CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicon) belong to the Solananceae family and are widely grown in Zimbabwe as a vegetable. It is a perennial crop but is grown as an annual both at commercial and smallholder level of production in Zimbabwe. Tomatoes originated in Peru, Bolivia and Ecuador area of the Andes mountains and spread throughout the world during the Spanish colonisation of the Americas in the 17th century and were regarded as food around 1835 according to Perelta, 2007. Tomatoes are consumed in many ways which include eating them raw as a fruit in salads, in soups, as fruit juice and can be breaded fried as green tomatoes. Jose (2012) highlighted that tomatoes are an excellent source of Vitamin C, potassium, calcium, folate and lycoperne. With lycoperne, tomatoes reduce the risk of breast cancer, head and neck cancers and is strongly protective against neurodegenerative diseases.
The tomato plant has the potential of yielding up to 300 tonnes/ha depending on variety as stated by Oslom (2012).
However, farmers are not attaining this potential yield due to several factors which include pest and diseases, inadequate rainfall or irrigation water, exterme temperature and shallow plough depth or small pot size. NeSmith et al (2002) pointed out that yield of most crops and vegetables is affected by plough depth in Zimbabwe.
Farmers are establishing their crops in shallowly tilled land resulting in restricted root penetration into the soil thereby resulting in reduced root volume, Saoirse et al (2012).
The Term Paper on Biology EEI Effect Of Inorganic And Organic Fertilisers On Yield And Growth Of Tomatoes
ABSTRACT Aim: Laboratory experiments were carried out at Trinity Anglican School, Australia in 2010 to study the effect of various organic and inorganic fertilisers on the growth of tomato plants in the northern tropical region of Queensland, Australia during the winter season of 2010. Five pots with tomato seedlings were prepared for the experiment. Two pots were fertilised with inorganic ...
Reduced root development results in reduced nutrient and water uptake hence affecting growth and development. Root restriction can result in reduced formation of aerial dry matter which lowers the photosynthetic capacity of the crop and ultimately lowers yields.
Bangerth et al, 2000 expressed that there is interdependence between shoots and roots. Roots rely upon plant aerial portions for photoassimilates and various hormones while plant aerial portions rely on roots for water, nutrients, support and hormones. Auxins are synthesised mostly by meristematic tissues of young shoots in low concentrations to stimulate negative phototropism which cause the root to grow deep into the ground in response to gravity. Cytokinins on the other hand are synthesised by the roots and they are involved in cell division and differentiation which constitute growth, Pasternak, 2000.
This review nevertheless focuses on research concerning the effects of different plough depths on root length and yield of tomatoes. Thus the essence of the research is to determine the best plough depth or container size that farmers can use to maximise tomato production.
1.1 Main Objective
* To determine the effect of different ploughing depth on production of tomato
1.2 Specific Objective
* To determine the effect of different ploughing depth on growth and on yield of tomatoes
1.3 Hypotheses
* Ho: Plough depth has no effect on tomato yield
* Ho: Plough depth has no effect on growth rate of tomatoes
* Ho: Plough depth has no effect on root length, diameter, and flowering
* Ho: Plough depth has no effect on shoot drymass, root drymass and total drymass
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Tomato production
In Zimbabwe tomatoes are grown at commercial scale, smallholder farmers and in most backyard gardens. Nevertheless, there are a number of factors that prevent them from realising the potential yields. These include pest, diseases, extreme temperatures, soil nutrition and pH, and poor tillage practices. Of paramount importance in this study are tillage practices which result in root restriction.
The Essay on Population Growth And Regulation
POPULATION GROWTH AND REGULATION 1. Populations vary in size over time due to a number of factors some natural, some created. Births, deaths, and environmental conditions are examples of natural factors that can affect a population. Sometimes the allotted space is just not big enough or there are not enough resources to support a larger population, and the species growth levels off resulting in a ...
The tomato plant roots have the capacity to reach 2metres deep into the soil when the soil has been sufficiently disturbed, Thomas (1996) . Root restriction has long been a problem in crop cultivation causing great reductions in crop yield and quality in field grown crops. Bar-Tall (1996) who looked at how root restriction in greenhouse tomato stated that root restriction reduced the total fruit yield and the number of fruits per plant. The same study showed that root restriction reduced the growth rate of the fruits.
2.2 Botany of tomatoes
Tomatoes belong to the Solanaceous family. Tomatoes are perennial cool season plants but they are grown as annual crops. Tomatoes are botanically considered fruits but consumers consider them as vegetables. They are fairly adaptable and grow well in warm conditions. They require 22-250C during the day and 15- 170C at night. Tomatoes require about 600mm well distributed throughout the season grow well in well drained soil with high organic matter and a pH of5-7.
2.3 Tomato roots
The root system is crucial to the growth of any plant. Roots absorb nutrients and moisture, anchor the plant to the soil and furnish physical support and they have food storage organs. The parts of a root are the root cap which protects the root as it pushes through the soil, the apical meristem which produces new cells for root growth and the zone of elongation which lengthens the cells for growth. The final part of a root is the maturation zone, which are mature cells. The maturation zone contains the epidermis or the outer layer of root and the root hairs which gathers water. If the roots are compacted they cannot spread or provide what the plant needs so consequently the plant will be stunted or die.
2.4 Economic importance
Tomatoes also contribute to employment creation in the agriculture industry and also contribute to foreign currency generation after exportation of the produce, either processed or raw. In Zimbabwe they contributed about 20% to the gross value of vegetables in 2010 (Tomato Journal, 2011).
In terms of nutrition, a hectare of tomato gives similar calories but higher protein compared to a hectare of rice (Institute of Vegetables and Fruits (2000)).
Besides, tomato production is reported to give relatively high benefit compared to vegetables and other crops (Villareal, 1980).
The Essay on Plant Growth Hormone Lab Report
Introduction: Plant hormones and growth regulators are chemicals that affect flowering, aging, root growth, killing of leaves, promotion of stem elongation, color enhancement of fruit, prevention of leafing, and many other conditions. Very small concentrations of these substances produce major growth changes. All plants produce hormones naturally, and growth regulators can be applied by people to ...
2.5 Tomato production and root restriction
Though tomatoes are one of the most widely grown vegetable in the world potential and target yields are not being attained due to various causes which include root restriction. Tomatoes do very well on most mineral soils, but they prefer deep, well drained sandy loams. Deep tillage can allow for adequate root penetration in heavy clay type soils, which allows for production in these soil types. Tomato is a moderately tolerant crop to a wide pH range. A pH of 5.5- 6.8 is preferred though tomato plants will do well in more acidic soils with adequate nutrient supply and availability. Root restriction has long been a problem in crop cultivation causing great reductions in crop yield and quality. Weaver et al (2003) stated that stresses that reduce root growth may affect plant growth by reducing the volume and extent of soil exploration. Supply of water and nutrients to the shoot may be reduced if root growth is subjected to stress. Bengough et al (2006) showed soil compaction decreases root elongation rates in maize to a greater extent. Saoirse et al (2012) highlighted that if roots are restricted; the root system architecture is adversely affected, influencing resource capture by limiting the volume of soil explored. Lateral roots formed later in plants grown in compacted soil and total root length and surface area were shown to be reduced in experiments carried out by Saoirse et al (2012).
Carbon assimilation and leaf-to-fruit sugar transport are, along with plant water status, the driving mechanisms for fruit growth highlighted. An integrated comprehension of the plant water and carbon relationships is therefore essential to better understand water and dry matter accumulation. Variations in stem diameter result from an integrated response to plant water and carbon status, Tom et al (2012).
Fruit or flower production may be affected if a plant is kept in a pot that is too small. The plant may grow to its expected height, but the amount of fruit or flowers may be hindered by the lack of nutrients and vitamins absorbed from the soil. This will cause smaller fruit or flowers, or very low production. The plant may grow normally, but become root bound, and there may be no fruit or flowers produced at all.
The Term Paper on Composting and Plant Growth
Vermicomposting, as an industrial process, was originally developed to remove unwanted organic materials from the agricultural and industrial waste streams. The derived product: earthworm castings, is now recognized as a high value material which, when blended with soil, can restore soil tilth by correcting the imbalances caused by the over-utilization of petrol-chemical based fertilizers; thus ...
Bengough (2000) showed that when a root tip encounters an obstacle that resists penetration, the root cap becomes less pointed and the surface cells may slough off. Mechanical impedance decreases the rate of root elongation because of both a decrease in the rate of cell division in the meristem, and a decrease in cell length. Cell length is decreased and the volume of the inner cortical cells may decrease, but the diameter and volume of the outer cortical and epidermal cells can be considerably greater.
Abdelaziz et al (2007) highlighted that crop that have constant continuous water stress are showed limited growth in stem diameter. Taking into consideration such a finding, those plants planted in bigger pots A typical tomato root system is composed of 15 to 20 strong growing horizontal roots with many short laterals are expected to have larger diameters than those growing in smaller pots. This was said to be due to the fact that small size potted plants will not be able to extract sufficient moisture due to their small roots.
2.6 Relationship between root growth and foliage formation
The maintenance of a proper balance between root and shoot is of very great importance. Weaver et al (2003) highlighted that if either is too limited or too great in extent, the other will not thrive. The root system must be sufficiently widespread to absorb enough water and nutrients for the stem and leaves, which, in turn, must manufacture sufficient food for the maintenance of the root system. It is often mutilated by pruning, cutting or injuring the root system, frequently without much regard to the effect upon the remaining portion.
Both roots and shoots have their main functions in the uptake of basic resources which are light energy and carbon dioxide by the leaves and water and minerals by the roots. Bronswer et al (2004) highlighted that reducing container size quickly resulted in reduced growth of roots and shoots, and subsequently, fruit.
2.7 Role of cytokinins on plant growth
Communication between roots and shoots involves the interplay between different plant growth regulators and other communicators in regulating physiological responses. Interaction between auxin and root-derived cytokinins has been identified as important for regulation of apical dominance (Bangerth et al, 2000).
The Essay on Minimum Wage Labour Effect Increase
Table of Contents Ch. Section Page Introduction 31 Economic efficiency of minimum wages 3 - 42 The effect on unemployment 43 The effect on use and cost of capital in production 44 The effect on cost of production and inflation 45 The effect on productivity 46 The effect on international competitiveness 47 The consequence for long-term sustainable economic growth and stability 4 - 58 The social ...
Cytokinins’ major biosynthesis is done by the roots, but some production take place in other actively growing tissues (Pasternak, 2000).
Cytokinins move up the plant through the xylem to stimulate a number of physiological responses. In some circumstances, cytokinins activate RNA synthesis, stimulate protein synthesis and the activities of some enzymes. Cytokinins are very effective in promoting direct or indirect shoot initiation. They promote cell division and bring about growth and differentiation in a plant (Aloni, 2006).
Most of the time they combine with other plant hormones like auxins or ethylene and regulate different metabolic activities like leaf formation, mitotic division, differentiation and branching. A balance between auxin and cytokinin normally gives the most effective organogenesis. This promotes formation of biomass and is mainly exhibited in those plants with larger and extensive roots.
2.8 Role of auxins on plant growth
While shoots receive cytokinins from roots, the shoots will, on the other hand synthesise auxins. Auxins are translocated towards those sites where they are needed which are the roots. Translocation is driven throughout the plant body, primarily from peaks of shoots to peaks of roots (from up to down) and the movement is through cell to cell. Bangerth (2008) elaborated that auxins promote axial elongation (as in shoots), lateral expansion (as in root swelling), or isodiametric expansion (as in fruit growth).
Therefore, if this balance of hormones is created, a vigorously growing crop will be formed which has got an extensive root architecture and high amount of foliage and this can subsequently result in higher yields.
Many factors influence tomato yield (Heuvelink, 2005), of which radiation is the most important one, as it supplies the energy for photosynthesis, the basic production process in plants. Only radiation that is intercepted by the crop can contribute to photosynthesis . Therefore root restriction reduce light interception and consequently yield. A higher leaf area index implies a higher biomass as more leaf weight is present as well as increased gross photosynthesis. Deeper pots which result better organogenesis favours dry matter partitioning towards the fruits.
The Term Paper on Marijuanathe Perfect Plant
Prior to the twentieth century, the marijuana plant (then more commonly referred to as hemp) was the single most important industrial plant, or non-food producing crop in America and the world (Getpman 1990). Archeologists report that marijuana was possibly the first plant cultivated by humans. They estimate that date at approximately 8000 BC (Columbia University). As early as 4000 BC, pottery ...
CHAPTER 3: MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1 Study area
The research experiment was carried out at Midlands State University as a potted experiment. Sandy soils were used in the experiment. The area lies in the Midlands province of Zimbabwe which is in agro-ecological region 3. Longitude and latitude are 19.41670 S and 29.83330 respectively. The altitude of the area is 1420m above sea level. And has the mean annual rainfall of 900mm.
3.2 Experimental layout
The experiment was arranged as a Randomised Complete Block Design (RCBD).
The experiment had four treatments which were replicated twice in three blocks giving a total of twenty four pots.
3.3 Treatments (plough depth)
* 1m
* 0.75m
* 0.5m
* 0.25m (control)
3.4 Experimental procedure
Solanun lycopersicon ‘rodade’ seedlings were transplanted six weeks after sowing. Soil was thouroughly mixed and filled in containers. 0.35kg of well decomposed cattle manure was added before planting at every 25cm depth. Watering was done to field capacity in all the pots. Pots were arranged 90cm x 40cm apart. The pots were placed on top of plastic bags to prevent the roots from extracting ground nutrients. The plants were trellised to prevent toppling and ground contact with foliage and fruits. The pots were kept weed free by handpulling. Copper oxychloride was applied after every precipitation to prevent occurrence of fungal diseases and Leriomaza was used to control leafminer.
3.5 Data collection
Growth measurements were taken at weekly intervals after transplanting. These included height which was measured by a tape measure and stem diameter using string and ruler. Counting the number of flowers per plant was done after flowering. Yield of tomatoes was determined by the weight of the fruits which was measured by a digital scale and five flashes were harvested. The weights of each flash were added to get the total on each treatment. For root length, the containers were cut vertically to open them and the mass of soil was run under water to remove soil particles after harvesting. They were then measured by a tapemeasure from the stem base to the tape root to get root length. Roots and folia were oven dried at 250C for 72 hours and weighed to get their drymass.
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
4.1 Effects of ploughing depth on tomato rootlength
Ploughing depth showed statistically significant differences on tomato root length which means it had an effect at p<0.05. At p<0.05 there was significant difference between the shortest root length (0,25m) and all the other ploughing depths which are 0.5m, 0.75m and 1m plough depth. There was no significant difference between 0.5m and 0.75m plough depth though pot 0.5 and 1m were significantly different. From the control (0.25m) there was a percentage increase of 103.1%, 160.56% and 216.42% from plough depth of 0.25m, 0.5m and 0.75m respectively. There was an increase in root length as ploughing depth increased. The best root length was recorded from the highest ploughing depth of 1m and the shortest rootlength was recorded on the control (0.25m).
Fig 1: Effects of different ploughing on root length
4.2 Effects of ploughing depth on tomato root mass
Analysis of variance showed statistically significant differences (p<0.05) on root mass. There was no significant difference between the control and 0.5m depth at p<0.05. Significant difference was not there between 0.75m and 1m ploughing depths. However, 0.25m and 0.5m depths were significantly different from 0.75m and 1m ploughing depths. Percentage increase in root mass as compared to control was 13.67%, 130% and 189.87% from ploughing depth of 0.5m, 0.75m and 1m respectively. The lowest root mass was recorded on the control (0.25m) while the highest root mass was recorded at 1m ploughing depth.
Fig 2 Effects of different ploughing depth on root mass
4.3 Effects of ploughing depth on Folia dry mass
Ploughing depth had an effect on folia dry mass and there were statistically significant differences on folia dry mass (p<0.05).
Figure 4.3 shows that there was no significant difference between the 0.25m and 0.5m ploughing depth at p<0.05. There was significant difference between 0.75m and 1m ploughing depth. 0.25m and 0.5m ploughing depth were significantly different from that of 0.75m and 1m. Folia dry mass increased as plough depth is increased but the graph topples as we get to the highest ploughing depth of 1m. The lowest folia dry mass was recorded on the 0.25m ploughing depth while the highest folia dry mass was recorded on 0.75m ploughing depth. Percentage increase in folia drymass from the control was 200% and 100% from ploughing depth of 0.5m, 0.75m and 1m respectively.
Fig 3 Effects of different ploughing depth on shoot drymass
4.4 Effects of ploughing depth on total dry mass of tomatoes
Total dry mass of tomatoes differed significantly among the plough depths 0.25m, 0.5m, 0.75m and 1m (p<0.05).
Figure 4.4 shows that there was no significant difference between the control and 0.5m deep pot at p<0.05. Significant difference was not there between total dry mass of ploughing depth of 0.75m and 1m. However, depth of 0.25m and 0.5 were significantly different from that of 0.75m and 1m. There was a general increase in total dry mass as ploughing depth increased. The lowest total dry mass was recorded from the control (0.25m) while the highest total dry mass was recorded on the highest plough depth of 1m. Percentage increase in total dry mass against the control was 43.68%, 183.68 and 244.74% from ploughing depth of 0.5m, 0.75m and 1m respectively.
Fig 4 Effects of different ploughing depth on total dry mass
4.5 Effects of different ploughing depth on flowering
Ploughing had an effect on flowering on ploughing depth (p<0.05) as there were statistically significant differences between treatments. Figure 4.5 below shows that there was no significant difference between the control (0.25m) and 0.5m ploughing depth at p<0.05. Significant difference was not there in terms of flowering between 0.75m and 1m ploughing depth. However, 0.25m and 0.5m were significantly different from ploughing depth of 0.75m and 1m. Generally, as ploughing depth increased, the number of flowers per plant also increased. The lowest flower number was recorded from the shortest ploughing depth (0.25m) while the highest flower number was recorded from the 0.75m ploughing depth. Percentage increase in number of flowers from the control was 5.23%, 73.17% and 58.54 in 0,5m, 0.75m and 1m ploughing depth respectively.
Fig 5 Effects of different ploughing depth on flowering
4.6 Effects of different ploughing depth on yield
Ploughing depth had an effect on folia dry mass and there were statistically significant differences on folia dry mass (p<0.05).
Figure 4.6 shows that at p<0.05 plough depth 0.25m and 0.5m were not significantly different and also 0.75m and 1m plough depth were not significantly different in terms of yield. However 0.25m and 0.5 were significantly different from 0.75m and 1m plough depth. It also shows that deeper plough depths or pots produce higher yields. As ploughing depth increased, yield increased up to the optimum, 0.75m depth, and then slightly dropped at the 1m depth. 0,25m plough depth which is the control recorded the lowest yield while highest yield was recorded from 0.75m plough depth. Percentage increase in terms of yield against the control was 70.54%, 216.4% and 177.38% in plough depth of 0.5m, 0.75m and 1m respectively.
Fig 6 Effects of different ploughing depth on yield
4.7 Effects of different ploughing depth on height
Figure 7 below shows increase in height with time of the tomato plant. The 0.75m plough depth produced the largest height while highest ploughing depth had the shortest height. However, the
0.25m pot produced a crop that was slightly taller than the 0. 5m. In the fourth week after transplanting, the height of plants in ploughing depth 0.25m and 0.75m were equal, the point at which plants from the 0.75m out grew those of the 0.25m plough depth. At physiological maturity the 0.25m and the 0.75m plough depth had the same height.
Fig 7 Effects of ploughing depth on height of tomatoes
4.8 Effects of different ploughing depth on Stem diameter
Figure 8 below shows the rate at which stem diameter was increasing. In the end the plough depth (1m) had a crop with the largest stem diameter and following it was the 0.75m deep pot. The 0.5m pot was smaller than the 0.75m pot while the smallest diameter was recorded from the control. The 0.75m plough depth had the highest increase in stem diameter between the fourth and fifth week.
Fig 8 Effects of different ploughing depth on yield of tomatoes
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
5.1 Effects of ploughing depth on rootlength
The results above in Fig 1 show that root length increased as plough depth increases. The tomato plant is a perennial which can keep on growing downwards due to geotropism. The root system of the plant does well when the soil is well disturbed and there are no physical barriers which cause root restriction. Those plants that were grown in small pots might have been subjected to physical barriers, that is, they could have been mechanically impeded by the base surface of the pot. According to Bengough (2006), the rate of cell division in the meristems decreases as well as cell length under root restriction. In this case, the volume of the inner cortial cells also decrease. All these are the probable causes of reduced root length in plants grown in small size pots. However, as plough depth increases there is enough room for cell division and expansion as characterised by those plants grown on bigger pots and that might be the reason for their longer roots. Also the roots in higher plough depth had more volume to explore and more nutrients to take up. These were channelled to the aerial parts to promote an increase in folia biomass resulting in more supply of cytokinins. These promote and activate RNA synthesis, stimulate protein synthesis and the activities of some enzymes cell division and differentiation in the roots and other plant parts (Shimada et al 2006).
The same might have happened in small pots but to a small extent that is why there were smaller roots.
5.2 Effects of plough depth on root mass
As the roots explored a large volume of soil as in the case of plants grown in higher plough depth, there are high chances that they sent more nutrients and auxins to the leaves stimulating a bigger capacity for photosynthesis and cell division and expansion. Increased folia resulted in a larger surface area for light interception which ultimately results in a higher photosynthetic capacity of the plants. More photosynthates are transported to roots thereby increasing root dry matter. On the other hand those mechanically impeded roots had no room for division and expansion
5.3 Folia dry mass
Folia dry mass was small in the first plough depths 0.25m and 0.5m but was elevated in the two bigger pots. In the process of growth, photoassimilates are allocated to the vegetative shoots, root system or reproductive organs (Hartwell 2003).
Plants grown in shorter plough depth had a small volume of soil to explore and the roots they formed probably reached the physical barrier which made then coil around and intertwine forming a ball like mass of roots as noticed on data collection of rootlength. This quickly exhausted the nutrients within the root zone and the same happens when water was being added which could have been quickly absorbed and the plants were frequently prone to stress. The stress coupled with limited nutrient uptake resulted in formation of small and few leaves which do not have the maximum capacity to absorb photosynthetically active radiation. Therefore photosynthesis could not occur to the best of their capacity, resulting in formation of little dry matter.
Since cytokinins’ biosynthesis is done mostly by the roots (Pasternak, 2000), the small sized roots in shorter ploughing depth were able to synthesise them in less than required quantities as compared to those in higher ploughing depth which had larger and bigger roots. Cytokinins function solely or together with other hormones to activate RNA synthesis, stimulate protein synthesis and the activities of some enzymes. Cytokinins are very effective in promoting direct or indirect shoot initiation (Michael 2005).
This could be the cause for those plants to have more biomass and ultimately dry matter than those with in smaller ploughing depth.
5.4 Flowering
From Fig 5 shown above graphs, the graph of flowering follows the trend of folia dry mass. Those plants that had more folia dry mass are the ones that had more flowers. Flowering increased as ploughing depth increased. Since plants on ploughing depth had more foliage, that increased their reproductive capacity by production of more flowers. This might be due the fact that they had a bigger source, so they had to form a corresponding sink where photoassimilates that contribute to yield would be deposited. The control and the 0.5m ploughing depth crops which were in smaller ploughing depth and had small and few leaves, had a smaller source so they had to form a sink that they could only fill as attributed by formation of fewer flowers.
5.5 Yield
Yield, just like flowering, followed the same trend as folia dry matter. Plants planted in ploughing depth of 0.25m and 0.5m recorded low yield with the later being better than the other. Those in higher ploughing depth 0f 0.75m and 1m had better yields, though the 0.75m pot had the best results. This could be due to the fact that they had more photosynthetic capacity and also they had more flowers where they could deposit their photoassimilates. In higher ploughing depth there were bigger roots which took up more nutrients and there was good aeration. There was also improved light interception and carbon dioxide uptake, all of which optimised rate of photosynthesis.
5.6 Stem diameter and height
Stem diameter followed the same trend as root length and total drymass where the diameter of the tomato stems increased as ploughing depth increased. The growth of the stem is affected by nutritional value that the crop gets. Root restricted plants with their small roots were probably unable to send sufficient nutrients to the aerial parts which in turn were unable to photosynthesise enough carbohydrates which could be turned into cellulose that is deposited in plant stems. The biggest height was recorded from the 0.75m height which had the second largest plough depth. This might be explained by the fact that it had more space to root and increased moisture and nutrient uptake because of well developed roots. However, the 1m pot had a smaller height probably because it concentrated mainly on branching since it had access to additional nutrients like nitrogen which promote rank growth. Through direct visual assessment, the plants from 0.25m and 0.5m pots were thinner and tall but had no foliage and they were shorter than the 0.75m plants.
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Conclusion
Statistical evidence provided hereinbefore shows that increasing plough depth or pot size in tomato production improves yield and other growth parameters. Growing tomatoes in small pots reduce the size and length of roots. Tomatoes will have bigger, longer roots which have a bigger dry mass too if they are grown in larger pots. Increasing plough depth has shown to effectively increase yield of tomatoes with the 0.75m depth having the highest yield while root restricted plants grown in small pots had low yields and the smallest yield attained from the control (0.25m).
Folia drymass and total dry mass also increased as pot size increased. The number of flowers per plant and stem diameter also increased with increase in pot size. In light of this information, it is therefore logical and scientifically sound to conclude that growing tomatoes in larger pots improved their performance and ultimately yield with which farmers are mainly concerned with.
6.2 Recommendations
Since this is a first trial of the experiment, it can be repeated twice maybe in the greenhouse and or in the field to assess if the same results can be attained and then safely conclude. Nevertheless, from the findings attained in this research it has been found that tomato growth, performance and yield are improved as plough depth or container size is increased. Therefore it is recommended that farmers plant their tomatoes in the 0.75m deep pots where the highest yield was attained.
References
Bengough AG, Bransby MF, Hans J, McKenna SJ, Roberts TJ, Valentine TA. (2000) Root responses to soil physical conditions: growth dynamics from field to cell. Journal of Experimental Botany 2006;57:437-447.
E. Heuvelink, M.J. Bakker1, A. Elings, R. Kaarsemaker and L.F.M. Marcelis Wageningen (2005) Effect of Leaf Area on Tomato Yield University, Horticultural Production Chains group, Marijkeweg 22, 6709 PG Wageningen, The Netherlands
Institute of Vegetables and Fruits. 2000. The world vegetable marketplace. Hanoi.
R. Aloni, E. Aloni, M Langhans, and C.I Ullrich (2006) Role of Cytokinin and Auxins in Shaping Root Architecture; Regulating Vascular Diffrentiation, Lateral Root Initiation, Root Apical Dominance and Root Gravitropism Department of Plant Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel and Institute of Botany. Damstard University of Technology, Schnittspahnstrasse, 64287. Darmstadt Germany
Abdelaziz M.E, R. Pokluda, P.J Paschold (2007), Sensitivity of stem diameter variations for detecting water stress in tomato transplants
Tom De Swaef, Steven M. Driever, Lieven Van Meulebroek, Lynn Vanhaecke, Leo F. M. Marcelis, and Kathy Steppe (2012) Understanding the effect of carbon status on stem diameter variation Oxford University Press Annals of Botany Company.
The Effect of Plant Pot Sizes | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_5491659_effect-plant-pot-sizes.html#ixzz2SQ3EQSjG
E. Heuvelink, M.JBakker, A. Elings, R.C. Kaarsemaker, L.F.M. Marcelis (2004) International Conference on Sustainabile Greenhouse Systems – Greensys
Hartwell Allen, JR. (2003) The carbon fertilization effect: higher carbohydrate production and retention as biomass and seed yield US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA
Thomas L. Rost (1996) Tomato anatomy. Section of Plant Biology Division of Biological Sciences. Univesity of California, Davis
Michael Riefler. Ondrej Novak. Miroslav Strnad (2005) Arabidopsis Cytokinin Receptor Mutants Reveal Functions in Shoot Growth, Leaf Senescence, Seed Size, Germination, Root Development, and Cytokinin Metabolism American Society of Plant Biologists
A. Bar-Tal and E. Pressman (1996) Root Restriction and Potassium and Calcium Solution Concentrations Affect Dry-matter Production, Cation uptake, and Blossom-end Rot in Greenhouse Tomato Agricultural Research Organization, The Volcani Center, Bet Dagan 50250, Israel
D. Scott NeSmith1 and John R. Duval (2003 )The Effect Of Container Size Hort Technology
Saoirse R. Tracy, Colin R. Black, Jeremy A. Roberts, Craig Sturrock, Stefan Mairhofer, Jim Craigon and Sacha J. Mooney (2012) Quantifying the impact of soil compaction on root system architecture in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) by X-ray micro-computed tomography School of Biosciences, University of Nottingham, Sutton Bonington Campus, Loughborough LE12 5RD, UK
Bangerth, F. (2008) Nature and significance of correlative hormonal signals in growth and development of annual and perennial plants. Acta Hort. 774: 379-390.
Tom De Swaef, Steven M. Driever, Lieven Van Meulebroek, Lynn Vanhaecke, Leo F. M. Marcelis, and Kathy Steppe 2012 Understanding the effect of carbon status on stem diameter variations Laboratory of Plant Ecology, Department of Applied Ecology and Environmental Biology, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
Jose Pinela, Lilian Baros, Ana Maria Cavalho, Isabel C.F.R. Ferreira (2012) Nutritional composition and antioxidant activity of four tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum L.) farmer’ varieties in Northeastern Portugal homegardens J CIMO/Escola Superior Agrária, Instituto Politécnico de Bragança, Campus de Santa Apolónia, Apartado 1172, 5301-855 Bragança, Portugal.
Peralta, I.E., Spooner, D.M. 2007. History, origin and early cultivation of tomato (solanaceae).
Vol. 2. Enfield, USA: Science Publishers. p. 1-27.
S.M. Olson, P.J. Dittmar, G.E. Vallad, S.E. Webb, S.A. Smith, E.J. McAvoy, B.M. Santos and M. Ozores-Hampton 2012 Tomato Production in Florida. University of Florida IFAS Extension HS739
Abdelaziz, R. Pokluda, P.J. Paschold (2007) Sensitivity of stem diameter variations for detecting water stress in tomato transplants
APPENDICES:
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLES
A1: Height week1
Source of variation | d.f. | s.s. | m.s. | v.r. | F pr. |
| | | | | |
block stratum | 2 | 16.083 | 8.042 | 1.63 | |
| | | | | |
block.*Units* stratum | | | | | |
treatment | 3 | 116.167 | 38.722 | 7.87 | 0.001 |
Residual | 18 | 88.583 | 4.921 | | |
| | | | | |
Total | 23 | 220.833 | | | |
A2: Height week 2
Source of variation | d.f. | s.s. | m.s. | v.r. | F pr. |
| | | | | |
block stratum | 2 | 125.08 | 62.54 | 1.1 | |
| | | | | |
block.*Units* stratum | | | | | |
treatment | 3 | 1463.79 | 487.93 | 8.58 | <.001 |
Residual | 18 | 1023.58 | 56.87 | | |
| | | | | |
Total | 23 | 2612.46 | | | |
A3: Height week 3
Source of variation | d.f. | s.s. | m.s. | v.r. | F pr. |
| | | | | |
block stratum | 2 | 153.25 | 76.62 | 0.81 | |
| | | | | |
block.*Units* stratum | | | | | |
treatment | 3 | 1662.33 | 554.11 | 5.86 | 0.006 |
Residual | 18 | 1702.42 | 94.58 | | |
| | | | | |
Total | 23 | 3518 | | | |
A4: Height week 4
Source of variation | d.f. | s.s. | m.s. | v.r. | F pr. |
| | | | | |
block stratum | 2 | 930.6 | 465.3 | 3.84 | |
| | | | | |
block.*Units* stratum | | | | | |
treatment | 3 | 1573.7 | 524.6 | 4.33 | 0.018 |
Residual | 18 | 2180.1 | 121.1 | | |
| | | | | |
Total | 23 | 4684.3 | | | |
A5: Height week 5
Source of variation | d.f. | s.s. | m.s. | v.r. | F pr. |
| | | | | |
block stratum | 2 | 1338.08 | 669.04 | 10.46 | |
| | | | | |
block.*Units* stratum | | | | | |
treatment | 3 | 2008.33 | 669.44 | 10.47 | <.001 |
Residual | 18 | 1150.92 | 63.94 | | |
| | | | | |
Total | 23 | 4497.33 | | | |
A6: Height week 6
Source of variation | d.f. | s.s. | m.s. | v.r. | F pr. |
| | | | | |
block stratum | 2 | 1127.58 | 563.79 | 12.19 | |
| | | | | |
block.*Units* stratum | | | | | |
treatment | 3 | 1662.46 | 554.15 | 11.98 | <.001 |
Residual | 18 | 832.42 | 46.25 | | |
| | | | | |
Total | 23 | 3622.46 | | | |
A7: Height week 7
Source of variation | d.f. | s.s. | m.s. | v.r. | F pr. |
| | | | | |
block stratum | 2 | 852.33 | 426.17 | 10.21 | |
| | | | | |
block.*Units* stratum | | | |
treatment | 3 | 1864.83 | 621.61 | 14.89 | <.001 |
Residual | 18 | 751.67 | 41.76 | | |
| | | | | |
Total | 23 | 3468.83 | | | |
A8: Height week 8
Source of variation | d.f. | s.s. | m.s. | v.r. | F pr. |
| | | | | |
block stratum | 2 | 852.33 | 426.17 | 10.21 | |
| | | | | |
block.*Units* stratum | | | |
treatment | 3 | 1864.83 | 621.61 | 14.89 | <.001 |
Residual | 18 | 751.67 | 41.76 | | |
| | | | | |
Total | 23 | 3468.83 | | | |
A9: Height week 9
Source of variation | d.f. | s.s. | m.s. | v.r. | F pr. |
| | | | | |
block stratum | 2 | 558.58 | 279.29 | 7.47 | |
| | | | | |
block.*Units* stratum | | | | | |
treatment | 3 | 2057.45 | 685.82 | 18.34 | <.001 |
Residual | 18 | 673.04 | 37.39 | | |
| | | | | |
Total | 23 | 3289.07 | | | |
A10: Height week 10
Source of variation | d.f. | s.s. | m.s. | v.r. | F pr. |
| | | | | |
block stratum | 2 | 417.25 | 208.62 | 4.81 | |
| | | | | |
block.*Units* stratum | | | | | |
treatment | 3 | 1960.79 | 653.6 | 15.06 | <.001 |
Residual | 18 | 781.08 | 43.39 | | |
| | | | | |
Total | 23 | 3159.12 | | | |
A11: Diameter week 1
Source of variation | d.f. | s.s. | m.s. | v.r. | F pr. |
| | | | | |
block stratum | 2 | 0.04333 | 0.02167 | 2.13 | |
| | | | | |
block.*Units* stratum | | | | | |
treatment | 3 | 0.23167 | 0.07722 | 7.58 | 0.002 |
Residual | 18 | 0.18333 | 0.01019 | | |
| | | | | |
Total | 23 | 0.45833 | | | |
A12: Diameter week 2
Source of variation | d.f. | s.s. | m.s. | v.r. | F pr. |
| | | | | |
block stratum | 2 | 0.09 | 0.045 | 5.93 | |
| | | | | |
block.*Units* stratum | | | | | |
treatment | 3 | 0.25833 | 0.08611 | 11.34 | <.001 |
Residual | 18 | 0.13667 | 0.00759 | | |
| | | | | |
Total | 23 | 0.485 | | | |
A13: Diameter week 3
Source of variation | d.f. | s.s. | m.s. | v.r. | F pr. |
| | | | | |
block stratum | 2 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 2.45 | |
| | | | | |
block.*Units* stratum | | | | | |
treatment | 3 | 0.81833 | 0.27278 | 33.48 | <.001 |
Residual | 18 | 0.14667 | 0.00815 | | |
| | | | | |
Total | 23 | 1.005 | | | |
A14: Diameter week 4
Source of variation | d.f. | s.s. | m.s. | v.r. | F pr. |
| | | | | |
block stratum | 2 | 0.07 | 0.035 | 4.02 | |
| | | | | |
block.*Units* stratum | | | | | |
treatment | 3 | 1.65833 | 0.55278 | 63.51 | <.001 |
Residual | 18 | 0.15667 | 0.0087 | | |
| | | | | |
Total | 23 | 1.885 | | | |
A15: Diameter week 5
Source of variation | d.f. | s.s. | m.s. | v.r. | F pr. |
| | | | | |
block stratum | 2 | 0.20333 | 0.10167 | 4.61 | |
| | | | | |
block.*Units* stratum | | | | | |
treatment | 3 | 4.61833 | 1.53944 | 69.86 | <.001 |
Residual | 18 | 0.39667 | 0.02204 | | |
| | | | | |
Total | 23 | 5.21833 | | | |
A16: Diameter week 6
Source of variation | d.f. | s.s. | m.s. | v.r. | F pr. |
| | | | | |
block stratum | 2 | 0.17333 | 0.08667 | 3.9 | |
| | | | | |
block.*Units* stratum | | | | | |
treatment | 3 | 5.565 | 1.855 | 83.48 | <.001 |
Residual | 18 | 0.4 | 0.02222 | | |
| | | | | |
Total | 23 | 6.13833 | | | |
A17: Diameter week 7
Source of variation | d.f. | s.s. | m.s. | v.r. | F pr. |
| | | | | |
block stratum | 2 | 0.16333 | 0.08167 | 3.71 | |
| | | | | |
block.*Units* stratum | | | | | |
treatment | 3 | 6.21833 | 2.07278 | 94.06 | <.001 |
Residual | 18 | 0.39667 | 0.02204 | | |
| | | | | |
Total | 23 | 6.77833 | | | |
A18: Diameter week 8
Source of variation | d.f. | s.s. | m.s. | v.r. | F pr. |
| | | | | |
block stratum | 2 | 0.12333 | 0.06167 | 1.99 | |
| | | | | |
block.*Units* stratum | | | | | |
treatment | 3 | 6.59333 | 2.19778 | 71.07 | <.001 |
Residual | 18 | 0.55667 | 0.03093 | | |
| | | | | |
Total | 23 | 7.27333 | | | |
A19: Diameter week 9
Source of variation | d.f. | s.s. | m.s. | v.r. | F pr. |
| | | | | |
block stratum | 2 | 0.13 | 0.065 | 2.03 | |
| | | | | |
block.*Units* stratum | | | | | |
Treatment | 3 | 7.07333 | 2.35778 | 73.6 | <.001 |
Residual | 18 | 0.57667 | 0.03204 | | |
| | | | | |
Total | 23 | 7.78 | | | |
A20: Diameter week 10
Source of variation | d.f. | s.s. | m.s. | v.r. | F pr. |
| | | | | |
block stratum | 2 | 0.07 | 0.035 | 1.11 | |
| | | | | |
block.*Units* stratum | | | | | |
treatment | 3 | 6.565 | 2.18833 | 69.11 | <.001 |
Residual | 18 | 0.57 | 0.03167 | | |
| | | | | |
Total | 23 | 7.205 | | | |
A21: Shoot drymass
Source of variation | d.f. | s.s. | m.s. | v.r. | F pr. |
| | | | | |
block stratum | 2 | 0.00016 | 8.2E-05 | 0.25 | |
| | | | | |
block.*Units* stratum | | | | | |
treatmnt | 3 | 0.00848 | 0.00283 | 8.65 | <.001 |
Residual | 18 | 0.00588 | 0.00033 | | |
| | | | | |
Total | 23 | 0.01452 | | | |
A22: Flowering
Source of variation | d.f. | s.s. | m.s. | v.r. | F pr. |
| | | | | |
block stratum | 2 | 15.25 | 7.62 | 0.09 | |
| | | | | |
block.*Units* stratum | | | | | |
treatmnt | 3 | 2039 | 679.67 | 8.15 | 0.001 |
Residual | 18 | 1501.75 | 83.43 | | |
| | | | | |
Total | 23 | 3556 | | | |
A23: Yield
Source of variation | d.f. | s.s. | m.s. | v.r. | F pr. |
| | | | | |
block stratum | 2 | 148900 | 74450 | 0.52 | |
| | | | | |
block.*Units* stratum | | | | | |
treatmnt | 3 | 6954911 | 2318304 | 16.05 | <.001 |
Residual | 18 | 2599329 | 144407 | | |
| | | | | |
Total | 23 | 9703141 | | | |
A24: Rootlength
Source of variation | d.f. | s.s. | m.s. | v.r. | F pr. |
| | | | | |
block stratum | 2 | 95.146 | 47.573 | 6.26 | |
| | | | | |
block.*Units* stratum | | | | | |
Treatment | 3 | 15667.1 | 5222.37 | 687.51 | <.001 |
Residual | 18 | 136.729 | 7.596 | | |
| | | | | |
Total | 23 | 15899 | | | |
A25: Root drymass
Source of variation | d.f. | s.s. | m.s. | v.r. | F pr. |
| | | | | |
block stratum | 2 | 4.9396 | 2.4698 | 2.77 | |
| | | | | |
block.*Units* stratum | | | | | |
treatment | 3 | 237.43 | 79.1433 | 88.61 | <.001 |
Residual | 18 | 16.0762 | 0.8931 | | |
| | | | | |
Total | 23 | 258.446 | | | |
A26: Total drymass
Source of variation | d.f. | s.s. | m.s. | v.r. | F pr. |
| | | | | |
block stratum | 2 | 10.32 | 5.16 | 0.11 | |
| | | | | |
block.*Units* stratum | | | | | |
treatment | 3 | 8625.64 | 2875.21 | 61.61 | <.001 |
Residual | 18 | 840.07 | 46.67 | | |
| | | | | |
Total | 23 | 9476.03 | | | |
