부산대학교 도서관

The main aim of the research was to evaluate some fruit quality characteristics and phytochemical compounds of 16 selected genotypes and one commercial (cv. ‘Bursa Siyahı’) fig (Ficus caricaL.) cultivar. Significant differences (p< 0.05) were observed in fig genotypes concerning fruit quality traits. In terms of fruit weight, F‑1, F‑2, F‑7, F‑12, F‑15, and F‑16; in terms of fruit width, the F‑2; in terms of fruit shape index, the F‑6 genotype was found to be at a similar level with the commercial cultivar. However, F‑8, F‑12, F‑13, F‑14, and F‑15 in fruit length; F‑6 and F‑12 in neck length; F‑3, F‑4, F‑6, F‑10, F‑11, F‑12, F‑13, and F‑14 in ostiole width; F‑2, F‑4, F‑7, F‑10, F‑11, F‑13, and F‑14 in soluble solids content (SSC); and in terms of titratable acidity (TA), higher values were obtained in F‑2, F‑4, F‑5, and F‑6 genotypes compared to the commercial fig cultivar (cv. ‘Bursa Siyahı’). Similarly, significant differences were detected between genotypes in terms of bioactive compounds. Total phenolics in F6, F‑10, and F‑11 genotypes; total flavonoids in F‑6, F‑9, and F‑14 genotypes; FRAP antioxidant activity in F‑9 genotype; DPPH antioxidant activity was higher in F‑1, F‑2, F‑5, F‑6, F‑9, F‑11, F‑14, and F‑15 genotypes compared to the commercial fig cultivar. The principal component analysis exposed that the first five main components contributed 32.3%, 25.3%, 12.6%, 10.2%, and 8.4% of the total variation, respectively, with a cumulative rate of 88.7%. F‑1, F‑7, F‑6, and F‑16 genotypes, along with the ‘Bursa Siyahı’ cultivar, were grouped, and the closest similarity to the commercial cultivar was observed in the F‑7 genotype.