article · Open Research Europe
Background Olive ( Olea europaea L.) breeding initiatives rely heavily on the extensive and correct characterisation of genetic resources to successfully achieve their goals, such as addressing climate change and emerging diseases challenges. However, the historical lack of standardised phenotyping protocols across multi-environment trials has severely hindered data interoperability and large-scale comparative analyses. Methods Within the Horizon 2020 GEN4OLIVE project, five international olive germplasm banks established a consensus-based methodological framework to systematically evaluate over 500 olive cultivars. We harmonised 14 evaluation protocols covering six fundamental dimensions: phenological and agronomic traits, abiotic stress resilience, biotic stress resilience, olive oil yield and chemical quality, table olive quality assessment, and morphological characterisation and photography. While most protocols were adapted from previously published literature to ensure ease of implementation across different facilities, novel methodologies for frost tolerance and standardised photography were developed de novo. Results The implementation of these consensus methods across five countries proved highly successful. This methodological framework enabled the generation of the largest harmonised, publicly available dataset on olive genetic resources to date, effectively making possible the correct comparation and ranking of the olive cultivars based on their specific characteristics. Conclusions This compendium of methods provides a robust, highly replicable reference point for the standardisation of olive germplasm characterisation and use of shared benchmark cultivars as an effective way for data normalization and comparation. It facilitates future global pre-breeding efforts, ensures international data interoperability, and supports the discovery of resilient cultivars to secure the future of the olive sector.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.12688/openreseurope.24556.1
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.