Table 1.
Origin of evaluated almond varieties.
| Variety | Origin |
|---|---|
| Famosa | Czech; seedling selection from open pollination |
| Fatima | Czech; seedling selection from open pollination |
| Ferragnes | France; Cristomorto × Aï |
| Ferrastar | France; Cristomorto × Ardechoise |
| Genco | Italy; unknown origin |
| Gersonskaja | Ukraine; unknown origin |
| Husle | Czech; seedling selection from open pollination |
| P. amygdalus var. tenera | Czech; seedling selection from open pollination |
| MN-VA-1 | Czech; seedling selection from open pollination |
| Nikitsky | Ukraine; Nikitskyi 62 × Nikitskyi 1 |
| Sladkoplodá krajová | Czech; seedling selection |
| Supernova | Italy; Tuono bud mutation |
| Suzanne | Czech; seedling selection from open pollination |
| Zora | Czech; seedling selection from open pollination |
Table 2.
The evaluated phaenological and pomological parameters of different almond cultivars. std. is not shown when all measured values were identical.
| Varieties | Date of flowering start (±/-days before or after control) | Date of ripening start | Stone weight [g] | Stone shape | Softness of shell | Kernel weight [g] | Shell colour intensity (brown) | Taste | Taste (quality) | Keel | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ø | std. | Ø | std. | Ø | std. | Ø | std. | Ø | std. | Ø | std. | Ø | std. | Ø | std. | Ø | std. | Ø | std. | |
| Famosa | –12.00 | 8.83 | 0 | 0 | 3.75 | 0.59 | 3 | 0.58 | 7 | 3.06 | 0.91 | 0.13 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 1.15 | 7 | – | 1 | – |
| Fatima | –8.67 | 4.62 | 0 | 0 | 3.31 | 0.32 | 3 | 0 | 4 | 2.12 | 0.81 | 0.02 | 4 | 2.12 | 3 | 0 | 8 | – | 2 | – |
| Ferragnes | 4.00 | 0.71 | 0 | 0 | 4.50 | 1.73 | 3 | 1.26 | 5 | 2 | 1.00 | 0.29 | 5 | 0.96 | 3 | 0.5 | 5 | – | 1 | – |
| Ferrastar | 4.00 | 1.00 | 0 | – | 5.81 | 0.76 | 4 | – | 6 | – | 1.58 | 0.12 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 9 | – | 5 | – |
| Genco | –0.20 | 0.45 | 1 | 1.15 | 4.83 | 0.56 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 1.28 | 0.55 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 8 | – | 3 | – |
| Gersonskaja | 3.50 | 2.52 | 5 | 1.5 | 8.80 | 3.06 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1.15 | 1.19 | 0.73 | 3 | 1.73 | 3 | 0 | 8 | – | 2 | – |
| Husle | –3.00 | 4.24 | 0 | – | 5.59 | – | 5 | – | 3 | – | 0.88 | – | 5 | – | 3 | 0 | 7 | – | 2 | – |
| P. amygdalus var. tenera | –12.00 | 10.58 | 0 | 0 | 3.48 | 0.06 | 3 | 0 | 8 | 1.41 | 1.61 | 0.14 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 8 | – | 7 | – |
| MN-VA-1 | –12.25 | 4.57 | 0 | 0 | 4.31 | 0.84 | 3 | 0.58 | 3 | 1.53 | 0.91 | 0.12 | 3 | 1.15 | 5 | 1.53 | 7 | – | 9 | – |
| Nikitsky | –6.00 | – | 0 | – | 4.20 | – | 3 | – | 5 | – | 1.06 | – | 4 | – | 3 | 0 | 8 | – | 2 | – |
| Sladkoplodá Krajová | –1.75 | 2.87 | 0 | 0 | 3.75 | 0.84 | 3 | 0.58 | 5 | 1.73 | 1.41 | 0.35 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 7 | – | 2 | – |
| Supernova | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 4.71 | 1.26 | 3 | 0.82 | 5 | 2.08 | 1.52 | 0.25 | 3 | 0.5 | 3 | 1.5 | 8 | – | 3 | – |
| Suzanne | –9.50 | 4.04 | 1 | 1.41 | 2.44 | 0.41 | 3 | 0.58 | 9 | 1.15 | 0.95 | 0.42 | 3 | 1.73 | 3 | 0 | 8 | – | 5 | – |
| Zora | –17.50 | 6.56 | –8 | 1.41 | 4.04 | 0.72 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 2.52 | 1.28 | 0.45 | 5 | 0.58 | 3 | 0 | 8 | – | 2 | – |
1 Stone shape was evaluated according to the following scale: 1 – rounded, 2 – ovate, 3 – oblong, 4 – cordate, 5 – extremely narrow. Softness of shell was evaluated according to the following scale: 1 – extremely hard (very difficult to break, need hammer), 2 – hard (difficult to break, need hammer), 5 – intermediate (broken by hand with effort), 7 – soft (broken by hand), 9 – paper (very thin, easily removed).
1 Shell colour intensity was evaluated according to the following scale: 1 – extremely light; 3 – light; 5 – intermediate, 7 – dark. Taste was evaluated according to the following scale: 3 – sweet, 5 – intermediate, 7 – bitter.
Figure 1.
The mean value of the onset of flowering for a range of almond cultivars. The brown lines represent the standard deviation.
Figure 2.
The ratio of almond kernel weight to stone weight, expressed in %.
Figure 3.
Almonds of analysed cultivars. (A) Famosa, (B) Fatima, (C) Ferragnes, (D) Ferrastar, (E) Genco, (F) Gersonskaja, (G) Husle, (H) MN-VA-1, (I) Nikitskij, (J) Sladkoploda, (K) Supernova, (L) Suzanne, (M) var. tenera, (N) Zora.
Figure 4.
Diagram of cluster analysis based on phenological and pomological parameters of different almond cultivars. The rectangles represent two main clusters differed by the analysis.
Figure 5.
The projection of the cases on the PC1 × PC2 plane was obtained from the PCA of pomological and phaenological parameters of different almond cultivars. PCA, principal component analysis.
Table 3.
Chemical and bioactive content of almond cultivars.
| Variety | TFC (% FW) | TSPC (% FW) | Moisture (% FW) | TPC (mg GAE·100 g−1 FW) | TFlavC (mg CE·100 g−1 FW) | TAC (mg TE·100 g−1 FW) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Famosa | 45.81 ± 1.00 a* | 14.16 ± 0.79 e | 4.44 ± 0.03 e | 75.16 ± 0.20 h | 49.72 ± 0.06 i | 72.4 ± 0.20 f |
| Fatima | 54.61 ± 0.37 bcd | 8.30 ± 0.12 c | 3.74 ± 0.08 ab | 53.91 ± 0.02 f | 42.07 ± 0.17 h | 54.5 ± 0.60 e |
| Ferragnes | 50.32 ± 1.48 ab | 4.96 ± 0.03 a | 4.23 ± 0.12 cde | 142.09 ± 0.39 k | 85.11 ± 0.35 l | 148.9 ± 1.70 i |
| Ferrastar | 58.48 ± 3.68 cd | 10.90 ± 0.10 d | 3.73 ± 0.01 ab | 84.83 ± 0.17 i | 49.96 ± 0.08 i | 71.5 ± 0.50 f |
| Genco | 61.80 ± 0.01 c | 6.19 ± 0.14 ab | 3.37 ± 0.03 a | 53.84 ± 0.19 f | 35.02 ± 0.15 g | 49.3 ± 0.20 d |
| Gersonskaja | 54.83 ± 0.45 bcd | 11.24 ± 0.50 d | 4.03 ± 0.03 bcde | 22.70 ± 0.09 a | 16.27 ± 0.05 b | 18.7 ± 0.20 a |
| Husle | 45.20 ± 1.84 a | 13.44 ± 0.25 e | 4.41 ± 0.11 de | 53.07 ± 0.47 f | 18.24 ± 0.17 c | 24.6 ± 0.50 b |
| P. amygdalus var. tenera | 50.69 ± 0.04 bc | 8.33 ± 0.18 c | 11.66 ± 0.06 f | 121.16 ± 0.34 j | 80.85 ± 0.83 k | 126.4 ± 0.70 h |
| MN-VA-1 | 53.74 ± 0.90 bc | 8.16 ± 0.21 c | 4.10 ± 0.01 bcde | 84.57 ± 0.14 i | 60.46 ± 0.04 j | 88.8 ± 0.70 g |
| Nikitsky | 56.21 ± 0.25 bcd | 6.41 ± 0.10 ab | 3.95 ± 0.07 bc | 46.85 ± 0.23 e | 25.59 ± 0.04 d | 39.8 ± 0.30 c |
| Sladkoplodá krajová | 58.20 ± 0.72 cd | 5.24 ± 0.01 a | 3.74 ± 0.08 ab | 29.28 ± 0.05 b | 13.05 ± 0.83 a | 23.7 ± 0.60 b |
| Supernova | 51.95 ± 0.64 abc | 10.66 ± 0.02 d | 4.02 ± 0.07 bcd | 55.67 ± 0.07 g | 43.11 ± 0.09 h | 56.8 ± 0.20 e |
| Suzanne | 56.79 ± 0.65 bcd | 6.97 ± 0.13 bc | 3.76 ± 0.01 ab | 39.11 ± 0.05 d | 28.01 ± 0.09 e | 37.1 ± 0.50 c |
| Zora | 50.29 ± 0.20 ab | 11.81 ± 0.25 d | 4.00 ± 0.14 bcd | 37.91 ± 0.06 c | 30.42 ± 0.21 f | 39.8 ± 0.20 c |
Figure 6.
The projection of the cases on the factor plane 1 × 2 provided by the PCA of selected nutritional parameters of different almond cultivars. PCA, principal component analysis.