Determination of Local Cherry Tomato Genotypes' Agromorphological Features in Türkiye and Kyrgyzstan

Year 2024, , 743 - 749, 15.11.2024

Mustafa Özmaya , Mustafa Paksoy , Necibe Kayak , Abdurrahman Mutlu

https://doi.org/10.47115/bsagriculture.1550889

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to ascertain some morphological traits and interrelationships of 36 genotypes of cherry tomatoes that were gathered from Türkiye and Kyrgyzstan. Measurements and observations include flower number of cluster, leaf length, leaf width, leaf attitude, fruit color, fruit neck shape, fruit cross-sectional shape, fruit weight, fruit firmness, time of maturity, number of locules, thickness of pericarp, and total soluble solid content, in accordance with the guidelines of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV). The genotypes T40 (62.7 g), T24 (50.8 g), T107 (50 g), T103 (41.4 g), and T105 (40.8 g) had the highest average fruit weights, whereas T3 (9.4 g) and K1 (10.6 g) had the lowest fruit weights. The pericarp had an average thickness of 3.82 mm and an average of 2.49 locules. A spherical fruit cross-section was observed in 97.2% of genotypes. Genotype K2 had the highest total soluble solids content (TTSC%) at 9.4%, whereas genotype K13 had the lowest TTSC% at 3.1%. To measure the data, Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was used. Five separate principle component axes were identified via PCA, and these axes together account for 75.57% of the dataset's variation. These principal components' eigenvalues, which varied from 1.07 to 3.24, showed how much variance was accounted for by each component. The PCA results showed that the genotypes T107, T40, T105, and T87 performed better in PC1 in terms of the number of locules, fruit weight, fruit cross-sectional shape, and pericarp thickness characteristics. Fruit color was influenced by genotypes T90 and T142, fruit firmness by genotype T40, and total soluble solids content by genotype T98. The indigenous cherry tomato varieties from Türkiye and Kyrgyzstan were shown to have a large amount of morphological variety, which may be useful for breeding initiatives in the future.

Keywords

Cherry tomato, Genetic resources, Morphological diversity

Ethical Statement

There is no need for ethics committee approval for this study.

Supporting Institution

The production of this study as a thesis project was made possible by Selçuk University BAP unit number 22201034.

Project Number

The production of this study as a thesis project was made possible by Selçuk University BAP unit number 22201034.

References

• Altıntaş S, Polat S, Şahin N. 2016. Marmara Bölgesinden toplanan domates popülasyonlarinin moleküler ve morfolojik karakterizasyonunun belirlenmesi. Project report: NKU BAP. 00.24.AR.14, Tekirdağ, Türkiye, ss: 163.
• Bahar E, Korkutal İ, Şahin N, Sağır FS, Kök D, Ergönül O, Uysal T, Özalp ZO. 2019. Ganos Dağları doğal florasında bulunan kültür asmalarının (Vitis vinifera L.) moleküler ve ampelografik karakterizasyonu. Tekirdağ Zir Fak Derg, 16(1): 92-102.
• Bhattarai K, Sharma S, Panthee DR. 2018. Diversity among modern tomato genotypes at different levels in fresh-market breeding. Int J Agron, 2018(1): 4170432.
• Bliss FA. 1981. Utilization of vegetable germplasm. Hort Sci, 16(2): 129-132.
• Bota J, Conesa MÀ, Ochogavia JM, Medrano H, Francis DM, Cifre J. 2014. Characterization of a land race collection for Tomàtiga de Ramellet (Solanum lycopersicum L.) from the Balearic Islands. Genet Resour Crop Evol, 61: 1131-1146.
• Che KP, Liang CY, Wang YG, Jin DM, Wang B, Xu Y, Kang GB, Zhang HY. 2003. Genetic assessment of watermelon germplasm using the AFLP technique. Hort Sci, 38(1): 81-84
• Danin-Poleg Y, Reis N, Tzuri G, Katzir N. 2001. Development and characterization of microsatellite markers in Cucumis. Theoret Appl Genet, 102(1): 61-72.
• Demir Ö, Ünlü H, Ünlü H. 2024. Determination of yield and fruit quality characteristics of some beef type tomato lines. Zir Fak Derg, 19(1): 55-62.
• Duman ŞE. 2019, Kabakta (Cucurbita pepo L.) yeni SSR ve SNP markörlerinin geliştirilmesi ve fonksiyonel anotasyonu. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Biyomühendislik ve Bilimleri Ana Bilim Dalı, Kahramanmaraş, Türkiye, ss: 150.
• Evgenidis G, Traka-Mavrona E, Koutsika-Sotiriou M. 2011. Principal component and cluster analysis as a tool in the assessment of tomato hybrids and cultivars. Int J Agron, 2011(1): 697879.
• FAO. 2022. URL= https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QV. (accessed date: May 15, 2024).
• Figàs MR, Prohens J, Raigón MD, Fernández-de-Córdova P, Fita A, Soler S. 2014. Characterization of a collection of local varieties of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) using conventional descriptors and the high-through put phenomics tool Tomato Analyzer. Genet Resour Crop Evol, 62: 189-204.
• Günay A. 2005. Domates. Sebze Yetiştiriciliği. Cilt II. (Özel Sebze Yetiştiriciliği) Ders Kitabı, Ege University Publications, İzmir, Türkiye, pp: 318-344.
• Hobson GE, Davies JN. 1971. The tomato. Biochemistry of Fruits and Their Products, Vol. II. Hulme AC (ed.) Academic Press, New York, US, pp: 337-482.
• Kal Ü, Kayak N, Kıymacı G, Dal Y, Seymen M, Türkmen Ö, Kurtar ES. 2020. Some morphological properties of qualified tomato inbred lines and principal component analysis of the relationship between these properties. IV. International Eurasian Agriculture and Natural Sciences Congress, Proceeding Book, October 30-31, Online, pp: 301.
• Kathayat K, Singh A, Rawat M. 2015. Morphological characterization of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) germplasm in Tarai region of Uttarakhand. Hort Flora Res Spect, 4: 220-223.
• Kayak N, Kıymacı G, Kal Ü, Dal Y, Türkmen Ö. 2022. Determination of morphological characteristics of some prominent tomato genotypes. Selcuk J Agri Food Sci, 36(1): 105-113.
• Kayak N. 2022. Obtaining fom (fusarium oxysporum f.sp. melonis) and ZYMV (Zucchini Yellow Mosaic Virüs) resistant breeding lines in Kırkağaç and Hasanbey-type melons. PhD Thesis, Selçuk University, Institute of Science, Konya, Türkiye, pp: 154.
• Keskin L, Paksoy M, Türkmen Ö. 2015. Anadolu’dan derlenen yerel domates (Solanum lycopersicum) Genotiplerinin Morfolojık Karakterizasyonu Вестник Кыргызского национального аграрного университета им. КИ Скрябина 2015(4): 104-115.
• Keskin L. 2014. Morphologic characterization of parents and hybrids, the cross-breeding of some tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) genotypes. PhD Thesis, Selçuk University, Institute of Science, Konya, Türkiye, pp: 107.
• Mohammadi SA, Prasanna BM. 2003. Analysis of genetic diversity in crop plants salient statistical tools and considerations. Crop Sci, 43(4): 1235-1248.
• Mutlu S, Kır A, Haytaoğlu M, Küçük S, Balkan C, İçer B. 2007. Sebze genetik kaynakları araştırma projesi sonuç raporu, ETAE, Menemen, İzmir, Türkiye.
• Önemli F, Önemli G. 2023. Evaluation of wild annual sunflower species for some morphological, physiological, and agronomic characters under field conditions. J Tekirdağ Agri Fac, 20(4): 857-870.
• Özdamar K. 2004. Paket programlar ile istatiksel veri analizi (Çok Değiskenli Analizler), 5. Baskı. Kaan Kitabevi, Ankara, Türkiye, pp: 528.
• Rao AVR, Agarwal S. 2000. Role of antioxidant lycopene in cancer and heart disease. J Amer College Nutrit, 19(5): 563-569.
• Rick CM. 1973. Potential genetic resources in tomato species: clues from observations in native habitats, In: Genes, enzymes, and populations. Springer, New York, US, pp: 255-269.
• Salim MMR, Rashid MH, Hossain MM, Zakaria M. 2020. Morphological characterization of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) genotypes. J Saudi Soc Agri Sci, 19: 233-240.
• Seymen M, Yavuz D, Dursun A, Kurtar ES, Türkmen Ö. 2019. Identification of drought-tolerant pumpkin (Cucurbita pepo L.) genotypes associated with certain fruit characteristics, seed yield, and quality. Agri Water Manag, 221: 150-159.
• Sönmez K, Oğuz A, Özdamar K, Ellialtıoğlu Ş. 2015. Bazı yerel sofralık domates genotiplerinin morfolojik ve fenolojik olarak akrabalık derecelerinin belirlenmesi. Van Yuzuncu Yıl Univ J Agri Sci, 25(1): 24-40.
• Tan A, İnal A. 2003. Ege Tarımsal Araştırma Enstitüsü bitki genetik kaynakları çalışmaları. Ege Tarımsal Araştırma Enstitüsü Müdürlüğü, İzmir, Türkiye, pp: 13.
• Taylor I. 1986. Biosystematics of the tomato, In: The tomato crop. Springer, New York, US, pp: 1-34.
• Terzopoulos P, Bebeli P. 2010. Phenotypic diversity in Greek tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) landraces. Sci Hort, 126(2): 138-144.
• Türkmen S, Göven M, Akkaya A. 1992. Studies on the insect fauna of lentils in southeastern Anatolia. Second Turkish National Congress of Entomology, January 28-31, Adana, Türkiye, pp: 715-723.
• UPOV. 2020. Guidelines for the conduct of tests for distinctness, uniformity and stability: Tomato (TG/44/11 Rev.). International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, Geneva, Switzerland.
• Vural H, Eşiyok D, Duman İ. 2000. Kültür sebzeleri (sebze yetiştirme). Ege University Publications, İzmir, Türkiye, pp: 440.