[01] Kaanjo Tersoo, Department of Botany, University of Agriculture Makurdi, Makurdi, Nigeria. [02] Iheukwumere Charles Chidozie, Department of Botany, University of Agriculture Makurdi, Makurdi, Nigeria. [03] Omoigui Lucky Osabuohien, Department of Plant Breeding and Seed Science, University of Agriculture Makurdi, Makurdi, Nigeria. [04] Ugbaa Macsamuel Sesugh, Department of Plant Breeding and Seed Science, University of Agriculture Makurdi, Makurdi, Nigeria. [05] Ekeuro Godspower Chibuike, Department of Plant Breeding and Seed Science, University of Agriculture Makurdi, Makurdi, Nigeria.

Principal Components and Cluster Analysis were carried out using quantitative descriptors with the aim to analyze the genetic diversity and to identify similar accessions with phylogenetic relationship. Tomato accessions were sourced from; National Centre for Genetic Resources and Biotechnology Ibadan, Agrotropic limited Jos and local farmers in Benue State were planted in the field at the Research and Teaching farm of University of Agriculture Makurdi, in a Randomized Complete Block design with 3 replicates. 18 morphological characters were studied according to set standard by International Plant Genetic Resources Institute tomato descriptor and data were subjected to ANOVA at 95% probability level, significant differences among accession were detected using New Duncan’s Multiple Range Test. Analysis of Variance revealed significant variations for 17 out of the 18 quantitative characters studied among tomato accessions, with the first five principal components accounting for 78% of the total variation among the accessions, revealing vine length and yield of plots per hectare as distinguished traits. The 17 traits were thus useful for characterization and based on them, clustered analysis grouped the tomato accessions into 3 clusters based on Euclidean correlation coefficient distance and two pairs of duplicates (NGB-00713, NGB-00731, NGB-00722, NGB-00721, NGB-00724, NGB-00725 and NGB-00726) were identical and accessions (Rio-Grande, Apaa, Atumba and Gambo) were also identified to be similar accessions thereby reducing the total number of accessions to 13. The results obtained in this study revealed common phylogenetic relationships among the accessions.

Tomato, Yield, Quantitative Descriptors, Cluster Analysis and Genetic Diversity

[01] Atnafua B. and Endashaw B. (2014). Overview: Morphological and Molecular Markers role in Crop Improvement. International Journal of current Research in Life Sciences. Vol. 3, No. 3 pp 035-042. [02] Donald, R. (2001). The Science of Plant Morphology: definition, history, and role in modern biology. Department of Plant and Microbial Biology, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720-3102 USA. [03] Figás Moreno, MDR.; Prohens Tomás, J.; Raigón Jiménez, MD.; Fernández De Córdova Martínez, PJ.; Fita Fernández, AM.; Soler Aleixandre, S. (2015). Characterization of a collection of local varieties of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) using conventional descriptors and the high-throughput phenomics tool Tomato Analyzer. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution. 62: 189-204. doi: 10.1007/s10722-014-0142-1. [04] Hurtado m., Vilano S., Plazas M., Andujar I., Herraiz F. J., Castro A., and Prohens J. (2014). Enhancing conservation and use of local vegetable landraces: the Almagro eggplant (Solanum melongena L.) case study. Genet Resour Crop evol (in press). [05] IPGRI (1996). Descriptors for tomato (Lycopersicum spp.). International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, Italy 47p. [06] Kaanjo Tersoo, Iheukwumere Charles Chidozie, Omoigui Lucky Osabuohien, Olasan Joseph Olalekan and Ugbaa Macsamuel Sesugh (2021). Characterization of Some Selected Tomato (Solanum lycorpersicum L) Accessions Using Simple Sequence Repeat Markers. Agricultural and Biological Sciences Journal Vol. 7, No. 2, s pp. 46-50. [07] Meena Om Prakash and Bahadur Vijay (2017). Principal component and cluster analysis of indigenous tomato genotypes based on morphological indicators. Res. J. Biotech. 12 (7): 50-58. [08] Mohammadi, S. A. and Prasanna, B. M. (2003). Analysis of genetic diversity in crop plants-salient statistical tools and considerations Crop Sci. 43: 1235-1248. [09] Mondini, M., Arshiya, N. and Mario, A. (2009). Assessing Plant Genetic Diversity by Molecular Tools, Department of Agrobiology and Agrochemistry, Tuscia University, Italy. [10] Mucksood A. G. and Khan T. A. (2011). Studies on the interactive effects of Meloidogyne incognita and Fusarium solani on Lycopersicon esculentum, Mill. International Journal of Botany, 7: 205-208. [11] Spataro G, Negri V (2013). The European seed legislation on conservation varieties: focus, implementation, present and future impact on landrace on farm conservation. Genet Resour Crop Evol 60: 2421-2430. [12] Tanksley S. D. and McCouch S. R. (1997). Seed banks and molecular maps: unlocking genetic potential from the wild, Science, 277, 1063-1066. [13] UPOV. (2013). 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. 72 p.