See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/256009546

Heterosis Studies For Yield and Its Components in Tomato (Solanum

lycopersicum l.) under Valley Conditions of Manipur

Article · March 2013

CITATIONS READS

11 590

4 authors:

Naorem Brajendra Singh Shabir H Wani

Central Agricultural University Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology of Kashmir
149 PUBLICATIONS   975 CITATIONS    372 PUBLICATIONS   5,389 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Haribhushan Athokpam Rita Nongthombam

KVK, South Garo Hills- Meghalaya ( Central Agricultural University) Kvk west siang icar ap centre basar, arunachal pradesh
38 PUBLICATIONS   406 CITATIONS    17 PUBLICATIONS   28 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

GATHA COGNITION View project

National Innovation on Climate Resilient Agriculture View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Shabir H Wani on 05 July 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 VEGETOS Vol. 25 (2) : 257-265 (2012)

Heterosis Studies For Yield and Its Components in Tomato

(Solanum lycopersicum l.) under Valley Conditions of
Manipur
Naorem.B.Singh, Shabir H. Wani*1, A. Haribhushan1 and Rita Nongthombam,
Department of Plant Breeding and Genetics, College of Agriculture, Central Agricultural University, Imphal -795004, Manipur
1
KVK-Sylvan, Hengbung, Senapati, 795 129, Manipur

A 7x7 half diallel cross of tomato was evaluated with parents for heterotic manifestation of yield
and yield attributing characters. The heterosis over superior parent (SP) to the extent of 22.05,
14.59, 139.61, 29.47, 98.70, 102.08, 163.20, 110.98, 177.85 and 165.03 per cent was recorded
for days to flowering, days to last ripening, plant height, primary branches per plant, fruit weight,
number of fruits per plant, yield per plant, fruit size, number of seeds per fruit and number of
locules per fruit, respectively. The crosses showing heterosis for yield per plant were not heterot-
ic for all the characters under study. The heterosis for yield was generally accompanied by heter-
osis for yield components. Five promising crosses viz., Ox-heart x Sutton Roma, Marglobe Su-
preme x Sutton Roma, Money Maker x Pusa Early Dwarf, Marglobe Supreme x Money Maker
and Sutton Roma x Pusa Early Dwarf were identified for developing high yielding F1 hybrids/
varieties of tomato with many desirable traits.

Key words: Solanum lycopersicum L., heterosis, yield and yield components
Received: February 27, 2012 Revised: September 18, 2012 Accepted: October 7, 2012

INTRODUCTION of heterosis to step up tomato production but tomato hybrids

Plant breeders have extensively explored and utilized
heterosis to boost yield levels in several cross-pollinated
crops in the recent past. However, tomato being a highly au-
togamous species, the scope for exploitation of hybrid vigour
depends on the direction and magnitude of heterosis, and ease
with which hybrid seeds can be produced. The reproductive
biology and production of appreciable quantity of seeds per
fruit provide ample opportunity for manifestation of heterosis
in tomato (Singh and Singh, 1993). Since the discovery of
hybrid vigour by Shull (1908) a tremendous progress has
been made in the development of potential hybrids in tomato.
Heterosis in tomato was first observed by Hedrick and Booth
(1968) for higher yield and more number of fruits. Since then,
heterosis for yield, its components and quality traits were
extensively studied (Ahmad et al. 2011; Kurian et al. 2011).
Choudhary et al. (1965) emphasized the extensive utilization
perform differently under different agroclimatic conditions.
Present investigation was undertaken to ascertain the nature
and extent of heterosis for yield and its component characters
in this crop under valley conditions of Manipur.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A set of 7x7 diallel crosses of tomato excluding recip-
rocals were evaluated along with their seven parents
(Marglobe Supreme, Money Maker, Sutton Roma, Ox-Heart,
Pusa Ruby, Pusa Early Dwarf, CAU-M-4) in a randomized
block design with three replications at the Department of
Plant Breeding and Genetics’ farm, College of Agriculture,
C.A.U., Imphal. Each of the twenty eight (28) genotypes was
accommodated in 2 lines of 4 m length with a spacing of
60cm between the rows and 60 cm between the plants. Rec-
ommended cultural practices were followed to raise a good

* Corresponding author Email : shabirhussainwani@gmail.com 257

 Heterosis Studies For Yield and Its Components in Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum l.)
crop. Observations were recorded on 10 randomly selected
plants of parents and F1’s for the characters viz., plant height,
number of primary branches per plant, number of fruits per
plant, fruit weight, yield per plant, fruit size, and number of
locules per fruit. Observations for the characters viz., days to
first flowering and days to last ripening were recorded on plot
basis. Heterosis over superior parent and mid parent for dif-
ferent characters under study were calculated as per standard
procedures.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Analysis of variance indicated significant differences
among genotypes for the various characters analyzed (Table
1). The magnitude of heterosis for different characters under
study among the hybrid combinations are presented in Table
2.1 to 2.5.
Maturity duration
Earliness leads to early supply of the produce in the
market and enables it to fetch a remunerative price. Thus,
heterosis for days to first flowering and days to last ripening
had been estimated in terms of earliness. For days to first
flowering two crosses viz., Money Maker x Pusa Early Dwarf
(- 11.72%) and Ox-Heart x Sutton Roma (-7.18%) recorded
negative and highly significant heterosis over superior parent
From the point of view of short duration only the cross Mon-
ey Maker x Pusa Early dwarf which exhibited -11.52% heter-
osis over the superior parent was desirable (Table 2). Nega-
tive heterosis for earliness has also been reported by Dod and
Kale (1992), Ahmad et al. (2011) and Kumari and Sharma
(2011).
Plant height
Here also short stature was taken as a positive trait,
and in such respect, two crosses, that is, Sutton Roma x Pusa
Early Dwarf and Sutton Roma x CAU-M-4 exhibited nega-
tive and significant heterosis over superior parent of -51.42%
and -45.76%, respectively (Table 3). Positive heterosis was
reported by Dod and Kale (1992) and Ahmad et al (2011).
Number of primary branches per plant
Highly significant positive heterosis over superior
parent for this character (Table 3) was exhibited by some of
the crosses viz Marglobe Supreme x Sutton Roma
(29.47%),Marglobe Supreme x Pusa Early dwarf (27.33%)
and Ox-Heart x CAU-M-4 (25.49%).
Number of fruits per plant
For the character, three crosses viz., Marglobe Su-
preme x Sutton Roma (102.08%), Marglobe Supreme x CAU
-M-4 (91.74%) and Sutton Roma x CAU-M-4 (75.70%)
showing significant heterosis over superior parent may be
selected (Table 4). Heterosis for number of fruits per plant in
tomato has earlier been reported by majority of workers (Dod
and Kale, 1992, Gunasekara and Parera, 1999 and Kumari
and Sharma, 2011).
Fruit weight
Average fruit weight has key role in acceptance of
produce by the consumer. Three crosses viz., Ox-Heart x Sut-
ton Roma (98.70%), Marglobe Supreme x Pusa Ruby
(61.48%) and Marglobe Supreme x Money Maker (60.73%)
showed highest significant heterosis over superior parent
(Table 4). Positive heterosis has been reported for this trait by
Gunasekara and Parera (1999) and Kurian et al. (2011).
Yield per plant
The three crosses which exhibited highest heterosis
over superior parent were Ox-Heart x Sutton Roma
(163.20%), Ox-Heart x Pusa Ruby (74.03%) and Money
Maker x Pusa Early Dwarf (67.14) (Table 5). Earlier hetero-
sis of varying degree for yield has been reported by Dhobal
(1999), Kumari and Sharma (2011) and Kurian et al. (2011).
Fruit size
For fruit size, the following crosses exhibiting signifi-
cant heterosis over superior parent viz., Marglobe Supreme x
Money Maker (110.98%), Ox-Heart x Sutton Roma (71.23%)
and Ox-Heart x Money Maker (60.76%) may be selected
(Table 5).
Numbers of locules per fruit
From the point of view of hybrid seed production
number of locules per fruit is considered as desirable charac-
ter in tomato. For number of locules per fruit, highest positive
and significant heterosis over superior parent was observed to
the extent of 165.03 per cent in Ox-Heart x Sutton Roma fol-
lowed by Marglobe Supreme x Sutton Roma (33.61%)
(Table 6).
Negative heterosis over superior parent is desirable
attribute for some of the characters especially concerning
with crop maturity period and plant height. In the present
investigation, negative heterosis over superior parent was
exhibited in many of the cross combinations. Negative and
moderate heterosis for such traits has also been observed by
Ahmed et al. (1988) and Pujari and Kale (1994).
The major components of yield on tomato are number
of fruits per plant, fruit weight and fruit size. In the present
study, heterosis over superior parent was to the extent of
102.08 per cent in Marglobe Supreme x Sutton Roma for
number of fruits per plant, 98.70 per cent in Ox-Heart x Sut-
ton Roma for fruit weight, 110.98 per cent in Marglobe Su-
preme x Money Maker for fruit size and 163.20 per cent in
Ox-Heart x Sutton Roma for yield per plant. Thus, the ob-
served high heterosis for yield per plant might be due to in-
crease in fruit size and fruit weight rather than increase in
number of fruits per plant. The wide range of heterosis ob-
served for yield in the present study may be attributed to ge-
netic diversity of parents used in hybrid combinations and
258
 Naorem.B.Singh et al.

Table 1. Analysis of variance for different characters in tomato

Source Degree Mean sum of squares
of Days to Days Plant Num- Num- Fruit Yield per Fruit Number Num-
free- first to last height ber of ber of weight plant size of seeds ber of
dom flower- ripen- (cm) pri- fruits (g) (g) (cm2) per fruit locules
ing ing mary per per
branc plant fruit
hes
per
plant
Replication 2 105.33 79.02 1211.. 32.01 45.72 54.54 49961.93 98.98 2271.40 2.47
52
Treatment 27 23.97* 318.89 433.4 56..90 238.95 949.20 120299.8 114.92 1296.82 4.47**
* ** 4** ** ** ** 0** ** **
Error 54 5.32 99.16 98.83 8.17 20..31 46.07 44741.19 28.42 258. 90 0.71
*P= 0.05, **P= 0.01

Table 2. Mean performance and estimates of heterosis over superior parents (SP) and mid parents (MP) for days to first
flowering and days to last ripening

S.No. Entries Mean Per cent heterosis of days Mean Per cent heterosis of
to first flowering days to last ripening

SP MP SP MP
1. Ox-heart 43.00 221.14
2. Marglobe Supreme 41.00 231.81
3. Money maker 42.00 234.14
4. Sutton Roma 46.33 235.13
5. Pusa Ruby 40.67 230.89
6. Pusa Early Dwarf 48.33 226.67
7. CAU-M- 4 42.33 226.08
1x2 46.00 10.40* 8.66* 265.52 14.59 17.29
1x3 45.67 8.73* 7.45* 230.84 -1.41 1.40
1x4 43.00 -7.18* -3.73 231.67 -1.47 1.55
1x5 45.67 12.30* 9.16* 229.50 0.60 1.54
1x6 47.00 -2.76 2.92 252.57 11.43 12.80
1x7 47.67 12.60* 11.72* 229.54 1.53 2.65
2x3 43.33 3.17 3.59 232.17 -0.84 -0.35
2x4 49.33 6.47 12.12* 233.52 -0.68 0.02
2x5 43.67 7.38* 6.07* 237.21 2.74 2.54
2x6 46.67 -3.45 3.70 234.61 3.50 2.34
2x7 48.00 13.39* 14.29* 230.12 1.79 0.51
3x4 49.67 7.19* 12.45* 234.64 -0.21 0.00
3x5 42.67 4.92 3.23 231.16 0.12 -0.58
3x6 42.67 -11.72* -5.54* 200.57 -11.52 -12.95
3x7 44.33 4.72 5.14 233.72 3.38 1.57
4x5 42.00 3.28 -3.45 233.09 0.95 0.04
4x6 45.33 -6.21 -4.23 230.22 1.56 -0.29
4x7 48.67 14.96* 9.77* 236.81 4.75 2.69
5x6 45.67 -5.52 2.62 229.94 1.44 0.51
5x7 43.67 3.15 5.22 229.83 1.66 0.59
6x7 51.67 22.05* 13.97* 226.38 0.13 0.00
S.E. for heterosis over S.P. and M.P. = 3.21 2.80 11.70 10.13

C.D. = 6.58 5.74 23.99 20.77 *P= 0.05, **P= 0.01 259
 Heterosis Studies For Yield and Its Components in Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum l.)

Table 3. Mean performance and estimates of heterosis over superior parents (SP) and mid parents (MP) for plant
height and number of primary branches per plant
S.No. Entries Mean Per cent heterosis of plant Mean Per cent heterosis of
(cm) height number of primary
branches per plant

SP MP SP MP
1. Ox-heart 56.59 7.53
2. Marglobe Supreme 82.46 10.07
3. Money maker 59.01 6.38

4. Sutton Roma 30.71 6.33

5. Pusa Ruby 41.35 28.81
6. Pusa Early Dwarf 61.59 6.00
7. CAU-M- 4 64.63 5.10
1x2 71.92 -12.79 3.44 9.67 -3.97 9.85
1x3 60.85 3.11 5.27 5.60 -12.27 -19.52*
1x4 73.58 139.61* 68.58* 6.07 -4.21 -12.50*
1x5 58.59 41.68* 19.64* 6.50 -77.44* -64.23*
1x6 59.09 -4.05 0.01 6.77 12.78 0.00
1x7 58.63 -9.28 -3.27 6.40 25.49 1.32
2x3 65.44 10.88 -7.49 7.53 18.02* -8.41
2x4 56.59 84.27* 0.01 8.20 29.47* 0.00
2x5 59.09 42.91* -4.54 5.53 -80.79* -71.53*
2x6 64.92 5.41 -9.54 7.64 27.33* -4.90
2x7 57.52 -11.01 -21.80* 6.20 21.57* -18.24*
3x4 59.55 93.92* 32.75* 6.36 0.42 0.03
3x5 65.49 58.39* 30.51* 6.60 -77.09* -62.49*
3x6 68.88 11.85 14.23 6.09 1.56 -1.59
3x7 62.76 -2.89 1.52 4.87 -4.58 -15.24*
4x5 47.15 14.03 30.87* 7.07 -75.47* 59.78*
4x6 29.92 -51.42* -35.17* 6.07 1.11 -1.62
4x7 35.06 -45.76* -26.46* 6.13 20.26* 7.29
5x6 57.31 -6.95 11.34 6.73 12.22 -61.31*
5x7 55.00 -14.90 3.80 6.01 17.84* -64.55*
6x7 63.11 -2.35 0.00 5.55 8.82 0.00
S.E. for heterosis over S.P. and M.P. = 11.22 8.61 7.96 5.64
C.D. = 23.00 17.65 16.32 11.56 *P= 0.05 , **P= 0.01

260
 Naorem.B.Singh et al.

Table 4. Mean performance and estimates of heterosis over superior parents (SP) and mid parents (MP) for numbers of
fruits per plant and fruit weight
S.No. Entries Mean Per cent heterosis of Mean Per cent heterosis of fruit
numbers of fruits per (g) weight
plant

SP MP SP MP
1. Ox-heart 16.51 28.93
2. Marglobe Supreme 46.84 13.76
3. Money maker 26.88 22.02

4. Sutton Roma 17.48 21.59

5. Pusa Ruby 29.44 23.40
6. Pusa Early Dwarf 17.07 31.13
7. CAU-M- 4 11.10 99.90
1x2 45.88 -1.31 45.66** 18.29 32.95** 14.30*
1x3 20.20 -24.83* -6.86* 34.21 58.40** 34.80**
1x4 24.53 40.38** 44.38** 42.89 98.70** 69.81**
1x5 36.68 24.62* 59.69** 28.07 19.94** 7.26
1x6 18.59 8.90* 10.74* 26.80 -13.92* -10.77*
1x7 19.22 73.24** 39.28** 47.88 -52.07** -25.67**
2x3 28.28 5.17 -22.94** 35.39 60.73** 97.82**
2x4 35.32 102.08** 10.43* 17.67 -18.13* 0.00
2x5 15.80 -46.31* -58.37** 37.79 61.48** 103.37**
2x6 25.90 51.72** -18.49* 25.72 -17.39* 14.58*
2x7 21.28 91.74** -26.10* 58.64 -14.30* 3.19
3x4 22.18 26.91* 0.02 25.46 17.94* 16.78*
3x5 22.24 -24.44* -21.00** 33.75 44.22** 48.61**
3x6 27.84 63.06** 26.69** 32.10 3.10 20.79**
3x7 16.26 46.56** -14.34* 46.93 -53.02** -23.01**
4x5 23.46 -20.30* 0.01 22.49 -3.87 0.00
4x6 22.80 33.56* 32.00** 29.04 -6.72 10.17*
4x7 19.50 75.70** 36.47** 25.56 -74.41** -57.92**
5x6 24.54 43.73** 5.53 25.79 -17.15* -5.40
5x7 14.56 31.21* -28.16** 50.21 -49.73** -18.55*
6x7 10.75 -3.09 -29.65** 65.52 -34.42** 0.00
S.E. for heterosis over S.P. and M.P. = 4.01 3.28 5.21 4.73

C.D. = 8.22 6.72 10.68 9.70 *P= 0.05 , **P= 0.01

261
 Heterosis Studies For Yield and Its Components in Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum l.)

Table 5. Mean performance and estimates of heterosis over superior parents (SP) and mid parents (MP) for yield per plant
and fruit size

S.No. Entries Mean Per cent heterobeltiosis of Mean Per cent heterobeltiosis
(g) yield per plant (cm2) of fruit size

SP MP SP MP
1. Ox-heart 489.76 8.90
2. Marglobe Supreme 609.35 5.83
3. Money maker 585.65 11.14
4. Sutton Roma 425.38 11.61
5. Pusa Ruby 669.28 12.18
6. Pusa Early Dwarf 555.79 10.70
7. CAU-M- 4 1120.18 35.69
1x2 1063.62 41.73 57.15 7.60 30.34* 3.21
1x3 898.79 19.96 17.19 17.19 60.76* 78.71*
1x4 1718.61 163.20 144.68 19.88 71.23* 93.86*
1x5 1664.72 74.03 100.98 10.34 -15.11* -1.91
1x6 751.53 -0.77 5.50 9.80 -8.38* 0.03
1x7 1215.04 -18.31 13.67 15.69 -56.04* -29.64*
2x3 1277.60 66.93 63.62 23.50 110.98 176.92*
2x4 834.05 49.05 22.55 8.73 -24.83* 0.06
2x5 814.03 -8.25 -3.95 13.09 7.50* 45.36*
2x6 854.81 17.82 12.40 9.85 -7.91* 19.19*
2x7 1096.11 -20.00 3.62 18.73 -47.52* -9.78*
3x4 755.85 30.67 9.96 11.38 -2.01 0.03
3x5 931.91 9.36 16.65 12.13 -0.41 4.03
3x6 1128.94 67.14 62.77 11.76 9.94* 7.74*
3x7 936.29 -34.27 -13.67 16.96 -52.48* -27.56*
4x5 730.66 -20.71 -3.05 10.45 -14.15* -12.11*
4x6 976.08 21.64 37.81 11.82 10.47* 5.95
4x7 702.74 -55.12 -34.94 11.31 -68.31* -52.17*
5x6 980.99 22.53 11.18 8.62 -19.41* -24.61*
5x7 951.41 -32.92 -16.02 12.60 -64.70* -47.36*
6x7 945.65 32.63 -9.94 23.20 -35.00 0.01
S.E. for heterosis over

S.P. and M.P. = 164.35 147.59 3.82 3.63

C.D. = 336.91 302.55 7.83 7.44 *P= 0.05 , **P= 0.01

262
 Naorem.B.Singh et al.

Table 6. Mean performance and estimates of heterosis over superior parents (SP) and mid parents (MP) for and number of
locules per fruit
S.No. Entries Mean Per cent heterosis of Mean Per cent heterosis of
number of seeds per fruit number of locules per
fruit
SP MP SP MP
1. Ox-heart 58.17 3.75
2. Marglobe Supreme 79.85 3.56
3. Money maker 43.21 3.56

4. Sutton Roma 23.37 2.44

5. Pusa Ruby 39.06 4.37
6. Pusa Early Dwarf 29.88 4.15
7. CAU-M- 4 52.26 8.19
1x2 86.62 8.47 25.51* 4.49 26.22* 22.99*
1x3 57.98 34.13* 14.34 4.23 18.73* 15.69*
1x4 60.05 156.93* 47.29* 6.47 165.03* 109.05*
1x5 55.29 41.57* 13.74 3.39 -22.56* -16.58*
1x6 44.03 47.34* 0.00 3.95 -4.82* 0.00
1x7 88.97 70.24* 61.13* 4.36 -46.79* -26.97*
2x3 83.48 93.18* 35.67* 3.59 0.75* 0.75
2x4 51.61 120.82* 0.00 3.26 33.61* 8.67*
2x5 50.60 29.56* -14.89 3.09 -29.27* -22.02*
2x6 47.64 59.44* -13.17 3.71 -10.45* -3.63*
2x7 61.80 18.25 -6.45 5.06 -38.24* -13.90*
3x4 33.29 42.44* 0.00 3.00 22.95* 0.00
3x5 108.52 177.85* 163.81* 3.11 -28.96* -21.68*
3x6 47.25 58.12* 29.28* 3.51 -15.43* -9.00
3x7 68.65 31.36* 43.81* 3.16 -61.43* -46.23*
4x5 52.30 33.91* 67.55* 3.41 -22.10 0.00
4x6 61.28 105.09* 130.15* 2.99 -27.97* -9.31*
4x7 31.13 -40.44* -17.69 4.32 -47.23* -18.68*
5x6 63.49 112.49* 84.21* 3.78 -8.84* -11.27*
5x7 93.65 79.20* 105.11* 5.08 -38.00 19.15*
6x7 41.07 -21.41 0.00 6.17 -24.69* 0.00
S.E. for heterosis over S.P. and M.P. = 12.90 11.23 0.77 0.63

C.D. = 26.45 23.02 1.58 1.29 *P= 0.05 , **P= 0.0

263
 Heterosis Studies For Yield and Its Components in Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum l.)
Table 7. Superior crosses and characters exhibiting significant heterosis
S.No. Best crosses Yield per
plant (g)
1. Ox-heart x Sutton Roma 1718.61
2. Marglobe Supreme x Sutton Roma 834.05
3. Money Maker x Pusa Early Dwarf 1128.94
4. Marglobe Supreme x Money Maker 1277.60
5. Sutton Roma x Pusa Early Dwarf 976.08
such findings were supported by those of (Ghosh et al., 1997,
Kurian et al. 2001 and Sekar, 2001). High heterosis in both
positive and negative directions for yield and its components
was also observed by Dod et al. (1998), Rai et al (1998),
Sidhu et al. (1993), Singh and Singh (1993), Thakur et al
(2004), Ahmad et al. (2011), Kumari and Sharma (2011) etc.
By considering the magnitude of heterosis expressed in the
present study, it can be suggested that in the heterosis breed-
ing programme, parents Money Maker and Pusa Early Dwarf
would be good as parents for early hybrids, Sutton Roma and
Pusa Early Dwarf for compact plant stature, Marglobe Su-
preme and Sutton Roma for fruit weight and fruit yield per
plant (Table 7). On the other hand, Marglobe Supreme and
Money Maker for fruit size, Money Maker and Sutton Roma
for number of fruits per plant, and Ox-Heart and Sutton Roma
for number of locules per fruit could be used as parents for
heterosis breeding in tomato.
REFERENCES
Ahmad S, Quarmruzzaman AKM and Islam MR (2011). Estimate of hetero-
sis in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Bangladesh J Agril Res 36(3): 521-
527. http://www.banglajol.info/index.php/BJAR/issue/view/534
Ahmed SU,Saha HK and Sharfuddin (1988). Study of heterosis and correla-
tion in tomato. Thai J Agric Sci 21: 117-123. http://www.thaiagj.org/
Choudhary B, Punia RS and Sangha HS (1965). Manifestation of hybrid
vigou in F1 and its correlation in F2 generation of tomato (Lycopersicon escu-
lentum Mill). Indian J Hort 22: 52-59. http://www.indianjournals.com/
ijor.aspx?target=ijor:ijh&volume=22&issue=1&type=toc
Dod VN and Kale PB (1992). Heterosis for certain quality traits in tomato
(Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.). Crop Res 5: 303- 308. http://
www.cropresearch.org/CR Archive Vegetable Crops
Heterosis over superior parent (SP) for
Fruit size, yield per plant, number of locules per fruit and fruit
weight
Numbers of fruits per plant, number of primary branches per
plant and number of locules per fruit
Early duration
Fruit size
Dwarf and compact plant stature
Dod VN, Kale PB, Wan Khade RV and Jadhao BJ (1992). Heterosis in the
intervarietal crosses of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.). Crop Res
5:134-139. http://www.cropresearch.org/CR Archive Vegetable Crops
Ghosh PK, Syamal MM and Rath S (1997). Heterosis studies in tomato
(Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.). Haryana J Hort Sci 26:114-117. http://
hortsh.org/?page_id=61
Gunasekara DM and Perera ALT (1999). Production and genetic evaluation
of tomato hybrids using the diallel genetic design. Tropical Agricultural
Research 11: 123-133. http://www.sljol.info/index.php/TAR/issue/archive
Hannan MM, Ahmed MB, Razvy MA , Karim R , Khatun M , Haydar A ,
Hossain M and Roy UK(2007). Heterosis and Correlation of Yield and Yield
Components in Tomato (Lycopersicon esulentum Mill.) American-Eurasian
Journal of Scientific Research 2 (2): 146-150. http://www.idosi.org/aejsr/2%
282%2907/14.pdf
Hedrick UP and Booth NO (1968). Mendelian characters in tomato. Proc Am
Soc Hort Sci. 5: 19-24.
Hegazi HH, Hassan HM, Moussa AG and Wahb MA (1995). Heterosis and
heritability estimation for some characters of some characters of some tomato
cultivars and their hybrid combination. Alxandria J Agric Res 40: 265- 276.
Kumar S, Banerjee MK and Partap PS (1995). Studies on heterosis for vari-
ous characters in tomato. Haryana J Hort Sci 24:54-60. http://hortsh.org/?
page_id=61
Kumari S and Sharma MK (2011) .Exploitation for yield and its contributing
traits in tomato, Solanum Lycopersicum L. International Journal of Farm
Sciences 1(2):45-55. http://www.inflibnet.ac.in/ojs/index.php/IJFS/article/
viewFile/804/715
Kurian A, Peter KV and Rajan S (2001). Heterosis for yield components and
fruit characters in tomato. Journal of Tropical Agriculture 39: 5-8. http://
www.jtropag. in/index.php/ ojs/article/view/ 11/7
Pujari CV and Kale PN (1994). Heterosis studies in tomato. J of Maharastra
Agric Univ19:83-85.http://www.worldcat.org/title/journal-of-maharashtra-
264
 Naorem.B.Singh et al.
agricultural-universities/ oclc/2942501
Rai N, Syamal MM, Joshi AK and Kumar V (1998). Heterosis and inbreed-
ing depression in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.). Indian J of Agric
Res 32:21-27.
Sekar K(2001). Heterosis for yield and yield components in tomato
(Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.). Advances in Horticulture and Forestry 8:
95-102. http://www.saujanyabooks.com/details.aspx?id=15074&ISBN-
8172332904/Advances-in-Horticulture-and-Forestry_Volume-3-10/Singh-S.P
Shull GH (1908). The composition of field maize. Rept Amer Breeders’
Assoc 4: 296-301. http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/os-4/1/296.extract
View publication stats
Sidhu AS, Singh S, Verma MM, Virk PS and Chahal GS (1993). Studies on
heterosis and divergence in tomato. In: Symposium on heterosis breeding in
crop plants-theory and application. The Crop Improvement Society of India,
Ludhiana, India, pp. 64 – 65.
Singh RK and Singh VK (1993). Heterosis breeding in tomato (Lycopersicon
esulentum Mill.). Annals of Agric Res 14:416-420.
Thakur AK, Kholi UK and Joshi A (2004). Evaluation of diallel progeny and
heterosis for yield and yield components in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum
Mill.). Haryana J Hort Sci 33:106-109. http://hortsh.org/?page_id=61
265