Path analysis of yield and quality determinations in Thompson Seedless grape (Vitis vinefera) and its clones

S D SHIKHAMANY; SWAPNIL V BORADE; SANJAY K JEUGHALE; SURYAKANT Y PATIL

doi:10.56093/ijas.v88i6.80543

Authors

S D SHIKHAMANY Chairman,Â Research Advisory Committee, MRDBS, Pune
SWAPNIL V BORADE Maharashtra State Grape Growers Association, Manjri Farm Post, Pune 411 032
SANJAY K JEUGHALE Maharashtra State Grape Growers Association, Manjri Farm Post, Pune 411 032
SURYAKANT Y PATIL Maharashtra State Grape Growers Association, Manjri Farm Post, Pune 411 032

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v88i6.80543

Keywords:

Grape, Path analysis, Quality, Yield

Abstract

Attempts were made to delineate the correlation coefficients of the vine, cluster and berry parameters with yield and quality in to direct and indirect effects in Thompson Seedless grape (Vitis vinifera L.) and its clones, namely Tas-A-Ganesh and 2A clone by Path Coefficient Analysis. Yield was influenced most, directly by cluster weight in Thompson Seedless, while by canes/vine in Tas-A-Ganesh; indirectly by berry diameter via cluster weight in the former variety, while by canes/vine via berries/cluster in the latter. When the negative effects on yield were considered, the direct effect of berries/cluster was highest in Thompson Seedless, while it was of berries/cluster in Tas-A-Ganesh. Among the indirect negative effects, cluster weight through berry diameter was highest in Thompson seedless, but berries/cluster through canes/vine in Tas-A-Ganesh. All the parameters included in the study could determine the yield in 2A clone by only 1.0 per cent, as the residual effect was 0.99. The corresponding residual values were 0.506 for Thompson Seedless and 0.516 for Tas-A- Ganesh.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Akintude A N. 2012. Path Analysis step by step using Excel. Journal of Technical Science and Technologies 1 (1): 9-15.

Bhatt G M. 1973. Significance of path coefficient analysis in determining the nature of character association. Euphytica 22: 338–43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00022643

Chadha K L and Shikhamany S D. 1999. The Grape- Improvement, Production and Post Harvest Management (ISBN: 81-85048-40- 1). Malhotra Publishing House, New Delhi, India, pp. 338–370.

Coombe B G. 1992. Research on development and ripening of the grape berry. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 43: 101–10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5344/ajev.1992.43.1.101

Shikhamany S D. 1983. Effect of time and different doses of N and K on growth, yield and quality of Thompson Seedless grapes (Vitis vinifera L.). Ph.D thesis. University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore, India.

Shikhamany S D, Iyer C P A, Ramachnader P R and Srinivasan V R. 1978. Studies on the relationship of certain growth attributes with fruit yield in guava (Psidium guajava L.) – II. Path coefficient analysis. Vatika 1: 26–30.

Shikhamany S D, Jeughale S K, Khapre K N and Venugopalan R. 2015. Variation in relationship between yield and yield attributes in ‘Thompson Seedless’ grape and its clones. Journal of Horticultural Sciences 10(1): 8–12.

Singh N B, Singh H G, Singh P and Singh S P. 1975. Path analysis for yield components in grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolour Moench). Science and Culture 42: 524–25.

Winkler A J. 1932. Maturity test for table grapes. California Agricultural Experimental Station Bulluletin 529: 1–35.