of Kashi Amrit and Kashi Anupdrn for different environments with high avera.ge yield. 'lffi!m ~ 3! ..... Singh and Singh (1980) reported that generalization.
Veg. Sci. 34(2): 131-134 (2007)
IDENTIFICATION OF STABLE VARIETY FOR YIELD AND QUALITY ATTRIBUTES IN TOMATO HC PRASANNA,
T CHAUBEY,
RAIESH KUMAR, MATHURA RAI, AJAY VERMA AND SUDHIR SINGH
Indian Institute ofV"getablc Research, Varanasi
Summary Eight varieties evolved at Indian Institute of vegetable research were grown in four different pnVllonmcnls to identify suitdble variety for ea.rly rain season and to characterize the genotype and environment intera.ction. The pooled dnalysis of vdritltion indiGl!ed the presence of differentia.l reaction of genotype for clays to 50% of flowering and ddy'S to ripC'ning, However majority of the traits exhibited the linear predictability across the environments. The stability anJ.lysi~ revealed the ~uitability of Kashi Amrit and Kashi Anupdrn for different environments with high avera.ge yield.
'lffi!m ~ 3!JffiR ,-R"-lFf,
fi1 ch R1 ~ ~ 'lit 3lT6 ~ 'lit TlR fcliii"l clTiW'I\cuIT ij \Ill f'B'I 'T'"m of 5 rows of 6 plants each, with a spacing of 60 x 45 cm. Observations were recorded on days to 50% of flowering, (bys to ripening, plant height, number of branches, fruits length, width and thickness, number of locules, TSS and yield/ha. Genotypes x environmc'nt interaction and stabili1Y analysis of different genotypes acro" the 4 environment were worked out as per procedure given by Eberhart dnd Russel (1966).
132
PRASANNA ET AL.
Results and discussion The pooled analysis of variance revealed the significance of mean squares due to G x E interaction for days to 50% of flowering and days to ripening (Table 1). However, G x E linear was significant for all characters except fruit thickness. This indicelted that there is a linear predictability of genotypes for most of the characters under study. Therefore, the stability can be predicted over environments as reported by Mandai et al. (2000). For studying the stability of the tomato genotypes, mean, estimated values of regression coefficients (b), and deviation from regression (Sid i) we,,' calculated elnd presented in Table 2. According to Eberhart dnd Russel (1966) model stability means linear predictability along with non-sign',ficant regression coefficient and non-significant deviation from regression. For plant height all the genotypes had b, vellue non significant from units (b, ~ 1) indicating average response across the environments. All the genotypes except VR-20 had non-significant Sid values close to zero indicating these genotypes were ~table across the environment for this trait. For number of branches, four genotypes viz. Kashi Sarad, Hisar Arun, Kashi Hemant and VR-415 had non-significant b-values from units indicating average response o~er the environment. However, three genotypes viz. Kalhi Vishelh, Kashi Amrit and VR-20 had b,-value significantly greater than 1 indicating better response to favourable condition whereas genotype Kashi Anupam had b,-value significantly lower than one, indicating better adoption to poor environment. All the genotypes had non-significant S'd, values from zero
(Sid, ~ 0) and were thus considered stable over thl' environment ior this trait. For days to flowering me(.lll p(~rforrnance fanged from 48.57 (VR-415) to 54.83 (VR-20). Out of eight genotypes four genotypes Kalhi Anupam, VR-20, Kashi Hemand and Kashi Sarad had non-signiiicant b,-value from unity (b l = 1) indicating avc'rdge response OVl'r the environment. However, four geootypes vi7. VR-415, Hisar Arun, Kalhi Amrit and Kashl Visesh had b-value sigoificantly greater than one indicating better rt>~ponsp to favourable conditions. Amoog the eight genotypes only Kashl Visesh aod VR-415 had S'd, values oelO sigoificaot from zero dnd these could be cOlbid"red stable over the eovironment for this trait. Regarding ddys to ripeoiog mean performdnce raoged from 12515 (VR-415) to 132,33 !VR-20). Three genotypes namely Kelshi Sarad, VR-415 dnd KelShi Visesh had b,-valuc> sigoificdntly greater thao one indicating belter respon,e to favourJble conditiorlS whereas the rest of the geootypes had b-value Significantly lower than ooe indicating lwtter ddoption to poor eoviroomeot. Only the genotypes Kdshi Aoupam had Sid , values oelO-significant from zero iodicatiog thc' stable performance across the environment. Howc'ver, for trdit like days 1"0 ripening early ripening will lw desirable as suggested by Izquierdo (1980). The genotype VRA15 followed by Kashi Vishesh dnd Kashi Aoupdm had the nlt'dll lower thdo th" average. For fruii length, out of 8 geootypc>s only 2 genotypes viz, Kashi Sarad and VR-415 held b,-value non significantly from unity iodicating dverage r"spon,,' over the environmeot. AI/ the g('ootypes hdd S'd, va!Ub
Table "J. Pooled JIlJlysis of variance of diffC'rent charJctcr:, (EberhJrt and Rus~el\, 19()6 model) 50urC(~
of
V,HI,Jfl(ltl
Chdrartpr.,
Gl:r1ot')VL' (C) Environment (El
DF
pldnt height ~:'o
of
brJllLh('~
DdY~ \0 50°/"
G x [
Pooled
tIlVIr(lnm('llt
error
G x[
7
j
) I
56
24
14G.Je~·
212.88 8."1G H
187.29
11}·J.5 5
190 -4')
U 65
1. 12 O. "W
1'.i.do '*
o (,B
19.n n
1.61
DJY~ to rlpPlllng
17.0r)
I 52.3C·· 19114.2"1**
2{).90"·
0.61
rruit leng1h
0.12
027
0.1 G
0.10
0.18
frUit Width
0.04
0.50" "
O.rll}
No of loeules
0.26
U.51
001
0.02
022 0.0 I
0.70 O. '~4
t-rult thl(knt'~~
rss
O. I -~
O.6()
0.04 o 3::! 0.0 i -D.9*'" a 08 4.66 4.578 1 0.20941 o 113845
For TSS all the genotypes had non-significant band Sid values from unity and zero respectively. Thus, all the genotypes indicated the average response over the environment dnd they could be considered stable for this trait as suggested by Mulge and Kumar (2003). With respect to yield two genotypes viz., VR-20 and
Kashi Sharad had significant b,-values greater than the unity indicating better adaptation to the favourable condition. Rest of the six genotypes had b,-values non significant from unity indicating averdge response across the environments. 1\11 the genotypes had S'di values non-significant from zero and thus could be considered stable for this trait as well as Balakrishnan and Jain (1988). Singh and Singh (1980) reported that generalization regarding stability of a v,1riety for a[1 characters is rather difficult. In the present investlgdtion also genotypes (varieties) did not show uniform stability and linear response pattern tor all the' characters. However, the overall stability may be considered on the basis of compromises and component compensation pattern of diffe",nt characters.
Table 1. Stability parameters for fruit width, No of loeules, fruit th,ckness, TSS and yield Cellolype, K.:..;hl
VI~ht',h
KdShl "'nUll Kd"h, .1I,,1l'.JI!JITI
VR-20
G,
5'11,
f..ledll
Iy,
S·d,
1\.-\1:',111
477 -4 r,9
1,1~"
0 -O.Ol
427 3.6
O,l,"
-003 (\ ! 1 I) 52
0.17
4.5.:\
1 lB'" o 95' '. j
"
U Ill"
o G2'"
-1 0'
01' 0.4,," o2 0. j'J' ~
04(,
D.Oj
, (, J
() '1:'"
0
-1 (17
U.01
1.77
Arun
of mt',lI)
4 3e
4 6' 4 72 4 611 o 1 10128
Ili~i\(
1
'J"~
1 0419408
o 24'
-1 02
-'I ':i(,
4.49
:::-\J .. rror
1]1
o 07
SMaci
Popul,ltilln nle:'02 'J o 599:>
PRASANNA ET AL.
134
References Izquierdo JA, Maeso CR and Villamil J (1980). Yield stability in eight cultivar~ of processing tomato. Investigaciones
Agronomic.". 1(1): 47-51. Pandey Sudhakar, DixitJ. Dwivedi SV, Dubey Rand Pandey 5 (2000). Stability analysis foryield and its components in tomJto (Lycopcrsico/l escu!PIHum Mil!.). Haryana
J. Hort. Sci. 29(3-4): 207-208. Mandai AR, Senapati BK and Malty TK (2000). Genotype environment interaction, stability and adL~ptability of
tomato (L~/cop('rsjcon escu!en[um Mill.). Veg. Sci. 27(2): 155-157.
Kalloo G, Chaurasiel SNS and Singh Major (19981 Stability analysis in tomato. Veg. Sci. 25(1): 81-84. Ortiz R and Izquierdo J (1994). Yield stability differences among tomato genotypes grown in Latin America and
the Caribbean. Hort Sci. 29(10): 1175-1177. Elkind Y, Bar Oz Galper 0, Scott JW and Kedar N (1990).
Genotype
by
environment interaction of tomdto
blossom-end scar size. Euphytica. 50(1 t: 91-9.5. Balakrishnan KA and Jain JP (1988). A procedure for stabil ity allalysi~ with multivariate datd in vegetable crops. Indian I. Genetics and PI. Bn~ed. 48(2): 201-205. Mulge Ravindrd and Aravinddkumar IS (20031. Stabilitv analysis for grc)\vth and t'drlinoss in tomdto. Indian J', Hort. 60(4): .,53-356.
Upadhyay Rupa, Lel! G ulshan and Relm HH (2001). Genotype environment interaction and stability analysis in tomato
lLycopor::icon esculentum Mill.). ProgrQssivt' Hurt. 33(2): 190-193
Eberharl SA and Russell WA (1966) Stability parameters for comparing vdrieties. Crop Sci. 6: 36-40.
Ram HH (1992). Vegetable Breeding Principles and Practices, Kalyani Publishers, Lodhiana, pp. 274-289. Singh RB and Singh SV (1980). Phenotypic stability L1f durm and bread wheat for grain yield. Indian J. Genet. 40: 86-92.
