See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/349008633

Effects of Pruning, Staking and Different Fungicide Frequencies on Late Blight

Severity and Fruit Yield of Tomato in Dschang, West Region of Cameroon

Article · January 2021

CITATIONS READS

0 343

4 authors:

Tabi Ntoh Gaetan Divine N. Tarla

Université de Dschang Kansas State University
1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS    38 PUBLICATIONS   106 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Nelson Neba Ntonifor Nerlus Gautier KENGNI Sopkoutie

University of Buea Université de Dschang
45 PUBLICATIONS   557 CITATIONS    2 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Contribution of Cocoyam Production to Poverty Reduction in Mezam Division, North West Region of Cameroon View project

ASSESMENT OF HEAVY METAL STATUS ON TOMATO (Solanum lycopersicum L.) FRUITS IN THE FOUMBOT SUBDIVISION -WEST REGION CAMEROON View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nerlus Gautier KENGNI Sopkoutie on 04 February 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Scholarly Journal of Agricultural Science Vol. 11(1), pp. 1-7 January, 2021
Available online at http:// www.scholarly-journals.com/SJAS
ISSN 2276-7118 © 2021 Scholarly-Journals

Full Length Research Paper

Effects of Pruning, Staking and Different Fungicide

Frequencies on Late Blight Severity and Fruit Yield of
Tomato in Dschang, West Region of Cameroon
Tabi N. Gaetan*1, Divine N. Tarla1, Nelson N. Ntonifor 2 and Nerlus G. Sopkoutie2
1
Plant Pathology and Agricultural Zoology Research Unit, Department of Plant Protection, Faculty of Agronomy
and Agricultural Sciences (FASA), University of Dschang, P.O Box 222, West Region, Cameroon.
2
Department of Agronomic and Applied Molecular Sciences, Faculty of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine,
University of Buea, P. O Box 63, South West Region, Cameroon.

Received: December 4, 2020, Accepted: January, 8, 2020, Published: January 25, 2021

Tomato (Solanum lycopersicon L.) an important vegetable crop used in almost every meal in all homes
and restaurants to create appetite and taste. It has the potential of becoming a corner stone in reducing
chronic hunger and alleviating poverty of small holder farmers in Cameroon especially in the Western
highlands but its production results in low yields due to small and/or rotten fruits at harvest. The yields
can be increased if farmers adopt good agronomic practices. This research was therefore carried out to
determine the effects of staking, pruning and different fungicide frequencies on late blight severity and
fruit yield of tomato. The Cobra tomato variety was planted in a Randomized Complete Block Design
experiment with four treatments and four replications each. Plant height, number of days to flowering,
number of flowers and fruits per plant, number of diseased fruits, disease severity, fruit weight and
total yield were recorded. The results showed a 100% disease incidence in all the treatments, whereas
disease severity was significantly higher in treatments that were not staked compared to those that
were staked. Pruning significantly reduced plant height and number of flowers per plant. Staking did
not cause any significant differences in plant height, number of flowers and number of fruits among
treatments. At harvest, plants that were not staked and not pruned and those that were staked and not
pruned had higher number of fruits with smaller sizes, compared to plants that were staked and pruned
and those that were not staked and pruned which had fewer but bigger fruits per plant. The study
concluded that staking and pruning together with the application of fungicides at the rate of one time
per week was appropriate for producing clean and bigger fruits with an increase in total marketable
fruit yield by weight. It is therefore recommended that tomato farmers should adopt staking and
pruning together with the judicious use of fungicides to control late blight and to obtain higher
marketable yields that will fetch good prices and safe for human consumption.

Key words: Tomatoes, Pruning, Staking, Fungicide, Disease severity, Late blight, Yield.

INTRODUCTION

Tomato (Solanum lycopersicon L.) is one of the main
open field vegetables cultivated and consumed in
Cameroon. It is of great dietary and economic
importance. Tomato is one of the most remunerable and
widely grown vegetables in the world. It is grown for its
edible fruits, which can be consumed either fresh or
*Corresponding author E-mail: gaetantabi182@gmail.com.
processed and it is a very good source of vitamins A, B,
C and minerals (Sallam et al., 2012). It is the world's
second most cultivated crop, with a production estimated
at about 182,301,395 tons. China is the world’s largest
producer (59,626,900 tons) followed by India (20,708,000
tons). Tomato production in Cameroon is estimated at
1,279,853 tons with an average yield of 12,124.3 kg ha-1
(FAOSTAT, 2017). This is much lower than the mean
world yield of 37,600.4 kg ha-1 (FAOSTAT, 2017). Such
low yields may be due to the inefficient production

practices of farmers including their inability to fully exploit
available technologies and techniques coupled with
limited factors of production making it difficult for farmers
to increase production through the use of more inputs
(Kavoi et al., 2016).
Late blight is the most challenging plant disease to
control, the major economic host crops, potato (Solanum
tuberosum L.) and tomato are considered important
horticultural crops in several countries severely affected
by the disease (Fontem, 2004). The causal agent of late
blight is the oomycetes, Phytophthora infestans (Mont.)
De Bary, well known for its explosive development when
environmental conditions are suitable and when host
plants are susceptible to infection (Mizubuti and Fry
2006). Complete field destruction due to late blight
epidemics have been observed (Fontem, 2003).
Worldwide economic losses due to the disease vary from
3 to 5 billion dollars annually (Halder et al., 2006). What
makes P. infestans an aggressive pathogen and late
blight such a difficult disease to manage is because the
pathogen has virulent genes that allow rapid infection and
host tissue colonization (Halder et al., 2006). Despite the
achievements in understanding the biology of P.
infestans, the molecular mechanisms involved in the
pathogenesis are not yet completely resolved (Lee et al.,
2006). Also, the latency period is as short as three days
which may give rise to many spores. Thus, there is
enormous interest in finding effective non-chemical
alternatives to protect tomato fields against this
devastating disease.
Late bight management has been based on the heavy
use of fungicides in many areas. Fungicide application
has increased over the last decade due to the
introduction of new and more aggressive genotypes of
the pathogen (Kato et al., 1997). Organic production of
tomato has for many decades depended on the use of
copper-based fungicides (copper per oxide, fixed-copper
hydroxide and copper oxychloride) to control late blight.
However, there is an increasing pressure to find
substitutes for these products because of environmental
contaminations caused by copper residues. Currently in
the European Union, only 6 kg of elemental copper
-1 -1
hactare year is allowed for organic production
(Ghorbani et al., 2004).
In Cameroon, tomato growers usually apply 2 to 3
fungicidal sprays per week to limit early and late blight
infections during the wet season (Fontem et al., 2004).
Unfortunately, the intensive sprays cause adverse effects
on health and the environment. Seeds free of late blight
pathogens are not easily available to farmers and this
poses a great problem. Rogueing of infected plants from
fields is also not well implemented by farmers;
destruction of infected debris of previous tomato crop,
use of resistant varieties, crop rotation, fallowing are
control strategies not often practiced by farmers who rely
highly on fungicide applications (Mizubuti et al., 2007;
Maerere et al., 2010).
Scholarly J. Agric. Sci. 2
Peasant tomato farmers (both small and large scale)
spend huge sums of money yearly to purchase chemical
pesticides making the production of the crop not very
profitable. These chemical fungicides are also not
environmentally friendly since they have adverse effects
on human health and other non-target organisms.
Indeed, tomato profit margins and total production could
increase significantly if smaller amounts of chemicals are
used rationally in combination with good horticultural
practices such as staking and pruning.
This study was therefore designed to assess the
effects of staking, pruning and different fungicide
frequencies on late blight severity and fruit yield of
tomato.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Location of the study site
The study was conducted at the teaching and research
farm of the Faculty of Agronomy and Agricultural
sciences of the University of Dschang. Dschang is
located on latitudes 5 ! 25! North and longitude 10!04! East
and 1340m above sea level. Temperatures range from
0 0
20 C to 28 C with annual rainfall between 3000mm to
5000mm. It has the Tropical climate type with a
monomodal rainfall pattern, characterized by a short dry
season from December to February and a long rainy
season from March to November. The mean annual
average rainfall ranges between 1800 mm and 2000 mm
while the mean annual average temperature is between
25°C and 28°C. Average insolation is 4.75 hours/day.
-
Dschang has a well drained ferralitic (Oxisol) type which
is acid soil and rich in organic matter but poor in
phosphorus and potassium (Fongang 2008).
Land Preparation
A piece of land of 180m2 was used for the experiment.
The land was cleared, tilled and demarcated into 16 sub-
plots of area 3m by 2m each with a distance of 0.5m
between sub-plots and 1m between blocks. After
establishment of experimental units, pegging was done to
indicate the planting positions. The planting distance was
75cm inter rows and 50cm intra rows, giving a total of
18plants per experimental unit. Poultry manure at the rate
of 200g per hole of 15cm deep and 15cm wide was
applied. The manure was watered for three (3) days to
enable complete decomposition and heat release.
Experimental design, field layout and transplanting
The experiment was laid in a Randomized Complete
Block Design (RCBD) with four treatments as follows; T1
= Staked and Pruned only; T2 = Staked and not Pruned
with fungicide application once a week; T3 = Not staked
Tabi et al., 3

Table 1: Pesticides used in the study

Pesticides Commercial name Active ingredient Registration number Doses

Fungicides Manco-sam 80WP Mancozeb800g/kg 617/11/FO/HOMO/CNHPCAT/CMR 80-100g/ 16L
sprayer
FLASH ONE Chlorothalonil 30% + 979/16/FO/HOMO/CNHPCAT/CMR 22.5g/ 16L sprayer
Cymoxanil 6% WP
Insecticide TAPIR Chlorpyriphos-Ethyl 776/13/IN/HOMO/CNHPCAT/CMR 37.5ml/ 15L sprayer
600g/l

Table 2: Disease scale for rating of tomato late blight

Disease Rating Symptoms severity for whole plant assay Infection % age Disease reaction
0 No visible symptoms apparent 0 Immune
1 A few minute lessions to about 10% of the total leaf area is 0.01-10 Highly resistant
blighted and usually confined to the 2 bottom leaves.
2 Leaves on about 25% of the total plant are infected 10.01-25 Resistant
3 Leaves on about 50% of the total plant are infected 25.01-40 Moderately resistant
4 Leaves on about 75% of the total plant are infected 40.01-60 Susceptible
5 Leaves on whole plant are blighted and plant is dead >60 Highly susceptible
Source: Galanihe et al., (2004)

and Pruned with fungicide application once a week; T4
=Not staked and not Pruned with fungicides applied 2
times per week (Control). Seedlings were transplanted at
four (4) weeks after germination. Few hours before
transplanting, the nursery beds were watered
appropriately in order to soften the soil and ease removal
of seedlings. The seedlings were then carefully removed
from the soil to avoid damage of the roots and placed in
their appropriate holes then covered with soil. After
transplanting, the plants were watered thoroughly to
enable the plant’s roots to grow and settle properly into
the soil. Watering was done twice daily (morning and
evening) until the plants were fully established. Ten days
after transplanting NPK (20:10:10) fertilizer was applied
at the rate of 5g per plant to boost growth and
development. Replacement of death plants and plants
with retarded growth was also done.
Application of various treatments
Three (3) weeks after transplanting (WAT) when the
plants had fully established, the various treatments of
staking and pesticide applications were done.
Pruning was done when the plants were about 25-50cm
tall since plants may not recover from the shock of
pruning below this height. A clean and sharp pair of
pruning scissors was used to remove small suckers off.
Suckers are small shoots that grow out of the join where
a branch on the tomato plants meets a stem. These small
shoots will grow into a full sized branch if not pruned,
resulting in a bushier and more sprawling plant. Pruning
was done once a week in the early morning on a dry day
in order to allow the pruning wounds heal cleanly and
also to reduce the chances of the plant being infected by
pathogens.
Bamboo stakes of about 2m high were inserted into the
ground about 3-6 cm from the base of the tomato
seedling; precaution was taken to avoid root damage. A
length of string (rope) was then used to tie the stem or
extended branch of the plant to the stake. The branches
were tied to the stake opposite blossoms so that when
the fruit grows it is not trapped between the stake and the
tie.
Data collection
Four plants from the middle of each sub-plot were
selected and tagged for data collection throughout the
experiment. Data was collected once weekly on the
following parameters; plant height, disease severity,
number of flowers per plant, number of fruits per plant,
number of diseased fruits per treatment, fruit weight and
fruit yield. Plant height was measured from the base of
the plant to the apex using a tape at 4, 5 and 6, weeks
after transplanting (WAT).
Disease severity of late blight on leaves and stems
were recorded at 6, 7and 8 WAT and that on fruits at 8
and 9 WAT. The disease was graded on a scale of 0-5
shown on the table below;
It was then calculated using the formula;
 Scholarly J. Agric. Sci. 4

Table 3: Effects of staking and pruning on plant height.

Plant Height (cm)
Treatments 4WAT 5WAT 6WAT
T1 (Staked and Pruned) 21.91 ± 3.51 a 21.44± 3.40 b 33.34 ± 4.70 b
T2 (Staked but not pruned) 24.22 ± 0.57 a 32.19 ± 2.10 a 42.28 ± 2.09 a
T3 (Not staked and Pruned) 26.18 ± 4.01 a 22.13 ± 5.04 b 34.81 ± 4.97 b
T4 (Not staked and Not pruned) 25.56 ± 4.63 a 31.78± 5.44 a 42.72 ± 5.41 a
Columns with means having a common letter do not differ significantly (p>0.05)

Table 4: Effect of staking and pruning on number of days to flowering

Treatments Days to Flowering
T1 (Staked and Pruned) 38.95 ± 2.42 a
T2 (Staked and Not pruned) 37.21 ± 6.01 a
T3 (Not staked and Pruned) 39.01 ± 3.54 a
T4(Not staked and Not pruned) 37.25 ± 1.98 a
Columns with means having a common letter do not differ significantly (p>0.05)

The numbers of flowers per plant were counted at 50%
and 100% flowering. Number of diseased plants per
treatment was counted at 4, 5 and 6 WAT while the,
number of fruits per plant was at 7, 8, and 9 WAT.
Number of diseased fruits per treatment was recorded on
a 3 days interval at 8 and 9 WAT. Fruit weight was
obtained by harvesting and weighing the fruits for each
treatment using a scale balance with Kg units. Fruits
were harvested every three days from tagged plants and
records for each plot were summed at the end of the
harvest to obtain the total fruit yield for each treatment
which was then converted to yield per hectare.
Data Analysis
The data collected was entered in Microsoft excel 2016.
The average values of the growth, disease severity and
yield variables were subjected to repeated measures of
analysis of variance (ANOVA) to evaluate the effects of
the different treatments and their interaction. The
analyses were done using the software R analytics
Version 3.1.1. Means for different treatments were
compared using the Least Significant difference (LSD)
test at 5% threshold. Shapiro’s test was used to rank the
means.
RESULTS
Effects of pruning and staking on plant height
There were significant differences (p <0.05) in plant
height among treatments. At 4 weeks after transplanting
(4 WAT), plant height was similar among all treatments
but at 5 and 6 WAT, treatments that were not staked and
not pruned- had significantly taller plants (p<0.05) than
staked and pruned, not staked and pruned, but similar to
staked and not pruned (Table 3)
Effects of staking and pruning on number of days to
flowering
Treatments that were staked but not pruned and those
that were not pruned and not staked flowered earlier than
those of the other treatments, but the differences were
not significant. Staking did not have any effect on days to
flowering. (Table 4).
Effects of staking and pruning on number of flowers
per treatment
Plants from treatments that were not pruned had
significantly higher (p<0.05) number of flowers per plant
compared to the other treatments at 4, 5 and 6 WAT
(Table 5).
Effects of staking and pruning on number of fruits
per treatment
There were significant differences (p <0.05) in numbers
of fruits amongst treatments. At 6 weeks after
transplanting, the numbers of fruits were similar amongst
all treatments but at 7, 8 and 9 WAT, treatments that
were not staked and not pruned had significantly higher
numbers of fruits (p<0.05) than those in treatments that
were staked and pruned and those that were not staked
and pruned but similar to the staked and not pruned
(Table 6).
Combined effects of staking, pruning and frequency
of fungicide application on numbers of diseased
fruits
There were significant differences (p<0.05) in numbers of
diseased fruits amongst treatments. At 9 to 13WAT,
treatments that were staked and pruned but had no
fungicide application and those that were staked but not
Tabi et al., 5

Table 5: Effect of staking and pruning on number of flowers per treatment

Treatments 4WAT 5WAT 6WAT
T1 (Staked and Pruned) 0.75 ± 0.74 b 2.88± 1.33 b 6.56 ± 1.34 b
T2 (Staked and Not pruned) 2.19 ± 1.25 a 6.25 ± 1.81 a 11.31 ± 1.70 a
T3 (Not staked and Pruned) 1.00 ± 0.20 ab 3.69 ± 0.77 b 7.56 ± 0.90 b
T4 (Not staked and Not pruned) 2.19 ± 0.83 a 6.38 ± 1.65 a 12.06 ± 1.91 a
Columns with means having a common letter do not differ significantly (p>0.05)

Table 6: Effects of staking and pruning on numbers of fruits per treatment

Treatments 6WAT 7WAT 8WAT 9WAT
T1 (Staked and Pruned) 4.19 ± 0.94 a 9.38 ± 1.83 b 14.25 ± 1.85 b 19.63 ± 2.29 b
T2 (Staked and Not pruned) 5.56 ± 2.90 a 14.06 ± 3.30 a 19.15 ± 2.74 a 26.00 ± 3.26 a
T3 (Not staked and Pruned) 4.06 ± 1.21 a 10.25 ± 2.52 b 15.50 ± 1.84 b 20.44 ± 1.56 b
T4 (Not staked and Not pruned) 4.69 ± 1.68 a 12.98 ± 1.76 a 17.94 ± 2.81 a 23.14 ± 3.24 ab
Columns with means having a common letter do not differ significantly (p>0.05)

Table 7: Combined effects of staking, pruning and frequency of fungicide application on number of diseased fruits per treatment
Treatments 9WAT 10WAT 11WAT 12WAT 13WAT
T1 (Staked and Pruned/F0) 2.31 ± 0.55 b 2.25 ± 0.43 b 3.44 ± 0.20 c 2.50 ± 0.52 b 3.63 ± 0.32 c
T2 (Staked and Not pruned/F1) 2.19 ± 0.31 b 1.88 ± 0.20 b 2.75 ± 0.24 b 1.94 ± 0.47 b 2.63 ± 0.48 b
T3 (Not staked and Pruned/F 1) 3.81 ± 0.32 a 3.56 ± 0.47 a 4.56 ± 0.43 a 3.38 ± 0.48 a 4.94 ± 0.31 a
T4 (Not staked and Not pruned/F2) 3.63 ± 0.32 a 3.06 ± 0.24 a 3.75 ± 0.71 b 3.25 ± 0.46 a 4.56 ± 0.52 a
Columns with means having a common letter do not differ significantly (p>0.05)

pruned and with one fungicide application per week had
significantly lower numbers of diseased fruits (p>0.05)
than those of treatments that were not staked and pruned
but had one fungicide application as well as those that
were not staked and not pruned but with two fungicide
applications per week (Table 7).
in treatments that were not pruned (produced many fruits)
than those that were pruned (produced fewer fruits).
Staking did not have an influence on fruit weight.
DISCUSSIONS

Combined effects of staking, pruning and fungicide
frequencies on late blight severity
There was no significant difference (p>0.05) between
treatments at 4, 5, 6 and 7 WAT; in contrast, at 8, 9 and
10, 11 and 12 WAT there were significant differences
(p<0.05) in late blight severity on plants of different
treatments. Plants in treatments that were staked and
pruned but with no fungicide application (T1) and those
that were staked and not pruned but with one fungicide
application per week (T2) had significantly lower
percentage of plants with symptoms of late blight
compared to plants in treatments that were not staked
and pruned but with one fungicide per week (T3) and
those that were not staked and not pruned but received
two fungicide applicaions per week (Table 8).
Combined effects of staking, pruning and different
fungicide frequencies on tomato fruit yields
Fruit weight was slightly higher in treatments that were
pruned (larger fruits) than those that were not pruned
(smaller fruits). Fruit yield was highly significant (p<0.05)
Effects of staking and pruning on plant height
Pruning negatively affected plant height; plants that were
not staked and not pruned and those that were staked
and not pruned were taller most probably due to the fact
that the terminal buds (growing tips) were left to grow.
The type of pruning used in the study inhibited the apical
growth of the plants. Sinnaduiai (2000), reported that
pruning of tomato plants and the type of pruning used
has an effect on plant height. Pruning affected plant
height negative by inhibiting apical growth of plants.
Staking did not have any effect on the plant height.
Effects of staking and pruning on number of flowers
and fruits
Number of flowers and fruits were affected by pruning
and staking; plants that were not staked and not pruned
produced higher number of flowers and fruits per plant
similar to those that were staked and not pruned. This
higher number of flowers per plant could be attributed to
the higher number of branches on each of these plants.
This is in line with the works of Geisenberg and Ploeg
 Scholarly J. Agric. Sci. 6

Table 8: Combined effects of staking, pruning and fungicide frequency on late blight disease severity on tomato plants

Treatments 7WAT 8WAT 9WAT 10WAT 11WAT 12WAT

T1 (Staked and 0.25 ± 0.20 a 0.88 ± 0.25 b 1.25 ± 0.20 c 1.94 ± 0.13 c 2.44 ± 0.43b 2.69 ± 0.38 c
Pruned/F 0)
T2 (Staked and Not 0.56 ± 0.13 a 1.19 ± 0.24 ab 1.63 ± 0.25 bc 2.38 ± 0.25 b 2.50 ± 1.50 b 3.63 ± 0.32 b
pruned/F1)
T3 (Not staked and 0.94 ± 0.13 a 1.50 ± 0.20 a 2.00 ± 00 a 2.88 ± 0.25 a 4.13 ± 0.14 a 4.75 ± 0.20 a
Pruned/F 1)
T4 (Not staked and 0.88 ± 0.25 a 1.31 ± 0.35 a 1.75 ± 0.29 ab 2.50 ± 0.46 ab 2.50 ± 1.35 b 4.13 ± 0.43 b
Not pruned/F 2)
Columns with means having a common letter do not differ significantly (p>0.05).

Table 9: Combined effects of Staking, Pruning and different fungicide Frequencies on tomato fruit yield

Treatments 9WAT 10WAT 11WAT 12WAT 13WAT Average Yield in tons/Ha

T1 (Staked and Pruned/F0) 17.5 30.8 38.3 26.7 41.7 31.0
T2 (Staked and Not pruned/F1) 19.2 33.3 45.8 28.3 46.7 34.7
T3 (Not staked and Pruned/F 1) 15.8 22.5 38.3 22.5 40.0 27.8
T4 (Not staked and Not pruned/F2) 20.8 37.5 48.3 27.5 45.0 35.8

N/B: Each value is the mean of four replicates

(2001) who reported that pruning affected the number of
flowers and fruits in tomatoes. Staking did not have any
effect on number of fruits and flowers.
Effects of staking, pruning and different fungicide
frequencies on number of diseased fruits
Plants that were staked and pruned with no fungicide
application and those that were staked but not pruned
with one fungicide application per week had significantly
lower numbers of diseased fruits compared to plants that
were not staked and pruned with one fungicide
application per week as well as those that were not
staked and not pruned with two fungicide applications per
week. Rotted fruits were typically firm with greasy spots
that eventually became leathery and chocolate brown in
color. These spots later increased to the point of
encompassing the entire fruit.
Staking raises the fruits from the ground and hence
ensures that they do not come into contact with soil borne
pathogens which are responsible for a number of
diseases in tomato fruits including late blight. This gives
rise to clean and unblemished fruits. Pruning reduced the
risk of spreading diseases from leaves and stems to fruits
as reported by Kavoi (2016). Fungicides help protect the
fruits from late blight caused by Phytophthora infestans.
Effects of staking, pruning and different fungicide
frequencies on late blight severity
not staked and pruned with fungicides applied once per
week as well as those that were not staked and not
pruned with two rounds of fungicides a week.
Staking improves air circulation around the plants,
preventing the build-up of high relative humidity which
favours the development of late blight (Quinn, 1974;
Kwapata 1990). It also prevents plants from being in
direct contact with the soil which is considered a reservoir
for inoculum (Patterson, 1990). Pruning slightly reduced
the risk of spreading the disease from one plant to
another.
Effects of staking and pruning on fruit Size
Plants that were staked and pruned with no fungicides
applied produced bigger sized fruits similar to those of
plants that were not staked and pruned compared to
those that were staked and not pruned with one round of
fungicides and those not staked and not pruned with two
rounds of fungicides.
Pruning reduces over growth of leaves and stems
thereby exposing the plant to sunlight. The plants then
direct all energy to existing branches and blossoms,
producing larger fruits.
This confirmed the findings of McEwen, (1998), who
reported that pruning of tomatoes, gave bigger fruits than
not pruned. The differences that existed among
treatments may be attributed to the effect of pruning and
staking.

Plants that were staked and pruned but no fungicide Effects of staking and pruning on fruit yield
applied and those that were staked and not pruned with
fungicide applied once per week had significantly lower Fruit yield was significantly higher in plants that were
values of disease severity compared to those that were staked and not pruned with one round of fungicide per
Tabi et al., 7
week and those that were not staked and not pruned with
two fungicide applications per week compared to those
that were staked and pruned with no fungicide applied as
well as those that were not staked and pruned with one
fungicide application per week. Plants that were not
pruned produced many branches and flowers and hence
many fruits. Pruned plants had fewer branches and fewer
flowers consequently fruit yield was significantly reduced.
CONCLUSION
Pruning increased the sizes of tomato fruits which
resulted in higher fruit weights. However, better and
stable fruit yield of tomato could be obtained with the
practice of pruning in combination to staking. The
combination of pruning with staking showed synergism by
producing comparable yields to that of pruning alone but
these fruits were cleaner than pruning without staking.
Staking prevented the rotting of the tomato fruits which
resulted in high yield of marketable tomatoes in pruned
and staked tomatoes. Fungicide application significantly
reduced disease incidence of plants.
REFERENCES
Agble, A. (1975). Effects of Pruning and Spacing of Tomato
Productivity. Ghana Journal of Science 15:175-179. Choudhury, B.
(1975). Vegetable’s national book trust of India New Delhi India.
Agrios, G.N. (2005). Plant Pathology. 5th edition. Elsevier Academic
Press. Salt Lake City, USA, 922 pp.
Binyam Tsedaley, Temam Hussen and Tekalign Tsegaw. (2014).
Efficacy of reduced dose of fungicide sprays in the management of
late blight (Phytophthora infestans) disease on selected potato
(Solanum tuberosum L.) varieties, Haramaya, Eastern Ethiopia. J.
Biol. Agric. and Health Care, 4(20): 46 - 52.
Fontem, D.A. (2003). Quantitative Effects of Early and Late Blights on
Tomato Yields in Cameroon.Tropicultura, 21(1): 36-41.
Ghorbani R, Wilcockson SJ, Giotis C, Leifert C. (2004) Potato late blight
management in organic agriculture. Outlooks on Pest management
15, 176-280.
Goss, E.M., Tabima, J.F., Cooke, D.E.L., Restrepo, S., Fry, W.E.,
Forbes, G.A., Fieland, V. J., Cardenas, M. and Grünwald, N.J.
(2014). The Irish potato famine pathogen Phytophthora infestans
originated in central Mexico rather than the Andes. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, 111(24): 8791 - 8796.
View publication stats
Haldar K, Kamoun S, Hiller NL, Bhattacherje S, van Ooij C. (2006).
Common infection strategies of pathogenic eukaryotes. Nature
Reviews Microbiology 4, 992-931.
J. McEwen, Review of Work on Tomatoes (1957-1961). Ghana journal
of Farmers. 5:112-114. 1961
J.G. Quinn, An evaluation of methods of mulching and staking tomatoes
grown during the rains at Samaru, Nig. Horti. Res. J. 13:97-
1041973b.
Jacobs, A. (2015). Timeline-history of pesticides. In: Pesticides &
University of Oregon. Available from
http://blogs.uoregon.edu/ajacobssu13gateway/timeline/. Accessed
Jan 14, 2015.
Jarvis, W.R. and McKeen, C.D. (2013). Tomato Diseases, Hydro-
Gardens. Agriculture Canada Publication, 75(1): 37 – 114.
Kato M, Mizubuti ESG, Goodwin SB, Fry WE (1997). Sensitivity to
protectant fungicides and pathogenic fitness of clonal lineages of
Phytophthora infestans in the United States Phytopathology 87, 973-
978.
Kavoi, M. M., Najjuma, E., & Mbeche, R. (2016). Assessment of
technical efficiency of open field production in Kiambu country, Kenya
(Stochastic frontier approach).JAGST, 17(2).
Maerere, A. P., Sibuga, K. P., Bulali, J. E. M., Mwatawala, M. W.,
Kovach, J., Kamanywa, S., Mtui, H. D. and Erbaugh, M. (2010).
Deriving appropriate pest management technologies for smallholder
tomato (Solanum lycoperscum Mill.) growers: A case study of
Morogoro, Tanzania. J. Animal and Plant Sci. 6 (3): 663-676.
Mizubuti ESG, Fry WE. (2006). Potato late blight. In: Cooke BM, Jones
DG, Kaye B(Eds) The Epidemiology of plant Diseases (2nd Edn),
Springer-Verlag, Dordrecht, pp 445-471.
Sallam, M. A., Nas Hwa Kamal, A. M and Abo-Elyousr. (2012).
Evaluation of various plant extracts against the early blight disease of
tomato plants under greenhouse and field conditions, Plant
Protection Science., 48 (2): 74–79.
Stone, A. (2014). Organic management of late blight of potato and
tomato (Phytophthora infestans). Sustainable agriculture research
and extention. Oregon State University, USA.