







































 
 

 

22 
© 2020 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group 
 

 Agriculture and Food Sciences Research 
Vol. 7, No. 1, 22-23, 2020 

ISSN(E) 2411-6653/ ISSN(P) 2518-0193 
DOI: 10.20448/journal.512.2020.71.22.27 

© 2020 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group 

    
 

 
 
 
Genetic Variability in Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum MILL) Genotypes in the 
Central Rift Valley, Ethiopia 

 
Dasta Tsagaye1 
Andargachew Gadebo2 
Shimelis Aklilu3 

 
 

( Corresponding Author)  
1Kulumsa Agricultural Research Center, Horticulture Research Program, Assella, Ethiopia. 

 
2Shool of Plant and Horticultural Sciences, Hawassa University College of Agriculture Hawassa, Ethiopia. 

 
3Melkassa Agricultural Research Center, Vegetable Breeding Program, Adema, Ethiopia. 

 

 
Abstract 

Investigation of variability existing in crop cultivars is important to crop improvement. The study 
was conducted at Melkassa Agricultural Research Center (MARC) to assess the genetic variability 
among 36 tomato genotypes using 6*6 simple lattice designs. There were significant differences 
among genotypes all traits. High phenotypic and genotypic variances were recorded for number of 
fruits per plant, average fruit weight, fruit shape index and juice volume indicating the existence 
of substantial variability. High heritability along with high genetic advance as percent of the mean 
was exhibited by characters viz. plant height, number of fruits per plant, average fruit weight, 
fruit shape index and juice volume, reflecting the presence of additive gene action for the 
expression of these traits and selection based on them would be ideal. Generally, the present study 
implied the presence of genetic variability among the test genotypes with respect to the traits 
considered indicating an opportunity to bring about fruit yield improvements in snap bean either 
through direct selection or hybridization. 

 
Keywords: Tomato, Genotype, GCV, PCV, Genetic advance, Genetic variability, Heritability. 

 
Citation | Dasta Tsagaye; Andargachew Gadebo; Shimelis Aklilu 
(2020). Genetic Variability in Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum 
MILL) Genotypes in the Central Rift Valley, Ethiopia. Agriculture 
and Food Sciences Research, 7(1): 22-27. 
History:  
Received: 14 November 2019 
Revised: 23 December 2019 
Accepted: 27 January 2020 
Published: 18 March 2020 
Licensed: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons 

Attribution 3.0 License  
Publisher:  Asian Online Journal Publishing Group 
 

Acknowledgement: The first Author acknowledges Melkassa Agricultural 
Research Center (MARC) for providing the test genotypes and for their 
invaluable support in field trial implementation.  
Funding: The authors are grateful to Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural 
Research (EIAR) for offering financial support. 
Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of 
interests. 
Transparency: The authors confirm that the manuscript is an honest, 
accurate, and transparent account of the study was reported; that no vital 
features of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the 
study as planned have been explained. 
Ethical: This study follows all ethical practices during writing.   

 

 

Contents 

1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 23 
2. Materials and Methods ................................................................................................................................................................... 23 
3. Statistical Data Analysis................................................................................................................................................................. 24 
4. Result and Discussion ..................................................................................................................................................................... 24 
5. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 26 
References .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 26 
 

 

 

 

 

 

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.20448/journal.512.2020.71.22.27&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2017-01-14
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.20448/journal.512.2020.71.22.27&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2017-01-14
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/
https://www.asianonlinejournals.com/index.php/AESR/article/view/1417


Agriculture and Food Sciences Research, 2020, 7(1): 22-27 

23 
© 2020 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group 

 

 

Contribution of this paper to the literature 
The study was conducted at Melkassa Agricultural Research Center (MARC) to assess the 
genetic variability among 36 tomato genotypes using 6*6 simple lattice designs. 

 
1. Introduction 

Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum MILL.) is one of the most known and widely grown vegetables in the world. 
Tomato fruit is traded on the fresh market and used in the processing industry for making ketchup, juice, and 

soups. It is a valuable component of human diet with high content of important nutrients like β-carotene, lycopene 
and vitamin [1].  

In Ethiopia, tomato is one of the most popular vegetables produced by small farmers and commercial growers 
for both local uses as well as processing industries. It has become an important cash crop. Tomato provides 
employment in production and processing industries [2]. Considering the importance of tomato as one of the 
beneficial vegetables for both domestic consumption and export markets, it is important to increase its productivity 
along with desirable attributes through its genetic character [3] The crop is cultivated by small scale farmers 
under irrigation and rain fed condition and large scale commercial vegetable growers. In Central Rift valley where 
the study area is conducted the crop is mainly cultivated by small scale farmers and commercial vegetable 
producers. On the basis of its wide use and expansion potential the need for developing varieties that suite specific 
agro- ecological conditions and specific end use is clear. Such improvement works, require knowledge on the nature 
and magnitude of variability in the genotypes [4] and the relative contribution of various component traits to yield 
[5]. 

Variability in tomato is expected to be immense as the fruits vary greatly in shape and size [6]. Studies on 
genetic parameters provide to select and help to develop optimum breeding procedure. Considering all the facts 
described above the present investigation was undertaken to estimate genetic variability of tomato genotypes. 
 

2. Materials and Methods 
The experiment was conducted at Melkassa Agricultural Research Center (MARC) in 2017/2018 (at the end of 

October to February) using furrow irrigation. The site is situated in major snap bean growing belts which is 117 
km South East of Addis Ababa with geographic co-ordinate of 8o 24’N latitude and 39o 12’E longitude at an altitude 
of 1550 m.a.s.l. The mean annual rainfall of the area is 763 mm and the mean annual maximum and minimum 
temperature is about 28.6 0C and 13.8 0C, respectively. The soil texture is dominantly loam and clay loam and is 
slightly alkaline ranging from 7.4 to 7.6 pH an optimum range for availability of major nutrients [7]. The 
experimental materials in the present study consisted of thirty six tomato genotypes obtained from Melkassa 
Agricultural Research Center. Simple lattice design (6x6) was employed where each plot consisted of two rows 
with length of 4m and width 2m that makes a total area of 8m2. The spacing was 100cm and 30 cm between rows 
and plants respectively. Fertilizer rate of 200kg per ha of NPS and 150kg per ha of Urea was applied. All other 
necessary cultural practices were applied to all plots uniformly.  
 

2.1. Data Collected 
2.1.1. Data Collected on Plot Basis  

Days to first flowering (days): The number of days from the date of transplanting to the day when the first 
flower bud opens in a plot. 

Days to 50 percent flowering (days): The number of days from the date of transplanting to when about 50% 
of the plants produced flowers. 

Days to first fruit set (days): The number of days was counted from the date of transplanting to when first 
fruit appeared in a plot. 
 

2.1.2. Data Collected on Plant and Fruit Basis 
Plant height (cm): The plant height was measured using measuring tape from ground level to the tip of the 

plant after 60 days of transplanting and expressed in centimeters and the mean was computed. 
Number of branches per plant: Number of branches arising from the main stem above the ground was 

counted at harvesting on individual plant basis. 
 Number of flowers per cluster: Three clusters in each plant were taken at random and the number of flowers 

in each cluster was counted. Then the average number of flowers per cluster was calculated.  
Number of Clusters per plant: Fine plants were taken at random and the number of clusters in each plant was 

counted. Then the average number of cluster per plant was calculated.  Harvesting continued for about one month 
because fruits of different genotypes matured progressively at different dates and over longtime. Fruits were picked 
on the basis of horticultural maturity, size color and age being determined for the purpose of consumptions as the 
fruit grew rapidly and soon get beyond the marketable stage frequent picking was done throughout the harvesting 
period. 

Number of fruits per plant: The total number of fruits harvested from the five plants was counted and the 
average number of fruits per plant was calculated. 

Number of fruits per cluster: Three clusters in each plant were taken at random and the number of fruits in 
each cluster was counted. Then the average number of fruits per cluster was calculated.  

Fruit yield per plant: The weight of fruits from each picking was from each experimental plot. Total yield per 
plant was worked out by adding yield of all harvests and was expressed in gram (g) per plant. 

Fruit length (cm): Average fruit length of five fruits from five plants was measured using Vernier caliper from 
tip to the base of the fruit and expressed in centimeters. 

Fruit diameter (cm): Average diameter of five fruits from each sampled plants was measured using Venire 
caliper at the highest bulged portion of the fruit in centimeters. 



Agriculture and Food Sciences Research, 2020, 7(1): 22-27 

24 
© 2020 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group 

 

 

Fruit weight (g): Average weight of five fully ripe fruits taken during harvesting was taken using sensitive 
balance. 

Pericarp thickness (mm): It was recorded from five randomly selected fruits at second harvest by cutting the 
cross section of a fruit and measuring the pericarp thickness using Vernier caliper expressed in centimeter. 

Fruit shape index: Ration of fruit length to width were recorded from five randomly selected fruits at second 
harvest. 

pH of tomato fruit: Tomato juice was extracted from red ripe fruits, was determined from extracted juice, by 
using pH meter at room temperature. 

Total soluble solids content of fruit (Brix): Brix percentage was measured by Portable Refractometer at 
room temperature. Single fruit was blend and juice was collected to measure brix. 

Juice volume (ml): Tomato juice was prepared by selecting five typical and red ripe fruits from sample plants 
and juice was measured in cylinder and expressed in milliliter (ml). 
 

3. Statistical Data Analysis 
Data were subjected to Analysis of variance as per the procedure for simple lattice design as described by 

Gomez and Gomez [8]  using SAS version 9.2 [9].  Duncan’s Multiple Range Test was used for mean separation 
procedures.  
 

3.1. Variability Analysis  
A. Estimation of Variance Components 

The phenotypic and genotypic variances were estimated according to the method suggested by Singh and 
Choudhary [10] as follows: 

Environmental variance (2e), 2e=MSe (error mean square) 

Genotypic Variance (2g)  2g=
 MSg−MSe

r
  

Phenotypic variance (2p)   2g + 2e/r  
Where, r=number of replication, MSg=mean square due to genotypes, MSe=mean square of error 

(Environmental variance)  
 

B. Heritability in Broad Sense 
Broad sense heritability values for all parameters (H2) were estimated based on the formula given by Falconer 

and Mackay [11] as follows: 

H2=
σ2g

σ2p
∗ 100  

Where, H2= heritability in the broad sense, 2g=genotypic variance and 2p =phenotypic variance. Estimated 
heritability values was classified according to Singh [12] that heritability values greater than 80% were very high, 
values from 60–79% were moderately high, values from 40–59% were medium and values less than 40% were low.  
 

C. Genetic Advance 
The genetic advance expected under selection assuming selection intensity of the superior 5% of the plants was 

estimated in accordance with the methods illustrated by  Allard [13]. 

GA=K*(√2
p)*H2 

Where, GA = expected genetic advance, K = the standardized selection differential at 5% selection intensity (K 

= 2.063), 2 p = is phenotypic standard deviation on mean basis and H2=heritability in the broad sense. 
 

D. Genetic Advance as Percent of Means (Gam) 

Genetic advance as percentage over mean was worked as suggested by Johnson, et al. [14]. GAM =  
GA

�̅�   
∗

10Where, GA = Genetic advance, �̅� = Grand mean;  
Genetic advance as percent of mean was categorized as 0-10% = Low, 10-20% = Moderate, >20% = High 
 

E. Genotypic and Phenotypic Coefficient of Variation 
Genotypic and phenotypic coefficients of variation were estimated according to Burton and Devane [15] based 

on the estimate of genotypic and phenotypic variance. 

Genotypic coefficient of variation (GCV %) =  
√2 g   

�̅� 
 *100 

Phenotypic coefficient of variation (PCV %) =  
√2 p   

�̅� 
 *100 

Where, Vg = Genotypic variance, Vp = Phenotypic variance, �̅�  = Grand mean of the character. PCV and GCV 
were categorized as following: 0 – 10 %: low, 10 - 20%: moderate, 20% and above high [16]. 
 

4. Result and Discussion 
4.1. Analysis Variance 

The mean square due to genotypes were highly significant for all traits (P < 0.01) except for days to 50% 
flowering, plant height, number of branches per plant, number of fruits per cluster and pericarp thickness which 
were significant at (P < 0.05), indicating the presence of sufficient genetic variability in the genotypes and 
considerable scope for their improvement Table 1. According to Asati, et al. [17] analysis of variance revealed that 
significant differences among the genotypes for all the traits; Aysh, et al. [18] reported that the highly significant 
differences observed among the genotypes evaluated indicates existence of a good deal of variability with respect of 
the characteristics assessed and offers ample chances for the genetic improvement of the tomato germplasm; Meena 



Agriculture and Food Sciences Research, 2020, 7(1): 22-27 

25 
© 2020 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group 

 

 

and Bahadur [19]  reported that there were significant differences among germplasm for all the traits studies 
indicating the presence of significant variability in the materials which can be exploited through selection; Shankar 
Shankar, et al. [20]; Haydar, et al. [21] and Singh, et al. [22] revealed that highly significant differences among 
the genotypes for all the characters indicating sufficient variability existed in the present material selected for the 
study and indicating the scope for selection of suitable initial breeding material for crop improvement; Kumar, et al. 
[23] reported that significant differences among germplasm for all the traits studies indicating the presence of 
significant variability in the materials which can be exploited through selection. 
 

4.2. Estimation of Genotypic and Phenotypic Coefficient Variation 
The present result revealed that, higher GCV were recorded for number fruits per plant (25.29607%), fruit 

yield per plant (21.7934%), average fruit weight (21.93702%), fruit shape index (25.65%) and juice volume 
(23.9115%). Moderate GCV value were recorded for days to first flowering date (15.76%), plant height (13.21%), 
number branches per plant (13.34%), number flowers per cluster (16.44), number fruits per cluster (13.35%), 
number clusters per plant (16.68%), fruit length (14.18%) and fruit diameter (12.67%). However total soluble solid 
(8.93%), pericarp thickness (8.91%), pH (7.58%), days to 50% flowering date (7.37%) and days to first fruit set 
(5.74%) had the lowest values.  High PCV values were observed in fruit shape index (26.791%), number of fruits per 
plant (26.408%), juice volume (25.732%), average fruit weight (24.408%), fruit yield per plant (22.991%) and 
number of clusters per plant (20.207%). However days to first flowering (18.177%), number of flowers per 
plant(17.333%),number of branches per plant(17.148%), plant height (15.287%), fruit length(15.071%),pericarp 
thickness(14.085%),number of fruits per plant(14.978%), fruit diameter(13.586%) and total soluble solid(12.092), 
had moderate values. This indicated the presence of environmental influence on these characters [24].  
 

4.3. Heritability and Genetic Advance 
Heritability ranged from (55.22%) for total soluble solid to (98.08 %) for pH and characters such with very high 

heritability values were obtained for pH (98.08%), fruit shape index (95.65%), number of fruit per plant (91.75%), 
number of flowers per cluster (89.38%), fruit yield per plant (89%), fruit length (88.25%), fruit diameter (87.69%), 
juice volume (86.35%) and average fruit weight (80.05%); moderately high heritability values were obtained from 
number of  fruits per cluster (79.13%), days to first flowering (75.15%), plant height (74.71%), days to first fruit set 
(71.95%), number of clusters per plant (68.09%) and number of branches per plant (60.53%); whereas pericarp 
thickness (55.14%) and total soluble solid (55.22%) had moderate heritability values Table 2.  
 

Table-1. The analysis of variance for the 18 characters tested at Melkassa in 2017/2018. 

  
 

Mean squares 

Source of 
variation 

DF DFF D50%F DFFS PLH NBPL NFLC NFC NCPL NFPT 

Replications  1 107.56 14.22 24.5 16.43 28.8 0.294 28.34 1.28 2105.46 
Block within 
Reps(adj) 

10 80.56 11.25 4.083 31.37 3.7 0.176 0.2383 195.85 2643.04 

Genotypes 
          

- Un adjusted 35 50.5 22.01 23.3143 125.66 4.2521 0.6844 0.38 742.62 225.26 
- adjusted 35 46.540** 19.845* 22.55** 120.46* 3.986* 0.63** 0.34* 21.8** 312.08** 
Error 

          

-RCB Design 35 10.6 22.01 4.4 30.33 2.068 0.1419 0.17 376.04 5131.14 
-Intra block 25 11.5556 6.32 4.5 29.8 1.4211 0.1283 0.1424 7.207 24.8811 
CV % 

 
12.84 6.27 5.07 10.87 15.24 8.01 9.69 16.15 10.725 

R2 
 

87.1 85 88.66 86.4 85.78 89.02 92.48 83.911 95.79 
Efficiency of lattice 
over RCBD 

 
91.34 108.65 97.32 100.11 123.77 102.66 106.94 126.27 125.03 

Note: Where ** = highly significant at 1%, * = significant at 5%, DF=Degree of Freedom, DFF = Days to first flowering, D50%F = Days 50% flowering, DFFS = Days to 
fruit set, PLH = Plant height, NBPL = Number of branches per plant, NFLC = number flowers/cluster, NFC = number fruits/cluster, NCPL = number of clusters/plant, 
NFPLT = number fruits/plant, R2 = coefficient of determination. 

 
Table-1. (Continued).   

Mean squares 

Source of 
variation 

DF FL FD AFW FYPT PTH FSI pH TSS JV 

Replications 1 0.2069 0.28 715.52 67230 0.0003 0.001 0.009 2.3112 27417 
Block within 

Reps(adj) 
10 0.2777 0.1023 126.41 208112 0.0064 0.021 0.016 0.2849 6109.51 

Genotypes 
          

- Un adjusted 35 2.215 1.07 1672.57 465169 0.014 0.24 0.0188 0.4072 58021 
- Adjusted 35 2.15** 1.16** 1609.99** 468652** 0.014* 0.24** 0.27** 0.42** 55723.4** 

Error 
          

-RCB Design 35 0.2563 0.1237 270.19 2024662 0.0058 0.013 0.01735 0.2204 11853 
-Inter block 25 0.2477 0.132 327.7 42303.7 0.006 0.01 0.0047 0.1946 6917.014 

CV % 
 

7.32 6.722 15.488 10.341 10.53 7.49 1.512 11.372 13.3 
R2 

 
92.85 92.13 88.07 93.84 80 97.34 99.26 79.96 91.98 

Efficiency of 
lattice over 

RCBD 

 
100.36 93.5321 82.4505 103.53 100.6 116.47 98.082 103.86 83.7648 

Note: Where = ** = highly significant at 1%, * = significant at 5%, DF = Degree of freedom, FL = fruit length, FD = fruit diameter, AFW = average fruit weight, FYPLT = 
fruit yield/ plant, PTH = pericarp thickness, FSI = fruit shape index, pH = power of hydrogen, TSS = total soluble solid, JV = juice volume, R2 = coefficient of determination. 

 
 



Agriculture and Food Sciences Research, 2020, 7(1): 22-27 

26 
© 2020 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group 

 

 

High heritability along with high genetic advance as percent of the mean are exhibited by number of fruits per 
plant, number of flowers per cluster, fruit yield per plant, fruit length, fruit diameter, average fruit weight, number 
of fruits per cluster, days to first flowering, plant height, fruit shape index and juice volume; high heritability along 
with moderate genetic advance as percent of the mean are exhibited by days to 50% flowering, days to first fruit set 
and power of hydrogen; and medium heritability along with moderate genetic advance as percent of the mean are 
exhibited by total soluble solid and pericarp thickness. High estimate of heritability may be the result of the diverse 
nature of the genotypes included in the study Shushay, et al. [25]. Sunil, et al. [26] reported that high heritability 
coupled with high genetic advance were noticed for number of fruits per plant, average fruit weight and fruit yield 
per plant in tomato. 
 

Table-2. Estimation of variability for 18 traits of tomato genotypes tested at Melkassa in 2017/2018. 

Traits Range Mean ± Std sg
2 sp

2 se
2 PCV% GCV% H2 GA GAM% 

DFF 40.5 – 17 26.5277±5.62 17.47 23.25 11.56 18.177 15.76 75.15 7.47 28.18 

D50%F 47.5 – 35 40.083±3.86 8.73 11.89 6.32 8.603 7.37 73.42 5.22 13.03 

DFFS 49 – 36 41.833±3.74 5.77 8.02 4.50 6.770 5.74 71.95 4.20 10.05 

PLH 77.6 – 40 50.211±8.78 44.02 58.92 29.80 15.287 13.21 74.71 11.83 23.56 

NBPL 
12.83 – 

5.7 
7.824±1.88 1.09 1.80 1.42 17.148 13.34 60.54 1.68 21.42 

NFLC 6.4 –  3.4 4.469±0.64 0.54 0.60 0.13 17.333 16.44 89.38 1.43 32.07 

NFC 
4.831 –  

2.93 
3.893±0.82 0.27 0.34 0.14 14.978 13.35 79.13 0.95 24.49 

NCPL 23.4 – 11 16.628±3.97 7.69 11.29 7.20 20.207 16.68 68.09 4.72 28.39 

NFPLT 
69.8 – 
28.1 

46.510± 
14.59 

138.42 150.86 24.88 26.408 25.30 91.75 23.25 49.99 

FL 
9.10 – 

4.9 
6.799±1.11 0.93 1.05 0.25 15.071 14.18 88.25 1.87 27.49 

FD 
6.879 –  

3.35 
5.409±0.77 0.47 0.54 0.13 13.586 12.67 87.69 1.32 24.48 

AFW 
193.5–  

65.8 
116.881± 

31.11 
657.42 821.27 327.70 24.519 21.94 80.05 47.33 40.49 

FYPLT 
3086 – 
1407.9 

1988.880± 
574.51 

187942.10 209094.00 42303.70 22.991 21.80 89.88 847.92 42.63 

PTH 
0.849 –  
0.498 

0.71±0.09 0.00571 0.01 0.01 14.085 8.91 57.14 0.10 13.89 

FSI 
2.7082 – 
0.8592 

1.293±0.35 0.11 0.12 0.01 26.791 25.65 95.65 0.67 51.75 

Ph 
4.44 –  
3.995 

4.570±0.13 0.12 0.12 0.00 7.580 7.58 98.08 0.71 15.49 

TSS 5 – 2.6 3.879±0.58 0.12 0.22 0.19 12.092 8.93 55.22 0.53 13.69 

JV 
1030 – 

265 
618.681± 

186.63 
21885.00 25343.55 6917.01 25.732 23.91 86.35 283.60 45.84 

Note: Where, Std = Standard Deviation, DFF = Days to first flowering, D50%F = Days to 50%flowering, DFS = Days to fruit set, PLH = Plant height, NBPL = Number of 
branches per plant, NFLC = number flowers/cluster, NFC = number fruits/cluster, NCPL = number of clusters/plant, NFPLT = number fruits/plant, FL = fruit length, FD 
= fruit diameter, AFW = average fruit weight, FYPLT = fruit yield/ plant, PTH = pericarp thickness, FSI = fruit shape index, pH = power of hydrogen, TSS = total soluble 
solid, JV= juice volume. 

 

5. Conclusion 
The present investigations revealed the presence of good variability among genotypes with respect to different 

traits considered. Thus there is an opportunity to improve tomato through direct selection or hybridization that 
involves crossing of different genotypes. 
 

References  
[1] V. Bergougnoux, "The history of tomato: From domestication to biopharming," Biotechnology Advances, vol. 32, pp. 170-189, 

2014.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2013.11.003. 
[2] J. Haji, "Economic efficiency and Marketing performance of vegetable production in the Eastern and central parts of Ethiopia," 

Ph.D Dessertation, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 2008. 
[3] D. Lemma, "Agronomic studies on tomato and capsicum. Vitamin C content of horticultural crops," Post-Harvest Biology and 

Technology, vol. 20, pp. 207- 220, 2002. 
[4] J. Dudley and R. Moll, "Interpretation and use of estimates of heritability and genetic variances in plant breeding 1," Crop Science, 

vol. 9, pp. 257-262, 1969.Available at: https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1969.0011183x000900030001x. 
[5] B. D. Singh, Plant breeding: Principles and methods. Ludhiana, New Delhi: Kalyani Publishers, 1993. 
[6] N. V. Bhardwaj and M. K. Sharma, "Genetic parameters and character association in tomato," Bangladesh Journal of Agricultural 

Research, vol. 30, pp. 49-56, 2005. 
[7] T. Mesfine, G. Abebe, and A.-R. M. Al-Tawaha, "Effect of reduced tillage and crop residue ground cover on yield and water use 

efficiency of sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench) under semi-arid conditions of Ethiopia," World Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 
vol. 1, pp. 152-160, 2005. 

[8] K. A. Gomez and A. A. Gomez, Statistical procedures for agricultural research, 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1984. 
[9] SAS Institute Inc, Statistical analysis software version 9.2. Cary, NC, USA: SAS Institute Inc, 2008. 
[10] P. K. Singh and R. D. Choudhary, Biometrical methods in quantitative genetic analysis. New Delhi: Kalyani Publishers, 1977. 
[11] D. S. Falconer and T. F. C. Mackay, Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. Introduction to quantitative genetics, 4th ed. Harlow, Essex, UK: 

Addison Wesley Longman, 1996. 
[12] B. D. Singh, Plant breeding: Principles and methods, 6th ed. New Delhi, India: Kalyani Publishers, 2001. 
[13] R. W. Allard, Principles of plant breeding. New York: John Willey and Sons. Inc, 1960. 
[14] H. W. Johnson, H. Robinson, and R. Comstock, "Estimates of genetic and environmental variability in soybeans 1," Agronomy 

Journal, vol. 47, pp. 314-318, 1955.Available at: https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1955.00021962004700070009x. 
[15] G. W. Burton and d. E. Devane, "Estimating heritability in tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea) from replicated clonal material 1," 

Agronomy Journal, vol. 45, pp. 478-481, 1953.Available at: https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1953.00021962004500100005x. 
[16] S. Sivasubramanian and N. Menon, "Heterosis and inbreeding depression in rice," Madras Agricultural Journal, vol. 60, pp. 1139-

1144, 1973. 



Agriculture and Food Sciences Research, 2020, 7(1): 22-27 

27 
© 2020 by the authors; licensee Asian Online Journal Publishing Group 

 

 

[17] B. Asati, N. Rai, and A. Singh, "Genetic parameters study for yield and quality traits in tomato," Asian Journal of Horticulture, vol. 3, 
pp. 222-225, 2008. 

[18] F. Aysh, H. Kutma, and A. A. Zouabi, "Genetic variation, heritability and interrelationships of some important characteristics in 
Syrian tomato landraces (Solanum lycopersicum L.)," Academia Arena, vol. 4, pp. 1-5, 2012. 

[19] O. P. Meena and V. Bahadur, "Genetic association analysis for fruit yield and its contributing traits of indeterminate tomato 
(Solanum lycopersicum L.) germplasm under open field condition," Journal of Agricultural Science, vol. 7, pp. 148-163, 
2015.Available at: https://doi.org/10.5539/jas.v7n3p148. 

[20] A. Shankar, R. Reddy, M. Sujatha, and M. Pratap, "Genetic variability studies in F1 generation of tomato (Solanum lycopersicon 
L.)," IOSR Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Science, vol. 4, pp. 31-34, 2013.Available at: https://doi.org/10.9790/2380-0453134. 

[21] A. Haydar, M. Mandal, M. Ahmed, M. Hannan, R. Karim, M. Razvy, U. Roy, and M. Salahin, "Studies on genetic variability and 
interrelationship among the different traits in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.)," Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 
vol. 2, pp. 139-142, 2007. 

[22] N. Singh, C. Ram, C. Deo, G. Yadav, and D. P. Singh, "Genetic variability, heritability and genetic advance in tomato (Solanum 
lycopersicum L.)," Plant Archives, vol. 15, pp. 705-709, 2015. 

[23] S. Kumar, V. Vijayakumar Rathod, J. Bommesh, S. Vijeth, and K. Muthaiah, "Genetic variability in tomato (Solanum Lycopersicum 
L.)," Journal Environment Biological Science, vol. 30, pp. 47-51, 2016. 

[24] J. P. Sharma, A. K. Singh, and S. Kumar, "Identification of traits for ideotype selection in tomato (Lycopercon esculentum Mill.)," 
Mysore Journal of Agricultural Science, vol. 43, pp. 222-226, 2009. 

[25] C. Shushay, B. Derbew, and A. Fetien, "Performance evaluation and path analysis studies in tomato (Solanum lycopersicon L) 
genotpes under Humera, Northern Ethiopia condition," World Journal of Agricultural Research, vol. 2, pp. 267-271, 2014a. 

[26] M. K. Sunil, V. Rathod, J. C. Bommesh, S. Vijeth, and K. K. Muthaiah, "Genetic variability in tomato (Solanum Lycopersicum L.)," 
Journal of Environmental Biology-Science, vol. 30, pp. 47-51, 2016. 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

Asian Online Journal Publishing Group is not responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability, etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content. 
Any queries should be directed to the corresponding author of the article. 
 


