Pre-harvest FYM-based organic modules and storage conditions influence physical storability of tomato

Introduction

Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) is one of the most widely cultivated vegetable crops, valued for its nutritional quality, consumer preference and economic importance. However, being a climacteric and highly perishable fruit, tomato undergoes rapid physiological and biochemical changes after harvest. Continued respiration and moisture loss gradually reduce fruit weight, freshness and marketability, ultimately limiting its shelf life. The postharvest behaviour of tomato is influenced not only by storage conditions but also by genetic, environmental and cropmanagement factors operating before harvest (Arah et al., 2015; Bertin and Génard, 2018) [4,5] . Therefore, maintaining fruit quality after harvest requires attention to both pre-harvest production practices and postharvest management. Organic production has gained increasing importance in tomato cultivation as an approach that makes greater use of farm-derived nutrient sources, beneficial microorganisms and botanical inputs. Farmyard manure (FYM) provides organic matter as well as plant nutrients, while microbial and organic formulations such as Trichoderma, Pseudomonas, VAM, Panchagavya, Jeevamruth and vermiwash are commonly used as components of organic crop-management systems. Apart from their role during crop growth, pre-harvest nutrient-management practices can influence the characteristics of fruits at harvest and, consequently, their behaviour during subsequent storage. Differences in the postharvest performance of tomatoes grown under different nutrientmanagement systems have also been reported. Laxmi et al. (2015) [10] observed variations in fruit quality and shelf life when tomato was supplied with different combinations of organic manures and fertilizers. Pradhan and Srijaya (2022) [16] further reported better storability of organically grown tomatoes under refrigerated conditions, with lower physiological loss in weight, reduced respiration and lower loss of firmness. These findings suggest that the conditions under which fruits are produced may have an important bearing on how well they retain their quality after harvest. Postharvest storage conditions are equally important in determining the marketable life of tomato. Perforated polymeric packaging can reduce excessive moisture loss while allowing adequate ventilation around the fruits. Poudel et al. (2022) [15] and Haile (2018) [8] reported that packaging material considerably influenced weight loss and marketability of stored tomatoes. Refrigeration further helps in slowing physiological deterioration during storage, although individual quality attributes may respond differently to reduced temperature (Toor and Savage, 2006; Pék et al., 2010) [20,14] . Pre-harvest nutrition also influences fruit size, biochemical composition and tissue integrity and can consequently affect postharvest behaviour. The study evaluated whether 12 FYM-based pre-harvest treatment combinations (A) differed in their physical storability under open room storage (S1), perforated-polybag room storage (S2) and perforated-polybag refrigerated storage (S3). The objective was to quantify preharvest organic treatments and storage effects on fruit weight, PLW and shelf life.

Materials and Methods

Experimental material and pre-harvest treatments

Tomato fruits were obtained during 2020-21 and 2021-22 from the field experiment conducted at the Regional Agricultural Research Station, Warangal, Telangana, India. The pre-harvest factor comprised 12 combinations of three FYM levels and four organic modules. The FYM levels were L1, FYM equivalent to 100% recommended dose of nitrogen (RDN); L2, FYM equivalent to 75% RDN; and L3, FYM equivalent to 50% RDN integrated with four organic modules, namely M1: (Soil application of Trichoderma viride @ 2kg/ton of FYM+250 kg/ha neem cake+ Spraying Trichoderma viride 5g/litre + 3% Panchagavya + 5% neem oil + Bt @1g/litre at 10 days interval), M2: (Soil application of Pseudomonas fluorescens @ 2.0 kg enriched in 1 ton + 250 kg/ha neem cake+ Spraying Pseudomonas fluorescens 5g/litre + 10% Vermiwash + @ 500 ml GCG extract per 10litres of water + NPV @ 250 LE/ha at 10 days interval), M3: (Soil Application of VAM @ 10 Kg/ton of FYM + 250 kg/ha neem cake + Spraying 10% Jeevamruth + 5% NSKE + 5g/litre Metarhizium anisopliae+ Trichoderma + Pseudomonas spp. @ 5g/litre at 10 days interval) and M4: (Application of Waste decomposer @ 40l/ton of FYM +Spraying 10% Amruthpani + 5% Neemastra + 5g/litre Beauveria bassiana + Spraying mass multiplied waste decomposer culture is diluted @ 1:3 ratio with water at 10 days interval).

Storage treatments and experimental design

Five fruits from each pre-harvest treatment were used for evaluating the physical storability parameters in a factorial completely randomized design with three replications. Storage treatments comprised S1 (open storage at room temperature), S2 (storage in perforated polyethene bags under room temperature) and S3 (storage in perforated polyethene bags under refrigerated conditions at 7 o C). Thus, 12 pre-harvest combinations × 3 storage conditions produced 36 treatment combinations in each season.

It was recorded using an analytical balance at 0, 4 and 8 days after storage (DAS) and at 12 DAS, where fruits remained suitable.

Physiological loss in weight (PLW)%:

It was calculated as the percentage weight loss of the initial weight. The initial weight of each sample per replication was taken before packing. The weight of the sample was taken on four-day intervals after setting up the experiment. The formula used for the calculation was: PLW% = (Initial weight -Final weight/ Initial Weight) *100 PLW was recorded at 4, 8 and 12 DAS and expressed as percentage loss relative to initial fruit weight. Shelf life was recorded in days. Data were analyzed for pre-harvest treatment (A), storage (S) and A × S interaction using the reported SE(m)± and CD at 5%.

The storage shelf life of the tomato fruits was calculated by counting the number of days required for them to attain the last stage of ripening, but up to the stage when they remained still acceptable for marketing in all the treatment combinations. At 12 DAS, observations were confined to L1M1S3 and L1M3S3 because fruits in the remaining treatment-storage combinations had reached the rejection endpoint. Asterisks denote spoiled/unavailable fruit; these entries were not assigned zero, estimated, imputed or extrapolated. The data was analysed using OP stat software.

Correlation:

Pearson's correlation analysis was performed using R statistical software to determine the relationships among fruit weight, physiological loss in weight (PLW) and shelf life. The correlations were calculated across the 12 pooled pre-harvest treatment means. Fruit weight and PLW recorded at 8 DAS and pooled treatment means for shelf life were used for the correlation analysis. Twelve-DAS observations were excluded.

The Pearson coefficient is:

Correlations were interpreted as associations rather than causation. [8] and Poudel et al. (2022) [15] . The significant organic module treatments and storage interaction at 8 DAS in both years and in the pooled analysis shows that the effect of storage condition depended on the preharvest treatment imposed. The combination L1M1S3 consistently retained the highest fruit weight, followed by L1M3S3, indicating that fruits produced under superior organic nutrition responded better to refrigerated storage. This suggests a complementary effect between pre-harvest organic nutrient management and post-harvest low-temperature packaging. The higher fruit weight retained by L1M1 and L1M3 throughout storage may be attributed to better pre-harvest nutritional status of fruits produced under FYM equivalent to 100% RDN in combination with effective organic modules. FYM improves soil physical condition, microbial activity, nutrient release and moisture retention, which favour better root growth, nutrient uptake and assimilate translocation towards developing fruits. Hence, fruits from L1M1 and L1M3 might have possessed better initial size, firmness, cellular integrity and moisture-holding capacity than those from reduced FYM levels. Similar improvements in tomato fruit quality and shelf life due to organic manures and biofertilizers were reported by Laxmi et al. (2015) [10] , who observed that organic manures and nutrient integration improved fruit yield, quality, and shelf life in tomato. Manickam et al. (2022) [11] also reported that judicious use of organic manures enhanced tomato fruit quality by maintaining soil fertility and improving nutrient availability. The gradual decline in fruit weight from 0 to 8 DAS in all treatments was mainly due to physiological loss in weight caused by transpiration, respiration and utilization of stored substrates. Tomato being a climacteric and highly perishable fruit continues to respire after harvest; therefore, loss of water and respiratory depletion of reserves progressively reduce fresh weight. The superiority of S3, i.e., storage in perforated polybags under refrigerated condition, at 4 and 8 DAS clearly indicates the beneficial role of low temperature combined with packaging in maintaining fruit weight. Refrigeration slows down respiration, ethylene activity, ripening and enzymatic softening, while perforated polybags reduce moisture loss by maintaining relatively higher humidity around the fruit surface. Haile (2018) [8] reported that polyethylene packaging reduced physiological weight loss and decay in tomato, and perforated polyethylene bags maintained better marketability at later stages of storage. Similar trends were noticed by Pradhan and Srijaya (2022) [16] when tomatoes grown with indigenous liquid organic manures and stored in refrigerated conditions showed lesser PLW, loss of firmness and respiration rate, and lower microbial load compared to conventional counterparts.

Results and Discussion

The lower physiological loss in weight (PLW) recorded in L1M1, L1M2 and L1M3, particularly under 100% FYM equivalent to RDN, indicates that balanced organic nutrition improved fruit tissue integrity and moisture retention during storage. Organic manures enhance soil microbial activity, nutrient availability and calcium uptake, which contribute to stronger cell walls and membranes, thereby reducing transpiration losses after harvest. The substantially higher PLW observed under L3M4 suggests that inadequate nutrient supply (50% FYM equivalent to RDN) adversely affected fruit structural stability, making the fruits more susceptible to water loss and senescence. PLW increased from 4 to 8 DAS. At 4 DAS, pooled storage means were 3.39, 3.50 and 1.48% under S1, S2 and S3; at 8 DAS, they were 13.27, 16.38 and 9.21%, respectively. The storage effect was significant at both dates. L1M1 recorded pooled PLW of 2.64% at 4 DAS and the lowest treatment mean at 8 DAS (9.86%). At 12 DAS, the only recorded pooled observations were 10.17% for L1M1S3 and 10.69% for L1M3S3. The superiority of S3 (perforated polybags under refrigerated conditions at 7 o C) across both years and pooled analysis demonstrates the beneficial effect of low temperature combined with appropriate packaging. Refrigerated storage suppresses respiration, ethylene evolution and transpiration, while perforated polybags maintain high relative humidity and reduce vapour pressure deficit around the fruits, thereby minimizing moisture loss. In the present study, S3 consistently recorded the lowest PLW (1.15 and 9.25% during 2020-21; 1.80 and 9.16% during 2021-22; and 1.48 and 9.21% in pooled data at 4 and 8 DAS, respectively), clearly indicating its effectiveness in preserving fruit freshness. The interaction effects further strengthen this conclusion. The combination L1M1S3 exhibited the minimum PLW throughout storage (1.05% and 5.15% during 2020-21; 1.70% and 5.05% during 2021-22; and 1.37% and 5.10% in pooled analysis), whereas L3M4S2 consistently recorded the highest PLW. These findings indicate that fruits produced under optimum organic nutrition responded more favourably to refrigerated storage than fruits grown under lower nutrient levels. The present findings corroborate those of Moneruzzaman et al. (2009) [13] , who evaluated different storage systems in tomato and reported that refrigerated conditions markedly reduced physiological loss in weight and prolonged marketable shelf life by slowing respiration, moisture loss, delayed ripening and reduced fruit weight. The lower PLW under S3 reflects reduced vapour-pressure-driven water loss and slower respiration at low temperature. Packaging maintains higher humidity around the fruit surface, while perforations allow ventilation. These responses agree with reports that packaging and refrigeration reduce postharvest weight loss in tomato (Haile, 2018; Poudel et al., 2022) [8,15] . Similar observations were reported by Pradhan and Srijaya (2022) [16] , who reported superior postharvest storability of organically grown tomatoes, particularly under refrigerated storage, as evidenced by lower physiological loss in weight, reduced respiration rate and lower loss of firmness. The authors associated these responses with greater longevity and delayed senescence of organically produced fruits. Storage-induced changes were strongly governed by temperature and packaging. Fruits maintained under S3 (perforated polyethene bags under refrigerated storage) consistently outperformed those stored under S1 (open storage at room temperature) and S2 (storage in perforated polyethene bags under room temperature). The beneficial effect of refrigeration may be attributed to suppression of respiration rate, delayed ethylene biosynthesis and reduced activity of enzymes involved in tissue softening. Tomato being a climacteric fruit undergoes a sharp increase in respiration and ethylene production during ripening. Lowering storage temperature slows the climacteric rise, delays colour development and prolongs marketability (Kader, 2002). Refrigerated storage also restricts the activity of polygalacturonase, pectin methyl esterase and cellulase, thereby slowing degradation of pectic substances and maintaining firmness. The perforated polyethylene bags used under S3 created a favourable microenvironment around the fruits by maintaining higher relative humidity while permitting adequate gaseous exchange. This reduced transpiration losses without causing anaerobic conditions. Comparable observations were reported by Akand et al. (2015) [2] and Abrar et al. (2016) [1] . Although packaging under room temperature conditions reduced direct moisture loss, fruits stored under S2 continued to respire actively due to prevailing ambient temperatures. Consequently, rapid ripening and senescence curtailed the storage period. Open storage, on the other hand, accelerated moisture loss owing to greater vapour pressure deficit between fruit tissues and the surrounding atmosphere. The significant extension of shelf life under S3 (storage in perforated polybags under refrigerated conditions) emphasizes the importance of temperature management in preserving tomato fruits. Refrigerated storage slows respiration, suppresses ethylene production and delays enzymatic softening, while perforated packaging maintains a favourable humidity regime that minimizes moisture loss. Rai et al. (2021) [17] reported that refrigerated packaging significantly prolonged tomato shelf life and maintained post-harvest quality by reducing respiratory metabolism and water loss. The superiority of the interaction combinations L1M1S3 and L1M3S3 indicates that fruits produced under optimum FYM nutrition responded more efficiently to refrigerated storage than fruits grown under lower nutrient regimes. This complementary effect of pre-harvest nutrient management and post-harvest storage has also been highlighted by Mditshwa et al. (2022) [12] , who observed that improved nutritional status enhanced fruit resistance to physiological breakdown and contributed to extended storage longevity. The longer shelf life under refrigeration is attributable to suppression of respiration, ethylene-mediated ripening and enzymatic softening. The results are consistent with reports of extended tomato shelf life under suitable packaging and lower-temperature storage (Tigist et al., 2013; Poudel et al., 2022) [19,15] .

Interrelationships among physical storability attributes

The physical attributes displayed a coherent treatment response. All three relationships are statistically significant at p < 0.01. Fruit weight was strongly and positively correlated with shelf life (r = 0.92, p <0.001) and strongly and negatively correlated with PLW (r = -0.91, p <0.001). PLW was negatively correlated with shelf life (r = -0.80, P=0.0018). Thus, treatments retaining greater fruit mass generally showed lower proportional weight loss and longer marketable life. These are associations across 12 pooled treatment means and do not establish causation. (2020) [9] similarly documented progressive weight loss in tomato during storage and demonstrated the importance of prompt cooling for maintaining postharvest physicochemical quality. The positive relationship between fruit weight and shelf life (r = 0.92), together with the negative relationship between PLW and shelf life (r = -0.80), further suggests that better moisture and mass retention was associated with prolonged storability. Dladla et al. (2023) [6] reported that packaging and storage conditions significantly influenced physiological weight loss in tomato and that packaged fruits subjected to cold storage maintained quality more effectively than unpackaged fruits. Similarly, Shehata et al.

(2021) [18] demonstrated that postharvest treatments that restricted weight loss also extended tomato shelf life and maintained fruit quality. These findings support the present correlation pattern, in which reduced PLW was associated with greater fruit-weight retention and longer shelf life. However, the correlations observed in the present study represent associations across pooled treatment means and should not be interpreted as evidence of a direct causal relationship.

Scope and limitations

The study provides two-season evidence from a factorial combination of pre-harvest organic management and postharvest storage. Nevertheless, interpretation is limited by the absence of recorded firmness, colour, respiration, ethylene and microbial measurements in the present dataset. Further, most treatmentstorage combinations became unavailable before 12 DAS, preventing a complete factorial comparison at the final observation. The 12-DAS results therefore document survival and retained quality only for L1M1S3 and L1M3S3 and do not establish a statistical ranking against spoiled treatments.

Conclusion

Pre-harvest FYM-organic module treatments and storage conditions significantly influenced the physical storability of tomato. S3 retained the greatest fruit weight and lowest PLW at 8 DAS and produced the longest storage-condition mean shelf life. L1M1S3 recorded the maximum pooled shelf life and was one of only two combinations remaining available at 12 DAS. Therefore, L1M1 followed by refrigerated perforated-polybag storage was the best physical storability treatment evaluated.

Disclaimer (Artificial Intelligence)

Grammarly and ChatGPT-AI assistance-were used in language preparation, designing the figures and confirming that the authors verified all scientific content and source data.

Competing Interests

Authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgementsThe authors acknowledge the facilities provided by the Regional Agricultural Research Station, Warangal, PJTAU and SKLTGHU.

References

1. Abrar S, Abera D, Simegn K, Ali M. Effect of storage conditions and packing materials on shelf life of tomato. Food Sci Qual Manag. 2016;56:60-67.
2. Akand HM, Mazed HEM, Pulok AI, Chowdhury SN, Moonmoon JF. Effect of organic manures on assessment of shelf life of tomato varieties (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.). Int J Appl Res. 2015;1(5):94-97.
3. Akand MH, Hasan MA, Hossain MA, Islam MS. Effect of storage conditions on shelf life and quality of tomato. Bangladesh J Agric Res. 2015;40(2):257-267.
4. Arah IK, Amaglo H, Kumah EK, Ofori H. Preharvest and postharvest factors affecting the quality and shelf life of harvested tomatoes: a mini review. Int J Agron. 2015;2015:478041. doi:10.1155/2015/478041.
5. Bertin N, Génard M. Tomato quality as influenced by preharvest factors. Sci Hortic. 2018;233:264-276. doi:10.1016/j.scienta.2018.01.056.
6. Dladla SS, Magwaza LS, Mditshwa A, Tesfay SZ. Evaluation of the effects of different packaging materials on the quality attributes of tomato fruit. Appl Sci. 2023;13(4):2100. doi:10.3390/app13042100.
7. Fashanu TA, Akande SA, Lawal IO, Ayanda IS, Adebayo OB, Ibrahim AS, et al. Effect of wood ash treatment on quality parameters of matured green tomato fruit (Solanum lycopersicum L.) during storage. J Exp Agric Int. 2019;29(4):1-11. doi:10.9734/JEAI/2019/46042.
8. Haile A. Shelf life and quality of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) fruits as affected by different packaging materials. Afr J Food Sci. 2018;12(2):21-27. doi:10.5897/AJFS2017.1568.
9. Kabir MSN, Ali M, Lee WH, Cho SI, Chung SO. Physicochemical quality changes in tomatoes during delayed cooling and storage in a controlled chamber. Agriculture. 2020;10(6):196. doi:10.3390/agriculture10060196.
10. Laxmi RP, Saravanan S, Kumar SR. Influence of organic nutrient management on yield and quality of tomato. Asian J Hortic. 2015;10(2):251-255.
11. Manickam S, Suganthy M, Ganesh R. Effect of different sources of nutrients on productivity, profitability and quality of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Madras Agric J. 2022;109(1-3):52-59. doi:10.29321/MAJ.10.000595.
12. Mditshwa A, Magwaza LS, Tesfay SZ, Mbili N. Postharvest quality and composition of organically and conventionally produced fruits: a review. Sci Hortic. 2017;216:148-159.
13. Moneruzzaman KM, Hossain ABMS, Sani W, Saifuddin M, Alenazi M. Effect of harvesting and storage conditions on postharvest quality of tomatoes. Aust J Crop Sci. 2009;3(2):113-121.
14. Pék Z, Helyes L, Lugasi A. Color changes and antioxidant content of vine and postharvest-ripened tomato fruits. HortScience. 2010;45(3):466-468. doi:10.21273/HORTSCI.45.3.466.
15. Poudel S, Aryal P, Basnet M. Effect of different packaging materials on shelf life and postharvest quality of tomato (Lycopersicum esculentum var. Srijana). Adv Hortic Sci. 2022;36(2):127-134. doi:10.36253/ahsc-12801.
16. Pradhan A, Srijaya M. Postharvest quality and storability of organically versus conventionally grown tomatoes: a comparative approach. Biol Life Sci Forum. 2022;16(1):29. doi:10.3390/IECHo2022-12513.
17. Rai A, Kumari K, Vashistha P. Umbrella review on chilling injuries: post-harvest issue, cause, and treatment in tomato. Sci Hortic. 2021;293:110710. doi:10.1016/j.scienta.2021.110710.
18. Shehata SA, Abdelrahman SZ, Megahed MMA, Abdeldaym EA, El-Mogy MM, Abdelgawad KF. Extending shelf life and maintaining quality of tomato fruit by calcium chloride, hydrogen peroxide, chitosan, and ozonated water. Horticulturae. 2021;7(9):309. doi:10.3390/horticulturae7090309.
19. Tigist M, Workneh TS, Woldetsadik K. Effects of variety on the quality of tomato stored under ambient conditions. J Food Sci Technol. 2013;50(3):477-486. doi:10.1007/s13197-0110378-0.
20. Toor RK, Savage GP. Changes in major antioxidant components of tomatoes during postharvest storage. Food Chem. 2006;99(4):724-727. doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2005.08.049.