[SOL (MILL.) WETTSD.] GENOTYPES A REVIEW

Transcription

1 Agric. Rev.., 31 (3) : , 2010 AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATION CENTRE ccjournals.com / indianjournals.com nals.com GENETIC DIVERSITY AMONG TOMATO [ [SOL SOLANUM LYCOPERSICON (MILL.) WETTSD.] GENOTYPES A REVIEW Rajeev Kumar Narolia* and R.V.S.K..S.K. Reddy College of Horticulture, A. P. Horticultural University, Rajendranagar,Hyderabad , India. ABSTRACT Tomato is a very useful vegetable crop grown in India for its delicious fruits used in variety of Indian dishes. It has a wide range of genetic diversity which provides a tremendous scope for genetic improvement of economic traits. An improvement in yield and quality in self pollinated crop like tomato is normally achieved by selecting the genotypes with desirable character combinations existing in nature or by hybridization. Hence, the information in a collection of some indigenous genotypes of tomato in order to formulate a sound breeding plan for its improvement has been reviewed here. Key words : Tomato, Genetic diversity, Variability, Correlation. Tomato, [Solanum Lycopersicon (Mill.) Wettsd.] (family: Solanaceae) is one of the most widely grown vegetable crop throughout India. Success of any breeding programme depends much on genetic diversity available to the breeders and the judicious selection of parents. The success of breeding programme is achieved by the efficient utilization of heritability and variability available in the population. The importance of genetic diverse genotypes as a source of obtaining transgressive segregants with desirable combinations have been realized by several workers (Kurian and Peter, 1994). Mahalanobis (1936) gernelized distance has been used as an efficient tool in quantitative estimation of genetic diversity and a rational choice of potential parents for a breeding programme. Knowledge of interrelationship between yield and its components is obvious for efficient selection of desirable plant type. Unlike the correlation coefficient values, which measure the extent of relationship, path coefficient (Wright, 1921; Dewey and Lu, 1959) measure the magnitude of direct and indirect effects of characters on complex dependent characters like yield and thus enable the breeders to judge best about the important component characters during selection. Genetic divergence : Genetic divergence was assessed by Kurien and Peter (1994) in 64 genotypes of tomato, which were grouped into 8 clusters. They reported that the distribution of genotypes from different geographical regions into clusters was at random indicating that geographical isolation may not be the only factor causing genetic diversity. Among the 12 characters studied, maximum diversity (12.6%) was contributed by locules per fruit followed by lycopene content (11.41%) and insoluble solids (10.27%). P H of the juice did not contribute to total diversity, whereas acidity had the lowest contribution (5.60%). It is evident that in the selection of processing tomato lines with fewer locules deserve primary attention. Rai et al. (1998) evaluated genetic diversity in 37 tomato genotypes which were grouped into 4 *Present address : High Tech Hat. Deptt. Horticulture, RCA, MPUAT, Udaipur , India.

2 218 AGRICULTURAL REVIEWS clusters. The number of primary branches contributed maximum (25.60%) to the total divergence in yield with its average ranging from 3.65 for cluster IV to 5.50 of cluster I. It was observed that major divergence contribution traits in tomato were number of primary branches, longitudinal fruit length, days to flowering, pericarp thickness, plant height and average fruit weight. Sharma and Verma (2001) studied genetic divergence in 18 genotypes of tomato, which were grouped into 5 clusters irrespective of geographic divergence, indicating that there was no parallelism between genetic diversity and geographical divergence. Parthasarathy and Aswath (2002) reported considerable diversity among tomato genotypes for morphological characters (plant height, fruit number and fruit size). It was further reported that L. pimpinellifollium was the most divergent genotype. Further, Karasava et al. (2005) evaluated the genetic divergence among 70 tomato accessions and observed significant genetic variation among the accessions for many fruit characters of fruits. Mahesha et al. (2006) studied 30 genotypes of tomato for genetic diversity. The genotypes were grouped into 9 clusters with a maximum number of 11 genotypes in cluster II. The maximum genetic distance was observed between the clusters VI and IX ( ) where as minimum between clusters I and IV (405.05). All the characters viz., growth, flowering and fruit parameters contributed to maximum divergence in tomato. Crop improvement for quality, especially to get more nutritive genotypes, biochemical traits are to be considered for clustering the genotypes (Jagdish et al., 2007). The information obtained through clustering will assist tomato breeders in identifying a limited number of highly differentiated genotypes to be selected for further use in developing suitable variety/hybrids. Further, Chopra et al. (2008) studied 48 genotypes of tomato for their genetic divergence and based on D 2 values of 8 yield related characters, genotypes were grouped into 8 clusters. Clustering pattern indicated that there was no association between geographical distribution of genotypes and genetic divergence. The characters like number of fruits per plant, average fruit weight, plant height and fruit yield (q/ha) contributed maximum to genetic divergence. Sekhar et al. (2008) assessed genetic divergence in tomato hybrids and opined that the average fruit weight and total soluble solids contributed maximum (20%) towards genetic divergence followed by number of flowers per cluster (17.78), plant height and number of locules per fruit (13.33). Genetic variability : A wide range of variability for a number of characters in tomato has been observed by Kumari and Subramanian (1994), Kurian and Peter (1995). Singh et al. (1992) screened 12 cultivars of tomato during summer season and the maximum plant height was observed in HS-101 (87.2cm) which might be due to vigorous growth and better genetic composition of the plant and better adaptability to the environment. Bharadwaj and Thakur (1994) reported that the fruit yield depends upon factors like number of fruits per plant and size of fruits. Both these attributes were highly influenced by high temperature during summer. Hence, fruit yield in some of genotypes was much reduced. Mittal et al. (1996) showed highly significant differences among tomato genotypes, indicating substantial amount of genetic variability for marketable fruit yield per plant, plant height, average fruit weight and number of fruits per plant. These characters are under the control of additive genes which holds a good chance of improvement through selection. Jagdish et al. (2007) reported that highest variability was observed in plant height followed average fruit weight and number of fruits per plant. Reddy and Reddy (1992) studied 139 genotypes of tomato and reported that the maximum range of variation for fruit number per plant, yield per plant and average fruit weight, while lowest variation for days to 50 per cent flowering. Mohanty (2002) reported that high genotypic coefficient of variation (GCV) for number of fruits per plant

3 (27.87%) which could be improved by simple selection. High GCV and phenotypic coefficient of variation (PCV) (47.23% and 52.74% respectively) were observed for number of fruits per plant by Prashanth et al. (2006). Nair and Thamburaj (1995b) estimated high variability at genotypic and phenotypic levels as indicated by highest estimates of GCV and PCV for number of fruits per plant (40.79 and per cent respectively), which is an important yield component. Similarly, Sriharsha (2008) reported that the number of fruit per plant was positive and significantly correlated with yield and TSS of fruits. Sidhu and Singh (1989) reported high GCV (25.92%) and PCV (27.16%) for average fruit weight. On the other hand, Bhangu and Singh (1993) reported a wide range (24.66 to g) of variability for average fruit weight in seven tomato varieties. Lal et al. (1991) evaluated nine varieties during summer in Tarai region and reported maximum variability for fruit weight/plant in Pant-4 followed by Pant Bahar. Jasmine and Ramdas (1993) recorded the highest yield per plant (1.06) in hybrid ARTH-4 and lowest yield per plant (0.40) in FM-2. Matiar et al. (1994) reported maximum (2.67 kg) and minimum (1.32 kg) yield/plant in Manik and TMO 290 respectively among the 12 lines compared for yield potentiality. Padmini and Vadivel (1997) studied on the F 2 progenies of 6 tomato crosses and assessed their potentiality based on variability. The crosses In Memory 5.30 p.m. x PMK-1 and PMK-1 x PT exhibited higher estimates for yield per plant. Kumari and Subramanian (1994) reported wide range of variability ( ) for number of locules/fruit in 87 cultivars of tomato. Kumar and Tewari (1999) observed moderate GCV and PCV for number of locules/fruit in 67 tomato genotypes. Kumar et al., (2006) and Golani et al. (2007) reported high GCV and PCV for number of locules (29.64%, 32.37% respectively). Shoba and Arumugam (1991) evaluated 17 tomato genotypes for quality attributes and reported Vol. 31, No. 3, the maximum variability for acidity (6.63 %) in PKM-1 x LE 812 and minimum (3.70%) in LE 1125 x LE 376. Kallo and Bhutani (1993) reported that 15 to 30 mg/100g, 7.5 to 1.5 mequir/100 ml and 450 to 1400 mequir/10 g were the approximate range of ascorbic acid, titrable acidity and citric acid of tomato fruits, respectively. Sucheta et al. (1996) reported maximum variability for various biochemical constituents and recorded minimum acidity of 0.33 per cent and maximum of 1.07 per cent among 53 genotypes of tomato. Kurian and Peter (1995) observed that the tomato lines with thick pericarp were found to contain high total and insoluble solids and low content of reducing sugars and acidity. Kumar et al., (2006) reported maximum GCV and PCV for acidity (58.70% and 62.02% respectively) followed by lycopene (29.87% and 31.90% respectively) and ten fruit weight (25.91% and 26.38% respectively). Bajaj et al. (1990) studied 34 tomato varieties and reported maximum variability for chemical compositions viz., TSS (3.5 to 7.5 o Brix). Similarly, Shibli et al. (1995) evaluated the physiochemical growth under rainfed conditions in Jordan and recorded 0.3 per cent titrable acidity and 8.35 per cent TSS. Sharma et al. (1996) analysed 53 genotype of tomato for various biochemical constituents where in TSS ranged from 3.1 to 5.6 per cent. Lal et al. (1991) in a study with 9 tomato varieties during summer in Tarai region reported maximum variability for the ascorbic acid. Shibli et al. (1995) evaluated open pollinated tomato cultivars and recorded the highest Vitamin C (11.5mg/100g) and lowest (6.0 mg/100g) in Riogrande and Pello, respectively. Suchita (1996) reported an ascorbic acid content of to mg/ml juice in 53 genotypes of tomato. Kumar and Tewari (1999) recorded low GCV and PCV for ascorbic acid content in 67 tomato genotypes. Jagdish et al. (2007) reported a significant variation in vitamin C levels in freshly harvested fruits which ranged from to mg/100g. De et al. (2002) reported a significant variation for yield and quality

4 220 AGRICULTURAL REVIEWS parameters in 8 hybrids. The average shelf life of tomato fruits ranged from 12 to 25 days among the hybrids. Heritability and Genetic Advance High heritability with high genetic advance as percentage of mean was reported by many workers. (Singh et al., 1973, Supe and Kale 1991, Singh and Singh 1993, Kumari and Subramanian 1994, Pujari et al., 1995, Kurian and Peter 1995 and Mittal et al., 1996). Supe and Kale (1991) reported high heritability (62.46 %) with low genetic gain as a percentage of mean (19.91%) for number of primary branches per plant in 12 indigenous varieties of tomato. Singh and Singh (1993) reported high heritability with high (43.70) genetic gain as a percentage of mean for number of primary branches per plant. Singh et al. (1973) recorded a high heritability and genetic advance (39.53) for days to 50 per cent flowering. Similar trend was also noticed by Nair and Thamburaj (1995b) and Mittal et al. (1996). Kurien and Peter (1995) reported high heritability with low genetic gain for days to 50 per cent flowering and moderate heritability (57%) with low genetic advance as percentage of mean (17.56%) in 64 genotypes of tomato for TSS. Similar results were also reported by Mittal et al. (1996). Kumari and Subramanian (1994) reported high heritability with low genetic gain for number of flowers per cluster. Further, Mehta and Asati (2008) recorded high heritability (96%) coupled with high genetic advance (49.61%) for number of clusters per plant. High heritability with high genetic advance was reported for number of fruits per plant (Das et al., 1998) which was further confirmed by many workers (Singh et al., 1990, Natrajan 1990, Bora et al., 1993, Kurian and Peter 1995, and Das et al., 1998). High heritability (91.27%) and genetic advance was recorded for number of fruits per plant whereas low genetic gain was recorded for ascorbic acid content in tomato (Nair and Thamburaj, 1995b). On other hand, Padmini and Vadivel (1997) reported high to moderate estimates of heritability and genetic advance for number of fruits per plant from the crosses of tomato. Kumar and Tewari (1999) recorded high values of genetic advance with high estimates of heritability for number of locules per fruit, high heritability coupled with moderately high genetic advance for fruit yield. Surprisingly, Kumar and Tewari (1999) observed high heritability (100%) with high genetic gain as percentage of mean (39.90%) for ascorbic acid in their study with 52 diverse genotypes under Delhi conditions. Prashanth et al. (2007) recorded moderate heritability with high genetic advance for acidity and ascorbic acid, which could respond better to selection. Kurian and Peter (1995) recorded high heritability accompanied with high genetic gain as percentage of mean (34.71) for ascorbic acid and insoluble solids and storage life indicating predominance of additive gene effects. Correlation studies Prasad and Rai (1999) reported highly significant, positive correlation coefficient between plot yield and fruit weight, fruit length and fruit breadth, number of locules and pulp thickness. On other hand, Golani et al. (2007) reported that plant height had significant and negative correlation with 10-fruit weight, fruit girth, TSS and number of locules per fruit. Nair and Thamburaj (1995a) studied correlation between different plant characters of tomato. Fruit yield had a positive and significant correlation with number of fruits per plant, reducing sugars, total sugars, acidity and ascorbic acid. Singh et al. (1990) reported significant positive correlation between number of branches and yield in two consecutive years in 19 genotypes of tomato. Patil and Bojappa (1993) found that branches per plant showed significant and positive association with fruits per plant and fruits per cluster. Days to 50 per cent flowering was positively and significantly correlated with average fruit weight,

5 seeds per fruit, pericarp thickness and total soluble solids. In a study with forty F 1 hybrids (Maheshwari et al., 1997) it was reported that days to flowering was negatively associated with yield. On the other hand, Mehta and Asati (2008) revealed that fruit yield was positively associated with days to 50% flowering (0.683). Soorianatha et al. (1994) in their study with 18 double cross hybrids of tomato found that number of flowers per cluster was the important yield contributing characters in tomato and yield, in general, was positively influenced by number of flower clusters per plant and positive relationship between yield and number of fruits per plant. Kadam et al. (1992) reported that yield was positively and significantly correlated with total dry matter, number of fruits and size of fruits in variety Pusa Ruby. Mohanty and Prusti (2002) observed that higher yield of hybrid tomato was to a greater extent due to higher number of fruits and branches per plant and to a lesser extent due to increased size of fruits. Patil and Bojappa (1993) reported that fruit yield was strongly associated with three growth components, plant height (0.536 and 0.550), branches per plant (0.571 and 0.594) and leaves per plant (0.648 and 0.668) and also had positive but moderate association with fruit per plant, average fruit weight, fruits per cluster, locules per fruit, seeds per fruit and pericarp thickness. Further, Kumar and Tewari (1999) found that locule number was found to be negatively correlated with pericarp thickness and viscosity of fruit. Kurian and Peter (1995) observed that tomato lines with high pericarp thickness had higher total solids and insoluble solids but lower content of reducing sugars and acidity. Dundi and Madalageri (1991) reported that shelf life was positively correlated with pericarp thickness and fruit shape index and negatively correlated with locule number per fruit. De et al. (2002) observed a significantly Vol. 31, No. 3, positive correlation between yield and shelf life of tomato. Path ath coefficient analysis Srivastva and Sachan (1973) reported that fruit weight had negative direct effect on yield whereas number of fruits per plant had the maximum positive effect on yield followed by fruit diameter. Singh and Mittal (1976) reported that number of branches and fruit weight had a high positive effect on yield. Prasad and Rai (1999) concluded from the path analysis that the attributes like plant height, fruit length, fruit breadth, fruit firmness and number of locules were the yield components. Kumar et al. (2003) studied 30 diverse tomato genotypes through path coefficient analysis and reported that the fruit number per plant had the highest positive direct effect on yield per plant followed by average fruit weight. Mohanty (2003) evaluated 18 genotypes of tomato through path analysis and found that number of fruits per plant and average fruit weight registered positive direct effect on yield and negative indirect effect through each other on yield. Singh et al. (2004) reported high positive direct effect of number of fruits per plant on yield followed by diameter, average weight per fruit, fruit length, days to 50 per cent flowering, number of fruits per cluster and days to first harvest. Golani et al. (2007) reported that plant height manifested significant and negative relationship with fruit yield and its direct effect was negative but its indirect effect via fruit girth was high and positive. Mehta and Asati (2008) reported that plant height had the highest positive direct effect on fruit yield at genotypic level which was followed by weight of fruit per plant, days to first fruiting, days to 50% fruiting, whereas number of branches per plant had highest negative direct effect on fruit yield which was followed by total soluble solids, yield per plot, days to 50% flowering, number of fruits per plant, number of fruits per cluster, average fruit weight, days to first flowering, number of clusters per plant and number of locules per fruit.

6 222 AGRICULTURAL REVIEWS CONCLUSION The literature reviewed in this paper highlighted the genetic divergence and variability available in tomato genotypes. Knowledge of association between yield and its components is very useful for efficient selection of desirable plant type. Therefore, genetically divergent genotypes could be utilized for tomato crop improvement for the future. REFERENCES Bajaj, K.L. et al. (1990). Research J. PAU, 27(2) : Bhangu, J.S. and Singh, S. (1993). Punjab Hort. J. 23 : Bharadwa., M.L. and Thakur, M.C. (1994). South Indian Hort. 42(3) : Bora, G.C. et al. (1993). Veg. Sci. 20(1): Chopra, S. et al. (2008). Research J. SKUAST-J, 7(1) : Das, B. et al. (1998). Ann. Agric. Res., 19(1): De, N. et al. (2002). Indian J. Agric. Sci. 72 (1) : Dewey, D.R. and Lu, K.N. (1959). Agron. J. 51: Dundi, K.B. and Madalageri, B.B. (1991). South India Hort. 39(6) : Golani, I.J. et al. (2007). Indian J. Agric. Res., 41(2) : Jagdish, S. et al. (2007). Veg. Sci. 34(1) : Jasmine, J.A.P. and Ramadass, S. (1993). South Indian Hort. 42(5) : Kadam, D.D. et al. (1992). South Indian Hort. 42(3) : Kallo, G. and Bhutani, R.D. (1993). Veg. Crops: Part 1. (Chandha, K.L. and Kallo, G. eds.). Adv. in Hort. 5 : Karasava, M. et al. (2005). Horticultura Brasileira 23(4) : Kumar, P.T. and Tewari, R.N. (1999). Indian J. Hort. 56 (4) : Kumar, R. et al. (2006). Veg. Sci. 33 (2) : Kumar, V.R.A. et al. (2003). Ann. Agric. Res, 24(1): Kumari, N.A. and Subramanian, M. (1994). Madras Agric. J. 81(2) : Kurian, A. and Peter, K.V. (1994). South Indian Hort. 42 (2): Kurian, A. and Peter, K.V. (1995). Tropical Agric. J. 33 : Lal, G. et al. (1991). Veg. Sci. 18 : Mahalanobis, P.C. (1936). Proc. Nat. Inst. Sci. India, 12: Mahesha, D.K. et al. (2006). Crop Res, 32(3): Maheswari, K. et al. (1997). South Indian Hort. 45 (3&4): Matiar, R.A.K.M. et al. (1994). Punjab Veg. Grower 29 : Mehta, N. and Asti, B.S. (2008). Karnataka J. Agric. Sci. 21(1) : Mittal, P. et al. (1996). South Indian Hort. 44 (5&6) : Mohanty, B.K. (2002). Ann. Agric. Research, 23(1): Mohanty, B.K. (2003). Indian J. Agric. Res, 37(1) : Mohanty, B.K. and Prusti, A.M. (2002). Orissa J. Hort. 30 (2) : Nair, I.P. and Thamburaj, S. (1995a). South Indian Hort. 43(1&2) : Nair, I.P. and Thamburaj, S. (1995b). South India Hort. 43(3&4) : Natarajan, S. (1990). South Indian Hort. 39(1) : Padmini, K. and Vadivel, E. (1997). South Indian Hort. 45(1&2) : 1-4. Parthasarathy, V.A. and Aswath, C. (2002). Indian J. Hort. 59 (2) : Patil, A.A. and Bojappa, K.M. (1993). Karnataka J. Agric. Sci. 6(2) : Prasad, K.V.S.R. and Rai, M. (1999). Indian J. Hort. 56 (3) :

7 Vol. 31, No. 3, Prasanth, S.J. et al. (2006). J. Asian Hort. 3(1) : Prasanth, S.J. et al. (2007). J. Asian Hort. 3(2): Pujari, C.V. et al. (1995). Maharashtra Agric. Univ. J. 20(1) : Rai, N. et al. (1998). Veg. Sci. 25(2) : Reddy, V.V.P and Reddy, K.V. (1992). South Indian Hort. 40(5) : Sekhar, L. et al. (2008). Karnataka J. Agric. Sci. 21(2) : Sharma, K.C. and Verma, S. (2001). Ann. Agric. Res, 22(1) : Sharma, S. et al. (1996). Veg. Sci. 23(1) : Shibli, R.A. et al. (1995). Food Sci. Tech. J. 32(6) : Shoba, N. and Arumugan, R. (1991). South Indian Hort. 39(6) : Sidhu, A.S. and Singh, S. (1989). Veg.Sci. 16(1) : Singh, D.K. et al. (1992). Ann. Agric. Res., 13 : Singh, H.N. and Mittal, R.K. (1976). Indian J. Agric. Res 10 (2) : Singh, J. K. et al. (2004). Progressive Hort. 36 (1) : Singh, J.B. and Singh, S. (1993). Punjab Hort. J. 33 : Singh, K.P. et al. (1990). Res DevelopReporter, 7(1&2) : Singh, R.R. et al. (1973). Progressive Hort. 5 (2) : Soorianatha, S. et al. (1994). South Indian Hort. 42 (3) : Sriharsha et al. (2008). Mysore J. Agric. Sci. 42 (4) : Srivastva, L.S. and Sachan, S.C.P. (1973). J. Agric. Sci. 43(6) : Sucheta, S. et al. (1996). Veg. Sci. 23(1) : Supe, V.S. and Kale, P. B. (1991). Scientific Hort. 2 : Wright, S. (1921). Agric. Res. J. 20: