English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

. Three citrus hybrids, containing 50% to 75% sweet orange (Citrus sinensis) genome in their pedigrees and similar to sweet orange in fruit size, color, and taste, were tested for their potential to be classified as new ‘‘sweet orange’’ cultivars. ‘Hamlin’, ‘Midsweet’, and three other early to midseason sweet oranges, along with ‘Dancy’ tangerine (Citrus reticulata), a typical mandarin, were used for comparison. Fruit were picked on 23 Jan. 2014, 30 Dec. 2014, and 27 Jan. 2015. A total of 114 volatiles were detected and separated into seven groups by detection frequency: three groups with 43 volatile components did not show differences and thus contributed little information for classification of sweet orange vs. mandarin, and the remaining four groups with 71 volatiles contributed to distinctions between orange and mandarin. Among the hybrids, the pattern of volatile detection frequency for hybrid FF-1-74-52 was virtually identical to sweet orange, and cluster analysis agreed with the classification. The number of average peaks were 55 to 62 in sweet oranges, 67 in FF-1-74-52, and 17 to 37 in tangerine and other hybrids. Quantity analysis of individual volatiles and chemical classes indicated that FF-1-74-52 and sweet oranges were rich in total volatile abundance, and almost all chemical classes including mono and sesquiterpenes, aldehydes, alcohols, ketones, and esters. This was especially true for ethyl butanoate, which contributes a fruity top note, and valencene and all sesquiterpene hydrocarbons, which only contribute to citrus flavor indirectly through their contribution to headspace partitioning. Two other hybrids, FF-1-75-55 and FF-1-76-51, each had some similarity to sweet oranges in several chemicals and classes, but not in the overall volatile profile. All three sweet orange–like hybrids met the standards for mandarins and oranges in soluble solids content, titratable acidity (TA), and the ratio. The above volatile and nonvolatile flavor chemical profile comparisons strongly support a proposal to classify FF-1-74-52 as a ‘‘sweet orange’’ commercially, and all three hybrids were previously shown to be more similar to sweet orange in their volatile profile than is ‘Ambersweet’. ‘Ambersweet’ was a hybrid that was legally classified as a ‘‘sweet orange’’ in 1995 based on its volatile profile.

Volatile and Nonvolatile Flavor Chemical Evaluation of USDA Orange–Mandarin Hybrids for Comparison to Sweet Orange and Mandarin Fruit