Printer Friendly

MORPHOLOGICAL CHARECTERIZATION OF KENAF (Hibiscus cannabinus L.) IN MALAYSIAN TROPICAL ENVIRONMENT USING MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS.

Byline: G. Faruq, M. A. Alamgir, M. M. Rahman, M. R. Motior, H. P. Zakaria, B. Marchalina and N. A. Mohamed

ABSTRACT

Kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus L.) is a green resource of natural fibre. But our understanding of genotypic characteristics and relationships between kenaf genotypes grown up in certain environmental condition is limited, which is important for effective kenaf breeding program for mass commercial production and fundamental need for utilization of this resource. Thirty two kenaf genotypes originated from different parts of the world were cultivated in open field of Malaysian tropical environment. A total of 15 morphological data were collected and multivariate analysis was used to identify the genetic variation among the genotypes. There were significant differences among the genotypes in fibre weight, days to 50% flowering and days to maturity. Principal component analysis showed that days to flowering, days to maturity, plant diameter and leaf shape were the traits responsible for major variation among the genotypes.

In cluster analysis different kenaf genotypes produce three distinct groups which can be used for selection of parents of in the breeding program. From total three clusters, high yielding late mature genotypes of the cluster 3 can be used to cross with middle flowering genotypes of cluster 2 to produce relatively photo insensitive variety with better fibre and stick yield in Malaysian tropical environment.

Key words: Kenaf, Characterization, Genotype, Cluster analysis, Principal Component Analysis.

INTRODUCTION

The Persian originate name "kenaf" is used to signify both the tall economic and horticultural important plant (Hibiscus cannabinus L.) with large showy flowers, characteristic of the Mallow family, and the bast fibre obtained from the stem of that plant (Crane and Acuna, 1945; Dempsey, 1975; Li, 1980). The annual plant kenaf is related to okra (Hibiscus esculentus), hollyhock (Althaea rosea) and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) (Scott and Taylor, 1988). It is a short-day, herbaceous plant and grows in tropical and temperate climates and thrives with abundant solar radiation and high rainfall.

In present world due to global environmental issues and inadequate raw fibre resources scientists have developed more important potential economic and environmental benefits of the utilization of kenaf in the areas of soil remediation, reduced soil erosion due to wind and water, toxic waste cleanup, removal of oil spills on water, replacement or reduced use of fibre glass in industrial products, the increased use of recycled plastics reduced chemical and energy use for paper production and greater recycled paper quality, (Webber et al. 2002). Now China, India, and Thailand accounts for 95% of world production of kenaf and in 2005-2006 total kenaf production was 0.33 million tons of which India, China and Thailand produced 42%, 25% and 11%, respectively, and the rest 22 % was produced by other countries of the world (FAO, 2006). Kenaf has received the greatest attention because of its greater adaptability and easy of handling than allied fibre crops.

Kenaf yields approximately three to five times as much fibre as southern pine (Lemahieu et al. 2003; Rymsza, 1999). In Malaysia, kenaf was first introduced in the early 1970s and was recognized as a potential alternative fibrous material for the production of panel products such as fibre board and particle board in the late 1990s (Abdul Khalil et al. 2010). Factors that affect kenaf fibre yield include adaptability to the cultivated area, rainfall, temperature, soil type, fertility etc (Dempsey, 1975). To cultivate kenaf on a commercial scale in Malaysian tropical environment it is necessary to evaluate the available kenaf genotypes in terms of morphological and agronomic characters. Moreover, identification of genetic relationship and to study genetic diversity is one of the most important factors for selection of genotypes for effective breeding program.

Therefore, the present research was aimed on morphological characterization of kenaf genotypes for identification genetic variation and to aid in selection to establish useful kenaf breeding program in Malaysia.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The research was conducted during the period from November, 2010 to February, 2011 at the experimental field of Genetics and Molecular Biology, Institute of Biological Science, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The experimental site was situated in the tropical climate zone with frequent rain (ranged from 165 to 250 mm) and located at 3.20deg N, 101.40degE with elevation of 22 m from sea level. Thirty- two genotypes of kenaf belonging to different sources of origin were collected from Bangladesh Jute Research Institute (BJRI) Gene Bank, through IJSG (International Jute Study Group), Dhaka, Bangladesh. The origins of genotypes are given in Table 1.

The experiment was laid out in a Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) with three replications. Each experimental plot was 2.5 m long and 2.0 m wide, with 6 rows of 40 cm apart and plant to plant distance of 10 cm, giving a gross plot area of 5.0 m2. Plot to plot distance was 1 m. The land was prepared for sowing by four ploughing and cross-ploughing ploughing and levelled by laddering. To drain the excess rain water field, a drainage channel was dug around the plots. The plots were fertilized with the N2, P2O5, and K2O at the rate of 122, 122, and 144 kg ha-1, respectively. One-third of N2 and whole of other fertilizes were broadcasted during the time of final land preparation and two-third of urea was top dressed in two equal splits at 20 and 35 days after sowing. Two seeds were planted per hill (planting hole) and plots were weeded three times at 15, 30 and 45 days after sowing. After sowing no irrigation was required for the crops.

To adjust the population density in different plots thinning of kenaf plant was done to maintain a plant to plant distance approximately 10 cm. According to the level of infestation and infection insect- pests and disease control measures were adopted.

Morphological data were collected from ten randomly selected plants from each unit plot. The height was measured from the ground level to the top of the plants. The Basal diameter was measured by a slide calliper at 15 cm above the base of the plants. The fibre and stick yields were recorded from the whole individual line. Kenaf fibres were extracted from the kenaf plants by retting process after cutting at the ground level. A pond of 1.5 m depth was used to allow kenaf bundle to float. After completion of proper retting, fibre was stripped from stick manually and washed in clean water to ensure fibre quality. The fibre was dried by direct sunshine for 4-5 days and to ensure proper dryness fibre was observed by 'hand touch'. The fibre bundles were assorted plot wise, tagged with labels and weighed. To get sticks weight stick yields were recorded from the whole individual line and were dried continuously for seven days.

Analysis of variance and assortment of significant means (New Duncan's Multiple Range Test) was carried out following the procedures (DMRT) as narrated by Gomez and Gomez (1983). Correlation studies were conducted by determining Pearson's correlation coefficient (Best and Roberts, 1975; Hollander and Wolfe, 1973) which corresponds to the classical linear correlation coefficient whose value ranges from -1 to 1 and measures the degree of linear correlation between two traits. For Principal Component Analysis (PCA) analysis Pearson's correlation which has the advantage of giving positive semi-defined matrices was used. Clustering was done by Agglomerative Hierarchical Clustering following Ward's (1963) method which aggregates two groups so that within-group inertia increases as little as possible to keep the clusters homogeneous. The statistical programs used for the analysis were SAS 9.2 and XLSTAT Version 2011.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

To identify the significant differences among traits of 32 kenaf genotypes 15 morphological data was collected and analysis of variance was performed (Table 2, Table 3). The result of New Duncan's Multiple Range Test (DMRT) (Table 4) showed that there were significant differences among the genotypes in all traits including plant height (PH), base diameter (BD), core diameter (CD), middle diameter (MD), top diameter (TD), number of nodes (NN), leaf length (LL), leaf width (LW),leaf angel (LA), petal length (PL), days to 50% flowering (DF),(Days to maturity (DM), green weight with leaves and fruit (GW), stick weight (SW) and Fibre weight (FW) (P (less than) 0.001). The different genotypes were collected from different parts of globes, therefore many factors such as variation in planting date, plant maturity period, length of growing season, photosensitivity may affect the kenaf yield and made the wide variability of different traits among the genotypes (Webber and Bledsoe, 2002).

The middle diameter was relatively stable phenotypic trait for all the kenaf genotypes and Cheng et al. (2002) proposed it for the identification of different kenaf varieties. The significant differences for DF and DM among kenaf genotypes had the similarity with the observation of Golam et al. (2011) and Balogun et al. (2008), where they observed significant variations in days of flowering among kenaf varieties while planted in Malaysian tropical and African arid environment respectively.

The correlation analysis showed different level of relationship among the traits and PH, BD, CD, MD, GW, SW were significantly and positively correlated (Table 5). FW had highly significant positive correlation with PH, BD, CD, MD, NN, DF, DM GW, SW and non significant positive correlation TD, LW, LL, LA. Similar pattern of relationship was observed with GW and SW with the other traits, except SW had non-significant positive correlation with DF and negative correlation with LA. GW and SW had high positive correlation with PH, BD, CD and NN but non-significant negative correlation with DF and DM. DF and DM had highly significant positive correlation with BD, CD, MD and FW. They had non-significant positive correlation with PH and negative correlation with LL, LW. Balogun et al. (2008) also reported similar results. PL had non- significant positive correlation with DF and negative correlation with DM.

The positive correlation of FW with DF, DM, BD, CD, NN and negative correlation of PL with DM suggest the fibre yield per plant may be reduced by early maturity because early flowering and maturity causes short plants with shorter internodes and petiole lengths. Webber et al. (2002) had reported that initiation of flowering reduced the vegetative growth of the plant. SW had significant positive correlation with DM. Webber (1993) also reported that the length of the growing season has influence in stick yield.

Table 1. Origin and code of 32 different kenaf genotypes (Entries).

Sr. no###Entry###BJRI Code###Origin###Sl no###Entry###BJRI Code Origin

1###E1###1565###Bangladesh###17###E34###4338###Tanzania

2###E69###5014###China###18###E35###4732###Tanzania

3###E2###1583###USA###19###E18###3745###Kenya

4###E38###4372###Sudan###20###E39###4391,###Guatemala

5###E6###1624###Iran###21###E40###4404###USSR

6###E8###1653###Iran###22###E45###4433###France

7###E9###1662###Uganda###23###E46###4435###France

8###E11###1691###USA###24###E47###4436###France

9###E65###4895###China###25###E49###4442###Costa Rica

10###E14###2731###Bangladesh###26###E57###4634###Thailand

11###E22###3778###Kenya###27###E30###4264###Tanzania

12###E26###4136###Kenya###28###E64###4769###Kenya

13###E28###4198###Kenya###29###E68###4980###Pakistan

14###E29###4202###Tanzania###30###E73###5069###Nepal

15###E75###5084###Nepal###31###E27###4197###Kenya

16###E32###4284###Tanzania###32###E13###1985###Unknown

Table 2. Mean values, minimum, maximum, ranges, standard deviation and coefficients of variation, F value from 15 quantitative traits of 32 genotypes of kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus L.).

Traits###PH###BD###CD###MD###TD###NN###LL###LW###LA###PL###DF###DM###GW###SW###FW

Mean###157.39###9.89###8.64###6.75###3.53###31.35###9.14###7.81###63.90###7.52###50.64###50.65###109.10###13.37###3.22

Std Dev###36.69###2.27###2.15###1.25###0.89###7.92###1.34###1.48###5.29###1.19###5.26###5.43###52.43###5.17###1.65

Minimum###77.33###5.04###4.02###4.05###2.03###15.90###6.75###2.13###54.00###5.00###40.00###39.00###27.00###5.01###1.33

Maximum###213.22###14.59###13.24###9.45###5.78###52.77###12.40###10.50###75.00###10.90###70.00###66.00###229.00###26.00###9.55

Range###135.89###9.55###9.22###5.40###3.75###36.87###5.65###8.37###21.00###5.90###30.00###27.00###202.00###20.99###8.22

CV###16.09###16.27###15.76###11.01###17.23###16.81###8.76###14.07###6.06###11.76###5.29###4.67###29.4###23###24

F value###4.17###3.85###5.30###6.30###4.31###4.63###6.17###3.33###3.49###3.32###9.2###14###5.8###5.78###10

PH =Plant height (cm), BD =Base diameter (mm), CD =Core diameter (mm), MD =Middle diameter (mm), TD= Top diameter (mm), NN =Number of nodes,

DF =50% Flowering date (Days), DM =Days of maturity, LL= leaf length (cm), LW =leaf width (cm), LA= Leaf angel (cm) PL =Petal length (mm), GW=Green weight with leaves and fruit (gm), SW= Stick weight (gm), FW = Fibre weight (gm).

Table 3. Means squares of sources of variation of 15 quantitative traits of 32 germplasm of kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus L.).

Source###DF###PH###BD###CD###MD###TD###NN###DF###DM###LL###LW###LA###PL###GW###SW###FW

###2822.58 8.71###8.52 2.45 1.47 131.52 62.83 78.85###3.68 4.03 54.28 2.55 6336.89###59.53 6.66

Genotypes###31

Error###64###630.71 3.43###2.74 1.15 0.47 29.45###10.62 5.60###0.88 1.29 15.30 0.86 1010.32###10.86 0.80

Corrected

Total###95

Table 4.Means of the quantitative traits of 32 genotypes of kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus L.).

Genotype###PH###BD###CD###MD###TD###NN###LL###LW

E69###212.13a###9.055###8.33b-d###5.865d-g###4.1a-f###30c-f###10.125a-e###9.8ab

E65###207.72a-b###10.52b-e###9.677b-c###6.545a-g###4.4183a-e###34.65b-e###11.135a###9.11a-c

E49###200.5a-c###11.78ab###9.91b-c###6.03d-g###2.42h-i###39.335b-c###7.585g###6.14g

E38###190.17a-d###11.13a-d###10.005a-c###6.855a-f###3.62b-i###38b-d###8.75b-g###7.015c-g

E29###189.97a-d###10.875a-d###10.025a-c###7.395a-e###3.05d-i###37.5b-d###10.575a-c###9.20a-c

E57###185.5a-d###11.205a-d###10.535a-b###7.385a-f###2.735f-i###34.835b-e###9.775a-e###10a

E32###184.75a-d###10.952a-d###9.382b-d###7.2083a-f###3.2883c-i###33.167b-f###11.1333a###9.116a-c

E28###180.5a-f###10.345b-e###10.025a-c###6.895a-f###3.06d-i###34.835b-e###9.575a-f###7.375c-g

E68###175.34a-f###9.2b-f###10.025a-c###6.94a-f###4.9467a-b###32.165b-f###11.075a###9.025a-d

E64###174.83a-f###11.14a-d###9.55b-d###7.725a-d###4.635a-c###33.335b-f###10.25a-d###8.1a-f

E2###174.67a-f###11.72a-c###9.87b-c###7.73a-d###5.0567a###52.332a###8.3f-g###7.24c-g

E35###174.33a-f###9.9b-e###8.737b-d###6.91a-f###3.415c-i###34.665b-e###8.925b-g###7.7b-g

E9###168.33a-g###14.39a###13.04a###8.57a###4.23a-e###41.165b###9.225b-g###7.325c-g

E13###164a-g###9.995b-e###6.23d-e###6.815a-g###3.115d-i###29c-g###9.45a-f###8.525a-e

E18###159.84b-h###9.885b-e###8.31b-d###6.245c-g###3.04e-i###29c-g###8.725c-g###7.575b-g

E30###158.25b-h###10.425b-e###9.075b-d###6.865a-f###3.725a-h###31.5b-f###10.6a-b###7.6b-g

E46###157.69c-h###8.235b-f###7.405b-e###6.775a-g###3.22d-i###30.165c-f###8.725c-g###7.8a-g

E27###157.08c-h###11.03###9.27b-d###6.645a-g###3.145d-i###31.335b-f###9.665a-e###8.615a-d

E39###154c-h###11.055a-d###9.195b-d###7.22a-f###3.73a-h###32.67b-f###8.525d-g###6.8d-g

E26###152.17c-h###10.69b-d###9.54b-d###7.37a-f###3.365c-i###29.71c-g###9b-g###7.875a-f

E45###141.25d-i###9.68b-e###9.02b-d###6.975a-f###3.9a-g###29.585c-g###7.4583g###6.925

E6###141.13d-i###8.01c-f###7.5b-e###5.255e-g###2.56g-i###27.5d-g###7.7417f-g###6.325e-g

E47###140.26d-i###9.2b-f###8.35b-d###8.45a-b###3.7b-h###26.165e-h###9.45a-f###8.45a-e

E75###138.34e-i###10.525###9.125b-d###6.71a-g###4.435a-e###25e-h###9.5a-f###8.96a-d

E1###138.21e-i###11.48a-d###10.185a-b###8.36a-c###4.01a-f###33.165b-f###7.45g###5.55g

E34###137.34e-i###8.035b-f###6.762c-e###6.2d-g###3.73a-h###27.135d-g###9.05b-g###8.35a-f

E40###134.17f-i###8.45b-f###6.795c-e###5.225f-g###3.0517d-i###24.625e-h###9.45a-f###8.975a-d

E11###134.16f-i###8.205b-f###7.695b-e###6.385b-g###2.73f-i###27.5d-g###8.325f-g###7.125c-g

E14###119.75g-j###6.875e-f###4.537e###5.7533d-g###2.285i###23.5f-h###7.5g###6.275e-g

E8###114.04h-j###9.105b-f###7.54b-e###6.04d-g###3.355c-i###34b-f###8.375f-g###8.025a-f

E73###97.84i-j###7.747d-f###7.357b-e###6.05d-g###3.8217a-g###19.165g-h###9.475a-f###7.575b-g

E22###78.17j###5.625f###5.047e###4.7083g###3.2d-i###16.5h###7.45g###5.56g

Significant at 1% probability level. Means with the same letter within the same column are not significantly different PH =Plant height (cm), BD =Base diameter (mm), CD =Core diameter (mm), MD =Middle diameter (mm), TD= Top diameter (mm), NN =Number of nodes, DF =50% Flowering date (Days), DM =Days of maturity, LL= leaf length (cm), LW =leaf width (cm).

Continuation Table 4

Genotype###LA###PL###DF###DM###GW###SW###FW

E69###60e-h###8.075a-d###41.333i###41n###92.5e-j###17a-b###3.795b-f

E65###65a-g###9.56a###48d-h###43m-n###129.66b-e###14.355b-e###3.56b-g

E49###66a-f###5.9167g-i###46.5e-i###49.5h-k###177.5ab###18.845a-b###4.16b-d

E38###72.5a###6.94d-i###48.5d-h###55.167b-f###203a###22.343a###4.1b-e

E29###60e-h###8.47a-d###55.5a-c###53d-h###128.8b-e###19.165a-b###4.665b

E57###61d-h###8.125a-d###47e-i###47.167i-m###130.8a-e###14.5b-e###4.135

E32###64.167b-g###8.59a-d###52b-f###50.167h-j###99.66d-j###15.54b-c###4.061b-e

E28###62.5c-h###7.855a-g###53b-e###50.667g-j###115.5c-g###10.2c-h###3.125b-i

E68###61d-h###9.225ab###47.5d-i###44.5l-n###111.59c-h###18.665a-b###4.26bc

E64###57.5g-h###8.15a-d###48.5d-h###49.167h-k###145.13a-d###19.33a-b###3.835b-f

E2###61d-h###8.875a-c###52.5b-f###57b-d###166.5a-c###14.67b-e###3.835b-f

E35###57.5g-h###6.9d-i###50.5c-h###52f-g###116.2c-g###15.67b-c###2.935b-i

E9###70a-c###7.8917a-f###46.417f-i###64.667a###203.06a###19.165a-b###9.4833a

E13###65a-g###7.75a-h###47.5d-i###48.5h-l###110.3c-h###13.765b-f###2.585d-i

E18###56h###7.275c-i###53b-e###52.5e-h###94.1d-j###16b-c###2.35e-i

E30###62.5c-h###7.875a-f###54b-d###50h-k###51.63i-j###15.29b-d###4.2083b-d

E46###67.5a-e###6.9d-i###51.5c-h###50.333h-j###77.6e-i###13b-f###3.335b-i

E27###66a-f###8.125a-d###55.833a-c###55c-g###110.34c-h###15.335b-d###2.47d-i

E39###58.5f-h###7.2c-i###61.5a###58.667b-c###132.8a-e###12.82b-g###3.335b-h

E26###62.5c-h###7.475b-i###61a###60.167b###109c-h###14.34b-f###3.805b-f

E45###65a-g###7.225c-i###55.5a-c###51.667f-i###108.9c-h###13.562b-f###2.86c-i

E6###71a-b###6.025f-i###50c-h###48.5h-l###50.1###7.065g-h###1.865g-i

E47###72.5a###7.3c-i###48d-h###46.167j-m###105.59c-i###7.5f-h###2.45d-i

E75###63.5b-h###8.21a-d###45.5g-i###43.5m-n###199.5a###7.515f-h###2g-i

E1###67.5a-e###5.825i###58a-b###56.5b-e###45.42j###15.25b-d###3.185b-i

E34###60e-h###7.98a-d###50.5c-h###49.5h-k###77e-i###10.33c-h###1.83g-i

E40###63.5b-h###7.125c-i###48.5d-h###49.5h-k###52.2i-j###8.29e-h###1.915g-i

E11###63.5b-h###7.015c-i###52b-f###52.167e-h###76.98e-j###6.665g-h###1.6183h-i

E14###67.5a-e###6.05f-i###49d-h###48.667h-l###54.47g-j###9d-h###2.1f-i

E8###68.5a-d###7.175c-i###51c-h###46.667i-m###118.97c-f###10.085c-h###2.09

E73###63.5b-h###7.1c-i###46f-i###50.167h-j###58.68f-j###6.83g-h###1.4633i

E22###62.5c-h###6.575e-i###45h-i###45.5k-m###37.74j###5.883h###1.5i

Significant at 1% probability level. Means with the same letter within the same column are not significantly different . LA= Leaf angel (cm) PL =Petal length (mm), GW=Green weight with leaves and fruit (gm), SW= Stick weight (gm), FW = Fibre weight (gm).

Table 5. Pearson correlation matrix for 15 morpo-agronomic traits of 32 different kenaf genotypes.

Traits PH###BD###CD###MD###TD###NN###DF###DM###LL###LW###LA###PL###GW###SW###FW

PH###1

BD###0.69###1

CD###0.64###0.89###1

MD###0.43###0.76###0.75###1

TD###0.02###0.77###0.47###0.41###1

NN###0.79###0.78###0.58###0.57###0.20###1

DF###0.03###0.57###0.53###0.51###0.10###0.36###1

DM###0.14###0.52###0.50###0.37###0.11###0.39###0.73###1

LL###0.53###0.27###0.35###0.27###0.32###0.12###-0.08###-0.11###1

LW###0.47###0.18###0.23###0.18###0.18###0.08###-0.23###-0.23###0.83###1

LA###-0.17###0.03###0.00###0.06###-0.20###-0.02###0.17###0.39###-0.25###-0.25###1

PL###0.50###0.57###0.41###0.34###0.51###0.36###0.02###-0.07###0.82###0.75###-0.34###1

GW###0.56###0.78###0.65###0.53###0.32###0.67###0.35###0.55###0.18###0.22###0.09###0.37###1

SW###0.79###0.68###0.69###0.53###0.20###0.70###0.26###0.41###0.35###0.27###-0.15###0.34###0.58###1

FW###0.55###0.73###0.77###0.58###0.35###0.66###0.71###0.65###0.31###0.15###0.07###0.33###0.59###0.75###1

Significant at 5%, Significant at 1% probability levels. PH =Plant height (cm), BD =Base diameter (mm), CD =Core diameter (mm), MD =Middle diameter (mm), TD= Top diameter (mm), NN =Number of nodes, DF =50% Flowering date (Days), DM =Days of maturity, LL= leaf length (cm), LW =leaf width (cm), LA=leaf angle (cm),PL=Petal length (mm), GW=Green weight with leaves and fruit (gm), SW= Stick weight (gm), FW =Fibre weight (gm).

Table 6. The eigenvalues of the correlation matrix for 15 quantitative traits of 32 kenaf genotypes.

###Principal component 1

Characters###First (6.94; 46.27 %)###Second (3.04; 20.24 %)###Third (1.23; 8.17 %)

Plant height###0.300###-0.124###-0.235

Base diameter###0.345###0.134###-0.026

Core diameter###0.341###0.111###-0.025

Middle diameter###0.294###0.151###0.231

Top diameter###0.210###-0.116###0.284

Node number###0.314###0.130###-0.152

Days to 50% flowering###0.240###-0.369###0.174

Days to maturity###0.201###-0.434###0.163

Leaf length###-0.015###0.241###-0.391

Leaf width###0.268###-0.322###0.183

Leaf angle###0.065###0.364###0.575

Petal length###0.130###0.506###0.230

Green weight###0.276###0.027###-0.322

Stick weight###0.297###0.056###-0.165

(1 values in the parentheses correspond to the eigenvalues and proportion of the total variation accounted for each component).

Table 7. Means and numbers of the 32 kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus L.) genotypes forming three clusters.

Cluster###NA###PH###BD###CD###MD###TD###NN###DF###DM###LL###LW###LA###PL###GW###SW###FW

1###11###132.44###8.45###7.33###6.16###3.27###26.34###47###49###8.59###7.15###64.09###6.89###61.44###10.32###2.30

2###16###169.24###10.24###9.00###7.02###3.62###32.35###50###52###9.65###8.46###62.92###7.95###116.92###14.48###3.37

3###5###174.39###11.91###10.39###7.18###3.95###39.16###53###56###8.60###7.34###66.60###7.56###189.91###16.50###4.71

NA= Number of accession, Means with the same letter within the same column are not significantly different. PH =Plant height (cm), BD =Base diameter (mm), CD =Core diameter (mm), MD =Middle diameter (mm), TD= Top diameter (mm), NN =Number of nodes, DF =50% Flowering date (Days), DM =Days of maturity, LL= leaf length (cm), LW =leaf width (cm), LA=leaf angle (cm), PL =Petal length (mm), GW=Green weight with leaves and fruit (gm), SW= Stick weight (gm), FW = Fibre weight (gm).

Principal component analysis (PCA) by using Pearson correlation coefficient revealed total 15 PCA components for total variation of 32 kenaf genotypes by using 15 morphological traits. First three components had the eigenvalues greater than 1 and explain 74.69 % of the total variation (Fig. 1; Table 6). The first component of PCA analysis explained 46.28 % of total variation and includes plant height, base diameter, core diameter, middle diameter, stick weight and fibre weight. Therefore, variation of the first PCA component could be explained by plant height and plant diameter (BD, CD, MD), number of nodes and major yield traits of kenaf plants which includes the fibre weight. The second component explained 20.24 % of total variation and includes 50% flowering days, days of maturity, petal length, leaf width, leaf length and leaf angle. Therefore, the second component could be denoted by plant developmental stages (DF, DM), petal length and leaf area (LW, LL, LA).

The third component describes only 8.17 % of the variation including top diameter. Three- group pattern was observed against a scatter plot by the first two major components which accounted for 66.52 % of the total variation (Fig. 2). Therefore, based on PCA analysis with 15 morpho-agronomic traits from 32 kenaf genotype from different source of origin can approximately divided into three groups.

More specific grouping of the kenaf was obtained by Agglomerative Hierarchical Cluster (AHC) analysis and to measure the distance within the cluster and the genotype, dendogram was created following Ward (1963). It produced three major clusters showing distance within the genotype by forming clusters with more homogenous group (Fig. 3, Table 7). From total 32 kenaf genotypes, Cluster 1, 2 and 3 contained 11, 16, and 5 genotypes, respectively. The low fibre and stick yield producing early maturing genotypes were in cluster 1 and contained genotype E1, E6, E11, E14, E22, E34, E18, E40, E46, E30 and E73. Cluster 2 contained genotype E69, E8, E65, E26, E28, E29, E32, E35, E39, E45, E47, E57, E64, E68, E27, E13 and was characterized by middle fibre weight, plant height and diameter.

The high fibre and stick weight producing late flowering genotypes E2, E38, E9, E75 and E49 were in cluster 3. Cheng et al. (2002) and Balogun et al. (2008) reported the effect of flowering in the formation of different clusters in kenaf. Similar result was also obtained in our experiment. Late flowering and matured genotype belongs to the cluster 3. The early flowered and matured genotypes were in cluster 1 and those flowering and maturing at intermediate time was in the cluster 2. The maturity period has been reported to be an indication of sensitivity of kenaf varieties to photoperiod, later maturing varieties being photo-insensitive relative to early maturing when planted in the tropics (Webber et al. 2002).

In our investigations, the candidate kenaf genotypes for better fibre yield were grouped under cluster 3 but late matured and photo-insensitive, while intermediate flowerings genotypes were grouped under cluster 2 and they are relatively photo-sensitive. So it is suggested that for potential cross can be made between the genotypes of cluster 3 and cluster 2 to get relatively photo insensitive variety with better fibre yield.

Conclusion: Fibre weight (FW) is the key parameter of kenaf yield and in the present investigation significant differences in fibre weight were observed among the genotypes. Significant positive correlations were also observed between fibre weight (FW) and other traits such plant height (PH), base diameter (BD), core diameter (CD), middle diameter (MD), number of nodes (NN), days to 50% flowering (DF), days to maturity (DM), green weight with leaves and fruit (GW) and stick weight (SW). Total 74.68 % of the variation was explained by the first three principal components. Plant diameters (BD, CD, TD), developmental stages (DF, DM) and leaf area (LW, LL, LA) were mostly prejudiced by the major components. The three major cluster contained different photosensitive genotypes along with high yielding potential ones. The study of genetic diversity of different kenaf genotype explores the relationships between the genotypes which are in need for production, conservation and utilization of this green resource.

It will be very useful for varietal improvement of kenaf in Malaysian tropical environment by selecting genotype with different genetic backgrounds. This information will facilitate efficient breeding programs for better yielding adaptive verities to promote better environment with raw fibre resource.

REFERENCES

Abdul, K., H. P. S., I. Yusra, A. F., A.H. Bhat, and M. Jawaid (2010). Cell wall ultra structure, anatomy, lignin distribution, and chemical composition of Malaysian cultivated kenaf fiber. Ind. Crop Prod. 31(1): 113-121.

Balogun, M. O., J. A. Raji and S. R. Akande (2008). Morphological characterization of 51 kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus L.) accessions in Nigeria. Revista UDO Agricola 8 (1): 23-28.

Best D. J. and D. E. Roberts (1975). Algorithm AS 89: The Upper Tail Probabilities of Spearman's rho. J. Appl. Stat. 24: 377-379.

Cheng, Z. B., L. Lu, B. S. Baldwin, K. Sameshima and J. K. Chen (2002). Comparative studies of genetic diversity in kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus L.) varieties based on agronomic and RAPD data. Hereditas. 136 (3): 231-239.

Crane, J. C., and J. B. Acuna (1945). Effect of plant spacing and time of planting on seed yield of kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus L.). Agron. J. 37: 969-977.

Dempsey, J. M. (1975). Fiber crops. The University Presses of Florida, Gainesville. F. A. O. (2006). Jute, Kenaf, Sisal, Aabaca, Coir and Allied Fibers Statistics. http://www.fao.org/ es/esc/en/ 20953/21005/highlight_51023en.html.

Golam F., M. A. Alamgir, M. M. Rahman, B. Subha and M. R. Motior (2011). Evaluation of genetic variability of kenaf (Hibiscus cannabinus L.) from different geographic origins using morpho- agronomic traits and multivariate analysis. Aust. J. Crop Sci. 5(13): 1882-1890.

Gomez, K. A. and A. A. Gomez (1983). Statistical Procedures for Agriculture Research. 2nd edition, paperback, pp: 680.

Hollander M. and D. A. Wolfe (1973). Nonparametric Statistical Methods. New York: John Wiley and Sons. pp: 185-194.

Lemahieu, P. J., E. S. Oplinger and D. H. Putnam (2003). Kenaf. In: Alternative Field crops Manual. http://www.corn.agronomy.wisc.edu/FISC/Alter natives /Kenaf.htm.

Li, Z. D. (1980). Kenaf. In: Theory and technology of fiber crops (in Chinese) (Ed.). Scientific and Technological Press, Shanghai, pp: 541-595.

Rymsza, T. A. (1999). Utilization of Kenaf raw materials. Paper presented to the Forest Products Society. Boise, Idaho. June 30, 1999.

Scott, A. W. Jr. and C. S. Taylor (1988). Economics of kenaf production in the lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas. Paper presented at National Symposium on New Crops, Indianapolis, IN, Oct. 23-26, pp: 292-297.

Ward, J. H. (1963). Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 58: 238-244.

Webber, C. L. (1993). Yield components of five kenaf cultivars. Agron. J. 85(3): 533-535.

Webber C. L. III. and V. K. Bledsoe (2002). Kenaf yield components and plant components. In: Janick, J., A. Whipkey (Eds.) Trends in New Crops and New Use. ASHS Press, Alexandria, VA, pp: 348-357.

Webber, C. L., H. L, Bhardwaj, and V. K. Bledsoe (2002). Kenaf Production: Fibre, Feed and Seed. In: Janick, J., A. Whipkey (Eds.), Trends in new crops and new uses. ASHS Press, Alexandria, VA, pp: 327-339.

Genetics and Molecular Biology, Institute of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Malaya, 50603, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Haji Mohamad Danesh Science and Technology University, Bangladesh Rice and Industrial Crops Research Centre, Malaysian Agricultural Research Development Institute, 16800, Pasir Puteh, Kelantan, Malaysia

Corresponding author e-mail: faruq@um.edu.my/faruqwrc@gmail.com
COPYRIGHT 2013 Asianet-Pakistan
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2013 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Publication:Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences
Geographic Code:9MALA
Date:Mar 31, 2013
Words:5376
Previous Article:THE EFFECT OF AQUEOUS GARLIC EXTRACT AND CHROMIUM CHLORIDE COMPLEMENT ON TISSUE ANTI OXIDANT SYSTEM OF MALE RATS.
Next Article:EFFECT OF POULTRY DROPPINGS ON WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS IN INDIAN MAJOR CARP PONDS.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters