Fruit yield, fatty and essential oils content genetics in coriander

K Mostafa, D Hamid, JJ Mokhtar, CT Jack
Industrial Crops and Products, 2016


ABSTRACT:

Some regions of the world suffers of drought which affects plant behavior regarding biochemical and yield responses. This study aimed to estimate the general and specific combining abilities of coriander (Coriandrum sativum L.) by analyzing its fruit yield, essential oil content (EOC) and fatty oil content (FOC). To reach this aim, 15 half-diallel hybrids and their six parents, selected for their different response to water stress in fruit yield, essential oil and fatty oil content were evaluated under well-watered, moderate water-stressed and severe water-stressed conditions in the field and in glasshouse cultivation systems. Fruit yield in the field (FYF) and glasshouse (FYG), percent of de-hulled fruit, percent of hulls, EOC, essential oil yield (EOY), de-hulled fruit fatty oil content (DFFOC), hull fatty oil content (HFOC), fatty oil content (FOC) and fatty oil yield (FOY) were examined. Water treatment (WT), genotype and genotype × WT effects were significant (P ≤ 0.01) for all measured traits. For FYF, gene action was mostly additive while dominance was more important for FYG. Genotypes gained different EOC and FOC in different WTs. Genetic control of the EOC was affected by water stress and the portion of dominance in gene action increased as water stress progressed leading to completely dominant genetic control of EOC under severe water stress. For FOC and FOY genetic control was governed by dominant and over dominant gene nature in all WTs. Parents including P1, P4 and P6 were indicated as promising hybrid contributors for high EOC, DFFOC and FOY. Similar genetic control mechanisms of the EOC, EOY, FOC and FOY suggests that improvement of essential oil content and fatty oil content could be simultaneously achieved in coriander.

CITATION:

K Mostafa, D Hamid, JJ Mokhtar, CT Jack . Fruit yield, fatty and essential oils content genetics in coriander. Ind Crop Prod. 2016;94:72-81.


[maxbutton id=”2188″]