Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T06:09:19.264Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genetic variability, trait inter-relationships, third and fourth degree statistics based genetics for fruit quality and yield traits governing shelf life in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2023

M. P. Pavan Open the ORCID record for M. P. Pavan [Opens in a new window] ,
S. Gangaprasad  and
Nagarajappa Adivappar
M. P. Pavan*
Affiliation:
Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding, College of Agriculture, Keladi Shivappa Nayaka University of Agricultural and Horticultural Sciences, Navule, Shivamogga, Karnataka, India
S. Gangaprasad
Affiliation:
Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding, College of Agriculture, Keladi Shivappa Nayaka University of Agricultural and Horticultural Sciences, Navule, Shivamogga, Karnataka, India
Nagarajappa Adivappar
Affiliation:
Zonal Agricultural and Horticultural Research Station, College of Agriculture, Keladi Shivappa Nayaka University of Agricultural and Horticultural Sciences, Navule, Shivamogga, Karnataka, India
*
Corresponding author: M. P. Pavan; Email: pavanmpgubbi@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Knowledge on genetic architecture and inheritance of tomato shelf life contributing traits in different genetic backgrounds is a key issue for shelf life improvement. An investigation was undertaken to estimate the nature and magnitude of variability, traits inter-relationships, third and fourth degree statistics to unravel the genetics of 18 fruit quality and yield traits governing shelflife in F2 population of ‘Arka Vikas’ × ‘Red ball’ cross. The wider standardized range and higher estimates of phenotypic coefficient of variation indicated prevalence of adequate variability for fruit quality and yield traits. Fruit firmness and pericarp thickness ranged from 1.20–3.44 kg/cm2 and 2.44–5.31 mm respectively. Pulp content and shelflife ranged from 58.59–94.70% and 10.60–26.40 days respectively. Significant positive correlation with direct effect on fruit shelf life was exhibited by fruit firmness, pericarp thickness, TSS, titratable acidity, pulp content, fruit length and locule number. Positive skewness with platykurtic distribution recorded for TSS, lycopene, ascorbic acid, titratable acidity, fruit length, weight, pericarp thickness, plant height and number of branches. Negatively skewed with platykurtic distribution observed for pH, fruit diameter, firmness, pulp content, locule number, shelf life and number of clusters which signified duplicate epistasis of dominant genes in traits inheritance. The transgressive segregants for fruit quality traits indicated complementary effects of dispersed allele combinations between parents. Additive and dominance components could be exploited in the advanced segregating population by evaluating large number of families. In addition to additive effects, predominance of dominance effects of genes are important in inheritance of fruit quality traits governing shelflife.

Keywords

Correlationkurtosispath co-efficient analysisshelf lifeskewnesstomato
Type
Research Article
Information
Plant Genetic Resources , Volume 20 , Issue 5 , October 2022 , pp. 366 - 375
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of National Institute of Agricultural Botany

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Al-jibourie, HA, Miller, PA and Robinson, HF (1958) Genotypic and environmental variances in an upland cotton cross of interspecific origin. Agronomy Journal 50, 636–637.Google Scholar
Arab, L and Steck, S (2000) Lycopene and cardiovascular disease. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 71, 1691S–1695S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arah, IK, Amaglo, H, Kumah, EK and Ofori, H (2015) Preharvest and postharvest factors affecting the quality and shelf life of harvested tomatoes: a mini review. International Journal of Agronomy 2015, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/478041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists (2000) In Official Methods of Analysis, 17thedn, Titratable acidity of fruit products. 942.15.Google Scholar
Association of Official Analytical Chemists (2006) In Official Methods of Analysis, Ascorbic acid, 967.21, 45.1.14. AOAC International, Gaithersburg.Google Scholar
Athinodorou, F, Foukas, P, Tsaniklidis, G, Kotsiras, A, Chrysargyris, A, Delis, C, Kyratzis, AC, Tzortzakis, N and Nikoloudakis, N (2021) Morphological diversity, genetic characterization, and phytochemical assessment of the Cypriot tomato germplasm. Plants 10, 1698. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants 10081698.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burton, GW and De vane, EM (1953) Estimating heritability in tall Fescue (Festuca arundinaceae) from replicated clonal-material. Agronomy Journal 51, 515–518.Google Scholar
Carrari, F, Asis, R and Alisdair, RF (2007) The metabolic shifts underlying tomato fruit development. Plant Biotechnology Journal 24, 45–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chakraborty, I, Vanlalliani, , Chattopadhyay, A and Hazra, P (2007) Studies on processing and nutritional qualities of tomato as influenced by genotypes and environment. Vegetable Science 34, 26–31.Google Scholar
Chavan, RF and Sakhale, BK (2020) Studies on the effect of exogenous application of salicylic acid on post-harvest quality and shelf life of tomato fruit Cv. Abhinav. Food Research 4, 1444–1450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dar, RA and Sharma, JP (2011) Genetic variability studies of yield and quality traits in tomato. International Journal of Plant Breeding and Genetics 5, 168–174.Google Scholar
Das, I, Hazra, P, Longjam, M, Bhattacharjee, T, Maurya, PK, Banerjee, S and Chattopadhyay, A (2020) Genetic control of reproductive and fruit quality traits in crosses involving cultivars and induced mutants of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Journal of Genetics 99, 56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Delina, T and Mahendran, (2009) Physico-chemical properties of mature green tomatoes with pectin during storage and ripening. Tropical Agricultural Research & Extension 12, 110–112.Google Scholar
Dewey, DR and Lu, KH (1959) Correlation and path co-efficient analysis of components of crested wheat grass seed production. Agronomy Journal 51, 515–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaikwad, AK and Cheema, DS (2009) Heterosis for yield in heat tolerant tomato lines. Crop Improvement 36, 55–59.Google Scholar
Garcia, LGC, da Silva, EP, de Melo Silva Neto, C, de Barros Vilas Boas, EV, Asuieri, ER, Damiani, C and da Silva, FA (2019) Effect of the addition of calcium chloride and different storage temperatures on the post-harvest of jabuticaba variety Pingo de Mel. Food Science and Technology 39(Suppl. 1), 261–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garg, NS, Cheema, DS and Dhatt, AS (2007) Combining ability analysis involving rin, nor and alc alleles in tomato under late planting conditions. Advances in Horticultural Science 21, 59–67.Google Scholar
Garg, NS, Cheema, DS and Dhatt, AS (2008) Genetics of yield, quality and shelf life characteristics in tomato under normal and late planting conditions. Euphytica 159, 275–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grozeva, S, Nankar, AN, Ganeva, D, Tringovska, I, Pasev, G and Kostova, D (2021) Characterization of tomato accessions for morphological, agronomic, fruit quality, and virus resistance traits. Canadian Journal of Plant Sciences 101, 476–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katoch, V and Vidyasagar, (2004) Genetic studies on yield and its components in tomato. Journal of Applied Horticulture 6, 45–47.10.37855/jah.2004.v06i01.10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kopeliovitch, E, Mizrahi, Y, Rabinowitch, HD and Kedar, N (1979) Effect of the fruit-ripening mutant genes rin and nor on the flavor of tomato fruit. Journal of American Society of Horticulture Sciences 107, 361–364.Google Scholar
Lelievre, JM, Latche, A, Jones, B, Bouzayen, M and Pech, JC (1997) Ethylene and fruit ripening. Physiologia Plantarum 101, 727–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lichtenthaler, HK (1987) Chlorophylls and carotenoids: pigments of photosynthetic biomembranes. Methods in Enzymology 148, 350–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohammed wasim siddiqui, JF, Ayala-zavala, and Dhua, RS (2015) Genotypic variation in tomatoes affecting processing and antioxidant attributes. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 55, 1819–1835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moneruzzaman, KM, Hossain, ABMS, Sani, W and Saifuddin, M (2008) Effect of stages of maturity and ripening conditions on the physical characteristics of tomato. American Journal of Biochemistry and Biotechnology 4, 329–335.Google Scholar
Osei, MK, Danquah, E, Danquah, A, Blay, E and Adu-Dapaah, H (2020) Hybridity testing of tomato F1 progenies derived from parents with varying fruit quality and shelf life using single nucleotide polymorphism (SNPs). Scientific African 8, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, TP (1953) Progressive improvement in self-fertilized crops. Heredity 7, 127–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pavan, MP and Gangaprasad, S (2022) Studies on mode of gene action for fruit quality characteristics governing shelf life in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Scientia Horticulturae 293, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2021.110687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pavan, MP, Gangaprasad, S, Dushyanthakumar, BM and Adivappar, N (2018) Identification of promising germplasm lines for fruit biochemical, morpho-physiological and yield traits governing shelf life in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Journal of Pharmacognocy and Phytochemistry 7, 2078–2083.Google Scholar
Pavan, MP, Gangaprasad, S, Dushyanthakumar, BM, Adivappar, N and Shashikumara, P (2022) Heterosis and combining ability studies by line × tester analysis for fruit biochemical, morpho-physiological, and yield traits governing shelf life in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Euphytica 218, 90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-022-03038-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pooni, HS, Jinks, JL and Cornish, MA (1977) The causes and consequences of non-normality in pretending the properties of recombinant inbred lines. Heredity 38, 329–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redenbaugh, K, Hiatt, B, Martineau, B, Kramer, M, Sheehy, R, Sanders, R, Houck, C and Emlay, D (1992) Safety Assessment of Genetically Engineered Fruits and Vegetables: A Case Study of the Flavr Savr Tomato. 2000 Corporate Blvd, N.W., Boca Raton, Florida, 33431: CRC Press, Inc., p. 288.Google Scholar
Renna, M, D'Imperio, M, Gonnella, M, Durante, M, Parente, A, Mita, G, Santamaria, P and Serio, F (2019) Morphological and chemical profile of three tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) landraces of a semi-arid Mediterranean environment. Plants 8, 273.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Risenberg, LH, Archer, MA and Wayne, RK (1999) Transgressive segregation, adaptation and speciation. Heredity 83, 363–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robson, DS (1956) Application of K4 statistics to genetic variance component analysis. Biometrics 12, 433–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodriguez, GR, Pratta, GR, Liberatti, DR, Zorzoli, R and Picardi, LA (2010) Inheritance of shelf life and other quality traits of tomato fruit estimated from F1's, F2's and backcross generations derived from standard cultivar, nor homozygote and wild cherry tomato. Euphytica 176, 137–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roy, D (2000) Plant Breeding-Analysis and Exploitation of Genetic Variation. New Delhi, India: Narosa, Publishing House.Google Scholar
Seymour, GB, Taylor, JE and Tucker, GA (eds.) (1993) Biochemistry of Fruit Ripening. London: Chapman & Hall, 442 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shalaby, TA (2013) Mode of gene action, heterosis and inbreeding depression for yield and its components in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Scientia Horticulture 164, 540–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinha, SR, Singha, A, Faruquee, M, Jiku, MdAS, Rahaman, MdA, Alam, MdA and Kader, MA (2019) Post-harvest assessment of fruit quality and shelf life of two elite tomato varieties cultivated in Bangladesh. Bulletin of the National Research Centre 43, 185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sivasubramanian, S and Madhavamenon, P (1973) Genotypic and phenotypic variability in rice. Madras Agriculture Journal 60, 1093–1096.Google Scholar
Snedecor, GW and Cochran, WG (1994) Stasistical Methods, 5th Edn. Ames, Iowa, USA: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Suo, LJ, Lin, SH and Qiang, SZ (2010) Analysis on the major gene and polygene mixed inheritance of lycopene content in fresh consumptive tomato fruit. Hreditas 28, 458–462.Google Scholar
Vijayakumar, A, Shaji, S, Beena, R, Sarada, S, Sajitha Rani, T, Stephen, R, Manju, RV and Viji, MM (2021) High temperature induced changes in quality and yield parameters of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) and similarity coefficients among genotypes using SSR markers. Heliyon 7, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wright, S (1921) Correlation and causation. Journal of Agricultural Research 20, 557–585.Google Scholar
Xu, Y (2010) Molecular Plant Breeding. Wallingford, UK: CAB International, pp. 132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yogendra, KN and Gowda, PR (2013) Phenotypic and molecular characterization of a tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) F2 population segregation for improving shelf life. Genetics and Molecular Research 12, 506–518.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zewdie, B, Shonte, TT and Woldetsadik, K (2022) Shelflife and quality of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) fruits as affected by neem leaf extract dipping and beeswax coating. International Journal of Food Properties 25, 570–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar