Selection of tomato genotypes for drought tolerance and agronomic potential through different selection indexes

Oliveira, Camila S de; Maciel, Gabriel M; Fraga Júnior, Eusímio F; Peixoto, Joicy Vitória M; Assunção, Vitor B; Marques, Douglas José

doi:10.1590/s0102-0536-20210115

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Research • Hortic. Bras. 39 (1) • Jan-Mar 2021 • https://doi.org/10.1590/s0102-0536-20210115 copy

Selection of tomato genotypes for drought tolerance and agronomic potential through different selection indexes

Seleção de genótipos de tomateiro para deficiência hídrica e potencial agronômico por meio de diferentes índices de seleção

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

The selection of genotypes with agronomic potential associated with drought tolerance is considered of high complexity. An alternative could be the use of selection indexes that can evaluate multiple characteristics simultaneously. This study aimed to select tomato genotypes with agronomic potential and drought tolerance by selection indexes. The experiment was conducted in a randomized block design with three replications. Ten treatments were evaluated: seven genotypes F₂RC₃, donor genitor (Solanum pennellii), recurrent genitor (UFU-040), and cv. Santa Clara. The irrigation was suspended until the substrate reached a matric potential of ≤-25 kPa for water stress simulation during the tomato cycle at 45, 60, 80 and 100 days after sowing. The control treatment (donor genitor) and cv. Santa Clara, were resistant and susceptible to water deficit, respectively. The UFU-102-RC3#91335 genotype presented agronomic potential and satisfactory tolerance level to water deficit and presented 58.2% higher production than the recurrent genitor (UFU-040). The genotype-ideotype distance selection index was the most appropriate for the selection of tomato genotypes for agronomic potential allied to drought tolerance.

Keywords:
Solanum lycopersicum; abiotic stress; selection gains; backcross; water deficit

Source of variation	MS				MS
	Physiological characters				Morphological characters
	gl	LT (ºC)	SPAD	WP (MPa)	NL (leaf plant^-1)	PH (cm)	DF (cm)
Block	2	9.5	4.7	0.1	1.7	40.9	26.7
Treatment	9	3.6^*	116.3^*	0.4^*	4.4^*	780.3^*	39.8^*
Genotypes	8	2.3^*	31.2^*	0.3^*	0.5^ns	417.4^*	43.4^*
Genotype vs S. pennellii	1	14.0^*	797.0^*	1.2^*	35.6^*	3683.7^*	11.1^ns
Residue	18	0.8	7.2	0.1	0.7	41.1	5.9
Overall average		33.0	50.9	-2.5	9.7	68.1	18.3
Average genotypes		33.3	49.2	-2.5	9.4	64.5	18.1
Average S. pennellii		31.0	66.4	-1.9	13.0	101.4	20.1
CV(%)		2.7	5.3	9.5	8.8	9.4	13.0
h²(%)		66.0	76.8	76.1	0	90.1	86.4
CVg(%)		2.1	5.7	10.4	0	17.4	19.5
CVg/CVe		0.8	1.1	1.1	0	1.7	1.4
Source of variation	MS
	AgronomicCharacters
	gl	NFP (fruit plant ^-1)	FAW (g)	PPP (kg plant^-1)	AR (%)	SDW (%)	RDW (%)	TDW (%)
Block	2	14.1	23.1	1175.0	577.3	259.6	27.4	156.6
Treatment	9	52.8^*	160.7^*	90777.4^*	929.1^*	753.5^*	983.1^*	637.2^*
Genotypes	8	21.7^ns	42.3^*	45250.6^*	759.4^*	530.0^*	730.6^*	400.2^*
Genotypes vs S. pennellii	1	301.6^*	1108.4^*	454991.6^*	2286.0^*	2540.8^*	3003.3^*	2533.1^*
Residue	18	11.8	8.9	8711.1	77.0	166.5	138.3	131.3
Overall average		21.7	19.5	410.1	26.2	39.1	39.2	38.2
Average genotypes		20.7	21.6	451.2	29.1	42.1	42.6	41.3
Average S. pennellii		31.2	1.3	40.7	0.0	11.5	9.2	10.7
CV(%)		15.8	15.2	22.8	33.5	33.0	30.0	30.0
h²(%)		45.5	79.0	80.7	89.9	68.6	81.06	67.2
CVg(%)		8.8	15.5	24.5	51.9	26.1	32.99	22.9

Genotypes	Physiological characteristics
Genotypes	LT (°C)¹		SPAD		WP (MPa)¹
G1	33.1 a		49.7 b ^*		-2.4 b
G2	33.4 a ^*		44.4 c ^*		-2.6 c ^*
G3	32.9 a		53.3 b ^*		-2.4 b
G4	33.0 a		50.0 b ^*		-2.8 c ^*
G5	32.5 a		51.2 b ^*		-2.1 a
G6	33.0 a		52.1 b ^*		-2.4 b
G7	32.3 a		51.2 b ^*		-2.3 b
UFU-040	33.9 a ^*		45.5 c ^*		-2.8 c ^*
cv. Santa Clara	35.2 a ^*		45.7 c ^*		-3.1 c ^*
S. pennellii	31.0 a		66.4		-1.9 a
DMS Dunnett	2.1		6.5		-0.6
Genotypes	Agronomic characteristics
Genotypes	NFP (fruit plant ^-1)¹	FAW (g)¹	PPP (kg plant^-1)¹	AR (%)¹
G1	24.0 b	24.9 a ^*	0.603 a ^*	19.5 b
G2	18.8 b ^*	22.6 a ^*	0.423 b^*	20.4 b
G3	18.7 b ^*	19.2 b ^*	0.359 b ^*	22.9 b^*
G4	21.4 b ^*	20.8 b ^*	0.439 b ^*	26.3 b ^*
G5	23.0 b	27.4 a ^*	0.634 a ^*	12.2 c
G6	22.8 b ^*	20.1 b ^*	0.457 b^*	27.3 b^*
G7	21.2 b ^*	24.6 a ^*	0.512 a ^*	31.0 b ^*
UFU-040	20.7 b ^*	19.7 b ^*	0.401 b ^*	34.6 b^*
cv. Santa Clara	15.3 b ^*	14.8 b ^*	0.231 c	67.7 a^*
S. pennellii	31.2 a	1.3 c	0.041 d	0.0
DMS Dunnett	8.4	7.2	0.227	21.3
Genotypes	Morphological characteristics
Genotypes	SDW (%)¹	RDW (%)¹	TDW (%)¹	NL (leaf plant^-1)¹	PH (cm)¹	DF (cm)¹
G1	53.6 a ^*	35.3 a	48.1 a ^*	9.3 b ^*	66.7 b ^*	14.4 b
G2	39.5 a	56.1 a ^*	41.4 a ^*	9.7 b ^*	59.5 b ^*	17.8 b
G3	51.8 a ^*	55.1 a ^*	52.3 a ^*	9.3 b ^*	64.9 b ^*	15.6 b
G4	51.0 a ^*	59.1 a ^*	52.1 a ^*	10.0 b ^*	59.9 b ^*	19.0 b
G5	49.0 a ^*	18.6 b	40.4 a ^*	9.3 b ^*	59.8 b ^*	15.1 b
G6	51.7 a ^*	39.3 a ^*	49.3 a ^*	9.3 b ^*	59.5 b ^*	16.3 b
G7	42.2 a	47.3 a ^*	42.9 a ^*	8.7 b ^*	56.2 b ^*	20.3 b
UFU-040	19.9 b	53.4 a ^*	25.1 b	9.0 b ^*	58.7 b ^*	17.4 b
cv. Santa Clara	20.5 b	19.0 b	20.0 b	9.7 b ^*	94.7 a	26.9 a ^*
S. pennellii	11.5 b	9.2 b	10.7 b	13.0 a	101.4 a	20.1 b
DMS Dunnett	31.4	28.6	27.9	2.1	15.6	5.9

CHARAC¹	GS (%)
CHARAC¹	LT (°C)¹	SPAD	WP (MPa)¹	NFP (fruit plant^-1)¹	FAW (g)¹	PPP (kg plant^-1)¹	AR (%)¹
LT	-1.4	-1.4	-1.2	-1.0	-0.4	-0.5	-0.9
SPAD	5.2	5.9	3.2	4.4	-2.5	-0.2	3.1
WP	-5.7	-8.1	-8.1	-4.0	-1.1	-1.4	-5.8
NFP	2.9	3.5	3.6	5.8	-0.1	1.6	3.0
FAM	-3.5	-4.1	-1.4	-2.6	18.3	16.3	-1.8
PPP	-2.5	-1.8	0.7	4.9	22.1	23.4	0.4
AR	-26.5	-25.8	-27.5	-31.3	-14.8	-10.1	-38.4
SDM	3.6	3.8	-0.5	7.5	14.0	18.3	3.5
RDM	-2.9	-11.0	-10.6	-14.3	8.4	1.4	-9.0
TDM	2.5	1.6	-2.3	3.3	11.9	14.6	0.6
PH	0.4	0.3	-1.1	1.8	-10.2	-10.2	3.1
DF	-1.3	-3.8	-1.8	-6.2	-4.7	-6.1	-8.0
Total	-30.6	-42.4	-48.2	-32.8	40.7	46.8	-51.2
Gen. Selec.	S. pennellii	S. pennellii	S. pennellii	S. pennellii	G5	G5	S. pennellii
	G7	G3	G5	G1	G1	G1	G5
	G5	G6	G7	G5	G7	G7	G1
	G3	G5	G6	G6	G2	G6	G2
	G4	G7	G2	G4	G4	G4	G3
CHARAC¹	GS (%)
CHARAC¹	SDW (%)¹	RDW (%)¹	TDW (%)¹	NL (leaf plant^-1)¹	PH (cm)¹	DF (cm)¹
LT	-0.3	0.1	-0.4	0.2	0.0	0.1
SPAD	0.5	-3.1	0.5	0.4	-3.1	-0.9
WP	-0.5	2.2	0.6	2.2	-2.2	-0.2
NFP	0.6	-3.3	-0.2	0.9	-0.9	0.4
FAM	12.0	7.5	9.7	-10.8	13.5	11.0
PPP	17.4	3.3	12.6	-12.4	14.9	16.0
AR	-15.6	2.9	-2.7	2.1	-3.8	-9.9
SDM	21.7	3.2	19.3	-6.8	2.5	10.8
RDM	4.6	30.9	16.5	-7.2	7.6	2.2
TDM	17.9	8.0	18.8	-6.6	2.8	8.4
PH	-7.9	-11.0	-8.8	11.0	-12.4	-8.2
DF	-10.5	-1.2	-5.6	6.4	-4.3	-11.9
Total	39.7	39.6	60.0	-20.3	-14.6	17.7
Gen. Selec.	G1	G4	G3	G10	G7	G1
	G3	G2	G4	G4	UFU-040	G5
	G6	G3	G6	G2	G2	G3
	G4	UFU-040	G1	cv. Santa Clara	G6	G6
	G5	G7	G7	G1	G5	UFU-040

Characters¹	Selection gains (%)
Characters¹	Smith (1936SMITH, HF. 1936. A discriminant function for plant selection. Annals of Human Genetics7: 240-250. ) & Hazel (1943HAZEL, LN. 1943. The genetic basis for constructing selection indexes. Genetics28: 476-490. )	Mulamba & Mock (1978MULAMBA, NN; MOCK, JJ. 1978. Improvement of yield potential of the Eto Blanco maize (Zea mays) population by breeding for plant traits. Egyptian Journal of Genetics and Cytology7: 40-57. )	Genotype-ideotype distance
LT (ºC)¹	0.7	-0.5	-0.5
SPAD	-3.4	0.8	-0.2
WP (MPa)¹	3.5	-3.5	-1.4
NFP (fruit plant ^-1)¹	-3.8	0.5	1.6
FAW (g)¹	4.2	15.0	16.3
PPP (kg plant^-1)¹	0.5	20.3	23.4
AR (%)¹	28.6	-12.4	-10.1
SDW(%)¹	3.3	18.6	18.3
RDW (%)¹	10.2	-0.2	1.4
TDW (%)¹	5.1	14.7	14.6
PH (cm)¹	-2.9	-8.9	-10.2
DF (cm)¹	8.3	-9.3	-6.1
Total	55.2	34.6	46.8
Selected genotypes	G2	G5	G7
	cv. Santa Clara	G1	G6
	G7	G6	G5
	G6	G7	G4
	G4	G3	G1

Associação Brasileira de Horticultura Embrapa Hortaliças, C. Postal 218, 70275-970 Brasília-DF, Tel. (61) 3385 9099, Tel. (81) 3320 6064, www.abhorticultura.com.br - Vitoria da Conquista - BA - Brazil
E-mail: associacaohorticultura@gmail.com

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[TFN1] *differs at 0.05 level of significance by the F test. ns = not significant. CV = coefficient of variation; h²= coefficient of genotypic determination; CVg= coefficient of genetic variation; CVg/CVe = index of variation between the coefficient of genetic variation and the coefficient of experimental variation; gl = degree of freedom; LT = leaf temperature ; SPAD = SPAD index; WP = leaf water potential ; NL = number of leaves; PH = height of the plants ; DF = distance from the insertion of the first bunch of fruit ; NFP = number of fruit per plant; FAW = fruit average weight ; PPP = production per plant; AR = incidence of apical rot; SDW = shoot dry weight ; RDW = root dry weight ; TDW = total dry weight.