NL Journal of Agriculture and Biotechnology
(ISSN: 3048-9679)

Introduction

Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) is one of the maximum famous and broadly grown vegetable withinside the global rating 2d in significance most effective subsequent to potato in many nations and ranked 1st in preserved and processed vegetables. The own circle of relatives belongs to Tomato is Solanaceae and the local of Peru. The tomato crop is of latest starting place and the primary record turned into grown from Italy in 1544. It’s being a self-pollinated crop; it has an awesome ability for heterosis breeding and its miles utilized in distinctive breeding programme for genetic studies. Potent variability may be anticipated in tomato with recognize to plant stature, fruit shape, size, amount and quality [1]. Optimum temperature of tomato is 15-20°C. The genus is Solanum includes annual or quick lived perennial herbaceous plants. Tomato is an afternoon impartial plant. It is specifically self-pollinated crop; however, a positive percent of cross-pollination additionally occurs. It is a groovy season crop fairly proof against warmness and drought and grows beneath Neath extensive variety of soil and climatic conditions [2].

Tomato is a real diploid with 2n=24. Plant is annual with herbaceous prostrate stem having determinate or indeterminate boom habit. In the determinate boom, terminal bud leads to a floral bud and in addition boom in arrested ensuing in dwarf and furry stature. The correlation coefficient measures the mutual courting among diverse characters and determines the factor characters on which choice can be made for genetic development for yield and yield contributing traits. The route coefficient evaluation affords a powerful suggest for partitioning of direct and oblique purpose of association. Hence, there may be pre-considered necessary for initial investigations of characters withinside the genotypes for the improvement of advanced hybrids in tomato.

Methods and Materials

The observe become evaluated at an experimental farm of the Department of Horticulture, Integral Institute of Agricultural Science & Technology, Integral University, Lucknow (U.P.) at some point of 2020- 2021.The fabric for the prevailing examine made out of 35 genotypes of tomato viz., NDT-1, NDT-2, NDT-3 (C), NDT-4 (C), NDTfive NDT-6, NDT-8, Arka Ahuti, Arka Abhijit, Arka Rakshak, Arka Samrat, Arka Vikas, Angurlata, WS42 Hybrid, Darsh Hybrid, Lakshmi Hybrid, WS1508 Hybrid, Him-Sohna, Verito Hybrid, HS-101, Arka Vardan, H-24, Punjab Chuara (C), H-86, DVRT-1, DVRT-2, Him-shikhar, Kamarkhi, Kanak, Mansoori Hybrid, Manik, Ayushman, US-2853, Cherry tomato, Nagpur desi. Tomato seedlings of 30 days vintage have been transplanted withinside the major discipline with spacing of 60 x 50 cm (Row x Plant) at some point of Kharif, 2020-21. The test become specified in a Randomized Block Design (RBD) with 3 replications. The advocated cultural practices have been observed for elevating properly crop. Five randomly decided on aggressive vegetation from every row in every replication have been tagged for the reason of recording the observations on sixteen characters viz. Days to 50 % flowering, Plant height (cm), Number of number one branches according to plant, Fruit diameter (cm), Fruit length (cm), Number of locules per fruit, Pericarp thickness (mm), Average fruit weight (g), Total soluble solids (T.S.S), Number of end result according to plant, Number of marketable per plant, Number of unmarketable per plant, Fruit yield per plant (g). Correlation coefficient become done as according to the same old procedure.

Results and Discussion

The courting among the characters inside the hybrids rely upon the affiliation present with inside the parents. The genotypic and phenotypic correlation coefficients predicted among yields and inter correlation the various extraordinary yield additives are supplied and most effective significant correlations are mentioned here. In general, the significance of genotypic correlation coefficient turned into better than the corresponding phenotypic coefficient indicating thereby a sturdy inherent affiliation among diverse developments below study.

In the present investigation Days to 50% flowering exhibited positive and significant correlation with plant height (0.019 & 0.023), number of locules per fruit (0.002 & 0.002)and fruit yield per plant (0.002 & 0.001), while negative association was noticed with days of 50% flowering (-0.101 & 0.062), primary branches per plant (-0.030 & -0.962), fruit diameter (-0.001 & -0.004), fruit length (-0.005 & -0.021), average fruit weight (-0.002 & -0.114) and number of locules per fruit (0.112 & -0.507), at genotypic and phenotypic level, respectively.

Plant height was found to be positive and significantly correlated with pericarp thickness (0.001 & 0.034), total soluble solids (0.002 & 0.298), at genotypic and phenotypic level, respectively and significant negative association with number of primary branches per plant (-0.019 &-0.841), fruit diameter (-0.036 & -0.080), average fruit weight (-0.003 & -0.182), number of marketable fruit per plant (-0.038 & -0.063), and fruit yield per plant (-0.014 & -0.053), at genotypic and phenotypic level, respectively.

Primary branches per plant exhibited positive and significant correlation with plant height (0.046 & 0.587), pericarp thickness (0.007 & 0.049), at genotypic and phenotypic level, respectively.

Number of marketable fruits per plant was found to be positive and significant correlation with fruit diameter (0.038 & 0.187), and fruit yield per plant (0.247 & 0.639) at genotypic and phenotypic level, respectively.

Average fruit weight was found to be positive and significant correlation with number of primary branches per plant (0.003 & 0.222), fruit diameter (0.103 & 0.335), fruit length (0.026 & 0.246), total soluble solids (0.002 & 0.205), and fruit yield per plant (0.129 & 1.047) at genotypic and phenotypic level, respectively.

Fruit diameter exhibited positive and significant correlation with number of primary branches per plant (0.005 & 0.154), average fruit weight (0.009 & 0.313), number of marketable fruits per plant (0.037 & 0.040) and fruit yield per plant (0.440 & 0.720) at genotypic and phenotypic level, respectively.

Number of locules per fruit exhibited positive and significant correlation with number of primary branches per plant (0.008 & 0.683), fruits diameter (0.070 & 0.424), total yield per plant (0.143 & 0.114) and pericarp thickness (0.001 & 0.197). Fruits per cluster positively significant correlated with pericarp thickness (0.001 & 0.197). at genotypic and phenotypic level respectively.

Number of unmarketable fruits per plant exhibited positive and significant correlation with plant height (0.008 & 0.081), primary branches per plant (0.001 & 0.105), fruit diameter (0.018 & 0.037), fruit length (00.19 & 0.362), average fruit weight (0.001 & 0.212), total soluble solids (0.018 & 1.897), and fruit yield per plant (-0.086 & -0.215) while negative significant correlation with pericarp thickness (0.015 & -0.440) at genotypic and phenotypic level respectively.

On the basis of the value of phenotypic correlation coefficient depicted for all the ten-character, fruit yield per plant exhibited high positive correlation with number of primary branches, number of fruits per plant and average fruit weight at both phenotypic and genotypic levels. This suggests that fruit yield can be increased whenever there is an increase in characters that showed positive and significant association with yield per plant. Hence these characters can be considered as criteria for selection for higher yield as these are mutually and directly associated with fruit yield. Similar type of association was reported [3,4,5,6,7].

Table-1: Summary of genetic parameters of 14 quantitative and qualitative characters in tomato

Table-2: Genotypic (G) and phenotypic (P) correlation coefficients among yield and yield contributing traits in tomato

Correlation among quality characters is presented in Table-2. Ascorbic acid positively significant correlated with total soluble solids (-0.022 and -1.973) at genotypic and phenotypic level respectively. The correlation of yield with most of the quality traits indicated that simultaneous improvement of yield and quality traits was not possible because of negative correlation of yield with such quality traits similar result were reported by [8,9,10,11,12].

Positive relationships of plant height, number of branches per plant, number of fruits per plant and average fruit weight with total yield per plant with adequate availability of genetic variability for these traits in tomato indicate considerable scope of plant canopy modification in tomato leading to higher yield and days to flowering negatively correlated with yield which is desirable character. Increasing plant height will certainly require additional crop caring practices through staking and other canopy supporting measures to get higher harvest per unit area.

Conclusion

The correlational analysis has also evinced strong genetic and phenotypic linkage between different yield attributes and fruit quality factors in tomato plants. Hero, plant height, primary branches per plant, number of fruits and average fruit weight showed positive significant correlation with total yield per plant and can be used for selection for yield improvement. Of special interest is the negative correlation between days to 50% flowering and yield since the latter is desirable where earlier harvesting is wanted. The negative associations found between yield and ascorbic acid content and total soluble solids, suggest there could be a yield constraint trade off and raises the possibility that there are some fundamental difficulties in improving both yield and quality characteristics at the same time. However, the positive relationships combined with the amount of genetic variability observed may mean that the canopy characteristics can be adjusted to maximise yield. The next steps could aim at maintaining these interrelationships whilst integrating staking and other crop management activities that could lead to increase the height of the plant and consequently productivity. These conclusions may serve a starting point for the basic breeding of superior yielding and quality tomatoes.

References

1. Islam M, and Khan S. (2010) Variability and character association in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.). Bangladesh J Plant Breeding and Genetics. 2010; 4:49-53.
2. Ponnusviamy V, and Muthukrishnan E.R. (2010) Study of inter and intra generation correlation coefficients in F2 and F3 generation of tomato. South Indian Hort. 2010; 25:39-43.
3. Reddy V.V.P. and Reddy, K.V. (2013) Studies on variability in tomato. South Indian Hort. 2013; 40(5):257-260.
4. Saleem, M.Y., Iqbal, Q. and Asghar, M. (2013) Nuclear Institute for Agriculture and Biology (NIAB), P.O. Box 128 Jhang Road, Faisalabad, Pakistan Pak. J. Agri. Sci., Vol. 50(4), 649-653:2013.
5. Ghosh, K.P., Islam, A.K., Mian, M.A.K. and Hossain, M.M. (2010) hournal of Applied sciences and Environmental Management Vol. 14 No.2(2010) DOI:10.4314/jasem. v14i2.578 71.
6. Kumar, D., Kumar, R., Kumar, S., Bhardwaj, M.L., Thakur, M.C., Kumar, R., Thakur, K.S., Dogra, B.S., Vikram, A., Thakur, A. and Kumar, P. (2013) Genetic variability, correlation and path coefficient analysis in tomato. International Journal of Vegetable Science. 19(4):313-323.
7. Kumar, D., Kumar, R., Kumar, S., Bhardwaj, M.L., Thakur, M.C., Kumar, R., Thakur, K.S., Dogra, B.S., Vikram, A., Thakur, A., and Kumar, P. (2013) Department of Vegetable Science, Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni, Solan, HP, India 2Regional Horticulture & Forestry Research Station, Bhota, Hamirpur, India, India International Journal of Vegetable Science, 19:313–323.
8. Monamodi, EL, Lungu, DM, Fite, GL. (2013) Analysis of fruit yield and its components in determinate tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum M.) using correlation and path coefficient. Bots J. Agric. Appl. Sci. 2013; 9(1):29-40.
9. Islam, M., Mohanta, H., Ismail, M., Rafii, M., & Malek, M. (2013). Genetic Variability and trait relationship in cherry Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) var. cerasiforme (Dunnal) A. Gray). Bangladesh Journal of Botany, 41(2), 163-167.
10. Rani, CI, Muthuvel, I, and Veer, D. (2010) Correlation and path coefficient for yield components and quality traits in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum M.). Agric. Sci. Digest. 2010; 30(1):11-14.
11. Terzopoulos, P.J. and Bebeli, P.J. (2010) Agricultural University of Athens, Department of Plant Breeding and Biometry, Iera Odos 75, 11855 Athens, Greece Scientia Horticulture Volume 126, Issue 2, 13 September 2010, Pages 138-144.
12. Mahapatra, A. S., Singh, A. K., Vani, V. M., Mishra, R., Kumar H. and Rajkumar, B. V. 2013. Inter-relationship for various components and path coefficient analysis in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill). Int. J. Curr. Microbiol App. Sci. 2(9):147-152.