Morpho – Physiological Characteristics Determining Yield in Semi Determinate Tomato (Lycopersicum esculentum) Germplasm.

  • Edwin L Monamodi Department of Agricultural Research, P.O. Box 10275 Francistown, Botswana
  • Davies M Lungu University of Zambia, School of Agricultural Science, P.O. Box 32379, Lusaka, Zambia
  • Geleta L Fite Department of Agricultural Research, Private bag 0033, Gaborone, Botswana
Keywords: TomatoYield, Morpho-physiological, Multiple Determination, Direct Effect, Indirect Effect, Heritability

Abstract

Increasing yield through selection for yield per seis slow and sometimes difficult to achieve, since yield is a quantitatively inherited trait with low heritability. Yield can be indirectly increased by selecting for yield components that are highly correlated with yield but possess higher heritability. Semi determinate tomato comprised five genotypes and a check variety were evaluated at Sebele Horticultural Research Station during 2010/11 growing season to determine yield and yield components, and the correlation among the components that explain most of the variation in tomato yield. It was also done to determine the direct and indirect effects of the morpho – physiological traits on the yield in tomato. The experiment was laid out in randomized complete block design with four replications. Data collected was yield, marketable fruit number, plant height, fruit number per truss, number of trusses per plant, weight of fruits per truss, fruit number per plant, weight of fruits per plant, single fruit weight, flower numbers per truss, days to 50 percent flowering, fruit dry mater and total soluble solids. Four statistical tools used to analyse the collected data was ANOVA, correlation, stepwise multiple regression and path coefficient analysis. The analysis of variance for yield and its components revealed significant difference p<0.05) between the cultivars in the following components; yield, marketable fruit number, fruit weight per truss, Days to 50% flowering and plant height. Stepwise multiple regressions revealed that the identified components which explain variation in yield accounted for 81.84%aspertheresultofcoefficientofmultiple2determinations (R).The path coefficient analysis identified marketable fruit number (0.989) and fruit weight per truss (0.592) as the most important components of tomato fruit yield. This is in as much as the correlation of marketable fruit number (r = 0.68) was significant at p<0.05. However, the correlation of the second component fruit weight per truss (r= 0.352) was not significant at p<0.05. Marketable fruit numbers have a strong positive direct influence on yield. Two other important components to consider for yield improvement in tomato are fruit weight per truss and single fruit weight.

References

1. AbuSalena,S. and O.P.Dutta, 1988. “Interrelationship of yield components in cucumber” Veg. Sci.15, 79-85
2. Arunkumar, R. and Veeraragavathatham, 2005, Variability studies in certain tomato (Lycopersicon esculentumMill). Genotypes under green house and open conditions in different seasons. South India Hort., 53(1-6): 18-24.
3. Barman,D.,C.K.Sharma.,I.P.SinghandS.De.L.C.Sardana. 1995. “Genetic variability in exotic lines of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentumMill). In off season.” Internat.J .Trop. Agric.,13,265 – 268.
4. Bok, I., M.Madisa., D.Machacha., M.Moamogwe and K.More.(ed), 2006. Manual for Vegetable Production in ndBotswana, 2 Reprinted, Department of Agricultural Research.
5. Cramer C. S and Wehner T. C, 1998. “Fruit yield and yield componentmeans andcorrelationsof four slicing cucumber populations improved through six to ten cycles of recurrent selection.” J. Amer. Soc. Hort Sci 123,388 – 395.
6. Cramer C.S., 1997. Specific combining ability for fruits yield and shape, yield and yield components of cucumber (CucumissativusL,)populationsimprovedusingrecurrent selection. PhD.Thesis, N.C. State University, Raleigh.
7. Dewey, D.R. and K.H.Lu. 1959. “Acorrelation and path coefficient analysis of components of crested wheatgrass seed production.” Agronomy Journal., 51(9),515 – 518.
8. Haydar, A., Mandal, M.A., Ahmed, M.B., Hannan, M.M., Karim, R., Razvy, M.A., Roy, U.K. and Salahin, M., 2007, Studies on genetic variability and interrelationship among the different traits in tomato. Middle East J. Sci. Res., 2(3-4): 139-142.
9. Kumar, R., Mishra, N.K., Singh, J., Rai, G.K., Verma, A. and Mathura Rai, 2006, Studies on yield and quality traits in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum (Mill) Wettsd.) Vegetable Sci.,33(2): 126-132.
10. Lungu,M.D1978.Classifyingwinterwheatenvironmentsinto Adaptive zones as a basis forrecommending a Reduction in the number of International WinterWheatPerformanceNursaryTestsites.MSc.Thesis, University of Nebraska,Lincoln. July. P9 – 13.
11. MazhaniL.M.,1990.Evaluationofstabilityofperformance of twenty five diverse grain sorghum ( Sorghum Bicolor ( L) Moench) genotypes in Botswana. PhD.Thesis, Lincoln, Nebraska August, 1990.
12. McGiffen, M.E., D.J. Pantone and J.B.Masiunas. 1994. “Path analysis of tomato yield components in relation to competition with black and eastern black nightshade.” J. of AMER. Soci. Hort. Sci., 119, 6 – 11
13. Mohanty. B.K., 2003, Variability, heritability, correlation and path coefficient studies in tomato. Annals of Agri. Res., 23(1): 65-69.
14. Monamodi, E.L., I.B. Bok and S.K. Karikari, 2003. Changes in nutritional composition and yield of two sweet potato (Ipomoea BatatasL) cultivars during their growth in Botswana. UNISWA Journal of Agriculture volume 11, P5 - 14
15. Naika S, van Lidt de Jeude J, de Goffau M, Hilmi M and van Dam B ; ( 2005) ; Agrodok- series No 17
16. Opena, R.T., and M.L.Kyomo.(ed.) 1990. Vegetable Researchand Development inSADCC Countries:Proceedings of workshop held at Arusha, Tanzania, 9 – 13 July 1990. AVRDC Publication No. 90 – 328, 178p.
17. Padda, D. S., Saimbhi, M.S and Singh, K., 1971, Genotypic and phenotypic variabilities and correlation in quality characters of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentumMill). Indian J.Agri. Sci., 41:199-202.
18. Prasad,V.S.R.K.andD.P.Singh.1994b.“Geneticassociationandinterrelationshipbetweenyieldcomponents in cucumber.” J. Maharashtra Agr. Univ. 19,147-148.
19. Prasad, V.S.R.K. and D.P.Singh. 1994a. “Diallel analysis of yield components in slicing cucumber (Cucumis sativusL.).” J.Res. (BAU) 6,151 – 154.
20. Prashanth, S.J., 2003, Genetic variability and divergence studiesintomato(LycopersiconesculentumMill).M.Sc.(Agri.) Thesis, Uni. Agric. Sci., Dharwad ( India).
21. Rani, I., D. Veeraragavathatham and D. Sanjutha. 2008. “Studies on Correlation and Path Coefficient analysis on Yield Attributes in Root Knot Nematodes Resistant F1 HybridsofTomato.” JournalofAppliedSciencesResearch., 4(3), 287 – 295.
22. Sharma, K.C and Verma, S., 2000, Path coefficient analysis in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentumMill). Indian J. Agric. Sci., 70(10): 700-702.
23. Shravan, K., T.Singh, B.Singh and J.P.Singh. 2004. “Studies on heritability and genetic advance in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentumMill). ”Prog.Agric., 4,76 – 77.
24. Singh, P.K., Singh, R.K. and Saha, B.C., 1989, Correlation and path analysis in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill). Annals of Agri. Res., 10(2): 120-124.
25. Singh, J.K., J.P. Singh, S.K.Jain, J.Aradhana and A.Joshi. 2002. Studies on genetic variability and its importance in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentumMill). Prog.Hort., 34:77-79.
26. Singh, R.K and B.D. Chaudhary, 2004. Biometrical Methods in Quantitative Genetic Analysis, Kalyani Publishers New Delhi – Ludhiana.
27. Singh, A.K and N. Raj. 2004. “Variability studies in tomato under cold arid condition of Ladakh.” Hort.J., 17:67 – 72
28. Solanki, S.S. and A.Shah. 1989. “Path analysis of fruit yield components in cucumber. ”Prog. Hort. 21;322-225
29. TAHAL,2000“NationalMasterPlanforArableAgriculture and Dairy Development (NAMPAADD).” Consultancy report. Gaborone. Botswana.
30. Upadhyay, M., Singh, J.P., Anita Singh and Aradhana Joshi, 2005, Studies on genetic variability in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentumMill.). Prog. Hort,37(2): 463-465.
31. Varela, A.M; A.Seif, and B.Lohr 2003. Aguide to IPM in tomato production in Eastern and Southern Africa. CTA/ICIPE/GTZ.
32. Wright S, 1921.Correlation and causation. J. Agric Res 20:557-585
33. Yamaguchi, M. 1983. “World vegetables Principles, production and nutritive values. ”AVI Publishing Co., Westport, CT.
34. Yin, M. and H. Cui.1994. “Analysis of component traits for early yield in cucumber. ”Cucurbit Genet. Coop. Rpt. 17,27-29 .
35. Zhang, M. and H. Cui.1994. “Some morphological parameters involving the mechanism of early yield in cucumber. ” Cucurbit Genet. Coop. Rpt 17,24-2642Original ArticleAgricultureJABS 2012; 1(1): 37-42.
Published
2012-03-31
How to Cite
1.
Monamodi E, Lungu D, Fite G. Morpho – Physiological Characteristics Determining Yield in Semi Determinate Tomato (Lycopersicum esculentum) Germplasm. Journal of Agricultural and Biomedical Sciences [Internet]. 31Mar.2012 [cited 31Jul.2025];1(1):37-2. Available from: https://journals.unza.zm/index.php/JABS/article/view/334
Section
Agriculture Sciences