Volume 8, Issue 6, June 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology

ISSN No:-2456-2165

Phenotypic Diversity for Agronomic and Yield

Characters among Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.)
Genotypes in Mambila Plateau, Taraba State, Nigeria
*
Zanzam, M.S and Jandong, A.E
Department of Agronomy, Taraba State University, Jalingo

Abstract:- Twelve potato genotypes comprising of commodity in the world(FAO, 2013). The crop is grown in
improved and local varieties were evaluated for genetic cool- temperate regions and at higher attitudes in the tropics
potentials in agronomic, yield and internal qualities in (Wagner et al., 2014).Bradshaw et al. (2010), reported that
Nguroje area of the Mambila Plateau, Taraba State, providing food, preservation and eradication of poverty are
during the rainy season of 2022. The experiment was the most important cause of potato distribution in the world.
arranged in a Randomized Complete Block Design, The production of potato in Africa and Asia has rapidly
which was replicated three times. Results of analysis of overtaken all other food crops since early 1960s (Haan and
variance showed significant difference among the Rodriguez, 2016), which account for more than half of
genotypes for all the traits except specific gravity, global potato production (Devauxet al., 2014).The crop is an
indicating the existence of significant variation within excellent low fat source of carbohydrates, rich in vitamin
the genotypes. Phenotypic coefficient of variation was and minerals such as vitamin C and B, Calcium ad
generally higher than their corresponding genotypic Phosphorus (Panigrahiet al., 2017; Puttongsiriet al., 2012).
coefficient of variation revealing the influence of Sahair et al. (2018) reported that potato contains large
environment on expression of the characters. Higher amount of vitamins present in form of beta-carotene,
phenotypic and genotypic coefficient of variation were vitamin C, A, B1, B2, B6, and Folic acid.Ahmed et al.
recorded for starch content (44.30, 41.55), number of (2015), observed that tuber of potatoes act as anti- ulcer,
leaves per plant (35.34, 31.09), and leaf length (34.44, anti-gout, anti-arthritic, anti-inflammatory, anti- scurvy,
26.44). High broad sense heritability and genetic advance diuretic, and are known to combat prostate and breast cancer
as a percent of mean were observed forDays to first in human due to their higher antioxidant content (Kumari et
flower (98%, 28.87 %), weight of tuber per plot (88%, al., 2018).
39.60%), yield of tuber per hectare (88%, 39.56%),
starch content (83%, 75.76%), and number of leaves per Variability for a given crop character is a basic
plant (77%, 56.06%).Tuber yield per hectare was prerequisite for its improvement (Engidaet al.,
significantly and positively correlated to number of 2007;Meenakshi et al., 2017; Panigrahi et al., 2017; Patel
branches per plant (0.42**), leaf width (0.36*), weight of et al., 2018a).Sestraet al. (2007) and Janakiet al. (2015),
tubers per plant (0.88**), and weight of tubers per plot revealed that variability in the available cultivars may be
(0.99**). The first four principal components accounted due to differences in genetic constitution of the cultivars or
for 87.64 % of the total variation, of which the 1 st in the environment in which they grow. Singha and Ullah
component explained 43.1 %, the 2nd, 3rd and the 4th (2020), highlighted that phenotypic and genotypic
component constituted 21.1 %, 15.6 %, and 7.8 % coefficient of variation are useful tools in identifying the
respectively. Result of cluster analysis revealed that the amount of variability present in a population. Hajamet al.
varieties were grouped into 3 main clusters.Genotypes (2018), reported that genotypic coefficient of variation does
falling in cluster 1 and 3 showed highest mean values for not offer full scope to estimate the variation that are
yield and internal quality traits, while genotype in heritable and hence, estimation of heritability becomes
cluster 2 recorded highest for growth characters. The necessary.Mondal (2003), alsoasserted that heritability
diversity exhibited among the genotypes signifies its estimates with genetic advance in percent could give more
potential for effective breeding. useful picture of expected yield under phenotypic selection
than heritability alone.The knowledge of correlations among
Keywords:- Potato, Tuber, Yield, Genotypes, Phenotypic the traits is important (Bhatia, 2004), and would provide
coefficient of variation, genotypic coefficient of variation estimates on degree of association between tuber yield and
its various components (Patel et al., 2018b).Lohanietal.
I. INTRODUCTION (2012) pointed out that grouping of genotypes in cluster
reflects the relative divergence of cluster and permits a
Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.), originated in the high convenient selection of genotypes with their overall
plains of the Andes Cordillera, Peru, where it is largely phenotypic similarity for hybridization programme.
cultivated for food (Rolot, 2001). It is the world’s fourth
most important food crop and among the five crops that feed Inadequate information on the genetic potential of
the world, others being wheat, corn, sorghum and rice potatoes for development of new variety necessitates
(Acquaah, 2012; FAO, 2014;Zaheer and Akhtar, 2016). undertaking the evaluation of phenotypic diversity present
Haverkortet al. (2009), reported that potato is the third most among some potato varieties grown in the area.
important food security crop, and the leading non-grain food

IJISRT23JUN2165 www.ijisrt.com 2634

Volume 8, Issue 6, June 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
II. MATERIALS AND METHODS the year, and it receives over 1,850 mm of rainfall annually
(Ardo and Abubakar, 2016).
A. Planting material
The planting material used for the study were twelve C. Experimental design and Field management
genotypes of potato, of which five cultivars were sourced The experiment was laid out in a Randomized Complete
from farmers on the Mambilla Plateau, Taraba State, six Block Design (RCBD) with three replications ona gross plot
germplasms were collected from National Root Crop size of 12m2 (3m x 4m).Distance of 1 m between replicates
Research Institute (NRCRI) Potato Research Sub-station, and 0.5m between plots was maintained, each replicate
Vom, Jos, Plateau State and one variety from afarmer in consisted of twelve plots and the experimental block
Bokkos area of Plateau State (Table 1). consists of thirty six plots.The seed tubers were plantedat
the spacing of 70 cm between rows and 30 cm within rows,
B. Study site and at the depths of 5 cm. the plants were earthed up and
The study was conducted on the Mambilla Plateau weed control was done manually when necessary.
(Nguroje) during the 2022 cropping season at the farmers’
field. The Mambila Plateau is located in the South Eastern D. Data Collection
part of Taraba state, Nigeria. It has an average elevation of Data were collected on both agronomic and yield
1,524 m (5,000 ft.) above sea level and is in the northern parameters: percentage emergence, days to first flower,
fringes of the Bamenda Highlands of Southern Cameroon. It plant height, number of branches per plant, leaf length, leaf
is located at latitude 7°20’N and longitude 11°43’E. It width, number of leaves per plant, number of tubers per
harbors the Chappal Waddi Mountains, which is considered plant, marketable tuber size, weight of tubers per plant,
the highest point in Nigeria, with an average height of about number of tubers per plot, weight of tubers per plot, yield of
2,419 m (7,936 ft.) above sea level. The area enjoys low tubers per hectare, tuber dry matter content, specific gravity
temperatures ranging between 12 to 25°C in most parts of and the starch content. Ten plants were selected from each
plots, tagged and used for data collection.

Table 1: Genotypes used and area of collection

S/N Genotypes Areas of collection
1 Superior Nguroje, Mambilla, Plateau, Taraba State
2 Bawon doya Bokkos, Jos, Plateau
3 Red Irish Nguroje, Mambilla, Plateau, Taraba State
4 Yellow Cece Nguroje, Mambilla, Plateau, Taraba State
5 Yellow leaf Nicola NRCRI, Vom, Plateau , State
6 Cameroun variety Nguroje, Mambilla, Plateau, Taraba State
7 Green leaf Nicola NRCRI, Vom, Plateau , State
8 Marabel NRCRI, Vom, Plateau , State
9 Bertita NRCRI, Vom, Plateau , State
10 Madam Nguroje, Mambilla, Plateau, Taraba State
11 Caruso NRCRI, Vom, Plateau , State
12 Lady Christly NRCRI, Vom, Plateau , State

E. Statistical Analysis
Data collected were subjected to the analysis of variance δ2p
(ANOVA) using the SAS statistical analysis package (SAS Phenotypic coefficient of variation (PCV) =
Institute Inc. 2009, USA). Means were separated using
X
Duncan’s multiple range test (DMRT) at 5% level of ×100
probability (Duncan, 1955). Components of variance were
estimated from the expected mean squares and broad sense δ2g
heritability were computed using themethod described by Genotypic coefficient of variation (GCV) =
Singh and Chaudhary (1985). X
Mg  Me ×100
² g 
r ² g = genotypic variance, ²p = phenotypic variance,
x = grand mean
²e = Me
²p = ²g+²e δ² g
² g = genotypic variance, ²p = phenotypic variance, H
δ² p
²e = error variance, Me = mean square error, Mg =
mean square genotype,
r = replication. ² g = genotypic variance, ²p = phenotypic variance

IJISRT23JUN2165 www.ijisrt.com 2635

Volume 8, Issue 6, June 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
Genetic advance and Genetic Advance as percent al. (2022), where they observed higher phenotypic variance
mean were calculated using the method of Johnson et al., compared to their genotypic and environmental variance in
(1955) potato. Similarly, the estimates of phenotypic coefficient of
variation (PCV) were higher in magnitude than the
Genetic Advance (GA) = H× K×δ2p genotypic coefficient of variation (GCV) in all the
characters. The differences between the two are relatively
GA low for most of the characters, suggesting less influence of
Genetic Advance as percent of mean (GAM) = the environment on the expression of those
X characters.Rangare and Rangare, (2013), Asefaet al. (2016),
×100 Nasiruddin et al. (2017), Hajamet al. (2018) and Anoumaa
et al. (2023) previously reported similar results on potato.
H = Broad sense Heritability, K = Selection
differential at 5%, δ2p= Phenotypic standard deviation, GA= Higher PCV and GCV values (Table 3) were observed
Genetic advance, x = grand mean. Multivariate analysis for starch content (44.30, 41.55), number of leaves per plant
comprising of Principal component analysis (PCA) and (35.34,31.09), leaf length (34.44,26.44), leaf width (25.35,
cluster analysis were performed to classify the level of 22.46), number of branch per plant (22.71, 20.71), weight of
closeness and similarity among the genotypes using R tubers per plot (21.85, 20.53), tuber yield per hectare (21.83,
software version 4.1.3. 20.50), and weight of tubers per plant (21.37, 20.38).
Conversely, moderate to low PCV and GCV were notedfor
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION plant height (19.72, 17.21), number of tubers per plant
(16.32, 13.49), tuber dry matter (15.29, 12.69), days to first
The analysis of variance revealed the presence of
flower (14.30,14.22 ), specific gravity (13.47, 7.38),
significant variation in almost all the characters studied,
marketable tubers (9.84, 2.15), percentage emergence (8.30,
indicating the existence of variability among the potato
5.83), and number of tubers per plot (7.63, 5.55). The
genotypes. The genotypes differed significantly (p≤ 0.05)
findings in this study on PCV and GCV was consistent with
for percentage emergence, leaf length and highly significant
the results of Mishraet al. (2017) and Tessema et al. (2022)
(p≤ 0.01) for days to first flower, plant height, number of
on potato. In addition, Anoumaa et al. (2023) reported low
branches, leaf width, number of leaves per plant, number of
PCV and GCV for dry matter content and percentage
tubers per plant, number of tubers per plot, weight of tubers
marketable tubers and further suggested that low coefficient
per plant, weight of tubers per plot, tuber yield and starch
content, while non-significant was obtained for specific of variation obtained indicated pronounced effect of
environment on the expression of these characters.
gravity (Table 2).This observations were similar to those of
Bekele and Haile (2019), who also reported highly Days to first flower (98%), weight of tubers per plant
significant difference (p≤0.01) among all the genotypes of (90%), weight of tubers per plot (88%), yield of tuber
potato tested except plant height which recorded non- (88%), starch content (83%), number of branches (83%),
significant. Manamnoet al. (2021), also observed highly leaf width (78%), number of leaves (77%), and plant height
significant difference (p≤0.01) for all traits of potato (76%) recorded higher broad sense heritability, while lower
computed except proportion of medium tuber size and heritability was recorded for percentage emergence (49%),
specific gravity.Replication effects were non-significant for specific gravity (30%), and percentage marketable tubers
all the characters except for weight of tubers per plot (p≤ (3%) respectively (Table 3). High broad sense heritability
0.05), implying less influence of replication on the values observedindicated that these characters are more
expression of the characters. However, Nasiruddin et al. genetically influenced,therefore, selection of these traits will
(2017), reported non-significant effects for all replication be effective for potato improvement. This is in agreement
items, when working on potato. with previous reports ofOzturk and Yildrim (2014),
In this study, wide ranges were obtained for all the Maharanaet al.(2017), Mishra et al. (2017), Hajamet al.
characters tested (Table 3), suggesting the presence of (2018), and Manamnoet al (2021).
variability among the genotypes. Moderate coefficient of High genetic advance as percent of mean (Table 3)
variability (CV)(Table 3) values were observed for most of were obtained for days to first flower (28.87 %), plant
the characters, where, leaf length recorded the highest CV of height (30.87 %), number of branches (38.89 %), leaf length
22.03%, while the lowest CV was obtained for days to first (40.99 %), leaf width (40.57%), number of leaves per plant
flower with 1.48%. The low to moderate CV exhibited by (56.06%), number of tuber per plant (44.84%), weight of
most of the characters signifies high precision for the tubers per plant (37.65%), weight of tubers per plot
experiment. (39.60%), tuber yield per hectare (39.56%), tuber dry matter
(21.44%) and starch content (75.76%). Higher genetic
Phenotypic variance (²g)and genotypic variances (²p)
advance as a percent of mean in majority of traits tested
were generally higher than their corresponding
have been previouslyreported by Nasiruddin et al. (2017),
environmental variance for all characters except for
Patel et al. (2018a), Singha and Ullah (2020), and Anoumaa
percentage emergence where the environmental variance
et al. (2023). Consequently,Days to first flower (98%,
recorded a little higher value (30.75) than the genotypic
28.87 %), weight of tuber per plot (88%, 39.60%), yield of
variance (29.95),indicating influence of the environmental
tuber per hectare (88%, 39.56%), starch content (83%,
factors on the expression of this character. This observation
75.76%), and number of leaves per plant (77%, 56.06%)
is in line with the work of Asefaet al. (2016) and Tessema et

IJISRT23JUN2165 www.ijisrt.com 2636

 Volume 8, Issue 6, June 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
recorded high heritability and high genetic advance as positively correlated to number of leaves per plant (0.61**).
percent of mean, hence, this indicates greater influence of Highly significant and positive interrelationship existed
genetic factors than the environmental factors on the between weight of tubers per plant with weight of tubers per
phenotypic appearance of the characters. plot (0.88**). Nevertheless, significant and negative
correlations were observed between plant height (-0.43**),
Number of branches per plant, leaf width, number of number of branches (-0.35*), leaf length (-0.34*), leaf width
leaves per plant, weight of tubers per plant, weight of tuber (-0.47**), number of leaves (-0.56**), weight of tuber per
per plot, tuber yield, andstarch content exhibited higher plant (-0.58**), weight of tuber per plot (-0.37*), and yield
phenotypic and genotypic coefficient of variation, with high per hectare (-0.38*) with days to first flower were obtained.
broad sense heritability coupled with high genetic advance Significant and positive correlations of some of the traits
as percent of mean indicating that these characters are most with tuber yield indicates those traits are governed under
likely governed by additive gene effects and selection for additive gene andselection of these characters for tuber yield
improved may be highly rewarding. improvement will be effective.Patel et al. (2018b) reported
significant and positive association between total tuber yield
Correlations (Table 4) among the traits showed the with number of stems per plant and average weight of tubers
present of significant and positive correlation forsome of the per plant. However, the current results on correlations were
characters. Tuber yield per hectare was significantly and contrary to those of Tripura et al. (2016), who observed
positively correlated to number of branches per plant significant and positive relationship between total yield and
(0.42**), leaf width (0.36*), weight of tubers per plant number of tubers per plant. Panigrahi et al. (2017), also
(0.88**), and weight of tubers per plot (0.99**)Number of reported significant and positive correlation between total
branches per plant was significantly and positive correlated yield per hectare and marketable tuber yield at both early
with leaf width (0.75**), number of tubers per plant (0.34*), and late harvest.
weight of tuber per plant (0.44**), weight of tuber per plot
(0.43**). Similarly, leaf length was significantly and

Table 2: Mean squares measured for sixteen characters studied

Source of DF PE DFF PH NB LL LW NL NTP TS WTP NTPL WTPP TY TDM SG SC
variation
Replication 2 22.4 2.23 1.74 0.07 0.15 0.08 1707.0 1.45 12.69 0.003 822.86 79.24* 52.56 1.44 0.01 6.56
Genotypes 11 120.6* 224.8** 106.78** 3.009** 2.06* 1.622** 23757.9** 9.12** 54.20** 0.090** 3020.08** 168.51** 116.12** 21.021** 0.026NS 185.77**
Error 22 30.75 0.811 10.03 0.193 0.39 0.144 2106.1 1.22 47.10 0.003 691.21 7.144 4.96 2.757 0.0087 8.101
*= Significant, ** = Highly significant at 0.05 and 0.01 level of probability,PE=Plant emergence, DFF = Days to 1 st flower, PH =
Plant height, NB = Number of branches per plant, LL = Leaf length, LW= Leaf width, NL = Number of leaves per plant, NTP =
Number of tubers per plant, TS= Marketable tuber size, WTP = Weight of the tubers per plant, NTPP =Number of tubers per plot,
WTPPL= Weight of tubers per plot, TY = Tuber yield per hectare, TDM = Tuber dry matter content, SP= Specific gravity, SC =
Starch content.

Table 3: Means and their standard error, range, coefficient of variability, heritability and genetic advance as a percent of mean
Charac Mean ± SE Range CV Environ Genotypi Phenotypi Genotypic Phenotypic Heritabili Genetic Genetic
ters Min - max % mental c c Coefficient Coefficient ty Advance advance
variance variance variance variation variation (%) as %
mean
PE 93.86± 5.55 65.00 - 100.00 5.91 30.75 29.95 60.70 5.83 8.30 49 7.86 8.37
DFF 60.75±0.90 50.00 - 77.00 1.48 0.81 74.66 75.47 14.22 14.30 98 17.54 28.87
PH 32.98±3.17 17.60 - 46.20 9.72 10.03 32.25 42.28 17.21 19.72 76 10.18 30.87
NB 4.68±0.44 2.70 - 6.90 9.35 0.19 0.94 1.13 20.71 22.71 83 1.82 38.89
LL 2..83±0.62 1.40 - 6.40 22.03 0.39 0.56 0.95 26.44 34.44 58 1.16 40.99
LW 3.18±0.38 1.70 - 4.60 11.94 0.14 0.51 0.65 22.46 25.35 78 1.29 40.57
NL 273.22±45.89 120.00 -580.00 16.87 2106.10 7217.26 9323.36 31.09 35.34 77 153.16 56.06
NTP 12.02±1.11 8.20 - 16.90 9.12 1.22 2.63 3.85 13.49 16.32 68 5.39 44.84
TS 71.50±6..86 60.00 - 82.00 9.60 47.10 2.36 49.46 2.15 9.84 5 0.72 1.01
WTP 0.85±0.06 0.55 - 1.28 7.09 0.003 0.03 0.033 20.38 21.37 90 0.32 37.65
NTPL 501.79±26.29 401.60 - 573.40 5.21 691.21 776.29 1467.50 5.55 7.63 52 41.03 8.18
WTPPL 35.73±2.67 20.10 - 49.70 7.55 7.14 53.79 60.93 20.53 21.85 88 14.15 39.60
TY 29.69±2.22 16.80 - 41.40 7.58 4.96 37.05 42.01 20.50 21.83 88 11.75 39.58
TDM 19.45±1.66 14.02 - 26.10 8.54 2.76 6.09 8.85 12.69 15.29 68 4.17 21.44
SG 1.05±0.09 0.70 - 1.27 8.85 0.009 0.006 0.02 7.38 13.47 30 0.08 7.62
SC 18.52±2.85 6.60 - 47.10 15.35 8.10 59.22 67.32 41.55 44.30 83 14.03 75.76
PE=Plant emergence, DFF = Days to 1st flower, PH = Plant height, NB = Number of branches per plant, LL = Leaf length, LW=
Leaf width, NL = Number of leaves per plant, NTP = Number of tubers per plant, TS= Marketable tuber size, WTP = Weight of
the tubers per plant, NTPP =Number of tubers per plot, WTPPL= Weight of tubers per plot, TY = Tuber yield per hectare, TDM =
Tuber dry matter content, SP= Specific gravity, SC = Starch content.

IJISRT23JUN2165 www.ijisrt.com 2637

 Volume 8, Issue 6, June 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
Table 4: Simple Correlation Coefficients for growth, yield and quality traits in potato genotypes
PE DFF PH NB LL LW NL NTP TS WTP NTPL WTPP TY TDM SG SC
L
PE 1
DFF -0.09 1
PH 0.23 -0.43** 1
NB -0.17 -0.35* -0.34* 1
LL 0.03 -0.34* 0.06 0.27 1
LW -0.01 -0.47** -0.19 0.75** 0.24 1
NL 0.02 -0.56** 0.15 0.23 0.61** 0.21 1
NTP 0.21 0.24 -0.39 0.34* 0.15 0.14 -0.09 1
PMT 0.17 -0.25 0.14 0.24 0.13 0.18 0.26 0.19 1
WTP 0.12 -0.58** 0.18 0.44** 0.003 0.37* 0.11 -0.26 0.31 1
NTPL 0.37* 0.30 -0.30 0.16 -0.17 0.17 -0.004** 0.58** 0.01 -0.15 1
WTPPL 0.08 -0.37* 0.09 0.43** -0.18 0.35* -0.03 -0.26 0.28 0.88** -0.003 1
TY 0.07 -0.38* 0.09 0.42** -0.17 0.36* -0.03 -0..23 0.29 0.88** -0.007 0.99** 1
TDM 0.02 0.26 -0.19 0.08 -0.08 -0.08 -0.05 0.16 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.13 -0.12 1
SG -0.12 -0.19 0.03 0.11 0.09 0.02 0.23 -0.08 -0.12 -0.08 -0.06 -0.13 -0.13 -0.14 1
SC 0.21 -0.12 -0.05 0.27 0.0002 0.09 0.08 0.49** 0.23 0.25 0.29 0.12 0.13 -0.09 0.01 1
*= Significant at 0.05, ** = highly significant at 0.01 level of probability, PE=Plant emergence, DFF = Days to 1st flower, PH = Plant
height, NB = Number of branches per plant, LL = Leaf length, LW= Leaf width, NL = Number of leaves per plant, NTP = Number of
tubers per plant, TS= Marketable tuber size, WTP = Weight of the tubers per plant, NTPP =Number of tubers per plot, WTPPL=
Weight of tubers per plot, TY = Tuber yield per hectare, TDM = Tuber dry matter content, SP= Specific gravity, SC = Starch content.

Table 5: Eigen values and the cumulative variability of the principal components
Characters PC1 PC2 PC3 PC4
Eigen value 7.82 3.83 2.84 1.42
Prop. Var. 0.43 0.21 0.16 0.08
Com. Var. (%) 43.09 64.21 79.84 87.64
Table 6: Eigen vectors of the first four principal components
Characters PC1 PC2 PC3 PC4
Plant emergence 0.002 -0.300 -0.626 0.245
Days to 1st flower -0.012 0.197 -0.087 -0.016
Plant height -0.044 0.169 0.216 0.171
Number of branches per plant 0.006 0.367 0.286 -0.248
Leaf length 0.013 0.134 -0.074 -0.319
Leaf width 0.007 0.163 -0.222 -0.297
Number of leaves per plant 0.967 -0.067 0.028 -0.048
Number of tubers per plant 0.016 0.469 0.001 0.246
Marketable tuber size 0.003 0.321 0.092 0.304
Weight of the tubers per plant -0.002 -0.316 -0.401 0.422
Number of tubers per plot 0.207 0.104 0.039 0.177
Weight of tubers per plot -0.102 -0.285 0.208 -0.294
Tuber yield per hectare -0.085 -0.077 -0.134 -0.019
Tuber dry matter content -0.017 -0.308 0.504 -0.056
Specific gravity 0.000 0.181 -0.463 -0.086
Starch content -0.026 0.096 0.319 0.440

The total variation was divided in 16 principal first five principal components account for 88.20 % of the
components, and the first four principal components with variance on 24 genotypes of potato.
Eigen values > 1 accounted for 87.64 % of the total
variability among the 12 potato genotypes. The 1st principal The contribution of the characters studied to each
component (PC1) accounted for 43.1 % of the total variation. principal component was presented in Table 6.
The 2nd (PC2), 3rd (PC3) and the 4th (PC4) explained 21.1%,
15.6 % and 7.8 % of individual variation (Table 5) (fig. 1). PC1 was highly associated with number of leaves per
The Eigen value and proportion of variance associated with plant and number of tubers per plot. The
each principal component decreased gradually with PC1 PC2 was determined by number of branches per plant,
having the largestand stopped at 1.42 and 0.08 respectively. number of tubers per plant, marketable tuber size. Plant
Similar results were presented by Tessema et al. (2022), height, number of branches per plant, weight of tubers per
who identified four principal components with eigen value plot, tuber dry matter and starch content contributed to PC3.
>1 and contributed 87.53 % of the total variability on 21 The PC4 was dominated by characters such as percentage
potato genotypes. Seidet al. (2021), who observed that the emergence, number of tubers per plant, marketable tuber
size, weight of tubers per plant and starch content. The

IJISRT23JUN2165 www.ijisrt.com 2638

Volume 8, Issue 6, June 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
projection of component characters on PC1 and PC2 showed are positively associated with yield of tubers per hectare
that weight of tubers per plot, weight of tubers per plant, (tons).
number of branches, leaf width and marketable tuber size

Fig. 1: Scree plot exhibiting PCS with their cumulative variability

Fig. 2: Principal component biplot for characters tested in potato

Fig. 3: Cluster dendrogram based on the genotypes used

IJISRT23JUN2165 www.ijisrt.com 2639

Volume 8, Issue 6, June 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
Cluster analysis grouped the 12 genotypes into 3 number of branches (5.13), leaf length (5.03cm), leaf width
distinct clusters and the distance between the clusters as (3.37cm), number of leaves per plant (524.00), and specific
showed in dendrogram (figure 3). Cluster 1 contained ten gravity (1.11gcm). Days to first flower (52.67), plant height
genotypes and it is the largest with genotypes such as (42.07cm), weight of tubers per plant (1.18 kg), weight of
Yellow leaf Nicola, Marabel, Caruso, Lady Christly, tubers per plot (47.17 kg), tuber yield per hectare (39.33
Madam, Bertita, Green leaf Nicola, Cameroun variety, tons), tuber dry matter (21.36), and starch content (19.30)
Yellow Cece and Red Irish. Cluster 2 had only genotype, showed high mean values in the 3 clusterthat contributed to
Bawon doya, while cluster 3 also contained one genotypes divergence among the genotypes. Genotypes falling in
Superior. Abebeet al. (2013) reported that 25 varieties of cluster 1 and 3 showed highest mean values for yield and
potato used for the study were clustered into 3 clusters. internal quality traits, while genotype in cluster 2 recorded
Anoumaa et al. (2023), also reported 2 clusters groups on highest for growth characters. Anoumaa et al. (2023)
138potato accessions. In the present study,the cluster mean reported that cluster 1 recorded the highest dry matter and
revealed that genotypes in cluster 1 recorded high values for total tuber yield, while, percentage marketable tuber and
number of tubers per plant (11.77), marketable tuber size plant height had the highest mean values in cluster 2 in
(74.33), and number of tubers per plot (460.27). The potato.
genotypes in cluster 2 are characterized by high mean for

Table 6: Mean values of the three clusters for 16 traits of potato genotypes
Characters Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3
Plant emergence 96.48 96.67 96.25
Days to 1st flower 51.33 50.33 52.67
Plant height (cm) 37.18 33.53 42.07
Number of branches per plant 4.58 5.13 3.83
Leaf length (cm) 3.99 5.03 2.47
Leaf width (cm) 3.10 3.73 2.27
Number of leaves per plant 444.14 524.00 337.33
Number of tubers per plant 11.77 10.41 8.6
Marketable tuber size (%) 74.33 74.05 73.67
Weight of the tubers per plant (kg) 0.95 0.78 1.18
Number of tubers per plot 460.27 443.21 420.40
Weight of tubers per plot (kg) 35.95 27.53 47.17
Tuber yield per hectare (tons) 29.97 22.97 39.33
Tuber dry matter content 19.45 18.02 21.36
Specific gravity 1.08 1.11 1.03
Starch content 16.36 14.17 19.30

IV. CONCLUSION REFERENCES

From the above, considerable variation exists among [1.] Acquaah, G. (2012). Principles of Plant Genetics and
the potato genotypes for most of the characters tested, Breeding.2nd Edition Wiley-Blackwell Publishing.
genetic factors more influenced the characters of the 12 Pp. 647-656.
genotypes observed in this study as compared to [2.] Ahmad, M.F.1., Ahmad, S.M., Raj, K., Keservani,
environmental factors. The most striking differences are the R.K.and Pradhan, A. (2015). Anti-Ulcer
number of branches per plant, leaf width, number of leaves Activity of Tuber Extracts of Solanum tuberosum
per plant, weight of tubers per plant, weight of tubers per (Solanaceae) in Rats.Acta Facultatis
plot, tuber yield per hectare and starch content. The diversity Pharmaceuticae. Universistatis Comenianae :(2): 32-
exhibited among the genotypes signifies its potentials for 37.
effective breeding. [3.] Anoumaa M., Kouam E.B., Kanmegne, G., Kamga,
Y.B., DjomoSime, H., and Chimi NkomboL.L.(2023).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Phenotypic variation and genetic divergence studies
in Cameroonian potato (Solanum tuberosum L.)
The authors acknowledged the management of Taraba genotypes. J ApplBiol Biotech., 11(01):210–221.
State University, Jalingo and the Tetfund for providing [4.] Ardo, M.B and Abubakar, D.M.
financial supportfor the execution of the research. (2016).Seroprevalence of Horse (Equuscaballus)
Brucellosis on the Mambila Plateau of Taraba
State, Nigeria.Journal of Equine Science.;27(1):1-6
[5.] Asefa G., Wassu, M. and Abebe, T. (2016). Genetic
Variability Studies in Potato (Solanum
tuberosum L.) Genotypes in Bale Highlands, South
Eastern Ethiopia. J. Bio. Agri. and Healthcare.
6(3):117-119.

IJISRT23JUN2165 www.ijisrt.com 2640

Volume 8, Issue 6, June 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
[6.] Bekele, T. And Haile, B. (2019). Evaluation of tuberosum L.) for different Traits. The Bioscan 12
improved potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) (2):1195-1202
varieties for some quality attributes at Shebench [22.] Meenakshi Badu1, P. Ashok1, T.S.K.K. Kiran Patro1
Woreda of Bench – Maji Zone, Southwestern, andSasikala, K. (2017). Studies on Genetic
Ethiopia, 14(7):389-394 Variability, Heritability and Genetic Advance for
[7.] Bhatia, R. (2004). Genetic Variability and Correlation Growth, Yield and Quality Parameters among
Studies in Gladiolus. M.Sc. Thesis, Punjab Orange Flesh Sweet Potato [Ipomoea batatas(L.)
Agricultural University Ludhiana. Lam.] Genotypes.Int.J. Curr. Microbiol.
[8.] Bradshaw, J.E. and Bonierbale, M. (2010). Potatoes App.Sci., 6(9): 1894-1903
In: Bradshaw, J.E. (ed.). Root and Tuber Crops, [23.] Manamno, W., Wassu, M. and Tesfaye A. (2021).
Handbook of Plant Breeding, vol. 7, Springer, New Genetic Variability and Correlation of Traits among
York. Progenies of Potato Crosses in Ethiopia, East African
[9.] Devaux, A., Kromann, P. and Ortiz, O. (2014). J. Sci., 15 (1): 1-16
Potatoes for Sustainable Global Food Security, [24.] Mishra, S., Singh, J., Sharma, P.K. (2017). Studies on
Potato Res., 57(3):185-199 parameters of genetic variability for yield and its
[10.] Duncan, D. (1955). Multiple range and Multiple F – attributing traits in potato (Solanum tuberosum L.).
tests. Biometrics. Pp.11-42. Biosci. Biotechnol. Res., 14, 489 - 495.
[11.] Engida, T., Nigussie, D. and DevakaraSastry, E.V. [25.] Mondal, M.A.A. (2003). Improvement of Potato
(2007). Genetic Variability for Yield and Other (Solanum tuberosum L.) through hybridization and in
Agronomic Traits in Sweet Potato. J. Agron. vitro culture technique. Ph. D. Thesis, Rajshahi
6(1):94-99 University, Rajshahi, Bangladesh.
[12.] FAOSTAT (2013).Food and Agricultural [26.] Nasiruddin, M.,Ali Haydar, F.M.and Rafiul Islam,
Organization (online). Statistical database. UN, A.K.M. (2017).Genetic diversity in potato (Solanum
Rome, Italy Available: tuberosum L.) genotypes grown in Bangladesh.
http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data International Research Journal of Biological
[13.] FAOSTAT (2014). Food and Agricultural Sciences, 6 (11):1-8.
organization. Statistical database. UN, Rome, Italy [27.] Ozturk, G. andYildirim, Z. (2014). Heritability
[14.] Haan, S.De and Rodriguez, F. (2016). Potato origin estimates on some Quantitative Traits in Potatoes.
and production. In J.Singh and L. Kaur (eds), Turkish Journal of Field Crops. 19(2):262-267.
Advances in Potato Chemistry and Technology. [28.] Panigrahi, K.K., Pradhan, J., Panigrahi, P. and Sarkar,
London, UK; Academic Press, Elsevier. Pp. 1-32 K.K. (2017). Genetic Variability, Character
[15.] Hajam, M.A., Bhat, T.A., Rather, A.M., Khan, S.H., Association and Path Coefficient Analysis of Yield
Shah, L.R., Hajam, M.A andPaul,S.(2018). Genetic Attributes for medium and late Maturing Potato
Variability, Heritability and Genetic Advance for Cultivars. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. App. Sci.6
Various Qualitative Characters of Potato. Int. J. (7):2558-2566
Chem. Studies. 6(6):518-522 [29.] Patel, A.B., Patel, R.N., Gami, R.A., Patel, J.A. and
[16.] Haverkort, A.J., Struik, P.C., Visser, R.G.F. and P.C. Patel (2018a). Genetic Variability among the
Jacobsen, E. (2009). Applied Biotechnology to Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) Genotypes as
combat late blight in Potato caused by Affected by Harvesting Period for Processing
Phytophthorainfestans. Potato Res 52:249–264. Purpose and Tuber Yield. Curr. Agric. Res. 6(3):372-
[17.] Janaki, M., Naram L. N., Venkata, C. R andParatpara, 377
M.R. (2015). Assessment of Genetic Variability, [30.] Patel, R. A., Bhavani, R.T., Patel, D.K. and Patel,
Heritability and Genetic Advance forQuantitative R.J. (2018b). Character Association and Path
Traits in Chilli (Capsicum annuumL.) The Coefficient Studies for Yield and its Components in
Bioscan(Supplement on Genetics and Plant Breeding) Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.). Int. J. Curr.
10(2): 729-733. Microbiol. App. Sci.7 (8):1942-1950.
[18.] Johnson, H. W; Robinson, H. F and Comstock, R.E. [31.] Puttongsiri, T., Choosakul, N. andSakulwilaingam,
(1955). Estimation of genetic and Environmental D. (2012). Moisture Content and Physical Properties
Variability in Soybean. Agron. J.,47: 314-318. of Instant Mashed Potato. International Conference
[19.] Kumari, M., Kumar, M. andSolankey, S.S. (2018). on Nutrition and Food Sciences. IPCBEE
Breeding potato for quality improvement. Potato VOL.39, IACSIT Press, Singapore
from Inces to all over the world. Intech open. Pp. 37- [32.] Rangare, S.B. and Rangare, N.R. (2013). Genetic
59. variability and character association in potato
[20.] Lohani, M., Singh, D. and Singh, J.P.(2012). Genetic (Solanum tuberosum L.). Trends in Biosciences,
Diversity Assessment through Principal Component 6(5):603-607
Analysis in Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.), [33.] Rolot, J. L. (2001). Potato. In: Romain H. R. (ed).
Vegetable Science, 39(2):207- 209 Crop Production in Tropical Africa. DGIC Belgium
[21.] Maharana, J., Panda, C.M. andJakhar, P. (2017). Pp. 188 – 204 .
Genetic Variability among Genotypes and [34.] Sahair, R.A., Sneha S., Raghu, N., Gopenath T.S.,
Character Association in Kharif Potato (Solanum Karthikeyan,M., Gnanasekaran,A.,Chandrashekrappa,
G.K and Basalingappa, K.M. (2018). Solanum

IJISRT23JUN2165 www.ijisrt.com 2641

Volume 8, Issue 6, June 2023 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
tuberosum L: Botanical, Phytochemical,
Pharmacological and Nutritional Significance.
International Journal of Phytomedicine, 10(3): 115-
124
[35.] SAS Institute Inc. (2009). SAS System. Cary,
NC,USA
[36.] Seid, E., Wassu, M. and Tesfaye, A. (2021). Genetic
Diversity Assessment through Cluster and Principal
Component Analysis in Potato (Solanum tuberosum
L.) Genotypes for Processing Traits.
International Journal of Food Science and
Agriculture, 5(3):440-447
[37.] Sestra, R., Mihalte, L., Sestra, A., Bondrea, I. and
Baciu, A. (2007). The Variability and Heritability of
Several Traits at Different Cultivars of Tulips.
BuletinulUsamv-CN. 64: 1-2.
[38.] Singh, R. K. and Chaudhary, B.D. (1985).
Biometrical Methods in Quantitative Genetic
analysis.Kalyani Publishers, New Delhi India. Pp.1-
349.
[39.] Singha, L. and Ullah,Z. (2020). Genetic Variability
for Yield and its Attributing Traits in Potato
(Solanum tuberosum L.). International Journal of
Current Microbiology and Applied Science 9 (2):
1974-1983
[40.] Tessema, G.L., Mohammad, A.W., Abebe, D.T.
(2022). Genetic Variability Studies for Tuber yield
and yield attributes in Ethiopian released Potato
(Solanum tuberosum L.) varieties. Peer J, 12860
[41.] Tripura, A., Das, A., Das, B., Priya, B. and Sharkar,
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.
[42.] Wagner, W.L., Herbst, D.R. and Lorence, D.H.
(2014). Flora of the Hawaiian Islands. Smithsonian
Institution., Washington D.C. USA.
http://botany.si.edu/pacificislandbiodiversity/-
hawaiian flora/index.htm.
[43.] Zaheer, K., and Akhtar, M.H. (2016). Potato
Production, Usage, and Nutrition–A Review. Crit.
Res. Food Sci. Nutr. 56, 711–721.

IJISRT23JUN2165 www.ijisrt.com 2642