2 research outputs found

    Evaluation of Genetic Diversity of Natural Seablite (Suaeda maritima (L.) Dumort.) using SRAP Marker

    Get PDF
    āļšāļ—āļ„āļąāļ”āļĒāđˆāļ­ āļŠāļ°āļ„āļĢāļēāļĄāļĄāļĩāļŠāļ·āđˆāļ­āļ§āļīāļ—āļĒāļēāļĻāļēāļŠāļ•āļĢāđŒāļ§āđˆāļē Suaeda maritima (L.) Dumort āļ­āļĒāļđāđˆāđƒāļ™āļ§āļ‡āļĻāđŒ Chenopodiaceae āđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™āļžāļ·āļŠāļ­āļ§āļšāļ™āđ‰āļģāļ—āļĩāđˆāļŠāļēāļĄāļēāļĢāļ–āļ—āļ™āđ€āļ„āđ‡āļĄāđ„āļ”āđ‰āđƒāļ™āļŦāļĨāļēāļĒāļĢāļ°āļ”āļąāļšāđāļĨāļ°āļŠāļēāļĄāļēāļĢāļ–āļ‚āļĒāļēāļĒāļžāļąāļ™āļ˜āļļāđŒāđ„āļ”āđ‰āļ‡āđˆāļēāļĒ āļˆāļķāļ‡āļĄāļĩāđāļ™āļ§āđ‚āļ™āđ‰āļĄāļ—āļĩāđˆāļˆāļ°āļŠāļēāļĄāļēāļĢāļ–āļŠāđˆāļ‡āđ€āļŠāļĢāļīāļĄāđƒāļŦāđ‰āđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™āļžāļ·āļŠāđ€āļĻāļĢāļĐāļāļāļīāļˆāđ„āļ”āđ‰āđƒāļ™āļ­āļ™āļēāļ„āļ• āđ€āļ™āļ·āđˆāļ­āļ‡āļˆāļēāļāļ™āļģāļĄāļēāđƒāļŠāđ‰āļ›āļĢāļ°āļāļ­āļšāļ­āļēāļŦāļēāļĢāđāļĨāļ°āđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™āļŠāļĄāļļāļ™āđ„āļžāļĢāđ„āļ”āđ‰ āđāļ•āđˆāđƒāļ™āļ›āļąāļˆāļˆāļļāļšāļąāļ™āļĒāļąāļ‡āđ„āļĄāđˆāļĄāļĩāļāļēāļĢāļĻāļķāļāļĐāļēāļ„āļ§āļēāļĄāļŦāļĨāļēāļāļŦāļĨāļēāļĒāļ—āļēāļ‡āļžāļąāļ™āļ˜āļļāļāļĢāļĢāļĄāļ‚āļ­āļ‡āļŠāļ°āļ„āļĢāļēāļĄ āļ‡āļēāļ™āļ§āļīāļˆāļąāļĒāļ™āļĩāđ‰āļˆāļķāļ‡āļĄāļĩāļ§āļąāļ•āļ–āļļāļ›āļĢāļ°āļŠāļ‡āļ„āđŒāđ€āļžāļ·āđˆāļ­āļ›āļĢāļ°āđ€āļĄāļīāļ™āļ„āļ§āļēāļĄāļŦāļĨāļēāļāļŦāļĨāļēāļĒāļ—āļēāļ‡āļžāļąāļ™āļ˜āļļāļāļĢāļĢāļĄāļ‚āļ­āļ‡āļŠāļ°āļ„āļĢāļēāļĄāļ—āļĩāđˆāļĢāļ§āļšāļĢāļ§āļĄāļˆāļēāļ 4 āļˆāļąāļ‡āļŦāļ§āļąāļ” āđ„āļ”āđ‰āđāļāđˆ āđ€āļžāļŠāļĢāļšāļļāļĢāļĩ āļŠāļĄāļļāļ—āļĢāļŠāļēāļ„āļĢ āļŠāļĄāļļāļ—āļĢāļŠāļ‡āļ„āļĢāļēāļĄ āđāļĨāļ°āļāļĢāļļāļ‡āđ€āļ—āļžāļĄāļŦāļēāļ™āļ„āļĢ āļˆāļģāļ™āļ§āļ™ 18 āļ•āļąāļ§āļ­āļĒāđˆāļēāļ‡ āđ‚āļ”āļĒāđƒāļŠāđ‰āđ€āļ„āļĢāļ·āđˆāļ­āļ‡āļŦāļĄāļēāļĒ SRAP āļˆāļģāļ™āļ§āļ™ 10 āļ„āļđāđˆāđ„āļžāļĢāđ€āļĄāļ­āļĢāđŒ āļžāļšāļ§āđˆāļēāļĄāļĩ 4 āļ„āļđāđˆāđ„āļžāļĢāđ€āļĄāļ­āļĢāđŒāļ—āļĩāđˆāđƒāļŦāđ‰āļ„āļ§āļēāļĄāđāļ•āļāļ•āđˆāļēāļ‡āļ‚āļ­āļ‡āđāļ–āļšāļ”āļĩāđ€āļ­āđ‡āļ™āđ€āļ­ āđ€āļĄāļ·āđˆāļ­āļĻāļķāļāļĐāļēāļĨāļēāļĒāļžāļīāļĄāļžāđŒāļ”āļĩāđ€āļ­āđ‡āļ™āđ€āļ­āļ—āļĩāđˆāđ€āļāļīāļ”āļ‚āļķāđ‰āļ™āļžāļšāļ§āđˆāļēāļĄāļĩāđāļ–āļšāļ”āļĩāđ€āļ­āđ‡āļ™āđ€āļ­āļ—āļĩāđˆāđāļ•āļāļ•āđˆāļēāļ‡āļāļąāļ™ 17 āđāļ–āļš (94.44%) āļˆāļēāļāļ—āļąāđ‰āļ‡āļŦāļĄāļ” 18 āđāļ–āļš āđ€āļĄāļ·āđˆāļ­āļĻāļķāļāļĐāļēāļ„āļ§āļēāļĄāļŠāļąāļĄāļžāļąāļ™āļ˜āđŒāļ—āļēāļ‡āļžāļąāļ™āļ˜āļļāļāļĢāļĢāļĄāļžāļšāļ§āđˆāļēāļĄāļĩāļ„āđˆāļēāļŠāļąāļĄāļ›āļĢāļ°āļŠāļīāļ—āļ˜āļīāđŒāļ„āļ§āļēāļĄāđ€āļŦāļĄāļ·āļ­āļ™āļ­āļĒāļđāđˆāļĢāļ°āļŦāļ§āđˆāļēāļ‡Â  0.27-1.00 āđ‚āļ”āļĒāđ€āļĄāļ·āđˆāļ­āļ™āļģāļĄāļēāļˆāļąāļ”āļāļĨāļļāđˆāļĄāļ”āđ‰āļ§āļĒāļ§āļīāļ˜āļĩ UPGMA āļžāļšāļ§āđˆāļēāļ—āļĩāđˆāļ„āđˆāļēāļŠāļąāļĄāļ›āļĢāļ°āļŠāļīāļ—āļ˜āļīāđŒāļ„āļ§āļēāļĄāđ€āļŦāļĄāļ·āļ­āļ™āđ€āļ—āđˆāļēāļāļąāļš 0.58 āļŠāļēāļĄāļēāļĢāļ–āļˆāļąāļ”āļāļĨāļļāđˆāļĄāļŠāļ°āļ„āļĢāļēāļĄāđ„āļ”āđ‰ 6 āļāļĨāļļāđˆāļĄ āļ„āļ·āļ­ āļāļĨāļļāđˆāļĄāļ—āļĩāđˆ 1, 5 āđāļĨāļ° 6 āđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™āļ•āļąāļ§āļ­āļĒāđˆāļēāļ‡āļŠāļ°āļ„āļĢāļēāļĄāļ—āļĩāđˆāđ€āļāđ‡āļšāļˆāļēāļāđ€āļžāļŠāļĢāļšāļļāļĢāļĩ āļāļĨāļļāđˆāļĄāļ—āļĩāđˆ 2 āđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™āļ•āļąāļ§āļ­āļĒāđˆāļēāļ‡āļˆāļēāļāļāļĢāļļāļ‡āđ€āļ—āļžāļĄāļŦāļēāļ™āļ„āļĢ āļāļĨāļļāđˆāļĄāļ—āļĩāđˆ 3 āđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™āļ•āļąāļ§āļ­āļĒāđˆāļēāļ‡āļˆāļēāļāđ€āļžāļŠāļĢāļšāļļāļĢāļĩāđāļĨāļ°āļŠāļĄāļļāļ—āļĢāļŠāļ‡āļ„āļĢāļēāļĄ āđāļĨāļ°āļāļĨāļļāđˆāļĄāļ—āļĩāđˆ 4 āđ€āļ›āđ‡āļ™āļ•āļąāļ§āļ­āļĒāđˆāļēāļ‡āļˆāļēāļāļŠāļĄāļļāļ—āļĢāļŠāļēāļ„āļĢ āļāļĢāļļāļ‡āđ€āļ—āļžāļĄāļŦāļēāļ™āļ„āļĢ āđāļĨāļ°āļŠāļĄāļļāļ—āļĢāļŠāļ‡āļ„āļĢāļēāļĄ āļˆāļēāļāļ‡āļēāļ™āļ§āļīāļˆāļąāļĒāļ„āļĢāļąāđ‰āļ‡āļ™āļĩāđ‰āļ—āļģāđƒāļŦāđ‰āļ—āļĢāļēāļšāļ§āđˆāļēāļ•āļąāļ§āļ­āļĒāđˆāļēāļ‡āļŠāļ°āļ„āļĢāļēāļĄāļˆāļēāļāļˆāļąāļ‡āļŦāļ§āļąāļ”āđ€āļžāļŠāļĢāļšāļļāļĢāļĩāļĄāļĩāļ„āļ§āļēāļĄāļŦāļĨāļēāļāļŦāļĨāļēāļĒāļ—āļēāļ‡āļžāļąāļ™āļ˜āļļāļāļĢāļĢāļĄāļŠāļđāļ‡āļ—āļĩāđˆāļŠāļļāļ” āđ€āļžāļĢāļēāļ°āļĄāļĩāļāļēāļĢāļāļĢāļ°āļˆāļēāļĒāļ•āļąāļ§āļ­āļĒāļđāđˆāđƒāļ™āļŦāļĨāļēāļĒāļāļĨāļļāđˆāļĄÂ ABSTRACT Seablite (Suaeda maritima (L.) Dumort), belonging to Family Chenopodiaceae, is succulent plant to highly tolerate to various level of salinity; moreover, it is very easy to propagate. Therefore, it is able to promote to be an economic crop in the future because of using in culinary and medicinal purposes. Currently, there is no report on the study of the genetic diversity of seablite. The objective of this research was to evaluate the genetic diversity of 18 samples of seablite collected from natural habitat in 4 provinces, namely Phetchaburi, Samut Sakhon, Samut Songkhram and Bangkok using SRAP markers. It was found that only 4 out of 10 primers produced 17 polymorphic bands (94.44%) from total of 18 bands. According to the genetic relationship among seablite samples, the similarity index ranged from 0.27-1.00. For cluster analysis using UPGMA, all smaples could be separated into six groups at the similarity coefficient of 0.58. Group 1, 5, and 6 was the samples collected from Phetchaburi. Group 2 was the samples from Bangkok. Group 3 was the samples from Phetchaburi and Samut Songkhram and group 4 was the samples from Samut Sakhon, Bangkok and Samut Songkhram. From this study, it was pointed that seablite from Phetchaburi were the most diversified because they were placed into many groups

    Changing in TSS, TA and Sugar Contents and Sucrose Synthase Activity in Ethephon-Treated 'Pattavia' Pineapple Fruit

    No full text
    ABSTRACT Exogenous ethylene increases endogenous ethylene which plays a crucial role on ripening in climacteric fruits. Although pineapple is a non-climacteric fruit, ethylene released from ethephon is effectively used to hasten the harvesting period. Effects from the use of a high concentration of ethephon on eating quality, fruit size and the reduction in harvesting period have been reported. In this paper, the effect of a low concentration of ethephon on pineapple fruit quality and sucrose synthase (SuSy) activity was investigated. Field experiment was arranged in split plot design. In the main plot, two levels of ethephon concentrations, i.e. 0 and 500 mg/l, were used by spraying at 110 days after forcing (DAF) fruits. The sub plot was harvesting time, i.e. 5 times of one-week intervals from 124 to 152 DAF. We found that the total soluble solid (TSS) was significantly increased in most of harvesting-treated fruits while the titratable acid (TA) was significantly increased at 131 DAF of harvesting-treated fruits. Only at 131 DAF harvesting time, the glucose content and SuSy activity of ethephon-treated fruits were significantly reduced and return to the control level afterward. However, ethephon had no effect on the fructose and sucrose contents at all harvesting times. In conclusion, fruit quality with shortening of harvesting time could be improved by applying 500 mg/l ethephon at 110 DAF since TSS content which is one of the parameter predicting eating quality of pineapple was increased without decreasing fruit quality
    corecore