from 52 %

considerable variability within fig cultivars (Fig. 7). The

to 72 %) of the total variation, based on morphological traits.

dendrogram obtained on leaf descriptors shows two groups

These results are compared with those obtained by (Mars

and six separate cultivars: Wedlani (WDL), Zidi (ZID),

et al., 1998; Hedfi et al., 2003; Salhi-Hannachi et al., 2003;

Hammouri (HAM), Tayouri Akhdhar (TAD), Bither (BTH)

Chatti et al., 2004; Oukabi et al., 2005; Chalak et al., 2005).

and Bayoudhi (BYD). The cultivar Zidi (ZID) and Wedlani

Furthermore, similar results were obtained for fig germplasm

(WDL) have a large foliar area but Bayoudhi (BYD) has a

using morphological traits based on fruits and leaves.

small one. The first group included Tayouri Ahmar (TAH),

Sawoudi (SWD) and Safouri (SAF), which are grouped at

HIERARCHICAL CANONICAL ANALYSIS

the distance: 38.2. The second group joins cultivars at a

Hierarchical Canonical Analysis on fruit parameters

distance equal to 34.0 and contained the rest of cultivars. This

produced a dendrogram with four main clusters and two

clustering is in agreement with the distribution of the

separated cultivars; Zidi (ZID) and Rogabi (RGB). The

cultivars according to the first two components of PCA

-4-

Jordan Journal of Agricultural Sciences, Volume 5, No.1, 2009

analysis (Fig. 7).

our laboratory, using those cultivars by Guesmi et al. (2006).

Cluster analysis of some other studies on fig germplasm,

A national collection of fig containing more than 80 cultivars

showed that canonical discriminate analysis behaved an

of fig and 15 cultivars of caprifig was established in southern

important morphological variability for fruit and leaf traits

Tunisia (Aljane Fateh, Comm. Pers., 2007). Cultivars studies

and some homonymies and synonymies were detected (Mars

are currently being analyzed for better characterization,

et al., 1998; Chatti et al., 2004; Chalak et al., 2005; Oukabli

selection of fig germplasm, increase in choice of cultivars

et al., 2005).

and determining the discriminated characters used in

morphological, agronomical and chemical studies.

Mars et al. (1998) and Salhi-Hannachi et al. (2003)

reported that hierarchical canonical analysis was carried out

Further investigations including many other cultivars in

on some cultivars from Tunisia; the same results were

other areas in Tunisia are necessary to better analyze the

obtained. Clustering is in agreement with the distribution of

distribution of fig germplasm. The use of chemical

the variety according to the first two components of PCA

parameters;

analysis.

isoenzymics (Zigo and Stamper, 1995; Hedfi et al., 2003;

acids,

sugars,

minerals,

polyphenols,

Aljane et al., 2007a and 2007b; Del Caro et al., 2007), and
CONCLUSION

molecular markers; RAPD, Microsatellites, etc. (Oukabli

The present study aimed to characterize the fig cultivars

and Khadari, 2005; Salhi Hannachi et al., 2005; Salhi

maintained in field traditional orchards in southern Tunisia

Hannachi et al., 2006; Chatti et al., 2007) could supply

using morphological descriptors, to evaluate genetic diversity

complementary

and detect associations among cultivars. Mean values of

germplasm characterization.

information

about the Tunisian

fig

main fruits and leaf variables showed significant differences

This study is valued to establish rational management of

among all cultivars. The low diversity within cultivars was

fig germplasm and also is important for breeding and

confirmed by PCA results.

improvement purposes. Also, assessment of genetic diversity

is important for the study of biodiversity, population

We can conclude that among the morphological

characters studied, those related to fruit size, fruit colour and

dynamics

and

ecological

relationships.

Additionally,

leaf size show the highest discriminating characters.

knowledge of available plant genetic resources is

Morphological diversity was detected and in some cases,

fundamental to support programs for the development of new

synonymies appeared within Wedlani (WDL) and Croussi

cultivars, as well as to protect existing natural resources.

(CRS), which appeared as similar cultivars. Some cultivars:

Therefore, we think it is imperative for researchers to

Tayouri Akhdhar (TAD), Tayouri Asfar (TAS) and Tayouri

establish such research aiming at the preservation and the

Ahmar (TAH) present some homonymies. These cultivars

evaluation of the germplasm.

varied mostly by the skin colour. It seemed a polyclone

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

variety.
Variability within these cultivars was largely influenced

The authors would like to thank the staff of the Arid

by the breeding system and climatic conditions (Hammrick,

Land Institute and the farmers in Southern Tunisia for their

1990; Salhi Hannachi et al., 2003; Aljane, 2004b). A

help and cooperation.

molecular study based on ISSR markers was performed in

-5-

Assessment of Genetic

Aljane Fateh and Ferchichi Ali

Table (1): Names, abbreviations and origins of southern Tunisian fig cultivars.
Accession
name
Bayoudhi
Bither
Croussi
Felyoui
Hammouri
Jemaoui
Magouli
Makhbech
Minouri

Label
BTH
BYD
CRS
FLY
HAM
JMA
MAG
MKH
MNR

Geographic
origin
Bir Amir
Beni Kheddache
Beni Kheddache
Douiret
Zammour
Zammour
Bir Amir
Bir Amir
Bir Amir

Accession
name

Label

Geographic
origin

Rogabi
Romani
Safouri
Sawoudi
Tayouri Akhdhar
Tayouri Ahmar
Tayouri Asfar
Wedlani
Zidi

RGB
ROM
SAF
SWD
TAD
TAH
TAS
WDL
ZID

Zammour
Zammour
Zammour
Bir Amir
Bir Amir
Bir Amir
Bir Amir
Zammour
Bir Amir

Table (2): Characters measured on fruits and leaves in southern Tunisian fig cultivars.
Character
Fruit Weight (gr)
Fruit Length (mm)
Fruit Diameter (mm)
Fruit Shape
Stalk Length (mm)
Stalk Diameter (mm)
Neck Length (mm)
Neck Diameter (mm)
External Colour
Ostiole Diameter (mm)
Ostiole Type
Skin Cracks
Internal Colour
Skin Thickness (mm)
Flesh Thickness (mm)
Number of Lobes
Shape of Apex
Shape of Lobes

Label
FW
FL
FD
FS
SL
SD
NL
ND
EC
OD
OT
SC
IC
ST
FT
NL
SA
SL

Character
Colour of Leaf Stalk
Leaf Stalk Length (mm)
Leaf Stalk Diameter (mm)
Limb Colour
Limb Length (mm)
Limb Width (mm)
Foliar Area (cm2)
Lateral Sinus deep 1 (mm)
Lateral Sinus deep 2 (mm)
Lateral Sinus deep 3 (mm)
Lateral Sinus deep 4 (mm)
Lateral Sinus deep 5 (mm)
Lateral Sinus deep 6 (mm)
Limb Roughness
Limb Contour Serration
Main Vein appearance
Limb Pubescence

-6-

Label
CS
LS
DS
CL
LL
LW
FA
LS1
LS2
LS3
LS4
LS5
LS6
RL
CS
MV
LP

Jordan Journal of Agricultural Sciences, Volume 5, No.1, 2009

Table (3): Eigen-values, cumulated proportion of variation and eigenvectors associated with the first three axis of
the PCA on some southern Tunisian fig cultivars.
Principal
Principal
components
1
2
3
1
2
3
components (axis)
(axis)
Cumulated
Cumulated
proportion
31.52
55.66
70.66
proportion
24.19
43.58
58.61
of variation
of variation
Fruit characters
Eigenvectors
Leaves characters
Eigenvectors
0.391
0.608
-0.493
NL
-0.064
0.634
-0.212
SA
-0.348
0.168
0.774
FW
-0.632
0.197
-0.161
SL
-0.097
0.832
0.441
FL
0.644
-0.288
0.172
CS
0.146
-0.129
0.833
FD
-0.168
0.235
0.716
LS
0.326
0.808
0.042
FS
-0.354
0.140
0.708
DS
-0.251
0.683
-0.243
SL
0.216
0.525
0.383
CL
0.192
-0.133
0.870
SD
-0.135
-0.009
0.893
LL
0.091
0.871
0.293
NL
-0.100
0.032
0.927
LW
0.080
0.579
0.552
ND
0.128
-0.454
0.620
LS1
-0.344
-0.068
0.258
EC
0.703
-0.127
0.378
LS2
0.432
-0.559
0.606
OD
0.687
0.167
0.380
LS3
0.383
-0.229
0.820
OT
0.075
0.761
0.297
LS4
-0.171
-0.345
0.743
SC
-0.010
0.753
0.042
LS5
0.58
0.072
-0.142
IC
0.257
0.420
0.191
LS6
0.848
0.327
-0.118
ST
0.550
-0.080
-0.376
RL
-0.492
0.227
0.584
FT
0.015
0.686
-0.111
CS

-7-

Assessment of Genetic

Aljane Fateh and Ferchichi Ali

Figure(1): Different parameters measured on fig fruit according to Storey (1975), Obenauf et al. (1978) and IPGRI (2003).

Figure (2): Different parameters measured on fig leaf according to IPGRI (1978).

-8-

Jordan Journal of Agricultural Sciences, Volume 5, No.1, 2009

Figure (3): Different fig fruit shapes according to Condit (1947).

Figure (4): Distribution of cultivars studied according to the first and the second principal components
on fruit characters.

-9-

Assessment of Genetic

Aljane Fateh and Ferchichi Ali

Figure (5): Distribution of cultivars studied according to the first and the second principal components
on leaves characters.

Figure (6): Cluster dendrogram of fig cultivars on fruit characters.

-10-

Jordan Journal of Agricultural Sciences, Volume 5, No.1, 2009

Figure (7): Cluster dendrogram of fig cultivars on leaves characters.

-11-

Assessment of Genetic

Aljane Fateh and Ferchichi Ali

Annex (1): Mean values of fruit characters of fig cultivars studied.

CVS

FW

FL

FD

FS

SL

SD

NL

ND

EC

OD

OT

SC

IC

ST

FT

BTH

68.3

48.7

56.2

3.4

3.1

5.8

5.4

9.0

6.0

6.6

2.4

2.4

10.0

0.7

28.0

BYD

24.9

42.9

38.4

1.3

10.4

5.2

0.0

0.0

3.6

4.7

1.1

2.1

10.2

1.0

14.3

CRS

37.2

39.6

45.4

3.3

6.1

6.4

8.3

15.0

12.6

6.9

2.3

2.0

10.6

0.9

14.4

FLY

10.2

26.9

30.6

3.9

6.9

4.3

0.0

0.0

12.0

4.7

1.4

1.75

10.8

0.9

13.2

HAM

24.5

47.9

53.5

4.0

7.5

5.3

13.1

8.3

8.0

5.0

1.2

2.0

10.8

1.0

13.8

JMA

35.7

59.7

41.1

6.9

7.6

6.3

13.1

11.9

4.0

5.0

1.7

2.0

10.6

1.1

14.0

MAG

58.3

47.4

52.9

4.0

3.8

6.5

7.3

9.2

7.7

9.5

2.6

2.3

12.7

1.2

15.4

MKH

29.6

39.7

42.3

3.4

7.9

5.7

0.0

0.0

5.6

5.6

1.2

2.3

13.0

0.9

16.3

MNR

16.9

35.5

34.7

4.7

3.0

5.6

8.3

10.3

14.0

6.3

1.7

2.1

5.8

0.8

11.1

RGB

46.2

72.2

43.1

9.6

12.1

5.8

19.0

11.0

11.8

5.43

1.8

2.1

13.7

1.1

18.3

ROM

36.0

33.6

48.7

3.0

2.5

7.1

0.0

0.0

10.3

12.3

2.5

2.4

9.7

0.8

10.1

SAF

32.4

51.2

41.1

8.1

6.1

5.6

10.5

11.7

4.4

5.8

2.1

1.7

13.3

1.4

14.4

SWD

41.3

62.1

51.0

4.5

8.1

7.4

9.8

12.4

16.0

7.1

2.2

2.4

12.1

0.7

23.3

TAD

40.9

46.9

45.2

4.2

5.0

6.1

7.7

10.5

10.0

6.9

2.2

2.4

12.4

1.0

17.7

TAH

17.7

51.5

31.8

5.4

9.0

4.9

9.4

8.0

6.6

4.8

1.0

1.6

11.9

1.1

12.0

TAS

40.4

51.8

42.9

3.4

7.9

5.5

6.8

9.9

5.5

5.2

1.7

1.8

2.0

0.7

21.6

WDL

56.1

45.2

54.3

3.5

5.5

7.3

6.5

12.2

12.5

8.5

2.7

2.2

10.5

1.1

16.3

ZID

106.7

62.2

43.4

5.0

9.3

6.3

11.7

11.2

16.0

5.1

1.6

2.4

3.4

0.6

21.3

F cal. 105.05 133.70 52.95 71.90 14.96 36.44 90.85 251.34 67.63 60.58 17.76 5.73 36.52 20.40 58.33
NS

**

**

**

**

**

**

**

**

For explanation of cultivars and character labels, see Tables 1 and 2.

In bold, maximum and minimum values.

-12-

**

**

**

**

**

**

**

Jordan Journal of Agricultural Sciences, Volume 5, No.1, 2009

Annex (2): Mean values of leaves characters of fig cultivars studied.
CVS

NL

SA

SL

CS

LS

DS

CL

LL

LW

BTH

5.0

4.0

4.0

2.0

50.8

3.9

8.0

173.0

172.0

305.16 31.0

65.0

11.0

53.0

28.0

0.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

2.0

BYD

7.0

3.0

3.0

2.0

50.0

3.4

8.0

140.0

128.0

198.58 19.0

49.0

65.0

32.0

7.0

0.0

2.0

4.0

1.0

2.0

CRS

5.0

2.2

2.3

2.0

65.8

4.7

8.0

199.8

182.3

337.11 24.6

65.7

66.6

25.3

0.0

0.0

1.0

1.8

1.0

2.0

HAM

5.0

3.0

4.0

2.0

74.5

4.8

8.0

209.0

175.0

290.45 11.0

28.0

30.0

52.0

28.0

0.0

1.0

4.0

1.0

2.0

JMA

5.0

2.6

1.8

4.0

57.8

4.0

8.0

210.8

186.0

364.36 34.8

80.8

76.6

32.2

0.0

0.0

1.8

1.8

1.0

2.0

MAG

4.4

3.1

3.1

2.0

50.0

4.2

7.2

180.1

168.1

303.83 26.1

51.0

53.7

22.2

26.5

0.0

1.4

2.1

1.0

2.0

MKH

5.2

2.7

1.8

2.0

35.7

3.9

7.5

165.7

155.2

265.99 21.7

46.7

58.5

34.5

37.0

14.8

1.5

2.2

1.0

2.0

MNR

4.6

2.6

3.8

2.5

43.9

4.2

7.4

170.1

163.8

208.38 32.9

56.6

54.8

26.5

28.0

0.0

1.5

1.3

1.0

2.0

RGB

3.4

2.3

2.6

3.0

68.6

4.1

8.0

181.9

171.4

317.13 52.5

60.6

72.3

36.7

3.2

2.3

1.05

2.3

1.0

2.0

ROM

4.1

2.05

3.4

2.0

46.4

4.8

7.3

175.8

162.7

291.00 41.5

54.9

62.8

33.4

0.0

0.0

1.2

1.4

1.0

2.0

SAF

4.7

4.0

2.6

2.1

69.2

4.0

8.0

166.4

161.5

271.04 34.6 57.05

69.0

46.0

39.8

18.0

1.2

3.2

1.0

2.0

SWD

4.1

2.5

3.4

2.0

66.5

3.9

7.5

198.1

182.0

364.95 49.2

61.1

64.2

41.8

33.4

24.2

1.8

1.8

1.0

2.0

TAD

2.3

2.2

2.5

2.0

58.6

3.9

7.6

182.1

168.4

309.54 36.9

35.5

15.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.4

1.9

1.0

2.0

TAH

4.6

2.2

2.4

2.0

66.2

4.08

8.0

180.6

170.05 309.84 34.3

61.5

66.5

34.9

38.6

50.0

1.0

2.5

1.0

2.0

TAS

3.4

1.6

2.9

2.0

61.2

3.6

7.5

184.05

167.5

310.55 42.5

52.2

66.4

38.2

0.0

0.0

1.2

2.1

1.0

2.0

WDL

4.7

2.9

2.8

2.0

62.9

5.01

8.0

218.05

213.1

565.78 37.4

58.7

97.5

76.6

61.4

19.6

1.4

3.1

1.0

2.0

ZID

3.2

2.6

2.8

2.0

76.08

5.4

8.0

247.5

226.3

481.85 54.4

59.0

62.05 30.7

7.9

2.1

1.2

2.1

1.0

2.0

F cal. 8.73 3.92 3.69 39.86 11.42 16.71 5.17 17.02

14.69

15.5

7.37

3.25

5.51

9.32 51.72 18.53 6.37 4.45

0.0

0.0

**

**

**

**

**

DS

**

**

**

**

**

**

**

**

FA

For explanation of cultivars and character labels, see Tables 1 and 2.

In bold, maximum and minimum values.
MV and LP values were invariable for all cultivars studied.

-13-

LS1 LS2

LS3 LS4 LS5

**

**

LS6 RL

**

**

CS MV LP

**

Assessment of Genetic

Aljane Fateh and Ferchichi Ali

REFERENCES
cultivars tunisiens de figuier (Ficus carica L.), par les
Aljane, F., F. Ali and B. Mekki. 2004a. Analyses de la

caractres morphologiques. Fruits. 59(1): 49-61.

diversit gntique de cultivars locaux du figuier (Ficus

Chatti, K., O.Saddoud, A. Salhi-Hannachi, M. Mars, M.

carica L.) par les caractres morphomtriques cultivs

Marrakchi and M. Trifi. 2007. Analysis of genetic

dans la chane de Matmata (Sud-est tunisien). Revue

diversity and relationships in a tunisian fig (Ficus

des rgions Arides. N spcial : 95-104.

carica L.) germplam collection by random amplified

Aljane F. 2004b. Prospection et Caractrisation des varits

microsatellite polymorphisms. J. Integ. Pt. Biolog. 49

locales du figuier (Ficus carica L.) dans les Jessours

(3): 386-391.

mridionaux des Jebels Matmata. Diplme d'tudes

Condit, I.J. 1947. The fig. ed. Walthams Mass. Published by

approfondies, Facult des Sciences de Sfax, Sfax,

the Chronica Botanica Co, U.S.A.

Tunisie.

Del Caro, A. and Piga, A. 2007. Polyphenol composition of

Aljane, F., Toumi, I. and Ferchichi, A. 2007a. HPLC

peel and pulp of two Italian fresh fig fruit cultviars

determination of sugars and atomic absorption analysis

(Ficus carica L.). Eur. Food Res. Technol. DOI

of mineral elements in fresh figs of Tunisian cultivars.

10.1007/ s00217-007-0581-4.

African J. of Biotech., 6 (5) : 599-602.

Guesmi, F., A. Ferchichi, K. Fars and L. Touil. 2006.

Aljane F. and A. Ferchichi. 2007. Morphological, chemical

Identification and differentiation of Ficus carica L.

and sensory characterization of Tunisian fig (Ficus

cultivars using inter simple sequence repeat markers,

carica L.) cultivars based on dried fruits. Acta Hort.

Afrc. J. of Biotech. Vol. 5 (15): 1370-1374.

741: 81-85.

Hamrick, J.L. 1990. Isozymes and the analysis of genetic

Anonym. 2004. Fig (Ficus carica L). Universit du centre,

structure in plant populations. In: Chapman and Hall,

Institut Suprieur de Biotechnologie de Monastir,

Soltis BD, Soltis PS eds., Isozy. in Plant Biolog. Lon-

Monastir, Tunisie.

don, 87-105.

Assaf, R. 2001. Slection des varits locales et techniques

Hedfi, J., M. Trifi., A. Salhi-Hannachi, A. Ouled Mohamed

de culture du figuier en Isral. Fruits, 56: 101-121.

Balance

Commerciale.

2006.

Institut

National

Salem,
de

A.

Rhouma

and

M.

Marrakchi.

2003.

Morphological and isoeneymic polymorphisms in

Statistique, Tunis, Tunisie.

Tunisian fig (Ficus carica L.) collection. Acta Hort.

Ben Saleh, M., M. Ancilotti and Loumerem, M. 1995.

605 : 319- 325.

Etude pomologique de six varits de figuier (Ficus

IPGRI. 2003. Descriptors for fig (Ficus carica L.). Rome,

carica L.) typiques de Beni Kheddache. Plant Genet.

Italy.

Res. Newsletter. 104 : 16 - 20.

Mars, M. 1995. La culture du grenadier (Punica granatum L.)

Chalak, L., A. Chehade, E. Mattar and B. Khadari. 2005.

et du figuier (Ficus carica L.) en Tunisie. Cah. Options

Morphological characterization in fig accessions cultivated

Mditer. 13 : 85-95.

in Lebanon. Third Intl. Symposium on Fig. Vilamoura.

Mars, M., M. Marrakchi and T. Chebli. 1998. Multivariate

Portugal. 16-20 May 2005 (Acta Hort., in press).

analysis of fig (Ficus carica.L.) germplasm in southern

Chatti, K., A. Salhi-Hannachi, M. Mars, M. Marrakchi and

Tunisia. Acta Hort. 480 : 75-81.

M. Trifi. 2004. Analyse de la diversit gntique de

Minangoin, N. 1931. Monographie des varits de figues

-14-

Jordan Journal of Agricultural Sciences, Volume 5, No.1, 2009

tunisiennes.

Dans:

Congrs

d'Agronomie

du

Salhi-Hannachi, A., K. Chatti, M. Mars, M. Marrakchi and

Cinquantenaire, Tome 1, Ed. Imprim. Baconnier, Alger,

M. Trifi. 2005. Comparative analysis of genetic

Algrie, 336-364.

diversity on two collections fig cultivars based on

Onebauf, G., M. Gerdts, G. Leavitt and J. Crane. 1978.

random amplified DNA and inter repeat fingerprints.

Commercial dried fig production. Univ. Calif. Div.

Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 52: 563 -573.

Agric. Sci., Leaflet.

Salhi-Hannachi, A., K. Chatti, M. Mars, O. Saddoud, M.

Oukabli, A., A. Mamouni, M. Laghezali, B. Khadari, J. P.

Marrakchi, R. Abdelmajid, M. Marrakchi and M. Trifi.

Roger and F. Kjellberg. 2005. Genetic variability in

2006. Genetic diversity of different Tunisian fig (Ficus

Morrocan fig cultivars

carica L.) collections revealed by RAPD fingerprints.

(Ficus carica L.) based on

morphological and pomological data. Third Intl.

Heredit. 143: 15-22.

Symposium on Fig. Vilamoura. Portugal. 16-20 May

Storey, W. B. 1975. Figs. In Janick J. and J. Moore (eds).

2005 (Acta Hort., in press).

Advances in fruit breeding. Purdue Univ. Press. Indiana,

Oukabli, A., A. Mamouni, M. Laghezali, B. Khadari, J. P.

568- 589.

Roger and F. Kjellberg. 2005. Genetic variability in

Morrocan fig cultivars

Valdeyron, G. and D. G. Lioyd. 1979. Sex differences and

(Ficus carica L.) based on

flowering phenology in the common fig. (Ficus carica

morphological and pomological data. Acta Hort. 605:

L.). Evol. 53 : 673 685.

311- 318.

Vidaud, J., M. Baccaunaud, Y. Caraglio, C. Hutin and J. P.

Oukabli, A. and B. Khadari. 2005. Caractrisation des

Roger. 1997. Le figuier. Ctifl. Paris. France.

varits polyclones marocaines de figuiers, Ficus carica

Weiblen, G. D. 2000. Phylogenetic relationships of

L. Fruits. 60: 47- 54.

functionally dioecious Ficus (Moraceae) based on

Salhi-Hannachi, A., M. Mars, K. Chatti., M. Marrakchi and

ribosomal DNA sequences and morphology. Am. J. Bot.,

M. Trifi. 2003. Specific genetic markers for Tunisian

87: 1342-1357.

fig germplasm: evidence of morphological traits,

Zigo, A. and F. Stamper. 1995. Characterization of isozymes

random amplified polymorphism DNA and inter simple

variation in common fig (Ficus carica L.). Res. Reports

sequence repeat markers. J. Genet. and Breed. 57: 125-

Biotechnical Faculty of the University of Ljubjana,

136.

Jamnikarjeva. Croatia.

-15-

Assessment of Genetic

Aljane Fateh and Ferchichi Ali

) (Ficus carica L.

*

.
.

. :
) (Analysis of Variance) (Principal Component Analysis) (Hierarchical Canonical Analysis
. .
: ...
.
: .

____________________________________________
*

4119.

2006/12/13 .2008/5/20

-16-