Hort. Sci. (Prague), 2009, 36(1):1-13 | DOI: 10.17221/5/2008-HORTSCI

The occurrence and morphological characteristics of the wild pear lower taxa in Slovakia

V. Paganová
Faculty of Horticulture and Landscape Engineering, Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra, Nitra, Slovakia

The occurrence of 10 lower taxa within species Pyrus pyraster L. (Burgsd.) was confirmed in Slovakia. Among 507 of the evaluated plants on 64 localities, there were recorded 2 sub-species of the wild pear - Pyrus pyraster subsp. pyraster and Pyrus pyraster subsp. achras . Subspecies pyraster was represented by 4 varieties (pyraster, elongata, pénzesiana, brachypoda ) and 5 forms (populifolia, cordifolia, rhomboidea, ovata, slovenica ). All lower taxa were visually classified according to the leaf and fruit characteristics. Numerical classification based on discriminant analysis according to quantitative traits was done. Some discrepancies were found up to 16.7% between visual and numerical classification on particular levels of the lower taxa identification.

Keywords: wild pear; lower taxa; occurrence; morphology; leaves; fruits

Published: March 31, 2009  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Paganová V. The occurrence and morphological characteristics of the wild pear lower taxa in Slovakia. Hort. Sci. (Prague). 2009;36(1):1-13. doi: 10.17221/5/2008-HORTSCI.
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. AAS G., 1999. Die Wildbirne aus systematisch-botanischer Sicht. Berichte aus der Bayerische Landesanstalt für Wald und Forstwirtschaft (LWF), 23: 2-6.
    2. ASCHERSON P., GRAEBNER P., 1906. Synopsis der mitteleuropäische Flora. VI. 2. 1906. Leipzig, Wilhelm Engelmann: 844.
    3. DÉCAISNE J., 1858. Le jardin fruitier du muséum. Vol. I. Paris, Typographie de Firmin Didot Fréres: 125.
    4. DOMIN K., 1917. Kritické poznámky o původu některých naąich ovocných stromů a keřů. In: Zemědělský archiv, č. 8: 284-287. communis L. subsp. Piraster (L.) a domestica (Lam. et DC.)) z hlediska soustavné botaniky. In: Věstník Královské České Společnosti Nauk, 32: 1-15.
    5. HECKER U., 1985. Holz-Birne, Wild-Birne. In: Laubgehölze. Wildwachsende Bäume, Sträucher und Zwerggehölze. BLV Verlagsgesellschaft, München: 136-137.
    6. HOFMANN H., 1993. Zur Verbreitung und Ökologie der Wildbirne (Pyrus communis L.) in Süd-Niedersachsen und Nordhessen sowie ihrer Abgrenzung von verwilderten Kulturbirnen (Pyrus domestica Med.). Mitteilungen der Deutschen Dendrologischen Gesellschaft, 81: 27-69.
    7. KOCH K., 1869. Dendrologie. Volume I. Berlin: 735.
    8. MALEEV V.P., 1939. Grusa - Pyrus L. In: Komarov V.L., SISKIN B.K., Juzepczuk S.V.X. (eds), Flora SSSR, Vol. IX. Moskva, Leningrad, Izdateµstvo Akademii Nauk: 354-376.
    9. MÜLLER F., LITSCHAUER R., 1996. Unterscheidung zwischen Wildobstarten und verwilderten Kulturformen. Österreichische Forstzeitung, 107: 21-22.
    10. PAGANOVÁ V., 2003. Wild pear Pyrus pyraster (L) Burgsd. requirements on environmental conditions. Ekológia, Bratislava, 23: 255-241.
    11. Rehder A., 1951. Manual of Cultivated Trees and Shrubs. New York, The MacMillan Company: 996.
    12. ROTACH P., BAUME M., 2004. Die Wildbirne (Pyrus pyraster (L.) Burgsd). In der Schweiz: morphologische Charakterisierung, Abgrenzung von der Kulturbirne und Artreinheit ihrer Vorkomen. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Forstwessen, 155: 367-377. Go to original source...
    13. Rou Y.G., Camus E.-G., 1901. Flore de France. VII. Paris: 440. kunde. Jena, Verlag von Gustav Fischer, 1: 714-728.
    14. TERPÓ A., 1960. Magyroszágh vadkörtei (Pyri hungariae). Budapest, Mezögazdasági Kiadó. Annales Academiae Horti et Viticulturae, 22: 1-258.
    15. TERPÓ A., 1985. Studies of taxonomy and grouping of Pyrus species. Feddes Repertorium, No. 1-2: 73-87. Go to original source...
    16. TERPÓ A., 1992. Pyrus taxa in Hungary, and their practical importance. Thaiszia, 2: 41-57.
    17. VOLTAS J., PEMÁN J., FUSTÉ F., 2007. Phenotypic diversity and delimitation between wild and cultivated forms of the genus Pyrus in North-eastern Spain based on morphometric analyses. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, 54: 1473-1487. Go to original source...
    18. WAGNER I., 1995. Identifikation von Wildapfel (Malus sylvestris (L.) Mill.) und Wildbirne (Pyrus pyraster (L.) Burgsd.). Voraussetzung zur Generhaltung des einheimischen Wildobstes. Forstarchiv, 66: 39-47.
    19. WAGNER I., 1996. Zusammenstellung morphologischer Merkmale und ihrer Ausprägungen zur Unterscheidung von Wild- und Kulturformen des Apfel- (Malus) und des Birnbaumes (Pyrus). Mitteilungen der Deutschen Dendrologischen Gesellschaft, 82: 87-108.
    20. Wallroth Fr. W., 1822. Schedulae criticae de Plantis Florae Halensis Selectis. Corollarium novum ad C. Sprengelil Floram Halensem. Halae, Sumtibus Car. Aug. Kümellii. Tomus I. Phanerogamia: 213-215.

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY NC 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content