Back to all available

Phenotypic diversity analysis and fruit quality evaluation of 30 Vitis amurensis  germplasm resources from Northeast China

agricultural-science
plant-science

Abstract

This study aimed to screen superior Vitis amurensis  germplasm resources and provide a reference for cultivar breeding and utilization. Thirty germplasm accessions from Northeast China were evaluated for both quantitative and qualitative traits; fruit quality physicochemical parameters—including Soluble sugar Content, Titratable Acids Content, sugar–acid ratio, vitamin C, total phenolics, and total flavonoids—were determined. Phenotypic diversity was assessed, and nutritional quality was further analyzed via correlation analysis, cluster analysis, and principal component comprehensive evaluation. The results indicated that although Northeast V. amurensis displays considerable phenotypic diversity, most fruits were cylindrical in shape, bore predominantly simple-shouldered clusters, and exhibited blue–black skin. The coefficients of variation for quantitative traits ranged from 0.20 to 0.50, with cluster peduncle length and berry weight showing the greatest variation. Genetic diversity indices for the 17 quality traits spanned 0.014 to 1.403, with density, juice color, and flesh texture exceeding an index of 1. Cluster analysis classified the 30 accessions into three groups, revealing both similarities and differences in nutritional quality traits. Correlation analysis identified acid content, soluble sugar content, and vitamin C content as core quality indicators. Finally, based on the principal component comprehensive evaluation, the top five superior germplasm accessions were RS1612, RS1605, RS1622, RS1617, and XB1703.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].