Banner
Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive
Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive

volume 41 issue 2 (june 2007) : 146 - 149

GENETIC VARIABILITY, CORRELATION AND PATH COEFFICIENT STUDIES IN TOMATO

I
I.J.Golani
D
D.R. Mehta
V
V.L. Purohit
H
H.M. Pandya
M
M.V. Kanzariya
1Vegetable Research Station, Junagadh Agricultural University, Junagadh - 362 001, India

  • Submitted|

  • First Online |

  • doi

Cite article:- I.J.Golani, Mehta D.R., Purohit V.L., Pandya H.M., Kanzariya M.V. (2025). GENETIC VARIABILITY, CORRELATION AND PATH COEFFICIENT STUDIES IN TOMATO. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 41(2): 146 - 149. doi: .

ABSTRACT

Evaluation of 20 genotypes of tomato elucidated high heritability with high GCV and genetic gain for-10 fruits weight, number of locules/fruit and fruit yield which could be improved by simple selection. The phenotypic and genotypic associations of fruit yield were significant and positive with 10­fruits weight, fruit girth, TSS (only at genotypic level) and number locules/fruit but significant and negative with plant height. Ten-fruit weight had significant and positive correlation with fruit length, fruit girth and number of locules/fruit at both levels. Path analysis confirmed that 10 fruits weight had highest positive direct effect followed by number of locules/fruit. Hence due weightage should be given to both characters while imposing selection for amelioration of fruit yield in tomato.

KEYWORDS

    REFERENCES

    1. Al-Jibouri, H.A. et al. (1958). Agron. J., 50: 477-483.
    2. Burton, G.W. (1952). Proc. 6‘hInt. Grasslands Cong., 1: 277-283.
    3. Das, B. et al. (1998). Ann. Agric. Res., 19(1): 77-80.
    4. Dewey, D.R. and Lu, K.H. (1959). Agron. J., 51: 515-518.
    5. Dudi, B.S. and Kalloo, G. (1982). Haryana J. Hort. Sci., 11: 122-124.
    6. Johnson, H.W. et al. (1955). Agron. J., 47: 314-318.
    7. Mohanty, B.K. (2003). Indian J. Agric. Res., 37(1): 68-71.
    8. Natrajan, S. (1991). South Indian Hort., 39: 27-29.
    9. Padmini, K. and Vadival, E. (1997). South Indian Hort., 45: 1-4.
    10. Prasad, V.S.R.K. and Rai, M. (1999). Indian J. Hort., 56: 262-266.
    11. Singh, P. et al. (2002). Veg. Sci., 29(1): 68-70.
    Published In
    Indian Journal of Agricultural Research
    Article Metrics
    Metrics Icon
    0
    Views
    0
    Citations
    Reviewed By
    Share Article
    Download Article
    In this Article
      Contact us
      Follow us

      volume 41 issue 2 (june 2007) : 146 - 149

      GENETIC VARIABILITY, CORRELATION AND PATH COEFFICIENT STUDIES IN TOMATO

      I
      I.J.Golani
      D
      D.R. Mehta
      V
      V.L. Purohit
      H
      H.M. Pandya
      M
      M.V. Kanzariya
      1Vegetable Research Station, Junagadh Agricultural University, Junagadh - 362 001, India

      • Submitted|

      • First Online |

      • doi

      Cite article:- I.J.Golani, Mehta D.R., Purohit V.L., Pandya H.M., Kanzariya M.V. (2025). GENETIC VARIABILITY, CORRELATION AND PATH COEFFICIENT STUDIES IN TOMATO. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 41(2): 146 - 149. doi: .

      ABSTRACT

      Evaluation of 20 genotypes of tomato elucidated high heritability with high GCV and genetic gain for-10 fruits weight, number of locules/fruit and fruit yield which could be improved by simple selection. The phenotypic and genotypic associations of fruit yield were significant and positive with 10­fruits weight, fruit girth, TSS (only at genotypic level) and number locules/fruit but significant and negative with plant height. Ten-fruit weight had significant and positive correlation with fruit length, fruit girth and number of locules/fruit at both levels. Path analysis confirmed that 10 fruits weight had highest positive direct effect followed by number of locules/fruit. Hence due weightage should be given to both characters while imposing selection for amelioration of fruit yield in tomato.

      KEYWORDS

        REFERENCES

        1. Al-Jibouri, H.A. et al. (1958). Agron. J., 50: 477-483.
        2. Burton, G.W. (1952). Proc. 6‘hInt. Grasslands Cong., 1: 277-283.
        3. Das, B. et al. (1998). Ann. Agric. Res., 19(1): 77-80.
        4. Dewey, D.R. and Lu, K.H. (1959). Agron. J., 51: 515-518.
        5. Dudi, B.S. and Kalloo, G. (1982). Haryana J. Hort. Sci., 11: 122-124.
        6. Johnson, H.W. et al. (1955). Agron. J., 47: 314-318.
        7. Mohanty, B.K. (2003). Indian J. Agric. Res., 37(1): 68-71.
        8. Natrajan, S. (1991). South Indian Hort., 39: 27-29.
        9. Padmini, K. and Vadival, E. (1997). South Indian Hort., 45: 1-4.
        10. Prasad, V.S.R.K. and Rai, M. (1999). Indian J. Hort., 56: 262-266.
        11. Singh, P. et al. (2002). Veg. Sci., 29(1): 68-70.
        In this Article
          Contact us
          Follow us
          Published In
          Indian Journal of Agricultural Research

          Editorial Board

          View all (0)