Performance of SVATnet tomato varieties and lines under adaptive trial in Rangpur district in Bangladesh
Volume 2, Issue 1, February 2015, Pages 13–18
Abu Saleh Mohammad Yousuf Ali1
, Md. Hamim Reza2, Muhammad Ali3, Md. Saifullah4, Md. Delwar Hossain5, Syed Tarik Mahabub6
1Abu Saleh Mohammad Yousuf Ali, Regional Horticultural Research Station, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute (BARI), Chapainawabganj, Bangladesh
2Md. Hamim Reza, Agricultural Research Station, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute (BARI) Rangpur, Bangladesh
3Muhammad Ali, Regional Project Implementation Unit (RPIU), Ministry of Agriculture (MoA), Rangpur, Bangladesh
4Md. Saifullah, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute (BARI), Gazipur, Bangladesh
5Md. Delwar Hossain, Department of Biochemestry, Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University, Dhaka, Bangladesh
6Syed Tarik Mahabub, Department of Plant Pathology, Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University, Dhaka, Bangladesh
| ABSTRACT | Get Full Text PDF |
Ten tomato lines collected from SAARC countries were evaluated under adaptive trial at Agricultural Research Station, Burirhat, Rangpur, Bangladesh. The lines are denoted as V1, V2, V3, V4, V5, V6, V7, V8, V9, V10 and BARI Tomato-14 as check were included in the experiment. The experiment was laid out in a completely randomized block design having three replications. The crop were grown in winter season following the unit plot size was 4.0 m ´ 1.0 m with spacing of 60 cm ´ 40 cm. Tomato fruit yield was highest in V8, which is statistically similar to the check variety BARI Tomato-14. The order of yield performance among the tested varieties found as V8 > V4 > V2 > V5 > V6 > V7 > V1 > V3 > V9 > V10. Fruit characteristics were varied among the lines and varieties tested. Significantly higher total soluble solids were recorded from V5 and V2 compared to check variety BARI Tomato-14. Greater shelf life (16 days) obtained from V8 compared to other varieties tested. Considering fruit yield, characteristics and quality V8, V4 and V2 can be recommended for cultivation in the greater Rangpur district of Bangladesh.
Key words: SAARC, Solanum lycopersicum, tomato fruit qualities, yield performance, shelf life, virus infection.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +8801719440385
E-mail address: yousufr007@gmail.com (ASMY Ali)
How to cite this article: ASMY Ali, MH Reza, MA, M Saifullah, MD Hossain and ST Mahabub (2015). Performance of SVATnet tomato varieties and lines under adaptive trial in Rangpur district in Bangladesh. International Journal of Natural and Social Sciences, 2(1): 13-18.
INTRODUCTION
Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) is an excellent winter vegetable crop in Bangladesh which is popular among all classes’ people. It is nutritious and a good source of carbohydrate, vitamin-A, -C and minerals. Tomato fruits enriched with various flavoring compounds having excellent taste. It also good source of antioxidants, the attractive red color provide lycopene and yellow color provide carotene which prevent cancer and other diseases (Hossain et. al., 2004). In a study it was reported that 100 g fresh tomato fruits contains 3.60 g carbohydrate, 1.10-1.98 g protein, 0.50 mg b-carotene, 1.80-2.30 mg iron and 15-30 mg ascorbic acid (Bose and Sam, 1990). Tomato generally available in winter as it likes cool and dry weather for better growth and development (Rashid, 1999). It is the most consumed vegetable after potato and sweet potato in Bangladesh (Chowdhury, 1979). It cultivated throughout the country due to its adaptability to wide range of soil and climate (Ahmed, 1976). However, the yield of the crop is lower compared to those obtained from developed countries (Sharfuddin and Siddique, 1985). The national average yield of tomato is 6.6 t ha-1 (BBS, 2011), which is very low compared to other tomato growing countries in the world. This poor yield should be increased through developing new high yielding tomato varieties. Recently farmers of Bangladesh interested to grow high yield varieties with disease resistant, better fruit qualities and longer harvesting period.
Farmers cultivated local low yielding tomato varieties in spite of severe disease infection and insect infestation. The existing hybrid and open pollinated varieties has encountered by several yield constraints due to continuous culture in the same land. In Bangladesh tomato farming gained momentum a decade ago when several multinational seed companies brought hybrid seeds to the country. For example, “Sobol” variety marketed by Syngenta has thick skin which is not easily damaged during transportation. Moreover, it takes on a bright red colour quickly and can be transported safely to the distant areas. Farmers also successfully cultivate the Sofol, Shathi, Hightom, Bipul, Surokkha, Bangabir and Bijoy varieties while some of the Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute developed varieties including Manik, Ratan, Chaiti, Apurba, Shila, Lalima and Anupoma are also popular. While local low yielding varieties are generally soft and get damaged easily. It is difficult to transport them to distant districts. Therefore, many tomato varieties are growing in Bangladesh, however, most of them become susceptible to diseases and insect and degradation of genotypic ability. In order to increase the tomato production in Bangladesh, it is essential to identify cultivars capable of year round production with higher yield and resistant to pests (Ashrafuzzaman et al., 2010). There are a few high yield and disease and insect resistant varieties but they do not perform well throughout the year because of their photo-sensitiveness and less adaptability (Hannan et. al., 2007).
In this regards collection and evaluation of germplasm have wide genetic variation can lead to the development of new varieties having improved specific traits. In practice, it is a continuous process in genetic program for developing new and improved varieties. In this purpose, some open pollinated tomato lines were collected from different SAARC countries. The present experiment was undertaken to evaluate growth, fruit yield and quality performance of the collected tomato lines with a view to develop a new variety(s) having desirable traits.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Experimental site and climatic condition
The field trials were conducted at Agricultural Research Station, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute, Burirhat, Rangpur, Bangladesh during cropping season of 2012-13. The location is situated in the subtropical climatic zone with wet summer and dry winter. The studies were conducted during the winter of 20012-2013. The study area is generally characterized by a moderate weather condition (Figure 1). During the culture period the mean air temperatures were ranges from 15.8-28.5 °C and relative humidity ranges from 72.5-79.5%. Although relative humidity was not fluctuated during the growing period but temperatures were increased after January i.e., fruit development stage. Few rainy days were also evident during the fruit development and harvesting period was found in the experimental site.
Planting materials
Ten tomato lines denoted as V1, V2, V3, V4, V5, V6, V7, V8, V9, and V10 were collected from SAARC countries were used as planting material along with BARI Tomato- 14 as check.
Cultivation procedure
Seeds of the tested lines and variety were sown in the seed bed on 15 November, 2012. Thirty two days old seedlings were transplanted in the main field on December 17, 2012. The experiment was laid out in a completely randomized block design with three replications. The unit plot size was 4.0 m ´ 1.0 m with maintaining spacing of 60 cm ´ 40 cm. The crop was fertilized with 10 t, 550 kg, 450 kg, and 250 kg of cow dung, urea, triple super phosphate and muriate of potash per ha, respectively. Half of the quantity cow dung, entire amount of triple super phosphate and half of the muriate potash were applied during land preparation. The remaining half of cow dung was applied during pit preparation. The rest of muriate of potash and entire amount of urea were applied in three equal splits at 15, 30 and 45 days after transplanting. Irrigation, pruning, mulching, weeding, plant protection measures and other intercultural operations were done as and when necessary. Tomato leaf curl virus and tomato mosaic virus was found on few plants and these are controlled by spraying Dithane M45 and finally by uprooting. Insects were controlled by using Malathion 57 EC (2 times at 25 and 32 days after transplanting). Application of plant growth regulator such as GA3 was sprayed @ 20 ppm at 30 days after transplanting for better plant growth.
Data collection
Data were recorded on different parameters. Data were collected in this study were on plant types, days to 50% flowering (days from the date of sowing to flowering 50% plant), plant height (when the plants attained the maximum height after which the plant ceased to grow for measurement the plant were selected randomly), number of fruits per pant (fruits harvested from ten plants of each treatment were counted and converted number of fruits per plant), weight of fruits per plant, average fruit weight (measured with the help of balance and their average was taken), fruit length (when the fruit attained certain maturity then the length was measured with the help of measuring tape), fruit yield, days to 1st harvest, fruit length (when the fruit attained certain maturity then the length was measured with the help of measuring tape), fruit diameter (fruit diameter was measured with the help of vernier caliper, when the fruit reached up to certain maturity), number of locule per fruit (matured fruits were cut by a sharp knife and locules number were counted), thickness of pericarp (Thickness of pericarp was measured with the help of vernier caliper, when the fruit reached up to certain maturity), total soluble solids (It was measured with the help of refractometer), shelf life (marketable shape, size and colour containing fruits were collected from each treatment then they are kept in a room with room temperature and days were counted just before rotten), and virus infection was calculated by the following formula.
Virus infection (%) =
Fruit yield per plant was tomatoes were got maturity and at harvesting stage per picking. The yield per hectare was calculated following the formula as:
Statistical analysis
Collected data were statistically analyzed using MSTAT-C computer package program and mean was calculated. Means were separated following Duncan’s Multiple Range Test at 5% level of significance (Gomez and Gomez, 1983).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Growth and yield performance of 11 tomato lines and variety
All the growth and yield parameters of the tested tomato lines and BARI Tomato-14 showed significant differences (Table 1). It was found that all three types of tomato plants such as determinate (D), indeterminate (I) and semi-indeterminate (SI) were exist in the collection. BARI Tomato-14 is semi indeterminate type plant and among collected lines fives were indeterminate (V3, V5, V6, V8 and V9), three were determinate (V4, V7 and V10) and only two (V1 and V2) were semi indeterminate type. The results revealed that V2 required the greater number of days to 50% flowering (94.0) followed by V8 (91.0 days) while the fewer days (77.0) were required for V9 and BARI Tomato-14. Most of the collected lines require three more days to 50% flower compared to the check variety. The semi indeterminate type tomato plants were found taller and the highest plant height at last harvest was observed in V2 (181.0 cm) followed by V1 and BARI Tomato-14, while the other lines produced comparatively shorter stature plants and the lowest plant height was observed in V7 (64.8 cm). The line V7 gave the highest number of fruits per cluster (4.0) and the variety V5 gave the lowest number of fruits per cluster (2.6) whilst other lines produced around three fruits per cluster.
Figure 1
Monthly mean air temperature, rainfall and relative humidity during winter season of 2012-13 at Agricultural Research Station, Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute, Burirhat, Rangpur, Bangladesh.
Maximum number of fruits per plant were recorded from V4 (50.9) which is identical with V7 (46.5) whereas minimum number of fruits per plant were recorded from V10 (22.8). The line V8 gave maximum weight of fruits per plant (1.93 kg) which is identical with BARI Tomato-14 (1.90 kg) while the line V10 gave minimum weight of fruits per plant (1.11 kg). The highest average fruit weight was found in V8 (70.6 g) and the lowest average fruit weight was found in V7 (17.6 g). The fruit length was maximum in V8 and BARI Tomato-14 (6.0 cm) and the minimum was in V4 and V7 (3.5 cm). Maximum tomato fruit yield was recorded from V8 (76.70 t ha-1) which is identical with BARI Tomato-14 (75.10 t ha-1) and minimum yield was recorded from V10 (44.53 t ha-1) which is identical with V9 (46.60 t ha-1). The higher fruit yield in V8 followed by BARI Tomato-14 and V4 was attributed by higher average fruit weight or fruit weight per plant and also fruit length.
Fruit characteristics, quality and virus infection of 11 tomato lines and variety
Tomato fruit characteristics, qualities and also virus infection were varied significantly among the lines (Table 2). Maximum days required to 1st harvest in V8 and V9 (143.7) followed by BARI Tomato-14 while minimum days required in V5 (132.6). The longer tomato fruit of about 6.0 cm was harvested from V8 and BARI Tomato-14 while other lines produce fruits ranging 3.5-5.1 cm long. The highest fruit diameter was obtained from V1 (5.4 cm) and the lowest fruit diameter was obtained from V9 (3.5 cm). It was found that except V5, V7, and V9 other lines produce tomato fruits with greater diameter.
In case of locule per fruit, the line V1 gave the highest number of locule per fruit (3.5) and V8 gave the lowest number of locule per fruit (2.0). The maximum thickness of pericarp was found in V10 (1.43 cm) and the minimum thickness of pericarp was found in V9 (0.31 cm). The higher total soluble solids were obtained from V5 (5.6%) which is identical with V2 (5.5%) and V1 (5.3%) and lower was obtained from V10 (4.0%). Shelf life varied from 8.0 to 16.0 days. The highest shelf life was observed in V8 (16.0 days) and the lowest shelf life was observed in V10 (8.0 days). The line V4 gave maximum virus infected plants (30.0%) which are identical with V1, V5 and V7 (25.00%) and the variety V9 gave minimum virus infected plants (10.0%).
It is mentionable that the performance of the collected lines has great variation in genetic potentiality of growth habit and fruit yield. Moreover, seasonal variation and also location or climate of the crop grown has also great influence on the performance of the evaluated lines (Ashrafuzzaman et al. 2010). Several studies showed genotypic and seasonal variation in tomato plant growth, fruit characters and yield attributes such as plant height (Mehta and Asati, 2008; Singh et. al., 2002a,b), number of primary branch (Dutta et. al., 1995; Ghosh et. al., 1995), number of fruit cluster (Singh et. al., 2002a,b; Saeed et. al., 1999), number of fruits (Bhuani et. al., 1989; Islam and Khan, 1991), individual fruit weight (Ajlouni et. al., 1996; Hussain et. al., 2001) and the final fruit yield (Rehman et. al., 2000; Wagh et. al., 2004). In this connection, the results of the present study can be useful information to the breeder to undertake target specific breeding programs. It can also helpful to create wide genetic resources of tomato in Bangladesh.
Table 1
Growth and yield performance of 11 tomato lines and variety under adaptive trial in Rangpur district, Bangladesh.
| Tomato line and variety | Plant type | Days to 50% flowering | Plant height (cm) | No. offruits/cluster | No. of fruits/ plant | Wt. of fruits/plant (kg) | Av. fruit wt. (g) | Fruit length (cm) | Yield (t/ha) |
| BARI Tomato-14 | SI y | 77.0 g x | 130.3 b | 3.2 bc | 33.5 b | 1.90 a | 60.5 b | 6.0 a | 75.10 a |
| V1z | SI | 80.7 d | 133.3 b | 3.2 bc | 24.2 d | 1.30 cd | 60.3 b | 5.1 bc | 52.26 cd |
| V2 | SI | 94.0 a | 181.0 a | 3.4 b | 26.4 cd | 1.41 bc | 50.4 c | 4.7 d | 56.53 c |
| V3 | I | 80.7 d | 91.0 c | 3.0 c | 32.7 b | 1.28 c-e | 38.1 ef | 5.0 c | 51.50 cd |
| V4 | D | 80.0 de | 83.3 cd | 3.3 bc | 50.9 a | 1.58 b | 33.2 f | 3.5 g | 63.53 b |
| V5 | I | 79.0 ef | 75.0 de | 2.6 d | 30.8 bc | 1.35 c | 42.0 de | 4.1 e | 54.53 c |
| V6 | I | 78.0 fg | 87.6 c | 3.0 c | 25.0 d | 1.33 cd | 42.3 de | 5.1 bc | 53.33 cd |
| V7 | D | 79.3 e | 64.8 f | 4.0 a | 46.5 a | 1.33 cd | 17.6 g | 3.5 g | 53.06 cd |
| V8 | I | 91.0 b | 83.3 cd | 3.2 bc | 25.1 d | 1.93 a | 70. 6 a | 6.0 a | 76.70 a |
| V9 | I | 77.3 g | 69.6 ef | 3.1 bc | 26.6 cd | 1.16 de | 43.1 d | 3.7 f | 46.60 de |
| V10 | D | 87.0 c | 77.0 de | 3.1 bc | 22.8 e | 1.11 e | 43.1 d | 5.1 b | 44.53 e |
| Level of significance | ** | * | ** | ** | * | ** | ** | ** | |
| CV (%) | 2.48 | 3.64 | 5.78 | 4.51 | 2.51 | 3.33 | 4.98 | 5.93 |
zTen tomato lines denoted as V1, V2, V3, V4, V5, V6, V7, V8, V9, and V10 were collected from SAARC countries.
ySI = Semi indeterminate, I = Indeterminate, D = Determinate.
xMeans followed by different letter(s) differ significantly following Duncan’s Multiple Range Test at 5% level.
Table 2
Fruit characteristics, quality and virus infection of 11 tomato lines and variety under adaptive trial in Rangpur district, Bangladesh.
| Variety | Days to 1st harvest | Fruit length (cm) | Fruit diameter (cm) | No. of locule/fruit | Thickness of pericarp (cm) | TSS (%) | Shelf life (Days) | Virus infection (%) |
| BARI Tomato-14 | 140.0 a-c y | 6.0 a | 4.5 b | 2.6 bc | 0.43 ab | 4.5 d | 13.0 bc | 15.0 cd |
| V1z | 137.0 b-d | 5.1 bc | 5.4 a | 3.5 a | 0.34 c | 5.3 ab | 10.0 d | 25.0 ab |
| V2 | 140.6 a-c | 4.7 d | 4.2 d | 2.1 e | 0.42 ab | 5.5 a | 12.0 c | 15.0 cd |
| V3 | 137.6 a-d | 5.0 c | 4.5 b | 2.6 bc | 0.36 bc | 4.5 cd | 12.0 c | 20.0 bc |
| V4 | 134.3 cd | 3.5 g | 4.5 b | 2.5 b-d | 0.34 bc | 4.7 bc | 14.0 b | 30.0 a |
| V5 | 132.6 d | 4.1 e | 3.9 e | 2.2 de | 0.43 ab | 5.6 a | 12.0 c | 25.0 ab |
| V6 | 138.0 a-d | 5.1 bc | 4.4 bc | 2.9 b | 0.41 ab | 4.0 d | 10.0 d | 20.0 bc |
| V7 | 136.6 b-d | 3.5 g | 3.6 f | 2.3 c-e | 0.34 c | 4.1 cd | 13.0 bc | 25.0 ab |
| V8 | 143.7 a | 6.0 a | 4.5 bc | 2.0 e | 0.35 bc | 4.5 cd | 16.0 a | 15.0 cd |
| V9 | 143.7 a | 3.7 f | 3.5 f | 2.4 c-e | 0.31 c | 4.1 cd | 10.0 d | 10.0 d |
| V10 | 139.3 a-c | 5.1 b | 4.3 cd | 2.1 e | 1.43 a | 4.0 d | 8.0 e | 15.0 cd |
| Level of significance | ** | ** | ** | * | ** | * | ** | NS |
| CV (%) | 1.12 | 2.10 | 1.02 | 3.11 | 4.75 | 4.72 | 3.33 | 29.86 |
zTen tomato lines denoted as V1, V2, V3, V4, V5, V6, V7, V8, V9, and V10 were collected from SAARC countries.
yMeans followed by different letter(s) differ significantly following Duncan’s Multiple Range Test at 5% level.
CONCLUSION
The aforesaid results indicate the lines collected from different SAARC countries showed good variation in growth, fruit characteristics, fruit yield and also disease infection. The evaluation of growth parameters, yield attributes and final yield indicated that lines V8, V4 and V2 can be recommend for new improved variety development program under climatic condition of Rangpur region of Bangladesh.
REFERENCES
Ahmed KU (1976). Phul Phal O Shak Shabji (in Bangla). 2nd Edition, Alhaj Kamaluddin Ahmed, Banglow No. 2, Farm Gate, Dhaka, Bngaldesh. p.470.
Ajlouni MM, Shibli RA, Hussein A and Eriefej KI (1996). Seasonal distribution of yield of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) cultivars grown in Jordan. International Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 66: 541-545.
Ashrafuzzaman M, Haque MA, Ismail MR, Islam MT and Shahidullah SM (2010). Genotypic and seasonal variation in plant development and yield attributes in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) cultivars. International Journal of Botany, 6(1): 41-46.
Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS) (2011). Year book of agricultural statistics of Bangladesh. Ministry of Planning, Government of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh, Dhaka, p.99.
Bhuani RD, Kalloo G and Pandita ML (1989). Correlation and path coefficient analysis of some quality traits in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.). Haryana Journal of Horticultural Science, 18: 130-135.
Bose TK and Sam MG (1990). Vegetable crops in India. Naya Prokash, 206 Bidhan Sarani, Calcutta, Inida. p.249.
Chowdhury B (1979). Vegetables. 6th Edition, The Director, National Book Trust, New Delhi, India. p.46.
Dutta RK, Islam MS, Mia MAB, Majid MA and Lahiri BP (1995). Comparative assessment of tomato varieties/advanced lines in relation to growth, yield and quality. Bangladesh Journal of Nuclear. Agriculture, 11: 27-35.
Ghosh PK, Symal MM, Rai N and Joshi AK (1995). Improvement of hybrid tomatoes. Advances in plant sciences, 2: 207-213.
Gomez KA and AA Gomez (1983). Statistical procedure for Agricultural Research. 2nd Edition, New York, Jhon Wiley and Sons. p. 680.
Hannan MM, Ahmed MB, Razvy MA, Karim R and Khatun M (2007). Heterosis and correlation of yield and yield components in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.). American-Eurasian Journal of Scientific Research, 2: 146-150.
Hossain MM, Khalequzzaman KM, Hossain MA, Mollah MRA and Siddique MA (2004). Influence of planting time on the extension of picking period of four tomato varieties. Journal of Biological Science, 4: 616-619.
Hussain SI, Khokhar KM, Mahmood T, Laghari MH and Mahmud MM (2001). Yield potential of some exotic and local tomato cultivars grown for summer production. Pakistan Journal of Biological Science, 4: 1215-121.
Islam MS and Khan SK (1991). Variability and character association in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.). Bangladesh Journal of Plant Breeding and Genetics, 4: 49-53.
Mehta N and Asati BS (2008). Genetic relationship of growth and development traits with fruit yield in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.). Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 21: 92-96.
Rashid, M. 1999. Sabji Biggan (in Bengali). Rashid Publishing House, 94, Old DOSH, Dhaka. p. 525.
Rehman F, Khan S, Aridullah F and Shafiullah (2000). Performance of different tomato cultivars under the climatic conditions of Northern areas (GILGIT). Pakistan Journal of Biological Science, 3: 833-835.
Saeed A, Hayat K, Khan AA, Iqbal S and Abbas G (1999). Assessment of genetic variability and heritability in Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology, 11: 375-377.
Sharfuddin AFM and Siddique MA (1985). Sabji Bigyan. 1st Edition. Bangldesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh. p.4.
Singh AK, Bhalla SK and Verma S (2002a). A note on the variability in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.). Himachal Journal of Agricultural Research, 19: 98-100.
Singh JK, Singh JP, Jain SK and Joshi A (2002b). Studies on genetic variability and its importance in tomato . Progressive Horticulture, 34: 77-79.
Wagh RS, Bharud RW and More SR (2004). Stability difference among tomato genotypes for yield and yield attributes. Annals of Plant Physiology, 18: 176-181.
