Pérola and Smooth Cayenne pineapple cultivars in the state of Bahia,Brazil: growth, flowering, pests, diseases, yield and fruit quality aspects.Abstract — Introduction. Pérola, the most important cultivar in Brazil and almost unknownin other countries, and Smooth Cayenne, the most grown cultivar in the world, belong to dif-ferent pineapple groups with distinct botanical, morphological and agronomic characteristics.The principal characteristics and behavior of the cv. Pérola pineapple were analyzed, in com-parison with the cv. Smooth Cayenne ones. Materials and methods. A comparison betweenPérola and Smooth Cayenne was done, based upon results and observations made in studiescarried out by Embrapa in Brazil, during the past 20 years. Results and discussion. The cv.Pérola plant usually has a smaller stem than the cv. Smooth Cayenne with a lower number ofroots and leaves, but the ‘D’ leaves are longer, wider and more erect. The peduncle is longer,holding a narrower, longer, cone-shaped fruit, with a whitish, less fibrous flesh and edible cen-tral core, lower acidity and higher [(total soluble solids) / (titrable acidity)] ratio and juice con-tent. The cv. Pérola is more sensitive than the cv. Smooth Cayenne to natural and artificialflowering induction, but it is less susceptible to the wilt disease transmitted by mealy bugs andto the stem borer (Castnia icarus). Cv. Pérola produces many slips, but suckers appear later,are less uniform and less well-fixed to the mother plants, making it more difficult to get a goodfirst ratoon crop. Conclusions. The yield potential of the cv. Pérola is lower than that of thecv. Smooth Cayenne, due to a lighter fruit and usually lower planting density used. Its pro-duction costs are also lower, especially due to cheaper planting materials and a lower num-ber of pesticide applications. The overall performance of the cv. Pérola plants and fruitsexplains the wide use of this variety in Brazil and its potential use in other countries.
Brazil / Ananas comosus / variety trials
Les cultivars ‘pérola’ et ‘cayenne lisse’ dans l’État de Bahia au Brésil :croissance, floraison, parasites, maladies, rendement et qualité du fruit.Résumé — Introduction. Les cultivars ‘pérola’, le plus important au Brésil et presque inconnudans d’autres pays, et ‘cayenne lisse’, le plus développé dans le monde, appartiennent à deuxgroupes d’Ananas comosus différents, présentant des caractéristiques botaniques, morpholo-giques et agronomiques distinctes. Ces caractéristiques et le comportement de ces cultivarsdans un environnement donné au Brésil ont été analysés. Matériel et méthodes. Une com-paraison entre les cultivars pérola et cayenne lisse a été faite en s’appuyant sur des résultatset des observations faites lors d’études effectuées par l’Embrapa au Brésil, durant les 20 der-nières années. Résultats et discussion. Les plants du cv. pérola présentent habituellementune tige plus petite que ceux du cv. cayenne lisse ainsi qu’un nombre inférieur de racines etde feuilles, mais les feuilles ‘D’ sont plus longues, plus larges et plus érigées. Le pédonculeest plus long, soutenant un fruit conique, plus étroit, plus long, avec une pulpe moins fibreuse,blanchâtre et un cœur comestible. Son acidité est inférieure et son rapport [extraits secssolubles / acidité titrable] est plus élevé que ceux de cayenne lisse, de même que sa teneuren jus. Pérola est plus sensible que cayenne lisse à l’induction florale naturelle ou artificielle,mais il est moins sensible à la maladie du wilt transmise par la cochenille farineuse et au rava-geur de la tige (Castnia icarus). Pérola produit beaucoup plus de rejets du type bulbille, maisses cayeux apparaissent plus tard, sont moins homogènes et moins bien fixés aux plants, cequi ne permet pas de bons rendements en deuxième récolte. Conclusions. Le rendementpotentiel du cv. pérola est inférieur à celui du cv. cayenne lisse du fait de son fruit moins lourdet de sa densité de plantation habituellement plus faible. Ses coûts de production sont égale-ment inférieurs à cause, surtout, d’un matériel végétal de replantation moins cher et du nombreinférieur d’applications de pesticides. La performance générale des plants et des fruits de pérolaexplique sa large utilisation au Brésil et sa possible exploitation dans d’autres pays.
Brésil / Ananas comosus / essai de variété
Pineapple cultivars in Brazil
43Fruits, vol. 57 (1)
Pérola and Smooth Cayenne pineapple cultivars in the state of Bahia,Brazil: growth, flowering, pests, diseases, yield and fruit qualityaspectsDomingo Haroldo Reinhardt*, José Renato Santos Cabral, Luiz Francisco da Silva Souza, Nilton Fritzons Sanches,Aristóteles Pires de Matos
Pineapple production and industrializationin the world is dominated by just one cul-tivar, the ‘Smooth Cayenne’. In most inter-national trades and in the most importantmarkets of pineapple-importing countries,especially in Europe and the United States,almost all fresh fruits and canned productscome from this cultivar. The SmoothCayenne plant and fruit have many excel-lent characteristics that have made it the‘queen’ of the pineapple varieties amonggrowers and international traders.
There are, however, many other varietiesof pineapple grown into many differentcountries that have very good growing andfruit qualities [1]. The main pineapple culti-vars were classified into five differentgroups, based upon a set of common char-acteristics within each group, especiallythose related to the plant size, number ofslips, presence of spines along the leaf mar-gins, leaf length, peduncle length, leaf color,fruit weight and shape, fruit rind and pulpcolors, fruitlet form and fruit taste [2]. Basedupon these attributes, the Smooth Cayennebelongs to the Cayenne group and the‘Pérola’ to the Pernambuco group. Amongthe morphological characteristics, the pres-ence of spines along the leaf margins of the‘Pérola’ plants is one of the most evidentdifferences in relation to the SmoothCayenne plants which have only few, shortspines at the leaves’ apices.
The pineapple industry in Brazil usesboth cultivars, Pérola and Smooth Cayenne.An estimated 80% of the 55000 ha of pine-apple harvested in Brazil in 1997 was culti-vated with the Pérola variety [3]. In theBrazilian North and Northeast regions, itmay be used for almost 100% of the plantedand harvested commercial areas. On theother hand, the Smooth Cayenne variety ismostly grown and consumed in the South-east and South regions of the country.
Its many good and favorable attributesand properties, not only for cultivation, butalso for fulfilling the requirements of freshfruit consumers in most of the domestic mar-kets, make the Pérola fruit the dominant oneon the large Brazilian market. Nevertheless,
it is almost unknown in overseas markets.In addition, the scientific and academicworld involved with pineapple researchand development has had little informationabout this cultivar due to its exploitationbeing restricted to Brazil and some neigh-boring countries.
The present work had the main objec-tive of showing the principal characteristicsand behavior of the Pérola pineapple culti-var, in comparison with the world patternof pineapple, the Smooth Cayenne cultivar.
2. Materials and methods
The comparison between the two pineap-ple cultivars, Pérola and Smooth Cayenne,was based on data obtained in differentstudies carried out by Embrapa Mandioca eFruticultura in Brazil, during the past twentyyears. Those have been studies with thespecific objective of evaluating pineapplegermplasm, using Pérola and SmoothCayenne as control treatments, or with othergoals, such as to determine the influence ofplanting dates, planting materials and otherfactors, as well as cultural practices, on thevegetative and reproductive behavior of theplants of those cultivars during their cycle.In addition, observations made by theauthors in commercial plantings in differentpineapple-producing regions (Entre Rios,Bahia; Coração de Maria, Bahia; Sapé,Paraíba; Mocambinho, Monte Alegre deMinas and Canápolis, Minas Gerais) inBrazil have been taken into account for thiscomparison.
Most of the data used have been obtainedin experiments carried out in experimentalfields of Embrapa Mandioca e Fruticultura,located in Cruz das Almas, Bahia, in theRecôncavo Baiano region, at lat. 12° 40’19’’ S and long. 39° 06’ 22’’ W, 220 m abovesea level, with an average annual rainfall of1170 mm and average temperature of24.5 °C. The soils are yellow or yellow-redlatosoils, of mostly intermediate to highacidity (pH in water equal to 4.5 to 5.5),low chemical fertility (phosphorus < 10 mg¥ dm–3; potassium: (30 to 90) mg ¥ dm–3;calcium < 2.0 cmol ¥ dm–3; magnesium
D.H. Reinhardt et al.
44 Fruits, vol. 57 (1)
< 1.2 cmol ¥ dm–3; bases saturation from40% to 60%; with (0.0 to 0.5) cmol ¥ dm–3
of aluminum), usually deep, well drained,with an intermediate texture.
These environmental conditions arecharacteristic of the coastal tablelands thatform a long strip from Rio Grande do Nortestate (in the North of the Brazilian North-east region) to Rio de Janeiro (in the South-east region), and have been the site for amajor part of the traditional pineapple-growing areas, as well as for most of theresearch activities on this crop carried outin Brazil.
All experiments were done without irri-gation, but using mineral fertilizations, inte-grated pest, disease and weed controls, andflowering forcing treatments mostly at (10to 12) months after planting, with fruit har-vests occurring (5 to 6) months later. Theplanting was mainly done at the beginningof the rainy season (March/April), usingslips for the Pérola cultivar and mostly suck-ers for the Smooth Cayenne cultivar. Themost used planting spacements and densi-ties were 0.80 m ¥ 0.30 m (41600 plants ¥ha–1) in a simple-row planting system and0.90 m ¥ 0.40 m ¥ 0.40 m (37030 plants¥ ha–1) for the Pérola cultivar and 0.90 m ¥0.40 m ¥ 0.30 m (51200 plants ¥ ha–1) forthe Smooth Cayenne cultivar, both in dou-ble-row systems. The cultural practices usedlargely followed the technical recommen-dations for the Brazilian pineapple cropdescribed in a recent publication [4].
Several experimental designs and num-bers of treatments and replications wereused in the studies from which the infor-mation for this work has been extracted.Among those, the randomized blocks one,with or without split-plots, was the mostused [5, 6]. Experimental plot size also var-ied, but, in general, was of at least 50 plants.All plot plants were evaluated for the pro-duction variables, whereas the vegetativeand fruit internal quality variables werebased upon samples of 5% to 10% of theplants or fruits. The variables used for treat-ment evaluation were the following:
– vegetative stage of the plants: plantheight and ‘D’ leaf length, intermediatewidth and weight, as well as number of
leaves emitted from planting to floweringforcing treatment;
– reproductive stage: yield, fruit weight,dimensions and chemical or physical-chem-ical characteristics, such as total solublesolids, titrable acidity, [(total soluble solids)/(titrable acidity)] ratio, juice percentage;
– number of shoots per plant (slips andsuckers), percentage of fruits with fascia-tion, and incidence of pests and diseases.
Even though statistical analyses, mostlyanalyses of variance and means compari-son tests, have been used in most of theindividual experiments, in this synthesiswork data are presented without statisticalanalyses.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Morphological and vegetativeaspects
Looking at each organ separately, many dif-ferences [1, 7–12] were observed betweenthe two cultivars (table I ). The Pérola leavesare longer, wider and heavier (figure 1)than that of the Smooth Cayenne. However,the latter forms a larger number of leaves,showing a denser canopy. In addition, itsleaves are less erect, and the plant is over-all smaller, an advantage for the applicationof cultural practices and for harvest. Onaverage, the Smooth Cayenne plants emitabout one leaf per week until the flower-ing forcing treatment, whereas the Pérolaplants take, on average, two or three dayslonger for that. The overall fresh and dryweights of the leaves are similar for bothcultivars, although with slightly higher val-ues for the Pérola.
On the other hand, the Smooth Cayenneplant has a more developed root systemand stem. Both organs have higher weightsfor this cultivar. And it also emits a highernumber of roots, that are slightly longer onaverage. Another interesting property of theSmooth Cayenne stems are their high starchcontent, which would make them a moreuseful source for ethylic alcohol produc-tion.
Pineapple cultivars in Brazil
45Fruits, vol. 57 (1)
D.H. Reinhardt et al.
46 Fruits, vol. 57 (1)
Table I.Comparison of two cultivars of pineapple (Ananas comosus), Pérola versusSmooth Cayenne, according to results obtained in Cruz das Almas, Bahia, Brazil,by the Embrapa Mandioca e Fruticultura (Embrapa Cassava and Fruit Crops).
Length (cm) 20.5 16.6 Total mid-diameter (cm) 10.6 13.6 Core diameter (cm) 2.3 3.1 Fresh weight (g) 1.4–1.8 1.8–2.2 Total soluble solids (TSS) 14.8 13.5 Total titrable acidity (TTA) 6.4 10.2 TSS/TTA 2.3 1.3 Juice (%) 81.9 78.7
Yield First cycle (fruits ¥ ha–1) 24000–333001 26000–355006
First Cycle (t ¥ ha–1) 38–501 45–606
Ratoon crop (t ¥ ha–1) 20–255 30–406
Production costs without irrigation (US$) 2200–32007 2800–40007
1 [7], 2 [8], 3 [9], 4 [10], 5 [11], 6 [12], 7 authors’ estimations based upon data from the EconomicalAnalyses Sector of Embrapa Mandioca e Fruticultura.
The peduncle is longer and heavier inthe Pérola pineapple, but its diameter isabout the same of that of the SmoothCayenne. A shorter and more resistantpeduncle is important for avoiding thedropping of fruits at their maturation period,which usually makes them more suscepti-ble to sunburns. However, the Pérolapineapple fruit is usually more protectedfrom sunburns than that of the SmoothCayenne due to the presence of many slips,most of them on the upper part of thepeduncle growing around the fruit (fig-ure 2). The number of slips varies accord-ing to environmental conditions, particu-larly during the floral differentiation period,and to the cultural practices carried out onthe crop. However, there are five to fifteenslips per Pérola plant [13], whereas theSmooth Cayenne plant has just a few slipsor no slips at all, when the floral differenti-ation occurs in a hot and dry season. Onthe other hand, this variety has a highercapacity of sucker production, this type ofshoot being the main planting material forthat cultivar in Brazil, whereas slips are themost common planting material used forPérola pineapple crops. Smooth Cayennefruit crowns are mostly more vigorous,being heavier and sometimes longer thanthose from Pérola plants, and therefore theyhave been used as planting material in othercountries, especially when fruits are usedfor the canning industry. The SmoothCayenne pineapple plants are much moresusceptible to environmental conditionsthat determine the appearance of morpho-logical anomalies. One of the most impor-tant anomalies is the fasciation that affectsSmooth Cayenne crowns or even the fruitand the peduncle to a much larger extentthan in Pérola plants. This anomaly mayrepresent significant Smooth Cayenne fruitlosses under certain circumstances, but isnot a problem in Pérola plantations.
3.2. Flowering, pests and diseases
Pérola shows much more sensitivity to flo-ral differentiation than Smooth Cayenne(table II ). This is true for flowering (fig-ure 3) determined by natural conditions, aswell as by artificial forcing treatments [14].Early in the season with environmental con-
Figure 1.A cv. Pérola pineapple plant,about 7 months old. Note theerect leaves and the low leafdensity.
Figure 2.A cv. Pérola pineapple plantwith its large fruit, surroundedby several slips insertedon the upper part of thepeduncle.
Figure 3.A cv. Pérola pineapple plantat early flowering stage.Note the spines on the leaves’margins and the many slipbuds.
Pineapple cultivars in Brazil
47Fruits, vol. 57 (1)
ditions that trigger the switching of pineap-ple plants from vegetation to reproduction,such as shorter days with lower insolationand cooler nights, Pérola plants can beobserved starting to differentiate, whereasSmooth Cayenne plants of the same ageand in a similar developmental stage usu-ally need a longer period of inducing con-ditions to do the same. Similarly, forcingtreatments fail more often for SmoothCayenne plants than for Pérola plants. Theconcentrations of ethephon or calcium car-bide required for getting good forcing effi-ciency is sometimes higher for SmoothCayenne plants. As the same difference wasoften observed for treatments with othergrowth regulators, as, for example, with the2–(3–chlorophenoxi) propionic acid whichwas sometimes used to delay the fruit har-vest [15, 16], it can be concluded that thePérola pineapple is, in general, more sen-sitive to the exogenous supply of growthregulators.
With respect to diseases, the major dif-ference observed between the cultivarsstudied was the low incidence of wilt symp-toms in Pérola plantations, confirming thatthis variety is tolerant to wilt [1, 13, 17].Mealy bugs are usually present, but dis-persed in areas within plantations showingplants with the typical wilting symptomsare rather seldom, whereas, in SmoothCayenne plantations the wilt disease is assignificant as the Fusarium disease, towhich the Pérola plants are as susceptibleas the Smooth Cayenne plants [18, 19]. So,integrated Fusarium control measures arevital for getting good returns in pineappleplantations of both cultivars [20, 21]. Inaddition, mealy bugs must be preventivelyattacked by chemicals to assure wilt diseasecontrol in Smooth Cayenne plantations [22].Phytophthora disease is of low relevancefor pineapple plantations in Brazil, exceptfor some irrigated areas in the semi-aridregion with almost neutral soil reactions[21]. No significant difference between thetwo cultivars could be observed, being bothsusceptible to that disease. The same is thecase for the black rot caused by Thielaviop-sis (Chalara) paradoxa, which is a diseasethat may cause significant planting materialand fruit losses during the post-harvest
period, but may be efficiently controlled bycultural and chemical measures.
Besides the mealy bugs associated withthe wilt disease, the fruit borer (Theclabasalides) and the stem borer (Castniaicarus) are the other major pests present inBrazilian pineapple plantations (table II ).Both varieties are attacked by these insects,but a recent study showed that there is ahigher preference of the stem borer forSmooth Cayenne plants than for Pérolaplants [23]. Nematodes, specially Praty-lenchus brachyurus and Meloidogyne spp.,are present in plantations of both varieties[24]. A study carried out at the InstitutoAgronômico de Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil[25] indicated a higher susceptibility ofPérola to P. brachyurus than SmoothCayenne which is strongly affected by thispest in most world production areas [3]. InBrazil, nematodes are considered a lessimportant pest, even though losses due totheir incidence have not yet been evaluatedin a systematic way, and hence usually nonematode control is done in pineappleplantations, in contrast with the proceduresin many other countries, particularly thosethat cultivate mainly the Smooth Cayenne.
3.3. Yield, production cost, markets
Other important differences between thetwo cultivars studied are related to fruitcharacteristics, yields and economicalaspects. Pérola fruits are usually of a conicshape (figure 2), in contrast to the pre-dominantly cylindrical shape of SmoothCayenne fruits (figure 4) [8, 13]. Pérola fruitsare commonly longer and narrower (smallerdiameter) [7] (table I ). The core diameter isalso smaller, which contributes to the lowerfiber content and higher juice content ofthese fruits [7]. In addition, these fruits areoften of sweeter taste due to a higher [(totalsoluble solids)/(titrable acidity)] ratio, as aresult of a lower acidity and, sometimes, ahigher total soluble solids content [7, 13,14]. These attributes make the Pérola fruitan excellent one for fresh fruit markets, par-ticularly for those people who do not likeacid fruits. However, its whitish pulp color,as well as its often less colored fruit rind areless attractive properties for consumers [13].
D.H. Reinhardt et al.
48 Fruits, vol. 57 (1)
Finally, the Smooth Cayenne variety hasa clear advantage in the average fruitweight, which is usually higher than that ofthe Pérola (table I ). A difference of (300 to400) g per fruit was common for plants ofthe same age and grown under similar envi-ronmental conditions [7, 14]. If there areless favorable growth conditions, the fruitweight may be the same for both cultivars,even though no data are available to com-pare the behavior of the two cultivars underenvironmental stress (drought, salinity, alu-minum, and others) conditions.
A consequence of the lower average fruitweight and of the usually lower planting
density used for Pérola plantations is thesmaller yields in both the first and the ratooncycles, obtained in well-managed planta-tions [11, 12] (table I ). In addition, suckersof Smooth Cayenne plants are morestrongly anchored to the mother plants thanthose of Pérola plants, which results inlower losses due to a lower percentage ofplant and fruit dropping during the ratooncrop cycle. This problem, together with theincrease of disease and pest incidence andthe lack of uniformity within the plantationdue to delays in sucker formation, and themarket demand for large fruits, are thecauses for the small percentage of ratoon
Pineapple cultivars in Brazil
49Fruits, vol. 57 (1)
Table II.Principal advantages and disadvantages of Pérola and Smooth Cayenne pineapples(Ananas comosus).
Topics Pérola Smooth Cayenne
Spines1 Yes Few
Flowering2
Natural More sensitive, more precocious Less sensitive Forced Easier, more efficient Harder, less efficient
Figure 4.A cv. Smooth Cayennepineapple plant with fruitand several slips.
crops in most of the pineapple-producingareas in Brazil, in spite of the much smallerproduction costs of this crop in comparisonwith the first cycle crop [4, 11].
Usually the Pérola crops have a smallerproduction cost per ha than the SmoothCayenne plantations (table I ). This is mainlydue to the more expensive planting mate-rial and the costs for mealy bugs and wiltcontrol by preventive applications of insec-ticides in Smooth Cayenne plantations. Thedifferences may be less when the produc-tion costs per kg of fruit produced are takeninto account. In addition, post-harvest costsmay be higher for Pérola fruits. These fruits,having a smaller fiber content and a lowerskin and flesh firmness, are more suscepti-ble to transport injuries. Hence, they areusually transported to inland markets onopen trucks, together with a few slips perfruit, that serve as its natural packaging [26,27]. However, due to higher quality require-ments by buyers and consumers, an increas-ing proportion of Brazilian pineapples isnow being transported packed in hardpaper boxes, a procedure to be generalizedin the future in obedience to new standards
for fruit classification and packaging to beestablished by the Brazilian Government in2001.
All the fruit attributes mentioned aboveallow classification of Pérola fruits as excel-lent for the domestic fresh fruit markets,good for the domestic juice industry andstill weak for exports, particularly to moredemanding markets in Europe or the USA,even though the excellent qualities of thatfruit for fresh consumption must still beshown to those consumers (table II). On theother hand, the Smooth Cayenne fruits areexcellent for all canneries (juice, slices,etc.), well accepted in foreign markets andless accepted in many domestic fresh fruitmarkets, especially those in the Northernpart of the country [2].
As also shown above and especially intable II, there are several aspects of Pérolapineapple production and commercializa-tion that need further research efforts forimproving yield and fruit quality, meetingmore and more consumers’ requirements.Selection of Pérola clones with fruits of amore cylindrical shape and a more colored(yellow) flesh and skin at the ripe stagecould make these fruits more attractive toconsumers in Brazil and abroad. This workshould first be carried out in some Brazil-ian pineapple production areas, wherethere are fields with a Pérola-like varietycalled Jupi, which frequently has the fruitshape and the flesh color desired. Studieson yellowing of the fruit skin by ethylenetreatment are at present being carried outby Embrapa Mandioca e Fruticultura. Pre-harvest treatments, a common practice forSmooth Cayenne pineapples in many coun-tries, have touched the slips causing themto flower when still attached to the motherplants [27] and hence should be substitutedby adequate post-harvest treatments.
Another interesting and ever increasingconsumer demand is that for organic prod-ucts. In Brazil, this new market may be eas-ier to satisfy with Pérola pineapples thanSmooth Cayenne ones, given that Pérolaplantations often do not require wilt dis-ease and nematode control measures andthat Pérola plants are more sensitive to nat-ural flowering and may be more easilyforced by natural methods without using
D.H. Reinhardt et al.
50 Fruits, vol. 57 (1)
calcium carbide and other artificial prod-ucts.
The high susceptibility of both cultivarsto Fusarium is one of the major yield-reduc-tion factors of the crop in Brazil and, there-fore, has been one of the most relevantresearch issues. As a result, several inte-grated – cultural and chemical – controlmeasures have been put into practice andsignificantly reduced the losses [20]. How-ever, the best and cheapest control measurewill be the use of genetically resistant culti-vars. The breeding program of EmbrapaMandioca e Fruticultura has selected severalresistant genotypes with good general plantand fruit characteristics (Perolera, Primav-era, Roxo de Teffé, among others) and hascrossed them with Pérola and SmoothCayenne [28–30]. The program has pro-duced thousands of resistant hybrids andselected the best genotypes along the sex-ual and three clonal cycles, whose agro-nomic performances are now being evalu-ated in different Brazilian ecosystems [31],opening up positive perspectives for get-ting a definitive solution to this problem inthe coming years.
4. Conclusions
The overall performance of the Pérolaplants and fruits explains the wide use ofthis variety in Brazil and its potential use inother countries.
Large availability of slips and lower sus-ceptibility to the wilt disease reduce thePérola production costs, which, in additionto the favorable domestic markets for thisfruit, contributes to the preference of amajor part of the Brazilian pineapple grow-ers for this variety.
New research efforts and results, includ-ing the generation of spineless and Fusar-ium resistant hybrids, with fruit taste andflavor similar to that of the two traditionalcultivars, have opened up good perspec-tives for further pineapple yield and fruitquality gains, that may also help to meetconsumers’ requirements in Brazil andabroad.
References
[1] Leal F., Coppens d’Eeckenbrugge G.,Pineapple, in: Janick J., Moore J.N. (Eds.),Fruit breeding. Tree and tropical fruits, Vol. 1,Wiley Publishing Co., New York, USA, 1996,565–606.
[2] Py C., Lacoeuilhe J.J., Teisson C., Thepineapple:cultivation and uses, Maisonneuveet Larose (Eds.), Techniques agricoles et Pro-ductions tropicales, Paris, France, 1987, 570p.
[3] Reinhardt D.H., Souza J. da S., The pineap-ple industry in Brazil, Acta Hortic. 529 (2000)57–71.
[5] Reinhardt D.H., Costa J.T.A., Cunha G.A.P. da,Influência da época de plantio, tamanho demuda e idade da planta para a indução floralno abacaxi Smooth Cayenne no RecôncavoBaiano. 1. Crescimento vegetativo, produçãode mudas e florescimento natural, Fruits 41(1) (1986) 31–41.
[6] Reinhardt D.H., Costa J.T.A., Cunha G.A.P. da.,Inflência da época de plantio, tamanho demuda e idade da planta para a indução floralno abacaxi Smooth Cayenne no RecôncavoBaiano. 2. Produtividade e características dofruto, Fruits 42 (1) (1987) 13–23.
[8] Cabral J.R.S., Matos A.P. de, Cunha G.A.P. da,Caracterização morfológico-agronômica degermoplasma de abacaxi, IX Cong.Bras.Fru-tic., Soc. Bras. Frutic., v.1, Campinas, Brasil,1987, 35–40.
[9] Cunha G.A.P. da, Cabral J.R.S., Observaçãosobre a ocorrência de fasciação em abacaxi,Rev. Bras. Frutic. 12 (1) (1990) 19–21.
[10] Carvalho V.D. de, Cunha G.A.P. da, PaulaM.B. de, Chitarra M.I.F., Teores de car-boidratos no caule de algumas cultivares deabacaxi, Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira20 (2) (1985) 197–200.
[11] Alves A. de A., Reinhardt D.H., Alcântara J.dos P., Souza L.F. da S., Caldas R.C., Manejoe avaliação da soca do abacaxi Pérola nascondições do semi-árido de Itaberaba, Bahia,Rev. Bras. Frutic. 20 (3) (1998) 323–331.
[12] Silva J.R., O adensamento como forma deaumentar a produtividade do abacaxi, Inf.Agropecu. 19 (195) (1998) 62–64.
Pineapple cultivars in Brazil
51Fruits, vol. 57 (1)
[13] Cabral J.R.S., Cultivares de abacaxi,Embrapa Mandioca e Fruticultura, Circ. Téc.,33, Embrapa Mandioca e Fruticultura, Cruzdas Almas, Brazil, 1999, 20 p.
[14] Reinhardt D.H., Souza L.F. da, Cunha G.A.P.da, Meneguci J.L.P., Oliveira L. de A.Almeida O.A. de, Souto R.F., Desempenhodo abacaxi irrigado, cvs. Pérola e SmoothCayenne, em diferentes épocas de plantio naregião semi-árida do Norte de Minas Gerais,Embrapa Mandioca e Fruticultura, Comun.Téc. 69, 2000, 4 p.
[15] Vieira A., Gadelha R.S. de S., Santos A.C.dos., A aplicação de Fruitone C.P.A. em fru-tos de abacaxi, Pesqui. Agropecu. Bras. 17(11) (1982) 1599–1601.
[16] Barbosa N.M.L., Cunha G.A.P. da, ReinhardtD.H., Barros P.G., Controle da floração natu-ral do abacaxizeiro Pérola com uréia e regu-ladores de crescimento, no RecôncavoBaiano, Rev. Bras. Frutic. 20 (3) (1998)359–366.
[17] Sanches N.F., Murcha associada à cocho-nilha Dysmicoccus brevipes (Cockerell,1893), in: Cunha G.A.P. da, Cabral J.R.S.,Souza L.F. da S., (organizadores), O abaca-xizeiro – cultivo, agroindústria e economia,Embrapa Comun. Transf. Tecnol., Embrapa,Brasília, Brazil, 1999, pp. 343–366.
[18] Cabral J.R.S., Matos A.P. de, Souto G.F.,Reação de germoplasma de abacaxi à ino-culações com Fusarium moniliforme var. sub-glutinans, Pesqui. Agropecu. Brasil. 20 (7)(1985) 787–791.
[19] Matos A.P. de, Souto G.F., Reaction ofpineapple, cultivars Pérola and SmoothCayenne, to inoculation with Fusarium monil-iforme Sheld. var. subglutinans WR. & RG.,Fruits 40 (10) (1985) 641–645.
[20] Matos A.P. de, Pineapple fusariosis in Brazil:an overview, Fruits 41 (7/8) (1987) 417–422.
[21] Matos A.P. de, Doenças e seu controle, in:Cunha G.A.P. da, Cabral J.R.S., Souza L.F.da S. (organizadores), O abacaxizeiro – cul-tivo, agroindústria e economia, EmbrapaComun. Transf. Tecnol., Embrapa, Brasília,Brazil, 1999, pp. 269–305.
[22] Sanches N.F., Pragas e seu controle, in:Cunha G.A.P. da, Cabral J.R.S., Souza L.F.da S. (organizadores), O abacaxizeiro – cul-tivo, agroindústria e economia, Embrapa
Comun. Transf. Tecnol., Embrapa, Brasília,Brazil, 1999, pp. 307–341.
[23] Sanches N.F., Ataque da broca do talo (Cast-nia icarus) em abacaxizeiros Pérola eSmooth Cayenne, Rev. Bras. Frutic. 13 (4)(1991) 173–177.
[24] Costa D.da C., Ritzinger C.H.S.P., Nematóidese seu controle, in: Reinhardt D.H., Cabral J.R.,Souza L.F. da S. (organizadores), Abacaxi.Produção: aspectos técnicos, EmbrapaComun. Transf. Tecnol., Embrapa, Brasília,Brazil, 2000, pp. 51–55.
[25] Dinardo-Miranda L.L., Spironello A., MartinsA.L., Host reaction of pineapple varieties toPratylenchus brachyurus, Nematol. Bras. 20(1) (1996) 1–7.
[26] Carvalho V.D. de, Composição, colheita,embalagem e transporte do fruto, in: CunhaG.A.P. da, Cabral J.R.S., Souza L.F. da S.(organizadores), O abacaxizeiro – cultivo,agroindústria e economia, Embrapa Comun.Transf. Tecnol., Embrapa, Brasília, Brazil,1999, pp. 367–388.
[28] Cabral J.R.S., Melhoramento genético. in:Cunha G.A.P.da, Cabral J.R.S., Souza L.F. daS. (organizadores), O abacaxizeiro – cultivo,agroindústria e economia, Embrapa Comun.Transf. Tecnol., Embrapa, Brasília, Brazil,1999, pp. 83–103.
[29] Cabral J.R.S., Matos A.P. de, Coppensd’Eeckenbrugge G., Segregation for resist-ance to fusariose, leaf margin type, and leafcolor from the Embrapa pineapple hybridiza-tion program, Acta Hortic. 425 (1995)193–200.
[30] Coppens d’Eeckenbrugge G., Cabral J.R.S.,Carlier J., Duval M.F., Ferreira F.R., Leal F.,Leitão J., Matos A.P. de, Noyer J.L., Suárez Z.,The EU-funded project “Evaluation and uti-lization of pineapple genetic resources fromthe Amazon to breed resistant varieties”, ActaHortic. 529 (2000) 169–172.
[31] Cabral J.R.S., Reinhardt D.H., Evaluation ofpineapple hybrids in different ecosystemsof Brazil, Pineapple Newsl. 7 (2000) 10–11.
D.H. Reinhardt et al.
52 Fruits, vol. 57 (1)
Pineapple cultivars in Brazil
53Fruits, vol. 57 (1)
Cultivares de piña Pérola y Cayena Lisa en Brasil: crecimiento, floración,plagas y enfermedades, producción y calidad del fruto.Resumen — Introducción. Pérola es el cultivar de piña más importante de Brasil, pero escasi desconocido en otros países. Cayena Lisa es el cultivar más sembrado en todo el mundo.Los dos cultivares pertenecen a distintos grupos de piña, y presentan diferentes característicasbotánico-morfológicas, de desarrollo vegetativo y agronómicas. Material y métodos. Se hizoun análisis comparativo entre los dos cultivares, basándose en los resultados y observacionesllevadas a cabo en varios estudios desarrollados en la Embrapa Yuca y Fruticultura, ubicadaen Cruz das Almas, Bahia, Brasil, a lo largo de los últimos 20 años. Resultados y discusión.La planta del cv. Pérola normalmente presentó un tallo más pequeño con un menor númerode raíces y hojas; sin embargo, las hojas ‘D’ fueron más largas, más anchas y más erectas. Elpedúnculo fue más largo, sosteniendo un fruto más estrecho, más largo, de formato cónico,con la pulpa blanquecina, menos fibrosa, con la médula central comestible, acidez más baja,relación sólidos solubles totales/acidez total titulable y contenido de jugo más elevados. LaPérola fue más sensible a la acción de factores medioambientales y de hormonas inductoras dela floración, pero fue menos susceptible a la enfermedad de la ‘Wilt’ (desecación de la planta)transmitida por la cochinilha y el excavador del tallo (Castnia icarus). La Pérola produjo muchomás retoños del tipo bulbillo, a pesar de la formación de brotes del tallo ser más tardía y menosuniforme; además, están menos arrestados a la planta-madre, volviéndose, de esta forma, másdifícil la obtención de un buen rendimiento de la segunda cosecha. Conclusión. El potencialde rendimiento de la Pérola fue más bajo debido al menor peso del fruto y a la menor den-sidad de cultivo empleada. Su coste de producción también fue más bajo, principalmentedebido al material de siembra más barato y menor número de aplicaciones de pesticidas. Elcomportamiento general de las plantas y frutos del cv. Pérola señalan la gran utilización deesta variedad en Brasil y su potencial uso en otros países.
