Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
“EFFECT OF FOLIAR APPLICATION OF
MICRONUTRIENTS ON GROWTH AND YIELD OF TOMATO
(Solanum lycopersicum L.) cv. ARKA RAKSHAK”
M. Sc. (Horti.) Thesis
by
PRAKASH CHANDRA SHUKLA
DEPARTMENT OF VEGETABLE SCIENCE
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE
FACULTY OF HORTICULTURE
INDIRA GANDHI KRISHI VISHWAVIDYALAYA
RAIPUR (Chhattisgarh)
2017
“EFFECT OF FOLIAR APPLICATION OF
MICRONUTRIENTS ON GROWTH AND YIELD OF TOMATO
(Solanum lycopersicum L.) cv. ARKA RAKSHAK”
Thesis
Submitted to the
Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur
by
PRAKASH CHANDRA SHUKLA
IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF
Master of Science
in
Horticulture
(Vegetable Science)
U. E. Id. 20151622622 ID No.120115208
JULY, 2017
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
“…. the beauty of the destination is half veiled and the fragrance of the
success half dull until the traces of all those enlightening the path are left to fly
with the wind spreading word of thankfulness….”.
With a sense of high resolve and reverence my sincere and deep sense of
gratitude to adorable Dr. Amit Dixit, Scientist, Department of Vegetable Science
College of Agriculture, Raipur (C.G.), Chairman Advisory Committee, for his
inspiring guidance, constructive criticism and timely advisement during the entire
course of investigation and preparation of manuscript. His scientific approach and
generosity guided me in right direction and it has been my privilege to work under
his supervision, knowledge and enthusiastic interest, which he provided me
throughout my post graduation and research investigation despite his busy
schedule of work.
I have immense pleasure in expressing my whole hearted sense of
appreciation for the other members of my Advisory Committee, Dr. Dhananjay
Sharma, Scientist,, Department of Vegetable Science, Dr. Dr. Sanjay k. Dwivedi,
Scientist, Department of Agronomy and Dr. R.R. Saxena, Professor, Department
of Mathematics, Statistics and Social Science (Language) for their co-operation,
valuable suggestions and healthy criticism towards completion of my thesis work.
My sincere most thanks to Dr. Jitendra Singh, Professor and Head,
Department of Vegetable Science, IGKV, Raipur who through his intelligent
decisions made the work gorgeous. He is really worthy of reverence for his
blessings, stead inspiration, expert guidance.
I wish to record my sincere thanks to Dr. S. K. Patil, Hon’ble Vice-
Chancellor, Dr. S. S. Shaw, Director of Instructions, Dr. M. P. Thakur, Director
Extension Services, Dr. G. K. Srivastava, Dean Student Welfare, IGKV, Raipur
and Dr. Madhav Pandey Librarian, College of Agriculture, Raipur, for providing
necessary facilities, technical and administrative supports for to conductance of
this research work.
I feel honored to express my deep sense of gratitude to Dr. D.A. Sarnaik,
Dr. Pravin Sharma, Dr. Jitendra Trivedi, Dr. G.L. Sharma, Smita Mam, Vandana
Mam and other technical and non-technical staff members of the Department of
Vegetable Science, IGKV, Raipur for their help, affectionate encouragement and
useful suggestions during the tenure of this investigation.
I would like to thanks to the unrelenting support of non technical staff of my
department Shri K.K. Chari, Shri Raviprakash, Shri Tilak Ram, Anuradha mam,
sapna mam, komal bhaiya, Chetan bhaiya, for their help during this piece of work
and also thanks to Vijay bhaiya, Gaya bhaiya, Ganga bhaiya for indefatigable
cooperation at the time of field work.
Heartful special thanks to my batchmates Pawan Sahu, Ramesh markam,
Prakash Shukla, Sanjay, Bhupendra, Arvind, Indu, Kalpana, Seema, Versha,
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I
TABLE OF CONTENTS Iii
LIST OF TABLES V
LIST OF FIGURES Vi
LIST OF PLATES Vi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Vii
ABSTRACT Viii
Chapters Particulars Page
I INTRODUCTION 1
II REVIEW OF LITERATURE 4
2.1 Growth traits 4
2.2 Yield and yield attributing traits 6
2.3 Quality traits 10
III MATERIALS AND METHODS 13
3.1 Geographical situation 13
3.2 Climatic condition 13
3.3 Experimental site
3.4 Physio-chemical properties of soils 15
3.5 Details of experiments 16
3.5.1. Experimental material 16
3.5.2.Details of treatments 17
3.5.3. Raising of crop nursery 17
3.5.4.Field operation 17
3.5.5.Fertilizer application 18
3.5.6.Irrigation 18
3.5.7.Intercultural operations and plant protection 18
3.5.8.Staking 18
3.5.9.Harvesting 18
3.7 Observation recorded 20
3.7.1.Plant height 20
3.7.2.Stem girth 20
3.7.3.Days to first flowering 20
3.7.4.Day to first fruiting 21
3.7.5.Days to maturity 21
3.7.6.Number of fruits per plant 21
3.7.7.Fruit length (cm) 21
3.7.8.Fruit diameter 21
3.7.9.Fruit weight (kg) 21
3.7.10.Yield per plant (kg) and per hectare 21
3.7.11.Shelf life 21
3.7.12. Total soluble solid (%) 21
iii
3.7.13. Acidity (%) 22
3.7.14. Sugar (%) 22
A. Reducing sugar (%) 23
B. Total sugar (%) 23
C. Non-reducing sugar (%) 23
3.7.15. Ascorbic acid (mg) 24
3.8 Statistical and Biometrical analysis 25
3.8.1 Analysis of variance (ANOVA) 25
IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 26
4.1 Analysis of variance 26
4.2 Growth traits 26
4.2.1.Plant height 26
4.2.2.Stem girth 27
4.2.3.Days to first flowering 27
4.2.4.Day to first fruiting 28
4.4.5.Days to maturity 28
4.3 Yield and yield attributing traits 32
4.3.1.Number of fruits per plant 32
4.3.2.Fruit length (cm) 32
4.3.3.Fruit diameter 33
4.3.4.Fruit weight (kg) 33
4.3.5.Yield per plant (kg) and per hectare 34
4.4 Quality Trait 38
4.4.1.Shelf life 38
4.4.2.Total soluble solid (%) 38
4.4.3. Acidity (%) 39
4.4.4. Reducing sugar (%) 39
4.4.5. Non-reducing sugar (%) 40
4.4.6. Total sugar (%) 40
4.4.7.Ascorbic acid (mg) 40
4.5 Economics 45
V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 48
REFERENCES 51
APPENDICES 57
Appendix I 57
Appendix II 59
Appendix III 59
VITA 60
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Page
3.1 Physico-chemical properties of the soil 15
3.2 Details of the treatment 17
4.1 Mean performance of growth traits of tomato 29
4.2 Mean performance of yield and yield attributing traits of tomato 35
4.3 Mean performance of quality traits of tomato 42
4.4 Economics of different treatment 46
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title Page
3.1 Weekly meteorological parameters during crop growth period 2016-17 14
4.1 Effect of foliar application of micronutrients on plant height (cm) 30
4.2 Effect of foliar application of micronutrients on stem girth (cm) 30
4.3 Effect of foliar application of micronutrients on days to first flowering 30
4.4 Effect of foliar application of micronutrients on days to first fruiting 31
4.5 Effect of foliar application of micronutrients on days to maturity 31
4.6 Effect of foliar application of micronutrients on no. of fruits per plant 36
4.7 Effect of foliar application of micronutrients on fruit length (cm) 36
4.8 Effect of foliar application of micronutrients on fruit diameter (cm) 36
4.9 Effect of foliar application of micronutrients on fruit weight (gm) 37
4.10 Effect of foliar application of micronutrients on yield per plant (kg) 37
4.11 Effect of foliar application of micronutrients on yield per ha (q) 37
4.12 Effect of foliar application of micronutrients on shelf life (days) 43
4.13 Effect of foliar application of micronutrients on total soluble solid (%) 43
4.14 Effect of foliar application of micronutrients on acidity (%) 43
4.15 Effect of foliar application of micronutrients on reducing, non-
reducing and total sugar (%)
44
4.16 Effect of foliar application of micronutrients on ascorbic acid
(mg/100g)
44
v
LIST OF PLATES
Plate Title Page
I Transplanting of tomato seedling 19
II Tomato fruit cluster cv. Arka Rakshak 47
III Treatment wise tomato fruits 47
vi
ii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
% Per cent oC Degree Celsius
CD Critical Difference cm Centimeter
CV Coefficient of variation
SEm Standard error of mean
DAS Days after sowing
DAT Days after transplanting df Degree of freedom et al. and co-workers/ and others Fig. Figure FYM Farm yard manures g Gram GA Genetic advance GCV Genotypic coefficient of variation ha Hectare
h2
(b) Heritability in broad sense hrs Hours i.e. That is Kg Kilogram m
2 Square meter
MSS Mean sum of square No. Number NPK Nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium NS Non significant PCV Phenotypic coefficient of variation q Quintal q/ha Quintal per hectare
T Tonnes var. Variety via. Through viz. For example
vii
ix
recorded in T5. In quality traits also this treatment (T5) exhibited more shelf life (16.63 days),
maximum T.S.S (5.25 %), acidity (0.42 %), reducing (1.68 %), non-reducing (2.00 %), total
sugar (3.63 %) and ascorbic acid content (19.94 mg). This treatment had maximum net return
(Rs 138528/ha) and B:C Ratio 3.08 : 1 out all other treatments than over control.
% % %
% %
xi
CHAPER-I
INTRODUCTION
Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) is one of the most important solanaceous
vegetable crop grown throughout the world because of its wider adaptability, high yielding
potential and suitability for variety of uses in fresh as well as processed food industries. It is a
tropical day neutral plant and it is mainly self-pollinated, but a certain percentage of cross-
pollination also occurs. The crop is native to Central and South America (Vavilov, 1951). In
world, it ranks second in importance after potato, but tops the list of processed vegetables
(Chaudhary, 1996). It is also a very good source of income for small and marginal farmers
and also contributes to the nutrition of the consumer (Singh et al., 2010).
Tomato being a moderate nutritional crop is considered as an important source of
Vitamin A, C and minerals which are important ingredients for table purpose, sambar
preparation, chutney, pickles, ketchup, soup, juice, pure etc. (Sekhar et al., 2010). The fruits
are eaten either raw or cooked. It is used directly as raw vegetable in the sandwiches, juice,
soup, salad etc (Joshi and Kohli, 2006). Fresh fruit of tomato are in great demand round the
year throught the country. These are the good source of potassium, folate and vitamin E,
soluble and insoluble dietary fibers. Tomatoes are major contributors of antioxidants such as
carotenoids (especially, lycopene and β-carotene), phenolics, ascorbic acid (vitamin C) and
small amounts of vitamin E in daily diets (Rai et al., 2012). Tomato is an important
protective food. In terms of human diet, it is a major component of daily meals in many
countries and constitutes an excellent source of health providing compounds due to balanced
mixture of minerals and antioxidants including vitamin C and total carotenoids (Shankar et
al., 2012).
It is being realized that the productivity of crop is being affected in different areas due
to deficiencies of micronutrients observed primarily due to intensive cropping and
imbalanced fertilization (Bose and Tripathi, 1996). Micronutrients are vital to the growth of
plants, acting as catalyst in promoting various organic reactions taking place within the plant.
Tomato being a heavy feeder and exhaustive crop removes substantial amount of
micronutrients from soil. To maintain sustainability in its production and nutritive value, it is
becoming essential to replenish the depleting reserve of the micronutrients in the soil or apply
it through foliar spray to meet the immediate need of the crop. In the present study, an
1
2
attempt has been made to study the effect of foliar applied micronutrients on the nutrient
accumulation in tomato fruits and shoot.
The growth of plants and fertility of soil were affected by the presence of some useful
elements known as micronutrients. The concentration of nutrients in plant tissues can be
measured in plant extract obtained from fresh plant material, (i.e., tissue analysis), as well as
in whole dried plant material. Total plant analysis4 is quantitative in nature and is more
reliable and useful. These micronutrient are analyzed by atomic absorption spectroscopy5,6.
Atomic absorption is the best technique for determination of the presence and concentrations
of metals in liquid samples, Metals include Fe7, 8, Cu, Mn, Zn and many more. Typical
concentrations range in the low mg/L (ppm) range. Iron (Fe) - is necessary for the growth of
plants, formation of chlorophyll used as micronutrient. The role of Iron in plant metabolism
to reversible Fe3+/Fe2+ oxidation state. Chloroplast, mitochondrial and peroxisomes are
associated with Fe in redox type reactions. It also found in plants in the formation of levulinic
amino acid which play an important role as precursor in chlorophyll synthesis. Iron
deficiency causes no. of disease in several parts of plants. Manganese (Mn) – Mn activates
some important enzymes involved in chlorophyll formation Mn is partially dependent on soil
pH. The deficiency of Mn in soil inhibits growth of plants. Copper (Cu) - It is a component of
some enzymes and vitamin A. Zinc (Zn) participate in chlorophyll formation, and also
activates many enzymes.
In India, tomato is grown on an area of 0.79 million hectare with an annual production
of 17.39 million tonnes (Anon., 2015). In Chhattisgarh, tomato is being cultivated in area of
52.89 thousand ha and production of 868.60 thousand tonnes with a productivity of 15.89
tonne/ha (Anon., 2015).
Tomato is a high yielding crop, for a good stand and yield of tomato, a rich and fertile
soil is necessary. Although in recent times balanced nutrition to the crop plants is being
advocated through the use of organic manures, but that may be helpful only for low yield
levels. For harnessing the higher yield potential, supplementation of micronutrients is
essential. Amongst the vegetables, tomato is very responsible to the application of
micronutrients. The micronutrients improve the chemical composition of fruits and general
condition of plants and are known to acts as catalyst in promoting organic reaction taking
place in plants (Ranganathan and Perumal, 1995).
3
Applications of micro- nutrients i.e. zinc and boron have been reported in increasing
growth and fruit yield in tomato (Naga et al., 2013). However no information is available as
regards to the effect of other micronutrients on vegetative, reproductive and quality
parameters of tomato. Similarly calcium also play important role in tomato production, and
deficiency of this element usually occur due to undersupply, thus decreasing in growth, yield,
and quality of tomato. Therefore under present investigation with micronutrients, calcium
effect also studied.
Therefore, the present investigation entitled “Effect of foliar application of
micronutrients growth and yield of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) cv. Arka
Rakshak” will be undertaken with the following:
Objectives:-
1. To study the effect of different micronutrients on growth parameters of tomato under
field condition.
2. To study the effect of different micronutrients on fruit yield and yield attributing
traits.
3. To study the effect of different micronutrients on fruit quality traits in tomato.
CHAPTER-II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
This chapter deals with the past research work carried out in India and abroad related
to present experiment entitled “Effect of foliar application of micronutrients growth and
yield of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) cv. Arka Rakshak” The literatures on above
aspects have been compiled and presented under following headings:
2.1. Growth Traits
2.2. Yield and yield attributing traits
3.3. Quality traits:
2.1. Growth Traits
Jana and Jahangir Kabir (1987) reported that individual foliar spray of boron,
molybdenum, iron, zinc, manganese and magnesium each at 0.2% concentration increased
the plant height 56.8, 56.3, 52.1, 57.5, 54.8 and 45.7 cm, respectively compared to the same
elements applied at 0.1% concentration and also reported combined foliar spray of B + Cu +
Mo + Fe + Zn + Mn + Mg at 0.1% concentration obtained maximum height of 61.0 cm in
French bean.
Dod et al. (1989) reported that foliar application of 0.2% ZnSO4 0.2% MnSO4, 0.2%
CuSO4 and NAA at 50 or 100 ppm, 2,4,5-T at 50 or 100 ppm to capsicum cultivar Jwala
once at full bloom stage and again after 21 days. They found maximum increase in plant
height and width compared to the control.
Padma et al. (1989) reported foliar spray Mn at 75 ppm or 150 ppm and boron at 2.5
or 5.0 ppm on the French bean cultivar ‘Arka komal’, 20 days after sowing and again 40 days
after sowing. They found maximum in plant height (35.0 cm) with spray of 75 ppm Mo and
2.5 ppm B treatment.
Hussani et al. (1989) reported in chilli, foliar spray of Zn, B, iron, individually at
0.1% increased plant height 56 cm, 62 cm and 60 cm, respectively. Combined foliar spray of
zinc, boron and iron at 0.1% each increases plant height (62 cm) compared to the control.
Deka and Shadeque (1991) reported maximum plant height in French bean cv. Pusa
Parvathy with combined foliar spray of B + Mo + Zn at 0.1% concentration.
Baloch et al. (2008) studied the effect of commercial foliar fertilizer HiGrow, whcih
is a composition of various macro and micronutrients was applied on chilies at the
concentrations 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 ml/L water in addition to soil applied NPK fertilizers at 50-50-
4
5
25 kg ha-1 to investigate their associative effect on production of green chilies. HiGrow at 8
ml/L water resulted 68 cm plant height, 6.93 branches plant-1, HiGrow at 6 ml/L water
formed 66.46 cm plant height, 5.80 branches plant-1. Similarly, the reduced HiGrow
concentration to 5 ml/L and 4 ml/L water caused significant negative effect on all the growth
components of chilies. However, the control plots produced 63.46 cm plant height, 4.20
branches plant-1 which were significantly lesser than foliar fed plots. There was a
consecutive improvement in growth and yield components of chilies with increase in HiGrow
concentration, but such increase beyond 7 ml/L water was not so pronounced and hence 7
ml/L water was considered to be an optimum HiGrow concentration for commercial
production of chilies.
Sathya et al. (2010) studied the effect of foliar application of boron on growth, quality
and fruit yield of PKM 1 tomato. The results revealed that out of twelve different treatments,
the application of boric acid @ 0.25% resulted in maximum plant height and maximum
number of branches.
Singh and Tiwari (2013) studied the impact of micronutrient spray on growth, yield
and quality of tomato. There were a total of 11 treatments viz.T0-Control, T1-Boric acid
@100 ppm, T2-Boric acid @ 250 ppm, T3-Zinc sulphate @100 ppm,T4-Zinc sulphate @ 250
ppm, T5-Copper sulphate @ 100 ppm, T6-Copper sulphate @ 250 ppm,T7-Boric acid + Zinc
sulphate + Copper sulphate @100 ppm each, T8-Boric acid + Zinc sulphate +Copper sulphate
@ 250 ppm each, T9-Commercial formulation (Multi plex) @100 ppm and T10-Commercial
formulation (Multiplex) @ 250 ppm. The observations revealed that the maximum plant
height (80.40 cm) was recorded in treatment T8 (80.40 cm) followed by T7 (77.20 cm) and
T6 (77.07 cm) whereas, the minimum plant height (66.60 cm) was recorded in treatment T0
(control) followed by T3 (72.07 cm). Combined application of micro- nutrient increased the
plant height which might be due to the fact that zinc may serve as source of energy for
synthesis of auxin, which helps in elongation of stem.
Naga et al. (2013) investigated the influence of micronutrients application on growth
and seed yield in tomato (lycopersicon esculentum mill.) in two varieties of tomato viz Utkal
Kumari and Utkal Raja. The treatments consisted of boron, zinc, molybdenum, copper, iron,
manganese, mixture of all and control and the experiment was laid our in RBD with three
replications. All the treatments resulted in improvement of plant growth characteristics viz.
plant height, number of primary branches, compound leaves, tender and mature fruits per
plant. Out of which application of micronutrients mixture showed the maximum effect. In
6
tomato cv. Utkal Kumari, maximum growth rate (85.7 %) was observed with application of
zinc, followed by application of micronutrients mixture (78.2 %) and boron (77.5 %). Tomato
cv. Utkal Raja, maximum increase in branches per plant was observed with the application of
manganese (148.7 %) followed by micronutrient combination (144.1 %).
Kazemi (2013) evaluated the effects of the foliar application of zinc (50 and 100
mg/L) and iron (100 and 200 mg/L) and their combination on vegetative, reproductive
growth, fruit quality and yield of tomato plants as a laid out in completely randomized block
design with four replications. The results showed that high Zn (100 mg/L) and Fe (200 mg/L)
and their combination significantly promoted vegetative and reproductive growth. Foliar
application of Zn (100 mg/L) + Fe (200 mg/L) resulted in the maximum plant height (124.14
cm), branches per plant (8.36), flowers per cluster (18.14), fruits per cluster (8), thus it was
recommended to apply foliar application of Zn and Fe in order to improve growth, flower
yield, quality and chemical constituents in tomato plants.
Ali et al. (2015) studied the effect of foliar application of zinc and boron [T0: control;
T1: 25-ppm ZnSO4 (Zinc Sulphate); T2: 25-ppm H3BO3 (Boric Acid) and T3: 12.5-ppm
ZnSO4 + 12.5-ppm H3BO3] in tomato. Maximum plant height (106.9 cm), number of leaves
(68.9/plant), leaf area (48.2 cm2), number of branches (11.9/plant), number of clusters
(21.6/plant), were found from foliar application of 12.5-ppm ZnSO4 + 12.5-ppm H3BO3
while minimum from control. Early flowering (49.3 days) were also found from foliar
application of 12.5-ppm ZnSO4 + 12.5-ppm H3BO3.Combined foliar application of zinc and
boron was more effective than the individual application of zinc or boron on growth and yield
for summer season tomato (BARI hybrid tomato 4).
2.2. Yield and yield attributing traits
Raj et al. (2001) observed highest yield (37.7 t ha-1) in brinjal bysoil application of
12.5 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 along with 3 sprays of 0.2% ZnSO4 and 0.5% FeSO4 thrice at weekly
intervals at later stages recorded significantly highest fruit yield with 23.6 per cent increase
over control.
Paithankar et al. (2004) reported in tomato highest number of fruits (25.13) by
spaying mixture of 0.1% boron and 3% DAP followed by less number of fruits (19.67%) in
0.2% borax and 3% DAP sprayed plants, compared to the control (17.40). He also reported
more number of healthy fruits (18.13) in 0.1% borax and 3% DAP sprayed plants, compared
to the control sprayed with water only (8.53).
7
Lalit Bhatt and Srivastava (2005) studied the response of foliar application of
micronutrients, viz boron, zinc, molybdenum, copper, iron, manganese, mixture of all and
multiplex, on physical characteristics and quality attributes of tomato fruits. The application
of mixture of micronutrients resulted in maximum fruit density (1.10 g/cc) and average fruit
weight (49.83 g)
Basavarajeshwari et al. (2006) studied the effect of foliar application of
micronutrients on growth and yield of tomato (Megha) during 2005-06 and 2006-07. The
results based on two years mean revealed that out of nine different treatments, the application
of boric acid @ of 100 ppm resulted in maximum number yield per plant (2.07 kg) and fruit
yield (30.50 t/ha). Followed by best treatment was the mixture of micronutrients (Bo, Zn, Mn
and Fe@ 100ppm and Mo@ 50ppm) recording fruit yield of 27.98 t/ha and differed
significantly from the control as well as other treatments.
Singh et al. (2010) conducted an experiment during summer seasons of 2006 and
2007 at Bhaktigarhi, district Firozabad, U.P. with three zinc levels (0, 30 and 60 ppm), three
boron levels (0, 30 and 60 (ppm) and three Molybdenum levels (0, 30 and 60 ppm) with the
objective to see the effect on yield and economics of okra (Abelmoschus esculentus L.
Moench). Application of zinc, boron and molybdenum improved growth, yield attributes and
yield. The application of zinc, boron and molybdenum (60 ppm), individually increased
significantly green pod yield of 93.70, 88.35 and 86.57 q/ha followed by 30 ppm and control.
Smitha et al. (2008) studied the effect of foliar application of micronutrients on
growth and yield of tomato (Megha at the All India Co- Ordinated Vegetable Improvement
Project (AICVIP) in the University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad. The results based on
two years mean revealed that out of nine different treatments, the application of boric acid @
of 100ppm resulted in maximum yield per plant (2.07kg) and fruit yield (30.50 t/ha).
Followed by best treatment was the mixture of micronutrients (Bo, Zn, Mn and Fe@ 100ppm
and Mo@ 50ppm) recording fruit yield of 27.98 t/ha and differed significantly from the
control as well as other treatments. The maximum benefit ratio of 1.80 was obtained with
application of boron recording Rs 97,850 /ha of net returns followed by mixture of
micronutrients (1.74) recording Rs 88,900 /ha net returns compared to control (1.40) which
recorded minimum net returns of Rs 53,250 /ha.
Patel et al. (2011) conducted experiment to study the effect of zinc and iron on yield
and yield attributes of rainfed cowpea (Vigna unguculata L. Walp) at Sardarkrushinagar on
8
loamy sand soil. The results revealed that the application of ZnSO4@ 25 kg ha-1 through soil
proved to be most effective and increased the yield by 43.0% when compared with control
followed by the spraying of 0.5% ZnSO4 at 25 and 45 DAS. The increase in yield was due to
increase in number of pods per plant, 100-seed weight and number of branches per plant. The
highest net return (Rs. 13,114 ha-1) and benefit cost ratio (1.97) were obtained with soil
application of ZnSO4 @ 25 kg ha-1.250 ppm each respectively.
Swati Barche et al. (2011) conducted an experiment to study the response of foliar
application of micronutrients on tomato variety Rashmi and reported that the maximum fruit
yield (1.18 kg/ plant and 375.94 q/ha) was obtained with application of BA + ZnSO4 +
CuSO4).
Salehin and Rahman (2012) studied the effects of zinc spray (0 and 1 g/L) and
nitrogen fertilizer (0, 25, 50 and 75 kg/ha pure nitrogen) on yield and yield components of
Phaseolus vulgaris. In maturity time, seed yield, 100 seed weight, number of pods per plant,
number of seeds per pod and plant height were measured. Results showed that, use of zinc
spray had a significant effect in 1% probability level on all measured traits. Also, the effect of
nitrogen on all studied traits was significant in 1% probability level The highest seed yield
was obtained by zinc spray application with 1996 kg/ha.
Ali et al. (2013) studied the possible effect of some macro and micro nutrients with
different concentration levels as a foliar application on the vegetative growth, flowering, and
yield of tomato cv ‘Roma’. Although all the treatments showed a positive effect on growth,
flowering, and yield but, T5 and T3 revealed most significant influence on all parameters
under study as compared to T1 (control). Therefore, foliar application is an appropriate way
to feed the tomato crop to enhance the growth, flowering and marketable yield.
Devi et al. (2013) conducted an experiment on chilli under randomized block design (RBD)
with three replications having ten treatments viz., Zinc sulphate (0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75%), boric
acid (0.2%, 0.4%, 0.6%), Copper sulphate (0.1%, 0.2%, 0.4%) and control (water). The
result showed that treatment T6 was found best for most of the characters viz. number of
fruits per plant (194.7), fruit weight per plant (481.3 g), fruit diameter (1.2 cm), fresh weight
of 10 fruits (43.2 g), yield per plot (8.67 kg/plot), and yield per hectare (192.53q/ha).
Treatment T3 (zinc sulphate @ 0.75%) was found highest for the character fruit length
(9.5cm).
9
Saravaiya et al. (2014) conducted an experiment to study the effect of foliar
application of micronutrients in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) cv. Gujarat Tomato-
2. The result clearly showed that the yield obtained with treatment T7 (NPK+mixture of all
nutrients) had significantly maximum fresh weight of plants (25.65 t ha-1), number of fruits
plant-1 (34.26), fruit length (5.52 cm), fruit diameter (4.64 cm), fruit volume (67.53 cm3),
single fruit weight (49.20 g), fruit weight per plant (1.68 kg fruit yield ha-1 (46.78 t) and
marketable fruit yield ha-1 (45.62 t). This treatment had maximum net return (1, 66,757 Rs./
ha) and B:C Ratio 2.72 : 1 out all other treatments than over control.
Houimli et al. (2015) conducted an experiment to explore the role of foliar iron
application as a supplement for obtaining higher yield of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum
L.). Five concentrations (treatments) of iron i.e. 0, 500, 1000, 1500 and 2000 mg.l-1 FeSO4
were applied exogenously after 40 days after transplantation by hand sprayer. Exposure of
tomato to iron foliar application increased the physiological and yield parameters. fruit
number, fruit size, fruit weight and yield were significantly increased as compared to plants
grown under iron-free environment. Similarly, Foliar spray of 500 and 1000 mg.l-1FeSO4
solutions was found to be most effective for enhancing physiological and yield parameters.
Further increase in the concentrations of FeSO4 spray was not found to be useful as it
declined the yield or even more probably due to its toxicity.
Tawab et al. (2015) assessed the effect of different degrees of zinc to brinjal cultivars,
at Horticulture Research Nursery, The University of Agriculture Peshawar during 2012. Four
levels of zinc (0, 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3%) were applied to brinjal. Zinc levels proved significantly
different among growth parameters. Numbers of fruits per plant, fruit weight and total yield
were significantly increased by zinc levels. Maximum plant height (131.89 cm), number of
leaves per plant (437.78), number of fruits per plant (9.00), fruit weight (280.11 g) and total
yield (15.33 t/ha) were recorded for plants treated with 0.2% zinc, while least number of
leaves per plant (231.33), number of fruits per plant (5.33), fruit weight (143.89 g) and total
yield (4.51 t/ha) were recorded in control treatments.
Kumar et al. (2016) studied the effect of micronutrients and bio-fertilizers on yield
and yield attributes of tomato. The experiment was laid out in randomized block design with
eleven treatments including control and replicated three times and results were showed in
pooled basis. Result showed that maximum fruit diameter, fruit length, fruit weight and
number of fruits per plant were observed for T7 (Mixture of all) amongst treatments of
10
micronutrients. T7 (Mixture of all) recorded the highest yield per plant and yield q/ha
followed by T6 (Manganese sulphate (Mn) @ 100 ppm as foliar spray) and T5 (Ferrous
sulphate (Fe) @ 100 ppm as foliar spray).
3.3. Quality traits:
Verma et al. (1995) found maximum titratable acidity (1.20 and 1.05%) in tomato
fruits by soil application zinc at 10 kg ha-1 followed by 5 kg Zn ha-1 and also observed
maximum titratable acidity (1.16 and 1.08%) by soil application of boron @ 2.0 kg ha-1 in
two year trial of experiment.
Dube et al. (2003) obtained quality of tomato fruits containing highest tritratable
acidity 0.82 percent when Zn applied to soil 5.0 mg/kg, which is closely followed by
application 10 mg of Zn per kg of soil (0.70%) while it was (0.34%) in control.
Paithankar et al. (2004) obtained best quality tomato cv. Pusa Ruby fruits having
maximum total soluble solids (4.45oB) by foliar spray borax of 0.3% and DAP 3%.
Sinha et al. (2006) concluded that boron stress in tomato deteriorated the quality of
fruit in tomato. In low and excess boron, the concentration of reducing, non-reducing and
total sugars and phenols were high in fruit. The concentration of starch, ascorbic acid and
lycopene content in fruits decreased in low boron and that of ascorbic acid increased in
certain level of boron and then deteriorates the quality.
Salam et al. (2010) investigated the effects of boron and zinc in presence of different
levels of NPK fertilizers on quality of tomato. The highest pulp weight (88.14%), dry matter
content (5.34%), TSS (4.50%), acidity (0.47%), ascorbic acid (10.95 mg/100g), marketable
fruits at 30 days after storage (67.48%) and shelf life (16 days) were recorded with the
combination of 2.5 kg B+ 6 kg Zn/ha and recommended dose of NPK fertilizers (N= 253, P=
90, and K= 125 kg/ha).
Kumari (2012) conducted an experiment to assess the effects of micronutrients viz
boron, zinc, molybdenum, copper, iron, manganese, mixture of all and multiplex through
foliar application on quality of fruit and seed in tomato. Three sprays of each at 100 ppm
were applied at 10 days interval starting from 30 days after transplanting; Variation in total
soluble solids was significant. Maximum total soluble solids (4.520B) were observed with the
treatment of copper. Maximum increase in vitamin C content of tomato fruits (25.27 mg/100
g) was recorded with the application of zinc which accounted for an increase of 36.89 per
cent as compared to 18.46 mg/100 g in control.
11
Raj et al. (2012) carried out an experiment to study the effect of foliar application of
secondary and micro nutrients on yield and quality of tomato. The result indicated that shelf
life of tomato increased (16.1 days) with foliar spray (T8) and amendment applications (12-
16 days) compared to major nutrients alone (9-11 days). The fruits from plots receiving all
the three combinations recorded significantly higher TSS, acidity and ascorbic acid content.
The quality parameters like TSS (4.60 %), ascorbic acid (45.92 mg) and acidity (0.72 %) of
tomato fruits in UAS package received plots was of the order T4 > T3 > T2 > T1 .
Desai et al. (2014) conducted an experiment to find out the effect of different plant
growth regulators and micronutrient on fruit quality and micronutrient content of tomato
Eleven different treatments which consist of four plant growth regulators and three
micronutrients were used, viz., T1= (Gibberellic Acid) @ 50 ppm, T2= (Gibberellic Acid) @
75 ppm, T3= (Naphthalene acetic acid) @ 50 ppm, T4= (Naphthalene acetic acid) @ 75 ppm,
T5= Boron 50 ppm, T6 = Boron 75 ppm,T7= Zinc 0.5%, T8= Zinc1%, T9=Iron 100 ppm,
T10= Iron 150 ppm and T11 = Control (No application of plant growth regulator and
micronutrients) in the study. The fruit quality and micronutrient content parameters in plant
were significantly differed due to different plant growth regulators and micronutrient on
tomato. The maximum acidity per cent (1.41%) and ascorbic acid (109.33 mg/lOOg pulp)
were found in T4= (Naphthalene acetic acid) @ 75 ppm, maximum reducing sugars (1.68%),
non-reducing sugars (1.98%), total sugars (3.67%) and TSS (4.33 OBrix) were found in
treatment T2 (GA3 75 ppm), whereas maximum boron content (31.00 ppm), Fe content
(31.00 ppm) and Zn content (22.33 ppm) were found in treatment T8 (Boric acid 75 ppm),
T10 (FeSO4 150 ppm) and T6 (ZnSO4 -1%), respectively the minimum for all the parameters
were found in control treatment.
Awar and Karami (2015) investigated the effect of macro and micro grow fertilizers
on the quality and quantity of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). This experiment was
conducted in a Randomized Complete Block Designs (RCBD) with three-replication. The
fertilizer treatments including multi-purplex, sulopotas, iron chelate, gro folan, feugo base,
NPK, calcium, zinc, a mixture of all treatments (Mix), and control (no fertilizer). The results
showed that mix treatment had the highest fruit yield with the amount of 402.1kg per 100
plants and control had the lowest yield, 156.9kg per 100 plants. Feugo Base and control, 4.8
and 2.9mg per 25g fruit, produced the highest and lowest amounts of vitamin C respectively,
which significantly differ from other fertilizer treatments. The amounts of vitamin C in other
fertilizer treatments were between these two treatments. Sulopotas had the highest amount of
12
soluble solids, 11.73, which was significantly different from other treatments. Calcium, Iron
Chelate, and Sulopotas led to the highest amount of flesh firmness, 6.36, 6.13, and 5.67g/
cm2, respectively; and control resulted in the lowest amount, 3.66 g/cm
2.
CHAPTER- III
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The present investigation entitled “Effect of foliar application of
micronutrients on growth and yield of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) cv.
Arka Rakshak” was conducted on the experimental field of All India Coordinated
Research Project on Vegetable crop under the Department of Vegetable Science at
Research and Instructional Farm, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur
(C.G.) during rabi season of 2016-17.This chapter deals with a concise description of
the materials used and methodology adapted during the course of investigation.
3.1 Geographical Situation
Raipur is situated in mid eastern part of Chhattisgarh at latitude 21o16’N,
longitude 81o36’E and at an altitude of 289.56 meters above the mean sea level.
3.2 Climatic condition
On the basis of prevailing climatic conditions, Raipur is characterized as
slightly moist and sub-humid zone where the average annual rainfall received ranges
from 1200 to 1400 mm, mostly concentrated during the period from the June to
September and occasional light showers during October to February. May and
December are the hottest and coolest months of the year, respectively. In general,
weekly maximum temperature goes up to 46°C during summer season and minimum
up to 6°C during winter. The meteorological observations recorded during the crop
period are given in Appendix I.
13
14
Fig
.3.1
. W
eek
ly m
eteo
rolo
gic
al
para
met
ers
du
rin
g c
rop
gro
wth
per
iod
201
6-2
017
010
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
10
0
0
20
40
60
80
10
0
12
0
14
0
16
0
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
12
34
56
78
91
01
11
21
31
41
51
61
71
81
92
02
12
2
Temp (max/min) ˚C, Wind velocity
(kmph), evaporation (mm), Sunshine (hrs)
Rainfall (mm), Relative humidity (%)
Sta
nd
ard
met
eoro
logic
al
wee
ks
Rai
nfa
ll (m
m)
RH
IR
H II
Tem
p (
max
)Te
mp
(m
in)
Win
d v
elo
city
(km
ph
)
Evap
ora
tio
n (
mm
)Su
nsh
ine
(hrs
)
15
3.3 Experimental site
The experimental site was located at Horticultural cum Research
Insructional Farm, College of Agriculture, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya,
Raipur (C.G.) with availability of basic facilities required for experimentation.
3.4 Physio-chemical properties of soils
The soil of the experimental field was clay-loam. Soil samples from 20 cm
depth were collected randomly from five places before layout of the experiment.
The collected soil samples were mixed thoroughly and a composite sample was
made to determine the physio-chemical composition of the soil. The physio-
chemical analysis of the soil has been shown in Table-3.1.
Table 3.1: Physico-chemical analysis of the Soil at experimental site
Particulars Values Rating Method used
Mechanical composition
Sand (%)
Silt (%)
Clay (%)
Texture class
B. Chemical composition
1. Organic carbon (%)
2. Available N (kg ha-1
)
3. Available P (kg ha-1
)
4. Available K (kg ha-1
)
5. pH (1:2.5 soil:water)
25.67
32.54
41.79
0.46
330.0
20.0
400.0
7.1
Clay loam
Medium
Medium
High
High
Neutral
International Pipette method
(Day, 1965)
Walkley and Black’s rapid
titration method (Jackson,
1967)
Alkaline permanganate
method (Subbiah and Asija,
1956)
Olsen’s method (Olsen,
1954)
Flame photometric method
(Jackson, 1967)
Glass electrode pH meter
(Piper, 1967)
16
3.5 Details of experiments
1. Crop : Tomato
2. No. of treatments : 08
3. Design of experiment : Randomized Block Design (RBD)
4. No. of replications : 04
5. Plot size : 2 × 3 m2
6. No. of plots : 32
7. Spacing : 75 cm (Row to row) × 45 cm (Plant to plant)
8. No. of rows plot-1
: 3
9. No. of plants plot-1
: 12
10. Date of sowing : 16th
October 2016
3.5.1 Experimental material
Eight treatments of Tomato cv. Arka Rakshak were grown in a randomized
block design with four replications. The transplanting of experimental material was
done on 15 th
November 2016. The plants are transplanted in field at the distance of
75 cm for row to row and 45 cm plant to plant and the plot size was 2 × 3 m2.
Recommended dose of fertilizers and other cultural package of practices were
adopted for better crop growth. Five competitive plants were selected randomly
from each plot to record observation on various characters. The average value of
each character was calculated on the basis of five plants for each treatment in every
replication.
17
3.5.2 Details of treatments
Experiment was laid out in randomized block design with four replications
of each treatment. Details of treatment are given in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2: Details of the treatments
S.
No.
Treatment
notation
Details
1. T1 Feso4 @ 0.2% spray
2. T2 Calcium nitrate @ 0.2% spray
3. T3 [email protected]% spray
4. T4 Znso4 @ 0.2% spray
5. T5 Mixture of micronutrients
6. T6 T2+T4 spray
7. T7 T2+T3 spray
8. T8 Control (Water spray)
3.5.3 Raising of crop nursery
The seeds of Tomato cv. Arka Rakshak sown in nursery were obtained from Indian
Institute of Horticulture Research Bangalore. The seeds of tomato after treating
with Bavistin @ 2 g/kg were sown in pro trays filled with cocopeat followed by
light irrigation and covering with cocopeat. After germination, proper care was
taken to ensure the proper growth of seedlings in the nursery. Seedlings became
ready for transplanting in 30 days.
3.5.4 Field operation
The field was ploughed thrice with incorporation of FYM during final land
preparation and levelled properly. Then the individual plots of proper size were
laid out as per the plan of layout with required irrigation channel.
18
3.5.5 Fertilizer application
The recommended fertilizer dose of 125 kg N, 75 kg P2O5 and 60 kg K2O per ha
was applied. Before applying chemical fertilizers, 2 baskets full of well
decomposed FYM was applied to each plot before last ploughing. The total
amount of phosphorous and 20% of potash and nitrogen were applied to the soil
before planting. Remaining amount of nitrogen and potash were applied in other
two-splits. The first top dressing was done at 20 days after transplanting @ 40%
each of nitrogen and potash. The second top dressing was done 40 days after
planting at the doses similar to that of first top dressing. Three sprays of each
micronutrient were applied at 10 days interval starting from 30 days after
transplanting.
3.5.6 Irrigation
A light irrigation was given immediately after transplanting of seedlings in main
field. Subsequently, irrigation was provided in the irrigation channel at an interval
of 8-10 days during the cropping season.
3.5.7 Inter-cultural operations and plant protection
Hoeing, weeding and earthing up were done at periodic intervals. Manual hoeing
followed by weeding, top dressing and earthing up were done followed by
irrigation at 20 and 40 days after transplanting. Adequate plant protection measures
were taken by spraying insecticides and fungicides at periodical intervals to raise
the crop successfully.
3.5.8 Staking
When the plants were well established, staking was given to each plant by Bamboo
pole to keep them erect. Within a few days of staking, the plants were pruned and
there after only two or three branches were kept before going to flowering stage.
3.5.9 Harvesting
Green fruits were harvested when they reached maturity and attained marketable
size i.e. edible maturity stage. Picking of fruits was done till the last marketable
produce was obtained.
19
Plate I: Transplanting of tomato seedling
20
3.6 Observations recorded
Observations were recorded on single plant basis from five randomly selected
competitive plants per plot of each genotype for all the traits separately.
1. Plant height (cm)
2. Plant girth (cm)
3. Days to first flowering
4. Days to first fruiting
5. Days to maturity
6. No. of fruits per plant
7. Fruit length (cm)
8. Fruit diameter (cm)
9. Fruit weight (g)
10. Yield per plant (kg) and yield per hectare
11. Shelf Life (days)
12. Total Soluble Solid (%)
13. Acidity
14. Sugar (%)
A. Reducing sugar (%)
B. Total sugar
C. Non-reducing sugar
15. Ascorbic acid (mg/100gm)
1. Plant height (cm.)
Height of the plant from the ground level to the top of the plant was
measured in centimeters at the time of last picking.
2. Stem girth (cm)
Stem girth was recorded on five stem from five randomly selected plants of
each plot in each replication. Stem girth was measured at the 5 cm above the
ground. The average value was recorded as stem girth in cm.
3. Days to first flowering
Days to first flowering was recorded as number of days from transplanting
to the when first plant of the treatment comes in flowering in the main field.
21
4. Days to first fruiting
Days to first fruiting was recorded as number of days from transplanting to
the when first plant of the treatment comes in fruiting in the main field
5. Days to maturity
Days to maturity was recorded as number of days from transplanting to the
when fruit of the treatment (plant) suitable for consumption.
6. No. of fruits per plant
Total numbers of fruits in five selected plants were counted at each harvest
the number of fruits of every picking were averaged and expressed in per plant.
7. Fruit length (cm)
Fruit length was recorded in cm five fruits from five randomly selected
plants of each treatment in each replication and average over replication.
8. Fruit diameter (cm)
Fruit diameter was recorded in cm five fruits from five randomly
selected plants of each genotype in each replication and average over replication.
9. Fruit weight (g)
Weight of five fruits was recorded in gram from five randomly
selected plants of each genotype in each replication and then averaged.
10. Yield per plant (kg) and per hectare
Picking of fruits were made in five selected plants of each treatment. The
value was averaged and expressed in yield per plant. Fruit yield per hectare (q) was
calculated from the figure of fruit yield per plant or fruit yield per plot.
11. Shelf Life (days)
Shelf life is a period or days in which a simple stored tomato remains
suitable for consumption.
12. Total soluble Solid (%)
Randomly selected fruits samples from each plot were crushed and one
drop of extracted juice was put on hand refractometer for reading of total soluble
solids and was expressed in %.
22
13. Acidity (%)
Acidity content of the extracted fruit for each plot was determined by titration of
10 ml of tomato juice against 0.1 NaOH using phenolphthalein as an indicator,
Acidity is expressed in terms of percentage of anhydrous citric acid per 100 ml of
tomato juice by using following formula:
Acid as Anhydrous Citric acid:
=
14. Sugar (%)
Sugars were determined by the method of Nelson Somogyis (Nelson,
1994).
Reagents
1. Fehling’s solution A: Copper sulphate 69.28 g and volume made up to one litre.
2. Fehling’s solution B: Potassium sodium tartrate 346g and sodium hydroxide
(NaOH) 100g and volume made up to one liter.
3. Methylene blue indicator: Methylene blue 1% aqueous.
4. Neutral lead acetate (45%) solution.
5. Potassium oxalate (45%) solution.
6. Standard invert sugar solution: AR sucrose 9.5 g and concentrate HCl 5ml and
volume made up to 100 ml.
This solution was allowed to stand for further three days at 20-25°C for
inversion to take place during analysis.
Twenty five ml of invert sugar solution was taken in a flask and added 50
ml distilled water, then neutralized with 20% NaOH in the presence of
phenolphthalein as an indicator until the solution turned into pink colour. Then
acidified with 1 N HCl till pink colour disappears. The volume was made upto
mark with distilled water (1 ml = 2.5 ml of invert sugar)
Volume of titrate x Normality of alkali x Equivalent weight of acid x
Volume make up
Vol. of sample taken for estimation x weight of sample taken x 100
23
A. Reducing sugar (%)
Estimation
A fixed quantity of filtered juice was transferred into volumetric flask and
same quantity of distilled water was added and neutralized with alkali solution. In
this solution, a fixed quantity of lead acetate solution was added, shaked and left
undisturbed for some time and necessary amount of potassium oxalate solution
was added. This process is necessary to get clarified solution.
Five ml Fehling’s solution Aw and Fehling’s solution B was taken in a
conical flask. Burette was filled with sugar solution. Conical flask was heated in an
open flame. Two to four ml sugar solution was poured and 1-2 drop of methylene
blue indicator was added. Now this solution was kept for heating and sugar
solution was added to it. The end point appeared with brick-red colour. The
reducing sugar was expressed in per cent.
mg of inverted sugar × Dilution × 100
Reducing sugar (%) =
Titre x weight or volume of the sample x 1000
B. Total sugar (%)
Estimation
Fifty ml clarified sugar solution was added to 5 g of citric acid with 50 ml
distilled water. It was boiled slowly for 10 minutes, cooled and transferred into a
250 ml volumetric flask and neutralized with NaOH with phenolphthalein indicator
and made up the volume. Titre value was expressed as per cent reducing sugars.
The total sugar was expressed in per cent.
Total sugar (%) = Reducing sugar % (in which the titre is obtained after
inversion) + Per cent sucrose
C. Non- reducing sugar (%)
Non-reducing sugar was determined by subtracting the value of reducing
sugar from total sugar. The non-reducing sugar was expressed in percentage.
Non- reducing sugar (%) = Total sugar (%) – Reducing sugar (%)
15. Ascorbic acid (mg/100gm)
This analysis was performed with composite (composited over 3
replications) samples of 24 genotypes. Ascorbic acid content in fruit was estimated
24
by volumetric method. 5 ml of standard ascorbic acid (100 μ g/ml) was taken in a
conical flask containing 10 ml 4% oxalic acid and was titrated against the 2, 6-
dichlorophenol indophenols dye. The appearance and persistence of pink colour
was taken as end point. The amount of dye consumed (V1ml) is equivalent to the
amount of ascorbic acid. 5 ml of sample (prepared by taking 2.5g of fruit in 100 ml
4% oxalic acid) was taken in a conical flask having 10 ml of 4% oxalic acid and
titrated against the dye (V2ml). The amount of ascorbic acid was calculated using
the formula,
Ascorbic acid (mg/100 g) = (0.5 mg/V1ml) × (V2/5 ml)×(100 ml/Wt. of
sample)×100
3.15 Statistical analysis
3.8.1 Analysis of variance (ANOVA)
The analysis of variance was carried out for each character separately as
per method suggested dy Panse and Sukhatme (1967). Significance of differences
among treatments was tested using the following skeleton of ANOVA.
Skeleton of ANOVA
S.N Source of
Variation
Degree of
Freedom
Sum of
Square
s
Mean
sum of
square
s
F value
Calculated Table
1. Replication (r-1) SSR MSR MSR/MSE
Table value
2. Treatment (t-1) SST MST MST/MSE
**Significant at
1% *Significant
at 5%
3.
Error (r-1) (t-1) SSE MSE
Total (rt-1)
To test the significance of treatment, the calculated value of “F” was
compared with tabular value of “F” at 5 and 1 per cent levels of probability against
error degree of freedom. Where,
r = Number of replications
t = Number of treatments
RSS = Sum of squares due to replication
TrSS = Sum of squares due to treatment (genotypes)
25
ErSS = Sum of squares due to error
TMS = Mean sum of squares due to treatment
EMS = Mean sum of squares due to error
Critical difference
CD = SEd x t Value at 5% at error degree of freedom
SEd = 2EMS
r
Where, S Ed = Standard error of difference between two treatment means
EMS = Error Mean of square
r = Number of replication
Standard error of mean
SE (m) ± = EMS
r
Coefficient of variation (CV) (%)
Coefficient of variation is standard deviation expressed as percentage of
Mean.
CV % = SD
X x 100
Where, SD = Standard deviation
X = Mean of character
Mean
Mean of the character was estimated by summing up of all the observation and
dividing the sum by the number of observation.
(X) = ∑Xi
N
Where,
∑Xi = Summation of all the observation,
N = Number of observations
CHAPTER-IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The field experiment entitled “Effect of foliar application of micronutrients on
growth and yield of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) cv. Arka Rakshak’’ was
conducted during the year 2016-2017, at Horticulture cum instructional farm in the
experimental field of AICRP on vegetable crops, College of Agriculture, IGKV, Raipur
(C.G.).The experimental findings are statistically analyzed and presented in appropriate
Tables and graphs. Attempts have been made to ascertain and explain the reasons for
variation in growth and yield of tomato under different micronutrient treatments. The
experimental findings of present work along with discussion have been grouped under the
following heads.
4.1 Analysis of variance
4.2 Growth traits
4.3 Yield and yield attributing traits
4.4 Quality traits
4.1 Analysis of variance
The variance due to treatments (Appendix-II & III) was significant (at p=0.05) for all
the parameters viz., plant height (cm), stem girth (cm), days to first flowering, days to first
fruiting, days to maturity, number of fruits per plant, fruit length (cm), fruit diameter (cm),
fruit weight (g), yield per plant yield per hectare (q), shelf life (days), Total soluble solid (%),
acidity (%), reducing sugar (%), non reducing sugar (%), total sugar (%) and ascorbic acid
(mg/100gm).
4.2 Growth traits
4.2.1 Plant height (cm)
The data presented on plant height of tomato at final stage of crop growth as
influenced by foliar spray of micronutrients are presented in Table 4.1 and Fig. 4.1.The
findings indicated that plant height was significantly affected by different treatments at final
stage of crop growth.
Plant height varied from 93.75 to 135.75 cm.The maximum plant height was recorded
in T5- mixture of all spray (135.75 cm), which was significantly superior over other
treatments but at par to treatment T6- Calcium nitrate @ 0.2% + ZnSO4 @ 0.2% (123.24 cm)
and T7- Calcium nitrate @ 0.2% + Boron @ 0.1% (127.50 cm), whereas minimum plant
26
27
height was recorded in T8-control (93.75 cm), and it was found statistically at par with T2-
Calcium nitrate @ 0.2% (102.50 cm).
Maximum plant height was observed in T5- mixture of all spray (135.75 cm),
followed by T6- Calcium nitrate @ 0.2% + ZnSO4 @ 0.2% and T7- Calcium nitrate @ 0.2% +
Boron @ 0.1%. Similar results were reported by Sivaiah et al. (2012), Shnain et al. (2014)
and Weerasinghe et al. (2014). Increased plant height might be due to enhanced uptake of
nutrients from soil resulting in assimilation of carbohydrates and other metabolic activity
(due to leaf number and leaf area) which led to an increase in various plant metabolites
responsible for cell division and cell elongation.
4.2.2 Stem girth (cm)
The data recorded for stem girth have been presented in the table 4.1. and Fig. 4.2.
Plant stem girth ranged from 2.14 to 3.20 cm and among the treatments, maximum stem girth
was recorded in T5- mixture of all spray (3.20 cm) followed by T4- ZnSO4 @ 0.2% (2.75 cm),
T1- FeSO4 @ 0.2% (2.58 cm), T3- Boron @ 0.1% (2.58 cm), T7- Calcium nitrate @ 0.2% +
Boron @ 0.1% (2.52 cm), T2- Calcium nitrate @ 0.2% (2.51 cm) and T6- Calcium nitrate @
0.2% + ZnSO4 @ 0.2% (2.48 cm). Whereas, minimum stem girth recorded by T8-control
(2.14 cm).
In present study Treatment T5- mixture of all spray exhibited maximum stem girth
followed by T4- ZnSO4 @ 0.2%, T1- FeSO4 @ 0.2%, T3- Boron @ 0.1%, T7- Calcium nitrate
@ 0.2% + Boron @ 0.1% , T2- Copper sulfate@ 0.2% and T6- Calcium nitrate @ 0.2% +
ZnSO4 @ 0.2%. Application of micronutrients might increase the uptake of all the plant
nutrients and enhance the various mechanisms (photosynthesis, cell division) consequently
improve plant growth. These results are in conformity with Bose and Tripathi et al. (1996),
Siddiqui et al. (2009) and Mushtaq et al. (2016).
4.2.3 Days to first flowering
The data on days to first flowering are presented in Table 4.1 and fig.4.3.
The perusal of data for days taken to first flowering ranged from 24.29 (T5) to 33.02
days (T8). Among the treatments, earliest flowering (29.75 days) was recorded in T5- mixture
of all spray, which was significantly superior over other treatments followed by T1- FeSO4 @
0.2% (26.50 days), T7- Calcium nitrate @ 0.2% + Boron @ 0.1% (26.75 days), T2- Calcium
nitrate @ 0.2% (27.05 days) and T6- Calcium nitrate @ 0.2% + ZnSO4 @ 0.2% (27.54 days).
While, maximum number of days to first flowering was showed by T8- Control (33.02 days).
28
4.2.4 Days to first fruiting
The perusal of data for days taken to first fruiting ranged from 35.33 (T5) to 44.81
days (T8) are presented in Table 4.1 and fig 4.4. The earliest fruiting (35.33 days) recorded in
T5- mixture of all spray, which was significantly superior over other treatments. Whereas,
maximum days to first fruiting recorded by T8-Control (44.81 days). Former was found
statistically at par with T1- FeSO4 @ 0.2% (38.50 days), T7- Calcium nitrate @ 0.2% + Boron
@ 0.1% (38.79 days) and T2- Calcium nitrate @ 0.2% (38.83 days). While, later was
statistically at par with T3- Boron @ 0.1% (40.31 days) and T4- ZnSO4 @ 0.2% (40.80 days).
4.2.5 Days to maturity
The perusal of data for days to maturity ranged from 63.33 (T5) to 76.96 days (T8) are
presented in Table 4.1 and fig 4.5. The minimum days to maturity (63.33 days) recorded in
T5-mixture of all spray, which was significantly superior over other treatments and
statistically at par with T7-Copper sulfate@ 0.2% + Boron @ 0.1% (65.28 days) T6 Calcium
nitrate @ 0.2% + ZnSO4 @ 0.2% (67.75 days), T3-Boron @0.1% (68.25 days) and T2-
Calcium nitrate @ 0.2% (68.80 days). Whereas, maximum days to maturity recorded by T8-
control (44.81 days).
Earliness (flowering and fruiting) might be because of better absorption of the
nutrients which involved in the metabolic activity and also activated the hormone which
influence the earliness in these treatments. Therefore T5 (mixture of all spray), T1 (FeSO4 @
0.2%), T7 (Calcium nitrate @ 0.2% + Boron @ 0.1%), T2- Calcium nitrate @ 0.2% and T6-
Calcium nitrate @ 0.2% + ZnSO4 @ 0.2% were showed earlier flowering and fruiting. These
findings also supported by Manju Nath et al. (2009) who have also reported that earlier
flowering with foliar feeding of micronutrients. The reason for early flowering might be due
to rapid initial plant growth because of favourable environment and due to proper and
appropriate concentrations of micronutrients. Similar results had also been reported by Naz et
al. (2012) and Ali et al. (2013) in Tomato.
29
Table 4.1: Mean performance of growth traits of tomato
Treatment Plant height
(cm)
Stem
girth
(cm)
Days to first
flowering
Days to first
fruiting
Days to
maturity
T1 99.75 2.58 26.50 38.50 69.25
T2 102.50 2.51 27.05 38.83 68.80
T3 111.08 2.58 28.31 40.31 68.25
T4 105.25 2.75 28.07 40.31 69.30
T5 135.75 3.20 24.29 35.33 63.33
T6 123.24 2.48 27.54 39.57 67.75
T7 127.50 2.52 26.75 38.79 65.28
T8 93.75 2.14 33.02 44.81 76.96
MEAN 112.35 2.60 27.69 39.56 68.62
SE( m±) 4.021 0.08 1.34 1.43 1.96
CV 13.15 6.79 9.71 7.11 6.73
CD (p=0.05) 7.15 0.29 4.40 4.69 5.9
30
Fig. 4.1: Effect of foliar application of micronutrients on plant height (cm)
Fig. 4.2 : Effect of foliar application of micronutrients on stem girth (cm)
Fig. 4.3: Effect of foliar application of micronutrients on days to first flowering
0
50
100
150
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8
PLANT HEIGHT (cm)
PLANT HEIGHT (cm)
0
1
2
3
4
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8
STEM GIRTH (cm)
STEM GIRTH (cm)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8
DAYS TO FIRST FLOWERING
DAYS TO FIRST FLOWERING
31
Fig. 4.4: Effect of foliar application of micronutrients on days to first fruiting
Fig. 4.5: Effect of foliar application of micronutrients on days to maturity
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8
DAYS TO FIRST FRUITING
DAYS TO FIRST FRUITING
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8
DAYS TO MATURITY
DAYS TO MATURITY
32
4.3 Yield and yield attributing traits
4.3.1 No. of fruits per plant
The data accessible on number of fruits per plant of tomato as influenced by different
micronutrients spray are presented in Table 4.2 and Fig. 4.6.The findings indicated that the
number of fruits was significantly affected by different treatments.
The number of fruits per plant varied from 50.53 to 72.07. The maximum number of
fruits per plant was recorded in treatment T5-mixture of all spray (72.07), followed by T2-
Calcium nitrate @ 0.2% (65.31), T6- Calcium nitrate @ 0.2% + ZnSO4 @ 0.2% (64), T4-
ZnSO4 @ 0.2% (61.56), T1-FeSO4 @ 0.2% (59.50) and T3- Boron @0.1% (59.28). The
minimum value of number of fruits per plant was recorded in treatment T8- control (50.53).
The foliar application of micronutrients increased the number of fruits per plant was
recorded in treatment T5-mixture of all spray followed by T2- Calcium nitrate @ 0.2%, T6-
Calcium nitrate @ 0.2% + ZnSO4 @ 0.2% and T4-ZnSO4 @ 0.2%, T1-FeSO4 @ 0.2% and
T3- Boron @ 0.1%. The increased in number of fruits might be due to favorable environment
under these treatments which provides congenial conditions for better growth and
development of the fruit. The results of present investigation are in accordance with the
finding of Kumari and Sharma (2006) in tomato and Bhared et al. (2007) in capsicum.
4.3.2 Fruit length (cm)
The data presented on fruit length (cm) of tomato as influenced by different
micronutrients spray are presented in Table 4.2 & Fig. 4.7. The findings indicated that fruit
length was significantly affected by different treatments.
The assessment of data revealed that fruit length varied from 3.83 to 5.66 cm. Among
the treatments, maximum fruit length was recorded in T5-mixture of all spray (5.66 cm),
which was significantly superior over other treatments and statistically at par with T6-
Calcium nitrate @ 0.2% + ZnSO4 @ 0.2% (5.28 cm). Whereas, the minimum fruit length was
recorded in T8 (3.83 cm) and it found statically at par with T1-FeSO4 @ 0.2% (4.37 cm) and
T2- Calcium nitrate @ 0.2% (4.02 cm).
The maximum fruit length was recorded in the treatment T5 (mixture of all spray) and
T6 Calcium nitrate @ 0.2% + ZnSO4 @ 0.2%. These treatments showed equal value for fruit
length. The increase in fruit length might be due to more accumulation of photosynthates
which were synthesized in the leaf and translocated towards the fruit. The increased and
33
accumulation of photosynthesis was probably due to more vigour growth. These results were
also supported by Salam et al. (2010) and Ali et al. (2013).
4.3.3 Fruit diameter (cm)
The data presented on fruit diameter (cm) of tomato as influenced by different
micronutrients spray are presented in Table 4.2 & Fig. 4.8. The findings indicated that fruit
diameter (cm) was significantly affected by different treatments.
The assessment of data revealed that fruit diameter (cm) ranged from 3.66 to 4.77 cm.
Among the treatments, maximum fruit diameter was observed in T5-mixture of all spray (4.77
cm), which was significantly superior over other treatments and statistically at par with T4-
ZnSO4 @ 0.2% spray (4.57 cm) and T6- Calcium nitrate @ 0.2% + ZnSO4 @ 0.2% (4.34 cm).
Whereas, the minimum diameter (cm) was recorded in T8-control (3.66 cm) and it was found
statically at par with T3- Boron @0.1% (4.07), T1-FeSO4 @ 0.2% (4.03 cm) and T2- Calcium
nitrate @ 0.2% (3.91 cm).
The maximum fruit diameter was recorded in the treatment T5 (mixture of all spray)
and, T4 (ZnSO4 @ 0.2% spray) and T6 Calcium nitrate @ 0.2% + ZnSO4 @ 0.2%. These
treatments showed equal value for fruit diameter. The increase in fruit diameter might be due
to more accumulation of photosynthates which were synthesized in the leaf and translocated
towards the fruit. The increased and accumulation of photosynthesis was probably due to
more vigour growth. These results were also supported by Salam et al. (2010), Ali et al.
(2013) and Devi et al. (2013).
4.3.4 Fruit weight (g)
The perusal of data for fruit weight (g) is presented in Table 4.2 and fig 4.9.
Fruit weight of tomato varied from 60.22 g (T8) to 80.06 (T5). The maximum fruit
weight (80.06 g) recorded in T5- mixture of all spray, which was significantly superior over
other treatments. Whereas, minimum fruit weight showed by T8-control (60.22 g). Former
was found statistically at par with T1- FeSO4 @ 0.2% (72.01 g), T3- Boron @ 0.1% (72.89 g),
T4-ZnSO4 @ 0.2% (73.56 g) and T6- Calcium nitrate @ 0.2% + ZnSO4 @ 0.2% (74.55 g).
The fruit weight was significantly influenced by micronutrient. The treatment T5
(mixture of all spray) followed by T6 (Calcium nitrate @ 0.2% + ZnSO4 @ 0.2%) T4 (ZnSO4
@ 0.2%), T3 (Boron @ 0.1%) and T1 (FeSO4 @ 0.2%) was significantly superior for weight
of fruit. The improvement in this character may be because of better absorption of
micronutrient which ultimately increase the accumulation of carbohydrate in the fruits and
provide better environment for growth and developmental processes, thus, better results were
34
obtained due to the availability of favourable conditions in these treatments. The results of
present investigation are in accordance with the finding of Hatwar et al. (2003), Raghav and
Sharma (2003), Rafique et al. (2004) and Bhatt et al. (2006).
4.3.5 Yield per plant (kg) & Yield per ha (q)
The data presented on yield per plant (kg) and per hectare of tomato as influenced by
different micronutrients spray are presented in Table 4.2, Fig. 4.10 & Fig. 4.11 : Effect of
foliar application of micronutrients on yield (q/ha). The findings indicated that yield per plant
(kg) was significantly affected by different treatments.
Yield per plant (kg) and per ha (q) ranged from 2.04 to 4.77 g, 275.61 to 562.57 q,
respectively. Among the treatments, maximum yield per plant (kg) and per ha (q) was
recorded in T5-mixture of all spray (4.77 kg, 562.57 q ), which was significantly superior over
other treatments and followed by T6- Calcium nitrate @ 0.2% + ZnSO4 @ 0.2% (3.78 kg,
452.73 q), T4- ZnSO4 @ 0.2% spray (3.52 kg, 412.93 q), T2- Calcium nitrate @ 0.2% (3.45
kg, 389.25 q), T3- Boron @ 0.1% (3.32 kg, 383.05 q) and T1-FeSO4 @ 0.2% (3.27 kg, 373.78
q). Whereas, the minimum yield per plant (kg) and per hectare was observed in T8-control
(2.04 kg, 2.75.61 q, respectively).
The fruit yield per plant and per ha was significantly influenced by micronutrient.The
treatment T5 (mixture of all spray) recorded maximum yield. Basavarajeshwari et al. (2006)
reported that mixture of micronutrients (Bo, Zn, Mn and Fe @ 100ppm and Mo @ 50ppm)
found best for recording yield per plant (3.03 kg) and per ha (27.98 t/ha) and increase in yield
was due to increase in number of fruits per plant, fruit weight and number of branches per
plant. The results obtained are in conformity with the findings of Swati et al. (2011) and Ali
et al. (2013).
35
Table 4.2: Mean performance of yield and yield attributing traits of tomato
Treatment No. of
fruits per
plant
Fruits
length
(cm)
Fruit
diameter
(cm)
Fruit
weight
(g)
Yield per
plant (kg)
Yield/ha
(q)
T1 59.50 4.37 4.03 72.01 3.27 373.78
T2 65.31 4.02 3.91 66.67 3.45 389.25
T3 59.28 4.89 4.07 72.89 3.32 383.05
T4 61.56 4.77 4.57 73.56 3.52 412.93
T5 72.07 5.66 4.77 80.06 4.77 562.57
T6 64.00 5.28 4.34 74.55 3.78 452.73
T7 60.25 4.85 4.07 71.07 3.55 399.36
T8 50.53 3.83 3.66 60.22 2.04 275.61
MEAN 61.56 4.71 4.18 71.38 3.46 406.16
SE(m ±) 2.60 0.21 0.18 2.72 0.21 30.508
CV 9.79 9.31 8.72 7.50 12.65 14.90
CD(p=0.05) 7.60 0.72 0.59 9.66 0.64 90.33
36
Fig. 4.6: Effect of foliar application of micronutrients on no. of fruits per plant
Fig. 4.7 : Effect of foliar application of micronutrients on fruit length (cm)
Fig. 4.8 : Effect of foliar application of micronutrients on fruit diameter (cm)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8
NO. OF FRUITS PER PLANT
NO. OF FRUITS PER PLANT
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8
FRUIT LENGTH (cm)
FRUIT LENGTH (cm)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8
FRUIT DIAMETER (cm)
FRUIT DIAMETER (cm)
37
Fig. 4.9: Effect of foliar application of micronutrients on fruit weight (gm)
Fig. 4.10: Effect of foliar application of micronutrients on yield per plant (kg)
Fig. 4.11: Effect of foliar application of micronutrients on yield per ha (q)
0
20
40
60
80
100
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8
FRUIT WEIGHT (g)
FRUIT WEIGHT (g)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8
YIELD PER PLANT (kg)
YIELD PER PLANT (kg)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8
YIELD PER HA (q)
YIELD PER HA (q)
38
4.4 Quality traits
4.4.1 Shelf life
The data presented on shelf life (days) of tomato as influenced by different
micronutrients spray are presented in Table 4.3 & Fig. 4.12. The findings indicated that shelf
life was significantly affected by different treatments.
The assessment of data revealed that shelf life varied from 11.08 to 16.63 days.
Among the treatments, maximum shelf life was recorded in T5-mixture of all spray (16.63
days), which was significantly superior over other treatments and statistically at par with T6-
Copper sulfate@ 0.2% + ZnSO4 @ 0.2% (15.88 days), T4- ZnSO4 @ 0.2% (15.66 days), T2-
Copper sulfate@ 0.2% (15.24 days), T3- Boron @ 0.1% (15.19 days), T7-Copper sulfate@
0.2% + Boron @ 0.1% (14.94 days) and T1- FeSO4 @ 0.2% (14.78 days). Whereas,
minimum shelf life (days) was observed in T8-control (11.08 days).
With respect to shelf life, the present experiment showed that maximum shelf life was
recorded by mixture spray of micronutrients (T5). This is in line with the findings of Salam et
al. (2010) and Punith Raj et al. (2012). Increased storage ability of tomato fruits might be due
to the increased ascorbic acid and acidity content of fruits (Chaurasia et al., 2006).
4.4.2 Total Soluble Solid (%)
The data presented on total soluble solid (%) of tomato as influenced by different
micronutrients spray are presented in Table 4.3 and Fig. 4.13. The findings indicated that
total soluble solid (%) was significantly affected by different treatments.
Total soluble solid (%) ranged from 4.08 to 5.28 %. Among the treatments, maximum
total soluble solid (%) was recorded in T5-mixture of all spray (5.28 %), which was
significantly superior over other treatments but at par with T7- Calcium nitrate @ 0.2% spray
+ Boron @ 0.1% spray (5.07 %), T4- ZnSO4 @ 0.2% spray (4.78 %) and T2- Calcium nitrate
@ 0.2% (4.77 %). Whereas, the minimum total soluble solid (%) was observed in T8-control
(4.08 %) and it was found statically at par withT1-FeSO4 @ 0.2% (4.53 %) and T3- Boron @
0.1% (4.51 %).
In the present experiment T5-mixture of all spray was recorded maximum total
soluble solid content followed by T7- Calcium nitrate @ 0.2% spray + Boron @0.1% spray,
T4- ZnSO4 @ 0.2% spray and T2- Calcium nitrate @ 0.2%. The increase in TSS content of
fruits may be attributed to growth promoting substances which could have accelerated
39
synthesis of carbohydrates, vitamins and other quality characters. This is in line with the
findings of Fageria et al. (2002), Chaurasia et al. (2006) and Punith Raj et al. (2012).
4.4.3 Acidity (%)
The data recorded for acidity (%) have been presented in the table 4.3 and fig. 4.14.
Acidity (%) value ranged from 0.35 to 0.42 % and among the treatments, maximum
acidity (%) was recorded in T5- mixture of all spray (0.42 %), which was significantly
superior over all treatments but at par with T7- Calcium nitrate @ 0.2% + Boron @ 0.1%
(0.41 %), T3- Boron @ 0.1% (0.41 %), T1- FeSO4 @ 0.2% (0.39 %), T2- Calcium nitrate @
0.2% (0.38 %), T6- Calcium nitrate @ 0.2% + ZnSO4 @ 0.2% (0.38) and T4- ZnSO4 @ 0.2%
(0.38 %). Whereas, minimum acidity (%) recorded by T8-control (2.14 cm).
With respect to acidity, the present experiment showed that maximum acidity was
recorded by mixture spray of micronutrients (T5), followed by T7- Calcium nitrate @ 0.2% +
Boron @ 0.1%, T3- Boron @ 0.1% , T1- FeSO4 @ 0.2%, T2- Calcium nitrate @ 0.2%, T6-
Calcium nitrate @ 0.2% + ZnSO4 @ 0.2% and T4- ZnSO4 @ 0.2%. Similar results were
obtained by Verma et al. (1995) Dube et al. (2003) and Harris and Lavanya (2016) in tomato.
This might be due to application of zinc, Cu and other micronutrients had increased the
titratable acidity in fruits. The fruit juice constitutes a weak acid and strong base buffer
system consisting of anions and cations and the increased acidity may be therefore attributed
to an increase in the concentration of cations especially zinc and copper brought about by
their application.
4.4.4 Reducing sugar (%)
The data presented on reducing sugar (%) of tomato as influenced by different
micronutrients spray are presented in table 4.3 and Fig. 4.15. The findings indicated that
reducing sugar (%) was significantly affected by different treatments.
Reducing sugar (%) ranged from 1.20 to 1.68 %. Among the treatments, maximum
reducing sugar (%) was recorded in T5-Mixture of all spay, which was significantly superior
over other treatments but at par with, withT6- Calcium nitrate @ 0.2% spray + ZnSO4 @
0.2% spray (1.63 %) and T4- ZnSO4 @ 0.2% spray (1.60 %).Whereas, the minimum
reducing sugar (%) was observed in T8- control (1.20 %).
40
Non-reducing sugar (%)
The data presented on non-reducing sugar (%) of tomato as influenced by different
micronutrients spray are presented in table 4.3 & fig. 4.15. The findings indicated that non-
reducing sugar (%) was significantly affected by different treatments.
Data revealed that non-reducing sugar (%) varied from 1. 40 to 2 %. Among the
treatments, maximum non-reducing sugar (%) was recorded in T5-mixture of all spray (2 %),
which was significantly superior over other treatments but at par with T4- ZnSO4 @ 0.2%
spray (1.90 %) and T6-Calcium nitrate @ 0.2% + ZnSO4 @ 0.2% (1.89 %). While, lowest
content of non-reducing sugar (%) was observed in T8-control (1.40 %) and it was found
statically at par with T1- FeSO4 @ 0.2% spray @ 0.2% (1.50 %).
4.4.5 Total sugar (%)
The data recorded for total sugar (%) have been presented in the table 4.3 and fig.
4.15. Total sugar (%) value ranged from 2.60-3.63 % and among the treatments, maximum
total sugar (%) was observed in T5- mixture of all spray (3.63 %), which was significantly
superior over all treatments and at par with T6- Calcium nitrate @ 0.2% + ZnSO4 @ 0.2%
(3.57 %) and T4- ZnSO4 @ 0.2% (3.50 %). Whereas, minimum total sugar (%) was observed
in T8-control (2.60 %) and it was statistically at par with T (2.73 %).
Maximum Sugar content (reducing, non-reducing and total sugar) under present
study was recorded in treatment T5- mixture of all spray, which was significantly superior but
at par with T4- ZnSO4 @ 0.2%, T6- Calcium nitrate @ 0.2% + ZnSO4 @ 0.2%. These results
were in accordance with the findings of Raffo et al. (2002) and Singh and Tiwari (2013). The
perceptible increase in sugar contents through the foliar feeding of micronutrients might be
due to the active synthesis of tryptophan in the presence of zinc, the precursor of auxin,
which in turn causes an increase in the rate of chlorophyll synthesis which ultimately
accelerates the photosynthetic activity.
4.4.6 Ascorbic acid (mg/100gm)
The data presented on ascorbic acid (mg) of tomato as influenced by different
micronutrients spray are presented in Table 4.3 & Fig. 4.16. The findings indicated that
ascorbic acid (mg) was significantly affected by different treatments.
Ascorbic acid (mg) of tomato varied from 16.61 to 19.94 (mg). The highest ascorbic
acid content (19.94 mg) recorded in T5- mixture of all spray, which was significantly superior
41
over other treatments. Whereas, lowest ascorbic acid showed by T8-control (16.61 mg).
Former treatment was found statistically at par with T1-FeSO4 @ 0.2% (19.90 mg), T6-
Calcium nitrate @ 0.2% + ZnSO4 @ 0.2% (19.82 mg), T2- Calcium nitrate @ 0.2% (19.70
mg).
The highest ascorbic acid content recorded in T5 (mixture of all spray) followed by T1
(FeSO4 @ 0.2%) and T6 (Calcium nitrate @ 0.2% + ZnSO4 @ 0.2%).The increase in ascorbic
acid might be due to enhancement of enzymic activity of ascorbic acid oxidase which
enhances the ascorbic acid content in fruits and also as micronutrients is involved in
carbohydrate metabolism and exists positive and close relationship with formation of
ascorbic acid. The results obtained are in conformity with the findings of Tamilselvi et al.
(2002) and Kumari (2012) in tomato.
42
Table 4.3: Mean performance of quality traits of tomato
Treatment Shelf
life
(days)
TSS
(%)
Acidity
(%)
Reducing
sugar (%)
Non-
reducing
sugar (%)
Total
sugar
(%)
Ascorbic
acid
(mg/100
g)
T1 14.78 4.53 0.39 1.23 1.50 2.73 19.90
T2 15.24 4.77 0.38 1.33 1.63 2.96 19.70
T3 15.19 4.51 0.41 1.30 1.60 2.90 18.53
T4 15.66 4.78 0.38 1.60 1.90 3.50 18.71
T5 16.63 5.28 0.42 1.68 2.00 3.63 19.94
T6 15.88 4.62 0.38 1.63 1.89 3.57 19.82
T7 14.97 5.07 0.41 1.47 1.77 3.24 18.18
T8 11.08 4.08 0.35 1.20 1.40 2.60 16.61
MEAN 14.93 4.71 0.39 1.43 1.71 3.14 18.92
SE(m ±) 0.74 0.16 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.34
CV 9.91 6.94 6.24 6.00 4.66 4.74 4.62
CD
(P=0.05) 2.42 0.53 0.04 0.12 0.11 0.22 1.12
43
Fig. 4.12: Effect of foliar application of micronutrients on shelf life (days)
Fig. 4.13: Effect of foliar application of micronutrients on total soluble solid (%)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8
SHELF LIFE IN DAYS
SHELF LIFE IN DAYS
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8
TOTAL SOLUBLE SOLID (%)
TOTAL SOLUBLE SOLID (%)
0.3
0.32
0.34
0.36
0.38
0.4
0.42
0.44
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8
ACIDITY (%)
ACIDITY (%)
44
Fig. 4.14: Effect of foliar application of micronutrients on acidity (%)
Fig.4.15: Effect of foliar application of micronutrients on reducing, non-reducing and
total sugar (%)
Fig. 4.16: Effect of foliar application of micronutrients on ascorbic acid (mg/100g)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8
REDUCING SUGAR (%)
NON-REDUCING SUGAR (%)
TOTAL SUGAR (%)
0
5
10
15
20
25
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8
ASCORBIC ACID (mg/100 g)
ASCORBIC ACID (mg/100 g)
45
4.5 Economics
Studies on the economics of the treatments application are very important as they are of
farmer’s primary concerned to monetary returns and profitability by crop recommendation
and adaptation of any package of practice by the farmer depends upon economics viability of
the treatments hence, it becomes necessary to work out economics of different treatments of
the experiment conducted for determining the best treatment which is as under
4.5.1 Total cost of cultivation
Total expenditure of each treatment was divided into two parts viz., common expenditure
and treatments wise extra cost. Common expenditure includes cost of field preparation, seed,
sowing expenses, weeding and use of insecticide spraying, watching, irrigation, harvesting
and general expenses. The cost of cultivation of Rs 73000 was common for all the treatments
(Table 4.4), but the cost of different treatments of micronutrients varied from treatment to
treatment .The highest total cost of cultivation (Rs 86500/ha) was incurred under mixture of
micronutrients (T5) against the total cost of Rs 73000/ha involved in control (T1).
4.5.2 Gross income: - Data embodied in Table 4.4 revealed that the maximum gross income
of Rs 225028/ha was obtained with the treatment mixture of all treatment (T5) followed by in
order resulting are T6 (Rs 181092) and T4 (Rs 165172).
4.5.3 Net income: The maximum net return of Rs 138528/ha was found with T5 followed by
T6 (Rs 102167) and T4 (Rs 87322).
4.5.4 Benefit: Cost ratio: - Maximum benefit: cost ratio obtained with T5 (3.08) followed by
T6 (2.48) and T4 (2.26). Whereas, minimum with T1 (1.51).
46
Table 4.4: Economics of different treatment
Treatment
fruit
yield
(q/ha)
Treatment
cost (Rs)
Common
cost (Rs)
Total cost
of
cultivation
(Rs)
Gross
return
(Rs)
Net
return
(Rs)
B:C
ratio
T1 373.78 6500 73000 79500 149512 70012 2.05
T2 389.25 8000 73000 81000 155700 74700 2.13
T3 383.05 2560 73000 75560 153220 77660 2.10
T4 412.93 4850 73000 77850 165172 87322 2.26
T5 562.57 13500 73000 86500 225028 138528 3.08
T6 452.73 5925 73000 78925 181092 102167 2.48
T7 399.36 7780 73000 80780 159744 78964 2.19
T8 275.61 0 73000 73000 110244 37244 1.51
47
Plate II: Tomato fruit cluster cv. Arka Rakshak
Plate III: Treatment wise tomato fruits
CHAPTER- V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The field experiment entitled “Effect of foliar application of micronutrients on growth
and yield of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) cv. Arka Rakshak’’ was conducted during the
year 2016-2017, at Horticulture cum instructional farm in the experimental field of AICRP on
vegetable crops , College of Agriculture, IGKV, Raipur (C.G.), with the following objectives:-
To study the effect of different micronutrients on growth parameters of tomato under field
condition. To study the effect of different micronutrients on fruit yield and yield attributing traits.
To study the effect of different micronutrients on fruit quality traits in tomato.
The experiment was laid out in randomized block design with eight treatments and four
replications. The treatments were T1- FeSO4 @ 0.2% spray,T2-Calcium nitrate @ 0.2% spray,T3-
Boron @ 0.1% spray, T4-ZnSO4 @ 0.2% spray, T5-mixture of all spray,T6-T2+T4 spray, T7- T2+T3
spray and T8-control (water spray).
The tomato was grown in Horticulture cum instructional farm in the experimental field of
AICRP on vegetable crops , College of Agriculture, IGKV, Raipur (C.G.). Climate of the region
was dry moist, sub humid with an average rainfall of 1326 mm.
The observations on, plant height (cm), plant girth (cm), days to first flowering, days to first
fruiting, days to maturity, no. of fruits per plant, fruit length (cm), fruit diameter (cm), fruit
weight (g), yield per plant (kg), shelf life (days), total soluble solid (%), acidity, total sugar (%),
reducing sugar (%), non-reducing sugar (%), ascorbic acid (mg/100g) and B:C ratio were worked
out.
Finally, data was subjected to statistical analysis by applying statistical procedure, were
undertaken on the basis of observations taken during the experiment for eight treatments. The
results obtained on various topics as per synopsis of programme during the investigation.
48
49
The results are summarized below:
1. Significantly maximum plant height (cm) was recorded under T5- mixture of all spray
and the lowest was recorded under T8- control.
2. Maximum and minimum plant girth (cm) was recorded in T5- mixture of all spray and
T8- control, respectively.
3. Minimum (earliest) and maximum days to first flowering, days to first fruiting and days
to maturity recorded in T5 and T8, respectively.
4. The maximum number of fruits per plant was observed in treatment T5-mixture of all
spray, followed by T2-Calcium nitrate@ 0.2%, T6- Calcium nitrate @ 0.2% + ZnSO4 @
0.2%, T4-ZnSO4 @ 0.2%, T1-FeSO4 @ 0.2% and T3- Boron @0.1%. Whereas, lowest
number of fruits per plant was recorded in treatment T8- control.
5. Among the treatments, maximum fruit length (cm), fruit diameter (cm) and fruit weight
(g) was recorded in T5-mixture of all spray and minimum fruit length and fruit diameter
and fruit weight (g) showed by T8-control.
6. Maximum yield per plant (kg) and per hectare (q) was recorded in T5-mixture of all spray
followed by followed by T6- Calcium nitrate @ 0.2% + ZnSO4 @ 0.2%, T4- ZnSO4 @
0.2% spray, T2- Calcium nitrate@ 0.2% and T1-FeSO4 @ 0.2%. Whereas, the minimum
yield per plant (kg) and per hectare (q) was observed in T8-control.
7. Among the treatments, maximum shelf life was recorded in T5-mixture of all spray,
whereas, minimum shelf life (days) was observed in T8-control.
8. Maximum total soluble solid (%) and acidity (%) was recorded in T5-mixture of all spray,
while, the minimum total soluble solid (%) and acidity (%) was observed in T8-control.
9. Among the treatments, maximum reducing sugar (%), non-reducing sugar (%) and total
sugar (%) was recorded in T5 and it was at par with T4 and T6, respectively. whereas, the
lowest reducing sugar (%), non-reducing sugar (%) and total sugar (%) was observed in
T8-control.
10. The highest ascorbic acid recorded in T5- mixture of all spray, whereas, lowest ascorbic
acid observed by T8-control.
50
CONCLUSIONS
The present investigation was carried out for one season. Hence, no definite
conclusion could be drawn. However, on the basis of result obtained, it can be concluded
that micronutrients sprays was the best option for crop growth and yield. The sprays of
micronutrients are effective response in growth, and yield of tomato and in increasing the
yield.
The findings revealed that treatment T5-mixture of all spray recorded the maximum plant height
(cm), plant girth (cm), no. of fruits per plant, fruit length (cm), fruit diameter (cm), fruit weight
(g), yield per plant (kg), shelf life (days), total soluble solid (%), acidity, total sugar (%), and
ascorbic acid (mg/100g).
SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH WORK
The same experiment can be repeated for one or more years to get some concrete
findings. It can also be tested under different combinations.
Studies should be conducted for allelopathic effect as well as on residual effect spray in
tomato.
Detail study is needed to identify the best micronutrient or mixture of micronutrients
different agro-climatic zones of Chhattisgarh.
The best micronutrient or mixture of micronutrients having desirable performance
identified in present investigation could be included in further improvement programme
of tomato.
REFERENCES
Ali, M. R., Mehraj, H. and Jamal Uddin, A. F. M. 2015. Effects of foliar application of zinc
and boron on growth and yield of summer tomato. J. of Bio and Agri Res., 06(01):
512-517.
Anonymous, 2015. Horticultural Statistics at a Glance, Horticulture statistics division
department of agriculture, cooperation & farmers welfare ministry of agriculture &
farmers welfare government of India.
Awar, R. and Karami, E. 2015. Effect of macro and micro elements foliar spray on the
qaulity and quantity of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum). Int. J. Agri. Policy and Res.,
4 (2): 22-28.
Baloch, Q. B., Chachar, Q. I. and Tareen, M. N. 2008. Effect of foliar application of macro
and micro nutrients on production of green chilies (Capsicum annuum L.). J. Agri.
Tech. 4 (2): 174-184.
Basavarajeshwari, C. Patil, R. M., Hosamani, P. S., Ajjappalavara, B. H., Naik, Smitha, R. P.
And Ukkund,K. C. 2006. Effect of Foliar Application of Micronutrients on Growth
and Yield components of Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.). Karnataka J.
Agric. Sci.,21(3):428-430.
Behera, S. 2016. A study on the effect of micronutrient (ZnSO4) priming on seed quality
parameters of solanaceous vegetables. Int. J. Agri. Sci. Res., 6 (3): 321-336.
Bhatt, L. and Srivastava, B. K. 2006. Effect of foliar application of micronutrients on the
nutritional composition of tomato. Ind. J. Hort. 63 (3): 286-288.
Bose, U.S. and Tripathi, S.K.1996. Effect of micronutrients on growth, yield and quality of
tomato cv. Pusa Ruby in M.P. Crop Res. 12: 61–64.
Chaudhary, B. 1996. Exploitation of heterosis in tomato yield and components. South Indian
Horticulture. 49: 59-85.
Chaurasia, S. N. S., Singh, K. P. And Mathura Rai. 2006. Response of tomato to foliar
application of water soluble fertilizers. Veg. Sci., 33(1): 96-97.
Day, P.R. Particle fractionation and particle-size analysis. In: BLACK, C.A. ed. Methods of
soil analysis. Madison, ASA/SSSA, 1965. Part 1. p.545-567. (Agronomy
Monograph, 9)
Deka, B. C. and Shadeque, A. 1991. Influence of micronutrients on growth and yield of
French bean var. Pusa Parvati. Seeds and Farms 17: 11- 12.
52
Desai, S. S., Chovatia, R. S. and Singh, V., 2012. Effect of different plant growth regulators
and micronutrients on fruit characters and yield of tomato cv. Gujrat Tomato-3.The
Asian J. Horti. 546-549.
Devi, C. P., Singh, D. K. and Jain, S. K. 2013. Effect of foliar feeding of micronutrients on
growth and yield of chilli (Capsicum annuum var. accuminatum L.) cultivar Pant C-
3. Pantnagar J. Res., 11(1) 105-111.
Dod, V. N., Kale, P. B. and Ratnakar, R. S. 1989. Effect of foliar application of auxins and
micronutrients on growth and yield of chilli. PKV Research Journal. 13(1): 29-33.
Dube, B.. K, Pratima, Sinha and Chatterjee, C. 2003 Effect of zinc on yield and quality of
tomato. Ind. J. Hort. 60(1) : 59-63.
Fageria, N. K., Baligar, V. C. And Clark, R. B. 2002. Micronutrients in crop production. Adv.
Agro., 77: 185-268.
Harris, K.D. and Lavanya, L. 2016.Influence of Foliar Application of Boron, Copper and
their Combinations on the quality of Tomato. Res J. of Agriculture and Forestry Sci.,
4(7):1-5.
Hatwar, G. P., Gondane, S. U.; Prude, S. M. and Gahukar, O.V. 2003. Effect of
micronutrients on growth and yield of chilli. Journal of Soils and Crops. 13(1):123-
125.
Houimli, I.M., Jdidi, H., Boujelben, F., Denden, M. 2015. Improvement of tomato
(Lycopersicon esculentum l.) Productivity in calcareous soil by iron foliar
application. International Journal of Advanced Research 3 ( 9): 1118- 1123.
Hussain, S. A., Shaik Mohammad and Rao, B. V. R. 1989. Response of chilli (Capsicum
annuum) to micronutrients. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 34(1-4): 117-188.
Jackson, M. L.1967. Soil Chemical Analysis Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi ;
p.205.
Jana, B. K. and Jahangir, K. 1987. Influence of micronutrients on growth and yield of
frenchbean cv. Contender under polyhouse condition.Veg. Sci. 14(2): 124-127.
Jawad T. M. Al–Fadhly. 2016. Response of potato (Solanum tuberosum) to foliar application
of zinc and manganese which fertilized by organic fertilizer. J. Agri. Vet. Sci., 9 (4):
87-91.
Joshi, A. and Kohli, U.K., 2006. Combining ability and gene action studies for processing
quality attributes in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.). Indian J. Hort. 63: 289-
93.
53
Kazemi, M. 2013. Effects of Zn, Fe and their Combination Treatments on the growth and
yield of tomato. Bull. Env. Pharmacol. Life Sci., 3 (1):109-114.
Kumari , Santosh and Sharma, S. K. 2006. Effect of micronutrient sprays on tomato
(Lycopersicon esculentum) seed production. Indian J. Agric. Sci., 76 (11): 676-678.
Kumari, S. 2012. Effect of micronutrients on quality of fruit and seed in tomato (Solanum
lycopersicum L.) Int. J. of Farm Sci. 2(1): 43-46.
Manjunath, S. N., Deshpande, V. K., Sridevi, O.,Uppar, D. S., Babalad, H. B. and Rao, M. S.
L. 2009. Influence of seed pelleting on crop growth, seed yield and quality of paprika
chilli (Capsicum annuum L.). Karnataka J. Agric. Sci., 22(4): 762-764.
micronutrients on quality of tomato (Lycopersiconesculentum Mill.) Cv. pkm-1. South Indian
Hort., 53: 272-275.
Naga, S. K., Swain, S. K., Verma, S. V. and Raju, B. 2013. Effect of foliar application of
micronutrients on growth parameters in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.).
Discourse J. Agri. Food Sci., 1 (10): 146-151.
Naga, Sivaih K., Swain, S. K., Raju B. and Varma, S., 2013. Effect of micronutrients foliar
application on seed yield in tomato. International journal of Plant and Animal
Sciences 1(7) : 2167-0437.
Naher, M. N. A., Alam, M. N. and Jahan, N. 2014. Effect of nutrient management on the
growth and yield of cabbage (Brassica oleracea var. capitata L.) in calcareous soils
of Bangladesh, The Agriculturists 12 (2): 24-33.
Namdev Sant Kumar, S. N. , Ahirwar, K. , Khare, A.K. , Mishra, U.S., Singh, D. and Jatav,
R. 2016. Effect of micronutrients and bio-fertilizers on yield and yield attributes of
tomato. Int. J. of Agri. Sci. 8(38): 1780-1782.
Naz, R. M. M., Muhammad, S., Hamid, A. and Bibi, F., 2012 . Effect of boron on flowering
and fruiting of tomato. Sarhad J. Agric. 28 (1):37-40.
Olsen, S.R., Cole, C.V., Watanabe, F.S. and Dean, L.A.1954. Estimation of available
phosphorus in soil by extraction with sodium bicarbonate.United State Deptt.
Agriculture, Circular 19:939.
Padma, M., Reddy, S. A. and Babu, R. S. 1989 Effect of foliar sprays of molybdenum (M0)
and boron (B) on vegetative growth and drymatter production of French bean
(Phaseolus vulgaris L.). J. R, APAU 17(1): 87-89.
Patel, M.M., Patel, I.C., Patel, R.I. and Acharya, S. 2011. Effect of Zinc and Iron on Yield
and Yield Attributes of Rainfed Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp). Annals of
Arid Zone. 50(1): 17-19.
54
Piper, C. S, 1967. Soil and plant analysis, University of Adelaide.
Poithankar, D. H., Sadwarte, K. T., Manhorkar, K. V. and Dipali, D. Effect of foliar
application of boron and DAP fertilization on quality of tomato (Lycopersicon
esculentum Mill). J. of soils and Crops 14(1): 46-49.
Punith Raj, T. S., Nagraja, M. S., Dumgond, P., Reddy, S. and Shivakumar, 2012. Effect of
foliar application of secondary and micronutrients on yield and quality of tomato. An
Asian J. Soil Sci., 194-149.
Raffo, A., Leonardi, C., Fogliano, V., Ambrosino, P., Salucci, M., Gennaro, L., Bugianesi,
R., Giuffrida F., Quaglia, G. 2002. Nutritional value of cherry tomatoes
(Lycopersicon esculentum Cv. Naomi F1) harvested at different ripening stages.
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 50: 6550- 6556.
Rafique, Abdul, Abdul, M. and Ahmed, A. 2004. Effect of micronutrient supplement in
growth and development of okra (Abelmoschus esculentus L. Moench) Bangladesh.
Journal of Botany, 33(2):129-131.
Raghav, M. and Sharma, R.D. 2003. Growth and yield in tomato, okra, vegetable pea
cropping sequence as affected by levels and methods of zinc application. Progressive
horticulture, 35(1): 96-99.
Rai, G.K., Kumar, R., Singh, A.K., Rai, P.K., Rai, M., Chaturvedi, A.K. and Rai, A.B., 2012
Changes In Antioxidant And Phytochemical Properties Of Tomato (Lycopersicon
esculentum Mill.) Under Ambient Condition. Pak. J. Bot. 44(2): 667-670.
Raj, G. B., Patnaik, H. C., Reddy, I. P. and Rao, A. P. 2001. Response of brinjal (Solanum
melongena L.) to zinc and iron. Veg. Sci. 28(1): 80-81.
Raj, G. B., Patnaik, H. C., Reddy, I. P. and Rao, A. P. 2001. Response of brinjal (Solanum
melongena L.) to zinc and iron. Veg Sci., 28(1): 80-81.
Raj, Punith, T.S., Nagaraja, M.S., Dhumgond, Prabhudev, Reddy, Sharanbhoopal and
Shivakumar, K.M. 2012. Effect of foliar application of secondary and micro
nutrients on yield and quality of tomato. Asian J. Soil Sci., 7(2): 194-199.
Ranganathan, D.S. and Perumal, R., 1995. Effect of micronutrients with /without organics
and biofertilizers on growth and development of tomato in inceptisol and alfisol.
South Indian Hort. 43 (3&4): 89-92.
Salam, M. A., Siddique, M. A., Rahim, M. A., Rahman,
M. A. and Saha, M. G. 2010. Quality
of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) as influenced by Boron and Zinc under
different levels of NPK fertilizers. Bangla. J. Agril. Res., 35 (3): 475-488.
55
Salehin F, Rahman, S. 2012. Effects of zinc and nitrogen fertilizer and their application
method on yield and yield components of (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Agri. Sci. 3 (1): 9-
13.
Saravaiya, S. N., Wakchaure, S. S, Jadhav, P. B., Tekale, G. S., Patil, N. B and Dekhane, S.
S. 2014. Effect of foliar application of micronutrients in tomato (Lycopersicon
esculentum Mill.) cv. Gujarat Tomato-2. The Asian J. Horti., 9 (2): 297-300.
Sathya, S., Mani, S., Mahedran, P.P., Arulmozhiselvan, K. 2010. Effect of application of
boron on growth, quality and fruit yield of PKM 1 tomato. Ind J. of Agricultural
Res., 44(4): 274-280.
Sekhar, L., Prakash, B.G., Salimath, P.M., Channayya, P., Hiremath Sridevi O. and Patil,
A.A., 2010. Implication of heterosis and combining ability among productive Single
cross Hybrids in tomato. Electronic Journal of Plant Breeding 1(4): 706-711.
Shankar, K., Sreedevi, Sumathi S., Shankar, M. and Reddy N.N., 2012. Comparison of
nutritional quality of organically versus conventionally grown tomato. Indian J Hort.
69(1): 86-90.
Siddique, M. H., Fateh, C., Abbasi, M. and Gandahi, A., 2009. Effect of NPK, micro
nutrients and N-placement on the growth and yield of sunflower. Sarhad J. Agric. 1
(5):46-52.
Singh, H.M. and Tiwari, J. K. 2013. Impact of micronutrient spray on growth, yield and
quality of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill). Hort Flora Res. Spectrum, 2(1):
87-89.
Singh, K. V. and Singh, B. 2012. Response of foliar application of micro-nutrients on growth
and yield of chilli (Capsicum annuum L). Progre. Agri., 12 (1): 124-127.
Singh, M. K., Chand, T., Kumar, M., Singh, K. V., Lodhi, S. K., Singh, V. P. and Sirohi, V.
S. 2015. Response of different doses of NPK and Boron on growth and yield of
broccoli (Brassica oleracea L. var. italica). Int. J. Bio-resou. Stress Manage., 6 (1):
108-112.
Singh. B., Kaul, S., Kumar, D. and Kumar, V. 2010. Combining ability for yield and its
contributing characters in tomato. Indian Journal of Horticulture 67(1): 50-55.
Sinha, P., Khurana, N. And Nautiyal, N. 2009. Boron stress influences economic yield and
quality in crop species. Indian J. Plant Physiol., 14 (2): 200-204. (Lycopersicon
esculentum Mill.)
56
Smitha R. P. and Ukkund K. C.2008. Effect of Foliar Application of Micronutrients on
Growth and Yield components of Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.).
Karnataka J. Agric. Sci., 21(3) : 428-430.
Subbiah, B. V. and Asija, G.L. 1956. A rapid procedure for the determination of available
nitrogen in soil. Current Sci. 25:259-260.
Sultana, S., Naseer, H. M., Akhter, S. and Begum, R. A. 2016. Effectiveness of soil and foliar
application of zinc and boron on the yield of tomato. Bangla. J. Agril. Res., 411-418.
Swati, B. Singh, P., Hind, M., Singh, D.B. 2011. Response of foliar application of
micronutrients on tomato variety Rashmi. Indian Journal of Horticulture. 68: (2) 278-
279.
Tamilselvi, P., Vijayakumar, R. M. and Nainar, P. 2002. Studies on the effect of foliar
application of micronutrients on quality of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.)
Cv. pkm-1.Indian Hort., 53: 272-275.
Tawab, S., Ayub, G., Tawab, F., Khan ,O., Bostan, N., Ruby, S., Ahmad, S. and Afridi, U.
2015. response of brinjal (solanum melongena l.) Cultivars to zinc levels. J.
Agri.and Bio. Sci., 10, ( 5): 171-178.
Verma, S. K., Singh, S. S. and Awasthi, C. P. 1995. Response of zinc and boron fertilization
on yield and quality of tomato fruits of different stages of picking. Veg. Sci. 22(1): 5-
8.
Weerasinghe, K. M. S., Balasooriya, A. H. K., Ransinghe, S. L., Krishantha, C. D.,
Brahakmanage, R. S. and Wijethilika, L. C. 2014. Effects of macro and
micronutrients on growth and yield performance of tomato (Sonanum lycopersicon
Mill.). Plant Sci. & Forest., 18.150.
57
Appendix-I: Weekly meteorological data during the crop period
Wk
No. Month
and date
Max. Min. Rain-
Relative
Humidity
Wind
Velocity
Evapo-
ration
Sun
Shine
(hours) Temp. Temp. fall (%) (Kmph) (mm)
(°C) (°C) (mm) I II
36 Jan
01-07 30.7 25.3 62.8 87 68 5.9 24.5 1.4
37
08-14 31.1 24.3 132.8 95 80 2.9 24.9 3.3
38
15-21 32.2 24.9 91.6 94 69 2.5 33.1 6.2
39
22-28 30 24.5 134.6 97 89 2.8 22.8 3.4
40
29-04 26.5 24.8 48.2 95 72 2.7 22.6 4.5
41 Feb
05-11 31.5 22.9 9.2 94 50 1.4 23.7 5.6
42
12-18 31.6 19 0 90 35 1.1 28.7 10
43
19-25 31.5 18.1 0 89 36 1.5 26.5 9.5
44
26-04 30.6 19.8 0 85 51 2.1 23.4 8
45 Mar
05-11 30.2 15.7 0 88 29 1.9 25.2 8.5
46
12-18 29 14.4 0 89 35 1.5 20.7 7.8
47
19-25 30 11.3 0 89 25 0.9 21.2 8.5
48
26-01 30.7 13 0 88 27 1.2 22.6 8.5
49 Apr
02-08 28.9 14.3 0 90 39 1.5 25.1 7.4
50
09-15 28.8 11.9 0 83 29 2 57 8.1
51
16-22 27.5 8.6 0 87 24 1.5 37.1 8.5
52
23-29 28.2 9.9 0 86 26 1.1 22.5 7.4
1
30-06 28.6 12.2 0 90 32 1.5 19.9 6.4
2 May
07-13 27.2 11.9 5.6 85 35 2.6 17.2 6.5
3
14-20 28.9 11.8 0 85 27 1.2 21.5 8
4
21-27 29.9 14.3 0 83 29 1.9 25.3 7.7
58
5
28-03 30.4 12 0 80 26 1.6 27 9.4
6 Jun
04-10 32.2 14.1 0 81 26 1.8 30 9.3
7
11-17 31 15.8 0 80 31 2.6 30.9 6.8
8
18-24 34.1 15.5 0 68 17 2.6 41.7 10.1
9
25-01 34.3 15.8 0 73 15 2.2 40.4 9.7
10 Jul
02-08 33 19.2 5.5 69 36 3.3 36.5 6.7
11
09-15 32.9 17 0 58 18 3.3 43.5 8.9
12
16-22 36.5 19.7 0 63 15 2.9 50 9.2
13
23-29 35.9 23 0 58 13 2.7 58.5 8.9
14
30-05 41.4 26.6 0 45 17 5.1 66.7 8.3
15 Aug
06-12 40.7 22 0 36 9 3.2 69.6 9.4
16
13-19 42.6 26.7 0 41 10 4.6 72.3 9.5
17
20-26 42.3 24.9 0 37 8 5.4 12.5 10.3
18
27-02 42 27.6 0.4 39 14 4.6 74.7 9.2
19 Sep
03-09 41.4 27.6 0.8 49 22 5.5 10 8.7
20
10-16 44.5 30.1 0 37 13 5.2 11.9 9.7
21
17-23 44.4 28.9 0 34 14 4.6 88.2 9.9
22
24-30 41.3 27.1 6.6 59 27 7.7 72.9 7.9
59
Appendix-II: Analysis of variance for various traits of tomato
*denotes significant at 5% level
Appendix-III: Analysis of variance for various traits of tomato
Source of
variation
d.f Fruit weight
(gram)
Yield per
plant (kg)
Yield
(q/ha)
Shelf
life
TSS
(%)
Reducing
sugar (%)
Total
sugar %
Ascorbic acid
(mg/ 100g)
Replication 3 30.92 0.30 4070.21 1.57 0.13 0.002 0.02 0.96
Treatment 7 136.86* 2.23* 26076.97* 11.01* 0.54* 0.14* 0.63* 5.43*
Error 21 29.62 0.19 3860.88 2.19 0.10 0.07 0.022 0.47
* denotes significant at 5% level
Source of
variation
d.f Plant height
in cm
Plant
girth in
cm
Days to first
flowering
Days to first
fruiting
Days to
maturity
No. of fruits
per plant
Fruit
length in
cm
Fruit
diameter
Replication 3 44.54 0.02 10.66 12.81 24.33 13.25 0.16 0.35
Treatment 7 885.33* 0.35* 24.66* 27.91* 63.09* 150.41* 1.5* 0.53*
Error 21 64.67 0.03 7.24 8.23 15.39 27.04 0.19 0.13
