J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 17(2) : 272-277, 2022 This is an open access article d istributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommer cial-ShareAl ike 4.0 International License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, d istribution, and reproduction in any med ium, provide d the original author and source are credited. Original Research Paper INTRODUCTION Tamarind (Tamarindus indica L.) is a multipurpose tree belonging to the family Leguminosae (Fabaceae). It is a tropical fruit tree used primarily for its fruits, either eaten fresh or pr ocessed. In India, it is commonly grown in Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, Chattisgarh, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. It is a robust tree which grows well even under different climatic conditions viz., tropical, subtropical and arid. In olden days it was grown from self sown seeds or by sowing seeds of unknown parentage. Hence, they exhibit a wide range of variation for morphological and yield traits. This variation may be due to effect of genetic or environmental or both. Therefore, it may be worthwhile focusing only on the very best trees in relation to neighboring ones and trees may be selected within the ecological zones. Before formulating any selection programme, it is necessary to understand the extent of variation among the genotypes and apply them for an increase in the pod and pulp production (Nicodemus et al., 1997). Many tamarind trees have been identified which were of seedling origin and they were multiplied vegetatively and maintained in the gene bank. Different genotypes which are propagated by vegetative means are being cultivated in different parts of the country. They have to be evaluated for morphological and yield attributing traits. Further, the elite lines may be useful in selection programme for the development of new cultivars. MATERIALS AND METHODS This study was carried out during 2017-18 at Forest Resea r ch Sta tion, Govinkovi, Honna li ta luk, Davangere district which is situated in the Southern Characterization and evaluation of morphological and yield traits of tamarind genotypes Pooja G.K.1, Nagarajappa Adivappar3*, Shivakumar B.S.1, Lakshmana D.2 and Sharanabasappa 3 1Department of Fruit Science, 2Department of Crop Improvement and Biotechnology, College of Horticulture, Mudigere - 577 132, Karnataka, India 3Keladi Shivappa Nayak University of Agricultural and Horticultural Sciences, Shivamogga - 577 204, Karnataka, India *Corresponding author Email : nagarajappaadivappar@gmail.com ABSTRACT The evaluation of morphological and yield traits of tamarind genotypes was carried out during 2017-18 at Forest Research Station, Govinkovi, Honnali taluk, Davangere district. The experiment was laid out in randomized complete block design with 16 genotypes and three replications. Trees were 14-years-old and of grafted origin. All the morphological and yield traits showed significant difference among the selected genotypes indicating the presence of adequate variations. The genotypes recorded morphological variation in terms of tree shape (semi-circle to irregular shape), foliage arrangement (dense to sparse), flowering time (early, mid and late), stem colour (dark brown, brown and light brown), bud colour (greenish white, pink, dark pink), petal colour (yellow and pale yellow), pod colour (greyish brown, brown, light brown and dark brown), pulp colour (light brown, brown and reddish brown), pod shape (straight, slightly curved, curved and deeply curved) and pod size (very big, big, medium and small). The analysis of variance revealed significant difference with respect to tree height, stem girth, pod traits, pod yield per tree (K-9 : 12.80 kg), number of pods per tree (NTI-52 : 989.07) and pulp per cent (K-9 : 48.87). Among the 16 genotypes, the genotype K-9 was found superior with respect to pod size, pod weight, pulp weight and pod yield per tree. Genotype K-9 was found promising and due to perennial in nature further evaluation is required for stability. Keywords: Pod traits, tamarind and vegetative traits. 273 Characterization and evaluation of tamarind genotypes J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 17(2) : 272-277, 2022 Transitional Zone of Karnataka at a latitude of 14.165367 a nd longitude of 75.6680832. T he experiment was laid out in randomized complete block design with three replications and 16 genotypes viz., K-9, NTI-52, K-11, S-7, S-8, S-14, S-3, N-6, D-2, C-4, D-9, NTI-89, D-19, S-6, K-10 and K-12. The morphological traits recorded were tree height, stem girth, tree shape, foliage arrangement, flowering time, stem colour, bud colour, petal colour, pod colour, pulp colour, pod shape, pod size and shell detachability along with that yield traits were also recorded. The height of the tree was measured from base to tip of the tree by using a pole and measuring tape, it was expressed in terms of meters. The girth of the tree trunk was measured by using a measuring tape and the reading was expressed in terms of meters. Tree shape, foliage arrangement, stem colour, bud colour, petal colour and pod shape were characterized based on visual observations. Tree shape was categorized as dome, cone, oval, round, semi-circle and irregular shapes. Foliage arrangement was categorized as dense and sparse arrangement. Based on the time of flower initiation, flowering time was categorized as early, mid and late flowering. Stem colour was categorized as light brown, brown and dark brown. Bud colour was categorized as greenish white, pink and dark pink. Petal colour was categorized as pale yellow and yellow. Pod and pulp colour was classified by using colour chart of Royal Horticultural Society (R.H.S), London. Pod shape was categorized as deeply curved, curved, slightly curved and straight. Based on the length, width and curvature of the pod, pod size was classified as very big, big, medium and small. Based on the ease of separation of shell from the pod, shell detachability was classified as easy, slightly hard and hard. Yield traits such as pod yield per tree was recorded at different intervals of harvest and expressed in kilograms. The number of pods per tree was recorded from each harvest and total yield was computed. Pulp per cent was calculated by dividing weight of pulp by weight of pod and multiplied by 100. Shell per cent was calculated by dividing weight of shell by weight of pod and multiplied by 100. Fibre per cent was calculated by dividing the weight of fibre over weight of pod and multiplied by 100. The number of fibres per pod was counted after separating fibres from the pulp and was expressed in numbers. The beak length of each pod was measured with the help of a thread and expressed in terms of centimetres. The experimental data recorded on various traits during the investigation were analyzed statistically using the method of ana lysis of var ia nce (ANOVA) for randomized complete block design (RCBD) as given by Gomez and Gomez (1984). Whenever ‘F’ test was found significant for comparing the means of two treatments, the critical difference (C.D. at 5%) was worked out. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION In the present study the morphological traits showed significant variation (Table 1) among the selected genotypes indicating the pr esence of adequate variations. Two different shapes of tree were observed viz., semicircle (K-9, S-7, N-6, D-2, D-19, K-10 and K-12) and irregular (NTI-52, K-11, S-8, S-14, S-3, C-4, D-9, NTI-89 and S-6). The foliage arrangements observed were dense (K-9, NTI-52, S-14, N-6, D-2, C-4, D-9, NTI-89, D-19, S-6, K-10 and K-12) to sparse(K-11, S-7, S-8 and S-3). Early (K-9, NTI-52, K-11, N-6, NTI-89, K-10 and K-12), mid (S-7, S-8, S-14, S-3, C-4 and S-6) and late flowering (D-2, D- 9 and D-19) was recorded among the genotypes and pod beak was present in all the 16 genotypes. The variations with respect to the above characters are due to the effect of genotypic character and environmental conditions. Variation in tamarind genotypes were also earlier reported by Algabal et al. (2012) and Bhogave et al. (2018). The colour traits among the genotypes showed wide va riations (Table 2), in which the stem colour ranged from dark brown, brown and light brown. Bud colour ranged from greenish white, pink and dark pink. The different petal colours recorded were yellow and pale yellow. Variation with respect to petal and bud colour is due to genotypic effect. These wide range of colouration in reproductive organs that can serve as an immense breeding value and can be used not only as a morphological marker in progeny testing programme but can also enhance the fruit set by enhancing the pollinators. While, the different pod colour recor ded were greyish brown, light brown, brown and dark brown. The colour of the pulp varied from light brown, brown to reddish brown. The variation with respect to the colour tr a its is due to the distinct fea tur e of different tamarind genotypes and supported by Bhogave et al. (2018). 274 Pooja et al Table 2 : Variation in colour of the selected tamarind genotypes Table 1 : Variation in morphological traits and flowering time of tamarind genotypes Trait Category Genotypes Tree shape Semi circle K-9, S-7, N-6, D-2, D-19, K-10 and K-12 Irregular NTI-52, K-11, S-8, S-14, S-3, C-4, D-9, NTI-89 and S-6 Foliage Dense K-9, NTI-52, S-14, N-6, D-2, C-4, D-9, NTI-89, D-19, S-6, K-10 and K-12 arrangement Sparse K-11, S-7, S-8 and S-3 Flowering Early K-9, NTI-52, K-11, N-6, NTI-89, K-10 and K-12 time Mid S-7, S-8, S-14, S-3, C-4 and S-6 Late D-2, D-9 and D-19 Genotype Stem colour Bud colour Petal colour Pod colour Pulp colour K-9 Dark brown Dark pink Yellow Brown Reddish brown NTI-52 Brown Dark pink Pale yellow Brown Brown K-11 Brown Dark pink Yellow Grayish brown Brown S-7 Light brown Pink Pale yellow Grayish brown Light brown S-8 Light brown Pink Yellow Brown Reddish brown S-14 Brown Dark pink Pale yellow Dark brown Reddish brown S-3 Brown Dark pink Yellow Light brown Brown N-6 Brown Dark pink Yellow Light brown Light brown D-2 Brown Pink Pale yellow Brown Brown C-4 Brown Greenish white Pale yellow Brown Brown D-9 Light brown Pink Pale yellow Brown Brown NTI-89 Brown Greenish white Pale yellow Brown Reddish brown D-19 Brown Dark pink Pale yellow Grayish brown Reddish brown S-6 Brown Greenish white Pale yellow Dark brown Reddish brown K-10 Light brown Pink Pale yellow Grayish brown Brown K-12 Light brown Pink Pale yellow Grayish brown Brown With respect to the shape of the pod viz., straight, slightly curved, curved and deeply curved were recorded. Based on the length, breadth and curvature of the pod, pod size is classified as very big, big, medium and small sized pods. The variation with respect to the above traits (Table 3) is due to the effect of genotypic difference among the genotypes. Based on the ease of separation of shell from the pod, shell detachability was classified as easy, hard and very ha r d. T his va r ia tion (Ta ble 3) is due to the compactness or attachment of seeds to the pulp or shell to the pulp. Apart from this, it also depends on shell thickness. The results are also supported by Sharma et al. (2015). Among 16 genotypes studied, the longest tree height was recorded in K-9 (5.08 m) while, the shortest was recorded in K-10 (3.00 m) and the maximum stem girth was recorded in K-9 (1.01 m) whereas, the minimum was recorded in S-7 (0.48 m). The variation with respect to tree height and stem girth (Table 4) is due to the effect of genotypic difference among the genotypes and also due to the differential utilization of resources from the soil. Such factors are known to cause mor phological a nd genetic evolutionar y J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 17(2) : 272-277, 2022 275 Table 3 : Variation in pod shape, pod size and shell detachability of tamarind genotypes. Genotype Pod shape Pod size Shell detachability K-9 Deeply curved Very big Very hard NTI-52 Slightly curved Medium Easy K-11 Slightly curved Small Hard S-7 Deeply curved Big Hard S-8 Slightly curved Medium Easy S-14 Slightly curved Medium Easy S-3 Slightly curved Medium Easy N-6 Curved Big Easy D-2 Slightly curved Medium Easy C-4 Slightly curved Medium Easy D-9 Curved Medium Hard NTI-89 Slightly curved Big Easy D-19 Curved Medium Easy S-6 Curved Medium Easy K-10 Straight Medium Very hard K-12 Slightly curved Medium Very hard Characterization and evaluation of tamarind genotypes Table 4 : Variation in quantitative traits of tamarind genotypes Genotype Tree height Stem girth Pod Pulp per Shell Fibre Number of (m) (m) yield per tree cent per per cent per cent fibres (kg) pod per pod per pod per pod K-9 5.08 1.01 12.80 48.87 21.47 6.17 4.03 NTI-52 4.13 0.85 10.79 40.78 27.06 2.84 4.27 K-11 3.17 0.58 4.77 41.18 23.83 2.16 3.07 S-7 3.67 0.48 5.97 42.10 22.39 3.17 5.00 S-8 3.67 0.53 5.03 46.38 22.07 5.13 3.97 S-14 3.33 0.58 4.55 44.45 15.78 3.24 3.80 S-3 4.23 0.62 3.96 52.03 28.13 3.45 2.90 N-6 4.00 0.77 9.07 42.03 22.21 6.94 7.33 D-2 4.50 0.93 6.88 38.45 25.97 2.96 5.37 C-4 4.17 0.65 4.53 44.50 27.60 3.10 2.97 D-9 4.00 0.60 5.33 38.07 26.15 3.16 4.93 NTI-89 4.13 0.57 8.72 42.13 26.03 3.51 4.03 D-19 3.87 0.60 6.84 44.52 17.18 3.94 4.93 S-6 4.10 0.49 4.44 42.15 16.53 4.13 4.37 K-10 3.00 0.60 8.21 40.52 27.53 4.92 7.23 K-12 3.20 0.70 7.38 35.09 28.87 5.48 5.87 S. Em ± 0.35 0.06 0.45 1.24 0.75 0.31 0.30 C. D @5% 1.01 0.17 1.30 3.58 2.17 0.90 0.86 J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 17(2) : 272-277, 2022 276 Fig. 1 : Variation in number of pods per tree of tamarind genotypes divergences among the population. The supporting r esults ha ve a lso been r epor ted by Ra o a nd Subr a ma nya m (2010) a nd Diva ka r a a nd Rathakrishnan (2011). Significant difference in pod traits (Table 4) indicates the scope of genetic improvement. The genotype K-9 recorded significantly higher pod yield (12.80 kg/tree) and pulp per cent (48.87 %). The variation is attributed due to the difference in pod length, width, circumference, thickness and difference in the rate of development of vascular tissues (Pooja et al., 2018). The highest number of pods per tree was recorded in NTI-52 (989.07) and the lowest number of pods per tree was recorded in S-8 (206.48) (Fig. 1). The minimum pod yield per tree was recorded in S-3 (3.96 kg/tree). The variation with respect to number of pods per tree is due to the higher number of primary and secondary branches and also inherent genetic makeup of each genotype. Apart from this, it also depends on environmental conditions. The highest beak length was recorded in D-19 (0.05 cm) and the lowest was observed in S-7, S-14, N-6, D-9, K-10 and K-12 (0.01 cm) (Fig. 2). The maximum number of fibres per pod was recorded in N-6 (7.33) and the minimum was recorded in S-3 (2.90). The difference in fibre number is attributed to the genetic makeup of each genotype. These findings are in line with the views reported by Fandohan et al. (2011) and Singh and Nandini (2014). The highest pulp per cent was recorded in S-3 (52.03 %) which was on par with K-9 (48.87 %) and the lowest wa s observed in K-12 (35. 09 %). T he difference in pulp per cent per pod (Table 4) is clearly attributed due to the length, width, thickness and pulp content of the pod and also distinct feature of different genotypes. Similar results have also been reported by Prabhushankar et al. (2004) in tamarind and Usha et al. (2018) in macadamia nut. A significant difference was observed among the genotypes in respect of shell per cent per pod. The maximum shell per cent was recorded in K-12 (28.87 %) which was on par with S-3 (28.13 %) and C-4 (27.60 %) and the lowest was recorded in S-14 (15.78 %) which was significantly lower than all other genotypes. The variation in shell per cent is due to the difference in pod size, shell thickness and shell weight. Apart from this, it is inherent genetic makeup of each genotype. Similar variations with respect to shell per cent was also observed in tamarind by Sivakumar (2000) and Kotecha and Kadam (2002). The highest fibre per cent per pod was recorded in N-6 (6.94 %) which was on par with K-9 (6.17 %) and the lowest was observed in K-11 (2.16 %). The variation with respect to fibre per cent is due to the difference in the rate of development of vascular tissues in the pod, fibre weight per pod and also distinct feature of the different genotypes. Similar variations with respect to fibre per cent were also reported by Hanamashetti and Sulikeri (1997), Mastan et al. (1997) and Divakara (2008) in tamarind. CONCLUSION The study revealed existence of considerable variations among the genotypes for all the traits studied. The genotype K-9 was found superior compared to all other genotypes with respect to pod size, pod weight, pulp weight and pod yield per tree. T herefore, genotype K-9 found promising and subjected for further evaluation to ensure consistent results for utilization. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Authors are thankful to Director of Research, Keladi Shivappa Nayak University of Agricultural and Horticultural Sciences, Shivamogga for financial Pooja et al Fig. 2 : Variation in the beak length of tamarind genotypes J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 17(2) : 272-277, 2022 277 assistance through Staff Research Project bearing the number 5.11 during 2017-18. Authors are also grateful to Officers of research wing of Department of Forest, Shivamogga, Karnataka. REFERENCES Algabal, A. Q. A. Y., Pappanna, N., Ajay, B. C. and Eid, A. 2012. Studies on genetic parameters and inter r ela tionships for pulp yield a nd its attributes in tamarind (Tamarindus indica L.). Int. J. Plant Breed., 6(1): 65-69. Bhogave, A. F., Dalal, S. R. and Raut, U. A. 2018. Studies on qualita tive tr aits va riation in tamarind (Tamarindus indica L.). Int. J. Chem. Stud., 6(1): 396-398. Divaka ra, B. N. 2008. Variation and cha racter association for various pod traits in Tamarindus indica L. Indian For., 134(5): 687-696. Divakara, B. N. and Rathakrishnan. 2011. Clonal va r ia bility a nd divergence studies in Tamarindus indica L.; A multipurpose fruit tree. J. Biodivers. Ecol. Sci., 1(1): 31-41. Fandohan, B., Assogbadjo, A. E., Kakai, R. G. and Kyndt, T. 2011. Quantitative morphological descriptors confirm traditionally classified morphotypes of Tamarindus indica L. Fruits. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol., 58: 299–309. Gomez, K. A. and Gomez, A. A. 1984. Statistical pr ocedur es for a gr icu ltur a l r esea r ch. A Wiley-Inter Sci., John Wiley and Sons, New York, pp. 680. Hana ma shetti, S. I. a nd Sulikeri, G. S. 1997. Evaluation of promising genotypes of tamarind (Tamarindus indica L.) Proc. Nat. Sym. on Tamarindus indica L. Tir upa thi (A. P. ) organized by Forest Department of Andhra Pradesh, pp. 69-74. Kotecha, P. M. and Kadam, S. S. 2002. Studies on extraction of pulp and juice from tamarind fruits. Indian Food Packer, 56(6): 148-152. Mastan, M., Sivaram-Prasad, N. V., Chalama-Reddy, K. and Prasad-Reddy, B. V. 1997. Variability in fruit characteristics in Tamarindus indica L. Proc. Nat. Sym. of Tamarindus indica L. Tir upa thi (A. P. ) orga nized by For est Department of Andhra Pradesh, pp. 26-34. Nicodemus, A., Nagarajan, B., Durai, A., Gireesan, K., Sasiharan, K., Mahadevan, N. P. and Bennet, S. S. R. 1997. Reproductive biology of Tamarindus indica L. and its implications on yield improvement In: Proc. Nat. Sym. on Tamarindus indica L. Tir upa ti, Andhr a Pradesh, India, pp. 218-225. Pooja, G. K., Adivappar, N., Shivakumar, B. S., Lakshmana, D. and Sharanabasappa. 2018. Evaluation of morphological and quantitative characters of tamarind genotypes. J. Farm Sci., 31(5): 578-580. Pr a bhusha nka r, D. S. , Mela nta , K. R. a nd Chandregowda, M. 2004. Evaluation of elite clones of tamarind. Karnataka J. Agric. Sci., 17(3): 512-514. Rao, K. D. and Subramanyam, K. 2010. Varietal evaluation of tamarind under scarce rainfall zone. Agric. Sci. Digest., 30(1): 42-45. Sharma, D. K. Alkade, S. A. and Virdia, H. M. 2015. Genetic variability in tamarind Tamarindus indica L. in South Gujarat. Curr. Hortic., 3(2): 43-46. Singh, T. R . a nd N a ndini, R . 20 14. G enet ic variability, character association and path analysis in tamarind (Tamarindus indica L.) population of Nallur tamarind grove. SAARC J. Agri., 12(1)L 20-25. Sivakumar, P. 2000. Tamarind - A brown gold from dry tracts. Spice India, 13(11): 2-4. Usha, D. S., Adivappar, N., Shivakumar, B. S., Thippesha, D. and Lakshmana, D. 2018. E v a l u a t i o n of  exotic  macadamia ( M a c a d a m i a s p p . ) geno t yp es f or morphological and yield contributing traits. J. Farm Sci., 31(5): 585-587. Characterization and evaluation of tamarind genotypes J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 17(2) : 272-277, 2022 (Received : 06.12.2021; Revised : 07.07.2022; Accepted : 13.07.2022)