Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Granulometric characterization is a fundamental tool for differentiating quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) genotypes with physical and productive attributes of interest for genetic improvement and agro-industrial competitiveness. However, in Colombia, studies integrating grain-size distribution with yield-related variables remain limited, restricting the selection of materials that combine productivity with superior physical grain quality for specialized markets. This study aimed to evaluate yield, grain weight, thickness, and granulometric distribution in four genotypes (Fam37, Fam56, Fam110, and the commercial check Blanca de Jerico) established in La Palma village, Totoro municipality (Cauca, Colombia), under a randomized complete block design with four replications. Grain yield per plant, thousand-seed weight, grain weight and percentage retained on 1.7, 1.4, and 1.0 mm sieves, and grain thickness within each fraction were measured. Data were analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey’s test (P<0.05), in addition to linear regression models. ANOVA revealed highly significant differences (P<0.001) for all variables. Fam56 showed the highest yield (30.9 g per plant), Fam37 exhibited the highest thousand-seed weight (2.99 g) and the greatest proportion retained on the 1.7 mm sieve (15.75 g; 59.05%), whereas Fam110 presented the greatest grain thickness (1.20 mm) and a more uniform distribution. Regression models indicated that thousand-seed weight explained 81% of the variation in grain weight and 75% of the percentage retained on the 1.7 mm sieve (P<0.001), demonstrating its usefulness for seed conditioning and commercial grain grading, as well as for supporting selection decisions in breeding programs. These results indicate that Fam37 and Fam56 combine high yield with superior physical grain quality, highlighting their potential as promising materials for breeding and agro-industrial applications.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ossa et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: