, Volume 62, Issue 3, pp 187–200 | Cite as

Characterisation of Cannabis accessions with regard to cannabinoid content in relation to other plant characters

  • E. P. M. de Meijer
  • H. J. van der Kamp
  • F. A. van Eeuwijk


Ninety seven Cannabis accessions were evaluated for cannabinoid content and non-chemical plant characters. Variation within populations for cannabinoid content, and consistency of chemical characters at the population level were investigated. The relationship between chemical and other plant characters was very limited. Leaflet width and phenological data can be used for a rough prediction of the chemical phenotype on a population level. Various combinations of cannabinoid content and other economic plant characters were observed, thus a breeding programme will not be hampered by strict linkage. For a selection programme a direct analysis of cannabinoids will be inevitable.

Key words

Cannabis cannabinoids evaluation hemp variation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anonymous, 1986. Gemeinschaftsverfahren für die mengenmässige Bestimmung des delta-9-the in bestimmten Hanfsorten. Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften Nr. L 48: 27–30.Google Scholar
  2. Avico, U. & P., Zuccaro, 1984. Contenuto di delta-9-THC in varieta' europee di Cannabis sativa. Societa' Agricola e Forestale, Quaderni di Ricerca 2: 1–20.Google Scholar
  3. Bredemann, G., Fr., Schwanitz & R., von, Sengbusch, 1957. Aufgaben und Möglichkeiten der modernen Hanfzüchtung mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des Problems der Züchtung haschischarmer oder-freier Hanfsorten. Technical Bulletin 4: 1–15, Max-Planck-Institut für Züchtungsforschung, Hamburg-Volksdorf.Google Scholar
  4. Brenneisen, R. & T., Kessler, 1987. Psychotrope Drogen: V. Die Variabilität der Cannabinoidführung von Cannabispflanzen aus Schweizer Kulturen in Abhängigkeit von genetischen und ökologischen Faktoren. Pharm. Acta Helv. 62, Nr. 5–6: 134–139.Google Scholar
  5. Dempsey, J.M., 1975. Fiber Crops. University of Florida Press, Gainesville. FL., USA, pp 46–89.Google Scholar
  6. Fetterman, P.S., E.S., Keith, C.W., Waller, O., Guerrero, N.J., Doorenbos & M.W., Quimby, 1971. Mississippi-grown Cannabis sativa L.: preliminary observation on chemical definition of phenotype and variations in tetrahydrocannabinol content versus age, sex, and plant part. Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 60: 1246–1249.Google Scholar
  7. Fournier, G. & M.R., Paris, 1979. Le chanvre papetier (Cannabis sativa L.) cultivé en France: Le point sur les constituants. Plant Med. Phytother. 13: 116–121.Google Scholar
  8. Gorshkova, L.M., G.I. Senchenko & V.G. Virovets, 1988. [Method of evaluating hemp plants for content of cannabinoid compounds] (in Russian). Referativnyi Zhurnal 12.65.322.Google Scholar
  9. Gower, J.C., 1971. A general coefficient of similarity and some of its properties. Biometrics 27: 857–871.Google Scholar
  10. Hakim, H.A., Y.M. El, Kheir & M.I., Mohamed, 1986. Stability of Cannabis preparations on storage. Fitoterapia 57: 235–237.Google Scholar
  11. Hemphill, J.K., J.C., Turner & P.G., Mahlberg, 1980. Cannabinoid content of individual plant organs from different geographical strains of Cannabis sativa L. Journal of Natural Products 43: 112–122.Google Scholar
  12. Krejci, Z., 1970. Changes with maturation in the amounts of biologically interesting substances of Cannabis. In: C.R.B., Joyce & S.H., Curry (Eds). The Botany & Chemistry of Cannabis, J. & A. Churchill London. p. 49–55.Google Scholar
  13. Meijer, E.P.M., de & L.J.M., van, Soest, 1992. The CPRO Cannabis collection. Euphytica 62: 201–211.Google Scholar
  14. Murari, G., S., Lombardi, A.M., Puccini & R., de, Sanctis, 1983. Influence of environmental conditions on tetrahydrocannabinol (delta 9-THC) in different cultivars of Cannabis sativa L.. Fitoterapia 54: 195–202.Google Scholar
  15. Petri, G., P., Oroszlan & L., Fridvalszky, 1988. Histochemical detection of hemp trichomes and their correlation with the THG content. Acta Biologica Hungarica 39: 59–74.Google Scholar
  16. Quimby, M.W., N.J., Doorenbos, C.E., Turner & A., Masoud, 1973. Mississippi-Grown Marihuana-Cannabis sativa Cultivation and observed Morphological Variations. Economic botany 27: 117–127.Google Scholar
  17. Schultes, R.E., 1970. Random thoughts and queries on the botany of Cannabis. In: C.R.B., Joyce & S.H., Curry (Eds), The Botany & Chemistry of Cannabis, J. & A. Churchill-London. p. 49–55.Google Scholar
  18. Schultes, R.E., W.M. Klein, T. Plowman & T.E. Lockwood, 1974. Cannabis: an example of taxonomic neglect. In: Botanical Museum Leaflets Harvard University. 23: 337–367.Google Scholar
  19. Small, E., P., Jui & L.P., Lefkovitch, 1976. A numerical taxonomic analysis of Cannabis with special reference to species delimitation. Systematic Botany, 1: 67–84.Google Scholar
  20. Small, E. & H.D., Beckstead, 1973. Common cannabinoid phenotypes in 350 stocks of Cannabis. Lloydia 36: 144–165.Google Scholar
  21. Small, E. & A., Cronquist, 1976. A practical and natural taxonomy for Cannabis. Taxon 25: 405–435.Google Scholar
  22. Turner, J.C., J.K., Hemphill & P.G., Mahlberg, 1978. Cannabinoid composition and gland distribution in clones of Cannabis sativa L. (Cannabaceae). Bulletin on Narcotics 30: 55–65.Google Scholar
  23. Virovets, V.G., L.M., Gorshkova, L.T., Rumyantseva & I.M., Laiko, 1987. [Comparative study of a hemp collection in the Poles'e zone of the Ukrainian SSR] (In Russian). Genetike i Selektsii 113: 112–114.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. P. M. de Meijer
    • 1
  • H. J. van der Kamp
    • 2
  • F. A. van Eeuwijk
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Plant Breeding and Reproduction Research (CPRO/DLO)WageningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.State Institute for Quality Control of Agricultural Products (RIKILT-DLO)WageningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations