Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Vol. 13 No. sp7 (2026): International Conference on Agricultural Sustainability

Gamma-ray radiation enhances agronomic trait diversity and °Brix content in landrace tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.)

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.14392
Submitted
4 March 2026
Published
07-09-2026

Abstract

The objective of the present investigation was to examine the effect of gamma-ray irradiation doses on the diversity of agronomic characters and the increase in sugar content in the first mutant generation (M1) of landrace tomato. Seeds were exposed to five doses with five repetitions for each dose: Control, 125 Gray (Gy), 250 Gy, 375 Gy and 500 Gy. The research results showed that the lethal dose 50 (LD₅₀) value of the landrace tomato was 472.88 Gy. Gamma-ray irradiation significantly induced variation in fruit shape, plant height, flowering time, harvest time, number of fruits per plant, weight per plant and total soluble solid content, while stem diameter, fruit weight and fruit diameter remained unaffected. The estimated genotypic coefficient of variation (GCV) and heritability values were high for the characteristics of flowering age, number of fruits per plant, fruit weight per plant and total soluble solid content. Principal component analysis accounted for 87.20 % of the total variation. Notably, five mutant tomatoes exhibited superior total soluble solid (°Brix) characteristics. This research determined that the optimal irradiation dose to increase °Brix levels in the landrace tomato was 160.901 Gy.

References

  1. 1. FAOSTAT. FAOSTAT. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2016.
  2. 2. Bergougnoux V. The history of tomato: from domestication to biopharming. Biotechnol Adv. 2014;32(1):170–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2013.11.003
  3. 3. Schwarz D, Thompson AJ, Kläring HP. Guidelines to use tomato in experiments with a controlled environment. Front Plant Sci. 2014;5:625. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2014.00625
  4. 4. Agriculture Ministry. Statistics of food consumption 2022. Center for Agricultural Data and Information System; 2022.
  5. 5. Fernqvist F, Hunter E. Who's to blame for tasteless tomatoes? The effect of tomato chilling on consumers' taste perceptions. Eur J Hortic Sci. 2012;77(5):193–8. https://doi.org/10.1079/ejhs.2012/3477615
  6. 6. Moraes GLV, Souki GQ, Moura LRC. Behavior of consumers of fresh tomatoes: a study using factor analysis. Organ Rural Agroind. 2017;19(4):322–33.https://doi.org/10.21714/2238-68902017v19n4p322
  7. 7. Fernqvist F, Göransson C. Future and recent developments in the retail vegetable category – a value chain and food systems approach. Int Food Agribus Manag Rev. 2021;24(1):27–49.https://doi.org/10.22434/IFAMR2019.0176
  8. 8. Yolanda GM, Darwanto DH, Ardhi MK. Consumers' attitude and preference toward fresh tomatoes in Special Region of Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Agraris. 2022;8(2):123–38. https://doi.org/10.18196/agraris.v8i2.12150
  9. 9. Aribawa IB, Kariada IK. Growth and yield performance of several introduced tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum L.) lines in the lowlands in the dry season. In: Proceedings of the National Seminar on Agricultural Technology Innovation. Bali: Center for Agricultural Research and Technology; 2016.
  10. 10. Ahmar S, Gill RA, Jung K, Faheem A, Qasim MU, Mubeen M, et al. Conventional and molecular techniques from simple breeding to speed breeding in crop plants: recent advances and future outlook. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;21:2590.https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21072590
  11. 11. Riviello-Flores ML, Cadena-Iñiguez J, Ruiz-Posadas LDM. Use of gamma radiation for the genetic improvement of underutilized plant varieties. Plants. 2022;11(9):1161.https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11091161
  12. 12. Sutapa GN, Kasmawan IGA. Effect of ^60Co gamma radiation induction mutation on physiological growth of tomato plants (Lycopersicon esculentum L.). J Keselamatan Radiasi Lingkung. 2016;1(2):5–11.
  13. 13. Romadhon MR, Sutjahjo SH, Marwiyah S. Evaluasi genotipe tomat hasil iradiasi sinar gamma di dataran rendah. J Agron Indones. 2018;46(2):189–96.https://doi.org/10.24831/jai.v46i2.16538
  14. 14. Gamage GGSU, Udage AC, Alwis LMHR, Marapana WMWS, Ariyathilake OWSH. Gamma radiation sensitivity and effective dosage for seeds of tomato variety Katugastota Wilt Resistant. Trop Agric. 2018;166(2):125–36.
  15. 15. Norfadzrin F, Ahmed OH, Shaharudin S, Abdul Rahman D. A preliminary study on gamma radiosensitivity of tomato. Int J Agric Res. 2007;2(7):620–5.https://doi.org/10.3923/ijar.2007.620.625
  16. 16. Kusmiyati F, Sutarno S, Sas MGA, Herwibawa B. Mutagenic effects of gamma rays on soybean (Glycine max L.) germination and seedlings. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci. 2018;102(1):012059. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/102/1/012059
  17. 17. Sleper DA, Poehlman JM. Breeding field crops. 5th ed. Ames (IA): Iowa State University Press; 2006.
  18. 18. Aragaw G. Genetic variability and association of quantitative traits among sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) genotypes in the highlands of eastern Ethiopia. Agrosyst Geosci Environ. 2025;8(4):e70235. https://doi.org/10.1002/agg2.70235
  19. 19. Mallick GR, Pramanik S, Pandit MK, Gupta AK, Roy S, Jambhulkar S, et al. Radiosensitivity of seedling traits to varying gamma doses, optimum dose determination and variation in determined doses due to different time of sowings after irradiation and methods of irradiation in faba bean genotypes. Int J Radiat Biol. 2023;99(3):534–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/09553002.2022.2107723
  20. 20. Chun J, Kim H, Jo YD, Kim JB, Kang JH. Development of a mutant population of Micro-Tom tomato using gamma irradiation. Plant Breed Biotechnol. 2020;8(4):307–15. https://doi.org/10.9787/PBB.2020.8.4.307
  21. 21. Aisha AH, Rafii MY, Rahim KA, Juraimi AS, Misran A, Oladosu Y. Radiosensitivity test of acute gamma irradiation of two varieties of chili pepper, Chili Bangi 3 and Chili Bangi 5. Int J Sci Technol Res. 2018;7(11):90–95.
  22. 22. Eun CH, Kim IJ. The citrus mutant Jedae-unshiu induced by gamma irradiation exhibits a unique fruit shape and increased flavonoid content. Plants. 2022;11(10):1337. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11101337
  23. 23. Human S, Loekitp S, Trilaksono M, Syaifudin A. Mutation breeding of pineapple plants (Ananas comosus (L.) Merr.) using gamma irradiation to improve the Smooth Cayenne pineapple variety. J Ilm Apl Isot Radiasi. 2016;12(1):13–22. https://doi.org/10.17146/jair.2016.12.1.3197
  24. 24. Gowthamil R, Vanniarajan C, Souframanien J, Pillai MA. Comparison of radiosensitivity of two rice (Oryza sativa L.) varieties to gamma rays and electron beam in M1 generation. Electron J Plant Breed. 2017;8(3):632–41. https://doi.org/10.5958/0975-928X.2017.00111.9
  25. 25. Wahyurini E, Lagiman L. Growth and yield of three tomato strains of Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. with various dosages of Trichoderma sp. In: First Asian PGPR Indonesian Chapter e-Conference. KnE Life Sci. 2021:152–61. https://doi.org/10.18502/kls.v7i3.11116
  26. 26. Anisa WN, Afifah EN, Murti RH. Selection of tomato breeding lines based on morphological traits associated with high yield potential in double-cross population. Biodiversitas. 2022;23(6):2973–80.https://doi.org/10.13057/biodiv/d230624
  27. 27. Ene CO, Abtew WG, Oselebe HO, Ozi FU, Ikeogu UN. Genetic characterization and quantitative trait relationship using multivariate techniques reveal diversity among tomato germplasms. Food Sci Nutr. 2022;10(7):2426–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.2850
  28. 28. Chen J, Vercambre G, Kang S, Bertin N, Gautier H, Génard M. Fruit water content as an indication of sugar metabolism improves simulation of carbohydrate accumulation in tomato fruit. J Exp Bot. 2020;71(16):5010–26.https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/eraa225
  29. 29. Dong X, Hua Y, Lia Y, Zhou Z. The maturity degree, phenolic compounds and antioxidant activity of Eureka lemon (Citrus limon (L.) Burm. f.): a negative correlation between total phenolic content, antioxidant capacity and soluble solid content. Sci Hortic. 2019;243:281–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2018.08.036
  30. 30. Egea I, Estrada Y, Flores FB, Bolarín MC. Improving production and fruit quality of tomato under abiotic stress: genes for the future of tomato breeding for a sustainable agriculture. Environ Exp Bot. 2022;204:105086. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2022.105086
  31. 31. Swarup S, Cargill EJ, Crosby K, Flagel L, Kniskern J, Glenn KC. Genetic diversity is indispensable for plant breeding to improve crops. Crop Sci. 2021;61(2):839–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/csc2.20377
  32. 32. Daemo BB, Yohannes DB, Beyene TM, Abtew WG. Genetic variability and divergence analysis in cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) accessions for storage root yield and other agronomic characters. J Agric Food Res. 2023;14:100874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2023.100874
  33. 33. Elhaik E. Principal component analyses (PCA)-based findings in population genetic studies are highly biased and must be reevaluated. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):14683. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-14395-4
  34. 34. Karuniawan A, Wicaksono HN, Ustari D, Setiawati T, Supriatun T. Identification of genetic diversity of wild cassava germplasm (Manihot glaziovii Müll.) based on agronomic morpho characters. J Kultivasi. 2017;16(3):435–43. https://doi.org/10.24198/kultivasi.v16i3.14038
  35. 35. Ihsanto TD, Kusmiyati F, Anwar S, Sas MGA, Putra FP. Agro-morphological characteristics, anthocyanin and sweetness level of yardlong bean genotypes (Vigna unguiculata (L.) ssp. sesquipedalis). IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci. 2023;1230(1):012126. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1230/1/012126
  36. 36. Stansluos AAL, Öztürk A, Niedbała G, Türkoğlu A, Haliloğlu K, Szulc P, et al. Genotype–trait (GT) biplot analysis for yield and quality stability in some sweet corn (Zea mays saccharata Sturt.) genotypes. Agronomy. 2023;13(6):1538. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13061538

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.