2019
DOI: 10.1007/s40009-019-00831-z
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Correlation and Path Analysis for Yield and Yield-Related Traits of Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) in Karnataka

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

3
3
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
3
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Plant emergence per cent 30 days after planting (-0.033), dry matter content of tuber (-0.025), tuber length (-0.017) and ascorbic acid content of tuber (-0.003) had a direct negative effect on tuber yield per plant. These results are in agreement with the report of Panigrahi et al [18], Lavanya et al [20], Gebreselassie and Ajema [22] and Sandilya et al [25].…”
Section: Path Coefficient Analysissupporting
confidence: 93%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Plant emergence per cent 30 days after planting (-0.033), dry matter content of tuber (-0.025), tuber length (-0.017) and ascorbic acid content of tuber (-0.003) had a direct negative effect on tuber yield per plant. These results are in agreement with the report of Panigrahi et al [18], Lavanya et al [20], Gebreselassie and Ajema [22] and Sandilya et al [25].…”
Section: Path Coefficient Analysissupporting
confidence: 93%
“…This implies that direct selection based on the average weight of tuber yield per plant, the number of branches per plant and the number of tubers per plant could significantly enhance the yield per plant. Similar to our findings, Gusain [31], Tripura et al [32], Patel et al [16], Shubha and Singh [11] Lavanya et al [20], Kumar et al [33], Kumar et al [34], Sandilya et al [22] and Sahu et al [35] also reported that average weight of tuber yield per plant, number of branches per plant, number of tubers per plant, protein content of tuber and specific gravity of tuber had high positive direct effect on tuber yield.…”
Section: Path Coefficient Analysissupporting
confidence: 92%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…the path analysis should be a closed system as far as possible (LAVANyA et al, 2019;ShUBhA & SINgh, 2018), and R 2 should be above 0.9 as far as possible (REN et al, 2003). In this paper, R 2 was between 0.7 and 0.9 (table 5), which indicated that the influence factor estimation of starch gelatinization properties was not complete, and some factors still needed to be discussed (BURtoN et al, 2002;BALL & MoRELL, 2003;tAKAhA et al, 1998;StEUP et al, 1983;StENSBALLE et al, 2008).…”
Section: Significance Of Path Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Similar trend was observed for the combined effects of average tuber weight and number of non-marketable tubers, number of tubers and tuber size, number of tubers and number of marketable tubers, tuber size and number of non-marketable tubers and number of marketable tubers and number of non-marketable tubers in which 1.5001%, 0.5250%, 3.6553%, 0.2722% and 2.2288% were contributed, respectively. Lavanya et al (2020) reported that numbers of tubers, marketable yield, number of stems and tuber weight were the most influencing factors to improve the tuber yield. Yahaya and Ankrumah (2017) also reported that the greatest combined contributions of yield characters to grain yield in soybean were observed from number of pods per plant and number seeds per pod.…”
Section: Direct and Combined Contributions (%) Of Yield Components To...mentioning
confidence: 99%