International Journal of Environment, Agriculture and Biotechnology (IJEAB) Vol-3, Issue-2, Mar-Apr- 2018

http://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijeab/3.2.34 ISSN: 2456-1878

Morphological Markers based Assessment of

Genetic Diversity in Cultivated Tomato (Solanum
Lycopersicon L.) Genotypes
Supneet Kaur*, A. K. Singh, Sreshti Bagati, Mamta Sharma and Satish Sharma

School of Biotechnology, Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agriculture Sciences and Technology, Chatha, Jammu, 180009
Email id:
*E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract— Assessment of genetic diversity in any crop I. INTRODUCTION

species provides a basis for devising future strategies for Tomato is one of the significant vegetable crops of special
crop improvement; conservation and sustainable use. An economic importance in the horticulture industry,
experiment consisting of 24 genotypes of Tomato was originating in South America and its many varieties are now
conducted during the year 2016 at the Research Farm and commonly grown in greenhouse in cooler climates (He et
Molecular Biology Laboratory of School of Biotechnology, al., 2003). It is the most popular garden vegetable belonging
SKUAST-J, Chatha. The experiment was conducted in to the genus Lycopersicon, the resemblance between leaves
Randomised Block Design (RBD) with three replications in and flowers of potato and tomato plants seems to certify this
2 rows of 5m length with spacing of 45 x 90 cm. The extent taxonomic grouping (Wang et al., 2005 and Shidfar et al.,
of genetic divergence /relatedness was estimated among 24 2011). Systematic study and evaluation of germplasm is of
genotypes by using 11 traits viz. plant height (cm), number great importance for current and future agronomic and
of branches, number of fruits per bunch, total soluble genetic improvement of the crop. Furthermore, if an
solids, flesh thickness (mm), number of locules, fruit width improvement program is to be carried out, evaluation of
(cm), fruit length (cm), yield per plant (g), average fruit germplasm is imperative, in order to understand the genetic
weight (g), number of fruits per plant. The maximum background and breeding value of the available germplasm
number of fruits/bunch was recorded in “Utkal Pragyan” (Singh et al., 2002).
(3.66) and the minimum number was recorded in “Swarna Tomato crop has wider adaptability, high yielding potential
Sampada” (2.03). Maximum TSS(%) was recorded in DCT- and multipurpose uses in fresh as well as processed food
1 (8.06%) and minimum TSS was recorded in “Dhanshri” industries. An improvement in yield and quality in self
(2.83%). Maximum number of fruits and yield/plant was pollinated crops like tomato is normally achieved by
recorded in “DCT-1” (115.33) and “Hisar Lalit” selecting the genotypes with desirable character
(2507.36g), respectively. The minimum number of fruits and combinations existing in nature or by hybridization.
yield/ plant was recorded in “NDT-4” (23.20) and “DCT- Tomato fruit and its products are the main source of
1” (861.40g), respectively.Mean data revealed high range lycopene and other antioxidants in the human diet (Fraser et
for most of studied traits. Hierarchical cluster analysis al., 2002) and recent epidemiological studies have shown
allowed the assessment of similarity and clarified some of that their consumption helps to prevent cardiovascular
the relationships among tomato genotypes. UPGMA disease (Arab and Steck, 2000, Jarquín-Enríquezet al.,
produced a dendrogram with two main clusters with further 2013) and some types of cancer, such as prostate cancer
sub clusters. Of all the studied 24 genotypes Anand tomato (Barber and Barber, 2002, Shi et al., 2002).
and Hisar lalit were found to be most dissimilar based on The tomato plants show ample morphological variation.
UPGMA clustering. Hisar lalit was found to be most The plants may be in form of bushes (determinate) or vines
promising variety among all the genotypes for most of the up to six feet tall (indeterminate). The stem and leaves are
traits under study, which can be used for further breeding pubescent having non glandular and glandular trichomes
and crop improvement programmes. with unpleasant odour. The stem hair may develop into
Keywords—Genetic diversity analysis, Morphological roots when in contact with soil. The leaves display spiral
traits, cluster analysis, ANOVA, genetic advance. phyllotaxy i.e. one leaf at each node and are petiolate,
compound, imparipinate. Tomato shoots show sympodial

www.ijeab.com Page | 567

International Journal of Environment, Agriculture and Biotechnology (IJEAB) Vol-3, Issue-2, Mar-Apr- 2018
http://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijeab/3.2.34 ISSN: 2456-1878
branching with apical meristems. Cultivated tomato is
autogamous and style is enclosed by the staminal cone to 2.2 Data analysis
assure self pollination. The morphological data recorded during the investigation
Morphological characters have for a long time remained the was subjected to the statistical analysis which included
means of studying genetic variations in plant species. It is a ANOVA, Genotypic and phenotypic coefficient of
traditional approach used to quantify genetic differences, variation, Heritability and Genetic advance.
and is often used for genetic diversity analysis (Khadivi-
Khub et al., 2008; Nikoumanesh et al., 2011). Since the III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
quantitative characters are markedly influenced by the 24 genotypes of tomato was evaluated for morphological
environment, a study under different locations and years is characters as per the standard procedure. The significant
likely to bring out the genotype-environment interaction for variation in tomato genotypes with respect to yield and
precise estimation of genetic parameters and predicting the quality characters may be due to the genetic makeup, status
progress of selection. Moreover, knowledge about of water and oxygen during the growing period of these
association of various characters and their relative genotypes. The oxygen deficiency restricts root respiration
contribution to yield is helpful for multiple trait selection. and negatively affects water and nutrient uptake. This
Thus, the present study was conducted with the aim to study eventually reduces the yield and its quality. The description
the genetic diversity of tomato cultivars using of the genotypes with respect to 11 characters is described
morphological traits and development of phylogenetic tree in Table 2.
by using bio informatics tools in order to generate a sound
breeding plan for its improvement. 3.1 Analysis of variance (ANOVA)
Analysis of variance was carried on various morpho-
II. MATERIAL AND METHODS physiological, phenological, yield components and quality
The experimental material for the study comprised of 24 traits for studying the variation. ANOVA showed highly
genotypes of Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.), which significant variation among the genotypes for all the
were grown in a Randomized Block Design (RBD) with characters. The analysis of variance revealed significant
three replications in which 21 days old seedlings were mean square estimates for all the characters indicating
transplanted in 2 rows of 5m length with plot spacing of 45 sufficient diversity among the genotypes. The variation in
x 90 cm. All the agronomic and plant protection practices as the genotypes would be helpful in the development of
applicable for commercial tomato crop were adopted. In superior varieties. The results are in agreement with the
each genotype, 5 plants were selected for various observations of Golani et al. (2007). The analysis of
observations. The materials used in this study were taken variance for the data recorded on various traits viz. plant
from Indian Institute of Vegetable Sciences (IIVR), height, number of branches, number of fruits per bunch,
Varanasi. The details of tomato genotypes are shown in total soluble salts, pericarp thickness, fruit length, fruit
Table 1. width, number of locules, average fruit weight, number of
fruits per plant and yield per plant are presented in the Table
2.1 Methodology adopted 3.
Recommended package practices were followed for raising
a good crop. Observations were recorded for the various 3.2 Genetic parameters for various morphological,
morphological, agronomical, yield and quality traits in order phenological, yield components and quality traits in
to study the magnitude of variability and level of genetic tomato genotypes
divergence in the material. Five plants per plot per 3.2.2 Phenotypic coefficient of Variation (PCV)
replication were randomly selected and tagged for recording The phenotypic variance ranged from 14.61 to 46.57 and
the characters. Mean values for all the characters were the lowest variance was recorded for fruit width (14.61) and
worked out. Eleven characters were studied for maximum was recorded for number of fruits per plant
morphological characterization of tomato viz. Plant height (46.57) followed by flesh thickness (33.53) and average
(cm), Number of branches per plant, Number of fruits per fruit weight (33.21) (Table 5). Phenotypic coefficient of
bunch, Fruit length (cm), Fruit width (cm), Number of fruit variation (PCV) was more than genotypic coefficient of
per plant, Number of locules per fruit, Total soluble solids variation (GCV) for all studied 11 traits. The genotypic
(0Brix), Flesh thickness(cm), Yield per plant(g) and coefficient of variation (GCV) and phenotypic coefficient of
Average fruit weight (g). variation (PCV) were high for Number of fruits/plant

www.ijeab.com Page | 568

International Journal of Environment, Agriculture and Biotechnology (IJEAB) Vol-3, Issue-2, Mar-Apr- 2018
http://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijeab/3.2.34 ISSN: 2456-1878
(45.35, 46.57%), Average fruit weight (32.71, 33.21 %), fruits per plant, average fruit weight and plant height. The
flesh thickness (29.06, 33.53 %), Yield per plant (26.55, results are in close conformity with Golani et al., (2007).
29.14%) and Number of locules/ Fruit (22.68, 22.97 %), High heritability (94.80%) with low genetic advance
which suggested greater phenotypic and genotypic (47.73%) was reported for number of fruits per plant (Table
variability among the accessions and sensitiveness of the 5). These characters also exhibited high values of GCV
attributes for making further improvement by selection. which portrayed that these are controlled by additive gene
Wide difference between GCV and PCV for Number of effect and phenotypic selection for their improvement could
branches and Number of fruits/bunch implied its be achieved by simple selection.
susceptibility to environmental fluctuation, whereas narrow 3.3 Diversity analysis in tomato genotypes based on
difference between GCV and PCV for other traits suggested Ward’s linkage
their relative resistance to environmental alteration. The Distance between all pairs of 24 genotypes was calculated
PCV was higher than the respective GCV for all the using Squard Euclidean Distance method and genotypes
characters denoting environmental factors influencing their were clustered based on Ward’s method (1963). All the 24
expression to some degree or other. These results are in genotypes were grouped into two main clusters with sub
agreement with the observations of Henareh. (2015) who clusters (Figure 1). The results showed that the cluster A
showed that high PCV and GCV was observed for plant had two sub clusters; i.e. sub cluster A1 and sub cluster A2.
height followed by average fruit weight estimated. In Sub cluster A1 had 8 genotypes (BT-136, SEL-12, NDT-9,
present study highest estimates of GCV and PCV were ANGHA-1, ANGHA, NDT-1, Anand Tomato-3, NDT-4)
recorded for number of fruits per plant (45.35 and 46.57 per followed by cluster Sub cluster A2 which again had 8
cent respectively) which is an important yield component. genotypes (ANGHA (L-E415), Dhanshri, Punjab Ratta,
3.2.2 Genotypic coefficient of Variation (GCV) PANT-T-5, Hisar Anmol, AZAD-T-2, PT-11 and NDTUR-
The genotypic coefficient of variance (GCV) ranged from 73). Cluster B had further two sub clusters; i.e. Sub cluster
10.07 to 45.35. High GCV was observed in number of fruits B1 and B2. Sub cluster B1 had 4 genotypes (DCT-1, CO-3,
per plant (45.35) and is followed by average fruit weight Swarna Sampada and ANGHA (L-E415)).Sub cluster B 2
(32.71) and flesh thickness (29.06). Lowest GCV was had 4 genotypes (Utkal Pragyan, Hisar Lalit, Kashi Hemant
recorded in fruit width (10.07) (Table 5). and FEB-2). Anand Tomato-3 and Hisar Lalit were found to
3.2.3 Heritability be highly dissimilar among 24 genotypes. The results of this
The heritability for the various phenotypic traits ranged study are in agreement with the results of Henareh (2015)
from 42.60 per cent for number of fruits per bunch to 97.00 which can be exploited for breeding new tomato varieties
per cent for average fruit weight (Table 5). In the present for the development of hybrid genotypes.
study, the broad sense heritability estimates were high for
all the parameters. Such high values of heritability for IV. CONCLUSION
Average fruit weight, Number of fruits per plant, Yield per The study revealed considerable phenotypical (and
plant, Plant height and Total soluble solids clarified that presumably genetic) diversity among tomato genotypes.
they were least affected by environmental modification and The cluster analysis grouped the genotypes into two main
selection based on phenotypic performance would be clusters with further sub clusters. Highest dissimilarity was
reliable. In traits with high heritability, genotypic variance found between Anand Tomato-3 and Hisar Lalit among 24
is more than environmental variance and these characters genotypes. Hisar Lalit showed large fruit size with reference
could be considered and exploited for selection in earlier to Single fruit weight, Flesh thickness, Fruit length and
generations. Whereas, in the traits with low heritability, Fruit width and Yield per plant. The range of the mean
influence of environmental factors is strong for their values defines the genetic potential of different genotypes
expression and genotype selection based on these characters for various characters studied. The results showed that there
should be postponed to the later generations. The results are was significant genetic distance between the genotypes for
in close conformity with Golani et al. (2007) who observed some of the characters like yield and its attributing traits.
high heritability for average fruits weight, fruit length, These results indicate that if the genotypes having larger
number of locules/fruit and fruit yield. value for range of variability for various characters, there
3.2.4 Genetic Advance will be better chance to improve the exiting cultivars by
Genetic advance ranged from 0.60(minimum) to different breeding procedures. It can be used in selection or
75.01(maximum) for all the characters under study. High hybridization programme for the respective characters.
genetic advance was observed for yield per plant, number of Phenotypic coefficient of variation (PCV) was more than

www.ijeab.com Page | 569

International Journal of Environment, Agriculture and Biotechnology (IJEAB) Vol-3, Issue-2, Mar-Apr- 2018
http://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijeab/3.2.34 ISSN: 2456-1878
genotypic coefficient of variation (GCV) for all studied 11 [7] Jarquin-Enriquez, L., Mercado-Silva, E.M.,
traits which suggested greater phenotypic and genotypic Maldonado, J.L. and Lopez-Baltazar, J. 2013.
variability among genotypes and sensitiveness of the Lycopene content and color index of tomatoes are
attributes for making further improvement by selection. affected by the greenhouse cover. Scientia
High values of heritability for average fruit weight, fruit Horticulturae, 155: 43-48.
length, number of locules/ fruit and fruit clarified that they [8] Khadivi-Khub, A., Zamani, Z. and Bouzari, N. 2008.
were least affected by environmental modification and Evaluation of genetic diversity in some Iranian and
selection based on phenotypic performance would be foreign sweet cherry cultivars by using RAPD
reliable. Considerable genetic diversity among the molecular markers and morphological
cultivated 24 tomato genotypes was observed at traits.Horticulture Environment Biotechnology.49:
morphological levels, which is of importance for 188-196.
germplasm classification, management, and further [9] Singh, J. K., Singh, J. P., Jain, S. K., Aradhana, J. and
utilization. Joshi, A. 2002. Studies on genetic variability and its
importance in tomato (Lycopesicum esculentum
REFERENCES Mill.).Progressive Horticulture, 34: 77-79.
[1] Arab, L. and Steck, S. (2000). Lycopene and [10] Shi, J., Le Maguer, M. and Bryan, M. (2002).
cardiovascular disease.American Journal of Clinical Lycopene from tomatoes. In: Shi, J., Ghazza, Le
Nutrition, 71 (Suppl.): 1691S-1695S. Maguer, M. (Eds.), Funtional Foods. Biochemical and
[2] Barber, N.J. and Barber, J. (2002). Lycopene and Processing Aspects, vol. 2. CRC Press, Ottawa,
prostate cancer.Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Canada, pp. 135-166.
Disease, 5: 6-12. [11] Shidfar, F., Froghifar, N., Vafa, M., Ajab, A.R.,
[3] Fraser, P., Romer, S., Shipton, C., Mills, P., Kiano, J., Hosseini, S., Shidfar, S. andGohari, M. 2011. The
Misawa, N., Drake, R., Schuch, W. and Bramley, P. effects of tomato consumption on serum glucose,
(2002). Evaluation of transgenic tomato plants apolipoprotein B, apolipoprotein A-I,homocysteine
expressing an additional phytoene synthase in a fruit- and blood pressure in type 2 diabetic
specific manner.Proceedings of the National Academy patients.International Journal of Food Sciences and
of Sciences of the United States of America,99(2): Nutrition, 62(3), 289-94.
1092-1097. [12] Wang, X.F., Knoblauch, R. and Leist, N.
[4] Golani, I.J., Mehta, D.R., Purohit, V.L., Pandya, H.M. 2005.Varietal discrimination of tomato (Lycopersicon
and Kanzariya, M.V. 2007.Genetic variability, esculentum L.) by ultrathin-layer isoelectric focusing
correlation andpath coefficient studies in of seed protein. Seed Science and Technology, 28:
tomato.Indian Journal of Agriculture and Research, 521–526.
41 (2):146 – 149. [13] Ward, J. H. 1963. Hierarchical grouping to optimize
[5] Henareh, M. 2015. Genetic Variation in Superior an objective function.Journal of the American
Tomato Genotypes Collected from North West of Iran. Statistical Association, 58: 236-244.
International Journal of Scientific Research in [14] Nikoumanesh, K., Ebadi, A., Zeinalabedini, M. and
Environmental Sciences,3(6): 0219-0225. Gogorcena, Y. 2011. Morphological and molecular
[6] He, C., Poysa, V. and Yu, K. 2003. Development and variability in some Iranian almond genotypes and
characterization of simple sequence repeat (SSR) related Prunus species and their potentials for
markers and their use in determining relationships rootstock breeding.Scientia Horticulturae, 129: 108-
among Lycopersicon esculentum cultivars. Theoretical 118.
and Applied Genetics, 106: 363-373.

www.ijeab.com Page | 570

International Journal of Environment, Agriculture and Biotechnology (IJEAB) Vol-3, Issue-2, Mar-Apr- 2018
http://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijeab/3.2.34 ISSN: 2456-1878
Table.1: Genotypes of Tomato used in study
S.No GENOTYPE S.No GENOTYPE
1. UTKAL PRAGYAN 13. HISAR ANMOL
2. HISAR LALIT 14. AZAD-T-2
3. KASHI HEMANT 15. PT-11
4. FEB-2 16. NDTUR-73
5. DCT-1 17. BT-136
6. CO-3 18. SEL-12
7. ARKA ABHAY 19. NDT-9
8. SWARNA SAMPADA 20. ANGHA-1
9. ANGHA(L-E415) 21. ANGHA
10. DHANSHRI 22. NDT-1
11. PUNJAB RATTA 23. ANAND TOMATO-3
12. PANT –T-5 24. NDT-4

Table.2: Mean values of morphological traits

Genotype Plant height
No. of No. of Total soluble
Flesh thickness
No. of locules
Fruit length
Fruit width
Average fruit
No. of Yield/plant
(cm) branches fruits/bunch
salts (brix)
(mm) (cm) (cm) weight (g)fruits/plant
(g)
UTKAL PRAGYAN 57.55 6.43 3.66 6.20 4.08 2.18 4.88 3.91 36.26 34.00 1233.40
HISAR LALIT 59.50 6.99 2.48 3.20 4.31 2.66 5.63 4.66 54.10 46.23 2507.36
KASHI HEMANT52.19 5.44 2.40 5.40 3.00 2.50 4.13 4.42 28.66 38.33 1092.00
FEB-2 55.00 5.32 2.61 5.20 2.00 3.50 3.52 3.50 31.80 32.66 1039.20
DCT-1 52.15 6.33 3.10 8.06 1.21 2.33 2.90 2.85 7.43 115.33 861.40
CO-3 48.29 6.20 2.66 4.83 1.83 4.33 3.63 4.45 46.00 28.33 1304.33
ARKA ABHAY 60.12 7.33 2.42 5.86 3.10 3.50 3.71 4.78 44.50 46.00 2049.33
SWARNA 47.97 4.53 2.03 6.00 2.10 4.66 4.03 4.36 40.83 28.33 1157.66
SAMPADA
ANGHA(L-E415) 43.43 7.09 2.51 6.36 2.75 4.00 3.90 4.53 46.00 41.00 1883.00
DHANSHRI 58.23 6.99 2.10 2.83 4.31 3.00 4.48 4.98 47.33 25.00 1182.66
PUNJAB RATTA82.02 9.20 2.72 5.86 1.91 4.16 3.62 3.76 32.30 52.00 1676.80
PANT –T-5 66.72 8.44 2.55 4.66 2.66 3.33 3.69 4.03 45.56 41.00 1873.06
HISAR ANMOL 79.55 9.00 2.51 4.20 3.13 3.13 3.76 4.50 35.56 31.66 1123.63
AZAD-T-2 52.34 5.99 2.50 5.73 2.41 3.16 3.36 4.23 27.80 36.00 995.66
PT-11 74.80 8.00 3.44 5.43 3.03 3.16 3.51 4.36 33.50 65.66 2198.96
NDTUR-73 65.63 5.75 3.32 6.13 2.83 2.66 3.44 3.87 33.26 46.00 1530.10
BT-136 57.45 6.22 2.42 5.03 3.41 3.66 4.29 4.60 47.80 37.00 1764.76
SEL-12 45.00 6.66 3.00 5.80 2.46 3.83 3.51 4.11 31.86 43.00 1373.63
NDT-9 43.31 5.44 2.35 3.56 2.33 4.66 4.55 4.76 55.05 25.66 1415.40
ANGHA-1 51.40 8.33 2.95 4.76 2.76 5.50 3.35 4.48 38.36 38.66 1480.76
ANGHA 50.02 7.23 2.87 5.80 2.66 5.33 3.55 4.57 41.26 33.66 1389.30
NDT-1 55.28 7.96 2.91 6.26 2.61 3.83 3.57 4.34 36.86 48.33 1745.83
ANAND TOMATO-335.10 6.66 3.00 7.00 1.50 3.33 3.83 3.33 54.00 25.66 1394.66

NDT-4 41.24 9.66 3.33 5.30 1.66 3.33 3.98 4.45 80.00 23.00 1834.33
Mean 55.59 6.96 2.74 5.39 2.67 3.57 3.86 4.24 40.67 40.94 1504.4710
C.V. 8.20 15.51 14.75 7.62 16.72 16.38 10.30 10.58 5.71 10.60 11.99
S.E. 2.63 0.62 0.23 0.23 0.25 0.33 0.23 0.25 1.34 2.50 104.18
C.D. 5% 7.50 1.77 0.66 0.67 0.73 0.96 0.65 0.73 3.82 7.13 296.57
C.D. 1% 10.01 2.37 0.88 0.90 0.98 1.28 0.87 0.98 5.10 9.52 395.90

www.ijeab.com Page | 571

International Journal of Environment, Agriculture and Biotechnology (IJEAB) Vol-3, Issue-2, Mar-Apr- 2018
http://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijeab/3.2.34 ISSN: 2456-1878
Table.3: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for morphological traits in tomato genotypes
D Plant No. of No. of Total Flesh No. of Fruit Fruit Average No. of Yield
F Height branch fruits/ solubl thickne locules length width fruit fruits/pla /plant (g)
(cm) es bunch e salts ss (mm) (cm) (cm) weight nt
(brix) (g)
23 9443.27 121.29* 12.17* 94.30* 46.23** 53.274 22.99* 17.26* 12344.45 24225.11 11765066.78
Treatme ** * * * ** * * ** ** **
nt
Replicati 2 63.02 1.85 0.27 0.08 0.45 1.46 0.23 0.05 2.12 70.11 109133.20
on
Error 46 958.22 53.81 7.55 7.78 9.193 15.78 7.30 9.29 248.94 866.55 1497909.25

*P<0.01% level of significance ** P<0.05% level of significance

Table.4: Descriptive statistics for morphological traits in tomato genotypes

Standard
Traits Mean±SD Maximum Minimum Range Variance
error
Plant height (cm) 55.59±12.14 1.43 82.02 35.10 35.10-82.02 147.38
No. of branches 6.96±1.57 0.18 9.66 4.53 4.53-9.66 2.49
No. of fruits/bunch 2.74±0.53 0.06 3.66 2.03 2.03-3.66 0.28
Total soluble solids (brix) 5.39±1.19 0.14 8.60 2.83 2.83-8.60 1.43
Flesh thickness (mm) 2.67±0.88 0.10 4.31 1.21 1.21-4.31 0.78
No. of locules 3.57±0.99 0.11 5.5 2.18 2.18-5.5 0.99
Fruit length (cm) 3.86±0.65 0.07 5.63 2.90 2.90-5.63 0.43
Fruit width (cm) 4.24±0.61 0.07 4.98 2.85 2.85-4.98 0.37
Average fruit weight (g) 40.67±13.31 1.56 80 7.43 7.43-80 177.40
No. of fruits/plant 40.94±18.82 2.21 122 21 21-122 354.39
861.40- 188339.
Yield/plant (g) 1504.47±433.98 51.14 2507.36 861.40
2507.36 56

Table.5: Genetic parameters for various morphological, phenological, yield components and quality traits in tomato genotypes

Trait GCV PCV ECV Heritability GA GA

(%) (%) (%) (h2) (@ 5%) (@ 1%)
Plant height (cm) 20.50 22.08 8.20 86.20 21.79 27.93
No. of branches/ Plant 16.78 22.85 15.51 53.90 1.76 2.26
No. of fruits/bunch 12.70 19.47 14.75 42.60 0.46 0.60
Total soluble salts
21.20 22.53 7.62 88.60 2.21 2.84
(0brix)
Flesh thickness (mm) 29.06 33.53 16.72 75.10 1.38 1.77
No. of locules/Fruit 22.68 27.97 16.38 65.70 1.35 1.73
Fruit length (cm) 13.68 17.13 10.30 63.80 0.87 1.11
Fruit width (cm) 10.07 14.61 10.58 47.50 0.60 0.77
Average fruit weight
32.71 33.21 5.72 97.00 27.00 34.60
(g)
No. of fruits/plant 45.35 46.57 10.60 94.80 37.24 47.73
Yield/plant (g) 26.55 29.14 11.99 83.06 75.01 96.13

www.ijeab.com Page | 572

International Journal of Environment, Agriculture and Biotechnology (IJEAB) Vol-3, Issue-2, Mar-Apr- 2018
http://dx.doi.org/10.22161/ijeab/3.2.34 ISSN: 2456-1878
Table.6: Distribution of 24 tomato genotypes into two main clusters
Sub Total
Cluster Genotypes
clusters entries

A A1 8 BT-136, SEL-12,NDT-9,ANGHA-1,ANGHA,NDT-1,ANAND
TOMATO-3 NDT-4

A2 8 ANGHA(L-E415), DHANSHRI, PUNJAB RATTA, PANT-T-5, HISAR

ANMOL, AZAD-T-2, PT-11, NDTUR-73

B B1 4
UTKAL PRAGYAN, HISAR LALIT, KASHI HEMANT, FEB-2

B2 4 DCT-1, CO-3, ARKA ABHAY, SWARNA SAMPADA

Fig.1: Dendrogram showing Genetic diversity in Tomato genotypes based on morphological markers using Ward linkage.

1-Utkal Pragyan, 2- Hisar Lalit, 3- Kashi Hemant, 4- FEB-2, 5- DCT-1, 6-CO-3, 7- Arka Abhay, 8-
Swarna Sampada, 9- ANGHA (L-E415), 10- Dhanshri, 11- Punjab Ratta, 12-PANT-T-5, 13- Hisar
Anmol, 14- AZAD-T-2, 15- PT-11, 16- NDTUR-73, 17- BT-136, 18- SEL-12, 19- NDT-9, 20- ANGHA-
1,21- ANGHA, 22-NDT-1, 23- Anand Tomato-3, 24- NDT-4

www.ijeab.com Page | 573