THESIS

GENETIC VARIATION ON SOME GROWTH, MORPHOLOGICAL, AND ANATOMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF NEEM (Azadirachta indica A. Juss.) GROWN IN THAILAND

WATHINEE KRISANAPANT

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Forestry) Graduate School, Kasetsart University 2007

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my sincerely appreciation to Assoc.Prof.Dr. Suree Bhumibhamon, my advisor, for his kindly guidance, suggestions, supports and encouragements. I am especially grateful to Asst.Prof.Dr. Damrong Pipatwattanakul and Asst.Prof.Dr. Srunya Vajrodaya, thesis committees, for their valuable comments, criticisms and suggestions. My sincere gratitude is given to Asst.Prof.Dr. Vijak Chimchome , the Graduate School Representative, for his considerable suggestions. Sincerely gratefulness is dedicated to Kasetsart University Krabi Campus and Graduate School for their scholarships and financial support. I would like to express my sincere thanks to Dr.Suchitra Changtragoon for Isozyme Laboratory supports from Forest Genetic Conservation and Biotechnology Research Group, Forest and Plant Conservation Research Office, National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation Department. My grateful thanks are given to staffs at Kanchanaburi and Kamphaeng Phet Silvicultural Research Center, including Mr. Jamnong Kanchanaburangkul, Mr.Suksan Saiwa, and Mr.Prapai Khaennak for their help and hospitality provide during the data collections. I would like express my sincere thanks to Mr. Prachaup Krinkachornvong, Mr. Sompong Khetput and Mr. Mongkol Srianan for their assistances in data collections at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao. I would like to express my thanks to Mr. Thawee Kanhawan and Mr. Sanguan Wongsa, Laboratory officers of Forest Genetic Conservation and Biotechnology Research Group, and Mr. Kuson Tungjaipituk, Laboratory officer of Department of Forest Biology, for laboratorial assistances Special thanks are given to Ms. Supattra Thueksathit, Mr. Somporn Maelim, Ms. Suwimon Uthairatsamee, Mr. Chakrit Na Takuathung, Ms. Kanchana Popromsree, Mr. Apichart Tonnamning, Mr. Kanchai Prasanai, Mr. Jakrapong Buakla, Ms. Suppatra Wannapakdee, Ms.Supapan Pumchan, and Mr. Keng Chaivarin for their kindly help and mental supports. Heartfelt thanks are due to Mr. Apipong Sadthapong for his understanding, help, and spirit supports. Finally, a special indebtedness is expressed to my beloved parents, my adaptive parents, and my elder sister for their love, encouragement and support up to the present day.

Wathinee Krisanapant March, 2007

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES INTRODUCTION OBJECTIVES LITERATURE REVIEW Indian Neem (Azadirachta indica A. Juss.) Thai Neem (Azadirachta indica A. Juss. var. siamensis Valeton) Genetic Variability Provenance Trials Progeny Test Seed Orchard Tree Improvement of Neem Growth and Yield of Neem Leaf Morphology and Stomatal Characteristics Seed Morphology MATERIALS AND METHODS Study Site Seed Sources and Experimental Design International Provenance Trials Isozyme Study Measurement of Tree Performance Leaf Morphological Study Stomatal Study Seed Morphological Study Seed Orchard Data Analysis (1) (4) (7) 1 3 4 4 7 8 10 11 11 12 14 15 17 18 18 18 27 27 27 27 28 28 28 28

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Page RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Provenance Variation Isozyme Analysis Growth Characteristics in Various Ages Growth Characteristics in Various Sites Leaf Characteristics Stomatal Characteristics Fruit and Dry Seed Characteristics Clonal Variation Survival Percentage Height Growth Diameter at 10 cm above Ground Level Family Variation Survival Percentage Height Growth Diameter at Ground Level CONCULSION International Provenance Trials Variation on Isozyme Analysis Variation on Growth Characteristics Variation on Leaf Characteristics Variation on Stomatal Characteristics Variation on Fruit and Dry Seed Characteristics Clonal Seed Orchard Seasonal Variation on Growth Characteristics Clonal Variation Seedling Seed Orchard Seasonal Variation on Growth Characteristics Family Variation 29 29 29 49 58 84 107 125 141 141 146 151 156 156 161 167 172 172 172 173 177 178 180 182 182 182 183 183 184

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Page RECOMMENDATIONS LITERATURE CITED APPENDIX 185 186 194

iv

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Seed sources for the International Provenance Trials of neem Clone origins of Clonal Seed Orchard of neem established at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao Eight enzyme systems assayed in Neem Genotypic frequency of neem planted in the International Provenance Trials established in Kamphaeng Phet Allelic frequency of neem planted in the International Provenance Trials established in Kamphaeng Phet Genetic parameters of neem planted at International Provenance Trials established in Kamphaeng Phet Wrights F coefficients at 11 loci across the 22 provenances of neem Genetic distance of neem planted in the International Provenance Trials established in Kamphaeng Phet Average survival percentage and growth characteristics of neem grown in the International Provenance Trials established in Kanchanaburi in various ages Analysis of variance on survival percentage and growth characteristics of neem grown in the International Provenance Trials established in Kanchanaburi in 1997 Average growth characteristic values of 7-year-old neem planted in the International Provenance Trials established in Kanchanaburi (KB) and Kamphaeng Phet (KP) Analysis of variance on survival percentage and growth characteristics of 7-year-old neem grown in the International Provenance Trials in Thailand Correlation analysis on growth characteristics of 7-year-old Thai and Indian Neems planted in Kanchanaburi (KB) and Kamphaeng Phet (KP) and geographical data of provenance origin Euclidean distance of growth characteristics of 7-year-old neem grown in the International Provenance Trials in Thailand Average leaf characteristic values of 7-year-old neem planted in the International Provenance Trials established in Kanchanaburi (KB) and Kamphaeng Phet (KP) Analysis of variance on leaf characteristics of 7-year-old neem grown in the International Provenance Trials, Thailand Page 21 24 27 39 41 45 46 47

54

10

57

11

72

12

79

13

80 82

14 15

93 102

16

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Table 17 Correlation analysis on leaf characteristics of 7-year-old Thai and Indian Neems planted in Kanchanaburi (KB) and Kamphaeng Phet (KP) and geographical data of provenance origin Euclidean distance of leaf characteristics of 7-year-old neem grown in the International Provenance Trials in Thailand Average stomatal frequency and size of 7-year-old neem grown in the International Provenance Trials established in Kanchanaburi (KB) and Kamphaeng Phet (KP) Analysis of variance on stomatal frequency and size of 7-year-old neem grown in the International Provenance Trials, Thailand Correlation analysis on stomatal characteristics of 7-year-old Thai and Indian Neems planted in Kanchanaburi (KB) and Kamphaeng Phet (KP) and geographical data of provenance origin Euclidean distance of stomatal characteristics of 7-year-old neem grown in the International Provenance Trials in Thailand Average fruit and dry seed characteristic values of 7-year-old neem planted in the International Provenance Trials established in Kanchanaburi (KB) and Kamphaeng Phet (KP) Analysis of variance on fruit and dry seed characteristics of 7-yearold Thai Neem grown in the International Provenance Trials in Thailand Analysis of variance on fruit and dry seed characteristics of 7-yearold neem grown in the International Provenance Trials established in Kamphaeng Phet Correlation analysis on fruit and dry seed characteristics of 7-yearold Thai and Indian Neems planted in Kanchanaburi (KB) and Kamphaeng Phet (KP) and geographical data of provenance origin Euclidean distance of fruit and dry seed characteristics of 7-year-old neem grown in the International Provenance Trials established in Kamphaeng Phet Average survival percentage (%) of Thai Neem ramets grown in the Clonal Seed Orchard established at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao during the study period (months, M) Analysis of variance on survival percentage of Thai Neem ramets grown in the Clonal Seed Orchard established at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao during the study period. Page

103 105

18 19

115 120

20 21

121 123

22 23

133

24

136

25

136

26

137

27

139

28

143

29

145

vi

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Table 30 Average height growth (cm) of Thai Neem ramets grown in the Clonal Seed Orchard established at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao during the study period (months, M) Analysis of variance on height growth of Thai Neem ramets grown in the Clonal Seed Orchard established at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao during the study period Average diameter at 10 cm above ground level growth (D10, cm) of Thai Neem ramets grown in the Clonal Seed Orchard established at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao during the study period (months, M) Analysis of variance on diameter at 10 cm above ground level growth of Thai Neem ramets grown in the Clonal Seed Orchard established at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao during the study period. Average survival percentage (%) of Thai Neem progenies grown in the Seedling Seed Orchard established at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao during the study period Page

148

31

150

32

153

33

155

34

158

35

Analysis of variance on survival percentage of Thai Neem progenies grown in the Seedling Seed Orchard established at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao during the study period. 160 Average height growth (cm) of Thai Neem progenies grown in the Seedling Seed Orchard established at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao during the study period Analysis of variance on height growth of Thai Neem progenies grown in the Seedling Seed Orchard established at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao during the study period Average diameter at ground level (mm) of Thai Neem progenies grown in the Seedling Seed Orchard established at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao during the study period Analysis of variance on diameter at ground level of Thai Neem progenies grown in the Seedling Seed Orchard established at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao during the study period

36

164

37

166

38

169

39

171

vii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Natural distribution of Indian Neem (A. indica, (A. indica var. siamensis, 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Page

) and Thai Neem

6 19 22 23 25 26 29 29 30 30 31 31 32 32 40 42 46

Study sites () in Thailand Planting design of International Provenance Trials of neem established in Kanchanaburi Planting design of International Provenance Trials of neem established in Kamphaeng Phet Planting design of Clonal Seed Orchard of neem established at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao. Planting design of Progeny Testing cum Seedling Seed Orchard of Thai Neem established at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao. Photograph and schematic diagram of DIA Photograph and schematic diagram of FDH Photograph and schematic diagram of GOT Photograph and schematic diagram of G-6PDH Photograph and schematic diagram of IDH Photograph and schematic diagram of MDH Photograph and schematic diagram of PGM Photograph and schematic diagram of SKDH Genotypic frequency of neem planted in the International Provenance Trials established in Kamphaeng Phet Allelic frequency of neem planted in the International Provenance Trials established in Kamphaeng Phet Observed and expected heterozygosity (Ho and He) of neem planted at International Provenance Trials established in Kamphaeng Phet
Genetic dendrogram of neem grown in the International Provenance Trials established in Kamphaeng Phet

18 19

48

Survival percentage and growth characteristics (height; diameter at 10 cm above ground level (D10), DBH, and crown diameter (CD)) of neem grown in the International Provenance Trials established in Kanchanaburi in various ages

55

viii

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

Figure 20 Survival percentage and growth characteristic values of 7-year-old neem planted in the International Provenance Trials established in Kanchanaburi (KB) and Kamphaeng Phet (KP) Survival percentage and growth characteristic values of 7-year-old neem from 22 provenances planted in the International Provenance Trials established in Kanchanaburi (KB) and Kamphaeng Phet (KP) Correlation analysis on growth characteristics of 7-year-old Thai and Indian Neems planted in Kanchanaburi (KB) and Kamphaeng Phet (KP) and geographical data of provenance origin Growth dendrogram of 7-year-old neem grown in the International Provenance Trials in Thailand Leaf characteristic values of 7-year-old neem planted in the International Provenance Trials established in Kanchanaburi (KB) and Kamphaeng Phet (KP) at different crown portions Leaf characteristic values of 7-year-old Thai and Indian Neems planted in the International Provenance Trials established in Kanchanaburi (KB) and Kamphaeng Phet (KP) at different crown portions Leaf characteristic values of 7-year-old neem from 22 provenances planted in the International Provenance Trials established in Kanchanaburi (KB) and Kamphaeng Phet (KP) Correlation analysis on leaf characteristics of 7-year-old Thai and Indian Neems planted in Kanchanaburi (KB) and Kamphaeng Phet (KP) and geographical data of provenance origin Leaf dendrogram of 7-year-old neem grown in the international provenance trials in Thailand Stomatal on abaxial surface of Thai neem (a) and Indian Neem (b) and stomatal on adaxial surface of Thai Neem (c) and Indian Neem (d), 320x Stomatal frequency and size of 7-year-old Thai and Indian Neems planted in the International Provenance Trials established in Kanchanaburi (KB) and Kamphaeng Phet (KP) Stomatal frequency and size of 7-year-old neem from 22 provenances planted in the International Provenance Trials established in Kanchanaburi (KB) and Kamphaeng Phet (KP) Page

75

21

76

22

81 83

23 24

98

25

99

26

100

27

104 106

28 29

108

30

117

31

118

ix

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

Figure 32 Correlation analysis on stomatal characteristics of 7-year-old Thai and Indian Neems planted in Kanchanaburi (KB) and Kamphaeng Phet (KP) and geographical data of provenance origin Stomatal dendrogram of 7-year-old neem grown in the International Provenance Trials in Thailand Dry seeds of 1) Thai Neem Provenances in Kanchanaburi and Kamphaeng Phet and 2) Thai and Indian Neem Provenances in Kamphaeng Phet Fruit and dry seed characteristic values of 7-year-old Thai and Indian Neems planted in the International Provenance Trials established in Kanchanaburi (KB) and Kamphaeng Phet (KP) Fruit and dry seed characteristic values of 7-year-old neem from 22 provenances planted in the International Provenance Trials established in Kanchanaburi (KB) and Kamphaeng Phet (KP) Correlation analysis on fruit and dry seed characteristics of 7-yearold Thai and Indian Neems planted in Kanchanaburi (KB) and Kamphaeng Phet (KP) and geographical data of provenance origin Fruit and dry seed dendrogram of 7-year-old neem grown in the International Provenance Trials established in Kamphaeng Phet Average survival percentage of Thai Neem ramets grown in the Clonal Seed Orchard established at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao with rainfall during the study period Effect of rainfall and average temperature (5/03-11/04) on average survival percentage Thai Neem ramets grown in the Clonal Seed Orchard established at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao Survival percentage of neem ramets from 20 clones grown in the Clonal Seed Orchard established at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao during the study period Average height growth of Thai Neem ramets grown in the Clonal Seed Orchard established at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao with rainfall during the study period Effect of rainfall and average temperature (5/03-11/04) on average height increment of Thai Neem ramets grown in the Clonal Seed Orchard established at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao Height growth of neem ramets from 20 clones grown in the Clonal Seed Orchard established at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao during the study period Page

122 124

33 34

132

35

134

36

135

37

138 140

38 39

142

40

142

41

144

42

147

43

147

44

149

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

Figure 45 Average diameter at 10 cm above ground level (D10) of Thai Neem ramets grown in the Clonal Seed Orchard established at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao with rainfall during the study period Effect of rainfall and average temperature (5/03-11/04) on average diameter increment of Thai Neem ramets grown in the Clonal Seed Orchard established at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao Diameter at 10 cm above ground level (D10) of Thai Neem ramets from 20 clones grown in the Clonal Seed Orchard established at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao during the study period Average survival percentage of Thai Neem progenies grown in the Seedling Seed Orchard established at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao with rainfall during the study period Effect of rainfall and average temperature (10/03-9/04) on survival percentage of Thai Neem progenies grown in the Seedling Seed Orchard established at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao Survival percentage of Thai Neem progenies from 32 plus trees grown in the Seedling Seed Orchard established at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao during the study period Average height growth of Thai Neem progenies grown in the Seedling Seed Orchard established at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao with rainfall during the study period Effect of rainfall and average temperature (10/03-9/04) on height increment of Thai Neem progenies grown in the Seedling Seed Orchard established at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao Height growths of Thai Neem progenies from 32 plus trees grown in the Seedling Seed Orchard established at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao during the study period Average diameter at ground level of Thai Neem progenies grown in the Seedling Seed Orchard established at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao with rainfall during the study period Effect of rainfall and average temperature (10/03-9/04) on diameter increment of Thai Neem progenies grown in the Seedling Seed Orchard established at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao Diameter at ground level of Thai Neem progenies from 32 plus trees grown in the Seedling Seed Orchard established at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao during the study period Page

152

46

152

47

154

48

157

49

157

50

159

51

163

52

163

53

165

54

168

56

168

57

170

GENETIC VARIATION ON SOME GROWTH, MORPHOLOGICAL, AND ANATOMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF NEEM (Azadirachta indica A. Juss.) GROWN IN THAILAND INTRODUCTION
Like most developing countries in the tropics, Thailands rapidly economic and industrial developments (agriculture, tourism, export and other products) have brought many advantages. On the other hand, these developmental practices have had the adverse effects on the environments, natural resources, forests, societies, cultural heritages and local peoples ways of life. The critical impact has been phenomenon on the deforestation and depletion of forest resources, which had been reduced from 55.33% of total area in 1951 to 32.66% in 2004 (Royal Forest Department, 2005). Thus, the remaining forests have been continuously disturbed. The depletion of forest resources has mainly been caused by the continuous misuse and mismanagement of forest areas. Moreover, the over-exploitation of forest resources, shifting cultivation and agricultural practices are closely related to the forest encroachment as well as the development of infrastructure and establishment of resettlements. Meanwhile, many economic forest tree species have declined due to the over-cutting and left over the poor mother trees to regenerate thereafter. So, most of natural stands now have seriously poor growing stock and some genetic diversities have been lost. The remaining forests have provided less direct and indirect uses to the local people. According to the poor growing stock and great demand for wood, the storage of wood has been the critical problem both in the industry and community sectors. Therefore, the reforestation and tree planting in all planting systems have been needed for Thailand. Tree planting in Thailand is universally practiced in several directions. In the poorly natural forests, enrichment planting by using native tree species for slightly disturbance to existing forest resources has been recommended. For mass plantations, the trail plots of economic and fast-growing tree species in the pattern of species and provenance trials have been established in various parts of the country. The early evaluations have provided the possibility of introducing the appropriately tree species or promising provenances to grow as plantation in the nearby tested area. In Thailand, the available areas for tree planting are unsuitable land for agriculture, including the area faced with alternated drought and waterlogged, low fertile, saline, low or high soil acidity, which affected the growth and productivity of trees. Thereafter, the evaluation of these parameters can be used in the justification of the material used in tree plantation. Neem (Azadirachta indica A. Juss.) is one of the most popular multi-purpose tree species that planted throughout the tropical countries because it grows well in various sites with poor soil and low annual rainfall. In Thailand, two varieties of Neem have been planted, including Indian Neem (Azadirachta indica A. Juss.) and Thai Neem (Azadirachta indica A. Juss. var. siamensis Valeton). The distribution of Thai Neem was covered widely in the Northern region, Central plain, Western

2 mountains, and Eastern and Northeastern provinces, while Indian Neem was seldom found on the coastal area of some provinces in Eastern South. Neem is scattered growing on remnant forests, marginal land, molehills in rice field, etc. The species, particularly Thai Neem, was planted in the temple, school, homestead, and community land. It is also planted as the amenity and shady trees. Most of neem plantations are in the central part of Thailand. They are also planted in the home garden, roadside, borderline of farm areas, etc. Neem is planted in various areas because of its potential for usages. It is an outstanding example of the species which is highly efficient in restoring soil productivity and simultaneously providing fodder, fire wood and other products to meet basic needs in the rural households like medicines, pesticides, mosquito repellants, fertilizers, diabetic food, soaps, lubricants, gums, agricultural implements, tooth paste, tooth brush sticks and even contraceptives. Neem oil is used against stomach ulcers, worm infections and rheumatism. It is a general practice to store grains by missing neem leaves to repel insect pests. In Myanmar, neem balm is one of the most popular products. Although, neem tree can grow on unfertile and drought areas, the severely dieback syndrome appeared on neem grown in Sahelian Africa was the initial stimulus for neem improvement. The International Neem Network, thus, was established in 1993 with the long term objective to improve the genetic quality by broaden the existing gene pool and adaptability of neem and to improve its utilization. Nowadays, neem seeds in Thailand have been collected for plantations and processed further for natural chemical products suitable for green vegetable production. The neem tree moreover produces basic necessities such as wood, food and medicine. Therefore, neem is one of the most important MPTS species not only for the industry but also for the local, community and environment. To satisfy the demand of improved seeds, tree improvement program of neem is needed. Up to now, the valuable potential of neem has not yet been recognized and the information on this species is still limited, especially morphological and anatomical characteristics, genetic composition, flowering and seed productivity.

OBJECTIVES
This study has the following objectives: 1. to study the provenance variation on growth characteristics, leaf morphology, stomatal frequency, and seed morphology of neem grown in the International Provenance Trials established in Kanchanaburi and Kamphaeng Phet, 2. to detect the clonal variation on the early growth characteristics and annual growth of neem grown in the Clonal Seed Orchard established at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao, 3. to observe the variation on the early growth characteristics and annual growth of neem grown in the progeny test cum Seedling Seed Orchard established at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao, 4. to evaluate the genetic distance between provenances, and 5. to provide basic information for future tree improvement studies, mass plantation, and tree farm program

LITERATURE REVIEW
Neem (Azadirachta indica A. Juss.) belongs to the family MELIACEAE or mahogany family of the plant kingdom. In Thailand, there are identified three varieties of Neem, including Azadirachta indica A. Juss., A. indica A. Juss. var. siamensis Valeton and A. excelsa (Jack) Jacobs (Boonsermsuk and Chittachamnonk, 1989). A. indica var. siamensis and A. excelsa are native to Thailand (Santisuk, 1993), but A. indica was introduced to Thailand (Bhumibhamon and Kamkong, 1997). A. indica var. siamensis distribute throughout the country, while A. indica are seldom found in Thailand and A. excelsa are plentiful planted in the south of Thailand (Bhumibhamon and Kamkong, 1997). A common method for identifying the species that occur in Thailand is to observe the leaves (Boontawee et al., 1993). Natural hybrids between A. indica and A. indica var. siamensis found in Thailand on places where both species grow together have an intermediate position regarding the shape and consistency of the leaflets (Schmutterer, 1995).

Indian Neem (Azadirachta indica A. Juss.)

Natural Distribution The natural origin of Indian Neem is exactly uncertainly. However, it is distributed in several parts of the world. It is found in dry areas of India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand and Myanmar (Tewari, 1992; Dwivedi, 1993; Stoney, 1997). Its natural habitat is dry, deciduous, mixed forest, occurring in association with Acacia spp. and Dalbergia sissoo (Lemmens et al, 1995) as shown in Figure 1 Indian Neem has been introduced and established throughout the tropics and subtropics, especially in drier areas in the Southeast Asia region, the Pacific Islands, Australia, South and Central America, the Caribbean, Sub-Saharan Africa, and the Middle East (National Research Council, 1992). It grows well in plantations in the Sudan and Sahelian Zones of Africa as well as in Sierra Leone, Malawi, Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Zanzibar, and the non-Sahelian areas of Guinea, Nigeria and Ghana (Tewari, 1992). Habitats Indian Neem is a sturdy tree and can thrive on the wide climatic ranges but is very susceptible to frost. It survives great heat, even shade temperatures up to 40C and low temperatures near 0C in some places. In arid tropical and subtropical zones, it is a most successful in a mean average annual rainfall of 450-1,150 mm. It can tolerate rainfall as low as 130 mm and long dry seasons (Tewari, 1992; Gupta, 1993).

15 15

0 75 90 105

Figure 1 Natural distribution of Indian Neem (A. indica, Figure 1 ( A. indica var. siamensis,

) and Thai Neem

6 Indian Neem grows in arid and semi-arid tropical and subtropical zones, in the plains and lower foothills, but single trees have been planted even up to 1830 m msl. The tree is undemanding and grows on almost all kinds of soils, including clayey, saline and alkaline soils, but it grows well on black cotton soils. It thrives better than most other species on dry, stony, clayey and shallow soils where nothing else would grow, or in places where there is a hard calcareous of clay pan not far below the surface. The extensive roots of Indian Neem tree have the unique physiological capacity to extract nutrients and moisture from even highly leached, sandy soils. The optimum pH is 6.2 or above, although it will grow well at pH 5.0, bringing surface soil to neutral pH by its leaf litter (Tewari, 1992; Gupta, 1993). It does not grow well on saline soils but it can persist on such soils where a few species do grow (Chaturvedi, 1955). It will not grow on seasonally waterlogged soils or in deep dry sands where the dry season water table lies below 18 m, on silty flats and in clayey depressions where soil aeration and percolation are impeded (Tewari, 1992; Gupta, 1993). Phenology Indian Neem is an evergreen or deciduous tree depending on the climate (Stoney, 1997). It loses its leaves following moisture or cold stress (Puri, 1999). A tree becomes near leafless in dry localities for a short period during February-March. New leaves appear in March-April, before the old ones have all fallen. It is in full foliage in summer when most other trees are leafless and probably the only green tree seen around in desert areas (Tewari, 1992). Indian Neem flowers differently under different soil-climatic regions (Gupta, 1993). Flowering generally occurs in the dry season and fruit ripening during the early part of the rainy season. In bi-modal climate there are sometimes two flowering and fruiting season. A tree normally begins bearing fruit after 3-5 years, becomes fully productive in 10 years, and from then on Neem can produce up to 50 kg of fruits annually (National Research Council, 1992). About 3300-4500 seeds weigh one kg and, on an average, a medium sized tree produces 37-55 kg fruits (Anon., 1978). Silvicultural Characteristics A medium to large tree, 12-20 m rarely up to 25 m high; clear bole of 3-7.5 m height; 1.8-2.8 m girth, general branching early and forms a broad rounded crown of bright-green foliage (Tewari, 1992) as much as 20 m across (National Research Council, 1992). Bark is moderately thick with scattered, small tubercles between numerous longitudinal and oblique wrinkled furrows, dark gray outside and reddish inside (Tewari, 1992). The root system consists of a strong taproot and well developed lateral roots (Schmutterer, 1995). The lateral surface roots may reach over 18 m (Benge, 1989). Vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhiza (VAM) is associated with the rootlets (Diem et al., 1981). Habte et al. (1993) categorized Neem as a highly VAM dependant plant species.

7 Leaves are alternate and imparipinnately compound, 20-38 cm long, crowed near the end of branches (Tewari, 1992). The leaves are dark green and slender with resin secreting glands on young leaves near the shoot apex (Puri, 1999). Leaflets are 9-13, nearly opposite, 2.5-7.5x1.2-4.0 cm, oblique, lanceolate, sometimes falcate, acuminate, deeply and sharply serrate, glabrous on both leaf surfaces, base inequilateral, acute. The petiolules are very short (Tewari, 1992). Inflorescence a 10-30 cm long panicle (Schmidt and Joker, 2000). Flower white, fragrant, smelling of honey, shortly pedicelled, pentamerous, bisexual and male on the same tree (polygamous), bracts minute, lanceolate, caduceus. Calyx puberulous outside, 5-lobed to the lower half, lobes imbricate, round ovate, minutely ciliolate. Petals 5, free, imbricate, 6 mm long, obovate-oblong, faintly puberulous outside, ciliolate. Staminal tube 3-5 mm high, cylindrical, slightly expended at the mouth, glabrous terminated by 10 rounded (Tewari, 1992). Fruit drupe, 1-2x1 cm, elliptical, yellowish-green smooth, seeds 1-3, oval, smooth, yellow or brown (Tewari, 1992). The fruit is generally one seed (rarely two) (Dwivedi, 1993). When ripe, it is yellow or greenish yellow and comprises a sweet pulp enclosing a seed. The seed is composed of a shell and a kernel (sometimes two or three kernels), each about half of the seeds weight (National Research Council, 1992).

Thai Neem (Azadirachta indica A. Juss. var. siamensis Valeton) Distribution and Habitat
The natural distribution of Thai Neem is in Dry Evergreen Forests in Thailand, Myanmar, Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam (Figure 1). Neem grows well in humid area with maximum temperature to 44C and at altitudes of 50-1,500 m above mean sea level. The preferable soil pH is between 6.2-6.5, but Thai Neem can adapt to a lower pH (5). The tree grows well in dry area with average rainfall 450-1,150 mm/year, but it grows poorly in waterlogged or salt affected areas (Bhumibhamon and Kamkong, 1997). Phenology On very dry localities, it sheds leaves at the lower canopy in January-March. The new leaves appear in March-April. The flowering occurs in time DecemberMarch and fruits ripen from March to June. The flowering and fruiting of neem is varied from site to site (Bhumibhamon and Kamkong, 1997).

8 Silvicultural Characteristics A medium to large evergreen tree, 15-20 m (Sombatsiri et al., 1995); 40 cm DBH (Chaireongsirikul and Scholer, 1989), generally branching early and forms a broad rounded crown. Bark is moderately thick with scattered, small tubercles between numerous longitudinal and oblique wrinkled furrows, dark gray outside and reddish inside (Bhumibhamon and Kamkong, 1997). Leaves imparipinnate, crowed near the end of branches, leaflets nearly opposite, oblique, lanceolate, sometimes falcate, acuminate, serrate, and glabrous on both leaf surfaces. Inflorescence an axillary. Flower white, fragrant, smelling of honey, bisexual and male on the same tree (polygamous). Calyx 5, petals 5, free, imbricate. Fruit drupe, 1-2x1 cm, elliptical, yellowish-green smooth, seeds 1-3, oval, smooth, yellow or brown (Bhumibhamon and Kamkong, 1997). Genetic Variability Over a century ago Darwin (1859) note the universality of natural variation and this formed the inspiration for his great work on the evolution of species by natural selection. Basically three types of variation may be distinguished, all of which may result in differences between individuals. Firstly there is a component which is fixed and heritable and which is genetic; secondly there is an environmentally induced, non-heritable component, and thirdly there is a part which calls development. Rieger et al (1976) defined that variation is the occurrence of heritable or nonheritable differences in the permanent structures of cells (intraindividual variation), among individuals of one population (individual variation), or among populations (group variation). The chief sources of variation among the characteristics of related organisms are genic differences or environmentally induced differences, which only cause temporary changes of the phenotype. Primarily, biological variation may be subdivided into three categories (Rieger et al, 1976): 1) Phenotypic variation: the Mean biological variation of a given character. Phenotypic variation (VP) without natural discontinuities is called continuous variation and characters that exhibit it are quantitative or metric characters, as opposed to discontinuous variation and qualitative characters. The components of continuous and discontinuous phenotypic variation in a segregating population may be grouped into two major classes referred to as genetic (VG) and nongenetic or environmental (VE) variation. By definition, phenotypic variation is then VP = VG + VE.

9 2) Environmental variation: variation due to all intra- and extracellular factors which influence the expression of the genotype. This part of variation is expressed in terms of environmental variance (VE) and consists of two main components. One is represented by the intangible statistical residue known as error and certain genotype-environment interactions; the other is the controllable environment. 3) Genetic variation: variation due to the contribution of segregating genes and gene interactions (VG) represented as the proportion of the Mean phenotypic variance that is exclusively genetic. This proportion is called the heritability (h2) and is commonly expressed as a percentage (h2 = 100% if all the variation is due to genetic causes or there is no environmental variance; as the environmental component of variance increases, h2 decreases): h2 = VG/VP or h2 = VG/VG-VE Genetic variability is the formation of individual differing in genotype, or the presence of genotypically different individual, in contrast to environmentally induced difference which, as a rule, cause only temporary, nonheritable changes of the phenotypes (Rieger et al, 1976). Genetic variability is complex, but if its magnitude and type are known and if it is well used, genetic variation can be manipulated to obtain good gains in some tree characteristics. Genetic variation can be generally divided into additive and nonadditive components. The additive variance is due to the cumulative effects of alleles at all gene loci influencing a trait. Nonadditive genetic variance can be divided into two types. Dominance variance is due to interaction of specific alleles at a gene locus, whereas epistasis variance is due to interactions among gene loci. For now, the additive portion is the one of value in population improvement programs. Nonadditive variation can be exploded only by use of other, more specialized production programs that involve making specific crossed or using vegetative propagation for the commercial production of planting stock (Zobel and Talbert, 1984). Most characteristics of economic importance in forest trees are under some degree of additive genetic control such as wood specific gravity, bole straightness, and other quality characteristics of trees have stronger additive variance components than do growth characteristics. Although growth traits are controlled to some degree by additive genetic effects, they also considerable nonadditive variance associated with them. Therefore, any selection program must include testing the progeny of selected phenotypes to determine the actual genetic worth of the tree. Pest resistance involves both additive and nonadditive variance. The most adaptability characteristics are strongly inherited in an additive manner. Thus, excellent gains have been made in developing strains of tree that will grow suitably on marginal or submarginal sites by selecting those individuals that grow best there and then using seed from them to reforest similar areas (Zobel and Talbert, 1984).

10 Genetic Variation of Neem Singh et al. (1999) studied on genetic diversity in neem using AFLP technology and the results revealed that neem germplasm within India constituted a broad genetic base. On the other hand, neem from Thailand formed a narrow genetic base. Kundu (1999) found that four populations from Thailand, Bangladesh and Kenya exhibited high level of variation for isozymes. The cluster analysis when based on isozymes revealed two genetic groups. The population from Kenya showed a close genetic relationship with the Bangladesh populations, whereas the population from Thailand exhibited a distant relationship with the other populations. Singh et al. (2001) reported that genetic variation was highest in the neem accessions derived from different provenances of India, intermediate at intrapopulation level and least in the seedlings from a single mother tree. Changtragoon et al. (1996) found that the average genetic distance between populations of Thai neem was low. However, three Azadirachta species were separated by a very high genetic distance. Provenance Trials The word provenance has been commonly used by tree breeders to mean an origin or source. A provenance test is an experiment in which seeds are collected from a number of widely scattered stands and the seedlings are grown under similar conditions. The provenance trials are carried out for very practical reasons: to screen nationally available types for reforestation or for further breeding works (Wright, 1976). The scientific methods used to distinguish levels of variation are the working tools for shaping decisions on which resources should be devoted to managing distinct tree characteristics. Two approaches have been used to study genetic diversity in tree populations: provenance testing and allozyme screening. Provenance (geographical origin) testing is performed by gathering seeds from different populations and observing variation in performance (e.g., height, diameter, color, and yield) in plants grown under uniform environmental conditions within one or more planting sites. The populations sampled are generally from different geographical and climatic regions. Allozyme screening is based on the survey of genetic diversity as revealed by variation in enzymes at specific gene loci. In general, both provenance testing and allozyme screening reveal that, among plants, forest tree species are generally highly heterogeneous, but the genetic variation is organized within and between populations in diverse ways (National Research Council, 1991). The provenance trials will help in studying genotype-cum-environment interaction. Results of provenance trials will also help in formulating recommendations for planting a particular provenance in the area where plantation are to be raised for particular uses. It is necessary to conduct provenance testing prior to any breeding work. It also ensures the use of best race(s) in the breeding program (Tewari, 1992).

11 Once a tree species has been determined for plantation establishment through species trials and provenance test of the combined experiment, it is important to use only seeds collected from appropriate sources or provenance in order to achieve the best results. The differences among provenances in growth and productivity are also observed in physiological and morphological characteristics (Rattanachol, 1997). The provenance trials are mostly aimed at screening superior provenances for seed orchard establishment. The criteria used in determining the good provenances are not always rapid growth, but also high survival percentage, resistance to biotic enemies, good wood quality, etc. The evaluation of the best seed sources or provenances is time consuming but acceptable high quality sources may be found after one or two generations (Pinyopusarerk, 1980). After provenance trials evaluation, promising provenances could be used as the sources for further tree improvement programs, including the establishment of seed production area, plus tree selection, in situ gene conservation stand, or used as the seed sources for plantation establishment (Rattanachol, 1997). However, provenance trials will be kept for future uses but the evaluation can be done from time to time. Progeny Test The final and most essential stage in the study of variation is the analysis that should be begun. While observational descriptive studies are still in progress. Progeny test is one of methods of analysis are commonly used in the higher plants. For this purpose, seed of single representative individuals of a natural population are gathered and planted under uniform conditions. This provides valuable evidence on the degree of homozygosity or heterozygosity of the plants in question, and therefore of the amount of variation which they can produce by segregation and recombination, without the occurrence of new mutations. If the species is predominantly selfpollinated, the progeny grown under uniform, optimum conditions will be very much alike. The progeny of a single plant of a cross-pollinated species will, on the other hand, be very variable, but this variability will be limited by the size of the population and the conditions under which it is growing (Stebbins, 1950). Seed Orchard Zobel et al. (1958) stated that a seed orchard is a plantation of genetically superior trees, isolated to reduce pollination from genetically inferior outside sources, and intensively managed to produce frequent, abundant, easily harvested seed crops. It is established by setting out clones (as grafting or cutting) or seedling progeny of trees selected fro desired characteristics. The other definition mentioned that seed orchard is a plantation of selected clones or progenies which is isolated or managed to avoid or reduce pollination from outside sources, and managed to produce frequent, abundant, and easily harvested crop of seed (Brown and Eldridge, 1977).

12 A seed orchard is a plantation of genetically superior trees, isolated to reduce pollination from genetically inferior outside sources, and intensively managed to produce frequent, abundant, easily harvested seed crops (Jayaraman, 2000). Aim of seed orchard is not only for genetic improvement of specific characteristics but also produce quantities of seed that are adapted to a specific planting location. The objective and methodology of seed orchard establishment may be modified when seed are not needed for immediate use but where there is a perceived future need for seed. There are two types of seed orchard, Clonal Seed Orchard and Seedling Seed Orchard. Clonal seed orchard is composed of vegetatively propagated (as grafts, cutting, tissue culture plantlets, or other methods) trees, established primarily for the production of seed of proven genetic quality. Seedling seed orchard is a progeny test so managed and thinned as to produce seed of proven genetic quality (Khullar, 1991). Seed orchard is commonly categorized by generation, which is first, second or more advanced generation orchards depending upon how many cycle of improvement they represent. In order to establish seed orchard, there are many things to be taken into account. Location, size, type of orchard, planting design, and management practices are all of vital important factors. The utility of seed orchards has been documented for many kinds of benefits. Orchard has produced meaningful gains in disease resistance, growth, wood qualities, adaptability, and in tree form. Tree Improvement of Neem In Thailand During 1988-1989, the beginning of important activity related to research and development of neem in Thailand was started by Royal Forest Department and DANIDA Forest Seed Center. Lauridsen et al. (1991) surveyed the natural distribution of Thai Neem and Indian Neem and found 42 provenances of Thai Neem and Indian Neem. In Thailand, neem tree improvement program was started in 1993 by Royal Forest Department. There were several research projects establishing, including domestic provenance trials using seed sources from 25 provenances throughout country. The trials were established in various locations, i.e. Kamphaeng Phet, Khonkaen, Chiang Mai, Surat Tani, and Prachuap Khiri Khan (Chailerdpongsa, 2001).

13 Hongtong (2000) found that Thai Neem at the age of 4 years grown at Provenance Trials in Surat Thani were significant different among the provenances. Neem originated from Paisali and Khao Laung, Nakorn Sawan had the greatest growth on DBH (6.73 cm) and Mean height (5.73 m), respectively. While, neem originated from Doi Tao, Chiang Mai had the lowest growth on DBH (3.23 cm) and Mean height (3.29 m). Provenance trials at Khon Kaen were evaluated at five year old. No significant difference was observed for the diameter at 10 cm above ground level (D10), DBH, and Mean height among the provenances. The trees originated from Paisali, Nakorn Sawan had the best growth on D10 and Mean height, 12.78 cm and 7.26 m, respectively, whereas trees originated from Rong Kwang, Phrae showed the highest growth on DBH (10.47 cm). The trees originated from Phanom Thuan, Kanchanaburi; Ban Phungdaeng, Udon Thani; and Ban Jawark, Lampang showed the lowest growth on D10, DBH and Mean height, respectively (Sangpoo and Krongkitsiri, 1999). Khaennak et al. (2001) found that Thai Neem grown in provenance trials established in Kamphaeng Phet was insignificant difference on Mean height and DBH. The trees originated from Phanom Thuan, Kanchanaburi showed the best growth on Mean height (6.07 m) and DBH (9.87 cm). While, the trees originated from Lom Sak, Phetchabun had lowest growth on Mean height (3.89 m) and DBH (6.02 cm). International Neem Network The initial stimulus for neem improvement program arose as a response to the neem dieback syndrome which hit Sahelian Africa in mid-1991 (Van Den Beldt, 1993). As a result, the genetic material presently used in plantations is generally thought to have been originally collected on few stands or trees, and its genetic base is frequently likely to be very narrow, particularly in countries outside the natural range of the species. Neem decline is presently affecting many Sahelian countries and is alleged to be caused by a number of interacting environmental and genetic factors, possibly aggravated by pathogens (Thomsen, n.d.). The International Neem Network was established in 1993 with the long term objective to improve the genetic quality and adaptability of neem and to improve its utilization. The network collaborators have undertaken activities in relation to provenance exploration, seed collection and exchange and have established International Provenance Trials. In addition, the network has decided to undertake research in seed physiology and technology, genetic diversity and reproductive biology, as well as studies on variation in chemical compounds (Thomsen et al., 1998).

14 Iversen et al. (2001) reported the provenances from Thailand were all among the best provenances regarding growth rate in general (height and diameter). The Thai and the Lao provenances were almost always having one stem only and the stem form was much straighter for these provenances. Among the Indian neem provenances, provenances like Ghaati and Rammanaguda were having overall good growth, high survival and an intermediate number of stem per trees and could possibly be utilized for many purposes. The provenances of Multan, Tibbi Laran and Mondore, all from the dry region around the Thar Desert, have preformed the least growth. Growth and Yield of Neem Under the natural conditions, individual trees have performed differently in their characteristics, either within or between populations. Visible morphological characters are the products of the interactions of genotype and environment (Bhumibhamon, 1979). The differences in seasonal growth rhythm among tree races reflects variation on physiological processes, which may be related to variations on the adaptation of a specific variety to different levels of environmental stress (Rattanachol, 1997). Indian Neem The annual rings on Indian neem are sometimes not quite distinct. Naturally grown neem trees of ten years age measured in Bellary district of Karnataka state, gave an average height of 6.58 m and girth of 68.1 cm. The rate of growth of neem in plantations varies depending on the quality of the soil on which it is grown. The growth is usually fairly developed rapidly up to 5 years and then slows down. The plants may attain a height of 4 m at 5 years and 10 m at 25 years. Trees put on a mean annual girth increment of 2.3-3.0 cm, though more rapid growth is attained under favorable conditions (Tewari, 1992). A small Indian neem plantation at Motipur in Bahraich district, Uttar Pradesh, raised in 1872 by sowing with field crops, was measured by M.W. Clifford in early 1916, when age of the plantation was 44 years; the average height was 10.7 m and girth 0.81 m. This plantation was not tended regularly and most of the trees were badly grown. In an experiment for afforesting used lands in Uttar Pradesh, in 1951, planted neem showed that seeds sown in 61x122 cm deep pits filled with better soil and average height of 1.7 and 2.64 m at the end of the first and second seasons respectively. And experiment taken up in Assam during the year 1986 showed height increment of 3.56, 4.51 5.81 and 6.21 m in 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990 respectively (Ahmed and Puzari, 1991) which shows that neem can respond well in the high rainfall areas (Tewari, 1992). Neem can be cut for timber after just 5-7 years. Yields in Ghana were recorded between 108 and 137 m3 per hectare after a rotation of 8 years (National Research Council, 1992). In Nicaragua, neem grown in plantations at five locations had an average height of 7.7-9.6 m and a girth of 54.2-76.3 at 8 years of age (Gruber, 1991).

15 Thai Neem Boontawee et al. (1989) reported that the survival percentages and growths of Thai Neem grown in various regions of Thailand were obviously different. Thai Neem grown in Ratchaburi where lowest annual rainfall (800 mm) was recorded showed the best growth on DBH and height. Kamo et al. (1991) studied the seasonal growth of 3 broad leaf trees, i.e. Thai Neem, Eucalyptus camaldulensis, Acacia auriculiformis, grown in Ratchaburi found that monthly diameter increments were related to the rainfall, by which diameter increments were started at the early of rainy season (May) and the increments were more or less depended on the rainfall, finally the increments were ended at the dry season (February-April), and, moreover, monthly diameter increment was influenced by adding rainfall in each month and previously rainfall. Pruaksakorn (1993) revealed that D10, DBH, H and survival rate of 8-year-old Thai Neem tended to increase when tree density decreased. Average tree height and DBH tended to increase when tree density increased. Relative growth rates of biomass and stem volume increased against the density. Yield and biomass in unit area tended to decrease when tree density increased. When the density was 10,000 trees.ha-1, stem volume and yield was maximum, 102,052 m3.ha-1 and 60.69 ton.ha-1, respectively. Mean litter fall tended to increase when tree density decreased and net primary production at density of 17,778 and 10,000 trees.ha-1 was greatest, 9.004 and 8.98 ton.ha-1.yr-1. Leaf Morphology and Stomatal Characteristics The leaf of angiosperms varies in both structure and function. The foliage shows its specialization as a photosynthesis organ by the expanded flat form of its blade or the lamina. The blade contains of vascular, parenchymatous and mechanical was supporting tissues, and also dermal tissues in the form of a persistent epidermis. In many cases, the leaf parenchyma, the mesophyll, is commonly differentiated into palisade and spongy parenchyma. It is usually specialized as a photosynthesis tissue (Esua, 1967). Leaf structure varies within species, between species, and can be greatly modified by ontogenetic factors and the environments in which the plant develop (Bolhr-Nordenkampf, 1982). Plants growing in different habitats often show structural differences that are adapted to the particular habitat, and most frequently reflected in the structure of the leaves. In general, leaves from dry habitats resemble sun leaves (xeromorphic type) and those from moist habitats resemble shade leaves (mesomorphic type). Sun leaves generally develop a thicker palisade parenchyma and more strongly differentiated palisade tissues than shade leaves of the same species. Thicker cell wall, especially in the epidermis, thick cuticles, abundant trichomes, and sometimes small cells are often recorded in sun leaves (Esua, 1967).

16 Stomata are tiny pores formed by a pair of specialized cells, the guard cells, which are found in the surface of aerial parts of higher plants. Stomata generally consist of a pore surrounded by two guard cells which, in most dicotyledons, are kidney-shaped; having localized ledge or projections of thick cell wall or cuticle. In most case the guard cells are in turn surrounded by specialized, subsidiary cells, is termed the stomatal complex, or stomatal apparatus (Cutter, 1969). The stomata normally serve as the principle pathways through which gaseous exchange takes place between the intercellular spaces of the leaf and the surrounding environment. Thus, they are the portals for entry of CO2 into the leaf for photosynthesis and an exit for water vapor from the transpiration. More recently, additional interest in stomatal function has been prompted by recognition that is pollutants such as ozone and SO2 also enter the leaf through open stomata (Hopkins, 1995). Stomata vary widely in size and frequency. Stomatal size, in general, is often correlated with stomatal frequency. Species with smaller stomata usually have a higher stomatal frequency compared to species with larger stomata. Schoch et al. (1980) showed that the number of stomata per area of a leaf increase as the light intensity received by the plant increases. In a single tree, the stomata frequency varies on different leaves. Doley (1981) reported that the stomatal frequency decreased from the top to the bottom position of the canopy. In general, stomata of woody plants open in the light or response to a low concentration of CO2 and they close in darkness or when dehydration caused a loss of turgor (Willer and Fricker, 1996). Additionally, stomata responses also to changes in temperature, humidity, wind, soil and water stress (Hsio, 1973; Lopushinsky and Klock, 1974). A variation on the physiological process such as photosynthesis, respiration and transpiration, etc. can be determined by both environmental conditions and plant characteristics. Among the major factors which play an essential role in physiological processed are leaf area, root-shoot ratio, stomatal size, stomatal frequency, control of stomatal aperture, and leaf anatomy (Kramer, 1969). Indian Neem Stomata: On the adaxial surface the stomata are absent (Pandey, 1969) to few (Farooqui, 1981). On the abaxial surface stomata are common and oval in shape. The stomatal frequency is very high, ranging between 360-500 (average 430) stomata per mm2. They are closely distributed, large anomocytic, surrounded by 4-6 subsidiary cells and slightly raised on the general surface. Besides the normal stomata, there are four types of aberrant stomata reported in neem (Farooqui, 1981). They are i) Arrested stomata, ii) Stomata with a single guard cell, iii) Stomata with one or both guard cells degenerated and sometimes becoming thick walled and angular and, iv) Stomata whose pores are plugged with thick resinous deposits. Guard cells were 1920 x 23-24 m (Boonmeevisate, 1988).

17 Thai Neem The leaflet sizes of Thai Neem generally were bigger than Indian Neem. The leaflet structure was bifacial type, of which palisade mesophyll existed on adaxial leaf surface and spongy mesophyll occurred on abaxial leaf surface. The Thai Neem leaflet was hypostomatous, which stomata occur on the abaxial leaf surface only. Guard cell of Thai Neem leaflet was slightly higher than epidermis. The average guard cell sizes were 18-19 x 25-27 m. The average stomatal frequencies were ranging from 200-300 stamata/mm2 (Boonmeevisate, 1988). Seed Morphology A seed is a structure formed by the maturation of the ovule following fertilization (Owens et al., 1991). Seed of woody plant exhibits a great range of variation in shape, size, colour, and seed coat surface. These are very often adapted to the conditions in which the various species evolved (Khullar et al., 1991). Knowledge of seed morphology is advantageous for artificial regeneration as it can influence the collection, processing, storage, and treatment of seeds. The morphological features of seed are remarkably stable, therefore, they provide reliable criteria for positive identification of unknown seeds (Martin and Barkley, 1961; Kozlowski, 1972). Kundu (1999) found that all four populations exhibited high level of variation for seed parameters. Seed morphological variation in neem caused mainly by environmental factors (Dwivedi, 1993; Kundu and Tigerstedt, 1997; Kundu, 1999).

18

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study Site In the present study, there are 3 study sites as shown in Figure 2, including 1. Kanchanaburi Horticultural Research Station, Muang District, Kanchanaburi Province. It is located at latitude 14N and longitude 9930E. The altitude is 30 m above mean sea level (msl). The soil is sandy with gravel, rock, and alkaline (pH >7.5). The mean annual rainfall is 1,020.1 mm. The annual mean temperature is 29.9C. The mean maximum and minimum temperature are 35.3 and 24.4 C, respectively. 2. Kamphaeng Phet Silvicultural Research Center in Nong Pling Sub-District, Muang District, Kamphaeng Phet Province. It is located at latitude 1630N and longitude 9920E. The area is flat and no waterlogged. The slope is less than 2%. The altitude is 100 m msl. The soil is silty sand to sand. The pH is 6-5-7.0. The mean annual rainfall is 1,801.3 mm. The annual mean temperature is 28C. The mean maximum and minimum temperature are 31.8 and 24.1 C, respectively. 3. Lad Krating Plantation in Chachoengsao Province. It is located at latitude 1342N and longitude 10106E. The elevation is 80 m msl. The average mean temperature is 28C. The mean annual rainfall is 1,221 mm. The soil characteristics are differed between topsoil and subsoil. The soil type is clayey-skeletal, kaolinitic, isohyperthermic oxic paleustult in the Kabinburi Series. The pH in the topsoil is higher than the subsoil. This soil type is a well-drained soil and residual from shale material. Seed Sources and Experimental Design 1. International Provenance Trials. The seeds for the trial establishment were collected from 24 provenances from India, Lao P.D.R., Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Senegal and Thailand (Table 1). The international provenance trials of neem were established in 1997 using Completely Randomized Block Design with 4 blocks in Kanchanaburi (Figure 3) and Kamphaeng Phet (Figure 4). Each block was comprised of 24 plots. Each plot of provenance was planted with 25 trees by 3 x 3 m spacing. 2. Clonal Seed Orchard. The grafted ramets of 20 clones from Thai Neem clone Bank established in Kanchanaburi Silvicultural Research Center (Table 2) were transplanted as Clonal Seed Orchard in May 2003 at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao. The experimental pattern was Completely Randomized Block with 20 blocks (Figure 5). Each replication was planted with one ramet of each clone by 6 x 6 m spacing.

19 3. Progeny Testing cum Seedling Seed Orchard. Thai Neem seeds of the trial were originated from 32 plus trees in Uthaitani. The progeny testing cum Seedling Seed Orchard of neem were established in September 2003, using Completely Randomized Block Design with 16 replications or blocks (Figure 6). There were 32 plots in each block. Each plot was planted with 9 seedlings of each clone by 1 x 2 m spacing.

20

Kanchanaburi

Kamphaeng Phet

Chachoengsao Figure 2 Study sites () in Thailand

21 Table 1 Seed sources for the International Provenance Trials of neem

Provenance Codes 03/IND/Man 04/IND/Chi 05/IND/All Seed sources Latitude 2618N 1402N 2528N 1117N 1322N 2151N 1951N 1905N 1800N 2203N 1951N 2752N 2846N 2824N 3011N 0708N 0909N 1405N 1617N 1757N 0721N 1430N 1409N 1532N 1645N 1651N Longitude 7301E 7604E 8154E 7707E 7734E 7845E 7925E 8349E 10245E 9513E 9616E 8231E 8034E 7018E 7129E 8000E 9907E 9940E 10335E 9841E 0221W 1702W 9919E 9957E 9952E 9858E Altitude (m) 224 615 320 360 950 527 250 250 180 76 100 350-440 170 115 >150 4 40 150 300 950-1000 50 100-200 90 100 200 Mean annual rainfall (mm) 373 417 910 875 741 1405 Approx. 1000 1100 1540 809 1269 1500 1725 140 276 1397 1755 1145 1400 1250 1270-1400 436 1150 1175 1241 1050

Mandore, Jodhpur, India, Chitradurga, Karnataka, India Allahabad Town, Uttar Pradesh, India 06/IND/Ann Annur, Tamil Nadu, India 07/IND/Gha Ghaati Subramanya, Karnataka, India 08/IND/Sag Sagar, Chanatoria Madhya Pradesh, India 09/IND/Bal Balharshah, Maharashtra, India 10/IND/Ram Ramannaguda, Orissa, India 11/LAO/Vie Vientiane, Lao P.D.R. 12/MYA/Mye Myene, Myanmar 13/MYA/Yez Yezin, Myanmar 14/NEP/Lam Lamahi, Nepal 15/NEP/Get Geta, Nepal 16/PAK/Tib Tibbi Laran, Rahimyar Khan, Pakistan 17/PAK/Mul Multan, Cantonment Area, Pakistan 18/SRL/Kul Kuliyapitiya, Sri Lanka 19/THA/Tun Tung Luang, Thailand 20/THA/Non Ban Nong Rong, Thailand 21/THA/Bo Ban Bo, Thailand 22/THA/Doi Doi Tao, Thailand 23/GHA/Sun Sunyani, Ghana 24/SEN/Ban Bandia, Senegal E1/THA/Noh* Ban Nong Hoi, Thailand E2/THA/Kha* Khao Lung, Thailand E3/THA/Sai** Sai Ngarm, Thailand E4/THA/Den** Densaliam, Thailand
*

Remarks:

Planted only in Kanchanaburi International Provenance Trials ** Planted only in Kamphaeng Phet International Provenance Trials

22

93 m 20 24 REP. 4 4 17 18 4 REP. 3 11 24 13 8 REP. 2 2 6 2 21 REP. 1 15 20 23 24 14 9 5 7 16 12 10 6 21 19 11 23 5 7 22 17 7 17 1 12 14 16 4 19 3 22 9 15 17 24 11 18 10 9 21 19 4 3 8 3 13 6 10 18 22 20 1 13 z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z 243 m 12 21 20 14 1 7 15 1 9 13 8 12 8 10 2 16 22 15 5 23 14 5 6 2 11 23 16 18 19 3 N

Planting design: Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) No. of Provenances: 24 Provenances No. of Blocks : 4 Blocks No. of Trees: 25 trees/plot Spacing: 3x3m Border row: 1 row Planting year: August 1997 Figure 3 Planting design of International Provenance Trials of neem established in Figure 3 Kanchanaburi

23 57 m 17 19 12 REP. 4 18 14 11 22 24 REP. 3 11 3 8 21 14 17 REP. 2 5 8 18 3 9 1 REP. 1 18 7 15 23 20 24 21 8 2 22 4 5 12 2 4 16 23 10 1 19 4 12 16 11 10 6 20 13 7 15 2 11 3 13 10 17 21 23 5 6 12 20 22 9 24 19 14 6 z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z 430 m 13 7 3 5 17 16 18 10 22 16 19 15 14 6 23 2 7 9 1 Planting design: Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) No. of Provenances: 24 Provenances No. of Blocks: 4 Blocks No. of Trees: 25 trees/plot Spacing: 3x3m Border row: 1 row Planting year: August, 1997 4 21 15 9 24 8 13 20 1 N

Figure 4 Planting design of International Provenance Trials of neem established in Figure 4 Kamphaeng Phet

24 Table 2 Clone origins from Mixed Decidous Forest Seed Orchard of neem Table 2 established at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao Clone Location code 1 Ta Lo Sub-district, Ta Muang District, Kanchanaburi 2 Ta Lo Sub-district, Ta Muang District, Kanchanaburi 5 Ta Lo Sub-district, Ta Muang District, Kanchanaburi 8 Ta Lo Sub-district, Ta Muang District, Kanchanaburi 9 Ta Lo Sub-district, Ta Muang District, Kanchanaburi 10 Kaengsean Sub-district, Muang District, Kanchanaburi 14 Nongbua Sub-district, Muang District, Kanchanaburi 15 Nongbua Sub-district, Muang District, Kanchanaburi 19 Kaengsean Sub-district, Muang District, Kanchanaburi 24 Nongkum Sub-district, Bo Ploy District, Kanchanaburi 25 Nongkum Sub-district, Bo Ploy District, Kanchanaburi 37 Nongbua Sub-district, Muang District, Kanchanaburi 38 Nongbua Sub-district, Muang District, Kanchanaburi 61 Ban Mai Sub-district, Ta Maung District, Kanchanaburi 62 Ban Mai Sub-district, Ta Maung District, Kanchanaburi 63 Ban Mai Sub-district, Ta Maung District, Kanchanaburi 64 Khao Klung Sub-district, Bang Pong District, Ratchaburi 70 Pangtru Sub-district, Ta Maung District, Kanchanaburi 71 Nong Hoi, Sub-district, Muang District, Kanchanaburi 72 Nong Hoi, Sub-district, Muang District, Kanchanaburi Soil and Topography Silt, plain Silt, plain Silt, plain near the river Silt, plain Silt, plain Silt, plain near the river Laterite Laterite Laterite, plain near foothill Clay, lowland plain Clay, plain Silt, plain near foothill Laterite, plain near foothill Laterite, plain near foothill Silt, plain near foothill Silt, plain near foothill Silt, plain Sandy silt, plain Laterite, foothill Laterite, foothill

25

N 4 5 12 13 20

11

14

19

10

15

18

16

17

1 25 19 62 2

64 10 15 70 71

63 8 37 24 9

61 38 14 5 72
6m

6m

Figure 5 Planting design of Clonal Seed Orchard of Thai Neem established at Lad Figure 5 Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao.

26

N 4 5 12 13

11

14

10

15

16

29 24 11 33 36 9 16 20

22 19 37 14 12 21 39 2

5 7 25 3 4 32 31 18

15 38 17 30 26 1 23 34

z z z
2m

z z z

z z z
1m

Figure 6 Planting design of Progeny Testing cum Seedling Seed Orchard of Thai Figure 6 Neem established at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao.

27 International Provenance Trials Isozyme Study Mature leaves of 20 trees from 24 provenances of neem were collected from the International Provenance Trials established in Kanchanaburi and Kamphaeng Phet in 2004. The leaves were extracted in buffer pH 7.3 containing 0.132 M Tris, 0.003 Triplex II, 5% PVP, 0.003 M DTT, and 1% Merceptoethanol. The crude extracts were applied on 12% starch gel and separated for 4-5.5 hrs in 5 different buffer conditions. Eight isozyme systems were analyzed (Table 3). Electrophoresis and staining procedure were modified from Feret and Bergman (1976); Conkle et al. (1982); Vallejos (1983); Changtragoon and Fikeldey (1995) as shown in Appendix 1. Table 3 Eight enzyme systems assayed in neem Enzyme systems Diaphorase Format dehydrogenase Glutamate oxaloacetate transaminase Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase Isocitrate dehydrogenase Malate dehyfrogenase Phosphoglucomutase Shikimate dehydrogenase Measurement of Tree Performance The growth assessments of all trees were done in the International Provenance Trials established in Kanchanaburi and Kamphaeng Phet at the age of 7 years in February and March 2004, respectively. The survival percentages of each provenance were recorded. All trees were measured in total height and clearbole length by a measuring pole, while diameter at 10 cm above ground level and diameter at breast height was measured by a veneer caliper. The stems at breast height of tree were counted. The crown diameters were also measured by a measuring tape. The health status and diseases of each tree were evaluated by using healthiness score ranging from 1 to 9, where 1 was given for bad health, while 9 for very good health. The stem straightness of each tree was given a score ranging from 1 to 9, where 1-3 if tree had crooked stem, 4-6 if tree was waving stem, and 7-9 if tree had straight stem. Abbr. DIA FDH GOT G-6PDH IDH MDH PGM SKDH E.C. No. 1.6.4.3. 1.2.1.2. 2.6.1.1. 1.1.1.49. 1.1.1.42. 1.1.1.37. 2.7.5.1. 1.1.1.25.

28 Leaf Morphological Study Leaf morphological study was done on two randomized trees from each block of 24 provenances grown at International Provenance Trials established in Kanchanaburi and Kamphaeng Phet in 2004. Ten mature leaves from each randomized tree were gathered randomly from three crown portions (low, medium, and top) directed to the south and then measured leaf length, and wet and dry weight of leaf. Area of sample leaf and leaflet was evaluated by using scanner and Delta-T SCAN version 2.04 n.c. Stomatal Study Stomatal study was done on the same sample trees of leaf morphological study. Five mature leaflets were collected randomly from middle crown section of the South. The sample was boiled in NaOH before they were placed on a glass slide, stained with safranin and mounted by 50% glycerol. The adaxial and abaxial surfaces were taken for the examination of stomatal frequency under light microscope. The stomatal size was determined by measuring the length of guard cell in twenty stomata at the central area of middle segment of leaflet. Seed Morphological Study Seeds were collected from neem grown in the International Provenance Trials established in Kanchanaburi and Kamphaeng Phet in 2005. The sample unit of the present study was 10 seeds x 8 replications of 22 provenances. The length, diameter, wet and dry weight of seeds were measured. Seed Orchard The early growth of trees in Clonal and Seedling Seed Orchard established at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao was collected every month until 2 years after planting (2003-2005). The trees were measured in total heights by a measuring pole. The diameter at 10 cm above ground level and diameters at breast height were measured by a veneer caliper. Moreover, the survival percentages of each clone and family were recorded. Data Analysis An Analysis of Variance was used for evaluation the provenance variation on growth, morphological, and anatomical characteristics of neem among experimental sites, varieties, and provenances. Moreover, the correlations of provenance origins with those characteristics and the correlations between those characteristics were calculated. Regression analyses were conducted to investigate relationships between biometric traits. The Euclidean distance and clustering by UPGMA method were used to analysis provenance groups. Allelic frequency, genetic distance, and cluster analysis were performed using the GeAlEx computer programs.

29

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Provenance Variation Isozyme Analysis Description of Zymograms of Individual Enzyme Systems 1. Diaphorase (DIA) DIA is various quaternary structures as monomer (Weeden and Wendel, 1989), dimmer, and tetramer (Weeden and Lamb, 1987). Sub cellular location of this enzyme is plastid, cytosol, mitochondria, and microbody. The number of isozymes are varied from 1-4 (Weeden and Wendel, 1989). In the present study, it was detected two DIA gene loci. DIA-A and DIA-B were controlled by 2 alleles which were monomorphic. But Changtragoon et al. (1996) found only one DIA-gene locus that was polymorphic. The cause of the different results was probably by the genetic diversity of sample. The photograph and schematic diagram of the zymograms of this enzyme system was presented in Figure 7.
11 11 11 11 11 22 22 22 22 22

DIA-A DIA-B
11 11 11 11 11 22 22 22 22 22

Figure 7 Photograph and schematic diagram of DIA 2. Formate Dehydrogenase (FDH) FDH is belonged to dimeric enzyme system with one isozyme (Wendal and Parks, 1982). In Figure 8, it had single gene locus and monomorphism in all sample of this study as same as Changtragoon et al. (1996) found FDH gene locus was monomorphic. Thus FDH enzyme system cannot be used to detect the genetic variation in neem.

FDH
11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11

Figure 8 Photograph and schematic diagram of FDH

30 3. Glutamate Oxaloacetate Transminase (GOT) GOT or Aspartate Aminotransferase (AAT) belongs to dimeric enzyme system. It is normally controlled by four gene loci. Sub cellular location of this enzyme is plastid, cytosol, mitochondria, and microbody (Weeden and Marx, 1987). The present study detected only one gene locus with 3 alleles as shown in Figure 9, but Changtragoon et al. (1996) found allele 4 in young leaves of Indian Neem seedling which probably caused by genetics of different Indian Neem Provenances.

GOT

12 12

23 23

23

23 23

23

23 23

Figure 9 Photograph and schematic diagram of GOT 4. Glucose-6-Phosphate Dehydrogenase (G-6PDH) G-6PDH is dimeric enzyme system and located in cytosol and plastid (Schnarrenberger et al., 1973). Generally, it has 2 isozymes. In the present study, it was found one G-6PDH gene locus with 3 alleles. Furthermore, G-6PDH showed the high level of polymorphisms within and among provenances and varieties of neem. The photograph and schematic diagram of the zymograms of this enzyme system was presented in Figure 10.

G-6PDH
23 22 33 11 33 22 23 13 12 33

Figure 10 Photograph and schematic diagram of G-6PDH 5. Isocitrate Dehydrogenase (IDH) IDH is a dimeric enzyme system and located in cytosol. It has only 1 isozyme (Tanksley, 1984). In the present study, IDH displayed a single gene locus with 3 alleles which were similar to the study of Changtragoon et al. (1996) in the same species. Moreover, IDH showed the high level of polymorphisms within and among provenances and varieties. The photograph and schematic diagram of the zymograms of this enzyme system was presented in Figure 11.

31

IDH
13 11 33 13 13 33 11 13 13 33

Figure 11 Photograph and schematic diagram of IDH 6. Malate Dehydrogenase (MDH) MDH is belonged to dimeric enzyme system and normally found 3 isozymes. The sub cellular distribution of this enzyme is cytosol, mitochondria and microbody (Goodman et al., 1980). In Figure 12, it was found three MDH gene loci in this study. MDH-A and MDH-B were controlled by 3 alleles, but MDH-C had only one allele which appeared only in Indian Neem. While, Changtragoon et al. (1996) detected only two gene loci that MDH-A had 4 alleles and MDH-B had 3 alleles. Kundu (1999) studied allozymes in neem seeds reported that MDH-4 were silent in Saraburi population (Thai Neem) and the loci MDH-1 and MDH-2 were confused and could not be separately interpreted, thus they were collapsed into one locus.
33 33 13 23 33 33 33 11 11 11

MDH-A MDH-B MDH-C

33 33 23 33 33 33 33 22 12 22 11 11 11

Figure 12 Photograph and schematic diagram of MDH 7. Phosphoglucomutase (PGM) PGM is monomeric enzyme systems and controlled by two gene loci in plants that the sub cellular location of these loci are one in cytosol and other in plastids (Weeden and Gottlieb, 1980; Navot and Zamir, 1986). In the present study, it had been appeared two polymorphic PGM gene loci. Each locus had 3 alleles as shown in Figure 13. But, in the same species, Kundu (1999) found two polymorphic gene loci which each locus had 4 alleles. The possible reason of this different results caused by using the germinated seeds as a material in Kundus study while this study used fresh young leaves. Changtragoon et al. (1996) detected one polymorphic gene locus with by 3 alleles. These differences were probably caused by the genetic factors of neem sample.

32

22 22

22 22 22 22

22

22 22 22

PGM-A

PGM-B
23 11 33 22 22 33 11 23 23 33

Figure 13 Photograph and schematic diagram of PGM 8. Shikimate Dehydrogenase (SKDH) It is a monomeric enzyme system which generally shows one or two gene loci located in the cytosol and plastids (Weeden and Wendel, 1989). The photograph and schematic diagram of the zymograms of this enzyme system was presented in Figure 14. SKDH displayed a single gene locus with 2 alleles and showed monomorphism in all sample of neem. But Changtragoon et al. (1996) detected 4 alleles on SKDH gene locus with the high level of polymorphisms in the same species. This dissimilar result should probably by the genetic differences of selected provenances.

SKDH
11 11 11 11 11 22 22 22 22 22

Figure 14 Photograph and schematic diagram of SKDH

33 Genotypic Structure An individual is genetically described by its genotype or the genes it contains at some loci. Being a group of individuals, a population is thus described by the genotypes of its members or the genes they carry. Populations will differ by the proportions or frequencies of particular genotypes and therefore by the frequencies of particular alleles at given loci (Carpena et al., 1993). The genotypic frequencies are obtained by dividing the number of times each genotype is observed by the Mean number of genotypes (Ayala, 1982). The genotypic structure of 12 gene loci for 22 neem provenances was shown in Table 4 and Figure 15. In gene loci DIA-A and DIA-B, genotype 1x1 was detected only in Indian Neem Provenances and more frequent than genotype 2x2 which was presented only in Thai Neem Provenances due to Indian Neem samples was more than Thai Neem sample. While, FDH was found only one genotype, GOT had two genotypes that genotype 1x2 was detected in Thai Neem, but genotype 2x3 was appeared in Indian Neem. G-6PDH had 6 genotypes which the most frequent genotype was 2x2 and the rare genotype was 1x3. However, the six genotypes of IDH were appeared with the rare genotype was 3x3 and the most frequent was 2x2. The gene locus MDH-A had 6 genotypes which the genotype 1x1 was most frequent and the genotype 1x3 was rare. But the five genotypes were detected in gene locus MDH-B that the most frequent genotype was 2x2 and the rare genotype was 1x3. On the other hand, the gene locus MDH-C was found only one genotype in Indian Neem Provenances. Although, the four genotypes were presented in PGM which genotype1x2 was the most frequent and genotype 1x3 was rare. But in the gene locus PGM-B, the genotype 1x3 was the most frequent and genotypes 1x2 and 3x3 were rare from six genotypes. The gene locus SKDH genotype 1x1 was detected only in Thai Neem Provenances and less frequent than genotype 2x2 which was presented only in Indian Neem Provenances due to the sample of Indian Neem was more than Thai Neem. Allelic Structure The allelic frequencies can be calculated by counting the number of times each allele appears and dividing it by the Mean number of alleles in the sample. One reason why it is often preferable to describe genetic variation at a locus using allelic frequencies rather than genotypic frequencies is because usually there are fewer alleles than genotypes (Ayala, 1982). Allelic frequencies among subpopulation can become different because of random processed (random genetic drifts) as well as by natural selection with complications from migration among the subpopulations (Hartl and Clark, 1997).

The results of these present study showed that DIA-A, DIA-B, FDH, MDH-C, and SKDH were monomorphisms, while GOT, G-6PDH, IDH, MDH-A, MDH-B,

34 PGM-A, and PGM-B were polymorphisms which these gene loci showed moderate to high level of variation on allele frequency as presented in Table 4 and Figure 15. In gene loci DIA-A and DIA-B, allele 1 was presented only in Indian Neem Provenances and allele 2 was appeared only in Thai Neem Provenances. In gene locus GOT, all provenances possessed allele 2, but allele 1 was presented only in Thai Neem Provenances while allele 3 was occurred only in Indian Neem Provenances. The gene locus G-6PDH was variable which allele 1 was presented in all Thai Neem Provenances and in some Indian Neem Provenances except Provenances 08/IND/Sag, 09/IND/Bal, 03/IND/Man, 16/PAK/Tib, 17/PAK/Mul, and 18/SRL/Kul, but allele 2 was detected in all Indian Neem Provenances and in two Thai Neem Provenances (20/THA/Non and 19/THA/Tun), moreover allele 3 was rare and appeared in some Indian Neem Provenances (10/IND/Ram, 13/MYA/Yez, 12/MYA/Mye, 08/IND/Sag, 07/IND/Gha, 04/IND/Chi, 06/IND/Ann, 05/IND/All, and 15/NEP/Get). However, IDH was the most variable enzyme gene locus that allele 1 was occurred in all provenances except Provenance 14/NEP/Lam, and all provenances possessed allele 2, but allele 3 was presented in all provenances unless Provenances 10/IND/Ram and 23/GHA/Sun. The variations on allele structure of MDH-A and MDH-B were found but MDH-C was not. In gene locus MDH-A, allele 1 was detected in all provenances except Provenances 22/THA/Non, 11/LAO/Vie and 19/THA/Tun, and allele 2 was not presented in Provenances 19/THA/Tun, 12/MYA/Mye, 06/IND/Ann, 05/IND/All, 16/PAK/Tib, 18/SRL/Kul, and 24/SEN/Ban, but allele 3 was most frequency in all Thai Neem Provenances and rarely found in two Indian Neem Provenances (03/IND/Man and 06/IND/Ann). In gene locus MDH-B, allele 1 was occurred in all provenances unless Provenances 20/THA/Non, 11/LAO/Vie, 19/THA/Tun, 08/IND/Sag, 17/PAK/Mul and 24/SEN/Ban, while allele 2 was most frequency in Indian Neem Provenances but rarely detected in Thai Neem Provenances, on the other hand, allele 3 was most frequent found in Thai Neem Provenances but rarely presented in Provenances 06/IND/Ann, 16/PAK/Tib, and 17/PAK/Mul. The allele 1 of gene locus MDH-C was appeared only in Indian Neem Provenances. PGM-A and PGM-B were variable enzyme gene loci. In gene locus PGM-A, all provenances possessed alleles 1 and 2 but allele 3 was only presented in Provenances 20/THA/Non, 19/THA/Tun, 10/IND/Ram, 07/IND/Gha, 14/NEP/Lam, 15/NEP/Get, 17/PAK/Mul, and 18/SRL/Kul. In gene locus PGM-B, allele 1 was detected in all provenances except Provenance 11/LAO/Vie but allele 2 was occurred in all Thai Neem Provenances and in some Indian Neem Provenances such as Provenances 10/IND/Ram, 09/IND/Bal, 07/IND/Gha, 14/NEP/Lam, 17/PAK/Mul, and 18/SRL/Kul, furthermore all provenances possessed allele 3. In gene locus SKDH, allele 1 was presented only in Thai Neem Provenances, while allele 2 was found only in Indian Neem Provenances.

35 Proportion of Polymorphic Gene Loci (PPL) One measure of genetic variation is the proportion of polymorphic gene loci or simply the polymorphism in a population. The amount of polymorphism is a useful measure of variation for certain purposes, but it suffers from two defects: arbitrariness and imprecision (Ayala, 1982). Cavalli-Sforza and Bodmer (1971) defined genetic polymorphism as the occurrence in the same population of two or more alleles at one locus, each with appreciable frequency. The result of PPL analysis was presented in Table 6 and Figure 17. The average PPL of neem was 57.02%. The PPL of Indian Neem (57.22) was higher than those of Thai Neem (56.36). The highest value of PPL was 63.64% in Provenances 20/THA/Non, 10/IND/Ram, 13/MYA/Yez, 23/GHA/SUN, 07/IND/Gha, 04/IND/Chi 06/IND/Ann, 14/NEP/Lam, and 15/NEP/Get, while the lowest value was 45.46% in Provenances 16/PAK/Tib, 18/SRL/Kul, and 24/SEN/Ban. Alleles per Locus (A/L) The mean A/L value of neem in the present study was 1.76. Indian Neem had more average A/L than Thai Neem which was 1.77 and 1.74. Provenance 07/IND/Gha showed highest A/L value as 2.00, on the other hand, the lowest A/L value was 1.545 in Provenances 11/LAO/Vie and 24/SEN/Ban. The A/L value was shown in Table 6 and Figure 17. Genetic Diversity (v) The mean gene pool diversity of neem in the present study was 1.42 as shown in Table 6 and Figure 17. The average gene pool diversity of Indian neem was more than those of Thai Neem (1.44 and 1.38). The highest value of gene pool diversity was detected in Provenance 07/IND/Gha, and followed by Provenances 14/NEP/Lam, 03/IND/Man, 20/THA/Non, and 10/IND/Ram (v = 1.53, 1.51, 1.50, 1.49, and 1.49, respectively). The lowest gene diversity value was found in Provenance 11/LAO/Vie as 1.29. Observed Heterozygosity (Ho) A better measure of genetic variation (because it is not arbitrary and is precise) is the average frequency of heterozygous individuals per locus, or simply the heterozygosity (H) of the population. The heterozygosity is a good measure of variation because it estimates the probability that two alleles taken at random from the population are different (Ayala, 1982). As shown in Table 6 and Figure 17, the mean observed heterozygosity (Ho) of neem in the present study was 0.33. Indian Neem had more Ho than Thai Neem (0.34 and 0.30).

36 Expected Heterozygosity (He) However, the observed heterozygosity does not reflect well the amount of genetic variation in populations of organisms that reproduce by self-fertilization, as some plants do, or organisms in which matings between relatives are common. In a population that always reproduces by self-fertilization, most individuals will be homozygous, even though different individuals may carry different alleles if the locus is variable in the population. There will also be more homozygotes in a population in which matings between relatives are common than in a population where they do not occur, even when the allelic frequencies are identical in both populations. This difficulty can be overcome by calculating the expected heterozygosity, calculated from the allelic frequencies as if the individuals in the population were mating with each other at random (Ayala, 1982). Nei (1987) called this measure gene diversity and suggested that it is particularly useful because it is applicable for genes of different ploidy levels and in organisms with different reproductive systems. The mean expected heterozygosity (He) of neem in the present study was 0.226, as showed in Table 6 and Figure 17. The average He value of Thai Neem was slightly more than those of Indian Neem which were 0.227 and 0.226. Provenance 07/IND/Gha had the greatest He, followed by 14/NEP/Lam, 20/THA/Non, 23/GHA/Sun, and 03/IND/Man (0.271, 0.256, 0.255, 0.246, and 0.245, respectively), and Provenance 16/PAK/Tib had the lowest He (0.18). The high values of He were probably by the mating system and adaptive features of neem such as insect pollination, high fecundities, seed dispersal by birds, facultative selfing and outbreeding and the large geographical range of the species. However, the gene diversity in neem of this study was lower than that of Kundu (1999) because of the differences on enzyme systems and geographical zones of populations. F Coefficients Several different approaches have been used to estimate the amount of differentiation in the subdivisions of a population. Most important, Wright (1951) developed an approach to partitioning the genetic variation in a subdivided population that provides an obvious description of differentiation. This approach consists of three different F coefficients used to allocate the genetic variability to the Mean population level (T), subdivisions (S), and individuals (I) (Hedrick, 2000). The Wrights F coefficients at 11 loci across the 22 provenances of neem were shown in Table 7. While, the mean FIS of the present study was negative because of the excess of heterozygotes in subpopulations, the mean FIT was positive due to the deficiency of heterozygotes in the Mean population. The possible explanation for this result may be caused by to many factors as natural selection, genetic drift, inbreeding, nonrandom mating, and population subdivision, among other (Halliburton, 2004). The mean FST was 0.58 that indicated the wide genetic differentiation over subpopulations probably because of considerable differences between the geographical zones.

37 Genetic Distance (D) (Nei, 1972) A number of genetic similarity and distance measures have been proposed and used to evaluate the amount of variation shared among groups. These measures help to consolidate the data into manageable proportions and aid one in visualizing general relationships among the groups. Distance measures are generally analogous to geometric distance; that is, zero distance is equivalent to no difference between the groups (Hedrick, 2000). The genetic distance (D) of neem in the present study was presented in Table 8. Within each varieties (Thai and Indian Neems), the D values were few different. The most and least of D values within Thai Neem Provenances were 0.012 (Provenances 21/THA/Bo x 20/THA/Non) and 0.060 (Provenances 22/THA/Doi x 19/THA/Tun), while the most and least of D values within Indian Neem Provenances were 0.002 (Provenances 12/MYA/Mye x 05/IND/All) and 0.104 (Provenances 23/GHA/Sun x 17/PAK/Mul). On the other hand, D values were extremely different between varieties. The D value between Provenances 19/THA/Tun and 06/IND/Ann was the most as 1.832 but the least was 1.327 of Provenances 22/THA/Doi x 23/GHA/Sun. The result of highly distances between Thai and Indian Neems varieties and closely distances within neem varieties was similar to Changtragoon et al. (1996) and Kundu (1999). Similarities or differences in the type, amount, and pattern of genetic variation between populations can be the result of many factors. If two populations are genetically similar, this may be because 1) they recently separated into two populations, or 2) gene flow occurred between them, or 3) they were large populations (with little genetic drift), or 4) similar selection pressures affected loci similarly in both populations. Likewise, if two populations are different, then this could be because 1) they have been isolated for a long time and there has been no gene flow between them, or 2) genetic drift has generated large differences, or 3) there are different selective pressures in the two populations (Hedrick, 2000). More than one or possibly all of these factors may be important in a particular situation of neem in the present study. Cluster Analysis The dendrogram had been constructed from D values of neem as presented in Figure 18. It is obviously clear that two varieties (Thai and Indian Neems) showed considerable different cluster. Within Thai neem, Provenances 20/THA/Non and 21/THA/Bo had closely genetic distance. Thai Neem were divided into 3 clusters when D = 0.01, as 1) 22/THA/Doi 2) 19/THA/Tun 3) 21/THA/Bo, 20/THA/Non and 11/LAO/Vie

38 Among Indian Neem, Provenance 17/PAK/Mul was remarkable isolation and it was grouped into 4 clusters by using D = 0.01, that were 1) 12/MYA/Mye, 05/IND/All, 24/SEN/Ban, 08/IND/Sag, 07/IND/Gha, 04/IND/Chi, 15/NEP/Get, 13/MYA/Yez, 09/IND/Bal, 06/IND/Ann, 16/PAK/Tib, and 03/IND/Man 2) 10/IND/Ram, 23/GHA/Sun, and14/NEP/Lam 3) 18/SRL/Kul; and 4) 17/PAK/Mul. The present genetic analysis suggested that African provenances originated from Indian subcontinent.

39 Table 4 Genotypic frequency of neem planted in the International Provenance Trials established in Kamphaeng Phet
12/MYA/Mye 13/MYA/Yez 20/THA/Non 14/NEP/Lam 23/GHA/Sun 10/IND/Ram 19/THA/Tun 17/PAK/Mul 03/IND/Man 22/THA/Doi 11/LAO/Vie 24/SEN/Ban 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.13 0.17 0.00 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.13 0.60 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 06/IND/Ann 07/IND/Gha

16/PAK/Tib

Loci

Genotypes

18/SRL/Kul

15/NEP/Get

08/IND/Sag

04/IND/Chi

21/THA/Bo

09/IND/Bal

05/IND/All

Ave.

DIA-A DIA-B FDH GOT G-6PDH

IDH

MDH-A

MDH-B

1x1 2x2 1x1 2x2 1x1 1x2 2x3 1x1 1x2 1x3 2x2 2x3 3x3 1x1 1x2 1x3 2x2 2x3 3x3 1x1 1x2 1x3 2x2 2x3 3x3 1x1 1x2 1x3 2x2 2x3 3x3

0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.06 0.09 0.06 0.24 0.47 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.06 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.06 0.85

0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.84 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.23 0.23 0.13 0.16 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.07 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.94

0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.13 0.53 0.00 0.06 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.97 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.47 0.41

0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.11 0.30 0.44 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.93

0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.59 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.07 0.35 0.00 0.03 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.97

1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.10 0.29 0.03 0.48 0.07 0.03 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.97 0.00 0.00

1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.87 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.70 0.03 0.00 0.80 0.07 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.00 0.00

1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.03 0.93 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.83 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.69 0.00 0.00

1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.20 0.03 0.27 0.50 0.00 0.20 0.07 0.00 0.70 0.00 0.03 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.00

1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.39 0.32 0.00 0.74 0.23 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00

1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.21 0.00 0.50 0.25 0.00 0.75 0.18 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.93 0.00 0.00

1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.32 0.03 0.58 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.45 0.45 0.00 0.71 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.13 0.00 0.77 0.00 0.00

1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.93 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.27 0.00 0.30 0.40 0.00 0.80 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.87 0.00 0.00

1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.57 0.07 0.07 0.27 0.00 0.63 0.13 0.10 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.00

1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.72 0.24 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.93 0.00 0.00 0.97 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.07 0.00 0.79 0.00 0.03

1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.03 0.32 0.03 0.29 0.32 0.00 0.07 0.23 0.00 0.52 0.16 0.03 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.94 0.00 0.00

1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.03 0.97 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.73 0.17 0.10 0.87 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.77 0.00 0.00

1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.77 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.03 0.30 0.47 0.03 0.97 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.97 0.00 0.00

1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.53 0.27 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.73 0.07 0.00

1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.31 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.88 0.13 0.00

1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.03 0.53 0.37 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.00 0.00

0.76 0.24 0.76 0.24 1.00 0.24 0.76 0.23 0.18 0.01 0.49 0.10 0.00 0.06 0.15 0.08 0.46 0.19 0.06 0.66 0.07 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.20 0.03 0.07 0.00 0.67 0.03 0.19

40 Table 4 (Continued)
12/MYA/Mye 13/MYA/Yez

20/THA/Non

14/NEP/Lam

23/GHA/Sun

10/IND/Ram

19/THA/Tun

17/PAK/Mul

03/IND/Man

22/THA/Doi

11/LAO/Vie

Loci

Genotypes

24/SEN/Ban 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00
2x2 2x3 3x3

06/IND/Ann

07/IND/Gha

16/PAK/Tib

18/SRL/Kul

15/NEP/Get

08/IND/Sag

04/IND/Chi

21/THA/Bo

09/IND/Bal

05/IND/All

Ave.

MDH-C PGM-A

PGM-B

SKDH

1x1 1x2 1x3 2x2 2x3 1x1 1x2 1x3 2x2 2x3 3x3 1x1 2x2

0.00 0.59 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.12 0.00 0.71 0.12 1.00 0.00

0.00 0.81 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.74 0.00 1.00 0.00

0.00 0.31 0.00 0.69 0.00 0.03 0.09 0.59 0.00 0.28 0.00 1.00 0.00

0.00 0.41 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.89 0.07 1.00 0.00

0.00 0.38 0.00 0.35 0.28 0.14 0.03 0.17 0.24 0.38 0.03 1.00 0.00

1.00 0.81 0.10 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.87 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00

1.00 0.97 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00

1.00 0.96 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.00 1.00

1.00 0.74 0.00 0.07 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.03 0.23 0.00 0.00 1.00

1.00 0.73 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00

1.00 0.93 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.73 0.07 0.03 0.03 0.00 1.00

1.00 0.93 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00

1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00

1.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.88 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.19 0.56 0.00 0.00 1.00

1.00 0.97 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.53 0.03 0.00 0.00 1.00

0.76 0.82 0.01 0.12 0.05 0.07 0.02 0.66 0.05 0.19 0.01 0.24 0.76

1.0

0.5

1x1

2x2

1x1

2x2

1x1

1x2

2x3

1x1

1x2

1x3

2x2

2x3

3x3

1x1

1x2

1x3

2x2

2x3

3x3

1x1

1x2

1x3

2x2

2x3

3x3

1x1

1x2

1x3

2x2

2x3

3x3

1x1

1x1

1x2

1x3

2x2

2x3

3x3

1x1

1x2

1x3

1x1

DIA-A

DIA-B

FDH

GOT

G-6PDH

IDH

MDH-A

MDH-B

MDHC

PGM-A

PGM-B

SKDH

Figure 15 Genotypic frequency of neem planted in the International Provenance Trials established in Kamphaeng Phet

2x2

0.0

41 Table 5 Allelic frequency of neem planted in the International Provenance Trials established in Kamphaeng Phet
12/MYA/Mye 13/MYA/Yez 20/THA/Non 14/NEP/Lam 23/GHA/Sun 10/IND/Ram 19/THA/Tun 17/PAK/Mul 03/IND/Man 22/THA/Doi 11/LAO/Vie 24/SEN/Ban 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.22 0.78 0.00 0.20 0.73 0.07 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.00 1.00 06/IND/Ann 07/IND/Gha 16/PAK/Tib 18/SRL/Kul 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.05 0.75 0.20 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.93 0.00 1.00 0.50 0.48 0.02 0.22 0.55 0.23 0.00 1.00 15/NEP/Get 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.02 0.88 0.10 0.10 0.62 0.28 0.98 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.98 0.00 1.00 0.50 0.47 0.03 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.00 1.00 08/IND/Sag 04/IND/Chi 21/THA/Bo 09/IND/Bal 05/IND/All 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.21 0.61 0.18 0.18 0.71 0.11 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.97 0.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.00 1.00

Loci

Alleles

DIA-A DIA-B FDH GOT

G-6PDH

IDH

MDH-A

MDH-B

MDH-C PGM-A

PGM-B

SKDH

1 2 1 2 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2

0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.21 0.63 0.04 0.06 0.90 0.02 0.09 0.90 0.00 0.29 0.71 0.00 0.09 0.38 0.53 1.00 0.00

0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.92 0.08 0.00 0.29 0.32 0.39 0.08 0.03 0.89 0.00 0.07 0.94 0.00 0.44 0.50 0.07 0.16 0.37 0.47 1.00 0.00

0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.09 0.33 0.00 0.02 0.98 0.06 0.30 0.64 0.00 0.16 0.84 0.00 0.38 0.19 0.44 1.00 0.00

0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.54 0.39 0.00 0.17 0.83 0.00 0.06 0.94 0.00 0.20 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.52 1.00 0.00

0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.79 0.21 0.00 0.55 0.05 0.40 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.03 0.97 0.00 0.19 0.67 0.14 0.24 0.45 0.31 1.00 0.00

1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.26 0.66 0.08 0.05 0.95 0.00 0.68 0.32 0.00 0.03 0.97 0.00 1.00 0.45 0.50 0.05 0.44 0.07 0.50 0.00 1.00

1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.05 0.93 0.02 0.13 0.85 0.02 0.83 0.17 0.00 0.30 0.70 0.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.00 1.00

1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.17 0.83 0.00 0.91 0.09 0.00 0.16 0.85 0.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.00 1.00

1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.12 0.62 0.27 0.23 0.73 0.03 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.95 0.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.00 1.00

1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.68 0.32 0.15 0.69 0.16 0.86 0.15 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.48 0.52 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.00 1.00

1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.14 0.73 0.13 0.84 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.96 0.00 1.00 0.48 0.52 0.00 0.54 0.23 0.23 0.00 1.00

1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.18 0.77 0.05 0.05 0.73 0.23 0.86 0.15 0.00 0.16 0.84 0.00 1.00 0.37 0.53 0.10 0.37 0.15 0.48 0.00 1.00

1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.02 0.97 0.02 0.17 0.63 0.20 0.90 0.10 0.00 0.07 0.93 0.00 1.00 0.37 0.63 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.00 1.00

1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.35 0.48 0.17 0.75 0.20 0.05 0.10 0.90 0.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.00 1.00

1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.02 0.86 0.12 0.05 0.93 0.02 0.98 0.00 0.02 0.14 0.83 0.03 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.33 0.00 1.00

1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.52 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.18 0.90 0.10 0.00 0.12 0.88 0.00 1.00 0.48 0.50 0.02 0.43 0.15 0.42 0.00 1.00

1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.10 0.77 0.13 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.87 0.03 1.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.25 0.00 1.00

1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.09 0.88 0.03 0.53 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.94 0.06 1.00 0.06 0.50 0.44 0.13 0.53 0.34 0.00 1.00

Frequency

Frequency
Frequency
1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0

Frequency

1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0

1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0

1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0
21/THA/Bo 20/THA/Non 22/THA/Doi 11/LAO/Vie 19/THA/Tun 10/IND/Ram 13/MYA/Yez 23/GHA/Sun 12/MYA/Mye

21/THA/Bo
21/THA/Bo 20/THA/Non 22/THA/Doi 11/LAO/Vie 19/THA/Tun 10/IND/Ram 13/MYA/Yez 23/GHA/Sun 12/MYA/Mye DIA-B 08/IND/Sag 09/IND/Bal 07/IND/Gha 04/IND/Chi 03/IND/Man 06/IND/Ann 05/IND/All

21/THA/Bo 20/THA/Non 22/THA/Doi 11/LAO/Vie 19/THA/Tun 10/IND/Ram 13/MYA/Yez 23/GHA/Sun 12/MYA/Mye 08/IND/Sag GOT 09/IND/Bal 07/IND/Gha 04/IND/Chi 03/IND/Man 06/IND/Ann 05/IND/All Allele 1
Allele 1

20/THA/Non

22/THA/Doi

11/LAO/Vie

19/THA/Tun

10/IND/Ram

13/MYA/Yez

23/GHA/Sun

12/MYA/Mye

DIA-A

08/IND/Sag

08/IND/Sag 09/IND/Bal 07/IND/Gha 04/IND/Chi 03/IND/Man 06/IND/Ann 05/IND/All

G-6PDH

09/IND/Bal

Provenance

Provenance

Provenance

Provenance

07/IND/Gha

04/IND/Chi

03/IND/Man

06/IND/Ann

05/IND/All

14/NEP/Lam

14/NEP/Lam 15/NEP/Get 16/PAK/Tib 17/PAK/Mul 18/SRL/Kul 24/SEN/Ban

14/NEP/Lam 15/NEP/Get 16/PAK/Tib 17/PAK/Mul 18/SRL/Kul

14/NEP/Lam 15/NEP/Get 16/PAK/Tib 17/PAK/Mul 18/SRL/Kul

15/NEP/Get Allele 2

Allele 2

Allele 1

16/PAK/Tib

Allele 1

17/PAK/Mul

Figure 16 Allelic frequency of neem planted in the International Provenance Trials Figure 16 established in Kamphaeng Phet
Allele 2

18/SRL/Kul Allele 3

Allele 2

Allele 3

24/SEN/Ban

24/SEN/Ban

24/SEN/Ban

42

Frequency

Frequency
Frequency 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0

Frequency 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0

1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0

1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0

21/THA/Bo

21/THA/Bo
21/THA/Bo 20/THA/Non 22/THA/Doi 11/LAO/Vie 19/THA/Tun 10/IND/Ram 13/MYA/Yez 23/GHA/Sun 12/MYA/Mye

21/THA/Bo 20/THA/Non 22/THA/Doi 11/LAO/Vie 19/THA/Tun 10/IND/Ram 13/MYA/Yez 23/GHA/Sun 12/MYA/Mye MDH-A
MDH-B

20/THA/Non

20/THA/Non 22/THA/Doi 11/LAO/Vie 19/THA/Tun 10/IND/Ram 13/MYA/Yez 23/GHA/Sun 12/MYA/Mye

MDH-C

22/THA/Doi

Figure 16 (Continued)
08/IND/Sag 09/IND/Bal 07/IND/Gha 04/IND/Chi 03/IND/Man 06/IND/Ann 05/IND/All Allele 1 14/NEP/Lam 15/NEP/Get 16/PAK/Tib 17/PAK/Mul 18/SRL/Kul 24/SEN/Ban

11/LAO/Vie

19/THA/Tun

10/IND/Ram

13/MYA/Yez

23/GHA/Sun

12/MYA/Mye

08/IND/Sag

08/IND/Sag 09/IND/Bal 07/IND/Gha 04/IND/Chi 03/IND/Man 06/IND/Ann 05/IND/All

08/IND/Sag 09/IND/Bal 07/IND/Gha 04/IND/Chi 03/IND/Man 06/IND/Ann 05/IND/All

IDH

09/IND/Bal

Provenance

Provenance

Provenance

Provenance

07/IND/Gha

04/IND/Chi

03/IND/Man

06/IND/Ann

05/IND/All

Allele 1

Allele 1

14/NEP/Lam

14/NEP/Lam 15/NEP/Get 16/PAK/Tib 17/PAK/Mul 18/SRL/Kul

Allele 3

14/NEP/Lam 15/NEP/Get 16/PAK/Tib 17/PAK/Mul 18/SRL/Kul

15/NEP/Get

16/PAK/Tib

Allele 2

Allele 2

Allele 2

17/PAK/Mul Allele 1

18/SRL/Kul

Allele 3

Allele 3

24/SEN/Ban

24/SEN/Ban

24/SEN/Ban

43

Frequency 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0

Frequency 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 21/THA/Bo 20/THA/Non 22/THA/Doi 11/LAO/Vie 19/THA/Tun 10/IND/Ram 13/MYA/Yez 23/GHA/Sun 12/MYA/Mye PGM-B
SKDH

Frequency 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 21/THA/Bo 20/THA/Non 22/THA/Doi 11/LAO/Vie 19/THA/Tun 10/IND/Ram 13/MYA/Yez 23/GHA/Sun 12/MYA/Mye PGM-A 08/IND/Sag 09/IND/Bal 07/IND/Gha 04/IND/Chi 03/IND/Man

21/THA/Bo 20/THA/Non 22/THA/Doi 11/LAO/Vie 19/THA/Tun 10/IND/Ram 13/MYA/Yez 23/GHA/Sun 12/MYA/Mye 08/IND/Sag 09/IND/Bal 07/IND/Gha 04/IND/Chi 03/IND/Man 06/IND/Ann 05/IND/All 14/NEP/Lam 15/NEP/Get 16/PAK/Tib 17/PAK/Mul 18/SRL/Kul 24/SEN/Ban

Figure 16 (Continued)
08/IND/Sag 09/IND/Bal 07/IND/Gha 04/IND/Chi 03/IND/Man 06/IND/Ann 05/IND/All Allele 1 14/NEP/Lam 15/NEP/Get 16/PAK/Tib 17/PAK/Mul 18/SRL/Kul
Allele 2

Provenance

Provenance

Provenance Allele 1

06/IND/Ann 05/IND/All Allele 1 14/NEP/Lam 15/NEP/Get Allele 2 16/PAK/Tib 17/PAK/Mul 18/SRL/Kul Allele 3 24/SEN/Ban 24/SEN/Ban

Allele 2 Allele 3

44

45 Table 6 Genetic parameters of neem planted at International Provenance Trials Table 6 established in Kamphaeng Phet Varieties Provenances Thai 21/THA/Bo 20/THA/Non 22/THA/Doi 11/LAO/Vie 19/THA/Tun 10/IND/Ram 13/MYA/Yez 23/GHA/Sun 12/MYA/Mye 08/IND/Sag 09/IND/Bal 07/IND/Gha 04/IND/Chi 03/IND/Man 06/IND/Ann 05/IND/All 14/NEP/Lam 15/NEP/Get 16/PAK/Tib 17/PAK/Mul 18/SRL/Kul 24/SEN/Ban Thai Indian Mean Mean Mean Remarks: N = A/P = PPL = A/L = v = He = Ho = F = N 34 31 32 27 29 31 30 29 30 31 28 31 30 30 29 31 30 30 30 16 30 30 31 29 30 A/P PPL, % A/L 20 21 19 17 19 21 20 18 19 18 19 22 20 19 21 19 20 21 18 20 19 17 54.55 63.64 54.55 54.55 54.55 63.64 63.64 63.64 54.55 54.55 54.55 63.64 63.64 54.55 63.64 54.55 63.64 63.64 45.46 54.55 45.46 45.46 1.82 1.91 1.73 1.55 1.73 1.91 1.82 1.64 1.73 1.64 1.73 2.00 1.82 1.73 1.91 1.73 1.82 1.91 1.64 1.82 1.73 1.55 1.75 1.77 1.76 v 1.33 1.49 1.39 1.29 1.41 1.49 1.42 1.45 1.45 1.45 1.43 1.53 1.40 1.50 1.34 1.46 1.51 1.42 1.32 1.46 1.39 1.39 1.38 1.44 1.42 Ho 0.28 0.35 0.32 0.30 0.28 0.31 0.32 0.40 0.36 0.41 0.29 0.39 0.35 0.39 0.28 0.38 0.39 0.36 0.29 0.30 0.27 0.32 0.31 0.34 0.33 He 0.217 0.255 0.225 0.206 0.233 0.235 0.246 0.231 0.242 0.216 0.271 0.215 0.245 0.195 0.233 0.256 0.212 0.182 0.225 0.194 0.205 F -0.06 -0.12 -0.18 -0.15 -0.03 -0.13 -0.29 -0.24 -0.33 -0.14 -0.21 -0.28 -0.29 -0.10 -0.28 -0.21 -0.30 -0.24 -0.11 -0.08 -0.22

Indian

0.244 -0.03

19.20 56.36 19.47 57.22 19.41 57.03

0.227 -0.11 0.226 -0.20 0.226 -0.18

Sample size No. of alleles per population Proportion of polymorphic gene loci Average no. of allele per gene locus Genetic diversity Expected heterozygosity Observed heterozygosity Fixation indices

46
0.5 Heterozygosity 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 23/GHA/Sun 11/LAO/Vie 08/IND/Sag 07/IND/Gha 18/SRL/Kul 24/SEN/Ban 09/IND/Bal 05/IND/All 13/MYA/Yez 12/MYA/Mye 10/IND/Ram 03/IND/Man 17/PAK/Mul 04/IND/Chi 06/IND/Ann KB 22/THA/Doi 15/NEP/Get 20/THA/Non 19/THA/Tun 14/NEP/Lam 16/PAK/Tib 21/THA/Bo KP

Ho

He

Provenance

Figure 17 Observed and expected heterozygosity (Ho and He) of neem planted at Figure 17 International Provenance Trials established in Kamphaeng Phet

Table 7 Wrights F coefficients at 11 loci across the 22 provenances of neem HI DIA-A DIA-B GOT G-6PDH IDH MDH-A MDH-B MDH-C PGM-A PGM-B SKDH Mean 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.28 0.41 0.11 0.11 0.00 0.88 0.87 0.00 0.33 HS 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.22 0.42 0.17 0.16 0.00 0.49 0.54 0.00 0.23 HT 0.35 0.35 0.59 0.49 0.53 0.47 0.42 0.40 0.53 0.62 0.35 0.46 FIS 0.00 0.00 -1.00 -0.29 0.01 0.32 0.34 0.00 -0.80 -0.61 0.00 -0.18 FIT 1.00 1.00 -0.70 0.43 0.22 0.76 0.75 1.00 -0.67 -0.39 1.00 0.40 FST 1.00 1.00 0.15 0.56 0.21 0.65 0.62 1.00 0.07 0.13 1.00 0.58

Remarks: HI = HS = HT = FIS = FIT = FST =

Observed heterozygosities over all subpopulations Expected heterozygosities over all subpopulations Expected heterozygosities in total population The deviation among individuals relative to their subpopulation The deviation among individuals relative to The deviation among subpopulations relative to the total populations

47 Table 8 Genetic distance of neem planted in the International Provenance Trials established in Kamphaeng Phet
12/MYA/Mye 13/MYA/Yez 20/THA/Non 14/NEP/Lam 23/GHA/Sun 10/IND/Ram 19/THA/Tun 17/PAK/Mul 03/IND/Man 22/THA/Doi 11/LAO/Vie 24/SEN/Ban 06/IND/Ann 07/IND/Gha 16/PAK/Tib 18/SRL/Kul 15/NEP/Get 08/IND/Sag 04/IND/Chi 21/THA/Bo 09/IND/Bal

21/THA/Bo 22/THA/Doi 11/LAO/Vie 19/THA/Tun 10/IND/Ram 23/GHA/Sun 08/IND/Sag 09/IND/Bal 07/IND/Gha 04/IND/Chi 03/IND/Man 06/IND/Ann 05/IND/All 14/NEP/Lam 15/NEP/Get 16/PAK/Tib 17/PAK/Mul 18/SRL/Kul 24/SEN/Ban

0.000 0.038 0.041 0.000 0.015 0.021 0.060 0.000 0.030 0.023 0.029 0.050 0.000 1.567 1.476 1.477 1.435 1.713 0.000 1.442 1.361 1.327 1.374 1.576 0.017 0.027 0.000 1.691 1.606 1.558 1.649 1.787 0.018 0.023 0.030 0.006 0.000 1.755 1.631 1.622 1.678 1.743 0.025 0.018 0.042 0.025 0.020 0.000 1.537 1.489 1.494 1.476 1.652 0.015 0.013 0.020 0.017 0.015 0.015 0.000 1.659 1.594 1.517 1.629 1.695 0.027 0.014 0.035 0.017 0.013 0.011 0.009 0.000 1.674 1.572 1.489 1.687 1.637 0.035 0.018 0.045 0.026 0.020 0.015 0.020 0.008 0.000 1.786 1.628 1.643 1.682 1.832 0.025 0.010 0.028 0.014 0.018 0.014 0.018 0.016 0.030 0.000 1.583 1.498 1.454 1.552 1.689 0.019 0.023 0.012 0.002 0.007 0.024 0.013 0.015 0.026 0.015 0.000 1.379 1.338 1.345 1.319 1.561 0.018 0.035 0.006 0.024 0.031 0.038 0.016 0.037 0.052 0.033 0.016 0.000 1.685 1.605 1.590 1.694 1.769 0.030 0.020 0.034 0.012 0.009 0.014 0.011 0.005 0.013 0.016 0.010 0.033 0.000 1.807 1.659 1.639 1.764 1.797 0.037 0.016 0.039 0.022 0.023 0.009 0.022 0.012 0.021 0.005 0.021 0.042 0.012 0.000 1.734 1.644 1.708 1.522 1.708 0.054 0.072 0.104 0.096 0.080 0.052 0.052 0.068 0.074 0.088 0.095 0.091 0.083 0.092 0.000 1.695 1.599 1.716 1.608 1.738 0.049 0.040 0.062 0.044 0.043 0.016 0.024 0.031 0.043 0.037 0.041 0.048 0.030 0.034 0.052 0.000 1.608 1.505 1.464 1.567 1.682 0.019 0.018 0.014 0.007 0.013 0.016 0.012 0.010 0.018 0.013 0.004 0.019 0.008 0.015 0.085 0.035 0.000

20/THA/Non 0.012 0.000

13/MYA/Yez 1.723 1.587 1.606 1.619 1.777 0.021 0.000 12/MYA/Mye 1.668 1.554 1.505 1.619 1.742 0.022 0.022 0.017 0.000

05/IND/All

48
12/MYA/Mye 05/IND/All 24/SEN/Ban 08/IND/Sag 07/IND/Gha 04/IND/Chi 15/NEP /Get 13/MYA/Yez 09/IND/Bal 06/IND/Ann 16/P AK/T ib 03/IND/Man 10/IND/Ram 23/GHA/Sun 14/NEP /Lam 18/SRL/Kul 17/P AK/Mul 22/T HA/Doi 19/T HA/T un 11/LAO/Vie 21/T HA/Bo 20/T HA/Non 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0

12/MYA/Mye 05/IND/All 24/SEN/Ban 08/IND/Sag 07/IND/Gha 04/IND/Chi 15/NEP/Get 13/MYA/Yez 09/IND/Bal 06/IND/Ann 16/PAK/T ib 03/IND/Man 10/IND/Ram 23/GHA/Sun 14/NEP/Lam 18/SRL/Kul 17/PAK/Mul 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00
22/T HA/Doi 19/T HA/T un 11/LAO/Vie 21/T HA/Bo 20/T HA/Non 0.020 0.015 0.010 0.005 0.000

Figure 18 Genetic dendrogram of neem grown in the International Provenance Trials Figure 18 established in Kamphaeng Phet

49 Growth Characteristics in Various Ages Tree growth in diameter and height is the response of the tree to its particular combination of heredity and environment. Growth has been measured to compare response to treatment, to identify the important influencing factors, and for the other research purposes (Bickford, 1962). The study of the average survival percentage and growth characteristics of neem in the International Provenance Trials established in Kanchanaburi in various ages were shown in Table 9 and Figure 19, and the Analysis of Variance of these studies were presented in Table 10. Variation on Survival Percentage Basically, the survival percentage of tropical trees under plantation conditions varies depending on tree adaptation and endurable to biotic and environmental factors. In the present study, the survival percentage of neem at 6 months and 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 years old were ranging between 93-100, 76-98, 71-98, 68-98, 64-96, and 57-96 percent, respectively, as shown in Table 9 and Figure 19. The average survival percentages of these age classes were 97.3, 87.7, 84.3, 82.6, 79.4, and 74.6, respectively. At 6 months old, Provenance 12/MYA/Yez had the highest survival percentage and Provenance 21/THA/Bo showed the poor survival percentage. The ANOVA among blocks and provenances were insignificant differences. At the age of 1 and 2 years, highly significant differences on survival percentage of neem among blocks were found (F = 5.06** and 5.71**) but there were insignificant differences among provenances. While Provenance 20/THA/Non had the highest survival percentages and Provenance 16/PAK/Tib had the lowest survival percentages. At the age of 3 years, Provenance 20/THA/Non still had the highest survival percentage and Provenances 16/PAK/Tib and 08/IND/Sag had the lowest. Moreover, there was highly (F = 5.54**) and statistical significant differences (F = 1.74*) among blocks and provenances on survival percentage of neem. At the age of 4 years, Provenances 20/THA/Non and 06/IND/Ann had the highest survival percentages and provenance 16/PAK/Tib had the lowest, furthermore the significant difference among blocks (F = 3.51*) and provenances (F = 1.74*) on survival percentage of neem were found. At the age of 6 years, Provenance 06/IND/Ann still had the highest survival percentage while Provenance 11/LAO/Vie had the lowest, as there was significant difference on survival percentage of neem only among provenances (F = 1.98*). Parktoop and Khaennak (2001) reported that the average survival percentage of 3-years-old neem in the International Provenance Trials established in Kamphaeng Phet was 73.54%, varying from 93% (Provenance originated from Sai Ngarm and Densarium, Thailand) to 10% (Provenance 17/PAK/Mul). However, the significant difference among provenances was also detected.

50 When trees grow older, they are confronted with various biotic and environmental factors. In the present study, the results demonstrated that survival percentages varying among provenances. After 6-months planting, most provenances had high survival percentages and afterward decreased as maybe caused by the variation in adapting to changeable environment and the tolerance to biotic and abiotic enemies. After 3 years planted neem trees had increased mortality from die back due to the assumption on the poor soil condition and biotic enemies. For practical applications, it is suggested to continue the monitoring system until neem tress has reached the rotation period. Though, the available information may give substantial information for suitable provenance to be introduced to Kanchanaburi area. In practices, the reality of the research findings can be applied in the vicinity areas of 300 km from the experiment station. Variation on Growth Performance Height Growth (Ht) In the early stages of development, trees usually perform better height growth than diameter growth. Trees of various ages attained height growth differently and the differences in growth performances were also found even in trees of the same age (Wenger, 1955). Generally, the genetic background is one of the main factors influencing the growth and developing of tropical trees (Whitmore, 1975). At the age of 6 months, the average height growth of neem was 1.78 m, ranging from 0.80 m (Provenance E2/THA/Kha) to 2.33 m (Provenance 08/IND/Sag). At the age of 1 year, the average height of neem had increased to 2.98 m, varying from 1.65 m (Provenance E2/THA/Kha) to 3.80 m (Provenance 06/IND/Ann). At the 2 years old, the average height growth of neem was 3.53 m, while Provenances E2/THA/Kha and 06/IND/Ann still had the lowest (2.30 m) and highest (4.48 m) height growth. At the age of 3 years, the average height growth of neem was 4.61 m, ranging from 3.32 m (Provenance 19/THA/Tun) to 5.61 m (Provenance 04/IND/Chi). Moreover, at the age of 4 years, the average height growth of neem was 4.94 m, Provenances 19/THA/Tun and 04/IND/Chi still had the lowest (3.70 m) and highest (5.95 m) height growth. Also, at the age of 6 years, the average height of neem was 5.85 m, varying from 4.60 m (Provenance 19/THA/Tun) to 7.00 m (Provenance 04/IND/Chi). The highly significant differences among provenances on neem height were found on height growth at all ages 6 months, F = 31.25**; 1 year, F = 14.14**; 2 years, F = 7.59**; 3 years, F = 5.50**; 4 years, F = 5.08**; and 6 year, F = 3.37**. However, highly significant difference among blocks on neem height (F = 4.55**) was found only at the age of 6 years old.

51 In the International Provenance Trials established in Kamphaeng Phet, the average height growth of neem at the age of 3 years was 4.63 m, ranging from 5.59 m (Provenance 12/MYA/Yez) to 2.54 m (Provenance 11/LAO/Vie) and had highly statistical significant difference among provenances (Parktoop and Khaennak, 2001). Iversen et al. (2001) reported the average height growth of neem after 5-years planting in the International Provenance Trials established in Tanzania was 4.6 m, varying from 3.2 m (Provenance 03/IND/Man) to 5.7 m (Provenance 20/THA/Non). The height growth of neem in this study showed that all provenances had highly increased in height after 6-months and 1-year planting. On the other hand, at the periods of 1 to 2 years and 3 to 4 years, the height rate growth slightly increased. Diameter at 10 cm Above Ground Level (D10) Diameter at 10 cm above ground level is commonly used when trees are small and prior to the buttress formation. At the age of 6 months, the average D10 of neem was 1.82 cm, ranging from 1.00 cm (Provenance E2/THA/Kha) to 2.28 cm (Provenances 09/IND/Bal and 17/PAK/Mul). The average D10 of neem at the ages of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 years was 2.48, 5.36, 8.15, 8.64, and 13.08 cm, respectively. At the ages of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 years, the highest D10 of neem growth was found in Provenance 04/IND/Chi (3.18, 6.38, 9.80, 10.31, and 15.49 cm, respectively), while the lowest D10 growth was detected in Provenance 19/THA/Tun (1.68, 3.68, 6.17, 6.34, and 10.11 cm, respectively). The highly significant differences on D10 growth among provenances of neem were found at the ages of 6 month, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 years (F = 31.25**, 4.22**, 4.07**, 4.10**, 3.22**, and 5.95**, respectively). The present study showed highly significant difference among blocks only at the age of 6 months (F = 4.50**). The result of the present study showed that the D10 increment in the first period (6 months to 1 year after planting) was slightly increased. Afterward, the D10 was highly increased, except during 3 to 4 years when the annual growth rate of D10 was very little. Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) The diameter, measured at the 1.30 m above ground level, is an important character and generally used in determining growth of a tree. But in this study, the DBH of neem was measured only at the age of 6 years. The average DBH of neem trees was 7.89 cm, ranging from 5.50 cm (Provenance 19/THA/Tun) to 9.80 cm (Provenance 04/IND/Chi). Moreover, results showed highly significant difference on D10 among neem provenances (F = 3.59**) but had insignificant differences among blocks on D10 of neem. This result had very concomitant to D10 values.

52 Parktoop and Khaennak (2001) reported that at the age of 3 years, the average DBH of neem grown in the International Provenance Trials in Kamphaeng Phet was 9.56 cm, ranging from 5.16 (Provenance 11/LAO/Vie) to 11.40 cm (Provenance 13/MYA/Mye). Iversen et al. (2001) reported the average DBH of 5-years-old neem in the International Provenance Trials established in Tanzania was 7.7 cm, varying from 4.6 cm (Provenance 03/IND/Man) to 9.1 cm (Provenance 07/IND/Gha). Crown Diameter (CD) The development of crown form depends on the genetic background. Some tree breeder may prefer narrow tree crowns and selection criteria for narrow crown concept were set. It was however aimed to plant more trees per unit area and more wood production were expected. Beside the genetic background, spacing and age are also affected to the development of neem crown diameter. The average crown diameter after 6-months planting was 1.01 m, ranging from 0.60 m (Provenances 22/THA/Doi and 19/THA/Tun) to 1.50 m (Provenances 06/IND/Ann). At the ages of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 years, the average crown diameters were 1.68, 1.93, 2.58, 2.41, and 2.57 m, respectively. While, at all ages, the lowest crown diameter was detected in Provenance 19/THA/Tun (0.75, 0.98, 1.41, 1.32, and 1.32 m, respectively). The highest crown diameter at the ages of 1, 2, and 4 years was shown in Provenance 06/IND/Ann (2.63, 2.98, and 3.33 m, respectively), and at the ages of 3 and 6 years, Provenance 04/IND/Chi showed the highest of 3.64 and 3.68 m. The ANOVA showed the highly significant differences on crown diameter among neem provenances at all ages 6 months, F = 12.00**; 1 year, F = 12.30**; 2 years, F = 11.20**; 3 years, F = 16.10**; 4 years, F = 6.66**; and 6 years, F = 17.57**. While, the significant differences on crown diameter of neem among blocks were highly only at the ages of 6 months and 1 year (F = 7.00** and 3.90**). Parktoop and Khaennak (2001) reported that, at the age of 3 years, the average crown diameter of neem grown in the International Provenance Trials in Kamphaeng Phet was 2.90 m, ranging from 1.28 m (Provenance 11/LAO/Vie) to 3.64 m (Provenance 04/IND/Chi). The crown diameter growth of neem in this study showed that all provenances extremely increased after 6 months and 1year of planting. At the period of 1 to 2 years, the crown diameter growth slightly increased. During the ages of 2 to 3 years, the crown diameter growth had highly increased. One assumption caused on this result was the specific climatic factors. On the other hand, at the period of 3 to 4 years, all provenances except provenance 22/THA/Doi had decreased crown diameter annual growth since the spacing between trees was limited at 3 m so the trees cannot develop the crown further, particularly A. indica. At the period of 4 to 6 years, the crown diameter growth was very slightly increased.

53 Discussion The statistical significant differences among provenances demonstrated on all growth characteristics (survival percentage, height, D10, DBH, crown diameter) at all ages, because of the genetic factors of each provenance. But for the survival percentage, the significant differences showed on the ages of 1, 2, 3, and 4 years, maybe caused by the micro-environment and edaphic factors among blocks. On the other hand, there were significant different among blocks on height, D10, DBH, crown diameter only after 6-months planting. Afterward, there were insignificant differences. Thus, for neem, genetic factors efficiently play more important effects on growth performance than micro-environmental factors. In the present study, the growth characteristics of 6-months, 1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, and 6-years-old neem from all provenances showed similar patterns that highly increased after 6-months and 1-year planting. At the period of 1 to 2 years, the growth slightly increased. During the ages of 2 to 3 years, the growth rates highly increased. One assumption caused on this result was the climatic factors. On the other hand, at the period of 3 to 4 years, all provenances had slow growth rate, since the spacing between trees was limited at 3 x 3 m so the trees cannot develop the crown further, particularly in the case of A. indica. At the period of 4 to 6 years, the growth trials still slightly increased. Thus, if neem are planted by spacing 3 x 3 m, the thinning is needed after 3-years planting.

54 Table 9 Average survival percentage and growth characteristics of neem grown in the International Provenance Trials established in Table 9 Kanchanaburi in various ages
Provenances No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Code Survival percentage (%) 3 years 84 89 98 86 83 78 86 91 80 86 68 79 76 78 73 97 85 92 82 82 68 84 78 83 82.8 4 years 81 83 96 81 70 69 82 90 77 85 67 76 73 74 73 96 83 88 81 80 64 81 74 82 79.4 6 6 years months 65 1.00 82 1.05 93 1.20 69 0.78 57 1.20 59 0.85 82 2.15 89 2.08 77 2.18 79 2.25 64 2.33 75 2.08 71 2.15 66 2.25 69 1.98 96 2.30 80 2.15 83 0.80 70 2.00 78 1.78 61 1.90 78 2.00 67 1.95 80 2.28 74.6 1.78 1 year 1.75 2.40 2.65 1.85 1.85 1.78 3.60 3.43 3.35 3.38 3.55 3.45 3.45 3.73 3.25 3.80 3.33 1.65 3.00 3.00 3.18 3.20 3.18 3.65 2.98 Height (m) 2 years 2.43 3.00 3.38 2.60 2.43 2.50 4.05 3.98 3.88 3.73 4.10 3.95 3.90 4.35 3.68 4.48 3.83 2.30 3.38 3.48 3.75 3.63 3.70 4.15 3.53 3 years 3.53 4.36 4.99 4.17 3.68 3.32 5.20 5.00 4.92 4.54 5.10 4.94 5.07 5.61 4.61 5.54 4.58 3.63 4.26 4.46 4.55 4.41 4.87 5.31 4.61 4 years 3.78 4.77 5.35 4.56 3.95 3.70 5.46 5.88 5.29 4.78 5.57 5.21 5.40 5.95 4.85 5.80 4.74 3.95 4.56 4.72 4.75 4.56 5.31 5.67 4.94 Diameter at 10 cm above ground level (cm) 6 6 1 2 3 4 6 years months year years years years years 4.94 1.08 1.70 4.40 7.06 7.19 11.00 5.93 1.40 2.20 5.55 7.68 8.00 11.40 6.78 1.85 2.85 6.13 8.43 8.77 12.93 6.24 1.13 1.90 5.00 7.75 8.17 12.88 4.98 1.15 1.93 4.20 6.55 6.88 10.61 4.60 1.03 1.68 3.68 6.17 6.34 10.11 6.20 2.13 3.05 6.23 9.00 9.53 13.88 6.36 1.95 2.48 5.55 8.21 8.65 13.30 5.93 2.08 2.53 5.78 8.70 9.06 13.19 5.53 2.25 2.53 5.53 8.14 8.46 12.90 6.37 2.10 2.70 5.80 8.65 9.49 13.99 5.92 2.28 3.10 6.10 9.43 9.86 15.29 6.29 1.95 2.53 5.63 8.63 9.01 13.63 7.00 2.08 3.18 6.38 9.80 10.31 15.49 5.47 1.98 2.53 5.15 8.42 8.88 13.28 6.67 2.18 2.98 6.08 8.96 9.36 13.81 5.49 1.98 2.75 5.15 7.91 9.23 14.23 5.24 1.00 1.80 4.38 6.96 7.16 10.91 5.61 2.03 2.23 5.00 7.56 7.80 13.04 5.73 1.80 2.45 5.23 8.46 8.97 14.29 5.28 1.90 2.68 5.35 8.22 9.70 13.14 5.12 2.28 2.68 5.30 8.07 8.51 12.93 6.27 1.83 2.35 5.35 7.95 8.55 12.75 6.50 2.13 2.78 5.73 8.98 9.54 14.88 5.85 1.82 2.48 5.36 8.15 8.64 13.08 DBH (cm) 6 6 years months 7.1 0.63 7.8 0.73 9.3 0.75 8.2 0.60 6.9 0.68 5.4 0.60 9.0 1.28 7.7 1.03 7.6 1.30 7.3 1.15 8.5 1.05 8.4 1.35 8.5 1.28 9.8 1.43 7.6 0.95 8.2 1.50 7.0 1.05 6.7 0.63 7.1 1.03 8.7 0.83 7.4 0.78 7.0 0.98 8.4 1.25 8.5 1.43 7.8 1.01 Crown diameter (m) 1 year 0.95 1.08 1.30 0.88 0.90 0.75 2.05 1.68 2.20 1.88 1.90 2.20 2.25 2.58 1.53 2.63 1.85 0.93 1.58 1.60 1.63 1.53 2.15 2.18 1.68 2 years 1.28 1.45 1.78 1.20 1.28 0.98 2.40 1.90 2.35 2.05 1.98 2.53 2.35 2.70 1.78 2.98 2.05 1.20 1.83 1.73 1.85 1.78 2.33 2.60 1.93 3 years 1.66 1.79 2.30 1.65 1.82 1.41 3.08 2.60 3.11 2.62 3.67 3.15 3.04 3.64 2.32 3.54 2.63 1.65 2.53 2.42 2.42 2.37 3.16 3.27 2.58 4 years 1.59 1.66 2.07 2.26 1.66 1.32 2.95 2.54 2.99 2.48 2.64 2.96 2.89 3.22 2.11 3.33 2.38 1.57 2.26 2.26 2.16 2.19 3.08 3.21 2.41 6 years 1.65 1.83 2.48 1.81 1.87 1.32 3.20 2.61 3.21 2.74 2.73 3.17 3.05 3.68 2.19 3.50 2.54 1.69 2.59 2.54 2.29 2.17 3.37 3.47 2.57

2 6 1 year years months 21/THA/Bo 93 85 84 E1/THA/Noh 95 91 90 20/THA/Non 98 98 98 22/THA/Doi 95 89 86 11/LAO/Vie 97 94 92 19/THA/Tun 99 85 83 10/IND/Ram 99 89 86 12/MYA/Yez 100 94 91 23/GHA/Sun 98 86 80 13/MYA/Mye 99 87 87 08//IND/Sag 97 82 72 09/IND/Bal 96 83 79 07/IND/Gha 99 78 76 04/IND/Chi 95 87 80 03/IND/Man 98 81 74 06/IND/Ann 99 97 97 05/IND/All 97 89 85 E2/THA/Kha 96 95 93 14/NEP/Lam 98 83 83 15/NEP/Get 99 92 82 16/PAK/Tib 97 76 71 17/PAK/Mul 97 91 84 18/SRL/Kul 97 86 83 24/SEN/Ban 98 87 87 Mean 97.3 87.7 84.3

20

40

60

80

21/THA/Bo

Height (m) 8

21/THA/Bo E1/THA/Noh 20/THA/Non 22/THA/Doi 11/LAO/Vie 19/THA/Tun 10/IND/Ram 12/MYA/Yez 23/GHA/Sun 13/MYA/Mye 08//IND/Sag 09/IND/Bal Provenance 07/IND/Gha 04/IND/Chi 03/IND/Man

E1/THA/Noh 20/THA/Non 22/THA/Doi 11/LAO/Vie 19/THA/Tun 10/IND/Ram 12/MYA/Yez 23/GHA/Sun 13/MYA/Mye 08//IND/Sag 09/IND/Bal Provenance 07/IND/Gha 04/IND/Chi 03/IND/Man 06/IND/Ann 05/IND/All E2/THA/Kha 14/NEP/Lam 15/NEP/Get 16/PAK/Tib 17/PAK/Mul 18/SRL/Kul 24/SEN/Ban Mean

Survival percentage (% ) 100

06/IND/Ann 05/IND/All
6 months 1 year 2 years 3 years 4 years

6 months

E2/THA/Kha 14/NEP/Lam 15/NEP/Get 16/PAK/Tib 17/PAK/Mul 18/SRL/Kul 24/SEN/Ban

6 years

1 year 2 years 3 years 4 years

Figure 19 Survival percentage and growth characteristics (height, diameter at 10 cm above ground level (D10), DBH, and crown Figure 19 diameter (CD)) of neem grown in the International Provenance Trials established in Kanchanaburi in various ages.
6 years Mean

55

10

CD (m) 4

D10 (cm) 15

21/THA/Bo

21/THA/Bo E1/THA/Noh 20/THA/Non 22/THA/Doi 11/LAO/Vie 19/THA/Tun 10/IND/Ram 12/MYA/Yez 23/GHA/Sun 13/MYA/Mye 08//IND/Sag 09/IND/Bal Provenance 07/IND/Gha 04/IND/Chi 03/IND/Man

E1/THA/Noh 20/THA/Non 22/THA/Doi 11/LAO/Vie 19/THA/Tun 10/IND/Ram 12/MYA/Yez 23/GHA/Sun 13/MYA/Mye 08//IND/Sag 09/IND/Bal Provenance 07/IND/Gha 04/IND/Chi 03/IND/Man 06/IND/Ann 05/IND/All 6 months E2/THA/Kha 14/NEP/Lam 15/NEP/Get 16/PAK/Tib 17/PAK/Mul 18/SRL/Kul 24/SEN/Ban Mean

Figure 19 (Continued)
6 months 06/IND/Ann 05/IND/All E2/THA/Kha
1 year 2 years 3 years 4 years 6 years

1 year 2 years

14/NEP/Lam 3 years 15/NEP/Get 16/PAK/Tib 17/PAK/Mul 18/SRL/Kul 24/SEN/Ban Mean

4 years 6 years DBH, 6 years

56

57
Table 10 Analysis of variance on survival percentage and growth characteristics of neem grown in the Table 10 International Provenance Trials established in Kanchanaburi in various ages Traits Survival percentage Ages 6 months 1 year: 2 years: 3 years: 4 years: 6 years: Height 6 months: 1 year: 2 years: 3 years: 4 years: 6 years: D10 6 months: 1 year: 2 years: 3 years: 4 years: 6 years: DBH Crown diameter 6 years: 6 months: 1 year: 2 years: 3 years: 4 years: 6 years: SV Blocks Provenances Blocks Provenances Blocks Provenances Blocks Provenances Blocks Provenances Blocks Provenances Blocks Provenances Blocks Provenances Blocks Provenances Blocks Provenances Blocks Provenances Blocks Provenances Blocks Provenances Blocks Provenances Blocks Provenances Blocks Provenances Blocks Provenances Blocks Provenances Blocks Provenances Blocks Provenances Blocks Provenances Blocks Provenances Blocks Provenances Blocks Provenances Blocks Provenances df 3 23 3 23 3 23 3 23 3 23 3 23 3 23 3 23 3 23 3 23 3 23 3 23 3 23 3 23 3 23 3 23 3 23 3 23 3 23 3 23 3 23 3 23 3 23 3 23 3 23 SS 49.33 261.33 1460.50 2979.83 2203.17 4643.83 2214.00 5338.00 1651.33 6255.33 1607.33 9847.33 0.54 28.69 0.91 45.47 1.68 38.48 0.38 35.34 0.62 38.47 0.55 35.25 1.16 16.87 0.47 17.56 4.34 42.15 0.17 69.63 2.97 89.12 1.61 179.71 0.64 85.70 0.64 8.18 1.17 28.32 0.19 25.79 0.06 37.05 1.32 31.46 0.71 40.05 MS 16.44 11.36 486.83 129.66 734.39 201.91 738.00 232.09 550.44 271.97 535.78 428.14 0.18 1.25 0.30 1.98 0.56 1.67 0.13 1.54 0.21 1.67 0.18 1.53 0.39 0.73 0.16 0.76 1.45 1.83 0.06 3.03 0.99 3.87 0.54 7.81 0.21 3.73 0.21 0.36 0.39 1.23 0.06 1.12 0.02 1.61 0.44 1.37 0.24 1.74 F 0.91ns* 0.63ns* 5.06** 1.35ns* 5.71** 1.57ns* 5.54** 1.74** 3.51** 1.74** 2.47ns* 1.98** 4.55** 31.25** 2.14ns* 14.14** 2.55ns* 7.59** 0.46ns* 5.50** 0.63ns* 5.08** 0.40ns* 3.37** 4.50** 31.25** 0.89ns* 4.22** 3.22** 4.07** 0.08ns* 4.10** 0.82ns* 3.22** 0.41ns* 5.95** 0.20ns* 3.59** 7.00** 12.00** 3.90** 12.30** 0.06ns* 11.20** 0.20ns* 16.10** 2.14ns* 6.66** 2.37ns* 17.57**

Remarks: ** = Highly significant differences at 99% confident limit * = Significant differences at 95% confident limit ns = Insignificant difference

58 Growth Characteristics in Various Sites Survival Percentage Generally, the survival percentage of tropical trees under the plantation conditions varies depending on tree adaptation and endurable to biotic and environmental factors. The survival percentage of 5-year-old neem planted in the International Provenance Trials established in Tanzania was 86 percent, varying from 67 % (Provenance 03/IND/Man) to 95% (Provenances 12/MYA/Yez and 23/GHA/Sun) (Iversen et al., 2001). The survival percentages of 7-year-old neem planted in Kanchanaburi and Kamphaeng Phet were shown in Table 11 and Figure 20. Comparisons on experimental sites, 7-year-old neem planted in Kanchanaburi were higher average survival percentage than those planted in Kamphaeng Phet (73.5% and 63.7%. The significant difference on survival percentage of neem among experimental sites was found, F = 10.85** (Table 12). Comparison on varieties, the average survival percentage of Indian Neem was slightly higher than that of Thai Neem (68.7% and 68.4% as presented in Table 11 and Figure 20) as well as that difference on survival percentage among neem varieties was insignificant (F = 0.01ns, Table 12). Regarding to varieties and experimental sites, Indian Neem planted in Kanchanaburi had highest average survival percentage (75.2%), but those planted in Kanchanaburi had lowest (62.0%), while the average survival percentage of Thai Neem planted in Kamphaeng Phet was higher than those planted in Kanchanaburi (69.4 and 67.4%). From these results, Indian Neem from foreign countries had better adapted to drought and low fertile soil than to wetter area and fertile soil. Comparison on provenances as shown in Table 11 and Figure 21, the average survival percentage of Provenance 06/IND/Ann was the best (84.0%), followed by Provenances 13/MYA/Yez, 12/MYA/Mye, 20/THA/Non, 10/IND/Ram, and 23/GHA/Sun (83.5, 82.5, 78.5, 76.5, and 76.5%, respectively). The significant difference on survival percentage among neem provenances was detected (F = 2.34*, Table 12). So the environmental factors showed more effect on survival percentage than genetic factors. In Kanchanaburi, Provenance 06/IND/Ann showed the best survival percentage (96.0%) and Provenance 19/THA/Tun showed the least (56.0%). While, in Kamphaeng Phet, the Provenance 12/MYA/Mye were best on survival percentage (87.0%) and Provenance 17/PAK/Mul were least (5.3%). Concerning to provenances, varieties, and experimental sites, Thai Neem Provenances were vaguely identity on survival percentage from Indian Neem Provenances. Most of Provenances grown in Kanchanaburi were higher survival percentage than those grown in Kamphaeng Phet, except Provenances 21/THA/Bo, 22/THA/Doi, 19/THA/Tun, 12/MYA/Mye, 08/IND/Sag, 04/IND/Chi, and 03/IND/Man.

59 Healthiness The healthiness scores of 7-year-old neem planted in the International Provenance Trials established in Kanchanaburi and Kamphaeng Phet as presented in Table 11 and Figure 20. Comparison on experimental sites, neem planted in Kamphaeng Phet had more healthiness than those planted in Kanchanaburi (7.30 and 7.03). Comparison on varieties, Thai Neem had more healthiness than Indian Neem with the average of 7.38 and 7.09. Thai Neem planted in Kamphaeng Phet had more healthiness than Indian Neem planted in the same experimental site, Thai Neem planted in Kanchanaburi, and Indian Neem planted in Kanchanaburi (7.66, 7.17, 7.09, and 7.02, respectively). Comparison on provenances, Provenance 21/THA/Bo had the best healthiness (7.55), followed by Provenances 22/THA/Doi, 20/THA/Non, 11/LAO/Vie, and 23/GHA/Sun (7.47, 7.43, 7.42, and 7.32, respectively) but Provenance 17/PAK/Mul was weakest among all (6.72) (Table 10 and Figure 20). In Kanchanaburi, the top five provenances on healthiness were Provenances 20/THA/Non, 16/PAK/Tib, 23/GHA/Sun, 22/THA/Doi, and 18/SRL/Kul (7.25, 7.24, 7.22, 7.16, and 7.15, respectively), while in Kamphaeng Phet, Provenances 21/THA/Bo, 11/LAO/Vie, 22/THA/Doi, 20/THA/Non, and 06/IND/Ann had best healthiness (7.88, 7.82, 7.72, 7.70, and 7.46, respectively) as presented in Table 11 and Figure 21. Concerning to provenances, varieties, and experimental sites, in Kamphaeng Phet, Thai Neem Provenances (except Provenance 19/THA/Tun) were obviously identity on healthiness from Indian Neem Provenances, while in Kanchanaburi, these differences among neem varieties were not clear. It seems that Thai and Indian Neems had similar healthiness when planted in drier area and low fertile soil, but when planted in wetter area and fertile soil Thai Neem showed more healthiness than Indian Neem. Thus, the neem varieties should not be identified by using healthiness. Only Provenances 10/IND/Ram, 05/IND/All, 16/PAK/Tib, 17/PAK/Mul, and 18/SRL/Kul planted in Kanchanaburi had more healthiness than those planted in Kamphaeng Phet. These probably caused by the poor adaptation to area that was wetter area where water run-off in rainy season occurred regularly. So, these provenances should be selected for planting in the well drainage sites. The significant differences on healthiness among experimental sites, varieties, and provenances of neem were verified (F = 84.75**, 74.23**, and 8.78**, respectively, as shown in Table 12). Thus, the environmental factors showed more effect on healthiness of neem than genetic factors.

60 Total Height Trees of various ages attained height growth differently and the differences in growth performances were also found even in trees of the same age (Wenger, 1955). Generally, the genetic background is one of the main factors influencing the growth and developing of tropical trees (Whitmore, 1975). Iversen et al. (2001) reported the average height growth of neem after 5-year planting in the International Provenance Trials established in Tanzania was 4.6 m, varying from 3.2 m (Provenance 03/IND/Man) to 5.7 m (Provenance 20/THA/Non). The total height growths of 7-year-old neem planted in the International Provenance Trials established in Kanchanaburi and Kamphaeng Phet were presented in Table 11 and Figure 20. Comparisons on experimental sites, neem planted in Kamphaeng Phet were higher height than those planted in Kanchanaburi (6.59 and 5.87 m). Comparison on varieties, the average height of Indian Neem was higher height than those of Thai Neem (6.26 and 6.00 m). Thai Neem planted in Kamphaeng Phet had higher height than Indian Neem planted in the same experimental site, Indian Neem planted in Kanchanaburi, and Thai Neem planted in Kanchanaburi (6.71, 6.24, 5.90, and 5.75 m, respectively). Comparison on provenances (Table 11 and Figure 21), Provenance 23/GHA/Sun showed the best height growth (6.83 m), followed by Provenances 04/IND/Chi, 13/MYA/Yez, 20/THA/Non, and 18/SRL/Kul (6.73, 6.70, 6.69, and 6.60 m, respectively), but Provenance 11/LAO/Vie showed the poorest height growth (4.962 m). In Kanchanaburi, the top five provenances on height were Provenances 20/THA/Non, 04/IND/Chi, 24/SEN/Ban, 06/IND/Ann, and 08/IND/Sag (6.94, 6.59, 6.52, 6.44 and 6.29 m, respectively). Additionally, the top five provenances in Kamphaeng Phet were Provenances 23/GHA/Sun, 13/MYA/Yez, 18/SRL/Kul, 12/MYA/Mye, and 22/THA/Doi (7.56, 7.44, 7.21, 7.15, and 6.89 m, respectively). Consideration to provenances, varieties, and experimental sites, only Provenances 20/THA/Non and 24/SEN/Ban planted in Kanchanaburi had higher height than those planted in Kamphaeng Phet. Provenance 20/THA/Non was originated in Kanchanaburi so its height can better develop in the same area than neem from other sources or planted in the other area. Moreover, Provenance 24/SEN/Ban was adaptable to drier area and low fertile soil than wetter area and fertile soil. The heights between Thai and Indian Neem Provenances in both experimental sites were not clearly different characteristics. So the identity of neem varieties cannot be grouped by using height. The significant differences on neem heights among experimental sites, varieties, and provenances of neem were found (F = 221.10**, 19.34**, and 20.84**, respectively, as presented in Table 12). These results showed that environmental factors were more influent on neem height than genetic factors.

61 Clearbole Length Table 11 and Figure 20 showed the comparison on two experimental sites, neem planted in Kamphaeng Phet had longer clearbole than those planted in Kanchanaburi (1.62 and 0.82 m). Comparison on varieties, the average clearbole length of Thai Neem was longer than those of Indian Neem (1.75 and 1.02 m). Thai Neem planted in Kamphaeng Phet had longer clearbole length than Indian Neem planted in the same experimental site, Thai Neem planted in Kanchanaburi, and Indian Neem planted in Kanchanaburi (2.15, 1.44, 1.33, and 0.69 m, respectively). As shown in Table 11 and Figure 21, Provenance 19/THA/Tun had the best clearbole length (2.19 m), followed by Provenances 22/THA/Doi, 21/THA/Bo, 20/THA/Non, and 18/SRL/Kul (1.85, 1.62, 1.62, and 1.57 m), but Provenance 17/PAK/Mul had shortest one (0.58 m). Whilst in Kanchanaburi, the top five provenances on clearbole length were Provenances 22/THA/Doi, 20/THA/Non, 11/LAO/Vie, 19/THA/Tun, and 18/SRL/Kul (1.48, 1.45, 1.31, 1.27, and 1.20 m, respectively). In Kamphaeng Phet, Provenances 19/THA/Tun, 22/THA/Doi, 21/THA/Bo, 18/SRL/Kul, and 20/THA/Non showed the best clearbole length (2.92, 2.15, 2.04, 2.00, and 1.88 m, respectively). Regarding to provenances, varieties, and experimental sites, all Provenances planted in Kamphaeng Phet had longer clearbole length than those planted in Kanchanaburi. From these results, the clearbole length of neem was affected by site conditions. However, clearbole lengths between Thai and Indian Neem Provenances (except Provenance 18/SRL/Kul) in Kanchanaburi were obviously different, but in Kamphaeng Phet, these differences on clearbole length were not clear. Thus the identification of neem varieties by using clearbole length should be cautiously done. The significant differences on neem clearbole length among experimental sites, varieties, and provenances were detected (F = 622.52**, 337.68**, and 26.96**, respectively, as shown in Table 12). The effect on neem clearbole length of environmental factors was more than those of genetic factors.

62 Stem Straightness Trees tend to grow straight and deviations from straightness are due to both internal and external factors (Toumey and Korstian, 1947). Iversen et al. (2001) reported the stem form score of 5-year-old neem in the International Provenance Trials established in Tanzania was 6.1, varying from 5.5 (Provenances 07/IND/Gha and 05/IND/All) to 7.3 (Provenance 22/THA/Doi). Comparison on experimental sites, 7-year-old neem grown in Kamphaeng Phet had higher stem straightness than those grown in Kanchanaburi (5.10 and 4.96. Comparison on varieties, Thai Neem had higher stem straightness than Indian Neem (6.23 and 4.66). Thai Neem grown in Kamphaeng Phet had higher stem straightness than those grown in Kanchanaburi, Indian Neem grown in Kanchanaburi, and Indian Neem grown in Kamphaeng Phet (6.67, 5.78, 4.74, and 4.58, respectively) as shown in Table 11 and Figure 20. Comparison on provenances, Provenances 20/THA/Non, 19/THA/Tun, 22/THA/Doi, 21/THA/Bo, and 11/LAO/Vie had the best stem straightness (6.65, 6.51, 6.32, 6.13, and 5.35, respectively) and the lowest stem straightness was Provenance 07/IND/Gha as 4.24. In Kanchanaburi, the top five provenances on stem straightness were Provenances 20/THA/Non, 22/THA/Doi, 19/THA/Tun, 11/LAO/Vie, and 21/THA/Bo (6.19, 5.97, 5.86, 5.41, and 5.26, respectively). However in Kamphaeng Phet, Provenances 20/THA/Non, 19/THA/Tun, 21/THA/Bo, 22/THA/Doi, and 08/IND/Sag showed good stem straightness (7.31, 7.06, 6.80, 6.61, and 5.56, respectively). These were presented in Table 11 and Figure 21 Moreover, according to provenances, varieties, and experimental sites, the effects of experimental sites on stem straightness among provenances were variable, whereas some provenances grown in Kanchanaburi had higher stem straightness than those grown in Kamphaeng but some provenances were not. Thai Neem Provenances except Provenance 11/LAO/Vie were remarkably identity on stem straightness more than Indian Neem Provenances. Thus, stem straightness should be selected to identify neem varieties. The significant differences on stem straightness of neem among experimental sites, varieties, and provenances were detected (F = 5.26*, 526.95**, and 32.60**, respectively, as shown in Table 12). Unlike to the other growth characteristics, the effect on neem stem straightness of genetic factors was more than those of environmental factors.

63 Number of Stems per Tree Iversen et al. (2001) reported the number of stems per tree of neem in the International Provenance Trials established in Tanzania was 2.2 stems, varying from 1.2 stems (Provenances 20/THA/Non, 21/THA/Bo, and 22/THA/Doi) to 3.5 stems (Provenance 12/MYA/Yez). The number of stems per tree of 7-year-old neem planted in the International Provenance Trials established in Kanchanaburi and Kamphaeng Phet was presented in Table 11 and Figure 20. Comparisons on experimental sites, neem planted in Kamphaeng Phet showed less stems per tree than those planted in Kanchanaburi (1.77 and 2.88 stems). Results showed highly significant difference on number of stems per neem tree among experimental sites as F = 341.49**, Table 12. Comparison on varieties, Thai Neem had less stems per tree than Indian Neem (1.28 and 2.69 stems). The significant difference on number of stems per tree among neem varieties was found (F = 389.04**, Table 12). Indian Neem planted in Kanchanaburi had more stems per tree than those planted in Kamphaeng Phet, Thai Neem planted in the same experimental site, and Thai Neem planted in Kamphaeng Phet (3.27, 1.97, 1.41, and 1.16 stems, respectively). As shown in Table 11 and Figure 21, comparison on provenances, Provenances 19/THA/Tun, 22/THA/Doi, 20/THA/Non, 11/LAO/Vie, and 21/THA/Bo had lower number of stems per tree (1.16, 1.27, 1.31, 1.33, and 1.33 stems), and Provenance 05/IND/All had the most stems per tree as 3.67. In Kanchanaburi and Kamphaeng Phet, the least on number of stems per tree were detected in Provenances 19/THA/Tun, 20/THA/Non, 11/LAO/Vie, 22/THA/Doi, and 21/THA/Bo. Thence, the difference on number of stems per tree among neem provenances was significant (F = 29.48**, Table 11). From ANOVA, it was clear that the number of stems per tree was influenced by environmental factors as same as genetic factors. Concerning to provenances, varieties, and experimental sites, Thai Neem Provenances were obviously identity on number of stems per tree from Indian Neem Provenances in both sites. Thus, neem varieties could be easy identification by number of stems per tree. Moreover, the effects of experimental sites on number of stems per tree were similar in all provenances that provenances planted in Kamphaeng Phet had less stems than those planted in Kanchanaburi. The reason of these results were 1) due to the method of counting the number of stems per tree at breast height level (1.30 m), neem planted in Kamphaeng Phet had longer clearbole than breast height and 2) in Kamphaeng Phet the soil was deep and fertile and the weeding control were often done, so clearbole length and number of stems per tree of neem planted in Kamphaeng Phet were more than those planted in Kanchanaburi.

64 Diameter at 10 cm Above Ground Level (D10) In Table 11 and Figure 20, comparison on experimental sites, 7-year-old neem grown in Kamphaeng Phet showed bigger D10 than those grown in Kanchanaburi (16.26 and 13.66 cm). In addition to variety, the average D10 of Thai Neem was less than that of Indian Neem (12.94 and 15.43 cm). Indian Neem grown in Kamphaeng Phet had bigger D10 than Indian Neem grown in Kanchanaburi, Thai Neem grown in the same experimental site, and Thai Neem grown in Kanchanaburi (17.08, 14.09, 13.79, and 12.07 cm, respectively). Comparison on provenances, the good D10 were detected in Provenances 05/IND/All, 09/IND/Bal, 24/SEN/Ban, 15/NEP/Get, and 04/IND/Chi (16.59, 16.44, 16.32, 16.20, and 16.14 cm, respectively), but Provenance 11/LAO/Vie had the least D10 as 11.31 cm. In Kanchanaburi, the top five provenances on D10 were Provenances 09/IND/Bal, 04/IND/Chi, 24/SEN/Ban, 05/IND/All, and 10/IND/Ram (15.95, 15.46, 15.07, 14.57, and 14.47 cm, respectively), while in Kamphaeng Phet, Provenances 17/PAK/Mul, 05/IND/All, 23/GHA/Sun, 15/NEP/Get, and 13/MYA/Yez (20.22, 18.85, 18.33, 18.29, and 18.11 cm, respectively) had the most D10 as shown in Table 11 and Figure 21. Regarding to provenances, varieties, and experimental sites, Thai Neem Provenances were uncertainly identity on D10 from Indian Neem Provenances in both experimental sites. Moreover, the effects of experimental sites on D10 were similar in all provenances that provenances planted in Kamphaeng Phet had greater D10 than those planted in Kanchanaburi. So neem can more develop D10 growth in the wetter area with deep and fertile soil than in the drier area with rocky and low fertile soil The statistical differences on D10 of neem among experimental sites, varieties and provenances of neem were significant (F = 327.36**, 205.83**, and 18.04**, respectively, Table 12). Hence, the environmental factors showed more effect on D10 of neem than genetic factors.

65 Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) The diameter, measured at the 1.30 m above ground level, is an important character and generally used in determining growth and yield of a tree. Since tree diameter often is a dominate element in determining marketability and economic maturity, the importance of diameter growth is evident (Bickford, 1962) Iversen et al. (2001) reported the average DBH of 5-year-old neem in the International Provenance Trials established in Tanzania was 7.7 cm, varying from 4.6 cm (Provenance 03/IND/Man) to 9.1 cm (Provenance 07/IND/Gha). The DBH of 7-year-old neem planted in the International Provenance Trials established in Kanchanaburi and Kamphaeng Phet was presented in Table 11 and Figure 20. Comparison on experimental sites, 7-year-old neem grown in Kamphaeng Phet showed bigger DBH than those grown in Kanchanaburi (10.59 and 6.61 cm). These difference was greatly significant as F = 1367.41** (Table 12). Comparison on varieties, the average DBH of Thai Neem was more than those of Indian Neem (8.71 and 8.37 cm). The significant difference on DBH among neem varieties was found (F = 4.92*, Table 12). Concerning to varieties and experimental sites, Indian Neem planted in Kamphaeng Phet had bigger DBH than Thai Neem planted in the same experimental site, and Thai Neem and Indian Neem planted in Kanchanaburi (10.75, 10.10, 7.28, and 6.43 cm, respectively). Among 22 provenances, the top five provenances on DBH were Provenances 20/THA/Non, 04/IND/Chi, 10/IND/Ram, 22/THA/Doi, and 18/SRL/Kul (9.61, 9.58, 9.53, 9.26, and 9.25 cm, respectively) but 17/PAK/Mul had lowest as 5.94 cm. In Kanchanaburi, the first five provenances on DBH were Provenances 20/THA/Non, 22/THA/Doi, 04/IND/Chi, 10/IND/Ram, and 18/SRL/Kul (9.02, 8.09, 7.95, 7.78, and 7.56 cm, respectively), but in Kamphaeng Phet, the top five provenances were changed to be Provenances 17/PAK/Mul, 23/GHA/Sun, 10/IND/Ram, 19/THA/Tun, and 09/IND/Bal (12.44, 11.65, 11.56, 11.43, and 11.39 cm, respectively) as presented in Table 11 and Figure 21.

Regarding to provenances, varieties, and experimental sites, Thai Neem Provenances were indistinctly identity on DBH from Indian Neem Provenances in both experimental sites. However, the effects of experimental sites on DBH were very clear in all provenances that provenances planted in Kamphaeng Phet had bigger D10 than those planted in Kanchanaburi. The results of DBH were similar to D10 that neem planted in better site conditions had more diameter growth than those planted in poorer site conditions. As shown in Table 12, the significant difference on DBH among neem provenances was detected (F = 7.60*). Thus, the environmental factors were more effect on DBH of neem than genetic factors did.

66 Crown Diameter Each species and each variety has a typical form of crown. The typical crown form of species and varieties depends upon inner of inherent characteristics. Deviations from the typical are dependent upon external or environmental factors. Light is the important factor which causes the crown form of trees in stands to be different from that of same species or variety when grown in the open (Toumey and Korstain, 1947). Comparison on experimental sites as shown in Table 11 and Figure 20, 7-yearold neem grown in Kamphaeng Phet showed larger crown diameter than those grown in Kanchanaburi (3.41 and 2.65 m). Comparison on varieties, Indian Neem had larger crown diameter than Thai Neem (3.21 and 2.27 m). Indian Neem planted in Kamphaeng Phet had the largest crown diameter, followed by those planted in Kanchanaburi, and Thai Neem planted in Kamphaeng Phet and Kanchanaburi as 3.68, 2.62, 2.84, and 1.92 m, respectively. Comparison on provenances, the best on crown diameter were detected in Provenances 04/IND/Chi, 23/GHA/Sun, 24/SEN/Ban, 18/SRL/Kul, and 10/IND/Ram (3.71, 3.68, 3.65, 3.62, and 3.61 m, respectively) but Provenance 11/LAO/Vie had the smallest crown diameter as 2.13 m. In Kanchanaburi, the top five provenances on crown diameter were Provenances 04/IND/Chi, 18/SRL/Kul, 24/SEN/Ban, 06/IND/Ann, and 10/IND/Ram (3.43, 3.37, 3.31, 3.28, and 3.21 m, respectively), while in Kamphaeng Phet, the top five were Provenances 23/GHA/Sun, 07/IND/Gha, 24/SEN/Ban, 10/IND/Ram, and 04/IND/Chi (4.26, 4.15, 4.12, 4.07, and 3.99 m, respectively). These were presented in Table 11 and Figure 21. Regarding to provenances, varieties, and experimental sites, Thai Neem Provenances were distinctly identity on crown diameter from Indian Neem Provenances in both experimental sites. However, the effects of experimental sites on crown diameter were similar in all provenances that provenances planted in Kamphaeng Phet had larger crown diameter than those planted in Kanchanaburi. The reason of these results maybe the less survival percentage made more open spaces for neem crown diameter expansion in Kamphaeng Phet besides wetter area and deeper and fertile soil. So identification of neem varieties can be done by crown diameter. The statistical differences on neem crown diameter among experimental sites, varieties and provenances of neem were significant (F = 408.89**, 439.64**, and 46.32**, respectively, Table 12). Hence, both environmental factors and genetic factors had more effected on crown diameter.

67 Correlation Study of Growth Characteristics and Provenance Origin The correlation analysis between growth characteristics (healthiness, height, clearbole length, stem straightness, No. of stems per tree, D10, DBH, and CD) of Thai and Indian Neems planted in Kanchanaburi and Kamphaeng Phet and geographical data (latitude, longitude, altitude, and mean annual rainfall) of provenance origin were shown in Table 13 and Figure 22. All growth characteristics, expect D10, of neem in two experimental sites were significant correlations with latitude of provenance origin. The correlations of growth traits and latitude of provenance origin were negative, excluding No. of stems per tree and D10. While, healthiness and DBH were not correlation with longitude of provenance origin, the other growth characteristics were significant correlations. The correlations of longitude of provenance origin and height, No. of stems per tree, D10 and CD were negative, but the correlation of longitude of provenance origin and healthiness, clearbole length, stem straightness and DBH was positive. Moreover, all growth traits except healthiness were significant correlations with altitude of provenance origin. Only, the correlation between altitude of provenance origin x clearbole length and stem straightness was negative. On the other hand, all growth characteristics, excluding height, were significant correlation with mean annual rainfall of provenance origin, and only the correlations of mean annual rainfall x No. of stems per tree, D10, and CD were negative. Comparison on experimental sites, the significance and direction of correlations between growth characteristics and latitude of provenance origin of neem planted in both experimental sites were similar. While, the correlation of healthiness of neem planted in Kanchanaburi was negative correlation with longitude of provenance origin, these correlation of neem planted in Kamphaeng Phet was significant positive which were opposite to longitude x DBH that neem planted in Kanchanaburi were positive correlation but those planted in Kamphaeng Phet were negative correlation. Moreover, the correlation of altitude of provenance origin and healthiness of neem planted in Kanchanaburi was positive but those of neem planted in Kamphaeng Phet was negative. Whereas, the correlation between clearbole length and altitude of provenance origin of neem planted in Kanchanaburi was significant, those of neem planted in Kamphaeng Phet was not which similar to DBH that the correlation to altitude of provenance origin of neem planted in Kamphaeng Phet was significant but those of neem planted in Kanchanaburi was not.

68 On the other side, the correlation between mean annual rainfall of provenance origin and height of neem planted in Kanchanaburi was negative and insignificant, but those of neem planted in Kamphaeng Phet was positive and significant. As healthiness of neem planted in Kamphaeng Phet was significant correlation with mean annual rainfall of provenance origin, but those of neem planted in Kanchanaburi was not which was unlikely to D10 that the correlation with mean annual rainfall of neem planted in Kanchanaburi was significant but those of neem planted in Kamphaeng Phet was not. The reasonableness of these result especially the significant correlation were the adaptation of neem from various geographical origin to different site conditions of experimental plots, especially soil texture, and fertility and rainfall thin Kanchanaburi is shallow, rocky sand and low fertile soil and lower mean annual rainfall but Kamphaeng Phet is deep, silty sand, fertile soil and more mean annual rainfall. Comparing to neem varieties, the correlations of growth traits with geographical data of provenance origin between Thai and Indian Neems were very different. The correlations between latitude of provenance origin and healthiness, clearbole length, and stem straightness of Thai Neem were significant, but in Indian Neem, these correlations were significant in all growth characteristics except stem straightness. The correlation between latitude of provenance origin and healthiness of Thai Neem was positive, but those of Indian Neem were negative. While, all growth traits, excluding No. of stems per tree and CD, of Thai Neem were significant correlation with longitude of seed orchard, all growth traits, excluding clearbole length and DBH, of Indian neem were the same results. The correlations between longitude of provenance origin and healthiness, like No. of stems per tree, of Thai Neem were positive but those of Indian Neem was negative which opposite to clearbole length, stem straightness, and DBH that the correlations with longitude of provenance origin of Thai Neem were negative but those of Indian Neem was positive. Furthermore, the healthiness, straightness, and CD of Thai Neem were significant correlations with altitude of provenance origin but all growth traits, expect D10, of Indian Neem were significant. The negative correlations between altitude of provenance origin x height, clearbole length, D10, DBH, and CD of Thai Neem were found but in Indian Neem, those results were opposite found. Whereas, all growth traits except No. of stems per tree of Thai Neem and all growth traits except healthiness and stem straightness of Indian Neem were significant correlation with mean annual rainfall of provenance origin, the correlation between mean annual rainfall of provenance origin and all growth, unlikely clearbole length, of Thai Neem were negative but in Indian Neem, positive correlation between mean annual rainfall of provenance origin and all growth except No. of stems per tree were detected.

69 The probably causes of these result were 1) the different natural distribution of neem varieties which Thai Neems natural distribution is only in Thailand, Myanmar, Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam but Indian Neem widely occurs naturally in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Myanmar, and was introduced to several countries, and 2) the provenance origins of Indian Neem in this study were wider than those of Thai Neem such as the latitude, longitude, altitude, and mean annual rainfall of Indian Neems provenance origins were varying from 7-30N, 70E-17W, 50-1000 msl, and 276-1725 mm, respectively, but those of Thai Neems provenance origins were 9-18N, 99-103E, 4-300 msl, and 1150-1755 mm respectively. Correlation Study of Growth Characteristics The correlation analysis between growth characteristics (healthiness, height, clearbole length, stem straightness, No. of stems per tree, D10, DBH, and CD) among Thai and Indian Neems planted in Kanchanaburi and Kamphaeng Phet were shown in Table 13 and Figure 22. The correlations between growth traits of all neem planted in two sites were significant expect the correlation between clearbole length and crown diameter. While, the correlations of healthiness and height with the other growth characteristics unless No. of stems per tree were positive. The correlation of clearbole length and stem straightness with the other growth characteristics except No. of stems per tree, D10, and CD were positive. On the other side, No. of stems per tree was negative correlation with the other growth traits, excluding D10 and CD. Moreover, the correlations of D10 with the other growth characteristics except clearbole length and stem straightness were positive, and DBH was positive correlation with the other growth characteristics unless with No. of stems per tree. The correlations of CD with the other growth traits except clearbole length and stem straightness were positive. Healthiness x clearbole length, height x DBH, clearbole length x No. of stems per tree, stem straightness x clearbole length, D10 x CD, DBH x D10, and CD x D10 showed highest correlation. Comparison on experimental sites, healthiness of neem planted in both experimental sites correlated with the other growth characteristics were in the same directions. The significant values were not similar as healthiness x D10 and DBH of neem planted in Kanchanaburi were significant correlation but those of neem planted in Kamphaeng Phet were not. Moreover, in Kamphaeng Phet, healthiness correlated with No. of stems per tree was significant but in Kanchanaburi, that was not. The correlation of healthiness with height of neem planted in Kanchanaburi was strongest but the correlation of healthiness with straightness of neem planted in Kamphaeng Phet was strongest.

70 While, height correlated with No. of stems per tree of neem planted in Kamphaeng Phet was positive and significant but that of neem planted in Kanchanaburi was not. The highest correlation between height and DBH was found in neem planted in both sites. The correlation of clearbole length and stem straightness with the other growth traits of neem planted in Kanchanaburi and Kamphaeng Phet was similar in significant and direction. However the strongest correlation between clearbole length and No. of stems per tree are detected in both experimental sites but in Kanchanaburi and Kamphaeng Phet, the stem straightness was highest correlation with clearbole length and No. of stems per tree. No. of stems per tree of neem planted in the Kamphaeng Phet was significant correlation with the other growth characteristics but in Kanchanaburi the insignificant correlation found in No. of stems per tree x healthiness and height. The correlation of D10 and CD with the other growth traits of neem had the same directions and D10 x CD was strongest correlation when planted in both experimental sites, furthermore those correlations were significant in Kanchanaburi, but in Kamphaeng Phet only D10 and CD x healthiness were insignificant. On the other hand, in both experimental sites, the correlations of DBH with the other growth traits were similar in directions and significant, but while DBH x height was highest correlation in Kanchanaburi, DBH x D10 was highest in Kamphaeng Phet. From this result, it clearly demonstrated that different planting site condition had affected to the correlation between growth characteristics, especially healthiness, height, No. of stems per tree, D10, and CD. Comparing to neem varieties, the correlations of healthiness with the other growth characteristics of two neem varieties were similar in direction but those correlations of Indian Neem were significant but healthiness x straightness and No. of stems per tree of Thai Neem was not. The strongest correlations of healthiness with DBH and height were found in Thai and Indian Neems. While, height of Thai and Indian Neems showed the same direction and significant correlations with the other growth traits in which height x DBH was the highest correlation, the direction and significant correlations between clearbole length and the other growth traits of Thai Neem were similar to Indian Neem except clearbole length x D10 of Indian Neem that was negative and insignificant and clearbole x DBH and No. of stems per tree showed the strongest correlation in Thai and Indian Neems. The stem straightness correlated with the other growth characteristics of Indian Neem was significant, but in Thai Neem, stem straightness x healthiness and CD were not, moreover the negative correlation in Thai Neem found only on straightness x No. of stems per tree but in Indian Neem it found in stem straightness x No. of stems per tree, D10, and CD. The highest correlation of straightness with clearbole was detected in both varieties.

71 However, the direction correlations between No. of stems per tree and the other growth traits of two varieties were the same but those correlations were significant except No. of stems per tree x CD in Indian Neem and No. of stems per tree x healthiness, D10, and CD in Thai Neem. The highest correlations of No. of stems per tree x stem straightness and DBH were found in Thai and Indian Neems. Whereas the correlations of D10 with the other growth characteristics of Thai Neem were positive and significant unless D10 x No. of stems per tree was insignificant, those of Indian Neem were positive except D10 x clearbole length and straightness, and significant except D10 x clearbole length. D10 x DBH and CD of Thai and Indian Neems were strong correlation. Although, the direction and significant correlations between DBH and the other growth traits of Thai and Indian Neems were the same and DBH x D10 of Thai and Indian Neems was the most correlation, only CD x stem straightness of Thai and Indian Neems were dissimilar that CD x straightness of Indian Neem was negative and significant. Because of the genetic differences on varieties, the correlations between growth traits of Thai Neem were different from Indian Neem, especially clearbole length, No. of stems per tree and straightness that had influenced on healthiness, D10, and CD. Cluster Analysis The growth dendrogram had been constructed from Euclidean distance (Table 14) of neem as presented in Figure 23. It is obviously found that two varieties (Thai and Indian Neems) showed considerable different clusters. Among Indian Neem Provenances, Provenance 17/PAK/Mul was obviously isolation. Hence these results were similar to the cluster by genetic distance but the member in each the cluster grouped by growth characteristics was dissimilar to those by isozyme. As Indian Neem Provenances were grouped into 4 clusters by using D = 0.8 that were 1) 12/MYA/Mye, 14/NEP/Lam, 13/MYA/Yez, 06/IND/Ann, 15/NEP/Get, 23/GHA/Sun, 09/IND/Bal, 24/SEN/Ban, and 05/IND/All 2) 10/IND/Ram, 04/IND/Chi, 07/IND/Gha, 08/IND/Sag, and 18/SRL/Kul 3) 03/IND/Man and 16/PAK/Tib 4) 17/PAK/Mul. Within Thai neem Provenances, Provenances 11/LAO/Vie was remarkable isolated. Thai Neem were divided into 3 clusters when D = 0.8, as 1) 11/LAO/Vie 2) 21/THA/Bo and 19/THA/Tun 3) 20/THA/Non and 22/THA/Doi.

72 Table 11 Average growth characteristic values of 7-year-old neem planted in the International Provenance Trials established in Table 11 Kanchanaburi (KB) and Kamphaeng Phet (KP)
Varieties Thai Provenances No. Code 1 21/THA/Bo Sites Survival No. percentage (%) Mean SD 62 62.0 17.4 81 81.0 20.5 143 71.5 20.3 93 93.0 6.0 64 64.0 19.9 157 78.5 20.6 67 67.0 15.1 79 79.0 6.8 146 73.0 12.6 59 59.0 25.4 54 54.0 35.9 113 56.5 28.9 56 56.0 16.0 69 69.0 19.7 125 62.5 18.0 82 82.0 9.5 71 71.0 7.6 153 76.5 9.9 89 89.0 11.9 78 78.0 13.7 167 83.5 13.3 78 78.0 7.7 75 75.0 9.5 153 76.5 8.1 Healthiness Mean 7.13 7.88 7.55 7.25 7.70 7.43 7.16 7.72 7.47 7.05 7.82 7.42 6.73 7.19 6.98 7.13 7.11 7.12 7.03 7.28 7.15 7.22 7.43 7.32 SD 0.64 0.83 0.84 0.53 0.79 0.68 0.51 0.83 0.75 0.47 0.78 0.74 1.27 0.77 1.05 0.44 0.82 0.64 0.32 0.84 0.63 0.62 0.90 0.78 Height (m) Mean 4.89 6.00 5.52 6.94 6.33 6.69 6.23 6.89 6.58 4.91 5.02 4.96 5.05 6.66 5.93 6.19 6.63 6.39 6.05 7.44 6.70 6.14 7.56 6.83 SD 1.17 1.37 1.40 1.60 1.83 1.72 1.24 1.52 1.43 1.25 1.35 1.29 1.40 1.57 1.69 1.07 1.03 1.07 1.25 1.10 1.37 1.01 1.08 1.26 Clearbole length (m) Mean SD 1.08 2.04 1.62 1.45 1.88 1.62 1.48 2.15 1.85 1.27 1.66 1.46 1.31 2.92 2.19 1.02 1.77 1.37 0.59 1.28 0.92 0.69 1.63 1.15 0.59 0.91 0.92 0.76 0.93 0.86 0.82 0.95 0.95 0.60 0.59 0.63 0.54 1.20 1.25 0.61 1.18 0.99 0.42 1.16 0.91 0.43 1.11 0.96 Stem straightness Mean SD 5.26 6.80 6.13 6.19 7.31 6.65 5.97 6.61 6.32 5.41 5.30 5.35 5.86 7.06 6.51 5.10 4.42 4.78 4.75 4.37 4.58 4.64 4.16 4.41 1.38 1.79 1.79 1.73 1.85 1.86 1.73 1.51 1.64 1.53 1.44 1.48 1.38 1.41 1.52 1.31 1.69 1.53 0.79 1.52 1.20 0.87 1.82 1.44 No. of stems per trees Mean SD 1.61 1.11 1.33 1.34 1.27 1.31 1.43 1.14 1.27 1.39 1.26 1.33 1.31 1.04 1.17 2.26 1.73 2.01 3.72 2.35 3.08 3.80 2.11 2.97 1.05 0.35 0.78 0.79 0.54 0.70 0.76 0.42 0.62 0.64 0.68 0.66 0.63 0.21 0.47 1.47 0.99 1.29 2.15 1.50 1.99 2.39 1.19 2.07 D10 (cm) Mean 11.21 13.43 12.46 13.52 14.40 13.88 13.49 13.89 13.71 10.75 11.93 11.31 10.38 14.99 12.89 14.47 17.37 15.82 13.69 18.11 15.75 13.59 18.33 15.91 SD 2.52 3.64 3.38 2.60 3.91 3.22 3.01 4.06 3.61 2.39 3.41 2.97 2.12 4.36 4.20 2.84 3.75 3.59 2.27 4.30 4.02 2.85 3.83 4.11 DBH (cm) Mean 6.36 9.72 8.26 9.02 10.47 9.61 8.09 10.26 9.27 6.44 8.32 7.34 5.40 11.43 8.67 7.78 11.56 9.53 5.95 11.12 8.37 5.95 11.65 8.75 SD 2.51 3.44 3.49 2.76 4.06 3.41 2.63 3.21 3.14 2.38 3.47 3.08 1.74 3.68 4.22 2.42 2.76 3.20 1.96 2.71 3.48 2.48 2.99 3.96 CD (m) Mean 1.75 2.65 2.26 2.37 2.89 2.58 1.80 2.43 2.14 2.01 2.27 2.13 1.44 2.83 2.20 3.21 4.07 3.61 2.57 3.54 3.02 3.14 4.26 3.69 SD 0.60 0.72 0.81 0.54 0.96 0.78 0.71 0.67 0.75 0.64 0.80 0.73 0.49 0.95 1.04 0.79 1.05 1.01 0.63 1.02 0.96 0.84 1.10 1.12

Thai

Thai

Thai

Thai

Indian

Indian

Indian

KB KP Mean 20/THA/Non KB KP Mean 22/THA/Doi KB KP Mean 11/LAO/Vie KB KP Mean 19/THA/Tun KB KP Mean 10/IND/Ram KB KP Mean 13/MYA/Yez KB KP Mean 23/GHA/Sun KB KP Mean

73 Table 11 (Continued)
Varieties Indian Provenances Sites Survival No. percentage (%) Mean SD 78 78.0 14.8 87 87.0 8.9 165 82.5 12.3 64 64.0 34.1 69 69.0 13.2 133 66.5 24.1 76 76.0 8.6 40 40.0 18.2 116 58.0 23.3 75 75.0 17.4 47 47.0 6.8 122 61.0 19.3 65 65.0 19.4 65 65.0 18.0 130 65.0 17.3 67 67.0 13.6 70 70.0 7.7 137 68.5 10.4 96 96.0 4.6 72 72.0 15.7 168 84.0 16.7 77 77.0 13.6 69 69.0 8.9 146 73.0 11.5 70 70.0 9.5 61 61.0 12.4 131 65.5 11.3 Healthiness Mean 6.95 7.33 7.15 6.91 7.42 7.17 7.05 7.13 7.08 7.09 7.11 7.10 6.99 7.31 7.15 6.85 7.09 6.97 7.05 7.46 7.23 6.95 6.74 6.85 6.93 7.12 7.02 SD 0.51 1.02 0.84 0.64 1.05 0.91 0.46 0.99 0.69 0.44 0.70 0.55 0.48 0.97 0.78 0.61 0.76 0.70 0.39 0.90 0.69 0.61 0.87 0.75 0.67 1.19 0.94 Height (m) Clearbole length (m) Mean SD Mean SD 5.45 7.15 6.35 6.29 6.54 6.42 6.00 6.15 6.05 6.14 6.32 6.21 6.59 6.87 6.73 5.30 5.83 5.57 6.45 6.67 6.54 5.27 6.25 5.73 5.55 6.53 6.01 0.85 1.39 1.44 1.44 1.35 1.39 1.01 1.39 1.15 1.10 1.49 1.26 0.97 1.44 1.23 0.91 1.45 1.24 0.86 1.24 1.04 0.94 1.16 1.15 0.98 1.28 1.23 0.66 1.40 1.05 0.81 1.65 1.24 0.57 1.16 0.77 0.87 1.75 1.21 0.80 1.43 1.12 0.53 1.25 0.90 0.63 1.57 1.03 0.35 1.04 0.68 0.49 1.31 0.87 0.44 1.16 0.97 0.59 1.01 0.93 0.46 0.72 0.63 0.60 1.25 1.00 0.58 1.07 0.91 0.48 0.82 0.76 0.56 1.06 0.94 0.40 0.79 0.70 0.39 0.83 0.75 Stem straightness Mean SD 4.54 4.61 4.58 5.03 5.57 5.31 4.68 4.55 4.64 4.63 3.66 4.25 4.66 4.14 4.40 4.87 5.27 5.07 4.65 4.64 4.64 4.61 4.15 4.39 4.57 4.25 4.42 0.91 2.16 1.68 1.20 2.34 1.89 0.96 2.09 1.44 1.26 1.97 1.63 1.23 2.11 1.74 0.83 1.67 1.34 1.03 1.79 1.40 0.73 2.09 1.54 0.77 1.88 1.40 No. of stems per tree Mean SD 3.21 2.32 2.74 2.78 1.75 2.25 3.43 1.75 2.85 2.39 1.70 2.12 2.83 1.89 2.36 3.79 1.59 2.66 3.89 1.92 3.04 4.56 2.68 3.67 3.54 1.82 2.74 1.83 1.07 1.54 1.65 1.02 1.45 1.87 1.21 1.85 1.49 1.25 1.44 1.71 1.12 1.52 2.29 0.88 2.04 2.32 1.29 2.17 2.20 1.51 2.12 1.82 0.89 1.69 D10 (cm) Mean 13.37 17.31 15.45 14.14 16.59 15.41 15.95 17.37 16.44 13.76 16.21 14.70 15.47 16.82 16.14 13.24 13.20 13.22 14.41 16.19 15.17 14.57 18.85 16.59 13.33 17.80 15.42 SD 2.20 4.25 3.95 2.40 4.17 3.64 3.38 4.26 3.75 3.05 5.25 4.20 3.11 4.59 3.97 2.91 4.61 3.86 2.54 4.96 3.86 2.86 4.97 4.52 2.75 4.42 4.25 DBH (cm) Mean 6.05 10.59 8.44 7.08 10.31 8.75 6.92 11.39 8.46 7.00 11.16 8.60 7.95 11.20 9.58 5.30 8.78 7.08 6.46 9.57 7.79 5.34 10.69 7.86 5.50 11.20 8.15 SD 2.11 3.19 3.55 3.14 2.67 3.32 2.52 4.07 3.78 2.63 3.58 3.64 2.89 3.34 3.51 1.58 2.92 2.93 1.83 2.97 2.84 1.56 3.24 3.66 1.55 3.39 3.84 CD (m) Mean 2.72 3.59 3.18 2.63 3.32 2.98 3.20 3.96 3.46 3.06 4.15 3.48 3.43 3.99 3.71 2.23 2.73 2.48 3.28 3.92 3.55 2.54 3.48 2.99 2.42 3.64 2.99 SD 0.53 1.03 0.94 0.56 0.87 0.81 0.71 1.01 0.90 0.79 1.28 1.13 0.88 1.19 1.08 0.66 1.00 0.88 0.75 1.34 1.09 0.76 0.91 0.96 0.65 0.98 1.02

Indian

Indian

Indian

Indian

Indian

Indian

Indian

Indian

No. Code 10 12/MYA/Mye KB KP Mean 11 08/IND/Sag KB KP Mean 12 09/IND/Bal KB KP Mean 13 07/IND/Gha KB KP Mean 14 04/IND/Chi KB KP Mean 15 03/IND/Man KB KP Mean 16 06/IND/Ann KB KP Mean 17 05/IND/All KB KP Mean 19 14/NEP/Lam KB KP Mean

74 Table 11 (Continued)
Varieties Indian Provenances No. Code 20 15/NEP/Get Sites KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean Survival No. percentage (%) Mean SD 81 81.0 13.6 71 71.0 11.5 152 76.0 12.8 59 59.0 20.8 45 45.0 12.4 104 52.0 17.5 77 77.0 8.2 4 5.3 2.3 81 46.3 38.8 65 65.0 14.4 56 56.0 25.5 121 60.5 19.8 80 80.0 16.3 59 59.0 15.8 139 69.5 18.6 337 67.4 20.4 347 69.4 22.5 684 68.4 21.2 1279 75.2 16.4 1039 62.0 20.9 2318 68.7 19.8 1616 73.5 17.6 1386 63.7 21.3 3002 68.6 20.1 Healthiness Mean 6.96 7.04 7.00 7.24 6.93 7.11 6.77 5.75 6.72 7.15 6.93 7.05 7.06 7.19 7.12 7.09 7.66 7.38 7.02 7.17 7.09 7.03 7.30 7.16 SD 0.46 1.08 0.81 0.50 0.94 0.74 0.65 2.06 0.78 0.64 0.85 0.75 0.33 1.07 0.74 0.73 0.84 0.84 0.53 0.97 0.76 0.58 0.96 0.79 Height (m) Mean 5.63 6.80 6.18 5.42 6.17 5.74 4.98 6.58 5.06 6.08 7.21 6.60 6.52 6.50 6.51 5.75 6.24 6.00 5.90 6.71 6.26 5.87 6.59 6.20 SD 1.12 1.24 1.31 0.90 1.34 1.17 0.94 1.10 1.01 0.86 0.90 1.04 1.12 1.24 1.17 1.62 1.64 1.65 1.13 1.34 1.29 1.25 1.44 1.39 Clearbole length (m) Mean SD 0.72 1.20 0.95 0.67 1.27 0.94 0.54 1.32 0.58 1.20 2.00 1.57 0.60 1.28 0.89 1.33 2.15 1.75 0.69 1.44 1.02 0.82 1.62 1.19 0.55 0.73 0.68 0.56 0.66 0.67 0.44 0.49 0.47 0.70 1.29 1.09 0.42 0.91 0.75 0.69 1.03 0.97 0.54 1.04 0.89 0.64 1.08 0.96 Stem straightness Mean SD 4.70 4.63 4.67 4.90 5.09 4.98 4.72 5.00 4.74 5.12 5.34 5.22 4.51 4.31 4.42 5.79 6.67 6.23 4.74 4.58 4.67 4.96 5.10 5.02 1.16 1.68 1.42 1.05 1.92 1.48 0.72 2.31 0.84 1.62 2.03 1.81 0.85 1.59 1.22 1.61 1.73 1.73 1.04 1.95 1.52 1.26 2.10 1.70 No. of stems per tree Mean SD 2.84 2.11 2.50 3.02 1.73 2.46 3.51 2.00 3.44 1.99 1.52 1.77 3.62 2.05 2.96 1.41 1.16 1.28 3.27 1.97 2.69 2.88 1.77 2.37 1.96 1.20 1.68 1.99 1.14 1.78 2.24 1.41 2.22 1.15 0.66 0.98 1.93 1.14 1.81 0.79 0.46 0.66 2.05 1.19 1.83 2.00 1.11 1.74 D10 (cm) Mean 14.36 18.29 16.20 13.30 15.47 14.24 13.11 20.22 13.46 13.29 16.34 14.70 15.07 18.02 16.32 12.07 13.79 12.94 14.09 17.09 15.43 13.67 16.26 14.86 SD 3.38 4.48 4.38 3.23 5.03 4.23 3.02 9.89 3.85 2.91 3.89 3.71 2.83 4.97 4.13 2.90 4.00 3.60 2.96 4.67 4.10 3.06 4.73 4.13 DBH (cm) Mean 6.90 11.04 8.83 5.82 9.82 7.55 5.60 12.44 5.94 7.56 11.20 9.25 6.28 10.85 8.21 7.28 10.10 8.71 6.43 10.75 8.37 6.61 10.59 8.45 SD 2.55 3.58 3.70 1.89 3.13 3.19 2.03 6.63 2.80 2.81 3.30 3.54 2.05 3.31 3.48 2.81 3.67 3.56 2.39 3.26 3.54 2.51 3.38 3.55 CD (m) Mean 2.48 3.34 2.88 2.31 3.02 2.62 2.16 2.81 2.19 3.37 3.92 3.62 3.31 4.12 3.65 1.92 2.62 2.27 2.84 3.68 3.21 2.64 3.41 3.00 SD 0.61 1.05 0.94 0.67 0.98 0.89 0.69 1.09 0.72 0.84 1.28 1.09 0.79 1.43 1.17 0.68 0.84 0.84 0.83 1.17 1.08 0.88 1.19 1.10

Indian

21

16/PAK/Tib

Indian

22 17/PAK/Mul

Indian

23

18/SRL/Kul

Indian

24

24/SEN/Ban

Thai

Indian KB KP Average

75
He althine ss 8 6 4 2 0

Survival pe rce ntage (%) 80 60 40 20 0 T hai

He ight (m) 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 T hai

KB

KP

Mean

KB

KP

Mean

Indian
KB

Ave.
KP Mean

T hai

Indian

Ave.

C le arbole le ngth (m) 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0

KB

KP

Mean

Indian

Ave.

T hai
No. of ste ms 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 T hai DBH (cm) 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

Indian
KB

Ave.
KP Mean

Straightne ss 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 T hai
D10 (cm) 20 15 10 5 0 T hai

KB

KP

Mean

Indian
KB

Ave.
KP Mean

Indian KB

Ave. KP Mean

Indian

Ave.

T hai

Indian

Ave.

CD (m) 4 3 2 1 0 T hai Indian

KB

KP

Mean

Ave.

Figure 20 Survival percentage and growth characteristic values of 7-year-old neem Figure 20 planted in the International Provenance Trials established in Kanchanaburi Figure 20 (KB) and Kamphaeng Phet (KP)

0
20 40 60 80 0

1
21/THA/Bo
21/THA/Bo 20/THA/Non 22/THA/Doi

21/THA/Bo
20/THA/Non

21/THA/Bo 20/THA/Non 22/THA/Doi 11/LAO/Vie

11/LAO/Vie

He ight (m) 8

He althine ss 8

20/THA/Non
22/THA/Doi 11/LAO/Vie 19/THA/Tun
19/THA/Tun

22/THA/Doi

Survival percentage (%) 100

Cle arbole le ngth (m) 3

11/LAO/Vie

19/THA/Tun
10/IND/Ram 13/MYA/Yez

19/THA/Tun 10/IND/Ram 13/MYA/Yez 23/GHA/Sun 12/MYA/Mye 08/IND/Sag 09/IND/Bal 07/IND/Gha 04/IND/Chi 03/IND/Man 06/IND/Ann 05/IND/All 14/NEP/Lam KB
KB
10/IND/Ram 13/MYA/Yez 23/GHA/Sun 12/MYA/Mye 08/IND/Sag 09/IND/Bal 07/IND/Gha 04/IND/Chi 03/IND/Man 06/IND/Ann 05/IND/All 14/NEP/Lam

10/IND/Ram

13/MYA/Yez
23/GHA/Sun 12/MYA/Mye 08/IND/Sag 09/IND/Bal 07/IND/Gha 04/IND/Chi 03/IND/Man 06/IND/Ann 05/IND/All 14/NEP/Lam

23/GHA/Sun

12/MYA/Mye

08/IND/Sag

09/IND/Bal

Provenance

Provenance

Provenance KB
15/NEP/Get 16/PAK/Tib

Provenance

07/IND/Gha

04/IND/Chi

03/IND/Man

06/IND/Ann

05/IND/All

14/NEP/Lam

KB

15/NEP/Get KP

15/NEP/Get 16/PAK/Tib
KP

15/NEP/Get 16/PAK/Tib

16/PAK/Tib
17/PAK/Mul 18/SRL/Kul 24/SEN/Ban

KP

KP

17/PAK/Mul Mean

17/PAK/Mul 18/SRL/Kul
Mean

17/PAK/Mul 18/SRL/Kul

Figure 21 Survival percentage and growth characteristic values of 7-year-old neem Figure 21 from 22 provenances planted in the International Provenance Trials Figure 21 established in Kanchanaburi (KB) and Kamphaeng Phet (KP)
Mean
Mean

18/SRL/Kul

24/SEN/Ban

24/SEN/Ban

24/SEN/Ban

76

10

15

0
21/THA/Bo 20/THA/Non 22/THA/Doi 11/LAO/Vie 19/THA/Tun 10/IND/Ram 13/MYA/Yez 23/GHA/Sun 12/MYA/Mye 08/IND/Sag 09/IND/Bal 07/IND/Gha 04/IND/Chi 03/IND/Man 06/IND/Ann 05/IND/All 14/NEP/Lam KB

5
21/THA/Bo 20/THA/Non 22/THA/Doi 11/LAO/Vie 19/THA/Tun 10/IND/Ram 13/MYA/Yez 23/GHA/Sun 12/MYA/Mye 08/IND/Sag 09/IND/Bal 07/IND/Gha 04/IND/Chi 03/IND/Man 06/IND/Ann 05/IND/All 14/NEP/Lam

D10 (cm) 20

DBH (cm) 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

21/THA/Bo

21/THA/Bo 20/THA/Non 22/THA/Doi 11/LAO/Vie 19/THA/Tun 10/IND/Ram 13/MYA/Yez 23/GHA/Sun 12/MYA/Mye 08/IND/Sag 09/IND/Bal 07/IND/Gha 04/IND/Chi 03/IND/Man 06/IND/Ann 05/IND/All 14/NEP/Lam

Straightne ss 8

20/THA/Non

No. of ste ms pe r tre e 5

22/THA/Doi

11/LAO/Vie

Figure 21 (Continued)
Provenance
Provenance

19/THA/Tun

10/IND/Ram

13/MYA/Yez

23/GHA/Sun

12/MYA/Mye

08/IND/Sag

09/IND/Bal

Provenance

Provenance

07/IND/Gha

04/IND/Chi

03/IND/Man

06/IND/Ann

05/IND/All

14/NEP/Lam KB

KB

KB

15/NEP/Get

15/NEP/Get 16/PAK/Tib 17/PAK/Mul 18/SRL/Kul 24/SEN/Ban

15/NEP/Get 16/PAK/Tib

15/NEP/Get 16/PAK/Tib
KP

16/PAK/Tib KP

KP

KP

17/PAK/Mul Mean

17/PAK/Mul 18/SRL/Kul Mean

17/PAK/Mul 18/SRL/Kul Mean

18/SRL/Kul

Mean

24/SEN/Ban

24/SEN/Ban

24/SEN/Ban

77

0 21/THA/Bo 20/THA/Non 22/THA/Doi 11/LAO/Vie 19/THA/Tun 10/IND/Ram 13/MYA/Yez 23/GHA/Sun 12/MYA/Mye 08/IND/Sag 09/IND/Bal 07/IND/Gha 04/IND/Chi 03/IND/Man 06/IND/Ann 05/IND/All 14/NEP/Lam KB 15/NEP/Get 16/PAK/Tib 17/PAK/Mul 18/SRL/Kul 24/SEN/Ban Mean Provenance

CD (m) 5

Figure 21 (Continued)
KP

78

79 Table 12 Analysis of variance on survival percentage and growth characteristics of Table 12 7-year-old neem grown in the International Provenance Trials in Thailand
Items Survival percentage Sources Sites Blocks Varieties Provenances Sites Blocks Varieties Provenances Sites Blocks Varieties Provenances Sites Blocks Varieties Provenances Sites Blocks Varieties Provenances Sites Blocks Varieties Provenances Sites Blocks Varieties Provenances Sites Blocks Varieties Provenances Sites Blocks Varieties Provenances Df 1 3 1 21 1 3 1 21 1 3 1 21 1 3 1 21 1 3 1 21 1 3 1 21 1 3 1 21 1 3 1 21 1 3 1 21 SS 4142.15 2494.45 2.45 17083.92 51.13 7.10 44.93 108.43 395.15 86.29 36.88 737.11 469.67 26.65 276.59 436.43 15.23 429.24 1299.77 1625.21 932.38 78.03 1047.30 1569.55 5028.94 1061.64 3281.72 5763.91 11826.34 213.24 61.83 1920.74 437.98 90.80 466.71 898.57 MS 4142.15 831.48 2.45 813.52 51.13 2.37 44.93 5.16 395.15 28.76 36.88 35.10 469.67 8.88 276.59 20.78 15.23 143.08 1299.77 77.39 932.38 26.01 1047.30 74.74 5028.94 353.88 3281.72 274.47 11826.34 71.08 61.83 91.46 437.98 30.27 466.71 42.79 F 10.85** 2.10 NS 0.01NS 2.34** 84.75** 3.81 NS 74.23** 8.78** 221.10** 15.21** 19.34** 20.84** 622.52** 9.81** 337.68** 26.96** 5.26** 51.87** 526.95** 32.60** 341.49** 8.62** 389.04** 29.48** 327.36** 21.20** 205.83** 18.04** 1367.41** 5.68** 4.92** 7.60** 408.89** 25.49** 439.64** 46.32**

Health

Height

Clearbole length

Stem straightness

No. of stems per tree

D10

DBH

CD

Remarks:

** = Highly significant differences at 99% confident limit * = Significant differences at 95% confident limit ns = Insignificant difference

80 Table 13 Correlation analysis on growth characteristics of 7-year-old Thai and Indian Table 13 Neems planted in Kanchanaburi (KB) and Kamphaeng Phet (KP) and Table 13 geographical data of provenance origin
No. of stems Health -0.107** 0.032 0.015 0.067** 1 0.179** 0.195** 0.201** -0.106** Height -0.181** -0.101** 0.106** 0.027 0.179** 1 0.275** 0.103** -0.088** Clearbole -0.229** 0.138** -0.043* 0.202** 0.195** 0.275** 1 0.439** -0.492** Straight -0.101** 0.199** -0.183** 0.162** 0.201** 0.103** 0.439** 1 -0.300** No. of 0.148** -0.184** 0.073** -0.180** -0.106** -0.088** -0.492** -0.300** 1 stems D10 0.030 -0.144** 0.094** -0.049** 0.089** 0.586** -0.042* -0.151** 0.198** DBH -0.103** 0.019 0.041* 0.084** 0.192** 0.624** 0.423** 0.154** -0.431** CD -0.175** -0.264** 0.246** -0.112** 0.092** 0.484** -0.034 -0.231** 0.141** Total Latitude Longitude Altitude Rainfall Health Height Clearbole Straight No. of stems 0.049 0.011 1 0.181** 0.087** 0.074** -0.028 0.121** -0.031 0.181** 1 0.189** 0.158** -0.046 -0.071** 0.213** 0.087** 0.189** 1 0.650** -0.516** -0.130** 0.143** 0.074** 0.158** 0.650** 1 -0.321** Height Clearbole Straight -0.046 -0.516** -0.321** 1 D10 0.089** 0.586** -0.042* -0.151** DBH CD

0.192** 0.092** 0.624** 0.484** 0.423** -0.034 0.154** -0.231**

0.198** -0.431** 0.141** 1 0.636** 0.735** 0.636** 1 0.562** 1 0.735** 0.562**

KB Health Height Clearbole Straight No. of stems D10 DBH CD

Latitude Longitude Altitude Rainfall Health -0.101** -0.236** -0.245** -0.103** -0.029 -0.126** 0.190** 0.174**

D10 0.087** 0.487** -0.241** -0.160**

DBH 0.133** 0.518** 0.387** 0.216**

CD 0.101** 0.403** -0.200** -0.248**

0.157** -0.217** 0.086** -0.198** -0.028

0.340** -0.499** 0.287**

0.036 -0.149** 0.096** -0.154** 0.087** 0.487** -0.241** -0.160** 0.340** 1 0.404** 0.645** -0.147** 0.088** 0.021 0.060* 0.133** 0.518** 0.387** 0.216** -0.499** 0.404** 1 0.290** -0.223** -0.304** 0.277** -0.173** 0.101** 0.403** -0.200** -0.248** 0.287** 0.645** 0.290** 1

No. of D10 DBH CD stems Health -0.111** 0.068* -0.010 0.093** 1 0.121** 0.163** 0.250** -0.112** 0.017 0.115** 0.003 Height -0.117** -0.099** 0.096** 0.051 0.121** 1 0.196** 0.059* 0.070** 0.600** 0.660** 0.461** Clearbole -0.246** 0.112** -0.037 0.189** 0.163** 0.196** 1 0.386** -0.443** -0.180** 0.187** -0.214** Straight -0.103** 0.226** -0.232** 0.181** 0.250** 0.059* 0.386** 1 -0.387** -0.180** 0.129** -0.272** No. of 0.132** -0.140** 0.072** -0.117** -0.112** 0.070** -0.443** -0.387** 1 0.423** -0.119** 0.347** stems D10 0.050 -0.177** 0.103** -0.016 0.017 0.600** -0.180** -0.180** 0.423** 1 0.689** 0.739** DBH -0.062* -0.070** 0.069* 0.053* 0.115** 0.660** 0.187** 0.129** -0.119** 0.689** 1 0.592** CD -0.134** -0.287** 0.254** -0.123** 0.003 0.461** -0.214** -0.272** 0.347** 0.739** 0.592** 1 KP Latitude Longitude Altitude Rainfall Health Height Clearbole Straight No. of stems 1 0.144** 0.189** 0.058 -0.059 0.139** -0.176** -0.011 -0.247** 0.144** 1 0.430** 0.287** -0.117** -0.071 0.130** 0.189** 0.430** 1 0.533** -0.413** -0.107** -0.078* 0.058 0.287** 0.533** 1 -0.339** Height Clearbole Straight 0.034 -0.058 -0.059 -0.117** -0.413** -0.339** 1

Thai Health Height Clearbole Straight No. of stems D10 DBH CD

Latitude Longitude Altitude Rainfall Health 0.205** -0.074 -0.192** -0.149** 0.073 0.102** -0.318** -0.152** -0.163** 0.053

D10 0.116** 0.701** 0.274** 0.115** 0.045

DBH

CD

0.194** 0.183** 0.732** 0.514** 0.485** 0.222** 0.292** 0.056 -0.327** 0.010

-0.057 -0.192** -0.015 -0.156** 0.116** 0.701** 0.274** 0.115** 0.045 1 0.844** 0.737** -0.057 -0.166** -0.028 -0.136** 0.194** 0.732** 0.485** 0.292** -0.327** 0.844** 1 0.728** -0.050 -0.031 -0.119** -0.121** 0.183** 0.514** 0.222** 0.056 0.010 0.737** 0.728** 1

No. of stems Health -0.111** -0.048* 0.068** 0.031 1 0.215** 0.144** 0.191** -0.061** Height -0.252** -0.083** 0.109** 0.128** 0.215** 1 0.272** 0.085** -0.137** Clearbole -0.159** 0.006 0.106** 0.079** 0.144** 0.272** 1 0.298** -0.464** Straight 0.029 0.050* -0.054* 0.014 0.191** 0.085** 0.298** 1 -0.193** No. of 0.061** -0.047* -0.055* -0.045* -0.061** -0.137** -0.464** -0.193** 1 stems D10 -0.042* -0.041* 0.009 0.093** 0.140** 0.558** -0.024 -0.112** 0.135** DBH -0.105** 0.005 0.074** 0.107** 0.187** 0.596** 0.416** 0.103** -0.480** CD -0.335** -0.141** 0.171** 0.062** 0.155** 0.496** 0.057** -0.153** 0.025 Indian Latitude Longitude Altitude Rainfall Health Height Clearbole Straight

D10 0.140** 0.558** -0.024 -0.112**

DBH 0.187** 0.596** 0.416** 0.103**

CD 0.155** 0.496** 0.057** -0.153** 0.025

0.135** -0.480**

1 0.624** 0.710** 0.624** 1 0.596** 1 0.710** 0.596**

81

0.3 0.2 0.1 0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0.4

Latitude

0.3 0.2 0.1 0

Longitude

0.3 0.2 0.1 0

Altitude

-0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0.4

T otal KB KP T hai Indian
-0.1 -0.2 -0.3

T otal KB KP T hai Indian

He alth 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -0.2 T otal KB KP T hai Indian

T otal KB KP T hai Indian

0.3 0.2 0.1 0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3

Rainfall

0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 -0.05 -0.1 -0.15

He ight

T otal KB KP T hai Indian

C le arbole 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 T otal KB KP T hai Indian
D10

T otal KB KP T hai Indian

0.8 0.6 0.4

Straightne ss

1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6

No. of ste ms pe r tre e

0.2 0 -0.2 -0.4 T otal KB KP T hai Indian

T otal KB KP T hai Indian

CD

1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -0.2 -0.4

1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6

DBH
0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -0.2 -0.4

T otal KB KP T hai Indian

2 0 -2 Health Height Clearbole

T otal KB KP T hai Indian

Straight No. of Stems

T otal KB KP T hai Indian

D10 DBH CD

Figure 22 Correlation analysis on growth characteristics of 7-year-old Thai and Indian Figure 22 Neems planted in Kanchanaburi (KB) and Kamphaeng Phet (KP) and Figure 22 geographical data of provenance origin

82 Table 14 Euclidean distance of growth characteristics of 7-year-old neem grown in the International Provenance Trials in Thailand
12/MYA/Mye 13/MYA/Yez 20/THA/Non 23/GHA/Sun 14/NEP/Lam 19/THA/Tun 10/IND/Ram 17/PAK/Mul 03/IND/Man 22/THA/Doi 24/SEN/Ban 06/IND/Ann 11/LAO/Vie 07/IND/Gha 16/PAK/Tib 15/NEP/Get 18/SRL/Kul 08/IND/Sag 21/THA/Bo 04/IND/Chi 09/IND/Bal 05/IND/All

21/THA/Bo 20/THA/Non 22/THA/Doi 11/LAO/Vie 19/THA/Tun 10/IND/Ram 13/MYA/Yez 23/GHA/Sun 12/MYA/Mye 08/IND/Sag 09/IND/Bal 07/IND/Gha 04/IND/Chi 03/IND/Man 06/IND/Ann 05/IND/All 14/NEP/Lam 15/NEP/Get 16/PAK/Tib 17/PAK/Mul 18/SRL/Kul 24/SEN/Ban

0.000 2.362 0.000 1.945 0.720 0.000 1.777 4.080 3.625 0.000 1.157 1.783 1.369 2.702 0.000 4.242 3.006 3.155 5.498 3.994 0.000 4.355 3.639 3.609 5.350 4.321 1.786 0.000 4.675 3.758 3.821 5.724 4.593 1.402 0.869 0.000 3.921 3.320 3.276 4.915 3.914 1.480 0.616 0.962 0.000 3.479 2.490 2.514 4.755 3.290 1.231 1.294 1.510 0.977 0.000 4.804 4.039 4.091 5.821 4.761 1.664 1.084 1.140 1.119 1.595 0.000 3.411 3.067 2.978 4.297 3.467 1.574 1.650 1.647 1.098 1.396 1.984 0.000 4.829 3.589 3.739 6.009 4.628 0.750 1.637 1.074 1.542 1.639 1.515 1.854 0.000 2.410 3.629 3.283 2.562 2.976 3.936 3.180 3.718 2.869 2.996 3.704 2.649 4.275 0.000 3.984 3.650 3.595 4.822 4.076 2.160 1.003 1.284 0.883 1.560 1.560 1.425 2.174 2.612 0.000 5.266 4.837 4.789 6.069 5.309 2.772 1.560 1.974 1.790 2.440 1.221 2.713 2.582 3.720 1.935 0.000 3.908 3.585 3.476 4.761 3.987 1.878 0.896 1.413 0.558 1.312 1.200 1.234 1.957 2.619 1.002 1.576 0.000 4.402 3.507 3.513 5.514 4.273 1.292 1.038 1.270 0.968 1.132 0.843 1.747 1.305 3.561 1.756 1.688 1.116 0.000 2.668 3.153 2.879 3.351 2.987 2.875 2.143 2.694 1.788 1.915 2.602 1.734 3.207 1.175 1.709 2.781 1.536 2.419 0.000 3.845 5.120 4.769 3.557 4.421 5.009 3.871 4.507 3.711 4.072 4.281 3.759 5.223 1.603 3.324 3.848 3.318 4.321 2.266 0.000 3.207 2.072 2.208 4.516 2.920 1.294 2.198 2.033 1.764 1.247 2.477 1.336 1.859 3.249 2.147 3.439 2.131 2.096 2.406 4.585 0.000 4.909 4.171 4.205 5.868 4.872 1.812 0.905 0.825 1.079 1.729 0.635 1.926 1.544 3.694 1.260 1.365 1.250 1.185 2.640 4.254 2.496 0.000

83

12/MYA/Mye 14/NEP/Lam 13/MYA/Yez 06/IND/Ann 15/NEP/Get 23/GHA/Sun 09/IND/Bal 24/SEN/Ban 05/IND/All 10/IND/Ram 04/IND/Chi 07/IND/Gha 08/IND/Sag 18/SRL/Kul 17/PAK/Mul 03/IND/Man 16/PAK/T ib 11/LAO/Vie 21/T HA/Bo 19/T HA/T un 20/T HA/Non 22/T HA/Doi 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0

Figure 23 Growth dendrogram of 7-year-old neem grown in the International Figure 23 Provenance Trials in Thailand

84 Leaf Characteristics Leaf structure varies within species, between species, and can be greatly modified by ontogenetic factors and the environments in which the plant develop (Bolhr-Nordenkampf, 1982). Plants growing in different habitats often show structural differences that are adapted to the particular habitat, and most frequently reflected in the structure of the leaves. In general, leaves from dry habitats resemble sun leaves (xeromorphic type) and those from moist habitats resemble shade leaves (mesomorphic type) (Esua, 1967). Leaf Length In the present study, the average leaf length of neem planted in Kanchanaburi and Kamphaeng Phet increased with crown portion (18.50, 19.82, and 20.46 cm at low, medium, and top parts of canopy, respectively, Table 15 and Figure 24). The significant difference on neem leaf lengths among crown portions was detected (F = 22.68**, Table 16). Comparison on experimental sites, the average leaf length of neem grown in Kanchanaburi was longer than those grown in Kamphaeng Phet (20.26 and 18.93 cm). The significant difference on neem leaf lengths among experimental sites was detected (F = 29.68*, Table 16). Regarding to crown portions and experimental sites, increasing average leaf length by crown portions (low, medium and top) of neem planted in Kanchanaburi (18.98, 20.36, and 21.42 cm, respectively) was similar to those planted in Kamphaeng Phet (18.01, 19.29, and 19.50 cm, respectively) as presented in Table 15 and Figure 25. Comparison on varieties, Thai neem had longer leaf length than Indian Neem (25.26 and 17.93 cm). The significant difference on leaf lengths among neem varieties was found (F = 832.11**, Table 16). Concerning on crown portions, varieties, and experimental sites, the leaf lengths of all crown portions between Thai and Indian Neems grown in both experimental sites were extremely different. The leaf length of Indian and Thai Neem grown in Kanchanaburi (18.59 and 25.90 cm) was longer than those grown in Kamphaeng Phet (17.26 and 24.61 cm). These were shown in Table 15 and Figure 25. Comparison among provenances as shown in Table 15 and Figure 26, the leaf length of Provenance 20/THA/Non was longest and that of Provenance 13/MYA/Yez was shortest (30.11 and 13.77 cm). The significant differences on leaf lengths among neem provenances were found (F = 75.197**, Table 16). While, in Kanchanaburi, Provenances 20/THA/Non, 11/LAO/Vie, 22/THA/Doi, 18/SRL/Kul, and 14/NEP/Lam showed longer leaf length (32.14, 29.24, 24.70, 24.14, and 23.33 cm, respectively), in Kamphaeng Phet, all Thai Neem Provenances had the longest leaf length.

85 The causes of these results were probably by 1) the crown spaces in Kanchanaburi were more than in Kamphaeng Phet and 2) similarity to height, D10, DBH, and crown diameter growth, neem varieties when planted in Kanchanaburi (drier area and shallow, and low fertile soil) were not different in traits, but when planted in Kamphaeng Phet (wetter area and deep and fertile soil) they were different in traits. The result of this study showed that the leaf length between Thai and Indian Neem Provenances were not clearly different. So the varieties of neem cannot be identified by using leaf length. Moreover, the ANOVA test in Table 16 showed that genetic factors had more influent on neem leaf length than environmental factors did. Number of Leaflet per Leaf In the present study, the number of leaflets per leaf of neem planted in two sites increased with crown portion (low: 12.44, medium: 12.72, and top: 12.96 leaflets, respectively, Table 15 and Figure 24). The statistical differences on number of leaflet per neem leaf among crown portions were significant (F = 6.16*, Table 16). Comparison on experimental sites as presented in Table 15 and Figure 24, like the other leaf characteristics, the number of leaflets per leaf of neem planted in Kanchanaburi was more than those planted in Kamphaeng Phet (12.87 and 12.55 leaflets). Regarding to crown portions and experimental sites, increasing number of leaflets per leaf from low to top parts of canopy of neem planted in Kanchanaburi (12.45, 12.97, and 13.19 leaflets, respectively) was similar to those planted in Kamphaeng Phet (12.44, 12.47, and 12.73 leaflets, respectively. Comparison on varieties, Thai Neem had more leaflets per leaf than Indian Neem (13.21 and 12.56 leaflets). Consideration to crown portions, varieties, and sites, the number of leaflets per leaf of all crown portions between Thai and Indian Neems grown in both experimental sites were slightly different. Unless number of leaflets per leaf at medium part of both varieties, the leaves at low and high parts of Indian and Thai Neem grown in Kanchanaburi showed more leaflets than those grown in Kamphaeng Phet. These were shown in Table 15 and Figure 25. As presented in Table 15 and Figure 26, comparison on provenances, the average number of leaflets per leaf of Provenance 18/SRL/Kul was the most (15.52 leaflets), while that of Provenance 08/IND/Sag was the least (10.77 leaflets). In Kanchanaburi, Provenances 18/SRL/Kul, 20/THA/Non, 14/NEP/Lam, 16/PAK/Tib, and 17/PAK/Mul were top five provenances on number of leaflets per leaf (16.37, 15.47, 14.98, 14.08, and 13.70 leaflets, respectively). But, in Kamphaeng Phet, Provenances 21/THA/Bo, 18/SRL/Kul, 24/SEN/Ban, 20/THA/Non, and 06/IND/Ann showed the most number of leaflets per leaf (15.37, 14.68, 14.53, 13.88, and 13.82 leaflets, respectively). The number of leaflets per leaf of each provenance planted in different site was remarkably variable such as Provenance 24/SEN/Ban planted in Kanchanaburi had less number of leaflets per leaf but when planted in Kamphaeng Phet it was on top five (10.90 and 14.53 leaflets). This indicated that the number of leaflets per leaf changed with site conditions.

86 The significant differences on number of leaflets per neem leaf among experimental sites, varieties, and provenances were found (F = 7.33*, 20.79**, and19.24**, respectively) as shown in Table 16. It revealed that the genetic factors had more effected on number of leaflets per leaf than environmental factors did. From the result of this study, the number of leaflets per leaf between Thai and Indian Neem Provenances were not variously different. So the varieties of neem cannot be identified by using number of leaflets per leaf. Leaf Fresh Weight Like the other leaf characteristics, the average leaf fresh weight of neem planted in two experimental sites increased with crown portions (1.71, 2.00, and 2.23 g at low, medium, and top parts of canopy, respectively as shown Table 15 and Figure 24). The significant difference on neem leaf fresh weight among crown portions was detected (F = 25.08**, Table 16). Comparison between two experimental sites was presented in Table 15 and Figure 24, it was found that the fresh leaves of neem grown in Kanchanaburi was heavier than those grown in Kamphaeng Phet (2.38 and 1.58 g). This difference on neem leaf fresh weight among experimental sites was detected (F = 185.995**, Table 16). Regarding to crown portions and experimental sites, increasing crown portion increased average leaf fresh weight of neem planted in Kanchanaburi (2.01, 2.36, and 2.76 g, respectively) was similar to those planted in Kamphaeng Phet (1.41, 1.63, and 1.70 g, respectively). Comparison on varieties, the fresh leaves of Thai neem was heavier than those of Indian Neem (3.65 and 1.50 g). The significant difference on leaf fresh weight among neem varieties was found (F = 1366.40**, Table 16). The leaf fresh weight between Thai and Indian Neems was very different. Thai Neem planted in Kanchanaburi had more leaf fresh weight than those planted in Kamphaeng Phet, Indian Neem planted in the same experimental site, and Indian Neem planted in Kamphaeng Phet (4.17, 3.14, 1.85, and 1.12 g, respectively). These were shown in Table 15 and Figure 25. Comparison on provenances (Table 15 and Figure 26), the leaf fresh weight of Provenance 20/THA/Non was heaviest and those of Provenance 13/MYA/Yez were lightest (5.20 and 1.00g). Moreover, the significant difference on leaf fresh weight among neem provenances was found (F = 118.46**, Table 16). In Kanchanaburi, 20/THA/Non, 11/LAO/Vie, 22/THA/Doi, 14/NEP/Lam, and 19/THA/Tun had more leaf fresh weight (6.50, 5.21, 4.21, 3.57, and 2.97 g, respectively) but in Kamphaeng Phet, all Thai Neem Provenances showed heavier leaf fresh weight.

87 From Table 16, it seems that varieties factor had the most effect on leaf fresh weight, as well as provenances and experimental sites had influenced on leaf fresh weight. Nevertheless, in Kamphaeng Phet, leaf fresh weight of Thai and Indian Neem Provenances were obviously different but in Kanchanaburi, those differences were not clear. Thus, the identification of neem varieties by leaf fresh weight should be carefully used. Leaf Dry Weight As presented in Table 15 and Figure 24, the average leaf dry weight of neem planted in two experimental sites increased with crown portions (low: 0.82, medium: 0.94, and top: 1.10 g, respectively). Comparison on experimental sites, like leaf fresh weight, neem grown in Kanchanaburi had heavier leaf dry weight than those grown in Kamphaeng Phet (1.03 and 0.88 g). Regarding to crown portions and experimental sites, increasing average leaf dry weight by crown portion of neem planted in Kanchanaburi (0.87, 0.99, and 1.22 g, respectively) was similar to those planted in Kamphaeng Phet (0.78, 0.90, and 0.97 g, respectively). Comparison on varieties, Thai neem showed heavier leaf dry weight than Indian Neem (2.08 and 0.62 g). Considering to crown portions, varieties, and experimental sites, the leaf dry weight of all crown portions among Thai and Indian Neems grown in both experimental sites were distinctly different. Thai and Indian Neems grown in Kanchanaburi (2.14 and 0.70 g) had heavier leaf dry weight than those grown in Kamphaeng Phet (2.02 and 0.55 g). Table 15 and Figure 25 showed these data. Comparison on provenances was presented in Table 16 and Figure 26, the leaf dry weight of Provenance 20/THA/Non was the heaviest and those of Provenance 13/MYA/Yez were the lightest (2.68 and 0.47 g) as same as leaf fresh weight. In Kanchanaburi, Provenances 20/THA/Non, 11/LAO/Vie, 22/THA/Doi, 19/THA/Tun, and 14/NEP/Lam were top five provenances on leaf dry weight (3.05, 2.73, 2.42, 1.29, and 1.24 g, respectively), but in Kamphaeng Phet, all Thai Neem Provenances were the most on dry weight. Between Thai and Indian Neem Provenances, the leaf dry weight values in Kamphaeng Phet were individuality but in Kanchanaburi these differences were not clear. Thus, the identity of neem varieties by using leaf dry weight should careful decides. The significant difference on neem leaf dry weight among crown portions, experimental sites, varieties, and provenances were detected (F = 22.67 **, 19.20**, 2716.90 **, and 207.04**, respectively as presented in Table 16). These results remarkably showed that genetic factors had more effect on leaf dry weight than environmental factors did.

88 Leaf Area In the present study, the average leaf area of neem planted in two experimental sites increased with crown portions (85.48, 93.42, and 100.77 cm2 at the low, medium, and top portions of canopy, respectively, Table 15 and Figure 24). The significant difference on neem leaf area among crown portions was detected (F = 11.334**, Table 16). From Table 15 and Figure 24, comparison on experimental sites, the average leaf area of neem grown in Kanchanaburi was larger than those grown in Kamphaeng Phet (102.63 and 83.81 cm2). The significant difference on neem leaf area among experimental sites was detected (F = 52.22**, Table 16). Regarding to crown portions and experimental sites, increasing average leaf area by crown portions of neem planted in Kanchanaburi (92.21, 102.23, and 113.50 cm2, respectively) was similar to those planted in Kamphaeng Phet (78.60, 84.59, and 88.12 cm2, respectively). Comparison on varieties, Thai neem had larger leaf area than Indian Neem (180.80 and 67.30 m2). The significant difference on leaf area among neem varieties was found (F = 2630.70**, Table 16). According to crown portions, varieties, and experimental sites, the leaf area of all crown portions between Thai and Indian Neems grown in both experimental sites were extremely different. The leaf area of Thai Neem grown in Kanchanaburi was larger than those grown in Kamphaeng Phet, Indian Neem grown in the same experimental site, and Indian Neem grown in Kamphaeng Phet (198.89, 162.97, 74.29 and 60.28 cm2, respectively). These were presented in Table 15 and Figure 25. Comparison on provenances (Table 15 and Figure 26), the leaf areas of Provenance 20/THA/Non were the largest and those of Provenance 13/MYA/Yez were the smallest (232.39 and 48.86 cm2) which similar to the results of leaf weights. Moreover, the significant difference on leaf area among neem provenances was found (F = 184.91 **, Table 16). Similarity to leaf dry weight, in Kanchanaburi, Provenances 20/THA/Non, 11/LAO/Vie, 22/THA/Doi, 21/THA/Bo, and 14/NEP/Lam had the largest on leaf area (273.38, 239.28, 195.85, 169.24, and 119.97 cm2, respectively) and in Kamphaeng Phet, all Thai Neem Provenances were the best. Concerning to crown portions, provenances, varieties, and experimental sites, between Thai and Indian Neem Provenances in Kamphaeng Phet, the variations on leaf area were distinct and in Kanchanaburi, those were the same. Thus, neem varieties can be simply identified by using leaf area. In the present study, it was remarkably found that leaf length, weight, and area of Thai and Indian Neems had obviously different wherever planted in the same or different sites. Thus, the varieties of neem can be easily identified by using leaf characteristics.

89 Correlation Study of Leaf Characteristics and Provenance Origin The correlations of geographical data (latitude, longitude, altitude, and mean annual rainfall) of provenance origin with leaf characteristics (length, No. of leaflets per leaf, Fresh weight, dry weight, and area of leaf) of Thai and Indian Neems planted in Kanchanaburi and Kamphaeng Phet were presented in Table 17 and Figure 27. While, the correlations of latitude of provenance origin with all leaf traits of all neem planted in two experimental sites were negative and significant, the longitude of provenance origin correlated with leaf traits was positive and significant except longitude x No. of leaflets per leaf. However, the altitude and mean annual rainfall correlated with leaf characteristics were significant, but altitude correlations were negative which opposite to mean annual rainfall correlations what were positive. Comparison on experimental sites, the negative and significant correlations of latitude of provenance origin with leaf traits of neem planted in Kanchanaburi were similar to those of neem planted in Kamphaeng Phet unless latitude x No. of leaflets per leaf of neem planted in Kanchanaburi was insignificant. Moreover, longitude and mean annual rainfall of provenance origin correlated with leaf characteristics of neem planted in Kanchanaburi was positive and significant as same as neem planted in Kamphaeng Phet except longitude x No. of leaflets per leaf that was negative and insignificant. On the other side, the correlations between altitude of provenance origin and leaf traits of neem planted in Kamphaeng Phet were negative and significant but in Kanchanaburi, the negative correlations were detected unless altitude x leaf length, and the significant correlations were found in altitude x leaf fresh weight, leaf dry weight, and leaf area. The different correlations, especially the significant values, among Kanchanaburi and Kamphaeng Phet were maybe caused by the different site conditions, light exposure and space in experimental plots. Comparing to varieties, the positive and significant correlations between latitude of provenance origin and leaf characteristics of Thai and Indian Neems were the same except latitude x No. of leaflets per leaf of Thai Neem that was negative. Although, the longitude of provenance origin correlated with leaf traits of Thai Neem was negative and significant, those correlation of Indian Neem were positive and significant only longitude x leaf length and leaf fresh weight. On the other hand, the correlations of altitude of provenance origin with leaf characteristics of Thai Neem were positive and significant unless altitude x No. of leaflets per leaf was not, but those correlations of Indian Neem were negative and significant (only altitude x leaf length, leaf area, and No. of leaflets per leaf). As mean annual rainfall of provenance origin of Thai Neem was negative and significant correlations with leaf trait, the correlations of mean annual rainfall with No. of leaflets per leaf, leaf fresh weight, and leaf dry weight were negative and mean annual rainfall x No. of leaflets per leaf was significant.

90 Because of the natural distributions and provenance origins of Indian Neem were more than Thai Neem so the direction and significant correlations among neem varieties were different. Correlation Study of Leaf Characteristics Table 17 and Figure 27 showed the correlations between crown diameter, crown portion, and leaf characteristics of Thai and Indian Neems planted in Kanchanaburi and Kamphaeng Phet. Whilst, the correlations of crown diameter with leaf characteristics except No. of leaflets per leaf of neem planted in two experimental sites were negative and significant, the crown portion correlated with leaf characteristics was positive and significant. All correlations between leaf traits were positive and significant, moreover, the correlations of leaf length x leaf area, No. of leaflets per leaf x leaf length, leaf fresh weight x leaf dry weight, leaf dry weight x leaf area, and leaf area x leaf dry weight were strongest. Comparison on experimental sites, neem planted in Kanchanaburi and Kamphaeng Phet had negative correlations between crown diameter and leaf characteristics except No. of leaflets per leaf and those correlations of neem planted in Kamphaeng Phet were significant but neem planted in Kanchanaburi showed significant correlation of crown diameter x leaf fresh weight, leaf dry weight, and leaf area. On the other hand, the correlations of crown portion with leaf traits of neem planted in Kanchanaburi were positive and significant as same as those planted in Kamphaeng Phet unless crown portion x No. of leaflets per leaf was insignificant. Neem planted in both experimental sites showed positive and significant correlations between leaf characteristics. Although, No. of leaflets per leaf x leaf length, leaf fresh weight x leaf dry weight, and leaf dry weight x leaf area of neem planted in both experimental sites were strongest correlations but leaf length x leaf area and leaf dry weight x leaf area of neem planted in Kanchanaburi and leaf length x leaf fresh weight and leaf dry weight x leaf fresh weight of neem planted in Kamphaeng Phet showed highest correlations. Comparing to varieties, the correlations of crown diameter with leaf traits of Thai neem were positive but Indian Neem was positive correlation only crown diameter with leaf length and Fresh weight. While, crown diameter x leaf length and No. of leaflets per leaf of Thai Neem were significant, crown diameter x leaf length and leaf fresh weight of Indian Neem were significant. The crown portion correlated with leaf characteristics of Thai and Indian Neems was positive and significant. Furthermore, the positive and significant correlations between leaf traits of Thai and Indian Neems were the same and the strongest correlations of leaf length x leaf area, No. of leaflets per leaf x leaf length, leaf fresh weight x leaf dry weight, leaf dry weight x leaf fresh weight, and leaf dry weight x leaf area of Thai Neem were similar to Indian Neem.

91 The direction correlations of crown diameter x leaf weight and leaf area of Thai Neem were different from those of Indian Neem, that maybe caused by large crowns of Indian Neem had some factors limiting to leaf weight and leaf area such as light intensity and crown space within and between crown, but these limiting factors were not found in Thai Neem. However, the correlations values of Thai Neem were more than those of Indian Neem. Regression Analysis From the strong correlations between leaf characteristics, the regression analysis for leaf area was done by using stepwise method. The models below showed the linear regression for calculate the leaf areas by leaf characteristics and crown diameter. In model 1, the R2 values were high, however, when adding leaf length in model 2, the R2 values were higher but when more adding the other leaf traits as leaf fresh weight, No. of leaflets per leaf, and crown diameter, the R2 values were slightly increased. Thus leaf dry weight was accurately estimation leaf area of neem. Mean: 1) LA = 2172.978+7483.69 Wd 2) LA = -879.241+6235.333 Wd+216.553 L 3) LA = -776.938+5243.663 Wd+193.13 L+658.159 Ww 4) LA = -458.152+5218.279 Wd+200.827 L+621.434 Ww123.803 CD 5) LA = -284.433+5158.496 Wd+212.178 L+642.292 Ww120.523 CD-30.679 Nl 1) LA = 2178.393+7871.473 Wd 2) LA = -1211.264+6512.569 Wd+236.184 L 3) LA = -764.019+6433 Wd+243.648 L-199.107 CD 4) LA = -399.087+6387.422 Wd+265.604 L-200.016 CD59.073 Nl 1) LA = 2385.945+6783.5 Wd 2) LA = -0.931+5800.301 Wd+171.882 L 3) LA = 85.506+4199.038 Wd+138.642 L+1237.742 Ww 4) LA = -164.083+4291.013 Wd+118.676 L+1214.519 Ww+ 46.403 Nl 1) LA = 4121.18+6720.034 Wd 2) LA = -2324.805+4473.724 Wd+439.952 L 3) LA = -1839.568+2409.114 Wd+410.992 L+1240.987 Ww 4) LA = -2714.847+2446.397 Wd+368.763 L+ 1213.573 Ww+148.712 Nl R2 = 0.907 R2 = 0.923 R2 = 0.925 R2 = 0.926 R2 = 0.907 R2 = 0.916 R2 = 0.933 R2 = 0.933 R2 = 0.934 R2 = 0.909 R2 = 0.922 R2 = 0.924 R2 = 0.924 R2 = 0.828 R2 = 0.876 R2 = 0.888 R2 = 0.890 R2 = 0.825 R2 = 0.844 R2 = 0.851

KB:

KP:

Thai:

Indian: 1) LA = 1435.609+8494.559 Wd 2) LA = -0.745+7092.961 Wd+128.848 L 3) LA = 99.011+5305.033 Wd+121.687 L+768.873 Ww

92 Where, LA Wd L Ww CD Nl = Leaf area = Leaf dry weight = Leaf length = Leaf fresh weight = Crown diameter = No. of leaflets per leaf

Cluster Analysis The leaf dendrogram had been constructed from Euclidean distance (Table 18) of neem as presented in Figure 28. Likewise, genetic and growth dendrogram, two varieties of neem were in different cluster, excluding Provenance 19/THA/Tun. When D = 1500, they were grouped into 4 clusters that were 1) 10/ IND /Ram, 07/IND/Gha, 08/IND/Sag, 18/SRL/Kul, 06/IND/Ann, 05/IND/All; 16/PAK/Tib, 23/GHA/Sun, 03/IND/Man, 09/IND/Bal, 04/IND/Chi, 13/MYA/Yez, 12/MYA/Mye, 15/NEP/Get, 17/PAK/Mul, and 24/SEN/Ban 2) 19/THA/Tun and 14/NEP/Lam 3) 21/THA/Bo and 22/THA/Doi 4) 20/THA/Non and 11/LAO/Vie.

93 Table 15 Average leaf characteristic values of 7-year-old neem planted in the Table 15 International Provenance Trials established in Kanchanaburi (KB) and Table 15 Kamphaeng Phet (KP)
Varieties Thai Provenances No. Code 1 21/THA/Bo Crown Sites portions Low KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean N 20 20 40 20 20 40 20 20 40 60 60 120 20 20 40 20 20 40 20 20 40 60 60 120 20 20 40 20 20 40 20 20 40 60 60 20 20 40 20 20 40 20 20 40 60 60 120 20 20 40 20 20 40 20 20 40 60 60 120 Length (cm) Mean 21.25 21.10 21.17 23.06 25.32 24.19 25.64 28.60 27.12 23.32 25.00 24.16 32.70 27.11 29.90 33.77 28.68 31.23 29.94 28.45 29.19 32.14 28.08 30.11 22.97 18.07 20.52 24.85 24.12 24.48 26.27 25.03 25.65 24.70 22.41 26.11 25.53 25.82 27.27 25.87 26.57 34.34 28.03 31.18 29.24 26.47 27.86 20.75 20.49 20.62 17.34 22.19 19.76 22.31 20.62 21.46 20.13 21.10 20.62 SD 5.35 3.94 4.64 7.15 5.18 6.27 7.06 6.10 6.68 6.71 5.93 6.36 9.36 4.32 7.73 7.01 6.72 7.25 5.15 6.49 5.83 7.43 5.88 6.98 7.32 3.99 6.32 2.95 4.62 3.84 8.06 4.97 6.64 6.54 5.45 4.84 3.46 4.17 6.51 5.13 5.83 4.43 3.54 5.09 6.40 4.20 5.57 5.19 3.19 4.25 5.60 4.13 5.44 6.55 3.88 5.38 6.08 3.77 5.06 No. of leaflets per leaf Mean SD 12.60 2.87 13.95 1.70 13.28 2.43 12.25 2.65 15.50 4.24 13.88 3.86 13.70 2.60 16.65 3.30 15.18 3.29 12.85 2.74 15.37 3.39 14.11 3.32 14.85 2.83 13.85 1.93 14.35 2.45 16.70 2.34 14.90 2.20 15.80 2.42 14.85 2.66 12.90 1.59 13.88 2.38 15.47 2.72 13.88 2.06 14.68 2.53 11.85 3.20 11.90 2.81 11.88 2.97 12.75 2.29 13.25 1.48 13.00 1.92 12.40 2.33 13.80 1.77 13.10 2.16 12.33 2.62 12.98 2.21 13.38 1.87 12.55 1.76 12.96 1.84 12.35 2.58 13.60 2.01 12.98 2.37 13.60 2.82 13.35 1.73 13.48 2.31 13.11 2.48 13.17 1.86 13.14 2.18 12.60 3.42 9.85 2.64 11.23 3.32 12.00 4.87 9.70 1.30 10.85 3.70 14.65 5.64 10.05 2.04 12.35 4.79 13.08 4.79 9.87 2.04 11.48 4.01 Fresh weight (g) Mean SD 1.57 0.63 1.87 0.59 1.72 0.62 2.02 0.84 2.98 0.84 2.50 0.96 2.21 1.03 3.50 1.26 2.86 1.31 1.93 0.88 2.78 1.15 2.36 1.10 5.65 2.76 3.48 1.13 4.56 2.36 7.45 2.68 3.97 1.99 5.71 2.92 6.41 2.75 4.23 1.59 5.32 2.48 6.51 2.79 3.89 1.61 5.20 2.62 3.48 1.01 2.51 1.00 2.99 1.11 3.96 1.27 3.34 0.90 3.65 1.13 5.21 3.15 3.82 0.98 4.52 2.40 4.21 2.14 3.22 1.09 4.44 1.95 3.53 0.71 3.98 1.52 4.68 2.02 3.79 1.01 4.24 1.64 6.52 2.54 3.99 0.93 5.26 2.28 5.21 2.35 3.77 0.90 4.49 1.91 2.86 0.68 1.91 0.70 2.39 0.83 2.57 0.89 2.38 0.48 2.48 0.72 3.47 0.86 1.85 0.65 2.66 1.11 2.97 0.89 2.05 0.65 2.51 0.90 Dry weight (g) Mean SD 0.95 0.48 1.26 0.39 1.10 0.46 1.16 0.58 1.92 0.56 1.54 0.68 1.46 0.79 2.28 0.85 1.87 0.91 1.19 0.65 1.82 0.75 1.50 0.77 3.06 1.82 2.17 0.75 2.62 1.45 3.20 1.37 2.34 1.24 2.77 1.36 2.88 1.36 2.43 0.85 2.65 1.14 3.05 1.51 2.31 0.96 2.68 1.32 1.98 0.63 1.61 0.58 1.80 0.63 2.28 0.81 2.19 0.61 2.23 0.71 3.02 1.91 2.54 0.57 2.78 1.41 2.43 1.30 2.11 0.70 2.45 0.92 2.22 0.45 2.34 0.73 2.43 1.02 2.59 0.71 2.51 0.87 3.30 1.03 2.87 0.61 3.09 0.87 2.73 1.06 2.56 0.65 2.64 0.88 1.21 0.30 1.22 0.48 1.22 0.39 1.10 0.40 1.47 0.28 1.29 0.39 1.57 0.43 1.17 0.34 1.37 0.43 1.29 0.43 1.29 0.39 1.29 0.41 Area (cm2) Mean 141.12 132.03 136.57 179.63 172.15 175.89 186.98 212.18 199.58 169.24 172.12 170.68 276.35 185.68 231.02 298.70 195.78 247.24 245.09 192.73 218.91 273.38 191.40 232.39 168.82 118.43 143.62 192.71 159.75 176.23 226.02 176.80 201.41 195.85 151.66 212.53 176.98 194.76 214.72 188.93 201.82 290.59 187.15 238.87 239.28 184.35 211.82 112.71 111.12 111.92 102.26 124.62 113.44 131.10 110.25 120.67 115.36 115.33 115.34 SD 50.50 37.78 44.26 74.87 49.03 62.58 99.46 71.83 86.58 78.89 63.12 71.16 125.93 40.35 103.09 95.04 66.83 96.40 82.99 41.74 70.05 103.56 50.42 90.95 55.55 42.55 55.10 62.58 35.17 52.81 128.01 33.93 95.74 89.95 44.31 66.67 37.37 56.30 75.86 52.32 65.64 78.12 40.55 80.74 81.18 43.46 70.46 24.81 37.99 31.68 33.53 23.85 30.87 34.59 33.38 35.17 33.01 32.41 32.58

Medium

Top

Ave.

Thai

20/THA/Non Low

Medium

Top

Ave.

Thai

22/THA/Doi

Low

Medium

Top

Ave. Thai 5 11/LAO/Vie Low

Medium

Top

Ave.

Thai

19/THA/Tun

Low

Medium

Top

Ave.

94 Table 15 (Continued)
Varieties Indian Provenances No. Code 7 10/IND/Ram Crown Sites portions Low KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean N 20 20 40 20 20 40 20 20 40 60 60 120 20 20 40 20 20 40 20 20 40 60 60 120 19 20 39 20 19 39 20 20 40 59 59 118 20 20 40 20 20 40 20 20 40 60 60 120 20 20 40 20 20 40 20 20 40 60 60 120 Length (cm) Mean 21.13 19.04 20.08 18.46 18.76 18.61 19.91 21.26 20.58 19.83 19.69 19.76 11.72 15.63 13.67 12.16 14.66 13.41 15.97 12.52 14.24 13.28 14.27 13.77 15.80 14.69 15.23 19.36 14.62 17.05 19.64 15.86 17.75 18.31 15.06 16.68 12.89 17.96 15.43 16.55 20.13 18.34 17.21 20.94 19.08 15.55 19.68 17.61 12.32 15.88 14.10 16.72 17.99 17.35 22.13 14.90 18.52 17.06 16.26 16.66 SD 5.12 5.96 5.59 5.18 5.41 5.23 5.01 3.85 4.46 5.14 5.19 5.14 3.50 1.69 3.36 5.86 3.98 5.10 7.64 2.86 5.96 6.12 3.22 4.90 4.16 2.35 3.36 2.33 2.75 3.47 5.04 4.56 5.12 4.31 3.36 4.18 2.58 3.78 4.10 2.74 2.84 3.30 2.66 3.38 3.55 3.24 3.53 3.96 3.76 3.30 3.93 5.48 4.69 5.08 3.75 1.80 4.67 5.93 3.65 4.92 No. of leaflets per leaf Mean SD 13.30 3.08 13.75 2.22 13.53 2.66 12.30 4.32 12.90 3.14 12.60 3.74 13.80 4.25 14.50 2.42 14.15 3.43 13.13 3.91 13.72 2.66 13.42 5.54 11.45 2.31 12.55 2.44 12.00 2.41 9.00 3.06 11.35 3.45 10.18 3.43 12.75 3.26 11.35 1.79 12.05 2.69 11.07 3.26 11.75 2.67 11.41 2.98 10.95 2.51 13.20 3.24 12.10 3.09 13.55 3.00 12.42 2.65 13.00 2.86 13.55 3.49 11.20 2.65 12.38 3.28 12.71 3.22 12.27 2.94 12.49 3.08 10.65 2.39 12.20 2.04 11.43 2.33 12.25 2.55 12.95 1.57 12.60 2.12 11.95 1.54 12.00 2.36 11.98 1.97 11.62 2.28 12.38 2.03 12.00 2.18 9.65 2.06 10.75 2.17 10.20 2.16 11.05 2.33 11.05 2.06 11.05 2.17 12.75 1.97 9.35 1.46 11.05 2.43 11.15 2.45 10.38 2.03 10.77 2.27 Fresh weight (g) Mean SD 1.84 0.79 1.13 0.37 1.48 0.71 1.63 0.93 0.95 0.33 1.29 0.77 1.70 0.75 1.05 0.30 1.37 0.65 1.72 0.82 1.04 0.33 1.38 0.71 0.67 0.38 0.88 0.28 0.78 0.34 0.71 0.55 0.81 0.31 0.76 0.44 2.00 1.92 0.73 0.22 1.36 1.50 1.13 1.31 0.81 0.28 0.97 0.96 1.31 0.45 0.76 0.22 1.03 0.44 1.99 0.69 0.75 0.17 1.38 0.80 2.69 1.49 0.93 0.44 1.81 1.41 2.01 1.13 0.81 0.31 1.41 1.02 0.87 0.27 1.04 0.25 0.95 0.27 1.52 0.49 1.36 0.29 1.44 0.40 1.87 0.58 1.33 0.28 1.60 0.53 1.42 0.62 1.24 0.31 1.33 0.50 1.06 0.43 1.01 0.47 1.04 0.45 1.65 0.87 1.55 0.90 1.60 0.87 2.49 0.58 1.29 0.44 1.89 0.80 1.74 0.87 1.28 0.67 1.51 0.81 Dry weight Area (cm2) (g) Mean SD Mean SD 0.60 0.27 86.85 36.93 0.55 0.18 71.39 21.51 0.58 0.22 79.12 30.84 0.58 0.36 70.05 34.68 0.45 0.18 54.26 16.64 0.51 0.29 62.15 28.01 0.57 0.26 77.20 34.10 0.52 0.16 56.51 15.87 0.55 0.22 66.85 28.27 0.59 0.29 78.03 35.34 0.51 0.18 60.72 19.44 0.54 0.24 69.37 29.70 0.31 0.16 37.89 16.53 0.42 0.18 46.58 14.70 0.36 0.18 42.24 16.06 0.35 0.26 35.72 19.63 0.37 0.12 44.68 18.83 0.36 0.20 40.20 19.52 1.04 1.00 88.24 72.06 0.34 0.10 40.06 13.56 0.69 0.79 64.15 56.70 0.57 0.68 53.95 49.83 0.38 0.14 43.77 15.83 0.47 0.50 48.86 37.17 0.48 0.19 59.84 21.85 0.39 0.11 48.75 13.00 0.43 0.16 54.15 18.50 0.72 0.21 78.84 29.15 0.36 0.08 46.37 11.13 0.54 0.24 63.02 27.45 1.03 0.55 99.83 49.96 0.49 0.25 57.11 19.37 0.76 0.50 77.93 42.87 0.75 0.42 79.49 38.59 0.41 0.17 50.82 15.44 0.58 0.36 65.03 32.53 0.32 0.12 32.06 11.86 0.50 0.16 60.93 16.84 0.41 0.16 46.50 20.50 0.63 0.33 52.59 23.01 0.65 0.16 68.29 17.71 0.64 0.26 60.44 21.77 0.75 0.37 63.01 26.99 0.78 0.24 73.00 17.23 0.76 0.31 68.01 22.92 0.57 0.34 49.22 24.87 0.64 0.22 67.41 17.69 0.61 0.29 58.32 23.35 0.42 0.22 49.64 20.90 0.50 0.19 53.63 16.92 0.46 0.20 51.64 18.88 0.69 0.36 70.31 28.65 0.71 0.36 82.95 37.86 0.70 0.36 76.63 33.75 1.14 0.28 103.30 28.58 0.64 0.18 67.76 13.93 0.89 0.35 85.53 28.57 0.75 0.42 74.42 34.13 0.62 0.27 68.12 27.60 0.68 0.36 71.27 31.07

Medium

Top

Ave.

Indian

13/MYA/Yez Low

Medium

Top

Ave.

Indian

23/GHA/Sun

Low

Medium

Top

Ave.

Indian

10 12/MYA/Mye Low

Medium

Top

Ave.

Indian

11

08/IND/Sag

Low

Medium

Top

Ave.

95 Table 15 (Continued)
Varieties Indian Provenances No. Code 12 09/IND/Bal Crown Sites portions Low KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean N 20 20 40 20 20 40 20 20 40 60 60 120 20 20 40 20 20 40 19 20 39 59 60 119 20 20 40 20 20 40 20 20 40 60 60 120 20 20 40 20 20 40 20 20 40 60 60 120 20 20 40 20 20 40 20 20 40 60 60 120 Length (cm) Mean 18.33 17.36 17.84 20.49 21.70 21.09 17.58 19.54 18.56 18.80 19.53 19.16 22.06 17.00 19.53 21.52 17.65 19.58 25.09 15.00 19.91 22.85 16.55 19.67 17.12 14.72 15.92 20.47 16.58 18.52 22.31 15.47 18.89 19.97 15.59 17.78 16.84 17.68 17.26 15.74 16.88 16.31 17.03 17.18 17.10 16.54 17.24 16.89 15.91 20.58 18.24 20.08 18.75 19.41 20.23 22.38 21.31 18.74 20.57 19.65 SD 4.98 3.74 4.38 5.67 2.83 4.47 4.54 3.23 4.01 5.15 3.69 4.48 6.23 3.18 5.51 3.35 2.41 3.49 7.36 2.27 7.37 5.97 2.85 5.62 3.09 3.38 3.42 4.44 4.32 4.75 4.66 3.62 5.38 4.59 3.81 4.74 3.28 4.65 3.99 2.55 3.26 2.95 2.30 2.83 2.55 2.76 3.62 3.22 2.62 4.52 4.35 5.17 2.72 4.13 2.91 2.89 3.06 4.20 3.72 4.06 No. of leaflets per leaf Mean SD 11.50 2.48 11.85 3.05 11.68 2.75 13.40 2.48 13.70 2.64 13.55 2.53 10.85 2.23 14.00 1.97 12.43 2.62 11.92 2.60 13.18 2.72 12.55 2.73 13.35 2.60 10.95 2.11 12.15 2.64 13.05 1.91 12.75 2.34 12.90 2.11 13.74 2.64 11.45 1.50 12.56 2.40 13.37 2.38 11.72 2.12 12.54 2.39 11.10 2.32 10.95 2.28 11.03 2.27 12.15 2.23 10.35 1.90 11.25 2.24 12.75 3.16 11.25 2.55 12.00 2.94 12.00 2.65 10.85 2.25 11.43 2.52 11.55 1.96 11.95 3.22 11.75 2.64 11.90 2.22 10.80 2.57 11.35 2.43 12.05 2.33 12.00 1.65 12.03 1.99 11.83 2.15 11.58 2.58 11.71 2.37 11.10 1.83 13.90 3.23 12.50 2.95 12.30 3.34 12.70 2.00 12.50 2.73 12.85 2.06 14.85 2.48 13.85 2.47 12.08 2.57 13.82 2.72 12.95 2.77 Fresh weight (g) Mean SD 1.39 0.42 1.16 0.36 1.28 0.41 1.81 0.67 1.46 0.23 1.63 0.53 1.44 0.49 1.36 0.32 1.40 0.42 1.55 0.56 1.33 0.33 1.44 0.47 1.93 0.54 1.11 0.28 1.52 0.60 1.94 0.38 0.92 0.21 1.43 0.60 2.46 0.92 0.92 0.30 1.67 1.03 2.10 0.68 0.98 0.28 1.54 0.77 1.49 0.37 0.85 0.44 1.17 0.51 2.06 0.80 1.07 0.66 1.57 0.88 3.37 1.70 0.87 0.46 2.12 1.77 2.31 1.35 0.93 0.53 1.62 1.23 1.44 0.40 1.17 0.48 1.30 0.46 1.36 0.30 1.21 0.37 1.28 0.34 1.78 0.30 1.14 0.36 1.46 0.46 1.52 0.38 1.17 0.40 1.35 0.43 1.16 0.41 1.34 0.47 1.25 0.44 1.65 0.77 1.17 0.25 1.41 0.62 2.10 0.59 1.91 0.40 2.01 0.51 1.64 0.71 1.47 0.50 1.55 0.62 Dry weight (g) Mean SD 0.46 0.13 0.48 0.16 0.47 0.14 0.60 0.25 0.66 0.13 0.63 0.20 0.52 0.20 0.62 0.13 0.57 0.17 0.53 0.20 0.58 0.16 0.56 0.18 0.69 0.26 0.50 0.15 0.60 0.23 0.78 0.24 0.42 0.09 0.60 0.26 1.08 0.55 0.47 0.18 0.77 0.51 0.85 0.40 0.46 0.14 0.65 0.36 0.64 0.16 0.39 0.15 0.51 0.20 0.82 0.29 0.50 0.28 0.66 0.32 1.25 0.69 0.44 0.20 0.85 0.65 0.90 0.51 0.44 0.22 0.67 0.45 0.55 0.16 0.62 0.28 0.59 0.23 0.48 0.11 0.56 0.17 0.52 0.15 0.69 0.12 0.59 0.22 0.64 0.18 0.57 0.15 0.59 0.22 0.58 0.19 0.49 0.17 0.65 0.19 0.57 0.19 0.72 0.35 0.57 0.11 0.65 0.27 1.01 0.27 0.95 0.20 0.98 0.24 0.74 0.34 0.73 0.24 0.73 0.29 Area (cm2) Mean 63.08 65.18 64.13 76.38 75.93 76.16 59.70 64.28 61.99 66.39 68.46 67.43 73.07 61.14 67.11 83.98 43.63 63.80 113.21 47.65 79.59 89.69 50.81 70.09 70.89 33.68 58.49 83.93 53.13 68.53 99.30 44.01 71.66 84.71 45.59 66.93 60.99 67.54 64.26 58.21 61.65 59.93 73.60 59.19 66.40 64.27 62.79 63.53 57.04 74.28 65.66 79.68 58.15 68.92 92.35 86.30 89.33 76.36 72.91 74.64 SD 21.78 14.85 18.43 36.23 16.41 27.76 24.43 19.22 21.82 28.64 17.47 23.65 29.19 18.13 24.73 29.60 15.00 30.88 62.12 12.31 54.82 45.29 16.86 39.14 19.93 7.88 24.45 22.67 26.17 28.77 32.20 16.31 37.66 27.65 20.82 31.49 17.52 30.50 24.77 11.91 24.17 18.88 13.18 29.45 23.67 15.69 27.91 22.56 19.30 30.79 26.82 36.71 12.92 29.27 23.99 15.50 20.17 30.92 23.91 27.58

Medium

Top

Ave.

Indian

13

07/IND/Gha

Low

Medium

Top

Ave.

Indian

14

04/IND/Chi

Low

Medium

Top

Ave.

Indian

15 03/IND/Man

Low

Medium

Top

Ave.

Indian

16

06/IND/Ann

Low

Medium

Top

Ave.

96 Table 15 (Continued)
Varieties Indian Provenances No. 17 Code 05/IND/All Crown Sites portions Low KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean N 20 20 40 20 20 40 20 20 40 60 60 120 20 20 40 20 20 40 20 20 40 60 60 120 20 20 40 20 20 40 20 20 40 60 60 120 20 20 40 20 20 40 20 20 40 60 60 120 20 20 40 20 20 40 20 20 40 60 60 120 Length (cm) Mean 19.18 17.32 18.25 19.24 18.58 18.91 21.65 18.22 19.93 20.02 18.04 19.03 22.79 15.73 19.26 24.49 20.66 22.58 22.73 18.08 20.40 23.33 18.16 20.74 16.31 13.72 15.01 17.81 13.73 15.77 17.66 16.54 17.10 17.26 14.66 15.96 16.03 15.94 15.98 19.05 15.32 17.18 16.33 17.58 16.95 17.13 16.28 16.70 15.92 14.31 15.11 16.64 14.24 15.44 16.49 15.10 15.79 16.35 14.55 15.45 SD 6.72 4.13 5.58 4.99 2.98 4.07 4.60 4.24 4.70 5.54 3.80 4.83 6.38 5.67 6.95 4.86 6.50 5.99 3.39 4.07 4.38 5.01 5.78 5.98 5.37 4.38 5.01 4.83 2.72 4.39 4.17 2.49 3.44 4.78 3.51 4.38 4.76 3.17 3.99 4.91 2.86 4.39 5.21 2.87 4.20 5.06 3.07 4.19 4.75 4.12 4.46 4.27 2.47 3.65 4.43 3.06 3.82 4.42 3.26 3.97 No. of leaflets per leaf Mean SD 12.75 3.95 12.80 2.19 12.78 3.15 13.50 2.80 13.05 2.67 13.28 2.71 13.55 3.05 14.50 2.19 14.03 2.67 13.27 3.27 13.45 2.44 13.36 2.87 14.40 4.11 11.95 2.69 13.18 3.64 14.95 2.24 13.85 2.76 14.40 2.54 15.60 3.32 12.80 1.80 14.20 2.99 14.98 3.29 12.87 2.53 13.93 3.11 13.40 3.76 11.75 2.27 12.58 3.18 12.50 3.53 9.80 2.17 11.15 3.20 10.55 3.85 11.95 1.91 11.25 3.08 12.15 3.84 11.17 2.30 11.66 3.19 13.20 1.99 11.95 2.26 12.58 2.19 15.85 3.86 10.25 1.55 13.05 4.06 13.20 3.00 11.45 1.88 12.33 2.63 14.08 3.25 11.22 2.02 12.65 3.05 13.25 3.67 11.20 2.09 12.23 3.13 13.40 4.35 11.00 0.92 12.20 3.33 14.45 2.59 11.40 1.88 12.93 2.71 13.70 3.59 11.20 1.69 12.45 3.06 Fresh weight (g) Mean SD 2.03 1.37 1.16 0.38 1.60 1.08 2.26 1.07 1.38 0.29 1.82 0.89 2.10 0.61 1.20 0.34 1.65 0.66 2.13 1.05 1.25 0.35 1.69 0.89 3.30 1.65 1.00 0.33 2.15 1.65 3.46 1.28 1.37 0.33 2.42 1.40 3.95 0.86 1.13 0.29 2.54 1.56 3.57 1.31 1.17 0.35 2.37 1.54 0.98 0.55 0.86 0.32 0.92 0.45 1.27 0.70 0.82 0.20 1.05 0.56 1.15 0.69 0.97 0.27 1.06 0.52 1.13 0.65 0.88 0.27 1.01 0.51 2.02 0.93 1.13 0.32 1.57 0.82 2.53 1.11 1.17 0.33 1.85 1.06 2.20 1.22 1.46 0.47 1.83 0.99 2.25 1.10 1.25 0.40 1.75 0.96 1.78 0.88 0.73 0.31 1.25 0.84 1.80 0.59 0.84 0.12 1.32 0.64 1.96 0.80 1.12 0.20 1.54 0.71 1.85 0.76 0.90 0.28 1.37 0.74 Dry weight (g) Mean SD 0.63 0.37 0.58 0.19 0.60 0.29 0.72 0.33 0.66 0.15 0.69 0.26 0.84 0.34 0.59 0.17 0.71 0.30 0.73 0.35 0.61 0.17 0.67 0.28 1.09 0.61 0.52 0.18 0.80 0.53 1.18 0.41 0.69 0.18 0.93 0.40 1.44 0.31 0.63 0.19 1.03 0.49 1.24 0.48 0.61 0.19 0.92 0.48 0.43 0.18 0.47 0.22 0.45 0.20 0.53 0.25 0.45 0.12 0.49 0.20 0.45 0.21 0.55 0.18 0.50 0.20 0.47 0.22 0.49 0.18 0.48 0.20 0.65 0.35 0.57 0.15 0.61 0.27 0.74 0.33 0.57 0.17 0.65 0.27 0.73 0.41 0.72 0.22 0.73 0.33 0.70 0.36 0.62 0.19 0.66 0.29 0.53 0.25 0.40 0.20 0.47 0.23 0.59 0.20 0.45 0.08 0.52 0.17 0.56 0.24 0.62 0.14 0.59 0.20 0.56 0.23 0.49 0.17 0.52 0.21 Area (cm2) Mean 74.68 65.36 70.02 84.42 75.55 79.99 75.66 73.32 74.49 78.26 71.41 74.83 116.51 58.81 87.66 117.06 76.69 96.88 126.34 67.67 97.01 119.97 67.72 93.85 60.04 54.60 57.32 72.81 53.17 62.99 57.77 62.75 60.26 63.54 56.84 60.19 81.89 61.03 71.46 85.53 61.12 73.32 83.91 76.10 80.01 83.78 66.08 74.93 54.71 45.65 50.18 60.30 49.40 54.85 58.45 65.63 62.04 57.82 53.56 55.69 SD 43.04 21.49 33.91 28.89 18.37 24.32 35.89 20.36 28.83 36.05 20.26 29.32 59.47 19.02 52.47 45.01 22.30 40.58 27.78 18.65 37.79 45.39 21.05 43.93 25.61 23.72 24.52 24.86 12.86 21.92 21.27 23.40 22.22 24.51 20.71 22.84 50.82 18.30 39.15 42.24 17.26 34.16 53.10 22.00 40.31 48.13 20.27 37.83 26.80 23.13 25.13 22.77 9.88 18.18 26.74 12.69 20.98 25.18 18.22 21.99

Medium

Top

Ave.

Indian

19 14/NEP/Lam Low

Medium

Top

Ave.

Indian

20

15/NEP/Get

Low

Medium

Top

Ave.

Indian

21

16/PAK/Tib

Low

Medium

Top

Ave.

Indian

22 17/PAK/Mul

Low

Medium

Top

Ave.

97 Table 15 (Continued)
Varieties Indian Provenances No. Code 23 18/SRL/Kul Crown Sites portions Low KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean KB KP Mean N Length (cm) SD 2.94 3.16 4.87 3.00 4.17 4.44 2.48 2.70 4.24 2.92 3.34 4.50 5.28 3.04 4.85 3.80 3.20 3.47 4.64 4.24 4.70 5.12 3.51 4.56 7.86 5.02 6.68 8.01 5.55 6.88 7.50 5.89 6.77 7.87 5.70 6.90 5.81 4.23 5.09 5.19 4.31 4.81 5.36 4.14 4.89 5.54 4.24 4.98 7.06 18.01 18.50 6.50 19.29 19.83 6.82 19.50 20.46 6.87 18.93 19.59 No. of leaflets per leaf Mean SD 16.30 2.41 15.40 2.01 15.85 2.24 16.35 1.69 13.70 2.92 15.03 2.71 16.45 2.14 14.95 2.11 15.70 2.23 16.37 2.07 14.68 2.45 15.53 2.41 10.70 2.81 14.45 2.78 12.58 3.35 11.85 3.36 14.85 2.37 13.35 3.25 10.15 2.98 14.30 4.04 12.23 4.09 10.90 3.09 14.53 3.10 12.72 3.58 13.06 3.01 12.42 2.65 12.74 2.84 13.21 3.52 13.39 3.17 13.30 3.34 13.84 3.48 13.35 3.00 13.60 3.25 13.37 3.35 13.05 2.97 13.21 3.17 12.27 3.19 12.44 2.78 12.36 2.99 12.90 3.38 12.20 2.76 12.55 3.11 13.00 3.25 12.55 2.71 12.77 3.00 12.73 3.29 12.40 2.75 12.56 3.04 12.45 3.16 5.03 12.44 6.15 12.45 12.97 3.41 5.63 12.47 6.11 12.72 13.19 3.32 5.84 12.73 6.42 12.96 12.87 3.31 5.55 12.55 6.28 12.71 Fresh weight (g) Mean SD 1.99 0.67 1.39 0.39 1.69 0.62 2.27 0.86 1.43 0.33 1.85 0.77 2.22 0.43 1.49 0.41 1.85 0.55 2.16 0.67 1.43 0.37 1.80 0.65 0.97 0.53 1.04 0.44 1.00 0.48 1.41 0.80 1.06 0.21 1.24 0.60 1.44 0.66 1.13 0.34 1.28 0.55 1.27 0.70 1.08 0.34 1.17 0.56 3.60 2.12 2.66 1.11 3.13 1.75 4.14 2.54 3.29 1.27 3.71 2.05 4.77 2.80 3.48 1.40 4.12 2.30 4.17 2.54 3.14 1.31 3.65 2.08 1.54 0.95 1.04 0.40 1.29 0.77 1.84 0.97 1.14 0.44 1.49 0.83 2.17 1.16 1.18 0.44 1.67 1.01 1.85 1.06 1.12 0.43 1.49 0.89 2.01 1.57 2.75 1.41 2.96 1.71 2.36 1.76 2.90 1.63 3.17 2.00 2.76 2.00 2.80 1.70 3.08 2.23 2.38 1.81 2.81 1.58 3.08 1.98 Dry weight (g) Mean SD 0.88 0.24 0.53 0.13 0.70 0.26 0.92 0.24 0.63 0.15 0.77 0.25 1.01 0.19 0.58 0.16 0.80 0.28 0.94 0.23 0.58 0.15 0.76 0.27 0.34 0.19 0.54 0.23 0.44 0.23 0.53 0.31 0.51 0.11 0.52 0.23 0.49 0.21 0.56 0.19 0.53 0.20 0.45 0.25 0.54 0.18 0.49 0.22 1.93 1.25 1.70 0.69 1.81 1.01 2.03 1.20 2.10 0.83 2.07 1.03 2.45 1.42 2.26 0.88 2.35 1.18 2.14 1.31 2.02 0.83 2.08 1.10 0.56 0.32 0.51 0.19 0.53 0.27 0.68 0.34 0.54 0.20 0.61 0.29 0.86 0.50 0.59 0.23 0.73 0.41 0.70 0.42 0.55 0.21 0.62 0.34 0.87 0.87 0.93 0.78 1.32 0.82 0.99 0.86 1.16 0.90 1.54 0.94 1.22 1.05 1.23 0.97 1.74 1.10 1.03 0.94 1.12 0.88 1.56 0.95 Area (cm2) Mean SD 90.65 23.01 54.47 14.70 72.56 26.44 88.36 20.67 55.32 12.42 71.84 23.73 89.10 16.66 55.21 17.39 72.16 24.03 89.37 19.96 55.00 14.73 72.19 24.55 45.71 24.20 59.61 17.34 52.66 21.94 62.90 27.39 57.70 13.88 60.30 21.59 52.52 21.64 62.95 12.32 57.87 18.05 53.73 25.19 60.08 14.58 56.93 20.70 182.31 91.79 144.85 49.28 163.58 75.84 197.60 94.40 168.24 53.22 182.92 77.84 215.96 103.48 175.82 57.40 195.89 85.85 198.62 97.34 162.97 54.84 180.80 80.93 65.64 35.82 58.53 21.62 62.13 29.87 74.18 33.72 59.92 22.01 67.06 29.34 83.10 41.55 62.32 21.13 72.67 34.50 74.29 37.81 60.28 21.62 67.31 31.60 92.21 72.76 0.62 78.61 0.76 85.48 102.23 74.62 0.78 84.60 0.82 93.42 113.50 82.97 0.84 88.12 0.96 100.77 102.63 77.33 0.76 83.81 0.86 93.25

Medium

Top

Ave.

Indian

24

24/SEN/Ban

Low

Medium

Top

Ave.

Thai

Low

Medium

Top

Ave.

Indian

Low

Medium

Top

Ave.

Low

Medium

Top

Average

Mean 20 25.10 20 17.54 40 21.32 20 22.92 20 17.76 40 20.34 20 24.40 20 17.72 40 21.06 60 24.14 60 17.67 120 20.91 20 14.34 20 18.95 40 16.64 20 20.05 20 19.93 40 19.99 20 16.64 20 19.96 40 18.30 60 17.01 60 19.61 120 18.31 100 24.75 100 22.46 200 23.61 100 25.26 100 25.23 200 25.25 100 27.70 100 26.14 200 26.92 300 25.90 300 24.61 600 25.26 339 17.28 340 16.71 679 17.00 340 18.92 339 17.53 679 18.23 339 19.57 340 17.54 679 18.55 1018 18.59 1019 17.26 2037 17.93 439 18.98 440 18.014 879 18.499 440 20.36 439 19.287 879 19.825 439 21.42 440 19.496 879 20.458 1318 20.26 1319 18.932 2637 19.594

98
No. of le afle ts 15

Le af le ngth (cm) 25 20 15 10 5 0 KB
Le af fre sh we ight (g) 3 2 1 0 KB

Low

Medium

T op

Ave.

Low

Medium

T op

Ave.

10 5 0 KP
Low Medium

Mean
T op Ave.

KB
Le af dry we ight (g) 1.5 1.0

KP
Low Medium

Mean
T op Ave.

0.5 0.0

KP

Mean

KB

KP

Mean

Le af are a (cm 2 ) 120

Low

Medium

T op

Ave.

80 40

0 KB KP Mean

Figure 24 Leaf characteristic values of 7-year-old neem planted in the International Figure 24 Provenance Trials established in Kanchanaburi (KB) and Kamphaeng Phet Figure 24 (KP) at different crown portions

99
No. of le afle ts 15 10 5 0
Medium Medium

Le af le ngth (cm) 30 20 10 0 Low Low Ave.

KB

KP

Mean

KB

KP

Mean

Medium

Medium

Low

Ave.

Low

Ave.

T hai

Indian

T hai

Indian

Le af fre sh we ight (g) 5 4 3 2 1 0 Medium

KB

KP

Mean

Le af dry we ight (g) 3 2 1 0

KB

KP

Mean

Medium

Medium

Medium

Low

Ave.

Ave.

Ave.

Low

Low

Low

T hai

Indian

T hai

Indian

Le af are a (cm 2 ) 240 180 120 60 0

KB

KP

Mean

Medium

Medium

Low

Ave.

Low

T hai

Indian

Figure 25 Leaf characteristic values of 7-year-old Thai and Indian Neems planted in Figure 25 the International Provenance Trials established in Kanchanaburi (KB) and Figure 25 Kamphaeng Phet (KP) at different crown portions

Ave.

Top

Top

Ave.

Top

Top

Top

Top

Ave.

Top

Top

Top

Top

10

20

30

0
0

12

21/THA/Bo

21/THA/Bo

21/THA/Bo 20/THA/Non 22/THA/Doi 11/LAO/Vie 19/THA/Tun 10/IND/Ram 13/MYA/Yez 23/GHA/Sun 12/MYA/Mye 08/IND/Sag 09/IND/Bal 07/IND/Gha 04/IND/Chi 03/IND/Man 06/IND/Ann 05/IND/All 14/NEP/Lam
14/NEP/Lam 19/THA/Tun 10/IND/Ram 13/MYA/Yez 23/GHA/Sun 12/MYA/Mye 08/IND/Sag 09/IND/Bal 07/IND/Gha 04/IND/Chi 03/IND/Man 06/IND/Ann 05/IND/All 11/LAO/Vie 22/THA/Doi 20/THA/Non

21/THA/Bo

No. of le afle ts 18

20/THA/Non

20/THA/Non 22/THA/Doi 11/LAO/Vie 19/THA/Tun 10/IND/Ram 13/MYA/Yez 23/GHA/Sun 12/MYA/Mye 08/IND/Sag 09/IND/Bal 07/IND/Gha 04/IND/Chi 03/IND/Man 06/IND/Ann 05/IND/All 14/NEP/Lam

Leaf le ngth (cm) 40

Le af dry we ight (g) 3

22/THA/Doi

Le af fre sh we ight (g) 6

11/LAO/Vie

19/THA/Tun

10/IND/Ram

13/MYA/Yez

23/GHA/Sun

12/MYA/Mye

08/IND/Sag

09/IND/Bal

Provenance

Provenance

Provenance

Provenance

07/IND/Gha

04/IND/Chi

03/IND/Man

06/IND/Ann

05/IND/All

14/NEP/Lam KB

KB

15/NEP/Get

15/NEP/Get

KB

KB

15/NEP/Get 16/PAK/Tib

15/NEP/Get 16/PAK/Tib

16/PAK/Tib KP

16/PAK/Tib KP 17/PAK/Mul

17/PAK/Mul

KP

KP

17/PAK/Mul
Mean

17/PAK/Mul 18/SRL/Kul
Mean

Figure 26 Leaf length of 7-year-old neem from 22 provenances planted in the Figure 26 International Provenance Trials established in Kanchanaburi (KB) and Figure 26 Kamphaeng Phet (KP)
18/SRL/Kul Mean

18/SRL/Kul

18/SRL/Kul 24/SEN/Ban

100

Mean

24/SEN/Ban

24/SEN/Ban

24/SEN/Ban

100

200

0 21/THA/Bo 20/THA/Non 22/THA/Doi 11/LAO/Vie 19/THA/Tun 10/IND/Ram 13/MYA/Yez 23/GHA/Sun 12/MYA/Mye 08/IND/Sag 09/IND/Bal 07/IND/Gha 04/IND/Chi 03/IND/Man 06/IND/Ann 05/IND/All 14/NEP/Lam Provenance

Le af are a (cm 2 ) 300

Figure 26 (Continued)
KB 15/NEP/Get 16/PAK/Tib KP 17/PAK/Mul 18/SRL/Kul 24/SEN/Ban Mean

101

102 Table 16 Analysis of variance on leaf characteristics of 7-year-old neem grown in the Table 16 International Provenance Trials, Thailand
Items Length Sources Sites Varieties Provenances Crown portions Sites Varieties Provenances Crown portions Sites Varieties Provenances Crown portions Sites Varieties Provenances Crown portions Sites Varieties Provenances Crown portions Df 1 1 21 2 1 1 21 2 1 1 21 2 1 1 21 2 1 1 21 2 SS 1156.25 24910.91 39079.89 1756.88 69.21 195.35 3339.07 116.22 420.97 2180.30 3112.72 119.32 13.97 980.53 1206.11 32.68 2324194931.01 59616581758.04 71277528248.05 1020459671.83 MS 1156.25 24910.91 1860.95 878.44 69.21 195.35 159.00 58.11 420.97 2180.30 148.23 59.66 13.97 980.53 57.43 16.34 2324194931.01 59616581758.04 3394168011.81 510229835.92 F 29.68** 832.11** 75.20** 22.68** 7.33** 20.79** 19.24** 6.16** 186.00** 1366.40** 118.46** 25.08** 19.20** 2716.90** 207.04** 22.67** 52.22** 2630.70** 184.91** 11.33**

No. of leaflets per leaf

Fresh weight

Dry weight

Area

Remarks:

** *

= Highly significant differences at 99% confident limit = Significant differences at 95% confident limit

103 Table 17 Correlation analysis on leaf characteristics of 7-year-old Thai and Indian Table 17 Neems planted in Kanchanaburi (KB) and Kamphaeng Phet (KP) and Table 17 geographical data of provenance origin
Total Length No. of leaflets per leaf Fresh weight Dry weight Area Latitude Longitude Altitude Rainfall CD Crown portions Length 1 0.599** 0.795** No. of Fresh leaflets weight per leaf 0.599** 0.795** 1 0.424** 0.424** 1 Dry weight 0.786** 0.366** 0.942** Area 0.826** 0.407** 0.924** 0.953** 1

-0.205** 0.223** -0.110** 0.212** -0.097** 0.127** -0.089** 0.033 -0.043* 0.052** 0.012 0.068**

-0.137** 0.284** -0.148** 0.221** -0.265** 0.136**

-0.173** 0.339** -0.186** 0.289** -0.254** 0.130** 0.786** 0.366** 0.942** 1 -0.162** 0.336** -0.189** 0.291** -0.245** 0.093** 0.826** 0.407** 0.924** 0.953** No. of Fresh leaflets weight per leaf 0.599** 0.801** 1 0.461** 0.461** 1

KB Length No. of leaflets per leaf Fresh weight Dry weight Area

Latitude Longitude Altitude -0.214** 0.216** -0.041 0.105** 0.01 -0.005

Rainfall 0.229** 0.060*

CD -0.039 0.003

Crown portions 0.145** 0.091**

Length 1 0.599** 0.801**

Dry weight 0.788** 0.389** 0.955**

Area 0.833** 0.418** 0.920** 0.957** 1

-0.120** 0.259** -0.087** 0.201** -0.148** 0.169**

-0.179** 0.310** -0.114** 0.270** -0.177** 0.152** 0.788** 0.389** 0.955** 1 -0.174** 0.322** -0.125** 0.287** -0.172** 0.112** 0.833** 0.418** 0.920** 0.957** No. of Fresh leaflets weight per leaf 0.597** 0.815** 1 0.372** 0.372** 1

KP Length No. of leaflets per leaf Fresh weight Dry weight Area

Latitude Longitude Altitude

Rainfall

CD

Crown portions

Length 1 0.597** 0.815**

Dry weight 0.780** 0.327** 0.978**

Area 0.813** 0.387** 0.951** 0.954** 1

-0.200** 0.237** -0.261** 0.197** -0.091** 0.109** -0.147** -0.052 -0.087** 0.044 0.061* 0.042

-0.187** 0.372** -0.270** 0.288** -0.281** 0.106**

-0.168** 0.383** -0.279** 0.318** -0.314** 0.105** 0.780** 0.327** 0.978** 1 -0.156** 0.376** -0.295** 0.315** -0.279** 0.072** 0.813** 0.387** 0.951** 0.954** No. of Fresh leaflets weight per leaf 0.644** 0.788** 1 0.527** 0.527** 1

Thai Length No. of leaflets per leaf Fresh weight Dry weight Area

Latitude Longitude Altitude

Rainfall

CD

Crown portions

Length 1 0.644** 0.788**

Dry weight 0.811** 0.529** 0.939**

Area 0.866** 0.600** 0.902** 0.910** 1

0.109** -0.258** 0.162** -0.268** 0.131** 0.196** -0.097* -0.262** -0.054 -0.188** 0.138** 0.111** 0.017 0.035 0.047 0.195**

0.131** -0.268** 0.212** -0.272** 0.136** -0.212** 0.174** -0.297** 0.192** -0.173** 0.227** -0.365**

0.201** 0.811** 0.529** 0.939** 1 0.163** 0.866** 0.600** 0.902** 0.910** No. of Fresh leaflets weight per leaf 0.646** 0.702** 1 0.477** 0.477** 1

Indian Length No. of leaflets per leaf Fresh weight Dry weight Area

Latitude Longitude Altitude 0.080** 0.152** 0.079** 0.068** 0.055* 0.044* 0.039 0.070** 0.013 0.029 -0.088**

Rainfall 0.016

CD

Crown portions

Length 1 0.646** 0.702** 0.737** 0.762**

Dry weight 0.737** 0.483** 0.920** 1 0.908**

Area 0.762** 0.494** 0.873** 0.908** 1

0.089** 0.128** 0.024 0.055*

-0.092** -0.047* -0.017 -0.005 -0.050* -0.008 -0.029 0.021

-0.138** 0.175** -0.021 -0.008 0.234** 0.136**

0.483** 0.920** 0.494** 0.873**

104
Altitude

0.2 0.1 0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3

Latitude

0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3

Longitude

0.3 0.2 0.1 0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3

T otal KB KP T hai Indian

T otal KB KP T hai Indian

T otal KB KP T hai Indian Crown portion

0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0.4

Rainfall

0.2 0.1 0

CD 0.25 0.2 0.15

-0.1 0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0.4 T otal KB KP T hai Indian Le ngth T otal KB KP T hai Indian No. of le afle ts pe r le af 0.05 0 T otal KB KP T hai Indian Fre sh we ight

1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

T otal KB KP T hai Indian Dry we ight

T otal KB KP T hai Indian

Are a

T otal KB KP T hai Indian

1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

Length 1 0.9 No. of leaflets per leaf 0.8 0.7 Fresh weight 0.6 0.5 Dry weight 0.4

T otal KB KP T hai Indian

T otal KB KP T hai Indian

0.3 Area

Figure 27 Correlation analysis on leaf characteristics of 7-year-old Thai and Indian Figure 27 Neems planted in Kanchanaburi (KB) and Kamphaeng Phet (KP) and Figure 27 geographical data of provenance origin

105 Table 18 Euclidean distance of leaf characteristics of 7-year-old neem grown in the International Provenance Trials in Thailand
12/MYA/Mye 13/MYA/Yez 20/THA/Non 14/NEP/Lam 23/GHA/Sun 10/IND/Ram 19/THA/Tun 17/PAK/Mul 03/IND/Man 22/THA/Doi 11/LAO/Vie 24/SEN/Ban 0 06/IND/Ann 07/IND/Gha 16/PAK/Tib 18/SRL/Kul 0 1525 15/NEP/Get 0 1474 450 1200 325 08/IND/Sag 04/IND/Chi 21/THA/Bo 09/IND/Bal

21/THA/Bo 0 20/THA/Non 6171 22/THA/Doi 307 11/LAO/Vie 4114 19/THA/Tun 5534 10/IND/Ram 10131 13/MYA/Yez 12182 23/GHA/Sun 10565 12/MYA/Mye 11237 08/IND/Sag 9942 09/IND/Bal 10325 07/IND/Gha 10059 04/IND/Chi 10375 03/IND/Man 10715 06/IND/Ann 9605 05/IND/All 9585 14/NEP/Lam 7683 15/NEP/Get 11049 16/PAK/Tib 9575 17/PAK/Mul 11499 18/SRL/Kul 9850 24/SEN/Ban 11375

0 5864 2057 11705 16302 18353 16736 17407 16112 16496 16230 16546 16886 15775 15756 13854 17220 15746 17670 16020 17546

0 3806 5841 10438 12489 10872 11544 10249 10633 10367 10683 11023 9912 9892 7991 11357 9883 11807 10157 11682

0 9648 14244 16296 14678 15350 14055 14439 14173 14489 14829 13718 13698 11797 15163 13689 15613 13963 15488

0 4597 6648 5031 5703 4408 4791 4526 4841 5181 4071 4051 2150 5515 4041 5966 4316 5841

0 2051 434 1106 189 195 71 245 585 526 546 2447 919 555 1369 281 1244

0 1617 945 2240 1857 2123 1807 1467 2577 2597 4498 1133 2607 682 2332 807

0 672 623 239 505 189 150 960 980 2881 484 990 935 715 810

0 1295 911 1177 861 521 1632 1652 3553 187 1661 263 1387 138

0 384 118 434 774 337 357 2258 1108 366 1558 92 1433

0 266 50 390 721 741 2642 724 750 1174 476 1049

0 316 656 455 475 2376 990 484 1440 210 1315

0 340 771 791 2692 674 800 1124 526 999

0 1111 1130 3032 334 1140 784 866 659

0 20 1921 1445 30 1895 245 1770

0 1901 1464 10 1915 265 1790

05/IND/All

0 3366 1892 3816 2166 3691

0 1924 274 1799

0 1650 125

106

10/IND/Ram 07/IND/Gha 08/IND/Sag 18/SRL/Kul 06/IND/Ann 05/IND/All 16/PAK/Tib 23/GHA/Sun 03/IND/Man 09/IND/Bal 04/IND/Chi 13/MYA/Yez 12/MYA/Mye 15/NEP/Get 17/PAK/Mul 24/SEN/Ban 19/THA/Tun 14/NEP/Lam 21/THA/Bo 22/THA/Doi 20/THA/Non 11/LAO/Vie 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0

Figure 28 Leaf dendrogram of 7-year-old neem grown in the International Figure 28 Provenance Trials in Thailand

107 Stomatal Characteristics Stomata are tiny pores formed by a pair of specialized cells, the guard cells, which are found in the surface of aerial parts of higher plants. The stomata normally serve as the principle pathways through which gaseous exchange takes place between the intercellular spaces of the leaf and the surrounding environment. Stomata vary widely in size and frequency. Stomatal size, in general, is often correlated with stomatal frequency. Species with smaller stomata usually have a higher stomatal frequency compared to species with larger stomata (Hopkins, 1995). Stomatal Frequency In the present study, average stomatal frequency on abaxial surface of neem leaflets was 259.06 stomata/mm2. On the other hand, there were slight number of stomata on adaxial surface (2.14 stomata/mm2) which detected near veins, as shown in Table 19 and Figure 29 Comparison on experimental sites, average stomatal frequency of neem grown in Kamphaeng Phet was more than that grown in Kanchanaburi on which both leaflet surfaces (abaxial surface: 261.26 and 256.85 stomata/mm2 and adaxial surface: 2.91 and 1.36 stomata/mm2, Table 19 and Figure 30), but these differences were insignificant (Table 20). Thus, stomatal frequency of neem was not affected by site conditions. Comparison on varieties (Table 19 and Figure 30), average stomatal frequency on abaxial surface of Thai Neem was less than that of Indian Neem (204.40 and 275.13 stomata/mm2). But on adaxial surface, the average stomatal frequency of Thai Neem was more than those of Indian Neem (2.69 and 1.98 stomata/mm2). The significant difference on stomatal frequency among neem varieties was found only on abaxial surface (F = 59.72**, Table 12). Concerning to varieties and experimental sites, Thai Neem planted in Kamphaeng Phet had the least average stomatal frequency on abaxial surface, while Indian Neem planted in the same experimental site had the most (179.50 and 285.31 stomata/mm2). On the other hand, on adaxial surface, Thai Neem planted in Kanchanaburi had the most average stomatal frequency, while Indian Neem planted in the same experimental site had the least (3.69 and 0.68 stomata/mm2), as shown in Table 19 and Figure 30. Comparison on provenances, as shown in Table 19 and Figure 31 on abaxial surface, Provenance 22/THA/Doi and had the least average stomatal frequency average stomatal frequency, whereas Provenance 17/PAK/Mul had the most (178.91 and 315.16 stomata/mm2) The significant difference on stomatal frequency among neem provenances was found only on abaxial surface (F = 3.94**, Table 12). Thus, only genetic factors effected to stomatal frequency on abaxial surface.

108

a)

b)

c)

d)

Figure 29 Stomatal on abaxial surface of Thai neem (a) and Indian Neem (b) and Figure 29 stomatal on adaxial surface of Thai Neem (c) and Indian Neem (d), 320x

109 On adaxial surface, stomata were found in 16 provenances. No stomata was detected on Provenances 05/IND/All, 09/IND/Bal, 12/MYA/Mye, 16/PAK/Tib, 21/THA/Bo, and 23/GHA/Sun. Provenance 19/THA/Tun had highest average stomatal frequency, while Provenance 20/THA/Non had lowest (8.59 and 0.16 stomata/mm2). Considering to provenances, varieties, and experimental sites, on adaxial surface, 6 provenances were detected the stomata in both sites, while other 9 provenances were detected the stomata when planted in Kamphaeng Phet but Provenance 20/THA/Non were detected the stomata when planted in Kanchanaburi only. On abaxial surface, all Thai Neem Provenances grown in Kanchanaburi had more stomatal frequencies than those grown in Kamphaeng Phet, while almost Indian Neem Provenances grown in Kamphaeng Phet had more stomatal frequency than those grown in Kanchanaburi except Provenances 03/IND/Man, 05/IND/All, and 16/PAK/Tib. These results were similar to some growth and leaf characteristics studies due to Thai Neem was sensitive to site conditions more than Indian Neem as , on abaxial surface, it was very clear wherein Kamphaeng Phet that Thai Neem Provenances had less stomatal frequency than Indian Neem Provenance, but in Kanchanaburi, the difference on stomatal frequency among varieties was not clear. Stomatal Size In the present study, the average stomatal size on abaxial surface of neem leaflet was 20.50 x 24.55 m, while stomata on adaxial surface were bigger as 21.43 x 28.88 m (Table 19). As shown in Table 19 and Figure 30, neem planted in Kanchanaburi had bigger stomatal size on abaxial surface than those plated in Kamphaeng Phet (21.00 x 25.17 and 20.01 x 23.93 m) but on adaxial surface, the neem planted in Kanchanaburi had smaller stomatal size than those plated in Kamphaeng Phet (21.21 x 28.66 and 21.50 x 28.94 m). Comparison on varieties, the average stomatal sizes on both leaf surfaces of Thai Neem were bigger than those of Indian Neem as presented in Table 19 and Figure 30, abaxial surface: 22.85 x 26.84 and 19.81 x 23.87 m, adaxial surface: 26.17 x 32.00 and 19.75 x 27.77 m.

110 Comparison on provenances, on abaxial surface, the stomata of Provenance 22/THA/Doi were biggest, but the stomatal of Provenance 24/SEN/Ban were smallest (23.68 x 28.11 and 18.24 x 21.92 m). On adaxial surface, the stomatal width of Provenance 13/MYA/Mye was the least, but that of Provenance 11/LAO/Vie was the most (16.33 and 27.38 m). While, the stomatal length of Provenance 07/IND/Gha was the least, but that of Provenance 22/THA/Doi was the most (26.12 and 33.33 m) as presented in Table 19 and Figure 31. Regarding to provenances, varieties, and experimental sites, in Kanchanaburi, the top five provenances on stomatal sizes on abaxial surface were Provenances 22/THA/Doi, 19/THA/Tun, 20/THA/Non, 21/THA/Non, and 18/SRL/Kul (23.17 x 28.00, 22.66 x 26.83, 22.46 x 27.17, 22.22 x 26.07, and 21.75 x 26.14 m), but in Kamphaeng Phet all Thai Neem Provenances were the biggest stomatal sizes. Like stomatal frequency, the differences on stomatal sizes on abaxial surface among varieties were very clear when planted in Kamphaeng Phet. But in Kanchanaburi, these were not clear. So the variety cannot be identified by using stomatal characteristics. In Table 20, the significant difference of neem stomatal width and length on abaxial surface among experimental sites were detected (F = 58.89** and 54.74**). The significant differences on all neem stomatal sizes on both leaf surfaces among varieties and provenances were found, abaxial surface: F = 508.69** width, F = 248.48** length; adaxial surface: F = 87.60** width, F = 20.79**). The statistical differences on stomatal width and length on abaxial and adaxial surfaces among neem provenances were significant as F = 30.64**, 17.10**, 8.00**, and 2.44*, respectively. These results were obviously showed that environmental factors cannot change the stomatal sizes on adaxial surfaces, but genetic factors can, moreover genetic factors had more influent on stomatal sizes than environmental factors. Correlation Study of Stomatal Characteristics and Provenance Origin The correlation analysis between stomatal characteristics (stomatal frequency, and stomatal width and length) on adaxial and abaxial surface of Thai and Indian Neems planted in Kanchanaburi and Kamphaeng Phet and geographical data (latitude, longitude, altitude, and mean annual rainfall) of provenance origin were shown in Table 21 and Figure 32. From neem planted in both experimental sites, all stomatal characteristics on abaxial surface were significant correlations with latitude of provenance origin but those on adaxial surface were not and the correlations of latitude of provenance origin with all stomatal characteristics except stomatal frequency on abaxial surface were negative. Moreover, the longitude correlated with all stomatal traits unless stomatal frequency on abaxial surface was positive and the significant correlations were detected except longitude x stomatal frequency on adaxial surface.

111 However, the correlations of altitude of provenance origin with all stomatal characteristics except stomatal frequency on both leaf surfaces were negative but the significant correlations were found except altitude x stomatal frequency on adaxial surface. On the other hand, the rainfall correlated with all stomatal traits unless stomatal frequency on abaxial surface was positive and the significant correlations were detected except rainfall x stomatal frequency and stomatal length on adaxial surface Comparison on experimental sites, the negative correlations of latitude of provenance origin with all stomatal characteristics except stomatal frequency on abaxial surface of neem planted in Kanchanaburi were similar to those of neem planted in Kamphaeng Phet and the significant correlations of latitude x stomatal frequency and stomatal width on abaxial surface of neem planted in both experimental sites was detected but latitude x stomatal length on abaxial surface was significant only when planted in Kamphaeng Phet. Furthermore, the longitude correlated with all stomatal traits unless stomatal frequency on abaxial surface of neem planted in Kanchanaburi was positive but when planted in Kamphaeng Phet the longitude correlated with all stomatal traits unless stomatal frequency on both leaf surfaces. And the significant correlations of longitude with all stomatal traits except stomatal frequency width on both experimental sites and length on abaxial surface of neem planted in Kanchanaburi was found but in Kamphaeng Phet, the correlation was significant except longitude x stomatal frequency on adaxial surface. On the other side, the altitude and rainfall correlated with all stomatal characteristics of neem planted in Kamphaeng Phet were significant but in Kanchanaburi, only altitude x stomatal width on abaxial surface and rainfall x stomatal characteristics on abaxial surface were significant. While, in Kanchanaburi, the correlations of altitude with all stomatal traits and those of rainfall with stomatal frequency on abaxial surface and stomatal width on adaxial surface were negative, in Kamphaeng Phet, the correlations of altitude with all stomatal traits unless stomatal frequency on both leaf surfaces, and those of rainfall x stomatal frequency on both leaf surfaces, were negative. The reasons of these results were different site conditions between experimental sites and provenance origins so neem might be adapted to these differences. Comparing to varieties, longitude x stomatal frequency on abaxial surfaces, altitude x stomatal width on abaxial surface, and rainfall x stomatal frequency and stomatal length on abaxial surfaces of Thai Neem were significant but latitude x stomatal length on abaxial surface, longitude x stomatal width and length on abaxial surface, and rainfall x stomatal traits on abaxial surface of Indian Neem were significant.

112 While, the correlations of latitude x stomatal frequency on adaxial surface, longitude x stomatal frequency on adaxial surface and stomatal sizes on abaxial surface, altitude x stomatal frequency on both leaf surfaces and stomatal width on adaxial surface, and rainfall x stomatal width and length on abaxial surface and stomatal length on adaxial surface of Thai Neem were negative, the correlation of latitude x stomatal frequency and stomatal length on adaxial surface and stomatal width on abaxial surface, longitude x stomatal width on adaxial surface, altitude x stomatal frequency on abaxial surface and stomatal width and length on adaxial surface, and rainfall x stomatal frequency on both leaf surfaces and stomatal width on adaxial surface of Indian Neem were negative. The causes of these results were the wider natural distributions of Indian Neem than those of Thai Neem as well as the wider provenance origins in this study of Indian Neem than those of Thai Neem. Correlation Study of Stomatal Characteristics The correlation analysis between stomatal characteristics (stomatal frequency, and stomatal width and length) on adaxial and abaxial surface of Thai and Indian Neems planted in Kanchanaburi and Kamphaeng Phet were presented in Table 21 and Figure 32. The correlations of stomatal frequency on both leaf surfaces with leaf area of all neem planted in both experimental sites were negative but the correlations of stomatal sizes with leaf area were positive. These correlations were significant except leaf area x stomatal frequency on adaxial surface. Stomatal frequency correlated with the other stomatal characteristics unless stomatal frequency on adaxial surface was significant. On the other hand, the correlations of stomatal frequency on adaxial surface x stomatal width on abaxial surface and stomatal width and length on adaxial surface were negative and the correlations between stomatal frequency on adaxial surface and the other stomatal traits were insignificant. However, stomatal frequency correlated with stomatal sizes was negative except stomatal frequency on adaxial surface x stomatal length on abaxial surface, only the correlations of stomatal frequency on abaxial surface x stomatal width and length on abaxial surface and stomatal width on adaxial surface were significant. Furthermore, the correlations between stomatal sizes on both leaf surfaces were positive and significant. Comparison on experimental sites, the correlations of leaf area with stomatal frequency on both leaf surfaces of neem planted in both experimental sites were negative but those with stomatal sizes were positive. In Kamphaeng Phet, leaf area correlated with stomatal characteristics except stomatal frequency on adaxial surface was significant but in Kanchanaburi, the significant correlations were found except leaf area x stomatal frequency and stomatal length on adaxial surface.

113 While, the correlation between stomatal frequency on abaxial and adaxial surface of neem planted in Kanchanaburi was negative, those of neem planted in Kamphaeng Phet was positive. Stomatal frequency on both leaf surfaces correlated with stomatal sizes of neem planted in Kamphaeng Phet was negative but in Kanchanaburi, only stomatal frequency on abaxial surface correlated with stomatal sizes was negative. The significant correlations of stomatal frequency on abaxial surface with the other stomatal traits unless stomatal length on adaxial surface of neem planted in Kamphaeng Phet were found but in Kanchanaburi, only stomatal frequency on abaxial surface x stomatal width and length on abaxial surface was significant. Although, the positive correlations between stomatal sizes of neem planted in Kanchanaburi were similar to those of neem planted in Kamphaeng Phet, the significant correlations of those planted in Kamphaeng Phet were detected but in Kanchanaburi only stomatal width x length on both leaf surfaces was significant. From these results, it seems that stomatal traits were affected by site conditions, especially those on abaxial surface. Comparing to varieties, the correlations of leaf area with stomatal characteristics except stomatal frequency and stomatal length on abaxial surface of Thai Neem were negative but leaf area x stomatal frequency on both leaf surfaces and stomatal length on adaxial surface of Indian Neem was negative. Whilst, only the leaf area x stomatal frequency on abaxial surface of Thai Neem was significant, the leaf area x stomatal traits on abaxial surface of Indian Neem was significant. Moreover, the negative correlations of stomatal frequency on abaxial surface with the other stomatal traits unless stomatal frequency on adaxial surface of Thai neem were similar to those of Indian Neem, the stomatal frequency x stomatal sizes on abaxial surface of Thai Neem was significant but stomatal frequency on abaxial surface x stomatal frequency on adaxial surface and stomatal sizes on abaxial surface of Indian Neem was significant. On the other side, only stomatal frequency on adaxial surface x stomatal frequency of abaxial surface of Indian Neem had significant correlation. Though, the negative correlations of stomatal frequency on adaxial surface with stomatal width on abaxial surface and stomatal sizes on adaxial surface of Thai Neem were found, in Indian Neem the negative correlations of stomatal frequency on adaxial surface with stomatal sizes on abaxial surface and stomatal width on adaxial surface were found. Unlike the above positive correlations between stomatal sizes, stomatal length on abaxial surface x stomatal width on adaxial surface of Thai Neem and stomatal width on adaxial surface x stomatal size on abaxial surface of Indian Neem was negative. Furthermore, the significant correlations of stomatal width on abaxial surface x stomatal length on both surface, and stomatal width x length on adaxial surface of Thai Neem and stomatal width x length on abaxial surface of Indian Neem were detected.

114 These different results between neem varieties were caused by the expression of genetic factors among varieties and environmental factors. Cluster Analysis The stomatal dendrogram had been constructed from Euclidean distance (Table 22) of neem as presented in Figure 33. Like genetic and growth dendrogram, Thai Neem except Provenance 11/LAO/Vie was in different cluster from Indian Neem. When D = 15, they were grouped into 6 clusters that were 1) 07/IND/Gha, 14/NEP/Lam; 04/IND/Chi, 24/SEN/Ban, 10/ IND /Ram, and 15/NEP/Get 2) 17/PAK/Mul 3) 11/LAO/Vie, 13/MYA/Yez, 08/IND/Sag, 18/SRL/Kul, 03/IND/Man, and 06/IND/Ann 4) 23/GHA/Sun, 12/MYA/Mye, 09/IND/Bal, 05/IND/All, and 16/PAK/Tib 5) 21/THA/Bo 6) 22/THA/Doi, 20/THA/Non, and 19/THA/Tun.

115 Table 19 Average stomatal frequency and size of 7-year-old neem grown in the Table 19 International Provenance Trials established in Kanchanaburi (KB) and Table 19 Kamphaeng Phet (KP)
Provenances Varieties No. Thai 1 Code 21/THA/Bo KB KP Mean Thai 3 20/THA/Non KB KP Mean Thai 4 22/THA/Doi KB KP Mean Thai 5 11/LAO/Vie KB KP Mean Thai 6 19/THA/Tun KB KP Mean Indian 7 10/IND/Ram KB KP Mean Indian 8 13/MYA/Yez KB KP Mean Indian 9 23/GHA/Sun KB KP Mean Indian 10 12/MYA/Mye KB KP Mean Indian 11 08/IND/Sag KB KP Mean Indian 12 09/IND/Bal KB KP Mean Indian 13 07/IND/Gha KB KP Mean Indian 14 04/IND/Chi KB KP Mean Sites N 16 16 32 16 16 32 16 16 32 16 16 32 16 16 32 16 16 32 16 16 32 16 16 32 16 16 32 16 16 32 16 16 32 16 16 32 16 16 32 Abaxial Mean 221.56 181.25 201.41 227.81 167.19 197.50 191.88 165.94 178.91 281.56 199.06 240.31 223.75 184.06 203.91 254.06 296.88 275.47 220.94 246.09 242.50 253.44 SD 36.14 66.95 56.74 48.72 69.81 66.75 65.93 57.37 62.20 58.47 76.16 78.85 67.49 71.19 71.15 94.78 96.11 96.38 84.40 98.99 90.28 99.36 Adaxial Mean SD 32 32 64 32 32 64 32 32 64 32 32 64 32 32 64 32 32 64 32 32 64 32 32 64 32 32 64 32 32 64 32 32 64 32 32 64 32 32 64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.31 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.88 0.94 2.02 1.56 6.25 1.25 4.58 0.63 2.50 6.2515.11 3.4411.03 16.5666.25 0.63 1.71 8.5946.81 0.00 0.00 1.56 4.37 0.78 3.14 0.00 0.00 3.1312.50 1.56 8.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.63 2.50 0.31 1.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.4412.48 5.9417.44 4.6914.97 0.00 0.00 9.0636.25 4.5325.63 Stomatal frequency, stomata/mm2 N Width Stomatal size, m Abaxial Length Adaxial Width Length

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD 22.22 3.00 26.07 3.18 23.99 1.99 28.54 3.67 23.11 2.68 27.30 3.63 22.46 2.47 27.17 2.96 24.75 2.14 29.29 4.29 21.94 1.65 26.33 2.43 22.20 2.10 26.75 2.72 24.75 2.14 29.29 4.29 23.17 2.71 28.00 3.62 23.57 4.56 32.66 4.21 24.18 1.97 28.22 3.00 26.26 1.43 34.34 4.29 23.68 2.40 28.11 3.30 24.65 3.61 33.33 3.78 21.75 2.53 25.25 3.25 23.23 . 31.31 . 23.52 2.50 26.17 3.00 27.90 2.53 32.58 4.57 22.63 2.65 25.71 3.13 27.39 2.83 32.44 4.30 22.66 1.94 26.83 3.27 23.74 0.71 29.29 2.86 22.60 1.95 25.82 2.90 27.61 1.17 31.99 2.33 22.63 1.93 26.33 3.11 26.06 2.30 30.91 2.63 20.55 1.49 24.75 2.67 19.82 2.08 23.39 2.89 22.73 2.92 29.04 4.84 20.19 1.83 24.07 2.84 22.73 2.92 29.04 4.84 20.46 1.38 25.00 2.22 18.44 1.78 23.06 2.76 16.33 1.78 30.78 0.89 19.45 1.88 24.03 2.67 16.33 1.78 30.78 0.89 20.52 1.48 25.41 3.12 19.22 1.89 22.89 2.47 19.87 1.81 24.15 3.07 20.04 2.73 23.67 3.41 18.47 1.13 22.41 2.29 19.26 2.22 23.04 2.95 20.77 2.07 25.88 2.66 20.33 1.93 23.42 2.03 18.69 0.71 31.31 5.71 20.55 2.00 24.65 2.66 18.69 0.71 31.31 5.71 20.74 2.82 24.43 3.05 18.94 1.18 22.19 1.98 19.84 2.33 23.31 2.79 19.44 1.85 23.45 2.44 20.54 0.58 26.94 4.21 18.88 1.51 23.11 2.46 17.17 2.47 25.51 2.66 19.16 1.70 23.28 2.44 18.62 2.53 26.12 3.16 21.18 2.23 25.32 3.35 18.78 1.64 21.65 2.24 20.71 3.57 27.78 3.57 19.98 2.29 23.49 3.37 20.71 3.57 27.78 3.57

271.25 108.51

264.38 109.53 287.50 129.40 299.69 126.37 293.59 125.96 243.75 266.25 255.00 99.79 89.58 93.98

267.19 112.41 301.25 111.92 284.22 111.69 261.88 104.80 315.63 110.03 288.75 109.17 255.94 127.14 329.06 137.70 292.50 135.56

116 Table 19 (Continued)

Provenances Varieties No. Indian 15 Code 03/IND/Man KB KP Mean Indian 16 06/IND/Ann KB KP Mean Indian 17 05/IND/All KB KP Mean Indian 19 14/NEP/Lam KB KP Mean Indian 20 15/NEP/Get KB KP Mean Indian 21 16/PAK/Tib KB KP Mean Indian 22 17/PAK/Mul KB KP Mean Indian 23 18/SRL/Kul KB KP Mean Indian 24 24/SEN/Ban KB KP Mean Thai KB KP Indian KB KP KB KP Mean Sites N 16 16 32 16 16 32 16 16 32 16 16 32 16 16 32 16 16 32 16 16 32 16 16 32 16 16 32 80 80 272 272 352 352 704 Abaxial Mean 253.44 SD 87.48 265.63 118.38 259.53 102.58 253.75 121.37 273.44 103.87 263.59 111.57 273.44 124.99 265.00 108.34 269.22 115.14 285.63 109.60 287.50 121.34 286.56 113.74 270.31 132.05 282.19 105.51 276.25 117.73 287.50 104.93 262.50 101.41 275.00 102.30 309.69 110.51 320.63 109.94 315.16 108.57 244.69 107.49 265.94 106.21 255.31 105.67 279.69 107.62 295.31 107.15 287.50 105.94 229.31 179.50 204.41 62.40 67.93 69.65 Adaxial Mean SD 32 32 64 32 32 64 32 32 64 32 32 64 32 32 64 32 32 64 32 32 64 32 32 64 32 32 64 160 160 320 544 544 704 704 0.00 0.00 7.8117.03 3.9112.49 0.00 0.00 7.1919.41 3.5913.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.8120.73 6.2512.72 7.0316.94 0.00 0.00 0.63 2.50 0.31 1.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.19 6.05 1.09 4.35 0.31 1.25 10.0027.39 5.1619.70 0.00 0.00 1.25 5.00 0.63 3.54 3.6929.63 1.69 7.55 2.6921.57 0.68 6.03 3.2714.25 1.3615.07 2.9113.04 Stomatal frequency, stomata/mm2 N Width Stomatal size, m Abaxial Length Adaxial Width Length

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD 21.12 2.47 25.38 3.03 20.11 1.48 23.64 1.88 21.04 2.43 26.94 3.17 20.61 2.08 24.51 2.65 21.04 2.43 26.94 3.17 21.05 1.92 24.68 2.41 19.44 1.81 22.00 2.48 21.04 1.62 26.26 3.94 20.25 2.02 23.34 2.78 21.04 1.62 26.26 3.94 20.52 1.69 25.03 2.59 18.85 1.47 22.60 1.92 19.68 1.78 23.82 2.57 20.90 2.09 24.84 2.58 18.52 2.76 26.60 5.02 18.50 1.24 22.98 2.30 20.83 2.29 26.77 3.70 19.70 2.09 23.91 2.60 19.84 2.68 26.70 4.13 20.36 1.92 24.68 2.68 19.60 1.31 24.18 2.46 20.20 1.43 27.27 0.00 19.98 1.67 24.43 2.56 20.20 1.43 27.27 0.00 20.64 1.70 23.93 2.96 18.72 1.20 24.37 2.03 19.68 1.75 24.15 2.53 20.55 2.03 25.06 3.22 18.88 1.42 24.53 2.78 19.44 3.44 30.81 3.14 19.71 1.93 24.80 3.00 19.44 3.44 30.81 3.14 21.75 1.76 26.14 2.68 19.70 2.14 28.79 0.71 19.51 1.61 23.80 2.69 17.34 1.34 29.80 1.78 20.63 2.02 24.97 2.91 17.93 1.77 29.55 1.60 19.07 1.68 22.73 2.64 17.42 1.23 21.12 2.62 20.20 1.43 26.26 2.86 18.25 1.68 21.92 2.73 20.20 1.43 26.26 2.86 22.45 2.56 26.66 3.35 23.86 2.64 30.81 3.42 23.25 2.18 27.01 3.20 27.58 2.12 32.71 3.90 22.85 2.41 26.84 3.28 26.17 2.93 31.99 3.76 20.57 2.06 24.73 2.91 19.28 2.28 27.09 4.11 19.05 1.68 23.02 2.53 19.85 2.70 27.92 3.50 19.81 2.03 23.87 2.86 19.75 2.62 27.77 3.60 21.00 2.32 25.17 3.12 21.21 3.32 28.66 4.18 20.01 2.52 23.93 3.17 21.50 4.10 28.94 4.07 20.50 2.47 24.55 3.21 21.43 3.91 28.88 4.07

Mean 160

264.95 110.05 285.31 107.96 275.13 109.39 256.85 102.23 261.26 109.59 259.06 105.92

Mean 544

1.9811.00 1088

2.1414.10 1408

117
Abaxial

40 0 -40 -80

KB

KP

Mean

Adaxial

-120 -160 -200 -240 -280 No. No. Width Length Width Length

Abaxial Abaxial

40 0 -40 -80

T hai

Indian

Adaxial Adaxial

-120 -160 -200 -240 -280 No. No. Width Length Width Length

Abaxial

50 0 -50

T hai KB

T hai KP

Indian KB

Indian KP

-100

Adaxial

-150 -200 -250 -300 No. No. Width Length Width Length

Figure 30 Stomatal frequency and size of 7-year-old Thai and Indian Neems planted Figure 30 in the International Provenance Trials established in Kanchanaburi (KB) Figure 30 and Kamphaeng Phet (KP)

12

18

24

10

15

12

18

140

210

280

70

21/THA/Bo

21/THA/Bo

21/THA/Bo

21/THA/Bo 20/THA/Non 22/THA/Doi 11/LAO/Vie 19/THA/Tun 10/IND/Ram 13/MYA/Yez 23/GHA/Sun 12/MYA/Mye 08/IND/Sag 09/IND/Bal 07/IND/Gha 04/IND/Chi 03/IND/Man 06/IND/Ann 05/IND/All

20/THA/Non

20/THA/Non 22/THA/Doi

20/THA/Non 22/THA/Doi 11/LAO/Vie 19/THA/Tun 10/IND/Ram 13/MYA/Yez 23/GHA/Sun 12/MYA/Mye 08/IND/Sag 09/IND/Bal

22/THA/Doi

11/LAO/Vie

11/LAO/Vie 19/THA/Tun 10/IND/Ram 13/MYA/Yez 23/GHA/Sun 12/MYA/Mye 08/IND/Sag 09/IND/Bal

19/THA/Tun

10/IND/Ram

Stomatal width on abaxial surface ( m) 24

13/MYA/Yez

Stomatal le ngth on abaxial surface ( m) 30

23/GHA/Sun

No. of stomata on adaxial surface (stomata/mm 2 ) 20

No. of stomata on abaxial surface (stomata/mm 2 ) 350

12/MYA/Mye

08/IND/Sag

09/IND/Bal

Provenance

Provenance

Provenance 07/IND/Gha

Provenance

07/IND/Gha

07/IND/Gha

04/IND/Chi

04/IND/Chi 03/IND/Man 06/IND/Ann 05/IND/All 14/NEP/Lam 15/NEP/Get KB

KB

04/IND/Chi 03/IND/Man 06/IND/Ann 05/IND/All 14/NEP/Lam 15/NEP/Get KB 16/PAK/Tib

KP

03/IND/Man

06/IND/Ann

05/IND/All

14/NEP/Lam

14/NEP/Lam 15/NEP/Get KB 16/PAK/Tib

KP 17/PAK/Mul 18/SRL/Kul
Mean

15/NEP/Get

16/PAK/Tib

16/PAK/Tib 17/PAK/Mul 18/SRL/Kul 24/SEN/Ban

KP

17/PAK/Mul Mean

KP

17/PAK/Mul 18/SRL/Kul
Mean 24/SEN/Ban

18/SRL/Kul

Mean

Figure 31 Stomatal frequency and size of 7-year-old neem from 22 provenances Figure 31 planted in the International Provenance Trials established in Kanchanaburi Figure 31 (KB) and Kamphaeng Phet (KP)
24/SEN/Ban

118

24/SEN/Ban

12

18

24

14

21

28

21/THA/Bo 20/THA/Non

21/THA/Bo 20/THA/Non 22/THA/Doi 11/LAO/Vie 19/THA/Tun 10/IND/Ram 13/MYA/Yez 23/GHA/Sun 12/MYA/Mye 08/IND/Sag 09/IND/Bal 07/IND/Gha 04/IND/Chi 03/IND/Man 06/IND/Ann 05/IND/All

22/THA/Doi 11/LAO/Vie 19/THA/Tun 10/IND/Ram 13/MYA/Yez 23/GHA/Sun 12/MYA/Mye 08/IND/Sag 09/IND/Bal

Figure 31 (Continued)
Stomatal width on adaxial surface ( m) 30
Stomatal length on adaxial surface ( m) 35 Provenance 07/IND/Gha 04/IND/Chi 03/IND/Man 06/IND/Ann 05/IND/All 14/NEP/Lam 15/NEP/Get KB 16/PAK/Tib 17/PAK/Mul 18/SRL/Kul 24/SEN/Ban

Provenance
KP Mean

14/NEP/Lam 15/NEP/Get KB 16/PAK/Tib 17/PAK/Mul 18/SRL/Kul 24/SEN/Ban

KP Mean

119

120 Table 20 Analysis of variance on stomatal frequency and size of 7-year-old neem Table 20 grown in the International Provenance Trials, Thailand
Surfaces Abaxial Items Stomatal Frequency Stomatal frequency Stomatal width Sources Sites Varieties Provenances Sites Varieties Provenances Sites Varieties Provenances Sites Varieties Provenances Sites Varieties Provenances Sites Varieties Provenances Df 1 1 21 1 1 21 1 1 21 1 1 21 1 1 15 1 1 15 SS 3434.70 618387.25 852542.93 421.91 62.57 4424.04 345.42 2282.81 2723.99 542.05 2172.49 2976.30 1.19 638.52 787.37 1.21 275.59 476.70 MS 3434.70 618387.25 40597.28 421.91 62.57 210.67 345.42 2282.81 129.71 542.05 2172.49 141.73 1.19 638.52 52.49 1.21 275.59 31.78 F 0.31 ns 59.73** 3.94** 2.12 ns 0.31 ns 1.06 ns 58.89** 508.69** 30.64** 54.74** 248.48** 17.10** 0.08 ns 87.60** 8.00** 0.07 ns 20.79** 2.44**

Adaxial

Abaxial

Abaxial

Stomatal length

Adaxial

Stomatal width

Adaxial

Stomatal length

Remarks: ** *
ns

= Highly significant differences at 99% confident limit = Significant differences at 95% confident limit = Insignificant difference

121
Table 21 Correlation analysis on stomatal characteristics of 7-year-old Thai and Indian Table 21 Neems planted in Kanchanaburi (KB) and Kamphaeng Phet (KP) and geographical Table 21 data of provenance origin
Mean Stomatal frequency on abaxial surface Stomatal frequency on adaxial surface Stomatal width on abaxial surface Stomatal length on abaxial surface Stomatal width on adaxial surface Stomatal length on adaxial surface Latitude Longitude Altitude Rainfall Leaf area Stomatal Stomatal Stomatal frequency on frequency on width on abaxial adaxial abaxial surface surface surface 1 0.186 -0.300** -0.368** -0.257* -0.157 0.186 1 -0.100 0.010 -0.069 -0.001 -0.300** -0.100 1 0.639** 0.505** 0.457** Stomatal length on abaxial surface -0.368** 0.010 0.639** 1 0.238* 0.289** Stomatal width on adaxial surface -0.257* -0.069 0.505** 0.238* 1 0.447** Stomatal length on adaxial surface -0.157 -0.001 0.457** 0.289** 0.447** 1

0.131** -0.214 -0.139** -0.054* -0.083 -0.099

-0.121** 0.055 0.310** 0.242** 0.386** 0.319**

0.072** 0.032 -0.132** -0.110** -0.407** -0.296*

-0.175** 0.007 0.279** 0.209** 0.266* 0.211

-0.201** -0.124 0.417** 0.351** 0.397** 0.224*

KB Stomatal frequency on abaxial surface Stomatal frequency on adaxial surface Stomatal width on abaxial surface Stomatal length on abaxial surface Stomatal width on adaxial surface Stomatal length on adaxial surface

Latitude

Longitude

Altitude

Rainfall

Leaf area

Stomatal Stomatal Stomatal frequency on frequency on width on abaxial adaxial abaxial surface surface surface 1 -0.057 -0.223** -0.300** -0.162 -0.176 -0.057 1 0.007 0.191 0.262 0.161 -0.223** 0.007 1 0.628** 0.123 0.083

Stomatal length on abaxial surface -0.300** 0.191 0.628** 1 0.087 0.057

Stomatal width on adaxial surface -0.162 0.262 0.123 0.087 1 0.605**

Stomatal length on adaxial surface -0.176 0.161 0.083 0.057 0.605** 1

0.150** -0.231 -0.111** -0.097* -0.412 -0.205

-0.069 0.333 0.239** 0.175** 0.650** 0.431

-0.017 -0.381 -0.110** -0.036 -0.390 -0.251

-0.131** 0.458 0.185** 0.184** -0.058 0.037

-0.131** -0.333 0.249** 0.201** 0.502* 0.334

KP Stomatal frequency on abaxial surface Stomatal frequency on adaxial surface Stomatal width on abaxial surface Stomatal length on abaxial surface Stomatal width on adaxial surface Stomatal length on adaxial surface

Latitude

Longitude

Altitude

Rainfall

Leaf area

Stomatal Stomatal Stomatal frequency on frequency on width on abaxial adaxial abaxial surface surface surface 1 0.426** -0.371** -0.436** -0.278* -0.165 0.426** 1 -0.258 -0.161 -0.241 -0.070 -0.371** -0.258 1 0.622** 0.633** 0.604**

Stomatal length on abaxial surface -0.436** -0.161 0.622** 1 0.308* 0.400**

Stomatal width on adaxial surface -0.278* -0.241 0.633** 0.308* 1 0.409**

Stomatal length on adaxial surface -0.165 -0.07 0.604** 0.400** 0.409** 1

0.114** -0.235 -0.171** -0.013 -0.004 -0.068

-0.169** -0.056 0.388** 0.317** 0.376** 0.329**

0.155** 0.454** -0.156** -0.186** -0.419** -0.317*

-0.216** -0.296* 0.377** 0.241** 0.332** 0.263*

-0.373** -0.205 0.640** 0.527** 0.779** 0.398**

Thai Stomatal frequency on abaxial surface Stomatal frequency on adaxial surface Stomatal width on abaxial surface Stomatal length on abaxial surface Stomatal width on adaxial surface Stomatal length on adaxial surface

Latitude

Longitude

Altitude

Rainfall

Leaf area

Stomatal Stomatal Stomatal frequency on frequency on width on abaxial adaxial abaxial surface surface surface 1 0.072 -0.291** -0.314** -0.243 -0.038 0.072 1 -0.168 0.120 -0.400 -0.199 -0.291** -0.168 1 0.566** 0.293 0.481*

Stomatal length on abaxial surface -0.314** 0.120 0.566** 1 -0.305 0.185

Stomatal width on adaxial surface -0.243 -0.400 0.293 -0.305 1 0.489*

Stomatal length on adaxial surface -0.038 -0.199 0.481* 0.185 0.489* 1

0.043 -0.395 0.094 0.067 0.087 0.233

0.179** -0.250 -0.017 -0.084 0.380 0.053

-0.052 -0.312 0.174** 0.140* -0.064 0.298

0.140* 0.348 -0.025 -0.144** 0.259 -0.062

0.219** -0.291 -0.088 0.037 -0.432 -0.102

Indian Stomatal frequency on abaxial surface Stomatal frequency on adaxial surface Stomatal width on abaxial surface Stomatal length on abaxial surface Stomatal width on adaxial surface Stomatal length on adaxial surface

Latitude

Longitude

Altitude

Rainfall

Leaf area

Stomatal Stomatal Stomatal frequency on frequency on width on abaxial adaxial abaxial surface surface surface 1 0.417** -0.174** -0.297** -0.032 -0.029 0.417** 1 -0.198 -0.200 -0.128 0.070 -0.174** -0.198 1 0.552** -0.130 0.117

Stomatal length on abaxial surface -0.297** -0.200 0.552** 1 -0.077 0.050

Stomatal width on adaxial surface -0.032 -0.128 -0.130 -0.077 1 0.064

Stomatal length on adaxial surface -0.029 0.070 0.117 0.050 0.064 1

0.056 -0.218 -0.001 0.069* 0.161 -0.021

0.002 0.083 0.125** 0.101** -0.074 0.091

-0.027 0.244 0.046 0.016 -0.170 -0.181

-0.077* -0.157 0.084** 0.077* -0.149 0.026

-0.098** -0.015 0.225** 0.189** 0.059 -0.166

122

0.3 0.2 0.1 0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0.4 -0.5

Latitude

0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -0.2 -0.4

Longitude

0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6

Altitude

T otal KB KP T hai Indian

T otal KB KP T hai Indian

T otal KB KP T hai Indian

Stomatal fre que ncy on abaxial surface

0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -0.2 -0.4

Rainfall

0.8 0.6

Le af are a
0.6 0.4

0.4 0.2 0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 T otal KB KP T hai Indian

Stomatal fre que ncy on adaxial surface 0.2 0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6

T otal KB KP T hai Indian

Stomatal width on abaxial surface

T otal KB KP T hai Indian

0.6 0.4 0.2

0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2

0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6

Stomatal le ngth on abaxial surface

0 -0.2 -0.4 T otal KB KP T hai Indian Stomatal width on adaxial surface

0 -0.2 -0.4 T otal KB KP T hai Indian

Stomatal le ngth on adaxial surface

T otal KB KP T hai Indian

0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -0.2 -0.4

0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 -0.1 -0.2

stomatal frequency on abaxial 0.4 surface

0.2 stomatal frequency on adaxial 0 surface -0.2 stomatal width on abaxial surface -0.4 -0.6 stomatal length on abaxial surface

stomatal width on adaxial surface stomatal length on adaxial surface T otal KB KP T hai Indian

T otal KB KP T hai Indian

Figure 32 Correlation analysis on stomatal characteristics of 7-year-old Thai and Figure 32 Indian Neems planted in Kanchanaburi (KB) and Kamphaeng Phet (KP) Figure 32 and geographical data of provenance origin

123 Table 22 Euclidean distance of stomatal characteristics of 7-year-old neem grown in the International Provenance Trials in Thailand
12/MYA/Mye 13/MYA/Yez 20/THA/Non 23/GHA/Sun 14/NEP/Lam 19/THA/Tun 10/IND/Ram 17/PAK/Mul 03/IND/Man 22/THA/Doi 24/SEN/Ban 0.0 06/IND/Ann 11/LAO/Vie 07/IND/Gha 16/PAK/Tib 15/NEP/Get 18/SRL/Kul 0.0 33.0 08/IND/Sag 21/THA/Bo 04/IND/Chi 09/IND/Bal 05/IND/All 0.0 38.2 34.7 5.8 58.6 37.6 37.9 0.0 12.3 35.9 29.5 31.5 7.0 0.0 34.0 39.1 21.7 11.7 0.0 54.2 40.1 35.5 0.0 60.0 28.2

21/THA/Bo 20/THA/Non 22/THA/Doi 11/LAO/Vie 19/THA/Tun 10/IND/Ram 13/MYA/Yez 23/GHA/Sun 12/MYA/Mye 08/IND/Sag 09/IND/Bal 07/IND/Gha 04/IND/Chi 03/IND/Man 06/IND/Ann 05/IND/All 14/NEP/Lam 15/NEP/Get 16/PAK/Tib 17/PAK/Mul 18/SRL/Kul 24/SEN/Ban

0.0 38.6 47.2 57.7 41.4 82.9 56.9 52.2 0.0 19.2 43.1 10.8 78.1 49.5 67.9 0.0 61.6 26.3 96.8 68.0 85.5 0.0 36.8 35.8 13.2 44.7 68.3 17.5 61.3 49.8 52.9 21.1 25.1 51.6 47.5 37.3 55.0 0.0 72.2 44.0 64.6 98.9 52.4 90.4 85.5 89.0 56.3 60.4 77.4 83.1 73.2 82.3 0.0 30.1 43.0 41.1 21.0 37.9 14.8 17.6 16.5 12.6 37.4 13.3 3.2 36.9 39.9 21.2 12.9 0.0 35.6 58.9 9.4 51.7 43.1 46.8 15.0 18.8 41.9 41.2 30.6 45.3 69.1 10.2 41.9 0.0 40.2 36.5 30.8 47.9 52.4 34.9 35.3 15.8 47.5 40.9 21.6 71.7 35.0 47.6 0.0 53.1 9.4 32.8 35.0 48.5 45.2 24.4 34.7 38.1 18.6 42.4 51.9 33.7 0.0 46.8 34.5 38.0 7.6 10.8 39.2 32.6 21.7 41.6 60.2 5.2 33.1 0.0 32.7 35.9 42.4 39.6 15.0 34.1 34.9 9.3 47.8 45.4 33.4 0.0 4.7 29.4 25.3 37.9 3.6 13.5 35.2 27.1 33.7 4.8 0.0 33.0 29.0 42.0 6.6 16.8 39.1 23.2 37.4 6.9 0.0 4.3 35.8 27.3 17.1 37.7 55.9 6.0 28.4 0.0 34.3 23.3 13.2 35.7 51.9 9.7 24.2

92.4 103.6 122.1 64.9 83.0 93.3 97.7 67.6 71.0 68.0 91.8 82.3 73.7 57.9 76.5

94.9 113.4 91.7 110.5 95.3 114.0 62.4 66.5 81.4 81.1 85.3 99.6

89.6 108.3 79.0 97.8

86.5 104.8

119.5 117.8 136.5 64.3 92.5 58.5 77.0

75.4 111.7 18.2 48.6 52.2 84.5

90.4 109.2

124

07/IND/Gha 14/NEP/Lam 04/IND/Chi 24/SEN/Ban 10/IND/Ram 15/NEP/Get 17/PAK/Mul 11/LAO/Vie 13/MYA/Yez 08/IND/Sag 18/SRL/Kul 03/IND/Man 06/IND/Ann 23/GHA/Sun 12/MYA/Mye 09/IND/Bal 05/IND/All 16/PAK/T ib 21/T HA/Bo 22/T HA/Doi 20/T HA/Non 19/T HA/T un 40 30 20 10 0

Figure 33 Stomatal dendrogram of 7-year-old neem grown in the International Figure 33 Provenance Trials in Thailand

125 Fruit and Dry Seed Characteristics A seed is a structure formed by the maturation of the ovule following fertilization (Owens et al., 1991). Seed of woody plant exhibits a great range of variation in shape, size, colour, and seed coat surface. These are very often adapted to the conditions in which the various species evolved (Khullar et al., 1991). Knowledge of seed morphology is advantageous for artificial regeneration as it can influence the collection, processing, storage, and treatment of seeds. The morphological features of seed are remarkably stable, therefore they provide reliable criteria for positive identification of unknown seeds (Martin and Barkley, 1961; Kozlowski, 1972). Fruit Size Comparison on experimental sites, neem grown in Kamphaeng Phet produced bigger fruits than those grown in Kanchanaburi (1.20 x 1.69 and 1.13 x 1.43 cm). Comparison on varieties, fruit diameter of Thai Neem was larger than those of Indian Neem (1.30 and 1.11 cm) but the fruit length of Thai and Indian Neems were similar by average (1.65 and 1.65 cm). These were shown in Table 23 and Figure 35. Regarding to varieties and experimental sites, Thai Neem planted in Kamphaeng Phet produced biggest fruits (1.40 x 1.78 cm). The average diameter of Thai Neem fruits in Kanchanaburi was more than those of Indian Neem in Kamphaeng Phet, but the length was shorter (1.13, 1.11, 1.43, and 1.65 cm, respectively). From these results, it obviously showed that neem planted in better site conditions will produce better fruit sizes. Comparison on provenances as presented in Table 23 and Figure 36, the fruits of Provenance 22/THA/Doi were biggest, while those of Provenance 07/IND/Gha were smallest (1.53 x 1.91 cm and 1.03 x 1.35 cm). In Kamphaeng Phet, all Thai Neem had the best fruit diameter, but Provenance 22/THA/Doi, 14/NEP/Lam, 20/THA/Non, 05/IND/All, and 03/IND/Man had the best fruit length (2.05, 1.84, 1.82, 1.80, and 1.76 cm, respectively). The differentiation on fruit size among Thai and Indian Neem Provenances was not distinct, thus, neem varieties cannot be identified by using fruit size. In Table 24, the statistical differences on fruit size of Thai Neem among experimental sites and provenances were highly significant; diameter: F = 742.67** and 127.30**, length: F = 805.06** and 127.96**. Moreover, fruits of Thai and Indian Neems grown in Kamphaeng Phet were detected the highly significant differences among varieties (F = 1195.59** and 133.38**) and provenances (F = 187.26** and 114.26**). It seems that environmental factors had more effect on fruit sizes than genetic factors.

126 Fruit Weight Comparison on experimental sites was shown in Table 23 and Figure 35, fruits of neem grown in Kamphaeng Phet were heavier than those grown in Kanchanaburi (1.65 and 1.33 g). The significant difference on neem fruit weight among experimental sites was detected (F = 668.97**, Table 24). Comparison on varieties, fruit weights of Thai Neem were heavier than those of Indian Neem (1.98 and 1.35 g, Table 13 and Figure 48) and the difference on fruit weight among neem varieties was significant as 133.38** in Table 25. Regarding to varieties and experimental sites, Thai Neem planted in Kamphaeng Phet produced heaviest fruits (2.36 g), but the average fruit weight of Thai Neem in Kanchanaburi was lighter than those of Indian Neem in Kamphaeng Phet (1.33 and 1.35 g). Like fruit sizes, these results showed that site conditions of experimental plots had effect on neem fruit weight. The comparison on provenances was presented in Table 23 and Figure 36, Provenance 22/THA/Doi had heaviest fruits, while Provenance 07/IND/Gha had lightest fruits (3.04 and 0.95 g). In Kamphaeng Phet, the top five provenances on fruit weight were Provenances 22/THA/Doi, 20/THA/Non, 11/LAO/Vie, 19/THA/Tun, and 05/IND/All (3.52, 2.34, 2.02, 2.00, and 1.95 g, respectively). Thus, the neem varieties cannot be identified by using fruit weight. The statistical differences on fruit weight of Thai Neem planted in two experimental sites were highly significant among provenances (F = 150.20**, Table 24). The fruits of Thai and Indian Neems grown in Kamphaeng Phet were highly significant differences among provenances (F = 114.26**, Table 25). According to ANOVA, fruit should be more affected by environmental factor than genetic factors. Dry Seed Size Comparison on experimental sites, neem grown in Kamphaeng Phet produced bigger seeds than those grown in Kanchanaburi (0.65 x 1.33 and 0.65 x 1.12 cm, Table 23 and Figure 34 and 35). The significant differences on neem seed diameter and length among experimental sites were found (F = 127.41** and 676.86**, Table 24). Comparison on varieties, seed diameter of Thai Neem had bigger than those of Indian Neem (0.69 and 0.63 cm), but seed length of Thai Neem had shorter than those of Indian Neem (1.29 and 1.30 cm). The differences on seed diameter and length among neem varieties were significant as F = 994.17** and 214.44**, as shown in Table 25.

127 Regarding to varieties and experimental sites, the seeds of Thai Neem planted in Kamphaeng Phet were biggest (0.71 x 1.40 cm). The average diameter of Thai Neem seeds in Kanchanaburi was more than that of Indian Neem in Kamphaeng Phet (0.65 and 0.63 cm), but the length was shorter (1.12 and 1.30 cm). These results were similar to fruit size results, so the seed size was depended on site conditions. Comparison on provenances, the seeds of Provenance 22/THA/Doi were biggest (0.77 x 1.50 cm), while the average dry seed diameter of Provenance 13/MYA/Yez was lowest (0.58 cm), and dry seeds of Provenance 07/IND/Gha were shortest (1.07 cm), Table 23 and Figure 34 and 36. In Kamphaeng Phet, Provenances 22/THA/Doi, 11/LAO/Vie, 05/IND/All, 09/THA/Tun, and 15/NEP/Get had the most dry seed diameter (0.80, 0.74, 0.72, 0.70, and 0.69 cm, respectively), but Provenances 22/THA/Doi, 14/NEP/Get, 03/IND/Man, 20/THA/Non, and 24/SEN/Ban showed the most dry seed length (1.58, 1.48, 1.48, 1.42, and 1.39 cm, respectively). The identity on dry seed size of neem varieties was not clear, so these varieties might not be identified by using dry seed weight. As shown in Table 24, the statistical differences on dry seed diameter and length of Thai Neem Provenances planted in two experimental sites were highly significant, F = 53.79** and 138.29**. Moreover, dry seeds of Thai and Indian Neem Provenances grown in Kamphaeng Phet were found the highly significant differences among varieties (diameter: F = 994.17** and length: F = 214.44**) and among provenances (diameter: F = 213.57* and length: F = 42.24**) as presented in Table 25. Thus, both environmental and genetic factors had influent on dry seed size. 1,000-Seed Dry Weight Comparison on experimental sites, 1,000-seed dry weight of neem grown in Kamphaeng Phet were heavier than those grown in Kanchanaburi (188.31 and 157.48 g). Comparison on varieties, 1,000-seed dry weight of Thai Neem was heavier than those of Indian Neem (212.12 and 164.72 g). Regarding to varieties and experimental sites, 1,000-seed dry weight of Thai Neem planted in Kanchanaburi equaled to those Indian Neem planted in Kamphaeng Phet (0.016 g) but lighter than those planted in Kamphaeng Phet. Table 23 and Figure 35 showed these comparisons. So site conditions had effect on dry seed weight. 1,000-seed dry weight among 17 provenances were presented in Table 23 and Figure 36. Provenance 22/THA/Doi had heaviest 1,000-seed dry weight, while Provenance 07/IND/Gha had lightest (325.17 and 115.75 g). In Kamphaeng Phet, the good 1,000-seed dry weight was found in Provenances 22/THA/Doi, 11/LAO/Vie, 05/IND/All, 15/NEP/Get, and 20/THA/Non (376.63, 248.25, 234.63, 218.75, and 209.50 g). From these results, Thai and Indian Neems cannot be identified by using dry seed weight.

128 As shown in Table 24, the statistical differences among experimental sites and provenances on dry seed weight of Thai Neem planted in two experimental sites were found (F = 28.57** and 17.48**). While, dry seeds of Thai and Indian Neems grown in Kamphaeng Phet were the highly significant differences among varieties and provenances (F = 69.81** and 91.67**, Table 25). The ANOVA of dry seed weight revealed that genetic factors had more effect on dry seed weight than environmental factors. Correlation Study of Fruit and Dry Seed Characteristics and Provenance Origin The correlation analysis between fruit and dry seed characteristics (diameter, length, and weight) of Thai and Indian Neems planted in Kanchanaburi and Kamphaeng Phet and geographical data (latitude, longitude, altitude, and mean annual rainfall) of provenance origin were shown in Table 26 and Figure 37. Although, the correlations of latitude of provenance origin with fruit and dry seed characteristics except fruit diameter of neem planted in both experimental sites were positive and those except fruit weight were significant, the longitude of provenance origin correlated with diameter and weight of fruits and dry seeds was positive and significant. However, the correlations of altitude of provenance origin with fruit and dry seed traits were negative and significant but the correlations of mean annual rainfall of provenance origin with diameter and weight of fruits and dry seeds were positive and those correlations with fruit and dry seed traits unless fruit length were significant. Comparison on experimental sites, the positive correlations of latitude of provenance origin with diameter and weight of fruits and dry seeds of neem planted in Kanchanaburi were found and in Kamphaeng Phet, the positive correlations were detected in latitude x fruit length and dry seed characteristics. The correlations of latitude of provenance origin with fruit and dry seed trait except dry seed weight of neem planted in Kanchanaburi were significant but those correlations except fruit weight and dry seed diameter of neem planted in Kamphaeng Phet were significant. While, the significant correlations of longitude of provenance origin with fruit and dry seed traits of neem planted in Kanchanaburi were negative, those of neem planted in Kamphaeng Phet were positive. Though, neem planted in Kamphaeng Phet had negative and significant correlations of altitude of provenance origin with fruit and dry seed characteristics, latitude x dry seed length and fruit length of neem planted in Kanchanaburi was negative and insignificant. Moreover, the correlations of mean annual rainfall with fruit and dry seed of neem planted in Kamphaeng Phet were positive and significant but in Kanchanaburi, only mean annual rainfall x fruit diameter was positive and mean annual rainfall x fruit and dry seed diameter were insignificant.

129 The reasonableness of these result especially the significant correlation were the adaptation of neem from geographical origin to different site conditions of experimental plots, especially soil texture and fertility and rainfall thin Kanchanaburi is shallow, rocky sand and low fertile soil and lower mean annual rainfall but Kamphaeng Phet is deep, silty sand and fertile soil and more mean annual rainfall. Comparing to varieties, the positive correlations of latitude of provenance origin with fruit and dry seed characteristics of Thai and Indian Neems were found and those of Indian Neem were significant but only latitude x dry seed diameter and weight of Thai Neem was significant. However, the longitude of provenance origin correlated with fruit and dry seed traits of Thai Neem were negative and significant, those of Indian Neem were insignificant and those with fruit diameter and length and dry seed diameter of Indian Neem were negative. Whilst, the significant correlations of altitude of provenance origin with fruit and dry seed traits of Thai and Indian Neems were detected, the negative correlations of those were found only in Thai Neem. On the other hand, the correlations of mean annual rainfall with fruit and dry seed characteristics except fruit and dry seed diameter of Thai Neem were negative and significant but in Indian Neem, mean annual rainfall x dry seed characteristics was negative and mean annual rainfall x fruit characteristics and dry seed diameter was significant. The probably causes of these result were 1) the different natural distribution of neem varieties which Thai Neems natural distribution is only in Thailand, Myanmar, Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam but Indian Neem widely occurs naturally in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Myanmar, and was introduced to several countries, and 2) the provenance origins of Indian Neem in this study were wider than those of Thai Neem such as the latitude, longitude, altitude, and mean annual rainfall of Indian Neems provenance origins were varying from 7-30N, 70E-17W, 50-1000 msl, and 276-1725 mm, respectively, but those of Thai Neems provenance origins were 9-18N, 99-103E, 4-300 msl, and 1150-1755 mm respectively. Correlation Study of Fruit and Dry Seed Characteristics The correlation analysis between fruit and dry seed characteristics (diameter, length, and weight) of Thai and Indian Neems planted in Kanchanaburi and Kamphaeng Phet were presented in Table 26 and Figure 37. All correlations between fruit and dry seed characteristics of Thai and Indian Neems planted in both experimental sites were positive and highly significant. The highest correlation values between fruit and dry seed traits of neem in different planting sites and varieties were similar that fruit diameter x fruit weight, fruit length x dry seed length, dry seed diameter x dry seed weight, and dry seed weight x fruit weight was the most correlation values. However, those values of Thai Neem were the most as same as the correlation between leaf characteristics.

130 Regression Analysis From the strong correlations between fruit and dry seed characteristics, the regression analysis for fruit and dry seed weight was done by using stepwise method. The models below showed the linear regression for calculate fruit and dry seed weight by fruit and dry seed characteristics. From stepwise method, the first variable for calculating fruit weight was fruit diameter but the first variable for calculating dry seed weight was fruit weight. The model 5 of Thai Neem was dissimilar to the other that it had dry seed length but the other had fruit diameter. While, fruit length influenced to dry seed weight of neem planted in both experimental sites and neem planted in Kamphaeng Phet, dry seed length influenced to dry seed weight of neem planted in Kanchanaburi and Thai Neem, but fruit and dry seed length were not influenced to dry seed weight of Indian Neem. In models 1, the R2 values were high, moreover when adding fruit length in models 2, the R2 values were higher. From model 3-6, the R2 values were increased by adding fruit and dry seed traits. However, the R2 of Thai Neem models were higher than those of the other. Mean: 1) WF = -263.160+3.567 DF 2) WF = -318.570+3.025 DF+0.725 LF 3) WS = 3.151+0.095 WF 4) WS = -12.191+0.065 WF+0.307 DS 5) WS = -1.936+0.100 WF+0.336 DS-0.149 DF 6) WS = -7.542+0.087 WF+0.333 DS-0.121 DF+0.028 LF 1) WF = -233.726+3.250 DF 2) WF = -252.490+2.234 DF+0.936 WF 3) WS = 0.672+0.113 WF 4) WS = -18.129+0.066 WF+0.387 DS 5) WS = 0.443+0.126 WF+0.473 DS-0.284 DF 6) WS = -7.788+0.095 WF+0.452 DS-0.208 DF+0.046 LS 1) WF = -263.113+3.576 DF 2) WF = -338.346+3.038 DF+0.826 LF 3) WS = 3.441+0.093 WF 4) WS = -11.572+0.064 WF+0.303 DS 5) WS = -3.014+0.093 WF+0.325 DS-0.124 DF 6) WS = -6.998+0.085 WF+0.322 DS-0.105 DF+0.020 LF 1) WF = -325.626+4.037 DF 2) WF = -339.577+2.956 DF+0.934 LF 3) WS = 2.932+0.092 WF 4) WS = -23.558+0.055 WF+0.493 DS 5) WS = -31.847+0.034 WF+0.495 DS+0.094 LS 6) WS = -16.982+0.076 WF+0.531 DS+0.077 LS-0.180 DF R2=0.896 R2=0.930 R2=0.674 R2=0.769 R2=0.780 R2=0.783 R2=0.816 R2=0.914 R2=0.674 R2=0.779 R2=0.833 R2=0.841 R2=0.902 R2=0.935 R2=0.669 R2=0.765 R2=0.773 R2=0.774 R2=0.916 R2=0.945 R2=0.704 R2=0.814 R2=0.838 R2=0.849

KB:

KP:

Thai:

131 Indian: 1) WF = -182.636+2.854 DF 2) WF = -241.304+2.407 DF+0.656 LF 3) WS = 0.045+0.121 WF 4) WS = -9.806+0.086 WF+0.233 DS 5) WS = -4.546+0.106 WF+0.244 DS-0.078 DF Where, WF DF LF WS DS LS = Fruit weight = Fruit diameter = Fruit length = Dry seed weight = Dry seed diameter = Dry seed length R2=0.815 R2=0.884 R2=0.591 R2=0.697 R2=0.701

Cluster Analysis The fruit and dry seed dendrogram had been constructed from Euclidean distance (Table 27) of neem provenances planted in Kamphaeng Phet as presented in Figure 38. Unlike, genetic and growth dendrogram, two varieties of neem were not in different cluster. When D = 0.2, they were grouped into 5 clusters that were 1) 09/IND/Bal, 06/IND/Ann, 12/MYA/Mye, 23/GHA/Sun, 10/ IND /Ram, 24/SEN/Ban, 13/MYA/Yez, 03/IND/Man, and 14/NEP/Lam; 2) 07/IND/Gha; 3) 20/THA/Non; 4) 15/NEP/Get, 19/THA/Tun, 21/THA/Bo, 11/LAO/Vie, and 05/IND/All; and 5) 22/THA/Doi.

132

a)

Kanchanaburi 21/THA/Bo 20/THA/Non 22/THA/Doi 11/LAO/Vie

Kamphaeng Phet

b)
10/IND/Ram 21/THA/Bo 13/MYA/Yez 20/THA/Non 23/GHA/Sun 22/THA/Doi 12/MYA/Mye 05/IND/All 06/IND/Ann 03/IND/Man

14/NEP/Lam

11/LAO/Vie

09/IND/Bal

15/NEP/Get

19/THA/Tun

07/IND/Gha

24/SEN/Ban

Figure 34 Dry seeds of 1) Thai Neem Provenances in Kanchanaburi and Kamphaeng Figure 34 Phet and 2) Thai and Indian Neem Provenances in Kamphaeng Phet

133 Table 23 Average fruit and dry seed characteristic values of 7-year-old neem planted Table 23 in the International Provenance Trials established in Kanchanaburi (KB) Table 23 and Kamphaeng Phet (KP)
Provenances No Thai 1 Code 21/THA/Bo KB KP Thai 3 20/THA/Non KB KP Thai 4 22/THA/Doi KB KP Thai 5 11/LAO/Vie KB KP Thai Indian Indian Indian Indian Indian Indian Indian Indian Indian Indian Indian Indian 6 19/THA/Tun KP 7 10/IND/Ram KP 8 13/MYA/Yez KP 9 23/GHA/Sun KP 10 12/MYA/Mye KP 12 09/IND/Bal KP 13 07/IND/Gha KP 15 03/IND/Man KP 16 06/IND/Ann KP 17 05/IND/All 20 15/NEP/Get Thai KP KP KB KP Indian KB KP KP 19 14/NEP/Lam KP 24 24/SEN/Ban KP 40 80 80 80 40 80 80 80 80 77 80 80 80 79 80 79 80 80 78 80 80 240 400 953 240 1353 Fruit Seed Diameter Length Diameter Length Weight Weight (g) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (g/1,000 seeds) Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD 1.06 0.12 1.22 0.16 1.08 0.36 0.59 0.08 0.95 0.13 105.25 45.32 1.30 0.09 1.70 0.19 1.94 0.41 0.66 0.07 1.37 0.17 193.25 29.98 1.22 0.15 1.54 0.29 1.66 0.56 0.64 0.08 1.23 0.25 163.92 54.86 1.07 0.09 1.53 0.15 1.26 0.26 0.64 0.06 1.28 0.09 165.82 11.77 1.38 0.08 1.82 0.15 2.34 0.36 0.67 0.05 1.42 0.12 209.50 10.80 1.22 0.18 1.68 0.21 1.80 0.62 0.66 0.06 1.35 0.13 187.66 25.06 1.32 0.14 1.64 0.27 2.06 0.67 0.71 0.12 1.32 0.26 222.25 32.40 1.63 0.17 2.05 0.16 3.53 0.87 0.80 0.09 1.58 0.13 376.63 18.33 1.53 0.22 1.91 0.29 3.04 1.07 0.77 0.11 1.50 0.22 325.17 79.23 1.13 0.11 1.32 0.14 1.17 0.29 0.65 0.06 0.94 0.10 142.88 11.80 1.33 0.09 1.74 0.14 2.02 0.38 0.74 0.07 1.39 0.14 248.25 22.51 1.23 0.14 1.53 0.25 1.60 0.54 0.70 0.08 1.17 0.26 195.56 57.12 1.35 0.09 1.60 0.12 2.00 0.33 0.70 0.07 1.22 0.11 196.88 28.83 1.11 0.06 1.58 0.08 1.38 0.18 0.59 0.02 1.16 0.05 158.57

Varieties

Sites

Mean 120

Mean 160

Mean 120

Mean 160

5.45

1.06 0.11 1.71 0.14 1.23 0.33 0.58 0.11 1.35 0.17 159.88 15.58 1.11 0.14 1.54 0.12 1.20 0.38 0.61 0.13 1.18 0.16 134.03 30.72 1.10 0.09 1.60 0.11 1.21 0.23 0.67 0.07 1.26 0.11 182.07 16.43 1.11 0.12 1.58 0.17 1.27 0.34 0.59 0.12 1.23 0.20 137.90 16.17 1.03 0.06 1.35 0.08 0.95 0.13 0.59 0.03 1.07 0.07 115.75 1.05 0.10 1.76 0.12 1.28 0.26 0.65 0.07 1.48 0.15 167.42 1.09 0.10 1.59 0.09 1.28 0.29 0.59 0.12 1.28 0.15 140.13 1.29 0.12 1.81 0.13 1.95 0.45 0.72 0.11 1.37 0.14 234.63 1.07 0.08 1.85 0.13 1.35 0.27 0.58 0.06 1.48 0.12 131.00 1.23 0.08 1.72 0.10 1.71 0.24 0.69 0.05 1.31 0.09 218.75 1.14 0.14 1.76 0.13 1.43 0.42 0.66 0.14 1.39 0.19 196.57 1.13 0.14 1.43 0.23 1.33 0.50 0.65 0.08 1.12 0.23 157.48 1.40 0.16 1.78 0.22 2.37 0.78 0.71 0.09 1.40 0.18 244.90 1.30 0.20 1.65 0.28 1.98 0.85 0.69 0.09 1.29 0.24 212.12 1.11 0.12 1.65 0.18 1.35 0.39 0.63 0.10 1.30 0.18 164.72 1.13 1.20 0.14 1.43 0.23 1.33 0.50 0.65 0.08 1.12 0.23 157.48 0.19 1.69 0.20 1.65 0.71 0.65 0.11 1.33 0.19 188.31

Mean 640

6.23 14.94 12.80 15.68 8.05 10.66 19.85 42.33 72.95 75.95 38.51 42.33 62.65

134
Fruit le ngth (cm) 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 Indian
KB

Fruit diame te r (cm) 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 T hai
Fruit we ight (g) 2.5 2.0 1.5

KB

KP

Mean

KB

KP

Mean

Ave.
KP Mean

T hai
Dry se e d diame te r (cm) 0.8 0.6 0.4

Indian
KB

Ave.
KP Mean

1.0 0.5 0.0 T hai Indian Ave.

0.2 0.0 T hai Mean Indian KB KP Ave. Mean

Dry se e d le ngth (cm) 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 T hai

KB

KP

1,000-se e d dry we ight (g) 300 250 200 150 100 50 0

Indian

Ave.

T hai

Indian

Ave.

Figure 35 Fruit and dry seed characteristic values of 7-year-old Thai and Indian Figure 35 Neems planted in the International Provenance Trials established in Figure 35 Kanchanaburi (KB) and Kamphaeng Phet (KP)

0.0

0.5

1.0

21/THA/Bo

21/THA/Bo

21/THA/Bo

21/THA/Bo

21/THA/Bo 20/THA/Non 22/THA/Doi 11/LAO/Vie 19/THA/Tun 10/IND/Ram 13/MYA/Yez 23/GHA/Sun 12/MYA/Mye 08/IND/Sag 09/IND/Bal 07/IND/Gha 04/IND/Chi 03/IND/Man 06/IND/Ann 05/IND/All

21/THA/Bo 20/THA/Non 22/THA/Doi 11/LAO/Vie 19/THA/Tun 10/IND/Ram 13/MYA/Yez 23/GHA/Sun 12/MYA/Mye 08/IND/Sag 09/IND/Bal 07/IND/Gha 04/IND/Chi 03/IND/Man 06/IND/Ann 05/IND/All

Fruit wight (g) 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0

Fruit le ngth (cm) 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0

20/THA/Non

20/THA/Non

20/THA/Non

20/THA/Non 22/THA/Doi 11/LAO/Vie 19/THA/Tun 10/IND/Ram 13/MYA/Yez 23/GHA/Sun 12/MYA/Mye 08/IND/Sag 09/IND/Bal 07/IND/Gha 04/IND/Chi 03/IND/Man 06/IND/Ann 05/IND/All 14/NEP/Lam 15/NEP/Get 16/PAK/Tib

Fruit diame te r (cm) 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0

Dry se e d le ngth (cm) 1.5

Dry see d diame te r (cm) 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0

1,000-se ed dry we ight (g) 400 300 200 100 0

22/THA/Doi

22/THA/Doi

22/THA/Doi 11/LAO/Vie 19/THA/Tun 10/IND/Ram 13/MYA/Yez 23/GHA/Sun 12/MYA/Mye 08/IND/Sag 09/IND/Bal 07/IND/Gha 04/IND/Chi 03/IND/Man 06/IND/Ann 05/IND/All 14/NEP/Lam 15/NEP/Get 16/PAK/Tib KB

11/LAO/Vie

11/LAO/Vie

19/THA/Tun

19/THA/Tun

10/IND/Ram

10/IND/Ram

13/MYA/Yez

13/MYA/Yez

23/GHA/Sun

23/GHA/Sun

12/MYA/Mye

12/MYA/Mye

08/IND/Sag

08/IND/Sag

09/IND/Bal

09/IND/Bal

Provenance

Provenance

Provenance

Provenance

Provenance

Provenance

07/IND/Gha

07/IND/Gha

04/IND/Chi

04/IND/Chi

03/IND/Man

03/IND/Man

06/IND/Ann

06/IND/Ann

05/IND/All

05/IND/All

14/NEP/Lam

14/NEP/Lam

14/NEP/Lam 15/NEP/Get 16/PAK/Tib KB

KB 17/PAK/Mul

14/NEP/Lam 15/NEP/Get 16/PAK/Tib KB

17/PAK/Mul

15/NEP/Get

15/NEP/Get

16/PAK/Tib

16/PAK/Tib KB

KB

17/PAK/Mul

17/PAK/Mul KP

17/PAK/Mul 18/SRL/Kul 24/SEN/Ban

17/PAK/Mul
KP

KP

KP

KP

KP

18/SRL/Kul

18/SRL/Kul Mean

18/SRL/Kul
Mean

18/SRL/Kul
Mean 24/SEN/Ban

18/SRL/Kul
Mean 24/SEN/Ban

Figure 36 Fruit and dry seed characteristic values of 7-year-old neem from Figure 36 22 provenances planted in the International Provenance Trials established Figure 36 in Kanchanaburi (KB) and Kamphaeng Phet (KP)
Mean 24/SEN/Ban

Mean

135

24/SEN/Ban

24/SEN/Ban

136 Table 24 Analysis of variance on fruit and dry seed characteristics of 7-year-old Thai Table 24 Neem grown in the International Provenance Trials in Thailand
Items Fruit diameter Fruit length Fruit weight Dry seed diameter Dry seed length Dry seed weight Source Sites Provenances Sites Provenances Sites Provenances Sites Provenances Sites Provenances Sites Provenances Df 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 SS 90525.13 62064.77 207690.13 132046.20 1450700.61 1302899.75 6490.57 10961.15 129047.17 105463.32 114629.96 197055.90 MS 90525.13 15516.19 207690.13 33011.55 1450700.61 325724.94 6490.57 2740.29 129047.17 26365.83 114629.96 49263.98 F 742.67** 127.30** 805.06** 127.96** 668.97** 150.20** 127.41** 53.79** 676.86** 138.29** 28.57** 17.48**

Remarks:

** = Highly significant differences at 99% confident limit

Table 25 Analysis of variance on fruit and dry seed characteristics of 7-year-old Table 25 neem grown in the International Provenance Trials established in Table 25 Kamphaeng Phet
Items Fruit diameter Fruit length Fruit weight Dry seed diameter Dry seed length Dry seed weight Source Varieties Provenances Varieties Provenances Varieties Provenances Varieties Provenances Varieties Provenances Varieties Provenances Df 1 16 1 16 1 16 1 16 1 16 1 16 SS 224915.31 331325.13 48195.92 309902.85 48195.92 309902.85 2879914.58 4884006.28 20852.34 51000.34 181502.61 490146.60 MS 224915.31 20707.82 48195.92 19368.93 48195.92 19368.93 2879914.58 305250.39 20852.34 3187.52 181502.61 30634.16 F 1195.59** 187.26** 133.38** 114.26** 133.38** 114.26** 994.17** 213.57** 214.44** 42.24** 69.81** 91.67**

Remarks:

** = Highly significant differences at 99% confident limit

137 Table 26 Correlation analysis on fruit and dry seed characteristics of 7-year-old Thai Table 26 and Indian Neems planted in Kanchanaburi (KB) and Kamphaeng Phet Table 26 (KP) and geographical data of provenance origin
Mean Fruit diameter Fruit length Fruit weight Dry seed length Dry seed weight KB Latitude Longitude Altitude Rainfall Fruit Fruit Fruit Dry seed diameter length weight diameter -0.063* 0.228** -0.197** 0.291** 1 0.610** 0.946** 0.666** 0.284** -0.019 -0.200** -0.034 0.610** 1 0.725** 0.444** 0.000 0.226** -0.202** 0.224** 0.946** 0.725** 1 0.635** -0.013 -0.187** -0.119** 0.449** 0.873** 0.572** 0.484** Dry seed length 0.449** 0.873** 0.572** 1 Dry seed weight 0.770** 0.649** 0.821** 0.586** 1 Dry seed weight 0.686** 0.766** 0.821**

0.251**

0.099** 0.142** -0.211** 0.103** 0.770** 0.649** 0.821** 0.759** 0.586** Dry seed length 0.466** 0.896** 0.706**

Fruit Fruit Fruit Dry seed diameter length weight diameter Fruit diameter 0.374** -0.287** 0.557** 0.027 1 0.669** 0.903** 0.740** Fruit length -0.236** -0.652** 0.014 -0.509** 0.669** 1 0.837** 0.582** Fruit weight 0.144* -0.472** 0.426** -0.230** 0.903** 0.837** 1 0.724** Dry seed 0.176** -0.276** 0.273** -0.045 0.740** 0.582** 0.724** 1 diameter Dry seed -0.453** -0.762** -0.129* -0.717** 0.466** 0.896** 0.706** 0.504** length Dry seed 0.002 -0.467** 0.191** -0.267** 0.686** 0.766** 0.821** 0.818** weight Latitude Longitude Altitude Rainfall Fruit Fruit Fruit Dry seed diameter length weight diameter Fruit diameter -0.098** 0.292** -0.265** 0.346** 1 0.616** 0.950** 0.662** Fruit length 0.306** 0.128** -0.351** 0.107** 0.616** 1 0.729** 0.467** Fruit weight -0.026 0.300** -0.271** 0.294** 0.950** 0.729** 1 0.632** Dry seed 0.052 0.136** -0.191** 0.124** 0.662** 0.467** 0.632** 1 diameter Dry seed 0.282** 0.113** -0.302** 0.005 0.435** 0.843** 0.544** 0.516** length Dry seed 0.090** 0.204** -0.270** 0.163** 0.775** 0.641** 0.818** 0.757** weight KP Latitude Longitude Altitude Rainfall Thai Fruit diameter Fruit length Fruit weight Dry seed diameter Dry seed length Dry seed weight Indian Fruit diameter Fruit length Fruit weight Dry seed diameter Dry seed length Dry seed weight Latitude Longitude Altitude Rainfall 0.043 0.053 0.075 Fruit Fruit Fruit Dry seed diameter length weight diameter -0.388** 0.349** -0.048 1 0.836** 0.957** 0.731** -0.403** 0.238** -0.272** 0.836** 1 0.893** 0.611** -0.436** 0.369** -0.178** 0.957** 0.893** 1 0.717** 0.015 0.731** 0.611** 0.717** 1

0.504** 0.818** 1 0.723** Dry seed length 0.435** 0.843** 0.544** 0.723** 1 Dry seed weight 0.775** 0.641** 0.818**

0.516** 0.757** 1 0.558** Dry seed length 0.682** 0.920** 0.762** 0.558** 1 Dry seed weight 0.785** 0.786** 0.839**

0.139** -0.277** 0.348** 0.043

0.542** 0.833** 1 0.737** 1 Dry seed weight 0.695** 0.509** 0.769**

-0.380** 0.188** -0.353** 0.682** 0.920** 0.762** 0.542**

0.182** -0.378** 0.427** -0.155** 0.785** 0.786** 0.839** 0.833** 0.737** Latitude Longitude Altitude Rainfall 0.199** 0.493** 0.336** 0.196** 0.396** 0.299** -0.030 -0.005 0.027 -0.044 0.002 0.003 Fruit Fruit Fruit Dry seed diameter length weight diameter -0.147** 0.143** 1 0.475** 0.903** 0.589** -0.457** 0.087** 0.475** 1 0.659** 0.371** -0.260** 0.145** 0.903** 0.659** 1 0.567** 1 Dry seed length 0.291** 0.817** 0.465**

-0.139** -0.067* 0.589** 0.371** 0.567** -0.367** -0.334** -0.051 -0.004

0.499** 0.704** 1 0.454** 1

0.291** 0.817** 0.465** 0.499**

0.695** 0.509** 0.769** 0.704** 0.454**

138

0.4 0.2 0

Latitude

0.4 0.2 0 -0.2

Longitude

0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6

Altitude

-0.2 -0.4 -0.6 T otal KB KP T hai Indian Rainfall

-0.4 -0.6 -0.8 T otal KB KP T hai Indian Fruit diame te r

T otal KB KP T hai Indian Fruit le ngth

0.4 0.2 0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6

1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

T otal KB KP T hai Indian Fruit we ight

T otal KB KP T hai Indian Dry se e d diame te r

T otal KB KP T hai Indian Dry se e d le ngth

1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

T otal KB KP T hai Indian

T otal KB KP T hai Indian

T otal KB KP T hai Indian

1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

Dry se e d we ight 0.4 0.2 0 -0.2 -0.4

Latitude Fruit diameter Fruit length Fruit weight Dry seed diameter Dry seed length

T otal KB KP T hai Indian

-0.6 weight T otal KBDry KP seed T hai Indian

Figure 37 Correlation analysis on fruit and dry seed characteristics of 7-year-old Figure 37 Thai and Indian Neems planted in Kanchanaburi (KB) and Kamphaeng Figure 37 Phet (KP) and geographical data of provenance origin

139 Table 27 Euclidean distance of fruit and dry seed characteristics of 7-year-old neem grown in the International Provenance Trials Table 27 established in Kamphaeng Phet
12/MYA/Mye 13/MYA/Yez 20/THA/Non 14/NEP/Lam 23/GHA/Sun 19/THA/Tun 10/IND/Ram 03/IND/Man 22/THA/Doi 24/SEN/Ban 0.000 11/LAO/Vie 06/IND/Ann 07/IND/Gha 15/NEP/Get 0.000 0.311 21/THA/Bo

09/IND/Bal

21/THA/Bo 20/THA/Non 22/THA/Doi 11/LAO/Vie 19/THA/Tun 10/IND/Ram 13/MYA/Yez 23/GHA/Sun 12/MYA/Mye 09/IND/Bal 07/IND/Gha 03/IND/Man 06/IND/Ann 05/IND/All 14/NEP/Lam 15/NEP/Get 24/SEN/Ban

0.000 0.426 1.687 0.139 0.194 0.643 0.753 0.808 0.771 0.723 1.129 0.721 0.711 0.132 0.673 0.256 0.542

0.000 1.266 0.335 0.451 1.058 1.161 1.229 1.191 1.144 1.550 1.113 1.131 0.402 1.047 0.664 0.943

0.000 1.581 1.671 2.315 2.419 2.490 2.450 2.407 2.804 2.356 2.394 1.651 2.287 1.921 2.195

0.000 0.234 0.756 0.857 0.918 0.872 0.835 1.241 0.810 0.823 0.107 0.764 0.348 0.633

0.000 0.672 0.843 0.844 0.826 0.771 1.142 0.838 0.771 0.267 0.805 0.347 0.651

0.000 0.281 0.192 0.216 0.132 0.505 0.393 0.157 0.689 0.425 0.420 0.310

0.000 0.246 0.175 0.193 0.538 0.164 0.158 0.777 0.223 0.521 0.237

0.000 0.121 0.096 0.344 0.384 0.137 0.852 0.453 0.578 0.386

0.000 0.113 0.425 0.286 0.117 0.802 0.373 0.531 0.302

0.000 0.434 0.324 0.056 0.767 0.379 0.495 0.302

0.000 0.670 0.461 1.183 0.756 0.910 0.721

0.000 0.281 0.730 0.133 0.502 0.196

0.000 0.754 0.339 0.484 0.273

0.000 0.678 0.275 0.552

05/IND/All

0.000 0.471 0.194

140

09/IND/Bal 06/IND/Ann 12/MYA/Mye 23/GHA/Sun 10/IND/Ram 24/SEN/Ban 13/MYA/Yez 03/IND/Man 14/NEP/Lam 07/IND/Gha 20/T HA/Non 15/NEP/Get 19/T HA/T un 21/T HA/Bo 11/LAO/Vie 05/IND/All 22/T HA/Doi 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0

Figure 38 Fruit and dry seed dendrogram of 7-year-old neem grown in the Figure 38 International Provenance Trials established in Kamphaeng Phet

141
Clonal Variation

Survival Percentage In the present study, the average survival percentage of Thai Neem ramets from Kanchanaburi Clone Bank grown in Clonal Seed Orchard established at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao of all ages was shown in Table 28 and Figure 39. The average survival percentages of Thai Neem ramets were decreased during the study period. From 0-2 months of age, the Thai Neem ramets remained healthy, and then during 3-6 months of age, the average mortality percentages of Thai Neem ramets were slightly observed. Since the dry season in 2004, the average survival percentages of Thai Neem ramets were seriously decreased due to the poor adaptation to site condition caused by many factors (competitive light and nutrient from weeds, genetic, and micro-environmental factors). As shown in Figure 40, the rainfall and average temperature were slightly related to survival percentage of Thai neem ramets. The variations on survival percentage among Thai Neem clones were presented in Table 28 and Figure 41. At the age of 30 months, the average survival percentage of Thai Neem ramets was 64.5%, varied from 5 - 95%. Only 8 from 20 Clone Nos. had the best survival percentage (> 80%) that were Clone Nos. 9, 15, 19, 37, 62, 63, 64, and 72. The statistical differences on survival percentage of Thai Neem ramets among blocks and clones were shown in Table 29. The statistical differences among blocks at the age of 11, 12, 15, and 16 months were significant values. Meanwhile, the statistical differences among Thai Neem clones at the age of 3 and 7 months were insignificant. From 4-6 months, the statistical differences of clones were significant thereafter the highly significant differences among clones were detected when Thai Neem clones aged 8-30 months. The statistical differences on survival percentage among Thai Neem clones had more values than those among blocks in all ages. Thus, the clones or genetic factors had more effected on survival percentage of Thai Neem ramets than blocks or micro-environmental factors did.

142

100

Survival percentage

Rainfall

300 250 200

Survival percentage (%)

80

60 150 40 100 20 50

0 0 5 1 6 2 7 3 8 03 4 9 5 10 6 11 7 12 8 1 9 2 10 3 11 4 12 5 13 6 04 14 7 15 8 16 9 17 10 18 11 24 5 05 30

0 Ages

11 Month Year

Figure 39 Average survival percentage of Thai Neem ramets grown in the Clonal Figure 39 Seed Orchard established at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao with Figure 39 rainfall during the study period

99

y = 95 .192 x -0 . 0068 , R2 = 0.9071 98

y = 169 .25 x -0 . 1809 , R2 = 0.6389

Survival Percentage (%)

Survival Percentage (%)

98 97 96 95 94 93 92 0

97 96 95 94 93 92 0

=
0 50 100 150 200

=
0 22 24 26 28 30

Rainfall (mm)

Average Temperature (C)

Figure 40 Effect of rainfall and average temperature (5/03-11/04) on average Figure 40 survival percentage Thai Neem ramets grown in the Clonal Seed Orchard Figure 40 established at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao

Rainfall (mm)

143 Table 28 Average survival percentage (%) of Thai Neem ramets grown in the Clonal Table 28 Seed Orchard established at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao during Table 28 the study period (months, M)
M Survival percentage 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 24 30 Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD 95 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 22.4 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 80 80 70 65 65 60 55 90 100 100 90 100 100 90 100 100 90 100 100 90 100 100 55 100 100 55 100 100 45 100 45 100 45 100 45 100 45 100 35 25 25 25 20 90 80 75 75 70 95 95 95 90 90 90 80 80 80 70 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 90 90 95 100 100 100 95 100 100 100 90 100 100 100 90 100 100 100 50 100 100 100 40 100 100 100 30 30 30 25 20 20 15 10 10 10 5 95 100 100 95 100 100 95 100 100 95 100 95 100 80 100 80 100 80 100 80 100 80 100 75 95 95 95 90 90 90 90 85 85 36.6 30.8 36.6 30.8 36.6 30.8 36.6 30.8 36.6 30.8 36.6 51.0 36.6 51.0 36.6 51.0 36.6 51.0 36.6 51.0 41.0 51.0 41.0 51.0 22.4 22.4 22.4 22.4 22.4 30.8 22.4 30.8 22.4 51.3 22.4 50.3 22.4 47.0 22.4 22.4 22.4 47.0 22.4 22.4 22.4 47.0 22.4 22.4 22.4 44.4 22.4 30.8 22.4 41.0 22.4 30.8 22.4 41.0 41.0 95 90 90 90 90 85 75 65 60 60 55 50 50 40 40 40 40 35 90 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 10 16.4 16.4 97 17.1 95 100 100 100 100 100 22.4 95 100 100 100 100 22.4 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 90 100 80 100 70 100 65 100 65 100 65 65 60 60 60 60 60 95 90 75 70 60 50 40 95 95 90 80 80 80 80 75 75 75 75 70 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 90 90 90 90 85 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 90 85 85 85 80 95 85 85 80 80 80 75 75 70 60 60 60 50 95 100 96.5 22.4 22.4 22.4 22.4 22.4 22.4 36.6 22.4 22.4 22.4 22.4 36.6 22.4 30.8 22.4 22.4 41.0 22.4 41.0 22.4 22.4 41.0 22.4 41.0 22.4 22.4 41.0 22.4 18.4 24.2 30.7 33.1 35.5 36.2 37.4 38.9 39.9 76 42.8 44.6 45.3 70 45.9 90 64.3 95 100 93.8 95 100 89.5 95 100 87.5 95 100 85.3 95 100 84.5 95 100 83.3 90 100 81.5 90 100 80.3 90 100 22.4 30.8 30.8 30.8 30.8 30.8 90 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 90 100 85 100 90 85 80 80 70 70 70 70 70 65 65 55 30.8 30.8 30.8 30.8 36.6 36.6 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 2 5 8 9 10 14 15 19 Clone Nos. 24 25 37 38 61 62 63 64 70 71 72 Ave. 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

90 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 97.3 90 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 97.3

44.4 30.8 22.4 30.8 48.9 36.6 22.4 41.0 50.3 41.0 22.4 47.0 50.3 41.0 22.4 48.9 22.4 51.0 47.0 22.4 48.9

22.4 51.3 47.0 22.4 48.9 22.4 41.0 22.4 22.4 44.4 30.8 30.8 51.3 47.0 22.4 48.9 30.8 41.0 22.4 22.4 44.4 30.8 30.8 50.3 47.0 22.4 50.3 44.4 44.4 30.8 30.8 47.0 30.8 30.8 50.3 47.0 22.4 50.3 47.0 44.4 30.8 36.6 50.3 36.6 30.8 50.3 48.9 22.4 50.3 50.3 44.4 30.8 36.6 50.3 44.4 75 100 60 36.6 50.3 48.9 22.4 50.3 51.3 44.4 30.8 36.6 50.3 44.4

47.0 48.9 30.8 30.8 22.4 36.6 41.0 48.9 44.4 41.0 41.0 22.4 30.8 41.0 48.9 44.4 44.4 41.0 22.4 30.8 41.0 50.3 44.4 44.4 41.0 30.8 30.8 41.0

85 100 72.8 75 100 71.3

51.0 41.0 47.0 47.0 30.8 22.4 44.4 22.4 36.6 48.9 51.0 22.4 50.3 50.3 47.0 36.6 41.0 51.3 50.3 30.8 48.0

144

Survival percentage (%) 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20 0 10 6 8 0 15 37 9 72 19 63 64 14 5 14 16 18 1 25 70 61 24 30 2 10 10 12 Months 4 2

8 62 38 71 Ramets of Clone Nos.

Figure 41 Survival percentage of Thai Neem ramets from 20 clones grown in the Figure 41 Clonal Seed Orchard established at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao Figure 41 during the study period

145 Table 29 Analysis of variance on survival percentage of Thai Neem ramets grown in Table 29 the Clonal Seed Orchard established at Lad Krating Plantation, Table 29 Chachoengsao during the study period.
Ages 3 months 4 months 5 months 6 months 7 months 8 months 9 months 10 months 11 months 12 months 13 months 14 months 15 months 16 months 17 months 18 months 24 months 30 months Sources Blocks Clones Blocks Clones Blocks Clones Blocks Clones Blocks Clones Blocks Clones Blocks Clones Blocks Clones Blocks Clones Blocks Clones Blocks Clones Blocks Clones Blocks Clones Blocks Clones Blocks Clones Blocks Clones Blocks Clones Blocks Clones Df 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 SS 2600 2600 4475 8475 4475 8475 6400 9400 7100 9100 8875 51875 14900 96900 15500 125500 29475 147475 29900 150900 25275 168275 32100 180100 39475 171475 48600 202600 41475 224475 33875 223875 36000 224000 37275 237275 MS 136.84 136.84 235.53 446.05 235.53 446.05 336.84 494.74 373.68 478.95 467.11 2730.26 784.21 5100.00 815.79 6605.26 1551.32 7761.84 1573.68 7942.11 1330.26 8856.58 1689.47 9478.95 2077.63 9025.00 2557.90 10663.16 2182.90 11814.47 1782.90 11782.90 1894.74 11789.47 1961.84 12488.16 F 1.44ns* 1.44ns* 0.90ns* 1.71** 0.90ns* 1.71** 1.21ns* 1.78** 1.14ns* 1.45ns* 0.97ns* 5.68** 1.07ns* 6.97** 0.99ns* 8.04** 1.72** 8.60** 1.66** 8.36** 1.32ns* 8.78** 1.56ns* 8.75** 1.77** 7.70** 1.93** 8.05** 1.50ns* 8.09** 1.15ns* 7.57** 1.18ns* 7.34** 1.10ns* 7.00**

Remarks:

** = Highly significant differences at 99% confident limit * = Significant differences at 95% confident limit ns = Insignificant difference

146 Height Growth In seedling and sapling, height growth is easily measured and may be more sensitive to treatment and site factors than diameter. That is, greater variation in height growth among individual trees may be seen as a result of differenced in soil, dominance, available nutrients, etc. (Bickford, 1962). In the present study, the average height growth of Thai Neem ramets grown in Clonal Seed Orchard established at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao during the study period was shown in Table 30 and Figure 42. The average height growths of Thai Neem ramets were increased concomitantly. During the first rainy season (MayOctober), 0-5-month of age, the average height growths of Thai Neem ramets were slightly increased. At the age of 6 and 7 months, the rain did not fall so height increments were little. After the rain fell, the heights of Thai Neem ramets at the age of 8-10 months increased since then. At the age of 11 and 12, the height growths of Thai Neem ramets were remarkably increased due to increasing of amount of rainfall. During the rainy season (June-October), the height growths were continuously increased but less than those during the early rainy season even though the monthly rainfalls were higher. So the rainfall and temperature were fewer influenced to height increment than factors as genetic and other micro-environment did as shown in Figure 43. The height growth at the age of 24 and 30 months were continuously increased. At the end of rainy season on November, 2005, the height increment was lower than those on November, 2004 but more than those on November, 2003, although the accumulative rainfall during May to November in 2004 was less than those in 2005 and 2003. So there were other variable affected the height The variations on height growth among Thai Neem clones during the study period were presented in Table 30 and Figure 44. At the age of 30 months, the average height growth of Thai Neem ramets was 192.00 cm, varied from 143.27 263.13 cm. The ramets of Clone No. 19 showed the best height growth (263.13 cm), followed by progenies of Plus Tree Nos. 64, 9, 37, and 5 as 230.08, 216.88, 216.25, and 215.81 cm, respectively. The statistical differences on height growth among blocks and clones of Thai Neem ramets were shown in Table 31. While, the highly significant differences on height growth of Thai Neem ramets among clones were detected on all ages. The significant differences on height growth of Thai Neem ramets among blocks were found since the age of 9 months. The statistical differences on height growth of Thai Neem ramets among clones had more values than those among blocks during 0-17 months. After 18 months of planting, the statistical differences on height growth of Thai Neem ramets among blocks had more values than those of clones. Thus, the increasing time increased the differences on height growth of Thai Neem ramets among blocks.

147

200 180 160 140 Height (cm) 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 5 1 6 2 7 3 8 03 4 9 5 10 6 11 7 12 8 1 9 2 10 3 11 4 12 5 13 6 04 14 7

Height

Rainfall

300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Ages

15 8

16 9

17 10

18 11

24 5 05

30

11 Month Year

Figure 42 Average height growth of Thai Neem clones grown in the Clonal Seed Figure 42 Orchard established at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao with rainfall Figure 42 in various months

Height increment (cm.month-1)

Height increment (cm.month-1)

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 50

y = 2.821x 0.0802 , R2 = 0.1279

4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0

y = 1 E- 20 x 13 . 734 , R2 = 0 .641

100 150 200 Rainfall (mm)

250

300

22

24

26

28

30

Average Temperature (C)

Figure 43 Effect of rainfall and average temperature (5/03-11/04) on average height Figure 43 increment of Thai Neem ramets grown in the Clonal Seed Orchard Figure 43 established at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao

Rainfall (mm)

148 Table 30 Average height growth (cm) of Thai Neem ramets grown in the Clonal Table 30 Seed Orchard established at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao during Table 30 the study period (months, M)
M Survival percentage 0 Mean SD 1 Mean SD 2 Mean SD 3 Mean SD 4 Mean SD 5 Mean SD 6 Mean SD 7 Mean SD 8 Mean SD 9 Mean SD 10 Mean SD 11 Mean SD 12 Mean SD 13 Mean SD 14 Mean SD 15 Mean SD 16 Mean SD 17 Mean SD 18 Mean SD 24 Mean SD 30 Mean SD 1 2 5 8 9 10 14 15 19 24 Clone Nos. 25 37 38 61 62 63 64 70 71 72 Ave.

43.97 40.06 47.30 39.46 52.14 44.65 47.81 42.41 43.04 43.45 35.12 50.84 48.20 40.26 37.32 31.53 46.96 41.15 40.77 45.69 43.10 7.85 6.33 9.59 10.37 11.56 9.25 12.42 7.20 13.34 8.58 12.71 18.33 14.40 7.32 13.07 6.24 8.33 14.87 16.06 8.86 12.16

45.26 40.82 49.48 40.28 55.02 45.91 48.93 44.64 45.42 44.95 35.65 52.99 49.83 42.22 38.42 32.79 49.11 41.85 42.57 46.84 44.65 8.35 6.07 9.95 10.68 12.13 9.12 12.65 7.85 13.98 9.28 12.70 17.52 14.73 7.51 13.18 6.55 8.47 14.68 15.91 8.99 12.44

48.08 42.42 51.81 41.75 59.81 46.95 51.33 47.36 50.45 47.24 37.19 56.68 52.89 45.63 39.95 34.66 52.12 43.01 44.99 48.76 47.15 11.58 5.68 11.11 11.42 14.90 9.16 13.56 9.22 17.06 10.86 12.81 17.31 15.24 8.39 13.85 6.92 10.00 14.45 16.06 9.77 13.55

50.50 45.78 54.41 42.89 66.55 47.90 53.61 51.81 56.26 50.86 36.24 60.67 55.52 50.53 41.38 36.74 53.73 44.03 47.78 51.64 50.01 16.17 7.86 12.26 11.68 17.68 9.39 14.04 14.03 21.78 13.13 12.36 17.91 17.30 12.02 14.35 7.56 9.86 14.21 16.64 11.99 15.53

49.48 46.07 57.66 44.39 70.48 49.51 54.99 53.54 62.69 53.40 36.79 62.91 58.97 54.00 43.61 37.65 55.92 45.54 50.72 53.67 52.18 14.93 7.73 14.04 12.51 23.21 9.33 14.72 15.68 30.52 15.78 12.39 18.99 21.16 17.72 18.21 7.97 10.36 13.76 17.69 13.77 18.02

50.05 47.73 59.11 45.44 71.66 50.07 56.44 55.14 66.38 54.26 37.33 64.49 60.21 55.79 44.23 38.42 59.28 46.68 52.51 56.15 53.67 15.18 9.55 15.00 12.93 23.89 9.32 15.83 17.54 36.03 15.70 12.36 19.24 21.54 19.81 18.54 8.22 12.39 13.86 18.80 16.40 19.33

50.55 48.31 60.71 46.16 73.24 50.67 57.30 55.78 68.67 55.60 37.92 65.62 61.14 56.63 44.86 39.67 61.14 47.45 54.52 57.92 54.81 15.06 9.56 15.93 12.99 24.26 9.65 16.31 17.73 37.88 16.02 12.67 19.39 21.41 19.88 18.49 8.81 12.57 13.80 19.13 18.00 19.87

51.89 48.91 61.56 47.09 74.65 52.21 58.34 56.73 69.97 56.84 38.35 66.57 63.03 57.51 45.86 40.34 61.77 48.49 57.30 59.81 55.96 14.84 9.68 16.13 13.04 25.25 10.15 16.75 18.18 38.10 16.71 12.68 19.14 21.33 19.81 19.92 8.81 12.35 13.26 18.45 18.54 20.12

53.03 49.94 63.13 47.84 77.02 52.71 59.81 58.87 71.85 57.99 40.35 68.01 63.84 59.66 47.61 41.57 63.20 50.64 60.10 61.66 57.72 14.90 9.48 15.99 13.01 28.49 10.20 16.84 17.86 38.22 17.25 12.24 19.40 21.66 19.71 21.12 8.73 12.21 12.74 17.51 18.35 20.58

57.05 50.38 65.81 50.90 83.60 57.45 64.12 64.21 75.77 64.29 40.37 71.46 64.92 62.51 52.71 45.54 66.14 53.89 63.64 66.80 61.56 15.07 7.06 15.63 15.52 32.58 7.65 17.38 19.34 37.98 19.02 14.96 18.59 22.35 19.68 22.69 7.07 14.71 14.22 17.54 18.69 21.84

60.38 52.57 68.74 53.51 87.03 61.38 67.89 66.52 81.03 66.49 44.05 77.32 70.96 67.59 55.75 49.22 69.76 55.95 66.61 71.11 65.26 15.28 6.56 18.41 13.93 32.54 6.25 19.09 20.13 37.80 21.11 14.29 20.15 23.92 22.00 24.34 6.91 15.78 15.72 17.99 20.71 22.85

73.35 60.57 78.99 63.07 104.81 66.50 81.37 79.79 99.28 76.75 55.14 93.12 85.04 84.34 67.91 62.69 85.68 65.35 80.86 85.94 78.83 25.36 13.28 19.42 17.01 41.45 8.46 24.53 23.60 38.39 20.77 18.45 24.16 22.74 29.22 27.81 11.59 22.72 21.18 24.49 26.50 27.67

86.39 72.89 90.71 75.90 119.90 72.17 96.52 91.05 119.78 85.54 64.75 116.42 100.70 95.55 84.63 75.05 102.21 77.72 94.90 104.95 93.21 32.30 20.36 26.42 19.38 44.17 10.34 30.75 27.04 40.44 22.11 23.25 34.79 27.78 34.17 29.84 17.98 26.00 28.88 25.10 33.50 32.79 92.71 78.57 95.81 81.85 125.63 74.60 102.74 98.20 137.79 91.36 71.87 123.79 110.70 101.60 90.38 81.42 113.21 86.13 103.53 111.68 100.92 34.61 24.72 26.95 19.28 43.72 11.04 31.79 32.31 39.07 22.55 21.13 36.90 37.77 36.32 32.35 21.14 33.65 33.80 29.57 35.62 35.55 99.38 83.56 105.71 86.11 133.47 77.50 108.37 102.06 146.11 95.70 78.00 132.22 118.23 106.26 95.40 86.53 126.28 92.33 114.25 118.07 108.03 37.06 25.81 34.49 23.88 46.87 13.96 35.93 34.73 43.67 22.04 24.54 41.57 42.81 38.52 35.03 23.74 43.49 36.07 36.43 37.81 39.68 102.75 90.44 111.18 90.29 140.58 80.00 125.00 105.96 156.69 97.40 80.21 138.42 126.15 111.67 98.81 90.57 132.90 95.93 118.89 122.30 113.60 39.38 25.97 39.70 27.36 54.67 13.27 34.67 36.97 43.63 21.77 25.19 45.25 46.29 39.89 35.41 24.56 48.71 36.78 38.83 39.83 42.66 109.18 98.71 117.71 93.04 147.19 78.33 131.45 110.66 170.06 99.13 86.93 146.41 137.46 122.80 108.04 96.26 141.23 106.89 123.82 125.80 121.19 39.79 27.12 41.63 27.14 57.36 15.57 36.06 39.16 55.40 19.30 29.46 48.07 49.85 36.30 36.34 23.60 52.38 36.88 39.67 41.22 45.43 117.75 109.04 129.68 97.28 154.78 73.50 135.98 116.21 178.32 107.88 91.89 153.11 143.09 129.26 114.65 102.69 152.77 111.26 132.90 130.95 128.76 42.83 25.87 42.50 28.08 62.18 12.02 37.41 41.18 56.41 21.06 29.09 49.70 52.24 39.14 37.15 23.76 54.52 37.27 37.94 42.28 47.34 123.50 114.76 141.05 102.65 164.20 79.00 141.48 122.31 188.16 114.53 99.76 161.64 148.72 131.73 121.63 108.54 160.54 116.13 133.45 136.07 135.39 44.07 27.21 47.45 29.79 68.41 14.14 39.67 42.72 59.36 23.25 31.50 52.90 55.11 43.23 38.80 23.68 56.64 39.79 39.83 43.60 50.20 147.91 113.64 167.82 123.91 186.79 85.40 154.96 135.42 224.88 145.54 122.82 179.46 157.51 154.02 138.12 121.10 180.48 135.94 149.18 154.13 154.50 56.65 47.04 68.94 34.64 78.09 16.41 55.83 54.01 63.46 27.25 38.41 60.57 78.26 68.07 44.03 31.93 70.83 51.09 51.88 66.57 62.35 171.23 161.80 215.81 146.93 216.88 184.80 185.16 190.93 263.13 184.16 143.27 216.25 194.92 186.28 177.19 158.39 230.08 170.07 184.11 177.77 192.00 54.10 38.04 77.18 42.05 87.59 62.35 76.91 83.21 25.45 43.17 78.74 90.03 62.98 58.16 36.47 79.19 55.58 46.63 82.87 72.63

149

Height (cm) 300

250

200

150

100

50 18 16 14 12 0 19 64 9 37 6 5 10 24 Ramets of Clone Nos. 38 15 61 14 4 71 2 72 62 1 70 2 0 63 8 25 10 8 Months

30

Figure 44 Height growth of neem ramets from 20 clones grown in the Clonal Seed Figure 44 Orchard established at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao during the Figure 44 study period

150 Table 31 Analysis of variance on height growth of Thai Neem ramets grown in the Table 31 Clonal Seed Orchard established at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao Table 31 during the study period
Ages 0 month 1 month 2 months 3 months 4 months 5 months 6 months 7 months 8 months 9 months 10 months 11 months 12 months 13 months 14 months 15 months 16 months 17 months 18 months 24 months 30 months Remarks: Sources Blocks Clones Blocks Clones Blocks Clones Blocks Clones Blocks Clones Blocks Clones Blocks Clones Blocks Clones Blocks Clones Blocks Clones Blocks Clones Blocks Clones Blocks Clones Blocks Clones Blocks Clones Blocks Clones Blocks Clones Blocks Clones Blocks Clones Blocks Clones Blocks Clones Df 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 SS 2235.32 10075.46 2389.16 11705.97 3196.04 14903.09 4510.41 20861.35 5843.72 25910.40 6729.97 28788.89 7114.68 30861.50 7626.13 32052.90 7216.48 32749.55 12856.29 36622.78 16432.91 40270.18 35265.17 60307.17 73658.87 86921.25 93711.09 100714.61 114493.00 114763.40 128483.92 133668.68 136732.86 153418.58 148558.48 154497.24 170164.69 165399.82 344886.85 201304.87 456963.25 231811.58 MS 117.65 530.29 125.75 616.10 168.21 784.37 237.39 1097.97 307.56 1363.71 354.21 1515.21 374.46 1624.29 401.38 1687.00 379.82 1723.66 676.65 1927.52 864.89 2119.48 1856.06 3174.06 3876.78 4574.80 4932.16 5300.77 6025.95 6040.18 6762.31 7035.19 7196.47 8074.66 7818.87 8131.43 8956.04 8705.25 18151.94 10594.99 24050.70 12200.61 F 0.91ns* 4.10** 0.95ns* 4.70** 1.10ns* 5.13** 1.21ns* 5.61** 1.14ns* 5.07** 1.13ns* 4.85** 1.14ns* 4.94** 1.20ns* 5.04** 1.08ns* 4.89** 1.79** 5.10** 2.13** 5.22** 3.33** 5.69** 5.59** 6.60** 6.31** 6.78** 6.03** 6.04** 5.91** 6.15** 5.55** 6.23** 5.64** 5.87** 5.78** 5.62** 8.29** 4.84** 7.97** 4.04**

** = Highly significant differences at 99% confident limit * = Significant differences at 95% confident limit ns = Insignificant difference

151 Diameter at 10 cm above Ground Level (D10) In the present study, the average D10 growth of Thai Neem ramets grown in Clonal Seed Orchard established at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao during the study period was shown in Table 32 and Figure 45. The average D10 growths of Thai Neem ramets increased successively. During the first rainy season (May-October), 05-month of age, the average D10 growths of Thai Neem ramets were slightly increased. At the ages of 6 and 7 months, the rain did not fall so diameter increments were relatively small. Thereafter when the rain fell, the D10 of Thai Neem ramets continuously increased. However, as shown in Figure 46, the rainfall and temperature were slightly influenced to diameter increment when comparing to the factors as genetic and other micro-environmental did. At the end of rainy season on November, 2003, the diameter increment of Thai Neem ramets was less than those on November, 2005 but more than those on November, 2004 as similar to the accumulative rainfall during May to November in 2003 was less than those in 2005 but more than those in 2003. The variations on D10 growth among clones during the study period were presented in Table 32 and Figure 27. At the age of 30 months, the average D10 growth of Thai Neem ramets was 5.27 cm, varied from 3.24 7.19 cm. The top five Thai Neem ramets on height growth were ramets of Clone Nos. 19, 64, 61, 71, and 9 (7.19, 6.33, 6.09, 5.79, and 5.58 cm, respectively). The statistical differences on D10 growth of Thai Neem ramets among blocks and clones were shown in Table 33. While, the highly significant differences on D10 growth of Thai Neem ramets among clones were detected at all ages. The significant differences on D10 growth of Thai Neem ramets among blocks were found since the age of 10 months. The statistical differences on D10 growth of Thai Neem ramets among clones had more values than those among blocks during 0-16 months. After 18 months of planting, the statistical differences on D10 growth of Thai Neem ramets among blocks had more values than those among clones. Thus, the increasing time increased the differences on Thai Neem D10 growth among blocks.

152

6 5 4 D10 (cm) 3 2 1 0 0 5 1 6 2 7 3 8 03 4 9 5 10 6 11 7 12 8 1 9 2 10 3 11 4 12 5 13 6 04 14 7 15 8

Rainfall

300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Ages Month Year

16 9

17 10

18 11

24 5 05

30 11

Figure 45 Average diameter at 10 cm above ground level (D10) of Thai Neem ramets Figure 45 grown in the Clonal Seed Orchard established at Lad Krating Plantation, Figure 45 Chachoengsao with rainfall during the study period

Diameter increment (cm.month-1)

0.3

Diameter increment (cm.month-1)

y = 0.0675x 0.0937 , R2 = 0.1622

0.3

y = 2 E- 12 x 7 . 3434 , R2 = 0.367

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

0.0 0 50 100 150 200 Rainfall (mm) 250 300

0.0 0

28 24 26 Average temperature (C)

30

Figure 46 Effect of rainfall and average temperature (5/03-11/04) on average Figure 46 diameter increment of Thai Neem ramets grown in the Clonal Seed Figure 46 Orchard established at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao

Rainfall (mm)

153 Table 32 Average diameter at 10 cm above ground level growth (D10, cm) of Thai Table 32 Neem ramets grown in the Clonal Seed Orchard established at Lad Krating Table 32 Plantation, Chachoengsao during the study period (months, M)
M Survival percentage 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 24 30 Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD 2 5 8 9 10 14 15 19 Clone Nos. 24 25 37 38 61 62 63 64 70 71 72 Ave. 1.29 1.33 1.14 1.13 1.29 1.32 1.19 1.28 1.17 1.22 1.38 1.12 1.00 1.38 1.17 1.11 1.44 1.21 1.36 1.40 1.25 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.16 0.17 0.21 0.25 0.20 0.22 0.19 0.20 0.16 0.28 0.30 0.24 0.22 0.27 0.17 0.24 0.26 0.25 1.33 1.35 1.18 1.16 1.34 1.35 1.23 1.33 1.21 1.27 1.42 1.17 1.03 1.41 1.20 1.17 1.50 1.24 1.42 1.45 1.29 0.23 0.22 0.23 0.16 0.17 0.21 0.25 0.22 0.24 0.21 0.19 0.16 0.29 0.30 0.25 0.22 0.26 0.16 0.24 0.26 0.25 1.40 1.39 1.24 1.20 1.45 1.39 1.29 1.41 1.30 1.33 1.46 1.24 1.08 1.47 1.25 1.27 1.55 1.29 1.51 1.52 1.35 0.25 0.22 0.23 0.17 0.22 0.20 0.26 0.24 0.28 0.24 0.19 0.15 0.32 0.29 0.26 0.25 0.24 0.14 0.26 0.27 0.26 1.47 1.44 1.32 1.24 1.63 1.43 1.40 1.55 1.47 1.41 1.49 1.37 1.16 1.54 1.33 1.35 1.65 1.34 1.63 1.59 1.44 0.26 0.20 0.25 0.17 0.34 0.21 0.27 0.28 0.43 0.30 0.19 0.21 0.37 0.29 0.30 0.26 0.23 0.15 0.32 0.30 0.30 1.52 1.46 1.38 1.28 1.72 1.46 1.46 1.62 1.54 1.45 1.52 1.44 1.20 1.60 1.38 1.40 1.71 1.36 1.72 1.65 1.49 0.29 0.20 0.27 0.18 0.37 0.23 0.27 0.30 0.48 0.32 0.19 0.24 0.39 0.30 0.32 0.27 0.24 0.16 0.35 0.31 0.32 1.55 1.48 1.42 1.30 1.76 1.48 1.51 1.67 1.62 1.50 1.54 1.50 1.24 1.65 1.41 1.44 1.76 1.38 1.82 1.69 1.54 0.34 0.20 0.29 0.19 0.40 0.24 0.28 0.33 0.56 0.39 0.19 0.28 0.42 0.33 0.35 0.28 0.26 0.17 0.40 0.31 0.35 1.57 1.49 1.45 1.31 1.81 1.49 1.54 1.69 1.69 1.53 1.56 1.54 1.26 1.69 1.45 1.47 1.78 1.40 1.86 1.72 1.57 0.36 0.19 0.32 0.19 0.45 0.26 0.27 0.35 0.64 0.43 0.20 0.33 0.45 0.37 0.41 0.29 0.27 0.17 0.43 0.33 0.38 1.58 1.51 1.47 1.32 1.85 1.50 1.56 1.72 1.75 1.57 1.57 1.59 1.30 1.71 1.46 1.49 1.79 1.41 1.90 1.73 1.59 0.36 0.19 0.35 0.21 0.51 0.26 0.29 0.38 0.69 0.47 0.21 0.38 0.45 0.38 0.44 0.28 0.28 0.17 0.44 0.34 0.40 1.62 1.52 1.50 1.34 1.90 1.59 1.59 1.75 1.81 1.61 1.61 1.64 1.32 1.76 1.47 1.52 1.81 1.43 1.95 1.75 1.63 0.39 0.19 0.37 0.22 0.55 0.25 0.31 0.42 0.72 0.53 0.23 0.41 0.52 0.42 0.45 0.29 0.29 0.17 0.44 0.35 0.43 1.64 1.50 1.55 1.38 1.93 1.63 1.67 1.80 1.90 1.68 1.57 1.74 1.37 1.83 1.52 1.60 1.91 1.47 2.04 1.78 1.68 0.40 0.14 0.43 0.20 0.58 0.22 0.34 0.45 0.74 0.63 0.36 0.44 0.55 0.45 0.49 0.33 0.30 0.16 0.46 0.38 0.47 1.73 1.53 1.60 1.43 1.99 1.69 1.81 1.90 2.05 1.79 1.60 1.85 1.53 1.92 1.57 1.69 2.01 1.51 2.16 1.86 1.77 0.41 0.12 0.44 0.24 0.61 0.20 0.37 0.50 0.83 0.68 0.39 0.51 0.70 0.49 0.51 0.37 0.38 0.18 0.48 0.42 0.51 1.91 1.64 1.69 1.53 2.17 1.75 1.97 2.06 2.30 2.00 1.71 2.00 1.74 2.06 1.66 1.86 2.23 1.64 2.31 2.02 1.93 0.62 0.15 0.49 0.27 0.71 0.22 0.44 0.56 0.92 0.71 0.46 0.53 0.80 0.62 0.58 0.39 0.52 0.27 0.55 0.49 0.59 2.13 1.79 1.83 1.72 2.42 1.81 2.29 2.32 2.61 2.21 1.83 2.23 2.02 2.25 1.92 2.13 2.53 1.81 2.63 2.23 2.17 0.74 0.27 0.54 0.34 0.84 0.26 0.63 0.64 1.06 0.83 0.52 0.61 0.85 0.70 0.74 0.51 0.67 0.39 0.66 0.63 0.70 2.37 1.96 2.01 1.93 2.64 1.84 2.57 2.52 3.11 2.49 2.05 2.48 2.40 2.52 2.19 2.48 2.83 1.98 2.91 2.47 2.43 0.94 0.45 0.66 0.43 0.99 0.34 0.80 0.77 1.22 0.91 0.48 0.70 1.18 0.79 0.90 0.66 0.87 0.52 0.83 0.77 0.85 2.63 2.07 2.17 2.08 2.89 1.86 2.84 2.72 3.42 2.86 2.23 2.73 2.62 2.72 2.28 2.76 3.08 2.20 3.21 2.67 2.66 1.02 0.50 0.78 0.51 1.12 0.44 0.99 0.84 1.37 1.08 0.54 0.81 1.28 0.91 0.97 0.71 0.99 0.62 0.92 0.91 0.97 2.81 2.24 2.34 2.21 3.16 1.93 3.26 2.91 3.77 3.00 2.40 2.94 2.84 2.95 2.49 3.01 3.29 2.32 3.43 2.86 2.87 1.10 0.63 0.91 0.59 1.27 0.47 0.93 0.93 1.40 1.07 0.61 0.89 1.41 0.96 1.01 0.79 1.10 0.69 1.03 1.00 1.05 3.04 2.52 2.62 2.34 3.35 1.78 3.43 3.10 4.08 3.31 2.59 3.16 3.18 3.23 2.73 3.33 3.58 2.49 3.70 3.05 3.11 1.20 0.69 0.98 0.62 1.34 0.26 0.96 1.01 1.43 1.10 0.70 1.00 1.48 1.01 1.02 0.84 1.14 0.70 1.18 1.06 1.12 3.33 2.65 2.99 2.46 3.55 1.85 3.61 3.28 4.34 3.48 2.73 3.34 3.36 3.43 2.88 3.53 3.87 2.65 3.98 3.22 3.34 1.25 0.65 0.98 0.71 1.44 0.50 1.02 1.08 1.47 1.15 0.72 1.07 1.57 1.11 1.01 0.88 1.18 0.75 1.28 1.13 1.19 3.54 2.80 3.23 2.61 3.80 1.95 3.78 3.48 4.65 3.64 2.90 3.54 3.55 3.63 3.04 3.72 4.10 2.77 4.12 3.40 3.53 1.25 0.69 1.10 0.76 1.55 0.64 1.10 1.18 1.53 1.20 0.79 1.14 1.67 1.28 1.01 0.91 1.24 0.78 1.42 1.23 1.27 3.43 2.35 3.42 2.90 4.11 2.00 3.97 3.56 5.07 3.80 2.92 3.80 3.50 4.18 3.19 3.54 4.32 2.85 4.20 3.46 3.66 1.45 1.28 1.45 0.84 1.78 0.71 1.57 1.53 1.73 1.29 1.02 1.57 2.11 1.62 1.26 1.22 1.58 1.03 1.83 1.43 1.56 5.46 3.24 5.49 3.88 5.58 3.50 5.54 5.24 7.19 5.25 4.43 5.22 5.03 6.09 4.58 5.13 6.33 4.36 5.79 4.50 5.27 1.89 1.64 1.92 0.91 2.53 1.65 1.96 2.25 1.02 2.16 1.95 2.85 1.53 1.69 1.38 1.87 1.09 1.47 1.97 2.00

154

D10 (cm) 8

1 16 14 12 0 19 64 61 71 9 14 5 6 4 2 0 8 10 2 10 8 1 24 15 37 63 38 62 72 Ramets of Clone Nos. 25 70

18

30

Months

Figure 47 Diameter at 10 cm above ground level (D10) of Thai Neem ramets from 20 Figure 47 clones grown in the Clonal Seed Orchard established at Lad Krating Figure 47 Plantation, Chachoengsao during the study period

155 Table 33 Analysis of variance on diameter at 10 cm above ground level growth of Table 33 Thai Neem ramets grown in the Clonal Seed Orchard established at Table 33 Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao during the study period.
Ages 0 month 1 month 2 months 3 months 4 months 5 months 6 months 7 months 8 months 9 months 10 months 11 months 12 months 13 months 14 months 15 months 16 months 17 months 18 months 24 months 30 months Remarks: Sources Blocks Clones Blocks Clones Blocks Clones Blocks Clones Blocks Clones Blocks Clones Blocks Clones Blocks Clones Blocks Clones Blocks Clones Blocks Clones Blocks Clones Blocks Clones Blocks Clones Blocks Clones Blocks Clones Blocks Clones Blocks Clones Blocks Clones Blocks Clones Blocks Clones Df 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 SS 1.04 5.36 0.80 5.50 0.68 5.70 0.93 6.73 1.26 7.84 1.82 9.14 2.84 9.97 3.55 10.29 4.00 11.07 5.29 12.50 7.27 14.82 9.82 19.24 20.36 27.46 36.08 37.63 45.95 48.07 58.68 59.80 63.82 68.13 69.63 69.47 82.42 77.27 173.66 93.14 228.90 156.45 MS 0.06 0.28 0.04 0.29 0.04 0.30 0.05 0.35 0.07 0.41 0.10 0.48 0.15 0.53 0.19 0.54 0.21 0.58 0.28 0.66 0.38 0.78 0.52 1.01 1.07 1.45 1.90 1.98 2.42 2.53 3.09 3.15 3.36 3.59 3.67 3.66 4.34 4.07 9.14 4.90 12.05 8.23 F 1.09ns* 5.59** 0.81ns* 5.58** 0.62ns* 5.24** 0.63ns* 4.59** 0.76ns* 4.74** 0.91ns* 4.56** 1.21ns* 4.24** 1.36ns* 3.94** 1.32ns* 3.65** 1.48ns* 3.51** 1.70** 3.47** 1.72** 3.37** 2.66** 3.59** 3.30** 3.44** 3.27** 3.42** 3.67** 3.74** 3.53** 3.77** 3.42** 3.41** 3.59** 3.36** 5.44** 2.92** 4.25** 2.90**

** = Highly significant differences at 99% confident limit * = Significant differences at 95% confident limit ns = Insignificant difference

156 Family Variation Survival Percentage In the present study, the average survival percentage of Thai Neem progenies grown in Seedling Seed Orchard established at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao of during the study period was shown in Table 34 and Figure 48. From 0-18 months, the average survival percentages of seedlings decreased successively. At the age of 1 month, the average survival percentage of Thai Neem progenies was seriously declined because of the badly adaptation of Thai Neem progenies under field conditions. During 2-7-months of age on dry season, the average mortality percentages of Thai Neem progenies were high due to the low rainfall. From the age of 8-12 months on rainy season, the deaths of Thai Neem progenies were slightly caused by rainfall as shown in Figure 49. After the second dry season, the survival percentage of Thai Neem progenies at 18 months was decreasing and then at the end of rainy season (24-month of age), the survival percentage of Thai Neem progenies was slightly increasing caused by the coppice of progenies of Progeny Nos. 3 and 5. In the present study, the survival percentage of 24-month-old Thai Neem grown in the Seedling Seed Orchard (91.6%) was higher than those grown in the International Provenance Trial in Kanchanaburi (87.71%, Sawatdee, 2003) and tea tree seedling (49.80%) grown in the nearby area and planted at the rainy season of the same year (Uthairatsamee, 2004). The variations on survival percentage of Thai Neem progenies during the study period were presented in Table 34 and Figure 50. At the age of 24 months, the survival percentage of Thai Neem progenies was ranged between 77.1-96.5 %. The Thai Neem progenies of Plus Tree No. 21 showed the best survival percentage (96.5%), followed by Thai Neem progenies of Plus Tree Nos. 36 (95.8%), 38 (95.1%), 20 (94.4%), 12 and 23 (93.8%). The statistical differences on survival percentage of Thai Neem progenies among blocks and plus trees were shown in Table 35. The statistical difference of Thai Neem progenies among blocks at the age of 1 month was the most due to the adaptation from nursery to field environment. The statistical difference of Thai Neem progenies among blocks at 2-month of age was decreased and then the statistical differences of blocks were increased by the uneven blocks. Meanwhile, the statistical differences of Thai Neem progenies among plus trees were increased by time but lower than those among blocks were. Thus, the blocks or micro-environmental factors had more effected on survival percentage of Thai Neem progenies than those among plus trees or genetic factors did in almost all ages.

157

100

Survival percentage

Rainfall

200 150 100

Survival percentage (%)

80 60 40 20 0 0 10 1 11 03 2 12 3 1 4 2 5 3 6 4 7 5 04 8 6 9 7 10 8 11 9 12 10 18 4 05 24 10

50 0

Ages Month Year

Figure 48 Average survival percentage of Thai Neem progenies grown in the Figure 48 Seedling Seed Orchard established at Lad Krating Plantation, Figure 48 Chachoengsao with rainfall during the study period

99

y = 95 .192 x -0 . 0068 , R2 = 0.9071 98

y = 169 .25 x -0 . 1809 , R2 = 0.6389

Survival Percentage (%)

Survival Percentage (%)

98 97 96 95 94 93 92 0

97 96 95 94 93 92

=
0 50 100 150 200

=
0

Rainfall (mm)

22

24

26

28

30

Average Temperature (C)

Figure 49 Effect of rainfall and average temperature (10/03-9/04) on survival Figure 49 percentage of Thai Neem progenies grown in the Seedling Seed Orchard Figure 49 established at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao

Rainfall (mm)

158 Table 34 Average survival percentage (%) of Thai Neem progenies grown in the Seedling Seed Orchard established at Lad Krating Table 34 Plantation, Chachoengsao during the study period
Plus Ages (Months) Tree 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 18 24 Nos. Mean SDMean SDMean SDMean SDMean SDMean SDMean SDMean SDMean SDMean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD 1 100 98.6 3.8 96.5 5.3 92.4 9.7 91.0 10.1 90.3 14.6 88.9 15.7 88.9 15.7 88.9 15.7 88.9 15.7 88.9 15.7 88.9 15.7 88.9 15.7 87.5 16.7 87.5 16.7 2 100 96.5 8.8 92.4 9.7 90.3 12.1 88.2 13.1 88.2 13.1 86.1 13.1 86.1 13.1 86.1 13.1 86.1 13.1 85.4 13.9 84.7 15.1 84.7 15.1 82.6 14.0 82.6 14.0 3 100 98.6 3.8 98.6 3.8 95.1 9.9 94.4 12.2 94.4 12.2 93.1 14.0 93.1 14.0 93.1 14.0 93.1 14.0 93.1 14.0 93.1 14.0 93.1 14.0 90.3 14.0 91.0 13.6 4 100 98.6 5.6 96.5 8.8 96.5 8.8 95.1 9.0 94.4 9.1 93.8 9.9 93.8 9.9 93.8 9.9 93.8 9.9 93.1 10.6 92.4 10.5 93.1 9.8 93.1 9.8 93.1 9.8 5 100 99.3 2.8 97.9 6.0 95.8 6.9 95.8 8.0 95.8 8.0 95.1 8.1 93.8 9.0 93.1 9.0 93.1 9.0 93.1 9.0 92.4 8.8 92.4 8.8 91.7 8.6 91.0 9.3 7 100 100.0 99.3 2.8 97.9 4.5 97.2 5.0 96.5 6.7 95.1 9.9 95.1 9.9 95.1 9.9 95.1 9.9 94.4 9.9 94.4 9.9 94.4 9.9 92.4 12.0 93.1 12.1 9 100 97.2 6.4 97.2 5.0 91.7 8.6 91.7 7.6 91.7 7.6 90.3 9.0 90.3 9.0 90.3 9.0 90.3 9.0 90.3 9.0 90.3 9.0 90.3 9.0 88.9 10.7 88.9 10.7 11 100 100.0 97.9 4.5 96.5 5.3 95.8 5.6 94.4 8.1 94.4 8.1 93.8 9.9 93.8 9.9 93.8 9.9 93.8 9.9 93.8 9.9 93.8 9.9 91.7 10.3 91.7 10.3 12 100 98.6 5.6 97.2 8.6 97.2 6.4 97.2 6.4 97.2 6.4 95.1 7.0 95.1 7.0 95.1 7.0 95.1 7.0 95.1 7.0 95.1 7.0 95.1 7.0 93.8 8.1 93.8 8.1 14 100 98.6 3.8 96.5 5.3 93.8 9.0 93.1 9.0 93.1 9.0 90.3 14.6 90.3 14.6 90.3 15.1 90.3 15.1 91.0 14.8 91.0 14.8 91.0 14.8 88.9 16.7 88.9 16.7 15 100 97.9 4.5 97.2 5.0 95.1 5.7 93.8 8.1 93.8 8.1 93.1 9.0 91.7 10.3 91.7 10.3 91.0 10.9 91.0 10.9 91.0 10.9 91.0 10.9 88.2 14.3 88.2 14.3 17 100 96.5 5.3 95.1 7.0 89.6 14.9 87.5 12.1 86.8 12.3 82.6 15.7 81.9 16.2 81.9 16.2 81.3 16.1 81.3 16.1 80.6 16.0 81.3 16.6 79.2 18.1 79.2 18.1 18 100 98.6 3.8 97.2 5.0 96.5 6.7 92.4 9.7 91.7 10.3 91.7 11.1 91.0 13.0 91.0 13.0 90.3 15.1 91.0 13.0 90.3 12.8 90.3 12.8 86.8 15.8 86.8 15.8 19 100 94.4 8.1 92.4 9.7 88.2 12.5 84.7 12.8 84.0 12.8 81.9 14.0 79.9 16.8 79.2 16.2 79.2 16.2 79.2 16.2 79.2 16.2 79.2 16.2 77.1 17.4 77.1 17.4 20 100 99.3 2.8 98.6 5.6 98.6 3.8 95.8 6.9 95.8 6.9 95.1 7.0 95.1 7.0 95.1 7.0 95.1 7.0 95.1 7.0 95.1 7.0 95.1 7.0 94.4 7.0 94.4 7.0 21 100 98.6 5.6 98.6 5.6 96.5 6.7 95.8 6.9 96.5 6.7 96.5 6.7 96.5 6.7 96.5 6.7 96.5 6.7 96.5 6.7 96.5 6.7 96.5 6.7 96.5 6.7 96.5 6.7 22 100 100.0 99.3 2.8 97.9 4.5 95.1 5.7 94.4 7.0 94.4 7.0 94.4 7.0 94.4 7.0 94.4 7.0 93.8 7.0 93.1 8.0 93.1 8.0 92.4 7.8 92.4 7.8 23 100 99.3 2.8 97.9 4.5 97.9 4.5 95.8 6.9 95.8 6.9 95.8 6.9 94.4 9.1 95.1 9.0 95.1 9.0 95.1 9.0 95.1 9.0 95.1 9.0 93.8 9.9 93.8 9.9 24 100 97.2 5.0 97.9 4.5 95.8 5.6 95.1 7.0 95.1 7.0 94.4 9.1 94.4 9.1 94.4 9.1 94.4 9.1 93.8 9.0 92.4 9.7 92.4 9.7 92.4 9.7 92.4 9.7 25 100 99.3 2.8 98.6 3.8 95.1 8.1 94.4 8.1 93.8 9.0 92.4 12.0 92.4 12.0 92.4 12.0 92.4 12.0 92.4 12.0 92.4 12.0 92.4 12.0 90.3 15.1 90.3 15.1 26 100 97.9 4.5 97.2 5.0 95.8 5.6 95.1 8.1 95.1 8.1 95.1 9.9 93.8 12.8 93.8 12.8 93.8 12.8 93.8 12.8 93.8 12.8 93.8 12.8 91.7 13.8 91.7 13.8 29 100 100.0 97.2 6.4 97.2 6.4 96.5 6.7 95.1 7.0 95.1 7.0 93.8 8.1 94.4 8.1 94.4 8.1 94.4 8.1 94.4 8.1 94.4 8.1 92.4 7.8 92.4 7.8 30 100 99.3 2.8 95.8 6.9 94.4 7.0 94.4 7.0 94.4 7.0 93.1 9.0 92.4 9.7 93.1 9.8 93.1 9.8 92.4 10.5 91.7 11.8 91.7 11.8 89.6 13.7 89.6 13.7 31 100 97.9 6.0 97.2 6.4 94.4 9.1 91.7 10.3 91.0 10.9 89.6 14.9 88.9 14.6 88.9 14.6 88.9 14.6 88.9 14.6 88.9 14.6 88.9 14.6 88.9 14.6 88.9 14.6 32 100 99.3 2.8 99.3 2.8 96.5 5.3 95.8 5.6 95.1 5.7 94.4 7.0 93.1 6.9 93.1 6.9 93.1 6.9 93.1 6.9 93.1 6.9 93.1 6.9 92.4 7.8 92.4 7.8 33 100 97.9 4.5 96.5 5.3 95.8 6.9 91.7 14.9 91.7 14.9 91.0 14.8 89.6 14.3 89.6 14.3 89.6 14.3 90.3 14.6 89.6 14.3 90.3 14.6 88.9 14.6 88.9 14.6 34 100 99.3 2.8 98.6 5.6 97.2 6.4 96.5 6.7 95.8 6.9 93.8 9.0 92.4 10.5 92.4 10.5 92.4 10.5 92.4 10.5 92.4 10.5 92.4 10.5 91.7 10.3 91.7 10.3 36 100 99.3 2.8 99.3 2.8 99.3 2.8 98.6 3.8 98.6 3.8 97.9 4.5 96.5 5.3 95.8 5.6 96.5 5.3 96.5 5.3 95.8 5.6 96.5 5.3 95.8 5.6 95.8 5.6 37 100 98.6 3.8 93.8 9.0 91.0 12.3 91.0 11.6 91.0 11.6 90.3 12.1 90.3 12.1 89.6 12.5 90.3 12.1 90.3 12.1 89.6 12.5 89.6 12.5 86.1 13.8 86.1 13.8 38 100 99.3 2.8 99.3 2.8 97.9 6.0 98.6 5.6 97.9 8.3 97.9 8.3 96.5 9.7 96.5 9.7 96.5 9.7 96.5 9.7 96.5 9.7 96.5 9.7 95.1 9.9 95.1 9.9 39 100 99.3 2.8 98.6 3.8 96.5 6.7 96.5 6.7 96.5 6.7 92.4 9.7 92.4 9.7 92.4 9.7 92.4 9.7 92.4 9.7 92.4 9.7 92.4 9.7 92.4 9.7 92.4 9.7 40 100 98.6 3.8 96.5 5.3 93.8 7.0 93.1 8.0 92.4 7.8 91.7 8.6 91.0 9.3 91.0 9.3 90.3 9.0 91.0 9.3 90.3 9.8 90.3 9.8 88.9 12.2 88.9 12.2 Ave. 100 98.6 4.3 97.3 5.9 95.3 8.1 94.0 9.0 93.7 9.4 92.6 10.8 91.9 11.4 91.9 11.4 91.8 11.5 91.8 11.5 91.6 11.6 91.6 11.6 90.2 12.6 90.2 12.6

159

Survival percentage (%) 100

95

90

85

80

=
0
21 36 38 20 23 12 4 7 29 32 22 39 24 26 11 34 5 Progenies of Plus Tree No. 2 4 6 8 3 25 30 14 40 33 9 31 15 1 10 12 18 37 24 2 17 19 Months 0

Figure 50 Survival percentage of Thai Neem progenies from 32 plus trees grown in Figure 50 the Seedling Seed Orchard established at Lad Krating Plantation, Figure 50 Chachoengsao during the study period

160 Table 35 Analysis of variance on survival percentage of Thai Neem progenies grown Table 35 in the Seedling Seed Orchard established at Lad Krating Plantation, Table 35 Chachoengsao during the study period
Ages 1 month 2 months 3 months 4 months 5 months 6 months 7 months 8 months 9 months 10 months 11 months 12 months 18 months 24 months Remarks: Sources Blocks Plus Trees Blocks Plus Trees Blocks Plus Trees Blocks Plus Trees Blocks Plus Trees Blocks Plus Trees Blocks Plus Trees Blocks Plus Trees Blocks Plus Trees Blocks Plus Trees Blocks Plus Trees Blocks Plus Trees Blocks Plus Trees Blocks Plus Trees Df 15 31 15 31 15 31 15 31 15 31 15 31 15 31 15 31 15 31 15 31 15 31 15 31 15 31 15 31 SS 986.69 708.91 855.52 1650.27 1650.27 3695.02 3016.01 4952.74 3162.62 5122.49 4628.67 6982.06 5456.94 7142.89 5482.25 7465.28 5438.85 7815.39 5941.36 7608.03 6255.55 7872.06 6245.90 7723.52 7806.47 9338.11 7658.18 9378.86 MS 65.78 22.87 57.03 53.24 110.02 119.19 201.07 159.77 210.84 165.24 308.58 225.23 363.80 230.42 365.48 240.82 362.59 252.11 396.09 245.42 417.04 253.94 416.39 249.15 520.43 301.23 510.55 302.54 F 3.89** 1.35ns* 1.72** 1.61** 1.84** 1.99** 2.82** 2.24** 2.64** 2.07** 2.95** 2.16** 3.14** 1.99** 3.15** 2.08** 3.08** 2.14** 3.40** 2.11** 3.51** 2.14** 3.50** 2.09** 3.76** 2.18** 3.68** 2.18**

** = Highly significant differences at 99% confident limit * = Significant differences at 95% confident limit ns = Insignificant difference

161 Height Growth In the present study, the average height growth of Thai Neem progenies grown in Seedling Seed Orchard established at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao during the study period was shown in Table 36 and Figure 51. The average height growths of Thai Neem progenies increased concomitantly. During dry season (October-March), 1-6-month of age, the average height growths of Thai Neem progenies slightly increased due to the low rainfall. After having sufficient rain, it is enough to activate the enlargement of the terminal buds, the heights of Thai Neem progenies at the ages of 7 and 8 months remarkably increased due to the food storage in seedlings. During the rainy season (MayOctober), the height growths of Thai Neem progenies continuously increased but less than those during the early rainy season even though the monthly rainfalls were higher. So that not only rainfall and temperature were influenced to height increment of Thai Neem progenies but also the factors as genetic and other micro-environments were collaborated in monthly height growth (Figure 52). The seasonal height growths of Thai Neem progenies were similar in pattern as after the second dry season, the height of Thai Neem progenies at 18 months was extremely enlarged and then at the end of rainy season (24-month of age), the height growths of Thai Neem progenies continuously increased. The annual height growth of Thai Neem progenies in the second year was higher than those of the first year because the amount of rainfall and the number of cells in the second year were more than those in the first year. In the present study, the average height growth of Thai Neem progenies at the age of 12 months grown in the Seedling Seed Orchard (31.77 cm) was less than those grown in the International Provenance Trial, Kanchanaburi (Sawatdee, 2003) and tea tree seedling grown in the nearby area and planted in the rainy season of the same year (Uthairatsamee, 2004), 2.95 m and 140.81 cm. The variations on height growth of Thai Neem progenies during the study period were presented in Table 36 and Figure 53. At the age of 24 months, the average height growth of Thai Neem progenies was 58.18 cm, varied from 39.1391.79 cm. Thai Neem progenies of Plus Tree No. 1 showed the best height growth (91.79 cm), followed by progenies of Plus Tree Nos. 33, 32, 23, and 25 as 71.75, 70.53, 69.81, and 69.64 cm, respectively. The highly significant differences on height growth of Thai Neem progenies among blocks and plus trees were shown in Table 37. While, the significant differences of Thai Neem progenies among plus trees were declines every month. The significant differences of Thai Neem progenies among blocks were increased from the age of 0-8 months because many variables made the dissimilarity among blocks as slope, soil properties, erosion and ditches by water runoff, invasive weeds, etc. Then when the area held steady to those variable, the significant differences of blocks were slightly decreased.

162 During 0-5 months after planting, Plus Trees or genetic factors had more effected on height growth of Thai Neem progenies than blocks or microenvironmental factors did, thereafter genetic factors had less effected due to the uneven site and micro-environmental conditions of each blocks.

163

60 50 40 30 20

Height

Rainfall

200

100 50

10 0 0 10 1 11 03 2 12 3 1 4 2 5 3 6 4 7 5 04 8 6 9 7 10 8 11 9 12 10 18 4 05 0 24 Ages 10 Month

Year

Figure 51 Average height growth of Thai Neem progenies grown in the Seedling Figure 51 Seed orchard established at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao with Figure 51 rainfall during the study period

4.5

Height increment (cm.month-1)

y = 0.3144x 0.2756 , R2 = 0.47

4.5 4 3.5 3 2 1.5 1 0.5 0

y = 1 E- 20 x 13 . 734 , R2 = 0.641

Height increment (cm.month-1)

4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 50 100 150 200

( 2.5

22

24

26

28

Rainfall (mm)

Average Temperature (C)

Figure 52 Effect of rainfall and average temperature (10/03-9/04) on height Figure 52 increment of Thai Neem progenies grown in the Seedling Seed Orchard Figure 52 established at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao

Rainfall (mm)
30

Height (cm)

150

164 Table 36 Average height growth (cm) of Thai Neem progenies grown in the Seedling Seed Orchard established at Lad Krating Table 36 Plantation, Chachoengsao during the study period
Plus Tree Nos. 1 2 3 4 5 7 9 11 12 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 29 30 31 32 33 34 36 37 38 39 40 Ave. 0 Mean 13.89 15.87 15.90 14.11 15.67 16.38 16.07 15.51 12.50 12.94 18.20 8.11 19.79 14.48 14.78 14.88 13.52 14.12 16.07 22.78 14.93 19.59 13.20 15.65 19.11 16.84 15.66 15.31 14.75 15.77 18.45 12.75 15.55 SD 3.17 3.07 3.72 3.37 3.38 3.81 3.80 3.07 3.19 3.11 3.66 3.26 4.20 3.31 2.98 3.03 3.22 4.22 3.26 3.79 3.25 4.98 2.77 3.65 4.60 5.20 3.07 3.54 4.13 5.18 3.13 3.90 4.50 1 Mean 14.56 15.95 16.20 14.55 15.85 16.63 16.42 15.79 12.76 13.21 18.21 8.09 20.11 14.99 15.07 15.18 13.98 14.46 16.34 23.30 15.26 20.07 13.66 15.89 19.37 17.27 16.00 15.65 15.10 16.35 18.63 12.63 15.88 SD 3.46 3.38 3.73 3.50 3.55 3.74 3.78 3.11 3.15 3.23 3.98 2.84 4.12 3.36 3.00 3.15 3.14 4.43 3.40 3.81 3.19 4.80 2.77 3.63 4.62 5.12 3.12 3.57 4.11 5.28 3.36 4.03 4.55 2 Mean 14.90 16.18 16.34 14.61 15.77 16.78 16.56 15.91 12.89 13.24 18.42 8.21 20.02 15.26 15.27 15.31 14.03 14.65 16.45 23.52 15.35 20.03 13.76 15.93 19.31 17.44 16.22 15.72 15.22 16.49 18.67 12.79 16.00 SD 3.62 3.29 3.85 3.62 3.80 3.76 3.97 3.26 3.24 3.49 4.02 2.87 4.36 3.31 3.08 3.31 3.36 4.55 3.54 3.89 3.31 4.94 2.92 3.57 4.83 5.15 3.20 3.64 4.06 5.28 3.64 4.02 4.62 3 Mean 15.51 16.08 16.31 14.92 16.09 16.94 16.76 15.53 13.11 13.20 18.21 8.44 19.56 15.54 15.43 15.56 14.10 15.05 16.76 23.44 14.93 19.80 14.05 15.51 19.45 17.76 16.26 16.04 15.23 16.70 18.79 12.85 16.10 SD 3.73 3.83 4.12 3.90 3.87 3.92 4.26 3.86 3.36 3.72 4.57 2.90 5.25 3.72 3.25 3.60 3.61 4.77 3.59 5.07 4.39 5.35 2.98 4.45 4.96 5.09 3.43 3.74 4.29 5.65 3.68 4.12 4.85 4 Mean 16.66 16.08 16.30 15.32 16.28 17.04 17.15 15.33 13.20 13.14 17.42 8.76 18.67 15.90 15.71 16.02 14.32 15.59 16.56 23.22 15.29 20.09 14.52 15.18 19.38 18.41 16.29 16.45 15.50 16.92 18.71 13.00 16.24 SD 4.79 4.06 4.35 4.16 4.11 4.30 4.48 4.10 3.52 3.92 5.39 2.93 6.18 4.40 3.68 4.14 3.66 5.39 4.09 6.14 4.35 5.14 3.34 4.76 5.70 5.47 3.94 4.09 4.46 5.93 3.81 4.17 5.13 5 Mean 17.65 16.32 16.26 15.78 16.54 17.34 17.71 15.53 13.78 13.58 17.60 9.15 18.21 16.20 15.60 16.43 14.94 16.34 16.50 23.48 15.87 19.80 15.14 15.59 19.77 18.93 16.75 16.76 15.71 17.35 18.40 13.27 16.55 SD 5.96 4.03 4.61 4.36 4.49 4.95 4.85 4.41 3.65 4.14 5.36 3.35 6.44 4.98 4.31 4.68 4.40 5.95 4.31 6.54 4.60 5.57 3.77 4.64 5.87 6.44 3.91 4.53 4.94 6.08 4.56 4.33 5.43 6 Mean 20.11 17.14 16.62 17.27 17.95 17.85 19.72 16.48 14.96 14.28 17.48 10.54 18.83 17.93 16.28 17.90 16.17 18.44 16.87 24.29 16.91 20.63 16.32 16.54 20.94 20.56 17.46 17.91 17.00 18.05 18.72 14.09 17.62 SD 8.87 4.46 4.83 6.24 5.72 6.40 7.14 6.56 4.27 5.04 6.01 6.01 8.10 6.73 5.28 6.59 5.84 8.33 4.75 7.52 5.83 5.82 4.88 5.65 6.23 8.67 4.41 5.58 6.15 6.59 4.95 4.71 6.61 Ages (months) 7 8 Mean SD Mean SD 28.75 15.86 38.23 22.59 20.01 7.83 23.54 12.04 19.29 7.38 22.23 10.13 21.55 11.36 27.13 17.81 21.06 8.81 25.25 13.59 22.17 10.84 25.37 13.92 25.05 13.78 30.08 18.67 20.26 12.39 25.27 20.21 19.41 7.39 24.32 12.74 16.52 7.65 19.43 10.99 19.06 6.93 20.39 8.63 14.16 9.13 16.91 11.79 22.87 11.90 26.47 16.01 23.48 13.66 28.60 18.35 20.37 9.56 24.33 13.05 22.79 11.81 27.23 16.55 20.69 10.24 24.33 13.71 26.02 16.49 32.05 20.42 19.53 7.40 22.88 10.90 29.22 12.13 32.48 15.45 21.18 10.71 24.92 15.16 23.85 8.84 26.96 11.75 20.83 8.32 25.75 12.80 20.31 9.43 23.71 12.63 24.54 10.11 29.04 14.60 26.67 13.97 32.28 20.37 21.22 7.59 25.04 11.65 21.81 9.50 25.32 13.19 20.97 9.80 25.36 15.84 21.44 9.09 25.57 13.21 21.54 8.07 24.62 11.31 17.75 8.43 23.11 12.70 21.78 10.95 25.98 15.37 9 Mean SD 41.55 24.68 25.83 14.52 23.54 10.74 29.62 20.40 27.40 17.05 27.40 15.97 31.75 20.08 27.06 22.10 26.21 13.82 20.70 12.26 21.42 9.78 18.58 13.39 28.00 16.99 31.14 21.09 25.93 13.95 29.20 18.20 25.65 14.66 35.13 22.87 24.17 12.04 34.23 16.30 26.57 16.17 28.32 13.08 27.81 14.18 25.29 14.80 31.56 16.15 33.98 21.59 26.72 13.60 26.91 14.59 27.36 17.00 27.49 15.09 26.09 13.24 24.78 14.07 27.84 17.03 10 Mean SD 46.08 29.42 26.98 15.71 25.13 12.95 31.83 23.35 29.03 18.40 28.86 17.58 33.51 22.04 29.21 26.76 27.47 14.42 21.57 13.96 22.30 10.66 20.18 15.88 29.52 18.37 33.45 24.88 27.55 15.30 31.22 21.26 26.67 15.52 37.94 26.79 25.50 13.50 35.69 17.39 28.04 17.84 29.75 13.77 29.74 15.88 26.29 15.82 34.67 19.36 36.30 25.22 28.40 15.47 28.42 15.60 28.75 18.30 29.01 17.76 27.27 13.91 26.20 14.97 29.57 19.27 11 Mean SD 48.52 32.28 27.84 16.55 25.94 13.66 33.31 25.55 29.85 19.05 29.91 18.74 34.75 23.52 30.39 28.45 28.54 15.14 22.29 15.06 22.92 10.94 21.94 19.76 30.15 19.20 35.22 26.98 28.53 15.92 32.28 22.48 27.53 15.94 39.94 30.01 26.19 13.94 37.06 18.46 29.08 18.76 30.35 14.19 31.00 17.12 27.39 16.53 37.28 23.51 37.91 27.45 29.69 17.13 29.43 16.41 29.90 19.63 30.75 20.55 28.22 14.74 26.99 15.25 30.78 20.83 12 Mean SD 50.42 34.41 28.26 17.20 26.60 14.18 34.53 27.47 30.55 20.12 30.92 19.79 35.70 24.96 31.37 29.75 29.58 16.11 22.62 15.94 23.55 11.46 23.30 22.94 30.67 19.86 36.45 28.31 29.14 16.34 33.40 23.83 28.36 16.53 41.86 33.28 26.72 14.26 38.07 19.25 29.66 19.53 30.86 14.24 31.69 17.56 28.12 17.69 39.50 28.09 38.98 29.13 31.12 19.99 30.37 17.36 30.76 20.43 32.20 23.41 29.07 15.69 28.35 16.53 31.77 22.29 18 Mean SD 73.27 49.82 43.07 28.33 40.03 25.08 50.24 42.56 48.99 33.70 45.38 31.75 54.44 39.76 50.97 46.72 46.15 27.43 33.52 24.87 32.79 19.13 36.21 37.65 44.20 33.92 55.23 44.77 41.89 27.29 52.45 40.04 44.80 28.84 58.13 46.47 37.38 23.24 58.64 34.03 45.33 31.29 47.32 26.60 52.64 31.75 39.98 29.82 56.97 45.37 57.73 45.42 44.43 30.87 45.69 30.71 46.73 33.61 46.40 38.11 45.15 27.45 52.50 34.72 47.94 35.86 24 Mean SD 91.79 69.54 50.25 34.34 48.91 32.58 61.69 58.59 59.25 44.12 57.10 46.73 65.31 48.95 62.93 62.05 56.13 35.94 39.13 30.19 39.15 24.86 43.21 48.95 52.05 43.79 68.52 61.90 49.68 34.26 63.76 53.12 54.05 35.72 69.81 59.92 43.65 30.57 69.64 42.98 54.42 38.59 55.52 32.75 64.26 42.70 49.02 40.92 70.53 64.38 71.75 64.62 54.88 41.58 54.49 38.88 56.52 44.07 56.36 49.43 54.83 35.30 66.37 48.80 58.19 47.65

165
Height (cm) 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30 20 10 0 1 33 32 23 25 19 40 9 30 21 11 4 5 7 37 38 12 29 34 39 36 26 22 18 Progenies of Plus Tree No. 2 20 31 3 24 17 15 14 8 6 4 2 0 10 12

24

Months

Figure 53 Height growths of Thai Neem progenies from 32 plus trees grown in the Figure 53 Seedling Seed Orchard established at Lad Krating Plantation, Figure 53 Chachoengsao during the study period

166 Table 37 Analysis of variance on height growth of Thai Neem progenies grown in Table 37 the Seedling Seed Orchard established at Lad Krating Plantation, Table 37 Chachoengsao during the study period.
Ages 0 month 1 month 2 months 3 months 4 months 5 months 6 months 7 months 8 months 9 months 10 months 11 months 12 months 18 months 24 months Sources Blocks Plus Trees Blocks Plus Trees Blocks Plus Trees Blocks Plus Trees Blocks Plus Trees Blocks Plus Trees Blocks Plus Trees Blocks Plus Trees Blocks Plus Trees Blocks Plus Trees Blocks Plus Trees Blocks Plus Trees Blocks Plus Trees Blocks Plus Trees Blocks Plus Trees Df 15 31 15 31 15 31 15 31 15 31 15 31 15 31 15 31 15 31 15 31 15 31 15 31 15 31 15 31 15 31 SS 3232.63 31258.25 3891.22 31437.44 4227.15 30317.42 4300.75 27837.33 5497.26 24796.42 7193.28 22789.25 13680.82 22641.46 53853.25 38112.65 121029.00 61773.34 141626.42 72823.16 172806.21 93964.32 194338.62 107869.55 220985.79 120528.13 519228.21 256977.69 921631.75 436881.32 MS 215.51 1008.33 259.42 1014.11 281.81 977.98 286.72 897.98 366.48 799.89 479.55 735.14 912.06 730.37 3590.22 1229.44 8068.60 1992.69 9441.76 2349.13 11520.41 3031.11 12955.91 3479.66 14732.39 3888.00 34615.21 8289.60 61442.12 14092.95 F 20.92** 97.86** 24.94** 97.49** 25.17** 87.36** 21.20** 66.39** 22.40** 48.89** 24.84** 38.07** 30.12** 24.12** 43.84** 15.01** 53.53** 13.22** 51.58** 12.83** 50.02** 13.16** 48.42** 13.00** 48.83** 12.89** 41.66** 9.98** 41.56** 9.53**

Remark:

** = Highly significant differences at 99% confident limit

167 Diameter at Ground Level Growth In the present study, the average diameter at ground level growth of neem progenies grown in Seedling Seed Orchard established at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao during the study period was shown in Table 38 and Figure 54. The average diameter growths of Thai Neem progenies increased successively. As shown in Figure 55, the R2 of rainfall and temperature on diameter increment of Thai Neem progenies were high, thus, the monthly diameter growth of Thai Neem progenies were extended by climate factors and associated with other environmental and genetic factors. The diameter growths of Thai Neem progenies in dry season compared with rainy season were slightly different but the diameter increments during at age of 0-12 months (1st year) were obviously lower than the diameter increments during at age of 12-24 months (2nd years) due to the annual rainfall of the second year which was higher than those of the first year and the number and capacity of cells increased with age. In the present study, Thai Neem progenies grown in the Seedling Seed Orchard (5.04 mm) were less diameter at ground level growth than those grown in the International Provenance Trial in Kanchanaburi (2.48 cm) and tea tree seedling grown in the nearby area and planted in the rainy season of the same year (Uthairatsamee, 2004) (20.39 mm). The variations on diameter growth among Thai Neem progenies during the study period were presented in Table 38 and Figure 56. At the age of 24 months, the average diameter growth of Thai Neem progenies was 9.90 mm, varied between 6.2715.86 mm. The best top five progenies on diameter growth were progenies of Plus Tree No. 1, 23, 25, 9, and 32 with diameter of 15.86, 13.26, 12.55, 12.49, and 12.06 mm, respectively. The highly significant differences on diameter at ground level of Thai neem progenies among blocks and plus trees were shown in Table 39. The trends of statistically differences among blocks and plus trees on diameter growth of Thai Neem progenies as similar to those on height growth that the significant differences among blocks were increased from the age of 0-11 months because of the dissimilarity of blocks and then when the area held steady to those variable, the significant differences of blocks were slightly decreased. On the other hand, the significant differences among plus trees were declines every month. From 1-3 months after planting, the plus trees or genetic factors had more effected on height growth of Thai Neem progenies than blocks or microenvironmental factors had, thereafter genetic factors had less effected due to the uneven site and micro-environment conditions of each block.

168

10 8

Rainfall

200 150 100

D (mm)

6 4 2 0 0 10 1 11 03 2 12 3 1 4 2 5 3 6 4 7 5 04 8 6 9 7 10 8 11 9 12 10 18 4 05 50 0 24 Ages

10 Month

Year

Figure 54 Average diameter at ground level of Thai Neem progenies grown in the Figure 54 Seedling Seed Orchard established at Lad Krating Plantation, Figure 54 Chachoengsao with rainfall during the study period

Diameter increment (mm.month-1)

0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 50

Diameter increment (cm.month-1)

y = 0.1706x 0.1185 , R2 = 0.7787

0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1

y = 3 E- 08 x 4 . 7572 , R2 = 0.6895

11

22

24

26

28

100

150

200

Rainfall (mm)

Average Temperature (C)

Figure 55 Effect of rainfall and average temperature (10/03-9/04) on diameter Figure 55 increment of Thai Neem progenies grown in the Seedling Seed Orchard Figure 55 established at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao

Rainfall (mm)
30

169 Table 38 Average diameter at ground level (mm) of Thai Neem progenies grown in the Seedling Seed Orchard established at Table 38 Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao during the study period. Values were means S.D., based on plot means.
Plus Tree Nos. 1 2 3 4 5 7 9 11 12 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 29 30 31 32 33 34 36 37 38 39 40 Ave. 0 Mean 1.88 2.10 2.05 1.90 1.98 2.03 2.05 1.87 1.81 1.65 2.06 1.18 2.04 1.94 1.94 1.93 1.78 1.81 2.09 2.35 2.01 2.10 1.92 1.88 2.08 2.10 1.92 1.99 1.78 2.04 2.05 1.78 1.94 1 SD Mean 0.42 2.09 0.42 2.16 0.40 2.13 0.44 2.14 0.44 2.06 0.36 2.11 0.40 2.34 0.43 1.99 0.41 2.00 0.51 1.78 0.37 2.08 0.38 1.22 0.35 2.18 0.41 2.15 0.44 2.04 0.35 2.05 0.46 1.91 0.50 1.92 0.42 2.26 0.59 2.58 0.46 2.14 0.39 2.19 0.38 2.02 0.46 1.99 0.43 2.15 0.54 2.30 0.44 2.02 0.36 2.18 0.49 1.95 0.46 2.20 0.32 2.13 0.49 1.85 0.47 2.07 2 SD Mean 0.45 2.26 0.47 2.24 0.42 2.21 0.50 2.25 0.46 2.13 0.38 2.18 0.54 2.51 0.44 2.04 0.41 2.10 0.46 1.82 0.38 2.14 0.45 1.29 0.45 2.30 0.42 2.28 0.44 2.08 0.30 2.11 0.38 1.95 0.55 2.10 0.51 2.31 0.64 2.74 0.45 2.20 0.40 2.29 0.34 2.09 0.36 2.06 0.41 2.20 0.54 2.42 0.41 2.10 0.43 2.26 0.41 2.03 0.51 2.31 0.35 2.20 0.48 1.90 0.49 2.16 3 SD Mean 0.54 2.54 0.49 2.44 0.49 2.44 0.65 2.62 0.47 2.32 0.44 2.42 0.65 2.83 0.43 2.19 0.45 2.33 0.47 1.90 0.42 2.26 0.54 1.37 0.53 2.49 0.53 2.50 0.47 2.28 0.42 2.32 0.40 2.05 0.65 2.38 0.54 2.55 0.73 2.99 0.49 2.36 0.50 2.52 0.43 2.28 0.41 2.12 0.45 2.47 0.57 2.63 0.46 2.20 0.53 2.49 0.41 2.14 0.62 2.56 0.41 2.36 0.49 2.02 0.56 2.36 4 SD Mean 0.77 2.86 0.64 2.63 0.67 2.55 0.90 2.89 0.61 2.51 0.62 2.68 0.83 3.15 0.62 2.30 0.57 2.50 0.60 2.00 0.51 2.32 0.66 1.66 0.70 2.64 0.69 2.70 0.60 2.43 0.63 2.57 0.50 2.20 0.87 2.69 0.65 2.68 0.90 3.29 0.72 2.57 0.60 2.68 0.60 2.54 0.56 2.25 0.71 2.69 0.77 2.79 0.56 2.39 0.66 2.75 0.52 2.34 0.84 2.71 0.53 2.51 0.63 2.18 0.73 2.56 5 SD Mean 0.97 3.35 0.74 2.85 0.75 2.63 1.17 3.17 0.87 2.74 0.91 2.89 1.25 3.41 0.72 2.56 0.67 2.79 0.71 2.18 0.61 2.51 0.90 1.83 0.92 2.86 0.95 3.05 0.75 2.62 0.76 2.86 0.61 2.39 1.16 3.09 0.76 2.84 1.18 3.64 0.92 2.80 0.70 2.92 0.84 2.81 0.75 2.49 0.91 3.07 0.94 3.14 0.75 2.58 0.85 3.06 0.73 2.60 0.92 2.97 0.70 2.71 0.71 2.43 0.91 2.82 6 SD Mean 1.45 3.89 0.98 3.12 0.83 2.86 1.40 3.49 1.08 3.09 1.26 3.15 1.45 3.90 1.01 2.90 0.93 3.05 0.89 2.36 0.76 2.70 1.11 2.11 1.22 3.18 1.38 3.44 0.96 2.89 1.01 3.29 0.81 2.70 1.43 3.66 0.92 3.02 1.39 4.01 1.12 3.07 0.92 3.18 1.02 3.17 0.94 2.70 1.24 3.45 1.33 3.47 0.94 2.89 1.16 3.40 0.87 2.99 1.26 3.25 0.89 3.06 0.86 2.73 1.16 3.14 Ages (months) 7 8 SD Mean SD Mean 1.78 4.47 2.28 5.43 1.22 3.47 1.56 3.83 0.97 3.13 1.11 3.56 1.69 3.89 2.16 4.45 1.43 3.42 1.83 3.83 1.56 3.54 1.93 3.86 1.82 4.31 2.24 4.92 1.40 3.30 1.90 3.75 1.16 3.40 1.40 3.80 1.06 2.53 1.23 2.82 0.96 2.89 1.08 3.14 1.43 2.39 1.78 2.83 1.50 3.45 1.76 3.92 1.66 3.85 2.09 4.36 1.27 3.20 1.56 3.64 1.51 3.62 1.89 4.16 1.07 3.09 1.45 3.56 2.00 4.37 2.84 4.90 1.08 3.27 1.28 3.56 1.76 4.58 2.29 5.08 1.42 3.39 1.64 3.83 1.17 3.53 1.48 3.86 1.31 3.62 1.64 4.19 1.12 2.95 1.39 3.30 1.51 3.94 1.80 4.41 1.68 4.04 2.26 4.64 1.22 3.24 1.44 3.59 1.53 3.76 1.85 4.17 1.28 3.32 1.60 3.73 1.45 3.58 1.83 4.01 1.03 3.43 1.39 3.74 1.09 3.06 1.41 3.54 1.46 3.51 1.84 3.97 9 SD Mean 3.46 6.17 1.86 4.12 1.72 3.78 2.77 4.91 2.22 4.15 2.23 4.16 2.83 5.41 2.63 4.19 1.60 4.12 1.42 3.03 1.40 3.27 2.59 3.11 2.33 4.29 2.84 4.79 1.92 3.88 2.69 4.62 2.00 3.89 3.34 5.35 1.46 3.72 2.79 5.47 2.08 4.12 1.66 4.09 2.05 4.46 1.67 3.52 2.25 4.88 2.79 5.05 1.62 3.89 2.18 4.45 2.21 4.09 2.23 4.35 1.59 4.03 1.86 3.89 2.34 4.31 10 Mean SD 6.74 5.00 4.36 2.37 3.94 2.04 5.31 4.03 4.46 2.99 4.41 2.77 5.78 4.08 4.41 3.92 4.36 2.16 3.22 1.89 3.42 1.63 3.35 3.49 4.58 3.48 5.08 4.08 4.10 2.37 4.94 3.83 4.10 2.68 5.77 4.37 3.87 1.70 5.82 3.50 4.36 2.60 4.35 2.03 4.69 2.47 3.73 2.20 5.27 3.32 5.38 3.76 4.15 2.21 4.72 2.80 4.34 3.11 4.59 3.17 4.26 2.12 4.22 2.73 4.58 3.18 11 Mean SD 7.16 5.45 4.61 2.64 4.09 2.22 5.64 4.58 4.72 3.38 4.61 3.13 6.10 4.51 4.64 4.21 4.62 2.47 3.39 2.18 3.54 1.77 3.55 3.92 4.79 3.85 5.41 4.67 4.32 2.65 5.20 4.09 4.30 2.88 6.15 4.82 4.00 1.86 6.13 3.92 4.53 2.81 4.48 2.27 4.90 2.68 3.87 2.34 5.65 4.10 5.70 4.19 4.38 2.43 4.92 3.00 4.54 3.40 4.81 3.47 4.50 2.36 4.46 3.00 4.82 3.52 12 Mean SD 7.68 6.27 4.76 2.92 4.22 2.40 5.92 5.02 4.92 3.63 4.82 3.44 6.37 4.84 4.92 4.65 4.84 2.73 3.47 2.39 3.62 1.90 3.75 4.42 4.96 4.17 5.70 5.07 4.51 2.92 5.41 4.35 4.49 3.17 6.49 5.30 4.13 2.03 6.42 4.29 4.70 2.99 4.68 2.51 5.08 2.95 3.99 2.58 6.00 4.77 5.96 4.71 4.65 2.88 5.08 3.23 4.76 3.87 5.06 4.17 4.70 2.63 4.65 3.31 5.04 3.90 18 Mean SD 11.88 9.95 7.12 5.36 6.66 4.78 9.03 8.06 7.80 6.44 7.16 6.04 9.72 7.34 7.82 7.46 7.34 4.73 5.22 4.71 5.13 3.14 5.36 6.15 6.90 6.10 9.21 8.55 6.77 4.88 8.49 7.60 7.12 5.60 10.35 9.26 6.09 4.57 10.07 6.90 7.26 5.40 7.20 4.49 8.60 6.15 6.15 4.99 8.82 7.65 9.56 8.51 6.62 4.82 7.30 5.43 7.40 6.25 7.40 6.43 6.84 4.31 8.70 6.49 7.75 6.58 24 Mean SD 15.86 14.45 8.75 7.01 8.60 6.59 11.25 11.13 9.90 8.69 9.10 8.46 12.49 10.35 10.29 10.89 9.26 6.39 6.41 6.75 6.27 4.26 6.98 9.84 8.80 8.81 11.81 11.35 8.43 6.13 10.59 9.83 9.28 7.91 13.26 12.59 7.76 6.68 12.55 9.35 9.33 7.51 8.97 6.15 11.17 8.59 7.82 6.84 12.06 12.68 11.96 10.83 8.49 6.75 9.07 7.16 9.49 9.08 9.13 8.74 8.66 5.68 11.56 9.03 9.90 9.16

SD 4.29 2.15 1.93 3.44 2.57 2.50 3.63 3.58 1.95 1.70 1.49 3.17 2.98 3.69 2.12 3.43 2.39 3.99 1.59 3.20 2.41 1.84 2.24 1.97 2.79 3.27 1.95 2.50 2.81 2.76 1.87 2.33 2.82

170

D (mm) 16

14

12

10

0 1 23 25 9 32 33 19 40 4 30 21 11 5 37 26 22 12 38 7 36 29 18 2 39 Progenies of Plus Tree No. 3 34 20 31 24 17 14 15 12 8 6 4 2 0 10

24

Months

Figure 56 Diameter at ground level of Thai Neem progenies from 32 plus trees Figure 56 grown in the Seedling Seed Orchard established at Lad Krating Plantation, Figure 56 Chachoengsao during the study period

171 Table 39 Analysis of variance on diameter at ground level of Thai Neem progenies Table 39 grown in the Seedling Seed Orchard established at Lad Krating Plantation, Table 39 Chachoengsao during the study period
Ages 0 month 1 month 2 months 3 months 4 months 5 months 6 months 7 months 8 months 9 months 10 months 11 months 12 months 18 months 24 months Sources Blocks Plus Tree Blocks Plus Tree Blocks Plus Tree Blocks Plus Tree Blocks Plus Tree Blocks Plus Tree Blocks Plus Tree Blocks Plus Tree Blocks Plus Tree Blocks Plus Tree Blocks Plus Tree Blocks Plus Tree Blocks Plus Tree Blocks Plus Tree Blocks Plus Tree Df 15 31 15 31 15 31 15 31 15 31 15 31 15 31 15 31 15 31 15 31 15 31 15 31 15 31 15 31 15 31 SS 32.40 168.58 57.13 204.12 62.47 232.20 135.56 331.75 261.73 386.54 420.01 512.10 683.77 677.23 1058.08 985.92 1794.64 1373.31 2776.35 1838.49 3495.57 2258.83 4301.40 2666.96 5186.17 3157.63 14143.80 8863.13 27848.97 16086.21 MS 2.16 5.44 3.81 6.59 4.17 7.49 9.04 10.70 17.45 12.47 28.00 16.52 45.58 21.85 70.54 31.80 119.64 44.30 185.09 59.31 233.04 72.87 286.76 86.03 345.74 101.86 942.92 285.91 1856.60 518.91 F 12.81** 32.26** 22.24** 38.45** 18.92** 34.04** 24.87** 29.45** 29.93** 21.39** 29.31** 17.29** 30.26** 14.50** 29.38** 13.24** 31.05** 11.50** 33.66** 10.78** 33.67** 10.53** 33.72** 10.12** 33.21** 9.78** 31.28** 9.48** 31.96** 8.93**

Remark:

** = Highly significant differences at 99% confident limit

172

CONCLUSION
International Provenance Trials Variation on Isozyme Analysis In the present study, 12 gene loci from 8 enzyme system in neem were found, including DIA-A, DIA-B, FDH, GOT, G-6PDH, IDH, MDH-A, MDH-B, MDH-C, PGM-A, PGM-B, and SKDH. While, alleles of DIA-A, DIA-B, FDH, MDH-C, and SKDH were monomorphism, GOT, G-6PDH, IDH, MDH-A, MDH-B, PGM-A, and PGM-B were polymorphisms which these gene loci showed moderate to high level of variation. Moreover, the genotypes of DIA-A, DIA-B, GOT, MDH-C, and SKDH showed the differences among Thai and Indian Neems so these enzyme systems can be used to identify neem varieties. The gene diversity or expected heterozygosity (He) of neem in the present study was 0.226. The average He value of Thai Neem was slightly more than those of Indian Neem which were 0.227 and 0.226. Although, Provenance 07/IND/Gha had the greatest He, followed by Provenances 14/NEP/Lam, 20/THA/Non, 23/GHA/Sun, and 03/IND/Man (0.271, 0.256, 0.255, 0.246, and 0.245, respectively), and Provenance 16/PAK/Tib had the lowest He (0.182). The high values of He were probably caused by the mating system and adaptive features of neem such as insect pollination, high fecundities, seed dispersal by birds, facultative selfing and outbreeding and the large geographical range of the species. The mean FIS in of neem in the present study was negative because of the excess of heterozygotes in subpopulations, but the mean FIT was positive due to the deficiency of heterozygotes in the total population. The possible explanation for this result may be caused by to many factors such as natural selection, genetic drift, inbreeding, nonrandom mating, and population subdivision, among others. However, the mean FST was 0.580 that indicated the wide genetic differentiation over subpopulations probably because of considerable differences between the geographical zones. The present study showed that the genetic distances (D) were extremely different between neem varieties but the D values within variety were few. It is obviously concluded that two neem varieties (Thai and Indian Neems) were in different clusters. Within Thai neem, Provenances 20/THA/Non and 21/THA/Bo had closely genetic distance. Thai Neem were divided into 3 clusters when D = 0.01, as 1) 22/THA/Doi; 2) 19/THA/Tun; and 3) 21/THA/Bo, 20/THA/Non and 11/LAO/Vie. Among Indian Neem, Provenance 17/PAK/Mul was remarkable isolation and it was grouped into 4 clusters by using D = 0.01, that were 1) 12/MYA/Mye, 05/IND/All, 24/SEN/Ban, 08/IND/Sag, 07/IND/Gha, 04/IND/Chi, 15/NEP/Get, 13/MYA/Yez, 09/IND/Bal, 06/IND/Ann, 16/PAK/Tib, and 03/IND/Man; 2) 10/IND/Ram, 23/GHA/Sun, and14/NEP/Lam; 3) 18/SRL/Kul; and 4) 17/PAK/Mul. The present genetic analysis suggested that African provenances originated from Indian subcontinent.

173 Variation on Growth Characteristics Growth Characteristics in Various Ages In the present study, the survival percentage of neem at 6 months and 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 years old were ranging between 93-100, 76-98, 71-98, 68-98, 64-96, and 5796 percent, respectively. The average survival percentages of these ages classed were 97.3, 87.7, 84.3, 82.8, 79.4, and 74.6, respectively. At 6 months old, Provenance 12/MYA/Yez had the highest survival percentage and Provenance 21/THA/Bo showed the poor survival percentage. At the age of 1 and 2 years, while Provenance 20/THA/Non had the highest survival percentages and Provenance 16/PAK/Tib had the lowest. At the age of 3 years, Provenance 20/THA/Non still had the highest survival percentage and Provenances 16/PAK/Tib and 08/IND/Sag had the lowest. At the age of 4 years, Provenances 20/THA/Non and 06/IND/Ann had the highest survival percentages and provenance 16/PAK/Tib had the lowest. At the age of 6 years, Provenance 06/IND/Ann still had the highest survival percentage but Provenance 11/LAO/Vie had the lowest, At the age of 6 months, the average height growth of neem was 1.78 m, ranging from 0.80 m (Provenance E2/THA/Kha) to 2.33 m (Provenance 08/IND/Sag). At the age of 1 year, the average height of neem had increased to 2.98 m, varying from 1.65 m (Provenance E2/THA/Kha) to 3.80 m (Provenance 06/IND/Ann). At the 2 years old, the average height growth of neem was 3.53 m, while Provenances E2/THA/Kha and 06/IND/Ann still had the lowest (2.30 m) and highest (4.48 m) height growth, respectively. At the age of 3 years, the average height growth of neem was 4.61 m, ranging from 3.32 m (Provenance 19/THA/Tun) to 5.61 m (Provenance 04/IND/Chi). At the age of 4 years, the average height growth of neem was 4.94 m, moreover Provenances 19/THA/Tun and 04/IND/Chi still had the lowest (3.70 m) and highest (5.95 m) height growth, respectively. Also, at the age of 6 years, the average height of neem was 5.85 m, varying from 4.60 m (Provenance 19/THA/Tun) to 7.00 m (Provenance 04/IND/Chi). At the age of 6 months, the average D10 of neem was 1.82 cm, ranging from 1.00 cm (Provenance E2/THA/Kha) to 2.28 cm (Provenances 09/IND/Bal and 17/PAK/Mul). The average D10 of neem at the ages of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 years was 2.48, 5.36, 8.15, 8.64, and 13.08 cm, respectively. At the ages of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 years, the highest D10 growth was found in Provenance 04/IND/Chi (3.18, 6.38, 9.80, 10.31, and 15.49 cm, respectively), while the lowest D10 growth was detected in Provenance 19/THA/Tun (1.68, 3.68, 6.17, 6.34, and 10.11 cm, respectively). However, at the age of 6 years, the average DBH of neem trees was 7.89 cm, ranging from 5.50 cm (Provenance 19/THA/Tun) to 9.80 cm (Provenance 04/IND/Chi). The average crown diameter after 6-months planting was 1.01 m, ranging from 0.60 m (Provenances 22/THA/Doi and 19/THA/Tun) to 1.50 m (Provenances 06/IND/Ann). At the ages of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 years, the average crown diameters were 1.68, 1.93, 2.58, 2.41, and 2.57 m, respectively. While, at all ages, the lowest

174 crown diameter was detected in Provenance 19/THA/Tun (0.75, 0.98, 1.41, 1.32, and 1.32 m, respectively), the highest crown diameter at the ages of 1, 2, and 4 years was shown in Provenance 06/IND/Ann (2.63, 2.98, and 3.33 m, respectively), and at the ages of 3 and 6 years, Provenance 04/IND/Chi showed the highest of 3.64 and 3.68 m. The statistical significant differences among provenances demonstrated on all growth characteristics (survival percentage, height, D10, DBH, crown diameter) at all ages, because of the genetic factors of each provenance. But for the survival percentage, the significant differences among blocks showed on the ages of 1, 2, 3, and 4 years, maybe caused by the micro-environment and edaphic factors. On the other hand, there were significant different among blocks on height, D10, DBH, crown diameter only after 6-months planting. Afterward, there were insignificant differences. Thus, for neem, genetic factors efficiently play more important effects on growth performance than micro-environmental factors. In the present study, the growth characteristics of 6-months, 1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, and 6-years-old neem from all provenances showed similar patterns that highly increased after 6-months and 1-year planting. At the period of 1 to 2 years, the growth slightly increased. During the ages of 2 to 3 years, the growth rates highly increased. This can be caused by the climatic factors. On the other hand, at the period of 3 to 4 years, all provenances had slow growth rate, since the spacing between trees was limited at 3 m so the trees cannot develop the crown, particularly Indian Neem. At the period of 4 to 6 years, the growth trials still slightly increased. Thus, the recommended for neem planted by spacing 3 x 3 m, the thinning is needed after 3-years planting. Comparison on Growth Characteristics of Neem grown in Kanchanaburi and Kamphaeng Phet Comparisons on experimental sites, 7-year-old neem planted in Kanchanaburi were higher average survival percentage than those planted in Kamphaeng Phet, but the other growth chrematistics (healthiness, height, clearbole length, straightness, number of stems per tree, D10, DBH, and crown diameter) of neem planted in Kamphaeng Phet were higher than in Kanchanaburi. So it clearly showed that site conditions had the effects on growth of neem. Comparison on Growth Characteristics between Thai and Indian Neems It can be summarized that Thai Neem were more healthiness, clearbole length, and stem straightness than Indian Neem, on the other hand, Indian Neem were higher survival percentage, height, No. of stems per tree, D10, DBH, and crown diameter than Thai Neem. Because Indian Neem have good adaptation to the environment and Indian Neem are multi-stem trees, but Thai Neem are single stem trees.

175 Provenance Variation on Growth Characteristics The average survival percentage of Provenance 06/IND/Ann was the best, followed by Provenances 13/MYA/Yez, 12/MYA/Mye, 20/THA/Non, 10/IND/Ram, and 23/GHA/Sun. In Kanchanaburi, Provenance 06/IND/Ann showed the best survival percentage and Provenance 19/THA/Tun showed the least. While, in Kamphaeng Phet, the Provenance 12/MYA/Mye were best on survival percentage and Provenance 17/PAK/Mul were least. Comparison among provenances, Provenance 21/THA/Bo was best healthiness, followed by Provenances 22/THA/Doi, 20/THA/Non, 11/LAO/Vie, and 23/GHA/Sun but Provenance 17/PAK/Mul was weakest. In Kanchanaburi, the top five provenances on healthiness were Provenances 20/THA/Non, 16/PAK/Tib, 23/GHA/Sun, 22/THA/Doi, and 18/SRL/Kul, while in Kamphaeng Phet, Provenances 21/THA/Bo, 11/LAO/Vie, 22/THA/Doi, 20/THA/Non, and 06/IND/Ann showed the best healthiness. Provenance 23/GHA/Sun showed the best height growth, followed by Provenances 04/IND/Chi, 13/MYA/Yez, 20/THA/Non, and 18/SRL/Kul, but Provenance 11/LAO/Vie was the least. In Kanchanaburi, the top five provenances on height were Provenances 20/THA/Non, 04/IND/Chi, 24/SEN/Ban, 06/IND/Ann and 08/IND/Sag, on the other hand, in Kamphaeng Phet, Provenances 23/GHA/Sun, 13/MYA/Yez, 18/SRL/Kul, 12/MYA/Mye, and 22/THA/Doi showed the best height growth. Provenance 19/THA/Tun had the best clearbole length, followed by Provenances 22/THA/Doi, 21/THA/Bo, 20/THA/Non, and 18/SRL/Kul, but Provenance 17/PAK/Mul had the shortest clearbole length. Whilst in Kanchanaburi, the top five provenances on clearbole length were Provenances 22/THA/Doi, 20/THA/Non, 11/LAO/Vie, 19/THA/Tun, and 18/SRL/Kul. In Kamphaeng Phet, Provenances 19/THA/Tun, 22/THA/Doi, 21/THA/Bo, 18/SRL/Kul, and 20/THA/Non showed the best clearbole length. Comparison among provenances, Provenances 20/THA/Non, 19/THA/Tun, 22/THA/Doi, 21/THA/Bo, and 11/LAO/Vie showed the best stem straightness and the lowest stem straightness was found in Provenance 07/IND/Gha. In Kanchanaburi, the top five provenances on stem straightness were Provenances 20/THA/Non, 22/THA/Doi, 19/THA/Tun, 11/LAO/Vie, and 21/THA/Bo. However in Kamphaeng Phet, Provenances 20/THA/Non, 19/THA/Tun, 21/THA/Bo, 22/THA/Doi, and 08/IND/Sag showed the best stem straightness. Among provenances, Provenances 19/THA/Tun, 22/THA/Doi, 20/THA/Non, 11/LAO/Vie, and 21/THA/Bo had low number of stems per tree, and Provenance 05/IND/All had the highest number of stems per tree. In Kanchanaburi and Kamphaeng Phet, provenances with the small number of stems per tree were Thai Neem Provenances (Provenances 19/THA/Tun, 20/THA/Non, 11/LAO/Vie, 22/THA/Doi, and 21/THA/Bo).

176 The biggest D10 were detected in Provenances 05/IND/All, 09/IND/Bal, 24/SEN/Ban, 15/NEP/Get, and 04/IND/Chi, but Provenance 11/LAO/Vie had the smallest D10. In Kanchanaburi, the top five provenances on D10 were Provenances 09/IND/Bal, 04/IND/Chi, 24/SEN/Ban, 05/IND/All, and 10/IND/Ram, while in Kamphaeng Phet, Provenances 17/PAK/Mul, 05/IND/All, 23/GHA/Sun, 15/NEP/Get, and 13/MYA/Yez showed the best D10 growth. Among 22 provenances, Provenances 20/THA/Non, 04/IND/Chi, 10/IND/Ram, 22/THA/Doi, and 18/SRL/Kul had the best DBH growth, but 17/PAK/Mul had least. In Kanchanaburi, the first five provenances on DBH were Provenances 20/THA/Non, 22/THA/Doi, 04/IND/Chi, 10/IND/Ram, and 18/SRL/Kul, but in Kamphaeng Phet, the top five provenances of DBH were Provenances 17/PAK/Mul, 23/GHA/Sun, 10/IND/Ram, 19/THA/Tun, and 09/IND/Bal. Comparison among provenances, the good crown diameter was found in Provenances 04/IND/Chi, 23/GHA/Sun, 24/SEN/Ban, 18/SRL/Kul, and 10/IND/Ram, but Provenance 11/LAO/Vie showed the least. In Kanchanaburi, the top five provenances on crown diameter were Provenances 04/IND/Chi, 18/SRL/Kul, 24/SEN/Ban, 06/IND/Ann, and 10/IND/Ram, while in Kamphaeng Phet, the top five provenances of crown diameter were Provenances 23/GHA/Sun, 07/IND/Gha, 24/SEN/Ban, 10/IND/Ram, and 04/IND/Chi. The present study demonstrated that the different growth characteristics (except number of stems per tree) between Thai and Indian Neem Provenances planted in Kamphaeng Phet were clear, but those planted in Kanchanaburi were somehow different. Thus, neem varieties can be identified by using number of stems per tree. Using ANOVA, it can be concluded that environmental factors and genetic factors were influent in growth characteristics. Moreover, the environmental factors showed more effect on growth characteristics than the genetic factors did. Correlation Analysis The geographical data (latitude, longitude, altitude, and mean annual rainfall) of provenance origin showed correlations with growth characteristics of neem. Even more, it found that experimental site conditions and neem varieties had effect on the correlation between growth characteristics and provenance origin. However, the correlations between growth characteristics were detected and those were depended on experimental site conditions and neem varieties.

177 Cluster Analysis It is obviously found that two varieties (Thai and Indian Neems) showed considerable different cluster. And, among Indian Neem, Provenance 17/PAK/Mul was obviously isolated from the rest, hence these results were similar to the cluster by genetic distance but member in each the cluster grouped by growth characteristics was dissimilar to those by genetic distance, as Indian Neem was grouped into 4 clusters by using D = 0.8 that were 1) 12/MYA/Mye, 14/NEP/Lam, 13/MYA/Yez, 06/IND/Ann, 15/NEP/Get, 23/GHA/Sun, 09/IND/Bal, 24/SEN/Ban, and 05/IND/All; 2) 10/IND/Ram, 04/IND/Chi, 07/IND/Gha, 08/IND/Sag, and 18/SRL/Kul; 3) 03/IND/Man, 16/PAK/Tib; and 4) 17/PAK/Mul. Within Thai neem, Provenances 11/LAO/Vie was remarkably isolated. Thai Neem was divided into 3 clusters when D = 0.8, as 1) 11/LAO/Vie, 2) 21/THA/Bo and 19/THA/Tun, and 3) 20/THA/Non and 22/THA/Doi. Variation on Leaf Characteristics In the present study, the average leaf length, number of leaflet, leaf weights, and leaf area of neem planted in Kanchanaburi and Kamphaeng Phet increased with crown portions. Comparison on Leaf Characteristics among Experimental Site Conditions and Neem Varieties Comparisons on experimental sites, 7-year-old neem planted in Kanchanaburi had more leaf characteristics than those planted in Kamphaeng Phet. Therefore, Thai Neem had more leaf length, weight and area than Indian Neem. So it can possibly summarize that site conditions and neem varieties had the effects on growth of neem. Provenance Variation on Leaf Characteristics The average leaf characteristics of neem planted in two experimental sites were 1) the leaf length of Provenance 20/THA/Non was longest and that of Provenance 13/MYA/Yez was shortest, 2) the average number of leaflets per leaf of Provenance 18/SRL/Kul was the most, while that of Provenance 08/IND/Sag was the least, and 3) the leaf fresh weight, leaf dry weight, and leaf area of Provenance 20/THA/Non were highest and those of Provenance 13/MYA/Yez were lowest. While, in Kanchanaburi, the top five provenances were variously different that 1) Provenances 20/THA/Non, 11/LAO/Vie, 22/THA/Doi, 18/SRL/Kul, and 14/NEP/Lam showed longer leaf length, 2) Provenances 20/THA/Non, 11/LAO/Vie, 22/THA/Doi, 14/NEP/Lam, and 19/THA/Tun had heavier leaf fresh weight, 3) Provenances 20/THA/Non, 11/LAO/Vie, 22/THA/Doi, 19/THA/Tun, and 14/NEP/Lam showed the heaviest leaf dry weight, and 4) Provenances 20/THA/Non, 11/LAO/Vie, 22/THA/Doi, 21/THA/Bo, and 14/NEP/Lam had larger leaf dry weight. On the other side, in Kamphaeng Phet, all Thai Neem Provenances showed the best leaf characteristics.

178 It can be concluded that the experimental site conditions had influence on leaf characteristics of neem. Contrary to the result of ANOVA test on growth characteristics, the genetic factors were affected to leaf characteristics more than environmental factors did. Furthermore, in this study, it was remarkably that leaf length, weight and area of Thai and Indian Neems had obviously different wherever planted in the same or different sites. Thus, the varieties of neem can be easily identified by using leaf characteristics. Correlation Analysis The geographical data (latitude, longitude, altitude, and mean annual rainfall) of provenance origin showed correlations with leaf characteristics of neem. Although, it was found that experimental site conditions and neem varieties had effect on the correlations between leaf characteristics and provenance origin, the correlations between leaf characteristics were detected and those were depended on experimental site conditions and neem varieties. Regression Analysis From the strong correlations between leaf characteristics, the regression analysis for leaf area was done by using stepwise method. The models showed high R2 values. Thus leaf dry weight and the other leaf characteristics were accurately estimation leaf area of neem. However, the R2 of Thai Neem models were higher than those of the other. Cluster Analysis The leaf dendrogram had been constructed from Euclidean distance of neem. Likewise, genetic and growth dendrogram, two varieties of neem were in different cluster, except Provenance 19/THA/Tun. When D = 1500, they were grouped into 4 clusters that were 1) 10/ IND /Ram, 07/IND/Gha, 08/IND/Sag, 18/SRL/Kul, 06/IND/Ann, 05/IND/All; 16/PAK/Tib, 23/GHA/Sun, 03/IND/Man, 09/IND/Bal, 04/IND/Chi, 13/MYA/Yez, 12/MYA/Mye, 15/NEP/Get, 17/PAK/Mul, and 24/SEN/Ban; 2) 19/THA/Tun and 14/NEP/Lam; 3) 21/THA/Bo and 22/THA/Doi; and 4) 20/THA/Non and 11/LAO/Vie. Variation on Stomatal Characteristics In the present study, average stomatal frequency on abaxial surface of neem leaflets was 259.06 stomata/mm2. On the other hand, there were slightly stomata on adaxial surface (2.14 stomata/mm2) which detected near veins only. As, the average stomatal size on abaxial surface of neem leaflet was 20.50 x 24.55 m, stomata on adaxial surface were bigger (21.43 x 28.88 m).

179 Comparison on Neem Stomatal Characteristics Neem among Experimental Site Conditions and Neem Varieties Average stomatal frequency of neem grown in Kamphaeng Phet was more than those grown in Kanchanaburi on both leaflet surfaces. Nevertheless, Neem planted in Kanchanaburi had more average stomatal size on abaxial surface than those plated in Kamphaeng Phet, but on adaxial surface the neem planted in Kanchanaburi had less average stomatal size than those plated in Kamphaeng Phet. The average stomatal frequency on abaxial surface of Thai Neem was less than that of Indian Neem, but on adaxial surface, the average stomatal frequency of Thai Neem was more than those of Indian Neem. Besides, the average stomatal sizes on both leaf surfaces of Thai Neem were bigger than those of Indian Neem. Provenance Variation on Stomatal Characteristics On abaxial surface, Provenance 22/THA/Doi had the least average stomatal frequency, whereas Provenance 17/PAK/Mul had the most. All Thai Neem Provenances grown in Kanchanaburi had more average stomatal frequency than those grown in Kamphaeng Phet, almost Indian Neem Provenances grown in Kamphaeng Phet had more average stomatal frequency than those grown in Kanchanaburi except Provenances 03/IND/Man, 05/IND/All, and 16/PAK/Tib. On adaxial surface, stomata were found in 16 provenances which no stomata was detected on Provenances 05/IND/All, 09/IND/Bal, 12/MYA/Mye, 16/PAK/Tib, 21/THA/Bo, and 23/GHA/Sun. While, Provenance 19/THA/Tun had highest average stomatal frequency, Provenance 20/THA/Non had lowest. On adaxial surface, 6 provenances were detected the stomata in both experimental sites, while other 9 provenances were detected the stomata when planted in Kamphaeng Phet but Provenance 20/THA/Non were detected the stomata when planted in Kanchanaburi only. Comparison among provenances, on abaxial surface, the stomata of Provenance 22/THA/Doi were biggest, but the stomata of Provenance 24/SEN/Ban were smallest. On adaxial surface, the average stomatal width of Provenance 13/MYA/Mye was the least, but that of Provenance 11/LAO/Vie was the most. While, the average stomatal length of Provenance 07/IND/Gha was the least, but that of Provenance 22/THA/Doi was the most. Even if in Kanchanaburi, Provenances 22/THA/Doi, 19/THA/Tun, 20/THA/Non, 21/THA/Non, and 18/SRL/Kul had the best on stomatal sizes on abaxial surface, but in Kamphaeng Phet all Thai Neem Provenances showed the best. Likewise stomatal frequency, the differences on stomatal sizes on abaxial surface among neem varieties were very clear when planted in Kamphaeng Phet. But in Kanchanaburi, these were not clear. So the variety cannot be identified by using stomatal characteristics.

180 These results of ANOVA were obviously showed that environmental factors cannot change the stomatal sizes on adaxial surfaces, but genetic factors can. Moreover, genetic factors had more influent on stomatal sizes than environmental factors had as well as only genetic factors affected to stomatal frequency on abaxial surface. Correlation Analysis The geographical data (latitude, longitude, altitude, and mean annual rainfall) of provenance origin showed few correlations with stomatal characteristics of neem. Though, it was found that experimental site conditions and neem varieties had few effects on the correlation between stomatal characteristics and provenance origin, the correlations between stomatal characteristics were slightly detected and those were little depended on experimental site conditions and neem varieties. Cluster Analysis The stomatal dendrogram had been constructed from Euclidean distance of neem. Similarity to genetic and growth dendrogram, Thai Neem except Provenance 11/LAO/Vie was in different cluster from Indian Neem. When D = 15, they were grouped into 6 clusters that were 1) 07/IND/Gha, 14/NEP/Lam, 04/IND/Chi, 24/SEN/Ban, 10/ IND /Ram, and 15/NEP/Get; 2) 17/PAK/Mul; 3) 11/LAO/Vie, 13/MYA/Yez, 08/IND/Sag, 18/SRL/Kul, 03/IND/Man, and 06/IND/Ann; 4) 23/GHA/Sun, 12/MYA/Mye, 09/IND/Bal, 05/IND/All, and 16/PAK/Tib; 5) 21/THA/Bo; and 6) 22/THA/Doi, 20/THA/Non, and 19/THA/Tun. Variation on Fruit and Dry Seed Characteristics Comparison on Fruit and Dry Seed Characteristics among Experimental Site Conditions and Neem Varieties Neem grown in Kamphaeng Phet produced bigger and heavier fruits and dry seeds than those grown in Kanchanaburi. Comparison between varieties, diameter and weight of fruits and dry seeds of Thai Neem were more than those of Indian Neem but the fruit and dry seed length of Thai Neem were less than those of Indian Neem. Provenance Variation on Fruit and Dry Seed Characteristics The fruits of Provenance 22/THA/Doi were biggest and heaviest, while those of Provenance 07/IND/Gha were smallest and lightest. In Kamphaeng Phet, all Thai Neem Provenances showed the best fruit diameter, but Provenance 22/THA/Doi, 14/NEP/Lam, 20/THA/Non, 05/IND/All, and 03/IND/Man showed the best fruit length. Besides, the top five provenances on fruit weight were Provenances 22/THA/Doi, 20/THA/Non, 11/LAO/Vie, 19/THA/Tun, and 05/IND/All

181 The seeds of Provenance 22/THA/Doi were biggest, while the average dry seed diameter of Provenance 13/MYA/Yez was least and dry seeds of Provenance 07/IND/Gha were shortest and lightest. In Kamphaeng Phet, Provenances 22/THA/Doi, 11/LAO/Vie, 05/IND/All, 09/THA/Tun, and 15/NEP/Get had more dry seed diameter, but Provenances 22/THA/Doi, 14/NEP/Get, 03/IND/Man, 20/THA/Non, and 24/SEN/Ban showed more dry seed length. Nevertheless, the best 1,000-seed dry weight was found in Provenances 22/THA/Doi, 11/LAO/Vie, 05/IND/All, 15/NEP/Get, and 20/THA/Non. From these results, Thai and Indian Neems cannot be identified by using fruit and dry seed characteristics. However, the statistical differences by ANOVA revealed that environmental factors had more effect on fruit and dry seed characteristics than genetic factors did. Correlation Analysis The geographical data (latitude, longitude, altitude, and mean annual rainfall) of provenance origin showed correlations with fruit and dry seed characteristics of neem. Even though, it was found that experimental site conditions and neem varieties had effect on the correlations between fruit and dry seed characteristics and provenance origin, the correlations between fruit and dry seed characteristics were detected and those were depended on experimental site conditions and neem varieties. Regression Analysis From the strong correlations between fruit and dry seed characteristics, the models by using stepwise methods showed high R2 values, so the linear regression can calculate fruit and dry seed weight by fruit and dry seed characteristics. Likewise the models of leaf characteristics, the R2 of Thai Neem models were higher than those of the other. Cluster Analysis The fruit and dry seed dendrogram had been constructed from Euclidean distance of neem provenances planted in Kamphaeng Phet. Unlike, genetic and growth dendrogram, two varieties of neem were not in different cluster. When D = 0.2, they were grouped into 5 clusters that were 1) 09/IND/Bal, 06/IND/Ann, 12/MYA/Mye, 23/GHA/Sun, 10/ IND /Ram, 24/SEN/Ban, 13/MYA/Yez, 03/IND/Man, and 14/NEP/Lam; 2) 07/IND/Gha; 3) 20/THA/Non; 4) 15/NEP/Get, 19/THA/Tun, 21/THA/Bo, 11/LAO/Vie, and 05/IND/All; and 5) 22/THA/Doi.

182 Clonal Seed Orchard Seasonal Variation on Growth Characteristics From 0-2 months of age, Thai Neem ramets did not die, and then during 3-6 months of age, the average mortality percentages of Thai Neem ramets slightly declined. Since the dry season in 2004, the average survival percentages were seriously decreased. The average height growths of Thai Neem ramets increased successively. During the first rainy season (May-October), 0-5-month of age, the average height growths of Thai Neem ramets slightly increased. At the ages of 6 and 7 months, the rain did not fall so height increments were relatively small. After rainfall, the heights of Thai Neem ramets at the ages of 8-10 months increased. At the ages of 11 and 12 months, the height growths of Thai Neem ramets remarkably increased due to increasing rainfall. During the rainy season (June-October), the height growths of Thai Neem ramets continuously increased but less than those during the early rainy season even though the monthly rainfalls were higher. The height growths of Thai Neem ramets at the ages of 24 and 30 months were continuously increased. The average diameter growths of Thai Neem ramets were increased monthly. During the first rainy season (May-October), 0-5-month of ages, the average diameter growths of Thai Neem ramets slightly increased. At the ages of 6 and 7 months, the rain did not fall so diameter increments were little. Thereafter when the rain fell, the diameters of Thai Neem ramets continuously increased. The results of this study can be concluded that height growths of Thai Neem ramets were shown the seasonal variation but the survival percentage and diameter growth were continuing changed in the dry season. At the end of rainy season on November, 2003, the growth increment of Thai Neem ramets was less than those on November, 2005 but more than those on November, 2004 as similar to the accumulative rainfall during May to November in 2003 was less than those in 2005 but more than those in 2003. However, the mean annul rainfall and average temperature were little related to survival percentages and growths. Thus, the rainfall and temperature were fewer influenced to survival percentage and growth increments than factors as genetic and other microenvironment did. Clonal Variation At the age of 30 months, the average survival percentage of Thai Neem ramets was 64.3%, varied from 5 - 95%. Only 8 from 20 Clone Nos. had good survival percentage (> 80%) that were Clone Nos. 9, 15, 19, 37, 62, 63, 64, and 72. Although, the average height growth of Thai Neem ramets was 192.00 cm, varied from 143.27 263.13 cm, the ramets of Clone No. 19 showed the best height growth (263.13 cm), followed by ramets of Clone Nos. 64, 9, 37, and 5 as 230.08, 216.88, 216.25, and

183 215.81 cm, respectively. Furthermore, the average diameter growth of Thai Neem ramets was 5.27 cm, varied from 3.24 7.19 cm. The top five ramets on height growth were ramets of Clone Nos. 19, 64, 61, 71, and 9 (7.19, 6.33, 6.09, 5.79, and 5.58 cm, respectively). The statistical differences on survival percentage of Thai Neem ramets among clones had more values than those among blocks at all ages. Thus, the clones or genetic factors had more affected on survival percentage of Thai Neem ramets than blocks or micro-environmental factors did. On the other side, the statistical differences on height and diameter growth of Thai Neem ramets among blocks had more values than those among clones. Thus, micro-environmental factors had more affected on growths than clones or genetic factors did and the increasing time increased the differences among blocks. Seedling Seed Orchard Seasonal Variation on Growth Characteristics From 0-18 months, the average survival percentages of Thai Neem progenies decreased monthly. At the age of 1 month, the average survival percentage of Thai Neem progenies seriously declined because of the badly adaptation of progenies to field environmental conditions. During 2-7-months of ages (dry season), the average mortality percentages of Thai Neem progenies were high due to the low rainfall. From the ages of 8-12 months (rainy season), the deaths of progenies were few caused by sufficient rainfall. After the second dry season, the survival percentage of Thai Neem progenies at the age of 18 months was decreasing and then at the end of rainy season (24-month old), the survival percentage of Thai Neem progenies was slightly increasing caused by the coppices of progenies of Plus Tree Nos. 3 and 5. The average height growths of Thai Neem progenies increased monthly during the study period. During dry season (October-March), 1-6-month of ages, the average height growths of Thai Neem progenies slightly increased due to the low rainfall. Sufficient rainfall enough to activate the enlargement of the terminal buds, the heights of Thai Neem progenies at the ages of 7 and 8 months were remarkably increased due to the food storage in progenies. During the rainy season (May-October), the height growths continuously increased but less than those during the early rainy season even though the monthly rainfalls were higher. The seasonal height growth were similar in pattern as after the second dry season, the height of Thai Neem progenies at the age of 18 months extremely enlarged and then at the end of rainy season (24-month of age), the height growths of Thai Neem progenies were continuously increasing. Whilst, the average diameter growths of Thai Neem progenies increased successively, the diameter growths of Thai Neem progenies in dry season compared with rainy season were slightly differed but the diameter increments of Thai Neem progenies during at ages of 0-12 months (1st year) were obviously lower than those during at ages of 12-24 months (2nd years) due to the annual rainfall of the second

184 year was higher than those of the first year and the number and capacity of cells increased with age. It can be summarized that not only rainfall and temperature were influenced to height increment of Thai Neem progenies but also the factors as genetic and other micro-environments were collaborated in monthly height growth. Besides, the R2 of rainfall and temperature on diameter increment of Thai Neem progenies were high, thus, the monthly diameter growth of neem progenies were extended by climatic factors and associated with other environmental and genetic factors. Family Variation At the age of 24 months, the survival percentage of Thai Neem progenies was ranged between 77.1-96.5 %. The progenies of Plus Tree No. 21 showed the best survival percentage (96.5 %), followed by progenies of Plus Tree Nos. 36 (95.8 %), 38 (95.14 %), 20 (94.4 %), 12 and 23 (93.8 %). While, the average height growth of Thai Neem progenies was 58.18 cm, varied from 39.13-91.79 cm, the progenies of Plus Tree No. 1 showed the best height growth (91.79 cm), followed by progenies of Plus Tree Nos. 33, 32, 23, and 25 as 71.75, 70.53, 69.81, and 69.63 cm, respectively. Even though, the average diameter growth of Thai Neem progenies was 9.90 mm, varied between 6.27-15.86 mm, the top five progenies on diameter growth were progenies of Plus Tree Nos. 1, 23, 25, 9, and 32 (15.86, 13.26, 12.55, 12.49, and 12.06 mm, respectively). Meanwhile, the statistical differences of Thai Neem progenies among plus trees were increased by time but lower than those among blocks were. Thus, the blocks or micro-environmental factors had more effected on survival percentage than plus trees or genetic factors did at almost all ages. On the other hand, during 0-5 months after planting, the plus trees or genetic factors had more effected on growths of Thai Neem progenies than blocks or micro-environmental factors did, thereafter genetic factors had less effected than micro-environmental factors due to the uneven site and micro-environment conditions of each block.

185

RECOMMENDATIONS
The present study on provenance variations on some isozyme, growth, leaf, stomatal, fruit, and seed characteristics of neem planted in the International Provenance Trials established in Kanchanaburi and Kamphaeng Phet, and on early growth characteristics of Thai Neem ramets and progenies grown in Clonal Seed Orchard and Seedling Seed Orchard at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao can be recommended as follows: 1. Provenances 20/THA/Non, 22/THA/Doi, 18/SRL/Kul, 04/IND/Chi, 24/SEN/Ban, and 10/IND/Ram were recommended for planting in Kanchanaburi, while Provenances 19/THA/Tun, 20/THA /Non, 21/THA/Bo, 22/THA/Doi, and 23/GHA/Sun were recommended for planting in Kamphaeng Phet. Thai Neem ramets of Clones Nos. 19, 64, 9, 5, and 37 and progenies of Plus Trees Nos. 1, 32, 23, 25, 9, and 33 were recommended for planting in Chachoengsao 2. At the period of 3 to 4 years old, the crown diameter of neem, particularly Indian Neem Provenances showed decreased increment, while the height and diameter of all provenances had less growth rate than the other periods because the trees cannot expand the crown further. Thus, if neem trees are planted by spacing 3 x 3 m, the thinning after 3 years planting is recommended. 3. The average clearbole length of Thai and Indian Neem (1.75 and 1.02 m) was less than minimum commercial log length (3.0 m). Thus, the pruning of Thai and Indian Neems should be done for clearbole length improvement. 4. The molecular genetic (isozyme) study and phenotypic study (growth performance, leaf morphology, and leaf anatomy) confirmed that Thai and Indian Neems were in different clusters by using genetic and Euclidean distance. Therefore, the genetic variation between varieties can be preliminary investigated by phenotypic study. 5. Due to the over utilization of the resources, it is suggested to establish the ex situ gene conservation by using seeds collected from recommended genetic materials. And after proper thinning it would become a new seed production area for collection of better quality germplasm.

186

LITERAUTRE CITED
Ahmed, A.A. and N.N. Puzari. 1991. Initial growth and survival of different forest tree species in Assam. Indian For. 117(7): 549-552. Anon. 1978. Tree Borne Oilseeds, Directorate, Nonedible Oils and Soap Industry. Khadi and Village Industries Commission, Bombay. Ayala, F.J. 1982. Population and Evolutionary Genetics: A Primer. The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Inc., California Benge, M.D. 1989. Cultivation and propagation of the neem tree, pp 1-18. In Jacobson, M. (ed.). Focus on Phytochemical Pesticides. Vol. I, The Neem Tree. CRC Press, Florida. Bhumibhamon, S. 1979. Forest Tree Seed in the Tropics. Department of Silviculture, Faculty of Forestry. Kasetsart University, Bangkok. 288 p. (In Thai) Bhumibhamon, S. and A. Kamkong (eds.). 1997. Edible Multipurpose Tree Species. National Research Council of Thailand. 486 p. (In Thai) Bolhr-Nordenkampf, H.R. 1982. Shoot morphology and leaf anatomy, pp. 58-65. In J. Coombs and D.O. Hall (eds.). Techniques in Bioproductivity and Photosynthesis. Pergamon Press, Oxford. Boonmeevisate, S. 1988. Anatomy of Azadirachta indica A. Juss. and Azadirachta indica var. siamensis Valeton. M.S. Thesis. Kasetsart University, Bangkok. 104 p. (In Thai) Boonsermsuk, S. and P. Chittachamnonk. 1989. Isozyme Analysis in Some Forest Tree Species. Technical Research Report. Biotechnology Section, Silvicultural Research Sub-Division, Royal Forest Department, Bangkok. Boontawee, B., C. Kanchanaburagura and S. Boonsermsuk. 1993. Studies on neem in Thailand, pp. 41-45. In Read M.D. and J.H. French (eds.). Genetic Improvement of Neem: Strategies for the Future. Proceedings of the International Consultation on Neem Improvement held at Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand. 18-22 January 1993. Craftsman Press Ltd. Boontawee, B., K. Phitpricha, T. Visarat and S. Kiratiproyoon. 1989. Above Ground Biomass of 5 Fast Growing Trees at the Age of 5 Years Planted in Various Spacing. Royal Forest Department, Bangkok. 75 p. (In Thai) Bickford, C.A. 1962. Methods of measuring the growth of trees as individuals and in stands, pp 371-384. In T.T. Kozlowski (ed). Tree Growth. The Ronald Press Company, New York.

187 Brown, A.G. and K.G. Eldridge. 1977. Seed orchard design and management, pp. 176-195. In International Training Course in Forest Tree Breeding, Selected Reference Papers. Australian Development Assistance Agency, Canberra. Carpena, A.L., R.R. Espino, T.L. Rosario, and R.P. Laude. 1993. Genetics at the Population Level. SEAMEEO Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture, University of the Philippines Los Banos, Laguna Cavalli-Sforza, L.L. and W.F. Bodmer. 1971. The Genetics of Human Populations. W.H. Freeman, San Francisco. Chailerdpongsa, P. 2001. Azadirachta sop. Royal Forest Department, Bangkok. 131 p. (In Thai) Chaireongsirikul, T. and E. Scholer. 1989. Provenance Description No. 22: Azadirachta indica. Royal Forest Department, Bangkok. 2 p. Changtragoon, S. and R. Finkeldey. 1995. Genetic variation of Pinus merkusii in Thailand 1. Genetic analysis of isozyme phenotype. Journal of Tropical Forest Science 8(2): 167-177. Changtragoon, S, A.E, Szmidt and B. Boontawee. 1996. The study of genetic diversity of Azadirachta spp. by using isozyme analysis, pp. 353-360. In Proceedings of the third Asia-pacific Conference on Agricultural Biotechnology. 10-15 November, 1996. Hua Hin, Prachuapkhirikhan, Thailand. Chaturvedi, M.D. 1955. Neem: Hardy, thrifty and useful. Indian Farmg., 5(9): 3233. Conkle, M.T., P.D. Hodgskiss, L.B. Nunnally and S.C. Hunter. 1982. Starch Gel Electrophoresis of Conifer Seeds: A Laboratory Manual. General technical report PSW-64. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, California. 18 p. Cutter, E.G. 1969. Plant Anatomy: Experiment and Interpretation Part I Cell and Tissue. Wiliam Clowes and Sons, London. 168 p. Darwin, C. 1859. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. John Murray, London. 415 p. Diem, H.G., L. Gueye, V. Gianinazzi-Pearson and J.A. Fortin. 1981. Ecology of VA-mycorrhiza in the tropics: the semi-arid zone of Senegal. Acta Oecol., Oecol. Plant. 2: 53-62. Doley, D. 1981. Tropical and subtropical forests and woodlands, pp. 209-323. In T.T. Kozlowski (ed.). Water Deficits and Plant Growth Vol. VI. Academic Press Inc., New York.

188 Dwivedi, A.P. 1993. National level neem provenance trails at Jodhpur, pp. 18-28. In Read M.D. and J.H. French (eds.). Genetic Improvement of Neem: Strategies for the Future. Proceedings of the International Consultation on Neem Improvement held at Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand. 18-22 January 1993. Craftsman Press Ltd. Esua, K. 1967. Plant Anatomy. John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York. 767 p. Farooqui, P. 1981. Epidermal structure of some important forest plants 2. Neem (Azadirachta indica A. Juss.). Indian For. 107(4): 237-242. Feret, P.P. and F. Bergmann. 1976. Gel electrophoresis of proteins and enzymes, pp. 49-77. In Mikshe, J.P. (ed.). Modern Methods in Forest Genetic. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. Goodman, M.M., C.W. Stuber, C.N. Lee, and F.M. Johnson. 1980. Genetics control of malate dehydrogenase ixozymes in maize. Genetics 94: 153-168. Gruber, A.K. 1991. Wachstum, Fruchtertrag and Azadirachtingehalt der Samen von Azadirachta indica A. Juss. Auf verschiedenen Standorten in Nicaragua. Doctor. Thesis. Technology University of Berlin, Germany. Gupta, R.K. 1993. Multipurpose Trees for Agroforestry and Wasteland Utilisation. Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. PVT. Ltd., New Delhi. 562 p. Habte, M., B.N. Muruleedhara and H. Ikawa. 1993. Response of neem to soil P concentration and mycorrhizal colonization. Neem News 3, July-Sept.: 1-4. Halliburton, R. 2004. Introduction to Population Genetics. Pearson Education, Inc., New Jersey. Hartl, D.L. and A.G. Clark. 1997. Principles of Population Genetics. Sinuer Associates, Inc., Massachusetts. Hedrick, P.W. 2000. Genetics of Populations. Jones and Barltlett Publishers, Inc., London. Hongtong, B. 2000. Provenance trials of Neem (Azadirachta indica var. siamensis) at Surat Tani. Forestry 2(2): 103-116. (In Thai) Hopkins, W.G. 1995. Introduction to Plant Physiology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York. 464 p. Hsio, T.C. 1973. Plant responses to water stress. Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol. 24: 519570.

189 Iversen, P., J. Svejgaard and J. Mtika. 2001. Assessment of four neem (Azadirachta indica) International Provenance Trials in Tanzania. Forest Genetic Resources No. 30, FAO, Rome. Jayaraman, K. 2000. A Statistical Manual for Forestry Research. FORSPA-FAO Publication. Bangkok. 240 p. Kamo, K., B. Kiatvuttinon, B. Puriyakorn and C. Viriyabuncha. 1991. Seasonal growth of some broad leaved tree species in Central, Thailand, pp. 1-19. In CFRL/TC Research Report No. 2. March, 1991. Royal Forest Department and JICA, Thailand. Khaennak, P., P. Tiyanon and P. Roongrattanakul. 2001. Provenance Trials of 7 Years Old of Azadirachta indica in Kamphaeng Phet. Royal Forest Department, Bangkok 9 p. (In Thai) Khullar, R., R.C. Thapliyal, B.S. Beniwal, R.K. Vakshasya and A. Sharma. 1991. Forest Seed. Indian Council of Forestry Research & Education, Dehra Dun. 409 p. Kozlowski T.T. 1972. Seed Biology 1-3. Academic Press. Kramer, P.J. 1969. Plant and Soil Water Relationships: A Modern Synthesis. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York. 482 p. Kundu, S.K. 1999. Comparative analysis of seed morphometric and allozyme data among four populations of neem (Azadirachta indica). Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 46:569-577. Kundu, S.K. and P.M.A. Tigerstedt. 1997. Geographical variation in seed and seedling traits of neem (Azadirachta indica A. Juss.) among ten populations studied in growth chamber. Silvae Genet. 46:129-137 Lauridesen, E.G., C. Kanchanaburangura and S. Boonsermsuk. 1991. Neem (Azadirachta indica A. Juss.) in Thailand, pp. 25-33. In Forest Genetic Resources. Information No. 19. FAO, Rome. Lemmens, R.H.M.J., I. Soerianegara and W.C. Wong (Eds.). 1995. Plant Resources of South-East Asia No. 5 (2). Timber Trees: Minor Commercial Timbers. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden. 655 p. Lopushinsky, W. and G.O. Klock. 1974. Transpiration of conifer seedlings in relation to soil water potential. For. Sci. 20: 181-186. Martin, A.C. and W.D. Barkley. 1961. Seed Identification Manual. Oxford & IBH Publishing Co., New Delhi.

190 National Research Council. 1991. Forest Trees: Managing Global Genetic Resources. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 228 p. . 1992. Neem: A Tree for Solving Global Problems. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 131 p. Navot, N. and D. Zamir. 1986. Linkage relationships of 19 protein coding genes in watermelon. Theor. Appl. Genet. 72: 274-278. Nei, M. 1972. Genetic distance between populations. Amer. Nat. 106:283-292. . 1987. Molecular Evolutionary Genetics. Columbia Univ. Press., Owens, J.N. and M.D. Blake. 1985. Forest tree seed production. A review of the literature and recommendations for future research. Canadian Forest Service Information Report PI-X-53. Owens, J.N., P. Sornsathapornkul and S. Tangmitcharoen. 1991. Manual Studying Flowering and Seed Ontogeny in Tropical Forest Trees. ASEAN-Canada Forest Tree Seed Centre, Saraburi. 134 p. Pandey, Y.N. 1969. Studies on the cuticular characters of some Meliaceae. Bull. Bot. Surv. India 11(3/4): 377-380. Parktoop, S and P. Khaennak. 2001. International Provenance Trials of 3 years old Azadirachta indica A. Juss. in Kamphaeng Phet Province. Royal Forestry Department, Bangkok. 17 p. Pinyopusarerk, K. 1980. Provenance trials of Teak (Tectona grandis Linn. f.) in Thailand, pp 13. In Regional Training Course in Forest Tree Improvement, Thailand, April 21 May 31 1980. BIOTROP/KU/RFD. Pruaksakorn, V. 1993. Effect of Stand Density on Tree Form, Growth Rate and Yield of 8-year-old Azadirachta indica A. Juss. var. siamensis Valeton. M.S. Thesis, Kasetsart University, Bangkok. 70 p. Puri, H.S. 1999. Neem (Azadirachta indica): The Devine Tree. Harwood Academic Publishers, The Netherlands. 182 p. Rattanachol, K. 1997. Provenance Variation on Morphological, Anatomical, and Physiological Characteristics of Casuarina equisetifolia Grown at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao. M.S. Thesis. Kasetsart University, Bangkok. 63 p. Rieger, R, A. Michaelis and M.M. Green. 1976. Glossary of Genetics and Cytogenetics. Springer-Verlag, New York. 647 p.

191 Royal Forest Department. 2005. Forestry Statistics of Thailand 2005. Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Bangkok. 144 p. Sangpoo, P. and W. Krongkitsiri. 1999. Provenance Trials on 5 Year Old Neem (Azadirachta indica var. siamensis). Royal Forest Department, Bangkok. 9 p. (In Thai) Santisuk, T. 1993. The Natural distribution and propagation, pp. 44-58. In Proceeding on Research and Development of Native Multipurpose FastGrowing Tree. National Research Council. (In Thai) Sawatdee, W. 2003. Provenance Variation on Growth Characteristics of Neem (Azadirachta indica A. Juss.) Grown at Kanchanaburi. Seminar on Forestry, Faculty of Forestry, Kasetsart University, Bangkok. 18 p. Schmutterer, H. 1995. The tree and its characteristics, pp. 1-34. In Schmutterer, H. (ed.). The Neem Tree. VCH Verlagsgesellschaft, Weinheim. Schnarrenberger, C., A. Oeser, and N.E. Tolbert: 1973. Two isoenzymes each of glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase and 6-phosphogluconate dehydrogenase in spinach leaves. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 154, 438448. Schoch, P.G., C. Zinson and M. Sibi. 1980. Dependence of stomatal index on environmental factors during stomatal differentiation in leaves of Vigna sinensis L. J. Exp. Bot. 31(124): 1211-1216. Schmidt L. and D. Joker. 2000. Azadirachta indica A. Juss. Seed Leaflet No. 12. Danida Forest Seed Centre, Denmark. 2 p. Singh, A., A. Chaudhury, N. Chauhan, P.S. Srivastava and M. Lakshmikumaran. 2001. AFLP: a DNA based marker technique for evaluating genetic variation and phonetic relationships in Azadirachta indica. In Proceedings on Golden Jubilee Symposium on Biotechnological Innovations in Conservation and Analysis of Plant Diversity. 7-8 February, 2001, Delhi. Singh, A., M.S. Negi, J. Rajagopal, S. Bhatia, U.K. Tomar, P.S. Srivastava and M. Lakshmikumaran. 1999. Assessment of genetic diversity in Azadirachta indica using AFLP markers. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 24(4): 272-279. Sombatsiri, K., K. Ermel and H. Schmutterer. 1995. The Thai neem tree: Azadirachta siamensis (Val.), pp. 585-597. In Schmutterer (ed). The Neem Tree (Azadirachta indica A. Juss.) and Other Meliaceous Plants: Sources of Unique Natural Products for Integrated Pest Management, Medicine, Industry and Other Purpose. Weinheim:VCH. Stebbins, G.L. 1950. Variation and Evolution in Plants. Columbia University Press, New York. 643 p.

192 Stoney, C. 1997. Azadirachta indica neem, a versatile tree for the tropics and subtropics. FACT Sheet: FACT 97-05, September 1997. Tanksley S.D. 1984. Linkage relationships and chromosomal locations of enzymecoding genes in pepper Capsicum annuum. Chromosoma 89:352360 Tewari, D.N. 1992. Monograph on Neem (Azadirachta indica A. Juss.). International Book Distributors, India. 279 p. Thomsen, A, L. Graudal and C.P. Hansen, comp. 1998. Description of Neem Seed Sources. International Neem Network, FAO. 114 p. Thomsen, A. n.d. A Case Study of Networking. Internatioal Neem Network, FAO. 10 p. Toumey, J.W. and C.F. Korstain. 1947. Foundations of Silviculture upon an Ecological Basis. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. Vallejos, C.E. 1983. Enzyme activity staining, pp. 469-516. In Tanskley, S.D. and T.J. Orton (eds.). Isozymes in Plant Genetics and Breeding. Part A. Elsevier, Amsterdam. Van Den Beldt, R.J. 1993. Foreword, pp. v. In Read M.D. and J.H. French (eds.). Genetic Improvement of Neem: Strategies for the Future. Proceedings of the International Consultation on Neem Improvement held at Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand. 18-22 January 1993. Craftsman Press Ltd. Weeden N.F. and G.A. Marx. 1987. Further genetic analysis and linkage relationships of isozymes loci in the pea: confirmation of the diploid nature of the genome. J. Heredity 78: 153-159. Uthiratsamee, S. 2004. Effects of Potting Media and Fertilizer Applications on Some Growth Characteristics of Tea Tree (Melaleuca alternifolia (Maid.&Bet.) Cheel) Grown at Lad Krating Plantation, Chachoengsao. MS Thesis, Kasetsart University, Bangkok. 106 p. Weeden, N.F. and J.F. Wendel. 1989. Genetics of plant isozymes, pp. 46-72. In D.E. Soltis and P.E. Soltis (eds.). Isozymes in Plant Biology. Dioscorides Press, Portland. Weeden N.F. and L.D. Gottlieb. 1980. The genetics of chloroplast enzymes. J. Heredity 71: 392-396. Weeden, N.F. and R.C. Lamb. 1987. Genetics and linkage analysis of 19 isozyme loci in apple. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 112: 865:872.

193 Wendal, J.F. and C.R. Parks. 1982. Genetic control of isozymes variation in Camellia japonica L. J. Heredity 73: 178-185. Wenger, K.F. 1955. Height growth of Loblolly Pine seedlings in relation to seedling characteristic. For. Sci. 1: 158-163. Whitmore, T.C. 1975. Tropical Rain Forests of the Far East. Clarendon Press, Oxford. 282 p. Willer, C. and M. Fricker. 1996. Stomata. Chapman and Hall, London. 375 p. Wright, S. 1951. The genetical structure of populations. Ann. Eugen. 15:323-354. Wright, J.W. 1976. Introduction to Forest Genetics. Academic Press, New York. 463 p. Zobel, B. and J. Talbert. 1984. Applied Forest Tree Improvement. John Wiley & Sons. New York. 505 p. Zobel, B., J. Barber, C.L. Brown and T.O. Perry. 1958. Seed orchard, their concept and management. J. For. 56: 815-825.

194

APPENDIX

195 Starch Gel Electrophoresis Protocols Diaphorase (EC.1.6.4.3; DIA) Formate dehydrogenase (EC.1.2.1.2; FDH) Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (EC.1.1.1.49; G-6PDH) Electrode buffer: Gel buffer: Tris-citrate, pH 6.7 (Tris 0.134 M adjusted by citric acid 4.285 M to pH 6.7) Tris-histidine, pH 6.7 (L-histidine-HCL 0.005 M and EDTA (ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid) 0.0013 M adjusted by Tris 1.65 M to pH 6.7) Gel buffer 150 ml Distilled water 60 ml Starch 25.5 g Sucrose 5 g 130 mA 180 V 5.30 hr.

Gel:

Electricity: Running time:

Malate dehydrogenase (EC.1.1.1.37; MDH) Phosphoglucomutase (EC.2.7.5.1; PGM) Electrode buffer: Gel buffer: Gel: Tris-citrate, pH 7.0 (Tris 0.134 M adjusted by citric acid 4.285 M to pH 7.0) Tris-citrate, pH 7.0 (Tris 0.134 M adjusted by citric acid 4.285 M to pH 7.0) Gel buffer 50 ml Distilled water 160 ml Starch 25.5 g Sucrose 5 g 130 mA 180 V 5.30 hr.

Electricity: Running time:

Isocitrate dehydrogenase (EC.1.1.1.42; IDH) Shikimate dehydrogenase(EC.1.1.1.25, SKDH) Electrode buffer: Gel buffer: Gel: Tris-citrate, pH 7.3 (Tris 0.134 M adjusted by citric acid 4.285 M to pH 7.3) Tris-citrate, pH 7.3 (Tris 0.134 M adjusted by citric acid 4.285 M to pH 7.3) Gel buffer 50 ml Distilled water 160 ml Starch 25.5 g Sucrose 5 g 130 mA 180 V 5.30 hr.

Electricity: Running time:

196 Glutamate oxaloacetate transaminase (EC.2.6.1.1; GOT) Electrode buffer: Gel buffer: Gel: Sodium-borate, pH 8.3 (Boric acid 0.3 M adjusted by NaOH 12 M to pH 8.2) Tris-citrate, pH 8.7 (Tris 0.075 M adjusted by citric acid 0.475 M to pH 8.7) Gel buffer 225 ml Starch 27 g Sucrose 5 g 80 mA 280 V 4.30 hr. Staining Protocols Diaphorase (EC.1.6.4.3; DIA) Tris-HCl 0.0825 M, pH 8.0 MTT 0.0096 M (3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl-)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide) NAD (-nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide) 0.003 M DCIP (2,6-dichlorophenol-indophenol) Formate dehydrogenase (EC.1.2.1.2; FDH) Tris-HCl 0.0825 M, pH 7.0 PMS (Phenazine methosulfate) 0.0032 M NAD 0.003 M MTT 0.0096 M Formic acid Glutamate oxaloacetate transaminase (EC.2.6.1.1; GOT) Tris-HCl 0.0825 M, pH 7.0 2-oxoglutaric acid 1-aspartic acid Fast blue RR salt Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (EC.1.1.1.49; G-6PDH) Tris-HCl 0.0825 M, pH 9.0 40.0 PMS 0.0032 M 1.3 NADP (-nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate) 0.0026 M 5.3 MgCl2 0.4918 M 1.3 MTT 0.0096 M 2.5 Bovine serum albumin 400.0 D-glucose-6-phosphate 50.0 ml ml ml ml ml mg mg 50.0 ml 70.0 mg 120.0 mg 80.0 mg 40.0 1.3 6.0 2.5 3.0 ml ml ml ml g 50.0 ml 2.5 ml 5.0 ml 1.0 mg

Electricity: Running time:

197 Isocitrate dehydrogenase (EC.1.1.1.42; IDH) Tris-HCl 0.0825 M, pH 8.0 PMS 0.0032 M MgCl2 0.4918 M MTT 0.0096 M NADP 0.0026 M DL-isocitric acid (trisodium salt) Malate dehydrogenase (EC.1.1.1.37; MDH) Tris-HCl 0.0825 M, pH 8.0 PMS 0.0032 M MgCl2 0.4918 M MTT 0.0096 M NAD 0.003 M DL-malic acid (sodium salt) Phosphoglucomutase (EC.2.7.5.1; PGM) Tris-HCl 0.0825 M, pH 8.0 PMS 0.0032 M MgCl2 0.4918 M MTT 0.0096 M NADP 0.0026 M D-glucose-1-phosphate Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase Shikimate dehydrogenase(EC.1.1.1.25, SKDH) Tris-HCl 0.0825 M, pH 8.0 PMS 0.0032 M MTT 0.0096 M NADP 0.0026 M Shikimic acid Staining Temperature: 37C in darkness Staining Time: 1-3 hr 40.0 1.3 2.5 5.3 50.0 ml ml ml ml mg 40.0 1.3 1.3 2.5 5.3 50.0 25.0 ml ml ml ml ml mg l 40.0 1.3 1.3 2.5 5.3 60.0 ml ml ml ml ml mg 40.0 1.3 1.3 2.5 5.3 50.0 ml ml ml ml ml mg