Results and Discussion
4.1 Agromorphogenic traits .1 Days to first flowering
4.1.8 Average fruit diameter
Statistically significant variation was recorded for fruit diameter among tomato genotypes (Appendix V. Plate 7). Maximum diameter (40.69 mm) was obtained from On which was statistically identical with 012 (40.56 mm) and minimum (20.30 mm) was measured from 013 which was statistically identical with 0s (20.54 mm) and 06(21.91 mm) (Table 8).
Table 8. Performance of tomato genotypes on average fruit length, average fruit diameter, average fruit weight per plant and yield per plant
c;enotype Average fruit length (mm)
Average fruit diameter
30.45 c
Average weight/plant
15.03 (mm)
fruit (g) ef
Yield/plant (kg)
0.719 a G. 1 25.96 ef
-
Gz 25.37 1 27.63 cd 13.40 1 0.263 hG3 28.07 de 26.28 d 12.67 1 0.521 de
G4 37.68 a 35.28 h $8.29 b 0.640 be
Cs 22.31 204ei 6M4h 0.4301
G6 21.95 g 21.91 ef 7.11 h 0.521 de
30.46 cd 30.69 c 1 16.35 c 0.612 c
Cs 29.34 d 26,94 cd 13.77 f 0.552 d
30.55 cd 34.78 b
-
28.84 c 0.344 g Gie 25.09 t' 24.32 de 1. 9.74 g 0.737 a38.96 a
Cit 40.69a 43.50 a 0.666 h
Giz $9.07 a 40.56a _41.88 a 0.607 c
Gia 24.01 1 20.301 _5.74 h 0.504 e
Cii _32.57 be 36.21b _25.16 d 0.455 1
Gis I 34.71b 35.20h F 26.67 ed 0.461 1
CV% 1 9.29 13.49 13.27 9.06
LLSDco.os, 2.03 3.80 2.52 0.042
Fifteen tomato genotypes coded from Cute G:
In a column means having similar letter (s) are statistically identical and those having dissimilar letter(s) differ significantly as per 0.05 level ofprobabiIit
Table 9. Performance of salinity treatments on average fruit length, average fruit diameter, average fruit weight per plant and yield per plant
Salinity treatments
Average fruit length (mm)
Average fruit diameter (mm)
Average fruit weight/plant
Yield/plan
-
I (kg)
Ti 33.88a 34.69a 27.86 a 0.821 a
T2 26.99c _26.22c 15.93 b 0.396 b
28.35 b 29.45 b 17.05 b 0.389b
CV% -i 9.29 _13.49 13.27 9.06
LSD(ooc) 1.25 2.70 1.12 0.019
Three salinity treatments viz. 1,;. Control: T:. 8 dS!ni; T 12 dS/uii
In a column means having similar letter (s) are statistically identical and those having dissimilar letter(s) differ significantly as per 0.05 le'.el of probahility
laMe 10. Interaction effect of tomato genotypes and salinity trcatments on average fruit length. average fruit diameter, average fruit weight per plant and yield per plant
Interaction Average fruit length (mm)
Average fruit d Ia meter (mm)
Average fruit weight/plant (g)
17.44 ijkl
Yield/plant ______(kg)
CITI
1
2828 Iuiklznno1
32.18 fthij 0.876 d_____C1 T: 23.40 pqrs 27.66 hijklmn 12.57 mnopg 0A056ef 26.19 mnopq
1
31.52 ghijk 15.09 inp._ _0.641 efGT2 28.01 ijldnmo 29.09 ghijjdm 17.89 hiik 0.347 pqrst C;zi: 23.85 opqrs 26.28 jkimnopq
27.51 hilkimno
11.05 pqrs 0.223 w
G-TJ 24.24 opqrs 11.26 opqrs 0.219 w
CiT 30.78 fhijkI 29.20 ghijklm 16.62 Jklm 0.707 e Ca: 25.93 nopq 2437 Trnnopqr 11.88 nopqr 0.44 I klmno
27.50 jklrnnop 25.28 klmnopgr 9.50 qrst 0.415 mnop
64T 45.161, 45.37 b 55.49 b 1.278 a
C4T1 33.49 dei 25.17 klmnopqr 22.01 fgh 0.333 grst
C.iTi 34.40 def 35.32 defg 37.37 c 0.300 rstuv
CTi 2435 opejs 24.13 rnnopqr CsT1
8.06 rst 0.607f
198st
1
17.30 s 4.94 it 0302 stuvCsTj 22.71 grs 2019 pr - 5.13 t 0.381 opor
66T1 26.46 Imnopq 26.75 ilklmnop 11.80 nopqr 0.968 be
CT2 19.88 st 18.93 N 435 u 0.320 rstu
GTj 19.52 -
33.47 dcQ
20.05 gr 4.70 u 0.276 tnv
61f1 33.33 efghi 21.11 0.940 cd
C,L 27.45 jklmnop 26.44 iklmnopq 12.38 mnojJf_ _0._!!P.9 0.470 jklinn C,Ti
1
30.47 f2hiiklm1
32.29 fhij 15.57 klmnoGsTi . 26.19 innopo 26.64 Jklrnp no 13 innopqr 0.543 ihi GsT: 29.50hujkImn 24.42 lnmopgr 13.30 lmnopq 0.0.635 cC C3T, 32,3•I eJ3.hi 29.75 ghijklm 15.65 klinn 0.456 klmn
(hT1 37.90 cd - 39.78 hcde 38.42 c 0.534h1j
25.53 nopq 30.93 ghuikl 23.65 efg
1
0.249 uv 28.20 hi jklinno1
33.64 efgh 24.44 ci' 0.250 uv G10T1 28.93 hiiklmn 2915 ghijldm1
14.99 klmnop 1.238 a CioT: 23.41 pqrs 21.4InopQr 7.10 stF
0.495 ilk!GaoTi 22. 1. 22.41 nopqr 1 7.13 st 0,177 iiklm 46.40 ab
1
46,34 b 1 55.11 I, 1.014 bCuT: 33.67 defg 1 3546 defg
1
38.56 e 0.483 ijklniC11Ti 36.81 cde 40.27 bed 36.85 c 0.503 ilk
50.77 a 55.06 a 73.27 a 1.280 a
34.57 def 31.33 ehijk
1
26.74 c 0.297 SLUVGu:Ts 31.86 Ijihul I 35.29 del 25.63 ef 0.246 vw CuTi 26.93 klinnopti 22.41 nopqr 1 7.42 st 0.673 ef
CuT: 21.30 rs 17.45 s 3.98 u 0.351 pqrs
GuTs 23.81 opqrs 21.04 opqr 5.83 t 0.489iJk1
34.23 def - 38.70 edef 31.62 d 0.605fh
$0.98ighijk 35.04defg 22.87efg0.426!rnno
32.51 efah 34.89deig.21.00hi 0.334qrst
G15T1 40.38 c 42.22 bc 36.33 c OSIOe
G15T: 32.05 IizhiI31.08thijk 23.05 eti 0.397nopq
C1T._ 31.70Ighii
I
32.29t:thui 20.63gji 0.275tuvCV% 9.29 1 13.49 i 13.27 9.06
LS000.051 1.
_I
2.66I
1.15 0.023Fiñeen genotypes coded from 0110015 and three salinity treatnIents viz. F. Control: 1:. 8 dS'm: I 12 dShii
In a column means having similar letter (s) arc statistically identical and those having dissimilar letter(s) differ significantly as per 0.05 level of probability
T, T, T2 T3
bEJ E F
66
67
4441
G12
(is 13
(9 1 €14
c
T1 T2 T3
CI
En
C2
C3
C4
Plate 7. Comparison of fruit morphology under control and stress conditions. G (BD-7289), G 2 (BD-7291), G3 (BD-7298), G4 (BD-7748), G5 (BD- 7757), C6 (BD-7760), C (BD-7761), C8 (BD-7762), 09 (BD-9011), G (BD-9960), C, I (BAR! Tomato-2), C1 (BAR! Tomato-3), C 3 (BAR!
Tomato-I 1), G14 (BAR! Hybrid Tomato4). 615 (BAR! hybrid Tomato-5) and T1 (Control), T2 (8 dS/m), T3 (12 dSIm)
Fruit diameter was significantly varied statistically with di ftereni salinity treatments (Appendix V). Maximum diameter (34.69 mm) was recorded li-urn T j (control) whereas minimum (26.22 mm) from 1: (8 dS/m) treatment (Table 9). Reduction in fruit diameter due to the increase of salinity levels was also found by Edris et al. (2012) on tomato. High salinity can reduce the fruit growth rate and tinal fruit size by an osmotic effect. High salinity induces lower water potential in chc plant which reduces the water flow in the fruit and therefore the rate of fruit expansion is restricted reported by Epheuvelink.
(2005). Higher levels of salinity reduced tomato fruit size and marketable yield (FIao ci al.. 2000).
Interaction of tomato genotypes and salinity treatments smnit cantly affects the fruit diameter (Appendix V). Maximum fruit diameter (55.06 mm) was obtained from GuTi whereas minimum (17.30 mm) from CI5T: which was statistically identical with 013T2 (17.45 mm) and 0J2 (18.93 mm) (Table 10) 4.1.9 Average fruit weight per plant
From the result of the experiment it was observed that average fruit weight per plant showed statistically signilicant variation among tomato genotypes (Appendix V). Cii tomato genotype provide the maximum average fruit weight (43.50 giplant) which was statistically identical with 612 (41.88 g/plant) while minimum (5.74 g/plant) was obtained from C73 tomato genotypes which was statistically identical with 05 (6.04 g/plant) and Gn (7.11 g!plani) (Table 8).
According to the present study (iii genotype afforded the maximum result and C i genotype afforded the minimum result.
Average fruit weight per plant showed statistically significant variation with different salinity treatments (Appendix V). Maximum average fruit weight (27.86 giplant) was obtained from Ti (control) whereas minimum average fruit weight (15.93 g/plant) was Ibund from 12 (8 (IS/ni) which was statistically identical with T3 (12 dS/m) (17.05 g/plant) (Table 9). Reduction in single fruit
weightiplant due to the increase of salinity levels was also found by Al-Yahyai ci al. (2010) and Islam et al. (20 I 1). In saline area the plants are affected by excessive amount of salt (mainly NaCl). Excessive amounts of soluble salts in the root environment cause osmotic stress which may result in disturbance of the plant water relations, in the uptake and utilization of essential nutrients, and also in toxic ion accumulation (Munns. 2002). Supply of water into the fruit under saline conditions is restricted by a lower water potential in the plant (Johnson et ci.. 1992). Less water flow in the fruit cause reduction in fruit size (Epheuvelink. 2005) thus reduces the fruit weight (Edris et aL. 2012).
Interaction of tomato genotypes and salinity treatments significantly affects the average fruit weight (Appendix V). The highest average fruit weight (73.27 giplant) was obtained from (i12TI while the lowest average fruit weight (3.98 g!plant) was found in GIT: which was statistically identical with G6T3 (4.70 g/plant). Ci,T3 (4.85 g'plant) and 05T2 (4.94 g/plant) (Table 10).
The fifteen genotypes varied significantly under salinity in average fruit weight per plant (Figure 3. Appendix 9). Average fruit weight per plant increased in genotype (Jg at both slight salinity stress (8 dS/m) and moderate salinity stress (12 dS/m) (Figure 3. Appendix 9).
4.1.10 Yield per plant
It was observed from the result of the experiment that the yield per plant was significantly varied statistically among tomato genotypes (Appendix V).
Maximum yield (0.737 kg/plant) was found in thu genotype which was statistically identical with Cii (0.719 kg'plant) whereas minimum yield (0.263 kg/plant) was obtained from (32 genotype (Table 8). According to the present study Gjo genotype gives the maximum yield and 02 genotype gives the minimum yield.
The yield per plant was significantly influenced statistically by salinity treatments (Appendix V). The yield per plant was maximum (0.821 kg/plant) in
11
Agroporphogenic change (%)
a 05
o p p
0 o o 0 0
1
?XS1
6034 38 Ii
5890
58.44
63.50 46.36
P6' 3635
1706 42.84 I 1265
:
.2672
ED
-1
-16.94
a
6017
36.39
I fl;7
5)4
21.43
. 65.02
432)
62
73.91 5025
66.94
53.37 60.02 I 52,37 4795
76.80 - , 29.39
- 44,08 26.313
3680 4110
P ;7 23
I 75,82
-
- 7149
53.18
- .
=" I 6)47
s.—. -,-, -
11,39
6127
80.78
fi whereas minimum (0.389 kg/plant) in T; (12 dS/m) which was statistically identical with T2 (0.396 kg/plant) (8 dS/rn) (Table 9). Salinity stress reduces the yield per plant. In this experiment the fruit number and average fruit weight per plant was reduce in case of high salinity and thus the total fruit weight per plant was reduced (Siddiky et at. 2012: Islam et cit. 2011). Growth and plant yield reduction affected by salinity can be the reason of variation in photosynthetic products translocation toward root. decrease of plant top especially leaves.
partial or total enclosed of stomata. direct effect of salt on photosynthesis system and ion balance (Ilajiboland etal.. 2010).
Interaction of tomato genotypes and salinity treatments significantly affects the yield per plant of tomato (Appendix V). Maximum yield (1.280 kg/plant) was obtained from GI2TI which was statistically identical with 0411 (1.278 kg/plant) and GioTi (1.238 kg/plant) while minimum yield (0.219 kg/plant) from G2T3 which was statistically identical with (3212 (0.223 kg/plant) and GI2T3, (0.246 kg/plant) (Table 10).
The lifteen genotypes varied significantly tinder salinity in yield per plant (Figure 3. Appendix 9). Yield increased in genotype Us at slight salinity stress (8 dS/m) and minimum reduction was Ibund also in genotype (is at moderate salinity stress (12 dS/m) (Figure 3. Appendix 9).
4.2 Physiological traits 4.2.1 Chlorophyll content
It was observed from the result of the experiment that chlorophyll content (%) of leaves (SPAD reading) showed statistically significant inequality among lifteen tomato genotypes at 92 DAT (Appendix VI). The highest chlorophyll content (36.39%) was found in (37 which was statisticaLLy identical with G (35.04%) whereas the lowest amouni of chlorophyll (25.77%) was found in Os which was statistically identical with Ui (25.93%) at 92 DAT (Tablel 1). The results showed highest chlorophyll content in & tomato genotype.
Chlorophyll content of leaves (S1'AD reading) showed statisticaUy significant inequality among salinity treatments at 92 DAT (Appendix VI). The highest chlorophyll content (42.07%) was found in Ii (control) whereas the lowest chlorophyll content (20.70%) in 13 (12 dS/m) at 92 DAT (Table 12). Gradual decrease in chlorophyll content due to the increase of salinity treatments (Hajer et al.. 2006: Al-Sobhi. 2005). Reduction in chlorophyll content is probably due to the inhibitory effect of the accumulated ions of salts on the biosynthesis of the different chlorophyll fractions. Salinity affects the strength of the [brees bringing the complex pigment protein-liquid, in the chioroplast structure. As the chioroplast in membrane bound its stability is dependent on the membrane stability which under high salinity condition seldom remains intaci and reduces the chlorophyll content (Edris ci at. 2012: Hajiboland ci al.. 2010: Arnini and Ehsnapour. 2006).
Chlorophyll content of leaves influenced significantly among interaction of tomato genotypes and salinity treatments at 92 DAT (Appendix VI). The highest chlorophyll content (57.33%) was found in G2T1 whereas the lowest chlorophyll content (13.47%) in (juT; which was statistically identical 'ith G1T; (16.40%) at 92 DAT (Table 13).
The lifleen genotypes varied significantly under salinity in chlorophyll content of leaves (Figure 4. Appendix 9). Minimum reduction was found in genotype
G1 at both slight salinity stress (8 dS/m) and moderate salinity stress (12 dS'rn) (Figure 4. Appendix 9).
4.2.2 Na content
From the result of the experiment it was observed that Na content (%) of plant shoot showed statistically significant inequality among fifteen tomato genotypes (Appendix VI). The highest Na content (1.583%) was found in Cia whereas lowest amount of Na content (0.990%) was found in Cs (Table 10.
The results showed highest Na accumulation in Cia tomato genotypes.
Table ii. Performance of tomato genotypes on chlorophyll content, Na' content and K content
Genotype Chlorophyll content
Na' content ("/o) K content (%)
Ci 25.93 g j 1.113 1gb 1.374 de
C: 35.04 a 1.220 e 1.497 c
31.58be 1.357 c _1.317 e
Ci 27.091 1.527 b _1.123 1
Cs 33.04h 1.383 c 1.320 e
31.46bc 1.263 d 1.393 d
3639a 1.127 Ig _ 1.320 e
25.77 _ 0.990 i 1.610 ab
C9 29.51de
1073 ed
I
1.353I 1.583 c a
1.157 i 1.053
£ Gio
29.16 de 1.540 b 1.107
L
Gu: 26.63 f 1.347 c 1.380 de
Cu 29.71 de 1.073 h 1.527 c
Cu 26.69 f 1.131 1 1.560 be
Gus 28.98e 1.087 fl 1.644 a
6
08
3.91 5.00LSD(o.os) 0.85 0.042 0.066
Fifteen tomato genotypes coded from Cii to Cu;
In a column means having similar letter (s) are statistically identical and chose having dissimilar letter(s) differ sitrniIicantiv as per 0.05 level of probability
Table 12. Performance of salinity treatments on chlorophyll content, Na content and K content
Salinity treatments
Chlorophyll content Na* content (%) Kt content (%)
Ti 42.07 a 1.007 c 1.576 a
Tz 26.77 b 1.395 h 1.257 b
i's 20.70 c 1.417 a 1.243 b
CV% 6:08 3.91 5.00
IS'Ilo.os__ 6.05 0.019
I
0.030Three salinity treatments viz. Ti. Control; T,. S dSfm; I. 12 dS/m
In a column means having similar letter (s) are statisdcallv identical and those having dissimilar letter(s) diFfer signiticantiv as per 0.05 level of probability
Table 13. Interaction effect of tomato genotypes and salinity treatmen(s on chlorophyll content, Na content and IC content
Interaction Chlorophyll content (%) Na content (%) I K content (%)
64T1 39.03 de 0.780 v 1.533 cfg
22.37 opqc 1.260 lunnop I 1.340 Llninop
GiTa (5.iOnv 1.3(8) klrnn 1.25(1 ongrs
C2T, 57.33 a 0.870uv • 1.710 bed
C,T, 26.33 klunn 1.370 jk L420hiikI
CTi 21.47 ngsl 1.421) ii 1.360 iklnino
C31 13.30 e 1.150 cc 1.460 hii
29.30 ii 1.420 ii 1.280 uiopqrs
GTj 22.13 opqrs 1.500 (eh 1 1.210 grst
37.33 def 1.3701k 1.360 klmno
C4T1 24.37 rnnop 1.560cC 1.040uvw
6413 19.57 rstu 1.650 cd
1
0.970 vwG5T1 47.37 b 1.270 Inmo . 1.4(8) hiiktni
ChTz 27.80 iLl 1.410 ii I 1.300 mnopqr
G,,r3 23.97 °N 1.470 --hi 1.200 opqrs
C6T1 34.47 leli 0.980 1 1.670 bed
CoIl 31.57 hi 1.330 LI I 1.320 Inniopq
C0T, 27.30 jklm I .4SOSii I 1.190 Nt
C,Ti 48.30 b 0.800vw 1.660 bed
CIa $3.57 I .260 Imnop 1.180 st
I c-I, 28.33 jk 1.320 kIm 1.120 in
G,T4 31.57 hi 0.84*vw 1.7.10 by
C.T2 24.43 mno 1.190 pqr 1.160 ghii
CaT, 21.30 grstu 0.940 tu 1.500 gh
C,Ti 39.53 d 1.120 rs 1.310imni
C.T: 27.43 iLl 1.510 ( 1.050 uv
21.57 opqrs 1.434) hii 1.110 tu
L
G,oTt 13.50 e 1.2211 opg 1.320 lninopqC1oT2 28.37 IL 1.710 he 1 0.934) wx
(;iol, 20.33 rstu 1.820 a 0.910 \
(i iT1 46.63 b 1.270 hnno 1.340 klinnop
GIOT2 I 22.33 opqr 1.740 b 0.920 x
G1T3 18.50 in I 1.610 de I I060uv
G,Ji 36.33 ei 0.960 t 1.740 be
C12T2 24.33 imp 1.380 ijklinn
I 1.670 bed
1
1.020 iivv.CuT, 1923 stuv
C1;T1 I 4723b
I
(1.8.10 .w 1.72(1'cdGisT1 28.13 jk I.310k1,ri 1.240 porN
GuT, F 13.47 x 070 s 1.620 del
GuTu j 35.93 fg 0.360 v 1.760 h
(.1412 F 25.60 klrnn I 1.210 °N 1.480 ghi
(;14T, 1353 Itiv 1.323 LI 1.440 2hijk
G15T1 . 45.20c 0.780 I 1.920 a
61512 25.33 mm -1.2M nk)2-1 1.513 Mi
18.40 uv I 1.250nmop 1.630 ede
CV% 0.08 3.91 5.00
2.94 0.073 0.058
Filleen genotypes coded from Gito Gi,and three salinity treatmenLs viz. 1,. Control: T,. 8 dS/rn; Tt 12 dSim
In a column means having similar letter (s) are statistically identical and those having dissimilar letter(s) differ signhlicantly as per 0.05 level of probability
a 2
S
ig I jH I
70.00
60.00 0 0
o 50.00
C"
V 40.00
QL
30.00 S
20.00
10.00
I ,
12 there isingN content
I : 13
till.! IHUIUJ Reducing
chlorophyll to
T3MGi sG2 WG3 sG4 s65 uG6 uG7 uGS uG9 slflO MG11 uG12 uG13 uG14 uGIS 80.00
S
00 00 I
p. I,
1i
iJf'
12 Reducing K contentitIt
T3 Figure 4. Reduction/increase percentage in chlorophyll content, NW content and iC content under increasing salinityNa' content of shoot showed statistically significant inequality among salinity treatments (Appendix VI). The highest Na content (1.417%) was found in 13 (12 dS/m) whereas the lowest Na' content (1.007%) in Ii (control) (l'ahle 12).
When excessive amounts of salt enter the plant, salt will eventually rise to toxic levels in the older transpiring leaves, causing premature senescence. and increase the Na concentration in both shoot and root zone of tomato plant (Siddikv ci at. 2012: Hajiboland etal.. 2010: Dasgan ci at. 2006).
Na' content of shoot iniluenced signilicantly the interaction of tomato genotypes and salinity treatments (Appendix VI). The highest Na content (1.820%) was found in GioTt whereas the lowest Na content (0.780%) in (liii and GisTi which was statistically identical with 0711 (0.800%). G*Ti and GuTi (0.840%) (Fable 13).
The lifleen genotypes varied significantly under salinity in Na content (%) of shoot (Figure 4. Appendix 9). Minimum uptake of Na' was found in genotype Gs at slight salinity stress (8 dS/m) and GR at moderate salinity stress (12 dS/m) (Figure 4. Appendix 9).
4.2.3 IC content
It was observed from the result of the experiment that K content (%) of plant shoot showed statistically significant inequality among lifteen tomato genotypes (Appendix VI). The highest K content (1.644%) was found in 015
genotype which was statistically identical with (38 (1.610%) whereas the lowest amount of K' content (1.053%) was found in Gia genotype which was statistically identical with Gii (1.107%) (Table 1). The results showed highest K accumulation in G,5 tomato genotypes.
K' content of shoot showed statistically significant inequality among salinity treatments (Appendix VI). The highest K content (1.576%) was found in Ti (control) whereas the lowest K content (1.243%) in T (12 dS/m) (Fable 12).
Increase Na' concentration in the root zone or plant gradually decrcase the
uptake of K in tomato plant (Edris et al.. 2012: Hajiboland etal.. 2010;
Das9an et ci. 2006: Akinci ci al. 2004)
K content of shoot influenced significantly the interaction of tomato genotypes and salinity treatments (Appendix VI). The highest K content (1.920%) was found in Cii 5T1 whereas the lowest K content (0.910%) in Ci1013 which was statistically identical with Gi(f (0.920%) and 010'f2 (0.930) (Table 13).
ike tifteen genotypes varied significantly under salinity in K content (%) of shoot (Figure 4. Appendix 9). Minimum reduction of K uptake was found in enotvpe Os at slight salinity stress (8 dS/m) and 01$ at moderate salinity stress (12 dS/ni) (Figure 4. Appendix 9).
4.3 Nutritional traits