Evaluation of cherry tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L. var. cerasiforme) genotypes for yield and quality parameters

Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) 9(3): 467-472<br /> <br /> International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences<br /> ISSN: 2319-7706 Volume 9 Number 3 (2020)<br /> Journal homepage: http://www.ijcmas.com<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Original Research Article https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2020.903.054<br /> <br /> Evaluation of Cherry Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L. var. cerasiforme)<br /> Genotypes for Yield and Quality Parameters<br /> <br /> Najibullah Anwarzai*, Jyothi Kattegoudar, M. Anjanappa, Meenakshi Sood,<br /> Anjaneya Reddy and S. Mohan Kumar<br /> <br /> Department of vegetable science College of Horticulture, UHS campus, GKVK,<br /> Bengaluru-560065, India<br /> <br /> *Corresponding author<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ABSTRACT<br /> <br /> An experiment entitled Evaluation of cherry tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.<br /> var. cerasiforme) genotypes for yield and quality parameters was conducted in the<br /> Keywords Department of Vegetable Science, College of Horticulture, Bengaluru, Karnataka<br /> during the year 2018-19. In present study, twenty one cherry tomato genotypes<br /> cherry tomato were evaluated for yield and quality parameters. Among different cherry tomato<br /> genotypes genotypes, maximum number of fruits per cluster was recorded in COHBT (8.75).<br /> lycopene<br /> Genotype COHBT-198 recorded maximum average fruit weight (43.90 g). The<br /> Article Info maximum fruit yield per plant was recorded in genotype COHBT-198(2.30 kg).<br /> COHBT-70genotype recorded maximum total soluble solids (8.55 ˚Brix) and<br /> Accepted: minimum acidity was recorded in COHBT-31 (0.30%). Among all genotypes<br /> 05 February 2020<br /> Available Online: pericarp thickness varied between 2.50mmand 5.50 mm. The maximum number of<br /> 10 March 2020 locules per fruit was recorded in COHBT-208 (4.00).Genotype COHBT-209<br /> recorded maximum chlorophyll (mg/g) content (9.90mg/g). The maximum<br /> lycopene content was recorded in COHBT-44 (13.5mg/100g).<br /> <br /> Introduction Mexico and Florida. It is a warm season crop<br /> reasonably tolerant to heat and drought and<br /> Tomato (Solanum lycopresicum L.) is one of grows under wide range of soil and climatic<br /> the most important solanaceous vegetable conditions. (Anon., 2009a)<br /> crops grown widely all over the world and is<br /> native to South America (Rick, 1969). Cherry tomato is grown for its edible fruits<br /> Botanically cherry tomato is called Solanum which can be consumed either fresh as a salad<br /> lycopersicum var. cerasiforme having of after cooking as snacks. They are perfect<br /> chromosome number 2n=24. It is thought to for making processed products like sauce,<br /> be the ancestor of all cultivated tomatoes. It is soup, ketchup, puree, curries, paste, powder<br /> widely cultivated in Central America and is and sandwich. Unripe green fruit are used for<br /> distributed in California, Korea, Germany, preparation of pickles and chutney. The fruit<br /> <br /> 467<br />  Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) 9(3): 467-472<br /> <br /> <br /> size range from thumb tip to the size of a golf Results and Discussion<br /> balland can range from being spherical to<br /> slightly oblong in shape (Anon., 2009b). Number of fruits per cluster<br /> <br /> Materials and Methods This might be due to the prevalence of micro<br /> climate with better environmental condition<br /> An experiment was carried out to study with optimum temperature would helped in<br /> Evaluation of cherry tomato (Solanum the better pollination and ultimately leads to<br /> lycopersicum L. var. cerasiforme) genotypes fruit set. The maximum number of fruits per<br /> for growth and yield was under taken during cluster was recorded in COHBT (8.75) and<br /> Jun2018(Kharif season)at Department of minimum was recorded in COHBT-191<br /> Vegetable Science, College of Horticulture (3.00).<br /> Bengaluru, University of Horticultural<br /> Sciences, Bagalkot. The experiment site is The results are similar with Singh et al.,<br /> located at an of 930 meters above mean sea (2000) reported number of fruits per cluster<br /> level (MSL) at 12.97˚ N latitude and 77.56˚ E ranged from 4.30 to 8.70 with over all mean<br /> longitudes in the Eastern Dry Zone of of 5.90 and Mohanty (2003), Prashanth<br /> Karnataka (Zone-V). The 19 genotypes (2003), Mehta and Asati (2008) and Prema et<br /> maintained at Department of Vegetable al., (2011a) also reported similar results.<br /> Science, College of Horticulture, Bengaluru<br /> are taken for the present study. Average fruit weight<br /> <br /> Two varieties namely Yellow Round and Red Significant differences among the different<br /> Round from Suvarna Hybrid seeds were taken cherry tomato genotypes are presented in. The<br /> as check.Cherry tomato seeds were sown in maximum average fruit weight was observed<br /> plastic pro- trays having 98 cells. Regular in COHBT-198 (43.90g) which was followed<br /> irrigation and plant production measure were by COHBT-70 (38.90g) and minimum was<br /> taken to raise the good quality seedlings using observed in COHBT- 262 (3.50g).This<br /> growing media like mixture of coco peat and variation in average fruit weight might be due<br /> farm yard manure in 2:1 ratio. pro-trays are to inverse relationship existing between<br /> kept in green house. average fruit weight, and number of fruits per<br /> cluster. This was conformity with the findings<br /> Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) of Renuka et al., (2017).<br /> was adopted with two replication and 15<br /> plants in each replication. During July 2018, Fruit yield per plant<br /> field was brought to fine tilth by ploughing<br /> and harrowing. Farm yard manure was The average fruit weight directly contributes<br /> incorporated to the soil and bed covered by towards the fruit yield per plant. This was in<br /> plastic mulch. The 25 days old seedlings were agreement with the finding of Deepa and<br /> transplanted at the spacing of 90cm × 60cm. Thakur (2008) in tomato. The fruit yield per<br /> The experiment plots were kept free from plant showed significant differences among<br /> weeds by hand weeding at frequent interval. the different cherry tomato genotypes. The<br /> All agronomic practices were taken as per the maximum fruit yield per plant was recorded<br /> recommendations of package of practices of in COHBT-198 (2.30kg) which was followed<br /> University of Horticultural Sciences, by COHBT- 70 (2.20kg) and minimum was<br /> Bagalkot. recorded in COHBT- 270 (1.00kg).<br /> <br /> 468<br />  Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) 9(3): 467-472<br /> <br /> <br /> Total soluble solid (°Brix) Number of locules per fruit<br /> <br /> High total soluble solid (TSS) is the major Tomato fruit with less locules are preferred<br /> factors considered for manufacture of for processing industries as it gives better<br /> processed products. One per cent increase in firmness and indirectly better storability.<br /> TSS content of fruits results in 20 per cent Presence of limited number of locules in<br /> increase in recovery of processed product cherry tomato (2-3) is preferred then fruit<br /> (Berry et al., 1988 and Shivanand, 2008). The having more locules as a cherry tomato is<br /> data pertaining to the total soluble solid (°B) generally preferred as table fruit vegetable.<br /> showed significant differences among the The data pertaining to the number of locules<br /> different cherry tomato genotypes. The per fruit showed significant differences<br /> maximum TSS (°B) was observed in among the different cherry tomato genotypes.<br /> COHBT-70 (8.55°B) which was followed by The maximum number of locules per fruit<br /> COHBT- 27 (6.85°B) and minimum was observed in COHBT- 208 (4.00) which was<br /> observed in COHBT- 208 (4.20°B). Similar followed by COHBT-36 and COHBT- 44<br /> results were observed by Bajaj et al., (1990), (3.40) and minimum was observed in<br /> Jasmine and Ramadass (1994), Saimbhi et al., COHBT- 253, COHBT- 70 and COHBT-262<br /> (1995), Sharma et al., (1996), Rathod (1997), (2.00).The results were in consonance with<br /> Sivakumar (2000) and Sheferaw (2001). the finding of Kamimura et al., (1985), Dundi<br /> and Mandalageri (1991) in tomato, Renuka et<br /> Acidity (%) al., (2014) and Renuka et al., (2017) in cherry<br /> tomato.<br /> Acidity (%) showed significant differences<br /> among the different cherry tomato genotypes. Chlorophyll (mg/g)<br /> The maximum acidity (0.70%) was observed<br /> in COHBT- 208 and COHBT- 206 which was The chlorophyll (mg/g) among the different<br /> followed by COHBT- 199 (0.65%) and cherry tomato genotypes. The maximum<br /> minimum acidity was observed in COHBT- chlorophyll (mg/g) content was observed in<br /> 31 (0.30%).The low values of titrable acidity COHBT-209 (9.90mg/g) which was followed<br /> were because of red tomato fruits used for by COHBT- 27 (9.00mg/g) and minimum was<br /> analysis (Rana et al., 2014). observed in COHBT-36 (3.25mg/g). The<br /> variation in chlorophyll content observed due to<br /> Pericarp thickness (mm) genotypic variability. Similar results are<br /> supported by the results of Alley et al., (1976).<br /> Pericarp thickness showed significant<br /> differences among the different cherry tomato Lycopene (mg/100g)<br /> genotypes. A numerically maximum pericarp<br /> thickness was recorded in COHBT- 46, Lycopene pigment in cherry tomato fruit<br /> COHBT- 262 and COHBT- 206 (5.00mm) decided the optimum stage of ripening and<br /> and minimum was recorded in COHBT-70 also an important criterion for processing.<br /> (2.50mm).Similar results were reported by Hence, breeding for high lycopene would also<br /> Joshi et al., (1998a) in tomato. Higher help in developing tomato varieties or hybrids<br /> pericarp thickness and firmness also improves which would improve the general health<br /> the shelf life of fruit. Present findings status of consumers. Lycopene pigment in<br /> supported by the results obtained by tomato fruit decides the optimum stage of<br /> Shivanand (2008) in tomato. ripening and also an important criterion for<br /> consumed as a salad and processing.<br /> 469<br />  Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) 9(3): 467-472<br /> <br /> <br /> Table.1 Variation of cherry tomato genotypes for yield and quality parameters<br /> <br /> Treat Genotypes No. of Avg. Fruit yield TSS(°B) Acidity Pericarp No. of Chlorophyl Lycopene<br /> ment fruits fruit per plant (%) thickness locules l (mg/g) (mg/100g)<br /> per weight (kg) (mm) per fruit<br /> cluster (g)<br /> T1 COHBT-253 5.25cd 26.25gh 2.00b 4.75ghi 0.40efg 4.00 2.00f 5.40hi 5.78 j<br /> T2 COHBT -46 4.00f 31.55e 1.30fgh 5.55ef 0.45def 5.00 2.80cd 7.05cd 7.68ef<br /> T3 COHBT-27 4.50def 35.70c 1.30fgh 6.85b 0.55bcd 4.50 3.30b 9.00b 9.12d<br /> T4 Red Round 6.55b 20.90kl 2.10ab 5.15fgh 0.50cde 4.00 2.00f 4.80 j 8.81d<br /> T5 COHBT-68 5.10cde 14.00n 1.50def 5.45efg 0.60abc 4.00 2.30ef 8.55b 3.70k<br /> T6 COHBT-270 5.50ced 22.75j 1.00i 4.45hi 0.50cde 4.50 2.10ef 6.40ef 5.80 j<br /> T7 COHBT -262 4.50def 3.50op 1.25gh 6.60bc 0.50cde 5.00 2.00f 5.70gh 12.10b<br /> T8 COHBT-217 4.00f 23.50j 1.75c 5.90cdef 0.35fg 4.00 2.50de 5.00ij 10.83c<br /> T9 COHBT-70 4.00f 38.90b 2.20ab 8.55a 0.45def 2.50 2.00f 6.85de 1.40l<br /> T10 COHBT-44 4.00f 26.95fg 1.40efg 5.85cdef 0.60abc 3.50 3.40b 5.55hi 13.50a<br /> T11 Yellow Round 5.25cd 20.25l 1.70cd 5.50efg 0.50cde 4.50 2.00f 6.25df 1.40l<br /> T12 COHBT -198 6.60b 43.90a 2.30a 6.40bcd 0.60abc 4.50 2.50de 8.45b 6.54gh<br /> T13 COHBT-209 4.75def 34.95c 1.40efg 5.20fgh 0.60abc 4.00 3.10bc 9.90a 3.90k<br /> T14 COHBT -71 4.75def 15.50m 1.10hi 5.65def 0.40efg 4.50 2.50de 7.55c 7.50fg<br /> T15 COHBT -48 5.75bc 20.85kl 1.20ghi 6.10bcde 0.40efg 4.00 2.20ef 5.60h 7.35fgh<br /> T16 COHBT-31 4.00f 21.70k 1.15hi 5.90cdef 0.30g 3.50 2.50de 6.40ef 12.00b<br /> T17 COHBT-36 4.25ef 25.20i 1.55cde 5.25fg 0.50cde 4.00 3.40b 3.25l 12.75ab<br /> T18 COHBT -199 8.75a 33.35d 2.20ab 6.40bcd 0.65ab 4.50 2.40def 6.65df 6.20ig<br /> T19 COHBT-208 5.00cde 25.55hi 2.00b 4.20i 0.70a 3.50 4.00a 4.05k 7.44fg<br /> T20 COHBT -206 4.00f 34.85c 1.40efg 4.45hi 0.70a 5.00 3.20bc 3.75kl 8.36de<br /> T21 COHBT -191 3.00g 27.65f 1.50def 5.45efg 0.55bcd 4.00 2.40def 3.60ef 6.71ghi<br /> Mean 4.90 26.08 1.58 5.69 0.51 4.14 4.14 6.30 7.56<br /> S.Em± 0.31 0.94 0.09 0.26 0.03 0.59 0.16 0.20 0.28<br /> CD at 5% 0.92 2.80 0.22 0.78 0.10 NS 0.48 0.59 0.85<br /> CV 8.96 5.24 6.61 6.54 9.21 11.80 8.96 4.52 5.39<br /> <br /> <br /> 470<br />  Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) 9(3): 467-472<br /> <br /> <br /> Recently it has been identified as a nutritional of diallele progenies for yield and its<br /> factor because of its antioxidant. The contributing traits in tomato under mid-<br /> lycopene (mg/100g) showed significant hill conditions. Indian J. Hort., 65<br /> differences among the different cherry tomato (3):297-301.<br /> genotypes (Table 12). The maximum Dundi, K. B. and Mandalageri, B. B., 1991,<br /> lycopene content was recorded in COHBT-44 Heterosis for shelf-life and its<br /> (13.5mg/100g) which was followed by components in tomato (Lycopersicon<br /> COHBT-36 (12.75mg/100g) and minimum esculentum Mill.). South Indian Hort.,<br /> was recorded in COHBT-70 (1.40mg/100g). 39: 353-355.<br /> Similar results are reported by Najeema et al., Jasmine, J. A. P. and Ramadass, S., 1994,<br /> (2018). Qualitative evaluation of tomato hybrids<br /> and varieties. South Indian Hort., 42<br /> Acknowledgement (1): 26-28.<br /> Joshi, A. K., Kumar, A. and Sharma, B. k.,<br /> The authors are highly thankful to the Indian 1998a, Evaluation tomato genotypes for<br /> Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi horticultural traits. Punjab vegetable<br /> India and Department of vegetable Science grower. 33: 21-22.<br /> College of Horticulture, Bengaluru for Kamimura, S., K., Ito, H., Yoshikawa, S.,<br /> providing technical and financial assistance Monma. and Kanna. T., 1985,<br /> during the research programed. “Furikoma” - New tomato variety for<br /> processing. Bull. Veg. Orn. Crops Res.,<br /> References 5:47.<br /> Mehta, N. and Asati, B. S., 2008, Genetic<br /> Anonymous., 2009a., Botanical classification divergence for fruit characters in tomato<br /> of cherry tomato. ( www.lose-weight- (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.). Agric.<br /> withus.com/cherry tomato- Sci. Digest., 28(2): 141-142.<br /> nutrition.html. ). Mohanty, B. K., 2003, Genetic variability,<br /> Anonymous., 2009b., Cherry tomato correlation and path coefficient studies<br /> nutritional information; USDA National in tomato.Indian J. Agril. Res.,<br /> Nutritional Database for Standard 37(1):68-71.<br /> Reference. (www. Lose- weight- Prashanth, S. J., 2003, Genetic variability and<br /> withus.com/cherry tomato- nutrition. divergence study in tomato<br /> Html ). (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill). M. Sc.<br /> Bajaj, K. L., Mahajan, R., Kaur, P. P. and (Agri.) Thesis, Uni. Agric. Sci.,<br /> Chuma, D. S., 1990, Chemical Dharwad (India).<br /> constituents of processing tomatoes Prema, G., Indiresh, K. M. and Santhosha, H.<br /> (Lycopersicon esculentum M.). J. Res. M., 2011a, Evaluation of cherry tomato<br /> Punjab. Agric. Univ., 27 (2): 226-230. (Solanum lycopersicum var.<br /> Berry, S. Z., Uddin, M.R., Gould,W. A., cerasiforme) genotypes for growth,<br /> Bisges., A. D. and Dyer, G. D., 1988, yield and quality traits. Asian J. Hort.,<br /> Stability in fruit yield, soluble solids 6(1): 181-184.<br /> and citric acid of eight machine Rana, N., Kumar., Manish., Walia., Abhisek.<br /> harvested processing tomato cultivars in and Sharma., 2014, Tomato fruit quality<br /> Northern Ohio., J. Americ. Soc. Hort. under protected environment and open<br /> Sci., 113(4):604- 608. field condition. Int. J. Bio- Resou &<br /> Deepa, S. and Thakur, M.C., 2008, Evaluation Stress. Mgt., 5(3): 422- 426.<br /> <br /> 471<br />  Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) 9(3): 467-472<br /> <br /> <br /> Rathod, J. D., 1997, Evaluation of tomato hybrids. Trop Sci., 35: 9-12.<br /> genotypes for productivity and Sharma, S., Mahajan, R. and Bajaj, K. L.,<br /> processing traits during late rabi 1996, Biochemical evaluation of some<br /> season. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, UAS, tomato varieties.,Veg. Sci.23(1): 42- 47.<br /> Dharwad. Sheferaw, N., 2001, Evaluation of open-<br /> Renuka, D. M., Sadashive, A. T. and Jogi, M., pollinated tomato for growth, yield and<br /> 2017, Genetic variability studies in quality parameters in Eastern dry zone<br /> cherry tomato (Solanum lycopersicum of Karnataka. M. Sc. ( Agri.) Thesis,<br /> L. var. cerasiforme Mill). Int. J. Curr. UAS, GKVK, Bangalore.<br /> Microbiol. App. Sci., 6(10): 2085-2089. Shivakumar, K. C., 2000, Evaluation of<br /> Renuka, D. M., Sadashive, A. T. and Jogi, M., tomato hybrids for growth, yield and<br /> 2017, Genetic variability studies in quality parameters under Bangalore<br /> cherry tomato (Solanum lycopersicum condition. M. Sc. (Hort.) Thesis, UAS,<br /> L. var. cerasiforme Mill). Int. J. Curr. GKVK, Bangalore.<br /> Microbiol. App. Sci., 6(10): 2085-2089. Singh, P. K. and Gopalkrishnan, T. R.,<br /> Renuka, D.M., Sadashiva, A.T., Kavita, B.T., 2000,Variability and heritability<br /> Vijendrakumar, R.C. and estimates in brinjal (Solanum<br /> Hanumanthiah, M.R., 2014, Evaluation melongena L.). South Indian Hort.,<br /> of cherry tomato lines (Solanum 47(1-6): 174-178.<br /> lycopersicum var. cerasiforme) for Sivanand, V. H., 2008, Evaluation of tomato<br /> growth, yield and quality traits. Plant (Lycopersicon esculentum M.) hybrids<br /> Archives, 14(1): 151- 154. under eastern dry zone of Karnataka.<br /> Saimbhi, M. S., Cheema. D. S., Singh, S. and M.Sc. (Hort.) Thesis, UAS, GKVK,<br /> Nandpuri, K. S., 1995, Physico- Bangalore.<br /> chemical characteristic of some tomato<br /> <br /> <br /> How to cite this article:<br /> <br /> Najibullah Anwarzai, Jyothi Kattegoudar, M. Anjanappa, Meenakshi Sood, B. Anjaneya Reddy<br /> and Mohan Kumar. S. 2020. Evaluation of Cherry Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L. var.<br /> Cerasiforme) Genotypes for Yield and Quality Parameters. Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci.<br /> 9(03): 467-472. doi: https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2020.903.054<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 472<br />