Sorbitol and Sugar Composition in Plum Fruits Influenced by Climatic Conditions

Authors
K. Dugalic
R. Sudar
M. Viljevac
M. Josipovic
T. Cupic
Agricultural Institute Osijek, Juzno predgradje 17, Osijek 31000, Croatia.
Abstract
The aim of the study was to evaluate changes of sorbitol, glucose, fructose, sucrose, and total sugars of plum fruits in different years under different climatic conditions i.e. air temperature and precipitation. The cultivars investigated in the research were: Topstar, Toptaste, Jojo, Haganta, Tophit, and Top 2000. The fruits were harvested at optimal stage of maturity in the experimental orchard of the Agricultural Institute Osijek. Content of glucose, fructose, sucrose, and sorbitol in the fruits were identified and quantified by high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). Significant differences were found between sucrose, glucose, fructose, and sorbitol depending on climatic conditions and cultivar. Sucrose was the highest in almost all years. Glucose was the predominant sugar in cultivars Jojo and Top 2000. Fructose and sorbitol contents were lower than sucrose and glucose. Average sugar contents in 2008-2012 period were compared with respect to climatic conditions. A significant effect of year was found for sucrose, sorbitol, total sugar, and dry matter, whereas no effect was found for glucose and fructose contents. Individual sugar contents correlated significantly with each other. The principal component analysis (PCA) showed that plum cultivars were clearly differentiated according to variability of sugar in fruit caused by climatic conditions. The obtained results highlighted that climatic conditions may have significant effect on plum fruit quality and, therefore, it is important to have adequate testing before recommending a cultivar for planting.

Keywords

1. Abidi, W., Jiménez, S., Moreno, M.A. and Gogorcena, Y. 2011. Evaluation of Antioxidant Compounds and Total Sugar Content in a Nectarine [Prunus persica (L.) Batsch] Progeny. Int. J. Mol. Sci., 12: 6919-6935.
2. Bohacenko, I., Pinkrova, J., Komárková, J. and Paprstein, F. 2010. Selected Processing Characteristics of New Plum Cultivars Grown in the Czech Republic. Hort. Sci. (Prague), 37(2): 39-45.
3. Blazek, J. and Pistekova, I. 2009. Preliminary Evaluation Results of New Plum Cultivars in a Dense Planting. Hort. Sci. (Prague), 36: 45-54.
4. Cantín, C.M., Gogorcena, Y. and Moreno, M.A. 2009. Analysis of Genotypic Variation of Sugar Profile in Different Peach and Nectarine [Prunus persica L. Bastch] Breeding Progenies. J. Sci. Food Agr., 89(11): 1909-1917.
5. Crisosto, C. H., Mitchell, F. G. and Johnson, S. 1995. Factors in Fresh Market Stone Fruit Quality. Postharvest News Inf., 6(2): 17-21.
6. Crisosto, C. H., Johnson, R. S., DeJong, T. and Day, K. R. 1997. Orchard Factors Affecting Postharvest Stone Fruit Quality. HortSci., 32: 820-823.
7. Dietrich, H., Krüger-Steden, E., Patz, C. D., Will, F., Rheinberger, A. and Hopf, I. 2007. Increase of Sorbitol in Pear and Apple Juice by Water Stress, a Consequence of Climatic Change? Fruit Process., 6: 348-355.
8. Druzic, J., Voca, S., Cmelik, Z., Dobricevic, N., Duralija, B. and Skendrovic Babojelic, M. 2007. Fruit Quality of Plum Cultivars ‘Elena’ and ‘Bistrica’. Agric. Conspec. Sci., 72(4): 307-310.
9. Escobar-Gutiérrez, A. J. and Gaudillére, J. -P. 1994. Variability in Sorbitol: Sucrose Ratios in Mature Leaves of Different Peach Cultivars. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci., 119(2): 321–324.
10. García-Marino, N., de la Torre, F. and Matilla, A.J. 2008. Organic Acids and Soluble Sugars in Edible and Nonedible Parts of Damson Plum (Prunus domestica L. subsp. insititia cv. Syriaca) Fruits during Development and Ripening. Food Sci. Technol. Int., 14: 187-193.
11. Genard, M., Lescourret, F., Gomez, L. and Habib, R. 2003. Changes in Fruit Sugar Concentrations in Response to Assimilate Supply, Metabolism and Dilution: A Modeling Approach Applied to Peach Fruit (Prunus persica). Tree Physiol., 23: 373-385.
12. Guerra, M. and Casquero, P. A. 2009. Site and Fruit Maturity Influence on the Quality of European Plum in Organic Production. Sci. Hort., 122: 540-544.
13. Li, T. H. and Li, S. H. 2005. Leaf Responses of Micropropagated Apple Plants to Water Stress: Nonstructural Carbohydrate Composition and Regulatory Role of Metabolic Enzymes. Tree Physiol., 25: 495-504.
14. Lo Bianco, R. L., Rieger, M. and Sung, S. J. S. 2000. Effect of Drought on Sorbitol and Sucrose Metabolism in Sinks and Sources of Peach. Physiol. Plantarum, 108(1): 71-78.
15. Manganaris, G. A., Vicente, A. R. and Crisosto, C. H. 2008. Effect of Pre-harvest and Post- harvest Conditions and Treatments on Plum Fruit Quality. CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources, 3(9): 1-9.
16. Milosevic, T. and Milosevic, N. 2012. Phenotypic Diversity of Autochthonous European (Prunus domestica L.) and Damson (Prunus insititia L.) Plum Accessions Based on Multivariate Analysis. Hort. Sci. (Prague), 39(1): 8-20.
17. Nunes, C., Rato, A. E., Barros, A. S., Saravia, J. A. and Coimbra, M. A. 2009. Search for Suitable Parameters to Define the Harvest Maturity of Plums (Prunus domestica L.): A Case of Candied Plums. Food Chem., 112: 570-574.
18. Prasanna, V., Prabha, J. F. and Tharanathan, R. N. 2007. Fruit Ripening Phenomena : An Overview. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr., 47: 1-19.
19. Rieger, M. and Duemmel, M. J. 1992. Comparison of Drought Resistance among Prunus Species from Divergent Habitats. Tree Physiol., 11: 369-380.
20. Siddiq, M. 2006. Plums and Prunes, In: “Handbook of Fruit and Fruit Processing”, (Eds.): Hui, Y. H. and Barta, J.. Blackwell publishing Ltd, Oxford, UK, PP. 553-564.
21. Singh, S. P., Singh, Z. and Swinny, E. E. 2009. Sugars and Organic acids in Japanese Plums (Prunus salicina Lindell) as Influenced by Maturation, Harvest Date, Storage Temperature and Period. Int. J. Food Sci. Tech., 44(10): 1973-1982.
22. Sudar, R., Jurkovic, Z., Dugalic, K., Tomac, I., Jurkovic, V. and Viljevac, M. 2011. Sorbitol and Sugar Composition of Plum Fruit during Ripening. Proc. of 46th Croatian and 6th International Symposium on Agriculture, Opatija. PP. 1067-1071.
23. Thammawong, M. and Arakawa, O. 2010. Starch to Sugar Conversion in “Tsugaru” Apples under Ethylene and 1-methylcyclopropene Treatments. J. Agr. Sci. Tech., 12: 617-626.
24. Usenik, V., Fajt, N. and Stampar, F. 2007. Pomological and Phenological Characteristics of Some Slovenian Plum Cultivars. Acta Hortic., 734: 53-59.
25. Usenik, V., Kastecec, D., Veberic, R. and Stampar, F. 2008. Quality Changes during Ripening of Plum (Prunus domestica L.). Food Chem., 111: 830-836.
26. Vangdal, E., Meland, M., Mage, F. and Doving, A. 2005. Prediction of Fruit Quality of Plums (Prunus domestica L.). Acta Hortic., 674: 613-617.
27. Wang, Z. and Stutte, G. W. 1992. The Role of Carbohydrates in Active Osmotic Adjustment in Apple under Water Stress. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci., 117(5): 816-823.
28. Wilford, L. E., Sabarez, H. and Price, W. E. 1997. Kinetics of Charbohydrate Change during Dehydration of d’Agen Prunes. Food Chem., 59: 149-145.
29. Wu, B. H., Quilot, B., Genard, M., Li, S. H., Zhao, J. B., Yan, J. and Wang, Y. Q. 2012. Application of a SUGAR Model to Analyze Sugar Accumulation in Peach Cultivars that Differ in Glucose–fructose Ratio. J. Agr. Sci., 150(1): 53-63.
Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology
Volume 16, Issue 5
September and October 2014
Pages 1145-1155