3. Observation

3.1. General characteristics of coconut ecotypes

A detailed description of the morphological and physiological

characteristics of the eco-types and WCT selected for the study, under the

field condition is given in this section under different sub-headings.

Ecotypes selected under the study are listed in the chapter 'Materials and

Methods' (Section 2.1).

In general, ecotypes exhibited wide variability in all the characteristics.

A comparative statement of the morphological characteristics of the

ecotypes is given in table 3.1. Morphological data of individual palms under

each ecotypes and WCT are given in Annexure III to X I . - , , ., ..4

3.2. Morphological Characteristics (Pl. 3.la., 3.2a., 3.3a., 3.4a., 3.5a., 3.6aa,3.7a., 3.8a., 3.9a. and3.10a.)

3.2.1. Height

The ecotypes selected under the present study except Komadan and

CGD have not so far been subjected to similar type of study and are sparsely

distributed. It was found difficult to locate palms of same age group and

hence available palms in different locations were selected for the study. The

age of the palms selected for the study ranged from 10 to 50 and with this - ., ., - . ,

\ . - I

wide range in age, comparison of the height of the palms has got limitations.., -. . . I.

-. , .

However, data was recorded and tabulated. The height of the palms varied

from 12 rn to 29 m among the tall ecotypes and the variation is attributed to 4

the variation in age. CGD was only with lrn height. The height of WCT

varied from lorn to 15.2m. Among the ecotypes the height was more in

Elite Tall and Komadan (23.5m and 29m respectively) (Table 3.1 .)

Table.3.1. Morphological Characteristics of coconut ecotypes selected under the study

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

No. of nuts

Bunches with button

Bunches with nuts

Color of fruits

Shape of nut

Length of fruit (cm)

Breadth of fruit (cm) .

No- of unopened inflorescence

28.0

9.0

4.2

p 2 0 - d d

18.6 4

12.6

3.0

24.2

8.9

3.6

a E FP! 0" -

8 , 3

22.9

15.6

3.3

27.4

8.0

3.7

= f 2 J

2 196

15.4

2.6

3 2 - 9 4 2 2 . 0 g o 5

4 7 1

C

2 (3

-0 C 3

2 I a n 2

1 2 n 8

3.1

/'25.5

4.8</

4.4L/ t a3 p! 0,

- $ 8 5

19.6

12.8

2.8

9 . 9 v

3.8 C

Z C3

-

20.9

14.7

2.9

/ g o J

6.3 , 2b2J C Q)

B 'D c

21.8 i

1 7 . 4 1

33.0'

23.3

8.3

3.2 C

" z 3

2 /20.1 r

13.8

2.6

14.5

8.2

3.5 c

I e ! C3

- m B

21.1

14.6

3.0

18.1

8.0

3.2 C

C3

z a

g 21.3

17.4

2.4

The annual increment in stem height was significantly different

among the ecotypes, which again is attributed to the difference in age.

Among the ecotypes the annual increment in stem height was more in King

Coconut (62cm) followed by Kuttiyadi Tall (60cm) the lowest being

observed in Elite Tall (36cm). CGD recorded an annual stem height of

48cm. Among the WCT the height varied from 0.60 cm to 0.80 cm (Table

3.2).

The height of the palms and the annual increment in stem height

varied among the ecotypes, among the WCT and between the ecotypes and

WCT.

3.2.2. Leaf Characters

a. Leaf scars

The number of leaf scars on the stem showing the leaf shed did

not show any variation among the ecotypes, but was uniform (14). This was

varied among the WCT (1 1 to 15) and between the ecotypes and WCT (1 1

to 14). Number of leaf scars in CGD and the corresponding WCT was 15

which is attributed to more number of leaf production and leaf fall due to

the excess management care received by the cultivar in a government farm

(Table 3.2).

Ecotypes did not exhibit any difference in this parameter. But

difference was observed among WCT and between ecotype and WCT.

Table 3.2. General characteristics of coconut ecotypes - mean of three years (1999-2001)

b) Number of leaves

Number of leaves in the crown varied between 25 (Komadan) to 32

Rachis length

(m)

1.38 .

1.28

1.15

1.38

I .28 1.12

I .5

1.46

I .41

7.29 1.33

9.41

(Elite Tall) among the ecotypes. Among the WCT it varied from 27 to 32. In d

CGD total number of leaves during the study period was only 20. In the rate

Leaf scar (N 0)

14

13

14

13

14 15

15

14

11

12 73.50

9.40

Total leaves in the crown (No.)

31

32

28

32

32 20

27

28

30

25 28.50

73.46

Ecotype

Kuttiyadi Tall (KT)

WCT I

King Coconut (KC)

WCT 2

Elite Tall (ET) CGD

WCT 3

Jappanan (JPN)

WCT 4

Komadan (KO) Mean

CV%

of leaf production there was no variation among the ecotypes (13) as in the

Leaf length

(m)

5.35

5.09

4.3

4.02

4.75 4.19

5.42

5.29

5.34

4.75 4.85

10.90

Stem ht. increment

( m )

0.6

0.65

0.62

0.65

0.36 0.48

0.8

0.42

0.6

0.37 0.56

25.65

case of number of leaf scar. Among the WCT too, there was not much

variation in the rate of leaf production and it was almost on par with that of

the ecotypes (Table 3.2).

Number of leaves on the crown varied among the ecotypes, among

the WCT and not much between ecotypes and WCT. In the rate of leaf

production no significant variation was observed among the ecotypes and

among the WCT. Between the ecotypes and WCT slight variation was

observed.

c) Leaf length

Length of the leaf bearing portion varied between 3.071-11 to 3.97111

among the ecotypes. The lowest leaf length was observed in King coconut

and the maximum in Kuttiyadi Tall. Among the WCT there was not much

variation and the range was between 3.82 m to 4.01m. Between the ecotype

and WCT variation was significant. CGD exhibited the lowest leaf bearing

portion (3.07 m) (Table 3.2).

Length of the leaf bearing portion varied significantly between the

ecotypes and WCT.

d) Rachis Length

Length of the rachis varied greatly among the ecotypes and ranged

between 1.15 m (King Coconut) to 1.46 m (Jappanan). The CGD recorded

the lowest rachis length (1.12 rn). In WCT too rachis length varied from

1.28 m to 1.50 m. Maximum rachis length was recorded in WCT

(Table 3.2).

Rachis length showed significant difference among the ecotypes,

among the WCT and between ecotypes and WCT.

Leaflets leaf1

Among the ecotypes number of leaflets leaf' varied between 210 and

228 with the lowest in Komadan and highest in King Coconut. Among the

WCT the number of leaflets leaf1 ranged between 201 to 25 1. In CGD the

number of leaflets recorded was 203 (Table 3.3).

Analysis of the data revealed significant difference in this parameter

among the ecotypes, among the WCT as well as between the ecotypes and

WCT.

Table 3.3. General characteristics of coconut ecotypes - mean of three years and ten palms each

Ecotypes

Kuttiyadi

WCT 1

King

WCT 2

Elite

CGD

WCT 3

Jappanan

WCT 4

Komadan

Mean

CV%

Leaf length

(m)

5.35

5.09

4.30

4.02

4.75

4.19

5.42

5.28

5.34

4.75

4.85 70.88

Total no. of leaflets

218

201

228

232

205

203

251

214

240

210

220.20

7.69

No. of leaves on the canopy

31 .OO

31.40

27.30 - -

31.70

31.60

20.10

26.60

27.80

30. I 0

27.50

28.51

72.49

Leaf area of single leaf (m2)

(LA)

7.30

5.20

7.50 -

7.57

4.68

5.04

7.94

6.34

6.24

6.71 6.45

I 7.96

Canclp area Y (m )

226.43

163.26

204.65

240.06

148.00

101 -31

21 1.15

176.20

187.96

184.42 184.34

21.96

f) Leaf area leaf'

Leaf area leaf1 showed greater variation among the ecotypes and

ranged between 4.68m2 (Elite Tall) to 7.50m2 (King Coconut). Among the

WCT it ranged between 5.20m2 to 7.94m2. CGD exhibited the lowest leaf

area (5 .04m2).

Similarly total canopy area was also comparatively low in CGD

(52.29m2) than the ecotypes and WCT. It ranged between 148m2 to

226.43m2 in the ecotypes. The highest canopy area was recorded in

Kuttiyadi Tall followed by King Coconut and the lowest in Elite Tall. In

WCT canopy area ranged between 163 .26m2 to 240.06rn2 (Table 3.3).

Statistical analysis of the data indicated significant differences in the

LA leaf' as well as the total canopy area among the ecotypes, among the

WCT and between the ecotypes and WCT. LA leaf-' as well as total canopy

area was found to be significantly more in ecotypes and WCT than in CGD.

Among the different characters studied variability was maximum in

the total number of leaves followed by stem height increment.

When the t-value was computed significant variation was observed in

most of the characters among the ecotypes and corresponding WCT. The

summary anova of the morphological characteristics of the ecotypes and

WCT is given in Table 3.4 to 3.8.

Table 3.4. Summary Anova of the morphological characteristics of Kuttiyadi Tall and WCT 1

S. L . Significant level; ' Significant at 0.05 level; " Significant at 0.0 1 level; N. S. - Not significant

S. L.

NS

NS

NS

**

*

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

**

**

NS

NS

**

**

NS

NS

NS

NS

**

**

NS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 1

12

1 3

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

23

24

25

Particulars

Height of trunk (m)

Girth of trunk (cm)

No.of leaves

Length of petiole (cm)

Length of leaf bearing portion (cm)

No.of leaflets

Breadth of leaflet (cm)

Lengthofleaflet(cm)

No.of leafscars in 1 metre

Length of internode (cm)

Length of inflorescence (cm)

Length of spikelet of button bearing portion

Length of stalk (cm)

Total Length of spikelet

No. of spikelets / inflorescence.

Avr.no.of female flower

No. of bunches

No.of nuts

Bunches with button

Bunches with nuts

Lengthoffruit(cm)

Breadth of fi-uit (cm)

No.of un opened inflorescence.

Ku

Mean

12.00

75.30

31 .OO

138.10

397.80

114.00

5.00

111.80

13.50

7.00

102.40

54.30

48.20

44.20

40.90

38.80

13.20

28.00

9.00

4.20

18.60

12.60

3.00

ttiyad i

CV(%)

12.42

7.08

7.60

2.06

2.48

8.87

0.00

8.62

15.32

15.06

3.86

5.95

2.90

3.50

4.67

11.64

5.98

23.75

7.41

15.08

4.53

4.10

15.71

t-value

0.57

0.62

0.34

3.47

2.23

0.31

2.12

0.02

0.10

0.84

3.04

4.67

0.95

1.29

3.63

11.56

1.46

1.32

0.23

1.68

9.03

6.20

1.04

WCT

Mean

12.50

76.70

31.40

127.40

382.00

115.50

5.10

111.70

13.60

6.60

94.40

46.00

47.00

46.80

36.70

19.70

12.50

24.20

8.90

3.60

22.90

15.60

3.30

I

CV(%)

19.69

6.27

9.40

8.58

5.73

9.75

4.13

14.71

17.74

16.29

8.27

10.25

9.03

16.02

8.90

14.57

10.83

25.53

14.46

26.84

5.62

10.55

24.95

Table 3.5. Summary Anova of the morphological characteristics of King Coconut and WCT 2

S. L. Significant level; * Significant at 0.05 level; * Significant at 0.0 1 level; N. S. - Not significant

S.L.

**

**

"

**

**

NS

"

'*

t-value

8.72

2.87

6.10

3.80

14.44

10.12

1.03

3.76

5.01

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 1

12

13

14

15

16

1 7

18

19

20

23

24

25

Particulars

Height of trunk (m)

Girth of trunk (cm)

No.of leaves

Length of petiole (cm)

Length of leaf bearing portion (cm)

No.of leaflets

Breadth of leaflet (cm)

Length of leaflet (cm)

No-of leafscars in 1 metre

King

Mean

6.43

71.43

27.29

115.00

307.71

102.29

4.86

107.00

20.00

Length of inflorescence (cm)

Length of spikelet of button bearing portion

Length of stal k (cm)

Total Length of spikelet

No. of spikelets / inflorescence.

Avr.no.of female flower

No. of bunches

No.of nuts

Bunches with button

Bunches with nuts

Length of h i t (cm)

Breadth of fruit (cm)

No.of un opened inflorescence.

WCT

Mean

15.20

82.60

31.70

139.40

401.80

132.20

4.95

118.20

13.20

Coconut

CV(%)

44.78

20.38

8.39

22.42

5.72

3.56

5.02

7.61

24.66

2

CV(%)

10.65

3-43

2.99

2.12

2.87

7.24

3.19

4.37

8.60

84.86

41.86

43.71

42.A4

36.29

20.57

11.57

27.43

8.00

3.71

19.57

1 5.43

2,57

4.88

6.23

4.71

5.72

7.91

20.79

24.88

65.32

21.65

37.16

9.72

8.25

30.60

102.70

52.40

46.80

43.60

40.90 -

40.20

13.70

32.90

9.50

4.10

18.20

12.80

3.10

3.41

4.86

6.27

4.48

4.07 -

6.18

3.53

22.54

7.44

13.85

6.24

6.16

23.80

10.45

9.14

2.76

1.49

4.55 - - -

12.98

2.83

0.97

2.75

0.89

2.02

5.70

1.55

**

"

NS

**

*'

*

NS

*

NS

NS

**

NS

Table 3.6. Summary Anova of the morphological characteristics of Elite Tall and WCT 3

S. L. Significant level; ' Significant at 0.05 level; ** Significant at 0.0 1 level; N. S. - Not signfiant

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 1

1 2

13

14

15

1 6

17

18

19

20

23

24

25

Particulars

Height of trunk (m)

Girthoftrunk(cm)

No.of leaves

Length of petiole (cm)

Length of leaf bearing portion (cm)

No.of leaflets

Breadth of leaflet (cm)

Length of leaflet (cm)

No.of leafscars in 1 metre

Length of internode (cm)

Length of inflorescence (cm)

Length of spikelet of button bearing portion

Lengthofstalk(cm)

Total Length of spikelet

No. of spikelets / inflorescence.

Average no.of female flower

No.ofbunches

No.of nuts

Bunches with button

Bunches with nuts

Length of fruit (cm)

Breadth of fruit (cm)

No.of un opened inflorescence.

Elite Mean

23.50

85.00

31.60

116.60

346.50

111.00

5.00

106.40

10.50

8.60

90.40

47.40

42.70

42.70

40.20

24.30

13.70

22.00

9.90

3.80

20.90

14.70

2.90

Tall CV(%)

2.07

5.03

2.41

11.21

22.70

3.80

0.00

8.87

2.59

1.58

3.78

2.41

2.26

2.45

5.03

6.90

2.31

10.80

1.85

I .03

1.29

2.00

0.57

WCT Mean

I .35

87.60

26.60

149.90

391.10

118.70

4.85

121.50

12.50

7.40

126.10

80.90

44.60

53.90

26.10

16.00

8.50

9.00

6.30

2.20

21.80

17.50

3.00

t -value

202.02

1.10

14.18

5.01

0.77

2.74 -

29.16

4.33

20.26

24.93

8.11

12.41

2.04

24.49

18.58

13.75

58.24

19.06

61.38

126.42 1 11.15

32.39

12.27

3

CV(%)

0.32

7.15

3.06 1 11.13

45.83

7.02

0.47

5.06

1.35

1.07 ( 12.91

13.51 I

7.17

1.85

5.26

6.39 1 0.97

7.48

1.25

0.79 1 0.42

0.53

0.67

S.L.

**

NS

**

**

NS

*

*'

**

**

**

*'

**

NS

'*

"

**

**

**

**

**

"

**

*'

Table 3.7. Summary Anova of the morphological characteristics of Chowghat Green Dwarf and WCT 3

S.L. Significant level; Significant af 0.05 level; " Significant at 0.01 level; NS - Not significant

S.L.

**

**

**

**

NS

**

**

**

**

**

"

**

"

**

NS

"

**

**

**

**

**

**

**

t -value

281.64

19.21

26.29

6.07

1.60

3.49

85.62

5.69

51.13

215.23

12.06

14.78

12.55

59.55

0.00

10.51

9.91

25.35

39.09

92.96

28.95

84.22

23.72

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 1

12

13

14

I5

16

17

28

19

20

23

24

25

WCT Mean

1.35

87.60

26.60

149.90

391 .I 0

118.70

4.85

121.50

12.50

7.40

126.10

80.90

44.60

53.90

26.10

16.00

8.50

9.00

6.30

2.20

21.80

17.50

3.00

Particulars

Height of trunk (m)

Girth of trunk (cm)

No.of leaves

Length of petiole (cm)

Length of leaf bearing portion (cm)

No.of leaflets

Breadth of leaflet (cm)

Lengthofleaflet(crn)

No.of leafscars in 1 metre

Lengthofinternode(cm)

Length Of inflorescence (cm)

Length of spikelet of button bearing portion

Length of stalk (cm)

Total Length of spikelet

No. of spikelets 1 inflorescence.

Avr.no.of female flower

No.ofbunches

No.of nuts

Bunches with button

Bunches with nuts

Length of fruit (cm)

Breadth of fruit (cm)

No.of un opened inflorescence.

4

CV(%)

0.32

7.15

3.06

11.13

45.83

7.02 --

0.47

5.06

1.35

1.07

12.91

13.51

7.17

1.85

5.26

6.39 -

0.97

7.48

1.25

0.79

0.42

0.53

0.67

CGD Mean

I .OO

56.70

20.10

112.30

307. I 0

104.10

4. I 0

107.10

30.20

2.95

73.40

39.50

33.80

27.80

26.10

22.50

8.90

25.50

4.80

4.40

19.60

12.80

2.80

CV(%)

0.13

1.64

1.45

9.80

18.23

9.97

0.39

4.82

4.57

0.44

4.45

4.03

1.93

3.46

2.28

7.75

1.10

8.77

1.93

2.01

1.26

1.23

0.63

Table 3.8. Summary Anova of the morphological characteristics of Jappanan and WCT 4

S. L. Significant level; ' Significant at 0.05 level; ** Significant at 0.01 level; NS - Not significant

SL.

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

**

**

"

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

"

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

**

t-value

1 . 9

0.84

1.87

1.44

1.73

3.38

3.36

2.97

0.60

0.66

2.34

1.49

0.84

0.61

0.55

3.28

0.25

1.44

0.19

0.65

1.60

I

3.46

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 1

12

13

14

15

1 6

17

18

19

20

23

24

25

WCT Mean

10.00

91.00

30.10

140.90

393.40

109.50

5.05

107.40

10.20

8.80

107.40

56.40

48.50

47.60

40.80

36.60

11.80

14.50

8.20

3.50

21.10

14.60

3.00

Particulars

Height of trunk (m)

Girth of trunk (cm)

No.of leaves

Length of petiole (cm)

Length of leaf bearing portion (cm)

No.of leaflets

Breadth of Ieaflet (cm)

Length of leaflet (cm)

No.of leafscars in 1 metre

Length of internode (cm)

Length Of inflorescence (cm)

Lengthofspikeletofbuttonbearing portion

Length of stalk (cm)

Total Length of spikelet

No. of spikelets / inflorescence.

Avr.no.of female flower

No. of bunches

No.ofnuts

Bunches with button

Bunches with nuts

Length of fruit (cm)

Breadth of h i t (cm)

No.of un opened inflorescence.

4 CV(%)

24.04

5.15

9.46

6.85

2.40

3.14

3.13

1.77

4.13

4.79

4.26

7.44

4.37

4.34

3.43

10.64

11.16

43.16

13.85

24.28

7.56

12.17

0.00

Jappanan Mean

13.60

94.10

27.80

145.50

383.50

116.10

5.35

116.00

10.40

9.00

101.80

53.80

47.40

48.50

39.90

26.30

11.60

23.30

8.30

3.20

20. I 0

13.80

2.60

CV(%)

44.14

12.55

9.56

3.16

4.22

4.55

4.51

9.54

10.34

10.48

6.03

6.72

7.91

9.39

14.68

38.61

19.99

90.57

15.08

38.41

5.96

8.91

19.86

Table 3,9. Summary Anova of the morphological characteristics of Komadan and WCT 4

S. L. Significant level; Significant at 0.05 levef " Significant at 0.01 level; NS - Not significant

S.L.

**

NS

NS

NS

**

"

NS

*

**

'*

**

**

'*

*'

**

*'

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

**

"

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 1

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

23

24

25

Particulars

Height of trunk (m)

Girth of trunk (cm)

No.of leaves

Length of petiole (cm)

Length of leaf bearing portion (cm)

No.of leaflets

Breadth of leaflet (cm)

Length of leaflet (cm)

No.of leafscars in 1 metre

Length of internode (cm)

Length of inflorescence (cm)

Length of spikelet of button bearing portion

Lengthofstalk(cm)

Total Length of spikelet

No. of spikelets 1 inflorescence.

Avr.no.of female flower

No.ofbunches

No.of nuts

Bunches with button

Bunches with nuts

Lengthofhi t (crn)

Breadth of fruit (cm)

No.of un opened inflorescence.

Komadan Mean

29.00

91.80

27.50

128.80

345.90

103.10

4.90

101 .SO

12.00

7.50

89.90

46.10

42.70

40.50

31.30

12.80

11.10

18.10

8.00

3.20

21.30

17.10

2.40

CV(%)

26.06

5.57

12,27

17.04

7.68

3.15

4.30

7.05

19.25

18.05

6.60

6.42

6.63

3.90

8.53

21.73

16.69

46.84

16.67

19.76

6.28

5.12

35.14

t-value

8.53

0.36

1.87

1.71

5.90

4.28

1.82

2.92

2.95

3.27

7.45

6.44

5.24

8.71

10.45

15.95

0.99

1.09

0.36

0.91

0.30

4.22

3.18

WCT Mean

10.00

91.00

30.10

140.90

393.40

109.50

5.05

107.40

10.20

8.80

107.40

56.40

48.50

47.60

40.80

36.60

11.80

14.50

8.20

3.50

21.10

14.60

3.00

4 CV(%)

24.04

5.15

9.46

6.85

2.40

3.14

3.13

1.77

4.13

4.79

4.26

7.44

4.37

4.34

3.43

10.64 -

11.16

43.16

13.85

24.28

7.56

12.17

0.00

3.3. Physiological characteristics

3.3.1. Dry matter production

a) Stem

Annual stem dry matter varied greatly among the ecotypes and ranged

between 3.26kg and 5.69kg. Among the ecotypes the maximum stem dry

weight observed was in King Coconut followed by Kuttiyadi Tall (5.5 lkg)

and the lowest recorded in Elite Tall. WCT showed a high SDM than the

ecotypes and was more or less similar in different WCTs. The stem dry

matter production was low in CGD (4.38kg) and was found to be higher

than the stem dry weight of Elite Tall and Komadan (Table 3.10).

Analysis of the data revealed significant difference in this parameter

between the ecotypes and WCT. Among all, the West Coast Tall recorded

higher stem dry matter production than the tall ecotypes and CGD.

Table 3.10. Stem Dry Matter Production

b) Leaf

As in the case of stem DM, the leaf DM produced year'1 also was

found to be higher in the tall ecotypes than the WCT and CGD. It ranged

between 19.90kg (Elite Tall) and 38.23kg (King Coconut) among the tall

ecotypes. CGD recorded a DM production of 21.42kg. Among the WCT it

ranged between 20.23kg to 40.86kg (Table 3.1 1).

Annual Stem dry weight

(kg) (ASDW)

5.51

5.98

5.69

5.98

3.26

4.38

5.98

5.04

4.57

3.35

4.97

21.09

The variation in leaf DM production between the ecotypes and WCT

were found to be highly significant. The leaf dry matter production of CGD

was significantly lower than the tall ecotypes and WCT.

Height of 3 leafscars segment

(m)

12.86

15.00

13.29

15.00

7.71

9.60

13.00

11.79

13.64

9.25

12.1 1

20.53

No. of 3 leafscar

segments

4.67

4.33

4.67

4.33

4.67

5-00

5.00

4.67

3.67

4.00

4.50

9.40

No. of leafscars

14

13

14

13

14

15

15

14

A I

12

13.50

9.40

Ecoty pes

Kuttiyadi

WCT

King

WCT

Elite

CGD

WCT

Jappanan

WCT

Komadan

Mean

CV%

Growth in One year

(cm)

60

65

62

65

36

48

65

55

50

37

54.30

20.62

Table 3.11. Leaf Area (LA) and Leaf Dry Matter Production (LDM)

3.3.2. Yield and yield components

(P1.3.1 b & c , 3 .2b l &b2, 3 . 3 b & c , 3 . 4 b & c , 3 . 5 b & c , 3 . 6 b l & b2,3.7bl & b2,3.8b & c, 3.9b &c and 3.10bl & b2)

Total leaf dry matter (kg)

(TLDM)

35.60

20.23

38.23

36.26

19.90

21.42

40.86

29.94

28.51

28.80

29.9 7

25.63

a) Yield

Leaf dry matter of single leaf

(LDM)

2.74

1.69

2.94

3.02

1.53

1.65

3.41

2.30

2.59

2.40

2.43

26.33

Total nut production palm-1 did not show much variation

No. of leaves produced

yeai'

13.00

12.00

13.00

12.00

13.00

13.00

12.00

13.00

I I .OO

12.00

12.40

5.64

among the ecotypes except in the case of Komadan. Nut production was

Total no. of

leaflets

218

201

228

232

205

203

251

214

240

210

220

8

Ecoty pes

Ku ttiyad i

WCT 1

King

WCT 2

Elite

CGD

WCT 3

Jappanan

WCT 4

Komadan

Mean

CV%

higher in tall ecotypes than WCT and CGD. But CGD and WCT showed

similarity in nut production (Table 3.12).

Weight of 6 dry leaflets

(gm)

90

54

90

90

42

50

90

72

60

81

72

26

Nut production year'' showed not much significant difference among

the ecotypes. Nut production was significantly more in ecotypes than in

WCT and CGD.

Table 3.12. Yield and yield components palm" y e a 8 mean of ten palms for three years

b) Yield components

Number of bunches produced showed significant variation

among the ecotypes and it ranged between 1 1.5 and 13.2. Bunch production

was low in CGD (8.2) and high in ecotypes and WCT. All the ecotypes

exhibited higher production of bunches. WCT recorded similar trend in

production of bunches.

Fruit ,,t %

23.43

36.55

50.42

18.48

30.04

39.51

57.74

43.04

18.52

63.92

38

41.72

flowers female

512.16

246.25

237.99

541.15

332.91

202.50

138.55

278.78

431.88

140.80

306

47.35

Ecotype

Kuttiyadi Tall (KT)

WCT 1

King Coconut (KC)

WCT 2

Elite Tall (ET)

Chowghat Green Dwarf (CGD)

WCT 3

Jappanan (JPN)

WCT 4

Komadan (KO) Mean

CV%

Total nut production

120

90

120 100

I00

80

80

120

80

90 98

77

Number

bunches

13.20

12.50

1 1 -57 13.70

13.70

9.00

8.50

10.60

I I .80

11.00 12

7 5.78

Female flower bunch" ('0)

38.80

19.70

20.57 39.50

24.30

22.50

16.30

26.30

36.60

12.80 26

36.87

Number of spikelets bunch-' also did not show significant variation

among the ecotypes which varied from 31.3 to 40.9. Number of spikelets

was more in Kuttiyadi and Elite Tall and low in CGD (26.1).

Number of female flower production palm-1 showed significant

variation among the ecotypes and ranged between 140.8 (Komadan) to

5 12.16 (Kuttiyadi Tall). WCT too exhibited high female flower production.

In general higher female flower production was observed in the ecotypes.

CGD showed female flower production of 202.5. Significant difference

existed in this parameter among the ecotypes as well as among the WCT.

Female flower production was found to be significantly more in the

ecotypes except in Komadan.

Percentage of fruit setting also differed among the ecotypes. It ranged

between 23.43 (Kuttiyadi Tall) to 63.92 (Komadan) in the ecotypes. As in

the case of female flower production the percentage of h i t set was found to

be higher in the ecotypes under study (Table 3.12).

Number of bunches, number of female flowers and percentage of h i t

set was higher in the ecotypes than in WCT and CGD.

3.4. Dry matter production among the ecotypes

a) Vegetative Dry Matter (VDM)

Annual vegetative dry matter (VDM) which is the sum of the leaf dry

matter and stem dry matter varied among the ecotypes, among the WCT and

between the ecotypes and WCT. It ranged between 17.1 1 kg and 43.92kg

between the ecotypes, the lowest and highest being observed in Elite Tall

and King Coconut respectively. In WCT, VDM production was

comparatively lower than the ecotypes except in King Coconut where, the

percentage difference was negligible. The percentage difference in VDM

between the ecotype and WCT was more in Jappanan followed by Kuttiyadi

Tall. The VDM was lowest in CGD (1 1.88). However the difference was

not significant in WCT (Table 3.13 & Fig 3.1).

VDM production was found to be significantly different among the

ecotypes as well as between the ecotypes and the WCT. VDM production

was significantly higher in the ecotypes when compared to the

corresponding WCT.

Table 3.13. Vegetative Dry Matter Production O M ) palm" yeail

Ecotypes Leaf dry matter (LDM) (kg)

1 King Coconut

Kuttiyadi Tall

WCT 1

Stem dry matter (sow (kg)

1 CGD

Vegetative Dry Matter (VDM) (kg)

-

35.60

20.23

WCT 2

Elite Tall

I WCT 3 1 40.86 1 5.98 1 46.84 I

5.51

5.98

36.26

19.90

1 Kornadan

41.11

26.21

I Jappanan

1 Mean I 29.9 7 I 4.97 I 34.95 I

5.98

3.26

29.94

b) Reproductory Dry Matter (RDM)

42.23

23.15

Reproductory dry matter (RDM) showed variations among the

ecotypes and it ranged fiom 65.94kg (Komadan) to 124.43 kg (Jappanan).

Kuttiyadi Tall recorded an RDM of 84.72kg, King Coconut 71.16kg and

Komadan 65.94kg. RDM production by CGD was 33.99 kg. The variation

in RDM production in WCT was not highly significant; which varied from

53.87kg to 62.34kg (Table 3.14 & Fig 3.2).

Analysis of the data revealed that RDM production was significantly

varied among the ecotypes and between the ecotypes and WCT as observed

in the case of VDM. The CGD recorded the lowest RDM production

compared to all ecotypes and WCTs. All ecotypes recorded highest RDM

than the WCTs.

Table 3.14. Reproductory Dry Matter (RDM) Production palm'1

C. Nut components

Nut components like husk, shell and copra and oil content were

estimated for all ecotypes and WCT, since RDM depends mainly on nut

production. Nut components showed significant differences among the

ecotypes and between the ecotypes and WCT (Table 3.15).

No. of inflore- scence

13

12.5

12

13

14

9

9

13

12

Dry Wt. of spathe

(9)

410

400

400

410

370

380

410

430

400

RDM

84.72

58.21

71.16

62.34

68.50

33.99

53.87

124.43

54.88

370 11 65.94

Copra weight

(g)

149

156

173

150

160

87

150

216

164

Dry Shell weight (g)

119

123

127

119

128

68

119

175

143

Kuttiyadi Tall

WCT I

King Coconut

WCT 2

Elite Tall

CGD

WCT 3

Jappanan

WCT 4

Mean

CV%

Dry Husk weight (g)

321

233

198

227

278

181

293

543

247

No. of

nuts

120

90

120

100

100

80

80

120

80

285

36

Dry Wt. of bunch

(9)

670

570

550

570

480

410

580

520

480

126

21

158

20

98

17

530

74

398

5

72

14

67.80

35.23

Table 3.15. Fruit Analysis Data of Ecotypes and WCT in Kerala

Husk

Varieties

Kuttiyadi Tall

WCT 1

Husk weight showed significant variation among the eaotypes which

ranged from 454 g (King Coconut) to 1002g (Jappanan) among the tall

ecotypes. Husk weight in Kuttiyadi Tall was 628 g, Komadan 601 g and

Elite Tall 500 g. CGD recorded the lowest husk weight (18lg).The husk

weight in WCT varied from 476 g to 663 g (Table 3.15).

Analysis of the data showed significant variation in husk weight

among the ecotypes and between the ecotypes and WCT. The difference in

husk weight in WCT was not significant.

- w

1176

1139

King coconut

WCT 2

Elite Tall

CGD

WCT 3

Jappanan

WCT 4

Komadan

Mean

548

540

524

464

508

301

547

732

658

591

541

21

978

940

1008

636

1098

1734

1321

1192

1122

CV% 25

628

599

454

476

500

335

551

1002

663

601

581 ---- 30

119

123

127

119

128

68

143

175

143

135

128

103

113

118

249

96

62

114

205

160

109

733

27 30

326

304 ----------

279

96

284

171

290

352

355

347

280

20

149

I56

173

150

160

87

160

216

164

171

159

2.84

67.91

70.40

72.07

67.24

67.65

67.10

65.12

66.91

67.50

68.00

67.99 ----- 27.98 8.14

59.49

56.30

53.24 1 20.69

55.91

56.81

53.02

48.09

53.95

58.71

51.62

27.19

28.89

33.02

32.33

31.50

28.90

29.25

29.51

24.92

28.93

29.44

Shell

As in the case of husk, dry weight of shell showed difference among

the ecotypes and between ecotypes and WCT. Shell weight was maximum

in Jappanan (1 75g) followed by Komadan (135g), Elite Tall (128g), King

Coconut (127g) and Kuttiyadi (1 19g). CGD recorded the lowest shell

weight of 68g. WCT showed only minimum variation in shell weight with

the maximum and minimum being 1 19 and 143 respectively (Table 3.14 &

3.15).

In the study shell weight showed difference among the ecotypes but

not between the ecotypes and WCT except in the case of Jappanan. CGD

showed the lowest shell weight.

Copra

Copra weight nut-' showed greater variation among the ecotypes and

between ecotypes and WCT. Among the tall ecotypes copra weight was

higher in Jappanan (216g) and lower in Kuttiyadi (149g). CGD recorded

very low copra content (87g). Between the ecotypes and WCT maximum

variation was observed in Jappanan and the lowest was in Kuttiyadi and

Komadan. Among the WCT too, variation in copra weight was observed

which ranged from 164g to 150g (Table 3.14 & 3.1 5). The nut

characteristics of ail ecotypes are depicted in figure 3.3 to 3.9.

Analysis of the data showed significant variation in the copra content

among the genotypes, among the WCT and between ecotypes and WCT.

Table 3.16. Correlation coefficients among nut characters

Total weight With

KO

Weight of husked nut with

WCT4

0.6357

0.9749

0.3323

0.01 13

Weight of copra with

CGD WCT3

0.4980

0.9761

0.7858

0.831 1

KT

0.5791

0.2666

0.5075

0.5255

When the correlation coefficient among different nut characters was

studied, the total weight of nut was highly correlated to the weight of husk

in all the ecotypes and WCT. The weight of de-husked nut showed high

correlation to that of nut water and in the case of copra high correlation was

WCT3 KC WCT 1

0.4039

0.7623

0.5153

0.6840

0.8237

0.7343

0.7342

0.7755

to that of shell (Table 3.16).

JPN

0.5708

0.9432

0.6274

0.5678

0.4687

0.9661

0.5375

0,4729

0.8805

0.9530

0.4019

0.3643

Wt of water

Wtof husk

Wt of shell

Wt of copra

-0.1206

0.6650

WCT2

0.7612

0.3603

0.7285

0,8432

Wt of water

~ t o f h u s k

wt of shell

Wt of copra

ET

0.5864

0.9613

0.7806

0.7986

0.61 72

0.9260

0.4313

0.2435

0.7612

0.3603

0.7285

0.8432

0.2764

0.7504

0.1 732

0.7833

~t of husk

wt of shell

0.71 57

0.9216

0.3487

0.3366

0.9397

-0.0604

0.7122

0.7109

0.7699

0.5652

0.8876

0.8396

0.8424

0.1289

0.4058

0.4827

0.4687

0.9661

0.5375

0.4729

0.6708

0.7803

0.0681

0.6330

0.7230

0.6734

0.5761

0.4984

0.8923

-0.1027

0.8330

0.8356

0.9036

0.1487

0.1740

0.0618

0.0502

0.9737

0.8615

0.4718

0.7965

0.6803

0.9473

0.6838

0.5241

0.5982

0.2764

0.7504

-0.0392

0.9447

0.1693

0.8768

0.4070

0.7837

0.7866

0.9353

Table 3.1 7. Nut cornponen t analysis (d.wt.nutm') of ecotypes

Dry Weight ~ u f '

Based on the dry weight of nut components like husk, shell and copra,

total weight nut-' was calculated. Maximum nut dry weight was recorded in

Jappanan (9348) followed by Komadan (630g) and Kuttiyadi Tall (589g).

Elite Tall and King Coconut recorded 5668 and 4988 respectively. WCT did

not show much variation and ranged between 4968 and 562g. CGD showed

the lowest nut dry weight (3368) (Table 3.17 & Fig 3.10).

Total weight (gm)

589

512

498

496

566

336

562

934

554

630

568

27

Kuttiyadi Tall

WCT ?

King Coconut

WCT 2

Elite Tall

CGD

WCT 3

Jappanan

WCT 4

Komadan

Mean

CV%

Dry weight nut-' showed marked variation among the ecotypes and

between the ecotypes and WCT but not much variation in the WCT.

Husk weight (gm)

321

233

198

227

278

181

293

543

247

324

285

36

Shell weight (gm)

119

123

127

119

128

68

119

175

143

135

126

27

Copra weight (gm)

149

1 56

A 73

150

160

87

150

216

164

171

758

20

c. Total Dry Matter (TDM) Production palm-1 year"1

Total Dry Matter Production (sum of VDM and RDM) exhibited

similar trend as in RDM showing great variation among the ecotypes,

among the WCT and between the ecotypes and WCT. Total Dry Matter

production was higher in Jappanan (1 59.4 1 kg) and lower in Elite Tall (91.65

kg). Kuttiyadi Tall gave 125.83 kg, King Coconut 1 15.08kg and Komadan

98.09kg. CGD showed lowest TDM (59.79kg) among the ecotypes. In the

WCT, it varied between 84.41kg to 104.57kg (Table 3.18 & Fig 3.11).

When the total dry matter production palm-1 was estimated the

same result was obtained, the quantity of dry matter being 27.90 tonne in

Jappanan followed by 22.02 tonne in Kuttiyadi Tall, 20.14 tonne in King

Coconut and 17.17 tonne in Komadan and 16.04kg tonne in

Elite Tall. CGD produced 10.46 tonne dry matter The dry matter

production by WCT did not vary much and the range was 14.7 tonne

to 18.30 tonne

Between the ecotype and WCT the variation was maximum in

Jappanan, followed by Kuttiayadi, and the lowest in King Coconut.

Table 3.18. Total Dry Matter Production (TDM) palm-' yearB1

Analysis of the data revealed significant differences in TDM

production among the ecotypes and between the ecotypes and WCT. Total

DM production was significantly higher in Jappanan. All the ecotypes

showed higher Dry Matter Production than WCT.

d. Total Nut Production

Total nut production palm-1 showed variation among the

ecotypes and between the ecotypes and WCT. The nut production in Tall

ecotypes ranged between 90 (Komadan) to 120 (Kuttiyadi, King Coconut

and Jappanan). In CGD nut production was only 80 nuts. There was not

much difference in yield in WCT. It ranged between 80 to 90 (Table 3.19).

Ecotypes

Kuttiyadi

WCT I

King

WCT 2

Elite

CGD

WCT 3

Jappanan

Re~roductor~ matter (RDM)

(kg)

Vegetative Matter (VDM)

(kg)

41.11

26.21

43.92

42.23

23.15

25.80

46.84

34.98

Komadan

Mean

CV%

Total Dry Matter (TDM) (kg)

TDM ham1 yeail

(tons)

32.15

34.95

23.81

22.02

14.77

20.14

18.30 16.04

10.46

17.62

27.90

84.72

58.21

71.16

62.34

68.50

33.99

53.87

124.43

125.83

84.41

11 5.08

104.57

91.65

59.79

100.71

159.41

65.94

67.80

35.23

98.09 702.75

26.05

17.17

f 7.98

26.05

Analysis of the data revealed significant difference in total nut yield

among the ecotypes and between the ecotype and WCT. Among WCT no

wide variation was noticed.

e. Total Copra Production

Copra production varied greatly among the ecotypes and between the

ecotypes and WCT. Among the ecotypes it varied between 25.92kg to

1 5.3 9kg. The highest copra content recorded among the tall ecotypes was in

Jappanan followed by King Coconut and Kuttiyadi Tall and the lowest in

Komadan. CGD recorded the lowest copra content (6.96kg). All Tall

ecotypes excelled the WCT in copra production (Table 3.19).

WCT did not show much variation in copra content. Between the

ecotypes and WCT the highest variation was observed in Jappanan.

Analysis of the data revealed significant variation in this parameter

among the ecotypes and between the ecotypes and WCT. Significantly

higher copra production was observed in Jappanan than other ecotypes and

lower copra production was found in CGD. Among the WCT there was not

much variation. All ecotypes showed comparatively higher copra output

than the WCT.

Table 3.19. Total Copra Production

f. Total Nut Dry Weight palm-' year-'

When total nut dry weight was estimated significant

variation was observed among the ecotypes and between the ecotypes and

WCT. It varied between 112.08 kg (Jappanan) followed by 70.68 kg

(Kuttiyadi Tall). King Coconut recorded a total nut dry weight of 59.76 kg,

Elite Tall 56.6 kg and Komadan 56.7 kg. CGD registered the lowest weight

of 26.88 kg. Among the WCT, not much variation was observed in this

Copra weight 1 palm 1 year (kg)

17.88

14.04

20.76

15.00

16.00

6.96

12.00

25.92

13.12 --

15.39

75.77

33

parameter. The highest weight noticed in WCT was 49.6 kg and the lowest

44.32 kg (Table 3.20).

No. of nuts

120

90

120

100

100

80

80

120

80

Ecotypes

Kuttiyadi Tall

WCT I

King Coconut

WCT 2

Elite Tall

CGD

WCT 3

Jappanan

WCT 4

Copra weight (g)

149

156

173

150

160

87

A 50

216

164

Komadan

Mean

CV%

171

f58

20

90

98

17

Table 3.20. Total Nut Dry Weight

Significant difference exhibited in total nut dry weight among the

ecotypes and between the ecotypes and WCT. Among the WCT no

significant difference was observed.

3.5. Partitioning of nut dry weight towards its components

TNDW (kg)

70.68

46.08

59.76

49.60

56.60

26.88

44.96

112.08

44.32

56.70

56.77

40

The nut dry matter was partitioned towards its husk weight, shell

weight and copra weight (Table 3.20). The percentage of husk weight was

maximum in the ecotype Jappanan (58.14) followed by Kuttiyadi Tall

(54.50) and Komadan (5 1.43), the lowest being in King Coconut (39.76).

The percentage of husk weight in WCT did not show much variation except

the cultivar located in DSP Farrn, Neriamangalam. Husk weight estimated

in CGD was 53.87 percent.

of nuts

120

90

120

100

100

80

80

120

80

90

98

17

weight (g)

149

156

173

150

160

87

150

216

1 64

171

158

20

Ecotypes

Kuttiyadi Tall

WCT 1

King Coconut

WCT 2

Elite Tall

CGG

WCT 3

Jappanan

WCT 4

Komadan

Mean

CV%

Husk weight (g)

321

233

198

227

278

181

293

543

247

324

285

36

Shell weight (g)

119

123

127

119

128

68

119

175

143

135

126

21

The percentage of shell weight was maximum in King Coconut

(25.50) followed by Elite Tall (22.6 1) and Komadan (2 1.43). CGD recorded

the lowest shell weight (20.24). The WCT did not show significant variation

in the shell weight and it ranged between 2 1.17 to 25.8 1.

The partitioning of copra percentage showed variation among the

ecotypes as well as between the ecotypes and WCT. The percentage of

copra ranged between 34.74 (King Coconut) and 23.13 (Jappanan). The

percentage of copra recorded in Elite Tall was 28.27 and that in Kornadan

was 27.14 and in Kuttiyadi 25.30. Among the WCT, the percentage of copra

content was highest in that located in Kuttiyadi followed by Chazhur. The

CGD recorded 25.89 percentage copra content (Table 3.2 1). Though in

relative terms, percentage of copra is low in Jappanan, in real terms the

highest copra weight was observed in this ecotype.

The percentage of husk, shell and copra showed significant variation

among the ecotypes and between the ecotypes and WCT.

Table 3.21. Partitioning of Nut Dry Matter towards its components --

3.6. Harvest Index (HI)

Harvest index was calculated taking into account the total nut weight

to the total plant dry matter as well as total copra production to total dry

matter. Harvest index showed variation among the ecotypes, and between

the ecotypes and WCT. Harvest Index varied between 0.52 (King Coconut)

to 0.73 (Jappanan) when it was estimated to total nut weight. The HI in the

case of other ecotypes was in the order of 0.66 in the case of elite tall, 0.60

in Komadan and 0.56 in the case of Kuttiyadi Tall. CGD recorded HI of

0.59. When the Harvest Index to total copra production was computed it

ranged between 0.14 (Kuttiyadi Tall) to 0.19 (Elite Tall). King Coconut

% of copra

25.30

30.47

34.74

30.24

28.27

25.89

26.69

23.13

29.60

27.14 - -

28.75

12

Ecotypes

Kutt~yadi Tall

WCT I

King Coconut

WCT 2

Elite Tall

CGD

WCT 3

Jappanan

WCT 4

Komadan

Mean

CV%

% of shell

20.20

24.02

25.50

23.99

22.61

20.24

21.17

18.74

25.81

21.43

22.37

71

Copra weight

149

156

173

150

160

87

150

216

164

171 -

758

20

Shell weight

119

123

127

119

128

68

119

175

143

135

726

21

Husk weight

321

233

198

227

278

181

293

543

247

324

285

36

% of husk

54.50

45.51

39.76

45.77

49.12

53.87

52.14

58.14

44.58

51.43 -

49.48

7 7

registered harvest index of 0.1 8, Jappman 0.17 and Komadan 0.16. Among

the WCT no significant variation was observed in this parameter. WCT

showed Harvest Index ranging from 0.47 to 0.65 when the total nut weight

was taken into account and it ranged between 0.14 to 0.19 when total copra

weight was taken. CGD recorded a Harvest Index of 0.15 (Table 3.22 to

3.24 & Fig 3.12).

HI in respect of ecotypes was higher than the WCT. Among the

ecotypes HI varied between 0.14 to 0.19.

Table 3.22. Harvest Index (HI) Based on the Nut Weight

Ecotypes

Kuttiyadi Tall

WCT I

King Coconut

WCT 2

Elite Tall

CGD

WCT 3

Jappanan

WCT 4

Komadan

Mean

CV%

Total Dry Matter (kg)

(TDM)

125.83

82.72

115.08

104.57

85.61

45.87

68.71

154.16

70.4 1

94.70

94.77

33.1 7

Total Nut weight I palm 1 year (kg)

70.68

46.08

59.76

49.60

56.60

26.88

44.96

112.08

44.32

56.70

56.77

39.89

Harvest index

0.56

0.56

0.52

0.47

0.66

0.59

0.65

0.73

0.63

0.60

0.60

f2.41

Table 3.23. Harvest Index Based on the Copra Weight (HI)

Analysis of the data revealed significant difference among the

ecotypes and WCT when total copra was taken into consideration, but

significant variation was observed when indexing was made with total nut

dry weight. The HI in CGD was higher than the WCT when total nut dry

weight was taken into consideration.

Harvest index

0.14

0.17

0.18

0.14

0.19

0.15

0.17

0.17

0.19

0.16

0.17

9.89

Total Matter (TDM) (kg)

A25.83

82.72

115.08

104.57

85.61

45.87

68.71

154.16

70.41

94.70

94.77

33. I 7

Ecoty pes

Kuttiyadi Tall

WCT 1

King Coconut

WCT 2

Elite Tall

CGD

WCT 3

Jappanan

WCT 4

Komadan

Mean

CV%

Total copra outturn I palm I Year (kg)

17.88

14.04

20.76

15.00

16.00

6.96

12.00

25.92

13.12

15.39

75.71

32.53

Table 3.24. Dry matter production palm-1 and HI in the coconut Ecotypes

3.7. Oil Content

Oil percentage in copra was calculated for ecotypes and WCT.

Significant difference was observed in the oil content among the ecotypes

and between the ecotypes and WCT. Among the ecotypes King Coconut

exhibited the highest oil percentage 72.071 followed by CGD (67.996) and

Kut-tiyadi Tall (67.9 1 3). All ecotypes showed significant difference in the

oil content with the corresponding WCT. In WCT, the oil content ranged

between 70.40 and 68.716 (Table 3.25 & Fig 3.13).

Ecoty pe

Kuttiyadi

WCT 1

King

WCT 2

Elite

CGD

WCT 3

Jappanan

WCT 4

Komadan

Mean

CV%

Total nut dry weight

(kg)

70.68

46.08

59.76

49.60

56.60

26.88

44.96

112.08

44.32

56.70

56.77

39.89

I

VDM (kg)

41.1 I

24.51

43.92

42.23

17.1 I

11.88

14.84

29.73

15.53

28.76

26.96

45.25

HI nut

production

120

90

4 20

I00

100

80

80

120

80

90

98

17

Copra/ TDM

0.14

0.17

0.18

0.14

0.19

0.15

0.17

0.17

0.19

0.16

0.17

9.89

RDM (kg)

84.72

58.21

71.16

62.34

68.50

33.99

53.87

124.43

54.88

65.94

67.80

35.23

Total copra

produdion (kg)

17.88

14.04

20.76

15.00

16.00

6.96

12.00

25.92

13.12

15.39

15.71

32.53

NU^ ~t I TDM

0.56

0.56

0.52

0.47

0.66

0.59

0.65

0.73

0.63

0.60

0.60

72.41

Total DM (kg)

125.83

82.72

115.08

104.57

85.61

45.87

68.71

154.16

70.41

94.70

94.77

33.17

Table 3.25. Oil content of the copra of the identified ecotype samples

The total oil output palm-' and ha-' was estimated based on the total

copra output year'1 and the palm density (Table 3.25 & 3.26). The

highest oil output was 17.39 kg palm-' year-' and 3.04 tonne ha-' year'1

respectively in Jappanan and the lowest was 10.30 kg palm-' year-' and 1.80

tonne ham' yearm1 in Komadan. The Jappanan was followed by King Coconut

(14.96kg palm-1 year" and 2.62 tonnes ha-' and Kuttiyadi Tall

(1 2.14kg palm-1 year-' and 2.12 tonne ha" yearw1) In WCT, the highest oil

output was recorded from Chazhoor, Thrissur (10.09 kg palm-' year" and

1.77 tonnes ham' followed by Thiruvampady (9.88 kg palm-' year-'

and 1.73 tonnes ha-' yearm1). The oil output recorded from CGD was the

lowest (4.73 kg and 0.83 tonnes hdl

CV(%)

3.23

2.20

1.39

4.02

Mean

67.91

70.40

72.07

67.24

Name of ecotype

Kuttiyadi tall

WCT I

King Coconut

WCT 2

Period of observation

68.00

67.51 ~~~~~~~- 64.07

67.45

64.03

66.07

67.42

3.62

69.42 2.82 68.04

66.79

69.87

June 2001

64.62

70.53

73.69

64.17

70.63

67.25

66.78

66. I 0 ------ 67.4 1

69.2 7

3. j8

Jappanan

March 2001

70.38

72.15

71.70

70.86

April 2000

68.89

71 -42

71.81

68.03

68.26

72.47

67.96

67.22

68.91

68.22

4.86

67.01

August 2000

68.67

68.14

71 .OO

64.96

66.32

64.5 1

November 2000

67.00

69.76

72.1 5

68.20 ---

68.00

68.72

67.10

65.12

66.91

68. f f

2.84

Komadan

Mean

CV%

2.34

4.64

0.94

2.29

2.15 67.08

68.31

3.50

65.09

67.34

3.24

There was no variation in the oil percent between the seasons

(Table 3.25)

Table 3.26. Total Oil Output

3.8. Biochemical Characteristics

Acid Value and Free Fatty Acid of Coconut Oil

Total Oil output ha" (ton)

2.12

I .73

2.62

1.77

I .89

0.83

I .44

3.04

I .50

1.80

7.87

33

Name of ecotype

Kuttiyadi Tall

WCT 1

King Coconut

WCT 2

Elite Tall

CGD

WCT 3

Jappanan

WCT 4

Komadan

Mean

CV%

Except for the ecotypes Kuttiyadi, Jappanan and CGD, acid value of

coconut oil of all other ecotypes and WCT was around 0.4 to 0.5. Acid

value was more than one in the case of Kuttiyadi in most of the analysis.

Similarly for Jappanan and CGD this phenomenon was observed which is

attributed to the inferior quality of copra due to storage and moisture content

Oil output lpalm 1 year (kg)

12.14

9.88

14.96

10.09

I 0.82

4.73

8.25

17.39

8.54

10.30

10.77

33

(Table 3.27).

L

Table 3.27. Acid Value of the copra of the identified ecotypes

3.9. Leaf Polyphenol

There was no significant variation in the phenol content among the

ecotypes or between the ecotypes and WCT. Among the ecotypes leaf

polyphenol content was high in CGD (9.01) followed by Jappanan (8.74)

Average

1,101

0.441

0.324

0.452

0.432

0.843

0.569 0.905

0.624

0.499 0.62

40.39

Name of ecotype

Kuttiyadi tall

WCT I

King Coconut WCT 2

Elite tall CGD WCT 3

Jappanan

WCT 4

Komadan Mean CV%

(Table 3.28).

Table 3.28. Polyphenol content

Period of observation

Variety

Kuttiyadi Tall

WCT 1

King Coconut

WCT 2

CGD

WCT 3

Jappanan

WCT 4

Komadan

Mean

CV%

March 2001

1.275

0.612

0.540

0.419

0.243

0.257

1.362

0.988

1.635 0.475

0.78

63.76

November 2000

1.600 0.483

0.432 0.640

0.313

0.51 1

0.31 3

1.120

0.301

0.609 0.63

65.97

April 2000

0.950

0.434

0.21 9

0.435

1.236

1.688

0.500 0.783

0.873

0.190 0.73

64.92

June 2001

0.479

0.218

0.110

0.181 0.1 19

0.849

0.214

0.439

0.095

0.461 0.32

75.67

August 2000

1.200

0.456

0.320

0.587

0.249

0.909

0,455

1.193

0.21 4

0.759 0.63

57.89

mg gm / wt

8.48

8.37

8.61

8.16

9.01

8.38

8.74

7.95

8.22

8.44

3.80

Abs

0.65

0.64

0.66

0.63

0.69

0.64

0.67

0.61

0.63

0.65

3.80

Con

60.37

65.82

63.65

63.24

66.31

65.91

64.83

62.58

62.68

63.93

3.06

Among the WCT polyphenol was more in WCT located in the DSP

farm of the Board at Neriamangalarn (8.38) followed by those situated in

Kuttiyadi (8.37). The variation observed was not highly significant in both

the ecotypes and WCT.

3.10. Tender Nut Water Analysis

Nut water fiom the tender coconuts aged 7 to 8 months was analyzed

for the total sugar, reducing sugar, amino acid, potassium and sodium

concentration. For all characters except for total sugar significant variation

among the ecotypes and WCT was observed (Table 3.29 & 3.30).

Table 3.29. Analysis of tender coconut water

cultivar

Kuttiyadi Tall

Kuttiyadi WCT(C)

Total Sugar

(~/ looml)

3.61 2.86 2.4 4.5

3.59

Reducing sugar

(g/lOOrnl)

2.46 2.18 3.21 2.65 3.21

3.5 3.17 3.56 3.22 5.93

King Coconut

Chazhoor WCT(c)

Amino Adds

rngl1OO ml)

1.323 1.059 1.473 1 .a09 0.928

2.99 3.5 3.9 3.5 3.91

3.13 3.59 3.86 3.29 3.99

2.9 2.83 3.17 2.78 4.84

4.9

3.56 5.03 4.58 4.3

Potassium conc in

( ppm) 3026

21 80.5 2091 2358 3058

0.748 1.402 0.812 1.512 1-93

(ppm) 487.08 549.08 348.96 142.08 345.58

1.957 1.913 I .392 1.875 1.503

4.8 3.34

4,32 4.06 4.37

2536 2803 2091 191 3 2358

2759 3026 3115 2581 2858

662.69 687.08 203.69 106.27 396.67

0.799 0.69 1

0.95 0.51 3 0.731

147.84 144

336.53 566.79 355.39

2091 2002 2403 2536 2269

1 68.27 188.64

, 266.88 371.64 269.95

CGD

Jappanan

3.24 3.53 3.76

3.54 3.59

Eruva WCT(C)

4.61 4.43 4.78 4.47 4.13

3.19 3.68 3.22

3.69 3.79

Komadan

Elite Tatl

4.33 4.12 4.54 4.03 3.15

3.12 4.37 3.34 5.94 3.39

4.4 4.83 4.57 4.22 4.29

0.73 0.822 0.71 1

0.622 0.722

3.5 3.56 4.5

3.59 3.61

1.258 1.105 1.278 0.817 1.047

1.083 1.503 1.283 0.989 1.246

3248 3248 2848 271 4

2981

2.9 3.18 2.68 3.22 2.45

2536 3426 3693 2492 3042

65.76 65.36

123.99 106.27 84.67

2848 2848 3248 3293 3020

88.56 83.04

256.83 106.08 169.93

44.28 46.94

178.56 179.04 111.66

0.799 0.876 1.209 I ,362 1.08

3560

3604 3582 3693 3426

38.88 43.2

41.04 256.83 83.04

Table 3.30. Tender Nut Water Analysis - SUMMARY ANOVA (MSS)

NS -Not significant. * Significant at p=0.05. ** Significant atp=0.01

The volume of total water was measured. Maximum water content

was in Jappanan (347.5ml) followed by Komadan (260ml) and King

Coconut (248.75ml). Elite Tall recorded nut water content of 175 ml and

Kuttiyadi 152 ml. WCT also showed much variation in nut water content in

tender nut. It ranged from 155ml to 3001111. CGD possessed a water content

of 168.75ml (Table 3.3 1).

Sodium ( P P ~ )

94360.927"

16677.790

374.6

31 0.1

41 1.3

253.1

64.2

33.5

140.9

89.2

112.1

92.6

129.1

188.2

68.6

165.7

Amino Acid (mg1100ml)

0.530"

0.052

1.32

1.73

1 . I 2

0.74

0.69

0.83

1.10

0.72

1.22

1.07

0.23

1.05

21.67

0.29

Reducing

(q , IlOOml SUga; 1.876*

0.380

2.74

3.30

3.57

4.18

4.02

3.80

4.03

4.48

4.46

2.89

0.62

3.75

16.45

0.79

Potassium (PPW

81 2322.027"

89669.810

2542.7

2867.8

2340.2

2260.2

2442.6

2825.4

3037.8

3007.8

3051.4

3573.0

299.5

2794.9

10.7

384.1

Total Sugar (,&,.,,)

0.758

0.51 3

3.39

3.88

3.56

4.47

4.47

3.63

3.53

3.51

4.03

3.75

0.72

3.82

18.73

NS

Varieties

Residual

Table of Means

Kuttiyadi. Tall

WCT A

King Coconut

WCT 2

Chowghat Green Dwarf

WCT 3

Jappanan

WCT 4

Komadan

Elite T

SEIplot

Gen. M

CV(%)

CD (0.05)

DF

9

36

Table 3.31. Quantity of Tender coconut water nut-'

3.1 1. Percentage of Disease Incidence @I)

The percentage of disease incidence was recorded through

physical observations made once in every three months of the project years.

The diseases mainly observed were root wilt, leaf rot and bud rot and the

pests were rhinoceros beetle, red palm weevil, eriophyid mite etc.

Table 3.32. Percentage of Disease Incidence

Holdings

I

I I

I I I

IV

V

VI

Total No. Of pa'ms

650

240

70

250

32

10

Name of ecotype

Kuttiyad i

WCT

King Coconut

WCT

Elite

CGD

WCT

Jappanan

WCT

Komadan

No. of palms

observed

350

300

8

232

70

200

50

12

20

I 0

% of Dl

1.4

13.3

0.0

13.8

17.1

5.0

10.0

0.0

30.0

0.0 -

No. of disease I pest affected palms

Root (wilt)

- - -

16

- - -

-

4

-

Other diseases l pests

5

40

16

12

I 0

5

2

5

40

0

32

12

I 0

5

0 '

6

0 -

The observation revealed that none of the ecotypes, even those

located in disease prevalent southern districts, was affected by root wilt

disease. Only in WCT located in Thrissur and Kayamgulam disease

incidence of 13.8% and 30% respectively was noticed (Table 3.32 & Fig

3.14).

The ecotypes in general were tolerant and resistant to pests and

diseases. The ecotypes namely, King Coconut, Jappanan and Komadan were

totally free fkom any disease incidence, while Kuttiyadi, Elite Tall and CGD

recorded 1.4 per cent, 17.1 per cent and 5 per cent disease infestation

respectively other than root wilt. All WCT showed disease and pest

infestation, the maximum being in Evoor, Alleppey district followed by

C hazhoor, Trichur district and lowest in DSP Farm, Neriamangalam,

Ernakulam district.

Fig.3.1. Vegetative Dry Matter (kg) production y e a 8

Reproductory Dry Matter (RDM) Prouction palm-I year-1

- . = r Z (9 S 'Y L I E g 8 3 5 8 : 2

1 a Y

Fig. 3.2. Reproductory dry matter (RDM) production palm-1

Fruit welght Husk welgM Shdl w+lgh(t Kemd Wght Copn WgM

Fig. 3.3. Nut characteristics - Kuttiyadi Tall vs. WCT

- ---- * - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . ' 8

800 -- King coconut .

700 -- WCT (C)

2 600 -- E 0,

500 -- E

400 --

Fruit weight Husk weight Shell weight Kernel weight C a m weight

Fig. 3.4. Nut characteristics - King Coconut vs. WCT

.. Fnrlt Husk wdgM Shell weight K d weS@M Copra weight

Fig. 3.5. Nut characteristics - Elite Tall vs. WCT

Frult welght Husk weight Shell weight Kernel welght Copra weight

Fig. 3.6. Nut characteristics - CGD vs. WCT

0

Frult welght Husk weight Shell weight Kernel weight Copra welght

Fig. 3.7. Nut characteristics - Jappanan vs. WCT

W WCT (C)

I -

863

-

- - 171 164

r 0 Fruit weight Husk weight Shell weight Kernel weight Copra weight

Fig. 3.8. Nut characteristics - Komadan vs. WCT

1800 - _I_

DFrult weight

1600 DHwkwslgM QShefl weigM

nuttied T d Khg cboonut Elite Tall CDG Jeppanan Komadan

Fig. 3.9. Fruit analysis data of ecotypes in Kerala

Kuttladi WCT 1 King WCT 2 EllteTall i WCT 3 Jappanan WCT4 Komadan Tall Coconut

Fig. 3.10. Total nut dry weight (kg)

Y 3 d

Fig. 3.1 1. Total dry matter (TDM) production palm-1

Fig. 3.12. Harvest index in respect of nut dry weight and oil output

Oil Content in Copra of the Ecotypes

Fig. 3.13. Oil content of ecotypes

c. (u *) rn

Fig. 3.14. Percentage of disease incidence

Plate 3.1.

Kuttbadi Tall

a - Crown

b - Whole nut

c - Kernel

Plate 3.1. Kuttiyadi Tall

Plate 3.2.

West Coast Tall I (Thiruvampadv)

a - Crown

b l -Whole nut

b2 - Kernel

Plate 3.3.

King Coconut

a - Crown

b - Whole nut

c - Kernel

Plate 3.3. King Coconut

Plate 3.4.

West Coast Tall 2

a - Crown

b -Whole nut

c - Kernel

Plate 3.4. West Coast Tall 2 (Chazhoor)

Plate 3.5.

Elite Tall

a - Crown

b - Whole nut

c - Kernel

Plate 3.5. Elite Tall

Plate 3.6.

Chowghat Green Dwarf

a - Crown

bl - Whole nut

b2 - Kernel

~ -~~

Plate 3.6. Chowghat Green Dwarf

Plate 3.7.

West Coast Tall 3 (Neriarnanpalam)

a - Crown

b l - Whole nut

b2 - Kernel

Plate 3.7. West Coast Tall 3 (Neriamaagalam)

Plate 3.8.

Jaman an

a - Crown

b - Whole nut

c - Kernel

Plate 3.8. Jappanan

Plate 3.9.

West Coast Tall 4 (Evoo p.)

a - Crown

b - Whole nut

c - Kernel

Plate 3.9. West Coast Tall 4 (Evoor)

Plate 3.10.

Komadan

a - Crown

b - Whole nut

c - Kernel

- Plate 3.10. Kornadan