Effect of truss retention and pruning of berry on seed yield and quality of cherry tomato (Solanum lycopersicum var cerasiforme) grown under different polyhouse structures

BONTHA VIDYADHAR; B S TOMAR; BALRAJ SINGH

doi:10.56093/ijas.v84i11.44627

Authors

BONTHA VIDYADHAR Agricultural College, Aswaraopet, Khamman District, Andhra Pradesh 507 301
B S TOMAR Agricultural College, Aswaraopet, Khamman District, Andhra Pradesh 507 301
BALRAJ SINGH Agricultural College, Aswaraopet, Khamman District, Andhra Pradesh 507 301

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v84i11.44627

Keywords:

Cherry tomato, Electrical conductivity, Germination, Number of berry per truss, Retention of truss, Seed yield, Vigour index

Abstract

Study was conducted to evaluate the effect of retention of truss per plant and pruning of berries per truss on seed yield and quality of cherry tomato (Solanum tycopersicum var cerasiforme L.) grown under three different polyhouse structures, viz. semi climate controlled polyhouse (P1), naturally ventilated polyhouse (P2) and insect proof nethouse (P3). Among the structures P1 gave higher berry weight (7.67 g), number of seeds/berry (60.66), 100 seed weight (0.1328 g), seed yield/berry (0.0912 g), germination (84.90%), vigour index-I (650.64), vigour index-II (1.47) and lower EC (0.0086 µS/g/cm), when compared to P2 and P3. The retention of 5 truss per plant (V1) recorded higher berry weight (7.37 g), number of seeds/berry (63.25), 100 seed weight (0.1319 g), seed yield/berry (0.0886 g), germination (84.68 %), vigour index-I (640.97), vigour index-II (1.43) and lower electrical conductivity (0.0083 µS/ g/cm), as compared to V2 and V3. The thinning of berry, i.e 10 per truss (B1) has given significantly higher mean berry weight (8.21 g), number of seeds/berry (61.53), 100 seed weight (0.1323 g), 100 seed weight (0.1323 g), seed yield/berry (0.0913 g), germination (86.01%), vigour index-I (651.96), vigour-II (1.46) and lower EC (0.0080 µS/g/ cm) in comparison to B2 and B3.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Abdul-Baki A A and Anderson J O. 1973. Vigour determination in soybean by multiple criteria. Crop Science 13:630–2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1973.0011183X001300060013x

Babik J. 1987. Effect of pruning and decapitating on the earliness of tomatoes grown in heated plastic tunnel. Horticultural Abstract 57:26–34.

Cheema D S, Dissanayake D M C and Geeta B. 2006. Seed vigour as influenced by truss position in tomato. Seed Research 34(2): 221–2.

Dadlani M and Agarwal P K. 1983. Factors influencing leaching of sugars and electrolytes from carrot and okra seeds. Scientia Horticulturae 19: 39–4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4238(83)90042-0

Damyanovic M Z Markovic J Zdravkovic and B Milic. 1992. The effect of cultivar and training method on earliness and total yield of greenhouse tomato. Sravemena Polgobrivreda 40 (1- 2): 85–93, Horticultural Abstract 63(9):6746

De Koning A N M and Deruiter H W. 1991. Effect of temperature, plant density and fruit thinning on flower/ fruit abortion and dry matter partitioning of tomato. Annual Report 1990, Glasshouse Grops Research Station, Naaldwijk, Netherlands, 29 p.

De Koning A N M. 1993. Growth of a tomato crop: measurements for model validation. Acta Horticulturae 328: 141–6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.1993.328.11

Franco JL Rodriguez N, Diaz M and Camacho F. 2009.Influence of different pruning methods in cherry tomato grown hydroponically in a cropping spring cycle: effects on the production and quality. Acta Horticulturae 843, 165–0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2009.843.20

Hand DW and Postlethwaitej D. 1971. The response to CO2 enrichment of capillary-watered single-truss tomatoes at different plant densities and seasons. Journal of Horticultural Science 46:461–0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00221589.1971.11514425

Heuvel Ink E.1996. Re-interpretation of an Experiment on the Role of Assimilate Transport Resistance in Partitioning in Tomato. Annals of Botany 78: 467–0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/anbo.1996.0143

Kaul M L H. 1991. Reproductive Biology in Tomato. Monographs on Theoretical and Applied Genetics 14, Genetic Improvement of Tomato, pp 50–5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-84275-7_4

Mangal J L and Jasmin A M. 1987. Response of tomato varieties to pruning and plant spacing under plastic house. Haryana Journal of Horticultural Science 16 (3-4): 248–2.

Marcelis L F M. 1996. Sink strength as a determinant of dry matter partitioning in the whole plant. Journal of Experimental Botany 47:1 281–1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/47.Special_Issue.1281

Pimpini F Gianquinto G, Babbo G and Xodo E. 1987. Effect of protective structures and pinching on the earliness of table tomato in the greenhouse. Colture protette 16(8/9): 63–73, Horticulture Abstracts 58: 4955

Saglam N and Yazgan A.1995. The effects of planting density and the number of trusses per plant on earliness, yield and quality of tomato grown unheated high plastic tunnel. Acta Horticulturae 242: 258–7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.1995.412.29

Slack G and Calvert A. 1977. The e?ect of truss removal on the yield of early sown tomatoes. Journal of Horticultural Science 52: 309–5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00221589.1977.11514759

Steel A, Nussberger S, Romero M F, Boron W F, Boyd C A R and Hediger M A. 1997. Journal of Physiology 498: 563–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.1997.sp021883

Verkerk K. 1955. Temperature, light and the tomato. Mededelingen van de Land- bouwhogeschool te Wageninge 55: 175–4.