Assessment of onion (Allium cepa L.) genotypes for yield and quality parameters under Chhattisgarh conditions

Introduction

Onion (Allium cepa L.) is an important vegetable crop grown worldwide and is believed to have originated in Central Asia and the Mediterranean region (Mc Collum, 1976) [13] . It belongs to the family Amaryllidaceae, order Asparagales, and is a diploid species (2n=2x =16) comprising three groups: A. cepa, A. proliferum, and A. cepa var. aggregatum (Boukary et al., 2012) [4] . It is widely used both as a condiment and as a vegetable (Kumar et al., 2025) [11] . Rabi is the most favourable season for onion cultivation, accounting for 50-60% of the total production area. In India, onion is grown on 1.541 million hectares with a production of 24.267 million tonnes and an average productivity of 15.75 MT/ha (Anon., 2023-24) [1] . India is the second-largest onion producer globally and a major exporter to Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Malaysia and the UAE. Maharashtra contributes 35-40% of national production. In Chhattisgarh, onion is cultivated on 22.814 thousand hectares with a production of 380.826 thousand MT and a productivity of 16.69 MT/ha (Anon., 2023-24) [2] . It contains important bioactive compounds such as catechol and 1-propenyl sulfonic acid, synthesized through Allinase, and is rich in quercetin, a strong antioxidant associated with cardiovascular protection, anticancer activity, enhanced immunity and glycaemic regulation (Augusti, 1990; Hanley & Fenwick, 1985) [3,8] . Onion pungency is mainly attributed to allyl-propyl disulphide. Nutritionally, onions provide essential vitamins and minerals; per 100 g edible portion, they contain 86.6 g moisture, 11.1 g carbohydrates, 1.2 g protein and 50 Kcal of energy along with key micronutrients (Shankaracharya, 1974; Pareek et al., 2017) [18,15] . Genetic improvement in onion depends on the extent of genetic variability among genotypes (Mallor et al., 2011) [12] . The presence of sufficient variability is essential for effective selection and successful breeding programmes; therefore, evaluating genetic variability is crucial for identifying promising genotypes and improving crop performance.

Materials and Methods

The experiment was conducted during Rabi 2024 at the Horticultural Research cum Instructional Farm, Department of Vegetable Science, College of Agriculture, IGKV, Raipur (C.G.). Twenty-three onion genotypes were evaluated in a Randomized Block Design (RBD)

Results and Discussion

The results of the trial pertaining to various aspects of growth, yield, and quality parameters of onion are summarized as follows.

Mean performance of genotypes for different traits

Observations for fruit yield and its contributing traits were recorded from five randomly selected, uniformly sized plants per genotype across three replications, and the averaged values were used for mean performance analysis. The mean data are presented in Table 1.

Plant height among the genotypes ranged from 57.71 to 70.34 cm, with a mean of 61.80 cm. The tallest plants were observed in RVC-24-38 (70.34 cm), while RVB-24-25 recorded the shortest height (57.71 cm). Similar variation was reported by Naresh et al. (2021) [14] and Singh et al. (2021) [19] , who recorded maximum plant heights of 78.30 cm and 76.76 cm, respectively, under Chhattisgarh conditions.

Number of leaves per plant

The number of leaves per plant ranged from 7.80 to 10.40, with a mean of 8.69. The maximum leaf count was recorded in RVC-24-38 (10.40), while the minimum occurred in RVB-24-19 (7.80). Similar variation was reported by Singh et al. (2021) [19] and Jatra et al. (2022) [10] , who observed maximum values of 12.83 and 10.47 leaves per plant, respectively.

Leaf length ranged from 41.68 to 53.33 cm, with a mean of 45.97 cm. The longest leaves were recorded in RVC-24-38 (53.33 cm), while RVB-24-19 showed the shortest (41.68 cm). Similar variation was reported by Singh et al. (2021) [19] , who observed leaf lengths up to 62.70 cm in RVB-20-08.

Leaf thickness among the genotypes ranged from 0.79 to 1.06 cm, with a mean of 0.91 cm. The maximum thickness was recorded in RB-24-19 (1.06 cm), while the minimum occurred in RVA-24-06 (0.79 cm). Similar ranges were reported by Singh et al. (2021) [19] and Jana et al. (2023) [9] , who observed maximum values of 1.05 cm and 1.06 cm, respectively.

Neck length varied from 5.70 to 9.02 cm, with a mean of 7.10 cm. The maximum neck length was recorded in genotype RVA-24-27 (9.02 cm), followed by RVC-24-42 (8.66 cm), RVC-24-48 (8.03 cm) and RVB-24-19 (8.01 cm), while the minimum was observed in RVA-24-03 (5.70 cm). Similarly, Jatra et al. (2022) [10] reported a maximum of 9.03 cm in RVA-21-19.

Pseudo-stem thickness among the genotypes ranged from 1.11 to 1.41 cm, with a mean of 1.29 cm. The minimum value was recorded in the check variety Rohit (1.11 cm), while the maximum was observed in RVA-24-01 (1.41 cm). Similar variation was reported by Singh et al. (2021) [19] , who recorded maximum thickness values of 2.29 cm in RVB-20-17.

The polar diameter of bulbs ranged from 4.77 to 5.84 cm, with a mean of 5.19 cm. The largest diameter was recorded in RVC-24-38 (5.84 cm), while RVB-24-19 showed the smallest (4.77 cm). Comparable variation was reported by Singh et al. (2021) [19] , who observed polar diameters up to 7.78 cm.

The equatorial diameter of bulbs ranged from 5.83 to 7.10 cm, with a mean of 6.21 cm. The largest diameter occurred in RVC-24-38 (7.10 cm), while the smallest was observed in RVB-24-19 (5.83 cm). Comparable variability was also reported by Dinkar and Sharma (2017) [7] and Singh et al. (2021) [19] .

Average bulb weight ranged from 78.95 to 104.41 g, with a mean of 86.54 g. The highest bulb weight was recorded in RVC-24-38 (104.41 g), followed by RVA-24-06 (99.91 g) and RVA-24-09 (98.33 g), whereas the lowest (78.95 g) was noted in RVB-24-25. Comparable variability was reported by Singh et al. (2021) [19] and Jana et al. (2023) [9] .

Bulb fresh weight varied between 9.12 and 16.61 kg/plot, with an overall mean of 12.95 kg. The maximum fresh weight occurred in RVC-24-38 (16.61 kg), followed by RVA-24-06 (15.78 kg), RVA-24-09 (15.74 kg) and RVA-24-11 (15.57 kg), while RVB-24-19 recorded the minimum (9.12 kg). Similar findings were reported by Dinkar and Sharma (2017) [7] and Singh et al. (2021) [19] .

Total soluble solids (TSS) ranged from 9.10% to 12.20%, with a mean of 9.91%. The highest TSS was recorded in RVC-24-42, while RVB-24-25 showed the lowest. Similar variation has been reported by Das et al. (2017) [5] and Singh et al. (2021) [19] , underscoring the strong genotype influence on bulb quality.

The reducing sugar content among the onion genotypes varied from 2.78% to 3.62%, with a mean of 3.09%. The highest value was observed in RVC-24-42 (3.62%), followed by RVC-24-38 (3.57%), RVC-24-40 (3.54%) and RVA-24-01 (3.40%), while RVB-24-25 recorded the lowest (2.78%). Similar variability was reported by Priyadarshini et al. (2017) [16] , who observed a range of 2.17% to 3.67%.

Total sugar content among the onion genotypes ranged from 5.16% to 6.40%, with a mean of 5.76%. The maximum value was recorded in RVC-24-42 (6.40%), while the minimum occurred in RVB-24-25 (5.16%). Comparable ranges were reported by Dethe et al. (2022) [6] , who observed 5.32% to 6.41% in different genotypes.

Non-reducing sugar content varied from 2.23% to 3.05%, with a mean of 2.66%. The highest value was recorded in RVC-24-34 (3.05%), while the lowest occurred in RVB-24-19 (2.23%). Comparable variation was reported by Priyadarshini et al. (2017) [16] , who observed values ranging from 2.46% to 4.12%.

Number of bulbs per plot

The number of bulbs per plot ranged from 201.33 to 288.00, with a mean of 251.16. The highest bulb number was recorded in RVC-24-38 (288.00), while the lowest was observed in RVB-24-19 (201.33).

Marketable bulb yield among the genotypes ranged from 203.00 to 369.50 q/ha, with a mean of 237.57 q/ha. The highest yield was recorded in RVC-24-38 (369.50 q/ha), while RVB-24-19 showed the lowest (203.00 q/ha). Similar yield variation was reported by Singh et al. (2021) [19] 50.62-463.80 q/ha and Jana et al. (2023) [9] 235.21-481.49 q/ha.

Total bulb yield among the genotypes ranged from 207.35 to 377.50 q/ha, with a mean of 293.08 q/ha. The highest yield recorded in RVC-24-38 (377.50 q/ha), followed by RVA-24-06 (358.56 q/ha) and RVA-24-09 (357.60 q/ha) while RVB-24-19 showed the lowest yield (207.35 q/ha). Comparable findings were reported by Singh et al. (2021) [19] , who observed yields ranging from 120.29 to 522.81 q/ha and Jana et al. (2023) [9] , who reported a range of 240.77 to 491.49 q/ha among onion genotypes.

Bulb colour

Bulb colour was recorded through visual observation and categorized as red, light red, or dark red, with clear variability observed among the genotypes (Table 1).

Bulb shape

Bulb shape was assessed visually, revealing notable variation among genotypes, ranging from round to flat and oval forms (Table 1).

Conclusion

The variance analysis revealed that there was significant variability exist among the genotypes for most of the traits that depicted potential for more genetic improvement. The genotype RVC-24-38 recorded the highest total bulb yield, followed by RVA-24-06-26, RVA-24-09, RVA-24-11 and RVC-24-48, demonstrating excellent performance under Chhattisgarh plain conditions.

References

1. Anonymous. Area and production of horticulture crops -All India 2023-24. Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Department of Agriculture Cooperation and Farmers Welfare, Directorate of Economics and Statistics; 2024.
2. Anonymous. Area, production and productivity of horticulture crops district-wise in Chhattisgarh 2023-24. Directorate of Horticulture and Farm Forestry; Naya Raipur (C.G.); 2024.
3. Augusti KT. Therapeutic and medicinal values of onion and garlic. In: Onions and allied crops. 1990;3:93-108.
4. Boukary H, Haougui A, Barage M, Adam T, Roumba A, Saadou M. Evaluation of agro-morphology of onion varieties under ecotype of Nigeria. Int J Biol Chem Sci. 2012;6(6):3098-3106.
5. Das R, Gowda VR, Pandey H. Evaluation of different onion (Allium cepa L.) genotypes for yield and quality parameters in kharif season under Bengaluru condition, India. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2017;6(11):2393.
6. Dethe RG, Khandare VS, Pisal SS. Studies on the physicochemical profile of onion varieties for dehydration. Pharma Innov J. 2022;11(12):2619-2621.
7. Dinkar RK. Studies on genetic variability and performance of kharif onion genotypes. Raipur: Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya; 2017.
8. Hanley AB, Fenwick GR. Cultivated alliums. Journal of Plant Foods. 1985 Sep 1;6(4):211-238.
9. Jana K, Thapa U, Kundu S, Hansda NN. Assessment of onion (Allium cepa L.) genotypes for horticultural traits during kharif season. Int J Multidiscip Res (IJFMR). 2023.
10. Jatra H, Trivedi J, Sharma PK, Jain S. Evaluation of different genotypes of onion (Allium cepa L.) for growth and yield attributing characters under Chhattisgarh plains. Pharma Innov J. 2022;11(8):546550.
11. Kumar N, Verma A. Studies on effect of different PGRs and their application method on yield and yield attributing parameters of onion (Allium cepa L.) cv. N53. Int J Adv Biochem Res. 2025;9(1S):63-70.