Effect of deficit irrigation on total yield, fruit physical characteristics and nutritional value in four drought tolerant tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) genotypes

Document Type : Original Research

Authors
W. A. Al-Selwey
A. A. Alsadon
A. A. Al-Doss
T. H. Solieman
Y. H. Dewir
A. A. Ibrahim
Department of Plant Production, College of Food and Agriculture Sciences, King Saud University, P. O. Box: 2460, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia.
Abstract
Water deficit is a major factor limiting plant productivity of fruit quantity and quality, particularly in arid and semi-arid regions of the world. The total yield, fruit physical characteristics and nutritional value of four drought tolerant tomato genotypes (KSU-TOM-102, KSU-TOM-106, KSU-TOM-107 and TL–01860) were evaluated in response to deficit irrigation (DI) under field conditions. Three levels of crop evapo-transpiration (ETc; 50%, 75% and 100%) were applied at three different growth stages (vegetative, flowering and fruiting stage) to the four tomato genotypes. Tomato genotypes differed in their responses to water deficit. Among different genotypes, KSU-TOM-102 recorded the highest average total yield (89.54 t.ha-1) under irrigation treatment with 100% of ETc during all stages as well as 75% of ETc during the fruiting stage. But, in general, total yield decreased under water deficit. Significant (P≤0.05) differences in fruits quality characteristics exerted by irrigation water treatments, tomato genotypes and their interactions. Irrigation with water at 50% ETc at all growth stages significantly (P≤0.05) increased vitamin C, titratable acidity, total soluble solids and total sugar contents for tomato ‘KSU-TOM-107’ followed by ‘KSU-TOM-102’. But, this increase in nutritional value was accompanied with decrease in total yields by nearly 40-50%. KSU-TOM-102 irrigated with water at 75% ETc at fruiting stage or vegetative stage recorded 0% and 12% reduction of the total yield, respectively, while maintaining good nutritional value as compared with 100% of ETc during all stages. Therefore, these treatments can be recommended as irrigation management strategy for tomato ‘KSU-TOM-102’ production under field conditions.

Keywords

Subjects

1. Alsadon, A.A. and Wahb-Allah, M.A. 2007. Yield stability for tomato cultivars and their hybrids under arid conditions. Acta Hort., 760: 249-258.
2. Association of Official Agricultural Chemists (AOAC). 2005. Official Methods of Analysis. 20th Edition, Washington, DC, USA.
3. Birhanu, K., and Tilahun, K. 2010. Fruit yield and quality of drip-irrigated tomato under deficit irrigation. African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development, 10: 2139-2151.
4. Black, C. A., Evans, D., White, J., Ensminger, L., and Clark, F. 1965. Methods of Soil Analysis (Vol. 2, No. 2).
5. Bouyoucos, G.J. 1951. A recalibration of the hydrometer method for making mechanical analysis of soils. Agron. J. 43: 435–438.
6. Cantore, V., Lechkar, O., Karabulut, E., Sellami, M. H., Albrizio, R., Boari, F., Stellacci, A. M., and Todorovic, M. 2016. Combined effect of deficit irrigation and strobilurin application on yield, fruit quality and water use efficiency of “cherry” tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Agric. Water Manage., 167: 53-61.
7. Cuartero, J., Fernandez-Munoz, R. 1999. Tomato and salinity. Sci. Hortic., 78: 83–125.
8. Dumas, Y., Dadomo, M., Di Lucca, G., and Grolier, P. 2003. Effects of environmental factors and agricultural techniques on antioxidant content of tomatoes. J. Sci. Food Agric., 83 : 369-382.
9. Favati, F., Lovelli, S., Galgano, F., Miccolis, V., Di Tommaso, T., and Candido, V. 2009. Processing tomato quality as affected by irrigation scheduling. Sci. Hortic., 122: 562-571.
10. Fullana-Pericàs, M., Conesa, M. À., Douthe, C., El Aou-ouad, H., Ribas-Carbó, M. and Galmés, J. 2019. Tomato landraces as a source to minimize yield losses and improve fruit quality under water deficit conditions. Agric. Water Manage., 223: doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2019.105722.
11. Harmanto, V.M., Salokhea, M.S. and Babelb, H.J. 2005. Water requirement of drip irrigated tomatoes grown in greenhouse in tropical environment. Agric. Water Manage. 71: 225-242.
12. Heber, D. and Lu, Q.Y. 2002. Overview of mechanisms of action of lycopene. Exp. Biol. Med., 227: 920-923.
13. Ho, L.C. 1996. Tomato. In: Zemaski, E. and Schaffer, A.A. (Eds.), Photo-assimilate Distribution in Plants and Crops: Source–Sink Relationships. Marcel Dekker, NY, USA. Pp.709-728.
14. Javanmardi, J., and Kubota, C. 2006. Variation of lycopene, antioxidant activity, total soluble solids and weight loss of tomato during postharvest storage. Postharvest Boil. Technol., 41: 151-155.
15. Jones, J.B. Jr. 2008 Tomato Plant Culture in the Field, Greenhouse, and Home Garden. 2nd Edition, CRC Press. New York. pp.399
16. Kenneth, O., George, N., Jane, A., and Willis, O. 2017. Effect of Water Stress on Yield and Physiological Traits among Selected African Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) Landraces. Int. J. Agron. Agri. Res. 10: 78-85.
17. Khapte, P.S., Kumar, P., Burman, U. and Kumar, P. 2019. Deficit irrigation in tomato: Agronomical and physio-biochemical implications. Sci. Hortic., 248: 256-264.
18. Kumar, P. S., Singh, Y., Nangare, D., Bhagat, K., Kumar, M., Taware, P., Kumari, A., and Minhas, P. 2015. Influence of Growth Stage Specific Water Stress on the Yield, Physico-chemical Quality and Functional Characteristics of Tomato Grown in Shallow Basaltic Soils. Sci. Hortic., 197: 261-271.
19. Kuşçu, H., Turhan, A. and Demir A.O. 2014. The response of processing tomato to deficit irrigation at various phenological stages in a sub-humid environment. Agric. Water Manage., 133:92–103.
20. Nahar, K., and Ullah, S. 2012. Morphological and Physiological Characters of Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) Cultivars under Water Stress. Bangladesh J. Agric. Res., 37: 355-360.
21. Nangare, D., Singh, Y., Kumar, P. S., and Minhas, P. 2016. Growth, Fruit yield and Quality of Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) as affected by Deficit Irrigation Regulated on Phenological Basis. Agric. Water Manage., 171: 73-79.
22. Okunlola, G. O., Adelusi, A. A., Olowolaju, E. D., Oseni, O. M., and Akingboye, G. L. 2015. Effect of water stress on the growth and some yield parameters of Solanum lycopersicum L. International Journal of Biological and Chemical Sciences, 9: 1755-1761.
23. Patanè, C. S. and Cosentino, L. 2010. Effects of Soil Water Deficit on Yield and Quality of Processing Tomato under a Mediterranean Climate. Agric. Water Manage., 97:131-138.
24. Patanè, C., Tringali, S. and Sortino, O. 2011. Effects of deficit irrigation on biomass, yield, water productivity and fruit quality of processing tomato under semi-arid Mediterranean climate conditions. Sci. Hortic., 129: 590 - 596.
25. Raiola, A., Rigano, M. M., Calafiore, R., Frusciante, L., and Barone, A. 2014. Enhancing the health-promoting effects of tomato fruit for biofortified food. Mediators of inflammation.Article. ID 139873.
26. Shamim F., Farooq, K. and Waheed, A. 2014. Effect of different water regimes on biometric traits of some tolerant and sensitive tomato genotypes. J. Anim. Plant Sci., 24: 1178-1182.
27. Shao, G.C., Deng, S., Liu, N., Wang, M.H. and She, D.L. 2015. Fruit quality and yield of tomato as influenced by rain shelters and deficit irrigation. J. Agr. Sci. Tech. 17: 691-704.
28. Shewfelt, R., 1999. What is quality? Postharvest Biol. Technol., 15: 197–200.
29. Steinmetz, K.A., Potter, J.D., 1996. Vegetables, Fruit and Cancer Prevention: A review. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 96: 1027–1039.
30. Sibomana, I. C., Aguyoh, J.N. and Opiyo, A.M. 2013. Water Stress Affects Growth and Yield of Container Grown Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill) Plants. G.J.B.B. 4: 461-466.
31. Sivakumar, R. 2014. Effect of drought on plant water status, gas exchange and yield parameters in contrasting genotypes of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum). Am Int J Res Form Appl Nat Sci, 8: 57- 62.
32. Sivakumar, R., and Srividhya, S. 2016. Impact of drought on flowering, yield and quality parameters in diverse genotypes of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Adv. Hortic. Sci, 30: 3-11.
33. Steel, R. and Torrie, J. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach. MacGraw-Hill, New York.
34. Vilas Boas, A., Page, D., Giovinazzo, R., Bertin, N. and Fanciullino, A.L. 2019. Tomato fruit quality and processing ability are impacted by irrigation regime as well as genotype and maturity stage. Acta Hortic. 1233: 89-96
35. Wahb-Allah, M. A., Alsadon, A. A. and Ibrahim, A. A. 2011. Drought tolerance of several tomato genotypes under greenhouse conditions. World Appl. Sci. J. 15: 933-940.
36. Yuan, L., W. Niu, M. Dyck, W. Jingwei, and X. Zou 2016. Yields and Nutritional of greenhouse tomato in response to different soil aeration volume at two depths of subsurface drip irrigation. Sci. Rep., 6: 39307.
37. Zegbe-Domınguez, J., Behboudian, M., Lang, A., and Clothier, B. 2003. Deficit irrigation and partial rootzone drying maintain fruit dry mass and enhance fruit quality in ‘Petopride’ processing tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum, Mill.). Sci. Hortic., 98: 505-510.
38. Zegbe, J.A., Behboudian, M.H., Clothier, B.E. 2006. Responses of ‘petopride’ processing tomato to partial rootzone drying at different phonological stages. Irrig. Sci. 24: 203-210.
39. Zhang, H., Xiong, Y., Huang, G., Xu, X., and Huang, Q. 2017. Effects of water stress on processing tomatoes yield, quality and water use efficiency with plastic mulched drip irrigation in sandy soil of the Hetao Irrigation District. Agric. Water Manage., 179: 205-214.
Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology
Volume 23, Issue 5
September and October 2021
Pages 1105-1118