Animal-based organic nutrition induces comparable fruit quality to that of inorganic fertigation in soilless-grown grape tomato

Figures & data

Table 1. Grape tomato fruit shape descriptors studied and their description.

Basic measurements	Code	Units/description	Fruit shape index	Code	Units/description
Perimeter	per	Perimeter length (cm)	Fruit Shape Index I	fs I	The ratio of the maximum height to maximum width (H/W)
Area	ar	Fruit area (cm^2)	Fruit Shape Index II	fs II	The ratio of mid height to mid width (Hm/Wm)
Width at Mid-height	fl II	The width measured at ½ of the fruit’s height (cm)	Blockiness	Code	Units/description
Widest Width [Maximum Width]	fd I	The maximum horizontal distance of the fruit (cm)	Proximal Fruit Blockiness	pblk	Ratio of fruit width at the proximal end to mid width, (w1/Wm).
Height at Mid-width	fd II	The height measured at ½ of the fruit’s width (cm)	Distal Fruit Blockiness	dblk	Ratio of fruit width at the distal end to mid width, (w2/Wm)
Highest Height [Maximum Height]	fl I	The maximum vertical distance of the fruit (cm)	Fruit Shape Triangle	tri	The ratio of proximal width to distal width (w1/w2).
Homogeneity	Code	Units/description	Proximal fruit end shape	Code	Units/description
Fruit shape circular	cir	Fitting precision (R^2) of the actual shape to a circle; larger values indicate that the fruit is more circular.	Shoulder height	psh	The ratio of the average height of the shoulder points above the proximal end point to Maximum Height
Fruit shape ellipsoid	ell	Fitting precision (R^2) of the actual shape to an ellipse; larger values indicate that the fruit is more ellipsoid	Proximal end angle at 2% and 20%	Pan	The angle from the shoulder points to the site of pedicel attachment or the proximal end, where 180° is flat, greater than 180° indented, and less than 180 is tapered.
Fruit shape rectangular	rec	The ratio of maximum area inscribing the rectangle to the minimum area of the enclosing rectangle, (Sin/Sout).	Proximal fruit end indentation: area	piar	The ratio of the indentation area to the total fruit area.
Asymmetry	Code	Units/description	Internal eccentricity	Code	Units/description
Ovoid	ovo	Calculated according to the formula provided in the tomato Analyzer Manual (Rodríguez et al. 2010). The higher the value, the greater is the area of the fruit above mid height	Eccentricity	e	The ratio of the height of the internal ellipse to the Maximum Height
V. Asymmetry	ver	Fruit shape eccentric vertical asymmetry, ()/number of rows L	Proximal Eccentricity	pe	The ratio of the area of the height of the internal ellipse to the distance between the bottom of the ellipse and the top of the fruit
H. Asymmetry (obovoid)	hob	Fruit shape eccentric horizontal asymmetry, ( )/number of columns L	Distal Eccentricity	de	The ratio of the area of the height of the internal ellipse to the distance between the bottom of the ellipse and the bottom of the fruit
Width Widest Pos	wwp	The ratio of the height at which the maximum width occurs to the maximum height	Internal Fruit Shape Index	fsi	The ratio of the internal ellipse’s height to its width
Distal Fruit End Shape	Code	Units/description
Distal Angle Micro	dan I	Determines where the proximal angle is measured, ranging from 2% to 10% from the tip of the fruit
Distal Angle Macro	dan II	Determines the percentage of the perimeter from the bottom where the angle will be measured, ranging from 5% to 50%.

Note: All traits, were measured with Tomato Analyzer software version 2.2.0.0. Further details for the measurement of fruit shape traits with Tomato Analyzer can be obtained from Brewer et al. (2006), Gonzalo and van der Knaap (2008), and Rodríguez et al. (2010).

Table 2. Effect of organic and inorganic fertilisation on total hydrolysable and condensed polyphenols, lycopene and β-carotene content in grape tomato fruits under greenhouse conditions.

Treatment	Total hydrolysable polyphenols (mg GAE/g)	Total condensed polyphenols (mg CE/g)	Lycopene (mg/100 g)	β–carotene (mg/100 g)
(I) ASA + AL + NK2SO4	6.65 ± 0.82 a*	157.15 ± 12.24 b	49.66 ± 17.80 ab	34.01 ± 26.28 bc
(II) ASA + AL + NK2SO4 + MO	6.58 ± 0.66 a	218.54 ± 22.04 a	24.88 ± 3.67 b	28.00 ± 31.20 c
(III) ASA + ASB + NK2SO4	5.37 ± 2.61 b	150.85 ± 23.08 b	59.60 ± 11.71 a	81.81 ± 31.93 ab
(IV) Control	3.98 ± 1.18 c	117.19 ± 10.21 c	76.71 ± 45.90 a	100.81 ± 78.34 a
LSD (0.05)	1.15	15.89	27.47	50.28

Note: Description for each treatment (composition of nutrient solutions) according to Guajardo-Ríos et al. (2018).

*Means with the same letter letters indicate no statistically significant differences among treatments using the LSD test (p ≤ 0.05).

Table 3. Effect of organic and inorganic fertilisation on polyphenols content in relation to harvest date for each fully-red ripe truss under greenhouse conditions.

	Tomato fruit harvesting/Air temperature (max-min)
	1st truss	2nd truss	3rd truss	4th truss	5th truss	6th truss	7th truss	8th truss
Bioactive compound	Sept 16 [40.7°C–13.9°C]	Sept 24 [38.4°C–14.3°C]	Sept 30 [34.0°C–11.4°C]	Oct 08 [31.9°C–12.6°C]	Oct 16 [35.0°C–12.6°C]	Oct 23 [36.2°C–10.5°C]	Oct 30 [32.0°C–10.6°C]	Nov 07 [34.9°C–11.0°C]
THP	5.71 ± 1.23 b*	8.35 ± 2.01 a	5.37 ± 1.47 b	6.09 ± 1.15 b	4.81 ± 1.56 b	4.99 ± 1.52 b	4.66 ± 2.28 b	5.18 ± 1.46 b
TCP	161.52 ± 42.13 bc	184.94 ± 43.09 a	160.28 ± 35.41 bc	154.32 ± 41.46 bc	169.03 ± 53.63 ab	156.15 ± 59.35 bc	144.38 ± 32.31 c	156.83 ± 43.01 bc

Notes: THP = Total hydrolysable polyphenols (mg GAE/g), TCP = Total condensed polyphenols (mg CE/g). The daily averaged temperature (max-min), was calculated between each harvest period. For the first truss was only considered the daily average temperature beginning with fruit setting period.

*Means with the same letter letters within rows indicate no statistically significant differences using the LSD test (p ≤ 0.05).

Table 4. Effect of organic and inorganic fertilisation on tomato fruit morphology attributes under greenhouse conditions.

Fruit shape descriptors	Treatment
Basic measurements	(I) ASA + AL + NK2SO4	(II) ASA + AL + NK2SO4 + MO	(III) ASA + ASB + NK2SO4	(IV) Control
per	9.49 ± 0.94 ab*	9.39 ± 0.87 b	9.69 ± 0.61 ab	9.86 ± 0.87 a
ar	6.24 ± 1.05 ab	6.18 ± 1.01 b	6.42 ± 0.63 ab	6.74 ± 1.12 a
fd II	3.07 ± 0.29 ab	3.05 ± 0.27 b	3.17 ± 0.23 ab	3.24 ± 0.28 a
fl I	3.12 ± 0.29 b	3.09 ± 0.27 b	3.22 ± 0.23 ab	3.29 ± 0.28 a
Homogeneity
ell	0.79 ± 0.004 ab	0.79 ± 0.01 a	0.79 ± 0.005 ab	0.78 ± 0.004 b
Proximal fruit end shape
pan (2%)	179.63 ± 6.58 a	172.94 ± 6.98 b	177.33 ± 5.11 ab	179.85 ± 5.38 a
piar	0.004 ± 0.004 ab	0.001 ± 0.002 b	0.003 ± 0.002 ab	0.006 ± 0.01 a
Asymmetry
hob	10.02 ± 3.52 ab	8.12 ± 1.52 b	9.76 ± 1.94 ab	10.59 ± 1.67 a
Internal eccentricity
E	0.79 ± 0.004 ab	0.79 ± 0.01 a	0.79 ± 0.005 ab	0.78 ± 0.004 b
Pe	0.89 ± 0.001 a	0.89 ± 0.001 ab	0.89 ± 0.001 ab	0.89 ± 0.001 b

Notes: Description for each fruit shape atributes as given in Table 1. Description for each treatment (composition of nutrient solutions) according to Guajardo-Ríos et al. (2018).

*Means with the same letter letters within rows indicate no statistically significant differences using the LSD test (p ≤ 0.05).

Table 5. Effect of organic and inorganic fertilisation on grape tomato fruit descriptors in relation to harvest date for each fully-red ripe truss under greenhouse conditions.

	Tomato fruit harvesting/Air temperature (max-min)
	1st truss	2nd truss	3rd truss	4th truss	5th truss	6th truss	7th truss	8th truss
Fruit shape descriptors	Sept 16 [40.7°C–13.9°C]	Sept 24 [38.4°C–14.3°C]	Sept 30 [34.0°C–11.4°C]	Oct 08 [31.9°C–12.6°C]	Oct 16 [35.0°C–12.6°C]	Oct 23 [36.2°C–10.5°C]	Oct 30 [32.0°C–10.6°C]	Nov 07 [34.9°C–11.0°C]
per	10.51 ± 0.49 a*	10.48 ± 0.47 a	9.54 ± 0.41 c	10.15 ± 0.32 ab	9.22 ± 0.55 c	9.71 ± 0.29 bc	8.62 ± 0.14 e	8.63 ± 0.62 de
ar	7.49 ± 0.67 a	7.50 ± 0.74 a	6.07 ± 0.46 c	6.91 ± 0.43 ab	5.88 ± 0.64 bc	6.40 ± 0.36 ab	5.08 ± 0.24 d	5.83 ± 0.74 cd
fl II	2.68 ± 0.12 a	2.70 ± 0.14 a	2.46 ± 0.05 b	2.64 ± 0.06 a	2.39 ± 0.13 b	2.45 ± 0.07 b	2.19 ± 0.11 c	2.16 ± 0.11 c
fd I	2.71 ± 0.12 a	2.73 ± 0.14 a	2.50 ± 0.06 b	2.68 ± 0.07 a	2.42 ± 0.13 b	2.49 ± 0.08 b	2.22 ± 0.11 c	2.19 ± 0.10 c
fd II	3.42 ± 0.21 a	3.40 ± 0.17 a	3.06 ± 0.23 bc	3.24 ± 0.16 ab	3.03 ± 0.17 bcd	3.21 ± 0.16 ab	2.89 ± 0.04 cd	2.80 ± 0.22 d
fl I	3.49 ± 0.20 a	3.44 ± 0.18 a	3.11 ± 0.24 bc	3.28 ± 0.17 ab	3.06 ± 0.19 bcd	3.26 ± 0.14 ab	2.94 ± 0.04 cd	2.86 ± 0.22 d
dblk	0.55 ± 0.02 ab	0.58 ± 0.02 a	0.54 ± 0.04 ab	0.54 ± 0.03 ab	0.52 ± 0.02 bc	0.52 ± 0.04 bc	0.48 ± 0.04 c	0.53 ± 0.03 ab
dan I	148.30 ± 8.82 ab	152.65 ± 4.95 a	133.89 ± 15.90 ab	145.20 ± 10.15 ab	144.17 ± 5.24 ab	150.81 ± 31.32 a	129.17 ± 7.61 b	138.91 ± 6.19 ab

Notes: Description for each fruit shape atributes as given in Table 1. The daily averaged temperature (max-min), was calculated between each harvest period. For the first truss was only considered the daily average temperature beginning with fruit setting period.

*Means with the same letter letters within rows indicate no statistically significant differences using the LSD test (p ≤ 0.05).

Table 6. Effect of organic and inorganic fertilisation on fruit colour atributes in relation to harvest date for each fully-red ripe truss under greenhouse conditions.

	Tomato fruit harvesting/Air temperature (max-min)
	1st truss	2nd truss	3rd truss	4th truss	5th truss	6th truss	7th truss	8th truss
Fruit colour atributes	Sept 16 [40.7°C–13.9°C]	Sept 24 [38.4°C–14.3°C]	Sept 30 [34.0°C–11.4°C]	Oct 08 [31.9°C–12.6°C]	Oct 16 [35.0°C–12.6°C]	Oct 23 [36.2°C–10.5°C]	Oct 30 [32.0°C–10.6°C]	Nov 07 [34.9°C–11.0°C]
L*	47.20 ± 1.40 b	49.20 ± 0.63 a*	45.86 ± 0.38 bc	47.51 ± 0.52 ab	44.54 ± 0.60 c	46.91 ± 1.90 b	49.16 ± 1.87 a	47.19 ± 1.28 b
a*	18.77 ± 1.01 ab	18.68 ± 2.70 b	16.63 ± 0.58 c	18.44 ± 0.73 bc	18.78 ± 0.67 ab	20.68 ± 0.36 a	19.41 ± 1.59 ab	18.87 ± 0.76 ab
b*	28.91 ± 1.61 bc	29.36 ± 0.77 bc	26.60 ± 0.37 e	28.40 ± 1.32 cd	27.05 ± 0.39 de	30.41 ± 0.92 ab	31.68 ± 1.37 a	28.98 ± 1.53 bc
Hue	58.37 ± 2.09 ab	60.49 ± 2.11 a	60.64 ± 0.83 a	58.23 ± 0.44 ab	54.71 ± 1.38 c	57.28 ± 0.87 bc	58.84 ± 3.20 ab	58.26 ± 1.96 ab
Chroma	35.25 ± 1.64 cd	35.85 ± 2.03 bc	32.38 ± 0.64 e	34.61 ± 0.62 cd	33.65 ± 0.50 de	37.38 ± 0.99 ab	37.65 ± 0.30 a	35.34 ± 1.43 cd

Note: The daily averaged temperature (max-min), was calculated between each harvest period. For the first truss was only considered the daily average temperature beginning with first fruit setting period.

*Means with the same letter letters within rows indicate no statistically significant differences using the LSD test (p ≤ 0.05).

Rodríguez GR, Moyseenko JB, Robbins MD, Huarachi-Morejón N, Francis DM, van der Knaap E. 2010. Tomato analyzer: a useful software application to collect accurate and detailed morphological and colorimetric data from two-dimensional objects. J Vis Exp. 37:e1856. doi:10.3791/1856.

 Google Scholar

Brewer MT, Lang L, Fujimura K, Dujmovic N, Gray S, van der Knaap E. 2006. Development of a controlled vocabulary and software application to analyze fruit shape variation in tomato and other plant species. Plant Physiol. 141:15–25. doi: 10.1104/pp.106.077867

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gonzalo MJ, van der Knaap E. 2008. A comparative analysis into the genetic bases of morphology in tomato varieties exhibiting elongated fruit shape. Theor Appl Genet. 116:647–656. doi: 10.1007/s00122-007-0698-7

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Guajardo-Ríos O, Lozano-Cavazos CJ, Valdez-Aguilar LA, Benavides-Mendoza A, Ibarra-Jiménez L, Ascacio-Valdés JA, Aguilar-González CN. 2018. Animal-based organic nutrition can substitute inorganic fertigation in soilless-grown grape tomato. Acta Agric Scand Sect B. 68:77–85.

 Google Scholar