Comprehensive analysis of morphological variation among 24 tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) genotypes oriented to ornamental breeding in Vietnam

012; 
Cebolla-Cornejo et al., 2013). Conversely, the 
results of this present study suggested that the 
shape of the pistil scar should be considered as
 Tran Thien Long et al. (2020) 
https://vjas.vnua.edu.vn/ 565 
Table 5. Pearson correlation coefficients between 13 traits of the 24 tomato genotypes 
Pearson's r 
Growth 
type 
Leaf 
type 
Inflorescence 
type 
Intensity 
of the 
greenback 
(green 
shoulder) 
Pre-
dominant 
fruit 
shape 
Fruit 
size 
Exterior 
color of 
the 
mature 
fruit 
Intensity 
of the 
exterior 
color 
Fruit 
shoulder 
shape 
Fruit 
cross-
sectional 
shape 
Number 
of 
locules 
Shape 
of the 
pistil 
scar 
Fruit 
blossom 
end 
shape 
Growth type 1.000 
Leaf type 0.159 1.000 
Inflorescence type 0.000 -0.324 1.000 
Intensity of the greenback (green shoulder) 0.365 -0.247 0.202 1.000 
Predominant fruit shape 0.142 0.204 0.165 -0.029 1.000 
Fruit size -0.108 -0.168 -0.032 -0.171 0.135 1.000 
Exterior color of the mature fruit -0.084 -0.211 0.150 0.180 0.089 0.233 1.000 
Intensity of the exterior color 0.000 -0.225 -0.217 0.218 -0.107 0.328 0.149 1.000 
Fruit shoulder shape -0.105 -0.243 0.237 0.028 0.110 0.612 0.314 0.247 1.000 
Fruit cross-sectional shape -0.068 -0.072 0.243 0.007 0.298 0.822* 0.333 0.120 0.645 1.000 
Number of locules 0.052 -0.111 0.079 0.105 0.176 0.765* 0.175 0.195 0.747* 0.752* 1.000 
Shape of the pistil scar -0.092 -0.219 0.140 0.099 0.128 0.850* 0.265 0.324 0.694* 0.896* 0.793* 1.000 
Fruit blossom end shape -0.146 -0.039 0.000 -0.382 -0.196 -0.468 -0.204 -0.171 -0.324 -0.412 -0.484 -0.445 1.000 
Note: * is significant at the < 0.05 probability level. 
Comprehensive analysis of morphological variation among 24 tomato genotypes oriented to ornamental breeding 
566 Vietnam Journal of Agricultural Sciences 
Table 6. The contributions of the principle components to variation among the 24 experimental genotypes based on 13 
qualitative traits 
Component Variance Proportion Cumulative proportion 
1 4.657 0.358 0.358 
2 1.652 0.127 0.485 
3 1.546 0.119 0.604 
4 1.393 0.107 0.711 
5 0.890 0.068 0.780 
6 0.713 0.055 0.835 
7 0.632 0.049 0.883 
8 0.472 0.036 0.920 
9 0.423 0.033 0.952 
10 0.357 0.027 0.980 
11 0.154 0.012 0.992 
12 0.063 0.005 0.996 
13 0.047 0.004 1.000 
Table 7. Contributions of each qualitative trait to the main principle components 
Traits PC1 PC2 PC3 PC4 
Growth type 0.051 0.497 0.598 0.125 
Leaf type 0.248 -0.400 0.706 0.108 
Inflorescence type -0.195 0.365 -0.174 -0.778 
Intensity of the greenback (green shoulder) -0.138 0.894 0.103 0.124 
Predominant fruit shape -0.227 -0.058 0.575 -0.420 
Fruit size -0.881 -0.295 -0.011 0.154 
Exterior color of the mature fruit -0.399 0.256 -0.214 -0.151 
Intensity of the exterior color -0.341 0.198 -0.256 0.658 
Fruit shoulder shape -0.809 -0.044 -0.148 -0.097 
Fruit cross-sectional shape -0.900 -0.162 0.103 -0.182 
Number of locules -0.876 -0.073 0.138 0.050 
Shape of the pistil scar -0.933 -0.084 -0.046 0.048 
Fruit blossom end shape 0.575 -0.277 -0.393 -0.205 
an important trait for the main PCs (Table 5), 
which has not been reported in any previous 
study. 
Another aim of this study was to select 
suitable materials for ornamental tomato 
breeding. The results show that some genotypes 
have interesting traits, such as rare color or 
strange shape, that can be used for ornamental 
breeding. Previously, many reports have 
identified the genetic mechanisms of how tomato 
fruit shape and color are regulated. For example, 
different fruit colors in tomato are controlled 
independently or in interaction(s) among a group 
of genetic elements. Red tomato fruit is the most 
common color in nature (wild type) as well as in 
commercialized varieties, while the other colors 
are created on the background of this red color 
with different mutation(s). For instance, yellow 
 Tran Thien Long et al. (2020) 
https://vjas.vnua.edu.vn/ 567 
Figure 4. Cluster analysis of the 24 tomato genotypes based on 14 phenotypic traits (The analysis was conducted in NTSYSpc, 
version 2.10q using the UPMGA clustering method. The first dashed red line crosses the coefficient value of 0.39 which separates 
the 24 genotypes into 6 clusters while the second line is to identify the highest similar genotypes: AU77 and AU93 with a coefficient 
value of 0.93) 
Table 8. Six clusters derived from clustering the 24 tomato genotypes by UPMGA method 
Cluster Frequency Typical characters Genotype(s) 
I 4 White/slight green shoulder, small-red fruit, and flat 
fruit blossom end 
AU66, AU67, AU78, AU83 
II 11 Indeterminate growth type, very small- red-round 
fruit, dotted pistil scar shape 
AU70, AU72, AU73, AU77, AU82, AU85, AU87, 
AU89, AU91, AU92, AU93 
III 1 Dark green and moderately depressed fruit shoulder AU71 
IV 1 Determinate growth type, white fruit shoulder, pink 
color 
AU75 
V 6 Medium to large fruit size, irregular fruit shape and 
pistil scar, many locules per fruit 
AU68, AU74, AU79, AU80, AU86, AU88 
VI 1 Dark green fruit shoulder, orange color, many locules AU76 
is a recessive mutation on the R locus while while 
pink, orange, and green colors are controlled by 
mutation(s) on the Y locus, B and Del loci, and 
Gf locus, respectively (Liu et al., 2003). 
Conversely, black color is not naturally present 
in cultivated tomato but can be regulated by the 
genes Aft, atv, and abg from wild species (Jones 
et al., 2003; Canady et al., 2006; Mes et al., 
2008). Similarly, tomato shape expression and 
control were also investigated comprehensively. 
Nine main shape categories were identified in 
tomato fruit (Visa et al., 2014) and four regions 
on chromosomes 2, 3, 7, and 8 carried the main 
loci related to the regulation of tomato fruit shape 
(Brewer et al., 2007). Overall, understanding the 
genetic regulation models of all colors and 
shapes in tomato enables researchers to use 
suitable breeding methods to create tomato 
materials with expected colors and shapes (for 
different ornamental purposes). In fact, some 
commercialized tomato cultivars were released 
for ornamental purposes by combining 
appropriate decorative traits, such as Sweet 
Valentine F1 (with a compact plant structure: 30-
40cm in height, spread 30-35cm; red heart-
shaped fruit). The new fruit colors and shapes 
Comprehensive analysis of morphological variation among 24 tomato genotypes oriented to ornamental breeding 
568 Vietnam Journal of Agricultural Sciences 
found in this study provide many ideas for 
ornamental breeding by combining interesting 
fruit morphologies with different plant structures 
(such as dwarf stem) and leaf types depending on 
the demands of customers. 
Conclusions 
The present study evaluated significant 
variation in 19 morphological characteristics 
including both qualitative and quantitative traits 
among 24 tomato genotypes. The 24 genotypes 
were also divided into 6 clusters based on the 
differences among 13 qualitative characteristics. 
The results of principle component analysis 
identified that three main PCs explained over 
60% of the total phenotypic variation. In 
addition, six fruit traits (fruit size, fruit cross-
sectional shape, fruit shoulder shape, number of 
locules, shape of the pistil scar, and intensity of 
the greenback) were recommended as important 
components of PC1 and PC2 in this study. 
Finally, six interesting accessions (with strange 
fruit colors and shapes) were identified as 
potential materials for further breeding programs 
of ornamental tomato (AU66, AU67, AU68, 
AU73, AU79, and AU87). 
Acknowledgements 
This work was supported by Vietnam 
National University of Agriculture under the 
Grant coded T2018-01-05. 
References 
AO C., Aiwansoba R. O., Osawaru M. E. & Ogwu M. C. 
(2017). Morphological evaluation of tomato (Solanum 
lycopersicum Linn.) Cultivars. Makara Journal of 
Science. 21(2): 97-106. 
Bhattarai K., Louws F. J., Williamson J. D. & Panthee D. 
R. (2016). Diversity analysis of tomato genotypes 
based on morphological traits with commercial 
breeding significance for fresh market production in 
eastern USA. Australian Journal of Crop Science. 
10(8): 1098-1103. 
Bhattarai K., Sharma S. & Panthee D. R. (2018). Diversity 
among modern tomato genotypes at different levels in 
fresh-market breeding. International Journal of 
Agronomy. 2018: 1-15. 
Blanca J., Cañizares J., Cordero L., Pascual L., Diez M. J. 
& Nuez F. (2012). Variation revealed by SNP 
genotyping and morphology provides insight into the 
origin of the tomato. PloS One. 7(10): e48198. 
Brewer M. T., Moyseenko J. B., Monforte A. J. & van der 
Knaap E. (2007). Morphological variation in tomato: a 
comprehensive study of quantitative trait loci 
controlling fruit shape and development. Journal of 
Experimental Botany. 58(6): 1339-1349. 
Canady M. A., Ji Y. & Chetelat R. T. (2006). Homeologous 
recombination in Solanum lycopersicoides 
introgression lines of cultivated tomato. Genetics. 
174(4): 1775-1788. 
Cebolla-Cornejo J., Roselló S. & Nuez F. (2013). 
Phenotypic and genetic diversity of Spanish tomato 
landraces. Scientia Horticulturae. 162: 150-164. 
Danso Y., Akromah R. & Osei K. (2011). Molecular 
marker screening of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) 
Germplasm for root-knot nematodes (Meloidogyne 
species) resistance. African Journal of Biotechnology. 
10(9): 1511-1515. 
Glogovac S., Takač A., Tepić A., Šumić Z., Gvozdanović-
Varga J., Červenski J., Vasić M. & Popović V. (2012). 
Principal component analysis of tomato genotypes 
based on some morphological and biochemical quality 
indicators. Ratarstvo i Povrtarstvo. 49(3): 296-301. 
Greene W. (2012). Vegetable Gardening the Colonial 
Williamsburg Way: 18th-Century Methods for 
Today's Organic Gardeners. In., Rodale Books: 240 
pages. 
Ha T. M. (2015). Agronomic requirements and production 
methods of tomatoes in the Red River Delta of 
Vietnam. Journal of Tropical Crop Science. 2(1): 33-
38. 
Hanson P., Lu S.-F., Wang J.-F., Chen W., Kenyon L., Tan 
C.-W., Tee K. L., Wang Y.-Y., Hsu Y.-C. & 
Schafleitner R. (2016). Conventional and molecular 
marker-assisted selection and pyramiding of genes for 
multiple disease resistance in tomato. Scientia 
Horticulturae. 201: 346-354. 
Hauke J. & Kossowski T. (2011). Comparison of values of 
Pearson's and Spearman's correlation coefficients on 
the same sets of data. Quaestiones Geographicae. 
30(2): 87-93. 
Hoagland L., Navazio J., Zystro J., Kaplan I., Vargas J. G. 
& Gibson K. (2015). Key traits and promising 
germplasm for an organic participatory tomato 
breeding program in the US midwest. HortScience. 
50(9): 1301-1308. 
Hu X., Wang H., Chen J. & Yang W. (2012). Genetic 
diversity of Argentina tomato varieties revealed by 
morphological traits, simple sequence repeat, and 
single nucleotide polymorphism markers. Pakistan 
Journal of Botany. 44(2): 485-492. 
IPGRI (1996). Descriptors for tomato (Lycopersicon spp.). 
In., Bioversity International: 47 pages. 
Jin L., Zhao L., Wang Y., Zhou R., Song L., Xu L., Cui X., 
Li R., Yu W. & Zhao T. (2019). Genetic diversity of 
 Tran Thien Long et al. (2020) 
https://vjas.vnua.edu.vn/ 569 
324 cultivated tomato germplasm resources using 
agronomic traits and InDel markers. Euphytica. 
215(4): 69-84. 
Jones C., Mes P. & Myers J. (2003). Characterization and 
inheritance of the Anthocyanin fruit (Aft) tomato. 
Journal of Heredity. 94(6): 449-456. 
Kaur S., Singh A., Bagati S., Sharma M. & Sharma S. 
(2019). Morphological Markers based Assessment of 
Genetic Diversity in Cultivated Tomato (Solanum 
Lycopersicon L.) Genotypes. International Journal of 
Environment, Agriculture and Biotechnology. 3(2): 
567-573. 
Liu Y. S., Gur A., Ronen G., Causse M., Damidaux R., 
Buret M., Hirschberg J. & Zamir D. (2003). There is 
more to tomato fruit colour than candidate carotenoid 
genes. Plant Biotechnology Journal. 1(3): 195-207. 
Martí E., Gisbert C., Bishop G. J., Dixon M. S. & García-
Martínez J. L. (2006). Genetic and physiological 
characterization of tomato cv. Micro-Tom. Journal of 
Experimental Botany. 57(9): 2037-2047. 
Mes P. J., Boches P., Myers J. R. & Durst R. (2008). 
Characterization of tomatoes expressing anthocyanin 
in the fruit. Journal of the American Society for 
Horticultural Science. 133(2): 262-269. 
Omondi S. (2017). The most popular vegetable in the world 
[Online]. Retrieved from 
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-most-
popular-vegetables-in-the-world.html on July 15 2020. 
Panthee D. R. & Chen F. (2010). Genomics of fungal 
disease resistance in tomato. Current Genomics. 11(1): 
30-39. 
Panthee D. R., Labate J. A. & Robertson L. D. (2013). 
Evaluation of tomato accessions for flavour and 
flavour-contributing components. Plant Genetic 
Resources. 11(2): 106-113. 
Reddy B., Reddy M. P., Begum H. & Sunil N. (2013). 
Genetic diversity studies in tomato (Solanum 
lycopersicum L.). Journal of Agriculture and 
Veterinary Science. 4(4): 55-53. 
Rohlf F. J. (2000). NTSYS-pc: Numerical taxonomy and 
multivariate analysis system, version 2.1 Exeter 
Software. Setauket, New York, USA. 
Saito T., Ariizumi T., Okabe Y., Asamizu E., Hiwasa-
Tanase K., Fukuda N., Mizoguchi T., Yamazaki Y., 
Aoki K. & Ezura H. (2011). TOMATOMA: a novel 
tomato mutant database distributing Micro-Tom 
mutant collections. Plant Cell Physiology. 52(2): 283-
296. 
Singh M., Singh A., Kumar A. & Pandey K. (2018). 
Molecular diversity of tomato germplasm 
(Lycopersicum esculentum L.) using lycopene specific 
markers. Biocatalysis and Agricultural Biotechnology. 
16: 340-346. 
Srinivasan R. (2010). Safer tomato production techniques: 
a field guide for soil fertility and pest management. In., 
AVRDC–The World Vegetable Center: 97 pages. 
Tembe K. O., Chemining'wa G., Ambuko J. & Owino W. 
(2018). Evaluation of African tomato landraces 
(Solanum lycopersicum) based on morphological and 
horticultural traits. Agriculture and Natural Resources. 
52(6): 536-542. 
Visa S., Cao C., Gardener B. M. & van der Knaap E. 
(2014). Modeling of tomato fruits into nine shape 
categories using elliptic fourier shape modeling and 
Bayesian classification of contour morphometric data. 
Euphytica. 200(3): 429-439. 
Wang T., Zou Q., Qi S., Wang X., Wu Y., Liu N., Zhang 
Y., Zhang Z. & Li H. (2016). Analysis of genetic 
diversity and population structure in a tomato 
(Solanum lycopersicum L.) germplasm collection 
based on single nucleotide polymorphism markers. 
Genetics and Molecular Research. 15(3): 1-12. 
Ziaf K., Amjad M., Shakeel A., Azhar M. & Saeed A. 
(2016). Assessment of genetic diversity in tomato for 
fruit morphology, composition and yield. Pakistan 
Journal of Botany. 48(6): 2477-2483.