沙漠研究 19-1, 157- 159 (2009 )Journal of Arid Land Studies“Desert Technology IX ”
Refereed Paper

Pomological Characterization of the Mulberry Tree (Morus spp.)
in the South of Tunisia
Anissa BOUBAYA1, Mohamed BEN SALAH1, Nidhal MARZOUGUI1, Ali FERCHICHI1
Abstract: In Tunisia, the mulberry tree is limited to certain orchards in the coastal zones and theoases. In spite of its various uses, this species is threatened by the extension of the urbanization.
It is in order to contribute to a better knowledge of the variability of mulberry tree in the TunisianSouth than one makes a pomological characterization of the sheet and fruit. This study shows theexistence of the differences on the level of the form, the size and the color of the sheets and thefruits. The leaf area varies from 44 cm2 for the cultivar Elmay I to 254.68 cm2 for that of Jara.
The fruit weight varies 1.091 g for Midoune I with 6.245 g for Gafsa III. The studied cultivars
belong to the species Morus alba, M. nigra or M. rubra.
Keywords: Morphological characters, Mulberry variability, South of Tunisia

1. Introduction
Mulberry (Morus spp.) are trees of the family Moraceae. There are 24 species of Morus and one
subspecies, with 100 known varieties (Ercisli & Orhan, 2007). The various methods used in classificationof Morus were mainly based on the conventional systematic studies (Seringe, 1855; Burgess and Husband,2006) and agronomic characters (Katsumata, 1972). The difficulty of fruit conservation and the reductionin the use of its foliage for silkworm food (Bombyx mori) menace the existence of mulberry and support itsextinction. This work aims to contribute to better knowledge of the present cultivars of mulberry tree inTunisia by studying their morphological variability.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Morphological analysis
Following a prospection in the southern Tunisian zones of Gabès, Gafsa, Djerba and Zarzis, 23 cultivars
were the subject of this study (Table 1). Ten leaves and ten fruits were collected by cultivar in fullmaturation, in order to determine their descriptors (Table 2).
2.2. Statistical analyses
A variance analysis (ANOVA) was done for the quantitative morphological characters. Results weresignificant when p < 0.05. Whereas the qualitative morphological characters variations were evaluatedusing the contingence tables of the chi-square test with a confidence level of 95 %.
Table 1. Localization and main ecological traits for the 23 Morus spp. collected cultivars (Cointepas andGaddar, 1973; INRF, 1976).
Rainfull
Locality Code
Edaphic substrate
Bioclimatic stage(mm/year)lower arid with
Djerba1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
Isohumic ground, subtropical
244 - 209
hot winterlower arid with
Zarzis10, 11, 12, 13
Isohumic ground125.3 - 218
Moderate winterCalcomagnes imorphes, gypseous
lower arid withGabès
14, 1590 - 230
groundModerate winterPartially gypseous, halomorphic
lower arid withGafsa
16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23
207.2
groundfresh winter1

Arid and Oases Cropping Laboratory, Arid Area Institute, Medenine 4119, Tunisia.
E-mail : anissaboubaya07@yahoo.fr
Fax : 75633006

Table 2. Examined morphological characters.
Qualitative characters
Abbreviation
Quantitative characters
Limb contour serration
L Cn
Petiole length
Apex form
AF
Leaf surface
Leaf form
LF
Fruit weight
Leaf color
LC
Fruit length
Leaf rugosity
LR
Fruit dispatcher length
Petiole color
PC
Stalk length
Lobes presence
LPFruit color
FC
Hair presence on fruits in the maturation stage HP
Stalk color
SCAbbreviation
PL (cm)LS (cm2)
FW (g)FL (cm)FD (cm)SL (cm)3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Leaves morphological characterization
18
16
The variation of the leaves qualitative
14
12
morphological characters is represented in Figure10
1. The majority of the cultivars had an oval leaf
86form (78%). A percentage of 44% of the studied
42cultivars had green leaves, 43% dark green leaves
01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
and only 13% clear green leaves. 39% of theCultivars
cultivars presented fair teeth leaves, 35% wereLCLCnLFLRPCAFLP
lightly cogged and 26% deeply cogged. For theFig. 1. Qualitative leaves variations descriptors ofapex form, 52% were characterized by a triangular
the studied cultivars.
apex, 35% acute, 9% round and 4% blunt. For
the leaves rugosity character and the presence of lobes, the majority of the cultivars were respectively
smooth (61%) and without lobes (84%). Variations of the qualitative leaves parameters (LC, LCn, LF,LR, PC AF and LP) were independent from cultivars variations (p = 1 > 0.05). The quantitative variationof leaf characters were presented in Figure 2. The character leaf surface varied from 44 cm2 for thecultivar 1 to 254.68 cm2 for the cultivar 14 (p < 0.05). The petiole length varied from 1.93 cm to 6.56 cm(p < 0.05).
40

Cm

30
20
10012345678910 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
LS/10*

PL*CultivarsFig. 2. Quantitative leaves variations descriptors of the studied cultivars. * Significant
variation (ANOVA). The bar of error corresponds to the standard deviation
between ten repetitions.

3.2. Fruits morphological characterization
For the fruit color, 56 % of the cultivars had purplish brown fruits, 22% had white fruits, 13% dark
red and 9% black fruits (p < 0.01). For the stalk color, 61% of the cultivars presented clearly green stalks,
30% green stalks and 9% dark green stalks (p < 0.01). The abundance of hairs in maturation was noticed
in 74% (Fig. 3). Variations of the qualitative fruits characters (HP, FC and SC) were independent from
cultivars variations (p = 1 > 0.05). The cultivars showed significant differences in the fruit weight, FW
varied from 1.091 g for the cultivar 3 to 6.245 g for the cultivar 19. For the fruit length and dispatcher

159

and stalk length characters, the measurements
8varied respectively from 1.461 cm (cultivar 14) to
6
3.196 cm (cultivar 20), 0.808 cm (cultivar 3) to
4
1.741 cm (cultivar 21) and 0.641 cm (cultivar 1) to2
2.313 cm (cultivar 5) (Fig. 4). Variations of the0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
quantitative characters were significant (p < 0.05)
Cultivars
except for the character SL (p = 0.439).
HPFCSCThe morphological analysis constitutes a first
approach of the genetic diversity assessment.
Fig. 3. Qualitative fruits variations descriptors of theProspections,leaves
morphologicalstudied cultivars.
characterizations and classification of the various
mulberry tree species according to several criteria were carried out in many countries of the world. The
characterized species were Morus alba, M. alba pendula, M. will nigra, M. celtidifolia, M. multicaulis.
(Guillaud, 1899; Seringe, 1855).
10864201234567891011121314151617181920212223Cultivars

FW* (g)FL* (cm)

FD* (cm)

SL* (cm)

Fig. 4. Quantitative fruits variations characters of the studied cultivars. * Significant variation (ANOVA).
bar of error corresponds to the standard deviation between ten repetitions.

The4. Conclusion
The morphological studies showed the existence of significant variability between the 23 cultivars ofour collection, concerning the size, the weight and the color of the leaves and fruits.
References
Coitepas K.P., Gaddas R. (1973): Carte pedologique de la Tunisie. Republique Tunisienne N37˚30-N32˚40/E7˚30-E11˚30
Burgess K.S., Husband B.C. (2006): Habitat differentiation and the ecological costs of hybridization: the effects of introduced
mulberry (Morus alba) on a native congener (M. rubra). J.Ecol., 94: 1061-1069.
Ercisli S., Orhan E. (2007): Chemical composition of white (Morus alba), red (Morus rubra) and black (Morus nigra) mulberry fruits.
Food Chem., 103:1380-1384.
Guillaud E. (1899): L’olivier et le mûrier - Culture parasites. Doin et la Maison Rustique, Paris, 315 p.
Institut national de recherches (1976): Carte bioclimatique de la Tunisie selon la classification d’Embergy étages et variantes.
République Tunisienne. N37˚20 – N33˚20 / E7˚20 – E11˚10.
Katsumat F. (1972): Relationship between the length of styles and the shape of idioplasts in mulberry leaves, with special reference tothe classification of mulberry trees. J. Sericult Sci., 41: 387-395.
Seringe N.C. (1855) : Description, culture et taille des mûriers, leurs espèces et leurs variétés. Victor Masson, Paris, 336 p.