International Journal of Horticulture 2015, Vol.5, No.14, 1
-
12
2
hybr ids for economic traits under polyhouse
conditions during 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-2011.
An analysis of variance for mean value revealed that
mean squares due to genotypes were significant for
all the traits indicated the presence of variability
in experiment materia l. From the analysis of
22 hybrids during 2008-09 and 11 hybrids during
2009-10, it was found that HS-18, G-600, DEV
and TAI-687 were statistically superior to other hybrids
for almost all the economic traits under study (Table 1
to 4). Thus, all these four hybrids were evaluated for
fruit yield and quality traits during three consecutive
years and results are presented in Table 5.
1.1 Number of fruits per cluster and clusters per
plant
The hybrid HS-18 recorded maximum number of
fruits per cluster (8.50, 8.50 and 8.54) respectively
during 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 followed
by Dev and G-600. Thus, it was observed that the
hybrid HS-18 was superior for number of fruits
per cluster (8.51) over the years followed by Dev
(8.24) and G-600 (8.00). Similarly, TAI-687
(11.67) recorded maximum number of clusters
per plant followed by HS-18 (11.33) and G-600
(10.83) during the three consecutive years. The
tomato crop grown under net house conditions
were produced higher number of fruits per cluster
than in the open field conditions because better
environmenta l conditions helped in better
pollination which leads to more fruit setting a s
revealed by the Gavrish et al. (1998) observed
tha t toma to hybr id ‘Ma lyshock’ produced 5 -7
fruits per inflorescence under plastic green house.
Similarly, experiment conducted regarding raising of
indeterminate hybrids under polyhouse by Singh
(2011) revealed that ‘TAI-687’ had maximum
number of clusters per plant (9.0). Regassa et al.
(2012) observed that numbers of fruit clusters per
plant were maximum in ‘H-1350’, ‘Eshet’, ‘Moneymaker’
and ‘Marglobe’ 13.53, 12.20, 11.60, 11.40, respectively.
1.2 Fruit shape index (P/E)
Fruit shape index is the important trait from market
point of view. Some markets prefer pear shaped, some
prefer oval while some prefer round or flat shaped
fruits. However, Punjab consumers like oval-round to
fla t fruits. According to mean performance of
shortlisted genotypes during 2009-10 and 2010-11,
it was observed that G-600 (0.82) and HS-18 (0.83)
were flat whereas Dev (1.05) and TAI-687 (1.08) were
found round to oval. The polar diameter of the fruits in
all the tomato hybrids studied was smaller than the
equatorial diameter (Viswanathan et al., 1997; Regassa et
al., 2012). Regassa et al. (2012) also reported that
minimum fruit shape index was observed in ‘Marglobe’
and ‘Moneymaker’ (0.79) whiles the rest of varieties
those were used in study. Turhan et al. (2011) also pointed
out that fruit shape index of tomato lay in the range of
1.19 to 1.35. Atherton and Rudich (1986) also revealed
that tomato cultivars differed greatly in fruit shape,
which were spherical, elongated or pear-shaped. Thus,
measurements of longitudinal and cross-sectional diameters
determine their shape.
1.3 Average weight of fruit (g)
Fruit weight is one of the important trait that was
directly linked with yield. The hybrid G-600 was
significantly superior in terms of average fruit weight
than others during 2008-09 (98.00 g), 2009-10 (95.00)
and 2010-11 (97.50 g). However, in pooled analysis, it
was found that G-600 has higher average fruit weight
(96.83 g) followed by Dev (91.19 g), TAI-687 (80.04
g) and HS-18 (77.61 g). Chaudhary et al. (1993)
reported that tomato hybrid ‘Carmello’ had the
maximum average fruit weight (163.33g) under
the Plastic tunnel. Hossain
et al. (2010) reported that
range of single fruit weight was varied from 21.54g to
60.92g. Mohanty and Prusti (2001) were noticed
that genotype ‘ET 35’ large sized fruits (92.67g). AVRDC
(1986); Imai (1987); Zekki et al.
(1996); Gul et al.
(2000);
Shah et al. (2011) reported an average fruit weight of 130 g,
91 g, 157.9 g, 113 or 114 g and 67.60 g.
1.4 Plant height (cm)
During three years of study, the hybrid G-600
recorded maximum (202.83 cm) plant height
followed by Dev, TAI-687 and HS-18. Singh et
al. (2005) revealed that ‘Avinash-2’ attained the
maximum plant height (102.7 cm) under the net
house conditions as compared to other tomato
hybrids, while, Ganesan (2001) revealed that
‘Pusa Ruby’ attained maximum plant height (211
cm) under green- house conditions. This finding
was also in agreement with other researchers
(Haque et al., 1988; Kallo et al., 1998; Manoj
and Ragav, 1998; Hussain et al., 2001; Mohanty
and Prusti, 2001; Khah et al., 2006; Pradeepkumar et al.,
2001; Ahmad et al., 2007; Hossain et al., 2010;
Kaushik et al., 2011; Regassa et al., 2012; Chernet et
