Article Sidebar

Submitted
June 19, 2022
Accepted
November 6, 2022
Published
March 8, 2023
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 51 Download : 158

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

Twenty bacterial wilt resistant lines including recently developed lines at CSKHPKV, Palampur (08) were studied to ascertain the extent of genetic variability, the type and magnitude of correlation between component characters & marketable yield, as well as the direct and indirect impacts of every character on marketable yield. For all variables except plant survival, analysis of variance exhibited significant differences across genotypes. Phenotypic coefficient of variation (PCV) and genotypic coefficient of variation (GCV) values for lycopene content (80.581%, 80.148%), titrable acidity (73.666%, 71.219%), marketable yield / plant (53.953%, 52.598%), marketable fruits / plant (34.994%, 34.050%), gross yield / plant (34.094%, 30.553%), average weight of fruit (30.558%, 29.13%), locules / fruit (28.549%, 25.050%), and ascorbic acid (23.641%, 20.919%) respectively, were found high across different parameters of variability. Marketable yield / plant (95.043%, 45.633%), marketable fruits /plant (94.68%, 68.252%), titrable acidity (93.467%, 48.838%), average weight of fruit (90.877%, 57.206%), gross yield / plant (80.305%, 56.402%), ascorbic acid (78.295%, 38.130%), and locules / fruit (76.985%, 45.276%) were found with high heritability and high genetic advance. Marketable yield / plant was significantly and positively associated with average  weight of fruit (0.734, 0.795), gross yield / plant (0.774, 0.853), marketable fruits / plant (0.734, 0.742), pericarp thickness (0.693, 0.806), ascorbic acid (0.381, 0.469), titrable acidity (0.347, 0.364) and locules/ fruit (0.284, 0.345) at both phenotypic as well as genotypic levels, respectively.  Path coefficient analysis showed that marketable fruits / plant (0.589, 0.608), gross yield / plant (0.278, 0.617) and average weight of fruit (0.382, 0.182) are the three main parameters that had the greatest positive direct impact on marketable yield / plant at the phenotypic and genotypic levels, respectively

Keywords

Correlation Coefficient GCV Genetic Advance Heritability Path Analysis PCV

Article Details

License

Copyright (c) 2022 Environment Conservation Journal

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Sadat, S. H., Chadha, S., & Sharma, S. (2023). Variability and correlation studies in bacterial wilt resistant advanced tomato lines (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Environment Conservation Journal, 24(2), 194–199. https://doi.org/10.36953/ECJ.13422389
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

  1. Al-Aysh, F., Al-Serhan, M., Al-Shareef, A., Al-Nasser, M., & Kutma, H. (2012). Study of genetic parameters and character inter-relationship of yield and some yield components in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). International Journal of Genetics, 2, 29-33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5958/j.2319-1198.2.3.026
  2. Anonymous, (2020-21). Area and production of vegetable crops in Himachal Pradesh. Department of Agriculture (H.P.) Shimla.
  3. AOAC, (2000). Official methods of the analysis of the association of official analytical chemists. Official method 942.15 acidity (titrable) of fruit products. (W Horwitz, Ed). Benjamin Franklin Station, Wahington, D.C.
  4. Chadha, S., & Bhushan, A. (2013).Genetic variability study in bacterial wilt resistant F6 progenies of tomato. Journal of Hill Agriculture, 4, 47-49.
  5. Chadha, S., & Walia, I. (2016). Genetic variability in bacterial wilt resistant F3 progenies of tomato. Journal of Hill Agriculture, 7, 187-190. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5958/2230-7338.2016.00054.9
  6. Khapte, P.S., & Jansirani, P. (2014).Genetic variability and performance studies of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) genotypes of fruit quality and yield. Trends in Biosciences, 7, 1246-1248.
  7. Meena, O.P., Bahadur, V., Jagtap, A.B., Saini, P., & Meena, Y.K. (2015). Genetic variability studies of fruit yield and its traits among indeterminate tomato genotypes under open field condition. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 10, 3170-3177. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR2015.9614
  8. Rai, A.K., Vikram, A.,&Pandav, A. (2016). Genetic variability studies in tomato (Solanumlycopersicum L.) for yield and quality traits. International Journal of Agriculture, Environment and Biotechnology,9, 739-744. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5958/2230-732X.2016.00095.4
  9. Ranganna, S. (1979). Manual of analysis of fruit and vegetable products. Tata McGraw Hill Book Company, New Delhi, p 634.
  10. Ranganna, S. (2000). Handbook of analysis and quality control for fruit and vegetable products, 2nd Ed. Tata McGraw- Hill Publishing Company Ltd, New Delhi, India, p 1112.
  11. Roy, S.K. & Choudhury, B. (1972). Studies on physiochemical characterstics of a few varieties in relation to processing. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 9,151-153.
  12. Sehgal, N. (2017).Variability and association studies in F4 progenies of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.), MSc. Thesis, Department of Vegetable Science and Floriculture, CSK Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya, Palampur, India.
  13. Shankar, A., Reddy, R.V.S.K., Sujatha, M., & Pratap, M. (2013). Genetic variability studies in F1 generation of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Sciences, 4, 31-34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.9790/2380-0453134
  14. Shweta, Kumar, D.B.M., Ellur, V., & Patil, S.K. (2016). Assessment of genetic variability and diversity in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) germplasm. Green Farming, 7, 819-823.
  15. Tiwari, J.K., & Upadhyay, D. (2011).Correlation and path-coefficient studies in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.). Research Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2, 63-68.