Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Food Science & Nutrition logoLink to Food Science & Nutrition
. 2021 Feb 25;9(4):2217–2226. doi: 10.1002/fsn3.2193

Identification of the promising Persian walnut (Juglans regia L.) genotypes among seedling‐originated trees

Narjes‐Sadat Mirmahdi 1, Ali Khadivi 1,✉
PMCID: PMC8020914  PMID: 33841837

Abstract

Considerable genetic diversity among the native populations of Persian walnut (Juglans regia L.) provides a great opportunity to identify genotypes with valuable traits. In the present study, morphological and pomological diversity assessments of 362 walnut seedling origin genotypes were performed to identify superior genotypes. Significant differences were observed among the genotypes investigated in terms of the evaluated characters. Nut weighted from 5.53 to 19.24 g with an average of 10.67. The range of kernel weight was 1.78–9.28 g with an average of 4.83. Kernel percentage in 107 out of 362 genotypes studied was more than 50.00%. Multiple regression analysis (MRA) showed that kernel percentage was associated with kernel weight, nut weight, kernel filled, nut width, and shell thickness. Principal component analysis (PCA) showed that the characters related to nut and kernel size were correlated with the first component (PC1). Hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) showed that the genotypes were clustered into two major clusters. Based on the most important commercial characters considered by breeders to select ideal walnuts, 15 superior genotypes were selected and are recommended for cultivation in the orchards and also can be used in breeding programs.

Keywords: breeding, genetic resource, germplasm, kernel percentage, walnut

Based on the most important commercial characters, which are considered by breeders to select ideal walnut genotypes, 15 superior genotypes were selected and are recommended for cultivation in the orchards and also and can be used in breeding programs.

graphic file with name FSN3-9-2217-g003.jpg

1. INTRODUCTION

The Persian walnut (Juglans regia L.) is monoecious, meaning that the male and female flowers are located separately on a tree (McGranahan & Leslie, 1990). This tree is self‐compatible, but most of the time, it shows protandry, and in some cases, protogyny (Mert, 2010), and because the period of pollen‐shedding does not entirely overlap female flower receptivity, so the cross‐pollination could be high in a particular condition.

Indigenous walnut populations have a significant genetic diversity because they are propagated through seed. Therefore, there is considerable variation in their phenological and carpological traits such as fruit size and shape, kernel thickness and color, kernel taste, and oil content (Korac et al., 1997; McGranahan & Leslie, 1990; Solar et al., 2002; Zeneli et al., 2004). In walnut breeding programs, essential goals such as selecting genotypes based on important commercial traits, including late‐leafing, late‐flowering, high kernel percentage, and lateral flowering habit are pursued (Zeneli et al., 2004).

Morphological descriptors are commonly used to examine the phenotypic diversity of germplasm (Bernard et al., 2018). So far, the first step in the description and grouping of germplasm, as well as the selection of superior genotypes in fruit trees, including walnuts, is morphological and pomological evaluations. One of the basic needs of germplasm management and its proper use in practical purposes of breeding is the accurate identification of genotypes (Solar et al., 2002). Morphological studies provide a guideline for selecting genotypes that are suitable for specific growth conditions. Morphological traits can be ideal for grouping walnut genotypes because they have considerable diversity and are also easy to use (Asadian & Pieber, 2005). Accordingly, the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV, 1999) has provided guidelines for determining the differentiation, homogeneity, and stability of new cultivars in most plants (Solar & Stampar, 2011).

There is considerable diversity in the native populations of walnuts in Iran, due to propagation through seeds, high heterozygosity, and digocamy, and consequent cross‐pollination (Ebrahimi et al., 2015; Lansari et al., 2001). Significant genetic diversity provides an excellent opportunity to identify genotypes with valuable traits. Several studies have been done to identify and introduce the superior walnut genotypes (Jafari Sayadi et al., 2012; Hajnajari et al., 2012; Sarikhani et al., 2021) and also to investigate genetic diversity among populations of this species in Iran (Karimi et al., 2010; Mohsenipoor et al., 2010; Vahdati et al., 2015). In the present study, morphological and pomological diversity assessments of walnut seedling origin genotypes were performed to identify superior genotypes. Such information can help preserve important genetic resources and establish germplasm collections.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1. Plant material

Morphological and pomological diversity assessments of 362 walnut seedling origin genotypes were performed to identify superior genotypes. The genotypes were selected from six areas of Shazand region in Markazi province/Iran, including Emarat, Ghale, Hesar, Khalaj, Shahbaz, and Vashe. Shazand region is located at 33˚87'35"N latitude and 49˚55'22"E longitude. The height of the selected areas ranged from 1958 to 2143 m above sea level. The studied genotypes were named based on the studied area. The selection of genotypes was based on commercial traits related to fruit. The age of the trees studied was not the same, but, several visits were done to select the trees with close ages.

2.2. The characters evaluated

Morphological assessments were done according to the walnut descriptor (IPGRI, 1994). The range of phenotypic diversity of genotypes was evaluated using 33 characteristics (Table 1). Fifteen characters were measured as continuous and the remaining were determined based on categorical scales. Samples of adult leaves were taken in summer from outside sections of trees. For fruit ripening date, when nuts of the first genotype were ripened, its date was recorded as zero. Then, the fruit ripening date of other trees was recorded based on it so that the number of days after the control or reference tree was considered as the ripening date of other trees. For the traits related to nut and kernel, 30 replicates were considered, and their mean was used for analysis. Nut and kernel dimensions were measured using a digital caliper (Anyi Instrument). Also, an electronic balance with the precision of 0.01 g (Ohaus SP602 AM, Fotronic Corporation) was used to measure the weight of nut and kernel. Kernel percentage was estimated using the “kernel weight/nut weight × 100” formula. The qualitative traits were evaluated based on the coding and scoring mentioned in the walnut descriptor (IPGRI, 1994), the list of which is shown in Table 2.

TABLE 1.

Statistical descriptive parameters for morphological traits used to study walnut genotypes

No Character Abbreviation Unit Min Max Mean SD CV (%) a
1 Tree growth habit TGH Code 1 5 3.31 1.32 39.88
2 Tree growth vigor TGV Code 1 5 3.18 1.60 50.19
3 Tree height TH Code 1 5 3.64 1.46 40.11
4 Leaf color LCo Code 1 5 3.25 1.50 46.18
5 Leaf length LLe cm 24.12 53.58 34.98 4.39 12.54
6 Leaf width LWi cm 17.86 40.35 26.29 3.08 11.71
7 Petiole length PLe cm 13.75 34.67 20.19 3.39 16.78
8 Leaflet number LtNo Number 5.60 9.60 7.34 0.77 10.52
9 Terminal leaflet length TeLtLe cm 8.95 24.20 14.77 1.86 12.60
10 Terminal leaflet width TeLtWi cm 4.62 10.61 7.90 1.04 13.16
11 Terminal leaflet shape TeLtSh Code 1 5 3.17 1.42 44.83
12 Fruiting habit FrHa Code 1 5 1.10 0.48 44.00
13 Ripening date RiDi Date 06‐Sep 28‐Sep 3.43 1.39 40.55
14 Yield Yi Code 1 7 3.79 2.10 55.44
15 Nut length NuLe mm 27.08 44.71 34.91 3.12 8.95
16 Nut width NuWi mm 25.67 38.13 31.86 2.37 7.45
17 Nut weight NuWe g 5.53 19.24 10.67 2.19 20.49
18 Nut shape NuSh Code 1 13 5.61 3.20 57.11
19 Shell thickness SheTh mm 0.73 2.95 1.45 0.33 22.76
20 Shell hardness SheHar Code 1 7 3.05 2.14 70.13
21 Shell color SheCo Code 1 7 3.14 1.88 59.90
22 Shell seal SheSe Code 1 9 2.79 2.20 78.96
23 Shell surface serration SheSu Code 1 7 3.53 2.35 66.57
24 Kernel length KeLe mm 17.81 41.96 26.15 2.49 9.50
25 Kernel width KeWi mm 10.52 30.09 22.88 3.46 15.11
26 Kernel weight KeWe g 1.78 9.28 4.83 1.12 23.29
27 Kernel percentage KePe % 25.75 62.53 45.29 5.66 12.50
28 Kernel color KeCo Code 1 7 1.51 1.27 83.97
29 Kernel vein KeVe Code 1 7 3.02 1.73 57.15
30 Ease of kernel removal from nuts EsKeRe Code 1 7 1.90 1.55 81.74
31 Kernel filled KeFi Code 1 5 4.18 1.28 30.57
32 Kernel plumpness KePl Code 1 5 3.27 1.66 50.73
33 Kernel shriveling KeShr Code 1 5 3.40 1.64 48.12
Open in a new tab

Abbreviation: SD, Standard deviation.

a

CV=(SD/Mean) × 100.

TABLE 2.

Frequency distribution for the measured qualitative morphological characters in the studied walnut genotypes

Character Frequency (no. of genotypes)
1 3 5 7 9 11 13
Tree growth habit Spreading (55) Upright (196) Extremely upright (111) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Tree growth vigor Low (100) Moderate (129) High (133) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Tree height Low (57) Moderate (133) High (172) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Leaf color Light green (82) Green (153) dark green (127) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Terminal leaflet shape Wide oval (77) Oval (177) Elliptic (108) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Fruiting habit Terminal (346) Mostly terminal (14) Lateral (2) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Ripening date Early (57) Moderate (171) Late (134) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Yield Low (90) Moderate (105) High (101) Very high (66) ‐ ‐ ‐
Nut shape Round (68) Board oval (49) Oval (70) Board ovate (93) Ovate (58) Trapezoidal (10) Triangular (14)
Shell hardness Paper (163) Soft (66) Moderate (94) Hard (39) ‐ ‐ ‐
Shell color Light (123) Moderate (116) Dark (98) Very dark (25) ‐ ‐ ‐
Shell seal Excellent seal (177) Slightly open (99) Moderate (43) Wide (33) Very wide (10)
Shell surface serration Low (139) Moderate (63) High (85) Very high (75) ‐ ‐ ‐
Kernel color Light (297) Light amber (47) Amber (8) Brown (10) ‐ ‐ ‐
Kernel vein Low (132) Moderate (96) High (133) Very high (1) ‐ ‐ ‐
Ease of kernel removal from nuts Easy (251) Moderate (71) Difficult (28) Very difficult (12) ‐ ‐ ‐
Kernel filled Low (30) Moderate (88) High (244) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Kernel plumpness Low (103) Moderate (107) High (152) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Kernel shriveling Low (92) Moderate (106) High (164) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
Open in a new tab

2.3. Statistical analysis

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to evaluate the variation among the genotypes based on the traits measured using SAS software (SAS® Procedures, 1990). Simple correlations between traits were determined using Spearman correlation coefficients (SPSS Inc. Norusis, 1998). Principal component analysis (PCA) was used to investigate the relationship between genotypes and determine the main traits effective in genotype segregation using SPSS software. Hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) was performed using Ward's method and Euclidean coefficient with PAST software (Hammer et al., 2001). The first and second principal components (PC1/PC2) were used to create a scatter plot with PAST software. Besides, independent traits affecting the kernel percentage as a dependent trait were determined through multiple regression analysis (MRA) using the “linear stepwise” method with SPSS software.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1. Morphological and pomological description

The ANOVA (p < 0.01) revealed significant differences among the genotypes investigated in terms of the evaluated characters. The coefficient of variation (CV) ranged from 7.45 (in nut width) to 83.97% (in kernel color). The CV in 22 out of 33 characters was more than 20.00%, so that 11 characters, including kernel color, ease of kernel removal from nuts, shell seal, shell hardness, shell surface serration, shell color, kernel vein, nut shape, yield, kernel plumpness, and tree growth vigor, had the CVs more than 50.00% (Table 1).

Tree growth habit was predominantly upright (196 genotypes). Tree growth vigor and tree height were mainly high (133 and 172 genotypes, respectively) (Table 2). Leaf length ranged from 24.12 to 53.58 cm, leaf width varied from 17.86 to 40.35 cm, and petiole length ranged from 13.75 to 34.67 cm. Leaflet number ranged from 5.60 to 9.60, terminal leaflet length varied from 8.95 to 24.20 cm, and terminal leaflet width ranged from 4.62 to 10.61 cm (Table 1).

Terminal fruiting habit was predominant (346 genotypes), while fruiting was lateral only in two genotypes. Poggetti et al. (2017) reported that all walnut trees turned out to be terminal bearing in their survey. Previous studies in different countries have reported less than 5.00% of genotypes with lateral fruiting (Atefi, 1997; Botu et al., 2010; Korac et al., 1997; Solar et al., 2002). Only Rouskas & Zakynthinos (2001) reported that Greek walnuts were more laterally bearing in their study, but the trees they studied were a panel of selected genotypes.

Ripening date ranged from 06 to 28 September and was early in 57, moderate in 171, and late in 134 genotypes. The yield was highly variable, including low (90 genotypes), moderate (105), high (101), and very high (66). Also, nut shape showed strong variation and included round (68 genotypes), board oval (49), oval (70), board ovate (93), ovate (58), trapezoidal (10), and triangular (14) (Table 2).

Nut length ranged from 27.08 to 44.71 mm with an average of 34.91. The range of nut width was 25.67–38.13 mm with an average of 31.86 mm. Nut weighted from 5.53 to 19.24 g with an average of 10.67 (Table 1). The range of 6.00–16.89 g has been reported for nut weight in walnut from different countries (Ahandani et al., 2014; Cosmulescu, 2013; Ghasemi et al., 2012; Kabiri et al., 2018; Karadag & Akca, 2011). Akça et al. (2020) reported the range of 26.10–41.90 mm for nut length, 26.50 to 33.90 mm for nut diameter, and 6.21–15.18 g for nut weight in Kazakh walnuts. The minimum of 12.00 g for nut weight is accepted in walnut breeding programs (McGranahan & Leslie, 1990; Sharma & Sharma, 1998). Thus, 92 out of 362 genotypes studied had the nuts with more than 12.00 g.

Shell hardness was paper (163 genotypes), soft (66), moderate (94), and hard (39). Shell was excellently sealed in 177 genotypes and followed by slightly open (99 genotypes). More strength shells can better protect the kernels against the harmful organisms that feed on prevent the penetration of fungal pathogens (Korac et al., 1998). Shell thickness ranged from 0.73 to 2.95 mm and is similar to the ranges observed for this character in walnut from different countries (Akca et al., 2015; Kabiri et al., 2018; Karadag & Akca, 2011; Sharma et al., 2014). Generally, the most desirable shell thickness in walnut is 0.70–1.50 mm (Zhadan & Strukov, 1977). Thus, shell thickness in 185 out of 362 genotypes studied was lower than 1.50 mm. The ease of kernel removal from nuts is affected by shell thickness, and the quality of kernels is increased with the easier kernel removal from nuts from a commercial point of view (Sharma & Sharma, 1998).

Kernel color was predominantly light (297 genotypes). A primary object in walnut breeding programs is finding the genotypes with light kernel color (Kabiri et al., 2018). Kernel removal from nuts was easy in the majority of genotypes (251). The ease of kernel removal from nuts is an essential pomological feature. Korac et al. (1998) state that nuts with a thinner shell have a kernel easy to remove, especially if their shell is smooth, which is the most common case. Kernel plumpness was low (103 genotypes), moderate (107), and high (152). Kernel length ranged from 17.81 to 41.96 mm with an average of 26.15. Kernel width varied from 10.52 to 30.09 mm with an average of 22.88. The range of kernel weight was 1.78–9.28 g with an average of 4.83. Akça et al. (2020) reported the range of 2.36–6.64 g for kernel weight in Kazakh walnuts. The minimum of 6.00 g for kernel weight is accepted in walnut breeding programs (Germain, 1997; Korac et al., 1997; Sharma & Sharma, 1998). Thus, 53 out of 362 genotypes studied had kernels with more than 6.00 g.

Kernel percentage ranged from 25.75% to 62.53%, with an average of 45.29 (Table 1). The range of 33.55%–70.96% has been reported for kernel percentage in walnut from different countries (Ahandani et al., 2014; Akça et al., 2020; Kabiri et al., 2018; Karadag & Akca, 2011). The kernel percentage is a prominent character that is of great importance to walnut breeders (Cosmulescu & Botu, 2012). The kernel percentage is influenced by the weight of nut and kernel. The genotypes with a kernel percentage above 50.00% are preferred (Germain, 1997; Korac et al., 1998). Thus, kernel percentage in 107 out of 362 genotypes studied was more than 50.00%. The diversity of nut and kernel‐related characters is shown in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

The pictures of some walnut genotypes studied pointing out diversity of nut and kernel‐related characters

3.2. Correlations among the measured characters

Significant correlations were detected between important characters as revealed using Spearman correlation analysis (data not shown). Leaf length was positively and significantly correlated with leaf width (r = 0.72), petiole length (r = 0.90), leaflet number (r = 0.32), terminal leaflet length (r = 0.68), and terminal leaflet width (r = 0.48) and was in agreement with others (Sharma & Sharma, 1998; Khadivi‐Khub & Ebrahimi, 2015; Khadivi‐Khub et al., 2015a, b; Khadivi et al., 2019b). Yield showed positive and significant correlations with tree growth vigor (r = 0.37) and tree height (r = 0.17). Nut weight was positively and significantly correlated with nut length (r = 0.53) and nut width (r = 0.74). Shell hardness was positively and significantly correlated with shell thickness (r = 0.46). Kernel weight showed positive and significant correlations with nut length (r = 0.45), nut width (r = 0.68), nut weight (r = 0.83), kernel length (r = 0.59), and kernel width (r = 0.50), and agreed with others (Bayazit, 2012; Gahsemi et al., 2012; Cosmulescu & Botu, 2012; Mahmoodi et al., 2016; Poggetti et al., 2017; Khadivi et al., 2019b; Akça et al., 2020). Kernel percentage was negatively and significantly correlated with shell thickness (r= ‐ 0.30), shell hardness (r= ‐ 0.42), ease of kernel removal from nuts (r= ‐ 0.39), and kernel shriveling (r= ‐ 0.20), while it was positively and significantly correlated with kernel length (r = 0.17), kernel width (r = 0.30), kernel weight (r = 0.50), kernel filled (r = 0.46), and kernel plumpness (r = 0.41) and was in line with the previous findings (Sharma & Sharma, 1998; Cosmulescu & Botu, 2012; Khadivi et al., 2019a, 2019b; Khadivi‐Khub, 2014; Khadivi‐Khub et al., 2015a, 2015b.

3.3. Multiple regression analysis

The effect of independent traits on kernel percentage as a dependent trait was investigated with MRA (Table 3). The MRA showed that kernel percentage was associated with kernel weight, nut weight, kernel filled, nut width, and shell thickness. Thus, these key variables are the main traits accounting for kernel percentage, and they should be considered together in breeding with aiming increasing kernel percentage. Significant regression associations between kernel percentage and nut and kernel weights have been previously reported with MRA in walnut (Khadivi et al., 2019a; Khadivi‐Khub et al., 2015a, b).

TABLE 3.

The traits associated with kernel percentage in the walnut genotypes as revealed by MRA and coefficients

Dependent character Independent character r r2 Standardized beta coefficients t value p value
Kernel percentage Kernel weight 0.499 a 0.25 1.73 70.84 0.00
Nut weight 0.975 b 0.95 −1.46 −58.44 0.00
Kernel filled 0.977 c 0.95 0.06 4.48 0.00
Nut width 0.977 d 0.96 −0.05 −2.82 0.01
Shell thickness 0.977 e 0.96 −0.03 −2.07 0.04
Open in a new tab

3.4. Principal component analysis

The PCA showed that the first 11 components accounted for 68.21% of the total variance (Table 4). The characters, including nut length, nut width, nut weight, kernel length, and kernel weight, were correlated with PC1, accounting for 11.38% of the total variance, called fruit size. The PC2 included leaf length, leaf width, terminal leaflet length, and terminal leaflet width, explaining 9.96% of the total variance called leaf size. Three characters, including shell thickness, shell hardness, and ease of kernel removal from nuts, formed the PC3, accounting for 7.57% of the total variance. In the previous studies, PCA has been used to investigate the phenotypic diversity of walnut genotypes (Cosmulescu & Stefanescu, 2018; Ebrahimi et al., 2015; Ghasemi et al., 2012; Hussain et al., 2016; Khadivi et al., 2019b; Khadivi‐Khub et al., 2015a, b; Norouzi et al., 2013; Rezaei et al., 2018).

TABLE 4.

Eigenvalues of the principal component axes from the PCA of the morphological characters in the studied walnut genotypes

Character Component
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Tree growth habit 0.00 −0.08 0.02 −0.09 0.05 −0.14 0.75** −0.08 −0.21 0.05 −0.03
Tree growth vigor −0.01 −0.05 −0.02 0.07 −0.05 0.81** −0.10 −0.08 0.07 0.08 −0.11
Tree height 0.05 0.15 −0.03 −0.01 0.04 0.16 0.78** 0.09 0.01 0.04 0.04
Leaf color 0.01 0.22 0.02 0.08 0.34 −0.09 −0.15 0.07 −0.13 0.44 −0.14
Leaf length 0.01 0.70** −0.06 0.04 0.66 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.01 0.05
Leaf width −0.01 0.76** 0.01 0.08 0.38 −0.05 0.02 −0.04 0.07 0.00 −0.08
Petiole length −0.01 0.39 −0.10 0.03 0.82** 0.03 −0.01 0.01 0.08 −0.02 0.10
Leaflet number −0.01 −0.21 −0.05 −0.10 0.82** 0.01 0.13 0.00 −0.10 −0.04 0.00
Terminal leaflet length 0.03 0.91** 0.03 0.04 0.06 −0.01 0.01 −0.01 0.10 0.06 −0.06
Terminal leaflet width 0.14 0.87** −0.03 0.00 −0.17 0.06 0.03 0.05 −0.08 −0.03 0.10
Terminal leaflet shape −0.10 −0.51 0.08 0.09 0.34 −0.05 −0.11 −0.02 0.26 0.06 −0.34
Fruiting habit 0.00 0.18 0.01 −0.04 0.01 0.10 −0.19 0.23 −0.29 −0.32 −0.33
Ripening date −0.03 0.14 0.11 0.02 −0.06 −0.08 −0.06 −0.01 −0.11 0.32 0.59
Yield 0.10 0.07 0.08 0.00 0.05 0.79** 0.11 0.02 −0.05 −0.03 0.08
Nut length 0.79** 0.06 0.02 −0.08 0.00 0.08 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.29 −0.10
Nut width 0.81** −0.02 −0.08 0.06 0.01 0.03 −0.08 0.02 0.02 −0.27 0.12
Nut weight 0.85** 0.10 0.26 0.23 −0.03 0.04 0.00 −0.06 0.03 −0.16 0.09
Nut shape −0.06 −0.06 −0.06 −0.04 −0.10 0.11 0.13 0.10 0.05 0.74** 0.08
Shell thickness 0.06 −0.05 0.74** 0.05 −0.04 −0.05 0.09 0.04 −0.09 0.05 0.13
Shell hardness −0.01 0.04 0.86** −0.11 −0.01 0.03 −0.08 0.03 0.05 −0.03 0.00
Shell color 0.06 0.08 −0.04 0.03 −0.04 −0.04 −0.12 0.18 0.67** −0.08 0.12
Shell seal −0.01 −0.03 0.07 0.02 0.13 0.06 0.04 −0.01 0.28 −0.22 0.67**
Shell surface serration 0.29 −0.05 0.03 −0.20 0.06 0.17 −0.19 0.03 0.52 0.18 0.00
Kernel length 0.80** 0.05 −0.12 0.09 −0.02 0.00 0.12 0.01 0.06 0.14 −0.13
Kernel width 0.55 0.07 −0.50 0.15 0.08 −0.03 −0.06 −0.02 0.13 −0.08 0.09
Kernel weight 0.75** 0.06 −0.04 0.53 −0.06 0.00 0.01 −0.01 0.02 −0.11 0.00
Kernel percentage 0.02 −0.03 −0.46 0.65 −0.07 −0.06 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.05 −0.16
Kernel color −0.04 −0.04 −0.04 −0.05 −0.12 −0.16 −0.04 0.68** 0.01 0.03 −0.08
Kernel vein 0.00 0.06 0.05 −0.01 0.13 0.09 0.13 0.72** 0.30 0.07 0.01
Ease of kernel removal from nuts −0.09 −0.02 0.78** −0.23 −0.07 0.07 −0.06 −0.06 0.06 −0.09 0.01
Kernel filled 0.20 0.05 −0.07 0.84** 0.02 0.05 −0.05 −0.04 −0.02 0.02 0.08
Kernel plumpness 0.19 0.04 −0.08 0.82** 0.01 0.06 −0.06 −0.12 −0.02 −0.03 0.04
Kernel shriveling 0.11 −0.02 0.07 −0.29 0.16 0.13 −0.23 0.48 −0.37 0.11 0.24
Total 3.75 3.29 2.50 2.42 2.29 1.48 1.47 1.37 1.34 1.31 1.29
% of Variance 11.38 9.96 7.57 7.35 6.95 4.49 4.45 4.16 4.05 3.96 3.89
Cumulative % 11.38 21.34 28.91 36.26 43.20 47.69 52.15 56.30 60.35 64.31 68.21
Open in a new tab
**

Eigenvalues ≥ 0.67 are significant at the p ≤ 0.01 level.

The scatter plot created using PC1/PC2 showed phenotypic variations among the genotypes (not shown). Starting from negative to positive values of PC1, the genotypes showed gradual increases in nut length, nut width, nut weight, kernel length, and kernel weight. Also, starting from negative to positive values of PC2, the characters, including leaf length, leaf width, terminal leaflet length, and terminal leaflet width, showed gradual increases among the genotypes studied.

3.5. Hierarchical cluster analysis

The genotypes were clustered into two major clusters by the Ward dendrogram (not shown). The first cluster (I) was divided into two subclusters. Subcluster I‐A included 36 genotypes, while 81 genotypes were grouped into subcluster I‐B. The remaining genotypes were placed into the second cluster (II), forming three subclusters. Also, population analysis showed that the studied areas were divided into four main groups (Figure 2). Group I included Vashe area, while group II consisted of Khalaj and Ghale areas. Besides, group III included Shahbaz and Hesar areas, while group IV consisted of Emarat area.

FIGURE 2.

FIGURE 2

Open in a new tab

Biplot for the studied populations of walnut based on the morphological characters

The obtained results showed considerable phenotypic diversity in the Iranian walnut germplasm compared with that of other countries. This variability may be due, first, to genotypic variation or environmental conditions (Ghasemi et al., 2012). Second, walnuts species are monoecious and heterodichogamous, favoring outcrossing over selfing (Ebrahimi et al., 2015). Third, propagation by seeds of this species causes a significant genetic variability that appears at the flowering period for pomological characters, tree vigor, and type of fructification, which allow each geographic region to maintain a diverse population (Lansari et al., 2001). Morphological traits have been used effectively in detecting genetic variation on walnut in various studies (Cosmulescu & Stefanescu, 2018; Ebrahimi et al., 2015; Ghasemi et al., 2012; Hussain et al., 2016; Khadivi et al., 2019b; Khadivi‐Khub et al., 2015a, b; Norouzi et al., 2013; Rezaei et al., 2018).

In the breeding programs, for selection of an ideal walnut genotype, breeders should consider the most important commercial characters, including nut weight (≥12.00 g), kernel weight (≥6.00 g), kernel percentage (≥50.00%), shell thickness (0.70–1.50 mm), easier kernel removal from nuts, clean, strong, and thin shell, and light, clean, and plump kernel (Aslantas, 2006; Cosmulescu & Botu, 2012; Khadivi et al., 2019a, b; Khadivi‐Khub et al., 2015a, b; McGranahan & Leslie, 1990; Poggetti et al., 2017; Sharma & Sharma, 1998). Thus, 15 genotypes with having the threshold of the above characters were selected (Table 5).

TABLE 5.

The most important fruit‐related traits of the superior walnut genotypes selected

Genotype Nut length (mm) Nut width (mm) Nut weight (g) Shell thickness (mm) Shell hardness Shell seal Kernel length (mm) Kernel width (mm) Kernel weight (g) Kernel percentage (%) Kernel color Ease of kernel removal from nuts Kernel plumpness
Shahbaz‐1 37.00 35.77 16.39 0.75 Paper Slightly open 29.84 27.44 8.98 54.81 Light Easy High
Shahbaz‐103 35.26 38.13 15.88 0.75 Paper Excellent seal 28.13 29.27 8.18 51.49 Light Easy High
Shahbaz‐144 39.07 35.48 14.71 0.81 Paper Slightly open 29.41 28.75 7.91 53.80 Light Easy High
Shahbaz‐170 34.48 35.55 12.82 0.87 Paper Excellent seal 29.14 29.38 7.17 55.88 Light Easy High
Shahbaz−201 34.89 36.76 13.86 0.73 Soft Excellent seal 28.38 28.86 7.00 50.53 Light Easy High
Vashe‐5 36.51 33.91 12.42 0.79 Paper Excellent seal 27.82 19.38 6.74 54.24 Light Easy High
Shahbaz‐6 37.81 34.07 13.23 0.91 Paper Slightly open 30.18 28.10 6.67 50.40 Light Easy High
Shahbaz‐60 41.95 33.89 12.49 1.01 Paper Excellent seal 31.60 27.08 6.58 52.64 Light Easy High
Emarat‐6 35.27 33.42 12.91 1.21 Paper Excellent seal 28.41 25.10 6.45 50.90 Light Easy High
Khalaj‐19 35.33 34.62 12.10 1.32 Paper Excellent seal 28.06 26.73 6.43 53.15 Light Easy High
Khalaj‐11 35.98 34.42 12.61 1.33 Paper Excellent seal 26.44 26.26 6.33 50.19 Light Easy High
Shahbaz‐29 37.77 32.37 12.35 0.79 Paper Excellent seal 29.21 26.38 6.25 50.60 Light Easy High
Shahbaz‐75 36.55 33.41 12.03 0.83 Paper Excellent seal 27.51 26.57 6.15 51.10 Light Easy High
Shahbaz‐209 39.30 31.21 12.13 0.86 Paper Excellent seal 29.50 25.03 6.11 50.35 Light Easy High
Khalaj‐13 37.04 31.96 12.09 0.92 Paper Excellent seal 26.60 25.71 6.05 50.02 Light Easy High
Open in a new tab

4. CONCLUSION

Walnut seeding‐originated trees form the structure of breeding programs both in terms of plant resources and production. Genetic diversity in plants, including walnuts, is increased and maintained through seeds. Therefore, seedling walnuts are valuable sources of the gene pool. The present investigation provided important information about walnut diversity based on different traits that can be used in selecting superior genotypes for various breeding or commercial purposes in the future. Based on the most important commercial characters considered by breeders to determine ideal walnut genotypes, such as nut weight, shell thickness, shell hardness, shell seal, kernel weight, kernel percentage, kernel color, and ease of kernel removal from nuts, 15 superior genotypes, including Shahbaz‐1, Shahbaz‐103, Shahbaz‐144, Shahbaz‐170, Shahbaz‐201, Vashe‐5, Shahbaz‐6, Shahbaz‐60, Emarat‐6, Khalaj‐19, Khalaj‐11, Shahbaz‐29, Shahbaz‐75, Shahbaz‐209, and Khalaj‐13, with having the threshold of the above characters, were selected that are recommended for cultivation in the orchards and also can be used in breeding programs.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN PARTICIPANTS AND/OR ANIMALS

None.

INFORMED CONSENT

None.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The authors would like to thank Arak University in Iran for its financial support.

Mirmahdi N‐S, Khadivi A. Identification of the promising Persian walnut (Juglans regia L.) genotypes among seedling‐originated trees. Food Sci Nutr. 2021;9:2217–2226. 10.1002/fsn3.2193

REFERENCES

  1. Ahandani, E. A. , Ramandi, H. , Sarmad, J. , Samani, M. , Yavari, A. , & Ahandani, R. A. (2014). Evaluation of morphological diversity among some Persian walnut accessions (Juglans regia L.) in Guilan, northern Iran. International Journal of Biotechnology, 5(2), 21–30. [Google Scholar]
  2. Akca, Y. , Bilgen, Y. , & Ercisli, S. (2015). Selection of superior Persian walnut (Juglans regia L.) from seedling origin in Turkey. Acta Scientiarum Polonorum Hortorum Cultus, 14(3), 103–114. [Google Scholar]
  3. Akça, Y. , Yuldaşulu, Y. B. , Murad, E. , & Vahdati, K. (2020). Exploring of walnut genetic resources in Kazakhstan and evaluation of promising selections. International Journal of Horticultural Science and Technology, 7(2), 93–102. [Google Scholar]
  4. Asadian, G. , & Pieber, K. (2005). Morphological variations in walnut varieties of the Mediterranean regions. International Journal of Agriculture & Biology, 7(1), 71–73. [Google Scholar]
  5. Aslantas, R. (2006). Identification of superior walnut (Juglans regia) genotypes in northeastern Anatolia, Turkey. New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science, 34(3), 231–237. [Google Scholar]
  6. Atefi, J. (1997). Study on phenological and pomological characters on walnut promising clones in Iran. Acta Horticulture, 442, 101–108. 10.17660/ActaHortic.1997.442.13 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bayazit, S. (2012). Determination of relationships among kernel percentage and yield characteristics in some Turkish walnut genotypes by correlation and path analysis. Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences, 22(2), 513–517. [Google Scholar]
  8. Bernard, A. , Lheureux, F. , & Dirlewanger, E. (2018). Walnut: Past and future of genetic improvement. Tree Genetics and Genomes, 14(1), 1–28. 10.1007/s11295-017-1214-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Botu, M. , Tudor, M. , Botu, I. , Cosmulescu, S. , & Papachatzis, A. (2010). Evaluation of walnut cultivars in the conditions of the Oltenia’s hill area regarding functioning potential. Analele Universitatii din Craiova, Biol. Hortic. Tehnolo Prelucrarii Produselor Agricole Ingineria Mediului, 15, 94–103. [Google Scholar]
  10. Cosmulescu, S. (2013). Phenotypic diversity of walnut (Juglans regia L.) in Romania – opportunity for genetic improvement. South Western Journal of Horticulture, Biology and Environment, 4(2), 117–126. [Google Scholar]
  11. Cosmulescu, S. , & Botu, M. (2012). Walnut biodiversity in southwestern Romania resource for perspective cultivars. Pakistan Journal of Botany, 44, 307–311. [Google Scholar]
  12. Cosmulescu, S. , & Stefanescu, D. (2018). Morphological variation among Persian walnut (Juglans regia) genotypes within the population and depending on climatic year. Scientia Horticulturae, 242, 20–24. [Google Scholar]
  13. Ebrahimi, A. , Khadivi‐Khub, A. , Nosrati, Z. , & Karimi, R. (2015). Identification of superior walnut (Juglans regia) genotypes with late leafing and high kernel quality in Iran. Scientia Horticulturae, 193, 195–201. 10.1016/j.scienta.2015.06.049 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Germain, E. (1997). Genetic improvement of the Persian walnut (Juglans regia L). Acta Horticulture, 442, 21–31. 10.17660/ActaHortic.1997.442.2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Ghasemi, M. , Arzani, K. , & Hassani, D. (2012). Evaluation and identification of walnut (Juglans regia L.) genotypes in Markazi province of Iran. Crop Breeding Journal, 2(2), 119–124. 10.22092/cbj.2012.100429. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Hajnajari, H. , Chashnidel, B. , Vahdati, K. , Ebrahimi, M. , Nabipour, A. , & Fallahi, E. (2012). Heritability of morphological traits in apple early‐ripening full‐sib and half‐sib offspring and its potential use for assisted selection. HortScience, 47(3), 328–333. 10.21273/HORTSCI.47.3.328 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Hammer, Ø. , Harper, D. A. T. , & Ryan, P. D. (2001). PAST: Paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontologia Electronica, 4(1):9. [Google Scholar]
  18. Hussain, I. , Sulatan, A. , Shinwari, Z. K. , Raza, G. , & Ahmed, K. (2016). Genetic diversity based on morphological traits in walnut (Juglans regia L.) landraces from Karakoram Region‐I. –. Pakistan Journal of Botany, 48(2), 653–659. [Google Scholar]
  19. IPGRI (1994). Descriptors for walnut (Juglans spp.). International plant genetic resources institute. Rome, Italy. [Google Scholar]
  20. Jafari Sayadi, M. H. , Vahdati, K. , Mozafari, J. , Mohajer, M. R. M. , & Leslie, C. A. (2012). Natural Hyrcanian populations of Persian walnut (Juglans regia L.) in Iran. Acta Horticulturae, 948, 97–101. 10.17660/ActaHortic.2012.948.10 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Kabiri, G. , Bouda, S. , Elhansali, M. , & Haddioui, A. (2018). Morphological and pomological variability analysis of walnut (Juglans regia L.) genetic resources from the Middle and High Atlas of Morocco. Atlas. Atlas Journal of Biology, 1(1), 575–582. [Google Scholar]
  22. Karadag, H. , & Akca, Y. (2011). Phenological and pomological properties of promising walnut (Juglans regia L.) genotypes from selected native population in Amasya Province. The. African Journal of Biotechnology, 10(74), 16763–16768. [Google Scholar]
  23. Karimi, R. , Ershadi, A. , Vahdati, K. , & Woeste, K. (2010). Molecular characterization of Persian walnut populations in Iran with microsatellite markers. HortScience, 45(9), 1403–1406. 10.21273/HORTSCI.45.9.1403 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Khadivi, A. , Montazeran, A. , Rezaei, M. , & Ebrahimi, A. (2019a). The pomological characterization of walnut (Juglans regia L.) to select the superior genotypes—an opportunity for genetic improvement. Scientia Horticulturae, 248, 29–33. 10.1016/j.scienta.2018.12.054 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Khadivi, A. , Montazeran, A. , & Yadegari, P. (2019b). Superior spring frost resistant walnut (Juglans regia L.) genotypes identified among mature seedling origin trees. Scientia Horticulturae, 253, 147–153. 10.1016/j.scienta.2019.04.041 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Khadivi‐Khub, A. (2014). Genetic divergence in seedling trees of Persian walnut for morphological characters in Markazi province from Iran. Brazilian Journal of Botany, 37, 273–281. 10.1007/s40415-014-0080-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Khadivi‐Khub, A. , & Ebrahimi, A. (2015). The variability in walnut (Juglans regia L.) germplasm from different regions in Iran. Acta Physiologiae Plantarum, 37, 57. 10.1007/s11738-015-1806-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Khadivi‐Khub, A. , Ebrahimi, A. , Mohammadi, A. , & Kari, A. (2015a). Characterization and selection of walnut (Juglans regia L.) genotypes from seedling origin trees. Tree Genetics and Genomes, 11, 54. 10.1007/s11295-015-0882-x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Khadivi‐Khub, A. , Ebrahimi, A. , Sheibani, F. , & Esmaeili, A. (2015b). Phenological and pomological characterization of Persian walnut to select promising trees. Euphytica, 205(2), 557–567. 10.1007/s10681-015-1429-9 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Korac, M. , Cerovic, S. , & Golosin, B. (1998). Walnut; Prometej: . [Google Scholar]
  31. Korac, M. , Cerovic, S. , Golosin, B. , & Miletic, R. (1997). Collecting: Evaluation and utilization of walnut (Juglans regia L.) in Yugoslavia. Plant Genetic Resources Newsletter, 111, 72–74. [Google Scholar]
  32. Lansari, A. , Hassani, E. , Nabil, D. , & Germain, E. (2001). Preliminary results on walnut germplasm evaluation in Morocco. Acta Horticultura, 544, 27–35. 10.17660/ActaHortic.2001.544.1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Mahmoodi, R. , Hassani, D. , Amiri, M. E. , & Jaffaraghaei, M. (2016). Phenological and pomological characteristics of five promised walnut genotypes in Karaj, Iran. Journal of Nuts, 7(1), 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  34. McGranahan, G. H. , & Leslie, C. (1990). Walnuts (Juglans). In: Moore J. N., & Ballington J. R. (Eds.), Genetic Resources of Temperate Fruit and Nut Crops. (Acta Hortic. 290). International Society for Horticultural Science . , pp. 907–951. [Google Scholar]
  35. Mert, C. (2010). Anther and pollen morphology and anatomy in walnut (Juglans regia L.). Hort. Science, 45(5), 757–760. 10.21273/HORTSCI.45.5.757 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Mohsenipoor, S. , Vahdati, K. , Amiri, R. , & Mozaffari, M. (2010). Study of the genetic structure and gene flow in Persian walnut (Juglans regia L.) using SSR markers. Acta Horticulturae., 861, 133–142. 10.17660/ActaHortic.2010.861.17 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Norouzi, R. , Heidari, S. , Asgari‐Sarcheshmeh, M. A. , & Shahi‐Garahlar, A. (2013). Estimation of phenotypical and morphological differentiation among some selected Persian walnut (Juglans regia L.) accessions. International Journal of Agronomy and Plant Production, 4(9), 2438–2445. [Google Scholar]
  38. Norusis, M. J. (1998). SPSS/PC advanced statistics. SPSS Inc. . [Google Scholar]
  39. Poggetti, L. , Ermacora, P. , Cipriani, G. , Pavan, F. , & Testolin, R. (2017). Morphological and carpological variability of walnut germplasm (Juglans regia L.) collected in North‐Eastern Italy and selection of superior genotypes. Scientia Horticulturae, 225, 615–619. 10.1016/j.scienta.2017.07.056 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Rezaei, Z. , Khadivi, A. , ValizadehKaji, B. , & Abbasifar, A. (2018). The selection of superior walnut (Juglans regia L.) genotypes as revealed by morphological characterization. Euphytica, 214, 69. 10.1007/s10681-018-2153-z [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Rouskas, D. , & Zakynthinos, G. (2001). Preliminary evaluation of seventy walnut (Juglans regia L.) seedlings selections in Greece. Acta Horticulture, 544, 61–72. 10.17660/ActaHortic.2001.544.6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Sarikhani, S. , Vahdati, K. , & Ligterink, W. (2021). Biochemical properties of superior Persian walnut genotypes originated from southwest of Iran. International Journal of Horticultural Science and Technology, 8(1), 13–24. [Google Scholar]
  43. SAS® Procedures, 1990SAS® Procedures . (1990). Version 6, 3rd ed. SAS Institute. [Google Scholar]
  44. Sharma, R. M. , Kour, K. , Singh, B. , Yadav, S. , Kotwal, N. , Rana, J. C. , & Anand, R. (2014). Selection and characterization of elite walnut (Juglans regia L.) clone from seedling origin trees in North Western Himalayan region of India. Australian Journal of Crop Science, 8(2), 257–262. [Google Scholar]
  45. Sharma, S. D. , & Sharma, O. C. (1998). Studies on the variability in nuts of seedling walnut (Juglans regia L.) in relation to the tree age. Fruit Varieties Journal, 52, 20–23. [Google Scholar]
  46. Solar, A. , Ivancic, A. , Štampar, F. , & Hudina, M. (2002). Genetic resources for walnut (Juglans regia L.) improvement in Slovenia. Evaluation of the largest collection of local genotypes. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, 49(5), 491–501. [Google Scholar]
  47. UPOV (1999). Guidelines for the conduct of tests for distinctness, uniformity and stability. Walnut (Juglans regia L.): Geneva, Italy: International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants. [Google Scholar]
  48. Vahdati, K. , Pourtaklu, S. M. , Karimi, R. , Barzehkar, R. , Amiri, R. , Mozaffari, M. , & Woeste, K. (2015). Genetic diversity and gene flow of some Persian walnut populations in southeast of Iran revealedby SSR markers. Plant Systematics and Evolution, 301, 691–699. 10.1007/s00606-014-1107-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Zeneli, G. , Kola, H. , & Dida, M. (2004). Phenotypic variation in native walnut populations of Northern Albania. Scientia Horticulturae, 105, 91–100. 10.1016/j.scienta.2004.11.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Zhadan, V. M. , & Strukov, M. V. (1977). Breeding walnut for fruit size. Plant Breed, 47, 918–925. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Food Science & Nutrition are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES