
==== Front
Heliyon
Heliyon
Heliyon
2405-8440
Elsevier

S2405-8440(24)13584-0
10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e37553
e37553
Research Article
Morphological, biochemical and molecular characterization of short-day tropical Indian garlic (Allium sativum L.)
Pasupula Karishma
Verma Priyanka
Zimik Masochon
Kaur Charanjit
Vasudev Sujata
Khar Anil anil.khar@icar.org.in
⁎
Division of Vegetable Science, ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, 110012, India
⁎ Corresponding author. anil.khar@icar.org.in
06 9 2024
30 9 2024
06 9 2024
10 18 e3755322 2 2023
28 8 2024
5 9 2024
© 2024 The Authors
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Garlic, an asexually propagated bulbous crop, displays a wide diversity based on its morphological traits and biochemical compositions. This study investigated the genetic variability of Indian garlic through morphological, biochemical, and molecular markers. Twenty-nine genotypes along with three Allium species as outgroup were included in the present study. Observations were recorded on 14 quantitative traits, 17 qualitative traits, and 9 biochemical traits in fresh garlic. Significant variability was observed among genotypes for different characters. All the morphological and biochemical traits showed higher phenotypic coefficient of variation (PCV) than genotypic coefficient of variation (GCV) revealing the role of environment in trait expression. High to moderate heritability and genetic advance as percent mean were recorded for different traits except dry matter and Total Soluble Solids (TSS). Correlation analysis revealed the highest positive correlation between total yield, marketable yield, Ferric Reducing Antioxidant Potential (FRAP) and 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhyrazyl (DPPH). Cluster analysis differentiated all the genotypes into three major clusters based on morphological and biochemical traits. 214 Simple Sequence Repeats (SSRs) were screened and nine markers exhibited polymorphism. Cluster analysis using molecular markers revealed 4 distinct clusters. The observations from this study will help in the identification of diverse garlic germplasm for its efficient management and duplicate identification of germplasm resources.

Keywords

Genetic diversity
Yield
Dry matter
Antioxidants
Molecular markers
SSR
==== Body
pmc1 Introduction

Garlic (Allium sativum L.), belonging to the family Amaryllidaceae, is the second most important bulbous vegetable crop valued throughout the world for its usage as a spice and condiment. Other species belonging to this family include onion (Allium cepa L.), garlic chives (A. tubersoum L.), shallot (A. ascalonicum L.), leek (A. ameploprasum L.), welsh onion (A. fistulosum L.) and chive (A.schoenoprasum L.). A. longicuspis is considered to be the wild ancestor of garlic [1]. A. sativum is a diploid species with 2n = 16 [[2], [3], [4]]. The total world production of garlic is 28 million tonnes with a recorded land area of 1.6 million ha. China is the world's leading garlic producer followed by India [5]. The Indian states of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and Gujarat are the major garlic-growing states with a countrywide total production of 3.1 million metric tons [6].

Garlic is an asexually propagated, erect annual herb that can reach up to a height of 75–90 cm and is grown usually as a winter crop in the rabi season [7] and cultivated mainly for its underground bulbs. Compared to other bulb crops, garlic has a higher nutritive value and is rich in vitamins, proteins, sugars, fat, phosphorus, potassium, iodine, calcium, silicon, and fiber. The pungent flavor of garlic makes it amenable to be used as a spice, flavoring agent, and for the seasoning of foods. Garlic possesses a wide range of sulfur and phenolic compounds having a beneficial effect on human health [[8], [9], [10]]. These sulfur compounds have attributed to garlic its medicinal properties such as antioxidant, antiviral, antifungal, antiprotozoa, antibacterial, and anticancer properties [11]. Although garlic is vegetatively propagated, it has shown wide phenotypic plasticity, diversity in morphological traits and biochemical compositions between and within ecotypes [[12], [13], [14]]. In any crop breeding program, diversity in plant genetic resources in the given breeding population plays a crucial role in determining the rate of genetic gain [15]. It provides an opportunity for developing new and improved cultivars that have both farmer-preferred traits such as yield potential and breeder-preferred traits like biotic and abiotic resilient crops. Morphological characterization along with molecular markers can be used effectively to analyze genetic diversity. Morphological traits are useful in assessing genetic divergence as a preliminary tool for classifying germplasm into groups before their characterization using more precise technology. In garlic, studies of characterization and diversity analysis based on morphological, biochemical, and molecular markers have been carried out [[16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]]. However, the estimation of diversity from these phenotypic and genotypic data might correspond differently and hence an accurate analysis cannot be obtained. The aim of the study was threefold 1) to assess the diversity of garlic genotypes based on morphology and biochemical parameters 2) to augment the scarce genomic resources in garlic by cross-amplification of SSR makers from onion, garlic, and related spp. and 3) to examine whether morphological and biochemical-based classification aligns or reveals similar patterns of genomic differentiation as in SSR markers.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Plant materials

Twenty-nine Indian garlic genotypes were used in this study. Out of the 29 genotypes, six were landraces, 10 clonal selections, and 13 commercially released varieties. Seven varieties (G1, G41, G50, G189, G282, G323 and G386) have been released by the National Horticultural Research and Development Foundation (NHRDF); GG2 and GG4 by Junagarh Agricultural University (JAU, Gujarat); Bhima Omkar and Bhima Purple from Directorate of Onion and Garlic Research (DOGR, Maharashtra); Godavari and Phule Baswant from Mahatma Phule Krishi Vishvavidyalaya (MPKV, Maharashtra) (Supplementary Table 1). Most of the genotypes are white coloured except PGS208, Phule Bawant, Godavari and Bhima Purple which are purple coloured. Garlic genotypes were grown at the Research Farm of the Division of Vegetable Science, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi during 2019–20 situated at 228.61 m above sea level, with 28.08 °N latitude and 77.12 °E longitude. The location has sub-tropical and semi-arid type climate with alluvial soils. The experiment was laid out in a completely randomized block design with three replications. Spacing was 10 cm plant to plant and 15 cm row to row with 20 rows of 2-m length. All the recommended packages of practices were followed for raising the garlic crop. Bulbs were harvested in April and after one month of curing, bulbs were used for biochemical estimation.

2.1.1 Morphological characterization

Fourteen quantitative traits viz., plant height, number of leaves, leaf length, leaf width, pseudostem length, pseudostem width, average bulb weight, equatorial diameter, polar diameter, neck thickness, number of cloves, 10 clove weight, total weight, and marketable weight were recorded. Similarly, seventeen qualitative traits viz., the density of leaves, foliage attitude, leaf intensity, leaf shape, pseudostem anthocyanin, flowering stem, bulb shape in longitudinal section, the position of cloves at the tip of the bulb, the position of root disc, shape of bulb base, compactness of cloves, ground color of dry external scales, anthocyanin stripes on dry external scales, external cloves, skin adherence of external dry scales, color of clove scale, the color of clove flesh for each of the 29 genotypes were recorded. The observation was recorded as per the DUS guidelines for onion and garlic [22]. Observations were recorded on ten randomly selected samples of each replication excluding the border rows. The average values for each replication were used for statistical analysis.

2.1.2 Biochemical characterization

Garlic bulbs of each genotype harvested after maturity were estimated for the following biochemical parameters. The dry matter percent in clove was estimated by a gravimetric method [23]; Total soluble solids (TSS) by using a hand refractometer; Total phenolic content (TPC) was extracted and measured by spectrophotometry at 750 nm [24], whereas Total flavonoid content (TFC) was determined and absorbance was noted at 510 nm [25]. As for the Total antioxidant capacity, it was determined via Cupric Reducing Antioxidant Capacity (CUPRAC) [26]; Ferric Reducing Antioxidant Potential (FRAP) [27], and DPPH assay [28,29]. Absorbance for CUPRAC, FRAP, and DPPH was recorded against blank spectrophotometrically at different wavelengths i.e., 450 nm, 593 nm, and 517 nm respectively and results were expressed as mol Trolox/g using molar absorptivity of Trolox. Allicin content was assessed [24]and estimated by absorbance at 412 nm and Pyruvic acid content was determined [30] and absorbance noted at 515 nm.

2.1.3 Statistical analysis

To assess the genetic diversity, analysis of variance (ANOVA) for 14 morphological traits and 9 biochemical traits was calculated using PROC ANOVA/GLM. For individual basic statistics, PROC UNIVARIATE was used. The results obtained in the morphological characterization studies were evaluated by performing variance analysis in the SAS version 9.3. Estimation of GCV, PCV, heritability, genetic advance, and genetic advance as percent of mean was done using R software. Diversity analysis was done by subjecting the morphological and biochemical data to Mahalanobis D2 statistics and the grouping pattern of the genotypes was estimated by Principal component analysis (PCA) in software R software on the basis of correlation coefficient between two genotypes.

2.2 Molecular characterization

Cloves of all the genotypes were sown and grown for 20–25 days under net-house conditions. DNA was extracted from the leaves of all the genotypes following the CTAB method of isolation [31]. The quality and concentration of DNA were quantified using a Nanodrop spectrophotometer and the integrity was examined by using 0.8 % agarose gel electrophoresis.

2.2.1 Genetic diversity assessment using SSR markers

A total of 214 SSR primers which were sourced from reported onion, garlic, and other Allium spp. markers were used in the study [20], [[32], [33], [34]]. Out of these markers, 116 showed monomorphic bands and 9 were polymorphic (Supplementary Table 2). These 9 polymorphic markers were assayed against thirty-two diverse garlic genotypes, including outgroup viz., A. tuberosum L., A. cepa L., and A. fistulosum L. The PCR reaction was performed in a reaction volume of 10 μl containing 5 μl 2× OnePCR™ (Gene Direx), 1 μl template DNA, 1 μl of specific primer (10 p.m./μl) and volume made up with nuclease-free water. PCR amplification was performed with initial denaturation of 95oC for 3 min followed by 35 cycles at 95oC for 30 s, 55oC for 30s, 72oC for 1 min, and the final extension at 72oC for 5 min before cooling at 4oC. The amplified PCR products were run on 4 % agarose gel stained with ethidium bromide and visualized under a UV transilluminator.

2.2.2 Data analysis

Polymorphic information content (PIC) was calculated to determine the informativeness and discriminatory power of the microsatellite markers using the CERVUS software [35] where Pi is the frequency of the ith allele in the set of the garlic genotypes under study. Genetic dissimilarity between two genotypes i and j was calculated according to Jaccard's dissimilarity index by using the formula dij = b + c/a + (b + c) where dij is the dissimilarity between units i and j, xi, xj are variable values for units i and j, a is number of variables where xi = presence and xj = presence, b is number of variables where xi = presence and xj = absence and c denotes number of variables where xi = absence and xj = presence. Tree construction was done by using hierarchical clustering using UPGMA (Unweighted pair group method with arithmetic mean) analysis. All the analysis was performed by using software DARwin [36].

3 Results and discussion

3.1 Morphological characterization

The mean value for plant height ranged from 61.32 cm (G50) to 84.25 cm (PGS204). Bhima Purple (8.20) had the maximum number of leaves per pseudostem whereas PGS215 (6.33) had the minimum number of leaves (Table 1). The length of the leaves ranged from 38.98 cm (Bhima Purple) to 49.18 cm (PGS-204). In terms of leaf width, the highest value was measured in Phule Baswant (2.22 cm), while the lowest value (1.61 cm) was observed in PGS-215. Among 29 genotypes of garlic, the mean value for pseudostem length ranged from 21.15 cm to 37.00 cm, with maximum observed in PGS204 and minimum in G50. The pseudostem width was found to be maximum for G282 (1.20 cm) and the minimum was recorded for PGS200 (0.87 cm). The results were in accordance with the results of other authors [[37], [38], [39], [40]]. The average bulb weight of the 29 genotypes was determined in the range of 21.00–34.80 g, with genotypes G282 and G41 with the highest weight and GG4 with the lowest weight. Significant variations in bulb weight per plant were also reported by Panthee et al. [16] and Sandhu et al. [37]. In terms of the bulb equatorial diameter, genotype PGS202 (4.72 cm) was superior whereas genotype GG4 had the lowest bulb equatorial diameter. For bulb polar diameter, Bhima Omkar (3.57 cm) was found to be superior. Neck thickness ranged from 0.65 cm (PGS211, PGS212) to 0.56 cm (PGS200, PGS215). The average number of cloves per bulb was recorded to be in the range of a maximum of 30.96 in genotype G1 and a minimum of 13.53 in G386. In the case of the 10 clove weight, G386 had the highest weight measuring 25.66 g. The observations were consistent with the results of Sandhu et al. [37] and various other authors [41,42]. The superior genotype for total yield was G282 with a marketable weight of 128.70 q/ha while the superior genotype for marketable yield was also G282 (104.53 q/ha). Similar observations were reported by other researchers [40,42,43].Table 1 Mean performance for different morphological traits in garlic (Allium sativum L.).

Table 1Genotype	Plant height (cm)	Number of leaves	Leaf length (cm)	Leaf width (mm)	Pseudostem length (cm)	Pseudostem width (cm)	Average bulb weight (g)	
PGS200	77.30 ± 1.39b	6.86 ± 0.14jk	46.47 ± 0.77bcd	1.65 ± 0.05kl	31.66 ± 1.11bcd	0.87 ± 0.04k	28.40 ± 1.73efgh	
PGS201	70.90 ± 1.65efgh	7.20 ± 0.11ghij	43.25 ± 0.94ghij	1.74 ± 0.07hijkl	26.86 ± 1.06hijkil	0.91 ± 0.03jk	31.60 ± 1.92bcde	
PGS202	78.28 ± 1.29b	7.53 ± 0.18cdefg	47.66 ± 0.82abc	1.98 ± 0.06bcde	32.96 ± 1.08b	1.11 ± 0.04abc	34.80 ± 0.97ab	
PGS203	77.05 ± 1.87bc	6.90 ± 0.12jk	47.06 ± 0.98abc	1.93 ± 0.07bcdef	30.25 ± 1.19cdef	0.98 ± 0.04efghij	32.13 ± 1.81abcde	
PGS204	84.25 ± 1.55a	6.90 ± 0.13jk	49.18 ± 0.80a	1.77 ± 0.03ghijk	37.00 ± 1.02a	0.98 ± 0.02efghij	34.06 ± 2.39abc	
PGS205	72.88 ± 2.25cdef	7.13 ± 0.12ghij	43.68 ± 0.89efghi	1.82 ± 0.04fghij	29.64 ± 1.01cdefg	0.94 ± 0.02hijk	30.33 ± 1.11cdefg	
PGS206	77.83 ± 1.22b	7.16 ± 0.16ghij	47.84 ± 0.75ab	1.99 ± 0.05bcde	31.33 ± 0.72bcde	1.13 ± 0.04ab	32.86 ± 1.48abcd	
PGS207	75.36 ± 1.85bcd	6.86 ± 0.14jk	46.40 ± 0.69bcd	1.82 ± 0.05fghij	32.07 ± 0.83bc	0.91 ± 0.04jk	31.26 ± 1.45bcde	
PGS208	70.33 ± 1.19efghi	7.63 ± 0.12bcdef	40.90 ± 0.96jk	1.95 ± 0.04bcdef	29.12 ± 0.94efghi	0.96 ± 0.02ghijk	26.33 ± 0.93gh	
PGS209	72.95 ± 1.54cdef	7.66 ± 0.16bcde	42.70 ± 0.93hij	2.05 ± 0.05bc	31.60 ± 0.98bcde	1.06 ± 0.03bcdef	32.33 ± 1.66abcde	
PGS210	65.68 ± 1.54jk	6.93 ± 0.15ijk	44.14 ± 1.05defgh	1.85 ± 0.05efghi	21.54 ± 0.78n	0.92 ± 0.03ijk	33.73 ± 1.57abc	
PGS211	68.90 ± 1.62fghijk	7.23 ± 0.14fghij	44.03 ± 1.12defghi	1.97 ± 0.04bcde	24.50 ± 0.80lm	0.93 ± 0.03hijk	31.13 ± 1.17bcde	
PGS212	67.99 ± 1.76ghijk	7.33 ± 0.22efghi	42.32 ± 1.20hij	1.72 ± 0.05ijkl	24.61 ± 1.16lm	0.91 ± 0.02jk	26.40 ± 0.90gh	
G1	66.61 ± 1.14hijk	6.63 ± 0.14kl	43.49 ± 0.91fghi	1.81 ± 0.05fghij	23.41 ± 0.70mn	0.98 ± 0.03efghij	26.86 ± 1.34fgh	
G41	77.90 ± 1.52b	7.03 ± 0.16hijk	45.95 ± 0.95bcdef	1.89 ± 0.05defgh	31.75 ± 1.05bc	0.99 ± 0.02efghij	34.86 ± 1.92ab	
G50	61.32 ± 1.32l	7.03 ± 0.13hijk	40.92 ± 0.85jk	1.78 ± 0.04ghijk	21.15 ± 0.86n	0.96 ± 0.02fghijk	25.00 ± 1.13hi	
G189	71.68 ± 1.13defg	7.03 ± 0.16hijk	46.30 ± 0.85bcd	1.98 ± 0.05bcde	24.80 ± 0.66klm	1.12 ± 0.04abc	36.13 ± 1.86a	
G282	74.00 ± 1.30bcde	7.76 ± 0.16bcd	46.45 ± 0.74bcd	1.99 ± 0.03bcde	28.75 ± 1.11fghi	1.20 ± 0.04a	34.86 ± 2.43ab	
G323	70.61 ± 2.05efgh	7.20 ± 0.14ghij	46.16 ± 1.14bcde	1.99 ± 0.07bcde	26.09 ± 0.90jkl	1.01 ± 0.03defghi	30.20 ± 1.47cdefg	
G386	72.19 ± 1.12defg	7.73 ± 0.12bcde	45.24 ± 0.83cdefg	1.88 ± 0.03efgh	30.36 ± 0.90cdef	0.90 ± 0.03	31.86 ± 1.59bcde	
GG2	74.18 ± 1.20bcde	7.70 ± 0.17bcde	45.75 ± 0.83bcdefg	1.90 ± 0.06cdefg	29.15 ± 0.71defgh	0.98 ± 0.03efghij	26.00 ± 0.93h	
GG4	67.16 ± 1.93hijk	7.03 ± 0.17hijk	42.60 ± 0.93hij	1.69 ± 0.05jkl	27.90 ± 0.71fghij	0.90 ± 0.03jk	21.00 ± 1.39i	
Bhima Omkar	66.10 ± 1.27ijk	7.96 ± 0.14ab	41.53 ± 14.8ij	1.99 ± 0.05bcde	27.55 ± 0.60ghij	1.04 ± 0.03bcdefg	33.20 ± 1.43abcd	
Bhima Purple	64.56 ± 1.38kl	8.20 ± 0.12a	38.98 ± 0.96k	2.07 ± 0.04ab	28.01 ± 0.87fghij	1.10 ± 0.03abcd	29.13 ± 1.20defgh	
Godavari	69.23 ± 1.57fghij	7.36 ± 0.21defgh	42.66 ± 1.66hij	2.04 ± 0.06bcd	25.87 ± 0.94jklm	1.07 ± 0.04bcde	29.13 ± 0.78defgh	
Phule Baswant	70.15 ± 1.33efghi	7.83 ± 0.17abc	42.55 ± 0.97hij	2.22 ± 0.07a	27.31 ± 0.80ghijk	1.02 ± 0.04cdefgh	30.80 ± 1.27bcdef	
PGS215	74.32 ± 2.70bcde	6.33 ± 0.15l	46.25 ± 0.84bcd	1.61 ± 0.04l	31.91 ± 0.81bc	0.90 ± 0.02jk	25.66 ± 1.00h	
PGS216	72.14 ± 1.41defg	7.70 ± 0.13bcde	45.54 ± 0.66bcdefg	1.85 ± 0.03efghi	26.61 ± 1.01ijkl	1.02 ± 0.03cdefgh	31.46 ± 1.28bcde	
PGS217	67.28 ± 1.36hijk	7.13 ± 0.11ghij	44.29 ± 0.62defgh	1.90 ± 0.04cdefg	21.79 ± 0.95n	0.99 ± 0.02efghij	26.00 ± 1.15h	
CV (%)	11.95	11.19	35.06	15.91	17.72	19.21	19.03	
R square	0.27	0.26	0.05	0.17	0.38	0.19	0.30	
Genotype	Equatorial diameter (cm)	Polar diameter (cm)	Neck thickness (cm)	Number of cloves	10 Clove weight (g)	Total weight (q/ha)	Marketable weight (q/ha)	
PGS200	4.29 ± 0.08defgh	3.28 ± 0.07defghi	0.56 ± 0.02e	25.86 ± 1.20cde	15.33 ± 0.64fghij	80.13 ± 6.23ijk	61.96 ± 8.77ghijk	
PGS201	4.48 ± 0.09abcd	3.32 ± 0.07cdefg	0.61 ± 0.02 abcde	24.60 ± 1.26cdefg	18.80 ± 1.33bcde	80.63 ± 13.73hijk	59.56 ± 13.34ghijk	
PGS202	4.72 ± 0.04a	3.52 ± 0.07ab	0.63 ± 0.02abcde	22.80 ± 1.11defgh	23.33 ± 0.67a	106.40 ± 3.51cde	86.20 ± 1.47abcde	
PGS203	4.41 ± 0.11cdef	3.30 ± 0.09cdefg	0.64 ± 0.02abc	21.93 ± 1.35fgh	20.33 ± 1.01bc	91.60 ± 7.39efghi	74.40 ± 8.82defgh	
PGS204	4.54 ± 0.12abc	3.38 ± 0.06abcdef	0.61 ± 0.02 abcde	25.53 ± 1.54cdef	17.80 ± 0.82cdef	115.13 ± 22.26abcd	88.23 ± 16.88abcde	
PGS205	4.42 ± 0.05cde	3.24 ± 0.04fghij	0.58 ± 0.02 abcde	28.13 ± 1.93abc	15.73 ± 1.01fghi	80.80 ± 17.76hijk	55.20 ± 11.68ijkl	
PGS206	4.62 ± 0.09abc	3.34 ± 0.05bcdef	0.62 ± 0.02 abcde	29.80 ± 1.71ab	19.06 ± 1.39bcde	84.86 ± 5.57fghi	66.00 ± 6.63fghij	
PGS207	4.49 ± 0.09abcd	3.23 ± 0.04fghij	0.61 ± 0.02 abcde	22.73 ± 0.58defgh	20.00 ± 0.97bcd	125.60 ± 6.90ab	99.66 ± 6.12ab	
PGS208	3.81 ± 0.08kl	3.26 ± 0.06defghij	0.57 ± 0.02cde	20.26 ± 1.05h	15.06 ± 0.38ghij	83.50 ± 9.47ghij	69.70 ± 12.97efghi	
PGS209	4.46 ± 0.06bcd	3.36 ± 0.07bcdef	0.63 ± 0.03abcde	25.06 ± 2.02cdefg	17.46 ± 0.91defg	111.46 ± 7.77abcd	84.50 ± 1.23bcdef	
PGS210	4.38 ± 0.09cdefg	3.34 ± 0.05bcdef	0.60 ± 0.03 abcde	22.86 ± 0.91defgh	20.13 ± 0.95bc	118.86 ± 4.31abc	88.53 ± 2.93abcd	
PGS211	4.17 ± 0.06efghi	3.22 ± 0.08fghij	0.65 ± 0.03ab	26.33 ± 0.88bcd	15.60 ± 0.86fghi	101.36 ± 14.01cdef	83.83 ± 9.95bcdef	
PGS212	3.94 ± 0.06ijk	3.44 ± 0.05abcde	0.65 ± 0.02a	15.66 ± 0.76i	19.60 ± 0.66bcde	98.66 ± 6.54defg	80.80 ± 5.25cdef	
G1	4.16 ± 0.10fghi	3.08 ± 0.06j	0.60 ± 0.05 abcde	30.96 ± 1.58a	11.53 ± 0.68l	64.00 ± 5.90kl	49.13 ± 6.24jkl	
G41	4.54 ± 0.08abcd	3.49 ± 0.04abc	0.62 ± 0.01 abcde	30.00 ± 1.24a	15.73 ± 1.12fghi	109.76 ± 11.66bcd	96.80 ± 10.19abc	
G50	4.02 ± 0.08ijk	3.10 ± 0.06hij	0.60 ± 0.02 abcde	29.80 ± 1.61ab	11.26 ± 0.87l	66.00 ± 10.95jkl	46.80 ± 7.61kl	
G189	4.69 ± 0.10ab	3.31 ± 0.06cdefg	0.63 ± 0.02abcd	29.93 ± 1.89ab	15.06 ± 0.61ghij	112.10 ± 0.00abcd	94.93 ± 5.56abc	
G282	4.57 ± 0.13abc	3.31 ± 0.08cdefg	0.59 ± 0.02 abcde	22.86 ± 1.34defgh	20.46 ± 1.31b	128.70 ± 14.97a	104.53 ± 12.21a	
G323	4.17 ± 0.11fghi	3.31 ± 0.07cdefg	0.63 ± 0.03abcd	27.93 ± 1.90abc	14.20 ± 0.83ijk	108.40 ± 9.03bcde	87.86 ± 8.16abcde	
G386	4.06 ± 0.11ijh	3.45 ± 0.08abcd	0.63 ± 0.01 abcde	13.53 ± 0.86i	25.66 ± 1.17a	114.46 ± 19.80abcd	99.66 ± 19.43ab	
GG2	3.87 ± 0.08jk	3.22 ± 0.09fghij	0.61 ± 0.01 abcde	24.66 ± 1.29cdefg	12.93 ± 0.66jkl	78.43 ± 7.62ijk	60.93 ± 2.76ghijk	
GG4	3.59 ± 0.09l	3.13 ± 0.07ghij	0.60 ± 0.02 abcde	21.60 ± 0.94gh	11.73 ± 0.82kl	60.30 ± 2.76l	39.06 ± 6.17l	
Bhima Omkar	4.46 ± 0.08bcd	3.57 ± 0.08a	0.61 ± 0.01 abcde	22.33 ± 0.87efgh	19.46 ± 1.09 bcde	113.13 ± 5.92abcd	96.63 ± 2.43abc	
Bhima Purple	4.07 ± 0.08hij	3.29 ± 0.09defgh	0.58 ± 0.02 abcde	20.00 ± 0.93h	17.06 ± 0.54efgh	104.03 ± 13.87cde	86.03 ± 6.46abcde	
Godavari	4.13 ± 0.07hi	3.45 ± 0.06abcd	0.61 ± 0.03 abcde	24.00 ± 1.11defg	15.93 ± 1.06fghi	97.96 ± 16.17defgh	75.76 ± 6.72defg	
Phule Baswant	4.11 ± 0.08hij	3.36 ± 0.04bcdef	0.57 ± 0.02bcde	23.06 ± 1.10defgh	16.20 ± 0.94fghi	98.00 ± 10.90defgh	82.16 ± 7.62bcdef	
PGS215	4.05 ± 0.07hijk	3.09 ± 0.07ji	0.56 ± 0.02de	24.20 ± 1.14defg	14.86 ± 0.63ijh	76.76 ± 19.66ijkl	55.90 ± 19.54hijkl	
PGS216	4.45 ± 0.06bcd	3.26 ± 0.06defghij	0.61 ± 0.02 abcde	22.13 ± 0.55fgh	20.00 ± 0.78bcd	111.43 ± 5.51abcd	84.16 ± 7.81bcdef	
PGS217	4.15 ± 0.07ghi	3.26 ± 0.06efghij	0.56 ± 0.01de	22.13 ± 1.46fgh	14.40 ± 0.72ij	85.63 ± 7.31fghi	61.26 ± 12.09ghijk	
CV (%)	8.03	8.02	16.83	20.90	20.75	11.06	14.80	
R square	0.42	0.21	0.07	0.41	0.50	0.88	0.83	

3.2 Biochemical characterization

The dry matter content in the cultivated garlic was in the range of 36.00–42.25 % (CV = 2.72 %) (Table 2). A high content of dry matter (>41 %) was noted in the genotypes PGS203, G282, and PGS216. A dry matter concentration of 35.2 percent in garlic cloves was observed by Sandhu et al. [37], which was somewhat lower than our findings. In our study, the TSS content of the garlic genotypes ranged from 36.25 to 42.42 °B. G323 had the highest TSS value closely followed by G386 at 42.38 and GG-4 had the lowest followed by GG2 at 36.99. Our results were consistent with the results of Bhusal et al. [44] who also reported the TSS content within the range of 38.10–47.20°B. Variability in garlic genotypes for TSS and dry matter content was also reported by other researchers [43,45,46]. In terms of total phenolic content, the total phenolic content (TPC) varied greatly among all garlic bulb samples, from 25.75 to 75.00 mg/100 g with an average of 44.00 mg/100 g FW. The highest Total Phenolic content (TPC) was found in PGS202 (75.00 mg GAE/100 g) and the lowest was found in G41 (28.33 mg GAE/100 g). TPC of 37.60 ± 2.3 mg GAE/100 g which was similar to the results reported by Othman et al. [47]. On the other hand, a higher phenol content of cloves with an average of 83.58 mg/100 g FW was also observed [48]. Variability for total phenol content in garlic genotypes was reported by other studies [44,[49], [50], [51]]. The level of the total flavonoid content varied from 19.00 to 129.16 mg QE/100 g. The highest value was recorded in the genotype PGS202 and the lowest value was recorded in PGS212 (19.00 mg). Variations in total flavonoid content among garlic genotypes have been earlier reported in the literature [52,53].Table 2 Mean performance of different biochemical traits in garlic (Allium sativum L.).

Table 2Genotype	Dry matter (%)	TSS (°B)	Total phenolics content (mg GAE/100 g FW)	Total flavonoid content (mgQE/100 g FW)	CUPRAC (μmolTrolox/g FW)	FRAP (μmolTrolox/g FW)	DPPH (μmolTrolox/g FW)	Allicin (mg/100 g)	Pyruvic acid (μMol/ml)	
PGS200	39.73cdefgh	39.94defghi	66.58c	67.50g	3.02ef	1.98b	1.75e	3.27p	26.84f	
PGS201	37.33ijklm	39.85efghi	66.33c	85.67d	2.72g	1.81e	1.54k	3.25p	30.65c	
PGS02	41.59abc	38.74ghijk	75.00a	129.17a	2.28j	0.91o	1.35p	5.48gh	26.91f	
PGS203	41.91ab	38.41ijkl	47.00g	82.17e	3.06e	1.82de	1.59j	5.37hi	30.45c	
PGS204	39.75cdefgh	40.84abcde	53.00e	61.83hi	1.49p	1.85d	1.70fg	6.16e	20.14mn	
PGS205	36.90jklm	38.54hijkl	33.42n	98.67b	2.04l	1.76f	1.95b	5.95f	21.40jk	
PGS206	36.40lm	40.51bcdef	44.42h	33.67no	1.38q	1.54i	1.05t	5.07k	15.73p	
PGS207	38.85fghij	40.32bcdefg	51.33f	42.00k	1.73n	1.74f	1.83d	3.89n	20.95l	
PGS208	36.84klm	38.89fghijk	37.41l	37.17m	1.61o	1.36k	1.24s	5.66g	19.73n	
PGS209	40.35abcdefg	41.40abcde	32.67n	60.33i	0.47r	1.64g	1.40o	3.84n	9.68s	
PGS210	40.13bcdefgh	41.57abcd	31.67o	53.17j	1.90m	1.43j	1.71f	5.66g	25.94g	
PGS211	39.65cdefgh	41.31abcde	35.50m	31.50p	1.88m	1.11n	1.28q	4.76l	16.61o	
PGS212	36.51lm	38.08jkl	39.67k	19.00t	1.65o	1.60h	1.61i	5.14jk	60.92a	
G1	41.0abcde	40.32bcdefg	44.42h	34.83n	2.03l	1.58hi	1.55k	3.55o	24.39h	
G41	38.93fghi	40.49bcdef	28.33p	27.83q	1.89m	1.35k	1.44n	6.68c	40.83b	
G50	39.0efghi	38.07jkl	46.33g	24.83r	3.45c	1.18m	1.55k	7.30a	24.70h	
G189	39.39defgh	38.49ijkl	46.17g	24.67r	2.47i	0.85p	1.4o	6.72c	14.37q	
G282	42.25a	41.78abc	68.42b	78.17f	2.97f	2.79a	2.18a	5.06k	21.67j	
G323	39.61cdefgh	42.42a	43.08i	20.50th	2.24j	0.82p	1.51l	3.26p	22.59i	
G386	38.69fghijk	42.38a	61.25d	32.67op	2.97f	1.43j	1.94b	2.70q	22.50i	
GG2	37.10ijklm	36.99lm	33.67n	27.50q	1.77n	1.24l	1.86c	6.92b	29.79d	
GG4	36.78klm	36.25m	41.50j	68.00g	1.46p	0.95o	1.64h	5.89f	26.64f	
Bhima Omkar	41.07abcde	38.60hijkl	33.50n	53.00j	1.44p	0.43s	1.40o	5.18jk	20.95l	
Bhima Purple	41.3abcd	40.62bcde	30.75o	89.33c	1.67o	0.56q	1.46m	3.60o	21.15kl	
Godavari	38.37ghijkl	41.22abcde	33.42n	62.67h	3.66b	0.57q	1.50l	4.40m	13.22r	
Phule Baswant	40.74abcdef	41.88ab	25.75q	22.33s	4.37a	0.50r	1.26r	5.17jk	22.41i	
PGS215	38.14hijkl	38.98fghij	39.75k	60.83hi	3.26d	1.08n	1.69g	5.51gh	28.82e	
PGS216	42.06ab	40.18cdefgh	46.25g	81.33e	2.60h	1.93c	2.17a	5.28ij	20.51m	
PGS217	36.0m	37.27klm	38.75k	39.17l	2.16k	1.10n	1.83d	6.51d	29.92d	
CV (%)	2.72	4.43	1.38	2.15	1.53	1.68	0.51	2.08	1.02	
R square	0.82	0.52	0.99	0.99	0.99	0.99	0.99	0.99	1.00	

AOA measurement is a reliable indicator for estimating the health-promoting and functional dietary value of vegetables and fruits [54]. In the present study, we used three in-vitro assays, namely, Cupric ion reducing antioxidant capacity (CUPRAC), Ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP), and 1,1-diphenyl-2 picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) assay. In our study, CUPRAC in fresh garlic ranged from 0.47 to 4.37 μmolTrolox/g, maximum recorded in the genotype Phule Baswant and the lowest value recorded in PGS-209. Ferric Reducing Antioxidant Potential (FRAP) analysis showed that genotype G-282 had the highest value with 2.79 μmolTrolox/g whereas Bhima Omkar had the lowest value of 0.43 μmolTrolox/g. The maximum total DPPH antioxidant activity was recorded in G282 and PGS215 followed by PGS205. Significant differences for antioxidant content by different methods in garlic genotypes were earlier reported by other authors [45,47], and [51]. The concentration of allicin in these genotypes varied from 2.70 (G386) to 7.30 mg/100 g (G50) with a mean value of 5.08. Similar observations on the content of allicin were found in other studies. Allicin content ranging between 1.48 and 5.32 mg/g with a mean of 3.16 mg/g FW was observed [53] in Indian garlic genotypes. Significant differences in allicin content for garlic genotypes were also reported in the literature [8,37], and [55]. The pyruvic acid content was found maximum in PGS212 followed by G41 and PGS201 and ranged from 9.67 to 60.91 μmol/ml. A higher pyruvate content ranging from 60.00 μmol/g to 84.00 μmol/g was observed by Abedi et al. [56]. Whereas Bhusal et al. [44] reported values ranging from 49.67 to 76.35 μmol/ml which were similar to our results. The variability in garlic genotypes for pyruvic acid content was also reported by Akinwande and Olatunde [57].

Evaluation of PCV, GCV, and heredity helps to estimate the contribution of the environment and the genes towards the expression of each trait. In this present study, the PCV was greater than the GCV for traits like plant height, number of leaves, leaf length, leaf width, pseudostem length, pseudostem width, average bulb weight, equatorial diameter, polar diameter, neck thickness, number of cloves, average clove weight, total and marketable weight, suggesting that the environment plays an important role in determining variation in these traits (Table 3). Among all the traits examined, high PCV was observed for marketable weight (29.7), total weight (24.86), and average clove weight (22.79), number of cloves (20.22). Moderate estimates of PCV were observed for pseudostem length (16.28), average bulb weight (15.43), pseudostem width (12.43), and GCV were observed for marketable weight (19.25), average clove weight (18.76), total weight (15.75), number of cloves (15.09), pseudostem length (11.74), average bulb weight (10.05). The high to moderate values of PCV and GCV recorded for the above traits indicate the existence of genetic variability and these traits have reasonable scope for additional characteristic development through selection. Low estimates of GCV and PCV were recorded for plant height (6.06 and 8.49), number of leaves (4.66 and 7.78), leaf length (4.71 and 6.35), leaf width (5.58 and 9.69), equatorial diameter (5.89 and 7.78) and low GCV for pseudostem width (4.9). A high PCV for average clove weight, number of cloves, and leaf length were reported by Sharma and Chauhan [58] whereas higher PCV and GCV estimates were also reported by other authors [37,59].Table 3 Estimation of coefficient of variation and other genetic parameter for different morphological and biochemical traits in garlic (Allium sativum L.).

Table 3	Source of variation and mean squares	Estimation of genetic parameters	Performance	
Source of Variation	Replication	Genotype	Error	GCV	PCV	hBS2 (%)	GA 5 %	Mean	Min	Max	CV%	SEm (±)	CD 5 %	CD 1 %	
df	2	28	56												
PH	65.871*	74.782**	18.194	6.06	8.49	50.90	8.90	71.69	61.32	84.25	5.95	2.46	6.98	9.29	
PsL	34.471*	42.779**	10.080	11.74	16.29	51.95	17.42	28.12	21.15	37.00	11.29	1.83	5.19	6.91	
PsW	0.075505*	0.020225	0.012965	4.91	12.43	15.58	3.98	1.00	0.88	1.20	11.40	0.07	0.19	0.25	
NOL	2.18356**	0.55149**	0.20571	4.67	7.78	35.92	5.75	7.28	6.33	8.20	6.23	0.26	0.74	0.99	
LL	93.915	16.827	3.593	4.72	6.35	55.11	7.21	44.54	38.98	49.18	4.26	1.09	3.10	4.13	
LW	0.014797	0.055983**	0.022442	5.59	9.68	33.33	6.64	1.89	1.62	2.22	7.91	0.09	0.25	0.33	
P	0.117774*	0.044858*	0.024835	2.47	5.36	21.27	2.34	3.31	3.09	3.57	4.76	0.09	0.26	0.34	
E	0.148698	0.237031**	0.047236	5.89	7.78	57.29	9.17	4.27	3.59	4.72	5.09	0.13	0.36	0.47	
ABW	5.780	40.262**	12.540	10.05	15.43	42.43	13.48	30.25	21.00	36.13	11.71	2.04	5.79	7.71	
NOC	14.799	50.509**	10.577	15.09	20.22	55.72	23.20	24.17	13.53	31.27	13.45	1.88	5.32	7.08	
10CW	2.671	35.587**	4.871	18.76	22.79	67.76	31.81	17.06	11.27	25.67	12.94	1.27	3.61	4.81	
TSS	16.0913*	8.3082**	3.5654	3.16	5.70	30.72	3.60	39.81	36.26	42.42	4.74	1.09	3.09	4.11	
TPC	1.64*	502.03**	0.37	29.40	29.44	99.78	60.50	43.98	25.75	75.00	1.39	0.35	1.00	1.33	
TFC	4.68*	2298.47**	1.31	51.79	51.83	99.83	106.59	53.43	19.00	129.17	2.15	0.66	1.88	2.50	
CUPRAC	0.00068	2.09005**	0.00122	36.87	36.90	99.83	75.89	2.26	0.47	4.37	1.54	0.02	0.06	0.08	
FRAP	0.00013	0.85294**	0.00050	39.65	39.69	99.82	81.61	1.34	0.43	2.79	1.66	0.01	0.04	0.05	
DPPH	0.000074	0.217023**	0.000057	16.80	16.81	99.86	34.58	1.60	2.71	7.30	0.47	0.00	0.01	0.02	
Allicin	0.0043	4.6082	0.0112	24.38	24.47	99.27	50.03	5.08	2.71	7.30	2.08	0.06	0.17	0.23	
PA	0.114	264.916**	0.062	38.35	38.37	99.93	78.97	24.50	9.68	60.92	1.02	0.14	0.41	0.54	
DM	0.1946	10.6449**	1.1339	4.54	5.29	73.66	8.03	39.19	36.01	42.25	2.72	0.61	1.74	2.32	
TW	1458.40*	1044.78**	347.01	15.75	24.86	40.13	20.55	96.83	60.27	128.70	19.24	10.76	30.47	40.56	
MW	24.94	951.81**	299.82	19.25	29.70	42.02	25.71	76.57	39.06	104.55	22.62	10.00	28.32	37.70	
PH-Plant height; PsL-Pseudostem length; PsW-Pseudostem width; NOL-Number of leaves; LL-Leaf length; LW-Leaf width; P-Polar diameter; E-Equatorial diameter; ABW-Average bulb weight; NON-Number of cloves; 10CW-10 clove weight; TSS-Total soluble solids; TPC-Total phenolic content; TFC-Total flavonoid content; PA-Pyruvic acid; DM-Dry matter, TW-Total weight; MW-Marketable weight.

In terms of biochemical traits, among 29 genotypes of garlic, high GCV and PCV estimates were recorded. Higher values for total flavonoid content (51.79 and 51.83), FRAP antioxidant activity (39.65 and 39.69), pyruvic acid content (38.35 and 38.37), CUPRAC antioxidant activity (36.87 and 36.90), total phenolic content (29.40 and 29.44), allicin content (24.38 and 24.47) were recorded. Moderate coefficient of variation for genotypic and phenotypic levels was recorded for DPPH antioxidant activity (16.80 and 16.81). A low estimate for genotypic and phenotypic coefficient of variation was recorded for dry matter content of fresh garlic (4.54 and 5.29) and TSS (3.16 and 5.70). PCV and GCV estimates in garlic for biochemical trait has been reported by Sadhu et al. [37].

Heritability indicates the possibility and extent to which improvement is possible through selection. The genotypic coefficient of variance together with heritability estimates would provide the most accurate depiction of the amount of progress that may be predicted from selection [60]. In the present investigation, broad sense heritability (H2) was estimated and it ranged from 15.58% to 67.76 % for morphological traits indicating low to moderate heritability (Table 3). Moderate heritability estimates were recorded for the trait 10 clove weight (67.76 %), equatorial diameter (57.29 %), number of cloves (55.72 %), leaf length (55.11 %), pseudostem length (51.95 %), plant height (50.90 %). The lowest heritability was observed for the marketable weight (42.02 %), average bulb weight (42.43 %), total weight (40.13 %), number of leaves (35.92 %), leaf width (33.33 %), polar diameter (21.27 %) and pseudostem width (15.58 %). Heritability estimates of 0.38–0.95 [61], 0.43–0.95 [62] and 0.32–0.97 [63] were observed in earlier studies which is in contrast to our findings. Fehr [64] suggested that heritability of a trait is determined by the population studied, the environment and the method used. In the present research, high genetic advance as a percent of mean was found high for 10 clove weight (31.81), marketable weight (25.71), average number of cloves (23.20), and total weight (20.55). Moderate genetic advance for pseudostem length (17.43), average bulb weight (13.48). Low genetic advance as a percent of mean was found in equatorial diameter (9.18), plant height (8.9), leaf length (7.21), leaf width (6.64), number of leaves (5.76), pseudostem width (3.99) and polar diameter (2.35). Broad sense heritability was also observed for all biochemical traits i.e., total phenol content, total flavonoid content, antioxidant activity of CUPRAC, FRAP, DPPH, allicin content, and pyruvic acid content. Moderate heritability for dry matter content (73.66 %) and low heritability was recorded for TSS (30.72 %). In the present research, high genetic advance as a percent of the mean was found high for total flavonoid content (106.59), FRAP (81.61), pyruvic acid content (78.97), CUPRAC (75.89), total phenolic content (60.50), allicin content of fresh garlic (50.03) and DPPH (34.58). Low genetic advance as a percent of the mean was found in dry matter content (8.03) and TSS (3.60). High heritability alongwith high genetic advance is a positive trait for breeding high yielding varieties. In our present research, moderate heritability was observed for morphological traits but high heritability for biochemical traits was observed. Hence, selection for biochemical traits can be carried out in the promising genotypes with high values of biochemical traits.

The correlation between morphological and biochemical traits was investigated by Pearson correlation analysis (Fig. 1). Plant height was found to be strongly positively correlated with the pseudostem length (r = 0.76) and moderately but significantly with other vegetative traits like leaf length (r = 0.37), bulb equatorial and polar diameter (r = 0.45, r = 0.25), bulb weight and clove weight (r = 0.37, r = 0.29). In this study, the highest correlation was observed between total yield and marketable yield (r = 0.93), and also the average bulb weight correlated positively and very highly significantly with average clove weight (r = 0.62), polar diameter (r = 0.58), marketable yield (r = 0.67) and total yield (r = 0.66). This is expected as a bigger bulb diameter or higher bulb weight can result in a higher yield. Similar findings were reported by Jabbes et al. [65] where they found that the yield was highly correlated with clove weight, bulb weight, and diameter. Singh et al. [66] found that the number of cloves per bulb, weight of cloves, and TSS exerted the highest positive effect on bulb yield per plant. This indicates that the yield potential of garlic is much dependent on its bulb characters and such parameters can be an indicator of plant productivity. However, a low correlation was observed between the number of cloves and the bulb weight (r = 0.23) and also a negative correlation with the total yield (r = −0.13) and marketable yield (r = −0.12) suggesting that the number of cloves do not result in higher bulb weight. This data was also in concurrence with the finding of Benke et al. [67] where no correlation between the average weight of the bulb and the number of clovers per bulb was observed. Plant height was found to be significantly positively correlated with total phenolic content (r = 0.32) and FRAP (r = 0.35) and at a lower correlation with flavonoid content (r = 0.20). A similar correlation was recorded for the pseudostem length with positive but at less significance and lower correlation with total phenolic content (r = 0.23), FRAP (r = 0.21), and flavonoid content (r = 0.29). Phenolic substances have been reported to have effect on the plant growth process that may be divided into three groups i.e., promotive, inhibitory and inactive [68]. Allicin content was found to be in a negative correlation with the vegetative traits and the bulb traits except for the number of cloves where it seems to have a low positive correlation of r = 0.21. Among 29 morphological traits, allicin content was found to be significantly positively associated with pseudostem diameter only but with low correlation coefficient (r = 0.23) [19]. On the other hand, marketable weight, total weight, and clove weight were found to be significantly correlated with total soluble solids (r = 0.27, r = 0.30, r = 0.23, respectively). TSS was recorded to be highly significantly correlated with dry matter (r = 0.35). The dry matter recovery and storage life is associated with TSS value so a higher TSS value will determine higher dry matter recovery. TSS was found to be also associated but not significantly with CUPRAC (r = 0.12), FRAP (r = 0.09), total phenolic content (r = 0.04) but had a negative correlation with DPPH (r = −0.03), and flavonoid content (r = −0.06). Pyruvic acid content had a positive association with DPPH (r = 0.15), FRAP (r = 0.13), and allicin content (r = 0.17). These data can help breeders select target genotypes for developing better varieties with traits for high-yield and health-promoting compounds.Fig. 1 Pearson's correlation coefficient analysis among different morphological and biochemical traits.

Fig. 1

3.3 Shannon Diversity index

Seventeen morphological descriptors that indicate the stability of traits were observed for the garlic genotypes under study. The diversity index for each descriptor was calculated using the Shannon Diversity index (Table 4, Fig. 2). The diversity index ranged from 0.33 (Bulb-skin adherence of dry external scale) to 1.26 (Bulb-color of dry external scale) indicating variation among the genotypes. Such morphological descriptors can be effectively used in the selection program for the development of improved varieties by identifying and grouping of genotypes.Table 4 Diversity indices of seventeen morphological descriptors in garlic genotypes.

Table 4S. No.	Trait	Class or scale of descriptor	Frequency	Relative Frequency (%)	Diversity Index (DI)	
1	Density of leaves	Dense	10	34.48	0.78	
	Medium	18	62.07		
	Sparse	1	3.45		
2	Foliage attitude	Erect	9	31.03	0.62	
	Semi erect	20	68.97		
3	Leaf intensity	Dark	5	17.24	1.03	
	Light	11	37.93		
	Medium	13	44.83		
4	Leaf Shape	Flat	9	31.03	0.62	
	Slightly concave	20	68.96		
5	Pseudostem anthocyanin	Absent	8	27.58	0.58	
	Present	21	72.41		
6	Flowering stem	Absent	10	34.48	0.64	
	Present	19	65.52		
7	Bulb shape in longitudinal sect	Circular	2	6.90	0.86	
	Elliptic	10	34.48		
	Ovate	17	58.62		
8	Bulb- Position of cloves	Exerted	14	48.28	0.69	
	Inserted	15	51.72		
9	Bulb- Position of root disc	At surface	6	20.68	0.82	
	Exerted	3	10.34		
	Inserted	20	68.96		
10	Bulb- Shape of base	Flat	6	20.68	0.51	
	Recessed	23	79.31		
11	Bulb- Compactness of cloves	Compact	17	58.62	0.86	
	Loose	2	6.90		
	Medium	10	34.48		
12	Bulb - Color of dry external scale	Purple	4	13.79	1.26	
	Reddish white	8	27.59		
	White	4	13.79		
	Yellowish white	13	44.83		
13	Bulb - Anthocyanin	Absent	10	34.48	0.64	
	Present	19	65.52		
14	Bulb – External cloves	Absent	13	44.82	0.69	
	Present	16	55.17		
15	Bulb - Skin adherence of dry external scale	Medium	26	89.65	0.33	
	Weak	3	10.34		
16	Clove – Colour of scale	Cream	14	48.28	0.99	
	Purple	11	37.93		
	White	4	13.79		
17	Clove – Colour of flesh	White	5	17.24	0.46	
	Yellowish	24	82.76		
Mean		0.72	
Maximum		1.26	
Minimum		0.33	

Fig. 2 Frequency of garlic genotypes based on the morphological descriptors.

Fig. 2

Cluster analysis revealed that all the twenty-nine garlic genotypes were clustered into three distinct clusters (Fig. 3). Cluster I was the largest group comprising of 11 genotypes. This cluster comprised of PGS200, PGS201, PGS205, PGS215, PGS212, G1, G50, GG4, PGS208, GG2, PGS217. Cluster II was the smallest cluster comprising of seven genotypes viz., PGS202, PGS203, PGS204, PGS207, G386, G282, and PGS216. This cluster was characterized by the highest plant height, pseudostem length, pseudostem width, leaf length, polar diameter, equatorial diameter, average clove weight, total weight, marketable weight, dry matter content, total phenolics, total flavonoids, FRAP and DPPH antioxidant activity. Hence this group may be used for the selection of genotypes for superior morphological and biochemical traits. Cluster III was the other largest cluster comprising eleven genotypes. This cluster composed of genotypes viz., PGS210, PGS211, G323, PGS206, G41, G189, Godavari, Phule Baswant, Bhima Purple, PGS209 and Bhima Omkar. Clustering was not based on the geographical origin of the genotypes and genotypes from Northern India (NI), Eastern India (EI), Western India (WI), Central India (CI), and North East (NE) were distributed in different clusters. Garlic genotypes were previously classified in a similar way by Panthee et al. [16] where 179 garlic accessions were grouped into three distinct major clusters. Stavělíková [69]. studied 613 garlic genotypes for 22 characters and categorized them into three main groups based on their scape-producing abilities. Similar results have also been reported in garlic genotypes from other studies [21,44,70], and [55].Fig. 3 Clustering pattern of garlic genotypes based on morphological and biochemical traits.

Fig. 3

The biplot was generated from the PCA of the 29 genotypes based on the morphological and biochemical traits. Principal components with eigenvalues lower than 1 were ignored [71]. The data (Table 5, Fig. 4) revealed that 84.01 % variation among the 29 genotypes was explained by the first eight significant principal components. Dim 1 described 26.59 % of the total variance which was mainly contributed by the bulb weight, clove weight, total weight, and marketable weight while negatively loaded with the number of cloves, CUPRAC, Allicin, and Pyruvic acid content. Dim 2 accounted for 42.95 % variation mainly through leaf length, plant height, FRAP, pseudostem length and negatively loaded with pseudostem width, number of leaves, leaf width, polar diameter, TSS, Dry matter, neck thickness, polar diameter, total weight, and marketable weight (Supplementary Table 3). Similar findings have been reported in onion [72] where bulb yield was the major contributor. The positive and negative loading of the traits reflects the positive and negative correlation between the components and variables. Hence, one important variable from the identified groups can be selected for a targeted improvement program.Table 5 Eigen-value and contribution of the principal component axes towards total genetic variation in garlic genotypes under study.

Table 5DIM	Eigenvalue	Variability %	Cumulative %	
DIM1	6.117	26.596	26.596	
DIM2	3.763	16.361	42.958	
DIM3	2.361	10.265	53.223	
DIM4	1.976	8.591	61.815	
DIM5	1.562	6.792	68.608	
DIM6	1.435	6.241	74.849	
DIM7	1.074	4.672	79.522	
DIM8	1.034	4.496	84.018	
DIM9	0.774	3.366	87.384	
DIM10	0.642	2.795	90.180	
DIM 11	0.510	2.221	92.401	
DIM12	0.430	1.869	94.271	
DIM13	0.329	1.434	95.706	
DIM14	0.287	1.247	96.953	
DIM15	0.219	0.955	97.908	
DIM16	0.162	0.705	98.614	
DIM17	0.105	0.456	99.071	
DIM18	0.093	0.405	99.476	
DIM19	0.067	0.291	99.768	
DIM20	0.027	0.118	99.887	
DIM21	0.011	0.047	99.935	
DIM22	0.008	0.035	99.970	
DIM23	0.006	0.293	100.000	

Fig. 4 Biplot generated by Principal Component Analysis of 14 morphological and 9 biochemical traits in garlic genotypes.

Fig. 4

3.4 Molecular characterization

In this study, a total of 214 SSR markers were screened across 29 diverse garlic genotypes and 3 outgroup species i.e., A.cepa L., A.fistulosum L. and A. tuberosum L. Out of 214, nine polymorphic SSR markers viz., EU909133, ACE122, ACM091, AsESSR47, AsESSR82, AsESSR33, AsESSR91, AsESSR103, and AsESSR78 showed good amplification and the ability to identify high levels of polymorphism. A total of 33 SSR alleles were amplified from the DNA of 29 genotypes and the 3 outgroup species. The number of alleles detected by these SSR markers varied from as few as two (ACM091, AsESSR91, AsESSR103) to six alleles (AsESSR47) with an average of 3.67 alleles (Table 6, Fig. 5). Thirty-nine bands ranging from two to eight bands with a mean value of 3.9 bands per primer pair amplified by 10 SSR primer pairs in 53 accessions were reported by Kumar et al. [73]. Kiraç et al. [74] also obtained 47 polymorphic bands using 10 ISSR markers in 39 garlic genotypes of Turkey. On the other hand, Chen et al [75]. reported a lower mean effective number of alleles of 1.47 (range 1.27–1.77) in 3 garlic accessions using 10 SSRs. Barboza et al. [76] using 10 ESSR markers in 73 garlic accessions reported 43 alleles amplified with an average of 4.3 alleles (range 3–7) which were higher than our results. The markers discriminatory power estimated by the Polymorphic information content (PIC) varied from 0.210 (AsESSR103) to 0.730 (AsESSR78) with an average of 0.497. Four SSR markers viz., ACE122, ACM091, AsESSR91, and AsESSR103 had PIC values less than 0.5 (Table 6). This level of polymorphism is lower than the mean PIC reported by Da Cunha et al. [77], where they observed a range of 0.16–0.75 in 136 garlic accessions utilizing 17 gSSR markers. Higher PIC values were also reported by other authors [75] (PIC of 0.72) [78], (PIC of 0.63) and [79] (PIC of 0.60).Table 6 Amplification range (bp), annealing temperature, number of alleles and PIC of each marker.

Table 6Marker	Amplification (bp)	Annealing temperature (°C)	Number of Alleles	PIC	
EU909133	250–297	56	4	0.596	
ACE122	235–265	52	5	0.438	
ACM091	180–200	52	2	0.314	
AsESSR47	650–700	60	6	0.721	
AsESSR82	360–450	59	4	0.695	
AsESSR33	230–270	59	3	0.523	
AsESSR91	300–350	59	2	0.245	
AsESSR103	270–300	59	2	0.210	
AsESSR78	270–310	59	5	0.730	
Mean			3.67	0.497	

Fig. 5 Gel profiling picture of SSR markers (a) EU909133 and (b) ACE122 M = DNA ladder 50 bp.

Fig. 5

The twenty-nine genotypes and three species were found to be classified into four main clusters based on the cluster analysis (Fig. 6). Cluster I, was the largest group comprising 18 genotypes (PGS200, PGS201, PGS202, PGS203, PGS204, PGS205, PGS206, PGS207, PGS210, PGS215, PGS216, PGS217, G1, G41, G50, G189, G282, G323). Cluster II was composed of a single genotype (PGS-209). Cluster III had 10 genotypes (PGS208, PGS211, PGS212, G386, Bhima Omkar, Bhima Purple, Phule Baswant, Godavari, GG2, GG4). Three species formed an outgroup (A.cepa L., A.fistulosum L., A. tuberosum L.) and were grouped into cluster IV. In Cluster I, all the genotypes of the North Eastern (NE) region, maximum genotypes of North India (NI), and some genotypes of Eastern India (EI), Southern India (SI), and Western India (WI) clustered together. It was surprising to see that all the commercial varieties released by NHRDF, except G386, showed a very high degree of similarity and clustered together. This may be due to the reason that the initial material for all the varieties may be similar. Further studies with more SSR markers distributed on different chromosomes of the garlic genome will help us to reveal the true genetic identity of the varieties and other breeding material. In Cluster II, all genotypes of Central India (CI) viz., PGS211, PGS212) and most of the genotypes of EI and WI clustered together. All the commercial varieties from Eastern and Western India clustered together in this group. In cluster III, only one genotype from Western India (WI) was positioned. This indicates that the clustering was based on geographical origin in this study. Research findings associating genetic clustering with geographical locations have been reported by other authors [33,79]. Contrary to our findings, genetic clustering based on flowering behavior has also been reported in the literature [12,13,20,80].Fig. 6 Clustering pattern of garlic genotypes based on SSR markers using UPGMA.

Fig. 6

It was observed that the clustering based on morpho-biochemical characterization was influenced by the traits and did not reveal the clustering based on geographic origin whereas molecular characterization clustered the genotypes based on geographical origin. Various studies have shown no agreement between clustering based on molecular markers and agromorphological traits [[81], [82], [83]]. There are many reasons attributed to this disagreement which may be that the molecular markers used may not be associated with the gene involved in agro-morphological traits or the material may be same but cultivation over the years and transfer to different places may have led to different naming by farmers at other locations. Clustering based on molecular markers revealed that most of the commercial varieties released by NHRDF are very similar to each other whereas based on morpho-biochemical characterization, all the varieties of NHRDF were distributed in different clusters. PGS209 clustered separately in the SSR characterization which may or may not be true and needs further investigation. Garlic is a vegetatively propagated crop with a huge genome size and a large number of SSR markers distributed uniformly on all the chromosomes are required to reveal the true genetic diversity.

4 Conclusions

In this study, a three-way approach to determine the genetic variability among the garlic genotypes was carried out. Significant variation for agro-morphological and biochemical traits was observed indicating good scope of improvement. Higher PCA for morphological traits revealed that environment plays a significant part in trait expression in garlic. Correlation studies revealed significant relationship between morphological and biochemical traits. Cluster analysis, based on morphological and biochemical characters, revealed three clusters and clustering was not based on geographical origin. Molecular markers clustered genotypes on the basis of geographical origin and genotypes with maximum similarity were also observed. Hence, molecular markers should be used to reveal an unbiased estimate of grouping garlic genotypes. Very few (4.2 %) SSR markers were polymorphic which leads to the demand of mining more SSRs from the already available genomic resources in garlic so that the total diversity of garlic genotypes is revealed in a systematic way. This will lead to the development of superior garlic varieties and identification of duplicates for efficient germplasm management.

Data availability statement

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Karishma Pasupula: Writing – original draft, Investigation. Priyanka Verma: Validation, Supervision, Methodology. Masochon Zimik: Writing – original draft, Formal analysis, Data curation. Charanjit Kaur: Visualization, Resources. Sujata Vasudev: Writing – review & editing, Resources. Anil Khar: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Project administration, Investigation, Formal analysis, Conceptualization.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Appendix A Supplementary data

The following is the Supplementary data to this article:Multimedia component 1

Multimedia component 1

Appendix A Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e37553.
==== Refs
References

1 Etoh T. Simon P.W. Diversity, fertility and seed production of garlic Allium Crop Science: Recent Advances 2002 CABI Publishing Wallingford UK 101 117
2 Jones H.A. Mann L.K. Onions and Their Allies 1963 Leonard Hill Books London, UK
3 McCollum G.D. Onion and allies Simmonds N.W. Evolution of Crop Plants 1987 186 190
4 Figliuolo G. Candido V. Logozzo G. Miccolis V. Spagnoletti Zeuli P.L. Genetic evaluation of cultivated garlic germplasm (Allium sativum L. and A. ampeloprasum L.) Euphytica 121 2001 325 334
5 Faostat http://www.fao.org/statistics/en.2020 2020
6 APEDA AgriXchange Indian production of garlic https://agriexchange.apeda.gov.in/India%20Production/India_Production.aspx?hscode=1100 2022
7 Brewster J.L. Weed Competition and Bulb Yield of Garlic, Onion, and Other Vegetable Alliums 1994 CAB International UK 236
8 Kamenetsky R. London Shafir I. Khassanov F. Kik C. Van Heusden A.W. Vrielink-van Ginkel M. Rabinowitch H.D. Diversity in fertility potential and organo-sulphur compounds among garlics from Central Asia Biodivers. Conserv. 14 2005 281 295
9 Horníčková J. Velíšek J. Ovesna J. Stavělíková H. Distribution of S-alk (en) yl-L-cysteine sulfoxides in garlic (Allium sativum L.) Czech J. Food Sci. 27 Special Issue 1 2009
10 Lu X. Ross C.F. Powers J.R. Aston D.E. Rasco B.A. Determination of total phenolic content and antioxidant activity of Garlic (Allium sativum) and Elephant Garlic (Allium ampeloprasum) by attenuated total reflectance–fourier transformed infrared spectroscopy J. Agric. Food Chem. 59 10 2011 5215 5221 21506613
11 Harris J.C. Cottrell S.L. Plummer S. Lloyd D. Antimicrobial properties of Allium sativum (garlic) Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 57 2001 282 286 11759674
12 Volk G.M. Henk A.D. Richards C.M. Genetic diversity among US garlic clones as detected using AFLP methods J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 129 4 2004 559 569
13 Bradley K.F. Rieger M.A. Collins G.G. Classification of Australian garlic cultivars by DNA fingerprinting Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 36 5 1996 613 618
14 Avato P. Miccolis V. Tursi F. Agronomic evaluation and essential oil content of garlic (Allium sativum L.) ecotypes grown in Southern Italy Adv. Hortic. Sci. 1998 201 204
15 Hallauer A.R. Miranda J.B. Quantitative genetics in maize breeding. Iowa state univ press, ames, IA Crop Sci. 28 1981 869 Jenkins, JN, WL Parrott, JC McCarty Jr & RL Shepherd, 1988a. Registration of three noncommercial germplasm lines of upland cotton tolerant to tobacco budworm
16 Panthee D.R. Kc R.B. Regmi H.N. Subedi P.P. Bhattarai S. Dhakal J. Diversity analysis of garlic (Allium sativum L.) germplasms available in Nepal based on morphological characters Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 53 2006 205 212
17 Khar A. Devi A.A. Lawande K.E. Analysis of genetic diversity among Indian garlic (Allium sativum L.) cultivars and breeding lines using RAPD markers Indian J. Genet. Plant Breed. 68 1 2008 52 57
18 Khar A. Cross amplification of onion derived microsatellites and mining of garlic EST database for assessment of genetic diversity in garlic VI International Symposium on Edible Alliaceae 969 2012 289 295
19 Wang H. Li X. Shen D. Oiu Y. Song J. Diversity evaluation of morphological traits and allicin content in garlic (Allium sativum L.) from China Euphytica 198 2014 243 254
20 Barboza K. Beretta V. Kozub P.C. Salinas C. Morgenfeld M.M. Galmarini C.R. Cavagnaro P.F. Microsatellite analysis and marker development in garlic: distribution in EST sequence, genetic diversity analysis, and marker transferability across Alliaceae Mol. Genet. Genom. 293 2018 1091 1106
21 Kumar U. Prasad B. Evaluation of garlic (Allium sativum L.) genotypes for plant architecture and yield Journal Crop and Weed 11 1 2015 128 131
22 PPVFRA Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Authority, Compendium of Registered Varieties under PPV&FR Act 2020 Department of Agriculture and Co-operation, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India 2001 https://plantauthority.gov.in/crop-dus-guidelines
23 Ranganna S. Manual of Analysis of Fruits and Vegetable Products 1976 McGraw Hill New Delhi, India 77
24 Singleton V.L. Orthofer R. Lamuela-Raventós R.M. [14] Analysis of total phenols and other oxidation substrates and antioxidants by means of folin-ciocalteu reagent Methods Enzymol. 299 1999 152 178
25 Zhishen J. Mengcheng T. Jianming W. The determination of flavonoid contents in mulberry and their scavenging effects on superoxide radicals Food Chem. 64 4 1999 555 559
26 Apak R. Güçlü K. Özyürek M. Karademir S.E. Novel total antioxidant capacity index for dietary polyphenols and vitamins C and E, using their cupric ion reducing capability in the presence of neocuproine: CUPRAC method J. Agric. Food Chem. 52 26 2004 7970 7981 15612784
27 Benzie I.F. Strain J.J. The ferric reducing ability of plasma (FRAP) as a measure of “antioxidant power”: the FRAP assay Anal. Biochem. 239 1 1996 70 76 8660627
28 Brand-Williams W. Cuvelier M.E. Berset C.L.W.T. Use of a free radical method to evaluate antioxidant activity LWT--Food Sci. Technol. 28 1 1995 25 30
29 Sánchez‐Moreno C. Larrauri J.A. Saura‐Calixto F. A procedure to measure the antiradical efficiency of polyphenols J. Sci. Food Agric. 76 2 1998 270 276
30 Anthon G.E. Barrett D.M. Modified method for the determination of pyruvic acid with dinitrophenylhydrazine in the assessment of onion pungency J. Sci. Food Agric. 83 12 2003 1210 1213
31 Murray M.G. Thompson W. Rapid isolation of high molecular weight plant DNA Nucleic Acids Res. 8 19 1980 4321 4326 7433111
32 Jakse J. Martin W. McCallum J. Havey M.J. Single nucleotide polymorphisms, indels, and simple sequence repeats for onion cultivar identification J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 130 6 2005 912 917
33 Ma K.H. Kwag J.G. Zhao W. Dixit A. Lee G.A. Kim H.H. Chung I.M. Kim N.S. Lee J.S. Ji J.J. Kim T.S. Parl Y.J. Isolation and characteristics of eight novel polymorphic microsatellite loci from the genome of garlic (Allium sativum L.) Sci. Hortic. 122 3 2009 355 361
34 Tsukazaki H. Honjo M. Yamashita K.I. Ohara T. Kojima A. Ohsawa R. Wako T. Classification and identification of bunching onion (Allium fistulosum) varieties based on SSR markers Breed Sci. 60 2 2010 139 152
35 Kalinowski S.T. Taper M.L. Marshall T.C. Revising how the computer program CERVUS accommodates genotyping error increases success in paternity assignment Mol. Ecol. 16 2007 1099 1106 10.1111/j.1365-294x.2007.03089.x 17305863
36 Perrier X. Jacquemoud-Collet J.P. Darwin software http://darwin.cirad.fr/darwin 2006
37 Sandhu S.S. Brar P.S. Dhall R.K. Variability of agronomic and quality characteristics of garlic (Allium sativum L.) ecotypes SABRAO Journal of Breeding and Genetics. 47 2 2015 133 142
38 Kaushik S. Kumar M. Prakash S. Kumar V. Singh M.K. Singh B. Singh K. Study of genetic diversity in garlic (Allium sativum L.) by using morphological characters Progressive Agriculture 16 2 2016 204 210
39 Singh S. Imran M. Singh M.K. Badal D.S. Kumar J. Genetic diversity for bulb and its component traits in garlic (Allium sativum L.) International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences 7 2018 3369 3376
40 Salahuddin M. Rahim M.A. Alam S.J.B. Rahman M.M. Rahman J. Morphological characterization of garlic (Allium sativum L.) germplasm Malaysian Journal of Halal Research 2 2 2019 46 52
41 Osman S.A.M. Ata A.T.M. El-Hak S.E.H.G. Morphological, germination, bolting and cytogenetical characteristics of fourteen promising garlic genotypes 8th African Crop Science Society Conference, El-Minia, Egypt 2007 African Crop Science Society S
42 Khan H. Hussain M.M. Jellani G. Tariq S. Naseeb T. Mahmood S. Evaluation of garlic genotypes for yield and yield components in Islamabad, Pakistan environment Nucleus 55 1 2018 22 26
43 Tiwari A.K. Mishra D.P. Kumar V. Kumar V. Assess the association between the yield and yield contributing traits in garlic Int. J. Chem. Stud. 8 4 2020 2850 2853
44 Bhusal R. Islam S. Khar A. Singh S. Jain N. Tomar B.S. Diversity analysis and trait association study for antioxidants and quality traits in landraces, farmers' varieties and commercial varieties of Indian short day garlic (Allium sativum L.). Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 66 2019 1843 1859
45 Piatkowska E. Kopec A. Leszczynska T. Basic chemical composition, content of micro-and macroelements and antioxidant activity of different varieties of garlic's leaves Polish origin Żywność Nauka Technologia Jakość. 22 1 2015
46 Chotaliya P. Kulkarni G.U. Character association and path analysis for quantitative traits in garlic (Allium sativum L.) International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences 6 8 2017 175 184
47 Othman S.F.C. Idid S.Z. Koya M.S. Rehan A.M. Kamarudin K.R. Antioxidant study of garlic and red onion: a comparative study Pertanika J. Trop. Agric. Sci. 34 2 2011 253 261
48 Hirata S. Abdelrahman M. Yamauchi N. Shigyo M. Characteristics of chemical components in genetic resources of garlic Allium sativum collected from all over the world Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 63 2016 35 45
49 Benkeblia N. Free-radical scavenging capacity and antioxidant properties of some selected onions (Allium cepa L.) and garlic (Allium sativum L.) extracts Braz. Arch. Biol. Technol. 48 2005 753 759
50 Beato V.M. Orgaz F. Mansilla F. Montaño A. Changes in phenolic compounds in garlic (Allium sativum L.) owing to the cultivar and location of growth Plant Foods Hum. Nutr. 66 2011 218 223 21667145
51 Lenkova M. Bystrická J. Tomáš T.Ó.T.H. Hrstkova M. Evaluation and comparison of the content of total polyphenols and antioxidant activity of selected species of the genus Allium J. Cent. Eur. Agric. 17 2016 1119 1133
52 Moustafa Y.M.M. Latif S.S. Abd El Naem G.F. Fouly H.M.H. Ahmed S.I. Performance of new imported foreign garlic genotypes grown under the Egyptian conditions Egyptian Journal of Agricultural Research 87 1 2009 219 243
53 Gadel-Hak S.N.H. Moustafa Y.M. Abdel-Naem G.F. Abdel-Wahab I.A. Studying different quantitative and qualitative traits of some white-and colored-bulb garlic genotypes grown under a drip irrigation system Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences 5 6 2011 1415 1427
54 Scalfi L. Fogliano V. Pentangelo A. Graziani G. Giordano I. Ritieni A. Antioxidant activity and general fruit characteristics in different ecotypes of Corbarini small tomatoes J. Agric. Food Chem. 48 4 2000 1363 1366 10775398
55 Singh P. Mahajan V. Tp A.S. Banerjee K. Jadhav M.R. Kumar P. Gopal J. Comparative evaluation of different Allium accessions for allicin and other allyl thiosulphinates Ind. Crop. Prod. 147 2020 112 215
56 Abedi M. Biat F. Nosrati A.E. Evaluation of agronomical traits and pyruvic acid content in Hamedan garlic (Allium sativum L.) ecotypes Eur. J. Exp. Biol. 3 2 2013 541 544
57 Akinwande B.A. Olatunde S.J. Comparative evaluation of the mineral profile and other selected components of onion and garlic Int. Food Res. J. 22 1 2015
58 Sharma D. Chauhan A. Genetic variability, heritability and genetic advance in garlic genotypes J. Pharmacogn. Phytochem. 10 2 2021 1346 1348
59 Kohli U.K. Variability and correlation studies on some important traits in garlic (Allium sativum L.) clones Haryana J. Hortic. Sci. 29 3/4 2000 209 211
60 Burton G.W. Devane D.E. Estimating heritability in tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea) from replicated clonal material 1 Agron. J. 45 10 1953 478 481
61 Singh L. Kaul V. Gohil R.N. Analysis of morphological variability in the Indian germplasm of Allium sativum L Plant Systemat. Evol. 300 2014 245 254
62 Singh R.K. Dubey B.K. Bhonde S.R. Gupta R.P. Studies on variability, heritability and genetic advance in garlic (Allium sativum L) Vegetable Science 39 2012 86 88
63 Panse R. Jain P.K. Gupta A. Sasode D.S. Morphological variability and character association in diverse collection of garlic germplasm Afr. J. Agric. Res. 8 2013 2861 2869
64 Fehr W.R. Principles of Cultivar Development ume 1 1987 Theory and technique
65 Jabbes N. Geoffriau E.E. Le Clerc V. Dridi B. Hannechi C. Inter simple sequence repeat fingerprints for assess genetic diversity of Tunisian garlic populations J. Agric. Sci. 3 4 2011 77 85
66 Singh G. Ram C.N. Singh A. Shrivastav S.P. Singh N.P. Singh D. Character association and path coefficient analysis of yield and its contributing traits in garlic (Allium sativum L.) J. Pharmacogn. Phytochem. 6 6 2017 1801 1805
67 Benke A.P. Khar A. Mahajan V. Gupta A. Singh M. Study on dispersion of genetic variation among Indian garlic ecotypes using agro morphological traits Indian Journal of Genetics ad Plant Breeding 80 1 2020 94 102
68 Kefeli V.I. Kutacek M. Phenolic substances and their possible role in plant growth regulation Pilet P.E. Plant Growth Regulation. Proceedings in Life Sciences 1977 Springer Berlin, Heidelberg 10.1007/978-3-642-66589-9_20
69 Stavělíková H. Morphological characteristics of garlic (Allium sativum L.) genetic resources collection–Information Horticulture Science (Prague) 35 3 2008 130 135
70 Khar A. Banerjee K. Jadhav M.R. Lawande K.E. Evaluation of garlic ecotypes for allicin and other allyl thiosulphinates Food Chem. 128 4 2011 988 996
71 Kaiser H.F. The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis Psychometrika 23 3 1958 187 200
72 Hanci F. Gokce A.F. Genetic diversity evaluations in Turkish onion (Allium cepa L.) genotypes: principal component analyses (PCA) for breeding strategies Acta Hortic. 1143 2016 227 234
73 Kumar M. Sharma V.R. Kumar V. Sirohi U. Chaudhary V. Sharma S. Saripalli G. Naresh R.K. Yadav H.K. Sharma S. Genetic diversity and population structure 68 analysis of Indian garlic (Allium sativum L.) collection using SSR markers Physiol. Mol. Biol. Plants 25 2019 377 386 30956421
74 Kıraç H. Dalda Şekerci A. Coşkun Ö.F. Gülşen O. Morphological and molecular characterization of garlic (Allium sativum L.) genotypes sampled from Turkey Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 69 5 2022 1833 1841 35125657
75 Chen S. Chen W. Shen X. Yang Y. Qi F. Liu Y. Meng H. Analysis of the genetic diversity of garlic (Allium sativum L.) by simple sequence repeat and inter simple sequence repeat analysis and agro-morphological traits Biochem. Systemat. Ecol. 55 2014 260 267
76 Barboza K. Salinas M.C. Acuña C.V. Bannoud F. Beretta V. Garcia-Lampasona S. Cavagnaro P.F. Assessment of genetic diversity and population structure in a garlic (Allium sativum L.) germplasm collection varying in bulb content of pyruvate, phenolics, and solids Sci. Hortic. 261 2020 108900
77 Da Cunha C.P. Resende F.V. Zucchi M.I. Pinheiro J.B. SSR-based genetic diversity and structure of garlic accessions from Brazil Genetica 142 2014 419 431 25178197
78 Zhao W.G. Chung J.W. Lee G.A. Ma K.H. Kim H.H. Kim K.T. Park Y.J. Molecular genetic diversity and population structure of a selected core set in garlic and its relatives using novel SSR markers Plant Breed. 130 1 2011 46 54
79 Ipek M. Sahin N. Ipek A. Cansev A. Simon P.W. Development and validation of new SSR markers from expressed regions in the garlic genome Sci. Agric. 72 2015 41 46
80 Jo M.H. Ham I.K. Moe K.T. Kwon S.W. Lu F.H. Park Y.J. Lee E.M. Classification of genetic variation in garlic (Allium sativum L.) using SSR markers Aust. J. Crop. Sci. 6 4 2012 625 631
81 Ganopoulos I. Argiriou A. Tsaftaris A. Microsatellite high resolution melting (SSR-HRM) analysis for authenticity testing of protected designation of origin (PDO) sweet cherry products Food Control 22 2011 532e541
82 Hartings H. Berardo N. Mazzinelli G.F. Valoti P. Verderio A. Motto M. Assessment of genetic diversity and relationships among maize (Zea mays L.) Italian landraces by morphological traits and AFLP profiling TAG (Theor. Appl. Genet.) 117 2008 831e842 18584146
83 Bendhifi M. Baraket G. Zourgui L. Souid S. Salhi-Hannachi A. Assessment of genetic diversity of Tunisian Barbary fig (Opuntia ficus indica) cultivars by RAPD markers and morphological traits Scientia Horticulturae-Amsterdam 158 2013 1e7
