Performance of guava (Psidium guajava L.) cultivars for quality attributes under semi-arid conditions of Maharashtra

Introduction

Guava (Psidium guajava L.) is an important fruit crop belonging to the family Myrtaceae. It is native to tropical America, particularly the region extending from Mexico to Peru. The genus Psidium comprises around 150 species (Hayes, 1974) [1] , while cultivated guava varieties may be diploid (2n = 2x = 22) or triploid (2n = 3x = 33) (Atchinson, 1947) [2] . It is widely adapted to tropical and subtropical regions. In India, guava is cultivated over an area of about 3,58,000 ha with a production of approximately 5.26 million tonnes and an average productivity of 14.8 t ha⁻¹ and in Maharashtra, guava is cultivated over about 20,390 ha with a production of 2,57,860 tonnes (Anonymous, 2024) [3] . Major guava-growing districts in the state include Ahilyanagar, Pune, Buldhana, Beed, Satara, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Amravati and Bhandara (Gavhane et al., 2024) [4] . Guava is recognized as a nutritionally valuable fruit, particularly for its abundant vitamin C content, reported to be 241.86 mg per 100 g of fruit (Bogha et al., 2020) [5] . The presence of pectin along with vitamin C further enhances its suitability for processing into products such as jelly, jam and juice (Das et al., 2019) [6] . The considerable genetic diversity in guava has resulted in variation among cultivars for important fruit quality attributes such as firmness, pulp weight, seed characteristics, TSS, titratable acidity, vitamin C and shelf life. Guava cultivars also differ in their response to important pests and diseases, which may affect fruit quality and marketability. Hence, the present study was undertaken to assess the performance of different guava cultivars for fruit quality under semi-arid conditions of Maharashtra.

Materials and methods

The study was carried out at the All India Coordinated Research Project on Fruits, Department of Horticulture, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri, Maharashtra, during the winter season. Ten guava cultivars, namely Arka Rashmi, CISH-GS14, IIHR-13-14, Allahabad Safeda, Lalit, Shweta, Dhawal, Sardar, GK.L 2 P 5 and GK.L 2 P 7 , were evaluated in a guava orchard comprising six-year-old plants, maintained at a spacing of 3 m × 3 m. The experiment was conducted in a Randomized Block Design with three replications and two plants per treatment. Fruit firmness and seed hardness were determined using a Mecmesin Basic Force Gauge (BFG 1000N, England) fitted with a probe. Pulp weight was worked out from the recorded fruit, peel and seed weights, whereas seeds were separated from the pulp after boiling and counted manually. Seed weight was determined using an electronic balance. Total soluble solids were recorded using a digital refractometer. Titratable acidity and ascorbic acid content were estimated according to Ranganna (1986) [7] .

Shelf life was determined by storing 80 per cent matured green-ripe fruits under ambient conditions and observing them daily until they became unsuitable for consumption. Fruit fly damage was expressed as percentage of infested fruits, while fruit canker severity was assessed by rating visible symptoms on a 0-4 scale according to the affected fruit surface.

Statistical analysis

The experiment was laid out in a Randomized Block Design with ten treatments and three replications. The data recorded for fruit quality, pest and disease infestation were subjected to statistical analysis following the standard procedure described by Panse et al. (1985) [8] .

Results and discussion

The data presented in following tables revealed considerable variation among the guava cultivars evaluated under semi-arid conditions of Maharashtra. The cultivars differed in fruit quality attributes and their response to major pest and disease. The results are discussed below.

Quality parameters

The data depicted in Table 1 presents the variation in fruit firmness among different guava cultivars. Fruit firmness ranged from 12.02 to 19.12 kg/cm², with a mean of 14.61 kg/cm². The maximum fruit firmness was recorded in Sardar (19.12 kg/cm²),which was significantly superior over the remaining cultivars, followed by Allahabad Safeda (16.02 kg/cm²) and GK.L 2 P 5 (15.61 kg/cm²), whereas the minimum was recorded in Lalit (12.02 kg/cm²). Fruit firmness is an important quality attribute that determines the keeping quality and market acceptability of guava fruits. Cultivars with firmer fruits generally possess better storage and transport tolerance. The variation observed among the cultivars may be attributed to differences in their genetic constitution and structural characteristics of fruit tissues. Similar findings were reported by Kumar (2020) [9] and Tripathi (2025) [10] .

The observations on pulp weight of different guava cultivars are presented in Table 1. Pulp weight ranged from 86.18 to 90.91 g/100 g fruit, with a mean of 88.84 g/100 g fruit. The maximum pulp weight was recorded in Arka Rashmi (90.91 g/100 g fruit), which was statistically at par with Shweta (90.56 g/100 g fruit), IIHR-13-14 (90.30 g/100 g fruit) and CISH-GS14 (89.59 g/100 g fruit). The minimum pulp weight was recorded in Allahabad Safeda (86.18 g/100 g fruit).

The variation in pulp weight among the guava cultivars may be attributed to differences in their genetic potential and pulp development during fruit growth. Better accumulation of edible pulp might have contributed to higher pulp recovery. Similar findings were reported by Sahoo et al. (2017) [11] , Bodkhe (2019) [12] and Rahi (2019) [13] .

The data depicted in [14] , Pandey et al. (2016) [15] , Singh et al. (2017) [16] and Bodkhe (2019) [12] .

Number of seeds per fruit

The observations on the number of seeds per fruit of different guava cultivars are presented in Table 1. The number of seeds per fruit ranged from 212.67 to 363.05, with a mean of 273.96. The minimum number of seeds per fruit was recorded in Shweta (212.67), which was significantly lower than the remaining cultivars, followed by GK.L 2 P 5 (235.67) and Arka Rashmi (248.17). The maximum number of seeds per fruit was recorded in Sardar (363.05). The variation in the number of seeds per fruit among the guava cultivars may be attributed to differences in their genetic constitution and reproductive behaviour. Cultivars producing fewer seeds are generally preferred due to their higher consumer acceptability. Similar findings were reported by Das et al. (1995) [17] and Marak et al. (2007) [18] .

The recorded values of seed weight per fruit of different guava cultivars are presented in Table 1. Seed weight per fruit ranged from 2.23 to 3.96 g, with a mean of 2.85 g. The minimum seed weight per fruit was recorded in Shweta (2.23 g), which was significantly lower than the remaining cultivars, followed by CISH-GS14 (2.45 g) and Dhawal (2.45 g). The maximum seed weight per fruit was recorded in Sardar (3.96 g). The variation in seed weight per fruit among the guava cultivars may be attributed to differences in their genetic constitution and seed development. Greater accumulation of reserve food materials during seed maturation might have contributed to higher seed weight. Similar findings were reported by Patil et al. (2015) [19] , Singh et al. (2017) [16] and Bodkhe (2019) [12] .

Considerable variation was observed in shelf life among the guava cultivars, as presented in Table 1. Shelf life ranged from 4.10 to 5.32 days, with a mean of 4.54 days. The maximum shelf life was recorded in Sardar (5.32 days), which was significantly superior over the remaining cultivars, followed by Allahabad Safeda (4.91 days) and GK.L 2 P 5 (4.86 days), whereas the minimum was recorded in Arka Rashmi and Dhawal (4.10 days each). The variation may be associated with differences in genetic constitution and post-harvest physiological behaviour. Better fruit firmness and slower metabolic activity may contribute to longer shelf life. Similar findings were reported by Singh et al. (2013) [20] , Tiwari et al. (2016) [21] , Dubey et al. (2016) [14] and Bodkhe (2019) [12] .

Table 1. Performance of guava cultivars for fruit firmness, pulp weight, seed characteristics and shelf life.

Sr.

Treatments

Total soluble solids (°Brix)

The data from Table 2 present the variation in total soluble solids among different guava cultivars. TSS ranged from 10.09 to 12.32 °Brix, with a mean of 11.42 °Brix. The maximum TSS was recorded in Shweta (12.32 °Brix), which was significantly superior over the remaining cultivars, followed by Sardar (12.10 °Brix) and IIHR-13-14 (11.93 °Brix), whereas the minimum was recorded in GK.L 2 P 7 (10.09 °Brix). The variation may be attributed to differences in genetic constitution and accumulation of soluble sugars in the fruits. Similar variation in TSS among guava cultivars was reported by Dubey et al.

(2016) [14] , Tiwari et al. (2016) [21] and Shukla et al. (2017) [22] .

The data pertaining to titratable acidity of different guava cultivars are presented in Table 2. Titratable acidity ranged from 0.32 to 0.49 per cent, with a mean of 0.38 per cent. The minimum acidity was recorded in Shweta (0.32%), which was statistically at par with IIHR-13-14 (0.34%) and Arka Rashmi (0.35%), whereas the maximum was recorded in GK.L 2 P 7 (0.49%). The variation may be attributed to differences in genetic makeup and organic acid metabolism among the cultivars. Lower acidity generally contributes to better fruit flavour and consumer preference. Similar variation was reported by Dubey et al. (2016) [14] , Mehta et al. (2016) [23] , Bodkhe (2019) [12] and Singh et al. (2023) [24] .

The observations on ascorbic acid content of different guava cultivars are presented in Table 2. Ascorbic acid content ranged from 141.67 to 230.48 mg/100 g, with a mean of 187.48 mg/100 g. The maximum ascorbic acid content was recorded in Shweta (230.48 mg/100 g), which was statistically at par with Sardar (223.82 mg/100 g), whereas the minimum was recorded in CISH-GS14 (141.67 mg/100 g). The variation may be attributed to differences in genetic constitution and the ability of cultivars to synthesize and retain ascorbic acid. Higher ascorbic acid content contributes to the nutritional value of guava fruits. Similar variation was reported by Rahi (2019) [13] , Singh et al. (2023) [24] and Patel et al. (2024) [25] .

Pest and disease infestation

The data presented in [26] , Reddy et al. (1999) [27] , Kapoor (2000) [28] and Baradevanal Gundappa et al. (2018) [29] .

The results presented in Table 3 showed variation in fruit canker severity among the guava cultivars. Fruit canker severity ranged from 9.19 to 30.05 per cent, with a mean of 16.51 per cent. The minimum fruit canker severity was recorded in Lalit (9.19%), which was statistically at par with IIHR-13-14 (10.20%), whereas the maximum was recorded in Dhawal (30.05%). The variation may be attributed to differences in genetic background and inherent resistance of the cultivars. Similar variation in response to fruit canker was reported by Gupta et al. (2016) [30] and Triwidodo et al. (2021) [31] .

Conclusion

The present study revealed considerable variation among guava cultivars for fruit quality and pest and disease infestation. Sardar, Shweta and Lalit showed desirable overall performance for important quality attributes and lower pest and disease infestation. These cultivars were identified as promising for cultivation under semi-arid conditions of Maharashtra.

References

1. Hayes WB. Fruit growing in India. Kitabistan, Allahabad. 1974.
2. Atchinson E. Chromosome number in the Myrtaceae. American Journal of Botany. 1947;34:159-164.
3. Anonymous. Ministry of agriculture and farmers welfare. Govt. of India (3rd adv. Estimates,2023-
4. Gavhane YD, Kamble VP, Chapke RP, Latke MB, Sarvade PB, Satpute VD, Bidwe GG, Mavinalli Santosh, Magar AS. Assessment of physical characters of guava (Psidium guajava L.) cultivars under Marathwada conditions. International Journal of Advanced Biochemistry Research. 2024;8(10):1012-1015.
5. Bogha TT, Sawate AR, Kshirsagar RB, Bochare SS. Studies on physical, chemical and mineral evaluation of guava (Psidium guajava L.). The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2020;9(3):117-119.
6. Das M, Goswami S. Antifungal and Antibacterial Property of Guava (Psidium guajava) Leaf Extract: Role of Phytochemicals. International Journal of Health Sciences & Research. 2019;9(2):39-45.
7. Ranganna S. Hand book of Analysis and quality control for fruits and vegetable products. TataMc. Graw Hill Publishing Company Limited, New Delhi; 1986.
8. Panse VG, Sukhatme PV. Statistical methods for agricultural workers. Publication and Information Division, ICAR, New Delhi; 1985.
9. Kumar P. Morphological and nutraceutical characterization of guava (Psidium guajava L.) genotypes. M.Sc. Thesis, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana. 2020:34.
10. Tripathi S. Varietal Evaluation of Guava (Psidium guajava L.) for Morphological and Physico-chemical Traits under Varanasi Region. A Thesis submitted to, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India; 2025.
11. Sahoo J, Tarai RK, Sethy BK, Sahoo AK, Swain SC, Dash D. Flowering and fruiting behavior of some guava genotypes under East and South East Coastal Plain Zone 101 of Odisha, India. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2017;6:3499-3501.
12. Bodkhe VA. Morphological, biochemical, and molecular characterization of different guava genotypes. A Thesis submitted to, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth Rahuri, Dist-Ahilyanagar, Maharashtra. 2019.
13. Rahi L. Morpho-Molecular Characterization, Evaluation and Hybridization among different Cultivars of Guava (Psidium guajava L.). A Thesis submitted to Dr. Yashwant Singh Parmar University of Horticulture & Forestry Solan (Nauni) Hp -173 230 India; 2019.
14. Dubey M, Chandra, Kumar R, Kumar A, Kohli K. Evaluation of different guava (Psidium guajava L.). genotypes under Tarai condition of uttarakhand. The Bioscan. 2016;11(3):1765-1770.
15. Pandey D, Pandey AK, Yadav SK. Evaluation of newly developed cultivars and selection under lucknow conditions. Indian Journal of Horticulture. 2016;73(3):334-338.
16. Singh D, Gill MIS, Arora NK. Studies on crossing behavior and hybridization in guava. Journal of Envirnmental Biology. 2017;38:1341-1347.
17. Das BC, Chakraborty A, Chakra PK, Mandal S, Ghosh S. Comparative performance of guava cultivars under red and lateritic soils of West Bengal. Horticulture Journal. 1995;8:141-146.
18. Marak JK, Mukunda GK. Studies on the performance of open pollinated seedling progenies of guava cv. Apple Color. Acta Horticulturae. 2007;735:79-84.
19. Patil SP, Mokashi AN, Kale LU. Evaluation of pink pulped Navoluer guava selections. International Journal of Tropical Agriculture. 2015;33(2):297-302.
20. Singh D, Gill MIS, Boora RS, Arora NK. Genetic diversity analysis in guava (Psidium guajava) on the basis of morphological and physico-chemical traits. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2013;85(5):678-683.
21. Tiwari A, Pal AK, Singh S, Singh SP, Patidar VL. Physico-chemical attributes and organoleptic assessment of guava (Psidium guajava L.) cultivars grown in eastern Uttar Pradesh. Journal of Applied and Natural Science. 2016;8(4):1731-1734.
22. Shukla R, Shukla YK. Studies on different guava cultivars (Psidium guajava L.) for nutritional and livelihood security suited to degraded soils. The Asian Journal of Horticulture. 2017;12(1):91-95.
23. Mehta SK, Singh Jat KK, Kishan D, Rana DK. Comparative studies on physico-chemical characteristics of various cultivars of guava (Psidium guajava L.) under subtropical valley condition of Garhwal Himalaya (Uttarakhand) India. Plant Archives. 2016;16(1):361-364.
24. Singh P, Rathour KV, Dawar SS, Uikey A, Kushwah A. Physicochemical Evaluation of Different Cultivars of Guava under Gird Region of Madhya Pradesh, India. International Journal of Plant & Soil Science. 2023;35(1):72-76.
25. Patel YK, Dewangan RK, Nag JL, Nag GP, Jain DK, Kumar R. Evaluation of guava (Psidium guajava L.) genotypes in Bastar district of Chhattisgarh based on qualitative traits. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2024;13(3):15-17.
26. Arora PK, Batra RC, Mehrotra NK. Screening of some promising guava varieties against fruit fly. In: Proceedings of the First National Symposium on Pest Management in Horticultural Crops: Environmental Implication and Thrusts, Bangalore. 1998:43-44.
27. Reddy NN, Gangopadhyay KK, Rai M, Kumar R. Evaluation of Guava cultivars under rainfed sub-humid region of Chhotanagpur plateau. Indian Journal of Horticulture. 1999;56(2):135-140.
28. Kapoor VC. Fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae): status, biology and management strategies. In: Upadhyay RK, Mukerji KG, Dubey OP (eds.), IPM System in Agriculture, Vol. 7. Aditya Books Private Ltd., New Delhi. 2000.
29. Baradevanal Gundappa M, Balaji Rajkumar M, Shivshankar Singh, Rajan S. Pests of guava. In: Pests and Their Management (Eds. Omkar). Springer, Singapore. 2018:491-516.
30. Gupta N, Wali VK, Singh VB, Singh M, Kumar V. Effect of Seasonal Variations and Weather Parameters on Yield, Quality and Disease Incidence in Guava Cultivars under Rainfed Conditions of Jammu Region. The Bioscan. 2016;11(1):627-633.
31. Triwidodo H, Tondok ET, Avifah DN. Susceptibility of Two Varieties of Guava (Psidium guajava L.) to Pest and Disease Infection in the Sub-District of Tanah Sareal, Bogor. Journal Perlindungan Tanaman Indonesia. 2021;25(2):106-113.
32. How to cite this article: Kakade P, Dighe S, Kadu R, Kadu R, Dalvi U, Mahalle S. Performance of guava (Psidium guajava L.) cultivars for quality attributes under semi-arid conditions of Maharashtra. International Journal of Advanced Biochemistry Research. 2026;10(9):1557-1561. doi: https://www.doi.org/10.33 545/26174693.2026.v10.i9Ss.10085