Comparison of Yield, Fruit Quality and Some Biochemical Traits of Four Cherry Tomato Varieties in Soilless Culture

Document Type : Research Article


1 Department of Horticulture, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz, Ahvaz, Iran.

2 Department of Horticulture, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Karaj, University of Tehran


Introduction: Cherry tomatoes, all over the world, have become a popular product because of the favorable characteristics (a good source of vitamins A and C, soluble solids, flavor, low calorie and fruit formation at high temperature). Cultivar selection is one of the most important managerial decisions and, despite thousands of available varieties, it can be daunting task. Cultivars are different in attributes such as color, shape, size, taste, taste, growth, consumption, planting time, and resistance to pests and disease.
Material and Methods: This study was carried out from the autumn of 2014 to spring of 2015, at the research greenhouses of the University of Shahid Chamran, Ahvaz, Iran. The study was performed in randomized complete block design with three replications. During the cultivation period and at the end of the experiment, the number of clusters in the plant, the number of fruits in the cluster, the number of fruits in the plant, the total function in the bush , the number of marketable and unmarketable fruits in plant, the harvest index, vitamin C and soluble solids were evaluated. In addition, nitrate content, nitrite, fruit lycopene and photosynthetic pigments (chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b, chlorophyll a to b ratio, total chlorophyll, carotenoid and chlorophyll to carotenoid ratio) and the SPAD index were measured.
Results and Discussion: According to the comparison of the means, there were the highest number of clusters in Baby Tom (16/44) and then in Belize (15/88), which were not statistically significant and the lowest number of clusters were observed in cultivar Sogno (12.77). The highest and lowest number of fruits in the cluster were found in the cultivars of Sogno and Belize (29.82 and 17.73), respectively. The highest number of fruits in the plant (295) were observed in Sogno and the Belize cultivar had the lowest number of fruits (193.56). The highest average of single fruit weight related to the Cherry Belle (11.13 g) and the lowest in Sogno (8 g) were observed. The lowest and the maximum percentage of the unmarketable fruits were obtained in Baby Tom (09/09 %) and Sogno (32 %), respectively. The maximum yield was observed in the Cherry Belle (2929 g) and then in Sogno (2482.4 g) and Baby Tom (2077.6 g) and the minimum yield (1637.7 g) in the Belize cultivar. The highest and lowest marketable yield were obtained in Belle (2928.6 g per plant) and Belize (1636.6 g per plant) cultivars, respectively. The maximum amount of soluble solids was observed in Baby Tom (4.86 °Brix), which had no statistically significant differences with the Belle and Sogno and the lowest soluble solids was found in Belize (3.15 °Brix). There were the highest and lowest vitamin C content in Cherry Belle (28.24 mg per 100 g FW) and Belize, respectively (23.1 mg in 100 g FW). According to the results, the maximum and lowest content of lycopene were observed in the Cherry Belle and Baby Tom, with an average of 32.411 and 19.402 mg/kg, respectively. The maximum content of nitrate in fruits was observed with 0.67 mg/gr DW in the fourth cluster and the lowest content of nitrate with 0.198 mg/gr DW in the tenth cluster. The highest indices of leaf SPAD were found in Belize (28.9) and lowest in Cherry Belle (16.32).
Conclusion: The selection of high - yield or high - quality cultivars in a greenhouse culture is critical to the economic efficiency of this product. The difference in yield is mainly related to the genetic variation among varieties. Study of yield and yield components of four samples of tomato in the environment and similar culture showed that the Belle Cherry was the best result for yield, harvest index, and vitamin C, so this cultivar is recommended to grow in Ahvaz greenhouses.


Main Subjects

  1. Alamian M., Eftekhari S.A., Heidari M., and Alamzadeh Ansari N. 2014. Evaluation of nitrate accumulation and nitrate reductase activity in different vegetative growth of selected Iranian land races of spinach (Spinacia oleracea). Journal of Crop Production and Processing 3(10): 25-36
  2. Amr A., and Hadidi N. 2001. Effect of cultivar and harvest date on nitrate (NO3-) and nitrite (NO2-) content of selected vegetables grown under open field and greenhouse conditions in Jordan. Journal Food Composition and Analysis 14(1): 59-67.
  3. Anderson B. 2011. Greenhouse Tomatoes. College of Agriculture, Food and Environment University of Kentucky.
  4. Bonik A., and Spijers G. 2001. Health effects of nitrates and nitrites. Acta Horticulturae 563: 29-36.
  5. Ceballos Aguirre N., and Vallejo Cabrera F.A. 2012. Evaluating the fruit production and quality of cherry tomato (Solanum lycopersicum cerasiforme). Revista Facultad Nacional de Agronomia, Medellin 65(2): 6593-6604.
  6. Crisanto-Juarez A.U., Vera-Guzman A.M., Chavez-Servia J.L., and Carrillo-Rodriguez J.C. 2010. Calidad de frutos de tomates silvestres (Lycopersicon esculentum cerasiforme Dunal) de Oaxaca, Mexico. Revista fitotecnia Mexicana 33)4(: 7-13.
  7. Food and Agriculture Organization. 2013.
  8. Huarte-mendicoa J.C., Astiasaran I., and Bello J. 1997. Nitrate and nitrite levels in fresh and frozen Broccoli. Effect of freezing and cooking. Food Chemistry 58(1-2): 39-42.
  9. Islam M.S., Mohanta H.C., Ismail M.R., Rafii M.Y., and Malek M.A. 2013. Genetic variability and trait relationship in cherry tomato (Solanum lycopersicum var. cerasiforme (Dunnal) A. Gray). Bangladesh Journal of Botany 41(2): 163-167.
  10. Ivors K. 2010. Commercial production of staked tomatoes in the southeast. North Carolina State University. Cooperative Extension, Raleigh, NC.
  11. Juarez-Lopez P., Castro-Brindis R., Colinas-Leon T., Ramirez-Vallejo P., Sandoval-Villa M., Reed D.W., and King S. 2009. Evaluation of quality in fruits of seven native tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum cerasiforme) genotypes. Revista Chapingo. Serie Horticultura 15(2): 5-9.
  12. Kafi M., Zand E., Kamkar B., Abasi B., Mahdavi Damghani M., and Sharifi H.R. 2009. Plant Physiology, Vol. 1, Jihade Daneshgahi Pub.
  13. Koleva Gudeva L., and Dedejski G. 2012. In vivo and in vitro production of some genotypes of cherry tomato Solanum lycopersicum Cerasiforme (DUNAL). International Journal of Farming and Allied Science 1(4): 91-96.
  14. Lo C., Manurung R., and Esyanti R.R. 2014. Enhancement of lycopene and b-carotene production in cherry tomato fruits (Solanum lycopersicum var. cerasiforme) by using red and blue light treatment. International Journal of Technical Research and Applications 2(5): 7-10.
  15. Pourmoghim M., Khoshtinat K., Sadeghi Makkei A., Komeili fonod R., Golestan B. and Pirali M. 2010. Determination of nitrate contents of lettuce, tomatoes and potatoes on sale in Tehran central fruit and vegetable market by HPLC. Iranian Journal of Nutrition Sciences & Food Technology 5(1): 63-70.
  16. Prema G., Indiresh K.M., and Santhosha H.M. 2011. Evaluation of cherry tomato (Solanum lycopersicum Cerasiforme) genotypes for growth, yield and quality traits. Asian Journal of Horticulture 6(1): 181-184.
  17. Radzevicius A., Viskelis P., Viskelis J., Bobinaite R., Karkleliene R., and Juskeviciene D. 2013. Tomato fruit quality of different cultivars growth in Lithuania. International Journal of Biological, Biomolecular, Agricultural, Food and Biotechnological Engineering 7(7): 381-384.
  18. Rahmatian A., Delshad M., Salehi R., and Mousavi Rahimi M. 2012. Evaluation of growth and yield greenhouse tomato influenced by grafting, training and fruit thinning under hydroponic culture. Iranian Journal of Horticultural Science 43(4): 423-435 (In Persian with English abstract)
  19. Renuka D.M., Sadashiva A.T., Kavita B.T., Vijendrakumar R.C., and Hanumanthiah M.R. 2014. Evaluation of cherry tomato lines (Solanum lycopersicum cerasiforme) for growth, yield and quality traits. Plant Archives 14(1): 151-154.
  20. Rocha M.D.C., Deliza R., Correa F.M., do Carmo M.G., and Abboud A.C. 2013. A study to guide breeding of new cultivars of organic cherry tomato following a consumer-driven approach. Food Research International 51(1): 265-273.
  21. Rodriguez J.C., Cantliffe D.J., and Shaw N. 2001. Performance of greenhouse tomato cultivars grown in soilless culture in north central Florida. In Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc, 114: 303-306.
  22. Saberi Z., Khoshgoftarmanesh A., Kalbasi M., Mobli M., and Haghighi M. 2013. The effect different substrates on the absorption of macronutrients and micronutrients by cherry Journal of Science and Technology of Greenhouse Cultures 4(15): 77-87. (In Persian with English abstract)
  23. Shahbazzadegan S., Hashemimajd K., and Shahbazi B. 2010. Determination of nitrate concentration of consumed vegetables and fruits in Ardabil. Journal of Ardabil University of Medical Sciences 10(1): 38-47.
  24. Simion V., Campeanu G.H., Vasile G., Artimon M., Catana L., and Negoita M. 2008. Nitrate and nitrite accumulation in tomatoes and derived products. Romanian Biotechnological Letters 13: 3785-3790.
  25. Stepowska A.J., and Kowalczyk W. 2001. The effect of growing media on yield and nitrate concentration in lettuce (Lactuca sativa capitata). Acta Horticulturae 548: 503-510.
  26. Zoran L.S., Nikolaos K., and Ljubomir S. 2014. Tomato fruit quality from organic and conventional production. Organic agriculture towards sustainability. Rijeka, Croatia: In Tech Europe, 147-169.
Volume 35, Issue 4 - Serial Number 52
January 2022
Pages 459-468
  • Receive Date: 06 August 2019
  • Revise Date: 31 August 2020
  • Accept Date: 01 September 2021
  • First Publish Date: 01 September 2021