THE INFLUENCE OF GRAFTING AND BIOSTIMULATORS ON PHYSICAL AND SENSORIAL TRAITS OF GREENHOUSE TOMATO FRUIT (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) IN FIELD PRODUCTION
Janina Gajc-Wolska
Warsaw University of Life SciencesJadwiga Radzanowska
Warsaw University of Life SciencesMariola Łyszkowska
Warsaw University of Life SciencesAbstract
Four tomato cultivars Macarena F1, Faustine F1, Cathy F1 and Fanny F1 were used in the study. Transplants were grown in a greenhouse. Seeds were sown at the end of March. The plants were grafted on Maxifort F1 rootstock on April 5, 6 and 21 in the years 2006, 2007, 2008 without the use of biostimulators. In the case of the other combinations each year the following treatments with biostimulators were performed: watering with Goteo 0.1% solution (twice – 4 and 2 weeks before planting and three times after planting at three-week intervals), spraying with BM 86 0.1% solution (four times every three weeks starting at the blooming of the first cluster). In the control combination plants were untreated with biostimulators and were not grafted. Physical properties were determined and sensory analysis of tomato fruit was performed. The results showed that there was no significant influence of the applied preparations on the a*/b* value of fruits which depended mostly on the cultivars. The highest fruit firmness was obtained with BM preparation and in Faustine F1 and Cathy F1 cultivars. There was no significant influence of the preparations on sensory quality of fruits. Variability in sensory quality of fruits rather depended on the analyzed cultivars than on the investigated combination.
Keywords:
biostimulators, tomato fruit, fruit firmness, fruit colour, sensory analysisReferences
Batu A., 1998. Some factors affecting on determination and measurement of tomato firmness. Turkish J. Agric. Forestry 22, 411–418.
Batu A., 2004. Determination of acceptable firmness and colour values of tomatoes. J. Food Eng. 61, 471–475.
Booth D.A., 1990. Designing products for individual customers. [In:] McBride R.L., McFie H.J.H. (Eds.) Psychological Basis of Sensory Evaluation. Elsevier Science, Esssex, 163–193.
Burton W.G., 1982. Ripening and senescence of fruits. [In:] W.G. Burton (Ed.), Post-harvest physiology of food crops, 181–198.
Gormley L., Egan S., 1978. Firmness and colour of fruit at some tomato cultivars from various sources during storage. J. Sci. Food Agric., 29, 534–538.
Kader A.A., Morris L.L., 1978a. Correlative subjective and objective measurements of maturation and ripeness of tomato. Manuscript.
Kader A.A., Morris L.L., 1978b. Tomato fruit color measured with an Agtron E5-W: reflectance spectrophotometer. Hort. Science 13, 577–578.
Krumbein A., Peters P., Bruckner B., 2004. Flavor compounds and a quantitative descriptive analysis of tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) of different cultivars in short-term storage. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 32, 15–28.
Tijskens L.M.M., Evelo R.W., 1994. Modelling colour of tomatoes during postharvest storage. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 4, 85–89.
Yang C.C., Chinnan M.S., 1988. Computer modelling of gas composition and colour development of tomatoes stored in polymeric films. J. Food Sci., 53, 869–872.
Warsaw University of Life Sciences
Warsaw University of Life Sciences
Warsaw University of Life Sciences
License
Articles are made available under the conditions CC BY 4.0 (until 2020 under the conditions CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).
Submission of the paper implies that it has not been published previously, that it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere.
The author signs a statement of the originality of the work, the contribution of individuals, and source of funding.
