Welcome to International Network for Natural Sciences | INNSpub

Effect of drought on the growth of tomatoes genotypes

Research Paper | July 1, 2016

| Download 4

Rizwan Taj Khan, Syed Dilnawaz Ahmed Gerdezi, Syed Rizwan Abbas, Attiya Batool

Key Words:

Int. J. Biosci.9( 1), 421-429, July 2016

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12692/ijb/9.1.421-429


IJB 2016 [Generate Certificate]


Drought stress reduces the yield and production of tomato ( Lycopersicon esculentum L). To assess the effect of drought stress on the growth and yield of tomato a pot experiment was conducted in green house condition Garris Dopatta, Azad Kashmir, Pakistan. Twenty six genotypes of tomato were evaluated for morphological characters. They were subjected to drought stress during vegetative growth by using Poly ethylene glycol (PEG-6000) at different concentrations ranging from, 0% (control), 5%, 7.5%, 10% and 12.5%. The Morphological parameters compared were number of branches, number of leaves, Plant height, internodal distance, number of flowers, number of trusses, number of fruits, root length, root diameter. Polyethylene glycol showed significant effect on the production of number of branches. The maximum number of branches were recorded at control leading to minimum were at highest level of the drought. Maximum number of branches (10.667) at control and 2 at 12.5% PEG were found in genotype G 31-19289. Plant height data also indicated show that drought stress adversely affects the plant height. The maximum plant height 184 cm was recorded in genotype G 31-19289 at control and 70cm at 12.5% PEG. Similar trends in number of leaves and number of flowers were recorded. The number of fruits were also recorded and showed the similar pattern. The internodal distance decreased with the decreasing plant height. The number of trusses, the root length and root diameter also indicated the similar trend. However root length was better in genotype G8-19219 and its diameter was higher in genotype G 7-88572. Genotype 31-19289 proved to be the best performing under drought stress compared with other genotypes.


Copyright © 2016
By Authors and International Network for
Natural Sciences (INNSPUB)
This article is published under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution Liscense 4.0

Effect of drought on the growth of tomatoes genotypes

Aazami MA, Torabi M, Jalili E. 2010. In vitro response of promising tomato genotypes for tolerance to osmotic stress. Afric. Journal. Biotech 9, 4014-4017.

Abid SM. 2011. Improvement of tomato through GE. Pakistan Technology Times.

Anonymous. 2011. Agricultural Statistics of Pakistan. Government of Pakistan. Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock. Islamabad.

Azeem M, Ahmad R. 2011. Foliar application of some essential minerals on tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) plant grown under two different salinity regimes. Pakistan Journal of Botany 43, 1513-1520.

Ben Hayyim G. 1987. Relationship between salt tolerance and resistance to polyethylene glycolinduced water stress in cultured citrus. Plant Physiol 85, 430-433.

Blum A. 2005. Drought resistance, water-use efficiency, and yield potential-are they compatible, dissonant, or mutually exclusive? Aus. J. Agri. Res 56, 1159-1168.

Bressan RA, Hasegawa PM andHanda AK. 2003. Resistance of cultured higher plant cells to polyethyleneglycol induced water stress. Plant Sci. Letts 21, 23-30.

Delachiave MEA Pinho SZD. 2003. Germination of Senna occidentalis seed at different osmotic potential levels. Braz. Arch. Tech 46, 163-166.

Dhaliwal MS, Singh S, Cheema DS. 2003. Line x tester analysis for yield and processing attributes in tomato. J. Res 40(1), 49-53.

Dhlamini Z, Spillane C, Moss JP, Ruane J, Urqula N, Sonnino A. 2005. Status of research and application of crop biotechnologies in developing countries. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations pp. 19-53.

Farooq MS, Basra MA, Wahid A, Cheema ZA, Khaliq A. 2008. Physiological role of exogenously applied glycinebetainein improving drought tolerance of fine grain aromatic rice (Oryza sativa L.). J. Agro. Crop. Sci 194, 325–333.

Ghafoor A. 2013. Unveiling the mess of red pottage through gel electrophoresis: a robust and reliable method to identify Vicia sativa and Lens culinaris from a mixed lot of split “red         dal”. Pak. J. Bot 45, 915-919.

Gosal SS, Wani SH, Khan MS. 2009. Biotechnology and drought tolerance. J. Crop Improv, 23(1), 19-54.

Govindaraj M, Shanmugasundaram P, Sumathiand P, Muthiah AR. 2010. Simple, rapid and cost effective screening method for drought resistant breeding in pearl millet. Elect. J. Plant Breed 1, 590-599.

Hamayun M, Sohn EY, Khan SA, Shinwari ZK, Khan AL, Lee IJ. 2010. Silicon alleviates the adverse effects of salinity and drought stress on growth and endogenous plant growth hormones of soybean (Glycine max L.). Pak. J. Bot 42(3), 1713-1722.

Jajarmi V. 2009. Effect of water stress on germination indices in seven wheat cultivar. World Acad. Sci. Enging. Tech 49, 105-106.

Jaleel CA, Manivannan P, Lakshmanan GMA, Gomathinayagam M, Panneerselvam R. 2008. Alterations in morphological parameters and photosynthetic pigment responses of Catharanthus roseus under soil water deficits. Colloids and surfaces. B. Biointerfaces 6, 298-303.

Jurekova Z, Nemeth-Molnar K, Paganova V. 2011. Physiological responses of six tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) cultivars to water stress. J. Hort. For 3, 294-300.

Khan AL, Hamayun M, Khan SA, Shinwari ZK, Kamaran M, Kim JG, Lee IJ. 2011. Pure culture of Metarhizium anisopliae LHL 07 reporgramssoy bean to higher growth and mitigates salt stress. World J. Microbiol. Biotech 28(4), 1483-94.

Khan AL, Shinwari ZK, Kim YH, Waqas M, Hamayun M, Kamran M, Lee IJ. 2012. Isolation and detection of Gibberellins and indole-acetic acid from Endophyte Chaetomium globosum L. K4 growing with drought stressed plant. Pak. J. Bot 44(5), 1601-1607.

Khodarahmpour Z. 2011. Effect of drought stress induced by polyethylene glycol (PEG) on germination indices in corn (Zea mays L.) hybrids. Afr. J. Biotech 10, 18222-18227.

Kmet J, Ditmarova L, Kurjak D. 2009. Physiological and biochemical parameters as potential drought stress indic Acta Facultatis Forestalis Zvolen Slovakia 51, 37-76.

Kocheva K, Georgiev G. 2003. Evaluation of the reaction of two contrasting barley (Hordeum ulgare L.) Cultivars in response to osmotic stress with PEG 6000. Bulg. J. Plant Physiol. Pp. 290-294.

Kulkarni M, Deshpande U. 2007. In vitro screening of tomato genotypes for drought resistance using polyethylene glycol. Afr. J. Biotech 6, 691-696.

Larher F, Leport L, Petrivalskyand M, Chappart M. 1993. Effectors for the osmoinduced proline response in higher plants. Plant Physiol. Bioch 31, 911-922.

Nahar K, Gretzmacher R. 2002. Effect of water stress on nutrient uptake, yield and quality of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) under subtropical conditions. Die Bodenkultur 53, 45-51.

Oliveira ABD, Alencarand NLM, Filho EG. 2011. Physiological and biochemical responses of semiarid plants subjected to water stress. National Institute of Science & Technology Salinity/CNP Brazil pp. 43-58.

Pena RDL, Hughes J. 2007. Improving vegetable productivity in a variable and changing climate. SAT eJ 4, 1-22.

Ragab AR, Abdel-Raheem AT, Kasem ZA, Omar FD, Samera AM. 2007. Evaluation of R1 tomato somaclone plants selected under poly ethylene glycol (PEG) treatments. Afr. Crop Sci. Soc 8, 2017-2025.

Rai GK, Kumar R, Singh AK, Rai PK, Rai M, Chaturvedi AK, Rai AB. 2012. Changes in antioxidant and phytochemical properties of tomato (Lycopersicon    esculentum Mill.) under ambient condition. Pak. J. Bot 44(2), 667-670.

Sakthivelu G, Devi MKA, Giridhar P, Rajase-karan T, Ravishankar GA, Nedev T, Kosturkova G. 2008. Drought induced alterations in growth, osmotic potential and in vitroregeneration of soybean cultivars. Genet. Appl. Plant Physiol 34, 103-112.

Saxena NPO, Toole JC. 2002. Field screening for drought tolerance in crop plants with emphasis on rice: Proceedings of an International Workshop on Field Screening for Drought Tolerance in Rice 11-14 Dec. 2000, ICRISAT, Patancheru, India. Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India, and the Rockefeller Foundation, New York, New York 10018-2702, USA. 208 pp. Order code CPE139. ISBN 92-9066.

Shinwari S, Mumtaz AS, Rabbani MA, Akbar F, Shinwari ZK. 2013. Genetic divergence in Taramira (Eruca sativa L.) germplasm based on quantitative and qualitative characters. Pak. J. Bot 45(SI), 375-381.

Soni P, Rizwan M, Bhatt KV, Mohapatra T, Singh G. 2011. In vitro response of Vigna aconitifolia to drought stress induced by PEG-6000. J Stress Physiol. Biochem 7, 108-121.

Sultan M, Rabbani MA, Shinwari ZK, Masood MS. 2012. Phenotypic divergence in guar (Cyamopsis tetragonoloba L.) landrace genotypes of Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot 44(SI), 203-210.

Takac A, Gvozdenovic D, Bugarski D, Cervenski J. 2007. Savremenaproizvodnjaparadajza. Zbornikradova Institutazaratarstvo i povrtarstvo 43, 269-281.

Waraich EA, Ahmad R, Ashraf M, Saifullah. Y. 2011. Role of mineral nutrition in alleviation of drought stress in plants. Aust. J. Crop Sci 5, 764-777.

Waseem M, Athar HR, Ashraf M. 2006. Effect of salicylic acid applied through rooting medium on drought tolerance of wheat. Pak. J. Bot 38, 1127-1136.

Whalley WR, Bengough AG, Dexter AR. 1998. Water stress induced by PEG the maximum growth pressure of the roots of pea seedlings. J. Exp. Bot 49, 1689-1694.

Zdravkovic J, Pavlovic N, Girek Z, Zdravkovic M, Cvikic D. 2010. Characteristics important for organic breeding of vegetable crops. Genetika 42, 223-233.

Zhu JK. 2002. Salt and drought stress signal transduction in plants. Ann. Rev. Plant Bio 53, 247-273.