Professional Documents
Culture Documents
) for
Genetic Improvement
JAG PAUL SHARMA, A.K. SINGH, PUJA RATTAN, SATESH KUMAR AND
SANJEEV KUMAR
Division of Vegetable Science and Floriculture
S.K.University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology-Jammu, FOA, Main Campus
Chatha- 180 009
ABSTRACT
126 genotypes of tomato were evaluated for 8 physio-morphological characters
namely plant height, number of branches/plant, days to 50% flowering, average fruit
weight, number of fruits per plant, pericarp thickness, number of locules per fruit and
fruit yield. Analysis of data through Mahalanobis D2 statistic resulted in the formation
of 10 groups or clusters of the exotic gene pool. Cluster I accommodated twenty
genotypes, followed by cluster II accommodating 18 genotypes. Cluster III and IV, V
and VI and VII and VIII had equal number of genotypes i.e., 16, 12 and 11
respectively. Cluster X contained only three genotypes. Cluster V had genotypes with
desirable features of higher average fruit weight, more pericarp thickness and more
locules per fruit. Cluster III followed the cluster V in economical features. These
clusters need to be explored for high yielding varieties with better economical
features. Hybridization between the genotypes of these clusters may yield segregants
superceding fruit shape, color and average fruit weight. Entries EC 251646, EC
362949 and EC 531803 are suitable for direct consideration as open pollinated
varieties. Based on genetic distance, clusters V and X and VIII and X were more
diverse and relatively better option for generation of transgressive segragants.
Varieties possessing desirable economic traits were showing less genetic distance
indicating that cultivars under intensive cultivation had limited genetic variability.
Study revealed that major contributor to genetic divergence were days to 50%
flowering, fruit yield and average fruit weight supporting the fact that cultivated
tomato has been bred much maturity duration, yield potential and fruit size.
Hybrid varieties in tomato are gaining momentum in cultivation because of good
quality and higher yield. There is need to further increase the spectrum of hybrid
varieties. It demands continuous evaluation and estimation of diversity to develop
better cross combinations. Breeders have evaluated several techniques to select
parents to have good amount of heterosis. Among them, clustering of genotypes on
the basis of D2 value obtained through Mahalanobis multivariate analysis has been
advocated a relevant technique to select genotypes for heterotic cross combination
(Balasch et al., 1984). Amaral Junior et al., (1997) carried the hybridization in tomato
on the basis of D2 values. The technique furthers measures the extent of genetic
diversity and reveals the contribution of each character towards genetic divergence
(Mahesha et al., 2006). Present study considered 126 germplasm lines of tomato to
estimate the genetic diversity in them and to propose the appropriate groups for
crossing in tomato to get heterotic F1 hybrids.
Amaral-Junior, A.T. Do., Casali, V. W. D., Cruz, C.D. and Amaral, J.F.T.Do.1997,
Efficiency in predicting tomato hybrid behaviour based on parents genetic
divergence. Revista-Ceres 44 (253): 286-299
Kanwar, M.S. and Rana, M. 2006, Genetic divergence and gene source studies in
cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) Indian, J. Plant Genet Res, 19 (2): 221-225
Mahesha, D.K.., Apte, U. B. and Jadhav, B.B. 2006, Studies on genetic diversity in
tomato. Crop Res. 32: 401-402
Rai, N., Rajput, Y.S. and Singh, A.K.1998, Genetic divergence in tomato using a non
hierarchical clustering approach. Veg. Sci, 25(2): 133-135
Rao C.R. 1952, Advanced statistical methods in Biometrical Research. John Wiley
and Sons, New York :357-364
Sidhu, A.S and Singh, S.1993, Studies on heterosis and divergence in tomato. In:
Heterosis breeding in crop plants: Theory and application. Symposium-
Ludhiana, 23-24 Feb, Pp 64-65
Singh, A.K. Sharma, J.P., Satesh Kumar and Chopra, S.2008, Genetic divergence in
tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum L.). J Res. SKUAST-J.,7: 105-110
TABLE 1: Grouping of 126 genotypes of tomato in clusters
Cluster Character
Plant Number of Days to Average Pericarp Number Number of Fruit yield
height branches/ 50% fruit weight thickness of locules fruits per q/ha
(cm) plant flowering (g) (mm) per fruit plant
I 100.18 7.55 31.78 30.15 0.27 3.73 33.54 278.19
II 91.56 6.39 32.08 34.39 0.49 2.98 27.25 213.98
III 81.31 6.33 36.67 53.75 0.38 2.83 28.27 379.90
IV 117.75 8.10 30.93 27.25 0.47 2.60 40.89 333.09
V 113.03 7.61 36.17 78.53 0.45 5.53 18.64 267.90
VI 138.92 7.75 36.36 25.00 0.41 2.67 29.94 181.31
VII 81.24 5.88 37.83 18.45 0.22 2.58 44.28 202.64
VIII 69.82 5.55 39.27 47.97 0.46 3.82 20.09 205.21
IX 108.95 11.76 39.36 26.00 0.34 2.33 33.91 185.26
X 103.11 9.78 32.13 7.56 0.24 2.33 110.91 305.56
Per cent 15.14 1.57 20.15 17.93 8.19 11.31 7.30 18.38
contribution
towards total
divergence
TABLE-3: Intra and inter cluster distance (D) values in 126 genotypes of tomato
Cluster III
S.No. Genotype Plant Number Days to 50% Average Pericarp Number Number Fruit
height of flowering fruit thickness of locules of fruits yield
(cm) branches/ weight (mm) per fruit per (q/ha)
plant (g) plant
1. EC-251646 72.67 7.00 31.00 50.33 0.33 2.33 33.93 494.13
2. EC-531804 90.00 4.67 41.13 81.67 0.40 3.00 18.67 453.59
3. EC-521076 83.00 7.67 38.27 72.67 4.00 22.33 22.33 325.28
4. EC-531802 89.67 6.33 37.00 57.33 0.57 2.00 27.27 385.70
5. EC-362949 60.00 4.33 37.00 52.33 0.33 4.00 34.20 473.73
6. EC-144336-A 57.00 6.33 30.20 50.00 0.43 2.33 34.27 462.46
7. EC-357828 105.67 5.00 30.00 60.00 0.37 2.33 25.33 383.29
8. EC-531803 87.00 7.67 41.00 57.33 0.30 2.00 36.00 528.58
9. EC-2585 103.00 7.00 42.00 57.33 0.40 3.33 26.33 300.96
Cluster V
1. EC-3526 110.33 6.00 38.27 50.00 0.60 6.00 22.20 227.87
2. EC-521045 85.00 7.00 37.40 62.67 0.43 4.67 15.87 281.45
3. EC-521060 151.33 6.33 38.93 137.00 0.37 5.67 12.33 349.22
4. EC-521068 115.67 7.33 32.67 75.00 0.47 6.67 12.00 266.00
5. EC-521041 109.33 5.33 40.13 52.33 0.47 5.00 29.33 373.29
6. EC-538151 78.67 7.67 30.00 137.33 0.43 4.67 9.60 318.19