Establishment and evaluation of difference heliconia genotypes under Prayagraj agro-climatic condition

Introduction

Ornamental plants serve as a fundamental element of the floriculture sector, appreciated for their visual attractiveness and substantial economic impact through landscaping, garden design, and interior decoration. Their cultivation includes a diverse array of plant typesflowering species, shrubs, climbers, and ornamental trees-all of which are affected by environmental factors such as temperature, humidity, sunlight, and rainfall. These conditions influence critical developmental characteristics like growth rate, flowering cycles, coloration, and post-harvest longevity, making adaptability to various climates crucial for commercial viability. Among ornamental plants, Heliconia is particularly notable for its striking, tropical appearance, vivid colors, and uniquely shaped flowers that resemble lobster claws or parrot beaks (Lamas 2020) [17] . Indigenous to tropical areas of the Americas, Africa, and the Pacific Islands, heliconias thrive in warm, humid environments and are highly appealing to pollinators like hummingbirds and butterflies (Kress and Betancur, 2009) [13] . Their extended vase life, durability during transport, and exotic allure have led to their growing popularity in the global cut-flower market, particularly for events and decorative displays. The assessment of Heliconia varieties involves criteria such as flower color, shape, size, plant health, fragrance, longevity, growth adaptability, reproductive success, and overall commercial value (Carrera-Alvarado et al. 2021) [4] . These evaluations are performed by horticulturists, florists, botanists, and plant breeders to pinpoint superior genotypes that are well-suited for specific climates and market needs, thereby promoting both sustainable cultivation and economic growth in tropical and subtropical areas.

polybags filled with a growing medium composed of garden soil, cocopeat and vermicompost (1:1:1 v/v) for initial establishment. Observations were recorded on plants and leaf parameters and analyzed statistically using ANOVA. Critical difference at 5% significance level was used to compared treatment means.

Result and discussion

The data of different parameters of different heliconia genotypes are presented in Table No.1 and 2 and graphically illustrated in Fig No . 1 and 2 1. Days taken to first sprouting Among all the genotypes, lesser days (9 days) to first sprouting, before dormancy was recorded in genotype G2 (Petra) followed by G 3 (St. Vincent, 11 days) while more number of days (46 days) was observed in genotype G 4 (Golden Torch). Lesser days (154 days) to first sprouting after dormancy, was recorded in genotype G 2 (Petra) followed by G 7 (Lenova, 155 days) while more number of days (211 days) was observed in genotype G 8 (Sassy). Variation in days taken to first sprouting behavior is likely governed by genetic makeup, rhizome physiology, and responsiveness to different agro-climatic conditions. The adaptability of genotypes to specific agro-climatic conditions play a key role in performance, with welladapted genotypes exhibiting enhanced growth and poorly adapted ones showing reduced performance. similar result variation in different heliconia genotypes were also observed by (Silva et al. 2019) [32] .

Plant height

Among all the genotypes, taller plant (39.8 cm) was observed in G 4 (Golden Torch) followed by G 8 (Sassy, 30.4 cm) whereas shorter plant size (5 cm) was observed in G 2 (Petra). Plant height is a genetically controlled factor due to which plant height might have varied among the different genotypes due to the genetic makeup and environmental effect Srinivas et al. (2012) [36] . The adaptability of genotypes to specific agro-climatic conditions played a key role in their performance, with well-adapted genotypes exhibiting enhanced growth and poorly adapted ones showed reduced performance. These findings align with the results reported by Shriram et al. (2018) [31] in anthurium.

Pseudostem length

Among all the genotypes, taller pseudostem (18.9cm) was observed in genotype G 10 (Fire Flash) which was found to be at par with G 4 (Golden Torch, 18.5 cm) whereas shorter pseudostem (3.2 cm) was observed in genotype G 2 (Petra). The length of the variation pseudostem is greatly affected by both genetic potential and environmental factors, indicating that certain cultivars demonstrate improved pseudostem elongation in optimal climates. The ability of genotypes to adapt to particular agro-climatic conditions was crucial for their performance, with well-suited genotypes showing increased growth while those poorly adapted exhibited diminished performance. Comparable findings regarding the variation in pseudostem length across different heliconia genotypes were also reported by Srinivas et al. (2012) [36] in heliconia.

Pseudostem diameter

Among all the genotypes, bigger pseudostem size (44.53 mm) was observed in genotype G 4 (Golden Torch) which was found to be at par with genotype G 8 (Sassy, 43.63 mm) whereas smaller Pseudostem size (12.22 mm) was observed in genotype G 2 (Petra). Differences in pseudostem diameter across genotypes can be linked to genetic variations and their varying responses to local agro-climatic conditions. The ability of genotypes to adapt to particular agro-climatic environments significantly influenced their performance, where well-adapted genotypes demonstrated improved growth, while those that were poorly adapted exhibited diminished performance. Avendaño-Arrazate et al. (2017) [2] in heliconia, also reported comparable findings regarding the variation in pseudostem diameter among different heliconia genotypes.

No. of shoots per clump

Among all the genotypes, more number of shoots per clump (2.6) was recorded in the genotype G4 (Golden Torch) which was significantly superior over all the genotypes followed by genotype G 8 (Sassy, 1.8) while less number of shoots (0.4) was observed in genotype G 2 (Petra). The observed genotypic variations in shoot production can be ascribed to both genetic determinants and environmental factors. The genetic potential dictates the fundamental ability of a genotype to generate shoots, whereas environmental elements-especially temperature, soil moisture, and photoperiod-affect the manifestation of this characteristic. The moderate temperatures and well-drained loamy soils that are common in the study area may have contributed to the increased shoot count. Research indicates that shoot development is enhanced by cytokinin concentrations and corm vigor, both of which are influenced by the interaction between genotype and environment Kujur et al., (2016) [14] and Swetha et al., (2020) [37] .

No. of sprouts per rhizome

Among all the genotypes, more number of sprouts per rhizomes (3) was recorded in the genotype G 4 (Golden Torch) followed by genotype G 8 (Sassy, 2.1) while less number of sprouts (0.6) was observed in genotype G 2 (Petra). Variation in the number of sprouts observed among the grnotypes can be attributed to genetic differences and possibly environmental factors. Genotype G 4 (Golden Torch) showed the highest number of sprouts indicating genetic traits that promote prolific sprouting followed by G 8 (Sassy), suggesting genetic characteristics conducive to multiple sprout formation. Environmental conditions such as temperature, light, and soil nutrients also influence sprouting behavior (Shiva and Nair, 2008) [30] . Genotypes adapted to specific environmental conditions may show variations in sprouting patterns. Additionally, the stage of plant development at which sprouts are counted can impact the results, with some genotypes initiating sprouts earlier or later in their growth cycle. Similar variations was reported in different varieties by Srinivasa and Reddy (2005) [35] and Rajeevan et al. (2007) [25] in anthurium.

No. of leaves

Among all the genotypes, more number of leaves (3.9) was recorded in the genotype G 4 (Golden Torch) followed by genotype G 8 (Sassy, 3.2) while less number of leaves (1.3) was observed in genotype G 2 (Petra), Variation in number of leaves among the different heliconia genotypes is driven by differences in the rate of vegetative growth among the genotypes. This variation is due to genetic makeup and may also have been influenced by agro-climatic conditions. These findings align with the result reported by Srinivasa (2006) [34] in anthurium.

Leaf length

Among all the genotypes, longer leaf length (17.7 cm) was recorded in the genotype G 4 (Golden Torch) which was found to be at par with genotype G 10 (Fire Flash, 17cm) while less number of leaves (3 cm) was observed in genotype G 2 (Petra). Variation in leaf length (cm) is genetically controlled factor, it varied among the different genotypes due to the genetic makeup and environmental effect Srinivas et al. (2012) [36] . Environmental conditions, such as temperature, light and nutrient availability also play a significant role in determining the pace of leaf development. These findings are in consistent with the findings of Agasimani et al. 2011 [11] and Islam et al. 2013 [12] in anthurium.

Leaf width

Among all the genotypes, longer leaf width (4.1 cm) was recorded in the genotype G 4 (Golden Torch) followed by genotype G 10 (Fire Flash, 3.6 cm) while less number of leaves (0.6 cm) was observed in genotype G 2 (Petra). The variation in leaf width (cm) is a genetically controlled factor, which differs among various genotypes due to their genetic composition and environmental influences, as noted by Srinivas et al. (2012) [36] . Factors such as temperature, light, and nutrient availability are crucial in shaping the rate of leaf development. These conclusions are consistent with the research conducted by Agasimani et al. (2011) [1] and Islam et al. (2013) [12] on anthurium.

Pseudostem length and leaf length ratio

Among all the genotypes, higher ratio of pseudostem length and leaf length (4 cm) was observed in the genotype G 4 (Golden Torch) followed by genotype G 8 (Sassy, 3.3 cm) whereas lowest ratio (0.3 cm) was observed in genotype G2 (Petra). The differences in pseudostem length and the ratio of leaf length among heliconia genotypes can be ascribed to intrinsic genetic variations, which affect growth patterns and structural development, while also being influenced by environmental factors. The ability of genotypes to adapt to particular agro-climatic conditions significantly impacted their performance, with those that were well-adapted demonstrating improved growth, whereas poorly adapted genotypes exhibited diminished performance. Comparable findings regarding the variation in leaf width were reported by Srinivas et al. (2012) [36] in heliconia.

Conclusion

From the present investigation it is concluded that 10 genotypes of heliconia under the study showed significant variation in all the parameters studied. Genotype G 4 (Golden Torch) performed significantly better in parameters like plant height, pseudostem length, pseudostem diameter, number of shoots per clump, number of sprouts per rhizome was at par with genotypes G 8 (Sassy) and G 10 (Fire Flash) while genotype G 3 (St. Vincent), G 2 (Petra), G 6 (Lillian) and G 1 (Pearl) recorded poor performance. Genotype G 4 (Golden Torch) perform significantly better in number of leaves, pseudostem length and leaf lenth ratio, leaf length and leaf width. Hence, amongst all the genotypes, G 4 (Golden Torch) outperformed in all aspects. Therefore, such findings highlight the importance of systematic evaluation in identifying genotypes which are adaptable to Prayagraj.

References

1. Agasimani D, Harish K, Saheb I, Patil S. Anthurium varieties performance in rainy and winter season under greenhouse. Research Journal of Agriculture Science. 2011;2(2):337-339.
2. Avendaño-Arrazate C, González-Hernández V, OrozcoSantos M, Guzmán-Zapata D, Rodríguez-Domínguez J. Morphological characterization of native Heliconia species in Mexico. Revista Chapingo Serie Horticultura. 2017;23(1):63-79.
3. Azzazate C, Argueta J, Curiel S, Perez E, Donjuan L, Lopez D, et al. Morphological characterization in wild species of heleconias (Heliconia spp) in Mexico. American Journal of Plant Sciences. 2017;8:1210-1223.
4. Carrera-Alvarado G, Arévalo-Galarza L, VelascoVelasco J, Baltazar O. Treatments to prolong the postharvest life of Heliconia wagneriana Petersen. Ornamental Horticulture. 2021;26(4):633-646.
5. Chawla S, Dhaduk B, Patel R. Evaluation of heliconia (Heliconia spp) genotypes under south Gujarat agroclimatic condition. The Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2016;86(6):750-752.
6. Dalawai B, Mantur S, Biradar M. Performance of heliconia genotypes for vegetative and flowering traits under shade house condition. Journal of Pharmacy and Phytochemistry. 2017;6(6):2023-2025.
7. Di Y, Wang Y, Liu H, Zhao Y. Advances in the modulation of potato tuber dormancy and sprouting: Environmental and genetic regulation. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2024;25(5):2507-2508.
8. Fernandez L, Silva J. Cold sensitivity in Heliconia genotypes under controlled night temperatures. Journal of Tropical Horticulture. 2015;21(2):98-104.
9. Gomes FA, Silva MJ, Pereira T. Growth response of Heliconia psittacorum and H. rostrata under shading conditions. Ornamental Plant Research. 2016;15(1):4552.
10. Gomes FA, Pereira T, Rocha L. Vegetative growth variation among Heliconia species for ornamental landscaping. Floriculture Research Journal. 2018;12(3):120-128.
11. Islam S, Mehraj H, Roni K, Shahrin S, Jamal F. Varietal study of anthurium (Anthurium andraeanum) as a cut flower in Bangladesh. Journal of Bangladesh Academy of Sciences. 2013;37(1):103-107.
12. Islam M, Mehraj H, Roni M, Ona A, Jamaludin A. Morphological analysis of Heliconia spp: A promising cut flower in Bangladesh. International Journal of Sustainable Agriculture Technology. 2013;9(1):120122.
13. Kress J, Betancur J. Pollination and evolution in heliconia: Genetic and ecological perspectives. Annals of Botany. 2009;104(6):1241-1252.
14. Kujur R, Lal R, Singh B. Evaluation of gladiolus varieties for growth, flowering and corm production under Chhattisgarh plains. International Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2016;8(10):1200-1202.
15. Kumar V, Sharma R, Rao K. Morphological evaluation of Heliconia genotypes for ornamental traits. Indian Journal of Horticulture. 2016;73(4):512-518.
16. Kannan M, Jawaharlal M, Ranchana P. Evaluation of Heliconia genotypes for genetic, yield and quality parameters. III International Symposium on Underutilized Plant Species. 2019;7:2051-2055.
17. Lamas C. Diversity and cultivation of Heliconia in tropical landscaping. Tropical Plant Biology. 2020;13(2):45-54.
18. Moumita M, Pinaki A, Sukanta B. Evaluation of Heliconia species based on agro-morphological traits. International Journal of Agricultural, Environmental and Biotechnology. 2015;8(4):957-964.
19. Mitra D, Banerjee A, Ghosh R. Evaluation of Heliconia genotypes under drought conditions. Plant Stress Biology. 2021;9(1):33-40.
20. Muthulakshmi R, Visalakshmi M, Aruna P, Manikanda N. Evaluation of field rose varieties for growth and yield parameters under open field condition. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2022;11(7):1823-1826.
21. Prasad P, Menon A, Nair S. Rhizome characterization in Heliconia species. Advances in Floriculture Research. 2015;7(1):20-26.
22. Patel R, Singh A. Soil influence on Heliconia growth and flowering. Horticultural Science and Soil Research. 2017;5(2):88-93.
23. Patil K, Patil S, Prasad S, Narayan J. Evaluation of chrysanthemum (Chrysanthemum grandiflora) genotypes for growth, flowering and yield under northeastern zone of Karnataka. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2022;11(1):1952-1954.
24. Rani M, Abraham J. Shoot and root development from mesomorphic rhizomes of Heliconia psittacorum. South Indian Horticulture Journal. 2020;68(2):112-118.
25. Rajeevan K, Kumari V, Rao P, Liji V, Sujitha M. Performance evaluation of cut flower varieties of anthurium under two agroclimatic conditions. Journal of Ornamental Horticulture. 2007;10(3):177-180.
26. Ravindran M, Jose T, Prakash R. Light intensity effects on Heliconia bract coloration and growth. Journal of Environmental Horticulture. 2019;16(3):73-78.
27. Roy K, Dey R, Mukherjee S. Adaptability of Heliconia latispatha to saline and acidic soils. Indian Journal of Floriculture. 2021;25(2):130-136.
28. Safeena A, Thamgam M, Singh P. Evaluation of different cultivars of tuberose (Polianthes tuberosa L.) under humid agro-climatic conditions of Goa. Journal of Horticulture Sciences. 2019;14(2):109-114.
29. Santos R, Almeida F, Silva D. Water use traits in Heliconia stricta for sub-humid regions. Agronomy and Water Management. 2020;14(1):54-61.
30. Shiva K, Nair A. Performance of anthurium cultivars in Andamans. Indian Journal of Horticulture. 2008;65(2):180-183.
31. Shriram N, Ambad AR, Shetya MT, Patil M. Varietal performance of anthurium (Anthurium andreanum L.) under cost-effective polyhouse. Journal of Ornamental Horticulture. 2018;8(5):147-153.
32. Silva A, Kumar S, Das P. Growth and yield responses of Heliconia cultivars under tropical conditions. Journal of Tropical Agriculture. 2019;57(2):101-110.
33. Silva R, Kumar P, Nair A. Growth performance of Heliconia cultivars under varying agro-climatic conditions. Journal of Tropical Horticulture. 2020;25(2):112-118.
34. Srinivasa V. Studies on the performance of some varieties of anthurium. Crop Research Hisar. 2006;31(1):75-77.
35. Srinivasa V, Reddy V. Evaluation of different varieties of anthurium under hill zone of Coorg District, Karnataka. Mysore Journal of Agriculture and Science. 2005;39(1):70-73.
36. Srinivas M, Kumar R, Janakiram T. Evaluation of Heliconia genotype for vegetative and flowering traits. Indian J Genet. 2012;72(3):397-399.
37. Swetha S, Rajasekharam B, Reddy V. Genetic variability studies in gladiolus (Gladiolus hybridus Hort.). Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry. 2020;9(1):991-994.
38. Thomas L, George A, Nair R. Genotype-environment interaction in Heliconia under Kerala agro-climatic zones. Indian Horticultural Review. 2018;20(3):101109.