Genetic Variability and Combining Abilities for Earliness to Nut Yield and Nut Weight in Selected Cashew (Anacardium Occidentale L.) Clones

Figures & data

Table 1. Description of characteristics of the cashew clones used as parents for the progenies in a 3 × 4 factorial mating design

Parent	Source of germplasm	Characteristics
A2	Brazil	Dwarf cashew, large nut size (8–12 g), precocious.
BE203	Benin	Common cashew, medium nut size (7–9 g), High nut yield (669.2 kg ha-1), precocious, high water and nutrient use efficient, high outturn (31%).
SG224	Ghana (local)	Common cashew, smaller nut size (6.1 g), moderate nut yield (625.8 kg ha-1) (Adu-Gyamfi et al 2019).
SG273	Ghana (local)	Common cashew, smaller nut size (5.3 g), moderate nut yield (368.3 kg ha-^1) (Adu-Gyamfi et al 2019).
SG266	Ghana (local)	Common cashew, smaller nut size (5.8 g), moderate nut yield (561.4 kg ha^−1) (Adu-Gyamfi et al 2019).
SG276	Ghana (local)	Common cashew, smaller nut size (6.3 g), moderate nut yield (400 kg ha-1) (Adu-Gyamfi et al 2019).
SG287	Ghana (local)	Common cashew, smaller nut size (5–6.9 g), moderate nut yield (422 kg ha-1) (Adu-Gyamfi et al 2019).

Table 2. Means squares from analysis of variance and significance test of 12 cashew progenies for height, stem diameter increment, canopy spread, nut yield, nut size and cropping efficiency at Wenchi from 2012 to 2017

Source of Variation	Df.	Height (m)	SDI (Vegetative) (cm)	Canopy Spread (NS) (m)	Canopy Spread (EW) (m)	SDI (Reproductive) (cm)	Nut yield (kg ha ^−1)	Cropping efficiency (g/cm2/yr)	Nut weight (g)
Replication	2	0.381	308.93*	0.161	0.237*	6243	73591*	1436.7*	1.3217*
GCA Male	3	0.133*	188.29**	1.1273*	1.144*	8345	57479**	1198*	4.6418***
GCA Female	2	0.12	18.66	0.4842	0.44	26270***	11710	1185.4	0.442
SCA (Male x Female)	6	0.035	138.69**	0.8565*	0.3065	6511*	39392**	863.6*	4.2541**
Error	14	0.04	41.06	0.3858	0.5628	2615	16833	426.5	0.4092
GCA/SCA male		0.88	0.73	0.72	0.88	0.72	0.74	0.74	0.69
GCA/SCA female		0.87	0.21	0.53	0.74	0.89	0.37	0.73	0.17

*, **, *** significantly different at p ≤ 0.05 p ≤ 0.01and p ≤ 0.001; SDI – Stem diameter increment, NS – North-South, EW – East- West. GCA/SCA _male = Ratio of GCA and SCA for male parents, GCA/SCA _female = ratio of GCA and SCA for female parents.

Table 3. Estimates of GCA effects and the mean growth and yield performance of 12 cashew progenies derived from a factorial mating design of three females and four males and evaluated at Wenchi from 2012 to 2017

Parent	SDI (vegetative) (cm)	Height (m)	Canopy spread (EW) (m)	Canopy spread (NS) (m)	SDI (reproductive) (cm)	Nut yield (kg ha-1)	Cropping efficiency (g/cm2/yr)	Nut weight (g)
Males
A2	−2.544*	−0.121*	−0.199	−0.166	0.001	−20.278*	−0.125*	0.318*
BE203	1.757	−0.004	0.342*	−0.026	0.003	15.294*	0.121*	−0.15
SG224	0.699	0.040	−0.021	0.221*	−0.002	7.683*	0.033	−0.545*
SG273	0.089	0.086	−0.122	−0.029	−0.003	−2.698	−0.029	0.377*
SE0.05	1.101	0.055	0.151	0.08	0.010	3.94	0.012	0.15
Females
SG266	0.001	−0.003	0.002	0.004	31.712*	0.001	0.001	0.003
SG276	−0.001	0.001	0.002	0.003	6.82	0.003	0.002	0.001
SG287	−0.004	−0.001	0.001	0.004	−38.532*	− 0.004	−0.001	−0.001
SE ^0.05	0.121	0.024	0.021	0.014	7.05	0.021	0.011	0.021
Progeny
SG287 × BE203	94.9	2.2	4.2	3.5	666.1	872.8	130.9	7.4
SG266 × SG224	96.2	2.3	3.6	3.8	702.8	789.4	113.6	5.3
SG287 × SG273	93.3	2.2	3.3	3.6	637.3	743.9	116.8	7.2
SG276 × SG224	92.8	2.4	3.7	3.7	670	738.3	109.9	7.3
SG276 × SG273	98.1	2.3	3.9	3	774.3	666.1	88.9	6
SG266 × BE203	107.9	2.3	3.8	3.3	837.5	610.6	73.4	6
SG276 × BE203	87.6	2.1	3.9	1.9	647.5	594.7	93.5	6.1
SG287 × SG224	94.6	2.1	3.3	3.3	624.1	577.8	93.3	5.4
SG266 × A2	79.5	2.1	3.6	2.4	715.6	563	78.9	8.6
SG276 × A2	92.2	2	3	2.6	710.5	528.3	74.7	8.1
SG287 × A2	85.2	1.9	3.4	2.9	645.5	490	76.8	5.9
SG266 × SG273	85.3	2.1	2.9	2.1	612.1	448	75.4	10.1
Mean	92.3	2.1	3.6	3	686.9	635.2	93.8	6.9
SED	5.2	0.21	0.77	0.51	42.95	106.1	16.8	0.49

^a SDI – Stem diameter increment, NS – North-South, EW – East- West. *, **, *** significantly different at p ≤ 0.05 and p ≤ 0.01

Table 4. Variance components from the performance of 12 cashew progenies derived from a factorial mating of three females and four males and evaluated at Wenchi from 2012 to 2017

Variance components	Height (m)	SDI (mm) (vegetative)	SDI (mm) (reproductive)	Canopy spread (NS)	Canopy spread (EW)	Nut weight (g)	Nut Yield (kgha-^1)	Cropping efficiency (g/cm^2/year)
σ^2m	0.014	9.18	0	0.07	0.099	0.43	1529.85	0.15
σ^2f	0	0	1851.64	0	0	0	0	0
σ^2(m x f)	0.015	29.33	1873.59	0.12	0.001	1.45	17438.69	3.34
σ^2A	0.101	150.1	13451.69	0.76	0.215	7.25	74953.53	13.85
σ^2D	0.058	117.3	7494.34	0.47	0.11	5.8	69754.75	13.38
σ^2A σ^2D	1.7	1.3	1.8	1.6	1.9	1.3	1.1	1.0
h^2n	0.59 ± 0.04	0.55 ± 0.02	0.62 ± 0.01	0.55 ± 0.02	0.57 ± 0.03	0.53 ± 0.07	0.51 ± 0.03	0.51 ± 0.07

^a SDI- Stem diameter Increment, NS – North-South, EW – East-West.

^bσ² (m) is the variance component due to males, σ²(f) is the variance component due to females, σ²(A) is the additive variance component, σ²(D) is the dominance variance component, and σ²A σ²D is the additive: dominance variance ratio, h²n is the narrow sense heritability.

Table 5. Pearson’s phenotypic correlation coefficients and significance test for survival, stem diameter increment, height, canopy spread, nut yield, cropping efficiency and nut weight among 12 cashew progenies evaluated at Wenchi from 2012 to 2017

Trait	Nut yield (kg ha-^1)	Canopy Spread (EW)	Canopy spread (NS)	Height (m)	Nut_ Weight (g)	SDI Reproductive (cm)	SDI Vegetative (cm)
Canopy spread -EW (m)	0.65*
Canopy spread -NS (m)	0.74**	0.27
Height (m)	0.68**	0.49	0.59*
Nut weight (g)	−0.31	−0.44	−0.50	−0.19
SDI reproductive(mm)	0.11	0.40	0.16	0.43	−0.25
SDI vegetative(mm)	0.44	0.34	0.60*	0.61*	−0.52	0.62*
Cropping efficiency(g/cm/year)	0.92***	0.47	0.64*	0.49	−0.21	−0.29	0.19

^a*, **, *** Significantly different at p ≤ 0.05 p ≤ 0.01and p ≤ 0.001. SDI – Stem diameter increment.

Adu-Gyamfi, P.K.K., M. Abu Dadzie, M. Barnor, A. Akpertey, A. Arthur, S. Osei-Akoto, A. Ofori, and F. Padi. 2019. Genetic variability and trait association studies in cashew (Anacardium occidentale L.). Sci. Hortic. 255:108–114. doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2019.05.023.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar