From Progress in
New Crops, Proceedings of the Third National Symposium NEW CROPS: New
Opportunities, New Technologies
by M. V. Mickelbart
Sapodilla: A Potential Crop For Subtropical Climates
Nomenclature
Tree description and management
Propagation
Flowering and pollination
Fruit description and uses
Postharvest storage
Cultivars
References
Table 1
Sapodilla (Manilkara zapotilla,
Sapotaceae) is native to Central and South America, specifically from
the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico to Costa Rica, where the largest
population of native trees still exists (Gilly 1943). It is now
widespread throughout the tropical regions of the world, including
Central and South America, the West Indies, India, and Florida in the
United States.
Sapodilla is the source of chicle, the principle
ingredient in chewing gum. The chicle is extracted from the trunk of
the tree as a white latex exudate. Today, sapodilla is cultivated for
its fruit in most areas. Although synthetic gums are primarily used,
some countries such as Mexico, Venezuela, and Guatemala, still grow
sapodilla for chicle.
Sapodilla is grown on a commercial basis
in India, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Mexico, Venezuela,
Guatemala, and some other Central American countries. India is the
largest producer of sapodilla fruit with current production around
24,000 ha (Chadha 1992). Sapodilla is widely planted in south Florida,
where the fruit is marketed locally and shipped to northern and eastern
U.S. markets. The fruit, however, is not commonly seen in the United
States. In southern Mexico and Central America where sapodilla is
native, it is considered to be one of the best of the tropical fruits.
The
future of sapodilla appears to be promising, given the attention the
crop is receiving from growers and consumers in many countries. Indian
production of sapodilla continues to grow and there is an active
research program in that country with specific goals toward improving
storage, transport, and marketing strategies. Sapodilla has been
identified by the Ministry of Agriculture in Malaysia to be promoted
under the program for development of its fruit industry (Bakar and
Abdul-Karim 1994). The fruit is also gaining popularity as a specialty
fruit in restaurants in North America and production of sapodilla as a
commercial crop seems to be a possibility in areas where environmental
conditions are mild.
Nomenclature
The name sapodilla is derived
from the Spanish word zapotilla, meaning "small sapote." The fruit,
commonly referred to as sapodilla in the U.S., is also known as chicku,
chiku (India), chicopote, chicozapote (Mexico), dilly (Bahamas), kauki
(Southeast Asia), mespel (Virgin Islands), mispu, mispel, mispelboon
(Surinam), muyozapot (El Salvador), naseberry (British West Indies),
nispero (Puerto Rico), sapatija, sapodilla plum, sapodille (Dutch West
Indies), sapota, sapote (Cuba), sapoti or sapotilha (Brazil),
sapotille, sapotillier (French West Indies), zapote, zapote chico, or
zapotillo. The profusion of names for the fruit is probably due to the
many small, isolated growing areas it occupies, where names are often
derived from local words. The small-market characteristics of the fruit
have helped to keep it in obscurity.
The botanical name of the fruit is no less confusing. Both Manilkara and Achras
are commonly used as generic names and there appears to be no agreement
among botanists or horticulturists as to the proper term. Sapota (zapota) or sapote (zapote)
are commonly used as the species name, although this too is variable
among regions and authors. Gilly (1943) addressed this problem of
confused nomenclature. It seems the generic name Achras,
given by Linnaeus, was based upon a plate and description by the
botanist Plumier. Unfortunately, the plant described by Plumier is not
sapodilla, leading to the misnaming. Gilly suggests that Manilkara zapotilla (Jacq.) Gilly is the only proper name since Manilkara is the earliest recorded name of the group to which sapodilla belongs and zapotilla was specifically applied to sapodilla at the time of its publication. Still, the nomenclature of this species remains confused.
Tree description and management
The
tree is a medium to large evergreen tree reaching 12 to 18 m in the
tropics, although some trees may reach 40 m. Tree size would likely be
much smaller in subtropical regions such as Southern California, where
cool winters would slow growth for a portion of the year. The canopy is
dense, often with a rounded crown, but sometimes with a more pyramidal
shape. The trunks of the trees are reported to attain a diameter of 2
to 3.5 m in Central America. The glossy, dark green leathery leaves
clustered toward the tips of the branches are ovate-elliptic to
elliptic-lanceolate, 5 to 12.5 cm long, 6 cm wide.
Being a
strictly tropical tree, the sapodilla is limited in the United States
to the southern coastal region of Florida and possibly some southern
coastal areas of California. Young trees are injured or sometimes
killed at temperatures of -1° to 0°C, while mature trees can withstand
temperatures as low as -2° to -3°C with only minor damage. Temperatures
above 41°C during flowering or fruiting can cause flower abortion or
fruit scalding.
Sapodilla has proven to be tolerant of dry
conditions, and its ability to thrive on poor soils makes it an ideal
fruit tree for less-than-optimum growing areas. The tree has shown
ability to withstand extended periods of waterlogging, and trees are
grown on most soil types, from clay soils to almost pure limestone.
Sapodilla is remarkably tolerant of high levels of root zone salinity
(Mickelbart and Marler 1996), a rare characteristic in tropical fruit
species. It has also proven tolerant of salt spray off the coast of
Florida, indicating it may thrive on the subtropical coasts of other
regions as well. Sapodilla appears to perform better, in fact, in the
coastal regions of the areas in which it is grown. Still, the fact that
sapodilla has, at least initially, been successfully grown in the hot,
arid desert regions of India suggests that the tree may be grown in
some desert areas of California, although the effect of extremely high
temperatures on such physiological events as flowering and fruit set
may limit production.
Sapodilla is a shallow-rooted tree, with
more than 80% of the roots located within the top 75 cm of soil,
concentrated within an area half the width of the canopy (Avilan et al.
1981; Bhuva et al. 1991). About 66% of the moisture extracted from the
soil is in the first 75 cm. This root morphology suggests that
irrigation may be economically feasible in areas of low rainfall.
Pruning does not appear to be necessary for at least the first ten
years of growth, except possibly skirting of the lower branches.
Young
trees require irrigation, especially during lengthy dry periods, and
mature trees bear more consistent, higher quality crops with regular
irrigation. Trees four years of age and older are generally able to
cope with extended dry periods. Irrigation of mature trees increases
fruit yield and canopy volume (Bhuva et al. 1990), although water use
efficiency decreases with increased irrigation (Bhuva et al. 1991),
suggesting that irrigation may not be economically feasible in areas
which receive sufficient rainfall.
Fertilization appears to have
a favorable effect on fruit yield (Bhuva et al. 1991) and on fruit
quality characteristics such as total soluble solids and pulp:seed
ratio (Durrani et al. 1982). Potassium is taken up in larger amounts
than any other nutrient in sapodilla (Rao 1979; Avilan et al. 1980;
Sulladmath 1983). Potassium fertilization seems to have a favorable
effect on fruit set (Laborem et al. 1981), especially when done in
conjunction with an application of phosphorus (Durrani et al. 1982). In
fact, Avilan et al. (1980) found a linear relationship between fruit
yield and potassium uptake.
Insects and disease are rarely a problem on sapodilla, although leaf miner and stem borer are sometimes minor problems. Phytophthora palmivora
(Butler) may cause fruit rot in the lower fruits on the canopy if water
directly contacts the fruit, especially during periods of elevated
temperatures and high humidity. Leafspot (Phaeophleospora indica Chinnappa) is also reported to be a problem in India (Balasubramanian et al. 1988).
Propagation
Sapodilla
is vegetatively propagated, due to the great variability in progeny
from seed, as well as the length of time from planting to fruit set,
often taking as much as 6 to 10 years. Air layering is the most common
means of propagation in India and there has been a fair amount of
research regarding optimal treatment of air-layered plants. Workers in
India have found that using recently-produced branches, along with
etiolation and application of a growth regulator such as IBA or NAA
results in optimal growth of air-layered plants (Chadha 1992).
Veneer
grafting resulted in the highest percent survival and moderate root
growth in a study comparing various propagation techniques including
side grafting, side inarching, tongue grafting, whip grafting, and
saddle grafting (Hussain and Bukhari 1977). Tongue grafting resulted in
the lowest percent survival, although the plants produced had
significantly larger root systems than those produced by the other
methods. Malo (1967) describes a successful method for veneer grafting
young sapodilla plants designed to efficiently propagate large numbers
of sapodilla.
Softwood grafting was successful (ca. 80%
survival) in a study conducted in India (Kulwal et al. 1985). The
greatest success was obtained when scion wood was defoliated 8 days
prior to removal and when grafting was done during the summer months.
While
sapodilla seedlings are often used as rootstocks for grafted plants,
some other species may be suitable and contribute to the management of
sapodilla orchards. Wild dilly [Manilkara emarginata (Bakar) Lam. & Meeuse] (Ogden and Campbell 1980) and Manilkara hexandra (Roxb.) (Chandler 1958) have been proposed as possible dwarfing rootstocks for sapodilla.
Flowering and pollination
The
small white flowers of sapodilla are borne on short pedicels in the
leaf axils. Piatos and Knight (1975) found sapodilla to be
self-incompatible, indicating that cross-pollination might be
necessary. While production of some cultivars such as 'Prolific' is
high in areas such as Florida, fruit yield among cultivars is variable,
a characteristic which may be due to self-incompatibility. Gonzalez and
Feliciano (1953) examined flowering and fruit set in 'Ponderosa'
sapodilla and found that the trees could not be self-pollinated, either
naturally or artificially. The best method of pollination was
determined to be cross-pollination by hand, which resulted in a 39.6%
fruit set. Open pollination resulted in only 5% fruit set in that
study. Similar results were observed in 'Kalipatti' sapodilla by
Relekar et al. (1991). Mulla and Desle (1990) found that the highest
percent fruit set was observed in trees cross-pollinated with pollen of
the same cultivar and ranged from 20 to 34%. There was no sign of
parthenocarpy and self-pollination resulted in only negligible fruit
set in some of the cultivars examined.
Reddi (1989) conducted a series of studies in which he showed that thrips (Thrips hawaiiensis Morgan and Haplothrips tenuipennis
Bagnall) are the principle pollinators of sapodilla in India. The
thrips apparently take shelter in the flowers and live on the pollen
grains, nectar, and stigmatic exudations. They collect pollen grains
while feeding on these components and transfer then to other flowers
when the food reserves are exhausted. Bees have been observed in
flowering sapodilla plantings (Sambamurty and Ramalingam 1954),
although examination of the insects indicated that they were not
carrying pollen.
Reddi's study showed several traits which
indicated that wind is not an important pollinating agent, nor are
large insects. Sambamurty and Ramalingham (1954), however, suggest that
wind is an important factor in sapodilla pollination. Reddi also showed
that sapodilla flowers are not self-pollinating, although pollen
transfer is generally limited to a single tree unless trees are closely
spaced. This information would provide evidence that sapodilla is not
self-incompatible as previously suggested. Pollen size and viability
are quite variable between cultivars, possibly causing the varied
results in fruit set (Minhas and Sandhu 1985).
Much like
avocado, sapodilla produces many more flowers than developed fruits.
The great variability in fruit set may be due to differences in flower
abortion or fruit drop, although differences in this phenomenon between
cultivars has not been specifically examined in sapodilla. The major
period of fruit drop occurs in the first five weeks following fruit set
and as little as 1.6% of the flowers produced by a tree may develop
into fruit (Relekar et al. 1991). Fruit set is highly variable, even
within a cultivar. Gonzalez and Feliciano (1953) suggested that tree
vigor may be related to flower production and fruit set.
Fruit description and uses
The
fruit of sapodilla is small, ranging from 5 to 9 cm in diameter with a
round to egg-shaped appearance, from 75 to 200 g in weight. The rough
brown skin, which gives the fruit a somewhat unattractive appearance,
encloses a soft, sweet, light brown to reddish-brown flesh. The flesh
is often gritty, much like a pear, and it can hold up to 12 flat,
smooth black seeds, although some fruit are seedless. Superior strains
have a fine smooth texture with a slightly fragrant and sweet flavor.
Fruit
development follows a sigmoidal pattern (Sulladmath et al. 1979;
Abdul-Karim et al. 1987). The initial growth phase is due to cell
division and involves maturation of the embryo within the fruit. A
phase of greatly reduced growth follows, until a second rapid growth
phase occurs, during which time growth is due to cell enlargement. This
second growth phase is the time when maximum growth occurs, between 5
and 7.5 months from fruit set (Lakshminarayana and Subramanyam 1966).
The fruit are suitable for harvesting after the first growth phase,
although higher quality fruit are obtained if they are harvested
following the second growth phase, when there is a dramatic increase in
sugar content of the fruit.
Fruit maturity occurs anywhere from
4 to 10 months following fruit set, depending on variety, climate, and
soil conditions. In south Florida and the Virgin Islands, the fruit
appears throughout the year, with a peak season from May to Sept. Fruit
is also produced throughout the year in Malaysia. In the desert regions
of India, the fruit ripens primarily in July and Aug. Seasonal
variation in fruit shape and size is not uncommon and great variation
exists among seedling fruits.
Because immature sapodilla fruit
contain latex, harvesting fruit at full maturity is critical to
quality. Judging maturity in sapodilla is extremely difficult. Even
within a single cluster, fruit maturity may vary greatly, although
fruits generally mature from flowers produced at the base of the
cluster to the tip. Sundararajan and Rao (1967) suggest using total
soluble solids as a measure of maturity in sapodilla, although the
variation in fruit age within a tree may require that each fruit is
judged individually for maturity. Abdul-Karim et al. (1987) found that
fruit length and width were better indicators of maturity than weight
and volume, or firmness. Some varieties of sapodilla maintain the
remnants of the flower style until maturity (George 1982), which may
also be a good indicator. Ripeness can occur anywhere from 9 to 13 days
after harvest (Lakshminarayana and Subramanyam 1966).
Sapodilla
fruit is most commonly consumed fresh, when fully ripe. It is primarily
a dessert fruit in most areas. Flavor of the ripe fruit is improved by
chilling just prior to eating. Sapodilla fruit is also used for making
ice cream, but is not typically used for jam or canning. The fruit is
also eaten as a dried fruit in India.
Postharvest storage
Sapodilla respiration pattern follows that of a climacteric fruit
(Broughton and Wong 1979; Selvaraj and Pal 1984; Abdul-Karim et al.
1987; Brown and Wong 1987). Respiration may be slowed by growth
retardants such as gibberellic acid (GA), kinetin and silver nitrate
(Gautam and Chundawat 1990b).
Sapodilla
may be stored under controlled conditions for a short period of time.
Singh and Mathur (1954) found that optimum cold storage was obtained at
35° to 38°F with a relative humidity of 85%-90%. Under these
conditions, fruit could be stored for up to eight weeks. Broughton and
Wong (1979) found that holding the fruit at 4°C before storing at 20°C
extended the storage life of the fruit although exposure to 4°C for
longer than ten days resulted in chilling injury. Storage of sapodilla
under high CO2 concentrations, provided CO2 was less than 20% (v/v),
and low ethylene concentrations, also prolonged the storage life of the
fruit. Upon reaching full maturity, sapodilla fruit deteriorates
rapidly, lasting only 2 to 10 days (Brown and Wong 1987).
Gautam
and Chundawat (1990a) examined the effects of various growth retardants
on postharvest changes in sapodilla. Application of GA, kinetin, and
silver nitrate resulted in up to a two-day increase in storage time due
to reduction of catalase and pectin methyl esterase activity, and
reductions in respiratory activity and ethylene production. The
application of these compounds appears to reduce the rate at which
fruit ripens as well as affecting fruit quality characteristics such as
total sugars, acidity, ascorbic acid, and starch (Gautam and Chundawat
1990b).
Gibberellic acid prolongs the time which sapodilla fruit
can be stored before rot occurs, as well as prolonging fruit softness
and fruit skin shrinkage (Kumbhar and Desai 1986). Gautam and Chundawat
(1990a, b) used a 300 ppm GA solution, although Kumbhar and Desai
(1986) found a 75 ppm solution to be the most effective in a range of
concentrations from 75 to 225 ppm.
Both wax coating and
2,4-Dichloro-phenoxy acetic acid (2,4-D ) have been shown to retard the
ripening process in sapodilla, while 2-Chloroethyl phosphonic acid
(ethrel) (Ingle et al. 1981; Suryanarayana and Goud 1984) and ethylene
(Sastry 1970) greatly accelerate ripening. Polyethylene bags can also
reduce weight loss in sapodilla by about 50% (Kumbhar and Desai 1986).
Because
of the high moisture and nutrient content of the fruit, sapodilla is
especially prone to postharvest diseases. Common diseases include sour
rot (Geotrichum candidum), Cladosporum rot (Cladosporum oxysporium), and blue mold rot (Penicillium italicum).
Bakar and Abdul-Karim (1994) found benlate (methyl-N-1-butylcarbomoyl),
a commonly used fungicide for postharvest treatment of sapodilla, to
best control both fungal and bacterial pathogens of sapodilla. Although
several non-chemical treatments have been tested, none have proven to
be successful against postharvest pathogens of sapodilla.
Cultivars
A
number of sapodilla cultivars are available at nurseries in the United
States specializing in tropical fruit species (Table 1). Because of the
lack of information in the literature on many of the cultivars, the
table is incomplete. 'Prolific' appears to be the best producer in
Florida. It is extremely precocious and produces fruit of good flavor.
Grafted trees bear fruit within 3 to 5 years of planting in Florida and
mature trees may bear 150 to 225 kg of fruit. The fruit is easily
damaged and is therefore susceptible to some postharvest diseases.
Another successful variety in Florida is 'Brown Sugar'. As its name
implies, the fruit is very sweet, with a slightly granular flesh. Trees
bear crops 3 to 5 years following planting, with mature trees bearing
crops of 125 to 200 kg. In Florida, 'Tikal' fruits up to four months
earlier than other sapodilla cultivars (Campbell et al. 1987). Many
cloned Florida cultivars have proven to be unfruitful in successive
years. Some examples include 'Martin','Adelaide', and 'Seedless'.
'Kalipatti'
is the most planted cultivar in the Gujarat region of India, accounting
for about 99% of the acreage there. It also appears to be the highest
yielding cultivar of those tested in India (Chundawat and Bhuva 1982)
and, therefore, will likely continue to be the most widely planted.
Average yields are 160 kg per tree, with fruit of medium size and low
seed count. 'Russel' was considered to be the best variety in a
five-year Puerto Rico study.
The major obstacle to sapodilla
producers appears to be opening foreign markets. At present, most
sapodilla production is limited to local consumption regardless of
where the fruit is produced. Past attempts at establishing a European
market have failed (Chadha 1992), and the future of sapodilla is
uncertain.
References
Abdul-Karim, M.N.B., S.A. Tarmizi, and A.A. Bakar. 1987. The physio-chemical changes in ciku (Achras sapota L.) of Jantung variety. Pertanika 10(3):277-282.
Avilan, R.L., E.G. Laborem, M. Figueroa, and L. Rangel. 1980. Absorcion de nutrimentos por una cosecha de nispero (Achras sapota L.). Agronomia Tropical 30(1-6):7-16.
Avilan, R.L., L. Meneses, R. Sucre, and M. Figueroa. 1981. Distribucion del sistema radical del nispero [Manilkara achras (Mill.) Fosberg]. Agronomia Tropical 31(1-6):247-255.
Bakar, F.A. and M.N.B. Abdul-Karim. 1994. Chemical treatments for microbial control on sapota. ASEAN Food J. 9(1):42-43.
Balasubramanian,
P., V. Ponnuswami, and I. Irulappan. 1988. A note on susceptibility of
sapota varieties and hybrids to leaf spot disease (Phaeophleospora indica Chinnappa). South Indian Hort. 36(1-2):72-73.
Bhuva,
H.P., J.S. Katrudia, and R.G. Patel. 1990. Effect of different levels
of moisture regime and nutrient on growth, yield and economics of
sapota (Achras sapota L.) cv. Kalipatti. Haryana J. Hort. Sci. 19(1-2):71-78.
Bhuva,
H.P., J.S. Katrodia, and R.G. Patel. 1991. Consumptive use, water use
efficiency and moisture extraction pattern of sapota (Achras sapota L.)
as influenced by varying levels of irrigation and fertilizers. Indian
J. Hort. 49(4):291-295.
Broughton, W.J. and H.C. Wong. 1979. Storage conditions and ripening of chiku fruits Achras sapota L. Scientia Hort. 10:377-385.
Brown,
B.I. and L.S. Wong. 1987. Postharvest changes in respiration, ethylene
production, firmness and ripe fruit quality of sapodilla fruit [Manilkara zapota (L.) Van Royen] of different maturities. Singapore J. Pri. Ind. 15(2):109-121.
Campbell,
C.W. and S.E. Malo. 1973. Performance of sapodilla cultivars and
seedling selections in Florida. Proc. Trop. Reg. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci.
17:220-226.
Campbell, C.W., S.E. Malo, and J. Popenoe. 1987.
'Tikal', an early-maturing sapodilla cultivar. Proc. Florida State
Hort. Soc. 100:281-283.
Chadha, K.L. 1992. Strategy for optimisation of productivity and utilization of sapota [Manilkara achras (Mill.) Forberg.]. Indian J. Hort. 49(1):1-17.
Chandler, W.H. 1958. Evergreen orchards. Lea & Febiger, Philadelphia.
Chundawat, B.S. and H.P. Bhuva. 1982. Performance of some cultivars of sapota (Achras sapota L.) in Gujarat. Haryana J. Hort. Sci. 11(3-4):154-158.
Durrani,
S.M., V.K. Patil, and B.A. Kadam. 1982. Effect of N, P and K on growth,
yield, fruit quality and leaf composition of sapota. Indian J. Agr.
Sci. 52(4):231-234.
Gautam, S.K. and B.S. Chundawat. 1990a.
Postharvest changes in sapota cv. 'Kalipatti': I--Effect of various
postharvest treatments on biochemical changes. Indian J. Hort.
46(3):310-315.
Gautam, S.K. and B.S. Chundawat. 1990b. Post-harvest
changes in sapota cv. 'Kalipatti': II--Effect of various post-harvest
treatments on physio-chemical attributes. Indian J. Hort. 47(3):264-269.
George, C. 1982. Growing mesples (sapodillas). College of the Virgin Islands Coop. Ext. Ser. Gardeners Factsheet 24.
Gilly, C.L. 1943. Studies in the Sapotaceae. II. The sapodilla-nispero complex. Trop. Woods 73:1-22.
Gonzalez,
L.G. and P.A. Feliciano, Jr. 1953. The blooming and fruiting habits of
the Ponderosa chico. Philippine Agr. 37(7):384-398.
Hussain, A. and M.A. Bukhari. 1977. Performance of different grafting methods in chiku (Achras sapota). Pakistan J. Bot. 9(1):47-57.
Ingle, G.S., D.M. Khedkar, and R.S. Dabhade. 1981. Ripening studies in sapota fruit (Achras sapota Linn.). Indian Food Packer 35(6):42-45.
Kulwal, L.V., G.S. Tayde, and P.P. Deshmukh. 1985. Studies on soft-wood grafting of sapota. P.K.V. Research J. 9(2):33-36.
Kumbhar, S.S. and U.T. Desai. 1986. Studies on the shelf-life of sapota fruits. J. Maharashtra Agr. Univ. 11(2):184-186.
Laborem,
G., M. Figueroa, O. Verde, L. Rangel, and L. Bandres. 1981. Effecto de
la fertilization con N, P y K sobre los rendimientos de nispero
(Manilkara achras) en suelos del orden entisol. Agronomia Tropical
31(1-6):31-36.
Lakshminarayana, S. and H. Subramanyam. 1966. Physical, chemical and physiological changes in sapota fruit [Achras sapota Linn. (Sapotaceae)] during development and ripening. J. Food Sci. Tech. 3:151-154.
Malo, S.E. 1967. A successful method for propagating sapodilla trees. Proc. Florida State Hort. Soc. 80:373-376.
Mickelbart,
M.V. and T.E. Marler. 1996. Photosynthesis, water relations, and
mineral content of sapodilla foliage as influenced by root zone
salinity. HortScience 31:230-233.
Minhas, P.P.S. and A.S. Sandhu. 1985. Investigations on floral biology of sapota (Achras zapota
L.) under ludhiana conditions. II. Time of anthesis, dehisence, pollen
studies, stigma receptivity and fruit set. J. Res., Punjab Agr. Univ.
22(2):270-276.
Mulla, A.L. and G.Y. Desle. 1990. Pollination studies in sapota cultivars. J. Maharashtra Agr. Univ. 15(2):266-268.
Ogden,
M.H. and C.W. Campbell. 1980. Wild dilly as a potential rootstock for
sapodilla. Proc. Trop. Reg., Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 24:89-92.
Piatos, P. and R.J. Knight. 1975. Self-incompatability in the sapodilla. Proc. Florida State Hort. Soc. 88:464-465.
Rao,
S.R. 1979. Elemental concentration in fruits and leaves of chicku and
mango under natural environmental conditions. Proc. Indian Acad. Sci.
88(II):175-182.
Reddi, E.U.B. 1989. Thrips pollination in sapodilla (Manilkara zapota). Proc. Indian Natl. Sci. Acad. B55(5-6):407-410.
Relekar,
P.P., A.G. Desai, J.C. Rajput, and M.J. Salvi. 1991. Fruit production
in sapota cv. Kalipatti. Current Research, Univ. of Agr. Sci.,
Bangalore 20(6):104-106.
Sambamurty, K. and V. Ramalingham. 1954. A note on hydridization in the sapota. Indian J. Hort. 11:57-62.
Sastry,
M.V. 1970. Biochemical studies in the physiology of sapota. Part
IV--Ripening and storage studies. Indian Food Packer 24:24-26.
Selvaraj, Y. and D.K. Pal. 1984. Changes in the chemical composition and enzyme activity of two sapodilla (Manilkara zapota) cultivars during development and ripening. J. Hort. Sci. 59(2):275-281.
Singh, K.K. and P.B. Mathur. 1954. A note on the cold storage of sapotas (Achras sapota). Indian J. Agr. Sci. 24:149-150.
Sulladmath,
V.V. 1983. Accumulation of mineral elements at different stages in
developing sapodilla fruit. Scientia Hort. 19:79-83.
Sulladmath, V.V., M.M. Rao, and M.R. Advani. 1979. Studies on the pattern of growth of development of 'Kalipatti' sapota [Manilkara achras (Mill.) Forsberg] fruit. J. Maharashtra Agr. Univ. 4(1):55-60.
Sundararajan, S. and V.N. Madhava Rao. 1967. Studies on fruit development and fruit quality in some varieties of sapota (Achras zapota L.). South Indian Hort.
Suryanarayana,
V. and P. Veeranna Goud. 1984. Effect of post-harvest ethrel treatment
on ripening of sapota fruits. Andhra Agr. J. 31(4):308-311.
Table 1. Description of some named cultivars of sapodilla.
| Cultivar | Origin | Fruit size (g) | Yield/tree | Location | Reference | | Addley | Bahamas | | Very poor | Florida | Campbell and Malo 1973 | | Adelaide | Bahamas | | 150 kg | Venezuela | Avilan et al. 1980 | | Badam | | 45 | | India | Sundarajan and Rao 1967 | | Baramasi | | 118 | | India | Sundarajan and Rao 1967 | | Big Pine Key | Florida | | Very poor | Florida | Campbell and Malo 1973 | | Black | Florida | | Very poor | Florida | Campbell and Malo 1973 | | Brown Sugar | Florida | 133-170 | 901 fruit | Venezuela | Avilan et al. 1980 | | Brown Sugar | | | 125-200 kg | Florida | Campbell and Malo 1973 | | Calcutta Round | | 98 | | India | Sundarajan and Rao 1967 | | Cricket Ball | | 142 | 93 kg | India | Chundawat and Bhuva 1982 | | Dwarapudi | | 90 | | India | Sundarajan and Rao 1967 | | Gavarayya | | 112 | | India | Sundarajan and Rao 1967 | | Guthi | | 56 | | India | Sundarajan and Rao 1967 | | Jamaica No. 4 | Jamaica | | Very poor | Florida | Campbell and Malo 1973 | | Jamaica No. 5 | Jamaica | | Very poor | Florida | Campbell and Malo 1973 | | Jantung | Malaysia | 100 | | Malaysia | Abdul-Karim et al. 1987 | | Kalipatti | | 98 | 160 kg | India | Chundawat and Bhuva 1982 | | Kirtabarti | | 84 | | India | Sundarajan and Rao 1967 | | Long Oval | | 140 | | India | Sundarajan and Rao 1967 | | Martin | Florida | | Very poor | Florida | Campbell and Malo 1973 | | Modello | Florida | 227-340 | | Florida | Campbell and Malo 1973 | | Mohangottee | | 102 | 107 kg | India | Chundawat and Bhuva 1982 | | Oval | | 84 | | India | Sundarajan and Rao 1967 | | Pala | | 31 | | India | Sundarajan and Rao 1967 | | Pilipatti | | 82 | 115 kg | India | Chundawat and Bhuva 1982 | | Prolific | Florida | 170-225 | 520 fruit | Venezuela | Avilan et al. 1980 | | Prolific | | | 150-225 kg | Florida | Campbell and Malo 1973 | | Russell | Florida | 284-454 | 544 fruit | Venezuela | Avilan et al. 1980 | | Russell | | | 25-100 kg | Florida | Campbell and Malo 1973 | | Saunders | Florida | | Very poor | Florida | Campbell and Malo 1973 | | Seedless | Florida | small | <12.5 kg | Florida | Campbell and Malo 1973 | | Tagarampudi | | 84 | | India | Sundarajan and Rao 1967 | | Tikal | Mexico | 113-170 | 170-225 kg | Florida | Campbell and Malo 1973 | | Tikal | | 120 | 150-175 kg | Florida | Campbell et al. 1987 | | Vavivalasa | | 98 | | India | Sundarajan and Rao 1967 | | Zumakhia | | 57 | 55 kg | India | Chundawat and Bhuva 1982 |
|
|