The growth traits of 28 tamarind genotypes, including bearing habit, fruit shape and pulp colour, were analyzed and are presented in Table 1. All the genotypes exhibited a regular bearing habit during the 2018-19 and 2019-20 seasons. Straight and curved fruits were observed (Fig 1). The straight fruit shape was observed in genotypes HSTAM-29, HSTAM-30, HSTAM-32, HSTAM-33, HSTAM-39, HSTAM-48, HSTAM-49 and HSTAM-50, while the remaining genotypes were having curved fruit shape. The pulp colour of the tamarind genotypes was classified into five categories: reddish brown, light brown, deep brown, strong brown and brown. Strong brown pulp was observed in HSTAM-29, while brown was seen in HSTAM-26, 34 and 38. Deep brown appeared in HSTAM-24, 25 and 33. Reddish brown was recorded in eight genotypes, including HSTAM-23, 27 and 28, while light brown was noted in fourteen genotypes, including HSTAM-31, 32 and 35. The results are in similar line as reported by
Rao and Subramanyam (2010);
Algabal et al. (2012) and
Bhogave et al. (2018).
Among the pooled averages morphological trait data represented in Table 2, the maximum fruit length was recorded in T
6 [HSTAM-28(21.36 cm)], which was statistically at par with T
5 [HSTAM-27 (19.73 cm)], T
26 [HSTAM-48 (18.91 cm)] and T
22 [HSTAM-44 (17.74 cm)]. The shortest fruit length was observed in T
14 [HSTAM-36 (11.23 cm)]. For fruit width, the maximum value was recorded in T
6 [HSTAM-28 (3.34 cm)], followed by T
26 [HSTAM-48 (3.27 cm)], T
4 [HSTAM-26 (2.87 cm)] and T
23 [HSTAM-45 (2.87 cm)]. The minimum fruit width was noted in T
14 [HSTAM-36(2.20 cm)]. The maximum fruit thickness was observed in T
5 [HSTAM-27/KLR-13 (2.19 cm)], followed by T
22 [HSTAM-44(2.07 cm)], T
21 [HSTAM-43(2.04 cm)] and T
6 [HSTAM-28 (1.96 cm)]. The minimum thickness was recorded in T
14 [HSTAM-36 (1.24 cm)]. Regarding fruit weight, the maximum value was observed in T
6 [HSTAM-28(30.25 g)], which was statistically at par with T
18 [HSTAM-40 (29.37 g)], T
26 [HSTAM-48 (29.01 g)] and T
2 [HSTAM-24 (28.84 g)]. The minimum fruit weight was recorded in T
14 [HSTAM-36 (15.99 g)].
The data on pulp weight per fruit are presented in Table 2. The maximum pulp weight per fruit was observed in T
6 [HSTAM-28(15.50 g)], which was statistically at par with T
2 [HSTAM-24(15.42 g)], T
26 [HSTAM-48 (14.82 g)] and T
13 [HSTAM-35(13.88 g)]. The minimum pulp weight per fruit was recorded in T
14 [HSTAM-36(6.87 g)]. For seed weight per fruit, the maximum value was recorded in T
6 [HSTAM-28(8.01 g)], which was at par with T
3 [HSTAM-25(7.72 g)], T
18 [HSTAM-40(7.19 g)] and T
13 [HSTAM-35(6.99 g)]. The minimum seed weight per fruit was observed in T
14 [HSTAM-36 (4.11 g)].
The data on different fruit characters presented in Table 3 shows, the maximum number of seeds per fruit in T
6 [HSTAM-28(11.55)], followed by T
12, T
25 and T
13. The least number of seeds per fruit was recorded in T
9 [HSTAM-31(6.52)]. The maximum shell weight per fruit was recorded in T
18 [HSTAM-40(7.09 g)], followed by T
3 [HSTAM-25(6.47 g)], T
13 [HSTAM-35(6.79 g)] and T
2 [HSTAM-24(6.62 g)]. The minimum shell weight was observed in T
14 [HSTAM-36(2.99 g)]. For fibre weight per fruit, the maximum value was recorded in T
6 [HSTAM-28(1.44 g)], which was at par with T
18 [HSTAM-40(1.43 g)], T
3 [HSTAM-25(1.36 g)] and T
2 [HSTAM-24(1.29 g)]. The minimum fibre weight was observed in T
14 [HSTAM-36(0.59 g)]. HSTAM-28 exhibited superior performance in most fruit traits, with a few accessions showing similar results in certain traits. This suggests that HSTAM-28 significantly influenced all fruit traits, either through direct or indirect effects. Similar variation in fruit parameter of tamarind was noticed by
Divakara (2008);
Singh (2014);
Reddy et al., (2024).
The maximum seed percentage was recorded in T
3 [HSTAM-25(29.40%)], followed by T
7 [HSTAM-29(29.08%)], T
12 [HSTAM-34(28.77%)] and T
15 [HSTAM-37(26.68%)]. The minimum seed percentage was observed in T
26 [HSTAM-48 (21.17%)] (Fig 2). For pulp percentage, the maximum value was observed in T
19 [HSTAM-41(53.77%)], followed by T2 [HSTAM-24(53.44%)], T
3 [HSTAM-25(52.83%)] and T
24 [HSTAM-46(51.83%)]. The minimum pulp percentage was recorded in T
18 [HSTAM-40(41.54%)] (Table 3).
The data on fibre and shell percentages are presented in Table 3. The maximum fibre percentage was recorded in T
21 [HSTAM-43(5.78%)], followed by T
6 [HSTAM-28(5.11%)] and T
4 [HSTAM-26(4.92%)]. The minimum fibre percentage was observed in T
14 [HSTAM-41(3.76%)]. For shell percentage, the maximum value was observed in T
24 [HSTAM-46(30.07%)], followed by T
18 [HSTAM-40(25.26%)], T
13 [HSTAM-35(24.88%)] and T
10 [HSTAM-32(24.45%)]. The minimum shell percentage was recorded in T
6 [HSTAM-28(18.10%)]. Similar variation was in
Hanamashetti and Sulikeri (1997);
Mastan et al. (1997);
Prabhushankar et al., (2004) and
Reddy et al., (2023).
The phytochemical traits, including titratable acidity, total soluble solids (TSS) and pH, were assessed across different tamarind genotypes (Table 4). The maximum titratable acidity was recorded in the genotype T
12 [HSTAM-34] with 17.69%, followed by T
6 [HSTAM-28] (15.61%), T3 [HSTAM-25] (15.13%) and T
25 [HSTAM-47] (14.78%). Conversely, the minimum titratable acidity was observed in T
17 [HSTAM-43] (7.36%). For total soluble solids (TSS), the maximum value was found in T
15 [HSTAM-37] with 18.65 oBrix, which was comparable to T
22 [HSTAM-44] (17.84 oBrix), T
13 [HSTAM-35] (16.75 °Brix) and T
27 [THTAM-49] (17.31 oBrix). The minimum TSS was recorded in T
3 [HSTAM-25] with 12.82 oBrix. Regarding pH, the maximum value was observed in T
22 [HSTAM-44] (3.39), followed by T
6 [HSTAM-28] (3.25), T
5 [HSTAM-25] (3.27) and T
3 [HSTAM-29] (3.21). The minimum pH value was recorded in T
12 [HSTAM-34] with 2.38. Bottom of Form Significant variations were observed among the genotypes for ascorbic acid and tartaric acid contents (Table 4). The maximum ascorbic acid content was found in T
5 [HSTAM-27] (12.92 mg/100 g), followed by T
21 [HSTAM-43] (11.54 mg/100 g), T
7 [HSTAM-29] (10.83 mg/100g) and T
19 [HSTAM-41] (10.40 mg/100g). The minimum ascorbic acid content was recorded in T
3 [HSTAM-25] (5.89 mg/100 g). Regarding tartaric acid, T
6 [HSTAM-28] exhibited the maximum percentage (11.82%), closely followed by T
18 [HSTAM-40] (11.25%), T
11 [HSTAM-33] (10.79%) and T
21 [HSTAM-43] (10.77%). The minimum tartaric acid percentage was observed in T
20 [HSTAM-42] (6.71%).
The higher values for titratable acidity, pH, ascorbic acid and tartaric acid in certain tamarind fruit pulps, particularly in HSTAM-28, can be attributed to genetic factors. Similar trends were observed in HSTAM-25, followed by HSTAM-28. These findings align with the results reported by
Hanamashetti and Sulikeri (1997);
El-Siddig et al., (2006); Divakara (2009);
Sharma et al., (2015) and
Mayavel et al., (2025).
The data on magnesium and calcium percentages are shown in Table 5. The maximum magnesium percentage was observed in T
6 [HSTAM-28(2.54 %)], followed by T
12 [HSTAM-34(2.16 %)] and T
26 [HSTAM-48 (2.05%)]. The minimum magnesium percentage was recorded in T
20 [HSTAM-42(0.85 %)]. In terms of calcium percentage, the maximum value was recorded in T
12 [HSTAM-34(3.51 %)], followed by T
5 [HSTAM-25 (3.14%)] and T
14 [HSTAM-35(3.26 %)]. The minimum calcium percentage was observed in T
22 [HSTAM-42(2.13%)].
The data on potassium and manganese percentages are presented in Table 5. The maximum potassium percentage was observed in T
6 [HSTAM-28(24.18%)], followed by T
2 [HSTAM-24(23.37%)] and T
14 [HSTAM-36(22.41%)]. The minimum potassium percentage was recorded in T
22 [HSTAM-45(14.52 %)]. In terms of manganese percentage, the maximum value was recorded in T
26 [HSTAM-48 (3.29%)], followed by T
17 [HSTAM-39(2.81%)] and T
6 [HSTAM-28(2.65%)]. The minimum manganese percentage was observed in T
13 [HSTAM-35(1.62%)].
The nutrient composition of tamarind fruit pulp across all tested genotypes revealed that HSTAM-28 exhibited significantly the maximum percentages of magnesium, potassium and manganese. However, HSTAM-48 was found to be at par with HSTAM-28 in terms of magnesium and potassium content. The nutrient composition of tamarind fruit pulp is genetically controlled, as demonstrated by the variation among the genotypes mentioned above. These findings are consistent with the studies of
Ishola et al., (1990), Bhattacharya et al., (2008) and
Parvez et al., (2003).
Correlation Studies
The correlation analysis of different traits reveals significant relationships that contribute to the understanding of yield-contributing characteristics (Table 6). Fruit weight exhibited a strong positive correlation with pulp weight (0.95**), fibre weight (0.85**) and shell weight (0.83**), concluding that larger fruits have more pulp, fibre and shell weight. Moderate correlations with fruit dimensions like width (0.59*) and length (0.54*) were observed, though the correlation with acidity (0.23) was non-significant.
Length of fruit exhibited significant positive correlations with fibre weight (0.60**), fruit thickness (0.61**) and pulp weight (0.55*), suggesting that longer fruits often have a more substantial pulp and thicker texture. Similarly, fruit widthshowed positive correlation with pulp weight (0.65**), fibre weight (0.63**) and fruit weight (0.59*), demonstrating that wider fruits generally have more pulp and weight. Thickness of fruit was positively associated with most other traits, including fruit length (0.61**) and fiber weight (0.58**). Pulp weight was strongly correlated with fruit weight (0.95**) and shell weight (0.82**), showing these are important factors in determining pulp yield. Shell weight had strong positive correlations with fiber weight (0.86**) and fruit weight (0.83**), showing that thicker shells correlate with larger fruits. The titratable acidity showed significant positive correlation with fruit width (0.40*), but weak or non-significant relationships with other traits. The traits such as TSS, pH and ascorbic acid showed non-significant correlation with all the traits studied. Similar results were also reported by
Divakara (2008),
Algabal et al., (2012), Singh and Nandini (2014) and
Bhogave et al., (2018).
