BIBLIOGRAPHY
BALAS, MELBA B. APRIL 2006. Correlation of Morphological and Marketable
Yield in Potato Genotypes (Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically. Benguet State
University, La Trinidad, Benguet.
Adviser: Belinda A. Tad-awan, Ph.D.
ABSTRACT

Twenty potato genotypes were grown organically from May to August 2005.
These genotypes were characterized morphologically and correlation analysis among the
characters was done to determine the relationship among these characters and to identify
the characters associated with marketable yield and harvest index.

The twenty potato genotypes showed variability for leaf, stem, root and tuber
characters. Significant differences among the genotypes of all characters measured were
observed.

Correlation between marketable yield and other characters showed that number of
secondary stems, haulm weight, canopy cover at 75 DAP, diameter of stem and length of
roots was significant. In the correlation between harvest index and the other characters,
dry matter content of tubers and leaf area showed significant positive correlation. These
characters that are significantly correlated with marketable yield and harvest index could
be used as indices for selection of varieties or genotypes for organic production. Since
morphological characters are difficult to assess and sometimes not reliable, a more

---

precise way to characterize is the use of DNA markers. Research towards DNA profiling
could be done in the best potato genotypes for organic production.

ii

---

TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page
Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i
Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
iii
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4
Organic Production and it’s Importance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4

Importance of Diversity and Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5

Morphological Characters Associated
with Potato Yield Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7

Morphological Characters Associated
with Yield in Other Crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
MATERIALS AND METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
10
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21
Meteorological Data During the Study Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20

Soil Analysis of the Experimental Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22

Growth Habit Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22

Branching Habit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22

Canopy Cover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23
Plant Height at 30 and 90 DAP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25

Leaf Characters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26


Foliage Color . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26

Leaf Dissection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26

iii

---

Adaxial and Abaxial Leaf Pubescence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26

Type of Hairs (Trichomes) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
26

Number of Leaves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
27

Leaf Area . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
27

Stem Characters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
29

Stem Color . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
29

Stem Cross Section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
29

Stem Wing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
29
Diameter of Stem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30

Length of Main Stem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
31
Length of Internodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
31
Number of Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
32
Number of Secondary Stems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
32

Presence/Absence of Flowers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
33

Root Characters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
34

Number of Roots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
34

Length of Roots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
35

Tuber Characters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
36

Predominant Tuber Skin Color . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
36

Tuber Shape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
36

Number of Eyes/Tuber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
36

Depth of Eyes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
37

Predominant Tuber Flesh Color . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
38

iv

---

Haulm Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …
39

Tuber Yield Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
40

Weight of Marketable Tubers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
40
Weight of Non-marketable Tubers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
40

Total Weight of Tubers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
40

Dry Matter Content (DMC) of Tubers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
41
Harvest Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
42

Correlation Between Marketable Yield
and Harvest Index to Other Characters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
43

Correlation Analysis Among Leaf, Stem,
Root and Tuber Characters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
44
Plant Height . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
44

Number of Leaves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
45

Leaf Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
45

Haulm Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
45

Length of Main Stem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
45

Diameter of Stem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
46

Length of Internode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
46

Number of Nodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
46

Number of Secondary Stems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
46

Number of Roots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
47

Length of Roots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
47

Number of Eyes Per Tuber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
47

Dry Matter Content of Tubers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
47

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
49
v

---

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
49

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
50

Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
50

LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
51

APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
53


vi

---

INTRODUCTION

Potato
(Solanum tuberosum L.) is one of the most important crops in the human
diet around the world. It is a high value crop with lots of uses and efficient in utilizing
farm space and time. It ranks first among the annually grown vegetables and one of the
farmer’s source of income in Benguet and some parts of Mountain Province. Aside from
it’s nutritive value, potatoes are also used as an industrial source of starch and animal
feeds (HARRDEC, 1999).

In the Philippines, 74 % of the total potato production area come from Benguet
and Mountain Province, while the remaining 26 % were from Southern and Northern
parts of Mindanao (PCARRD, 1997).

According to researchers, potato farmers in Benguet and Mountain Provinces use
tremendous amount of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides to increase their production.
These practices, however, may lead to soil acidity and the decrease in the population of
natural enemies. Another major effect is pollution of the soil, water and air which may
cause health hazardous to people in the community. Considering these problems, organic
potato production should be practiced.

According to Petzoldt (2005), organic production is termed by the practitioners as
a method of production that uses practices or materials which are biologically enhancing
to the soil, plants, animals and human consumers and producers. The principles of
organic farming are to replenish and maintain long term fertility by providing the optimal
conditions for biological activity, producing viable quantities of high quality and
nutritious food, reducing the use of fuels and contamination of the environment that may
result from farming. Encouraging the use of local resources and recycled nutrients, and
Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

2
also maintaining biodiversity that will minimize the occurrence of pest and diseases.
Therefore, sustaining the land and a healthy conditions for future generations as well as
optimizing the multiple use of the land will be attained.

In an organic farm, varieties should be resistant to pest and diseases. Thus,
selection of varieties suitable in an organic farm is important. In selection of varieties,
morphological characters are considered. These characters should be significantly
correlated with yield to facilitate selection in an organic farm. At present, there are no
available information in Benguet and Mountain Province to show correlation of
characters with yield in an organic farm.

Before any correlation could be shown, morphological characterization should be
done. Morphological characterization is done to identify morphotypes. A morphototyes
is a group of plants showing morphological similarities, apparently of the same
phenotype but not necessarily of the same genetic constitution (International Potato
Center, 1997). Moreover, characterization is based on agro-morphological characters of
the plants. Standardized descriptions are used to characterized materials in such a way
that information exchange of genetic resources is more accessible to plant breeders and
researchers. Breeders could use them as references for exploiting new traits that is
desirable and related to yield of crop. Characters and traits should be identified to be
correlated with yield and later, improvement could be done (Borromeo, et al., 1994).

This study was conducted to characterize morphologically potato genotypes
grown organically; and correlate morphological characters and marketable yield in potato
genotypes grown organically.
Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

3

The study was conducted at Benguet State University Experimental Station,
Balili, La Trinidad Benguet from May to August 2005.
Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

4
REVIEW OF LITERATURE


Organic Production and it’s Importance

In the past years, farmers from different countries around the world were
practicing the traditional method of farming to nurture the land and the environment.
They managed their farms based on the dynamic interaction between the soil, plants,
animals, humans and the environment (PCARRD, 2000). Organic production is the
traditional method used by the farmers to practice the diverse farming which also avoided
the use of synthetic chemical inputs (Briones, 1997 as cited by PCARRD, 2000).

Kuepper (2003) cited that organic farming is a system that works to mimic and
optimize natural processes for the production of any crops. It utilizes a wide range of
cultural practices and natural inputs to managed crops in such a way that they consider
safe for the environment.

According to the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), organic farming is
an ecological production management system that promotes and enhances biodiversity
and soil biological activity. It is based on minimal use of off-farm inputs and on
management practices that restore, maintain and enhance ecological harmony. Moreover,
researchers on organic farms has revealed characteristics associated with farming such as
reducing soil erosion, lowers fuel consumption, less leaching of nitrate and the prohibited
use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers (Kuepper and Gegner, 2004).

White (2004), stated that organic production is a food production system which
relies on the use of crop residues, animal and green manures, legumes, crop rotation and
biological pest control to maintain soil productivity, supply nutrient and to control
insects, diseases and weeds.
Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

5
In addition, organic production systems are based on specific and precise
standards of production, which aim at achieving agro-ecosystems which are socially and
ecologically sustainable. The use of composted material is environmentally friendly
which results in the reduction of fertilizers for farmers. Compost is a cheaper source of
fertilizer that contains all the nutrients that are needed by the potato plant. The use of
animal manure completes the nutrient cycle allowing for a return of energy and fertilizer
nutrients to the soil such as the manures from livestock feedlots, poultry operations and
dairies. Implementing crop rotation in the farm creates diversity in space and time that
disrupts the growth and development of weeds, pest and disease population just like when
rotating from grain crops to a legume crops. Thus, the greater the differences between
crops rotation sequence, the better cultural control of pest can be expected. Moreover,
the uses of green manures and cover crops will protects the soil from excessive heat of
the sun (Anonymous, 2001).
Kuepper and Gegner (2004), also indicated that farms with a diverse mix of crops.
have a better chance of supporting beneficial organisms that assists in pollination and
pest management. Diversity above ground also suggests diversity in the soil by providing
better nutrient cycling, disease suppression, soil tilt, and nitrogen fixation.

Importance of Diversity and Selection
The development of an effective plant breeding program is dependent upon the
existence of genetic variability. The efficiency of selection largely depends upon the
magnitude of genetic variability present in the plant population. Therefore, the success of
genetic improvement in any character depends on the nature of variability present in the
gene pool for that character (Singh, and Narayanan, 1993).
Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

6
The most important and vital phenomenon in any breeding program is
understanding the genetic nature, and variability of the populations. The breeder should
have working knowledge in the type and amount of genetic variation existing in the
population. Gardner (1963), as cited by Jose (2004), stated that variations attributable to
genetic differences, but also on the relationship among various quantitative traits is of
fundamental significance in planning breeding programs.
Phenotypic and genotypic correlation and heritabilities are required to assess
potential selection of potential parents carrying desired traits is frequently suggested for
incorporation of physiological and morphological traits into new cultivars. How
effectively the parent selection and normal agronomic evaluation approach incorporates
the desired traits depend upon the heritability of the trait and its genetic correlation with
yield (Hayward, et al., 1993).
Boesen (1997) as cited by Gibson (2002), stated that selection of a suitable variety
is an important step in the farm planning process but the availability of a large number of
varieties makes the selection of variety for a given field. New varieties come and go in a
steadily increasing amount and speed. Also there are many aspects and a lot of demands
have to be taken into account before it is possible to make an opinion of which one of the
available varieties in the market will probably be most suited for growing in the coming
season. Some of these factors are yield, quality, agronomic characteristics, susceptibility,
climate, soil type, pests, marketing conditions, settlings, helper substances and
availability and price of planting materials.


Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

7
Morphological Characters Associated
with Potato Yield Performance

Gibson (2002), found out that the leaf, stem, and seed tuber characters were
significantly correlated. These relationships may help in understanding the physiological
responses of different potato genotypes which eventually lead to better selection in
different environments.
In a study conducted by Smith (1968) as cited by Gayadon (1999) results show
that the larger the stems, the greater the assimilation rate per unit plant and the higher
yield, therefore, the development number of many stems and leaf area per unit ground
are important factors in potato production.
In 1992, Golmirzaie cited that root length and hypocotyl length had a significant
correlation with the number of potato tubers per plant. MAF (1972) as cited by Gayadon
(1999) found out that the yield of potato had been shown experimentally to be related to
the number of stems per unit area planted. Marketable yield will increase as the number
of stems increases up to the optimum density after it will fall as increasing competition
prevents the development of individual tubers to acceptable size.

Morphological Characters Associated
with Yield in Other Crops
Sweet Potato. In a study conducted by Rebujio (2003) with twenty sweet potato
genotypes, diversity analysis shows low variation for qualitative characters and high
variation for quantitative characters. This indicates that selection should be for
quantitative characters of sweet potato.

Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

8
In 1981, Bacusmo as cited by Anselmo (1992) identified the following characters
such as leaf area development, crop growth rate, leaf angle of young vine, internode
length, number of roots per plants, and root mean weight as determinants to high yield.
Likewise, Degras (1962) as cited by Anselmo (1992) established the combined effects of
the following parameters of yielding ability like leaf area, leaf weight, petiole weight, leaf
length/petiole length, and leaf area x density. Moreover, morphological and yield
characters associated with yield under drought stress of sweet potato maybe used as
selection index in breeding for drought resistance. These results suggest that canopy
cover and harvest index are important parameters to be considered in selection.
Results on the study conducted by Shagol (2001), showed that there is no strong
association found between the morphological characters and yield but the ten varieties
were variable in morphological characters. The growth and yield performance of the
sweet potato varieties depended on their genetic constitution and the environment where
they were grown.
Corn. Based on the study conducted by Lomadeo (2005), there was positive and
significant correlation coefficient of yield to other characters like leaf length, leaf width
and leaf area. These characters could be used as selection indices when selecting for high
yielding varieties of corn.
Remoquillo (2003) cited that a number of characters might influence productivity
of tropical maize. This relevance might be assesed by the separate development of these
traits from elite materials previously selected from desirable agronomic traits. Further
evaluation of those desirable traits into one plant type requires information on genetic
variability, genetic correlations between traits and their heritabilities. The combined
Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

9
inputs of breeders and physiologist in obtaining needed information and in continued
selection of these traits should enhance the breeding processes for increasing yield.
Snap bean. PCARRD (1989) as cited by Shagol (2001), showed that the number
of branches on snap beans is an important factors contributing to yield. Theoretically, the
more branches, the greater the yield, the position or orientation of branches is also an
important morphological characteristic. The upright or vertical position is considered
ideal because it enables to intercept more sunlight necessary in photosynthesis. Gonzales
(1983) also observed that bean plants with highest number of trifoliate leaves gave the
highest yield.
Jose (2004) found out that there was a significant differences among the varieties
characterized and evaluated. It was revealed that variability exist in terms of almost all
the parameters measured. There was significant correlation among the characters
measured in bean varieties such as days from emergence to harvesting, internode length,
number of branches to pod width which indicates that they can be used a selection index
for associated character and yield.
Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

10
MATERIALS AND METHODS


Background of the experimental area

The experimental area was not applied with synthetic fertilizers for two
consecutives years. In the first year of cultivation, it was planted with corn and the land
was followed for three months and again planted with legumes. After legumes, the land
was followed for seven months.

Land preparation and layout of the experimental area


An area of 225 m2 was thoroughly prepared and further divided into three blocks.
Each block was subdivided into 15 plots measuring 1 m X 5 m representing fifteen
treatments. The experiment was laid-out following the randomize complete block design
(RCBD) with three replications.

Preparation of planting materials and planting

Twenty potato accessions grown from rooted stem cutting were acquired from
Northern Philippines Root Crop Research and Training Center (NPRCRTC). Rooted
stem cuttings were planted using 30 cuttings per treatments/replication with a distance of
25 cm x 30 cm between hills and rows.

Cultural management practices

The treatments were equally applied with compost at a rate of 10 kg/5 m2.
Cultural practices such as irrigation and weeding were uniformly employed in all the
treatments. There was no spraying of pesticides, instead yellow plastics traps was used
Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

11
for leaf miner control. The area was surrounded with corn and marigold to encourage
diversity and reduce pest population.


Characterization

Characterization was done on the different accessions based on agro-
morphological characters using the descriptors list for potato by the International Potato
Center (CIP, 1977).

Treatments

The genotypes represent the treatments as follows:
GENOTYPES SOURCE/ORIGIN
384558.10 CIP,
Peru
380251.17 CIP,
Peru
IP84007.67 CIP,
Peru
285411.22 CIP,
Peru
676070 CIP,
Peru
387443.22 CIP,
Peru
387039.15 CIP,
Peru
676008 CIP,
Peru
387410.7 CIP,
Peru
575003 CIP,
Peru
15.97.8 CIP,
Peru
720045 CIP,
Peru
676004 CIP,
Peru
720071 CIP,
Peru
285378.27 CIP,
Peru
720097 CIP,
Peru
676103 CIP,
Peru
FS1 Philippines
Igorota Philippines
Ganza CIP,
Peru







Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

12
The data gathered were the following:

1. Meteorological data. The record of average rainfall, relative humidity,
temperature and sunshine duration during the conduct of the study were taken from BSU-
PAGASA Station.
2. Soil Chemical Properties. Soil samples were taken before the establishment
of the experimental area and right after harvest to determine the present organic matter,
pH, nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium content of the soil. Soil samples were brought
to the Bureau of Soils, Pacdal, Baguio City.
3. Canopy cover. Canopy cover was gathered at 30, 45, 65, 75 DAP by using a
wooden frame of 120 x 60 cm having equally sized 12 x 6 cm grids. Holding the grids
over the foliage of four representative previously marked plants, grids covered with
effective leaves were counted.
4. Initial height. This was measured from the base of the plant up to the shoot of
ten sample plants per plot using a meter stick at 30 DAP.
5. Plant height. Height was measured from the base of the plant up to the shoot
of ten sample plants per plot using a meter stick at 90 DAP.
6. Growth habit type. This was taken by describing the type of growth habit at
the beginning of flowering using the rating scale as follows:
SCALE
DESCRIPTION
1 Erect
2 Semi-erect
3
Decumbent, when the stems trail on the ground but arise
at apex

4
Prostate, when the stems trail on the ground
5
Semi-prostate
Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

13
6
Rosette, when all or most leaves are arranged at the base
of the stem close to the soil surface

7. Branching habit. This was determined by visual observation using the rating
scale as follows:
SCALE DESCRIPTION
1 Single
2 Branched

8. Leaf characters. These characters were gathered from ten samples per plot at
60 DAP.
a. Foliage. The overall color of the foliage was recorded based on a color
chart.
SCALE DESCRIPTION
3 Light
green
5 Intermediate
7 Dark
green

b. Leaf dissection. This was obtained by describing the degree of leaf
dissection using the following scale:
SCALE DESCRIPTION
1 Undissected
2 Pinnatilobed
3 Scarcely
dissected
4 Weakly
dissected
5 Medium
dissected
6 Strongly
dissected
7
Very strongly dissected
8 Other

Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

14
c. Abaxial leaf pubescence. The degree to which the lower surfaces of the
leaves which are covered by hairs (trichomes), was describe using the scale as follows:
SCALE DESCRIPTION
0 Glabrous
1 Glabrescent
2 Pubescent
3 Strongly
pubescent
d. Adaxial leaf pubescence. The degree to which the upper surfaces of the
leaves were determined are covered by hairs (trichomes), using the scale as follows:
SCALE
DESCRIPTION
0 Glabrous
1 Glabrescent
2 Pubescent
3 Strongly
pubescent
e. Type of hairs (trichomes). This describes the type of hairs on the lower
surface of the leaves using the rating scale as follows:
SCALE DESCRIPTION
0 Absent
1 Simple
2
Simple and glandular (bearing a sticky four lobed head)

3
Simple and glandular (with a sticky droplet at the tip)
4
Simple and glandular (simple trichomes and both types
of glandular trichomes present)

5 Other
Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

15
f. Leaf area (cm2). This was taken by tracing the leaves of the sample plants
on a graphing paper. The squares covered were counted to be divided by four.
g. Number of leaves. This was taken by counting the number of leaves of the
sample plants.
9. Stem characters. These were obtained by gathering ten sample plants per plot
at 65 DAP.
a. Stem color. The color of the stem was obtained using the following rating
scale:
SCALE DESCRIPTION
0 Green
only
1
Red brown only
2 Purple
only
3
Cream with some red brown
4 Cream
with
purple
5
Red-brown with some green
6
Purple with some green
7 Other
b. Stem cross section. The shape of the stem in transverse section was
obtained using the rating scale as follows:
SCALE DESCRIPTION
1 Round
2 Angular
c. Stem wing. The presence of shape of the stem wing was recorded using
the following scale:


Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

16
SCALE DESCRIPTION
1 Absent
2 Straight
3 Undulate
4 Dentate
d. Length of main stem (cm). This was measured from the base of the plant
to the tip of the main stem using a meter stick.
e. Diameter of the stem (mm). This was gathered by measuring the diameter
of the mid-portion of the main stem using a vernier caliper.
f. Length of the internode (cm). This was recorded by getting the means of
the length of three internodes at the mid-portion of the sample plants.
g. Number of nodes. This was obtained by counting the number of the nodes
from the base of the plants to the tip of the main stem.
h. Number of secondary stems. This was obtained by counting the secondary
stems of the sample plants.
10. Presence/absence of flower. This was determined by visual observation.
11. Root characters. These characters were gathered from ten sample plants per
plot at 90 DAP.
a. Number of roots. This was recorded by counting the numbers of
roots of the sample plants.
b. Length of roots (cm). This was recorded by getting the means of the length
of three roots of the sample plants using a ruler.
12. Tuber characters. These characters were gathered from ten sample plants per
plot at 90 DAP.
Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

17
a. Predominant tuber skin color. The color which covers most of the
surface of the tuber was determined using the following rating scale:
SCALE
DESCRIPTION
1 White-cream
2 Yellow
3 Orange
4 Brownish
5 Pink
6 Red
7 Purplish-red
8 Purple
b. Tuber shape. The shape of the tuber was obtained using the following
rating scale:
SCALE
DESCRIPTION
1 Compressed
(oblate)
2 Round
3 Ovate
4 Obovate
5 Elliptic
6 Oblong
7 Elongate

c. Number of eyes per tuber. This was obtained by getting the means of
the number of eyes of three tubers of the sample tubers.
d. Depth of eyes. This was described using the descriptors list a follows.
SCALE
DESCRIPTION
1 Protruding
2 Shallow
5 Medium
Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

18
7 Deep
3 Very
deep

e. Predominant tuber flesh color. This was described by visual
observation of the flesh color present in most of the tubers using the rating scale as
follows:
SCALE
DESCRIPTION
1 White
2 Cream
3 Yellow
cream
4 Yellow
5 Red
6 Violet
7 Purple
8 Other
5
Broad vascular ring
6
Vascular ring and medulla (pith)
7
All flesh except medulla (pith)
8 Other
13. Tuber yield parameters. These were gathered from ten sample plants per plot
at 90 DAP.
a. Weight of marketable tubers (g). This was recorded by weighing the
tubers that are marketable size, not malformed, free from damages caused by insect pest
and diseases.
b. Weight of non-marketable tubers (g). This was gathered by weighing the
tubers that are marble size, malformed and damaged by insects and pests.
c. Total weight of tubers (g). This was obtained by gathering the total
number of marketable and non-marketable tubers per plant.
Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

19
d. Haulm Weight (g). The haulm weight was obtained after separating the
roots and tuber at harvest.
14. Dry matter content (DMC) of tubers. This was recorded by obtaining the dry
matter content of tubers using the following formula:
Fresh weight- Oven dry weight
% MC =
X 100
Fresh weight

DMC = 100 % - % MC
15. Harvest Index (HI). This was recorded by getting the ratio of the economic
yield using the following formula:
TDW
LDW+SDW+RDW
% HI =
+TDW X 100

Where: TDW= Tuber dry weight
LDW= Leaf dry weight
SDW= Stem dry weight
RDW= Root dry weight


Analysis of Data
Data were statistically analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) for
randomized complete block design (RCBD). Significance of difference between
treatments means were tested using the Duncan’s Multiple Range Test (DMRT) at five
percent level of probability. Correlation analysis was also done.
Correlation coefficient is a statistical measure which is used to find out the degree
and direction of relationship between two or more variables. It helps in determining the
yield contributing characters in plant breeding (Singh, and Narayanan, 1993).
According to Downie and Health (1983), the degree of relationship between two
variables can be measured using the Pearson Product Moment (ρxy) coefficient which
Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

20
characterizes the interdependence of X and Y. The coefficient ρxy is a parameter which
can be estimated from sample data using the formula:
∑xy - (∑x) (∑y)
n

r =
(∑x)2 (∑y)2
n
∑x2 -
∑ n
y2 -





















Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

21

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Meteorological Data During the Study Period

Air temperature, relative humidity, rainfall and total sunshine from May to July,
2005 are presented in Table 1. Minimum air temperature ranged from 16-20.4oC while
maximum air temperature is from 24-27 oC with a mean of 21.43 oC. Mean relative
humidity is 79.4 % while rainfall amount recorded is 19.68 mm, respectively. Total
sunshine ranged from 30 to 498 cm with a mean of 266.4 cm.

According to HARRDEC (1996), potato grows best in areas with temperature
ranging from 17.22 oC and average relative humidity of 86 %. High light intensity and
short day length elevates the optimum temperature for potato tuberization while lower
light intensity enhances the effect of long day length delaying tuberization and promoting
canopy growth. According to PCARRD (1982), rainfall of about 2.5 cm per week,
evenly distributed throughout the growing season is considered adequate. Since the
rainfall amount was high from May 22 to June 5, the optimum yield of the potatoes may
be affected.

Table 1. Meteorological data during the study period
AIR TEMPERATURE
RELATIVE RAINFALL
TOTAL
MONTHS
(oC)
HUMIDITY AMOUNT SUNSHINE
MIN MAX (%)
(mm)
(kj)
May 6 to 21
16.0
24.5
69
9.4
348
May 22 to June 5
17.5
24.0
59
60.5
318
June 6 to 20
30.4
27.0
96
0
498
June 21 to July 5
16.2
24.5
86
18.3
30
July 6 to July 20
18.7
25.5
87
10.2
138
MEAN 21.43
79.40
19.68
266.40
Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

22
Soil Analysis of the Experimental Area

Table 2 shows the soil analysis of the experimental area before planting and after
harvest. Before planting, the pH is 4.98 and organic matter is 2.5. After harvest, the pH
increased to 5.2 while OM is the same. The initial nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium
content are 0.13 %, 155 ppm and 306 ppm, respectively. After harvest, nitrogen content
remained the same while P2O5 and K2O5 had increased.

Growth Habit Type

Table 3 shows the growth habit type of potato genotypes at the beginning of
flowering. As presented, Ganza and 285378.27 registered an erect growth habit,
genotype 676103 have a prostate growth habit, genotypes 720071, 15.97.8, 387039.15,
387443.22, 285411.22 and IP84004.67 have a decumbent growth while the other
genotypes have a semi-erect growth habit type.

Branching Habit

The branching habit of the potato genotypes is shown in Table 3. All the
genotypes have two or more branches except for genotypes Ganza, FS1, 676103 and
15.97.8 which have single branch.

Table 2. Initial and final soil analysis of the experimental area

OM
N
P
K
pH
2O5
2O5
(%)
(%)
(ppm)
(ppm)
Before





Planting
4.98
2.5
0.13
155
306
After





Harvest
5.32
2.5
0.13
430
316


Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

23
Table 3. Growth and branching habit of twenty potato genotypes
GENOTYPE
GROWTH HABIT TYPE
BRANCHING HABIT
384558.10 Semi-erect Branched
380251.17 Semi-erect Branched
IP84007.67 Decumbent Branched
285411.22 Decumbent Branched
676070 Semi-erect
Branched
387443.22 Decumbent Branched
387039.15 Decumbent Branched
676008 Semi-erect
Branched
387410.7 Semi-erect
Branched
575003 Semi-erect
Branched
15.97.8 Decumbent
Single
720045 Semi-erect
Branched
676004 Semi-erect
Branched
720071 Decumbent
Branched
285378.27 Erect
Branched
720097 Semi-erect
Branched
676103 Prostate Single
FS1 Semi-erect
Single
Igorota Semi-erect
Branched
Ganza Erect Single

Canopy Cover

The canopy cover of the potato genotypes are shown in Table 4. Significant
differences were observed among the genotypes for canopy cover at 30, 45, 65 and 75
DAP. At 30 DAP, genotype 384558.10 had the highest canopy cover which is
comparable with 387039.15 while genotypes 376004 and FS1 had the lowest canopy
cover.

At 45 DAP, genotypes 384558.10 and 380251.17 had the highest canopy cover.
On the other hand, genotype 720097 had the lowest canopy cover. At 65 DAP, genotype
380251.17 had the highest canopy cover which was not significantly different with
387039.15 but is comparable with genotype 384558.10. Genotype 720045 on the other
hand produced the lowest canopy cover.
Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

24

At 75 DAP, genotypes 384558.10 and 380251.17 had the highest canopy cover at
45 and 65 DAP.

The results showed that genotypes 384558.10 and 380251.17 consistently showed
the high canopy covers in all dates. Canopy cover obtained may not be reliable at the
later stages of growth since plants were damaged with late blight and some plants were
infected with bacterial wilt.

Table 4. Canopy cover of twenty potato genotypes at 30, 45, 65 and 75 DAP
CANOPY COVER*
GENOTYPE
(DAP)
30 45 65 75
384558.10 43.00a 56.00a 51.00ab 51.00abc
380251.17 29.00abcd 50.33a 55.33a 58.00a
IP84007.67 22.00bcd 27.33bcde 49.00abc 50.67abc
285411.22 24.00bcd 36.00abcde 43.50abcde 52.00ab
676070 26.00bcd 38.67abcd 44.50abcde 33.50bcdefg
387443.22 24.67bcd 41.67abc 46.00abcd 35.67bcdef
387039.15 35.33ab 40.33abc 54.67a 51.33ab
676008 19.00cd 28.00bcde 38.67abcdef 34.00bcdefg
387410.7 18.67cd 27.00bcde 20.00ef 15.00fg
575003 19.00cd 18.33de 27.00bcdef 12.00g
15.97.8 16.67d 16.33e 26.00cdef 24.00defg
720045 17.67d 17.67de 16.00f 15.00fg
676004 16.00d 20.00cde 23.67def 28.67cdefg
720071 22.00bcd 27.00bcde 30.00bcdef 31.67bcdefg
285378.27 34.00abc 42.33ab 44.33abcde 44.33abcd
720097 16.33d 15.00e 17.00f 18.00efg
676103 18.00d 21.00bcde 18.00f 16.67fg
FS1 16.00d 24.50bcde 23.00def 26.67defg
Igorota 20.67bcd 24.67bcde 16.67f 15.33gf
Ganza 27.00bcd 27.67bcde 31.67abcdef 40.00abcde
CV
(%)
32.24 35.23 35.39 35.03
*Means with the same letter are not significantly different by DMRT (P > 0.05).





Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

25
Plant Height at 30 and 90 DAP

Table 5 shows the height of the plants at 30 DAP. Statistically, significant
differences were observed among the genotypes. Genotype 676103 produced the tallest
plants which was comparable with genotype 387039.15 while FS1 produced the shortest
plants. Highly significant differences were observed among the genotypes for height at
90 DAP as indicated in Table 5. Genotype 676103 produced the tallest plants at 90 DAP.
FS1 was observed to have the shortest plants. These differences could be due to
genotypic characteristics as influenced by the environment in which the plants were
subjected into.

Table 5. Plant height of twenty potato genotypes at 30 and 90 DAP
PLANT HEIGHT*
GENOTYPE
(cm)
30 DAP
90 DAP
384558.10 22.93bcd 32.10efD
380251.17 21.28bcd 65.43cD
IP84007.67 20.13cde 51.73cd
285411.22 26.00abc 47.20d
676070 26.25abc 46.60d
387443.22 21.48bcd 55.20cd
387039.15 28.20ab 63.90c
676008 24.93abc 48.13d
387410.7 26.63abc 46.78d
575003 22.73bcd 42.40def
15.97.8 21.18bcd 45.57de
720045 24.53abc 42.18def
676004 21.63bcd 54.13cd
720071 21.83bcd 80.10b
285378.27 20.48cde 55.70cd
720097 15.90def 49.73d
676103 30.60a 107.48aDD
FS1 12.90f 30.48f
Igorota 27.23abc 46.80d
Ganza 13.90ef 44.33def
CV (%)
16.80
13.95
*Means with the same letter are not significantly different by DMRT (P > 0.05).
Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

26
Leaf
Characters


Foliage Color


The color of the leaves of twenty potato genotypes ranged from light green to
intermediate to dark green (Table 6). Ganza was observed to have light green leaves.
Igorota, 285411.22, 676070, 387039.15 and 676008 have dark green leaves while the
others were noted to have an intermediate green leaves.

Leaf Dissection

According to the descriptors list for potato, the leaf dissection of Ganza and
genotype 575003 were noted to be scarcely dissected, genotype 285378.27 had medium
dissected leaves while the remaining genotypes have a weakly dissected leaves (Table 6).

Adaxial and Abaxial Leaf Pubescence

The adaxial leaf pubescence of the potato genotypes were observed to be very
sparse. The abaxial or lower surface of leaves of the genotypes, however, have
trichomes.

Type of Hairs (Trichomes)

The trichomes of the leaves of all the potato genotypes are simple.
Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

27
Table 6. Foliage color and leaf dissection of twenty potato genotypes

GENOTYPE FOLIAGE
COLOR LEAF
DISSECTION
384558.10 Intermediate Weakly
380251.17 Intermediate Weakly
IP84007.67 Intermediate Weakly
285411.22 Dark
green Weakly
676070 Dark
green
Weakly
387443.22 Intermediate Weakly
387039.15 Dark
green Weakly
676008 Dark
green
Weakly
387410.7 Intermediate
Weakly
575003 Intermediate
Scarcely
15.97.8 Intermediate
Weakly
720045 Intermediate
Weakly
676004 Intermediate
Weakly
720071 Intermediate
Weakly
285378.27 Intermediate Medium
720097 Intermediate
Weakly
676103 Intermediate
Weakly
FS1 Intermediate
Weakly
Igorota Dark
green
Weakly
Ganza Light
green
Scarcely


Number of Leaves

Highly significant differences on the number of leaves were noted among the
genotypes as shown in Table 7. Genotype 387039.15 had the most number of leaves
which was also comparable with genotypes 380251.17 and 285378.27. The least number
of leaves was observed in genotype 15.97.8. Genotypes such as 676070 that produced
few leaves were observed to have large leaves.

Leaf Area

Significant differences were observed among the genotypes for leaf area.
Genotype 285411.22 significantly had the largest leaves followed by genotype 676070.
Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

28
The smallest leaves were obtained from genotypes Igorota and 676103. Differences in
leaf area could be due to variability in leaf shapes and dissection as noted earlier (Table
7).

Table 7. Number of leaves and leaf area of the twenty potato genotypes

GENOTYPE
LEAF AREA*
NUMBER OF LEAVES*
(cm2)
384558.10 29cdefg 56.67ef
380251.17 58ab 59.27def
IP84007.67 52abc 86.83bc
285411.22 53abc 134.58a
676070 39bcdef 95.40b
387443.22 45bcde 49.50ef
387039.15 70a 59.13def
676008 47abcd 52.63ef
387410.7 23defg 51.63ef
575003 27defg 52.28ef
15.97.8 13g 29.23gh
720045 23defg 30.57gh
676004 20fg 46.53f
720071 41bcdef 43.50fg
285378.27 61ab 48.63ef
720097 34cdefg 64.07de
676103 21efg 20.67h
FS1 44bcde 54.23ef
Igorota 14g 25.70h
Ganza 26defg 74.33cd
CV (%)
34.10
15.64

*Means with the same letter are not significantly different by DMRT (P > 0.05).







Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

29
Stem Characters

Stem Color

The color of the stem of the potato genotypes is shown in Table 8. It was
observed that genotype 676070 has combination of cream with purple stem. Purple color
was noted for genotype 285378.27. Other genotypes have green stem.

Stem Cross Section

Genotypes Igorota, 15.97.8, 720045, 676004, 720071, 720097 and 676103 are
observed to have round stems while the other genotypes were noted to have angular
stems (Table 8).

Stem Wing

It was observed that those genotypes with round stem have no wings. Genotypes
676070, 676008, 387410.7, 575003 and 285378.27 were noted to have a straight stem
wings while the other genotypes have undulate stem wings (Table 8).
Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

30
Table 8. Stem color, stem cross section and stem wing of twenty potato genotypes

STEM CROSS
GENOTYPE STEM
COLOR
STEM WING
SECTION
384558.10 Green Angular
Undulate
380251.17 Green Angular
Undulate
IP84007.67 Green Angular
Undulate
285411.22 Green Angular
Undulate
676070 Cream
w/
Purple
Angular
Straight
387443.22 Green Angular
Undulate
387039.15 Green Angular
Undulate
676008 Green
Angular
Straight
387410.7 Green Angular
Straight
575003 Green
Angular
Straight
15.97.8 Green
Round
Absent
720045 Green
Round
Absent
676004 Green
Round
Absent
720071 Green
Round
Absent
285378.27 Purple Angular
Straight
720097 Green
Round
Absent
676103 Green
Round
Absent
FS1 Green
Angular
Undulate
Igorota Green
Round
Absent
Ganza Green
Angular
Undulate


Diameter of Stem

Variability was observed among the potato genotypes for stem diameter.
Genotype IP84007.67 was noted to have the widest stem which was comparable with
Ganza. According to Smith (1968) as cited by Gayadon (1999), larger stems were found
to have greater assimilation rate per unit plant and leads to higher yield. On the other
hand, genotype 676103 was observed to have the narrowest stem (Table 9).
Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

31
Table 9. Diameter of stem and length of main stem of the twenty potato genotypes

DIAMETER OF STEM*
LENGTH OF MAIN STEM*
GENOTYPE
(mm)
(cm)
384558.10 5.30bcde 26.13efg
380251.17 5.67abc 52.70b
IP84007.67 6.83a 40.80bcdef
285411.22 5.37bcd 41.33bcdef
676070 4.43cdefg 37.47bcdefg
387443.22 5.40bcd 41.80bcdef
387039.15 5.60abcd 50.03b
676008 5.37bcd 33.40cdefg
387410.7 3.83fg 32.83defg
575003 3.77fg 31.30defg
15.97.8 3.90efg 25.30fg
720045 3.67fg 26.60efg
676004 4.53cdefg 37.00bcdefg
720071 4.90bcdef 78.33a
285378.27 5.03bcdef 47.83bcd
720097 5.60abcd 49.83bc
676103 3.40g 90.00a
FS1 4.97bcdef 23.70g
Igorota 4.13defg 38.90bcdefg
Ganza 6.30ab 42.37bcde
CV (%)
15.30
20.43
*Means with the same letter are not significantly different at by DMRT (P > 0.05).

Length of Main Stem

Highly significant differences were noted for the length of main stem of the
potato genotypes. The genotypes with the longest main stem were 676103 and 720071.
On the other hand, FS1 had the shortest main stem. It was also noted that genotypes with
longer main stem had longer internodes as observed in genotypes 676103 and 720071
(Table 9).

Length of Internodes

Significant differences on the length of internodes among the genotypes were
observed. Genotype 676103 produced the longest internodes which was significantly
Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

32
different with genotype 720071. In contrast, FS1 had the shortest internodes. It was
observed that genotype 676103 which had the longest internode also produced the longest
main stem, while FS1 which had the shortest internodes exhibited the shortest main stem
(Table 10).

Number of Nodes

Table 10 summarizes the number of nodes of the twenty potato genotypes.
Statistically, highly significant differences were noted among the genotypes. Genotype
387039.15 had the most number of nodes which was significantly different with
genotypes 676103 and 380251.17. On the other hand, genotypes Igorota, 384558.10 and
FS1 produced the least number of nodes.

Number of Secondary Stems

Number of secondary stems were observed to be significant among the twenty
genotypes of potato. Genotype 387039.15 was noted to have the most secondary stems
which was comparable with genotype 380251.17. On the other hand, genotype 15.97.8
had the least secondary stems.
Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

33
Table 10. Length of internodes, number of nodes and secondary stems of twenty potato
genotypes

NUMBER OF
LENGTH OF
NUMBER OF
GENOTYPE
SECONDARY
INTERNODES*
NODES*
STEMS*
384558.10 5.53efg 15d
3cdefg
380251.17 7.27cde 21b
5ab
IP84007.67 7.73bcd 20bc
5abc
285411.22 7.23cde 19bcd
5abcd
676070 7.93bcd 18bcd
3bcdefg
387443.22 6.70def 18bcd
5abcd
387039.15 8.60bc 25a
6a
676008 7.07cde 20bc
4abcde
387410.7 6.40defg 18bcd
2fg
575003 6.60def 19bcd
2efg
15.97.8 5.53efg 19bcd
1g
720045 5.71efg 20bc
2defg
676004 7.20cde 16cd
1fg
720071 9.20b 20bc
3bcdefg
285378.27 7.67bcd 20bc
4abcdef
720097 7.20cde 15d
2efg
676103 11.10a 21b
2efg
FS1 4.70g 15d
3bcdefg
Igorota 7.17cde 15d
1g
Ganza 5.07fg 18bcd
2fg
CV (%)
13.02
11.77
42.95
*Means with the same letter are not significantly different by DMRT (P > 0.05).

Presence/Absence of Flowers

Among the twenty potato genotypes characterized, it was observed that only ten
of the genotypes produced flowers. These are genotypes 380251.17, IP84007.67,
285411.22, 387443.22, 387039.15, 676004, 720097, 676103, Igorota and Ganza.
Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

34
Table 11. Presence/absence of flowers of the twenty potato genotypes

GENOTYPE PRESENCE/ABSENCE
OF
FLOWER
384558.10 Absent
380251.17 Present
IP84007.67 Present
285411.22 Present
676070 Absent
387443.22 Present
387039.15 Present
676008 Absent
387410.7 Absent
575003 Absent
15.97.8 Absent
720045 Absent
676004 Present
720071 Absent
285378.27 Absent
720097 Present
676103 Present
FS1 Absent
Igorota Present
Ganza Present


Root Characters


Number of Roots

The fibrous roots of the plants were counted and measured. As shown in Table
12, the differences observed in the number of roots of the potato genotypes is significant.
Genotype 285411.22 produced the most number of roots which is comparable with
genotype 387039.15. On the other hand, genotype 676103 produced the least number of
roots.
Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

35
Table 12. Root characters of twenty potato genotypes

LENGTH OF ROOTS*
GENOTYPE NUMBER
OF
ROOTS*
(cm)
384558.10
05hi 12.67bcdef
380251.17
09efghi 15.33abcd
IP84007.67 15bc 16.33ab
285411.22 21a 16.00abc
676070 15bcd 15.30abcd
387443.22 11cdefg 13.00bcdef
387039.15 19ab 18.20a
676008
07fghi 11.37defg
387410.7
09defgh 10.27fg
575003 13cde 12.77bcdef
15.97.8 10cdefgh
8.27gh
720045 11cdef 12.13cdef
676004
06ghi 10.57efg
720071
09efghi 13.77bcdef
285378.27
06ghi 14.47abcde
720097
06ghi 13.70bcdef
676103
04i
5.93h
FS1
06ghi 11.17efg
Igorota
05hi
6.50h
Ganza
07fghi 13.97bcdef
CV (%)
28.96
16.22
*Means with the same letter are not significantly different by DMRT (P > 0.05).

Length of Roots

Table 12 summarizes the length of roots of the twenty genotypes of potato.
Statistically, significant differences were observed. Genotype 387039.15 had
significantly the longest root and was comparable with genotypes IP84007.67 and
285411.22. Genotype 676103 registered the shortest roots.
Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

36
Tuber Characters


Predominant Tuber Skin Color

Table 13 summarizes the predominant tuber skin color of the twenty potato
genotypes. Genotypes 285411.22, 676008, 720097 and 676103 were noted to have
purplish-red tuber, genotype 384558.10 had brownish tuber and genotype 676070 has
pink tubers. The other genotypes were observed to have a yellow tubers while genotype
285378.27 has purple tubers.

Tuber Shape

Genotypes 384558.10 and 676070 were observed to have oblong shape while
genotypes 387443.22, 720071 and 676103 were noted also to have an ovate tuber. Other
genotypes were noted to have a round tubers (Table 13).

Number of Eyes/Tuber

Tubers of genotype 285411.22 significantly had the most number of eyes which is
comparable with genotype 384558.10. On the other hand, Igorota tubers had the least
number of eyes (Table 13).
Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

37
Table 13. Predominant skin color, tuber shape and number of eyes per tuber of twenty
potato genotypes

PREDOMINANT
NUMBER OF EYES
GENOTYPE
TUBER SHAPE
SKIN COLOR
PER TUBER*
384558.10 Brownish
Oblong
10ab
380251.17 Yellow
Round
08bc
IP84007.67 Yellow
Round
06defg
285411.22 Purplish-red Round
11a
676070 Pink
Oblong
07bcde
387443.22 Yellow
Ovate
06cdef
387039.15 Yellow
Round
09b
676008 Purplish-red Round
08bcd
387410.7 Yellow
Round
05efg
575003 Yellow
Round
05fg
15.97.8 Yellow
Round
05fg
720045 Yellow
Round
05fg
676004 Yellow
Round
06defg
720071 Yellow
Ovate
06defg
285378.27 Purple
Round
06defg
720097 Purplish-red Round
06defg
676103 Purplish-red Ovate
07bcde
FS1 Yellow Round 06defg
Igorota Yellow
Round
04g
Ganza Yellow
Round
07bcde
CV (%)


17
*Means with the same letter are not significantly different by DMRT (P > 0.05).

Depth of Eyes

Tubers of genotypes 380251.17, 387443.22, 676008, 387410.7 and FS1 have
protruding eyes, tubers of genotype 285378.27 had a deep eyes, tubers of genotype
676103 have medium depth of eyes while the other genotypes have shallow eyes in their
tubers (Table 14). In terms of chipping, potatoes with shallow and protruding eyes
lessens the trimming loss compared with those have deep and medium depth of eyes as
reported.



Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

38
Predominant Tuber Flesh Color

Genotypes 720097 and 575003 had tubers with yellow cream tuber flesh.
Genotypes 387039.15, 380251.17 and 384558.10 have white tuber flesh and Igorota had
yellow tuber flesh. The other genotypes have a cream tuber flesh (Table 14).

Table 14. Depth of eyes and predominant tuber flesh color of twenty potato genotypes
PREDOMINANT TUBER
GENOTYPE
DEPTH OF EYES
FLESH COLOR
384558.10 Shallow
White
380251.17 Protruding
White
IP84007.67 Shallow
Cream
285411.22 Shallow
Yellow
676070 Shallow
Cream
387443.22 Protruding
Cream
387039.15 Shallow
White
676008 Protruding
Yellow
387410.7 Protruding
Cream
575003 Shallow
Yellow-cream
15.97.8 Shallow
Yellow
720045 Shallow
Cream
676004 Shallow
Cream
720071 Shallow
Cream
285378.27 Deep
Cream
720097 Shallow
Yellow-cream
676103 Medium
Cream
FS1 Protruding Yellow
Igorota Shallow
Yellow
Ganza Shallow
Yellow






Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

39
Haulm Weight

As shown in Table 15, genotype 380251.17 had the heaviest haulm weight of
80.32 g which was comparable with genotype 387039.15 while Igorota had the lightest
haulm weight with a mean of 6.84. Highly significant differences in the haulm weight
existed among the twenty potato genotypes.

Table 15. Haulm weight of twenty potato genotypes

HAULM WEIGHT*
GENOTYPE
(g/plant)
384558.10
5.03f
380251.17 80.32a
IP84007.67 53.00abc
285411.22 51.44abcd
676070 21.02bcdef
387443.22 14.94bcdef
387039.15 55.07ab
676008 40.37abcdef
387410.7 12.86f
575003 26.06bcdef
15.97.8
7.07ef
720045 18.67bcdef
676004 37.54bcdef
720071 48.33abcde
285378.27 45.10abcdef
720097 35.28bcdef
676103 15.44bcdef
FS1 10.13def
Igorota
6.84ef
Ganza 26.29bcdef
CV (%)
68.01
*Means with the same letter are not significantly different by DMRT (P > 0.05).
Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

40
Tuber Yield Parameters

Weight of Marketable Tubers

Genotype 387039.15 produced the heaviest marketable tubers, followed by
genotype 384558.10. Genotype 676103, on the other hand, which produced the least
number of marketable tubers also produced the lowest weight of marketable tubers (Table
16).

Weight of Non-marketable Tubers

Genotype IP84007.67 significantly had the highest weight of non-marketable
tubers produced followed by genotype 387443.22. On the other hand, genotype 676103
which had the least number of non-marketable tubers also had the lowest weight of non-
marketable tubers produced (Table 16).

Total Weight of Tubers

Significant differences in the total weight of marketable tubers were noted among
the genotypes. Genotype 387039.15 produced the heaviest weight of tubers and was
comparable with genotypes 384558.10, 380251.17, IP84007.67, 676070, 720045 and
Ganza while genotype 676103 produced the lightest weight of tubers (Table 16).











Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

41
Table 16. Weight of marketable, non-marketable and total yield of twenty potato
genotypes

WEIGHT OF
WEIGHT OF NON-
GENOTYPE
TOTAL YIELD*
MARKETABLE TUBERS*
MARKETABLE TUBERS*
(g/plant)
(g/plant)
(g/plant)
384558.10
89.75b 10.14e
99.89ab
380251.17
78.51b
9.81c
88.46ab
IP84007.67
79.67b 28.83a 108.5ab
285411.22
18.71cd
7.63c
26.34b
676070
2.50cd
3.76c
58.62ab
387443.22
29.59cd 13.81b
40.48b
387039.15 145.98a
9.65c 155.64a
676008
11.69cd
3.87c
15.56b
387410.7
30.49cd
6.04c
36.53b
575003
22.99cd
5.72c 139.52a
15.97.8
23.36cd
6.19c
29.55b
720045
53.33bcd 13.33c
66.67ab
676004
29.30cd
3.78c
33.07b
720071
10.32cd
4.16c
14.41b
285378.27
26.93cd
4.23c
31.16b
720097
29.96cd
3.83c
33.79b
676103
7.14cd
3.65c
10.79b
FS1
22.81cd 10.36c
33.16b
Igorota
14.20cd 10.13c
24.33b
Ganza
57.54bc
9.25c
66.79ab
CV (%)
56.98
68.64
88.86
*Means with the same letter are not significantly different by DMRT (P > 0.05).

Dry Matter Content (DMC) of Tubers

Highly significant differences were noted among the potato genotypes for DMC.
Genotype 387443.22 had the highest DMC of tubers and not significantly different with
genotypes 384558.10 and 380251.17 but is comparable with genotypes 676004 and FS1.
Genotype 676103, on the other hand, had the lowest DMC of tubers.




Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

42
Table 17. Dry matter content (DMC) of tubers and harvest index of twenty potato
genotypes

DRY MATTER CONTENT
GENOTYPE
HARVEST INDEX*
OF TUBERS*
384558.10 28.88a 0.32abc
380251.17 28.90a 0.36a
IP84007.67 26.53abc 0.27bcdef
285411.22 21.77abcd 0.26cdef
676070 22.17abcd 0.23def
387443.22 29.17a 0.27bcdef
387039.15 19.83bcd 0.24def
676008 22.87abcd 0.22ef
387410.7 21.20abcd 0.32abc
575003 20.53bcd 0.22ef
15.97.8 18.23cd 0.21f
720045 18.50cd 0.21f
676004 27.93ab 0.30abcd
720071 22.37abcd 0.29abcde
285378.27 23.50abcd 0.33abc
720097 16.17d 0.21f
676103 6.77e 0.11g
FS1 27.57ab 0.34ab
Igorota 22.50abcd 0.27bcdef
Ganza 23.30abcd 0.31abc
CV (%)
18.82
14.42
*Means with the same letter are not significantly different by DMRT (P > 0.05).

Harvest Index

Highly significant differences on the harvest index existed among the twenty
genotypes of potato as shown in Table 17. Genotype 380251.17 had the highest harvest
index and is comparable to FS1. Genotype 676103 which had the lowest DMC of tubers
produced the lowest harvest index.






Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

43
Correlation Between Marketable Yield
and Harvest Index to Other Characters


The correlation done between marketable yield with other characters are shown in
Table 18. A strong significant positive correlation was identified between marketable
yield and number of secondary stems and haulm weight. This implies that marketable
yield increases as the number of secondary stems increase. According to MAF (1992) as
cited by Gayadon (1999), yield of potato had been shown experimentally to be related to
the number of stems per unit area planted in conventionally produced potatoes. The
positive significant correlation between marketable yield and haulm weight implies that
as haulm weight increases marketable yield increases. According to Aparra and
Mamicpic (1980) as cited by Shagol (2001), sweetpotato vine weight, vine number, vine
diameter, leaf weight and leaf area were found to be significantly and positively
correlated with root yield. Significant positive correlation existed between marketable
yield and canopy cover at 75 DAP, diameter of stem, as well as the length of roots. In a
study conducted by Shagol (2001), characters such as canopy cover, number of leaves,
stem diameter, number of nodes, as well as vine length were identified to have positive
correlation with marketable yield in sweet potato varieties under conventional
production. In the correlation between harvest index with other characters, only dry
matter content of tubers and leaf area showed significant positive correlation with harvest
index. This implies that as DMC of tubers and leaf area increases, harvest index
increases. The strong positive correlation of DMC of tubers to harvest index indicates
high dry matter partitioning in the tubers. In a study conducted by Gibson (2002) under
conventional potato production, the DMC of tubers was found to be significantly and
positively correlated with harvest index.
Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

44

Table 18. Correlation between marketable yield and harvest index to other characters
(r = 0.329)

CHARACTERS MARKETABLE
YIELD
HARVEST
INDEX
Plant height at 30 DAP
0.115
-0.078
Plant height at 90 DAP
0.211
-0.241
Canopy cover at 30 DAP
0.005
0.107
Canopy cover at 45 DAP
0.241
-0.001
Canopy cover at 65 DAP
0.224
0.066
Canopy cover at 75 DAP
0.418* -0.102
Number of leaves
0.249
-0.014
Leaf area
0.093
0.371*
Length of main stem
-0.165
-0.187
Diameter of stem
0.354*
0.048
Length of internodes
0.143
0.006
Number of nodes
0.187
-0.135
Number of secondary stem
0.444**
-0.198
Number of roots
0.027
0.215
Length of roots
0.328*
-0.049
Number of eyes/tuber
0.178
-0.041
DMC of tubers
-0.205
0.840**
Haulm weight
0.444**
0.069
Harvest index
-0.083
1.00
Marketable yield
1.00

* - Significant at 5 % level of probability
** - Highly significant at 5 % level of probability

Correlation Analysis Among Leaf, Stem,
Root and Tuber Characters


Plant Height

Significant positive correlation was identified between plant height at 30 DAP
and length of internodes. This indicates that potato genotypes with longer internodes are
tall.

Plant height at 90 days after planting was found to be significantly and positively
correlated with canopy cover at 45 DAP, number of leaves and secondary stems. This
indicate that tall plants may have more leaves and secondary stems (Table 19).
Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

45
Number of Leaves

Number of leaves showed highly significant and positive correlation with number
of nodes and secondary stems (Table 19). This indicates that those genotypes with the
most leaves have more secondary stems and nodes.

Leaf Area

High positive correlation was identified between leaf area and number of leaves.
On the other hand, leaf area was negatively correlated with the length of internodes and
number of eyes per tuber (Table 19).

Haulm Weight

High positive correlation was noted between haulm weight and canopy cover at
75 DAP and number of roots. This indicates that those genotypes with the highest
canopy cover at 75 and more roots have heaviest haulm weight. While high negative
correlation was found between haulm weight and length of roots (Table 19).

Length of Main Stem

Results showed that length of main stem was significantly and positively
correlated with the length of internodes. This indicates that those genotypes with longer
internodes also produced longer main stem as exhibited by genotypes 676103, 720071
and 387039.15. On the other hand, number and length of roots as well as dry matter
content of tubers were found to be negatively correlated with the length of main stem
(Table 19).


Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

46
Diameter of Stem

Significant positive correlation was identified between diameter of stem and
canopy cover at 30, 45 and 75 DAP (Table 19). This implies that potato genotypes with
highest canopy cover had wider stem diameter.

Length of Internode

Significant and positive correlation was noted between length of internode and
number of roots. This indicates that potato genotypes with more leaves may have longer
internodes. On the other hand, negative correlation was noted between length of
internodes and length of roots and dry matter content of tubers (Table 19).

Number of Nodes

Significant positive correlation was found between number of nodes and number
of secondary stems. This indicates that genotypes with more secondary stem may have
more nodes. Negative correlation, on the other hand was noted between number of nodes
and number of roots and dry matter content of roots (Table 19).

Number of Secondary Stems

Significant positive correlation was found between number of secondary stems
and length of roots as well as the marketable yield. On the other hand, number of
secondary stems was negatively correlated with dry matter content of tubers (Table 19).




Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

47
Number of Roots

Significant and positive correlation was noted between number of roots and
length of internodes. On the other hand, high negative correlation was found between
number of roots and plant height at 90 DAP (Table 19).

Length of Roots

No significant correlation was noted between length of roots and the other
characters measured (Table 19.)

Number of Eyes Per Tuber

High positive correlation was found between the number of eyes per tuber and
number of nodes. On the other hand, it was revealed that number of eyes per tuber has
high negative correlation with length of main stem and canopy cover at 45 DAP (Table
19).

Dry Matter Content of Tubers

Results of correlation coefficient analysis between dry matter content of tubers
and canopy cover at 90 DAP revealed high positive correlation. On the other hand, high
negative correlation was found between dry matter content of tubers and number of
secondary stem (Table 19).
Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

48
Table 19. Correlation analysis among leaf, stem, root and tuber characters


PH30
PH90 CC30 CC45 CC65 CC75 NL LA HW LMS DS LI
NN NSS NR LR NE/T DMCT
PH30
1.00**

















PH90
0.257* 1.00**
















CC30
0.194* 0.014* 1.00**















CC45
0.287* 0.328* 0.574** 1.00**














CC65
0.214* 0.055* 0.584** 0.794** 1.00***













CC75
0.200* 0.257* 0.406** 0.808** 0.796** 1.00**












NL
0.243* 0.325* -0.012** 0.367** 0.310** 0.384** 1.00**











LA
-0.138* 0.129* -0.092** 0.112** -0.009** 0.110** 0.259** 1.00*










HW
0.162* 0.034* 0.089** 0.216** 0.169** 0.299** 0.161** 0.194 1.00*









LMS
0.136* 0.230*
*0.220** 0.456** 0.459** 0.375** 0.136*v
-0.075
0.244
1.00
DS
0.283* 0.129* 0.344** 0.387** 0.244** 0.442** 0.195** 0.158 0.126 0.139 1.00*







LI
0.418* 0.249* 0.251** 0.295** 0.416** 0.205** 0.284** -0.120 0.221 0.261 0.045 1.00***






NN
0.102* 0.237* -0.099** 0.129*v 0.045*v 0.142** 0.478** 0.185 0.146 0.130 0.059 0.022** 1.00*v





NSS
0.290* 0.350* -0.047** 0.320** 0.324** 0.420** 0.746** 0.110 0.090 0.137 0.277 0.262** 0.352* 1.00*




NR
0.190* -0250* 0.086*v -0.099** 0.214** -0.043** 0.113** 0.131 0.270 -0.003 0.036 0.509** -0.062* 0.140 1.00*



LR
-0.142* 0.068* -0.145*v -0.133** -0.087*v -0.037*v -0.089*v 0.139 -0.269 -0.085 0.159 -0.088*v 0.147* 0.293 -0.096 1.00*


NE/T
-0.115* 0.026* -0.098*v -0.244** -0.238*v -0.062*v -0.094** -0.128 -0.138 -0.249 -0.063 -0.139** 0.284* 0.020 0.056 0.041 1.00*

DMCT --0.010* *0.217* 0.319** 0.126*v 0.186** -0.029*v -0.142** 0.124 -0.027 0.055 0.111 -0.015*v -0.221* -0.230 0.043 -0.195 -0.121 1.00
* - Significant
** - Highly significant

Legend:
PH30
Plant height at 30 DAP

LMS
Length of main stem
HW
Haulm weight
PH90
Plant height at 90 DAP

DS
Diameter of stem
NE/T
Number of eyes per tuber
CC30
Canopy cover at 30 DAP

LI
Length of internodes

CC45
Canopy cover at 45 DAP

NN
Number of nodes



CC65
Canopy cover at 65 DAP

NSS
Number of secondary stems



CC75
Canopy cover at 75 DAP

NR
Number of roots



NL
Number of leaves

LR
Length of roots



LA Leaf
area

DMCT
Dry
matter content of tubers



Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

49
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION


Summary

This study was conducted to characterize twenty potato genotypes for their
morphological characters and to correlate morphological and marketable yield in potato
genotypes grown organically at Benguet State University Experimental Station, Balili La
Trinidad Benguet from May to August 2005.

The twenty potato genotypes showed variability for leaf, stems, roots and tuber
characters. Significant differences of all characters measured were observed among the
genotypes. Correlation analysis was done to determine the relationship among the
different characters and to identify those characters associated with yield grown
organically.

In correlation between marketable yield with other characters, number of
secondary stems, haulm weight, canopy cover at 75 DAP, diameter of stem and length of
roots showed significant positive correlation with marketable yield. Other characters
with high positive correlation with marketable yield are plant height at 90 DAP and
canopy cover 45 and 65 DAP as well as number of leaves. In the correlation done
between harvest index and other characters, only the dry matter content of tubers and leaf
area showed significant positive correlation.

Among the leaf, stem, root and tuber characters correlated, significant positive
correlation were observed between plant height at 30 DAP and length of internodes; plant
height at 90 DAP and canopy cover at 45 DAP, number of leaves as well as number of
secondary stems; length of internodes and number of roots and between number of nodes
and number of secondary stems.
Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

50
Conclusion
Variability
existed
among
the different genotypes in the morphological characters
measured.

Correlation analysis revealed that marketable yield was significantly correlated
with number of secondary stems, haulm weight, canopy cover at 75 DAP, diameter of
stem and length of roots. Significant positive correlation exists between harvest index
and dry matter content of tubers and leaf area.

As for the leaf, stem, root and tuber characters, significant positive correlation
were identified between plant height at 30 DAP and length of internodes; plant height at
90 DAP and canopy cover at 45 DAP, number of leaves and secondary stems; number of
leaves and number of nodes as well as secondary stems; length of internodes and number
of roots and between number of nodes and secondary stems.

Recommendation

Canopy cover at 75 DAP, number of secondary stems and haulm weight could be
used as indices for selection of varieties or genotypes for organic production of potato.
Since morphological characters are difficult to assess and sometimes not reliable, a more
precise way to characterize is the use of DNA markers. Research towards DNA profiling
could be done for the best potato genotypes for organic production.

Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

51
LITERATURE CITED

ANONYMOUS, 2001. Organic farming. USA.
http://www.agrinetguyana.org.gy/nari/reseach/organic/organicagriculture.htm.

ANSELMO, B.A. 1992. Morphological and yield characters associated with drought
resistance in sweet potato (Ipomeoa batatas). M.S Thesis. University of the
Philippines. Pp. 1-2.

BORROMEO, T.H., P.L. SANCHEZ, E.L. QUINTANA and L.M. ENGLE. 1994.
Manual on rice genetic resources conservation and genebank management. Nueva
Ecija: PhilRice. Pp. 22, 45-60.

CIP. 1977. The potato descriptors list.

DOWNIE, N.M. and HEALTH, R.W. 1983. Basic statistical methods. Harper and row,
Publishers, Inc., New York. Pp. 92-93.

GAYADON, C.L. 1999. Yield assessment of potato using granola and montanosa seed
tubers and stem cuttings. BS Thesis. BSU, La Trinidad Benguet. Pp. 2-3.

GIBSON, N.J. 2002. Evaluation and correlation analysis in five promising potato
genoypes under La Trinidad, Benguet condition. BS Thesis. BSU, La Trinidad
Benguet. Pp. 1- 12, 44.

GOLMIRZAIE, A. and F.SERQUEN. 1992. Correlation between early and late growth
characteristics in an improve TPS population: Hort Science Journal.

GONZALES, E.L. 1983. Characterization and yield evaluation of common varieties of
snap bean. BS Thesis. BSU, La Trinidad Benguet. Pp. 1-2.

HARRDEC. 1999. Highland potato technoguide. BSU, La Trinidad Benguet. Pp. 1-2

HARRDEC. 1996. Highland potato technoguide. (3rd ed). BSU, La Trinidad Benguet. Pp
1-3

HAYWARD, M.D., N.O. BOSMARK and ROMAGOSA. 1993. Plant breeding
principles and prospects. Mediterranansium Nationam Agraria Universitas:
Chapman and Hall. Pp. 451-496.

INTERNATIONAL POTATO CENTER. 1997. Program report 1995-1996. Lima, Peru.
http//www.cipotato.org. P.110.

JOSE, M. C. 2004. Varietal characterization, evaluation and correlation study in bush
snap bean. BS Thesis. BSU, La Trinidad Benguet. Pp. 40-41.
Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

52
KUEPPER, G. 2003. An overview of organic crop production. ATTRA Publications.
Http://www.atra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/organicsoy.pdf.

KUEPPER, G. and GEGNER, L. 2004. Organic crop production: fundamentals of
sustainable agriculture. ATTRA Publication.


http://www.attrapub/organicrop.html#notions.

LOMADEO, A.O. 2005. Yield and other characteristics of glutinous corn under La
Trinidad condition. BS Thesis. BSU, La Trinidad Benguet. Pp. 9-10, 36.

PCARRD. 1997. Mountain Province potato technoguide. BSU, La Trinidad Benguet. Pp
1-4.

PCARRD. 1982. Benguet technoguide for potato. Laguna. Pp 1-2.

PCARRD. 2000. Sustainable development through organic agriculture Los Baňos,
Laguna, Philippines. P.18.

PETZOLDT, C. 2005. Integrated crop and pest management: guidelines for commercial
vegetable production. A Cornell Cooperative Extension Publication, New York.
http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/recommends/11framesets.html

REBUJIO, M.L. 2003. Morphological characterization, diversity analysis and evaluation
of sweet potato genotypes. BS Thesis. BSU, La Trinidad Benguet P. 42.

REMOQUILLO, J. E. 2003. Morphological diversity and yield performance of different
corn accessions collected from different sources. BS Thesis. BSU, La Trinidad
Benguet. P. 5-6.

SHAGOL, C. 2001. Morphological characters associated with yield in sweet potato under
La Trinidad condition. BS Thesis. BSU, La Trinidad Benguet. P. 40.

SINGH, P. and NARAYANAN, S. 1993. Biometrical techniques in plant breeding.
Kalyari Publishing. India. Pp. 27, 52-60.

WHITE, J. M. 2004. The vegetable production guide for Florida. Institute of food and
agricultural sciences (IFUS) extension University of Florida.
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/phfiles/cv11800.pdf.




Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

53
APPENDICES


APPENDIX TABLE 1. Canopy cover at 30 DAP

BLOCK
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
384558.10 29 39 61 129
29.00
380251.17 22 33 32 87
29.00
IP84007.67 15 23 28 66
22.00
285411.22 17 24 31 72
24.00
676070 19
31
28
78
26.00
387443.22 10 38 26 74
24.67
387039.15 31 25 50 106
35.33
676008 14
19
24
57
19.00
387410.7 16 22 18 56
18.67
575003 20
18
19
57
19.00
15.97.8 13
22
15
50
16.67
720045 20
22
11
53
17.67
676004 14
20
14
48
16.00
720071 33
13
20
66
22.00
285378.27 40 28 34 102
34.00
720097 15
18
16
49
16.33
676103 17
25
12
54
18.00
FS1 26
12
10
48
16.00
Igorota 24
18
20
62
20.67
Ganza 20
30
31
81
27.00
TOTAL
415.00 480.00 500.00
1,395.00
465.00
MEAN
20.75 24.00 25.00 69.75
23.25


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Block 2
228.409
114.205



Treatment 19
3,002.888
158.047
2.78** 1.85 2.40
Error 38
1,936.258
56.949

TOTAL 59
5,167.554

** – Highly significant
Coefficient of Variation = 32.24 %

Standard Error = 7.55

Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

54
APPENDIX TABLE 2. Canopy cover at 45 DAP

BLOCK
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
384558.10 57 30 81 168
56.00
380251.17 36 48 67 151
50.33
IP84007.67 18 25 39 82
27.33
285411.22 40 44 24 108
36.00
676070 24
53
39
116
38.67
387443.22 26 61 38 125
41.67
387039.15 37 40 44 121
40.33
676008 21
25
38
84
28.00
387410.7 23 34 24 81
27.00
575003 23
16
16
55
18.33
15.97.8 17
21
11
49
16.33
720045 21
22
10
53
17.67
676004 18
20
22
60
20.00
720071 25
16
40
81
27.00
285378.27 40 39 48 127
42.33
720097 10
19
16
45
15.00
676103 20
28
15
63
21.00
FS1 17
22
35
74
24.50
Igorota 25
18
31
74
24.67
Ganza 26
33
24
83
27.67
TOTAL
524.00 614.00 662.00
1,800.00
599.60
MEAN
26.20 30.70 33.10 90.00
29.98


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Block 2
348.904
174.452


Treatment 19 7,481.615
393.753 3.53** 1.85 2.40
Error 38
3,792.762
111.552
TOTAL 59
11,622.982

** – Highly significant
Coefficient of Variation = 35.23 %

Standard Error = 10.56




Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

55
APPENDIX TABLE 3. Canopy cover at 65 DAP

BLOCK
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
384558.10 45
31 77 153
51.00
380251.17 38
48 80 166
55.33
IP84007.67 44 52 51 147
49.00
285411.22 50
60 21 131
43.67
676070 27
61
46
134
44.67
387443.22 29
60 49 138
46.00
387039.15 41
49 74 164
54.67
676008 25
35
56
116
38.67
387410.7 27
28 5 60
20.00
575003 22
32
27
81
27.00
15.97.8 23
29
26
78
26.00
720045 21
22
5
48
16.00
676004 29
20
22
71
23.67
720071 26
25
40
90
30.00
285378.27 40
45 48 133
44.33
720097 10
22
19
51
17.00
676103 17
21
16
54
18.00
FS1 17
26
26
69
23.00
Igorota 20
13
17
50
16.67
Ganza 29
38
28
95
31.67
TOTAL
579.00
717.00
733.00
2,029.00
676.00
MEAN
28.95
35.85
36.65
101.45
33.80


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Block 2
437.026
281.513



Treatment 19
10,212.887
537.520
3.73** 1.85 2.40
Error 38
4,896.641
144.019
TOTAL 59
15,546.554

** – Highly significant
Coefficient of Variation = 35.39 %

Standard Error = 12.00




Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

56
APPENDIX TABLE 4. Canopy cover at 75 DAP

BLOCK
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
384558.10 45 31 77
153 51.00
380251.17 46 48 80
174 58.00
IP84007.67 50 52 50
152 50.67
285411.22 60 54 42
156 52.00
676070 30
54
17
101
33.67
387443.22 25 53 29
107 35.67
387039.15 62 53 39
154 51.33
676008 30
36
36
102
34.00
387410.7 23
18 4
45
15.00
575003 10
22
4
36
12.00
15.97.8 18
30
24
72
24.00
720045 20
20
5
45
15.00
676004 36
25
25
86
28.67
720071 30
25
40
95
31.67
285378.27 40 45 48
133 44.33
720097 13
22
19
54
18.00
676103 20
19
11
50
16.67
FS1 22
31
27
80
26.67
Igorota 23
13
10
46
15.33
Ganza 38
48
34
120
40.00
TOTAL
641.00
699.00 621.00
1,961.00
653.40
MEAN
32.05
34.95 31.05
98.05
32.67


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Block 2
88.352
44.176



Treatment 19 12,148.276
639.383
4.49** 1.85 2.40
Error 38
4,616.148
18.226

TOTAL 59
16,852.776

** – Highly significant
Coefficient of Variation = 35.39 %

Standard Error = 11.32




Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

57
APPENDIX TABLE 5. Plant height at 30 DAP

BLOCK
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
384558.10 17.0
20.9
30.9
68.8
22.93
380251.17 20.5
19.4
23.9
63.8
21.27
IP84007.67 22.0
17.0
21.4 60.4
20.13
285411.22 28.1
26.0
23.9
78.0
26.00
676070 26.3
24.5
28.0
78.8
26.25
387443.22 19.7
23.0
21.7
64.4
21.47
387039.15 28.0
26.7
29.9
84.6
28.20
676008 17.5
25.7
31.6
74.8
24.93
387410.7 21.2
33.7
25.0
79.9
26.63
575003 23.3
22.4
22.5
68.2
22.73
15.97.8 19.8
20.4
23.3
63.5
21.17
720045 25.6
27.9
20.1
73.6
24.53
676004 12.8
26.2
25.9
64.9
21.63
720071 13.7
23.1
28.7
65.5
21.83
285378.27 18.7
20.2
22.5
61.4
20.47
720097 13.7
14.7
19.3
47.7
15.90
676103 23.7
34.2
33.9
91.8
30.60
FS1 13.4
10.6
14.7
38.7
12.90
Igorota 23.9
28.9
28.9
81.7
27.23
Ganza 13.6
12.2
15.9
41.7
13.90
TOTAL
402.50 457.70
492.00
1,352.20
450.40
MEAN
20.13 22.89
24.60
67.61
22.52


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Block 2
227.190
113.595


Treatment 19
1,170.770
61.619 4.35** 1.85 2.40
Error 38
510.262
14.174

TOTAL 59
1,908.22

** – Highly significant
Coefficient of Variation = 16.80 %

Standard Error = 3.76




Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

58
APPENDIX TABLE 6. Plant height at 90 DAP

BLOCK
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
384558.10 35.8
28.0
32.5
96.3
32.10
380251.17 70.8
58.8
66.7
196.3
65.43
IP84007.67 43.9
50.6
60.7
155.2
51.73
285411.22 49.0
47.2
45.5
141.6
47.20
676070 41.8
51.6
46.4
139.8
46.60
387443.22 58.0
55.6
52.0
165.6
55.20
387039.15 72.2
64.3
55.2
191.7
63.90
676008 46.2
47.1
51.1
144.4
48.13
387410.7 37.9
55.6
46.8
140.3
46.77
575003 54.3
48.9
24.0
127.2
42.40
15.97.8 46.7
44.4
45.6
136.7
45.57
720045 34.8
46.7
45.0
126.5
42.17
676004 52.3
49.8
60.3
162.4
54.13
720071 81.1
75.0
54.2
240.3
80.10
285378.27 57.1
49.9
60.1
167.1
55.70
720097 33.5
60.0
55.7
149.2
49.73
676103 102.9
115.0
103.7
321.6
107.20
FS1 29.9
28.0
33.5
91.4
30.47
Igorota 48.8
44.8
46.8
140.4
46.80
Ganza 49.2
39.7
44.1
133.0
44.33
TOTAL
1,046.20 1,061.00
1,059.80
3,167.00
1,055.60
MEAN
52.31 53.05
52.99
158.35
52.78


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED F
TABULATED
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Block 2
4.028
2.014


Treatment 19
16,279.482
586.815 15.69** 1.85 2.40
Error 38
1,965.578
54.599

TOTAL 59

** – Highly significant
Coefficient of Variation = 13.95 %

Standard Error = 7.39




Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

59
APPENDIX TABLE 7. Number of leaves at 60 DAP

BLOCK
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
384558.10 30.9
19.3
36.5
86.7
28.90
380251.17 43.1
49.2
82.8
175.1
58.37
IP84007.67 42.0
47.8
66.5
156.3
52.10
285411.22 43.9
69.9
45.4
159.2
53.07
676070 35.4
40.9
41.3
117.6
39.03
387443.22 48.2
47.6
40.2
136.0
45.33
387039.15 67.6
58.9
82.5
209.0
69.67
676008 12.5
63.6
65.0
141.1
47.03
387410.7 19.5
16.7
32.0
68.2
22.73
575003 23.5
39.3
19.0
81.8
27.27
15.97.8 12.7
13.2
12.9
38.8
12.93
720045 19.0
30.2
20.0
69.2
23.07
676004 19.2
17.0
23.8
60.0
20.00
720071 19.8
39.4
65.1
124.3
41.43
285378.27 48.0
59.6
76.5
184.0
61.33
720097 22.0
24.8
53.9
100.7
33.57
676103 18.8
25.4
20.0
64.2
21.40
FS1 23.8
25.9
82.3
132.0
44.00
Igorota 14.9
12.4
15.5
42.8
14.27
Ganza 16.2
25.2
35.4
76.8
25.60
TOTAL
581.00 726.30 916.50
2,223.80
741.00
MEAN
29.05
36.32
45.83
111.19
37.05


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Block 2
2,831.563
1,415.782



Treatment 19 15,518.655
816.771
5.12** 1.85 2.40
Error 38
6,067.510
159.671

TOTAL 59
24,417.729

** – Highly significant
Coefficient of Variation = 34.10 %

Standard Error = 12.64

Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

60
APPENDIX TABLE 8. Leaf area (cm2) at 60 DAP

REPLICATION
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
384558.10 66.8
47.0
56.2
170.0
56.67
380251.17 57.3
54.2
66.3
177.8
59.27
IP84007.67 85.6
95.2
79.7
260.5
86.83
285411.22 142.7
125.7
135.3
403.7
134.57
676070 93.7
97.0
95.5
286.2
95.40
387443.22 51.2
48.3
49.0
148.5
49.50
387039.15 57.4
58.3
61.7
177.4
59.13
676008 52.5
52.8
52.6
157.9
52.63
387410.7 50.7
53.8
50.4
154.9
51.63
575003 54.3
58.9
43.6
156.8
52.27
15.97.8 29.6
30.2
27.9
87.7
29.23
720045 28.6
30.6
32.5
91.7
30.57
676004 38.3
41.6
59.7
139.6
46.53
720071 52.2
35.0
43.3
130.5
43.50
285378.27 34.9
68.0
43.0
145.9
48.63
720097 63.6
61.1
67.5
192.2
64.07
676103 18.4
17.8
25.8
62.0
20.67
FS1 55.6
30.9
76.2
162.7
54.23
Igorota 27.3
23.5
26.3
77.1
25.70
Ganza 60.7
83.0
79.3
223.0
74.33
TOTAL
1,121.40
1,112.90 1,171.80 3,406.10 1,135.60
MEAN
56.07 55.65 58.59 170.31 56.78


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Block 2
101.360
50.680


Treatment 19 39,017.323
2,053.543 26.06** 1.85 2.40
Error 38
2,994.506
78.803

TOTAL 59
42,113.190

** – Highly significant
Coefficient of Variation = 15.64 %

Standard Error = 8.80




Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

61
APPENDIX TABLE 9. Length of main stem (cm) at 65 DAP

BLOCK
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
384558.10 22.3
26.4
29.7
78.4
26.13
380251.17 34.3
53.4
70.4
158.1
52.70
IP84007.67 34.6
44.8
43.0
122.4
40.80
285411.22 33.1
48.9
42.0
124.0
41.33
676070 24.7
45.0
37.7
112.4
37.47
387443.22 26.5
50.5
48.4
125.4
41.80
387039.15 41.1
57.0
52.0
150.1
50.03
676008 24.7
26.9
48.6
100.2
33.40
387410.7 33.2
29.0
36.3
98.5
32.83
575003 32.5
31.4
30.0
93.9
31.30
15.97.8 25.8
25.1
25.0
75.9
25.30
720045 27.1
26.9
25.8
79.8
26.60
676004 26.5
25.2
59.3
111.0
37.00
720071 67.7
68.7
98.6
235.0
78.33
285378.27 58.8
45.3
42.4
143.5
47.83
720097 43.0
58.1
48.4
149.5
49.83
676103 89.0
98.1
82.9
270.0
90.00
FS1 21.3
27.3
22.5
71.1
23.70
Igorota 41.2
35.0
40.5
116.2
38.90
Ganza 44.3
42.6
40.2
127.1
42.37
TOTAL 753.70
865.50
923.70
2,542.90
847.60
MEAN
37.69 43.28 46.19 127.15 42.38


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Block 2
746.620
373.310


Treatment 19
15,983.923
841.259 11.22** 1.85 2.40
Error 38
2,849.580
74.989

TOTAL 59
19,580.123

** – Highly significant
Coefficient of Variation = 20.43 %

Standard Error = 8.66




Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

62
APPENDIX TABLE 10. Diameter of stem (mm) at 65 DAP

BLOCK
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
384558.10 4.1 4.8 7.0 15.9 5.30
380251.17 5.8 5.7 5.5 17.0 5.67
IP84007.67 7.7 6.6 6.2 20.5 6.83
285411.22 7.0 4.9 4.2 16.1 5.37
676070
4.3 4.6 4.4 13.3 4.43
387443.22 4.9 6.3 5.0 16.2 5.40
387039.15 5.8 5.9 5.1 16.8 5.60
676008
4.5 5.6 6.0 16.1 5.37
387410.7
3.6 3.8 4.1 11.5 3.83
575003
3.5 3.9 3.9 11.3 3.77
15.97.8
3.6 3.8 4.3 11.7 3.90
720045
3.6 4.0 3.4 11.0 3.6
676004
4.2 4.3 5.1 13.6 4.53
720071
5.6 3.7 5.4 14.7 4.90
285378.27 5.1 4.8 5.2 15.1 5.03
720097
5.0 5.2 6.6 16.8 5.60
676103
3.3 3.8 3.1 10.2 3.40
FS1
4.3 4.7 5.9 19.4 4.97
Igorota
3.7 3.6 5.1 12.4 4.13
Ganza
5.4 7.2 6.3 18.9 6.30
TOTAL 95.00
97.20
101.80
294.00
98.00
MEAN 4.75
4.86
5.09
14.70
4.90


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Block 2
1.204
0.602


Treatment 19 48.800
2.568 4.57** 1.85 2.40
Error 38
21.356
0.562

TOTAL 59 71.360

** – Highly significant
Coefficient of Variation = 15.30 %

Standard Error = 0.75




Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

63
APPENDIX TABLE 11. Length of internodes (cm) at 65 DAP

BLOCK
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
384558.10 5.0 5.1 6.5
16.6 5.53
380251.17 6.4 7.1 8.3
21.8 7.27
IP84007.67 7.3 7.5 8.4 23.2 7.73
285411.22 7.8 6.7 7.2
21.7 7.23
676070 9.5
6.5
7.8
23.8
7.93
387443.22 6.6 6.7 6.8
20.1 6.70
387039.15 7.4 7.9 10.5 25.8 8.60
676008 6.6
6.6
8.0
21.0
7.07
387410.7 5.9
7.3
6.0
19.0
6.40
575003 5.1
8.2
6.5
19.8
6.60
15.97.8 5.8
5.8
5.0
16.6
5.53
720045 6.2
6.1
5.0
17.3
5.77
676004 6.5
7.1
8.0
21.6
7.20
720071
8.0 9.1 10.5 27.6 9.20
285378.27 7.4 6.8 8.8
23.5 7.67
720097 5.5
7.6
8.5
21.6
7.20
676103
9.5 12.0 11.8 33.3 11.10
FS1 4.8
4.5
4.8
14.1
4.70
Igorota 7.5
6.4
7.6
21.5
7.17
Ganza 5.2
5.3
4.7
15.2
5.07
TOTAL 134.00
140.30
150.70
425.00
141.60
MEAN
6.70 7.02 7.54 21.25 7.08


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Block 2
7.112
3.556


Treatment 19 124.870
6.572 7.73** 1.85 2.40
Error 38
32.321
0.851

TOTAL 59
164.303

** – Highly significant
Coefficient of Variation = 13.02 %

Standard Error = 0.92




Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

64
APPENDIX TABLE 12. Number of nodes at 65 DAP

BLOCK
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
384558.10 16.7
16.6
11.9
45.2
15.07
380251.17 19.8
21.3
21.5
62.6
20.87
IP84007.67 20.0
20.0
21.2 61.2
20.40
285411.22 19.2
18.4
19.5
57.1
19.03
676070 18.8
19.5
16.3
54.6
18.20
387443.22 19.2
18.4
19.5
57.1
19.03
387039.15 26.0
24.6
24.8
75.4
25.13
676008 16.8
22.0
21.5
60.3
20.10
387410.7 21.0
17.0
16.3
54.3
18.10
575003 21.4
18.3
17.5
57.5
19.07
15.97.8 17.4
21.1
19.0
57.5
19.17
720045 18.6
20.3
21.3
60.2
20.07
676004 15.0
16.0
18.0
49.0
16.33
720071 17.0
20.0
23.5
60.5
20.17
285378.27 18.5
19.3
21.5
59.3
19.77
720097 13.2
14.2
18.6
46.00
15.33
676103 22.3
18.5
22.6
43.4
21.13
FS1 16.4
13.0
16.5
45.4
15.30
Igorota 16.3
12.9
16.8
46.0
15.33
Ganza 16.5
16.7
20.1
53.3
17.77
TOTAL 369.90
370.90
562.70
1,303.50
374.20
MEAN
18.50
18.55 28.14 65.18 18.71


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Block 2
4.357
2.179


Treatment 19 353.034
18.581 3.83** 1.85 2.40
Error 38
184.343
4.851

TOTAL 59
541.734

** – Highly significant
Coefficient of Variation = 11.77 %

Standard Error = 2.20




Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

65
APPENDIX TABLE 13. Number of secondary stems at 65 DAP

BLOCK
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
384558.10 1.9 2.0 4.0 7.9 2.63
380251.17 3.5 4.4 7.5 15.4 5.13
IP84007.67 5.1 5.2 4.4 14.7 4.90
285411.22 4.8 5.3 3.7 13.8 4.60
676070
2.6 4.6 2.4 9.6 3.20
387443.22 6.3 3.9 3.4 13.6 4.53
387039.15 6.4 5.5 6.5 18.4 6.13
676008
1.6 4.7 6.5 12.8 4.27
387410.7 1.8 1.4 1.8 5.0 1.67
575003
2.2 2.3 1.0 5.5 1.83
15.97.8
1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 1.00
720045
1.5 3.0 2.0 6.5 2.17
676004
1.0 1.0 2.4 4.4 1.47
720071
1.4 3.5 3.4 8.3 2.77
285378.27 3.2 1.9 6.4 11.5 3.83
720097
1.0 1.3 3.3 5.6 1.87
676103
1.4 2.4 1.8 5.6 1.87
FS1
1.0 1.3 5.9 8.2 2.73
Igorota
1.0 1.3 1.0 3.3 1.10
Ganza
1.7 1.8 1.4 4.9 1.63
TOTAL 50.40
51.30
69.80
177.50
59.40
MEAN 2.52
2.87
3.49
8.88
2.97


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Block 2
10.014
5.007


Treatment 19 131.093
6.900 4.25** 1.85 2.40
Error 38
61.686
1.623

TOTAL 59
202.793

** – Highly significant
Coefficient of Variation = 42.95 %

Standard Error = 1.27




Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

66
APPENDIX TABLE 14. Number of roots at harvest

BLOCK
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
384558.10 5.4 5.1 5.3 15.8
5.27
380251.17 8.3 7.3
11.1 26.7
8.90
IP84007.67 19.0 15.7 10.2 44.9 14.97
285411.22 16.5 25.0 20.8 62.3
20.77
676070 17.2
11.7
14.5
43.4
14.47
387443.22 13.0 10.2 10.0 33.2
11.07
387039.15 15.3 16.1 25.8 57.2
19.07
676008 8.3
7.8
5.7
21.8
7.27
387410.7 10.3 8.5 9.4 28.2
9.40
575003 10.0
15.2
12.6
37.8
12.60
15.97.8 10.1
9.5
9.8
29.4
9.80
720045 13.2
16.1
4.5
33.8
11.27
676004 5.0
5.0
8.4
18.4
6.13
720071 7.8
11.0
7.6
26.4
8.80
285378.27 5.0 6.3 5.7 17.0
5.67
720097 4.3
5.0
7.8
17.1
5.70
676103 2.8
4.7
3.3
10.8
3.60
FS1 7.3
6.0
4.6
17.9
5.97
Igorota 5.3
3.5
5.5
14.3
4.77
Ganza 6.2
7.0
6.7
19.9
6.63
TOTAL 190.30
196.70
189.30
576.30
192.20
MEAN
9.52 9.84 9.47 28.82 9.61


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Block 2
1.612
0.806


Treatment 19
1,290.662
67.930 8.78** 1.85 2.40
Error 38
293.975
7.736

TOTAL 59
1,586.249

** – Highly significant
Coefficient of Variation = 28.96 %

Standard Error = 2.78




Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

67
APPENDIX TABLE 15. Length of roots (cm) at harvest

BLOCK
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
384558.10 10.6 14.7 12.7 38.0 12.67
380251.17 16.6 13.8 15.6 46.0 15.33
IP84007.67 14.8 20.7 13.5 49.0 16.33
285411.22 17.0 15.0 16.0 48.0 16.00
676070
15.0 15.6 15.3 45.9 15.30
387443.22 16.8 14.7 7.5 39.0 13.00
387039.15 16.4 20.5 17.7 54.6 18.20
676008
8.6 11.2 14.3 34.1 11.37
387410.7 10.1 10.4 10.3 30.8 10.27
575003
11.4 14.1 12.8 38.3 12.77
15.97.8 7.6
8.9
8.3
24.8
8.27
720045
11.2 10.2 15.0 36.4 12.13
676004
10.0 11.1 10.6 31.7 10.57
720071
16.4 12.9 12.0 41.3 13.77
285378.27 12.4 15.7 15.3 43.4 14.47
720097
13.8 13.6 13.7 41.1 13.70
676103 5.8
7.0
5.0
17.8
5.93
FS1
9.7 11.3 12.5 33.5 11.17
Igorota 6.7
6.5
6.3
19.5
6.50
Ganza
16.0 12.7 13.2 41.9 13.97
TOTAL 246.90
260.60
247.60
755.10
251.80
MEAN 12.35
13.03
12.38
37.76
12.59


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED F
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
0.05 0.01
Block 2
5.953
2.977


Treatment 19 580.603
30.558 7.33** 1.85 2.40
Error 38
158.420
4.169

TOTAL 59
744.977

** – Highly significant
Coefficient of Variation = 16.22 %

Standard Error = 2.04




Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

68
APPENDIX TABLE 16. Number of eyes per tuber

BLOCK
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
384558.10 8.6 9.5 8.6
26.7 8.90
380251.17 7.7 8.1 9.1
24.9 8.30
IP84007.67 5.6 5.8 6.7 18.1 6.23
285411.22 13.5 8.1 10.1 31.7 10.57
676070 6.4
6.6
9.0
22.0
7.33
387443.22 6.7 7.5 4.7
18.9 6.30
387039.15 10.4 7.2 8.1 25.7 8.57
676008 6.7
8.7
7.6
23.0
7.67
387410.7 5.5
4.8
5.5
15.8
5.27
575003 4.0
5.2
4.6
13.8
4.60
15.97.8 4.3
4.8
4.5
13.6
4.53
720045 4.6
5.1
4.9
14.6
4.87
676004 6.0
5.1
6.1
17.2
5.73
720071 5.5
7.2
4.3
17.0
5.67
285378.27 6.4 6.1 5.6
18.1 6.03
720097 5.7
6.3
6.2
18.2
6.07
676103 7.2
6.1
8.0
21.3
7.10
FS1 6.0
7.0
6.2
19.2
6.40
Igorota 3.3
3.9
5.0
12.2
4.07
Ganza 6.3
6.6
8.4
21.3
7.10
TOTAL 130.40
129.70
133.20
393.30
131.20
MEAN
6.52 6.49 6.66 19.67 6.56


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Block 2
0.343
0.172


Treatment 19 156.202
8.221 6.83** 1.85 2.40
Error 38
45.764
1.204

TOTAL 59
202.309

** – Highly significant
Coefficient of Variation = 16.74 %

Standard Error = 1.09




Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

69
APPENDIX TABLE 17. Haulm Weight (g/plant)

REPLICATION
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
384558.10 10.53 0.36 4.2 15.09 5.03
380251.17 56.52 52.08
132.35
240.95 80.32
IP84007.67 65.00 13.00 81.00 159.00 53.00
285411.22 81.82 15.29 57.22
154.32 51.44
676070 13.00
28.57
21.50
63.07
21.02
387443.22 21.25 18.57 5.00 44.82 14.94
387039.15 45.45 57.27 62.50
165.22 55.07
676008 80.00
31.11
10.00
121.11
40.37
387410.7 3.57
25.00
10.00
38.57
12.86
575003 13.33
41.11
23.75
78.19
26.06
15.97.8 10.00
6.67
4.55
21.22
7.07
720045 10.00
16.00
30.00
56.00
18.67
676004 11.11
33.33
68.18
112.62
37.54
720071 29.41
45.00
70.59
145.00
48.33
285378.27 35.29 60.00 40.00
135.29 45.10
720097 23.33
36.36
46.15
105.84
35.58
676103 3.81
12.50
30.00
46.31
15.44
FS1 11.11
5.00
14.29
30.40
10.13
Igorota 1.18
16.00
3.33
20.51
6.84
Ganza 12.00
46.88
20.00
78.88
26.29
TOTAL
537.71
560.10
734.61
1,832.42
624.40
MEAN
26.89
28.01
36.73
91.62
31.22


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Block 2
1,147.173
573.586


Treatment 19 23,529.456
1,307.192 2.90** 1.85 2.40
Error 38
15,775.086
450.717

TOTAL 59
40,451.715

** – Highly significant
Coefficient of Variation = 68.01 %

Standard Error = 21.23




Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

70
APPENDIX TABLE 18. Weight of marketable tubers (g/plant)

REPLICATION
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
384558.10
78.95 64.29 126.00 269.24 89.75
380251.17
56.52 50.00 129.41 235.93 78.64
IP84007.67
65.00 51.00 123.00 239.00 79.67
285411.22
18.18 18.24 19.72 56.14 18.71
676070 73.50
59.52
10.00
143.02
47.67
387443.22 20.83
55.00
4.17
80.00
26.67
387039.15
205.00 120.45 112.50 437.95 145.98
676008 17.00
15.56
2.50
35.06
11.69
387410.7
14.29 51.67 25.50 91.46 30.49
575003
18.00 28.89 22.08 68.97 22.99
15.97.8
12.50 46.67 10.91 70.08 23.36
720045 44.00
70.00
46.00
160.00
53.33
676004
16.67 16.67 54.55 87.89 29.30
720071 7.06
19.00
4.91
30.97
10.32
285378.27
24.12 34.00 22.67 80.79 26.43
720097
16.67 20.91 52.31 89.89 29.96
676103
1.42 6.67 13.33 21.42 7.14
FS1
20.56 15.00 32.86 68.42 22.81
Igorota
20.59 12.00 10.00 42.59 14.20
Ganza 46.00
60.63
66.00
172.63
57.54
TOTAL 776.86
816.17
888.42
2,481.45
827.15
MEAN 38.84
40.81
44.42
124.07
41.36


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

TABULATED
SOURCE OF DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Block 2
595.099
297.540


Treatment 19 68,204.195
3,589.694 6.67** 1.85 2.40
Error 38
19,386.916
538.525
TOTAL 59
88m186.210

** – Highly significant
Coefficient of Variation = 56.48 %

Standard Error = 23.21




Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

71
APPENDIX TABLE 19. Weight of non-marketable tubers (g/plant)

REPLICATION
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
384558.10 4.21
8.21
18.00
30.42
10.14
380251.17 6.52
2.92
20.00
29.44
9.81
IP84007.67 21.00
10.50
55.00
86.50 28.83
285411.22 10.45
4.12
8.33
22.90 7.63
676070 4.50
4.29
2.50
11.29
3.76
387443.22 25.00
6.43
10.00
41.43
13.81
387039.15 7.27
3.18
18.50
28.95
9.65
676008 4.00
6.11
1.50
11.61
3.87
387410.7 4.29
8.33
5.50
18.12
6.04
575003 4.67
10.00
2.50
17.17
5.72
15.97.8 2.50
13.33
2.73
18.56
6.19
720045 10.00
20.00
10.00
40.00
13.33
676004 2.78
4.00
4.55
11.33
3.78
720071 1.18
6.00
5.29
12.47
4.16
285378.27 2.35
3.00
7.33
12.68
4.23
720097 4.00
3.64
3.85
11.49
3.83
676103 0.95
3.33
6.67
10.95
3.65
FS1 10.00
7.50
13.57
31.07
10.36
Igorota 7.06
10.00
13.33
30.39
10.13
Ganza 3.60
13.75
10.40
27.75
9.25
TOTAL 136.33
148.64
219.55
504.52
168.17
MEAN 6.82
7.43
10.78
25.23
8.41


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Block 2
318.235
159.235


Treatment 19
4,237.563
223.030 5.15** 1.85 2.40
Error 38
1,559.963
43.332

TOTAL 59
6,115.996

** – Highly significant
Coefficient of Variation = 68.64 %

Standard Error = 6.58




Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

72
APPENDIX TABLE 20. Total weight of tubers (g/plants)

REPLICATION
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
384558.10 83.16
72.50
144.00
299.66
99.89
380251.17 63.04
52.95
149.41
265.37
88.46
IP84007.67 86.00
61.50
17800
325.50
108.50
285411.22 28.63
22.35
28.05
79.03
26.34
676070 78.00
87.62
10.25
175.87
58.62
387443.22 45.83
61.43
14.17
121.43
40.48
387039.15 212.27
123.64
131.00
466.91
155.64
676008 21.00
21.67
4.00
46.67
15.56
387410.7 18.58
60.00
31.00
109.58
36.53
575003 22.67
38.89
357.00
418.56
139.52
15.97.8 15.00
60.00
13.64
88.64
29.55
720045 54.00
90.00
56.00
200.00
66.67
676004 19.45
20.67
59.10
99.22
33.07
720071 8.24
25.00
10.00
43.24
14.41
285378.27 26.47
37.00
30.00
93.47
31.16
720097 20.67
24.55
56.16
101.38
33.79
676103 2.37
10.00
20.00
32.37
10.79
FS1 30.56
22.50
43.43
99.49
33.16
Igorota 27.65
22.00
23.33
72.98
24.33
Ganza 49.60
74.40
76.40
200.38
66.79
TOTAL 913.19
988.62
1,437.94
3,339.75
1,113.26
MEAN 45.66
49.43
71.90
166.99
55.67


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Block 2
10,475.626
5,237.813



Treatment 19
101,199.001
5,326.263
2.15* 1.85 2.40
Error 38
88,993.575
2,472.044

TOTAL 59
200,668.202

* – Significant
Coefficient of Variation = 88.56 %

Standard Error = 49.72

Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

73
APPENDIX TABLE 21. Dry matter content (DMC) of tubers

REPLICATION
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
384558.10 31.1
26.3
29.2
86.6
28.87
380251.17 26.0
28.3
32.4
86.7
28.90
IP84007.67 29.4
21.8
28.4 79.6
26.53
285411.22 25.5
20.0
19.8
65.3
21.77
676070 21.6
20.5
24.4
66.5
22.17
387443.22 19.7
31.4
36.4
87.5
29.17
387039.15 16.4
18.8
24.3
59.5
19.83
676008 19.1
19.8
29.7
68.6
22.87
387410.7 17.3
24.0
22.3
63.6
21.20
575003 20.0
18.6
23.0
61.6
20.53
15.97.8 17.3
19.6
17.8
54.7
18.23
720045 16.0
19.2
20.3
55.5
18.50
676004 25.2
33.2
25.4
83.8
27.93
720071 28.5
24.1
14.5
67.1
22.37
285378.27 23.1
27.7
19.7
70.5
23.50
720097 16.0
11.5
21.0
48.5
16.17
676103 6.8
6.5
7.0
20.3
6.77
FS1 29.5
26.1
27.1
82.7
27.57
Igorota 23.8
19.7
24.0
67.5
22.50
Ganza 20.0
30.3
19.6
69.9
23.30
TOTAL 432.30
447.40
466.30
1,346.00
448.60
MEAN 21.62
22.37
23.32
67.30
22.43


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Block 2
29.020
14.540


Treatment 19
1,602.820
84.359 4.73** 1.85 2.40
Error 38
677.233
17.822

TOTAL 59
2,309.073

** – Highly significant
Coefficient of Variation = 18.82 %

Standard Error = 4.22




Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

74
APPENDIX TABLE 22. Harvest index

REPLICATION
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
384558.10 0.37
0.29
0.29
0.95
0.32
380251.17 0.35
0.34
0.39
1.08
0.36
IP84007.67 0.31
0.24
0.27 0.82
0.27
285411.22 0.28
0.25
0.24
0.77
0.26
676070 0.23
0.22
0.25
0.70
0.23
387443.22 0.23
0.28
0.31
0.82
0.27
387039.15 0.20
0.23
0.28
0.71
0.24
676008 0.20
0.20
0.26
0.66
0.22
387410.7 0.28
0.34
0.34
0.96
0.32
575003 0.19
0.23
0.24
0.66
0.22
15.97.8 0.17
0.27
0.18
0.62
0.21
720045 0.20
0.21
0.21
0.62
0.21
676004 0.28
0.34
0.29
0.91
0.30
720071 0.35
0.31
0.22
0.88
0.29
285378.27 0.29
0.41
0.29
0.99
0.33
720097 0.21
0.17
0.26
0.64
0.21
676103 0.11
0.13
0.11
0.35
0.12
FS1 0.35
0.33
0.35
1.03
0.34
Igorota 0.27
0.26
0.28
0.81
0.27
Ganza 0.27
0.36
0.31
0.94
0.31
TOTAL 5.14
5.41
5.37
15.92
5.40
MEAN 0.26
0.27
0.28
0.80
0.27


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Block 2
0.002
0.001


Treatment 19 0.202 0.011 7.26** 1.85 2.40
Error 38
0.056
0.001

TOTAL 59 0.259

** – Highly significant
Coefficient of Variation = 14.42 %

Standard Error = 0.04


Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes
(Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically / Melba B. Balas. 2006

---

Document Outline

• Correlation of Morphological and Marketable Yield in Potato Genotypes (Solanum tuberosum L.) Grown Organically
  • BIBLIOGRAPHY
  • ABSTRACT
  • TABLE OF CONTENTS
  • INTRODUCTION
  • REVIEW OF LITERATURE
    • Organic Production and it�s Importance
    • Importance of Diversity and Selection
    • Morphological Characters Associatedwith Potato Yield Performance
    • Morphological Characters Associatedwith Yield in Other Crops
  • MATERIALS AND METHODS
  • RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
    • Meteorological Data During the Study Period
    • Soil Analysis of the Experimental Area
    • Growth Habit Type
    • Branching Habit
    • Canopy Cover
    • Plant Height at 30 and 90 DAP
    • Leaf Characters
    • Stem Characters
    • Root Characters
    • Tuber Characters
    • Tuber Yield Parameters
    • Dry Matter Content (DMC) of Tubers
    • Harvest Index
    • Correlation Between Marketable Yieldand Harvest Index to Other Characters
    • Correlation Analysis Among Leaf, Stem,Root and Tuber Characters
  • SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
    • Summary
    • Conclusion
    • Recommendation
  • LITERATURE CITED
  • APPENDICES

---