INDIAN JOURNAL OF PURE & APPLIED BIOSCIENCES

ISSN (E) : 2582 – 2845

  • No. 772, Basant Vihar, Kota

    Rajasthan-324009 India

  • Call Us On

    +91 9784677044

Archives

Indian Journal of Pure & Applied Biosciences (IJPAB)
Year : 2020, Volume : 8, Issue : 3
First page : (193) Last page : (198)
Article doi: : http://dx.doi.org/10.18782/2582-2845.7899

Evaluation of Tomato Genotypes for Growth, Yield and Quality Attributes Under Eastern Dry Zone of Karnataka

M. H. Ibaad1* , H. B. Lingaiah2, M. Shivapriya1, G. J. Suresh1, T. H. Singh3 and D. M. Gowda4
1College of Horticulture, UHS Campus, GKVK, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
2Director of Education, University of Horticultural Sciences, Bagalkot, Karnataka, India
3Division of Vegetable Crops, IIHR, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
4College of Agriculture, UAS Campus, GKVK, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
*Corresponding Author E-mail: ibaadmh@gmail.com
Received: 24.12.2019  |  Revised: 30.01.2020   |  Accepted: 10.02.2020 

 ABSTRACT

The objective of this investigation was to evaluate tomato genotypes for their growth, yield and quality under Eastern Dry Zone of Karnataka. The results showed that there were significant differences in evaluated parameters among cultivars. Among the 22 genotypes, EC322634 recorded the highest plant height at last harvest. The number of branches per plant at last harvest was highest in the genotype 29P4. With respect to the earliness, genotypes EC-322634 and 10P6 recorded the lowest days for flowering. The number of days taken for fifty per cent flowering was lowest in COHMUD-3. Highest number of fruits per cluster, clusters per plant and fruits per plant was recorded by the genotype EC-322634.  Kashi Hemanth recorded highest average fruit weight. Highest fruit yield per plant was observed in COHMUD-2 followed by Kashi Hemanth. Highest pericarp thickness was recorded by Arka Meghali. Kashi Sharad recorded highest fruit firmness. Highest lycopene content was recorded by COHMUD-3 followed by 11P4 and EC528388. Genotype 16P2 recorded highest ascorbic acid content among 22 genotypes. The findings of this study may provide valuable information about nutritional value of studied cultivars for vegetable experts, researchers and growers under Eastern Dry Zone of Karnataka.

Keywords: Kashi Hemanth, Genotypes, Growth, Yield, Tomato

Full Text : PDF; Journal doi : http://dx.doi.org/10.18782

Cite this article: Ibaad, M.H., Lingaiah, H.B., Shivapriya, M., Suresh, G.J., Singh, T.H., & Gowda, D.M. (2020). Evaluation of Tomato Genotypes for Growth, Yield and Quality Attributes Under Eastern Dry Zone of Karnataka, Ind. J. Pure App. Biosci. 8(3), 193-198. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.18782/2582-2845.7899

INTRODUCTION

omato (Solanum lycopersicum L.; 2n=24) is one of the important and most widely grown versatile vegetable crops of both tropics and sub tropics. It is grown for its edible fruit, which can be consumed, either raw or cooked in the form of various processed products like juice, ketchup, sauce, pickle, pastes, puree and powder.  It is an important commercial and dietary crop. Tomato cultivation has become increasingly popular since the mid-nineteenth century due to the short duration of the crop and high yield. It occupies the most prestigious berth not only in the sophisticated, ultra modern kitchen, but also equally in the kitchen of the poor man, because of diverse nutrition and value added products that can be prepared from it.
In many countries it is considered as “poor man’s orange” because of its attractive appearance and nutritive value (Singh et al., 2004). It is considered as an important source of vitamin A, C and minerals (Hari, 1997). Apart from these, lycopene is valued for its anti-cancer property (Bose et al., 2002). It acts as an antioxidant and scavenger of free radicals, which is often associated with anticarcinogenesis. Thus, lycopene has got great beneficial effects on human health. It may also interfere with oxidative damage to DNA and lipoproteins and inhibits the oxidation of LDL (low density lipoprotein) cholesterol. The increased consumer awareness and the demand for food containing bioactive compounds makes lycopene a key trait for tomato breeders. Considering all the above mentioned facts, a field evaluation was undertaken to evaluate the tomato genotypes under Eastern Dry Zone of Karnataka.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The experiment was conducted at vegetable block, College of Horticulture, UHS Campus, GKVK, Bengaluru. The experimental site is located at an altitude of 930 meters above mean sea level (MSL) and 130 N latitude and 77.370 E longitude in the Eastern Dry Zone of Karnataka (Zone-5). The soil of the experimental area was red sandy loam (Alfisol) with an uniform fertility having soil pH range 6 to 7.3. The material for the present study comprised a total of 22 genotypes which were procured from Indian Institute of Vegetable Research (IIVR), Varanasi, Indian Institute of Horticultural Research (IIHR), Hessarghatta, Bengaluru, College of Horticulture, Mudigere and College of Horticulture, Bengaluru.

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

In the present study 22 tomato genotypes were evaluated in the field for growth, yield, quality parameters and analysis of variance revealed that the treatment variances (due to genotypes) for all the growth, yield and quality parameters were highly significant except for the titrable acidity indicating large amount of variation for all the characters under study (Table. 1).
Growth and yield parameters
Genotype EC322634 recorded the highest plant height at last harvest (119.30 cm), followed by COHMUD-2 (113.42 cm) and COHMUD-3 (112.35 cm). The number of branches per plant at last harvest was highest in the genotype 29P4 (14.17). With respect to the earliness, genotypes EC-322634 (21.50) and 10P6 (21.50) recorded lowest days for flowering (Table. 2). The number of days taken for fifty per cent flowering was lowest in COHMUD-3 (23.50). Highest number of fruits per cluster (11.67), clusters per plant (19.50) and fruits per plant (117.50) was recorded by the genotype EC-322634. Kashi Hemanth recorded highest average fruit weight (98.87 g) followed by 16P2 (88.33 g).
Among the yield and yield related attributes, yield per plant is very important trait as it is a dependent character. Highest fruit yield per plant was observed in COHMUD-2 (3.80 kg) followed by Kashi Hemanth (3.78 kg) and 16P2 (3.42 kg). The increase in yield per plant in these genotypes was due to higher average fruit weight and more number of fruits per plant (Sureshkumara, 2016). All above genotypes mentioned for different growth and yield parameters could be utilized in breeding programme for tomato crop improvement.
Quality parameters
Exploring natural biodiversity as a source of novel alleles to improve the productivity, adaptation, quality and nutritional value of crop is of prime importance in 21st century breeding programme (Fernie et al., 2006). Important quality parameters of tomato are less number of locules per fruit, TSS, pericarp thickness, fruit firmness, lycopene, titrable acidity and ascorbic acid. The genotype 29P4 (2.00) recorded least number of locules per fruit (Table. 3). Total solids comprise all fruit components such as aromas except water and volatiles. In cultivated tomato, the soluble and insoluble solids account for about 75 % and 25 %, respectively, of total solids (Majid, 2007). Total soluble solids was found maximum in 55P2 (6.65 0B).
Pericarp thickness is considered to be very important criteria among breeders for selecting cultivars and it relates to storage capacity and also transportation. Highest pericarp thickness was recorded by Arka Meghali (5.24 mm). Textural quality of tomato is influenced by firmness of flesh. Kashi Sharad recorded highest fruit firmness (1.07 kg/cm2). Lycopene predominates among carotenoids and is mainly responsible for the red colour of tomato fruit (Valverde et al., 2002). Highest lycopene content was recorded by COHMUD3 (8.59 mg/100g) followed by 11P4 (8.44 mg/100g). 16P2 recorded highest ascorbic acid content (25.82 mg/100g) among 22 tomato genotypes.

Table 1: Analysis of variance (mean sum of squares) for growth, yield and quality parameters in tomato

Sl.

Source of variation/ Characters

Replication

Treatments

Error

No.

(Genotypes)

 

Degrees of freedom

1

21

21

A.

Growth parameters

1

Plant height at last harvest (cm)

263.767

729.433**

17.846

2

Number of branches at last harvest (cm)

4.448

12.143**

1.612

B.

Yield parameters

3

Days to flowering

5.818

21.294**

2.152

4

Days to 50 per cent flowering

12.023

41.209**

2.785

5

Number of fruits per cluster

0.209

7.565**

0.145

6

Number of clusters per plant

30.113

22.727**

0.046

7

Number of fruits per plant

6.952

1008.341**

14.131

8

Average fruit weight (g)

6.849

1167.976**

5.984

9

Yield per plant (kg)

1.530

1.729**

0.031

C.

Quality parameters

10

Number of locules per fruit

0.091

3.805**

0.377

11

Total soluble solids (0B)

0.464

1.227**

0.098

12

Pericarp thickness (mm)

0.057

1.426**

0.134

13

Firmness (kg/cm2)

0.003

0.039**

0.005

14

Lycopene (mg/100g)

0.238

5.131**

0.139

15

Titrable acidity (%)

0.006

0.006

0.006

16

Ascorbic acid (mg/100g)

17.795

17.674**

5.779

*, ** Significant at 5 % and 1 % levels, respectively

Table 2: Per se performance for growth and yield parameters in 22 tomato genotypes

Sl. No.

Genotypes

X1

X2

X3

X4

X5

X6

X7

X8

X9

1

EC-321425

62.46

5.60

22.50

24.50

4.65

15.40

96.40

19.91

1.10

2

EC-322634

119.30

9.50

21.50

25.50

11.67

19.50

117.50

7.19

0.69

3

Kashi Sharad

78.40

8.65

25.00

26.00

3.25

6.80

26.10

88.33

3.30

4

Kashi Hemanth

77.10

6.30

24.00

27.00

3.30

10.00

30.21

98.87

3.78

5

DT-10

63.99

6.38

30.00

33.50

2.70

11.40

27.20

40.62

1.44

6

Bhagyashree

61.68

10.25

26.50

29.50

3.20

14.13

36.45

65.08

2.90

7

Utkal Deepti

57.60

12.00

25.50

28.50

2.65

18.20

48.35

31.51

1.14

8

Arka Meghali

72.51

9.60

29.00

28.50

2.25

16.10

43.30

54.65

2.27

9

1P2

98.58

7.50

29.00

32.00

3.05

13.80

39.00

45.77

1.75

10

COHM7

59.50

7.80

26.00

27.50

2.75

16.40

50.91

42.98

1.43

11

10P6

59.75

7.75

21.50

29.00

2.70

11.80

34.00

37.70

1.71

12

11P4

91.45

8.97

24.50

28.50

3.15

17.00

27.17

21.63

1.20

13

16P2

76.90

11.60

30.00

34.50

2.35

19.20

40.80

91.83

3.42

14

28P2

91.25

10.17

29.00

36.00

2.80

11.80

31.47

35.53

1.93

15

29P4

104.53

14.17

25.00

34.50

4.15

11.60

28.40

22.23

1.13

16

55P2

76.20

8.60

25.50

29.00

3.80

14.40

39.80

29.93

1.60

17

56P2

79.45

9.17

24.00

30.00

2.75

14.13

25.33

52.08

2.92

18

EC528388

96.85

12.60

26.50

33.50

2.60

17.46

32.93

24.55

1.27

19

COHMUD-1

99.83

12.87

28.50

36.00

3.25

19.13

48.83

33.86

1.83

20

COHMUD-2

113.42

13.67

33.00

41.50

2.25

13.02

37.20

66.68

3.80

21

17P5

84.30

8.92

31.50

36.00

3.75

10.05

30.17

43.44

2.41

22

COHMUD-3

112.35

12.63

22.00

23.50

4.70

14.30

40.42

39.49

2.17

Mean

83.52

9.76

26.36

30.66

3.53

14.35

42.36

45.17

2.05

SEm±

2.99

0.90

1.04

1.18

0.27

0.15

2.66

1.73

0.13

CD @ 5 %

8.79

2.64

3.05

3.47

0.79

0.45

7.82

5.09

0.37

X1. Plant height at last harvest (cm)

X2. Number of branches at last harvest

X3. Days to flowering

X4. Days to 50 per cent flowering

X5. Number of fruits per cluster

X6. Number of clusters per plant

X7. Number of fruits per plant

X8. Average fruit weight (g)

X9. Yield per plant (kg/plant)

Table 3: Per se performance of quality parameters in 22 tomato genotypes

Sl. No.

Genotypes

X10

X11

X12

X13

X14

X15

X16

1

EC-321425

3.00

3.41

2.87

0.95

5.61

0.25

15.09

2

EC322634

4.00

4.45

2.05

0.81

4.57

0.30

21.61

3

Kashi Sharad

3.00

5.75

3.01

1.07

4.30

0.26

20.86

4

Kashi Hemanth

4.00

4.85

4.29

0.79

5.49

0.27

21.22

5

DT-10

2.50

4.85

4.70

1.02

3.24

0.33

16.11

6

Bhagyashree

5.50

5.10

5.17

0.71

3.74

0.31

16.14

7

Utkal Deepti

2.50

4.65

3.17

0.89

4.00

0.17

16.82

8

Arka Meghali

5.00

4.75

5.24

0.83

6.05

0.26

15.54

9

1P2

2.50

4.90

3.02

0.68

3.78

0.24

20.50

10

COHM7

4.00

4.55

3.42

0.58

6.66

0.29

19.18

11

10P6

4.50

5.95

2.91

0.64

3.39

0.36

15.04

12

11P4

3.00

5.65

3.00

1.06

8.44

0.32

13.72

13

16P2

6.50

5.60

3.82

0.76

5.93

0.26

25.82

14

28P2

3.00

6.30

2.74

0.75

4.21

0.20

18.61

15

29P4

2.00

6.45

2.82

0.59

3.67

0.39

17.57

16

55P2

3.00

6.65

3.28

0.67

3.96

0.28

14.68

17

56P2

7.00

4.30

2.39

0.85

5.98

0.24

19.00

18

EC528388

6.00

5.65

3.17

0.91

7.36

0.32

13.89

19

COHMUD-1

4.50

4.60

3.27

0.69

4.41

0.32

15.86

20

COHMUD-2

4.50

4.85

2.73

0.80

4.49

0.26

17.64

21

17P5

3.00

5.60

3.30

0.81

3.32

0.22

16.82

22

COHMUD-3

4.00

5.50

2.52

0.82

8.59

0.37

18.93

Mean

3.95

5.20

3.31

0.80

5.05

0.28

17.76

SEm±

0.43

0.22

0.26

0.05

0.26

NS

1.70

CD @ 5 %

1.28

0.65

0.76

0.15

0.77

NS

5.00

X10. Number of locules per fruit

X11. Total soluble solids (0B)

X12. Pericarp thickness (mm)

X13. Firmness (kg/cm2)

X14. Lycopene content (mg/100g)

X15. Titrable acidity (%)

X16. Ascorbic acid (mg/100g)

CONCLUSION

Tomato is more accepted vegetable crop all over the globe from the above results it was revealed that wide ranges of variabilities were existed among the 22 tomato genotypes in respect of growth, yield and quality parameters.

REFERENCES

Bose, T. K., Bose, J., Kabir, T. K., Maity, V. A., & Som, M. G. (2002). Vegetable crops, Bahumani mitra publication, Calcutta, India.1st Edn., pp. 456-471.
Fernie, A. R., Tadmor, Y., & Zam, D. R. (2006). Natural genetic variation for improving crop quality. Curr. Opinion Pl. Biol. 9, 196-202.
Hari, H. R. (1997). Vegetable breeding principles and practices, Kalyani Publ., India, pp.188-            190.
Majid, R. (2007). Genome Mapping and Molecular Breeding of Tomato. Int. J. Plant Genomics, 1, 52.
Singh, Nem-Pal, Bharadwaj, A. K., Kumar, A., & Singh K. M. (2004). Modern technology on vegetable production, International book distribution Co. Lucknow, Pp: 84- 98.
Sureshkumara, B. (2016). Development of heterotic hybrids with combined resistance to both tomato leaf curl virus (ToLCV) and bacterial wilt and validation of molecular markers for ToLCV in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Ph. D (Hort.) Thesis, Univ. Hortic. Sci., Bagalkot, Karnataka, India.
Valverde, I. M., Periago, M. J., Provan, G., & Chesson, A. (2002). Phenolic compounds, lycopene and antioxidant activity in commercial varieties of tomato (Lycopersicum esculentum). J. Sci. Food Agric., 82, 323-330.




Photo

Photo