PERFORMANCE OF TOMATO (Solanum lycopersicum L.) HYBRIDS UNDER SHADE HOUSE CONDITION

PERFORMANCE OF TOMATO (Solanum lycopersicum L.) HYBRIDS UNDER SHADE HOUSE CONDITION Thesis submitted to the University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE (AGRICULTURE) IN HORTICULTURE BY ISHWARAPPA KENGAR DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, DHARWAD UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES, DHARWAD 580 005 JUNE, 2011

ADVISORY COMMITTEE DHARWAD JUNE, 2011 (RAMAKRISHNA V. HEGDE) MAJOR ADVISOR Approved by : Chairman : (RAMAKRISHNA V. HEGDE) Members : 1. (P.R. DHARMATTI) 2. (M.S. BIRADAR) 3. (M.B. DODDMANI) 4. (SHRIPAD KULKARNI)

CONTENTS Sl. No. Chapter Particulars CERTIFICATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF PLATES LIST OF APPENDICES 1. INTRODUCTION 2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 2.1 Influence of shade house on tomato production 2.2 Performance of tomato genotypes under protected structure 2.3 Influence of training system on tomato under protected cultivation 3. MATERIAL AND METHODS 3.1 Geographical location of experimental site and climate 3.2 Experimental details 3.3 Treatments combination 3.4 Experimental procedure 3.5 Harvesting 3.6 Observations recorded 4. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS 4.1 Growth parameters of tomato plants. 4.2 Reproductive parameters 4.3 Yield Parameters 4.4 Quality parameters 5. DISCUSSION 5.1 Performance of tomato genotypes under shade house. 5.2 Effect of training system on tomato genotype 5.3 Interaction of tomato hybrids with training system 6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES APPENDICES

LIST OF TABLES Table No. Title 1. Influence of tomato hybrids and training systems on plant height under shade house condition 2. Influence of tomato hybrids and training systems on number of primary branches per plant before pruning under shade house condition 3. Influence of tomato hybrids and training systems on number of leaves per plant under shade house condition 4. Influence of tomato hybrids and training systems on Internodal length (cm) under shade house condition 5. Influence of tomato hybrids and training systems on stem girth (cm) under shade house condition 6. Influence of tomato hybrids and training systems on leaf length (cm) under shade house condition 7. Influence of tomato hybrids and training systems on leaf width (cm) under shade house condition 8. Influence of tomato hybrids and training systems on leaf area (cm 2 ) under shade house condition 9. Influence of tomato hybrids and training systems on days to fifty per cent flowering under shade house condition 10 Influence of tomato hybrids and training systems on days taken from flowering to fruit development under shade house condition 11 Influence of tomato hybrids and training systems on number of cluster per plant under shade house condition 12. Influence of tomato hybrids and training systems on number of fruits per cluster under shade house condition 13. Influence of tomato hybrids and training systems on per cent fruit set under shade house condition 14. Influence of tomato hybrids and training systems on yield per plant under shade house condition 15. Influence of tomato hybrids and training systems on yield/m 2 under shade house condition 16 Influence of tomato hybrids and training systems on average fruit weight (gm) under shade house condition 17 Influence of tomato hybrids and training systems on average fruit diameter (cm) under shade house condition 18 Influence of tomato hybrids and training systems on average fruit volume (cc) under shade house condition 19 Influence of tomato hybrids and training systems on number of seeds per fruit under shade house condition Contd..

Table No. Title 20 Influence of tomato hybrids and training systems on number of locules per fruit under shade house condition 21 Influence of tomato hybrids and training systems on TSS ( o B) under shade house condition 22 Influence of tomato hybrids and training systems on ph under shade house condition 23 Influence of tomato hybrids and training systems on pericarp thickness (cm) under shade house condition 24 Influence of tomato hybrids and training systems on shelf life (Days) under shade house condition

LIST OF FIGURES Figure No. Title 1. Influence of tomato hybrids and training systems on plant height under shade house condition 2. Influence of tomato hybrids and training systems on yield per plant under shade house condition 3. Influence of tomato hybrids and training systems on number of cluster per plant under shade house condition 4. Influence of tomato hybrids and training systems on average fruit diameter (cm) under shade house condition

LIST OF PLATES Plate No. 1. 2. Title General view of the shade house with tomato plants Varying plant height of different tomato hybrids under shade house condition 3. Fruit clusters of different tomato hybrids 4. Cross section of fruits of tomato hybrids indicating number of locules

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix No. Title 1. Monthly meteorological data for the experimental period and the average of 60 years (1950-2010) 2. Monthly mean, weather data recorded during the experimental period from January, 2010 to August 2010

1. INTRODUCTION Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) belongs to the family Solanaceae. It is one of the most important vegetable crops that can be consumed as fresh and used in the processing industry. Tomato is being cultivated throughout the world and more extensively in USA, USSR, Italy, china, turkey and India. The tomato plants typically grow to 1-3 m height and have weak stem that often sprawls over the ground and twines over other plants. It is native of South America, but is now grown worldwide for its edible fruits with thousands of cultivars having been selected with varying fruit types and for optimum growth in differing growth conditions. Tomato has several medicinal values as it promotes gastric secretion, blood purification, intestinal antiseptic, cures cancer of the mouth and sour throat, apart from improving quality of the prepared foods. It is highly nutritious with good amount of vitamins. It is a good appetizer having pleasing taste (Ram, 1991). Tomato juice contains lycopene one of the most powerful antioxidant and vitamin C which are most beneficial to human beings. Tomato is one of the cultivated vegetable crops throughout tropical world. India is the fourth largest producer in the world followed by China, United States of America and Turkey. Tomato occupy 4.55 million hectare with annual production of 125.02 million tonnes in the world. Whereas, in India tomato occupies 0.54 million hectare with an annual production of 7.6 million tonnes (Anon, 2009). Karnataka has 0.4 lakh hectare area and 1.14 million tonnes of annual production. Being an important vegetable crop, research on every aspect of its cultivation to improve its productivity becomes essential. Though production of tomato in Indian plains is high, is reduced to a greater extent due to higher temperature during summer which necessitates exploring for advance techniques like protected cultivation to reduce the temperature in tropical regions in north and south Indian plains that can manage the higher demand of this nutritious vegetable during summer. Higher temperature during summer results in poor fruits set and yield. Hence, use of protected structure in this season will help to increase production. High day and/or night temperatures interfere with tomato fruit set (Berry and Uddin, 2003). Incorporating genetic resistance against detrimental effects of high temperature on tomato fruit set has not had uniform success. Thus, culture methods of overcoming this problem is needed to supply tomato fruit for existing market windows (Russo, 1993). Tomatoes are pruned in certain commercial units and home gardens, shade house and green house for setting good sized fruits for fresh markets. Training of plants from one to three stems by pruning other stems permits closer planting, increase early yield of fruits, keep fruits off the ground and facilitate spraying and harvesting of fruits and also good aeration.( Edmund et al., 1979). Tomato is grown under open conditions extensively and it can be grown under shade house during off season. In northern part of Karnataka tomato can be grown under shade house especially during summer, because of higher temperature and off season productivity is possible. The shading was effective in reducing light penetration and temperature inside the shade house thereby creating better microclimate for production of higher yield and quality of fruits (Tiwari et al., 2002). In India, tomato is mainly gown under open conditions and production of tomato is abundant during normal season makes glut in the market resulting in poor profits to farmers whereas during summer season, high temperature results in poor fruit set and yield and also decreases quality due to insect pest. Hence, increased production of superior quality tomatoes in summer will fetch higher price due to low availability. Hence, there is need to standardise training system for tomato hybrids under shade house condition for maximising productivity and quality of the produce. Tomato hybrids with indeterminate growth habit are best suited for protected cultivation, as the hybrids grow to a height of 10 to 15 feet and above which utilizes protected structure space, both horizontal and vertical. Commercial hybrids are high yield potential up to 180 tonne per hectare from a crop of six months duration (Shankara, 2009)

Practical utility of shade net growing tomato can be substantiated, as it would fetch a premium price in the market when there is demand for fruit during summer (Thangam and Thamburaj, 2008). With this back ground an investigation was conducted on to standardize the training systems for tomato hybrids with the following objectives; 1. To study the performance of tomato hybrids for the shade house cultivations, 2. To study the influence of training on growth, yield and quality of tomato and 3. To study the interaction of hybrids and training system on growth, yield and quality of fruits.

2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Tomato is one of the vegetable commercially cultivated under protected cultivation. The available research work pertaining to cultivation of tomato under shade house condition and effect of training are reviewed in this chapter. 2.1 Influence of shade house on tomato production 2.1.1 Growth Significant increase in plant height and inter-nodal length was reported by Papadopoulos and Ormrod (1991) in closer spacing. Similarly among the six different spacings and four rows planting in tomato under greenhouse conditions, number of flower clusters and percentage of fruit set were significantly higher at wider spacing (60 cm). The plant growth and development at earlier stages was faster in plants under shade than open place (Choudhury and Bhuyan, 1992). Sharma and Tiwari (1993) carried out a study to find out the effect of shade on growth, growth contributing characters and factors in relation to yield of tomato. Four shade treatments ranging from 1:1(1 row of tomato: 1 row of maize) to 4:1 (4 rows of tomato: 1 row maize) were tried. Plant height, soil temperature and light intensity fruit set, days to harvest, number and weight of fruits per plant, weight and diameter of fruits, fruit juice ratio, seed weight per kg fruit and ripe fruit yield were significantly influenced by shading. Number of primary branches, leaf area, fresh and dry weight of plant were not affected significantly. Plants grown under shade exhibited better growth in terms of plant height and dry matter production compared to those in open field. The hybrid Naveen was the tallest under shade and in open fields. In general, delayed flowering and days to first harvest was noticed under shade during summer (Thangam and Thamburaj, 2008). 2.1.2 Yield and Quality Ochigbu and Harris (1989) conducted research under polyethylene greenhouse condition from 1989-90 to 1990-91 and concluded that maximum yield of ripe tomato fruits (8.6 kg/ m 2 ) and total yield (9.4 kg/ m 2 ) were obtained under greenhouses as compared to open conditions (6.6 kg/ m 2 and 7.35 kg/ m 2, respectively ). Maximum yield of 507 q/ha were obtained in tomato and French bean respectively inside the greenhouse as compared to no yields under open conditions because of severe frost during winter in hilly regions of Uttar Pradesh. Further, low incidence of early blight and septorial leaf spot in tomato and angular leaf spot in French bean was noticed under greenhouse condition (Bhatnagar et al, 1990). Choudhury and Bhuyan (1992) observed that plants grown under 0, 30 and 73% shade produced yields of 28.40, 20.24 and 11.71 t/ha respectively. The yield significantly decreased with increase in intensity of shading. The plants grown under 0, 40 and 73% shade produced 27.17, 13.42 and 7.41 fruits i.e. the number of fruits per plant sharply decreased with increase in the percentage of shading. The number of fruits per kilogram also decreased with increasing shading implying that the average fruit size was higher in shade than at the open. Russo (1993) observed that plants established in May and June but not July had positively correlated (p 0.01) with total and marketable fruit yield. The relation between shoot dry weight and fruit yield may not have developed for plants established in July due to shorter production period. Kavitha et al. (2008) conducted experiment to elucidate the effect of shade and fertigation on growth, yield and quality of tomato hybrid Ruchi. The experiment was concluded with the results that the shade and fertigation levels singly and in combination significantly influenced the yield. The highest yield was obtained at 100% water soluble fertilizer and shade followed by 100 % straight fertilizers under shade in all the three seasons.

Thangam and Thamburaj (2008) studied the effect of shade on growth and quality of six varities and 14 hybrids in tomato under agro shade net (50 %) and in open field simultaneously during conjugative summer seasons. The highest mean fruit weight recorded under shade was 59.5 g in hybrid Rashmi. The number of fruits per plant was more in open field than under shade. The yield under shade was low compared to open field. Avinash-2 recorded the highest yield in open field as well as under shade. In aspects of biochemical constituents like TSS, acidity, ascorbic acid and ph of fruit juice, there were significant differences between shade and open conditions. 2.2 Performance of tomato genotypes under protected structure 2.2.1 Growth Papadopoulos and Ormrod (1991) studied two cultivars Jumbo and Ohio CR-6 under greenhouse and found that Jumbo recorded significantly higher rate of fruit set (44.00%) and number of clusters (5.04) than Ohio CR-6. Hazarika and Phookan (2005) carried out a study to evaluate 27 tomato cultivars in relation to growth, yield and quality under plastic rain shelter during summer season. Out of all 27 cultivars, Yash recorded maximum yield of 1.76 kg/plant followed by Arka Ahuti and Arka Ashish. Yash also recorded the maximum plant height, braches number, fruit set percentage and yield per plant. The flowers per inflorescence were found highest in cultivar BT 1 -on the other hand, Arka Ahuti recorded the highest retention of mature fruits. 2.2.2 Yield and quality The Sonatin and Monticarlo tomato varieties under plastic house performed better with respect to yield per plant(2.44 and 2.49 kg, respectively), early yield (199.70 and 206.10 kg/100 m 2, respectively), total yield (928.10 kg and 873.50 kg/100 m 2 respectively) and yield per meter square (8.53 and 8.62 kg, respectively) (Mangal and Jasim, 1987). Savie et al. (1990) studied the performance of two tomato Cvs. Merit and Harvister in greenhouse and obtained highest fruit yield (86.02 t/ha) in Harvister as compared to Merit (74.39 t/ha). Rai et al. (1995) studied shelf life of capsicum grown under protected and open conditions six hybrids along with one open pollinated variety. The shelf life of capsicum fruits harvested from polyhouse was more than that of fruits harvested from open conditions. The maximum shelf life of sixteen days was recorded in Arun F 1 grown in polyhouse, while it was only ten days in fruits produced in open condition. Traka-Mavrona et al. (1995) evaluated eight tomato lines one variety from Greece, four Marmande type hybrids from Spain, two hybrids from Italy, and other commercial hybrids/varieties under greenhouse. Most of the lines were early and productive. The Marmande type hybrids were among the earliest. Profer-3 and Experimental-F 1 were high yielding hybrids. The commercial hybrids Arletta, Carmello, Caruso and Tresor were the earliest and most productive. Daniela was equally productive but was moderately early. Tomato Cvs. Sunny and EF-50 were grown under high tunnel covered with plastic. The average yield of marketable fruits in the plastic tunnel was 3.15 kg/plant, 141 per cent higher yield than in field grown plants, with marketable fruits representing 94 per cent and 71 per cent of total yield, respectively. There was no significant difference between cultivars in total or marketable fruit yields. Cultivar Sunny produced more number of smaller fruits under both the growing conditions (Fontes et al, 1997). Munshi and Ravinder Kumar (2000) evaluated six verities of tomato viz, Pusa early Dwarf, Rishi, Matri, Pusa Ruby and Pusa Guarav under plastic green house during offseason. Rishi and Pusa Guarav were found to be most promising varieties under polyhouse as they gave significantly higher yield of 488q/ha and 411 q/ha, respectively. Pitam Chandra et al. (2000) found that tomato hybrid Naveen performed better as compared to Pusa Hybrid-2 under green house. Naveen gave a yield of 11.05 kg/m 2 and 3.98 kg/plant, as compared to Pusa Hybrid-2 (9.86 kg/m 2 and 3.55 kg/plant).

The quality parameters, no single cultivar was found to be excellent in all the qualitative parameters. A wide range of variation was observed in both physical and chemical constituents of the fruits. However, Pusa ruby and Arka Shreshtea recorded the maximum TSS content, where as the maximum amount of ascorbic acid was recorded in DRD-8014 (Hazarika and Phookan, 2005) 2.3 Influence of training system on tomato under protected cultivation 2.3.1 Growth In a study on tomato cultivar Sioux, the multi- stemmed plants had more no leaves, flowers per clusters, but low percentage of fruit set than that of the single stemmed plants (Patil et al., 1973). Trials carried out on tomato with training to a single stem and without any training indicated that pruned plants were taller, cropped earlier, had more trusses and more fruits per truss, more fruit weight and gave higher total yield than un-pruned and un-staked ones. The highest yield recoded in Cv. Sugar Lump was 8.18/plant, followed by Pinkie Jem with 6.95 kg per plant with early harvest (49.4 DAT) (Mangal et al., 1981). Saen and Pathom (1998) studied that the effect of three pruning methods (no pruning, two branch pruning and four branch pruning) on pepper yield and quality of variety CA-778. Pruning also increased plant height, fruit weight and fruit length. The four branch pruning increased fruit weight by 13 per cent 2.3.2 Yield and quality Patil et al. (1973) reported that tomato Cv. Sioux training to multi-stem completed their vegetative growth in a shorter time than of single stemmed plants. There was no difference in yield between the two training systems. The single stemmed plants hastened the maturity of tomato fruits with more number of first quality fruits than multiple stemmed stem system. Tomato Cv. Manalucie was subjected to different training treatments such as (a) left unpruned (b) two shoots were pruned (commercial practice) (c) three shoots (d) four shoots (e) axillary shoots were removed and (f) left unpruned for three months. Highest fruit yields (58.09t/ha) were obtained with (b) followed by (a) with 54.4 t/ha and (f) with 53.47 t/ha, respectively (Orozco Jaramillo et al, 1975). Determinate tomato Cv. Vitosha and Pioneer 2 were subjected to different training levels i.e. all the laterals were removed or 1, 2 or 3 upper laterals were left on the plants. The lateral removal advanced earliness by 11.1 to 14.0 per cent but reduced total fruit yield by 13.6 to 36 per cent and was uneconomical (Veselinov, 1977). Highest number of first quality fruit was obtained from single stemmed plants than multi stems (Patil, 1977). Ramirez et al. 1977 reported that flower removal to about 10 per cent with a training limitation to six inflorescence resulted in a higher yield (68 t/ha) and punning to two or three stems produced the best quality fruits. The field grown tomato Cv. Chonta Liceto when pruned to leaving six branches per plant produced 429.70 kg seeds per ha and 65.99 tons fruits per ha. Whereas, plants pruned to level of two branches produced 355.90 kg seeds per ha and 55.90 tons fruits per ha (Ayas et al, 1981). Kharapalova (1982) observed that indeterminate Cv. Vkusuyi-3 and semi determinate Cv. Pares produced more fruits on free growing plants whereas, indeterminate Cv. Minibelle produced more fruits per plant when side shoots were removed. Borelli (1983) evaluated that training methods for early tomatoes grown in a polyhouse with two degrees of training (3 or 6 truss per plant) with variety Blazer. Plants pruned after the 6 th truss produced greater yield over pruned to 3 rd levels of truss. However, early yields were produced by plants with reduced number of trusses per plants.

Tomato Cvs. Fukuju N0.2 and Homare FR were trained with one main stem or two or three lateral stems and the numbers of plants per unit area (3.3 m 2 ) were 9.2.6.9 and 5.5, respectively. The average number of fruits per plant increased from 40.1 to 84.0 with increasing number of stems in Fujuku No.2 and from 27.9 to 59.1 in Homare FR. The number of small fruits proportionately increased with increase in number of stems (Takahashi and Sasaki, 1983). Buitelaar (1984) evaluated tomato Cv. Marathan and Abunda under greenhouse at different spacing s and pruned to have one, two or three stems per plant. Early and total yield per m 2 were lowest with the multi-stem system, but their unit costs of production was reduced with wider spacing. Sharfuddin and Ahmed (1986) investigated the response of Cv. Marglobe to four levels of pruning. The highest yield of 123.26 tonnes per ha was obtained in plants pruned to three stems. The training of axillary shoots at their emergence improved significantly higher tomato fruit yield per plant and average yield per meter square as compared to un-pruned plants. The yield in plastic house was early and significantly more in punned plants. Training of Sonatin and Monticarlo varieties of tomato produced fruits yield at par in 100 meter square plastic house area and significantly higher as compared to un-pruned plants (Mangal and Jasim, 1987). Lim and Chen (1988) studied the effect of training on tomato under green house. Plants having double stems showed an overall lower proportion of flowers forming fruits, but, this was largely due to the higher number of flowers produced. Plants with double stems had increased proportion of fruit setting, size and quality than single stem. Matiar Rahman et al. (1988) investigated the response of Cv. Manik for different levels of training viz, (1) Pruned once at 21 days after transplanting (DAT). (2) Pruned twice at 21 and 35 DAT,( 3) Pruned to single stem and ( 4) Non-pruned (control). The fruit yield obtained in 1, 2, 3 and 4 treatments were 100.5, 98.5, 69.0 and 120.5 t/ha, respectively. Joshi et al. (1992) studied effect of training on six winter grown indeterminate tomato cultivars and observed training as marked effect on yield of tomato, training enhances yield by 9.13 to 114.33 percent depending on the cultivars. Training the plants to three main stems gave best yield in Beef Master Diffused. Yields of 10.877 to 25.175 kg/m 2 and 12.825 to 53.96 kg/m 2 were obtained in unpruned and pruned plants respectively. Yield per plant varied from 1.45 to 2.60 kg and 1.350 to 5.680 kg in unpruned and pruned plants respectively. Tomato Cv. Cherry large was subjected to three training systems (Training to one, two stems and no pruning). Fruit diameter, fruit length and yield per meter square (3.09 kg) were more in plants pruned to one stem. The fruit number and yield per plant was higher in plants pruned to two stems, but (3.60 kg) fruit yield per plant (3.83 kg) was higher in unpruned plants (Hernanden et al, 1992). The glass house gown tomato Cv. Liberto was manipulated by truss thinning and by allowing side shoots to develop on plants grown at either 2.04 plant per m 2 or 3.06 plant per m 2 planting densities, so as to raise the population density to 3.06 shoots/m 2 and 4.07 shoots/m 2, respectively. More number of side shoots lowered means fruit weight reduced month to month variation in the fruit weight, reduced the yield of larger fruits and their proportion of class-1 yield (Cockshull and Ho, 1995). According to Yeongcheol et al. (1997) allowing side shoot resulted in the increased number of harvested fruits by about 40 and 70 per cent in 2.1 and 1.6 plants/m 2, treatments, respectively and in general, side shoots greatly increased total marketable fruits yield. Salinas et al (1997) subjected tomato Cv. Chonto, Santa, Cruz to three levels of stem training (none, leaving one stem, leaving two stem). Plants pruned to one stem produced significantly higher per cent of good quality fruits that un-pruned ones.

Zubeldia and Gasco (1997) studied that both spacing and training treatments on tomato such as (a) spacing at 1.20 m x 0.25 m using indeterminate plants with single stem, (b) 1.20m x 0.50 m as in (a), (c) 1.20 m x 0.50m using determinate plants with two stems and (d) 1.20 m x0.50 m using two indeterminate plants /site with single stems. The higher early yields were obtained from the treatment (a). The effect of training on tomato Cv. Fuji was evaluated under unheated glass house with training levels of 4 th to 8 th truss. Early yield was obtained from plants which were pruned to 4 th truss, whereas, the total yield was highest (5725 gram per plant) in plants pruned to 8 th truss (Ankara and Arin, 1998). The yield response of tomato Cv. Monticarlo was investigated at different training systems. Pruned to seven clusters and trained to single stem recorded significantly higher marketable fruit yield (Streek et al, 1998). Tomato with maximum shoots removed produced larger sized fruits ( 52 mm) than control (Ledo et al., 1998). In a greenhouse trial, tomato Cv. Durinta was allowed additional stems[ none, one additional stem on every 5 plants (1/5,1/4,1/2 and 1/1)] and training (no pruning, training at 5 and 6 stem). Training to five stems per plant resulted in higher net fruit yield with least wastage. While, training to six stems per plant resulted in equivalent total yield, but with more waste production (2-3 kg). Un-marketable fruits were maximum in un-pruned plants (Cordt, 1999a). Maintenance of additional one stem per plant in an area of one square meter resulted in increased production of 12 fruits per square meter. However, there was a reduction of average fruit weight (1.5g) per fruit (Cordt, 1999b). Sandhu et al. (1999) observed non significant differences for total yield, acidity, ascorbic acid, total soluble solids with deferent training methods and cultivars.

3. MATERIAL AND METHODS The present investigation was carried out to study the performance of different tomato hybrids under shade house condition and their response to different training systems for commercial production of tomato at the department of horticulture, hi-tech horticulture unit, Saidapur farm, University of Agricultural Sciences Dharwad during 2009-10. This study consisted of four tomato hybrids under two training system to find out their influence on growth, yield and fruit quality parameters of tomato hybrids in shade house. 3.1 Geographical location of experimental site and climate Dharwad is situated in Northern Transitional Tract of Karnataka state at 15 0-26' N latitude and 75 0-7' E longitude at an altitude of 678 m above mean sea level. Dharwad is considered to be mild tropical rainy region. The outside mean maximum temperature during the period of experimentation ranged from 26.92 to 36.0 0 C, whereas, the mean minimum temperature ranged from 14.1 to 22.4 0 C. The mean relative humidity ranged from 49 to 84 per cent. The highest rainfall during the period of experimentation was in September 2009 (229.0) followed by October 2009 (141.0 mm). The meteorological data for the period of experiment from September 2009 to April 2010 were presented in Appendix I. The soil of experimental site comprised of red sandy loam with a ph of 6.93 and EC 0.65 ds per m. 3.1.1 Planting material Planting material were private hybrids of both indeterminate and semi determinate type namely STH-39 (semi determinate), STH-701, STH-801 and STH-901 (in determinates) procured from Sarpan Hybrids Seed Company, Dharwad. 3.2 Experimental details Location Design Replications : Hi-Tech Horticulture Unit, Saidapur Farm, Main Agricultural Research Station, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad : Factorial RCBD Treatments : 8 : Three I. Factor (hybrids) There were four Tomato hybrids G 1 G 2 G 3 G 4 : STH-39 : STH-901 : STH801 : STH-701 II. Factor (Training systems) Hybrids were trained under two training systems. T 1 : Single stem T 2 : Double stems

3.3 Treatments combination Sl. No. Treatments Interaction détails 1. G 1 T 1 STH-39 trained with single stem 2. G 1 T 2 STH-39 trained with double stems 3. G 2 T 1 STH-901 trained with single stem 4. G 2 T 2 STH-901 trained with double stems 5. G 3 T 1 STH-801 trained with single stem 6. G 3 T 2 STH-801 trained with double stems 7. G 4 T 1 STH-701 trained with single stem 8. G 4 T 2 STH-701 trained with double stems 3.4 Experimental procedure 3.4.1 Details of shade house (35 % shading net) The experiment was carried out in a shade house covered using 35 per cent green colour shading net. The size of the shade house constructed was 1280 m 2 (40 32 m) having 3.5 m height using galvanized iron pipes. To protect the structure from high winds casuarina trees were planted 10 m away from shade house as wind breaks. 3.4.2 Nursery preparation Vermicompost, sand and coco peat 1:1:1 growing media were used for nursery production. Portrays (98 cells) were filled with the growing media. Protrays were drenched with 0.3 % copper oxychloride solution (3 g/litre). Seeds treated with thiram (0.3g/100g seeds) were sown one per cell, to a depth of 0.5 cm. Seeds were covered with thin layer of growing medium, watered lightly, trays were covered with news paper for four to five days without irrigating. Seeds germinated in 4-6 days and the seedlings were ready for planting by 25 days after sowing. The protrays were drenched with 0.3 % (3g/lit) 19:19:19 complex fertilizer two to three times after emergence. 3.4.2.1 Bed preparation Land area inside the shade house was thoroughly dug to a depth of 30 cm. All the weeds, stubbles, stones etc. were completely removed. The land was incorporated with well decomposed farmyard manure, sand, coir pith in the ratio 2:1:1, Diamonium phosphate (20 kg) and Urea (5 kg) was also applied as basel dose for an area of 1000 meter square. Land was irrigated three to four times, ploughed again and brought to a fine tilth. Raised beds of 30 cm height and 100 cm width to a length of 35 m were prepared with the walking space of 50 cm between beds. 3.4.3 Soil sterilization The beds were sterilized thoroughly with four per cent formalin solution at the rate of 10 litres of per square meter and covered with a polythene film to remain for four days. Then the film was removed and the land was aerated for 24 hours. Later, the beds were thoroughly irrigated to drain the chemical residues. 3.4.4 Laying of the drip line At the centre of the bed, two inline dripper laterals were placed. Inline dripper lateral had an emitting point for every 30 cm interval with a discharge of 2 lit/ hour.

3.4.5 Spacing and plant population Paired row system of planting with zigzag manner was followed to have more aeration space between the plants. A distance of 45 cm between the rows and 60 cm within row on one meter wide bed was followed for planting. 3.4.6 Transplanting Beds were watered to field capacity before transplanting. Seedlings of 25 days old, vigourous and uniform size were selected for planting. Portrays with seedling were drenched with carbendazim 0.1%. Transplanting was done in late evening hours. Seedlings from Protrays were removed by giving slight pressure from the bottom of individual cells. Seedlings were transplanted at recommended spacing at a shallow depth of 2-2.5 cm. Plants were watered with hose pipe with rose head can immediately after transplanting and every day until the plants established and then with drip irrigation. 3.4.7 Fertilizer Fertilizers used were DAP, Urea and MOP (20, 10, 45 kg respectively) for 1000 meter square area applied as a basal application and 15 days after transplanting it was given through fertigation. The fertigation schedule was followed for tomato production under protected cultivation is as follows Period 100 per cent water soluble fertilizer grade 15 to 30 days after transplanting 12:61:0 + Urea @ 3 g/lit Next 30 days 12:61:0 + 19:19:19 @ 3 g/lit Next onwards till end of the crop 0:0:50 + 19:19:19 @ 3 g/lit Note: Micronutrients like Ca, Mg, Fe, Zn and Mn was given as foliar spray for every 15 days. 3.4.8 Training of tomato plants Plants were twined along the plastic twine. Separate plastic twine was provided to each branch so that branches do not break up. Single and two stems were trained by removing the rest of the branches Tying of plants to the plastic twine started from fourth week after transplanting and tying was done at weekly intervals along with pruning operation. 3.4.9 Deleafing Deleafing the older leaves was carried out periodically starting form 70-80 days after transplanting. Leaves were retained in the stem to a height of about 150 cm from the growing tip at any given point of time. 3.5 Harvesting Harvesting of tomato fruits started at 70-80 days after transplanting and continued until 170-189 days after transplanting. Harvesting of fruits was done at weekly intervals. Fruits were harvested at colour breacking stage. 3.6 Observations recorded Observations on growth, yield and fruit quality parameters were recorded at various stages of crop growth and harvests on randomly selected five labelled plants in each plot and average was calculated.

3.6.1 Growth parameters 3.6.1.1 Plant height (cm) The plant height was recorded at 180 days after transplanting (DAT). The height of plants was recorded by measuring with the help of meter scale from the base to its growing tip the mean value was recorded and expressed in centimetres. 3.6.1.2 Number of primary branches The number of primary branches per plant was recorded before final harvesting of fruits from randomly labelled five plants and average was calculated. 3.6.1.3 Number of leaves per plant Total number of leaves on primary and secondary branches of five labelled plants were counted before final harvesting and average was calculated. 3.6.1.4 Internodal length (cm) The intermodal length of selected plants from each treatment was recorded at base, middle and top internodes at the end of the cropping period and mean was calculated. 3.6.1.5 Stem girth (cm) Stem girth of selected plants from each treatment was recorded at base, middle and top portion of the stem, at the end of the cropping period with the help of verniear calliper and average was calculated. 3.6.1.6 Leaf length (cm) Leaf length was recorded with the help of scale from each labelled plant, at base, middle and top portion of plant and mean was calculated. 3.6.1.7 Leaf width (cm) Leaf width was recorded with the help of scale from labelled plants of individual treatments, at base, middle and top leaves and mean was calculated. 3.6.1.8 Leaf area (cm 2 ) Leaf area was recorded with the help of leaf area meter from treatment, from every 10 th, 20 and 30 th leaf from the top and average was calculated. 3.6.2 Reproductive parameters 3.6.2.1 Days taken for fifty percent flowering The number of days taken for fifty percent flowering from the date of transplanting was recorded form each treatment and expressed as days taken for producing fifty percent flowering. 3.6.2.2 Days taken for flowering to harvest The number of days taken for flowering to harvest was recorded by labelling individual clusters form each five plants in different treatments and expressed as days taken for first fruit maturity. 3.6.2.3 Number of cluster per plant The number of cluster per plant was recorded from the time of initiation of first flower cluster to the end of the crop and the total number of flower clusters was computed. 3.6.2.4 Number of fruits per plant The total number of fruit harvested treatment wise from individual plants at weekly intervals was recorded till the end of the cropping period. 3.6.2.5 Percent of fruit set The percent of fruit set per cluster was recorded at initial, middle and final stages of harvest by labelling of clusters form five plants of each treatment.

Number of fruit set Fruit set (%) = Number of flowers / cluster 100 3.6.2.6 Average fruit weight (g) Average weights of 20 fruits were recorded form each treatment at every harvest with help of digital electronic balance and mean was expressed in grams. 3.6.2.7 Average fruit diameter (cm) The diameter of the fruit was recorded treatment wise form randomly selected 20 fruits by measuring breadth of the individual fruits using a verniear callipers. 3.6.2.8 Average fruit volume (cc) Average volume of fruits as per the treatments was measured by dipping the randomly selected fruits in a litre of measuring glass jar. The amount of water that raised form the normal level due to dipping of fruits was recorded as fruit volume. 3.6.3 Yield parameters 3.6.3.1 Yield per plant (kg) Yield per plant was calculated by totalling the weight of the fruits recorded at different harvests during the experiment and was expressed in kilograms. 3.6.3.2 Yield per meter square (kg) Yield per meter square was worked out by recording the yield from the net plot each treatment expressed in kilograms. 3.6.3.4 Yield / ha (tonnes) Yield per ha was calculated by multiplying the calculated yield per meter square with 10000 (1 hectare). [Yield (t/ha) = Yield/m 2 x 10,000] 3.6.3.5 Number of seeds per fruit (g) Randomly selected five fruits in each treatment were cut opened individually, seeds were counted and average was worked out. 3.6.3.6 Number of locules per fruit Randomly selected five fruits in each treatment were cut open individually and numbers of locules were counted. 3.6.4 Fruit quality parameter 3.6.4.1 TSS The tomato fruits were cut and juice was placed on hand refractometer. The total soluble solids of each sample was observed and expressed in degree brix. 3.6.4.2 ph ph of tomato fruit juice was estimated by using a hand held ph meter by piercing out tomato juice from different treatments. 3.6.4.3 Pericarp thickness Pericarp thickness was measured with the help of verniar calliper from cross section of five fruits from each and every treatment combination and average was calculated. 3.6.4.4 Shelf life Shelf life of tomato fruit was worked out at room temperature by keeping them in mouth opened polythene bag and the time taken for shrinkage was observed.

3.6.4.5 Statistical analysis The data collected in respect of various parameters on growth, yield and quality attributes were analysed statistically as described by Gomez and Gomez (1984). The critical difference (CD) values were calculated at 5% (p=0.05) probability level where F test was found significant. Fig 1: General view of the shade house with tomato plants

4. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS The results of investigation entitled Performance of tomato hybrids and response of training system under shade house condition was carried out at Department of Horticulture, High-tech Horticulture unit Saidapur farm during the year 2009-10 and fruit quality parameters were analyzed in the laboratory of department of Horticulture, University of Agricultural Sciences Dharwad. The results of experiment carried out and also laboratory findings are presented in this chapter. 4.1 Growth parameters of tomato plants 4.1.1 Plant height (cm) The data on height of tomato plants as influenced by hybrids and training system are presented in Table 1. Height of tomato plants was influenced significantly. Among them, STH- 801 hybrid produced significantly tallest plants (309.03 cm) which was on par with STH-701 (306.12 cm) whereas, STH-39 produced significantly smaller plants (160.03 cm). Training system also produced significant effect on plant height. The plants trained under single stem training system were taller (270.08 cm) whereas, plants with double stem training system showed significantly smaller height (260.41 cm). Interaction of hybrids and training system were found significant. The combination of STH-801 with single stem training system produced tallest plants (310.40 cm) which was followed by STH-701 (307.90 cm) and STH-901 (300.93 cm) on the same system. In double stem training system STH-801 (307.67 cm) was followed by STH-701 (304.33) and STH-901 (270.63). STH-39 (159.00 cm) on double training stem recorded the lowest plant height. 4.1.2 Number of primary branches per plant. The data on number of primary branches per tomato plant as influenced by hybrids and training system are presented in Table 2. Number of branches per plant was influenced significantly. Among them, STH-801 produced significantly higher number of primary branches per plant (8.17) followed by STH-701 (7.93) which was on par with STH-901. Whereas STH-39 produced significantly lowest number of primary branches per plant (7.17). Training system had no significant effect on number of primary branches per plant. Interaction effect of training system and hybrids were found non-significant. 4.1.3 Number of leaves per plant The data on number of leaves per tomato plant was presented in Table 3. Number of leaves per plant was significantly influenced by hybrids and training system. Among them, STH-801 produced significantly higher number of leaves per plant (85.67) followed by STH- 701 (77.50) which is on par with STH-901 (72.33). Whereas STH-39 produced significantly lowest number of leaves per plant (38.17). Training system had significant effect on number of leaves per plant. Tomato plants trained under double stem training system were produced significantly higher number of leaves per plant (82.80). Whereas, the plants trained with single stem training had less number of leaves per plant (54.33). Training systems with hybrids interaction were found significant. Treatment combination of STH-801 trained under double and single stem recorded maximum number of leaves per plant (95.67 and 76.67, respectively) followed the STH-701 which recorded more number of leaves per plant (95.33 and 59.67 respectively).while STH-39 recorded lowest number of leaves for both training system (47.33 and 29.00 respectively). 4.1.4 Internodal length (cm) The observations on Internodal length of tomato hybrids and trainings system plant were presented in Table 4. Internodal length was influenced significantly. Among them, STH- 901 produced significantly longer internodes (6.96 cm) followed by STH-801 (6.92 cm) which is on par with STH-701 (6.62 cm). Whereas, STH-39 produced significantly smaller internodes (6.03 cm).

Plate 2: Varying plant height of different tomato hybrids under shade house condition 16 T1 (one stem) T2 (two stem) 14 12 No. of clusters/plant 10 8 6 4 2 0 G1 ( STH-39) G2 (STH-901) G3 (STH-801) G4 (STH-701) Hybrids Fig. 2: Influence of tomato hybrids and training systems on number of cluster per plant under shade house condition Fig. 2: Influence of tomato hybrids and training systems on number of cluster per plant under shade house condition

Table 1: Influence of tomato hybrids and training systems on plant height under shade house condition Hybrids T 1 (one stem) Training systems T 2 (two stem) Mean G1 ( STH-39) 161.07 159.00 160.03 G2 (STH-901) 300.93 270.63 285.78 G3 (STH-801) 310.40 307.67 309.03 G4 (STH-701) 307.90 304.33 306.12 Mean 270.08 260.41 265.24 For comparison of SEm± CD (P=0.05) Training systems 2.45 7.42 Hybrids 3.46 10.50 Interaction 4.89 14.85 NS F test not significant

Table 2: Influence of tomato hybrids and training systems on number of primary branches per plant before pruning under shade house condition Hybrids T 1 (one stem) Training systems T 2 (two stem) Mean G1 ( STH-39) 7.07 7.27 7.17 G2 (STH-901) 7.73 7.60 7.67 G3 (STH-801) 8.20 8.13 8.17 G4 (STH-701) 8.13 7.73 7.93 Mean 7.78 7.68 7.73 For comparison of SEm± CD (P=0.05) Training systems 0.09 NS Hybrids 0.12 0.36 Interaction 0.17 NS NS F test not significant

Table 3: Influence of tomato hybrids and training systems on number of leaves per plant under shade house condition Hybrids T 1 (one stem) Training systems T 2 (two stem) Mean G1 ( STH-39) 29.00 47.33 38.17 G2 (STH-901) 52.00 92.67 72.33 G3 (STH-801) 76.67 95.67 85.67 G4 (STH-701) 59.67 95.33 77.50 Mean 54.33 82.50 68.41 For comparison of SEm± CD (P=0.05) Training systems 1.73 5.25 Hybrids 2.45 7.43 Interaction 3.46 10.51 NS F test not significant

Table 4: Influence of tomato hybrids and training systems on Internodal length (cm) under shade house condition Hybrids T 1 (one stem) Training systems T 2 (two stem) Mean G1 ( STH-39) 6.04 6.03 6.03 G2 (STH-901) 7.12 6.80 6.96 G3 (STH-801) 7.01 6.84 6.92 G4 (STH-701) 6.84 6.39 6.62 Mean 6.75 6.51 6.63 For comparison of SEm± CD (P=0.05) Training systems 0.07 0.22 Hybrids 0.10 0.30 Interaction 0.14 NS NS F test not significant

Training system had significant effect on inter nodal length of tomato plants. Tomato plants trained under single stem training system produced significantly longer internodes (6.75 cm) whereas, the plants trained with double stem training system produced lesser internodes (6.51 cm). Interaction of training system with hybrids was found non-significant on internodal length of tomato plants. 4.1.5 Stem girth (cm) The data on stem girth of tomato plants are presented in Table 5. Stem girth was affected significantly by training system and hybrids. Among the hybrids, STH-39 produced significantly thick stem (1.78 cm) followed by STH-801 (1.70 cm). STH-701 (1.68 cm) was on par with STH-901 (1.62 cm) which produced significantly thin stem. Training system had shown significant effect on stem girth of tomato plants. Tomato plants trained under single stem training system produced significantly thicker stem (1.75 cm) compared to plants trained under double stem training system (1.63 cm). Interactions of training system with different hybrids were found non-significant for stem girth of tomato plants. 4.1.6 Leaf length (cm) The observations of leaf length of tomato plant are presented in Table 6. Leaf length recorded significant variations due to tomato hybrids and training system. Among them, STH- 901 produced significantly longer leaf (15.40 cm) followed by STH-701 (14.89 cm). STH-801 (14.42 cm) leaf length had the least length of leaf. Training system had shown significant effect on leaf length of tomato plants. Tomato plants trained under single stem training system produced significantly longer leaves (15.10 cm). Whereas, the plants trained under double stem training system produced shorter leaves (14.64 cm). Interactions of training system with hybrids were found non-significant on leaf length. 4.1.7 Leaf width (cm) The observations on leaf width of tomato plants are presented in Table 7. Leaf width was non-significant due to hybrids and training system eventhough among them STH-901 produced non-significantly wider leaves (5.82 cm) followed by STH-701 (5.67 cm). STH-39 (5.48 cm) and STH-801 produced narrow leaves (5.39 cm). Training system had nonsignificant effect on leaf width of tomato plants. Interactions of training system and hybrids were found non-significant on leaf width of tomato plants, even though the STH-901 trained under double stem training system had widest leaves (5.84) as compared to other treatment combinations. 4.1.8 Leaf area (cm 2 ) The data on leaf area of tomato plants as influenced by hybrids and training systems are presented in Table 8. Leaf area of tomato hybrids were affected significantly. Among them, STH-801 produced significantly large leaves (79.22 cm 2 ) followed by STH-901 (77.95 cm 2 ), STH-701 (73.61 cm 2 ) and STH-39 (70.13 cm 2 ). Training system had shown significant affect on leaf area of tomato plants. Tomato plants trained under single stem training system produced significantly larger leaves (77.06 cm 2 ). Whereas, the plants trained under double stem training system produced smaller leaves (73.40 cm 2 ). Interactions of training system with that of different hybrids were found non-significant for leaf area.

Table 5: Influence of tomato hybrids and training systems on stem girth (cm) under shade house condition Hybrids T 1 (one stem) Training systems T 2 (two stem) Mean G1 ( STH-39) 1.88 1.69 1.78 G2 (STH-901) 1.69 1.54 1.62 G3 (STH-801) 1.75 1.66 1.70 G4 (STH-701) 1.71 1.65 1.68 Mean 1.75 1.63 1.69 For comparison of SEm± CD (P=0.05) Training systems 0.022 0.067 Hybrids 0.02 0.07 Interaction 0.03 NS NS F test not significant

Table 6: Influence of tomato hybrids and training systems on leaf length (cm) under shade house condition Hybrids T 1 (one stem) Training systems T 2 (two stem) Mean G1 ( STH-39) 15.29 14.24 14.76 G2 (STH-901) 15.49 15.32 15.40 G3 (STH-801) 14.47 14.37 14.42 G4 (STH-701) 15.15 14.64 14.89 Mean 15.10 14.64 14.87 For comparison of SEm± CD (P=0.05) Training systems 0.11 0.34 Hybrids 0.16 0.47 Interaction 0.22 NS NS F test not significant

Table 7: Influence of tomato hybrids and training systems on leaf width (cm) under shade house condition Hybrids T 1 (one stem) Training systems T 2 (two stem) Mean G1 ( STH-39) 5.49 5.47 5.48 G2 (STH-901) 5.81 5.84 5.82 G3 (STH-801) 5.64 5.48 5.56 G4 (STH-701) 5.77 5.87 5.67 Mean 5.67 5.59 5.64 For comparison of SEm± CD (P=0.05) Training systems 0.086 NS Hybrids 0.061 NS Interaction 0.121 NS NS F test not significant

Table 8: Influence of tomato hybrids and training systems on leaf area (cm 2 ) under shade house condition Hybrids T 1 (one stem) Training systems T 2 (two stem) Mean G1 ( STH-39) 71.81 68.44 70.13 G2 (STH-901) 78.44 77.47 77.95 G3 (STH-801) 81.53 76.92 79.22 G4 (STH-701) 76.45 70.77 73.61 Mean 77.06 73.40 75.23 For comparison of SEm± CD (P=0.05) Training systems 0.43 1.33 Hybrids 0.62 1.18 Interaction 0.88 NS NS F test not significant

Table 9: Influence of tomato hybrids and training systems on days to fifty per cent flowering under shade house condition Hybrids T 1 (one stem) Training systems T 2 (two stem) Mean G1 ( STH-39) 36.33 36.00 36.17 G2 (STH-901) 36.33 36.33 36.33 G3 (STH-801) 36.00 36.33 36.17 G4 (STH-701) 36.33 35.67 36.00 Mean 36.25 36.08 36.16 For comparison of SEm± CD (P=0.05) Training systems 0.15 NS Hybrids 0.22 NS Interaction 0.31 NS NS F test not significant

4.2 Reproductive parameters 4.2.1 Days to fifty per cent flowering The data on days took for fifty per cent flowering as influenced by the hybrids and training system present in Table no 9. Days taken for fifty percent flowering by different tomato hybrids were non-significant. But the STH-701 tomato was found early (36 days) compared to other hybrids. Training system also had non-significant effect on days to fifty per cent flowering of tomato plants. None of the interactions were found significant. 4.2.2 Days taken from flowering to fruit development The data on days taken from flowering to fruit development as influenced by hybrids and training system is presented in Table 10. The tomato plants differed significantly for days taken from flowering to fruit development. Among them, hybrid STH-801 significantly early (41 days). Whereas, STH-39, STH-701 and STH-901 were found on par with each other (42, days each) form flowering to development of fruits. Training system had non-significant effect on days taken from flowering to fruit development. Tomato plants trained under single stem and double stem training system took equal days (42 days each) for development of fruits. None of interactions were found significant. 4.2.3 Number of clusters per plant The observations on number of clusters per plant as influenced by the tomato hybrids and training system presented in Table 11. Data indicated that tomato hybrids differed significantly on number of clusters per plant. Among them, STH-801 produced significantly (12.15) higher number of clusters per plant followed by the STH-701, STH-901 and STH-39 (11.33, 10.78 and 8.30 respectively). Training system had significant influence on number of clusters per plant. Tomato hybrids cultivated under double stem training system showed more number of clusters (12.41) per plants as compared to single stem training system (8.86 per plant). None of interactions were found significant. 4.2.4 Number of fruits per cluster. The data on number of fruits per cluster as influenced by the hybrids and training system are presented in Table 12. Data indicated that tomato hybrids differed significantly for number of fruits per clusters. Among them, STH-801 produced significantly (7.75 fruits per cluster) higher number of fruits per cluster followed by the STH-701, STH-39 and STH-901 (6.96, 5.72 and 5.65 fruits per cluster respectively). Training system had no effect on number of fruits per cluster. Hybrids trained under one stem training system produced similar number of fruits (6.33) per cluster as that of double stem plants (6.23). None of interactions were found significantly different. 4.2.4 Fruit set percentage The data presented in Table 13 on fruit set percentage as influenced by the hybrids and training system indicated that tomato plants showed significantly different fruit set percentage. Among them, STH-801 possessed significantly higher (93.17 %) fruit set followed by the STH-701 (89.00%) which was on par with STH-39 (88.33%). STH-901 had lowest fruit set percentage (86.33%). Training system had no effect on fruit set percentage. Plants trained under single stem training system possesses on par fruit set percentage as compared to plants trained under double stem (90.33 and 88.08% respectively). None of interactions were found significant.

Plate 3: Fruit clusters of different tomato hybrids

8 T1 (one stem) T2 (two stem) 7 6 Yield per plant (kg) 5 4 3 2 1 0 G1 ( STH-39) G2 (STH-901) G3 (STH-801) G4 (STH-701) Hybrids Fig. 3: Influence of tomato hybrids and training systems on yield per plant under shade house condition Fig. 3: Influence of tomato hybrids and training systems on yield per plant under shade house condition Table 10: Influence of tomato hybrids and training systems on days taken from flowering to fruit development under shade house condition Hybrids T 1 (one stem) Training systems T 2 (two stem) Mean G1 ( STH-39) 42 42 41 G2 (STH-901) 41 42 42 G3 (STH-801) 41 41 41 G4 (STH-701) 42 42 41 Mean 42 42 42 For comparison of SEm± CD (P=0.05) Training systems 0.15 0.46 Hybrids 0.11 NS Interaction 0.21 NS NS F test not significant

Table 11: Influence of tomato hybrids and training systems on number of cluster per plant under shade house condition Hybrids T 1 (one stem) Training systems T 2 (two stem) Mean G1 ( STH-39) 7.23 9.37 8.30 G2 (STH-901) 8.87 12.70 10.78 G3 (STH-801) 9.83 14.47 12.15 G4 (STH-701) 9.53 13.13 11.33 Mean 8.86 12.41 10.63 For comparison of SEm± CD (P=0.05) Training systems 0.23 0.71 Hybrids 0.33 0.99 Interaction 0.46 NS NS F test not significant

Table 12: Influence of tomato hybrids and training systems on number of fruits per cluster under shade house condition Hybrids T 1 (one stem) Training systems T 2 (two stem) Mean G1 ( STH-39) 5.94 5.50 5.72 G2 (STH-901) 5.55 5.75 5.65 G3 (STH-801) 6.59 6.99 7.75 G4 (STH-701) 7.23 6.68 6.96 Mean 6.33 6.23 6.43 For comparison of SEm± CD (P=0.05) Training systems 0.24 NS Hybrids 0.34 1.02 Interaction 0.48 NS NS F test not significant

4.3 Yield Parameters 4.3.1 Yield per plant (kg) The data on yield per plants as influenced by hybrids and training system is presented in Table 14. Data indicated that tomato hybrids differed significantly for yield per plant. Among them, STH-801 produced significantly (6.52 kg) higher yield per plant followed by STH-701, STH-901 and STH-39 (6.13, 5.97 and 5.07 kg per plant respectively). Training system had significant affect on yield per plant. Tomato hybrids under double stem training system showed significantly more number fruits (6.93 kg) per plants as compared to plants under single stem training system (4.91 kg per plant). None of interactions were found significant. 4.3.2 Yield per meter square (kg) The effect of tomato hybrids and trainings system on yield per meter square is presented in Table no 15. Data indicated that tomato hybrids differed significantly on yield per meter square. STH-801 hybrid produced significantly (15.68 kg/m 2 ) higher yield per meter square followed by the STH-701, STH-901 and STH-39 (14.00, 12.96 and 11.21 per meter square respectively). Training system had significant effect on yield per meter square. Tomato plants under double stem training system produced higher yield per square meter area (15.36 kg) as compared to tomato plants under single stem training system (11.56 kg). None of interactions were found significant. 4.3.3 Average fruit weight (g) The data presented in Table 16 on average fruit weight as influenced by the tomato hybrids and training system indicated that there was significant difference in fruit weight of cultivars. Among them, STH-39 produced significantly larger fruits (115.50 g) where as STH- 801, STH-701 and STH-901 tomato hybrids were on par with each other (97.30, 93.50 and 92.30 respectively). Training system significantly affected the average fruit weight. Tomato plants trained under single stem training system produced larger fruits (105.50 g) as compared to plants trained under double stem training systems (93.80 g). None of interactions were found significant. 4.3.4 Average fruit diameter (cm) Influence of tomato hybrids and training systems on average fruit diameter is presented in Table no 17. Data indicated that significant difference in average fruit diameter of tomato. Among them, STH-39 hybrid produced fruits with largest (6.30 cm) diameter followed by the STH-901, STH-801 and STH-801 (5.48, 5.40 and 4.48 cm respectively). Training system also significantly affected the average fruit diameter. The tomato plants trained under single stem produced significantly larger tomato fruits (5.59 cm) as compared to the plants trained under double stem training system (5.41 cm diameter). Interaction between tomato hybrids and training system was also found significant. The treatment combinations of single stem trained on STH-39 produced the largest fruit (6.75 cm diameter) followed by the same hybrid with two stems (5.84 cm) and treatment combination of STH-701 trained for double stem produced (4.95 cm) smallest fruit among all treatment combination. 4.3.5 Average fruit volume (cc) The data on average fruit volume as influenced by tomato hybrids and trainings system presented in Table 18. Significant variation was observed among the tomato hybrids grown with respect to average fruit volume. STH-39 tomato hybrid produced biggest fruits (157.0 cc) fallowed by the STH-801 (132.0 cc) which is on par with STH-801 (130 cc). Whereas, STH-901 produced smallest fruits among all hybrids (125 cc).

Table 13: Influence of tomato hybrids and training systems on per cent fruit set under shade house condition Hybrids T 1 (one stem) Training systems T 2 (two stem) Mean G1 ( STH-39) 92.00 84.67 88.33 G2 (STH-901) 84.67 88.00 86.33 G3 (STH-801) 95.00 91.33 93.17 G4 (STH-701) 89.67 88.33 89.00 Mean 90.33 88.08 89.20 For comparison of SEm± CD (P=0.05) Training systems 0.80 NS Hybrids 1.14 3.46 Interaction 1.61 NS NS F test not significant

Table 14: Influence of tomato hybrids and training systems on yield per plant under shade house condition Hybrids T 1 (one stem) Training systems T 2 (two stem) Mean G1 ( STH-39) 4.29 5.85 5.07 G2 (STH-901) 4.71 7.25 5.97 G3 (STH-801) 5.42 7.62 6.52 G4 (STH-701) 5.25 7.02 6.13 Mean 4.91 6.93 5.92 For comparison of SEm± CD (P=0.05) Training systems 0.09 0.29 Hybrids 0.13 0.40 Interaction 0.19 NS NS F test not significant 7 T1 (one stem) T2 (two stem) 6 5 Fruit diameter (cm) 4 3 2 1 0 G1 ( STH-39) G2 (STH-901) G3 (STH-801) G4 (STH-701) Hybrids Fig. 4: Influence of tomato hybrids and training systems on average fruit diameter (cm) under shade house condition Fig. 4: Influence of tomato hybrids and training systems on average fruit diameter (cm) under shade house condition

Table 15: Influence of tomato hybrids and training systems on yield/m 2 under shade house condition Hybrids T 1 (one stem) Training systems T 2 (two stem) Mean G1 ( STH-39) 9.86 12.56 11.21 G2 (STH-901) 10.70 15.10 12.96 G3 (STH-801) 13.47 17.90 15.68 G4 (STH-701) 12.24 15.75 14.00 Mean 11.56 15.36 13.46 For comparison of SEm± CD (P=0.05) Training systems 0.20 0.62 Hybrids 0.28 0.87 Interaction 0.41 NS NS F test not significant

Table 16; Influence of tomato hybrids and training systems on average fruit weight (gm) under shade house condition Hybrids T 1 (one stem) Training systems T 2 (two stem) Mean G1 ( STH-39) 125.30 105.70 115.50 G2 (STH-901) 95.70 89.00 92.30 G3 (STH-801) 100.70 94.00 97.30 G4 (STH-701) 100.30 86.70 93.50 Mean 105.50 93.80 99.65 For comparison of SEm± CD (P=0.05) Training systems 2.01 6.11 Hybrids 2.85 8.65 Interaction 4.03 NS NS F test not significant

Table 17: Influence of tomato hybrids and training systems on average fruit diameter (cm) under shade house condition Hybrids T 1 (one stem) Training systems T 2 (two stem) Mean G1 ( STH-39) 6.75 5.84 6.30 G2 (STH-901) 5.44 5.52 5.48 G3 (STH-801) 5.48 5.32 5.40 G4 (STH-701) 4.72 4.95 4.84 Mean 5.59 5.41 5.50 For comparison of SEm± CD (P=0.05) Training systems 0.05 0.29 Hybrids 0.06 0.20 Interaction 0.09 0.29 NS F test not significant

Table 18: Influence of tomato hybrids and training systems on average fruit volume (cc) under shade house condition Hybrids T 1 (one stem) Training systems T 2 (two stem) Mean G1 ( STH-39) 165 148 157 G2 (STH-901) 129 122 125 G3 (STH-801) 137 127 132 G4 (STH-701) 140 120 130 Mean 143 129 136 For comparison of SEm± CD (P=0.05) Training systems 1.74 5.29 Hybrids 1.24 3.75 Interaction 2.47 NS NS F test not significant

Table 19: Influence of tomato hybrids and training systems on number of seeds per fruit under shade house condition Hybrids T 1 (one stem) Training systems T 2 (two stem) Mean G1 ( STH-39) 54.00 53.00 53.50 G2 (STH-901) 138.00 140.00 139.00 G3 (STH-801) 143.00 140.00 141.50 G4 (STH-701) 124.00 123.00 123.50 Mean 115.00 114.00 114.50 For comparison of SEm± CD (P=0.05) Training systems 1.10 NS Hybrids 1.55 4.71 Interaction 2.20 NS NS F test not significant

Training system significantly affected the average fruit volume of tomato plants. Tomato plants trained under single stem training system produced significantly lager fruits (143 cc) as compared to tomato plants trained under double stem (129 cc). None of the interaction were found significant. 4.3.6 Number of seeds per fruit The data on number of seeds per fruit as influenced by the hybrids and trainings system is presented in Table 19. Data indicated that the tomato hybrids significantly differed with respect to number of seeds per fruit. STH-801 recorded significantly higher number of seeds per fruit (141.5) followed by STH-901 (139.00), STH-701 (123.50) and STH-39 (53.50). Training system did not produced significant effect on number of seeds per fruit. However, plants trained under single stem training system recorded more seeds per fruits (115.00) as compared to the plants trained under double stem (114.00). None of interaction were found significant. 4.3.7 Number of locules per fruit The data on number of locules per fruit as influenced by the tomato hybrids and training system is presented in Table 20. Data indicated that all tomato hybrids produced fruits with similar number of locules. (STH-39, STH-901, STH-801and STH-701 with 2.53, 2.50, 2.50 and 2.37 locules per fruit respectively) and they were on par with each other. Training system also had no effect on number of locules per fruit. Plants trained under single stem training system (2.40) were on par with plants trained under double stem training system (2.55). None of the interactions were found significant. 4.4 Quality parameters 4.4.1 TSS ( 0 B) The data on total soluble solids as influenced by the tomato hybrids and training system is presented in Table 21. Data indicated that tomato hybrids were significantly different with respect to the TSS content of fruit juice. Among them, STH-801 recorded the highest total soluble solids (5.47 0 B), followed by STH-901, STH-701 and STH-39 (5.27, 5.19 and 5.18 0 B). Training system had no affect on total soluble solids of tomato juice. Plants trained under single stem training system contained on par TSS (5.28 0 B) with that of plants trained under double stem training system (5.27 0 B). None of interactions were found significant. 4.4.2 ph Data on ph of tomato fruit juice as influenced by the tomato hybrids and training system presented in Table 22. Data indicated that tomato hybrids differed significantly with respect to the ph of fruit juice. STH-801 fruit juice recorded significantly higher ph (6.3) followed by the STH-901, STH-701 and STH-39 (5.60, 5.20 and 4.20 respectively). Training system had no affect on ph of tomato fruit juice. Plants with single stem and plants with double stem training system recorded on par ph of fruit juice (5.30 and 5.28 respectively). None of the interactions were found significant. 4.4.3 Pericarp thickness (cm) The influence of tomato hybrid and training system on pericarp thickness is presented in Table 23 indicated that tomato fruits significantly differed in their Pericarp thickness. STH- 39 recorded significantly thicker (1.10 cm) pericarp as compared to STH-801, STH-901 and STH-701 which were on par with each other (1.00, 0.80 and 0.80 cm respectively). Training system had no effect on Pericarp thickness of tomato fruits. Pericarp thickness of single stem training system fruits was on par with pericarp thickness of double stem training system (0.89 and 0.85 cm respectively). None of interactions were found significant.

Plate 4: Cross section of fruits of tomato hybrids indicating number of locules