Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) is a popular vegetable all over the world because of its high nutritive value and versatile uses (Kamran et al., 2011; Regassa et al., 2012). Tomato is a warm season crop and requires a relatively long growing season and moderately high temperature (20-28°C).It ensures that the optimum fruit setting is at night temperature and the optimum range is 15°-20°C.  It is a rich source of vitamin A and C and eaten as salad and cooked as vegetable. Tomato is the second largest crop among the processed vegetables.  It is processed into various forms such as juice, ketchup, paste puree etc (Takeoka et al., 2001). Mayeaux et al. (2006) indicated the potential health benefits of a diet rich in tomatoes and tomato products. Lycopene, the pigment that is responsible for the characteristic deep red colour of ripe tomatoes and their products plays an important role in human health and epidemiological studies have shown it to reduce the risk of chronic diseases. Lycopene is a major carotenoid without provitamin A activity and is considered responsible for their beneficial effects (Gerster, 1997; Rao and Agarwal, 1999). In Punjab, winter planted crop is most successful one and gives a very high yield, but distributed over a small time span of less than two month. During peak harvesting season there is glut in the market and there price crash, while during rest part of the year it is in short supply and the price rises beyond the reach of common man. Recently,
 

to overcome these environmental conditions and pesticide residue problem protected cultivation of vegetables, particularly polyhouse cultivation of tomato, brinjal and capsicum has been recommended by Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana. Polyhouse cultivation of tomato offers distinct advantages of earliness, higher productivity and quality particularly pesticide residue free produce, besides higher returns to growers. Under protected environment the natural environment is modified to the suitable conditions for optimum plant growth which ultimately helps in the production of quality tomatoes suitable for exports and domestic consumption (Singh and Sirohi, 2006). Occurrence of frost coupled with low temperature during the month of December and January cause death of tomato plant when grown in open field conditions, but under protected environment, the yield loss can minimized. However, the technology for producing quality tomato fruits have been standardized yet there is no information available regarding performance of different hybrids under polyhouse. The following experiment was planned with the objective of evaluating indeterminate hybrids of tomato in respect of yield and quality under protected conditions.
 

The present investigation was carried out to ascertain the information on performance of different tomato hybrids for economic traits under polyhouse conditions during 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-2011. An analysis of variance for mean value revealed that mean squares due to genotypes were significant for all the traits indicated the presence of variability in experiment material. From the analysis of 22 hybrids during 2008-09 and 11 hybrids during 2009-10, it was found that HS-18, G-600, DEV and TAI-687 were statistically superior to other hybrids for almost all the economic traits under study (Table 1 to 4). Thus, all these four hybrids were evaluated for fruit yield and quality traits during three consecutive years and results are presented in Table 5.

 

 

Table 2 Performance of tomato hybrids for quality traits during 2008-09

The hybrid HS-18 recorded maximum number of fruits per cluster (8.50, 8.50 and 8.54) respectively during 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 followed by Dev and G-600. Thus, it was observed that the hybrid HS-18 was superior for number of fruits per cluster (8.51) over the years followed by Dev (8.24) and G-600 (8.00). Similarly, TAI-687 (11.67) recorded maximum number of clusters per plant followed by HS-18 (11.33) and G-600 (10.83) during the three consecutive years. The tomato crop grown under net house conditions were produced higher number of fruits per cluster than in the open field conditions because better environmental conditions helped in better pollination which leads to more fruit setting as revealed by the Gavrish et al. (1998) observed that tomato hybrid ‘Malyshock’ produced 5-7 fruits per inflorescence under plastic green house. Similarly, experiment conducted regarding raising of indeterminate hybrids under polyhouse by Singh (2011) revealed that ‘TAI-687’ had maximum number of clusters per plant (9.0). Regassa et al. (2012) observed that numbers of fruit clusters per plant were maximum in ‘H-1350’, ‘Eshet’, ‘Moneymaker’ and ‘Marglobe’ 13.53, 12.20, 11.60, 11.40, respectively.
 

Fruit shape index is the important trait from market point of view. Some markets prefer pear shaped, some prefer oval while some prefer round or flat shaped fruits. However, Punjab consumers like oval-round to flat fruits. According to mean performance of shortlisted genotypes during 2009-10 and 2010-11, it was observed that G-600 (0.82) and HS-18 (0.83) were flat whereas Dev (1.05) and TAI-687 (1.08) were found round to oval. The polar diameter of the fruits in all the tomato hybrids studied was smaller than the equatorial diameter (Viswanathan et al., 1997; Regassa et al., 2012). Regassa et al. (2012) also reported that minimum fruit shape index was observed in ‘Marglobe’ and ‘Moneymaker’ (0.79) whiles the rest of varieties those were used in study. Turhan et al. (2011) also pointed out that fruit shape index of tomato lay in the range of 1.19 to 1.35. Atherton and Rudich (1986) also revealed that tomato cultivars differed greatly in fruit shape, which were spherical, elongated or pear-shaped. Thus, measurements of longitudinal and cross-sectional diameters determine their shape.
 

Fruit weight is one of the important trait that was directly linked with yield. The hybrid G-600 was significantly superior in terms of average fruit weight than others during 2008-09 (98.00 g), 2009-10 (95.00) and 2010-11 (97.50 g). However, in pooled analysis, it was found that G-600 has higher average fruit weight (96.83 g) followed by Dev (91.19 g), TAI-687 (80.04 g) and HS-18 (77.61 g). Chaudhary et al. (1993) reported that tomato hybrid ‘Carmello’ had the maximum average fruit weight (163.33g) under the Plastic tunnel.  Hossain et al. (2010) reported that range of single fruit weight was varied from 21.54g to 60.92g. Mohanty and Prusti (2001) were noticed that genotype ‘ET 35’ large sized fruits (92.67g). AVRDC (1986); Imai (1987); Zekki et al. (1996); Gul et al. (2000); Shah et al. (2011) reported an average fruit weight of 130 g, 91 g, 157.9 g, 113 or 114 g and 67.60 g.
 

During three years of study, the hybrid G-600 recorded maximum (202.83 cm) plant height followed by Dev, TAI-687 and HS-18. Singh et al. (2005) revealed that ‘Avinash-2’ attained the maximum plant height (102.7 cm) under the net house conditions as compared to other tomato hybrids, while, Ganesan (2001) revealed that ‘Pusa Ruby’ attained maximum plant height (211 cm) under green- house conditions. This finding was also in agreement with other researchers (Haque et al., 1988; Kallo et al., 1998; Manoj and Ragav, 1998; Hussain et al., 2001; Mohanty and Prusti, 2001; Khah et al., 2006; Pradeepkumar et al., 2001; Ahmad et al., 2007; Hossain et al., 2010; Kaushik et al., 2011; Regassa et al., 2012; Chernet et al., 2014) obtained tomato with plant height in the range of 36.80 to 129.0 cm.
 

High yield is the ultimate aim of every plant breeder. Analysis of data for yield per plant revealed that it ranged from 2.07 to 3.20 kg per plant with an overall mean of 2.44 kg per plant. The hybrid HS-18 (3.19, 3.30 and 3.11 kg per plant) recorded highest yield during all the three years, respectively. High yield in HS-18 might be due to higher number of fruits in a cluster as well as higher number of clusters on a single plant. However, it was also observed that less fruit weight than other hybrids but it does not affect the overall yield of HS-18. Ganesan (2001) revealed that tomato hybrid ‘Pusa Ruby’ (2.20 kg/plant) produced the maximum fruit yield. Singh and Asrey (2005) reported that the production of ‘Naveen’ hybrid of tomato was higher under protected conditions. Fontes et al. (1997) reported that the average yield of marketable fruits in the plastic tunnel was 3.15 kg per plant which were 141% higher than in field grown plants. Jaha and Krishi (2001) reported 4.03 kg fresh fruit yield per plant in cultivar ‘Naveen’ while, Mishra and Lal (1998) reported that variety ‘Pusa Ruby’ gave the maximum fruit yield per plant (2.7 kg) among the 39 tomato cultivars. Other researchers (Hussain et al., 2001; Ahmad et al., 2007; Žnidarčič et al., 2003; Shah et al., 2011; Naz et al., 2011; Regassa et al., 2012; Kratky, 1988; Bradley and Marulanda, 2000; Zekki et al., 1996; Jiregna, 2013; Muhammmad et al., 2013) reported that fruit yield per plant lay between 0.83 to 3.8 kg per plant.
 

The observations recorded on these four hybrids revealed that number of locules per fruit were non-significant during 2008-09 to 2010-11. In nutshell tomato genotypes showed desirable character of minimum number of locules under protected conditions (Singh, 2011). In present study it was observed that the hybrids TAI-687 showed minimum number of locules per fruit (2.17) and G-600 showed the maximum number of locules per fruit (3.00) over all the three years. Variation in the number of locules per fruit was also reported by Sharma et al. (2009); Dar et al. (2012), who observed that the range of number of locules per fruit was 2.0 to 6.0.
 

Pericarp thickness is another important trait of quality. There was a significant difference in the pericarp thickness of fruit in different tomato hybrids grown under polyhouse. Maximum pericarp thickness was recorded in TAI-687 (0.80 mm) followed by HS-18 (0.74 mm), Dev (0.69 mm) and G-600 (0.63 mm). It was observed that the genotype having thicker pericarp has longer shelf life, higher fruit firmness and high transportation ability. These findings were in close conformity with Durvesh and Singh (2006), who reported that maximum percarp thickness was in ‘Sonali’ (9.0 mm) and the minimum in ‘DTH-6’ (3.7 mm); Dar et al. (2012) reported the maximum value in ‘EC-521067’ (5.27 mm) and minimum was recorded in genotype ‘CGNT-5’ (2.58 mm). 
 

A total soluble solid is very important trait of quality and degree of sweetness is determined by TSS. There were non-significant differences for total soluble solids in 2008-09 and 2010-11 whereas in 2009-10, HS-18 (5.00 oBrix) was significantly superior to other hybrids. However, according to mean performance of three years, HS-18 (4.72 oBrix) recorded maximum TSS followed by Dev and TAI-687 (3.99 oBrix). Similar results were also observed  by Zhu-wei Min et al. (2003) that tomato cultivar ‘Puhong 909’ had maximum TSS content (4.5%) under the multispan greenhouse. Singh (2011) also reported that maximum TSS was present in ‘Naveen’ (5.60) under naturally ventilated polyhouse. The value of total soluble solids content varied from 4.79% to 6.02% (Hossain et al., 2010). Radhakrishnaih et al. (1987); Nainwal et al. (1992); Ereifej et al. (1997); Durvesh and Singh (2006); Dar et al. (2012); Gupta et al. (2011) reported that quality attributes like total soluble solids of the fruit ranged from 3.67 to 6.0 oBrix.
 

1.9 Dry matter content (%)

In case of dry matter, non-significant differences were recorded but HS-18 has maximum dry matter content (5.44%) followed by TAI-687 (5.31%), Dev and G-600 (4.81%). Davis and Hobson (1981) also found the less variation in dry matter content among the different variety. Hossain et al. (2010) reported the range of dry matter 10.60% to 17.54%. 
 

From processing point of view, titrable acidity has great significance. According to Guold and Berry (1972), a tomato variety for processing should have acid contents ranging from 0.35% to 0.55%. High acidity prevents microbial activities in processed products. During three years of study, the hybrid HS-18 has the highest titrable acidity (0.56), while TAI-687 (0.45) has the lowest titrable acidity.  Similar result was also reported by Hossain et al. (2010). Singh (2011) also reported that ‘TH-23’ recorded maximum fruit acidity (0.65) and ‘Hyb-432’ recorded minimum fruit acidity (0.35) under polyhouse.
 

High ascorbic acid in tomato aids in better retention of natural colour and flavour of the products (Thamburaj, 1998). There were significant differences for ascorbic acid content in these hybrids. In present study it was observed that the hybrid HS-18 (20.65) recorded highest ascorbic acid followed by Dev (19.66), G-600 (19.11) and TAI-687 (18.57) over all the three years.Singh  (2011) also reported that ‘ARTH-128’ recorded maximum ascorbic acid content (20.63) and ‘To-Ind-Hyb/4’ recorded minimum ascorbic acid content (14.03) under net/poly house. Similar to this study Thakur and Kaushal (1995); Gupta et al. (2011) reported that ascorbic acid content ranged from 19.88 to 27.68; 19.50 to 30.06 and 27.82 to 31.33 mg per 100 g in different tomato genotypes.

 

As far as carotene content is concerned, there were significant differences in these hybrids. The hybrid G-600 recorded maximum carotene content (8.25) followed by TAI-687 (5.73) and HS-18 (5.36). Singh (2011) observed maximum carotene content in ‘NP-1001’ (4.11). Data corresponds to earlier study by Nainwal et al. (1992); Gupta et al. (2011), who reported β-carotene content range from 4.80 to 5.30 and 5.40 and 6.78 mg per 100 g in different tomato genotypes.
 

Lycopene is one of major character controlling the fruit colour which affects the quality of tomato. There were significant differences for lycopene content in these hybrids. The highest value for lycopene was observed in G-600 (5.49) followed by TAI-687 (4.72) and HS-18 (4.40). Data corresponds to earlier study by Nainwal et al. (1992); Gupta et al. (2011), who reported lycopene content range from 1.40 to 4.15 and 3.23 to 4.03 mg per 100 g in different genotypes of tomato.
 

The present investigation with 22, 11 and 4 tomato hybrids collected from different sources was carried out during 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11, respectively under polyhouse at Vegetable Research Farm, Department of Vegetable Science, PAU, Ludhiana. Four genotypes from Sungrow Seeds (Hyb. No. 428, Hyb. No. 3618, Hyb. No. 3229 and Hyb. No. 3232), two from Namdhari Seeds (NS-585 and NS-524) and one from Syngenta Seeds (TAI-778) was received for first time in 2009-10 and rest of four hybrids out of eleven viz. HS-18, DEV, TAI-687 and G-600 were already evaluated during 2008-09. The best performing genotypes in 2008-09 and 2009-10 viz. HS-18, DEV, TAI-687 and G-600 were tested for yield and quality traits during 2010-11.
 

The soil in the polyhouse was sterilized before the nursery sowing and transplanting of crop with 2% formalin solution @ 4-5 litres/m2. The soil was then covered with polythene sheet of 100 gauze thickness for 48 hrs. After 2 days, polysheet was removed and the soil stirred for another 3 days for complete elimination of formalin before transplanting of the crop. The sowing of tomato genotypes was done on 03 October, 2008; 04 September, 2009 and 29 September, 2010 during three years on nursery beds made within the polyhouse. In polyhouse of 500 square meters, 4 kg urea, 20 kg super phosphate and 5.5 kg of muriate of potash was applied before transplanting. The seedlings were transplanted on 26 October, 2008; 15 October, 2009 and 25 October, 10 at plant distance of 30 cm. There were nine plants in each treatment and the experiment was laid out in randomized complete block design having two replications (Cochran and Cox, 1960). The first irrigation was applied immediately after transplanting. Thereafter, 12 Kg urea was applied in three equal dose at 25, 45, 90 days after transplanting. The crop is ready for picking in the last week of February and continues giving fruits till mid-July.
 

The observations were recorded on five randomly selected tomato plants on (i) plant height (cm), (ii) number of flowers per cluster, (iii) number of clusters per plant, (iv) total numbers of fruits per plant, (v) number of fruits per cluster, (vi) average weight of fruit (g), (vii) total fruit yield (kg/plant), (viii) number of locules per fruit, (ix) pericarp thickness (mm), (x) fruit shape index, (xi) dry matter content (%), (xii) total soluble solids (oBrix), (xiii) titrable acidity (mg/100 ml), (xiv) lycopene content (mg/100 g), (xv) ascorbic acid content (mg/100 ml) and (xvi) carotene content (mg/100 g).
 

The total soluble solids of the selected samples were determined with a hand refractometer (Model: ERMA Inc., Tokyo, Japan). The refractometer was washed with distilled water each time after use and dried with blotting paper.
 

Two milliliter of juice was titrated against 0.1 N sodium hydroxide (NaOH) using phenolphthalein as an indicator. Appearance of pink colour was taken as end point of titration. Titratable acidity was expressed in terms of mg anhydrous citric acid in 100 ml of juice and calculated as follows:

 Titratable acidity =

 

Two gram fruit sample was taken and pigment was extracted with 10 ml acetone in portions, using 2 ml at a time until a colourless residue was obtained. The acetone was evaporated to dryness. The volume was brought to 25 ml with petroleum ether. The optical density was read at 505 nm (since β carotene has negligible absorbance at this wavelength) using a UV–vis spectrophotometer (Model: Systronics 108, India). Petroleum ether was used as blank. Lycopene content was calculated as:

 

Lycopene content = 

  

It was estimated by 2,6-dichlorophenol indophenol method of AOAC (1975). Two milliliter juice sample was added to an equal volume of 6% metaphosphoric acid in a conical flask and titrated with standard dye solution. The end point was indicated by the appearance of pink colour, which persisted for about 15 s. The dye was standardized with standard stock solution (1 mg/1 ml) of ascorbic acid. The results were expressed as milligrams ascorbic acid/100 ml of tomato juice and calculated as follows:

                               

Ascorbic acid =                          

                                        

where Y is the volume of dye used (ml) in titrating 2 ml juice and X the volume of dye used (ml) in titrating 2 ml standard stock solution.
 

It was concluded from the above study that the hybrid “HS-18” was promising for fruit yield and quality traits and thus it can be commercially exploited for polyhouse cultivation.
 

The authors are highly grateful to AVRDC-The World Vegetable Centre, Taiwan for providing experimental material and funds for carrying out the research work.
 

SKJ: Carry out the work and draft the manuscript; MSD: Participated in the designing of the study; NC: Helped to analyzing biochemical parameters.
 

Ahmad F., Khan O., Sarwar S., Hussain A., and Ahmad S., 2007, Performance evaluation of tomato cultivars at high altitude. Sarhad J. Agric., 23(3): 581-585.
 

AOAC, 1975, Official methods of analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemist. (Ed. Wiliam Horwitz). Benjamin Franklin Station, Washington, D C.
 

Atheton J., and Rudich J., 1986, The Tomato Crop, Chapman and Hall, London, UK, 859pp.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-3137-4 
 

AVRDC, 1986, AVRDC Non-circulating hydroponics system. Hydro-Farms Short Products. AVRDC website. http//www.avrdc.com
 

Bradley P., and Marulanda C., 2000, Simplified hydroponics to reduce global hunger. Acta Hort., 554: 289-295.

Chaudhary M.F., Khokhar K. M., Ashraf M., and Mehamood T., 1993, Performance of six tomato hybrids under plastic tunnels during winter. Sarhad J. Agric., 11(3): 325-329.
 

Chernet S., Belew D., and Abay F., 2014, Performance evaluation and path analysis studies in tomato (Solanum Lycopersicon L.) genotypes under Humera, Northern Ethiopia condition. World J. Agric. Res., 2(6): 267-271.

http://dx.doi.org/10.12691/wjar-2-6-3
 

Cochran W.A., and Cox M.G., 1960, Experimental design, 2nd End. pp 106-07. John Wiley and Sons INC, New York. 
 

Dar R.A., Sharma J.P., Nabi A., and Chopra S., 2012, Germplasm evaluation for yield and fruit quality traits in tomato (Solanum lycopersicon L.). Afr. J. Agric. Res., 7(46): 6143-6149.

http://dx.doi.org/10.5897/AJAR12.307 
 

Davis J.N., and Hobson G.E., 1981, The constituents of tomato fruit the influence of environment, nutrition and genotype. Hort. Sci., 21(8): 415-421.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10408398109527317
 

Durvesh K., and Singh D.K., 2006, Performance of commercial hybrids of tomato. Prog. Hortic. 38(1): 100-104.
 

Ereifej K.I., Shibli R.A, Ajlouni M.M., and Hussain A., 1997, Physico-chemical characteristics and processing quality of newly introduced seven tomato cultivars into Jordan in comparison with local variety. J. Food Sci. Technol., 34(2): 171-174.
 

Fontes P.C., Dias E.N., Zanin S.R., and Finger F. L., 1997, Yield of tomato cultivars in a plastic greenhouse. Revistaceres, 44 (252): 152-160. 
 

Ganesan M., 2001, Performance of tomato varieties under organic farming in greenhouse and open field conditions during winter season of Tamil Nadu.  Madras Agric. J., 88: 10-12.
 

Gavrish S.F., Sysina E.A., Amcheslavskaya E.V., and Shanorgunav G.T., 1988, New varieties for plastic greenhouse.  Kartofeli Ovoschchi, 6: 45-46.
 

Gerster, H., 1997, The potential role of lycopene for human health. J. Am. College Nutr., 16: 109-126.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07315724.1997.10718661 
 

Gul A., Tuzel I.H., Tuzel Y., and Eltez R.Z., 2000, Effect of continuous and intermittent solution circulation on tomato plants grown in NFT. Acta. Hort., 554: 205-212.
 

Guold W.A., and Berry S., 1972, Tomatoes for canning. Outdoor Crop Res., Agric. Develop. Centre Ohio, USA.

Gupta A., Kawatra A., and Sehgal S., 2011, Physical-chemical properties and nutritional evaluation of newly developed tomato genotypes. Afr. J. Food Sci. Technol., 2(7): 167-172.
 

Haque M.M., Rehman A.K.M., and Hossain S.M.M., 1998, Physiological and yield potential of some promising tomato lines at different planting times. Pak. J. Agric. Res., 9(3): 359-362.
 

Hossain M.E., Alam M.J., Hakim M.A., Amanullah A.S.M., and Ahsanullah A.S.M., 2010, An assessment of physicochemical properties of some tomato genotypes and varieties grown at rangpur. Bangladesh Research Publications Journal, 4(3): 235-243.
 

Hussain S.I., Khokhar K.M., Mahmood T., Laghari M.H., and Mahmud M.M., 2001, Yield potential of some exotic and local tomato cultivars grown for summer production. Pak. J. Bio. Sci., 4(10): 1215-1216.

http://dx.doi.org/10.3923/pjbs.2001.1215.1216 
 

Imai H., 1987, Non-circulating hydroponics system. In: Proc. Symp. on Hort. Prod. Under Structures. 18-19 Feb. 1987, Tai-Chung, Taiwan.
 

Jaha J.C., and Krishi B., 2001, Studies on performance of different tomato hybrids in off-season under different planting methods in Terai agro-climatic zones of West Bengal. J. Interacademicia, 5(2): 186-189.
 

Jiregna T.D., 2013, Evaluation of agronomic performance and Lycopene variation in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) genotypes in Mizan, Southern Ethiopia. World Appl. Sci. J., 27(11): 1450-1454.
 

Kallo G., 1985, Tomato. Published by R.H. Saehdev for Allied Publishers Pvt. Ltd. India. p. 33.
 

Kallo G., Chaurasia S.N.G., Major S., and Singh M., 1998, Stability analysis in tomato. Veg. Sci., 25(1): 81-84.
 

Kamran M., Anwar S.A., and Khan S.A., 2011, Evaluation of tomato genotypes against Meloidogyne incognita infection. Pak. J. Phytopathol., 23(1): 31-34.
 

Kaushik S.K., Tomar D.S., and Dixit A.K., 2011, Genetics of fruit yield and it’s contributing characters in tomato (Solanum lycopersicom). J. Agric. Biotechnol. Sustainable Develop., 3(10): 209 -213.

http://dx.doi.org/10.5897/jabsd11.027 
 

Khah E.M., Kakava E., Mavromatis A., Chachalis D., and Goulas C., 2006, Effect of grafting on growth and yield of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) in greenhouse and open-field. J. App. Hort., 8(1): 3-7.
 

Kratky B.A., 2002, A simple hydroponics growing kit for short term vegetables. Univ. of Hawaii, Cooperat. Ext. Serv. Bullet. Home Garden Series. HG 42.
 

Manoj R., and Raghav M., 1998, Performance of F1 hybrids and high yielding varieties of tomato under mid-west plains of Uttar Pardesh. Prog. Hort., 30(3): 194-197.
 

Mayeaux M., Xu Z., King J.M., and Prinyawiwatkul W., 2006, Effects of cooking conditions on the lycopene content in Tomatoes. J. Food Sci., 71: 461-464.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2006.00163.x 
 

Mishra Y.K., and Lal S.D., 1998, Studies on varietal performance of tomato under the agro climatic conditions of U.P. hills. Prog. Hort., 30(3): 153-157.
 

Mohanty B.K., and Prusti A.M., 2001, Evaluation of tomato varieties in black soils of western zone of Orissa. J. Tropic. Agric., 39: 55-56.
 

Muhammad Y.S., Muhammed A., and Qumer I., 2013, Augmented analysis for yield and some yield components in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.). Pak. J. Bot., 45(1): 215-218.
 

Nainwal N.C., Jaiswal R.C., and Kumar S., 1992, Suitability of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill) cultivars for juice, ketchup and chutney making. Prog. Hort., 24(1-2): 70-73.
 

Naz F., Haq I.U., Asghar S., Shah A.S., and Rahman A., 2011, Studies on growth, yield and nutritional composition of different tomato cultivars in Battal valley of district Mansehra, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Sarhad J. Agric., 27(4): 569-571.
 

Pradeepkumar T., Bastian D.M.J., Radhakrishnan N.V., and Aipe K.C., 2001, Genetic variation in tomato for yield and resistance to bacterial wilt. J. Tropical Agric., 39: 157-158.
 

Radhakrishnaish S.G, Chikkappaji K.C., Madiah N., Nanjunda S.A.M., Raghuvir K.G., Dhanaraj S., and Patwardhan M.V., 1987, Screening of the suitability of Bulgarian varieties of tomatoes for processing into juice, ketchup and tomato paste. Indian Food Packer, 41(1): 7-16.
 

Rao AV., and Agarwal S., 1999, Role of lycopene as antioxidant carotenoids in the prevention of chronic diseases: a review. Nutr. Res., 19: 305-323.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5317(98)00193-6
 

Regassa M.D., Mohammed A., and Bantte K., 2012, Evaluation of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) genotypes for yield and yield components. The Asian J. Plant Sci. Biotechnol., 6: 45-49.
 

Shah A H., Munir S., Amin N., and Shah S. H., 2011, Evaluation of two nutrient solutions for growing tomatoes in a non-circulating hydroponics system. Sarhad J. Agric., 27(4): 557-567.
 

Shah A.H., Munir S.U., Amin N.U., and Shah S.H., 2011, Evaluation of two nutrient solutions for growing tomatoes in a non-circulating hydroponics system. Sarhad J. Agric., 27(4): 557-567.
 

Sharma J.P., Singh A.K., Satesh K., and Sanjeev K., 2009, Identification of traits for ideotype selection in tomato. Mysore J. Agric. Sci., 43: 222-226.
 

Singh B., and Sirohi N.P.S., 2006, Protected cultivation of vegetables in India: problems and future prospects. Proc. IS on Greenhouses, Environmental Controls and In-house Mechanization for Crop Production in the Tropics and Sub-tropics. Acta Hort., 710: 339-342.

http://dx.doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2006.710.38 
 

Singh N., 2011, Evaluation of Tomato genotypes under net house and open field conditions. M.Sc. thesis, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, India.
 

Singh R., and Asrey R., 2005, Performance of tomato and sweet pepper under untreated greenhouse. Haryana J. Hort. Sci., 34 (1-2): 174-175.
 

Srivastava R.P., and Kumar S., 2006, Fruit and vegetable preservation: principles and practices. International Book Distribution Co., pp 353-364. 
 

Takeoka G.R., Dao L., Flessa S., Gillespie D.M., Jewell W.T., and Huebner B., 2001, Processing effects on lycopene content and antioxidant activity of tomatoes. J. Agric. Food Chem., 49: 3713-3717.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/jf0102721
 

Thakur N.S., and Kaushal B.B., 1995, Study of quality characteristics of some commercial varieties and F1 hybrids of tomato (Lycnpersicon esculentum Mill.) grown in Himachal Pradesh in relation to processing. Indian Food Packer, 49(3): 25-31.
 

Thamburaj S., 1998, Breeding for high quality vegetable. In: Souvenir of national Symposium on emerging Scenario in Vegetable. In: Souvenir of National Symposium on Emerging Scenario in Vegetables Research and Development, 12-14 Dec IIVR, Varanasi, India, pp.53-59.
 

Turhan A., Ozmen N., Serbeci M.S., and Seniz V., 2011, Effect of grafting on different rootstock on tomato fruit yield and quality. HortSci., 38(4): 142-149.
 

Viswanathan R., Pandiyarajan T., and Varadaraju N., 1997, Physical and mechanical properties of tomato fruits as related to pulping. J. Food Sci. Technol., 34(6): 537-539.
 

Zekki H., Gauthier L., and Gosselin A., 1996, Growth, productivity, and mineral composition of hydroponically cultivated green house tomatoes, with or without nutrient solution recycling. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci., 121 (6): 1082.
 

Zhu W., Zhu L., Yang J., Xu T., Zhu W.M., Zhu L.Y., Yang Z.J., and Xu T.W., 2003, Breeding of tomato variety Pohong 909 for multispan plastic greenhouse. Acta Agriculturae Shanghai, 19(3): 33-35.
 

Žnidarčič D., Trdan S., and Zlatič E., 2003, Impact of various growing methods on tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) yield and sensory quality. Zb. Bioteh. Fak. Univ. Ljublj. Kmet., 81(2): 341-348.