65 Adv. Hort. Sci., 2011 25(1): 65-68 Received for publication 20 October 2010. Accepted for publication 18 February 2011. Short note Performance of tomato under greenhouse and open field conditions in the trans-Himalayan region of India M.S. Kanwar Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology of Kashmir, Regional Agricultural Research Station, Leh 194 101, Ladakh, Jammu and Kashmir, India. Key words: greenhouse, Ladakh, open field, Solanum lycopersicon, tomato. Abstract: Production of tomato is limited by harsh climate and a short growing season in the trans-Himalayan Ladakh region of India. The performance of five tomato genotypes was compared under polyhouse and open field conditions. The study revealed that the performance of all tested tomato genotypes is far superior in the polyhouse, as compared to open field conditions, for all the considered characters. ‘Shivalik’ performed best with respect to yield characters followed by ‘Pusa Rohini’ under polyhouse conditions. However, in the open field, ‘Pusa Rohini’ showed the highest values, followed by ‘Shivalik’. Cultivation of tomato under the polyhouse pro- duced 136.12% more yield per ha and 188.93% more fruits per plant compared to open field cultivation. There- fore, tomato cultivation under protected conditions is advised for Ladakh growing conditions, employing specif- ic polyhouse-responsive varieties. 1. Introduction Tomato (Solanum lycopersicon L.) is available throughout the year in India. However, in the state of Jammu and Kashmir, with the exception of the Jammu region, it is mostly confined to the summer season. In the trans-Himalayan Ladakh region, production of tomato is limited by climate and a short growing sea- son. Ladakh has a harsh climate and extreme tempera- ture fluctuations ranging from -37°C to +38°C. In Ladakh, tomato can be grown in open conditions but yield remains poor with low quality and it remains weather-dependent. Therefore, protected cultivation is a feasible answer for successful cultivation of tomato in this region. Singh and Asrey (2005) also recom- mended that cultivation of tomato in a greenhouse would help obtain high productivity and better return. Therefore, it is useful to study tomato production potential in the Ladakh region with respect to yield and horticultural traits under protected conditions (prefer- ably in a zero-energy polyhouse) in comparison to the open field. 2. Materials and Methods The experiment was conducted under naturally ven- tilated polyhouse and open field conditions at the Experimental Farm, Stakna (Leh) of the Regional Agri- cultural Research Station (SKUAST-K) located at 3319 m amsl with latitude 33°58.551’ NS and longitude 77°41.995’EW. The climate of the area is typically dry temperate. Five genotypes including four hybrids (PH- 5, Shivalik, Jaya and Naveen 2000+) and one OP vari- ety (Pusa Rohini) were transplanted in a naturally ven- tilated polyhouse and the open field. Planting distance was 60 x 30 cm. The design of the experiment was Fac- torial RBD and material was replicated thrice. Individ- ual data of each location were also subjected to statis- tical analysis in RBD to have more authentic informa- tion with regard to tomato genotypes. Data recorded on 13 characters were subjected to statistical analysis as per Snedecor and Cochran (1967). 3. Results and Discussion There were significant differences among tomatoes grown under polyhouse and open field condition for all the characters, except for locules per fruit, confirming thereby the certain role of polyhouse in the cultivation of tomato in the trans-Himalayan region. Similar 66 Pu sa Ro hi ni PH -5 Sh iv ali k Ja ya Na ve en 20 00 + M ea n CD 0.0 5 (L ) CD 0.0 5 (G ) CD 0.0 5 (L xG ) Pl an th eig ht (c m ) Va rie tie s 91 .12 98 .12 12 5.7 0 12 2.9 0 16 9.2 0 12 1.4 0 10 .43 29 .95 NS 77 .50 56 .25 96 .25 95 .50 11 5.0 0 88 .10 12 .63 84 .31 77 .19 11 1.0 10 9.2 14 2.1 NS 10 .25 9.5 0 10 .00 10 .00 10 .00 9.9 5 1.1 4 NS NS 6.2 5 5.5 0 6.0 0 5.7 5 6.5 0 6.0 0 NS 8.2 5 7.5 0 8.0 0 7.8 8 8.2 5 NS 91 .5 89 .5 89 .5 91 .00 88 .50 95 .65 3.3 0 NS NS 95 .25 96 .25 93 .75 99 .00 94 .00 90 .00 NS 93 .37 92 .87 91 .62 95 .00 91 .25 NS 10 .25 9.5 0 10 .00 10 .00 10 .00 9.9 5 0.5 1 NS NS 6.2 5 5.5 0 6.0 0 5.7 5 6.5 0 6.0 0 0.6 7 8.2 5 7.5 0 8.0 0 7.8 8 8.2 5 NS 68 .50 67 .25 68 .75 71 .50 74 .50 70 .05 4.0 7 NS NS 39 .00 35 .50 38 .25 36 .75 39 .50 37 .80 NS 53 .75 51 .37 53 .50 54 .12 56 .88 NS L1 L2 M ea n L1 L2 M ea n L1 L2 M ea n L1 L2 M ea n L1 L2 M ea n St em gi rth (m m ) Da ys to fir st ha rv es t No .o fh ar ve sti ng Ha rv es td ur ati on (d ay s) Ch ar ac ter s Lo ca tio n Ta bl e1 - Pe rfo rm an ce of to m ato ge no ty pe su nd er po ly ho us ea nd op en co nd iti on sf or pl an tc ha ra cte rs L1 = Po ly ho us e. L2 = Op en fie ld . results were obtained by Singh and Asrey (2005) as they found excellent tomato crops in polyhouses com- pared to the outside environment. Significant differ- ences were observed among tomato genotypes pooled over locations for number of fruits per plant, yield per plant, yield per ha, fruit length, TSS and locules per fruit. However, no polyhouse x genotype interaction was noted. Comparative performance of tomato geno- types is presented here. Plant characters In polyhouse and open conditions, ‘Naveen 2000+’ had significantly higher plant length. Results are in con- formity with those of Singh and Singh (2000) under open field conditions. ‘Naveen 2000+’ also had a signif- icantly greater number of harvests, followed by ‘Pusa Rohini’ in open field conditions. Under the polyhouse, the number of harvests ranged from 9.50 to 10.25. Cargnelutti et al. (2004) obtained 11-14 harvests under plastic greenhouse. The polyhouse had a significant effect on all the plant characters under study (Table 1). Ganesan (2002) also reported better plant height in polyhouses as compared to open field conditions. Yield characters Yield per plant, yield per ha and number of fruits per plant were highest in ‘Shivalik’ followed by ‘Pusa Rohi- ni’ under greenhouse conditions (Table 2). Gualberto et al. (2007) also recorded significant differences for yield per ha. However, in open field conditions, ‘Pusa Rohini’ gave the highest value for all three characters, followed by ‘Shivalik’. However, the differences were non-signif- icant for yield per ha. The performance of ‘Pusa Rohini’ was the best, followed by ‘Shivalik’, for all these char- acters when data was pooled from the different locations. The performance of tomato was statistically superior in polyhouse cultivation compared to open conditions. Ganesan (2002) observed similar trends for yields per plant in polyhouses respect to open field conditions. Fruit characters The highest recorded value for fruit length under polyhouse and open conditions, as well as for pooled data, came from ‘Naveen 2000+’ however this geno- type was at par with ‘Jaya’ and ‘Shivalik’ in the poly- house (Table 3). Eklund et al. (2005) recorded fruit weight of 147.35 g, fruit length of 57.67 mm, fruit diameter of 69.75 mm and 5.25 locules per fruit for an elite hybrid in a controlled protected structure. All these values were higher than those found in the pre- sent study with the probable reason being fluctuating environment at fruit development as the present exper- iment was conducted under a naturally ventilated poly- house. In open field and pooled data, ‘Naveen 2000+’ had statistically superior fruit length. TSS was statisti- cally the highest in ‘Pusa Rohini’ under polyhouse con- ditions and in pooled data, while in open conditions ‘Shivalik’ exhibited the highest TSS, which was at par 67 Pu sa Ro hi ni PH -5 Sh iv ali k Ja ya Na ve en 20 00 + M ea n CD 0.0 5 (L ) CD 0.0 5 (G ) CD 0.0 5 (L xG ) No .o ff ru its pe rp lan t Yi eld pe rp lan t( kg ) Yi eld pe rh a( Q) L1 L2 M ea n L1 L2 M ea n L1 L2 M ea n 25 .03 22 .64 26 .81 20 .72 22 .34 25 .31 1.6 1 3.9 5 13 .00 4.4 9 9.9 6 7.3 6 8.9 7 8.7 6 2.7 6 NS 19 .02 13 .56 18 .39 14 .04 15 .65 2.5 3 1.2 43 1.0 66 1.2 82 0.9 94 0.9 83 1.1 13 0.2 37 NS 0.6 57 0.2 13 0.5 37 0.3 54 0.4 62 0.4 44 0.0 87 0.1 48 0.9 5 0.6 4 0.9 1 0.6 7 0.7 2 0.1 37 69 0.4 2 59 2.3 6 71 2.2 2 55 1.2 5 54 5.8 3 61 8.4 0 13 1.4 3 NS 36 5.1 4 11 8.3 4 29 8.2 0 19 6.3 9 25 6.3 9 26 1.9 0 57 .34 NS NS 52 7.8 39 2.8 50 5.2 37 3.8 40 1.1 90 .65 Ta bl e2 - Pe rfo rm an ce of to m ato ge no ty pe su nd er po ly ho us ea nd op en co nd iti on sf or yi eld ch ar ac ter s L1 = Po ly ho us e. L2 = Op en fie ld . Pu sa Ro hi ni PH -5 Sh iv ali k Ja ya Na ve en 20 00 + M ea n CD 0.0 5 (L ) CD 0.0 5 (G ) CD 0.0 5 (L xG ) Fr ui tw eig ht (g ) Va rie tie s 78 .00 78 .10 67 .40 71 .05 74 .70 73 .85 11 .49 NS NS 60 .06 54 .09 59 .23 57 .86 57 .22 57 .69 NS 69 .03 66 .09 63 .32 64 .45 65 .96 NS 48 .97 44 .75 49 .61 49 .59 53 .74 49 .33 2.3 5 4.5 2 NS 44 .51 40 .47 46 .49 47 .36 52 .82 46 .33 4.7 0 46 .74 42 .61 48 .05 48 .47 53 .28 3.7 2 52 .23 57 .18 48 .97 51 .89 49 .27 51 .91 3.4 0 NS NS 47 .63 48 .10 48 .43 48 .08 45 .45 47 .56 NS 49 .99 52 .64 48 .70 49 .98 47 .36 NS 6.7 5 5.1 0 5.4 0 5.9 5 5.0 5 5.6 5 0.1 2 0.2 6 NS 5.3 5 5.1 0 5.5 5 5.1 0 5.4 0 5.3 0 0.3 0 6.0 5 5.1 0 5.4 8 5.5 3 5.2 3 0.1 8 3.0 3.5 3.0 3.0 2.2 5 2.9 5 NS 0.5 6 NS 3.0 3.0 2.5 3.0 2.5 2.8 0 NS 3.0 0 3.2 5 2.7 5 3.0 0 2.3 8 0.3 7 L1 L2 M ea n L1 L2 M ea n L1 L2 M ea n L1 L2 M ea n L1 L2 M ea n Fr ui tl en gt h (m m ) Fr ui td iam ete r( m m ) TS S (°B ) Lo cu les /fr ui t Ch ar ac ter s Lo ca tio n Ta bl e3 - Pe rfo rm an ce of to m ato ge no ty pe su nd er po ly ho us ea nd op en co nd iti on sf or va rio us fru it ch ar ac ter s L1 = Po ly ho us e. L2 = Op en fie ld . Ch ar ac ter s Va rie tie sLo ca tio n with ‘Naveen 2000+’ and ‘Pusa Rohini’. The statistical- ly lowest number of locules per fruit in polyhouse con- ditions was recorded for ‘Naveen 2000+’, while in pooled data ‘Naveen 2000+’ and ‘Shivalik’ were at par. Performance improvement Perusal of data in Table 4 reveals that mean yield per ha, number of fruits per plant, fruit weight, plant height, harvest duration and number of harvests were 136.12, 188.93, 16.16, 37.80, 85.32 and 65.83% more, respectively, under polyhouse conditions compared to the open field. These findings demonstrate the suitabil- ity, as well as economic feasibility, of polyhouses in the Pusa Rohini PH-5 Shivalik Jaya Naveen 2000+ Mean Percent increase in Yield per ha Number of fruits per plant 89.08 400.56 138.73 180.79 112.89 136.12 Fruit weight Plant height Harvest duration No. of harvest 52.54 404.23 169.18 181.52 149.05 188.93 29.87 44.39 13.79 22.80 30.55 16.16 17.57 74.44 30.60 28.69 47.13 37.80 75.64 89.44 79.74 94.56 88.61 85.32 64.00 72.73 66.67 73.91 53.85 65.83 Genotype Table 4 - Percent improvement in tomato performance under polyhouse versus open conditions for economic characters trans-Himalyan Ladakh region for tomato cultivation. Gualberto et al. (1998) also reported 40-45 % higher marketable yield in greenhouses than with open field conditions. Growth and yield attributes were also recorded as poor in the open field condition. Therefore, it may be concluded that naturally venti- lated polyhouses are a good and less expensive option for tomato cultivation in the trans-Himalayan region to obtain higher yield, number of fruits per plant and longer harvest duration. Varieties like ‘Shivalik’ and ‘Pusa Rohini’ are responsive to protected cultivation in this region and may be used for cultivation after further testing to increase the return per unit area. References CARGNELUTTI FILHO A., RADIN B., MATZENAUER R., STORCK L., 2004 - Number of harvest and comparison of tomato genotypes cultivated under plastic greenhouse. - Pesquisa Agropecuaria Brasileira, 39(10): 953-959. EKLUND C.R.B., CAETANO L.C.S., SHIMOYA A., FERREIRA J.M., GOMES J.M.R., 2005 - Performance of tomato geno- types under protected cultivation. - Horticultura Brasileira, 23(4): 1015-1017. GANESAN M., 2002 - Effect of poly-greenhouse models on plant growth and yield of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) - Indi- an Journal of Agricultural Science, 72(10): 586-588. GUALBERTO R., DE OLIVEIRA P.S.R., DE GUIMARAES A.M., 1998- Performance of fresh market tomato cultivars under protected cultivation. - Horticultura Brasileira, 25(2): 244-246. GUALBERTO R., RESENDE F.V., DE GUIMARAES A.M., AMBROSIO C.P., 2007 - Performance of long-life salad toma- to cultivars grown in a protected environment and under field conditions. - UNIMAR Ciencias, 7(2): 133-138. SINGH A.K., SINGH A., 2000 - Performance of tomato hybrids under sub-montane and low hills subtropical condition of H.P. - Crop. Res., 20(3): 539-540. SINGH R., ASREY R., 2005 - Performance of tomato and sweet pepper under unheated greenhouse. - Haryana J. Hort. Sci., 34(1-2): 174-175. SNEDECOR G.W., COCHRAN W.G., 1967 - Statistical methods. - Oxford and IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, India, pp. 593. 68