Impact of integrated nutrient management on growth, yield and quality of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) under Balaghat region

Introduction

Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) is a popular vegetable crop grown around the world, with a high economic value in many nations. It belongs to the Solanaceae family and has 24 chromosomes. It is well-known for its nutritional value, since it is high in carotenoids, vitamin C, and pro-vitamin A. It also has a strong antioxidant profile that includes lycopene, ascorbic acid, phenolics, flavonoids, and vitamin E (Sen et al., 2018) [16] . Tomatoes are an essential ingredient in various culinary creations, with many meals relying heavily on them. Their numerous nutritional and therapeutic advantages, as underlined by Dorais et al. (2008) [5] , have earned them the position of protective food, valued for their important contribution to health and well-being. (Waheed et al. 2020) [23] . According to (Ugonna et al., 2015) [22] , ripe tomato fruits have a wide range of culinary applications, including salads, ketchup, sauces, pastes, and purees. In contrast, the use of immature fruits in pickling highlights their intrinsic worth. The tomato stands out as a wonderful crop, valued for its diverse range of high-demand value-added goods. However, its cultivation is vulnerable to a variety of biotic and abiotic conditions, resulting in difficulties such as poor growth and yield loss, as emphasised by (Pugalendhi et al., 2019) [14] . Tomatoes originated in the South American Andes mountains. Initially brought to Europe by Spanish conquistadors in the sixteenth century, it eventually expanded to southern and eastern Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. Tomato agriculture is widespread in India, with various states contributing significantly to the total output. Apart from Andhra Pradesh, states like Karnataka, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, and Telangana are known for their extensive tomato farming. Vegetable output is expected to reach 204.61 million tonnes, up from 200.45 million tonnes in 2020-21. Tomato output is predicted to be 20.34 million tonnes, compared to 21.18 million tonnes in 2020-21. Tomato production in India spanned 8.40 lakh hectares and produced 203.31 lakh metric tonnes. Nowadays, different nations face varied obstacles in providing chemical-free food to their rising populations. Vegetable output is declining as a result of the use of synthetic fertilisers. The use of synthetic fertilisers reduces soil fertility, kills important microorganisms, and interferes with natural ecosystems. A balanced nutrition supply can improve tomato productivity, fruit quality, fruit size, keeping quality, colour, and flavour (Shukla and Naik, 1993) [18] . The combined use of chemical fertilisers, FYM, vermicompost, and other organics shows tremendous potential in ensuring high crop output while simultaneously protecting soil health against degradation and pollution threats. Continuous use of high-level chemical fertilisers reduces plant nutrient absorption, resulting in stagnation or a decline in production. Continuous use of chemical fertilisers can lead to increased heavy metal concentrations in the soil, disrupting soil health and quality, making it unsuitable for long-term plant development. The combined use of chemical fertilisers, FYM, vermicompost, and other organics shows tremendous potential in ensuring high crop output while simultaneously protecting soil health against degradation and pollution threats. Continuous use of highlevel chemical fertilisers reduces plant nutrient absorption, resulting in stagnation or a decline in production. Continuous use of chemical fertilisers can lead to increased heavy metal concentrations in the soil, disrupting soil health and quality, making it unsuitable for long-term plant development. Vermicomposts are created when earthworms and microorganisms combine to break down organic waste (Edwards et al., 2010) [6] . Vermicompost improves soil porosity, aeration, and water retention capacity. Vermicompost increases surface area, improves nutrient absorption and retention, and retains more nutrients for a longer length of time. It has been discovered that soil modified with vermicompost has much higher soil bulk density and does not become compacted (Martin, 1976) [27] . Vermicompost improves plant nutrient absorption by increasing the permeability of the root cell membrane, encouraging root development, and promoting root hair proliferation. It is also thot to be an excellent organic fertiliser and soil conditioner (Gajalakshmi and Abassi 2003) [7] . Biofertilizers are biologically active products that include certain strains of microorganisms. Among the principal nutrients, phosphatic fertilisers and organic phosphate found in soil are less soluble and are not easily absorbed by plants. Phosphorus solubilising bacteria (PSB) are helpful bacteria that can dissolve inorganic phosphorus from insoluble substances. Phosphate solubilising bacteria serve a crucial function in providing phosphorus to plants, enabling for the long-term utilisation of phosphate (Bhatacharya and Jain 2000) [26] . The use of integrated nutrient management concerned with the protection of soil productiveness and providing these nutrients to the cultivated plants at the most favourable level for sustaining the desired yield thru optimisation of the benefits from all probable sources of organic, inorganic, and biological ingredients in an integrated way (Prabhakar et al., 2007; Sujatha et al., 2008) [12, 25] . Soil's ability to produce agricultural crops is mostly governed by the environment it offers for root development. Roots absorb oxygen, water, nutrients, and ample area in order to grow.

Materials and Methods

The experiment was laid out in Randomized Block Design (RBD) with 08 treatments and three replications. For this purpose, 24 plots were made in Horticulture Research Farm, School of Agriculture Science Technology and Research, Sardar Patel University, Balaghat (M.P.).) 481331, of M.P. during Late winter season academic year 2022-23. 100% RDF* (Recommended Dose of Fertilizer), 75% RDF + 25% Azospirillum, 50% RDF + 50% FYM, 50% RDF + 50% Vermicompst, 50% RDF + 25% Azospirillum + 25% FYM, 50% RDF + 25% Azospirillum + 25% Vermicompost, 50% RDF + 25% FYM + 25% Vermicompost and control. Balaghat District is located the south-eastern portion of the Satpura Range and the upper valley of the Wainganga River. The district extends from 21°19' to 22°24' north latitude and 79°31' to 81°30' east longitude. The plant height of five randomly selected plants was recorded from the base ofthe plants to the shoot tip at the final picking of the fruits and the average height per plant was calculated. The total numbers of branches of five randomly selected plants were counted and the average was worked out. Days to first flowering was noted in terms of days taken from the day of transplanting to first flowering appearance in each plot. The observation was taken on whole plot basis and the average of all the replications was calculated. Days to 50% flowering was noted in terms of days taken from the day of transplanting to 50% flowering appearance in each plot. The observations were made on a full plot basis, and the average of all replications was derived. The total number of flowers produced by each plant was counted and recorded as the number of clusters per plant for each treatment and replication. The captured data was then analysed. The total number of blooms in each cluster of five randomly selected plants was counted, and an average was determined. The quantity of flower clusters generated on each plant was counted and recorded for each treatment and replication. The captured data was then analysed. The number of fruits produced from each plant's blossoms was counted and recorded. The captured data was then analysed. The number of fruits produced by each plant's blooms was counted and recorded for each treatment and replication. The captured data was then analysed. Five randomly selected fruits from each plant were weighed and categorised according to treatment and replication. This procedure was done for five randomly selected plants, and data were collected appropriately. The harvested fruits of individually randomly selected and tagged plants were weighed collectively, and the average weight was used to estimate the fruit output per plant, which was then classified by treatment and replication. The data was then analysed. The yield was estimated by weighing the entire fruit yield per plot and recording data for each harvest. According to Ranganna (1986), the vitamin C or ascorbic acid concentration of the pulp was determined using a 2, 6 dichlorophenol indophenol dye. The data collected during the experimental inquiry were subjected to statistical analysis using the "Analysis of variance" approach (Fisher and Yates, 1967) to make conclusions.

Results and Discussion 1. Plant height (cm) at 30, 60 and 90 DAT The significant difference in the plant height was recorded due to application of different combinations of organic, inorganic fertilizer and biofertilizers. During the years maximum plant height at 30 DAT (38.48 cm). was recorded from T 6 treatment (50%RDF +25% Azospirillum +25% Vermicompost) followed by T 7 and T 1 while the minimum plant height at 30 DAT (36.90 cm and 33.91 cm) was recorded from T 0 control.The maximum plant height at 60 DAT i.e. 78.26 cm were noted bythe application of T 6 -(50%RDF +25% Azospirillum +25% Vermicompost) closely followed by T 4 -(50% RDF + 50% ver m ico m pos t i.e. 74.23 cm and T 7 -50% RDF+ 25% FYM + 25% vermicompost i.e. 72.50 cm, respectively and this improvement was significantly highest then rest of the treatment, however, minimum values i.e. 58.65 cm werein control where plots were deprived off by the use of any organic, inorganic fertilizers and biofertilizers in the years.The maximum plant height at 90 DAT i.e. 108.15 cm were noted by the application of T 6 -(50%RDF +25% Azospirillum +25% Vermicompost) closely followed by T 7 -50% RDF+ 25% FYM + 25% vermicompost i.e. 102.09 cm and T 1 -100% RDF i.e. 100.73 cm during 2023-24 respectively and this improvement was significantly highest then rest of the treatment, however, minimum values i.e. 84.23 cm were in control where plots were deprived off by the use of any organic, inorganic fertilizers and biofertilizers in the years. Similar result was also reported that the Sudhakar and Purushotham 2008, Soumya et al, 2009, and Kumar et al., 2014 [21,20,10] in tomato.

Number of branches per plants

The maximum no. of branches per plant i.e. 36.90 were noted by the application of 6 -(50%RDF +25% Azospirillum +25% Vermicompost) closely followed by T 1 -100% RDF i.e. 5.01 and T 2 -75%RDF + 25% Azospirillum% i.e. 34.80, while lowest number of branches per plant 30.14 wererecorded with T 0 (control) during respectively and this improvement was significantly. Similar result was also reported that the Renuka and Sankar 2001, Prasad et al, 2002 and Prabhu et al, 2010 [13,11] in tomato.

Days to first flowering

The days to 1 st flowering i.e. 69.00 were noted by the application of T 7 -(50%RDF +25% FYM +25% Vermicompost) closely followed by T 4 -50% RDF + 50% Vermicompost i.e. 62.67 and T 5 -50%RDF + 25% Azospirillum%+25% FYM i.e.62.00, while days to 1 st flowering 59.00 wererecorded with T 6 50% RDF + 25% Azospirillum + +25% Vermicompost during respectively and this improvement was significantly. Similar result was also reported that the, Kumar et al, 2014 and Singh et al, 2014 [10,19] in tomato.

Days to 50% flowering

The days to 50% flowering i.e. 78, 00 were noted by the application of T 7 -(50%RDF +25% FYM +25% Vermicompost) closely followed by T 5 -50% RDF + Azospirillum +25% FYM i.e. 72.33 and T 4 -75%RDF + 50% Vermicompost i.e. 71.67, while lowest days to 50% flowering 70.00 were recorded with T 0 (control) during respectively and this improvement was significantly. Similar result was also reported that the Dev and Bhadana 2017, Islam et al, 2017 and Bindra et al, 2018 [3,8,1] in tomato.

Number of flowers per plant

The Number of flowers per Plant i.e. 73.84 were noted by the application of T 6 -(50%RDF +25% Azospirillum +25% Vermicompost) closely followed by T 4 -50% RDF + 50% Vermicompost i.e. 73.46 and T 1 -100% RDF i.e. 62.52, while lowest days to 50% flowering 58.36 were recorded with T 0 (control) during respectively and this improvement was significantly. Similar result was also reported that the Dev and Bhandara 2017, Islam et al, 2017 and Bindra et al, 2018 [3,8,1] in tomato.

Number of clusters per plant

The Number of clusters per plant i.e. 9.93 were noted by the application of T 6 -(50%RDF +25% Azospirillum +25% Vermicompost) closely followed by T 4 -50% RDF + 50% Vermicompost i.e. 7.73 and T 3 -50%RDF +50% FYM i.e.7.40, while lowest Number of flower per cluster 6.00 were recorded with T 0 (control) during respectively and this improvement was significantly. Similar result was also reported that the Soumya et al, 2009, Kumar et al, 2010 Islam et al, 2017 [20,8] and Bindra et al, 2018 [1] in tomato.

Number of fruits per plant

The Number of fruits per Plant i.e. 41.53 were noted by the application of T6 -(50% RDF +25% Azospirillum +25% Vermicompost) closely followed by T7 -50% RDF + +25% FYM + 25% Vermicompost i.e. 36.67 and T5 -50%RDF +25% Azospirillum +25% FYM i.e.34.47, while lowest Number of fruits per Plant 30.93 were recorded with T 0 (control) during respectively and this improvement was significantly. Similar result was also reported that the Kumar et [10,19,1] in tomato.

The Average fruit weight (gm) i.e. 84.32 gm were noted by the application of T 6 -(50%RDF +25% Azospirillum +25% Vermicompost) closely followed by T 7 -50% RDF + +25% FYM + 25% Vermicompost i.e. 81. 46 [10,19,1] in tomato.

The Fruit yield per Plant (kg) /plant i.e. 3.77kg were noted by the application of T 6 -(50%RDF +25% Azospirillum +25% Vermicompost) closely followed by T 7 -50% RDF + +25% FYM + 25% Vermicompost i.e. [10,19,1] in tomato.

The Fruit yield per ha.(t/ha.) i.e. 42.09 t/ha. were noted by the application of T 6 -(50%RDF +25% Azospirillum +25% Vermicompost) closely followed by T 7 (50% RDF + 25% FYM +25% vermicompost) -i.e. 39.74 t/ha. and T 5 -50%RDF + +25% Azospirillum + 25% FYM i.e.39. [10,19,1] in tomato.

The Ascorbic acid (mg/100gm) i.e. 21.97 were noted by the application of T 6 -(50%RDF +25% Azospirillum +25% Vermicompost) closely followed by T 5 ( 50% RDF+ 25% Azospirillum +25% FYM) -i.e. 20.76 and T 1 -100% RDF i.e. 20.38, while lowest Ascorbic acid (mg/100gm) 17.77. Were recorded with T 0 (control) during respectively and this improvement was significantly. Similar result was also reported that the Prasad et al, 2002, Prabhu et al, 2010, and Singh 2014 [13,11,19] in tomato.

Economics Parameter

The plant tomato sown in the field under the treatment with 50% RDF + 25% Azospirillum + 25% Vermicompost (T 6 ) recorded the maximum monetary advantage with the benefit cost ratio of 4.25, during the year of experimentation The result of this study is in agreements with the finding of Yadav et al, 2004, Choudhary et al, 2008, Kondapa et al, 2009 and Sharma et al, 2023 [24,2,9,17] in tomato. To-Control, T1-100% RDF, T2-75% RDF + 25% Azospirillum, T3-50% RDF + 50% FYM, T4-50% RDF + 50% Vermicompst, T5-50% RDF + 25% Azospirillum + 25% FYM, T6-50% RDF + 25% Azospirillum + 25% Vermicompost T7-50% RDF + 25% FYM + 25% Vermicompost

References

1. Bindra AD, Chopra P, Harbans L. Economics of integrated plant nutrient system (IPNS) in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum L.) under dry temperate region of Himachal Pradesh. Agro Economist. 2018;5(1):7-11.
2. Choudhary GR, Jain NK, Jat NL. Response of coriander (Coriandrum sativum) to inorganic, farmyard manure and biofertilizer. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2008;78(9):761-763.
3. Dev P, Bhadana G. Impact of integrated nutrient management on growth, yield and quality of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum Mill.) cv. Pusa Rohini. Progressive Research, An International Journal Society for Scientific Development. 2017;12(3):390-392.
4. Diacono M, Montemurro F. Long-term effects of organic amendments on soil fertility: a review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development. 2010;30:401422.
5. Dorais M, Ehret DL, Papadopoulos AP. Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) health components: from the seed to the consumer. Phytochemistry Reviews. 2008;7:231-250.
6. Edwards CA, Arancon NQ, Vasko-Bennett M, Askar A, Keene G. Effect of aqueous extracts from vermicomposts on attacks by cucumber beetles (Acalymna vittatum) (Fabr.) on cucumbers and tobacco hornworm (Manduca sexta) (L.) on tomatoes. Pedobiologia. 2010;53(2):141-148.
7. Gajalakshmi S, Abbasi SA. High-rate vermicomposting systems for recycling paper waste. Indian Journal of Biotechnology. 2003;2(4):613-615.
8. Islam MA, Islam S, Akter A, Rahman MH, Nandwani D. Effect of organic and inorganic fertilizers on soil properties and the growth, yield and quality of tomato in Mymensingh, Bangladesh. Agriculture. 2017;7:18.
9. Kondapa D, Patil PL, Radder BM, Hebsur NS, Alagundagi SC. Effect of integrated nutrient management on growth, yield and economics of chilli. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2009;22(2):438-440.
10. Kumar S, Rakesh K, Sutanu M, Devendra K, Manoj K. Effect of organic manures and bio-fertilizers on growth, flowering, yield and quality of tomato cv. Pusa Sheetal. International Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2014;10(1):329-332.
11. Prabhu PP, Vani AS, Jitender TR. Effect of organic fertilizer on rhizosphere, growth and yield of tomato. Acta Horticulturae. 2010;685:313-314.
12. Prabhakar CS, Rajendran TP. Long-term quantitative and qualitative changes in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) and soil parameters under cultivars, cropping systems and nutrient management options. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2007;77(4):280-285.
13. Prasad VM, Das KS, Yadav D. Effect of biofertilizer and different levels of fertilizer on growth, yield and quality of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.). Bioved. 2002;13(1-2):125-127.
14. Pugalendhi L, Tamilselvi NA, Thangamani C. A boon for soil-borne pest and disease management: a review. Madras Agricultural Journal. 2019;106(10-12):561-570.
15. Rangana S. Handbook of analysis and quality control of fruit and vegetable products. 2nd ed. New Delhi: Tata McGraw Hill Publishing Co Ltd; 1997.
16. Sen A, Chatterjee R, Bhaisare P, Subba S. Grafting as an alternate tool for biotic and abiotic tolerance with improved growth and production of solanaceous vegetables: challenges and scopes in India. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2018;7(1):121-135.
17. Sharma HL, Tailor SP, Rajawat KS, Kurmi KP. Effect of integrated nutrient management on the growth, yield parameters and economics in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum L.) under Southern Rajasthan conditions. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2023;12(3):321-326.
18. New Delhi: Malhotra Publishing House; 1993. p. 371.
19. Singh A, Jain PK, Gontia AS, Singh Y. Influence of integrated nutrient management on morphology, phenology and yield potential of hybrid tomato under polyhouse condition. JNKVV Research Journal. 2014;48(1):68-72.
20. Soumya TM, Ramachandrappa BK, Nanjappa HLV. Effect of fertigation with different sources and levels of fertilizer on growth and yield of tomato. Mysore Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2009;43(1):80-84.
21. Sudhakar PS, Purushotham K. Studies on effect of biofertilizer on growth, yield and quality of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). The Orissa Journal of Horticulture. 2008;36(2):120-125.
22. Ugonna CU, Jolaoso MA, Onwualu AP. Tomato value chain in Nigeria: issues, challenges and strategies. Journal of Scientific Research and Reports. 2015;7(7):501-515.
23. Waheed K, Nawaz H, Hanif MA, Rehman R. Tomato. In: Medicinal Plants of South Asia. Elsevier; 2020. p. 631-644.
24. Yadav BD, Singh B, Sharma YK. Production of tomato under organic conditions. Haryana Journal of Horticultural Sciences. 2004;33(3-4):306-307.
25. Sujatha MG, Lingaraju BS, Palled YB, Ashalatha KV. Importance of integrated nutrient management practices in maize under rainfed condition. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2008;21(3):334-338.
26. Bhattacharya P, Jain RK. Phosphorus solubilizing biofertilizers in the whirlpool of rock phosphate: challenges and opportunities. Fertilizer News. 2000;45:45-52.
27. Martin JP. Darwin on earthworms: the formation of vegetable moulds. Bookworm Publishing; 1976. ISBN: 0-916302-06-7.