, Volume 111, Issue 3, pp 221–227

Quantitative evaluation of apple (Malus × domestica Borkh.) fruit shape by principal component analysis of Fourier descriptors

  • A.J. Currie
  • S. Ganeshanandam
  • D.A. Noiton
  • D. Garrick
  • C.J.A. Shelbourne
  • N. Oraguzie


Apples from 1253 genotypes representing 82 open pollinated families planted at three sites were cut along the stem-calyx axis at the widest point to analyse fruit shape. An image analysis program was used to extract calliper measurements of the fruit outline and calculated Fourier descriptors for each fruit outline. Five independent shape traits were identified from a principal component analysis of the Fourier descriptors. The shape traits and the proportion of the total phenotypic variation they accounted for were: fruit aspect (76.8%), asymmetric-crown (7.8%), fruit conicity (6.0%), asymmetric-sides (4.3%), and fruit squareness (2.0%). Genetic and residual variance components were estimated with data from two sites using restricted maximum-likelihood techniques to select genetically-inherited apple shape traits. Combined sites heritability was estimated to be 0.79 for aspect, 0.38 for conicity and 0.35 for squareness. Multiple regression between calliper measurements and aspect, conicity, and squareness traits showed firstly that aspect was best predicted by fruit length/width ratio (R2 = 0.97), secondly conicity could be described by both the distance of the maximum width from the base of the fruit/fruit length ratio and the calyx basin width/fruit width ratio (R2 =0.44), and finally squareness was best described by ratio of the product of calyx basin width and distance of the maximum width from the calyx end of the fruit by the product of fruit length and fruit width(R2 = 0.19). A chart based on the aspect, conicity and squareness principal component values was drawn to allow visual assessment of shape.

apple fruit shape genetic parameters imageanalysis Malus 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anon., 1994. Working paper on draft test guidelines for apple (fruit varieties) (Malus Mill.). UPOV. Technical working party for fruit crops, 25th session, Napier/Rotorua, New Zealand, Sept 19–24. TWF/25/3.Google Scholar
  2. Brault, A.M. & D. de Oliveira, 1995. Seed number and an asymmetry index of 'McIntosh' apples. HortSci 30(1): 44–46.Google Scholar
  3. Brittain, W.H., 1933. Apple pollination studies in the Annapolis Valley. Nova Scotia Can Dept Agr Can Bul 162.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, A.G., 1960. The inheritance of shape, size and season in progenies of the cultivated apple. Euphytica 9: 327–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cripps, J.E.L., L.A. Richards & A.M. Mairata, 1993. 'Pink Lady' Apple. HortSci 28(10): 1057.Google Scholar
  6. Furuta, N., S. Ninomiya, N. Takahashi, H. Ohmori & Y. Ukai, 1995. Quantitative evaluation of soybean (Glycine max L Merr) leaflet shape by principal component scores based on elliptic Fourier descriptor. Breeding Sci 45: 315–320.Google Scholar
  7. Gilmour, A.R., B.R. Cullis, S.J. Welham & R. Thompson, 1998. ASREML. October 2, NSW Agriculture.Google Scholar
  8. Hedrick, U.P., 1938. Cyclopediea of hardy fruits, 2nd ed. The MacMillan Company, New York.Google Scholar
  9. Heinicke, A.J., 1917. Factors influencing the abscision of flowers and partially developed fruits of the apple (Pyrus malus L.).Cornell Univ Ag Exp Stn Bull 393.Google Scholar
  10. Jackson, J.E., 1991. A User's Guide to Principal Components. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  11. Lane, W.D. & R.A. MacDonald, 1987. 'Shamrock' apple. HortSci 22(3): 515–516.Google Scholar
  12. Latimer, L.P., 1931. Further observations on factors affecting fruit setting of theMcIntosh apple in New Hampshire. Proc Amer Soc Hort Sci 28: 87–92.Google Scholar
  13. Latimer, L.P., 1937a. The effect of reducing the number of functioning stigmas on fruit-setting and characteristics of the McIntosh apple. Proc Amer Soc Hort Sci 34: 22–25.Google Scholar
  14. Latimer, L.P., 1937b. Self-and cross-pollination in the McIntosh apple and some of it's hybrids. Proc Amer Soc Hort Sci 34: 19–21.Google Scholar
  15. Morgan, J., A. Richards & E. Dowle, 1993. The Book of Apples. Ebury Press, London.Google Scholar
  16. Noiton, D. & C.J.A. Shelbourne, 1992. Quantitative genetics in an apple breeding strategy. Euphytica 60: 213–219.Google Scholar
  17. Paulus, I. & E. Schrevens, 1999. Apple shape characterization by Fourier expansion of digitized images. J Agric Engng Res 72: 113–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. SAS Institute, ed, 1990. SAS/STAT User's Guide Version 6, 4th ed., Vol. 1–2. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, USA.Google Scholar
  19. Scott, D., 1998. Hortcouture fashion food conference. Orchardist N.Z., Feb 37–50.Google Scholar
  20. Smith, M.W.G., 1971. National Apple Register of the United Kingdom. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, London.Google Scholar
  21. Spinks, G.T., 1936. Apple breeding investigations. I. Results obtained from certain families of seedlings. Ann Rep Long Ashton Res Stn 1935: 19–49.Google Scholar
  22. Titchmarsh, E.C., 1967. Convergence and Summability, pp. 1–24. In: Introduction to the theory of Fourier integrals. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  23. Watkins, R. & R.A. Smith, 1982. Descriptor list for apple (Malus). International Board for Plant Genetic Resources. Commission of European Communities: Committee on disease resistance breeding and use of genebanks. C.E.C. Secretariat, Brussels.Google Scholar
  24. Younker, J.C. & R. Ehrlich, 1977. Fourier biometrics: harmonic amplitudes as multivariate shape descriptors. Syst Zool 26: 336–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • A.J. Currie
    • 1
  • S. Ganeshanandam
    • 2
  • D.A. Noiton
    • 3
  • D. Garrick
    • 1
  • C.J.A. Shelbourne
    • 4
  • N. Oraguzie
    • 5
  1. 1.Institute of Veterinary, Animal and Biomedical SciencesMassey UniversityPalmerston NorthNew Zealand
  2. 2.Statistics Dept.Massey UniversityPalmerston NorthNew Zealand
  3. 3.Environmental Survey & Research, GracefieldWellingtonNew Zealand
  4. 4.Forestry Research Institute of New ZealandRotoruaNew Zealand
  5. 5.The Horticulture and Food Research Institute of New ZealandHavelock NorthNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations