STUDIES ON THE EFFECT OF PLANT GEOMETRY AND NUTRIENTS ON FRUIT QUALITY IN PROCESSING CULTIVARS OF TOMATO

V. USHA RANI¹, B. RAMESH BABU²*, P. SOMAN³, K. UMA JYOTHI⁴, K. SASIKALA^5
1Department of Vegetable Science, College of Horticulture, Dr Y.S.R. Horticultural University, Venkataramannagudem, 534101, Andhra Pradesh, India
²Horticultural Research Station, Venkataramannagudem, Dr Y.S.R. Horticultural University, Venkataramannagudem, 534101, Andhra Pradesh, India
³Chief Agronomist, Jain Fresh Processing Unit, Chittoor, 517 125, Andhra Pradesh
⁴Horticultural College and Research Institute, Dr Y.S.R. Horticultural University, Venkataramannagudem, 534101, Andhra Pradesh, India
⁵Horticultural College and Research Institute, Dr Y.S.R. Horticultural University, Venkataramannagudem, 534101, Andhra Pradesh, India
* Corresponding Author : rameshhort@gmail.com

Received : 13-03-2018     Accepted : 26-03-2018     Published : 30-03-2018
Volume : 10     Issue : 6       Pages : 5522 - 5528
Int J Agr Sci 10.6 (2018):5522-5528

Keywords : Plant geometry, Nutrition, Quality, Processing cultivars, tomato, fertigation
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : Author thankful to Dr Soman, Chief Agronomist, Jain Fresh Processing Unit, Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh, India for financial support. Author thankful to Dr Y.S.R. Horticultural University, Venkataramannagudem, 534101, Andhra Pradesh.
Author Contribution : All author equally contributed

The experiment was laid out in factorial Randomised Block Design with two cultivars viz., Alankar and Abhinav, three planting geometry patterns i.e. 120 cm x 40 cm (2.08 plants per m2), 60 cm x 60 cm (2.78 plants per m2) and 75 cm x 40 cm (3.33 plants per m2) and three levels of nutrition levels i.e. 120: 60: 60 NPK kg ha-1, 150: 75: 75 NPK kg ha-1 and 180: 90: 90 NPK kg ha-1, thus making a total of 18 treatment combinations to find out the suitable planting geometry, nutrition level and their interaction in processing cultivars of tomato. Lycopene content, carotene, acidity, sugars, TSS and a* values of tomato fruits were of superior level with medium planting geometry 60 cm × 60 cm. tomato plants applied with 180: 90: 90 NPK kg ha-1 recorded the highest quality fruits at 2nd (80 DAT), 5th (100 DAT) and 8th harvest (120 DAT). A gradual increase in quality of tomato fruits cv Alankar was observed in terms of quality parameters on 2 nd, 5th and 8th harvests whereas in Abhinav, an initial increase and then decrease in lycopene, carotene and a* value (Colour strength) were found with advance of harvesting.

1. Mueller S., Wamser A.F. and Combinacao (2009) Horticultura Brasileira, 27, 64-69.
2. Srivastava and Srivastava A.K. (2015) Journal of Food Science and Technology, 52, 41-53.
3. AOAC. (1965) Associate of official Agricultural chemists, Official methods of Analysis, AOAC, Washington DC.
4. Brandt S., Lugasi A., Barna E., Hovari J., Pek Z. and Helyes L. (2003) Acta AlimentariaBudapest, 32(3), 269-78.
5. Tijskens L.M.M., Vollebregt H.M., Reti K., Barna E. and Lugasi A. (2003) Acta Horticulturae, 604, 531-37.
6. Fanasca S., Colla G., Maiani G., Venneria E., Rouphael Y., Assini E. and Saccardo F. (2006) Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry, 54, 4319- 325.
7. Granges A., Gilloz J.M., Quentin H. and Ahmed O. (2006) Revue Suisse de Viticulture, Arboriculture, Horticulture, 38(2), 97-103.
8. Aharoni N. (1978) Plant physiology, 61, 658- 62.
9. Basiouny F.M, Basiouny K. and Maloney M. (1994) Journal of Horticultural Science, 69, 535-541.
10. Paz O., Janes H.W., Prevost B.A. and Frenkel C. (1982) Journal of Food Science, 47, 270-73.
11. Kumar M., Meean M.L., Kumar S., Maji S. and Kumar D. (2013) Asian Journal of Horticulture, 8(2), 616-19.
12. Singh A., Jain P.K., Sharma H.L. and Singh Y. (2015) Journal Crop and Weed, 11, 28-33.
13. Bhatnagar D.K. and Pandita M.L. (1979) Haryana Journal of Horticulture Science, 8(1-2), 73-75.
14. Pandita M.L. and Bhatnagar D.K. (1981) Harayana Agriculture University Journal of Research,11(1), 8-11.
15. Raghav M. (2000) Progressive Horticulture, 32, 90-94.
16. Colla G., Battistelli A., Moscatello S., Proietti S. and Saccardo F. (2003) Italus Hortus, 10, 34-42.
17. Qiao H.X, Wang X.D, Zhu A.F. and Gu Z.Z. (2003) Acta Agriculturae Shanghai, 19, 80-82.
18. Davies J.N. (1964) Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 15(10), 665-72.
19. Ganesan M. (2002) Indian Agriculturist, 46, 161-68.
20. Singh A.K. and Parmar A.S. (2004) Progressive Horticulture, 36, 118-21.
21. Karam F.Y. Rouphael R., Lahoud J., Breidi F. and Colla G. (2009) Indian Journal of Agronomy, 8(1), 27-32.
22. Tanaka M. and Komochi S. (1982) Research bulletin of Hokkaido National Agricultural Experimental Station. 35, 83-99.
23. Adpawar R.M., Kale P.B., Kale V.S, Gupta N.S. and Bharad S.G. (2001) Annals of Plant Physiology, 1, 26-31.
24. Kadam J.R. and Sahane J.S. (2002) Journal of Maharashtra Agricultural Universities, 27, 4-6.
25. Suresh V.V. (2000) M.Sc. (Agricultural science) Thesis, University of Agricultural Science, Dharwad (India).
26. Hartz T.K, Miyao E.M., Mullen R.J. and Cahn M.D. (2000) Acta Horticulture, 542(3),127-33.