Welcome to International Network for Natural Sciences | INNSpub

Effect of water stress on yield and physiological traits among selected African tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) land races

Research Paper | January 1, 2017

| Download 4

Kenneth O. Tembe, George N. Chemining’wa, Jane Ambuko, Willis Owino

Key Words:

Int. J. Agron. Agri. Res.10( 1), 78-85, January 2017


IJAAR 2017 [Generate Certificate]


Expansion of tomato farming in dryland regions of Kenya has the potential to improve livelihoods and food security of rural farmers. However, the crop is very sensitive to water deficit that has made its expansion in dry-land regions of the country to nearly impossible. Crop landraces have been continuously used to develop varieties adapted to abiotic stresses such as drought. In Africa, tomato has a rich genetic resource base which is largely undocumented and whose knowledge can aid in the identification of genotypes with desirable traits for breeding. The objective of this study was to evaluate the variation in response to water stress on yield and physiological traits of twenty (20) African tomato accessions from the World Vegetable Centre and the National Genebank of Kenya. Planting was done in a greenhouse in a randomized complete block design with three replications and subjected to four soil moisture levels of 100% Pot capacity (PC), 80% PC 60% PC and 40% PC. The response to water stress was mainly dependent on the genotype and reduction in moisture significantly reduced the SPAD value, leaf relative water content, stomatal conductance, the number of fruits per plant and fruit weight per plant. However, canopy temperature increased with the decrease in moisture level. Variations among accessions for fruit weight per plant ranged from 521-2404.3 g (100% PC), 421.3-2020.7 g (80% PC), 359.3-1768.3 g (60% PC) and 127.3-1487.7 g (40% PC). This variability shows the potential among the African tomato accessions for breeding drought-tolerant tomato varieties.


Copyright © 2017
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 water stress on yield and physiological traits among selected African tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) land races

Ashraf M. 2010. Inducing drought tolerance in plants. Biotechnology Advances Journal 28, 169-183.

Blanca J, Can˜izares J, Cordero L, Pascual L, Diez MJ, Nuez F. 2012. Variation revealed by SNP genotyping and morphology provides insight into the origin of the tomato. PLoS ONE, 7(10), e48198. DOI: 10.1371/Journal. Pone.

Chakhchar A, Lamaoui M, Aissam S, Wahbi S, Mousadik AEl, Ibnsouda-koraichi S, … Modafar CEl. 2016. Differential physiological and antioxidative responses to drought stress and recovery among four contrasting Argania spinosa ecotypes, 9145 (January 2017). https://doi.org/ 10.1080/17429145.2016.1148204

David W. 2002. Limitation to photosynthesis in water stressed leaves: stomata vs. metabolism and the role of ATP. Annals of Botany 89, 871-885.

Foolad MR 2007. Genome mapping and molecular breeding of tomato. International Journal of Plant Genomics, 2007: 64358.

Gong H, Zhu X, Chen K, Wang S, Zhang C. 2005. Silicon alleviates oxidative damage of wheat plants in pots under drought. Journal of Plant Sciences 169, 313–321.

Kozlowski TT. 1972. Water deficit and plant growth. London Academic Press, 91-111.

Mbaka JN, Gitonga JK, Gathambari CW, Mwangi BG, Githuka P, Mwangi M. 2013. Identification of knowledge and technology gaps in high tunnels tomato production in Kirinyaga and Embu counties. (May 2013).

Miyashita S, Tanakamaru T, Maitani K. Kimura. 2005. Recovery responses of photosynthesis, transpiration, and stomatal conductance in kidney bean following drought stress. Journal of Environmental and Experimental Botany 53, 205-214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot. 2004.03. 015

Newton AC, Akar T, Baresel JP, Bebeli PJ, Bettencourt E, Bladenopoulos KV, Czembor JH, Fasoula DA, Katsiotis A, Koutis K, Koutsika-Sotiriou M, Kovacs G, Larsson H, de Carvalho MAAP, Rubiales D, Russell J, Dos Santos TMM, Patto MCV. 2010. Cereal landraces for sustainable agriculture. A Review of Agronomy and Sustainable Development Journal 30(2), 237–269.

Nuruddin MM, Madramootoo CA, Dodds GT. 2003. Effects of water stress at different growth stages on greenhouse tomato yield and quality. Journal of Horticultural Sciences 38, 1389-1393.

Olmstead RG, Bohs L, Migid HA, Santiago-Valentin E, et al. 2008. A molecular phylogeny of the Solanaceae. Journal of Taxonomy 57, 1159-1181.

Ramadasan A, Kasturi Bai KV, Shivashankar S. 1993. Selection of coconut seedlings through physiological and biochemical criteria. In: Advances in Coconut Research Development, 201-207.

Robertson LD, Labate JA. 2007. Genetic resources of tomato (Lycopersicum esculentum Mill) and wild relatives. In: Genetic Improvement of Solanaceous Crops Volume 2. Science publishers, New Hampshire, 25-75.

Sibomana IC, Aguyoh JN, Opiyo AM. 2013. Water stress affects growth and yield of container grown tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill) plants. Global Journal of Biochemistry and Biotechnology 2(4), 461- 466.

Siddique MR, Hamid A, Islam MS. 2001. Drought stress effects on water relations of wheat. Botanical Bulletin of Academia Sinica 41, 35-39.

Torrecillas A, Guillaume C, Alarcón JJ, Ruiz-sánchez MC. 1995. Water relations of two tomato species under water stress and recovery. Plant Science Journal 105, 169-176.

Turan MA, Elkarim AHA, Taban N, Taban S. 2009. Effect of salt stress on growth, stomatal resistance, proline and chlorophyll concentrations in maize plant. African Journal of Agriculture Research 4(9), 893 – 897.

Wamache A. 2005. Vegetable seeds handbook. Regina seeds Seminis. Printed by Bizone ltd. Nairobi Kenya.

Wang F, Kang S, Du T, Li F, Qiu R. 2011. Determination of comprehensive quality index for tomato and its response to different irrigation treatments. Agricultural Water Management Journal 98, 1228- 1238.

Yamasaki S, Dillenburg LC. 1999. Measurements of leaf relative water content in Araucaria angustifolia. Brazilian Journal of Plant Physiology 11(2), 69–75.