Back to all available

Multi-year field evaluation of agronomic, physiological, antioxidant, and molecular diversity in processing tomato ( Solanum lycopersicum L.) genotypes under natural heat stress conditions

agricultural-science
biotechnology
food-science-and-technology
molecular-biology
plant-science

Abstract

High-temperature stress is a major abiotic constraint for processing tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) production in semi-arid regions, particularly under the accelerating effects of climate change. This multi-year field study (2023–2024) aimed to evaluate the agronomic, physiological, antioxidant, and molecular diversity of 16 processing tomato genotypes, including the standard cultivar AG2206, under heat-stressed field conditions in Southeastern Türkiye. Evaluated traits included total and marketable yield, soluble solids content (°Brix), stomatal conductance, leaf temperature, SPAD index, and relative water content (RWC). Antioxidant activity was measured via DPPH, FRAP, and total phenolic content (TPC) assays. Molecular diversity was assessed using ISSR, SSR, and SRAP markers. Significant genotype, year, and genotype × year interaction effects (p < 0.05) were observed across all traits. PCA and UPGMA clustering identified AG2206, DOLPHIN, and ALBATROS as stable and high-performing genotypes. SPAD, RWC, and antioxidant traits were positively correlated, while high thermal indices reduced photosynthetic efficiency. SSR marker S-AGC9 and SRAP marker Me1-Em6 showed strong associations with both yield and antioxidant traits. A moderate correlation (Mantel r = 0.42, p < 0.05) was detected between phenotypic and molecular distances. These findings provide valuable insights for selecting and breeding heat-tolerant processing tomato genotypes in Mediterranean and arid regions.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].