D2 Clustering of Exotic Germplasm of Tomato (Solanum lycopersicon L.

) for
Genetic Improvement

JAG PAUL SHARMA, A.K. SINGH, PUJA RATTAN, SATESH KUMAR AND
SANJEEV KUMAR
Division of Vegetable Science and Floriculture
S.K.University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology-Jammu, FOA, Main Campus
Chatha- 180 009

ABSTRACT
126 genotypes of tomato were evaluated for 8 physio-morphological characters
namely plant height, number of branches/plant, days to 50% flowering, average fruit
weight, number of fruits per plant, pericarp thickness, number of locules per fruit and
fruit yield. Analysis of data through Mahalanobis D2 statistic resulted in the formation
of 10 groups or clusters of the exotic gene pool. Cluster I accommodated twenty
genotypes, followed by cluster II accommodating 18 genotypes. Cluster III and IV, V
and VI and VII and VIII had equal number of genotypes i.e., 16, 12 and 11
respectively. Cluster X contained only three genotypes. Cluster V had genotypes with
desirable features of higher average fruit weight, more pericarp thickness and more
locules per fruit. Cluster III followed the cluster V in economical features. These
clusters need to be explored for high yielding varieties with better economical
features. Hybridization between the genotypes of these clusters may yield segregants
superceding fruit shape, color and average fruit weight. Entries EC 251646, EC
362949 and EC 531803 are suitable for direct consideration as open pollinated
varieties. Based on genetic distance, clusters V and X and VIII and X were more
diverse and relatively better option for generation of transgressive segragants.
Varieties possessing desirable economic traits were showing less genetic distance
indicating that cultivars under intensive cultivation had limited genetic variability.
Study revealed that major contributor to genetic divergence were days to 50%
flowering, fruit yield and average fruit weight supporting the fact that cultivated
tomato has been bred much maturity duration, yield potential and fruit size.
Hybrid varieties in tomato are gaining momentum in cultivation because of good
quality and higher yield. There is need to further increase the spectrum of hybrid
varieties. It demands continuous evaluation and estimation of diversity to develop
better cross combinations. Breeders have evaluated several techniques to select
parents to have good amount of heterosis. Among them, clustering of genotypes on
the basis of D2 value obtained through Mahalanobis multivariate analysis has been
advocated a relevant technique to select genotypes for heterotic cross combination
(Balasch et al., 1984). Amaral Junior et al., (1997) carried the hybridization in tomato
on the basis of D2 values. The technique furthers measures the extent of genetic
diversity and reveals the contribution of each character towards genetic divergence
(Mahesha et al., 2006). Present study considered 126 germplasm lines of tomato to
estimate the genetic diversity in them and to propose the appropriate groups for
crossing in tomato to get heterotic F1 hybrids.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

126 tomato germplasm lines of tomato including three checks were grown in RBD in
two replications. 40 days old seedlings were planted on 15 February 2006 at a spacing
of 60x45 cm in plot of 3x2.5 sq. mt. accommodating 20 plants per plot. Standard
agronomic practices were followed for raising the crop. Five competitive plants were
selected for observation from each plot. The observations were recorded for yield and
yield contributing characters, namely plant height, number of branches per plant, days
to 50% flowering, average fruit weight, number of locules per fruit, number of fruits
per plant and fruit yield (q/ha). Genetic diversity of the germplasm lines was
estimated using D2 statistic of Mahalanobis (1929). Clustering of the material was
done by Tocher’s method (Rao, 1952).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Genetic diversity is pre-requisite to effective selection and hybridization. Breeding
efforts are severely hampered in wake of inadequate variability. Visual observations
for selection of elite material or parental lines often lead to ambiguous consequences,
especially when environmental component of variation is much more. Hence, it is
imperative to support the visual observations by some scientific methodology. D2
statistic technique was developed by Mahalanobis to group the human population into
different clusters each encompassing a set range of magnitude of variables. The
technique is equally effective in grouping plant populations.
Based on observations of eight morphophysiological characters, 126 exotic
germplasm lines of tomato were subjected D2 statistics analysis as proposed by
Mahalanobis (1929). All the germplines were grouped into 10 clusters (Table 1).
Relatively taller genotypes were scattered over three clusters i.e. VI, IV and V. Out of
126 lines, 40 were falling in taller category. Cluster VIII comprised eight genotypes
having dwarf plant canopy. Early maturing genotypes were accommodated in four
clusters, namely I, II, IV and X indicating that about 50% of the genetic material was
of group I maturity. The study revealed that dwarfness was not showing direct
relationship with maturity.
Average fruit weight desirable for commercial purpose is 60 + 10 gm. Lines
with this magnitude of trait are available in cluster III and V, each respectively
accommodating 16 and 12 genotypes. Cluster VIII having average fruit weight of 48 g
may also provide option in case some excellent genotypes are available i.e. SKAU-T-
2 and Swarn Lalima. Number of fruits per plant was exceptionally high in cluster X
with mean of 111. The cluster had also smallest size fruit with mean value of 7.6 g.
The findings disclose that it is not advisable to breed for higher number of fruits per
plant as it reduced the average fruit weight.
Pericarp thickness is an character related to transportation and shelf life of the
fruit. The magnitude of the parameter ranged from 0.22 mm to 0.49 mm. Clusters II,
IV, V and VIII can be classified as the better genetic resources revealing that more
than 50% of lines have pericarp thickness in desirable range. Locule number per fruit
is a good processing parameter that adds to the paste making quality of genotype.
Compared to other characters, the variability shown by the number of locules per fruit
was limited. Clusters V, VIII and I comprised the lines having higher mean value i.e.
3.73 to 5.53. They can be utilized in hybridization program to develop varieties
suitable for processing traits.
Clusters ranged from 181.3 to 380 q/ha for fruit yield. Yield per se cannot
serve as the selection criterion for a good genotype because desired genotypes must be
associated with features of consumer’s preference, namely higher mean fruit weight
and pericarp thickness and red fruit colour etc. Hence a breeder has to ponder over the
overall physio-morphology of a genotype before selecting it for developing an open
pollinated variety or a parental line for a cross combination.
Cluster formation is not adequate to tell the genetic diversity status rather it is better
supported by genetic distance between the clusters which is often advocated for
selection of lines for attempting hybridization (Balasch et al 1984).
Based on analysis of intercluster distance, cluster X indicated higher genetic
distance with respect to clusters V(7.18), VIII (6.65), III (5.67) and II (5.66) (Table 3).
This infers that genotypes of cluster X namely EC-528372, EC-25265 and IC-415464
are better options for making crosses with V, VIII, III and II clusters. Cluster X
exhibited distinct diversity as it had almost higher genetic distance from rest of the
clusters, too. However, it needs due attention as the mean fruit size of the cluster X is
considerably smaller (Table 3). There was adequate genetic distance between the
clusters V and VII (4.665), V and IX (4.398), IV and V (3.869) VIII and IX (3.827).
Hence genotypes falling in these pairs of diverse clusters can be used for tomato crop
improvement through hybridization. Earlier, Sidhu and Singh (1993), Rai et. al.,
(1998) and recently by Singh et. al., (2008) have also suggested use of distantly
placed genotypes for hybridization.
Clusters III, V and VIII were showing phenotypic superiority with respect to
consumer and growers interest i.e., red round tomato with better fruit size and fruit
yield. Cluster V revealed larger intra-cluster value indicating that the scope exists for
improvement in the genotypes falling with in this cluster. Genotypes with extreme
mean value can be chosen to develop heterotic cross combinations. Kanwar and Rana
(2006) proposed the same selection strategy in cucumber improvement.
Relative contribution of different characters towards genetic divergence is
given in Table 2. Maximum contribution to genetic divergence came from the
character days to 50% flowering (20.1%) followed by fruit yield (18.4 %), mean fruit
weight (18%). Branching character showed the least contribution (1.6%) in genetic
divergence of 126 lines.
Based on the study of genetic divergence, the most potential lines for
attempting hybridization are grouped in clusters III and V. Their morphometry is
shown in Table 4. Earliness, red round fruit with mean fruit weight of 5060 g are the
requisite parameters for North-Hill region so germplasm lines EC 531803, EC 251646
and EC 362949 are suggested to be selected for further improvement.
 REFERENCES

Amaral-Junior, A.T. Do., Casali, V. W. D., Cruz, C.D. and Amaral, J.F.T.Do.1997,
Efficiency in predicting tomato hybrid behaviour based on parents genetic
divergence. Revista-Ceres 44 (253): 286-299

Balasch,S., Nuez, F., Palomares, G. and Cuartero, J.1984, Multivariate analysis

applied to hybrid production. Theor. Appl. Genet. 69: 39-45

Kanwar, M.S. and Rana, M. 2006, Genetic divergence and gene source studies in
cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) Indian, J. Plant Genet Res, 19 (2): 221-225

Mahesha, D.K.., Apte, U. B. and Jadhav, B.B. 2006, Studies on genetic diversity in
tomato. Crop Res. 32: 401-402

Mahalanobis, P.C. 1929, On generalized distance in statistics.Proc Natl Inst Science

India 2: 49-55

Rai, N., Rajput, Y.S. and Singh, A.K.1998, Genetic divergence in tomato using a non
hierarchical clustering approach. Veg. Sci, 25(2): 133-135

Rao C.R. 1952, Advanced statistical methods in Biometrical Research. John Wiley
and Sons, New York :357-364

Sidhu, A.S and Singh, S.1993, Studies on heterosis and divergence in tomato. In:
Heterosis breeding in crop plants: Theory and application. Symposium-
Ludhiana, 23-24 Feb, Pp 64-65

Singh, A.K. Sharma, J.P., Satesh Kumar and Chopra, S.2008, Genetic divergence in
tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum L.). J Res. SKUAST-J.,7: 105-110
TABLE 1: Grouping of 126 genotypes of tomato in clusters

Cluster Number of Genotypes

genotypes
I 20 EC –521086, EC –5888, EC –29914, EC –2791, EC –521071, EC –362958, EC –32267, EC
–546727, EC –521047, EC –57442, EC –6053-1, EC –15127, EC – 520053, EC –10304, EC
–521052, EC –13736, EC –126902, EC –2997, EC –27251, EC –5863
II 18 EC –363942, EC –521056, EC –520059, EC –521067-B, EC –521059, EC –9046, EC –
35293, EC –2798, EC –528374, EC –521054, EC –368883, EC –521038, EC –251649, EC
–16654, EC –129604, EC –339058, EC –170047, EC –531805
III 16 EC –529081, EC –251646, EC –531804, EC –521076, EC –531802, EC -164672, EC –
531801, EC –362949, EC –528362, EC -521078, EC –521069, EC –144336-A, EC –
357828, EC –531803, EC –2585, Punjab Chuhara
IV 16 EC –27995, EC – 3668, EC –7912, EC –168290, EC –520056, EC –1914, EC –6486, EC –
177371, EC –529083, EC –32933, EC –538148, EC –141887, EC –521046, EC –168283,
EC –3176, EC –3176-1
V 12 EC –3526, EC –521045, EC –521060, EC –362941, EC –521068, EC –521043, EC –
251581, EC –521074, EC –521041, EC –521051, EC –538151, EC –521061

VI 12 EC –164660, IC –381213, EC –52077, EC –2517, EC –521049, EC –8591, EC –10662, EC

–339066, EC – 114375, EC –35322, EC –6875, IC –373272
VII 11 EC –528373, EC –6192, EC –326146, EC –14078, EC –12692, EC –529087, EC –521083,
EC –520072, EC –538146, IC –373378, EC –16788
VIII 11 EC –521044, EC –521079, EC –521039, IC –433, EC –521048, EC –528367, EC –164665,
SKU-T-2, Swarn Lalima, H-88, CTS-05-49
IX 7 EC –135580, EC –520046, EC –163663, EC –362933, EC –50055, EC –13904, CTS-05-03
x 3 EC –528372, EC –25265, IC -415464
TABLE-2: Cluster means of yield contributing characters towards divergence in 126 genotypes of tomato

Cluster Character
Plant Number of Days to Average Pericarp Number Number of Fruit yield
height branches/ 50% fruit weight thickness of locules fruits per q/ha
(cm) plant flowering (g) (mm) per fruit plant
I 100.18 7.55 31.78 30.15 0.27 3.73 33.54 278.19
II 91.56 6.39 32.08 34.39 0.49 2.98 27.25 213.98
III 81.31 6.33 36.67 53.75 0.38 2.83 28.27 379.90
IV 117.75 8.10 30.93 27.25 0.47 2.60 40.89 333.09
V 113.03 7.61 36.17 78.53 0.45 5.53 18.64 267.90
VI 138.92 7.75 36.36 25.00 0.41 2.67 29.94 181.31
VII 81.24 5.88 37.83 18.45 0.22 2.58 44.28 202.64
VIII 69.82 5.55 39.27 47.97 0.46 3.82 20.09 205.21
IX 108.95 11.76 39.36 26.00 0.34 2.33 33.91 185.26
X 103.11 9.78 32.13 7.56 0.24 2.33 110.91 305.56
Per cent 15.14 1.57 20.15 17.93 8.19 11.31 7.30 18.38
contribution
towards total
divergence
TABLE-3: Intra and inter cluster distance (D) values in 126 genotypes of tomato

Cluster I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X

I 1.655
II 2.138 1.506
III 2.446 2.493 1.743
IV 2.208 2.058 2.635 1.762
V 3.272 3.298 3.189 3.869 2.452
VI 2.534 2.236 3.353 2.425 3.694 1.726
VII 2.333 2.885 3.206 3.456 4.665 2.865 1.685
VIII 3.077 2.164 2.447 3.698 2.836 3.174 3.003 1.783
IX 3.165 3.424 3.809 3.348 4.398 2.365 3.164 3.827 2.151
X 4.629 5.660 5.671 4.460 7.179 5.347 4.574 6.653 4.966 2.736
TABLE 4 : Potential genotypes of tomato

Cluster III
S.No. Genotype Plant Number Days to 50% Average Pericarp Number Number Fruit
height of flowering fruit thickness of locules of fruits yield
(cm) branches/ weight (mm) per fruit per (q/ha)
plant (g) plant
1. EC-251646 72.67 7.00 31.00 50.33 0.33 2.33 33.93 494.13
2. EC-531804 90.00 4.67 41.13 81.67 0.40 3.00 18.67 453.59
3. EC-521076 83.00 7.67 38.27 72.67 4.00 22.33 22.33 325.28
4. EC-531802 89.67 6.33 37.00 57.33 0.57 2.00 27.27 385.70
5. EC-362949 60.00 4.33 37.00 52.33 0.33 4.00 34.20 473.73
6. EC-144336-A 57.00 6.33 30.20 50.00 0.43 2.33 34.27 462.46
7. EC-357828 105.67 5.00 30.00 60.00 0.37 2.33 25.33 383.29
8. EC-531803 87.00 7.67 41.00 57.33 0.30 2.00 36.00 528.58
9. EC-2585 103.00 7.00 42.00 57.33 0.40 3.33 26.33 300.96

Cluster V
1. EC-3526 110.33 6.00 38.27 50.00 0.60 6.00 22.20 227.87
2. EC-521045 85.00 7.00 37.40 62.67 0.43 4.67 15.87 281.45
3. EC-521060 151.33 6.33 38.93 137.00 0.37 5.67 12.33 349.22
4. EC-521068 115.67 7.33 32.67 75.00 0.47 6.67 12.00 266.00
5. EC-521041 109.33 5.33 40.13 52.33 0.47 5.00 29.33 373.29
6. EC-538151 78.67 7.67 30.00 137.33 0.43 4.67 9.60 318.19