VARIABILITY AND CORRELATION STUDY IN TOMATO (Solanum lycopersicum L.)

ASHISH KAUSHAL¹*, ANITA SINGH², AKSHAY CHITTORA³, LALIT NAGAR⁴, RAJEEV K. YADAV⁵, MAHESH K. KUMAWAT^6
1Department of Vegetable Science, G. B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, Pantnagar, 263145
²Department of Vegetable Science, G. B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, Pantnagar, 263145
³Department of Vegetable Science, G. B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, Pantnagar, 263145
⁴Department of Vegetable Science, G. B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, Pantnagar, 263145
⁵Division of Vegetable Science, ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, 110012
⁶Division of Microbiology, Jain University, Bengaluru, 560069
* Corresponding Author : akiihr04@gmail.com

Received : 19-05-2017     Accepted : 02-05-2017     Published : 24-06-2017
Volume : 9     Issue : 29       Pages : 4391 - 4394
Int J Agr Sci 9.29 (2017):4391-4394

Keywords : Correlation and path coefficient, Tomato, Variability
Academic Editor : Dr R. K. Mathukia
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : Author would like to acknowledge the financial support of ICAR-JRF fellowship, during the M.Sc. research programme to conduct this experiment. Authors are also thankful to the Director, Experiment Station, G. B. Pant. University of agriculture and Technology, Nodal officer, PCPGR and DRDO, Pithoragarh for providing the germplasm and necessary facilities to conduct the present research
Author Contribution : Ashish Kaushal -conception and design of the work, data collection, data analysis and interpretation, drafting the article, critical revision of the article, final approval of the version to be published and acted as corresponding author

The present study was carried out with twenty five tomato germplasm during summer season of 2013 at Pantnagar Centre for Plant Genetic Resources (PCPGR), G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, (U.S. Nagar) Uttarakhand. The experiment was conducted in Randomized Block Design with three replications. Observations were recorded on ten quantitative and three qualitative traits. The results revealed significant variation among germplasm for all the characters. Among all the genotypes, DARL-62 showed the highest fruit yield per hectare (232.36q/ha). Higher phenotypic and genotypic coefficients of variation (PCV and GCV) were observed for average fruit weight, number of fruits per plant and percentage acidity. High heritability coupled with high genetic advance as per cent of mean were estimated for average fruit weight, number of fruits per plant, percentage acidity, pericarp thickness and number of locules per fruit. The yield per hectare displayed positive correlation with number of fruits per plant, pericarp thickness, number of locules per fruit, average fruit weight, ascorbic acid content and yield per plant. Path analysis indicated that positive direct effect on fruit yield per hectare was exerted by yield per plant, number of flowers per inflorescence, number of locules per fruit, ascorbic acid content, percentage acidity, fruit diameter, plant height and total soluble solids. The findings suggested that average fruit weight, number of fruits per plant, number of locules per fruit and percentage acidity should be considered as important characters for improvement of tomato through selection.

1. Al-Jibouri A.H., Miller P.A. and Robinson H.F. (1958) Agron. J. Soc., 30, 633-637.
2. Allard R.W. (1960) In Principles of Plant Breeding. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York, 485 pp.
3. Asati B.S., Rai N. and Singh A.K. (2008) Asian J. of Hort., 3, 222-225.
4. Aysh F.A., Kutma H., Serhan M., Zoubai A.A. and Naseer M.A. (2012) N. Y. Sci. J., 5(10), 142-145.
5. Burton G.W. (1952) In Quantitative inheritance in grasses. Proc. 6th Intl. Grassland Congress. 1, 277-283.
6. Burton G.W. and De Vane E.H. (1953) Agron. J., 45, 478-481.
7. Dewey J. R. and Lu K.H. (1959) Agron. J., 51, 515-518.
8. Dhankhar S.K. and Dhankhar B.S. (2006) Haryana. J. Hort. Sci., 35,1-2:179-181.
9. Hasan M.M., Al-Bari M.A. and Hossain M.A. (2016) Universal J. Plant Sci., 4(3), 23-34.
10. Johnson H.W., Robinson H.F. and Comstock R.E. (1955) Agron. J., 47, 314-318.
11. Kumar D. (2013) Int. J. Veg. Sci., 19(4), 313-323,
12. Kumar R., Ram C.N., Yadav G.C., Deo C., Vimal S.C. and Bhartiya H.D. (2014) Plant Archives, 14(1), 443-447.
13. Mohamed S.M., Ali E.E. and Mohamed T.Y. (2012) Int. J. Scientific & Technol. Res., 1(2), 55-58.
14. Panse V.G. and Sukhatme P.V. (1984) In Statistical Methods for Agricultural Workers. ICAR,New Delhi, India.
15. Rick C.M. (1976) In Tomato. Evaluation of Crop Plant. London. 268-273pp.
16. Sajjan A.M., Lingaiah H.B. and Fakrudin B. (2016) Int. J. Hort., 6(18), 1-3.
17. Samadia D.K., Aswani R.C. and Dhandar G. (2006) Haryana J. Hort. Sci., 35 (1&2), 116-119.