Abstract
Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) is one of the most important vegetables in the world. However, dearth of knowledge exists on cultivation technology that contributes to increased production of the crop. Meanwhile, low yielding varieties, high pests and diseases attacks, climate variability and poor soil fertility are among key production constraints that limit the increased production and productivity of tomato in Sierra Leone. A two-year field experiment was conducted at the School of Agriculture and Food Sciences experimental site during 2022 and 2023 to evaluate the effects of variety and cultivation technology (CT) on pests, diseases, growth, yield and productivity of tomato. The experiment was laid in a 2 × 4 factorial (i.e. two varieties of tomato, and four treatments: CT 1, CT 2, CT 3 and CT 4 known as control) arranged in a randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three replications. Results showed that organic (CT 1 and CT 2) and inorganic (CT 3) treatments had a positive impact on growth parameters of tomato. The CT 1 (chicken dung, mulching, and neem extract biopesticide) was most effective in promoting vegetative growth and higher fruit yield, while CT 2 (NPK 15:15:15, urea, promethrin herbicide, and chlorpyrifos pesticide) exhibited highest potency in reducing population and damage caused by diseases and pests. Findings demonstrate that improved variety and cultivation technology boost tomato tolerance to pests and diseases, as well as its growth and yield performances that could be exploited for increased production and fruit quality of the crop. The CT1 was the most effective, followed by CT 2, while CT 4 or control plots had the lowest performance. The outperformance of the organic treatments relative to the inorganic and control is suggested to be attributable to its nitrogen-rich components. Weed control was also established to be effective in both inorganic and CT 2 treatments. The findings suggest that the CT 1 should be promoted for sustainable tomato cultivation, prioritizing environmentally friendly methods for long-term success.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 10
Claim · model-written summary
Organic CT 1 and CT 2 and inorganic CT 3 improved tomato growth parameters.
- Taxon
- tomato
Solanum lycopersicume0 - Treatment
- organic (CT 1 and CT 2) and inorganic (CT 3) treatmentse0
- Outcome
- growth parameters of tomatoe0
- Direction
- positive impacte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“organic (CT 1 and CT 2) and inorganic (CT 3) treatments had a positive impact on growth parameters of tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
CT 1 most effectively promoted tomato vegetative growth.
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- CT 1 (chicken dung, mulching, and neem extract biopesticide)e0
- Outcome
- vegetative growthe0
- Direction
- most effectivee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The CT 1 (chicken dung, mulching, and neem extract biopesticide) was most effective in promoting vegetative growth and higher fruit yield”
t0“Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
CT 1 produced higher tomato fruit yield.
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- CT 1 (chicken dung, mulching, and neem extract biopesticide)e0
- Outcome
- fruit yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The CT 1 (chicken dung, mulching, and neem extract biopesticide) was most effective in promoting vegetative growth and higher fruit yield”
t0“Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
CT 2 most strongly reduced tomato pest and disease populations and damage.
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- CT 2 (NPK 15:15:15, urea, promethrin herbicide, and chlorpyrifos pesticide)e0
- Outcome
- population and damage caused by diseases and pestse0
- Direction
- reducinge0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CT 2 (NPK 15:15:15, urea, promethrin herbicide, and chlorpyrifos pesticide) exhibited highest potency in reducing population and damage caused by diseases and pests”
t0“Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Improved variety and cultivation technology boosted tomato tolerance to pests and diseases.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- improved variety and cultivation technologye0
- Outcome
- tomato tolerance to pests and diseasese0
- Direction
- booste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“improved variety and cultivation technology boost tomato tolerance to pests and diseases”
Claim · model-written summary
Improved variety and cultivation technology increased tomato growth and yield performance.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Treatment
- improved variety and cultivation technologye0
- Outcome
- growth and yield performancese0
- Direction
- booste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“improved variety and cultivation technology boost tomato tolerance to pests and diseases, as well as its growth and yield performances”
Claim · model-written summary
CT 1 ranked highest, CT 2 second and control CT 4 lowest for overall performance.
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Outcome
- most effectivee0
- Direction
- most effectivee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The CT1 was the most effective, followed by CT 2, while CT 4 or control plots had the lowest performance”
t0“Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors attribute organic treatment outperformance to nitrogen-rich components.
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Outcome
- outperformance of the organic treatmentse0
- Qualifier
- nitrogen-rich componentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The outperformance of the organic treatments relative to the inorganic and control is suggested to be attributable to its nitrogen-rich components”
t0“Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
Weed control was effective under inorganic and CT 2 treatments.
- Taxon
- TomatoSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- inorganic and CT 2 treatmentse0
- Interactor
- Weede0weed
- Outcome
- Weed controle0
- Direction
- effectivee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Weed control was also established to be effective in both inorganic and CT 2 treatments”
t0“Tomato”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend CT 1 for sustainable tomato cultivation.
- Taxon
- tomatoSolanum lycopersicume0
- Outcome
- CT 1 should be promoted for sustainable tomato cultivatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the CT 1 should be promoted for sustainable tomato cultivation”
The same questions in other papers
chlorpyrifos · pest · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
Azadirachta indica · yield · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
11 papers more in this group
See all 15 papers →Azadirachta indica · growth · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
15 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- positive
14 papers more in this group
See all 18 papers →mulching · growth · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Results differ
61 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
69 papers more in this group
See all 73 papers →herbicide · pest · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
4 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- negative
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →tillage · pest · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →nitrogen · pest · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →tillage · weed · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- negative
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 papers →8 of 17 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.
Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.