J. Env. Bio-Sci., 2016: Vol.

30 (1):47-51
(47) ISSN 0973-6913 (Print), ISSN 0976-3384 (On Line)

GENETIC VARIABILITY IN TOMATO (SOLANUM LYCOPERSICUM L.)

Sunilkumar, M. K-1*, Vijayakumar Rathod-1, Bommesh J.C-2, Vijeth S-3 and K. Muthaiah-1
1-
Division of Vegetable Crops, K.R.C. College of Horticulture, Arabhavi, (UHB, Bagalkot)-591310.
2-
Division of Vegetable Crops (ICAR-IIHR), Bengaluru-560089.
3-
Division of Olericulture, College of Agriculture- Vellayani (KAU- Thrissur)-680656.
[Corresponding author E-mail1*: sunil.mk.348@gmail.com]

Received: 06-01-2016 Accepted: 19-05-2016

Sixty genotypes were subjected to study the genetic variability indicated that genetic material in the present investigation possessed
variability which provides sufficient basis for selection by breeder. High GCV and PCV (20- 40 %) were observed for fruit volume,
average fruit weight, yield per plant, number of branches at 60 DAT, polar diameter, pericarp thickness, number of locules per fruit,
number of fruits per plant, number of seeds per fruit, thousand seed weight, lycopene content, β - carotene content, ascorbic acid
content, TSS : Acid ratio. These characters having higher range of variation. Hence, have better scope of improvement through
selection. High heritability (20-40 %) with high GAM (20-40 %) was observed for polar diameter, fruit volume, average fruit weight,
number of fruits per plant, yield per plot, number of seeds per fruit and lycopene content, equatorial diameter, number of branches
at 60 DAT, plant height at 60 and 90 DAT, number of branches at 90 DAT, plant spread from east to west at 60 and 90 DAT, plant
canopy at 60 and 90 DAT. Therefore, additive component is predominant here. Thus, there is ample scope for improving these
characters through direct selection.

Tomato is one of the most popular, widely grown and versatile
vegetables grown in the world. Tomato can be consumed either
in the form of fresh as salads, after cooking and utilized in the
preparation of range of processed products. The success of
any crop improvement programme depends upon the nature
and magnitude of genetic variability existing in breeding material
with which plant breeder is working, choice of parents for
hybridization and selection procedure. Genetic variability is
essentially the first step of plant breeding for crop improvement
which is immediately available for germplasm and is considered
as the reservoir of variability for different characters. Phenotypic
and genotypic coefficients of variation are useful in detecting
amounts of variability present in germplasm. Heritability and
genetic advance help in determining the influence of
environment in expression of characters and the extent to which
improvement is possible after selection. Heritable variation can
be effectively studied in conjunction with genetic advance. High
heritability alone is not enough to make efficient selection in
segregating generation and needs to be accompanied by a
substantial amount of genetic advance1. Hence, an insight into
the magnitude of variability present in available accessions of
tomato is of utmost importance to a plant breeder for starting
a judicious breeding programme. Keeping in view of this, an
attempt was made to know the nature and magnitude of genetic
variability existing for growth, earliness, yield and quality traits
in the available germplasm of tomato.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Sixty genotypes collected from different sources were evaluated
during 2014-15 in the Department of Vegetable Science, Kittur
Rani Channamma, College of Horticulture, Arabhavi. The crop
was grown in a randomized block design with two replications
at spacing of 90 x 60 cm. Five randomly chosen plants in
each replication of each genotype were labelled and used for
recording the observations. The genotypic and phenotypic
coefficients of variation were calculated using the formulae of
Burton and De Vane2. Heritability and genetic advance were
calculated according to Webber and Moorthy3 and genetic
advance as per cent of mean was estimated using the method
of Johnson1.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The extent of variability with respect to 30 different characters
in 60 germplasm measured in term of mean performance,
phenotypic coefficient of variation (PCV), genotypic coefficient
of variation (GCV), heritability, genetic advance and genetic
advance as per cent of mean are given in Tables- 2, 3 & 4.
Analysis of variance revealed significant differences among
germplasm for all the traits studies indicating presence of
significant variability in the materials which can be exploited

NAAS Rating (2016)-4.20

 GENETIC VARIABILITY IN TOMATO (SOLANUM LYCOPERSICUM L.)
Table-1. Analysis of variance (mean sum of squares) for growth, earliness, yield, quality and seed
parameters in tomato.
** Significant at 1 % * Significant at 5 % NS: Non significant
through selection (Table-1).
The phenotypic co-efficient of variation was higher than
genotypic coefficient of variation for all the traits indicates
additive effect of the environment on the expression of these
traits4. Genotypic and phenotypic coefficient of variability were
moderate for plant height at both 60 and 90 DAT and exhibited
high heritability and high genetic advance as per cent mean5-6.
Genotypic and phenotypic coefficient of variability for number
of branches per plant at 60 DAT were high and recorded
moderate to high variability with high genetic advance as per
cent mean7. But number of branches per plant at 90 DAT were
moderate and recorded high variability with high genetic
advance6,8. Days of first flowering showed low GCV and PCV
with high heritability and moderate genetic advance9. Days to
50 per cent flowering showed low GCV and PCV with high
heritability and low to moderate genetic advance6,8.
The co-efficient of variability observed at genotypic and
phenotypic levels were high for polar diameter of the fruit with
high heritability and high genetic advance10. Equatorial diameter
showed moderate GCV and PCV with high heritability and
high genetic advance4,6,8. Pericarp thickness showed high value
(48)
DAT: Days after Transplanting
for genotypic and phenotypic co-efficient of variation with high
heritability and high genetic advance4,7. High phenotypic and
genotypic co-efficient of variation was observed for number of
locules per fruit. The heritability estimate was high and genetic
advance as per cent of mean was also found to be high 4,7. A
high value of genotypic co-efficient of variation and phenotypic
co-efficient of variation were noticed for number of fruits per
plant, average fruit weight and fruit yield per plant. These
characters shows very high heritability coupled with very high
genetic advance5-6.
Fruit yield per plot showed high value for genotypic and
phenotypic co-efficient of variation coupled with high heritability
and high genetic advances5. Number of seeds per fruit showed
high value for genotypic and phenotypic coefficient of variation
coupled with high heritability and high genetic advance 4.
Thousand seed weight showed high value for genotypic and
phenotypic co-efficient of variation coupled with high heritability
and high genetic advances11-12. High phenotypic and genotypic
coefficient of variation was observed for lycopene content. The
heritability estimate was high and genetic advance as per cent
of mean was also found to be high 8,13. β -carotene showed
high value for genotypic and phenotypic co-efficient of variation
(49) KUMAR, RATHOD, BOMMESH, VIJETH AND MUTHAIAH

Table-1 contd…

** Significant at 1 % * Significant at 5 % NS: Non significant DAT: Days after Transplanting

Table-2.Estimates of mean, range, components of variance, heritability and genetic advance for
growth and earliness parameters in Tomato.

GV = Genotypic variance GCV = Genotypic co-efficient of variance h2 = Heritability (broad sense)

GAM = Genetic advance (per cent mean) PV = Phenotypic variance PCV = Phenotypic co-efficient of variance
GA = Expected genetic advance DAT = Days after transplanting
 GENETIC VARIABILITY IN TOMATO (SOLANUM LYCOPERSICUM L.) (50)

Table-3.Estimates of mean, range, components of variance, heritability and genetic advance for yield
parameters in tomato

GV = Genotypic variance GCV = Genotypic coefficient of variance h2 = Heritability (broad sense)

PV = Phenotypic variance PCV = Phenotypic coefficient of variance GA = Expected genetic advance

coupled with high heritability and high genetic advance and
results were accordance with earlier reports of Hedau et al.14.
High phenotypic and genotypic co-efficient of variation were
observed for ascorbic acid content. The heritability estimate
was high and genetic advance as per cent of mean was also
found to be high14-15. Total soluble solids showed moderate
genotypic and high phenotypic co-efficient of variation coupled
with high heritability and high genetic advance10,16.
Very high (>40 %) genotypic co-efficient of variation (GCV)
and phenotypic co-efficient variation (PCV) were observed for
fruit volume, average fruit weight and yield per plant. It indicates
existence of broad genetic base, which would be amenable
for further selection. High GCV and PCV (20- 40 %) were
observed for number of branches at 60 DAT, polar diameter,
pericarp thickness, number of locules per fruit, number of fruits
per plant, number of seeds per fruit, thousand seed weight,
lycopene content, β - carotene content, ascorbic acid content
and TSS : Acid ratio. These characters having higher range of
variation. Hence, have better scope of improvement through
selection. Moderate GCV and PCV (10 - 20 %) were observed
for plant height at 60 and 90 DAT, number of branches at 90
DAT, plant spread from east to west at 60 and 90 DAT, plant
spread from north to south at 60 and 90 DAT, plant canopy at
60 and 90 DAT, equatorial diameter, total soluble solids and
titrable acidity indicating moderate amount of variability. The
presence of narrow gap between PCV and GCV for all the
characters under study except titrable acidity and TSS : Acid
ratio, suggested that, these traits has low environmental
influence so that phenotypic variability may be a good measure
of genotypic variability.
In the present study, very high heritability (>90%) coupled with
very high genetic advance as per cent over mean (>40%) was
recorded for the characters viz., polar diameter, fruit volume,
average fruit weight, number of fruits per plant, yield per plot,
number of seeds per fruit and lycopene content. Very high
heritability along with high GAM (20-40%) was observed for
(51) KUMAR, RATHOD, BOMMESH, VIJETH AND MUTHAIAH

Table-4.Estimates of mean, range, components of variance, heritability and genetic advance for seed and
quality parameters in Tomato.

GV = Genotypic variance GCV = Genotypic co-efficient of variance h2 = Heritability (broad sense) GAM =
Genetic advance (per cent mean) PV = Phenotypic variance PCV = Phenotypic co-efficient of variance
GA = Expected genetic advance

equatorial diameter. High heritability (75-90 %) with very high 5. Shashikanth, Basavaraj, N., Hosamani, R.M. and Patil, B.C.
GAM was observed for number of branches at 60 DAT. High (2010).Karnataka J. Agric. Sci., 23 (3): 536.
heritability with high GAM was observed for plant height at 60 6. Meitei, K.M., Bora, G.C., Singh, S.J. and Sinha, A.K.(2014). J.

and 90 DAT, number of branches at 90 DAT, plant spread from Agric. & Environ. Sci., 14 (10): 1105.

east to west at 60 and 90 DAT, plant canopy at 60 and 90
DAT. Therefore, additive component is predominant here. Thus,
there is ample scope for improving these characters through
direct selection. Moderate heritability (60-75%) with high GAM
was observed for pericarp thickness and total soluble solids
and moderate heritability (60-75%) with very high GAM was
observed for number of locules per fruit. This indicates the
importance of non-additive effects for these traits and there is
a better scope for improvement through hybridization
programme.
REFERENCES
1. Johnson, H.W., Robinson, H.F. and Comstock, R.S. (1955). Agron.
J., 41: 314.
2. Burton, G.W. and Devane, R.W. (1953). Agron. J., 45: 478.
3. Webber, C.R. and Moorthy, H.R. (1952). Agron. J., 44: 202.
4. Chernet, S., Belew, D. and Abay, F.(2013).Int. J. Agric. Res., 8 (2): 67.
7. Sharma, J.P., Singh, A.K. and Tiwari, S.P.(2010). J. Hill Agric., 1 (1): 52.
8. Shankar, A., Reddy, R.V.S.K., Sujatha, M. and Pratap, M.(2013).J.
Agric. Veterinary Sci., 4 (5): 31.
9. Patil, S., Bhalekar, M.N., Kute, N.S., Shinde, G.C. and Shinde,
S.(2013).Bioinfolet, 10 (2B): 728.
10. Singh, P.K. and Singh, B.(2008).Haryana J. Hort. Sci., 37 (1-2): 179.
11. Arora, S.K. Pandita, M.I. and Pratap, P.S.(1982).Haryana Agric.
Uni.Res. J. 12 (4): 583.
12. Nwosu, D.J., Onakoya, O.A., Okere, A.U., Babatunde, A.O. and
Popoola, A.F. (2014).Greener J. Agric. Sci., 4 (5): 211.
13. Prashanth, S.J. (2003).In. Genetic variability and divergence
studies in tomato (Lycopersicone sculentum Mill.). M.Sc. (Hort.)
Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad (India).
14. Hedau, N.K., Saha, S., Singh, G., Gahlain, A., Mahajan, V. and
Gupta, H.S.(2008).J. Pl. Genet. Resources, 21 (3): 174.
15. Meena, O. and Bahadur, V. (2014).The Bioscan, 9 (2): 783.
16. Ghosh, K.P., Islam, A.K.M.A.,Mian, M.A.K. and Hossain,
M.M.(2010).J. Appl. Sci. Environ. Management, 14: 91.