You are on page 1of 196

DROUGHT TOLERANCE STUDIES IN TOMATO (Lycopersicon esculentum MILL.

Thesis submitted to The University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad in partial fulfillment of requirement for the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY In CROP PHYSIOLGOY

By

MUKESH LOKANATH CHAVAN

DEPARTMENT OF CROP PHYSIOLGOY COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, DHARWAD UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES, DHARWAD FEBRUARY 2007

ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Dharwad (B.S. JANAGOUDAR)


FEBRUARY 2007 Approved by Major Advisor

Chairman : Members: -

___________________________ (B.S. JANAGOUDAR)

1. ___________________________ (P.R.HDARMATTI) 2. ___________________________ (R.V.KOTI) 3. ___________________________ (RAVINDRA MULGE) 4. ___________________________ (H.M.VAMADEVAIAH)

CONTENTS
Chapter No.
I II INTRODUCTION REVIEW OF LITERATURE 2.1 Morphological parameter 2.2 Yield and yield attributes 2.3 Biochemical processes 2.4 Biophysical parameters 2.5 Growth parameters III MATERIAL AND METHODS 3.1 Experimental site 3.2 Soil characteristics 3.3 Experimental details 3.4 Source and supply of materials 3.5 Collection of experimental data 3.6 Statistical and biochemical analysis IV EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS 4.1 Experiment I 4.1.1 Morphological and phenological characters 4.1.2 Biophysical parameters 4.1.3 Biochemical parameters 4.1.4 Growth parameters 4.1.5 Yield and yield components 4.2 Experiment II 4.2.1 Morphological and phenological characters 4.2.2 Biochemical parameters 4.2.3 Growth parameters 4.2.4 Yield and yield components

Title

Contd..

Chapter No.
4.4 Experiment III 4.4.1 Pollen viability 4.4.2 Root characters V DISCUSSION

Title

5.1 Morphological and phenological characters 5.2 Biochemical parameters 5.3 Biophysical parameters 5.4 Growth parameters 5.5 Yield and yield components 5.6 Quality parameters 5.7 Practical utility 5.8 Future line of work VI VII SUMMARY REFERENCES APPENDICES

LIST OF TABLES
Table No.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

Title
Plant height (cm) as influenced by irrigation levels in tomato genotypes Stem girth (mm) as influenced by irrigation levels in tomato genotypes Number of branches per plant as influenced by irrigation schedules in tomato genotypes Days to flowering cessation and days to wilting of tomato genotypes as influenced by irrigation levels Photosynthesis, intercellular CO2 and transpiration rate of tomato genotypes as influenced by irrigation levels at 45 DAT Stomatal conductance, leaf temperature and leaf to air vapor pressure deficit as influenced by irrigation in tomato genotypes Chlorophyll contents (mg.g of fresh weight) as influenced by irrigation levels in tomato genotypes at 45 DAT Ascorbic acid, proline and TSS content as influenced by irrigation levels in tomato genotypes Leaf area (dm .plant ) of tomato genotypes as influenced by irrigation levels at various growth stages Influence of irrigation levels on leaf area index (LAI) of tomato genotypes at various growth stages Influence of irrigation levels on leaf area duration (days) of tomato genotypes at various growth stages Influence of irrigation levels on absolute growth rate (g.day-1) in tomato genotypes at various growth stages Crop growth rate (g.m .day ) of tomato genotypes as influenced by irrigation levels at various growth stages Influence of different irrigation levels on net assimilation rate (NAR) (g -2 -1 2 dm day X 10 ) of tomato genotypes at different growth stages
-2 -1 2 -1 -1

Contd..

Table No.
15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27.

Title
Influence of irrigation levels on relative growth rate (RGR) (g.g-1.day-1 x 2 10 ) in tomato genotypes at various growth stages Influence of irrigation levels on specific leaf weight (mg.dm ) in tomato genotypes at various growth stages Influence of irrigation levels on specific leaf area (cm2.mg-1) in tomato genotypes at various growth stages Biomass duration (kg.day ) of tomato genotypes under different irrigation levels at various growth stages Relative leaf expansion rate (cm2.cm-2.day-1 X 10) of tomato genotypes as influenced by irrigation levels at various growth stages Influence of irrigation levels on per cent light transmission in tomato genotypes at 45 DAT Relative water content (per cent RWC) of tomato genotypes as influenced by irrigation levels at various growth stages Yield per plant and yield per hectare as influenced by irrigation levels in tomato genotypes Number of fruiting cluster per plant and number of fruits per plant at 45 DAT as influenced by irrigation levels in tomato genotypes Biomass (g.plant ) of tomato genotypes as influenced by irrigation levels Fruit weight and fruit volume of tomato genotypes as influenced by irrigation levels Fruit dimension and fruit index as influenced by irrigation levels in tomato genotypes. Pericarp thickness (mm) and number of locules per fruit of tomato genotypes as influenced by irrigation levels
-1 -1 -2

Contd..

Table No.
28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42.

Title
Number of seeds per fruit, pulp weight per fruit and pulp to seed ratio as influenced by irrigation levels in tomato genotypes Per cent reduction of yield in 0.4 IW/CPE ratio over 1.2 IW/CPE ratio Criteria to categories tomato genotypes for drought tolerance Plant height (cm) as influenced by irrigation levels in tomato genotypes (pooled) Stem girth (mm) as influenced by irrigation levels in tomato genotypes (pooled) Number of branches per plant as influenced by irrigation schedules in tomato genotypes (pooled) Number of pubescence as influenced by irrigation levels in tomato genotypes Days to flowering cessation and days to wilting of tomato genotypes as influenced by irrigation levels. (pooled) Chlorophyll contents (mg.g-1 of fresh weight) as influenced by irrigation levels in tomato genotypes at 45 DAT (pooled) Ascorbic acid, proline and TSS content as influenced by irrigation levels in tomato genotypes (pooled) Lycopene content as influenced by irrigation levels in tomato genotypes Leaf area (dm .plant ) of tomato genotypes as influenced by irrigation levels at various growth stages (pooled) Influence of irrigation levels on leaf area index (LAI) of tomato genotypes at various growth stages (pooled) Influence of irrigation levels on leaf area duration (days) of tomato genotypes at various growth stages (pooled) Influence of irrigation levels on absolute growth rate (g.day ) in tomato genotypes at various growth stages (pooled)
-1 2 -1

Contd..

Table No.
-2 -1

Title
Crop growth rate (g.m .day ) of tomato genotypes as influenced by irrigation levels at various growth stages (pooled) Net assimilation rate (NAR) (g.dm .day X 10 ) of tomato genotypes as influenced by irrigation levels at various growth stages (pooled) Influence of irrigation levels on relative growth rate (RGR) (g.g .day x 102) in tomato genotypes at various growth stages (pooled) Influence of irrigation levels on specific leaf weight (mg.dm ) in tomato genotypes at various growth stages (pooled) Influence of irrigation levels on specific leaf area (cm .mg ) in tomato genotypes at various growth stages (pooled) Biomass duration (kg.day-1) of tomato genotypes under different irrigation levels at various growth stages (pooled) Relative water content (per cent RWC) of tomato genotypes as influenced by irrigation levels at various growth stages (pooled) Yield per plant and yield per hectare as influenced by irrigation levels in tomato genotypes (pooled) Number of fruiting cluster per plant and number of fruits per plant at 45 DAT as influenced by irrigation levels in tomato genotypes (pooled) Biomass of tomato genotypes as influenced by irrigation levels (pooled) Fruit weight and fruit volume of tomato genotypes as influenced by irrigation levels (pooled) Fruit dimension and fruit index as influenced by irrigation levels in tomato genotypes (pooled)
2 -1 -2 -1 -1 -2 -1 2

43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54.

Contd..

Table No.
55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66.

Title
Pericarp thickness (mm) and number of locules per fruit of tomato genotypes as influenced by irrigation levels (pooled) Number of seeds per fruit, pulp weight per fruit and pulp to seed ratio as influenced by irrigation levels in tomato genotypes (pooled) Per cent reduction of yield in 0.4 IW/CPE ratio over 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (pooled) Correlation of yield with physiological, phenological and biochemical parameters at two irrigation levels (pooled) Effect of temperature on pollen viability of tomato genotypes as influenced by irrigation levels. Effect of different irrigation levels on yield (kg/plant) Correlation of yield with on pollen viability in various temperature regimes and irrigations Root and shoot length (cm) of tomato genotypes as influenced by irrigation levels Root weight (g) and root density (cc) as influenced by irrigation levels in tomato genotypes Root to shoot ratio of tomato genotypes as influenced by irrigation levels Correlation of yield with root and shoot parameters Correlation of yield with growth parameters and biophysical parameter (pooled)

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No.
1. 2. 3.

Title
Plan of layout of the first experiment Plan of layout of the second experiment Influence of irrigation levels on photosynthesis (A) and intercellular CO2 (Ci) of tomato genotypes at 45 days after transplanting Influence of irrigation levels on photosynthesis and transpiration in tomato genotypes at 45 days after transplanting Influence of irrigation levels and heat stress on pollen viability in tomato genotypes Per cent reduction in yield and per cent increase in number of pubescence at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio over 1.2 IW/CPE ratio in tomato genotypes Influence of irrigation on the per cent reduction in yield, fruit weight and pulp weight at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio over 1.2 IW/CPE ratio/CPE ratio in tomato genotypes

4.

5.

6.

7.

LIST OF PLATES

Plate No.

Title

a) Performance of tomato genotypes at 1.2 and 0.4 1. b) Performance of tomato genotypes at 1.2 and 0.4

water regime water regime

a) Pubescence on abaxial and adaxial leaf surface in tomato genotypes 2. b) Pubescence on abaxial and adaxial leaf surface in tomato genotypes

3.

Root architecture of drought tolerant and susceptible genotypes exposed to 1.2 and 0.4 IW/CPE ratio

4.

Morphological features of fruit depicting drought and susceptible characters in tomato genotypes

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix No.
Ia.

Title

Meteorological data for the cropping season of the K.R.C. College of Horticulture, Arabhavi

IIa.

Physical and chemical properties of the soil of the experimental site at K.R.C. College of Horticulture, Arabhavi (Before experimentation)

IIb.

Physical and chemical properties of the soil of the experimental site at K.R.C. College of Horticulture, Arabhavi (After experimentation)

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix No.
i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. vii. viii. ix. x. xi. xii. xiii. xiv.

Title
Plant height (cm) as influenced by irrigation levels in tomato genotypes Stem girth (mm) as influenced by irrigation levels in tomato genotypes Number of branches per plant as influenced by irrigation schedules in tomato genotypes Days to flowering cessation and days to wilting of tomato genotypes as influenced by irrigation levels Chlorophyll contents (mg.g of fresh weight) as influenced by irrigation levels in tomato genotypes at 45 DAT Ascorbic acid, proline and TSS content as influenced by irrigation levels in tomato genotypes Leaf area (dm .plant ) of tomato genotypes as influenced by irrigation levels at various growth stages Influence of irrigation levels on leaf area index (LAI) of tomato genotypes at various growth stages Influence of irrigation levels on leaf area duration (days) of tomato genotypes at various growth stages. Influence of irrigation levels on absolute growth rate (g.day-1) in tomato genotypes at various growth stages Crop growth rate (g.m .day ) of tomato genotypes as influenced by irrigation levels at various growth stages Net assimilation rate (NAR) (g.dm-2.day-1 X 102) of tomato genotypes as influenced by irrigation levels at various growth stages Influence of irrigation levels on relative growth rate (RGR) (g.g .day x 102) in tomato genotypes at various growth stages
-1 -1 -2 -1 2 -1 -1

Influence of irrigation levels on specific leaf weight (mg.dm-2) in tomato genotypes at various growth stages

Contd..

Appendix No.
xv. xvi. xvii. xviii. xix. xx. xxi. xxii. xxiii. Xxiv xxv.

Title
Influence of irrigation levels on specific leaf area (cm .mg ) in tomato genotypes at various growth stages Biomass duration (kg.day-1) of tomato genotypes under different irrigation levels at various growth stages Relative water content (per cent RWC) of tomato genotypes as influenced by irrigation levels at various growth stages Number of fruiting cluster per plant and number of fruits per plant at 45 DAT as influenced by irrigation levels in tomato genotypes Yield per plant and yield per hectare as influenced by irrigation levels in tomato genotypes Biomass of tomato genotypes as influenced by irrigation levels Fruit weight and fruit volume genotypes as influenced by irrigation levels Fruit dimension and fruit index as influenced by irrigation levels in tomato genotypes Pericarp thickness (mm) and number of locules per fruit of tomato genotypes as influenced by irrigation levels Number of seeds per fruit, pulp weight per fruit and pulp to seed ratio as influenced by irrigation levels in tomato genotypes Per cent reduction of yield in 0.4 IW/CPE ratio over 1.2 IW/CPE ratio
2 -1

I. INTRODUCTION
Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.), which belongs to the family solanaceae, is one of the most popular and widely grown vegetables in the world. Ripe tomato fruit is consumed fresh as salads or cooking and utilised in the preparation of wide range of processed products such as puree, paste, powder, ketchup, sauce, soup and canned whole fruits. Unriped green fruits are used for the preparation of pickles and chutney. Tomatoes are the important source of lycopene, ascorbic acid and -carotene and valued for its colour and flavour. Tomato is also rich in medicinal value. The pulp and juice are digestible, promoter of gastric secretion and blood purification. It has antiseptic properties against intestinal infections and useful against mouth cancers. Tomato is grown in kitchen gardens, commercial fields and also economically exploited in green house or controlled environmental conditions. In India, tomato ranks second among vegetables in area and production after potato. It occupies an area of 0.52 million hectares with an annual production of 7.42 million tonnes accounting to an average productivity of 15.90 tonnes per hectare. In Karnataka, tomato occupies an area of 35,429 hectares with an annual production of 9.52 lakhs tonnes and an average productivity of 27.00 tonnes per hectare (Anon., 2004) Tomato is native of Peru - Equador region (Rick 1969). The genus Lycopersicon consists of annual or short lived perennial herbaceous plants. It is a typical day neutral plant and is mainly self pollinated crop. It is a warm season crop reasonably resistant to heat and drought and grows under wide range of soil and climatic conditions. Considering the potentiality of this crop, there is plenty of scope for its improvement. Many new cultivars have been developed to meet the diverse needs and their suitability to varied climatic conditions. Though some work has been done to improve tomato yields, yet the potential is far from exhausted. This is evident from the fact that there is a huge gap between the national average yield of India and that of the important tomato growing nations. Indian national average yield is just 15.90 tonnes per hectare compared to the world average of 27.80 tonnes per hectare. The highest tomato yield to the extent of 60.62 tonnes per hectare in open field conditions has been recorded in USA (Namavayam, 2004). Drought is the major inevitable and recurring feature of our semi-arid tropics and despite our improved ability to predict their onset, duration and impact. Crop scientists are still concerned about it as it remains the single most important factor affecting the yield potentials of crop species. Water is a scarce resource for irrigation. Therefore, optimum use of water is of paramount importance. It helps in better utilization of all other production factors and thus leads to increase in yield per unit land and time. On an average, water use efficiency in the existing irrigation project in India is only about 40 per cent. A bulk of water meant for agricultural use in fact does not benefit crops. With better water management, if the efficiency is improved to the level of even 60 per cent, it will allow an additional 8 million hectare of land under irrigation with the existing irrigation facilities alone in India (Bhagavanthagoudra, 2000). This needs an immediate attention towards the judicious application of water. This is possible only by following some scientific water management practices. Amongst several practices scheduling of irrigation plays an important role in efficient water management. Scheduling of irrigation is being done by employing different techniques like soil moisture regime, critical stage approach and climatological approach. But, at present scheduling of irrigation based on climatological approach (IW/CPE ratio) has proved to be better (Bhagavanthagoudra, 2000). Although the concept of drought resistance is viewed differently by molecular biologist, biochemist, physiologists and agronomists the major concern is to enhance the biomass returns under limited input of water which is a characteristic feature of rainfed agriculture. Therefore, some of the adoptive mechanisms of plants to moisture stress, which do not decrease plant yield to a greater extent, assume greater importance. Stress avoidance characters such as root characteristics their extraction efficiency, water use efficiency (WUE), leaf characteristics to conserve tissue water, stomatal and cuticular characteristics, which favours maintenance of higher tissue water content under

receding moisture stress, only postpone the immediate effect of moisture stress. Therefore, under severe moisture stress conditions, the intrinsic tolerance mechanism becomes more relevant. Under rainfed situations, where the crop is subjected to cycles of stress, survival at the end of stress and recovery on alleviation is important. Plants which tolerate moderate stress at low tissue water potential may do so by virtue of several dehydration tolerance mechanisms like maintenance of membrane integrity, osmotic adjustment and chloroplast integrity (Edward, 1989). Although tomato is generally grown under irrigated conditions, its cultivation as a rainfed crop has gained importance particularly in semi-arid region. In view of this, the present investigation was planned to identify variability in different drought adoptive mechanisms among different tomato genotypes with the following objectives. 1. To screen the tomato germplasm for drought tolerance. 2. To find out the physiological traits associated with drought tolerance mechanism among the selected genotypes. 3. To study the relationship between drought tolerance parameter and yield. 4. To study the effect of temperature stress on pollen viability and its relationship with drought tolerance and 5. To assess the influence of stress on root characters and their relationship with drought tolerance.

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE


Tomato is one of the most important and widely grown vegetable in the world. Considering the potentiality of this crop, there is plenty of scope for its improvement. Many new cultivars have been developed to meet the diverse need and varied climatic condition. Drought is an inevitable and recurring feature of our semi-arid tropics and despite our improved ability to predict their onset, duration and impact, crop scientists are considered it as the single most important factor affecting the yield potential of crop species. On an average, water use efficiency in the existing irrigation project in India is only 40 per cent. A bulk of water meant for agricultural use infact does not benefit crops. With better water management, if the efficiency can be improved to a level of even 60 per cent, it will allow an additional 8 million hectares of land to be irrigated with the existing irrigation facilities alone. In this chapter, an attempt has been made to compile the findings of earlier workers on the effect of drought on morphological, biochemical, biophysical and yield parameters of tomato. Wherever the literature was inadequate on the above aspects in tomato, the work on other solanaceae crops and other crops was also reviewed.

2.1 EFFECT OF WATER STRESSS ON MORPOLOGICAL PARAMETRS


2.1.1 Effect of water stress on plant height
Rana and Kalloo (1989) studied the morphological attributes associated with the adaptation under water deficit condition in tomato. Data revealed that, resistant genotype L. pimpinellifolium recorded highest plant height (140 cm) compared to other resistant genotypes, where as susceptible genotype, KS-54 had recorded least plant height (49.60 cm). When plants were watered biweekly there was significant reduction in the plant height (18.90 cm) compared to daily watering (38.50 cm) as reported by Milton et al. (1992) in tomato. Rad and Sree Vijay (1991) studied the moisture stress effect at different morphological stages on growth and yield of tomato cultivars. They reported that, different genotypes responded variedly for plant height under moisture stress. Moisture stress at all the stages i.e., vegetative stage, 50 per cent flowering stage and fruiting stage reduced plant height very significantly. Moisture stress imposed at vegetative growth stage resulted in maximum reduction in plant height (68.56 cm) when compared to control (86.08 cm). Subramanian et al. (1993) while, studying the influence of moisture regimes on growth of brinjal, reported significant differences in the plant height at different growth intervals. Maximum reduction was observed at the IW/CPE ratio of 0.4 at all growth stages compared to other irrigation regimes while, significantly higher plant height was observed in the irrigation regime of 1.0 IW/CPE ratio at all the growth stages. Differential irrigation levels revealed reduction in the plant height in brinjal. Maximum plant height was recorded at 1.2 evapo-transpiration (59.8cm) compared to other treatments and minimum was recorded in 1.0 evapo-transpiration (50.2 cm) as reported by Manjunatha et al. (2004) in brinjal. Subramanian et al. (1998) concluded that, irrigation at 0.90 IW/CPE ratio responded positively and registered significantly higher plant height in chilli as compared to other irrigation levels of 0.75, 0.60 and 0.40 IW/CPE ratios. Thakur et al. (2000) studied the effect of water deficit on growth of chilli. They reported that due to water deficit conditions there was reduction in the plant height and maximum reduction was observed under 75 per cent water deficit (6.0 cm) compared to control (9.1 cm).

Yadav et al. (2003) studied the effect of irrigation on growth and yield of potato cv. Kufri Sutlej. Data revealed significant difference in the plant height due to irrigation levels and maximum reduction in plant height was observed at CPE of 100 mm in both years compared to other treatments. Upreti et al. (2000) studied the response of pea cultivars to water stress. The results revealed that pea cultivars differed widely in vigour under the conditions of moisture stress. There was significant reduction in plant height in all the cultivars and the effect of moisture stress was more pronounced at vegetative stage than at flowering stage Hegde (1988) studied the effect of irrigation regimes on growth of sweet pepper. Data revealed that when the soil matric potential reached -85 kPa plant height reduced significantly during both years of 1984 and 1985 (42.1 and 40.8 cm, respectively) as compared to those irrigated between -25 to -65 kPa which were on par among themselves. Kushwaha et al. (2003) studied the drought tolerance in chickpea genotypes. They reported, general reductions in plant height in all the genotypes under rainout shelter conditions as compared to rainfed condition, which indicated higher intensity of stress realization in rainout shelter. Maximum reduction in plant height was noticed in BG-362 (18.00) and ICC-4958 (-17.00).

2.1.2 Effect of water stress on number of branches


Rana and Kalloo (1989) observed that, there was highly significant difference in the number of braches per plant among the resistant and susceptible genotypes. Among the drought resistant tomato genotypes EC 130042 had higher number of branches per plant (69.0) compared to other resistant genotypes, whereas, susceptible tomato genotype Sel-5 had 16.0 braches per plant. Shivadhara and Singh (1995) studied the effect of irrigation schedules on branching pattern in French bean. They reported that number of primary branches were significantly higher in treatment which received one irrigation at 0.6 IW/CPE ratio (8.5) compared to other IW/CPE ratios and lowest number of primary braches were recorded in the IW/CPE ratio of 0.8 (4.7). Jadhav et al. (1996) studied the response of bottle gourd to different irrigation regimes. Significant difference in the number of branches was observed in different irrigation schedules. More number of braches were recorded in irrigation at 75 mm CPE (7.2) compared to other irrigation regimes and significantly lesser number of branches was recorded in the irrigation with 100 and 125 mm CPE (4.8 in both the irrigation regimes). Kushwaha et al. (2003) studied the relationship of drought tolerance with number of branch per plant of chickpea. They reported that there was maximum reduction in the number of branches in K-850 (23.00) and IPC-94-132 (20.50) under rainout shelter condition compared to rainfed condition and there was no reduction in number of braches in BG-362 under rainout shelter compared to rainfed condition. Gopalkrishna et al. (1996) reported that in linseed, when irrigation level was induced at 0.8 IW/CPE ratio up to 75 DAS resulted in significantly higher primary braches (6.1) and was on par with that of delayed irrigation at o.4 IW/CPE ratio up to 75 DAS, similarly, the number of secondary branches were significantly higher when irrigation was scheduled at 0.8 IW/CPE ratio throughout crop growth (20.86) and minimum was observed in irrigation at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (16.08). Manjunatha et al. (2004) studied the effect of irrigation schedule on vegetative growth of brinjal and found maximum number of branches per plant at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (10.0) compared to the minimum number observed under IW/CPE ratio of 1.0.

2.1.3 Effect of water stress on pubescence


Rana and Kalloo (1989) studied the pubescence of tomato under water deficit condition and they concluded that, the leaves and stem of genotypes Sel-28 and Rin were more hairy and genotypes (L. piminellifolium), EC 130042, (L. cheesmanii) and 8458 have medium hairs on their leaves and stem. These genotypes noticed resistance to water stress. Pubescence count was more than eight times greater on the abaxial than adaxial leaf surface under the drought condition as reported by Ratnayak and Kincaid (2005) in Tinnevelly senna and Cassia agnustifolia.

2.1.4 Effect of water stress on root length


Rana and Kalloo (1989) studied the root length of resistant and susceptible tomato genotypes under water deficit condition and revealed significant difference among the resistant and susceptible tomato genotypes. Among the resistant genotypes L. pimpinelifolim (78.6 cm) showed maximum root length, where as susceptible genotype, Sel-5 showed minimum root length of 30.0 cm.

2.2 EFFECT OF WATER STRESS ON YIELD AND YIELD ATTRIBUTES


2.2.1 Effect of water stress on numbers of fruits per plant
Rana and Kalloo (1989) studied the yield attributes associated with the adaptation under water deficit conditions in tomato. Significant difference was observed among the resistant and susceptible tomato genotypes for number of fruits per plant and maximum number of fruits per plant was recorded in resistant genotype L. pimpinellifolium (162) as compared to susceptible genotype Sel-2 (10). Eliades and Orphanos (1986) studied the different irrigation levels on tomatoes grown in unheated greenhouse. Results revealed that there was significant reduction in the number of fruits per plant with decrease in number of irrigations. Cultivar Sanoto at IW/CPE ratio of 0.4, 0.6, 0.8 and 1.0 produced 77, 84, 81 and 84 number of fruits respectively. Significantly more number of tomato fruits were recorded in treatment comprising 5 cm depth of water by surface irrigation at 1.0 IW/CPE ratio at 80 DAT (33.85) compared to other irrigation schedules and minimum was recorded in the treatment which had 1.25 cm of depth of water through sprinkler irrigation at 0.25 IW/CPE ratio (8.00) and same trend was followed in case of 65 DAT (Duraiswamy et al., 1992). Manjunatha et al. (2004) reported significant difference in number of fruits per plant due to differential irrigation level in brinjal. Minimum number of fruits per plant was observed at 1.0 IW/CPE ratio (21.1) compared to other treatments and maximum number of fruits per plant was recorded at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (23.3). Gupta and Rao (1987) reported significantly maximum number of brinjal fruits at 80 -1 per cent available soil moisture (815936 number of fruits ha ) compared to other regimes and significantly lower number of fruits was recorded in the 20 per cent available soil moisture (596468 number of fruits ha-1). Similarly Deshmukh et al. (1996) also recorded significantly -1 higher number of brinjal fruits in the CPE of 50 mm (22.6 number of fruits plant ) compared to other treatments as well as minimum number of fruits in CPE of 100 mm (17.9 number of -1 fruits plant ).

Subramanian et al. (1998) reported that, irrigation at 0.9 IW/CPE ratio recorded significantly higher number of chilli pods per plant compared to other schedules of 0.75, 0.6 and 0.45 IW/CPE ratios. Hegde (1988) studied the effect of irrigation regime on number of fruits per plant in sweet pepper. Data revealed that irrigating the crop when soil matric potential reached -65 kPa resulted in more number of fruits per plant when compared to irrigation frequency at -85 kPa. Shivadhara and Singh (1995) conducted an experiment to study the response of french bean to irrigation schedules and they reported that due to water deficit, number of pod production per plant was significantly reduced. Number of pods per plant was significantly reduced in all the genotypes of green gram due to water stress. Maximum number of pods per plant was 10.9 under drought in Pusa 9072 where as under irrigated condition it was 29.1 compared to other genotypes, LGG 410 and Lam M2 (8.0) under stress whereas, under irrigation they produced 20.9 and 22.7 number of pods per plant respectively (Naidu et al.2001).

2.2.2 Effect of water stress on fruits dimension


Molla et al. (2003) studied the effect of water on fruit dimension at different growth stages of green house tomato and found significant difference in the fruit dimension. Maximum equatorial diameter (61.6 mm) was observed when the stress was induced during the flowering/ fruit set stage and minimum equatorial dimension (49.8 mm) was observed when plants were stressed during fruit ripening stage. Halil et al. (2001) reported that at different moisture stress levels, fruit diameter of egg plant was significantly reduced. At the moisture level of 40 per cent of pot capacity there was significant reduction in the fruit diameter (2.1 cm) when compared to control (6.5 cm). Subramanian et al. (1993) also recorded significant difference in the brinjal fruit length and fruit girth due to irrigation levles. Maximum fruit length and fruit girth was observed in the moisture regime of 1.0 IW/CPE ratio (6.56 cm and 8.98 cm, respectively) and under the higher water stress condition of 0.4 IW/CPE ratio fruit length and fruit girth was drastically reduced to 4.5 cm and 6.44 cm, respectively. Mary and Balakrishnan (1990) studied the effect of irrigation regime on pod length of chilli and found that pod length and pod girth was significantly influenced by irrigation. The maximum value of pod length and pod girth was recorded in 0.75 IW/CPE ratio (9.91 cm and 3.76 cm, respectively) and minimum value of pod length and pod girth was recorded in 0.6 IW/CPE ratio (8.59 cm and 3.33 cm, respectively). Mishra et al. (1994) studied the effect of irrigation on diameter of onion. Significantly maximum bulb diameter was recorded in the 1.6 IW/CPE ratio (5.33 cm) compared to other irrigation schedules and minimum was recorded in the irrigation once in fortnight (4.48 cm). Bhagavanthagoudra and Rokhade (2002) reported that there was a significant difference in diameter of head of cabbage with different irrigation schedules. Maximum head diameter was recorded with irrigation schedule of 1.6 IW/CPE ratio (14.43 cm) and minimum diameter was recorded at IW/CPE ratio1.0 (12.38 cm).

2.2.3 Effect of water stress on number of seeds per fruits


Number of seeds per pod was significantly reduced due to water deficit condition in french bean. There was a significant reduction in the number of seeds per pod (2.9) in IW/CPE ratio of 0.4 compared to other irrigation schedules and minimum number of seeds

per pod (3.4) was recorded in the irrigation schedule of 0.8 IW/CPE ratio (Shivadhara and Singh, 1995). Saxena et al. (1996) conducted experiment to study the effect of moisture stress on grain number in wheat genotypes. Under two irrigations highest number of grains per plant was produced in HD 2000, HUW 12, K 7410 and Kalyansona genotypes (138, 134, 131 and 128, respectively), while under dry situation, highest number of grains per plant was produced by the genotypes HUW 12, Kalyansona, K 7229, K 7419, UP 368 and HD 2000 (96, 96, 94, 93, 90 and 88, respectively). Balasubramanian and Maheswari (1991) reported water stress effects on sunflower seeds, number of seeds were significantly reduced in the cultivars BSH-1 and Surya. When plants were under stress, BSH-1 seed number was reduced significantly to 382 per pot compared to its control (574 per pot), where as, in Surya the number of seeds produced under stress was reduced to 413 per pot when compared to its control 541 per pot. Among the cultivars, under stress more number of seeds were produced in Surya compared to BSH1.

2.2.4 Effect of water stress on fruit weight


Gupta (1989) studied the soil moisture regimes on tomato fruit size. Significantly higher fruit size was obtained in the irrigation at 80 per cent available soil moisture (54.9 g) compared to other treatments and minimum was recorded in the irrigation of 40 per cent available soil moisture (50.9 g). Similarly, in brinjal significantly higher fruit size was obtained in the 80 per cent available soil moisture (21.83 g) compared to other regimes and minimum size was recorded in 20 per cent available soil moisture (19.87 g) (Gupta and Rao, 1987). In another study, Deshmukh et al. (1996) reported non significant difference in brinjal fruit weight due to irrigation at different CPE. Maximum average fruit weight was recorded in the CPE of 50 mm (36.1 g) and minimum weight was recorded in the CPE of 100 mm (32.0 g). Manjunatha et al. (2004) while studying the effect of irrigation schedules on yield parameters of brinjal, revealed that there was reduction in the fruit weight at evapotranspiration of 1.0 (30.1 g) compared to other treatments and maximum fruit weight was recorded in the evapo-transpiration of 1.2 (33.3 g). Similarly, Subramanian et al. (1993) reported that significantly higher fruit weight was recorded in the IW/CPE ratio of 1.0 (36.0 g) and lower fruit weight was recorded in the IW/CPE ratio of 0.4 (16.7 g). Mishra et al. (1994) studied the effect of irrigation on the bulb weight on onion and found that significantly more weight of 20 bulbs were obtained in IW/CPE ratio of 1.2 (1.26 kg) as compared to other irrigation schedules and minimum was recorded in the IW/CPE ratio of 0.8 (0.85 kg). Similar studies on head weight of cabbage found significantly higher head weight in the 15 mm CPE (315.3 g) compared to other irrigation regimes and minimum head weight was recorded in 60 mm CPE (220.8 g) (Gupta, 1987).

2.2.5 Effect of water stress on yield


Panda and Srivastava (1996) reported that, among the irrigation levels tested on -1 tomato var. Rupali, the irrigation given at 0.6 IW/CPE ratio recorded higher yield (24.88 t.ha ) -1 as compared to that at 0.3 IW/CPE ratio (16.32 t.ha ). Rana and Kalloo (1989) conducted the experiment to study the yield under water deficit condition in tomato. Among the resistant genotypes Sel-28 had significantly higher -1 yield per plant (658 g plant ) compared to other resistant genotypes, whereas, the -1 susceptible genotype KS-35 gave lower yield per plant (210 g plant ).

Srinivas Rao and Bhatt (2000) studied the effect of water stress at different growth stages in tomato. The results revealed that water stress at fruiting growth stage reduced yield (14.6 t ha-1) significantly compared to water stress at vegetative and flowering stages (16.6 -1 and 16.5 t ha , respectively). Similarly, Eliades and Orphanos (1986) reported that due to difference in the frequency of water application there was reduction in yield of tomato cultivars. Effect of water stress at different phenological stages of greenhouse tomato, stress at -1 fruit ripening stage had lowest yield (0.78 kg plant ) compared to other phenological stages -1 and maximum yield was observed in control (1.78 kg plant ) (Molla et al. 2003). The effect of irrigation on yield of rabi tomato, indicated that irrigation scheduled at -1 1.25 IW/CPE ratio produced significantly higher yield (150.45 q ha ) compared to other IW/CPE ratios (Jadhav et al., 1992). Further fruit yield at 0.75 and 1.0 IW/CPE ratio were at -1 par (125 and 133.45 q ha , respectively). However, these two IW/CPE ratios were found to be significantly superior over 0.5 IW/CPE ratio (109.82 q ha-1). Manojkumar et al. (1998) studied the response of tomato to different irrigation level. Results indicated that fruit yield increased significantly up to IW/CPE ratio of 1.0 and yield decreased further under IW/CPE ratio of 0.6 (247.61 q ha-1). Maximum yield was observed at the IW/CPE ratio of 1.2 (330.83 q -1 ha ). In a similar study, Ali et al. (1980) noticed that when plants were irrigated with 356 -1 mm water, plants were able to produce yield of 69.80 mt ha , whereas, under stress, yield -1 was drastically reduced to 30.7 mt ha . The response of tomato to different irrigation levels indicated that the irrigation at 40 per cent available soil moisture (ASM) yielded 202.2 q ha-1, when compared to irrigation at -1 60 per cent ASM (272.0 q ha ) (Gupta, 1989). Duraiswamy et al. (1992) studied the irrigation schedules to tomato and obtained significantly higher fruit yield in the irrigation at 5 cm depth of water by surface irrigation at 1.0 IW/CPE ratio (16489 kg ha-1) compared to other irrigation regimes and minimum yield was recorded in the treatment at 1.23 cm depth of water through the sprinkler at 0.25 IW/CPE ratio -1 (5230 kg ha ). The experiment on the study of influence of different irrigation regimes on dry yield of chilli conducted by Subramanian et al. (1998) indicated that in the first season, significantly higher dry chilli yield was recorded at the IW/CPE ratio of 0.75 (2400 kg ha-1) compared to other IW/CPE ratio and minimum yield was observed in the irrigation regime of 0.45 IW/CPE ratio (2280 kg ha-1). Whereas, in the second and third seasons, maximum dry yield of chilli was recorded in the IW/CPE ratio of 0.9 (3227 and 2691 kg ha-1, respectively) and minimum -1 was recorded in the IW/CPE ratio of 0.45 (2567 and 1746 kg ha , respectively). Similarly maximum chilli yield was observed at IW/CPE ratio of 1.0 and significant reduction in the dry chilli yield was observed in the irrigation at IW/CPE ratio of 0.4 (Gulati et al., 1995). The experiment conducted by Thakur et al. (2000) to study the effect of water stress -1 on chilli revealed that, maximum of yield was observed under control (88.20 q ha ) compared to the water deficit condition and maximum reduction in the yield was observed under 75 per -1 cent of water deficit condition (36.90 q ha ). Water stress significantly reduced the fruit yield of egg plant. Maximum fruit yield reduction (34%) was observed when plants were stressed at 40 per cent irrigation of pot capacity, when compared to control. Among the different stress levels, irrigation at 40 per cent pot capacity recorded yield of 0.95 kg plant-1, where as in the irrigation level of 80 per -1 cent pot capacity recorded significantly higher yield of 2.1 kg plant and in control it was 2.8 kg plant-1 (Halil et al., 2001). Similarly, Manjunatha et al. (2004) obtained maximum yield of brinjal in the evapotranspiration of 1.2 (17.9 tones ha-1) compared to other treatments and highest reduction in -1 the yield was observed in the evapo-transpiration of 1.0 (15.7 tones ha ). The results of

Subramanian et al. (1993) also indicated significant difference in the yield of brinjal in the -1 -1 IW/CPE ratio of 0.8 (16.3 t ha ) as compared to the IW/CPE ratio of 0.4 (11.3 t ha ). Similar response of brinjal yield to soil moisture regimes was reported by Gupta and Rao (1987) and Deshmukh et al. (1996). The effect of irrigation frequency levels on potato yield showed only a marginal variation in yield due to various regimes of irrigation water (Raghuwanshi and Verma, 1991). However, the experiment of Yadav et al. (2003) indicated that the potato tuber yield was significantly influenced by irrigation regimes. The irrigation treatment at CPE of 20 mm -1 produced significantly higher tuber yield (386.89 q ha ) as compared to other irrigation levels. -1 The minimum tuber yield of 122.90 q ha was obtained at sever water stress of at CPE ratio of 100 mm. Bansal and Nagarajan (1986) studied the response of potato genotypes to water stress. They reported that tuber weight decreased under stress in Kufri Jyoti and Kufri Chandramukhi to the extent of 35 per cent and 38 per cent respectively. But in case of resistant cultivars Phulwa and G-2524, the tuber weight was increased in response to stress. Maximum reduction in tuber fresh weight was recorded in the genotype Kufri Sinduri (0.78 g plant-1) where as maximum yield was obtained in the genotype G-2524 (52.08 g plant-1) compared to other genotypes. Similarly, Banerjee and Saha (1985) reported, significantly higher yield in irrigation at soil moisture tension of 0.3 atm (228.5 q ha-1) as compared to yield -1 obtained in the 0.9 atm (183.4 q ha ). Chowdhury and Varma (1997) studied the response of sweet potato to the different levels of irrigation. They reported that there was a significant decrease in the yield of sweet potato with decrease in the irrigation frequency. Significantly higher yield was obtained in the IW/CPE ratio of 1.0 (25.51 t ha-1) followed by IW/CPE ratio of 0.8 (20.15 t ha-1) and minimum -1 yield was obtained at the lowest irrigation frequency of 0.2 IW/CPE ratio (9.67 t ha ). Studies on the influence of different levels of soil moisture on yield of sweet potato varieties Sree Nandini and H 42 indicated that there was significant difference in the yield at different irrigation levels in both the varieties. Maximum production of tuber yield was -1 recorded in 1.0 IW/CPE ratio in both the varieties (0.95 and 1.57 kg m , respectively) and significantly minimum tuber yield of 0.16 and 0.89 kg m-1, respectively was recorded in 0.25 IW/CPE ratio as reported by Indiramma (1994). Mishra et al. (1994) studied the effect of irrigation regimes on yield of onion and reported significantly higher yield in the irrigation at fortnightly up to 60 days after -1 transplanting and subsequently at weekly till crop maturity for bulb development (244 q ha ) compared to other irrigation treatments and minimum yield was recorded in the IW/CPE ratio -1 of 0.8 (189 q ha ). Pea cultivars differed in their yield potential under different irrigation conditions. Water stress treatments negatively influenced the green pod weight with the effect being more pronounced under longer stress period. The yield reduction under stress was minimum in the cv. Bonneville (10.6 to 33% at vegetative and 18.1 to 46.6% flowering stage) followed by cv. Arka Ajit (16.2 to 35.2% at vegetative and 24.2 to 52.9% at flowering stage). However, the stressed plant of cv. Arka Ajit had the highest pod yield at both stages (Upreti et al., 2000) Water stress significantly reduced the seed yield of all the genotypes of moth bean irrespective of the stage at which drought was imposed. However, drought at flowering stage was more detrimental to seed yield than at vegetative stage. The magnitude of yield reduction due to water stress was variable in different genotypes and growth stages. In general, the reduction in seed yield was consistently more in late than early flowering genotypes at both vegetative and reproductive growth stages (Garg et al., 2004). Vyas et al. (2001) reported that in cluster bean the stress induced at flowering stage more detrimental on seed yield than that of vegetative stage. The magnitude of yield reduction due to water stress was variable in different genotypes of cluster bean and growth stages. The highest reduction in seed yield (55.10%) was found in genotype Suvidha under

drought at the pod development stage. HF-182 also displayed higher drought tolerance as reduction seed yield was only 6.3, 13.6 and 22.1 per cent when plants were stressed at vegetative, flowering and pod development stages, respectively (Garg et al., 1998). Shivadhara and Singh (1995) studied the effect of irrigation schedules on yield attributes in french bean. Irrigation at 0.6 IW/CPE ratio recorded lowest yield of 1.854 kg ha-1 compared to other IW/CPE ratio of irrigation treatments. Bhagavanthagoudra and Rokhade (2002) reported that irrigation schedule will determine the weight of cabbage head. Significantly higher weight of head was obtained at IW/CPE ratio of 1.6 (566.69 t ha-1) when compared to other irrigation schedules while, -1 minimum head weight was obtained at IW/CPE ratio of 1.0 (440.16 t ha ). Similarly Gupta (1987) reported significantly higher yield of cabbage in 15 mm CPE of irrigation (169.20 q ha 1 ) compared to other irrigation regimes and minimum yield was recorded in the 60 mm CPE -1 (100.67 q ha ). Salvi et al. (1995) studied the response of bell pepper to different irrigation regimes. -1 Maximum production of bell pepper was observed under the CPE of 25 mm (11.93 t ha ) and -1 minimum yield was observed in the CPE of 75 mm (8.28 t ha ). As the irrigation was reduced there was significant reduction in the yield was observed. They also reported maximum reduction in the bell pepper yield per hill in the CPE of 75 mm (263 g) and maximum production of bell pepper per hill was recorded in the CPE of 25 mm (352.83 g). Jadhav et al. (1996) studied the effect of irrigation regimes on yield of bottle gourd and recorded significantly higher yield with irrigation of 75 mm CPE (384.9 q ha-1) compared to other irrigation regimes and minimum yield was recorded in the irrigation regime of 125 mm of CPE (264.4 q ha-1). Naidu et al. (2001) screened the green gram genotypes for drought tolerance under receding soil moisture and they reported about 60 per cent reduction in seed yield under drought stress and attributed to corresponding reduction in yield parameters. Results on the influence of irrigation level on mustard revealed that, there was -1 significantly higher seed yield at the higher IW/CPE ratio of 0.7 (226 kg ha ) and minimum -1 yield was recorded at low IW/CPE ratio of 0.3 (102 kg ha ) (Garg et al., 2001). The crop irrigated once at flowering and twice at flowering and pod development stages produced seed -1 yield of 17.59 and 15.53 q ha which were 67.1 and 41.0 per cent higher than unirrigated -1 (10.82 q ha ) as reported by Panda et al. (2004). Meenakumari et al. (2004) studied the physiological parameter governing drought tolerance in maize. They reported that there were variability in yield potential among the lines. Under different stress condition, all the genotypes showed reduction in yield. More than 80 per cent reduction in yield was reported in highly susceptible lines while in relatively tolerant genotypes reduction was up to 50 per cent. The grain yield of the resistant lines was higher than the susceptible genotypes under stress conditions. Gopalkrishna et al. (1996) studied the effect of irrigation schedules at different stages on growth and yield of linseed varieties. They reported that, irrigation scheduled at 0.8 IW/CPE ratio up to 75 DAS and later at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio increased the seed yield (5.03 q ha1 -1 ) and oil yield (2.20 q ha ), but it was on par and marginally higher than irrigation at 0.8 IW/CPE ratio throughout the growth period.

2.3 EFFECT PROCESSES

OF

WATER

STRESSS

ON

BIOCHEMICAL

2.3.1 Effect of drought on proline production


Proline content in transgenic tomato plants was higher than wild type under both normal and water deficit in 28 days old matured tomato plant (Tsai et al., 2002).

Babu et al. (1982) studied the proline content as an index of drought resistance in tomato and reported that proline could be considered as a characteristic mechanism of defense against wilting and accessions LE 573 and LE 763 are found to be drought resistant as they synthesised large amount of proline during the water stress conditions. Bansal and Nagarajan (1986) conducted an experiment to study the proline accumulation in potato genotypes and showed that significantly higher proline accumulation was noticed in the genotype Kufri Kundam (4.295 mg.g-1 of FW) when compared to the -1 genotype Phulwa (1.749 mg.g of FW) and other genotypes. Indiramma (1994) reported that, moisture stress during different growth stages of sweet potato induced more porline production. Maximum production of proline was recorded in genotypes OP 1217 and H 42 when the moisture stress was induced during tuber maturity (1925.60 and 1900.50 moles.g-1 of DW, respectively) when compared to their controlled -1 condition (1500 and 1300 moles.g of DW, respectively). Garg et al. (1998) studied the influence of water deficit stress at various growth stages of cluster bean genotypes. The proline accumulation was higher when the plants were under water deficit at the vegetative stage and minimum proline production was observed when the plants were under water deficit at the flowering stage. Among the genotypes, HFG182 accumulated more proline due to water stress at vegetative and flowering stages (11.01 and 9.08 mg.g-1 DW, respectively), while, Maruguar accumulated highest free proline (8.31 -1 mg.g DW) at pod development stage. Proline content was significantly increased, when the cluster bean were induced to water stress at different phenological stages (Vyas et al. 2001). Shubhra et al. (2003) reported that proline content was significantly increased in cluster bean when they were subjected to water stress at different growth stages. There was almost three fold increase in proline content at all the stages. Maximum proline accumulation -1 was observed when plants were under stress at flowering stage (2155.10 moles.g of DW) -1 when compared to vegetative and pod filling stages (1663.50 and 2039.36 moles.g of DW). Naidu et al. (2001) studied the drought tolerance in green gram genotypes under receding soil moisture. They reported that leaf proline content was increased due to drought stress in all the genotypes of green gram. Among the genotypes studied, K 851 and LGG 401 accumulated more proline (5.05 and 4.76 moles.g-1 of FW, respectively) under drought stress. This accumulated proline possibly contributed towards osmotic adjustment which played a major role in maintaining the turgor over fluctuating soil water potential. Adivappar et al. (2003) studied the proline content at different intervals of drought in papaya seedlings. Proline content was increased as the drought period increased. Maximum proline content was observed at 20 days after drought induction (35.01 moles.g-1 of DW) -1 when compared to 10 days after drought (12.65 moles.g of DW).

2.3.2 Effect of drought on chlorophyll content.


Halil et al. (2001) studied the influence of water deficit in egg plants. They observed that there was significant reduction in the chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b and total chlorophyll content. There was reduction of 49, 40 and 45 per cent of chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b and total chlorophyll (494, 290 and 784 mg.kg-1 of fresh weight, respectively) content when the plants were subjected to water stress at 40 per cent irrigation to the pot capacity when -1 compared to control (1007, 716 and 172 mg.kg of fresh weight, respectively). Similar reduction in the total chlorophyll content was observed when sweet potato genotypes OP 217 and H 42 were induced to water stress during tuber development phase (0.43 and 0.83 mg.kg-1 fresh weight, respectively) when compared to their control (2.11 and 1.13 mg.kg-1 fresh weight, respectively) as observed by Indiramma (1994). Vyas et al. (2001) studied the effect of water stress in cluster bean. Results revealed that, there was significant reduction in total chlorophyll content at different phenological growth stages.

Total chlorophyll content significantly decreased under water stress conditions in all genotypes of cluster bean. Maximum total chlorophyll content was observed in the genotype Maru guar when it was subjected to water stress at vegetative, flowering and pod -1 developmental stage (5.70, 5.98 and 7.07 mg.g dry weight, respectively) and minimum total chlorophyll was observed in JGC-19 (4.81 mg.g-1 dry weight) at vegetative stage, whereas, HFG-182 showed minimum total chlorophyll content at flowering and pod developmental -1 stages (5.06 and 4.21 mg.g dry weight) as reported by Garg et al. (1998). Shubhra et al. (2003) reported that, total chlorophyll content of cluster bean leaf was significantly declined when plants were subjected to water stress at vegetative stage. Chlorophyll content was reduced from 4.25 mg.g-1 dry weight (control) to 3.49 mg.g-1 dry weight under stress. Stress at flowering stage reduced chlorophyll content significantly (3.40 mg.g-1 dry weight) compared to control (4.45 mg.g-1 dry weight). Maximum reduction of chlorophyll content was observed at vegetative stage (82 %) compared to flowering and pod filling stages (80.45 and 80.76%, respectively). Water stress reduced the total chlorophyll concentration significantly in different genotypes of moth bean and reduction was more pronounced in late flowering genotypes, particularly at the flowering stage. Among all the genotypes, reduction in total chlorophyll content was least in RMO-40 in early flowering group and Maru moth in late flowering group at both vegetative and flowering stages of moth bean (Garg et al., 2004). There was maximum reduction in total chlorophyll content when chickpea plants were subjected to 50 per cent pod formation stage (3.19 mg.g-1 dry weight) while highest -1 chlorophyll content was noticed at flowering stage (7.21 mg.g dry weight) as reported by Narender et al. (1997). Adivappar et al. (2003) while studying the drought tolerance of papaya reported that chlorophyll content was significantly reduced under stress when compared to control. Chlorophyll a, b and total contents were reduced to 1.11 from 1.27 mg.g-1 fresh weight, from -1 -1 1.00 to 0.88 mg.g fresh weight and from 2.27 to 1.99 mg.g fresh weight respectively form control to under stress condition.

2.3.3. Effect of water stress on total soluble solid (TSS).


Manojkumar et al. (1998) reported that water stressed tomato plants showed significant difference in the TSS level at different irrigation levels. As the irrigation frequency increased TSS level decreased. Maximum per cent TSS was observed under IW/CPE ratio of 0.60 (6.10%) and minimum was recorded at the IW/CPE ratio of 1.20 (4.80%). Similar results were obtained by Ali et al. (1980) in tomato. When plants were supplied with 356 mm of water, TSS recorded was 3.4 per cent and TSS was increased when 290 mm of water was applied to the plants (4.6%). Gupta (1989) noticed non significant difference in TSS due to different irrigation levels in tomato. Maximum value of TSS was observed in the irrigation at 80 per cent available soil moisture (4.32%) and minimum TSS was recorded in 60 and 40 per cent of available soil moisture (4.15% in both the irrigation levels).

2.3.4. Effect of water stress on ascorbic acid content


Mary and Balakrishnan (1990) studied the effect of irrigation regimes on chilli. Ascorbic content in green and red ripe pods recorded highest in IW/CPE ratio of 0.75 (109.72 and 120.45 mg.100g-1, respectively) and lowest ascorbic acid in IW/CPE ratio of 0.9 (87.85 -1 mg.100g ) in green fruits, where as, in red ripe fruit significantly lowest ascorbic acid content recorded in IW/CPE ratio of 0.60 (109.56 mg. 100g-1). Tambussi et al. (2000) conducted an experiment to study the oxidative damage to thylakoid proteins in water-stressed wheat and they noticed increase in the ascorbic acid -1 -1 (14.0 mol.g dry weight) content under stress in leaves compared to control (12.7 mol.g

dry weight). Further concluded that increase in ascorbic acid might be effective strategy to protect thylakoid membranes from oxidative damage in water stressed leaves.

2.3.5 Effect of water stress on lycopene


Martino et al. (2005) studied tomato plants adaptation to environmental stress and they reported that lycopene content in tomato fruits increased to 32 % under osmotic stress. Similarly Bang et al. (2004) studied the irrigation impact on lycopene on watermelon. They reported that fruit lycopene content increased with maturity (7 and 22 days after ripening) at all the irrigation levels.

2.4 BIOPHYSICAL PARAMETERS


2.4.1 Effect of water stress on photosynthesis
Bhatt et al. (2002) showed that controlled grafted tomato plants had 10.9 to 11.4 mole m-2s-1 of photosynthesis where as, in non-grafted plant TO 5975, photosynthetic rate -2 -1 ranged form 9.5 to 10.8 mole m s . Water stress affected the rate of photosynthesis and the effect was more in non-grafted than on grafted plants. It varied between 1.3 to 5.0 mole -2 -1 -2 -1 m s in grafted and in non-grafted plants it was 3.4 to 6.2 mole m s . Pirjo et al. (1999) conducted the study on photosynthetic response of drought on tomato and turnip rape leaves. Results revealed that, net photosynthesis of tomato and turnip rape leaves reduced significantly by stress treatments. Silk and Fock (2000) reported that lowering leaf water potential form -0.6 mPa in control to -1.8 mPa in severely stressed plants decreased net photosynthetic rate in tomato. Similarly Srinivas and Bhatt (2000) showed that decrease in photosynthetic rate was 30.4, 35.3 and 38.7 per cent in the stressed plants, while in 125 ppm mepiquate chloride treated plants the reduction was 14.5, 11.2 and 9.2 per cent at vegetative, flowering and fruiting stage respectively as compared to irrigated control. Thakur et al. (2000) studied the effect of water deficit on photosynthetic rate in Capsicum annum. Data revealed that photosynthetic rate declined with increasing levels of water deficit and maximum reduction in photosynthetic rate was observed at 75 per cent water deficit (1.91 mole m-2s-1). Chowdhury and Varma (1998) studied diurnal change in photosynthetic behavior in sweet potato under different irrigation regimes. They reported that maximum photosynthetic rate was observed at higher irrigation level of 1.4 IW/CPE ratio compared to other treatments and lowest was observed at 0.8 and 0.6 IW/CPE ratios irrigation level. Janoudi et al. (1993) studied the effect of water stress on photosynthetic rate in cucumber and reported that maximum photosynthetic rate in non-stress cucumber plants at -1 internal CO2 of 150 mole mole while, in stressed cucumber plant the CO2 compensation -1 point was 100 mole mole twice that of non-stressed cucumber plant. They also reported -1 -1 that assimilation rate increased form 3.5 to 11.7 mole m s at 350 ppm of CO2 with in 12 hours after rewatering. Increasing ambient CO2 concentration from 150 to 350 l caused significant increase in assimilation rate form 1.5 mole m-1 s-1 to 3.5 mole m-1 s-1 in water stressed plants. In an another study Janoudi and Widders (1993), reported that under drought stressed conditions, plants with fruit had significantly higher photosynthetic rate (8.4 mole m 2 -1 -2 -1 s ) when compared to defruited plants (6.4 mole m s ). When the fruited cucumber plant -2 -1 was under drought stress significantly lower photosynthetic rate of 8.4 mole m s was -2 -1 observed when compared its irrigated plants (15.8 mole m s ) and when defruited plants were stressed they also showed lower photosynthetic rate of 6.4 mole m-2s-1 compared to -2 -1 their control plants (12.7 mole m s ).

Vyas et al. (2001) reported that when cluster bean plants were induced water stress at different growth stages, there was significant reduction in the photosynthetic rate. Pronounced reduction in photosynthetic rate was observed when the plants were stressed at vegetative and flowering stage compared to pod formation stage. Decrease in plant water status was associated with significant decline in net photosynthetic rate in the moth bean genotypes in both vegetative and reproductive stages. The decline was 52.4 to 70.0 per cent at the vegetative and 65.8 to 79.0 per cent at flowering stage as reported by Garg et al. (2004). Narender et al. (1997) studied the effect of water stress in chickpea. Data revealed that, when the plants were stressed at different growth stages, photosynthetic rate was -1 -1 significantly reduced (2.82 mg CO2 fixed h plant ) during reproductive stage when compared vegetative and flowering stage. Maximum photosynthetic rate was observed when plants -1 -1 were stressed at flowering stage (11.83 mg CO2 fixed h plant ).

2.4.2 Effect of water stress on transpiration


Srinivas and Bhatt (1991) reported that as the stomatal conductance decreased, transpiration rate also decreased in soil moisture stressed tomato plants. Top leaves showed -2 -1 -2 -1 transpiration rate of 23.33 g cm sec in control where as it was 15.05 g cm sec in stressed plants. In bottom leaves, transpiration rate of 12.99 g cm-2 sec-1 in control where as in stress condition it was 10.28 g cm-2 sec-1. Pirjo et al. (1999) reported that transpiration of drought stressed tomato plant was low (3.3 mole H2O m-2 s-1) as compared to control (3.8 mole H2O m-2 s-1). Transpiration rate of egg plant was very high in control treatment. Transpiration rate gradually decreased with increased incidence of water stress. Transpiration rate was highest in the mid day for the treatment control and 80 per cent of pot capacity irrigation. However, irrigation of 60 and 40 per cent of pot capacity treatments, transpiration reached the peak earlier. Transpiration rate of stressed plant (irrigation of 60 and 40 per cent of pot capacity) remained low throughout the day. (Halil et al., 2001). Indiramma (1994) reported that under the influence of different IW/CPE ratio of soil moisture, transpiration rate was also varied in the sweet potato varieties Sree Nandini and H42. Maximum transpiration was observed at the IW/CPE ratio of 1.5 in both the varieties -2 -1 (0.945 and 1.692 g cm s , respectively) when compared to other levels of soil moisture. Maximum reduction in the transpiration was recorded at the moisture level of 0.25 IW/CPE -2 -1 ratio in both the varieties (0.335 and 0.382 g cm s ). Meenakumari et al. (2004) in an experiment to study the physiological parameters governing drought tolerance in maize reported that, there was significant reduction in transpiration rate in maize lines under severe stressed condition compared to control. Significantly higher transpiration rate was observed in the rice variety Mahamay (2.68 m mole m-2 s-1) when drought was induced at flowering, minimum transpiration rate was recorded in the variety Indira A-9 (1.02 m mol m-2 s-1). Under the non-stressed, maximum -2 -1 transpiration rate was recorded in the variety R-405-A-4 (11.11 m mole m s ) and minimum -2 -1 was recorded in Shyamala (5.64 m mole m s ) compared to other varieties (Ravindrakumar and Robinson, 2003).

2.4.3 Effect of water stress on stomatal conductance


Srinivas and Bhatt (1991) studied the effect of soil moisture stress during the preflowering stage on stomatal conductance of tomato cultivars. In stressed plants, stomatal -1 -1 conductance was decreased to 2.04 cm s compared to control 3.27 cm s . Top leaves -1 -1 showed stomatal conductance of 5.01 cm s in control which was reduced to 2.60 cm s in stressed condition and in bottom leaves stomatal conductance decreased form 2.63 to 1.49

cm s . Similarly, Pirjo et al. (1999) reported that stomatal conductance of tomato and turnip was reduced significantly due to drought stress. Stomatal conductance and intercellular CO2 concentration showed parallel course under drought in tomato. There was rapid decline in stomatal conductance from 0.160 to 0.015 mole H2O m-2s-1 which lead to decrease in internal CO2 from 230 to 112 l l-1 of CO2 (Silk and Fock, 2000). Bhatt et al. (2002) reported that, stomatal conductance varied form 0.09 to 0.12 mole -2 -1 m s in grafted and 100 per cent stressed tomato plants, while in non-grafted it was 0.4 to 0.12 mole m-2s-1 at the same level of water stress. Plants with higher irrigation level of IW/CPE ratio of 1.4 in sweet potato showed higher stomatal conductance of 4.45 mole m-2 s-1 followed by treatment of IW/CPE ratio of -2 -1 1.0(2.22 mole m s ), whereas, lower irrigation level of 0.6 IW/CPE ratio showed less stomatal conductance. They also reported that, as the irrigation level changed there was change in sub-stomatal CO2 concentration in the plant. Maximum internal CO2 was observed in IW/CPE ratio of 1.0 and minimum internal CO2 was observed at 0.6 IW/CPE ratio (Chowdhury and Varma, 1998). Bansal and Nagarajan (1986) screened the potato genotypes in response to water stress to study the stomatal conductance and noticed that stomatal conductance decreased significantly due to stress in all the genotypes. Significantly higher stomatal conductance was observed in genotypes Kufri Chandramuki (4.8 solution number) compared to other genotypes and minimum was recorded in the genotype G-2524 (2.0 solution number). In the sweet potato varieties OP 217 and H-42, stomatal resistance increased drastically when they were induced to water stress at different growth stages. Under the -1 -1 controlled condition, stomatal resistance of varieties was 2.61 and 2.06 s cm , respectively. Maximum stomatal resistance was recorded when these varieties were induced to water -1 -1 stress during tuber development stage (52.68 and 35.98 s cm , respectively) and minimum stomatal resistance under stressed condition was recorded when these varieties were under stress during tuber initiation phase (20.96 and 26.36 s-1cm-1, respectively). Maximum stomatal resistance was recorded, when the varieties Sree Nandini and H 42 were induced to water stress at IW/CPE ratio of 0.25 (58.50 and 46.94 s-1cm-1, respectively) and minimum was -1 -1 recorded at IW/CPE ratio of 1.5 (21.20 and 14.96 s cm , respectively) as reported by Indiramma (1994). Janoudi and Widders (1993) reported that, there was significantly lower stomatal conductance under the drought stress in cucumber. When cucumber plants with fruits were imposed to drought stress there was significant reduction in stomatal conductance (108 mole -2 -1 -2 -1 H2O m s ) as compared to irrigated plants (233 mole H2O m s ). Even defruited plants under stress also had lower stomatal conductance (84 mole H2O m-2s-1) when compared to -2 -1 irrigated plant (188 mole H2O m s ).

-1

2.4.4 Effect of water stress on leaf temperature


Indiramma (1994) reported that due to different level of moisture stress, there was differential leaf temperature in the sweet potato varieties Sree Nandini and H 42. Maximum leaf temperature was recorded when the varieties were induced to stress level of 0.25 0 IW/CPE ratio (35.20 and 36.86 C, respectively) when compared to higher irrigation level of 1.5 IW/CPE ratio (33.43 and 33.860C, respectively). Meenakumari et al. (2004) conducted an experiment to study the drought tolerance in maize lines. They reported that as transpiration rate decreased under severe stress leaf 0 temperature increased by 2-4 C. Genotypes having moderate transpiration rate had less increase in leaf temperature. Hybrids had more transpiration rate under severe stress but 0 showed less increase in leaf temperature (0.5 to 1.0 C). This may be due to cooling of leaf surface because of excessive loss of water through transpiration that resulted in lower leaf temperature which helped the plant to tolerate the excessive heat of the sun.

Ravindrakumar and Robinson (2003) studied the leaf temperature under drought condition during flowering stage in different varieties of rice. They reported that the leaf temperature of Kranti and Mahamaya were lower than air temperature, while, other varieties increased the leaf temperature under drought condition. Significant increase in the leaf temperature was observed in stressed sunflower plants compared to non-stressed sunflower plants. In the stressed plant, leaf temperature was 34.30C where as in non-stressed plant it was 29.70C (Balasubramanian and Maheswari, 1991).

2.5 EFFECT OF WATER STRESS ON GROWTH AND GROWTH PARAMETERS


2.5.1 Effect of water stress on fresh and dry matter production.
Milton et al. (1992) in an experiment on the effect of soil moisture on tomato indicated that decrease in watering frequency decreased the dry weight of leaf, stem and root. When tomato plants were irrigated biweekly there was significant reduction in dry weight of leaf, stem, and root (1.52, 0.78 and 1.02 g respectively) when compared to daily irrigation (6.30, 4.58 and 2.45 g, respectively). Srinivas and Bhatt (2000) concluded that the dry weight of stem and leaf of the stressed and mepiquat chloride treated tomato plants were similar to those of irrigated control. However, in stressed tomato plant, the decrease in the stem and leaf dry weight varied between 18-36 per cent. Molla et al. (2003) studied water stress at different phenological stages of tomato, biomass production was less when stress was imposed during fruit ripening and flowering -1 (117 and 131 kg plant , respectively) and were on par with each other. Halil et al. (2001) noticed 57 per cent reduction in total dry weight, when plants were irrigated with 40 per cent of pot capacity and minimum reduction was observed under irrigation with 80 per cent of pot capacity (95.0%) compared to control in egg plant. Similarly, there was 48 and 57 per cent reduction in shoot and root dry weight when plants were irrigated with 40 per cent of pot capacity compared to control. Chowdhury and Varma (1997) reported that in sweet potato, in treatments with higher irrigation level (IW/CPE ratio of 1.0 and 0.8) the partitioning of dry matter towards shoot was comparatively less compared to treatments with less irrigation i.e. IW/CPE ratio of 0.6, 0.4 and 0.2. Indiramma (1994) reported maximum reduction in the dry matter production when plants were subjected to water stress during tuber initiation phase (18.42%) followed by water stress during maturity phase (21.65%). She also noticed decrease in specific leaf weight during the water stress period in both genotypes as compared to their control. Among the genotypes, H 42 had more specific leaf weight (2.80 mg cm-2) compared to genotype OP 217 -2 (2.50 mg cm ) under control condition. There was drastic reduction in the specific leaf weight -2 in case of OP 217 when water stress was induced during tuber maturity (1.0 mg cm ) -2 compared to water stress during tuber development stage (1.70 mg cm ), where as, in H 42 genotype, maximum reduction in specific leaf weight was observed when water stress was induced during tuber development (2.15 mg cm-2) compared to water stress during tuber -2 maturity (2.30 mg cm ). Bhagavanthagoudra and Rokhade (2002) reported that as the irrigation frequency increased there was increase in dry matter production. Significantly higher dry matter production per head was recorded at the IW/CPE ratio of 1.6 (81.67 g) and minimum dry matter was observed at IW/CPE ratio of 1.0 (49.56 g).

Bhagavanthagoudra (2000) showed that scheduling of irrigation at 1.6 IW/CPE ratio recorded significantly higher dry matter production per head (81.678 g) compared to irrigation scheduled at 1.0 IW/CPE ratio (49.56 g) in cabbage. In an another study on cabbage it was found that among different irrigation intensities, the best treatment was irrigation at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio with respect to fresh weight of plant (head + leaves) as reported by Mangal et al. (1982). Similarly, Sharma (1985) reported that water supply at 0.25 bar tension (six irrigations) increased the dry matter production significantly over irrigation at 0.63 bars (3 irrigation) and 1.60 bars (one irrigation) in cabbage. Frequent irrigation produced higher dry matter due to increased availability of water and plant nutrients. Janoudi and Widders (1993) reported that, when the cucumber plants with or without fruits had significant difference in dry matter production under stressed and non-stressed conditions. When the cucumber plants with fruits were imposed to water stress they had dry weight of 66.4 g plant-1 when compared to irrigated condition (136.0 g plant-1). Shubhra et al. (2003) studied the water deficit in cluster bean at different growth stages. They reported that, there was significant reduction in the leaf, stem and root dry weights in all the growth period due to moisture stress. Similarly, Garg et al. (1998) studied the influence of water deficit stress on various growth stages of cluster bean genotypes. Data revealed that dry matter production in all the genotypes of cluster bean decreased significantly due to drought at all stages, but the effect was minimum at vegetative stage while there was no significant difference among the genotypes during flowering and pod development stage. Garg et al. (2004) on the contrary, reported, reduction in dry matter production due to drought at vegetative stage than at flowering stages in all the genotypes of moth bean. Same tend was observed by Vyas et al. (2001) in cluster bean. Hegde (1988) studied the effect of irrigated regimes on sweet pepper and revealed that, irrigation at a soil matric potential of -45 to -65 kPa resulted in significantly higher dry mater production as compared to low frequency of irrigation at -85 kPa. Narender et al. (1997) observed that there was significant reduction in the leaf dry weight, when plants were subjected to water stress at vegetative stage compared to flowering stage. Similar trend was observed even for dry weights of stem and roots in chickpea. Garg et al. ( 2001) studied the influence of irrigation levels on Indian mustard. They reported that, when mustard plants were subjected to different levels of irrigation i.e., IW/CPE ratio of 0.75, 0.50 and 0.30, dry matter production was significantly reduced form higher irrigation level to the lower irrigation level. At IW/CPE ratio of 0.75 dry matter production was higher (1900 kg ha-1) compared to lower irrigation levels and it was minimum at IW/CPE ratio of 0.3 (1440 kg ha-1).

2.5.2 Effect of water stress on relative leaf water content (RWC)


Srinivas and Bhatt (2000) observed significant difference in RWC at all growth stage of tomato between stressed mepiquat chloride (125 ppm) treated and unstressed plants. The RWC in the stressed and mepiquat chloride treated plants decreased form 86.4 to 82.3, 88.1 to 82.4 and 87.0 to 77.0 per cent at vegetative, flowering and fruiting stage, respectively after three weeks of water stress. In the stressed tomato plants RWC decreased form 83.6 to 75.8, 88.6 to 77.2 and 82.5 to 71.0 per cent, respectively. In the irrigated plant RWC varied from 89 to 84 per cent at different growth stages. Bhatt et al. (2002) reported in tomato that there was more of RLWC observed in the L. peruvianum and L. cheesmanii used rootstocks for TO 5975. RLWC was 78 and 74 per cent, respectively when compared to other root stock of L. pimpinellifolium (70%) when these plants were stressed for 7 days, and while in non-grafted plant TO 5975 it was 71 per cent.

Halil et al. (2001) conducted an experiment to study the influence of water deficit on egg plant. Significant difference in the RWC was observed under various water regimes. Significantly lower RWC was observed in 60 per cent irrigation of pot capacity (84%) compared to control (96%). Indiramma (1994) reported that, RWC was decreased due to water stress at different growth stages of sweet potato. They reported that RWC in control was 75.77 per cent in both genotypes OP 217 and H-42 and maximum reduction in the RWC was observed when water stress was induced during tuber initiation stage (67.55 and 70.19 %, respectively) compared to water stress at other stages. Upreti et al. (2000) reported that under irrigated conditions, the leaf RWC value did not differ much among the cultivars of pea. But following increase in duration of water stress, the leaf RWC declined progressively in all the cultivars of pea and influence of stress was more evident at flowering stage. Kumar and Elston (1993) studied the RWC in Brassica species in response to water stress. Drastic reduction in RWC was observed in specie B. napus (69.0%) compared to its control (81.0%) whereas, in B. juneca at the end of stressed period RWC was 74.0 per cent compared to control (78.0%). RWC decreased significantly in water stressed plant at both vegetative and flowering stages of moth bean. In general, early flowering genotypes maintained higher RWC than late flowering genotypes under water stress condition as reported by Garg et al. (2004). Same trend was observed by Vyas et al. (2001) in cluster bean. Garg et al. (1998) reported that in cluster bean RWC decreased significantly in water stressed plants and varied from 42.94 to 45.69 per cent at vegetative phase, 48.97 to 53.25 per cent at flowering stage and 39.82 to 47.79 per cent at pod formation stage. Thus, plant water status under stress was more favorable at flowering stage as compared to other two growth stages. Among the genotypes, HFG-182 showed maximum reduction in RWC compared to other genotypes of cluster bean. Water stress treatments led to gradual decline in leaf RWC in french bean cultivars. Among the cultivars, the response to stress in term of RWC varied. The stressed plants of tolerant cv Contender maintained relatively balanced RWC. Maximum RWC was maintained by cv Contender (84.6%) compared to other cultivars at 3 days of stress duration. As the stress duration increased, there was decline in RWC. At higher duration of 9 days of water stress cv. Contender maintained higher RWC (57.2%) and least RWC was maintained at 9 days of water stress in cv. Arka Suvidha (41.2%) as reported by Upreti and Murti (2005). Narender et al. (1997) reported that, significant difference in RWC at different phenological stages of chickpea. Significantly higher RWC was observed when the plants were subjected to water stress at vegetative stage compared to flowering and 50 per cent pod formation stage.

2.5.3 Effect of water stress on leaf area


Leaf area is a function of cell expansion and is again depends upon turgidity of cell. Rana and Kalloo (1989) reported that under water deficit condition there was significant difference in leaf area per plant among both resistant and susceptible genotypes of tomato. L. cheesmanii a resistant genotype had maximum leaf area of 5331 cm2 plant-1 compared to other genotypes and among the susceptible genotypes, Sel-5 had maximum leaf area of 1416 2 -1 cm plant . There was significant reduction in leaf area and specific leaf area in tomato when 2 irrigated at different water frequency. Leaf area recorded was 398 cm when irrigated 2 2 biweekly compared to daily (1330 cm ) irrigation and weekly (888 cm ). Same trend was 2 -1 observed in case of specific leaf area of tomato. The specific leaf area was 211 cm g for

daily watering frequency, 252 cm g for weekly water frequency and 260 cm g for biweekly water frequency (Milton et al., 1992). Bhatt et al. (2002) observed significant difference in leaf area in both grafted and nongrafted tomato plant at different levels of stress. In grafted plant, there was maximum reduction in leaf area at 100 per cent water stress (2295 cm2 plant-1) when compared to 2 -1 control (2350 cm plant ). Same trend was observed in non-grafted TO 5975 tomato genotype at 100 per cent water stress leaf area (1303.5 cm2 plant-1) when compared to 2 -1 control (1884.5 cm plant ). Bhagavanthagoudra and Rokhade (2002) reported that as the irrigation frequency increased there was increase in leaf area in cabbage. Significant maximum leaf area was 2 obtained at IW/CPE ratio of 1.6 (222.57 cm ) and minimum leaf area was recorded at IW/CPE 2 ratio of 1.0 (179.92 cm ). Results of Upreti et al. (2000) indicated that water stress treatments lead to significant reduction in leaf area in all the cultivars of pea. Decline was greater with stress at flowering than at vegetative stage. Similarly, Kumar and Elston (1993) observed significant reduction in leaf area in Brassica spp due to water stress. Significantly more leaf area was observed in 2 -1 2 -1 Brassica juncea (106.8 cm plant ) compared to Brassica nepus (70.2 cm plant ) under 2 -1 stress compared to their control (135 and 81.5 cm plant , respectively). Janoudi and Widders (1993) reported significant difference in leaf area when cucumber plant with or without fruits under water deficit condition. When the cucumber plants under irrigation with fruits, showed significantly more leaf area of 10,444 cm2 compared to 2 stressed plants (6,250 cm ), whereas, in plants without fruits showed significantly maximum leaf area with irrigation (15,410 cm2) compared to drought stressed plants (8,575 cm2). Naidu et al. (2001) reported that leaf area of all genotypes of green gram was reduced drastically under drought stress. This decrease in leaf area was due to less elongation and enlargement of cell accompanied with low photosynthetic rate. The genotype which had higher leaf area under non-stressed condition was severely affected due to drought stress. Genotype K 851 showed less per cent reduction (57.8%) in leaf area under drought stress whereas, maximum per cent reduction in leaf area was observed in the genotype, Lam M2 (77.4%). Narender et al. (1997) observed significant reduction in leaf area when plants were subjected to water stress at different phenological stages in chickpea. Maximum leaf area reduction was observed when the plants were subjected to water stress at vegetative stage compared to flowering and 50 per cent pod formation stage.

-1

-1

2.5.4 Effect of water stress on leaf area index


Banerjee and Saha (1985) studied the effect of irrigation regimes on leaf area index of potato. They reported maximum leaf area index in the irrigation at soil moisture tension of 0.3 atm. (2.70) and minimum was recorded in 0.9 atm (2.54). Haloi and Baldev (1986) noticed significantly higher leaf area index when irrigated between 45-75 days after sowing compared to no irrigation in chickpea in various sowing dates and minimum leaf area index was observed in the no irrigation treatment. Panda et al. (2004) reported that leaf area index of mustard increased progressively up to 72 DAS and then declined at 102 DAS in SEJ-2 and Pusa bold varieties. There was linear increase in leaf area index up to 72 DAS and maximum leaf area index was observed in the irrigation at flowering and at pod development stage (2.15) then it declined at 102 DAS (1.55) in the same treatment and minimum leaf area index was observed in treatment without irrigation.

2.5.5 Effect of water stress on leaf expansion rate

Halil et al. (2001) studied the influence of water deficit on leaf expansion rate of egg plant. They reported that the relative leaf expansion rate (RLER) of control was almost four times higher than the plants which received irrigation of 40 per cent of pot capacity. Indiramma (1994) reported that leaf expansion rate of sweet potato varieties H 42 and OP 217 was considerably affected by the levels of soil moisture and clear decline trend was observed with decreased level of soil moisture. Kumar and Elston (1993) studied the leaf expansion of brassica species in response to water stress and found that B. juncea had more leaf expansion compared to B. napus under the stress condition.

2.5.6 Effect of water stress on light transmission rate (LTR)


Thakur et al. (2000) studied the reversal of water stress effect on the performance of Capsicum annum. LTR increased significantly with increase in water deficits from 25 to 75 per cent. Under the controlled condition LTR was 55 per cent and it was increased to 85 per cent in 75 per cent water deficit condition. Significant difference in the LTR in the chickpea which was exposed to different irrigation treatment. Maximum LTR was recorded in the no irrigation treatment (4.43%) and minimum was recorded in the irrigation treatment at 45 DAS (4.19%) as reported by Haloi and Baldev (1986).

2.5.7 Effect of water stress on crop growth rate (CGR)


Banerjee and Saha (1985) studied the effect of irrigation at different soil moisture tension in potato. Data revealed that maximum CGR was recorded in the irrigation at soil moisture tension of 0.3 atm (1.42 g ha-1 day-1) and CGR at 0.6 atm tension was significantly -1 -1 -1 -1 greater (1.39 g ha day ) than 0.9 atm (1.32 g ha day ). Chowdhury and Varma (1997) studied the dry matter production and partitioning of sweet potato in response to different levels of irrigation. Data revealed that the CGR was significantly increased between 60 and 90 days after planting in all the levels of irrigation. CGR between 60 and 90 days after planting was highest with maximum irrigation level of -2 -1 IW/CPE ratio of 1.0 (13.60 and 17.38 g m day , respectively) which was subsequently declined with decrease in irrigation and minimum CGR was observed at IW/CPE ratio 0.2 at -2 -1 both 60 and 90 days after planting (3.06 and 2.13 g m day , respectively). The CGR at 120 days after planting was declined in IW/CPE ratio of 1.0 and 0.8 and was at par with other treatments. In general, the CGR of mustard increased at a faster rate during 42-72 days after sowing (DAS) as compared to during 12-27 DAS and 72 -102 DAS of crop growth. The influence of irrigation on CGR was significant during 42-72 DAS and 72-102 DAS. Irrigation water applied to mustard at flowering and pod development stage increased the CGR by 81.1 per cent as compared to unirrigated crop during 42-72 DAS. Even at 72-102 DAS the CGR value was 22.9 per cent more in irrigation at flowering and pod development stage as compared to no irrigation. CGR of Pusa bold did not differ significantly with SEJ-2 during early stage of growth i.e. 12-72 DAS but, CGR of Pusa bold was significantly higher than SEJ-2 during later stages except during 42-72 DAS (Panda et al., 2004).

2.5.8 Effect of water stress on relative growth rate (RGR)


Haloi and Baldev (1986) reported that, there was significantly higher RGR in the irrigation at 75 DAS (34.02) in chickpea compared to other irrigation treatments and minimum RGR was observed in the no irrigation treatment (23.90). Singh and Singh (1994) studied the RGR in sugarcane under the moisture stress. They reported that under normal moisture Co 1148 showed a higher and steady trend of

RGR, while CoS 770 showed declining trend until five months of age followed by an increase in the sixth month and then a rapid fall was observed. Co 1148, on the other hand, showed higher RGR under stress condition, which showed its greater ability of drought tolerance.

2.5.9 Effect of water stress on net assimilation rate (NAR)


Haloi and Baldev (1986) studied the effect of irrigation on NAR of chickpea. They -2 -1 reported that, there was significantly higher NAR (42.7 mg dm day ) in the irrigation at 75 DAS and minimum NAR was recorded in the no irrigation. The influence of irrigation on NAR was significant during 42-72 DAS and 72-102 DAS in mustard. Mustard irrigated twice each at flowering and pod development stage registered a higher value of NAR than the crop with no irrigation. The least NAR was marked in unirrigated crop irrespective of the crop growth stages. NAR of SEJ-2 was significantly higher than Pusa bold during 12-27 DAS and 27-102 DAS. But they did not differ significantly during -2 -1 27-42 DAS and 42-72 DAS. However, the highest values of NAR 12.9 and 10.8 mg m day , were recorded by SEJ-2 and Pusa bold during 12-27 DAS, respectively. At each stages Pusa bold showed a lower value of NAR than SEJ-2 (Panda et al., 2004). Singh and Singh (1994) studied the NAR in sugarcane under the moisture stress. They reported that Co1148 recorded higher NAR than CoS 770 which increased steadily with the age of plants grown under normal moisture condition. Under stress condition, it declined up to five months of age. With the on set of monsoon, NAR increased rapidly in Co 1148 up to six months of age while, in CoS 770 it decreased.

2.6 EFFECT OF HEAT STRESSS ON POLLEN VAIBILITY


Muthuvel et al. (1999) conducted experiment to screen 20 tomato genotypes for high temperature stress during kharif in glass house condition with 44/230C day/night temperature. Data revealed that there was significant difference in pollen viability in different genotypes. Maximum per cent pollen viability was recorded in LE 1265 (99.27%) and it was on par with LE 1259, LE 1253 and LE 1258 (98.40, 97.67 and 97.53 %, respectively) and minimum pollen viability was observed in the genotype LE 1275 (86.37%). Ram et al. (1993) studied the pollen viability in tomato under low temperature regimes. They reported that production of viable pollen declined under low temperature (4 to 25.60C) regime in all varieties. Maximum pollen viability was recorded in the variety Balkam (64.2%) under low temperature regime and minimum pollen viability was recorded in the variety Pusa 120 (14.3%). Under normal temperature regime of 10.9 to 34.60C maximum pollen viability was recorded in the homozygous breeding line 699 x Balkan B-3-2-2-1 (89.4%) and minimum pollen viability was recorded in the variety Pusa 120 (51.0%). Talwar et al. (2002) studied the effect of temperature stress on pollen germination in 0 0 groundnut. They reported that, heat stress at both 40 C and 45 C for 30 minutes improved germination with time in all the genotypes viz., ICG 1236, ICGS 44 and CHICO. There was 0 50 to 75 per cent pollen germination when the pollen was stressed at 40 C and 45-76 per cent pollen germination was observed when the pollen was stressed at 450C in these genotypes after seven hours of incubation. In case of non-stressed pollen of these genotypes germination was up to 85-90 per cent after one hour of incubation

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE


Tomato is one of the most important and widely grown vegetable in the world. Considering the potentiality of this crop, there is plenty of scope for its improvement. Many new cultivars have been developed to meet the diverse need and varied climatic condition. Drought is an inevitable and recurring feature of our semi-arid tropics and despite our improved ability to predict their onset, duration and impact, crop scientists are considered it as the single most important factor affecting the yield potential of crop species. On an average, water use efficiency in the existing irrigation project in India is only 40 per cent. A bulk of water meant for agricultural use infact does not benefit crops. With better water management, if the efficiency can be improved to a level of even 60 per cent, it will allow an additional 8 million hectares of land to be irrigated with the existing irrigation facilities alone. In this chapter, an attempt has been made to compile the findings of earlier workers on the effect of drought on morphological, biochemical, biophysical and yield parameters of tomato. Wherever the literature was inadequate on the above aspects in tomato, the work on other solanaceae crops and other crops was also reviewed.

2.1 EFFECT OF WATER STRESSS ON MORPOLOGICAL PARAMETRS


2.1.1 Effect of water stress on plant height
Rana and Kalloo (1989) studied the morphological attributes associated with the adaptation under water deficit condition in tomato. Data revealed that, resistant genotype L. pimpinellifolium recorded highest plant height (140 cm) compared to other resistant genotypes, where as susceptible genotype, KS-54 had recorded least plant height (49.60 cm). When plants were watered biweekly there was significant reduction in the plant height (18.90 cm) compared to daily watering (38.50 cm) as reported by Milton et al. (1992) in tomato. Rad and Sree Vijay (1991) studied the moisture stress effect at different morphological stages on growth and yield of tomato cultivars. They reported that, different genotypes responded variedly for plant height under moisture stress. Moisture stress at all the stages i.e., vegetative stage, 50 per cent flowering stage and fruiting stage reduced plant height very significantly. Moisture stress imposed at vegetative growth stage resulted in maximum reduction in plant height (68.56 cm) when compared to control (86.08 cm). Subramanian et al. (1993) while, studying the influence of moisture regimes on growth of brinjal, reported significant differences in the plant height at different growth intervals. Maximum reduction was observed at the IW/CPE ratio of 0.4 at all growth stages compared to other irrigation regimes while, significantly higher plant height was observed in the irrigation regime of 1.0 IW/CPE ratio at all the growth stages. Differential irrigation levels revealed reduction in the plant height in brinjal. Maximum plant height was recorded at 1.2 evapo-transpiration (59.8cm) compared to other treatments and minimum was recorded in 1.0 evapo-transpiration (50.2 cm) as reported by Manjunatha et al. (2004) in brinjal. Subramanian et al. (1998) concluded that, irrigation at 0.90 IW/CPE ratio responded positively and registered significantly higher plant height in chilli as compared to other irrigation levels of 0.75, 0.60 and 0.40 IW/CPE ratios. Thakur et al. (2000) studied the effect of water deficit on growth of chilli. They reported that due to water deficit conditions there was reduction in the plant height and maximum reduction was observed under 75 per cent water deficit (6.0 cm) compared to control (9.1 cm).

Yadav et al. (2003) studied the effect of irrigation on growth and yield of potato cv. Kufri Sutlej. Data revealed significant difference in the plant height due to irrigation levels and maximum reduction in plant height was observed at CPE of 100 mm in both years compared to other treatments. Upreti et al. (2000) studied the response of pea cultivars to water stress. The results revealed that pea cultivars differed widely in vigour under the conditions of moisture stress. There was significant reduction in plant height in all the cultivars and the effect of moisture stress was more pronounced at vegetative stage than at flowering stage Hegde (1988) studied the effect of irrigation regimes on growth of sweet pepper. Data revealed that when the soil matric potential reached -85 kPa plant height reduced significantly during both years of 1984 and 1985 (42.1 and 40.8 cm, respectively) as compared to those irrigated between -25 to -65 kPa which were on par among themselves. Kushwaha et al. (2003) studied the drought tolerance in chickpea genotypes. They reported, general reductions in plant height in all the genotypes under rainout shelter conditions as compared to rainfed condition, which indicated higher intensity of stress realization in rainout shelter. Maximum reduction in plant height was noticed in BG-362 (18.00) and ICC-4958 (-17.00).

2.1.2 Effect of water stress on number of branches


Rana and Kalloo (1989) observed that, there was highly significant difference in the number of braches per plant among the resistant and susceptible genotypes. Among the drought resistant tomato genotypes EC 130042 had higher number of branches per plant (69.0) compared to other resistant genotypes, whereas, susceptible tomato genotype Sel-5 had 16.0 braches per plant. Shivadhara and Singh (1995) studied the effect of irrigation schedules on branching pattern in French bean. They reported that number of primary branches were significantly higher in treatment which received one irrigation at 0.6 IW/CPE ratio (8.5) compared to other IW/CPE ratios and lowest number of primary braches were recorded in the IW/CPE ratio of 0.8 (4.7). Jadhav et al. (1996) studied the response of bottle gourd to different irrigation regimes. Significant difference in the number of branches was observed in different irrigation schedules. More number of braches were recorded in irrigation at 75 mm CPE (7.2) compared to other irrigation regimes and significantly lesser number of branches was recorded in the irrigation with 100 and 125 mm CPE (4.8 in both the irrigation regimes). Kushwaha et al. (2003) studied the relationship of drought tolerance with number of branch per plant of chickpea. They reported that there was maximum reduction in the number of branches in K-850 (23.00) and IPC-94-132 (20.50) under rainout shelter condition compared to rainfed condition and there was no reduction in number of braches in BG-362 under rainout shelter compared to rainfed condition. Gopalkrishna et al. (1996) reported that in linseed, when irrigation level was induced at 0.8 IW/CPE ratio up to 75 DAS resulted in significantly higher primary braches (6.1) and was on par with that of delayed irrigation at o.4 IW/CPE ratio up to 75 DAS, similarly, the number of secondary branches were significantly higher when irrigation was scheduled at 0.8 IW/CPE ratio throughout crop growth (20.86) and minimum was observed in irrigation at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (16.08). Manjunatha et al. (2004) studied the effect of irrigation schedule on vegetative growth of brinjal and found maximum number of branches per plant at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (10.0) compared to the minimum number observed under IW/CPE ratio of 1.0.

2.1.3 Effect of water stress on pubescence


Rana and Kalloo (1989) studied the pubescence of tomato under water deficit condition and they concluded that, the leaves and stem of genotypes Sel-28 and Rin were

more hairy and genotypes (L. piminellifolium), EC 130042, (L. cheesmanii) and 8458 have medium hairs on their leaves and stem. These genotypes noticed resistance to water stress. Pubescence count was more than eight times greater on the abaxial than adaxial leaf surface under the drought condition as reported by Ratnayak and Kincaid (2005) in Tinnevelly senna and Cassia agnustifolia.

2.1.4 Effect of water stress on root length


Rana and Kalloo (1989) studied the root length of resistant and susceptible tomato genotypes under water deficit condition and revealed significant difference among the resistant and susceptible tomato genotypes. Among the resistant genotypes L. pimpinelifolim (78.6 cm) showed maximum root length, where as susceptible genotype, Sel-5 showed minimum root length of 30.0 cm.

2.2 EFFECT OF WATER STRESS ON YIELD AND YIELD ATTRIBUTES


2.2.1 Effect of water stress on numbers of fruits per plant
Rana and Kalloo (1989) studied the yield attributes associated with the adaptation under water deficit conditions in tomato. Significant difference was observed among the resistant and susceptible tomato genotypes for number of fruits per plant and maximum number of fruits per plant was recorded in resistant genotype L. pimpinellifolium (162) as compared to susceptible genotype Sel-2 (10). Eliades and Orphanos (1986) studied the different irrigation levels on tomatoes grown in unheated greenhouse. Results revealed that there was significant reduction in the number of fruits per plant with decrease in number of irrigations. Cultivar Sanoto at IW/CPE ratio of 0.4, 0.6, 0.8 and 1.0 produced 77, 84, 81 and 84 number of fruits respectively. Significantly more number of tomato fruits were recorded in treatment comprising 5 cm depth of water by surface irrigation at 1.0 IW/CPE ratio at 80 DAT (33.85) compared to other irrigation schedules and minimum was recorded in the treatment which had 1.25 cm of depth of water through sprinkler irrigation at 0.25 IW/CPE ratio (8.00) and same trend was followed in case of 65 DAT (Duraiswamy et al., 1992). Manjunatha et al. (2004) reported significant difference in number of fruits per plant due to differential irrigation level in brinjal. Minimum number of fruits per plant was observed at 1.0 IW/CPE ratio (21.1) compared to other treatments and maximum number of fruits per plant was recorded at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (23.3). Gupta and Rao (1987) reported significantly maximum number of brinjal fruits at 80 per cent available soil moisture (815936 number of fruits ha-1) compared to other regimes and significantly lower number of fruits was recorded in the 20 per cent available soil moisture -1 (596468 number of fruits ha ). Similarly Deshmukh et al. (1996) also recorded significantly higher number of brinjal fruits in the CPE of 50 mm (22.6 number of fruits plant-1) compared to other treatments as well as minimum number of fruits in CPE of 100 mm (17.9 number of fruits plant-1). Subramanian et al. (1998) reported that, irrigation at 0.9 IW/CPE ratio recorded significantly higher number of chilli pods per plant compared to other schedules of 0.75, 0.6 and 0.45 IW/CPE ratios. Hegde (1988) studied the effect of irrigation regime on number of fruits per plant in sweet pepper. Data revealed that irrigating the crop when soil matric potential reached -65 kPa resulted in more number of fruits per plant when compared to irrigation frequency at -85 kPa. Shivadhara and Singh (1995) conducted an experiment to study the response of french bean to irrigation schedules and they reported that due to water deficit, number of pod production per plant was significantly reduced.

Number of pods per plant was significantly reduced in all the genotypes of green gram due to water stress. Maximum number of pods per plant was 10.9 under drought in Pusa 9072 where as under irrigated condition it was 29.1 compared to other genotypes, LGG 410 and Lam M2 (8.0) under stress whereas, under irrigation they produced 20.9 and 22.7 number of pods per plant respectively (Naidu et al.2001).

2.2.2 Effect of water stress on fruits dimension


Molla et al. (2003) studied the effect of water on fruit dimension at different growth stages of green house tomato and found significant difference in the fruit dimension. Maximum equatorial diameter (61.6 mm) was observed when the stress was induced during the flowering/ fruit set stage and minimum equatorial dimension (49.8 mm) was observed when plants were stressed during fruit ripening stage. Halil et al. (2001) reported that at different moisture stress levels, fruit diameter of egg plant was significantly reduced. At the moisture level of 40 per cent of pot capacity there was significant reduction in the fruit diameter (2.1 cm) when compared to control (6.5 cm). Subramanian et al. (1993) also recorded significant difference in the brinjal fruit length and fruit girth due to irrigation levles. Maximum fruit length and fruit girth was observed in the moisture regime of 1.0 IW/CPE ratio (6.56 cm and 8.98 cm, respectively) and under the higher water stress condition of 0.4 IW/CPE ratio fruit length and fruit girth was drastically reduced to 4.5 cm and 6.44 cm, respectively. Mary and Balakrishnan (1990) studied the effect of irrigation regime on pod length of chilli and found that pod length and pod girth was significantly influenced by irrigation. The maximum value of pod length and pod girth was recorded in 0.75 IW/CPE ratio (9.91 cm and 3.76 cm, respectively) and minimum value of pod length and pod girth was recorded in 0.6 IW/CPE ratio (8.59 cm and 3.33 cm, respectively). Mishra et al. (1994) studied the effect of irrigation on diameter of onion. Significantly maximum bulb diameter was recorded in the 1.6 IW/CPE ratio (5.33 cm) compared to other irrigation schedules and minimum was recorded in the irrigation once in fortnight (4.48 cm). Bhagavanthagoudra and Rokhade (2002) reported that there was a significant difference in diameter of head of cabbage with different irrigation schedules. Maximum head diameter was recorded with irrigation schedule of 1.6 IW/CPE ratio (14.43 cm) and minimum diameter was recorded at IW/CPE ratio1.0 (12.38 cm).

2.2.3 Effect of water stress on number of seeds per fruits


Number of seeds per pod was significantly reduced due to water deficit condition in french bean. There was a significant reduction in the number of seeds per pod (2.9) in IW/CPE ratio of 0.4 compared to other irrigation schedules and minimum number of seeds per pod (3.4) was recorded in the irrigation schedule of 0.8 IW/CPE ratio (Shivadhara and Singh, 1995). Saxena et al. (1996) conducted experiment to study the effect of moisture stress on grain number in wheat genotypes. Under two irrigations highest number of grains per plant was produced in HD 2000, HUW 12, K 7410 and Kalyansona genotypes (138, 134, 131 and 128, respectively), while under dry situation, highest number of grains per plant was produced by the genotypes HUW 12, Kalyansona, K 7229, K 7419, UP 368 and HD 2000 (96, 96, 94, 93, 90 and 88, respectively). Balasubramanian and Maheswari (1991) reported water stress effects on sunflower seeds, number of seeds were significantly reduced in the cultivars BSH-1 and Surya. When plants were under stress, BSH-1 seed number was reduced significantly to 382 per pot compared to its control (574 per pot), where as, in Surya the number of seeds produced under stress was reduced to 413 per pot when compared to its control 541 per pot. Among the cultivars, under stress more number of seeds were produced in Surya compared to BSH1.

2.2.4 Effect of water stress on fruit weight


Gupta (1989) studied the soil moisture regimes on tomato fruit size. Significantly higher fruit size was obtained in the irrigation at 80 per cent available soil moisture (54.9 g) compared to other treatments and minimum was recorded in the irrigation of 40 per cent available soil moisture (50.9 g). Similarly, in brinjal significantly higher fruit size was obtained in the 80 per cent available soil moisture (21.83 g) compared to other regimes and minimum size was recorded in 20 per cent available soil moisture (19.87 g) (Gupta and Rao, 1987). In another study, Deshmukh et al. (1996) reported non significant difference in brinjal fruit weight due to irrigation at different CPE. Maximum average fruit weight was recorded in the CPE of 50 mm (36.1 g) and minimum weight was recorded in the CPE of 100 mm (32.0 g). Manjunatha et al. (2004) while studying the effect of irrigation schedules on yield parameters of brinjal, revealed that there was reduction in the fruit weight at evapotranspiration of 1.0 (30.1 g) compared to other treatments and maximum fruit weight was recorded in the evapo-transpiration of 1.2 (33.3 g). Similarly, Subramanian et al. (1993) reported that significantly higher fruit weight was recorded in the IW/CPE ratio of 1.0 (36.0 g) and lower fruit weight was recorded in the IW/CPE ratio of 0.4 (16.7 g). Mishra et al. (1994) studied the effect of irrigation on the bulb weight on onion and found that significantly more weight of 20 bulbs were obtained in IW/CPE ratio of 1.2 (1.26 kg) as compared to other irrigation schedules and minimum was recorded in the IW/CPE ratio of 0.8 (0.85 kg). Similar studies on head weight of cabbage found significantly higher head weight in the 15 mm CPE (315.3 g) compared to other irrigation regimes and minimum head weight was recorded in 60 mm CPE (220.8 g) (Gupta, 1987).

2.2.5 Effect of water stress on yield


Panda and Srivastava (1996) reported that, among the irrigation levels tested on -1 tomato var. Rupali, the irrigation given at 0.6 IW/CPE ratio recorded higher yield (24.88 t.ha ) -1 as compared to that at 0.3 IW/CPE ratio (16.32 t.ha ). Rana and Kalloo (1989) conducted the experiment to study the yield under water deficit condition in tomato. Among the resistant genotypes Sel-28 had significantly higher yield per plant (658 g plant-1) compared to other resistant genotypes, whereas, the susceptible genotype KS-35 gave lower yield per plant (210 g plant-1). Srinivas Rao and Bhatt (2000) studied the effect of water stress at different growth stages in tomato. The results revealed that water stress at fruiting growth stage reduced yield (14.6 t ha-1) significantly compared to water stress at vegetative and flowering stages (16.6 -1 and 16.5 t ha , respectively). Similarly, Eliades and Orphanos (1986) reported that due to difference in the frequency of water application there was reduction in yield of tomato cultivars. Effect of water stress at different phenological stages of greenhouse tomato, stress at -1 fruit ripening stage had lowest yield (0.78 kg plant ) compared to other phenological stages -1 and maximum yield was observed in control (1.78 kg plant ) (Molla et al. 2003). The effect of irrigation on yield of rabi tomato, indicated that irrigation scheduled at 1.25 IW/CPE ratio produced significantly higher yield (150.45 q ha-1) compared to other IW/CPE ratios (Jadhav et al., 1992). Further fruit yield at 0.75 and 1.0 IW/CPE ratio were at -1 par (125 and 133.45 q ha , respectively). However, these two IW/CPE ratios were found to be significantly superior over 0.5 IW/CPE ratio (109.82 q ha-1). Manojkumar et al. (1998) studied the response of tomato to different irrigation level. Results indicated that fruit yield increased significantly up to IW/CPE ratio of 1.0 and yield decreased further under IW/CPE -1 ratio of 0.6 (247.61 q ha ). Maximum yield was observed at the IW/CPE ratio of 1.2 (330.83 q -1 ha ).

In a similar study, Ali et al. (1980) noticed that when plants were irrigated with 356 -1 mm water, plants were able to produce yield of 69.80 mt ha , whereas, under stress, yield -1 was drastically reduced to 30.7 mt ha . The response of tomato to different irrigation levels indicated that the irrigation at 40 -1 per cent available soil moisture (ASM) yielded 202.2 q ha , when compared to irrigation at -1 60 per cent ASM (272.0 q ha ) (Gupta, 1989). Duraiswamy et al. (1992) studied the irrigation schedules to tomato and obtained significantly higher fruit yield in the irrigation at 5 cm depth of water by surface irrigation at 1.0 -1 IW/CPE ratio (16489 kg ha ) compared to other irrigation regimes and minimum yield was recorded in the treatment at 1.23 cm depth of water through the sprinkler at 0.25 IW/CPE ratio (5230 kg ha-1). The experiment on the study of influence of different irrigation regimes on dry yield of chilli conducted by Subramanian et al. (1998) indicated that in the first season, significantly higher dry chilli yield was recorded at the IW/CPE ratio of 0.75 (2400 kg ha-1) compared to other IW/CPE ratio and minimum yield was observed in the irrigation regime of 0.45 IW/CPE -1 ratio (2280 kg ha ). Whereas, in the second and third seasons, maximum dry yield of chilli was recorded in the IW/CPE ratio of 0.9 (3227 and 2691 kg ha-1, respectively) and minimum -1 was recorded in the IW/CPE ratio of 0.45 (2567 and 1746 kg ha , respectively). Similarly maximum chilli yield was observed at IW/CPE ratio of 1.0 and significant reduction in the dry chilli yield was observed in the irrigation at IW/CPE ratio of 0.4 (Gulati et al., 1995). The experiment conducted by Thakur et al. (2000) to study the effect of water stress -1 on chilli revealed that, maximum of yield was observed under control (88.20 q ha ) compared to the water deficit condition and maximum reduction in the yield was observed under 75 per -1 cent of water deficit condition (36.90 q ha ). Water stress significantly reduced the fruit yield of egg plant. Maximum fruit yield reduction (34%) was observed when plants were stressed at 40 per cent irrigation of pot capacity, when compared to control. Among the different stress levels, irrigation at 40 per -1 cent pot capacity recorded yield of 0.95 kg plant , where as in the irrigation level of 80 per cent pot capacity recorded significantly higher yield of 2.1 kg plant-1 and in control it was 2.8 kg plant-1 (Halil et al., 2001). Similarly, Manjunatha et al. (2004) obtained maximum yield of brinjal in the evapo-1 transpiration of 1.2 (17.9 tones ha ) compared to other treatments and highest reduction in the yield was observed in the evapo-transpiration of 1.0 (15.7 tones ha-1). The results of Subramanian et al. (1993) also indicated significant difference in the yield of brinjal in the -1 -1 IW/CPE ratio of 0.8 (16.3 t ha ) as compared to the IW/CPE ratio of 0.4 (11.3 t ha ). Similar response of brinjal yield to soil moisture regimes was reported by Gupta and Rao (1987) and Deshmukh et al. (1996). The effect of irrigation frequency levels on potato yield showed only a marginal variation in yield due to various regimes of irrigation water (Raghuwanshi and Verma, 1991). However, the experiment of Yadav et al. (2003) indicated that the potato tuber yield was significantly influenced by irrigation regimes. The irrigation treatment at CPE of 20 mm produced significantly higher tuber yield (386.89 q ha-1) as compared to other irrigation levels. -1 The minimum tuber yield of 122.90 q ha was obtained at sever water stress of at CPE ratio of 100 mm. Bansal and Nagarajan (1986) studied the response of potato genotypes to water stress. They reported that tuber weight decreased under stress in Kufri Jyoti and Kufri Chandramukhi to the extent of 35 per cent and 38 per cent respectively. But in case of resistant cultivars Phulwa and G-2524, the tuber weight was increased in response to stress. Maximum reduction in tuber fresh weight was recorded in the genotype Kufri Sinduri (0.78 g -1 -1 plant ) where as maximum yield was obtained in the genotype G-2524 (52.08 g plant ) compared to other genotypes. Similarly, Banerjee and Saha (1985) reported, significantly

higher yield in irrigation at soil moisture tension of 0.3 atm (228.5 q ha ) as compared to yield -1 obtained in the 0.9 atm (183.4 q ha ). Chowdhury and Varma (1997) studied the response of sweet potato to the different levels of irrigation. They reported that there was a significant decrease in the yield of sweet potato with decrease in the irrigation frequency. Significantly higher yield was obtained in the -1 -1 IW/CPE ratio of 1.0 (25.51 t ha ) followed by IW/CPE ratio of 0.8 (20.15 t ha ) and minimum yield was obtained at the lowest irrigation frequency of 0.2 IW/CPE ratio (9.67 t ha-1). Studies on the influence of different levels of soil moisture on yield of sweet potato varieties Sree Nandini and H 42 indicated that there was significant difference in the yield at different irrigation levels in both the varieties. Maximum production of tuber yield was recorded in 1.0 IW/CPE ratio in both the varieties (0.95 and 1.57 kg m-1, respectively) and -1 significantly minimum tuber yield of 0.16 and 0.89 kg m , respectively was recorded in 0.25 IW/CPE ratio as reported by Indiramma (1994). Mishra et al. (1994) studied the effect of irrigation regimes on yield of onion and reported significantly higher yield in the irrigation at fortnightly up to 60 days after -1 transplanting and subsequently at weekly till crop maturity for bulb development (244 q ha ) compared to other irrigation treatments and minimum yield was recorded in the IW/CPE ratio -1 of 0.8 (189 q ha ). Pea cultivars differed in their yield potential under different irrigation conditions. Water stress treatments negatively influenced the green pod weight with the effect being more pronounced under longer stress period. The yield reduction under stress was minimum in the cv. Bonneville (10.6 to 33% at vegetative and 18.1 to 46.6% flowering stage) followed by cv. Arka Ajit (16.2 to 35.2% at vegetative and 24.2 to 52.9% at flowering stage). However, the stressed plant of cv. Arka Ajit had the highest pod yield at both stages (Upreti et al., 2000) Water stress significantly reduced the seed yield of all the genotypes of moth bean irrespective of the stage at which drought was imposed. However, drought at flowering stage was more detrimental to seed yield than at vegetative stage. The magnitude of yield reduction due to water stress was variable in different genotypes and growth stages. In general, the reduction in seed yield was consistently more in late than early flowering genotypes at both vegetative and reproductive growth stages (Garg et al., 2004). Vyas et al. (2001) reported that in cluster bean the stress induced at flowering stage more detrimental on seed yield than that of vegetative stage. The magnitude of yield reduction due to water stress was variable in different genotypes of cluster bean and growth stages. The highest reduction in seed yield (55.10%) was found in genotype Suvidha under drought at the pod development stage. HF-182 also displayed higher drought tolerance as reduction seed yield was only 6.3, 13.6 and 22.1 per cent when plants were stressed at vegetative, flowering and pod development stages, respectively (Garg et al., 1998). Shivadhara and Singh (1995) studied the effect of irrigation schedules on yield -1 attributes in french bean. Irrigation at 0.6 IW/CPE ratio recorded lowest yield of 1.854 kg ha compared to other IW/CPE ratio of irrigation treatments. Bhagavanthagoudra and Rokhade (2002) reported that irrigation schedule will determine the weight of cabbage head. Significantly higher weight of head was obtained at IW/CPE ratio of 1.6 (566.69 t ha-1) when compared to other irrigation schedules while, minimum head weight was obtained at IW/CPE ratio of 1.0 (440.16 t ha-1). Similarly Gupta (1987) reported significantly higher yield of cabbage in 15 mm CPE of irrigation (169.20 q ha 1 ) compared to other irrigation regimes and minimum yield was recorded in the 60 mm CPE -1 (100.67 q ha ). Salvi et al. (1995) studied the response of bell pepper to different irrigation regimes. -1 Maximum production of bell pepper was observed under the CPE of 25 mm (11.93 t ha ) and -1 minimum yield was observed in the CPE of 75 mm (8.28 t ha ). As the irrigation was reduced there was significant reduction in the yield was observed. They also reported maximum

-1

reduction in the bell pepper yield per hill in the CPE of 75 mm (263 g) and maximum production of bell pepper per hill was recorded in the CPE of 25 mm (352.83 g). Jadhav et al. (1996) studied the effect of irrigation regimes on yield of bottle gourd and recorded significantly higher yield with irrigation of 75 mm CPE (384.9 q ha-1) compared to other irrigation regimes and minimum yield was recorded in the irrigation regime of 125 mm -1 of CPE (264.4 q ha ). Naidu et al. (2001) screened the green gram genotypes for drought tolerance under receding soil moisture and they reported about 60 per cent reduction in seed yield under drought stress and attributed to corresponding reduction in yield parameters. Results on the influence of irrigation level on mustard revealed that, there was -1 significantly higher seed yield at the higher IW/CPE ratio of 0.7 (226 kg ha ) and minimum -1 yield was recorded at low IW/CPE ratio of 0.3 (102 kg ha ) (Garg et al., 2001). The crop irrigated once at flowering and twice at flowering and pod development stages produced seed yield of 17.59 and 15.53 q ha-1 which were 67.1 and 41.0 per cent higher than unirrigated -1 (10.82 q ha ) as reported by Panda et al. (2004). Meenakumari et al. (2004) studied the physiological parameter governing drought tolerance in maize. They reported that there were variability in yield potential among the lines. Under different stress condition, all the genotypes showed reduction in yield. More than 80 per cent reduction in yield was reported in highly susceptible lines while in relatively tolerant genotypes reduction was up to 50 per cent. The grain yield of the resistant lines was higher than the susceptible genotypes under stress conditions. Gopalkrishna et al. (1996) studied the effect of irrigation schedules at different stages on growth and yield of linseed varieties. They reported that, irrigation scheduled at 0.8 IW/CPE ratio up to 75 DAS and later at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio increased the seed yield (5.03 q ha 1 -1 ) and oil yield (2.20 q ha ), but it was on par and marginally higher than irrigation at 0.8 IW/CPE ratio throughout the growth period.

2.3 EFFECT PROCESSES

OF

WATER

STRESSS

ON

BIOCHEMICAL

2.3.1 Effect of drought on proline production


Proline content in transgenic tomato plants was higher than wild type under both normal and water deficit in 28 days old matured tomato plant (Tsai et al., 2002). Babu et al. (1982) studied the proline content as an index of drought resistance in tomato and reported that proline could be considered as a characteristic mechanism of defense against wilting and accessions LE 573 and LE 763 are found to be drought resistant as they synthesised large amount of proline during the water stress conditions. Bansal and Nagarajan (1986) conducted an experiment to study the proline accumulation in potato genotypes and showed that significantly higher proline accumulation was noticed in the genotype Kufri Kundam (4.295 mg.g-1 of FW) when compared to the -1 genotype Phulwa (1.749 mg.g of FW) and other genotypes. Indiramma (1994) reported that, moisture stress during different growth stages of sweet potato induced more porline production. Maximum production of proline was recorded in genotypes OP 1217 and H 42 when the moisture stress was induced during tuber maturity -1 (1925.60 and 1900.50 moles.g of DW, respectively) when compared to their controlled condition (1500 and 1300 moles.g-1 of DW, respectively). Garg et al. (1998) studied the influence of water deficit stress at various growth stages of cluster bean genotypes. The proline accumulation was higher when the plants were under water deficit at the vegetative stage and minimum proline production was observed when the plants were under water deficit at the flowering stage. Among the genotypes, HFG182 accumulated more proline due to water stress at vegetative and flowering stages (11.01

and 9.08 mg.g DW, respectively), while, Maruguar accumulated highest free proline (8.31 -1 mg.g DW) at pod development stage. Proline content was significantly increased, when the cluster bean were induced to water stress at different phenological stages (Vyas et al. 2001). Shubhra et al. (2003) reported that proline content was significantly increased in cluster bean when they were subjected to water stress at different growth stages. There was almost three fold increase in proline content at all the stages. Maximum proline accumulation was observed when plants were under stress at flowering stage (2155.10 moles.g-1 of DW) -1 when compared to vegetative and pod filling stages (1663.50 and 2039.36 moles.g of DW). Naidu et al. (2001) studied the drought tolerance in green gram genotypes under receding soil moisture. They reported that leaf proline content was increased due to drought stress in all the genotypes of green gram. Among the genotypes studied, K 851 and LGG -1 401 accumulated more proline (5.05 and 4.76 moles.g of FW, respectively) under drought stress. This accumulated proline possibly contributed towards osmotic adjustment which played a major role in maintaining the turgor over fluctuating soil water potential. Adivappar et al. (2003) studied the proline content at different intervals of drought in papaya seedlings. Proline content was increased as the drought period increased. Maximum proline content was observed at 20 days after drought induction (35.01 moles.g-1 of DW) -1 when compared to 10 days after drought (12.65 moles.g of DW).

-1

2.3.2 Effect of drought on chlorophyll content.


Halil et al. (2001) studied the influence of water deficit in egg plants. They observed that there was significant reduction in the chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b and total chlorophyll content. There was reduction of 49, 40 and 45 per cent of chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b and total chlorophyll (494, 290 and 784 mg.kg-1 of fresh weight, respectively) content when the plants were subjected to water stress at 40 per cent irrigation to the pot capacity when -1 compared to control (1007, 716 and 172 mg.kg of fresh weight, respectively). Similar reduction in the total chlorophyll content was observed when sweet potato genotypes OP 217 and H 42 were induced to water stress during tuber development phase (0.43 and 0.83 mg.kg-1 fresh weight, respectively) when compared to their control (2.11 and 1.13 mg.kg-1 fresh weight, respectively) as observed by Indiramma (1994). Vyas et al. (2001) studied the effect of water stress in cluster bean. Results revealed that, there was significant reduction in total chlorophyll content at different phenological growth stages. Total chlorophyll content significantly decreased under water stress conditions in all genotypes of cluster bean. Maximum total chlorophyll content was observed in the genotype Maru guar when it was subjected to water stress at vegetative, flowering and pod developmental stage (5.70, 5.98 and 7.07 mg.g-1 dry weight, respectively) and minimum total -1 chlorophyll was observed in JGC-19 (4.81 mg.g dry weight) at vegetative stage, whereas, HFG-182 showed minimum total chlorophyll content at flowering and pod developmental stages (5.06 and 4.21 mg.g-1 dry weight) as reported by Garg et al. (1998). Shubhra et al. (2003) reported that, total chlorophyll content of cluster bean leaf was significantly declined when plants were subjected to water stress at vegetative stage. Chlorophyll content was reduced from 4.25 mg.g-1 dry weight (control) to 3.49 mg.g-1 dry weight under stress. Stress at flowering stage reduced chlorophyll content significantly (3.40 -1 -1 mg.g dry weight) compared to control (4.45 mg.g dry weight). Maximum reduction of chlorophyll content was observed at vegetative stage (82 %) compared to flowering and pod filling stages (80.45 and 80.76%, respectively). Water stress reduced the total chlorophyll concentration significantly in different genotypes of moth bean and reduction was more pronounced in late flowering genotypes, particularly at the flowering stage. Among all the genotypes, reduction in total chlorophyll content was least in RMO-40 in early flowering group and Maru moth in late flowering group at both vegetative and flowering stages of moth bean (Garg et al., 2004).

There was maximum reduction in total chlorophyll content when chickpea plants were -1 subjected to 50 per cent pod formation stage (3.19 mg.g dry weight) while highest chlorophyll content was noticed at flowering stage (7.21 mg.g-1 dry weight) as reported by Narender et al. (1997). Adivappar et al. (2003) while studying the drought tolerance of papaya reported that chlorophyll content was significantly reduced under stress when compared to control. Chlorophyll a, b and total contents were reduced to 1.11 from 1.27 mg.g-1 fresh weight, from -1 -1 1.00 to 0.88 mg.g fresh weight and from 2.27 to 1.99 mg.g fresh weight respectively form control to under stress condition.

2.3.3. Effect of water stress on total soluble solid (TSS).


Manojkumar et al. (1998) reported that water stressed tomato plants showed significant difference in the TSS level at different irrigation levels. As the irrigation frequency increased TSS level decreased. Maximum per cent TSS was observed under IW/CPE ratio of 0.60 (6.10%) and minimum was recorded at the IW/CPE ratio of 1.20 (4.80%). Similar results were obtained by Ali et al. (1980) in tomato. When plants were supplied with 356 mm of water, TSS recorded was 3.4 per cent and TSS was increased when 290 mm of water was applied to the plants (4.6%). Gupta (1989) noticed non significant difference in TSS due to different irrigation levels in tomato. Maximum value of TSS was observed in the irrigation at 80 per cent available soil moisture (4.32%) and minimum TSS was recorded in 60 and 40 per cent of available soil moisture (4.15% in both the irrigation levels).

2.3.4. Effect of water stress on ascorbic acid content


Mary and Balakrishnan (1990) studied the effect of irrigation regimes on chilli. Ascorbic content in green and red ripe pods recorded highest in IW/CPE ratio of 0.75 (109.72 -1 and 120.45 mg.100g , respectively) and lowest ascorbic acid in IW/CPE ratio of 0.9 (87.85 -1 mg.100g ) in green fruits, where as, in red ripe fruit significantly lowest ascorbic acid content -1 recorded in IW/CPE ratio of 0.60 (109.56 mg. 100g ). Tambussi et al. (2000) conducted an experiment to study the oxidative damage to thylakoid proteins in water-stressed wheat and they noticed increase in the ascorbic acid (14.0 mol.g-1 dry weight) content under stress in leaves compared to control (12.7 mol.g-1 dry weight). Further concluded that increase in ascorbic acid might be effective strategy to protect thylakoid membranes from oxidative damage in water stressed leaves.

2.3.5 Effect of water stress on lycopene


Martino et al. (2005) studied tomato plants adaptation to environmental stress and they reported that lycopene content in tomato fruits increased to 32 % under osmotic stress. Similarly Bang et al. (2004) studied the irrigation impact on lycopene on watermelon. They reported that fruit lycopene content increased with maturity (7 and 22 days after ripening) at all the irrigation levels.

2.4 BIOPHYSICAL PARAMETERS


2.4.1 Effect of water stress on photosynthesis
Bhatt et al. (2002) showed that controlled grafted tomato plants had 10.9 to 11.4 -2 -1 mole m s of photosynthesis where as, in non-grafted plant TO 5975, photosynthetic rate ranged form 9.5 to 10.8 mole m-2s-1. Water stress affected the rate of photosynthesis and the effect was more in non-grafted than on grafted plants. It varied between 1.3 to 5.0 mole -2 -1 -2 -1 m s in grafted and in non-grafted plants it was 3.4 to 6.2 mole m s . Pirjo et al. (1999) conducted the study on photosynthetic response of drought on tomato and turnip rape leaves. Results revealed that, net photosynthesis of tomato and turnip rape leaves reduced significantly by stress treatments.

Silk and Fock (2000) reported that lowering leaf water potential form -0.6 mPa in control to -1.8 mPa in severely stressed plants decreased net photosynthetic rate in tomato. Similarly Srinivas and Bhatt (2000) showed that decrease in photosynthetic rate was 30.4, 35.3 and 38.7 per cent in the stressed plants, while in 125 ppm mepiquate chloride treated plants the reduction was 14.5, 11.2 and 9.2 per cent at vegetative, flowering and fruiting stage respectively as compared to irrigated control. Thakur et al. (2000) studied the effect of water deficit on photosynthetic rate in Capsicum annum. Data revealed that photosynthetic rate declined with increasing levels of water deficit and maximum reduction in photosynthetic rate was observed at 75 per cent -2 -1 water deficit (1.91 mole m s ). Chowdhury and Varma (1998) studied diurnal change in photosynthetic behavior in sweet potato under different irrigation regimes. They reported that maximum photosynthetic rate was observed at higher irrigation level of 1.4 IW/CPE ratio compared to other treatments and lowest was observed at 0.8 and 0.6 IW/CPE ratios irrigation level. Janoudi et al. (1993) studied the effect of water stress on photosynthetic rate in cucumber and reported that maximum photosynthetic rate in non-stress cucumber plants at internal CO2 of 150 mole mole-1 while, in stressed cucumber plant the CO2 compensation -1 point was 100 mole mole twice that of non-stressed cucumber plant. They also reported that assimilation rate increased form 3.5 to 11.7 mole m-1 s-1 at 350 ppm of CO2 with in 12 hours after rewatering. Increasing ambient CO2 concentration from 150 to 350 l caused -1 -1 -1 -1 significant increase in assimilation rate form 1.5 mole m s to 3.5 mole m s in water stressed plants. In an another study Janoudi and Widders (1993), reported that under drought stressed conditions, plants with fruit had significantly higher photosynthetic rate (8.4 mole m -2 -1 2 -1 s ) when compared to defruited plants (6.4 mole m s ). When the fruited cucumber plant was under drought stress significantly lower photosynthetic rate of 8.4 mole m-2s-1 was -2 -1 observed when compared its irrigated plants (15.8 mole m s ) and when defruited plants were stressed they also showed lower photosynthetic rate of 6.4 mole m-2s-1 compared to -2 -1 their control plants (12.7 mole m s ). Vyas et al. (2001) reported that when cluster bean plants were induced water stress at different growth stages, there was significant reduction in the photosynthetic rate. Pronounced reduction in photosynthetic rate was observed when the plants were stressed at vegetative and flowering stage compared to pod formation stage. Decrease in plant water status was associated with significant decline in net photosynthetic rate in the moth bean genotypes in both vegetative and reproductive stages. The decline was 52.4 to 70.0 per cent at the vegetative and 65.8 to 79.0 per cent at flowering stage as reported by Garg et al. (2004). Narender et al. (1997) studied the effect of water stress in chickpea. Data revealed that, when the plants were stressed at different growth stages, photosynthetic rate was significantly reduced (2.82 mg CO2 fixed h-1 plant-1) during reproductive stage when compared vegetative and flowering stage. Maximum photosynthetic rate was observed when plants were stressed at flowering stage (11.83 mg CO2 fixed h-1 plant-1).

2.4.2 Effect of water stress on transpiration


Srinivas and Bhatt (1991) reported that as the stomatal conductance decreased, transpiration rate also decreased in soil moisture stressed tomato plants. Top leaves showed transpiration rate of 23.33 g cm-2 sec-1 in control where as it was 15.05 g cm-2 sec-1 in -2 -1 stressed plants. In bottom leaves, transpiration rate of 12.99 g cm sec in control where as -2 -1 in stress condition it was 10.28 g cm sec . Pirjo et al. (1999) reported that transpiration of drought stressed tomato plant was low (3.3 mole H2O m-2 s-1) as compared to control (3.8 mole H2O m-2 s-1).

Transpiration rate of egg plant was very high in control treatment. Transpiration rate gradually decreased with increased incidence of water stress. Transpiration rate was highest in the mid day for the treatment control and 80 per cent of pot capacity irrigation. However, irrigation of 60 and 40 per cent of pot capacity treatments, transpiration reached the peak earlier. Transpiration rate of stressed plant (irrigation of 60 and 40 per cent of pot capacity) remained low throughout the day. (Halil et al., 2001). Indiramma (1994) reported that under the influence of different IW/CPE ratio of soil moisture, transpiration rate was also varied in the sweet potato varieties Sree Nandini and H42. Maximum transpiration was observed at the IW/CPE ratio of 1.5 in both the varieties -2 -1 (0.945 and 1.692 g cm s , respectively) when compared to other levels of soil moisture. Maximum reduction in the transpiration was recorded at the moisture level of 0.25 IW/CPE ratio in both the varieties (0.335 and 0.382 g cm-2 s-1). Meenakumari et al. (2004) in an experiment to study the physiological parameters governing drought tolerance in maize reported that, there was significant reduction in transpiration rate in maize lines under severe stressed condition compared to control. Significantly higher transpiration rate was observed in the rice variety Mahamay (2.68 m mole m-2 s-1) when drought was induced at flowering, minimum transpiration rate was -2 -1 recorded in the variety Indira A-9 (1.02 m mol m s ). Under the non-stressed, maximum transpiration rate was recorded in the variety R-405-A-4 (11.11 m mole m-2 s-1) and minimum -2 -1 was recorded in Shyamala (5.64 m mole m s ) compared to other varieties (Ravindrakumar and Robinson, 2003).

2.4.3 Effect of water stress on stomatal conductance


Srinivas and Bhatt (1991) studied the effect of soil moisture stress during the preflowering stage on stomatal conductance of tomato cultivars. In stressed plants, stomatal -1 -1 conductance was decreased to 2.04 cm s compared to control 3.27 cm s . Top leaves -1 showed stomatal conductance of 5.01 cm s in control which was reduced to 2.60 cm s-1 in stressed condition and in bottom leaves stomatal conductance decreased form 2.63 to 1.49 cm s-1. Similarly, Pirjo et al. (1999) reported that stomatal conductance of tomato and turnip was reduced significantly due to drought stress. Stomatal conductance and intercellular CO2 concentration showed parallel course under drought in tomato. There was rapid decline in stomatal conductance from 0.160 to 0.015 mole H2O m-2s-1 which lead to decrease in internal CO2 from 230 to 112 l l-1 of CO2 (Silk and Fock, 2000). Bhatt et al. (2002) reported that, stomatal conductance varied form 0.09 to 0.12 mole -2 -1 m s in grafted and 100 per cent stressed tomato plants, while in non-grafted it was 0.4 to 0.12 mole m-2s-1 at the same level of water stress. Plants with higher irrigation level of IW/CPE ratio of 1.4 in sweet potato showed higher stomatal conductance of 4.45 mole m-2 s-1 followed by treatment of IW/CPE ratio of -2 -1 1.0(2.22 mole m s ), whereas, lower irrigation level of 0.6 IW/CPE ratio showed less stomatal conductance. They also reported that, as the irrigation level changed there was change in sub-stomatal CO2 concentration in the plant. Maximum internal CO2 was observed in IW/CPE ratio of 1.0 and minimum internal CO2 was observed at 0.6 IW/CPE ratio (Chowdhury and Varma, 1998). Bansal and Nagarajan (1986) screened the potato genotypes in response to water stress to study the stomatal conductance and noticed that stomatal conductance decreased significantly due to stress in all the genotypes. Significantly higher stomatal conductance was observed in genotypes Kufri Chandramuki (4.8 solution number) compared to other genotypes and minimum was recorded in the genotype G-2524 (2.0 solution number). In the sweet potato varieties OP 217 and H-42, stomatal resistance increased drastically when they were induced to water stress at different growth stages. Under the -1 -1 controlled condition, stomatal resistance of varieties was 2.61 and 2.06 s cm , respectively.

Maximum stomatal resistance was recorded when these varieties were induced to water -1 -1 stress during tuber development stage (52.68 and 35.98 s cm , respectively) and minimum stomatal resistance under stressed condition was recorded when these varieties were under -1 -1 stress during tuber initiation phase (20.96 and 26.36 s cm , respectively). Maximum stomatal resistance was recorded, when the varieties Sree Nandini and H 42 were induced to -1 -1 water stress at IW/CPE ratio of 0.25 (58.50 and 46.94 s cm , respectively) and minimum was -1 -1 recorded at IW/CPE ratio of 1.5 (21.20 and 14.96 s cm , respectively) as reported by Indiramma (1994). Janoudi and Widders (1993) reported that, there was significantly lower stomatal conductance under the drought stress in cucumber. When cucumber plants with fruits were imposed to drought stress there was significant reduction in stomatal conductance (108 mole H2O m-2s-1) as compared to irrigated plants (233 mole H2O m-2s-1). Even defruited plants -2 -1 under stress also had lower stomatal conductance (84 mole H2O m s ) when compared to -2 -1 irrigated plant (188 mole H2O m s ).

2.4.4 Effect of water stress on leaf temperature


Indiramma (1994) reported that due to different level of moisture stress, there was differential leaf temperature in the sweet potato varieties Sree Nandini and H 42. Maximum leaf temperature was recorded when the varieties were induced to stress level of 0.25 0 IW/CPE ratio (35.20 and 36.86 C, respectively) when compared to higher irrigation level of 1.5 IW/CPE ratio (33.43 and 33.860C, respectively). Meenakumari et al. (2004) conducted an experiment to study the drought tolerance in maize lines. They reported that as transpiration rate decreased under severe stress leaf 0 temperature increased by 2-4 C. Genotypes having moderate transpiration rate had less increase in leaf temperature. Hybrids had more transpiration rate under severe stress but 0 showed less increase in leaf temperature (0.5 to 1.0 C). This may be due to cooling of leaf surface because of excessive loss of water through transpiration that resulted in lower leaf temperature which helped the plant to tolerate the excessive heat of the sun. Ravindrakumar and Robinson (2003) studied the leaf temperature under drought condition during flowering stage in different varieties of rice. They reported that the leaf temperature of Kranti and Mahamaya were lower than air temperature, while, other varieties increased the leaf temperature under drought condition. Significant increase in the leaf temperature was observed in stressed sunflower plants compared to non-stressed sunflower plants. In the stressed plant, leaf temperature 0 0 was 34.3 C where as in non-stressed plant it was 29.7 C (Balasubramanian and Maheswari, 1991).

2.5 EFFECT OF WATER STRESS ON GROWTH AND GROWTH PARAMETERS


2.5.1 Effect of water stress on fresh and dry matter production.
Milton et al. (1992) in an experiment on the effect of soil moisture on tomato indicated that decrease in watering frequency decreased the dry weight of leaf, stem and root. When tomato plants were irrigated biweekly there was significant reduction in dry weight of leaf, stem, and root (1.52, 0.78 and 1.02 g respectively) when compared to daily irrigation (6.30, 4.58 and 2.45 g, respectively). Srinivas and Bhatt (2000) concluded that the dry weight of stem and leaf of the stressed and mepiquat chloride treated tomato plants were similar to those of irrigated control. However, in stressed tomato plant, the decrease in the stem and leaf dry weight varied between 18-36 per cent. Molla et al. (2003) studied water stress at different phenological stages of tomato, biomass production was less when stress was imposed during fruit ripening and flowering -1 (117 and 131 kg plant , respectively) and were on par with each other.

Halil et al. (2001) noticed 57 per cent reduction in total dry weight, when plants were irrigated with 40 per cent of pot capacity and minimum reduction was observed under irrigation with 80 per cent of pot capacity (95.0%) compared to control in egg plant. Similarly, there was 48 and 57 per cent reduction in shoot and root dry weight when plants were irrigated with 40 per cent of pot capacity compared to control. Chowdhury and Varma (1997) reported that in sweet potato, in treatments with higher irrigation level (IW/CPE ratio of 1.0 and 0.8) the partitioning of dry matter towards shoot was comparatively less compared to treatments with less irrigation i.e. IW/CPE ratio of 0.6, 0.4 and 0.2. Indiramma (1994) reported maximum reduction in the dry matter production when plants were subjected to water stress during tuber initiation phase (18.42%) followed by water stress during maturity phase (21.65%). She also noticed decrease in specific leaf weight during the water stress period in both genotypes as compared to their control. Among the -2 genotypes, H 42 had more specific leaf weight (2.80 mg cm ) compared to genotype OP 217 -2 (2.50 mg cm ) under control condition. There was drastic reduction in the specific leaf weight -2 in case of OP 217 when water stress was induced during tuber maturity (1.0 mg cm ) -2 compared to water stress during tuber development stage (1.70 mg cm ), where as, in H 42 genotype, maximum reduction in specific leaf weight was observed when water stress was -2 induced during tuber development (2.15 mg cm ) compared to water stress during tuber maturity (2.30 mg cm-2). Bhagavanthagoudra and Rokhade (2002) reported that as the irrigation frequency increased there was increase in dry matter production. Significantly higher dry matter production per head was recorded at the IW/CPE ratio of 1.6 (81.67 g) and minimum dry matter was observed at IW/CPE ratio of 1.0 (49.56 g). Bhagavanthagoudra (2000) showed that scheduling of irrigation at 1.6 IW/CPE ratio recorded significantly higher dry matter production per head (81.678 g) compared to irrigation scheduled at 1.0 IW/CPE ratio (49.56 g) in cabbage. In an another study on cabbage it was found that among different irrigation intensities, the best treatment was irrigation at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio with respect to fresh weight of plant (head + leaves) as reported by Mangal et al. (1982). Similarly, Sharma (1985) reported that water supply at 0.25 bar tension (six irrigations) increased the dry matter production significantly over irrigation at 0.63 bars (3 irrigation) and 1.60 bars (one irrigation) in cabbage. Frequent irrigation produced higher dry matter due to increased availability of water and plant nutrients. Janoudi and Widders (1993) reported that, when the cucumber plants with or without fruits had significant difference in dry matter production under stressed and non-stressed conditions. When the cucumber plants with fruits were imposed to water stress they had dry weight of 66.4 g plant-1 when compared to irrigated condition (136.0 g plant-1). Shubhra et al. (2003) studied the water deficit in cluster bean at different growth stages. They reported that, there was significant reduction in the leaf, stem and root dry weights in all the growth period due to moisture stress. Similarly, Garg et al. (1998) studied the influence of water deficit stress on various growth stages of cluster bean genotypes. Data revealed that dry matter production in all the genotypes of cluster bean decreased significantly due to drought at all stages, but the effect was minimum at vegetative stage while there was no significant difference among the genotypes during flowering and pod development stage. Garg et al. (2004) on the contrary, reported, reduction in dry matter production due to drought at vegetative stage than at flowering stages in all the genotypes of moth bean. Same tend was observed by Vyas et al. (2001) in cluster bean.

Hegde (1988) studied the effect of irrigated regimes on sweet pepper and revealed that, irrigation at a soil matric potential of -45 to -65 kPa resulted in significantly higher dry mater production as compared to low frequency of irrigation at -85 kPa. Narender et al. (1997) observed that there was significant reduction in the leaf dry weight, when plants were subjected to water stress at vegetative stage compared to flowering stage. Similar trend was observed even for dry weights of stem and roots in chickpea. Garg et al. ( 2001) studied the influence of irrigation levels on Indian mustard. They reported that, when mustard plants were subjected to different levels of irrigation i.e., IW/CPE ratio of 0.75, 0.50 and 0.30, dry matter production was significantly reduced form higher irrigation level to the lower irrigation level. At IW/CPE ratio of 0.75 dry matter production was higher (1900 kg ha-1) compared to lower irrigation levels and it was minimum at IW/CPE ratio -1 of 0.3 (1440 kg ha ).

2.5.2 Effect of water stress on relative leaf water content (RWC)


Srinivas and Bhatt (2000) observed significant difference in RWC at all growth stage of tomato between stressed mepiquat chloride (125 ppm) treated and unstressed plants. The RWC in the stressed and mepiquat chloride treated plants decreased form 86.4 to 82.3, 88.1 to 82.4 and 87.0 to 77.0 per cent at vegetative, flowering and fruiting stage, respectively after three weeks of water stress. In the stressed tomato plants RWC decreased form 83.6 to 75.8, 88.6 to 77.2 and 82.5 to 71.0 per cent, respectively. In the irrigated plant RWC varied from 89 to 84 per cent at different growth stages. Bhatt et al. (2002) reported in tomato that there was more of RLWC observed in the L. peruvianum and L. cheesmanii used rootstocks for TO 5975. RLWC was 78 and 74 per cent, respectively when compared to other root stock of L. pimpinellifolium (70%) when these plants were stressed for 7 days, and while in non-grafted plant TO 5975 it was 71 per cent. Halil et al. (2001) conducted an experiment to study the influence of water deficit on egg plant. Significant difference in the RWC was observed under various water regimes. Significantly lower RWC was observed in 60 per cent irrigation of pot capacity (84%) compared to control (96%). Indiramma (1994) reported that, RWC was decreased due to water stress at different growth stages of sweet potato. They reported that RWC in control was 75.77 per cent in both genotypes OP 217 and H-42 and maximum reduction in the RWC was observed when water stress was induced during tuber initiation stage (67.55 and 70.19 %, respectively) compared to water stress at other stages. Upreti et al. (2000) reported that under irrigated conditions, the leaf RWC value did not differ much among the cultivars of pea. But following increase in duration of water stress, the leaf RWC declined progressively in all the cultivars of pea and influence of stress was more evident at flowering stage. Kumar and Elston (1993) studied the RWC in Brassica species in response to water stress. Drastic reduction in RWC was observed in specie B. napus (69.0%) compared to its control (81.0%) whereas, in B. juneca at the end of stressed period RWC was 74.0 per cent compared to control (78.0%). RWC decreased significantly in water stressed plant at both vegetative and flowering stages of moth bean. In general, early flowering genotypes maintained higher RWC than late flowering genotypes under water stress condition as reported by Garg et al. (2004). Same trend was observed by Vyas et al. (2001) in cluster bean. Garg et al. (1998) reported that in cluster bean RWC decreased significantly in water stressed plants and varied from 42.94 to 45.69 per cent at vegetative phase, 48.97 to 53.25 per cent at flowering stage and 39.82 to 47.79 per cent at pod formation stage. Thus, plant water status under stress was more favorable at flowering stage as compared to other two

growth stages. Among the genotypes, HFG-182 showed maximum reduction in RWC compared to other genotypes of cluster bean. Water stress treatments led to gradual decline in leaf RWC in french bean cultivars. Among the cultivars, the response to stress in term of RWC varied. The stressed plants of tolerant cv Contender maintained relatively balanced RWC. Maximum RWC was maintained by cv Contender (84.6%) compared to other cultivars at 3 days of stress duration. As the stress duration increased, there was decline in RWC. At higher duration of 9 days of water stress cv. Contender maintained higher RWC (57.2%) and least RWC was maintained at 9 days of water stress in cv. Arka Suvidha (41.2%) as reported by Upreti and Murti (2005). Narender et al. (1997) reported that, significant difference in RWC at different phenological stages of chickpea. Significantly higher RWC was observed when the plants were subjected to water stress at vegetative stage compared to flowering and 50 per cent pod formation stage.

2.5.3 Effect of water stress on leaf area


Leaf area is a function of cell expansion and is again depends upon turgidity of cell. Rana and Kalloo (1989) reported that under water deficit condition there was significant difference in leaf area per plant among both resistant and susceptible genotypes of tomato. 2 -1 L. cheesmanii a resistant genotype had maximum leaf area of 5331 cm plant compared to other genotypes and among the susceptible genotypes, Sel-5 had maximum leaf area of 1416 cm2 plant-1. There was significant reduction in leaf area and specific leaf area in tomato when 2 irrigated at different water frequency. Leaf area recorded was 398 cm when irrigated 2 2 biweekly compared to daily (1330 cm ) irrigation and weekly (888 cm ). Same trend was 2 -1 observed in case of specific leaf area of tomato. The specific leaf area was 211 cm g for 2 -1 2 -1 daily watering frequency, 252 cm g for weekly water frequency and 260 cm g for biweekly water frequency (Milton et al., 1992). Bhatt et al. (2002) observed significant difference in leaf area in both grafted and nongrafted tomato plant at different levels of stress. In grafted plant, there was maximum 2 -1 reduction in leaf area at 100 per cent water stress (2295 cm plant ) when compared to 2 -1 control (2350 cm plant ). Same trend was observed in non-grafted TO 5975 tomato 2 -1 genotype at 100 per cent water stress leaf area (1303.5 cm plant ) when compared to 2 -1 control (1884.5 cm plant ). Bhagavanthagoudra and Rokhade (2002) reported that as the irrigation frequency increased there was increase in leaf area in cabbage. Significant maximum leaf area was 2 obtained at IW/CPE ratio of 1.6 (222.57 cm ) and minimum leaf area was recorded at IW/CPE 2 ratio of 1.0 (179.92 cm ). Results of Upreti et al. (2000) indicated that water stress treatments lead to significant reduction in leaf area in all the cultivars of pea. Decline was greater with stress at flowering than at vegetative stage. Similarly, Kumar and Elston (1993) observed significant reduction in leaf area in Brassica spp due to water stress. Significantly more leaf area was observed in 2 -1 2 -1 Brassica juncea (106.8 cm plant ) compared to Brassica nepus (70.2 cm plant ) under 2 -1 stress compared to their control (135 and 81.5 cm plant , respectively). Janoudi and Widders (1993) reported significant difference in leaf area when cucumber plant with or without fruits under water deficit condition. When the cucumber plants 2 under irrigation with fruits, showed significantly more leaf area of 10,444 cm compared to 2 stressed plants (6,250 cm ), whereas, in plants without fruits showed significantly maximum 2 2 leaf area with irrigation (15,410 cm ) compared to drought stressed plants (8,575 cm ). Naidu et al. (2001) reported that leaf area of all genotypes of green gram was reduced drastically under drought stress. This decrease in leaf area was due to less elongation and enlargement of cell accompanied with low photosynthetic rate. The genotype which had higher leaf area under non-stressed condition was severely affected due to drought

stress. Genotype K 851 showed less per cent reduction (57.8%) in leaf area under drought stress whereas, maximum per cent reduction in leaf area was observed in the genotype, Lam M2 (77.4%). Narender et al. (1997) observed significant reduction in leaf area when plants were subjected to water stress at different phenological stages in chickpea. Maximum leaf area reduction was observed when the plants were subjected to water stress at vegetative stage compared to flowering and 50 per cent pod formation stage.

2.5.4 Effect of water stress on leaf area index


Banerjee and Saha (1985) studied the effect of irrigation regimes on leaf area index of potato. They reported maximum leaf area index in the irrigation at soil moisture tension of 0.3 atm. (2.70) and minimum was recorded in 0.9 atm (2.54). Haloi and Baldev (1986) noticed significantly higher leaf area index when irrigated between 45-75 days after sowing compared to no irrigation in chickpea in various sowing dates and minimum leaf area index was observed in the no irrigation treatment. Panda et al. (2004) reported that leaf area index of mustard increased progressively up to 72 DAS and then declined at 102 DAS in SEJ-2 and Pusa bold varieties. There was linear increase in leaf area index up to 72 DAS and maximum leaf area index was observed in the irrigation at flowering and at pod development stage (2.15) then it declined at 102 DAS (1.55) in the same treatment and minimum leaf area index was observed in treatment without irrigation.

2.5.5 Effect of water stress on leaf expansion rate


Halil et al. (2001) studied the influence of water deficit on leaf expansion rate of egg plant. They reported that the relative leaf expansion rate (RLER) of control was almost four times higher than the plants which received irrigation of 40 per cent of pot capacity. Indiramma (1994) reported that leaf expansion rate of sweet potato varieties H 42 and OP 217 was considerably affected by the levels of soil moisture and clear decline trend was observed with decreased level of soil moisture. Kumar and Elston (1993) studied the leaf expansion of brassica species in response to water stress and found that B. juncea had more leaf expansion compared to B. napus under the stress condition.

2.5.6 Effect of water stress on light transmission rate (LTR)


Thakur et al. (2000) studied the reversal of water stress effect on the performance of Capsicum annum. LTR increased significantly with increase in water deficits from 25 to 75 per cent. Under the controlled condition LTR was 55 per cent and it was increased to 85 per cent in 75 per cent water deficit condition. Significant difference in the LTR in the chickpea which was exposed to different irrigation treatment. Maximum LTR was recorded in the no irrigation treatment (4.43%) and minimum was recorded in the irrigation treatment at 45 DAS (4.19%) as reported by Haloi and Baldev (1986).

2.5.7 Effect of water stress on crop growth rate (CGR)


Banerjee and Saha (1985) studied the effect of irrigation at different soil moisture tension in potato. Data revealed that maximum CGR was recorded in the irrigation at soil moisture tension of 0.3 atm (1.42 g ha-1 day-1) and CGR at 0.6 atm tension was significantly -1 -1 -1 -1 greater (1.39 g ha day ) than 0.9 atm (1.32 g ha day ). Chowdhury and Varma (1997) studied the dry matter production and partitioning of sweet potato in response to different levels of irrigation. Data revealed that the CGR was significantly increased between 60 and 90 days after planting in all the levels of irrigation. CGR between 60 and 90 days after planting was highest with maximum irrigation level of

IW/CPE ratio of 1.0 (13.60 and 17.38 g m day , respectively) which was subsequently declined with decrease in irrigation and minimum CGR was observed at IW/CPE ratio 0.2 at both 60 and 90 days after planting (3.06 and 2.13 g m-2 day-1, respectively). The CGR at 120 days after planting was declined in IW/CPE ratio of 1.0 and 0.8 and was at par with other treatments. In general, the CGR of mustard increased at a faster rate during 42-72 days after sowing (DAS) as compared to during 12-27 DAS and 72 -102 DAS of crop growth. The influence of irrigation on CGR was significant during 42-72 DAS and 72-102 DAS. Irrigation water applied to mustard at flowering and pod development stage increased the CGR by 81.1 per cent as compared to unirrigated crop during 42-72 DAS. Even at 72-102 DAS the CGR value was 22.9 per cent more in irrigation at flowering and pod development stage as compared to no irrigation. CGR of Pusa bold did not differ significantly with SEJ-2 during early stage of growth i.e. 12-72 DAS but, CGR of Pusa bold was significantly higher than SEJ-2 during later stages except during 42-72 DAS (Panda et al., 2004).

-2

-1

2.5.8 Effect of water stress on relative growth rate (RGR)


Haloi and Baldev (1986) reported that, there was significantly higher RGR in the irrigation at 75 DAS (34.02) in chickpea compared to other irrigation treatments and minimum RGR was observed in the no irrigation treatment (23.90). Singh and Singh (1994) studied the RGR in sugarcane under the moisture stress. They reported that under normal moisture Co 1148 showed a higher and steady trend of RGR, while CoS 770 showed declining trend until five months of age followed by an increase in the sixth month and then a rapid fall was observed. Co 1148, on the other hand, showed higher RGR under stress condition, which showed its greater ability of drought tolerance.

2.5.9 Effect of water stress on net assimilation rate (NAR)


Haloi and Baldev (1986) studied the effect of irrigation on NAR of chickpea. They reported that, there was significantly higher NAR (42.7 mg dm-2 day-1) in the irrigation at 75 DAS and minimum NAR was recorded in the no irrigation. The influence of irrigation on NAR was significant during 42-72 DAS and 72-102 DAS in mustard. Mustard irrigated twice each at flowering and pod development stage registered a higher value of NAR than the crop with no irrigation. The least NAR was marked in unirrigated crop irrespective of the crop growth stages. NAR of SEJ-2 was significantly higher than Pusa bold during 12-27 DAS and 27-102 DAS. But they did not differ significantly during 27-42 DAS and 42-72 DAS. However, the highest values of NAR 12.9 and 10.8 mg m-2 day-1, were recorded by SEJ-2 and Pusa bold during 12-27 DAS, respectively. At each stages Pusa bold showed a lower value of NAR than SEJ-2 (Panda et al., 2004). Singh and Singh (1994) studied the NAR in sugarcane under the moisture stress. They reported that Co1148 recorded higher NAR than CoS 770 which increased steadily with the age of plants grown under normal moisture condition. Under stress condition, it declined up to five months of age. With the on set of monsoon, NAR increased rapidly in Co 1148 up to six months of age while, in CoS 770 it decreased.

2.6 EFFECT OF HEAT STRESSS ON POLLEN VAIBILITY


Muthuvel et al. (1999) conducted experiment to screen 20 tomato genotypes for high temperature stress during kharif in glass house condition with 44/230C day/night temperature. Data revealed that there was significant difference in pollen viability in different genotypes. Maximum per cent pollen viability was recorded in LE 1265 (99.27%) and it was on par with LE 1259, LE 1253 and LE 1258 (98.40, 97.67 and 97.53 %, respectively) and minimum pollen viability was observed in the genotype LE 1275 (86.37%). Ram et al. (1993) studied the pollen viability in tomato under low temperature regimes. They reported that production of viable pollen declined under low temperature (4 to 25.60C) regime in all varieties. Maximum pollen viability was recorded in the variety Balkam (64.2%) under low temperature regime and minimum pollen viability was recorded in the

variety Pusa 120 (14.3%). Under normal temperature regime of 10.9 to 34.6 C maximum pollen viability was recorded in the homozygous breeding line 699 x Balkan B-3-2-2-1 (89.4%) and minimum pollen viability was recorded in the variety Pusa 120 (51.0%). Talwar et al. (2002) studied the effect of temperature stress on pollen germination in 0 0 groundnut. They reported that, heat stress at both 40 C and 45 C for 30 minutes improved germination with time in all the genotypes viz., ICG 1236, ICGS 44 and CHICO. There was 50 to 75 per cent pollen germination when the pollen was stressed at 400C and 45-76 per 0 cent pollen germination was observed when the pollen was stressed at 45 C in these genotypes after seven hours of incubation. In case of non-stressed pollen of these genotypes germination was up to 85-90 per cent after one hour of incubation

III.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Drought is an inevitable and recurring feature of our semi-arid tropics and despite our improved ability to predict their onset, duration and impact, crop scientists are still concerned about it as it remain the single most important factor affecting the yield potential of crop species. Although tomato is generally grown under irrigated conditions, its cultivation as a rainfed crop has gained importance particularly in semi-arid region. It is therefore imperative to obtain information on the drought resistance mechanisms of such types to enable us to incorporate these traits in breeding programme for crop improvement. Hence, three field experiments on Drought tolerance studies in tomato were undertaken during 2003-2005 at Pomology unit, Kitture Rani Channamma College of Horticulture, Arabhavi. The details of the materials used and techniques adopted during the course of investigation are described in this chapter.

3.1

EXPERIMENTAL SITE

The experiments were conducted in the Pomology Unit of Kittur Rani Channamma College of Horticulture, Arabhavi, Belgaum district, Karnataka. Arabhavi is situated in Northern dry zone of Karnataka state at 1615 north latitude, 7545 east longitude and at an altitude of 612.03 meters above mean sea level. Arabhavi, comes under zone-3 of region2 of agro-climatic zones of Karnataka. The meteorological data during the period of experiments, as recorded at the meteorological observatory of Agricultural Research Station, Arabhavi are presented in Appendix-I. The mean temperature during first experiential period 0 0 varied from 30.9 C (November 2003) to 17.9 C (January 2004). The mean temperature 0 during the second trial varied from 37.2 C (May 2005) to 22.60C (July 2005). The first experiment received no rainfall during the cropping period.

3.2

SOIL CHARACTERISTICS

The experimental site consisted of medium deep black soil. The chemical properties of the soils are presented in the Appendix-II.

3.3

DETAILS OF EXPERIMENT

3.3.1 Design and layout


The experiments were laid out in a factorial randomised block design with fifty genotypes and two replications. The experimental field was brought to fine tilth by repeated ploughing. Farmyard manure was incorporated into soil at the rate of 20 tonnes per hectare. Ridges were prepared at a spacing of 60 cm. Healthy and uniform seedlings were transplanted on one side of the ridges with a spacing of 60 cm between the plants. Regular irrigation and hand weeding operations were carried out. Three weeks after transplanting, plants were supported to galvanised wire which was tied to bamboo poles. Other cultivation operations including plant protection measures were carried out as per recommended package of practices of University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad (Anon., 2002).

3.3.2 Fertiliser application


Fertilizers at the rate 60 kg N, 50 kg P2O5 and 30 kg K2O/ha were applied uniformly to all the genotypes. Half the dose of nitrogen and entire dose of phosphorous and potassium were applied before transplanting of seedlings and remaining 50 per cent of nitrogen was applied four weeks after transplanting.

3.3.3 Experimental plot size


50 genotypes and 20 plants of each genotypes were accommodated in a plot size of 2 2 360 m . The total area of the experimental site was 1440 m .

3.3.4 Treatment imposition


Drought was imposed two weeks of transplanting to all the genotypes in both the IW/CPE ratio of 0.40 and 1.20 treatments. Furrow irrigation was given when the pan evaporation reading reached 41.66 mm (1.20 IW/CPE ratio) and 125 mm (0.40 IW/CPE ratio). 3.3.4.1 Scheduling of irrigation and method The quantity of water to be irrigated through furrow was measured with the help of Vnotch installed at plot head. Accordingly the measured quantity of water was applied to the plots as per the irrigation schedules. It was applied based on IW/CPE ratio, where in depth of irrigation (IW) was maintained constantly at 50 mm. Soon after reaching the particular ratio based on the cumulative pan evaporation (CPE), irrigation was given to particular treatment. In 0.40 IW/CPE ratio treatment crop was irrigated for every 125 mm of CPE where as in 1.20 IW/CPE ratio irrigation was given for every 41.66 mm of CPE. 3.3.4.2 Treatment details Experiment I. There were 100 treatment combinations with 50 genotypes and two irrigation treatments in each replication Genotypes:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Irrigation levels:

Alco Basa Arka Abhay Arka Alok Arka Ashish Arka Meghali GK-1 GK-2 GK-3 IIHR 2274 Megha (L-15) Nandi PKM-1 PR-1 Punjab Chhauhara S-22 Sankranthi Vaibhav L-1 L-2 L-3 L-5 L-6 L-10 L-10 (P) L-11

26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

L-12 L-13 L-15 L-16 L-17 L-18 L-19 L-26 L-27 L-28 L-29 L-30 L-31 L-32 L-33 L-33-1 L-34 L-34-1 L-35 L-37 L-38 L-38-1 L-40-3 L-43 L-44

T1= 0.40 pan co-efficient (IW/CPE) Number of replications: Two

T2= 1.20 pan co-efficient (IW/CPE)

Experiment II Based on the first year experimental results, 11 genotypes were selected and tested at two irrigation levels. Among 11 genotypes, eight were drought tolerant, two were drought susceptible and one was local check. There were two irrigation treatments in each replication. Genotypes: Drought tolerant genotypes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 1. 2. Check 1. Irrigation levels: T1= 0.40 pan co-efficient (IW/CPE) T2= 1.20 pan co-efficient (IW/CPE) Number of replications: Two Experiment III Eleven genotypes, which were selected for experiment II were transplanted to raise bed to study the root characters under two irrigation levels. Arka Meghali GK3 IIHR 2274 L-10 (P) L-30 L-38-1 L-40-3 Punjab Chauhara S-22 L-17 L-28

Drought Susceptible genotypes

3.4 Source and supply of materials:


Sl. No 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Name of the genotype GK3 IIHR 2274 L-10 (P) L-30 L-38-1 L-40-3 Punjab Chauhara S-22 L-17 L-28 Arka Meghali Source Seeds Seeds Seeds Seeds Seeds Seeds Seeds Seeds Seeds Seeds Seeds Industry/University Dept. of Horticulture, UAS, Dharwad IIHR, Bangalore Dept. of Horticulture, UAS, Dharwad Dept. of Horticulture, UAS, Dharwad Dept. of Horticulture, UAS, Dharwad Dept. of Horticulture, UAS, Dharwad PAU, Ludhiana, Dept. of Horticulture, UAS, Dharwad Dept. of Horticulture, UAS, Dharwad Dept. of Horticulture, UAS, Dharwad Dept. of Horticulture, UAS, Dharwad

Fig.1. Plan of layout of the first experiment

Fig.2. Plan of layout of the second experiment

3.5

COLLECTION OF EXPERIMENTAL DATA

Five randomly chosen plants in each genotype were labeled and used for recording different morphological, biochemical and yield parameters at 45, 75 days after transplanting and at harvest. The mean of five plants was taken for analysis. The characters studied and techniques adopted to record the observation are given below

3.5.1 Morphological characters


3.5.1.1 Plant height (cm) The height of the plant was measured from ground level to the tip of the shoot at 45, 75 days after transplanting (DAT) and at harvest and average height was calculated and expressed in cm. 3.5.1.2 Number of branches per plant Number of primary branches on main stem were counted at 45 and 75 DAT. 3.5.1.3 Stem girth (mm) The girth of the main stem at ground level was measured using vernier calliperse at 45 and 75 DAT and average girth was calculated and expressed in cm.

3.5.2 Dry matter production and its partitioning


Three plants of each genotype in each replication were uprooted and partitioned in to their component parts viz., stem leaves, root and fruits. These were air dried and then transferred to hot air oven at 800C for 72 hours (until constant weight obtained) and their dry weight was recorded. The sum of the mean dry weight of all the plant parts was taken separately. The dry weight of different plant parts and total dry weight was recorded at 45, 75 -1 DAT and at harvest and the mean was expressed as g plant .

3.5.2.1 Leaf area Leaf area was determined by using leaf disc method. Twenty five leaf discs having a known diameter were collected randomly from fully expanded leaves of the plant. The midrib on leaf lamina was avoided while randomly the leaf discs thus collected and rest of the leaves were dried separately in hot air oven at 800C for 72 hours (until constant weight were obtained). The dry weight of the leaf discs and rest of the leaves was recorded and leaf area was calculated by using the following formula given by Vivekannadan et al. (1972).

Leaf area (dm 2 plant - 1 ) =


2

aXw 1 x b 100

Where a = Leaf area (dm ) of 25 leaf discs b = Dry weight (g) of 25 leaf discs w = Dry weight (g) of all the leaves including 25 discs weight

3.5.3 Growth parameters


Various growth parameters were calculated from the dry weight of different plant parts and leaf area as described below. 3.5.3.1 Absolute growth rate (AGR) It is the dry matter production per unit time (g.day ) and was calculated by using the following formula.
-1

AGR =

(W W ) 2 1 (t t ) 2 1

W 1= Dry weight of the plant at time t1 W 2= Dry weight of the plant at time t2 3.5.3.2 Relative growth rate (RGR) It is the rate of increase in the dry weight per unit dry weight (mg. present and was calculated by using the formula of Blackman (1919). m-2.day-1) already

RGR =

(logeW logeW ) 2 1 (t t ) 2 1

W 1= Dry weight of the plant at time t1 W 2= Dry weight of the plant at time t2 3.5.3.3 Crop growth rate (CGR) It is the rate of dry matter production per unit ground area per unit time. It was -2 -1 calculated by using the formula given by Watson (1952) and expressed as g.m .day .

CGR =

(W W ) 1 2 1 X (t t ) A 2 1

W 1= Dry weight of the plant at time t1 W 2= Dry weight of the plant at time t2 A = Land area

3.5.3.4 Net assimilation rate (NAR) It is the rate of dry weight increase per unit leaf area per unit time (mg.m .day ) and was calculated as suggested by Gregory (1926).
-2 -1

NAR =

(W - W ) (logeL logeL ) 2 1 X 2 1 (t t ) (L L ) 2 1 2 1

Where L1 and W 1 = Leaf area (m2) and dry weight of the plant (g) respectively at time t1. L2 and W 2 = Leaf area (m ) and dry weight of the plant (g) respectively at time t2. 3.5.3.5 Specific leaf weight (SLW) The specific leaf weight (mg.dm-2) indicates the leaf thickness and was determined by the following formula given by Radford (1967).
2

SLW =

Leaf dry weight (mg) Leaf area (dm 2 )

3.5.3.6 Specific leaf area (SLA) The specific leaf area was determined by the following formula.

SLA =

Leaf area (cm 2 ) Leaf dry weight (mg)

3.5.3.7 Leaf area duration (LAD) Leaf area duration (days) is the integral of leaf area index (LAI) over the growth period. LAD for various growth periods was worked out as per the formula given by Power et al. (1967).

LAD =

L + [L( )] i i + 1 x (t - t ) 2 1 2
th

Where Li = LAI at i stage L(i+1) = LAI at (i+1)th stage t2-t1= Time interval between i and (i+1) stage (day) 3.5.3.8 Biomass duration (BMD) Biomass duration (kg.day ) was calculated using the formula given by Sestak et al. (1971).
-1 th th

BMD =

TDMi + TDM (i + 1) x (t - t ) 2 1 2
th

Where TDMi = Total dry matter at ith stage TDM(i+1) = Total dry matter at (i+1) stage t2-t1= Time interval between ith and (i+1)th stage (day) 3.5.3.9 Relative leaf water content (RLWC) The relative leaf water content was determined by the method suggested by Bars and Weatherly (1962). The leaves were sampled at fixed time of the day. Fully opened physiologically functional leaf from top was selected. Fresh weight of the samples was recorded by detaching the petiole. The leaf samples were kept in the water under diffused light for overnight to attain turgidity. The turgid weight of sample was recorded. After oven

drying at 72 C for 48 hours, dry weight of sample was recorded. The relative leaf water content was estimated and expressed in per cent by using the equation given below.

RLWC (%) =

Fresh weight - Dry weight x 100 Turgid weight - Dry weight

3.5.3.10 Per cent Light transmission (PLT) Solar radiation was recorded both at the top and beneath the crop. The light transmission ratio was worked by using the formula given by Yoshida et al. (1972).

PLT (%) =

Light intensity under crop canopy x 100 Light intensity over crop canopy

3.5.3.11 Relative leaf expansion rate (RLER) Relative leaf expansion rate was measured by taking increase in leaf length/ leaf breadth at alternate days, till it gets constant in its measurement. Then RLER is calculated using the formula.

RLER =

(logeL logeL ) 2 1 (t t ) 2 1

Where L1 = Leaf length/breadth at time t1 L2 = Leaf length/breadth at time t2

3.5.4 Yield parameters


3.5.4.1 Number of fruits per plant Number of fruits harvested from five tagged plants at each picking (harvest) were counted and total number of fruits per plant was calculated. 3.5.4.2 Yield (kg.plant-1 & t.ha-1) The total weight of fruits harvested from five tagged plants of all six picking was added and average yield per plant was worked out and expressed in kilogram per plant. Later the yield per hectare was calculated and expressed as tons per hector.

3.5.5 Fruit parameters


Five randomly selected fruits from each of five tagged plants were used for recording observations on fruit quality parameters. 3.5.5.1 Polar diameter of the fruit (mm) Polar diameter was measured from stalk end to blossom end of fruit by using vernier calliperse and average of 5 fruits was worked out and expressed in centimeters. 3.5.5.2 Equatorial diameter of the fruit (mm) The fruit breadth at maximum bulged portion was measured by using vernier callipers and average of 5 fruits was worked out and expressed in centimeters. 3.5.5.3 Pericarp thickness (mm) Fruits were cut in middle at horizontal axis and thickness of pericarp was measured by using vernier calliperse and expressed in centimeters. 3.5.5.4 Number of locules per fruit Fruits were cut in horizontal axis and number of locules were counted. 3.5.5.5 Total soluble solids ( Brix) Drops of juice extracted from cut fruit was used to determine total soluble solids (TSS) with the help of (0 to 32 Brix) hand refractometer at room temperature and the value was noted in Brix.

3.5.5.6 Average fruit weight (g) Average fruit weight was calculated by adding the weight of five fruits from each of five tagged plants at second harvest and divided it by total number of fruits and expressed in grams per fruit. 3.5.5.7 Average pulp weight (g) Average pulp weight was taken by cutting the fruit middle portion in horizontal axis and pericarp and seed was removed. Then the pulp of five fruits was taken and divided it by total number of fruits and expressed in grams per fruit. 3.5.5.9 Fruit volume (cc) The fruit volume was estimated by water displacement method. Individual fruits were immersed in thousand milliliters of water and the amount of water displaced was measured and volume was worked out per fruit and expressed in cubic centimeter. 3.5.5.10 Number of seeds per fruit The seeds from five fruits were extracted by fermentation method and number of seeds was counted and the mean number of seeds per fruit was calculated. 3.5.5.11 Number of pubescence Pubescence count was done as given by Maiti et al., (1979). Healthy leaf was taken and chlorophyll was bleached out using DMSO. Intact leaf sample was kept in 7 ml of DMSO 0 for 3 hr. at 65 C. Then leaf was removed from the dimethyl sulphoxide (DMSO) and leaf was made into pieces of 0.5 x 0.5 cm then observed under microscope of area 0.284 cm2 and pubescence was counted both on adaxial and abaxial leaf surface and expressed as number of pubescence per cm2.

3.5.6 Biophysical parameters


Biophysical parameters viz., stomatal conductance, leaf temperature and photosynthesis were measured on the adaxial surface of the fully expanded top leaf at 45 DAT using the steady state porometer (LICOR model LI 1600). These measurements were taken between 10 am to 12 noon on the sampling date. Stomatal conductance was expressed -1 0 as cmsec , leaf temperature was expressed as C and photosynthesis was expressed as -1 -1 mmoleCO2m s . The leaf temperature was measured directly from the same leaf used for stomatal conductance and photosynthesis. The leaf temperature was recorded using the inbuilt thermocouple of the steady state porometer pressed against the adaxial surface of the leaf.

3.5.7 Pollen viability test


Flowers were collected from the field in the morning hours (between 6.3 to 8.0 0 0 0 am)and given the heat treatment of 25 C, 30 C and 35 C in laboratory for 15 minutes and the pollen viability was tested using the acetocarmine method. In this method a drop of acetocarmine was placed on a clean slide and added the heat stressed pollens then teased with needle and covered with covering slip. Then the slide was heated gently with a alcohol lamp. Applied pressure to the cover slip to flatten the material and edge of the cover slip were sealed with wax and examined under microscope. Fertile pollen grains were stained red and sterile ones not stained.

3.5.8 Biochemical parameters


Following biochemical parameters were estimated at 75 DAT in all the genotypes. 3.5.8.1 Ascorbic acid (mg.100g ) Samples of the red ripe fruits were analysed for the ascorbic acid content, using 2,6Dichlorophenol Indophenol dye titrimetrically as per Sadasivam and Manickam (1996). Two grams of sample was blended with 10 ml of 4 per cent oxalic acid and filtered through muslin cloth. An aliquat of extract (2ml) of the sample was titrated against 2,6-Dichlorophenol indophenol dye till the pink end point which persisted for at least 15 seconds (TV2). Similar
-1

procedure was followed against acid mixture to get blank titre value and against standard solution made in 4 per cent oxalic acid to get standard titre value (TV1)

Ascorbic acid (mg) Ascorbic acid content in standard TV2 Total sample volume x = x x 100 -1 ) (mg.100g ml of aliquat TV1 Weight of sample
3.5.5.11 Lycopene (mg.100g-1) Five grams of fruit sample was crushed and extracted repeatedly with acetone until residue becomes colourless. This acetone extract was transferred to separating funnel containing 15 ml of petroleum ether and mixed gently. To this, 5 ml of 5 per cent sodium sulphate solution in water was added and mixed thoroughly by shaking. This aided in separating out any water present in the separating funnel and helped to form a clear extract. The lower phase (petroleum ether extract containing carotenoid) was transferred to another separating funnel to remove any residual acetone and finally the extract was transferred to amber coloured bottle. The extraction procedure with petroleum ether was repeated till the acetone phase becomes colourless. Acetone phase was discarded and small quantity of anhydrous sodium sulphate was added to the petroleum ether extract. Then petroleum ether extract was transferred to 25 ml volumetric flask and diluted to 25 ml with petroleum ether and from this, 5 ml was again diluted to 25 ml with petroleum ether for colour measurement. Optical density (OD) of the extract was measured at 503 nm in UV-VIS-spectrophotometer using petroleum ether as a blank (Ranganna, 1986). Lycopene content of the sample was calculated by using the following formula.

Lycopene 3.1206 x OD of sample x volume made up x dilution = x 100 (mg/100 g) Weight of sample x 1000
3.5.5.12 Proline (g.g of fresh weight) Two hundred and fifty mg of leaf sample was taken in pestle and morter and 10 ml of 3 per cent sulphosalicylic acid was added and crushed and filtered through What man No. 2 filter paper. Extraction procedure was repeated once again. From the extractant 2 ml was pipetted into a test tube, to which 2 ml of glacial acetic acid and 2 ml of acid ninhydrin was added. Then test tube was boiled on hot water bath at 1000C for one hour. Then transferred the test tube to ice bath to terminate the reaction. Then 4 ml of toluene was added and shaked the test tube gently and transferred the content to the separating funnel and collected pink coloured layer. Optical density of the extract was read at 520 nm. A blank was maintained with the reactants except the leaf extract Proline content of the sample was calculated by using the formula given by Bates et al. (1973).
-1

Proline ( g.g 1 of fresh weight) =

g proline /mL x mL toluene


115.5

5 g sample

Where 115.5 is the molecular weight of proline. 3.5.5.12 Chlorophyll (mg.g fresh weight) Chlorophyll content of leaf tissue was estimated as suggested by Hiscox and Israelstom (1971). Hundred mg of freshly harvested and cleaned leaf was taken and cut in to small pieces. Cut pieces were transferred in to test tube containing 7 ml of dimethyl sulphoxide (DMSO) and heated the tested tube at 650C for three hour in oven. Extract was collected by discarding the leaf sample. Then volume was made up to 10 ml with DMSO. Optical density of the extract was measured at 645 and 663 using DMSO as blank.
-1

Chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b and total chlorophyll were calculated using the following formulae.

Chlorophyll a = 12.7 (A663) - 2.69 (A645) x Chlorophyll b = 22.9 (A645) - 4.68 (A663) x

v 1000 x w x a v 1000 x w x a v 1000 x w x a

Total chlorophyll = 20.2 (A645) + 8.02 (A663)


Where v = Final volume of the chlorophyll extract (ml) w = Fresh weight of the sample (g) a = Path length of light (1 cm)

3.6

STATISTICAL AND BIOMETRICAL ANALYSIS

Fishers method of analysis of variance was applied for the analysis and interpretation of the experimental data as given by Panse and Sukhatme (1967). The level of significance used in the F and t tests was of P=0.05. The results were presented and discussed in the text at this probability level.

IV. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS


The results of the experiments conducted during 2003-2005 at Pomology Unit, K.R.C. College of Horticulture, Arabhavi on "Drought tolerance studies in tomato" are presented in this chapter.

4.1

FIELD EXPERIMENT I: EVALUATION OF GERMPLASM FOR DROUGHT RESISTANCE.

TOMATO

4.1.1 Morphological and phenological characters of tomato genotypes


4.1.1.1 Plant height (cm) (c.f. Table 1) Significant differences were observed for plant height between the genotypes and different irrigation schedules at all the phenological stages viz., 45, 75 DAT and at harvest. At 45 DAT, irrespective of the irrigation levels, genotype Arka Meghali recorded significantly maximum plant height (42.91) compared to all other genotypes, however, it was on par with S-22 (40.66). The plant height was significantly lowest (22.13) in the genotype L2. The interaction effect between the genotype and irrigation levels was found significant. Maximum plant height was recorded in Arka Meghali and L-30 (47.00) and these were on par with S-22 (45.95) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and minimum plant height was recorded in the genotype L-43 (16.02) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. Irrespective of the irrigation levels, genotype Nandi had maximum plant height (48.69) at 75 DAT and it was on par with L-26 (48.50), Arka Alok (48.38), L-35 (47.75), L-30 (46.81) and Arka Megahli (46.38). Significantly minimum plant height was recorded in the genotype L2 (29.38). Interaction between the genotypes and irrigation levels were found significant. Maximum plant height was observed in the genotype L-26 (58.75) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and minimum was recorded in the genotype L-2 (25.01) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. At harvest, irrespective of the irrigation levels, genotype GK-3 recorded significantly more plant height (63.13) and significantly minimum plant height was observed in the genotype L-2 (33.68). The interaction between the genotype and irrigation levels was found significant. The genotype GK-3 had significantly maximum plant height (72.75) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and minimum was recorded in the genotype L-2 (30.60) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. Among the irrigation levels, significantly maximum plant height was observed in the 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (36.63, 44.91 and 52.21 at 45, 75 DAT and at harvest, respectively) compared to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (29.58, 37.95 and 44.17 cm, at 45, 75 DAT and at harvest, respectively). 4.1.1.2 Stem girth (mm) (c.f. Table 2) Significant differences in stem girth was observed among the genotypes, irrigation levels and their interaction at different phenological stages. At 45 DAT, maximum stem girth was recorded in the genotype Nandi (11.21) and was on par with Arka Ashish (11.04) and followed by Arka Alok (10.49), L-19 (10.47) and L-38 (10.19). The stem girth was significantly lowest in the genotype L-2 (6.91) irrespective of the irrigation levels. Significant interaction effects were found between the genotypes and different pan evaporation ratios. Arka Ashish exhibited maximum stem girth of 13.02 and was on par with Arka Alok (11.98) followed by Nandi (11.86) and L-31-1 (11.71) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio, where as significantly lesser stem girth was recorded in the genotype L-15 (5.49) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. At 75 DAT, irrespective of the irrigation levels, genotype GK-2 recorded the maximum stem girth of 15.40 mm and it was on far with Arka Ashish (15.29), L-33-1 (15.17) and Punjab Chhauhara (15.10). The stem girth was significantly lowest in the genotype L-31 (8.52). Interaction effects between different genotypes and pan evaporation ratios were found significant. Maximum stem girth was recorded in the genotype L-19 (17.85) and this was on par with the genotype GK-2 (17.45), L-32 (16.93) and L-6 (16.59) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio. While, minimum stem girth was noticed in the genotype L-31 (7.15) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio.

Table 1. Plant height (cm) as influenced by irrigation levels in tomato genotypes


Sl. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. Mean Range IRRIGATION (I) GENOTYPES (G) IxG Genotypes Alco Basa Arka Abhay Arka Alok Arka Ashish Arka Meghali GK-1 GK-2 GK-3 IIHR 2274 Megha (L-15) Nandi PKM-1 PR-1 Punjab Chhauhara S-22 Sankranthi Vaibhav L-1 L-2 L-3 L-5 L-6 L-10 L-10 (P) L-11 L-12 L-13 L-15 L-16 L-17 L-18 L-19 L-26 L-27 L-28 L-29 L-30 L-31 L-32 L-33 L-33-1 L-34 L-34-1 L-35 L-37 L-38 L-38-1 L-40-3 L-43 L-44 45 DAT IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 41.50 32.75 37.13 40.25 37.50 38.88 41.00 34.25 37.63 27.50 24.00 25.75 47.00 38.83 42.91 38.50 27.00 32.75 33.85 25.23 29.54 35.25 26.50 30.88 34.00 30.85 32.43 36.00 35.00 35.50 37.25 35.00 36.13 36.75 30.50 33.63 26.00 18.55 22.28 39.75 36.25 38.00 45.95 35.38 40.66 27.25 23.00 25.13 43.90 34.00 38.95 38.50 31.25 34.88 26.75 17.50 22.13 27.00 24.40 25.70 30.88 32.43 31.65 32.43 30.68 31.55 42.50 26.50 34.50 37.50 24.50 31.00 33.25 30.25 31.75 38.50 34.50 36.50 40.18 23.80 31.99 34.65 28.65 31.65 42.25 38.50 40.38 34.00 20.75 27.38 37.50 31.50 34.50 39.00 28.88 33.94 39.00 30.50 34.75 31.25 21.50 26.38 38.50 35.88 37.19 35.50 29.25 32.38 47.00 25.25 36.13 40.33 25.00 32.66 30.75 28.88 29.81 39.10 30.63 34.86 38.88 29.13 34.00 39.00 35.25 37.13 31.95 28.00 29.98 36.50 32.75 34.63 31.50 31.00 31.25 34.75 28.00 31.38 40.25 35.00 37.63 42.25 33.88 38.06 29.50 16.02 22.76 38.75 34.50 36.63 36.63 29.58 33.10 26.00 16.02 22.13 47.00 38.83 42.91 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.48 0.17 2.38 0.85 3.36 1.20 75 DAT 1.2 0.4 Mean 46.25 40.00 43.13 49.50 41.50 45.50 52.00 44.75 48.38 36.98 31.50 34.24 50.75 42.00 46.38 52.89 37.25 45.07 41.58 36.85 39.21 46.00 41.78 43.89 48.88 39.63 44.25 42.75 44.00 43.38 54.38 43.00 48.69 45.75 33.88 39.81 44.60 32.85 38.72 46.10 43.75 44.93 49.00 42.00 45.50 39.00 38.00 38.50 49.25 41.25 45.25 43.63 33.50 38.56 33.75 25.01 29.38 34.13 39.33 36.73 38.00 35.25 36.63 40.25 36.45 38.35 46.50 42.50 44.50 45.75 36.05 40.90 42.00 36.33 39.16 45.60 39.75 42.68 47.25 44.63 45.94 37.00 33.50 35.25 50.00 36.50 43.25 43.88 34.75 39.31 41.38 34.75 38.06 48.25 34.35 41.30 58.75 38.25 48.50 37.88 34.63 36.25 41.70 38.80 40.25 40.88 35.25 38.06 52.00 41.63 46.81 41.38 34.50 37.94 45.13 38.63 41.88 50.00 37.13 43.56 47.25 31.50 39.38 39.75 33.00 36.38 38.13 33.50 35.81 50.25 45.25 47.75 39.25 44.75 42.00 50.50 35.25 42.88 46.75 41.25 44.00 47.50 42.00 44.75 43.13 36.60 39.86 42.13 38.75 40.44 44.91 37.95 41.43 33.75 25.01 29.38 58.75 45.25 48.69 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.56 0.20 2.80 1.00 3.97 1.41 AT HARVEST 1.2 0.4 Mean 47.63 44.00 45.81 64.25 47.25 55.75 55.75 50.00 52.88 40.75 36.00 38.38 54.00 50.25 52.13 59.75 57.00 58.38 55.75 45.15 50.45 72.75 53.50 63.13 51.50 42.13 46.81 51.50 47.13 49.31 61.25 48.00 54.63 44.25 38.13 41.19 57.38 37.50 47.44 49.50 45.25 47.38 54.25 36.50 45.38 53.00 44.88 48.94 61.88 57.50 59.69 53.00 48.73 50.86 36.75 30.60 33.68 38.75 37.43 38.09 44.00 43.13 43.56 43.50 41.88 42.69 51.25 47.13 49.19 44.75 41.88 43.31 45.50 36.25 40.88 56.00 46.63 51.31 52.75 46.38 49.56 53.50 41.50 47.50 58.75 47.00 52.88 50.00 40.83 45.41 50.00 46.63 48.31 53.25 51.50 52.38 63.25 46.63 54.94 48.65 38.63 43.64 47.75 47.38 47.56 46.50 43.25 44.88 59.25 53.50 56.38 58.25 40.75 49.50 51.75 44.38 48.06 58.75 42.75 50.75 53.75 36.75 45.25 45.50 40.05 42.78 52.50 48.50 50.50 52.75 41.38 47.06 49.75 36.50 43.13 53.50 47.13 50.31 51.75 49.50 50.63 56.75 50.13 53.44 49.00 38.85 43.93 44.45 34.88 39.66 52.21 44.17 48.19 36.75 30.60 33.68 72.75 57.50 63.13 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.43 0.15 2.16 0.77 3.06 1.09

DAT = Days after transplanting.

Table 2. Stem girth (mm) as influenced by irrigation levels in tomato genotypes


Sl. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. Mean Range IRRIGATION (I) GENOTYPES (G) IxG Genotypes Alco Basa Arka Abhay Arka Alok Arka Ashish Arka Meghali GK-1 GK-2 GK-3 IIHR 2274 Megha (L-15) Nandi PKM-1 PR-1 Punjab Chhauhara S-22 Sankranthi Vaibhav L-1 L-2 L-3 L-5 L-6 L-10 L-10 (P) L-11 L-12 L-13 L-15 L-16 L-17 L-18 L-19 L-26 L-27 L-28 L-29 L-30 L-31 L-32 L-33 L-33-1 L-34 L-34-1 L-35 L-37 L-38 L-38-1 L-40-3 L-43 L-44 75 DAT IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 1.2 0.4 Mean 8.98 12.78 10.28 7.69 13.09 12.46 9.99 11.08 10.65 9.33 11.38 10.79 10.49 13.33 11.98 9.00 14.93 11.74 13.02 9.07 11.04 16.01 14.57 15.29 9.68 12.51 10.28 9.09 13.97 11.04 9.47 12.97 10.96 7.98 14.37 11.58 9.08 15.40 10.76 7.40 17.45 13.35 9.50 13.43 10.31 8.69 16.46 10.40 8.58 12.63 9.87 7.30 15.62 9.65 9.71 12.66 10.33 9.10 13.77 11.56 11.21 11.67 11.86 10.57 12.31 11.03 9.24 13.22 11.11 7.26 13.81 12.63 9.06 12.78 10.69 7.43 15.12 10.44 9.02 15.10 10.58 7.45 16.26 13.94 9.76 13.16 10.29 9.24 13.71 12.61 9.00 12.32 9.61 8.39 12.90 11.74 9.46 13.24 10.78 8.15 14.75 11.73 9.34 13.38 10.56 8.88 13.96 12.80 6.91 11.79 7.93 5.89 12.92 10.66 8.29 14.53 10.45 6.14 15.89 13.18 9.90 7.31 8.61 12.41 9.98 11.19 7.07 13.35 8.30 5.84 16.59 10.11 7.31 10.17 8.89 5.73 11.20 9.15 8.78 13.83 10.20 7.36 15.33 12.32 8.29 13.12 9.44 7.15 15.03 11.20 9.13 12.91 11.19 7.07 13.47 12.35 9.05 13.27 10.12 8.40 14.33 12.21 8.27 10.91 11.06 5.49 13.07 8.75 9.36 13.63 10.21 8.51 14.91 12.34 8.92 9.95 10.60 7.24 11.77 8.13 8.48 12.92 9.97 6.99 14.17 11.67 10.47 13.90 10.88 10.06 17.85 9.96 7.94 12.50 9.08 6.81 13.71 11.30 8.21 11.52 10.48 5.94 12.24 10.80 7.74 12.30 9.11 6.37 14.01 10.58 8.70 11.25 10.14 8.47 12.63 9.87 9.04 11.42 9.61 7.98 11.79 11.04 9.20 8.52 10.00 7.16 9.90 7.15 8.83 13.81 10.31 7.35 16.93 10.69 9.94 12.92 11.01 7.08 14.49 11.35 10.01 15.17 11.71 8.31 16.33 14.01 8.50 14.31 9.72 7.28 15.00 13.62 8.34 12.98 9.53 8.13 14.71 11.24 9.38 12.66 8.98 9.78 13.95 11.38 7.15 12.42 7.69 6.61 13.92 10.92 10.19 12.82 11.21 9.16 13.90 11.74 9.44 12.99 11.06 7.83 13.68 12.30 9.38 13.02 11.19 7.57 14.46 11.57 9.81 13.32 11.19 8.44 14.55 12.10 8.29 13.71 10.04 6.54 14.68 12.74 10.30 7.76 9.03 14.19 11.41 12.80 7.69 5.49 6.91 9.90 7.15 8.52 13.02 10.57 11.21 17.85 14.57 15.4 S.Em + CD at 5% S.Em + CD at 5% 0.17 0.06 0.21 0.08 0.85 0.03 1.07 0.38 1.20 0.43 1.51 0.54 45 DAT

DAT = Days after transplanting.

Among the irrigation levels, maximum stem girth was recorded at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (10.30 and 14.19 mm, at 45 and 75 DAT, respectively) and minimum girth was noticed in 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (7.76 and 11.41 mm, at 45 and 75 DAT, respectively). 4.1.1.3 Number of branches per plant (c.f. Table 3) All the genotypes and irrigation schedules were significantly differed each other at both the growth stages of 45 and 75 DAT for number of braches per plant, where as the interaction effects were significant only at 75 DAT. Among the different genotypes and irrespective of the irrigation levels, genotype IIHR-2274, GK-3 and GK-2 (11.50, each) had significantly maximum number branches at 45 DAT and these were on par with L-19 (11.25) followed by L-43 (10.25), L-33 and L-26 (10.00, each), PKM-1 and L-3 (9.75, each) and L-1 and L-15 (9.50, each). Number of braches per plant was significantly lowest in the genotype L-34-1 (5.75). Interaction effects were non significant. However, maximum number of branches were observed in the genotype IIHR 2274 (14.50) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and minimum was exhibited by the genotype L-34-1 (5.00) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. There was a significant difference between the pan evaporation ratios at both the stages. Significantly higher number of branches per plant was observed in the IW/CPE ratio of 1.2 (9.48 and 18.32) compared to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (6.92 and 14.62) at 45 and 75 DAT, respectively. Irrespective of the irrigation levels, genotypes Arka Meghali produced significantly higher number of braches per plant (29.75) at 75 DAT and least number of branches was noticed in the genotype L-11 (10.50). The interaction effect between the irrigation schedules and different genotypes were found significant. Significantly maximum number of braches per plant was noticed in the genotype Arka Ashish (34.00) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and this was on par with Arka Meghali (31.50) and Nandi (31.00). Significantly least number of braches per plant was recorded in the genotype L-17 (9.50) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. 4.1.1.4 Days to flowering cessation (c.f. Table 4) There was no significant difference within the genotypes and the interaction between different genotypes and irrigation schedules for the flowering cessation. However, irrespective of the irrigation levels maximum days taken for flowering cessation were noticed in the genotype L-16 (89.00) and minimum was recorded in the genotype L-26 (75.50). Among the interaction effects, more number of days taken for the flowering cessation was recorded in the genotype L-10 (P) (97.50) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and minimum was observed in the genotype L-26 (68.00) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. Days for flowering cessation were differed significantly between the irrigation schedules. Maximum days were taken for the cessation of flowering in the 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (89.02), where as at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio it took 76.09 days for flowering cessation. 4.1.1.5 Days to wilting (c.f. Table 4) Days to wilting was significantly influenced by pan evaporation ratios. Significantly more number of days were required for wilting at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (98.75) and least number of days were taken at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (87.05). There was no significant difference within the genotypes, however, maximum days to wilting were recorded in the genotype L-40-3 (100) and minimum was recorded in the genotype L-26 (84.75) irrespective of the irrigation levels. Even the interaction between genotypes and pan evaporation ratios of 1.2 and 0.4 IW/CPE ratios were found non significant. However, minimum days taken for wilting was recorded in the L-26 (76.50) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio and maximum days taken for the wilting was exhibited by the genotype L-38 (108.50) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio.

Table 3. Number of branches per plant as influenced by irrigation schedules in tomato genotypes
Sl. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. Mean Range IRRIGATION (I) GENOTYPES (G) IxG Genotypes Alco Basa Arka Abhay Arka Alok Arka Ashish Arka Meghali GK-1 GK-2 GK-3 IIHR 2274 Megha (L-15) Nandi PKM-1 PR-1 Punjab Chhauhara S-22 Sankranthi Vaibhav L-1 L-2 L-3 L-5 L-6 L-10 L-10 (P) L-11 L-12 L-13 L-15 L-16 L-17 L-18 L-19 L-26 L-27 L-28 L-29 L-30 L-31 L-32 L-33 L-33-1 L-34 L-34-1 L-35 L-37 L-38 L-38-1 L-40-3 L-43 L-44 45 DAT IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 6.25 7.00 5.50 8.25 10.50 6.00 9.00 11.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 7.00 6.75 8.00 5.50 8.75 11.00 6.50 12.50 10.50 11.50 11.50 13.50 9.50 11.50 14.50 8.50 7.75 9.00 6.50 6.75 8.00 5.50 9.75 11.50 8.00 9.00 10.50 7.50 8.50 9.50 7.50 12.00 6.00 9.00 6.25 7.00 5.50 8.00 10.50 5.50 9.50 10.50 8.50 7.75 8.00 7.50 9.75 11.00 8.50 6.75 8.00 5.50 7.25 8.00 6.50 8.00 5.50 6.75 8.75 10.00 7.50 6.50 7.00 6.00 7.50 9.00 6.00 7.50 8.50 6.50 9.50 10.50 8.50 8.75 10.00 7.50 7.25 8.00 6.50 9.00 7.50 8.25 11.25 13.00 9.50 10.00 11.50 8.50 9.25 11.00 7.50 9.00 9.50 8.50 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.75 7.50 6.00 8.50 10.50 6.50 8.50 6.50 7.50 10.00 11.50 8.50 8.75 10.50 7.00 6.75 8.00 5.50 5.75 6.50 5.00 6.50 7.50 5.50 6.00 6.50 5.50 6.50 7.00 6.00 7.00 6.00 6.50 7.75 9.00 6.50 10.25 12.50 8.00 8.75 10.00 7.50 9.48 6.92 8.20 6.00 5.00 5.75 14.50 10.50 11.50 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.43 0.16 2.17 0.77 NS 1.09 75 DAT 1.2 0.4 Mean 13.50 14.00 13.00 22.00 23.00 21.00 14.00 16.00 12.00 25.25 34.00 16.50 29.75 31.50 28.00 17.75 19.50 16.00 19.50 18.00 18.75 17.00 17.50 16.50 20.25 22.50 18.00 17.00 17.50 16.50 21.50 31.00 12.00 12.00 12.50 11.50 16.75 17.00 16.50 20.00 25.00 15.00 26.00 16.50 21.25 19.75 25.50 14.00 17.50 19.00 16.00 15.50 16.50 14.50 13.50 16.50 10.50 15.25 17.00 13.50 14.00 14.50 13.50 16.00 16.50 15.50 13.50 13.00 13.25 16.75 17.00 16.50 10.50 10.50 10.50 15.00 16.50 13.50 16.75 19.00 14.50 15.50 17.50 13.50 20.50 23.50 17.50 11.25 13.00 9.50 17.00 15.00 16.00 17.75 18.50 17.00 14.00 15.00 13.00 18.25 19.00 17.50 16.75 17.00 16.50 12.50 13.50 11.50 14.50 13.50 15.50 14.75 16.50 13.00 14.50 11.00 12.75 18.50 23.50 13.50 12.50 14.00 11.00 13.00 13.50 12.50 17.75 20.00 15.50 15.00 16.50 13.50 11.00 11.00 11.00 21.50 24.50 18.50 11.00 10.50 10.75 17.25 18.50 16.00 15.75 17.50 14.00 15.50 19.00 12.00 16.47 18.32 14.62 10.50 9.50 10.50 34.00 28.00 29.75 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.63 0.23 3.17 1.13 4.49 1.60

NS = Non-significance, DAT = Days after transplanting.

Table 4. Days to flowering cessation and days to wilting of tomato genotypes as influenced by irrigation levels
Sl. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. Mean Range IRRIGATION (I) GENOTYPES (G) IxG Genotypes Alco Basa Arka Abhay Arka Alok Arka Ashish Arka Meghali GK1 GK-2 GK-3 IIHR 2274 Megha (L-15) Nandi PKM-1 PR-1 Punjab Chhauhara S-22 Sankranthi Vaibhav L-1 L-2 L-3 L-5 L6 L-10 L-10 (P) L-11 L-12 L-13 L-15 L-16 L-17 L-18 L-19 L-26 L-27 L-28 L-29 L-30 L-31 L-32 L-33 L-33-1 L-34 L-34-1 L-35 L-37 L-38 L-38-1 L-40-3 L-43 L-44 Days to flowering Days to wilting cessation IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 1.2 0.4 Mean 87.25 89.50 72.00 80.75 94.50 80.00 90.00 90.00 79.50 84.75 96.50 83.50 90.00 87.00 74.50 80.75 93.00 87.00 86.75 95.50 78.00 87.50 72.00 79.75 91.00 99.50 82.50 90.50 72.50 81.50 97.75 99.50 96.00 82.50 71.00 76.75 90.75 85.50 70.50 78.00 96.50 85.00 98.75 94.50 83.00 88.75 104.00 93.50 94.75 100.50 89.00 96.00 80.00 88.00 90.75 98.50 83.00 83.00 72.50 77.75 92.75 89.00 72.50 80.75 96.50 89.00 92.25 87.50 77.00 82.25 97.00 87.50 95.25 84.50 73.50 79.00 100.50 90.00 94.00 93.50 76.50 85.00 103.00 85.00 97.75 93.00 74.50 83.75 102.00 93.50 90.00 83.00 78.00 80.50 95.00 85.00 94.75 89.50 82.50 86.00 95.50 94.00 90.50 81.50 71.50 76.50 97.00 84.00 95.25 104.00 86.50 82.00 77.50 79.75 95.50 106.50 84.50 92.50 79.50 86.00 97.50 92.00 80.50 86.25 106.00 89.00 96.50 84.50 80.00 82.25 104.00 89.00 95.25 98.50 92.00 92.50 77.00 84.75 99.00 97.50 77.50 87.50 107.00 91.00 91.75 93.50 79.00 86.25 97.50 86.00 89.75 86.50 74.00 80.25 92.50 87.00 89.00 98.50 79.50 91.00 76.50 83.75 92.50 87.50 78.50 83.00 94.00 91.00 95.25 97.00 93.50 92.00 86.00 89.00 87.00 74.50 80.75 93.50 88.50 91.00 96.25 87.50 82.00 84.75 99.00 93.50 92.50 92.00 72.00 82.00 96.00 89.00 83.00 68.00 75.50 93.00 76.50 84.75 94.50 86.00 75.00 80.50 98.50 90.50 88.00 86.50 73.00 79.75 93.50 82.50 84.50 76.50 80.50 98.00 81.00 89.50 98.50 107.00 90.00 95.00 80.50 87.75 93.50 99.50 87.50 84.50 71.50 78.00 94.25 83.50 76.50 80.00 95.50 93.00 90.75 96.50 85.00 94.50 71.50 83.00 91.50 96.00 87.00 91.00 80.00 85.50 88.25 87.00 76.00 81.50 99.00 77.50 96.25 98.50 94.00 95.50 79.50 87.50 90.75 91.50 73.50 82.50 98.00 83.50 92.25 90.00 77.50 83.75 97.00 87.50 93.75 93.00 70.00 81.50 108.50 79.00 97.75 89.50 77.50 83.50 102.50 93.00 90.00 78.50 84.25 107.00 93.00 100.00 91.50 91.00 78.50 84.75 95.00 88.00 87.00 96.00 78.00 89.50 72.50 81.00 89.02 76.09 82.55 98.75 87.05 92.90 81.50 68.00 75.50 92.50 76.50 84.75 97.50 86.00 89.00 108.50 96.00 100.00 S.Em + CD at 5% S.Em + CD at 5% 2.77 0.85 1.85 0.66 NS 4.23 NS 3.29 NS 5.99 NS 4.65

NS = Non-significant.

4.1.2 Biophysical performance of tomato genotypes.


4.1.2.1 Rate of photosynthesis (mmol CO2.m .s ) (c.f. Table 5, Fig. 3 & 4) There was a significant difference between the different pan evaporation rates and tomato genotypes for the photosynthetic rate at 45 DAT. The rate of photosynthesis varied from 15.83 to 30.53 at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and it was 11.97 to 26.08 at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. Among the genotypes S-22 had significantly more mean photosynthetic rate (27.88) and this was on par with Punjab Chhauhara (26.93) followed by GK-3 (26.50), L-10 (P) (26.30). While, minimum photosynthetic rate was recorded in the genotype L-37 (15.05) irrespective of the irrigation levels. As the stress increased from 1.2 IW/CPE ratio to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio, photosynthetic rate decreased to the extent of 20.90 per cent. Interaction between the different irrigation schedules of 1.2 and 0.4 IW/CPE ratio found significant. Significantly higher photosynthetic rate was observed in the genotype IIHR-2274 (30.53) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and lower photosynthetic rate was exhibited by the genotype L17 (11.97) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. 4.1.2.2 Intercellular CO2 content of the leaf (ppm) (c.f. Table 5, Fig. 3) In general, all the genotypes of tomato and pan evaporation ratios were significantly differed for intercellular CO2 content of the leaf, but there was no significant interaction effect. The internal CO2 concentration ranged from 213.67 to 305.83 and 153.77 to 262.50 at 1.2 and 0.4 IW/CPE ratio, respectively. Among all the genotypes Arka Meghali had significantly higher mean intercellular CO2 level (266.00) and minimum was recorded in the genotype L-27 (190.48) irrespective of irrigation levels. Among the different pan evaporation ratios, significantly higher intercellular CO2 was recorded in the 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (259.64) over 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (231.99). Interaction of genotypes and different pan evaporation ratios was non significant. However, maximum intercellular CO2 content was exhibited by the genotype S-22 (305.83) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and the minimum was found in the genotype L-16 (153.77) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. 4.1.2.3 Rate of Transpiration (mmol H2O.m .s ) (c.f. table 5, Fig. 4) Rate of transpiration significantly differed among the tomato genotypes and between the irrigation schedules, but there was no significant difference in interaction between irrigation schedules and genotypes. The transpiration rate varied from 7.22 to 12.37 at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and it was 5.57 to 11.20 at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. Among the different genotypes L-5 (11.36) had significantly higher rate of transpiration and this was on par with L-34-1 (10.99) followed by L-32 (10.75), L-28 (10.27), L-40-3 (10.08), L-2 (10.00), PR-1 (9.63), L-3 (9.53), L-6 (9.35) and L-34 (9.26) and significantly least rate of transpiration was exhibited by the genotype Vaibhav (6.54) irrespective of irrigation levels. With the increase in the stress from 1.2 to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio the rate of transpiration decreased to the extent of 18.68 per cent. Interaction between genotype and irrigation schedule was not significant. However, the higher transpiration rate was recorded in the genotype L-34-1 (12.37) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and minimum was noticed in the genotype Vaibhav (5.57) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. 4.1.2.4 Stomatal conductance (m mol.m .s ) (c.f. table 6) The genotypes, pan evaporation ratios and their interaction effect showed significant difference with respect to stomatal conductance. Stomatal conductance ranged from 0.27 to 1.27 and 0.15 to 0.81 at 1.2 and 0. 4 IW/CPE ratio, respectively. Irrespective of the irrigation levels, significantly higher stomatal conductance was recorded in the genotype L-34-1 (0.90) which was on par with Arka Meghali (0.86), L-5 (0.83) and S-22 (0.80). The genotype L-10 (P) recorded least stomatal conductance (0.24). There was significant difference between the pan evaporation ratios. Among the two irrigation levels, there was 35.48 per cent reduction in stomatal conductance when the stress was increased from 1.2 to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio.
-2 -1 -2 -1 -2 -1

Fig. 3. Influence of irrigation levels on photosynthesis (A) and intercellular CO2 (Ci) of tomato genotypes at 45 days after transplanting

Table 5. Photosynthesis, intercellular CO2 and transpiration rate of tomato genotypes as influenced by irrigation levels at 45 DAT
Sl. No. Genotypes Photosynthesis (A) (mmolCO2.m-2.s-1) IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 19.23 22.15 16.31 22.48 22.56 22.41 19.53 19.66 19.40 16.79 20.47 13.12 22.29 26.28 18.30 17.87 19.31 16.43 22.39 20.20 21.29 26.50 28.75 24.25 22.14 30.53 13.75 16.56 19.47 13.64 19.72 21.40 18.05 23.11 24.98 21.24 21.77 22.03 21.52 26.93 29.05 24.82 27.88 29.68 26.08 22.31 24.57 20.06 18.20 23.84 12.56 19.61 24.89 14.34 22.70 24.42 20.98 17.66 15.84 16.75 18.49 22.88 14.11 19.64 21.49 17.80 17.58 20.65 14.50 26.30 27.55 25.05 19.05 26.13 11.98 21.75 25.32 18.19 19.17 19.44 18.90 21.17 21.46 20.89 17.42 18.28 16.57 15.72 19.47 11.97 21.44 23.56 19.32 18.13 20.10 16.15 17.38 19.06 15.70 21.27 23.28 19.27 23.97 25.74 22.20 19.94 20.84 19.05 22.67 26.26 19.08 21.63 18.68 20.15 23.61 25.10 22.13 17.34 19.05 15.62 18.56 20.01 17.12 19.46 22.10 16.83 17.35 17.61 17.09 18.09 18.82 17.37 15.05 15.83 14.28 17.86 19.75 15.96 21.01 25.89 16.13 23.48 26.55 20.42 16.74 21.27 12.21 19.78 22.47 17.09 22.63 17.90 20.26 15.83 11.97 15.05 30.53 26.08 27.88 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.64 0.24 3.37 1.20 4.77 1.68 Intercellular CO2 level (ppm) (Ci) Transpiration rate (T) (mmol H2O.m-2. s-1)

1. Alco Basa 2. Arka Abhay 3. Arka Alok 4. Arka Ashish 5. Arka Meghali 6. GK-1 7. GK-2 8. GK-3 9. IIHR 2274 10. Mega L--15 11. Nandi 12. PKM-1 13. PR-1 14. Punjab Chhauhara 15. S-22 16. Sankranthi 17. Vaibhav 18. L-1 19. L-2 20. L-3 21. L-5 22. L-6 23. L-10 24. L-10 (P) 25. L-11 26. L-12 27. L-13 28. L-15 29. L-16 30. L-17 31. L-18 32. L-19 33. L-26 34. L-27 35. L-28 36. L-29 37. L-30 38. L-31 39. L-32 40. L-33 41. L-33-1 42. L-34 43. L-34-1 44. L-35 45. L-37 46. L-38 47. L-38-1 48. L-40-3 49. L-43 50. L-44 Mean Range IRRIGATION (I) GENOTYPES (G) IxG

1.2 0.4 Mean 1.2 0.4 Mean 7.76 7.87 7.66 256.67 226.50 241.58 7.02 263.67 251.83 257.75 7.54 6.51 8.15 268.67 228.00 248.33 9.01 7.29 8.84 280.00 217.00 248.50 10.73 6.95 7.90 282.00 250.00 266.00 9.64 6.16 8.87 253.17 244.34 248.75 9.90 7.85 261.33 241.34 251.33 8.65 7.75 8.20 7.78 269.83 235.17 252.50 8.44 7.11 8.58 249.17 242.84 246.00 9.09 8.07 7.56 267.33 226.84 247.08 9.22 5.90 8.55 263.33 209.67 236.50 10.46 6.65 9.10 251.67 251.67 251.67 9.22 8.98 9.63 256.00 238.67 247.33 10.02 9.24 7.48 268.00 239.33 253.67 8.06 6.90 9.11 305.83 221.67 263.75 10.68 7.53 8.92 276.00 219.17 247.59 10.09 7.74 6.54 278.67 242.83 260.75 7.51 5.57 7.95 246.67 234.67 240.67 9.47 6.43 10.00 268.00 262.50 265.25 10.04 9.97 273.34 202.67 238.00 10.14 8.92 9.53 11.36 262.00 256.50 259.25 11.52 11.20 9.35 262.67 258.50 260.58 9.71 8.99 7.91 268.17 236.00 252.08 9.62 6.19 7.11 218.67 176.83 197.75 7.22 7.01 8.01 243.50 228.50 236.00 9.62 6.40 8.15 247.34 236.00 241.67 9.09 7.21 9.11 253.00 246.84 249.92 9.63 8.59 8.42 252.50 249.34 250.92 8.48 8.37 8.38 252.17 153.77 202.97 10.42 6.35 7.85 254.33 252.00 253.17 8.23 7.46 9.55 267.33 235.84 251.58 10.43 8.67 8.77 265.84 237.67 251.75 9.31 8.24 8.49 232.50 232.00 232.25 9.07 7.92 9.03 213.67 167.28 190.48 11.27 6.79 10.27 258.50 248.84 253.67 10.75 9.79 7.78 241.84 236.33 239.08 8.16 7.40 8.35 272.17 233.33 252.75 8.40 8.30 275.50 238.00 256.75 9.49 7.72 8.61 10.75 264.00 253.00 258.50 11.50 9.99 7.52 253.83 235.00 244.42 7.90 7.13 7.87 251.00 247.83 249.42 9.41 6.33 9.26 254.83 194.84 224.83 10.48 8.04 10.99 244.33 225.17 234.75 12.37 9.60 8.00 264.00 213.17 238.58 9.66 6.33 6.95 267.33 236.67 252.00 7.73 6.16 8.08 271.17 224.84 248.00 9.03 7.13 7.44 255.50 208.00 231.75 8.85 6.03 10.08 268.33 260.67 264.50 10.55 9.61 7.40 254.17 249.50 251.83 8.38 6.42 8.63 252.33 240.67 246.50 8.77 8.49 259.64 231.99 245.81 9.42 7.66 8.54 213.67 153.77 190.48 7.22 5.57 6.54 305.83 262.50 266.00 12.37 11.20 11.36 S.Em + CD at 5% S.Em + CD at 5% 0.43 0.16 05.93 02.11 2.17 0.77 29.63 10.55 NS 1.09 NS 14.93

NS = Non-significant.

Fig. 4. Influence of irrigation levels on photosynthesis and transpiration in tomato genotypes at 45 days after transplanting

The genotype Arka Meghali (1.27) showed highest stomatal conductance under 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and least was observed in L-17 (0.15) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. 4.1.2.5 Leaf temperature ( C) (c.f. Table 6) There was significant difference in the leaf temperature between the genotypes, irrigation levels and the interaction between genotypes and irrigation levels. Leaf temperature ranged from 28.62 to 34.20 and 30.35 to 39.11 at 1.2 and 0.4 IW/CPE ratio, respectively. Irrespective of the irrigation levels, L-10 (P) (36.33) had significantly higher leaf temperature and was on par with L-26 (35.89), L-27 (35.15) and L-16 (35.10). Minimum leaf temperature was noticed in the genotype Vaibhav (29.84). There was significant difference between the irrigation levels. Significantly higher leaf temperature was recorded in the 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (33.99) compared to 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (32.56). Interaction of genotypes and irrigation levels was not significant. However, maximum leaf temperature was recorded in the genotype L-10 (P) (39.11) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio and minimum leaf temperature was recorded in the genotype Arka Meghali (28.62) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio. 4.1.2.6 Leaf to air vapour pressure deficit (-mbar) (c.f. Table 6) In general, all the genotypes and pan evaporation ratios showed significant difference where as, their interaction had no significant effect. Leaf to air vapour pressure deficit varied from 1.23 to 3.01 at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and it was 1.50 to 3.72 at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. Irrespective of the irrigation levels, significantly higher leaf to air vapour pressure deficit was observed in the genotype L-10 (P) (3.08) and was on par with L-16 (2.67) and L-27 (2.61). Lowest air to vapour pressure deficit was recorded in the genotypes Arka Abha and Arka Meghali (1.56, each). Between the pan evaporation ratios, significantly maximum leaf to air vapour deficit was recorded in the 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (2.27) compared to 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (1.90). Genotypes and pan evaporation ratios interaction was not significant. However, maximum air to vapour pressure deficit was found in the genotype L-10 (P) (3.72) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio and minimum was recorded in the genotype L-34-1 (1.23) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio.
o

4.1.3. Biochemical parameters


4.1.3.1 Chlorophyll content (mg.g-1 of fresh weight) -1 4.1.3.1.1 Chlorophyll a content (mg.g of fresh weight) (c.f. Table 7) Chlorophyll a content differed significantly between genotypes, different irrigation levels and their interaction. Irrespective of the irrigation levels, genotypes L-13 (1.533) had significantly higher chlorophyll a content. The least content was observed in the genotype L-19 (0.663). As the stress increased from 1.2 to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio chlorophyll a content was decreased significantly from 1.202 to 0.887. Chlorophyll a content varied from 0.801 to 1.710 and 0.320 to 1.357 at 1.2 and 0.4 IW/CPE ratio, respectively. Interaction between the genotypes and different irrigation levels found significant for chlorophyll a content. Significantly higher level of chlorophyll a content was noticed in the genotype L-12 (1.710) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and the genotype L-19 (0.320) showed least chlorophyll a content at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. 4.1.3.1.2 Chlorophyll b content (mg.g of fresh weight) (c.f. Table 7) Significant differences for chlorophyll b content were observed among the genotypes, pan evaporation ratios and their interaction. Chlorophyll b content ranged from 0.663 to 1.533 and 0.207 to 0.757 at 1.2 and 0.4 IW/CPE ratio, respectively. Irrespective of the irrigation levels, genotype L-2 (0.516) had significantly higher chlorophyll b content and this was on par with GK-3 (0.498), L-10 (0.427), L-29 (0.426) and Arka Abha (0.417). The genotype L- 15 (0.195) showed significantly lower
-1

Table 6. Stomatal conductance, leaf temperature and leaf to air vapor pressure deficit as influenced by irrigation in tomato genotypes
Sl. No. Genotypes Stomatal conductance -2 -1 (mmol m s ) Leaf temperature o ( C) Leaf to air vapor pressure difference (-mbar)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. Mean Range

Alco Basa Arka Abhay Arka Alok Arka Ashish Arka Meghali GK-1 GK-2 GK-3 IIHR 2274 Megha (L-15) Nandi PKM-1 PR-1 Punjab Chhauhara S-22 Sankranthi Vaibhav L-1 L-2 L-3 L-5 L-6 L-10 L-10 (P) L-11 L-12 L-13 L-15 L-16 L-17 L-18 L-19 L-26 L-27 L-28 L-29 L-30 L-31 L-32 L-33 L-33-1 L-34 L-34-1 L-35 L-37 L-38 L-38-1 L-40-3 L-43 L-44

IRRIGATION (I) GENOTYPES (G) IxG

IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 0.39 0.47 0.30 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.48 0.56 0.39 0.66 1.04 0.28 0.86 1.27 0.45 0.57 0.42 0.49 0.44 0.51 0.37 0.41 0.45 0.38 0.44 0.47 0.41 0.37 0.40 0.35 0.28 0.33 0.22 0.53 0.65 0.41 0.60 0.72 0.48 0.54 0.71 0.37 0.80 1.11 0.48 0.65 0.90 0.40 0.54 0.79 0.29 0.45 0.35 0.40 0.68 0.77 0.60 0.67 0.72 0.62 0.83 0.85 0.81 0.68 0.93 0.43 0.58 0.33 0.46 0.24 0.27 0.21 0.42 0.51 0.34 0.53 0.76 0.30 0.45 0.50 0.41 0.48 0.52 0.44 0.41 0.48 0.34 0.39 0.64 0.15 0.55 0.61 0.49 0.47 0.64 0.30 0.38 0.44 0.32 0.47 0.74 0.20 0.57 0.54 0.55 0.45 0.56 0.35 0.45 0.68 0.22 0.56 0.64 0.47 0.66 0.70 0.62 0.40 0.46 0.33 0.39 0.41 0.37 0.57 0.63 0.51 0.90 1.02 0.79 0.42 0.47 0.36 0.33 0.37 0.28 0.44 0.47 0.42 0.40 0.41 0.40 0.65 0.72 0.57 0.28 0.30 0.26 0.43 0.51 0.34 0.62 0.40 0.51 0.27 0.15 0.24 1.27 0.81 0.90 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.04 0.01 0.20 0.07 0.29 0.10

1.2 0.4 Mean 33.18 33.06 33.30 30.41 30.38 30.44 33.18 32.16 34.20 33.45 32.79 34.12 30.72 28.62 32.83 31.22 33.89 32.56 31.59 31.11 32.07 33.68 33.57 33.79 33.24 33.05 33.42 32.17 31.54 32.80 33.30 32.13 34.46 33.63 33.40 33.85 34.14 33.82 34.47 31.67 31.35 31.98 32.94 31.87 34.02 32.69 32.17 33.22 29.84 29.33 30.35 32.37 34.39 33.38 33.23 32.11 34.35 33.13 32.73 33.53 34.27 33.66 34.89 33.39 33.28 33.49 32.63 33.02 32.83 36.33 33.55 39.11 33.10 32.70 33.51 32.69 32.20 33.18 34.63 33.88 35.37 31.64 31.53 31.74 35.10 34.17 36.03 33.40 33.04 33.76 33.45 32.40 34.50 34.44 33.99 34.90 35.89 33.84 37.93 35.15 33.68 36.63 33.43 34.31 33.87 33.72 33.69 33.75 33.92 33.13 34.71 33.00 32.39 33.61 34.41 34.20 34.62 32.98 31.61 34.35 32.52 30.72 34.33 33.82 33.40 34.25 34.16 33.44 34.88 32.94 32.20 33.68 33.25 32.15 34.36 33.16 32.23 34.09 33.01 32.20 33.81 33.90 33.72 34.08 33.52 33.35 33.70 33.18 32.75 33.61 32.56 33.99 33.27 28.62 30.35 29.84 34.20 39.11 36.33 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.36 0.13 1.78 0.64 NS 0.90

1.2 0.4 Mean 2.20 2.11 2.29 1.56 1.38 1.74 2.18 1.99 2.37 2.19 1.50 2.89 1.56 1.36 1.77 1.83 1.75 1.79 1.79 1.68 1.91 2.25 2.10 2.40 1.98 2.14 1.83 2.11 1.66 2.55 2.21 1.89 2.54 1.97 1.97 1.97 2.00 2.06 1.94 1.90 1.82 1.98 1.81 1.45 2.16 1.82 1.49 2.15 1.70 1.31 2.09 2.31 2.21 2.26 1.84 2.16 1.51 1.84 1.67 2.02 1.63 1.77 1.50 1.93 2.02 1.84 1.64 2.63 2.14 3.08 2.44 3.72 2.37 1.77 2.97 2.09 2.13 2.05 2.22 2.05 2.39 1.75 1.71 1.80 2.67 1.74 3.60 2.33 2.20 2.46 1.92 1.82 2.03 2.21 1.99 2.44 2.75 3.01 2.49 2.61 2.29 2.92 1.57 1.95 1.76 2.38 2.42 2.35 2.32 2.10 2.55 2.04 1.66 2.41 1.78 1.75 1.81 2.30 2.05 2.55 2.04 1.95 2.14 2.09 1.82 2.36 1.72 1.23 2.22 2.13 1.71 2.55 2.49 2.41 2.57 2.13 1.99 2.28 2.29 2.04 2.54 1.88 1.83 1.92 2.41 2.25 2.56 2.05 2.06 2.04 1.90 2.27 2.09 1.23 1.50 1.56 3.01 3.72 3.08 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.12 0.04 0.59 0.21 NS 0.30

NS = Non- significance.

chlorophyll b content. Among the two irrigation levels, maximum chlorophyll b content was recorded in the 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (0.356) and compared to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (0.245). A significant interaction effect was observed between the genotypes and different pan evaporation ratios for chlorophyll b content. Significantly maximum chlorophyll b content was exhibited by the genotype L-2 (0.757) and this was on par with GK-3 (0.730) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and minimum was observed in the genotype L-38 (0.151) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. 4.1.3.1.3 Total chlorophyll content (mg.g of fresh weight) (c.f. Table 7) Total chlorophyll content significantly differed between the genotypes, irrigation levels and their interaction effects and it varied from 1.008 to 2.050 at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and it was 0.594 to 1.581 at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. The genotype L-13 had significantly higher total chlorophyll content (1.806) and minimum total chlorophyll content was recorded in the genotype L-15 (0.944) irrespective of the irrigation levels. Among the two irrigation levels, there was 27.34 per cent total chlorophyll content was reduced when the stress was increased from 1.2 to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. Among the genotypes significantly maximum total chlorophyll content was observed in the genotype L-10 (2.050) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio while, the genotype L-2 at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio had significantly lower total chlorophyll content (0.594) compared to other genotypes. 4.1.3.2 Ascorbic acid (mg.100g of fruit) (c.f. Table 8) Ascorbic acid content varied significantly among the genotypes, pan evaporation rates and their interaction. Ascorbic acid content varied from 9.18 to 21.54 and 10.94 to 24.14 at 1.2 and 0.4 IW/CPE ratio, respectively. Irrespective of the irrigation levels, genotype L-13 had significantly higher ascorbic acid content (21.47) and least was found in the genotype GK-1 (11.53). As stress increased from 1.2 to 0.4 IW/CPE, there was significant increase in ascorbic acid content (18.41%) was noticed. Among the genotypes, L-13 (24.14) found significantly maximum ascorbic content followed by L-30 (23.85) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio and least was in the genotype GK-3 (9.18) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio. 4.1.3.3 Proline (g.g of fresh weight) (c.f. Table 8) Proline content of leaf indicated significant difference among the genotypes and irrigation levels, but no significant interaction effects. Proline content ranged from 2.36 to 19.69 at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and it was 3.49 to 19.98 at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. Irrespective of the irrigation levels, genotype L-10 (P) observed significantly higher proline content (19.84) and was on par with L-43 (18.97) while, least proline was found in the genotype L-6 (2.92). Among the irrigation levels, as the stress increased from 1.2 to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio there was significant increase in proline content (12.35%). Interaction effect had no significance for proline content. However, maximum proline production was observed in L-10 (P) (19.98) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio and minimum was found in the L-6 (2.36) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio. 4.1.3.4 Total soluble solid (TSS) (Brix) (c.f. Table 8) Significant differences were observed for total soluble solid content among the genotypes, irrigation levels and their interaction. TSS content ranged from 2.43 to 5.83 at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio, as the stress level increased it ranged from 3.25 to 9.53 at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. Irrespective of the irrigation levels, genotype GK-3 had significantly higher TSS (6.71) and was least in genotype L-40-3 (3.25). Among irrigation levels, significantly maximum TSS was recorded in the 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (3.68) when compared to 1.2 IW/CPE ratio. TSS was increased as stress level increased from 1.2 to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio, it increased to the extent of 36.99 per cent
-1 -1 -1

Table 7. Chlorophyll contents (mg.g-1 of fresh weight) as influenced by irrigation levels in tomato genotypes at 45 DAT
Sl. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. Mean Range IRRIGATION (I) GENOTYPES (G) IxG Genotypes Alco Basa Arka Abhay Arka Alok Arka Ashish Arka Meghali GK-1 GK-2 GK-3 IIHR 2274 Megha (L-15) Nandi PKM-1 PR-1 Punjab Chhauhara S-22 Sankranthi Vaibhav L-1 L-2 L-3 L-5 L-6 L-10 L-10 (P) L-11 L-12 L-13 L-15 L-16 L-17 L-18 L-19 L-26 L-27 L-28 L-29 L-30 L-31 L-32 L-33 L-33-1 L-34 L-34-1 L-35 L-37 L-38 L-38-1 L-40-3 L-43 L-44 Chlorophyll a IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 1.250 0.904 1.077 0.908 0.838 0.873 1.274 1.214 1.244 0.958 0.624 0.791 1.073 0.759 0.916 0.992 0.678 0.835 1.111 1.043 1.077 1.161 1.119 1.140 1.077 1.013 1.045 1.321 0.804 1.062 1.016 0.687 0.851 1.030 0.828 0.929 1.215 1.154 1.184 0.981 0.899 0.940 1.001 0.799 0.900 0.979 0.787 0.883 0.913 0.739 0.826 1.577 0.890 1.233 1.006 0.320 0.663 1.024 0.902 0.963 1.340 0.666 1.003 0.941 1.056 0.999 1.581 0.777 1.179 1.359 1.077 1.218 1.357 1.149 1.253 1.589 0.871 1.230 1.710 1.357 1.533 0.801 0.698 0.749 1.224 0.875 1.049 1.233 1.014 1.124 1.097 0.642 0.869 1.163 0.878 1.021 1.205 1.129 1.167 1.060 0.818 0.939 1.239 0.890 1.064 0.967 1.132 1.049 1.517 1.051 1.284 1.364 0.873 1.118 1.474 0.723 1.099 1.605 1.054 1.329 0.966 0.933 0.950 1.204 0.871 1.038 1.226 0.809 1.018 1.478 0.897 1.188 1.470 0.783 1.126 1.069 0.752 0.910 1.239 0.808 1.023 1.201 1.134 1.167 1.040 0.819 0.930 1.539 0.820 1.179 1.203 0.887 1.045 0.801 0.320 0.663 1.710 1.357 1.533 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.039 0.014 0.193 0.069 0.273 0.097 Chlorophyll b Total Chlorophyll 1.2 0.4 Mean 1.2 0.4 Mean 0.309 0.258 0.283 1.559 1.161 1.360 0.505 0.329 0.417 1.413 1.167 1.290 0.412 0.363 0.388 1.686 1.577 1.631 0.370 0.206 0.288 1.328 0.830 1.079 0.319 0.190 0.255 1.392 0.949 1.170 0.307 0.214 0.260 1.299 0.891 1.095 0.281 0.205 0.243 1.392 1.247 1.319 0.730 0.267 0.498 1.891 1.385 1.638 0.528 0.284 0.406 1.605 1.297 1.451 0.356 0.214 0.285 1.677 1.017 1.347 0.267 0.220 0.244 1.283 0.907 1.095 0.549 0.211 0.380 1.579 1.039 1.309 0.265 0.220 0.243 1.480 1.374 1.427 0.273 0.255 0.264 1.254 1.154 1.204 0.387 0.200 0.293 1.388 0.999 1.193 0.236 0.203 0.219 1.214 0.990 1.102 0.400 0.219 0.309 1.312 0.958 1.135 0.389 0.302 0.345 1.966 1.192 1.579 0.757 0.275 0.516 1.763 0.594 1.178 0.350 0.295 0.322 1.373 1.197 1.285 0.277 0.222 0.249 1.617 0.888 1.252 0.291 0.222 0.257 1.232 1.278 1.255 0.470 0.384 0.427 2.050 1.160 1.605 0.365 0.288 0.326 1.724 1.365 1.544 0.282 0.236 0.259 1.639 1.384 1.511 0.351 0.332 0.342 1.940 1.203 1.571 0.322 0.225 0.273 2.031 1.581 1.806 0.207 0.183 0.195 1.008 0.881 0.944 0.360 0.277 0.319 1.584 1.152 1.368 0.257 0.240 0.249 1.490 1.254 1.372 0.258 0.173 0.215 1.354 0.815 1.085 0.217 0.207 0.212 1.380 1.085 1.233 0.332 0.256 0.294 1.537 1.385 1.461 0.441 0.239 0.340 1.501 1.057 1.279 0.323 0.306 0.314 1.562 1.195 1.379 0.581 0.272 0.426 1.548 1.403 1.476 0.407 0.377 0.392 1.924 1.428 1.676 0.480 0.218 0.349 1.844 1.091 1.467 0.361 0.337 0.349 1.835 1.060 1.447 0.398 0.186 0.292 2.003 1.239 1.621 0.226 0.220 0.223 1.192 1.153 1.172 0.305 0.183 0.244 1.509 1.054 1.281 0.290 0.206 0.248 1.516 1.015 1.265 0.327 0.282 0.304 1.805 1.179 1.492 0.256 0.183 0.219 1.725 0.966 1.345 0.357 0.151 0.254 1.425 0.903 1.164 0.266 0.227 0.246 1.505 1.035 1.270 0.296 0.249 0.272 1.497 1.382 1.439 0.254 0.186 0.220 1.294 1.005 1.150 0.236 0.241 0.238 1.775 1.060 1.417 0.356 0.245 0.300 1.558 1.132 1.345 0.207 0.151 0.195 1.008 0.594 0.944 0.757 0.384 0.516 2.050 1.581 1.806 S.Em + CD at 5% S.Em + CD at 5% 0.039 0.014 0.007 0.003 0.196 0.070 0.036 0.013 0.278 0.099 0.051 0.018

DAT = Days after transplanting.

Table 8. Ascorbic acid, proline and TSS content as influenced by irrigation levels in tomato genotypes
Sl. No. Genotypes Ascorbic acid (mg / 100g fr. Leaf wt.) IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 12.31 13.42 12.86 18.46 20.13 19.30 10.77 14.57 12.67 16.92 10.94 13.93 13.85 18.35 16.10 10.73 12.34 11.53 10.77 13.17 11.97 09.18 13.90 11.54 13.85 20.18 17.01 18.46 22.93 20.69 20.00 15.38 17.69 15.31 16.92 16.11 13.85 15.42 14.64 16.92 17.03 16.98 12.31 15.17 13.74 13.85 14.53 14.19 18.46 21.54 20.00 13.85 16.96 15.40 12.31 18.46 15.39 10.73 13.73 12.23 12.31 19.98 16.14 13.16 16.97 15.06 12.31 18.18 15.24 18.60 22.50 20.55 15.38 15.20 15.29 10.77 16.88 13.82 18.80 24.14 21.47 10.77 13.08 11.92 15.38 16.60 15.99 16.92 17.24 17.08 16.92 17.10 17.01 15.37 18.31 16.84 13.85 16.88 15.36 12.31 20.31 16.31 13.85 23.08 18.46 15.87 16.92 16.39 18.46 23.85 21.15 12.31 20.73 16.52 21.54 15.38 18.46 15.38 16.28 15.83 10.77 16.97 13.87 18.46 18.49 18.48 18.46 18.49 18.48 10.77 12.67 11.72 16.92 11.54 14.23 18.46 22.31 20.39 10.77 15.38 13.08 12.17 13.85 13.01 16.92 21.54 19.23 10.77 15.45 13.11 14.55 17.23 15.89 09.18 10.94 11.53 21.54 24.14 21.47 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.05 0.02 0.22 0.08 0.32 0.11 Proline (/g of fr. Leaf wt.) TSS (Brix) (fruit)

1. Alco Basa 2. Arka Abhay 3. Arka Alok 4. Arka Ashish 5. Arka Meghali 6. GK1 7. GK-2 8. GK-3 9. IIHR 2274 10. Megha (L-15) 11. Nandi 12. PKM-1 13. PR-1 14. Punjab Chhauhara 15. S-22 16. Sankranthi 17. Vaibhav 18. L-1 19. L-2 20. L-3 21. L-5 22. L6 23. L-10 24. L-10 (P) 25. L-11 26. L-12 27. L-13 28. L-15 29. L-16 30. L-17 31. L-18 32. L-19 33. L-26 34. L-27 35. L-28 36. L-29 37. L-30 38. L-31 39. L-32 40. L-33 41. L-33-1 42. L-34 43. L-34-1 44. L-35 45. L-37 46. L-38 47. L-38-1 48. L-40-3 49. L-43 50. L-44 Mean Range IRRIGATION (I) GENOTYPES (G) IxG

1.2 0.4 Mean 1.2 0.4 Mean 3.28 06.16 07.67 06.92 2.75 3.80 3.84 12.71 14.12 13.42 3.23 4.45 4.13 08.93 12.22 10.57 3.85 4.40 3.90 10.95 11.74 11.34 3.40 4.40 3.73 15.02 17.80 16.41 3.40 4.05 6.48 14.55 16.63 15.59 4.55 8.40 5.48 03.08 04.08 03.58 3.35 7.60 6.71 11.60 11.61 11.60 5.15 8.28 6.70 8.16 09.93 09.04 4.00 9.40 3.53 10.67 11.52 11.09 3.30 3.75 4.54 11.00 12.81 11.91 4.45 4.63 5.61 15.12 17.72 16.42 3.15 8.08 5.74 04.53 05.35 04.94 3.38 8.10 4.46 13.08 14.10 13.59 4.28 4.65 3.71 15.27 17.89 16.58 3.68 3.75 4.39 09.18 10.51 09.84 4.28 4.50 4.43 11.68 13.51 12.59 4.10 4.75 4.39 10.79 11.84 11.31 3.78 5.00 6.18 06.01 06.75 06.38 3.33 9.03 6.39 04.04 04.89 04.46 3.25 9.53 5.90 10.54 12.26 11.40 2.88 8.93 4.21 02.36 03.49 02.92 3.75 4.68 3.69 10.17 11.36 10.76 3.53 3.85 6.08 19.69 19.98 19.84 3.73 8.43 4.04 12.12 12.99 12.55 3.70 4.38 5.70 16.18 17.00 16.59 4.03 7.38 03.17 04.90 04.03 4.25 5.05 4.65 4.11 13.26 16.08 14.67 4.03 4.20 3.26 12.54 14.06 13.30 3.00 3.53 4.25 10.96 12.41 11.68 4.25 4.25 3.38 10.02 11.50 10.76 3.25 3.50 4.64 07.71 08.45 08.08 4.38 4.90 3.70 10.68 12.80 11.74 3.50 3.90 6.55 08.58 09.58 09.08 4.03 9.08 4.99 10.87 11.79 11.33 3.05 6.93 5.91 06.15 07.93 07.04 2.43 9.40 6.04 12.97 15.08 14.02 2.98 9.10 04.58 05.59 05.09 3.48 4.35 3.91 5.83 08.19 09.57 08.88 3.18 8.48 4.48 04.98 07.66 06.32 3.58 5.38 5.56 07.07 08.52 07.79 3.05 8.08 4.10 03.98 05.07 04.52 3.95 4.25 6.49 07.79 07.99 07.89 3.98 9.00 3.78 12.04 14.04 13.04 3.60 3.95 3.74 17.17 18.12 17.64 3.63 3.85 3.78 11.18 11.54 11.36 3.60 3.95 4.23 08.06 09.87 08.97 4.00 4.45 3.25 10.10 10.87 10.48 3.25 3.25 18.29 19.65 18.97 5.83 6.88 6.35 3.90 06.88 08.53 07.70 3.75 4.05 10.02 11.43 10.72 3.68 5.84 4.76 02.36 03.49 02.92 2.43 3.25 3.25 19.69 19.98 19.84 5.83 9.53 6.71 S.Em + CD at 5% S.Em + CD at 5% 0.08 0.03 0.42 0.15 0.37 0.13 2.11 0.75 0.52 0.19 NS 1.06

NS= Non-significant

There was significant difference in interaction effects. Among the genotypes more TSS was noticed in L-3 (9.53) at 0.4 IW/CPE and this was on par with IIHR 2274 (9.40), L-29 (9.40), L-30 (9.10), L-27 (9.08) and L-2 (9.03) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio and minimum was in L-29 at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (2.43).

4.1.4 Growth parameters


4.1.4.1 Leaf area (dm .plant ) at different crop growth period (c.f. Table 9) The photosynthetic surface area (leaf area) increased progressively from 45 DAT upto harvest. Significant difference in leaf area was observed among the genotypes and different irrigation schedules at 45, 75 DAT and at harvest. Significant difference for interaction was observed only during 45 DAT and at harvest. Leaf area was ranged from 7.40 to 18.73, 23.41 to 66.22 and 34.77 to 95.62 at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio where as at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio it varied from 6.15 to 16.13, 19.63 to 56.31 and 31.43 to 88.09 at 45, 75 DAT and at harvest, respectively. At 45 DAT, irrespective of the irrigation levels, genotype L-3 had significantly maximum leaf area (16.58) and was on par with L-33-1 (15.99) followed by L-1 (15.60), L-35 (15.58), L-10 (P) (15.45), L-37 (15.11), L-5 (15.02), L-33 (14.80) and L-43 (14.66) and minimum was in the genotype L-44 (6.99). There was significant interaction between genotypes and irrigation levels. Significantly maximum leaf area was noticed in the genotype L-32 (18.73) and this was on par with L-35 followed by L-38, Sankranthi, L-37, L-3, L-33-1, L-15, L-10 (P), L-33 and L-1 at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and least was in the genotype L-11 at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. At 75 DAT, there was significant difference among the genotypes and pan evaporation ratios. Significantly maximum leaf area was found in the genotype L-33 (61.26) and least was recorded in the genotype L-40-3 (21.52) irrespective of the irrigation levels. Interaction between the genotypes and irrigation levels was not significant. However, maximum leaf area was observed in the genotype L-33 (66.22) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and minimum was in the genotype L-40-3 (19.63). Among the irrigation levels, 1.2 IW/CPE ratio had significantly maximum (41.77) leaf area compared 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (33.24) At harvest, there was significant difference within the genotypes, irrigation levels and their interaction. Irrespective of the irrigation levels, maximum leaf area was observed in the genotype L-33 (88.09) and minimum was in the genotype PR-1 (33.22). Among the pan evaporation ratios, significantly maximum leaf area was recorded at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (64.28) and minimum was at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (45.71). Among the genotypes, L-33 had significantly higher leaf area (95.62) and this was on par with L-13 (94.19), Arka Meghali (89.67), L-29 (89.59), Arka Ashish (87.81), Vaibhav (87.57) and L-11 (87.20) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and minimum leaf area was observed in the genotype L-16 (31.43) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. 4.1.4.2 Leaf area index (LAI) at different crop growth period (c.f. Table 10) Leaf area index was significant for irrigation schedules and genotypes at 45, 75 DAT and at harvest. Interaction between the genotypes and irrigation levels had significant difference only at 45 DAT and at harvest. At 45 DAT, irrespective of the irrigation levels, genotype L-3 had significantly maximum LAI (0.461) and lower LAI was recorded in the genotype L-44 (0.194). Among the irrigation levels, 1.2 IW/CPE ratio had highest LAI and it was lowest was in 0.4 IW/CPE ratio and it varied from 0.206 to 0.520 and 0.171 to 0.448, respectively. Significant difference was noticed for the interaction between the genotypes and irrigation schedules. Among the genotypes L-32 exhibited maximum LAI (0.520) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and was on par with L-35, L-38, Sankrant, L-37, L-10 (P), L-33-1, L-3, L-15, L33, L-1, L-31 and L- 29, where in LAI ranged between 0.520 to 0.445 and significantly lower LAI was recorded in the genotype L-11 (0.171) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. Same trend was observed at 75 DAT also for LAI. Significantly maximum LAI was found in the genotype L- 33 (1.702) while, the minimum LAI was recorded in the genotype L40-3 (0.598) irrespective of the irrigation levels. LAI ranged from 0.650 to 1.839 and 0.545
2 -1

Table 9. Leaf area (dm2.plant-1) of tomato genotypes as influenced by irrigation levels at various growth stages
Sl. No. Genotypes 45 DAT IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 14.23 10.64 12.44 12.25 10.92 11.58 13.27 11.63 12.45 13.55 11.19 12.37 13.57 11.79 12.68 11.93 11.06 11.49 11.54 10.38 10.96 12.52 9.27 10.90 9.69 11.06 8.32 13.36 10.02 11.69 13.27 11.80 12.54 12.14 11.06 11.60 14.16 12.99 13.57 14.56 11.10 12.83 13.26 10.75 12.00 17.99 10.69 14.34 12.04 11.00 11.52 16.77 14.43 15.60 14.26 10.12 12.19 17.04 16.13 16.58 16.82 13.22 15.02 11.82 8.35 10.09 10.36 10.43 10.40 17.13 13.77 15.45 8.94 6.15 7.55 12.21 10.97 11.59 15.44 11.32 13.38 16.82 10.95 13.88 8.24 8.52 7.95 14.36 10.47 12.41 13.91 8.49 11.20 15.47 14.12 14.79 14.72 10.35 12.53 15.85 10.31 13.08 12.42 10.95 11.68 16.01 11.84 13.93 14.28 13.11 13.70 16.51 10.66 13.59 18.73 10.41 14.57 16.80 12.79 14.80 17.03 14.96 15.99 15.04 9.49 12.27 15.62 13.47 14.54 18.69 12.48 15.58 17.14 13.08 15.11 18.13 9.04 13.59 13.51 10.75 12.13 9.46 11.42 7.50 15.73 13.58 14.66 6.99 7.40 6.57 14.19 11.06 12.62 7.40 6.15 6.99 18.73 16.13 16.58 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.41 0.14 2.03 0.72 2.86 1.02 75 DAT AT HARVEST 1.2 0.4 Mean 1.2 0.4 Mean 36.75 34.81 35.78 51.20 42.53 46.87 37.35 25.85 31.60 73.76 48.00 60.88 39.60 36.33 37.96 51.54 40.89 46.22 44.94 36.06 40.50 87.81 52.91 70.36 40.61 39.93 40.27 89.67 60.08 74.87 42.06 33.49 37.78 59.44 38.26 48.85 34.07 23.04 28.55 43.06 33.82 38.44 30.49 27.38 28.93 50.29 41.68 45.99 38.51 29.23 33.87 53.62 50.67 52.14 35.66 33.36 34.51 54.58 34.72 44.65 43.02 31.51 37.26 51.82 37.02 44.42 41.19 31.05 36.12 43.15 35.08 39.11 29.01 27.12 28.06 34.77 31.67 33.22 43.58 36.28 39.93 48.42 38.97 43.69 54.91 40.09 47.50 79.65 59.59 69.62 42.82 37.31 40.06 54.31 46.82 50.57 37.60 26.78 32.19 87.57 53.66 70.61 56.05 43.35 49.70 76.28 55.61 65.95 39.68 30.70 35.19 66.82 39.20 53.01 48.74 39.04 43.89 73.71 59.17 66.44 39.67 36.30 37.98 68.14 39.93 54.04 32.51 23.36 27.94 84.12 48.29 66.21 27.98 20.69 24.34 53.05 44.14 48.60 51.82 37.99 44.91 73.52 46.48 60.00 39.16 34.04 36.60 87.20 42.47 64.83 50.44 42.63 46.53 63.07 47.57 55.32 34.62 26.24 30.43 94.19 51.32 72.76 41.81 39.21 40.51 44.57 40.01 42.29 23.89 21.36 22.63 44.62 31.43 38.02 43.99 31.83 37.91 53.22 38.48 45.85 41.93 39.00 40.47 55.42 45.11 50.26 48.65 40.12 44.39 62.40 44.63 53.52 42.18 28.71 35.44 71.29 46.15 58.72 39.33 29.61 34.47 81.96 54.85 68.41 35.07 28.55 31.81 54.20 37.80 46.00 55.99 35.56 45.78 89.59 53.80 71.70 60.52 36.99 48.75 86.06 51.40 68.73 43.30 26.46 34.88 67.32 41.02 54.17 42.10 26.58 34.34 70.20 44.37 57.28 66.22 56.31 61.26 95.62 80.56 88.09 50.24 41.72 45.98 57.31 46.60 51.95 43.99 41.84 42.92 56.51 54.46 55.48 43.04 37.19 40.12 70.89 56.07 63.48 46.36 38.38 42.37 58.13 42.66 50.40 40.95 30.91 35.93 48.65 36.41 42.53 34.00 23.22 28.61 46.25 33.83 40.04 44.86 40.89 42.88 57.99 47.00 52.49 23.41 19.63 21.52 42.64 34.70 38.67 37.16 32.08 34.62 84.99 50.54 67.76 46.80 31.89 39.34 59.55 53.26 56.41 41.77 33.24 37.51 64.28 45.71 55.00 23.41 19.63 21.52 34.77 31.43 33.22 66.22 56.31 61.26 95.62 80.56 88.09 S.Em + CD at 5% S.Em + CD at 5% 1.39 0.50 0.20 0.72 6.95 2.48 10.12 3.60 9.83 3.50 NS 5.10

1. Alco Basa 2. Arka Abhay 3. Arka Alok 4. Arka Ashish 5. Arka Meghali 6. GK-1 7. GK-2 8. GK-3 9. IIHR 2274 10. Megha (L-15) 11. Nandi 12. PKM-1 13. PR-1 14. Punjab Chhauhara 15. S-22 16. Sankranthi 17. Vaibhav 18. L-1 19. L-2 20. L-3 21. L-5 22. L-6 23. L-10 24. L-10 (P) 25. L-11 26. L-12 27. L-13 28. L-15 29. L-16 30. L-17 31. L-18 32. L-19 33. L-26 34. L-27 35. L-28 36. L-29 37. L-30 38. L-31 39. L-32 40. L-33 41. L-33-1 42. L-34 43. L-34-1 44. L-35 45. L-37 46. L-38 47. L-38-1 48. L-40-3 49. L-43 50. L-44 Mean Range IRRIGATION (I) GENOTYPES (G) IxG

DAT = Days after transplanting, NS= Non-significant.

Table 10. Influence of irrigation levels on leaf area index (LAI) of tomato genotypes at various growth stages
Sl. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. Mean Range IRRIGATION (I) GENOTYPES (G) IxG Genotypes Alco Basa Arka Abhay Arka Alok Arka Ashish Arka Meghali GK-1 GK-2 GK-3 IIHR 2274 Megha (L-15) Nandi PKM-1 PR-1 Punjab Chhauhara S-22 Sankranthi Vaibhav L-1 L-2 L-3 L-5 L-6 L-10 L-10 (P) L-11 L-12 L-13 L-15 L-16 L-17 L-18 L-19 L-26 L-27 L-28 L-29 L-30 L-31 L-32 L-33 L-33-1 L-34 L-34-1 L-35 L-37 L-38 L-38-1 L-40-3 L-43 L-44 45 DAT IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 0.346 0.395 0.296 0.322 0.340 0.303 0.346 0.369 0.323 0.344 0.376 0.311 0.352 0.377 0.327 0.331 0.307 0.319 0.304 0.321 0.288 0.303 0.348 0.258 0.269 0.307 0.231 0.325 0.371 0.278 0.348 0.369 0.328 0.322 0.337 0.307 0.377 0.393 0.361 0.356 0.404 0.308 0.333 0.368 0.299 0.398 0.500 0.297 0.334 0.306 0.320 0.433 0.466 0.401 0.339 0.396 0.281 0.461 0.473 0.448 0.417 0.467 0.367 0.280 0.328 0.232 0.289 0.302 0.275 0.429 0.476 0.383 0.210 0.248 0.171 0.322 0.339 0.305 0.372 0.429 0.314 0.467 0.304 0.386 0.229 0.237 0.221 0.345 0.399 0.291 0.311 0.386 0.236 0.411 0.430 0.392 0.348 0.409 0.288 0.363 0.440 0.286 0.325 0.345 0.304 0.387 0.445 0.329 0.380 0.397 0.364 0.377 0.459 0.296 0.405 0.520 0.289 0.411 0.467 0.355 0.444 0.473 0.416 0.341 0.418 0.264 0.404 0.434 0.374 0.433 0.519 0.347 0.420 0.476 0.363 0.377 0.504 0.251 0.337 0.375 0.298 0.263 0.317 0.208 0.407 0.437 0.377 0.206 0.183 0.194 0.394 0.307 0.351 0.206 0.171 0.194 0.520 0.448 0.461 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.011 0.004 0.056 0.020 0.080 0.028 75 DAT 1.2 0.4 Mean 0.994 1.021 0.967 0.878 1.038 0.718 1.055 1.100 1.009 1.125 1.248 1.002 1.119 1.128 1.109 1.168 0.930 1.049 0.793 0.946 0.640 0.804 0.847 0.761 0.941 1.070 0.812 0.959 0.991 0.927 1.035 1.195 0.875 1.003 1.144 0.862 0.780 0.806 0.753 1.109 1.211 1.008 1.319 1.525 1.114 1.113 1.189 1.036 1.044 0.744 0.894 1.381 1.557 1.204 0.978 1.102 0.853 1.219 1.354 1.085 1.055 1.102 1.008 0.776 0.903 0.649 0.676 0.777 0.575 1.247 1.440 1.055 1.017 1.088 0.946 1.293 1.401 1.184 0.845 0.962 0.729 1.161 1.089 1.125 0.628 0.664 0.593 1.053 1.222 0.884 1.124 1.165 1.083 1.233 1.351 1.114 0.985 1.172 0.797 0.957 1.092 0.822 0.884 0.974 0.793 1.272 1.555 0.988 1.354 1.681 1.028 0.969 1.203 0.735 0.954 1.169 0.738 1.702 1.839 1.564 1.277 1.396 1.159 1.192 1.222 1.162 1.114 1.196 1.033 1.177 1.288 1.066 0.998 1.137 0.859 0.795 0.944 0.645 1.191 1.246 1.136 0.598 0.650 0.545 0.962 1.032 0.891 1.300 0.886 1.093 1.160 0.923 1.042 0.650 0.545 0.598 1.839 1.564 1.702 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.056 0.020 0.281 0.100 NS 0.141 AT HARVEST 1.2 0.4 Mean 1.302 1.422 1.181 1.691 2.049 1.333 1.284 1.432 1.136 1.954 2.439 1.470 2.080 2.491 1.669 1.651 1.063 1.357 1.068 1.196 0.940 1.277 1.397 1.158 1.448 1.489 1.407 1.240 1.516 0.964 1.234 1.439 1.028 1.087 1.198 0.975 0.923 0.966 0.880 1.214 1.345 1.082 1.934 2.213 1.655 1.405 1.509 1.301 2.433 1.490 1.961 1.832 2.119 1.545 1.472 1.856 1.089 1.846 2.047 1.644 1.501 1.893 1.109 1.839 2.337 1.341 1.350 1.474 1.226 1.667 2.042 1.291 1.801 2.422 1.180 1.537 1.752 1.321 2.021 2.616 1.426 1.238 1.111 1.175 1.056 1.239 0.873 1.274 1.478 1.069 1.396 1.539 1.253 1.487 1.733 1.240 1.631 1.980 1.282 1.900 2.277 1.524 1.278 1.505 1.050 1.992 2.489 1.495 1.909 2.391 1.428 1.505 1.870 1.139 1.591 1.950 1.233 2.447 2.656 2.238 1.443 1.592 1.294 1.541 1.513 1.570 1.763 1.969 1.558 1.400 1.615 1.185 1.181 1.351 1.011 1.112 1.285 0.940 1.458 1.611 1.306 1.074 1.185 0.964 1.882 2.361 1.404 1.654 1.480 1.567 1.784 1.271 1.528 0.966 0.873 0.923 2.656 2.238 2.447 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.039 0.014 0.193 0.069 0.272 0.097

DAT = Days after transplanting, NS = Non-significant.

and 1.564 at 1.2 and 0.4 IW/CPE ratio, respectively. There was no significant difference in the interaction between the genotypes and irrigation levels. However, maximum LAI was recorded in the genotype L- 33 (1.839) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and minimum LAI was exhibited by the genotype L-40-3 (0.545) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. LAI had significant difference among the genotypes, irrigation levels and for their interaction effect at harvest. Irrespective of the irrigation levels, genotype, L-33 was exhibited significantly higher LAI (2.447) at harvest and least LAI was recorded in the genotype PR-1 (0.923). There was a significant interaction effect between the genotypes and irrigation levels. The genotype L-33 had significantly higher LAI (2.656) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and minimum LAI was observed in the genotype L-16 (0.873). Among the pan evaporation ratios, 1.2 IW/CPE ratio had the highest LAI it varied from 0.966 to 2.656 and least was in 0.4 IW/CPE ratio it ranged from 0.873 to 2.238. 4.1.4.3 Leaf area duration (LAD, days) at different crop growth period (c.f. Table 11) Leaf area duration was significantly differed between the genotypes and pan evaporation ratios at all the growth stages. Significant difference for interaction was observed for LAD between the growth stages of 45 DAT to harvest and 75 DAT to harvest, but there was no significant difference for 45 to 75 DAT stage. Irrespective of the irrigation levels, genotype L-33 had significantly maximum LAD (31.69) compared to other genotypes and the least LAD was exhibited by the genotype L-16 (12.86) during 45 to 75 DAT. Interaction between the genotypes and pan evaporation was found non-significant. However, maximum LAD was observed in the genotype L-33 (34.59) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and minimum LAD was recorded in the genotype L-16 (12.86) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. During 45 DAT to harvest, irrespective of the irrigation levels leaf area duration was found to be significantly highest in the genotype L-33 (78.60) compared to rest of the genotypes and the least LAD was noticed in the genotype L-16 (35.34). An interaction effect between the genotypes and pan evaporation was found significant and genotype L-33 had significantly maximum LAD (85.88) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and minimum was recorded in the genotype L-16 (30.09) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. At 75 DAT to harvest, genotype L-33 had significantly higher LAD (51.86) and the least LAD was observed in the genotype L-40-3 (20.90) irrespective of the irrigation levels. There was significant difference for the interaction between genotypes and pan evaporation ratios. Among the genotypes, L-33 had significantly higher LAD (56.19) and was on par with L-30 (50.90) and L-29 (50.55) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio. Genotype L-16 (18.33) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio had significantly lower LAD compared to other genotypes. Irrespective of the growth stages viz., 45-75 DAT, 45 DATharvest, 75 DATharvest, significant difference in irrigation levels was recorded. Significantly maximum LAD was observed in the 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (23.32, 59.92 and 36.81, respectively) compared to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (18.45, 43.39 and 27.43, respectively). 4.1.4.4 Absolute growth rate (g day ) at different crop growth period (AGR) (c.f. Table 12) There was significant difference for absolute growth rate among the genotypes and irrigation levels during all the growth periods and the interaction effect was significant only during 45 to 75 DAT crop growth period. Between 45 to 75 DAT, irrespective of the irrigation levels, genotype Arka Meghali had significantly maximum AGR (0.64) and this was on par with S-22 (0.55) and minimum was exhibited by the genotype GK-2 (0.13). Significantly higher AGR was recorded in the 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and it ranged from 0.16 to 0.76 while it was least in 0.4 IW/CPE ratio and it varied from 0.09 to 0.58. Among the interaction effects, the maximum AGR was noticed in the genotype Arka Ashish (0.76) which was on par with Arka Meghali (0.71) and S-22 (0.65) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio. The genotype L-28 recorded significantly the least AGR (0.09) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio.
-1

Table 11. Influence of irrigation levels on leaf area duration (days) of tomato genotypes at various growth stages
Sl. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. Mean Range IRRIGATION (I) GENOTYPES (G) IxG Genotypes Alco Basa Arka Abhay Arka Alok Arka Ashish Arka Meghali GK1 GK-2 GK-3 IIHR 2274 Megha (L-15) Nandi PKM-1 PR-1 Punjab Chhauhara S-22 Sankranthi Vaibhav L-1 L-2 L-3 L-5 L6 L-10 L-10 (P) L-11 L-12 L-13 L-15 L-16 L-17 L-18 L-19 L-26 L-27 L-28 L-29 L-30 L-31 L-32 L-33 L-33-1 L-34 L-34-1 L-35 L-37 L-38 L-38-1 L-40-3 L-43 L-44 45 75 DAT IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 21.25 18.94 20.09 20.67 15.32 17.99 22.03 19.98 21.00 24.37 19.69 22.03 22.57 21.55 22.06 22.50 18.56 20.53 19.00 13.93 16.46 17.92 15.27 16.60 20.65 15.65 18.15 20.42 18.08 19.25 23.45 18.05 20.75 22.22 17.54 19.88 17.99 16.71 17.35 24.23 19.74 21.98 28.41 21.18 24.79 25.34 20.00 22.67 20.68 15.74 18.21 30.34 24.07 27.21 22.48 17.01 19.74 27.41 22.99 25.20 23.54 20.63 22.08 18.47 13.22 15.84 16.19 12.75 14.47 28.73 21.57 25.15 20.04 16.75 18.39 26.10 22.33 24.22 20.86 15.65 18.25 24.43 20.90 22.66 13.50 12.22 12.86 24.31 17.63 20.97 23.27 19.79 21.53 26.72 22.60 24.66 23.71 16.27 19.99 22.99 16.63 19.81 19.78 16.46 18.12 30.00 19.75 24.88 31.17 20.88 26.02 24.92 15.47 20.20 25.34 15.41 20.38 34.59 28.79 31.69 28.03 23.62 25.82 24.59 21.39 22.99 24.44 21.11 22.77 27.10 21.19 24.15 24.20 18.33 21.27 21.72 13.44 17.58 24.32 21.51 22.92 14.51 11.31 12.91 22.04 19.03 20.53 22.59 16.02 19.30 23.32 18.45 20.89 13.50 11.31 12.86 34.59 28.79 31.69 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.84 0.30 4.18 1.49 NS 2.11 45 DAT Harvest 75 DAT Harvest 1.2 0.4 Mean 1.2 0.4 Mean 49.98 40.62 45.30 30.54 26.85 28.70 65.70 45.01 55.35 38.58 25.64 32.11 49.51 40.12 44.81 31.65 26.81 29.23 77.43 48.97 63.20 46.09 30.89 38.49 78.86 54.90 66.88 45.23 34.73 39.98 54.52 37.67 46.10 35.24 24.91 30.08 41.71 33.77 37.74 26.78 19.74 23.26 47.98 38.92 43.45 28.05 23.98 26.01 49.40 45.06 47.23 31.99 27.74 29.86 51.89 34.18 43.03 31.33 23.64 27.49 49.72 37.30 43.51 32.93 23.80 28.36 42.23 35.25 38.74 29.28 22.96 26.12 37.38 34.11 35.75 22.14 20.41 21.28 48.11 38.25 43.18 31.94 26.13 29.04 70.98 53.73 62.35 46.72 34.61 40.67 55.23 43.93 49.58 33.73 29.21 31.47 76.09 49.39 62.74 43.46 27.93 35.70 71.08 53.51 62.29 45.95 34.36 40.16 61.93 37.67 49.80 36.98 24.27 30.63 69.32 57.52 63.42 42.52 34.10 38.31 64.90 40.60 52.75 37.43 26.47 31.95 73.29 43.27 58.28 40.50 24.88 32.69 48.84 41.29 45.07 28.14 22.51 25.32 69.25 46.02 57.64 43.52 29.33 36.43 73.44 37.14 55.29 43.88 26.56 35.22 57.50 44.72 51.11 39.41 31.32 35.36 83.75 47.85 65.80 44.73 26.93 35.83 46.89 38.93 42.91 29.99 27.51 28.75 40.59 30.09 35.34 23.79 18.33 21.06 51.63 37.39 44.51 33.75 24.41 29.08 52.96 40.94 46.95 33.80 29.20 31.50 59.48 44.88 52.18 38.56 29.43 33.99 65.70 43.16 54.43 39.40 25.99 32.70 74.72 49.78 62.25 42.11 29.33 35.72 50.88 37.24 44.06 30.99 23.04 27.02 80.67 50.14 65.41 50.55 31.03 40.79 76.65 49.28 62.97 50.90 30.69 40.79 64.04 39.48 51.76 38.41 23.43 30.92 67.93 41.85 54.89 38.99 24.63 31.81 85.88 71.31 78.60 56.19 47.52 51.86 56.78 47.02 51.90 37.34 30.66 34.00 53.09 50.42 51.75 34.18 34.15 34.17 66.08 53.12 59.60 39.56 32.38 35.97 58.68 42.12 50.40 36.28 28.14 32.21 50.26 37.81 44.03 31.11 23.37 27.24 49.18 32.75 40.97 27.87 19.81 23.84 54.61 44.11 49.36 35.71 30.52 33.11 41.30 32.24 36.77 22.94 18.87 20.90 76.94 48.98 62.96 42.41 28.69 35.55 51.15 45.71 48.43 36.93 29.57 33.25 59.92 43.39 51.66 36.81 27.43 32.12 37.38 30.09 35.34 22.14 18.33 20.90 85.88 71.31 78.60 56.19 47.52 51.86 S.Em + CD at 5% S.Em + CD at 5% 0.86 0.31 1.11 0.40 4.29 1.53 5.55 1.98 6.07 2.16 7.85 2.80

DAT = Days after transplanting, NS = Non-significant.

Table 12. Influence of irrigation levels on absolute growth rate (g.day-1) in tomato genotypes at various growth stages

At 45 DAT to harvest stage, irrespective of the irrigation levels, genotype L-33 had significantly maximum AGR (0.59) and this was on par with L-30 (0.58), Arka Meghali (0.57), Arka Ashish and L-13 (0.56, each), Vaibhav (0.53), L-29 (0.50), S-22 (0.47), GK-3 (0.46) and IIHR-2274 (0.45). The genotype GK-2 showed significantly the least AGR (0.19). Among the two irrigation schedules, 1.2 IW/CPE ratio had significantly maximum AGR compared to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio it ranged from 0.23 to 0.81 and 0.11 to 0.47, respectively. There was no significant difference for interaction between genotypes and irrigation levels at 45 DAT to harvest. However, maximum AGR was observed in the genotype Arka Ashish (0.81) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and minimum AGR was exhibited by the genotype L-3 (0.11) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. During 75 DAT to harvest, significantly maximum AGR was recorded in the genotype L-30 (0.92) and it was on par with Vaibhav (0.72), L-29 (0.72), L-33 (0.69) and Arka Ashish (0.65). Genotype L-3 had significantly the least ARG (0.16) irrespective of the irrigation levels. Among the two irrigation levels, significantly maximum AGR was noticed in 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and it varied from 0.19 to 1.28 compared to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio wherein, it ranged from 0.10 to 0.65. Interaction effects were, non significant. However, L- 13 had maximum AGR (1.28) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and minimum was in Arka Abha (0.10) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. 4.1.4.5 Crop growth rate (g.m .day ) (CGR) at different crop growth stages (c.f. Table 13) There was significant difference for crop growth rate among the genotypes and different pan evaporation ratios between the crop growth periods of 45-75 DAT, 45 DAT harvest and 75 DAT-harvest. Interaction between the genotypes and pan evaporation ratio was significant only at 45-75 DAT crop growth period. At 45-75 DAT, the genotype Arka Meghali had significantly higher CGR (1.79), whereas, GK-2 showed significantly lesser CGR (0.36) irrespective of the irrigation levels. There was significant interaction effect wherein the genotype Arka Ashish had significantly maximum CGR (2.10) and it was on par with Arka Meghali (1.97) and S-22 (1.82) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio, while the minimum CGR (0.25) was exhibited by the genotype Alco Basa at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. During 45 DAT-harvest, significantly highest CGR (1.63) was recorded in genotype L33 and it was on par with L-30, Arka Meghali, Arka Ashish, Vaibhav, L-29 and S-22. The least CGR was recorded in the genotype GK-2 (0.52) irrespective of the irrigation levels. There was no significance difference in interaction effects. However, maximum CGR was observed in the genotype Arka Ashish (2.24) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and minimum was in L-3 (0.31) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. During 75 DAT- at harvest, irrespective of the irrigation levels, genotype L-30 had significantly maximum CGR (2.55) and this was on par with Vaibhav (2.00), L-33 (1.91) and Arka Ashish (1.81). Genotype L-3 had the lowest CGR (0.45). Among the genotypes L-13 exhibited significantly higher CGR (3.55) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and genotype Arka Abha had minimum CGR (0.28) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. Irrespective of the different growth stages viz., 45-75 DAT, 45 DATharvest, 75 DAT harvest, irrigation levels showed significant difference with respect to CGR. Significantly higher CGR was observed in the 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (1.08, 1.23 and 1.42, respectively) compared to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (0.58, 0.64 and 0.72, respectively). 4.1.4.6 Net assimilation rate (g dm day X 10 ) (NAR) at different crop growth period (c.f. Table 14) Net assimilation rate was decreased in all the growth stages irrespective of the irrigation schedules. Significant difference among the genotypes and irrigation levels was noticed but there was no significant difference for the interaction effect at all the growth stages of the crop. During 45-75 DAT, irrespective of the irrigation levels, genotype Arka Meghali had significantly higher NAR (1.17), this was on par with Arka Abha (1.03) and the least NAR was noticed in the genotype L-19 (0.26). Among the two irrigation levels, 1.2 IW/CPE ratio recorded significantly higher NAR compared to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio wherein, NAR ranged from 0.32 to 1.27 and 0.17 to 1.09, respectively. There was no significant difference for the
-2 -1 2 -2 -1

Table 13. Crop growth rate (g.m-2.day-1) of tomato genotypes as influenced by irrigation levels at various growth stages
Sl. No. Genotypes 45 75 DAT 45 DAT - Harvest 75 DAT - Harvest IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 1.2 0.4 Mean 1.2 0.4 Mean 0.99 0.25 0.62 0.98 0.37 0.68 0.97 0.50 0.74 1.65 1.02 1.34 1.58 0.68 1.13 1.49 0.28 0.88 1.04 0.46 0.75 0.94 0.47 0.70 0.82 0.47 0.64 2.10 0.59 1.35 2.24 0.87 1.56 2.41 1.21 1.81 1.97 1.60 1.79 1.93 1.21 1.57 1.89 0.73 1.31 1.35 0.26 0.81 1.10 0.34 0.72 0.80 0.43 0.62 0.45 0.27 0.36 0.63 0.40 0.52 0.84 0.56 0.70 1.35 0.91 1.13 1.52 1.01 1.27 1.73 1.12 1.42 1.19 0.85 1.02 1.45 1.05 1.25 1.77 1.29 1.53 0.64 0.39 0.51 0.75 0.46 0.60 0.87 0.54 0.71 0.82 0.59 0.71 1.08 0.61 0.84 1.38 0.63 1.01 0.95 0.38 0.67 1.07 0.51 0.79 1.22 0.67 0.94 0.67 0.47 0.57 0.77 0.45 0.61 0.89 0.44 0.66 0.91 0.61 0.76 0.98 0.61 0.80 1.08 0.61 0.84 1.82 1.24 1.53 1.58 1.05 1.31 1.29 0.82 1.06 0.68 0.45 0.57 0.69 0.45 0.57 0.72 0.45 0.59 1.36 0.70 1.03 1.93 1.01 1.47 2.61 1.39 2.00 1.32 0.84 1.08 1.24 0.82 1.03 1.14 0.79 0.97 1.05 0.72 0.89 1.05 0.63 0.84 1.04 0.52 0.78 1.03 0.28 0.65 0.81 0.31 0.56 0.54 0.36 0.45 0.77 0.27 0.52 1.14 0.49 0.82 1.58 0.76 1.17 0.63 0.37 0.50 0.96 0.54 0.75 1.35 0.75 1.05 0.73 0.41 0.57 1.11 0.60 0.85 1.56 0.82 1.19 0.78 0.34 0.56 1.23 0.46 0.85 1.78 0.61 1.19 1.20 0.82 1.01 1.73 0.63 1.18 2.36 0.41 1.39 1.27 0.83 1.05 1.09 0.65 0.87 0.86 0.43 0.65 1.00 0.64 0.82 2.16 0.96 1.56 3.55 1.35 2.45 1.15 0.65 0.90 1.04 0.58 0.81 0.91 0.50 0.71 0.73 0.57 0.65 0.79 0.54 0.66 0.85 0.51 0.68 0.75 0.44 0.60 0.89 0.51 0.70 1.05 0.59 0.82 1.27 0.72 1.00 1.11 0.62 0.87 0.92 0.51 0.71 0.59 0.33 0.46 1.05 0.43 0.74 1.60 0.56 1.08 1.13 0.61 0.87 1.30 0.68 0.99 1.50 0.78 1.14 0.94 0.59 0.76 1.35 0.88 1.12 1.85 1.23 1.54 0.91 0.26 0.58 0.90 0.35 0.63 0.89 0.46 0.68 1.16 0.65 0.90 1.87 0.92 1.40 2.72 1.26 1.99 1.28 0.35 0.81 2.20 1.01 1.60 3.30 1.80 2.55 1.27 0.40 0.84 1.29 0.51 0.90 1.31 0.64 0.98 1.34 0.28 0.81 1.39 0.48 0.93 1.45 0.72 1.09 1.60 1.20 1.40 1.96 1.31 1.63 2.38 1.44 1.91 1.10 0.53 0.82 1.20 0.60 0.90 1.31 0.69 1.00 1.05 0.51 0.78 1.04 0.55 0.79 1.02 0.58 0.80 1.03 0.67 0.85 0.89 0.54 0.71 0.72 0.38 0.55 0.90 0.53 0.72 0.95 0.55 0.75 1.01 0.56 0.79 0.99 0.32 0.66 1.17 0.45 0.81 1.39 0.60 1.00 0.81 0.37 0.59 0.77 0.35 0.56 0.72 0.33 0.52 0.99 0.72 0.86 0.92 0.67 0.80 0.84 0.62 0.73 0.65 0.39 0.52 0.98 0.51 0.75 1.37 0.66 1.02 0.90 0.59 0.74 1.26 0.70 0.98 1.70 0.83 1.27 1.73 0.57 1.15 1.64 0.73 1.19 1.53 0.93 1.23 1.08 0.58 0.83 1.23 0.64 0.94 1.42 0.72 1.07 0.45 0.25 0.36 0.63 0.31 0.52 0.54 0.28 0.45 2.10 1.60 1.79 2.24 1.31 1.63 3.55 1.80 2.55 S.Em + CD at 5% S.Em + CD at 5% S.Em + CD at 5% 0.16 0.06 0.07 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.81 0.29 0.35 0.13 0.24 0.09 NS 0.41 NS 0.18 0.34 0.12

1. Alco Basa 2. Arka Abhay 3. Arka Alok 4. Arka Ashish 5. Arka Meghali 6. GK-1 7. GK-2 8. GK-3 9. IIHR 2274 10. Megha (L-15) 11. Nandi 12. PKM-1 13. PR-1 14. Punjab Chhauhara 15. S-22 16. Sankranthi 17. Vaibhav 18. L-1 19. L-2 20. L-3 21. L-5 22. L-6 23. L-10 24. L-10 (P) 25. L-11 26. L-12 27. L-13 28. L-15 29. L-16 30. L-17 31. L-18 32. L-19 33. L-26 34. L-27 35. L-28 36. L-29 37. L-30 38. L-31 39. L-32 40. L-33 41. L-33-1 42. L-34 43. L-34-1 44. L-35 45. L-37 46. L-38 47. L-38-1 48. L-40-3 49. L-43 50. L-44 Mean Range IRRIGATION (I) GENOTYPES (G) IxG

NS = Non- significance, DAT = Days after transplanting.

Table 14. Net assimilation rate (NAR) (g.dm-2.day-1 X 102) of tomato genotypes as influenced by irrigation levels at different growth stages
Sl. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. Mean Range IRRIGATION (I) GENOTYPES (G) IxG Genotypes Alco Basa Arka Abhay Arka Alok Arka Ashish Arka Meghali GK-1 GK-2 GK-3 IIHR 2274 Megha (L-15) Nandi PKM-1 PR-1 Punjab Chhauhara S-22 Sankranthi Vaibhav L-1 L-2 L-3 L-5 L-6 L-10 L-10 (P) L-11 L-12 L-13 L-15 L-16 L-17 L-18 L-19 L-26 L-27 L-28 L-29 L-30 L-31 L-32 L-33 L-33-1 L-34 L-34-1 L-35 L-37 L-38 L-38-1 L-40-3 L-43 L-44 45 75 DAT IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 0.45 0.70 0.19 1.03 1.16 0.91 0.51 0.68 0.34 0.85 1.26 0.44 1.17 1.25 1.09 0.54 0.88 0.20 0.31 0.34 0.27 0.95 1.05 0.86 0.83 0.85 0.82 0.37 0.44 0.31 0.49 0.51 0.46 0.48 0.63 0.33 0.45 0.51 0.39 0.49 0.53 0.45 0.92 0.97 0.87 0.36 0.36 0.35 0.79 0.95 0.63 0.56 0.63 0.50 0.64 0.67 0.61 0.35 0.53 0.17 0.32 0.45 0.19 0.45 0.50 0.41 0.54 0.65 0.44 0.31 0.39 0.23 0.85 0.92 0.79 0.67 0.77 0.56 0.62 0.68 0.56 0.56 0.66 0.46 0.71 0.76 0.66 0.40 0.45 0.36 0.68 0.79 0.57 0.26 0.32 0.21 0.60 0.68 0.53 0.55 0.58 0.52 0.44 0.64 0.23 0.52 0.57 0.48 0.43 0.62 0.24 0.58 0.79 0.36 0.53 0.81 0.25 0.67 0.69 0.64 0.44 0.56 0.32 0.49 0.60 0.37 0.54 0.62 0.46 0.41 0.46 0.36 0.41 0.58 0.25 0.45 0.51 0.40 0.55 0.59 0.50 0.55 0.62 0.49 0.51 0.59 0.43 0.92 1.27 0.57 0.68 0.46 0.57 0.32 0.17 0.26 1.27 1.09 1.17 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.02 0.05 0.08 0.24 0.12 NS 45 DAT Harvest 1.2 0.4 Mean 0.26 0.37 0.15 0.38 0.46 0.30 0.26 0.33 0.19 0.43 0.55 0.31 0.44 0.49 0.38 0.24 0.34 0.15 0.24 0.26 0.22 0.53 0.60 0.46 0.46 0.50 0.42 0.24 0.26 0.21 0.32 0.36 0.28 0.33 0.40 0.26 0.31 0.38 0.24 0.29 0.33 0.25 0.35 0.37 0.33 0.20 0.22 0.17 0.46 0.51 0.41 0.28 0.30 0.26 0.30 0.32 0.28 0.16 0.21 0.10 0.27 0.34 0.20 0.26 0.28 0.25 0.38 0.45 0.30 0.24 0.31 0.17 0.36 0.45 0.26 0.27 0.31 0.23 0.49 0.57 0.40 0.31 0.38 0.23 0.35 0.37 0.33 0.26 0.29 0.23 0.30 0.36 0.23 0.23 0.30 0.16 0.33 0.37 0.29 0.36 0.37 0.35 0.25 0.33 0.17 0.37 0.41 0.33 0.42 0.47 0.36 0.32 0.40 0.24 0.32 0.42 0.21 0.34 0.39 0.30 0.28 0.35 0.21 0.25 0.33 0.17 0.22 0.25 0.18 0.25 0.29 0.21 0.32 0.42 0.21 0.25 0.30 0.20 0.26 0.28 0.24 0.39 0.48 0.30 0.32 0.38 0.27 0.39 0.49 0.28 0.37 0.26 0.32 0.21 0.10 0.16 0.60 0.46 0.53 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.12 0.06 NS 75 DAT - Harvest 1.2 0.4 Mean 0.28 0.36 0.20 0.28 0.43 0.12 0.24 0.29 0.19 0.51 0.59 0.43 0.35 0.48 0.23 0.21 0.24 0.19 0.33 0.34 0.31 0.60 0.68 0.51 0.56 0.61 0.52 0.28 0.31 0.25 0.38 0.46 0.29 0.40 0.46 0.33 0.33 0.44 0.23 0.31 0.37 0.25 0.28 0.30 0.26 0.20 0.23 0.17 0.62 0.69 0.56 0.27 0.28 0.26 0.27 0.31 0.23 0.13 0.14 0.11 0.39 0.47 0.31 0.37 0.39 0.34 0.52 0.63 0.42 0.34 0.45 0.22 0.39 0.62 0.17 0.20 0.24 0.15 0.75 0.94 0.56 0.27 0.33 0.21 0.35 0.40 0.30 0.30 0.34 0.27 0.24 0.30 0.19 0.33 0.45 0.21 0.37 0.42 0.32 0.49 0.50 0.48 0.28 0.34 0.22 0.52 0.59 0.45 0.68 0.71 0.65 0.36 0.41 0.30 0.38 0.43 0.32 0.40 0.48 0.33 0.32 0.39 0.24 0.26 0.33 0.18 0.16 0.20 0.13 0.26 0.30 0.22 0.39 0.49 0.28 0.24 0.29 0.18 0.24 0.26 0.22 0.53 0.67 0.39 0.43 0.53 0.32 0.41 0.46 0.37 0.43 0.29 0.36 0.14 0.11 0.13 0.94 0.65 0.75 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.02 0.05 0.09 0.25 0.13 NS

NS = Non- significance, DAT = Days after transplanting.

interaction between the genotypes and irrigation levels yet maximum NAR was exhibited in the genotype L-44 (1.27) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and minimum was expressed by the genotype L-3 (0.17) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. At 45 DAT-harvest, irrespective of the irrigation levels, significantly maximum NAR was recorded in the genotype GK-3 (0.53) and was on par with L-13, IIHR-2274, Vaibhav, Arka Meghali, Arka Ashish and L-30. There was 29.7 per cent decrease in the NAR was observed as the irrigation levels decreased from 1.2 to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. Interaction between the genotypes and irrigation levels exhibited non significant difference, however, GK-3 (0.60) had higher NAR at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and least was noticed in the genotype L-3 (0.10) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. During 75 DAT to harvest, the genotype L-13 had significantly higher NAR (0.75) and was on par with L-30, Vaibhav, GK-3, IIHR-2274, L-40-3, L-10 and Arka Ashish. The least NAR was exhibited genotype L-3 (0.13) irrespective of the irrigation levels. Among the irrigation levels, significantly maximum NAR was observed in the 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and least was noticed at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio and it ranged from 0.14 to 0.94 and 0.11 to 0.65, respectively. No significant difference was observed for the interaction effects, however, maximum NAR was noticed in the genotype L-13 (0.94) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and minimum was in L-3 (0.11) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio . 4.1.4.7 Relative growth rate (g g day x 10 ) (RGR) at different crop growth period (c.f. Table 15) Significant difference was observed for RGR among the genotypes, irrigation levels and their interaction during 45-75 DAT. Irrespective of the irrigation levels, genotype Arka Meghali had significantly higher RGR (1.18) which was on par with Arka Abha (1.04) and S-22 (1.02) while, the least RGR was recorded in the genotype GK-2 (0.32). There was significant difference in interaction effects, the genotypes Arka Ashish and L-44 at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio showed the highest RGR (1.26, each) and the least was noticed in the genotype L-3 (0.21) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. During 45 DAT-harvest, there was significant difference within the genotypes and irrigation levels for RGR, but there was no significant difference in the interaction between genotypes and irrigation levels. Irrespective of the irrigation levels, significantly higher RGR was recorded in the genotype GK-3 (0.89) and this was on par with Arka Megahli, L-11, IIHR2274, Arka Ashish, L-30, L-13, L-33, L-44, Vaibhav, S-22 and Arka Abha where in RGR ranged form 0.86 to 0.74. There was no significant difference for the interaction effect, yet Arka Ashish had more RGR (1.04) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and least was observed in the genotype L-3 (0.22) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. At 75 DAT-harvest, significant difference among the genotypes and irrigation levels was observed, whereas for interaction effect there was no significant difference was recorded. Genotype L-30 has significantly higher RGR (1.09) which was on par with L-13 (1.01), L-27 and Vaibhav (0.83, each), L-29 (0.82) and IIHR-2274 (0.78). The lesser RGR was reported in the genotype L-3 (0.24). Irrespective of the different growth stages i.e. 45-75 DAT, 45 DATharvest and 75 DATharvest, significant difference in RGR among the irrigation levels was observed. Significantly maximum RGR was observed in the 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (0.73, 0.67 and 0.60 respectively) compared to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (0.53, 0.51 and 0.48, respectively). 4.1.4.8 Specific leaf weight (mg.dm ) (SLW) at different crop growth stages (c.f. Table 16) Specific leaf weight differenced significantly only among pan evaporation ratios but not among the genotypes and their interactions at all the growth stages At 45 DAT, irrespective of irrigation levels, genotypes L-43 recorded higher SLW (720.7) and least was in L-11 (402.1). SLW significantly varied from 301.1 to 551.3 and 447.2 to 975.4 at 1.2 and 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. There was no significant difference in the interactions. However, L-38-1 had higher SLW (975.4) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio and lesser SLW was observed in the genotype L-11 (301.1) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio.
-2 -1 -1 2

Table 15. Influence of irrigation levels on relative growth rate (RGR) (g.g-1. day-1 x 102) in tomato genotypes at various growth stages
Sl. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. Mean Range IRRIGATION (I) GENOTYPES (G) IxG Genotypes Alco Basa Arka Abhay Arka Alok Arka Ashish Arka Meghali GK-1 GK-2 GK-3 IIHR 2274 Megha (L-15) Nandi PKM-1 PR-1 Punjab Chhauhara S-22 Sankranthi Vaibhav L-1 L-2 L-3 L-5 L-6 L-10 L-10 (P) L-11 L-12 L-13 L-15 L-16 L-17 L-18 L-19 L-26 L-27 L-28 L-29 L-30 L-31 L-32 L-33 L-33-1 L-34 L-34-1 L-35 L-37 L-38 L-38-1 L-40-3 L-43 L-44 45 75 DAT IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 0.50 0.71 0.28 1.04 1.18 0.91 0.58 0.74 0.43 0.90 1.26 0.54 1.18 1.19 1.17 0.66 1.07 0.26 0.32 0.36 0.28 1.02 1.04 1.00 0.87 0.90 0.83 0.42 0.46 0.39 0.53 0.57 0.49 0.53 0.69 0.36 0.47 0.48 0.45 0.59 0.63 0.56 1.02 1.04 1.00 0.46 0.50 0.41 0.74 0.89 0.59 0.65 0.72 0.58 0.65 0.68 0.63 0.41 0.60 0.21 0.40 0.55 0.25 0.53 0.47 0.50 0.53 0.57 0.48 0.37 0.47 0.27 1.05 0.93 0.99 0.79 0.91 0.68 0.62 0.64 0.59 0.77 0.74 0.75 0.71 0.73 0.70 0.50 0.53 0.48 0.79 0.81 0.78 0.35 0.40 0.30 0.66 0.69 0.62 0.65 0.68 0.62 0.45 0.66 0.25 0.61 0.70 0.51 0.56 0.81 0.31 0.56 0.74 0.37 0.50 0.75 0.25 0.87 0.88 0.85 0.65 0.77 0.53 0.64 0.76 0.51 0.55 0.58 0.53 0.47 0.49 0.45 0.48 0.60 0.36 0.41 0.46 0.36 0.68 0.71 0.65 0.53 0.56 0.51 0.47 0.53 0.42 0.94 1.26 0.62 0.73 0.53 0.63 0.36 0.21 0.32 1.26 1.17 1.18 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.04 0.02 0.21 0.08 0.30 0.11 45 DAT Harvest 1.2 0.4 Mean 0.48 0.60 0.36 0.74 0.91 0.58 0.49 0.59 0.39 0.83 1.04 0.63 0.86 0.93 0.79 0.53 0.76 0.30 0.39 0.42 0.36 0.89 0.91 0.87 0.83 0.85 0.81 0.43 0.46 0.40 0.53 0.61 0.44 0.53 0.64 0.41 0.44 0.48 0.40 0.53 0.57 0.49 0.75 0.77 0.73 0.41 0.45 0.37 0.78 0.90 0.66 0.54 0.59 0.50 0.54 0.58 0.49 0.33 0.44 0.22 0.51 0.63 0.39 0.63 0.55 0.59 0.63 0.68 0.57 0.45 0.58 0.33 1.02 0.65 0.84 0.58 0.68 0.49 0.79 0.90 0.69 0.61 0.58 0.59 0.62 0.66 0.58 0.50 0.53 0.48 0.61 0.62 0.59 0.45 0.55 0.34 0.62 0.65 0.59 0.73 0.75 0.71 0.44 0.57 0.30 0.70 0.82 0.59 0.80 0.95 0.65 0.53 0.64 0.41 0.51 0.65 0.37 0.79 0.83 0.75 0.61 0.69 0.54 0.56 0.64 0.47 0.43 0.46 0.40 0.43 0.46 0.41 0.51 0.59 0.43 0.36 0.40 0.33 0.55 0.58 0.53 0.61 0.66 0.56 0.52 0.60 0.43 0.78 0.97 0.59 0.67 0.51 0.59 0.40 0.22 0.33 1.04 0.87 0.89 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.03 0.01 0.17 0.06 NS 0.08 75 DAT - Harvest 1.2 0.4 Mean 0.46 0.48 0.44 0.38 0.58 0.18 0.38 0.40 0.35 0.75 0.77 0.74 0.48 0.62 0.33 0.36 0.38 0.34 0.48 0.50 0.46 0.73 0.76 0.71 0.78 0.79 0.78 0.44 0.46 0.42 0.53 0.66 0.39 0.53 0.58 0.47 0.40 0.47 0.33 0.46 0.51 0.40 0.44 0.46 0.42 0.36 0.39 0.32 0.83 0.91 0.74 0.42 0.43 0.40 0.40 0.47 0.33 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.64 0.74 0.54 0.76 0.66 0.71 0.74 0.82 0.67 0.56 0.71 0.40 1.00 0.32 0.66 0.33 0.40 0.26 1.01 1.21 0.80 0.41 0.39 0.40 0.50 0.57 0.43 0.50 0.53 0.47 0.39 0.40 0.38 0.57 0.75 0.40 0.57 0.61 0.54 0.83 0.84 0.82 0.41 0.46 0.36 0.82 0.96 0.68 1.09 1.13 1.05 0.49 0.51 0.46 0.52 0.54 0.51 0.70 0.77 0.63 0.57 0.60 0.55 0.46 0.49 0.43 0.27 0.30 0.24 0.39 0.42 0.36 0.55 0.58 0.52 0.30 0.32 0.28 0.40 0.42 0.38 0.70 0.78 0.62 0.57 0.69 0.45 0.59 0.62 0.57 0.60 0.48 0.54 0.24 0.18 0.24 1.21 1.05 1.09 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.07 0.02 0.33 0.12 NS 0.17

NS = Non- significance, DAT = Days after transplanting.

At 75 DAT and at harvest, significant difference was observed only for the irrigation levels but not for the genotypes and interaction effects. As the stress levels increased from 1.2 to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio SLW was significantly increased to the extent of 26.9 and 3.2 per cent at 75 DAT and harvest, respectively. Irrespective of the irrigation levels, genotype, Arka Ashish at 75 DAT and genotype L44 at harvest had maximum SLW (1102.6 and 1308.0, respectively) and minimum was recorded in the genotype L-11 (602.3) and Arka Ashish (1002.0) at 75 DAT and at harvest, respectively. Among the genotypes maximum SLW was exhibited by Arka Ashish (1313.6) at 75 DAT and genotype L-44(1414.2) at harvest at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio. Genotype L-33 (410.8) at 75 DAT at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio whereas, at harvest genotype Arka Ashish recorded least SLW of 894.4 at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio 4.1.4.9 Specific leaf area (dm2.g-1) (SLA) at different crop growth period (c.f. Table 17) Specific leaf area was significantly differed among the irrigation levels at all the growth stage i.e. 45, 75 DAT and at harvest, but non significance was observed for genotypes at all the growth stages and only significant difference was observed in their interaction effect at 75 DAT. At 45 DAT, significantly SLA was decreased as the stress level increased from 1.2 to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio, it increased to the extent of 39.4 per cent. Irrespective of the irrigation levels, genotype L-11 (0.278) recorded higher SLA while, least was noticed in the genotype Arka Abha (0.176). Among the genotypes, higher SLA was recorded in the genotype L-11 (0.357) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and least was recorded in the genotype L-16 (0.120) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. At 75 DAT, among the irrigation levels higher SLA was noticed at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio and it varied from 0.080 to 0.168 while, least was noticed at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (0.076 to 0.267). Irrespective of the irrigation levels, genotype L-11 exhibited higher SLA (0.209) and the least was noticed in the genotype Arka Ashish (0.100). Among the interaction effect, genotype L-11 recorded significantly higher SLA (0.267) and least was noticed in the genotype Arka Ashish (0.076) both at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio During harvest, significantly higher SLA was noticed at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio compared to 1.2 IW/CPE ratio, it varied 0.072 to 0.119 and 0.072 to 0.111, respectively. Irrespective of the irrigation levels, genotype L-37 recorded higher SLA (0.104) and least was noticed in L-44 (0.078). Among the genotypes, L-37 recorded higher SLA (0.119) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio and least was noticed in the genotype L-31 and L-44 (0.072, each) both at 0.4 and 1.2 IW/CPE ratio, respectively. 4.1.4.10 Biomass duration (kg day ) (BMD) at different crop growth period (c.f. Table 18) Biomass duration was significantly differed within the genotypes, irrigation levels at all the growth stages i.e. 45-75 DAT, 45 DATharvest, 75 DATharvest and interaction effect was significant only at 45-75 DAT and 75 DAT-harvest growth stages. During 45-75 DAT, genotype L-1 had significantly higher BMD (0.782), and was on par with L-33 (0.777), Arka Meghali (0.750) and L-43 (0.736) while, the least BMD was noticed in the genotype L-16 (0.435) irrespective of irrigation levels. Interaction between genotype and irrigation schedule was found significant. Significantly higher BMD was observed in the genotype L-33 (0.875) which was on par with L-1 (0.873), L-35, L-32, S-22, L-34-1, L-38, Arka Ashish, L-31, Arka Meghali and L-3 wherein the BMD ranged between 0.861 to 0.811 at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio. Significantly lesser BMD was exhibited by the genotype L-40-3 (0.363) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. At 45 DAT-harvest, irrespective of irrigation levels, significantly highest BMD was observed in the genotype L-33 (1.898) and was on par with L-29 (1.771) and L-13 (1.758) while, the least BMD was noticed in the genotype L-16 (0.965). There were no significant interaction effects. However, maximum BMD was noticed in the genotype L-13 (2.234) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and minimum was recorded in the genotype L-40-3 (0.829) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. At 75 DAT-harvest, irrespective of irrigation levels, significantly higher BMD was observed in the genotype L-33 (1.052) and minimum was in L-16 (0.527). Among the
-1

Table 16. Influence of irrigation levels on specific leaf weight (mg.dm-2) in tomato genotypes at various growth stages
Sl. No. Genotypes 45 DAT IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 422.7 838.5 630.6 496.1 668.0 582.0 339.6 572.9 456.3 551.3 598.1 574.7 407.4 542.2 474.8 366.8 575.7 471.3 464.6 614.9 539.8 406.7 757.4 582.0 362.6 584.1 473.4 338.2 550.6 444.4 332.6 497.5 415.0 386.4 662.4 524.4 358.4 612.1 485.3 461.2 687.5 574.3 415.0 447.2 431.1 337.5 536.6 437.0 396.9 612.1 504.5 373.8 553.4 463.6 419.9 570.2 495.0 414.3 925.1 669.7 417.8 589.7 503.8 364.7 461.2 412.9 431.1 586.9 509.0 340.3 550.6 445.4 301.1 503.1 402.1 344.5 623.3 483.9 449.3 600.9 525.1 318.6 545.0 431.8 431.1 930.7 680.9 305.3 533.8 419.6 350.8 628.8 489.8 352.2 631.6 491.9 352.2 508.7 430.4 403.2 500.3 451.7 454.9 620.5 537.7 310.2 494.7 402.5 419.2 528.2 473.7 370.3 723.9 547.1 389.2 777.0 583.1 341.7 746.2 543.9 343.1 701.5 522.3 334.0 595.3 464.6 336.1 508.7 422.4 376.6 528.2 452.4 358.4 656.8 507.6 341.7 578.5 460.1 427.6 975.4 701.5 374.5 609.3 491.9 471.6 969.8 720.7 355.6 600.9 478.3 384.4 624.3 504.3 301.1 447.2 402.1 551.3 975.4 720.7 S.Em + CD at 5% 42.9 15.3 NS 76.4 NS 108.0 75 DAT 1.2 0.4 Mean 600.9 1090.0 845.4 936.3 1048.1 992.2 679.2 505.9 852.4 1313.6 891.6 1102.6 814.7 989.4 640.0 733.7 581.3 886.0 964.2 894.4 929.3 559.0 1067.6 813.3 609.3 841.3 725.3 533.8 818.9 676.4 584.1 746.2 665.2 539.4 1006.1 772.8 570.2 863.6 716.9 813.3 1031.3 922.3 989.4 670.8 830.1 545.0 804.9 675.0 916.7 670.8 793.7 715.5 779.8 747.6 846.8 832.9 839.9 486.3 1171.0 828.7 804.9 866.4 835.7 771.4 687.5 729.5 841.3 883.2 862.2 505.9 855.2 680.5 444.4 760.2 602.3 545.0 832.9 688.9 941.9 855.2 898.5 455.6 818.9 637.2 480.7 1243.7 862.2 463.9 757.4 610.7 469.5 933.5 701.5 450.0 958.6 704.3 645.6 763.0 704.3 874.8 737.8 806.3 869.2 950.3 909.7 500.3 740.6 620.5 869.2 807.7 838.5 508.7 972.6 740.6 542.2 1014.5 778.4 410.8 955.8 683.3 438.8 933.5 686.1 461.2 874.8 668.0 581.3 763.0 672.2 687.5 818.9 753.2 511.5 922.3 716.9 539.4 827.3 683.3 480.7 1229.7 855.2 584.1 913.9 749.0 645.6 1240.9 943.3 536.6 886.0 711.3 649.2 888.3 768.8 410.8 640.0 602.3 1313.6 1243.7 1102.6 S.Em + CD at 5% 67.9 24.2 NS 120.9 NS 171.0 AT HARVEST 1.2 0.4 Mean 1095.6 1123.5 1109.6 1039.7 1224.1 1131.9 1008.9 1115.1 1062.0 1109.6 894.4 1002.0 1064.8 1168.3 1116.5 1145.9 1185.0 1165.5 1243.7 1168.3 1206.0 925.1 1176.6 1050.9 1106.8 1249.3 1178.0 1176.6 1173.8 1175.2 1168.3 1182.2 1175.2 1140.3 1201.8 1171.0 1129.1 1185.0 1157.1 997.8 1117.9 1057.9 1226.9 1224.1 1225.5 950.3 1210.2 1080.2 1263.3 1215.8 1239.5 1171.0 1129.1 1150.1 1215.8 1277.2 1246.5 1078.8 1109.6 1094.2 978.2 1067.6 1022.9 1201.8 1151.5 1176.6 1168.3 1238.1 1203.2 1050.9 1151.5 1101.2 1210.2 1271.7 1240.9 1048.1 1176.6 1112.4 1129.1 1137.5 1133.3 958.6 1201.8 1080.2 1162.7 1090.0 1126.3 1165.5 1204.6 1185.0 1213.0 1190.6 1201.8 1173.8 1168.3 1171.0 1249.3 1101.2 1175.2 1196.2 1129.1 1162.7 1210.2 1201.8 1206.0 1022.9 1215.8 1119.3 1131.9 1087.2 1109.6 1073.2 1425.4 1249.3 1028.5 1131.9 1080.2 1008.9 1140.3 1074.6 1092.8 1081.6 1087.2 1196.2 1092.8 1144.5 1383.5 1076.0 1229.7 1081.6 1165.5 1123.5 1120.7 950.3 1035.5 1120.7 1171.0 1145.9 1123.5 1266.1 1194.8 1154.3 1126.3 1140.3 1090.0 1344.3 1217.2 1414.2 1201.8 1308.0 1128.3 1165.8 1147.1 925.1 894.4 1002.0 1414.2 1425.4 1308.0 S.Em + CD at 5% NS 13.6 NS 68.2 NS 96.4

1. Alco Basa 2. Arka Abhay 3. Arka Alok 4. Arka Ashish 5. Arka Meghali 6. GK-1 7. GK-2 8. GK-3 9. IIHR 2274 10. Megha (L-15) 11. Nandi 12. PKM-1 13. PR-1 14. Punjab Chhauhara 15. S-22 16. Sankranthi 17. Vaibhav 18. L-1 19. L-2 20. L-3 21. L-5 22. L-6 23. L-10 24. L-10 (P) 25. L-11 26. L-12 27. L-13 28. L-15 29. L-16 30. L-17 31. L-18 32. L-19 33. L-26 34. L-27 35. L-28 36. L-29 37. L-30 38. L-31 39. L-32 40. L-33 41. L-33-1 42. L-34 43. L-34-1 44. L-35 45. L-37 46. L-38 47. L-38-1 48. L-40-3 49. L-43 50. L-44 Mean Range IRRIGATION (I) GENOTYPES (G) IxG

NS = Non- significance, DAT = Days after transplanting.

Table 17. Influence of irrigation levels on specific leaf area (cm2.mg-1) in tomato genotypes at various growth stages
Sl. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. Mean Range IRRIGATION (I) GENOTYPES (G) IxG Genotypes Alco Basa Arka Abhay Arka Alok Arka Ashish Arka Meghali GK-1 GK-2 GK-3 IIHR 2274 Megha (L-15) Nandi PKM-1 PR-1 Punjab Chhauhara S-22 Sankranthi Vaibhav L-1 L-2 L-3 L-5 L-6 L-10 L-10 (P) L-11 L-12 L-13 L-15 L-16 L-17 L-18 L-19 L-26 L-27 L-28 L-29 L-30 L-31 L-32 L-33 L-33-1 L-34 L-34-1 L-35 L-37 L-38 L-38-1 L-40-3 L-43 L-44 45 DAT IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 0.258 0.142 0.200 0.202 0.150 0.176 0.315 0.175 0.245 0.188 0.167 0.178 0.257 0.184 0.221 0.285 0.175 0.230 0.216 0.164 0.190 0.273 0.136 0.205 0.283 0.174 0.228 0.309 0.182 0.246 0.305 0.201 0.253 0.285 0.151 0.218 0.291 0.169 0.230 0.220 0.145 0.183 0.250 0.224 0.237 0.308 0.186 0.247 0.258 0.163 0.211 0.268 0.187 0.227 0.238 0.176 0.207 0.291 0.138 0.215 0.240 0.170 0.205 0.275 0.217 0.246 0.232 0.170 0.201 0.315 0.184 0.249 0.357 0.199 0.278 0.304 0.180 0.242 0.223 0.170 0.197 0.342 0.183 0.263 0.288 0.120 0.204 0.348 0.192 0.270 0.320 0.159 0.240 0.327 0.159 0.243 0.286 0.197 0.241 0.250 0.200 0.225 0.220 0.162 0.191 0.335 0.202 0.269 0.239 0.190 0.214 0.299 0.153 0.226 0.283 0.152 0.217 0.348 0.166 0.257 0.335 0.161 0.248 0.331 0.169 0.250 0.303 0.197 0.250 0.268 0.191 0.229 0.304 0.158 0.231 0.306 0.176 0.241 0.289 0.133 0.211 0.281 0.164 0.222 0.235 0.128 0.182 0.299 0.167 0.233 0.282 0.171 0.226 0.188 0.120 0.176 0.357 0.224 0.278 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.017 0.006 NS 0.031 NS 0.044 75 DAT AT HARVEST

1.2 0.4 Mean 1.2 0.4 Mean 0.166 0.092 0.129 0.091 0.089 0.090 0.123 0.100 0.111 0.097 0.082 0.089 0.198 0.130 0.164 0.105 0.090 0.098 0.076 0.125 0.100 0.090 0.112 0.101 0.111 0.157 0.134 0.095 0.086 0.091 0.179 0.134 0.157 0.088 0.084 0.086 0.115 0.119 0.117 0.081 0.086 0.083 0.179 0.096 0.138 0.109 0.085 0.097 0.166 0.125 0.145 0.090 0.080 0.085 0.189 0.135 0.162 0.086 0.085 0.085 0.171 0.151 0.161 0.087 0.085 0.086 0.187 0.115 0.151 0.088 0.083 0.086 0.177 0.119 0.148 0.089 0.084 0.087 0.138 0.109 0.124 0.100 0.089 0.095 0.115 0.168 0.141 0.082 0.082 0.082 0.187 0.140 0.163 0.111 0.083 0.097 0.122 0.149 0.136 0.080 0.082 0.081 0.153 0.132 0.142 0.086 0.089 0.087 0.150 0.129 0.139 0.082 0.078 0.080 0.206 0.088 0.147 0.093 0.091 0.092 0.143 0.125 0.134 0.102 0.094 0.098 0.149 0.162 0.155 0.086 0.087 0.087 0.135 0.128 0.131 0.086 0.081 0.083 0.198 0.143 0.170 0.095 0.087 0.091 0.267 0.150 0.209 0.083 0.079 0.081 0.184 0.120 0.152 0.096 0.085 0.090 0.126 0.121 0.124 0.090 0.088 0.089 0.222 0.138 0.180 0.104 0.083 0.094 0.213 0.080 0.147 0.086 0.092 0.089 0.216 0.136 0.176 0.086 0.083 0.085 0.213 0.118 0.166 0.083 0.084 0.083 0.222 0.120 0.171 0.085 0.086 0.085 0.156 0.147 0.151 0.081 0.091 0.086 0.170 0.148 0.159 0.084 0.089 0.086 0.135 0.124 0.129 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.201 0.151 0.176 0.099 0.082 0.090 0.172 0.145 0.159 0.089 0.093 0.091 0.200 0.103 0.151 0.094 0.072 0.083 0.187 0.099 0.143 0.098 0.091 0.095 0.244 0.106 0.175 0.099 0.088 0.093 0.235 0.107 0.171 0.093 0.092 0.093 0.223 0.124 0.173 0.084 0.092 0.088 0.173 0.147 0.160 0.079 0.093 0.086 0.145 0.148 0.147 0.093 0.086 0.089 0.197 0.111 0.154 0.089 0.119 0.104 0.186 0.126 0.156 0.090 0.086 0.088 0.215 0.084 0.150 0.089 0.080 0.084 0.176 0.123 0.150 0.087 0.089 0.088 0.156 0.082 0.119 0.092 0.075 0.084 0.199 0.123 0.161 0.072 0.084 0.078 0.175 0.125 0.150 0.090 0.087 0.088 0.076 0.080 0.100 0.072 0.072 0.078 0.267 0.168 0.209 0.111 0.119 0.104 S.Em + CD at 5% S.Em + CD at 5% NS 0.001 0.011 0.004 NS 0.006 NS 0.020 NS 0.009 0.078 0.028

NS = Non- significance, DAT = Days after transplanting.

genotypes, Arka Ashish recorded significantly maximum BMD (1.245) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and minimum was in L-40-3 (0.429) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. As the stress level increased from 1.2 to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio, BMD decreased significantly to the extent of 28.7, 33.0 and 35.3 per cent at 45-75 DAT, 45 DATharvest and 75 DATharvest, respectively. 4.1.4.11 Relative leaf expansion rate (cm2.cm-2.day-1 X 10) (RLER) (c.f. Table 19) In general, there was no significant difference for RLER among the genotypes and interaction between genotypes and irrigation levels but significant difference was observed among irrigation levels. There was no significant difference in relative leaf expansion rate (breadth) was observed within the genotypes and interaction between genotypes and irrigation levels. Irrespective of irrigation levels, the genotype L-31 (0.164) had higher RLER (breadth) and minimum was observed in the genotype L-11 (0.083). The genotype Megha (L-15) (0.192) showed maximum RLER (breadth) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and minimum was observed in the genotype L-3 (0.048) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. Among the different irrigation levels, significantly higher RLER was observed in the 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (0.145) compared to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (0.106). Same trend was observed for RLER (length) also. The genotype L-31 had maximum RLER (length) (0.143) and minimum was observed in the genotype L-33-1 (0.074) irrespective of irrigation levels. Among the genotype Arka Abha (0.177) had highest RLER (length) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and minimum was observed in the genotype PR-1 (0.046) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. Among the irrigation schedules, significantly highest RLER (length) (0.123) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and significantly lesser was noticed in 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (0.088). 4.1.4.12 Per cent Light transmission at 45 DAT (c. f. Table 20) Per cent light transmission was significantly increased as the irrigation level decreased from 1.2 to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. There was a significant difference in per cent light transmission among the genotypes and irrigation levels, but no significant difference was exhibited in the interaction effect. Irrespective of the irrigation levels, significantly higher per cent light transmission was recorded in genotype L-37 (80.68) and this was on par with all the genotypes except Arka Abha, L-16, GK-1, L-1, L-33, Arka Alok, GK-3, L-28 and L-43. There was no significant interaction effects observed, yet maximum LTR was observed in the genotype L-32 (89.24) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio and minimum was observed in the genotype IIHR-2274 (50.72) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio. Among the irrigation levels, as the irrigation level decreased there was 17.47 per cent significant increase in the LTR. 4.1.4.13 Relative water content (per cent) (RWC) at different crop growth period (c.f. Table 21) Relative water content was significantly differed within genotypes, irrigation levels and their interaction at 45 and 75 DAT. At 45 DAT, irrespective of irrigation levels, significantly higher RWC was seen in the genotype GK-1 (76.41) and minimum was observed in the L-28 (52.77). Among the interaction, significantly higher RWC was observed in the genotype Vaibhav (80.61) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and minimum was observed in the genotype L-28 (43.80). Among the different irrigation levels, 1.2 IW/CPE ratio had significantly higher RWC and least was noticed in 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. RWC was ranged from 61.74 to 80.61 and 43.80 to 74.75, respectively. As the stress level increase from 1.2 to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio RWC decreased to the extent of 12.2 per cent at 45 DAT. During 75 DAT, irrespective of irrigation levels, significantly superior RWC was noticed in the genotype GK-1 (74.06) and was on par with L-43 (73.56) and L-19 (73.28). The least RWC was noticed in the genotype L-10 (46.55). Among the interaction, GK-1 (77.17) showed significantly higher RWC which was on par with L-43 (75.94) and L-16 (75.54) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and least RWC was noticed in the genotype Sankranthi (42.34) at 0.4 IW/CPE

Table 18. Biomass duration (kg.day-1) of tomato genotypes under different irrigation levels at various growth stages
Sl. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. Mean Range IRRIGATION (I) GENOTYPES (G) IxG Genotypes Alco Basa Arka Abhay Arka Alok Arka Ashish Arka Meghali GK-1 GK-2 GK-3 IIHR 2274 Megha (L-15) Nandi PKM-1 PR-1 Punjab Chhauhara S-22 Sankranthi Vaibhav L-1 L-2 L-3 L-5 L-6 L-10 L-10 (P) L-11 L-12 L-13 L-15 L-16 L-17 L-18 L-19 L-26 L-27 L-28 L-29 L-30 L-31 L-32 L-33 L-33-1 L-34 L-34-1 L-35 L-37 L-38 L-38-1 L-40-3 L-43 L-44 45 75 DAT IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 0.671 0.424 0.547 0.696 0.540 0.618 0.678 0.503 0.590 0.829 0.524 0.676 0.821 0.680 0.750 0.638 0.476 0.557 0.599 0.457 0.528 0.635 0.448 0.541 0.643 0.489 0.566 0.666 0.468 0.567 0.680 0.576 0.628 0.665 0.495 0.580 0.664 0.491 0.578 0.687 0.518 0.602 0.857 0.605 0.731 0.642 0.524 0.583 0.738 0.563 0.651 0.873 0.691 0.782 0.748 0.550 0.649 0.811 0.617 0.714 0.677 0.514 0.595 0.567 0.374 0.471 0.599 0.402 0.500 0.787 0.589 0.688 0.563 0.425 0.494 0.686 0.585 0.635 0.740 0.516 0.628 0.719 0.428 0.574 0.477 0.393 0.435 0.680 0.437 0.559 0.760 0.450 0.605 0.703 0.523 0.613 0.791 0.466 0.628 0.654 0.455 0.555 0.649 0.495 0.572 0.787 0.607 0.697 0.762 0.529 0.645 0.821 0.508 0.664 0.861 0.518 0.690 0.875 0.680 0.777 0.688 0.457 0.572 0.665 0.479 0.572 0.842 0.598 0.720 0.861 0.566 0.714 0.783 0.420 0.602 0.837 0.464 0.651 0.671 0.530 0.600 0.551 0.363 0.457 0.805 0.667 0.736 0.686 0.437 0.561 0.716 0.510 0.613 0.477 0.363 0.435 0.875 0.691 0.782 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.009 0.003 0.046 0.016 0.065 0.023 45 DAT Harvest 75 DAT - Harvest 1.2 0.4 Mean 1.2 0.4 Mean 1.471 0.901 1.186 0.803 0.444 0.623 1.643 1.059 1.351 0.970 0.619 0.795 1.445 1.038 1.241 0.798 0.534 0.666 2.116 1.259 1.687 1.245 0.652 0.949 1.973 1.427 1.700 1.163 0.865 1.014 1.368 0.980 1.174 0.804 0.481 0.643 1.306 0.976 1.141 0.655 0.481 0.568 1.591 1.099 1.345 0.906 0.623 0.764 1.617 1.216 1.416 0.896 0.667 0.781 1.437 0.991 1.214 0.740 0.503 0.621 1.587 1.213 1.400 0.833 0.631 0.732 1.519 1.073 1.296 0.820 0.539 0.679 1.437 1.009 1.223 0.744 0.522 0.633 1.526 1.100 1.313 0.816 0.582 0.699 1.891 1.313 1.602 1.105 0.764 0.934 1.354 1.073 1.213 0.707 0.549 0.628 2.001 1.375 1.688 1.093 0.719 0.906 1.884 1.462 1.673 1.034 0.778 0.906 1.629 1.137 1.383 0.883 0.614 0.748 1.621 1.218 1.420 0.875 0.591 0.733 1.634 1.130 1.382 0.847 0.551 0.699 1.375 0.873 1.124 0.710 0.446 0.578 1.485 0.941 1.213 0.774 0.483 0.628 1.882 1.231 1.557 0.961 0.605 0.783 1.616 0.881 1.248 0.897 0.511 0.704 1.471 1.178 1.325 0.840 0.648 0.744 2.234 1.282 1.758 1.151 0.669 0.910 1.544 0.909 1.227 0.857 0.501 0.679 1.085 0.846 0.965 0.592 0.462 0.527 1.507 0.947 1.227 0.787 0.490 0.638 1.623 0.950 1.286 0.909 0.529 0.719 1.684 1.096 1.390 0.845 0.543 0.694 1.822 1.046 1.434 0.981 0.558 0.769 1.657 1.140 1.398 0.880 0.598 0.739 1.409 1.023 1.216 0.763 0.500 0.632 2.118 1.425 1.771 1.119 0.735 0.927 2.214 1.416 1.815 1.178 0.691 0.935 1.829 1.090 1.460 1.003 0.550 0.776 1.939 1.128 1.533 1.061 0.550 0.806 2.193 1.603 1.898 1.213 0.890 1.052 1.587 1.008 1.297 0.870 0.530 0.700 1.471 1.023 1.247 0.810 0.534 0.672 1.722 1.191 1.456 0.922 0.632 0.777 1.829 1.178 1.503 0.953 0.607 0.780 1.781 0.918 1.349 0.943 0.461 0.702 1.712 0.932 1.322 0.888 0.473 0.681 1.438 1.123 1.281 0.788 0.608 0.698 1.350 0.829 1.090 0.702 0.429 0.566 1.898 1.430 1.664 0.984 0.730 0.857 1.636 1.031 1.334 0.978 0.545 0.762 1.663 1.114 1.389 0.902 0.584 0.743 1.085 0.829 0.965 0.592 0.429 0.527 2.234 1.603 1.898 1.245 0.890 1.052 S.Em + CD at 5% S.Em + CD at 5% 0.018 0.006 0.038 0.014 0.088 0.031 0.191 0.078 0.125 0.044 NS 0.096

DAT = Days after transplanting, NS = Non-significant.

Table 19. Relative leaf expansion rate (cm2.cm-2.day-1 X 10) of tomato genotypes as influenced by irrigation levels at various growth stages
Sl. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Mean Range IRRIGATION (I) GENOTYPES (G) IxG Genotypes Alco Basa Arka Abhay Arka Alok Arka Ashish Arka Meghali GK1 GK-2 GK-3 IIHR 2274 Megha (L-15) Nandi PKM-1 PR-1 Punjab Chhauhara S-22 Sankranthi Vaibhav L-1 L-2 L-3 L-5 L6 L-10 L-10 (P) L-11 L-12 L-13 L-15 L-16 L-17 L-18 L-19 L-26 L-27 L-28 L-29 L-30 L-31 L-32 L-33 L-33-1 L-34 L-34-1 L-35 L-37 L-38 L-38-1 L-40-3 L-43 L-44 Length IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 1.2 0.4 Mean 0.112 0.092 0.121 0.102 0.102 0.083 0.137 0.124 0.174 0.101 0.177 0.072 0.143 0.124 0.150 0.135 0.127 0.121 0.132 0.101 0.152 0.111 0.138 0.065 0.118 0.098 0.142 0.094 0.124 0.071 0.149 0.120 0.160 0.138 0.129 0.110 0.100 0.078 0.139 0.060 0.102 0.054 0.118 0.094 0.163 0.073 0.128 0.060 0.132 0.106 0.166 0.099 0.135 0.077 0.145 0.135 0.192 0.099 0.137 0.133 0.086 0.084 0.104 0.068 0.091 0.078 0.144 0.112 0.180 0.108 0.163 0.061 0.091 0.084 0.124 0.058 0.122 0.046 0.109 0.080 0.117 0.101 0.089 0.072 0.128 0.097 0.143 0.113 0.100 0.094 0.126 0.104 0.189 0.064 0.155 0.053 0.113 0.094 0.150 0.077 0.133 0.055 0.119 0.116 0.144 0.095 0.139 0.094 0.120 0.090 0.125 0.115 0.098 0.082 0.106 0.098 0.163 0.048 0.142 0.055 0.117 0.096 0.134 0.099 0.101 0.090 0.112 0.089 0.115 0.109 0.091 0.087 0.147 0.131 0.160 0.135 0.155 0.106 0.104 0.109 0.109 0.098 0.123 0.095 0.083 0.090 0.093 0.072 0.101 0.079 0.118 0.095 0.127 0.108 0.096 0.094 0.144 0.123 0.165 0.124 0.132 0.114 0.140 0.131 0.144 0.136 0.146 0.116 0.131 0.117 0.159 0.104 0.143 0.090 0.113 0.093 0.117 0.109 0.112 0.075 0.154 0.101 0.177 0.131 0.102 0.100 0.161 0.138 0.167 0.154 0.141 0.136 0.136 0.115 0.144 0.128 0.118 0.113 0.142 0.109 0.166 0.118 0.125 0.094 0.127 0.094 0.130 0.124 0.095 0.094 0.103 0.089 0.102 0.105 0.088 0.089 0.097 0.090 0.105 0.089 0.101 0.079 0.164 0.143 0.185 0.144 0.157 0.130 0.127 0.110 0.184 0.070 0.146 0.075 0.133 0.122 0.153 0.114 0.154 0.089 0.095 0.074 0.128 0.062 0.093 0.055 0.153 0.116 0.157 0.150 0.135 0.097 0.141 0.124 0.143 0.140 0.131 0.118 0.143 0.127 0.175 0.112 0.136 0.117 0.142 0.114 0.150 0.133 0.124 0.104 0.142 0.120 0.160 0.124 0.135 0.105 0.095 0.094 0.097 0.094 0.106 0.083 0.127 0.106 0.133 0.122 0.112 0.101 0.097 0.089 0.112 0.083 0.111 0.067 0.138 0.106 0.145 0.130 0.113 0.099 0.145 0.106 0.125 0.123 0.088 0.106 0.093 0.048 0.083 0.088 0.046 0.074 0.192 0.154 0.164 0.177 0.136 0.143 S.Em + CD at 5% S.Em + CD at 5% 0.010 0.004 0.012 0.004 NS 0.018 NS 0.022 NS 0.025 NS 0.030 Breadth

NS = Non- significance.

Table 20. Influence of irrigation levels on per cent light transmission in tomato genotypes at 45 DAT
Sl. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. Mean Range IRRIGATION (I) GENOTYPES (G) IxG Genotypes Alco Basa Arka Abhay Arka Alok Arka Ashish Arka Meghali GK-1 GK-2 GK-3 IIHR 2274 Megha (L-15) Nandi PKM-1 PR-1 Punjab Chhauhara S-22 Sankranthi Vaibhav L-1 L-2 L-3 L-5 L-6 L-10 L-10 (P) L-11 L-12 L-13 L-15 L-16 L-17 L-18 L-19 L-26 L-27 L-28 L-29 L-30 L-31 L-32 L-33 L-33-1 L-34 L-34-1 L-35 L-37 L-38 L-38-1 L-40-3 L-43 L-44 IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 79.33 70.56 88.10 66.21 58.86 73.56 64.15 51.68 76.61 72.76 69.06 76.45 70.67 61.30 80.03 64.81 52.02 77.60 63.21 64.98 61.44 60.14 59.31 60.97 61.35 50.72 71.99 69.08 63.85 74.32 80.31 76.79 83.84 69.25 56.09 82.41 71.24 66.31 76.17 72.82 66.23 79.41 70.24 57.64 82.83 74.25 65.50 83.00 69.18 57.52 80.84 64.80 58.30 71.30 74.16 71.65 76.67 59.62 55.15 64.09 77.41 72.41 82.41 70.76 68.23 73.30 77.84 79.02 76.66 73.11 59.53 86.69 73.12 67.41 78.82 74.37 65.89 82.86 75.12 69.69 80.55 73.27 67.15 79.38 66.11 60.19 72.03 74.04 62.58 85.50 68.09 62.29 73.89 69.16 61.66 76.66 70.45 62.36 78.55 69.31 64.92 73.70 67.73 62.73 72.73 76.49 70.68 82.31 71.74 63.17 80.32 77.00 71.77 82.23 79.36 69.48 89.24 64.78 53.48 76.07 75.45 65.46 85.44 69.24 61.81 76.67 78.77 74.07 83.48 80.55 77.34 83.77 73.61 87.76 80.68 78.43 73.34 83.53 77.35 70.66 84.05 74.28 68.01 80.55 60.31 59.49 61.13 68.86 56.89 80.83 64.58 78.25 71.42 50.72 60.97 59.62 79.02 89.24 80.68 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.93 2.61 4.65 13.04 6.57 NS

NS = Non-significance, DAT = Days after transplanting.

ratio. Among the two irrigation levels, 1.2 IW/CPE ratio had significantly highest RWC compared 0.4 IW/CPE ratio and it varied from 48.43 to 77.17 and 42.39 to 71.25, respectively. As the stress level increase from 1.2 to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio RWC decreased to the extent of 12.9 per cent at 75 DAT.

4.1.5 Yield and Yield components


4.1.5.1 Yield (kg plant and t.ha ) (c.f. Table 22) Yield was significantly differed among the genotypes, irrigation levels and for their interaction. Irrespective of the irrigation levels, significantly higher yield per plant was observed in -1 -1 the genotype L-43 (2.11 kg.plant and 58.53 t.ha ) and least yield was recorded in the -1 -1 genotype L-15 (0.52 kg.plant and 14.32 t.ha ). A significant interaction effect was noticed between the genotypes and irrigation levels wherein the highest yield was observed in the -1 -1 genotype L-43 (2.94 kg.plant and 81.67 t.ha ) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and the least yield was -1 -1 recorded in the genotype L-15 (0.39 kg.plant and 10.83 t.ha ) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. As the stress increased from 1.2 to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio yield was reduced by 40.0 per cent. Among the irrigation levels, significantly highest yield was recorded in 1.2 IW/CPE ratio compared to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio and it varied from 0.64 to 2.94 and 0.39 to 1.52 for yield per plant and for yield per hectare it varied from 17.81 to 81.67 and 10.83 to 42.11, respectively. 4.1.5.2 Number of fruiting clusters per plant and number of fruits per plant (c.f. Table 23) Number of fruiting clusters per plant was differed significantly among the different irrigation levels, but the genotypes and interaction effects had the non significant difference. Irrespective of the irrigation levels, maximum number of fruiting clusters per plant (7.38) was observed in the genotype S-22 and minimum was recorded in the genotype L-6 (1.50). There was no significant difference for the interaction between genotypes and irrigation levels. However, maximum number of fruiting clusters per plant was observed in the genotype S-22 (9.25) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and minimum was noticed in the genotype L-13 (0.75) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. As the irrigation level increased from 1.2 to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio there was 39.6 per cent decrease in the number of fruiting clusters per plant was noticed. Significantly higher number of fruiting clusters per plant was noticed in 1.2 IW/CPE ratio it varied from 1.50 to 9.25 while, least was observed at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio it ranged from 0.75 to 5.50. Significant difference in number of fruits per plant was among the genotypes, irrigation levels and their interaction. Irrespective of the irrigation levels, genotype L-38-1 had significantly more number of fruits per plant (36.82), and was on par with IIHR-2274 (36.81), L-35 (34.66), L-17 (34.55), L40-3 (34.43), Megha (L-15) (33.53), L-37 (33.46) and PKM-1 (32.31). While lesser number of fruits was noticed in the genotype L-15 (12.26). As the irrigation level increased from 1.2 to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio there was 26.1 per cent decrease in the number of fruits per plant was noticed. Significantly higher number of fruits per plant was noticed in 1.2 IW/CPE ratio it varied from 12.77 to 42.73 while, least was observed at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio it ranged from 7.84 to 36.09. There was significant interaction among the genotypes and irrigation levels. Significantly maximum number of fruits per plant was observed in the genotype PKM-1 (42.73) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio, this was on par with IIHR 2274 (41.21) while minimum was observed in the genotype L-2 (7.84) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. -1 4.1.5.3 Biomass (g.plant ) (c.f. Table 24) Significant differences were observed for biomass among the genotypes, irrigation levels and their interaction. At 45 DAT, irrespective of the irrigation levels, genotype L-43 had significantly higher biomass (20.53), which was on par with L-3 (20.28), L-1 (20.25), L-35 (19.93) and L-10 (P) (19.90), whereas the least biomass was recorded in the genotype L-16 (10.98). Among the irrigation levels, significantly maximum biomass ranged from 11.95 to 23.85 was noticed in 1.2 IW/CPE ratio compared to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio and it varied from 9.75 to 19.05.
-1 -1

Table 21. Relative water content (per cent RWC) of tomato genotypes as influenced by irrigation levels at various growth stages
Sl. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. Mean Range IRRIGATION (I) GENOTYPES (G) IxG Genotypes Alco Basa Arka Abhay Arka Alok Arka Ashish Arka Meghali GK-1 GK-2 GK-3 IIHR 2274 Megha (L-15) Nandi PKM-1 PR-1 Punjab Chhauhara S-22 Sankranthi Vaibhav L-1 L-2 L-3 L-5 L-6 L-10 L-10 (P) L-11 L-12 L-13 L-15 L-16 L-17 L-18 L-19 L-26 L-27 L-28 L-29 L-30 L-31 L-32 L-33 L-33-1 L-34 L-34-1 L-35 L-37 L-38 L-38-1 L-40-3 L-43 L-44 75 DAT IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 1.2 0.4 Mean 68.80 65.47 71.52 66.08 69.94 61.00 67.71 55.91 75.64 59.78 61.12 50.71 68.42 62.37 73.28 63.57 66.04 58.70 64.79 57.43 73.38 56.20 65.67 49.20 72.67 69.32 70.99 69.78 59.36 64.57 76.41 74.06 78.56 74.26 77.17 70.95 68.06 58.67 72.71 63.40 63.43 53.90 64.35 56.86 71.10 57.59 59.73 53.98 65.18 55.39 78.52 51.83 67.62 43.16 71.99 69.55 73.14 70.84 71.71 67.40 69.20 50.59 69.54 68.85 50.51 50.68 63.42 60.95 65.20 61.64 63.85 58.05 73.91 62.89 75.93 71.88 63.14 62.64 68.88 56.00 73.86 63.90 56.78 55.23 75.73 69.24 77.55 73.91 75.16 63.33 63.41 54.93 70.40 56.42 67.48 42.39 67.78 55.75 80.61 54.96 60.40 51.11 68.78 64.63 77.14 60.42 75.38 53.88 74.86 71.24 74.98 74.75 71.89 70.60 74.48 72.64 76.59 72.37 76.38 68.91 59.03 55.48 71.52 46.53 58.39 52.56 67.55 62.91 72.83 62.27 64.16 61.67 61.42 46.55 63.15 59.68 48.43 44.66 74.47 72.49 75.23 73.72 74.38 70.61 69.80 65.06 73.13 66.47 73.50 56.61 70.22 63.38 76.44 64.00 70.34 56.41 72.34 70.40 75.89 68.78 73.93 66.87 71.03 65.25 75.40 66.67 69.35 61.16 74.83 64.38 79.10 70.55 75.54 53.22 60.63 59.11 64.07 57.19 62.52 55.69 71.40 63.90 75.02 67.79 65.76 62.04 74.53 73.28 79.35 69.71 75.31 71.25 72.25 65.39 73.46 71.05 72.15 58.63 73.92 59.70 79.25 68.58 59.48 59.93 52.77 47.30 61.74 43.80 51.94 42.66 69.01 64.78 73.73 64.28 66.12 63.44 72.83 63.85 75.33 70.34 66.87 60.82 70.40 61.50 77.89 62.92 68.85 54.15 67.94 64.99 74.37 61.52 71.80 58.18 68.68 55.57 71.70 65.66 64.45 46.69 69.14 61.06 76.42 61.86 66.43 55.69 63.16 58.10 72.54 53.77 65.58 50.62 71.43 61.73 76.43 66.43 65.08 58.38 68.25 67.15 68.21 68.30 68.89 65.41 74.83 67.75 75.51 74.15 73.75 61.74 75.81 70.73 78.66 72.95 73.02 68.43 73.70 64.88 79.88 67.53 68.01 61.75 70.78 69.39 71.36 70.19 70.86 67.92 74.64 73.56 75.83 73.45 75.94 71.17 75.47 70.63 79.15 71.80 72.40 68.86 74.10 65.08 69.59 67.33 58.65 62.99 61.74 43.80 52.77 48.43 42.39 46.55 80.61 74.75 76.41 77.17 71.25 74.06 S.Em + CD at 5% S.Em + CD at 5% 0.28 0.10 0.20 0.07 1.39 0.50 0.99 0.35 1.97 0.70 1.40 0.50 45 DAT

DAT = Days after transplanting.

Table 22. Yield per plant and yield per hectare as influenced by irrigation levels in tomato genotypes
Sl. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. Mean Range IRRIGATION (I) GENOTYPES (G) IxG Genotypes Alco Basa Arka Abhay Arka Alok Arka Ashish Arka Meghali GK-1 GK-2 GK-3 IIHR 2274 Megha (L-15) Nandi PKM-1 PR-1 Punjab Chhauhara S-22 Sankranthi Vaibhav L-1 L-2 L-3 L-5 L-6 L-10 L-10 (P) L-11 L-12 L-13 L-15 L-16 L-17 L-18 L-19 L-26 L-27 L-28 L-29 L-30 L-31 L-32 L-33 L-33-1 L-34 L-34-1 L-35 L-37 L-38 L-38-1 L-40-3 L-43 L-44 Yield (kg/plant) IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 1.01 1.23 0.79 1.65 1.87 1.42 1.51 1.70 1.32 0.84 1.06 0.62 1.69 1.98 1.40 1.71 2.30 1.12 1.29 1.59 0.99 1.30 1.69 0.92 1.83 2.39 1.28 1.56 1.98 1.15 0.94 1.17 0.72 2.02 1.01 1.51 1.43 1.93 0.93 0.85 0.95 0.75 1.76 2.01 1.52 1.43 1.59 1.26 1.68 2.07 1.28 1.17 1.41 0.93 0.99 1.40 0.58 0.97 1.23 0.72 0.88 1.15 0.61 0.67 0.90 0.44 1.60 2.10 1.11 1.83 2.30 1.36 1.12 1.21 1.04 1.08 1.50 0.67 0.92 1.16 0.69 0.52 0.64 0.39 0.84 0.98 0.69 1.59 1.96 1.23 1.44 1.81 1.07 1.17 1.49 0.84 0.56 0.69 0.42 0.90 1.07 0.74 1.38 2.06 0.69 1.19 1.51 0.88 1.61 2.29 0.94 0.79 0.88 0.70 1.11 1.46 0.76 1.41 1.66 1.16 1.06 1.26 0.86 1.44 1.80 1.08 1.31 1.62 1.01 1.43 1.45 1.42 1.65 2.17 1.13 1.93 1.15 1.54 1.40 1.54 1.26 1.47 1.63 1.32 2.11 2.94 1.27 0.73 0.84 0.62 1.59 0.97 1.28 0.64 0.39 0.52 2.94 1.52 2.11 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.05 0.02 0.24 0.08 0.33 0.12 Yield (t/ha) 1.2 34.05 52.03 47.19 29.95 55.10 63.80 44.13 46.91 66.27 54.93 32.36 56.06 53.58 26.44 55.78 44.22 57.60 39.17 36.80 34.17 31.81 25.05 58.32 63.98 33.49 41.60 32.22 17.81 27.33 54.34 50.14 41.37 19.15 29.65 57.15 41.81 63.61 24.40 40.58 46.04 35.05 49.93 44.91 40.18 60.26 53.57 42.85 45.16 81.67 23.28 44.14 17.81 81.67 S.Em + 0.42 2.11 2.98 0.4 Mean 22.05 28.05 39.42 45.72 36.69 41.94 17.16 23.55 38.78 46.94 31.20 47.50 27.36 35.75 25.52 36.22 35.63 50.95 31.82 43.38 20.07 26.21 28.09 42.07 25.75 39.66 20.80 23.62 42.11 48.94 35.02 39.62 35.49 46.55 25.74 32.45 16.08 26.44 19.94 27.05 17.00 24.40 12.20 18.63 30.72 44.52 37.75 50.86 28.86 31.17 18.62 30.11 19.13 25.68 10.83 14.32 19.21 23.27 34.06 44.20 29.68 39.91 23.47 32.42 11.79 15.47 20.54 25.09 19.26 38.20 24.45 33.13 26.06 44.84 19.36 21.88 21.01 30.79 32.34 39.19 23.95 29.50 29.93 39.93 28.03 36.47 39.31 39.74 31.28 45.77 31.99 42.78 34.93 38.89 36.57 40.86 35.39 58.53 17.34 20.31 26.79 35.47 10.83 14.32 42.11 58.53 CD at 5% 1.18 5.91 8.36

Table 23. Number of fruiting cluster per plant and number of fruits per plant at 45 DAT as influenced by irrigation levels in tomato genotypes
Sl. No. Genotypes No. of fruiting cluster per plant IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 4.38 5.75 3.00 5.25 6.25 4.25 4.13 4.75 3.50 4.63 5.25 4.00 4.50 5.25 3.75 2.50 3.50 1.50 2.50 3.00 2.00 4.25 5.50 3.00 5.25 8.00 2.50 4.25 5.25 3.25 4.25 4.50 4.00 4.25 4.75 3.75 3.88 4.75 3.00 4.75 6.00 3.50 7.38 9.25 5.50 4.38 4.75 4.00 5.00 6.00 4.00 3.38 3.75 3.00 3.00 4.00 2.00 3.00 4.50 1.50 3.00 3.75 2.25 1.50 1.50 1.50 3.00 3.50 2.50 3.88 5.50 2.25 3.88 5.00 2.75 4.13 4.75 3.50 2.75 4.75 0.75 4.38 5.50 3.25 5.25 6.50 4.00 3.25 3.75 2.75 3.63 4.75 2.50 4.50 5.00 4.00 2.63 3.50 1.75 2.50 3.00 2.00 3.00 3.50 2.50 3.25 4.25 2.25 4.25 5.50 3.00 3.13 4.00 2.25 2.50 3.00 2.00 4.13 4.75 3.50 4.88 5.75 4.00 5.13 6.50 3.75 4.25 6.25 2.25 4.25 5.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 3.00 4.50 5.00 4.00 5.75 7.00 4.50 5.00 6.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 3.00 3.88 6.00 1.75 4.95 2.99 3.97 1.50 0.75 1.50 9.25 5.50 7.38 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.48 0.17 NS 0.85 NS 1.21 No. of fruits per plant 1.2 0.4 Mean 19.35 20.08 18.62 29.55 31.86 27.24 22.41 22.37 22.45 13.50 16.73 10.26 27.45 28.88 26.01 25.41 31.41 19.40 21.34 23.72 18.97 26.86 29.59 24.13 36.81 41.12 32.50 33.53 36.08 30.99 25.44 28.30 22.59 32.31 42.73 21.90 23.78 30.71 16.84 14.55 15.94 13.17 25.20 27.47 22.92 28.19 29.98 26.40 31.19 32.83 29.55 13.38 16.02 10.73 12.53 17.22 7.84 19.07 23.73 14.41 18.54 22.41 14.67 13.36 17.32 9.40 30.34 38.25 22.43 24.65 29.56 19.73 16.88 17.28 16.49 14.62 19.35 9.88 21.05 25.63 16.46 12.26 13.34 11.18 17.55 18.97 16.13 34.55 37.67 31.44 28.50 31.55 25.46 24.62 30.34 18.89 12.39 14.84 9.94 15.04 17.32 12.75 23.52 32.22 14.82 26.64 28.86 24.42 21.07 27.69 14.46 12.86 12.77 12.94 20.79 27.10 14.48 24.07 24.45 23.69 16.86 17.98 15.74 32.19 39.74 24.64 30.11 34.52 25.70 34.66 37.15 32.17 33.46 39.41 27.52 28.58 34.54 22.62 36.82 37.55 36.09 34.43 36.09 32.76 29.51 37.75 21.26 13.43 14.69 12.18 27.26 20.14 23.70 12.77 7.84 12.26 42.73 36.09 36.82 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.91 0.33 4.53 1.61 6.40 2.28

1. Alco Basa 2. Arka Abhay 3. Arka Alok 4. Arka Ashish 5. Arka Meghali 6. GK-1 7. GK-2 8. GK-3 9. IIHR 2274 10. Megha (L-15) 11. Nandi 12. PKM-1 13. PR-1 14. Punjab Chhauhara 15. S-22 16. Sankranthi 17. Vaibhav 18. L-1 19. L-2 20. L-3 21. L-5 22. L-6 23. L-10 24. L-10 (P) 25. L-11 26. L-12 27. L-13 28. L-15 29. L-16 30. L-17 31. L-18 32. L-19 33. L-26 34. L-27 35. L-28 36. L-29 37. L-30 38. L-31 39. L-32 40. L-33 41. L-33-1 42. L-34 43. L-34-1 44. L-35 45. L-37 46. L-38 47. L-38-1 48. L-40-3 49. L-43 50. L-44 Mean Range IRRIGATION (I) GENOTYPES (G) IxG

NS = Non- significance, DAT = Days after transplanting.

Significant interaction was observed at 45 DAT. Significantly higher biomass was noticed in the genotype L-35 (23.85) and was on par with L-38 (23.50) followed by L-34-1 (22.50), L-1, L-10 (P) (22.00, each), L-3 and L-32 (21.50, each) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio. Significantly least biomass was recorded in the genotype L-11 (9.75) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. During 75 DAT, genotype, Arka Meghali had significantly maximum biomass (34.65) and was on par with L-33 (33.46) and S-22 (32.62), while minimum was recorded in the genotype L-16 (18.03). Among the irrigation levels, as the irrigation frequency decreased 1.2 to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio biomass was reduced to the extent of 32.2 per cent. Among the genotypes, Arka Ashish had significantly higher biomass (38.96) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and the genotype L-40-3 had the least biomass (14.17) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio, irrespective of the irrigation levels. Irrespective of the irrigation levels, significantly maximum biomass was observed in the genotype L- 33 (50.68) at harvest and minimum was observed in the genotype L-16 (24.13). Among the different irrigation levels, significantly greater biomass production was observed at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and it ranged from 27.50 to 62.00 compared to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio and it varied from 20.00 to 42.10. There was no significant difference for interaction. However, maximum biomass was produced in the genotypes L-13 and L-30 (62.00, each) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and minimum was observed in the genotype Alco Basa (20.00) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. 4.1.5.4 Fruit parameters 4.1.5.4.1 Fruit weight (g) (c.f. Table 25) In general, as the stress level increased there was significant decrease in fruit weight was observed within the genotypes, different irrigation levels and their interaction. Irrespective of the irrigation levels, genotype L-1 had significantly greater fruit weight (87.17) and minimum was observed in the genotype Nandi (36.58). Among the two irrigation levels, 1.2 IW/CPE ratio had significantly more fruit weight compared to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio and it varied from 9.47 to 88.00 and 31.98 to 86.34, respectively Among the interaction, genotypes L-1 (88.00) had significantly maximum fruit weight at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and minimum fruit weight was observed in the genotype Nandi (31.98) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. 4.1.5.4.2 Fruit volume (cc) (c.f. Table 25) There was a significant difference in the fruit volume within the genotypes and irrigation levels, but non significant difference was observed for interaction effect. Among the genotypes and irrespective of the irrigation levels, S-22 had significantly superior fruit volume(75.75), this was on par with L-10 (P), L-2, Arka Alok, L-11, L-30, PR-1, L-6, L-19, L-27, Arka Abha, L-43, GK-2, L-33, L-44, L-3, Arka Meghali, L-1, Arka Ashish and Panjab Chhauhara and significantly least fruit volume was recorded in the genotype L-34 (39.25). Between the two irrigation levels, 1.2 IW/CPE ratio had significantly maximum fruit volume and it ranged from 42.5 to 93.0 and minimum was recorded in the 0.4 IW/CPE ratio wherein, it varied from 34.0 to 73.0. There was no significant difference for interaction effect. Yet more fruit volume was observed in the genotype L-11 (93.00) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and minimum was noticed in the genotype Megha (L-15) (34.00) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. 4.1.5.4.3 Fruit dimension 4.1.5.4.3.1 Polar diameter of fruit (mm) (c.f. Table 26) Polar diameter of fruit had significant difference among the genotypes and for interaction effect, but there was no significant difference within irrigation levels. Among the irrigation levels, Arka Alok had significantly maximum polar diameter (60.74) and was on par with PKM-1(57.61) followed by L-11 (57.39), L-43 (54.78) and L-18 (54.32). Significantly minimum polar diameter was observed in the genotype L-38 (36.51). Irrigation schedules had non significant difference. However, higher polar diameter was observed in 1.2 IW/CPE ratio compared to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio and it varied from 37.39 to 75.22 and 33.13 to 64.86, respectively. Interaction effect had significance difference among the

Table 24. Biomass (g.plant-1) of tomato genotypes as influenced by irrigation levels


Sl. No. Genotypes 45 DAT IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 17.00 12.75 14.88 14.25 12.50 13.38 16.95 14.25 15.60 16.30 14.25 15.28 16.75 14.00 15.38 14.45 14.00 14.23 17.50 13.75 15.63 13.85 10.00 11.93 15.00 11.70 13.35 18.75 13.50 16.13 18.20 16.00 17.10 17.00 14.45 15.73 18.50 13.85 16.18 18.00 14.00 16.00 18.75 13.50 16.13 17.75 15.00 16.38 17.25 15.00 16.13 22.00 18.50 20.25 19.25 14.45 16.85 21.50 19.05 20.28 18.40 15.65 17.03 15.50 10.50 13.00 16.00 11.20 13.60 22.00 17.80 19.90 12.25 09.75 11.00 16.00 15.00 15.50 19.25 13.75 16.50 17.75 10.75 14.25 11.95 10.00 10.98 18.60 12.20 15.40 18.50 11.10 14.80 20.25 15.65 17.95 20.25 12.25 16.25 16.75 12.00 14.38 16.75 15.10 15.93 20.00 16.75 18.38 18.50 15.75 17.13 20.50 14.75 17.63 21.50 15.75 18.63 20.50 16.20 18.35 17.00 12.35 14.68 16.50 13.20 14.85 22.50 16.30 19.40 23.85 16.00 19.93 20.75 12.25 16.50 23.50 13.50 18.50 17.00 13.75 15.38 14.85 10.00 12.43 22.00 19.05 20.53 13.50 11.50 12.50 18.02 13.90 15.96 11.95 09.75 10.98 23.85 19.05 20.53 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.35 0.13 1.76 0.63 2.49 0.89 75 DAT AT HARVEST 1.2 0.4 Mean 1.2 0.4 Mean 27.73 15.50 21.61 36.50 20.00 28.25 32.12 23.50 27.81 45.50 26.00 35.75 28.23 19.25 23.74 35.60 23.48 29.54 38.96 20.65 29.81 60.65 31.53 46.09 38.00 31.30 34.65 55.00 37.90 46.45 28.56 17.30 22.93 35.75 21.20 28.48 22.40 16.70 19.55 30.00 21.75 25.88 28.46 19.88 24.17 44.00 29.95 36.98 27.84 20.88 24.36 43.80 32.50 38.15 25.67 17.68 21.67 33.50 22.55 28.03 27.10 22.40 24.75 39.50 28.10 33.80 27.31 18.56 22.94 38.25 24.55 31.40 25.78 18.89 22.33 33.75 22.85 28.30 27.78 20.55 24.16 37.50 26.00 31.75 38.38 26.86 32.62 50.00 34.25 42.13 25.05 19.91 22.48 31.50 24.00 27.75 31.97 22.52 27.24 55.50 35.00 45.25 36.22 27.56 31.89 46.50 34.65 40.58 30.60 22.23 26.41 40.00 26.90 33.45 32.59 22.05 27.32 37.45 25.25 31.35 26.75 18.60 22.67 41.00 25.45 33.23 22.31 14.46 18.39 34.50 21.25 27.88 23.92 15.61 19.76 38.00 23.00 30.50 30.44 21.48 25.96 46.45 26.95 36.70 25.25 18.58 21.92 46.50 22.28 34.39 29.73 23.98 26.85 37.50 27.85 32.68 30.05 20.68 25.36 62.00 32.85 47.43 30.20 17.80 24.00 38.40 22.30 30.35 19.87 16.20 18.03 27.50 20.75 24.13 26.75 16.95 21.85 36.20 22.25 29.23 32.19 18.90 25.55 40.50 23.45 31.98 26.62 19.20 22.91 41.00 24.20 32.60 32.46 18.83 25.64 46.00 25.80 35.90 26.86 18.36 22.61 43.50 29.45 36.48 26.53 17.93 22.23 34.50 22.10 28.30 32.49 23.74 28.11 57.00 35.05 46.03 32.28 19.52 25.90 62.00 35.75 48.88 34.23 19.11 26.67 46.00 24.90 35.45 35.92 18.77 27.34 49.00 25.25 37.13 37.80 29.13 33.46 59.25 42.10 50.68 28.87 18.10 23.49 40.70 24.29 32.49 27.80 18.75 23.28 37.00 24.00 30.50 33.66 23.56 28.61 40.10 27.00 33.55 33.56 21.75 27.65 42.65 26.82 34.74 31.46 15.75 23.60 44.00 21.13 32.57 32.29 17.45 24.87 38.75 20.40 29.58 27.71 21.55 24.63 35.30 27.10 31.20 21.91 14.17 18.04 34.25 20.15 27.20 31.70 25.44 28.57 47.00 32.95 39.98 32.22 17.63 24.92 46.00 26.00 36.00 29.69 20.12 24.91 42.46 26.62 34.54 19.87 14.17 18.03 27.50 20.00 24.13 38.96 31.30 34.65 62.00 42.10 50.68 S.Em + CD at 5% S.Em + CD at 5% 1.35 0.48 0.48 0.17 6.75 2.41 2.40 0.86 NS 3.40 3.40 1.21

1. Alco Basa 2. Arka Abhay 3. Arka Alok 4. Arka Ashish 5. Arka Meghali 6. GK-1 7. GK-2 8. GK-3 9. IIHR 2274 10. Megha (L-15) 11. Nandi 12. PKM-1 13. PR-1 14. Punjab Chhauhara 15. S-22 16. Sankranthi 17. Vaibhav 18. L-1 19. L-2 20. L-3 21. L-5 22. L-6 23. L-10 24. L-10 (P) 25. L-11 26. L-12 27. L-13 28. L-15 29. L-16 30. L-17 31. L-18 32. L-19 33. L-26 34. L-27 35. L-28 36. L-29 37. L-30 38. L-31 39. L-32 40. L-33 41. L-33-1 42. L-34 43. L-34-1 44. L-35 45. L-37 46. L-38 47. L-38-1 48. L-40-3 49. L-43 50. L-44 Mean Range IRRIGATION (I) GENOTYPES (G) IxG

DAT = Days after transplanting.

Table 25. Fruit weight and fruit volume of tomato genotypes as influenced by irrigation levels
Sl. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. Mean Range IRRIGATION (I) GENOTYPES (G) IxG Genotypes Alco Basa Arka Abhay Arka Alok Arka Ashish Arka Meghali GK-1 GK-2 GK-3 IIHR 2274 Megha (L-15) Nandi PKM-1 PR-1 Punjab Chhauhara S-22 Sankranthi Vaibhav L-1 L-2 L-3 L-5 L-6 L-10 L-10 (P) L-11 L-12 L-13 L-15 L-16 L-17 L-18 L-19 L-26 L-27 L-28 L-29 L-30 L-31 L-32 L-33 L-33-1 L-34 L-34-1 L-35 L-37 L-38 L-38-1 L-40-3 L-43 L-44 Fruit weight (g) IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 53.58 61.04 46.12 55.42 58.77 52.08 67.40 75.96 58.83 61.84 63.50 60.17 61.48 69.10 53.85 65.65 73.13 58.17 59.45 66.99 51.92 48.01 57.08 38.94 49.01 58.02 40.00 45.88 54.80 36.97 36.58 41.18 31.98 46.70 47.23 46.17 58.95 62.81 55.09 58.29 59.75 56.83 69.62 73.08 66.15 50.43 53.10 47.75 53.50 63.16 43.83 87.17 88.00 86.34 77.47 81.14 73.80 50.84 51.85 49.83 46.40 51.12 41.69 49.41 52.08 46.75 52.38 54.88 49.89 73.36 77.80 68.92 66.61 73.11 60.12 72.66 77.50 67.83 43.58 45.34 41.83 41.45 48.08 34.83 47.35 51.84 42.87 45.46 51.93 38.99 49.61 57.25 41.97 46.92 49.08 44.75 44.58 46.48 42.68 59.79 61.62 57.97 55.30 63.86 46.75 44.16 52.15 36.17 74.44 84.00 64.88 61.30 68.76 53.83 53.06 53.90 52.22 58.81 67.80 49.83 62.48 70.18 54.78 44.50 45.24 43.75 43.00 46.83 39.17 44.97 38.10 41.53 47.98 55.05 40.92 53.37 55.82 50.92 37.96 41.08 34.84 42.63 45.09 40.18 77.89 59.92 68.90 54.51 57.15 51.88 59.75 49.88 54.81 44.97 31.98 36.58 88.00 86.34 87.17 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.74 0.26 3.71 1.32 5.25 1.87 Fruit volume (cc) 1.2 0.4 Mean 45.75 52.00 39.50 66.75 73.50 60.00 71.75 79.00 64.50 63.25 71.50 55.00 64.25 68.00 60.50 53.50 63.00 44.00 66.00 72.00 60.00 53.00 60.00 46.00 58.00 65.00 51.00 44.00 54.00 34.00 44.25 52.50 36.00 53.00 56.00 50.00 67.75 70.00 65.50 62.50 66.00 59.00 75.75 78.50 73.00 57.00 61.50 52.50 54.25 63.50 45.00 63.50 71.00 56.00 72.50 80.50 64.50 65.00 72.00 58.00 48.00 53.50 42.50 67.50 77.00 58.00 52.75 57.50 48.00 75.50 85.00 66.00 71.00 93.00 49.00 53.00 61.00 45.00 47.75 56.50 39.00 57.00 63.00 51.00 56.00 71.00 41.00 47.75 52.00 43.50 47.25 58.50 36.00 67.25 77.00 57.50 58.75 62.50 55.00 67.25 77.00 57.50 51.75 56.00 47.50 52.75 60.00 45.50 68.75 75.00 62.50 45.00 49.50 40.50 59.50 64.00 55.00 65.50 73.00 58.00 56.75 64.50 49.00 39.25 42.50 36.00 49.50 62.50 36.50 58.50 43.50 51.00 58.25 74.00 42.50 50.50 53.00 48.00 48.50 53.00 44.00 50.75 53.00 48.50 73.50 59.00 66.25 65.50 72.00 59.00 65.16 50.76 57.96 42.50 34.00 39.25 93.00 73.00 75.75 S.Em + CD at 5% 2.83 1.01 14.17 5.05 NS 7.14

NS = Non-significant.

genotypes and irrigation levels. Significantly highest polar diameter was observed in the genotype PKM-1 (75.22) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and minimum was observed in the genotype GK-3 (33.13) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. 4.1.5.4.3.2 Equatorial diameter of fruit (mm) (c.f. Table 26) In general equatorial diameter of fruit showed significant difference among genotypes, pan evaporation ratios and their interactions. Irrespective of the irrigation levels, genotype, L-11 showed highest equatorial diameter of fruit (58.23), which was on par with Arka Alok (56.81), Arka Ashish (55.39), L-31 (54.40), Megha (L-15) (52.54), L-28 (51.22), L-3 (50.99), L-34-1 (50.72) and L-5 (49.63). Genotype L-2 recorded least equatorial diameter of fruit (38.85). Among the pan evaporation ratios, significantly maximum equatorial diameter was observed in 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (48.67) and minimum was observed at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (43.56). Interaction had significant difference, wherein the genotype L-3 had significantly higher equatorial diameter of the fruit (65.93) and this was on par with Arka Ashish (64.26) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio and minimum was observed in the genotype Arka Abha (32.99) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio. 4.1.5.4.3.3 Fruit index (c.f. Table 26) There was a significant difference in fruit index within the genotypes, irrigation levels and their interaction. Irrespective of the irrigation levels, significantly maximum fruit index was observed in the genotype Arka Alok (3470.61) and this was on par with L-11 (3348.27) followed by Arka Ashish (3019.32) and L-31 (2902.59). The minimum was found in the genotype L-38 (1591.86). Among the irrigation levels, significantly higher fruit index was observed at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (2156.05) compared to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (2405.36). Interaction between the genotypes and irrigation levels had significant difference. Among the genotypes, L-3 had significantly greater fruit index (4119.63) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio and the least fruit index was observed in the genotype GK-3 (1227.75) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. 4.1.5.4.4 Pericarp thickness (mm) (c.f. Table 27) Pericarp thickness had significant difference among the genotypes, irrigation levels and their interaction. Genotype L-34 had significantly maximum pericarp thickness (0.61) and this was on par with L-17 (0.58), while minimum pericarp thickness was observed in the genotype L-34-1 (0.16) irrespective of the irrigation levels. Among the two irrigation levels, significantly higher pericarp thickness was observed at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (0.34) as against the least at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (0.29). As the stress increased from 1.2 to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio pulp weight increased to the extent of 14.7 per cent. Interaction between the genotypes and irrigation levels was significant. Significantly highest pericarp thickness was observed in the genotype L-17 (0.71) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio and the least was observed in the genotype Arka Alok (0.09) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio. 4.1.5.4.5 Number of locules per fruit (c.f. Table 27) Significant difference among the genotypes, pan evaporation ratios and their interaction was observed for number of locules per fruit. Among the genotypes, L-38 had significantly higher number of locules per fruit (9.25) and the lower number (2.00) was found in the genotype L-28. Significant difference was observed for the interaction effect. Genotype L-38 had significantly higher locules per fruit (10.00) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and significantly minimum was found in L-28 (2.00) both at 1.2 and 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. As the stress level increased, number of locules were reduced. Significantly maximum number of locules per fruit (4.20) was observed at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and minimum was found in the 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (3.58). 4.1.5.4.6 Number of seeds per fruit (c.f. Table 28) Number of seeds per fruit was significantly differed within the genotypes, irrigation levels and their interaction.

Table 26. Fruit dimension and fruit index as influenced by irrigation levels in tomato genotypes
Sl. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. Mean Range IRRIGATION (I) GENOTYPES (G) IxG Genotypes Fruit dimension (mm) Polar diameter Equatorial diameter IW/CPE ratio Mea 1.2 0.4 n 1.2 0.4 Mean 43.17 54.50 48.83 43.21 54.45 48.83 45.37 48.32 46.84 32.99 59.55 46.27 58.49 63.00 60.74 52.91 60.71 56.81 51.68 56.31 53.99 46.52 64.26 55.39 42.55 54.34 48.45 44.04 46.55 45.29 47.43 35.45 41.44 37.92 47.68 42.80 42.95 47.92 45.44 46.85 41.59 44.22 52.90 33.13 43.02 46.04 37.06 41.55 48.64 50.31 49.48 40.72 42.30 41.51 43.38 54.73 49.06 43.51 61.57 52.54 45.52 52.94 49.23 40.00 47.85 43.92 75.22 40.01 57.61 37.50 54.08 45.79 58.72 39.80 49.26 44.28 53.50 48.89 65.44 36.86 51.15 39.05 50.65 44.85 39.65 43.84 41.75 51.12 42.99 47.06 48.66 49.44 49.05 43.46 46.50 44.98 45.98 49.46 47.72 49.01 48.85 48.93 44.95 45.61 45.28 34.56 44.24 39.40 37.93 45.03 41.48 33.26 44.43 38.85 37.39 61.12 49.25 36.06 65.93 50.99 47.57 55.62 51.60 38.87 60.40 49.63 51.96 45.23 48.60 42.43 43.86 43.14 51.08 56.22 53.65 44.02 36.14 40.08 53.22 41.52 47.37 45.71 51.75 48.73 56.94 57.84 57.39 59.39 57.06 58.23 48.79 55.76 52.28 44.70 45.20 44.95 42.63 58.39 50.51 43.08 54.93 49.00 57.05 44.40 50.72 47.38 40.86 44.12 50.99 37.21 44.10 39.56 40.16 39.86 51.46 42.13 46.79 39.34 46.66 43.00 49.99 58.65 54.32 43.89 51.75 47.82 44.12 47.59 45.85 46.08 45.89 45.99 49.66 45.81 47.73 37.38 41.84 39.61 49.89 48.73 49.31 43.77 41.32 42.55 47.03 48.48 47.75 55.37 47.07 51.22 47.34 44.33 45.83 35.29 59.63 47.46 48.49 42.20 45.34 40.36 41.34 40.85 46.21 59.99 53.10 60.75 48.05 54.40 52.68 40.33 46.50 42.64 41.66 42.15 45.04 45.15 45.10 54.29 40.09 47.19 52.73 52.53 52.63 41.86 46.12 43.99 50.44 41.02 45.73 39.49 54.33 46.91 49.32 47.79 48.55 44.90 56.54 50.72 52.89 49.28 51.08 42.79 48.73 45.76 54.29 49.99 52.14 48.07 43.89 45.98 39.16 33.86 36.51 46.66 40.11 43.38 41.88 64.86 53.37 38.94 52.24 45.59 49.50 52.98 51.24 38.48 56.11 47.30 50.19 59.38 54.78 45.25 44.31 44.78 55.17 48.36 51.76 44.41 41.00 42.70 49.27 48.75 49.01 43.56 48.67 46.12 37.39 33.13 36.51 32.99 36.14 38.85 75.22 64.86 60.74 60.75 65.93 58.23 S.Em + CD at 5% S.Em + CD at 5% 1.78 0.63 NS 0.46 8.88 3.16 6.44 2.30 12.56 4.47 9.11 3.25 Fruit index

Alco Basa Arka Abhay Arka Alok Arka Ashish Arka Meghali GK-1 GK-2 GK-3 IIHR 2274 Megha (L-15) Nandi PKM-1 PR-1 Punjab Chhauhara S-22 Sankranthi Vaibhav L-1 L-2 L-3 L-5 L-6 L-10 L-10 (P) L-11 L-12 L-13 L-15 L-16 L-17 L-18 L-19 L-26 L-27 L-28 L-29 L-30 L-31 L-32 L-33 L-33-1 L-34 L-34-1 L-35 L-37 L-38 L-38-1 L-40-3 L-43 L-44

1.2 0.4 Mean 1866.53 2971.21 2418.87 1510.29 2905.42 2207.85 3098.02 3843.21 3470.61 2412.67 3625.98 3019.32 1874.32 2541.85 2208.08 1797.90 1693.61 1745.76 2010.78 1983.78 1997.28 2440.19 1227.75 1833.97 1982.76 2129.22 2055.99 1895.58 3374.44 2635.01 1819.28 2532.69 2175.99 2820.75 2163.16 2491.95 2602.49 2125.48 2363.98 2555.07 1887.08 2221.08 2026.71 1884.95 1955.83 2127.59 2299.91 2213.75 2252.72 2415.58 2334.15 1558.55 2017.18 1787.86 1267.53 2003.59 1635.56 1347.77 4119.63 2733.70 1881.96 3328.70 2605.33 2208.14 1983.68 2095.91 2255.00 2100.72 2177.86 2432.39 2147.85 2290.12 3381.98 3314.57 3348.27 2184.31 2520.20 2352.25 1838.54 3205.13 2521.84 2704.05 1815.85 2259.95 2015.79 1493.77 1754.78 2028.42 1969.40 1998.91 2212.78 3038.15 2625.46 2031.80 2189.41 2110.61 1897.37 1977.85 1937.61 2186.03 2022.59 2104.31 2603.65 2308.33 2455.99 1655.52 2680.16 2167.84 1962.15 1746.56 1854.36 2915.57 2889.62 2902.59 2251.35 1679.68 1965.51 2443.70 1809.71 2126.70 2206.96 2424.13 2315.54 1991.48 2228.33 2109.90 2274.99 2702.98 2488.99 2280.50 2402.41 2341.46 2613.25 2212.78 2413.01 1824.59 1359.12 1591.86 1630.56 3387.42 2508.99 1905.03 2966.15 2435.59 2271.77 2637.78 2454.78 2445.30 1979.31 2212.31 2156.05 2405.36 2280.70 1267.53 1227.75 1591.86 3381.98 4119.63 3470.61 S.Em + CD at 5% 133.36 47.51 666.78 237.53 942.97 335.92

NS = Non-significant.

Table 27. Pericarp thickness (mm) and number of locules per fruit of tomato genotypes as influenced by irrigation levels
Sl. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. Mean Range IRRIGATION (I) GENOTYPES (G) IxG Genotypes Alco Basa Arka Abhay Arka Alok Arka Ashish Arka Meghali GK-1 GK-2 GK-3 IIHR 2274 Megha (L--15) Nandi PKM-1 PR-1 Punjab Chhauhara S-22 Sankranthi Vaibhav L-1 L-2 L-3 L-5 L-6 L-10 L-10 (P) L-11 L-12 L-13 L-15 L-16 L-17 L-18 L-19 L-26 L-27 L-28 L-29 L-30 L-31 L-32 L-33 L-33-1 L-34 L-34-1 L-35 L-37 L-38 L-38-1 L-40-3 L-43 L-44 Pericarp thickness (mm) IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 0.42 0.39 0.45 0.39 0.18 0.60 0.23 0.09 0.38 0.30 0.28 0.32 0.21 0.37 0.29 0.20 0.23 0.17 0.17 0.13 0.21 0.17 0.13 0.21 0.19 0.25 0.14 0.40 0.54 0.26 0.26 0.17 0.35 0.25 0.37 0.13 0.33 0.42 0.25 0.30 0.26 0.35 0.36 0.24 0.49 0.26 0.21 0.32 0.22 0.20 0.24 0.33 0.20 0.46 0.25 0.28 0.21 0.47 0.52 0.42 0.21 0.27 0.16 0.45 0.36 0.54 0.26 0.17 0.35 0.31 0.45 0.17 0.37 0.41 0.33 0.27 0.40 0.14 0.35 0.28 0.41 0.38 0.43 0.32 0.36 0.24 0.47 0.58 0.45 0.71 0.27 0.17 0.37 0.29 0.21 0.37 0.28 0.25 0.32 0.20 0.28 0.11 0.15 0.30 0.30 0.24 0.25 0.23 0.20 0.18 0.21 0.29 0.14 0.45 0.39 0.26 0.52 0.24 0.31 0.18 0.45 0.70 0.19 0.61 0.58 0.64 0.16 0.12 0.20 0.33 0.23 0.44 0.31 0.33 0.28 0.24 0.10 0.39 0.43 0.41 0.46 0.41 0.34 0.48 0.33 0.44 0.23 0.48 0.44 0.52 0.29 0.34 0.31 0.09 0.11 0.15 0.70 0.71 0.61 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.02 0.01 0.08 0.03 0.11 0.04 No. of locules/ fruit 1.2 0.4 Mean 4.13 4.50 3.75 5.63 6.50 4.75 3.38 3.75 3.00 5.38 6.00 4.75 6.50 5.25 5.88 3.63 4.00 3.25 3.13 3.00 3.25 3.00 3.25 2.75 3.00 3.25 2.75 4.75 5.25 4.25 4.00 4.50 3.50 2.88 2.75 3.00 4.50 4.75 4.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.75 3.25 2.25 2.63 2.75 2.50 5.88 6.00 5.75 4.50 5.25 3.75 2.75 3.00 2.50 4.00 4.75 3.25 3.63 3.75 3.50 3.50 3.75 3.25 5.50 6.00 5.00 5.00 5.50 4.50 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.50 2.50 2.50 3.50 4.00 3.00 5.00 5.50 4.50 3.25 2.75 3.75 3.00 3.25 2.75 3.00 3.25 2.75 2.63 2.25 3.00 5.75 6.00 5.50 4.13 4.50 3.75 2.00 2.00 2.00 4.00 4.50 3.50 3.63 4.00 3.25 2.75 3.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 4.25 4.50 4.00 2.88 3.00 2.75 3.38 3.75 3.00 3.88 4.25 3.50 4.38 4.75 4.00 4.88 5.75 4.00 9.25 10.00 8.50 3.25 3.75 2.75 2.50 2.50 2.50 4.75 5.00 4.50 5.00 5.75 4.25 4.20 3.58 3.89 2.00 2.00 2.00 10.00 8.50 9.25 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.13 0.05 0.65 0.23 0.91 0.33

Among the genotypes, L-3 had significantly more number of seeds per fruit (208.50) and least was observed in the genotype L- 26 (39.97). With the irrigation levels, significantly maximum number of seeds per fruit was observed at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (116.30) and significantly minimum was observed at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (91.82). Significant difference was observed for the interaction effect, wherein the higher number of seeds per fruit (244.00) was observed in the genotype L-3 at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and minimum was observed in the genotype L-40-3 (36.17) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. 4.1.5.4.7 Pulp weight per fruit (g) (c.f. Table 28) There was significant difference for pulp weight per fruit within the genotypes, different stress levels and their interaction. Among the genotypes, L-3 had significantly maximum pulp weight per fruit (71.02) and minimum was observed in the genotype Nandi (24.52). As the stress level increased from 1.2 to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio, there was significant decrease in pulp weight to the extent of 32.52 per cent. Significant difference in the interaction was observed and the genotype L-3 had significantly highest pulp weight (97.95) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and the least was in the genotype IIHR 2274 (15.43) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. 4.1.5.4.8 Pulp to seed ratio (Per cent) (c.f. Table 28) There was significant difference among the genotype, irrigation levels and interaction between genotypes and different irrigation levels for pulp to seed ratio. Genotype L-15 had significantly highest pulp to seed ratio (99.36) among the genotypes and for interaction effect at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (108.15). Similarly the least was observed in the genotype PKM-1 within the genotype (19.39) and for interaction effect at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (17.59). Among the different moisture stress levels, significantly maximum pulp to seed ratio was observed at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (49.00) and minimum was observed at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (46.45). 4.1.5.5 Per cent reduction in yield per plant at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio 1.2 (c.f. Table 29) Yield per plant reduction was observed at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio over 1.2 IW/CPE ratio. Minimum per cent reduction in yield per plant was found in the genotype L-35 (2.07) followed by L-11 (14.05), L-38-1, (18.18) and L-40-3 (19.02). Maximum yield reduction per cent was observed in the genotype L-28 (66.50) 4.1.5.6 Identification of drought resistant tomato genotypes based on various methods of screening (c.f. Table 30) In order to select tolerant and consistent genotypes, different screening methods were employed based on (1) mean of 0.4 & 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (2) per cent reduction at 0.4 over 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (3) correlation co-efficient (r value) (4) yield at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio which yields more then 1.28 kg/plant (5) predicted yield based on regression. Genotypes were selected based on their performance in all these techniques. Top eight ranked resistant genotypes (GK-3, IIHR 2274. L-10 (P), L-30, L-38-1, L-40-3, Punjab Chhauhar, S-22), two susceptible genotypes (L-17 and L-28) and one check (Arka Meghali) are used for the further studies.

4.2

FIELD EXPERIMENT II: PHYSIOLOGICAL TRAITS ASSOCIATED WITH DROUGHT TOLERANCE MECHANISM AMONG THE SELECTED GENOTYPES.

Eight tomato genotypes which performed better in experiment I with reference to drought tolerance along with two susceptible and one check variety were selected for screening in experiment II. Results of experiment II are presented on pooled data basis of two years. However, the data on the performance of genotypes in second year experiment with reference to drought tolerance are presented in the Appendices III (Table i to xxv).

Table 28. Number of seeds per fruit, pulp weight per fruit and pulp to seed ratio as influenced by irrigation levels in tomato genotypes
Sl. No. Genotypes No. of seeds fruit-1 IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 85.9 106.8 65.0 135.0 115.8 125.4 124.0 93.0 108.5 57.6 58.2 57.0 165.2 85.8 125.5 144.2 102.6 123.4 98.4 110.8 86.0 107.2 96.0 101.6 101.8 117.2 109.5 66.0 85.8 46.2 123.8 109.8 116.8 182.8 173.8 178.3 70.9 85.8 56.0 78.5 84.0 73.0 147.8 129.0 138.4 89.1 115.0 63.2 163.0 72.8 117.9 182.8 181.0 181.9 147.2 81.1 114.1 244.0 173.0 208.5 124.3 122.8 123.6 211.0 193.1 202.1 80.5 82.1 79.0 176.2 156.8 166.5 75.1 80.2 70.0 98.6 122.2 75.1 64.1 78.2 50.0 61.0 79.2 42.8 89.5 104.8 74.2 58.5 70.8 46.2 90.8 114.8 66.8 85.0 96.8 73.2 40.0 41.1 38.8 161.2 107.8 134.5 116.8 108.2 112.5 69.2 72.6 65.8 95.3 120.0 70.5 62.5 64.8 60.2 69.0 69.2 68.8 117.2 94.1 105.6 87.7 88.4 87.0 72.1 83.0 61.2 145.8 127.2 136.5 70.4 77.0 63.8 88.9 104.8 73.0 151.3 146.8 149.0 90.1 91.1 89.2 57.5 78.8 36.2 198.4 188.8 193.6 76.7 77.5 76.0 116.3 91.8 104.1 41.1 36.2 40.0 244.0 193.1 208.5 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.09 0.03 0.47 0.17 0.66 0.24 Pulp weight fruit -1 (g) Pulp to seed ratio (%)

1. Alco Basa 2. Arka Abhay 3. Arka Alok 4. Arka Ashish 5. Arka Meghali 6. GK-1 7. GK-2 8. GK-3 9. IIHR 2274 10. Megha (L-15) 11. Nandi 12. PKM-1 13. PR-1 14. Punjab Chhauhara 15. S-22 16. Sankranthi 17. Vaibhav 18. L-1 19. L-2 20. L-3 21. L-5 22. L-6 23. L-10 24. L-10 (P) 25. L-11 26. L-12 27. L-13 28. L-15 29. L-16 30. L-17 31. L-18 32. L-19 33. L-26 34. L-27 35. L-28 36. L-29 37. L-30 38. L-31 39. L-32 40. L-33 41. L-33-1 42. L-34 43. L-34-1 44. L-35 45. L-37 46. L-38 47. L-38-1 48. L-40-3 49. L-43 50. L-44 Mean Range IRRIGATION (I) GENOTYPES (G) IxG

1.2 0.4 Mean 1.2 0.4 Mean 35.1 36.8 35.3 34.9 33.1 40.4 36.6 33.3 50.7 22.4 37.6 29.0 53.5 50.7 65.2 41.8 52.6 48.9 47.4 89.3 55.1 39.8 94.4 84.3 39.5 30.0 41.5 37.5 25.1 34.9 53.5 45.7 76.2 30.8 55.5 35.8 41.2 42.7 48.6 33.8 43.9 41.4 25.3 25.8 28.7 22.0 26.7 25.0 34.3 42.5 53.1 15.4 52.2 32.8 26.5 41.2 37.0 15.9 43.2 39.2 24.5 21.7 28.2 20.9 22.8 20.7 31.4 19.4 38.7 24.1 21.2 17.6 53.9 72.9 57.0 50.9 66.5 79.2 45.2 57.7 48.6 41.9 57.8 57.5 47.4 34.7 52.0 42.9 35.2 34.2 36.0 38.1 39.0 33.0 33.9 42.2 34.0 29.0 48.8 19.3 29.9 28.1 61.8 37.4 74.8 48.8 41.0 33.9 67.0 57.4 76.8 57.2 52.2 62.6 71.0 36.7 98.0 44.1 40.1 33.3 32.9 26.5 34.8 31.1 27.9 25.0 51.3 28.5 67.3 35.3 31.9 25.1 47.0 60.5 51.9 42.1 63.3 57.8 43.6 27.8 51.2 36.1 29.0 26.5 55.4 77.0 64.5 46.3 80.3 73.6 50.8 49.8 54.1 47.5 44.2 55.4 55.8 89.3 77.5 34.1 99.2 79.4 57.9 99.4 85.8 29.9 108.2 90.6 39.7 46.2 51.2 28.2 48.9 43.5 36.8 61.4 40.8 32.7 57.7 65.1 32.4 34.0 35.8 28.9 31.2 36.7 55.5 68.7 72.9 38.1 75.2 62.2 35.3 89.6 37.0 33.5 89.6 89.5 68.2 49.5 77.5 58.9 48.1 51.0 42.0 39.4 48.7 35.3 41.7 37.1 32.6 50.9 40.1 25.1 55.3 46.4 49.5 50.6 56.4 42.6 47.0 54.3 36.1 61.0 41.9 30.3 64.8 57.1 51.0 79.2 58.5 43.5 84.6 73.9 42.7 42.5 52.7 32.6 44.9 40.1 39.7 46.9 44.2 35.3 50.0 43.7 31.3 42.7 34.5 28.1 41.6 43.8 30.1 23.0 36.1 24.0 24.8 21.2 39.9 56.6 43.0 36.7 55.9 57.4 41.7 48.5 53.4 30.0 51.0 46.1 43.7 31.7 51.1 36.3 33.8 29.6 25.2 28.3 27.0 23.4 29.7 27.0 33.0 54.0 34.0 31.9 43.2 64.8 38.9 20.7 42.2 35.6 21.3 20.1 44.4 59.6 47.5 41.3 61.2 57.9 51.3 34.6 43.0 49.0 46.5 47.7 27.0 15.4 24.5 21.2 17.6 19.4 98.0 58.9 71.0 108.2 90.6 99.4 S.Em + CD at 5% S.Em + CD at 5% 0.08 0.28 0.46 0.17 3.89 1.39 2.32 0.83 5.50 1.96 3.28 1.17

Table 29. Per cent reduction of yield in 0.4 IW/CPE ratio over 1.2 IW/CPE ratio
Sl. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. Mean Range Genotypes Alco Basa Arka Abhay Arka Alok Arka Ashish Arka Meghali GK-1 GK-2 GK-3 IIHR 2274 Megha (L-15) Nandi PKM-1 PR-1 Punjab Chhauhara S-22 Sankranthi Vaibhav L-1 L-2 L-3 L-5 L-6 L-10 L-10 (P) L-11 L-12 L-13 L-15 L-16 L-17 L-18 L-19 L-26 L-27 L-28 L-29 L-30 L-31 L-32 L-33 L-33-1 L-34 L-34-1 L-35 L-37 L-38 L-38-1 L-40-3 L-43 L-44 Yield per plant ((kg. plant-1) IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 1.23 0.79 1.87 1.42 1.70 1.32 1.06 0.62 1.98 1.40 2.30 1.12 1.59 0.99 1.69 0.92 2.39 1.28 1.98 1.15 1.17 0.72 2.02 1.01 1.93 0.93 0.95 0.75 2.01 1.52 1.59 1.26 2.07 1.28 1.41 0.93 1.40 0.58 1.23 0.72 1.15 0.61 0.90 0.44 2.10 1.11 2.30 1.36 1.21 1.04 1.50 0.67 1.16 0.69 0.64 0.39 0.98 0.69 1.96 1.23 1.81 1.07 1.49 0.84 0.69 0.42 1.07 0.74 2.06 0.69 1.51 0.88 2.29 0.94 0.88 0.70 1.46 0.76 1.66 1.16 1.26 0.86 1.80 1.08 1.62 1.01 1.45 1.42 2.17 1.13 1.93 1.15 1.54 1.26 1.63 1.32 2.94 1.27 0.84 0.62 1.59 0.97 0.64 0.39 2.94 1.52 Per cent Reduction in yield 35.77 24.06 22.35 41.51 29.29 51.30 37.74 45.56 46.44 41.92 38.46 50.00 51.81 21.05 24.38 20.75 38.16 34.04 58.57 41.46 46.96 51.11 47.14 40.87 14.05 55.33 40.52 39.06 29.59 37.24 40.88 43.62 39.13 30.84 66.50 41.72 58.95 20.45 47.95 30.12 31.75 40.00 37.65 2.07 47.93 40.41 18.18 19.02 56.80 26.19 38.99 2.07 66.50

4.2.1 Morphological characters of tomato genotypes (Plate 1 a & b)


4.2.1.1 Plant height (cm) (c.f. Table 31) During 45 DAT, significantly maximum plant height was observed in the genotype Punjab Chhauhar (37.26) and this was on par with S-22 (37.18), followed by L-40-3 (37.09) and Arka Meghali (36.66). Significantly minimum plant height was recorded in L-17 (26.33) irrespective of the genotypes. Among the irrigation schedules, 1.2 IW/CPE ratio had significantly higher plant height, when compared to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio and it varied from 32.50 to 42.24 and 20.75 to 35.53. .Among the different genotypes, L-30 (42.25) had significantly higher plant height and this was on par with S-22 (42.18), followed by L-40-3 (41.38) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and least plant height was in genotype L-17 (20.75) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. There were no significant differences for plant height at 75 DAT. However, maximum plant height was observed in the genotype L-30 both within genotypes and irrespective of irrigation levels and among the genotypes at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (46.30 and 52.29, respectively), minimum plant height was recorded within the genotype in L-10 (P) (38.73) and L-17 (35.00) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. Among the irrigation levels at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio it varied from 41.70 to 52.29 while, at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio it was 35.00 to 42.21. There was significant difference in plant height among the genotypes and irrigation schedules at harvest. However, there was no significance difference for interaction effects. Irrespective of irrigation levels, genotype GK-3 showed significantly highest plant height (59.06) and this was on par with IIHR 2274 (55.53) and the least was in the Punjab Chhauhar (47.56). Among the irrigation schedules, 1.2 IW/CPE ratio had significantly higher plant height and minimum was observed at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. Plant height varied from 50.38 to 67.38 and 38.25 to 50.88. Among the interactions, genotype GK-3 had maximum plant height (67.38) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and minimum was observed in the genotype S-22 (38.25) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. 4.2.1.2 Stem girth (mm) (c.f. Table 32) There were significant differences among the genotypes, different pan evaporation ratio and their interaction at both 45 and 75 DAT for stem girth. At 45 DAT, irrespective of irrigation levels, maximum stem girth was observed in the genotype S-22 and Arka Meghali (9.55, each) and this was on par L-38-1 (9.45), GK-3 (9.43) and L-40-3 (9.31) while, minimum was in the genotype L-28 (8.54). Among the genotypes, L38-1 observed significantly higher stem girth (10.26) and this was on par with the genotype Punjab Chhauhar (10.01) and differed significantly with all the genotypes except for the genotypes IIHR 2274 (9.68), L-30 (9.53) and L-28 (9.29) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and least was in genotype L-28 (7.80) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. Irrespective of the irrigation levels, significantly maximum stem girth was observed in the genotype Punjab Chhauhar (14.52) during 75 DAT and minimum was recorded in L-17 (10.11). Among the genotypes GK-3 showed significantly better stem girth (15.92) and this was on par with Punjab Chhauhar (15.29), IIHR 2274 (15.29) and L-10 (P) (14.92) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio. least stem girth was in L-28 (8.13) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. Irrespective of the different pan evaporation ratio and growth phases, significantly maximum stem girth was recorded at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (9.85 and 14.19 at 45 and 75 DAT, respectively) and minimum stem girth was observed at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (8.58 and 11.17 during 45 and 75 DAT, respectively). 4.2.1.3 Number of branches per plant (c.f. Table 33) Significant differences among the genotypes, irrigation levels and their interaction was observed for number of branches per plant both at 45 and 75 DAT. Irrespective of irrigation levels, genotype GK-3 recorded significantly maximum number of branches per plant (10.50) at 45 DAT and this was on par with S-22 (9.25) while, minimum was observed in the genotype L-40-3 (6.25). Between the two irrigation schedules, significantly more number of branches per plant was observed at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio compared to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio and it varied from 6.75 to 12.75 and 4.75 to 8.25, respectively. Among the genotypes, significantly higher number of branches per plant was observed in the

S-22

Punjab Chhauhara

L-30

S-22

Punjab Chhauhara

L-30

IIHR 2274

L-10(p)

IIHR 2274

L-10(P) Plate 1a. Performance of tomato genotypes at 1.2 and 0.4 IW/CPE water regime

Table 30. Criteria to categories tomato genotypes for drought tolerance


Based on per cent reduction at 0.4 over 1.2 IW/CPE Based on r values with yield v/s Predicted yield based on regression + + + + + + + + + + Mean of 0.4 & 1.2 IW/CPE ratio Sl. No

Biomass at 75 DAT

Stem girth 45 DAT

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50.

Alco Basa Arka Abhay Arka Alok Arka Ashish Arka Meghali GK1 GK-2 GK-3 IIHR 2274 Megha (L-15) Nandi PKM-1 PR-1 Punjab Chhauhara S-22 Sankranthi Vaibhav L-1 L-2 L-3 L-5 L6 L-10 L-10 (P) L-11 L-12 L-13 L-15 L-16 L-17 L-18 L-19 L-26 L-27 L-28 L-29 L-30 L-31 L-32 L-33 L-33-1 L-34 L-34-1 L-35 L-37 L-38 L-38-1 L-40-3 L-43 L-44

+ + + + + + + + + + -

+ + + + + + + + + + -

+ + + + + + + + + + -

+ + + + + + + + + +

+ + + + + + + + + + -

+ + + + + + + + + + -

+ + + + + + + + + + -

+ + + + + + + + + + + -

+ + + + + + + + + + + -

+ + + + + + + + + + -

+ + + + + + + + + +

+ + + + + + + + + + -

+ + + + + + + + + +

+ + + + + + + + + + -

+ + + + + + + + + + -

+ + + + + + + + + + -

+ + + + + + + + + + -

+ + + + + + + + + + -

Stem girth 45 DAT

Genotypes

+ + + + + + + + + + -

+ + + + + + + + + + -

2 6 4 5 10 3 1 7 10 2 4 1 6 8 10 5 3 3 2 5 3 4 4 7 3 5 1 3 3 0 4 6 5 1 2 3 7 1 3 3 3 4 2 6 6 3 7 7 6 3

Note: 1. Susceptible Frequency between <4, 2. Moderate tolerance Frequency between 4-7 3. Tolerant Frequency between 7- 10

Frequency of all criteria

Yield at 0.4 IW/CPE (> 1.28 kg/plant)

Shoot length 75 DAT

Shoot length 75 DAT

Per cent reduction in yield

Leaf area/ TDM ratio

Leaf area/ yield ratio

Leaf area 75 DAT

Biomass 75 DAT

Total chlorophyll

Chlorophyll a

Chlorophyll a

Fruit weight

Proline

Proline

RWC

WUE

Yield

TOLERANT GENOTYPES

L-40-3

L-38-1

L-40-3

L-38-1

SUSCEPTIBLE GENOTYPES

LOCAL CHECK

L-28

L-17

Arka Meghali

L-28

L-17

Arka Meghali

Plate 1b. Performance of tomato genotypes at 1.2 and 0.4 IW/CPE water regime

Table 31. Plant height (cm) as influenced by irrigation levels in tomato genotypes (pooled)
45 DAT 75 DAT IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 1.2 0.4 Mean 1. Arka Meghali 42.00 31.31 36.66 46.34 38.38 42.36 2. GK-3 34.38 25.75 30.06 46.75 39.91 43.33 3. IIHR 2274 34.00 30.53 32.26 48.86 39.05 43.96 4. L-10 (P) 36.38 24.13 30.25 41.98 35.49 38.73 5. L-17 32.50 20.75 26.63 46.25 35.00 40.63 6. L-28 37.53 31.99 34.76 41.70 36.98 39.34 7. L-30 42.25 25.25 33.75 52.29 40.31 46.30 8. L-38-1 39.38 30.78 35.08 46.68 39.68 43.18 9. L-40-3 41.38 32.80 37.09 46.83 40.03 43.43 10. Punjab Chhauhara 39.00 35.53 37.26 45.58 42.21 43.89 11. S-22 42.18 32.18 37.18 47.86 36.38 42.12 Mean 38.27 29.18 33.73 46.47 38.49 42.48 32.50 20.75 26.63 41.70 35.00 38.73 Range 42.25 35.53 37.26 52.29 42.21 46.30 S.Em + CD at 5% S.Em + CD at 5% IRRIGATION (I) 0.18 0.52 7.69 NS GENOTYPES (G) 0.41 1.22 18.03 NS INTERACTION (I x G ) 0.59 1.72 25.50 NS NS = Non- significant & DAT = Days after transplanting. Sl. No. Genotypes AT HARVEST 1.2 0.4 Mean 54.25 49.25 51.75 67.38 50.75 59.06 61.50 49.56 55.53 54.63 46.69 50.66 59.25 48.91 54.08 50.38 48.19 49.28 59.63 50.50 55.06 55.13 50.88 53.00 56.38 43.06 49.72 51.75 43.38 47.56 57.63 38.25 47.94 57.08 47.22 52.15 50.38 38.25 47.56 67.38 50.88 59.06 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.82 2.40 1.91 5.62 2.71 NS

Table 32. Stem girth (mm) as influenced by irrigation levels in tomato genotypes (pooled) Sl. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Mean Range 45 DAT Genotypes 1.2 Arka Meghali GK-3 IIHR 2274 L-10 (P) L-17 L-28 L-30 L-38-1 L-40-3 Punjab Chhauhara S-22 9.86 9.84 9.68 9.85 9.97 9.29 9.53 10.26 10.20 10.01 9.89 9.85 9.29 10.26 S.Em + 0.4 9.24 9.02 8.31 8.34 8.27 7.80 8.71 8.65 8.43 8.42 9.21 8.58 7.80 9.24 Mean IW/CPE ratio 1.2 9.55 9.43 8.99 9.09 9.12 8.54 9.12 9.45 9.31 9.21 9.55 9.21 8.54 9.55 CD at 5% 0.13 0.31 0.44 14.11 15.92 15.29 14.92 12.08 14.01 12.60 13.93 14.16 15.59 13.48 14.19 12.08 15.92 S.Em + 0.14 0.32 0.46 75 DAT 0.4 11.04 10.40 9.95 12.07 8.13 10.58 11.04 12.30 11.57 13.45 12.35 11.17 8.13 13.45 Mean 12.57 13.16 12.62 13.50 10.11 12.30 11.82 13.11 12.86 14.52 12.92 12.68 10.11 14.52 CD at 5% 0.41 0.95 1.35

IRRIGATION (I) GENOTYPES (G) 0.05 INTERACTION (I x G 0.11 ) 0.15 DAT = Days after transplanting.

genotype GK-3 (12.75) and this was on par with S-22 (12.50) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and lesser was in the genotype Arka Meghali (4.75) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. At 75 DAT, significantly greater number of branches per plant was recorded in the genotype Arka Meghali (28.75) and least was recorded in the genotype L-38-1 (10.00) irrespective of irrigation levels. Among the irrigation schedules, significantly more number of braches was observed at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and it ranged from 10.75 to 31.25 and least was observed at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio it ranged from 8.75 to 26.25. Significantly maximum number of braches was exhibited by the genotype Arka Meghali (31.25) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and minimum was observed in the genotype L-17 (8.75) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. 4.2.1.4 Number of pubescence (c. f. Table 34) There was significance difference for the number of pubescence among genotypes and irrigation levels were observed both on upper and lower leaf surface, while non significance was observed for interaction effects of genotypes and irrigation levels both on abaxial and adaxial surface. On abaxial surface of the leaf, irrespective of irrigation levels, genotype L-30 recorded significantly maximum number of pubescence (306.24) while, minimum was in Punjab Chhauhar (21.12). Among the interaction effect between the genotypes and irrigation levels also, genotype L-30 exhibited maximum pubescence number (350.24) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio while, least was observed in Punjab Chhauhar (15.84) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio. Among the irrigation levels, significantly maximum pubescence were recorded at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio recorded maximum number of pubescences compared to 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and it ranged from 26.40 TO 350.24 and 15.84 to 262.24, respectively. Adaxial surface of the leaf showed same trend for number of pubescence as that of abaxial surface, genotype L-30 observed significantly highest pubescence (647.68) while, least was noticed in the Punjab Chhauhar (103.84) irrespective of the irrigation levels. Among the interaction effect between the genotypes and irrigation levels, again the genotype L-30 exhibited maximum pubescences number (693.44) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio while, least was observed in Punjab Chhauhar (94.16) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio. Among the irrigation levels, 0.4 IW/CPE ratio recorded significantly maximum pubescence and it varied from 113.52 to 693.44 and 94.16 to 601.92 compared to 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and it ranged from 26.75 to 171.00. More number of pubescence on pedicle was noticed in Punjab Chhauhara, L-10 (P), S-22 and L-40-3 compared to local check Arka Meghali and genotypes L-17 4.2.1.5 Days to flowering cessation (c.f. Table 35) There was no significant difference for days to flowering cessation among the genotypes and for interaction effects. However, maximum day for flowering cessation was noticed in the genotype GK-3 (89.75) and minimum was in the genotype L-17 (79.75) irrespective of irrigation levels. The interaction effect, genotypes showed IIHR 2274 (97.00) highest days for flowering cessation at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and least in the genotype L-28 (73.50) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. Among the different irrigation schedules, significantly highest days to flowering cessation were noticed at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and it ranged from 86.25 to 97.00 compared to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio and it varied from 73.25 to 85.25. 4.2.1.6 Days to wilting (c.f. Table 35) Significant differences were observed for days to wilting among the genotypes and IW/CPE ratios, the interaction effects of genotypes an IW/CPE ratio were non significant. Among the genotypes, maximum number of days to wilting was recorded in L-40-3 (101.13) and this was on par with L-30 (100.38), followed by all other genotypes except Arka Meghali, which recorded minimum days taken for wilting (88.38) irrespective of the irrigation levels. Among the two IW/CPE ratios, significantly highest days taken for wilting was noticed at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and least was recorded at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio and it ranged from 92.75 to 109.75 and 84.00 to 95.25. There were no significant differences with reference to interaction effects. However, highest days taken for wilting were noticed in the genotype L-30 (109.75) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and lowest was in the genotype Arka Meghali (84.00) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio.

Table 33. Number of branches per plant as influenced by irrigation schedules in tomato genotypes (pooled)
No. of braches. plant 45 DAT 75 DAT Sl. No. Genotypes IW/CPE ratio 1.2 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Mean Arka Meghali GK-3 IIHR 2274 L-10 (P) L-17 L-28 L-30 L-38-1 L-40-3 Punjab Chhauhara S-22 0.4 Mean 1.2 0.4 Mean
-1

8.50 12.75 10.00 7.50 7.25 7.75 8.50 6.75 7.50 8.75 12.50 8.89 6.75 Range 12.75 S.Em + IRRIGATION (I) 0.22 GENOTYPES (G) 0.52 INTERACTION (I x G ) 0.73 DAT = Days after transplanting.

4.75 6.63 8.25 10.50 7.50 8.75 6.75 7.13 7.75 7.50 7.50 7.63 6.50 7.50 7.00 6.88 5.00 6.25 7.50 8.13 6.00 9.25 6.77 7.83 4.75 6.25 8.25 10.50 CD at 5% 0.65 1.52 2.15

31.25 26.25 28.75 17.25 15.50 16.38 21.50 16.75 19.13 17.50 15.75 16.63 13.00 8.75 10.88 16.75 15.25 16.00 14.00 16.00 15.00 10.75 9.25 10.00 15.75 16.75 16.25 24.25 14.00 19.13 25.75 15.50 20.63 18.89 15.43 17.16 10.75 8.75 10.00 31.25 26.25 28.75 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.50 1.45 1.16 3.41 1.64 4.82

Table 34 . Number of pubescence as influenced by irrigation levels in tomato genotypes


Number of pubescence.cm-2 Sl. Abaxial Adaxial Genotypes No. IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 1.2 0.4 Mean 1. Arka Meghali 123.20 216.48 169.84 327.36 362.56 344.96 2. GK-3 72.16 80.96 76.56 293.92 471.68 382.80 3. IIHR 2274 51.04 68.64 59.84 211.20 253.44 232.32 4. L-10 (P) 102.08 103.84 102.96 317.68 333.52 325.60 5. L-17 89.76 107.36 98.56 176.00 183.04 179.52 6. L-28 61.60 72.16 66.88 160.16 218.24 189.20 7. L-30 262.24 350.24 306.24 601.92 693.44 647.68 8. L-38-1 72.16 80.96 76.56 290.40 343.20 316.80 9. L-40-3 241.12 279.84 260.48 103.84 146.08 124.96 10. Punjab Chhauhara 15.84 26.40 21.12 94.16 113.52 103.84 11. S-22 232.32 295.68 264.00 335.28 358.16 346.72 Mean 120.32 152.96 136.64 264.72 316.08 290.40 15.84 26.40 21.12 94.16 113.52 103.84 Range 262.24 350.24 306.24 601.92 693.44 647.68 S.Em + CD at 5% S.Em + CD at 5% IRRIGATION (I) 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.14 GENOTYPES (G) 0.04 0.11 0.11 0.32 INTERACTION (I x G ) 0.06 0.16 0.15 0.45

4.2.2 Biochemical parameters


4.2.2.1 Chlorophyll contents (mg.g of fresh weight) -1 4.2.2.1.1 Chlorophyll a content (mg.g of fresh weight) (c.f. Table 36) Chlorophyll a content was affected significantly by the irrigation levels, genotypes and their interaction effects. Irrespective of irrigation levels, genotype L-10 (P) recorded significantly higher chlorophyll a content (1.341) and lesser was observed in the genotype Punjab Chhauhar (0.994). As the stress level increased from 1.2 to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio, chlorophyll a decreased to the extent of 19.6 per cent. Among the irrigation schedules, 1.2 IW/CPE ratio observed significantly higher chlorophyll a compared to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio and it varied from 1.043 to 1.444 and 0.796 to 1.237, respectively. Among the genotypes, L-10 (P) showed significantly maximum chlorophyll a content (1.444) and this was on par with L-30 (1.378), L-28 (1.364), Arka Meghali (1.2888) and L-17 (1.278) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and minimum was recorded in the genotype Arka Meghali (0.796) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. -1 4.2.2.1.2 Chlorophyll b content (mg.g of fresh weight) (c.f. Table 36) Chlorophyll b content was enhanced significantly with increase in irrigation levels from 0.4 IW/CPE ratio to 1.2 IW/CPE ratio. There was significant difference for chlorophyll b among the genotypes, irrigation levels and their interaction effect. Genotype L-30 had significantly maximum chlorophyll b content among genotypes and interaction of genotypes and irrigation level at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (0.411 and 0.538, respectively) and minimum was found in the Arka Meghali among genotypes and interaction of genotypes and irrigation level at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (0.204 and 0.181, respectively). Among the irrigation schedules, significantly higher chlorophyll b content was noticed at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (0.256) and lesser was at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (0.256). As the stress level increased from 1.2 to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio, chlorophyll b decreased to the extent of 24.3 per cent. -1 4.2.2.1.3 Total chlorophyll (mg.g of fresh weight) (c.f. Table 36) The total chlorophyll content was found significant among the genotypes, different irrigation schedules and their interaction. Irrespective of irrigation levels. genotype L-30 (1.598) recorded significantly maximum total chlorophyll and this was on par with L-10 (P) (1.595), GK-2 (1.558) and L-40-3 (1.505) while, the minimum total chlorophyll was observed in Arka Meghali (1.246). Between the two irrigation schedules, significantly higher total chlorophyll was noticed at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and least was observed at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio and it ranged from 1.332 to 1.917 and 0.977 to 1.465, respectively. Among the genotypes L-30 (1.917) recorded significantly highest total chlorophyll content and this was on par with L-10 (P) (1.733) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and minimum was in the genotype Arka Meghali (0.977) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. As the stress level increased from 1.2 to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio, chlorophyll a decreased to the extent of 20.7 per cent. -1 4.2.2.2 Ascorbic acid (mg.100 g of fruit) (c.f. Table 37) Ascorbic acid content significantly differed among the genotypes, while there was no significant effect of irrigation levels and interaction of genotypes and irrigation levels. Genotype L-30 (20.92) had significantly highest ascorbic acid content and this was on par with L-10 (P) (20.37) and minimum was noticed in the GK-3 (12.76) irrespective of irrigation levels. As the stress increased from 1.2 to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio, there was increase in ascorbic acid content to the extent of 1.4 per cent. The ratio of 0.4 IW/CPE had maximum ascorbic acid content and it varied from 12.79 to 20.93 when compared to 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and it ranged from 11.48 to 20.91 and with respect to interaction effects, genotype L-30 had maximum ascorbic acid at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (20.93) and minimum was in GK-2 (11.48) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio. -1 4.2.2.3 Proline (.g of fresh weight) (c.f. Table 37) Proline production was significantly differed among the genotypes and irrigation levels, but not for interaction effects of genotypes and irrigation levels. Irrespective of the irrigation levels, genotype L-10 (P) had significantly maximum proline (19.46) and minimum was observed in the L-38-1 (8.84). Among the irrigation schedules, 0.4 IW/CPE ratio had significantly higher proline when compared to 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and it varied from 10.12 to 20.48 and 7.56 to 18.44, respectively. Proline content was
-1

Table 35. Days to flowering cessation and days to wilting of tomato genotypes as influenced by irrigation levels. (pooled)
Days to flowering cessation Sl. No. Genotypes IW/CPE ratio/CPE ratio 1.2 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Mean Range IRRIGATION (I) GENOTYPES (G) IxG NS = Non-significant. Arka Meghali GK-3 IIHR 2274 L-10 (P) L-17 L-28 L-30 L-38-1 L-40-3 Punjab Chhauhara S-22 0.4 Mean 1.2 0.4 Mean Days to wilting

89.50 73.25 81.38 94.25 85.25 89.75 97.00 78.75 87.88 94.75 77.75 86.25 86.25 73.25 79.75 87.50 73.50 80.50 95.50 81.75 88.63 91.50 78.00 84.75 92.50 81.00 86.75 95.75 77.00 86.38 93.25 75.25 84.25 92.52 77.70 85.11 86.25 73.25 79.75 97.00 85.25 89.75 S.Em + CD at 5% 1.18 3.48 2.77 NS 3.92 NS

96.25 84.25 90.25 105.25 93.00 99.13 101.00 90.75 95.88 103.25 94.50 98.88 94.50 86.75 90.63 92.75 84.00 88.38 109.75 91.00 100.38 100.75 91.50 96.13 108.00 94.25 101.13 100.50 91.00 95.75 101.50 95.25 98.38 101.23 90.57 95.90 92.75 84.00 88.38 109.75 95.25 101.13 S.Em + CD at 5% 1.15 3.39 2.70 7.95 3.82 NS

Table 36. Chlorophyll contents (mg.g-1 of fresh weight) as influenced by irrigation levels in tomato genotypes at 45 DAT (pooled)
Chlorophyll a IW/CPE ratio 1.2 Arka Meghali GK-3 IIHR 2274 L-10 (P) L-17 L-28 L-30 L-38-1 L-40-3 Punjab Chhauhara S-22 0.4 Mean 1.2 Chlorophyll b 0.4 Mean 1.2 Total chlorophyll 0.4 Mean

Sl. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Mean Range

Genotypes

IRRIGATION (I) GENOTYPES (G) INTERACTION (I x G )

1.288 0.796 1.042 1.236 1.144 1.190 1.044 0.987 1.016 1.444 1.237 1.341 1.278 1.037 1.158 1.364 0.914 1.139 1.378 0.995 1.187 1.239 0.833 1.036 1.202 1.154 1.178 1.043 0.944 0.994 1.206 0.989 1.097 1.247 1.003 1.125 1.043 0.796 0.994 1.444 1.237 1.341 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.021 0.061 0.049 0.144 0.069 0.203

0.226 0.181 0.204 0.487 0.250 0.369 0.298 0.268 0.283 0.289 0.220 0.254 0.279 0.272 0.275 0.317 0.245 0.281 0.538 0.284 0.411 0.272 0.233 0.253 0.342 0.311 0.326 0.289 0.271 0.280 0.382 0.276 0.329 0.338 0.256 0.297 0.226 0.181 0.204 0.538 0.311 0.411 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.003 0.007 0.006 0.017 0.008 0.024

1.514 0.977 1.246 1.723 1.394 1.558 1.342 1.255 1.299 1.733 1.458 1.595 1.558 1.309 1.433 1.681 1.159 1.420 1.917 1.279 1.598 1.511 1.066 1.288 1.544 1.465 1.505 1.332 1.215 1.273 1.587 1.265 1.426 1.586 1.258 1.422 1.332 0.977 1.246 1.917 1.465 1.598 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.021 0.060 0.048 0.140 0.068 0.198

increased to the extent of 16.2 per cent as the stress increased from 1.2 to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. Interaction effects of genotypes and irrigation levels revealed that, genotype L-10 (P) observed highest proline content at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (20.48) and least was in the genotype L38-1 (7.56) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio. 4.2.2.4 Total soluble solid (TSS) (Brix) (c.f. Table 37) Total soluble solid was significant difference among the genotypes, irrigation schedules and their interaction. Genotype GK-3 recorded significantly maximum oBrix of TSS (6.43) and this was on par with IIHR 2274 (6.30) and genotype L-40-3 observed least TSS (3.57) irrespective of the irrigation levels. Among the irrigation schedules 0.4 IW/CPE ratio showed maximum TSS compared to 1.2 IW/CPE ratio. It varied from 3.80 to 8.86 and 2.98 to 5.15, respectively and it increased up to 37.4 per cent. Among the genotypes, L-30 exhibited higher TSS (8.86) and this on par with IIHR 2274 (8.80) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio and lesser TSS was noticed in the genotype L-30 (2.98) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio. -1 4.2.2.5 Lycopene (mg.100 g fruit weight) (c. f. Table 38) Significance difference was noticed for lycopene content among the genotypes, irrigation levels and their interaction. Genotype IIHR 2274 recorded significantly highest lycopene content (2.49) and this was on par with L-38-1 (2.35), GK-3 (2.30) and S-22 (2.28) while, least was observed in L-403 (1.93) irrespective of the irrigation schedules. Among the irrigation levels, 0.4 IW/CPE ratio recorded maximum lycopene content compared to 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and it ranged from 1.99 to 2.58 and 1.88 to 2.41, respectively. Among the interaction effects of genotypes and irrigation levels, IIHR 2274 recorded higher lycopene content (2.58) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio and least was noticed in L-40-3 (1.88) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio.

4.2.3 Growth parameters


4.2.3.1 Leaf area (dm .plant ) at different crop growth stages (c. f. Table 39) Significant differences in leaf area were observed among the genotypes and irrigation schedules at different growth stages viz., 45, 75 DAT and at harvest. With regard to the interaction effects of genotype and irrigation schedule, significant differences were observed only during 75 DAT and at harvest. At 45 DAT, genotype Punjab Chhauhar (13.96) recorded significantly more leaf area and minimum was observed in the genotype L-40-3 (9.79) irrespective of irrigation levels. There were no significant interaction effects between genotypes and irrigation levels. However, maximum leaf area was noticed in the genotype Punjab Chhauhar at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (15.45) and minimum was observed in the genotype L-40-3 (8.42) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. During 75 DAT, genotype L-30 observed significantly maximum leaf area (40.83) and this was on par with S-22 (39.43) L-38-1 (38.31) and L-10 (P) (37.54) while, minimum was in the genotype L-40-3 (23.08) irrespective of irrigation levels. Interaction effects indicated that genotype L-30 had significantly higher leaf area (49.70) and this was on par with S-22 (44.54) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio. Significantly lower leaf area was noticed in the genotype L-40-3 (19.85) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. At harvest, irrespective of irrigation levels, genotype S-22 recorded significantly higher leaf area at harvest (74.13) and minimum was noticed in the genotype L-40-3 (48.22). Interaction effect of irrigation and genotypes indicated that L-30 had significantly more leaf area (88.87) and this was on par with L-10 (P) (84.57) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and minimum was noticed in the genotype L-17 (36.51) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. Among the irrigation levels, maximum leaf area was recorded at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (12.41, 37.66 and 69.74) at 45, 75 DAT and harvest, respectively and minimum leaf area was noticed in the 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (10.10, 29.39 and 49.29) at 45, 75 DAT and harvest, respectively.
2 -1

Table 37. Ascorbic acid, proline and TSS content as influenced by irrigation levels in tomato genotypes (pooled)
Ascorbic acid (mg.100-1 g fr. leaf wt.) Sl. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Mean Range IRRIGATION (I) GENOTYPES (G) INTERACTION (I x G ) NS = Non-significant. Genotypes Proline (g.g-1 of fr. leaf wt.) TSS (Brix)

IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mea n 1.2 0.4 Mean 1.2 0.4 Mean

Arka Meghali GK-3 IIHR 2274 L-10 (P) L-17 L-28 L-30 L-38-1 L-40-3 Punjab Chhauhara S-22

16.01 17.20 16.61 11.48 14.04 12.76 16.75 16.96 16.86 20.33 20.41 20.37 16.64 15.99 16.31 18.12 16.93 17.53 20.91 20.93 20.92 12.88 12.98 12.93 12.92 12.79 12.86 16.73 16.73 16.73 13.48 13.72 13.60 16.02 16.24 16.13 11.48 12.79 12.76 20.91 20.93 20.92 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.23 NS 0.53 1.61 0.75 NS

14.27 9.88 9.13 18.44 10.96 10.37 11.97 7.56 9.60 12.08 14.52 11.70 7.56 18.44 S.Em + 0.35 0.82 1.16

17.05 15.66 10.77 10.32 11.27 10.20 20.48 19.46 12.41 11.68 11.79 11.08 15.08 13.52 10.12 8.84 10.87 10.23 14.60 13.34 19.14 16.83 13.96 12.83 10.12 8.84 20.48 19.46 CD at 5% 1.03 2.42 NS

3.73 5.15 3.81 3.93 4.25 3.05 2.98 3.69 3.34 3.91 3.44 3.75 2.98 5.15 S.Em + 0.06 0.14 0.19

4.25 3.99 7.70 6.43 8.80 6.30 8.20 6.06 4.35 4.30 7.41 5.23 8.86 5.92 4.15 3.92 3.80 3.57 4.41 4.16 3.98 3.71 5.99 4.87 3.80 3.57 8.86 6.43 CD at 5% 0.17 0.40 0.56

Table 38. Lycopene content as influenced by irrigation levels in tomato genotypes


Sl. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Mean Lycopene -1 (mg 100 g fruit weight) IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 1.98 2.26 2.12 2.20 2.41 2.30 2.41 2.58 2.49 1.89 1.99 1.94 1.93 2.19 2.06 2.07 2.15 2.11 2.16 2.24 2.20 2.14 2.55 2.35 1.88 1.99 1.93 2.12 2.25 2.19 2.19 2.37 2.28 2.09 2.27 2.18 1.88 1.99 1.93 2.41 2.58 2.49 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.03 0.10 0.77 0.23 0.11 0.32

Genotypes Arka Meghali GK-3 IIHR 2274 L-10 (P) L-17 L-28 L-30 L-38-1 L-40-3 Punjab Chhauhara S-22

Range IRRIGATION (I) GENOTYPES (G) INTERACTION (I x G )

4.2.3.2 Leaf area index (LAI) at different crop growth stages (c. f. Table 40) Significant difference for LAI was noticed for genotypes and different irrigation schedules at all the growth stage viz., 45, 75 DAT and harvest. Interaction effects of genotypes and irrigation levels influenced LAI at all the growth stages except at 45 DAT. At 45 DAT, irrespective of irrigation levels, genotype Punjab Chhauhar had significantly maximum LAI (0.388) and minimum was noticed in the genotype L-40-3 (0.272). Among the two irrigation schedules, 1.2 IW/CPE ratio had significantly maximum LAI compared to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio and it varied from 0.303 to 0.429 and 0.234 to 0.347. There was no significance difference for interaction. However, genotype Punjab Chhauhar had maximum LAI at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (0.429) and minimum was observed in the genotype L-40-3 (0.234) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. During 75 DAT, genotype L-30 had significantly higher LAI (1.134) and this was on par with S-22 (1.095), L-38-1 (1.064) and L-10 (P) (1.043) and minimum LAI was recorded in the genotype L-40-3 (0.641) irrespective of irrigation levels. Among the two irrigation schedules, significantly maximum LAI was noticed at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio compared to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio and it varied from 0.731 to 1.380 and 0.551 to 0.990, respectively. Among the genotypes, L-30 had significantly highest LAI at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (1.380) and minimum was recorded in the genotype L-40-3 (0.551) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. At harvest, genotype S-22 observed significantly greater LAI (2.059) and this was on par with L-30 (1.961) while least LAI was noticed in the genotype L-40-3 (1.339). Among the irrigation schedules, 1.2 IW/CPE ratio observed significantly maximum LAI compared to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio and it ranged from 1.428 to 2.469 and 1.014 to 1.834, respectively. Interaction effect of genotypes and irrigation levels indicated that, L-30 recorded significantly higher LAI (2.469) and this was on par with L-10 (P) (2.349) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and lesser LAI was observed in the genotype L-17 (1.014) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. 4.2.3.3 Leaf area duration (LAD, days) at different crop growth stages (c.f. Table 41) Leaf area duration differed significantly at all the crop growth intervals viz., i.e., 45-75 DAT, 45 DATharvest, 75 DATharvest among the tomato genotypes, irrigation schedules and their interactions. Irrespective of irrigation levels, genotype L-30 had significantly maximum LAD (21.97) during 45-75 DAT and this was on par with L-10 (P) (20.93), S-22 (20.70) and L-38-1 (20.59) and minimum was found in the genotype L-40-3 (13.70). Among the irrigation schedules, 1.2 IW/CPE ratio had significantly higher LAD (20.86) compared to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (16.46). Among the genotypes, L-30 had significantly greater LAD at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (25.94) and lesser LAD was noticed in the genotype L-40-1 (11.78) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. During crop growth duration of 45 DAT-harvest, genotype S-22 had significantly maximum LAD (64.46) and minimum was noticed in the genotype L-40-3 (44.31) irrespective of irrigation levels. Among the irrigation schedules, significantly highest LAD was recorded at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (62.75) compared 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (45.37). Among the interaction effects, L-30 showed significantly higher LAD (77.48) and this was on par with L-10 (P) (75.33) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and minimum was noticed in the L-40-3 (34.94) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. Irrespective of irrigation levels, genotype S-22 had significantly maximum LAD (39.43) during 75 DAT-harvest and this was on par with L-30 (38.70) and significantly minimum LAD was noticed in the genotype L-40-3 (24.75). Significantly higher LAD was recorded at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (37.29) compared to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (27.32). Among the interaction effects, L-30 showed significantly highest LAD (48.11) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and least was recorded in the genotype L-40-3 (19.85) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. 4.2.3.4 Absolute growth rate (g day ) (AGR) at different crop growth stages (c.f. Table 42) Significant difference was observed for AGR within genotypes and different pan evaporation ratios at all the growth stages i.e., 45-75 DAT, 45 DATharvest, 75 DATharvest. There was also significant difference for interaction effect of genotypes and irrigation schedules at 45-75 DAT and 45 DATharvest, but not at 75 DATharvest.
-1

Table 39. Leaf area (dm2.plant-1) of tomato genotypes as influenced by irrigation levels at various growth stages (pooled)
45 DAT 75 DAT IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 1.2 0.4 Mean 1. Arka Meghali 11.32 9.70 10.51 32.56 30.50 31.53 2. GK-3 12.63 10.31 11.47 28.43 25.08 26.76 3. IIHR 2274 10.92 9.09 10.00 37.56 27.63 32.60 4. L-10 (P) 14.04 11.33 12.68 41.64 33.45 37.54 5. L-17 13.10 9.36 11.23 40.03 26.47 33.25 6. L-28 11.78 10.02 10.90 34.17 26.63 30.40 7. L-30 12.56 11.24 11.90 49.70 31.96 40.83 8. L-38-1 12.14 10.06 11.10 40.99 35.63 38.31 9. L-40-3 11.17 8.42 9.79 26.30 19.85 23.08 10. Punjab Chhauhara 15.45 12.47 13.96 38.39 31.76 35.08 11. S-22 11.36 9.14 10.25 44.54 34.32 39.43 Mean 12.41 10.10 11.25 37.66 29.39 33.53 10.92 8.42 9.79 26.30 19.85 23.08 Range 15.45 12.47 13.96 49.70 35.63 40.83 S.Em + CD at 5% S.Em + CD at 5% IRRIGATION (I) 0.11 0.32 0.53 1.56 GENOTYPES (G) 0.26 0.76 1.24 3.65 INTERACTION (I x G ) 0.36 NS 1.76 5.16 NS = Non- significant & DAT = Days after transplanting. Sl. No. Genotypes AT HARVEST 1.2 0.4 Mean 77.11 56.31 66.71 51.41 45.51 48.46 62.36 57.97 60.17 84.57 46.38 65.47 63.38 36.51 49.94 68.09 43.43 55.76 88.87 52.36 70.61 71.43 51.58 61.51 59.12 37.32 48.22 58.56 48.76 53.66 82.24 66.02 74.13 69.74 49.29 59.51 51.41 36.51 48.22 88.87 66.02 74.13 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.45 1.32 1.05 3.09 1.49 4.38

Table 40. Influence of irrigation levels on leaf area index (LAI) of tomato genotypes at various growth stages (pooled)
45 DAT 75 DAT AT HARVEST IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 1.2 0.4 Mean 1.2 0.4 Mean 1. Arka Meghali 0.315 0.269 0.292 0.904 0.847 0.876 2.142 1.564 1.853 2. GK-3 0.351 0.286 0.319 0.790 0.697 0.743 1.428 1.264 1.346 3. IIHR 2274 0.303 0.252 0.278 1.043 0.767 0.905 1.732 1.610 1.671 4. L-10 (P) 0.390 0.315 0.352 1.157 0.929 1.043 2.349 1.288 1.819 5. L-17 0.364 0.260 0.312 1.112 0.735 0.924 1.760 1.014 1.387 6. L-28 0.327 0.278 0.303 0.949 0.740 0.844 1.891 1.206 1.549 7. L-30 0.349 0.312 0.330 1.380 0.888 1.134 2.469 1.454 1.961 8. L-38-1 0.337 0.279 0.308 1.139 0.990 1.064 1.984 1.433 1.709 9. L-40-3 0.310 0.234 0.272 0.731 0.551 0.641 1.642 1.037 1.339 10. Punjab Chhauhara 0.429 0.347 0.388 1.066 0.882 0.974 1.627 1.354 1.491 11. S-22 0.316 0.254 0.285 1.237 0.953 1.095 2.284 1.834 2.059 Mean 0.345 0.281 0.313 1.046 0.816 0.931 1.937 1.369 1.653 0.303 0.234 0.272 0.731 0.551 0.641 1.428 1.014 1.339 Range 0.429 0.347 0.388 1.380 0.990 1.134 2.469 1.834 2.059 S.Em + CD at 5% S.Em + CD at 5% S.Em + CD at 5% IRRIGATION (I) 0.003 0.009 0.014 0.043 0.013 0.039 GENOTYPES (G) 0.007 0.022 0.034 0.100 0.030 0.087 INTERACTION (I x G ) 0.010 NS 0.048 0.141 0.042 0.123 NS = Non- significant & DAT = Days after transplanting. Sl. No. Genotypes

Genotype S-22 had significantly maximum AGR (0.42) during 45-75 DAT and this was on par with Arka Meghali (0.37) and minimum was noticed in the genotype L-40-3 (0.17). Interaction effect of genotype and irrigation levels indicated that, S-22 had significantly more AGR (0.49) and this was on par with IIHR 2274 (0.44) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and minimum was exhibited by the genotype L-40-3 (0.11) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. During 45 DAT-harvest, genotype L-30 recorded significantly higher AGR (0.44) and this was on par with S-22 (0.42) and lower was observed in the genotype L-40-3 (0.24). Interaction effect of genotype and irrigation levels indicated that, L-30 observed significantly maximum AGR at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (0.61) and minimum was noticed in the genotypes L-40 and L-10 (P) (0.14, each) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. At 75 DAT-harvest, genotype L-30 recorded significantly greater AGR (0.62) and minimum was noticed in the genotype L-17 (0.27). Interaction effects were found to be non significant. However, L-30 had maximum AGR at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (0.86) and minimum was recorded in L-10 (P) (0.15) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. Irrespective of different pan evaporation ratios and growth stages, significantly maximum AGR was recorded at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (0.35, 0.42 and 0.51) at 45-75 DAT, 45 DATharvest, 75 DATharvest, respectively and minimum RGR was noticed in the 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (0.21, 0.23 and 0.25) at 45-75 DAT, 45 DATharvest, 75 DATharvest, respectively. 4.2.3.5 Crop growth rate (g.m .day ) (CGR) at various crop growth stages (c.f. Table 43) Significant difference was recorded for within genotypes and different IW/CPE ratios at 45-75 DAT, 45 DAT-harvest and 75 DAT-harvest, however for interaction it was significant only at 45-75 DAT, 45 DAT-harvest. At 45-75 DAT, irrespective of irrigation levels, genotype S-22 noticed significantly maximum CGR (1.15) and this was on par with Arka Meghali (1.02) and minimum was in L40-3 (0.46). Among the pan evaporation ratios, 1.2 IW/CPE ratio observed significantly higher CGR (0.96) and minimum at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (0.59). Among the interaction, S-22 had more CGR at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (1.36) and lesser was noticed in L-40-3 (0.31) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. Irrespective of irrigation levels, genotype L-30 recorded significantly maximum CGR at 45 DAT-harvest (1.21) and this was on par with S-22 (1.18), IIHR 2274 (1.07) and minimum was in L-17 (0.67). Irrigation schedule at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio had significantly more CGR compared to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio and it varied from 0.90 to 1.70 and 0.38 to 0.98, respectively. Among the interaction, L-30 had significantly greater CGR at 1.2 IW/CPE (1.70) ratio and minimum was in L-40-3 (0.38) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. During 75 DAT-harvest, genotype L-30 revealed significantly higher CGR (1.74) and minimum was recorded in L-17 (0.74). Among the IW/CPE ratio, 1.2 IW/CPE ratio noticed significantly maximum CGR and it varied from 1.02 to 2.38 and minimum was observed at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (0.41 to 1.09). Interaction effects of genotypes and irrigation schedules were found to be non significant. However, maximum CGR was noticed in the genotype L-30 at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (2.38) and minimum was observed in the genotype L-10 (P) (0.41) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. 4.2.3.6 Net assimilation rate (g.dm .day X 10 ) (NAR) at various crop growth stages (c.f. Table 44) Net assimilation rate was significantly differed within genotypes and different irrigation levels but no significance for interaction effects at all growth stages. At 45-75 DAT, irrespective of irrigation levels, significantly maximum NAR was observed in the genotype S-22 and Arka Meghali (0.83, each) and this was on par with IIHR 2274 (0.79) and significantly minimum was noticed in the genotype L-10 (P) (0.34). Among the irrigation levels, significantly greater NAR was recorded at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio compared to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. As the stress level increased NAR decreased to 23.9 per cent. Interaction effect of genotypes and irrigation schedules were found to be non significant for NAR. However, higher NAR was in the genotype IIHR 2274 at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (0.88) and minimum in the L-10 (P) (0.28) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio.
-2 -1 2 -2 -1

Table 41. Influence of irrigation levels on leaf area duration (days) of tomato genotypes at various growth stages (pooled)
45-75 DAT IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 1. Arka Meghali 18.28 16.75 17.52 2. GK-3 17.11 14.75 15.93 3. IIHR 2274 20.20 15.30 17.75 4. L-10 (P) 23.20 18.66 20.93 5. L-17 22.14 14.93 18.53 6. L-28 19.15 15.27 17.21 7. L-30 25.94 18.00 21.97 8. L-38-1 22.14 19.04 20.59 9. L-40-3 15.61 11.78 13.70 10. Punjab Chhauhara 22.43 18.43 20.43 11. S-22 23.29 18.11 20.70 Mean 20.86 16.46 18.66 15.61 11.78 13.70 Range 25.94 19.04 21.97 S.Em + CD at 5% IRRIGATION (I) 0.22 0.64 GENOTYPES (G) 0.51 1.51 INTERACTION (I x G ) 0.73 2.14 DAT= Days after transplanting. Sl. No. Genotypes 45 DAT- HARVEST 75 DAT-HARVEST

1.2 0.4 Mean 1.2 0.4 Mean 67.55 50.42 58.99 38.08 30.14 34.11 48.92 42.64 45.78 27.72 24.51 26.12 55.98 51.23 53.60 34.70 29.72 32.21 75.33 44.08 59.70 43.82 27.72 35.77 58.42 35.04 46.73 35.91 21.87 28.89 61.01 40.83 50.92 35.51 24.33 29.92 77.48 48.58 63.03 48.11 29.28 38.70 63.84 47.09 55.46 39.03 30.28 34.66 53.69 34.94 44.31 29.66 19.85 24.75 56.53 46.78 51.66 33.66 27.96 30.81 71.50 57.41 64.46 44.02 34.84 39.43 62.75 45.37 54.06 37.29 27.32 32.31 48.92 34.94 44.31 27.72 19.85 24.75 77.48 57.41 64.46 48.11 34.84 39.43 S.Em + CD at 5% S.Em + CD at 5% 0.37 1.09 0.24 0.70 0.87 2.56 0.56 1.64 1.23 3.63 0.79 2.31

Table 42. Influence of irrigation levels on absolute growth rate (g.day-1) in tomato genotypes at various growth stages (pooled)
45-75 DAT 45 DAT- HARVEST 75 DAT-HARVEST IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 1.2 0.4 Mean 1.2 0.4 Mean 1. Arka Meghali 0.40 0.33 0.37 0.47 0.31 0.39 0.55 0.28 0.42 2. GK-3 0.37 0.27 0.32 0.41 0.29 0.35 0.46 0.31 0.39 3. IIHR 2274 0.44 0.26 0.35 0.47 0.31 0.39 0.50 0.36 0.43 4. L-10 (P) 0.23 0.13 0.18 0.42 0.14 0.28 0.66 0.15 0.40 5. L-17 0.29 0.15 0.22 0.32 0.16 0.24 0.37 0.17 0.27 6. L-28 0.29 0.13 0.21 0.34 0.15 0.25 0.42 0.18 0.30 7. L-30 0.41 0.15 0.28 0.61 0.26 0.44 0.86 0.39 0.62 8. L-38-1 0.35 0.25 0.30 0.36 0.24 0.30 0.38 0.22 0.30 9. L-40-3 0.22 0.11 0.17 0.35 0.14 0.24 0.51 0.16 0.34 10. Punjab Chhauhara 0.31 0.22 0.26 0.33 0.22 0.28 0.37 0.23 0.30 11. S-22 0.49 0.34 0.42 0.50 0.35 0.42 0.51 0.36 0.44 Mean 0.35 0.21 0.28 0.42 0.23 0.33 0.51 0.25 0.38 0.22 0.11 0.17 0.32 0.14 0.24 0.37 0.15 0.27 Range 0.49 0.34 0.42 0.61 0.35 0.44 0.86 0.39 0.62 S.Em + CD at 5% S.Em + CD at 5% S.Em + CD at 5% IRRIGATION (I) 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.07 GENOTYPES (G) 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.07 0.06 0.16 INTERACTION (I x G ) 0.02 0.07 0.03 0.10 0.08 NS NS = Non- significant & DAT = Days after transplanting. Sl. No. Genotypes

Table 43. Crop growth rate (g.m-2.day-1) of tomato genotypes as influenced by irrigation levels at various growth stages (pooled)
45-75 DAT IW/CPE ratio 1.2 Arka Meghali GK-3 IIHR 2274 L-10 (P) L-17 L-28 L-30 L-38-1 L-40-3 Punjab Chhauhara S-22 0.4 Mean 45 DAT- HARVEST 1.2 0.4 Mean 1.2 75 DAT-HARVEST 0.4 Mean

Sl. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Mean

Genotypes

1.12 0.91 1.02 1.31 1.04 0.74 0.89 1.15 1.22 0.73 0.97 1.30 0.65 0.36 0.50 1.18 0.80 0.41 0.60 0.90 0.79 0.35 0.57 0.96 1.14 0.41 0.78 1.70 0.98 0.70 0.84 1.01 0.62 0.31 0.46 0.98 0.85 0.62 0.73 0.93 1.36 0.95 1.15 1.38 0.96 0.59 0.78 1.16 0.62 0.31 0.46 0.90 Range 1.36 0.95 1.15 1.70 S.Em + CD at 5% S.Em + IRRIGATION (I) 0.02 0.06 0.03 GENOTYPES (G) 0.04 0.13 0.07 INTERACTION (I x G ) 0.06 0.18 0.09 NS = Non- significant & DAT = Days after transplanting.

0.85 1.08 0.80 0.97 0.85 1.07 0.38 0.78 0.44 0.67 0.41 0.69 0.72 1.21 0.66 0.83 0.38 0.68 0.62 0.78 0.98 1.18 0.64 0.90 0.38 0.67 0.98 1.21 CD at 5% 0.08 0.19 0.27

1.53 1.28 1.39 1.82 1.02 1.16 2.38 1.05 1.41 1.02 1.41 1.41 1.02 2.38 S.Em + 0.07 0.16 0.22

0.79 1.16 0.86 1.07 0.99 1.19 0.41 1.12 0.47 0.74 0.49 0.82 1.09 1.74 0.60 0.82 0.45 0.93 0.63 0.83 1.00 1.21 0.71 1.06 0.41 0.74 1.09 1.74 CD at 5% 0.19 0.46 NS

Table 44. Net assimilation rate (NAR) (g.dm-2.day-1 X 102) of tomato genotypes as influenced by irrigation levels at various growth stages (pooled)
45-75 DAT IW/CPE ratio 1.2 Arka Meghali GK-3 IIHR 2274 L-10 (P) L-17 L-28 L-30 L-38-1 L-40-3 Punjab Chhauhara S-22 0.4 Mean 45 DAT- HARVEST 1.2 0.4 Mean 1.2 75 DAT-HARVEST 0.4 Mean

Sl. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Mean

Genotypes

0.87 0.78 0.83 0.60 0.84 0.70 0.77 0.65 0.88 0.69 0.79 0.69 0.40 0.28 0.34 0.47 0.52 0.39 0.46 0.44 0.59 0.33 0.46 0.47 0.66 0.33 0.49 0.68 0.64 0.54 0.59 0.47 0.55 0.37 0.46 0.53 0.53 0.47 0.50 0.45 0.87 0.78 0.83 0.60 0.67 0.51 0.59 0.55 0.40 0.28 0.34 0.44 Range 0.88 0.78 0.83 0.69 S.Em + CD at 5% S.Em + 0.01 0.04 0.01 IRRIGATION (I) 0.03 0.10 0.03 GENOTYPES (G) 0.05 NS 0.05 INTERACTION (I x G ) NS = Non- significant & DAT = Days after transplanting.

0.51 0.55 0.53 0.59 0.50 0.60 0.24 0.36 0.34 0.39 0.28 0.37 0.42 0.55 0.40 0.44 0.30 0.42 0.37 0.41 0.53 0.57 0.40 0.48 0.24 0.36 0.53 0.60 CD at 5% 0.04 0.10 NS

0.46 0.51 0.45 0.47 0.31 0.37 0.55 0.30 0.54 0.33 0.36 0.42 0.30 0.55 S.Em + 0.02 0.05 0.07

0.29 0.38 0.39 0.45 0.38 0.41 0.16 0.32 0.23 0.27 0.22 0.30 0.41 0.48 0.22 0.26 0.25 0.40 0.25 0.29 0.32 0.34 0.28 0.35 0.16 0.26 0.41 0.48 CD at 5% 0.06 0.14 NS

During 45 DAT-harvest, irrespective of irrigation levels, genotype IIHR 2274 observed significantly maximum NAR (0.60) and this was on par with GK-3 (0.59), S-22 (0.57), L-30 and Arka Meghali (0.55, each) and minimum was noticed in the genotype L-10 (P) (0.36). Among the irrigation schedules, 1.2 IW/CPE ratio had significantly higher NAR and minimum was at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio and it ranged from 0.44 to 0.69 and 0.24 to 0.53, respectively. Interaction effects of genotypes and irrigation schedules found to be non significant for NAR. However, IIHR 2274 had maximum NAR (0.69) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and minimum was in L-10 (P) (0.24) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. During 75 DAT-harvest, irrespective of irrigation levels, genotype L-30 observed significantly higher NAR (0.48) and this was on par with GK-3 (0.45), IIHR 2274 (0.41), Arka Meghali (0.38) and S-22(0.34) and significantly lesser NAR was noticed in the genotype L-381 (0.26). Among the different irrigation levels, maximum NAR was noticed in 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and it varied from 0.30 to 0.55 and minimum was observed in 0.4 IW/CPE ratio and it ranged from 0.16 to 0.41. Interaction effects of genotypes and irrigation schedules found to be non significant for NAR. However, L-30 exhibited maximum NAR at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (0.55) and minimum was noticed in L-10 (P) (0.16) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. 4.2.3.7 Relative growth rate (g.g .day x 10 ) (RGR) at various crop growth stages (c.f. Table 45) There were significant differences for RGR among genotypes, pan evaporation and their interaction effects at 45-75 DAT and 45 DAT-harvest, except at 75 DAT-harvest. At 45-75 DAT, irrespective of irrigation levels, genotype GK-3 had significantly higher RGR (0.83) and this was on par with S-22 (0.82) and IIHR 2274 (0.81). Significantly least RGR was observed in the genotype L-10 (P) (0.35). Among the pan evaporation ratio, maximum RGR was found at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio compared to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. As the stress increased from 1.2 to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio RGR decreased by 19.1 per cent. Interaction effects of genotypes and pan evaporation ratio were significantly differed. Genotype IIHR 2274 had significantly higher RGR (0.91) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and minimum was noticed in the genotype L-10 (P) (0.29) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. Irrespective of irrigation levels, genotype GK-3 had higher RGR (0.74) during 45 DAT-harvest and this was on par with IIHR 2274 (0.73), S-22 (0.70), Arka Meghali (0.68) and L-30 (0.66). Significantly least RGR was found in the genotype L-10 (P) (0.43). Among the pan evaporation ratio, highest RGR was found at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and it varied from 0.53 to 0.81 and least RGR was found at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio and it ranged from 0.29 to 0.71. There were significant difference for interaction effects. Genotype L-30 showed maximum RGR (0.81) and this was on par with IIHR 2274 (0.79), GK-3 (0.76), S-22 and Arka Meghali (0.72, each) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and minimum was RGR noticed in L-10 (P) (0.29) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. During 75 DAT-harvest, there was no significant for RGR within the genotypes, pan evaporation ratios and their interaction effects. However, maximum RGR was noticed in L-30 among the genotypes and for interaction effect at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (0.80 and 0.91, respectively). Minimum RGR was noticed in the genotype L-38-1 (0.44) among the genotypes and L-10 (P) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (0.28). Among the pan evaporation ratios, maximum RGR was exhibited at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and minimum was noticed at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio and it varied from 0.50 to 0.91 and 0.28 to 0.69, respectively. 4.2.3.8 Specific leaf weight (g.dm ) (SLW) at different crop growth stages (c.f. Table 46) There was significant difference for SLW within genotypes, but no significance was noticed for irrigation levels interaction effects at all the growth stages At 45 and 75 DAT, significantly maximum SLW was noticed at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio compared to 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and as the stress increased from 1.2 to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio it significantly increased to the extent of 36.1 and 21.0 per cent, respectively. Irrespective of irrigation levels, genotypes L-38-1 had maximum SLW among genotypes (620.6 and 892.3, respectively) and minimum was observed in L-40-3 (452.4) and genotype L-17 (719.7), respectively. Interaction effect of irrigation and genotypes were found to be non significant. However, maximum SLW was observed in the genotype L-38-1 (795.1 and 1062.0,
-2 -1 -1 2

Table 45. Influence of irrigation levels on relative growth rate (RGR) (g.g-1.day-1 x 102) in tomato genotypes at various growth stages (pooled)
45-75 DAT IW/CPE ratio 1.2 Arka Meghali GK-3 IIHR 2274 L-10 (P) L-17 L-28 L-30 L-38-1 L-40-3 Punjab Chhauhara S-22 0.4 Mean 45 DAT- HARVEST 1.2 0.4 Mean 75 DAT-HARVEST 1.2 0.4 Mean

Sl. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Mean

Genotypes

0.77 0.78 0.78 0.72 0.63 0.68 0.86 0.80 0.83 0.76 0.71 0.74 0.91 0.71 0.81 0.79 0.67 0.73 0.40 0.29 0.35 0.57 0.29 0.43 0.56 0.44 0.50 0.53 0.42 0.48 0.58 0.33 0.45 0.58 0.35 0.47 0.73 0.37 0.55 0.81 0.51 0.66 0.68 0.64 0.66 0.60 0.52 0.56 0.51 0.36 0.44 0.63 0.39 0.51 0.61 0.56 0.58 0.57 0.49 0.53 0.84 0.80 0.82 0.72 0.68 0.70 0.68 0.55 0.62 0.66 0.52 0.59 0.40 0.29 0.35 0.53 0.29 0.43 Range 0.91 0.80 0.83 0.81 0.71 0.74 S.Em + CD at 5% S.Em + CD at 5% IRRIGATION (I) 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.04 GENOTYPES (G) 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.09 INTERACTION (I x G ) 0.05 0.14 0.04 0.13 NS = Non- significant & DAT = Days after transplanting.

0.66 0.46 0.56 0.65 0.60 0.63 0.64 0.63 0.64 0.77 0.28 0.53 0.50 0.39 0.45 0.59 0.38 0.48 0.91 0.69 0.80 0.50 0.38 0.44 0.78 0.41 0.60 0.52 0.41 0.46 0.56 0.54 0.55 0.64 0.47 0.56 0.50 0.28 0.44 0.91 0.69 0.80 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.03 NS 0.07 NS 0.10 NS

Table 46. Influence of irrigation levels on specific leaf weight (mg.dm-2) in tomato genotypes at various growth stages (pooled)
45 DAT IW/CPE ratio 1.2 Arka Meghali GK-3 IIHR 2274 L-10 (P) L-17 L-28 L-30 L-38-1 L-40-3 Punjab Chhauhara S-22 0.4 Mean 1.2 75 DAT 0.4 Mean 1.2 AT HARVEST 0.4 Mean

Sl. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Mean

Genotypes

439.5 756.0 597.8 817.5 940.5 879.0 404.9 628.8 516.9 716.9 902.7 809.8 408.7 602.3 505.5 739.2 895.8 817.5 373.5 654.0 513.7 532.4 961.4 746.9 359.8 729.5 544.6 475.1 964.2 719.7 437.4 595.3 516.3 858.0 891.6 874.8 388.8 570.2 479.5 719.7 835.7 777.7 446.1 795.1 620.6 722.5 1062.0 892.3 369.6 535.2 452.4 677.8 800.7 739.2 411.9 635.8 523.9 711.3 936.3 823.8 442.3 518.4 480.4 897.1 768.6 832.9 407.5 638.2 522.9 715.2 905.4 810.3 359.8 518.4 452.4 475.1 768.6 719.7 Range 446.1 795.1 620.6 897.1 1062.0 892.3 S.Em + CD at 5% S.Em + CD at 5% IRRIGATION (I) 24.3 71.3 37.6 110.4 GENOTYPES (G) 56.9 NS 80.1 NS INTERACTION (I x G ) 80.5 NS 124.6 NS NS = Non- significant & DAT = Days after transplanting.

1077.4 1256.3 1166.9 1060.6 1152.9 1106.8 1158.5 1225.5 1192.0 988.0 1164.1 1076.0 1122.1 1157.1 1139.6 1213.0 1239.5 1226.2 1130.5 1136.1 1133.3 1183.6 1217.2 1200.4 1178.0 1138.9 1158.5 1052.3 1183.6 1117.9 1102.6 1145.9 1124.2 1115.1 1183.4 1149.3 988.0 1136.1 1076.0 1213.0 1256.3 1226.2 S.Em + CD at 5% 14.3 42.0 33.5 NS 47.4 NS

respectively) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio and least in L-17 (359.8 and 475.1, respectively) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio. At harvest, significantly maximum SLW was noticed at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio compared to 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and it varied from 1136.1 to 1256.3 and 988.0 to 1213.0, respectively. Irrespective of irrigation levels, genotype L-28 recorded maximum SLW (1226.0) and minimum was in L-10 (P) (1076.0). Interaction effect of irrigation and genotypes were found to be non significant. However, genotype Arka Meghali recorded maximum SLW (1256.4) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio and minimum was in L-10 (P) (988.0) at 1.2. 4.2.3.9 Specific leaf area (dm g ) (SLA) at different crop growth stages (c.f. Table 47) There was significant difference among the irrigation levels respect to SLA at all the growth stages. Significant difference was noticed among genotypes only at harvest. However, the interaction effects of genotypes and irrigation levels was not significantly influenced SLA at all crop growth stages At 45, 75 DAT and at harvest, significantly maximum SLA was noticed at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio compared to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. As the stress increased SLA significantly reduced to the extent of 35.5, 23.5 and 6.6 per cent, respectively. At 45 DAT, irrespective of the irrigation levels, genotype L-17 observed to have maximum SLA (0.242) and minimum was observed in the genotype L-28 (0.199). Among the interaction of genotypes and irrigation levels, genotype L-17 recorded highest SLA (0.319) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and lowest in L-38-1 (0.148) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. At 75 DAT, maximum SLA was noticed in the genotype L-17 among the genotypes and interaction at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (0.161 and 0.211, respectively) and minimum SLA was observed in the genotype L-38-1 among the genotypes and interaction at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (0.133 and 0.102, respectively). At harvest, irrespective of irrigation levels, L-10 (P) recorded maximum SLA (2.30) and this was on par with all the genotypes except IIHR-2274, L-38-1 (0.084, each) and L-28 (0.082) and minimum SLA was observed in L-28 (0.082). There was no significance among the interaction of genotypes and irrigation levels. However, genotype L-10 (P) noticed maximum SLA (0.102) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and minimum was in L-28 (0.081) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. 4.2.3.10 Biomass duration (kg.day-1) (BMD) at various crop growth stages (c.f. Table 48) The genotypes, pan evaporation ratio and interaction effects of genotypes and pan evaporation ratio influenced the BMD significantly at all the crop growth stages. At 45-75 DAT, genotype S-22 recorded significantly maximum BMD among genotypes and interaction 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (0.674 and 0.778, respectively). Significantly minimum was observed in the genotype L-40-3, among the genotypes and interaction at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (0.487 and 0.403, respectively). Significantly higher BMD was noticed in the genotype L-30 among the genotypes and interaction at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio during 45 DAT to harvest (1.606 and 1.962, respectively) and at 75 DAT to harvest (0.835 and 1.045, respectively). Significantly lesser BMD was observed in the genotype L-40-3 among the genotypes and interaction at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio at 45 DATharvest (1.122 and 0.851, respectively) and 75 DAT to harvest (0.573 and 0.429, respectively). Among the pan evaporation ratios, 1.2 IW/CPE ratio had significantly higher BMD compared to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. As the stress increased from 1.2 to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio, BMD was reduced to the extent of 25.6, 30.9 and 32.1 per cent at 45-75 DAT, 45 DATharvest, 75 DATharvest, respectively. 4.2.3.11 Relative water content (per cent) (RWC) at different crop growth stages (c.f. Table 49) There were significance differences for RWC among the genotypes, irrigation levels and their interaction effect at 45 and 75 DAT.
2 -1

Table 47. Influence of irrigation levels on specific leaf area (cm2.mg-1) in tomato genotypes at various growth stages (pooled)
45 DAT IW/CPE ratio 1.2 Arka Meghali GK-3 IIHR 2274 L-10 (P) L-17 L-28 L-30 L-38-1 L-40-3 Punjab Chhauhara S-22 0.4 Mean 75 DAT IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean AT HARVEST IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean

Sl. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Mean

Genotypes

0.246 0.156 0.201 0.133 0.120 0.127 0.261 0.168 0.215 0.174 0.122 0.148 0.252 0.168 0.210 0.150 0.124 0.137 0.294 0.160 0.227 0.189 0.119 0.154 0.319 0.165 0.242 0.211 0.112 0.161 0.229 0.169 0.199 0.142 0.126 0.134 0.265 0.179 0.222 0.175 0.132 0.153 0.252 0.148 0.200 0.165 0.102 0.133 0.278 0.191 0.234 0.163 0.142 0.153 0.251 0.160 0.206 0.152 0.117 0.134 0.233 0.197 0.215 0.129 0.146 0.138 0.262 0.169 0.216 0.162 0.124 0.143 0.229 0.148 0.199 0.129 0.102 0.133 Range 0.319 0.197 0.242 0.211 0.146 0.161 S.Em + CD at 5% S.Em + CD at 5% IRRIGATION (I) 0.009 0.025 0.006 0.016 GENOTYPES (G) 0.020 NS 0.013 NS INTERACTION (I x G ) 0.028 NS 0.018 NS NS = Non- significant & DAT = Days after transplanting.

0.093 0.081 0.087 0.096 0.087 0.091 0.087 0.082 0.084 0.102 0.086 0.094 0.090 0.087 0.088 0.082 0.081 0.082 0.089 0.089 0.089 0.085 0.083 0.084 0.087 0.088 0.087 0.095 0.085 0.090 0.092 0.088 0.090 0.091 0.085 0.088 0.082 0.081 0.082 0.102 0.089 0.094 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.001 0.003 0.003 0.008 0.004 NS

Table 48. Biomass duration (kg.day-1) of tomato genotypes under different irrigation levels at various growth stages (pooled)
45 75 DAT IW/CPE ratio 1.2 Arka Meghali GK-3 IIHR 2274 L-10 (P) L-17 L-28 L-30 L-38-1 L-40-3 Punjab Chhauhara S-22 0.4 Mean 45 DAT Harvest 1.2 0.4 Mean 75 DAT - Harvest 1.2 0.4 Mean

Sl. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Mean

Genotypes

0.697 0.562 0.630 0.587 0.446 0.516 0.647 0.492 0.570 0.767 0.573 0.670 0.687 0.434 0.561 0.649 0.492 0.571 0.748 0.535 0.642 0.681 0.525 0.603 0.570 0.403 0.487 0.663 0.525 0.594 0.778 0.571 0.674 0.679 0.505 0.592 0.570 0.403 0.487 Range 0.778 0.573 0.674 S.Em + CD at 5% IRRIGATION (I) 0.004 0.013 GENOTYPES (G) 0.010 0.030 INTERACTION (I x G ) 0.014 0.042 DAT= Days after transplanting.

1.656 1.227 1.441 1.392 1.031 1.211 1.530 1.147 1.339 1.857 1.152 1.505 1.512 0.912 1.212 1.477 1.024 1.250 1.962 1.251 1.606 1.507 1.110 1.308 1.393 0.851 1.122 1.468 1.119 1.294 1.776 1.295 1.536 1.594 1.102 1.348 1.392 0.851 1.122 1.962 1.295 1.606 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.017 0.050 0.040 0.117 0.057 0.166

0.904 0.680 0.792 0.773 0.569 0.671 0.860 0.620 0.740 0.931 0.572 0.752 0.796 0.470 0.633 0.778 0.513 0.645 1.045 0.624 0.835 0.817 0.599 0.708 0.717 0.429 0.573 0.782 0.592 0.687 0.990 0.717 0.854 0.854 0.580 0.717 0.717 0.429 0.573 1.045 0.717 0.854 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.008 0.022 0.018 0.052 0.025 0.074

Significantly maximum RWC was noticed in the genotype S-22 at both 45 and 75 DAT (74.51 and 68.65, respectively) and minimum was observed in L-28 both at 45 and 75 DAT (52.33 and 46.70, respectively). Among the interactions, higher RWC was observed in the genotype L-38-1 (79.40) and S-22 (74.45) in 1.2 IW/CPE ratio at 45 and 75 DAT, respectively. Significantly minimum RWC was recorded in L-28 in 0.4 IW/CPE ratio at both 45 and 75 DAT (43.50 and 41.75, respectively). As the stress increased from 1.2 to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio, RWC was significantly reduced to the extent of 13.7 and 12.6 per cent at 45 and 75 DAT, respectively.

4.2.4 Yield and Yield components


4.2.4.1 Yield (kg plant and t.ha ) (c.f. Table 50) There was significant difference for yield among genotypes, irrigation levels and interaction effects. Irrespective of irrigation levels, genotype IIHR 2274 had significantly maximum yield -1 -1 -1 (1.76 kg.plant and 48.76 t.ha ) and this was on par with L-10 (P) (1.74 kg.plant and 47.94 -1 -1 -1 t.ha ) and S-22 (1.70 kg.plant and 47.28 t.ha ). Significantly minimum yield was found in Punjab Chhauhar (0.85 kg.plant-1 and 23.62 t.ha-1). Among the genotypes, IIHR 2274 had significantly higher yield (2.30 kg.plant-1 and 63.76 t.ha-1) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and this was on -1 -1 -1 -1 par with L-30 (2.18 kg.plant and 60.68 t.ha ) and L-10 (P) (3.14 kg.plant and 59.45 t.ha ). -1 -1 Significantly lesser yield was noticed in the genotype L-28 (0.64 kg.plant and 17.88 t.ha ) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. Among the different irrigation levels, 1.2 IW/CPE ratio recorded significantly highest yield compared to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. As the stress level increased, yield was reduced to 37.7 per cent. 4.2.4.2 Number of fruiting clusters per plant and number of fruits per plant (c.f. Table 51) There was significant difference for number of fruiting clusters per plant and number of fruits per plant among the genotypes, irrigation levels and their interaction effects. Irrespective of irrigation levels, genotype S-22 had significantly maximum number of fruiting clusters (7.19) and minimum was exhibited by the genotype L-28 (3.00). Genotypes S-22 had greater number of fruiting clusters (8.88) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and least was recorded in L-10 (P) (2.13) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. Among the irrigation levels, 1.2 IW/CPE ratio had significantly higher number of fruiting clusters per plant compared to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio and it varied from 3.50 to 8.88 and 2.13 to 5.50, respectively. Genotype IIHR 2274 had highest number of fruits per plant (34.40) and this was on par with L-38-1 (33.73) and L-40-3 (32.40). Significantly least number of fruits per plant was observed in the genotype Punjab Chhauhar (14.99), irrespective of irrigation levels. Among the interaction, genotype IIHR 2274 showed significantly maximum number of fruits per plant (38.79) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and minimum was observed in the genotype L-28 (13.64) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. Among the irrigation levels 1.2 IW/CPE ratio had significantly greater number of fruits per plant and it ranged from 15.82 to 38.79 compared to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (13.64 to 33.22). 4.2.4.3 Biomass (g.plant-1) (c.f. Table 52) Biomass production was significantly influenced among the genotypes, irrigation levels and their interaction at all the growth stages. During 45 DAT, irrespective of irrigation levels, L-10 (P) produced significantly maximum biomass among the genotypes and for the interaction effects at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (19.36 and 22.19, respectively). Significantly minimum was recorded in GK-3 among the genotypes and for the interaction effects at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (12.86 and 11.71, respectively). Among the irrigation levels, 1.2 IW/CPE ratio had significantly higher biomass compared to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio and it varied from 14.01 to 22.19 and 11.71 to 16.53, respectively. As the stress level increased from 1.2 to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio, biomass decreased to the extent of 21.4 per cent. Genotype S-22, showed significantly maximum biomass among the genotypes and for the interaction effects at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (28.71 and 24.17, respectively) at 75 DAT. Significantly minimum was observed in L-40-3 among the genotypes and for the interaction effects at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (18.73 and 15.11). Significantly higher biomass was
-1 -1

Table 49. Relative water content (per cent RWC) of tomato genotypes as influenced by irrigation levels at various growth stages (pooled)
45 DAT IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 1. Arka Meghali 70.94 66.91 68.93 2. GK-3 70.26 55.48 62.87 3. IIHR 2274 76.95 51.01 63.98 4. L-10 (P) 73.33 67.03 70.18 5. L-17 63.54 56.54 60.04 6. L-28 60.97 43.50 52.23 7. L-30 74.09 68.94 71.52 8. L-38-1 79.40 66.03 72.71 9. L-40-3 70.39 68.95 69.67 10. Punjab Chhauhara 71.48 62.30 66.89 11. S-22 76.21 72.80 74.51 Mean 71.60 61.77 66.68 60.97 43.50 52.23 Range 79.40 72.80 74.51 S.Em + CD at 5% IRRIGATION (I) 0.17 0.60 GENOTYPES (G) 0.40 1.19 INTERACTION (I x G ) 0.57 1.68 DAT = Days after transplanting. Sl. No. Genotypes 75 DAT IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 68.17 59.21 63.69 58.46 52.44 55.45 66.68 42.36 54.52 70.31 64.80 67.56 61.53 54.77 58.15 51.65 41.75 46.70 64.65 59.44 62.04 66.64 61.37 64.01 68.09 65.56 66.83 55.88 52.97 54.42 74.45 62.84 68.65 64.23 56.14 60.18 51.65 41.75 46.70 74.45 65.56 68.65 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.18 0.53 0.43 1.25 0.60 1.75

Table 50. Yield per plant and yield per hectare as influenced by irrigation levels in tomato genotypes (pooled)
Sl. No. Genotypes Yield (kg/plant) IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 1.2 Yield (t/ha) 0.4 Mean

1. Arka Meghali 2. GK-3 3. IIHR 2274 4. L-10 (P) 5. L-17 6. L-28 7. L-30 8. L-38-1 9. L-40-3 10. Punjab Chhauhara 11. S-22 Mean Range IRRIGATION (I) GENOTYPES (G) INTERACTION (I x G )

1.64 1.14 1.39 1.66 0.92 1.29 2.30 1.22 1.76 2.14 1.34 1.74 1.73 1.12 1.43 1.95 0.64 1.30 2.18 0.96 1.57 1.31 1.16 1.24 1.50 1.25 1.37 0.91 0.79 0.85 1.95 1.46 1.70 1.75 1.09 1.42 0.91 0.64 0.85 2.30 1.46 1.76 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.02 0.06 0.05 0.15 0.07 0.21

45.42 31.64 38.53 46.20 25.51 35.86 63.76 33.76 48.76 59.45 36.44 47.94 48.17 31.15 39.66 54.14 17.88 36.01 60.68 26.66 43.67 36.42 32.34 34.38 41.70 34.66 38.18 25.35 21.90 23.62 54.14 40.43 47.28 48.68 30.21 39.44 25.35 17.88 23.62 63.76 40.43 48.76 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.59 1.73 1.38 4.06 1.95 5.74

CD = Critical difference at 5% level of significance

recorded at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio compared to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. As the irrigation frequency decreased from 1.2 to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio, biomass production was reduced to 28.0 per cent At harvest, genotype L-30, showed significantly maximum biomass among the genotypes and for the interaction effects at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (41.20 and 52.30, respectively). Significantly minimum was observed in L-40-3 between the genotypes and for the interaction effects at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (27.10 and 19.20). Significantly higher biomass yield was produced at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and it varied from 35.01 to 52.53 compared to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (19.20 to 33.20). There was 34.8 per cent reduction in biomass was observed as the stress level increased from 1.2 to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. 4.2.4.4 Fruit parameters 4.2.4.4.1 Fruit weight (g) (c.f. Table 53) Fruit weight was influenced significantly by the genotypes and irrigation levels except for their interaction effects. Irrespective of irrigation levels, genotype L-30 recorded significantly higher fruit weight (72.97) and this was followed by genotype S-22 (68.62). Significantly less fruit weight was found in the genotype L-38-1 (38.56). 1.2 IW/CPE ratio irrigation level had significantly maximum fruit weight compared to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. Fruit weight was reduced to 20.1 per cent as the stress level increased. Interaction of genotypes and irrigation levels indicated that, genotype L-30 had more fruit weight (81.25) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and minimum was in L38-1 (34.94) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. 4.2.4.4.2 Fruit volume (cc) (c.f. Table 53) Significant differences were observed for fruit volume among the genotypes and irrigation levels but the interaction effects of genotypes and irrigation levels were found to be non significant. Fruit volume differed significantly among genotypes. Genotype S-22 recorded significantly higher fruit volume (75.25) and this was on par with L-30 (71.88) and significantly lesser fruit volume was observed in L-38-1 (42.63), irrespective of irrigation levels. Among the irrigation levels, 1.2 IW/CPE ratio had recorded significantly maximum fruit volume and it ranged from 45.50 to 81.25 and minimum was noticed in 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (38.50 to 72.25). There was no significance for interaction effects. However, L-10 (P) had maximum fruit volume (81.25) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and minimum was in GK-3 (38.50) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. 4.2.4.4.3 Fruit dimension 4.2.4.4.3.1 Polar diameter of fruit (mm) (c.f. Table 54) Polar diameter of fruit differed significantly among the genotypes, irrigation levels and their interaction effects. Genotype L-38-1 recorded significantly maximum polar diameter among the genotypes and for interaction effects at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (53.27 and 53.74, respectively) and GK-3 had minimum polar diameter among the genotypes and interaction effects at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (39.73 and 32.32, respectively). The 1.2 IW/CPE ratio recorded significantly higher polar diameter of fruit and minimum was at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio and it ranged from 41.65 to 53.74 and 32.32 to 52.80, respectively. 4.2.4.4.3.2 Equatorial diameter of fruit (mm) (c.f. Table 54) Equatorial diameter of fruit differed significantly among the genotypes, irrigation levels and their interaction. Genotype L-28 had significantly maximum equatorial diameter (51.23) and minimum was recorded in L-30 (40.83). Among the irrigation levels, 1.2 IW/CPE ratio observed significantly maximum equatorial diameter it varied from 41.09 to 55.16 compared to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (37.28 to 47.30). Interaction of genotypes and irrigation levels indicated that, genotype L-28 recorded significantly maximum equatorial diameter of 55.16 at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and minimum was in GK-3 (37.28) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio.

Table 51. Number of fruiting cluster per plant and number of fruits per plant at 45 DAT as influenced by irrigation levels in tomato genotypes (pooled)
Sl. No. No. of fruiting cluster per plant IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 8.88 5.50 7.19 8.00 3.00 5.50 5.75 3.00 4.38 6.00 2.13 4.06 6.50 4.00 5.25 6.00 3.75 4.88 5.50 2.75 4.13 5.50 2.75 4.13 3.88 2.63 3.25 3.50 2.50 3.00 No. of fruits per plant 1.2 24.18 30.43 38.79 27.98 33.45 30.97 27.22 34.25 33.77 15.82 0.4 21.22 24.83 30.00 19.52 28.35 13.64 14.89 33.22 31.03 14.16 Mean 22.70 27.63 34.40 23.75 30.90 22.31 21.06 33.73 32.40 14.99

Genotypes

1. Arka Meghali 2. GK-3 3. IIHR 2274 4. L-10 (P) 5. L-17 6. L-28 7. L-30 8. L-38-1 9. L-40-3 10 . Punjab Chhauhara 11 . S-22 Mean Range IRRIGATION (I) GENOTYPES (G) INTERACTION (I x G )

4.88 3.13 4.00 5.85 3.19 4.52 3.50 2.13 3.00 8.88 5.50 7.19 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.60 1.77 1.41 4.15 2.00 5.87

26.21 23.18 24.69 29.37 23.09 26.23 15.82 13.64 14.99 38.79 33.22 34.40 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.49 1.43 1.14 3.36 1.61 4.74

Table 52. Biomass of tomato genotypes as influenced by irrigation levels (pooled)


Sl. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Mean Range IRRIGATION (I) GENOTYPES (G) INTERACTION (I x G ) 45 DAT IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 17.56 13.68 15.62 14.01 11.71 12.86 14.96 13.22 14.09 22.19 16.53 19.36 18.58 12.35 15.46 17.98 13.97 15.97 19.11 15.45 17.28 17.84 13.64 15.74 16.47 13.52 15.00 17.03 14.33 15.68 18.48 14.29 16.38 17.66 13.88 15.77 14.01 11.71 12.86 22.19 16.53 19.36 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.15 0.43 0.35 1.02 0.49 1.44 Biomass (g.plant-1) 75 DAT 1.2 0.4 Mean 29.30 23.65 26.47 25.17 18.87 22.02 28.14 20.35 24.25 29.06 21.03 25.05 27.24 16.68 21.96 25.92 18.30 22.11 31.09 20.06 25.58 27.96 21.28 24.62 22.34 15.11 18.73 26.69 20.83 23.76 33.25 24.17 28.71 27.83 20.03 23.93 22.34 15.11 18.73 33.25 24.17 28.71 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.19 0.57 0.45 1.33 0.64 1.87 AT HARVEST 1.2 0.4 Mean 43.05 30.76 36.91 36.67 26.63 31.65 40.67 29.26 34.97 45.45 24.71 35.08 36.40 20.91 28.65 36.33 22.71 29.52 52.53 29.88 41.20 37.38 26.66 32.02 35.01 19.20 27.10 35.87 26.53 31.20 45.98 33.20 39.59 40.48 26.40 33.44 35.01 19.20 27.10 52.53 33.20 41.20 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.57 1.69 1.34 3.95 1.90 5.59

Genotypes Arka Meghali GK-3 IIHR 2274 L-10 (P) L-17 L-28 L-30 L-38-1 L-40-3 Punjab Chhauhara S-22

DAT= Days after transplanting. 4.2.4.4.3.3 Fruit index (c.f. Table 54) Fruit index differed significantly among the genotypes, irrigation levels and their interaction effects. Genotype L-28 had significantly maximum fruit index among the genotypes and interaction at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (4888.80 and 5420.62, respectively) and this was on par with L-38-1 (4803.88 and 4916.93, respectively) and L-40-3 (4661.37 and 4848.20, respectively). GK-3 showed significantly minimum fruit index among genotypes and for interaction at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (3358.89 and 2409.44, respectively). Among the irrigation levels, 1.2 IW/CPE ratio observed significantly higher fruit index and lower was at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio and it varied from 3579.07 to 5420.62 and 2409.44 to 4690.83, respectively. 4.2.4.4.4 Pericarp thickness (mm) (c.f. Table 55) There were significant difference for pericarp thickness among genotypes, irrigation levels and their interaction effect. L-17 showed significantly maximum pericarp thickness among the genotypes and for interaction effect at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (0.57 and 0.70, respectively) and GK-3 showed significantly minimum pericarp thickness among genotypes and for interaction at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (0.17 and 0.13, respectively). Among the irrigation levels, 0.4 IW/CPE ratio had significantly higher pericarp thickness compared to 1.2 IW/CPE ratio. As the irrigation frequency increased, pericarp thickness was increased to the extent of 14.7 per cent 4.2.4.4.5 Number of locules per fruit (c.f. Table 55) Genotypes and irrigation levels significantly influenced the number of locules per fruit except the interaction effects of genotypes and irrigation levels. Significantly maximum number of locules was observed in the genotype Arka Meghali (5.75) and same genotype had maximum number of locules at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (6.50). Significantly minimum number of locules was in the genotype L-28 (2.00) and same genotype had minimum number of locules both at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and 0.4 IW/CPE ratios (2.00, each). Among the irrigation levels, 1.2 IW/CPE ratio recorded significantly higher number of locules compared to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio and it ranged from 2.0 to 6.5 and 2.0 to 5.0, respectively. 4.2.4.4.6 Number of seeds per fruit (c.f. Table 56) There were significant differences for number of seeds per fruit among the genotypes, irrigation levels and their interaction effects. Significantly maximum numbers of seeds per fruit was noticed in the genotype L-10 (P) among the genotypes and for interaction at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (162.25 and 172.92, respectively). L-40-3 exhibited significantly minimum seeds among the genotypes and for interaction at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (57.42 and 36.25, respectively). Among the irrigation levels, highest number of seeds per fruit was recorded at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and varied from 68.8 to 172.9 and minimum was observed in 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (36.3 to 151.6). 4.2.4.4.7 Pulp weight per fruit (g) (c.f. Table 56) Genotype L-30 had significantly maximum pulp weight per fruit (57.44) and this was on par with S-22 (56.07) and L-10 (P) (53.26). Significantly minimum was recorded in L-38-1 (28.86), irrespective of irrigation levels. Among the irrigation levels, 1.2 IW/CPE ratio had higher pulp weight compared to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. As the irrigation schedule reduced, pulp weight was reduced to the extent of 50.3 per cent. Genotype, S-22 had significantly highest pulp weight per fruit (64.38) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and this was on par with L-30 (64.32) and L10 (P) (58.83). Significantly minimum pulp weight was observed in the genotype IIHR 2274 (23.86) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio.

Table 53. Fruit weight and fruit volume of tomato genotypes as influenced by irrigation levels (pooled)
Fruit weight (g) IW/CPE ratio 1.2 Arka Meghali GK-3 IIHR 2274 L-10 (P) L-17 L-28 L-30 L-38-1 L-40-3 Punjab Chhauhara S-22 0.4 Mean Fruit volume (cc) 1.2 0.4 Mean

Sl. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Mean Range

Genotypes

IRRIGATION (I) GENOTYPES (G) INTERACTION (I x G ) NS= Non- significant.

67.80 53.80 60.80 54.92 37.47 46.19 59.26 40.88 50.07 76.65 67.21 71.93 51.97 39.75 45.86 62.93 47.13 55.03 81.25 64.69 72.97 42.17 34.94 38.56 46.29 38.84 42.57 61.38 54.79 58.08 74.42 62.82 68.62 61.73 49.30 55.52 42.17 34.94 38.56 81.25 67.21 72.97 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.73 2.15 1.71 5.03 2.42 NS

66.50 55.25 60.88 52.75 38.50 45.63 61.75 47.25 54.50 81.25 62.25 71.75 54.00 44.75 49.38 49.75 44.50 47.13 78.75 65.00 71.88 46.50 38.75 42.63 50.50 45.00 47.75 66.00 58.00 62.00 78.25 72.25 75.25 62.36 51.95 57.16 46.50 38.50 42.63 81.25 72.25 75.25 S.Em + CD at 5% 1.35 3.95 3.15 9.27 4.46 NS

Table 54. Fruit dimension and fruit index as influenced by irrigation levels in tomato genotypes (pooled)
Sl. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Mean Range IRRIGATION (I) GENOTYPES (G) INTERACTION (I x G ) Fruit dimension (mm) Fruit index Polar diameter Equatorial diameter IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 1.2 0.4 Mean 1.2 0.4 Mean 49.10 50.97 50.04 45.00 44.17 44.58 4418.15 4510.62 4464.38 47.15 32.32 39.73 45.65 37.28 41.46 4308.34 2409.44 3358.89 50.07 49.03 49.55 41.28 40.50 40.89 4134.25 3971.01 4052.63 47.41 38.63 43.02 48.54 46.83 47.68 4601.82 3617.96 4109.89 50.23 39.44 44.83 42.59 42.16 42.37 4281.22 3325.91 3803.56 49.14 45.87 47.50 55.16 47.30 51.23 5420.62 4356.17 4888.40 44.75 39.97 42.36 41.09 40.57 40.83 3679.07 3243.90 3461.49 53.74 52.80 53.27 45.75 44.42 45.08 4916.93 4690.83 4803.88 51.05 47.71 49.38 47.49 46.92 47.20 4848.20 4474.55 4661.37 51.65 38.03 44.84 45.43 43.64 44.53 4692.05 3329.41 4010.73 41.65 40.85 41.25 51.59 42.75 47.17 4296.17 3491.86 3894.01 48.72 43.24 45.98 46.32 43.32 44.82 4508.80 3765.61 4137.20 41.65 32.32 39.73 41.09 37.28 40.83 3679.07 2409.44 3358.89 53.74 52.80 53.27 55.16 47.30 51.23 5420.62 4690.83 4888.40 S.Em + CD at 5% S.Em + CD at 5% S.Em + CD at 5% 0.29 0.84 0.43 1.26 59.17 173.92 0.67 1.98 1.01 2.96 138.76 407.87 0.95 2.79 1.43 4.19 196.24 576.81

Genotypes Arka Meghali GK-3 IIHR 2274 L-10 (P) L- 17 L- 28 L- 30 L- 38-1 L-40-3 Punjab Chhauhara S-22

4.2.4.4.8 Pulp to seed ratio (Per cent) (c.f. Table 56) Pulp to seed ratio differed significantly among the genotypes, irrigation levels and their interaction effects. L-40-3 showed significantly maximum pulp to seed ratio among the genotypes and for interaction effects at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (70.89 and 96.45, respectively) and L-10 (P) showed significantly minimum pulp to seed ratio among genotypes (32.74). Significantly least pulp to seed ratio was noticed in the genotype IIHR 2274 at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (23.79). Among the irrigation levels, 0.4 IW/CPE ratio had significantly higher pulp to seed ratio compared to 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and it ranged from 23.8 to 96.5 and 32.3 to 66.0, respectively. 4.2.4.5 Per cent reduction in yield per plant at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio over 1.2 IW/CPE ratios. (c.f. Table 57) There was lot of variation for per cent reduction in yield per plant at 0.4 over 1.2 IW/CPE ratio. Minimum per cent reduction in yield per plant was found in the genotype L-381 (11.5) and this was followed by Punjab Chhauhar (13.2), L-40-3 (16.7), S-22 (25.1) and Arka Meghali (30.5). Maximum yield reduction was observed in the genotype L-28 (67.2).

4.3 Relationship between drought tolerance parameters and yield


4.3.1. Correlation between yield with biomass, phenological and
biochemical parameters (c. f. Table 58) Significant positive correlation for yield was noticed with biomass at harvest (0.614) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio, while, its association was highly significant in the negative direction with stem girth at 45 DAT (-0.643). At 0.4 IW/CPE ratio, highly significant positive correlation for yield, was noticed with RWC at 45 and 75 DAT (0.628 and 0.624, respectively).

4.4 EXPERIMENT III : Raised bed studies for pollen viability and root traits
4.4.1 Effect of temperature stress relationship with drought tolerance on pollen viability and its

4.4.1.1 Effect of temperature stress on pollen viability (c.f. Table 59, Fig 5) Viability of pollen under temperature stress varied significantly among genotypes and at irrigation levels. However, no significant difference was observed for interaction effect at 0 0 0 temperatures 25 C and 35 C, but not at 30 C. At 250C, genotype L-30 showed significantly highest pollen viability (87.03) and this was on par with S-22, L-38-1, Arka Meghali, L-10 (P) and IIHR 2274, with a data ranging from 83.48 to 73.98. Significantly least was in L-17 (53.14). Among the irrigation levels, 1.2 IW/CPE ratio had significantly maximum pollen viability and it ranged from 58.13 to 90.10 and minimum was in 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (46.70 to 85.15). Interaction of genotypes and irrigation levels indicated that, genotype S-22 had maximum pollen viability (90.14) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and minimum was in GK-3 (46.70) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. Genotype IIHR 2274 had significantly maximum pollen viability (87.65) at 300C and this was on par with L-38-1 (81.50), GK-3 (79.18), L-30 (77.13), Punjab Chhauhar (73.38) and S-22 (70.75). Genotype L-17 recorded significantly minimum pollen viability (48.65). At 1.2 IW/CPE ratio maximum pollen viability and it varied from 55.90 to 87.65 per cent was noticed compared to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (41.00 to 77.30). Interaction of genotypes and irrigation levels indicated that, genotype IIHR 2274 had greater pollen viability (87.65) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and minimum was in L-17 (41.00) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio..

Table 55. Pericarp thickness (mm) and number of locules per fruit of tomato genotypes as influenced by irrigation levels (pooled)
Sl. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Mean Range IRRIGATION (I) GENOTYPES (G) INTERACTION (I x G ) Pericarp thickness (mm) No. of locules fruit-1 IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 1.2 0.4 Mean 0.21 0.35 0.28 6.50 5.00 5.75 0.13 0.20 0.17 3.25 2.63 2.94 0.25 0.13 0.19 3.25 2.38 2.81 0.45 0.17 0.31 5.50 4.25 4.88 0.45 0.70 0.57 3.25 2.50 2.88 0.33 0.29 0.31 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.18 0.21 0.19 4.00 3.13 3.56 0.40 0.45 0.43 3.75 2.50 3.13 0.33 0.48 0.41 2.50 2.38 2.44 0.25 0.35 0.30 2.25 2.13 2.19 0.23 0.46 0.34 3.25 2.13 2.69 0.29 0.34 0.32 3.59 2.82 3.20 0.13 0.13 0.17 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.45 0.70 0.57 6.50 5.00 5.75 S.Em + CD at 5% S.Em + CD at 5% 0.01 0.02 0.09 0.26 0.02 0.05 0.21 0.61 0.02 0.07 0.29 NS

Genotypes Arka Meghali GK-3 IIHR 2274 L-10 (P) L-17 L-28 L-30 L-38-1 L-40-3 Punjab Chhauhara S-22

Table 56. Number of seeds per fruit, pulp weight per fruit and pulp to seed ratio as influenced by irrigation levels in tomato genotypes (pooled)
Sl. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Mean Range IRRIGATION (I) GENOTYPES (G) INTERACTION (I x G ) No. of seeds. fruit Genotypes Arka Meghali GK-3 IIHR 2274 L-10 (P) L-17 L-28 L-30 L-38-1 L-40-3 Punjab Chhauhara S-22
-1

Pulp weight fruit (g) Pulp to seed ratio (%)

-1

IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 1.2


157.7 105.7 98.8 172.9 68.8 112.1 113.8 89.5 78.6 78.8 141.1 110.7 68.8 172.9 S.Em + 0.35 0.83 1.17 89.0 123.3 96.0 100.8 100.4 99.6 151.6 162.3 46.3 57.5 102.9 107.5 70.5 92.1 89.3 89.4 36.3 57.4 70.0 74.4 129.0 135.0 89.2 99.96 36.3 57.4 151.6 162.3 CD at 5% 1.04 2.43 3.44

0.4

Mean 1.2

0.4

Mean

50.9 38.2 53.5 58.8 45.4 53.7 64.3 30.8 35.6 51.2 64.4 100.0 30.8 64.4 S.Em + 0.77 1.80 2.54

43.3 47.1 32.9 35.6 23.9 38.7 47.7 53.3 34.9 40.1 39.4 46.5 50.6 57.4 27.0 28.9 35.0 35.3 44.8 48.0 49.6 57.0 49.7 39.0 23.9 28.9 50.6 57.4 CD at 5% 2.25 5.28 7.46

32.3 36.2 54.2 34.0 66.0 47.9 56.6 34.3 45.3 65.0 45.6 47.0 32.3 66.0 S.Em + 0.87 2.04 2.89

48.6 40.5 34.3 35.3 23.8 39.0 31.5 32.8 75.4 70.7 38.3 43.1 71.8 64.2 30.2 32.3 96.5 70.9 64.0 64.5 38.4 42.0 50.3 48.6 23.8 32.3 96.5 70.9 CD at 5% 2.56 6.01 8.49

Table 57. Per cent reduction of yield in 0.4 IW/CPE ratio over 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (pooled) Sl. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Mean Range NS= Non- significant. Table 58. Correlation of yield with physiological, phenological and biochemical parameters at two irrigation levels (pooled) Correlation co-efficient (r) at different ratio/CPE ratio IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 1 Biomass 45 DAT 0.247 0.183 2 Biomass 75 DAT 0.422 0.295 3 Biomass at harvest 0.614* 0.242 4 Stem girth 45 DAT -0.643* 0.422 5 Stem girth 75 DAT -0.229 0.08 6 No. of branches 45 DAT 0.181 -0.475 7 No. of branches 75 DAT -0.059 0.075 8 Ascorbic acid 0.477 -0.185 9 Chlorophyll a 0.420 0.272 10 Chlorophyll b 0.301 0.020 11 Total Chlorophyll 0.475 0.246 12 Proline 0.281 0.427 13 TSS -0.229 -0.243 14 Days to flower cessation 0.125 -0.029 15 Days to wilting 0.098 0.556 16 No. of fruits /plant 0.470 0.572 17 No. of seed/fruit 0.471 0.282 18 Fruit volume 0.422 0.348 19 Fruit weight 0.552 0.173 20 Pulp weight 0.591 0.016 21 Pulp to seed ratio -0.079 -0.083 22 Leaf area at 45 DAT -0.439 -0.472 23 Leaf area at 75 DAT 0.332 0.212 24 Leaf area at harvest 0.488 0.365 25 RWC 45 DAT 0.036 0.628* 26 RWC 75 DAT 0.308 0.624* * indicates correlation co-efficient (r) significant at 5 % (0.602) and ** indicates correlation co-efficient (r) significant at 1 % (0.735), n=9, Sample size = 11 Sl No. Parameters Yield per plant -1 (kg. plant ) IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 1.64 1.14 1.66 0.92 2.30 1.22 2.14 1.31 1.73 1.12 1.95 0.64 2.18 0.96 1.31 1.16 1.50 1.25 0.91 0.79 1.95 1.46 1.75 1.09 0.91 0.64 2.30 1.46 Per cent Reduction in yield 30.49 44.58 46.96 38.79 35.26 67.18 55.96 11.45 16.67 13.19 25.13 35.06 11.45 67.18

Genotypes Arka Meghali GK-3 IIHR 2274 L-10 (P) L-17 L-28 L-30 L-38-1 L-40-3 Punjab Chhauhara S-22

At 35 C, significantly maximum pollen viability was observed in the genotype L-40-3 (56.29) and this was on par with L-38-1 (56.18), IIHR 2274 (55.93), L-30 (55.64), Punjab Chhauhar (55.63), L-10 (P) (54.95) and S-22 (53.35). Significantly minimum pollen viability was observed in the genotype L- 28 (41.60). Among the interaction, IIHR 2274 had significantly highest pollen viability (70.90) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and this was on par with L-381 (67.30), Punjab Chhauhar (66.80), L-40-3 (64.30) and L-30 (63.50) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio. Significantly least was in L-28 (39.50) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. Among the irrigation levels, 1.2 IW/CPE ratio had significantly higher percentage of pollen viability compared to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio and it ranged from 43.70 to 70.90 and 39.50 to 49.61, respectively. 4.4.1.2 Yield (kg.plant ) (c. f. Table 60) Significant difference was noticed for yield in raised bed nursery. Significantly higher -1 yield of 1.70 kg.plant was observed in the genotype S-22 and this was on par with IIHR 2274 (1.65), L-10 (P) (1.61) and L-30 (1.56). Significantly lower was L-28 (0.99). Among the irrigation levels, 1.2 IW/CPE ratio recorded significantly maximum yield (1.67) compared to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (1.01). Among the genotypes higher yield was observed in IIHR 2274 at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (2.21) and this was on par with L-30 (2.13), L-10 (P) (2.04) and L-30 (2.13) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio. Significantly minimum was in Punjab Chhauhar (0.59) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. 4.4.1.3 Correlation between yield and pollen viability in various temperature regimes and irrigation (c. f. Table 61) There was no significant correlation for yield with the different temperature regimes on pollen viability at both irrigation regimes of 1.2 and 0.4 IW/CPE ratio.
-1

4.4.2 Effect of stress and root characters and their relationship with drought tolerance.
4.4.2.1 Root length (cm) (c. f. Table 62) Root length was significantly differed among the genotypes and irrigation levels at 45 and 75 days after transplanting while, significant difference for interaction was observed at 45 DAT only. At 45 DAT, genotype IIHR 2274 recorded significantly maximum root length among the genotypes and among the interactions the same genotype at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (22.98 and 26.50, respectively). Significantly minimum was observed in the genotype GK-3 (8.63) and among genotypes L-28 had significantly minimum at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (6.50). Among the irrigation levels, significantly higher root length was noticed at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio compared to 1.2 IW/CPE ratio. As the irrigation frequency reduced, root length was increased by 25.5 per cent. At 75 DAT, irrespective of irrigation levels, genotype L-30 recorded significantly maximum root length (59.53) and was on par with IIHR 2274 (58.23) and minimum was in L28 (24.35). Among the irrigation levels, 0.4 IW/CPE ratio recorded maximum root length compared to 1.2 IW/CPE ratio. It increased by 15.6 per cent, when the stress levels increased. There was no significance among the interactions however, maximum root length was noticed in the genotype L-30 (63.95) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio and minimum was in genotypes L-28 (19.95) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio. 4.4.2.2 Shoot length (cm) (c. f. Table 62) There was significantly difference for shoot length among genotypes and irrigation levels, but not for their interaction effects both at 45 and 75 DAT. At 45 DAT, genotype GK-3 noticed significantly maximum shoot length (22.03) and minimum was in L-38-1 (13.53), irrespective of irrigation levels. Interaction of genotypes and irrigation levels indicated that, genotype GK3 had maximum shoot length (24.15) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and minimum was in L-10 (P) (11.90) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. During 75 DAT, IIHR 2274 observed significantly maximum shoot length (49.70) and this was on par with GK-3 (46.70) and minimum was in L-40-3 (31.40). Among the

Fig.5. Influence of irrigation levels and heat stress on pollen viability in tomato genotypes

Table 59. Effect of temperature on pollen viability of tomato genotypes as influenced by irrigation levels
Pollen viability (%) Temperature (0C) 30 Mean 1.2 0.4 Mean 1.2

Sl. No.

Genotypes

25 IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4

35 0.4 Mean

1 Arka Meghali 2 GK-3 3 IIHR 2274 4 L-10 (P) 5 L-17 6 L-28 7 L-30 8 L-38-1 9 L-40-3 10 Punjab Chhauhara 11 S-22 Mean Range IRRIGATION (I) GENOTYPES (G) INTERACTION (I x G ) NS= Non- significant.

83.20 75.45 79.33 64.17 46.70 55.43 80.65 67.30 73.98 83.25 65.35 74.30 58.13 48.15 53.14 60.18 48.10 54.14 88.90 85.15 87.03 83.90 76.45 80.18 76.40 48.30 62.35 82.75 76.45 79.60 90.10 76.85 83.48 77.42 64.93 71.18 58.13 46.70 53.14 90.10 85.15 87.03 S.Em + CD at 5% 1.98 5.83 4.65 13.67 6.58 NS

65.50 51.75 58.63 81.05 77.30 79.18 87.65 76.36 82.01 61.15 59.45 60.30 56.30 41.00 48.65 55.90 41.50 48.70 78.95 75.30 77.13 87.65 75.35 81.50 66.00 62.90 64.45 74.50 72.25 73.38 67.30 74.20 70.75 71.09 64.31 67.70 55.90 41.00 48.65 87.65 77.30 82.01 S.Em + CD at 5% 1.87 5.48 4.38 12.86 6.19 NS

46.95 48.30 47.63 50.05 46.55 48.30 70.90 40.95 55.93 60.35 49.55 54.95 48.20 40.27 44.23 43.70 39.50 41.60 63.50 47.78 55.64 67.30 45.05 56.18 64.30 48.28 56.29 66.80 44.45 55.63 57.10 49.61 53.35 58.10 45.48 51.79 43.70 39.50 41.60 70.90 49.61 56.29 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.97 2.86 2.28 6.71 3.23 9.49

Table 60. Effect of different irrigation levels on yield (kg/plant)


Sl. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Mean Range IRRIGATION (I) GENOTYPES (G) INTERACTION (I x G ) Genotypes Arka Meghali GK-3 IIHR 2274 L-10 (P) L-17 L-28 L-30 L-38-1 L-40-3 Punjab Chhauhara S-22 Yield (kg/plant) IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 1.24 0.88 1.06 1.74 0.98 1.36 2.21 1.10 1.65 2.04 1.18 1.61 1.46 0.87 1.17 0.97 1.01 0.99 2.13 0.98 1.56 1.26 1.10 1.18 1.45 1.13 1.29 1.74 0.59 1.17 2.09 1.31 1.70 1.67 1.01 1.34 0.97 0.59 0.99 2.21 1.31 1.70 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.03 0.10 0.77 0.23 0.11 0.32

Table 61. Correlation of yield with on pollen viability in various temperature regimes and irrigations
Sl No. 1 2 3 Temperature 25o C. 30o C. 35o C. Correlation co-efficient (r) at different IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 0.528 -0.037 0.385 0.183 0.547 0.352

* indicates correlation co-efficient (r) significant at 5 % (0.602) and ** indicates correlation co-efficient (r) significant at 1 % (0.735), n=9, Sample size = 11 interaction, genotype IIHR 2274 had highest shoot length of 56.65 at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and minimum was in L-40-3 (29.90) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. Among the irrigation levels, significantly higher shoot length was observed at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio both at 45 and75 DAT compared to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. As the irrigation schedule reduced shoot length was reduced to 21.9 and 13.0 per cent, respectively. 4.4.2.3 Root weight (g) (c. f. Table 63) Root weight showed significant difference among the genotypes and irrigation levels, but not for interaction effects at both the growth stages. At 45 DAT, genotype GK-3 exhibited significantly maximum root weight (9.25) and minimum was in L-40-3 (5.13), irrespective of irrigation levels. Among the irrigation levels, 0.4 IW/CPE ratio had significantly higher root weight and least was in 1.2 IW/CPE ratio. As the stress level increased from 1.2 IW/CPE ratio to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio, root weight increased by 15.1 per cent. Interaction of genotypes and irrigation levels, genotype GK-3 noticed highest root weight at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (10.50) and least was observed in L-28 at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (4.75). During 75 DAT, significantly higher root weight was observed in the genotype GK-3 (12.50) and lesser was in Punjab Chhauhar (6.00), irrespective of irrigation levels. Between the irrigation levels, significantly maximum root weight was noticed at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio and minimum was observed at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and it increased to the extent of 29.3 per cent as the stress increased. Among the interaction, GK-3 noticed maximum root weight at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (14.50) and minimum was in Punjab Chhauhar at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (4.00) 4.4.2.4 Root density (cc) (c. f. Table 63) There was significant difference for root density within genotypes, irrigation levels and their interaction effects at both the growth stages. Irrespective of irrigation levels, genotype IIHR 2274 showed significantly maximum root density at both 45 and 75 DAT (11.75 and 22.98, respectively) and minimum was in Arka Meghali at 45 DAT (4.75) and GK-3 at 75 DAT (8.65). For the interaction effects, both at 45 and 75 DAT. genotype IIHR 2274 showed significantly highest root density at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (13.00 and 26.50, respectively) and minimum was in L-10 (P) during 45 DAT (4.00) and L-28 during 75 DAT both at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (6.50) Irrespective of the growth stages and irrigation levels, root density was found significant. At 45 and 75 DAT, 0.4 IW/CPE ratio showed significantly maximum root density and minimum was noticed at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio. As the irrigation schedule is reduced root density was increased by 26.2 and 25.5 per cent, respectively. 4.4.2.5 Root to shoot ratio (c. f. Table 64) Significant difference was noticed for root to shoot ratio within genotypes and irrigation levels at 45 and 75 DAT, but no significant difference for interaction at both the growth stages.

Table 62. Root and shoot length (cm) of tomato genotypes as influenced by irrigation levels
Root length (cm) Sl. No. Genotypes 45 DAT 75 DAT Shoot length (cm) 45 DAT 75 DAT 1.2 0.4 Mean 42.70 34.65 38.68 50.40 43.00 46.70 56.65 42.75 49.70 40.00 32.85 36.43 39.40 34.30 36.85 41.05 30.90 35.98 33.95 32.05 33.00 33.25 36.50 34.88 32.90 29.90 31.40 42.25 42.65 42.45 49.75 42.75 46.25 42.03 36.57 39.30 32.90 29.90 31.40 56.65 43.00 49.70 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.95 2.78 2.22 6.53 3.14 NS

IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 1.2 0.4 Mean 1.2 0.4 Mean 1. Arka Meghali 9.20 10.75 9.98 37.30 44.15 40.73 22.65 18.50 20.58 2. GK-3 6.80 10.50 8.65 44.65 49.95 47.30 24.15 19.90 22.03 3. IIHR 2274 19.45 26.50 22.98 56.05 60.40 58.23 16.60 13.90 15.25 4. L-10 (P) 9.90 14.80 12.35 29.45 32.65 31.05 15.60 11.90 13.75 5. L-17 9.20 11.15 10.18 30.95 39.20 35.08 23.05 16.00 19.53 6. L-28 6.50 14.20 10.35 19.95 28.75 24.35 21.05 16.65 18.85 7. L-30 14.85 18.30 16.58 55.10 63.95 59.53 23.75 16.45 20.10 8. L-38-1 11.85 15.90 13.88 38.15 50.40 44.28 14.60 12.45 13.53 9. L-40-3 9.75 11.70 10.73 30.65 40.45 35.55 18.80 14.20 16.50 10. Punjab Chhauhara 12.00 15.10 13.55 45.80 51.35 48.58 23.80 18.65 21.23 11. S-22 13.45 16.25 14.85 47.60 55.10 51.35 18.20 15.00 16.60 Mean 11.18 15.01 13.10 39.60 46.94 43.28 20.20 15.78 18.00 6.50 10.50 8.65 19.95 28.75 24.35 14.60 11.90 13.53 Range 19.45 26.50 22.98 56.05 63.95 59.53 24.15 19.90 22.03 S.Em + CD at 5% S.Em + CD at 5% S.Em + CD at 5% IRRIGATION (I) 0.29 0.84 0.42 1.23 0.48 1.40 GENOTYPES (G) 0.67 1.98 0.98 2.89 1.11 3.27 INTERACTION (I x G ) 0.95 2.80 1.39 NS 1.57 NS DAT= Days after transplanting, NS= Non- significant.

Table 63. Root weight (g) and root density (cc) as influenced by irrigation levels in tomato genotypes
Root weight (g) Sl. No. Genotypes 45 DAT 75 DAT 45 DAT Root density (cc) 75 DAT 1.2 0.4 Mean 9.20 10.75 9.98 6.80 10.50 8.65 19.45 26.50 22.98 9.90 14.80 12.35 9.20 11.15 10.18 6.50 14.20 10.35 14.85 18.30 16.58 11.85 15.90 13.88 9.75 11.70 10.73 12.00 15.10 13.55 13.45 16.25 14.85 11.18 15.01 13.10 6.50 10.50 8.65 19.45 26.50 22.98 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.22 0.64 0.51 1.49 0.72 2.11

IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 1.2 0.4 Mean 1.2 0.4 Mean 1. Arka Meghali 6.50 7.00 6.75 7.00 12.00 9.50 7.50 8.50 8.00 2. GK-3 8.00 10.50 9.25 10.50 14.50 12.50 8.50 9.00 8.75 3. IIHR 2274 7.25 6.50 6.88 6.00 7.50 6.75 10.50 13.00 11.75 4. L-10 (P) 5.50 8.00 6.75 7.00 9.50 8.25 4.00 6.50 5.25 5. L-17 6.63 6.00 6.31 8.50 9.00 8.75 6.00 8.00 7.00 6. L-28 4.75 7.00 5.88 5.50 7.50 6.50 4.00 5.50 4.75 7. L-30 6.00 8.00 7.00 5.50 9.50 7.50 6.50 13.00 9.75 8. L-38-1 7.13 7.50 7.31 7.50 10.00 8.75 9.00 10.00 9.50 9. L-40-3 5.25 5.00 5.13 5.50 6.50 6.00 4.50 9.00 6.75 10. Punjab Chhauhara 5.00 7.00 6.00 4.00 8.00 6.00 8.50 10.50 9.50 11. S-22 5.25 6.75 6.00 6.50 10.00 8.25 8.50 12.00 10.25 Mean 6.11 7.20 6.66 6.68 9.45 8.07 7.05 9.55 8.30 4.75 5.00 5.13 4.00 6.50 6.00 4.00 5.50 4.75 Range 8.00 10.50 9.25 10.50 14.50 12.50 10.50 13.00 11.75 S.Em + CD at 5% S.Em + CD at 5% S.Em + CD at 5% IRRIGATION (I) 0.25 0.73 0.21 0.60 0.29 0.84 GENOTYPES (G) 0.58 1.70 0.48 1.41 0.67 1.98 INTERACTION (I x G ) 0.82 NS 0.68 NS 0.95 2.80 DAT= Days after transplanting, NS= Non- significant.

Table 64. Root to shoot ratio of tomato genotypes as influenced by irrigation levels
Sl. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Mean Range IRRIGATION (I) GENOTYPES (G) INTERACTION (I x G ) Genotypes Arka Meghali GK-3 IIHR 2274 L-10 (P) L-17 L-28 L-30 L-38-1 L-40-3 Punjab Chhauhara S-22 Root to shoot ratio 45 DAT 75 DAT IW/CPE ratio IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 1.2 0.4 Mean 0.41 0.58 0.50 0.89 1.27 1.08 0.29 0.53 0.41 0.90 1.16 1.03 1.17 1.92 1.55 0.99 1.41 1.20 0.64 1.25 0.94 0.78 1.00 0.89 0.41 0.71 0.56 0.83 1.17 1.00 0.31 0.85 0.58 0.49 0.93 0.71 0.63 1.12 0.87 1.65 1.99 1.82 0.82 1.28 1.05 1.16 1.38 1.27 0.52 0.84 0.68 0.94 1.36 1.15 0.50 0.81 0.66 1.09 1.20 1.14 0.49 1.08 0.79 0.96 1.29 1.12 0.56 1.00 0.78 0.97 1.29 1.13 0.29 0.53 0.41 0.49 0.93 0.71 1.17 1.92 1.55 1.65 1.99 1.82 S.Em + CD at 5% S.Em + CD at 5% 0.03 0.08 0.03 0.08 0.07 0.19 0.07 0.20 0.09 NS 0.09 NS

NS= Non- significant.


Genotype IIHR 2274, exhibited significantly maximum root to shoot ratio (1.55) and minimum was in GK-3 (0.41) at 45 DAT. Among the irrigation levels, 0.4 IW/CPE ratio had significantly maximum root to shoot ratio compared to 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and it varied from 0.53 to 1.92 and 0.29 to 1.17, respectively. Interaction of genotypes and irrigation levels indicated that, genotype IIHR 2274 recorded higher root to shoot ratio at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (1.92) and minimum was in GK-3 at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (0.29). At 75 DAT, significantly highest root to shoot ratio was noticed in the genotype L-30 (1.82) and least was in L-28 (0.71). Between the irrigation levels, 0.4 IW/CPE ratio exhibited significantly maximum root to shoot ratio and it varied from 0.93 to 1.99 and minimum was observed in 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (0.49 to 1.65). Among the interactions, L-30 recorded maximum root to shoot ratio at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (1.99) and minimum was noticed in the L-28 at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (0.49)

4.4.2.6 Correlation of yield with root and shoot parameters (c. f. Table 65) Significant positive correlation of yield was noticed with root density at 75 DAT (0.697) and root length at 45 DAT (0.45) at 5 per cent level of significance 1.2 IW/CPE, while root length was highly significant at 75 DAT (0.745). At 0.4 IW/CPE ratio, its association was significant in the negative direction with shoot length at 45 DAT (-0.667).

Table 65. Correlation of yield with root and shoot parameters


Sl No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Parameters Shoot length 45 DAT Shoot length 75 DAT Root length 45 DAT Root length 75 DAT Root weight 45 DAT Root weight 75 DAT Root density 45 DAT Root density 75 DAT Root to shoot ratio 45 DAT Root to shoot ratio 75 DAT Correlation co-efficient (r) at different IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 -0.131 -0.667* 0.432 -0.107 0.697* 0.245 0.745** -0.012 0.107 -0.054 -0.076 -0.028 0.347 0.078 0.697* 0.245 0.484 0.450 0.486 0.034

* indicates correlation co-efficient (r) significant at 5 % (0.602) and ** indicates correlation co-efficient (r) significant at 1 % (0.735), n=9, Sample size = 11

V. DISCUSSION
Tomato is one of the most popular and widely grown vegetables in the world which ranks next to potato. The pulp and juice of tomato fruit is digestible, promoter of gastric secretion and blood purification. It has antiseptic properties against intestinal infections and mouth cancers. Karnataka is one of the major tomato growing states. The major tomato producing districts in Karnataka are Bidar, Kolar, Belgaum, Bijapur, Dharwad, Haveri, Davangere and Bangalore Rural (Anon., 2004). These districts either come under transitional tract, dry tract or facilitated with supplemental well irrigation. But considering the potentiality of this crop, there is plenty of scope for its improvement. Though some work has been done to improve tomato yields, the yield potential of tomato, however, has not been exploited under rainfed or drought situation. Drought is an important abiotic stress affecting the productivity of all crops, to date the progress achieved in improving drought resistance is very minimal. Among the specific reasons listed for slow progress are the multiplicity of drought patterns and the plant responses are foremost. There are several physiological and biochemical traits contributing to the drought tolerance nature of agricultural/ horticultural crops. However, large number of tomato genotypes have not been screened for drought tolerance or exploited for their cultivation under drought situation. Hence, the present investigation was carried out to screen the tomato genotypes for yield potential and drought tolerant related traits during 2003-2005 by adopting simple field technique, using irrigation water to the cumulative pan evaporation ratio (IW/CPE ratio), which does not involve sophisticated equipments, skills and manpower for identifying drought tolerant traits. In this chapter, the results of two year field experiments and raised bed experiment have been discussed.

5.1 Morphological and phenological characters


Plant height and stem girth are important characters of growth and development of the crop canopy. The tomato genotypes differed significantly for plant height and stem girth (Table 1 & 2) at all the growth phases under both irrigation levels of 0.4 and 1.2 IW/CPE ratios. Both parameters decreased in 0.4 IW/CPE ratio compared to 1.2 IW/CPE ratio, indicating the effect of moisture stress on the tomato genotypes. However, among the genotypes Arka Meghali (42.91 cm), Nandi (48.50 cm) and GK-3 (63.23 cm) showed significantly maximum height at 45, 75 DAT and at harvest, respectively, whereas, genotype Nandi (11.21 mm) and GK-2 (15.40 mm) showed significantly maximum stem girth at 45 and 75 DAT, respectively. The pooled data of selected genotypes indicated that, the genotypes differed significantly for plant height and stem girth (Table 31, 32 and Plant1 a & b). During 45 and 75 DAT, at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio, significantly maximum plant height was noticed in the genotype Punjab Chhauhara followed by L-40-3 and S-22 and at harvest it was L-38-1. Minimum plant height was noticed in the genotype L-10 (P) during 45 and 75 DAT, while, at harvest it was recorded in the genotype S-22. Among the genotypes, Arka Meghali recorded significantly maximum stem girth at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio, followed by S-22 and minimum was recorded in the genotype L-28 at 45 DAT, whereas, at 75 DAT, significantly maximum stem girth was recorded in the genotype Punjab Chhauhara followed by S-22, L-38-1 and L-10 (P) and minimum was recorded in the genotype L-17. The results indicate that L-28 and L-17 show higher drought susceptibility. Thus, main stem had active role in translocating plant assimilates and help in increasing the sink capacity under drought (Kudachikar, 1995).

The decrease in plant height and stem girth at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio was due to the development of water deficit in leaves during drought resulting in decline in leaf water potential, as well as reduction in both cell volume and cell turgor. The lesser reduction in stem girth was observed in the genotype S-22 (8.38%) followed by L38-1 (11.70%), L-30 (12.38%) as compared to check Arka Meghali (21.76%) and was attributed to maintenance of higher cell volume and decreased water potential in these genotypes. These results are in confirmity with the earlier findings of Ninganur (2000) in cotton, Yadav et al. (2003) in potato, Hadli and Raijadhav (2004) in lime and Manjunatha et al. (2004) in brinjal. Number of branches is another important morphological character contributing for spread of canopy. The first year experiment as well as pooled data (Table 3 and 33) was significant for genotypes and irrigation levels at 45 and 75 DAT. Significantly maximum number of branches per plant were recorded at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio compared to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. The pooled data indicated that, irrespective of irrigation levels, GK-3 recorded maximum number of branches at 45 DAT and Arka Meghali at 75 DAT. At 0.4 IW/CPE ratio also significantly maximum number of branches were noticed by the same genotypes during the same period and minimum was noticed in the genotypes Arka Meghali and L-17 at 45 and 75 DAT, respectively. The variation in number of branches per plant may be due to varied water supply and genetic composition. The ease with which moisture is held in the soil and made available to plants for their rapid growth owing to higher turgor in leaf tissue and cell multiplication resulted in higher number of branches in linseed varieties (Gopalkrishna et al., 1996). Present investigation is in confirmity with findings of earlier works of Shivadhara and Singh (1995) in french bean, Gopalkrishna et al. (1996) in linseed varieties, Jadhav et al. (1996) in bottle gourd and Narayanappa et al. (2004) in davana. Pubescence is an another important character which can reduce the radiant heat load of leaves by increasing the reflection of the leaf surface. Increased pubescence was observed under stress in some species and cultivars. Ehleringer et al. (1976) and Ehleringer (1980) suggested that leaf or stem pubescence is often cited as a feature of desert shrub adapted to arid environments. In the present investigation also, there was significant difference for the density of pubescence among genotypes and irrigation levels at both adaxial and abaxial surface (Table 34 and Plate 2 a & b). Pubescence increase significantly at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio both on abaxial and adaxial surface indicating adaptive mechanism in tomato to water stress conditions. On abaxial surface of the leaf, maximum number of pubescence was noticed in the genotype L-30 (350.24) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio followed by S-22 (295.68), L-40-3 (279.84) and local check Arka Meghali (216.48). Maximum per cent increase in number of pubescence in 0.4 over 1.2 IW/CPE ratio was noticed in the Arka Meghali followed by Punjab Chhauhara, IIHR 2274, L-30 and S-22. On adaxial surface of the leaf, genotype L-30 recorded significantly maximum number of pubescence (693.44), followed by GK-3 (471.68), Arka Meghali (362.56) and S-22 (358.16). While, higher per cent increase at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio over 1.2 IW/CPE ratio on adaxial leaf surface was noticed in the GK-3 followed by L-40-3 compared to local check Arka Meghali and minimum per cent increase was seen in L-17 (3.85%) (Fig. 6). Our results confirmed the findings of Rana and Kalloo (1989) in tomato, who also reported that the leaves of drought tolerant noticed more hairiness compared to susceptible genotypes. The drought tolerance is attributed to reduced water loss through cuticular and stomatal transpiration, because hairs on the stems and leaves protect the stomata and cuticle to the direct contact of wind. These preclude water loss through transpiration. Significant difference for days to cessation of flowering and wilting was noticed only among the irrigation levels during first year experiment while, pooled data of selected genotypes showed significant difference in the second year experiment (Table 4 and 35). As the stress level increased from 1.2 IW/CPE ratio to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio, there was reduction in the days taken for cessation of flower and wilting was noticed during both the experimental period. The pooled data of selected genotypes indicated that, irrespective of the irrigation

Abaxial leaf surface Abaxial leaf surface TOLERANT GENOTYPES

a1) IIHR 2277

a2) IIHR 2277

b1) L 10 (P)

b2) L 10 (P)

c1) L-30

c2) L-30

d1) L-40-3

d2) L-40-3

Plate 2a. Pubescence on abaxial and abaxial lafe surface in tomato genotypes

Abaxial leaf surface Abaxial leaf surface TOLERANT GENOTYPES

a1) L-38-1

a2) L-38-1

f1) S-22 SUSCEPTIBLE GENOTYPES

f2) S-22

g1) L-28

g2) L-28

h1) Arka Meghali

h2) Arka Meghali

Plate 2b. Pubescence on abaxial and abaxial lafe surface in tomato genotypes

Fig. 6 : Per cent reduction in yield and per cent increase in number of pubescence at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio over 1.2 IW/CPE ratio in tomato genotypes

levels, the genotype L-40-3 required more number of days (101.13 days) to wilting which indicates intrinsic mechanism of drought tolerance whereas, genotype L-28 showed early wilting (88.38 days) which shows its susceptibility to drought. At 0.4 IW/CPE ratio, genotype S-22 required maximum days for wilting and minimum was noticed in L-28. Minimum per cent reduction in wilting at 0.4 over 1.2 IW/CPE ratio noticed in the genotype S-22 (6.56%) compared check Arka Meghali (14.24%). Maximum days taken for cessation of flower was noticed in the genotypes GK-3 at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio, followed by L-30, L-40-3, IIHR 2274, L40-3 and L-10 (P) compared to local check Arka Meghali and L-17. These results are in confirmity with Rana and Kalloo (1989), they reported that, this might be due to better and deeper root system in resistant tomato genotypes which would help in absorption of more water from the deeper layer of the soil and the resistant lines maintained higher water status in their plant body and this condition is essential for proper growth and flowering. The experiment on root characters, also confirms the earlier findings of Rana and Kalloo (1989). Root and shoot traits significantly differed with in the genotypes and irrigation levels at 45 and 75 DAT (Table 62). As the stress increased from 1.2 to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio, there was significant increase in root length at both stages. It increased to the extent of 25.52 and 15.64 per cent at 45 and 75 DAT, respectively. Among the different genotypes, IIHR 2274 recorded maximum root length at 45 at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio followed by L-30 and S-22 while, at 75 DAT, L-30 maintanined higher root length followed by IIHR 2274 and S-22 and minimum was noticed in the genotype L-28 at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. Correlation studies indicated, there was positive and significant correlation between root length and yield at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio at both the growth stages (r = 0.697 and 0.745, respectively) and there was also positive association between the root length at 45 DAT and yield (r= 0.245) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. This indicates that, these genotypes (S-22, IIHR 2274 and L-30) which had maximum root length could absorb more water from the deeper layer of soil and were able to produce more yield both at 1.2 and 0.4 IW/CPE ratio compared to the genotype L-28 (Table 65). Since S-22 maintain comparable higher root length both at 45 and 75 DAT compared to L-17 and L-28 and could manage to maintain the turgidity in the cell and delayed the cessation of flowering compared to L-17 and L-28 (Plate 3). Under the drought stress of 0.4 IW/CPE ratio, shoot length decreased significantly both at 45 and 75 DAT. Correlation data at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio irrigation level indicated at 45 DAT that, there was significant correlation with yield in the negative direction (r = -0.667) and even at 75 DAT (r = -0.107) (Table 65). It is clear from the above data that the genotype which maintained higher shoot length and lesser root length were able to produce less yield especially under stress. Root weight and root density also showed significant difference among the genotypes and irrigation levels, but interaction effects were significant only for root density at both the growth stages (Table 63). Under the stress condition there was increase in root density at 45 and 75 DAT. As the stress increased from 1.2 to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio, significantly maximum root density was observed at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. It increased to the extent of 35.46 and 34.26 per cent at 45 and 75 DAT, respectively. Significantly maximum root density was noticed in the genotype IIHR 2274 followed by L-30 and S-22 at both stages at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio and minimum was noticed in the genotype L-28 at 45 DAT and GK-3 at 75 DAT. Present investigation is in confirmity with earlier findings of Prabhakar et al. (1993) in carrot and Opena and Porter (1999) in potato who also reported higher root density in tolerant genotypes.

Plate 3. Root architecture of drought tolerant and susceptible genotypes exposed to 1.2 and 0.4 IW/CPE ratio

Root to shoot ratio was significant among genotypes and irrigation levels and nonsignificant for interaction at 45 and 75 DAT (Table 64). As the stress increased from 1.2 to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio, root to shoot ratio was significantly increased at both the growth stages. Root to shoot ratio was increased to the extent of 78.57 and 32.99 per cent at 0.4 over 1.2 IW/CPE ratio at 45 and 75 DAT, respectively. At 45 DAT, among the genotype IIHR 2274 (1.92), exhibited significantly maximum root to shoot ratio followed by L-38-1 (1.28), while, at 75 DAT, highest was in L-30 (1.99) and least was in L-28 (0.93). Present investigation is in confirmity with the earlier findings of Dhanda et al. (2004) in wheat and Wang et al. (2005) in Brassica napus. Based on the above observations genotypes IIHR 2274, S-22, L-40-3, GK-3, L-10 (P) were found to be drought tolerant compared to L-17 and L-28. Pollen viability studies found significant differences among the genotypes and 0 irrigation levels at temperature treatment of 25, 30 and 35 C (Table 59). Significantly maximum pollen viability was found in 1.2 IW/CPE ratio compared to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. Pollen viability was reduced to the extent of 19.24, 10.54 and 27.75 per cent at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio over 1.2 IW/CPE ratio at 25, 30 and 350C, respectively. Irrespective of the irrigation levles, 0 0 maximum pollen viability was noticed in the genotype L-30 at 25 C, while at 30 C it was IIHR 0 0 2274 and L-40-3 at 35 C and least was noticed in the genotype L-17 at 25 and 30 C and L-28 at 350C. According to Muthuvel et al. (1999) reduced pollen viability and higher transpiration reduced the yield of tomato per plant. In the present investigation it was found that the genotypes L-30, IIHR 2274 and L-40-3 maintained comparable transpiration compared to genotypes L-17 and L-28. Photosynthetic rate of genotype L-30, IIHR 2274 and L-40-3 was maximum compared to genotype L-17 and L-28. Due to higher photosynthetic rate, optimum transpiration rate and higher pollen viability the genotypes L-30, IIHR 2274 and L-40-3 were able to tolerate drought and produce more yield per plant compared to the genotypes L-17 and L-28 (Table 60). Correlation studies indicated that heat stress at 25 and 35 C to pollen indicated that there was positive association with yield (r= 0.528 and 0.547, respectively) at 1.2 IW/CPE 0 ratio, while, at 04. IW/CPE ratio there was positive association with yield at 30 and 35 C (r = 0.183 and 0.352, respectively) which clearly indicate that most of the genotypes studied can tolerate heat and drought stress (Table 61) Present study confirms the findings of Ram et al. (1993), Muthuvel et al. (1999) and Pressman et al. (2002) in tomato. Thus, based on the biophysical characters, root traits, pubescence and pollen viability studies the genotypes IIHR 2274, S-22, L-30, L-40-3, and L-10 (P) could be categorized as drought tolerant.
0

5.2 Biochemical parameter


In the present study, chlorophyll content and proline content were studied in the tomato genotypes. Chlorophylls are photosynthetic pigments absorbs light energy for synthesis of carbohydrates and are important factor for plant productivity Total chlorophyll content indicated significant difference among the genotypes, irrigation schedules and their interaction during the first year and for the pooled data during second year of experiment (Table 7 and 36). As the stress increased from 1.2 IW/CPE ratio to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio, there was reduction in chlorophyll a, b and total chlorophyll content and was to the extent of 26.3, 31.2 and 27.3 per cent, respectively during the first year of experiment while, during the pooled data it was 19.57, 24.56 and 20.68 per cent, respectively. The pooled data on chlorophyll content indicated that, irrespective of the irrigation levels, L-10 (P) showed higher chlorophyll a and L-30 recorded significantly higher chlorophyll b and total chlorophyll content compared to other genotypes including the check Arka Meghali. At 0.4 IW/CPE ratio, L-10 (P) recorded significantly maximum chlorophyll a

and it was followed by L-40-3 and minimum was noticed in the local check Arka Meghali, while L-40-3 recorded significantly maximum chlorophyll b followed by L-30 and S-22 whereas, L-40-3 recorded significantly maximum total chlorophyll content and it was followed by L-10 (P) and minimum was noticed in the genotype Arka Meghali. These genotypes viz., L-10 (P), L-40-3 and L-30 also recorded comparably higher photosynthetic rate along with lower transpiration rate which might have resulted in higher dry matter production and yield of tomato Further, correlation studies indicated that, total chlorophyll content was positively and non-significantly correlated with the yield (r =0.475) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio while at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio also there was non-significance positive association. This shows that total chlorophyll content has direct influence on fruit production (Table 58). Present investigation is in confirmity with Vyas et al. (2001) in cluster bean, Adivappar et al. (2003) in papaya, Hadli and Raijadhav (2004) in lime and Garg et al. (2004) in moth bean. Hare and Cress (1997), reported that high level of proline synthesis during stress may have maintained NAD(P)/NAD(P)H ratio at values compatible with metabolism under normal conditions. Babu et al. (1982) stated that in the course of development of water deficit in the tomato plants, the synthesis of starch, protein and nucleic acid in the leaves stagnated and accordingly growth was arrested. However, photosynthesis was continued which resulted in large amount of accumulated proline. The results on proline (Table 8 and 37) indicated significant differences among the genotypes and irrigation levels but not for their interaction effects. During the first year of experiment, among the irrigation levels proline production increased to the extent of 12.34 per cent as the stress level increased from 1.2 IW/CPE ratio to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio, whereas, pooled data on proline showed increase to the extent of 16.19 per cent. The pooled data indicated that, at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio maximum proline content was noticed in the genotype L-10 (P) followed by S-22 and Arka Meghali. Maximum per cent increase in proline content at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio over 1.2 IW/CPE ratio was noticed in the genotype L38-1 followed by S-22, L-30, IIHR 2274 and Punjab Chhauhara. Further, it is confirmed with the correlation data that, proline content was positively, but non-significantly correlated with yield (r = 0.427) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (Table 58). This clearly indicates that higher proline production under the stress condition which acts as the osmoregulant and reduced the impact of stress in plants The present findings also followed the earlier findings of Babu et al. (1982), Hare and Cress (1997) and Yadav et al. (2005) in sorghum, Naidu et al. (2001) in green gram, where in, they stated that accumulated proline possibly contributed towards osmotic adjustment and played a major role in maintaining turgor at fluctuating soil water potential. Thus, from the above biochemical studies, it could be inferred that chlorophyll and proline content could be taken as one of the parameters while screening for drought tolerance.

5.3 Biophysical characters


The photosynthetic rate of tomato leaves under a given environmental condition is a function of various biophysical and biochemical processes involved during diffusion of CO2 from atmosphere into chloroplast and the subsequent enzyme reactions. In the present investigation, photosynthesis, intercellular CO2 level, transpiration, stomatal conductance, leaf temperature, and leaf to air vapour pressure difference (Table 5 and 6) observed at 45 DAT differed significantly among the irrigation levels and genotypes. Maximum photosynthetic rate, intercellular CO2 level, transpiration rate and stomatal conductance were observed at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio. These biophysical characters were significantly reduced as the stress level increased from 1.2 IW/CPE ratio to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. Among the genotypes, photosynthetic rate, intercellular CO2 level, transpiration rate and

stomatal conductance varied from 15.83 to 30.53 mmoles CO2 m s , 213.67 to 305.83 ppm, -2 -1 -2 -1 7.22 to 12.37 mmoles H2O m s and 0.27 to 1.27 mmoles m s , respectively at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio, while, at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio it ranged from 11.97 to 26.08 mmoles CO2 m-2s-1, 153.48 to -2 -1 -2 -1 262.50 ppm, 5.57 to 11.20 mmoles H2O m s and 0.15 to 0.81 mmoles m s , respectively. Significantly higher photosynthetic rate was observed in the genotype IIHR-2274 -2 -1 (30.53 mmoles CO2 m s ) and mnimum was noticed in the genotypes L-37 (15.83 mmoles -2 CO2 m s 1) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio while, at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio, S-22 recorded maximum -2 -1 photosynthetic rate of 26.08 mmoles CO2 m s and minimum was in L-17 (11.97 mmoles -2 -1 CO2 m s ). These results are in confirmity with findings of Janoudi and Widders (1993) in cucumber, Narender et al. (1997) in chickpea, Chowdhury and Varma (1998) in sweet potato, Pirjo et al. (1999) in tomato and turnip, Silk and Fock (2000), Vyas et al. (2001) in cluster bean and Garg et al. (2004) in moth bean. They reported that, as the stress increased, plants photosynthesis, intercellular CO2 level and stomatal conductance decreased. In the present investigation, significantly maximum stomatal conductance was -2 -1 recorded in the genotype Arka Meghali (1.27 mmole m s ) and minimum was in L-10 (P) -2 -1 (0.27 mmole m s ) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio. While at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio maximum conductance was noticed in the genotype L-5 (0.81 mmole m-2s-1) and minimum was in L-17 (0.15 mmole -2 -1 m s ) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. Stomatal conductance studies are in accordance with Silk and Fock (2000). Under drought stress, stomata are partially closed resulting in limited water loss and reduced photosynthetic rate with restricted diffusion of CO2 into the leaf, which leads to lower internal CO2 level and CO2 deficiency at the reaction site of RuBisCo and however it might not be the only reason for decline in the photosynthesis. Direct inhibition of biochemical processes by altered ionic or osmotic conditions, which affect ATP synthesis and RuBisCo activity, might be another reason for decrease in photosynthetic rate. Also it could be limited by stomatal conductance as well as mesophyll related non stomatal factors as noticed in sweet potato (Chowdhury and Varma, 1998). Present investigation is in confirmity with earlier works of Janoudi and Widders (1993) in cucumber, Chowdhury and Varma (1998) in sweet potato Pirjo et al. (1999) in tomato and turnip and Yadav et al. (2003) in potato. In the present study, maximum transpiration was observed at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (9.42 -2 -1 -2 -1 mmoles H2O m s ) and minimum was noticed at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (7.66 mmoles H2O m s ). Among the genotypes at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio, maximum transpiration was noticed in the -2 -1 genotype L-34-1 (12.37 mmole H2O m s ) and minimum was recorded in L-10 (P) (7.22 -2 -1 mmole H2O m s ) while at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio higher transpiration was exhibited by the genotype L-5 (11.2 mmole H2O m-2s-1) and least was in the genotype Vaibhav (5.57 mmole -2 -1 H2O m s ). Leaf temperature and leaf to air vapour pressure difference was significantly less at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (32.560C and 1.90 mbar, respectively) and highest was noticed at 0.4 0 IW/CPE ratio (33.99 C and 2.27 mbar, respectively). Further, it was noticed that there was negative association both at 1.2 and 0.4 IW/CPE ratio between yield and internal CO2 concentration (r= -0.202 and -0.385, respectively) and stomatal conductance (r = -0.139 and -0.065, respectively). Whereas, photosynthesis and transpiration were positively associated with yield at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (r=0.088 and 0.055, respectively) while, negatively associated with yield at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (r = -0.075 and -0.254, respectively) (Table 66). Genotypes which maintained higher transpiration rate under 0.4 IW/CPE ratio showed less leaf temperature. This may be due to cooling of the leaf surface on account of excessive loss of water through transpiration leading to lesser leaf temperature which helps the plants to tolerate the excessive heat load. Present investigation is in confirmation with the findings of Pirjo et al. (1999) in tomato and turnip, Halil et al. (2001) in eggplant and Meenakumari et al. (2004) in maize.

-2 -1

Table 66. Correlation of yield with growth parameters and biophysical parameter (pooled)
Sl. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. Correlation co-efficient (r) at different ratio/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Growth parameters AGR 45-75 DAT 0.295 0.279 AGR 45 DAT Harvest 0.611* 0.243 AGR 75 DAT Harvest 0.603* 0.101 BMD 45-75 DAT 0.383 0.225 BMD 45 DAT Harvest 0.562 0.219 BMD 75 DAT Harvest 0.573 0.269 CGR 45-75 DAT 0.297 0.291 CGR 45 DAT Harvest 0.609* 0.238 CGR 75 DAT harvest 0.604* 0.107 LAD 45-75 DAT 0.229 0.082 LAD 45 DAT Harvest 0.438 0.299 LAD 75 DAT Harvest 0.460 0.341 Leaf area index at 45 DAT -0.438 -0.468 Leaf area index at 75 DAT 0.332 0.210 Leaf area index at harvest 0.487 0.366 NAR 45-75 DAT 0.223 0.300 NAR 45 DAT Harvest 0.521 0.184 NAR 75 DAT Harvest 0.415 -0.060 RGR 45-75 DAT 0.194 0.223 RGR 45 DAT harvest 0.467 0.165 RGR 75 DAT harvest 0.495 -0.038 SLA 45 DAT 0.057 0.304 SLA 75 DAT 0.068 0.267 SLA HARVEST -0.031 0.294 SLW 45 DAT -0.164 -0.053 SLW 75 DAT 0.022 -0.168 SLW HARVEST 0.050 -0.275 Biophysical parameters Internal CO2 cont. -0.202 -0.385 Leaf temperature 0.349 0.356 Leaf to air vapor pressure deficit 0.236 0.283 Photosynthesis 0.088 -0.075 Stomatal conductance -0.139 -0.065 Transpiration rate 0.050 -0.254 Parameters

* indicates correlation co-efficient (r) significant at 5 % (0.602) and ** indicates correlation co-efficient (r) significant at 1 % (0.735), n=9, Sample size = 11

5.4 Growth parameters


Growth parameters have been extensively employed in crop sciences for better understanding of physiological basis of yield variation in crop plants. Genotypic difference in growth parameters viz., LAI, CGR, NAR and LAD were found to be influenced by various environmental factors. Further, it is well established that the extent of difference in growth parameters determine the variation in total dry matter among the genotypes (Kudachikar, 1995). Biomass is one of the important character which influence the growth and development of the plant. Tomato genotypes differed significantly for biomass during both the years (Table 24 and 52). As the moisture stress increased from 1.2 to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio biomass decreased during both the periods. It was found significantly maximum at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio at all the growth stages compared to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. Among the selected genotypes L-10 (P) recorded significantly maximum biomass during 45 DAT at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio, followed by L30, Punjab Chhauhara and S-22 while, at 75 DAT and at harvest S-22 recorded significantly higher biomass and minimum was in L-40-3. Biomass at harvest was significantly correlated with yield at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (r = 0.614) and positive association at all the growth stages at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (r = 0.183, 0.295 and 0.242, respectively), which indicated that biomass has direct relation with yield (Table 58). The variation in the biomass is further supported by growth analysis studies. Higher AGR, CGR, NAR and RGR indicates better growth and development which inturn depends on leaf area of cotton (Ninganur, 2002). Similar findings can be observed from the present investigation (Table 9 to 15 and 18) wherein 1.2 IW/CPE ratio had significantly higher leaf area, LAI, LAD, AGR, CGR, NAR, RGR and biomass duration. It is well known fact that the persistence of assimilatory surface is a prerequisite for prolonged photosynthetic activity and ultimate crop productivity. Leaf area being the photosynthetic surface area plays an important role in determining total biomass accumulation and quantity of photosynthates available for yield production. There was significant difference for crop growth rate (CGR) among irrigation levels and genotypes during all the growth phases (Table 13 and 43). As the stress increased from 1.2 to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio, there was significant decrease in the CGR during all the growth phases. Among the selected genotypes, at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio, genotype S-22 recorded maximum CGR during all the growth phases. The genotype S-22, Punjab Chhauhara, GK-3, L-38-1 and Arka Meghali exhibited minimum per cent reduction in CGR at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio over 1.2 IW/CPE ratio at all the growth stages. CGR found significantly correlated with yield during 45 DAT harvest and 75 DAT harvest at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (r = 0.609 and 0.604, respectively) and at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio, there was positive association between CGR and yield (r = 0.291, 0.238 and 0.107, respectively) (Table 66) at all the growth stages. These results are in confirmity with Banerjee and Saha (1985) in potato, Chowdhury and Varma (1997) in sweet potato and Panda et al. (2004) in mustard. Significantly maximum RGR was recorded at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio compared to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (Table 15 and 45). The pooled data on RGR indicated that, irrespective of irrigation levels and at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio, maximum RGR was recorded in the genotype GK-3 followed by S-22 and IIHR 2274 at 45 75 DAT and 45 DAT harvest. The results confirm the earlier findings of Haloi and Baldev (1986) in chickpea and Singh and Singh (1994) in sugarcane. Further RGR noticed positive association with yield at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio during 45 DAT harvest and 75 DAT harvest (r= 0.467 and 0.495, respectively) and at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio there was positive relation was noticed with yield at 45-75 DAT and 45 DAT harvest (0.293 and 0.165, respectively) (Table 66). Significantly maximum NAR was noticed at the irrigation schedule of 1.2 IW/CPE ratio at all the growth stages during both the years compared to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (Table 14 and

43). The pooled data indicated that, NAR was significantly maximum at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and it varied from 0.40 to 0.88, 0.44 to 0.69 and 0.30 to 0.55, whereas, at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio it ranged from 0.28 to 0.78, 0.24 to 0.53 and 0.16 to 0.41 g dm-2 day-1 X 102 during 45-75 DAT, 45 DAT harvest and 75 DAT harvest, respectively. The results of pooled analysed data indicated that, at 45-75 DAT and 45 DAT harvest, genotype S-22 and Arka Meghali recorded higher NAR at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio, while at 75 DAT harvest it was L-30. Irrespective of irrigation levels, the genotype S-22 and Arka Meghali, IIHR 2274 and L-30 recorded significantly higher NAR. Minimum per cent reduction in NAR in 0.4 over 1.2 IW/CPE ratio was exhibited by genotypes S-22 followed by Arka Meghali and L-38-1 at 45 -75 DAT and 45 DAT harvest and during 75 DAT harvest, it was recorded in the genotypes S-22 followed by IIHR 2274 and L-30. These genotypes maintained significantly optimum photosynthetic rate and also maintained more leaf area with optimum transpiration rate. At 0.4 IW/CPE ratio there was positive and non significant correlation was noticed with yield at 45-75 DAT and 45 DAT harvest (r = 0.300 and 0.184) and at 75 DAT harvest (Table 66). The results of present investigation confirm the earlier findings of Haloi and Baldev (1986) in chickpea and Singh and Singh (1994) in sugarcane and they found that, interception of maximum solar radiation by upper leaves showed higher rate of photosynthesis than the lower leaves. This may account for higher NAR under stress condition as observed in these genotypes and may be regarded as a characteristic feature of drought tolerant. Similarly, in accordance with Singh and Singh (1994) in the present investigation S-22, IIHR 2274 and L30 may be categorised as drought tolerant genotypes. Pooled data indicated that, leaf area (Table 39) was significantly differed among genotypes and irrigation levels at all the growth stages. When the plants subjected to deficit water condition there was decrease in the leaf area. Leaf area was found significantly maximum at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio when compared to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. The pooled data indicated that, at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio maximum leaf area was maintained by Punjab Chhauhara followed by L-10 (P) and L -30 and least was maintained by L-40-3 at 45 DAT whereas, at 75 DAT, significantly maximum leaf area was noticed in the genotype L-38-1 followed by S-22, L-10 (P) and L-30 and at harvest S-22 maintained significantly higher leaf area and it followed by IIHR 2274 and Arka Meghali. These genotypes also maintained optimum photosynthetic rate with lower transpiration rate. These genotypes L-30, GK-3 and IIHR 2274 also recorded the minimum per cent reduction in the leaf area at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio over 1.2 IW/CPE ratio during 45, 75 DAT and at harvest, respectively compared to other genotypes. Leaf area at 45 DAT was negatively associated with yield both at 1.2 and 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (r = -0.438 and -0.468, respectively) but at harvest it was positively associated with yield both at 1.2 and 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (r= 0.488 and 0.365, respectively) (Table 66). According to the Rana and Kalloo (1989), relative leaf area was found more in the drought tolerance lines than the susceptible lines because resistant lines had the ability to penetrate the roots even under water deficit conditions and maintain higher water potential in the leaves. The possible reason for reduced vegetative growth of most of the tomato genotypes under stress might be due to decreased relative turgidity to below 90 per cent which caused dehydration of the protoplasm and associated with loss of turgor. These results are in confirmity with earlier findings of Rana and Kalloo (1989) in tomato, Milton et al. (1992) in tomato, Janoudi and Widders, (1993) in cucumber, Devendra and Minhas (1999) in potato. Leaf area index (LAI) is the most important variable and it can be widely changed by manipulation. LAI indicated significant difference among the irrigation levels and genotypes at all the growth stages (Table 10 and 40). Significantly maximum LAI was noticed at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio compared to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. The pooled data indicated that, Punjab Chhauhara exhibited maximum LAI at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio followed by L-10 (P) and L-30 at 45 DAT whereas, at 75 DAT, L38-1 recorded maximum LAI and it was followed by S-22, L-10 (P)

and L-30. During at harvest, significantly higher LAI recorded in the genotype S-22, followed by IIHR 2274, Arka Meghali and L-30. Further, correlation studies indicated that, LAI was negatively associated with yield at 1.2 and 0.4 IW/CPE ratio at 45 DAT (r = -0.438 and -0.468, respectively) and at harvest it was positively associated with yield at 1.2 and 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (r = 0.488 and 0.365, respectively) (Table 66). Similarly Haloi and Baldev (1986) showed that good supply of moisture was the basis for the maximum LAI. Present investigation is in confirmity with earlier findings of Banerjee and Saha (1985) in potoato, Haloi and Baldev (1986) in chickpea, Panda et al. (2004) in mustard and Narayanappa et al. (2004) in davana. Leaf area duration (LAD) is an useful growth index which denotes the efficiency of photosynthetic system over period of growth (Kudachikar, 1995). Significant difference among the genotypes and irrigation levels was noticed at all the growth stages (Table 11 and 41). When the plants were exposed to sever stress of 0.4 IW/CPE ratio LAD was significantly reduced. The pooled data of selected genotypes on LAD indicated that irrespective of the irrigation levels, genotype L-30 recorded higher LAD at 45-75 DAT whereas, S-22 noticed higher LAD at 45 DAT - harvest and 75 DAT harvest. These genotypes L-30 and S-22 also could able to keep higher photosynthetic rate. At 0.4 IW/CPE ratio, genotypes L-38-1 maintained significantly higher LAD and it was followed by L-10 (P), Punjab Chhauhara and S-22 at 45-75 DAT, whereas, at 45 DAT harvest, significantly maximum LAD was exhibited by the genotype S-22 followed by IIHR 2274, Arka Meghali and L-30. At 75 DAT harvest, genotype S-22 exhibited higher LAD and it was followed by Arka Meghali, L-38-1 and IIHR 2274. Biomass duration (BMD) depends on the biomass production over the period. As the biomass duration increased an increase in biomass production was observed. There was significant difference among the genotypes and irrigation levels and their interaction (Table 18 and 48). Significantly maximum BMD was noticed at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio during the both the experimental periods. Decrease in the BMD was noticed as the stress increased which indicates that it may be due to variation in water supply and genetic composition. The pooled data indicated that, among the genotypes, significantly maximum BMD at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio was noticed in L-10 (P), followed by S-22, Arka Meghali and L-30 at 45-75 DAT, whereas, at 45 DAT harvest, S-22 exhibited maximum BMD followed by L-30, Arka Meghali and L-10 (P) and at 75 DAT harvest, significantly maximum BMD was recorded in the genotype S-22 followed by Arka Meghali, L-30 and IIHR 2274. In general maintenance of higher growth at early stages helped the plant to escape drought in toerant genotypes and could produce more yield. Specific leaf weight (SLW) indicates the leaf thickness. During the first year, there was significance only for irrigation levels at 45 and 75 DAT (Table 16). Significantly higher SLW was noticed at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio compared to 1.2 IW/CPE ratio while, Significantly higher SLA was noticed at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio compared 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. The pooled data on SLW and SLA (Table 46 & 47) indicated significance difference for irrigation levels at all the growth stages. SLW was found maximum at low irrigation frequency of 0.4 IW/CPE ratio compared to the higher irrigation frequency of 1.2 IW/CPE ratio while, SLA at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio was significantly higher compared to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. Milton et al. (1992), reported that, tomato responded to a reducing water frequency by growing smaller leaves, in contrast increased leaf thickness which adapts to water stress. Increase in the specific leaf area of tomato as the frequency of watering decreased. Present investigation is in confirmity with earlier findings of Milton et al. (1992). Relative water content of leaf (RWC) indicates the actual water content to its maximum turgidity. In general RWC was higher in 1.2 IW/CPE ratio. However, it varied among the genotypes, irrigation levels and their interaction (Table 21 and 49). The pooled data indicated, significantly maximum RWC at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio and it ranged from 60.97 to 79.40 and 51.65 to 74.45 per cent between 45 to 75 DAT, while, at 0.4 it

was from 43.50 to 72.80 and 41.75 to 65.56 per cent. Among the genotypes, significantly higher RWC was noticed in S-22 both at 45 and 75 DAT and minimum was noticed in the genotype L-28 both at 45 and 75 DAT. However, the genotypes L-40-3 followed by S-22, Arka Meghali and L-30 observed minimum reduction in RWC at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio over 1.2 IW/CPE ratio at 45 DAT, while, at 75 DAT, it was noticed in the genotype L-40-3, Punjab Chhauhara, L-10 (P) and L-38-1. These genotypes showed better maintenance of higher RWC ensuring better hydration and more favorable internal water relations of tissue with a possibly higher pressure potential and showed better drought tolerance capacity. Further, the correlation studies indicated that RWC at 45 and 75 DAT was significantly correlated with yield at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (r = 0.628 and 0.624, respectively) (Table 58). Similar results were reported earlier by Srinivas Rao (1986) and Srinivas and Bhatt (2000). They stated that tomato plant water potential decreased with the onset of drought, however, some species which maintained higher RWC found to be drought resistance than those with low RWC. Present investigation is also in accordance with earlier findings of Devendra and Minhas (1999) in potato, Narender et al. (1997) in chickpea, Halil et al. (2001) in eggplant and Upreti and Murti (2005) in french bean. It may also be due to accumulation of polyamines which has association for the better maintenance of turgidity and cell membrane stability by increased levels of spermine as evident from lesser change in RWC under stress. Spermine has been shown to counter the stress induced change in RWC in plant, since spermine enhances ABA levels in stressed plants. Per cent light transmission (Table 20) was found significant among irrigation levels and genotypes but not for interaction effect during the first year of experiment. Significantly higher per cent light transmission was observed at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (78.25) compared to 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (64.58). Among the genotypes, L-37 recorded significantly maximum per cent light transmission (80.68). Per cent light transmission was increased significantly with increase in water deficit. Present investigation is in confirmity with Thakur et al. (2000) in Capsicum annum. Relative leaf expansion rate (RLER) (Table 19) showed significant difference among the irrigation levels. Significantly higher RLER was noticed at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio both breadthwise and lengthwise compared to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. RLER was decreased by 26.90 and 28.45 per cent in 0.4 over 1.2 IW/CPE ratio in breadthwise and lengthwise, respectively. RLER was considerably affected by the soil moisture. A clear declining trend was observed in RLER with decreasing soil moisture. These results are in accordance with earlier studies of Indiramma (1994) in potato and Halil et al. (2001) in eggplants. Thus based on the studies of biophysical characters like maintenance of higher photosynthetic rate, stomatal conductance, lower transpiration and growth parameters like NAR, CGR, RGR, BMD, LAD, LAI, leaf expansion rate, RWC etc., the genotypes S-22, L-30, IIHR 2274, Punjab Chhauhara, L-10 (P) and L-38-1 could be categorised as drought tolerant and L-17 and L-28 as drought susceptible genotypes.

5.5 Yield and yield components


The final yield and yield attributing characters are basically governed by vegetative growth such as dry matter production and its distribution. Yield is the function of many yield contributing character like number of fruits per plant, number of seeds, fruit weight, fruit volume etc. During the first year of experimentation and the pooled data on number of fruiting cluster per plant (Table 23 and 51) indicated significant difference among the irrigation levels but not for the genotypes and their interaction. Maximum number of fruiting cluster per plant was recorded at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio compared to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio during the both the period. Pooled data on number of fruiting clusters per plant indicated significant decrease in the number of fruiting clusters per plant to the extent of 45.47 per cent as the stress level increased from 1.2 IW/CPE ratio to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. Irrespective of the irrigation levels, S-22 showed significantly higher number of fruiting cluster per plant (7.19) and least was exhibited

by genotype L-28 (3.0). However, the least per cent reduction in number of fruiting cluster in 0.4 over 1.2 IW/CPE ratio was noticed in the genotype Punjab Chhauhara (28.57%) followed by L-40-3 (32.22%) and S-22 (35.86%) compared to local check Arka Meghali (38.06%). These findings of Rana and Kalloo (1989) and Kanthaswamy et al. (2004) in tomato also indicated similar results. Number of fruits per plant, during both the years of experimentation significant differences were found among irrigation levels, genotypes and their interaction and number of fruits per plant decreased as the frequency of irrigation decreased. Per cent reduction in number of fruits per plant was to extent of 26.12 and 21.38 per cent during the first year and pooled data, respectively. The pooled data indicated, significantly higher number of fruits per plant was recorded in the genotype L-38-1 (33.22) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio and followed by L-40-3 (31.03) and IIHR 2274 (30.00) and minimum was noticed in L-28 (13.64). Further, correlation studies indicated positive association with yield at both at 0.4 and 1.2 IW/CPE ratios. Therefore, number of fruits per plant contributes much for plant yield both under control and stress. Thus, the genotypes which showed minimum per cent reduction in number of fruits per plant at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio over 1.2 IW/CPE ratio such as L-38-1, L-40-3, Punjab Chhauhara and S22 are found to be drought tolerant compared to the genotype with higher per cent reduction L-28. These results are in confirmity with earlier findings of Yadav et al. (2003) in potato and Murali et al. (2005) in banana. Increase in the yield is a function of many yield contributing characters like fruit weight and fruit volume. During both the years fruit weight and fruit volume (Table 25 and 53) was decreased as the stress level increased. Fruit weight and fruit volume decreased to the extent of 16.52 and 22.10 per cent, respectively during first year, while, during the second year it was 20.14 and 16.69 per cent, respectively. Irrespective of the irrigation levels, pooled data also indicated that among the genotypes, L-30 (72.97 g) and S-22 (75.22 cc) recorded maximum fruit weight and fruit volume, respectively. However, at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio higher fruit weight and fruit volume was recorded in the genotype L-10 (P) followed by L-30 and S-22. Further, these genotypes also showed minimum per cent reduction in the fruit weight at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio over 1.2 IW/CPE ratio viz., S-22 (15.59%), L-40-3 (16.09%) and L-38-1 (17.14%) compared to check Arka Meghali (20.65%) and L-28 (25.11%) and L-17 (23.51%) (Fig. 7). The positive association of fruit volume and yield at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio (r= 0.348) also supports the above findings. This investigation is in confirmity with the earlier study of Bhagavanthagoudra (2000) in cabbage. The other yield attributes like number of seeds per fruit, pulp weight and pulp to seed ratio which influenced the yield were significantly differed among the genotypes, irrigation levels and their interaction during both the years of experimentation (Table 28 and 56). As the irrigation frequency reduced from 1.2 to 0.4 IW/CPE ratio weight and pulp to seed ratio reduced to the extent of 21.07, 32.55 and 5.10 per cent, respectively during first year of experimentation, while, pooled data indicated 19.42 and 50.30 per cent reduction in the number of seeds and pulp weight (Fig 7). However, at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio higher pulp weight, number of seeds and pulp weight was recorded in L-30, S-22 L 10 (P) and L-40-3 genotypes. The genotype L-40-3 and L-30 also exhibited minimum per cent reduction in pulp weight and pulp to seed ratio at 0.4 over 1.2 IW/CPE ratio. Further, correlation studies indicated a positive association among pulp weight and number of seeds with yield both at 0.4 and 1.2 IW/CPE ratio. This indicates that number of seeds per fruit and pulp weight has direct contribution for increasing yield both under stress and non stress condition. Similar observation was made by Shivadhara and Singh (1995) in french bean and Balasubramanian and Maheswari (1991) in wheat. Morphological features of fruit which depicts drought tolerance such as more number of pubescence on pedicel, shoulder of fruit surface and dark green colour of fruit were predominantly observed in Punjab Chhauhara, L 10 (P), L-40-3 and S-22 genotypes compared to local check Arka Meghali and susceptible characters such as fruit which are glabrous and less number of pubescence on the pedicle was noticed in the susceptible genotype L-17(Plate 4).

Fig 7. Influence of irrigation on the per cent reduction in yield, fruit weight and pulp weight at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio over 1.2 IW/CPE ratio/CPE ratio in tomato genotypes

Plate 4. Morphological features of fruit depicting drought and susceptible characters in tomato genotypes

Significant difference for yield per plant and yield per hectare were noticed among the irrigation levels, genotypes and their interaction during both years of experimentation (Table 22 and 50). Significant yield reduction was noticed as irrigation frequency reduced and reduction was to the extent of 39.0 and 37.7 per cent, respectively. Pooled data on yield per plant at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio showed significantly maximum yield in the genotype S-22 (1.46 kg/plant) followed by L-40-3 (1.25 kg/plant), IIHR 2274 (1.22 kg/plant) and L-38-1 (1.16 kg/plant) and minimum was recorded in the genotype L-28 (0.64 kg/plant). These genotypes also exhibited minimum per cent (11.45 to 46.96 %) reduction in yield at 0.4 over 1.2 IW/CPE ratio when compared to L-28 (67.18%) and local check Arka Meghali (30.49%). These results are in confirmity with Manojkumar et al. (1998) who stated that higher rate of photosynthate translocated to tomato fruits might have increased the fruit size, fruit weight and pulp weight and ultimately resulted in higher yield under the non stressed condition. Yield decreased under stress might be due to the adverse effect of moisture stress on the normal growth and development of plant. Based on the above discussion on biophysical parameters, yield and yield attributing characters it could be inferred that S-22, L-10 (P), L-40-3, IIHR 2274, L-38-1 and L-30 genotypes were found to be drought tolerant compared to L-17 and L-28 and local check Arka Meghali

5.6 Quality parameter


Ascorbic acid content, TSS and lycopene content enhance the fruit quality. Tomato is a rich source of ascorbic acid (vitamin C), which is a potent antioxidant protecting plants against oxidative damages imposed by environmental stress such as drought and ozone. The pooled data indicated that, as the irrigation frequency decreased there was increase in ascorbic acid, TSS and lycopene content. It increased to the extent of 15.6, 37.4 and 7.93 per cent, respectively. However among the genotypes at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio higher ascorbic acid, TSS and lycopene content were recorded in L-30, L 10 (P), IIHR 2274 and GK3 and whereas, L-40-3 recorded minimum. Increasing the ascorbic acid content of leaves might be the effective strategy to protect the thylakoid membrane from oxidative damages in water stressed leaves and resulting in enhanced net photosynthesis and tolerance to drought as evidenced by Tambussi et al. (2000) in wheat and Amin et al. (2006) in tobacco. Similarly, increase in TSS and lycopene under stress may be due to decrease in availability of water as reported by Manojkumar et al. (1998) and Martino et al. (2005) in tomato. Based on the forgoing discussion of quality parameters IIHR 2274, L-30 and GK-3 genotypes performed better under stress condition and were found to be drought tolerant compared to genotypes L-17 and L-28 and local check Arka Meghali. Thus, considering the above discussion on morphological, phenological, pollen viability, growth, biochemical, biophysical, yield and yield attributes and quality studies it can be inferred that genotypes S-22, L-10 (P), L-40-3, IIHR 2274, L-38-1 and L-30 performed better under drought conditions and could be catagorised as drought tolerant genotypes compared to genotypes L-17 and L-28 which can be catagorised as drought susceptible.

5.7 Practical utility


Based on the above discussion it may be concluded that The genotypes S-22, L-10 (P), L-40-3, IIHR 2274, L-38-1 and L-30 identified as drought tolerant source may be included in the future crop improvement programme. The drought screening methodology and the drought tolerant traits like plant height, pubescence, stem girth, per cent reduction in yield, higher RWC, optimum photosynthesis, low transpiration rate, lower leaf temperature, higher proline and chlorophyll content may be used as a selection indices for drought tolerance in new germplasm screening activities.

5.8 Future line of work


1. The genotypes S-22, L-10 (P), L-40-3, IIHR 2274, L-38-1 and L-30 are identified as drought tolerant can be tested under multilocation trails for further confirmation and release of variety under drought condition S-22, L-10 (P), L-40-3, IIHR 2274, L-38-1 and L-30 may be used as a drought tolerant source in breeding tomato for rainfed conditions. Genetic analysis for drought tolerant traits may be worked out.

2. 3.

VI. SUMMARY
Drought is an important abiotic stress affecting the productivity of all rainfed crops, however, no remarkable progress has been made in this area. It is because there is no consistent relationship between measured response and filed performance. Unlike creating epiphytotic condition, it is very difficult to create drought situation in the field. Hence the moisture stress is the major constraint for yield in tomato. The performance of genotypes in terms of productivity is the net result of interaction of genotypes and environment. So far, breeders have made attempts to breed high yielding genotypes under rainfed conditions based on only morphological, yield and yield attributing characters. However, drought tolerant traits include, morphological, physiological, biophysical and biochemical parameters which have a molecular genetic base. Thus, there is a need to identify drought tolerant traits and cultivars to minimize the reduction in production and productivity of crops. With these points in view, field and raised bed experiments were conducted in the present investigation. Initially, 50 tomato genotypes were screened for drought tolerance by using IW/CPE ratio method of scheduling of irrigation under field conditions with an objective of identifying drought tolerant genotypes based on(1) means of IW/CPE ratio (2) per cent reduction at 0.4 over 1.2 IW/CPE ratio (3) correlation co-efficient (4) potential yield at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio which yielded more then 1.28 kg/plant (5) predicted yield based on regression. In successive year, a few identified genotypes were tested in field experiment to confirm the performance of the genotypes under stress with scheduling of irrigation based on morphological, physiological and biochemical traits associated with the drought. Later, to imply acid test for these genotypes and to study the behaviour of major drought associated traits, raised bed experiment were carried out for different cycles and periods of stress based on analysis of meteorological data so as to simulate the drought of natural conditions. The studies were made under field and raised bed conditions for performance of associated traits. The salient features of these experiments are: I. Field experiment 1. Under moisture stress condition of 1.2 IW/CPE ratio the genotype, IIHR 2274 had -1 -1 significantly higher yield (2.30 kg plant and 63.76 t.ha ) and under the sever moisture stress of 0.4 IW/CPE ratio higher yield was noticed in the genotype S-22 -1 -1 (1.46 kg plant and 40.43 t.ha ) and least yield was noticed in the susceptible -1 genotype L-28 (0.64 kg plant ) at 0.4 IW/CPE ratio. 2. Biomass production was recorded higher in the genotypes L-10 (P), at all the growth stages as compared to local check Arka Meghali. S-22 and L-30

3. Irrespective of the irrigation levels, genotypes L-30 recorded maximum fruit weight, whereas, S-22 had maximum fruit volume. 4. Minimum per cent reduction in yield per plant at 0.4 over 1.2 IW/CPE ratio was found in the genotype L-38-1 (11.45%) followed by Punjab Chhauhar (13.19%), L-40-3 (16.67%), S-22 (25.13%) and check, Arka Meghali (30.49%). Maximum yield reduction was observed in the genotype L-28 (67.18%). 5. Among the different biochemical traits, chlorophyll a and proline content was recorded maximum in the genotype L 10 (P) Whereas, chlorophyll b and total chlorophyll, ascorbic acid content and number of pubescence on adaxial and abaxial

was recorded in drought tolerant genotype L-30. While, higher TSS content was observed in the genotype GK-3 and lycopene in IIHR 2274. 6. Hence, considering all the parameters such as morphological, phenological, pollen viability, growth, biochemical, biophysical, yield and yield attributes and quality it can be inferred that genotypes S-22, L-10 (P), L-40-3, IIHR 2274, L-38-1 and L-30 performed better under drought conditions and could be catagorised as drought tolerant genotypes compared to genotypes L-17 and L-28 which can be catagorised as drought susceptible ones and local check Arka Meghali. II Raised bed experiment In raised bed studies, above classified drought tolerant genotypes showed remarkable differences in root traits and pollen viability studies among the drought tolerant genotypes response varied for various characters over their susceptible counter parts. Significantly maximum root length and root to shoot ratio at 45 DAT shoot length at 75 DAT, root density at 45 and 75 DAT and pollen viability at 300C was recorded in the drought tolerant genotype IIHR 2274. While, significantly maximum shoot length at 45 DAT and root weight was recorded in the drought tolerant genotype GK-3. Further, maximum 0 0 pollen viability at 25 C was recorded in the genotype L-30 and at 35 C it was in the genotype L-40-1. In the raised bed itself, significantly higher yield of 1.70 kg plant-1 was observed in the -1 drought tolerant genotype S-22 and this was on par with IIHR 2274 (1.65 kg plant ), L-10 (P) -1 -1 (1.61 kg plant ) and L-30 (1.56 kg plant ). Significantly lower yield was noticed in the -1 susceptible genotype L-28 (0.99 kg plant ). III Character association Yield was associated with various growth, biochemical and yield attributing parameters at different irrigation levels. The yield was significantly correlated with biomass at harvest (0.614) at 5 per cent level of significance and negative association was noticed with stem girth at 45 DAT (-0.645) at 1.2 IW/CPE ratio. At 0.4 IW/CPE ratio, yield was significantly correlated with RWC at 45 and 75 DAT (0.628 and 0.624, respectively) at 5 per cent level of significance. Considering the results of all the there experiments, it could be concluded that S-22, L-40-3, L-10 (P), L-30 and IIHR 2274 were found to be drought tolerant. The drought tolerant genotypes possessed the features of moderately leaf area, higher RWC, more pubescence, higher proline and chlorophyll content, high stomatal conductance, photosynthesis, and internal CO2 concentration. Hence, these indices may be used both to screen and to develop drought tolerance genotypes. In addition, these characters and methodologies may be used in the further crop improvement programme in tomato.

VII. REFERENCES
ADIVAPPAR, N., PATIL, C.P., SWAMY, G.S.K. AND PATIL, P.B., 2003, Influence of VAM on drought tolerance of papaya. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 16(3): 434-437. ALI, A. K., DELBERT, W. H., WILLIAM O. P., 1980, Evaluating leaf water potential, stomatal resistance and canopy surface temperature of tomatoes as indices for irrigation timing. Acta Horticulturae, 100: 181-192. AMIN ELSADIG ELTAYEB, NAOYOSHI KAWANO, GHAZI HAMID BADAWI, HIRONORI KAMINAKA, TAKESHI SANEKATA, ISAO MORISHIMA, TOSHIYUKI SHIBAHARA, SHINOBU INANAGA AND KIYOSHI TANAKA, 2006, Enhanced tolerance to ozone and drought stresses in transgenic tobacco overexpressing dehydroascorbate reductase in cytosol, Physiologia Plantarum, 127: 57. ANNONYMOUS, 2002, Improved cultivation practices of horticulture crops (Kannada). University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, pp. 177-183. ANNONYMOUS, 2004, Horticultural crop statistics of Karnataka state at a glance. Director of Horticulture, Lalbhage, Bangalore, pp. 29. BABU, L., MUTHUKRISHNAN, C.R. AND IRULAPPAN, I., 1982, Proline content as an index of drought resistance in tomato. South Indian Horticulture, 30(1-4): 236-237. BALASUBRAMANIAN, V. AND MAHESWARI, M., 1991, Physiology and yield response of sunflower to water stress at flowering. Indian Journal of Plant Physiology, 34(2): 153-159. BANERJEE, N.C. AND SAHA, B.K., 1985, Effect of different levels of irrigation and potassium on growth and yield of potato. South Indian Horticulture, 33(3): 153-157.
*

BANG, H., SLESKOV, D.I., BENDRA, D.A. AND CROSBY, K., 2004, Effect of irrigation impact on lycopen, soluble solids, firmness and yield of diploid and triploid watermelon in their distinct environment. The Journal of Horticultural Sciences and Biotechnology, 79(6): 885-890.

BANSAL, K.C. AND NAGARAJAN SHANTA, 1986, Leaf water content, stomatal conductance and proline accumulation in leaves of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) in response to water stress. Indian Journal of Plant Physiology, 24(4): 397-404. BARS, H.D. AND WEATHERLY, D.E., 1962, A re-examination of relative turgidity technique for water deficit in leaves. Australian Journal of Biological Sciences, 15: 413-428. BATES, L.S., WALDEREN, R.P. AND TEARE, I.D., 1973, Rapid determination of free proline in water stress studies. Plant and Soil, 39: 205-207. BHAGAVANTHAGOUDRA, K.H. AND ROKHADE, A.K., 2002, Economy of irrigation water in cabbage. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 15(1): 99-103. BHAGAVANTHAGOUDRA, K.H., 2000, Studies on water and nutrient management in cabbage (Brassica oleracea var. capitata L.) cv. Pride of India. Ph. D. Thesis, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad. BHATT, R.M., SRINIVAS RAO, N.K. AND SADASHIVA, A.T., 2002, Rootstock as a source of drought tolerance in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.). Indian Journal of Plant Physiology, 7(4): 338-342.

BLACKMAN, V.H., 1919, The compound interest law and plant growth. Annals of Botany, 33: 353-360. CHOWDHURY, R.S. AND VARMA, S.P., 1997, Dry matter production and partitioning in sweet potato in response to different levels of irrigation. Indian Journal of Plant Physiology, 2(1): 29-32. CHOWDHURY, R.S. AND VARMA, S.P., 1998, Diurnal changes in photosynthetic behavior in sweet potato under different irrigation regimes. Indian Journal of Plant Physiology, 3(2): 86-88. DESHMUKH, P.H., MAGAR, S.S. AND KADAM, J.R., 1996, Response of kharif brinjal to irrigation and nitrogen. Journal of Maharashtra Agricultural University, 21(2): 298299. DEVENDRA KUMAR AND MINHAS, J.S., 1999, Effect of water stress on photosynthesis, productivity and water status in potato. Journal of Indian Potato Association, 26(1&2): 7-10.
*

DHANDA, S. S., SETHI, G. S. AND BEHL, R. K., 2004, Indices of drought tolerance in wheat genotypes at early stages of plant growth. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 190: 6.

DURAISWAMY, V.K., SANTHANA BOSU, S. AND SELVERAJ, K.V., 1992, Studies on sprinkler irrigation for tomato. South Indian Horticulture, 40(3): 184-185. EDWARD MERVAT, 1989, Physiological basis for drought resistance in Lycopersicon species: A study on the various drought avoidance and tolerance mechanism. Ph. D. Thesis, University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore. EHLERINGER, J., 1980, Leaf morphology and reflectance in relation to water and temperature stress. In N.C. Turner and P.J. Jarnereds., Adaptation of plants in water and high temperature stress, Willy Inter Science, New York, pp. 295-308. EHLERINGER, J., BGORKMAN, O. AND MOONEY, H. A., 1976, Leaf pubescence: Effect on absorptions and photosynthesis in desert shrub. Science, 192: 376-377. ELIADES, G. AND ORPHANOS, P.I., 1986, Irrigation of tomatoes grown in unheated greenhouse. Journal of Horticultural Sciences, 61(1): 95-101. GARG, B.K., BURMAN, U. AND KATHUJA, S., 2004, Effect of water stress on moth bean (Vigna aconitifolia (Jacq) Marechal) genotypes. Indian Journal of Plant Physiology, 9(1): 29-35. GARG, B.K., KATHUJA, S., VYAS, S.P. AND LAHIRI, A.N., 2001, Influence of irrigation and nitrogen levels on Indian mustard. Indian Journal of Plant Physiology, 6(3): 289294. GARG, B.K., VYAS, S. P, KATHUJA, S AND LAHIRI, A. N., 1998, Influence of water deficit stress at various growth stages on some enzymes of nitrogen metabolism and yield of cluster bean genotypes. Indian Journal of Plant Physiology, 3(3): 214-218. GOPALKRISHNA, Y.H., RAMACHANDRAPPA, B.K. AND NANJAPPA, H.V., 1996, Effect of scheduling irrigation at different stages on growth and yield of linseed varieties. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 9(3): 411-416. GREGORY, F.G., 1926, The effect of climatic conditions on growth of barley. Annals of Botany, 40: 1-26.

GULATI, J.M.L., MISHRA, M.M., PAUL, J.C. AND SAHU, G.S., 1995, Production potential of chilli (Capsicum annum) under levels of irrigation and nitrogen. Indian Journal of Agronomy, 40(1): 145-146. GUPTA, A. AND RAO, G.G., 1987, Response of brinjal to soil moisture regime and nitrogen fertilization. Indian Journal of Horticulture, 44: 259-264. GUPTA, A., 1987, Effect of nitrogen and irrigation on cabbage production. Indian Journal of Horticulture, 44: 241-244. GUPTA, A., 1989, Note on response of tomato to irrigation and nitrogen. Indian Journal of Horticulture, 46: 401-403. HADLI JYOTHI AND RAIJADHAV, S. B., 2004, Effect of soil moisture stress on growth and physiological attributes of different strains of rangpur lime. Journal of Maharashtra Agricultural University, 29(3): 263-266. HALIL, K., CENGIZ, K., ISMAIL, T.A.S. AND DAVID, H., 2001, The influence of water deficit on vegetative growth, physiology, fruit yield and quality of egg plants. Bulgarian Journal of Plant Physiology, 27(3-4): 34-46. HALOI, B. AND BALDEV, B., 1986, Effect of irrigation on growth attributes in chickpea when grown under different dates of sowing and population pressure. Indian Journal of Plant Physiology, 24(1): 14-27. HARE, P.D. AND CRESS, W. A., 1997, Metabolic implications of stress-induced proline accumulation in plants. Plant Growth Regulation, 21: 79-102. HEGDE, D.M., 1988, Effect of irrigation regimes on growth, yield and water use of sweet pepper (Capsicum annum L.) Indian Journal of Horticulture, 45(3&4): 288-294. HISCOX, J.D. AND ISRAELSTOM, G.F., 1979, A method of extraction of chlorophyll content from leaf tissue without maceration. Canadian Journal of Botany, 57: 1332-1334. INDIRAMMA, P., 1994, Water relations in sweet potato. Advances in Horticulture. Ed. K. L., Chadha and G. G. Nayar, Malhotra Publishing House, New Delhi, 8: 342-358. JACKSON, M.L., 1967, Soil Chemical Analysis. Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, pp.111-192. JADHAV, D.L., RODGE, R.P. AND CHAVAN, D.A., 1992, Effect of irrigation and nitrogen levels on yield of rabi tomato. Journal of Maharashtra Agricultural University, 12(2): 315-316. JADHAV, V.T., PATIL, S.S.D. AND PAWAR, V.S., 1996, Response of bottle gourd to irrigation and nitrogen levels. Journal of Maharashtra Agricultural University, 21(1): 131-132. JANOUDI A.K. AND WIDDERS, I.E., 1993, Water deficits and fruiting affecting carbon assimilation and allocation in cucumber plants. Horticultural Sciences, 28(2): 98100. JANOUDI A.K., WIDDERS, I.E. AND JAMES, A.F., 1993, Water deficits and environmental factors affecting photosynthesis in leaves of cucumber (Cucumis sativus). Journal of American Society of Horticulture Sciences, 118(3): 366-370. KANTHASWAMY, V., NATARAJAN, S., SIBIN, C., VEERARAGAVATHATHAM, D. AND SRINIVASAN, K., 2004, Studies on effect of media, fertigation, mulching and

irrigation package on the performance of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) hybrids under green house. South Indian Horticulture, 52(1-6): 146-151. KUDACHIKAR, V.B., 1995, Morpho-physiological basis for ideotype in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) under rainfed condition. Ph. D. Thesis, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad. KUMAR, A. AND ELSTON, J., 1993, Leaf expansion in Brassica species in response to water stress. Indian Journal of Plant Physiology, 35(4): 220-222. KUSHWAHA, S.R., DESHMUKH, P,S. AND TEJPAL SINGH, 2003, Studies on drought tolerance in chickpea physiological traits, yield and yield components. Indian Journal of Plant Physiology, Special issue: 386-389. MAITI, R.K., AND BIDINGER, F.R., 1979, A simple approach to identification of shootfly tolerance in sorghum. Indian Journal of Plant Protection, 7:135-140. MANGAL, J.L., PANRDITA, M.L. AND BATRA, B., 1982, Effect of irrigation intensities and nitrogen levels on growth and yield of cabbage (Brassica oleracea var. capitata) variety Golden Acre. Haryana Journal of Horticulture Science, 11(1-2): 92-96. MANJUNATHA, M.V., RAJKUMAR, G.R., HEBBARA, M. AND RAVISHANKAR, G., 2004, Effect of drip and surface irrigation on yield and water production efficiency of brinjal (Solanum melongena) in saline vertisols. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 74(11): 583-587. MANOJKUMAR, SINGH, G.P. AND BATRA, B.R., 1998, A note on response of tomato to irrigation and fertility levels. Haryana Journal of Horticultural Science, 27(3): 215217. MARTINO, A., RAIMONDI, G., MEROLA, G., DE PASCALE, S., MAGGIO, A. AND FAGNANO, M., 2005, Can moderate osmotic stress reduce ozone injuries in http://www.unitomato? graz.at/pphwww/mitarb/Mike/Obergurgl/Abstracts/Poster_2.pdf. pp 113-117 MARY, S. AND BALAKRISHNAN, R., 1990, Effect of irrigation, nitrogen and potassium on pod characters and quality of chilli (Capsicum annum L.) cv K-2. South Indian Horticulture, 38(2): 86-89. MEENAKUMARI, SAIN D., VIMALA, Y. AND PAWAN, A., 2004, Physiological parameters governing drought tolerance in maize. Indian Journal of Plant Physiology, 9(2): 203-207. MILTON E. Mc GIFFERN JR., JOHN B. MUSIUNAS AND MORRIS G. HUCK, 1992, Tomato and nightshade (Solanum nigrum L. and S. ptycanthum. Dun.) effects on soil water content. Journal of American Society of Horticultural Sciences, 117(5): 730735. MISHRA, H.P., MISHRA, A.P. AND MAL, B.C., 1994, Effect of irrigation on onion growth in calcarious soil. Indian Journal of Horticulture, 51(1): 90-94. MOLLA Md. N., CHANDRA, A.M. AND GEORGES, T.D., 2003, Effect of water stress at different growth stages on greenhouse tomato yield and quality. Horticulture Science, 38(7): 1389-1393. MUHR, G.R., DUTTA, N.P., SHANKRAMBRAMONEY, H., LELEY, V.R. AND DONAHUE, R.L., 1965, Soil Testing in India, USAID, New Delhi, pp.39-41.

MURALI, K., SRINIVAS, K., THIMMEGOWDA, S., SHANKARANARAYANA, V. AND KALYANAMURTHY. K. N., 2005, Effect of differential irrigation on yield and yield parameters of Elakki banana. Progressive Horticulture, 37 (1) : 21-26. MUTHUVEL, I., THAMBURAJ, S., VEERARAGAVATHATHAM, D. AND KANTHASWAMY, V., 1999, Screening of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) genotypes for high temperature. South Indian Horticulture, 47(1-6): 231-233. NAIDU, T.C.M., RAJU, N. AND NARAYAN, A., 2001, Screening of drought tolerance in green gram (Vigna radiata L.Wilczek) genotypes under receding soil moisture. Indian Journal of Plant Physiology, 6(2): 197-201 NAMAVAYAM, N., 2004, Production of tomato. Kisan World, 31(5): 59-60. NARAYANAPPA, M., THIMMEGOWDA, S., SESHADRI REDDY, S. AND KUMAR, O., 2004, Influence of irrigation intervals and planting geometry on growth and yield components of davana. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 17(2): 224228. NARENDER SINGH, VINOD, C., SHARMA, K.D. AND KUHAD, M.S., 1997, Effect of potassium on water relations; CO2 exchange and plant growth under quantified water stress in chickpea. Indian Journal of Plant Physiology, 2(3): 202-206. NINGANUR, B.T., 2002, Screening cotton genotypes (Gossypium spp.) for tolerance to drought using line source sprinkler irrigation technique. Ph. D. Thesis, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad. OPENA GERALDINE, B. AND PORTER GREGORY, A., 1999, Soil management and supplemental irrigation effects on potato: II. root growth. Agronomy Journal, 91:426431. PANDA, B.B., SHIVAY, Y.S. AND BANDYOPADHYAY, S.K., 2004, Growth and development of Indian mustard (Brassica juncea) under different levels of irrigation and date of sowing. Indian Journal of Plant Physiology, 9(4): 419-425. PANDA, R.K. AND SRIVASTAVA, R.C., 1996, Evaluation and standardisation of sprinkler irrigation technology for field and vegetable crop in uplands. Annual Report, Water Technology Centre for Eastern Region Bhubaneswar. PANSE, V.G. AND SUKHATME, P.V., 1967, Statistical Methods for Agricultural Workers, Indian Council of Agricultural Research Publication, New Delhi, pp.152-174. PIPER, C.S., 1950, Soil and Plant Analysis, Academic Press, New York, pp. 366. PIRJO, M., MARKKU, K., EIJA P. AND SUSANNE S., 1999, Photosynthetic response of drought and salt stressed tomato and turnip rape plants to foliar applied glycinebetaine. Physiologia Plantarum, 105: 45-50. POWER, J.G., WILLS, W.O., GUNES, D.L. AND PEICHMAN, G.A., 1967, Effect of soil temperature, phosphorous and plant age on growth analysis of barley. Agronomy Journal, 59: 231-234. PRABHAKAR, M., SRINIVAS, K. AND HEGDE, D.M., 1993, Physiological analysis of growth and yield of carrot (Daucus carota L.) in relation to irrigation and nitrogen. Indian Journal of Horticulture, 50(3): 251-260. PRESSMAN ETAN, PEET MARY M. and PHARR D. MASON, 2002, The effect of heat stress on tomato pollen characteristics is associated with changes in carbohydrate concentration in the developing anthers. Annals of Botany, 90: 631-636.

RAD, D.V.R. AND SREE VIJAYA PADAMA, S., 1991, Effect of induced moisture stress at different phenological stages on growth and yield of tomato cultivars. South Indian Horticulture, 39(2): 81-87. RADFORD, D.J., 1967, Growth analysis formulae : their use and abuse. Crop Science, 7: 171-175. RAGHUWANSHI, R.K.S. AND VERMA, S.K., 1991, Effect of irrigation frequency and nitrogen levels on potato yield in black cotton soil. Journal of Maharashtra Agricultural University, 16(2): 226-228. RAM BABU, TEWARI, R.N. AND SHARMA, R.K., 1993, Studies on pollen viability, pollen germination and pollen tube growth in relation to fruit set in tomato under low temperature regime. Haryana Journal of Horticulture Science, 22(3): 214-217. RANA, M.K. AND KALLOO, G., 1989, Morphological attributes associated with the adaptation under water deficit condition in tomato. Vegetable Science, 16(1): 32-38. RANGANNA, 1986, Manual of Analysis of Fruits and Vegetable Products. Tata McGraw-Hill Publisher, New Delhi, pp 88-91
*

RATNAYAK, H.H. AND KINCAID, D., 2005, Gas exchange and leaf ultra-structure of Tinnevelly senna and Cassia agnustifolia under drought and nitrogen stress. Crop Science, 45: 840-847.

RAVINDRAKUMAR AND ROBINSON KUJAR, 2003, Role of secondary traits in improving the drought tolerance during flowering stage in rice. Indian Journal of Plant Physiology, 8(3): 236-240. RICK, C. M., 1969, Origin of cultivated tomato, current status and the problem. International Botonical Congress, Abstract XI, pp. 180 SADASIVAM, S. AND MANICKAM, A., 1996, Biochemical methods. II Ed. New Age International Publishers, New Delhi, pp. 184-185. SALVI, B.R., JADHAV, S.N. AND PULKAR, C.S., 1995, Response of bell pepper (Capsicum annum) to irrigation and nitrogen. Indian Journal of Agronomy, 40(3): 474-477. SAXENA, H.K., YADHAV, R.S. AND MATHUR, R.K., 1996, Effect of moisture stress on metabolic activity and grain yield in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) genotypes. Indian Journal of Plant Physiology, 1(4): 303-306. SESTAK, Z., CATASKY, J. AND JARVIS, P.G., 1971, Plant Photosynthetic Production Manual of Methods. Ed. Jank, N. V., The Hauge Publishers, pp. 343-391. SHARMA, R.P., 1985, Studies on water management and plant density in cabbage. Indian Journal of Agronomy, 30(4): 505-508. SHIVADHARA AND SINGH, N.P., 1995, Effect of irrigation schedules on yield attributes, consumptive use of water, water use efficiency and moisture extraction pattern of french bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Indian Journal of Agronomy, 40(4): 620-625. SHUBHRA, DAYAL, J. AND GOSWAMI, C.L., 2003, Effect of phosphorous application on growth, chlorophyll and proline under water deficit in cluster bean (Cyamopsis tetragonaloba L. Taub). Indian Journal of Plant Physiology, 8(2): 150-154. SILK HAUPT-HERTING AND FOCK HEINRICH P., 2000, Exchange of oxygen and its role in energy discipation during drought stress in tomato plants. Physiologia Plantarum, 110: 489-495.

SINGH, N.B. AND SINGH, R.G., 1994, Varietal difference in net assimilation rate and relative growth rate of sugarcane under moisture stress. Indian Journal of Plant Physiology, 37(3): 183-184. SRINIVAS RAO, N. K., 1986, The effect of antitranspirants on stomatal opening, and the proline and relative water contents in tomato. Journal of Horticultural Sciences, 61(3): 369-372. SRINIVAS RAO, N.K. AND BHATT, R.M., 1991, Stomatal frequency, conductance, transpiration rate at different canopy position of water stressed cultivars of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum). Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 61: 434-436. SRINIVAS RAO, N.K. AND BHATT, R.M., 2000, Effect of mepiquat chloride on biomass, photosynthesis and yield in water stressed and irrigated tomato. Indian Journal of Horticulture, 57(2): 139-143. SRINIVAS RAO, N.K. AND BHATT, R.M., 2000, The effects of antitranspirants on stomatal opening, proline and relative water contents in the tomato. Indian Journal of Horticulture Sciences, 61(2): 369-372. SUBRAMANIAN, K.S., SEVARAJ, K.V., SELVAKUMARI, G. AND SHANMUGASUNDARAM, V.S., 1993, Influence of moisture stress regimes and nitrogen on growth and yield of brinjal (Solanum melongena L.) South Indian Horticulture, 41(1): 16-21. SUBRAMANIAN, P., KRISHNASAWAMY, S. AND MARK, D.M., 1998, Influence of irrigation methods and regimes on growth and yield of chillies. South Indian Horticulture, 46(1&2): 99-101. TALWAR, H.S., YANAGIHARA, S. AND TAKEDA, H., 2002, Proline level in floral parts and its role in protecting pollen from high temperature stress in groundnut. Indian Journal of Plant Physiology, 7(4): 324-332. TAMBUSSI, E.A., BARTOLI, C.G., BELTRANO, J., GUIAMET, J.J. AND ARAUS, J.L., 2000, Oxidative damage to thylakoid proteins in water-stressed leaves of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Physiologia Plantarum, 108: 398 - 404. THAKUR P.S., ANJU THAKUR AND KANAUJIA, S.P., 2000, Reversal of water stress. I. Mulching impact on the performance of Capsicum annum under water deficit. Indian Journal of Horticulture, 57(3): 250-254. TSAI HUNG HSIEH, LEE JENT-TURN, CHARNG YEE-YUNG AND CHAN MING TSAIR, M.T., 2002, Tomato plants ectopically expressing Arabidopsis CBF1 show enhanced resistance to water deficit stress. Plant Physiology, 130: 618-626. UPRETI, K.K. AND MURTI, G.S.R, 2005, Water stress induced changes in common polyamines and abscisic acid in french bean. Indian Journal of Plant Physiology, 14(2): 449-450. UPRETI, K.K., MURTI, G.S.R. AND BHUTT, R.M., 2000, Response of pea cultivars to water stress: Change in morpho-physiological characters, endogenous hormones and yield. Vegetable Science, 7(4): 57-61. VIVEKANNADAN, A.S., GUNASENA, H.P.M. AND SIVANAYGAM, T., 1972, Statistical evaluation of the techniques used in the estimation of leaf area of crop plants. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 42: 857-860. VYAS, S. P., GARG, B, K., KATHJU, S. AND LAHIRI, A. N., 2001, Influence of potassium on water relations, photosynthesis, nitrogen metabolism and yield of cluster bean under soil moisture stress. Indian Journal of Plant Physiology, 6(1): 30-37.

WANG, L., KROON, H. DE, BOGEMANN, G.M. AND SMITS, A.J.M., 2005, Partial root drying effects on biomass production in Brassica napus and the significance of root response. Plant and Soil, 276: 313-326. WATSON, D.J., 1952, The physiological basis of variation in yield. Advances in Agronomy, 4: 101-145. YADAV, A.C., AVATAR SINGH, JAGADEEP BRAR AND LAL, S., 2003, Effect of irrigation and plant spacing on growth, yield and water use efficiency of potato cv. Kufri Sutlej. Haryana Journal of Horticulture Science, 32(1&2): 138-140. YADAV, S.K., JYOTHI LAKSHMI, N., MAHESWARI, M., VANAJA, M. AND VENKATESWARLU, B., 2005, Influence of water deficit at vegetative, anthesis and grain filling stages on water relation and grain yield in sorghum. Indian Journal of Plant Physiology, 10 (1): 20-24.

YOSHIDA, S., FORNO, D.D., COCK, J.H. AND GOMEZ, K.A., 1972, Laboratory Manual for Physiological Studies in Rice, IRRI, Manila, Philippines, pp. 67-68.
*

- Original not seen.

Appendix i. Plant height (cm) as influenced by irrigation levels in tomato genotypes


Shoot length (cm) 75 DAT Genotypes IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 1.2 0.4 Mean 30.40 38.34 1. Arka Meghali 37.00 23.80 41.93 34.75 29.25 42.78 2. GK-3 33.50 25.00 47.50 38.05 33.73 43.66 3. IIHR 2274 37.25 30.20 48.85 38.48 30.38 39.38 4. L-10 (P) 37.00 23.75 43.83 34.93 25.88 41.56 5. L-17 31.00 20.75 48.38 34.75 32.58 38.43 6. L-28 37.05 28.10 41.70 35.15 30.88 45.79 7. L-30 36.50 25.25 52.58 39.00 32.53 42.35 8. L-38-1 38.50 26.55 46.60 38.10 36.11 42.10 9. L40-3 40.50 31.73 46.15 38.05 36.53 42.86 10. Punjab Chhauhara 38.25 34.80 45.05 40.67 33.69 42.30 11. S-22 38.41 28.98 46.73 37.88 Mean 36.81 27.17 31.00 46.30 37.25 41.78 31.00 20.75 25.88 41.70 34.75 38.34 Range 40.50 34.80 36.53 52.58 40.67 45.79 S.Em + CD at 5% S.Em + CD at 5% IRRIGATION (I) 0.30 0.87 0.37 1.08 GENOTYPES (G) 0.69 2.41 0.84 2.54 INTERACTION (I x G ) 0.98 2.89 1.22 3.59 NS = Non- significant & DAT = Days after transplanting. Sl. No. 45 DAT HARVEST 1.2 0.4 Mean 51.38 54.50 48.25 55.00 62.00 48.00 64.25 71.50 57.00 58.00 64.50 51.50 62.75 68.50 57.00 51.00 53.00 49.00 53.75 60.00 47.50 55.38 58.50 52.25 46.00 56.00 36.00 47.75 54.00 41.50 50.50 61.00 40.00 60.32 48.00 54.16 53.00 36.00 46.00 71.50 57.00 64.25 S.Em + CD at 5% 1.53 4.50 3.59 10.56 5.08 NS

Appendix ii. Stem girth (mm) as influenced by irrigation levels in tomato genotypes
Stem girth (mm) 75 DAT IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 1.2 0.4 Mean 9.42 1. Arka Meghali 9.46 9.38 14.25 11.04 12.64 9.36 2. GK-3 9.36 9.36 15.37 10.40 12.89 9.41 3. IIHR 2274 9.48 9.33 14.95 10.26 12.61 9.40 4. L-10 (P) 9.50 9.31 14.50 11.82 13.16 9.32 10.26 5. L-17 9.35 9.29 12.40 8.13 9.35 6. L-28 9.46 9.24 14.02 10.58 12.30 7. L-30 9.45 9.44 9.45 13.40 11.04 12.22 9.47 8. L-38-1 9.47 9.46 14.18 12.30 13.24 9.25 9. L40-3 9.28 9.21 13.85 11.57 12.71 9.41 10. Punjab Chhauhara 9.44 9.38 14.92 12.96 13.94 9.33 11. S-22 9.48 9.18 13.26 12.09 12.67 Mean 9.43 9.33 9.38 14.10 11.11 12.60 9.28 9.18 9.25 12.40 8.13 10.26 Range 9.50 9.46 9.47 15.37 12.96 13.94 S.Em + CD at 5% S.Em + CD at 5% IRRIGATION (I) 0.02 0.05 0.19 0.57 GENOTYPES (G) 0.04 0.12 0.45 1.33 INTERACTION (I x G ) 0.06 NS 0.64 NS NS = Non- significant & DAT = Days after transplanting. Sl. No. Genotypes 45 DAT

Appendix iii. Number of branches per plant as influenced by irrigation schedules in tomato genotypes.
No. of braches. plant 45 DAT 75 DAT Sl. Genotypes IW/CPE ratio No. 1.2 0.4 Mean 1.2 0.4 Mean 1. Arka Meghali 4.00 9.00 6.50 31.25 26.25 28.75 2. GK-3 7.00 12.00 9.50 17.25 15.50 16.38 3. IIHR 2274 6.50 5.50 6.00 21.50 16.75 19.13 4. L-10 (P) 6.00 5.00 5.50 17.50 15.75 16.63 5. L-17 9.00 6.50 7.75 13.00 8.75 10.88 6. L-28 6.50 6.00 6.25 16.75 15.25 16.00 7. L-30 7.00 9.50 8.25 14.00 16.00 15.00 8. L-38-1 8.00 6.50 7.25 10.75 9.25 10.00 9. L40-3 3.50 6.00 4.75 15.75 16.75 16.25 10. Punjab Chhauhara 7.50 8.00 7.75 24.25 14.00 19.13 11. S-22 6.00 13.00 9.50 25.75 15.50 20.63 Mean 6.45 7.91 7.18 18.89 15.43 17.16 3.50 5.00 4.75 10.75 8.75 10.00 Range 9.00 13.00 9.50 31.25 26.25 28.75 S.Em + CD at 5% S.Em + CD at 5% IRRIGATION (I) 0.35 1.03 0.54 1.45 GENOTYPES (G) 0.82 2.42 1.16 3.41 INTERACTION (I x G ) 1.16 3.42 1.64 4.82 DAT = Days after transplanting.
-1

Appendix iv. Days to flowering cessation and days to wilting of tomato genotypes as influenced by irrigation levels
Sl. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Mean Range IRRIGATION (I) GENOTYPES (G) IxG NS = Non-significant. Days to flowering Days to wilting cessation IW/CPE ratio/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 1.2 0.4 Mean 81.38 90.25 89.50 73.25 96.25 84.25 89.75 99.13 94.25 85.25 105.25 93.00 87.88 95.88 97.00 78.75 101.00 90.75 94.75 77.75 86.25 103.25 94.50 98.88 79.75 90.63 86.25 73.25 94.50 86.75 80.50 88.38 87.50 73.50 92.75 84.00 88.63 100.38 95.50 81.75 109.75 91.00 84.75 96.13 91.50 78.00 100.75 91.50 86.75 101.13 92.50 81.00 108.00 94.25 86.38 95.75 95.75 77.00 100.50 91.00 84.25 98.38 93.25 75.25 101.50 95.25 92.52 77.70 85.12 101.23 90.57 95.90 86.25 73.25 79.75 92.75 84.00 88.38 97.00 85.25 89.75 109.75 95.25 101.13 S.Em + S.Em + CD at 5% S.Em + 1.18 3.48 1.15 3.39 2.77 NS 2.70 7.95 3.92 NS 3.82 NS

Genotypes Arka Meghali GK-3 IIHR 2274 L-10 (P) L-17 L-28 L-30 L-38-1 L40-3 Punjab Chhauhara S-22

Appendix v. Chlorophyll contents (mg.g-1 of fresh weight) as influenced by irrigation levels in tomato genotypes at 45 DAT
Sl. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Mean Range IRRIGATION (I) GENOTYPES (G) INTERACTION (I x G ) NS = Non- significant. Chlorophyll a Genotypes Arka Meghali GK-3 IIHR 2274 L-10 (P) L-17 L-28 L-30 L-38-1 L40-3 Punjab Chhauhara S-22 1.2 0.4 Mean 0.958 1.107 0.809 1.177 1.185 1.169 1.014 1.066 0.963 1.148 1.179 1.117 1.192 1.324 1.061 1.159 1.378 0.940 1.140 1.180 1.101 1.048 1.239 0.858 1.204 1.184 1.194 1.047 1.105 0.990 0.898 0.950 0.846 1.174 1.003 1.089 0.950 0.809 0.898 1.378 1.184 1.194 S.Em + S.Em + 0.023 0.067 0.053 0.157 0.075 NS Chlorophyll b IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 0.189 0.197 0.180 0.239 0.245 0.234 0.264 0.276 0.253 0.236 0.256 0.216 0.302 0.302 0.303 0.249 0.314 0.184 0.477 0.689 0.266 0.259 0.279 0.240 0.388 0.374 0.381 0.296 0.305 0.287 0.319 0.356 0.281 0.328 0.256 0.292 0.197 0.180 0.189 0.689 0.374 0.477 CD at 5% S.Em + 0.004 0.012 0.009 0.027 0.013 0.038 Total chlorophyll 1.2 0.4 Mean 1.146 1.304 0.989 1.416 1.430 1.402 1.278 1.342 1.215 1.384 1.435 1.333 1.495 1.626 1.364 1.408 1.692 1.124 1.617 1.868 1.367 1.307 1.517 1.098 1.592 1.557 1.574 1.343 1.410 1.277 1.216 1.306 1.127 1.502 1.259 1.380 1.304 0.989 1.146 1.868 1.557 1.617 CD at 5% S.Em + 0.023 0.066 0.053 0.156 0.075 0.220

Appendix vi. Ascorbic acid, proline and TSS content as influenced by irrigation levels in tomato genotypes
Sl. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Mean Range IRRIGATION (I) GENOTYPES (G) INTERACTION (I x G ) NS = Non-significant. Ascorbic acid -1 (mg 100 g) 1.2 0.4 Mean 15.78 13.67 17.90 11.21 9.07 13.35 16.70 13.32 20.08 20.19 18.17 22.22 16.60 16.04 17.17 18.07 13.17 22.97 20.68 17.97 23.40 10.38 15.18 12.78 12.71 12.00 13.41 16.48 16.42 16.53 13.45 11.78 15.12 13.82 17.94 15.88 9.07 13.35 11.21 18.17 23.40 20.68 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.07 0.22 0.17 0.51 0.24 0.71 Proline -1 (g g of fresh weight) IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 14.91 13.52 16.30 9.04 8.16 9.93 11.35 10.10 12.61 19.09 17.19 20.98 11.68 10.96 12.41 10.83 9.87 11.79 13.02 10.97 15.08 7.06 10.37 8.72 9.98 9.10 10.87 13.09 11.08 15.10 17.08 13.77 20.39 11.07 14.17 12.62 7.06 9.93 8.72 17.19 20.98 19.09 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.39 1.16 0.92 2.71 1.30 NS TSS ( Brix) 1.2 4.05 5.15 3.63 4.13 4.25 3.05 2.98 3.38 3.43 3.55 3.20 3.71 2.98 5.15 S.Em + 0.10 0.23 0.32 0.4 Mean 4.25 4.45 6.14 7.13 5.91 8.19 6.05 7.98 4.35 4.45 5.48 7.90 5.80 8.63 3.85 3.61 3.89 4.35 3.86 4.18 3.70 4.20 5.94 4.82 3.85 3.61 8.63 6.14 CD at 5% 0.28 0.66 0.93

Genotypes Arka Meghali GK-3 IIHR 2274 L-10 (P) L-17 L-28 L-30 L-38-1 L40-3 Punjab Chhauhara S-22

Appendix vii. Leaf area (dm2.plant-1) of tomato genotypes as influenced by irrigation levels at various growth stages
75 DAT IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 1.2 0.4 Mean 8.35 22.79 1. Arka Meghali 9.08 7.61 24.51 21.08 12.04 24.58 2. GK-3 12.74 11.35 26.37 22.79 10.32 31.32 3. IIHR 2274 10.79 9.85 36.62 26.03 9.92 30.18 4. L-10 (P) 10.95 8.89 31.45 28.91 10.04 28.59 5. L-17 11.83 8.25 36.08 21.11 10.11 28.99 6. L-28 11.13 9.10 33.28 24.70 10.10 32.90 7. L-30 10.84 9.36 38.87 26.93 10.07 33.74 8. L-38-1 10.77 9.37 37.12 30.37 9. L40-3 10.91 9.34 10.13 29.19 20.07 24.63 15.09 30.22 10. Punjab Chhauhara 16.34 13.84 33.20 27.23 8.50 31.35 11. S-22 9.46 7.54 34.16 28.54 Mean 11.35 9.50 10.42 32.81 25.25 29.03 9.08 7.54 8.35 24.51 20.07 22.79 Range 16.34 13.84 15.09 38.87 30.37 33.74 S.Em + CD at 5% S.Em + CD at 5% IRRIGATION (I) 0.15 0.45 0.35 1.01 GENOTYPES (G) 0.36 1.06 0.81 2.38 INTERACTION (I x G ) 0.51 NS 1.14 3.36 NS = Non- significant & DAT = Days after transplanting. Sl. No. Genotypes 45 DAT AT HARVEST 1.2 0.4 Mean 58.55 64.55 52.55 50.93 52.52 49.34 68.19 71.11 65.28 70.95 95.62 46.28 54.04 73.53 34.54 65.53 81.99 49.07 72.49 91.68 53.31 70.52 84.87 56.17 75.59 39.94 57.76 63.63 68.70 58.56 78.63 84.82 72.44 76.82 52.50 64.66 52.52 34.54 50.93 95.62 72.44 78.63 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.66 1.95 1.56 4.58 2.20 6.47

Appendix viii. Influence of irrigation levels on leaf area index (LAI) of tomato genotypes at various growth stages
75 DAT IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 1.2 0.4 Mean 0.232 0.633 1. Arka Meghali 0.252 0.211 0.681 0.585 0.335 0.683 2. GK-3 0.354 0.315 0.733 0.633 0.287 0.870 3. IIHR 2274 0.300 0.274 1.017 0.723 0.276 0.838 4. L-10 (P) 0.304 0.247 0.874 0.803 5. L-17 0.329 0.229 0.279 1.002 0.586 0.794 0.281 0.805 6. L-28 0.309 0.253 0.925 0.686 0.281 0.914 7. L-30 0.301 0.260 1.080 0.748 0.280 0.937 8. L-38-1 0.299 0.260 1.031 0.844 0.281 0.684 9. L40-3 0.303 0.259 0.811 0.557 0.419 0.839 10. Punjab Chhauhara 0.454 0.385 0.922 0.757 0.236 0.871 11. S-22 0.263 0.209 0.949 0.793 Mean 0.315 0.264 0.290 0.911 0.701 0.806 0.252 0.209 0.232 0.681 0.557 0.633 Range 0.454 0.385 0.419 1.080 0.844 0.937 S.Em + CD at 5% S.Em + CD at 5% IRRIGATION (I) 0.004 0.012 0.010 0.028 GENOTYPES (G) 0.010 0.029 0.023 0.067 INTERACTION (I x G ) 0.014 NS 0.032 0.094 NS = Non- significant & DAT = Days after transplanting. Sl. No. Genotypes 45 DAT AT HARVEST 1.2 0.4 Mean 1.626 1.793 1.460 1.415 1.459 1.370 1.894 1.975 1.813 1.971 2.656 1.285 2.043 0.959 1.501 1.820 2.277 1.363 2.014 2.547 1.481 1.959 2.358 1.560 1.605 2.100 1.109 1.767 1.908 1.627 2.184 2.356 2.012 2.134 1.458 1.796 1.459 0.959 1.415 2.656 2.012 2.184 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.018 0.054 0.043 0.126 0.061 0.178

Appendix ix. Influence of irrigation levels on leaf area duration (days) of tomato genotypes at various growth stages
Sl. No. 45-75 DAT Genotypes 45 DAT- HARVEST IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 51.10 56.25 45.95 49.85 46.36 48.10 59.97 62.56 57.39 61.77 81.41 42.14 48.95 65.21 32.69 57.78 71.13 44.43 63.09 78.31 47.87 61.56 73.06 50.07 51.86 66.08 37.64 60.13 64.96 55.31 66.56 72.02 61.10 67.35 47.36 57.35 49.85 32.69 48.10 81.41 61.10 66.56 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.55 1.62 1.29 3.79 1.82 5.36 75 DAT-HARVEST 1.2 0.4 Mean 28.24 30.93 25.56 27.39 25.04 26.22 34.55 37.40 31.70 35.11 44.12 26.11 28.69 38.06 19.32 32.82 40.02 25.61 36.60 45.33 27.86 36.20 42.36 30.05 28.61 36.38 20.84 32.59 35.38 29.79 38.19 41.31 35.06 38.06 26.99 32.53 27.39 19.32 26.22 45.33 35.06 38.19 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.24 0.71 0.57 1.67 0.81 2.37

1.2 0.4 Mean 12.97 14.00 11.95 16.30 14.22 15.26 17.35 19.75 14.95 16.71 17.67 15.75 16.10 19.96 12.23 16.29 18.51 14.08 17.92 20.71 15.12 18.26 19.95 16.56 14.48 16.71 12.25 18.88 20.64 17.12 16.60 18.17 15.03 18.40 14.48 16.44 14.00 11.95 12.97 Range 20.71 17.12 18.88 S.Em + CD at 5% IRRIGATION (I) 0.15 0.44 GENOTYPES (G) 0.35 1.04 INTERACTION (I x G ) 0.50 1.47 DAT= Days after transplanting. 1. Arka Meghali 2. GK-3 3. IIHR 2274 4. L-10 (P) 5. L-17 6. L-28 7. L-30 8. L-38-1 9. L40-3 10. Punjab Chhauhara 11. S-22 Mean

Appendix x. Influence of irrigation levels on absolute growth rate (g.day1 ) in tomato genotypes at various growth stages
Sl. No. 45-75 DAT Genotypes Arka Meghali GK-3 IIHR 2274 L-10 (P) L-17 L-28 L-30 L-38-1 L40-3 Punjab Chhauhara S-22 45 DAT- HARVEST IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 0.21 0.25 0.18 0.24 0.28 0.21 0.32 0.41 0.23 0.30 0.40 0.20 0.23 0.33 0.13 0.27 0.37 0.17 0.30 0.44 0.16 0.31 0.39 0.23 0.35 0.09 0.22 0.27 0.31 0.23 0.38 0.43 0.32 0.36 0.20 0.28 0.25 0.09 0.21 0.44 0.32 0.38 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.01 0.04 0.03 0.08 0.04 NS 75 DAT-HARVEST 1.2 0.42 0.30 0.36 0.67 0.35 0.51 0.53 0.45 0.52 0.35 0.55 0.46 0.30 0.67 S.Em + 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.4 Mean 0.36 0.31 0.26 0.22 0.31 0.25 0.47 0.28 0.24 0.13 0.35 0.19 0.33 0.14 0.33 0.21 0.09 0.30 0.29 0.24 0.49 0.43 0.23 0.34 0.09 0.24 0.43 0.49 CD at 5% 0.08 NS NS

1.2 0.4 Mean 0.09 0.10 0.08 0.23 0.26 0.20 0.33 0.45 0.22 0.16 0.18 0.14 0.22 0.31 0.14 0.20 0.24 0.16 0.27 0.36 0.17 0.30 0.35 0.25 0.21 0.08 0.15 0.26 0.29 0.23 0.28 0.32 0.24 0.28 0.17 0.23 0.10 0.08 0.09 Range 0.45 0.25 0.33 S.Em + CD at 5% IRRIGATION (I) 0.01 0.03 GENOTYPES (G) 0.02 0.07 INTERACTION (I x G ) 0.03 NS NS = Non- significant & DAT = Days after transplanting. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Mean

Appendix xi. Crop growth rate (g.m-2.day-1) of tomato genotypes as influenced by irrigation levels at various growth stages
45 DAT- HARVEST IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 1.2 0.4 Mean 0.25 0.59 1. Arka Meghali 0.28 0.21 0.68 0.50 2. GK-3 0.73 0.57 0.65 0.77 0.59 0.68 0.93 0.89 3. IIHR 2274 1.25 0.61 1.14 0.65 0.44 0.84 4. L-10 (P) 0.51 0.38 1.12 0.55 0.61 0.64 5. L-17 0.85 0.38 0.91 0.36 0.56 0.75 6. L-28 0.68 0.44 1.02 0.47 0.74 0.82 7. L-30 1.00 0.48 1.21 0.43 0.82 0.86 8. L-38-1 0.96 0.68 1.09 0.64 0.41 0.61 9. L40-3 0.58 0.23 0.97 0.24 0.71 0.76 10. Punjab Chhauhara 0.79 0.63 0.87 0.64 0.78 1.04 11. S-22 0.89 0.67 1.19 0.90 Mean 0.77 0.48 0.63 1.00 0.54 0.77 0.28 0.21 0.25 0.68 0.24 0.59 Range 1.25 0.68 0.93 1.21 0.90 1.04 S.Em + CD at 5% S.Em + CD at 5% IRRIGATION (I) 0.03 0.08 0.03 0.10 GENOTYPES (G) 0.07 0.20 0.08 0.23 INTERACTION (I x G ) 0.09 NS 0.11 NS NS = Non- significant & DAT = Days after transplanting. Sl. No. Genotypes 45-75 DAT 75 DAT-HARVEST 1.2 1.17 0.83 1.01 1.86 0.98 1.43 1.46 1.25 1.44 0.96 1.54 1.27 0.83 1.86 S.Em + 0.08 0.18 0.25 0.4 Mean 1.01 0.85 0.61 0.72 0.85 0.69 1.31 0.76 0.67 0.35 0.97 0.52 0.92 0.38 0.91 0.58 0.84 0.24 0.81 0.66 1.36 1.18 0.62 0.94 0.24 0.67 1.18 1.36 CD at 5% 0.22 NS NS

Appendix xii. Net assimilation rate (NAR) (g.dm-2.day-1 X 102) of tomato genotypes as influenced by irrigation levels at various growth stages
45 DAT- HARVEST IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 1.2 0.4 Mean 1. Arka Meghali 0.28 0.25 0.27 0.38 0.34 0.36 0.58 0.39 2. GK-3 0.61 0.54 0.43 0.35 0.75 0.45 3. IIHR 2274 0.92 0.57 0.56 0.35 0.38 0.42 4. L-10 (P) 0.41 0.35 0.45 0.39 0.52 0.36 5. L-17 0.61 0.44 0.42 0.31 0.48 0.38 6. L-28 0.53 0.43 0.45 0.31 0.58 0.38 7. L-30 0.71 0.45 0.50 0.27 0.65 0.43 8. L-38-1 0.71 0.60 0.48 0.38 0.38 0.32 9. L40-3 0.49 0.26 0.45 0.18 0.51 0.35 10. Punjab Chhauhara 0.52 0.50 0.37 0.32 0.69 0.52 11. S-22 0.73 0.66 0.54 0.49 Mean 0.59 0.46 0.53 0.46 0.33 0.40 0.28 0.25 0.27 0.37 0.18 0.32 Range 0.92 0.66 0.75 0.56 0.49 0.52 S.Em + CD at 5% S.Em + CD at 5% IRRIGATION (I) 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.06 GENOTYPES (G) 0.05 0.16 0.05 NS INTERACTION (I x G ) 0.07 NS 0.06 NS NS = Non- significant & DAT = Days after transplanting. Sl. No. Genotypes 45-75 DAT 75 DAT-HARVEST 1.2 0.44 0.34 0.31 0.50 0.29 0.41 0.37 0.34 0.46 0.31 0.43 0.38 0.29 0.50 S.Em + 0.03 0.07 0.10 0.4 Mean 0.39 0.41 0.31 0.28 0.28 0.25 0.42 0.33 0.25 0.20 0.32 0.23 0.26 0.15 0.28 0.22 0.30 0.13 0.28 0.25 0.41 0.39 0.26 0.32 0.13 0.25 0.39 0.42 CD at 5% 0.09 NS NS

Appendix xiii. Influence of irrigation levels on relative growth rate (RGR) (g.g-1.day-1 x 102) in tomato genotypes at various growth stages
45 DAT- HARVEST IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 1.2 0.4 Mean 0.23 0.44 1. Arka Meghali 0.23 0.23 0.45 0.43 2. GK-3 0.65 0.61 0.63 0.58 0.54 0.56 0.76 0.63 3. IIHR 2274 0.93 0.59 0.73 0.53 0.32 0.47 4. L-10 (P) 0.32 0.32 0.55 0.39 0.49 0.45 5. L-17 0.58 0.41 0.53 0.36 0.46 0.50 6. L-28 0.50 0.42 0.59 0.40 0.53 0.49 7. L-30 0.65 0.42 0.64 0.35 0.64 0.57 8. L-38-1 0.66 0.62 0.63 0.52 0.36 0.42 9. L40-3 0.47 0.25 0.61 0.23 0.58 0.52 10. Punjab Chhauhara 0.59 0.56 0.55 0.50 0.60 0.64 11. S-22 0.61 0.59 0.65 0.63 Mean 0.56 0.46 0.51 0.59 0.44 0.52 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.45 0.23 0.42 Range 0.93 0.62 0.76 0.73 0.63 0.64 S.Em + CD at 5% S.Em + CD at 5% IRRIGATION (I) 0.02 0.06 0.02 0.06 GENOTYPES (G) 0.05 0.14 0.05 0.13 INTERACTION (I x G ) 0.07 NS 0.06 NS NS = Non- significant & DAT = Days after transplanting. Sl. No. Genotypes 45-75 DAT 75 DAT-HARVEST 1.2 0.4 Mean 0.70 0.71 0.68 0.51 0.46 0.49 0.48 0.49 0.47 0.65 0.82 0.48 0.39 0.48 0.29 0.55 0.71 0.39 0.45 0.63 0.27 0.48 0.58 0.39 0.50 0.78 0.21 0.46 0.50 0.42 0.68 0.70 0.67 0.63 0.43 0.53 0.48 0.21 0.39 0.82 0.68 0.70 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.04 0.13 0.10 NS 0.15 NS

Appendix xiv. Influence of irrigation levels on specific leaf weight (mg.dm-2) in tomato genotypes at various growth stages
75 DAT IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 1.2 0.4 Mean 1. Arka Meghali 493.3 589.7 541.5 804.9 866.4 835.7 2. GK-3 454.9 620.5 537.7 869.2 950.3 909.7 3. IIHR 2274 362.6 584.1 473.4 609.3 841.3 725.3 4. L-10 (P) 406.7 757.4 582.0 559.0 1067.6 813.3 5. L-17 464.6 614.9 539.8 964.2 894.4 929.3 6. L-28 364.7 461.2 412.9 771.4 687.5 729.5 7. L-30 358.4 612.1 485.3 570.2 863.6 716.9 8. L-38-1 403.2 500.3 451.7 874.8 737.8 806.3 9. L40-3 414.3 925.1 669.7 486.3 1171.0 828.7 10. Punjab Chhauhara 419.9 570.2 495.0 846.8 832.9 839.9 11. S-22 471.6 969.8 720.7 645.6 1240.9 943.3 Mean 419.5 655.0 537.2 727.4 923.1 825.2 358.4 461.2 412.9 486.3 687.5 716.9 Range 493.3 969.8 720.7 964.2 1240.9 943.3 S.Em + CD at 5% S.Em + CD at 5% IRRIGATION (I) 38.3 112.6 52.9 155.4 GENOTYPES (G) 89.8 NS 124.0 NS INTERACTION (I x G ) 127.0 NS 175.3 NS NS = Non- significant & DAT = Days after transplanting. Sl. No. Genotypes 45 DAT AT HARVEST 1.2 0.4 Mean 978.2 1067.6 1022.9 1210.2 1201.8 1206.0 1106.8 1249.3 1178.0 925.1 1176.6 1050.9 1243.7 1168.3 1206.0 1201.8 1151.5 1176.6 1129.1 1185.0 1157.1 1196.2 1129.1 1162.7 1078.8 1109.6 1094.2 1215.8 1277.2 1246.5 1090.0 1344.3 1217.2 1125.1 1187.3 1156.2 925.1 1067.6 1022.9 1243.7 1344.3 1246.5 S.Em + CD at 5% 21.3 NS 50.0 NS 70.7 NS

Appendix xv. Influence of irrigation levels on specific leaf area (cm2.mg1 ) in tomato genotypes at various growth stages
75 DAT IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 1.2 0.4 Mean 0.182 0.119 1. Arka Meghali 0.235 0.128 0.156 0.082 2. GK-3 0.250 0.200 0.225 0.170 0.148 0.159 0.191 0.129 3. IIHR 2274 0.220 0.162 0.135 0.124 0.205 0.138 4. L-10 (P) 0.273 0.136 0.179 0.096 0.215 0.147 5. L-17 0.291 0.138 0.206 0.088 0.207 0.139 6. L-28 0.238 0.176 0.150 0.129 0.230 0.148 7. L-30 0.291 0.169 0.177 0.119 0.190 0.117 8. L-38-1 0.216 0.164 0.115 0.119 0.246 0.155 9. L40-3 0.275 0.217 0.149 0.162 0.228 0.145 10. Punjab Chhauhara 0.283 0.174 0.166 0.125 0.188 0.134 11. S-22 0.206 0.170 0.143 0.125 Mean 0.253 0.167 0.210 0.159 0.120 0.139 0.206 0.128 0.182 0.115 0.082 0.117 Range 0.291 0.217 0.246 0.206 0.162 0.159 S.Em + CD at 5% S.Em + CD at 5% IRRIGATION (I) 0.011 0.032 0.009 0.025 GENOTYPES (G) 0.025 NS 0.020 NS INTERACTION (I x G ) 0.036 NS 0.028 NS NS = Non- significant & DAT = Days after transplanting. Sl. No. Genotypes 45 DAT AT HARVEST 1.2 0.4 Mean 0.084 0.092 0.075 0.084 0.089 0.086 0.083 0.083 0.083 0.097 0.109 0.085 0.092 0.093 0.091 0.080 0.082 0.078 0.087 0.089 0.084 0.083 0.081 0.086 0.087 0.086 0.087 0.085 0.090 0.080 0.098 0.102 0.094 0.090 0.085 0.087 0.081 0.075 0.080 0.109 0.094 0.098 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.002 0.005 0.004 0.012 0.006 NS

Appendix xvi. Biomass duration (kg.day-1) of tomato genotypes under different irrigation levels at various growth stages
Sl. No. 45 75 DAT Genotypes Arka Meghali GK-3 IIHR 2274 L-10 (P) L-17 L-28 L-30 L-38-1 L40-3 Punjab Chhauhara S-22 45 DAT Harvest IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 1.18 1.34 1.03 1.08 1.19 0.96 1.26 1.44 1.08 1.52 1.83 1.21 1.20 1.52 0.88 1.28 1.54 1.03 1.40 1.71 1.08 1.34 1.58 1.10 1.16 1.44 0.87 1.41 1.14 1.27 1.47 1.66 1.28 1.51 1.06 1.29 1.19 0.87 1.08 1.83 1.28 1.52 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.02 0.06 0.04 0.13 0.06 0.18 75 DAT Harvest 1.2 0.4 Mean 0.57 0.65 0.50 0.58 0.64 0.51 0.70 0.82 0.57 0.75 0.90 0.60 0.63 0.80 0.45 0.66 0.79 0.52 0.73 0.91 0.56 0.72 0.85 0.59 0.58 0.73 0.43 0.75 0.60 0.68 0.77 0.88 0.67 0.79 0.55 0.67 0.64 0.43 0.57 0.91 0.67 0.77 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.06 0.03 0.09

1.2 0.4 Mean 0.51 0.57 0.45 0.49 0.54 0.44 0.57 0.65 0.50 0.65 0.75 0.56 0.56 0.69 0.43 0.57 0.65 0.49 0.64 0.74 0.54 0.61 0.69 0.52 0.52 0.59 0.44 0.64 0.53 0.59 0.62 0.70 0.54 0.66 0.49 0.58 0.54 0.43 0.49 Range 0.75 0.56 0.65 S.Em + CD at 5% IRRIGATION (I) 0.01 0.01 GENOTYPES (G) 0.01 0.03 INTERACTION (I x G ) 0.02 0.05 DAT= Days after transplanting. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Mean

Appendix xvii. Relative water content (per cent RWC) of tomato genotypes as influenced by irrigation levels at various growth stages
Sl. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Mean Range 45 DAT Genotypes Arka Meghali GK-3 IIHR 2274 L-10 (P) L-17 L-28 L-30 L-38-1 L40-3 Punjab Chhauhara S-22 1.2 69.22 69.43 75.38 71.43 63.00 60.20 72.85 78.93 69.41 69.10 74.88 70.35 60.20 78.93 0.4 64.50 53.38 50.20 60.35 55.90 43.20 67.55 64.53 67.70 60.70 71.70 59.97 43.20 71.70 IW/CPE ratio Mean 1.2 66.86 66.55 61.40 57.19 62.79 65.75 65.89 66.25 59.45 60.55 51.70 51.35 70.20 62.43 71.73 65.28 68.56 65.33 64.90 54.98 73.29 73.75 65.16 62.67 51.70 51.35 73.29 73.75 75 DAT 0.4 59.05 50.90 41.56 59.00 53.85 40.85 58.05 61.00 63.19 50.72 62.35 54.59 40.85 63.19 Mean 62.80 54.05 53.65 62.63 57.20 46.10 60.24 63.14 64.26 52.85 68.05 58.63 46.10 68.05

IRRIGATION (I) GENOTYPES (G) INTERACTION (I x G ) DAT = Days after transplanting.

S.Em + 0.34 0.81 1.14

CD at 5% 1.01 2.37 3.35

S.Em + 0.23 0.52 0.74

CD at 5% 0.65 1.53 2.17

Appendix xviii. Number of fruiting cluster per plant and number of fruits per plant at 45 DAT as influenced by irrigation levels in tomato genotypes
Sl. No. No. of fruiting cluster per plant 1.2 4.50 5.50 8.00 6.50 4.00 3.50 5.50 6.00 6.00 5.50 0.4 2.50 2.50 3.50 2.00 2.50 2.50 2.50 3.50 3.50 2.50 Mean 3.50 4.00 5.75 4.25 3.25 3.00 4.00 4.75 4.75 4.00 No. of fruits per plant IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 19.48 16.43 17.96 31.28 25.52 28.40 36.46 27.51 31.98 26.40 19.31 22.86 29.23 25.25 27.24 29.72 12.46 21.09 26.75 15.32 21.04 30.94 30.35 30.65 31.46 29.31 30.38 15.70 15.15 15.42 Yield (kg/plant) 1.2 1.29 1.64 2.21 1.98 1.51 1.84 2.08 1.08 1.38 0.87 0.4 0.88 0.92 1.15 1.26 1.02 0.59 0.98 1.07 1.18 0.83 Mean 1.08 1.28 1.68 1.62 1.26 1.22 1.53 1.08 1.28 0.85

Genotypes

1. Arka Meghali 2. GK-3 3. IIHR 2274 4. L-10 (P) 5. L-17 6. L-28 7. L-30 8. L-38-1 9. L40-3 10 . Punjab Chhauhara 11 . S-22 Mean

7.00 8.50 5.50 5.77 3.00 4.39 3.50 2.00 3.00 Range 8.50 5.50 7.00 S.Em + CD at 5% IRRIGATION (I) 0.24 0.72 GENOTYPES (G) 0.57 1.68 INTERACTION (I x G ) 0.81 NS DAT= Days after transplanting.

24.94 23.45 24.19 27.49 21.82 24.66 15.70 12.46 15.42 36.46 30.35 31.98 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.49 1.43 1.14 3.36 1.61 4.74

1.64 1.89 1.40 1.62 1.03 1.32 0.87 0.59 0.85 2.21 1.40 1.68 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.02 0.06 0.05 0.13 0.06 0.19

Appendix xix. Yield per plant and yield per hectare as influenced by irrigation levels in tomato genotypes
Sl. No. Genotypes Yield (kg/plant) Yield (t/ha) IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 1.2 0.4 Mean 1.08 35.75 24.50 30.13 1.29 0.88 1.28 45.50 25.50 35.50 1.64 0.92 1.68 61.25 31.89 46.57 2.21 1.15 1.62 55.00 36.63 45.81 1.98 1.26 1.26 42.00 28.25 35.13 1.51 1.02 1.22 51.13 16.50 33.81 1.84 0.59 1.53 57.75 27.25 42.50 2.08 0.98 1.08 30.00 29.75 29.88 1.08 1.07 1.28 38.25 32.75 35.50 1.38 1.18 0.85 24.25 23.00 23.63 0.87 0.83 1.64 52.50 38.75 45.63 1.89 1.40 1.62 1.03 1.32 44.85 28.61 36.73 0.87 0.59 0.85 24.25 16.50 23.63 2.21 1.40 1.68 61.25 38.75 46.57 S.Em + CD at 5% S.Em + CD at 5% 0.02 0.06 0.54 1.57 0.05 0.13 1.26 3.69 0.06 0.19 1.78 5.22

1. Arka Meghali 2. GK-3 3. IIHR 2274 4. L-10 (P) 5. L-17 6. L-28 7. L-30 8. L-38-1 9. L40-3 10. Punjab Chhauhara 11. S-22 Mean Range IRRIGATION (I) GENOTYPES (G) INTERACTION (I x G )

Appendix xx. Biomass of tomato genotypes as influenced by irrigation levels.


Biomass (g.plant-1) 45 DAT 75 DAT Sl. Genotypes IW/CPE ratio No. 1.2 0.4 Mean 1.2 0.4 Mean 1. Arka Meghali 17.15 13.84 15.50 19.59 16.50 18.05 2. GK-3 13.93 10.86 12.39 21.89 17.86 19.87 3. IIHR 2274 14.98 12.46 13.72 28.44 19.83 24.13 4. L-10 (P) 22.09 17.16 19.63 24.38 21.59 22.99 5. L-17 18.59 12.28 15.43 27.74 16.42 22.08 6. L-28 17.37 14.53 15.95 25.32 18.67 21.99 7. L-30 18.80 15.60 17.20 29.91 20.60 25.25 8. L-38-1 17.42 13.69 15.56 28.21 22.51 25.36 9. L40-3 15.66 11.76 13.71 22.77 16.06 19.41 10. Punjab Chhauhara 17.52 14.16 15.84 25.61 21.12 23.36 11. S-22 18.61 13.90 16.25 27.62 21.49 24.56 Mean 17.47 13.66 15.56 25.59 19.33 22.46 13.93 10.86 12.39 19.59 16.06 18.05 Range 22.09 17.16 19.63 29.91 22.51 25.36 S.Em + CD at 5% S.Em + CD at 5% IRRIGATION (I) 0.16 0.48 0.27 0.72 GENOTYPES (G) 0.38 1.13 0.63 1.86 INTERACTION (I x G ) 0.54 1.59 0.89 2.63 DAT= Days after transplanting. AT HARVEST 1.2 0.4 Mean 31.10 23.63 27.36 27.34 24.30 25.82 36.54 32.03 34.28 44.45 22.48 33.46 36.60 17.06 26.83 38.16 23.32 30.74 43.05 24.04 33.55 39.45 26.23 32.84 35.76 18.25 27.01 34.24 27.06 30.65 40.46 32.15 36.31 37.01 24.60 30.80 27.34 17.06 25.82 44.45 32.15 36.31 S.Em + CD at 5% 0.65 1.92 1.53 4.50 2.16 6.36

Appendix xxi. Fruit weight and volume of tomato genotypes as influenced by irrigation levels
Sl. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Mean Range IRRIGATION (I) GENOTYPES (G) INTERACTION (I x G ) NS= Non- significant. Genotypes Arka Meghali GK-3 IIHR 2274 L-10 (P) L-17 L-28 L-30 L-38-1 L40-3 Punjab Chhauhara S-22 Fruit weight (g) Fruit volume (cc) IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 1.2 0.4 Mean 67.80 53.80 60.80 66.50 55.25 60.88 54.92 37.47 46.19 52.75 38.50 45.63 59.26 40.88 50.07 61.75 47.25 54.50 76.65 67.21 71.93 81.25 62.25 71.75 51.97 39.75 45.86 54.00 44.75 49.38 62.93 47.13 55.03 49.75 44.50 47.13 81.25 64.69 72.97 78.75 65.00 71.88 42.17 34.94 38.56 46.50 38.75 42.63 46.29 38.84 42.57 50.50 45.00 47.75 61.38 54.79 58.08 66.00 58.00 62.00 74.42 62.82 68.62 78.25 72.25 75.25 61.73 49.30 55.52 62.36 51.95 57.16 42.17 34.94 38.56 46.50 38.50 42.63 81.25 67.21 72.97 81.25 72.25 75.25 S.Em + CD at 5% S.Em + CD at 5% 0.73 2.15 1.35 3.95 1.71 5.03 3.15 9.27 2.42 NS 4.46 NS

Appendix xxii. Fruit dimension and fruit index as influenced by irrigation levels in tomato genotypes
Fruit dimension (mm) Polar diameter Equatorial diameter Sl. Genotypes IW/CPE ratio No. 1.2 0.4 Mean 1.2 0.4 Mean 1. Arka Meghali 55.65 47.60 51.63 45.95 41.80 43.88 2. GK-3 41.40 31.50 36.45 37.50 37.50 37.50 3. IIHR 2274 51.49 47.75 49.62 41.85 38.70 40.28 4. L-10 (P) 41.60 35.75 38.68 51.38 41.90 46.64 5. L-17 49.00 36.75 42.88 45.85 37.65 41.75 6. L-28 51.25 43.25 47.25 47.53 47.53 47.53 7. L-30 41.00 37.75 39.38 41.81 39.80 40.81 8. L-38-1 65.60 40.75 53.18 52.56 36.60 44.58 9. L-40-3 52.60 42.45 47.53 56.49 37.73 47.11 10. Punjab Chhauhara 37.85 39.20 38.53 51.81 36.63 44.22 11. S-22 43.65 37.85 40.75 52.06 42.50 47.28 Mean 48.28 40.05 44.17 47.71 39.85 43.78 37.85 31.50 36.45 37.50 36.60 37.50 Range 65.60 47.75 53.18 56.49 47.53 47.53 S.Em + CD at 5% S.Em + CD at 5% IRRIGATION (I) 0.19 0.56 0.14 0.42 GENOTYPES (G) 0.45 1.32 0.34 0.99 INTERACTION (I x G ) 0.63 1.86 0.47 1.39 Fruit index 1.2 2557.24 1181.00 2155.03 2137.15 2246.53 2054.76 1714.11 3447.94 2971.06 1961.08 2272.20 2245.28 1181.00 3447.94 S.Em + 9.86 23.12 32.70 0.4 Mean 1989.78 2273.51 1181.00 1181.00 1847.55 2001.29 1497.85 1817.50 1383.23 1814.88 2054.76 2054.76 1502.55 1608.33 1491.75 2469.84 1601.64 2286.35 1435.55 1698.32 1608.73 1940.47 1599.49 1922.39 1181.00 1181.00 2054.76 2469.84 CD at 5% 28.98 67.96 96.10

Appendix xxiii. Pericarp thickness (mm) and number of locules per fruit of tomato genotypes as influenced by irrigation levels
Pericarp thickness (mm) No. of locules.fruit-1 Genotypes IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 1.2 0.4 Mean 1. Arka Meghali 0.204 0.335 0.269 6.50 4.75 5.63 2. GK-3 0.136 0.208 0.172 3.25 2.50 2.88 3. IIHR 2274 0.252 0.124 0.188 3.25 2.00 2.63 4. L-10 (P) 0.449 0.165 0.307 5.50 4.00 4.75 5. L-17 0.449 0.690 0.570 3.25 2.25 2.75 6. L-28 0.315 0.282 0.298 2.00 2.00 2.00 7. L-30 0.179 0.208 0.193 4.00 3.00 3.50 8. L-38-1 0.400 0.442 0.421 3.75 2.25 3.00 9. L40-3 0.330 0.483 0.406 2.50 2.25 2.38 10. Punjab Chhauhara 0.252 0.350 0.301 2.25 2.00 2.13 11. S-22 0.220 0.434 0.327 3.25 2.00 2.63 Mean 0.290 0.338 0.314 3.59 2.64 3.12 0.136 0.124 0.172 2.000 2.000 2.000 Range 0.449 0.690 0.570 6.500 4.750 5.630 S.Em + CD at 5% S.Em + CD at 5% IRRIGATION (I) 0.002 0.007 0.10 0.28 GENOTYPES (G) 0.006 0.016 0.22 0.66 INTERACTION (I x G ) 0.008 0.023 0.32 NS NS= Non- significant. Sl. No.

Appendix xxiv. Number of seeds per fruit, pulp weight per fruit and pulp to seed ratio as influenced by irrigation levels in tomato genotypes
Sl. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Mean Range IRRIGATION (I) GENOTYPES (G) INTERACTION (I x G ) Genotypes Arka Meghali GK-3 IIHR 2274 L-10 (P) L-17 L-28 L-30 L-38-1 L40-3 Punjab Chhauhara S-22 Pulp weight.fruit (g) Pulp to seed ratio (%) IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 Mean 1.2 0.4 Mean 1.2 0.4 Mean 141.1 129.0 135.0 64.4 49.6 57.0 45.6 38.4 42.0 98.8 100.4 99.6 53.5 23.9 38.7 54.2 23.8 39.0 78.8 70.0 74.4 51.2 44.8 48.0 65.0 64.0 64.5 172.9 151.6 162.3 58.8 47.7 53.3 34.0 31.5 32.7 89.5 89.3 89.4 30.8 27.0 28.9 34.3 30.2 32.3 78.6 36.3 57.4 35.6 35.0 35.3 45.3 96.5 70.9 113.8 70.5 92.1 64.3 50.6 57.4 56.6 71.8 64.2 105.7 96.0 100.8 38.2 32.9 35.6 36.2 34.3 35.2 68.8 46.3 57.5 45.4 34.9 40.1 66.0 75.4 70.7 112.1 102.9 107.5 53.7 39.4 46.5 47.9 38.3 43.1 157.7 89.0 123.3 50.9 43.3 47.1 32.3 48.6 40.5 110.7 110.7 89.2 100.0 49.7 39.0 44.3 47.0 50.2 68.8 36.3 57.4 30.8 23.9 28.9 32.3 23.8 32.3 172.9 151.6 162.3 64.4 50.6 57.4 66.0 96.5 70.9 S.Em + CD at 5% S.Em + CD at 5% S.Em + CD at 5% 0.35 1.04 0.77 2.25 0.87 2.56 0.83 2.43 1.80 5.28 2.04 6.01 1.17 3.44 2.54 7.46 2.89 8.49 No. of seeds.fruit
-1 -1

Appendix xxv. Per cent reduction of yield in 0.4 IW/CPE ratio over 1.2 IW/CPE ratio
Sl. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Mean Range Yield per plant (kg.plant-1) IW/CPE ratio 1.2 0.4 1.29 0.88 1.64 0.92 2.21 1.15 1.98 1.26 1.51 1.02 1.84 0.59 2.08 0.98 1.08 1.07 1.38 1.18 0.87 0.83 1.89 1.40 1.62 1.03 0.87 0.59 2.21 1.40 Per cent Reduction in yield 31.78 43.90 47.96 36.36 32.45 67.93 52.88 0.93 14.49 4.60 25.93 36.52 0.93 67.93

Genotypes Arka Meghali GK-3 IIHR 2274 L-10 (P) L-17 L-28 L-30 L-38-1 L40-3 Punjab Chhauhara S-22

DROUGHT TOLERANCE STUDIES IN TOMATO (Lycopersicon esculentum MILL.)


Mukesh Lokanath Chavan 2007 Dr. B.S. JANAGOUDAR MAJOR ADVISOR

ABSTRACT
Drought tolerance studies in tomato were undertaken at K.R.C. College of Horticulture Arabhavi during 2003-2005. Initially, 50 tomato genotypes were screened for drought tolerance based on the per cent reduction in 0.4 over 1.2 IW/CPE for biophysical, biochemical and morphological characters. Based on the 1st year results 11 genotypes consisting of eight tolerant two susceptible and one check were selected for detailed investigation under stress with above traits in addition to root studies during second year. Results of pooled analysis indicated that, under the sever moisture stress of 0.4 IW/CPE ratio, higher yield was noticed in the genotype S-22 (40.43 t.ha-1) as compared to -1 susceptible genotype L-28 (17.88 t.ha ). Least per cent reduction in yield per plant at 0.4 over 1.2 IW/CPE ratio was found in the genotype L-38-1 (11.45%) whereas maximum yield reduction was observed in the genotype L-28 (67.18%). Biomass production was significantly higher in the genotypes L-10 (P), S-22 and L-30 at all the growth stages as compared to local check Arka Meghali and other susceptible genotypes. Among the biochemical traits, chlorophyll a and proline content was maximum in the genotype L 10 (P) whereas, chlorophyll b total chlorophyll and ascorbic acid content were higher in the genotype L-30. TSS content was more in the genotype GK-3 while lycopene was higher in IIHR 2274. Number of pubescence on adaxial and abaxial surface was significantly higher in the L-30. Significantly higher root to shoot ratio, root length and root density at 45 DAT, including higher pollen viability at 300C in the drought tolerant genotype IIHR 2274. However, 0 0 maximum pollen viability at 25 C was recorded in the genotype L-30 and at 35 C it was in the genotype L-40-1. Hence, considering pollen viability, biochemical, growth, yield and quality parameters it can be inferred that genotypes S-22, L-10 (P), L-40-3, IIHR 2274, L-38-1 and L-30 performed better under drought conditions and could be catagorised as drought tolerant genotypes compared to genotypes L-17 and L-28.