Next Article in Journal
Exploring the Influence of Culture Environment on the Yield of Volvariella volvacea Based on Microbiomics
Previous Article in Journal
Morphology, Palynology and Phytochemicals of Medicinal Plants
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Horticulturae
Volume 10
Issue 3
10.3390/horticulturae10030203
horticulturae-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

High Outcrossing Levels among Global Macadamia Cultivars: Implications for Nut Quality, Orchard Designs and Pollinator Management

by
Stephen J. Trueman
1,*,
Mark G. Penter
2,
Kátia Sampaio Malagodi-Braga
3,
Joel Nichols
1,
Anushika L. De Silva
1,
Adalgisa Thayne Munhoz Ramos
4,
Leonardo Massaharu Moriya
5,
Steven M. Ogbourne
6,
David Hawkes
7,
Trent Peters
7,
Naga Kasinadhuni
7,
Shahla Hosseini Bai
1,
Helen M. Wallace
8 and
Wiebke Kämper
9
1
Centre for Planetary Health and Food Security, School of Environment and Science, Griffith University, Nathan, QLD 4111, Australia
2
Agricultural Research Council—Tropical and Subtropical Crops, Private Bag X11208, Nelspruit 1200, South Africa
3
Embrapa Meio Ambiente, Rodovia SP 340, km 127.5, Jaguariúna 13820-000, SP, Brazil
4
Laboratório de Quarentena ‘Costa Lima’, Embrapa Meio Ambiente, Jaguariúna 13918-110, SP, Brazil
5
Queen Nut Macadâmia, Avenida Flamengo, No. 111, Jardim Alvorada 5, Dois Córregos 17300-000, SP, Brazil
6
Centre for Bioinnovation, University of the Sunshine Coast, Maroochydore DC, QLD 4558, Australia
7
Australian Genome Research Facility, Gehrmann Laboratories, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia
8
School of Biology and Environmental Science, Queensland University of Technology, GPO Box 2434, Brisbane, QLD 4001, Australia
9
Functional Agrobiodiversity, Department of Crop Sciences, University of Göttingen, 37077 Göttingen, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Horticulturae 2024, 10(3), 203; https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae10030203
Submission received: 24 January 2024 / Revised: 16 February 2024 / Accepted: 20 February 2024 / Published: 22 February 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Modern Systems of Fruit Growing and Their Application for the Improvement of Tropical Fruit Products)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Global fruit and nut yields are affected by shortfalls in pollinator populations, and pollen limitation is most prevalent among tropical, bee-pollinated and self-incompatible plants. Macadamia is a subtropical, bee-pollinated crop in which some cultivars have been found to be highly outcrossing. We aimed to determine the extent of outcrossing and its effects on nut quality across a wide range of international macadamia cultivars in three countries. We sampled fruit from 19 macadamia cultivars across 23 sites in Australia, Brazil and South Africa. We used genotype-by-sequencing and MassARRAY methods to assign paternity to individual fruit and we assessed pollen-parent effects on nut quality. Macadamia was highly outcrossing, producing 80–100% of fruit by cross-pollination, at 17 of the 23 sites. Mixed mating (41–72% outcrossing) was identified at five sites, and low outcrossing (10%) was identified in one cultivar at one site where it was isolated from other flowering macadamia trees. Outcrossed fruit often had significantly better quality than selfed fruit, with 1.61–3.39 g higher nut-in-shell mass, 0.53–1.55 g higher kernel mass, 3.3–6.4% higher kernel recovery, and 3.0–3.5% higher oil concentration. The differences in kernel recovery equated to differences in value of USD 433–841 per ton of nut-in-shell at prices of USD 3000 per ton. In summary, macadamia cultivars were mostly highly outcrossing, and outcrossed nuts often had higher quality than selfed nuts. Growers should consider interplanting different cultivars more closely and distributing bee hives more widely to maximise cross-pollination, produce high yields, and optimise nut quality.

1. Introduction

Fruit and nut crops account for about 8% of global food production [1], and many of these crops are pollinated by animals [2,3,4,5]. Fruit and nut yields may be affected by global declines in wild pollinator populations and by shortfalls in the number of managed beehives needed to sustain crop pollination [6,7,8,9,10]. Inadequate pollinator populations are affecting plant reproductive output by reducing the quantity or quality of pollen deposited on the stigmas of flowers [11]. Pollen limitation appears to be most prevalent among self-incompatible species, bee-pollinated species, and tropical species [11,12,13]. No empirical evidence had been available previously to conclusively establish pollen limitation of whole-plant reproductive output in tree species [14,15]. However, we demonstrated recently that pollen limitation of fruit production occurs in cultivated trees of the mass-flowering subtropical species, Macadamia integrifolia [16]. This species, and its hybrids with M. tetraphylla, are cultivated in many countries to produce fruit that contain the edible macadamia kernel [17].
Macadamia flowers are pollinated mainly by bees [18,19,20,21,22]. The flowers are considered partially self-incompatible, with greater pollen tube growth and initial fruitlet set following cross-pollination than self-pollination [23,24,25,26,27]. Macadamia trees are propagated clonally by grafting [28,29], and orchards are often established with wide blocks that comprise multiple rows of a single clonal cultivar [30,31]. This planting design allows for irrigation, nutrient, pest, disease and harvest management to be tailored to each cultivar in the orchard, but it reduces the opportunities for cross-pollination (i.e., by another cultivar) in the middle of each single-cultivar block [16,30,31]. We have identified that most initially set fruitlets in the middle of a block of cultivar ‘816’ trees arise from self-pollination, i.e., by selfing [32]. However, most of the selfed fruitlets abscise from the tree during the period of premature fruitlet drop, about six weeks after flowering [32]. As a result, almost all of the mature fruit of this cultivar at 26 weeks after flowering arise from cross-pollination; i.e., the realised mating system is highly outcrossing [31,32,33]. Very high levels of outcrossing among mature macadamia fruit have also been identified in commercial orchards of cultivars ‘A4’, ‘A16’ and ‘Daddow’ [16,30,31,34] and among single trees in a multi-cultivar research trial [35]. Approximately 20 cultivars are widely planted in macadamia orchards globally, and yet we know very little about the extent of outcrossing in most of these cultivars. Most macadamia cultivars, like most almond cultivars [36,37], may be effectively self-sterile, being highly dependent on outcrossing to produce mature fruit.
The outcrossed fruit of macadamia cultivar ‘816’ have been shown to possess higher nut-in-shell (NIS) mass, kernel mass and kernel recovery (i.e., the percentage of NIS mass that is comprised of kernel mass) than the few selfed fruit remaining at nut maturity [16,31,32]. Pollen-parent effects on fruit characteristics are termed ‘xenia’ [38], and similar xenia effects have been observed in almond and hazelnut fruit [36,37,39]. Cross-pollination of macadamia flowers might be required not only for high yields, but also for maximal nut quality.
In this study, we aimed to determine whether high levels of outcrossing are common across a wide range of international macadamia cultivars in three countries. We assessed, wherever possible, the levels of outcrossing in the middle of a block of each single clonal cultivar, where the opportunities for cross-pollen transfer are likely to be lowest [16,30,31]. Furthermore, we aimed to determine whether outcrossed macadamia fruit often have higher nut mass, kernel mass, kernel recovery, and kernel oil concentration than selfed fruit. The results will help to identify the cross-pollination requirements of macadamia cultivars globally. This will assist growers to design orchards and manage pollinators in ways that ensure high yield and optimise nut quality.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sample Sites and Processing

We sampled macadamia fruit from 19 cultivars at 23 sites in commercial orchards in Australia, Brazil and South Africa (Table 1). We sampled fruit of cultivars ‘814’, ‘816’ and ‘A4’ from orchards in both Australia and South Africa. We sampled fruit of cultivar ‘344’ from one orchard in each of the main Australian production regions, i.e., southern Queensland and northern New South Wales. In each orchard, ten fruit were sampled from each of six trees per cultivar, providing a total of 60 fruit per site × 23 sites = 1380 fruit. Wherever possible, we selected trees in the middle row of a single-cultivar block. However, trees of cultivars ‘246’ and ‘H2’ were in single rows that were located only one row away in each direction from another cultivar. Trees of cultivars ‘344’ (at one site) and ‘MCT1’ were mixed in the same row with other cultivars. We usually sampled fruit from the 10th, 20th, 30th, 40th, 50th and 60th tree from the end of the row, although the tree separation was lower in orchards that had shorter rows (Table 1). The nearest cultivar in each direction, and all other cultivars within 500 m of the sampled trees, were recorded (Table 1).
The sampling method for each orchard reflected the commercial harvesting practices employed in each country. Fruit were sampled randomly from the orchard floor in Australia and Brazil. Fruit were sampled randomly from the tree canopy in South Africa, except that cultivar ‘814’ fruit were sampled from the orchard floor. We sampled and dehusked fruit during the peak harvesting period for each orchard. Australian nuts-in-shell were then dried at 37 °C for 2 d, 45 °C for 2 d, and 57 °C for 2 d [40]. Brazilian nuts-in-shell were dried at room temperature for 3 months. Each nut-in-shell (NIS) was weighed, cracked manually, and its kernel was weighed (Table A1). South African nuts-in-shell were dried at 35 °C for 3 d and then at 45 °C until reaching constant mass. Each South African NIS was cracked manually, and the kernel was dried at 50 °C until reaching constant mass. We calculated the kernel recovery of each nut; i.e., the percentage of NIS mass that was comprised of kernel mass (Table A1). We also determined the oil concentration of each Australian kernel (Table A1) by measuring the specific gravity of a subsample of kernel that was placed on a pan immersed in 95% (v/v) aqueous ethanol [41]:
Ok (%) = 284.7 − 212.57 × Gs
where Ok was the kernel oil concentration and Gs was the specific gravity, and
Gs = (0.7995 × Ma)/(Ma − Me)
where Ma was the mass in air and Me was the mass in 95% ethanol.

2.2. Kernel Genotyping

A crushed subsample of at least 30 mg of each kernel was used to determine its paternity. We extracted DNA following the glass-fibre plate DNA protocol for plants [42], using disposable 2.3 mm and 0.1 mm zirconia/silica beads prior to shaking on an MM2000 TissueLyser II (Retsch, Haan, Germany). We assigned kernel paternity in cultivars ‘741’, ‘814’, ‘816’, ‘842’, ‘849’, ‘A4’, ‘A16’, ‘A38’, ‘A203’, ‘Daddow’ and ‘Own Venture’ from Australian orchards by high-throughput genotyping using the Agena MassARRAY platform (Agena Bioscience, San Diego, CA, USA). MassARRAY identifies single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that are both homozygous and unique to each macadamia cultivar, and so can be used to definitively identify the pollen-parent cultivar of each kernel. Details of the SNP markers and MassARRAY method used to identify macadamia pollen parents have been provided previously [16]. We amplified the extracted kernel DNA (2 μL; ~10 ng/μL) in 5 μL multiplex PCR reactions containing 1 U of Taq, 2.5 pmol of each PCR primer, and 500 µM of each dNTP (PCR Accessory and Enzyme Kit, Agena). We performed thermocycling at 94 °C for 4 min followed by 45 cycles of 94 °C for 20 s, 56 °C for 30 s, and 72 °C for 1 min, and a final extension at 72 °C for 3 min. Unincorporated dNTPs were deactivated using 0.5 U of shrimp alkaline phosphatase (37 °C for 4 min, 85 °C for 5 min).
We assigned paternity to kernels from Brazilian and South African orchards, and from cultivars ‘246’, ‘344’, ‘A29’, ‘A268’, ‘H2’ and ‘MCT1’ in Australian orchards, using a genotype-by-sequencing (GBS) approach that identified the same SNPs that were identified in other cultivars by MassARRAY. The GBS approach was used for those Australian sites that possessed a complex mixture of potential pollen parents, including cultivars that were closely related to each other. The GBS library preparation followed a ddRAD protocol [43] with minor modifications. All samples were normalised to 5 ng/µL prior to input into the protocol. Normalised DNA was digested with a restriction enzyme pair of PstI and NlaIII (NEB), and barcoded adapters (IDT) were then ligated to the cohesive ends. We then pooled 48 uniquely barcoded, digested and ligated samples to form a library. Size selection was performed on libraries using the Blue Pippin platform (Sage Science, Beverley, MA, USA), selecting for fragments between 280 and 375 bp. Secondary indexing used uniquely indexed PP7 and non-indexed PP5 primers (IDT) in a PCR. The reaction conditions were 98 °C for 90 s plus 11 cycles of 98 °C for 10 s, 63 °C for 20 s, and 72 °C for 20 s. The final extension was performed at 72 °C for 7 min. Following a clean-up with SPRI-select beads (Beckman, Brea, CA, USA), libraries were sequenced as 150-bp paired end reads on the NovaSeq 6000 platform (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA), using an SP300 flow cell. The genotyping data were generated using Stacks software version 2.60. Briefly, the software took sequences in FASTQ.GZ format as an input and de-convoluted each read according to the inline barcodes. The pipeline also checked for read quality and restriction site presence. It created a separate FASTQ file for each sample. It then automatically trimmed FASTQ files to the size of the shortest read minus two bases to compensate for differences in read length due to any variation in barcode sequences. The alignment process was then launched. This process created stacks of similar reads for each sample individually, with these reads stacks also known as tags. The tags which appeared across all samples were then collated (catalogue tags), and genotypes (cultivars) were calculated for the common polymorphic sites.

2.3. Data Analysis

We identified the main pollen parents for each cultivar at each site and calculated the percentages of kernels that were cross-pollinated. The main pollen parents at each site were defined as any cultivar(s) that fathered at least six of the 60 fruit (i.e., 10% of the fruit) for each mother cultivar. We compared the effects of these main pollen parents on NIS mass, kernel mass, kernel recovery and kernel oil concentration using analyses of variance (ANOVA). Post-hoc Tukey’s HSD tests were performed when ANOVA detected significant differences among more than two pollen parents. Means were regarded as significantly different at p < 0.05. Means are reported with standard errors.

3. Results

3.1. Outcrossing Levels

Most macadamia cultivars in Australian orchards were highly outcrossing, producing 80–100% of their kernels by cross-pollination rather than self-pollination (Figure 1). The lowest outcrossing levels in Australia were in cultivar ‘344’ at one of two sites (48 ± 8%) and in cultivars ‘246’ and ‘A29’ (62 ± 7% and 72 ± 8%, respectively).
Cultivar ‘IAC 4-12B’ was highly outcrossing in Brazil, producing 88 ± 2% of its kernels by cross-pollination (Figure 1). Cultivar ‘A4’ was highly outcrossing in South Africa, as it was in Australia. Cultivars ‘695’ and ‘816’ in South Africa produced 64 ± 8% and 41 ± 5%, respectively, of their kernels by cross-pollination. Lowest levels of outcrossing (10 ± 6%) were found among cultivar ‘814’ kernels in South Africa.
The predominant cross-pollen parents in most orchards, denoted by an asterisk ‘*’ (Table 2), were one or both of the nearest other cultivars (Table 1). However, other cultivars within 500 m (Table 1) were the predominant cross-pollen parents at the ‘695’, ‘741’, ‘842’ and ‘849’ sites (Table 2). The predominant pollen parent at the ‘A29’ site was ‘H2’ seedling rootstock (Table 2). The pollen parent of the ‘H2’ seedling rootstocks (i.e., the grandfather of the fruit) could be identified as mostly ‘741’ although some of the ‘H2’ seedling rootstocks were fathered by ‘816’, ‘835’ or ‘849’.

3.2. Pollen-Parent Effects on Nut Quality

Most cultivars were highly outcrossing, but sufficient levels of selfing were detected in eight of the 19 cultivars to allow comparisons of quality between cross-pollinated and self-pollinated fruit (Table 2). Outcrossed fruit had significantly heavier NIS and kernels than self-pollinated fruit in cultivars ‘344’ and ‘741’, regardless of the cross-pollen parent. Cross-pollinated ‘246’ and ‘695’ fruit sometimes had significantly heavier kernels than self-pollinated fruit, depending on the cross-pollen parent. Cross-pollinated ‘816’, ‘A29’, ‘Daddow’ and ‘IAC 4-12B’ fruit did not differ significantly in either NIS or kernel mass from self-pollinated fruit.
Cross-pollinated ‘246’, ‘344’, ‘695’ and ‘Daddow’ fruit often had significantly higher kernel recovery than self-pollinated fruit, with the effects sometimes depending on the cross-pollen parent (Table 2). In addition, cross-pollinated ‘344’, ‘741’ and ‘A29’ fruit sometimes had higher oil concentration than self-pollinated fruit (Table 2).
Nut quality also differed significantly among some cross-pollen parents (Table 2). For example, NIS and kernel mass were highest in cultivars ‘741’ or ‘814’ when they were pollinated by ‘A16’, in cultivars ‘842’ or ‘A203’ when they were pollinated by ‘Daddow’, and in cultivar ‘A4’ when it was pollinated by ‘A38’.

4. Discussion

Our results show that high outcrossing (80–100%) was the realised mating system across a wide range of international macadamia cultivars, even in the middle of single-cultivar blocks where many of the flowers were likely to have been self-pollinated. This suggests that the flowers of most macadamia cultivars are highly dependent on cross-pollination to produce mature fruit. Macadamia yields can be lower in the middle of single-cultivar blocks than at the edges of the blocks where the trees are in closer proximity to the flowers of other cultivars [16,30]. These results together demonstrate that macadamia yields are constrained by a harmful combination of a highly-outcrossing mating system, long distances to a cross-pollen source, and limited dispersal of cross-pollen by pollinators across the orchards. About half of the honeybees in macadamia orchards may forage in the first row from their hive, with the other half dispersed up to 300 m from the hive but concentrated on trees with large floral displays [44]. Over half of the stingless bees may forage within the first two rows from their hive, with very few foraging more than 100 m from the hive [44]. Each macadamia tree can produce 100,000–400,000 flowers annually [16,45,46], but most flowering within Australian orchards is completed within a short period of 2–3 weeks in early spring [16,21,47,48]. The establishment of macadamia orchards with blocks that comprise multiple rows of a single mass-flowering cultivar may reduce the chances that bees travel between cultivars and deposit cross-pollen on flowers. The planting of multiple rows of each cultivar reduces the cost of some orchard management operations, but it can also lead to reduced yields due to inadequate cross-pollination [16,30,31]. Cross-pollen is sometimes dispersed effectively for only 30–40 m into single-cultivar blocks of avocado trees [49,50,51,52], with declining levels of outcrossing and lower yield deeper into the blocks [50,51,52]. The distance at which yields decline into single-cultivar macadamia blocks is not well understood, and so further research is needed to determine the optimal spatial designs and distances between cultivars that allow efficient macadamia orchard management while promoting high levels of cross-pollination.
The realised mating system of most macadamia cultivars was at least 80% outcrossing in the current study, but substantial percentages of selfed fruit were produced at some sites. Outcrossed nuts were often significantly larger than selfed nuts, with differences of 1.61–3.39 g in NIS mass, 0.53–1.55 g in kernel mass and 3.3–6.4% in kernel recovery. This demonstrates a xenia effect on fruit quality in a single-seeded fruit, as found previously in almond, hazelnut, lychee and mango [36,37,39,53,54]. Some macadamia cultivars, such as ‘741’, have long been known to produce a mixture of large and small nuts [48,55]. The current results demonstrate that the large nuts tend to be outcrossed while the small nuts tend to be selfed. Macadamia growers are paid premiums for increasing kernel recovery, and macadamia processors receive higher prices for ‘styles’ of product that contain larger kernels [56,57,58,59]. Therefore, the presence of selfed nuts in an orchard can drive down financial returns to both growers and processors. For example, the differences in revenue to growers between selfed nuts and outcrossed nuts equate to USD 433–841 per ton based on prices of USD 3000 per ton of NIS at 33% kernel recovery, with a 3% premium paid for each additional 1% kernel recovery.
A very low level of outcrossing (10%) was found at just one site, i.e., the ‘814’ site in South Africa. This site was unusual because the ‘814’ trees were located at one end of an orchard, with bushland on three and a half sides of the ‘814’ block. The only adjoining macadamia trees were in a block of cultivar ‘695’ trees, which generally do not flower at the same time as ‘814’ trees in South Africa [60]. Therefore, the opportunities for cross-pollen deposition may have been especially low at this site. The nuts in this block were extremely small, highlighting the negative consequences of cross-pollination failure for nut quality in macadamia orchards. A lack of cross-pollination is also likely to reduce tree yields, as very low yield has been reported in isolated orchard blocks that contain only one macadamia cultivar [61] and in the middle of very wide single-cultivar blocks [16,30].
Average oil concentrations were well above the 72% threshold required for ‘Grade 1’ kernels [62,63] and within the range of 76–80% typically seen for some of the same cultivars at other sites [16,41,64,65,66]. However, selfed kernels of cultivars ‘344’, ‘741’ and ‘A29’ had 3.0–3.5% lower oil concentrations than some outcrossed kernels. Our results show that the presence of selfed nuts can drive down not only kernel mass and kernel recovery, but also kernel oil concentration, and so it is important to maximise cross-pollination to ensure both high yield and optimal nut quality.
Nut quality sometimes also differed among fruit arising from different cross-pollen parents. Cultivars that produced large kernels as a mother tree also tended to produce large kernels when they were the pollen parent. The kernel is the embryo of the macadamia fruit [17], and so it was not surprising that the cross-pollen parent directly affected embryo development and kernel size. Differences in macadamia fruitlet growth between different cross-pollen parents have been observed as early as six weeks after pollination [67]. The results indicate that variations in nut quality in macadamia orchards can be attributed both to the presence of selfed fruit and to the presence of different cross-pollen parents among the outcrossed fruit. Strategic selection of macadamia cultivars as pollinisers could, therefore, be used to improve kernel quality and financial returns. The use of polliniser trees is becoming increasingly common in macadamia orchards, including (a) the planting of a polliniser tree in every third position in every third row, (b) the planting of single rows of polliniser trees in wide blocks of another cultivar, and (c) the replacement of damaged trees with polliniser trees of a different cultivar [16,68,69]. Planting a polliniser tree in every third position in every third row ensures that every tree in the orchard has a tree of another cultivar as at least one of its eight neighbouring trees [68]. We also envisage the possibility of planting polliniser trees around the perimeter of an orchard, perhaps focusing on positions where the bee hives are placed each year prior to flowering. Polliniser cultivars would need to have overlapping flowering times with the main cultivar to ensure cross-pollination [70,71,72,73]. If the polliniser trees are planted within the same rows as the main cultivar, they would ideally also have pest, disease, fertiliser, irrigation and harvest-time requirements similar to those of the main cultivar [74,75], as well as having similar nut quality to minimise variation within nut consignments delivered to the processor.
The predominant cross-pollen parent at most sites was one or both of the two cultivars in closest proximity to the mother trees, as found previously [16,30,31]. This again highlights that there is limited cross-pollen dispersal across macadamia orchards, so that cultivars may need to be interplanted more closely and bees may need to be distributed more widely across the orchard [75]. However, an interesting finding at one site was the large percentage of fruit that were fathered by the ‘H2’ seedlings that are used as grafting rootstocks. In addition, these rootstocks were identified as minor contributors to pollen parentage at several other sites. Clonal rootstocks are rarely used in macadamia orchards [17]. Instead, seedlings of cultivars ‘H2’ and ‘695’ (‘Beaumont’) are the most commonly used macadamia rootstocks in Australia and South Africa, respectively [76]. Scion death, either in the nursery or the orchard, or the outgrowth of sucker shoots from rootstocks, ensures that rootstock flowers are a covert source of cross-pollen in some orchards. These rootstock flowers may sustain an underlying level of cross-pollination in the middle of wide blocks that were thought to contain flowers of only one cultivar. Four different cultivars were identified as fathers of the ‘H2’ seedlings used as grafting rootstocks at the ‘A29’ site in Australia. Four different cultivars were also identified as fathers of the ‘695’ fruit in South Africa. These results demonstrate that tree-to-tree variation in macadamia orchards can be attributed partly to the wide genetic variability in the ‘H2’ and ‘695’ seedlings, used as grafting rootstocks, that arises from having a wide array of pollen parents.

5. Conclusions

The realised mating system of international macadamia cultivars was mostly highly outcrossing, even in the middle of single-cultivar blocks where most flowers were likely to be self-pollinated and where yields are often subject to pollen limitation. The predominant pollen parents at most sites were one or both of the two nearest other cultivars. The results confirm observations that plant reproductive output is often dependent on the quantity or genotype of pollen deposited on the stigmas of flowers and that pollen limitation is most prevalent among self-incompatible, bee-pollinated, or tropical species. Outcrossed macadamia fruit often had higher nut quality than selfed fruit, demonstrating a xenia effect on fruit quality. The presence of selfed fruit in a macadamia orchard can drive down average kernel mass, kernel recovery and kernel oil concentration. Furthermore, some cross-pollen parents provided particularly high kernel mass and kernel recovery. Therefore, macadamia growers could interplant different cultivars more closely throughout orchards and strategically select polliniser cultivars to maximise cross-pollination, maintain high yields, optimise nut quality, and improve financial returns for both growers and processors.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.J.T., S.M.O., S.H.B., H.M.W. and W.K.; methodology, S.J.T., M.G.P., K.S.M.-B., J.N., A.T.M.R., S.M.O., D.H., T.P., N.K. and W.K.; software, N.K.; formal analysis, S.J.T., T.P. and N.K.; investigation, S.J.T., M.G.P., K.S.M.-B., J.N., A.L.D.S., A.T.M.R., L.M.M., S.M.O., T.P., N.K. and W.K.; resources, S.J.T., M.G.P., K.S.M.-B. and L.M.M.; writing—original draft preparation, S.J.T.; writing—review and editing, M.G.P., K.S.M.-B., J.N., A.L.D.S., A.T.M.R., L.M.M., S.M.O., D.H., T.P., N.K., S.H.B., H.M.W. and W.K.; funding acquisition, S.J.T., M.G.P., S.M.O., S.H.B. and H.M.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by projects PH16001 and PH20001 of the Hort Frontiers strategic partnership initiative developed by Hort Innovation, with co-investment from Griffith University, Plant and Food Research Ltd., University of the Sunshine Coast, Western Sydney University, University of New England, and contributions from the Australian Government. The research was also funded by Macadamias South Africa NPC (SAMAC).

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author with the permission of the funder, Hort Innovation.

Acknowledgments

We thank the growers in Australia, Brazil and South Africa for providing orchard access and assistance, Chris Searle (MacAvo Consulting) for advice and assistance, Cathy Nock (Southern Cross University) for providing leaf samples, and Nimanie Hapuarachchi, Elvis Nkwana, Yvonne Nxundu, Graciela da Rocha Sobierajski, Jade Cooke and Amy Longva for technical assistance.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; or in the writing of the manuscript; but they approved publication of the results.

Appendix A

Table A1. Average nut-in-shell mass, kernel mass, kernel recovery and kernel oil concentration for each macadamia cultivar.
Table A1. Average nut-in-shell mass, kernel mass, kernel recovery and kernel oil concentration for each macadamia cultivar.
CultivarCountryNut Size or Quality Parameter
Nut-in-Shell Mass
(g)		Kernel
Mass
(g)		Kernel
Recovery
(%)		Oil
Concentration (%)
246Australia7.73 ± 0.182.56 ± 0.0832.7 ± 0.675.8 ± 0.3
344 1Australia8.07 ± 0.182.58 ± 0.0831.6 ± 0.777.8 ± 0.3
344 2Australia6.81 ± 0.281.90 ± 0.1226.5 ± 1.074.7 ± 0.5
741Australia6.85 ± 0.182.58 ± 0.0837.6 ± 0.577.8 ± 0.3
814Australia6.36 ± 0.152.34 ± 0.0736.4 ± 0.877.3 ± 0.3
816Australia6.90 ± 0.142.97 ± 0.0743.1 ± 0.577.4 ± 0.2
842Australia6.92 ± 0.182.51 ± 0.0936.0 ± 0.877.9 ± 0.3
849Australia6.31 ± 0.152.61 ± 0.0841.1 ± 0.876.7 ± 0.3
A4Australia7.84 ± 0.173.58 ± 0.0945.6 ± 0.576.7 ± 0.3
A16Australia7.71 ± 0.153.20 ± 0.0941.2 ± 0.678.8 ± 0.2
A29Australia8.73 ± 0.193.26 ± 0.0937.2 ± 0.577.0 ± 0.3
A38Australia6.37 ± 0.202.32 ± 0.1035.7 ± 0.877.6 ± 0.5
A203Australia9.25 ± 0.263.21 ± 0.1034.7 ± 0.479.3 ± 0.3
A268Australia10.53 ± 0.323.74 ± 0.1335.3 ± 0.778.1 ± 1.9
DaddowAustralia8.36 ± 0.213.23 ± 0.0838.6 ± 0.478.1 ± 0.2
H2Australia8.74 ± 0.382.76 ± 0.1331.7 ± 0.876.8 ± 0.3
MCT1Australia6.94 ± 0.183.30 ± 0.1047.8 ± 0.876.9 ± 0.4
Own VentureAustralia8.22 ± 0.203.07 ± 0.0937.4 ± 0.576.8 ± 0.3
IAC 4-12BBrazil5.42 ± 0.111.81 ± 0.0533.5 ± 0.6—
695 (Beaumont)South Africa5.21 ± 0.102.15 ± 0.0541.1 ± 0.5—
814South Africa4.60 ± 0.111.76 ± 0.0538.0 ± 0.6—
816South Africa5.73 ± 0.172.91 ± 0.1050.6 ± 0.7—
A4South Africa6.90 ± 0.173.53 ± 0.1050.9 ± 0.6—
1,2 Orchards 1 and 2 of cultivar 344. Means are presented with SEs (n = 36–60 fruit).

References

  1. FAO. Statistical Yearbook. World Food and Agriculture 2021; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  2. Aizen, M.A.; Garibaldi, L.A.; Cunningham, S.A.; Klein, A.M. How much does agriculture depend on pollinators? Lessons from long-term trends in crop production. Ann. Bot. 2009, 103, 1579–1588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Klein, A.-M.; Boreux, V.; Fornoff, F.; Mupepele, A.-C.; Pufal, G. Relevance of wild and managed bees for human well-being. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 2018, 26, 82–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Klein, A.-M.; Vaissière, B.E.; Cane, J.H.; Steffan-Dewenter, I.; Cunningham, S.A.; Kremen, C.; Tscharntke, T. Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops. Proc. R. Soc. B 2007, 274, 303–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Thomson, J.D.; Goodell, K. Pollen removal and deposition by honeybee and bumblebee visitors to apple and almond flowers. J. Appl. Ecol. 2001, 38, 1032–1044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Potts, S.G.; Biesmeijer, J.C.; Kremen, C.; Neumann, P.; Schweiger, O.; Kunin, W.E. Global pollinator declines: Trends, impacts and drivers. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2010, 25, 345–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Potts, S.G.; Imperatriz-Fonseca, V.; Ngo, H.T.; Aizen, M.A.; Biesmeijer, J.C.; Breeze, T.D.; Dicks, L.V.; Garibaldi, L.A.; Hill, R.; Settele, J.; et al. Safeguarding pollinators and their values to human well-being. Nature 2016, 540, 220–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Aizen, M.A.; Harder, L.D. The global stock of domesticated honey bees is growing slower than agricultural demand for pollination. Curr. Biol. 2009, 19, 915–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Gallai, N.; Salles, J.-M.; Settele, J.; Vaissière, B.E. Economic valuation of the vulnerability of world agriculture confronted with pollinator decline. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68, 810–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Osterman, J.; Aizen, M.A.; Biesmeijer, J.C.; Bosch, J.; Howlett, B.G.; Inouye, D.W.; Jung, C.; Martins, D.J.; Medel, R.; Pauw, A.; et al. Global trends in the number and diversity of managed pollinator species. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2021, 322, 107653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bennett, J.M.; Steets, J.A.; Burns, J.H.; Burkle, L.A.; Vamosi, J.C.; Wolowski, M.; Arceo-Gómez, G.; Burd, M.; Durka, W.; Ellis, A.G.; et al. Land use and pollinator dependency drives global patterns of pollen limitation in the Anthropocene. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 3999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Larson, B.M.H.; Barrett, S.C.H. A comparative analysis of pollen limitation in flowering plants. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 2000, 69, 503–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Knight, T.M.; Steets, J.A.; Vamosi, J.C.; Mazer, S.J.; Burd, M.; Campbell, D.R.; Dudash, M.R.; Johnston, M.O.; Mitchell, R.J.; Ashman, T.-L. Pollen limitation of plant reproduction: Pattern and process. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2005, 36, 467–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Knight, T.M.; Steets, J.A.; Ashman, T.-L. A quantitative synthesis of pollen supplementation experiments highlights the contribution of resource reallocation to estimates of pollen limitation. Am. J. Bot. 2006, 93, 271–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Wesselingh, R.A. Pollen limitation meets resource allocation: Towards a comprehensive methodology. New Phytol. 2007, 174, 26–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Trueman, S.J.; Kämper, W.; Nichols, J.; Ogbourne, S.M.; Hawkes, D.; Peters, T.; Hosseini Bai, S.; Wallace, H.M. Pollen limitation and xenia effects in a cultivated mass-flowering tree, Macadamia integrifolia (Proteaceae). Ann. Bot. 2022, 129, 135–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Trueman, S.J. The reproductive biology of macadamia. Sci. Hortic. 2013, 150, 354–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Heard, T.A. Behaviour and pollinator efficiency of stingless bees and honey bees on macadamia flowers. J. Apic. Res. 1994, 33, 191–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Grass, I.; Meyer, S.; Taylor, P.; Foord, S.; Hajek, P.; Tscharntke, T. Pollination limitation despite managed honeybees in South African macadamia orchards. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2018, 260, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Howlett, B.G.; Nelson, W.R.; Pattemore, D.E.; Gee, M. Pollination of macadamia: Review and opportunities for improving yields. Sci. Hortic. 2015, 197, 411–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Wallace, H.M.; Vithanage, V.; Exley, E.M. The effect of supplementary pollination on nut set of Macadamia (Proteaceae). Ann. Bot. 1996, 78, 765–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Willcox, B.K.; Howlett, B.G.; Robson, A.J.; Cutting, B.; Evans, L.; Jesson, L.; Kirkland, L.; Jean-Meyzonnier, M.; Potdevin, V.; Saunders, M.E.; et al. Evaluating the taxa that provide shared pollination services across multiple crops and regions. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 13538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Sedgley, M. Pollen tube growth in macadamia. Sci. Hortic. 1983, 18, 333–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Sedgley, M.; Bell, F.D.H.; Bell, D.; Winks, C.W.; Pattison, S.J.; Hancock, T.W. Self- and cross-compatibility of macadamia cultivars. J. Hortic. Sci. 1990, 65, 205–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Meyers, N.; McConchie, C.; Turnbull, C.; Vithanage, V. Cross pollination and intervarietal compatibility in macadamia. Aust. Macadamia Soc. News Bull. 1995, 22, 5–8. [Google Scholar]
  26. Sacramento, C.K.; Pereira, F.M.; Perecin, D.; Sabino, J.C. Capacidade combinatória para fructificação em cultivares de nogueira macadâmia. Pesqui. Agropecu. Bras. 1999, 34, 2045–2049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Howlett, B.G.; Read, S.F.J.; Alavi, M.; Cutting, B.T.; Nelson, W.R.; Goodwin, R.M.; Cross, S.; Thorp, T.G.; Pattemore, D.E. Cross-pollination enhances macadamia yields, even with branch-level resource limitation. HortScience 2019, 54, 609–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hardner, C. Macadamia domestication in Hawai‘i. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 2016, 63, 1411–1430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Alam, M.M.; Wilkie, J.; Topp, B.L. Early growth and graft success in macadamia seedling and cutting rootstocks. Acta Hortic. 2018, 1205, 637–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Vithanage, V.; Meyers, N.; McConchie, C. Maximising the Benefits from Cross-Pollination in Macadamia Orchards; Horticulture Australia Ltd.: Sydney, Australia, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  31. Kämper, W.; Trueman, S.J.; Ogbourne, S.M.; Wallace, H.M. Pollination services in a macadamia cultivar depend on across-orchard transport of cross pollen. J. Appl. Ecol. 2021, 58, 2529–2539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Trueman, S.; De Silva, A.; Kämper, W.; Nichols, J.; Hosseini Bai, S.; Wallace, H.; Royle, J.; Peters, T.; Ogbourne, S. Pollen parentage of nuts during premature nut drop: Do self-pollinated nuts drop and cross-pollinated nuts remain? Aust. Macadamia Soc. News Bull. 2022, 50, 19–20. [Google Scholar]
  33. De Silva, A.L.; Kämper, W.; Wallace, H.M.; Ogbourne, S.M.; Hosseini Bai, S.; Nichols, J.; Trueman, S.J. Boron effects on fruit set, yield, quality and paternity of macadamia. Agronomy 2022, 12, 684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Richards, T.E.; Kämper, W.; Trueman, S.J.; Wallace, H.M.; Ogbourne, S.M.; Brooks, P.R.; Nichols, J.; Hosseini Bai, S. Relationships between nut size, kernel quality, nutritional composition and levels of outcrossing in three macadamia cultivars. Plants 2020, 9, 228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Langdon, K.S.; King, G.J.; Nock, C.J. DNA paternity testing indicates unexpectedly high levels of self-fertilisation in macadamia. Tree Genet. Genomes 2019, 15, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kodad, O.; Estopañán, G.; Juan, T.; Socias i Company, R. Xenia effects on oil content and fatty acid and tocopherol concentrations in autogamous almond cultivars. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2009, 57, 10809–10813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Kämper, W.; Thorp, G.; Wirthensohn, M.; Brooks, P.; Trueman, S.J. Pollen paternity can affect kernel size and nutritional composition of self-incompatible and new self-compatible almond cultivars. Agronomy 2021, 11, 326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Denney, J.O. Xenia includes metaxenia. HortScience 1992, 27, 722–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Fattahi, R.; Mohammadzedeh, M.; Khadivi-Khub, A. Influence of different pollen sources on nut and kernel characteristics of hazelnut. Sci. Hortic. 2014, 173, 15–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Meyers, N.M.; Morris, S.C.; McFadyen, L.M.; Huett, D.O.; McConchie, C.A. Investigation of sampling procedures to determine macadamia fruit quality in orchards. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 1999, 39, 1007–1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Trueman, S.J.; Richards, S.; McConchie, C.A.; Turnbull, C.G.N. Relationships between kernel oil content, fruit removal force and abscission in macadamia. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 2000, 40, 859–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ivanova, N.V.; Fazekas, A.J.; Herbert, P.D.N. Semi-automated, membrane-based protocol for DNA isolation from plants. Plant Mol. Biol. Rep. 2008, 26, 186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Peterson, B.K.; Weber, J.N.; Kay, E.H.; Fisher, H.S.; Hoekstra, H.E. Double digest RADseq: An inexpensive method for de novo SNP discovery and genotyping in model and non-model species. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e37135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Evans, L.J.; Jesson, L.; Read, S.F.J.; Jochym, M.; Cutting, B.T.; Gayrard, T.; Jammes, M.A.S.; Roumier, R.; Howlett, B.G. Key factors influencing forager distribution across macadamia orchards differ among species of managed bees. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2021, 53, 74–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. McFadyen, L.; Robertson, D.; Sedgley, M.; Kristiansen, P.; Olesen, T. Post-pruning shoot growth increases fruit abscission and reduces stem carbohydrates and yield in macadamia. Ann. Bot. 2011, 107, 993–1001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Olesen, T.; Huett, D.; Smith, G. The production of flowers, fruit and leafy shoots in pruned macadamia trees. Funct. Plant Biol. 2011, 38, 327–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Moncur, M.W.; Stephenson, R.A.; Trochoulias, T. Floral development of Macadamia integrifolia Maiden & Betche under Australian conditions. Sci. Hortic. 1985, 27, 87–96. [Google Scholar]
  48. Trueman, S.J.; Turnbull, C.G.N. Effects of cross-pollination and flower removal on fruit set in macadamia. Ann. Bot. 1994, 73, 23–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Alcaraz, M.L.; Hormaza, J.I. Influence of physical distance between cultivars on yield, outcrossing rate and selective fruit drop in avocado (Persea americana, Lauraceae). Ann. Appl. Biol. 2011, 158, 354–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Degani, C.; El-Batsri, R.; Gazit, S. Outcrossing rate, yield, and selective fruit abscission in ‘Ettinger’ and ‘Ardith’ avocado plots. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 1997, 122, 813–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Degani, C.; Goldring, A.; Gazit, S. Pollen parent effect on outcrossing rate in ‘Hass’ and ‘Fuerte’ avocado plots during fruit development. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 1989, 114, 106–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Trueman, S.J.; Nichols, J.; Farrar, M.B.; Wallace, H.M.; Hosseini Bai, S. Outcrossing rate and fruit yield of Hass avocado trees decline at increasing distance from a polliniser cultivar. Agronomy 2024, 14, 122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Degani, C.; Stern, R.A.; El-Batsri, R.; Gazit, S. Pollen parent effect on the selective abscission of ‘Mauritius’ and ‘Floridian’ lychee fruitlets. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 1995, 120, 523–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Dag, A.; Gazit, S.; Eisenstein, D.; El-Batsri, R.; Degani, C. Effect of the male parent on pericarp and seed weights in several Floridian mango cultivars. Sci. Hortic. 1999, 82, 325–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. McConchie, C.A.; Meyers, N.M.; Vithanage, V.; Turnbull, C.G.N. Pollen Parent Effects on Nut Quality and Yield in Macadamia; Horticultural Research & Development Corporation: Sydney, Australia, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  56. Penter, M.G.; Nkwana, E.; Nxundu, Y. Factors influencing kernel breakage in the South African macadamia industry. S. Afr. Macadamia Grow. Assoc. Yearb. 2008, 16, 6–10. [Google Scholar]
  57. Australian Macadamia Society. The Australian Macadamia Industry; Australian Macadamia Society: Lismore, Australia, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  58. Australian Macadamia Society. Kernel Quality Standard for Processors; Australian Macadamia Society: Lismore, Australia, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  59. State of Queensland. Macadamia Industry Benchmark Report. 2009 to 2021 Seasons; State of Queensland: Brisbane, Australia, 2022.
  60. Orford, R. Factors Influencing Total Kernel Recovery and Your Profitability. AusMac 2022 Conference; Australian Macadamia Society: Lismore, Australia. Available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O99Njr_I6oE (accessed on 11 October 2023).
  61. Ito, P.J.; Hamilton, R.A. Quality and yield of ‘Keauhou’ macadamia nuts from mixed and pure block plantings. HortScience 1980, 15, 307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Mason, R.L.; Wills, R.B.H. Evaluation of the use of specific gravity as an objective index of the quality of Australian macadamia nuts. Food Technol. Aust. 1983, 35, 245–248. [Google Scholar]
  63. Stephenson, R.A.; Gallagher, E.C.; Doogan, V.J.; Mayer, D.G. Nitrogen and environmental factors influencing macadamia quality. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 2000, 40, 1145–1150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Trueman, S.J.; McConchie, C.A.; Turnbull, C.G.N. Ethephon promotion of crop abscission for unshaken and mechanically shaken macadamia. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 2002, 42, 1001–1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Trueman, S.J. Yield responses to ethephon for unshaken and mechanically shaken macadamia. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 2003, 43, 1143–1150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Trueman, S.J. Preliminary evaluation of low ethephon doses for inducing fruit abscission of macadamia (Macadamia integrifolia) cv. A16. Trop. Agric. 2003, 80, 243–245. [Google Scholar]
  67. Herbert, S.W.; Walton, D.A.; Wallace, H.M. Pollen-parent affects fruit, nut and kernel development of Macadamia. Sci. Hortic. 2019, 244, 406–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Currey, A. Three years on shows the benefit of careful planning and flexibility. Aust. Macadamia Soc. News Bull. 2021, 49, 44–45. [Google Scholar]
  69. Kojetin, L. Colour sorting capacity builds capacity at Natara Macadamias. Aust. Macadamia Soc. News Bull. 2022, 50, 49–51. [Google Scholar]
  70. Ramírez, F.; Davenport, T.L. Apple pollination: A review. Sci. Hortic. 2013, 162, 188–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Connell, J.H.; Floyd, J.; Limberg, J.; Miller, B.; Boles, J. Influence of pollinizer arrangement, bloom timing, and almond cultivar ratios on orchard productivity and crop value. Acta Hortic. 2014, 1028, 77–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Kwon, J.H.; Jun, J.H.; Nam, E.Y.; Chung, K.H.; Yoon, I.K.; Yun, S.K.; Kim, S.J. Selection of a suitable pollinizer for ‘Summer Fantasia’ plum. HortScience 2017, 52, 1182–1187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Australian Macadamia Society. Fact Sheet. Pollination; Australian Macadamia Society: Lismore, Australia, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  74. Kron, P.; Husband, B.C.; Kevan, P.G. Across- and along-row pollen dispersal in high-density apple orchards: Insights from allozyme markers. J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol. 2001, 76, 286–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Sáez, A.; Di Virgilio, A.; Tiribelli, F.; Geslin, B. Simulation models to predict pollination success in apple orchards: A useful tool to test management practices. Apidologie 2018, 49, 551–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Akinsanmi, O.A.; Wang, G.; Neal, J.; Russell, D.; Drenth, A.; Topp, B. Variation in susceptibility among macadamia genotypes and species to Phytophthora root decay caused by Phytophthora cinnamomi. Crop Prot. 2016, 87, 37–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Horticulturae 10 00203 g001
Figure 1. Mean (+SE) outcrossing levels among fruit of 19 macadamia cultivars from 23 sites in commercial orchards in Australia, Brazil and South Africa (n = six mother trees). 344 1 and 344 2 refer to Australian orchards 1 and 2, respectively, of cv. ‘344’.
Figure 1. Mean (+SE) outcrossing levels among fruit of 19 macadamia cultivars from 23 sites in commercial orchards in Australia, Brazil and South Africa (n = six mother trees). 344 1 and 344 2 refer to Australian orchards 1 and 2, respectively, of cv. ‘344’.
Horticulturae 10 00203 g001
Table 1. Macadamia cultivar, orchard location, sample-tree separation within the row, distance to nearest other cultivars, nearest other cultivar in each direction, and other cultivars within 500 m.
Table 1. Macadamia cultivar, orchard location, sample-tree separation within the row, distance to nearest other cultivars, nearest other cultivar in each direction, and other cultivars within 500 m.
CultivarCountryLocationTree Separation within RowDistance to Nearest Other
Cultivars		Nearest Cultivar in Each DirectionOther Cultivars within 500 m
246Australia28°43′39″ S 153°24′08″ E10 (50 m)1 and 1 row (10 m and 10 m)741, H2333, 344, 508
344 1Australia24°58′36″ S 152°22′45″ E10 (40 m)6 and 6 rows (48 m and 48 m)Daddow, A203741, 842, 849, A4, A29, A268
344 2Australia28°44′29″ S 153°31′34″ E10 (35 m)Mixed in the same row (3.5 m)246, 816, 849333, 508, 741, 788, 791, A4
741Australia24°56′18″ S 152°21′38″ E10 (20 m)3 and 3 rows (30 m and 30 m)A4, A203814, 816, 842, 849, A16, A38, A268, Own Venture
814Australia24°55′45″ S 152°21′51″ E5 (20 m)3 and 3 rows (24 m and 24 m)816, A16741, 849, 842, A4, A38, A203, A268, Daddow, Own Venture
816Australia24°58′50″ S 152°22′46″ E10 (40 m)4 and 4 rows (32 m and 32 m)842, A4344, 741, 849, A29, A203, A268, Daddow
842Australia24°58′46″ S 152°22′46″ E10 (40 m)10 and 11 rows (80 m and 88 m)741, 816344, 849, A4, A29, A203, A268, Daddow
849Australia24°58′55″ S 152°22′46″ E10 (40 m)7 and 8 rows (56 m and 64 m) 3A4, forest 3344, 741, 816, 842, A29, A203, A268, Daddow
A4Australia24°45′44″ S 152°15′55″ E10 (40 m)4 and 5 rows (32 m and 40 m)849, A38344, 842, A16, A268
A16Australia24°55′47″ S 152°21′52″ E10 (40 m)4 and 4 rows (32 m and 32 m)814, A38741, 816, 849, 842, A4, A203, A268, Daddow, Own Venture
A29Australia24°56′21″ S 152°21′38″ E10 (20 m)3 and 3 rows (30 m and 30 m)A203, A203741, 816, 842, 849, A4, A16, A38, A268, Daddow, Own Venture
A38Australia24°56′14″ S 152°21′58″ E10 (40 m)6 and 7 rows (48 m and 58 m)A268, 842741, 816, 849, A4, A16, A203, Daddow, Own Venture
A203Australia24°58′40″ S 152°22′46″ E10 (40 m)4 and 5 rows (32 m and 40 m)344, 741816, 842, 849, A4, A29, A268, Daddow
A268Australia24°55′5″ S 152°21′55″ E10 (40 m)8 and 8 rows (56 m and 56 m)842, Daddow741, 816, 849, A4, A16, A38, A203, Own Venture
DaddowAustralia24°58′31″ S 152°22′45″ E10 (40 m)8 and 9 rows (64 m and 72 m)849, 344741, 816, 842, A4, A29, A203, A268
H2Australia28°43′47″ S 153°24′06″ E10 (50 m)1 and 1 row (10 m and 10 m)246, 508333, 344, 660, 741
MCT1Australia24°50′42″ S 152°17′40″ E10 (40 m)Mixed in the same row (4 m)See next column741, A4, A16, A38, Daddow, Heilscher
Own VentureAustralia24°55′51″ S 152°21′52″ E10 (40 m)4 and 4 rows (32 m and 32 m)A38, 849741, 816, 842, A4, A16, A203, A268, Daddow
IAC 4-12BBrazil22°22′17″ S 48°26′38″W5 (20 m)4 and 5 rows (35 m and 50 m)246, 246344, 420, 741, 816, 1014
695 (Beaumont)South Africa25°48′36″ S 31°0′24″ E5 (30 m)17 trees 4 and 20 rows (102 m and 240 m)788, 814741, 816, A4
814South Africa25°48′33″ S 31°0′35″ E5 (30 m)8 and 7 rows (100 m and 84 m)695, forest 3788, 816
816South Africa25°48′21″ S 31°0′3″ E5 (30 m)26 trees 4 (130 m)741, 741695, 788
A4South Africa25°38′55″ S 31°18′33″ E4 (16 m)3 and 4 rows (24 m and 32 m) 695, A16344, 741, 788, 816, 842, 849, A38, A203, A268, Daddow, Nelmak 2
1,2 Orchards 1 and 2 of cv. 344. 3 Cv. 849 (Australia) and cv. 814 (South Africa) adjoined natural forest at the orchard boundary. 4 Cvv. 695 and 816 (South Africa) had a block of cv. 788 trees or cv. 741 trees at the end of their respective rows.
Table 2. Nut-in-shell mass, kernel mass, kernel recovery and kernel oil concentration of macadamia fruit with different pollen parents. Pollen parents that provided at least six fruit (≥10% of fruit) are shown for each mother cultivar. The predominant cross-pollen parents for each site are indicated by asterisks (*).
Table 2. Nut-in-shell mass, kernel mass, kernel recovery and kernel oil concentration of macadamia fruit with different pollen parents. Pollen parents that provided at least six fruit (≥10% of fruit) are shown for each mother cultivar. The predominant cross-pollen parents for each site are indicated by asterisks (*).
Mother Cultivar ×
Pollen Parent		CountryNut Size or Quality Parameter
Nut-in-Shell Mass
(g)		Kernel
Mass
(g)		Kernel
Recovery
(%)		Oil
Concentration (%)
246 × 246Australia7.21 ± 0.25 a2.23 ± 0.11 a30.4 ± 0.9 a74.6 ± 0.6 a
246 × 344Australia7.63 ± 0.33 a2.56 ± 0.13 ab33.6 ± 1.1 ab74.8 ± 0.7 a
246 × 508Australia8.12 ± 0.19 a2.86 ± 0.12 b35.2 ± 1.3 b76.2 ± 1.1 a
246 × 741 *Australia6.80 ± 0.29 a2.31 ± 0.10 ab34.3 ± 1.0 b76.8 ± 0.4 a
344 1 × 344Australia6.79 ± 0.74 a1.87 ± 0.33 a26.4 ± 2.6 a75.4 ± 1.5 a
344 1 × 842Australia8.58 ± 0.31 b2.70 ± 0.14 b31.4 ± 0.7 ab77.9 ± 0.6 ab
344 1 × 849Australia8.90 ± 0.24 b2.72 ± 0.11 b30.6 ± 0.8 ab77.0 ± 0.8 ab
344 1 × Daddow *Australia8.40 ± 0.26 b2.77 ± 0.12 b32.8 ± 0.9 b78.5 ± 0.5 b
344 2 × 344Australia6.31 ± 0.34 a1.69 ± 0.15 a25.4 ± 1.3 a73.5 ± 0.5 a
344 2 × 246 *Australia8.35 ± 0.64 b2.61 ± 0.23 b31.2 ± 1.3 b77.0 ± 0.9 b
741 × 741 *Australia5.36 ± 0.32 a1.91 ± 0.10 a36.0 ± 1.3 a75.7 ± 0.8 a
741 × 842 *Australia7.12 ± 0.24 b2.63 ± 0.12 b36.9 ± 0.8 a77.7 ± 0.4 ab
741 × A16Australia8.75 ± 0.32 c3.46 ± 0.09 c39.7 ± 1.4 a79.2 ± 0.3 b
814 × 816 *Australia5.75 ± 0.25 a1.96 ± 0.11 a 33.5 ± 1.1 a77.6 ± 0.3 a
814 × 849 *Australia6.47 ± 0.26 ab2.47 ± 0.10 b38.3 ± 1.3 b78.2 ± 0.4 a
814 × A16Australia7.57 ± 0.54 b3.01 ± 0.18 c38.8 ± 1.6 b80.0 ± 0.6 b
816 × 842 *Australia6.91 ± 0.25 a2.94 ± 0.11 a42.7 ± 0.9 a77.0 ± 0.4 a
816 × 849Australia6.97 ± 0.24 a3.01 ± 0.10 a43.3 ± 1.0 a77.3 ± 0.4 a
842 × 816Australia6.91 ± 0.26 a2.63 ± 0.12 a38.2 ± 1.3 a78.9 ± 0.4 a
842 × Daddow *Australia8.10 ± 0.32 b3.28 ± 0.11 b40.8 ± 1.2 a79.2 ± 0.3 a
849 × 816 *Australia6.02 ± 0.23 a2.54 ± 0.14 a41.6 ± 1.4 a76.9 ± 0.6 a
A4 × 344Australia6.95 ± 0.40 a3.23 ± 0.17 a46.6 ± 1.1 a79.7 ± 0.5 ab
A4 × A16Australia8.03 ± 0.36 ab3.69 ± 0.19 ab45.9 ± 0.8 a79.0 ± 0.6 a
A4 × A38 *Australia8.40 ± 0.29 b4.01 ± 0.14 b47.9 ± 1.1 a80.7 ± 0.4 b
A16 × 814 *Australia7.85 ± 0.43 a3.16 ± 0.20 a40.2 ± 1.1 a79.5 ± 0.8 a
A16 × A38 *Australia7.74 ± 0.40 a3.32 ± 0.21 a42.6 ± 0.9 a78.8 ± 0.4 a
A29 × A29Australia8.26 ± 0.40 a2.95 ± 0.19 a35.4 ± 1.0 a75.5 ± 0.8 a
A29 × (H2 × 741) * Australia8.32 ± 0.44 a3.14 ± 0.23 a37.7 ± 1.5 a78.5 ± 0.9 b
A203 × 344 *Australia8.74 ± 0.19 a2.98 ± 0.11 a34.1 ± 1.0 a78.9 ± 0.6 a
A203 × Daddow *Australia10.26 ± 0.46 b3.72 ± 0.28 b36.0 ± 1.5 a80.8 ± 1.0 a
A268 × 816Australia11.13 ± 0.78 a3.95 ± 0.32 a35.4 ± 0.7 a77.6 ± 1.1 a
A268 × 842 *Australia10.12 ± 0.35 a3.48 ± 0.17 a34.1 ± 0.8 a78.1 ± 0.3 a
A268 × 849Australia10.01 ± 0.61 a3.56 ± 0.33 a35.1 ± 1.4 a76.8 ± 0.5 a
Daddow × DaddowAustralia8.40 ± 0.70 a3.01 ± 0.28 a35.7 ± 0.9 a78.6 ± 0.2 ab
Daddow × 344Australia7.94 ± 0.47 a3.30 ± 0.20 a41.7 ± 1.5 b79.7 ± 0.4 a
Daddow × 849 *Australia8.91 ± 0.48 a3.45 ± 0.15 a39.0 ± 0.6 b77.7 ± 0.5 b
H2 × 508 *Australia9.84 ± 0.49 a2.98 ± 0.13 a30.6 ± 1.1 a77.4 ± 0.3 a
MCT1 × A4 *Australia7.32 ± 0.24 a3.33 ± 0.12 a45.8 ± 1.1 a77.0 ± 0.5 a
MCT1 × A16Australia6.62 ± 0.35 a3.33 ± 0.20 a50.3 ± 1.6 a75.8 ± 0.8 a
Own Venture × 849 *Australia8.71 ± 0.46 a3.50 ± 0.22 a40.1 ± 1.2 a76.0 ± 0.4 a
IAC 4-12 B × IAC 4-12 BBrazil5.41 ± 0.55 a1.69 ± 0.14 a31.7 ± 1.4 a—
IAC 4-12 B × 246 *Brazil5.35 ± 0.16 a1.82 ± 0.06 a34.1 ± 0.8 a—
695 × 695South Africa5.05 ± 0.16 a1.96 ± 0.07 a38.8 ± 0.8 a—
695 × 788South Africa5.63 ± 0.26 a2.49 ± 0.15 b44.0 ± 1.1 b—
695 × 814South Africa5.67 ± 0.39 a2.39 ± 0.17 ab42.2 ± 1.1 b—
695 × 816 *South Africa4.99 ± 0.17 a2.10 ± 0.09 ab42.1 ± 0.9 b—
814 × 814South Africa4.45 ± 0.10 a1.67 ± 0.05 a37.4 ± 0.6 a—
816 × 816South Africa5.52 ± 0.23 a2.74 ± 0.13 a49.6 ± 0.9 a—
816 × 695 *South Africa6.33 ± 0.45 a3.35 ± 0.30 a52.4 ± 1.7 a—
816 × 741 *South Africa5.57 ± 0.29 a2.95 ± 0.19 a52.8 ± 1.5 a—
A4 × 695 *South Africa6.91 ± 0.19 a3.58 ± 0.12 a51.5 ± 0.8 a—
A4 × A268South Africa7.44 ± 0.64 a3.69 ± 0.34 a49.7 ± 1.5 a—
1,2 Orchards 1 and 2, respectively, of cultivar 344. Means ± SE with different letters within a mother cultivar at one site are significantly different (ANOVA, with Tukey’s HSD test for >2 means; p < 0.05; n = 6–54 fruit).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Trueman, S.J.; Penter, M.G.; Malagodi-Braga, K.S.; Nichols, J.; De Silva, A.L.; Ramos, A.T.M.; Moriya, L.M.; Ogbourne, S.M.; Hawkes, D.; Peters, T.; et al. High Outcrossing Levels among Global Macadamia Cultivars: Implications for Nut Quality, Orchard Designs and Pollinator Management. Horticulturae 2024, 10, 203. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae10030203

AMA Style

Trueman SJ, Penter MG, Malagodi-Braga KS, Nichols J, De Silva AL, Ramos ATM, Moriya LM, Ogbourne SM, Hawkes D, Peters T, et al. High Outcrossing Levels among Global Macadamia Cultivars: Implications for Nut Quality, Orchard Designs and Pollinator Management. Horticulturae. 2024; 10(3):203. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae10030203

Chicago/Turabian Style

Trueman, Stephen J., Mark G. Penter, Kátia Sampaio Malagodi-Braga, Joel Nichols, Anushika L. De Silva, Adalgisa Thayne Munhoz Ramos, Leonardo Massaharu Moriya, Steven M. Ogbourne, David Hawkes, Trent Peters, and et al. 2024. "High Outcrossing Levels among Global Macadamia Cultivars: Implications for Nut Quality, Orchard Designs and Pollinator Management" Horticulturae 10, no. 3: 203. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae10030203

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop