Significant Differences on Vegetative Growth in Mayagüezano Cultivars R. Vélez Colón, C. Flores Ortega, S. A. Henríquez and A. Cedeño Maldonado University of Puerto Rico at Mayagüez - Agricultural Experiment Station [email protected] and [email protected]

Local mango types are known as Mayagüezano, Redondo or Pasote . Mayagüezano mango, which is more abundant in western Puerto Rico, is produced mostly for local consumption, processing, and recently, after the establishment of a hot water facility in the municipality of Rincón, for fresh fruit export to the United States. Mayagüezano mango production is different from that of selected varieties originally (mostly) from Florida, U. S. A. There are commercial orchards of those (2, 3, 4, 5, 6), while Mayagüezano mangos are currently produced by trees growing alongside Fig 1 - Mayagüezano mango: Annual growth roads or in pasturelands. Good prices and a growing export market to the eastern United States have created interest among farmers, who have little information on fruit quality and other characteristics. During FY 2004, 3.76 million fruits of Mayagüezano mango were marketed, with a value of $244,000.00. During FY 2005, 4.2 12 million fruits were marketed, with a value of $268,000.00 (1). 10 The Mayagüezano mango has been a neglected fruit in Puerto Rico, and no research has been conducted on selection and 8 evaluation of germplasm. It is propagated from seeds, which contain polyembrionic embryos that produce true to type seedlings. Variants of this type exist, both for tree and fruit traits. Trees vary from almost dwarf (fifteen feet or less) to giant 6 (thirty feet or more). Fruits may vary from less than 125 grams to over 250 grams; and fiber content from almost stringless to 4 Height, m Height, very fibrous. This fruit is used as fresh fruit, green fruit (exported to ethnic markets in the US, such as Southeast Asians), for 2 preserves and as filling for mango roll (brazo gitano). Production is concentrated between the western municipalities of Aguada and Lajas. During the last twenty years or so many 0 trees have been downed to expand roads and other developments, with no consideration to their genetic and agricultural value. B3 B4 Fc Ce CD Cu KR JP Lo Al Ca VF This results in decreased production and the elimination of valuable germoplasm. Cultivars Germoplasm was evaluated by sampling fruits from existing trees throughout the western region of Puerto Rico. They were collected at the green ripe and ripe stages and sent to the Food Science and Technology Laboratory for analyses such as physical (size, skin color, etc., as well as disease tolerance) and compositional (amount of pulp and fiber, pulp color, firmness 2003 2004 2005 2006 and shelf life) characteristics of the fruits, food value, possible industrial uses, organoleptic and product acceptance, skin and seed evaluation for food and industrial uses, and chemical analyses as needed. Germoplasm with superior characteristics was then selected for asexual propagation in 2001, through grafting on Banilejo stock, at the Juana Díaz Agricultural Experiment Station. The new, grafted trees were field planted at the Lajas Substation 5 march 2002, on a Fraternidad series soil (Order: Vertisols). Twelve selections were chosen. The experimental design consisted of six replications, each consisting of four trees of each selection planted at 9m by 9m. Fertilization, irrigation, weed control and other practices have been conducted according to the Technological Package for Mango Production, a publication of the UPR Fig 2 - Mayagüezano mango: Annual growth Agricultural Experiment Station. The cultivars were selected mostly on the physical and compositional characteristics of their fruits. The twelve cultivars were Banilejo III (B3), Banilejo IV (B4), La Finca (Fc), Cedeño (Ce), Chico Dulce (CD), La Curva (Cu), Koko Rosado (KR), Juan 100 Pérez (JP), El Loco (Lo), Alvaro (Al), Carmelita (Ca) and Villa Flor (VF). Measures on height were taken March 2003, April 2004, August 2005 and May 2006. Measures on trunk and graft diameters 80 were taken March 2003, April 2004 and August 2005. Measures on trunk and graft circumferences were taken May 2006. 60 For the first year, “Carmelita” and “Chico Dulce” grew significantly taller than the rest, but that advantage was soon lost during the second year, when there were no significant differences on height among the tallest ten of the twelve clones. Then, 40 on the third year, again Carmelita was significantly taller than the rest, and remained so for the fourth year. “Villa Flor” and 20 “Chico Dulce” were the second and third tallest during the third and fourth years. “La Curva”, “Banilejo III”, “Banilejo IV”, “La diameter, Trunk Finca” and “Koko Rosado” were the shortest during the first year. “Alvaro” and “La Finca” were the shortest during the second 0 year. “Banilejo III”, “Banilejo IV” and “La Curva” were the shortest during the third year, and remained so during the fourth year. circumference cm (2006), (Fig 1). B3 B4 Fc Ce CD Cu KR JP Lo Al Ca VF As for diameter of the trunk, “Carmelita”, “Villa Flor” and “Banilejo IV” were significantly wider than the rest during the first year. During the second year “El Loco”, “La Curva”, “Koko Rosado”, “Banilejo IV”, and “Carmelita” were significantly wider Cultivars than the rest. During the third year, “Carmelita” regained its advantage and was significantly wider that the rest; “Villa Flor” and “Chico Dulce” were the second and third widest on this occasion. As for circumference of the trunk (May 2006), “La Finca” 2003 2004 2005 2006 showed a significantly higher value, followed by “Carmelita”, “Villa Flor” and “Chico Dulce”. “La Curva”, “La Finca”, “Alvaro” and “Cedeño” were the thinnest during the first year. For the second year, there were no significant differences among the seven thinnest. Then, for the third year, “Banilejo III”, “La Curva” and “Banilejo IV” were significantly thinner than the rest. As for circumference (May 2006), “Banilejo III”,and “Banilejo IV” showed a significant lower value than the rest. (Fig 2). The third parameter measured was diameter of the graft. Six of the twelve cultivars were significantly wider that the rest for the first year: “Carmelita”, “Juan Pérez”, “Chico Dulce”, “El Loco”, “Koko Rosado” and “Villa Flor”. For the second year, there Fig 3 - Mayagüezano mango: Annual growth were no significant differences among eleven of the twelve cultivars. Then, for the third year, “Carmelita” turned out to be significantly wider than the rest (followed by “Alvaro”, “Chico Dulce”, “Villa Flor”, “Juan Pérez” and “Koko Rosado”, with no significant differences among them). As for circumference of the graft (May 2006), “La Finca” and “Carmelita” showed 80 significantly higher values, followed by “Chico Dulce” and “Villa Flor”. For the first year, six of the twelve cultivars were significantly thinner than the rest. For the second year, “La Finca” was significantly thinner than the rest. For the third year 60 “Banilejo III” and “Banilejo IV” were significantly thinner than the rest. Finally, for the fourth year (circumference), “Banilejo III” 40 and “Banilejo IV” showed a significant lower value. (Fig 3). There is a fourth parameter that was measured for the first time in May, 2006, after the trees attained a certain size: canopy 20 volume. The width of the treetops was measured from North to South, and then from East to West. Using a mathematical diameter,Graft formula [V=.524*H*(W1+W2/2)2], these two data were converted to volume. “Carmelita” showed a significant higher value for 0 circumference cm (2006), this parameter, followed by “Villa Flor”, which in turn was significantly higher than the third, fourth and fifth highest values, B3 B4 Fc Ce CD Cu KR JP Lo Al Ca VF “Alvaro”, “Chico Dulce” and “Juan Pérez” (there were no significant differences among them). “Banilejo III”, “Banilejo” IV” and “La Curva” showed significantly lower values than the rest. (Fig 4). Cultivars These are preliminary growth results that may change through time. However, they allow us to see some significant trends. For example, Carmelita, Villa Flor and Chico Dulce seem to promise to be large cultivars, as suggested by their height and 2003 2004 2005 2006 treetop volume. On the other hand, Banilejo III, Banilejo IV and La Curva seem to show a tendency to remain small. Should these three cultivars turn out to be good producers, a closer planting distance might be recommended, thereby increasing yield per unit of land. Fig 4 - Mayagüezano mango: Annual growth (2006) Selected Literature 1. Anónimo. 2004. Departamento de Agricultura de Puerto Rico. Sección de Estadísticas Agrícolas. Duvivier, P. 1999. Evaluación de las variedades comerciales de mango ( indica) Parvin y con cinco patrones diferentes. Tesis M. S. 40 Univ. P. R., Mayagüez, P. R. 79 pp. 35 2. Duvivier, P. and A. Cedeño Maldonado. 1999. Evaluation of mango roostocks for yield efficiency of Parvin and Tommy Atkins varieties. Caribbean Food Crops 30 Society 35: 3. Cedeño Maldonado A., I. Reyes Soto, A. P. López and J. L. García. 1995. Development of combinations of scion-rootstocks in order to reduce the size of mango 25 trees. Tropical fruits newsletter (ILCA) 14:8-9.

m3 20 4. Cedeño Maldonado A., I. Reyes Soto and A. Acosta Rodríguez. 1996. Yield characteristics of Parvin and Tommy Atkins mangos grafted on dwarfing roostock. 15 Caribbean Food Crops Society. 32:77-81. 5. Núñez Elisea R. and T. L. Davenport. 1983. Abscission and ethylene production of mango fruits cv Tommy Atkins. Proceedings of the Florida State Horticultural 10

Society. 96: 185-188. Volume, Canopy 5 6. Protopapadakis E., A. Voulgaropoulos and M. Sofoniou. 1998. Influence du porte grefe sur la teneur en elements minéaus de la feuille et du loranger Washington 0 Navel. Fruits 53:167-173. B3 B4 Fc Ce CD Cu KR JP Lo Al Ca VF 7. Prakash S. and S. Rom. 1984. Naturally ocuuring auxin inhibitors and their role in fruit growth and drop of mango. Dashehari. Scientia Horticulturae 2:241-48. 8. Ram S., L. D. Bist, S. C. Lakhanpal and I. S. Jamwal. 1996. Search for suitable pollinizers for mango cultivars. Acta Horitculturae 57: 253-263. 9. Reddy, Y. T. N., R. Rohli, G. Singh and B. S. Bhargava. 1989. Effect of rootstock s on growth, yield and nutrient composition in mango. Fruits 44: 409-413. Cultivars 10. Searle C., A. W. Whiley, D. R. Simpson and J. B. Seranah. 1995. A preliminary phenoophysiological model for Kensington mango in subtropical Australia. Mango 2000 Marketing Seminar and Production Workshop Proceedings. Department of Primary Industries, Brisbane. Pp. 127-135. 11. Singh, L. B. 1960. The Mango. Botany, Cultivation and Utilization. Leonard Hill, London.