GROWTH PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF SELECTED COMMERCIALLY CULTIVATED TOMATO (Solanum lycopersicum L.) VARIETIES UNDER THE SEMI-ARID CONDITIONS OF MADHYA PRADESH, INDIA

V. GUMASTA¹*, K.N. NAGAICH², D.K. PANDEY³, C.K. SAXENA^4
1Department of Horticulture, Mansarovar Global University, Billkisganj, Sehore, 466001, Madhya Pradesh, India
²Department Professor and Head (Retd.), Department of Horticulture, Rajmata Vijayaraje Scindia Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Gwalior, 474002, Madhya Pradesh, India
³Dean, Faculty of Agriculture Science and Technology, Mansarovar Global University, Bilkisganj, Sehore, 466001, Madhya Pradesh, India
⁴Senior Scientist, Irrigation and Drainage Engineering Division, ICAR-Central Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Bhopal, 462038, Madhya Pradesh, India
* Corresponding Author : vgumasta123@gmail.com

Received : 02-05-2023     Accepted : 28-05-2023     Published : 30-05-2023
Volume : 15     Issue : 5       Pages : 12369 - 12371
Int J Agr Sci 15.5 (2023):12369-12371

Keywords : Tomato, Solanum lycopersicum Mill., Commercial ecotypes, VNR
Academic Editor : Dr A. H. Barad
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : Authors are thankful to Department of Horticulture, Mansarovar Global University, Billkisganj, Sehore, 466001, Madhya Pradesh, India and Irrigation and Drainage Engineering Division, ICAR-Central Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Bhopal, 462038, Madhya Pradesh, India
Author Contribution : All authors equally contributed

Tomato is one of the most important Solanaceous vegetable crops cultivated widely all over the world. The present investigation was conducted with overall objectives to assess the performance evaluation of different commercially cultivated tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) varieties under the semi-arid condition of Madhya Pradesh, India, at Mansarovar Global University, Sehore, Madhya Pradesh. The yield of tomatoes can be further improved through breeding and management techniques besides crop protection measures. The overall genotypes by environmental interaction of the developed ecotypes need to be evaluated alongside the consumer preferences before the ecotypes are released for commercial cultivation. The experiment was laid out with sixteen treatments of different tomato ecotypes (varieties) including two local checks with three replications in the Randomized Block Design. It was conducted for two years. The result showed that the tomato ecotype VNR(THT)9/2020 significantly influenced the morphological, yield, quality and economic parameters and it was found significantly superior among all the tomato ecotypes. The highest morphological, yield, quality and economic parameters for the ecotype of VNR(THT)9/2020 for both the years as well as in pooled data. Whereas, the minimum morphological, yield, quality and economic parameters for both the years as well as pooled data were observed in the check ecotype of Shree

1. Ganaie M.M., Reshi Z., Verma V. and Raja V. (2018) Annals of Plant Sciences, 7, 2403.
2. Kishore R., Gahlot V.K., Saxena C.K. (2016) International Journal of Engineering Research and Technology, 5(1), 237-242.
3. Rao K.V.R., Gumasta V., Saxena C.K., Patel G.P., Bhushan B.V. (2018) Agricultural Engineering Today, 42(1), 1-5.
4. Saxena C.K., Singh R., Pyasi S.K. and Mekale A.K. (2018) Journal of Agricultural Engineering, 55(2), 61-67.
5. Saxena C.K., Ambast S.K., Gupta S.K. (2020) International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering, 9(8), 374-379.
6. Saxena C.K., Kumar M. and Singh R.K. (2022) Bhartiya Krishi Anusandhan Patrika, 37(2), 105-113.
7. Yan W. and Hunt L. (2010) Plant Breeding Reviews, 16, 135-178.
8. Gupta N., Debnath S., Sharma S., Sharma P. and Purohit J. (2017) Sustainable Agriculture, 10(1007), 978-981.
9. Salim M., Rashid, H., Hossain Md. and Zakaria M. (2018) Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences, 19(10), 1016.
10. Nankar A., Tringovska I., Grozeva S., Daniela G. and Kostova D. (2020) Plants, 9(10), 3390.
11. Rao K.V.R., Saxena C.K., Singh C.D., Soni K. and Gangwar S. (2022) Indian Journal of Ecology, 49(3), 763-767.
12. Yonas M. and Abajebel N. (2020) Asian Journal of Agricultural and Horticultural Research, 6(1), 28-33.
13. Tujuba M. and Ayana N.G. (2020) Agricultural and Biological Sciences Journal, 6(2), 100-113.
14. Sindhu K., Singh D., Bahadur V. and Deepanshu (2020) Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. App. Sci., 9(10), 3432-3438.
15. Nasrin S., Mannan M.A., Islam M.M. and Khan S.A.K.U. (2020) SAARC J. Agric., 18(2), 87-99.
16. Gemechu G.E. and Beyene T.M. (2019) Food Science and Quality Management, 89, 18-26.
17. Singh M., Prasanna H.C, Tiwari S., Gujar R.S. and Karkute S.G (2019) MoEF&CC and Indian Institute of Vegetable Research, Varanasi, 6(6.5), 27.
18. Esho K.S., Abdel-Raheem and Abd Alhuseein E. (2019) Journal of Agricultural Science and Food Technology, 5(2), 26-31.
19. Rangnamei K.L., Kumar M., Meena K.L. and Rajkhowa D.J. (2018) Indian Journal of Hill Farming, 30(2), 256-258.
20. Salim M., Rashid H., Hossain Md. and Zakaria M. (2018) Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences, 19(10), 1016.
21. Sharma V.K. and Singh, T. (2015) Journal of Agriculture and Crops Academic Research Publishing Group, 1(6), 68-74.