Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-65tv2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-27T10:29:00.213Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Heterosis in Crosses of Theobroma cacao

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

O. A. Atanda
O. A. Atanda
Affiliation:
Cocoa Research Institute of Nigeria, Ibadan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

This paper reports the heterotic pod production of three different crosses between a Nigerian local selection (N38) and three Trinidad Introductions (CF47, CF56 and CF207). The hybrids consistently outyielded the inbreds throughout the first 19 years of pod production. N38 × CF56 hybrid produced the highest number of pods per tree, closely followed by N38 × CF47 hybrid; while N38 × CF47 hybrid showed the best heterotic response. Pod production figures of (CD207)2 and (CD302)2, both double inbreds of N38, support the hypothesis that N38 is a Trinitario × local selection hybrid which segregate for pod production.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , January 1973 , pp. 23 - 29
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1973

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Amponsah, J. D. (1968). 1967–8 Ann. Rep. Cocoa Res. Inst. Ghana.Google Scholar
Atanda, O. A. (1968). Ph.D. Thesis of University of Newcastle.Google Scholar
Atanda, O. A. (1972). Turrialba. J. 22, 1, 81.Google Scholar
Atanda, O. A. & Toxopeus, H. (1971). Proc. Third Int. Cocoa Res. Conf., 545.Google Scholar
Bartley, B. G. D. (1971). Trop. Agric. Trin. 48, 79.Google Scholar
Bruce, A. B. (1910). Science 32, 627.Google Scholar
Davenport, C. B. (1908). Science. 28, 454.Google Scholar
Glendinning, D. R. (1960). WACRI Ann. Rep. 53.Google Scholar
Glendinning, D. R. (1964). WACRI Ann. Rep. 51.Google Scholar
Hull, F. H. (1952). In Heterosis (Ed. J. Gowen). New York: Halfner Public. Com. (1964), 451.Google Scholar
Johnson, G. R. & Frey, K. J. (1967). Crop. Sci. 7, 43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marani, A. & Sachs, Y. (1966). Crop. Sci. 6, 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russel, T. A. (1952). Trop. Agric. Trin., 29, 102.Google Scholar
Schuler, A. & Sprague, G. F. (1956). In Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 87, 203.Google Scholar
Shephard, C. Y. (1951). Rep. Cocoa Conf., 58. London: Cocoa, Chocolate and Confectionery Alliance.Google Scholar
Shull, G. H. (1914). Zeitschr. indukt. Abstamm.-u. Verergungsl. 12, 97.Google Scholar
Soria, V. J. & Esquivel, O. (1967). Cacao 12, 9.Google Scholar
Toxopeus, H. & Jacob, V. J. (1970). Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 18, 188.Google Scholar
Voelcker, O. J. (1936). Trop. Agric. 16, 203.Google Scholar
Whaley, W. G. (1944). Bot. Rev., 40, 461.Google Scholar