Factor analysis, stepwise regression and path coefficient analyses of yield, yield-associated traits, and fruit quality in tomato

References

• Acito, F., and R.D. Anderson. 1980. A Monté Carlo comparison of factor analytic methods. J. Marketing Res.. 17:228–236. doi: 10.2307/3150933.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adams, S.R., K.E. Cockshull, and C.R.J. Cave. 2001. Effect of temperature on the growth and development of tomato fruits. Ann. Bot.. 88:869–877. doi: 10.1006/anbo.2001.1524.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahmadizadeh, M., and H. Felenji. 2011. Evaluation diversity among potato cultivars using agro- morphological and yield components in fall cultivation of Jiroft area. American-Eurasian J. Agric. Environ. Sci 11(5):655–662.
   Google Scholar
• Anthon, G.E., and D.M. Barrett. 2012. Pectin methylesterase activity and other factors affecting pH and titratable acidity in processing tomatoes. Food Chem. 132(2):915–920. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2011.11.066.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aoun, A.B., B. Lechiheb, L. Benyahya, and A. Ferchichi. 2013. Evaluation of fruit quality traits of traditional varieties of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum L.) grown in Tunisia. African J. Food Sci. 7(10):350–354. doi: 10.5897/AJFS2013.1067.
   Google Scholar
• Ara, A.R., N. Narayan, and S.H. Khan. 2009. Genetic variability and selection parameters for yield and quality attributes in tomato. Indian J. Hortic. 66:73–78.
   Google Scholar
• Bai, Y., and P. Lindhout. 2007. Domestication and breeding of tomatoes: What have we gained and what can we gain in the future? Ann. Bot. 100:1085–1094. doi: 10.1093/aob/mcm150.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barrett, D.M., E. Garcia, and J.E. Wayn. 1998. Textural modification of processing tomatoes. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 38:173–258. doi: 10.1080/10408699891274192.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beiragi, M.A., M. Ebrahimi, K. Mostafavi, M.M. Golbashy, and K.S. Khorasani. 2011. A study of morphological basis of corn (Zea mays L.) yield under drought stress condition using correlation and path coefficient analysis. J. Cereals Oilseeds 2(2):32–37.
   Google Scholar
• Bernousi, I., A. Emami, M. Tajbakhsh, R. Darvishanzade, and A.M. Henareh. 2011. Studies on genetic variability and correlation among the different traits in Solanum lycopersicum L. Notulae Botanicae Horti. Agrobotanici Cluj-Napoca. 39:152–158. doi: 10.15835/nbha3915859.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Browne, M.W. 1968. A comparison of factor analytic techniques. Psychometrika 33:267–334.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caliman, F.R.B., B.G. Marim, P.C. Stringheta, D.J.H. Silva, G.R. Moreira, and F.B. Aberu. 2008. Relation between plant yield and fruit quality characteristics of tomato. J. Biosci. 24:46–52.
   Google Scholar
• Dogan, R. 2009. The correlation and path coefficient analysis for yield and some yield components of durum wheat (Triticum turgidum var. durum L.) in west Anatolia conditions. Pakistan J. Bot. 41(3):1081–1089.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doss, B.D., J.L. Turner, and L.E. Evans. 1980. Irrigation methods and in row chiseling for tomato production. J. Am Soc. Hortic. Sci. 105:611–614.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golbashy, M., M. Ebrahimi, K.S. Khorasani, and R. Choucan. 2010. Evaluation of drought tolerance of some corn (Zea mays L.) hybrids in Iran. African J. Agric. Res. 5(19):2714–2719.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janmohammadi, M., Z. Movahedi, and N. Sabaghnia. 2014. Multivariate statistical analysis of some traits on bread wheat for breeding under rainfed conditions. J. Agric. Sci. 59(1):1–14.
   Google Scholar
• Jensen, N.F. 1988. Plant breeding methodology. John Wiley Sons, New York.
   Google Scholar
• Klee, H.J., and D.M. Tieman. 2013. Genetic challenges of flavor improvement in tomato. Trends Genetic. 29:257–262. doi: 10.1016/j.tig.2012.12.003.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krasteva, L., and D. Dimova. 2007. Evaluation of a canning determinate tomato collection using cluster analysis and principal component analysis (PCA). Acta Hortic. 729:89–93. doi: 10.17660/ActaHortic.2007.729.12.
   Google Scholar
• Kumar Rai, A., A. Vikram, and A. Pandav. 2016. Genetic variability studies in Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) for yield and quality traits. Int. J. Agric. Environ. Biotechnol. 9(5):739–744. doi: 10.5958/2230-732X.2016.00095.4.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, J.I., B.S. Kwon, and L.H. Kim. 1977. The relationships between the characters and the influence of each character on the yield of rape, correlation coefficients, path coefficients and heritability. Korean J. Breed. 9:58-64.
   Google Scholar
• Mazzucato, A., R. Papa, E. Bitocchi, P. Mosconi, L. Nanni, N. Negri, M.E. Picarella, F. Siligato, G.P. Soressi, B. Tiranti, et al. 2008. Genetic diversity, structure and marker-trait associations in a collection of Italian tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) landraces. Theor. Appl. Genet. 116:657–669. doi: 10.1007/s00122-007-0699-6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meena, O.P., and V. Bahadur. 2014. Assessment of genetic variability, heritability and genetic advance among tomato germplasm. Agric. Sci. Dig. 27:185–192.
   Google Scholar
• Mehrabadi, H.R., A. Nezami, M. Kafi, and M. Ahmadifard. 2016. Survey of the effect of different irrigation levels on yield and yield components of sensitive and tolerant Cotton cultivars. J. Water Soil 30(5):1415–1425.
   Google Scholar
• Merk, H.L., S.C. Yarnes, A.V. Deynez, N. Tong, N. Menda, L.A. Mueller, M.A. Mutschler, S.A. Loewen, J.R. Myers, and D.M. Francis. 2012. Trait diversity and potential for selection indices based on variation among regionally adapted processing tomato germplasm. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 137(6):427–437.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mohammadi, S.A. 2002. Statistical methods in genetics. Presented at 6th International Conference of Statistics, 26-28 August 2002, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran. doi: 10.1044/1059-0889(2002/er01).
   Google Scholar
• Mohammed, M., L.A. Wilson, and P.L. Gomes. 1999. Postharvest sensory and physiochemical attributes of processing and non-processing tomato cultivar. J. Food Qual. 22:167–182. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-4557.1999.tb00549.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Monamodi, E.L., D.M. Lungu, and G.L. Fite. 2013. Analysis of fruit yield and its components in determinate tomato using correlation and path coefficient. J. Agric. Appl. Sci. 9(1):29–40.
   Google Scholar
• Nasri, R., A. Kashani, F. Paknejad, S. Vazan, and M. Barary. 2014. Correlation, path analysis and stepwise regression in yield and yield components in Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) under the temperate climate of Ilam Province, Iran. Indian J. Fundam. Appl. Life Sci. 4(4):188–198.
   Google Scholar
• Pennell, R. 1968. The influence of communality and N on the sampling distributions of factor loadings. Psychometrika. 33:423–439. doi: 10.1007/BF02290161.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pregolato, W., and D.P. Pregolato. 1985. Analytical standards of the Adolfo Lutz Institute. Chemical and food analysis. 3rd ed. Sao Paulo, Brazil.
   Google Scholar
• Rahaman, S., and J.S. Bhatt. 2013. Path co-efficient analysis of yield component in tomato. Int. J. Agric. Sci. 9:227–231.
   Google Scholar
• Rani, I., D. Veeraragavathatham, and D. Sanjutha. 2008. Studies on correlation and path coefficient analysis on yield attributes in root knot nematodes resistant F1 hybrids of tomato. J. Appl. Sci. Res. 4:287–295.
   Google Scholar
• Ruck, J.A. 1963. Chemical methods for analysis of fruit and vegetable products. Canadian Department of Agriculture Publication, Ottawa, Canada.
   Google Scholar
• Singh, A.K., C.N. Ram, G.C. Yadav, R.K. Srivastava, D. Ch, J.K. Rao, D.K. Gautam, and P. Kumar. 2017. Studies on correlation and path coefficient analysis in Tomato (Solanum lycopersicon (Mill.) Wettsd. Int. J. Pure Appl. Biosci. 5(2):931–936. doi: 10.18782/2320-7051.2807.
   Google Scholar
• Tandon, K.S., E.A. Baldwin, J.W. Scott, and R.L. Shewfelt. 2003. Linking sensory descriptors to volatile and non-volatile components of fresh tomato flavor. J. Food Sci. 68:2366–2371. doi: 10.1111/jfds.2003.68.issue-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thakur, B.R., R.K. Singh, and P.E. Nelson. 1996. Quality attributes of processed tomato products: A review. Food Rev. Int. 12:375–401. doi: 10.1080/87559129609541085.
   Google Scholar
• Tigist, M., T.S. Workneh, and K. Woldetsadik. 2013. Effects of variety on the quality of tomato stored under ambient conditions. J. Food Sci. Technol. 50(3):477–486. doi: 10.1007/s13197-011-0378-0.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tucker, L.R., R.F. Koopman, and R.L. Linn. 1969. Evaluation of factor analytic research procedures by means of simulated correlation matrices. Psychometrika. 34:421–459. doi: 10.1007/BF02290601.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright, S. 1921. Correlation and causation. J. Agric. Res. 20:557–585.
   Google Scholar
• Wright, S. 1934. The method of path coefficients. Annals Math. Stat. 5:161–215. doi: 10.1214/aoms/1177732676.
   Google Scholar