Performance Evaluation of Different Tomato Lines Grown Organically in Catarman, Camiguin, Philippines

Authors

  • Erecson Sipin Solis Camiguin Polytechnic State College, Philippines.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54536/ajaset.v6i2.125

Keywords:

Tomato, Varieties, Growth, Yield, Tomato Yellow Leaf Curl Virus, Performance Evaluation

Abstract

Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) is considered an important crop, but local producers face difficulties in choosing the appropriate variety due to its diversity and ecological adaptability. In an effort to provide an alternative option of varieties and selection of suitable varieties, this research was conducted to evaluate the comparative performance of sixteen tomato varieties (11 AVRDC lines, five check varieties) at Tangaro, Catarman, Camiguin from January to April 2014 using randomized complete block design with three replications under field conditions. It was found out that plant height, days to 50% flowering, days to first harvest, plant vigor, percent survival, fruit yield, number of fruits, fruit weight, marketable yield, and resistance to tomato yellow leaf curl virus (TYLCV) showed significant differences among the various tomato varieties under trial except for the fruit size. Maximum plant height (65.30 cm) at 60DAT was recorded in T11 (AVTO 1002) followed by T8 (AVTO 1130). Most check varieties produced first flowers earlier compared to AVRDC lines, with T15 (CV4 M) at 20.67 days and consequently mature early by having its first harvest (56DAT) at least two days earlier except for T1 (AVTO 1009), T2 (AVTO 1003) and T3 (AVTO 9803). T12 (CV1 TD) exhibited a vigorous plant stand compared to AVRDC lines T2 (AVTO 1003) and T8 (AVTO 1130), which showed a weak stand at the first harvest. Checked varieties T12 (CV1 TD) has the highest percentage of survival, while T7 (AVTO 0101) and T10 (AVTO 9001) showed a percent plant survival statistically comparable to other check varieties. T14 (CV3 MF1) produced the most number of fruits, while T5 (AVTO 1004) produced the least. The highest computed yield per hectare was observed from T14 (CV3 MF1), while the lowest yield was computed from AVRDC line T9 (AVTO 1008). AVRDC lines T1 (AVTO 1009), T2 (AVTO 1003), and T3 (AVTO 9803) are most susceptible to TYLCV, while checked varieties were more resistant. Considering the overall performance, it was found out that the checked varieties performed well. AVRDC lines T10 (AVTO 9001) and T4 (AVTO 1173) were also promising for their growth and yield performance and resistance to TYLCV. However, the potential of these varieties is needed to be further tested for verification under different growing seasons to elicit substantial conclusions.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Erecson Sipin Solis, Camiguin Polytechnic State College, Philippines.

Institute of Agriculture, Camiguin Polytechnic State College-Catarman Campus, Tangaro, Catarman 9104 Philippines.

References

Bureau of Agricultural Statistics. (2014). Selected Statistics on Agriculture 2014. http://www.bas.gov.ph

Colley, M., & Myers, J. 2007. On-farm variety trials: A guide for organic vegetable, herb, and flower producers. Organic Seed Alliance. http://www.seedalliance.org/uploads/publications/OVT_Guide.pdf

Diver, S., Kuepper, G., & Born, H. (1999). Organic Tomato Production. Horticulture Production Guide. Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas (ATTRA). http://www.attra.org/attra-pub/tomato.html

Food and Agriculture Organization. (2009). Statistical Bulletin. Rome, Italy. pp.1-2.

Fornaris, G., Guadalupe, R., Beauchamp de Caloni, I., & Chao de Báez, C. (1991). Yield and acceptability of eight fresh market tomato cultivars. J. Agric. Univ. P.R. 75(1):93-95.

International Plant Genetic Resources Institute. (n.d). Descriptors for Tomato. http://www.bioversityinternational.org/uploads/tx_news/Descriptors_for_tomato__Lycopersicon_spp.__286.pdf.

Jack, A. L., and Thies, J. E. (2006). “Compost and vermicompost as amendments promoting soil health,” in Biological Approaches to Sustainable Soil Systems, ed N. Uphoff (New York, NY: CRC Press), 453–466.

Lammerts van Bueren, E., Hulscher, M., Haring, M., Jongerden, J., Mansvelt, J., Nijs, A., & Ruivenkamp, G. (1999). Sustainable organic plant breeding. Final report: A vision, choices, consequences and steps. http://orgprints.org/1419/

McGraw, D., Motes, J. & Schatzer, R.J. 2007 Commercial production of fresh market tomatoes. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service. HLA-6019.

Ortiz, R., Crossa, J., Vargas, M. & Izquierdo, J. Studying the effect of environmental variables on the genotype × environment interaction of tomato. Euphytica 153, 119–134 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-006-9248-7Palada, M. & Davis, A. (2001). Yield performance of tomato cultivars grown under organic management system. Proceedings of the Caribbean Food Crops Society 37:154-160. http://dx.doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.256676

Peet, M. & Bartholemew, M. (1996). Effect of night temperature on pollen characteristics, growth, and fruit set in tomato. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 121(3):514-519. https://doi.org/10.21273/JASHS.121.3.514

Wang X-X, Zhao F, Zhang G, Zhang Y and Yang L (2017) Vermicompost Improves Tomato Yield and Quality and the Biochemical Properties of Soils with Different Tomato Planting History in a Greenhouse Study. Front. Plant Sci. 8:1978. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.01978

Downloads

Published

2022-07-21

How to Cite

Solis, E. S. (2022). Performance Evaluation of Different Tomato Lines Grown Organically in Catarman, Camiguin, Philippines. American Journal of Agricultural Science, Engineering, and Technology, 6(2), 18–24. https://doi.org/10.54536/ajaset.v6i2.125