Nutritional characteristics of conilon coffee genotypes grown in transition altitude with water management in soil

Abstract

The modification of water management in the Conilon coffee (Coffea canephora) crop is a possible strategy to improve nutritional management efficiency and ensure better use of the genotypes for regions of transitional altitude. The objective of this study was to evaluate the nutritional characteristics of 27 genotypes of C. canephora and submit them to two water management schemes in soil. The goal was to find evidence of higher leaf contents, exports, and nutrient recycling potential in the productive branches of various genotypes. The experiment was carried out in a randomized block design with three replications in a split-plot scheme. The treatment consisted of 27 genotypes of C. canephora and two water management schemes in soil (“Irrigated” and “Rainfed”). Nutritional content in leaves, exported by fruits, and pruned (leaves and stem of plagiotropic branches) recyclable contents were evaluated for nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium, and magnesium. Variations were observed among genotypes for all the parameters evaluated in both water management in soil. However, significant homogeneous groups were formed among the genotypes in the irrigated management. Furthermore, the genotypes showed distinct nutritional characteristics in response to water management in the soil. Genotypes 108 and 302 had higher nutritional content and were exported by fruits, regardless of soil water management.

Nutritional Balance and Genetic Diversity of Coffea canephora Genotypes

“…The significant results confirmed the existence of genetic variability among the genotypes, i.e., these characteristics contribute to breeding research for possible indications of superior genotypes [ 12 , 13 ].…”

“…Evaluation studies conducted by [ 4 , 8 , 13 , 15 ] with nutrient concentrations in different organs (leaf, flowers, grains, husk, fruits) of conilon coffee also reported values higher than 20% for some nutrients. Factors such as size of the experiment, maturation cycle and genotype response to biotic and abiotic factors may have contributed to the high indices [ 14 ].…”