CHAPTER – I

INTRODUCTION
Vegetable crops play a pivotal role in Indian agriculture, it not only
provides food and nutrition but also economic support to growers. It also generates
foreign trade and supplies raw materials to processing industries by supplying raw
materials. The total area under vegetable crops in India is approximately 11.35
million hectares with a production of 204.83 million metric tons and a productivity
of 18.13 t/ha (Anonymous, 2024).

Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) is a vital temperate vegetable crop that has
been successfully cultivated in subtropical regions worldwide. It is popularly
known as “the king of vegetables” for its high yield and utility. It is also known as
“Aloo,” “White or Irish Potato” and “The Poor Man’s Strength.” Belonging to the
Solanaceae family, the Solanum genus comprises over 2,000 species, of which only
10% produce tubers. Cultivated potato genotypes are tetraploid, with a genomic
constitution of 2n=4x=48, while natural species exhibit ploidy variations, including
diploids, triploids, tetraploids, pentaploids and hexaploids form, with a base
chromosome number of x=12. Among tuber-bearing species, 73% are diploid, 4%
are triploid, 15% are tetraploid and the remaining are pentaploid and hexaploid
(Lee et al., 2021).
The potato has two subspecies: tuberosum, which is the most widely cultivated
species and andigena, which is a primitive taxon grown only in the Andes region.
Wild Solanum species exhibit significant diversity in plant morphology, tuber
characteristics (shape, size and colour), cooking quality, taste, aroma and
adaptability to various climatic conditions (Masoodi, 2009).

Potatoes originated in the Andes of Peru and Bolivia in South America and
were first introduced to Europe in the late 16 th century by Spanish conquerors.
European countries later facilitated its global spread, reaching India in the early
17th century, likely via British missionaries or Portuguese traders (Anonymous,
2009). Currently, potatoes are cultivated across latitudes 65ºN to 50ºS and at
altitudes ranging from sea level to 4,000 m (Hijmans, 2001).

1
 Potato is an annual, herbaceous, dicotyledonous and self-pollinating crop,
though cross-pollination requires insect pollinators like bumble bees. It is primarily
propagated vegetatively but can also be grown from true potato seed (TPS), which
is botanically a seed. The potato tuber is a modified underground stem that
develops on a specialized structure called a stolon and exhibits stem characteristics
such as dormant buds (eyes) and scaly leaves (eyebrows). Potato plants produce a
terminal inflorescence with 1 to 30 flowers, typically 7 to 15, featuring a star-
shaped corolla with five petals and a prominent pistil above five bright yellow
anthers (Patil et al., 2016). If allowed to flower and fruit, the plant forms small,
tomato-like berries that are inedible due to the presence of toxic alkaloids such as
solanine (Mishra, 2016).

Potato is the fourth most important staple food crop globally after rice,
wheat and maize, contributing a crucial role in nutritional security (Singh and
Rana, 2013; Naitam et al., 2017). It is a highly nutritious, easily digestible,
wholesome food rich in carbohydrates, proteins, minerals, vitamins and high-
quality dietary fiber. A potato tuber consists of 75-80% water and 20-25% dry
matter, including edible protein (2.8 g), starch (16.3 g), total sugar (0.6 g), crude
fiber (0.5 g), fat (0.14 g), carbohydrate (22.6 g), vitamin C (25 mg), ash (1-1.5%),
amylose (22-25%) and glycoalkaloids (<1 mg per 100 g) fresh weight (Mu et al.,
2017). Starch, the primary component of dry matter, constitutes about 70% of total
solids and plays a role in reducing oxidative damage, improving immune function
and lowering the risk of cardiovascular diseases, cancer, cataracts, diabetes and
aging (Kaur et al., 2004). Additionally, the high magnesium content in potatoes
helps to prevent calcium deposition in the kidneys (Hazra and Som, 2015).

India is the second largest potato producer after China, contributing

significantly to global production. Annually, 375 million tonnes of potatoes are
cultivated worldwide on 18.1 million hectares, with an average yield of 21 t/ha. In
India, potatoes are grown on 2.3 million hectares, producing 60.14 million tonnes
with a yield of 25.79 t/ha. Major potato-producing states include Uttar Pradesh
(UP), West Bengal (WB), Bihar, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Assam,
Haryana, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh (Anonymous, 2024). In India, more than

2
80% of the potato crop is cultivated in the Gangetic Plains during winter from
October to March (Choudhary B.R. 2012). In Chhattisgarh, potatoes are primarily
grown as a rabi crop in Sarguja, Raigarh, Jashpur, Balrampur, Raipur, Bilaspur and
Bastar, while in the Mainpat and Samripat hills of Sarguja district, they are
cultivated as a kharif crop while presently being grown in an area of 41.177
thousand hectares with annual production of 642.591 thousand tonnes and
productivity 15.61 t/ha (Anonymous, 2024). However, under irrigated conditions,
potato cultivation is feasible across all agro-climatic zones of Chhattisgarh.

In the Indian tropics and subtropics, potato is a short-duration crop well-

suited for intensive cropping systems. Potato growth and development mainly
depend upon temperature and sunlight availability, with optimal conditions
including low temperatures, high light intensity and short-day condition, which
promote early tuberization and subsequent tuber development (DAP et al., 2014).
The crop requires specific temperature and day length for tuber formation, with an
optimal temperature of 20°C during the day and 14°C at night. A temperature rise
above 21°C significantly reduces tuber yield, while at 30°C, tuber formation is
entirely inhibited. Although potatoes can be cultivated in various soil types except
highly alkaline and saline soils. Well-drained sandy loam and medium loam soils
with a pH range of 5.0–6.5 are ideal for potato cultivation (Sekhawat, 2001;
Swarup, 2012).

In India, potatoes are mostly consumed fresh, with most of the harvest used
domestically. In contrast, developed nations process a significant portion into
french fries (30%), chips and shoestrings (12%) and dried products (12%), utilizing
only 31% as table potatoes (Brown, 2005). The rising demand for processed foods
presents a tremendous opportunity for the growth of India’s potato processing
industry (DAP et al., 2021). With the expansion of the food processing sector, the
requirement for high-quality processing-grade potatoes is increasing. However,
ensuring a consistent supply of potatoes with desirable quality and quantity
throughout the year remains a key challenge (Rana et al., 2010).

Identifying high-yielding, high-quality processing genotypes suitable for

specific agro-climatic conditions like Chhattisgarh remains a challenging task. This

3
study aims to evaluate several processing genotypes based on morphological, yield
and quality traits. To choose genotypes with better growth, yield and processing
qualities, it is crucial to comprehend the variance in these traits.

Morphological traits play a crucial role in determining plant vigor and

adaptability to environmental conditions. Yield-related characteristics, including
plant height, number of primary branches, number of compound leaves and days to
harvest, directly affect productivity (Marwaha and Sandhu, 2002). Additionally,
quality traits such as dry matter content, specific gravity and starch concentration
are essential for enhancing processing efficiency (Rommens et al., 2010). The level
of reducing sugars affects product colour, while phenolic compounds influence
taste and shelf life. Understanding variability and the relationship between yield
and its contributing traits is crucial for selecting superior genotypes, which can aid
in effective breeding programs for improved productivity and processing quality.

Since yield improvement is complex trait governed by multiple

contributing factors, Correlation analysis will help identify key traits influencing
yield by examining their relationships. Additionally, path coefficient analysis
further clarifies the direct and indirect effects of these traits, helping to develop
precise selection strategies for genetic improvement and higher productivity.

The goal of this research is to identify high-yielding potato genotypes with

desirable processing qualities that are well suited to Chhattisgarh conditions. The
findings will provide valuable insights for breeders and farmers in selecting
suitable genotypes while also supporting the processing industry with a steady
supply of high-quality potatoes, thereby promoting sustainable production.

Considering the above-mentioned scope of work, the present investigation

entitled “Studies on different processing genotypes of Potato (Solanum
tuberosum L.) for growth, yield, quality and processing traits under
Chhattisgarh condition” was formulated and carried out at Research and
Instructional farm, College of Agriculture, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya,
Raipur (C.G.) during Rabi season 2024-2025 with following objectives:-

4
1. To analyse the variation in morphological, yield and quality traits among
different processing grade genotypes of potato.

2. To study the inter relationship between yield and yield contributing traits
through correlation analysis.

3. To study the direct and indirect effect of various characters on yield

through path coefficient analysis.

4. To identify promising genotypes for Chhattisgarh condition.

5
 CHAPTER – II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

A review of past research studies helps in identifying gaps in conceptual

and methodological issues and research output relevant to the proposed study. This
will enable to collect relevant data, develop appropriate model for analysis and for
meaningful interpretation. This chapter comprehensively reviews existing research
conducted in India and abroad related to potato growth, yield, quality and
processing traits. This literature review supports the research thesis titled, "Studies
on Different Processing Genotypes of Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) for
Growth, Yield, Quality and Processing Traits under Chhattisgarh Condition”
The literature is organized under the following sub headings:
2.1 Performance of Potato Genotypes
2.2 Quality Parameters of Processing Potatoes
2.3 Genetic Variability
2.4 Heritability and Genetic Advances
2.5 Correlation Coefficient Studies
2.6 Path Coefficient Analysis

2.1 Performance of Potato Genotypes

Biswas et al. (2005) conducted an experiment in the University of Rajshahi,
Bangladesh to assess the variability and diversity of eight quantitative features in
seven parents and 10 hybrids. Genotype showed significance for four traits i.e.,
number of tubers at 60 DAP, tuber weight (g) at 60 DAP, tuber weight (g) at 90
DAP and plant weight whereas, testers were significant for two traits i.e., number
of tubers at 60 DAP and tuber weight at 60 DAP. Tuber weight at 90 DAP had the
highest genotypic variance, while tuber weight at 60 DAP had the highest

6
phenotypic variance. Phenotypic coefficient variability is always greater than
genotypic coefficient variability.

Basavaraj et al. (2005) documented an experiment in Dharwad with a

hundred genotypes from the CPRI. Analysis of variance showed significant mean
sum of square or all the traits, indicating the presence of genetic variation among
the genotypes. The PCV ranged from 25.33 for plant height to 77.09 for tuber yield
plant-1, while the GCV varied from 10.60 for the number of stems per plant to
48.41 for tuber yield. Plant height, height number of tubers plant-1and tuber yield
showed moderate to highest GCV and PCV values.
Mishra et al. (2006) conducted a trial at IGKV Raipur Chhattisgarh to
evaluate variability, heritability, genetic advance of thirty-eight potato genotypes.
Analysis of variance revealed significant variation among genotypes. High
genotypic and phenotypic coefficient of variance were observed for plant height,
tuber weight, tuber volume and tuber yield plant-1. Low for tuber volume, shoot
girth (mm), number of shoots plant-1, stolon length.
Sattar et al. (2007) An experiment was conducted in BSMRAU, Gazipur,
Bangladesh to evaluate the genotypic and phenotypic variability, heritability,
genetic advance, correlation coefficient and path analysis in twenty-eight
genotypes. High GCV values for the number of tubers per plant and tuber yield per
plant. Whereas plant vigor, days to maturity and dry matter content showed low
differences between GCV and PCV, indicating that these attributes were less
affected by the environment. Compound leaves per plant showed moderate GCV
and PCV levels.
Kumar et al. (2008) experimented with a trial at CPRI Shimla for a genetic
variability study of twenty different potato genotypes during the rabi seasons of
2004-05 and 2005 06. Analysis of variance revealed variation among the
genotypes. The highest PCV and GCV were recorded in emergence per cent, plant
height, number of leaves per plant, ascorbic acid, number of stolons per plant and
specific gravity. Whereas, minimum PCV and GCV were recorded in total tuber
yield.

7
 Tekalign (2009) carried out a study at Haramaya University, Department of
Plant Sciences Ethiopia to estimate genetic variability. Analysis of variance
revealed significant variation for all the parameters. PCV varied from 1.02 % to
74.29 % for the specific gravity of tuber and late blight score respectively except
stem number per hill, late blight score and tuber yield, the difference between GCV
and PCV for all other traits was smaller indicating that these traits were less
influenced by the environment.
Masoodie et al., (2010) conducted an experiment at the Division of
Olericulture SKUAST (J and K) to determine the genetic variability of twenty-six
genotypes of potato. Among all the genotypes PP48, Hirpora Local, PP-2500,
HB/18-36 and Gurez Local were suitable for quality traits, that can be utilized in
the processsing and hybridization program.
Kamal (2011) conducted an experiment at the Vegetable Research Centre
Pantnagar to evaluate genotypic variability for yield-contributing traits with
twenty-five potato genotypes. Values for PCV vary from 1.93 to 24.45 for days to
50% emergence and vitamin-A respectively, whereas GCV values range from 1.83
to 23.66 for days to 50% emergence and vitamin-A, respectively. The highest
magnitude of phenotypic and genotypic variance was observed in tuber yield per
plant followed by vitamin A. Highest values for PCV and GCV were observed for
vitamin A followed by some stems per plant, protein content and tuber weight.
Patel et al. (2013) conducted an experiment at S.D. Agriculture University,
Gujarat, to assess the genetic diversity of 24 potato genotypes for table purposes
using two harvest dates (75 and 90 DAP). High GCV (%) was observed for
reducing sugar (114.38, 121.03), chip colour (29.70, 31.13) and the number of
stems per plant (27.89, 27.25). High PCV (%) was recorded for reducing sugar
(114.39,121.04), chip colour (29.80, 31.23), marketable yield (27.65) and the
number of stems plant-1 (27.33). High phenotypic and genotypic variability was
noted for reducing sugar, plant height, average tuber weight, chip colour, tuber
number plant-1and tuber dry matter content. Significant GCV and PCV were
recorded for low reducing sugar, the number of stems plant-1, marketable yield,
chip colour, tuber number plant-1and overall tuber yield.

8
 Luthra et al. (2013) carried out a study at CPRI, Modipuram, Meerut with
one-hundred-five potato genotypes for ten parameters. ANOVA studies on potato
genotypes exhibited significant variations across genotypes. Phenotypic
coefficients of variation are always greater than the genotypic coefficients of
variation. High magnitude of phenotypic and genotypic coefficient of variation was
observed for mite damage (172.65, 73.27) followed by marketable tuber yield
(65.14, 52.91), average tuber weight (52.43, 42.60), total tuber weight and tuber
number (42.54, 23.58) respectively, indicating that these features will respond to
selection.
Khan et al. (2014) evaluated 50 potato hybrids at PMAS-Arid Agriculture
University, Rawalpindi, using RCBD with three replications and found significant
variation in yield and quality traits. G-136 had the highest number of large tubers
(>55 mm) at 5.77/m², while G-46 and A-12 had the lowest (2/m²). N-10 showed
the highest big tuber weight (177.06 g) and A-12 produced the most medium
tubers (20.97/m²). I-32 had the heaviest medium tubers (86.58 g) and highest total
tuber weight (89.46 g) with the maximum marketable yield (94.76%).
Recommended hybrids for autumn cultivation in humid subtropical regions were
O-17, I-30, I-32, G-128, K-139 and F-24.
Mohammed and Burga (2015) conducted an assessment at School of Plant
Sciences, Haramaya University, Ethiopia with twenty-six potato genotypes to
estimate yield and quality parameters The phenotypic coefficient of variation and
genotypic coefficient of variation were measured and ranged from 16.78 to 90.97
per cent and 13.63 to 85.54 per cent respectively. The highest GCV and PCV
estimations were found in tuber starch content, whereas the lowest PCV and GCV
values were reported in the total number of tubers plant-1 and unmarketable tuber
yield.
Tripura et al. (2016) conducted a trial at BCKV, West Bengal for sixteen
characters of twenty-three potato genotypes. High PCV and GCV were reported in
terminal leaflet length, number of branches, leaf length, number of leaves and
terminal leaflet width. Whereas, the least PCV and GCV were noted for tuber
weight plant-1, number of tubers, average tuber weight, tuber yield, plant height
and tuber dimension, indicating that these characteristics are less influenced by the

9
environment. Genotype G-4 exhibited the tallest growth with good performance in
leaf length (16.46), stem girth (35.59), lateral leaflet length (10.10) and terminal
leaflet breadth (4.86). The genotypes J-99/243 (4.16) showed high total tuber
production.
Mishra et al. (2017) an experiment was conducted at IGKV, Raipur,
Chhattisgarh to estimate the genetic variability, heritability and genetic advance
with twenty-five genotypes of potato for important yield contributing characters.
ANOVA studies showed a lot of variation among the genotypes for all the traits
under investigation. Among all the characters, the number of compound leaves
plant-1 had the highest level of GCV (27.94%) and PCV (30.96%) followed by dry
weight of tuber per plant, marketable tuber yield per plot, total tuber yield per plot,
fresh weight of shoot per plant and fresh weight of tuber per plant respectively.
Whereas, minimum GCV was also reported in harvest index per cent, number of
tubers plant-1, plant emergence per cent and plant canopy cover per cent.
Gashaw et al. (2018) planned an experiment at Adet Agricultural Research
Centre, N.W. Ethiopia to evaluate the genetic diversity with one hundred-five
potato genotypes of seventeen traits. Analysis of variance revealed significant
variation (P<0.01) among genotypes for all the traits except plant height and tuber
size.
Hajam et al. (2018) conducted an experiment at the vegetable experimental
field SKUAST (J and K) with thirty-eight genotypes of potato (Solanum
tuberosum L.) to estimate the phenotypic and genotypic variability, heritability and
genetic advance for fifteen quantitative characters. Analysis of variance exhibited
significant variations among the genotypes involved in the experiment. Tuber yield
per plot had the highest phenotypic and genotypic coefficients of variability,
followed by the number of stems per hill, number of tubers plant-1 and plant height.
Luthra et al. (2018) documented a trail at CPRI, Modipuram, Meerut with
twenty-three genotypes of potato to examine the genetic analysis for tuber yield,
processing and nutritional traits. Reducing sugar (55.91 and 55.08 respectively)
had high magnitude of PCV and GCV followed by phenols (34.99 and 34.32
respectively), soluble proteins (29.43 and 29.15 respectively), sucrose (24.06 and
22.38 respectively), total free amino acid (23.88 and 23.63 respectively) and

10
marketable yield (12.48 and 12.09 respectively). These characters indicating for
further selection.

Tiwari et al. (2020) carried out an experiment at Department of Botany,

D.A.V. College, Kanpur on twenty genotypes to determine the nature of the
association between the various yield parameters. For all the characters, genotypic
correlation is always greater than phenotypic correlation. During the studies, yield
showed a significantly positive correlation with the number of sprouts plant-1 (-
0.04267 and -0.03109 respectively), plant height (-0.98040 and -0.09651
respectively), shoot diameter (0.18672), leaf width (0.20593 and 0.18730
respectively) and leaf length (0.10327 and 0.10834 respectively) at both the
genotypic and phenotypic levels.
Singha and Ullah (2020) conducted a study at Assam Agricultural
University, Jorhat to assess genetic variability, heritability and genetic progress for
essential yield component features of thirty-eight potato genotypes in a randomized
block design with two replications during two rabi seasons. Analysis of variance
exhibited variation among the genotypes. A high heritability (>60 %) coupled with
a high magnitude of PCV and GCV was observed for total tuber yield (42.57 and
41.67 respectively) followed by marketable tuber yield (40.83 and 33.89) and leaf
area index (41.39 and 31.62 respectively). Whereas, the lowest PCV and GCV
were observed in plant height.
Singh et al. (2021) carried out a trial at NDUAT, Kumarganj, Ayodhya to
estimate the variability subjected to yield and yield contributing characters.
ANOVA studies showed significant variation among the genotypes for all the
traits. The number of ‘B’ grade tubers per hill had a high magnitude of phenotypic
and genotypic coefficient of variation followed by the weight of ‘B’ grade tubers
per hill, number of ‘D’ grade tubers per hill and weight of ‘D’ grade tubers per hill.
For all of the parameters, the phenotypic coefficient of variation (PCV) was
slightly greater in magnitude than the genotypic coefficient of variation (GCV).
Joshi and Sharma, (2025) conducted an experiment to assess the
performance of potato genotypes at different maturity stages in the Chhattisgarh
Plain. Results showed significant variation among genotypes in plant emergence,

11
foliage senescence, total tuber yield and marketable tuber yield. The genotype EM-
1 exhibited superior performance across all attributes, with the highest plant
emergence per cent (90.53% and 97.77%), total tuber yield (24.04 and 26.82 t/ha)
and marketable tuber yield (21.34 and 25.16 t/ha) at 60 and 75 days of maturity,
respectively. Additionally, among four genotypes evaluated for storage behavior,
AICRP-C-16 recorded the lowest rottage loss (0.00%) and total loss (2.00%),
making it ideal for storage under room conditions.

2.2 Quality Parameters of Processing Potatoes

Vijaylakshman et al. (2008) conducted a study over two years, from 2003-
04 to 2004-05, at the Agriculture Research Station in the southern transitional zone
of Karnataka, where they tested ten potato hybrids for yield and chip quality. They
discovered that the Atlantic cultivar had the highest tuber dry matter for processing
grade tubers, followed by Kufri Chipsona-1. The MP/97-625 hybrid had the lowest
reducing sugars, which is a key factor in determining the quality of processed
chips. In sensory evaluations, chips made from Kufri Chipsona-1 and Kufri
Chipsona-2 were rated higher in terms of appearance, taste, texture and aroma.
Muller et al. (2009) assessed tubers during the spring of 2006 and fall of
2007, measuring dry mass, reducing sugars, starch, amylase content and chip
colour. They found that spring growing conditions enhanced selection gains for
reduced sugars, chip colour, starch and amylase, while similar gains for dry mass
were observed in both seasons. The clones SMA508-2, SMA508-4 and SMA519-1
exhibited the best combination of processing quality traits in both growing
conditions.
Singh et al. (2009) reported that the Kufri Jyoti variety had lower tuber dry
matter content (13.3-19.6%), higher levels of reducing sugars (75.7 to 240.7
mg/100 g fresh weight) and produced chips of an undesirable dark colour (scores
between 4.5 and 7.0). In contrast, processing varieties such as Kufri Chipsona-1,
Kufri Chipsona-3, Atlantic and Lady Rosetta had higher dry matter content (19.3
to 23.3%), lower reducing sugars (21.0 to 57.7 mg/100 g fresh weight) and
produced fresh fried chips with acceptable colour (1.75 to 2.75).

12
 Santhosh (2010) found that the Kufri Jyoti genotype had the highest dry
matter content at 16.05%, while the J/95-227 genotype had the lowest at 12.70%,
with an overall mean of 13.86%.
Abbas et al. (2011) find significant variation in all the quality parameters
among the genotypes. The highest dry matter was found in NARC-1-2006-1
(25.65 %), while NARC-1-2006-2 had the lowest dry matter (14.86 %). The
quality traits represented by specific gravity, dry matter, sugars, starch, protein and
ash were influenced by genotype.
Elfnesh et al. (2011) documented that the highest tuber dry matter content
(27.33 %) and specific gravity (1.110 g/cm3) were produced by cultivar Harchassa,
while the lowest dry matter content (20.33 %) and specific gravity (1.078 g/cm3)
were noticed in cultivar Zemen both grown at Ethiopia condition. All the cultivars
at all locations produced tubers with a dry matter content greater than 20.0 per cent
and a specific gravity of 1.070 g/cm3 which were within the acceptable range for
chip processing. However, chips colour of all cultivars ranges between 1 and 2,
where 1 is light colour and 2 is light tan which was commercially acceptable.
While, maximum chips colour (1.61) was noticed under the varieties Zemen and
BeDAPsa and the minimum chips colour (1.17) was recorded in variety Harchassa.
Hassanpanah (2011) tested the quality characteristics on three advanced
clones (397009-3, 397082-2 and 396156-6) and three potato cultivars (Agris,
Marfona and Savalan) under in-vitro conditions. The clones 397082-2, 396156-6,
397009-3 and Savalan cultivars had the highest tuber yield. The highest dry matter,
starch and specific gravity belonged to 396156-6 and 397009-3 and Savalan
cultivars. The clone 396156-6 and Savalan cultivar were recommended for chips
production, 397009-3 clone for French fry, chips and starch production. The
Merfona cultivar had a lower dry matter and this type were suitable for eating
boiled, mashing, fresh and conserve potato consumption.
Rivera et al. (2011) found that the cultivar Criolla Colombia and clone 98-
71.26 were showed the best behaviour for pre-cooking processing. For dehydrated
flakes the tubers with 21 to 25 per cent dry weight, large size and reducing sugars
below 0.1 per cent exhibited the best processing behaviour.

13
 Ooko and Kabira (2011) evaluated the suitability of three newly released
Kenyan potato varieties for processing. Three new potato varieties (Purple Gold,
Kenya Mpya and Sherekea) and two established varieties (Tigoni and Dutch
Robjin) used in this study were grown under standard conditions at the National
Potato Research Centre, Kenya. All the cultivars had tuber sizes within
recommended range for crisps (40-60 mm) and French fries (≤ 45 mm). The dry
matter contents differed significantly (P ≤ 0.05) among the varieties ranging from
20.81 per cent in Golden Purple to 25.77 per cent in Kenya.
Gautam et al. (2012) experimented a trial for seven potato genotypes for
good storability. The genotypes PRP 25861.1 and BSU-PO3 had higher dry matter
per centage and were found superior for processing in to chips.
Gulam et al. (2012) studied significant differences in all the quality
parameters and various characteristics of genotypes. The genotype 394021-120,
9625, Kiran, NARC 2002-1, NARC 1-2006-1 and VR 90-217 gave the highest
results regarding yield and quality of potato tubers except Kiran, which had a high
yield but low-quality characters. The variations existed among genotypes in tuber
characteristics (skin colour, tuber shape, eye depth, flesh colour and general
appearance). The results regarding correlation studies indicated that French fry
colour exhibited negative correlation with reducing sugar (r=-0.7046), total sugars
(r=-0.6659) and positive correlation with dry matter (r=0.5013). The pooled
analysis recorded maximum dry matter content in Kufri Chipsona-2 (23.55 %)
followed by Kufri Chipsona-1 (23.22 %), but significantly superior over rest of the
varieties. Eight other genotypes showed better dry matter content over population
mean (16.68 %). The genotypes J/96-149 (14.44 %), Kufri Pukhraj (14.33 %) and
J/95-144 (14.16 %) were exhibited at par values and minimum dry matter content
(13.84 %) was noticed in JW-160.
Katiyar et al. (2013) documented the maximum TSS content was noticed in
J/92-159 (7.39°B) closely followed by Kufri Chipsona-1 (7.27°B) and J/95-242
(7.25°B). Whereas, least content was noticed in J/96-149 (5.29°B).
DAP et al. (2014) evaluated yield performance and storage ability of 22
genotypes with quality parameters related to processing as well as cuisine purpose.
The genotypes G-4 (22.96), Kufri Khyati (21.50), Kufri Chipsona-3 (28.00) and

14
PH-3 (23.86) were found to be promising for their yield. The genotypes Kufri
Chipsona-3 and K-22 were found to be superior for processing purposes. For
cuisine purposes, Kufri Sadabahar (oval round) and Kufri Jyoti (round) were found
to be most promising. The varieties like Kufri Khyati, Kufri Pukhraj, Kufri
Ashoka and PH-4 can be considered to increase the flavour of cooked potatoes.
Kaur and Aggarwal (2014) conducted a trial having 11 potato genotypes at
PAU Ludhiana. The highest dry matter content was observed in Kufri Chipsona-1
and Kufri Chandramukhi (24.30 %) followed by Lady Rosetta (24.00 %) and
Atlantic (23.90 %). While, the lowest was in Kufri Pushkar (14.06 %) This
indication of the lowest dry matter was strongly genetic based characteristic and
differs significantly among cultivars.
Sandhu et al. (2014) revealed from their experiment that tuber dry matter
content in all four varieties viz., Atlantic, Lady Rosetta, Kufri Chipsona-1 and
Kufri Pukhraj increased gradually during storage upto 75 days after storage during
2008 and 2009. The tuber dry matter and chip yield were significantly higher in
three processing varieties (Atlantic, Lady Rosetta and Kufri Chipsona-1) as
compared to control variety Kufri Pukhraj. Despite increase in tuber dry matter
content, chip yield of all the four varieties showed decreasing trend during storage
upto 75 DAP. The increase in tuber dry matter and decrease in chip yield may be
associated with higher evaporation and respiration, respectively.
Rajani and Singh (2015) documented fifty potato genotypes using several
biochemical characteristics and found that the Laddy Rosetta (8.280 Brix°) had the
highest TSS. Tuber dry matter content was highest in K. Chipsona-2, at 26.387,
while specific gravity was highest in MS/95-1542, at 1.690. The highest ascorbic
acid content was found in TPSK-05-06-44, while the highest reducing sugar
content was found in TPSK-05-06-117, with values of 2.616 and 261.880,
respectively. Protein content, on the other hand, was determined to be at its highest
in TPSK-05-06-80 (2.616). AICRP-07-05 had the highest chip colour score of
7.360.
Solaiman et al. (2015) found that the variety ‘BARI TPS-I’ gave highest
tuber yield. ‘Fata Pakri’ exhibited highest specific gravity and dry matter content.

15
On basis of flesh colour, ‘BARI TPS-I’, ‘Fata Pakri’ and ‘Sada pakri’ were found
suitable for chips.
Aggarwal et al. (2017) assessed six potato genotypes to find out their
suitability for processing into fresh fried potato chips. ‘FC-3’, ‘K. Frysona’ and
‘Lady Rosette’ contained the highest amount of dry matter content and lowest
amount of reducing sugars. Based on sensory evaluation, ‘FC-3’, ‘K. Frysona’ and
‘Lady Rosette’ were best for processing into fresh fried and potato chips.
Jatav et al. (2017) examined four different potato cultivars concerning
quality attributes and found that the variety Kufri Chipsona-2 exhibited high dry
matter content, high starch content and low reducing sugar content, which are the
desired attributes for processing.
Bekele and Haile (2018) screened nine improved potato cultivars. Gudanie
variety had the highest dry matter content (21.67%), specific gravity (1.08) and
starch content (14.69 %), while the Degemegn (3.28%) and Gudanie (3.27 %)
varieties had the highest protein amount.
Khan et al. (2018) investigated twelve different potato genotypes for
French fries and chips. The results revealed that genotypes CIP-28 and CIP-18 had
acceptable colour, flavour, taste, texture and overall acceptability, whereas
genotypes CIP-3, CIP-10 and CIP-34 had poor sensory qualities. CIP-5, CIP-18,
CIP-20 and CIP-28 produced good results in fried chips in terms of colour, flavour,
taste, texture and overall acceptance. The colour of the CIP-4 genotype was a little
low, but all other sensory features were excellent. CIP-22 showed poor traits,
followed by CIP-7.
Patel et al. (2018) showed that MP/09-901, MP/04-578 and MP/04-816
genotypes showed high tuber dry matter, but K. Himsona, K. Chipsona-1 and K.
Chipsona-2 genotypes had low reducing sugar. K. Chipsona-2, K. Chipsona-1, K.
Chipsona-3, K. Chipsona-4 and K. Frysona had a low chip colour index, whereas
K. Chipsona-2, Atlantic and K. Chipsona-3 had a high chip colour index. As a
result, these genotypes are excellent fits for processing purposes.
Hussen (2019) found that long-tuber cultivars are favoured for French fries,
while round-tuber cultivars are preferred for crisps. For French fries and chips, a
potato variety with dry matter content of less than 19.5% and 20%, respectively, is

16
not suitable. Similarly, a dry matter content of more than 25% is not acceptable for
the production of French fries. Reducing sugar levels by 0.2– 0.3% for chips and
0.3–0.5% for French fries is generally considered appropriate.
Lara and Malaver (2019) analyzed the physical and chemical properties of
17 advanced potato clones with purple pulp for industrial quality criteria and select
the clones with the best responses to the quality attributes for industrial processing.
The results showed that clone CIP302306.19 had the highest dry matter content
(28.60%) and specific gravity (1,106 g cm -3), as well as low levels of reducing
sugars (0.062%) and an acceptable range for chip processing, while clone 11
CIP302290.11 had the lowest dry matter content (19.39%) and specific gravity
(1.072 g cm-3).
Waingeh et al. (2019) evaluated the processing characteristics of seven
potato types. Cipira, Mumbi, Banso and Belo types, on the other hand, had high
dry matter content (> 20%), with Cipira having the highest (26.45%). Cipira,
Mumbi, Banso and Belo kinds had the best qualities for frying, mashing and
roasting, with Cipira and Mumbi great for fries in terms of size and Banso and
Belo suitable for crisps. Dosa and Jacob, on the other hand, were better suited to
mashing and roasting, whereas Mondial tubers were found to be good for boiling
and better suited to being consumed in salads. The best overall acceptability of
potato fries and boiled potatoes was recorded for products made with Cipira, Banso
and Mumbi varieties.
Aswani and Kusmana (2020) evaluated thirty poato clones. The result
suggested that two clones, 15.33 and 15.23, with a specific gravity higher than
1.067, have the potential to be used for industrial potato chips.
Mazadul and Sauda et al. (2022) they studied to evaluate Horticulture
Research Centre, BARI, Joydebpur, Gazipur 1701, Bangladesh six potato varieties
for chip processing suitability in Bangladesh during the winters of 2019–2020 and
2020–2021. Key quality parameters assessed included specific gravity, dry matter,
starch, reducing sugar, chip colour and crispiness. Significant variation was
observed among the varieties. BARI Alu-28 (Lady Rosetta) and BARI Alu-29
(Courage) exhibited superior quality attributes and are recommended for the
processing industry.

17
2.3 Genetic Variability
Luthra et al. (2005) planned a trial at CPRI, Modipuram, Meerut to
estimate the genetic divergence of twenty-nine genotypes of potato for twenty
parameters. Analysis of variance exhibited variation among the genotypes. All the
Genotypes were categorised in to four clusters. Cluster I had a maximum number
of genotypes while cluster II was contained four genotypes, cluster III comprised
two genotypes and Cluster IV had only one genotype. The highest inter-cluster
distance was recorded between cluster II and IV.

Mondal et al. (2007) planned a study at Agricultural Research Station,

Rangpur, Bangladesh to determine the genetic diversity and cluster analysis of
thirty-one potato genotypes. Genotypes are divided into five clusters by using the
tocher method. Cluster V had the greatest inter-cluster distance, whereas Cluster I
had the smallest inter-cluster distance. Clusters II and V had the highest number of
genotypes. Cluster mean analysis revealed a wide range of variance among the
characters which is found in clusters.
Hayder et al. (2009) conducted carried out a study an experiment in
Rajshahi University Bangladesh to estimate genetic divergence using D 2 method to
assess the genetic divergence among the genotypes. Highest number of genotypes
was contained by cluster II followed by cluster VIII while the minimum number of
genotypes was contained by cluster IV and V. Cluster I and VI possessed the
maximum intra-cluster. The highest inter-cluster distance was reported in between
clusters II and IV. Whereas, intra-cluster distance was observed for cluster II and
minimum for cluster for IV.
Singh et al. (2008) conducted an experiment in IGKV, Raipur,
Chhattisgarh to estimate genetic variability, correlation coefficient and genetic
divergence by using the Mahalanobis D 2 analysis. fifty-two genotypes were
categorized in to six cluster through toucher method. Cluster III had highest
genotypes J/92-148, J/93-139, J/95227, KMS- 95-171, MS/91-1326andJ/93-77.
Cluster III had the highest intra cluster distance.

18
 Luthra et al. (2010) conducted a trail at CPRI Modipuram, Meerut to
estimate genetic divergence and cluster distance through D2 statistical technique of
one hundred and ninety-five genotypes of potato. All the genotypes are categorized
into eight clusters. The highest number of accessions were reported in cluster VI
while a minimum number of accessions were recorded in clusters II and III. The
maximum inter-cluster distance was reported in between clusters I and VIII
whereas, the minimum inter-cluster distance was recorded in between clusters III
and VII.
Lohani et al. (2012) experimented at Vegetable Research Centre, G. B. Pant
University of Agriculture & Technology located in Pantnagar, to evaluate the
genetic divergence and principles component analysis of fifty-four potato
accessions and classified into seven clusters through the toucher method. The
highest intra-cluster distance was reported in cluster IV. The maximum inter-
cluster distance (6.385) was found between clusters III and VI, whereas the
minimum distance (2.666) was found between clusters V and VII.
Panigrahi et al. (2014) studied a trial at OUAT, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, to
evaluate nineteen potato genotypes for evaluating genetic diversity by using the
Mahalonobis D2 approach. All genotypes were divided into seven separate groups.
Cluster IV had five genotypes showed the most divergence, followed by Cluster
VII had four genotypes. The maximum inter-cluster distance was observed
between clusters VI and IV (34.964) followed by clusters VII and VI (30.402).
Whereas cluster VII had the highest intra-cluster distance.

2.4 Heritability and Genetic Advances

Barik et al. (2007) conducted an experiment at IGKV Raipur, Chhattisgarh to
evaluate genetic diversity of different potato genotypes. High magnitude of
heritability was observed for fresh weight of shoots per plant, unmarketable tuber
yield, dry weight of tuber plant-1, emergence per cent, total number of leaves plant-
1
, fresh weight of tuber per plant, total tuber yield per plot, plant height and dry
weight of shoots. Whereas highest, genetic advance as a per cent of mean was
recorded in unmarketable tuber yield, dry weight of tuber plant-1 and total tuber
yield plot-1.

19
 Ara et al. (2009) planned a research trial at the University of Rajshahi,
Bangladesh to assess the variability, correlation coefficient and path analysis of
forty-eight potato genotypes for ten parameters. High heritability was observed for
tuber fresh weight at 90 days and plant height at 50 days. High heritability in
association with genetic advance was displayed by tuber fresh weight at 90 days,
main shoot number, plant height and fresh weight at 50 days due to the effect of
the additive gene.
Ummyiah et al. (2010) performed an experiment at SKUAST (J and K) to
estimate the genetic variability of twenty-six genotypes of potato for yield and
quality character. High heritability in a broad sense was recorded for all the traits
except emergence per cent at 45 DAP, vitamin C and protein content which
exhibited moderate magnitude of heritability. Whereas Yield per plant, yield per ha
and leaf area showed high heritability along with high genetic advance. Rest of the
parameters were exhibited moderate to low genetic advance.
Pradhan et al. (2011) conducted a study at BCKV, West Bengal to estimate
genetic variability and correlation coefficient potato genotypes. The highest
magnitude heritability associated with high genetic advance was recorded in plant
height at 60 DAP followed by number of leaves per plant and sprouting per
centage. Whereas, plant height at 30 DAP had low heritability and genetic
advance.
Rangare and Rangare, (2013) planned a trial at IGKV, Raipur, Chhatisgarh
to estimate variability, heritability, genetic advance, correlation coefficient and
path analysis of forty-four genotypes of potato for thirteen characters. Tuber dry
matter and total tuber yield per plot showed a high magnitude of heritability in
association with genetic advance. These outcomes given an idea that characters
containing maximum values of genetic advance and broad sense heritability can be
utilized in future breeding plans.
Nasiruddin et al. (2014) evaluated a trail at the University of Rajshahi
Bangladesh to evaluate the genetic variability and correlation coefficient of thirty-
one genotypes for ten. Canopy size and plant height had high heritability. Whereas,
the number of tubers per plant, tuber weight per plant, plant height, canopy size,

20
number of leaves plant-1 and leaf area index had high heritability associated with
high genetic advance as per cent of mean.
Asefa et al. (2016) carried out a trial with twenty-four potato genotypes and
found out that character namely total tuber yield and marketable tuber yield had
high h2 (heritability) coexisting with GA (genetic advance) as per cent of mean.
Ramachandra and Srinivasa, (2017) Ramachandra and Srinivasa, conducted
an experiment at the College of Horticulture, UAHS, Shivamogga, Karnataka, to
assess genetic variability, heritability and genetic advance in sixteen potato
genotypes. Traits such as plant height, leaf area, total fresh and dry weight (at 60
and 90 DAP), fresh tuber weight, tuber volume, total and marketable yield per
plant, total chlorophyll, non-reducing sugars, total sugars and starch exhibited high
heritability (>60%), while the remaining traits showed moderate heritability.
Patel et al. (2018) studied a trial at S.D. Agricultural University, Gujrat to
evaluate the genetic variability of forty potato genotypes for two different stages
i.e., 90 and 105 DAP. Characters like the number of stems per hill, number of
tubers plant-1, processing grade, chip colour index, reducing sugar and total soluble
solids showed a high magnitude of heritability and strong genetic advance at both
harvesting periods. Suggested that genotypic dissimilarities in characters lead to
high additive gene action and selection will be beneficial based on phenotypic
performance.
Chowdhury and Datta, (2020) planned a trial at BCKV West Bengal to
estimate the variability, heritability and characterization of twenty-five small-size
potato (Solanum sp.) genotypes for thirty-seven parameters. High magnitude of
GCV and PCV were observed for anthocyanin content of tuber and yield of tuber
per plant. Whereas high heritability along with high genetic advance as a per
centage of the mean was recorded in tuber yield per plant and average tuber
weight.

2.5 Correlation Coefficient Studies

Tuncturk (2005) conducted a trial at DFC University of Yujunku, Turkey to
assess the correlation coefficient and path analysis of twenty-one potato genotypes.
Plant height, number of stems per hill, tuber number per hill, starch content, tuber

21
 weight and tuber weight per hill all had positive and significant relationships with
tuber yield while the per centage of small tubers had a negative association with
tuber yield.
Regassa and Basavaraja (2005) experimented a trial at Dharwad to estimate
correlation and path analysis of hundred potato genotypes. Plant height plant
spread, weight of medium size tubers, weight of large size tubers, total tuber
weight, number of medium-size tubers, number of large-size tubers and total
number of tubers plant-1 showed a highly positive correlation with tuber yield.
Whereas, number of main stems plant-1was also exhibited positive correlation with
tuber weight and number of tubers plant-1.
Verma et al. (2006) documented an experiment at IGKV, Raipur
Chhattisgarh to evaluate correlation coefficient, path analysis and genetic
divergence. studied on potato genotypes revealed positive association with tuber dry
matter content and total tuber yield whereas, emergence per cent and tuber dry
matter exhibited a positive relationship with total yield.
Kamal et al. (2007) performed an experiment at Vegetable Research Centre
Pantnagar, to evaluate the correlation coefficient and path analysis of potato
genotypes. Studies revealed a positive and significant correlation between tuber
yield, average tuber weight and number of tubers per hill at both the phenotypic and
genotypic levels. Whereas, girth showed a negative and significant correlation with
tuber yield while quality parameters showed a negative correlation with the number
of tubers hill.
Singh et al. (2008) evaluated a trial at IGKV, Raipur, Chhattisgarh to
discover the genetic variability, correlation and genetic divergence with different
potato genotypes for various traits. Number of tubers plant-1, total tuber weight,
marketable tuber weight plot-1 and number of marketable tubers per plant had high
heritability and GA.
Burgos et al. (2009) experimented at the International Potato Centre, Lima,
Peru with twenty-five andies potato varieties to determine the ascorbic acid (AA)
concentration of tubers. Variations due to genotype, environment and genotype-
environment (G×E) interaction were observed. Ascorbic acid concentration in
freshly harvested and peeled tubers ranged from 22.2 to 121.4 mg/100 g on dry

22
weight basis and from 6.5 to 36.9 mg/100 g on fresh weight basis. Whereas,
accession 704393 showed highest levels of ascorbic acid in all three locations.
Hayder et al. (2009) studied a trial at University of Rajshahi, Bangladesh
estimates variability, correlation and path analysis of thirty genotypes for character
yield and yield components. Plant height (cm), fresh weight plant and number of
leaves per plant had a positive association with tuber yield plant-1.
Perez Lopez et al., (2010) showed a trial at the University of Autonoma
Chapingo, Mexico to determine the genotypic variability and phenotypic diversity
with nine potato accessions. Positive and significant correlations between tuber
weight (g), tuber length (cm) and tuber diameter were shown. The genotypes tested
in this experiment could be improved by taking into yield components or by
evaluating additional tuber parameters.
Abbasi et al. (2011) evaluated the physical, chemical, functional and
processing characteristics of six commercial potato varieties. A positive correlation
(R = 0.765) existed between tuber firmness and specific gravity. A highly
significant correlation was estimated between dry matter and starch contents (R =
0.967). A promising correlation was reported between most of these functional
parameters with a distinctive correlation between total phenolic content and radical
scavenging activity (R = 0.903).
Abbas et al. (2012) investigated thirty-two potato genotypes for processing
and yield quality parameters for screening. The results of correlation studies
indicated that French fry colour exhibited a negative correlation with reducing
sugar (r = -0.7046), total sugar (r = -0.6659) and a positive correlation with dry
matter (r = 0.5013).
Laei et al. (2012) recorded the highest positive correlation between the
number of stems per plant, the number of tubers per plant (r=0.85), the total
number of tubers per plant (r=0.67) and a negative correlation between the mean
tuber weight and the number of tubers per plant (r=0.60).
Fekadu et al. (2013) performed a trial is at Arba Minch University,
Ethiopia to determine the genetic variability and character association of
agronomic parameters of thirteen potato genotypes for various genetic traits. Tuber
yield was positively correlated with plant height, biological yield, harvest index

23
and big tuber per centage at both genotypic and phenotypic levels whereas, tuber
yield showed a negative correlation between small and medium tuber per centages
at both genotypic and phenotypic levels.
Darabad (2014) conducted an experiment at Ardabil Technical and
Vocational Training Organization, Iran to examine the correlation of six potato
genotypes for twenty-one parameters. Tuber yield exhibited positive and
significant association with leaf area index, plant cover per centage, edible tuber
per centage, plant height and number of tubers per plant whereas storage loss per
cent and non-seeding tuber per centage had a significant and negative correlation
with tuber yield.
Mandi et al. (2016) conducted a trial at BCKV, West Bengal to improve
the yield and yield governing traits of potato genotypes through genetic
improvement. Tuber yield plant showed a positive and significant correlation with
tuber yield/m2, single tuber weight and number of tubers plants -1, according to
genotype correlation analyses. The yield per m 2 was also correlated with the
number of tubers per plant and the weight of a single tuber. As a result, the above
characters should be given more weight during the selection process.
Rangare and Rangare, (2017) performed an experiment at IGKV, Raipur
Chhattisgarh to determine the variability, heritability, genetic advance, correlation,
path analysis and genetic divergence of forty-four genotypes of potatoes for
different yields and yield-related parameters. Emergence per cent, number of
tubers plant-1, marketable tuber yield, number of compound leaves and fresh
weight of tuber were positively correlated with tuber yield. Whereas, dry matter
content of tuber plant-1 is highly significant and positively correlated with fresh
weight of tubers and harvest index.
Tessema et al. (2017) obsserved the association among traits and effects of
traits on tuber yield. Different traits like Plant height, stem number per hill,
average tuber number per hill, average tuber weight and total starch yield had
positive and significant correlations with total tuber yield at both genotypic and
phenotypic levels.
Mishra (2018) conducted an experiment at IGKV to analyze 25 potato
genotypes for 13 quantitative traits using a RBD during the rabi season of 2015-

24
16. Total tuber yield showed significant positive correlation with tubers plant ⁻¹
(0.863 and 0.325), leaves plant⁻¹ (0.744 and 0.354), tuber dry weight plant ⁻¹
(0.659 and 0.522), compound leaves plant⁻¹ (0.615 and 0.463) and harvest index
(%) (0.457 and 0.361) at genotypic and phenotypic levels. These traits are key for
improving yield in breeding programs.
Bombik et al. (2019) revealed that positive correlations were shown among
the analysed utility traits, especially the tuber yield, with the tuber quality traits,
i.e. starch yield, dry matter yield, bio-ethanol yield and resistance to virus Y.
Lavanya et al. (2019) showed the effect of correlation on total tuber yield
and yield attributing traits of nine CIP advance potato genotypes, finding that total
tuber yield per plot had a highly significant and positive association with
marketable yield per plot, number of tubers plant -1, dry matter and number of stems
at 60 DAP, both at the genotypic and phenotypic levels, indicating the possibility
of a correlation between genotypic and phenotypic levels.
Rizvi et al. (2020) conducted an experiment at SKUAST-K, Shalimar to
determine twelve potato genotypes and eight parameters. Total tuber yield per
hectare (q) showed a positive and significant association with plant height (cm),
plant spread (cm), number of stems per hill and leaf area (cm 2). Germination per
cent showed a positively and significant correlation with plant height, plant spread
(cm), number of stems per hill, leaf area and number of tubers plant -1. Similarly,
plant height showed a significant and positive correlation with plant spread (cm),
stem diameter (cm), number of stems per hill and total tuber yield.

2.6 Path coefficient analysis

Ara et al. (2009) carried out a study at the University of Rajshahi,
Bangladesh to determine variability, correlation coefficient and path analysis of
forty-eight genotypes of potato. The highest positive and direct effect on the
fresh weight of plant at 90 DAP was shown by several main shoots followed by
fresh weight at 80 DAP and the number of leaves plant-1.
Khayatnezhad et al. (2011) conducted a study at Islamic Azad University,
Ardabil, Iran to investigate correlation and path analysis of ten potato genotypes
for eleven characters. Path analysis revealed the highest positive impact on big

25
tuber per centage via plant height (cm), medium tuber weight and big tuber weight
respectively. Conversely, main stems plant-1 had a positive and low direct effect
0.184 with an indirect negative effect via tuber weight plant-1 (-1.39) and a positive
effect with average tuber weight (0.234) and tubers plant-1 (0.312) on tuber yield.
Zelleke (2013) performed a trial at Arba Minch University, Ethiopia to
determine the genetic variability and character association among thirteen potato
genotypes. Phenotypic path analysis revealed positive direct effects from
biological yield, plant height, harvest index, medium tuber per centage and tuber
diameter, while negative effects came from harvest index, tuber number plant -1,
days to maturity, shoots plant-1, big tuber per centage and days to emergence.
Genotypic path analysis showed positive direct effects from biological yield,
harvest index, plant height, days to emergence, medium tuber per centage and
tuber diameter, with negative effects from number of tubers plant, shoots plant -1,
and days to maturity.

Lamboro et al. (2014) carried a study for eighteen genotypes of potato at

Harmaya University, Ethiopia to estimates correlation and path coefficient analysis
of eighteen genotypes of potatoes for yield and yield contributing characters. Path
analysis revealed that day to emergence, number of stems plant -1, plant height,
biological yield and harvest index were exerted highest positive and direct effect
on tuber yield. However, days to flowering, days to maturity, small, medium and
big size tuber were showed negative and direct effect on tuber yield.

Yerima (2016) performed a study at the University of Maiduguri, Nigeria

to estimates correlation and path analysis. Path analysis revealed highest positive
and direct effect on tuber yield via length of primary stolon. Whereas, indirect
effect of other parameters on tuber yield through the length of the primary stolon
was negligible.
Fantaw et al. (2019) conducted a trial at COA and RT University of
Gondar, Ethiopia to evaluate potato varieties for yield and yield components.
Genotypes showed variation for all the for selecting superior genotypes. The
highest yield was recorded in Betele followed by Gaussa whereas the lowest yield

26
showed local landraces. Betele and Gaussa had an intermediate number of days to
emergence and flowering but late maturity as compared to others.
Prajapati et al. (2020) studied an experiment at S. D. Agriculture
University, Gujrat to determine the correlation coefficient and path analysis, potato
tuber yield and storage life by using thirty-three genotypes of potato The path
studies show high positive and direct effects by number of tubers plant -1, average
tuber weight, tuber dry matter physiological weight loss, loss due to rottage on
weight basis and loss due to rottage on number basis on tuber yield plant-1.
Lavanya et al. (2020) evaluated an experiment at UAHS, Shivamogga,
Karnataka to determine the correlation coefficient, path analysis and yield
component of potato genotypes for ten parameters. Path studies revealed the
highest positive and direct effect on total tuber yield per plot by plant height,
number of shoots plant-1, number of tubers plant-1, tuber weight plant -1, tuber dry
matter and leaf area whereas negative and direct effect by number of leaves plant -1
and total soluble solid on total tuber yield plot-1.

CHAPTER – III
MATERIALS AND METHODS

The present investigation entitled “Studies on different processing

genotypes of Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) for growth, yield, quality and
processing traits under Chhattisgarh condition” was carried out at Research
and Instructional Farm, College of Agriculture, Indira Gandhi Krishi
Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur (C.G.) during rabi season 2024-2025 under All India Co-
ordinated Research Project on Potato.

The purpose of this chapter is to provide succinct descriptions of the

materials and technology employed throughout the research.

3.1 Geographical Situation

27
 Raipur is the capital of Chhattisgarh, is situated in the central part of
Chhattisgarh, agro-climatologically known as “Chhattisgarh Plains” and lies
between 21.6°N latitude and 81.26°E longitude, at an elevation of 289.56 meters
above the mean sea level (MSL).

3.2 Agro-climatic condition

Raipur, the place of independent investigation, is located in a dry, sub-

humid region. It comes under the country’s seventh agro-climatic zone, the eastern
plateau and hills. The average annual rainfall is 1200-1400mm, mostly
concentrated during the period from June to September and occasional light
showers during October to February. May and December are the hottest and
coolest months of the year, respectively. The rainfall pattern, particularly between
June and September, varies significantly from year to year, with occasional light
showers during winter and summer seasons. The meteorological data have
collected from the Department of Agrometeorology, College of Agriculture,
IGKV, Raipur for the crop growth period (Rabi 2024-2025) are shown in
Appendix A. The data in Figure 3.1 indicate that the maximum temperature of
32.7°C and the lowest temperature of 10.3°C. The average rainfall received in the
entire crop growth period was 1.4 mm. The annual morning and evening relative
humidity ranged from 20 to 89 per cent during the plant growth and development.
The mean sunshine hours ranged between 3.2 to 9.5 hours during the
experimentation period. Vapour pressure varied from 6.1 to 15.7 mm of Hg. The
open pan evaporation mean values 19 ranged from 2.9 to 24.9 mm per day. The
monthly wind velocity ranged between 1.3 to 4 km per hour. According to the
overall climatological data, we can say that the weather conditions were normal
and favourable for the satisfactory growth and development of the potato crop.

3.3 Experimental site

The experimental site was located at Research cum Demonstration Farm,

College of Agriculture, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur (C.G)
Where, adequate facilities for irrigation and drainage were available.

28
3.4 Physio-chemical properties of soil

Plant performance is also influenced by the fertility and productivity of the

soil. Soil samples from 15 cm deep were obtained randomly from altered portions
of the field using the core sampler to estimate the field's native fertility grade.
Chemical and physical analyses were performed on these treated materials. The
results are compared to a typical soil test data rating chart and presented in Table
3.1

Table No. 3.1 Physio-chemical analysis of the experimental soil.

Particulars Composition Values Rating Method Followed

Physical Mechanical properties

properties
Sand (%) 25.67 Clay International Pipette Method

Silt (%) 32.54 Loam International Pipette Method

Clay (%) 41.79 (Dorsa) International Pipette Method

Chemical

29
properties Chemicals
Organic carbon (%) 0.60 Medium Walkley and Black’s rapid
titration method
(Jackson, 1967)
Available N (kg ha-1) 275.00 Low Alkaline permanganate
Method (Subbiah and Asija,
1956)
Available P (kg ha-1) 16.75 Medium Olsen method (Olsen, 1954)
Available K (kg ha-1) 303.00 High Flame Photometric Method
(Jackson, 1967)
Soil Reaction pH 7.09 Neutral Glass electrode pH Meter
(1: 2.5 Soil : Water) (Piper, 1967)
Electrical conductivity 0.19 Normal Conductivity method
(n mh cm-1) (Black, 1965)

30
 20
-N

0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0

24 ov-
-N 24
28 ov-
-N 24
o
2- v-2
De 4
6- c-2
D 4
10 ec-
-D 24
14 ec-
-D 24
18 ec-
-D 24
22 ec-
-D 24

RH II (%)
26 ec-

MAXT (°C)
-D 24
30 ec-
-D 24
e
3- c-24
Ja
7- n-25
J
11 an-2
MINT (°C) -J 5

31
WS(kmph)
15 an-2
-J 5
19 an-2
-J 5
23 an-2
- Ja 5
RF

27 n-2
(mm)

-J 5
EP(mm)

31 an-2
- Ja 5
4- n-2
Fe 5
8- b-2
F 5
12 eb-
-F 25
SS(hr)
RH I (%)

16 eb-
-F 25
20 eb-
-F 25
24 eb-
-F 25
28 eb-
-F 25
e
4- b-2
M 5
ar
-2
5
Fig. 3.1 : Weekly meterological data recorded during the crop growth (20th November, 2024 to 05th March, 2025)
32
3.5 Experimental design and details of the layout

The experiment was conducted under a randomized block design (RBD)

with three replications, using thirteen genotypes as treatment. The treatment details
and layout plans are given below.

3.5.1 Details of the experiment:

Table: 3.2 Details of the experiment

1 Crop : Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.)

2 Season and Year : Rabi {2024-2025}
3 Design of experiments : RBD
4 No. of replications : 03
5 No. of treatments : 13
6 Plot size : 3m × 3m
7 Plot area : 9m²
8 Spacing : 60 cm (Row to Row) × 20 cm (Plant
to Plant)
9 No. of rows per plot : 04
10 No. of plants per row : 15
11 No. of plants per plot : 60
12 No. of plots : 39
13 Date of sowing : 21st November 2024
14 Crop duration : 75 and 90 Days
15 Date of dehaulming :
(75 DAP) 10th February 2025
(90 DAP) 22nd February 2025
16 Date of harvesting :
(75 DAP) 25thFebruary 2025
(90 DAP) 6th March 2025

33
3.5.2 Experimental material

The experimental material consisted of thirteen genotypes of potato. The

seed tuber of the genotypes were obtained from the All India Coordinated
Research Project on Potato, Department of Vegetable Science, Indira Gandhi
Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur (C.G.) and list of all the genotypes given in fig -
3.2

34
 R1 R2 R3 N
T1 1.5m T2 T3

T6 T7 T8

T8 T9 T10

T9 T10 T11

T11 T12 T13

35
 T13 3m T1 T2

1m

T2 T3 T4

T3 T4 T5

T4 T5 T6

T5 T6 T7

T7 T8 T9 47 m

T10 T11 T12

W E
T12 T13 T1

Treatments = Genotypes

T1 = AICRP – P – 92

T2= AICRP – P – 107

T3= AICRP – P -108

36
T4= AICRP – P -106
 12 m
Fig: 3.2 Layout plan of experimental field

3.5.3 Field preparation

Field preparation was done by ploughing with a mould board plough,

followed by two cross-harrowing and leveling with the help of “Rotavator.” Well-
rotten Farmyard Manure (FYM) was mixed in the field @ 20 t ha-1 before ridging.
Ridges of 20 cm in height were made by tractor-drawn ridges at a spacing of 60
cm. As per the experiment's layout, the field was divided into 39 plots.

3.5.4 Preliminary sprouting

Seed tubers taken from the cold store are generally in the dormant stage.
Therefore, potato tubers after being removed from cold store were kept for pre-
sprouting for about a week in shade and diffused light to ensure healthy sprouts
and proper stand of crop. Planting was immediately done after the emergence of
sufficient sprouts on tuber.

3.5.5 Seed tuber treatment and planting

Before planting of seed tubers, it was treated with fungicides to avoid any
external or internal fungal infection. The well-sprouted tubers were treated with
Dithane M-45 @ 25 g lit-1 of water for 20 minutes in a container after that tubers
were spread under shade for removal of moisture. Same solution was used only
three times. The treated tubers were planted on ridges of 60 cm with an intra-row
spacing of 20 cm on 21st Nov 2024.

37
3.5.6 Manure and fertilizer application

Fully decomposed farmyard manure (FYM) @ 20 t ha -1 was incorporated

and then thoroughly mixed into the field before planting seeds. The recommended
dose of fertilizer i.e. [Link] kg NPK ha-1 was applied. The whole amount of
P and K and half of the N were applied as basal dose. The remaining quantity of
Nitrogenous fertilizer was given in two splits at 30 and 40 days after planting,
respectively. Nitrogen was given in the form of urea, whereas phosphorus and
potassium were applied through single super phosphate and muriate of potash,
respectively.

3..5.7 Earthing up

Earthing up was done manually at 30DAP. Split application as top

dressing of urea was done into furrows before earthing up.

3.5.8 Irrigation

The field was visited daily to observe the crop minutely and the first i.e.
pre-emergence irrigation was given immediately after the planting of tubers to
ensure better emergence. Subsequent irrigations were given at an interval of 10-12
days by using the furrow irrigation method, depending upon the moisture condition
of the soil.

3.5.9 Crop management practices

Recommended package of practices including weed control, intercultural

operation and plant protection measures were adapted. The crop was dehaulmed 8-
10 days before harvesting. Tubers were manually dug out using spade to prevent
any form of mechanical damage.

3.5.10 Plant protection measures

Spraying of Imidaclorpid and Thiochloride (0.5 ml liter -1 of water) was

done to control aphids at 40 DAP and 60 DAP. Dithane M-45 @ 2.5 g liter -1 of
water was sprayed at 60 DAP for the management of blight.

38
3.5.11 Weed management

Pre-emergence application of Metribuzine @ 0.75 kg ha -1 is given along

with that manual weeding is also done at the time of earthing up, weeds were
destroyed or uprooted with the help of a spade or small khudari i.e. 30, 45 and 60
DAP.

3.5.12 Harvesting

The crop was harvested manually with the help of a spade at 75 and 90
DAP. Dehaulming of the crop was done 8-10 days before harvesting manually with
the help of a sickle and ridges were covered with halum to avoid exposure of
tubers from sunlight. Care was taken to avoid any kind of mechanical injury to
tubers during the digging of the crop.

3.5.13 Grading

After digging of the crop, the rotten and cut tubers were sorted out to obtain good
quality of produce. The potato tubers were graded after harvesting into two groups
based on the size of the tubers. The groups contain (i) marketable grade (> 20 g)
and (ii) unmarketable grade (< 20 g). The yield was recorded separately for each
group of potatoes.

39
[Link] Particulars Date
.
1 Field preparation
a. Ploughing 13th November 2024
b. Rotavator 15th November 2024
c. Pata and Ridger 17th November 2024

2 Layout of Field 19thNovember 2024

3 Application of well rotten FYM 20th November 2024

4 Planting of tubers and application of basal dose 21st November 2024

of fertilizer

5 Pre-emergence irrigation 22nd November 2024

6 No. of Irrigation (six) November 2024 to

February 2025

7 Split application of urea 21st December 2024

and 5thJanuary 2025
8 Earthing up
(30 DAP) 21st December 2024

9 Weeding
(15 DAP) 6th December 2024
(30 DAP) 21st December 2024
(45 DAP) 5th January 2025
(60 DAP) 20thFeburary 2025

10 Protective spraying
(40 DAP) 31st December 2024
(60 DAP) 20thFeburary 2025

11 De-haulming

40
 (75 DAP) 10thFeburary 2025
(90 DAP) 22ndFeburary 2025

12 Harvesting
(30 DAP) 25thFeburary 2025
(90 DAP) 6th March 2025

Table No.: 3.3 Schedule of various crop management practice

41
3.6 Observations recorded
The observations related to various growth parameters and yield attributing
traits were recorded from five randomly selected competitive plants of each plot
from each replication. The mean of five plants was used for statistical analysis. The
various characters on which observations were recorded and methodologies
adapted for the same are described under the following sub-heading: The
observation can be grouped into two class as per details given below.
A. Quantitative characters
B. Qualitative characters

A. Quantitative characters
The various characters on which observations were recorded and
methodologies adapted for the same are described under the following sub-
heading:

3.6.1 Growth parameters

Growth parameters observations like plant emergence per centage, plant

height, number of primary branches plant -1, number of leaves plant-1, fresh weight
of shoots plant-1 and dry weight of shoots plant-1 etc. were recorded.

[Link] Plant emergence per centage It was computed by adding the number of
seedlings that had sprouted in each plot at 30 days after planting to the formula
below:

Total number of plants emerged

Plant emergence per cent=
Total number of tubers planted ¿
¿

[Link] Plant survival per centage It was computed by adding the number of
seedlings that had survived in each plot after 6-7 days of germination, below
formula is used:

Total number of plants survived

Plant survival per cent=
Total number of germinated plants∗10 0 ¿
¿

42
[Link] Height of plant (cm)

With the use of a meter scale, the height of five randomly selected plants
from each plot was measured at 35, 45 and 65 days after planting. It was measured
from the ground to the tallest stem's tip.

[Link] Number of primary branches plant-1

At 35, 45 and 65 Days after planting, the total numbers of primary branches
produced in the five tagged plants were recorded and an average was calculated.

[Link] Number of compound leaves plant-1

At 35, 45 and 65 days after planting, the total numbers of compound leaves
grown in the labeled five plants were counted and an average was calculated.

[Link] Number of leaves plant-1

At 35, 45 and 65 days after planting, the total numbers of leaves grown in
the labeled five plants were counted and an average was calculated.

[Link] Fresh weight of shoots plant-1 (g)

At the time of haulm cutting, the fresh weight of five randomly selected
plants from each plot were recorded. With the use of a sickle, a portion of the shoot
above ground level was taken from the plants and weighed to acquire the fresh
weight of the shoot plant-1.

[Link] Dry weight of shoots plant-1 (g)

The weighed plants were kept for natural drying for 15 days after recording
the fresh weight of shoots plant-1. Finally, it was placed in a hot air oven at 60°C
for 12 hours until a steady weight was attained, after which it was weighed to
obtain the dry weight on a digital balance. After then the data from five selected
plants was averaged.

43
3.6.2 Yield parameters

Yield parameters observations like number of tubers plant -1, tuber length
(cm), fresh weight of tubers plant-1 (g), dry weight of tubers plant-1 (g), marketable
tubers yield (t ha-1), unmarketable tubers yield (t ha -1) and tubers yield per plot (kg)
were all recorded at the time of harvesting using the procedure outlined below.

[Link] Number of tubers plant-1

Number of tubers plant-1 was recorded based on five plants. Total number
of tubers on each of five randomly selected plants was counted and averaged.

[Link] Fresh weight of tuber plant-1 (g)

This observation was recorded from already five tagged and uprooted these
five randomly tagged plants at the time of harvesting with the help of physical
balance and averaged was determined.

[Link] Dry weight of tuber plant-1 (g)

After recording the fresh weight of tubers plant-1, the tubers were sliced into
chips and left for natural sun drying for five days. The samples were finally kept in
the hot air oven for 12 hours at 60°C till constant weight was achieved and
weighed on a digital balance. The collected data of five individual plants was then
averaged.

[Link] Tuber size (cm²)

The length and width between two polar ends of five tubers from five
randomly selected plants of each replication was measured with the help of Vernier
callipers and an average was determined. The mean size of tuber was calculated by
multiplying length and breadth values in centimetre square.

[Link] Marketable tuber yield (t ha-1)

The overall tuber yield per plot was calculated by adding all of the
collected tubers from each treatment, converting it to tuber yield per hectare and
then expressing it in t ha-1. It has the following formula:

44
 1
Marketable tuber yield plot ¯ ( kg )∗10
Marketable tuber yield (t ha ¯ ¹)=
Areaof net plot ( m )
2

[Link] Unmarketable tuber yield (t ha-1)

Unmarketable tubers from the plot included those that were rotten,
diseased, too small and cut. The weight of these tubers was recorded for each
treatment, as well as the unmarketable tuber yield plot -1. It was afterwards changed
to t ha-1.

[Link] Tuber yield plot-1 (kg)

In each plot and replication, the total tuber weight of a plot area was
assessed.

[Link] Total tuber yield (t ha-1)

The tuber yield was estimated by multiplying the tuber yield plant -1 by the
number of plants in one m² area. Later based on plant population, it was turned to t
ha‐¹.

B. Quanlitative characters
3.6.3 Quality parameters

[Link] Specific gravity in volume (g/cm3)

The tuber weight in air divided by weight in water. This method is one of
the widely applicable approaches for specific gravity determination. The specific
sample units were first weighed in air and then the same units were re-weighed
after being suspended in water. The specific gravity was determined by using the
following formula:

Weight ∈air
Specific gravity =
(Weight ∈air−Weight ∈water ) ¿
¿

45
[Link] Estimation of starch per cent

The starch content of potato was estimated by anthrone reagent method (SaDAPiva
and Manikam, 1992).

Required materials

1. Anthrone –dissolve 200 mg anthrone in 100 ml of ice cold 35% H2SO4

2. 90% Ethenol
3. 52% Perchloric acid
4. Standard glucose: Stock –100 mg in 100 ml water.
5. Working standard –10 ml of stock diluted to 100 ml with water.

Procedure: 1. Homogenize 2.0 g of the sample in hot 95% ethanol (10 ml) and
placed in water bath for 10 minutes to remove sugar. Centrifuge and retain the
residue. Dry the residue well over a water bath.

2. To the residue add 5.0 ml of water and 6.5 ml of 52% perchloric acid.

3. Extract at 0oC for 20 minutes.

4. Centrifuge for 10 minutes and pool the supernatants and make up to 100 ml.

5. Pipette out 0.1 ml of the supernatant and make up the volume to 1 ml with
water.

6. Add 4 ml of anthrone to each tube.

7. Heat for 8 minutes in boiling water.

8. Cool rapidly and read the intensity of green to dark green colour at 630 nm.

9. A sugar-free sample of starch was hydrolyzed in a hot acidic medium to glucose

and then dehydrated to hydroxymethyl furfural, which gives a green colour with
anthrone at 630 nm. Glucose concentration (1×102 gm-1) used as standard.

[Link] Total soluble solids (˚Brix)

46
 TSS content of a produce (tubers) were estimated by the index of
refraction. Measuring it with a hand refractometer in degrees Brix. A cork borer
obtained the juice of fresh potato tubers by introducing up to the middle of the
tuber at its horizontal position (Mc Collum, 1963; Nieuwhof et al.,1973) and the
total soluble solids in per centage value was observed with the help of a hand
refractometer (0-30). The average was calculated from five plants tubers.

[Link] Reducing sugars (%)

Preparation of sample: Five milliliters (5 mL) of juice were homogenized

with 25–50 mL of distilled water in a 50 mL test tube. The volume was then made
up to 100 mL using distilled water. Two drops of phenolphthalein indicator were
added and the solution was titrated with 0.1 N NaOH until a pink colour appeared.

Next, 2 mL of potassium oxalate and 2 mL of lead acetate were added to

the mixture, which caused the solution to turn milky white. The volume was then
made up to 250 mL with distilled water.

The solution was allowed to stand undisturbed for 10 minutes to allow

sedimentation of the juice particles. After settling, the mixture was filtered through
Whatman No. 1 filter paper and the resulting filtrate was used for further analysis.

Procedure: Ten ml of Fehling’s solution [Fehling’s A (5 ml) + Fehling’s B

(5 ml)] with 25 to 50 ml of distilled water was taken in a conical flask, heated to
boil for 5 minute and titrated against the filtrate sample using methylene blue as an
indicator. The endpoint of titration was brick red colour.

Factor∗Volume made up∗100

Reducing sugars ( % ) =
Titrate value∗Weight of sample taken ¿
¿

[Link] Non-reducing sugars (%)

The content of non-reducing sugar was calculated by using the given

formula (Ranganna, 1986).

Non-reducing sugars (%) = Total sugars (%) – Reducing sugars

(%)

47
3.6.4 Processing and sensory evaluation of chips

[Link] Processing techniques:

Potato chips are one of the most widely consumed and commercially
successful processed potato products. Their popularity stems from their crisp
texture, appealing taste and ease of preparation. The processing of potatoes into
chips involves a sequence of well-defined steps to ensure desirable texture, taste
and shelf life.

The process begins with the selection of mature, healthy potatoes,

preferably of uniform size and free from blemishes. These potatoes are thoroughly
washed to remove soil and other surface impurities. After washing, the potatoes are
peeled to eliminate the outer skin, which may otherwise affect the texture and
appearance of the final product.

The peeled potatoes are then sliced into thin, uniform slices of about 2 to 3
mm thickness. These slices are immediately transferred to cold water to prevent
enzymatic browning and remove excess starch. The next step involves blanching
the slices in hot water at approximately 80°C for 5 to 10 minutes. Blanching helps
in partial gelatinization of starch, improves the colour and texture of the chips and
also reduces microbial load.

After blanching, the slices are cooled rapidly by immersing them in cold
water. This sudden temperature change helps retain firmness and prevents
overcooking. The slices are then surface-dried either using clean absorbent cloth or
by air drying. Sun drying can also be practiced to reduce surface moisture before
frying or packaging.

For sensory evaluation, the dried slices are deep-fried at a temperature of

around 180°C until they acquire a crisp texture and a light golden-yellow colour.
Chips with a size range of 40–60 mm and a light golden hue are generally
preferred by consumers due to their visual appeal and taste.

48
 Once fried, the chips are allowed to cool and are then packed in air-tight
containers or heat-sealed polythene bags to maintain freshness and prolong shelf
life.

Summarized Flow of Processing Steps: (Pinky and Asha, 2014)

1. Washing of selected potatoes

2. Peeling the outer skin

3. Slicing into thin, uniform pieces

4. Blanching in hot water (~80°C)

5. Cooling in cold water

6. Surface drying

7. Deep frying at 180°C

[Link] Sensory evaluation:

Deep-fried potato chips prepared from different processing potato

genotypes were evaluated for sensory qualities, including appearance, colour,
aroma, texture, taste and overall acceptability. Each attribute was assigned a score
of 1-9 points, corresponding to the hedonic scale. Organoleptic panel evaluated the
samples as per the hedonic scale described by (Rangana, 1979)

Table: 3.4 Hedonic Scale

Organoleptic score Scale (Rating)

Like Extremely 9

Like Very Much 8

Like Moderately 7

Like Slightly 6

Neither like nor dislike 5

Dislike Slightly 4

49
 Dislike Moderately 3

Dislike Very much 2

Dislike Extremely 1

3.7 Statistical analysis

The RBD standard method of statistical analysis was used to analyse the
experimental data gathered on several specified variables. The mean value of five
plants from each genotype in each replication was used for statistical analysis.

3.7.1 Analysis of variance

The significance of differences among genotypes was tested using the

analysis of variance. To test the significance of treatment, the calculated value of
‘F’ was compared with a tabular value of ‘F’ at 5 and 1 per cent level of
probability against error degree of freedom. The data obtained from the individual
plants were statistically analyzed as per the procedure given by Cocharan and Cox
(1957). The skeleton of analysis of variance used is given below:

Table: 3.5 Skeleton of ANOVA

[Link] Source of Degree Sum of Mean F value

. Variation of Squares sum of
Freedom squares Calculated Table

1. Replication (r-1) SSR MSR MSR/MSE Table

value

2. Treatment (t-1) SST MST MST/MSE **Signifi

cant at
1%
3. Error (r-1)(t-1) SSE MSE *Signific
ant
at 5%
4. Total (rt-1)

[Link] Critical difference

50
 CD = S Ed x t tab at 5% at error degree of freedom

√
2 MSE
SEd=❑ r ¿
¿
Where,
SEd = Standard error of deviation between two treatment means
EMS = Error Mean of square
r = Number of replications

[Link] Standard error of mean

√
EMS
SEm ± ❑ R ¿
¿
Where, SEd =Standard error of difference between two treatment mean

EMS = Error Mean of square

r = Number of replications

[Link] Coefficient of variation (CV) (%)

The coefficient of variation is the standard deviation expressed as a per centage

of

Mean.

SD
CV %= ×100
X

Where,

SD = Standard deviation

X̅ = Mean of character
3.7.2 Mean

Mean of the character was estimated by summing up all

observations and dividing the sum by the number of observation.
X

51
 N
Where, Xi = sum of observations
n = number of observations.

3.7.3 Range
The range for each character was determined by the difference
between its highest and lowest values of observation and thus, it gives some
idea of the amount of variability present.

3.7.4 Genetic Analysis

[Link] Component of variation

i. Phenotypic variance

σ2p = σ2g + σ2e

ii. Genotypic variance

2 TMS−EMS
σ g= 2 2
σ p−σ e

iii. Environmental variance

σ2e = EMS = σ2p - σ2g

Where,

TMS = Treatment mean sum of

EMS = Error mean sum of

square

σ2g = Genotypic Variance

σ2p = Phenotypic Variance

σ2e = Environmental Variance.

52
[Link] Genotypic and phenotypic coefficient of variation:

Genotypic and phenotypic coefficient of variation was calculated by using

the following formula proposed by Burton (1952).

σ²g
GCV %=
X

σ² p
PCV %=
X

Where, X = general mean for the character under consideration. The estimates of
PCV and GCV were classified as low (< 10 %), moderate (10-20%) and high (> 20
%) as per classification given by Sivasubramanium and Madhavamanon (1973).

[Link] Heritability

Heritability in broad sense (h2 b) is defined as the proportion of the

genotypic variance to the total variance (phenotypic variance) was estimated
by using the formula given by Hanson et al. (1956).

2
2 σ g
h %= 2
x 100
σ p

The broad-sense heritability estimates were classified as low (>50%), moderate

(50-70%) and high (<70%) as suggested by Robinson (1966).

[Link] Genetic advance

Expected genetic advance was predicted through the method of Johnson et

al. (1955) at 5 per cent selection intensity.
Genetic advance = K∙σp∙h2
Where,
K =Constant value of 2.06 at 5% selection intensity
σp =Phenotypic standard deviation of the character
h2 = Heritability of the character

53
[Link] Genetic advance as per cent of mean

Genetic advance as per centage of mean was calculated as per formula

given by Comstock et al., (1952):

GA
GA as per centage of mean= x 100
X
Where,
GA= Genetic advance
X =Mean

The magnitude of genetic advance as per centage of mean was classified as

low (<25%), moderate (25-40%) and high (>40%).

3.7.5 Coefficient of correlation

Coefficient of correlation was calculated for all possible combinations of

all the characters at genotypic, phenotypic and environmental levels by using
the following formula proposed by Miller et al. (1958).

Cov . x i x j
rx i xj=
√ V (x i)V (x j)
Where,

rxixj = coefficient of correlation between characters xi and xj

[Link] = covariance for xi and xj

V (xi) = variance for xi

V (xj) = variance of xj

Genotypic, phenotypic and environmental correlation was computed by

substituting corresponding variance and co-variance in the above-mentioned
formula for all the possible character combinations.
1. Genetic correlation coefficient character x and y

rxy(g) = Covxy
2. Phenotypic correlation coefficient between character x and y

54
 rxy(p) = Covxy

3. Environmental correlation coefficient between x and y

rxy(e) = Covxy

Where,

Cov xy (p), cov xy (g) = Phenotypic and genotypic covariance between character
x and y, respectively.

Var x (p), var x (g) = Phenotypic and genotypic character x, respectively.

Var y (p), var y (g) = Phenotypic and genotypic covariance character y,

respectively.

The meaning of the coefficient of correlation (r) was checked by comparing

the value 't' at (n-2) degree of freedom.

𝑡
For testing the significance of correlation, fisher and tates table for
significant t value at respective degree of freedom was consulted

. 3.7.6 Path coefficient analysis

Path analysis is a form of multiple regression statistical analysis that is

used to evaluate causal model by examining the relationship between a dependent
variable and two or more independent variable.

The direct and indirect contribution of various characters to yield were

calculated through path coefficient analysis as suggested by Wright (1921) and
elaborated by Dewey and Lu (1959). The following simultaneous equations were
formed and solved for estimating various direct and indirect effects.

Phenotypic correlation coefficients were utilized for path coefficient

analysis for estimation of various direct and indirect effects. A set of path
coefficients were obtained by solving the following simultaneous equations.
rly = Ply + r12P2y + r13 P3y + ……… + rlk Pky

55
Where,

Rly = Simple correlation coefficient between x1 and y, the

dependent character
Ply = Direct effect of x1 on y, the dependent character
r12P2y = Indirect effect of x1 on y through x2.
r12 = Correlation coefficient between x1 and x2.
rlk Pky = Indirect effect of x1 only through kth variable.

In the same way, equations for r2y, r3y, r4y, up to rky were obtained. The
direct and indirect effects were calculated by solving the simultaneous equations.
Besides the direct and indirect effects, the residual effect was computed by using the
formula Singh and Chaudhary (1985).

R = √1 − ∑di × rij

Where,

Di = direct effect of ith character

Rij = correlation coefficient of ith character with jth character

A direct and indirect effect of various traits on total tubers yield was
calculated at genotypic level.

56
A view of field preparation A view of first irrigation

57
 A view of plant vegetative growth

58
 A view of flowers in field

Plate 3.1: Overview of crop growth stages

59
 Plate 3.2: A view of experimental field

Data collected for growth parameters A field view after dehaulming

parameters
60
1. Peeling 2. Slicing

4. Cooking
3. Staining

5. Frying

Plate 3.4: A step-wise view of processing of potato chips

61
 CHAPTER-IV
RESULT AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents the experimental results and their detailed

discussion, derived from the research conducted on the topic entitled “Studies
on different processing genotypes of Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) for
growth, yield, quality and processing traits under Chhattisgarh
condition”. The field experiment was conducted during the Rabi season of
2024–2025 as part of the All India Coordinated Research Project on Potato, at
the Research and Instructional Farm of the College of Agriculture, Indira
Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur (C.G.). Various observations
recorded during the study have led to significant findings, which are
systematically discussed in this chapter. The results have been statistically
analyzed and presented in relevant tables, graphs and figures. For clarity and
ease of interpretation, the experimental findings are organized and discussed
under appropriate sub headings :-

4.1 Analysis of variance and mean performance

4.2 Estimation of parameters of genetic variability
4.3 Genotypic and Phenotypic correlation coefficient
4.4 Path coefficient analysis
4.5 Sensory evaluation of chips

4.1 Analysis of variance and mean performance

4.1.1 Analysis of variance

The result of analysis of variance for all the characters under study is
presented in Table 4.1. At 75 DAP, analysis of variance revealed that mean
sum of squares due to genotypes was found to be highly significant (at 1 per
cent level of significance) for plant emergence per centage (13.269), plant
height (386.373), no. of primary branches plant -1 (5.403), no. of compound

62
 leaves plant-1 (83.11), fresh weight of shoot plant -1 (15621.822), dry weight of
shoots plant-1 (370.774), no. of tubers plant-1 (3.16), tuber girth (0.563), tuber
length (0.891), fresh weight of tubers plant-1 (7102.845), dry weight of tubers
plant-1 (3647.579), marketable tuber yield (t/ha) (33.087), unmarketable tuber
yield (t/ha) (13.01), rottage (t/ha) (0.748), total tuber yield (t/ha) (31.557), tss
(1.526), starch (15.323), reducing sugars (0.005) and non-reducing sugars
(0.005). Whereas the character, namely, plant survival % (18.258), was found
significant at 5 per cent level of significance. This is an indication of the
existence of a considerable amount of variability in the material studied.

The analysis of variance results for all of the characters under investigation are
shown in Table 4.2. At 90 DAP, analysis of variance revealed that mean sum of
squares due to genotypes was found to be highly significant (at 1 per cent level of
significance) for plant emergence per centage (58.591), plant survival (37.316),
plant height (322.437),no. of primary branches plant-1 (6.822), fresh weight of shoot
plant-1 (18480.56), dry weight of shoots plant-1 (357.206), no. of tubers plant-1
(2.345), tuber girth (0.767), tuber length (1.478), fresh weight of tubers plant -1
(8585.259), dry weight of tubers plant -1 (1650.74), marketable tuber yield (t/ha)
(49.556), unmarketable tuber yield (t/ha) (1820.266), rottage (t/ha) (0.709), total
tuber yield (t/ha) (38.159), tss (6.756), starch (9.475), reducing sugars (0.004) and
non-reducing sugars (0.004). Whereas the character, namely, no. of compound
leaves plant-1 (81.805), was found significant at 5 per cent level of significance. This
is an indication of the existence of a considerable amount of variability in the
material studied.

63
64
Table No. 4.1 Analysis of variation for tuber yield and its components at 75 DAP

Mean Sum of Squares (MSS)

Replication Treatment Error

[Link]. Characters
Degree of freedom

2 12 24

1 Seed weight plot-1 (g) 1.5610 267.668** 53.666

2 Plant Emergence% 7.4920 13.269** 4.373

3 Plant Survival (%) 0.140 18.258* 6.119

4 Plant height (cm) 102.4620 386.373** 30.113

5 No. of Primary Branches plant-1 0.20 5.403** 0.593

6 No. of compound leaves plant-1 2.4970 83.11** 26.445

7 Number of leaves plant-1 28.8530 112.5270 72.673

Fresh weight of shoots plant- 15621.822*

8 1 130.4090 265.353
(g) *

9 Dry weight of shoots plant-1(g) 8.880 370.774** 12.148

10 No. of tubers plant-1 0.0290 3.16** 0.47

11 Tuber length (cm) 0.060 0.891** 0.259

12 Tuber girth (cm) 0.0020 0.563** 0.019

Fresh weight of tubers plant-

13 1 2486.4450 7102.845** 730.832
(g)

14 Dry weight of tubers plant-1(g) 59.3450 3647.579** 96.817

15 Marketable tuber yield (t/ha) 0.8620 33.087** 1.81

16 Unmarketable tuber yield (t/ha) 0.490 13.01** 0.665

17 Rottage tuber yield (t/ha) 00 0.748** 0.011

18 Total tuber yield (t/ha) 0.7160 31.557** 5.831

19 Total tuber yield (kg/plant) 3.0770 25.555** 2.399

20 TSS (Brix) 0.0010 1.526** 0.277

21 Specific gravity (g/cm³) 00 0.0010 0.001

22 Starch (%) 0.020 15.323** 0.528

23 Reducing sugars (%) 00 0.005** 0

24 Non reducing sugars (%) 00 0.005** 0

*Significant at 5% level of significance, ** Significant at 1% level of significance

65
Table No. 4.2 Analysis of variation for tuber yield and its components at 90 DAP

Mean Sum of Squares (MSS)

Replicatio Treatment Error
[Link] Characters
n
.
Degrees of freedom

2 12 24

1 Seed weight plot-1 (g) 3.3220 220.293** 25.806

2 Plant Emergence % 3.0340 58.591** 7.597

3 Plant Survival (%) 1.6960 37.316** 4.332

4 Plant height (cm) 13.630 322.437** 14.547

5 No. of Primary Branches plant-1 0.0130 6.822** 0.428

6 No. of compound leaves plant- 8.1120 81.805* 30.279

7 Number of leaves plant-1 28.8940 151.590 76.151

8 Fresh weight of shoots plant- 651.4370 18480.566** 374.87

1
(g)

9 Dry weight of shoots plant-1 (g) 4.8680 357.206** 7.677

10 No. of tubers plant-1 0.080 2.345** 0.724

11 Tuber length (cm) 0.1840 1.478** 0.429

12 Tuber girth (cm) 0.1030 0.767** 0.213

13 Fresh weight of tubers plant-1 18.8390 8585.259** 2296.755

(g)

14 Dry weight of tubers plant-1 (g) 0.3730 1650.74** 244.717

15 Marketable tuber yield (t/ha) 0.3720 49.556** 2.073

16 Unmarketable tuber yield (t/ha) 110.8710 1820.266** 158.735

17 Rottage tuber yield (t/ha) 00 0.709** 0.006

18 Total tuber yield (t/ha) 2.1680 38.159** 3.3

19 Total tuber yield (Kg/plant) 1.120 30.912** 2.786

20 TSS (Brix) 0.050 6.756** 0.228

21 Specific gravity (g/cm³) 0.002* 0.025** 0.001

22 Starch (%) 0.2140 9.475** 0.644

23 Reducing sugars (%) 00 0.004** 0

24 Non reducing sugars (%) 00 0.004** 0

66
*Significant at 5% level of significance, ** Significant at 1% level of significance

4.1.2 Mean performance of genotypes for various traits

The average performance of genotypes for several attributes were

calculated based on ten randomly selected plants observations of each genotype in
each replication. For each attribute under consideration, the average performance
of thirteen genotypes was calculated is shown in the Table-4.3 and 4.4, the
following is the description of the result-

[Link] Seed weight plot-1 (g )

At 75 DAP, the mean performance of genotypes for seed weight plot-1 (g)
ranged from 73.66 (Kufri chipsona-1) to 48.73 (AICRP-P-57) with an overall
average of 59.59. The highest seed weight plot-1 (g) was found in genotype K. ch-1
(73.66) which was statistically at par with the performance of genotypes viz.
AICRP-P-106 (71.93), AICRP-P-77 (70.93), AICRP-P-107 (70.26), Kufri Ganga
(62.93), FF-04 (62.66) whereas, the minimum seed weight plot-1 (g) was recorded
in genotype AICRP-P-57 (48.73).

At 90 DAP, the mean performance of genotypes for seed weight plot-1 (g)
ranged from 76.19 (AICRP-P-77) to 49.87 (Kufri Kiran) with an overall average of
59.15. The highest seed weight plot-1 (g) was found in genotype AICRP-P-77
(76.19) which was statistically at par with the performance of genotypes viz.
AICRP-P-106 (71.99), AICRP-P-107 (68.24), whereas, the minimum seed weight
plot-1 (g) was recorded in genotype Kufri Kiran (49.87).

[Link] Plant emergence per cent (%)

At 75 DAP, the mean performance of genotypes for plant emergence per

centage ranged from 99.18 per cent (AICRP-P-77) to 90.78 per cent (Kufri
Ganga), with an overall average of 95.32 per cent. The highest per centage of
emergence was found in genotypes AICRP-P-77, which was statistically at par

67
with the performance of the genotypes viz. (AICRP-P-94) 97.57 per cent, (AICRP-
P-57) 96.75 per cent, (AICRP-P107) 96.37 per cent, (Kufri Khyati) 96.28 per cent,
(AICRP-P-106) 95.83 per cent, whereas, the minimum plant emergence per cent
was recorded in genotype Kufri Ganga (90.78 per cent).

At 90 DAP, the mean performance of genotypes for plant emergence per

centage ranged from 99.31 per cent (AICRP-P-77) to 81.57 per cent (AICRP-P-
92), with an overall average of 93.19 per cent. The highest per centage of
emergence was found in genotypes AICRP-P-77, which was statistically at par
with the performance of the genotypes viz. (AICRP-P-57) 97.08 per cent, (AICRP-
P-94) 96.28 per cent, (AICRP-P106) 95.56 per cent, (AICRP-FF-04) 94.87 per
cent, (Kufri chipsona-1) 94.86 per cent, whereas the minimum plant emergence per
cent was recorded in genotype AICRP-P-92 (81.56) per cent.

[Link] Plant survival per cent

At 75 DAP, the mean performance of genotypes for plant survival per

centage ranged from 99.68 per cent (AICRP-P-94) to 92.32 per cent (Kufri
Ganga), with an overall average of 95.74 per cent. The highest per centage of
emergence was found in genotypes AICRP-P-94, which was statistically at par
with the performance of the genotypes viz. AICRP-P-57 (99.50 per cent), AICRP-
P-77 (98.84 per cent), AICRP-P-106 (96.6 per cent), AICRP-P107 (96.50),
whereas the minimum plant survival per cent was recorded in genotype Kufri
Ganga (92.32per cent).

At 90 DAP, the mean performance of genotypes for plant survival per

centage ranged from 99.47 per cent (AICRP-P-77) to 85.96 per cent (AICRP-P-
92), with an overall average of 95.40 per cent. The highest per centage of
emergence was found in genotypes AICRP-P-77, which was statistically at par
with the performance of the genotypes viz. Kufri Khyati (99.41), AICRP-P-57
(97.28 per cent), Kufri Surya (96.89 per cent), AICRP-FF-04 (96.48 per cent),
whereas the minimum plant survival per cent was recorded in genotype AICRP-P-
77 (85.96 cent).

[Link] Plant height (cm)

68
 At 75 DAP, plant height ranged from 78.01 cm (AICRP-P-107) to 44.72
cm (AICRP-P-92) with an overall average of 59.15 cm. The highest plant height
78.01 cm was recorded in genotype AICRP-P-107, however it was found
statistically at par with genotypes viz. AICRP-P-106 (72.95 cm), AICRP-P-77
(72.00 cm), AICRP-P-108 (69.48 cm), whereas the lowest plant height was
recorded in genotype AICRP-P-92 (44.72 cm).

At 90 DAP, plant height ranged from 79.01cm (AICRP-P-107) to 47.71 cm

(AICRP-P-92) with an overall average of 62.39 cm. The highest plant height 79.01
cm was recorded in genotype AICRP-P-107, however it was found statistically at
par with genotypes viz. AICRP-P-106 (76.62 cm), AICRP-P-77 (72.54 cm),
AICRP-P-108 (70.14 cm), whereas the lowest plant height was recorded in
genotype AICRP-P-92 (47.71 cm).

[Link] Number of primary branches plant-1

At 75 DAP, number of primary branches plant -1 ranged from 9.67

(AICRP-P-57) to 5.27 (AICRP-P-92) with an overall average of 6.66. The highest
number of primary branches plant-1 was recorded in the genotype AICRP-P-57
(9.67), however it was found to be statistically at par with genotypes AICRP-P-94
(8.72), where the lowest number of primary branches plant -1 was recorded in
genotype AICRP-P-92 (5.27 cm).

At 90 DAP, number of primary branches plant-1 ranged from 9.70 (AICRP-

P-57) to 4.08 (AICRP-FF-04) with an overall average of 6.71. The highest number
of primary branches was recorded in the genotype AICRP-P-57 (9.70), however it
was found to be statistically at par with genotypes AICRP-P-94 (8.75) and AICRP-
P-107 (8.34), where the lowest number of primary branches plant -1 was recorded in
genotype AICRP-FF-04 (4.08 cm).

[Link] Number of compound leaves plant-1

At 75 DAP, the mean performance of genotypes for of no. of compound

leaves plant-1 ranged from 57.95 (AICRP-P-107) to 39.35 (AICRP-P-92), with an
overall average of 45.66. The highest no. of compound leaves plant -1 was found in
genotypes AICRP-P-107, which was statistically at par with the performance of

69
the genotypes viz. AICRP-P-57 (52.61), whereas the lowest no. of compound
leaves plant-1 was recorded in genotype AICRP-P-92 (39.35).

At 90 DAP, the mean performance of genotypes for no. of compound

leaves plant-1 ranged from 58.26 (AICRP-P-107) to 41.48 (AICRP-P-92), with an
overall average of 48.26. The highest no. of compound leaves plant -1 was found in
genotype AICRP-P-107, which was statistically at par with the performance of the
genotypes viz. AICRP-P-108 (53.18), AICRP-P-106 (52.47) and AICRP-P57
(51.75), whereas, the lowest no. of compound leaves plant -1 was recorded in
genotype AICRP-P-92 (41.48).

[Link] Number of leaves plant-1

At 75 DAP, the mean performance of genotypes for no. of leaves plant -1

ranged from 323.82 (AICRP-P-57) to 302.56 (AICRP-P-92), with an overall
average of 311.01. The highest no. of leaves plant -1 was found in genotypes
AICRP-P-57, which was statistically at par with the performance of the genotypes
viz. AICRP-94 (319.87), AICRP-P-107 (316.57), AICRP-P-106 (314.07), AICRP-
P-77 (311.09), Kufri Ganga (311.07), Kufri Kiran (309.76), Kufri Surya (308.79),
Kufri Khyati (307.09), AICRP-C-08 and AICRP-P-92 (306.87), AICRP-P-57
(52.61), whereas the lowest no. of leaves plant -1 was recorded in genotype AICRP-
P-108 (302.56).

At 90 DAP, the mean performance of genotypes for of no. of leaves plant -1

ranged from 328.30 (AICRP-P-57) to 305.61 (Kufri Khyati), with an overall
average of 315.34. The highest no. of leaves plant -1 was found in genotypes
AICRP-P-57, which was statistically at par with the performance of the genotypes
viz. Kufri Ganga (324.23), AICRP-P-106 (323.81), AICRP-94 (320.82), AICRP-
FF-04 (317.27), AICRP-P-77 (315.80), AICRP-P-107 (313.82), Kufri Kiran
(312.73), AICRP-P-92 (309.77), Kufri Chipsona-1 (309.47) and Kufri Surya
(309.25), whereas, the lowest no. of leaves plant-1 was recorded in genotype Kufri
Khyati (305.61).

4.1.2.8Fresh weight of shoots plant-1 (g)

At 75 DAP, the fresh weight of shoots plant -1 ranged from 325.67 g

(AICRP-P-107) to 92.66 g (AICRP-P-92) with overall mean of 213.88 g. The

70
significantly highest fresh weight of shoots plant -1 was observed in genotype
AICRP-P-107 (325.67g). However, it was recorded statistically similar to the
genotypes viz. AICRP-P-77 (318.67 g) andAICRP-P-94 (291.33 g), However,
lowest fresh weight of shoots plant-1 was recorded in genotype AICRP-P-92 (92.66
g).

At 90 DAP, the fresh weight of shoots plant -1 ranged from 375.46 g

(AICRP-P-107) to 103.36 g (AICRP-P-92) with overall mean of 242.87 g. The
significantly highest fresh weight of shoots plant -1 was observed in genotype
AICRP-P-107 (375.46 g), however it was recorded statistically similar to the
genotypes viz. AICRP-P-77 (340.89 g), However, lowest fresh weight of shoots
plant-1 was recorded in genotype AICRP-P-92 (103.36 g).

[Link] Dry weight of shoots plant-1

At 75 DAP, the dry weight of shoots plant -1 ranged from 46.53 g (AICRP-
P-94) to 14.54 g (AICRP-P-92) with the overall mean of 30.60 g. The significantly
highest dry weight of shoots plant-1 was observed in genotype AICRP-P-94 (46.53
g). The lowest dry weight of shoots plant -1 was recorded in genotype AICRP-P-92
(14.54 g).
At 90 DAP, the dry weight of shoots plant -1 ranged from 46.88 g (AICRP-
P-94) to 13.11 g (AICRP-P-92) with the overall mean of 30.12 g. The significantly
highest dry weight of shoots plant-1 was observed in genotype AICRP-P-94 (46.88
g) which was statistically at par with the performance of the genotypes viz.
AICRP-P-107 (43.47 g). The lowest dry weight of shoots plant-1 was recorded in
genotype AICRP-P-92 (13.11g).
[Link] Number of tubers plant-1
At 75 DAP, the number of tuber plant-1 ranged from 10.40 (AICRP-P-106)
to 6.80 (Kufri Kiran) with an overall mean 7.97. The highest number of tubers
plant-1 10.40 was counted in genotypes AICRP-P-106, which was statistically at
par with AICRP-P-57 (9.337). The minimum number of tuber plant -1 was 6.80
which were counted in genotype Kufri Kiran.
At 90 DAP, the number of tuber plant-1 ranged from 10.40 (AICRP-P-106)
to 6.667 (Kufri Surya) with an overall mean8.77. The highest number of tubers

71
plant-1 10.40 was counted in genotypes AICRP-P-106, which was statistically at
par with AICRP-P-57 (9.667), AICRP-P-92 (9.34), Kufri Kiran (9.2) and AICRP-
P-94 (9.0). The minimum number of tuber plant-1 was 6.667 which were counted in
genotype Kufri Surya.

[Link] Tuber length (cm)

At 75 DAP, the tuber length ranged from 7.41 cm (AICRP-P-92) to 5.35
cm (AICRP-P-106) with the overall mean of 6.14 cm. The significantly highest
tuber length was observed in genotype AICRP-P-92 (7.41 cm) which was
statistically at par with Kufri Chipsona-1 (6.76 cm), AICRP-P-108 (6.53 cm) and
AICRP-P-57 (6.50 cm). The lowest tuber length was recorded in genotype
AICRPP-P-106 (5.35 cm).
At 90 DAP, the tuber length ranged from 8.033 cm (AICRP-P-92) to 5.793
cm (Kufri Ganga) with the overall mean of 6.43 cm. The significantly highest tuber
length was observed in genotype AICRP-P-92 (8.033 cm) which was statistically
at par with AICRP-P-57 (7.69 cm). The lowest tuber length was recorded in
genotype Kufri Ganga (5.793 cm).
[Link] Tuber girth (cm)
At 75 DAP, the tuber girth ranged from 5.23 cm (AICRP-P-108) to 3.59
cm (Kufri Surya) with the overall mean of 4.43 cm. The significantly highest tuber
girth was observed in genotype AICRP-P-108 (5.23 cm) which was statistically at
par with AICRP-FF-04 (4.87cm), AICRP-P-107 (4.82) and AICRP-P-77 (4.81).
The lowest tuber girth was recorded in genotype Kufri Surya (3.59 cm).

At 90 DAP, the tuber girth ranged from 5.89 cm (AICRP-P-108) to 4.04

cm (Kufri Khyati) with the overall mean of 4.84 cm. The significantly highest
tuber girth was observed in genotype AICRP-P-108 (5.89 cm) which was
statistically at par with AICRP-P-92 (5.477 cm) and AICRP-P-107 (5.23). The
lowest tuber girth was recorded in genotype Kufri Khyati (4.04 cm).

4.1.2.13Fresh weight of tubers plant-1 (g)

72
 At 75 DAP, the fresh weight of tubers plant -1 ranged from 436.53 g
(AICRP-P-57) to 258.6 g (AICRP-P-92) with an overall average of 336.83 g. The
highest fresh weight of tubers plant-1 was observed in genotype AICRP-P-57
followed by AICRP- P-94 (377.80 g) and AICRP-P-107 (377.13 g). All these three
genotypes were noted to be statistically at par whereas, significantly lowest fresh
weight of tuber plant-1 (258.6 g) was found in genotype AICRP-P-92.

At 90 DAP, the fresh weight of tubers plant -1 ranged from 496.54 g

(AICRP-P-57) to 294.06 g (AICRP-P-92) with an overall average of 385.44 g. The
highest fresh weight of tubers plant-1 was observed in genotype AICRP-P-57
followed by AICRP- P-94 (428.09 g), AICRP-P-107 (427.79 g) and AICRP-77
(418.23), all these three genotypes were noted to be statistically at par whereas,
significantly lowest fresh weight of tuber plant-1 (294.06 g) was found in genotype
AICRP-P-92.

[Link] Dry weight of tubers plant-1 (g)

At 75 DAP, the dry weight of tubers plant -1 ranged from 162.81 g (AICRP-
P-57) to 53.91 g (Kufri Khyati) with an overall average of 98.98 g. The highest dry
weight of tubers plant-1 was observed in genotype AICRP-P-57 followed by
AICRP- P-77 (141.6 g). All these genotypes were noted to be statistically at par
whereas, significantly lowest dry weight of tuber plant -1 (53.91 g) was found in
genotype Kufri Khyati.

At 90 DAP, the dry weight of tubers plant -1 ranged from 167.51 g (AICRP-
P-57) to 87.25 g (Kufri Khyati) with an overall average of 124.11 g. The highest
dry weight of tubers plant-1 was observed in genotype AICRP-P-57 followed by
AICRP- P-94 (146.57 g), AICRP-P-107 (145.62) and AICRP-P-108 (142.98), all
these genotypes were noted to be statistically at par whereas, significantly lowest
dry weight of tuber plant-1 (87.25 g) was found in genotype Kufri Khyati.

[Link] Marketable tuber yield (t/ha)

At 75 DAP, the marketable tuber yield ranged from 21.63 t ha -1 (AICRP-P-

57) to 11.63 t ha-1 (AICRP-P-92) with an overall mean of 14.61 t ha -1. The lowest
marketable yield was found in AICRP-P-92 (11.63 t ha -1). However, the highest

73
marketable yield was found in genotype AICRP-P-57 (21.63 t ha 1), which was
statistically at par with genotype AICRP-P-107.

At 90 DAP, the marketable tuber yield ranged from t 26.60 ha -1 (AICRP-P-

57) to 13.23 t ha-1 (AICRP-P-92) with an overall mean of 18.98 t ha -1. The lowest
marketable yield was found in AICRP-P-92 (13.23 t ha -1). However, the highest
marketable yield was found in genotype AICRP-P-57 (26.60 t ha 1), which was
statistically at par with genotype AICRP-P-107 (23.88) and Kufri Ganga (22.54).

[Link] Unmarketable tuber yield (t/ha)

At 75 DAP, the unmarketable tuber yield ranged from 10.113 t ha-1

(AICRP-P-106) to 3.54 t ha-1 (Kufri Khyati) with an overall mean of 6.89 t ha-1.
The lowest unmarketable yield was found in Kufri Khyati (3.54 t ha -1). However,
the highest unmarketable yield was found in genotype AICRP-P-106 (10.113 t
ha1), which was statistically at par with genotype AICRP-P-108 (10.56 t ha1).

At 90 DAP, the unmarketable tuber yield ranged from 9.36 t ha -1 (AICRP-

P-106) to 2.54 t ha-1 (Kufri Khyati) with an overall mean of 6.01 t ha -1. The lowest
unmarketable yield was found in Kufri Khyati (2.54 t ha -1). However, the highest
unmarketable yield was found in genotype AICRP-P-106 (9.36 t ha 1), which was
statistically at par with genotype AICRP-P-108 (8.433 t ha1).

[Link] Rottage tuber yield (t/ha)

At 75 DAP, the rottage tuber yield t ha 1 ranged from 1.703 t ha-1 (AICRP-
FF-04) to 0.223 t ha-1 (KufriGanga) with an overall mean of 1.94 t ha-1. The lowest
rottage tuber yield t ha1was found in Kufri Ganga (0.223 t ha -1). However, the
highest rottage tuber yield was found in genotype AICRP-FF-04 (1.703 t ha 1),
which was statistically at par with genotype Kufri Chipsona-1 (1.657).

At 90 DAP, the rottage tuber yield t ha 1 ranged from 1.51 t ha-1 (Kufri
Chipsona-1) to 0.04 t ha-1 (Kufri Ganga) with an overall mean of 0.73 t ha -1. The
lowest rottage tuber yield was found in Kufri Ganga (0.04 t ha -1). However, the
highest rottage tuber yield t ha 1 was found in genotype Kufri Chipsona-1 (1.51 t
ha1), which was statistically at par with genotype Kufri Kiran (1.137).

74
[Link] Total tuber yield (kg/ plot or t/ ha)

At 75 DAP, the total tuber yield ranged from 26.193 kg plot -1 or 29.097 t
ha-1 (AICRP-P-57) to 15.517 kg plot-1 or 17.24 t ha-1 (AICRP-P-92) with an overall
mean of 20.21 kg plot-1 or 22.45 t ha-1. The highest total tuber yield was recorded
in genotype AICRP-P-57 (26.193 kg plot-1 or 29.097 t ha-1). The lowest total tuber
yield of 15.517 kg plot-1 or 17.24 t ha-1 was recorded in genotype AICRP-P-92 at
75 DAP.

At 90 DAP, the total tuber yield ranged from 29.79 kg plot -1 or 33.10 t ha-1
(AICRP-P-57) to 17.64 kg plot-1 or 19.60 t ha-1 (AICRP-P-92) with an overall
mean of 23.13 kg plot-1 or 25.70 t ha-1. The highest total tuber yield was recorded
in genotype AICRP-P-57 (29.79 kg plot-1 or 33.10 t ha-1). The lowest total tuber
yield of 17.64 kg plot-1 or 19.60 t ha-1 was recorded in genotype AICRP-P-92 at 90
DAP.

[Link] Total soluble solid (˚ Brix)

At 75 DAP, the total soluble solid ranged from 5.16 ˚Brix (AICRP-P-106)
to 2.58˚Brix (AICRP-P-94) with an overall mean of 4.34˚Brix. The highest total
soluble solid was recorded in genotype AICRP-P-106 (5.16˚Brix), which was
statistically at par with genotypes Kufri Ganga (5.06˚Brix), AICRP-FF-04
(5.01˚Brix), Kufri Kiran (4.93˚Brix), AICRP-P-108 (4.70˚Brix), AICRP-P-107
(4.56˚Brix), and Kufri Chipsona-1 (4.32˚Brix). The lowest total soluble solid was
recorded in AICRP-P-94 (2.58˚Brix).
At 90 DAP, the total soluble solid ranged from 8.217˚Brix (AICRP-P-108)
to 4.25˚Brix (AICRP-FF-04) with an overall mean of 5.65˚Brix. The highest total
soluble solid was recorded in genotype AICRP-P-108 (8.217˚Brix), which was
statistically at par with genotypes AICRP-P-106 (8.160˚Brix) and AICRP-P-107
(7.32˚Brix). The lowest total soluble solid was recorded in AICRP-FF-04
(4.25˚Brix).
[Link] Specific gravity (g/cm3)

At 75 DAP, the specific gravity ranged from 1.07 g/cm 3 (AICRP-P-57) to

1.01 g/cm3 (Kufri Kiran) with an overall mean of 1.05 g/cm 3. The highest specific

75
gravity was recorded in genotype AICRP-P-57 (1.07 g/cm 3), which was
statistically at par with genotypes AICRP-P-108 (1.067 g/cm3) AICRP-FF-04
(1.060 g/cm3), Kufri Ganga (1.05 g/cm3). The lowest specific gravity was recorded
in Kufri Kiran (1.01 g/cm3).

At 90 DAP, the specific gravity ranged from 1.383 g/cm 3 (Kufri Khyati) to
1.03 g/cm3 (Kufri Kiran) with an overall mean of 1.08 g/cm 3. The highest specific
gravity was recorded in genotype Kufri Khyati (1.383 g/cm 3), which was
statistically at par with genotypes AICRP-P-57 (1.083 g/cm3) AICRP-P-108 (1.077
g/cm3). The lowest specific gravity was recorded in Kufri Kiran (1.03 g/cm3).

[Link] Starch (%)

At 75 DAP, the starch per cent ranged from 12.64 per cent (AICRP-P-57)
to 5.69 per cent (Kufri Kiran) with an overall mean of 8.76 per cent. The highest
starch per cent was recorded in genotype AICRP-P-57 (12.64 per cent). The lowest
starch per cent was recorded in Kufri Kiran (5.69 per cent).

At 90 DAP, the starch per cent ranged from 11.07per cent (AICRP-P-107)
to 6.24 per cent (Kufri Kiran) with an overall mean of 8.45 per cent. The highest
starch per cent was recorded in genotype AICRP-P-107 (11.07 per cent). The
lowest starch per cent was recorded in Kufri Kiran (6.24 per cent).

[Link] Reducing sugar %

At 75 DAP, the reducing sugar per cent ranged from 0.247 per cent
(AICRP-P-57) to 0.12 per cent (Kufri Kiran) with an overall mean of 0.17 per cent.
The highest reducing sugar per cent was recorded in genotype AICRP-P-57 (0.247
per cent), which was statistically at par with genotype AICRP-P-108 (0.227 per
cent). The lowest reducing sugar per cent was recorded in Kufri Kiran (0.12 per
cent).

At 90 DAP, the reducing sugar per cent ranged from 0.23 per cent (AICRP-
P-57) to 0.12 per cent (Kufri Surya) with an overall mean of 0.16 per cent. The
highest reducing sugar per cent was recorded in genotype AICRP-P-57 (0.23 per

76
cent), which was statistically at par with genotype AICRP-P-108 (0.20 per cent).
The lowest reducing sugar per cent was recorded in Kufri Surya (0.12 per cent).

[Link] Non-reducing sugar %

At 75 DAP, the non- reducing sugar per cent ranged from 0.337 per cent
(AICRP-P-57) to 0.187 per cent (Kufri Surya) with an overall mean of 0.25 per
cent. The highest non- reducing sugar per cent was recorded in genotype AICRP-
P-57 (0.337 per cent). The lowest non-reducing sugar per cent was recorded in
Kufri Surya (0.187 per cent).

At 90 DAP, the non- reducing sugar per cent ranged from 0.31 per cent
(AICRP-P-57) to 0.19 per cent (Kufri Surya) with an overall mean of 0.23 per
cent. The highest non- reducing sugar per cent was recorded in genotype AICRP-
P-57 (0.31 per cent). The lowest non-reducing sugar per cent was recorded in Kufri
Surya (0.19 per cent).

Based on overall findings at 75 DAP, mean performance for various yields

and their attributing traits, potato genotypes, viz., AICRP-P-77 possessed the
highest plant emergence per cent, AICRP-P-107 possessed the highest plant height.
The genotypes, viz., AICRP-P-107 had the highest fresh weight of shoots plant -1.
The genotypes AICRP-P-94 had the highest dry weight of shoots plant-1.

Whereas, at 90 DAP, genotypes viz., AICRP-P-77 possessed the highest

plant emergence per cent, AICRP-P-107 possessed the highest plant height. The
genotype AICRP-P-107 had the highest fresh weight of shoots plant -1. Genotype
AICRP-P-94 had the highest dry weight of shoots plant-1.

At 75 DAP, the genotypes viz, AICRP-P-108 had maximum tuber girth,

whereas, highest tuber length was observed in AICRP-P-92. The genotype AICRP-
P-106 had maximum number of tubers plant-1, whereas high fresh weight of tubers
plant-1 was observed in AICRP-P-57. Highest marketable tuber yield t ha -1 was
observed in AICRP-P-57, whereas the highest unmarketable and rottage tuber yield
t ha-1 was found in genotype AICRP-P-106 and AICRP-FF-04 respectively and the
lowest in Kufri Khyati and Kufri Ganga respectively. The genotype AICRP-P-57

77
showed high dry weight of tuber plant-1, whereas the highest total tuber yield t ha -1
was found in genotype AICRP-P-57.

Whereas at 90 DAP, the genotypes viz, AICRP-P-108 had maximum tuber

girth, whereas, highest tuber length was observed in AICRP-P-92. The genotype
AICRP-P-106 had maximum number of tubers plant-1, whereas high fresh weight
of tubers plant-1 was observed in AICRP-P-57. Highest marketable tuber yield t ha -
1
was observed in AICRP-P-57, whereas the highest unmarketable and rottage
tuber yield t ha-1 was found in genotype Kufri Surya and Kufri Chipsona-1
respectively and the lowest in AICRP-P-57 and Kufri Ganga respectively. The
genotype AICRP-P-57 showed high dry weight of tuber plant-1, whereas highest
total tuber yield t ha-1 was found in genotype AICRP-P-57.

At 75 DAP, the genotypes viz, AICRP-P-108 had maximum total soluble

solid, where highest specific gravity was observed in AICRP-P57. The genotype
AICRP-P-57 had the highest starch per cent and reducing sugar and non-reducing
sugar per cent found also highest in genotype AICRP-P57.

Whereas at 90 DAP, the genotypes viz, AICRP-P-108 had maximum total

soluble solid, where highest specific gravity was observed in Kufri Khyati. The
genotype AICRP-P-107 had the highest starch per cent, where reducing sugar and
non-reducing sugar per cent was recorded highest in genotype AICRP-P57

The genotypes namely AICRP-P-57 was recorded with high total tuber
yield at 75 DAP, whereas, genotypes AICRP-P-57 followed by genotypes AICRP-
P-94 and AICRP-P77 was recorded with high total tuber yield at 90 DAP. The
genotype AICRP-P-57, AICRP-P-94 and AICRP-P77 also had good processing
quality having high starch per cent. Hence, this genotype of potato can be
considered as promising genotypes for Chhattisgarh condition.

78
 Characters
Genotypes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
148.7
P - 92 50.65 95.61 93.70 38.05 38.18 44.72 3.66 4.17 5.27 31.71 35.56 39.35 210.18 306.87 92.66
9
203.1 325.6
P -107 70.26 96.37 96.50 70.06 74.59 78.01 6.98 7.93 8.09 46.92 51.69 57.95 270.50 316.57
3 7
182.3 190.2
P- 108 52.86 94.71 95.71 60.55 63.98 69.48 3.85 4.57 5.41 39.83 43.56 47.16 249.68 302.56
2 0
208.4 185.3
P - 106 71.93 95.84 96.70 65.83 67.16 72.95 4.74 5.27 5.81 40.08 44.51 48.65 271.18 314.08
5 3
147.8
FF - 04 62.66 93.75 92.33 33.63 41.13 44.66 4.86 5.20 5.79 32.28 36.27 39.46 216.09 304.71 94.67
8
214.7 189.3
P - 57 48.73 96.76 99.50 55.73 59.46 64.59 8.77 9.53 9.67 41.53 45.18 52.61 278.66 323.82
6 3
198.7 318.6
P - 77 70.93 99.18 98.84 63.12 67.43 72.00 4.82 5.33 6.19 36.09 42.16 46.73 265.01 311.09
6 7
204.5 291.3
P - 94 49.73 97.57 99.68 48.22 53.82 59.39 7.89 8.31 8.72 37.82 43.95 47.19 272.79 319.87
6 3
156.4 229.6
Kufri Ch-1 73.66 94.25 94.80 46.25 48.94 52.59 4.72 5.60 6.34 33.48 37.81 42.89 222.80 306.87
1 7
182.6 236.3
Kufri Surya 52.86 93.46 93.86 45.09 48.16 52.92 4.54 5.37 5.85 37.42 39.56 43.55 249.06 308.79
2 3
175.4 222.3
Kufri Khyati 54.93 96.28 95.31 39.65 41.96 46.22 4.82 5.33 6.19 32.70 37.89 42.56 242.80 307.09
3 3
186.3 224.7
Kufri Kiran 52.53 94.54 95.37 49.80 52.16 53.85 4.93 5.74 6.37 36.08 39.08 41.85 255.13 309.76
5 3
183.9 179.4
Kufri Ganga 62.93 90.78 92.32 51.71 53.68 57.54 4.98 5.90 6.84 38.22 40.87 43.65 271.31 311.08
4 7
Grand Mean 59.6 95.3 95.7 51.4 54.7 59.2 5.35 6.02 6.66 37.2 41.4 45.7 184 252 311 214

79
CV 12.3 2.19 2.58 10.1 9.93 9.28 9.05 12.2 11.6 10.2 11.8 11.3 11 9.68 10 10.1
Sem 4.23 1.21 1.43 3 3.13 3.17 0.28 0.42 0.44 2.19 2.81 2.97 11.7 14.1 18 12.5
CD at 5% 12.4 3.52 4.17 8.76 9.15 9.25 0.82 1.23 1.3 6.39 8.21 8.67 34 41.1 52.4 36.5
Table No. 4.3 Mean performance of different genotypes of potato for tuber yield and its components at 75 DAP

1= Seed weight plot-1 7= No. of primary branches at 35 DAP 13= No. of leaves at 35 DAP
2= Plant emergence % 8= No. of primary branches at 45 DAP 14= No. of leaves at 45 DAP
3= Plant survival % 9= No. of primary branches at 65 DAP 15= No. of leaves at 65 DAP
4= Plant height (cm) at 35 DAP 10= No. of compound leaves at 35 DAP 16= Fresh weight of shoots plant-1 (g)
5= Plant height (cm) at 45 DAP 11= No. of compound leaves at 45 DAP
6= Plant height (cm) at 65 DAP 12= No. of compound leaves at 65 DAP

80
 Characters
Genotypes 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
P - 92 14.54 7.40 7.41 4.16 258.60 72.91 11.63 5.18 0.43 17.24 15.52 4.22 1.07 9.26 0.15 0.22
P -107 45.60 8.33 6.05 4.83 377.13 133.30 20.02 4.51 0.61 25.14 22.63 4.56 1.07 12.55 0.21 0.21
P- 108 33.34 7.87 6.53 5.23 357.13 121.56 11.96 10.56 1.28 23.81 21.43 4.71 1.07 10.20 0.23 0.27
P - 106 28.00 10.40 5.35 4.27 351.13 114.60 11.91 10.11 1.39 23.41 21.07 5.16 1.04 9.50 0.18 0.24
FF - 04 14.93 8.40 5.72 4.87 321.60 80.04 11.77 7.97 1.70 21.44 19.30 5.01 1.06 10.00 0.21 0.25
P - 57 20.94 9.34 6.50 4.51 436.53 162.81 21.63 6.73 0.74 29.10 26.19 3.51 1.07 12.64 0.25 0.34
P - 77 42.66 8.53 5.90 4.82 371.61 141.60 15.26 8.38 1.13 24.77 22.29 4.15 1.06 9.16 0.15 0.25
P - 94 46.53 7.73 6.04 4.42 377.80 119.05 18.22 6.60 0.37 25.19 22.67 2.58 1.07 7.92 0.17 0.30
Kufri Ch-1 43.06 7.33 6.77 4.28 320.20 82.15 13.34 6.33 1.66 21.35 19.21 4.32 1.05 7.36 0.20 0.28
Kufri Surya 29.13 6.87 5.97 3.59 294.40 57.91 12.11 6.56 0.96 19.63 17.66 4.09 1.03 6.84 0.12 0.19
Kufri Khyati 28.40 7.27 6.08 3.94 275.40 53.91 14.26 3.54 0.56 18.36 16.53 4.15 1.03 6.24 0.14 0.25
Kufri Kiran 29.20 6.80 5.93 4.25 303.20 70.16 13.78 5.12 1.32 20.21 18.19 4.93 1.02 5.69 0.16 0.23
Kufri Ganga 21.47 7.35 5.58 4.37 334.07 76.72 14.02 8.03 0.22 22.27 20.04 5.06 1.02 6.48 0.12 0.21
Grand Mean 30.6 7.97 6.14 4.43 337.00 99.00 14.60 6.89 0.95 22.50 20.20 4.34 1.05 8.76 0.17 0.25
CV 11.4 11.20 10.80 9.17 10.00 9.94 9.21 11.80 11.00 10.80 11.90 12.10 2.61 8.30 9.09 8.29
SEm 2.01 0.52 0.38 0.23 19.50 5.68 0.78 0.47 0.06 1.39 1.38 0.30 0.02 0.42 0.01 0.01
CD at 5% 5.87 1.51 1.12 0.68 57.00 16.60 2.27 1.37 0.18 4.07 4.05 0.89 0.05 1.22 0.03 0.03
Table No. 4.3 Mean performance of different genotypes of potato for tuber yield and its components at 75 DAP

17= Dry weight of shoots plant-1 (g) 23= Marketable tuber yield (t/ha) 29= Specific gravity
18= No. of tuber plant-1 24= Unmarketable tuber yield (t/ha) 30= Starch %
19= Tuber length (cm) 25= Rottage tuber yield (t/ha) 31= Reducing sugar %
20= Tuber girth (cm) 26= Total tuber yield (t/ha) 32= Non-reducing sugar %
21= Fresh weight of tubers plant-1 (g) 27= Total tuber yield (kg/plot)
22= Dry weight of tubers plant-1 (g) 28= Total soluble solid (˚Brix)

81
 Characters
Genotypes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
P - 92 52.49 81.57 85.96 38.75 42.65 47.72 4.11 4.97 5.09 31.08 35.87 41.49 155.32 267.21 309.78 103.36
P -107 68.24 92.65 93.57 66.81 70.54 79.01 7.35 7.91 8.34 47.17 52.15 58.27 159.34 271.29 313.82 375.46
P- 108 53.21 90.87 95.05 61.45 66.85 70.14 4.51 5.16 5.84 44.89 49.56 53.18 155.05 266.34 308.46 222.34
P - 106 71.99 95.56 98.31 54.72 63.15 76.62 5.19 5.76 6.08 42.05 47.89 52.48 169.89 281.07 323.81 198.75
FF - 04 63.61 94.87 96.49 38.57 43.85 48.67 2.58 3.49 4.09 37.89 40.49 47.09 165.04 275.98 317.27 125.34
P - 57 52.96 97.08 97.28 57.48 60.56 64.98 8.93 9.14 9.71 43.82 47.40 51.75 174.81 286.08 328.30 214.05
P - 77 76.19 99.31 99.47 57.86 63.72 72.54 5.94 6.24 6.81 37.85 41.18 47.71 161.05 273.49 315.80 340.89
P - 94 52.13 96.28 95.83 48.71 51.79 60.39 7.95 8.15 8.75 46.53 49.46 53.76 166.30 278.19 320.83 322.48
Kufri Ch-1 59.36 94.87 93.16 57.46 61.28 64.59 5.71 6.55 6.79 35.32 38.87 43.98 156.14 268.18 309.47 254.09
Kufri Surya 51.87 94.44 96.89 53.89 58.76 62.92 5.29 5.83 6.27 38.04 42.84 48.07 157.27 267.89 309.25 248.35
Kufri Khyati 55.67 93.69 99.41 37.52 43.78 49.22 4.46 5.21 5.94 31.51 35.49 42.98 151.46 263.48 305.61 287.77
Kufri Kiran 49.87 90.38 95.26 47.14 51.74 56.85 5.76 6.38 6.70 32.03 36.71 42.82 158.72 270.84 312.73 259.76
Kufri Ganga 61.35 89.95 93.56 48.09 51.48 57.45 5.91 6.51 6.77 34.46 38.42 43.86 170.29 282.17 324.23 204.61
Grand Mean 59.20 93.20 95.40 51.40 56.20 62.40 5.67 6.25 6.71 38.70 42.80 48.30 162.00 273.00 315.00 243.00
CV 8.59 2.96 2.18 12.10 11.00 11.20 11.70 13.10 14.30 13.50 12.50 11.40 10.30 8.11 7.59 9.82
SEm 2.93 1.59 1.20 3.58 3.55 4.04 0.38 0.47 0.55 3.02 3.08 3.18 9.58 12.80 13.80 13.80
CD at 5% 8.56 4.64 3.51 10.50 10.40 11.80 1.12 1.38 1.61 8.82 8.99 9.27 27.90 37.30 40.30 40.20
Table No. 4.4 Mean performance of different genotypes of potato for tuber yield and its components at 90 DAP

1= Seed weight plot-1 7= No. of primary branches at 35 DAP 13= No. of leaves at 35 DAP

82
2= Plant emergence % 8= No. of primary branches at 45 DAP 14= No. of leaves at 45 DAP
3= Plant survival % 9= No. of primary branches at 65 DAP 15= No. of leaves at 65 DAP
4= Plant height (cm) at 35 DAP 10= No. of compound leaves at 35 DAP 16= Fresh weight of shoots plant-1 (g)
5= Plant height (cm) at 45 DAP 11= No. of compound leaves at 45 DAP
6= Plant height (cm) at 65 DAP 12= No. of compound leaves at 65 DAP

83
Table No. 4.4 Mean performance of different genotypes of potato for tuber yield and its components at 90 DAP
Characters
Genotypes 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
294.0 110.4
P - 92 13.12 9.34 8.03 5.48 13.23 5.99 0.38 19.60 17.64 4.41 1.07 9.16 0.13 0.21
6 5
427.7 145.6
P -107 43.47 8.40 6.26 5.21 23.88 4.22 0.42 28.52 25.67 7.32 1.07 11.07 0.17 0.27
9 2
401.8 142.9
P- 108 32.54 8.80 6.83 5.89 17.25 8.43 1.11 26.79 24.12 8.22 1.08 9.46 0.20 0.28
7 8
391.8 136.1
P - 106 27.07 10.40 5.90 4.44 15.73 9.36 1.04 26.13 23.51 8.16 1.07 8.70 0.14 0.21
9 8
381.6
FF - 04 14.44 8.20 6.09 4.95 98.45 17.37 6.72 1.36 25.45 22.89 4.25 1.07 9.28 0.18 0.22
2
496.5 167.5
P - 57 19.06 9.67 7.69 5.01 26.60 5.99 0.51 33.10 29.79 4.31 1.08 12.15 0.23 0.31
4 1
418.2 106.4
P - 77 39.78 8.80 5.93 4.88 21.36 5.50 1.02 27.88 25.09 5.30 1.05 8.01 0.12 0.20
3 7
428.0 146.5
P - 94 46.88 9.00 6.11 4.46 22.96 5.37 0.21 28.54 25.69 7.01 1.06 7.88 0.16 0.24
9 7
367.1 126.5
Kufri Ch-1 40.56 8.13 6.61 4.87 14.56 8.41 1.51 24.48 22.03 4.52 1.05 7.48 0.19 0.27
9 4
344.2 107.6
Kufri Surya 31.49 6.67 6.00 4.29 15.82 6.61 0.52 22.95 20.66 4.38 1.03 7.22 0.12 0.19
7 2
Kufri 306.6
28.23 8.54 6.26 4.04 87.25 17.72 2.54 0.19 20.45 18.40 4.67 1.38 6.28 0.14 0.22
Khyati 9
365.4 104.7
Kufri Kiran 33.56 9.20 6.02 4.49 17.67 5.55 1.14 24.36 21.92 5.19 1.03 6.24 0.13 0.20
1 1
387.0 133.1
Kufri Ganga 21.32 8.87 5.79 4.93 22.54 3.22 0.04 25.80 23.22 5.71 1.03 6.87 0.12 0.23
4 4
Grand 30.10 8.77 6.43 4.84 385.4 124.1 18.98 6.01 0.73 25.70 23.13 5.65 1.08 8.45 0.16 0.23

84
Mean 4 1
CV 9.20 9.70 10.19 9.53 12.43 12.60 7.59 12.07 10.91 7.07 7.22 8.45 2.08 9.50 11.04 7.73
SEm 1.60 0.49 0.38 0.27 27.67 9.03 0.83 7.27 0.05 1.05 0.96 0.28 0.01 0.46 0.01 0.01
CD at 5% 4.67 1.43 1.10 0.78 80.76 26.36 2.43 21.23 0.13 3.06 2.81 0.80 0.04 1.35 0.03 0.03

17= Dry weight of shoots plant-1 (g) 23= Marketable tuber yield (t/ha) 29= Specific gravity
18= No. of tuber plant-1 24= Unmarketable tuber yield (t/ha) 30= Starch %
19= Tuber length (cm) 25= Rottage tuber yield (t/ha) 31= Reducing sugar %
20= Tuber girth (cm) 26= Total tuber yield (t/ha) 32= Non-reducing sugar %
21= Fresh weight of tubers plant-1 (g) 27= Total tuber yield (kg/plot)
22= Dry weight of tubers plant-1 (g) 28= Total soluble solid (˚Brix)

85
4.2 Genetic variability

In the present study, the variability parameters for tuber yield and its
components are presented in Table 4.5 at 75 DAP and Table 4.6 at 90 DAP,
respectively.

4.2.1 Phenotypic and Genotypic coefficient of variance

The phenotypic and genotypic coefficients of variation were calculated for

all twenty-two characters (Tables - 4.5 and 4.6). The results indicated that, in
general, the phenotypic coefficient of variation was higher than the genotypic
coefficient for all characters. It is due to presence of substantial influence of
environmental factors besides the genetic variation for expression of these traits.

At 75 DAP, high magnitude of GCV and PCV (i.e. >20%) were observed
for dry weight of tubers plant -1 (34.76 and 36.15 per cent, respectively), dry weight
of shoots plant-1 (33.73 and37.50 per cent, respectively), fresh weight of shoots
plant-1 (33.45 and 34.31 per cent, respectively), unmarketable tuber yield t ha -1
(29.42 per cent and 31.71 per cent, respectively), marketable tuber yield t ha -1
(22.10 per cent and 23.95 per cent, respectively), plant height (21.03 per cent and
23.33 per cent, respectively).
At 90 DAP, high magnitude of GCV and PCV (i.e. >20%) were observed
for dry weight of shoots plant-1 (35.84 and 37.00 per cent, respectively), fresh
weight of shoots plant-1 (31.99 and 32.97 per cent, respectively), total soluble solid
(26.11 per cent and 27.44 per cent, respectively), unmarketable tuber yield t ha -1
(24.54 per cent and 25.57 per cent, respectively), number of primary branches
plant-1 (21.77 per cent and 23.86 per cent, respectively), reducing sugar (21.50 per
cent and 24.17 per cent, respectively), marketable tuber yield t ha -1 (20.97 per cent
and 22.30 per cent, respectively), starch per cent (20.32 per cent and 22.43 per
cent, respectively).
Whereas, at 75 DAP the moderate magnitude of GCV and PCV (10-20%)
were observed for no. of primary branches plant-1 (19.02 and 22.26 per cent,
respectively), non-reducing sugar (15.66 and 17.72 per cent, respectively), total
soluble solids (14.86 and 19.18 per cent, respectively ), seed weight plot -1 (14.17

86
and 18.76 per cent, respectively), fresh weight of tubers plant -1 (13.68 and 15.86
per cent, respectively), total tuber yield t ha -1 (13.041 and 16.903 per cent,
respectively), no. of tubers plant-1 (11.88 and 14.67 per cent, respectively).
Whereas, at 90 DAP the moderate magnitude of GCV and PCV (10-20%)
were observed for dry weight of tubers plant -1 (17.44 per cent and 21.52 per cent,
respectively), plant height (16.24 per cent and 17.35 per cent, respectively), non-
reducing sugar (15.19 and 17.05 per cent, respectively), seed weight plot -1 (13.61
and 16.10 per cent, respectively), total tuber yield t ha -1 (13.27 and 15.03 per cent,
respectively), fresh weight of tubers plant -1 (11.88 and 17.20 per cent,
respectively), no. of tubers plant-1 (11.88 and 14.67 per cent, respectively).
At 75 DAP, the low magnitude GCV (<10 %) was also observed for the
character tuber girth (9.62 and 10.10 per cent, respectively), no. of compound
leaves plant-1 (9.52 and 14.75 per cent, respectively), tuber length (7.48 and 11.16
per cent, respectively), plant emergence (1.81 and 2.84 per cent, respectively), no.
of leaves plant-1 (1.17 and 2.98 per cent, respectively), specific gravity (1.08 and
2.82 per cent, respectively) in present study.
At 90 DAP, the low magnitude GCV (<10 %) was also observed for the
character tuber length (9.20 and 13.73 per cent, respectively), tuber girth (8.87
and 13.02 per cent, respectively), no. of compound leaves plant -1 (8.59 and 14.27
per cent, respectively), number of tubers plant -1 (8.38 and 12.82 per cent,
respectively), specific gravity (8.38 and 8.63 per cent, respectively), plant
emergence (4.42 and 5.32 per cent, respectively) and no. of leaves plant -1 (1.59 and
3.19 per cent, respectively) in present study.
The above findings indicate that the characters with high magnitudes of
GCV and PCV as recorded for the traits at 75 DAP, viz; dry weight of tubers plant -
1
, dry weight of shoots plant-1, fresh weight of shoots plant-1, unmarketable tuber
yield t ha-1, marketable tuber yield t ha -1 and plant height, can be utilized for
improvement as the population possesses considerable variability for these
characters. However, the moderate GCV and PCV as recorded for the traits viz. no.
of primary branches plant-1, non-reducing sugar, total soluble solids, seed weight
plot-1, fresh weight of tubers plant-1, total tuber yield t ha-1 and no. of tubers plant-1

87
indicate the existence of some variability in population for these characters.
Therefore, selection for the above traits can be beneficial for improvement.
The above findings indicate that the characters with high magnitudes of
GCV and PCV as recorded for the traits at 90 DAP, viz; dry weight of shoots plant -
1
, fresh weight of shoots plant-1, total soluble solid, unmarketable tuber yield t ha -1 ,
number of primary branches plant-1, reducing sugar, marketable tuber yield t ha -1 ,
starch per cent can be utilized for improvement as the population possesses
considerable variability for these characters. However, the moderate GCV and
PCV as recorded for the traits viz. dry weight of tubers plant-1, plant height, non-
reducing sugar, seed weight plot-1, total tuber yield t ha-1, fresh weight of tubers
plant-1, no. of tubers plant-1 indicate the existence of some variability in population
for these characters. Therefore, selection for the above traits can be beneficial for
improvement.
These findings are in accordance with the findings by; Singh et al., (2015)
and Ahmad et al., (2005) found for number of compound leaves plant -1; Dayal et
al., (1972) and Chaudhary et al., (1984) for total tuber yield; Sharma (1999) for
dry weight of shoots plant-1; Bhagowati (2002) for number of leaves plant¹;
Basavaraj et al., (2005) for fresh weight of tubers plant¹; Kumar et al., (2005) for
plant height. Roy and Singh (2006) recorded high magnitude of PCV and GCV for
plant height, total tuber yield and dry weight of tuber plant. The moderate GCV
and PCV were reported by Luthra et al., (2005) and Shashi kamal (2006) for fresh
weight of shoots plant and plant height. Chandrakar (2007) recorded moderate
variability for plant height and average tuber yield plant whereas; Singh (2008)
reported maximum GCV and PCV per centage for marketable tuber yield plot-1.

4.2.2 Heritability
The ratio of the genotypic variance to the phenotypic variance or total
variance is known as heritability. It is a good indicator for inheritance of character
from parents to their off-springs. The estimate of heritability helps the breeder in
selecting the elite genotypes from diverse genetic populations. Thus, estimate of
heritability in broad sense calculated for all the twenty-one characters are

88
presented in Table 4.5 and 4.6 for 75 and 90 DAP, respectively and results are
explained below:
In the present study, heritability estimate in broad sense was calculated for
tuber yield and its components. The obtained value of heritability for each
character was grouped into high (>70 per cent), moderate (50 to 70 per cent) and
low (< 50 per cent) as per the classification suggested by Robinson (1966).
At 75 DAP, estimate of heritability was recorded high for the character
fresh weight of shoots plant-1 (95.07 per cent), dry weight of tubers plant -1 (92.4
per cent), dry weight of shoots plant-1 (90.8 per cent), tuber girth (90.6 per cent),
starch (90.3 per cent), unmarketable tuber yield t ha -1 (86.08 per cent ), reducing
sugar (85.59 per cent), marketable tuber yield t ha -1 (85.2 per cent), plant height
(81.2 per cent), non-reducing sugar (78.1 per cent), fresh weight of tubers plant -1
(74.4 per cent), no. of primary branches plant -1 (73.0 per cent), where no. of tubers
plant-1 (65.6 per cent), total soluble solid (60.03 per cent), total tuber yield t ha -1
(59.5 per cent) and seed weight plot-1 (57.06 per cent) exhibited the modern
heritability. However low heritability was observed in tuber length (44.89 per
cent), no. of compound leaves plant-1 (41.7 per cent), plant emergence (40.4 per
cent), no. of leaves plant-1 (15.5 per cent) and specific gravity (14.67 per cent).
At 90 DAP, estimate of heritability was recorded high for the character
specific gravity (94.22per cent), fresh weight of shoots plant -1 (94.15 per cent), dry
weight of shoots plant-1 (93.82 per cent), total soluble solid (90.51 per cent),
marketable tuber yield t ha-1 (88.42 per cent), plant height (87.59 per cent),
number of primary branches plant-1 (83.29 per cent), starch (82.05 per cent), non-
reducing sugar (79.41 per cent), reducing sugar (79.13 per cent), total tuber yield t
ha-1 (77.88 per cent), unmarketable tuber yield t ha -1 (77.72 per cent) and seed
weight plot-1 (71.53 per cent). Where, plant emergence per cent (69.11 per cent)
and dry weight of tubers plant-1 (65.70 per cent) exhibited the modern heritability.
However, low heritability was observed in fresh weight of tubers plant -1 (47.72 per
cent), tuber girth (46.43 per cent), tuber length (44.91 per cent), no. of compound
leaves plant-1 (36.19 per cent) and no. of leaves plant-1 (24.82 per cent).
High heritability recorded for fresh weight of shoots plant -, dry weight of
tubers plant-1, dry weight of shoots plant-1, tuber girth, starch, unmarketable tuber

89
yield t ha-1, reducing sugar, marketable tuber yield t ha-1, plant height, non-reducing
sugar, fresh weight of tubers plant-1, no. of primary branches plant-1 for 75 DAP,
whereas, for 90 DAP, high heritability showed by characters, namely, fresh weight
of shoots plant-1, dry weight of shoots plant-1, marketable tuber yield t ha-1, plant
height, number of primary branches plant-1, starch, non-reducing sugar, reducing
sugar, total tuber yield t ha-1, unmarketable tuber yield t ha-1 and seed weight plot-1
indicated that these characters are less influenced by environmental fluctuations
and governed by the additive gene effects that are substantially contributing
towards the expression of these traits. However, rest of the traits seems to be
governed by non-additive gene effects. Hence, selection for these traits will lead to
accumulation of more desirable genotypes.
This finding on heritability is in accordance with findings reported by Ara
et al., (2009) recorded high heritability for fresh weight of shoots plant-, dry weight
of tubers plant-1. Ummyiah et al., (2010) recorded high heritability for marketable
tuber yield t ha-1. Pradhan et al., (2011) found high heritability for plant height, no.
of compound leaves. Nasiruddin et al., (2014) found high heritability for for
number of tubers plant-1, fresh weight of tubers, plant height, no. of leaves.
Ramachandra and Srinivasa, (2017) found high magnitude of heritability for
marketable tuber yield, non-reducing sugar, total soluble solid, fresh weight of
tubers and starch. Chandrakar (2007), Basavaraj et al., (2005), Asefa et al., Patel
et al., (2018) and Datta (2020) reported high heritability for various component
traits in potato.

4.2.3 Genetic Advance

Improvement in the mean genotypic value of selected plants over the
parental population is known as genetic advance. Genetic advance was worked out
as per centage of mean for tuber yield and its components which is presented in
Table-4.5 and 4.6 for 75 and 90 DAP, respectively. Genetic advance is important
to find out the genetic gains likely to be achieved in the next generation. These are
classified as high (> 40 %), medium (25 to 40%) and low (< 25%). The success of
genetic advance under selection mainly depends upon genetic variability,
heritability and selection intensity.

90
 In the present study, at 75 DAP, highest estimates of genetic advance as per
centage of mean were obtained for characters namely dry weight of shoots plant-1
(70.13 per cent), dry weight of tubers plant-1 (68.84 per cent), fresh weight of
shoots plant-1 (67.19 per cent), unmarketable tuber yield t ha-1 (56.23 per cent),
starch (49.65 per cent), reducing sugar (42.2 per cent) and marketable tuber yield t
ha-1 (42.03 per cent). The high value of genetic advance for these traits showed
that these characters are governed by additive genes and selection will be
rewarding for the further improvement of such traits.
The moderate genetic advance was observed in 75 DAP for characters
namely plant height (39.03 per cent), no. of primary branches plant -1 (33.5 per
cent) and non-reducing sugar (28.51 per cent). The presence of moderate genetic
advance suggests that both the additive and non-additive variance is operating in
these traits. However, at 75 DAP, the low genetic advance as per cent of mean was
observed for the characters such as fresh weight of tubers plant -1 (24.31 per cent),
total soluble solid (23.7 per cent), seed weight plot -1 (22.06 per cent), total tuber
yield t ha-1 (20.7 per cent), no. of tubers plant-1 (19.8 per cent), no. of compound
leaves plant-1 (12.66 per cent), tuber length (10.32 per cent), plant emergence (2.37
per cent), no. of leaves plant -1 (0.95 per cent) and specific gravity 90.85 per cent).
This indicates the presence of non-additive gene effects.
However, at 90 DAP, highest estimates of genetic advance as per centage
of mean were obtained for characters namely dry weight of shoots plant-1 (71.51
per cent), fresh weight of shoots plant-1 (63.94 per cent), total soluble solid (51.17
per cent), unmarketable tuber yield t ha-1 (40.94 per cent) and marketable tuber
yield t ha-1 (40.61 per cent). The high value of genetic advance for these traits
showed that these characters are governed by additive genes and selection will be
rewarding for the further improvement of such traits.
However, the moderate genetic advance was observed in 90 DAP for
characters namely reducing sugar (39.40 per cent), starch (37.91 per cent), plant
height (31.30 per cent), dry weight of tubers plant-1 (29.12 per cent) and non-
reducing sugar (27.89 per cent). The presence of moderate genetic advance
suggests that both the additive and non-additive variance is operating in these
traits. However, the low genetic advance as per cent of mean was observed for the

91
characters such as total tuber yield t ha-1 (24.12 per cent), seed weight plot-1 (23.72
per cent), fresh weight of tubers plant -1 (16.90 per cent), specific gravity (16.75 per
cent), tuber length (12.70 per cent), tuber girth (12.45 per cent), no. of tubers plant -
1
(11.29 per cent), no. of compound leaves plant -1 (10.64 per cent), plant
emergence (7.58 per cent) and no. of leaves plant-1 (1.63 per cent). This indicates
the presence of non-additive gene effects.
The above findings indicates that the characters with high and moderate
heritability and genetic advances can be considered for direct selection for
improvement.
The above finding indicates that the characters with high and moderate
heritability and genetic advance can be considered for direct selection for
improvement. In agreement to the above results, similar findings were also
supported by Barik et al., (2007) for fresh weight of shoots plant-1, dry weight of
shoots plant-1, number of leaves plant-1, fresh weight of tubers plant-1, Singh (2008)
for marketable tuber yield (t/ha), total tuber yield (t/ha) and number of tubers plant.

92
 Range Coefficient of Variation Genetic Genetic
Heritability Advance Advance %
S.
Parameters Mean Minimum Maximum Genotypic Phenotypic (H2b) % K=20.6 of mean
No.
1 Seed weight plot-1 59.59 48.73 73.66 14.17 18.76 57.07 13.14 22.06
2 Plant emergence % 95.32 90.78 99.18 1.81 2.84 40.41 2.26 2.37
3 Plant height (cm) 59.15 44.66 78.01 21.03 23.33 81.20 20.05 39.03
-1
4 No. of primary branches plant 6.66 5.27 9.67 19.02 22.26 73.01 2.23 33.48
-1
5 No. of compound leaves plant 45.66 39.35 57.95 9.52 14.75 41.67 5.78 12.66
-1
6 No. of leaves plant 311.01 302.56 323.82 1.17 2.98 15.46 2.95 0.95
-1
7 Fresh wt. of shoots plant 213.88 92.66 325.67 33.45 34.31 95.07 143.71 67.19
-1
8 Dry wt. of shoots plant 30.60 14.54 46.53 33.73 37.50 90.78 21.46 70.13
-1
9 No. of tubers plant 7.97 6.80 10.40 11.88 14.67 65.59 1.58 19.82
10 Tuber length 6.14 5.35 7.41 7.48 11.16 44.89 0.63 10.32
11 Tuber girth 4.43 3.59 5.23 9.62 10.10 90.60 0.84 18.86
-1
12 Fresh wt. of tubers plant 336.83 258.60 436.53 13.68 15.86 74.40 81.89 24.31
-1
13 Dry wt. of tubers plant 98.98 53.91 162.81 34.76 36.15 92.44 68.14 68.84
14 Marketable tuber yield (t/ha) 14.61 11.63 21.63 22.10 23.95 85.20 6.14 42.03
15 Unmarketable tuber yield (t/ha) 6.89 3.54 10.56 29.42 31.71 86.08 3.88 56.23
16 Total tuber yield (t/ha) 22.45 17.24 29.10 13.04 16.90 59.52 4.65 20.73
17 TSS (˚Brix) 4.34 2.58 5.16 14.86 19.18 60.03 1.03 23.71
18 Specific gravity (g/cm³) 1.05 1.02 1.07 1.08 2.82 14.67 0.01 0.85
19 Starch % 8.76 5.69 12.64 25.36 26.68 90.33 4.35 49.65
20 Reducing sugar% 0.17 0.12 0.25 22.14 23.93 85.59 0.07 42.20
Table
21
No. 4.5 Estimates of genetic parameters
Non- reducing sugar% 0.25
of variation0.34
0.19
for tuber yield
15.66
and its attributing
17.72
traits
78.10
in potato at 75 DAP28.51
0.07

93
 Range Coefficient of Variation Genetic Genetic
Heritability Advance Advance %
S.
Parameters Mean Minimum Maximum Genotypic Phenotypic (H2b) % K=20.6 of mean
No.
1 Seed weight plot-1 59.15 49.87 76.19 13.61 16.10 71.53 14.03 23.72
2 Plant emergence % 93.19 81.57 99.31 4.42 5.32 69.11 7.06 7.58
3 Plant height (cm) 62.39 47.72 79.01 16.24 17.35 87.59 19.53 31.30
4 No. of primary branches plant-1 6.71 4.09 9.71 21.77 23.86 83.29 2.75 40.93
5 No. of compound leaves plant-1 48.26 41.49 58.27 8.59 14.27 36.19 5.14 10.64
6 No. of leaves plant-1 315.34 305.61 328.30 1.59 3.19 24.82 5.15 1.63
7 Fresh wt. of shoots plant-1 242.87 103.36 375.46 31.99 32.97 94.15 155.29 63.94
8 Dry wt. of shoots plant-1 30.12 13.12 46.88 35.84 37.00 93.82 21.54 71.51
9 No. of tubers plant-1 8.77 6.67 10.40 8.38 12.82 42.72 0.99 11.29
10 Tuber length 6.43 5.79 8.03 9.20 13.73 44.91 0.82 12.70
11 Tuber girth 4.84 4.04 5.89 8.87 13.02 46.43 0.60 12.45
12 Fresh wt. of tubers plant-1 385.44 294.06 496.54 11.88 17.20 47.72 65.15 16.90
13 Dry wt. of tubers plant-1 124.11 87.25 167.51 17.44 21.52 65.70 36.15 29.12
14 Marketable tuber yield (t/ha) 18.98 13.23 26.60 20.97 22.30 88.42 7.71 40.61
15 Unmarketable tuber yield (t/ha) 6.01 60.14 145.13 22.54 25.57 77.72 42.74 40.94
16 Total tuber yield (t/ha) 25.70 19.60 33.10 13.27 15.03 77.88 6.20 24.12
17 TSS (˚Brix) 5.65 4.25 8.22 26.11 27.44 90.51 2.89 51.17
18 Specific gravity (g/cm³) 1.08 1.03 1.38 8.38 8.63 94.22 0.18 16.75
19 Starch % 8.45 6.24 12.15 20.32 22.43 82.05 3.20 37.91
20 Reducing sugar% 0.16 0.12 0.23 21.50 24.17 79.13 0.06 39.40
21 Non- reducing sugar% 0.23 0.19 0.31 15.19 17.05 79.41 0.07 27.89
Table No. 4.6 Estimates of genetic parameters of variation for tuber yield and its attributing traits in potato at 90 DAP

94
 GENETICPARAMETERS
GENETIC PARAMETERS
100 100
95
100 100
90 95 90
85 90 90
80 85 80
75 80 80
70 75 70
65 70 70
60 65 60
55 60 60
50 55 50
45 50 50

h² (Broad Sense)
40 45 40
h² (Broad Sense)

35 40 40
30
35
30
25
30 30
20 20
25
15
20 20
10 10
15
5
0 10 0 10
(g) ce 5 ) S) S) S) S) S) S) S) S) S) S) S) S) ht ht nt th th
i g ht rgen v0al (% 5DA 5DA 5DA 5DA 5DA 5DA 5DA 5DA 5DA 5DA 5DA 5DA weig weig r pla leng r gir 0
dw
e e i
Em urv ght
(3 t (4 ht (6 es (3 es (4 es (6 es (3 es (4 es (6 es (3 es (4 es (6 resh Dry rs pe uber Tube
gh g h h h v v v v v v
See Plant ant S t hei t hei t hei ranc ranc ranc d lea d lea d lea f lea f lea f lea F
f tub
e T
Pl Plan Plan Plan ry B ry B ry B oun oun oun er o er o er o . o
a a a p p p b b b No
r im rim rim f com f com f com Num Num Num
P P P o o o
. of o. of o. of No. No. No.
No N N
GCV PCV Genetic Advancement 5% [Link] as % of Mean 5% h2 (Broad Sense)
GCV PCV Genetic Advancement 5% [Link] as % of Mean 5% h2 (Broad Sense)

Fig. 4.1 Graphical presentation of Genetic Parameters of tuber yield and its components of potato at 75 DAP.

95
 GENETIC PARAMETERS
100 100
95
90 90
85
80 80
75
70 70
65
60 60
55
50 50
45
40 40

h² (Broad Sense)
35
30 30
25
20 20
15
10 10
5
0 0
) e ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) t t t h h
ht (g genc al (% DAS DAS DAS DAS DAS DAS DAS DAS DAS DAS DAS DAS eigh eigh plan lengt girt
e i g e r i v ( 3 5 (4 5 (6 5 (3 5 (4 5 (6 5 (3 5 (4 5 (6 5 (3 5 (4 5 (6 5 h w y w e r r e r
dw Em urv ght gh
t
gh
t
hes hes hes v es v es v es v es v es ves Fre
s Dr ers p Tube Tub
See Plant ant S t hei t hei t hei ranc ranc ranc d lea d lea d lea f lea f lea f lea f tu
b
Pl Plan Plan Plan ry B ry B ry B oun oun oun r o r o r o . o
a a a p p p be be be No
r im rim rim f com f com f com Num Num Num
P P P o .o .o
. of o. of o. of No. No No
No N N
GCV PCV Genetic Advancement 5% [Link] as % of Mean 5% h2 (Broad Sense)

Fig. 4.2 Graphical presentation of Genetic Parameters of tuber yield and its components of potato at 90 DAP.

96
 100 GENETIC PARAMETERS 100
95
90 90
85
80 80
75
70 70
65
60 60
55
50 50
h² (Broad Sense)

45
40 40
35
30 30
25
20 20
15
10 10
5
0 0

GCV PCV Genetic Advancement 5% [Link] as % of Mean 5% h2 (Broad Sense)

Fig. 4.2 Graphical presentation of Genetic Parameters of tuber yield and its components of potato at 90 DAP.

97
4.3 Phenotypic and Genotypic correlation coefficient analysis “
Correlation refers to the degree and direction of association between two or
more than two variables. It measures the manual relationship between various plant
characters and determines the dependent characters. Galton (1988) was the first to
suggest the use of the correlation index to describe the association for the
effectiveness of indirect selection between the two variables. The degree of
association also affects the effectiveness of the selection process and helps to select
a desirable genotype. Crop improvement programme largely depends on the
availability of sufficient variability and association among different characters,
which are prerequisites for execution of the selection programme. Yield, being a
complex quantitative trait, is dependent on several component characters;
therefore, knowledge of association of different components, together with their
relative contributions, has immense value in selection.”
To estimate the association between two variables, correlation coefficient
at phenotypic and genotypic levels, was worked out in all possible combination
and presented in Table-4.7 and 4.8 for 75 and 90 DAP, respectively.

At 75 DAP the correlation study indicated that:

The total tuber yield t ha-1 exhibited the positive and significant
association, both at genotypic and phenotypic levels with no. of leaves plant -1
(0.998 and 0.467, respectively), no. of compound leaves plant -1 (0.976 and 0.471,
respectively), dry weight of tubers plant -1 (0.897 and 0.800, respectively), fresh
weight of tubers plant-1 (0.812 and 0.757, respectively), no. of primary branches
plant-1 (0.788 and 0.549, respectively), plant emergence per cent (0.677 and 0.340,
respectively), fresh weight of shoot plant-1 (0.357 and 0.344, respectively), where
no. of tubers plant-1 showed positive and significant association, at phenotypic
levels only i.e (0.461). Whereas, tuber length had negative correlation with total
tuber yield t ha-1 at phenotypic level (-0.1085) only.
The above findings of correlation indicates that the plant type possessing
more no. of leaves, compound leaves, dry and fresh weight of tubers, no. of
primary branches, plant emergence and fresh weight of shoot will show better
performance in terms of total tuber yield t ha-1. The association of these traits with

98
total tuber yield was also reported by Singh et al. (2015), Darabad et al. (2014),
Ummyiah et al. (2013), Barik (2007), Sattar et al. (2007), Bhagowati et al. (2002)
and Patel et al. (2002).”
Dry weight of tubers plant-1 exhibited highly positive correlation at both
genotypic and phenotypic level with fresh weight of tuber plant -1 (0.924 and 0.826,
respectively), no. of primary branches plant -1 (0.843 and 0.504, respectively), no.
of compound leaves plant-1 (0.832 and 0.594, respectively), no. of leaves plant -1
(0.822 and 0.395, respectively), plant height (0.633 and 0.719, respectively), no. of
tubers plant-1 (0.633 and 0.606, respectively) and tuber girth (0.556 and 0.924,
respectively). Whereas, tuber length had significant and positive correlation with
dry weight of tubers plant-1 at genotypic level (0.319) only. Plant emergence per
cent (0.472), fresh weight of shoot plant -1 (0.366) and dry weight of shoot plant -1
(0.328) had significant and positive correlation at phenotypic level only.
Above findings indicate that the increase in fresh weight of tubers plant -1,
no. of primary branches plant -1, no. of compound leaves plant -1, no. of leaves plant-
1
, plant height, no. of tubers plant -1 and tuber girth will increase the dry weight of
tubers plant-1, which in turn will result in increased dry weight of tubers plant-1.
Fresh weight of tubers plant -1 exhibited highly positive correlation at both
genotypic and phenotypic level with no. of leaves plant -1 (0.996 and 0.450,
respectively), no. of primary branches plant-1 (0.912 and 0.633, respectively), no.
of compound leaves plant-1 (0.845 and 0.523, respectively), plant height (0.720 and
0.619, respectively), tuber girth (0.447 and 0.520, respectively), fresh weight of
shoot plant-1 (0.418 and 0.358, respectively) and no. of tubers plant -1 (0.391 and
0.556, respectively). Whereas, plant emergence per cent had significant and
positive correlation with fresh weight of tubers plant-1 at genotypic level (0.678)
only.
Thus, from above findings it can be concluded that plant type possessing
more no. of leaves plant-1, no. of primary branches plant-1, no. of compound leaves
plant-1, plant height, tuber girth, fresh weight of shoot plant -1 and no. of tubers
plant-1 result in more fresh weight of tubers plant-1.
Tuber girth exhibited highly positive correlation at genotypic level with
tuber length (0.865), no. of compound leaves plant -1 (0.346) and (0.865) and at

99
phenotypic level positively correlated with plant height (0.447) and no. of tubers
plant-1 (0.339). whereas, it was significantly but negatively associated with plant
emergence per cent (-0.508) and fresh weight of shoot plant -1 (-0.329) at genotypic
level only.
The above findings indicate that higher tuber length, no. of tubers plant -1
and no. of compound leaves plant-1 will ultimately result in more tuber girth.
Tuber length had significant and positive association at genotypic level
with no. of tubers plant-1 (0.447) only. Plant emergence per cent (-0.635), seed
weight plot-1 (-0.585), dry weight of shoot plant-1 (-0.520) and fresh weight of
shoot plant-1 (-0.518) exhibited highly significant and negative correlation at
genotypic level.
The above findings indicate that higher no. of tubers plant-1 will ultimately
result in more tuber girth.
Number of tubers plant-1 had highly significant and positive association
with no. of leaves plant-1 (0.708) at genotypic level and character namely, plant
height (0.451) and no. of compound leaves plant -1 (0.371), exhibited significant
and positive association at phenotypic level only.
The above findings indicate that higher number of tuber plant -1 can be
obtained by selection of plants showing higher no. of leaves plant -1 and more plant
height, which will ultimately result in higher number of tubers plant-1.
Dry weight of shoot plant-1 exhibited positive and highly significant
correlation with fresh weight of shoots plant -1 (0.907 and 0.856, respectively) both
at genotypic and phenotypic level where, characters namely plant height (0.592)
and no. of compound leaves plant -1 (0.522) exhibited positive and highly
significant correlation at genotypic level only and plant height (0.505) and no. of
compound leaves plant-1 (0.357) exhibited significantly positive association at
phenotypic level. Plant emergence per cent was positively and significantly
associated with dry weight of shoot plant -1 at genotypic and phenotypic level
(0.476 and 0.342, respectively).
Fresh weight of shoot plant-1 exhibited highly positive and significant
correlation at both genotypic and phenotypic level with plant height (0.578 and
0.548, respectively), whereas, it was positive and significantly correlated with no.

100
of primary branches plant-1 (0.617, 0.348), no of compound leaves plant-1 (0.570
and 0.442, respectively) and plant emergence per cent (0.562 and 0.383,
respectively) at both genotypic and phenotypic level.
The above findings indicate that plant possess higher plant height, number
compound leaves plant-1, number of primary branches plant-1 and plant emergence
per cent will ultimately result in higher dry and fresh weight of shoots plant-1.
Number of leaves plant-1 exhibited highly positive and significant
correlation at both genotypic and phenotypic level with no. of primary branches
plant-1 (0.698 and 0.450, respectively), no. of compound leaves plant-1 (0.464 and
0.366, respectively). Whereas seed weight plot -1 (0.458), plant emergence per cent
(0.431) and plant height (0.347) had positive and significant association with
number of leaves at genotypic level only.
Thus, from above findings it can be concluded that plant type posses more
no. of primary branches plant-1, no. of compound leaves plant -1, plant height, plant
emergence per cent and seed weight plot-1 will result in more number of leaves
plant-1.
Number of compound plant-1 leaves exhibited highly positive and
significant correlation both at genotypic and phenotypic level with plant height
(0.986 and 0.567, respectively). Number of primary branches plant -1 had positive
and significant association with plant height (0.484) and plant emergence per cent
(0.443) at genotypic level only. Whereas plant height exhibited positive and
significant correlation at both genotypic and phenotypic level with plant
emergence per cent (0.491 and 0.318, respectively).
In this investigation, total tuber yield t ha-1 was recorded to have positive
and significant correlation both at genotypic and phenotypic level with no. of
leaves plant-1, compound leaves plant-1, dry and fresh weight of tubers plant -1, no of
primary branches plant-1, plant emergence per cent, plant height and fresh weight
of shoot plant-1. Thus, direct selection of plant types for high no. of leaves plant -1,
compound leaves plant-1, dry and fresh weight of tubers plant-1, no of primary
branches plant-1, plant emergence per cent, plant height and fresh weight of shoot
plant-1 will helpful in improving total yield of potato.

101
At 90 DAP the correlation study indicated that:
The total tuber yield t ha-1 exhibited the positive and significant association,
both at genotypic and phenotypic levels with dry weight of tubers plant -1 (0.7991
and 0.620, respectively), fresh weight of tubers plant -1 (0.7479 and 0.810,
respectively), no. of primary branches plant -1 (0.5504 and 0.646, respectively),
plant height (0.5372 and 0.555, respectively), no. of compound leaves plant -1
(0.4692 and 0.444, respectively), no. of leaves plant-1 (0.4683 and 0.519,
respectively), fresh weight of shoot plant-1 (0.3425 and 0.317, respectively), plant
emergence per cent (0.3302 and 0.491, respectively), where tuber girth (0.504) and
no. of tubers plant-1 (0.4613) showed positive and significant association, at
genotypic levels only. Whereas, tuber length had negative correlation with total
tuber yield t ha-1 at genotypic and phenotypic level (-0.1062 and -0.0465) only.
The above findings of correlation indicates that the plant type possessing
more dry and fresh weight of tubers, no. of primary branches, plant height,
compound leaves, no. of leaves, fresh weight of shoot and plant emergence will
show better performance in terms of total tuber yield t ha -1. The association of
these traits with total tuber yield was also reported by Singh et al. (2015), Darabad
et al. (2014), Ummyiah et al. (2013), Barik (2007), Sattar et al. (2007), Bhagowati
et al. (2002) and Patel et al. (2002).
Dry weight of tubers plant-1 exhibited highly positive significant correlation
at both genotypic and phenotypic level with fresh weight of tuber plant -1 (0.8043
and 0.629, respectively), no. of compound leaves plant -1 (0.5945 and 0.378,
respectively), plant height (0.7096 and 0.476, respectively), no. of primary
branches plant-1 (0.5022 and 0.575, respectively). Whereas, no. of tubers plant-1
(0.6061), tuber girth (0.6061), Plant emergence per cent (0.4474), no. of leaves
plant-1 (0.3935) and fresh weight of shoot plant-1 (0.3665) had significant and
positive correlation with dry weight of tubers plant-1 at genotypic level only.
Above findings indicate that the increase in fresh weight of tubers plant -1,
no. of compound leaves plant -1, plant height, no. of primary branches plant -1, no. of
leaves plant-1, no. of tubers plant-1 and tuber girth will increase the dry weight of
tubers plant-1, which in turn will result in increased dry weight of tubers plant-1.

102
 Fresh weight of tubers plant -1 exhibited highly positive correlation at both
genotypic and phenotypic level with no. of leaves plant -1 (0.6559 and 0.535,
respectively), no. of primary branches plant-1 (0.632 and 0.525, respectively), plant
height (0.5549 and 0.439, respectively), no. of compound leaves plant -1 (0.5019
and 0.352, respectively). Whereas, no. of tubers plant -1 (0.5442), tuber girth
(0.5123), fresh weight of shoot plant-1 (0.343) and plant emergence per cent had
significant and positive correlation with fresh weight of tubers plant -1 at genotypic
level only and plant emergence per cent had significant and positive correlation
with fresh weight of tubers plant-1 at phenotypic level only (0.518).
Thus, from above findings it can be concluded that plant type possessing
more no. of leaves plant-1, no. of primary branches plant-1, plant height, no. of
compound leaves plant-1, no. of tubers plant-1, tuber girth and fresh weight of shoot
plant-1 result in more fresh weight of tubers plant-1.
Tuber girth exhibited positive correlation at genotypic level only with plant
height (0.4361) and no. of tubers plant-1 (0.3395) whereas, plant emergence per
cent (0.337) has positive correlation with tuber girth only at phenotypic level.
The above findings indicate that higher plant height, no. of tubers plant -1
and plant emergence per cent will ultimately result in more tuber girth.
Tuber length had significant and negative association with fresh weight of
shoot plant-1 (-0.362) and dry weight of shoot plant-1 (-0.339) at phenotypic level
only.
Number of tubers plant-1 had highly significant and positive association
with no. of leaves plant-1 (0.451) at phenotypic level and character namely, plant
height (0.4438) and no. of compound leaves plant -1 (0.3715), exhibited significant
and positive association at genotypic level only.
The above findings indicate that higher number of tuber plant -1 can be
obtained by selection of plants showing higher no. of leaves plant -1, no. of
compound leaves plant-1 and more plant height, which will ultimately result in
higher number of tubers plant-1.
Dry weight of shoot plant-1 exhibited positive and highly significant
correlation with fresh weight of shoots plant-1 (0.8519 and 0.846, respectively),
plant height (90.4833 and 0.524, respectively), no. of compound leaves plant -1

103
(0.3534 and 0.367, respectively) and plant emergence per cent (0.3413 and 0.392,
respectively) both at genotypic and phenotypic level whereas, seed weight plot -1
(0.3278) exhibited positive and highly significant correlation at genotypic level
only and no. of primary branches plant-1 (0.463) exhibited significantly positive
association at phenotypic level.
The above findings indicate that plant possess higher fresh weight of shoots
plant-1, plant height, number compound leaves plant -1 and plant emergence per cent
will ultimately result in higher dry weight of shoots plant-1.
Fresh weight of shoot plant-1 exhibited highly positive and significant
correlation at both genotypic and phenotypic level with plant height (0.544 and
0.499, respectively), whereas, it was positive and significantly correlated with no.
of compound leaves plant-1 (0.4428 and 0.329, respectively), no. of primary
branches plant-1 (0.3805, 0.555) and plant emergence per cent (0.3645 and 0.450,
respectively) at both genotypic and phenotypic level.
The above findings indicate that plant possess higher plant height, number
compound leaves plant-1, number of primary branches plant-1 and plant emergence
per cent will ultimately result in higher fresh weight of shoots plant-1.
Number of leaves plant-1 exhibited highly positive and significant
correlation at both genotypic and phenotypic level with no. of primary branches
plant-1 (0.4531 and 0.335, respectively). Whereas, no. of compound leaves plant -1
(0.3623) had positive and significant association with number of leaves at
genotypic level only.
Thus, from above findings it can be concluded that plant type posses more
no. of primary branches plant -1 and no. of compound leaves plant -1, will result in
more number of leaves plant-1.
Number of compound leaves plant -1 exhibited highly positive and
significant correlation both at genotypic and phenotypic level with plant height
(0.5652 and 0.513, respectively) and number of primary branches plant -1 (0.4005
and 0.410, respectively) at both genotypic and phenotypic level.
Number of primary branches plant-1 exhibited positive and significant
correlation with plant height (0.412) and plant emergence per cent (0.328) at
phenotypic level only. Whereas plant height exhibited positive and significant

104
correlation at both genotypic and phenotypic level with seed weight plot -1 and with
plant emergence per cent exhibited positive and significant correlation at
phenotypic level (0.399) only.
In this investigation, total tuber yield t ha-1 was recorded to have positive
and significant correlation both at genotypic and phenotypic level with, dry and
fresh weight of tubers plant-1, no. of primary branches plant-1, plant height,
compound leaves plant-1, no. of leaves plant-1, plant emergence per cent and fresh
weight of shoot plant-1. Thus, direct selection of plant types for high dry and fresh
weight of tubers plant-1, no of primary branches plant-1, plant height, compound
leaves plant-1, no. of leaves plant-1, plant emergence per cent and fresh weight of
shoot plant-1 will helpful in improving total yield of potato.

105
 No. of No. of Fresh Dry Fresh Dry
Plant Plant Number No. of Tuber Tuber Total
Seed wt. Primary compound weight of weight of weight of weight of
Characters plot-1
Emergence height
Branches leaves
of leaves
shoots shoots
tubers length girth
tubers tubers
Yield
% (cm) plant-1 plant-1 (cm) (cm) (t/ha)
plant-1 plant-1 plant-1 (g) plant-1 (g) plant-1 (g) plant-1 (g)
Seed weight plot-1 G 0.457* 0.602** -0.0813 0.2538 0.458* 0.2601 0.1704 0.2091 -0.585** 0.0831 0.3106 -0.0396 0.2565
P -0.0681 0.3096 -0.1844 0.1186 -0.078 0.2299 0.327* 0.247 -0.2487 0.1581 0.0064 0.1038 0.0183
Plant Emergence % G 0.491* 0.443* 0.602** 0.431* 0.562** 0.476* -0.1529 -0.635** -0.508** 0.678** 0.1637 0.677**
P 0.318* 0.2362 0.3051 0.3003 0.383* 0.342* 0.2128 0.1553 0.1634 0.2453 0.472* 0.340*
Plant height (cm) G 0.484* 0.986** 0.347* 0.578** 0.592** 0.1603 -0.243 0.1935 0.720** 0.633** 0.612**
P 0.2974 0.567** 0.2808 0.548** 0.505* 0.451* -0.2028 0.447* 0.619** 0.719** 0.555**
No. of Primary Branches plant-1 G 0.633** 0.698** 0.617** 0.480* 0.2307 0.2027 -0.1362 0.912** 0.843** 0.788**
P 0.404* 0.450* 0.384* 0.2836 0.2208 0.0169 0.0906 0.633** 0.504* 0.549**
No. of compound leaves plant-1 G 0.464* 0.570** 0.522** 0.0023 -0.1413 0.346* 0.845** 0.832** 0.976**
P 0.366* 0.442* 0.357* 0.371* -0.0341 0.2676 0.523** 0.594** 0.471*
Number of leaves plant-1 G -0.1449 -0.3103 0.708** -0.1523 -0.0745 0.996** 0.822** 0.998**
P 0.2927 0.2155 0.2641 0.0141 0.0241 0.450* 0.395* 0.467*
Fresh weight of shoots plant-1 (g) G 0.907** -0.2362 -0.518** -0.329* 0.418* 0.143 0.357*
P 0.856** -0.0302 -0.1891 0.0573 0.358* 0.366* 0.344*
Dry weight of shoots plant-1 (g) G -0.2744 -0.520** -0.2428 0.309 0.228 0.2833
P -0.048 -0.0339 0.183 0.3041 0.328* 0.3032
-1
No. of tubers plant G 0.447* 0.1741 0.391* 0.633** 0.3155
P -0.252 0.339* 0.556** 0.606** 0.461*
Tuber length (cm) G 0.865** -0.0819 0.319* 0.0209
P 0.0215 0.1536 0.087 -0.1085
Tuber girth (cm) G 0.447* 0.556** 0.3071
P 0.520** 0.607** 0.504*
Fresh weight of tubers plant-1 (g) G 0.924** 0.812**
P 0.826** 0.757**
Dry weight of tubers plant-1 (g) G 0.897**
P 0.800**
Total Yield (t/ha) G

Table No. 4.7 Phenotypic coefficient

P
(PVC) and Genotypic (GCV) of correlation for tuber yield and its attributing traits in potato at 75 DAP

106
107
Table No. 4.8 Phenotypic coefficient (PVC) and Genotypic (GCV) of correlation for tuber yield and its attributing traits in potato at 90 DAP
No. of No. of Fresh Dry Fresh
Seed Plant Number No. of Tuber Tuber Dry weight Total
Plant Primary compound weight of weight of weight of
Characters wt.
Emergence%
height
Branches leaves
of leaves
shoots shoots
tubers length girth
tubers
of tubers Yield
plot-1 (cm) plant-1 plant-1 (cm) (cm) plant-1 (g) (t/ha)
plant-1 plant-1 plant-1 (g) plant-1 (g) plant-1 (g)
Seed weight plot-1 -0.0667 0.3008 -0.1821 0.1182 -0.0738 0.2293 0.3278 0.2474 -0.2471 0.1586 0.0111 0.1042 0.0197
P 0.370* 0.451* -0.1048 0.2975 0.1133 0.2361 0.1312 0.1565 -0.2546 -0.0636 0.1494 -0.0077 0.2038
Plant Emergence % G 0.2692 0.2336 0.284 0.2802 0.3645 0.3413* 0.2007 0.1684 0.1591 0.2558 0.4474* 0.3302*
P 0.399* 0.328* 0.251 0.3002 0.450* 0.392* -0.0375 -0.2943 -0.337* 0.518** 0.1753 0.491*
Plant height (cm) G 0.2799 0.5652* 0.2631 0.544 0.4833* 0.4438* -0.2137 0.4361* 0.5549** 0.7096** 0.5372*
P 0.412* 0.513** 0.1512 0.499* 0.524** 0.1472 -0.2032 0.1649 0.439* 0.476* 0.555**
No. of Primary Branches plant-1 G 0.4005* 0.4531 0.3805 0.2864 0.2212 0.0205 0.0919 0.632** 0.5022** 0.5504**
P 0.410* 0.335* 0.555** 0.463* 0.1603 -0.0057 -0.0177 0.525** 0.575** 0.646**
No. of compound leaves plant-1 G 0.3623 0.4428* 0.3534 0.3715* -0.0385 0.2667 0.5019* 0.5945** 0.4692*
P 0.2624 0.329* 0.367* 0.1969 -0.0621 0.1176 0.352* 0.378* 0.444*
Number of leaves plant-1 G 0.289 0.2177 0.2654 0.0151 0.0268 0.6559** 0.3953* 0.4683**
P -0.0758 -0.11 0.451* 0.0187 -0.0145 0.535** 0.2984 0.519**
Fresh weight of shoots plant-1 (g) G 0.8519* -0.0297 -0.1913 0.0568 0.343* 0.3665* 0.3425*
P 0.846** -0.1544 -0.362* -0.2379 0.2521 0.1574 0.317*
Dry weight of shoots plant-1 (g) G -0.0478 -0.0292 0.1837 0.3093 0.3259 0.3047
P -0.1455 -0.339* -0.129 0.2029 0.1315 0.2204
No. of tubers plant-1 G -0.2523 0.339* 0.5442** 0.6061** 0.4613*
P 0.1017 0.1273 0.1974 0.1376 0.2658
Tuber length (cm) G 0.0222 -0.1357 -0.0897 -0.1062
P 0.2609 0.0571 0.2548 -0.0465
Tuber girth (cm) G 0.5123** 0.6061** 0.504*
P -0.011 0.219 0.098
Fresh weight of tubers plant-1 (g) G 0.8043** 0.7479**
P 0.629** 0.810**
Dry weight of tubers plant-1 (g) G 0.7991**
P 0.620**
Total Yield (t/ha) G
P

108
Fig: 4.3 Genotypic correlation matrix for tuber yield and its attributing traits in potato at 75 DAP

109
Fig. 4.4 Genotypic correlation matrix for tuber yield and its attributing traits in potato at 90 DAP

110

Fig: 4.5 Pictorial view of genotypic correlation for tuber yield and its attributing traits in potato at 75 DAP
 4.4 Path coefficient analysis
Path coefficient analysis is a statistical technique that breaks down the
total correlation coefficient into direct and indirect effects in such a manner that
sum of direct effect of independent characters and all possible indirect effects via
all other independent characters is equal to total genotypic or phenotypic
correlations. Therefore, path analysis holds great importance for the breeders in
two ways, i.e. to judge the direct influence of the various characters on tuber yield
or any other dependent trait and also helps in explaining the total correlation
between dependent and independent traits.
In the present investigation, path coefficient analysis was carried out
taking total tuber yield plot-1 as dependent variable and rest of the thirteen
characters as independent variables. Genotypic correlation coefficient of various
yield attributing characters of tuber yield was further partitioned into their direct
and indirect effects. The result of the path analysis obtained from the present
investigation is discussed below-

At 75 DAP the path coefficient analysis study indicated that:

The values of the path coefficient for total tuber yield and its components
are shown in Table - 4.9 The highest positive direct effects which contributed
towards total tuber yield was observed via plant emergence per cent (0.5083),
followed by fresh weight of tubers plant-1 (0.4348), tuber girth (0.3186), dry
weight of tubers plant-1 (0.3017), number of compound leaves plant -1 (0.1752),
number of primary branches plant-1 (0.1323), seed weight plot-1 (0.1214), number
of tubers plant-1 (0.0825) and dry weight of shoots plant -1 (0.0509). Negative
direct effects on total tuber yield were also exhibited by plant height (-0.5533),
tuber length (-0.0827), number of leaves plant -1 (-0.0376) and fresh weight of
shoots plant-1 (-0.0169).
The seed weight exhibited positive indirect effect on total tuber yield
through plant height (0.073) followed by number of leaves plant -1 (0.0556) plant
emergence per cent (0.0554), fresh weight of tubers plant -1 (0.0377), fresh weight
of shoots plant-1 (0.0316) number of compound leaves plant-1 (0.308), number of
tubers plant-1 (0.0254), dry weight of shoots plant-1 (0.0207), tuber girth (0.0101).

111
Whereas, it had negative indirect effects via tuber length (-0.071), number of
primary branches plant-1 (-0.0099) and dry weight of tubers plant-1 (-0.0048).
The plant emergence per cent exhibited positive indirect effect on total
tuber yield through fresh weight of tubers plant -1 (0.3448) followed by number of
compound leaves plant-1 (0.3062), fresh weight of shoots plant-1 (0.2855), plant
height (0.2496), dry weight of shoots plant-1 (0.2421), seed weight plot-1 (0.232),
number of primary branches plant-1 (0.2251), number of leaves plant-1 (0.2191) and
dry weight of tubers plant-1 (0.0832). Whereas, it had negative indirect effects via
tuber length (-0.3229), tuber girth (-0.258) and number of tubers plant-1 (-0.0777).
The plant height exhibited positive indirect effect on total tuber yield
through tuber length (0.1345).Whereas, it had negative indirect effects via number
of compound leaves plant-1 (-0.5453), dry weight of tubers plant -1 (-0.3504), seed
weight plot-1 (-0.3329), dry weight of shoots plant-1 (-0.3277), fresh weight of
shoots plant-1 (-0.3198), plant emergence per cent (-0.2717), number of primary
branches plant-1 (-0.2677), number of leaves plant-1 (-0.1918), tuber girth (-0.1071)
and number of tubers plant-1 (-0.0887).
The number of primary branches plant-1 exhibited positive indirect effect on
total tuber yield through fresh weight of tubers plant -1 (0.1206) followed by dry
weight of tubers plant-1 (0.1115), number of leaves plant-1 (0.923), number of
compound leaves plant-1 (0.0837), fresh weight of shoots plant-1 (0.0817), plant
height (0.064), dry weight of shoots plant -1 (0.0635), plant emergence per cent
(0.0586), number of tubers plant-1 (0.0305) and tuber length (0.0268). Whereas, it
had negative indirect effects via tuber girth (-0.018) and seed weight plot -1 (-
0.0107).
The number of compound leaves plant-1 exhibited positive indirect effect on
total tuber yield through fresh weight of tubers plant -1 (0.1986) followed by dry
weight of tubers plant-1 (0.1809), plant height (0.1727), number of primary
branches plant-1 (0.1109), plant emergence per cent (0.1056), fresh weight of shoot
plant-1 (0.1021), dry weight of shoots plant-1 (0.0915), number of leaves plant-1
(0.0814), tuber girth (0.0607) and seed weight plot-1 (0.0445). Whereas, it had
negative indirect effects via tuber length (-0.0248).

112
 The number of leaves plant-1 exhibited positive indirect effect on total
tuber yield through dry weight of shoot plant -1 (0.0117), followed by tuber length
(0.0057), fresh weight of shoots plant-1 (0.0054) and tuber girth (0.0028).Whereas,
it had negative indirect effects via dry weight of tubers plant -1 (-0.0389), fresh
weight of tubers plant-1 (-0.0374), number of tuber plant-1 (-0.0266), number of
primary branches plant-1 (-0.0262), number of compound leaves plant-1 (-0.0174),
seed weight plot-1 (-0.0172), plant emergence per cent (-0.0162) and plant height
(-0.03).
The fresh weight of shoots plant-1 exhibited positive indirect effect on total
tuber yield through tuber length (0.0088), tuber girth (0.0056), number of tubers
plant-1 (0.004) and number of leaves plant-1 (0.0025). Whereas, it had negative
indirect effects via fresh weight of shoots plant -1 (-0.0169), dry weight of shoots
plant-1 (-0.0154), number of primary branches plant-1 (-0.0104), plant height (-
0.0098), number of compound leaves plant-1 (-0.0096), plant emergence per cent
(-0.0095), fresh weight of tubers plant-1 (-0.0071), seed weight plot-1 (-0.0044) and
dry weight of tubers plant-1 (-0.0024).
The dry weight of shoots plant -1 exhibited positive indirect effect on total
tuber yield through fresh weight of shoot plant -1 (0.0462), followed plant height
(0.0301), number of compound leaves plant-1 (0.0266), number of primary
branches plant-1 (0.0244), plant emergence per cent (0.0242), fresh weight of
tubers plant-1 (0.0157), dry weight of tubers plant-1 (0.0116) and seed weight plot-1
(0.0087). Whereas, it had negative indirect effects via tuber length (-0.0265),
number of leaves plant-1 (-0.0158), number of tuber plant-1 (-0.014) and tuber girth
(-0.0124).
Number of tubers plant-1 exhibited positive indirect effect on total tuber
yield through no. of leaves plant-1 (0.0584) followed by dry weight of tubers plant -
1
(0.0523), tuber length (0.0369), fresh weight of tubers plant -1 (0.0323), no. of
primary branches plant-1 (0.019), seed weight plot-1 (0.0173), tuber girth (0.0144),
plant height (0.0132) and no. of compound leaves plant-1 (0.0002). However, it
showed negative indirect effect via characters viz. dry weight of shoots plant -1 (-
0.0227), fresh weight of shoots plant-1 (-0.0195) and plant emergence per cent (-
0.0126).

113
 The positive indirect effects of tuber length on total tuber yield was
exhibited via plant emergence (0.0525), seed weight plot -1(0.0484), dry weight of
shoots plant-1 (0.043), fresh weight of shoots plant-1 (0.0428), plant height
(0.0201), number of leaves plant-1 (0.0126), number of compound leaves plant-1
(0.0117), fresh weight of tubers plant-1 (0.0068). However, it showed negative
indirect effect via characters viz. tuber girth (-0.0715), number of tubers plant -1 (-
0.037), dry weight of tubers plant-1 (-0.0264) and number of primary branches
plant-1 (-0.0168).
The positive indirect effects of tuber girth on total tuber yield was
exhibited via tuber length (0.2754), dry weight of tuber plant -1 (0.1771) fresh
weight of tubers plant-1 (0.1423), number of compound leaves plant-1 (0.1103),
plant height (0.0617), number of tubers plant-1 (0.0555) and seed weight plot-1
(0.0265). However, it showed a negative indirect effect via characters viz. plant
emergence per cent (-0.1617), fresh weight of shoots plant -1 (-0.1048), dry weight
of shoots plant-1 (-0.0774), number of primary branches plant-1 (-0.0434) and
number of leaves plant-1 (-0.0237).
The positive indirect effects of fresh weight of tubers plant -1 on total tuber
yield was exhibited numbers of compound leaves plant -1 (0.4927), number of
leaves plant-1 (0.4332), dry weight of tubers plant-1 (0.4019), number of primary
branches plant-1 (0.3966), plant height (0.3128), plant emergence per cent
(0.2949), tuber girth (0.1942), fresh weight of shoots plant-1 (0.1815), number of
tubers plant-1 (0.1701), seed weight plot-1(0.135) and dry weight of shoots plant-1
(0.1343). However, it showed a negative indirect effect via characters viz. tuber
length (-0.0356).
The positive indirect effects of dry weight of tubers plant -1 on total tuber
yield was exhibited number of leaves plant -1 (0.3122), numbers of compound
leaves plant-1 (0.3114), fresh weight of tubers plant -1 (0.2789), number of primary
branches plant-1 (0.2542), number of tubers plant -1 (0.1911), plant height (0.1911),
tuber girth (0.1677), tuber length (0.0962), dry weight of shoots plant-1 (0.0688),
plant emergence per cent (0.0494) and fresh weight of shoots plant -1 (0.0431).
However, it showed a negative indirect effect via characters, viz. seed weight plot -
1
(-0.012).

114
 The path analysis revels that characters viz plant emergence per cent
followed by fresh weight of tubers plant -1, tuber girth, dry weight of tubers plant -1,
number of compound leaves plant-1, number of primary branches plant-1, seed
weight plot-1, number of tubers plant-1 and dry weight of shoots plant-1 possessed
high positive direct effect on total tuber yield. Correlation coefficient with total
tuber yield also showed highly significant positive correlation with fresh weight
of tubers plant-1, tuber girth, dry weight of tubers plant -1, number of compound
leaves plant-1, number of primary branches plant-1, seed weight plot-1, number of
tubers plant-1 and dry weight of shoots plant-1. Thus, present study indicates a true
relationship of these characters with total tuber yield.
Highest negative direct effects on total tuber yield was also exhibited by
plant height, tuber length, number of leaves plant -1 and fresh weight of shoots
plant-1. However, all these characters, except tuber length had significant positive
correlation with total tuber yield. This may be due to high positive indirect effect
of plant height, tuber length, number of leaves plant -1 and fresh weight of shoots
plant-1 on total tuber yield.
On the basis of above findings, it can be suggested that improvement in
total tuber yield can be achieved through selection for these characters namely;
fresh weight of tubers plant-1, tuber girth, dry weight of tubers plant -1, number of
compound leaves plant-1, number of primary branches plant-1, seed weight plot-1,
number of tubers plant-1 and dry weight of shoots plant-1. The above findings of
path studies are in accordance with the findings of Mishra et al. (2002) for
number of shoots plant-1 and average tuber fresh weight plant-1; Choudhary et al.
(1984) for fresh weight of shoots plant-1, Desai and Jaimini (1998) for number of
tubers plant-1, Mishra (1989) reported high maximum direct effect on tuber yield
plant-1 via number of tubers and fresh weight of tubers plant-1. Patel et al. plant-1
number of shoots plant-1, fresh weight of shoots plant-1, number of compound
leaves plant-1; Singh (2008) reported highest direct effect on tuber yield plant-1 via
the number of leaflets plant-1.

At 90 DAP the path coefficient analysis study indicated that:

115
 The values of the path coefficient for total tuber yield and its components
are shown in Table - 4.10 The highest positive direct effects which contributed
towards total tuber yield was observed via dry weight of tubers plant -1 (0.5696),
number of leaves plant-1 (0.1581), number of primary branches plant-1 (0.1334),
tuber girth (0.1304), fresh weight of tubers plant-1 (0.1135), dry weight of shoots
plant-1 (0.0207) and fresh weight of shoots plant-1 (0.0150). Negative direct effects
on total tuber yield were also exhibited by tuber length (-0.0662), plant height (-
0.0514), number of compound leaves plant-1 (-0.0425), seed weight plot-1 (-
0.0303), plant emergence per cent (-0.0255) and no. of tubers plant-1 (-0.0250).
The seed weight exhibited positive indirect effect on total tuber yield
through tuber length (0.0075) followed by number of primary branches plant -1
(0.0055), number of leaves plant-1 (0.0022) and plant emergence per cent
(0.0020). Whereas, it had negative indirect effects via dry weight of shoots plant -1
(-0.0099), plant height (-0.0091), no. of tubers plant-1 (-0.0075), fresh weight of
shoots plant-1 (-0070), tuber girth (-0.0048), no. of compound leaves plant-1 (-
0.0036), dry weight of tubers plant -1 (-0.0032) and fresh weight of tubers plant -1 (-
0.0003).
The plant emergence per cent exhibited positive indirect effect on total
tuber yield through seed weight plot-1 (0.0017). Whereas, it had negative indirect
effects via fresh weight of shoots plant -1 (-0.0093), dry weight of shoots plant-1 (-
0.0087), number of compound leaves plant -1 (-0.0073), plant height (-0.0069),
fresh weight of tubers plant-1 (-0.0065), no. of primary branches plant-1 (-0.0060)
and no. of tubers plant-1 (-0.0051).
The plant height exhibited positive indirect effect on total tuber yield
through tuber length (0.0110). Whereas, it had negative indirect effects via dry
weight of tubers plant-1 (-0.0365), no. of compound leaves plant -1 (-0.0291), fresh
weight of tubers plant-1 (-0.0285), fresh weight of shoots plant-1 (-0.0280), dry
weight of shoots plant-1 (-0.0249), no. of tubers plant-1 (-0.0228), tuber girth (-
0.0224), no. of primary branches plant-1 (-0.0144), plant emergence per cent (-
0.0138), no. of leaves plant-1 (-0.0135) and seed weight plot-1 (-0.0155).
The number of primary branches plant -1 exhibited positive indirect effect
on total tuber yield through fresh weight of tubers plant -1 (0.0843) followed by dry

116
weight of tubers plant-1 (0.0670), number of leaves plant -1 (0.0605), number of
compound leaves plant-1 (0.0534), fresh weight of shoots plant-1 (0.0508), dry
weight of shoots plant-1 (0.0382), plant height (0.0373), plant emergence per cent
(0.0312), number of tubers plant-1 (0.0295), tuber girth (0.0123) and tuber length
(0.0027). Whereas, it had negative indirect effects via seed weight plot -1 (-
0.0243).
The number of compound leaves plant -1 exhibited positive indirect effect
on total tuber yield through tuber length (0.0016). Whereas, it had negative
indirect effects via dry weight of tubers plant -1 (-0.0252), plant height (-0.020),
fresh weight of tubers plant-1 (-0.0213), fresh weight of shoots plant -1 (-0.0188),
no. of primary branches plant-1 (-0.0170), no. of tubers plant-1 (-0.0158), no. of
leaves plant-1 (-0.0154), dry weight of shoots plant-1 (-0.0150), plant emergence
per cent (-0.0121) and tuber girth (-0.0113).
The number of leaves plant-1 exhibited positive indirect effect on total
tuber yield through fresh weight of tubers plant-1 (0.0721), followed by number of
primary branches plant-1 (0.0716), dry weight of tubers plant-1 (0.0625), number of
compound leaves plant-1(0.0573), fresh weight of shoots plant-1 (0.0457), plant
emergence per cent (0.0443), no. of tubers plant-1 (0.0420), plant height (0.0416),
dry weight of shoots plant-1 (0.0344), tuber girth (0.0042) and tuber length
(0.0024). Whereas, it had negative indirect effects via seed weight per plot -1 (-
0.0117).
The fresh weight of shoots plant-1 exhibited positive indirect effect on total
tuber yield through dry weight of shoots plant -1 (0.0128) followed by plant height
(0.0082), number of compound leaves plant -1(0.0067), number of primary
branches plant-1 (0.0057), dry weight of tubers plant-1 (0.0055), plant emergence
per cent (0.0055), fresh weight of tubers plant -1 (0.0052), no. of leaves plant-1
(0.0043), seed weight plot-1 (0.0034) and tuber girth (0.0009). Whereas, it had
negative indirect effects via no. of tubers plant-1 (-0.0064) and tuber length (-
0.0029).
The dry weight of shoots plant -1 exhibited positive indirect effect on total
tuber yield through fresh weight of shoot plant -1 (0.0256), followed plant height
(0.0145), number of compound leaves plant-1 (0.0106), plant emergence per cent

117
(0.0102), dry weight of tubers plant-1 (0.0098), seed weight plot-1 (0.0098), fresh
weight of tubers plant-1 (0.0093), number of primary branches plant-1 (0.0086), no.
of leaves plant-1 (0.0065) and tuber girth (0.0055). Whereas, it had negative
indirect effects via number of tuber plant-1 (-0.0014) and tuber length (-0.0009).
Number of tubers plant-1 exhibited positive indirect effect on total tuber
yield through tuber length (0.0063), dry weight of shoots plant -1 (0.0012) and
fresh weight of shoots plant-1 (0.0007). However, it showed negative indirect
effect via characters viz. dry weight of tubers plant -1 (-0.0152), fresh weight of
tubers plant-1 (-0.0136), plant height (-0.0111), no. of compound leaves plant-1 (-
0.0095), tuber girth (-0.0085), no. of tubers plant-1 (-0.0250), seed weight plot-1 (-
0.0062), no. of primary branches plant-1 (-0.0055) and plant emergence per cent (-
0.0050).
The positive indirect effects of tuber length on total tuber yield was
exhibited via no. of tubers plant -1 (0.0167), seed weight plot-1 (-0.0163), plant
height (0.0141), fresh weight of shoots plant-1 (0.0127), fresh weight of tubers
plant-1 (0.0090), dry weight of tubers plant -1 (0.0059), no. of compound leaves
plant-1 (0.0025) and dry weight of shoots plant-1 (0.0019). However, it showed
negative indirect effect via characters viz. plant emergence per cent (-0.0111),
tuber girth (-0.00015), no. of primary branches plant-1 (-0.0014) and no. of
leaves plant-1 (-0.0010).
The positive indirect effects of tuber girth on total tuber yield was
exhibited via dry weight of tuber plant -1 (0.0790) fresh weight of tubers plant -1
(0.0668), plant height (0.0568), number of tubers plant-1 (0.0443), number of
compound leaves plant-1 (0.0348), dry weight of shoots plant-1 (0.0239), plant
emergence per cent (0.0207), seed weight plot-1 (0.0207), number of primary
branches plant-1 (0.0120), fresh weight of shoots plant -1 (0.00074), number of
leaves plant-1 (0.0035) and tuber length (0.0029).
The positive indirect effects of fresh weight of tubers plant -1 on total tuber
yield was exhibited dry weight of tubers plant -1 (0.0913), number of primary
branches plant-1 (0.0717), plant height (0.0630), number of tubers plant -1 (0.0617),
tuber girth (0.0581), numbers of compound leaves plant -1 (0.0569), number of
leaves plant-1 (0.0517), fresh weight of shoots plant -1 (0.0389), dry weight of

118
shoots plant-1 (0.0351), plant emergence per cent (0.0290) and seed weight plot -1
(0.0013). However, it showed a negative indirect effect via characters viz. tuber
length (-0.0154).
The positive indirect effects of dry weight of tubers plant -1 on total tuber
yield was exhibited fresh weight of tubers plant -1 (0.4581), plant height (0.4042),
tuber girth (0.3453), number of tubers plant -1 (0.3452), numbers of compound
leaves plant-1 (0.3386), number of primary branches plant-1 (0.2861), plant
emergence per cent (0.2548), no. of leaves plant -1 (0.2252), fresh weight of shoots
plant-1 (0.2082), dry weight of shoots plant -1 (0.1852) and seed weight plot-1
(0.0594). However, it showed a negative indirect effect via characters, viz. tuber
length (-0.0511).
The path analysis revels that characters viz dry weight of tubers plant -1,
number of leaves plant-1, number of primary branches plant -1, tuber girth, fresh
weight of tubers plant-1, dry weight of shoots plant-1 and fresh weight of shoots
plant-1 possessed high positive direct effect on total tuber yield. Correlation
coefficient with total tuber yield also showed highly significant positive
correlation with dry weight of tubers plant -1, number of leaves plant-1, number of
primary branches plant-1, tuber girth, fresh weight of tubers plant -1, dry weight of
shoots plant-1 and fresh weight of shoots plant -1. Thus, present study indicates a
true relationship of these characters with total tuber yield.
Highest negative direct effects on total tuber yield was also exhibited by
tuber length, plant height, number of compound leaves plant -1, seed weight plot-1,
plant emergence per cent and no. of tubers plant -1. However, all these characters,
except tuber length had significant positive correlation with total tuber yield. This
may be due to high positive indirect effect of plant height, tuber length, number of
leaves plant-1 and fresh weight of shoots plant-1 on total tuber yield.
On the basis of above findings it can be suggested that improvement in
total tuber yield can be achieved through selection for these characters namely;
dry weight of tubers plant-1, number of leaves plant-1, number of primary branches
plant-1, tuber girth, fresh weight of tubers plant -1, dry weight of shoots plant-1 and
fresh weight of shoots plant-1. The above findings of path studies are in
accordance with the findings of Lavanya et al. (2020) for plant height, number of

119
shoots plant-1, tuber weight plant-1, number of leaves plant-1 and dry matte content
in potato, Rajkumar et al. (2000) for plant height and number of leaves plant-1;
Patel et al. (2002) and Sattar et al. (2007) for tuber number plant-1 and average
tuber weight; Ara et al. (2009) and Lamboro et al. (2014) for number of shoots
plant-1; Khayatnezhad et al. (2011) for plant height and tuber weigh plant-1 t; and
Ummyiah et al. (2013) for average tuber weight, number of tuber plant-1 and plant
height.

120
 Genotypic Path Matrix
Dry Correlation
No. of No. of Fresh Fresh Dry
Plant Plant Number weight of No. of Tuber Tuber coefficient
Seed wt. Primary compound weight of weight of weight of
Characters Emergen height of leaves shoots tubers length girth with Total
plot-1 Branches leaves shoots tubers tubers
ce% (cm) plant-1 plant-1 plant-1 (cm) (cm) tuber Yield
plant-1 plant-1 plant-1 (g) plant-1 (g) plant-1 (g)
(g) (t/ha)
Seed wt. plot-1 0.122 0.055 0.073 -0.010 0.031 0.056 0.032 0.021 0.026 -0.071 0.011 0.038 -0.005 0.257

Plant Emergence
0.232 0.508 0.250 0.225 0.306 0.219 0.286 0.242 -0.078 -0.323 -0.258 0.345 0.083 0.677**
%

Plant height (cm) -0.333 -0.272 -0.553 -0.268 -0.546 -0.192 -0.320 -0.328 -0.089 0.135 -0.107 -0.398 -0.350 0.612**

No. of Primary
-0.011 0.059 0.064 0.133 0.084 0.092 0.082 0.064 0.031 0.027 -0.018 0.121 0.112 0.788**
Branches plant-1
No. of compound
0.044 0.106 0.173 0.111 0.176 0.082 0.103 0.092 0.004 -0.025 0.061 0.199 0.181 0.976**
leaves plant-1
Number of leaves
-0.017 -0.017 -0.013 -0.026 -0.018 -0.038 0.006 0.012 -0.027 0.006 0.003 -0.037 -0.039 0.998**
plant-1
Fresh weight of
-0.005 -0.010 -0.010 -0.011 -0.010 0.003 -0.017 -0.015 0.004 0.009 0.006 -0.007 -0.003 0.357*
shoots plant-1 (g)
Dry weight of
0.009 0.024 0.030 0.025 0.027 -0.016 0.046 0.051 -0.014 -0.027 -0.013 0.016 0.012 0.284
shoots plant-1 (g)
No. of tubers
0.017 -0.013 0.013 0.019 0.001 0.059 -0.020 -0.023 0.083 0.037 0.015 0.032 0.052 0.316
plant-1
Tuber length
0.048 0.052 0.021 -0.017 0.012 0.013 0.043 0.043 -0.037 -0.083 -0.072 0.007 -0.026 0.021
(cm)

Tuber girth (cm) 0.027 -0.162 0.062 -0.043 0.110 -0.024 -0.105 -0.077 0.056 0.275 0.319 0.142 0.177 0.307

Fresh weight of
0.135 0.295 0.313 0.397 0.493 0.433 0.182 0.134 0.171 -0.036 0.194 0.435 0.402 0.812**
tubers plant-1 (g)
Dry weight of
Tableplant
tubers No. -1 4.9
(g) Genotypic
-0.012 path
0.049coefficient
0.191 showing
0.254 direct and indirect
0.312 0.312 effects
0.044of different
0.069 characters
0.191 on tuber yield
0.096 0.168 in potato
0.279 at 75 0.302
DAP 0.897**

121
 Table No. 4.10 Genotypic path coefficient showing direct and indirect effects of different characters on tuber yield in potato at 90 DAP

Genotypic Path Matrix

Correlation
No. of No. of Fresh Dry Fresh Dry
Plant Plant Number No. of Tuber Tuber coefficient
Seed wt. Primary compound weight of weight of weight of weight of
Characters Emergenc height of leaves tubers length girth with Total
plot-1 Branches leaves shoots shoots tubers tubers
e% (cm) plant-1 plant-1 (cm) (cm) tuber Yield
plant-1 plant-1 plant-1 (g) plant-1 (g) plant-1 (g) plant-1 (g)
(t/ha)
Seed wt. plot-1 -0.031 0.002 -0.009 0.006 -0.004 0.002 -0.007 -0.001 -0.008 0.008 -0.005 -0.001 -0.003 0.020

Plant Emergence
0.001 -0.026 -0.007 -0.007 -0.008 -0.007 -0.009 -0.009 -0.005 -0.004 -0.004 -0.007 -0.012 0.330*
%

Plant height (cm) -0.016 -0.014 -0.052 -0.015 -0.030 -0.014 -0.028 -0.025 -0.023 0.011 -0.023 -0.029 -0.037 0.537**

No. of Primary
-0.024 0.031 0.038 0.135 0.053 0.061 0.051 0.038 0.030 0.003 0.012 0.084 0.067 0.550**
Branches plant-1
No. of compound
-0.005 -0.013 -0.024 -0.017 -0.043 -0.015 -0.019 -0.015 -0.016 0.002 -0.011 -0.021 -0.025 0.469*
leaves plant-1
Number of leaves
-0.012 0.044 0.042 0.072 0.058 0.158 0.046 0.034 0.042 0.002 0.004 0.072 0.063 0.468*
plant-1
Fresh weight of
0.003 0.006 0.008 0.006 0.007 0.004 0.015 0.013 -0.001 -0.003 0.001 0.005 0.006 0.343*
shoots plant-1 (g)
Dry weight of
0.010 0.010 0.015 0.009 0.011 0.007 0.026 0.030 -0.002 -0.001 0.005 0.009 0.010 0.305
shoots plant-1 (g)
No. of tubers
-0.017 -0.005 -0.011 -0.006 -0.010 -0.006 0.001 0.002 -0.025 0.006 -0.009 -0.014 -0.016 0.462*
plant-1
Tuber length
0.021 -0.011 0.014 -0.001 0.003 -0.001 0.013 0.002 0.017 -0.066 -0.002 0.009 0.011 -0.107
(cm)

Tuber girth (cm) 0.021 0.021 0.057 0.012 0.035 0.004 0.008 0.024 0.044 0.003 0.130 0.067 0.080 0.504**

Fresh weight of
0.001 0.030 0.063 0.072 0.057 0.052 0.039 0.035 0.062 -0.015 0.058 0.114 0.091 0.748**
tubers plant-1 (g)
Dry weight of
0.060 0.255 0.404 0.286 0.339 0.226 0.209 0.186 0.345 -0.051 0.345 0.458 0.570 0.799**
tubers plant-1 (g)

*Significant at 5 % level of significance , ** Significant at 1 % level of significance Residual value – 0.242

122
Fig: 4.7 Diagrammatic presentation of genotypic path coefficient analysis of different characters on tuber yield in
potato at 75 DAP 123
Fig: 4.8 Diagrammatic presentation of genotypic path coefficient analysis of different characters on tuber yield in
potato at 90 DAP
cxxiv
4.5 Sensory evaluation of chips
The objective of this study was to evaluate the sensory quality attributes
of deep-fried chips prepared from 13 different potato genotypes, fried in sunflower oil at
180 °C. Sensory evaluation was conducted to assess key quality parameters, including colour,
appearance, aroma, taste and overall acceptability. The mean sensory scores for each
genotype are presented in Table 4.11 and 4.12. Analysis revealed significant differences
among genotypes for colour, appearance, aroma and taste, indicating that genotype had a
notable effect on the sensory properties of the chips.

Table: 4.11 Mean score of sensory attributes of chips at 75 DAP.

[Link]. Treatments Colour Appearance Aroma Taste Overall Rating

acceptabilit
y
1 P-92 6.1 6.2 5.0 5.6 5.7 Neither like nor dislike
2 P-107 6.6 7.0 7.2 7.8 7.1 Like moderately
3 P-108 6.2 6.8 6.1 6.8 6.4 Like slightly
4 P-106 5.8 6.3 6.2 6.6 6.2 Like slightly
5 FF-04 6.6 6.9 6.2 7.0 6.6 Like slightly
6 P-57 6.8 7.0 7.3 8.3 7.3 Like moderately
7 P-77 6.1 6.5 7.0 8.0 6.9 Like slightly
8 P-94 7.0 7.0 6.2 7.2 6.8 Like slightly
9 Kufri Ch-1 6.0 6.3 6.5 6.8 6.4 Like slightly
10 Kufri Surya 6.2 6.0 5.8 6.5 6.1 Like slightly
11 Kufri Khyati 6.0 5.8 5.6 6.3 5.9 Neither like nor dislike
12 Kufri Kiran 6.0 6.0 5.2 6.3 5.8 Neither like nor dislike
13 Kufri Ganga 5.8 6.0 5.4 6.0 5.8 Neither like nor dislike

At 75 DAP, the chips prepared from genotype AICRP-P-57 exhibited the highest
overall acceptability among all tested genotypes. This genotype was the most preferred by
consumers, primarily due to its desirable chip colour (creamish-yellow) and palatable taste.
Genotypes AICRP-P-107, AICRP-P-77, and AICRP-P-94 also received high acceptability
scores, indicating their potential for chip-making based on consumer preferences.

Other genotypes, including AICRP-FF-04, Kufri Chipsona-1, AICRP-P-106, AICRP-

P-108, Kufri Surya, Kufri Khyati, Kufri Ganga, Kufri Kiran and AICRP-P-92, were

125
moderately accepted. While these genotypes were not rated as highly as AICRP-P-57, they
still demonstrated acceptable performance in terms of colour and taste.

These findings highlight the superiority of AICRP-P-57 for chip quality at 75 DAP,
suggesting its suitability for commercial processing and consumer satisfaction.

SNo. Treatments Col Appearance Aroma Tast Overall Rating

our e acceptability
1 P-92 6.2 6.2 5.0 6.0 5.8 Neither like nor dislike
2 P-107 6.7 7.4 7.6 8.8 7.6 Like moderately
3 P-108 6.5 6.6 7.0 8.0 7.0 Like moderately
4 P-106 6.4 6.8 7.1 7.9 7.0 Like moderately
5 FF-04 6.8 7.0 6.8 7.5 7.0 Like moderately
6 P-57 7.2 7.4 8.8 9.4 8.2 Like very much
7 P-77 7.2 7.4 8.4 9.0 8.0 Like very much
8 P-94 7.1 7.3 7.2 8.4 7.5 Like moderately
9 Kufri Ch-1 6.6 7.0 7.1 8.0 7.1 Like moderately
10 Kufri Surya 6.3 6.1 6.0 6.6 6.2 Like slightly
11 Kufri Khyati 6.1 5.9 5.6 7.0 6.1 Like slightly
12 Kufri Kiran 6.0 6.1 5.4 6.8 6.0 Like slightly
13 Kufri Ganga 6.0 6.0 5.2 6.6 5.9 Neither like nor dislike

Table: 4.12 Mean score of sensory attributes of chips at 90 DAP.

At 90 DAP, the chips prepared from genotype AICRP-P-57 exhibited the highest
overall acceptability among all tested genotypes. This genotype was most preferred by
consumers, primarily due to its desirable chip colour (creamish-yellow) and palatable taste,
followed by genotypes AICRP-P-77, AICRP-P-107 andAICRP-P-94 also received high
acceptability scores, indicating their potential for chip-making based on consumer
preferences.

Other genotypes, including AICRP-P-106, Kufri Chipsona-1, AICRP-FF-04, AICRP-

P-108, Kufri Surya, Kufri Khyati, Kufri Ganga, Kufri Kiran and AICRP-P-92, were
moderately accepted. While these genotypes were not rated as highly as AICRP-P-57, they
still demonstrated acceptable performance in terms of colour and taste.

These findings highlight the superiority of AICRP-P-57 for chip quality at 90 DAP,
suggesting its suitability for commercial processing and consumer satisfaction.

126
 P-57 P-92 P-77

FF-04 P-94 P-106

K. Ch-1 P-108 K. Khyati

K. Surya K. Ganga K. Kiran

P-107
Plate 4.1: Variation in morphology of potato genotypes at 75 DAP under an experiment

127
Plate 4.2: Variation in morphology of potato genotypes at 90 DAP under an experiment

128
 P-57 P-92 P-77

P-94
FF-04 P-106

K. Ch-1 P-108 K. Khyati

K. Surya K. Kiran
K. Ganga

P-107

Plate 4.3: Variation of morphology of chips processed from all genotypes under experiment in 75 DAP
129
 P-57 P-92 P-77

P-107

CHAPTER-V
Plate 4.4 : Variation of morphology of chips processed from all genotypes under experiment in 90 DAP
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
FF-04 P-94 P-106
5.1 SUMMARY
K. Ch-1 P-108 K. Khyati

K. Surya K. Ganga K. Kiran

130
 The present investigation, entitled “Studies on Different Processing
Genotypes of Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) for Growth, Yield, Quality and
Processing Traits under Chhattisgarh Conditions,” was conducted during the
Rabi season (November–March) 2024–25 at the Research and Instructional Farm,
Department of Vegetable Science, IGKV, Raipur, under the AICRP on Potato. The
experiment involved thirteen potato genotypes, including three standard checks (K.
Chipsona-1, K. Surya and K. Khyati). The experiment was laid out in a
Randomized Block Design with three replications. The objective was to evaluate
genetic variability, correlation coefficients, path analysis and sensory attributes for
selecting suitable genotypes for processing under local agro-climatic conditions.
Observations were recorded randomly from tagged five plants of each
genotype and replications for seed weight plot -1, plant emergence per cent, plant
height (cm), number of primary shoots plant-1, number of compound leaves plant-1,
number of leaves plant-1, fresh and dry weight of shoots plant -1, tuber girth (cm),
tuber length (cm), number of tubers plant -1, fresh and dry weight of tubers plant -1,
markatable and unmarketable tuber yield (t/ha), total tuber yield (t/ha), specific
gravity of tuber, total soluble solid, reducing and non- reducing sugar per cent and
starch per cent.
The results obtained on various topics as per synopsis of programme during
the investigations are summarized below-
5.1.1 Genetic variability study
For all of the traits, the analysis of variance revealed that there was
sufficient diversity among genotypes. The phenotypic variance was in general
higher than genotypic variance for all the characters. Among different yield
attributing characters studied at 75 DAP, dry weight of tubers plant -1 had the
highest magnitude of PCV (34.76 per cent) and GCV (36.15 per cent). Whereas, at
90 DAP, dry weight of shoots plant-1 had the highest magnitude of PCV (35.84)
and GCV (37.00).
The estimates of heritability at 75 DAP revealed that characters, namely,
fresh weight of shoots plant-1 followed by dry weight of tubers plant -1, dry weight
of shoots plant-1, tuber girth, starch, unmarketable and marketable tuber yield t ha -1,
reducing sugar, plant height, non-reducing sugar, fresh weight of tubers plant -1 and

131
no. of primary branches plant-1 were recorded with high heritability. Whereas, at 90
DAP, heritability estimates revealed that characters with high heritability included
character specific gravity followed by fresh weight of shoots plant -1, dry weight of
shoots plant-1, total soluble solid, marketable tuber yield t ha -1, plant height, number
of primary branches plant-1, starch, non-reducing sugar, reducing sugar, total tuber
yield t ha-1, unmarketable tuber yield t ha-1 and seed weight plot-1.
“High heritability coupled with high genetic advance was recorded at 75
DAP for the traits viz., fresh weight of shoots plant-1 followed by dry weight of
tubers plant-1, dry weight of shoots plant-1, tuber girth, starch, unmarketable tuber
yield t ha-1, reducing sugar, marketable tuber yield t ha-1, plant height, non-reducing
sugar, fresh weight of tubers plant-1 and no. of primary branches plant-1. Whereas,
at 90 DAP, for the traits viz., specific gravity followed by fresh weight of shoots
plant-1, dry weight of shoots plant-1, total soluble solid, marketable tuber yield t ha -
1
, plant height, number of primary branches plant -1, starch, non-reducing sugar,
reducing sugar, total tuber yield t ha -1, unmarketable tuber yield t ha -1 and seed
weight plot-1. Hence, these characters were governed by both additive and non-
additive gene action and can be improved through selection.”
5.1.2 Correlation coefficient study
At 75 DAP the correlation study indicated that the total tuber yield t ha-1
was recorded to have positive and significant correlation both at phenotypic and
genotypic levels with no. of leaves plant -1, compound leaves plant-1, dry and fresh
weight of tubers plant-1, no. of primary branches plant-1, plant emergence per cent,
plant height and fresh weight of shoot plant-1.
Dry weight of tuber plant-1 had highly significant and positive correlation
with fresh weight of tubers plant -1, no. of primary branches plant -1, no. of
compound leaves plant-1, no. of leaves plant-1, plant height, no. of tubers plant -1 and
tuber girth at genotypic and phenotypic level.
Similarly, fresh weight of tubers plant-1 had highly significant and positive
correlation both at genotypic and phenotypic level with no. of leaves plant -1, no. of
primary branches plant-1, no. of compound leaves plant-1, plant height, tuber girth,
fresh weight of shoot plant-1 and no. of tubers plant-1.

132
 Number of tubers plant-1 had highly significant and positive association at
genotypic with no. of leaves plant-1 and at phenotypic levels with plant height and
no. of compound leaves plant-1.
Tuber length had significant and positive association at genotypic level
with no. of tubers plant-1. Tuber girth had significant and positive correlated at
genotypic with tuber length and no. of compound leaves plant -1. Whereas, at
phenotypic level significant and positive association plant height and no. of tubers
plant-1.
Dry weight of shoots plant-1 exhibited positive and highly significant
correlation both at genotypic and phenotypic level with fresh weight of shoots
plant-1 and plant emergence per cent, whereas, it was positively and significantly
correlated with plant height and no. of compound leaves plant -1 at phenotypic level
only.
Fresh weight of shoots plant-1 exhibited positive and highly significant
correlation both at genotypic and phenotypic level with plant height, number
compound leaves plant-1, number of primary branches plant-1 and plant emergence
per cent.
Number of leaves plant-1 exhibited highly positive and significant
correlation at both genotypic and phenotypic level with no. of primary branches
plant-1, no. of compound leaves plant -1. Whereas, seed weight plot-1, plant
emergence per cent and plant height had positive and significant association with
number of leaves at genotypic level only.
Number of compound plant-1 leaves exhibited highly positive and
significant correlation both at genotypic and phenotypic level with plant height.
Similarly, number of primary branches plant-1 had positive and significant
association with plant height and plant emergence per cent at genotypic level only.
plant height exhibited positive and significant correlation at both genotypic and
phenotypic level with plant emergence per cent.
At 90 DAP the correlation study indicated that the total tuber yield t ha -1
was recorded to have positive and significant correlation both at phenotypic and
genotypic levels with dry and fresh weight of tubers plant -1, no. of primary
branches plant-1, plant height, number of compound leaves plant -1, no. of leaves

133
plant-1, fresh weight of shoot plant-1 and plant emergence per cent. Whereas, tuber
girth and no. of tubers plant-1 showed positive and significant association, at
genotypic levels only.
Dry weight of tuber plant-1 had highly significant and positive correlation
with fresh weight of tubers plant-1, no. of compound leaves plant-1, plant height, no.
of primary branches plant-1 at genotypic and phenotypic level. Whereas, no. of
tubers plant-1, tuber girth, plant emergence per cent, no. of leaves plant -1 and fresh
weight of shoot plant-1 had significant and positive correlation at genotypic level
only.
Similarly, fresh weight of tubers plant-1 had highly significant and positive
correlation both at genotypic and phenotypic level with no. of leaves plant -1, no. of
primary branches plant-1, plant height and no. of compound leaves plant -1.
Whereas, no. of tubers plant-1, tuber girth, fresh weight of shoot plant -1 and plant
emergence per cent had significant and positive correlation at genotypic level only.
Number of tubers plant-1 had highly significant and positive association
with no. of leaves plant-1 at phenotypic levels. Where, plant height and no. of
compound leaves plant-1 had significant and positive association at genotypic level.
Tuber girth exhibited positive correlation at genotypic level only with plant
height and no. of tubers plant-1. Whereas, plant emergence per cent has positive
correlation at phenotypic level only.
Dry weight of shoots plant-1 exhibited positive and highly significant
correlation both at genotypic and phenotypic level with fresh weight of shoots
plant-1, plant height, number compound leaves plant-1 and plant emergence per
cent, whereas, it was positively and significantly correlated with no. of primary
branches plant-1 at phenotypic level only.
Fresh weight of shoots plant-1 exhibited positive and highly significant
correlation both at genotypic and phenotypic level with plant height, number
compound leaves plant-1, number of primary branches plant-1 and plant emergence
per cent.
Number of leaves plant-1 exhibited highly positive and significant
correlation at both genotypic and phenotypic level with number of primary

134
branches plant-1. Whereas, no. of compound leaves plant-1 had positive and
significant association with number of leaves at genotypic level only.
Number of compound plant-1 leaves exhibited highly positive and
significant correlation both at genotypic and phenotypic level with plant height and
number of primary branches plant-1. Similarly, number of primary branches plant -1
had positive and significant association with plant height and plant emergence per
cent at phenotypic level only. plant height exhibited positive and significant
correlation at both genotypic and phenotypic level with seed weight plot -1 and plant
emergence per cent.
5.1.3 Path coefficient study
At 75 DAP the path coefficient study revealed that the characters namely
plant emergence per cent, followed by fresh weight of tubers plant -1, tuber girth,
dry weight of tubers plant-1, number of compound leaves plant-1, number of
primary branches plant-1, seed weight plot-1, number of tubers plant-1 and dry
weight of shoots plant-1. Negative direct effects on total tuber yield were also
exhibited by plant height, tuber length, number of leaves plant -1 and fresh weight
of shoots plant-1 had the positive and direct effect towards the total tuber yield t ha -
1
. However, negative direct effects on total tuber yield t ha -1 were exhibited by
plant height, tuber length, number of leaves plant -1 and fresh weight of shoots
plant-1.
Similarly, at 90 DAP the path coefficient study revealed that the characters
namely dry weight of tubers plant -1, number of leaves plant-1, number of primary
branches plant-1, tuber girth, fresh weight of tubers plant -1, dry weight of shoots
plant-1 and fresh weight of shoots plant-1. Negative direct effects on total tuber yield
were also exhibited by plant height, tuber length, number of leaves plant -1 and fresh
weight of shoots plant-1 had the positive and direct effect towards the total tuber
yield t ha-1. However, negative direct effects on total tuber yield t ha -1 were
exhibited by tuber length, plant height, number of compound leaves plant -1, seed
weight plot-1, plant emergence per cent and no. of tubers plant-1.
Hence the characters namely, total tuber yield ha -1, fresh weight of tubers
plant-1, number of tubers plant-1, dry weight of tubers plant-1, tuber girth, tuber
length, no. of primary branches plant-1, no. of compound leaves plant-1, no. of

135
leaves plant-1, plant height and plant emergence per cent were the key traits and
need to be given prime importance while making selections for processing hybrids
of potato for Chhattisgarh Condition.

5.2 Conclusion
The following are some of the conclusions that can be reached in light of
the findings of this inquiry given below:

 A significantly higher total tuber yield (t/ha) and marketable tuber yield at both
75 DAP and 90 DAP were recorded in genotype AICRP-P-57.
 At both 75 and 90 DAP, significant variation was observed among genotypes
for growth and yield traits. AICRP-P-77 showed the highest plant emergence,
AICRP-P-107 was superior in plant height and fresh shoot weight, while
AICRP-P-94 recorded the highest dry shoot weight. AICRP-P-106 produced
the maximum number of tubers plant-1, and AICRP-P-57 recorded the highest
fresh and dry tuber weight plant-1 indicating its high yield potential.
 PCV values were slightly higher than GCV, indicating environmental influence
on trait expression. High heritability and genetic advance in traits like fresh and
dry weight of shoots plant-1and fresh and dry weight of tubers plant-1, starch,
and marketable yield suggest additive gene effects, making them suitable for
selection. Traits like specific gravity, plant emergence, and tuber length
showed low genetic advance, indicating non-additive gene action, where
heterosis breeding may be effective.
 Genotypic correlations were generally higher than phenotypic ones, indicating
strong inherent associations among traits. Traits like fresh and dry weight of
tubers plant-1, plant height, number of leaves plant-1, number of compound
leaves plant-1, primary branches plant-1, plant emergence, tuber girth, and length
can be considered key selection criteria for improving tuber yield.
 Path coefficient analysis revealed positive and direct effect of fresh and dry wt.
of tubers plant-1, no. of tubers plant-1, dry wt. of shoot plant-1, no. of compound
leaves plant-1 and no. of leaves plant-1 on total tuber yield (t/ha). Thus direct
selection for these characters will be rewarding.

136
 Genotypes AICRP-P-57, AICRP-P-94 and AICRP-P-77 recorded the highest
total and marketable tuber yield plant -1 at both 75 and 90 DAP, along with
superior processing quality. Chips prepared from these genotypes also showed
excellent sensory attributes in terms of colour, taste and aroma, making them
promising for cultivation and processing under Chhattisgarh conditions.

5.3 Future suggestions

 The experiment may be investigated in different agro-climatic conditions of the
state to refine findings and identify suitable genotype for further varietal
improvement.
 The best desirable distinct genotype may be utilized for the further
improvement programme.
 Genotypes showing the best performance in particular character (quality) can
be used as a donor parent in hybridization.
 Use molecular markers (e.g., SSRs, SNPs) to identify genes responsible for
superior yield and processing quality.
 Numerous genotypes could be gathered from various unexplored locations
inside the state of Chhattisgarh.
 Characters exhibiting a strong positive association with total tuber yield (t/ha),
along with high heritability and substantial genetic advance, should be
prioritized during the selection process to achieve enhanced yield in the
breeding population.

137
 REFERENCES
Abbas, G., Hafiz, I. and Hussain, A. (2012). Determination of processing and
nutritional quality attributes of potato genotypes in Pakistan. Pakistan
Journal of Botany, 44(1), 201–208.
Abbasi, K. S., Masud, T., Gulfraz, M., Ali, S. and Imran, M. (2011).
Physicochemical, functional and processing attributes of some potato
varieties grown in Pakistan. African Journal of Biotechnology, 10(84),
19570–19579.
Aggarwal, P., Kaur, S. and Vashisht, V. K. (2017). Processing quality traits of
different potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) genotypes in India. The Pharma
Innovation Journal, 6(3), 27–30.
Ahmad, I., Hossain, M., Islam, G. M. R., Billah, S. K. M. and Kabir, Y. (2005).
Genetic variability and correlation studies in potato (Solanum tuberosum
L.). International Journal of Sustainable Agricultural Technology, 1(4), 30–
34.
Anonymous, (2024). Directorate of Horticulture, Government of Chhattisgarh,
Raipur.
Anonymous, (2024). National Horticulture Board, Department of Agriculture
Cooperation and Farmers Welfare, Government of India.
Anonymous, (2024). Horticulture Statistics Division, Department of Agriculture
Cooperation and Farmers Welfare, Government of India.
Anonymous, (2024). Horticulture Statistics Division, Ministry of Agriculture and
Farmers’ Welfare, Government of India.
Ara, T., Haydar, A., Islam, M. A., Azad, M. A. S. and Khokan, E. H. (2009). Path
analysis in potato. Journal of Soil and Nature, 3(2), 20–23.
Ara, T., Hayder, A., Islam, M. A., Khokan, E. H. and Khalequzzaman, M. M.
(2009). Studies on genetic variability, correlation and path analysis in
potato. International Journal of Sustainable Agricultural Research, 5(5),
40–44. (Repeated entry removed below)
Asefa, G., Mohammed, W. and Abebe, T. (2016). Genetic variability studies in
potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) genotypes in Bale Highlands, South Eastern
Ethiopia. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare, 6(3), 117–119.

138
Aswani, N. and Kusmana. (2020). Selection of 30 potato (Solanum tuberosum L.)
clones potential for chips and french fries industry. In Proceedings of the
International Conference on Green Agro-Industry (Vol. 4, pp. 252–259).
Barik, S. B. (2007). Genetic diversity in potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) ([Link].
Thesis). Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur, C.G., 54 p.
Basavaraj, N., Nay, K. R., Naik, K. S. and Gayatri, G. N. (2005). Genetic
variability studies in potato (Solanum tuberosum L.). Potato Journal, 32(3–
4), 233–256.
Bekele, T. and Haile, B. (2018). Evaluation of improved potato (Solanum
tuberosum L.) varieties for some quality attributes at Shebench Woreda of
Bench-Maji Zone, Southwestern Ethiopia. African Journal of Agricultural
Research, 14(7), 389–394.
Bhagowati, R. R., Saikia, M. and Sut, D. (2002). Variability, heritability, genetic
advance and character association in True Potato Seed (TPS) populations.
Journal of Agricultural Science Society of North East India, 15(1), 119–
122.
Biswas, M. K., Mondal, M. A., Ahmad, M. G., Hoque, A., Hossain, M. M. and
Islam, R. (2005). Study on genetic variability and heterosis in potato.
Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences, 8(1), 6–9.
Bombik, A., Rymuza, K. and Olszewski, T. (2019). Variation and correlation of
starch potato utility features and tuber quality traits. Acta Agrophysica,
26(3), 29–42.
Burgos, G., Auqui, S., Amoros, W., Salas, E. and Bonierbale, M. (2009). Ascorbic
acid concentration of native Andean potato varieties as affected by
environment, cooking and storage. Journal of Food Composition and
Analysis, 22(3), 533–538.
Burton, G. W. (1952). Quantitative inheritance in grasses. Proceedings of the 6th
International Grassland Congress, 1, 277–283.
Chandrakar, A. (2007). Genetic analysis of clonal hybrids (C1 progenies) for tuber
yield and its components in potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) ([Link]. Thesis).
Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur, C.G.

139
Choudhary, B. R., Fageria, M. S. and Dhaka, R. S. (2012). Production technology
of vegetables pp. 73–79.
Choudhary, S. K., Sharma, S. K. and Sharma, H. C. (1984). Path coefficient
analysis in F1C2 generation of potato crosses. Agricultural Science Digest,
4(4), 228–230.
Chowdhury, R. S. and Datta, S. (2020). Characterization and variability studies of
the local small size potato (Solanum sp.) genotypes under Sub-Himalayan
Foothills of India. International Journal of Bio-resource and Stress
Management, 11(1), 27–34.
Comstock, R. E., Robinson, H. F. and Harvey, P. H. (1952). Genotypic and
phenotypic correlation in corn and their implication in selection. Agronomy
Journal, 43, 282–287.
Darabad, G. R. (2014). Study the relationships between yield and yield
components of potato varieties using correlation, regression and causality
analysis. International Journal of Plant, Animal and Environmental
Sciences, 4(2), 584–589.
DAP, S., Mitra, B., Luthra, S. K., Saha, A., Hassan, M. M. and Hossain, A. (2021).
Study on morphological, physiological characteristics and yields of twenty-
one potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) cultivars grown in Eastern Sub-
Himalayan Plains of India. Agronomy, 11, 335.
DAP, K. K., Sarkar, A. S., Pradhan, A. M. and DAP, A. (2014). Evaluation of
early and late harvested potatoes for yield, quality and storability.
International Journal of Bio-resource and Stress Management, 5(1), 22–30.
Dayal, T. R., Upadhyay, M. D., Malhotra, V. P. and Mehra, K. L. (1972).
Heritability and correlation in yield and other quantitative characters in
potato (Solanum tuberosum L.). Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences,
42(6), 464–466.
Desai, N. C. and Jaimini, S. N. (1997). Studies on genetic divergence in potato
(Solanum tuberosum L.). Journal of the Indian Potato Association, 24(3/4),
154–160.

140
Desai, N. C. and Jaimini, S. N. (1998). Correlation and path analysis of some
economic characters in potato. Journal of the Indian Potato Association,
25(1/2), 25–29.
Dewey, D. R. and Lu, K. H. (1959). A correlation and path coefficient analysis of
components of crested wheat grass seed production. Agronomy Journal, 5,
515–518.
Elfnesh, F., Tekalign, T. and Solomon, W. (2011). Processing quality of improved
potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) cultivars as influenced by growing
environment and blanching. African Journal of Food Science, 5(6), 324–
332.
Fantaw, S., Ayalew, A., Tadesse, D., Medhin, Z. and Agegnehu, E. (2019).
Evaluation of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) varieties for yield and yield
components. Journal of Horticulture and Forestry, 11(3), 48–53.
Fekadu, A., Petros, Y. and Zelleke, H. (2013). Genetic variability and association
between agronomic characters in some potato (Solanum tuberosum L.)
genotypes in SNNPRS, Ethiopia. International Journal of Biodiversity and
Conservation, 5(8), 523–528.
Gashaw, B., Millan, M., Wassu, L. M. and Tesfaye, A. (2018). Genetic diversity in
drought-tolerating potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) genotypes in Simada,
North Western Ethiopia. Journal of Agriculture and Environment for
International Development, 112(1), 121–138.
Gautam, I. P., Khatri, B. B., Sharma, M. D., Thapa, R. B., Shrestha, K. and
Chaudhary, D. (2012). Evaluation of potato genotypes for keeping quality
under ambient conditions in Nepal. Potato Journal, 39(2), 128–132.
Gulam, A., Hafiz, I. A., Abbasi, N. A. and Hussain, A. (2012). Determination of
processing and nutritional quality attributes of potato genotypes in
Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Botany, 44 (1), 201–208.
Hajam, M. A., Khan, S. H., Bhat, T. A., Parray, E. A., Rather, A. M., Hajam, M.
A., Reyaz, L., Bhat, I. A. and Wani, L. (2018). Estimation of phenotypic
and genotypic variability, heritability and genetic advance for quantitative
characters of potato. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry, 7(7),
346–350.

141
Hanson, W. D., Robinson, H. F. and Comstock, R. E. (1956). Biometrical studies
of yield in segregating population of Korean lespedeza. Agronomy Journal,
48, 268–272.
Hassanpanah. (2011). Evaluation of cooking quality characteristics of advanced
clones and potato cultivars. American Journal of Food Technology, 6(1),
72–79.
Hayder, A., Ahmed, M. B., Hannan, M. M., Razvy, M. A., Mandal, M. A., Salahin,
M., Karim, R. and Hossain, M. (2007). Analysis of genetic diversity in
some potato varieties grown in Bangladesh. Middle-East Journal of
Scientific Research, 2(3–4), 146–148.
Hazra, P. and Som, M. G. (2015). Vegetable Science (pp. 225–237). Kalyani
Publishers.
Hijmans, R. J. (2001). Global distribution of the potato crop. American Journal of
Potato Research, 78, 403–412.
Hussen, E. S. (2019). Review on genetic variation in potato (Solanum tuberosum
L.) for processing quality traits. Journal of Natural Sciences Research,
9(12).
Jatav, A. S., Kushwah, S. S. and Naruka, I. S. (2017). Performance of potato
varieties for growth, yield, quality and economics under different levels of
nitrogen. Advances in Research, 9(6), 1–9.
Johnson, H. W., Robinson, H. F. and Comstock, R. E. (1955). Estimates of genetic
and environmental variability in soybean. Agronomy Journal, 47, 314–318.
Joshi, P. K., Sharma, P. K., Yadav, V. and Rangare, S. B. (2025). [Department of
Genetics and Plant Breeding, IGKV, Raipur (C.G.) and Department of
Horticulture, IGKV, Raipur (C.G.).
Kamal, S. (2011). Variability and association studies for morphological and
biochemical traits in potato (Solanum tuberosum L.). Indian Journal of
Genetics and Plant Breeding, 71(1), 74–77.
Kamal, S. R., Raghav, M., Singh, Y. V. and Singh, N. P. (2007). Correlation and
path analysis of yield determinants in potato (Solanum tuberosum L.)
hybrids. Pantnagar Journal of Research, 5(2), 120–124.

142
Kaur, S. and Aggarwal, P. (2014). Studies on Indian potato genotypes for their
processing and nutritional quality attributes. International Journal of
Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences, 3(8), 172–177.
Kaur, C., George, B., Deepa, N., Singh, B. and Kapoor, H. C. (2004). Antioxidant
status of fresh and processed tomato: A review. Journal of Food Science
and Technology, 41, 479–486.

Katiyar, H., Singh, N. P. and Raghav, M. (2013). Evaluation of potato cultivars for
processing and storage. Progressive Horticulture, 32(2), 167–171.
Khan, A., Erum, S., Rashid, N. and Riaz, N. (2018). Evaluation of potato
genotypes for quality of French fries and chips. Academia Journal of
Agricultural Research, 6(5), 117–120.
Khayatnezhad, M., Shahriari, R. and Gholamin, R. (2011). Correlation and path
analysis between yield and yield components in potato (Solanum
tuberosum L.). Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 7(1), 17–21.
Kumar, V., Gopal, J. and Bhardwaj, V. (2005). Evaluation of exotic potato
(Solanum tuberosum L. spp. tuberosum) germplasm in North–Western
Hills of India. Indian Journal of Plant Genetic Resources, 18(1), 94–95.
Laei, G. H., Noryan, M. and Afshari, H. (2012). Determination of planting depth
for potato seed tuber yield and its components of two varieties: Agria and
Draga. Annals of Biological Research, 3(12), 5521–5528.
Lamboro, A., Petros, Y. and Andargie, M. (2014). Correlation and path coefficient
analysis between yield and yield components in potato (Solanum
tuberosum L.). Plant Science Today, 1(4), 196–200.
Lara, R. T. and Malaver, R. H. T. (2019). Quality attributes for processing potato
clones of purple-fleshed in Peru. Revista de Ciências Agroveterinárias,
Lages, SC, Brasil.
Lavanya, K. S., Shrinivasa, V., Ali, S., Devaraju, L., Laxmana, D. and Kadian, M.
S. (2019). Correlation and path analysis for yield and yield-related traits of
potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) in Karnataka. National Academy of
Sciences, 43(2), 137–140.

143
Lee, K. J., Sebastin, R., Cho, G. T., Yoon, M., Lee, G. A. and Hyun, D. Y. (2021).
Genetic diversity and population structure of potato germplasm in RDA-
Gene bank: Utilization for breeding and conservation. Plants, 10 (4), 752.
Lohani, M., Singh, D. and Singh, J. P. (2012). Genetic diversity assessment
through principal component analysis in potato (Solanum tuberosum L.).
Vegetable Science, 39 (2), 207–209.
Luthra, S. K., Gopal, J. and P. C. (2005). Genetic divergence and its relationship
with heterosis in potato. Potato Journal, 32(1–2), 37–42.
Luthra, S. K. (2010). Genetic divergence of germplasm accessions in potato
(Solanum tuberosum subsp. tuberosum). Indian Journal of Plant Genetic
Resources, 22 (2), 68–73.
Luthra, S. K., Malik, K., Gupta, V. K. and Singh, B. P. (2013). Evaluation of
potato genotypes under high temperature stress conditions. Crop
Improvement, 40 (1), 74–80.
Luthra, S. K., Gupta, V. K., Kaundal, B. and Tiwari, J. K. (2018). Genetic analysis
of tuber yield, processing and nutritional traits in potato (Solanum
tuberosum L.). Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 88(8), 1214–1221.
Mandi, V., Panja, S., Battacharya, C. and Sarkar, K. K. (2016). Studies on the
scope of genetic improvement for yield and yield-related traits in potato
(Solanum tuberosum L.) production. International Journal of Current
Research, 8(5), 31427–31433.
Marwaha, R. S. and Sandhu, S. K. (2002). Yield, growth components and
processing quality of potatoes as influenced by crop maturity under short
and long days. Advances in Horticultural Science, 16(2), 79–87.
Masoodi, U. H., Khan, S. H., Jabeen, N., Hussain, K. and Nazir, J. (2009).
Evaluation of various potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) genotypes for quality
traits. Environment and Ecology, 28(2), 947–949.
Masoodi, U. H., Khan, S. H., Jabeen, N., Hussain, K. and Nazir, J. (2010).
Evaluation of various potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) genotypes for quality
traits. Environment and Ecology, 28(2), 947–949.

144
Miller, D. A., Williams, J. C., Robinson, H. F. and Comstock, R. E. (1958).
Estimation of genotypic variance and covariance in upland cotton.
Agronomy Journal, 50, 126–131.
Mishra, D. P. and Gautam, N. C. (1989). Correlation and path coefficient analysis
in potato (Solanum tuberosum L.). Progressive Horticulture, 21(3–4), 198–
202.
Mishra, A. C., Singh, N. P. and Ram, H. H. (2002). Genetic divergence among
advanced hybrids and varieties of potato. Journal of the Indian Potato
Association, 29(3/4), 175–176.
Mishra, A. C., Singh, N. P., Kamal, S. and Kumar, V. (2006). Studies on genetic
variability, heritability and genetic advance in potato (Solanum tuberosum
L.). International Journal of Plant Sciences, 1(1), 39–41.
Mishra, S. (2016). Genetic variability and character association for yield and its
attributing traits in potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) [Master’s thesis, College
of Agriculture, Raipur (C.G.)].
Mishra, S., Singh, J. and Sharma, P. K. (2017). Studies on parameters of genetic
variability for yield and its attributing traits in potato (Solanum tuberosum
L.). Biosciences Biotechnology Research Asia, 14(1), 489–495.
Mohammed, W. and Burga, S. (2015). Evaluation of potato (Solanum tuberosum
L.) genotypes for yield and tuber quality-related traits at lowland, Dire
Dawa, Eastern Ethiopia. Journal of Science, Technology and Arts
Research, 4(3), 1–10.
Mondal, M. A. A., Hossain, M. M., Rasul, M. G. and Uddin, M. S. (2007). Genetic
diversity in potato (Solanum tuberosum L.). Bangladesh Journal of Botany,
36(2), 121–125.
Muller, D. R., Bisognin, D. A. andriolo, J. L., Morin Junior, G. R. and Gnocato, F.
S. (2009). Trait expression and selection of potato clones in spring and
autumn growth conditions. Ciencia Rural, 39(5), 1327–1334.
Naitam, R. K., Deshmukt, P., Moharana, P. C., Ramteke, I. K., Singh, R. S. and
Singh, S. K. (2020). Climate change and land suitability for potato
cultivation in India. In Environmental and Agricultural Informatics:

145
 Concepts, Methodologies, Tools and Applications (pp. 1040–1052). IGI
Global.
Nasiruddin, M., Haydar, F. M. A., Islam, A. K. M. R. and Hossain, M. M. (2014).
Study of genetic variability and correlation of potato (Solanum tuberosum
L.) genotypes grown in Bangladesh. Plant Environment Development, 3(2),
9–13.
Ooko and Kabira, J. N. (2011). Suitability of three newly released Kenyan potato
varieties for processing into crisps and French fries. African Journal of
Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development, 11(6), 402–404.
Panigrahi, K. K., Sarkar, K. K., Baisakh, B. and Mohanty, A. (2014). Assessment
of genetic divergence in potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) genotypes for yield
and yield attributing traits. International Journal of Agriculture,
Environment and Biotechnology, 7(2), 247–252.
Patel, P. B., Patel, N. H. and Patel, R. N. (2002). Correlation and path analysis of
some economic characters in potato. Journal of the Indian Potato
Association, 29(3/4), 163–164.
Patel, A. B., Patel, R. N., Gami, R. A., Patel, J. A. and Patel, P. C. (2018). Genetic
variability among the potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) genotypes as affected
by harvesting period for processing purpose and tuber yield. Current
Agriculture Research, 6(3).
Patel, A. B., Patel, R. N., Gami, R. A., Patel, P. C. and Patel, J. A. (2018). Trait
association studies in potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) for processing
purpose under two different harvesting periods. International Journal of
Advanced Biological Research, 8(3), 353–357.
Patil, V., Sundaresha, S., Kawar, P. and Bhardwaj, V. (2016). Biology of Solanum
tuberosum (Potato), Series of Crop-Specific Biology Documents.
Perez Lopez, D., Gonzalez Huerta, J., Mora, A., Rivera Pena, O. F., Sahagun
Castellanos, A., Balbuena Melgarejo, J., Rubi Arriaga, A. and Gutierrez
Rodriguez, F. M. (2010). Genetic variability, phenotypic diversity and
identification of outstanding potato genotypes. Revista Mexicana de
Ciencias Agrícolas, 1(4), 579–592.

146
Pinky, R. and Asha 2014. Potato processing. In: Proceedings of Summer School on
“Current Trends in Quality Potato Production, Processing and Marketing”
CPRI, Shimla held during 8th to 28th July: pp. 258-261.
Pradhan, A. M., Nandeshwar, B. C., Sarkar, K. K. and Konar, A. (2011).
Estimation of genetic parameters and association of traits related to yield in
potato (Solanum tuberosum L.). Journal of Crop and Weed, 7(2), 229–231.
Prajapati, D. R., Patel, R. N. and Gami, R. A. (2020). Study of trait alliance
between tuber yield, its attributes and storage life in potato (Solanum
tuberosum L.). Journal of Crop and Weed, 16(3), 166–172.
Rajani and Singh. (2015). Study of biochemical parameters in potato (Solanum
tuberosum L.) germplasms under Tarai region of Uttarakhand. Asian
Journal of Plant Science and Research, 5(12), 29–35.
Rana, R. K., Arun, P. and Pandey, N. K. (2010). Demand for processed potato
products and processing quality potato tubers in India. Potato Research, 53,
181–197.
Rangare, S. B. and Rangare, N. R. (2013). Genetic variability and character
association in potato (Solanum tuberosum L.). Bioscience Trends, 6(5),
603–607.
Rangare, S. B. and Rangare, N. R. (2017). Classificatory analysis of potato
(Solanum tuberosum L.) genotypes for yield and yield attributing traits.
Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry, 6(8), 94–102.
Regassa, D. and Basavaraja, N. (2005). Correlation and path analysis in potato
(Solanum tuberosum L.). Potato Journal, 32(3–4), 233–256.
Rivera, J. E., Herrera, A. O. and George, L. E. (2011). Assessment of the
processing quality of six genotypes (Solanum tuberosum Phureja Group).
Agronomía Colombiana, 69 (3), 25–31.
Rizvi, S., Mushtaq, F., Hussain, K., Farwah, S., Afroza, B., Hussain, S. M. and
Saleem, S. S. (2020). Correlation analysis for various growth and yield
attributing traits in potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) genotypes. International
Journal of Chemical Studies, 8(3), 1738–1740.
Robinson, H. S. (1966). Quantitative genetics in relation to breeding on the central
theme of Mendelism. Indian Journal of Genetics, 26, 171–187.

147
Roy, A. K. and Singh, P. K. (2006). Genetic variability, heritability and genetic
advance for yield in potato (Solanum tuberosum L.). International Journal
of Plant Sciences, 1(2), 282–285. Sadasivam, S. and Manickam, A. (1992).
Biochemical methods for agricultural sciences (pp. 12–13). New Age
International Publishers.

Santhosh, N. (2010). Evaluation of advanced potato (Solanum tuberosum L.)

hybrids for growth and yield in Southern transitional zone of Karnataka
([Link]. thesis). University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore, Karnataka,
India, 138 pp.
Sandhu, K. S., Marwaha, R. S. and Kumar, P. (2014). Processing attributes of
potato varieties stored at ambient conditions of north-western plains. Potato
Journal, 41(1), 86–90.
Sattar, M. A., Sultana, N., Hossain, M. M., Rashid, M. H. and Islam, I. K. M. A.
(2007). Genetic variability, correlation and path analysis in potato
(Solanum tuberosum L.). Bangladesh Journal of Plant Breeding and
Genetics, 20(1), 33–38.
Sharma, D. (1999). Evaluation of early and mid maturing cultures/hybrids of
potato under Chhattisgarh ([Link]. thesis). Indira Gandhi Krishi
Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India.
Shashikamal. (2006). Variability, character correlations and genetic divergence
studies in potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) (Ph.D. thesis). G. B. Pant
University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, India.
Singh, R. K. and Chaudhary, B. D. (1985). Biometrical methods in quantitative
genetic analysis. Kalyani Publishers, Ludhiana, pp. 40–163.
Singh, S. V., Marwaha, R. S., Kumar, D., Kumar, P. and Pandey, S. K. (2008).
Suitability of potato varieties grown in North-Eastern Indian plains for
processing. Potato Journal, 36(1–2), 25–34.
Singh, G. (2008). Studies on genetic variability, association and divergence in
potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) ([Link]. thesis). Indira Gandhi
KrishiVishwavidyalaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, India, 61 pp.

148
Singh, S. and Kaur, S. K. (2009). Suitability of potato varieties grown in North-
Eastern Indian plains for processing. Potato Journal, 36(1–2), 25–34.
Singh, P., Sharma, P. K., Banjara, N. C., Sahu, N. P. and Sharma, R. (2015).
Variability, heritability, genetic advance, correlation and path analysis
between yield and yield components in potato (Solanum tuberosum L.).
Ecology, Environment and Conservation, 21(2), 1093–1097.
Singha, L. and Ullah, Z. (2020). Genetic variability studies for yield and its
attributing traits in potato (Solanum tuberosum L.). International Journal of
Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences, 9(2), 1974–1983.
Singh, S., Mishra, D. P., Singh, N., Singh, S. and Singh, S. P. (2021). Genetic
variability and association studies for yield and its component traits in
potato (Solanum tuberosum L.). Journal of Pharmacognosy and
Phytochemistry, 10(4), 658–660.
Sivasubramanian, J. and Madhavamenon, P. (1973). Genotypic and phenotypic
variability in rice. Madras Agricultural Journal, 12, 15–16.
Solaiman, A. H. M., Nishizawa, T., Roy, T. S., Rahman, M., Chakraborty, R.,
Choudhury, J., Sarkar, D. M. and Hasanuzzaman, M. (2015). Yield, dry
matter, specific gravity and colour of three Bangladeshi local potato
cultivars as influenced by stage of maturity. Journal of Plant Sciences, 10,
108–115.
Swarup, V. (2012). Vegetable science and technology in India. Kalyani Publishers,
Ludhiana, pp. 310, 541, 604–605.
Tekalign, T. (2009). Genetic variability, correlation and heritability in tetraploid
potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) germplasm. Tropical Agriculture, 86(2),
52–59.
Tessema, L., Mohammed, W. and Abebe, T. (2017). Studies on character
association and path coefficient analysis in potato (Solanum tuberosum L.)
for tuber yield and its attributes. African Journal of Plant Science, [ISSN:
1996-0824].
Tiwari, A., Mishra, A., Saxena, S. and Raghuvanshi, A. P. (2020). Association of
characters and selection parameters for high tuber yield in potato (Solanum
tuberosum L.). Tropical Plant Research, 7(1), 205–208.

149
Tripura, A., DAP, A., DAP, B., Priya, B. and Sarkar, K. K. (2016). Genetic studies
of variability, character association and path analysis of yield and its
component traits in potato (Solanum tuberosum L.). Journal of Crop and
Weed, 12(1), 56–63.
Tuncturk, M. (2005). Selection criteria for potato (Solanum tuberosum L.)
breeding. Asian Journal of Plant Sciences, 4(1), 27–30.
Ummyiah, H. M., Khan, S. H., Wani, K. P., Hussain, K. and Junaif, N. (2010).
Genetic variability in potato (Solanum tuberosum L.). Asian Journal of
Horticulture, 5(1), 61–63.
Ummyiah, H. M., Khan, S. H., Jabeen, N., Junaif, N. and Hussain, K. (2013).
Inter-trait relationship and path analysis in potato. Progressive Horticulture,
45(1), 201–205.
Verma, S. K., Asati, B. S., Tamrakar, S. K., Sarnaik, D. A. and Nanda, H. C.
(2006). Performance of potato genotypes at different maturity under
Chhattisgarh plains. Journal of Agriculture, 11(2), 23–26.
Vijaylaxman, M., Indiresh, K. M. and Siddagangaiah. (2008). Performance of
processing potato hybrids in southern transitional zone of Karnataka. In
Proceedings of Global Potato Conference, New Delhi, India, 24.
Waingeh, N. C., Amadou, N. M., Yunenui, M. P., Nche, N. S., Helene, I., Okolle,
N. J., Venasius, L. W., Precillia, T. N. and Noe, W. (2019). Assessing the
processing attributes of some potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) varieties
grown in the North West Region of Cameroon. Journal of Food Science
and Technology, 4(9), 946–955.
Wright, S. (1921). Correlation and causation. Journal of Agricultural Research, 20,
557–585.
Yerima, I. (2016). The effect of correlation and path coefficient analysis on yield
and six vegetative parameters in Irish potato (Solanum tuberosum L.).
Journal of Global Biosciences, 5(2), 3683–3693.

150
 APPENDICES

Appendix- I Weekly meteorological data during crop growth period of

potato (2024-25).

DATE MAX MIN RF RH I RH WS EP SS (hr)

T (°C) T (°C) (mm) (%) II (%) (kmph) (mm)
20-Nov-24 28.6 13.6 0.0 87 26 2.2 3.8 6.9
21-Nov-24 27.5 12.5 0.0 88 31 2.8 3.2 5.7
22-Nov-24 28.0 13.5 0.0 82 34 1.5 2.4 3.9
23-Nov-24 28.5 12.5 0.0 86 33 1.5 1.9 2.7
24-Nov-24 28.0 12.0 0.0 88 31 1.5 2.8 4.3
25-Nov-24 27.6 11.2 0.0 88 24 1.9 2.4 7.0
26-Nov-24 28.4 11.5 0.0 86 22 3.1 3.4 7.7
27-Nov-24 28.2 11.5 0.0 86 24 2.1 3.3 7.2
28-Nov-24 27.6 10.5 0.0 88 31 2.9 3.7 5.6
29-Nov-24 26.6 14.5 0.0 78 41 5.4 3.0 3.0
30-Nov-24 28.5 17.2 0.0 75 61 5.4 2.3 6.3
01-Dec-24 25.0 19.5 0.0 87 91 6.9 2.0 0.0
02-Dec-24 22.0 20.2 2.6 94 71 6.0 0.6 0.0
03-Dec-24 26.0 20.5 0.0 87 54 6.8 2.0 0.3
04-Dec-24 29.0 20.4 0.0 86 46 3.6 2.6 2.8
05-Dec-24 31.0 18.2 0.0 77 35 2.8 3.0 6.9
06-Dec-24 32.5 17.5 0.0 86 36 1.7 3.7 5.7
07-Dec-24 32.5 20.2 0.0 68 43 4.3 2.7 5.1
08-Dec-24 27.5 18.0 0.0 79 53 3.0 2.7 0.0
09-Dec-24 30.0 18.8 0.0 94 56 1.8 1.7 1.8
10-Dec-24 30.0 13.2 0.0 77 29 4.4 3.5 1.5
11-Dec-24 27.5 10.2 0.0 85 28 2.9 3.4 6.3
12-Dec-24 28.0 9.5 0.0 90 30 2.4 2.3 7.0
13-Dec-24 28.8 9.5 0.0 87 28 2.0 2.4 6.6
14-Dec-24 27.0 10.5 0.0 88 31 2.9 3.8 6.5
15-Dec-24 26.6 7.0 0.0 89 23 2.4 2.4 8.3
16-Dec-24 26.0 7.4 0.0 91 20 2.3 2.8 8.2
17-Dec-24 27.0 7.5 0.0 84 24 1.7 3.2 7.5
18-Dec-24 28.0 8.6 0.0 92 26 1.3 2.9 7.2
19-Dec-24 27.5 9.4 0.0 78 53 1.8 2.4 6.9
20-Dec-24 28.5 17.5 0.0 86 52 3.1 2.0 4.1
21-Dec-24 30.5 18.5 0.0 91 62 3.9 3.4 4.4
22-Dec-24 26.5 17.5 0.0 90 49 3.4 2.0 1.7
23-Dec-24 27.5 15.5 0.0 94 28 3.8 3.3 3.6
24-Dec-24 29.0 15.5 0.0 78 38 3.2 2.7 7.3
25-Dec-24 28.0 18.0 0.0 90 52 4.3 2.2 1.4
26-Dec-24 26.2 17.0 0.0 94 55 4.3 2.0 0.5
27-Dec-24 28.2 17.5 0.0 86 49 2.4 2.5 2.8
28-Dec-24 31.0 18.5 0.0 81 55 3.3 2.6 7.1

151
29-Dec-24 31.0 18.0 0.0 88 56 4.8 2.7 3.2
30-Dec-24 27.6 17.0 0.0 90 47 2.2 2.5 3.8
31-Dec-24 29.4 15.0 0.0 73 41 2.6 2.6 4.3
01-Jan-25 28.5 10.5 0.0 80 27 2.9 4.0 8.1
02-Jan-25 26.6 8.5 0.0 92 22 2.1 2.5 8.5
03-Jan-25 29.0 9.0 0.0 87 21 1.5 2.8 8.1
04-Jan-25 30.0 9.0 0.0 86 17 1.4 3.6 8.8
05-Jan-25 28.5 8.8 0.0 89 24 2.0 4.0 8.6
06-Jan-25 28.6 11.0 0.0 90 30 1.5 3.1 7.9
07-Jan-25 29.2 12.5 0.0 91 34 1.2 2.5 3.9
08-Jan-25 28.2 9.0 0.0 86 24 3.8 4.6 2.4
09-Jan-25 26.6 8.0 0.0 89 23 1.7 1.8 5.9
10-Jan-25 28.5 7.8 0.0 89 25 1.6 4.1 8.6
11-Jan-25 28.5 9.0 0.0 87 30 1.8 2.6 7.9
12-Jan-25 28.0 12.5 0.0 80 35 1.8 4.4 7.6
13-Jan-25 28.6 14.8 0.0 83 43 2.0 2.0 2.9
14-Jan-25 26.5 14.0 0.0 84 45 3.4 2.4 0.0
15-Jan-25 26.6 13.5 0.0 87 32 2.5 3.0 0.0
16-Jan-25 28.5 14.5 0.0 83 30 2.1 2.2 0.0
17-Jan-25 29.5 14.5 0.0 57 21 4.1 3.2 3.1
18-Jan-25 27.6 12.5 0.0 81 26 5.0 5.0 4.9
19-Jan-25 28.0 10.5 0.0 88 26 2.8 3.5 5.7
20-Jan-25 30.5 9.0 0.0 87 24 1.8 3.5 7.0
21-Jan-25 30.2 10.6 0.0 86 32 1.8 3.6 7.7
22-Jan-25 31.0 11.4 0.0 88 28 2.0 3.2 7.3
23-Jan-25 32.2 13.0 0.0 82 26 1.4 5.0 6.4
24-Jan-25 34.0 14.8 0.0 89 33 1.5 4.0 8.5
25-Jan-25 32.5 14.0 0.0 89 37 1.4 2.6 3.4
26-Jan-25 32.0 14.0 0.0 84 42 1.7 2.6 4.8
27-Jan-25 29.5 12.5 0.0 82 27 2.1 4.0 6.8
28-Jan-25 30.5 11.5 0.0 84 26 2.3 3.7 8.6
29-Jan-25 31.0 13.4 0.0 82 39 2.0 3.8 7.5
30-Jan-25 31.5 17.0 0.0 88 41 1.2 2.6 3.2
31-Jan-25 32.8 18.8 0.0 90 43 4.4 3.8 1.1
01-Feb-25 32.6 18.0 0.0 86 34 2.3 3.3 0.0
02-Feb-25 34.2 17.8 0.0 90 33 2.0 3.6 2.1

03-Feb-25 34.4 18.2 0.0 84 33 2.6 3.2 3.6

04-Feb-25 35.0 18.5 0.0 84 34 1.5 3.6 1.6
05-Feb-25 35.5 17.5 0.0 81 27 1.8 3.7 2.5
06-Feb-25 36.0 21.0 0.0 65 32 3.6 4.4 3.1

07-Feb-25 31.0 15.0 0.0 68 20 4.7 4.7 0.0

08-Feb-25 29.6 16.0 0.0 68 21 2.4 5.0 0.5
09-Feb-25 31.0 11.0 0.0 77 15 2.3 5.0 2.7
10-Feb-25 33.5 13.0 0.0 78 23 1.4 4.0 8.5
11-Feb-25 34.5 17.5 0.0 75 41 1.9 4.0 4.6
12-Feb-25 34.0 19.5 0.0 80 28 3.4 4.1 0.0

152
13-Feb-25 33.6 14.8 0.0 73 25 5.1 5.6 0.9
14-Feb-25 31.0 11.6 0.0 71 16 3.7 5.4 7.9
15-Feb-25 31.0 13.0 0.0 74 18 1.7 4.6 10.1
16-Feb-25 32.0 13.5 0.0 76 21 1.8 4.7 10.1
17-Feb-25 34.6 14.8 0.0 76 23 2.6 5.1 10.0
18-Feb-25 34.2 16.5 0.0 73 28 2.4 4.8 9.4
19-Feb-25 33.6 18.2 0.0 79 29 2.4 4.4 8.1
20-Feb-25 34.8 19.5 0.0 78 30 2 3.9 6.6
21-Feb-25 34.2 19.2 0.0 85 31 3.4 5.0 8.2
22-Feb-25 33.6 16.0 0.0 81 21 2.6 3.9 8.5
23-Feb-25 33.8 17.2 0.0 67 20 3.8 5.6 9.6
24-Feb-25 31.6 15.0 0.0 59 20 4.2 5.2 10
25-Feb-25 33.0 16.2 0.0 71 23 3.2 6.0 9.3
26-Feb-25 34.2 15.2 0.0 77 24 2.9 5.1 8.8
27-Feb-25 32.6 14.0 0.0 76 20 2.6 5.7 10.2
28-Feb-25 34.0 15.0 0.0 79 20 3.0 6.0 9.7
01-Mar-25 36.6 17.0 0.0 82 31 1.7 4.9 8.7
02-Mar-25 36.2 18.8 0.0 81 32 3.6 4.8 8.6
03-Mar-25 36.5 19.0 0.0 77 19 4.2 5.8 6.6
04-Mar-25 36.5 17.0 0.0 70 19 3.0 8.0 8.5
05-Mar-25 37.0 20.5 0.0 48 16 4.1 6.0 8.9
06-Mar-25 32.6 12.5 0.0 53 12 6.3 7.2 9.1

153
 RESUME

Name : Yamini Pritam

Date of birth : 02/10/1999
Present Address : Kadambari Girls` hostel, IGKV, Raipur (C.G.) Pin-
492012
Phone no. : 7856033954
E. mail : Kashyapprity888@[Link]
Permanent : Village- Mujaulia, Ward no. – 07, Post- Bathuara, PS-
address Bela, Block- Parihar, District – Sitamarhi, State- Bihar,
Pin- 843324

Academic Qualification:
Degree Year University/ Institute
Higher Secondary 2016 BSEB (S. L. S. S. school),
Sitamarhi, Bihar
[Link]. (Horti.) 2023 RPCAU, Pusa, Samastipur,
Bihar
[Link]. (Horti) Coursework completed, IGKV, Raipur,
Vegetable Science Thesis is being submitted Chhattisgarh
for the partial fulfilment of
the degree

Professional Experience (If any) RHWE (Rural Horticulture Work

Experience)
Soft skills Team work, Leadership quality,
Communication, Time management
Membership of Professional Society No
(If any)
Awards / Recoginitions (If any) No
Publication (If any) In numbers only 1

Signature

154