




































American International Journal of Agricultural Studies  

Vol. 4, No. 1; 2021 

ISSN 2641-4155   E-ISSN 2641-418X 

Published by American Center of Science and Education, USA 

 

 10  

EFFECT OF SUBSTRATE TYPES ON THE SURVIVAL OF 

TOMATO VINE CUTTING TECHNOLOGY IN NIGERIA 
 

 

Ossai C. Okolie 

Research Supervisor 

YIIFSWA Project 

International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria 

E-mail: c.ossai@cgiar.org 

 

Emuh F. Nduka 

Professor and Head of Department 

Department of Agronomy 

Delta State University, Abraka, Delta State, Nigeria 

E-mail: fnemuh@delsu.edu.ng 

Ogbole Samson 

Graduate Student 

Biochemistry Department  

Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, Nigeria 

E-mail: ogbolesamson@gmail.com 

Stephanie Clara Akpeji 

Graduate Student  

Microbiology Department  

University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria 

E-mail: akpejistephanie@gmail.com 

Dr. Morufat O. Balogun 

Associate Professor 
Crop Protection and Environmental Biology Department 

University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria 

E-mail: Kemtoy2003@yahoo.com 

 

 

ABSTRACT 

Due to the high cost of tomato seeds, it is important to fully exploit the seeds for economic gains. 

This has necessitated the use of vine cutting technology in tomato production from vegetative 

parts. However, the vine acclimatization substrates type plays important role in the survival of 

the cut vines. Hence, this study investigates three different substrate types (cocopeat, water and 

loamy soil) for their suitability for vines cutting. Seeds of three tomato genotypes were raised in 

hydroponics system containing dissolved cocopeat. At one month after planting, vines were cut 

from the plants into the three substrates in a Completely Randomized Design with three 

replicates. Data were collected on vine survival, days to new shoot formation, number of fruits 

per plant and the average fruit weight at harvest. Data collected were analyzed using ANOVA 

http://www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijas
mailto:fnemuh@delsu.edu.ng
mailto:ogbolesamson@gmail.com
mailto:akpejistephanie@gmail.com
mailto:Kemtoy2003@yahoo.com


https://www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijas      American International Journal of Agricultural Studies      Vol. 4, No. 1; 2021 

 

11 

and differences in the treatment means were separated using the Least Significant Differences at 

5 % level of significance. Results obtained showed that the percentage vine survival across the 

substrates was insignificant with a success rate of up to 77 % in the loamy soil. However, new 

shoot formation was fastest in the cocopeat substrate (12.56±0.53), while San marzano had the 

heaviest fruit size (20.73±1.33). 

 

Keywords: Vine cutting, Cocopeat, Vine Survival, Tomato, Acclimatization. 

 

JEL Classification Codes: Q16 

 

INTRODUCTION 

Background Information 

Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) is an important vegetable that has gained much recognition 

because of its economic (Nasir et al., 2015) and nutritive properties in terms of protein, 

carbohydrate, vitamins etc (Vinha et al., 2014). However, the downside of this worldwide 

recognition is reflected in the high cost of tomato seeds which is usual means of its cultivation, 

as many farmers are interested in the production, which has placed more pressure in the demand 

for seeds for planting (Heder et al., 2010). 

Although, tomato plants are usually cultivated through the zygotic seeds, it can also be 

propagated through the vegetative parts (vine cutting technology) (Ossai et al., 2020). In order to 

ease the pressure on the seed purchase, an alternative means of vegetative propagation needs to 

be considered. However, reports on the vine cutting technology system of propagating tomato 

are limited to the use of cocopeat substrate (Suvo et al., 2016; Ossai et al., 2020).. 

Since nearness to raw material is an important factor to consider in choosing the substrate 

type to carryout vine cutting in an area, and owing to Nigerians dependence on the importation 

of cocopeat, it is then necessary to evaluate other plant anchor media along with the topsoil 

which can easily be found for free to carryout tomato vine cutting, hence, the purpose of this 

experiment. 

 

Materials and Methods 

Seeds of three genotypes of tomato (Red cherry large, Roma and San marzano) and hydroponic 

troughs were purchased from the soilless farmlab seed company, Abeokuta. The seeds (four per 

trough) were raised in hydroponics troughs containing dissolved cocopeat substrates (8 litres per 

trough). At one month after planting, the tomato vines were cut and planted in three different 

substrates (loamy soil, cocopeat and water) arranged in a completely randomized design (CRD) 

with four replicates. The vines were checked daily for the emergence of new shoots before being 

transferred to the hydroponics set up containing the cocopeat substrates also in a CRD with three 

replicates. The transferred vines were watered every three days interval and fertigated weekly 

with 100 ml cured and dissolved poultry manure in water solution (1 g / L). Data were taken on 

the percentage vine survival, days to the formation of new shoots, number of leaves at 3 and 5 

weeks after vine transfer, days to 50 % flowering, number of fruits per plant and the average fruit 

weight per genotype. Data collected were analyzed using ANOVA (SAS 9.0 version) and 

differences in the treatment means were separated using the Least Significant Differences (LSD) 

at 5 % level of significance. 

 

 



https://www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijas      American International Journal of Agricultural Studies      Vol. 4, No. 1; 2021 

 

12 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

The results obtained from this study shows that there were no significant differences among the 

genotypes, substrates and the genotype by substrate interactions in terms of the vines survival 

(%) and the number of fruits obtained from the survived vines at harvest. However, the 

substrates was significant in the number of days taken by the vines to form new shoots and the 

average fruit weight respectively, while the genotypes was significant in the number of days to 

new shoot formation and 50 % flowering respectively (Table 1).  

Table 1. Effect of genotypes, substrates and their interactions on the survival, growth and yield 

of tomato plants propagated through vine cutting technology 

Source of variation 

Survival 

(%) DTNSF 

Number of new 

shoots 

DT50%F NOF AFW(g) Week 3 Week5 

Genotypes 162.04ns 93.59** 0.78ns 0.11ns 36.70* 10.04ns 39.47ns 

Substrates 162.04ns 12.70* 1.44* 2.11ns 16.93ns 4.15ns 178.92** 

Genotype*substrates 92.59ns 10.37* 1.39* 3.89* 12.81ns 5.15ns 230.20** 

DTNSF: Days to new shoot formation, DT50%F: Days to 50 percent flowering, NOF: Number 

of fruits and AFW: Average fruit weight 

It took the roma tomato a period of 10.33±0.53 days to produce new shoot. This was 

significantly lower than the 14.56±0.53 and 16.67±0.53 days taken by Red cherry large and San 

marzano genotypes respectively. However, the roma tomato took significantly longer number of 

days (37.00±0.73) to reach 50 % flowering than both San marzano (34.11±0.73) and Red cherry 

large (33.11±0.73) which were significantly same. Then, the average fruit weight of San 

marzano (20.73±1.33) was not statistically different from the roma plant (19.73±1.33) but was 

significantly higher than the Red cherry large (16.71±1.33) (Table 2). 

Table 2. Survival, agronomic and yield performance of three genotypes of tomato plants 

propagated through vine cutting technology 

Genotypes 

Survival 

(%) DTNSF 

Number of new 

shoots 

DT50%F NOF AFW (g) Week 3 Week5 

Roma 77.78a 10.33c 3.22a 6.11a 37.00a 6.22a 19.73ab 

SM 75.00a 16.67a 2.67a 6.00a 34.11b 7.33a 20.73a 

RCL 69.44a 14.56b 2.78a 5.89a 33.11b 8.33a 16.71b 

LSD(0.05) 19.65 1.57 0.6 0.93 2.17 2.39 3.95 

SE 6.61 0.53 0.2 0.31 0.73 0.8 1.33 

LSD: Least significant differences, SE: Standard error, DTNSF: Days to new shoot formation, 

DT50%F: Days to 50 percent flowering, NOF: Number of fruits and AFW: Average fruit weight, 

SM: San marzano, RCL: Red Cherry Large 

The cocopeat substrate took an average of 12.56±0.53 number of days to form new 

shoots, which was not significantly different from the use of water (14.11±0.53), but was 

significantly lower than the 14.89±0.53 days taken to form new shoot in the loamy soil. 

However, the average number of days taken by the vines rose using the water substrate 



https://www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijas      American International Journal of Agricultural Studies      Vol. 4, No. 1; 2021 

 

13 

(33.22±0.73) to reach 50 % flowering was significantly lower than the 35.89±0.73 taken by the 

vines raised in the cocopeat substrate. Also, the average fruit weight of the tomato plants raised 

through vine cutting in the loamy soil (24.13±1.33) was significantly higher than the ones raised 

in water (17.28±1.33) and cocopeat (15.77±1.33) substrates respectively (Table 3). 

Table 3. Effect of substrate types on the survival, growth and yield of tomato plants propagated 

through the vine cutting technology 

Substrates 

Survival 

(%) DTNSF 

Number of new 

shoots 

DT50%F NOF AFW (g) Week 3 Week5 

Loamy soil 77.78a 14.89a 2.44b 5.44a 35.11ab 7.89a 24.13a 

Cocopeat 75.00a 12.56b 3.22a 6.22a 35.89a 7.44a 15.77b 

Water 69.44a 14.11ab 3.00ab 6.33a 33.22b 6.56a 17.28b 

LSD(0.05) 19.65 1.57 0.6 0.93 2.17 2.39 3.95 

SE 6.61 0.53 0.2 0.31 0.73 0.8 1.33 

LSD: Least significant differences, SE: Standard error, DTNSF: Days to new shoot formation, 

DT50%F: Days to 50 percent flowering, NOF: Number of fruits and AFW: Average fruit weight 

Though not significant, the percentage survival of the cut vines was highest in the loamy 

soil and was above 75 % as obtained in cocopeat substrate which was imported into the country 

as its not produced locally. The cocopeat substrate has been reported as a good source of nursing 

cut tomato vines (Ossai et al., 2020). However, considering the economic implication of using 

the cocopeat substrate, the use of locally available substrate like the loamy soil and water which 

are gift of nature is important, although, water alone gave less than 70 % survival. Like the 

survival rate, the number of leaves produced by the vines after being transferred to the cocopeat 

substrate 5 weeks after cutting was also not significant, but the vines raised in water substrate 

had the highest number of vines. Although the vines did not complete their life cycle in the water 

system, the high biomass produced is in line with the work of Khan et al., (2011). 

A loose substrate is very important in vine rooting and the subsequent adaptation in an 

environment and peats has been the standard substrates used for nurseries (Pascual et al., 2018). 

This supports the findings of this study, where the cocopeat substrate developed new shoots 

within the shortest day interval to the use of loamy soil. However, the days taken was similar to 

the vines in water. The production of new shoot is an indication that the vines has fully 

developed functional rooting system, and the lose nature of cocopeat allows the quick root 

development comparable to the loamy soil.   

However, despite the early formation of shoots from the vines raised in cocopeat 

substrate, it was the ones raised in loamy soil that developed flower earliest, had the highest 

number of fruits and the fruits were also heavier. This could be a result of additional organic 

matters present in the loamy soil which complemented the poultry manure used in fertigating the 

plants. Hence, more essential nutrients could be made available to the plants which enhance the 

physiological development of the plants in the hydroponics system. Different hydroponics 

systems has been effectively used in the cultivation of tomato (Ednut et al., 2011), hence the 

reason behind the adaptive nature of the tomato genotypes evaluated in this study. 

The survival rate of the three different genotypes was also high and insignificant, 

however, the roma tomato adapted faster to the environment as it developed new shoots at a 

quicker rate than the rest genotypes, but the early shoot formation was not reflective in the days 



https://www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijas      American International Journal of Agricultural Studies      Vol. 4, No. 1; 2021 

 

14 

it took the genotype to produce flower. A similar report on improved agronomic parameters of 

roma tomato has also been reported by Suvo et al. (2016). However, the average fruit weight of 

the San marzano genotype was the heaviest among the genotypes. The above differences in the 

survival, agronomic and yield parameters of the three genotypes are a reflection of the inherent 

genetic differences among them.  

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Reports on tomato vine cutting in Nigeria have been limited to the use of cocopeat substrate. 

However, the cost of purchasing the substrate is high as the substrate is sourced outside the 

country. The findings of this study have shown that the use of topsoil which can be easily 

sourced in the country can give as much success as the cocopeat substrate in the vine cuttings of 

tomato in Nigeria, and thus recommended as a suitable substrate for tomato vine cutting. 

 

REFERENCES 

Endut, A., Jusoh, A., Ali, N., & Wan Nik, W. B. (2011). Nutrient removal from aquaculture 

wastewater by vegetable production in aquaponics recirculation system. Desalination 

Water Treat, 32, 422–430. 

 

Heder, B., Paulo, C. C., José, A. T. D., José, F. T. D., & Edvaldo, F. D. (2010). Tomato seedling 

production by cuttings rooted in different substrates. IDESIA, 28(1), 9-15. 

Khan, M., Jan, M., Farhatullah, D., Khan, D. N., Arif, M., Perveen, S., Khan, S., Abbas, A. & 

Jan, A. (2011). The effect of using waste water for tomato. Pakistan Journal of Botany, 

43, 1033-1044. 

Nasir, M. U., Hussain, S., & Jabba, S. (2015). Tomato processing, lycopene and health benefits: 

a review. Science Letters, 3(1), 1-5. 

Ossai, C. O., Ogbole, S., Balogun, M. O., Akpeji, S. C., Olorode, E. M., & Taiwo, J. O. (2020). 

Tomato Production through Vine Cutting Technology in Hydroponics System. Journal of 

Environmental and Agricultural Studies, 1(2), 1-5. 

Pascual, J., Ceglie, F., Tuzel, Y., Koller, M., Koren, A., Hitchings, R., & Tittarelli, F. (2018). 

Organic substrate for transplant production in organic nurseries. A review. Agronomy for 

Sustainable Development. 38. 10.1007/s13593-018-0508-4 

Suvo, T. P., Biswas, H., Jewel, M. H.,Islam, M. S., & Khan, M. S. I. (2016). Impact of substrates 

on soilless tomato cultivation. Int. J.Agric. Res. Innov. and Tech, 6(2), 82-86. 

Vinha, A. F., Barreira, S. V. P., Costa, A. S. G., Alves, R. C., & Oliveira, M. B. P. P. (2014). 

Organic versus conventional tomatoes: Influence on physicochemical parameters, 

bioactive compounds and sensorial attributes. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 67,139–

144. 

 

Copyrights  

Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the 

journal. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative 

Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 


