Next Article in Journal
Contribution of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi (AMF) in Improving the Growth and Yield Performances of Flax (Linum usitatissimum L.) to Salinity Stress
Previous Article in Journal
Sensitivities of Fall Armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda) Populations in Different Regions of China to Four Bt Proteins
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 13
Issue 9
10.3390/agronomy13092417
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Watering Volume and Growing Design’s Effect on the Productivity and Quality of Cherry Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum cerasiformae) Cultivar Ruby

by
Farhan Ahmad
1,
Kusumiyati Kusumiyati
1,*,
Muhammad Arief Soleh
1,
Muhammad Rabnawaz Khan
2 and
Ristina Siti Sundari
3,4
1
Department of Agronomy, Agricultural Faculty, Universitas Padjadjaran, Sumedang 45363, Indonesia
2
Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Production Sciences, The University of Peshawar, Peshawar 25130, Pakistan
3
Department of Agribusiness, Agricultural Faculty, The University of Perjuangan, Tasikmalaya 46115, Indonesia
4
Agricultural Sciences, Agricultural Faculty, Universitas Padjadjaran, Sumedang 45363, Indonesia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2023, 13(9), 2417; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13092417
Submission received: 2 August 2023 / Revised: 31 August 2023 / Accepted: 12 September 2023 / Published: 19 September 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Water Use and Irrigation)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
It is intriguing to understand the influence of the watering volume and growing design on the growth, yield, and quality of cherry tomatoes. This study sought to identify the most effective watering volume and growing design treatment for the production and quality of the cherry tomato cultivar Ruby. This study was an exploration using a factorial experiment with an RCBD design. The treatment factors included the growing design (greenhouse, rain shelter, and screen house) and the watering volume (100% ETc, 75% ETc, and 50% ETc). The results showed that the root dry weight and root–shoot ratio were higher in the screen house design, while the fruit firmness was higher in the rain shelter design. Considering the effect of the watering volume, a higher fruit diameter, heavier fruits, more fruits per plant, higher ultimate fruit and biological yield per plant, higher root and shoot biomass, better root–shoot ratio, higher leaf chlorophyll content, greater fruit skin firmness, and greater elasticity were noted for the 100% ETc treatment. In contrast, the growth rate was higher for the 50% ETc treatment. Cultivating cherry tomatoes in a greenhouse using a watering volume of 100% ETc is recommended based on the results. These conditions led to better growth, higher fruit yield, and improved fruit quality, making them favorable options for successful cherry tomato production.

1. Introduction

The cherry tomato is considered to likely be an ancestor of the cultivated tomato based on its widespread occurrence in Central America and the shorter length of its flowers [1]. It originated in the Andes region, most likely in Ecuador and Peru, in South America, and spread worldwide after Spain’s settlement of the Americas. It has gained popularity as a cash crop in several Asian countries. However, India and Kashmir are still new growing regions, where its production and productivity are yet to be documented [2]. Tomatoes are among the most-essential basic fruits grown worldwide. In total, 18.73 million ton of tomatoes were produced in India, representing 10.44% of the world’s production, in 2016. Tomatoes are rich in essential and beneficial bioactive components and have become vital members of the so-called “functional food” group [2]. The cherry tomato is one of the world’s major fruit crops and is an excellent nutritional source. It is rich in vitamin C and minerals (phosphorus, iron, and calcium). Consumer demand and market-driven competition require a high standard of nutritional value for cherry tomatoes [2]. Cherry tomatoes are a warm-season crop and usually have higher dry matter and soluble solid content than traditional fresh tomato varieties. Malic acid contributes most to the sweetness, sourness, and overall flavor intensity [3]. This crop is a perennial in its natural habitat, but often grows annually in temperate climates. Its growth is typically indeterminate and can range up to 3 m in height [4,5].
Dyring is one of the most influential and proven means of food preservation. Reducing the water content in food by removing moisture inactivates or prevents the growth and proliferation of potentially pathogenic microorganisms, reduces enzymatic activity, and minimizes many adverse moisture-related reactions [6]. Although drying is effective in prolonging the shelf life of produce, conventional drying inevitably leads to a loss of organoleptic and nutritional qualities due to undesired changes in the structure and biochemical properties of the produce [7]. The lack of public information about cherry tomatoes, the small number of producers, and the lower productivity in Indonesia have led to a higher price for cherry tomatoes. Currently, cherry tomatoes are common in modern marketplaces, but remain uncommon in traditional markets [8]. Therefore, there is a need to increase and expand their production.
Droughts present a challenge to food production. During droughts, the soil water content is minimized, which has an adverse effect on crop production due to the shortage of water available in their environment. Droughts may lead to a water deficit in the plant root zone [9].
A high water volume reduces the oxygen level in the soil and creates an environment that is very harmful to plant development [10]. A lack of oxygen adversely affects aerobic respiration, which causes a reduction in plant growth by disturbing the uptake of nutrients, disturbing hormonal balance and photosynthesis; this halts growth, and this lack of oxygen, thus, reduces yield [11]. Flooding also induces stomatal closure, limiting the availability of CO2 for photosynthetic carbon metabolism and, consequently, increasing oxidative stress through the accumulation of photosynthetic free radicals. Programmed cell death is also associated with waterlogging, which leads to the formation of tissues for airflow and ethylene production. Flooding also induces changes in the developmental programs through adaptive mechanisms such as the regulation of gene expression and random mutations [12,13,14], as well as the modulation of ion uptake to mitigate the flood-induced stress [10].
Tomatoes planted in the field are frequently subjected to unfavorable environmental conditions, including salt and drought, and tomato plants may become inundated by excessive rainfall from storms and extreme rains. In total, 16% of the tomato-producing areas in India are vulnerable to flooding and deforestation [13]. In the coming years, it is anticipated that adverse environmental conditions, such as waterlogging stress, will impact the production of crops such as tomatoes. Therefore, a greater understanding of the numerous physiological, biochemical, and molecular mechanisms occurring in tomatoes during waterlogging stress is required to create management strategies to ensure plant survival and preserve yields.
The effective management of environmental control systems, such as evaporative cooling and shade, can prevent the physiological stresses that impact the production quality and final yield. Numerous studies have demonstrated that modifying the microclimate in greenhouses to lower transpiration enhances plants’ physiological resiliency to stress and ameliorates unfavorable external climatic conditions [15].
The VOSviewer bibliometric analysis of this research is described in the following (Figure 1).
To visualize previous research related to this topic, VOSviewer was used with the following keywords: tomato, cherry tomato, quality, cultivation, watering, and growing design. The results revealed a significant number of research works related to cherry tomatoes. However, relatively few studies have examined the specific area of cherry tomatoes. The results of the VOSviewer analysis suggested that there is a need for further research into cherry tomatoes.
Cherry tomatoes are commonly grown in polyhouse conditions, but developing high-yielding, high-quality varieties suitable for outdoor cultivation has become essential to increasing the profitability of marginal outdoor growers [16]. This study’s objective was to ascertain the main effect and interaction between watering volume and growing house on the growth and yield of the cherry tomatoes cultivar Ruby.

2. Materials and Methods

This research was conducted at the Green House and Field Laboratory of the Faculty of Agriculture, University of Padjadjaran, from November 2022 to July 2023.

2.1. Sampling Procedure and Data Source and Collection

The seed of the cherry tomato cultivar Ruby was prepared on germination pot trays. The germination medium was a mixture of compost and fertile soil. The pot tray was chosen according to the experimental design. Pot tray germination was stored in the germination room or greenhouse of agronomy, in the Agricultural Faculty. Universitas Padjadjaran. Once the seed germinates three or four foliar, it is called a seedling. The seedlings were planted in a greenhouse, screen house, and open field to grow as treatments in the experiment design.
Data were sourced and collected from both primary ann secondary data. The primary data were collected from expository treatments of watering volume and growing house factors, with 3 levels and replications each. The secondary data were collected from published books, journals, reports, and either government or private institutions. Texture measurement refers to the method of using a texture analyzer (Stable Micro Systems, Model: TA.TXT. Plus). Measurements were made at three points: the fruit’s top, middle, and bottom. The hardness value of tomatoes was calculated in units of g/force or Newtons [17].
The leaf chlorophyll content was measured using a SPAD meter, a non-destructive method that provides an indirect measurement of total chlorophyll content. The SPAD meter measures a combination of chlorophyll a and chlorophyll b levels without distinguishing between the two pigments. This approach provides a rapid assessment of overall leaf chlorophyll content.

2.2. Experiment Design

The research instruments were the cherry tomato Cultivar Ruby, as the introduction plant planted with different growing designs (GDs), in greenhouses, rain shelters, and screen houses with different watering volumes (WVs), such as 100% ETC, 75% ETC, and 50% ETC, based on evapotranspiration and field capacity. There were 9 treatments, with 3 replications, leading to a total of 27 treatments. Each treatment consisted of 4 plants. The total number of plants was 108.
All treatments were replicated three times. Therefore, there were 27 treatments. An experiment design using Factorial Randomized Complete Block Design was constructed using the mathematical linear model equation, as follows:
Yijk = u + Wi + Pj + (Wi Pj) + rk + εijk
  • u = mean.
  • Wi = the effect of watering volume factor.
  • Pj = the effect of growing house.
  • rk = replication.
  • Wi Pj = the effect of the interaction between watering volume and growing house.
Once ANOVA reveals a significant effect, it will continue to find the best treatment using partial Post Hoc and the Tukey multiple-range comparison test. LSD (Latin Square Design) has a limitation in that it cannot accommodate the testing of all possible treatment combinations. [18]. The Tukey procedure (HSD) is as follows:
-
Treatments are ordered according to mean.
-
The formula used is as follows:
ω = q ∝ ( p , v ) S r
-
Test criteria are determined as follows.
Compare the absolute value of two different means to distinguish the differences in the HSD score.
If |µi − µj| > HSD005, this means the test result is significant.
If |µi − µj| < HSD005, this means the test result is not significant.
Parameter measurements were taken of the growth rate, plant height/shoot length, caulis (stem) diameter, amount of leaves on the main stem, fruit water content, root–shoot ratio, and root length.

2.2.1. Preparation, Nursery and Transplanting

Planting was carried out in three places: a greenhouse, rain shelter, and screen house. The greenhouse measured 24 m long, 17 m wide, and 6 m high. The greenhouse roof comprised 200 microns of UV plastic material, while the greenhouse walls used a screen net with a density of 50 mesh. The rain shelter consisted of 200 microns of UV plastic roof with a building size of 18.5 × 5 × 3.5 m (length × width × height). As for the screen house, only the roof was covered with a screen net with a density of 50 mesh. The screen house measured 15 × 3.5 × 2.8 m (length × width × height).
Seeding was carried out by preparing the seedling media, namely husk charcoal. The husk charcoal was doused with water until it feels moist. The seedbed media were put into the seed tray until complete. Each hole was filled with one Ruby cultivar cherry tomato seed. The planting hole was closed with the seedling medium and watered until the medium was moist. The planted seed tray was stored in the greenhouse.
Seedlings were transported from seed trays to polybags four weeks after sowing (WAS). The planting medium was saturated first. Then, the seeds were planted and covered again with the media. After planting, the seedlings were watered. Polybags were arranged in double rows with a distance of 50 × 30 cm.

2.2.2. Watering Volume Application

Watering was carried out daily using a nutrient solution AB, mixed with composition Solution A consisting of potassium nitrate, calcium nitrate, and Fe in the form of ferrous sulfate. In contrast, Solution B consists of (NH4)3PO4, CuSO4, KNO3, MnSO4, ZnSO4, MgSO4, boric acid, KH2PO4, N in the form of NH4NO3, and Mo in the form of Na2MoO4. A total of 2 L each of Solution A and B was dissolved in 96 L of water. The nutrient solution was sprinkled on the surface of the planting medium. The difference in the volume of watering was determined when plants were 2 WAP. The watering volume was based on plant evapotranspiration (ETc), which was calculated by the soil–water balance equation [19].
ETc = P + I − R − D − (Wn−1 − Wn)
Information:
ETc: Evapotranspiration (mm).
P: Precipitation (mm).
I: Irrigation (volume of water given) (mm).
R: Runoff (Surface flow) (mm).
D: Drainage (Percolation) (mm).
Wn−1: Media weight on day n − 1 (g).
Wn: Weight of media on the nth day (g).
Because the experiment was carried out on polybags and watering was carried out manually, the equation can be simplified as follows:
Etc = P + I − D − (Wn−1 − Wn)
At each location, the plant samples were used to measure total evapotranspiration (ETc). Each plant sample was equipped with a water storage container under the polybag to calculate the amount of percolation (D) resulting from watering. Rainfall (P) was calculated by measuring the volume of water accommodated in the water storage container provided after rain. Then, rainfall can be measured by the formula:
H = VL × 1000
Information:
H: Rainfall height (mm).
V: Volume of water accummulated (mL).
L: Area of rainwater catchment (mm2).
The weight of the planting medium (W) was calculated by weighing the planting medium and the plants.

3. Results

3.1. Observation of Weather within Research

The weather was a secondary observation in this research. Considering weather conditions when designing and conducting experimental research could potentially impact the results. Several environmental factors could impact the results, including temperature, humidity, wind speed, and light intensity. Here is how each factor could affect the plant, along with the research.
Temperature plays a crucial role in the growth and development of cherry tomatoes. Cherry tomatoes need warm conditions to grow healthy and produce heavy sweet tomatoes. However, the temperature is higher in greenhouses, with an average of 28.72 °C, than in rain shelters (27.40 °C) and screen houses (27.13 °C). Both high and low temperature regimes can lead to smaller fruits and lower yields [20]. Optimal temperatures are necessary for various stages of growth and development [21]. The moderate and ideal temperature would be conducive to with cherry tomato growth (Figure 2). The temperature should be around 21 °C when planting seedlings, and 21–29 °C is the ideal daytime temperature for growth.
The average humidity during the research was higher in the greenhouse (58.17%), followed by the rain shelter (51.68%) and screen house (48.05%). All are in moderate categories, because rain was frequent (Figure 3). Specific research on the effect of humidity on cherry tomato yield is limited, although it is known that environmental conditions have some influence. Nevertheless, including humidity can influence the yield and fruit quality parameters of tomatoes [19].
Wind has direct and indirect effects on plant growth. Specific studies on the effect of wind speed on cherry tomato yield are not readily available. The wind in greenhouses is relatively stagnant or has a very slow-moving speed. There was a bit of open space for wind to move in the screen house. The wind speed was much higher in the screen house (average 0.46 m/s) than the greenhouse, but the highest wind speed was found in the rain shelter that had more open space for the wind to move faster (average 0.52 m/s) (Figure 4). A slow wind of less than 5 miles/hour is good for many plants, leading to a stronger and thicker plant [22].
Light intensity significantly impacts the yield and quality of cherry tomatoes. A lower light transmittance in certain cultivation systems can lead to lower fruit quality and yield [19]. Cherry tomatoes are light-loving plants and need strong light during the growth process. They require at least 6–8 h of full, direct sun per day. However, growing cherry tomatoes indoors requires a bit shiny, around 10–12 h. The net photosynthetic rate of tomato leaves increased rapidly with the increase in light intensity. Figure 5 shows that light intensity was ideal in the screen house (27,000 Lux), along with the research results. The light requirements for growing tomatoes indoors are 400–500 umole/m2/s, which is considered an ideal state indoors [23], or 21,600–27,000 Lux.
The weather conditions often interact with each other in complex ways to influence plant growth and yield. Therefore, the optimal growing conditions for cherry tomatoes would involve a careful balance of all these types of weather.

3.2. Growth Rate

The data analysis found that the growing design significantly influenced the growth rate of cherry tomatoes, while the watering volume did not have a significant effect, as shown in Figure 1. However, the interaction between the growing design and watering volume was significant for the cherry tomato’s growth rate, as shown in Figure 6. Among the different growing designs, the greenhouse recorded the highest growth rate of 61.39 g/week/plant, indicating that this environment was particularly conducive to the growth of cherry tomatoes. The rain shelter had a slightly lower growth rate of 53.39 g/week/plant, followed by the screen house, which showed a minimum growth rate of 50.94 g/week/plant.

3.3. Fruit Diameter (mm)

The data analysis revealed that the growing design and watering volume significantly affected the fruit diameter of cherry tomatoes, as shown in Figure 7. In contrast, the interaction between growing design and watering volume did not significantly affect fruit diameter. The greenhouse exhibited the highest fruit diameter among the different growing designs, measuring 22.156 mm, followed by the rain shelter, which had a slightly lower fruit diameter of 21.532 mm. The screen house recorded a minimum fruit diameter of 20.430 mm. Regarding watering volume, the application of 100% ETC resulted in a higher fruit diameter of 22.262 mm, indicating that providing the full watering requirements significantly impacted cherry tomato fruit diameter. The watering volume of 75% ETC produced a slightly lower fruit diameter of 21.351 mm. On the other hand, the watering volume of 50% ETC resulted in a lower fruit diameter of 20.504 mm.

3.4. Single Fruit Weight

The data analysis indicated that both the growing design, watering volume, and their interactions significantly affect the single-fruit weight of cherry tomatoes, Figure 8. Among the different growing designs, the greenhouse exhibited the highest single-fruit weight, measuring 6.4 g. This was followed by the rain shelter, which had a slightly lower single-fruit weight of 6.1 g. The screen house recorded the minimum single-fruit weight of 5.4 g. Regarding the watering volume, applying 100% ETC resulted in a maximum single-fruit weight of 6.4 g. The watering volume of 75% ETC produced a slightly lower single-fruit weight of 5.9 g. The watering volume of 50% ETC resulted in a lower single-fruit weight of 5.46 g. These findings highlight the significance of both the growing design and the watering volume in determining the single-fruit weight of cherry tomatoes. The greenhouse design, combined with a watering volume that meets or exceeds the ETC, is the most favorable combination for achieving a higher single-fruit weight.

3.5. Fruits per Plant

The data analysis reveals that the growing design and watering volume significantly influenced the number of fruits per plant in cherry tomatoes, as shown in Figure 9. In contrast, the interaction between growing design and watering volume did not show a significant effect. Among the different growing designs, the greenhouse exhibited the highest number of fruits per plant, averaging 50.05. This value was statistically similar to the number of fruits per plant recorded in the rain shelter, which was 49.41. On the other hand, the screen house had fewer fruits per plant, with an average of 47.08. Regarding the watering volume, applying 100% ETC resulted in a higher number of fruits per plant, with an average of 51.7. The watering volume of 75% ETC followed closely behind, with an average of 49.86 fruits per plant. However, when the watering volume was reduced to 50% ETC, the number of fruits per plant decreased to an average of 44.94.

3.6. Fruit Yield per Plant

The data analysis highlights the significant impact of growing design and watering volume on the fruit yield per plant of cherry tomatoes, as shown in Figure 10. The greenhouse design emerged as the most productive, with an average fruit yield per plant of 335.2. Following closely behind, the rain shelter demonstrated a slightly lower fruit yield per plant, averaging 303. In contrast, the screen house recorded the lowest fruit yield per plant, averaging 281.7. Regarding watering volume, providing 100% ETC resulted in a higher fruit yield per plant, averaging 324.3. Similarly, a watering volume of 75% ETC exhibited a favorable impact, with an average fruit yield per plant of 308.5. However, a reduced watering volume of 50% ETC resulted in a lower fruit yield per plant, averaging 287.

3.7. Root Dry Weight

The study’s findings demonstrated that the watering volume significantly impacted the root dry weight of cherry tomatoes, as shown in Figure 11. The highest root dry weight of 23.69 g was observed when the plants received 100% of the estimated total water requirement (ETC), followed by 75% ETC, while the lowest root dry weight of 19.47 g was recorded when the plants were subjected to 50% ETC. On the other hand, the specific growing design used in the experiment did not significantly affect the cherry tomato’s root dry weight. Furthermore, the interaction between these factors was also insignificant when considering the combined influence of watering volume and growing design.

3.8. Shoot Dry Weight

The study showed that the watering volume, growing strategy, and their interaction significantly affected the dry weight of cherry tomato shoots, as shown in Figure 12. When cherry tomatoes received 100% of the estimated total water requirement (ETC), they exhibited the highest shoot dry weight of 128.31 g, which is statistically similar to the shoot dry weight of 126.97 g observed at 75% ETC. However, the lowest shoot dry weight of 122.47 g was recorded when the plants received 50% ETC. Regarding growing design, cherry tomatoes grown in a greenhouse displayed the maximum shoot dry weight of 131.11 g, followed by 123.86 g in a rain shelter, statistically similar to the shoot dry weight of 122.78 g observed in a screen house.

3.9. Root–Shoot Ratio

The data analysis reveals that the growing design and watering volume significantly influenced the root–shoot ratio of cherry tomatoes, as shown in Figure 13. In contrast, the interaction between growing design and watering volume did not show a significant effect. The screen house demonstrated the highest root–shoot ratio, with an average of 0.175, statistically similar to the ratio observed in the rain shelter at 0.173. In contrast, the greenhouse had the lowest root–shoot ratio, averaging 0.162. Regarding watering volume, applying 100% ETC resulted in a higher root–shoot ratio of 0.185, indicating a relatively greater proportion of root mass to shoot mass. The watering volume of 75% ETC exhibited a slightly lower root–shoot ratio, with an average of 0.165. Conversely, by reducing the watering volume to 50%, ETC decreased the root–shoot ratio to an average of 0.160.

3.10. Biological Yield per Plant

The data analysis reveals that the growing design and watering volume significantly influenced cherry tomatoes’ biological yield per plant, as shown in Figure 14. In contrast, the interaction between growing design and watering volume did not have a significant effect. Among the different growing designs, the greenhouse exhibited the highest biological yield per plant, averaging 992 g. This was followed by the rain shelter, which had a slightly lower biological yield per plant of 937 g. The screen house showed a biological yield per plant that was statistically similar to the rain shelter’s, with an average of 905 g. Regarding the watering volume, applying 100% Evapotranspiration Coefficient (ETC) resulted in a higher biological yield per plant, with an average of 963 g. The watering volume of 75% ETC showed a similar biological yield per plant, averaging 960 g. However, when the watering volume was reduced to 50% ETC, the biological yield per plant decreased to an average of 911 g.

3.11. Chlorophyl Content (SPAD)

The data analysis reveals that both the growing design and watering volume significantly influenced the chlorophyll content of cherry tomatoes, as shown in Figure 15. In contrast, the interaction between the growing design and watering volume did not have a significant effect. The greenhouse exhibited the highest chlorophyll content, with an average of 42.74, followed by the rain shelter, with a slightly lower average of 41.81. Conversely, the screen house had the lowest chlorophyll content, measuring an average of 40.97. In terms of watering volume, applying 100% ETC resulted in a higher chlorophyll content, with an average of 43.50, while 75% ETC showed a slightly lower average of 41.822. However, by reducing the watering volume to 50%, ETC decreased the chlorophyll content to an average of 40.19. These findings emphasize the importance of both the growing design and appropriate watering volume in influencing the chlorophyll content of cherry tomatoes. The greenhouse design, combined with adequate watering according to or exceeding the ETC, is the most favorable combination for achieving higher chlorophyll content.

3.12. Fruit Texture (Firmness and Elasticity)

Concerning fruit firmness, the growing design significantly affected fruit firmness, as shown in Figure 16. The greenhouse exhibited the highest fruit firmness of 5.64 N, followed by the screen house, with 4.93 N, which was statistically similar to the rain shelter with a strength of 4.82 N. Like the other samples, watering volume and the interaction between growing design and watering volume did not significantly affect fruit firmness.
The greenhouse exhibits the highest elasticity of 36.73 mm, followed by 19.66 mm in the screen house, while rain shelter produced a lower elasticity of 17.77 mm, Figure 17. Regarding watering volume, the maximum elasticity of 33.4 mm was observed with 100% ETc, followed by 20 mm with 75% ETC, which was statistically similar to the elasticity of 18.60 mm with 50% ETc.

4. Discussion

4.1. Growth Rate

As tomatoes have evolved strategies for water conservation during dry spells and effective water use during wet periods, cherry tomatoes are noted for their ability to handle changes in the water supply to some extent. In contrast, ref. [24] showed a significant effect of watering on cherry tomato growth. Additionally, given the experimental conditions, the influence of the watering amount may have been overshadowed by other environmental factors like soil composition, light exposure, and temperature variations that may have had a more significant impact on cherry tomato growth [25,26]. According to the current findings, earlier research has shown that deficits in irrigation regimes reduced vegetative growth and fruit output [27]. The flexibility of cherry tomato plants may have prevented a direct effect on growth rate from being statistically significant in the study, even though adequate watering is necessary for optimal growth [28,29].

4.2. Fruit Diameter

The spacing, trellising, and support structures made up the growing design determined how cherry tomato plants develop and spread. The better availability of sunlight, enhanced air circulation, and effective fertilizer distribution provided by an optimized growing system encourage healthier and more robust plant growth, resulting in a greater fruit diameter [30]. The amount of watering directly affects the amount of water and nutrients available to the cherry tomato plants [31]. Adequate watering ensures a steady supply of vital plant nutrients, promoting photosynthesis and nutrient uptake. Optimal soil moisture levels also shield plants from wilting driven by stress and allow them to focus more energy on fruit development, which leads to larger leaf area and increased fruit diameters [32], with similar findings reported by [33] for cherry tomato.

4.3. Single Fruit Weight

Different levels of environmental control are provided by growing systems, controlling temperature, humidity, and light exposure [34]. Every technique can produce different growing conditions, affecting the plant’s metabolism and, eventually, the fruit’s size and weight [35,36]. The increase in temperature in the polyhouse was due to the greenhouse effect [16,37]. Additionally, the watering volume significantly impacts nutrient uptake and transport, as well as plant turgor pressure and cell expansion, which immediately affect fruit weight [38]. Because several growing strategies may maximize water distribution while others may inhibit it, the interaction between growing systems and watering volume can accentuate or decrease each element’s impact, influencing general plant health and fruit development [39].

4.4. Fruits per Plant

A consistent moisture supply, necessary for ideal growth and fruit development, is ensured by adequate watering [13]. Different growing strategies can improve space usage, light exposure, and air circulation, which results in healthier plants and more fruit sets. Additionally, vigilant water management, particularly growth patterns, aids in avoiding overwatering or drought stress, which can negatively impact fruit yield [39]. The irrigation effect on processing tomatoes is complex; first, it increases the number of fruits per plant through the number of flowers and the percentage of fruit that is set, and then enlarges the size of fruits [40,41]. The number of fruits and fruit size of tomatoes are affected by water stress during different growing stages [42]. The improvement in yield as irrigation frequency increased in our experiment was mainly due to the increase in fruit number [43].

4.5. Fruit Yield per Plant

Different growing methods affect the availability of nutrients, the health of the roots, airflow, and light exposure, all of which support healthier plants and greater fruit output [44]. Maintaining root health, controlling stress, and fostering optimum pollination and flowering all depend on the right amount of irrigation [45,46]. With the efficient use of space in various designs, cherry tomato plants can benefit from sunshine and devote more energy to fruit growth [47]. Greenhouses led to vigorous growth and a higher yield of better quality compared with field production, which suggested the superiority of greenhouse cultivation compared to traditional open-field production [48,49]. Ref. [50] resulted in there being more fruits in the greenhouse method.

4.6. Biological Yield per Plant

Growing environments like greenhouses provide controlled conditions, optimizing temperature, humidity, and excessive rainfall, preventing waterlogging, and potential diseases, and protecting from pests while allowing for adequate airflow and protecting from adverse weather, enhancing overall plant health and productivity [25,51,52]. Varying watering volumes influence plant hydration, affecting nutrient uptake and photosynthesis [53]. Correctly matching growing designs with appropriate watering levels can create optimal conditions for cherry tomato plants, resulting in an increased biological yield per plant [27]. Growing tomato plants under shade nets eliminated “sun scald” compared to plants grown without shading, enhancing biomass productivity [32]. Regular irrigation in all growth stages resulted in optimal performance [54]. Because of the high water requirements, the tomato plant is sensitive to deficits in irrigation, so any stress can reduce the plant growth and yield [55].

4.7. Root Dry Weight

Growing environments that are well thought-out can offer the perfect conditions for root growth, resulting in longer and healthier roots. The choice of support structures and growing strategies strongly impacts the space available for growing roots and the availability of nutrients. Inadequate watering prevents nutrient intake and limits root growth [56]. In contrast, over-watering can cause soggy soil, which restricts the roots’ access to oxygen and leads to damage [57]. The roots can grow deeper into the ground to acquire more nutrients and water by finding the ideal balance between watering quantities [58]. By expanding their root architecture, plants strive to obtain water from deeper soil layers when there is a water shortage [59]. Also, roots are the primary sensors of water availability, regulating how they function and growth traits such as root length and spread, and the quantity and length of lateral roots [60,61].

4.8. Shoot Dry Weight

Adequate watering is essential to deliver nutrients and hydration to promote shoot growth. The cherry tomato cultivar Ruby’s lower shoot dry weight was under 100% ETC watering, compared to 75% ETC and 50%, which may result from overwatering, limiting soil oxygen availability and impairing root activity. In contrast to a greenhouse or a rain shelter, a screen house is subject to harsh environmental conditions like rainfall, leading to a slower rate of shoot productivity. Inadequate watering might reduce shoot growth, whereas proper watering promotes healthy shoot elongation [26,35]. A well-designed growing house can assure adequate access to sunshine and space for shoot extension, allowing for cherry tomato plants to grow higher and become more potent [62]. These elements interact optimally when effectively balanced, providing the perfect conditions for cherry tomato plants to thrive [63]. Each cherry tomato plant has appropriate access to sunlight and can utilize an efficient growing strategy, providing optimum photosynthesis and energy production [64]. This sufficient energy fosters the formation of robust, extended stems and aggressive shoot growth [60]. Due to the limited soil moisture during a drought, plants cannot absorb as many nutrients, which results in shorter stem lengths [65].

4.9. Root–Shoot Ratio

The balance between the plant’s above-ground shoot system and its root system is called the root–shoot ratio. A higher root–shoot ratio indicates a more robust allocation of resources and energy toward root growth. In contrast, a lower root–shoot ratio encourages shoot development. A reduced root–shoot ratio results from the plant allocating more resources to the above-ground sections due to the water stress brought on by inadequate irrigation [46]. In contrast, regular, appropriate watering promotes healthy root growth and increases the root–shoot ratio because the roots can absorb more water and nutrients [38]. The root–shoot ratio of cherry tomato plants is directly impacted by growing design, which also significantly influences the spatial distribution of resources available to those plants [32]. An ideal growing arrangement contains sufficient area for root growth, enabling the roots to explore more soil and access a larger water supply and more nutrients. This encourages strong root growth, which increases the root–shoot ratio [25,66].

4.10. Chlorophyl Content

Different growing techniques could affect the availability of nutrients and the growth of the roots, directly affecting chlorophyll synthesis [37,47]. Water is a crucial component of photosynthesis [30,32,67]. Therefore, varying watering amounts impact the overall water stress that the plants feel, which leads to changes in chlorophyll production [68]. A lower chlorophyll content and lower photosynthetic activity can result from insufficient watering [69]. On the other hand, excessive watering might restrict the amount of oxygen available to the roots, preventing the creation of chlorophyll [70]. Additionally, chlorophyll production could be impacted by the quality of the water, particularly its pH and nutritional content [71].

4.11. Fruit Texture (Firmness and Elasticity)

Growing designs provide controlled environments with regulated temperature, humidity, and light, promoting optimal growth conditions for cherry tomato plants [3]. This controlled environment can lead to fruits with stronger cell structures, resulting in increased firmness. This protection enhances the overall health of the plants, leading to more elastic and resilient cherry tomato fruits [17,32]. The water supplied to cherry tomato plants directly influences their hydration and nutrient uptake [46]. Adequate watering ensures sufficient water availability, leading to well-hydrated and turgid plant cells. Proper hydration supports the development of strong and elastic fruit tissues [56]. Conversely, overwatering can lead to waterlogged roots and reduced oxygen availability, negatively impacting fruit quality [26]. By carefully managing watering volume, growers can enhance the strength and elasticity of cherry tomato fruits [63].

5. Conclusions

The study revealed that the greenhouse approach demonstrated the most favorable outcomes for cherry tomato cultivation among the different growing designs. The greenhouse-grown cherry tomatoes exhibited higher growth rates, maximum fruit diameter, an increase in fruits per plant, and superior fruit and biological yield. Additionally, the greenhouse design resulted in greater shoot biomass, elevated leaf chlorophyll content, and higher fruit elasticity. Regarding watering volume, the 100% ETc treatment was the most beneficial, leading to a larger fruit size, heavier fruits, increased fruit yield, and enhanced root and shoot biomass. The combination of greenhouse growing design with 100% ETc watering volume is recommended for successful and improved cherry tomato production in the Jatinangor region, providing better growth, higher yield, and superior fruit quality, and thereby supporting the increasing demand for cherry tomatoes in Indonesia.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.A. and K.K.; methodology, F.A., K.K., M.A.S., M.R.K. and R.S.S.; software, F.A. and R.S.S.; validation, K.K., M.A.S. and M.R.K.; formal analysis, F.A. and R.S.S.; investigation, F.A., K.K., M.A.S. and M.R.K.; resources, F.A., K.K. and R.S.S.; data curation, F.A.; writing—original draft preparation, F.A.; writing—review and editing, R.S.S. and K.K.; visualization, F.A., K.K. and M.A.S.; supervision, K.K., M.A.S. and M.R.K.; project administration, K.K.; funding acquisition, K.K. All of the authors have contributed to the revision of the manuscript, and are agreed on this final draft. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Universitas Padjadjaran, and the APC was funded by Universitas Padjadjaran.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Acknowledgments

We thank Universitas Padjadjaran for their support of this research.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Tsouvaltzis, P.; Gkountina, S.; Siomos, A.S. Quality Traits and Nutritional Components of Cherry Tomato in Relation to the Harvesting Period, Storage Duration and Fruit Position in the Truss. Plants 2023, 12, 315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Abdel-Mawgoud, A.M.R.; El-Abd, S.O.; Singer, S.M.; Abou-Hadid, A.F. Effect of shade on the growth and yield of tomato plants. Acta Hort. 1996, 434, 313–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Dede Melomey, L.; Danquah, A.; Offei, S.K.; Ofori, K.; Danquah, E.Y.; Osei, M.K. Review on Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) Improvement Programmes in Ghana. In Recent Advances in Tomato Breeding and Production; Intechopen: London, UK, 2019; pp. 49–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Islam, M.Z.; Lee, Y.; Mele, M.A.; Choi, I. Effect of fruit size on fruit quality, shelf life and microbial activity in cherry tomatoes. AIMS Agric. Food 2019, 4, 340–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Rahul, S.; Rahman, M.; Rakibuzzaman, M.; Islam, M.N.; Uddin, A.F.M.J. Study on growth and yield characteristics of twelve cherry tomato lines. Horticulture 2018, 17, 1403–1409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Muttappanavar, R.D.; Sadashiva, A.T.; Vijendrakumar, R.C.; Roopa, B.N.; Vasantha, P.T. Combining Ability Analysis of Growth, Yield and Quality Traits in Cherry Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum var. cersiforme). Mol. Plant Breed. 2014, 5, 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Singh, P.K.; Hussain, Z.; Raman, S.; Patel, N. Pusa Golden Cherry Tomato-2: New promising yellow cherry tomato for protected cultivation. In Indian Horticulture; Center for Protected Cultivation Technology, ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute: New Delhi, India, 2022; p. 8. [Google Scholar]
  8. Kumar, B.; Singh, P.; Singh, R.P.; Kewat, R.N.; Singh, R.P. Evaluation of Quality Parameters at Ripening Stage in New Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) Germplasms. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. App. Sci. 2018, 7, 117–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Michailidis, P.A.; Krokida, M.K. Drying and Dehydration Processes in Food Preservation and Processing. In Conventional Food Processing; Bhattacharya, S., Ed.; John Wiley and Sons Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015; pp. 1–31. [Google Scholar]
  10. Ha, H.T.N.; Thuy, N.M. Application of intermittent vacuum treatment on the osmotic dehydration of black cherry tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum cv. OG). J. Appl. Biol. Biotechnol. 2022, 10, 136–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Pratiwi, A.; Sastra, E.; Utami, I. Growth Response of Oval Red Cherry Tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum Var. Cerasiforme) to Different Frequency of Watering. Bioeduscience 2021, 5, 183–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Rm, K.; Mbega, E.; Ndakidemi, P. Drought Tolerance Mechanisms in Plants: Physiological Responses Associated with Water Deficit Stress in Solanum lycopersicum. Adv. Crop Sci. Technol. 2018, 6, 362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Liu, L.; Shi, X.; Zhang, S.; Shi, Y.; Long, Y. Saccharinity test on cherry tomatoes based on hyperspectral imaging. Int. J. Des. Nat. Ecodynamics 2020, 15, 103–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Alfeo, V.; Planeta, D.; Velotto, S.; Palmeri, R.; Todaro, A. Cherry tomato drying: Sun versus convective oven. Horticulturae 2021, 7, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Valliyodan, B.; Ye, H.; Song, L.; Murphy, M.; Shannon, J.G.; Nguyen, H.T. Genetic diversity and genomic strategies for improving drought and waterlogging tolerance in soybeans. J. Exp. Bot. 2017, 68, 1835–1849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Sun, L.; Wang, J.; Lian, L.; Song, J.; Du, X.; Liu, W.; Zhao, W.; Yang, L.; Li, C.; Qin, Y.; et al. Systematic analysis of the sugar accumulation mechanism in sucrose- and hexose- accumulating cherry tomato fruits. BMC Plant Biol. 2022, 22, 303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Song, J.I.E.; Shi, W.; Liu, R.; Xu, Y.; Sui, N.A.; Zhou, J.; Feng, G.U. The role of the seed coat in adaptation of dimorphic seeds of the euhalophyte Suaeda salsa to salinity. Plant Species Biol. 2017, 32, 107–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Dannehl, D.; Huber, C.; Rocksch, T.; Huyskens-Keil, S.; Schmidt, U. Interactions between changing climate conditions in a semi-closed greenhouse and plant development, fruit yield, and health-promoting plant compounds of tomatoes. Sci. Hortic. 2012, 138, 235–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Liu, H.; Li, H.; Ning, H.; Zhang, X.; Li, S.; Pang, J.; Wang, G.; Sun, J. Optimizing irrigation frequency and amount to balance yield, fruit quality and water use efficiency of greenhouse tomato. Agric. Water Manag. 2019, 226, 105787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Chandni; Singh, D.; Akhtar, S.; Dutta, S.K. Effect of Microclimate on Yield and Quality Attributes of Cherry Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L. var. cerasiforme) under Open Field and Polyhouse Conditions. Int. J. Environ. Clim. Chang. 2020, 11, 24–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Devgan, K.; Kaur, P.; Kumar, N.; Kaur, A. Active modified atmosphere packaging of yellow bell pepper for retention of physico-chemical quality attributes. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 56, 878–888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Wu, Y.; Yan, S.; Fan, J.; Zhang, F.; Xiang, Y.; Zheng, J.; Guo, J. Responses of growth, fruit yield, quality and water productivity of greenhouse tomato to deficit drip irrigation. Sci. Hortic. 2021, 275, 109710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Montero, J.I. Evaporative cooling in greenhouses: Effect on microclimate, water use efficiency and plant respons. Acta Hortic. 2006, 719, 373–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Dannehl, D.; Josuttis, M.; Ulrichs, C.; Schmidt, U. The potential of a confined closed greenhouse in terms of sustainable production, crop growth, yield and valuable plant compounds of tomatoes. J. Appl. Bot. Food Qual. 2014, 87, 210–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Romacho, I.; Hita, O.; Soriano, T.; Morales, M.I.; Escobar, I.; Suarez-Rey, E.M.; Hernández, J.; Castilla, N. The growth and yield of cherry tomatoes in net covered greenhouses. Acta Hortic. 2006, 719, 529–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ahemd, H.A.; Al-Faraj, A.A.; Abdel-Ghany, A.M. Shading greenhouses to improve the microclimate, energy and water saving in hot regions: A review. Sci. Hortic. 2016, 201, 36–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Abhivyakti; Kumari, P. Impact of microclimatic modification on tomato quality through mulching inside and outside the polyhouse. Agric. Sci. Dig.—A Res. J. 2015, 35, 178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Molina-Aiz, F.D.; Valera, D.L.; López, A.; Álvarez, A.J.; Escamirosa, C. Effects of insect-proof screens used in greenhouse on microclimate and fruit yield of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) in a mediterranean climate. Acta Hortic. 2012, 927, 707–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Coyago-Cruz, E.; Meléndez-Martínez, A.J.; Moriana, A.; Girón, I.F.; Martín-Palomo, M.J.; Galindo, A.; López-Pérez, D.; Torrecillas, A.; Beltrán-Sinchiguano, E.; Corell, M. Yield response to regulated deficit irrigation of greenhouse cherry tomatoes. Agric. Water Manag. 2019, 213, 212–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kittas, C.; Katsoulas, N.; Rigakis, N.; Bartzanas, T.; Kitta, E. Effects on microclimate, crop production and quality of a tomato crop grown under shade nets. J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol. 2012, 87, 7–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Holcman, E.; Sentelhas, P.C.; Mello, S.C. Microclimatic changes caused by different plastic coverings in greenhouses cultivated with cherry tomato in southern Brazil. Rev. Bras. Meteorol. 2015, 30, 125–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hemming, S.; de Zwart, F.; Elings, A.; Petropoulou, A.; Righini, I. Cherry tomato production in intelligent greenhouses-sensors and ai for control of climate, irrigation, crop yield, and quality. Sensors 2020, 20, 6430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hussain, K.; Lone, S.; Malik, A.; Masoodi, K.Z.; Dar, Z.A.; Nazir, N.; Ali, G.; Farwah, S. Genetic variability studies in cherry tomato for growth, yield, and quality traits in open field conditions. Int. J. Agric. Appl. Sci. 2021, 2, 60–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kaur, A.; Dhillon, N.S. Estimation of yield and quality traits of cherry tomato under the influence of micronutrients in protected condition. Pharma Innov. 2022, 11, 629–632. [Google Scholar]
  35. Leyva, R.; Constán-Aguilar, C.; Blasco, B.; Sánchez-Rodríguez, E.; Romero, L.; Soriano, T.; Ruíz, J.M. Effects of climatic control on tomato yield and nutritional quality in Mediterranean screenhouse. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2014, 94, 63–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zheng, J.; Huang, G.; Jia, D.; Wang, J.; Mota, M.; Pereira, L.S.; Huang, Q.; Xu, X.; Liu, H. Responses of drip irrigated tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) yield, quality and water productivity to various soil matric potential thresholds in an arid region of Northwest China. Agric. Water Manag. 2013, 129, 181–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Pék, Z.; Szuvandzsiev, P.; Daood, H.; Neményi, A.; Helyes, L. Effect of irrigation on yield parameters and antioxidant profiles of processing cherry tomato. Cent. Eur. J. Biol. 2014, 9, 383–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Barbagallo, R.N.; Di Silvestro, I.; Patanè, C. Yield, physicochemical traits, antioxidant pattern, polyphenol oxidase activity and total visual quality of field-grown processing tomato cv. Brigade as affected by water stress in Mediterranean climate. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2013, 93, 1449–1457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Helyes, L.; Lugasi, A.; Pék, Z. Effect of irrigation on processing tomato yield and antioxidant components. Turkish J. Agric. For. 2012, 36, 702–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Nangare, D.D.; Singh, Y.; Kumar, P.S.; Minhas, P.S. Growth, fruit yield and quality of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) as affected by deficit irrigation regulated on phenological basis. Agric. Water Manag. 2016, 171, 73–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Liu, H.; Duan, A.; Li, F.; Sun, J.; Wang, Y.; Sun, C. Drip Irrigation Scheduling for Tomato Grown in Solar Greenhouse Based on Pan Evaporation in North China Plain. J. Integr. Agric. 2013, 12, 520–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Oliveira, C.E.d.S.; Zoz, T.; Jalal, A.; Seron, C.d.C.; da Silva, R.A.; Filho, M.C.M.T. Tolerance of tomato seedling cultivars to different values of irrigation water salinity. Rev. Bras. Eng. Agric. Ambient. 2022, 26, 697–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Jarquín-Enríquez, L.; Mercado-Silva, E.M.; Maldonado, J.L.; Lopez-Baltazar, J. Lycopene content and color index of tomatoes are affected by the greenhouse cover. Sci. Hortic. 2013, 155, 43–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Dorais, M.; Ehret, D.L.; Papadopoulos, A.P. Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) health components: From the seed to the consumer. Phytochem. Rev. 2008, 7, 231–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Cantore, V.; Lechkar, O.; Karabulut, E.; Sellami, M.H.; Albrizio, R.; Boari, F.; Stellacci, A.M.; Todorovic, M. Combined effect of deficit irrigation and strobilurin application on yield, fruit quality and water use efficiency of “cherry” tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Agric. Water Manag. 2016, 167, 53–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Harmanto; Salokhe, V.M.; Babel, M.S.; Tantau, H.J. Water requirement of drip irrigated tomatoes grown in greenhouse in tropical environment. Agric. Water Manag. 2005, 71, 225–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Qasim, M.; Ahmad, I.; Ahmad, T. Optimizing fertigation frequency for Rosa hybrida L. Pakistan J. Bot. 2008, 40, 533–545. [Google Scholar]
  48. Valenzano, V.; Parente, A.; Serio, F.; Santamaria, P. Effect of growing system and cultivar on yield and water-use efficiency of greenhouse-grown tomato. J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol. 2008, 83, 71–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Coyago-Cruz, E.; Corell, M.; Moriana, A.; Mapelli-Brahm, P.; Hernanz, D.; Stinco, C.M.; Beltrán-Sinchiguano, E.; Meléndez-Martínez, A.J. Study of Commercial Quality Parameters, Sugars, Phenolics, Carotenoids and Plastids in Different Tomato Varieties; Elsevier Ltd.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; Volume 277, ISBN 3495455701. [Google Scholar]
  50. Gent, M.P.N. Effect of degree and duration of shade on quality of greenhouse tomato. HortScience 2007, 42, 514–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Harel, D.; Fadida, H.; Slepoy, A.; Gantz, S.; Shilo, K. The effect of mean daily temperature and relative humidity on pollen, fruit set and yield of tomato grown in commercial protected cultivation. Agronomy 2014, 4, 167–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Ozbahce, A.; Tari, A.F. Effects of different emitter space and water stress on yield and quality of processing tomato under semi-arid climate conditions. Agric. Water Manag. 2010, 97, 1405–1410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Zhai, Y.; Yang, Q.; Hou, M. The effects of saline water drip irrigation on tomato yield, quality, and blossom-end rot incidence—A 3a case study in the South of China. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0142204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Abdel-Razz, H.; Ibrahim, A.; Wahb-Allah, M.; Alsadon, A. Response of Cherry Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum var. cerasiforme) to Pruning Systems and Irrigation Rates under Greenhouse Conditions. Asian J. Crop Sci. 2013, 5, 275–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Walter, S.; Heuberger, H.; Schnitzler, W.H. Sensibility of different vegetables to oxygen deficiency and aeration with H2O2 in the rhizosphere. Acta Hortic. 2004, 659, 499–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Kapoor, D.; Bhardwaj, S.; Landi, M.; Sharma, A.; Ramakrishnan, M.; Sharma, A. The impact of drought in plant metabolism: How to exploit tolerance mechanisms to increase crop production. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Asadi, S.; Lebaschy, M.H.; Khourgami, A.; Hosein, A.; Rad, S. Effect of drought stress on the morphology of three Salvia sclarea populations. Ann. Biol. Res. 2012, 3, 4503–4507. [Google Scholar]
  58. Maleki, M.; Ebrahimzade, H.; Gholami, M.; Niknam, V. The effect of drought stress and exogenous abscisic acid on growth, protein content and antioxidative enzyme activity in saffron (Crocus sativus L.). Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2011, 10, 9068–9075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Salazar, C.; Hernández, C.; Pino, M.T. Plant water stress: Associations between ethylene and abscisic acid response. Chil. J. Agric. Res. 2015, 75, 71–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Hidayat, C.; Frasetya, B.; Syamsudin, I.N. Adjustment of phosphorus concentration to increase growth and yield of cherry tomato using hydroponic drip system. J. Agro. 2018, 5, 140–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Razmjoo, K.; Heydarizadeh, P.; Sabzalian, M.R. Effect of salinity and drought stresses on growth parameters and essential oil content of Matricaria chamomila. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2008, 10, 451–454. [Google Scholar]
  62. Farooq, M.; Basra, S.M.A.; Wahid, A.; Cheema, Z.A.; Cheema, M.A.; Khaliq, A. Physiological role of exogenously applied glycinebetaine to improve drought tolerance in fine grain aromatic rice (Oryza sativa L.). J. Agron. Crop Sci. 2008, 194, 325–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Gheidary, S.; Akhzari, D.; Pessarakli, M. Effects of salinity, drought, and priming treatments on seed germination and growth parameters of Lathyrus sativus L. J. Plant Nutr. 2017, 40, 1507–1514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Teitel, M. The effect of screened openings on greenhouse microclimate. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2007, 143, 159–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Katsoulas, N.; Kittas, C. Impact of Greenhouse Microclimate on Plant Growth and Development with Special Reference to the Solanaceae. Eur. J. Plant Sci. Biotechnol. 2008, 2, 31–44. [Google Scholar]
  66. Rostami Ajirloo, A.; Amiri, E. Responses of Tomato Cultivars to Water-Deficit Conditions (Case Study: Moghan Plain, Iran). Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2018, 49, 2267–2283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Al Hassan, M.; Martínez Fuertes, M.; Ramos Sánchez, F.J.; Vicente, O.; Boscaiu, M. Effects of salt and water stress on plant growth and on accumulation of osmolytes and antioxidant compounds in cherry tomato. Not. Bot. Horti Agrobot. Cluj-Napoca 2015, 43, nbha4319793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Ezin, V.; De La Pena, R.; Ahanchede, A. Flooding tolerance of tomato genotypes during vegetative and reproductive stages. Braz. J. Plant Physiol. 2010, 22, 131–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Soleh, M.A.; Ariyanti, M.; Dewi, I.R.; Kadapi, M. Chlorophyll fluorescence and stomatal conductance of ten sugarcane varieties under waterlogging and fluctuation light intensity. Emir. J. Food Agric. 2018, 30, 935–940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Van Der Ploeg, A.; Heuvelink, E. Influence of sub-optimal temperature on tomato growth and yield: A review. J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol. 2005, 80, 652–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Joung, M.; Shin, Y. Physicochemical quality, antioxidant compounds, and activity of “Beta Tiny” and “TY Nonari” cherry tomatoes during storage. Korean J. Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 53, 63–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agronomy 13 02417 g001
Figure 1. VOSviewer bibliometric of cherry tomato research update.
Figure 1. VOSviewer bibliometric of cherry tomato research update.
Agronomy 13 02417 g001
Agronomy 13 02417 g002
Figure 2. Temperature (°C) at experimental sites during research phase. Note: GH = greenhouse, SH = screen house, RS = rain shelter.
Figure 2. Temperature (°C) at experimental sites during research phase. Note: GH = greenhouse, SH = screen house, RS = rain shelter.
Agronomy 13 02417 g002
Agronomy 13 02417 g003
Figure 3. Humidity (%) at experimental sites during research phase. Note: GH = greenhouse, SH = screen house, RS = rain shelter.
Figure 3. Humidity (%) at experimental sites during research phase. Note: GH = greenhouse, SH = screen house, RS = rain shelter.
Agronomy 13 02417 g003
Agronomy 13 02417 g004
Figure 4. Wind speed (m/s) at experimental sites during research phase. Note: GH = greenhouse, SH = screen house, RS = rain shelter.
Figure 4. Wind speed (m/s) at experimental sites during research phase. Note: GH = greenhouse, SH = screen house, RS = rain shelter.
Agronomy 13 02417 g004
Agronomy 13 02417 g005
Figure 5. Light intensity (lux) at experimental sites during research phase. Note: GH = greenhouse, SH = screen house, RS = rain shelter.
Figure 5. Light intensity (lux) at experimental sites during research phase. Note: GH = greenhouse, SH = screen house, RS = rain shelter.
Agronomy 13 02417 g005
Agronomy 13 02417 g006
Figure 6. Main effect of growing designs and watering volume on growth rate (gram/week/plant) of cherry tomato cultivar Ruby.
Figure 6. Main effect of growing designs and watering volume on growth rate (gram/week/plant) of cherry tomato cultivar Ruby.
Agronomy 13 02417 g006
Agronomy 13 02417 g007
Figure 7. Main effect of growing designs and watering volume on fruit diameter (mm) of cherry tomato cultivar Ruby.
Figure 7. Main effect of growing designs and watering volume on fruit diameter (mm) of cherry tomato cultivar Ruby.
Agronomy 13 02417 g007
Agronomy 13 02417 g008
Figure 8. Main effect of growing designs and watering volume on single fruit weight (g) of cherry tomato cultivar Ruby.
Figure 8. Main effect of growing designs and watering volume on single fruit weight (g) of cherry tomato cultivar Ruby.
Agronomy 13 02417 g008
Agronomy 13 02417 g009
Figure 9. Main effect of growing designs and watering volume on fruits per plant of cherry tomato cultivar Ruby.
Figure 9. Main effect of growing designs and watering volume on fruits per plant of cherry tomato cultivar Ruby.
Agronomy 13 02417 g009
Agronomy 13 02417 g010
Figure 10. Main effect of growing designs and watering volume on fruit yield per plant (g) of cherry tomato cultivar Ruby.
Figure 10. Main effect of growing designs and watering volume on fruit yield per plant (g) of cherry tomato cultivar Ruby.
Agronomy 13 02417 g010
Agronomy 13 02417 g011
Figure 11. Main effect of growing designs and watering volume on root dry weight (g) of cherry tomato cultivar Ruby.
Figure 11. Main effect of growing designs and watering volume on root dry weight (g) of cherry tomato cultivar Ruby.
Agronomy 13 02417 g011
Agronomy 13 02417 g012
Figure 12. Main effect of growing designs and watering volume on shoot dry weight (g) of cherry tomato cultivar Ruby.
Figure 12. Main effect of growing designs and watering volume on shoot dry weight (g) of cherry tomato cultivar Ruby.
Agronomy 13 02417 g012
Agronomy 13 02417 g013
Figure 13. Main effect of growing designs and watering volume on root-shoot ratio of cherry tomato cultivar Ruby.
Figure 13. Main effect of growing designs and watering volume on root-shoot ratio of cherry tomato cultivar Ruby.
Agronomy 13 02417 g013
Agronomy 13 02417 g014
Figure 14. Main effect of growing designs and watering volume on biological yield per plant (g) of cherry tomato cultivar Ruby.
Figure 14. Main effect of growing designs and watering volume on biological yield per plant (g) of cherry tomato cultivar Ruby.
Agronomy 13 02417 g014
Agronomy 13 02417 g015
Figure 15. Main effect of growing designs and watering volume on leaf chlorophyll content (SPAD) of cherry tomato cultivar Ruby.
Figure 15. Main effect of growing designs and watering volume on leaf chlorophyll content (SPAD) of cherry tomato cultivar Ruby.
Agronomy 13 02417 g015
Agronomy 13 02417 g016
Figure 16. Main effect of growing designs and watering volume on fruit firmness (N) of cherry tomato cultivar Ruby.
Figure 16. Main effect of growing designs and watering volume on fruit firmness (N) of cherry tomato cultivar Ruby.
Agronomy 13 02417 g016
Agronomy 13 02417 g017
Figure 17. Main effect of growing designs and watering volume on fruit elasticity (mm) of cherry tomato cultivar Ruby.
Figure 17. Main effect of growing designs and watering volume on fruit elasticity (mm) of cherry tomato cultivar Ruby.
Agronomy 13 02417 g017
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ahmad, F.; Kusumiyati, K.; Soleh, M.A.; Khan, M.R.; Sundari, R.S. Watering Volume and Growing Design’s Effect on the Productivity and Quality of Cherry Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum cerasiformae) Cultivar Ruby. Agronomy 2023, 13, 2417. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13092417

AMA Style

Ahmad F, Kusumiyati K, Soleh MA, Khan MR, Sundari RS. Watering Volume and Growing Design’s Effect on the Productivity and Quality of Cherry Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum cerasiformae) Cultivar Ruby. Agronomy. 2023; 13(9):2417. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13092417

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ahmad, Farhan, Kusumiyati Kusumiyati, Muhammad Arief Soleh, Muhammad Rabnawaz Khan, and Ristina Siti Sundari. 2023. "Watering Volume and Growing Design’s Effect on the Productivity and Quality of Cherry Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum cerasiformae) Cultivar Ruby" Agronomy 13, no. 9: 2417. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13092417

APA Style

Ahmad, F., Kusumiyati, K., Soleh, M. A., Khan, M. R., & Sundari, R. S. (2023). Watering Volume and Growing Design’s Effect on the Productivity and Quality of Cherry Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum cerasiformae) Cultivar Ruby. Agronomy, 13(9), 2417. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13092417

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop