ECPGR Characterization and Evaluation

Descriptors for Apple Genetic Resources

Apple (Malus x domestica)

M. Lateur, E. Dapena, D. Szalatnay, M. E. Gantar, A. Guyader, I. Hjalmarsson, M. Höfer,

L. Ikase, M. Kellerhals, G. Lacis, M. Militaru, C. Miranda Jiménez, G. Osterc, J-B. Rey,
A. Rondia, K. Volens, M.K. Zeljković, M. Ordidge.
Version 2022

The European Cooperative Programme for Plant Genetic Resources (ECPGR) is a

collaborative programme among most European countries aimed at rationally and effectively
conserving ex situ and in situ plant genetic resources for food and agriculture, providing access
and increasing their sustainable use (http://www.ecpgr.cgiar.org).

The Programme, which is entirely financed by the member countries, is overseen by a Steering
Committee composed of National Coordinators nominated by the participating countries. The
Coordinating Secretariat is hosted by the Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT.

The Programme operates through Working Groups composed of pools of experts nominated
by the National Coordinators. The ECPGR Working Groups deal with either crops or general
themes related to plant genetic resources (documentation and information, in situ and on-farm
conservation, and cryopreservation). Members of the Working Groups carry out activities
based on specific ECPGR objectives, using ECPGR funds and/or their own resources.

The geographical designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication
do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Alliance concerning
the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or its authorities, or concerning the
delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Mention of a proprietary name does not constitute an
endorsement of the product and is given only for information.

This work was supported by the Federal Ministry of Food and

Agriculture, Germany

Citation: Lateur M, Dapena E, Szalatnay D, Gantar M E, Guyader A, Hjalmarsson I, Höfer M,

Ikase L, Kellerhals M, Lacis G, Militaru M, Miranda Jiménez C, Osterc G, Rondia A, Volens K,
Zeljković M K, Ordidge M. 2022. ECPGR Characterization and Evaluation Descriptors for
Apple Genetic Resources. European Cooperative Programme for Plant Genetic Resources,
Rome, Italy.

Cover illustration: Courtesy of © M. Lateur, Centre Wallon de Recherches Agronomiques

(CRA-W), Belgium.

© ECPGR 2022

2
 ECPGR Characterization and Evaluation Descriptors for Apple Genetic Resources

CONTENTS

Introduction 5
Methods and prioritized descriptors for Malus 7
1. Flowers 9
1.1 Flowering phenology (Priority 1) 9
1.2 Regularity of flowering (Priority 3) 11
1.3 Occurrence of secondary flowering during summertime (Priority 3) 11
1.4 Flower colour at balloon stage (BBCH 59, E2) (Priority 3) 12
2. Fruit 13
2.1 Time of fruit ripening for harvest (harvest maturity) (Priority 1) 14
2.2 Tendency to drop fruit at harvest time (Priority 2) 15
2.3 Precocity of fruit bearing (Priority 2) 15
2.4 Productivity (Priority 2) 15
2.5 Fruit shape (Priority 1/2) 16
2.6 Regularity of shape in profile (Priority 2) 17
2.7 Presence of ribs in top view (Priority 2) (Szalatnay, 2006). 18
2.8 Fruit size (Priority 1) 18
2.9 Fruit crowning at apex (Priority 2) 19
2.10 Colour of fruit skin - ground colour at eating maturity (Priority 1) 20
2.11 Amount of over colour on fruit skin at eating maturity (Priority 1) 21
2.12 Over colour of the fully mature fruit skin at eating maturity (Priority 1) 21
2.13 Pattern of over colour on fruit skin at eating maturity (Priority 2) 22
2.14 Russet on fruit skin (Priority 1/3) 23
2.15 Tendency for greasiness on fruit skin during storage (Priority 3) 24
2.16 Aperture of eye (Priority 2) 25
2.17 Length of stalk (Priority 2) 25
2.18 Flesh colour at eating maturity (Priority 3) 26
2.19 Average number of seeds (Priority 2) 27
2.20 Photographs of picked fruit samples (adapted from Szalatnay, 2006) (Priority 1)
27
3. Tree 30
3.1 Tree global architecture (Priority 2) 30
3.2 Fruit-bearing habits (Priority 2) 31
4. Disease and pest susceptibility 33
4.1 Scab (Venturia inaequalis) (Priority 2) 33
4.2 Powdery mildew (Podosphaera leucotricha) (Priority 2) 35

3
Version 2022

4.3 Neonectria canker (Neonectria ditissima) (Priority 2) 37

4.4 Fire blight (Erwinia amylovora) (Priority 2) 37
4.5 Blossom wilt – Infection through flowers caused by Monilinia laxa (Priority 2) 38
4.6 Fruit brown rot (Monilinia fructigena) (Priority 2) 39
4.7 Anthracnose of leaves and fruits (Elsinoë piri) (Priority 2) 39
4.8 Rosy aphid (Dysaphis plantagina) (Priority 3) 41
4.9 Global tree foliage health (Priority 3) 41
5. Fruit quality traits 42
5.1 Fruit firmness 42
5.2 Skin thickness (Priority 3) 43
5.3 Flesh sweetness (Priority 1/2) 44
5.4 Flesh acidity 44
5.5 Ratio between acidity and sweetness (Priority 1) 45
5.6 Flesh juiciness (Priority 1) 46
5.7 Flesh crunchiness (Priority 2) 46
5.8 Flesh bitterness (Priority 3) 47
5.9 Tendency for flesh to become mealy (Priority 3) 47
5.10 Fruit flesh texture (Priority 3) 48
5.11 Intensity of fruit aroma (Priority 1) 48
5.12 Overall fruit quality (Priority 1) 48
5.13 Fruit storage capacity 49
Selected references 50
Annex 1. Illustration of fruit general shapes (a) 52
Annex 2. Illustration of fruit general shapes (b) 53
Annex 3. Measuring width and depth of eye basin and stalk fruit
cavity 54
Annex 4. Further guidance on photography 55

4
 ECPGR Characterization and Evaluation Descriptors for Apple Genetic Resources

Introduction
Developing standards to collect and share information about plant genetic resources is vital
for their conservation and use by farmers, gardeners, scientists, conservationists and
breeders.

In recent years, the ECPGR Malus/Pyrus Working Group highlighted the need to synthesize,
harmonize and prioritize an agreed set of characterization and evaluation descriptors for
Malus/Pyrus cultivated species (Lateur et al., 2006; Lateur et al., 2013), and committed to filling
this need. Common protocols and descriptors were consequently adapted, initially by a task
force formed by representatives of the Malus/Pyrus Working Group (M. Lateur, D. Szalatnay,
E. Dapena, M. Kellerhals). Further on, in the framework of an ECPGR Grant Scheme Activity
named 'Common ECPGR protocols and tools available for Characterization & Evaluation of
Malus/Pyrus genetic resources',and supported by the Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture,
Germany, it was planned to finalize a new updated version of the former Descriptor List for
Apple (Malus) published 40 years ago.

This publication brings all the above efforts together and includes enhanced descriptions of
methods/protocols and technical practical information.

As far as possible, it was attempted to retain descriptors already in use, and many of the
descriptors proposed are the same as those previously published by, or adapted from ECPGR,
UPOV, CPVO and/or Obst-Deskriptoren NAP – Descripteurs de Fruits PAN (Szalatnay 2006).
Further descriptors are from protocols already developed and in use by collection curators,
and a small number of novel descriptors have been added where no suitable descriptor was
available.

Genetic resources, by their nature, contain a wide diversity of traits. Scales must be sufficiently
open to include this range. A general rule has been to use 1–9 scales with extreme classes (1
and 9) described as 'Extremely…', which should be taken to mean outside of what is generally
known. To maximize the accuracy of a trait description, in many tables, it is recommended to
use the intermediate class types referenced in the descriptor tables as 'X'.

Describing colour can be challenging, and illustrations are presented in the document thanks
to the work of Szalatnay (2006). It is recommend, when possible, to control the judgement of
colour against a standard colour chart such as the Royal Horticultural Society Colour Chart,and
reference to this is either included or will be included in due course in line with UPOV (2019).

Even for characterization traits, variability is observed among fruits, among sites and across
years. It is therefore ideal to collect data during a sufficiently long period of time to be able to
show the variability of the character and to define a 'median' relative value for each trait.

Most descriptors are based on comparison to reference cultivars. However, in some cases,
illustrations or absolute values have been added for further clarity. For most descriptors, it is
recommended that the list of reference cultivars is extended so that, for each category, at least
one is available for comparison.

One very important objective in standardizing descriptors is to be able to compare and analyze
data from different collections, and it is crucial to clearly describe the methodology used for
each descriptor. To aid with the comparison across different collections, it is important to record
experimental methods, numbers of replicates, ages of trees, rootstocks and management
scheme (e.g. fungicide application), and to include reference cultivars as far as possible.
Climatic data such as mean rainfall for each season can also be important to note.

5
Version 2022

It is hoped that the descriptors below will allow the potential ranking of accessions through
relative classification; ranking will obviously need to be applied within specific contexts.
It is recommended that field observations on descriptions and/or descriptors should be
maintained for later reference and/or consideration.

Further information on the concepts of crop descriptors is downloadable from:

• https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/56589

Online information on apple descriptors can also be found at:

• https://hdl.handle.net/10568/72794
• http://www.upov.int/edocs/tgdocs/en/tg014.pdf
• https://cpvo.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/malus_domestica_2.pdf
• http://www.cpc-skek.ch/fileadmin/pdf/NAP_Beschreibungshandbuecher/deskriptoren-
handbuch_nap.pdf

6
 ECPGR Characterization and Evaluation Descriptors for Apple Genetic Resources

Methods and prioritized descriptors for Malus

The aim of the below is to recommend a range of descriptors, which will successfully describe
and discriminate between key characters in most accessions. Ideally, characters should meet
the criteria of being:

• Highly stable over time with low interaction with environmental factors
• Highly polymorphic
• Easy to score in practice
• Able to combine characterization and agronomic evaluation value where possible.

The proposed list was mostly compiled using:

• Characters suggested by members of the Malus/Pyrus Working Group and compiled

by a Task Force headed by M. Kellerhals (Lateur et al., 2010)
• Results of a study on selected common cultivars in the UK, France, Belgium and Italy
(Janes and Jones, 1998)
• Apple Descriptors (Watkins and Smith, 1982)
• Protocol for distinctness, uniformity and stability tests – Malus domestica Borkh. –
APPLE, CPVO-TP/14/2 Final (14/03/2006).
• UPOV Guidelines for the conduct of tests for distinctness, uniformity and stability
(Apple – Fruit Varieties): TG/14/8 (1995) and TG/14/9 (2005).
• Obst-Deskriptoren NAP – Descripteurs de Fruits PAN (Szalatnay, 2006).
• Dapena, E., Fernández, M. (2009). Guía de descriptores de caracteres. In : Dapena,
de la Fuente E, Blazquez, Noguero MD. 2009. Description de las variedades de
Manzana de la D.O.P Sidra de Asturias. Villaviciosa. 69pp.

A priority ranking of the descriptors is included. It is acknowledged that capability will depend
upon time and resources. The primary characterization and evaluation traits are recommended
for prioritization. First priority descriptors are indicated in the document with “Priority 1”;
second and third priority descriptors with a “Priority 2/3”. Second and third priority descriptors
represent useful tools that can be used by curators who have the capacity to do the further
evaluation and/or characterization work.

Since many scores are relative, it is important to have representatives from a minimum set of
common reference cultivars (ideally, a minimum of 2/3) in each characterization/evaluation
site. Recommended cultivars for general comparison are listed below and are based on a
survey of the members of the ECPGR Malus/Pyrus Working Group:

• Alkmene
• Åkerö
• Ananas Reinette (syn. Reinette Ananas)
• Discovery
• Golden Delicious
• Ingrid Marie
• James Grieve
• Jonathan
• King of the Pippin (syn. Reine des Reinettes, Winter Goldparmäne)
• Reinette de Champagne
• Winter Banana
• White Transparent (syn. Transparente Blanche)

7
Version 2022

General notes on methodology for characterization

Data should be recorded on representative trees and ideally, data should be recorded in
representative years.

Extreme climatic conditions such as high spring temperature, severe spring frost or hail are
known to affect floral phenology and fruit set/quality.

Ideally, data from several representative years should be recorded before accessions can be
fully classified.

All recorded dates should be transformed into number of days from the first of January.
Phenological classifications can then be expressed as ‘+’ or ‘–‘ (X) day differences from the
reference cultivars classified in the medium period.

It is important to organize training for technicians and field workers who will perform the
evaluation. It is recommended to check the reproducibility of data (between data collected on
the same object by different observers) and the repeatability (between observations made by
the same observer at different times).

8
 ECPGR Characterization and Evaluation Descriptors for Apple Genetic Resources

1. Flowers
Assessment of trees two to three times per week is generally recommended in order to observe
the correct moment when flowers open. The primary stages that need at least to be observed
are: E2 (BCCH: 59), F (BCCH: 61), F2 (BCCH: 65) and H (BCCH: 69), (according to Fleckinger
and Meier, 2001 – Figure 1). For further detail, it is recommended to follow the BBCH flowering
stages codes (Anonym, 1989, Meier, 2001). As a general rule, assessment of flowers should
not include those appearing on one-year shoots.

Some cultivars tend to produce a second flowering phase a few months after the spring
flowering period. The intensity of this flowering is much less important, but incidence
represents a risk of infection by fire blight (Erwinia amylovora). Independent descriptors
relating to secondary flowering are proposed.

Figure 1. Fleckinger’s phenological flower stages for apple.

1.1 Flowering phenology (Priority 1)

When flowering intensity is very low (fewer than 5% of the buds are flower buds), it is not
representative to evaluate the flowering season. It is useful to note and/or assess the flowering
intensity of the trees by using the assessment key defined in Table 1. The relative flowering
season of a cultivar (Table 2) can then be assessed by comparison against the flowering
period of reference cultivars. It is recommended that for standardization, Golden Delicious is
considered as a central point for all areas. For this comparison; the reference flower stage can
be either 'F' (BCCH: 61), or 'F2' (BCCH: 65).

9
Version 2022

Table 1. Flowering intensity (developed from Lateur and Populer, 1996)

State Flowering intensity Field observations
1 No flower Absence of any flower
2 Extremely low Flower clusters represent up to 5% of all buds
3 Low Flower clusters represent approx. 10% of all buds
4 Low to medium X
5 Medium Flower clusters represent approx. 30% of all buds
6 Medium to high X
7 High Flower clusters represent approx. 50% of all buds
8 High to extremely high X
9 Extremely high Over 90% of all buds are floral
‘X’: Intermediate rating.

Table 2. Relative flowering season (adapted from Lateur and Populer, 1996)
State Flowering period Indicative difference Example of reference cultivars
in average days
1 Extremely early

White Transparent, Gravensteiner, Stark

2 Very early -9
Earliest, Sobena, Princesa

Boskoop, Idared, Alkmene, Rosy Glow, James

3 Early -6
Grieve, Discovery

Granny Smith, Tydemans Early Worcester,

4 Early/medium -3
Jonathan, Cox’s Orange Pippin

Jacques Lebel, Elstar, Golden Delicious,

5 Medium 0 Glockenapfel, Jonagold, King of the Pippin,
Ingrid Marie

Reinette Etoilée (syn. Rote Sternreinette),

6 Medium/late +3
Belle-Fleur de France, Gala, Golden Orange

Court-Pendu Rouge (syn Court-Pendu Plat,

7 Late +6 Königlicher Kurzstiel), Belle-Fleur de Brabant,
Rome Beauty

8 Very late +9 Reinette de France, Spätblühender Taffetapfel

9 Extremely late

10
 ECPGR Characterization and Evaluation Descriptors for Apple Genetic Resources

1.2 Regularity of flowering (Priority 3)

Following the assessment of flowering intensity over four to six representative years,
accessions can be placed in categories of flowering regularity. It is important that thinning
methods are not in place as these will act to mitigate this characteristic.

Table 3. Relative regularity of flowering (adapted from Watkins and Smith, 1982)
State Regularity of flowering Example of reference cultivars
1 Very Irregular
2 X
3 Irregular
4 X
5 Regular Golden Delicious
‘X’: Intermediate rating.

1.3 Occurrence of secondary flowering during summertime (Priority 3)

Secondary flowering should initially be assessed in terms of intensity as per Table 4. Following
at least 5–6 seasons, accessions can be classified into different levels of frequency of
secondary flowering (Table 5).

Table 4. Intensity of secondary flowering

State Secondary flowering intensity Field observations
1 Low Absence of any secondary flowering
2 Medium Flower clusters represent up to 5% of all buds
3 High Flower clusters represent more than 5% of all buds

Table 5. Frequency of secondary flowering (Watkins and Smith, 1982)

State Frequency of secondary flowering Example of reference cultivars
1 Rare Reinette de France
2 Intermediate
3 Frequent Pinova

11
Version 2022

1.4 Flower colour at balloon stage (BBCH 59, E2) (Priority 3)

1 = white 2 = yellowish and pink 3 = light pink 4 = dark pink

1 = weiss 2 = gelb und rosa 3 = hellrosa 4 = dunkelrosa
1 = blanche 2 = jaune et rose 3 = rose pâle 4 = rose foncé
(Cox’s Pomona) (Herrenhut, Worcester (Gravensteiner, (Sylvia, Elstar)
Pearmain) Jonathan)

5 = red 6 = purple 7 = dark red

5 = rot 6 = violett 7 = dunkelrot
5 = rouge 6 = violette 7 = rouge foncé
(Kidd’s Orange Red) (Rafzubin, Melba) (Weirouge)
(Dapena et al., 2009)

Figure 2. Colour of flower petals at E2 stage (CPVO, 2006, Szalatnay, Dapena et al., 2009)

12
 ECPGR Characterization and Evaluation Descriptors for Apple Genetic Resources

2. Fruit
A sample of at least 6 to 12 representative fruits should be evaluated. Having identified the
most representative fruits on the tree, the same protocol should be used for each accession,
e.g. fruits taken from the sunny side at ¾ of the height of the tree. It is important to avoid the
terminal (king) fruits. In general, it is recommended to perform fruit assessments in the orchard,
in front of the tree where possible.

As per the CPVO Protocol (2006), it is recommended that all descriptions of fruit quality should
be carried out at an optimal stage of ripening for fresh consumption. Unfortunately, there are
no simple criteria to define an accession's good state of ripening, and this will remain a
subjective judgement based on the expertise of the curators; frequent observation of the trees
is recommended. Some factors offer useful indications e.g. first pre-harvest drop of healthy
fruit, change in ground- and over-colour of the fruit, and taste of the fruit (acidity, starchiness,
sugar level, firmness) but it is noted that these are themselves characterization/evaluation
characters. Iodine starch index can be also a good indicator but this is not always the case. It
is generally recommended to not pick before reaching the 6–7 starch index score (Vaysse,
Landry, 2004). For extremely late-ripening cultivars, it may be necessary to either analyze
samples of fruit picked as late as possible or after a period of post-harvest ripening.

Since ripening time is difficult to accurately predict, and it is often not practical to finely monitor
each accession, it is recommended that the level of eating maturity at the date of picking is
noted against the scale in Table 6. It should be noted that the stage of ripening for harvest and
consumption would differ for many cultivars, apart from the ‘summer-ripening’ apples. Scores
of 1 or 5 should indicate that fruits are not suitable for assessment. However, except for those
stated as to be measured at eating maturity, many of the characters below would be able to
be assessed at harvest maturity.

Table 6. Assessment of the ripening stage (for consumption) of the fruits when picked
State Optimal ripening stage (eating maturity) assessment
1 Much before optimal ripening stage
2 Just before optimal ripening stage
3 Optimal ripening stage
4 Just after optimal ripening stage
5 Much after the optimal ripening stage

13
Version 2022

2.1 Time of fruit ripening for harvest (harvest maturity) (Priority 1)

It is recommended that the optimal date of picking be recorded during at least four to six
representative seasons. It should be possible to estimate the average optimal harvest date
and classify accessions as per Table 7.
It is noted that the range below may not be wide enough to represent the full range of ripening
times across Europe and this descriptor should be optimized further accordingly in the future.

Table 7. Relative harvest maturity

Approximate and Approximate

indicative periods of difference to south-
State Harvest Examples of picking for north- western Europe
maturity reference cultivars western Europe (days, based on cv.
(Lateur) Golden Delicious)

1 Extremely Earlier than White July–August More than -55

early Transparent

2 Very early White Transparent Early August -55 to -40

3 Early Jerseymac, Discovery, End August -39 to -26

Tydeman’s Early
Worcester, Melba

4 X James Grieve, Early September -25 to -11

Gravenstein, Alkmene,
Transparente de
Croncels, Auksis

5 Medium Gala, Elstar, Cox’s Mid-September ± 10

Orange Pippin

6 X Golden Delicious, End Sept–Early October +11 to +25

Jonagold

7 Late Idared, Melrose Early October +26 to +39

8 Very late Fuji, Glockenapfel, Mid-October +40 to +55

Granny Smith

9 Extremely Later than Fuji, End October–November > +55

late Glockenapfel, Granny
Smith

‘X’: Intermediate rating.

14
 ECPGR Characterization and Evaluation Descriptors for Apple Genetic Resources

2.2 Tendency to drop fruit at harvest time (Priority 2)

Assessment should be specific to healthy fruits (i.e. avoiding those that drop due to damage
or factors other than ripening) and should be carried out at the judged time of optimal harvest
as above.

Table 8. Tendency to drop fruit at harvest period.

State Drop observed Proportion of fruit drop at harvest (%)
1 No drop observed 0
2 Very low drop 1–10
3 Low approx. 25–30%
4 Low to medium X
5 Medium approx. 50%
6 Medium to high X
7 High approx. 75%
8 High to very high X
9 Very high > 90
‘X’: Intermediate rating.

2.3 Precocity of fruit bearing (Priority 2)

Precocious trees of a given cultivar are defined as those that start to crop at an early age
relative to other cultivars in a comparable situation.

Assessment should be carried out on the same rootstock, place, type of tree and year of
planting. If planting was made in autumn, a score of 5 'in season of planting' should be applied
for the following year. The age of the tree at planting, rootstock and other relevant factors
should be noted for wider comparison.

Table 9. Relative precocity of fruit bearing

State Precocity of fruit bearing Observation
1 Extremely low 4 or more seasons after planting
2 Low 3 seasons after planting
3 Intermediate 2 seasons after planting
4 High 1 season after planting
5 Extremely high In season of planting

2.4 Productivity (Priority 2)

Productivity can be assessed as the relative yield per tree. It is recommended that assessment
be carried out over a minimum of four to six years before an average score can be allocated
as per Table 10.

15
Version 2022

Table 10. Productivity (adapted from Watkins and Smith, 1982)

State Productivity Example of reference cultivars
1 Extremely low
2 X
3 Low Discovery
4 X
5 Medium Cox’s Orange Pippin, Auksis
6 X
7 High Golden Delicious
8 X Greensleeves
9 Extremely high
‘X’: Intermediate rating

2.5 Fruit shape (Priority 1/2)

We recommend, as a first characterization step, estimating to which of the main groups in
Figure 3 an accession belongs. The ratios between the fruit's height and width, and between
the width of the eye basin and stalk cavity can then be estimated, or preferentially measured
(further details in Annexes 1 & 2) and accessions can be scored using the scale given in Table
11.

1 = globose 4 = flat 6 = conical

1 = kugelförmig 4 = abgeplattet 6 = kegelförmig
1 = sphérique 4 = aplatie 6 = conique
(Golden Noble) (Court-Pendu Plat) (Adam’s Pearmain, Treboux)

8 = truncate conical 11 = oblong

8 = stumpf kegelförmig 11 = rechteckig
8 = tronconique 11 = rectangulaire
(Kidd’s Orange Red) (Gravensteiner, Mutsu)

Images from: Studium der Pomologie (1877), E. Lucas (adapted by Szalatnay)

Figure 3. Global mean fruit shapes with illustration of the main fruit shapes (Szalatnay 2006).

16
 ECPGR Characterization and Evaluation Descriptors for Apple Genetic Resources

Table 11. Fruit height/width mean ratio (adapted from Dapena et al., 2009) (Priority 2)
State Ratio Representative Example of reference cultivars
average estimated
fruit shape
1 < 0.75 Flat Court-Pendu Plat (syn. Court-Pendu Rose)

2 0.76–0.85 Slightly flat Bramley’s Seedling, Idared, Grenadier, Auksis

3 0.86–0,99 Intermediate Cox’s Orange Pippin, Golden Noble, Gravensteiner

4 1–1.1 Slightly elongated Adams’s Pearmain, Kidd’s Orange Red, Jonagold,

Treboux (syn. Paernu Tuvioun)
5 > 1.1 Elongated Kent, Kandil Sinap, Melon (syn. Prinzenapfel)

Table 12. Fruit eye basin/stalk cavity width mean ratio (See Annexes 1, 2 and 3) (adapted
from Dapena et al., 2009) (Priority 3)
Representative
State Ratio average estimated Example of reference cultivars
fruit shape

1 < 0.715 Conical Adams’s Pearmain, Kent, Norfolk Royal

2 0.715–0.815 Truncate conical Kidd’s Orange Red
3 > 0.815 Cylindrical Gravensteiner, Mutsu

2.6 Regularity of shape in profile (Priority 2)

Table 13. Fruit shape variability

State Fruit shape variability Example of reference cultivars

1 Regular shape Blenheim Orange, Ingrid Marie
2 Slightly variable shape Cox’s Orange Pippin, Auksis
3 Highly variable shape Belle-Fleur de France, Åkerö

17
Version 2022

2.7 Presence of ribs in top view (Priority 2) (Szalatnay, 2006).

1 = Absence 2 = Very light 3 = Medium 4 = Strong 5 = Very strong

Figure 4. Presence of ribs

2.8 Fruit size (Priority 1)

At least 12 representative fruits should ideally be evaluated over a minimum of four to six years.
An average score can then be assigned according to Table 14. The most straightforward
measure of fruit size is based on weight, but since average fruit diameter is more common in
commercial classification, indicative values for both are included. It should be noted that these
indicative values will differ across locations and growing systems.

Table 14. Fruit size (adapted by Szalatnay and Lateur).

State Fruit size Average diameter Average weight Example of reference
(mm) (g) cultivars
1 Extremely small < 45mm < 40
2 Very small 46–50 41–60 Golden Harvey, Api Etoilé
3 Small 51–55 61–80 Akane, Miller’s Seedling
4 Small to medium 56–60 81–100
5 Medium 61–70 101–150 Cox’s Orange Pippin
6 Medium to large 71–80 151–200 Holsteiner Cox
7 Large 81–90 201–250 Mutsu, Boskoop
8 Very large 91–100 251–320 Bramley’s Seedling
9 Extremely large > 100 > 320 Jumbo, Howgate Wonder

18
 ECPGR Characterization and Evaluation Descriptors for Apple Genetic Resources

2.9 Fruit crowning at apex (Priority 2)

Crowning should be scored relative to the images in Figure 5 and classifications in Table 15.
It should be noted that this character is sensitive to fruit size.

1 = absent or very weak 3 = weak 5 = medium

1 = fehlend oder sehr schwach 3 = schwach 5 = mittel
1 = nulle ou très faible 3 = faible 5 = moyenne
(Blenheim Orange, Court- (Cox’s Orange Pippin, Beauty of (Mutsu, Golden Delicious)
Pendu Rose, Discovery) Bath, Treboux)

7 = strong 9 = very strong

7 = stark 9 = sehr stark
7 = forte 9 = très forte
(Red Delicious) (Cox’s Pomona, Calville Blanche d’Hiver,
Talvenauding)

Figure 5. Illustration of different types of crowning at apex of fruit (Table 15).

Table 15. Fruit crowning at apex

State Crowning at apex Example of reference cultivars
1 Absent or very weak Charles Ross, Blenheim Orange, Court-Pendu Rose, Discovery
2 X
3 Weak Cox’s Orange Pippin, Beauty of Bath, Treboux (syn. Paernu
Tuvioun)
4 X
5 Medium Mutsu, Golden Delicious
6 X
7 Strong Red Delicious
8 X
9 Very strong Cox’s Pomona, Calville Blanche d’Hiver, Caville Rouge
d’Automne (Röd Höst Kalvil)
‘X’: Intermediate rating.

19
Version 2022

2.10 Colour of fruit skin - ground colour at eating maturity (Priority 1)

It is recommended when possible to control the judgement of colour against a standard colour
chart such as the Royal Horticultural Society Colour Chart and reference to this is either
included or needs to be in due course in line with UPOV (2019).

Ground colour should be scored relative to the images in Figure 6 and classifications in Table
16.

1 = yellow 2 = whitish yellow 3 = green yellow

1 = gelb 2 = weisslich-gelb 3 = grüngelb
1 = jaune 2 = jaune blanchâtre 3 = jaune vert

(Golden Delicious) (Transparent de Croncels, (Cox’s Orange Pippin)

Treboux, Kaja)

4 = whitish green 5 = green 6 = orange

4 = weisslich-grün 5 = grün 6=orange
4 = vert blanchâtre 5 = verte 6=orange

(Grenadier) (Granny Smith)

Figure 6. Illustration for fruit skin ground colours (Images: Szalatnay, 2006)

Table 16. Ground colour

State Ground colour Example reference cultivars (IBPGR, CPVO)
1 Yellow Golden Delicious
2 Whitish yellow
3 Green yellow Cox’s Orange Pippin
4 Whitish green
5 Green Granny Smith
6 (Yellow) - Orange

20
 ECPGR Characterization and Evaluation Descriptors for Apple Genetic Resources

2.11 Amount of over colour on fruit skin at eating maturity (Priority 1)

Table 17. Over colour coverage

State Over colour coverage Estimated percentage Example reference cultivars
of coverage (%) (UPOV)
1 Absent 0 Granny Smith, Treboux (syn. Paernu
Tuvioun), Kaja,
2 Very low 1–10
3 Low 11–25 Cox’s Orange Pippin
4 Low to medium X
5 Medium ± 50 (Gala), Aroma, Auksis
6 Medium to high X Cortland
7 High ± 75 Spartan
8 High to very high X
9 Very high > 90
‘X’: Intermediate rating.

2.12 Over colour of the fully mature fruit skin at eating maturity (Priority 1)
Again, it is recommended, when possible, to control the judgement of colour against a standard
colour chart such as the Royal Horticultural Society Colour Chart and reference to this is either
included or needs to be in due course in line with UPOV (2019).

Over colour should be scored relative to the images in Figure 7 and classifications in Table
18.

1 = orange 2 = pink 3 = red

1 = orange 2 = rosa 3 = rot
1 = orange 2 = rose 3 = rouge
(Egremont Russet, Alice) (Cripps Pink, Åkerö, Aroma) (Jonathan, Auksis)

4 = dark red 5 = purple 6 = brownish red

4 = dunkelrot 5 = violett 6 = braunrot
4 = rouge foncé 5 = violette 6 = brun-rouge
(Starking Delicious, Ingrid Marie) (Spartan, Lobo) (Lord Burghley, Ilga)

Figure 7. Illustration for fruit skin over colour assessment (adapted from Szalatnay, 2006)

21
Version 2022

Table 18. Over colour

State Over colour Reference cultivars (e.g. UPOV)
0 Absent
1 Orange Egremont Russet, Alice
2 Pink Cripps Pink, Åkerö, Aroma
3 Red Jonathan, Auksis
4 Dark red Starking Delicious, Ingrid Marie
5 Purple Spartan, Lobo
6 Brownish Red Lord Burghley, Ilga

2.13 Pattern of over colour on fruit skin at eating maturity (Priority 2)

The predominant pattern of over colour should be scored relative to the images in Figure 8
and classifications in Table 19.

Solid flush Striped

Mottled Washed out

Figure 8. Illustration for fruit skin over-colour pattern assessment (adapted from Szalatnay,
2006)

Table 19. Over-colour pattern

State Over-colour pattern Example of reference cultivars (UPOV 2005)
1 Only solid flush Richard Delicious
2 Flush with stripes Gravensteiner
3 Only stripes
4 Mottled
5 Washed out

22
 ECPGR Characterization and Evaluation Descriptors for Apple Genetic Resources

2.14 Russet on fruit skin (Priority 1/3)

2.14.1 Overall amount of russet on fruit skin (Priority 1)

For fruit russet coverage, at least 12 representative fruits should be evaluated. An average
score, including russet on cheeks, around eyes and in stalk basin is recorded at harvest, at full
fruit ripeness (Table 20).

Table 20. Overall russet coverage

State Russet coverage Estimated percentage Examples of reference cultivars
of coverage (%) (CPVO-UPOV 2006)
1 Absent 0 Lobo

2 Very low 1–10 Golden Noble, Åkerö

3 Low 11–25 Cox’s Orange Pippin

4 Low to medium X

5 Medium ± 50 Karmijn de Sonnaville, Coulon Reinette,

Boskoop
6 Medium to high X

7 High ± 75 Zabergäu Renette

8 High to very high X

9 Very high > 90 Egremont Russet, Canada Gris, Gris

Braibant, Brownlee’s Russet
‘X’: Intermediate rating.

2.14.2 Russet area around stalk cavity (adapted from Szalatnay, 2006) (Priority 3)

Table 21. Russet around stalk cavity

State Russet coverage Estimated percentage of coverage (%)

1 Absent 0
2 Very low X
3 Low ± 25
4 Low to medium X
5 Medium ± 50
6 Medium to high X
7 High ± 75
8 High to very high X
9 Very high > 90
‘X’: Intermediate rating.

23
Version 2022

2.14.3 Russet area around eye basin (adapted from Szalatnay, 2006) (Priority 3)

Table 22. Russet around eye basin

State Russet coverage Estimated percentage of coverage (%)

1 Absent 0
2 Very low X
3 Low ± 25
4 Low to medium X
5 Medium ± 50
6 Medium to high X
7 High ± 75
8 High to very high X
9 Very high > 90
‘X’: Intermediate rating.

2.15 Tendency for greasiness on fruit skin during storage (Priority 3)

The tendency of the fruit to develop greasiness (wax) on fruit skin should be evaluated on fruits
picked when fully ripe, subsequent to open storage at room temperature for at least three to
four weeks (Table 23).

Table 23. Tendency to fruit skin greasiness (waxy skin)

State Greasiness intensity Example of reference cultivars
1 Absent or very low Canada Gris, Dronning Louise
2 Medium Boskoop, Auksis

3 Strong Rubinola, Lord Lambourne, Jacques Lebel, Président

Roulin, Lobo, Treboux (syn. Paernu Tuvioun)

24
 ECPGR Characterization and Evaluation Descriptors for Apple Genetic Resources

2.16 Aperture of eye (Priority 2)

For aperture of eye, at least 6–12 representative fruits should be evaluated at full ripeness
(Figure 9).

1 = closed 2 = partly open 3 = fully open

1 = geschlossen 2 = halboffen 3 = offen
1 = fermé 2 = partiellement ouvert 3 = complètement ouvert

(Gris Braibant, Jonathan, (Cox’s Orange Pippin) (Court Pendu Rose, Auksis)
Worcester Pearmain, Åkerö)

Figure 9. Aperture of eye (reproduced and adapted from Szalatnay, 2006)

2.17 Length of stalk (Priority 2)

For length of stalk, at least 6–12 representative fruits will be evaluated at harvest (Table 24).

Table 24. Stalk length

State Stalk length Average length (mm) Example of reference cultivars
1 Very short 0–5 Court-Pendu Rose
2 Short 6–15 Cox’s Orange Pippin
3 Medium 16–25 Worcester Pearmain, Melba
4 Long 26–30 Golden Delicious
5 Very long > 30 Rubinette, Pinova, Paide Taliõun

25
Version 2022

2.18 Flesh colour at eating maturity (Priority 3)

Flesh colour should be assessed at full maturity based on a transversal cut through the middle
of the fruit (Table 25 and Figure 10).

Table 25. Flesh colour (CPVO, 2006)

State Flesh colour Example of reference cultivars
1 White Akane, Radoux, Lobo, Cortland
2 Cream Jonagold, Auksis
3 Yellowish Topaz
4 Greenish Gloster, Granny Smith
5 Pinkish Pink Pearl, Pomfit
6 Red Geneva, Weirouge

Figure 10. Illustration for flesh colour assessment at full maturity. 1 = White, 2 = Cream, 3 = Yellowish,
4 = Greenish, 5 = Pinkish, 6 = Red (reproduced from Dapena and Fernández, 2009).

26
 ECPGR Characterization and Evaluation Descriptors for Apple Genetic Resources

2.19 Average number of seeds (Priority 2)

An average of fully formed seeds from approximately ten fruits should be calculated (Table
26). An average lower than three indicates a likelihood that a cultivar is triploid. A complete
lack of seeds can be taken as an indicator of parthenocarpy (Lateur, 1996). Note that this
characteristic can be highly influenced by environmental conditions and the availability of
pollen.

Table 26. Number of seeds (Adapted from Gantar, 2016)

State Average number of well-formed Example of reference cultivars
seeds
1 0
2 1–3 Boskoop, Jacques Lebel, Blenheim Orange
3 4–5
5 6–10
7 11–15
9 > 15

2.20 Photographs of picked fruit samples (adapted from Szalatnay, 2006) (Priority
1)
Samples must be representative and very young; old, high- and low-yielding trees should be
avoided, along with seasons with uncharacteristic conditions. Labels should include, as a
minimum: accession name, accession number, tree position and date. Photographs may be
taken under natural light (avoiding early morning or late afternoon) or artificial light (including
flash light in studio conditions). A standard size reference (ideally a grid) should be included
and a minimum set of views (as shown in Figure 11) should be included. All accessions for
entry into ECPGR databases should have photographs available.

Further advisory details on photography can be found in Annex 4.

27
Version 2022

Figure 11. Examples of fruit pictures (Top photos: Courtesy of Szalatnay, 2006. Bottom
photos: Courtesy of CRA-W).

28
 ECPGR Characterization and Evaluation Descriptors for Apple Genetic Resources

2.21 Photographs of fruit hanging on the tree (Priority 1)

A representative fruit, or group of fruits well placed on the tree, should be selected. It is often
practical to take a picture firstly of the tree label and/or the name on a list in order to trace the
name of the accession. It is very important to get a clear view of the fruit eye (Figure 12). It is
recommended to use a white panel as a natural light reflector as this can improve the precision
of the fruit image.

Figure 12. Examples of apple fruit cultivars photographed on the tree (Photos: Courtesy of
CRA-W).

29
Version 2022

3. Tree
3.1 Tree global architecture (Priority 2)
Tree architecture should be characterized when trees are at least 7–10 years old and should
be scored using the UPOV classifications (Table 27 and Figure 13).

Table 27. Tree architecture

State Tree form Example of reference cultivars (UPOV)
0 Columnar type
1 Very upright or fastigiate Firiki, Laine
2 X
3 Upright Gloster 69, Åkerö
4 X
5 Spreading Bramley Seedling’s, Idared, Boskoop
6 X Elstar
7 Drooping Jonathan, Treboux, Cortland
8 X
9 Weeping Elisa Rathke, Kuku, Ritika
‘X’: Intermediate rating.

Figure 13. Global tree shape (CPVO, 2006).

30
 ECPGR Characterization and Evaluation Descriptors for Apple Genetic Resources

3.2 Fruit-bearing habits (Priority 2)

Overall fruit-bearing habits can be assessed in a single year (Table 28). Ideally, they should
be assessed on trees that have not been overly pruned and generally on established trees of
5–10 years old. For further detail of descriptions, see Figure 14.

Table 28. Fruit-bearing habits (Watkins and Smith, 1982)

State Fruit-bearing Main fruit position Indicative tree form Reference cultivars
type
1 Columnar On spurs only Very few branches Wijcik, Bolero, Waltz

2 Type I Numerous short spurs Upright with sparse Starkrimson

that are long-lived. Fruit branching and narrow
zone close to the trunk. crotches.
3 Type II On spurs mainly, with More frequent King of the Pippin
fruit zone moving slightly branching (than type I) (Reine des Reinettes),
away from the trunk. resulting in tree Cox’s Orange Pippin,
spreading with age. Blenheim Orange,
Schone van Boskoop,
White Transparent
4 Type III On spurs and shoots Spreading with frequent Golden Delicious,
that are 1–3 years of branching and wide Jonagold, Pinova,
age. Tendency for the crotches. Auksis
fruit zone to move
towards the outside of
the tree.
5 Type IV Mostly at the end of 1- Upright main scaffold Granny Smith,
year-old shoots. Strong with frequent branching Tydeman’s Early,
tendency for fruiting at and narrow crotches. Idared, Cortland
the extremities of Tendency to droop and
branches. for the lower part of
shoots to be without
fruit or leaves.

Figure 14. Types of global fruit-bearing habits (reproduced from Lespinasse, 1977).

31
Version 2022

3.3 Tree vigour (Priority 3)

Vigour can be assessed in a single year and should involve the assessment of height, and
spread trees more than 5 years old. Comparisons to reference cultivars should be in the same
place and use the same rootstock (Table 29).

Table 29. Tree vigour (adapted from Watkins, Smith, 1982)

State Tree form Example of reference cultivars
1 Extremely weak
2 X Discovery
3 Weak Beauty of Bath, Grenadier, James Grieve
4 X
5 Intermediate Cox’s Orange Pippin, Golden Delicious, Auksis
6 X
7 Vigorous Boskoop, Blenheim Orange
8 X Bramley’s Seedling, Åkerö
9 Extremely vigorous
‘X’: Intermediate rating.

32
 ECPGR Characterization and Evaluation Descriptors for Apple Genetic Resources

4. Disease and pest susceptibility

For pest and disease susceptibility assessment, it is particularly important to note details of the
management scheme for fungicide and insecticide application for at least five years preceding
the first evaluation. It is strongly recommended to not spray evaluation orchards for several
seasons before the evaluation process (ideally, at least five years).

It is also important to carefully check that the pest/disease is homogeneously distributed inside
the plot and useful to plant sufficient susceptible control cultivars throughout the field to help
identify the occurrence of localized infections.

The most widely used assessment keys are based on a global approach for the assessment
of the intensity of the pest/disease. Intensity forms the sum of two components: incidence and
severity. Incidence is the qualitative ‘presence’ and ‘absence’ of symptoms (generally defined
by the proportion of organs affected by at least one symptom); severity is the quantitative
proportion of a surface, length or volume of an organ infected by the disease. In some
instances, when more precision is needed on the type of resistance, it can be necessary to
evaluate incidence and severity independently.

4.1 Scab (Venturia inaequalis) (Priority 2)

At least one observation should be made per year at the end of the growing season. If possible,
though, it is recommended to assess leaf scab two or three times in the season to be able to
evaluate the primary and secondary infections. It is much easier to make the assessment when
leaves are dry.

The most common and easiest way for assessing the intensity of symptoms on leaves, fruits
and twigs is based on the use of global assessment scales that take into account and
integrate into one global score the incidence and severity status (Tables 30 and 31).

Incidence is defined as the estimated percentage of organs that express at least one clear
symptom of the disease and severity refers to the estimated mean area of the majority of
organs covered by clear symptoms.

Table 30. Global assessment scale for Scab infection on leaves (adapted from Lateur and
Populer, 1996)
State Field observations Visual rating estimation
Incidence (%) Severity (%)
1 No visible symptom 0
2 A few small scab spots are detectable on close scrutiny of ≤1
the tree
3 Scab immediately apparent, with lesions very thinly > 1–5 -
scattered over the tree
4 X X -
5 Infection widespread over the tree, majority of leaves with ≥ 50 ≤5
at least one lesion
6 X ≥ 50 X
7 Heavy infection; multiple lesions or more large surfaces ≥ 50 ± 25
covered by scab on most leaves. Partial leaf fall
8 X ≥ 50 X
9 Maximum infection; leaves black with scab often fallen ≥ 50 > 75
‘X’: Intermediate rating.

33
Version 2022

Table 31. Global assessment scale for Scab infection on fruits (adapted from Lateur and
Populer, 1996)
State Field observations Visual rating estimation
Incidence (%) Severity (%)
1 No visible symptom 0 -
2 A few small scab spots are detectable on close scrutiny ≤1 -
of the tree
3 Scab immediately apparent, with lesions very thinly > 1–5 -
scattered over the tree
4 X X -
5 Infection widespread over the tree, majority of fruits with ≥ 50 ≤5
at least one lesion
6 X ≥ 50 X
Heavy infection; multiple lesions or more large surfaces ≥ 50
7 ± 25
covered by scab on most fruits, some fruits with skin
cracks in scabbed lesions
8 X ≥ 50 X
9 Maximum infection; fruits black with scab ≥ 50 > 75
‘X’: Intermediate rating.

Alternatively, and at a lower priority level, when a more precise approach is justified, it is
recommended to separate the assessment of the two complementary components of disease
intensity by making an assessment for incidence and another for severity.

The key for incidence assessment is given in Table 32 and the key for severity assessment
is given in Table 33.

Table 32. Incidence assessment key for apple scab, either on leaves or fruits (Priority 4)

State Mean proportion of infected organs with at least

one visible symptom on leaves or fruits (%)
1 0
2 ]0–1]
3 ]1–5]
4 X
5 ± 25
6 X
7 ± 50
8 X
9 > 90
‘X’: Intermediate rating.

34
 ECPGR Characterization and Evaluation Descriptors for Apple Genetic Resources

Table 33. Severity assessment key for apple scab, either on leaves or fruits (Priority 4).
State Mean proportion of scab-infected surface of leaves or
fruits – on the most infected organs (%)
1 0
2 ]0–1]
3 ]1–5]
4 X
5 ± 25
6 X
7 ± 50
8 X
9 > 90
‘X’: Intermediate rating.

Figure 15. Assessment of scab severity on leaves (reproduced from Croxall et al, 1952)

4.2 Powdery mildew (Podosphaera leucotricha) (Priority 2)

It is possible to carry out a single assessment during late summer to take into account both
primary infections, which are the most damaging, and secondary infections (Table 34). If
possible, two assessments would be recommended: one in spring for the primary symptoms
on shoot tips and flower clusters (Table 35) and one during summer.

35
Version 2022

Table 34. Global assessment scale for powdery mildew infection (primary and secondary
infections) on apple leaves, shoot tips and flower clusters (adapted from Lateur, 1999).
State Field observation Visual rating estimation
Incidence of primary
infection symptoms (%)
1 No visible macroscopic symptoms -
2 Very few (0–5%) leaves with secondary infection 0
3 Secondary infections on leaves immediately apparent. 0
Infected leaves thinly scattered over the tree (5–25%). No
primary infection
4 Same as 3 but with a few primary infections visible 0–5
5 Widespread secondary infection over the tree. Majority of 5–10
leaves with secondary infections. More twigs or flower
clusters with primary infection
6 X X
7 Heavy infection, with about half of the shoots showing ± 50
primary infection
8 X X
9 Extremely heavy infection, with nearly all twigs showing > 90
primary infection
‘X’: Intermediate rating.

Table 35. Primary powdery mildew infection assessment scale at end of shoots and in flower
clusters
Visual rating estimation
State Field observation Incidence of primary
infection symptoms (%)
1 No visible symptom 0
2 One or very few organs affected, detectable on close 0–1
scrutiny of the tree
3 Infected organs readily apparent but without important 1–5
consequences for the tree
4 X X
5 Primary mildew widespread over the branches, inducing ± 25
the infection of a substantial part of the crown
6 X X
7 Heavy infection; half of the organs are badly affected ± 50
8 X X
9 Crown completely affected, nearly all top of the organs > 90
are infected
‘X’: Intermediate rating.

36
 ECPGR Characterization and Evaluation Descriptors for Apple Genetic Resources

4.3 Neonectria canker (Neonectria ditissima) (Priority 2)

Accurate evaluation needs to take into account the homogeny distribution of the disease
across the orchard; it is normally achieved when more than 50% of the trees are at least
moderately infected. Table 36 shows an assessment scale that is normally used just after
leaves are fallen in autumn.

Table 36. Assessment scale for infection of Neonectria cankers on branches (adapted from
Lateur, 1999)
State Observation in the orchard Visual rating estimation
Incidence – Proportion of twigs
and branches infected (%)
1 No visible symptoms 0
2 One or very few small cankers, detectable only on 0–1
close scrutiny of the tree
3 Directly apparent cankers without important 1–5
consequences for the tree
4 X X
5 Cankers widespread over the branches, inducing ± 25
the death or the ablation of a large part of the crown
6 X X
7 Heavy infection; about half of the crown is badly ± 50
affected with risk of ablation or death
8 X X
9 Maximum infection, tree completely affected, nearly > 90
dead
‘X’: Intermediate rating.

4.4 Fire blight (Erwinia amylovora) (Priority 2)

Even if the EU recently (2020) classified it as a “regulated non-quarantine pest” organism
(Commission Implementing Directive (EU) 2020/177), fire blight (Erwinia amylovora) is still a
major threat to apple orchards and can have a major impact in the safe management of
repository and evaluation orchards. Monitoring of the disease is needed in terms of
prophylactic measures, and needs to start during the flowering period. Table 37 shows a global
assessment scale.

37
Version 2022

Table 37. Global assessment scale for the evaluation of fire blight infection (Lateur, 1999)
State Observation in the orchard Visual rating estimation
Incidence (%)
1 No visible symptom 0
2 One or very few small infections, detectable only on ]0–1
close scrutiny of the tree
3 Directly apparent infections without important ]1–5
consequences for the tree
4 X X
5 Disease widespread over the branches, inducing the ± 25
death or the ablation of a large part of the crown
6 X X
7 Heavy infection; about half of the crown is badly ± 50
affected with risk of ablation or death
8 X X
9 Maximum infection, tree completely affected, nearly > 90
dead
‘X’: Intermediate rating.

4.5 Blossom wilt – Infection through flowers caused by Monilinia laxa (Priority
2)
With climate change, Blossom wilt (formerly defined as ‘Sclerotinia laxa’) could become an
emergent disease with severe impact in some regions. Heavy infections have already been
observed on many cultivars, especially ‘Cox’s Orange Pippin’, ‘Lord Lambourne’, ‘Alkmene’,
‘James Grieve’ and ‘Ingrid Marie’, which were highly susceptible.

The first symptoms are detectable approximately a week after full bloom by a wilting of the
blossom trusses. The infected spurs are killed and often the fungus extends into the leaves,
and the extremities of branches are killed, which may look like fire blight symptoms (Wormald,
1945).

Table 38. Blossom wilt assessment scale

Visual rating estimation

State Blossom wilt Incidence – Proportion of blossom and ends
of one-year twigs infected (%)
1 No symptom visible 0
2 Very low 0–1
3 Low 1–5
4 Low to medium X
5 Medium ± 25
6 Medium to high X
7 High ± 50
8 High to very high X
9 Very high > 90
‘X’: Intermediate rating.

38
 ECPGR Characterization and Evaluation Descriptors for Apple Genetic Resources

4.6 Fruit brown rot (Monilinia fructigena) (Priority 2)

Table 39 Fruit brown rot at harvest period.
Visual rating estimation
State Brown rot Incidence – Proportion of rotted fruits
on trees (%)
1 No symptom visible 0
2 Very low 0–1
3 Low 1–5
4 Low to medium X
5 Medium ± 25
6 Medium to high X
7 High ± 50
8 High to very high X
9 Very high > 90
‘X’: Intermediate rating.

4.7 Anthracnose of leaves and fruits (Elsinoë piri) (Priority 2)

In recent years, anthracnose symptoms (Figure 16) were more often observed in a range of
cultivars (Chandelier et al., 2022). Symptoms and damages could be serious. Therefore,
evaluating a large diversity of apple genetic resources becomes opportune. A similar global
assessment scale approach as for scab is in use. (Tables 40 and 41). Observation of leaves
and fruits is best performed during late summer up to early autumn.

Table 40. Global assessment scale for anthracnose (Elsinoë piri) on leaves (adapted from
Lateur and Populer, 1996)
State Field observations Visual rating estimation
Incidence (%) Severity (%)
1 No visible symptom 0
2 A few small anthracnose spots are detectable on close ≤1
scrutiny of the leaves
3 Anthracnose spots immediately apparent, with lesions >1–5 -
very thinly scattered over the tree
4 X X -
5 Infection widespread over the tree, majority of leaves ≥ 50 ≤5
with at least one anthracnose spot
6 X ≥ 50 X
7 Heavy infection; multiple anthracnose spots covering ≥ 50 ± 25
large surfaces on most leaves. Partial leaf fall.
8 X ≥ 50 X
9 Maximum infection; leaves surfaces covered by more ≥ 50 > 75
than 75% with anthracnose spots
‘X’: Intermediate rating.

39
Version 2022

Table 41. Global assessment scale for anthracnose (Elsinoë piri) on fruits (adapted from
Lateur and Populer, 1996)
State Field observations Visual rating estimation
Incidence (%) Severity (%)
1 No visible symptom 0 -
2 A few small anthracnose spots are detectable on close ≤1 -
scrutiny of the fruits
3 Anthracnose spots immediately apparent, with lesions >1–5 -
very thinly scattered over the fruits on the tree
4 X X -
5 Infection widespread over the tree, majority of fruits ≥ 50 ≤5
with at least one anthracnose spot
6 X ≥ 50 X
Heavy infection; multiple anthracnose spots of larger
7 importance covering a quarter up to a third of the ≥ 50 ± 25
surfaces on most fruits, some fruits with skin cracks in
anthracnose spots
8 X ≥ 50 X
Maximum infection; more than 75% of fruit surfaces
9 covered with anthracnose spots; many fruits with skin ≥ 50 > 75
cracks and/or sunken anthracnose spots
‘X’: Intermediate rating.

Figure 16. Photos of a diversity of intensity of anthracnose symptoms (Elsinoë piri) on fruits
and leaves (Photos: Courtesy of CRA-W).

40
 ECPGR Characterization and Evaluation Descriptors for Apple Genetic Resources

4.8 Rosy aphid (Dysaphis plantagina) (Priority 3)

Rosy aphids symptoms should be evaluated (Table 42) during the late spring period; after this
critical period, it becomes difficult to properly assess the degree of infection. Infection can be
initially identified by the curling of leaves.

Table 42. Rosy aphid on leaves and fruits (adapted from Lateur, 1999)
State Observation in the orchard Visual rating estimation
Incidence
(%)
1 No visible symptom 0
2 One or very few foci, detectable only on close scrutiny ]0–1
of the tree
3 Directly apparent foci without important consequences ]1–5
for the tree
4 X X
5 Number of foci widespread over the branches, inducing ± 25
the curling of leaves
6 X X
7 Heavy infection; about half of the leaves/fruits is badly ± 50
affected
8 X X
9 Maximum infection, tree completely affected, nearly all > 90
organs with symptoms
‘X’: Intermediate rating.

NB: Other pests or diseases susceptibility assessments may be developed following the same
scoring principle.

4.9 Global tree foliage health (Priority 3)

Assessment should be based on overall appearance, and will represent a combination of
disease tolerance, robustness and good nutrient uptake efficiency indicated by healthy green
leaves (Table 43).

Table 43. Global tree foliage health

State Appearance
1 Extremely low health foliage (> 90% of leaves suffering diverse foliar deficiencies)
2 X
3 Low health foliage (± 75% of leaves suffering diverse foliar deficiencies)
4 X
5 Medium health foliage (± 50% of leaves without foliar deficiency)
6 X
7 High health foliage (± 75% of leaves without foliar deficiency)
8 X
9 Extremely high health foliage (> 90% of leaves without any foliar deficiency)
‘X’: Intermediate rating.

41
Version 2022

5. Fruit quality traits

As an initial evaluation procedure, sensory assessment is simple and efficient; it provides
relative values that simulate the consumer habit, but it requires some experience. In principle,
a first sensory analysis can be performed directly in the orchard in front of the tree (depending
on the level of ripeness).

When assessing fruit quality by sensorial approach, it is important to select a representative

sample of fruit at eating maturity and neutralize the influence of the sample previously tasted,
since this could affect the assessment. The sensorial analysis should be ideally performed by
two people and the fruit should be tasted with and without the skin.

Accurately predicting ripening times is difficult and it is recommended to use a simple method
for defining the optimal picking date and to note the actual level of maturity at the date of
picking by using the scale in Table 6.

Many apples need to be picked at their correct maturity stage and have to be stored in a cool
room, cellar or fridge for a number of days, weeks or even months before they will reach their
optimal ripeness for eating. Some cultivars are not suitable for fresh consumption before
having matured. Periodically, fruits should be inspected and the change in ground colour can
be used as an indication of the maturity stage. The greenish ground colour starting to turn
yellow is a useful indication. This can be cultivar specific, and for some cultivars, the
assessment must be carried out earlier; for others, it is necessary to wait until the ground colour
becomes fully yellow.

The use of instrumental measurements can be more precise but much more time-consuming
although recommendations for these are also provided. General rules and methods
recommended for the instrumental fruit trait analysis are defined in the CTIFL reference
publication (Vaysse and Landry, 2004).

In general, the sample of fruit should be taken from the upper part of the fruit, on the sunny
side.

Ideally, each trait linked with fruit-eating quality needs to be performed at the optimal fruit
ripening stage.

Many old apple cultivars were only used for cooking, baking (compotes, cakes, pies,…) or
other simple processing methods (drying, juice, cider, syrup, etc.). These specific quality traits
are not taken into account in the present document.

5.1 Fruit firmness

5.1.1 Using a penetrometer (Priority 2)

Following the protocol described by Watkins and Smith (1982), assessments should be done,
as a minimum, at picking time, on a sample of at least six fruits, making two opposite
measurements at the widest part of the fruit. Measurements should be taken on both sides of
the fruits (for bi-coloured fruit, at the borders between the over-coloured zone and ground
colour).

Ideally, a second set of measurements should be taken at eating maturity (if this differs from
harvest maturity). In all cases, an 11mm probe should be used and skin should be removed.

42
 ECPGR Characterization and Evaluation Descriptors for Apple Genetic Resources

The data are expressed as kg/cm2. Approximate values are included within the scale in Table
44.

5.1.2 Sensory analysis (Priority 1)

Firmness should be assessed at eating maturity by evaluating the relative force needed for
masticating a bit of fruit (Table 44).

Table 44. Fruit firmness sensory assessment scale and measured with a penetrometer

State Fruit firmness Example reference cultivars Mean value

firmness (kg/cm2)
1 Extremely soft <2
2 Very soft White Transparent 2–3
3 Soft 3–4
4 X Elstar, Cox’s Orange Pippin 4–5
5 Intermediate Jonagold, Golden Delicious, Topaz, Auksis 5–6
6 X 6–7
7 Firm Pinova, Pilot 7–8
8 Very firm Goldrush 8–9
9 Extremely firm >9
‘X’: Intermediate rating.

5.2 Skin thickness (Priority 3)

Skin thickness should be scored by sensory assessment based on the resistance to
masticating the skin. (Table 45).

Table 45. Sensory evaluation of relative fruit skin thickness

State Skin thickness Example reference cultivars
(UPOV, Szalatnay)
1 Extremely thin
2 Very thin White Transparent
3 Thin
4 X
5 Medium
6 X
7 Thick Cortland, Delicious
8 Very thick Jonathan
9 Extremely thick
‘X’: Intermediate rating.

43
Version 2022

5.3 Flesh sweetness (Priority 1/2)

5.3.1 Sensory analysis (Priority 2)

Table 46. Flesh sweetness sensory assessment scale at optimal eating maturity
State Sweetness Refractometer (°Brix)
1 Extremely low < 10
2 Very low 10–12.5
3 Low 12.5–13,5
4 X
5 Intermediate 13.5–15
6 X
7 High 15–17
8 Very high 17–20
9 Extremely high > 20
‘X’: Intermediate rating.

5.3.2 Refractometer method (Priority 2)

In a laboratory: this should be carried out at optimal eating time on a sample of at least six
representative fruits. Juice should be extracted using standard protocols with either a press or
extractor, and measurements should be taken at room temperature. Standard protocols extract
juice from two slices/fruit – with a press or an extractor – and then make the measurement on
the obtained juice with a refractometer at room temperature.

In the field: the simplest method is to place on the refractometer a mix of at least six droplets
of juice extracted by pressure between the thumb and index finger from pieces of different
representative fruits. Alternatively, a glass stick can be inserted into the fruit at two opposite
sites situated at the widest part of the fruit in order to extract droplets.

Scores should be expressed as °Brix and can be compared to Table 46.

5.4 Flesh acidity

5.4.1 Sensory analysis (Priority 2)

Table 47. Flesh acidity sensory assessment scale

State Flesh intensity of acidity

1 Extremely low acidity
2 Very low acidity
3 Low acidity
4 X
5 Intermediate acidity
6 X
7 High acidity
8 Very high acidity
9 Extremely high acidity
‘X’: Intermediate rating.

44
 ECPGR Characterization and Evaluation Descriptors for Apple Genetic Resources

5.4.2 Measurement with a pH meter (Priority 3)

Measurements should be taken on juice from a sample of at least six representative fruits using
juice extraction techniques as for flesh sugar measurement.

5.4.3 Measurement by titration (Priority 3)

Standard methods (Vaysse, Landry, 2004) should be used, with titration using NaOH. Data
should be expressed in g Malic acid/l, g Sulphuric acid/l or meq/l (milliequivalents/litre).

Table 48. Acidity by pH measurement or titration

State Flesh Acidity pH g/l of Malic g/l of sulphuric meq/l

acid acid
1 Extremely low
2 Very low
3 Low > 3,8 ≤ 4,0 ≤ 2,94 ≤ 60
4 X
5 Intermediate 3,5–3,4 4,0–6,0 2,94–4,41 60–90
6 X
7 High 3,3–3,1 6,0–8,0 4,41–5,88 90–120
8 Very high < 3,0 > 8,0 > 5,88 > 120
9 Extremely high
‘X’: Intermediate rating.

5.5 Ratio between acidity and sweetness (Priority 1)

When tasting a sample of fruit at eating maturity, a general impression of the balance between
acidity and sweetness should be scored (Table 49).

Table 49. Ratio acidity/sweetness of flesh sensory assessment scale

State Acidity/sweetness Example of reference cultivars
1 Extremely more acid than sweet
2 Much more acid than sweet Bramley’s Seedling, Antonovka
3 More acid than sweet Boskoop
4 X Elstar
5 Good balance acid/sugar Cox’s Orange Pippin, Auksis
6 X Jonagold
7 More sweet than acid Golden Delicious, Pinova
8 Much more sweet than acid Fuji, Starkrimson, Gala
9 Extremely more sweet than acid
‘X’: Intermediate rating.

45
Version 2022

5.6 Flesh juiciness (Priority 1)

Sensory assessment should be made of the quantity of juice extracted from a sample of fruit
when it is masticated (Table 50).

Table 50. Sensory assessment scale for flesh juiciness in apple

State Flesh juiciness Example of reference cultivars
1 Extremely low
2 Very low Cripps Pink
3 Low Pinova, Revaler Birnapfel
4 X
5 Intermediate
6 X
7 High Gravensteiner Scifresh, Delcorf (Delbarestivale)
8 Very high
9 Extremely high
‘X’: Intermediate rating.

5.7 Flesh crunchiness (Priority 2)

Crunchiness should be assessed as the sustained granular resistance of flesh during
mastication. It can be distinguished from crispness, in that crispness is generally associated
with brittleness and the shattering of food and is short-lived. Crunchiness can also be identified
by the noise made during mastication (Table 51).

Table 51. Sensory assessment scale for flesh crunchiness

State Flesh crunchiness Example of reference cultivars
1 Extremely low
2 Very low
3 Low
4 X
5 Intermediate Pinova, Mutsu, Auksis
6 High
7 Very high Gravensteiner, Scifresh, Delcorf (Delbardestivale)
8 X
9 Extremely high Honey Crisp
‘X’: Intermediate rating.

46
 ECPGR Characterization and Evaluation Descriptors for Apple Genetic Resources

5.8 Flesh bitterness (Priority 3)

Should be assessed sensorially based on Table 52.

Table 52. Sensory assessment scale for flesh bitterness

State Bitterness Example of reference cultivars
1 Extremely low Gala, Auksis
2 Very low
3 Low
4 X Jonagold, Orlik
5 Medium Starkrimson
6 X
7 High
8 Very high
9 Extremely high
‘X’: Intermediate rating.

5.9 Tendency for flesh to become mealy (Priority 3)

Mealiness should be assessed as the flesh becoming dryer, softer and often of coarse
texture. It should be assessed (Table 53) at the end of the eating maturity period, and ideally
after a period of storage (it is important to note which).

Table 53. Sensory assessment scale for flesh mealiness

State Tendency to become mealy Example of reference cultivars
1 Extremely low Scifresh, Sinap Orlovski
2 Very low Pinova
3 Low Reinette de France, Auksis
4 X
5 Intermediate Jonagold
6 X
7 High Jacques Lebel, Revaler Birnapfel
8 Very high White Transparent
9 Extremely high
‘X’: Intermediate rating.

47
Version 2022

5.10 Fruit flesh texture (Priority 3)

The fineness or coarseness of flesh texture should be assessed sensorially and scored
according to Table 54.

Table 54. Sensory assessment scale for fruit flesh texture

State Flesh texture Example reference cultivars
1 Extremely fine
2 Very Fine
3 Rather fine
4 X
5 Intermediate
6 X
7 Coarse
8 Very coarse
9 Extremely coarse
‘X’: Intermediate rating.

5.11 Intensity of fruit aroma (Priority 1)

Should be assessed as the aromatic taste of fruit at optimal eating maturity (Table 55).
Obviously, there are different types of aroma and the assessment should be a quantitative
assessment of intensity rather than characterize types of aroma.

Table 55. Sensory assessment scale for intensity of fruit aroma

State Intensity of aroma Example of reference cultivars
1 Extremely low
2 Very low
3 Low
4 X Golden Delicious
5 Medium Auksis
6 X Cox’s Orange Pippin
7 High
8 Very high Aroma, Ellison’s Orange
9 Extremely high
‘X’: Intermediate rating.

5.12 Overall fruit quality (Priority 1)

It is an obvious hedonic and relative global evaluation of the fruit quality based on multi criteria
analysis. An assessment should be made of the overall quality of the fruit at eating maturity,
taking into account all the individual quality traits. It is important to maintain an objective and
comparative approach and to avoid being influenced by personal tastes (Table 56).

48
 ECPGR Characterization and Evaluation Descriptors for Apple Genetic Resources

Table 56. Sensory assessment scale for overall fruit quality

State Overall fruit quality Example reference cultivars
1 Extremely poor
2 Very poor
3 Poor
4 Poor to good
5 Good Red Delicious
6 Good to very good Golden Delicious
7 Very good McIntosh
8 X Cox’s Orange Pippin
9 Extremely good
‘X’: Intermediate rating.

5.13 Fruit storage capacity

5.13.1 Storage life in natural cellar conditions (Priority 2)

Assessment should be made on a sample of 20–40 fruits by monitoring the increase in the
percentage of decayed fruits and classifying them according to Table 57. The limit of storability
should be considered to be met when more than 50% of the fruits are no more eatable.

It is important to record the date of harvesting, temperature and humidity, and it is important to
note fungicide treatments applied prior to harvest. It is also valuable to note the internal fruit
quality in order to define the best period for consumption during storage.

Table 57. Storage life in cellar conditions

State Storage life Example of reference cultivars Indicative keeping period

(UPOV, Szalatnay) in Northwestern Europe (Lateur)
1 Extremely short Close, Vista Bella Earlier than mid-August
2 Very short White Transparent Mid to end-August
3 Short Discovery, Tydeman’s Early Worcester September
4 X Alkmene October
5 Medium Gala, Elstar, Cox’s Orange Pippin November
6 X December
7 Long Golden Delicious, Jonagold January
8 Very long Fuji, Glockenapfel February–March
Extremely long Granny Smith, Président Van Dievoet April and later
9
(‘Cabarette’), Marie Joseph d’Othée,
Gueule de Mouton
‘X’: Intermediate rating.

49
Version 2022

Selected references

AFCEV, CBNP, FPNF, BRG. 1991. Description pomologique des pommiers et poiriers. Ministères de
l’Environnement et de la Recherche et de la Technologie, Paris. 50pp.

Anonym. 1989. EPPO Crop Growth Stage Keys – Echelle OEPP des stades de développement des
plantes cultivées – Apple and Pear/Pommier et poirier. Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 19, 373-384.

Bultitude, J. 1983. Apples – A guide to the identification of International Varieties. Mac Millan Press,
London. Pp. 324.

Brugger C. 2010. Apple Flavour Wheel. ACW, Agroscope, Wädenswill.

Chandelier, A., Mingeot, D., Ghrissi, I., Song, J.H., Lateur, M. 2022. A qPCR to detect Elsinoë piri, a re-
emerging fungal pathogen in unsprayed and organic orchards. Plant Pathology 71, 7 : 1579-1593.

CPVO-UPOV. 2006. Protocol for Distincness, uniformity and stability tests – Malus domestica Borkh. –
Apple, Angers, pp. 43.

Croxall, H. E., Gwynne, D. C., Jenkins, J. E. E. 1952. The rapid assessment of apple scab on leaves.
Plant Pathology 1, 2: 39-41.

Dapena, E., Fernández, M. Guía de descriptores de caracteres. In : Dapena, E, Blazquez, MD. 2009.
Description de las variedades de Manzana de la D.O.P Sidra de Asturias. Villaviciosa. 69pp.
http://www.serida.org/pdfs/4071.pdf

EPPO/OEPP. 1989. EPPO crop groth stage key – Apple and Pear. Bulletin OEPP/EPPO Bulletin
19:373-384.

EUFRIN, 1995. Descriptor list for Level 1 – EUROFRU Trials – Apple, pp. 9.

Gantar M. E. 2016. Hanbuch zur charakterisierung von obstarten – Apfel. Klosterneuburg, pp.57.

Lateur M. 1996. The intercompatibility of old apple cultivars selected for partial disease resistance, and
their use as pollinizers. In : Proc. Second Workshop on Pollination. Tromp, J., Wertheim, S.J., Kemp,
H. & Keulemans, J. (eds). Acta Hortic. 423 : 151-158.

Lateur M. 1999. Evaluation et caractérisation des ressources génétiques d'arbres fruitiers [Evaluation
and characterization of fruit tree genetic resources]. In: M. Chauvet, compiler. Le patrimoine fruitier.
Hier, aujourd'hui, demain [Fruit patrimony. Yesterday, today, tomorrow]. AFCEV/BRG/INRA, Paris,
France. pp. 167-177.

Lateur M. 2001. Evaluation de la résistance au chancre européen (Nectria galligena Bres.) de

ressources génétiques du pommier (Malus domestica Borkh.): étude méthodologique [Evaluation of
resistance to European canker (Nectria galligena Bres.) in apple genetic resources: methodological
study]. PhD Thesis, Faculté des Sciences Agronomiques de Gembloux, Belgium. 245pp.

Lateur M., Blazek J. 2004. Evaluation descriptors for Malus. In: Maggioni L, Fischer M, Lateur M, Lamont
EJ, Lipman E, compilers. Report of a Working Group on Malus/Pyrus. Second Meeting, 2-4 May
2002, Dresden-Pillnitz, Germany. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, Italy. pp.
76-82.

Lateur M., Populer C. 1996. Evaluation and identification methods used for apple genetic resources at
the State Plant Pathology Station in Gembloux, Belgium. In: HJ Case, editor. European Malus
Germplasm. Proceedings of a workshop, 21-24 June 1995, Wye College, University of London ().
International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome. pp. 78-87.

50
 ECPGR Characterization and Evaluation Descriptors for Apple Genetic Resources

Lateur M., Maggioni L., Lipman E. 2006. Report of a Working Group on Malus/Pyrus. Third Meeting, 25-
27 October 2006, Tbilisi, Georgia. Bioversity International, Rome, Italy.

Lateur M., Ordidge M., Engels J., Lipman E. 2013. Report of a Working Group on Malus/Pyrus. Fourth
Meeting, 7-9 March 2012, Weggis, Switzerland. Bioversity International, Rome, Italy.

Lespinasse J.M. 1977. La conduite du Pommier. I − Types de fructification. Incidence sur la conduite de
l’arbre. INVUFLEC, Paris.

Maggioni L., Janes R., Hayes A., Swinburne T., Lipman E., compilers. 1998. Report of a Working Group
on Malus/Pyrus. First meeting, 15-17 May 1997, Dublin, Ireland. International Plant Genetic
Resources Institute, Rome, Italy.

Meier U., 2001. Growth stages of mono and dicotyledonous plants – BBCH Monograph. Federal
Biological Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry, Bonn, pp. 158.

Petzold H. 1988. Appelsoorten. De Vries-Brouwers BVBA, Antwerpen, Amsterdam. Pp. 283.

Royal Horticultural Society, 1966, c.1986. R.H.S. Colour Chart. Royal Horticultural Society, London.

Szalatnay D. 2006. Obst-Deskriptoren NAP – Descripteurs de Fruits PAN. Agroscope Changins-

Wädenswil and FRUCTUS, Wädenswil. Pp. 87.

UPOV. 1995. Guidelines for the conduct of tests for distinctness, uniformity and stability. Apple (Fruit
Varieties).TG/14/8. International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, Geneva.

UPOV. 2005. Guidelines for the conduct of tests for distinctness, uniformity and stability. Apple (Fruit
Varieties). TG/14/9. International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, Geneva.

UPOV. 2019. Colour names for the RHS colour charts. TG/55/14. International Union for the Protection
of New Varieties of Plants, Geneva.

Vaysse, P., Landry P. 2004. Pomme – Poire – de la récolte au conditionnement – Outils pratiques.
CTIFL, Paris, pp. 123.

van der Zwet T., Oitto W.A., Brooks H.J. 1970. Scoring system for rating the severity of fire blight in
pear. Plant Disease Reporter 54:835-839.

Wormald, H. 1945. Diseases of Fruits and Hops. Crosby Lockwood & Son LTD, London, pp. 294.

Watkins R., Smith R.A., editors. 1982. Descriptor list for Apple (Malus). International Board for Plant
Genetic Resources, Rome/Commission of European Communities, Brussels, pp.46.

51
Version 2022

Annex 1. Illustration of fruit general shapes (a)

Illustration of fruit general shapes in function of the relation height/diameter and of the ratio of
width of the eye basin/width of the stalk cavity (adapted from Dapena et al., 2009).

52
 ECPGR Characterization and Evaluation Descriptors for Apple Genetic Resources

Annex 2. Illustration of fruit general shapes (b)

Illustration of fruit general shapes in function of the relation height/diameter and of the ratio of
width of the eye basin/width of the stalk cavity (Dapena et al., 2009).

53
Version 2022

Annex 3. Measuring width and depth of eye basin and stalk

fruit cavity
Illustration (Figure 17) of how to measure the width and depth of the eye basin and stalk cavity
of the fruit (Dapena and Fernández, 2009).

Figure 17. Measurement of width and depth of basin and stalk fruit cavities (Dapena et al.,
2009)

54
 ECPGR Characterization and Evaluation Descriptors for Apple Genetic Resources

Annex 4. Further guidance on photography

Correct camera settings are essential. Figure 18 shows how to do it correctly.

Camera settings

Focus

Exposure

White balance

Figure 18. Correct camera settings (Szalatnay, 2006)

Suggested camera settings

-F25

-1/640

-ISO100

55
Version 2022

Photographs can be taken in two different ways (Figures 19 and 20):

• The first option is appropriate if photographs are needed for a database only

• The second option is appropriate if pictures need to be used for high-quality printing
and/or as a reference for identification/verification.

Option 1. Taking all views at once (Szalatnay, 2006)

Print templates available at

http://www.clg-champollion-voisins.ac-
versailles.fr/IMG/pdf/papiers_millimetres-2.pdf

Attach template on a cardboard box and put holes in cardboard

box and template at places where fruits need to be placed

Print templates available at: http://www.clg-champollion-

voisins.ac-versailles.fr/IMG/pdf/papiers_millimetres-2.pdf

Use rings (plastic, metal, model clay, …) to place fruits in the right
spots

Put label with: Accession name, accession number, Tree ID,

date.

Option 2. Taking all views separately, create a picture with photo-editing software

Take a photograph of every view/angle separately

Resize every picture and cut out the fruit with photo-editing software (Adobe Photoshop or other)

Combine photographs into a picture

Main advantage:  much higher quality

Figure 19. Illustration of the different steps to taking fruit pictures

56
 ECPGR Characterization and Evaluation Descriptors for Apple Genetic Resources

As an alternative, another less sophisticated option for taking fruit picture is building a simple
natural ‘light chamber’, as illustrated in Figure 20.

Choose a room with large windows oriented north or north-west, place a table near the window
and build a ‘light chamber’ with sides being either white or covered with aluminium film. Leave
an opening in front of the window as illustrated below.

In north-western European countries, the best quality pictures are obtained between around
10:00 am and 15:00 pm.

1. View of the handmade light chamber

Build your light chamber in front of a north/north-east window.

Print grey template available at http://www.clg-champollion-

voisins.ac-versailles.fr/IMG/pdf/papiers_millimetres-2.pdf and
place it in front of the backplate.

2. Fruit arrangement, label and taking pictures

Use rings (plastic, metal, model clay, etc.) to place fruits at the
right spots (here plums as examples).

Put a label with: accession name, accession number, Tree ID,

date.

Take the picture in a perpendicular position with adapted camera

tuning and having prior to that regulated the 'white balance'.

Figure 20. Illustration of an alternative way to take fruit pictures. Pictures courtesy of M.
Lateur.

57