Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The Role of Staking and Pruning Methods on Yield and Profitability of Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) Production in the Guinea Savanna Zone of Ghana

The Role of Staking and Pruning Methods on Yield and Profitability of Tomato (Solanum... Hindawi Advances in Agriculture Volume 2021, Article ID 5570567, 7 pages https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5570567 Research Article The Role of Staking and Pruning Methods on Yield and Profitability of Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) Production in the Guinea Savanna Zone of Ghana S. Lamptey and E. Koomson Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture, University for Development Studies, P. O. Box TL 1882, Tamale, Ghana Correspondence should be addressed to S. Lamptey; naalamp2009@yahoo.com Received 19 February 2021; Revised 14 July 2021; Accepted 2 September 2021; Published 18 September 2021 Academic Editor: Amelia Salimonti Copyright © 2021 S. Lamptey and E. Koomson. 'is is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Tomato is one of the most widely consumed and produced vegetables in Ghana. 'e low yield of tomatoes in Ghana has resulted in huge importation of the produce from neighboring countries. Good agronomic practices are among the key strategies involved in increasing the yield of horticultural produce. 'is study seeks to evaluate the response of staking and pruning on tomato fruit yield, quality, and cost of production. To achieve this, a field experiment was conducted to investigate the effect of staking and pruning methods on fruit yield and profitability of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) produced in the northern region of Ghana. Treatments were applied in a randomized complete block design with three replications. Treatments were no pruning + no staking (control), single pole staking (SPS), wire trellis (WT), one-stem pruning (1SP), one-stem pruning + single pole staking (1SP + SPS), one-stem pruning + wire trellis (1SP + WT), two-stem pruning (2SP), two-stem pruning + single pole staking (2SP + SPS), and two-stem pruning + wire trellis (2SP + WT). Results showed that 2SP + WT increased fruit diameter, fruit length, and marketable fruit weight by 52%, 32%, and 69%, respectively, compared to the control. 'e maximum number and weight of marketable fruits obtained from 2SP + WT increased total fruit yield by 76% compared to the control. In all, the performance of the treatments in terms of yield was in the following order: 2SP + WT> 1SP + WT> SPS> WT> 2SP + SPS> 1SP> 2SP> control. 'ough 2SP + WT increased production cost by 42%, it greatly increased yield by 69% which resulted in 83% net profit compared to the control. 'us, 2SP + WT could be tested on-farm for possible adoption to increase tomato yield, quality, and profit. 'is has resulted in large sums of money spent annually on 1. Introduction the importation of the vegetable crop. For example, 7,000 Tomato is an important component of every Ghanaian meal, tons was imported annually between 2010 and 2016, mostly and its cultivation contributes significantly to livelihood originating from Burkina Faso [3, 8]. Major contributing improvement. Schippers [1] asserts that tomato is the most factor to the low tomato yield in Ghana is the use of tra- important vegetable in Ghana, compared to all the other ditional methods of farming or low adoption of improved vegetables. 'e total consumption of fresh tomato in 2016/ husbandry practices (such as sustainable staking and 2017 was 240,000 tons per annum [2]. However, domestic pruning). production has not kept up with demand [3]. 'e tomato It is asserted that improved management practices such sector is unable to attain its potential productivity as as staking and pruning could yield over 32.5–46.0 t/ha in the compared to other countries [4]. 'e average tomato yield in forest zones of Ghana [9]. Staking is a means of providing Ghana is 7.5 t/ha which is far less than the potential yield of supports to ensure clean and unblemished fruits by keeping 20 tons per hectare [5]. Ghana imports close to 100,000 tons fruits off the ground, thereby increasing marketable yield [6]. or one-quarter of its domestic supply from a neighboring Akoroda [10] and Amina [11] suggested staking as an ap- country (Burkina Faso) to meet the domestic demand [6, 7]. propriate method to effectively expose leaves to sunlight for 2 Advances in Agriculture efficient photosynthetic activities and improved yield of reached about 25 cm in height, the stem of the tomato was crops. Pruning and staking indeterminate tomato plants can loosely tied to the wires for support. result in early fruits maturity and larger fruits. 'e most With the single-stem staking, wooden stake of about common method of staking among small holder farmers in 60–80 cm was inserted about 20 cm into the soil, just outside Ghana is the single-pole staking where each crop is sup- the diameter of the tomato seedling after transplanting. ported with stake (wood). 'is has resulted in scarcity of When the plant reached about 25 cm in height, the stem of stakes [12], especially in Guinea savanna. Besides, this the tomato was loosely tied to the supporting stake. Pruning method is labor intensive and contributes greatly to de- started four weeks after transplanting (WAT) and continued forestation resulting in an unsustainable production system. to twelve weeks. All the suckers were removed to one below In pruning, there is the selective removal of side shoots or the first flower cluster to get one stem per plant or two stems stem to limit plant growth and to divert nutrients to flower per plant. clusters on the remaining shoot or stem. According to Franco et al. [13], appropriate pruning method is relevant to 2.3. Data Collection. Data on yield parameters were taken maintain a balance in the relationship’s source/sink and the five weeks after transplanting and at harvest. Five plants carbon/nitrogen (C/N) ratio. Alam et al. [14] recorded in- creased marketable yield/area by pruning indeterminate were selected from the two middle ridges from each treat- ment for the measurement of yield data, and their averages tomato plants to two-stem rather than one-stem. Alternative staking technique that would reduce the quantity of stakes were computed. 'e yield parameters determined were as follows. (wood) used without compromising on yields would address the problem of scarcity of stakes and deforestation associated with tomato production in Ghana. 'e objective of the study 2.3.1. Number of Marketable and Nonmarketable Fruits. was to evaluate staking and pruning options to suggest al- Marketable fruits were fruits of good quality in firmness with ternatives for sustainable tomato production without no blemish. Mature and ripped, unrotten and sizable compromising on yield and profitability. 'is is to address (without blemish) tomato fruits were harvested from the five the problem of scarcity of stakes and deforestation associated randomly selected plants from the two middle rows. Har- with tomato production in Ghana. vested fruits were counted and averaged to represent number of fruits per plant. Nonmarketable fruits were 2. Materials and Methods further sorted out into the following components: 2.1.StudyAreaandExperimental Design. 'e field study was (a) Sun-scalded, deformed, unevenly ripped, and conducted at the University for Development Studies (UDS) whitish areas appearing on the exposed surface experimental fields, Nyankpala campus, from June to Oc- (b) Fruits diseased or eaten by rodents tober 2019 under rain fed. Nyankpala is located on latitude ° ° (c) Fruits eaten by birds, mainly full-ripe tomatoes 25′ 41″ N, longitude 000 58′ 42″ W, and altitude 183 m above sea level (SARI, 2007). 'e experiment was laid out in a randomized complete block design (RCBD) with nine 2.3.2. Fruit Diameter and Length. 'ree ripped fruits were treatments and three replications. 'ere were a total of randomly selected from the harvested fruits per the five twenty-seven (27) experimental plots. 'e plot size for each tagged plants. With the aid of a caliper, the three fruits experimental unit was 4 m × 3 m with spacing of 1 m be- diameter was measured, and their means were calculated in tween plots and 2 m between blocks. A total field size of mm at 9 weeks after transplanting. With the aid of a meter 33 m × 13 m was demarcated for the experiment. rule in cm, the three fruits lengths were measured, and their means were determined at 9 weeks after transplanting. 2.2. Nursing and Transplanting of Seedlings. A nursery trough measuring 10 m × 1.3 m was prepared and filled with 2.3.3. Marketable Fruits Weight. Matured, ripped, unrotten, sandy loam soil mixed with biochar for nursing the seeds. and sizable (without blemish) tomato fruits harvested from Pectomech tomato seeds were thinly sown in drills on the th the five tagged plants were weighed and averaged at 8, 9, and nursery trough on 8 July 2019. Nursed seeds were mulched 10 weeks after transplanting (WAT) to determine the weight with dry grass and watered twice a day at 3 days interval until of marketable fruits per plant at 8, 9, and 10 WAT. 'e mean germination. Ridges of 75 cm apart were prepared prior to weight in kilograms per hectare was extrapolated. transplanting with each plot having 4 ridges. Seedlings were transplanted four weeks after germination at a height of 15 cm with about 5-6 leaves. Transplanting was done late in 2.3.4. Total Fruits Yield. Tomato fruits were harvested 6 the afternoon to prevent transplanting shock. Seedlings were times on weekly basis per plot by hand picking and weighed. planted at a spacing of 40 cm within rows and 75 cm between Fruit yield was determined by summing up all the weight of rows, with each ridge accommodating 10 seedlings. A total the six times harvest which includes marketable and non- of 40 seedlings were planted on each plot. With the trellis, marketable fruits and measured in Kg/plot and later con- wires were run from one end pole to another and back again verted to Kg/ha. at different heights after transplanting. When the plant Advances in Agriculture 3 2.3.5. Economic Analysis. Production cost was calculated for (2SP + WT) plots recorded the least number of non- each treatment by estimating the gross returns (total returns marketable fruits of 2089 kg/ha, while the control had the highest number of nonmarketable fruits of 7478 kg/ha at after production), net returns (gross return minus cost of production), and benefit cost ratio (net return divided by the harvest (Figure 4). production costs). Price of input and the market price of produce were used in calculating production cost, returns, 3.4. Total Fruit Yield. 'e analysis of variance indicates that and benefit:cost ratio. there was a difference (p< 0.001) among treatments on total fruits yield. 'ere was no difference between one-stem 2.4. Data Analysis. Data on all parameters, except economic pruning (1SP), one-stem pruning plus single pole staking analysis, were subjected to ANOVA using GenStat statistical (1SP + SPS), and two-stem pruning (2SP). 'ere were sig- package (GenStat, 20TH Edition). 'e means were separated nificant differences between two-stem pruning plus wire using LSD (0.05). trellising (2SP + WT), two-stem pruning plus single-pole staking (2SP + SPS), and no pruning no staking. Two-stem 3. Results pruning plus wire trellising (2SP + WT) increased total fruits yield by 75% compared to control (Figure 5). 3.1. Fruit Length and Diameter. 'e result indicates that there was a significant (p< 0.002) difference among treat- ments on the fruit length at 9 WAT. Single pole staking 3.5. Cost and Return Analysis. Cost analysis showed that (SPS), wire trellising (WT), one-stem pruning plus wire 2SP + WT incurred the highest ($411/ha) cost of production, trellising (1SP + WT), and two-stem pruning plus single pole whereas the control incurred the lowest of $175/ha (Table 2). staking (2SP + SPS) showed no difference in fruit length, In the case of net return and benefit cost ratio (BCR), it likewise one-stem pruning plus single pole staking and two- was observed that 2SP + WT recorded the highest ($598/ha) stem pruning plus wire trellising. However, 2SP + WT had net return as well as the maximum benefit cost ratio (1.46), the highest (5.1 cm) fruit length compared to the control whereas the control recorded the minimum net return ($63/ (2.2 cm) at 9 WAT (Figure 1). ha) and BCR (0.36). 'ere was a difference (p< 0.049) in fruit diameter between 2SP + WT (4.64 cm) and the control (2.21 cm) at 9 4. Discussion WAT (Figure 2). However, there was no difference between single pole staking (SPS), wire trellising (WT), one-stem Staking and pruning methods greatly affected fruit diameter pruning plus single pole staking (1SP + SPS), one-stem and length with the highest fruit diameter and length pruning plus wire trellising (1SP + WT), one-stem pruning recorded in 2SP + WT. Staking with wire trellis might have (1SP), two-stem pruning (2SP), and two-stem pruning plus allowed better aeration and exposure of the foliage, thereby, single pole staking (2SP + SPS). enhancing photosynthetic activities which might be re- sponsible for larger fruit size. Hesamil et al. [15] reported increased fruit size of tomato because lateral branches were 3.2. Marketable Fruits Weight and Number. At 8, 9, and 10 removed. 'e result obtained by staking tomatoes is in WAT, there were significant differences (p< 0.001, agreement with Kumar et al. [16] who reported higher fruit p< 0.001, and p< 0.0019, respectively) among treatments diameter in staked tomato. on the weight of marketable fruits. Plots treated with 'e improved fruit diameter and length in 2SP + WT 2SP + WT recorded the highest (369 Kg/ha) weight of resulted in 82%, 66%, and 65% increase in marketable fruit marketable fruits compared with the control giving the least weight in 8, 9, and 10 WAT, respectively, compared to weight (65 kg/ha) of marketable fruits at 8 WAT. 2SP + WT, control. 1SP + WT and 2SP + SPS also increased marketable 1SP + WT, and 2SP + SPS increased marketable fruit weight fruit weight by 71% and 60%, respectively, compared to the by 82%, 71%, and 60%, respectively, compared to the control control at 8 WAT. Staking increases fruit yield, reduces the at 8 WAT. A similar trend was observed in 9 and 10 WAT proportion of nonmarketable fruit, and enhances the pro- (Table 1). duction of high-quality fruits [17]. Ramirez et al. [18] re- 'ere was a significant (p< 0.001) difference among ported that two or three stem pruning produced the best treatments on the number of marketable fruits at harvest quality fruits. 'e result of this study is in agreement with with 2SP + WT recording the highest (11449.6 kg/ha) and [19] who reported that removal of lateral branches resulted 2SP + SPS, the next greatest (7866.3 kg/ha). 'is resulted to in increasing fruit weight of tomato plants. 'e pruning and 70% and 57% increase in number of marketable fruits by staking prevented tomato fruits from coming into contact 2SP + WT and 2SP + SPS, respectively, compared to the with wet soil [20] and, therefore, reduced the number of control (Figure 3). nonmarketable yield due to fruit rot [21]. 'is resulted in increased fruit size thereby increasing weight and number of 3.3. Number of Nonmarketable Fruits. 'e analysis revealed marketable yield of tomatoes. Kumar et al. [16] reported an that there was a significant (p< 0.001) difference among increase in fruit weight of tomato by staking. Salinas et al. treatments on the number of nonmarketable fruits of [22] reported higher good quality fruit in pruned tomatoes tomato at harvest. Two-stem pruning plus wire trellising compared to no pruning. 4 Advances in Agriculture LSD (0.05) = 1.1 ab 5 ab ab ab bc Treatments Figure 1: Effect of pruning and staking on fruit length. Bars with different letters denote significance at p< 0.05. Error bars denote the standard error of means. Means comparison was conducted using the least significant difference (p< 0.05). LSD (0.05) = 1.3 ab ab ab ab ab Treatments Figure 2: Effect of pruning and staking on fruit diameter. Bars with different letters denote significance at p< 0.05. Error bars denote the standard error of means. Means comparison was conducted using the least significant difference (p< 0.05). recorded the maximum nonmarketable fruits. Anonymous Table 1: Marketable fruits weight (kg/ha) of tomato under different [17] reported an increase in fruit yield, a reduction in pruning and staking methods. Means comparison based on the nonmarketable fruit and enhanced high-quality fruits be- least significant difference (0.05). cause of staking. Staking of tomatoes gave higher yield and Treatments 8 WAT 9 WAT 10 WAT good quality fruits with higher market value in a study Control 65 145 258 conducted by [10, 11] and suggested staking for quality and SPS 140 253 443 higher yield of tomato. 'e current result is also in accor- WT 151 254 519 dance with [24] who reported increased tomato yield under 1SP 82 178 258 pruning and staking. 1SP + SPS 91 251 333 2SP + WT and 1SP + WT increased production cost by 1SP + WT 226 291 503 53% and 57%, respectively, compared to the control plots. 2SP 85 256 219 2SP + SPS 161 301 631 'is may be attributed to high cost of staking and pruning. 2SP + WT 369 424 728 'e highest and the second highest gross return of $1010 and LSD (0.05) 39.76 37.86 39.23 $771 per hectare recorded from 2SP + WT and 2SP + SPS, CV (%) 15.1 8.4 5.3 respectively, may be attributed to increased marketable fruits LSD, least significant difference (0.05). number and weight recorded in these treatments. 'e highest net return ($598) per hectare was recorded in 2SP + WT and the second highest net return ($381) per 'e maximum (7472 kg/ha) number of nonmarketable hectare. From the economic point of view, 2SP + WT and fruits recorded on control plots might be attributed to fruits 2SP + SPS were more profitable with increased benefit cost not supported and kept off the floor. 'is increased disease ratio of 75% and 63%, respectively, compared to the control. and rotting of fruits, thereby, increasing nonmarketable Lower nonmarketable yield, higher marketable fruits, and fruits. In studies conducted by [23], no pruning plants higher net return were recorded by Singh [25]. Fruit diameter (cm) Fruit length at 9WAP (cm) Control 1SP SPS 1SP+SPS WT 1SP+WT 1SP 2SP 1SP+SPS 2SP+SPS 1SP+WT 2SP+WT 2SP Control 2SP+SPS SPS 2SP+WT WT Advances in Agriculture 5 LSD (0.05) = 1285 c c Treatments Figure 3: Effect of pruning and staking on number of marketable fruits at harvest. Bars with different letters denote significance at p< 0.05. Error bars denote the standard error of means. Means comparison was conducted using the least significant difference (p< 0.05). LSD (0.05) = 1122 ab ab Treatments Figure 4: Effect of pruning and staking on the number of nonmarketable. Bars with different letters denote significance at p< 0.05. Error bars denote the standard error of means. Means comparison was conducted using least significant difference (p< 0.05). LSD (0.05) = 8558 ab abc abc bc Treatments Figure 5: Effect of pruning and staking on total fruit yield. Bars with different letters denote significance at p< 0.05. Error bars denote the standard error of means. Means comparison was conducted using least significant difference (p< 0.05). Total fruit yield (kg/ha) Number of marketable fruits No of non marketable fruits (ha) (ha) Control Control Control SPS SPS SPS WT WT WT 1SP 1SP 1SP 1SP+SPS 1SP+SPS 1SP+SPS 1SP+WT 1SP+WT 1SP+WT 2SP 2SP 2SP 2SP+SPS 2SP+SPS 2SP+SPS 2SP+WT 2SP+WT 2SP+WT 6 Advances in Agriculture Table 2: Cost of production, gross return, net return, and benefit/cost ratio of tomato as affected by pruning and staking. Treatments Production cost ($/ha) Gross return ($/ha) Net return ($/ha) BCR Control 175.4 238.4 63.0 0.36 SPS 205.3 288.0 82.6 0.40 WT 226.7 407.1 180.4 0.80 1SP 180.7 321.2 140.5 0.78 1SP + SPS 407.4 600.7 214.6 0.53 1SP + WT 386.1 635.5 228.1 0.56 2SP 184.5 360.6 176.1 0.95 2SP + SPS 398.8 771.1 381.2 0.96 2SP + WT 411.2 1010 598.3 1.46 Program and Wageningen UR Report, Wageningen UR, 5. Conclusion Wageningen, 'e Netherlands, 2016. [8] U. N. Comtrade, “United nations international trade statistics Pruning and staking significantly influenced fruit diameter, database,” 2019, https://comtrade.un.org/. fruit length, marketable fruits weight, number of marketable [9] J. C. Norman, Tropical Vegetable Crops, Arthur H. Stockwell fruits, and cost and benefit of tomato production. However, Ltd, Ilfracombe, England, 1992. among the different pruning and staking treatments, 2 stem [10] M. O. Akoroda, N. I. Ogbechie-Odiaka, M. L. Adebayo, pruning + wire trellising (2SP + WT) increased fruit length O. E. Ugwo, and B. Fuwa, “Flowering, pollination and fruiting and diameter, increased marketable fruit weight and in fluted pumpkin (Telfairia occidentalis),” Scientia Horti- number, and net return with a consequential greater cost culturae, vol. 43, no. 3-4, pp. 197–206, 1990. benefit compared to other treatments. 'e study has [11] J. G. Amina, B. Derbew, and M. Ali, “Yield and quality of demonstrated that there is hope of sustaining tomato pro- indeterminate tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum mill) vari- duction on highly reduced stakes compared with the current eties with staking methods in jimma, Singapore,” Journal of unsustainable staking practice. 'is would reduce the Scientific Research, vol. 2, pp. 33–46, 2012. [12] S. A. Ennin, N. I. Roland, P. P. Acheampong, M. Numafo, and pressure on the forest to address the problem of defores- E. Owusu Danquah, “Mechanization, fertilization and staking tation. 'e two-stem pruning + wire trellising (2SP + WT) options for environmentally sound yam production,” African are recommended for sustainable increased yield and profit. Journal of Agricultural Research, vol. 9, no. 29, pp. 2222–2230, Data Availability [13] J. L. Franco, M. Diaz, F. Dianez, and F. Camacho-Ferre, “Influence of different types of pruning on cherry tomato fruit 'e data used to support the findings of this study are in- production and quality,” Journal of Food Agriculture and cluded within this article. Environment, vol. 7, no. 3 & 4, pp. 248–253, 2009. [14] M. Alam, N. Islam, S. Ahmad, M. Hossen, and M. Islam, Conflicts of Interest “Effect of different staking methods and stem pruning on yield and quality of summer tomato,” Bangladesh Journal of Ag- 'e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest. ricultural Research, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 419–432, 2016. [15] S. Hesamil, S. Khorami, and S. S. Hosseini, “Effect of shoot pruning and flower thinning on quality and quantity of semi- References determinate tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.),” Notulae Scientia Biologicae, vol. 4, pp. 2067–3264, 2012. [1] R. R. Schippers, African Indigenous Vegetables. An Overview of [16] A. R. Kumar, R. K. Singh, M. Chhillar, and A. Pal, “Influence the Cultivated Species, Natural Resources Institute, London, of fertility levels and support management on tomato UK, 2000. (Lycopersicon esculentum Miller) under different planting [2] GSS (Ghana Statistical Services), Ghana Living Standards methods,” Crop Research Hisar, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 437–441, Survey (GLSS7), “Poverty Trends in Ghana;” 2005–2017, GSS, Accra, Ghana, 2018. [17] Anonymous, “Green Beans Integrated Pest Management.” An [3] FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Ecological Guide Training Resource Text in Crop Development, Nations), FAOSTAT–the Food and Agriculture Organization Major Agronomic Practice, Disease and Insect Ecology, Insect Corporate Statistical Database Website, FAO, Rome, Italy, Pest, Natural Enemies and Diseases of Green Bean, Food and 2019, http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home. Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy, 2007. [4] J. Z. E. Robinson and S. L. Kolavalli, ““'e case of tomato in [18] O. Ramirez, W. Loria Martimez, and O. Perez Agruedas, Ghana–productivity”. Ghana strategy support program “Pruning systems in tomato cv. Tropic,” Bulletein Technico, (GSSP),” GSSP Working Paper No. 19, 2010. Universidad de Costa Rica, Facultad Agronomica, vol. 10, [5] Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MOFA), “Agriculture in no. 6, p. 16, 1977. Ghana Facts and Figures (2016).” Statistics, Research, and [19] N. Ara, M. K. Bashar, S. Begum, and S. S. Kakon, “Effect of Information Directorate, MoFA, Accra, Ghana, 2017. spacing and stem pruning on the growth and yield of tomato,” [6] J. Van Asselt, I. Masias, and S. Kolavalli, “Competitiveness of International Journal of Sustainable Crop Production, vol. 2, the Ghanaian vegetable sector: findings from a farmer survey,” no. 3, pp. 35–39, 2007. GSSP Working Paper 47, 2018. [7] Y. S. Gonzalez, Y. Dijkxhoorn, I. Koomen et al., “Vegetable Business Opportunities in Ghana: 2016.” @e GhanaVeg Advances in Agriculture 7 [20] B. O. Adelaine, “Effects of staking on growth and yield of tomatoes,” @e East African Agricultural and Forestry Journal, vol. 4, pp. 243–249, 1976. [21] J. S. Campbell, “Index,” East Indians in Trinidad, vol. 38, pp. 257–266, 1961. [22] O. Salinas, O. Ramirez, and J. Ospina, “Effect of support system, stem pruning and leaf pruning on fruit quality of tomato,” Agronom´ıa Colombiana, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 184–189, [23] W. D. Cordt, “Tomato additional stems and pruning pattern determine grading quality and production,” Proeftuinnieuws, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 36-37, 1999. [24] E. N. K. Sowley and Y. Damba, “Influence of staking and pruning on growth and yield of tomato in the Guinea sa- vannah zone of Ghana,” International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research, vol. 2, 2013. [25] R. V. Singh, “Performance of kharif tomato as influenced by cultural practices,” Indian Journal of Horticulture, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 192–196, 1994. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Advances in Agriculture Hindawi Publishing Corporation

The Role of Staking and Pruning Methods on Yield and Profitability of Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) Production in the Guinea Savanna Zone of Ghana

Advances in Agriculture , Volume 2021 – Sep 18, 2021

Loading next page...
 
/lp/hindawi-publishing-corporation/the-role-of-staking-and-pruning-methods-on-yield-and-profitability-of-sEuukpFHC6
Publisher
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Copyright
Copyright © 2021 S. Lamptey and E. Koomson. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
ISSN
2356-654X
eISSN
2314-7539
DOI
10.1155/2021/5570567
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Hindawi Advances in Agriculture Volume 2021, Article ID 5570567, 7 pages https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5570567 Research Article The Role of Staking and Pruning Methods on Yield and Profitability of Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) Production in the Guinea Savanna Zone of Ghana S. Lamptey and E. Koomson Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture, University for Development Studies, P. O. Box TL 1882, Tamale, Ghana Correspondence should be addressed to S. Lamptey; naalamp2009@yahoo.com Received 19 February 2021; Revised 14 July 2021; Accepted 2 September 2021; Published 18 September 2021 Academic Editor: Amelia Salimonti Copyright © 2021 S. Lamptey and E. Koomson. 'is is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Tomato is one of the most widely consumed and produced vegetables in Ghana. 'e low yield of tomatoes in Ghana has resulted in huge importation of the produce from neighboring countries. Good agronomic practices are among the key strategies involved in increasing the yield of horticultural produce. 'is study seeks to evaluate the response of staking and pruning on tomato fruit yield, quality, and cost of production. To achieve this, a field experiment was conducted to investigate the effect of staking and pruning methods on fruit yield and profitability of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) produced in the northern region of Ghana. Treatments were applied in a randomized complete block design with three replications. Treatments were no pruning + no staking (control), single pole staking (SPS), wire trellis (WT), one-stem pruning (1SP), one-stem pruning + single pole staking (1SP + SPS), one-stem pruning + wire trellis (1SP + WT), two-stem pruning (2SP), two-stem pruning + single pole staking (2SP + SPS), and two-stem pruning + wire trellis (2SP + WT). Results showed that 2SP + WT increased fruit diameter, fruit length, and marketable fruit weight by 52%, 32%, and 69%, respectively, compared to the control. 'e maximum number and weight of marketable fruits obtained from 2SP + WT increased total fruit yield by 76% compared to the control. In all, the performance of the treatments in terms of yield was in the following order: 2SP + WT> 1SP + WT> SPS> WT> 2SP + SPS> 1SP> 2SP> control. 'ough 2SP + WT increased production cost by 42%, it greatly increased yield by 69% which resulted in 83% net profit compared to the control. 'us, 2SP + WT could be tested on-farm for possible adoption to increase tomato yield, quality, and profit. 'is has resulted in large sums of money spent annually on 1. Introduction the importation of the vegetable crop. For example, 7,000 Tomato is an important component of every Ghanaian meal, tons was imported annually between 2010 and 2016, mostly and its cultivation contributes significantly to livelihood originating from Burkina Faso [3, 8]. Major contributing improvement. Schippers [1] asserts that tomato is the most factor to the low tomato yield in Ghana is the use of tra- important vegetable in Ghana, compared to all the other ditional methods of farming or low adoption of improved vegetables. 'e total consumption of fresh tomato in 2016/ husbandry practices (such as sustainable staking and 2017 was 240,000 tons per annum [2]. However, domestic pruning). production has not kept up with demand [3]. 'e tomato It is asserted that improved management practices such sector is unable to attain its potential productivity as as staking and pruning could yield over 32.5–46.0 t/ha in the compared to other countries [4]. 'e average tomato yield in forest zones of Ghana [9]. Staking is a means of providing Ghana is 7.5 t/ha which is far less than the potential yield of supports to ensure clean and unblemished fruits by keeping 20 tons per hectare [5]. Ghana imports close to 100,000 tons fruits off the ground, thereby increasing marketable yield [6]. or one-quarter of its domestic supply from a neighboring Akoroda [10] and Amina [11] suggested staking as an ap- country (Burkina Faso) to meet the domestic demand [6, 7]. propriate method to effectively expose leaves to sunlight for 2 Advances in Agriculture efficient photosynthetic activities and improved yield of reached about 25 cm in height, the stem of the tomato was crops. Pruning and staking indeterminate tomato plants can loosely tied to the wires for support. result in early fruits maturity and larger fruits. 'e most With the single-stem staking, wooden stake of about common method of staking among small holder farmers in 60–80 cm was inserted about 20 cm into the soil, just outside Ghana is the single-pole staking where each crop is sup- the diameter of the tomato seedling after transplanting. ported with stake (wood). 'is has resulted in scarcity of When the plant reached about 25 cm in height, the stem of stakes [12], especially in Guinea savanna. Besides, this the tomato was loosely tied to the supporting stake. Pruning method is labor intensive and contributes greatly to de- started four weeks after transplanting (WAT) and continued forestation resulting in an unsustainable production system. to twelve weeks. All the suckers were removed to one below In pruning, there is the selective removal of side shoots or the first flower cluster to get one stem per plant or two stems stem to limit plant growth and to divert nutrients to flower per plant. clusters on the remaining shoot or stem. According to Franco et al. [13], appropriate pruning method is relevant to 2.3. Data Collection. Data on yield parameters were taken maintain a balance in the relationship’s source/sink and the five weeks after transplanting and at harvest. Five plants carbon/nitrogen (C/N) ratio. Alam et al. [14] recorded in- creased marketable yield/area by pruning indeterminate were selected from the two middle ridges from each treat- ment for the measurement of yield data, and their averages tomato plants to two-stem rather than one-stem. Alternative staking technique that would reduce the quantity of stakes were computed. 'e yield parameters determined were as follows. (wood) used without compromising on yields would address the problem of scarcity of stakes and deforestation associated with tomato production in Ghana. 'e objective of the study 2.3.1. Number of Marketable and Nonmarketable Fruits. was to evaluate staking and pruning options to suggest al- Marketable fruits were fruits of good quality in firmness with ternatives for sustainable tomato production without no blemish. Mature and ripped, unrotten and sizable compromising on yield and profitability. 'is is to address (without blemish) tomato fruits were harvested from the five the problem of scarcity of stakes and deforestation associated randomly selected plants from the two middle rows. Har- with tomato production in Ghana. vested fruits were counted and averaged to represent number of fruits per plant. Nonmarketable fruits were 2. Materials and Methods further sorted out into the following components: 2.1.StudyAreaandExperimental Design. 'e field study was (a) Sun-scalded, deformed, unevenly ripped, and conducted at the University for Development Studies (UDS) whitish areas appearing on the exposed surface experimental fields, Nyankpala campus, from June to Oc- (b) Fruits diseased or eaten by rodents tober 2019 under rain fed. Nyankpala is located on latitude ° ° (c) Fruits eaten by birds, mainly full-ripe tomatoes 25′ 41″ N, longitude 000 58′ 42″ W, and altitude 183 m above sea level (SARI, 2007). 'e experiment was laid out in a randomized complete block design (RCBD) with nine 2.3.2. Fruit Diameter and Length. 'ree ripped fruits were treatments and three replications. 'ere were a total of randomly selected from the harvested fruits per the five twenty-seven (27) experimental plots. 'e plot size for each tagged plants. With the aid of a caliper, the three fruits experimental unit was 4 m × 3 m with spacing of 1 m be- diameter was measured, and their means were calculated in tween plots and 2 m between blocks. A total field size of mm at 9 weeks after transplanting. With the aid of a meter 33 m × 13 m was demarcated for the experiment. rule in cm, the three fruits lengths were measured, and their means were determined at 9 weeks after transplanting. 2.2. Nursing and Transplanting of Seedlings. A nursery trough measuring 10 m × 1.3 m was prepared and filled with 2.3.3. Marketable Fruits Weight. Matured, ripped, unrotten, sandy loam soil mixed with biochar for nursing the seeds. and sizable (without blemish) tomato fruits harvested from Pectomech tomato seeds were thinly sown in drills on the th the five tagged plants were weighed and averaged at 8, 9, and nursery trough on 8 July 2019. Nursed seeds were mulched 10 weeks after transplanting (WAT) to determine the weight with dry grass and watered twice a day at 3 days interval until of marketable fruits per plant at 8, 9, and 10 WAT. 'e mean germination. Ridges of 75 cm apart were prepared prior to weight in kilograms per hectare was extrapolated. transplanting with each plot having 4 ridges. Seedlings were transplanted four weeks after germination at a height of 15 cm with about 5-6 leaves. Transplanting was done late in 2.3.4. Total Fruits Yield. Tomato fruits were harvested 6 the afternoon to prevent transplanting shock. Seedlings were times on weekly basis per plot by hand picking and weighed. planted at a spacing of 40 cm within rows and 75 cm between Fruit yield was determined by summing up all the weight of rows, with each ridge accommodating 10 seedlings. A total the six times harvest which includes marketable and non- of 40 seedlings were planted on each plot. With the trellis, marketable fruits and measured in Kg/plot and later con- wires were run from one end pole to another and back again verted to Kg/ha. at different heights after transplanting. When the plant Advances in Agriculture 3 2.3.5. Economic Analysis. Production cost was calculated for (2SP + WT) plots recorded the least number of non- each treatment by estimating the gross returns (total returns marketable fruits of 2089 kg/ha, while the control had the highest number of nonmarketable fruits of 7478 kg/ha at after production), net returns (gross return minus cost of production), and benefit cost ratio (net return divided by the harvest (Figure 4). production costs). Price of input and the market price of produce were used in calculating production cost, returns, 3.4. Total Fruit Yield. 'e analysis of variance indicates that and benefit:cost ratio. there was a difference (p< 0.001) among treatments on total fruits yield. 'ere was no difference between one-stem 2.4. Data Analysis. Data on all parameters, except economic pruning (1SP), one-stem pruning plus single pole staking analysis, were subjected to ANOVA using GenStat statistical (1SP + SPS), and two-stem pruning (2SP). 'ere were sig- package (GenStat, 20TH Edition). 'e means were separated nificant differences between two-stem pruning plus wire using LSD (0.05). trellising (2SP + WT), two-stem pruning plus single-pole staking (2SP + SPS), and no pruning no staking. Two-stem 3. Results pruning plus wire trellising (2SP + WT) increased total fruits yield by 75% compared to control (Figure 5). 3.1. Fruit Length and Diameter. 'e result indicates that there was a significant (p< 0.002) difference among treat- ments on the fruit length at 9 WAT. Single pole staking 3.5. Cost and Return Analysis. Cost analysis showed that (SPS), wire trellising (WT), one-stem pruning plus wire 2SP + WT incurred the highest ($411/ha) cost of production, trellising (1SP + WT), and two-stem pruning plus single pole whereas the control incurred the lowest of $175/ha (Table 2). staking (2SP + SPS) showed no difference in fruit length, In the case of net return and benefit cost ratio (BCR), it likewise one-stem pruning plus single pole staking and two- was observed that 2SP + WT recorded the highest ($598/ha) stem pruning plus wire trellising. However, 2SP + WT had net return as well as the maximum benefit cost ratio (1.46), the highest (5.1 cm) fruit length compared to the control whereas the control recorded the minimum net return ($63/ (2.2 cm) at 9 WAT (Figure 1). ha) and BCR (0.36). 'ere was a difference (p< 0.049) in fruit diameter between 2SP + WT (4.64 cm) and the control (2.21 cm) at 9 4. Discussion WAT (Figure 2). However, there was no difference between single pole staking (SPS), wire trellising (WT), one-stem Staking and pruning methods greatly affected fruit diameter pruning plus single pole staking (1SP + SPS), one-stem and length with the highest fruit diameter and length pruning plus wire trellising (1SP + WT), one-stem pruning recorded in 2SP + WT. Staking with wire trellis might have (1SP), two-stem pruning (2SP), and two-stem pruning plus allowed better aeration and exposure of the foliage, thereby, single pole staking (2SP + SPS). enhancing photosynthetic activities which might be re- sponsible for larger fruit size. Hesamil et al. [15] reported increased fruit size of tomato because lateral branches were 3.2. Marketable Fruits Weight and Number. At 8, 9, and 10 removed. 'e result obtained by staking tomatoes is in WAT, there were significant differences (p< 0.001, agreement with Kumar et al. [16] who reported higher fruit p< 0.001, and p< 0.0019, respectively) among treatments diameter in staked tomato. on the weight of marketable fruits. Plots treated with 'e improved fruit diameter and length in 2SP + WT 2SP + WT recorded the highest (369 Kg/ha) weight of resulted in 82%, 66%, and 65% increase in marketable fruit marketable fruits compared with the control giving the least weight in 8, 9, and 10 WAT, respectively, compared to weight (65 kg/ha) of marketable fruits at 8 WAT. 2SP + WT, control. 1SP + WT and 2SP + SPS also increased marketable 1SP + WT, and 2SP + SPS increased marketable fruit weight fruit weight by 71% and 60%, respectively, compared to the by 82%, 71%, and 60%, respectively, compared to the control control at 8 WAT. Staking increases fruit yield, reduces the at 8 WAT. A similar trend was observed in 9 and 10 WAT proportion of nonmarketable fruit, and enhances the pro- (Table 1). duction of high-quality fruits [17]. Ramirez et al. [18] re- 'ere was a significant (p< 0.001) difference among ported that two or three stem pruning produced the best treatments on the number of marketable fruits at harvest quality fruits. 'e result of this study is in agreement with with 2SP + WT recording the highest (11449.6 kg/ha) and [19] who reported that removal of lateral branches resulted 2SP + SPS, the next greatest (7866.3 kg/ha). 'is resulted to in increasing fruit weight of tomato plants. 'e pruning and 70% and 57% increase in number of marketable fruits by staking prevented tomato fruits from coming into contact 2SP + WT and 2SP + SPS, respectively, compared to the with wet soil [20] and, therefore, reduced the number of control (Figure 3). nonmarketable yield due to fruit rot [21]. 'is resulted in increased fruit size thereby increasing weight and number of 3.3. Number of Nonmarketable Fruits. 'e analysis revealed marketable yield of tomatoes. Kumar et al. [16] reported an that there was a significant (p< 0.001) difference among increase in fruit weight of tomato by staking. Salinas et al. treatments on the number of nonmarketable fruits of [22] reported higher good quality fruit in pruned tomatoes tomato at harvest. Two-stem pruning plus wire trellising compared to no pruning. 4 Advances in Agriculture LSD (0.05) = 1.1 ab 5 ab ab ab bc Treatments Figure 1: Effect of pruning and staking on fruit length. Bars with different letters denote significance at p< 0.05. Error bars denote the standard error of means. Means comparison was conducted using the least significant difference (p< 0.05). LSD (0.05) = 1.3 ab ab ab ab ab Treatments Figure 2: Effect of pruning and staking on fruit diameter. Bars with different letters denote significance at p< 0.05. Error bars denote the standard error of means. Means comparison was conducted using the least significant difference (p< 0.05). recorded the maximum nonmarketable fruits. Anonymous Table 1: Marketable fruits weight (kg/ha) of tomato under different [17] reported an increase in fruit yield, a reduction in pruning and staking methods. Means comparison based on the nonmarketable fruit and enhanced high-quality fruits be- least significant difference (0.05). cause of staking. Staking of tomatoes gave higher yield and Treatments 8 WAT 9 WAT 10 WAT good quality fruits with higher market value in a study Control 65 145 258 conducted by [10, 11] and suggested staking for quality and SPS 140 253 443 higher yield of tomato. 'e current result is also in accor- WT 151 254 519 dance with [24] who reported increased tomato yield under 1SP 82 178 258 pruning and staking. 1SP + SPS 91 251 333 2SP + WT and 1SP + WT increased production cost by 1SP + WT 226 291 503 53% and 57%, respectively, compared to the control plots. 2SP 85 256 219 2SP + SPS 161 301 631 'is may be attributed to high cost of staking and pruning. 2SP + WT 369 424 728 'e highest and the second highest gross return of $1010 and LSD (0.05) 39.76 37.86 39.23 $771 per hectare recorded from 2SP + WT and 2SP + SPS, CV (%) 15.1 8.4 5.3 respectively, may be attributed to increased marketable fruits LSD, least significant difference (0.05). number and weight recorded in these treatments. 'e highest net return ($598) per hectare was recorded in 2SP + WT and the second highest net return ($381) per 'e maximum (7472 kg/ha) number of nonmarketable hectare. From the economic point of view, 2SP + WT and fruits recorded on control plots might be attributed to fruits 2SP + SPS were more profitable with increased benefit cost not supported and kept off the floor. 'is increased disease ratio of 75% and 63%, respectively, compared to the control. and rotting of fruits, thereby, increasing nonmarketable Lower nonmarketable yield, higher marketable fruits, and fruits. In studies conducted by [23], no pruning plants higher net return were recorded by Singh [25]. Fruit diameter (cm) Fruit length at 9WAP (cm) Control 1SP SPS 1SP+SPS WT 1SP+WT 1SP 2SP 1SP+SPS 2SP+SPS 1SP+WT 2SP+WT 2SP Control 2SP+SPS SPS 2SP+WT WT Advances in Agriculture 5 LSD (0.05) = 1285 c c Treatments Figure 3: Effect of pruning and staking on number of marketable fruits at harvest. Bars with different letters denote significance at p< 0.05. Error bars denote the standard error of means. Means comparison was conducted using the least significant difference (p< 0.05). LSD (0.05) = 1122 ab ab Treatments Figure 4: Effect of pruning and staking on the number of nonmarketable. Bars with different letters denote significance at p< 0.05. Error bars denote the standard error of means. Means comparison was conducted using least significant difference (p< 0.05). LSD (0.05) = 8558 ab abc abc bc Treatments Figure 5: Effect of pruning and staking on total fruit yield. Bars with different letters denote significance at p< 0.05. Error bars denote the standard error of means. Means comparison was conducted using least significant difference (p< 0.05). Total fruit yield (kg/ha) Number of marketable fruits No of non marketable fruits (ha) (ha) Control Control Control SPS SPS SPS WT WT WT 1SP 1SP 1SP 1SP+SPS 1SP+SPS 1SP+SPS 1SP+WT 1SP+WT 1SP+WT 2SP 2SP 2SP 2SP+SPS 2SP+SPS 2SP+SPS 2SP+WT 2SP+WT 2SP+WT 6 Advances in Agriculture Table 2: Cost of production, gross return, net return, and benefit/cost ratio of tomato as affected by pruning and staking. Treatments Production cost ($/ha) Gross return ($/ha) Net return ($/ha) BCR Control 175.4 238.4 63.0 0.36 SPS 205.3 288.0 82.6 0.40 WT 226.7 407.1 180.4 0.80 1SP 180.7 321.2 140.5 0.78 1SP + SPS 407.4 600.7 214.6 0.53 1SP + WT 386.1 635.5 228.1 0.56 2SP 184.5 360.6 176.1 0.95 2SP + SPS 398.8 771.1 381.2 0.96 2SP + WT 411.2 1010 598.3 1.46 Program and Wageningen UR Report, Wageningen UR, 5. Conclusion Wageningen, 'e Netherlands, 2016. [8] U. N. Comtrade, “United nations international trade statistics Pruning and staking significantly influenced fruit diameter, database,” 2019, https://comtrade.un.org/. fruit length, marketable fruits weight, number of marketable [9] J. C. Norman, Tropical Vegetable Crops, Arthur H. Stockwell fruits, and cost and benefit of tomato production. However, Ltd, Ilfracombe, England, 1992. among the different pruning and staking treatments, 2 stem [10] M. O. Akoroda, N. I. Ogbechie-Odiaka, M. L. Adebayo, pruning + wire trellising (2SP + WT) increased fruit length O. E. Ugwo, and B. Fuwa, “Flowering, pollination and fruiting and diameter, increased marketable fruit weight and in fluted pumpkin (Telfairia occidentalis),” Scientia Horti- number, and net return with a consequential greater cost culturae, vol. 43, no. 3-4, pp. 197–206, 1990. benefit compared to other treatments. 'e study has [11] J. G. Amina, B. Derbew, and M. Ali, “Yield and quality of demonstrated that there is hope of sustaining tomato pro- indeterminate tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum mill) vari- duction on highly reduced stakes compared with the current eties with staking methods in jimma, Singapore,” Journal of unsustainable staking practice. 'is would reduce the Scientific Research, vol. 2, pp. 33–46, 2012. [12] S. A. Ennin, N. I. Roland, P. P. Acheampong, M. Numafo, and pressure on the forest to address the problem of defores- E. Owusu Danquah, “Mechanization, fertilization and staking tation. 'e two-stem pruning + wire trellising (2SP + WT) options for environmentally sound yam production,” African are recommended for sustainable increased yield and profit. Journal of Agricultural Research, vol. 9, no. 29, pp. 2222–2230, Data Availability [13] J. L. Franco, M. Diaz, F. Dianez, and F. Camacho-Ferre, “Influence of different types of pruning on cherry tomato fruit 'e data used to support the findings of this study are in- production and quality,” Journal of Food Agriculture and cluded within this article. Environment, vol. 7, no. 3 & 4, pp. 248–253, 2009. [14] M. Alam, N. Islam, S. Ahmad, M. Hossen, and M. Islam, Conflicts of Interest “Effect of different staking methods and stem pruning on yield and quality of summer tomato,” Bangladesh Journal of Ag- 'e authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest. ricultural Research, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 419–432, 2016. [15] S. Hesamil, S. Khorami, and S. S. Hosseini, “Effect of shoot pruning and flower thinning on quality and quantity of semi- References determinate tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.),” Notulae Scientia Biologicae, vol. 4, pp. 2067–3264, 2012. [1] R. R. Schippers, African Indigenous Vegetables. An Overview of [16] A. R. Kumar, R. K. Singh, M. Chhillar, and A. Pal, “Influence the Cultivated Species, Natural Resources Institute, London, of fertility levels and support management on tomato UK, 2000. (Lycopersicon esculentum Miller) under different planting [2] GSS (Ghana Statistical Services), Ghana Living Standards methods,” Crop Research Hisar, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 437–441, Survey (GLSS7), “Poverty Trends in Ghana;” 2005–2017, GSS, Accra, Ghana, 2018. [17] Anonymous, “Green Beans Integrated Pest Management.” An [3] FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Ecological Guide Training Resource Text in Crop Development, Nations), FAOSTAT–the Food and Agriculture Organization Major Agronomic Practice, Disease and Insect Ecology, Insect Corporate Statistical Database Website, FAO, Rome, Italy, Pest, Natural Enemies and Diseases of Green Bean, Food and 2019, http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home. Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy, 2007. [4] J. Z. E. Robinson and S. L. Kolavalli, ““'e case of tomato in [18] O. Ramirez, W. Loria Martimez, and O. Perez Agruedas, Ghana–productivity”. Ghana strategy support program “Pruning systems in tomato cv. Tropic,” Bulletein Technico, (GSSP),” GSSP Working Paper No. 19, 2010. Universidad de Costa Rica, Facultad Agronomica, vol. 10, [5] Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MOFA), “Agriculture in no. 6, p. 16, 1977. Ghana Facts and Figures (2016).” Statistics, Research, and [19] N. Ara, M. K. Bashar, S. Begum, and S. S. Kakon, “Effect of Information Directorate, MoFA, Accra, Ghana, 2017. spacing and stem pruning on the growth and yield of tomato,” [6] J. Van Asselt, I. Masias, and S. Kolavalli, “Competitiveness of International Journal of Sustainable Crop Production, vol. 2, the Ghanaian vegetable sector: findings from a farmer survey,” no. 3, pp. 35–39, 2007. GSSP Working Paper 47, 2018. [7] Y. S. Gonzalez, Y. Dijkxhoorn, I. Koomen et al., “Vegetable Business Opportunities in Ghana: 2016.” @e GhanaVeg Advances in Agriculture 7 [20] B. O. Adelaine, “Effects of staking on growth and yield of tomatoes,” @e East African Agricultural and Forestry Journal, vol. 4, pp. 243–249, 1976. [21] J. S. Campbell, “Index,” East Indians in Trinidad, vol. 38, pp. 257–266, 1961. [22] O. Salinas, O. Ramirez, and J. Ospina, “Effect of support system, stem pruning and leaf pruning on fruit quality of tomato,” Agronom´ıa Colombiana, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 184–189, [23] W. D. Cordt, “Tomato additional stems and pruning pattern determine grading quality and production,” Proeftuinnieuws, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 36-37, 1999. [24] E. N. K. Sowley and Y. Damba, “Influence of staking and pruning on growth and yield of tomato in the Guinea sa- vannah zone of Ghana,” International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research, vol. 2, 2013. [25] R. V. Singh, “Performance of kharif tomato as influenced by cultural practices,” Indian Journal of Horticulture, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 192–196, 1994.

Journal

Advances in AgricultureHindawi Publishing Corporation

Published: Sep 18, 2021

References