Hostname: page-component-669899f699-tzmfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-02T10:26:56.561Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nutritional characterization and identification of sweet tamarind (Tamarindus indica L.) accessions from the Bastar region of Chhattisgarh, India

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 December 2024

Kanupriya Chaturvedi Open the ORCID record for Kanupriya Chaturvedi [Opens in a new window] ,
Karunakaran G ,
G. C. Satisha ,
Pritee Singh ,
S. K. Nag  and
Prakash Kumar
Kanupriya Chaturvedi*
Affiliation:
ICAR-Indian Institute of Horticultural Research (IIHR), Hessarghatta Lake Post, Bengaluru, 560089, Karnataka, India
Karunakaran G
Affiliation:
ICAR-Indian Institute of Horticultural Research (IIHR), Hessarghatta Lake Post, Bengaluru, 560089, Karnataka, India
G. C. Satisha
Affiliation:
ICAR-Indian Institute of Horticultural Research (IIHR), Hessarghatta Lake Post, Bengaluru, 560089, Karnataka, India
Pritee Singh
Affiliation:
ICAR-Indian Institute of Horticultural Research (IIHR), Hessarghatta Lake Post, Bengaluru, 560089, Karnataka, India
S. K. Nag
Affiliation:
Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Bastar, Chhattisgarh
Prakash Kumar
Affiliation:
ICAR-Indian Agricultural Statistics Research Institute (IASRI), New Delhi, 110012, India
*
Corresponding author: Kanupriya Chaturvedi; Email: [email protected]; [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study aimed to explore the genetic variability present in tamarind fruits. A survey and collection of twenty-nine tamarind accessions from the Bastar region of Chhattisgarh was conducted, focusing on morphological traits, biochemical properties, and mineral content. The analysis revealed significant variation in fruit characteristics, including pod weight (91.1–528.3 g), pod length (4.11–15.39 cm), pulp weight (32.88–275.68 g), number of seeds (26–237), seed weight (23.14–214.08 g), pulp percentage (26.43–52.18%), vitamin C content (54.5–92 mg/100 g), phenolic content (51.53–296.4 mg GAE/g fw), flavonoid content (75.91–280.88 mg QE/ 100 g fw), acidity (5.3–12.60%), reducing sugars (24.67–68.29%), total sugars (24.89–78.87%), calcium (0.15–1.28%), and iron content (26.6–125.7 ppm) across different accessions. Based on the overall evaluation, five accessions B21, B26, B15, B25, and B7 with the best combination of desirable fruit traits, were identified as the most promising. Additionally, five sweet accessions with acidity levels below 6% were identified (B26, B21, B15, B12, B11). Principal component analysis (PCA) was applied, identifying five principal components that accounted for 86.73% of the total variability. Correlation analysis showed a significant positive relationship between pod weight and pulp weight (r = 0.93), shell weight (r = 0.70), number of seeds (r = 0.89), and seed weight (r = 0.89). The biplot of PC1 and PC2 illustrated the distribution of accessions across all four quadrants, with B27, B8, B26, B29, B14, B18, and B13 displaying distinct differences from one another.

Keywords

biochemicalcharacterizationcluster analysiscorrelationmineralssweet tamarindvariability
Type
Research Article
Information
Plant Genetic Resources , First View , pp. 1 - 10
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of National Institute of Agricultural Botany

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Awasthi, OP and Sharma, S (1998) Variability in tamarind. Kisan World 20, 60–64.Google Scholar
Benzie, IF and Strain, JJ (1996) The ferric reducing ability of plasma (FRAP) as a measure of “antioxidant power”: the FRAP assay. Analytical Biochemistry 239, 70–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chandel, R, Singh, S, Kumar, A, Taak, Y and Khar, A (2024) Genetic diversity of morphological, biochemical and mineral traits in Indian onion (Allium cepa) accessions. The Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 94, 632–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, HD and Pratt, PF (1961) Methods of Analysis for Soils, 220 pp. Plants and Water. Univeristy of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Chiveu, J, Naumann, M, Kehlenbeck, K and Pawelzik, E (2019) Variation in fruit chemical and mineral composition of Kenyan guava (Psidium guajava L.): inferences from climatic conditions, and fruit morphological traits. Journal of Applied Botany & Food Quality 92, 151–159.Google Scholar
DGCIS (2023) Directorate General of Commercial Intelligence and Statistics. Available at https://www.dgciskol.gov.in/data_information.aspxGoogle Scholar
Divakara, BN (2009) Variation and character association for various pulp biochemical traits in Tamarindus indica L. Indian Forester 135, 99.Google Scholar
El-Siddig, K, Gunasena, HPM, Prasad, BA, Pushpakumara, DKNG, Ramana, KVR, Viyayanand, P and Williams, JT (2006) Fruits for the future 1-revised edition-tamarind (Tamarindus indica L). Centre for Underutilized Crops, Monograph. 188p.Google Scholar
Fandohan, B, Assogbadjo, A, GlèlèKakaï, R, Kyndt, T and Sinsin, B (2011) Quantitative morphological descriptors confirm traditionally classified morphotypes of Tamarindus indica L. fruits. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 58, 299–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Food Data Central (2022) https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/167763/nutrients.Google Scholar
Gupta, AK, Mukherjee, SC, Nag, SK and Akhilesh, (2017) New record of Cryptophlebiaombrodelta (Tortricidae: lepidoptera) on Tamarind, Tamarindus indica in Bastar plateau zone of Chhattisgarh India. International Journal of Agriculture Innovations and Research 5, 694–696.Google Scholar
Hazarika, TK and Lalrinpui, (2020) Studies on Genetic diversity and selection of elite germplasm of local Tamarind from Mizoram. India Indian Journal of Horticulture 77, 246–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humphries, EC (1956) Mineral Components and Analysis. vol. I. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 468–502.Google Scholar
Kanupriya, C, Karunakaran, G, Singh, P, Venugopalan, R, Samant, D and Prakash, K (2024) Phenotypic diversity in Tamarindus indica L. sourced from different provenances in India. Agroforestry Systems 98, 477–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menon, JS, Asna, AC, Menon, MV, Pooja, A, Gopinath, PP and Singh, AK (2023). In situ characterization of tamarind (Tamarindus indica L.) fruit and spotting sweet tamarind types in Palakkad gap of Kerala. Plant Genetic Resources: Characterization and Utilization 21, 166–173. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1479262123000588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piper, CS (1966) Soil and Plant Analysis. New York: Inter Science Publications Inc., 368pp.Google Scholar
Ramakrishnan, U (2002) Prevalence of micronutrient malnutrition worldwide. Nutrition Reviews 60, S46–S52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sadasivam, S and Manickam, A (1992) Biochemical Method for Agricultural Sciences. New Delhi: Wiley Eastern Ltd., pp. 321–333.Google Scholar
Simbo, DJ, De Smedt, S, Van den Bilcke, N, De Meulenaer, B, Van Camp, J, Uytterhoeven, V, Tack, F and Samson, R (2013) Opportunities for domesticating the African baobab (Adansonia digitate L.): multi-trait fruit selection. Agroforestry Systems 87, 493–505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-012-9568-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, S, Singh, AK and Joshi, HK (2008) Genetic variability for floral traits and yield attributes in tamarind (Tamarindus indica L.). Indian Journal of Horticulture 65, 228–231.Google Scholar
Singh, P, Jyothi, J, Reddy, PVR and Shivashankara, KS (2018) Biochemical basis of host-plant resistance to shoot and fruit borer, Diaphaniacaesalis Wlk. in jackfruit (Artocarpus heterophyllus Lam.). Pest Management in Horticultural Ecosystems 24, 8–14. http://www.aapmhe.in/index.php/pmhe/article/view/814/728Google Scholar
Singh, P, Roy, TK, Kanupriya, C, Tripathi, PC, Kumar, P and Shivashankara, KS (2022) Evaluation of bioactive constituents of Garciniaindica (kokum) as a potential source of hydroxycitric acid, anthocyanin, and phenolic compounds. LWT 156, 112999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singleton, VL, Orthofer, RO and Lamuela-Raventos, RM (1999) Analysis of total phenols and other oxidation substrates and antioxidants by means of Folin-Ciocalteu reagent methods. Methods in Enzymology 299, 152–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skinner, DZ, Bauchan, GR, Auricht, G and Hughes, S (1999) A method for the efficient management and utilization of large germplasm collections. Crop Science 39, 1237–1242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Usha, K and Singh, B (1996) Influence of open and cross pollination on fruit set and retention in tamarind (Tamarindus indica L.). Recent Horticulture 3, 60–61.Google Scholar
Van den Bilcke, N, Alaerts, K, Ghaffaripour, S, Simbo, DJ and Samson, R (2014) Physico-chemical properties of tamarind (Tamarindus indica L.) fruits from Mali: selection of elite trees for domestication. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 61, 537–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhishen, J, Mengcheng, T and Jianming, WU (1999) The determination of flavonoid contents in mulberry and their scavenging effects on superoxide radicals. Food Chemistry 64, 555–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Chaturvedi et al. supplementary material

Chaturvedi et al. supplementary material
Download Chaturvedi et al. supplementary material(File)
File 2.4 MB