Comparative Morpho-Agronomic and Biochemical Profiling of Different Roselle Morphotypes Based on Their Growth and Yield Associated Attributes

When introducing a new, promising crop to an area, farmers can be assisted in selecting the crops and varieties that are most suitable for commercialization by doing an assessment of the yield characteristics. Hibiscus sabdariffa var. sabdariffa, as Roselle, is valued as a food crop for its great nutritional potential, vibrant pigment richness, and therapeutic significance. However, there is little information available because it is a very recent crop in Bangladesh. Finding the morphotype that performed the best given the yield characteristics was the study’s main goal. Green plant with green calyx (WC), light red plant with light red calyx (LRC), and deep red plant with deep red calyx (DRC) were the performed morphotypes of Roselle. A number of morphological (plant height, stem perimeter, branches & capsule features etc.) and biochemical (total chlorophyll, carotenoid and phenolic content) were evaluated. For their yield characteristics, all morphotypes were noticeably distinct from one another. While plant height was identical in both LRC and DRC, DRC performed better in terms of capsules number produced per plant (av. 273.00 plant-1 capsules weighing 1779.10 g). Shelling ratio (% calyx to capsule) was also greater in DRC (av. 41.90%) than other two morphotypes. Dry matter content was greater in stem with branches and leaf, irrespective of morphotypes. Mature leaves of LRC had significant levels of total chlorophyll (1.34 mgg-1FW). In our study phenolic content reduced as capsule size increased in WC but not in LRC or DRC. In contrast to the other three morphotypes, the deep red plant with deep red calyx (DRC) performed the best, according to our study.How to Cite: Keya Akter, Md. Ariful Islam, Shishir Rasul, et.al., 2023. "Comparative Morpho-Agronomic and Biochemical Profiling of Different Roselle Morphotypes Based on their Growth and Yield Associated Attributes." Journal of Agriculture and Crops, vol. 9, pp. 514-523.