ArticlePDF Available

Shoot pruning on fruit and seed production of two winter tomato varieties

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

This study was aimed to evaluate the effect of different pruning systems on the production of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) during winter in Bangladesh. Plants were pruned differently, such as, one shoot (P1), two shoot (P2), three shoot (P3) with normal pruning (P0) as a check. We used two tomato varieties and these were BARI Tomato 2 (V1) and BARI Tomato 15 (V2). We designed the experiments in complete randomized block design with three replicates. We didn't found any significant difference for days to 50% flowering, number of fruits/plant, single fruit weight and fruit yield/plant for the pruning treatment irrespective to the varieties. In combination of stem pruning and variety, we found that stem pruning slightly decrease the yield of both tomato varieties. Two shoot pruning (P2) showed highest seed yield (14.5 g/plant; 49.6 kg/ha) and viability (85.2%). The highest seed yield was found from P0V1 (60.2 kg/ha), whereas the lowest (34.7 kg) from P 0 V 2. The highest viability was found from P1V1 and P3V3 (99.0%) and the lowest viability (3.3%) recorded from P1V2. Both varieties performed differently to the different stem pruning. From the result of the current study, at least one/two stem pruning can be suggested for the seed production of tomato.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Cronicon
OPEN ACCESS EC NUTRITION
Research Article
Shoot Pruning on Fruit and Seed Production of Two Winter Tomato Varieties
Md Razzab Ali1, Abdul Goffar2, MMR Salim2, Mehbub Hasan3 and H Mehraj3,4*
1
2
3
4
Citation: H Mehraj.,  “Shoot Pruning on Fruit and Seed Production of Two Winter Tomato Varieties”. 13.5 (2018): 265-
271.
*Corresponding Author: H Mehraj, Lab of Vegetable and Floricultural Science, Faculty of Agriculture and Marine Science, Kochi
University, Kochi and The United Graduate School of Agricultural Sciences, Ehime University, Ehime, Japan.
Received: January 29, 2018; Published: April 16, 2018
Abstract
This study was aimed to evaluate the effect of different pruning systems on the production of tomato (
Mill.) during winter in Bangladesh. Plants were pruned differently, such as, one shoot (P1), two shoot (P2), three shoot (P3) with nor-
mal pruning (P0) as a check. We used two tomato varieties and these were BARI Tomato 2 (V1) and BARI Tomato 15 (V2). We designed

-
ies. In combination of stem pruning and variety, we found that stem pruning slightly decrease the yield of both tomato varieties. Two
shoot pruning (P2
P0V10V2. The highest viability was found from P1V1 and P3V3 (99.0%) and the lowest
viability (3.3%) recorded from P1V2. Both varieties performed differently to the different stem pruning. From the result of the current

Keywords: 
Abbreviation
HRC: Horticulture Research Centre; BARI: Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute; BER: Blossom-End Rot; FC: Fruit Cracking; RCBD:

Tomato ( Mill.) is one of the most important vegetable throughout the world as well as in Bangladesh. The
total tomato production exceeds all other crops (exception of the potato and sweet potato) [1]. It is used as multi-purpose, both in raw or
processed forms. Irrespective to the economical class, Bangladeshis preferred it equally. Tomatoes are good source of minerals, vitamins
-

to cultivate more tomato. Despite the total cultivated area and production have increased gradually over the years, but the productivity

167000 metric tons [7] and demands for vegetable seeds are 2700 tones while supply are 791.2 tons per year (63.2 tones for government
sectors and 728 tones for private sectors, respectively) in Bangladesh [8]. Bangladeshi growers faced several problems on high yield with
good quality tomato production. Several factors are responsible to the high yield and quality tomato production; and among these factors,
some are plant population [9,10], stem pruning and cultivar selection [11]. Temporarily unfavorable climatic conditions [12,13], high
Introduction
266
Shoot Pruning on Fruit and Seed Production of Two Winter Tomato Varieties
Citation: H Mehraj.,  “Shoot Pruning on Fruit and Seed Production of Two Winter Tomato Varieties”. 13.5 (2018): 265-
271.
The experiment was conducted at Olericulture Division, HRC, Bangladesh in 2014 - 2015 winter season (Mid October to mid-April).
Plants were pruned the at four different pruning stages [No pruning as control (P0), one shoot (P1), two shoot (P2), and three shoot (P3)]
to BARI Tomato 2 (V1) and BARI Tomato 15 (V2) varieties. The seeds were sown in the on October 20, and seedlings were transplanted in
the main plot on November 19, 2014. The experiment was designed in RCBD with three replications. The plot size was 4.8 x 1 m2 with 60 x
40 cm2
rd
pits while K in two equal installments as split at 15 and 30 DAT. The entire urea fertilizers were applied at three equal installments at 15,
30 and 45 DAT. Irrigation, weeding, other intercultural operation and plant protections measures were taken timely. Data were collected


Materials and Methods
The collected data were analyzed using a MSTAT-C package computer program. The analysis of variance was performed and means

Results and Discussion
        
 
     20 
lowest from P10V1 and P3V1
plant) (Table 2).
insect pest infestation and viral diseases [14,15] and fungal diseases [16] cause tomato much lower fruit yield in tropical and subtropical
areas than that of temperate climates [17,18]. The physiological disorders such as BER and FC [13,19] are also responsible for the reduc-


the diseases risk. A proper pruning system is important to balance the relationship between source-sink and carbon-nitrogen ratio [23].
The number of stems in tomato plant can affect to the development of fruit number [23] through the regulation of the N-CHO [24]. Stem
pruning are essential for better yield and quality of tomatoes [9,17,25,26]. It can reduce the pest incidence [27,28], thereby increase
yields. Tomato plant can be cultivated with one or two stems [12,15,22,29] for the increase of fruit yield. It was theorized that fruit and
seed production of tomato can be increased in Bangladesh through pruning. Concerning the above mentioned theory, the aim of this study
was to determine the effects of stem pruning on the fruit and seed production of two tomato varieties under the condition of Bangladesh.
Fruit production characteristics
Treatments Days to 50%

Fruit
Number/plant Single wt. (g) Yield (kg/plant) Calculated yield (t/ha)
P051.3a ± 1.332.2a ± 1.1 70.2a ± 1.9 2.2a ± 0.2 76.9a ± 3.6
P151.3a ± 1.1 31.0a ± 1.7 67.2ab ± 1.6 2.1a ± 0.1 75.8a ± 4.1
P251.3a ± 1.6 32.5a ± 1.3 66.5ab ± 1.6 2.2a ± 0.2 76.4a ± 4.3
P351.3a ± 0.9 32.0a ± 1.2 64.5b ± 1.2 2.1a ± 0.4 75.3a ± 3.9
LSD(0.05) 0.9 3.4 4.5 0.2 7.3
CV (%) 1.0 6.2 3.8 5.9 5.6
Table 1: 
Note:         
  12  3

Citation: H Mehraj.,  “Shoot Pruning on Fruit and Seed Production of Two Winter Tomato Varieties”. 13.5 (2018): 265-
271.
Shoot Pruning on Fruit and Seed Production of Two Winter Tomato Varieties
267
TreatmentsDays to 50%

Fruit
Number/plant Single wt. (g) Yield/plant Yield/ha
P0V150.3b ± 1.4 35.0a ± 1.1 77.3a ± 2.1 2.6a ± 0.04 86.1a ± 3.1
P1V150.3b ± 1.7 32.7ab ± 1.2 72.1b ± 2.4 2.3bc ± 0.02 78.0bc ± 2.6
P2V150.3b ± 1.2 34.7a ± 1.1 70.1bc ± 1.8 2.2c ± 0.05 75.6cd ± 2.9
P3V150.3b ± 1.5 35.0a ± 1.0 62.9d ± 1.7 2.5ab ± 0.09 84.1a ± 3.3
P0V252.3a ± 1.6 29.3bc ± 0.8 63.2d ± 2.5 1.9d ± 0.05 65.0e ± 2.8
P1V252.3a ± 1.3 29.3bc ± 1.1 62.3d ± 2.0 1.9d ± 0.03 65.3e ± 3.0
P2V252.3a ± 1.4 30.3bc ± 1.0 62.2d ± 2.2 1.9d ± 0.01 66.0e ± 3.3
P3V252.3a ± 1.5 29.0c ± 0.9 66.1cd ± 2.1 2.0d ± 0.06 69.5de ± 3.6
LSD(0.05) 0.9 3.4 4.5 0.2 7.3
CV (%) 1.0 6.2 3.8 5.9 5.6
Table 2: 
Note:

12312
Single fruit weight and Fruit yield: Highest single fruit weight was found from P0 (70.2g) (Table 1), whereas regards to combining
effect, the highest single fruit weight was found from P0V1 (77.3 gm) (Table 2). The higher number of fruits and mean single fruit weight

0V1
3V1
Seed production characteristics
Number of seeds per plant and their yield:
3). In case of combining effect, the highest number of seed was frond from P0V1  
2
P130V1
plant) (Table 4).
Treatments Seed
Number/fruit Yield (g/plant) Viability 1000-seed wt. (g) Filled (%)Yield (kg/ha)
P0143.4a13.9ab 70.5b3.0c91.0a56.8ab
P1134.2a14.1ab 51.2b3.2b81.9b48.2ab
P2136.4a14.5a85.2a3.4a92.2a49.6a
P3130.5a12.9b56.8c3.3b93.9a44.2b
LSD(0.05) 19.6 1.5 3.5 0.1 5.3 4.4
CV (%) 8.2 6.1 3.1 1.9 10.8 5.3
Table 3: 
Note:
123
Citation: H Mehraj.,  “Shoot Pruning on Fruit and Seed Production of Two Winter Tomato Varieties”. 13.5 (2018): 265-
271.
Shoot Pruning on Fruit and Seed Production of Two Winter Tomato Varieties
268
Treatments Seed
Number/fruit Yield (g/plant) Viability 1000-seed wt (g) Filled (%) Yield (kg/ha)
P0V1181.7a17.8a93.3b3.1c89.2ab 60.2ab
P1V1152.9bc 16.2b99.0a3.2c88.4ab 55.1b
P2V1164.7ab 16.8ab 95.0b3.3b93.9a60.2a
P3V1150.6b13.8c99.0a3.1c93.4a47.3c
P0V2105.0c10.0e47.7d2.9d92.8a34.7e
P1V2115.5c12.0d3.3f3.2c75.4b41.4d
P2V2108.2c12.2d75.3c3.5a90.5ab 42.5d
P3V2110.4c12.1d14.7e3.4ab 94.4a41.1d
LSD(0.05) 19.6 1.5 3.5 0.1 5.3 4.4
CV (%) 8.2 6.1 3.1 1.9 10.8 5.3
Table 4: 
Note:
1231
2
1000 seed weight:
3 and Table 4). The highest 1000 seed weight was from P2 (3.4g), which was closely followed by P1 (3.2g) (Table 3). The maximum 1000
seed weight was also found from P2V2 combination (3.5g) that was statistically similar with P3V2 (3.4 g) (Table 4).
Seed viability:   2
(85.2%), while the lowest from P3 (56.8%) (Table 3). Nevertheless, the P1V1 combination (99.0%) showed highest viability, which was
statistically identical with P3V1 (99.0%) (Table 4).
   -
   3 (93.9%). P2 (92.2%) and P0 (91.0%) was statistically
similar with P3  3V2 treatment combination (94.4%), which was closely
followed by P3V1 (93.9%) and P3V1 (93.4%). All of the treatment combinations were statistically identical with P3V2 treatment (Table 4).
Seed yield:2
which was statistically similar with P1 (48.2 kg) and P0 2V1-
tion for seed yield that was statistically identical with P0V1
Discussion

    

-
uted by the less number of photosynthates demanding shoots in pruned plants, which resulted in partitioning of more dry matter to the
fruits. Bangladeshi farmers use excessive fertilizers that promote side shoot formation at early growing stage in tomatoes. Pruning of stem
can increase fruit load by bringing back the balance source: sink ratio in plants [35]. Stem pruning increase in generative sink strength
compared to the relative increase in source, and this not only increases overall fruit production but also reduces available assimilates per

Citation: H Mehraj.,  “Shoot Pruning on Fruit and Seed Production of Two Winter Tomato Varieties”. 13.5 (2018): 265-
271.
Shoot Pruning on Fruit and Seed Production of Two Winter Tomato Varieties
269
Conclusions


yield. There was major difference in variety. BARI Tomato 2 showed higher seed production and viability than that of BARI Tomato 15.
Shoot pruning is probably being considered as a technique to manipulate fruit load. But, pruning to multiple stems will probably require
more stringent management of fruit load, at least for larger number of fruited cultivars, otherwise plants may become overly generative
and long term productivity limited.

assimilate supply through fruit pruning and changing stem density [38]. Pruning reduces disease pressure and leaf shading of fruit to
protect them from sunburn which is also considered as an important factor [37]. Stem density can be altered through increased planting
density or allowing side shoots to develop on plants. It is well documented that increasing plant density decreases total fruit yield per
plant but increases yield per unit area [39,40]. Yield of tomato increased by shoot pruning due to the increased average fruit weight and
number of fruit per plant. Our results are also agreed with Ara., . [9] and Huat.,  [41]. Pruning facilitates more stem; increased
number of clusters; high fruit set percentage which leads to higher yield per plant. Atefeh., . [42] and Zhang [43] reported previously
similar to our study. Seed production in BARI Tomato 2 was better than that of BARI Tomato 15. Pruning of the side shoot reduces the
-
mination and seedlings emergence requires a lot of energy which are supplied from the oxidation of seed storage materials. The average
weight of 1000 seeds is important for seed quality [44,45].
Bibliography
1. -
ed Nations (FAO) Statistics Division (2015).
2. Jones CM., . “Characterization and inheritance of the antocyanin fruit (Aft) tomato. 94.6 (2003): 449-456.
3. Beecher GR. “Nutrient Content of tomatoes and tomato products”.  
218.2 (1998): 98-100.
4. Shi J and ML Maguer. “Lycopene in tomatoes: Chemical and physical properties affected by food processing”. 
 20.4 (2000):293-334.
5. Kelly TW and G Boyan.. “Commercial tomato production handbook. University of Georgia Coop”. Research Bulletin (2010): 1312.
6. FAO. “Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Soil Survey Project of Bangladesh”. Soil Research. Technical Reports
57 (2003): 140-141.
7. BBS. “Statistical year Book of Bangladesh, Stat. Div. Minis. Planning, Govt. People Republic of Bangladesh, Dhaka (2005).
8. BSGDMA. “Bangladesh Seed Grower Dealer and Merchants Association”. Asian Seed Congress Manila, Phillippines (2007).
9. Ara N., . “Effect of spacing and stem pruning on the growth and yield of tomato”. 
 2.3 (2007): 35-39.
10. Davis JM and Estes ED. “Spacing and pruning affect growth, yield and economic returns of staked fresh-market tomatoes”. 
 118 (1993): 719-725.
270
Shoot Pruning on Fruit and Seed Production of Two Winter Tomato Varieties
Citation: H Mehraj.,  “Shoot Pruning on Fruit and Seed Production of Two Winter Tomato Varieties”. 13.5 (2018): 265-
271.
11. Maboko MM and Du Plooy CP. “Effect of pruning on yield and quality of hydroponically grown cherry tomato (Lycopersicon esculen-
tum)”.  25.3 (2008): 178-181.
12. Kleinhenz V., . “Biomass Accumulation and Partitioning of Tomato under Protected Cultivation in the Humid Tropics”. 
 71.4 (2006): 173-182.
13.  
greenhouse tomato in the tropics”.  172.6 (2009): 829-838.
14. Nguyen THN.,          
Thripidae)”.  102.4 (2009): 1559-1566.
15. Maboko MM., 
 6.22 (2011): 5144-5148.
16. Heine G.,     
Science 174.5 (2011): 827-836.
17. 
 2.3 (2007): 310-317.
18. Max JFJ.,        
tropical climate”.  122.2 (2009): 179-186.
19. Liebisch F., . “Blossom-end rot and fruit cracking of tomato grown in net-covered greenhouses in Central Thailand can partly be
corrected by calcium and boron sprays 172.1 (2009): 140-150.
20. Mutwiwa UN., 
 1 (2008): 33- 43.
21. Bertin N. “Analysis of the Tomato Fruit Growth Response to Temperature and Plant Fruit Load in Relation to Cell Division, Cell Expan-
sion and DNA Endoreduplication”.  95.3 (2005): 439-447.
22. 
crops”.  86.3 (2000):197-210.
23. Franco JL., 
 7 (2009): 248-253.
24. Guan HP and HW Janes. “Light regulation of sink metabolism in tomato fruit”.  96.3 (1991): 916-921.
25. Preece JE. “The biology of horticulture”. Ed. John Wiley & sons, New York (1995).
26. Srinivasan S., et al. “The effect of spacing, training and pruning in hybrid tomato”. Ed. CAB international (2001):
27.       
 32.2 (2005): 79-83.
28. Saunyama IGM and Knapp M. “Effect of pruning and trellising of tomatoes on red spider mite incidence and crop yield in Zimbabwe”.
 11.4 (2003): 269-277.
29. Rahmatian A., -
ponically”.  55.2 (2014): 115-119.
271
Shoot Pruning on Fruit and Seed Production of Two Winter Tomato Varieties
Citation: H Mehraj.,  “Shoot Pruning on Fruit and Seed Production of Two Winter Tomato Varieties”. 13.5 (2018): 265-
271.
30. Bicksler AJ. “Testing Seed Viability Using Simple Germination Tests”.  11 (2011).
31. Gomez, K. A. and AA Gomez. “Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. 2nd edition”. John Wiley and Sons. New York (1984):
680.
32. Frank F. “Pruning Tomato. Suggested Cultural Practices for Tomato” - AVRDC (2000): 213.
33. Alam MS., . “Effect of different staking methods and stem pruning on yield and quality of summer tomato. 
 41.3 (2016): 419.
34. Ahmed S., . “Effect of pruning on the yield and quality of Kinnow fruit”.  2.1 ( 2006): 51-53.
35. DE Koning NM. “Model predictions of optimum shoot density and truss size in glasshouse tomato”.   417.11 (
1996): 99-106.
36. Nederhoff E. “Plant management for generative or vegetative steering”.  (2009):51-54.
37. Heuvelink E., . “Effect of leaf area on tomato yield”.  691 ( 2005): 43-.50.
38. XIAO S., . “Two Instead of three leaves between tomato trusses: measured and simulated effects on partitioning and yield”. 
 654 (2004): 303-308.
39. -
persicon esculentum Mill.): A review”.  69.1-2 (1997):1-29.
40. Saglam N and Yazgan A. “The effects of planting and the number of trusses per plant on earliness, yield and quality of tomato grown
under unheated plastic tunnel”.  412.29 (1995).
41. Huat J.,         44 (2013):
120-127.
42. Atefeh T., . “The effects of shrub pruning and fruit thinning on seed germination and seedling of tomato in the next generation
(Lycopersicum esculentum Mill)”.  5.14 (2011): 105-110.
43. Zhang YW. “Spacing and Pruning Effect on Tomato Yield”.  156 (1999): 1-5.
44. Grigoryan G. A. “Changes in seed quality in tomato in relation to variety and fertilizer treatment”. Scientia Horticulturae 12 (1977):
21-25.
45. Mc-Donald MB. “Seed Quality Assessment”.  8 (1998): 265-275.
Volume 13 Issue 5 May 2018
©All rights reserved by H Mehraj., et al.
Article
Full-text available
Studies were conducted in tropical greenhouses to elucidate the role of UV light (UV) for the orientation and flight behavior of the thrips Ceratothripoides claratris (Shumsher) (Thysanoptera: Thripidae), an important pest on tomato (Lycopersicum spp.), in the hot and humid tropics of South-East Asia. Four greenhouse types characterized by different combinations of UV-absorbing or -transmitting plastic films and nets on the roof and sidewalls, respectively, were used in these studies. In choice experiments C. claratris always preferred the environment with higher UV intensity. Furthermore, natural thrips populations around the greenhouses were captured during the majority of control dates in lower numbers on sticky traps on the outer sidewalls of greenhouses clad with UV-absorbing materials compared with UV-transmitting materials. The immigration of thrips into the UV-absorbing greenhouses also was impeded, as measured by sticky traps on the inner side walls. UV-absorbing plastic roofs showed the most pronounced deterrent effect for thrips movement toward greenhouses, and the UV-absorbing net effectively reduced thrips numbers crossing the net barrier into the greenhouse. A simple extension of UV-absorbing plastic roof around conventional greenhouses clad with UV-transmitting plastic and net reduced thrips capture rates inside the greenhouse up to 77% when thrips was released at 1 m distance from the net walls. These results are discussed in the context of wavelength dependent insect vision and the dilemma of tropical greenhouse constructions, i.e., physical pest exclusion versus appropriate ventilation to ensure a conducive microclimate for plant growth.
Article
Full-text available
Replicated field trials were carried out at the Usmanu Danfodiyo University Fadama Teaching and Research Farm, Sokoto, during 2004/05 and 2005/06 dry seasons, to examine the effects of training and pruning on growth and yield of tomato (Lycopersicon lycopersicum Mill.) variety Roma VFN. Treatments consisted of factorial combination of two levels of training (staked and unstaked) and three levels pruning (three-stem, two-stem and unpruned) and three levels of intra-row spacing (20, 40 and 60 cm) laid out in a split-plot design replicated three times, with training allocated to the main plots and pruning intra-row spacing to the sub-plots. Results of training and pruning are presented in this paper. Results revealed that mean fruit length and diameter in the first trial, fruit weight in both trials and the two trials combined, total fresh fruit yield in the first trial and combined and percentage marketable yield in the first trial and the combined were significantly (p<0.05) higher in the tomato plants that were staked. Results on pruning showed that mean fruit length, diameter and weight in both trials were significantly higher in three-stem and two-stem pruned plants than unpruned plants. Similarly, three-stem pruned plant produced the highest total fresh fruit yield in both trials. Significant training x pruning interactions recorded, showed that the highest percentage marketable yield was at staked and pruned (both three and two-stem) plants; while two-stem with staking or no staking produced the highest mean fruit weight.
Article
Full-text available
Unstable prices and increased competitive market pressures have caused many staked-tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) producers to reexamine the costs and benefits of various production practices. In 1988 and 1989, field studies were conducted to determine if changes in plant in-row spacing and pruning could reduce production costs, increase yields, and improve grower net returns of staked `Mountain Pride' tomatoes. In both years, early-season yields were highest using early pruning (when lateral shoots were 5 to 10 cm long) or delayed pruning (when lateral shoots were 30 to 36 cm long) and in-row spacings ≤46 cm. In 1988, total-season yields per hectare of pruned plants increased as in-row spacing decreased. For nonpruned plants, however, total-season yields were high at all spacings. In 1989, total-season yields were lower from delayed-pruned plants than from nonpruned plants and there was little yield difference due to in-row spacing. In both years, nonpruned plants produced low yields of fruit >72 mm in diameter but their total yields were greater than those of pruned plants. Net returns per hectare, calculated from combined data of both years, were highest when 1) plants spaced closely in-row were pruned early and 2) plants were spaced 46 to 76 cm apart and either pruned early or not pruned.
Article
Full-text available
Vegetative growth traits, and fruit yield and quality of ‘Synda’ tomato plants were compared with those grafted onto ‘King Kong’ rootstock or self-grafted. All experimental plants were trained to have either one stem single stemmed) or two stems (double stemmed). Values of stem diameter, leaf area, leaf and root fresh weight (FW), and root dry matter (DM) increased with grafting onto ‘King Kong’. Stem length, stem and root FW, and stem DM in double stemmed plants increased. Mean fruit weight, number of fruits, and yield were significantly increased by 11, 17.8, and 27%, respectively, in the grafted plants. Number of fruits and fruit yield increased, while mean fruit weight decreased by 12%, in double stemmed plants. Contents of total soluble solids (TSS) and vitamin C increased in the fruits harvested from the grafted plants. Grafted and double stemmed plants resulted in significant increase in dry matter allocation to different tomato organs.
Article
Full-text available
The commercial importance of cherry tomatoes is continuously increasing in the South African retail market, with fruit size playing an important role. The effect of pruning on yield and quality of two cherry tomato cultivars (Naomi and Josefina) with an indeterminate growth habit were investigated in an open bag hydroponic system at ARC-VOPI (25° 59′S ; 28° 35′E) Pretoria. The plants were subjected to three pruning treatments (one, two and three stems) in a complete randomized block design with three replications. Fruit were harvested at the full ripe stage and the fruit number, size and mass, marketable yield and total yield, as well as the total soluble solids (0Brix), were determined for all treatments. An increase in fruit size was evident in plants pruned to a single stem compared to plants pruned to two or three stems in both cultivars. The yield of plants increased with an increase in the number of stems. Cultivar Josefina had a significantly higher marketable yield compared to cultivar Naomi. Regardless of cultivar, pruning to two or three stems was effective in increasing yield and reducing fruit size to a size which is currently more acceptable to the market.
Article
Full-text available
The aim of this study was to determine the most efficient pruning system with cherry tomato to achieve the highest level of production without loss of quality and, thus, to provide growers with an efficient management system. The study was done at the University of Almeria Anecoop Experimental Farm Foundation, Almeria, Spain (36º51'78"N; 2º17'08"W). Two pruning systems, T0 with a main stem and a secondary stem (2S) and T1 with a main stem and a secondary stem plus four lateral branches with two racemes each (2S + 4B), were compared using the cherry tomato cultivar Salomée. System T1 resulted in a significantly larger quantity of fruit and a greater output in terms of weight per unit surface area. There was no significant difference in the quality parameters measured. Two elevated phases of production, harvesting in the greenhouses and in the summer, were obtained during the crop cycle for system T1, coinciding with harvesting from the additional branches (4B).
Article
p>The study was carried out during summer of 2012 with BARI hybrid tomato 4, planted in the Olericulture farm of Bangladesh Agriculture Research Institute, Joydebpur, Gazipur, Bangladesh to find out the response of plants to some staking and pruning treatments on yield, fruit quality and cost of production. A two factor experiment consisting of three staking methods and four level of pruning, laid out in complete block design with three repetitions. Plants were staked on inverted ?V? shaped staking, high platform and string. The plants were pruned to two stem, three stem, four stem and no pruning as control. Results showed that significantly the highest total number of fruits per plant (37.1), marketable fruits per plant (33.7), yield per plant (1.68 kg) and total yield (44.6 t/ha) were produced by the plants having the treatment string staking with four stem. The highest fruit set (43.50%) was found in the plants staking with string having three stems. Plants grown on string staking allowing two stem gave the maximum length (4.71 cm), diameter (4.83 cm) and weight (53.4g) of single fruit as well as maximum fruit firmness (3.43 kg-f cm<sup>-2</sup>). From the economic point of view, it was apparent that summer tomato produced by string staking with four stem pruning exhibited better performance compared to other treatment combinations in relation to net return and BCR (2.10). Bangladesh J. Agril. Res. 41(3): 419-432, September 2016</p