Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T11:39:33.706Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Plant and fruit trait variations among four Capsicum species in a Caribbean germplasm collection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2013

Sarah M. Bharath ,
Christian Cilas  and
Pathmanathan Umaharan
Sarah M. Bharath*
Affiliation:
The Department of Life Sciences, Faculty of Science and Technology, The University of the West Indies, University Circular Road, St. Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago, West Indies
Christian Cilas
Affiliation:
CIRAD, TA A106/02, 34398 Montpellier Cedex 5, France
Pathmanathan Umaharan
Affiliation:
The Cocoa Research Centre, The University of the West Indies, University Circular Road, St. Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago, West Indies
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Despite Capsicum's importance in the Caribbean, comprehensive diversity studies of this species in the region are limited, especially regarding its morphological variation. This study evaluated 37 traits (seedling, vegetative and reproductive) in 201 accessions among four Capsicum species. Multivariate analyses revealed that (i) 54% of the quantitative (seedling and fruit) variation and (ii) 64% of the qualitative (floral and fruit) variation were explained by the first two components. The three main clusters identified did not immediately highlight geographic and species-specific separation. However, significance testing revealed some separation based on geographic subgroups and species assignment. Most Southern Caribbean accessions were considerably similar to each other (if not identical in some cases), thus providing opportunity to identify and remove duplicates from the collection. These Southern Caribbean accessions shared their greatest similarity with Upper Amazon accessions, and least similarity with Lower Amazon accessions, suggesting movement of material primarily from the Upper Amazon into the Southern Caribbean Basin. The dominant differentiating traits displayed in these Southern Caribbean accessions are probably due to strong active selection for certain morphotypes and not to founder effects. Upper and Lower Amazon accessions were largely well differentiated from each other, highlighting key underlying genetic differences between these two populations and possible ongoing barriers to germplasm exchange. Central American, Greater Antilles/Bahamas and Guiana Shield accessions shared similarities with both the Upper and Lower Amazon populations, hinting at probable introductions from both Amazon regions. Collectively, this provides essential baseline information on the morphological (and underlying genetic) relationships among these accessions to guide future characterisation and evaluation efforts on this collection.

Keywords

geographic groupsgermplasm evaluationmorphological descriptorsmultivariate analysisspecies separation
Type
Research Article
Information
Plant Genetic Resources , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , April 2014 , pp. 48 - 57
Copyright
Copyright © NIAB 2013 

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.)

References

Adams, H, Umaharan, P, Brathwaite, R and Mohammed, K (2007) Hot Pepper Production Manual for Trinidad and Tobago. Trinidad and Tobago: The Caribbean Agricultural Research and Development Institute.Google Scholar
Andrews, J (1995) Peppers: The Domesticated Capsicums. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
DeWitt, D and Bosland, PW (1996) Peppers of the World: An Identification Guide. Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press.Google Scholar
Eshbaugh, WH, Guttman, SL and McLeod, M (1983) The origin and evolution of domesticated Capsicum species. Ethnobiology 3: 49–54.Google Scholar
European Cooperative Programme for Plant Genetic Resources (ECPGR) (2008) ECPGR Homepage: Networks: Vegetables: Solanaceae: Minimum descriptors for eggplant, Capsicum (sweet and hot pepper) and tomato. Available at http://www.ecpgr.cgiar.org/networks/vegetables/solanaceae.html (accessed 28 January 2011).Google Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) Corporate Document Repository (1995) Neglected Crops: 1492 from a Different Perspective. FAO Plant Production and Protection Series. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation. Available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0646E/T0646E00.htm (accessed 2 May 2013).Google Scholar
Ibiza, VC, Blanca, J, Cañizares, J and Nuez, F (2012) Taxonomy and genetic diversity of domesticated Capsicum species in the Andean region. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 59: 1077–1088.Google Scholar
IPGRI, AVRDC and CATIE (1995) Descriptors for Capsicum (Capsicum spp.). Rome/Taipei/Rome: International Plant Genetic Resources Institute/Asian Vegetable Research and Development Centre/Centro Agronomico Tropical de Investigacion y Enseñanza.Google Scholar
Loaiza-Figueroa, F, Ritland, K, Cancino, JAL and Tanksley, SD (1989) Patterns of genetic variation of the genus Capsicum (Solanaceae) in Mexico. Plant Systematics and Evolution 165: 159–188.Google Scholar
Moscone, EA, Scaldaferro, MA, Grabiele, M, Cecchini, NM, García, YS, Jarret, R, Daviña, JR, Ducasse, DA, Barbosa, GE and Ehrendorfer, F (2007) The evolution of chili peppers (Capsicum – Solanaceae): a cytogenetic perspective. Acta Horticulturae (ISHS) 745: 137–170.Google Scholar
Moses, M and Umaharan, P (2012) Genetic structure and phylogenetic relationships of Capsicum chinense . Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 137: 250–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ortiz, R, Crossa, J, Franco, J, Sevilla, R and Burgueño, J (2008) Classification of Peruvian highland maize races using plant traits. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 55: 151–162.Google Scholar
Ortiz, R, Flor, FDDL, Alvarado, G and Crossa, J (2010) Classifying vegetable genetic resources – a case study with domesticated Capsicum spp. Scientia Horticulturae 126: 186–191.Google Scholar
Pickersgill, B (1967) Interspecific isolating mechanisms in some South American chilli peppers. American Journal of Botany 54: 654.Google Scholar
Pickersgill, B (1969) The archaelogical record of chili peppers (Capsicum spp.) and the sequence of plant domestication in Peru. American Antiquity 34: 54–61.Google Scholar
Pickersgill, B (1971) Relationships between weedy and cultivated forms in some species of chilli peppers (genus Capsicum). Evolution 25: 683–691.Google Scholar
Pickersgill B (1980) Some aspects of interspecific hybridization in Capsicum. In: IVth Meeting of the EUCARPIA Capsicum Working Group, Wageningen, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Rego, ER, Rêgo, MM, Cruz, CD, Cecon, PR, Amaral, DSSL and Finger, FL (2003) Genetic diversity analysis of peppers: a comparison of discarding variable methods. Crop Breeding and Applied Biotechnology 3: 19–26.Google Scholar
Reid, BA (2009) Myths and Realities of Caribbean History. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Sreelathakumary, I and Rajamony, L (2004) Genetic divergence in chilli (Capsicum annuum L.). Indian Journal of Horticulture 61: 137–139.Google Scholar
Sudré, CP, Gonçalves, LSA, Rodrigues, R, do Amaral Júnior, AT, Riva-Souza, EM and Bento, C (2010) Genetic variability in domesticated Capsicum spp. as assessed by morphological and agronomic data in mixed statistical analysis. Genetics and Molecular Research 9: 283–294.Google Scholar
Tewksbury, JJ and Nabhan, GP (2001) Seed dispersal: directed deterrence by capsaicin in chilies. Nature 412: 403–404.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thul, ST, Lal, RK, Shasany, AK, Darokar, MP, Gupta, AK, Gupta, MM, Verma, RK and Khanuja, SPS (2009) Estimation of phenotypic divergence in a collection of Capsicum species for yield-related traits. Euphytica 168: 189–196.Google Scholar
Zuriaga, E, Blanca, JM, Cordero, L, Sifres, A, Blas-Cerdan, WG, Morales, R and Nuez, F (2009) Genetic and bioclimatic variation in Solanum pimpinellifolium . Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 56: 39–51.Google Scholar