Agronomic performance and genetic dissimilarity among cherry tomato genotypes

Abstract

The genotypes evaluation in a germplasm bank is essential to determine their commercial or usefulness, as potential parents, in a breeding program. We aimed to detect the genetic diversity of 42 tomato genotypes of cherry type, belonging to the germplasm bank of the Federal University of Uberlândia and, also evaluate their behavior. The experiment was conducted in a greenhouse in randomized block design with 42 treatments and two replications. Ten quantitative traits of agronomic importance were evaluated. The
genetic divergence was obtained by multivariate analysis, using the Mahalanobis distance with different clustering methods (UPGMA and Tocher). The hybrids performance was compared by Scott-Knott (p=0.05) and Dunnett’s test (p= 0.05). UPGMA and Tocher grouped the genotypes similarly, representing genetic divergence satisfactorily.
The genotypes UFU 29, UFU 21 and UFU 07 were more productive, earlier and also divergent from the pre-commercial treatment (UFU 200), being able to be used as potential parents.

Full text

167
Research
Hortic. bras., Brasília, v.36, n.2, April - June 2018
Tomato cropping has been
highlighted, over the years, as
one of the most important agricultural
activities in Brazil. In 2012, over 69.000
hectares of tomato were cultivated
in Brazil. Beyond that, only the
seed market reached R$ 124 million
(ABCSEM, 2014). In addition, tomato
cropping has an amazing importance on
social sphere, using, basically, manual
managements and in the feeding sphere,
presenting great nutritional components
(Alvarenga, 2013).
The tomato presents a huge fruit
diversity, which makes it to be classied
in commercial groups: Cherry, Grape,
Santa Cruz, Italian, Round, Saladette
and Industrial (Alvarenga, 2013).
Among these, cherry tomatoes present
small fruits and a sweeter taste in relation
to the other groups. These minitomatoes
are quite new on the supermarkets,
but have one of the greatest potential
for expansion, for presenting dierent
avors and colors and for its practicality
(Maciel et al., 2016). Being the
cultivation meticulous, the cherry
cropping demands a high initial cost
and a skilled labor (Alvarenga, 2013).
Nevertheless, the activity is a good
option for new investors due to its high
added value (Abrahão et al., 2014).
Since the main cherry tomatoes are
produced from hybrid seeds (Maciel
et al., 2016), breeding strategies
consist in exploiting heterosis to detect
important agronomic characteristics,
as productivity, plagues and disease
resistance and precocity. Being the
heterotic effect pronounced, there is
a need of genetic divergence between
parents; the higher the difference
MACIEL, GM; FINZI, RR; CARVALHO, FJ; MARQUEZ, GR; CLEMENTE, AA. 2018. Agronomic performance and genetic dissimilarity among cherry
tomato genotypes. Horticultura Brasileira 36: 167-172. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0102-053620180203
Agronomic performance and genetic dissimilarity among cherry tomato
genotypes
Gabriel M Maciel; Rafael R Finzi; Fábio J Carvalho; Guilherme R Marquez; Andressa A Clemente
Universidade Federal de Uberlândia (UFU), Monte Carmelo-MG, Brazil; gabrielmaciel@ufu.br; rafaelnzi@hotmail.com; fabiojanoni@
ufu.br; grepeza@gmail.com; andressalves50@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
The genotypes evaluation in a germplasm bank is essential to
determine their commercial or usefulness, as potential parents, in
a breeding program. We aimed to detect the genetic diversity of
42 tomato genotypes of cherry type, belonging to the germplasm
bank of the Federal University of Uberlândia and, also evaluate
their behavior. The experiment was conducted in a greenhouse in
randomized block design with 42 treatments and two replications.
Ten quantitative traits of agronomic importance were evaluated. The
genetic divergence was obtained by multivariate analysis, using the
Mahalanobis distance with dierent clustering methods (UPGMA and
Tocher). The hybrids performance was compared by Scott-Knott (p=
0.05) and Dunnett’s test (p= 0.05). UPGMA and Tocher grouped the
genotypes similarly, representing genetic divergence satisfactorily.
The genotypes UFU 29, UFU 21 and UFU 07 were more productive,
earlier and also divergent from the pre-commercial treatment (UFU
200), being able to be used as potential parents.
Keywords: Solanum lycopersicum, variability, grape tomato.
RESUMO
Desempenho agronômico e dissimilaridade genética entre
genótipos de tomate cereja
A avaliação de genótipos em um banco de germoplasma é
essencial para determinar seu potencial comercial ou sua utilidade
como potenciais genitores em um programa de melhoramento. As-
sim, o objetivo do trabalho foi vericar a divergência genética e o
comportamento per se de 42 genótipos de tomate cereja pertencentes
ao banco de germoplasma de tomateiro da Universidade Federal de
Uberlândia. O experimento foi conduzido em casa de vegetação no
delineamento experimental de blocos casualizados, com 42 tratamen-
tos e duas repetições. Foram avaliados dez caracteres quantitativos de
importância agronômica. A divergência genética foi obtida por meio
de análises multivariadas utilizando-se a distância generalizada de
Mahalanobis, empregando-se diferentes métodos de agrupamento
(UPGMA e Tocher). O desempenho dos híbridos foi comparado
pelos testes Scott-Knott (p= 0,05) e Dunnett (p= 0,05). Os métodos
UPGMA e Tocher agruparam os genótipos de forma semelhante,
sendo satisfatórios para representar a divergência genética. Os genó-
tipos UFU 29, UFU 21 e UFU 07 foram mais produtivos, precoces e
também divergentes à testemunha UFU 200, podendo ser utilizados
como possíveis genitores.
Palavras-chave: Solanum lycopersicum, variabilidade, tomate do
tipo grape.
Received on October 24, 2016; accepted on November 14, 2017

168 Hortic. bras., Brasília, v.36, n.2, April - June 2018
between the alleles, greater the heterosis
eect (Borém & Miranda, 2009).
So, the variability between parents
can be estimated using measures of
genetic dissimilarity, highlighting the
generalized distance of Mahalanobis
that considers the residual
variances and covariances existing
between quantitative characters (Cruz
et al., 2012).Tocher and UPGMA
methods are constantly used to check
this divergence on tomato cropping
(Gonçalves et al., 2008; Mattedi et al.,
2014; Araújo et al., 2016).
Due to the market expansion of
cherry tomato seeds and the increasing
search for new hybrids, new studies
are necessary to develop good parents
or genotypes. We aimed to verify the
genetic diversity and behavior of cherry
tomato genotypes and, using that, select
potential parents to foster a future cherry
tomato breeding programs.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The experiment was conducted on
the vegetable’s experimental station
of Federal University of Uberlândia
(UFU), located in Monte Carmelo-
MG (18º42’43”S, 47º29’56”W, 873 m
altitude). Seedlings were produced in
polystyrene trays, with 128 cells, lled
with commercial substrate of coconut
ber, on January 20th. Seedlings were
transplanted, 31 days after sowing,
into ve liter pots, lled with the same
substrate used to produce seedlings.
Each experimental plot consisted of two
pots, arranged in sequence and spaced
0.1 m apart, having three plants per pot,
totalizing 252 plants in the greenhouse,
equivalent to 1.72 plants m-2. The
greenhouse measures 7x21 m and it’s
ceiling 4.0 m. The greenhouse was
covered with transparent polyethylene
lm of 150 micron, additivated against
ultraviolet rays and side curtains of
white and anti-aphid screen.
Genotypes consisted of 41 cherry
tomatoes from germplasm bank of UFU.
These materials are characterized by
grape fruits of indeterminate growth
habit. The pre-commercial genotype
UFU 200 was used as check treatment
due to its good acceptance by producers,
having indeterminate growth habit and
late maturation.
Cultural traits were realized as
soon as needed and according to
recommendation for tomato cropping
on greenhouses (Alvarenga, 2013).
Plants were conducted with only one
stem, using ribbons in order to upright
them. When the plants reached two
meters height, the apical meristems of
them were cut, stopping their growth
and accelerating the ripening of fruits.
During the experiment, pest
and diseases were monitored and,
if necessary, chemical control was
performed. Plants were irrigated daily,
in three or four times, according to
plant’s necessity. After transplant,
between the first and eighth week,
commercial nutrients were provided,
by fertirrigation, in the proportion of
1.0; 1.2; 1.0 of NPK. After the ninth
week, the system was changed to 1.0;
0.7; 2.0 of NPK. During flowering,
a leaf fertilization with calcium and
boron was done, once a week, aiming
to increase the number and size of
owers. Other essential nutrients were
not supplied, due to be already in
acceptable concentrations in the used
substrate. Mature fruits were harvested
weekly, during the period from April
20th to June 08th.
The evaluated agronomic
characteristics were: Average fruit
weight [(g) ratio between total mass
of each plot and number of fruits
harvested in each one]; Productivity
[(kg plant-1) ratio between harvested
fruit weight and number of plants on
each plot]; Number of fruits per plant
(fruits plant-1); Stem diameter [(mm)
measured in the region between the
third and fourth inorescence]; Length
of internode [(cm), measured on the
region between all nodes, starting on
the rst bifurcation and nishing on the
last leaf]; Total soluble solids [(0Brix)
average value of ve fruits that were
harvested in each plant, on the 110th day
after sowing, with the aid of a digital
refractometer (Atago PAL-1 3810)];
Total leaf chlorophyll during owering
and fruiting [(ICC), Falkerdo index of
total chlorophyll, sum of chlorophyll a
with chlorophyll b, measured on a leaf
surface, at 59 and 90 days after sowing,
respectively, 0.02 m away from the edge
and 0.05 m away from the center, with
the aid of a digital chlorophyllometer
(Clorolog, CFL 1030 Falker)]; Fruit
diameter [(mm) ratio between ve fruits
harvested in each plot, on 110 DAS];
Precocity index [(%) ratio between sum
of mass of all harvested fruits, from the
rst two harvests, multiplied by 100].
The experimental design was of
randomized complete block design, with
42 treatments and two replications. Data
were submitted to analyze of variance,
by the F test (p= 0.05). Averages were
compared in two dierent ways: using
Scott-Knott test (p= 0.05) and Dunnett
test (p= 0.05), in order to compare the
performance of genotypes with each
other and, individually with the check
treatment, respectively. After that,
multivariate analyzes were done, aiming
to determinate the genetic dissimilarity
between the genotypes, getting with this,
a dissimilarity matrix produced by the
generalized distance of Mahalanobis
.
Genetic diversity was represented
by a dendrogram obtained by hierarquic
method of Unweighted Pair-Group
Method Using Arithmetic Averages
(UPGMA) and by Tocher method.
Grouping validation by UPGMA
method was obtained by the coefenetic
coefficient of correlation (CCC),
calculated by the Mantel test (1967). The
relative contribution of the quantitative
characters was calculated according to
Singh criterion (1981). All data were
analysed using software GENES v.
2015.5.0 (Cruz, 2013).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Genotypes diered from each other
(Scott-Knott test, 5% probability) for
total leaf chlorophyll (owering and
fruiting), stem diameter, fruit diameter,
average fruit weight and productivity
(Table 1). The comparison of each
genotype individually to the check
treatment (Dunnett test, 5% probability),
for number of fruits, total soluble solids
and precocity index, also showed
signicant dierence from each other.
On the other hand, for internode length
(average of 9.6 cm) no significant
GM Maciel et al.

169Hortic. bras., Brasília, v.36, n.2, April - June 2018
Table 1. Averages of total chlorophyll content, during owering (TCFL) and fruiting (TCFR), stem diameter (SD), soluble solids content
(SSC), fruit diameter (FD), number of fruits (NF), productivity (P), average fruit weight (AFW) and precocity index (PI), in 42 cherry tomato
genotypes. Monte Carmelo, UFU, 2016.
Genotypes TCFL (ICC) TCFR (ICC) SD (mm) SSC (ºBrix) FD (mm) NF (fruit pl-1) P (g pl-1) AFW (g) PI (%)
UFU 01 48.8 b+ 52.7 a 6.1 d+ 6.3 a 23.3 b 57.0 a+ 551.6 a+ 9.8 c 28.9 a
UFU 02 55.8 b 52.0 a 5.3 e+ 6.9 a 22.6 b 43.4 a 376.5 b 8.6 c 48.7 a+
UFU 03 62.4 a 56.3 a 6.2 d+ 5.7 a 26.7 a 44.9 a 408.8 a 9.1 c 29.4 a
UFU 04 60.7 a 56.4 a 5.3 e+ 6.8 a 25.9 a 34.8 a 366.0 b 10.5 c 34.1 a
UFU 05 57.5 a 54.9 a 6.5 d+ 7.0 a 24.3 b 42.7 a 438.7 a 10.6 c 40.1 a+
UFU 06 55.5 b 53.7 a 6.5 d+ 6.4 a 23.5 b 49.8 a+ 514.2 a+ 10.2 c 32.6 a
UFU 07 55.0 b 48.7 b 6.0 d+ 5.3 a 28.3 a 46.8 a+ 484.4 a+ 11.0 b 42.4 a+
UFU 08 60.9 a 47.4 b 6.7 d+ 5.6 a 27.7 a 30.0 a 302.8 b 10.2 c 53.3 a+
UFU 09 59.7 a 59.8 a 6.0 d+ 5.5 a 24.0 b 51.5 a+ 449.7 a+ 8.7 c 24.0 a
UFU 10 60.5 a 58.6 a 5.8 d+ 6.4 a 24.0 b 51.6 a+ 474.1 a+ 9.2 c 31.0 a
UFU 11 59.1 a 52.3 a 5.5 e+ 5.9 a 23.2 b 33.5 a 284.5 b 8.6 c 53.8 a+
UFU 12 55.0 b 51.6 a 6.1 d+ 5.1 a 29.3 a 32.3 a 436.1 a 13.7 a 42.7 a+
UFU 13 57.3 a 56.0 a 7.4 c+ 6.2 a 25.7 a 48.6 a+ 411.4 a 8.5 c 28.8 a
UFU 14 58.2 a 52.2 a 5.4 e+ 4.8 a 29.5 a 32.9 a 482.9 a+ 14.7 a 33.1 a
UFU 15 59.0 a 50.6 b 6.5 d+ 6.4 a 24.9 b 31.4 a 357.9 b 11.5 b 47.2 a+
UFU 16 58.9 a 51.4 a 5.3 e+ 5.7 a 26.5 a 30.7 a 433.7 a 14.2 a 40.6 a+
UFU 17 55.4 b 55.2 a 5.1 e+ 6.2 a 25.2 b 48.3 a+ 556.9 a+ 11.5 b 39.4 a+
UFU 18 55.8 b 49.2 b 5.0 e+ 5.5 a 26.5 a 36.5 a 427.4 a 11.8 b 43.9 a+
UFU 19 56.4 b 51.9 a 5.1 e+ 5.7 a 27.4 a 34.0 a 393.2 b 11.6 b 39.4 a+
UFU 20 56.4 b 53.2 a 6.7 d+ 5.0 a 27.8 a 38.6 a 304.2 b 8.0 c 27.3 a
UFU 21 51.4 b 46.9 b 5.5 e+ 5.5 a 28.6 a 43.1 a 527.2 a+ 12.3 b 52.5 a+
UFU 22 52.2 b 48.2 b 7.1 c+ 6.2 a 23.5 b 38.7 a 397.4 b 10.4 c 34.9 a
UFU 23 51.8 b 45.5 b 7.0 c+ 6.8 a 25.5 a 37.7 a 383.8 b 10.3 c 30.3 a
UFU 24 53.4 b 55.8 a 8.2 b+ 7.3 a+ 24.2 b 51.7 a+ 416.4 a 8.1 c 18.0 a
UFU 25 50.8 b 48.2 b 6.6 d+ 6.8 a 23.6 b 43.4 a 356.1 b 8.3 c 26.0 a
UFU 26 52.1 b 43.2 b 5.7 e+ 8.3 a+ 22.0 b 49.3 a+ 400.4 b 8.1 c 30.7 a
UFU 27 52.2 b 40.7 b+ 8.3 b+ 6.7 a 24.8 b 43.5 a 326.1 b 7.4 c+ 36.5 a+
UFU 28 60.6 a 56.8 a 6.2 d+ 6.6 a 23.6 b 32.7 a 319.0 b 9.8 c 31.9 a
UFU 29 54.2 b 49.2 b 6.6 d+ 5.9 a 22.9 b 42.5 a 497.3 a+ 11.8 b 43.3 a+
UFU 30 48.4 b+ 53.2 a 6.1 d+ 5.5 a 26.4 a 22.8 a 331.0 b 14.4 a 12.9 a
UFU 31 60.8 a 57.0 a 5.7 e+ 6.1 a 23.5 b 29.5 a 267.9 b 9.0 c 26.8 a
UFU 32 63.0 a 55.3 a 5.4 e+ 6.4 a 23.3 b 35.5 a 313.2 b 8.7 c 30.3 a
UFU 33 60.5 a 55.9 a 5.5 e+ 5.6 a 24.5 b 32.4 a 304.3 b 10.4 c 32.9 a
UFU 34 57.5 a 56.5 a 5.1 e+ 6.0 a 23.4 b 39.2 a 372.3 b 9.4 c 45.4 a+
UFU 35 61.9 a 49.0 b 6.2 d+ 6.8 a 23.6 b 33.3 a 281.5 b 8.5 c 28.2 a
UFU 36 59.8 a 54.7 a 5.1 e+ 5.7 a 24.3 b 41.4 a 339.8 b 8.3 c 32.4 a
UFU 37 56.2 b 58.4 a 6.2 d+ 5.5 a 22.7 b 38.6 a 383.1 b 9.9 c 27.8 a
UFU 38 62.8 a 45.4 b 4.5 e+ 5.8 a 23.1 b 38.5 a 382.9 b 9.9 c 43.4 a+
UFU 39 59.8 a 57.6 a 6.1 d+ 5.8 a 25.4 b 34.6 a 336.2 b 10.4 c 27.8 a
UFU 40 59.8 a 48.9 b 7.1 c+ 6.5 a 26.4 a 44.9 a 358.6 b 7.9 c 27.8 a
UFU 41 53.5 b 50.3 a 6.3 d+ 6.5 a 23.9 b 46.7 a+ 489.1 a+ 10.5 c 48.6 a+
UFU 200 61.0 a 52.3 a 10.3 a 4.9 a 25.6 a 17.8 a 213.7 b 12.2 b 3.5 a
CV(%) 5.69 6.65 7.65 11.94 6.27 21.23 18.44 13.36 29.23
Averages followed by dierent letters, in column, dier from each other by Scott-Knott test, 0.05. +dier from check treatment by the
Dunnett test, 0.05.
Agronomic performance and genetic dissimilarity among cherry tomato genotypes

170 Hortic. bras., Brasília, v.36, n.2, April - June 2018
dierence was detected trough F test
(p= 0.05).
Overall, total leaf chlorophyll during
the flowering and fruiting, varied
from 48.4 to 62.8 ICC and from 40.7
to 59.8 ICC, respectively; the stem
diameter varied from 5.1 to 10.3 mm;
fruit diameter from 22.6 to 29.3 mm;
average fruit weight from 7.4 to 14.7 g
and productivity from 213.7 to 556.9 g
plant-1, an indicative of high diversity
among genotypes.
Among the 41 evaluated genotypes,
ten (UFU 09, UFU 10, UFU 14, UFU
29, UFU 21, UFU 07, UFU 06, UFU
01, UFU 17 and UFU 41) presented
two times productivity of the check
cultivar (Dunnett test). These cultivars
presented a variation of productivity
from 449.7 to 556.9 g plant-1, similar
to the results found by Menezes et al.
(2010), evaluating cherry tomatoes
in the eld. Among the 10 genotypes
that highlighted for productivity, ve
(UFU 21, UFU 29, UFU 17, UFU 41
and UFU 07) were also the earliest,
all presenting more than 39% of total
yield (g plant-1) in the rst and second
harvests, dierent from check treatment,
which got only 3.5% of the total yield
during the rst two harvests. Precocity
and high level of productivity are two
of the main desired characteristics in a
cherry tomato genotype.
Total soluble solids is an important
feature of cherry tomato. The higher
the soluble solids, the sweeter the fruit
avor, being the genotypes with high
0Brix the most chosen by the consumers
(Schwarzer et al., 2013; Maciel et al.,
2015). On this sense, only genotypes
UFU 26 and UFU 24 highlighted,
presenting 41 and 33% more 0Brix,
respectively, than check treatment
(Dunnett, 5% probability) (Table 1).
The other genotypes did not dier for
this characteristic. The genetic potential
can affect soluble solids content of
fresh tomato (Garcia & Barret, 2006),
industrial tomato (Schwarz et al., 2013)
and also of cherry tomatoes (Maciel
et al., 2015), which demonstrates that
the two genotypes that highlighted
for soluble solids have an excellent
potential.
It is possible to affirm that the
chlorophyll content on the leaves
predicts, on an indirect form, the
nutritional level of nitrogen in plants,
since 70% of N are in chloroplasts,
participating in the synthesis and
structure of chlorophyll molecules
(Wood et al., 1993). The genotypes UFU
16, UFU 13, UFU 14, UFU 10, UFU
09, UFU 05 and UFU 03 highlighted,
showing high chlorophyll content on
the leaves, during the owering and
fruiting, allied with high productivity
(between 408.8 and 482.9 g plant-1). The
genotypes UFU 39, UFU 36, UFU 34,
UFU 33, UFU 31, UFU 32, UFU 28,
UFU 11 and UFU 04, also showed high
chlorophyll content, but on the other
hand, they presented low productivity
(between 284.5 and 372.3 g plant-1)
(Scott-Knott test, 5% probability). Even
so, the results corroborate with Ferreira
et al. (2006), that also proved a relation
between chlorophyll content and tomato
productivity.
In addition to comparing individual
performing, the separation of genotypes
into dierent groups, using dissimilarity
measures, helps the breeders to select
good progenitors (Araujo et al., 2016).
The genetic dissimilarity measures by
the generalized distance of Mahalanobis
, of the 42 cherry tomato genotypes,
vary between 2.08 (UFU 18 and UFU
19) and 242.4 (UFU 38 and UFU 200),
an indicative of high genetic diversity.
The formation of groups,
represented by a dendrogram, using the
UPGMA method (Figure 1), showed
a correlation coefficient of 0.85,
signicative for a t test (p<0.01). So, it
is possible to arm that the dendogram
reproduced, in a satisfactory way, the
information contained in the matrix
and, consequently, in the formation of
groups. Grouping separation was done
by delimitation of a cut line of 50%,
established in the place of an abrupt
change on the dendogram ramication
(Cruz et al., 2012). With this cut, the
genotypes formed four distinct groups,
being group I composed of 93% of
the cherry tomato genotypes, group
II formed of the genotype UFU 30,
III of the genotype UFU 27 and the
fourth group was formed by the check
treatment (UFU 200).
Analyzing the group formation by
the method of Tocher, it was possible
to see that it also separates genotypes
into four different groups (Table 2).
According to Gonçalves et al. (2008)
and Araujo et al. (2016), UPGMA
method is ecient on the formation
of groups as well as Tocher method
(Mattedi et al., 2014).
Genotypes UFU 30, UFU 27 and
UFU 200 can be used as progenitors,
due to their divergence in relation to the
others. Genotypes UFU 27 and UFU 200
highlighted for stem diameter, showed
the highest values (8.3 and 10.3 mm,
respectively), a fact that may justify
their separation into dierent groups.
On the other hand, UFU 30 presented
the highest average fruit weight (14.4
g). This hypothesis is conrmed by the
relative contribution of characters (Table
3). Stem diameter was responsible for
the highest relative contribution of
the genotypes divergence, with 31%
of the total variability. Chlorophyll
content on leaves was also relevant
and sum to the values of average fruit
Table 2. Grouping representation obtained by the optimization of Tocher, based on
Mahalanobis distance, estimated from ten characteristics, evaluated on all 42 tomato
genotypes. Monte Carmelo, UFU, 2016.
Groups Genotypes
I
UFU 18, UFU 19, UFU 17, UFU 16, UFU 05, UFU 39, UFU 06, UFU
10, UFU 36, UFU 09, UFU 03, UFU 04, UFU 28, UFU 32, UFU 34,
UFU 37, UFU 31, UFU 11, UFU 02, UFU 41, UFU 33, UFU 15, UFU
35, UFU 38, UFU 12, UFU 20, UFU 01, UFU 29, UFU 13, UFU 07,
UFU 08, UFU 40, UFU 21, UFU 14, UFU 22, UFU 25, UFU 23, UFU
26, UFU 24
II UFU 30
III UFU 27
IV UFU 200 (check treatment)
GM Maciel et al.

171Hortic. bras., Brasília, v.36, n.2, April - June 2018
weight, productivity and stem diameter
inuenced 76% of the genetic diversity.
On the other hand, number of fruits
contributed with only 0.1%, being,
therefore, the variable selected for
discarding, according to Singh (1981).
In other tomato groups, the number
of fruits is one of the most important
characters in the contribution of genetic
diversity (Araújo et al., 2016). These
informations help the breeder to choose
which evaluation is important to be done
in a breeding program, reducing time
and eorts.
In order to select good progenitors,
breeders explore commercial and pre-
commercial cultivars, with agronomic
characters of interest. The divergence
of the check treatment (UFU 200),
in relation to others, represents a
possibility and viability of it to be used
in a breeding program of cherry tomato.
Therefore, when crossing genotypes
that have a good agronomic behavior,
as UFU 21, UFU 29 and UFU 07 with
UFU 200, it would be possible to obtain
hybrids with better characteristics, like
soluble solids content, productivity and
precocity and, consequently, with high
commercial potential.
In general, the methods of
multivariate analyzes (UPGMA and
Tocher), that were used to estimated
the genetic dissimilarity, were similar
and satisfactory, being important tools
to nd good progenitors. The univariate
analyzes, by the Scott-Knott test, did
not allow an explicit visualization of
divergent groups, which makes the
association of uni and multivariate
techniques an important strategy in
order to determine genetic variability
between cherry tomato genotypes
(Araújo et al., 2016).
It is possible to arm that genotypes
UFU 41, UFU 29, UFU 21, UFU 17
and UFU 07 are more productive, early
and also genetically divergent from
the commercial access, making them
possible genitors.
REFERENCES
ABRAHÃO, C; VILLAS BÔAS, RL; BULL, LT.
2014. Relação K:Ca:Mg na solução nutritiva
para a produção de minitomate cultivado em
substrato. Irriga 19: 214-224.
ALVARENGA, MAR. 2013.Tomate, Produção
em campo, casa de vegetação e hidroponia.
Lavras:UFLA. 455p.
ARAUJO, JC; TELHADO, SFP; SAKAI, RH;
LEDO, CAS; MELO, PCT. 2016. Univariate
and multivariate procedures for agronomic
evaluation of organically grown tomato
cultivars. Horticultura Brasileira 34: 374-380.
ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE COMÉRCIO
DE SEMENTES E MUDAS – ABCSEM.
2014. Dados do setor de pesquisa de mercado
de sementes de hortaliças. Available at <http://
www.abcsem.com.br/dadosdosegmento.php>
Accessed September 22, 2016.
BORÉM, A; MIRANDA, GV. 2009.
Melhoramento de plantas. Viçosa: UFV.
449p.
CRUZ, CD. 2013. GENES: A software package
for analysis in experimental statistics and
quantitative genetics. Acta Scientiarum 35:
271-276.
CRUZ, CD; REGAZZI, AJ; CARNEIRO, PCS.
2012. Modelos biométricos aplicados ao
melhoramento genético. Viçosa: UFV. 514p.
FERREIRA, MMM; FERREIRA, GB; FONTES,
PCR; DANTAS, JP. 2006. Índice spad e teor
de clorola no limbo foliar do tomateiro em
função de doses de nitrogênio e da adubação
orgânica, em duas épocas de cultivo. Revista
Ceres 53: 83-92.
GARCIA, E; BARRETT, DM. 2006. Assessing
lycopene content in California processing
tomatoes. Journal of Food Processing and
Preservation 30: 56-70.
GONÇALVES, LSA; RODRIGUES, R; SUDRÉ,
CP; BENTO, CS; MOULIN, MM; ARAÚJO,
ML; DAHER, RF; PEREIRA, TNS;
PEREIRA, MG. 2008. Divergência genética
Table 3. Relative contribution of ten agronomic characters, on the genetic diversity of 42
cherry tomato genotypes, according to Singh (1981). Monte Carmelo, UFU, 2016.
Characteristics1S.j S.j (%)
TCFL 4666.82 11.44
TCFR 5598.90 13.73
SD 12469.63 30.58
LI 2275.63 5.58
SSC 1376.62 3.38
FD 3226.28 7.91
NF 54.72 0.13
P4208.96 10.32
AFW 3996.88 9.80
PI 2909.55 7.13
¹TCFL and TCFR= Total chlorophyll during owering and fruiting, respectively; SD= stem
diameter; LI= lenght of internodes; SSC= soluble solids contente; FD= fruit diameter; NF=
number of fruits; P= productivity; AFW= average fruit weight and PI= precocity index.
Figure 1. Dendogram of genetic diversity among 42 cherry tomato genotypes, obtained
by UPGMA hierarquic method; UFU 200= check cultivar; the other numbers indicate the
genotypes. Monte Carmelo, UFU, 2016.
Agronomic performance and genetic dissimilarity among cherry tomato genotypes

172 Hortic. bras., Brasília, v.36, n.2, April - June 2018
em tomate estimada por marcadores RAPD em
comparação com descritores multicategóricos.
Horticultura Brasileira 26: 364-370.
MACIEL, GM; FERNANDES, MAR;
HILLEBRAND, V; AZEVEDO, BNR. 2015.
Inuência da época de colheita no teor de
sólidos solúveis em frutos de minitomate.
Scientia Plena 11: 1-6.
MACIEL, GM; FERNANDES, MAR; MELO,
OD; OLIVEIRA, CS. 2016. Potencial
agronômico de híbridos de minitomate
com hábito de crescimento determinado e
indeterminado. Horticultura Brasileira 34:
144-148.
MANTEL, N. 1967. The detection of disease
clustering and a generalized regression
approach. Cancer Research 27: 209-220.
MATTEDI, AP; GUIMARÃES, MA; NICK, C;
SILVA, DJH; PUIATTI, M; CARNEIRO,
PCS. 2014. Genetic divergence of tomato
subsamples. Revista Ceres 61: 70-76.
MENEZES, JBC; COSTA, CA; SAMPAIO,
RA; CATÃO, HCM; GUILHERME, DO;
MARTINEZ, RAS. 2012. Fruit production and
classication of four cherry tomato genotypes
under an organic cropping system. IDESIA
30: 29-35.
SCHWARZ, K; RESENDE, JTV; PRECZENHAK,
AP; PAULA, JT; FARIA, MV; DIAS, DM.
2013. Desempenho agronômico e qualidade
físico-química de híbridos de tomateiro em
cultivo rasteiro. Horticultura Brasileira 31:
410-418.
SINGH, D. 1981. The relative importance of
characters aecting genetic divergence. The
Indian Journal of Genetic and Plant Breeding
41: 237-245.
WOOD, CW; REEVES, DW; HIMELRICK, DJ.
1993. Relationships between chlorophyll meter
readings and leaf chlorophyll concentration, N
status, and crop yield: a review. Proceedings
Agronomy Society of New Zealand 23: 1-9.
GM Maciel et al.