INTRODUCTION Cherry tomato (Solanum lycopersicum var. Cerasiforme) is a botanical variety of the cultivated tomato. It is thought to be the ancestor of all the cultivated tomatoes. It is marketed at a premium price compared to the regular tomatoes. Cherry tomatoes are widely cultivated in Central America and are distributed in California, Korea, Germany, Mexico and Florida. It is a warm-season crop, reasonably tolerant to heat and drought, and grows under a wide range of soil and climatic conditions (Anon, 2009a). Cherry tomato is grown for its edible fruits which are ideal for making processed products like sauce, soup, ketchup, puree, curry, paste, powder, rasam and sandwich. These also have good nutritional and antioxidant properties. The size of cherry tomatoes ranges from thumb-tip to the size of a golf ball, and, can range from being spherical to slightly oblong in shape (Anon, 2009b). Hybrid vigour in cherry tomato has not been exploited fully. Little attention has been paid by plant researchers on the performance for yield and yield- components in the hybrids of cherry tomato. Therefore, the present study was undertaken to evaluate the best- performing parents and their F1 hybrids in cherry tomato. J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 10(1):79-82, 2015 Evaluation of F1 hybrids and their parents for growth, yield and quality in cherry tomato (Solanum lycopersicum var. cerasiforme) Renuka Muttappanavar1, A.T. Sadashiva, T.H. Singh* and K.M. Indiresh2 Division of Vegetable Crops ICAR-Indian Institute of Horticultural Research Hesaraghatta Lake Post, Bengaluru - 560 089, India *E-mail: thsingh@iihr.ernet.in ABSTRACT The present study was carried out to estimate the performance of F1 hybrids and their parents for various yield and yield-attributing traits in cherry tomato, at Division of Vegetable Crops, Indian Institute of Horticultural Research (IIHR), Bengaluru, during the year 2010-11. Among the seven parents used, three parents, namely, IIHR-2866 (yielding 3.03kg/plant), IIHR-2864 (2.87kg/plant) and IIHR-2865 (2.73kg/plant) were found to be high-yielding. Among the 21 F1 hybrids evaluated, three hybrids, namely, IIHR-2754 x IIHR-2860 (4.27kg/plant), followed by IIHR- 2754 x IIHR-2865 (3.97kg/plant) and IIHR-2864 x IIHR-2865 (3.40kg/plant) recorded higher yield than the Check varieties, whereas, three hybrids, viz, IIHR-2754 x IIHR-2865 (54.38t/ha), succeeded by IIHR-2863 x IIHR-2866 (46.46t/ha) and IIHR-2858 x IIHR-2866 (44.79t/ha), recorded higher estimated yield per hectare than the Check varieties. Hybrid IIHR-2754 x IIHR-2860 was found promising for most of the traits studied. The best performing parents can be used for breeding further while, the hybrids can be exploited commercially. Key words: Cherry tomato, high yield, hybrids, parents, breeding MATERIAL AND METHODS The present study was undertaken at Division of Vegetable Crops, ICAR-Indian Institute of Horticultural Research (IIHR), Hesarghatta, Bengaluru. The experimental field is located at an altitude of 890 meters above MSL, at 13038’ N latitude and 780E longitude. The parents and the hybrids were evaluated during July 2011 - May 2012. The experimental material consisted of seven parents, viz, IIHR-2754 (P1), IIHR-2858 (P2), IIHR-2860 (P3), IIHR-2863 (P4), IIHR-2864 (P5), IIHR-2865 (P6) and IIHR-2866 (P7), three Check varieties, viz, IIHR-2871 (C1), IIHR-2876 (C2) and Arka Ashish (C3), and 21 F1 hybrids developed through half-diallele mating design, during Kharif 2011. Spacing between plants was 60cm, while, between rows it was 45cm. All the twenty one hybrids, along with their corresponding parents, were evaluated in Randomized Block Design in three replications, during the summer of 2012. Observations on five randomly-selected plants were recorded for various yield-attributing traits to estimate performance of the parents and hybrids. 1M.Sc. student, University of Horticultural Sciences, Bagalkot, GKVK, Campus, Bengaluru, India; 2Dean, College of Horticulture, Tandavapura, Nanjangud Taluk, Mysuru -571302, India 80 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Per se performance of parental lines, check varieties and hybrids (Table 1) and the three best-performing parents, and hybrids, for various growth, yield and quality parameters are presented in Table 2. Genotypes differed significantly in plant height which ranged from 98cm (P2) to 140cm (P6) among parents (Table 1), from 57.67cm (C3) to 131.33cm (C1) among Check varieties, and from 89cm (P2 xP4) to 165.67cm (P1 x P6) among hybrids (Table 1). Number of primary branches per plant ranged from 3 (P2 and P3 ) to 3.67 (P1 and P5) among parents, from 3 (C2) to 4.33 (C3) among check varieties, and from 3 (P1 x P7) to 3.67 (P1 x P2) among hybrids (Table 1). Number of secondary branches ranged from 8 (P5) to 11 (P1) among parents, from 6 (C2) to 9 (C1) among check varieties, and from 6 (P5 x P6) to 11.33 (P1 x P5) among hybrids (Table 1). A higher number of branches may have resulted in production of more number of leaves and greater size of the leaf. Total number of leaves on a plant could perhaps decide the efficiency of photosynthesis, thereby resulting in better growth and yield. These results are in confirmity with Deepa and Thakur (2008) and Arun et al (2004). A significant difference was seen in the number of inflorescences per plant, ranging from 35 (P3) to 48 (P1) among parents, from 25 (C3) to 35.33 (C1) among Check varieties, and from 37 (P3 x P5) to 63.33 (P2 x P3) among hybrids (Table 1). Parents used in the experiment differed Table 1. Mean performance of parents, F1 hybrids and Check varieties for growth, yield and quality traits in cherry tomato Sl. Parent/ Plant No. of No. of No. of Average No. of No. of No. of Yield/ Yield/ No. of Fruit Pericarp No. F1 height primary secondary inflore- fruit fruits/ fruits/ fruits/ plant ha (t) locules/ firmness thickness hybrid / (cm) branches branches scences weight kg cluster plant (kg) fruit (kg/mm2) (mm) Check (g) variety Parent 1 P1 130.67 3.67 11.00 48.00 10.36 96.67 10.33 498.67 2.20 21.46 2.33 4.40 2.20 2 P2 98.00 3.00 9.00 38.67 14.11 71.00 9.67 374.33 2.50 24.79 3.00 5.00 2.43 3 P3 115.67 3.00 9.33 35.00 14.66 68.33 9.33 326.33 2.20 27.92 2.33 4.20 3.87 4 P4 109.00 3.00 8.67 36.00 12.46 80.33 8.67 312.67 2.57 20.83 2.67 4.53 2.43 5 P5 131.00 3.67 8.00 38.33 31.05 32.33 7.00 269.33 2.87 33.33 2.33 7.20 4.80 6 P6 140.00 3.33 12.67 38.33 13.77 72.67 8.33 318.33 2.73 29.79 3.67 5.00 2.23 7 P7 127.67 3.33 9.67 38.00 13.41 74.67 8.33 316.00 3.03 30 2.33 4.57 4.03 F1 hybrid 1 P1 X P2 117.33 3.67 9.33 44.33 12.83 78.00 9.33 416.67 3.20 38.96 2.67 4.60 2.40 2 P1 X P3 144.67 3.67 10.33 44.67 19.15 52.33 8.00 357.33 4.27 26.46 2.67 3.33 3.10 3 P1 X P4 154.00 3.67 8.67 56.33 16.68 60.00 7.33 414.67 2.70 32.92 2.00 8.20 3.13 4 P1 X P5 140.00 3.33 11.33 38.00 15.90 63.00 6.67 253.33 3.07 44.38 2.67 7.00 4.00 5 P1 X P6 165.67 3.33 9.33 42.33 16.59 60.33 8.33 352.00 3.97 40.63 2.67 6.00 3.20 6 P1 X P7 139.33 3.00 9.67 46.67 13.98 71.67 8.33 391.67 3.33 54.38 2.33 4.40 3.13 7 P2 X P3 115.67 3.00 9.33 63.33 15.41 65.00 9.00 570.00 3.27 32.5 2.00 5.00 3.17 8 P2 X P4 89.00 3.00 8.33 38.67 15.56 64.33 8.33 323.33 2.50 35.83 2.33 5.20 4.00 9 P2 X P5 149.33 3.33 7.67 40.33 20.02 50.00 6.33 256.00 3.37 39.17 2.00 7.20 6.00 10 P2 X P6 144.33 3.00 8.33 44.67 16.68 60.00 8.33 371.00 2.60 32.5 2.33 6.80 4.07 11 P2 X P7 149.00 3.00 8.00 42.67 18.10 55.33 8.33 357.33 3.03 44.79 2.33 7.17 4.20 12 P3 X P4 105.00 3.00 9.33 42.67 18.44 54.33 8.33 355.33 2.57 35.83 2.33 7.27 3.13 13 P3 X P5 141.67 3.67 7.67 37.00 23.68 42.33 6.00 222.00 3.03 42.71 2.33 9.53 5.00 14 P3 X P6 142.33 3.67 11.00 39.33 17.98 55.67 7.33 288.00 3.30 43.75 2.67 6.00 3.20 15 P3 X P7 152.00 3.00 8.67 38.00 15.32 65.33 7.00 266.67 2.93 36.25 2.33 7.80 4.10 16 P4 X P5 156.00 3.00 9.67 50.33 19.76 50.67 6.33 318.67 3.13 37.29 2.00 6.13 3.97 17 P4 X P6 148.67 3.00 7.67 45.00 16.68 60.00 8.00 360.00 3.20 36.88 2.67 4.80 3.20 18 P4 X P7 144.00 3.00 6.67 44.00 16.43 61.00 8.33 366.00 3.00 46.46 2.33 7.97 3.93 19 P5 X P6 127.67 3.00 6.00 40.33 15.24 65.67 6.67 268.33 3.40 38.33 3.00 5.97 4.07 20 P5 X P7 131.67 3.00 7.33 42.33 18.10 55.33 7.67 325.33 3.07 36.04 2.67 6.20 4.20 21 P6 X P7 140.33 3.00 10.00 38.33 14.79 67.67 8.33 319.33 2.90 39.38 3.33 8.00 3.20 Check 1 C1 131.33 3.67 9.00 35.33 17.68 56.67 8.00 282.66 2.10 23.12 2.00 5.80 3.00 2 C2 118.00 3.00 6.00 34.33 16.69 60.00 7.33 252.00 1.93 33.54 2.33 5.80 2.80 3 C3 57.67 4.33 6.33 25.00 91.41 11.00 4.67 117.67 3.10 21.46 3.33 8.20 7.40 J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 10(1):79-82, 2015 Renuka Muttappanavar et al 81 significantly among themselves for average fruit-weight which ranged from 10.33g (P1) to 31.05g (P5). Fruit weight ranged from 16.69g (C2) to 91.41g (C3) among Check varieties, and from 12.83g (P1 x P2) to 23.68 (P3 x P5) among hybrids (Table 1). Average fruit weight contributed directly towards fruit yield per plant. This is in agreement with the findings of Deepa and Thakur (2008) and Shivakumar (2000). The genotypes under study differed significantly among themselves for number of fruits per kg which ranged from 32.33 (P5) to 96.67 (P1) among parents, from 11 (C3) to 60 (C2) among Check varieties, and from 42.33 (P3 x P5) to 70 (P1 x P2) among hybrids (Table 1). Number of fruits per cluster ranged from 7 (P5) to 10.33 (P1) among parents, from 4.67 (C3) to 8 (C1) among Check varieties, and from 6.33 (P2 x P5 and P4 x P5) to 9.33 (P1 x P2) among hybrids (Table 1). The genotypes differed significantly among themselves for number of fruits per plant which ranged from 269.33 (P5) to 498.67 (P1) among parents, from 117.67 (C3) to 282.66 (C1) among Check varieties, and from 222 (P3 x P5) to 570 (P2 x P3) among hybrids (Table 1). Increased fruit-set observed may be due to a higher rate of anther dehiscence and better pollen viability. Similar results were reported earlier by Shivanand (2008). Any deviation in results with the findings of others could be attributed to differences Table 2. Three best-performing parents (Lines and Check varieties) and hybrids in cherry tomato for growth, yield and quality traits Trait Parent (Lines and Check variety) F1 Hybrid I II III I II III Plant height P6 (140) C1(131.33) P5(131.00) P1 x P6 (165.67) P4 x P5 (156.00) P1 x P4 (154.00) (cm) No. of primary C3(4.33) P1,P5 and C1(3.67) P2, P3 and p4 (3.00) P1 xP2 (3.67) P1 x P5 (3.33) P1 X P7 (3.00) branches No. of secondary P6(12.67) P1 (11.00) P7 (9.67) P1 x P5 (11.33) P3 x P6 (11.00) P3 x P6 (10.33) branches No. of P1 (48) P2(38.67) P5 and P6(38.33) P2 x P3 (63.33) P1 xP4(56.33) P4 x P5 (50.33) inflorescences Average fruit C3 (91.41) P5 (31.05) C1 (17.68) P3 x P5 (23.68) P2 x P5 (20.02) P4 x P5 (19.76) weight (g) No. of fruits/ kg P1 (96.67) P4 (80.33) P7(74.67) P1 x P2 (78.00) P1 x P7 (71.67) P5 x P6 (65.67) No. of fruits/ P1 (10.33) P2 (9.67) P3 (9.33) P1 x P2 (9.33) P2 x P3 (9.00) P1 xP6 (8.33) cluster No. of fruits/ P1 (498.67) P2 (374.33) P3 (326.33) P2 x P3 (570) P1 x P2 (416.67) P1 x P4 (414.67) plant Yield/ plant (kg) C3 (3.10) P7 (3.03) P5 (2.87) P1 x P3 (4.27) P1 x P6 (3.97) P5 x P6 (3.40) Yield/ ha (t) C2 (33.54) P5 (33.33) P7 (30.00) P1 x P7 (54.38) P4 x P7 (46.46) P2 x P7 (44.79) No. of locules/ P6 (3.67) C3 (3.33) P2 (3.00) P6 x P7 (3.33) P5 xP6 (3.00) P1 xP2 and P1 x P3 (2.67) fruit Fruit firmness C3 (8.20) P5 (7.20) C1 and C2 (5.80) P3 x P5 (9.53) P1 x P4 (8.20) P6 x P7 (8.00) (kg/mm2) Pericarp thickness C3 (7.40) P5 (4.80) P7 (4.03) P2 xP5 (6.00) P3 x P5 (5.00) P2 xP7, P5 x P7 (4.20) (mm) in genotypes under study, environmental conditions and stage of fruit harvest. As for yield per plant, genotypes differed significantly, ranging from 2.20kg (P1 and P3) to 3.03kg (P7) among parents, from 1.93kg (C2) to 3.10kg (C3) among Check varieties, and from 2.50kg (P2 x P4) to 4.27kg (P1 x P3) among hybrids (Table 1). Genotypes differed significantly among themselves for estimated yield which ranged from 20.83 tonnes per hectare (P4) to 33.33 tonnes per hectare (P5) among parents, from 21.46 tonnes per hectare (C3) to 33.54 tonnes per hectare (C1) among Check varieties, and from 26.46 tonnes per hectare (P1 x P3) to 54.38 tonnes per hectare (P1 x P7) among hybrids (Table 1). Hybrid P1 x P7 showed highest yield per plant and estimated yield per hectare. These results are in consonance with findings of Madalageri and Dharmatti (1991). Genotypes differed significantly among themselves in number of locules per fruit which ranged from 2.33 (P1, P3, P5 and P7) to 3.67 (P6) among parents, from 2(C1) to 3.33(C3) among Check varieties, and from 2.00 (P1 x P4, P2 x P3, P2 x P5 and P4 x P5) to 3.33 (P6 x P7) among hybrids (Table 1). Variation in fruit firmness depends upon stage of harvest, and at mature stage this ranged from 4.20 kg/mm2 (P3) to 7.20 kg/mm 2 (P5) among parents, from 5.8kg/mm 2 J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 10(1):79-82, 2015 Evaluation of cherry tomato F1 hybrids and their parents 82 (C1 and C2) to 8.20kg/mm 2 (C3) among Check varieties, and from 3.33kg/mm2 (P1 x P3) to 9.53 kg/mm 2 (P3 x P5) among hybrids (Table 1). Thus, hybrid P3 x P5 may be best suited for long-distance transport and for processing. Genotypes differed significantly among themselves for pericarp thickness (mm) which ranged from 2.20mm (P1) to 4.80mm (P5) among parents, from 2.80mm (C2) to 7.40mm (C3) among Check varieties, and from 2.40mm to (P1 x P2) to 6.00 (P2 x P5) among hybrids (Table 1). These results are similar to the findings of Thakur et al (2005), Hazarika and Phookan (2005) and Shivakumar (2000). Fruit firmness and pericarp thickness are important fruit-quality parameters. The three best overall performing parents (Lines and Check varieties) and hybrids are presented in Table 2 for different traits studied in cherry tomato. In this study, parents IIHR-2866, IIHR-2864 and IIHR-2865 performed well for various traits under study. As such, these could be exploited further in various breeding programmes. Promising hybrids, IIHR-2754 x IIHR-2866 (P1 x P7) and IIHR-2754 x IIHR-2860 (P1 x P3), can be subjected further to selection for isolating desirable genotypes in cherry tomato. REFERENCES Anonymous. 2009a. Botanical classification of cherry tomato. http://www.lose-weight-with-us.com/cherry- tomato-nutrition.html Anonymous. 2009b. Cherry tomato nutritional information. USDA National Nutritional Database for Standard Reference. http://www.lose-weight-with-us.com/ cherry-tomato-nutrition.html Arun, J., Amit, V. and Thakur, M.C. 2004. Studies on genetic variability, correlation and path analysis for yield and physico-chemical traits in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.). Prog. Hort., 36:51-58 Deepa, S. and Thakur, M.C. 2008. Evaluation of diallele progenies for yield and its contributing traits in tomato under mid-hill conditions. Indian J. Hort., 65:297- 301 Hazarika, T.K. and Phookan, D.B. 2005. Performance of tomato cultivars for polyhouse cultivation during spring-summer in Assam. Indian J. Hort., 62:268- 271 Madalageri, B.B. and Dharmatti, P.R. 1991. A new tomato cv. L-15 for North Karnataka. J. Agril. Sci., 4:150-153 Shivakumar, K.C. 2000. Evaluation of tomato hybrids for growth, yield and quality parameters under Bengaluru condition. M.Sc. Thesis, UAS, GKVK, Bengaluru, India Shivanand, V.H. 2008. Evaluation of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) hybrids under Eastern dry zone of Karnataka, M.Sc. Thesis, UAS, GKVK, Bengaluru, India Thakur, A.K. and. Kohli, U.K. 2005. Studies on genetics of shelf-life in tomato. Indian J. Hort., 62:163-167 (MS Received 17 August 2013, Revised 02 January 2015, Accepted 28 January 2015) J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 10(1):79-82, 2015 Renuka Muttappanavar et al