ORIGINAL ARTICLE Genetic Resources (2020), 1 (2), 1–11 DOI: 10.46265/genresj.BJCV8100 https://www.genresj.org ISSN: 2708-3764 Assessment of wild tomato accessions for fruit yield, physicochemical and nutritional properties under a rain forest agro-ecology Dorcas O. Ibitoye a, Adesike O. Kolawole *,b and Roseline T. Feyisola c a Genetic Resources Unit, National Horticultural Research Institute, PMB 5432, Ibadan, Nigeria b Department of Crop Production and Soil Science, Ladoke Akintola University of Technology, PMB 4000, Ogbomoso, Nigeria c Department of Plant Science, Olabisi Onabanjo University, Ago-Iwoye, Nigeria Abstract: Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) is a broadly consumed fruit vegetable globally. It is one of the research mandate vegetable of the National Horticultural Research Institute (NIHORT), Ibadan, Nigeria. The institute’s genebank contains diverse collections of tomato accessions and wild relatives, without utilization information for the African continent. With the decline in diversity and potential of cultivars, a robust tomato breeding pipeline with broad genetic base that eliminates redundancy in the development of lines with desired horticultural traits is paramount. This study evaluated the mean performance and variations of thirteen wild tomato accessions obtained from the C.M. Rick Tomato Genetic Resource Center, University of California, Davis, USA, evaluated for agronomic, nutritional and physicochemical traits under a rain forest agro-ecology zone in Nigeria. The accessions were planted and grown in three replications with randomized complete block design. Agronomic traits, physicochemical and nutritional parameters were measured and analyzed. There was significant (P < 0.001) variation among accessions for all traits measured. Accession LA0130 was separated from others by cluster analysis and was outstanding for its unique attributes which include: fruit yield parameters, total soluble solids, titratable acidity and lycopene content. The principal component analysis suggests fruit yield related traits, titratable acidity and lycopene contributed most to the variation among the 13 accessions. The results obtained can be used to breed materials adapted to a rain forest agro-ecology. These wild tomato accessions have genes with desirable agronomic, nutritional and physicochemical traits that could be introgressed into breeding lines to improve commercial tomato varieties. Keywords: agronomic traits, breeding programme, fruit quality, variation, wild relatives Citation: Ibitoye, D. O., Kolawole, A. O., Feyisola, R. T. (2020). Assessment of wild tomato accessions for fruit yield, physicochemical and nutritional properties under a rain forest agro-ecology. Genetic Resources 1 (2), 1–11. doi: 10.46265/genresj.BJCV8100. © Copyright 2020 the Authors. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Introduction Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L. formerly Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) is one of the most famous and broadly consumed vegetable crops throughout the world (Nowicki et al, 2013; Ajayi and Hassan, 2019). Nigeria was ranked the largest producer of tomato in West Africa and the 16th largest producer in the World with 4.2 million metric tonnes FAO (2016). ∗Corresponding author: Adesike O. Kolawole (aokolawole@lautech.edu.ng) These data suggest prospects for Nigeria tomato breeding programmes to enhance production efficiency by improving the quantity and quality of tomato fruit. However, extensive breeding efforts and selection over the years have modified tomato (Blanca et al, 2015). The decline in diversity and potential of cultivated germplasm has been reported (Jatoi et al, 2008; Chen et al, 2009). To enlarge the gene pool of cultivars, breeders now focus on introgression of desirable genes from wild relatives (Singh, 2006) . Wild tomato species have a rich reservoir of use- ful genetic traits needed to improve cultivated toma- Received: 05.05.2020 Accepted: 09.09.2020 Published online: 21.12.2020 https://www.genresj.org https://www.dx.doi.org/10.46265/genresj.BJCV8100 https://www.genresj.org https://www.dx.doi.org/10.46265/genresj.BJCV8100 mailto:aokolawole@lautech.edu.ng 2 Ibitoye et al Genetic Resources (2020), 1 (2), 1–11 toes and serve as sources of genetic variability (Han- son et al, 2007). Miller and Tanksley (1990) reported that the genomes of cultivated tomato contain 5 % of the genetic variation of their wild relatives. These wild tomato species are native to western South America and distributed from central Ecuador, through Peru to north- ern Chile, and in the Galápagos Islands (Darwin et al, 2003). There are 16 wild species of tomato, namely Solanum habrochaites, S. pennellii, S. pimpinellifolium, S. cheesmaniae, S. galapagense, S. peruvianum, S. cor- neliomulleri, S. chilense, S. chmielewskii, S. arcanum, S. neorickii, S. huaylasense, S. lycopersicoides, S. ochran- thum, S. jugandifolium, and S. sitiens (Rick and Fobes, 1975; Peralta et al, 2008; Zuriaga et al, 2009). The clos- est wild ancestor to cultivated tomato is S. pimpinelli- folium L. found in the centre of origin of tomato from the northern part of Chile to Colombia. Most of these wild relatives are vulnerable to extinction because of their small population sizes (Bai and Lindhout, 2007; Onyia et al, 2019). Therefore, wild tomato accessions stored in genebanks need to be evaluated in time and space in order to identify significant traits and valuable potential. Documented information about the performance of wild tomato accessions will aid future use in tomato breeding programmes. Currently, the breeding programme at the National Horticultural Research Institute (NIHORT), Ibadan, Nigeria has made diverse collections of landraces, cultivars and wild tomato accessions. Only the landraces and cultivars have been extensively studied for their agronomic performance and resistance to abiotic and biotic stresses (Olaniyi et al, 2010; Nnabude et al, 2015). However, the wild accessions obtained from the C.M. Rick Tomato Genetic Resource centre, University of California, Davis, USA have not been studied for the identification of useful agronomical traits, nutritional and physicochemical parameters in Nigeria. In addition to fruit yield and improved agronomical traits, the fruit quality and nutritional parameters are essential breeding objectives from a consumer’s point of view and even in the processing industries (Bauchet and Causse, 2012; Bergougnoux, 2014). Fruit qual- ity and physicochemical parameters are cultivar depen- dent (Riahi et al, 2009; Ilahy et al, 2011; Domı́nguez et al, 2012). Fertilization, cultural practices and post- harvest storage could influence fruit quality and physic- ochemical parameters (Rosales et al, 2011; Beckles, 2012). Production of quality tomato fruits depends on the climatic conditions, sunlight availability, good agro- nomic practices and genetic variability among culti- vars (Causse et al, 2003; Peixoto et al, 2018). In order to identify, select and develop novel tomato lines with desired horticultural traits for a Nigerian breeding programme, it is crucial to evaluate tomato accessions which are wild to the Nigerian germplasm. These could then be subjected to diverse breeding methodologies and agronomic practices (Chitarra and Chitarra, 2005). Knowledge of desirable traits from the evaluated tomato accessions will help to identify those that could be used as parents in a tomato breeding programme, hence, promoting improved nutrition and increased production (Causse et al, 2003; Álvaro Toledo and Burlingame, 2006). This study evaluated mean performance and variation among wild tomato accessions based on agronomic, nutritional and physicochemical traits under rainforest agro-ecology in Nigeria. Materials and Methods Germplasm The accessions evaluated in this study are from the C.M. Rick Tomato Genetic Resource Centre (TGRC), University of California, Davis, USA (Table 1). They are part of the tomato wild relatives core collection of the NIHORT germplasm bank without previous utilization information that could be included in breeding programmes. Nursery and field operations Seeds were sown into perforated nursery trays filled with sterilized soil and grown for three weeks in a greenhouse at NIHORT, Ibadan, Oyo State (Rain forest zone; 3◦ 56’E, 7◦ 33’ N; 168 meters above sea level). The perforated nursery trays were kept moist by regular watering on daily basis at sunrise and sunset with tap water using a watering can. Seedlings were transplanted to the field in paired rows in plots that were 2 m long with spacing of 0.5 m between rows and 0.5 m between plants within a row. Spacing between plots was 1 m. Seedlings were arranged in a randomized complete block design with three replications. N-P-K (15-15-15) fertilizer was applied at the rate of 120 kg/ha three weeks after transplanting. The plants were trellised to prevent lodging and loss of fruits due to diseases and pests. Manual weeding was carried out at two-week intervals. To protect the leaves from defoliating pests, plants were sprayed with the pyrethroid insecticide Cymbush containing cypermethrin at 2, 6, and 9 weeks after transplanting at the rate of 450 ml of active ingredients per 100 liters of water per hectare using a knapsack sprayer. No disease infestation was observed during the experiment and data were collected on five randomly selected plants per plot. Sample preparation Uniformly ripe, healthy fruit at the red-ripe stage were harvested (Hanson et al, 2004). A total of 10- 15 representative fruit were collected from pre-tagged plants (from the first 3 clusters) to minimise intra-plant variability (Borja et al, 1998). Tomato samples (100 g) were homogenized in 50 mL of water in a water bath at 4◦C and low light (to reduce antioxidant loss) for physicochemical analysis. All analyses were done in triplicate for each sample at the Product Development Laboratory of NIHORT. Genetic Resources (2020), 1 (2), 1–11 Performance of wild tomato accessions in Nigeria 3 Table 1. Description of the 13 species of wild tomato accessions used for the experiment No. Accession ID Species Origin (Area of collection) 1 LA0103 Solanum peruvianum (L.) Miller Cajamarquilla Lima, Peru 2 LA0130 Solanum chilense Dunal Moquegua, Peru 3 LA0411 Solanum pimpinellifolium (L.) Miller. Pichilingue, Los Rios, Ecuador 4 LA1028 Solanum chmielewskii (C.M. Rick et al.) Casinchichua, Apurimac, Peru 5 LA1041 Solanum cheesmanii L. Riley Santa Cruz, El Cascajo, Galapagos Islands, Ecuador 6 LA1136 Solanum cheesmanii L. Riley Gardner st, Floreana Islet, Galapagos Islands, Ecuador 7 LA1208 Solanum esculentum var. cerasiforme Dunal Sierra Nevada, Colombia 8 LA1272 Solanum pennellii (Correll) D’Arcy Pesquera, Lima, Peru 9 LA1293 Solanum peruvianum f. glandulosum (C.F. Mull) Matucana, Lima, Peru 10 LA2641 Solanum parviflorum (C.M. Rick et al.) Apurimac, Peru 11 LA4113 Solanum sitiens I.M. Johnst. Estación Ceres, Antofagasta Chile 12 LA4115 Solanum sitiens I.M. Johnst. Quebrada Desde Cerro, Oeste De Paqui, Antofagasta, Chile 13 LA4138 Solanum pimpinellifolium (L.) Miller El Corregidor, La Molina, Lima, Peru Physicochemical and nutritional analyses Total soluble solid (◦Brix) (g 100 g−1) of the juice was measured using the Eclipse hand-held refractometer [PN# 45-01 (0-15 ◦Brix)] and the pH of the fruit juice was measured using a benchtop pH meter (Sper scientific benchtop) with the pH meter calibrated with standard buffers pH 4 or 9. For determination of titratable acidity (g 100 g−1) and vitamin C content (mg 100 g−1), 10 mL of juice from 10 fruits was diluted in 100 mL of distilled water and titrated with NaOH (0.1 N) to pH 8.2. For vitamin C, the solution was titrated with iodine (0.1 N) until a colour change was observed (International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, 1996) . To determine lycopene content (mg 100 g−1), 5 mL of acetone-n-hexane mixture in the ratio 4:6 was added to 0.8 g of tomato pulp for each sample and mixed well. The mix was centrifuged at 5000 rpm for 5 min at 4◦C; the supernatant was extracted and absorbance measured with a spectrophotometer (model 6400, Jenway) at 503 nm using the acetone-n-hexane mix as blank (Rosales et al, 2006). Lycopene content was calculated using an extinction coefficient (E%) of 3150. Agronomic data collection Data were collected on the following traits: number of leaves at maturity (NLM), plant height at maturity (PH), number of clusters per plant (NCP), number of fruits per cluster (NFC), fruit weight (FW), fruit length (FL), fruit circumference (FC), number of fruits per plant (NFP) and fruit size index (FSI). Fruit yield of tomato was adjusted to t ha−1using the following formula: Fruit yield (t ha−1) = fruit yield per plot (kg) x 10,000 / plot area (m2) x 1,000. Statistical analysis The data was subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) using PROC GLM in SAS (SAS Institute, 2010) . Means were separated using Fisher’s least significant difference (LSD) test (P < 0.05). A rank summation index (RSI) (Mulumba and Mock, 1978) was constructed to create the aggregate trait by ranking accessions with regard to high fruit weight, fruit yield, improved agronomics, nutritional and physicochemical traits. Ranks were summed for each accession to select the top five. Pearson’s correlation analysis was done to determine associations among all traits measured with SAS. Hierarchical cluster analysis was performed using SAS PROC CLUSTER based on centroid distance and a dendrogram constructed by PROC TREE in SAS to identify divergent groups. To identify patterns of morphological variation, principal component analysis (PCA) was conducted. Those PCs with Eigen values >1 were selected (Jeffers, 1967). The PCA analysis reduces dimensions of a multivariate data to a few principal axes, generates an Eigen vector for each axis and produces component scores for characters (Sneath and Sokal, 1973). Results The ANOVA produced significant mean squares for all agronomic, nutritional and physicochemical traits of the tomato accessions indicating genetic variations for all measured traits (Table 2). The coefficient of variation (CV) used to measure the precision of the experiment indicated the data was reliable (Table 2). Phenotypic variation in the biological growth stages of tomato accessions revealed that LA4113 was tallest and LA2641 shortest (Table 3). The most fruits per cluster were observed for accession LA0103 and least for LA1041. The most fruits per plant were observed for accession LA0411, the least for LA4138. For fruit yield related 4 Ibitoye et al Genetic Resources (2020), 1 (2), 1–11 Table 2. Mean squares from analysis of variance of agronomic, nutritional andphysicochemical traits of wild tomato accessions Source df NLM PH (cm) NCP NFC FW (g) Fruit yield (t/ha) FL (cm) FC (cm Replication 2 752.03 65.89 4.58 31.57∗∗ 57571.79∗∗ 1.44∗∗ 0.19∗ 0.15 Accessions 12 3254.65∗∗∗ 148.54∗∗∗ 31.89∗∗ 28.52∗∗∗ 24458.12∗ 0.61∗ 0.37∗∗∗ 0.65∗∗∗ Error 24 408.16 37.18 10.53 4.80 11010.68 0.28 0.05 0.11 CV 17.77 13.67 33.11 29.22 68.32 68.32 13.20 19.79 Source df NFP FSI VIT C (mg/100 g) TSS (oBrix) (g/100 g) TA (g/100g) Fruit juice pH Lycopene (mg/100 g) Replication 2 1381.87 0.02 2.3 0.0004 0.0003 0.003 0.51 Accessions 12 4605.24∗∗∗ 0.08∗∗∗ 147.40∗∗∗ 0.51∗∗∗ 0.17∗∗∗ 0.08∗∗∗ 106.12∗∗∗ Error 24 841.79 0.02 2.54 0.03 0.002 0.002 0.31 CV 42.25 12.37 4.94 4.14 4.74 0.95 2.38 *, **, *** Significant at 0.05, 0.01 and 0.001 probability levels, respectively. CV = Coefficient of variation, NLM = Number of leaves at maturity, PH = Plant height at maturity, NCP = Number of cluster per plant, NFC = Number of fruits per cluster, FW = Fruit weight, FL = Fruit length, FC = Fruit circumference, NFP = Number of fruits per plant, FSI = Fruit size index, VIT C = Vitamin C, TSS = Total soluble solids, TA = Titratable acidity. traits, tomato accession LA0130 had the heaviest fruit and most fruit yield, LA1293 had the lowest fruit weight and least fruit yield. Accession LA0411 had the highest concentration of vitamin C. LA1028 had the highest levels of total soluble solids while accessions LA4113, LA4138, LA1041 had the lowest levels. Accessions LA1208 and LA4133 had the lowest titratable acidity, LA2641, LA1293 and LA0130 had the lowest fruit juice pH. Lycopene content was highest in tomato accession LA0130 and lowest in LA1208 (Table 3). Based on a rank summation index (RSI) of 13 accessions, LA0130 was identified as best performing among all tested accessions, with the best fruit yield performance, desirable agronomic, nutritional and physicochemical traits. Tomato accession LA0130 was characterized by moderate plant height, highest number of fruits per cluster, fruit weight and fruit yield (Table 3). Accession LA0130 also had the highest titratable acidity and lycopene content, but moderate fruit juice pH (Table 4). Pearson’s correlation coefficient was calculated to determine associations among traits and showed vari- ation for some trait combinations (Table 5). Fruit yield was significantly positively correlated with fruit weight coupled with a significant negative correlation with number of leaves at maturity. Fruit size index was sig- nificantly negatively correlated with fruit circumference and significantly positively correlated with vitamin C content. Total soluble solid was significantly positively correlated with number of leaves at maturity and vita- min C content. Titratable acidity was significantly pos- itively correlated with number of fruit per plants and total soluble solid. Fruit juice pH was significantly neg- atively correlated with number of fruit per plant, total soluble solid and titratable acidity. Lycopene content was positively significantly correlated with vitamin C content and titratable acidity. All agronomic traits, nutritional and physicochemi- cal parameters measured which showed significant vari- ations were adopted to construct a hierarchical clus- ter based on the centroid distances among the 13 tomato accessions as in Figure 1. Cluster analysis differentiated the accessions into 4 distinct groups, where LA0130 dif- fered from the other three groups. Cluster I consisted of five accessions, cluster II had four accessions, and clusters III and cluster IV had three and one accessions, respectively indicating variation among the accessions. Additionally, contribution of each measured trait to the total variation within the accession was further determined through Principal Component Analysis (PCA) based on correlation matrix of the variables. The Scree plot of the PCA indicated six eigenvalues corresponding to the entire percent variance with eigenvalues >1. PCA1 accounted for about 22 % of variation, PCA2 for 19 %, PCA3 for 15 %, PCA4 for 11 %, PCA5 for 10 % and PCA6 for 6 % (Table 6). The first principal component axis (PCA1) was mainly loaded positively by fruit yield, fruit yield related traits and titratable acidity. In PCA2 traits which had positive contribution were number of leaves at maturity, plant height at maturity, titratable acidity and lycopene. Fruit length, fruit circumference, total soluble solids and lycopene had positive contributions in PCA3. In PCA4 plant height at maturity, number of clusters per plant, fruit weight, fruit yield and fruit juice pH had positive contributions were. In PCA5 number of clusters per plant, number of fruits per cluster, fruit length, fruit circumference and total soluble solids had positive contributions. In PCA6 traits which had positive contributions were fruit length, fruit size index and Vitamin C content. Discussion Significant phenotypic variations among the accessions for all agronomic, nutritional and physicochemical traits validate availability of genetic diversity in the collection from the C.M. Rick Tomato Genetics Genetic Resources (2020), 1 (2), 1–11 Performance of wild tomato accessions in Nigeria 5 Table 3. Mean ranking of agronomic traits of wild tomato accessions evaluated under the rainforest agro-ecology zone in Nigeria S/N Accession PH (cm) NFC NFP FW (g) Fruit yield (t/ha) NLM NCP FL (cm) FC (cm) FSI RSI 1 LA0130 44.14 11.72 95.42 380.00 1.90 99.67 9.72 2.30 2.05 1.15 30 2 LA0411 52.97 8.64 143.78 113.33 0.57 137.67 9.78 1.22 1.17 1.05 51 3 LA1136 45.22 8.50 79.33 236.67 1.18 109.67 8.44 1.33 1.20 1.13 63 4 LA2641 29.64 10.94 106.72 140.00 0.70 96.00 7.28 1.67 1.40 1.19 65 5 LA0103 48.39 10.20 86.23 143.33 0.72 108.00 18.39 1.85 1.90 0.98 67 6 LA1272 35.96 9.39 94.50 156.67 0.78 107.00 7.73 1.60 1.90 0.86 69 7 LA1208 39.74 4.28 28.95 220.00 1.10 49.00 8.55 1.50 2.27 0.67 71 8 LA1028 46.29 5.67 28.83 93.33 0.47 171.67 8.89 2.35 2.79 0.84 79 9 LA1293 50.92 6.34 95.72 40.00 0.20 145.00 10.11 1.38 1.45 0.99 80 10 LA4115 44.96 3.95 27.94 200.00 1.00 138.33 9.39 1.58 1.67 0.95 83 11 LA4138 40.85 3.67 20.72 90.00 0.45 138.33 7.16 1.78 1.37 1.31 83 12 LA1041 44.91 3.33 30.50 130.00 0.65 68.00 7.17 1.71 1.69 1.02 84 13 LA4113 56.00 10.89 53.98 53.33 0.27 110.00 14.78 1.32 1.40 0.95 85 Minimum 17.92 2.67 11.25 10.00 0.05 34.00 5.83 1.20 1.00 0.66 Maximum 62.08 15.83 205.83 500.00 2.50 176.00 29.17 2.41 2.90 1.46 Mean of Top 5 44.07 10.00 102.30 202.67 1.01 110.20 10.72 1.67 1.54 1.10 Grand mean 44.61 7.50 68.66 153.59 0.77 113.72 9.80 1.66 1.71 1.01 Sel. Differential (%) -1.22 33.32 48.98 31.95 31.95 -3.09 9.41 0.78 -9.83 9.40 LSD (5 %) 10.28 3.69 48.89 176.83 0.88 34.05 5.47 0.37 0.57 0.21 PH = Plant height at maturity, NFC = Number of fruits per cluster, NFP = Number of fruits per plant, FW = Fruit weight, NLM = Number of leaves at maturity NCP = Number of cluster per plant, FL = Fruit length, FC = Fruit circumference, FSI = Fruit size index. RSI = Rank Summation Index. Sel. Differential = Selection differential is estimated as a proportion (%) of mean of all accessions Table 4. Ranking of the mean performance of nutritional and physicochemical parameters of wild tomato accessions evaluated under the rainforest agro-ecology zone in Nigeria S/N Accession Vit C (mg/100 g) TSS (oBrix) TA (g/100 g) Fruit juice pH Lycopene (mg/100 g) RSI 1 LA0130 42.46 4.50 1.38 4.85 32.54 30 2 LA0411 46.28 4.50 1.26 4.9 31.02 51 3 LA1136 29.21 3.75 0.76 5.3 24.42 63 4 LA2641 32.07 3.88 0.98 4.8 15.11 65 5 LA0103 33.63 3.75 0.74 5.15 21.57 67 6 LA1272 21.02 3.75 0.95 5.00 16.13 69 7 LA1208 26.01 4.00 0.63 5.30 13.43 71 8 LA1028 34.56 4.85 0.82 5.05 22.16 79 9 LA1293 25.53 4.50 1.31 4.85 26.16 80 10 LA4115 25.38 3.75 1.02 5.10 27.65 83 11 LA4138 40.21 3.50 0.70 5.05 26.51 83 12 LA1041 31.38 3.50 0.85 5.30 31.24 84 13 LA4113 30.64 3.50 0.69 5.15 18.63 85 Minimum 20.90 3.25 0.6 4.80 12.64 Maximum 46.29 5.20 1.39 5.30 32.81 Mean of Top 5 36.73 4.08 1.02 5.00 24.93 Grand mean 32.18 3.98 0.93 5.06 23.58 Sel. Differential (%) 14.13 2.42 10.01 -1.22 5.73 LSD (5 %) 2.95 0.31 0.08 0.09 1.04 VIT C = Vitamin C, TSS = Total soluble solids, TA = Titratable acidity. RSI = Rank Summation Index. Sel. Differential = Selection differential is estimated as a proportion (%) of mean of all accessions 6 Ibitoye et al Genetic Resources (2020), 1 (2), 1–11 Table 5. Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) of agronomic, nutritional and physicochemical traits of wild tomato accessions evaluated under a rainforest agro-ecology in Nigeria NLM FW (g) Fruit yield (t/ha) FC (cm) NFP FSI VIT C (mg/100 g) TSS (oBrix) TA (g/100 g) pH FW -0.32∗ Fruit yield -0.32∗ 1.00∗∗∗ FC 0.03 0.01 0.01 NFP -0.05 0.18 0.18 -0.34∗ FSI 0.18 0.05 0.05 -0.60∗∗∗ 0.18 VIT C 0.19 0.08 0.08 -0.07 0.22 0.40∗ TSS 0.37∗ 0.08 0.08 0.30 0.30 -0.10 0.38∗ TA 0.24 0.15 0.15 -0.08 0.50∗∗∗ 0.18 0.32 0.66∗∗∗ pH -0.35∗ 0.04 0.04 0.03 -0.49∗∗∗ -0.21 -0.31 -0.51∗∗∗ -0.76∗∗∗ Lycopene 0.27 0.15 0.15 -0.14 0.10 0.35∗ 0.58∗∗∗ 0.32∗ 0.57∗∗∗ -0.14 *, *** Significant at 0.05 and 0.001 probability levels, respectively. NLM = Number of leaves at maturity, FW = Fruit weight, FC = Fruit circumference, NFP = Number of fruits per plant, FSI = Fruit size index, VIT C = Vitamin C, TSS = Total soluble solids, TA = Titratable acidity, pH = Fruit juice pH. Table 6. Eigenvalue, proportion of variability and estimated traits of wild tomato accessions contributing to first six principal components Traits PC1 PC2 PC3 PC4 PC5 PC6 NLM -0.08 0.31 0.20 -0.04 0.00 -0.07 PH (cm) -0.16 0.34 0.06 0.32 -0.07 -0.20 NCP -0.08 0.18 -0.12 0.48 0.21 0.13 NFC 0.29 0.07 -0.28 0.12 0.24 0.15 FW (g) 0.37 -0.26 0.06 0.27 -0.06 -0.08 Fruit yield (t/ha) 0.37 -0.2 0.06 0.27 -0.06 -0.08 FL (cm) 0.03 -0.05 0.41 0.07 0.30 0.51 FC (cm) -0.09 -0.13 0.32 0.09 0.54 0.09 NFP 0.32 0.22 -0.21 -0.05 0.06 -0.08 FSI 0.14 0.11 0.03 -0.10 -0.48 0.53 VIT C (mg/100 g) 0.16 0.25 0.22 0.16 -0.16 0.33 TSS (oBrix) 0.19 0.21 0.31 -0.11 0.24 -0.29 TA (g/100 g) 0.30 0.26 0.20 -0.18 0.02 -0.24 Fruit juice pH -0.24 -0.27 -0.10 0.29 -0.17 -0.08 Lycopene (mg/100 g) 0.13 0.19 0.34 0.12 -0.34 -0.11 Eigenvalue 4.15 3.68 2.82 2.12 1.98 1.08 Proportion (%) 22 19 15 11 10 6 Cumulative (%) 21 41 56 67 78 83 NLM = Number of leaves at maturity, PH = Plant height at maturity, NCP = Number of cluster per plant, NFC = Number of fruits per cluster, FW = Fruit weight, FL = Fruit length, FC = Fruit circumference, NFP = Number of fruits per plant, FSI = Fruit size index, VIT C = Vitamin C, TSS = Total soluble solids, TA = Titratable acidity. Genetic Resources (2020), 1 (2), 1–11 Performance of wild tomato accessions in Nigeria 7 Figure 1. Dendrogram of 13 wild tomato accessions based ona- gronomic traits, nutritional and physicochemical parameters generated by centroid hierarchical cluster analysis Resource Center (Chetelat, 2004, 2006). Previous research reported significant variations for agronomic traits for cultivated tomato varieties grown in various environments in Africa (Chernet and Zibelo, 2014; Shiberu, 2016; Regassa et al, 2016). This study indicates a wealth of genetic variability for fruit quality traits of wild tomato accessions. Accessions LA0411 and LA2641 had the highest number of fruit per plant which could be ascribed to genetic variation in flower abortion (Kanneh et al, 2017). Numbers of fruit per plant from this study were higher than the values reported by Ceballos- Aguirre and Vallejo-Cabrera (2012), but similar with the report of Agong et al (2001). The mean performances for fruits per cluster and fruit weight in our study were higher than the results presented by Ceballos- Aguirre and Vallejo-Cabrera (2012) who worked on wild tomato accessions from the Tomato Genetics Resources Center (TGRC), University of California- Davis. Disparities in the results from this study may be due to difference in the accessions evaluated, number of days before transplanting, agronomic practices used, and the environment. Important quality traits that determine flavor, shelf life and market-related attributes of tomato are total soluble solids, fruit juice pH, titratable acidity, lycopene and Vitamin C content. The quality of tomato fruit for industrial processing and paste production depends on a high value of total soluble solids. Total soluble solids recorded in this present study ranged from 3 to 5 ºBrix which is comparable to the minimum value of total soluble solids (4.5 ºBrix) reported by Campos et al (2006) but considered low for industrial tomatoes. Previous studies have reported a range from 4 to 6 ºBrix for total soluble solids of tomato fruits (Alcántar et al, 1999; Cramer et al, 2001; Pascale et al, 2001). High total soluble solid increases tomato paste efficiency and must be between 5.0 and 6.5 % in industrial tomatoes (Teka, 2013). The range of 4.80 – 5.30 for tomato fruit juice pH reported in this study is considerably high. Tomato fruit juice pH values can vary from 4.25 to 4.78 and fruits with high pH values may not be recommended for fresh tomato consumption or industrial processing (Paulson and Stevens, 1974; Anthon et al, 2011; Rajae et al, 2018). A pH below 4.50 is desirable because it reduces proliferation of microorganisms and indicates quality (Mohammed et al, 1999; Tigist et al, 2013). However, the pH of ripe tomatoes may exceed 4.50 because a higher pH value is associated with flavor (Stevens, 1972). Titratable acidity in this study was higher than previously reported (George et al, 2004; Tigist et al, 2013; Rajae et al, 2018). Tomatoes are considered the main source of lycopene compounds and a major source of carotenoids in the human diet (Willcox et al, 2003). Lycopene imparts the red color to tomato and affects quality. The range for lycopene content reported in the literature is between 0.58-6.50 mg 100 g−1 (Rickman et al, 2007; Saha et al, 2010), which is lower than reported in this study. The Vitamin C concentrations reported in this study for all accessions were higher than reported by Aoun et al (2013), but consistent with the range reported by Franke et al (2004) and Saha et al (2010). Our results show that wild tomato accessions contain significant antioxidants and may be useful for nutritional improvement in tomato breeding programmes (Tigchelaar, 1986) . All fruit quality and nutritional traits measured in this study reveal the value of the wild tomato accession as a source of useful alleles and their utilization as interesting donor parents in cultivar development. Selection of the top outstanding five accessions with RSI may be useful as donor parent through intra and interspecific hybridization (Ghani et al, 2020) and may result in a significant increase in tomato fruit weight and fruit yield. This gain in fruit weight and yield could also be associated with improvement in number of fruits per cluster, number of fruits per plant, titratable acidity, lycopene content and fruit juice pH. To improve breeding efficiency and selection indices in crop improvement, knowledge about correlation among traits is essential (Nzuve et al, 2014). Results from Pearson’s correlation coefficients indicate that as tomato fruit yield increases, number of leaves at maturity decreases significantly. Selection based on fruit weight and reduction in number of leaves at maturity could lead to tomato fruit yield improvement. There were significant negative correlations between fruit juice pH and titratable acidity. This implies that increased fruit juice pH was accompanied by a decrease in titratable acidity and acid concentrations and is associated with maturity (Teka, 2013). Significant positive correlations between total soluble solids and titratable acidity in this study corroborate findings of Aoun et al (2013), and also indicated that plants with high sugar content have more free organic acids than plants with low sugar content (Saliba-Colombani et al, 2001; Georgelis, 2002; Getinet et al, 2008). With positive correlations, genes controlling these traits could be linked to, or be under control of, pleiotropic effects (Boćanski et al, 2009). Positive and/or negative desirable relationships among 8 Ibitoye et al Genetic Resources (2020), 1 (2), 1–11 some agronomic, nutritional and physicochemical traits indicate that desirable genes in these wild accessions could be exploited in further breeding activities for cultivar improvement (Sujiprihati et al, 2003). Furthermore, the wild tomato accessions were arranged in 4 clusters; with cluster IV appearing as the most phenotypically diverse. The best performing accession LA0130 in cluster IV has the highest number of fruits per cluster; highest fruit weight, fruit yield, vitamin C concentration, lycopene content, and moderate total soluble solids, titratable acidity and fruit juice pH. This accession might harbor novel traits that are lacking in cultivated tomato and may be used as potential parent in tomato breeding to develop high yielding cultivars with desirable nutritional and physicochemical traits. The eigenvalue from PCA indicates importance of each principal component axis and its contribution to variability in traits of the tomato accessions. Fruit size index and vitamin C concentration play a role in explaining the variation but are less important than the first four factors. Conclusion This study identifies variability among the 13 wild tomato accessions evaluated. Accession LA0130 was out- standing for its unique attributes which included high number of fruits per cluster, fruit weight, fruit yield, total soluble solids, titratable acidity and lycopene content amongst others. Thus, this wild tomato accession may be considered promising to broaden the genetic variabil- ity for tomato improvement programmes. Consequently, this accession may be incorporated into the tomato breeding programme in the national institutes and could be used in hybridization for developing lines with desir- able horticultural traits. Documentation of the agro- nomic, nutritional and physicochemical performance of the evaluated wild tomato accessions is informative for their utilization in breeding programmes. These results are useful for breeders working on the development and improvement of tomato, as desirable traits from these wild tomatoes can be transferred into the commercial tomato varieties suitable for the growth conditions in the rainforest agro-ecology zone of Nigeria and to boost production and diversity. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. Acknowledgements The authors appreciate Mrs. Bola Bello for providing technical support during planting, field management, data collection and tomato harvesting. Author contributions D.O.I. designed the experiment. D.O.I., A.O.K. and R.T.F. executed the experiment. A.O.K. performed the data analysis. A.O.K. and D.O.I. wrote the manuscript. All the authors contributed to writing the article, read and approved its submission. References Agong, S. G., Schittenhelm, S., and Friedt, W. (2001). Genotypic variation of Kenyan tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum L.) germplasm. Journal of Food Technology in Africa 6(1), 13–17. url: https://dx.doi.org/10. 4314/jfta.v6i1.19277. doi: 10.4314/jfta.v6i1.19277 Ajayi, A. M. and Hassan, G. F. (2019). Response of selected tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) cultivars to on-field biotic stress. J. Agric. Crop Res. 7(3), 38– 46. doi: https://doi.org/10.33495/jacr\ v7i3.19.110 Alcántar, G. G., Villarreal, M. R., and Aguilar, A. S. (1999). Tomato growth (Lycopersion Esculen- tum Mill.), and nutrient utilization in response to varying fertigation programs. Acta Horticulturae 481, 385–392. url: https://dx.doi.org/10.17660/ actahortic.1999.481.45. doi: 10.17660/actahortic. 1999.481.45 Álvaro Toledo and Burlingame, B. (2006). Biodiversity and nutrition: A common path toward global food security and sustainable development. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 19(6-7), 477– 483. url: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2006.05. 001. doi: 10.1016/j.jfca.2006.05.001 Anthon, G. E., LeStrange, M., and Barrett, D. M. (2011). Changes in pH, acids, sugars and other quality parameters during extended vine holding of ripe processing tomatoes. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 91(7), 1175–1181. url: https://dx.doi. org/10.1002/jsfa.4312. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.4312 Aoun, A. B., Lechiheb, B., Benyahya, L., and Ferchichi, A. (2013). Evaluation of fruit quality traits of traditional varieties of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) grown in Tunisia. Afr. J. Food Sci. 7(10), 350–354. doi: https: //doi.org/10.5897/AJFS2013.1067 Bai, Y. and Lindhout, P. (2007). Domestication and Breeding of Tomatoes: What have We Gained and What Can We Gain in the Future? Annals of Botany 100(5), 1085–1094. url: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ aob/mcm150. doi: 10.1093/aob/mcm150 Bauchet, G. and Causse, M. (2012). Genetic diversity in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) and its wild relatives. In Genetic diversity in plants, ed. Çalıs 133-162. Beckles, D. M. (2012). Factors affecting the postharvest soluble solids and sugar content of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) fruit. Postharvest Biology and Technology 63(1), 129–140. url: https://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.postharvbio.2011.05.016. doi: 10.1016/j. postharvbio.2011.05.016 Bergougnoux, V. (2014). The history of tomato: From domestication to biopharming. Biotechnology Advances 32(1), 170–189. url: https://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.biotechadv.2013.11.003. doi: 10.1016/j. biotechadv.2013.11.003 Blanca, J., Montero-Pau, J., Sauvage, C., Bauchet, G., Illa, E., Dı́ez, M. J., Francis, D., Causse, M., van der https://dx.doi.org/10.4314/jfta.v6i1.19277 https://dx.doi.org/10.4314/jfta.v6i1.19277 https://doi.org/10.33495/jacr\_v7i3.19.110 https://dx.doi.org/10.17660/actahortic.1999.481.45 https://dx.doi.org/10.17660/actahortic.1999.481.45 https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2006.05.001 https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2006.05.001 https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.4312 https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.4312 https://doi.org/10.5897/AJFS2013.1067 https://doi.org/10.5897/AJFS2013.1067 https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcm150 https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcm150 https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2011.05.016 https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2011.05.016 https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2013.11.003 https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2013.11.003 Genetic Resources (2020), 1 (2), 1–11 Performance of wild tomato accessions in Nigeria 9 Knaap, E., and Cañizares, J. (2015). Genomic varia- tion in tomato, from wild ancestors to contemporary breeding accessions. BMC Genomics 16(1), 257–257. url: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12864-015-1444-1. doi: 10.1186/s12864-015-1444-1 Boćanski, J., Srećkov, Z., and Nastasić, A. (2009). Genetic and phenotypic relationship between grain yield and components of grain yield of maize (Zea mays L.). Genetika 41(2), 145–154. url: https: //dx.doi.org/10.2298/gensr0902145b. doi: 10.2298/ gensr0902145b Borja, A., Angosto, T., Capel, J., Abad, J., Anatasio, G., and Lozano, R. (1998). Intra and inter individual variations in components of tomato flavor for fresh consumption and wild lines. In Proceedings of XI Conference on Selection and Improvement of Horticultural Plants, 49-56. Campos, C. A. B., Fernandes, P. D., Gheyi, H. R., Blanco, F. F., Goncalves, C. B., and Campos, S. A. F. (2006). Yield and fruit quality of industrial tomato under saline irrigation. Sci. Agr 63, 146–152. Causse, M., Buret, M., Robini, K., and Verschave, P. (2003). Inheritance of Nutritional and Sensory Quality Traits in Fresh Market Tomato and Relation to Consumer Preferences. Journal of Food Science 68(7), 2342–2350. url: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ j.1365-2621.2003.tb05770.x. doi: 10.1111/j.1365- 2621.2003.tb05770.x Ceballos-Aguirre, N. and Vallejo-Cabrera, F. A. (2012). Evaluating the fruit production and quality of cherry tomato (Solanum lycopersicum var. cerasiforme). Rev. Fac. Nac. Agron. Medelĺın 65(2), 6593–6604. url: http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script= sci arttext&pid=S0304-28472012000200004&lng= en&nrm=iso. Chen, J., Wang, H., Shen, H., Chai, M., Li, J., Qi, M., and Yang, W. (2009). Genetic variation in tomato populations from four breeding programs revealed by single nucleotide polymorphism and simple sequence repeat markers. Scientia Horticulturae 122(1), 6– 16. url: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2009. 03.025. doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2009.03.025 Chernet, S. and Zibelo, H. (2014). Evaluation of Tomato Varieties for Fruit Yield and Yield Components in Western Lowland of Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. International Journal of Agricultural Research 9(5), 259–264. url: https://dx.doi.org/10.3923/ijar.2014. 259.264. doi: 10.3923/ijar.2014.259.264 Chetelat, R. T. (2004). Revised list of wild species stocks. url: https://tgrc.ucdavis.edu/Wild% 20species%20stock%20list-2013-v2.pdf. Chetelat, R. T. (2006). Revised list of miscel- laneous stocks. url: https://tgrc.ucdavis.edu/Misc- stocks%20list%202015.pdf. Chitarra, M. I. F. and Chitarra, A. B. (2005). Pós- colheita de frutas e hortaliças: fisiologia e manuseio. (Post-harvest of fruits and vegetables: physiology and handling) 785-785, (in Portuguese). Cramer, M. D., Oberholzer, J. A., and Combrink, N. J. (2001). The effect of supplementation of root zone dissolved inorganic carbon on fruit yield and quality of tomatoes (cv ‘Daniella’) grown with salinity. Scientia Horticulturae 89(4), 269–289. url: https://dx.doi. org/10.1016/s0304-4238(00)00243-0. doi: 10.1016/ s0304-4238(00)00243-0 Darwin, S. C., Knapp, S., and Peralta, I. E. (2003). Taxonomy of tomatoes in the Galápagos Islands: Native and introduced species ofSolanum- sectionLycopersicon(Solanaceae). Systemat- ics and Biodiversity 1(1), 29–53. url: https: //dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1477200003001026. doi: 10.1017/s1477200003001026 Domı́nguez, I., Ferreres, F., del Riquelme, F. P., Font, R., and Gil, M. I. (2012). Influence of preharvest application of fungicides on the postharvest quality of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Postharvest Biology and Technology 72, 1–10. url: https://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2012.04.010. doi: 10. 1016/j.postharvbio.2012.04.010 FAO (2016). FAOSTAT. url: http://faostat.fao.org. accessed date: 2020-09-12 Franke, A. A., Custer, L. J., Arakaki, C., and Murphy, S. P. (2004). Vitamin C and flavonoid levels of fruits and vegetables consumed in Hawaii. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 17(1), 1–35. url: https: //dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0889-1575(03)00066-8. doi: 10.1016/s0889-1575(03)00066-8 George, B., Kaur, C., Khurdiya, D. S., and Kapoor, H. C. (2004). Antioxidants in tomato (Lycopersium esculentum) as a function of genotype. Food Chemistry 84(1), 45–51. url: https://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/s0308-8146(03)00165-1. doi: 10.1016/s0308- 8146(03)00165-1 Georgelis, N. (2002). High fruit sugar characterization, inheritance and linkage of molecular markers in tomato (Gainesville). Getinet, H., Seyoum, T., and Woldetsadik, K. (2008). The effect of cultivar, maturity stage and storage environment on quality of tomatoes. Journal of Food Engineering 87(4), 467–478. url: https://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2007.12.031. doi: 10.1016/j. jfoodeng.2007.12.031 Ghani, M. A., Abbas, M. M., Amjad, M., Ziaf, K., Ali, B., Shaheen, T., Awan, F. S., and Khan, A. N. (2020). Production and characterisation of tomato derived from interspecific hybridisation between cultivated tomato and its wild relatives. The Journal of Horticultural Science and Biotechnology 95(4), 506–520. url: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 14620316.2019.1689182. doi: 10.1080/14620316. 2019.1689182 Hanson, P. M., Sitathani, K., Sadashiva, A. T., yu Yang, R., Graham, E., and Ledesma, D. (2007). Performance of Solanum habrochaites LA1777 introgression line hybrids for marketable tomato fruit yield in Asia. Euphytica 158(1-2), 167–178. url: https://dx.doi.org/ https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12864-015-1444-1 https://dx.doi.org/10.2298/gensr0902145b https://dx.doi.org/10.2298/gensr0902145b https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2003.tb05770.x https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2003.tb05770.x http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0304-28472012000200004&lng=en&nrm=iso http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0304-28472012000200004&lng=en&nrm=iso http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0304-28472012000200004&lng=en&nrm=iso https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2009.03.025 https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2009.03.025 https://dx.doi.org/10.3923/ijar.2014.259.264 https://dx.doi.org/10.3923/ijar.2014.259.264 https://tgrc.ucdavis.edu/Wild%20species%20stock%20list-2013-v2.pdf https://tgrc.ucdavis.edu/Wild%20species%20stock%20list-2013-v2.pdf https://tgrc.ucdavis.edu/Misc-stocks%20list%202015.pdf https://tgrc.ucdavis.edu/Misc-stocks%20list%202015.pdf https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0304-4238(00)00243-0 https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0304-4238(00)00243-0 https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1477200003001026 https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1477200003001026 https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2012.04.010 https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2012.04.010 http://faostat.fao.org https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0889-1575(03)00066-8 https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0889-1575(03)00066-8 https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0308-8146(03)00165-1 https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0308-8146(03)00165-1 https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2007.12.031 https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2007.12.031 https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14620316.2019.1689182 https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14620316.2019.1689182 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10681-007-9440-4 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10681-007-9440-4 10 Ibitoye et al Genetic Resources (2020), 1 (2), 1–11 10.1007/s10681-007-9440-4. doi: 10.1007/s10681- 007-9440-4 Hanson, P. M., yu Yang, R., Wu, J., tzu Chen, J., Ledesma, D., Tsou, S. C., and Lee, T.-C. (2004). Vari- ation for Antioxidant Activity and Antioxidants in Tomato. Journal of the American Society for Hor- ticultural Science 129(5), 704–711. url: https://dx. doi.org/10.21273/jashs.129.5.0704. doi: 10.21273/ jashs.129.5.0704 Ilahy, R., Hdider, C., Lenucci, M. S., Tlili, I., and Dalessandro, G. (2011). Antioxidant activity and bioactive compound changes during fruit ripen- ing of high-lycopene tomato cultivars. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 24(4-5), 588– 595. url: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2010.11. 003. doi: 10.1016/j.jfca.2010.11.003 International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (1996). Descriptors for tomato (Lycopersicon spp.) 1-44. url: https://www.bioversityinternational.org/e- library/publications/detail/descriptors-for-tomato- lycopersicon-spp/. Jatoi, S. A., Fujimura, T., Yamanaka, S., Watanabe, J., and Watanabe, K. N. (2008). Potential loss of unique genetic diversity in tomato landraces by genetic colonization of modern cultivars at a non-center of origin. Plant Breeding 127(2), 189–196. url: https:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0523.2007.01446.x. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0523.2007.01446.x Jeffers, J. N. R. (1967). Two Case Studies in the Application of Principal Component Analysis. Applied Statistics 16(3), 225–225. url: https://dx.doi.org/10. 2307/2985919. doi: 10.2307/2985919 Kanneh, S. M., Quee, D. D., Ngegba, P. M., and Musa, P. D. (2017). Evaluation of Tomato (Solanum lycop- ersicum L.) Genotypes for Horticultural Characteris- tics on the Upland in Southern Sierra Leone. Jour- nal of Agricultural Science 9(6), 213–213. url: https:// dx.doi.org/10.5539/jas.v9n6p213. doi: 10.5539/jas. v9n6p213 Miller, J. C. and Tanksley, S. D. (1990). RFLP analysis of phylogenetic relationships and genetic variation in the genus Lycopersicon. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 80(4), 437–448. url: https://dx.doi.org/10. 1007/bf00226743. doi: 10.1007/bf00226743 Mohammed, M., Wilson, L. A., and Gomes, P. I. (1999). Postharvest sensory and physiochemical attributes of processing and nonprocessing tomato cultivars. Journal of Food Quality 22(2), 167–182. url: https: //dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-4557.1999.tb00549.x. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-4557.1999.tb00549.x Mulumba, N. N. and Mock, J. J. (1978). Improvement of yield potential in the Eto Blanco maize (Zea mays L.) population by breeding for plant traits. Egypt. J. Genet. Cytol 7, 40–51. Nnabude, P. C., Nweke, I. A., and Nsoanya, L. N. (2015). Response of three varieties of tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum) to liquid organic fertilizer (alfa life) and inorganic fertilizer (NPK 20:10:10) and for soil improvements. European Journal of Physical and Agricultural Sciences 3, 28–37. Nowicki, M., Kozik, E. U., and Foolad, M. R. (2013). Late blight of tomato. In Translational Genomics for Crop Breeding, ed. Varshney, R. K. and Tuberosa, R. (John Wiley and Sons Ltd), 241-265. Nzuve, F., Githiri, S., Mukunya, D. M., and Gethi, J. (2014). Genetic Variability and Correlation Studies of Grain Yield and Related Agronomic Traits in Maize. Journal of Agricultural Science 6(9), 166– 166. url: https://dx.doi.org/10.5539/jas.v6n9p166. doi: 10.5539/jas.v6n9p166 Olaniyi, J. O., Akanbi, W. B., Adejumo, T. A., and Akande, O. G. (2010). Growth, fruit yield and nutritional quality of tomato varieties. Afr. J. Food Sci 4, 398–402. Onyia, V. N., Chukwudi, U. P., Ogwudu, V. C., Atugwu, A. I., Eze1, S. C., Ene, C. O., and Umeh, S. (2019). Evaluation of Tomato Genotypes Growth, Yield, and Shelf Life Enhancement in Nigeria. J. Agr. Sci .Tech 21, 143–152. url: https://jast.modares.ac.ir/article- 23-16444-en.pdf. Pascale, S. D., Maggio, A., Fogliano, V., Ambrosino, P., and Ritieni, A. (2001). Irrigation with saline water improves carotenoids content and antioxidant activity of tomato. The Journal of Horticultural Science and Biotechnology 76(4), 447–453. url: https://dx. doi.org/10.1080/14620316.2001.11511392. doi: 10. 1080/14620316.2001.11511392 Paulson, K. N. and Stevens, M. A. (1974). Rela- tionships among titratable acidity, pH and buffer composition of tomato fruits. Journal of Food Science 39(2), 354–357. url: https://dx.doi.org/10. 1111/j.1365-2621.1974.tb02893.x. doi: 10.1111/j. 1365-2621.1974.tb02893.x Peixoto, J. V. M., Garcia, L. G. C., Nascimento, A. R., Moraes, E. R., Ferreira, T. A. P., Fernandes, M. R., and Pereira, V. D. A. (2018). Postharvest evaluation of tomato genotypes with dual purpose. Food Sci. Technol. 38, 255–262. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10. 1590/1678-457x.00217 Peralta, I. E., Spooner, D. M., Knapp, S., and Anderson, C. (2008). Taxonomy of wild tomatoes and their relatives (Solanum sect. Lycopersicoides, sect. Juglandifolia, sect. Lycopersicon; Solanaceae). Syst. Bot. Monogr 84(2), 1–186. Rajae, A., Addi, M., Mingeot, D., Elamrani, A., Serghini, H. C., Mihamou, A., and Abid, M. (2018). Morpholog- ical, molecular, and physic-chemical characterization of traditional Moroccan tomato (Solanum Lycoper- sicum L.) genotypes. J. Biotech Res 9, 58–69. url: http: //www.btsjournals.com/assets/2018v9p58-69.pdf. Regassa, D., Tigre, W., and Shiferaw, A. (2016). Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) varieties evaluation in Borana zone, Yabello district, Southern Ethiopia. Journal of Plant Breeding and Crop Science 8(10), 206– 210. doi: https://doi.org/10.5897/JPBCS2015.0543 Riahi, A., Hdider, C., Sanaa, M., Tarchoun, N., Kheder, M. B., and Guezal, I. (2009). Effect of conventional https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10681-007-9440-4 https://dx.doi.org/10.21273/jashs.129.5.0704 https://dx.doi.org/10.21273/jashs.129.5.0704 https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2010.11.003 https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2010.11.003 https://www.bioversityinternational.org/e-library/publications/detail/descriptors-for-tomato-lycopersicon-spp/ https://www.bioversityinternational.org/e-library/publications/detail/descriptors-for-tomato-lycopersicon-spp/ https://www.bioversityinternational.org/e-library/publications/detail/descriptors-for-tomato-lycopersicon-spp/ https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0523.2007.01446.x https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0523.2007.01446.x https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2985919 https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2985919 https://dx.doi.org/10.5539/jas.v9n6p213 https://dx.doi.org/10.5539/jas.v9n6p213 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf00226743 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf00226743 https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-4557.1999.tb00549.x https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-4557.1999.tb00549.x https://dx.doi.org/10.5539/jas.v6n9p166 https://jast.modares.ac.ir/article-23-16444-en.pdf https://jast.modares.ac.ir/article-23-16444-en.pdf https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14620316.2001.11511392 https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14620316.2001.11511392 https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1974.tb02893.x https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1974.tb02893.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1678-457x.00217 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1678-457x.00217 http://www.btsjournals.com/assets/2018v9p58-69.pdf http://www.btsjournals.com/assets/2018v9p58-69.pdf https://doi.org/10.5897/JPBCS2015.0543 Genetic Resources (2020), 1 (2), 1–11 Performance of wild tomato accessions in Nigeria 11 and organic production systems on the yield and quality of field tomato cultivars grown in Tunisia. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 89(13), 2275–2282. url: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ jsfa.3720. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.3720 Rick, C. M. and Fobes, J. F. (1975). Allozyme Variation in the Cultivated Tomato and Closely Related Species. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 102(6), 376– 376. url: https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2484764. doi: 10.2307/2484764 Rickman, J. C., Barrett, D. M., and Bruhn, C. M. (2007). Nutritional comparison of fresh, frozen and canned fruits and vegetables. Part 1. Vitamins C and B and phenolic compounds. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 87(6), 930–944. url: https://dx.doi. org/10.1002/jsfa.2825. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.2825 Rosales, M. A., Cervilla, L. M., Sánchez-Rodŕıguez, E., del Mar Rubio-Wilhelmi, M., Blasco, B., Rı́os, J. J., Soriano, T., Castilla, N., Romero, L., and Ruiz, J. M. (2011). The effect of environmental conditions on nutritional quality of cherry tomato fruits: evaluation of two experimental Mediterranean greenhouses. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 91(1), 152–162. url: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.4166. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.4166 Rosales, M. A., Ruiz, J. M., Hernández, J., Soriano, T., Castilla, N., and Romero, L. (2006). Antioxidant content and ascorbate metabolism in cherry tomato exocarp in relation to temperature and solar radiation. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 86(10), 1545–1551. url: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ jsfa.2546. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.2546 Saha, S., Hedau, N. K., Mahajan, V., Singh, G., Gupta, H. S., and Gahalain, A. (2010). Textural, nutritional and functional attributes in tomato genotypes for breeding better quality varieties. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 90(2), 239–244. url: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.3802. doi: 10.1002/ jsfa.3802 Saliba-Colombani, V., Causse, M., Langlois, D., Philouze, J., and Buret, M. (2001). Genetic analysis of organoleptic quality in fresh market tomato. 1. Map- ping QTLs for physical and chemical traits. Theo- retical and Applied Genetics 102(2-3), 259–272. url: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s001220051643. doi: 10. 1007/s001220051643 SAS Institute (2010). Statistical Analysis Software (SAS) Release 9.3. url: https://support.sas.com/ documentation/93/. Shiberu, T. (2016). Evaluation of improved tomato vari- eties (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) performance against major insect pests under open field and glasshouse conditions. International Journal of Research Studies in Agricultural Sciences 2(3), 1–7. doi: 10.20431/2454-6224.0203001 Singh, R. J. (2006). Genetic Resources, Chromo- some Engineering, and Crop Improvement: Vegetable Crops, ed. Singh, R. J., volume 3 (CRC Press), 1-352. Sneath, P. H. A. and Sokal, R. R. (1973). Numerical taxonomy. The principles and practice of numerical classification (San Francisco, CA: W.H Freeman), 1- 537. Stevens, M. A. (1972). Relationships between compo- nents contributing to quality variation among tomato lines. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci 97, 70–73. Sujiprihati, S., Saleh, G. B., and Ali, E. S. (2003). Heritability, performance and correlation studies on single cross hybrids of tropical maize. Asian J. Plant Sci 2(1), 51–57. doi: 10.3923/ajps.2003.51.57 Teka, T. A. (2013). Analysis of the effect of maturity stage on the postharvest biochemical quality characteristics of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) fruit. Int. Res J Pharm. App Sci. 3(5), 180–186. Tigchelaar, E. C. (1986). Tomato Breeding, ed. Basset, J., M., Ed., and Intercept, B. V. C. (Andover) 135-171. Tigist, M., Workneh, T. S., and Woldetsadik, K. (2013). Effects of variety on the quality of tomato stored under ambient conditions. Journal of Food Science and Technology 50(3), 477–486. doi: 10.1007/s13197- 011-0378-0 Willcox, J. K., Catignani, G. L., and Lazarus, S. (2003). Tomatoes and Cardiovascular Health. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 43(1), 1–18. url: https: //dx.doi.org/10.1080/10408690390826437. doi: 10. 1080/10408690390826437 Zuriaga, E., Blanca, J., and Nuez, F. (2009). Classifica- tion and phylogenetic relationships in Solanum sec- tion Lycopersicon based on AFLP and two nuclear gene sequences. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 56(5), 663–678. url: https://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/s10722-008-9392-0. doi: 10.1007/s10722- 008-9392-0 https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.3720 https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.3720 https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2484764 https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.2825 https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.2825 https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.4166 https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.2546 https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.2546 https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.3802 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s001220051643 https://support.sas.com/documentation/93/ https://support.sas.com/documentation/93/ https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10408690390826437 https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10408690390826437 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10722-008-9392-0 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10722-008-9392-0 https://doi.org/10.3923/ajps.2003.51.57 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-011-0378-0 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-011-0378-0 https://doi.org/10.20431/2454-6224.0203001 Introduction Materials and Methods Germplasm Nursery and field operations Sample preparation Physicochemical and nutritional analyses Agronomic data collection Statistical analysis Results Discussion Conclusion Conflicts of Interest: Author contributions