Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Vol. 13 No. sp1 (2026): Recent Advances in Agriculture

The impact of induced drought stress on early seedling parameters and yield traits in tomato (Solanum lycopersicon L.) hybrids

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.11571
Submitted
1 September 2025
Published
18-03-2026

Abstract

Tomato is one of the most versatile vegetable crops, grown globally under diverse climatic conditions. Abiotic stresses, particularly drought, severely affect tomato productivity, causing yield losses of up to 70 % depending on stress duration and crop growth stage. Present study aimed to breed drought tolerant tomato hybrids by screening 13 parental lines and 30 hybrids along with one hybrid check under induced moisture stress. Early seedling screening using polyethylene glycol (PEG)-6000 revealed a reduction in germination percentage (-1.81 % and -15.60 %), shoot length (-7.28 % and -13.29 %) and seedling vigour index (-5.13 % and -17.55 %) with increasing PEG concentrations (8 % and 16 %) compared to the control. Field evaluation under different irrigation intervals showed significant reduction in plant height (-13.62 % and -28.16 %), total dry matter (-7.03 % and -16.13 %), leaf area (-8.55 % and -19.55 %) and yield (-26.86 % and -50.86 %), while root length (9.30 % and 17.15 %) and proline content (16.58 % and 42.68 %) increased under drought stress conditions (10 days and 20 days irrigation interval). The parental lines, EC-638519, Arka Meghali and Kashi Anupama and hybrids EC-608269 × Kashi Anupama, Arka Meghali × EC-634394 and Arka Saurabh × EC-638519 exhibited superior seedling vigour, yield performance and drought tolerance across early seedling, vegetative and reproductive stages. Molecular screening using 11 simple sequence repeat (SSR) markers resulted in monomorphic banding pattern indicating no detectable variation for these primers among the screened lines. Collectively, the study offers valuable opportunities for breeding hybrids adoptable to extreme drought conditions of marginal areas.

References

  1. 1. Petro TM. Flavor of tomato and tomato products. Food Rev Int. 1986;2(3):309–51.https://doi.org/10.1080/87559128609540802
  2. 2. Chaudhary P, Sharma A, Singh B, Nagpal AK. Bioactivities of phytochemicals present in tomato. J Food Sci Technol. 2018;55:2833–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-018-3221-z
  3. 3. Seleiman MF, Al Suhaibani N, Ali N, Akmal M, Alotaibi M, Refay Y, et al. Drought stress impacts on plants and different approaches to alleviate its adverse effects. Plants. 2021;10(2):256-59. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10020259
  4. 4. Iqbal MS, Singh AK, Ansari MI. Effect of drought stress on crop production. In: Rakshit A, Singh H, Singh A, Singh U, Fraceto L, editors. New frontiers in stress management for durable agriculture. Singapore: Springer; 2020. p. 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1322-0_3
  5. 5. Naumann G, Alfieri L, Wyser K, Mentaschi L, Betts RA, Carrao H. Global changes in drought conditions under different levels of warming. Geophys Res Lett. 2018;45(7):3285–96. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL076521
  6. 6. Kumar L, Chhogyel N, Gopalakrishnan T, Hasan MK, Jayasinghe SL, Kariyawasam CS, et al. Climate change and future of agri-food production. In: Rajeev B, editor. Future foods: global trends, opportunities and sustainability challenges. Academic Press; 2022. p. 49–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-91001-9.00009-8
  7. 7. Pervez MA, Ayub CM, Khan HA, Shahid MA, Ashraf I. Effect of drought stress on growth, yield and seed quality of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum L.). Pak J Agr Sci. 2009;46(3):174–78.
  8. 8. Barrero LS, Tanksley SD. Evaluating the genetic basis of multiple-locule fruit in a broad cross section of tomato cultivars. Theor Appl Genet. 2004;109:669–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-004-1676-y
  9. 9. Maxim A, Sima R, Şandor M. Aspects regarding seed quality from local varieties of vegetables collected from different areas of Romania. Acta Univ Cibiniensis Agric Sci. 2008;1(1):27579.
  10. 10. Strunecky O, Shreedhar S, Kolar L, Marouskova A. Changes in soil water retention following biochar amendment. Energy Sources Part A. 2025;47(1):7145—52. https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2021.1916652
  11. 11. Kumar AP, Reddy NN, Lakshmi JN. PEG induced screening for drought tolerance in tomato genotypes. Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci. 2017;6(7):168–81. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2017.607.020
  12. 12. Silva PO, Medina EF, Barros RS, Ribeiro DM. Germination of salt-stressed seeds as related to the ethylene biosynthesis ability in three Stylosanthes species. J Plant Physiol. 2014;171(1):14–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jplph.2013.09.004
  13. 13. Sivakumar R, Srividhya S. Impact of drought on flowering, yield and quality parameters in diverse genotypes of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Adv Hort Sci. 2016;30(1):3–11.
  14. 14. Szira F, Balint AF, Borner A, Galiba G. Evaluation of drought-related traits and screening methods at different developmental stages in spring barley. J Agron Crop Sci. 2008;194(5):334–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-037X.2008.00330.x
  15. 15. Almaghrabi OA. Impact of drought stress on germination and seedling growth parameters of some wheat cultivars. Life Sci J. 2012;9(1):590–98.
  16. 16. Kalloo G. Breeding for environmental stress resistance in tomato. In: Kalloo G, editor. Genetic improvement of tomato. Berlin: Springer; 1991. p. 153–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-84275-7_12
  17. 17. Brdar JM, Zdravkovic J. Germination of tomatoes under PEG induced drought stress. Field Veg Crops Res. 2015;52(3):108–13. https://doi.org/10.5937/ratpov52-8324
  18. 18. Ilyas M, Ahmad M, Hussain Z, Saeed A, Begum F, Khan MI, et al. Interactive effect of calcium and magnesium on the growth and yield of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum L.). Pure Appl Biol. 2021;5(4):876–2. https://doi.org/10.19045/bspab.2016.50110
  19. 19. Foolad MR. Genome mapping and molecular breeding of tomato. Int J Plant Genomics. 2007;1:1–52. https://doi.org/10.1155/2007/64358
  20. 20. Kaur S, Panesar PS, Bera MB, Kaur V. Simple sequence repeats markers in genetic divergence, marker-assisted selection of rice cultivars. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2015;55(1):41–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2011.646363
  21. 21. Prakash G. Physiological and genetical investigation for drought tolerance in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) genotypes. Karnataka (IN): University of Horticultural Sciences; 2016.
  22. 22. Abdul BAA Anderson JD. Vigour determination in soybean seed by multiple criteria. Crop Sci. 1973;13(6):630–33. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1973.0011183X001300060013x
  23. 23. Bates LS, Waldren RA, Teare ID. Rapid determination of free proline for water-stress studies. Plant Soil. 1973;39:205–07. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00018060
  24. 24. Chen G, Wang H, Gai JY, Zhu YL, Yang LF, Liu QQ, et al. Construction and characterization of a full-length cDNA library, identification of genes involved in salinity stress in wild eggplant (Solanum torvum). Hortic Environ Biotechnol. 2012;53(2):158–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13580-012-0089-0
  25. 25. Rakshith M. Genetic variability for salt tolerance and expression analysis of salt responsive candidate genes. Karnataka (IN): University of Agricultural and Horticultural Sciences; 2020.
  26. 26. Gawel NJ, Jarret RL. A modified CTAB DNA extraction procedure for Musa and Ipomoea. Plant Mol Biol Rep. 1991;9:262–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02672076
  27. 27. Dietz KJ, Zorb C, Geilfus CM. Drought and crop yield. Plant Biol. 2021;23(6):881–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/plb.13304
  28. 28. Turk MA, Rahman A, Tawaha MLKD, Lee KD. Seed germination and seedling growth of three lentil cultivars under moisture stress. Asian J Plant Sci. 2004;3(3):394–97. https://doi.org/10.3923/ajps.2004.394.397
  29. 29. Pirasteh AH, Ranjbar G, Pakniyat H, Emam Y. Physiological mechanisms of salt stress tolerance in plants. In: Mohamed MA, Parvaiz A, editors. Plant-environment interaction: responses and approaches to mitigate stress. 2016. p. 141–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119081005.ch8
  30. 30. Aazami MA, Torabi M, Jalili E. In vitro response of promising tomato genotypes for tolerance to osmotic stress. Afr J Biotechnol. 2010;9(26):4014–17.
  31. 31. Kim YJ, Yun SJ, Park HK, Park MS. A simple method of seedling screening for drought tolerance in soybean. Korean J Crop Sci. 2001;46(4):284–88.
  32. 32. George S, Jatoi SA, Siddiqui SU. Genotypic differences against PEG simulated drought stress in tomato. Pak J Bot. 2013;45(5):1551–56.
  33. 33. Wilson JB. A review of evidence on the control of shoot:root ratio in relation to models. Ann Bot. 1988;61(4):433–49. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aob.a087575
  34. 34. Ashraf M. Salt tolerance of cotton: some new advances. Crit Rev Plant Sci. 2002;21(1):1–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735-260291044160
  35. 35. Dell AA, Spada P. The effect of salinity stress upon protein synthesis of germinating wheat embryos. Ann Bot. 1993;72(2):97–101. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbo.1993.1085
  36. 36. Khan MA, Rizvi Y. Effect of salinity, temperature and growth regulators on the germination and early seedling growth of Atriplex griffithii var. stocksii. Can J Bot. 1994;72(4):475–79. https://doi.org/10.1139/b94-063
  37. 37. Karthik GU, Lakshmidevamma TN, Naika MB, Gasti VD, Masuti D, Gollagi SG, et al. Estimates of genetic variability, association studies and per se performance of tomato genotypes for growth and yield parameters under drought stress conditions. Int J Environ Clim Change. 2024;14(3):709–20. https://doi.org/10.9734/ijecc/2024/v14i34079
  38. 38. Parveen A, Rai GK, Mushtaq M, Singh M, Rai PK, Rai SK, et al. Deciphering the morphological, physiological and biochemical mechanism associated with drought stress tolerance in tomato genotypes. Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci. 2019;8(5):227–55. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2019.805.028
  39. 39. Sivakumar R, Nandhitha GK, Boominathan P. Impact of drought on growth characters and yield of contrasting tomato genotypes. Madras Agric J. 2016;103(1-3):78–82. https://doi.org/10.29321/MAJ.10.001446
  40. 40. Tahi H, Wahbi S, El MC, Aganchich A, Serraj R. Changes in antioxidant activities and phenol content in tomato plants subjected to partial root drying and regulated deficit irrigation. Plant Biosyst. 2008;142:550–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/11263500802410900
  41. 41. Ilakiya T, Premalakshmi V, Arumugam T, Sivakumar T. Screening of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) hybrids with their parents for various growth related parameters under drought stress. J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2019;8(3):3845–48.
  42. 42. Senthilkumar M, Sadashiva AT, Laxmanan V. Impact of water stress on root architecture in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum Mill). Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci. 2017;6(7):2095–103. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2017.607.247
  43. 43. Vijaylaxmi SK, Rathod V, Evoor S, Kantharaju V, Tatagar MH, Laksmidevamma TN. Correlation and path-coefficient analysis in cherry tomato (Solanum lycopersicum var. cerasiforme). J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2021;10(2):1136–40.
  44. 44. Akter R, Haq ME, Begum B, Zeba N. Performance of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) genotypes based on agro-morphogenic traits under drought condition. Asian J Biotechnol Genet Eng. 2019;2(4):1–10.
  45. 45. Cui J, Shao G, Lu J, Keabetswe L, Hoogenboom G. Yield, quality and drought sensitivity of tomato to water deficit during different growth stages. Sci Agric. 2019;77(2):221–29. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-992x-2018-0390
  46. 46. Grozeva S, Ganeva D, Pevicharova G. Screening of tomato genotypes for tolerance of reduced irrigation. J Agric Biol Environ Sci. 2019;15:19–21.
  47. 47. Lata C, Muthamilarasan M, Prasad M. Drought stress responses and signal transduction in plants. In: Pandey G, editor. Elucidation of abiotic stress signaling in plants. New York: Springer; 2015. p. 195–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2540-7_7
  48. 48. Patane C, Scordia D, Testa G, Cosentino SL. Physiological screening for drought tolerance in Mediterranean long-storage tomato. Plant Sci. 2016;249:25–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plantsci.2016.05.006
  49. 49. Chaves MM, Flexas J, Pinheiro C. Photosynthesis under drought and salt stress: regulation mechanisms from whole plant to cell. Ann Bot. 2009;103(4):551–60. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcn125

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.