




































 

 

 
22 

† Corresponding author 
© 2016 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

 

STUDY ON AGRONOMIC EVALUATION OF TOMATO (LYCOPERSICON ESCULENTUM, 
MILL.) VARIETIES FOR PHONOLOGICAL, GROWTH AND YIELD CHARACTERS 

 

Haileslassie Gebremeskel1† --- Haile Abebe2 ---  Wakuma Biratu3 --- Kedir Jaleto4 
1,2,3,4Department of Horticulture, Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Mehoni Agricultural Research Center 

 

ABSTRACT 

The field experiment was carried out at the research station of Mehoni Agricultural Research Center, Fachagama, Ethiopia in 

2013 and 2014 cropping season under irrigation and in 2014 for rain fed experiment only. The experiment consisted of four 

commercial tomato varieties arranged in a completely randomized block design with four replications. In the 2013 cropping 

season, days to 50% flowering and maturity, plant height, fruit length, fruit diameter, number of fruits per plant, marketable 

yield, unmarketable yield and total yield were significantly influenced by varietal difference. Likewise, it was also observed that 

variety exerted a significance effect on establishment percentage, days to 50% maturity, plant height, number of fruits/plant and 

marketable yield under both irrigation and rain fed and on unmarketable yield under irrigation conditions of the 2014 

cropping year. Under irrigation, the highest marketable yield (414.58 q ha-1) was obtained at Chali variety followed by Miya 

variety (289.17 q ha-1) in 2014 while the lowest value (110.83 q ha-1) was obtained from Melka sholla in the 2013 cropping 

season. Whereas the highest (295.58 q ha-1) and lowest marketable yields (283.33 q ha-1) were observed at Chali and Melksa 

sholla varieties under rain fed condition of the 2014 cropping season. 

Keywords: Tomato, Marketable yield, Phonological, Growth, Yield characters, Unmarketable yield, Total yield. 

 

Received: 26 May 2016/ Revised: 9 June 2016/ Accepted: 22 July 2016/ Published: 8 August 2016 

 

Contribution/Originality  

The paper`s primary contribution is finding that to study the agronomic evaluation of tomato (Lycopersicon 

esculentum, Mill) varieties for phonological, growth and yield related characters. In that case it provides tangible 

information and addresses the issues of best adaptable varieties to the specific agro-ecology for tomato growers.    

 

1. INTRODUCTION 

Tomato (Lycospersicon esculentum Mill) belongs to the family Solanaceae, genus Lycopersicon, which is relatively 

small genus within the large and diverse family consisting of approximately 90 genera. Lycopersicon species are 

native to Ecuador, Peru, and the Galapagon Island though most evidence suggests that the site of domestication 

was Mexico [1]. 

It is an essential component of human diet for the supply of vitamins, minerals and certain types of hormones 

precursors in addition to protein and energy [2, 3].  Commercially tomato is very important throughout the world 

for both fresh fruit market and processing. Tomato occupied 2.4 million hectares in the world with leadership of 

Europe followed by Asia and America and produced each year, more than 4 million tones of tomato, but only 15% is 

produced in the tropics. This is mainly due to climate and to the production techniques which are not well 

developed [4].  

Current Research in Agricultural Sciences 
2016 Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 22-30 
ISSN(e): 2312-6418 
ISSN(p): 2313-3716 
DOI: 10.18488/journal.68/2016.3.2/68.2.22.30 
© 2016 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

 
 
 
 
 

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.18488/journal.68/2016.3.2/68.2.22.30


Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2016, 3(2): 22-30 
 

 
23 

© 2016 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

Tomato plays an important role in human nutrition by providing essential amino acids, vitamins and minerals 

[5]. Its vitamin C content is particularly high [6]. It also contains lycopene, which is very potent antioxidant that 

may be an important contributor to the prevention of cancers [7]. 

Its total production of more than 150 million tons of fresh fruit, produced on 3.7 million hectares, exceeds all 

other crops, with the exception of the potato and sweet potato [8]. Tomato is cultivated in both temperate and 

tropical regions of the world. It has very attractive and tasty fruit with a bright red colour that makes it even more 

appetizing to the consumer. It is consumed in a variety of ways: fresh in salads and sandwiches, cooked, or 

processed in ketchup, sauces, juices or dried powder.   

Tomato is among the most important vegetable crops and both fresh and processed tomato varieties are 

popular and economically important vegetable crops produced in Ethiopia. According to Lemma, et al. [9] the total 

production of tomato in the Ethiopia has shown a marked increase recently, indicating that it became the most 

profitable crop providing a higher income to small scale farmers compared to other vegetable crops. However, the 

national average of tomato fruit yield under farmers’ conditions in Ethiopia is very low and estimated at about 25 t 

ha-1 [10]. A number of improved varieties and other agronomic packages have been recommended to the users to 

overcome the low productivity and quality of tomato in the country. 

In recent times, tomato crops are the most important cultivated crops in the agricultural community of 

Ethiopia and it is rapidly becoming a popular vegetable among producer and consumers. According to the CSA 

[11] report, the total area production of tomato in the country was 7,257.45 ha with production of 393,730.22 

quintal and yield of 54.25 q ha-1. For proper productivity and production of tomato, good management and cultural 

practices, development of new cultivars and valuation of the available tomato cultivars are the sustainable 

strategies. The development of new cultivars is a time taken and luxurious process which also needs professional 

scientists especially those of plant breeders, horticulturalists and agronomists. However, the assessment of the 

existing and available tomato cultivars for their amendment and production in the climatic conditions of Ethiopia, 

particularly to the area where the experiment is conducted is a more rapidly way to improve the tomato production 

potential.  

Farmers and tomato growers in the study area prefer tomato cultivars for planting depending on a number of 

aspects which involves yield potential, market stipulate, provincial adaptability and accessibility of seeds 

corresponding with their prices. One of the major tomato production hindrances in the study area is lack of high 

eminence seeds, post harvest management, insect and disease management, integrated nutrient and water 

management and their use efficiency and inappropriate agronomic practices used by farmers and growers. Those 

seeds found at growers and farmers hand are usually low viability, vigor and genetic purity; however, very 

expensive and are low productive, germination capacity and vulnerable to different environmental stresses.  

In spite of the miscellaneous compensation of tomato have, research works in Ethiopia, for the most part in the 

study area on this valuable commodity have been inadequate. This deficit of information on appraise of best 

adapting cultivar is considered to be among the major hindrance to get on large production and consumption of this 

economically important crop in the particular area. As a result, it is necessary to evaluate suitable agronomical 

conditions and well malleable cultivars that would enable to capitalize on growth and yield of tomato plant. For 

that reason, the objective of this study was to evaluate performance of tomato cultivars for their phonological, 

agronomic and yield characters under the specific study area. 

 

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS 

The field experiment was carried out at the research station of Mehoni Agricultural Research Center (MeARC), 

Ethiopia in 2013 under irrigation and 2014 under both irrigation and rain fed conditions. The center is situated at 

about 678 km north of Addis Ababa. Geographically it is located at 12° 41' 50'' North latitude and 39° 42' 08'' East 

longitude with an altitude of 1578 m.a.s.l. The site receives mean annual rainfall of 750 mm with an average 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2016, 3(2): 22-30 
 

 
24 

© 2016 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

minimum and maximum temperature of 18 and 25°C, respectively. The soil textural class of the experimental area 

is clay loam with pH of 7.9. 

Treatments were arranged in a randomized complete block design (RCBD) with four replications. Seeds of four 

tomato varieties, namely; Miya, Chali, Melka salsa and Melka shola were sown in seedbeds and grown at the 

nursery for 30 days. Uniformly grown seedlings were selected, hardened and transplanted to the experimental field 

after attaining 13-15 cm height or 30 days of sowing in the nursery site. Seedlings of tomato taken from the nursery 

were transplanted to experimental field having a plot size of 5 m length and 5 m width. During the experiment 

seedlings were planted at 70x30 cm between rows and plants, respectively. A spacing of 1.5 m and 1 m was also 

maintained between replications and rows. Plants in the 5 middle rows out of the 7 rows per plot constituted the 

net plot used as the sampling unit. Ten plants from the middle rows were taken for sampling and data analysis. All 

appropriate agronomic practices such as weeding, watering and hoeing were conducted uniformly both at the 

nursery and experimental field. 

Data on establishment percentage, plant height (cm), days to 50% flowering, days to 50% maturity, Fruit 

length (cm), fruit diameter (cm), number of fruits per plant, marketable yield (q ha-1), unmarketable yield (q ha-1)) 

and total yield (q ha-1) was collected and analyzed.  

Data on phonological, agronomic and yield components were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) using 

SAS PROC GLM (2002) at P<0.05. The Least Significant Difference (LSD) Test was used to compare the mean 

separations at P<0.05 

 

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

3.1. Phonological and Growth Characters 

3.1.1. Establishment Percentage 

Analysis of variance Table 1 revealed that variety did not exert any significant influence (P>0.05) on 

establishment percentage in 2013, which, however it was significantly (P<0.05) affected in 2014 cropping season 

under both irrigation and rain fed condition (Table 1 and 6). In 2014 under irrigation condition, significantly higher 

establishment percentage (84.61%) was obtained at Chali which, however, did not statistically different with Melka 

sholla (83.23%) variety; whereas, significantly lower establishment percentage was obtained at Melka salsa (71.79%) 

which was at parity (75.90%) with Miya varieties (Table 3). On the other hand, in 2014 under rain fed the highest 

establishment percentage (88.65%) was recorded at variety Chali while the lower value (74.83%) was evidenced at 

Melka salsa variety (Table 7). 

 

3.1.2. Days To 50% Flowering 

Table 1 also indicated that days to 50%flowering, which was found highly significant, in which the maximum 

days to 50% flowering were observed in variety Melka sholla (53.00 days) followed by  Cahli variety (48.33 days), 

where as the minimum value was observed in Miya variety having 45.00 days under irrigation condition of 2013 

(Table 3). However, days to 50% flowering was not affected by the varietal effect in both irrigation and rain fed 

conditions of 2014 cropping year (Table 1 and 6). Therefore, from the 2013 cropping year with irrigation, Miya was 

flowered much earlier than those other three tomato varieties.  

 

3.1.3. Days to 50% Maturity 

The effect of variety on days to 50% maturity (Table 1 and 6) was indicated significant effect (P<0.05) in both 

irrigation and rain fed conditions of the 2014 cropping year and it exerted very highly significant influence 

(P<0.001) in 2013 under irrigation condition (Table 1). Concerning the mean value in 2013 and 2014 cropping 

season under irrigation, significantly higher and lower days to 50% maturity were found  86.33, 76.67 and 100.67, 

90.67 days, at those varieties of Melka sholla, Miya and Melka sholla and Chali, respectively (Table 3). Conversely, 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2016, 3(2): 22-30 
 

 
25 

© 2016 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

in 2014 growing season with rain fed, the highest (99.67 days) days to 50% maturity was recorded at Melka sholla 

followed by Melka salsa (97.67 days) and were both statistically at parity while the lowest value (89.67 days) was 

observed at Chali variety (Table 7). This showed that both Miya and Chali matured much earlier than that of Melka 

sholla variety. 

 

3.1.4. Plant Height 

The results from the analysis of variance data revealed that there was significant and highly significant effect 

(P<0.05 and P<0.010) on tomato plant height by varietal difference under the irrigation condition of both 2013 and 

2014 cropping years, respectively (Table 1) and to the same extent variety was put forth very highly significant 

influence (P<0.001) on plant height in 2014 under rain fed condition (Table 6). Based on the mean comparison 

Table 3 drastically higher plant height (66.28 cm) was obtained from Melka sholla followed by Melka salsa (61.08 

cm) while the lowest plant height (53.47 cm) was obtained at Chali variety, which however, did not statistically 

different with variety Miya (56.43 cm). Similarly, in the 2014 cropping year under rain fed the highest plant height 

(68.80 cm) was produced from variety Miya whereas the lowest value (60.12 cm) was recorded in variety Chali 

which was on par with Melka sholla variety having 60.60 cm (Table 7).    

       

3.1.5. Fruit Length 

This agronomic character was significantly influenced (P<0.05) by the varietal difference of tomato plant by 

using irrigation in 2013 cropping year (Table 1). Nevertheless, it was not significantly affected (P>0.05) in 2014 

cropping period under both irrigation and rain fed provision (Table 1 and 6). In 2013, Melka salsa was produced the 

highest fruit length (5.45 cm); which did not statistically different with Melka sholla variety (5.33 cm) and Chali 

(5.14 cm). But the lowest fruit length (4.70 cm) was obtained from Miya variety (Table 4).  

 

3.1.6. Fruit Diameter 

Fruit diameter had been significantly affected (P<0.01) due to the variation in variety in 2013 with irrigation; 

which, however, it did not influenced (P>0.05) in 2014 cropping year under both irrigation and rain fed stipulation 

(Table 2 and 6). In 2013, cropping season Miya variety produced significantly higher fruit diameter (4.59 cm); 

however, it was statistically at par with those of Chali (4.44 cm) and Melka sholla (4.07 cm). Nevertheless, the lower 

fruit diameter (3.07 cm) was obtained at variety Melka salsa (Table 4).  

 

3.2. Yield Components 

3.2.1. Number of Fruits per Plant 

Results from the two years experiment under both irrigation and rain fed condition, showed that variety had 

significant influence on number of fruits per plant. Variety had been exerted highly significant (P<0.01) influence in 

2013 cropping year while it had significant (P<0.05) effect in 2014 under both irrigation and rain fed conditions 

(Table 2 and 6). In 2013 cropping year, significantly higher (44.67) fruit number per plant was obtained at Melka 

salsa variety followed by Chali (41.33). But significantly lower (37.33) number of fruits per plant was obtained at 

Miya variety (Table 4). In similar manner, the highest number of fruits per plant was also found at Melksa sholla 

(38.00) followed by Chali (36.67) and Melka salsa (34.33) and at Melksa sholla (39.10) followed by Chali (37.77) and 

Melka salsa (35.43) in 2014 under both irrigation and rain fed, respectively. However, the lowest values of number 

of fruits per plant (37.33, 30.67 and 31.77) were obtained from Miya variety in 2013 under irrigation and 2014 

under off and main seasons (Table 4 and 7). 

 

 

 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2016, 3(2): 22-30 
 

 
26 

© 2016 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

3.2.2. Marketable Yield  

Analysis of variance, Table 2 and 6 indicated that the presence of a highly significant difference among the 

different varieties (P<0.01) in 2014 cropping year under both irrigation and rain fed conditions and significant 

(P<0.05) in 2013 under irrigation (Table 2). The mean comparison Table 4 revealed that in 2013, Chali produced 

considerably higher (219.03 q ha-1) marketable yield followed by Melka salsa (195.67 q ha-1) and Miya (171.33 q ha-

1). However, significantly lower (110.83 q ha-1) marketable yield was obtained at Melka sholla variety. On the other 

hand in 2014, the highest (414.58 q ha-1) and (295.58 q ha-1) marketable yield was recorded at Chali variety in both 

irrigation and rain fed condition, respectively. On the contrary, the lowest (248.75 q ha-1) and (283.33 q ha-1) 

marketable yield values were recorded at those varieties of Melka sholla and Melka salsa under irrigation and rain 

fed season, correspondingly (Table 4 and 7). In 2013, according to the mean of marketable yield Chali was superior 

by 97.63% from the lowest yielder of Melka salsa variety. Likewise, in 2014 under irrigation condition, Chali was 

advanced by 66.67% over Melka sholla variety. 

 

3.2.3. Unmarketable Yield 

Mean square of analysis of variance, Table 2 revealed that the existence of significant difference (P<0.001 and 

P<0.01) for unmarketable yield due to variation in variety under irrigation in 2013 and 2014 cropping season, 

respectively. However, in 2014 under the rain fed condition it did not significantly (P>0.05) influenced by the 

tomato varietal difference (Table 6). In 2013, the highest unmarketable yield (94.10 q ha-1) was obtained from Miya 

variety; however it was statistically at parity with those of Chali (88.00 q ha-1) and Melka salsa (74.30 q ha-1) 

whereas the lowest value (35.67 q ha-1) was obtained from Melka sholla variety. On the other hand, in the 2014 

cropping year through the application of irrigation, the highest (217.08 q ha-1) and lowest (77.92 q ha-1) 

unmarketable yields were produced from those tomato varieties of Melka sholla and Chali, respectively (Table 5). 

Likewise, even though there was no significant difference among the treatment means in 2014 under rain fed 

conditions, both slightly higher (206.04 q ha-1) and lower (133.58 q ha-1) unmarketable yield values were obtained 

from Melka salsa and Chali varieties, correspondingly (Table 7).  

 

3.2.4. Total Yield 

There was significant difference on total yield with respect to varietal effect of tomato plant. In 2013, variety 

exerted highly significant (P<0.01) effect on total yield (Table 2); which, however, did not influence (P>0.05) in 

2014 under both irrigation and rain fed conditions (Table 2 and 6). Considerably higher total yield (307.03 q ha-1) 

was obtained from Chali variety; however, it did not statistically different with Melka salsa (270.00 q ha-1) and Miya 

(265.43 q ha-1) varieties. On the contrary, the lower total yield value (146.50 q ha-1) was obtained at Melka sholla 

variety (Table 5). Even though variety did not affected the total yield of tomato in 2014 under both irrigation and 

rain fed conditions Chali variety was produced somewhat higher (492.50 and 429.17 q ha-1) total yield; but both 

Melka sholla and Melka salsa were produced lower (465.83 and 421.38 q ha-1) total yield, respectively (Table 5 and 

7). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2016, 3(2): 22-30 
 

 
27 

© 2016 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

Table-1. Mean square from the first year (2013) and second year (2014) analysis of variance for performance of tomato under irrigation 

condition 

SOV DF Establishment (%) Days to 50% 
flowering 

Days to 50% 
maturity 

Plant height (cm) Fruit length 
(cm) 

2013 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 

Replication 2 13.21 128.92 1.00 20.08 16.33 21.58 3.49 0.85 0.02 0.24 

Variety 3 73.72ns 110.92* 33.22** 22.75ns 29.64*** 60.08* 94.13* 26.04** 0.33* 0.07ns 

Error 6 82.89 22.03 1.89 23.08 1.22 9.25 15.10 1.17 0.05 0.18 

CV (%)  11.49 5.95 2.83 7.58 1.34 3.17 6.55 7.53 4.19 8.21 

ns; not significant at P< 0.05, * significant at P< 0.05; ** significant at P<0.01 and *** significant at P< 0.001 probability level. 

 

Table-2. Mean square from the first year (2013) and second year (2014) analysis of variance for performance of tomato under irrigation 

condition (Continued) 

SOV DF Fruit diameter 
(cm) 

Number of 
fruits/plant 

Marketable yield 
(q ha-1) 

Unmarketable yield 
(q ha-1) 

Total yield 
(q ha-1) 

2013 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 2013 2014 

Replication 2 0.08 0.58 27.75 5.08 127.53 3.63 119.63 9.76 427.68 462.02 

Variety 3 1.40** 0.40ns 229.78** 30.92* 6494.40* 104.38** 2065.76*** 78.95** 14572.81** 230.08ns 

Error 6 0.10 0.33 11.53 5.64 818.51 7.06 113.32 5.09 1149.65 1272.24 

CV (%)  7.70 13.69 9.18 6.80 16.42 10.83 15.93 16.35 13.71 9.30 

ns; not significant at P< 0.05, * significant at P< 0.05; ** significant at P<0.01 and *** significant at P< 0.001 probability level. 

 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2016, 3(2): 22-30 
 

 
28 

© 2016 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

Table-3. Mean performance of tomato varieties from the first year (2013) and second year (2014) analysis of variance for performance of tomato under irrigation condition 

Variety Establishment age (%) Days to 50% flowering Days to 50% maturity Plant height (cm) 

2013 2014 Mean 2013 2014 Mean 2013 2014 Mean 2013 2014 Mean 

Chali 80.23 84.61a 82.42 48.33b 61.33 54.83 83.00b 90.67c 86.84 53.47b 59.45c 56.46 

Miya 83.93 75.90ab 79.92 45.00c 63.33 54.17 76.67c 94.33bc 85.50 56.43b 64.03b 60.23 

Melka salsa 80.72 71.79b 76.26 47.67bc 67.33 57.50 82.33b 98.67ab 90.50 61.08ab 66.47a 63.78 

Melka sholla 72.28 83.23a 77.76 53.00a 61.67 57.34 86.33a 100.67a 93.50 66.28a 64.27b 65.28 

LSD 0.05 ns 9.34  2.75 ns  2.21 6.08  7.76 2.16  

CV (%) 11.49 5.95  2.83 7.58  1.34 3.17  6.55 7.53  

                                                           Means followed by the same letter in the same column are not significantly different at 5% level of probability. 

 

Table-4. Mean performance of tomato varieties from the first year (2013) and second year (2014) analysis of variance for performance of tomato under irrigation condition (Continued) 

Variety Fruit length (cm) Fruit diameter (cm) Number of fruits/plant Marketable yield (q ha-1) 

2013 2014 Mean 2013 2014 Mean 2013 2014 Mean 2013 2014 Mean 

Chali 5.14a 5.07 5.11 4.44a 4.60 4.52 41.33ab 36.67a 39.00 219.03a 414.58a 316.81 

Miya 4.70b 5.35 5.03 4.59a 3.77 4.18 37.33b 30.67b 34.00 171.33a 289.17b 230.25 

Melka salsa 5.45a 5.20 5.33 3.07b 4.10 3.59 44.67a 34.33ab 39.50 195.67a 275.00b 235.34 

Melka sholla 5.33a 5.00 5.17 4.07a 4.40 4.24 24.67c 38.00a 31.34 110.83b 248.75b 179.79 

LSD 0.05 0.43 ns  0.62 ns  6.78 4.74  57.16 5.31  

CV (%) 4.19 8.21  7.70 13.69  9.18 6.80  16.42 10.83  

                                                               Means followed by the same letter in the same column are not significantly different at 5% level of probability. 

              

Table-5. Mean performance of tomato varieties from the first year (2013) and second year (2014) analysis of variance for performance of tomato under irrigation condition (Continued) 

Variety Unmarketable yield (q ha-1) Total yield (q ha-1) 

2013 2014 Mean 2013 2014 Mean 

Chali 88.00a 77.92b 82.96 307.03a 492.50 399.77 

Miya 94.10a 189.17a 141.64 265.43a 478.33 371.88 

Melka salsa 74.33a 206.04a 140.19 270.00a 481.04 375.52 

Melka sholla 35.67b 217.08a 126.38 146.50b 465..83 146.50 

LSD 0.05 23.24 4.51  67.74 ns  

CV (%) 15.93 16.35  13.71 9.30  

                                                       Means followed by the same letter in the same column are not significantly different at 5% level of probability. 

Table-6. Analysis of variance for performance of tomato varieties under rain fed condition in 2014 cropping season 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2016, 3(2): 22-30 
 

 
29 

© 2016 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

SOV DF EP D50%F D50%M PH FL FD NFPPL MY UMY TY 

Replication 2 128.92 20.08 21.58 5.94 0.24 0.58 5.08 50.13 7.12 37.59 

Variety 3 110.92* 22.75ns 60.08* 48.16*** 0.07ns 0.40ns 30.92* 109.46** 34.37ns 49.24ns 

Error 6 22.03 23.08 9.25 0.59 0.18 0.33 5.64 10.08 24.15 24.76 

CV (%)  5.95 7.58 3.18 7.53 8.21 13.69 6.80 10.83 3.56 9.30 

                                          ns; not significant at P< 0.05, * significant at P< 0.05; ** significant at P<0.01 and *** significant at P< 0.001 probability level.  

                                           SOV: Source of variation, DF: Degree of freedom, CV: Coefficient of variance, EP: Establishment percentage, D50%M, Days to 50% maturity, PH: Plant height (cm), FL: Fruit length (cm), FD: Fruit diameter (cm), NFPPL:  

                                                   Number of fruits/plant, MY: Marketable yield (q ha-1), UMY: Unmarketable yield (q ha-1), TY: Total yield (q ha-1) 

 

Table-7. Mean performance of tomato varieties under rain fed in 2014 cropping season 

Variety EA D50%F D50%M PH FL FD NFPPL MY UMY TY 

Chali 88.65a 61.33 89.67c 60.12c 5.07 4.60 37.77a 295.58a 133.58 429.17 

Miya 79.90ab 63.33 93.33bc 64.03b 5.35 3.77 31.77b 283.44b 138.04 425.27 

Melka salsa 74.83b 67.33 97.67ab 68.80a 5.20 4.10 35.43ab 283.33b 206.04 421.38 

Melka sholla 86.23a 61.67 99.67a 60.60c 5.00 4.40 39.10a 283.75b 138.42 422.17 

LSD 0.05 9.37 ns 6.08 1.54 ns ns 4.74 66.37 ns ns 

CV (%) 5.95 7.58 3.18 7.53 8.21 13.69 6.80 10.83 3.56 9.30 

Means followed by the same letter in the same column are not significantly different at 5% level of probability. LSD: Least significant difference, CV: Coefficient of variance, EA: Establishment percentage, 

D50%M: Days to 50% maturity, PH: Plant height (cm), FL: Fruit length (cm), FD: Fruit diameter (cm), NFPPL: Number of fruits/plant, MY: Marketable yield (q ha-1), UMY: Unmarketable yield (q ha-1), TY: Total yield (q ha-

1) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2016, 3(2): 22-30 
 

 
30 

© 2016 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

4. CONCLUSION  

Tomato (Lycospersicon esculentum Mill) belongs to the family Solanaceae, genus Lycopersicon, which is a 

relatively small genus within the large and diverse family. It plays an important role in human nutrition by 

providing essential amino acids, vitamins and minerals and its vitamin C content is particularly high. It also 

contains lycopene, a very potent antioxidant that may be an important contributor to the prevention of cancers. 

From this research output, Chali produced greatly higher (219.03 q ha-1) marketable yield in 2013 whereas 

significantly lower (110.83 q ha-1) marketable yield was obtained at Melka sholla variety. In 2014 under irrigation 

condition, the highest (414.58 q ha-1) marketable yield was recorded at Chali variety while this variety also 

produced higher (295.58 q ha-1) marketable yield under rain fed in the same cropping year. On the contrary, the 

lowest (248.75 q ha-1) and (283.33 q ha-1) marketable yield values were recorded at Melka sholla and Melka salsa 

varieties in both irrigation and rain fed conditions, respectively. From the mean of marketable yield Chali was 

superior by 97.63% from the lowest yielder of Melka salsa variety in 2013 cropping year and it was superior by 

66.67% in marketable yield than Melka sholla. Therefore, it could be concluded that Chali variety might be 

recommended for farmers and growers of tomato plant in the study area. 

 

Funding: This study received no specific financial support. 
 

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. 
 

Contributors/Acknowledgement: All authors contributed equally to the conception and design of the study. We are greatly 

thanks Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Mehoni Agricultural Research Center and the national root, vegetables 

and fruits project for providing all necessary facilities and support during the entire experiment. Our extraordinary gratitude 

goes to the technical assistants of horticulture staff Halefom Hailu and Tedros Abrha for their help in data collection and 

agronomic managements of the field experiment. 

 

REFERENCES 
[1] I. B. Taylor, Biosystematics of the Tomato. In: The tomato crop. A scientific basic for improvement, Atherton, J. and Rudich, G. 

Eds. New York: Chapman and Hall, 1986. 

[2] P. O. Boamah, L. K. Sam-Amoah, and J. D. Owusu- Sekyere, "Effect of irrigation interval on growth and development 

of tomato under sprinkler," Asian J. Agric. Res., vol. 4, pp. 196-203, 2010. 

[3] G. Kallo, Tomato in: Genetic improvement of vegetable crops. Oxford, England: Pergamon Press, 1993. 

[4] C. F. Adams and M. Richardson, Nutritive value of foods, home and garden bull vol. 72. Washington, U.S: Government 

Printing Office, 1977. 

[5] M. U. Sainju, R. Dris, and B. Singh, "Mineral nutrition of tomato," Food Agriculture and Environment, vol. 1, pp. 176-

183, 2003. 

[6] L. Kanyomeka and B. Shivute, "Influence of pruning on tomato production under controlled environments," 

Agricultura Tropica et Subtropica, vol. 32, pp. 79-81, 2005. 

[7] S. Agarwal and A. Rao, "Tomato lycopene and its role in human health and chronic diseases," CMAJ, vol. 163, pp. 

739-744, 2000. 

[8] FAOSTAT, "Food and agricultural commodities production." Available  http://faostat.fao.org [Accessed 19 August 

2015], 2010. 

[9] D. Lemma, Z. Yayeh, and E. Helath, "Agronomic studies on tomato and capsicum. In: Helath E. and Lemma D, (Eds). 

Horticultural research and development in Ethiopia," in Proceedings of the Second Horticultural Workshop of Ethiopia, 1-

3 December, 1992. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2003, p. 153. 

[10] D. Lemma, "Tomato research experience and production prospects," Research Report No 43 Ethiopian Agricultural 

Research Organization, 2002. 

[11] CSA, "Report of federal democratic Republic of Ethiopia," Statistical Repoer on Agricultural Sample Survey, Area 

and Production of Major Crops, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2013. 

 
 
 
 
Views and opinions expressed in this article are the views and opinions of the author(s), Current Research in Agricultural Sciences shall not be responsible or 
answerable for any loss, damage or liability etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content. 
 

http://faostat.fao.org/

