Evaluation of cucumber genotypes under plastic house and open field conditions in Lalitpur, Nepal

Figures & data

Figure 1. Map of the study area.

Table 1. Details of genotypes and growing conditions.

S.N		Treatments	Treatment details
Genotypes
1	G1	Bhaktapur Local (check)	OP (best commercial variety)
2	G2	HRDCUC-004 × HRDCUC-001	Gynoecious hybrid developed by HRD
3	G3	HRDCUC-004 × HRDCUC-003	Gynoecious hybrid developed by HRD
4	G4	HRDCUC-006 × HRDCUC-001	Gynoecious hybrid developed by HRD
5	G5	HRDCUC-006 × HRDCUC-003	Gynoecious hybrid developed by HRD
6	G6	HRDCUC-009 × HRDCUC-001	Gynoecious hybrid developed by HRD
7	G7	HRDCUC-009 × HRDCUC-003	Gynoecious hybrid developed by HRD
Growing conditions
1		C1	Open field (OF)
2		C2	Plastic house (PH)

OP: Open Pollinated; HRD: Horticulture Research Division.

Table 2. Interaction effect of genotypes and growing conditions on vine length, number of node per vine and internodal length.

Genotypes	Vine length (m)		Number of nodes per vine		Internodal length (cm)
	Open field	Plastic house	Open field	Plastic house	Open field	Plastic house
Bhaktapur Local	3.92^f	4.36^g	43.17^h	44.11^h	9.42^a	11.17^g
HRDCUC-004 × HRDCUC-001	3.16^b	3.43^ce	32.45 ^cd	36.74^f	10.50 ^cd	10.73^de
HRDCUC-004 × HRDCUC-003	3.00^b	3.10^b	30.10^ab	32.37^bcd	11.00^fg	11.10^fg
HRDCUC-006 × HRDCUC-001	2.73^a	3.20^bcd	29.90^a	31.24^abc	9.80^b	11.17^g
HRDCUC-006 × HRDCUC-003	2.58^a	3.20^bc	30.25^abc	35.55^ef	9.67^ab	9.91^b
HRDCUC-009 × HRDCUC-001	3.51^e	4.03^f	39.00^g	41.06^g	10.27^c	10.97^ef
HRDCUC-009 × HRDCUC-003	3.14^b	3.9^f	29.74^a	34.23^de	12.23^h	12.73^i
F-Test	**		*		**
LSD	0.22		2.09		0.25
SEM	0.07		0.72		0.08
CV (%)	4.0		3.6		1.4

Means separation in column followed by the same letters are not significantly different at p = 0.05, *= significant, **highly significant, SEM = Standard Error of Mean, LSD = Least Significant Difference, CV = Coefficient of Variation.

Table 3. Effect of genotypes and growing conditions on node number bearing 1st female flower and days to first harvest.

Treatment	Node number bearing first female flower	Days to first harvest
Genotypes
Bhaktapur Local	10.83^d	62.92^e
HRDCUC-004 × HRDCUC-001	7.16^bc	52.00^bc
HRDCUC-004 × HRDCUC-003	7.66^c	53.83^d
HRDCUC-006 × HRDCUC-001	5.83^a	49.17^a
HRDCUC-006 × HRDCUC-003	6.66^b	52.75 ^cd
HRDCUC-009 × HRDCUC-001	7.66^c	51.00^b
HRDCUC-009 × HRDCUC-003	7.16^bc	53.83^d
F-test	**	**
LSD	0.75	1.16
SEM	0.25	0.39
Growing conditions
Open field (OF)	7.04^a	56.50^b
Plastic house (PH)	8.09^b	50.79^a
F-test	**	**
LSD	0.40	0.62
SEM	0.13	0.21
Genotypes × Growing conditions
F-test	NS	NS
CV (%)	8.4	1.8

Means separation in column followed by the same letters are not significantly different at p = 0.05, **= highly significant, NS = Non-significant, SEM = Standard Error of Mean, LSD = Least Significant Difference, CV = Coefficient of Variation.

Table 4. Effect of genotypes and growing conditions on fruit length, fruit girth and fruit weight.

Treatment	Fruit length (cm)	Fruit girth (mm)	Fruit weight (g)
Genotypes
Bhaktapur Local	27.98^b	66.01^d	611.7^e
HRDCUC-004 × HRDCUC-001	23.92^a	61.47^c	463.8^b
HRDCUC-004 × HRDCUC-003	29.76^c	59.74^ab	550.1^d
HRDCUC-006 × HRDCUC-001	23.85^a	58.28^a	394.5^a
HRDCUC-006 × HRDCUC-003	28.05^b	60.23^bc	515.9^c
HRDCUC-009 × HRDCUC-001	24.28^a	59.35^ab	457.7^b
HRDCUC-009 × HRDCUC-003	31.62^d	61.33^c	605.1^e
F-test	**	**	**
LSD	1.05	1.44	14.78
SEM	0.36	0.39	5.08
Growing conditions
Open field (OF)	27.21	61.29	516.8
Plastic house (PH)	26.93	60.54	511.4
F-test	NS	NS	NS
LSD	0.56	0.77	7.90
SEM	0.19	0.26	5.08
Genotypes × Growing conditions
F-test	NS	NS	NS
CV (%)	3.3	2	2.4

Means separation in column followed by the same letters are not significantly different at p = 0.05, **= highly significant, NS = Non-significant, SEM = Standard Error of Mean, LSD = Least Significant Difference, CV = Coefficient of Variation.

Table 5. Interaction effect of genotypes and growing conditions on number of fruits per plant, yield per plant and adjusted yield per hectare.

Genotypes	Number of fruits per plant		Yield per plant (Kg)		Adjusted yield (t ha^-1)
	Open field	Plastic house	Open field	Plastic house	Open field	Plastic house
Bhaktapur Local	7.67^a	10.67^b	3.98^a	6.10^de	37.5^a	57.4^de
HRDCUC-004 × HRDCUC-001	13.67^c	28.33^f	6.16^e	12.43^k	58.0^e	117.0^k
HRDCUC-004 × HRDCUC-003	10.33^b	21.67^e	5.36^c	11.36^i	50.4^c	106.9^i
HRDCUC-006 × HRDCUC-001	10.33^b	17.67^d	3.82^a	6.80^f	35.9^a	64.0^f
HRDCUC-006 × HRDCUC-003	10.33^b	20.67^e	5.21^bc	10.35^h	49.1^bc	97.4^h
HRDCUC-009 × HRDCUC-001	11.33^b	20.33^e	4.94^b	9.15^g	46.5^b	86.1^g
HRDCUC-009 × HRDCUC-003	10.00^b	20.33^e	5.78^d	11.85^j	54.4^d	111.5^j
F-Test	**		**		**
LSD	1.39		0.34		3.288
SEM	0.47		0.12		1.13
CV (%)	5.4		2.8		2.8

Means separation in column followed by the same letters are not significantly different at p = 0.05, **= highly significant, SEM = Standard Error of Mean, LSD = Least Significant Difference, CV = Coefficient of Variation.

Figure 2. Hedonic rating (1–9) for overall acceptability of cucumber genotypes.

Table 6. Interaction effect of genotypes and growing conditions on gross return, net return and benefit-cost ratio (BCR).

Genotypes	Gross return per hectare ($ thousands)		Net return per hectare ($ thousands)		BCR
	Open field	Plastic house	Open field	Plastic house	Open field	Plastic house
Bhaktapur Local	20.60^ef	31.52^h	12.07^f	18.49^h	2.41^g	2.41^g
HRDCUC-004 × HRDCUC-001	19.51^e	39.35^l	10.87^e	26.22^k	2.25^f	2.99^j
HRDCUC-004 × HRDCUC-003	16.97^c	35.97^j	8.34^c	22.84^i	1.96^d	2.73^h
HRDCUC-006 × HRDCUC-001	12.09^a	21.52^f	3.45^a	8.38^c	1.40^a	1.63^b
HRDCUC-006 × HRDCUC-003	16.50^bc	32.76^i	7.86^bc	19.62^h	1.91 ^cd	2.49^g
HRDCUC-009 × HRDCUC-001	15.64^b	28.99^g	7.00^b	15.84^g	1.81^c	2.20^ef
HRDCUC-009 × HRDCUC-003	18.30^d	37.52^k	9.66^d	24.38^j	2.11^e	2.85^i
F-Test	**		**		**
LSD	0.12		0.12		0.10
SEM	0.04		0.04		0.03
CV (%)	2.8		5.0		2.8

Means separation in column followed by the same letters are not significantly different at p = 0.05, **= highly significant, SEM = Standard Error of Mean, LSD = Least Significant Difference, CV = Coefficient of Variation.

Figure A1. Mean monthly temperature and RH of open field conditions during the research period at Khumaltar, Lalitpur.

Figure A2. Mean monthly temperature and RH of plastic house conditions during the research period at Khumaltar, Lalitpur.

Table A1. Combination of genotypes and growing conditions.

S.N	Treatment	Genotypes	Growing conditions	Combination
1	T1	Bhaktapur Local (G1)	OF (C1)	G1×C1
2	T2	HRD CUC 004 × HRD CUC 001 (G2)	OF (C1)	G2×C1
3	T3	HRD CUC 004 × HRD CUC 003 (G3)	OF (C1)	G3×C1
4	T4	HRD CUC 006 × HRD CUC 001 (G4)	OF (C1)	G4×C1
5	T5	HRD CUC 006 × HRD CUC 003 (G5)	OF (C1)	G5×C1
6	T6	HRD CUC 009 × HRD CUC 001 (G6)	OF (C1)	G6×C1
7	T7	HRD CUC 009 × HRD CUC 003 (G7)	OF (C1)	G7×C1
8	T8	Bhaktapur Local (G1)	PH (C2)	G1×C2
9	T9	HRD CUC 004 × HRD CUC 001 (G2)	PH (C2)	G2×C2
10	T10	HRD CUC 004 × HRD CUC 003 (G3)	PH (C2)	G3×C2
11	T11	HRD CUC 006 × HRD CUC 001 (G4)	PH (C2)	G4×C2
12	T12	HRD CUC 006 × HRD CUC 003 (G5)	PH (C2)	G5×C2
13	T13	HRD CUC 009 × HRD CUC 001 (G6)	PH (C2)	G6×C2
14	T14	HRD CUC 009 × HRD CUC 003 (G7)	PH (C2)	G7×C2

OF: Open field condition (C₁); PH: Plastic house condition (C₂); G₁….G₇: Genotypes.

Table A2. Analysis of variance of genotypes and growing conditions on vine length, number of nodes per vine and internodal length.

Source of variation	df	Vine length		Number of nodes per vine		Internodal length
		MS	F value	MS	F value	MS	F value
Replication	2	0.01	1.02	0.94	0.60	0.17	7.92
Genotype	6	1.28**	69.0	147.40**	94.27	4.35**	193.07
Growing condition	1	2.16**	116.1	91.76**	58.68	4.92**	218.50
Genotype x Growing condition	6	0.07**	3.8	4.38*	2.80	0.59**	26.54
Residual	26	0.01		1.56		0.22
Total	41

**Significant at P ≤ 0.01; *Significant at P ≤ 0.05, df = degree of freedom, MS = Treatment mean square.

Table A3. Analysis of variance of genotypes and growing conditions on node number bearing first female flower and days to first harvest.

Source of variation	df	Node number bearing first female flower		Days to first harvest
		MS	F value	MS	F value
Replication	2	0.07	0.18	2.64	2.76
Genotype	6	14.82**	36.63	116.59**	121.84
Growing condition	1	11.52**	28.47	342.85**	358.28
Genotype x Growing condition	6	0.52 ^ns	1.29	2.00 ^ns	2.10
Residual	26	0.10		0.95
Total	41

**Significant at P ≤ 0.01; ns, not significant, df = degree of freedom, MS = Treatment mean square.

Table A4. Analysis of variance of genotypes and growing conditions on fruit length, fruit girth, and fruit weight.

Source of variation	df	Fruit length		Fruit girth		Fruit weight
		MS	F value	MS	F value	MS	F value
Replication	2	1.19	1.53	0.80	0.54	140.7	0.91
Genotype	6	57.79**	73.84	37.73**	25.55	39147.6**	252.49
Growing condition	1	0.84 ^ns	1.08	5.89 ^ns	3.99	316.6 ^ns	2.04
Genotype x Growing condition	6	0.93 ^ns	1.20	2.00 ^ns	1.36	247.5 ^ns	1.60
Residual	26	0.78		1.47		155.0
Total	41

**Significant at P ≤ 0.01; ns, not significant, df = degree of freedom, MS = Treatment mean square.

Table A5. Analysis of variance of genotypes and growing conditions on number of fruits per plant, yield per plant and yield ton per hectare.

Source of variation	df	Number of fruits per plant		Yield per plant		Adjusted yield (t ha^-1)
		MS	F value	MS	F value	MS	F value
Replication	2	0.38	0.55	0.00	0.13	0.00	0.00
Genotype	6	72.60**	105.43	16.73**	386.32	1482.40**	386.32
Growing condition	1	933.42**	1355.46	230.34**	5317.81	20405.70**	5318.81
Genotype x Growing condition	6	19.65**	28.54	4.02**	93.01	356.89**	93.01
Residual	26	0.68		0.04		3.83
Total	41

**Significant at P ≤ 0.01, df = degree of freedom, MS = Treatment mean square.

Table A6. Performance of different cucumber genotypes for color, appearance and taste.

Treatment	Color (1–9)	Appearance (1–9)	Taste (1–9)
Bhaktapur Local	7.6^c	7.4^c	7.6^c
HRDCUC-004 × HRDCUC-001	7.0^bc	6.6^b	6.8^ab
HRDCUC-004 × HRDCUC-003	5.8^a	5.6^a	7.4^bc
HRDCUC-006 × HRDCUC-001	6.4^ab	6.8^bc	6.4^a
HRDCUC-006 × HRDCUC-003	6.6^b	6.4^b	6.6^a
HRDCUC-009 × HRDCUC-001	5.8^a	5.6^a	6.4^a
HRDCUC-009 × HRDCUC-003	6.6^b	6.8^bc	7.0^abc
F-test	**	**	**
LSD	0.70	0.67	0.72
SEM	0.24	0.22	0.25
CV%	8.4	8.1	8.1

Means separation in column followed by the same letters are not significantly different at p = 0.05, **= highly significant, SEM = Standard Error of Mean, LSD = Least Significant Difference, CV = Coefficient of Variation.

Table A7. Analysis of variance of genotypes and growing conditions on gross returns, net returns, and benefit-cost ratio (BCR).

Source of variation	d.f	Gross returns		Net returns		BCR
		MS	F value	MS	F value	MS	F value
Replication	2	0.00	0.21	0.00	0.21	0.00	0.16
Genotype	6	1.29**	221.57	1.30**	222.14	0.82**	214.83
Growing condition	1	30.75**	5243.85	15.42**	2630.26	2.57**	666.88
Genotype x Growing condition	6	0.33**	56.60	0.33**	56.60	0.12**	33.60
Residual	26	0.005		0.005		0.003
Total	41

**Significant at P ≤ 0.01, df = degree of freedom, MS = Treatment mean square.

Table A8. Construction cost of plastic house.

Particular	Unit	Quantity(m^2)	Cost/ha ($)
Galvanized frame (Avg. life 15 years)	1000/m^2	10000	90171.33
Plastic covering (Avg. life 15 year)	120/m^2	36000	38954.01
Insect proof net (Avg. life 15 year)	100/m^2	6600	5951.31
Total cost (15 year)			135076.65
Depreciated cost/year			9005.11
Depreciated cost/season (2 season per year)			4502.55

Table A9. Production cost of cucumber per hectare for open field and plastic house.

Particular	Unit	Quantity	$/Unit	Hybrid		Bhaktapur Local
				Open	Plastic	Open	Plastic
Input Cost
Cocopeat (Block)	No.	10	4.51	45.09	45.09	45.09	45.09
Sand (Mini Truck)	Tailor	1	45.09	45.09	45.09	45.09	45.09
Seed	G	500	0.27	135.26	135.26	31.56	31.56
Polybag	Kg	60	2.71	162.31	162.31	162.31	162.31
Vermicompost	Kg	100	0.45	45.09	45.09	45.09	45.09
Polythene sheet	Kg	40	2.16	86.56	86.56	86.56	86.56
Fym	Ton	30	18.03	541.03	541.03	541.03	541.03
Mustard oil cake	Ton	1.2	405.77	486.93	486.93	486.93	486.93
Bone meal	Ton	1.2	586.11	703.34	703.34	703.34	703.34
DAP	Kg	87	0.54	47.07	47.07	47.07	47.07
Urea	Kg	270	0.32	87.65	87.65	87.65	87.65
MoP	Kg	166	0.81	134.72	134.72	134.72	134.72
Zinc + Borax + Biozyme	Kg	15	2.71	40.58	40.58	40.58	40.58
Fungicide	Kg	10	5.41	54.1	54.1	54.1	54.1
Insecticide	Litre	5	7.21	36.07	36.07	36.07	36.07
Vircon H	Litre	2	9.02	18.03	18.03	18.03	18.03
Micronutrient	Litre	2	4.51	9.02	9.02	9.02	9.02
Ploughing with tractor	Hour	2	18.03	36.07	36.07	36.07	36.07
Electricity for irrigation	Unit	200	0.14	27.05	27.05	27.05	27.05
Bamboo	No.	650	2.71	1758.34	1758.34	1758.34	1758.34
Rope	Kg	300	0.9	270.51	270.51	270.51	270.51
GI wire	Kg	200	1.35	270.51	270.51	270.51	270.51
Sum Input Cost (A)				5040.4	5040.4	4936.7	4936.7
Labour cost (B)
Nursery Preparation	MD	40	6.31	252.48	252.48	252.48	252.48
Bed Preparation	MD	120	6.31	757.44	757.44	757.44	757.44
Watering	MD	90	6.31	568.08	631.2	631.2	631.2
Weeding + top dressing	MD	80	6.31	504.96	441.84	441.84	441.84
Staking	MD	150	6.31	946.8	1009.92	1009.92	1009.92
Spraying	MD	30	6.31	189.36	189.36	189.36	189.36
Harvesting	MD	60	6.31	378.72	315.6	315.6	315.6
Sum Labour Cost (B)				3597.84	3597.84	3597.84	3597.84
Total Cost (A + B) ($)				8638.23	8638.23	8534.54	8534.54
Cost of Plastic house per season ($)				0	4502.55	0	4502.55
Grand Total Cost ($)				8638.23	13140.78	8534.54	13037.09