Present Status of Guava Research and Future Thrusts in India · ABSTRACT : Guava (Psidium guajava L.) is considered poor man’s fruit or ‘apple of tropics’. Guava fruits are

Haryana J. hortic. Sci., 40 (3 & 4) : 105-116 (2011)

Present Status of Guava Research and Future Thrusts in India

SATPAL BALODA, J. R. SHARMA, S. K. SEHRAWAT, V. P. AHLAWAT, S. K. BHATIA AND D. S. DAHIYADepartment of Horticulture, CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar-125 004 (Haryana), India

ABSTRACT : Guava (Psidium guajava L.) is considered poor man’s fruit or ‘apple of tropics’. Guava fruits are used for both,fresh consumption and processing. The roots, bark, leaves and immature fruits, because of their astringency, are commonlyemployed to halt gastroenteritis, diarrhea and dysentery. Hisar Safeda and Hisar Surkha were released from CCSHAU, Hisar.Aneuploid No. 82, a tetrasomic, has been found to have a strong potentiality of its use as dwarfing rootstock. In northern India,guava is propagated by inarching and layering is being commercially followed in southern and western India. The main aim ofcrop regulation in guava is to get winter season crop instead of rainy season. Growth regulators like NAA, NAD and 2, 4-D havebeen found to be effective in thinning of flowers and also manipulating the cropping season. For guava growing regions of thecountry, different fertilizer schedules 600 g N, 400 g K in northern region, 260 g N and 260 g K in eastern region, 900 g N, 600P, 600 g K in southern region and 600 g N, 300 g P and 300 g K/plant/year in western region have been recommended. The mostserious limitation of guava cultivation is wilt disease. Fully grown up trees bearing full crop start wilting and drying suddenly ina period of few years, the orchard is wiped out. Fruit drop is a serious disorder in guava resulting in about 45-65% loss. The plantsstart bearing at an early age of 2-3 years but they attain full bearing capacity at the age of 8-10 years. Guava fruits have very shortshelf life making it difficult for distant marketing. For long distance transportation, use of refrigerated transport and also properpackaging is required to enhance the shelf life of fruits. Yield may be increased manifold by adopting the high density planting(meadow orchard system). The future thrust areas for crop improvement, crop production, post-harvest technology and strategiesfor export/marketing have been discussed.

Key words : Guava, importance, species, varieties, future strategies

India has a wide variety of climate and soil on whicha large range of horticultural crops are grown.Horticulture is the fastest growing sector withinagriculture. It contributes mainly to nutrient securityand has good scope for farmers to increase theirincome and helpful in sustaining large number of agro-based industries which generate huge employmentopportunities. On account of diverse agro-climaticconditions and rich variability available in geneticresources, India became the largest producer andexporter of mango, banana, sapota and acid lime. Thetotal area under fruit crops was 5.775 million ha withproduction of 63.503 million tonnes during 2007-08.The total fruit production increased three-fold fromthe two-fold increased area. Guava (Psidium guajavaL.) is an important fruit crop of India and is consideredpoor man’s fruit or ‘apple of tropics’ as reported bySingh (36). Guava accounts for 3.1% each of the totalarea and production, respectively. The area underguava is 2.05 lakh ha with a production of 24.62 lakhtonnes. Maharashtra, Bihar, Orissa, Uttar Pradesh andWest Bengal are the major states growing guava.Productivity is maximum in Karnataka (21.65 t/ha)followed by Gujarat (15.2 t/ha), Andhra Pradesh (14.0t/ha) and Uttar Pradesh (12.0 t/ha) as reported by Singhand Palaniswami (39). Its production is low in India.The yield of guava declined (18.8%) from 1970 to2009. There has been negative growth in theproductivity of guava. Thus, at the country level,increase in total culture production was attributed

mainly to increase in area in guava and other fruitcrops. The coefficient of variation (c.v.) in area wasobserved to be lowest in guava (26.94%). In case ofproduction variability was observed in guava(23.71%). As far as yield is concerned, the lowvariability in guava (7.17%) was reported by Singh(38).

The Plant and its Importance

The guava belongs to the genus Psidium, familyMyrtaceae which comprises approximately 153species of trees and 20 species have edible fruits asreported by Yadav (46). Out of these, the commonguava, Psidium guajava is commercially andeconomically utilized so far. The plant is a shallowrooted shrub or a small tree up to 33 feet with spreadingbranches close to the ground. Young twigs arequadrangular and downy with opposite decussate withshort petiole leaves. The guava trees produce a largenumber of fruits which vary in colour, size, flavourand have a characteristics musky odour. Reddy et al.(34) observed that guava was considered as one of theexquisite, nutritionally valuable and remunerativecrops. Guava fruits are used for both, freshconsumption and processing. It excels most other fruittrees in productivity, hardness, adaptability and vitaminC content. Besides its high nutritive value, it bearsheavy crop every year and gives good economicreturns involving very little input. This has promoted

various farmers to take up guava cultivation oncommercial scale. The fruit pulp is a commercialsource of pectin and oil from its seed. Ripe guavas areprocessed into innumerable products like shells,concentrated pulp, paste jelly, jam, juice powder andconfectionaries are a few among them. The wood isvalued for engravings, useful as tool handles and inmaking implements. The leaves bark and immaturefruits are rich in tannin and used for drying. The roots,bark, leaves and immature fruits can be used in localmedicine. The roots, bark, leaves and immature fruits,because of their astringency, are commonly employedto halt gastroenteritis, diarrhea and dysentery. Crushedleaves are applied on dysentery. Crushed leaves areapplied on wounds, ulcers and rheumatic places andthe leaves are chewed to relieve toothache. The driedleaves are also used as remedy for cough, throat andchest ailments, gargled to relieve oral ulcers andinflamed gums. It has been effective in haltingvomiting and diarrhea in cholera patients. It is alsoapplied on skin diseases. The leaf infusion is prescribedin cerebral ailments, nephritis and cachexia. An extractis given in epilepsy and a tincture is rubbed on thespine of children on convulsions. A combined mixtureof leaves and bark is given to expel the placenta afterchildbirth. It is rich in fibre content and helps inkeeping blood pressure and cholesterol in check andtherefore helps in fighting many heart ailments.Lycopene, a compound, present in the fruit reducesthe risk of cancer, if the fruit is consumed on regularbasis. Consumption of guava also helps in menstrualproblems. The fruit is also beneficial for treating maleinfertility (due to high vitamin content) caused bysperm clumping, adhesion and other abnormalities.

Food value per 100 g edible portion

Calories 36-50Moisture 75-86 gCrude fibre 2.8-55 gProtein 0.9-1.0 gFat 0.1-0.5 gAsh 0.43-0.7 gCarbohydrates 9.5-10 gCalcium 9.1-17 mgPhosphorus 17.8-30 mgIron 0.30-0.70 mgCarotene (Vitamin A) 200-400 I. U.Thiamine 0.046 mgRiboflavin 0.03-0.04 mgNiacin 0.6-1.068 mg

Vitamin B3 40 I. U.Vitamin B4 35 I. U.

Characteristics of Important Species

1. Psidium guineense

It is also known as Guinea or Brazilian guava. Theplants are like shrub or small tree. It is wilt resistant.Average fruit weight is about 6 g. Poor quality fruits.2. Psidium pomiferumIt bears round shaped fruits.3. Psidium pyriferumIt bears pear shaped fruits.4. Psidium montanumIt is also called as mountain guava. Plants are just likeshrub and attain a height of about 1.5 m. It is found inmountains of Jamaica. Fruits are round with very poorquality.5. Psidium friedrichsthalianumIt is also called as Chinese guava; resistant to wilt.Fruits are small globose in shape and have high acidcontent.6. Psidium cattleianumIt is also known as Cattley guava or Strawberry guava.It is shrub or small tree. Fruits are small, deep scarletin colour and globose in shape. More tolerant to lowtemperature than Psidium guajava.7. Psidium molleTree is medium in height. Fruits are small in size.Average fruit weight is 13 g.8. Psidium pumilumIt is also known as Chinese guava. Tree is likepyramidal in shape, flowers twice a year. Average fruitweight is about 19 g.9. Psidium cujavillusGrowth and flowering habit is just like Psidiumguineense. The fruit is small to medium, average fruitweight is 30-50 g and sour in taste.10. Psidium policarpumThe growth characters are similar to Psidium guajava,except the fruit shape is pyriform. Average fruit weightis 200-250 g.Electrophoretic pattern of 11 genotypes of commonguava (Psidium guajava L.) and three wild specieswas analysed by SDS-PAGE. Similarity index wascalculated to establish diversity. Higher SI values wereobtained between cultivar of P. guajava and otherPsidium spp. which indicated a close relationshipamong them. Cluster analysis based on SDS-PAGEof seed proteins revealed that the genetic diversity

106 Baloda and others

within Psidium spp. was low as reported by Raghavaand Tiwari (30).

Availability of Guava Species in India

1. Psidium pumilum – HETC, Basti and Saharanpur2. Psidium montanum – IIHR, Bangalore3. Psidium guineense – HETC, Basti and NDUA & T,

Faizabad.4. Psidium friedrichsthalianum – HETC, Basti and

NDUA & T, Faizabad.5. Psidium cujavillus – HETC, Basti and NDUA & T,

Faizabad.6. Psidium chinensis – HETC, Basti and NDUA & T,

Faizabad.7. Psidium cattleianum – HETC Basti and NDUA &

T, Faizabad.8. Psidium acutangulam – IIHR, Bangalore9. Psidium oraca – HETC, Basti

RESEARCH ACHIEVEMENTS

Crop Improvement

In India, guava improvement programme was initatedduring 1907 at Ganesh Khind Fruit ExperimentalStation, Pune as observed by Phadnis (29) with theobjectives to develop dwarf as well as high yielding,good post-harvest characteristics in fruits and to evolveresistant times to biotic and abiotic stresses. Thesystematic breeding work done for the improvementin guava was reviewed by Subramanyan and Iyer (42).As a result, many varieties and hybrids of agronomicand commercial importance have been evolvedthrough selection and hybridization. Most of thepopular varieties existing today were developed fromselections out of 600 seedlings selected from thedifferent regions of the country. Lucknow 49 wasidentified by Cheema and Deshmukh (3) as apromising strain evolved from the open pollinatedseedlings of Allahabad Safeda. This variety haddistinguishing characters like spreading growth habit,large globose fruits with white flesh, high TSS content,sugar : acid ratio and yield. A large germplasm of guavawas established and evaluated for morphologicalcharacters, fruit quality and yield at Central Instituteof Sub-tropical Horticutlure, Lucknow where after theevaluation of 20 varieties, Lucknow 49 was found tobe best as observed by Chadha et al. (2). In Karnataka,16 high yielding seedlings were selected from a varietynamed after a village i. e. Navalur which was hardy,

drought tolerant and canker resistant as observed byHulamani et al. (12). At Narenda Dev University ofAgriculture & Technology, three seedlings ofAllahabad Safeda (AS1, AS2 and AS3) and twoseedlings of Faizabad selection (FS1 and FS2) werefound to be the best with respect to fruit quality andyield as observed by Pathak and Dwivedi (28).Similarly, from Indian Institute of Horticulture,Bangalore, two varieties i. e. Arka Mridula (Selection8) and Arka Amulya were released as reported by Iyarand Subramanyan (13). They are high yielder, dwarfplant, fruits white fleshed with high sugar and TSScontent, soft seeded with good keeping quality. Hybrid-1 and Hybrid 16-1 were also released from IIHR,Bangalore as reported by Subramanyan and Iyer (41).Ghosh et al. (9) mentioned the characteristics of a fewpromising guava hybrids i. e. Hybrid-45, 53, 58, 84and 161 at IIHR, Bangalore.Arka Amulya : This variety was evolved at the IIHR,Bangalore. Tree is semi-vigorous and heavy yielder.Fruit is medium (180-200 g) with soft seeds (weightof 100 seeds is 1.80 g), white and sweet pulp (TSS12º Brix) with good keeping quality.Arka Mridula : It is a seedling selection of AllahabadSafeda released from the IIHR, Bangalore. Fruit issmooth and medium (180-200 g) with soft seeds(weight of 100 seeds is 1.60 g), white and sweet pulp(TSS 12.5º Brix) and good pectin content (1.04%) andkeeping quality is good.The hybrids Safed Jam and Kohir Safed were releasedfrom A. P. University Station (22). Three selections,namely, Lalit, CISH-G-1 and CISH-G-2 have beendeveloped from CISH, Lucknow for domestic andexport market as reported by Ghosh (8).Lalit : It is a chance seedling selected from thepopulation of a red pulped guava collected fromAllahbad area and raised at CISH, Lucknow. Tree isheavy yielder with 24% higher yield than AllahabadSafeda. Fruit is attractive saffron yellow with red blushand medium in size (185 g). Pulp is firm and pinkwith good blend of sugar and acid. It is suitable forboth table use and processing for making beverageand jelly. Pink colour in the beverage made from itspulp remains stable for more than a year during storage.CISH-G-1 : This is a seedling selection made byprogeny grown from seeds of coloured guava. Tree ofmedium height with sparse foliage. Fruit mediumsized, attractive red coloured with soft seed, TSS is15ºBrix and having good shelf life.Sweta : This is a chance seedling selection ofAllahabad Safeda released during 2005 at CISH,

Haryana Journal of Horticultural Sciences 107

Lucknow. High yielding attractive guava variety withglobose fruits, medium size, creamy white flesh, highTSS (12.5-15.3º Brix) and vitamin C (300 mg/100 gpulp) with good keeping quality.At Fruit Research Station, Rewa the cultivar Chittidar,Dhareedar and Rewa-72 are being recommended forcommercial cultivation.Dhareedar : It was selected from old seedling orchardof F. R. S., Kuthulia (Rewa). Tree is vigorous mediumtall (4.5-5.5 m) with erect and uprighting branches andflat crown and leaf medium in size. Fruit medium tolarge with 160 g fruit weight, 5-7 raised lines on thesurfaces of mature fruit, peel greenish yellow, pulpsoft, TSS (11.7%), reducing sugar (4.31%), non-reducing sugar (5.42%), acidity 0.32% and ascorbicacid 200.08 mg/100 g fruits.Pant Parbhat : This variety was selected at theGBPUA & T, Pantnagar (Uttarakhand). Plant growthis upright with broad leaves, tree highly productive(100-125 kg), fruits round, peel smooth and lightyellow in colour, fruit medium (150-175 g), seeds smalland soft as compared to Sardar, sweet taste withpleasant flavour, ascorbic acid content varies from 125mg (rainy season) to 300 mg/100 g fruit (winterseason). TSS varies from 10.5 to 13.5º Brix. Hisar Safeda and Hisar Surkha were released fromCCS HAU, Hisar.Hisar Safeda : It was selected from a cross betweenAllahabad Safeda and Seedless. Plant growth isupright, Compact crown, fruit round (92 g), pulpcreamy white & less seeds and fruit soft.Hisar Surkha : It was selected from across betweenApple Colour x Banarasi Surkha. Plant is medium inheight and broad to compact crown, fruit round (8.6g). Pulp is pink.Marak and Mukunda (18) reported that A. C. Seln. 6/10 was an outstanding one with dwarf stature (1.98m), moderate yield with medium to large sized fruit(143.43 g), attractive shape, good volume (165.28 ml),high TSS (13.80°B), moderate acidity (0.37% citricacidity) and high ascorbic acid (194.85 mg/100 g)content. The total & reducing sugars (4.46%) and non-reducing sugar (3.80%) were also high in this selectionwith moderate to good sugar/acid blend (22.10). Thefruits are very attractive, uniformly bright red in colourwith lycopene pigment of 3.61 mg/100 g of fruit. Thefruits fetch the highest score in characteristics such aspeel colour (13.45 out of 15), pulp colour (12.20 outof 15) and the organoleptic taste of pulp (22.30 scoreout of 30). Negi and Shailendra (25) observed thatseedless cultivars of guava have been found to be

autotriploids (2n=33). Crosses made between Seedlesstriploid and seeded diploid cultivar Allahabad Safedaproduced several aneuploids. Three tetrasomic plantshad dwarf growth habit and normal shape and size offruits with less number of seeds. Aneuploid No. 82, atetrasomic, has been found to have a strong potentialityof its use as dwarfing rootstock.

Genetic Resources Resistance for Biotic Stress

Wilt : Psidium friedrichsthaliamum and Psidiumcryanillus rootstock has been reported to increaseguava yield by 2-2.3 times. P. chinensis and Feijoasellowiana rootstocks are resistant to wilt as reportedby Singh and Manivannan (35).

Genetic Resources Resistance/Tolerance for AbioticStresses

1. Drought : Lucknow-49, Allahabad Safeda Chittidar,Safed Jam and Kohir Safed cultivars are tolerant todrought.2. Cold : Allahabad Safeda and the rootstock Psidiumcattleianumt.

Genetic Resources for Quality and Yield Traits

1. High yield : Lucknow-49, Allahabad Safeda, HisarSafeda, Lalit, Rewa-72, Chittidar, Dharreedar, ArkaMridula and CISH-G4.2. Pink skin colour : Apple colour, CISHG-1, CISHG-2 and Allahabad Surkha.3. Pink flesh colour : Ruby, Blitch, Red fleshed,Anakapalli, Super acid, Hybrid Ruby supreme,Purtagal and Hisar Surkha.4. Pink skin with pink flesh colour : Lal Sahiba andSangam.5. Juice making : Safed Jam and Kohir Safeda.6. Soft seed : Safed Jam, Kohir Safeda and Chittidar.7. High TSS : Allahabad Safeda, Chittidar, CISH-G-1 and Kothred.8. Dwarf rootstock : Psidium chinensis, Aneuploid-82 and Hybrid-1.9. Good keeping quality : Arka Mridula and ArkaAmulya.

Biotechnology Applications in Crop Improvement

DNA based markers are powerful and reliable toolsfor a variety of purposes including variation withinthe crop germplasm, tagging of genes for


agronomically important traits and genome mapping.A variety of molecular markers have been developedfor these purposes. Some of the DNA markers areRFLPS, RAPDs, SCARs, DAF, Minisatellites, Microsatellites, or SSRs, ISSRs, AFLPs, S-SAPs, REMAPand IRAPs. The role of DNA markers in cropimprovement has been reviewed by many authors (14,44). The molecular markers are speciallyadvantageous for improving agronomic traits inperennial fruit crops. Unfortunately, information onthese aspects assisted by molecular marker aidedstudies is lacking in guava. Mishra et al. (19) reportedthat percentage of rooting was less in P.friedrichsthalianum (8.88%), while there was norooting in P. molle and P. araca. Significantly highersurvival (96.66%) was observed in P. chinensis,which was found easy to root and also produced more

number of feeder roots. This was closely followedby P. cujavillus and P. guineese. Emergence of newleaves per shoot varied greatly and shoots of P.chinensis produced maximum (8.66) leaves followedby P. guineese (7.0) and P. cujaviltus (7.0). Maximumnumber of primary and secondary roots was foundin P. chinensis followed by P. cujavillus. Rai et al.(31) reported that organogenesis in several differentgenotypes through various explant selections frommature tree and seedling plants was achieved.Production of synthetic seeds using embryogenicpropagules i. e. somatic embryos and non-embryogenic vegetative propagates i. e. shoot tipsand nodal segments have also been achieved.Development of synthetic seed to guava may beapplicable for propagation, short term storage, andgermplasm exchange and distribution.

State Varieties grown

Andhra Pradesh Allahabad Safeda, Lucknow 49, Anakapalli, Banarasi, Chittidar and HafshiMadhya Pradesh L-49, Allahabad Safeda, Gwalior-27, Hafshi and Seedless ChittidarJharkhad L-49 and Allahabad SafedaKarnataka Allahabad Safeda, L-49, Araka Mridula, Araka Amulya, Bangalore and DharwarAssam Am Sophri, Madhuri Am and Safrior PayereBihar and Jharkhand Allahabad Safeda, Apple Colour, Chittidar, Hafshi, Harijha, Sardar and Selection-8Maharashtra and Gujarat Nagpur Seedless, Dharwar, Dholka, Kothrud, L-24, L-49, Nasik and SindhNorth-eastern States Allahabad Safeda, Sardar and Red Fleshed.Tamil Nadu Anakapalli, Banarasi, Bangalore, Chiffidar, Hafshi, Nagpur Seedless and Smooth GreenUttar Pradesh L-49, Allahabad Safeda, Lucknow Safedi, Apple Colour, Chiftidar, Red Fleshed, Allahabad

Surkha, Sardar, Mirzapuri Seedless, CISH-G-1, CISH-G-2 and CISH-G-3West Bengal L-49, Allahabad Safeda, Dudhe Khaja, Gole Khaja, Kabli, Baruipur, Chittidar, Harijha

and SardarHaryana L-49, Hisar Safeda, Hisar Surkha, Allahabad Safeda

Agrotechniques/Production Technology

Varieties cultivated : Important guava varietiescultivated in different states of India are given below :

Planting system : Various planting systems i. e.square, hedge row, double hedge row (high densityplanting) paired and cluster planting are beingcompared for plant growth and yield characteristics.Double hedge row planting (High density planting)causes erect growth of branches making the plant tallycompact and also gives the higher yield/unit area.Standard spacing is 6 x 6 m accommodating 110 plants/acre.Propagation : Guava is propagated by seeds andvegetative.Seed propagation : The propagation of guava through

seeds should not be encouraged because seedlingshave long juvenile phase, give lower yields and poorquality fruits. The seedling also serves as rootstockmaterial for grafting and budding.Vegetative propagation : In northern India, guava ispropagated by inarching, giving a very high percentageof success during rainy season. But inarching iscumbersome and gives limited number of plants fromthe mother plant. Budding has been adopted only on alimited scale in some parts of the country where theatmospheric humidity is high. Among the variousmethods of budding, patch budding is an ideal givinghighest percentage of success. However, the best timeof budding differs from region to region.Layering is being commercially followed in southernand western India. Layering is a labour intensivemethod. A limited number of plants can only be


multiplied from a mother plant. The main limitationof air layering is the poor establishment of air layeringin the nursery after detachment from the mother plant.Training/Pruning : Traditionally no pruining isdone in guava because the plant bears heavily. Itresults in limb breakage due to heavy fruit load andover crowding. Therefore, training of plants inyoung stage to build strong framework and to avoidweak crotches is necessary, whereas fruiting treesshould be trained as low headed trees to facilitatemultiple hand picking. The open centre system maybe adopted. In every growing season, a large numberof new shoots emerge on guava tree and majorityof these are lateral. Vary few are terminal. Theseshoots produce fruits. After one year most of thelateral shoots dry out, while terminal shoots put forththe extension growth. Hence, to check the over-crowding and to control the plant height, theterminal shoots on the periphery may be headedback at about 40 cm level in alternate years. Pruningalso takes place during harvesting as the fruits areplucked along with the shoot on which it is borne.Pruning is usually recommended after harvestingor in spring. Summer pruning may damage the plantby sun burning.

Canopy Management in Guava

Untrained or unpruned guava trees become huge andunmanageable after a few years of growth. The bearingarea is reduced and the interior of plants becomesentirely without fruits. Trees are topped to a uniformheight of 60-70 cm from the ground level, 2-3 monthsafter planting to induce the emergence of new growthbelow the cut points. Three to four equally spacedshoots are retained around the stem to form the mainscaffold limbs of tree. These shoots are allowed togrow for 4-5 months after topping until they attain alength of 40-50 cm. The selected shoots are furtherpruned to 50% of their length for inducing multipleshoots from the buds below the cut end. Newlyemerged shoots are allowed to grow up to 40-50 cmand pruned once again for emergence of new shoots.This is chiefly done to obtain the desired shape. Thepruning operations continue during the second yearafter planting. After two years, short branches withinthe tree canopy produce a compact and strongstructure. All the plants are confined to a hedge shapeof 2 m inter-row width and 2.5 m height for whichpruning is performed in January and May-June everyyear.

Establishing Meadow Orchard

In this system, planting is done at 2.0 m (row to row)x 1.0 m (plant to plant), accommodating 5,000 plants/ha. Initially, trees are pruned and trained to allowmaximum production of quality fruits during first year.A single trunk tree with no interfering branches up to30-40 cm from the ground level is desirable to makedwarf tree architecture. After a period of 1-2 monthsof planting, all the trees are topped at a uniform heightof 30-40 cm from the ground level for initiation ofnew growth below the cut ends. No side shoots orbranches should remain after topping. This is done tomake a single trunk straight up to 40 cm height. After15-20 days of topping, new shoots emerge. In general,3-4 shoots are retained below the cut point aftertopping. As shoots mature, generally after a period of3-4 months, they are reduced by 50% of their totallength so that new shoots emerge below the cut point.This is done to attain the desired tree canopyarchitecture and strong framework. The emergedshoots are allowed to grow for 3-4 months before theyare again pruned by 50%. After pruning, new shootsemerge on which flowering takes place. It isemphasized that pruning of shoot is done thrice a year.This leads to desired canopy development. Thoughfruiting starts in the same year, one cannot expect fruitson each and every shoot. Pruning is continued so thatplants remain dwarf. After a year, pruning operationis done especially in May-June, September-Octoberand January-February. New shoots emerge afterpruning of shoots during January-February. On theseshoots, flowering takes place and fruiting is obtainedduring July-September. Second time pruning is donein May-June. After pruning, once again shoots emergeand flowering takes place, which yields fruits duringDecember-February. These shoots are further prunedfor the third time in September-October It is doneprimarily for better canopy development. As a resultof pruning in October, fruiting is obtained inMarch-April. This is the technique for maintaining ameadow orchard for optimum yield and dwarf tree size.

Crop Regulation

The main aim of crop regulation in guava is to getwinter season crop instead of rainy season. A numberof treatments have been tried during the past twodecades with varying results but all of them havesucceeded in increasing the winter crop. At Pantnagar,three fourth shoot pruning and half shoot pruning


increased winter season crop as well as total yield. AtFaizabad, urea (10%) spray gave the highest yield inwinter season but flower drop was only 20-30%,whereas total flower drop was obtained with 1500 ppmethephon. At Sabour and Udaipur, foliar spray of 15%urea at 50% bloom stage followed by second spray ofthe same 10 days later produced the highest yield.Dubey et al. (6) observed that the drip irrigationincreased plant growth with respect to height, girthand spread compared to the control treatment. Plantheight was highest (116.6 cm) with 60% wetted areadaily irrigation, followed by 60% wetted area atalternate day interval. Stem girth was highest (18.90cm) with 60% wetted area at 4th day interval. Increasein plant spread was highest (98.30 cm) with 60%wetted area daily irrigation, followed by alternate and4th day irrigation with the same intensity. Hence,growth increase was highest with 60% wetted areadaily irrigation. Drip irrigation with 40, 50 and 60%wetted area proved effective in increasing the NPK,Ca and Mg levels and reducing the Na content ofleaves compared to the control. Plants irrigated dailywith 60% wetted area had the highest percentage of N(2.69), P (0.24), K (1.38), Ca (2.24) and Mg (1.10)and lowest percentage of Na (0.12) in the leaves.

Rejuvenation of Senile Orchards

Singh (37) reported that the rejuvenation technologyinvolved heading back of exhausted trees (showingmarked decline in annual production) to the extent of1.0-1.5 m height above the ground level, during May-June or December-February to facilitate productionof new shoots below cut points and allow thedevelopment of fresh canopy of healthy shoots. Thenewly emerging shoots are allowed to grow up to alength of 40-50 cm, about 40 which could be attainedin 4-5 months of rejuvenation pruning. These shootsare further pruned out to about 50% of their total lengthfor emergence of multiple shoots. This is mainly doneto modify the tree structure and maintain proper canopysize. The multiple shoots developed as a result ofpruning are capable of producing flower buds for therainy season crop. The farmers who are keen to takerainy season crop can allow the shoots to bear budsand fruits. However, as the winter crop has moremarketing edge and value, due to quality, taste andfruits being free of pest, it is desirable to promote fruitload in winter season. Hence, to check the onset ofthe rainy season crop, shoot pruning (50%) is doneagain in May-June. The new shoots emerging after

May-June pruning are found to have better floweringand fruiting in winter crop. This technology ofsequential and periodic pruning is continued every yearfor proper shape and canopy development to ensureenhanced production of quality fruits.

Nutrient Management

Among the various factors which affect the productionand productivity of guava, nutrient assumes muchmore significance. It is essentially required to bemanaged in a manner, which provides maximumoutput. Inadequacy of one or other nutrients at criticalstage of fruit development adversely affects theproductivity and quality of produce. Response of guavais reported to NPK and application of Ca, Mg, Zn andBo is also observed to be essential in given situation.Singh and Singh (40) observed that soil nutrient statuswas not a guide nutritional monitoring, thus leafnutrient standard is considered to be related with yieldand quality. A sampling of two months pair of leaveson fruiting terminal is appropriate for nutrientdiagnosis. For guava growing regions of the country,different fertilizer schedules 600 g N, 400 g K innorthern region, 260 g N and 260 g K in eastern region,900 g N, 600 g P, 600 g K in southern region and 600g N, 300 g P and 300 g K/plant/year in western regionhave been recommended. Time of fertilizer applicationdepends on the crop taken and the region. Guava alsosuffers a deficiency which is characterized byreduction in leaf size, intervenal chlorosis, andsuppression of growth and dieback. It can be correctedby spraying of ZnSO4 (0.45 kg) and hydrated lime(0.32 kg) in water (33 litre). Das et al. (5) reportedthat zinc sulfate (0.5 or 1.0%) concentrations increasedthe total, reducing and non-reducing sugar contentsof fruits. Greater increase, however, was recorded for1.0%. The improvement in fruit sweetness due to zincsulfate started 15 days after spraying when the fruitswere in the early developmental stage. Uma Shankaret al. (45) reported that the highest fruit yields (kg perseason) during the rainy season were obtained withthe application of N+P+K at 225+50+75 (55.87),225+50+150 (49.50) and 225+150+225 g per plant(50.35), respectively, before flowering and after fruitset. In winter, the highest fruit yield was obtained with225 g N+150 g P+225 g K applied before floweringand after fruit set. During the rainy and winter seasons,the highest total soluble solids (11.61-11.66 and15.60%), ascorbic acid (169.66-171.59 and 269.33-285.15 mg/100 g), reducing sugar (5.25 and 7.56-


7.60%) and total sugar (8.33-8.37 and 10.10-10.31%)contents were obtained with the application of N+P+K225+150+150 and 225+150+225 g per plant. Mishraet al. (20) observed that optimum leaf nutrient contentshad been obtained in the range of 1.63-1.96% (N),0.18-0.24% (P), 1.31-1.71% (K), 0.76-0.83% (Ca) and0.52-0.65% (Mg), 10 ppm (B), 77.5 ppm (Zn) and 75ppm (Cu) C. For winter crop, total quantity of theorganic manure, P and K and half dose of the N havebeen recommended with the first shower (June-July).Dantas et al. (4) reported that the treatments weremanure application in soil combined with mineralfertilizers and humic substances applied throughirrigation water. The results showed that the fertigationtreatments and plant age did not present conclusiveeffects in guava leaf contents of carbohydrates,proteins and amino acids. On the other side, the leafcontents of these compounds were influenced by theweather conditions. Ram et al. (32) reported thatmaximum increase in plant height (0.45 m), plantspread (0.34 m, E-W & 0.57 m, N-S) was recordedwith dose of 250 g N, 100 g P, 250 g K< C 10 kg FYMand 250 g Azotobacter. Number of fruits (1200/tree),yield (150.25 kg/tree) and fruit quality parameters suchas TSS (total soluble solids), reducing sugars (13.5°Brix & 3.50%) were also higher with same treatments.Naik and Babu (24) reported that treatment withvermicompost resulted in maximum number of shoots/plant, more number of leaves/shoot and highest yield.Application of animal manures produced more numberof fruits/shoot. Percentage fruit drop was nil withsheep, goat and leaf litter application, but was higherwith vermicompost and poultry manures. The heaviestfruits were obtained under treatments with sheep andgoat manures. The fruit yield was better with chemicalfertilizers and good with poultry manures. TSS (totalsoluble solids) was highest with animal manures andleast in control. Acidity was highest under FYMtreatment closely followed by vermicompost. Ascorbicacid content was highest in pig manure treatment,whereas total and reducing sugars were maximal withgoat manure. Kundu et al. (16) reported that themaximum yield (48.09 kg/plant) was recorded bycombined spraying of 3% urea and 2% each of calciumphosphate and muriate of potash, while spraying with3% urea in combination with calcium phosphate (2%)and muriate of potash (1%) showed the maximumindividual fruit weight (157.1 g). The quality of fruitsshowed marked improvement by spraying with higherdoses of muriate of potash alone or in combinationwith urea and calcium phosphate. Combined sprayingof urea (1%), calcium phosphate (2%) and muriate of

potash (2%), urea (3%) along with calcium phosphate(1%) and muriate of potash (2%) showed maximumTSS (12.03°B) and ascorbic acid (252.4 mg 100 gpulp). Katiyar et al. (15) reported that the combinationof 400 g N+60 kg farm yard manure+20 g Zn improvedthe quality of fruit revealing significant improvementin the weight of individual fruit and yield per plantwhich increased by 28.6% compared to 400 g Napplied alone. Baksh et al. (1) reported that maximumincrement in growth parameters (plant height, spreadand trunk girth), improvement in yield and yieldattributing characters (fruit-set, retention andindividual fruit weight) and quality of fruits i. e. totalsoluble solids, ascorbic acid, reducing and. non-reducing sugars were recorded with 100% NPK+250g phosphate solubilizing bacteria (PSB)+250 gAzotobacter, which was at par with 75% NPK+250 gPSB+250 g Azotobacter. Maji and Das (17) reportedthat it was revealed that average fruit weight wasmaximum (117.38 g) under mulching with sugarcanetrash, followed by paddy straw (98.80 g). Sugarcanetrash also gave the excellent result for the improvementof fruit. Length (6.20 cm), fruit diameter (5.98 cm),core weight (49.15 g) and pulp weight (68.23 g)followed by dry leaves (fruit length 5.83 cm, fruitdiameter 5.75 cm, core weight 42.05 g) and paddystraw (pulp weight 58.85 g). Although average fruitweight, fruit diameter and pulp weight werestatistically non-significant. Sawdust produced fruitshaving highest total soluble solids (12.20°B), totalsugar (5.95%) and lowest acidity (0.260%). Thehighest vitamin C content (189.792 mg/100 g fruitpulp), acidity (0.558%) and reducing sugar (4.43) werefound with black polythene mulching. Dutta et al. (7)reported that Azospirillum+VAM inoculation alongwith 100% N+100% P2O5 showed maximum plantheight and spread, while control recorded minimum.Inoculation of Azospirillum and VAM along withinorganic fertilizers also proved effective in increasingthe total soluble solid, total sugar and ascorbic acidcontent of fruits, while acid content declined throughthe inoculation of bio-fertilizers. Azospirillum andVAM along with inorganic fertilizers under integratednutrient management systems of guava plantation forachieving better yield and quality fruits. Mitra et al.(23) reported that maximum fruit set of 71.4% andyield of 3.49 t/ha were recorded by the application of50 g N, 40 g P2O5 and 50 g K2O/plant/year of agealong with 5 kg neem cake/tree/year during the rainyseason. During the winter season the application of50 g N, 40 g P2O5 and 50 g K2O/plant/year of agealong with 10 kg of farm yard manure and 20 kg of


Azotobacter tree recorded the maximum of 45.5% fruitset. Fruit quality (total soluble solids, total sugar,acidity, ascorbic acid and pectin content of fruit) inboth rainy and winter are found superior in fruit fromthe plants receiving 50 g N, 40 g P2O5 and 50 g/plant/year of age along with 5 kg of neem cake/tree/year.

Growth Regulators

The winter crop is much superior in quality comparedto the monsoon crop. Farmers often reduce monsooncrop by deblossoming to get a higher price. This isdone by growth regulators like maleic hydrazide onspring flush of flowers. Growth regulators like NAA,NAD and 2, 4-D have been found to be effective inthinning of flowers and also manipulating the croppingseason as observed by Rao (33).

Diseases of Guava

Wilt disease : Undoubtedly, the most serious limitationof guava cultivation is wilt disease. Fully grown uptrees bearing full crop start wilting and drying suddenlyin a period of few years, the orchard is wiped out. Anumber of pathogens have been isolated from the rootsand twigs of wilt affected plants. The most commonpathogens belonged to Fusarium spp. At CISHLucknow, different potent fungi viz., Gliocladiumroseum, G. penicilloides, G. virens, Fusariumoxysporium and Acremonium sp. artificially inoculatedproduced wilt system. All these pathogens producedwilt symptom but G. roseum was found most potentpathogen in causing wilt on artificial inoculation.Parkash and Pandey (27) observed that technology wasdeveloped to integrate the different control measures.These include bioinoculants i. e. Aspergillus niger,Strain An-17, Trichoderma harzianum andPenicuillum citrinum, intercropping with Curcumadomestica or Tagetes erecta, separate basin irrigationand avoidance of tillage during July to November anduse of resistant rootstock. If these managementpractices are integrated the guava wilt could bemanaged successfully. Techniques have beendeveloped to multiply the bioagent on cheap and easilyavailable field wastes. It is application time and is alsostandardized as reported by Mishra (21). Gill andChahil (10) revealed that increase in wilt incidencefrom 5 to 18% resulted in corresponding decrease infruit yield from 90 to 50 kg per tree. Soil characteristicslike EC (0.11-0.34 dS/m), CaCO3 (0.53-3.03%) andleaf P (0.18-0.30%) were not correlated with the wilt

incidence. Soil pH (7.88-8.62), organic carbon (0.16-0.36%), leaf N (1.29-2.10%) and number of irrigations(13-22) were significantly and positively correlatedwith the wilt incidence, whereas leaf K (0.86-1.22%)was significantly and negatively correlated with thewilt incidence.

Other diseases : Guava is prone to attack by range ofdiseases from root to the crown fruits due to wide rangeof variation in the climatic conditions. A number ofplant pathogens of fungal origins have been reportedincluding bacterial, algae and nematodes, which arefound to cause various types of diseases. Under pre-harvest, pathogens cause various types of infectionslike wilt anthracnose, rots, rust, dieback leaf spot anddamping off. Botryopahaeria rot and Hyaloderma leafspot causing serious problems in South India are beingreported for the first time. Guava production is mostsuccessful in regions where flowering and fruitingoccur in the dry season, which don’t favouranthracnose, styler end rot. Incidence of diseasesdepends upon the extent of fruit senescence and theamount often doubled two or three days after ripening.Diseases are numerous and control begins in theorchard with preventive measures against variousdiseases. Protective sprays against anthracnose, stylerend rot and various types of rots can greatly enhancethe performance of orchard sprays. Hence, pre-harvesttreatment with safer chemicals including IPM is anappropriate strategy in situation where considerableharvest injury losses are anticipated. Application ofcarbendazim 1 g/l or mancozeb 2 g/l depending uponthe type of infection has been found to be effective incontrolling the diseases.

Insect-Pest Problems

About 80 species of insect-pests have been recordedon guava but only few of them had been identified aspest of regular occurrence and causing serious damage.These are bark eating caterpillar (Inderbela spp.), fruitfly (Bactrocera spp.) and scale insect(Chloropulvinaria psiddii). The bark eating caterpillarand fruit flies have wide distribution, while scaleinsects and mealy bugs are more common in SouthIndia and tea mosquito bug (Helopeltis antonii) inCentral India as reported by Haseeb (11). However,studies conducted in the recent past revealed some ofthe important facts throwing further light on theoccurrence and status of insect-pests on this crop.Intensive surveys of guava growing regions of Uttar


Pradesh revealed that fruit borer, the increase inincidence (2.5-22.5%) with crop loss range of 5.0 to35% common occurrence of another fruit borer(Dichocrocis punctiferalis) in rainy season guava wasalso noticed. Infestation of fruit fly ranged from 20 to46% with crop loss of 16-40%. Infestation of scaleinsects, aphids and mealy bugs on leaves, shoots andfruit are also common in most of the orchards. Theinfestation of these pests results in drying of affectedleaves and twigs which adversely affect growth ofplants, flowering and fruiting spraying with malathion(2 ml) and phosophamidon (0.5 ml/l of water).Monocrotophos and dimethoate, etc. have been foundto be effective in most cases. Apart from that adoptionof suitable cultural practices and destruction ofinfected plants should be done.

Disorders

Fruit drop is a serious disorder in guava resulting inabout 45-65% loss due to different physiological andenvironmental factors. Spray of GA has been foundto be effective in reducing the fruit drop in guava.Bronzing of guava has been observed in places havinglow soil fertility and low pH. Affected plants showpurple to red specks scattered all over the leaves. Underaggravated condition, total defoliation and fruitscharacterized with brown coloured patterns on theskin, with reduced yield are noticed. Foliar applicationof 0.5% diammonium phosphate and zinc sulphate incombination at weekly intervals for two monthsreduces the bronzing in guava. Pre-flowering sprayswith.0.4% boric acid and 0.3% zinc sulphate increasethe yield and fruit size. Spraying of copper sulphate at0.2 to 0.4% also increases the growth and yield ofguava.

Harvesting and Yield

The plants start bearing at an early age of 2-3 yearsbut they attain full bearing capacity at the age of 8-10years. The yield of a plant depends on its age, croppingpattern and the cultural practices. A 10-year old plantyields about 100 to 150 kg fruits every year. If bothrainy and winter season crops are taken, more yieldsmay be obtained in the rainy season. Guavas areharvested throughout the year (except during May andJune) in one or the other region of the country.However, peak harvesting periods in north India areAugust for rainy season crop, November-Decemberfor winter season crop and March-April for spring

season crop. In the mild climatic conditions of the otherparts of the country, the peak harvesting periods arenot so distinct. Guava fruits develop best flavour andaroma only when they ripen on tree. In most of thecommercial varieties, the stage of fruit ripeness isindicated by the colour development which is usuallyyellow. For local markets, fully yellow but firm fruitsare harvested, whereas half yellow fruits are pickedfor distant markets. Fruits are harvested selectively byhand along with the stalk and leaves.

Post-Harvest Management

Grading : Fruits are graded on the basis of theirweight, size and colour.Storage : The fresh fruit has a short shelf life anddistant marketing can be done only if it is properlystored. The shelf life can be extended up to 20 daysby keeping them at low temperature of 50.6 and75-85% relative humidity. It can be stored for about10 days at room temperature (18º-23ºC) in polybagsproviding a ventilation of 0.25%.Packing : The fruits are packed in baskets made fromlocally available plant material. For distant markets,wooden or corrugated fibre board boxes are used alongwith cushioning materials viz., paddy straw dry grass;guava leaves or rough paper. Good ventilation isnecessary to check build up of heat. Guava is a delicatefruit requiring careful handling during harvesting andtransportation. Guavas being perishable in nature areimmediately sent after harvesting in the local marketand only a small quantity in the distant markets.Pandey (26) reported that TSS content of RTSbeverage and squash increased during storage, whereasTSS content decreased in the case of cider. Acidity ofRTS beverage and squash showed slight increaseduring storage, while acidity of cider decreased.Increase in browning and decrease in ascorbic acidcontent were observed during storage of the threeguava beverages. Alcohol content of cider showedincreasing trends up to five months of storage, thenremained constant. The organoleptic quality of RTSbeverage and squash gradually decreased. On the otherhand, improvement in quality was observed in ciderduring storage. The quality of RTS beverage, squashand cider was found acceptable up to 4, 6 and 12months, respectively.

Production Constraints and Future Strategy

In spite of great studies made, the productivity of guava


is still quite low as compared to other fruit crops. Themajor constraints related to low productivity are :• Inferior root stock and poor management.• Majority of holdings are small.• Inadequate supply of good quality planting

materials of improved varieties.• High incidence of insect-pest and disease.

Particularly Guava Wilt.• Lack of advanced technologies for post-

harvest handling, processing and marketing.• Large tracts of low and unproductive

plantations need replacement/rejuvenation.

Future Thrust Areas

I. Crop improvement• Development of high yielding, early, good

quality, insect-pests and disease resistantvarieties.

• Development of dwarfing root stocks for highdensity planting (meadow orchard).

II. Crop production• High density planting (HDP) and

standardization of training and pruning.• Standardization of agro-techniques for HDP.• IPM & IDM for fruit fly, mealy bugs, guava

canker and wilt.• Production of quality planting material of elite

cultivars.III. Post-harvest technology• Use of individual fruit shrink wrapping

technique.• Standardization of packaging technology.• Tetra aseptic packaging for guava juice/RTS

beverage/guava wine/guava toffee/guavajelly.

• Promotion of red flesh genotypes for juicepreparation.

Marketing

There is need to explore newer markets such asEuropean Union and CIS (Commonwealth ofIndependent States) countries and reorient exportsstrategies for the Gulf countries.There is urgent need to create awareness for the exportquality standards such as Good Agricultural Practices(GAP) and Euro GAP standards.Through the National Horticulture Mission (NHM)assistance is being provided to the farmers to producequality planting material of elite cultivars, rejuvenation

of orchards, adoption of new technologies, integratedpest and disease management, integrated nutrientmanagement and farm mechanization. The CentrallySponsored Scheme of Micro-irrigation providesassistance to farmers for efficient use of water. Thereis need to educate the farmers regarding these schemesso that they may reap the maximum benefit.

LITERATURE CITED

1. Baksh, H., Yadav, R. and Dwivedi, R. 2008. Effect of INMon growth, yield, yield attributing characters andquality of guava (P. guajava L.) cv. Sardar. Progr.Agric. 8 : 141-144.

2. Chadha, K. L., Singh, H. and Tandon, D. K. 1981. Avarietal trial of guava. Report, National Symposiumon Tropical and Sub-tropical Fruit Crops, Bangalore.17 p.

3. Cheema, G. S. and Deshmukh, S. B. 1927. Culture ofguava and its improvement by selection in westernIndia. Bull. Dept. Agric., Bombay. 48 p.

4. Dantas, B. F., Pereira, M. S., Ribeiro, L. de, S., Maia, J.L. T. and Bassoi, L. H. 2007. Effect of humicsubstances and weather conditions on leafbiochemical changes of fertigated guava tree duringorchard establishment 29 : 632-638.

5. Das, A., Majumder, K. and Mazumdar, B. C. 2000. IndianAgriculturist. Zinc sulphate induced higher sweetnessof rainy season guava fruits. Indian Agriculturist 44: 199-201.

6. Dubey, A. K., Pathak, R. A. and Pathak, R. K. 2002. Effectof drip irrigation on guava (Psidium guajava L.) onplant growth and nutrient status of leaves. Progr.Hort. 34 : 56-59.

7. Dutta, P., Maji, S. B. and Das, B. C. 2009. Studies on theresponse of biofertilizer on growth and productivityof guava. Indian J. Hort. 66 : 39-42.

8. Ghosh, S. P. 1999. Research preparedness for acceleratedgrowth of horticulture in India. J. Appl. Hort. 1 : 64-69.

9. Ghosh, S. P., Bhatnagar, P. S. and Sukumaran, N. P. (eds.)1998. Guava crop improvement. In : Fifty Years ofHorticultural Research, ICAR, New Delhi. 148 p.

10. Gill, M. S. and Chahil, B. S. 2007. Relationship of guavawilt with soil characteristics, leaf NPK status andirrigation practices under Punjab conditions.Haryana J. hortic. Sci. 36 : 200-202.

11. Haseeb, M. 2007. Current status of insect- pest problemsin guava. Acta Hort. 735 : 453-467.

12. Hulamani, N. C., Mokashi, A. N., Sulikeri, O. S. and Rao,M. M. 1981. Report, National Symposium onTropical and Sub-tropical Fruit Crops, Bangalore.18 p.

13. Iyer, C. P. A. and Subramanyan, T. R. 1988. IIHRSelection-8, an improved guava cultivar. South IndianHort. 36 : 258-259.

14. Joshi, S. P., Prabhakar, K. R. and Gupta, V. S. 1999.Molecular markers in plant genome analysis. Curr.


Sci. 77 : 230-240.15. Katiyar, P. N., Singh, J. P. and Singh, P. C. 2008. Effect

of nitrogen with and without zinc and organic manureon growth, yield and quality of guava (Psidiumguajava L.) cv. Sardar. Asian J. Hort. 3 : 283-286.

16. Kundu, S., Ghosh, B., Mitra, S. K. and Mazumdar, D.2007. Effect of foliar spraying of nitrogen,phosphorus and potassium on yield and fruit qualityof guava (Psidium guajava L.). Acta Hort. 735 : 433-440.

17. Maji, S. and Das, B. C. 2008. Response of mulching onfruit quality and yield of guava (Psidium guajavaL.). Environ. and Ecol. 26 : 1630-1631.

18. Marak, J. K. and Mukunda, G. K. 2007. A promisingprogeny of apple colour guava from Bangalore. ActaHort. 735 : 105-108.

19. Mishra, D., Lal, B. and Pandey, D. 2007. Clonalmultiplication of Psidium species with moundlayering. Acta Hort. 735 : 339-342.

20. Mishra, D. S., Misra, K. K. and Tiwari, J. P. 2003. Nutrientmanagement in guava (Psidium guajava L.). Adv.Hort. and Forestry 9 : 41-57.

21. Misra A. K. 2007. Present status of important diseases ofguava in India with special reference to wilt. ActaHort. 735 : 507-523.

22. Mitra, S. K. and Bose, T. K. 1990. Guava. In: Fruits–Tropical and Sub-tropical, T. K. Bose and S. K.Mitra, (eds.). Naya Prakash, Calcutta. pp. 287-303.

23. Mitra, S. K., Gurung, M. R. and Pathak, P. K. 2010.Integrated nutrient management in high density guavaorchards. Acta Hort. 849 : 349-356.

24. Naik, M. H. and Babu, R. S. H. 2007. Feasibility of organicfarming of guava (Psidium guajava L.). Acta Hortic.735 : 365-372.

25. Negi, S. S. and Shailendra, R. 2007. Improvement of guavathrough breeding. Acta Hort. 735 : 31-37.

26. Pandey, A. K. 2004. Study about the storage stability ofguava beverages. Progr. Hort. 36 : 142-145.

27. Parkash, O. and Pandey, B. K. 2007. Current scenario ofguava diseases in India and their integratedmanagement. Acta Hort. 735 : 495-505.

28. Pathak, R. A. and Dwivedi, R. 1988. Report of FruitResearch Workshop–Sub-tropical and TemperateFruits. Rajendra Agricultural University, Pusa. pp.76-77.

29. Phadnis, N. A. 1970. Improvement of guava (P. guajavaL.) by selection in Maharashtra. Indian J. Hort. 27 :99-105.

30. Raghava, M. and Tiwari, J. P. 2007. Genetic relationshipin Psidium guajava L. and its wild relatives basedon SDS-PAGE. Indian J. Hort. 64 : 36-44.

31. Rai, Manoj, K., Asthana, Pooja; Jaiswal, V. S. and Jaiswal,

U. 2010. Biochenological advances in guava(Psidium guajava L.) : Recent developments andprospects for further research. Trees Structure andFunction 24 : 1-12.

32. Ram, R. A., Bhriguvanshi, S. R. and Pathak, R. K. 2007.Integrated plant nutrient management in guava(Psidium guajava L.) cv. Sardar. Acta Hort. 735 :345-350.

33. Rao, M.M. 2001. Use of bio-regulators in the productionof some tropical and sub-tropical fruits. Indian J.Hort. 58 : 70-77.

34. Reddy, B. M. C., Chandra, R. and Pandey, G. 2006. Guavasymposium. Curr. Sci. 90 : 1059-1060.

35. Singh, D. and Manivannen, S. 2009. Genetic Resourcesof Horticultural Crops. Published by InternationalBook Distributing Co., Lucknow, India. pp. 65-66.

36. Singh, G. 2007. Recent development in production ofguava. Acta Hort. 735 : 161-176.

37. Singh, G. 2010. Canopy Management in Fruit Crops.Published by Deptt. of Agril. Cooperation. Ministryof Agriculture, Govt. of India, New Delhi. pp. 42-45.

38. Singh, H. P. 2009. Triggering Agricultural Developmentthrough Horticultural Crops. Indian J. Agric. Econ.64 : 15-39.

39. Singh, H. P. and Palaniswami, M. S. 2010. Horticulturein Different Agro-Climatic Conditions. Four Decadesof Coordinated Research. Published by WestvillePublishing House, New Delhi. pp. 55-78.

40. Singh, H. P. and Singh, G. 2007. Nutrient and watermanagement in guava. Acta Hort. 735 : 389-397.

41. Subramanyan, M. D. and lyer, C. P. A. (1988). Report ofFruit Research Workshop on Tropical and Sub-tropical Fruits. Rajendra Agricultural University.Pusa, Bihar. pp. 81-84.

42. Subramanyan, M. D. and lyer, C. P. A. 1993. Improvementof guava. In : Advances in Horticulture, Vol. 1, K. L.Chadha and O. P. Parcek (eds.). Malhotra PublishingHouse, New Delhi. pp. 143-147.

43. Thomas, G. and Jacob, S. 2001. Crop improvement inguava : An overview. Indian J. Plant Genet. Resone.14 : 325-330.

44. Thomas, G. and Raman, R. 2000. Sweet potato–apromising crop, its present status and futureprospects. Ann. Agric. Res. 21 : 392-398.

45. Uma Shankar, Pathak, R. A, Pathak, R. K. and Ojha, C.M. 2002. Effects of NPK on the yield and fruit qualityof guava cv. Sardar. Progr. Hort. 34 : 49-55.

46. Yadav, I. S. 1990. Germplasm collection of mango, grape,guava and litchi in India. Report of All IndiaCoordinated Research Project on Sub-tropical Fruits,CIHNP, Lucknow.



A Case Study of Diversification in Agriculture through Horticulture in JindDistrict of Haryana

RAM DAYAL PANWAR, SUNIL KUMAR DHANDA, JEET RAM SHARMA1 AND JAGAT SINGHCCS Haryana Agricultural University Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Pandu Pindara, Jind (Haryana), India

ABSTRACT : A case study of a horticulture farmer, Sh. Kali Ram S/o Sh. Kedar Singh, a retired army man, resident of villagePadana, district Jind (Haryana), was done. After retirement, he started cultivation of traditional crops at his fields but after gettingtraining in horticulture in 1993 from CCSHAU KVK, Jind, he started cultivation of horticulture crops like aonla in the year 1994in an area of about four acres. But due to floods in 1995 the whole plantation was destroyed. Even after having no irrigationfacilities, he again made the fresh plantation. In the year 2000, the plants started bearing fruits. He sold the aonla in open marketand got a net profit of Rs. 11,000 in the year 2000. This profit increased up to Rs 1,23,000 by the year 2005 due to increasing yieldof aonla plants. But he was not satisfied with the earnings from the aonla orchard and thinking of doing something new. So, hestarted processing of aonla at home scale by making murrabba and pickle and earned a very good profit. In 2009, he started a smallprocessing unit of aonla. He prepared murrabba, chuttny, candy, pickle, dry powder, etc. from aonla. By value addition of aonla,his net profit increased to the tune of Rs. 3,45,000 in the year 2009. The other farmers can take inspiration from Sh. Kali Ram andcan increase their profitability many folds by value addition of their produce.

Key words : Aonla, diversification, value addition

Indian population has been increasing at an annualcompound growth rate of about 2%, whereas the annualgrowth rate in food production is 2.6% (7). India hasmade a tremendous progress in the development ofvarious agricultural technologies for increasingproduction of different agricultural commodities. Fruitsand vegetables are essential for a nutritionally balanceddiet as they are the major sources of vitamins andminerals. India is the world’s second largest producerof fruits and vegetables, but hardly 2% of the produceis processed. Our share in world production is about8.9% in fruits and 12.9% in vegetables (2). The presentannual growth of horticulture is more than 6.5%. Itcontributes about 24.5% of the GDP from 8.0% of thearea under cultivation.District Jind lies in the north of Haryana between29.03′ and 29.51′ north latitude and 75.53′ and 76.47′east longitude. The area of the district is 2376 sq. km(6.3% of the state). Area under fruit crop in the districtis around 1000 ha. The area under aonla cultivation is65 ha in Jind district. With the efforts of CCSHAUKrishi Vigyan Kendra, Jind, two small agro-processingunits were established by the farmers at village Padanaand Palwan in this district. This study was conductedto reflect the farmer economic return from small landholdings with no irrigation facilities so that otherfarmers can be motivated for diversification.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sh. Kali Ram S/o Sh. Kedar Singh, 60 years old, retired

army person started cultivation of traditional agriculturalcrops on his farm at village Padana, district Jind(Haryana). In 1993, he came in contact with CCSHAUKrishi Vigyan Kendra, Jind (Haryana). He got trainingin horticulture from this KVK in 1993 and he learned alot of new things and ideas through KVK activities liketraining, demonstrations, field days, etc. He wasmotivated to diversify from traditional crops to suitablehorticultural crops. After getting the soil tested by expertof Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Jind he was suggested to growaonla plants at his farm as he has no source of irrigationwater. He brought budded plants of aonla (varieties ofBanarasi, Chakkaiya, NA7 and Francis) fromPartapgarh district of Uttar Pradesh. He planted theseaonla plants in his field in the supervision of KVKexperts but due to floods in 1995, most of the plantationdestroyed. Then again in 1996, he planted 300 aonlaplants in 4 ½ acres. He became the contact farmer ofKVK, Jind. He attended several field days and otherextension programmes of KVK and Department ofHorticulture organized in the district. The experts ofthis centre started frequent visits at his field andsuggested several techniques recommended by the CCSHaryana Agricultural University research scientists andmentioned in the package & practice of the university.He was also trained for farm management practices.Yield and income of the farmer from aonla plantationwas recorded year-wise by the experts of Krishi VigyanKendra, Jind. This study was intended to providepractical information on various aspects in précised anddigestible form.

1Scientist, Department of Horticulture, CCSHAU, Hisar-125 004 (Haryana), India.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The value addition work was started as the process ofincreasing economic value of agricultural as well asnon-farm commodity through change in genetics,processing diversification in production and marketingshape of materials (5). Value addition is possible atevery stage of the products, right from the farm gateto consumer plate. Value addition can be accomplishedthrough modern as well as traditional practices andprocess (1, 6).Sh. Kali Ram farmer was trained by the CCSHAUKrishi Vigyan Kedra, Jind for proper utilization ofavailable resources as well as to face the problem ofwater scarcity. After motivation, this dynamic 60 yearsold farmer determined to change the outlook of hisfarm through diversification. It was decided that asthere was no irrigation facility at his farm so he wasadvised to go for aonla cultivation. Various organic,inorganic and bio-resources are being used to producethe residue free horticultural produce.In the year 2000, the plants started bearing fruits. Theyield was 32 q. He sold the aonla in open market andearned a net profit of Rs.11000. In 2001, aonla yieldincreased up to 58 q and net profit of farmer was alsoincreased to Rs. 36400. This trend of increase in yieldand income was observed every year. The yield was

72, 118, 132 and 148 q in years 2002, 2003, 2004 and2005, respectively (Table 1). Due to adoption ofimproved production technology his net profitincreased from Rs. 49400 in year 2002 to Rs. 1, 23, 000in the year 2005, due to increase in yield of aonla. Buthe was not satisfied with the earnings getting fromaonla orchard and decided to go for value addition.He started his own entrepreneurship at domestic level.He was sent for training in post-harvest technology atCCSHAU, Hisar by the expert of KVK, Jind. Aftergetting the training he started processing of aonla fruitsfor preparation of murrabba, pickle, chutney, kendy,laddo and dry powder, etc. In 2006, he prepared 81 qmurabba, 8 q pickle, 1 q chatni and 50 kg laddoo andsold them @ Rs. 2500, 3875, 7500 and Rs. 8000/q,respectively (Table 2). Remaining aonla fruit 115 q

Table 1. Yield, income, expenditure and net profit withoutvalue addition of aonla

Year Total yield Income Expenditure Net Profit(q) (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.)

2000 32 16000.00 5000.00 11000.002001 58 46400.00 10000.00 36400.002002 72 64400.00 15000.00 49400.002003 118 106200.00 20000.00 86200.002004 132 125400.00 25000.00 100400.002005 148 148000.00 25000.00 123000.00

Table 2. Yield, income, expenditure and net profit with value addition of aonla

Year Name of product Quantity of Expenditure Sale Income Net profitproduct (q) (Rs.) (Rs./q) (Rs.) (Rs.)

2006 Murabba 81 175700 2500 202500 26800Pickle 8 19000 3875 31000 12000Chatni 1 5000 7500 7500 2500Laddoo 0.5 2000 8000 4000 2000Aonla fruit 115 26000* 600 69000 43000Total 205.5 227700 314000 86300

2007 Aonla fruit 182 28000* 500 91000 630002008 Murabba 117 207825 2778 325000 117175

Pickle 12 29700 4000 48000 18300Chatni 1 6000 8000 8000 2000Laddoo 1 5000 8000 8000 3000Aonla fruit 85 30000* 700 59500 29500Total 216 278525 448500 169975

2009 Murabba 270 475000 2778 750000 275000Pickle 12 27000 5000 60000 33000Chatni 3.5 10000 10000 35000 25000Laddoo 2 11000 11000 22000 11000Candy 4 18000 11000 44000 26000

25000*Total 291.5 566000 911000 345000

*Expenditure on orchard management.

118 Panwar and others

was sold in open market @ Rs. 600/q amounting toRs. 69000. He earned a net profit of Rs. 86300 in thisyear (Rs.43300 from value addition+Rs. 43000 fromaonla fruits). In 2007, he sold aonla fruit (182 q)without value addition in open market @ Rs. 500/qand earned a net profit of Rs. 63000. During the year,he acquired a loss of Rs. 100/q on raw fruits, resultingin total loss to the tune of Rs. 23300 as compared toprevious year (2006). This loss caused him to thinkabout the value addition in coming year. By valueaddition he gained Rs.1,40,475 and by selling rawfruits in open market he fetched net profit of Rs. 29500,which amounted totally to the level of Rs.169975(about 2.7 times from last year) (3). In the year 2009,the farmer processed all his produce into value addedproduct and earned a net profit of Rs. 3,45,000 (Table2) (4).To meet the requirement of irrigation at the field ofthis farmer water harvesting technique was alsoadopted. In the year 2009, a rain water harvesting pondwas also constructed under National HorticultureMission by the Department of Horticulture, Jind. In2009, the farmer started a small agro-processing unitin Jind city due to non-availability of quality water athis village and also purchased aonla pricking machineworth Rs. 45000. He received several national anddistrict level Kisan Puraskar for his achievements inentrepreneurship development. Now he has becomeleading horticultural farmer in the district.Horticultural commodities are highly perishable innature. The spoilage is estimated to be nearly 30-40%in most of the produce. The establishment of the agro-processing industries in rural areas appears to benecessary not only to meet the ever increasing demand

for processed products but also to enhance real farmincome in future. It will also generate employmentopportunities for rural youth. There is tremendousscope of agro-processing industries in rural areas ofHaryana. For ideal production of aonla and itssustainable development in India, it is very importantto provide scientific proven technology of aonlacultivation, processing and post-harvest handling tofarmers, traders and exporters to create mass awarenessin potential areas at national level.

LITERATURE CITED

1. Anonymous. 2003. Value added agriculture. Agric. ExportAdvantage 2 : 5-6.

2. Goyal, R. K. 2009.Value added products from fruits andvegetables.Compendium : Emerging technologies infood processing & packaging. Short course organizedat CCSHAU, Hisar (Haryana) from June 19 to 28.pp. 55-58.

3. Maya, T. 2004. Value addition in sapota [Manilkaraachras) (Mill.) Fosberg]. Thesis submitted to KeralaAgricultural University, Thrissur (Kerala), India.

4. Prasad, R., Das, S. and Sinha, S. 1999. Value additionoptions for non-timber forest products at primarycollector’s level. Int. Forest Rev. 1 : 17-21.

5. Rathore, D. S. 2003. Increasing export of fruits and theirvalue added products. Indian Hort. 48 : 55-58.

6. Shah, A., Das Gupta, D. K. and Arya, S. S. 2000. Value-added products development of horticultural produce.Indian Hort. 45 : 18-21.

7. Yadav, Y. K. 2009. Status of food processing industries inIndia. Compendium : Emerging technologies in foodprocessing & packaging. Short course organized atCCSHAU, Hisar (Haryana) from June 19 to 28. pp.6-10.



Response of B, Zn and GA3 on Carpological Traits and Disorders in Mango cv.Dashehari in Doon Valley Soils of Uttarakhand

P. L. SARAN* AND RATAN KUMARG. B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Horticulture Research and Extension Centre, Dhakrani, Dehradun-248 142, India*(e-mail : [email protected])

ABSTRACT : Field experiment was conducted to study the effects of boron, zinc and GA3 with recommended doses of fertilizers(RDF) and farm yard manure (FYM) on carpological traits, yield, and different disorders of mango cv. Dashehari. FYM + RDF +B (applied through soil @ 50 g/tree as well as foliar sprays @ 0.1%) significantly increased average panicle length, spread ofpanicle, number of fruit sets/panicle, fruit retention at harvest/panicle, average fruit weight and average fruit yield. It also reducedthe incidence of internal fruit necrosis. The lowest incidence of fruit cracking was observed with FYM+RDF+B (soil+foliar),followed by FYM+RDF+B (foliar) and FYM+RDF+GA3. The incidence of floral malformation was reduced with FYM+RDF+Zn(applied through soil @ 125 g/tree as well as foliar spray @ 0.1%). The lowest incidence of black tip disorder was observed withFYM+RDF+B (soil+foliar).

Key words : Mango, internal necrosis, fruit cracking, black tip, floral malformation

Mango (Mangifera indica L.) is known as the nationalfruit of India which is subjected to a number of diseasesand disorders at all stages of its development. Thisresults in low productivity and poor fruit quality.Quality production, market value and export of mangosuffer from several limiting factors includingnutritional disorders. Deficiency of boron causesseveral physiological disorders such as internal fruitnecrosis and fruit cracking (10, 12, 13), black tip (8)and fruit pitting (14). Among the different nutrients,boron has major role in declining quality as well asyield potential (5). Zinc deficiency symptoms in mangounder field conditions have been described by Nijjar(6). Bhargava (1) also reported that the low yield ofmango was due to acute deficiency of Zn followed byMg. During fruit development, proper supply of B andZn becomes poor due to high leaching losses in sandysoils of Doon valley, Uttarakhand. Therefore, efficientnutrient management for optimum yield and better fruitquality has now become an important activity of fruitproduction technology. Keeping above facts in mind,the present study was conducted on the response ofB, Zn and GA3 on carpological traits and relateddisorders in agro-climatic conditions of Doon valley,Uttarakhand.


The investigation was carried out at G. B. PantUniversity of Agriculture & Technology, HorticultureResearch and Extension Centre, Dhakrani, Dehradunduring the years 2008 and 2009. The experiments werecarried out in Dashehari cultivar which is highly

sensitive to different disorders and is the potentialcultivar for north India. The orchards were selectedat three locations viz., H. R. E. C., Dhakrani, Dhakranivillage and Khushalpur of district Dehradun. Theorchard situated at Khushalpur (location III) wasselected for observing the incidence of black tipdisorder as it was just 300 m away from a brick kiln.Under this trial, after FYM application (@100 kg/tree)N, P and K were applied through urea, DAP and MOP,respectively, as per recommended doses during 2ndweek of October through basal application in 30 cmdeep trenches. Boron @ 50 g /tree and zinc @125 g /tree were applied as basal application throughdisodium octaborate tetrahydrate and zinc sulphate,respectively. In case of foliar sprays, boron @ 0.1%,zinc @ 0.1% and GA3 @ 100 mg/kg were applied atpea stage. The first spray was given in the third weekof April and other two sprays onward at 15 daysinterval. The treatments were replicated seven timesin randomized block design. There were ninetreatments viz. T1–Control, T2–FYM+RDF, T3–FYM+RDF+B (soil application), T4–FYM+RDF+B(foliar application), T5–FYM+RDF+B (soil+foliar),T6–FYM+RDF+Zn (soil application), T7–FYM+RDF+Zn (soil+foliar), T8–FYM+RDF+B+Zn (soilapplication) and T9–FYM+RDF+GA3 (foliar).In each orchard, nine blocks were marked and seventrees of 25 years of age in each block for each treatmentwere randomly chosen for observations from pea stageto fruit maturity. Each block represented as replication.The cv. Dashehari was studied for carpological traitsviz., average panicle length (cm), average spread ofpanicle (cm), number of fruit sets/panicle, fruit

retention at harvest/panicle, average fruit weight (g)and average fruit yield (kg/tree). The per cent incidenceof different disorders viz., internal necrosis, fruitcracking, black tip and floral malformation wererecorded. Each tree was observed carefully fordifferent traits. Each fruit was cut into two equal halvesfor internal necrosis. These fruits were recorded bycounting the number of normal and damaged fruits.The data presented are the pooled means of two years.Data were subjected to analysis for ANOVA andbiometrical components adopting standard statisticalprocedure.


As evident from Table 1, the average length of paniclewas increased significantly over control with all thetreatments except with FYM+RDF+GA3 (T9). Thehighest panicle length (22.47 cm) was observed withFYM+RDF+Zn (T7) followed by FYM+RDF+Zn (T6).In case of average panicle spread, maximum (17.29cm) was observed with FYM+RDF+Zn (T6) but therewas no significant difference over control in all thetreatments. The highest number of fruit sets/panicle(40.44 cm) was observed with FYM+RDF+Zn (T7)followed by FYM+RDF+B (T5) and FYM+RDF+B+Zn (T8). This may be due to beneficial effect of Zn.Bhargava (1) also reported that the low yield of mangowas due to acute deficiency of Zn, followed by Mg.

Maximum fruit retention at harvest/panicle (2.55) wasobserved in FYM+RDF+B (T5) followed byFYM+RDF+B+Zn (T8). Dutta (3) also reportedhighest fruit retention by foliar application of boricacid @ 3000 ppm in mango cv. Himsagar. The averagefruit weight and fruit yield were significantly increasedin Dashehari trees applied with FYM+RDF+B (T5)which were 178.24 g and 113.21 kg/tree, respectively.This was followed by FYM+RDF+B (T4). Rajput etal. (8) also studied the effect of foliar application ofzinc, iron and boron, each at 0.1, 0.2 or 0.4%, on 30-year old mango cv. Fazli trees. They found thatalthough all the micronutrients significantly increasedfruit yield but the highest level was achieved with 0.4%B+0.2% Zn. Raja et al. (7) also reported that theresponse of mango cv. Alphonso to the B applicationwas found to be more in foliar than in soil applicationin acidic soils. Ebeed and El-Migeed (4) reported thatthe foliar application of boron is reported to improvefruit set and subsequent fruit yield in mango cv. FagriKalan.The observations pertaining to different disordersrevealed significant difference among differenttreatments as given in Table 2. The minimum incidenceof internal fruit necrosis (3.07%) was recorded withFYM+RDF+B (T5) followed by FYM+RDF+B+Zn (T8)and FYM+RDF+B foliar (T4), while highest incidence(29.79%) was in control (T1). Ram et al. (11) alsoreported that the internal fruit necrosis was controlled

Table 1. Response of different treatments on carpological traits and yield of mango cv. Dashehari

Treatment Average length Average spread No. of Fruit retention Average fruit Average fruitof panicle of panicle fruit sets/ at harvest/ weight yield

(cm) (cm) panicle panicle (g) (kg/tree)

T1 : Control 16.93 14.10 22.00 1.00 156.89 79.04T2 : FYM+RDF 19.01 15.83 22.88 1.11 173.28 96.41T3 : FYM+RDF+B 20.89 16.60 24.44 1.00 162.08 99.68

(soil application)T4 : FYM+RDF+B 19.93 16.00 26.22 1.89 173.11 111.76

(foliar application)T5 : FYM+RDF+B 21.78 16.40 37.66 2.55 178.24 113.21

(soil+foliar)T6 : FYM+RDF+Zn 21.93 17.29 32.00 1.33 167.75 99.91

(soil application)T7 : FYM+RDF+Zn 22.47 16.77 40.44 1.67 172.78 101.20

(soil+foliar)T8 : FYM+RDF+B +Zn 21.71 17.01 35.78 2.11 167.29 108.98

(soil application)T9 : FYM+RDF+GA3 (foliar) 18.63 15.83 22.18 1.89 167.11 100.93S. Em± 0.76 1.49 1.05 0.29 7.18 10.46C. D. (P=0.05) 2.28 4.47 3.16 0.88 21.53 31.37

RDF–Recommended dose of fertilizers.


through boron application. The lowest fruit cracking(0.45%) was observed with FYM+RDF+B (T5),followed by FYM+RDF+B (T4) and FYM+RDF+GA3(T9). Saran and Kumar (13) also concluded that thesusceptibility of Dashehari cultivar to internal fruitnecrosis and fruit cracking might be due to its high boronrequirement. Saran et al. (12) also suggested that fruitcracking could be controlled through borax applicationby foliar sprays @ 1% and/or soil application @ 500 g/tree. The incidence of floral malformation wassignificantly lowest (0.46%) with FYM+RDF+Zn (T7)

Table 2. Response of different chemical treatments on common disorders of mango cv. Dashehari

Treatment Internal fruit necrosis Fruit cracking Floral malformation(%) (%) (%)

T1 : Control 29.79 4.14 1.61T2 : FYM+RDF 28.42 3.89 1.56T3 : FYM+RDF+B (soil application) 4.70 1.23 1.13T4 : FYM+RDF+B (foliar application) 4.03 0.62 0.94T5 : FYM+RDF+B (soil+foliar) 3.07 0.45 0.80T6 : FYM+RDF+Zn (soil application) 18.45 4.05 0.57T7 : FYM+RDF+Zn (soil+foliar) 21.29 3.44 0.46T8 : FYM+RDF+B+Zn (soil application) 3.52 1.09 0.56T9 : FYM+RDF+GA3 (foliar) 20.38 0.62 1.49S. Em± 3.15 0.15 0.15C. D. (P=0.05) 9.45 0.45 0.45

RDF–Recommended dose of fertilizers.

followed by FYM+RDF+B+Zn (T8). The Zn applicationmight have improved auxin level through tryptophanprecursor as low level of auxin in malformed tissueswas commonly observed (9).In case of black tip disorder, minimum incidence wasobserved in the trees treated with FYM+RDF+B (T5)and FYM+RDF+B (T4), while maximum incidencewas observed in control as shown in Fig. 1. Foliarsprays of B have been found very effective incontrolling this disorder as reported by several workers(2, 8).

0

5

10

15

20

25

Fig. 1. Effect of different treatments on the incidence of black tip at location III (Vertical bars show standred error).

LITERATURE CITED

1. Bhargava, B. S. 1999. Leaf analysis for diagnosingnutrients need in fruit crops. Indian Hort. 43 : 6-8.

2. Chandra, A. and Yamdagni, R. 1984. A note on the effectof borax and sodium carbonate spays on the incidenceof black tip disorder in mango. Punjab Hort. J. 24 :

17-18.3. Dutta, P. 2004. Effect of foliar boron application on panicle

growth, fruit retention and physico-chemicalcharacters of mango cv. Himsagar. Indian J. Hort.61 : 265-266.

4. Ebeed, S. and El-Migeed, M. M. M. 2005. Effect ofspraying sucrose and some nutrient elements on Fagri

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9

Treatments

Inci

denc

e of

bla

ck ti

p (%

)

122 Saran and Kumar

Kalan mango trees. J. Appl. Sci. Res. 1 : 341-346.5. Jayabaskaran, K. J. and Pandey S. D. 2008. Effect of foliar

spray of micronutrient in banana under high soil pHconditions. Indian J. Hort. 65 : 102-105.

6. Nijjar, G. S. 1985. Nutrition of Fruit Trees. KalyaniPublishers, New Delhi-Ludhiana, 320 p.

7. Raja, M. E. Somanahalli, C. A. K. and Raju, S. Y. 2005.Boron deficiency in mango (Mangifera indica L.) :A cause delineation study in acidic soils ofMaharashtra, India. Soil Sci. & Plant Nutr. 51 : 751-754.

8. Rajput, M. S., Kanwar, J. S. and Bajwa, M. S. 1971.Control black-tip of mango with caustic soda. PunjabHort. J. 11 : 49-51.

9. Ram, S. 2001. Mango malformation. Indian J. Hort. 58 :78-90.

10. Ram, S., Bist, L. D. and Dwivedi, T. S. 1978. Internalfruit necrosis : A new physiological disorder in mango(Mangifera indica L.). Pantnagar J. Res. 3 : 196-203.

11. Ram, S., Bist, L. D. and Sirohi, S. C. 1989. Internal fruitnecrosis of mango and its control. Acta Hortic. 231 :805-813.

12. Saran, P. L., Kumar, R. and Johari, R. K. (2008). Fruitcracking disorder : An emerging problem of fruitcrops. Indian Farmers’ Digest 41 : 30-32.

13. Saran, P. L. and Kumar, R. (2008). Phatate aam katati jeb(Hindi). Krishi Chayanika 29 : 7-9.

14. Sharma, R. R. and Singh, R. (2008). The fruit pittingdisorder–A physiological anomaly in mango(Mangifera indica L.) due to deficiency of calciumand boron. Sci. Hortic. 119 : 388-391.



A Step Towards Salt and Drought Tolerance in Rough Lemon (Citrus jambhiriLush.) through in vitro Chemical Mutagenesis

KRISHAN KUMAR, HARMINDER KAUR, MANAV INDRA SINGH GILL, A. SANGWAN ANDS. S. GOSALDepartment of Horticulture, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana (Punjab), India

ABSTRACT : To impart salt and drought tolerance in rough lemon (Citrus jambhiri) through in vitro mutagenesis the LD50 dosesof chemical mutagens viz., ethyl methane sulphonate (EMS), methyl methane sulphonate (MMS) and selective agents viz., NaCland polyethylene glycol-6000 (PEG) were standardized. The LD50 dose of the mutagens was determined on the basis of relativegrowth rate (mg/day) and per cent regeneration of the calli. The calli of 30 and 45 days age, and 45 and 60 days age were used forthe estimation of relative growth rate and per cent regeneration, respectively. The calli were cultured directly (control I) or shakedin liquid callus induction (for relative growth rate) or regeneration (for regeneration) media without (control II) or with mutagensviz., EMS and MMS at different concentrations (0.1, 0.2, 0.3 and 0.4%). The LD50 dose of the mutagens varied with chemicalused, age of the calli and the criteria of estimation adopted. On the basis of relative growth rate, 0.1% EMS was found suitable forboth the age group calli, whereas the LD50 dose of MMS was dependent on the age of the calli. For regeneration, irrespective ofthe mutagen used, 0.1% was the optimum dose for 45 days old calli, while the 60 days old calli did not regenerate after treatmentwith mutagens. The concentrations of 25 mM and 50 g/l were the threshold doses of NaCl and PEG, respectively for in vitroscreening of mutants against salt and drought stress.

Key words : Citrus jambhiri, drought, salt tolerance, in vitro chemical mutagenesis

Rough lemon (Citrus jambhiri Lush.) is one of thecommercial citrus rootstocks. It contributes high yieldin most of the scion cultivars, imparts resistance tomost of the viruses including Tristeza and is adaptedto diverse agroclimatic conditions (8). But, thisrootstock is highly sensitive to salinity (2). At present,almost 22.0% of the agricultural land is saline (1). Withthe onset of global warming, the percentage of salineand arid areas is likely to increase further, possibly byincreased evapotranspiration and thereby bringing thesalts present in the deeper layers to the surface. Thus,to establish citrus into saline and arid areas, there isan urgent need to induce tolerance for these traits inthis roostock. The improvement for these traits throughconventional breeding approaches is impeded by highheterozygosity and nucellar embryony (11). Tissueculture mediated approach like in vitro chemicalmutagenesis is the prospective substitute for theconventional breeding as it facilitates speedyimprovement in one or few traits of an elite genotypewithout upsetting the rest of the genomes (10). Ethylmethane sulphonate (EMS) and methyl methanesulphonate (MMS) are the commonly used chemicalmutagens. The improvement through in vitro chemicalmutagenesis requires basic information on thethreshold dose of the mutagens and the selective agentsagainst which tolerance is desired. Therefore, thepresent study was carried out with the objective tostandardize the optimum doses of chemical mutagensviz., EMS and MMS and selective agents viz., salt(NaCl) and drought [Polyethylene glycol-6000 (PEG)].


The study was carried out in the Tissue CultureLaboratory of Department of Horticulture, PunjabAgricultural University, Ludhiana, Punjab, India.Callus for in vitro mutagenesis was induced fromepicotyl segments. Callus induction and shootregeneration from calli were performed on media asdevised by Kumar (6).The LD50 for chemical mutagens was determined onthe basis of 50% reduction in relative growth rate (interms of fresh weight in mg/day) and shootregeneration compared to control. For relative growthrate assessment, calli were cultured on callus inductionmedium while for survival and regeneration, thesewere cultured on regeneration medium after themutagen treatments. For the treatment of chemicalmutagens (EMS and MMS), the respectiveconcentration (0.1-0.4%) was added in the liquid callusinduction and regeneration media. The calli wereshaken at 70 rpm, at 26oC under dark conditions for 3h on rotary shaker in these respective media prior toculturing. In order to find out any adverse effect ofshaking, the calli were also shaken in liquid mediawithout mutagens under similar set of conditions(control II). Thus, there were two controls i. e. controlI : direct culturing on the callusing or regenerationmedium and control II : culturing on these media aftershaking in liquid media without the mutagens. For thedetermination of relative growth rate, 30 and 45 daysold calli, whereas for survival and regeneration

measurement, 45 and 60 days old calli were used. Theobservations on increase in fresh weight, per centsurvival and regeneration of the calli were recorded.For in vitro screening of mutants, the threshold dosewas established by adding different concentrations ofNaCl (0, 25, 50, 75 and 100 mM) and polyethyleneglycol (0, 30, 40, 50 and 60 g/l) to the regenerationmedium. The concentrations of PEG and NaCl beyondwhich regeneration from the calli terminated wereassumed as threshold doses of these chemicals,respectively.Thirty calli were used for each treatment and theexperiments were replicated thrice. The data onsurvival and regeneration from calli were recorded 30and 60 days after culturing, respectively.The data were analyzed using CPCS I software (PunjabAgricultural University, Ludhiana, Punjab, India).


The growth of the calli was influenced by age of thecalli, shaking treatment, type and concentration of themutagen. Irrespective of the mutagen, the 30 days oldcalli had the higher growth potential (Table 1).Interestingly, the liquid medium shaking even withoutmutagen proved detrimental to the growth of both theage group calli. Thus, the control II was used as checkrelative to which, the LD50 dose of the mutagen wasdetermined.The growth rate of the calli of both the age groupswas reduced further with the addition of EMS in theliquid medium in a concentration dependent manner.The minimum growth rate of 5.70 and 2.80 mg/dayfor 30 and 45 days old calli, respectively, was observed,when the calli were treated with 0.4% EMS. Based onthe values of relative growth rate, the mean lethal dose(LD50) of the mutagen for both 30 and 45 days oldcalli was present between 0.2 and 0.3%.Irrespective of the age, the growth rate of the calliwas also reduced significantly with every unit increase

in the concentration of MMS. However, in contrast toEMS, the 50% reduction in growth rate of 30 days oldcalli relative to control II occurred at 0.1% MMStreatment. For 45 days old calli, LD50 dose appearedbetween 0.2 and 0.3% MMS.Irrespective of the mutagen and callus age, the survivalof the calli was influenced by the shaking treatment.The control I calli, which were cultured directly onregeneration medium without prior liquid mediumshaking showed maximum survival and regeneration(Figs. 1 and 2). The callus survival and regenerationreduced significantly following liquid medium shakingtreatment. Thus, the control II was used as check forthe estimation of survival and regeneration.The per cent survival of the 45 days old calli wasreduced significantly with every unit increase in the

Table 1. Effect of ethyl methane sulphonate (EMS) and methyl methane sulphonate (MMS) on growth of 30 and 45 days old calli

Concentration Relative growth rate of calli Relative growth rate of calli(%) (mg/day) due to EMS (mg/day) due to MMS

30 days old 45 days old 30 days old 45 days old

Control I 97.00 76.20 97.00 76.20Control II 27.00 12.33 27.00 12.330.1 20.00 10.13 13.00 7.400.2 18.00 8.09 8.00 6.500.3 12.00 3.03 4.70 4.600.4 5.70 2.80 3.80 3.80C. D. (P=0.05) Callus age x EMS : 1.88 Callus age x MMS : 2.16

Fig. 1. Effect of ethyl methane sulphonate (EMS) on survivaland regeneration of 45 (A) and 60 days old calli (B).Means with different letters are significantly different.


concentration of EMS in liquid medium. At 0.1%EMS, 62.66% of the calli survived, which wassignificantly lower than control II (Fig. 1A). At 0.4%EMS, none of the treated calli survived. Out of variousEMS concentrations, only 0.1% EMS treated callishowed regeneration and beyond it, regeneration wascompletely suppressed (Fig.1A).Like 45 days old calli, the survival of the callifollowing EMS treatments decreased significantly in60 days old calli. However, in contrast to 45 days oldcalli, 11.00% of the 60 days old calli survived evenafter treatment with 0.4% EMS (Fig. 1B). For 60 daysold calli, only control I calli showed regeneration. Thecontrol II and EMS treated calli failed to regenerate(data not shown).Like EMS, the survival of the 45 days old callifollowing MMS treatment was reduced significantlyrelative to control II. The extent of reduction in callussurvival was dependent upon the concentration ofMMS. At 0.4% MMS, complete mortality of the callioccurred. Like EMS, only 0.1% MMS treated calliregenerated. However, shoot regeneration percentageobtained in 0.1% treated calli was not statisticallydifferent from control II calli (Fig. 2A).In 60 days old calli, the survival of the calli after MMStreatment decreased significantly, but 11.00% of the

calli survived even at 0.4% MMS treatment (Fig. 2B).Like EMS, control II and MMS treated 60 days oldcalli did not regenerate (data not shown).In the medium devoid of NaCl (control), 52.63% ofthe calli produced shoots and the percentage ofregenerating calli was reduced to 5.26% in thepresence of 25 mM NaCl (Fig. 3). Further elevationin the level of NaCl in the regeneration mediumcompletely inhibited the regeneration. Thus, NaCl atthe concentration of = 25 mM can be used for in vitroselection of mutants.Polyethylene glycol also significantly influenced theshoot regeneration potential of the calli. In the mediumwithout PEG, 75.00% of the calli regenerated. Thepresence of PEG in the medium significantly reducedthe per cent regeneration and beyond 50 g/l, it wascompletely suppressed (Fig. 4). Thus, 50 g/l can beassumed as the threshold dose of the chemical for in vitro

Fig. 2. Effect of methyl methane sulphonate (MMS) on survivaland regeneration of 45 (A) and 60 days old calli (B).Means with different letters are significantly different.

Fig. 3. Influence of different concentrations of NaCl onregeneration of 40 days old calli. Means with differentletters are significantly different.

Fig. 4. Influence of different concentrations of polyethyleneglycol (PEG) on regeneration of 40 days old calli. Meanswith different letters are significantly different.

126 Kumar and others

screening of the mutants against artificial drought stress.The growth rate of the calli was dependent upon callusage, shaking treatment, type and concentration ofmutagen. With advancement in the age of calli from30 to 45 days, the growth potential of the callidecreased. The callus is generally made up ofparenchymatous or meristematic cells and theirintensity is more at the surface (4). With increase inthe callus age, the cell division capacity of these cellsdeclined (5) and this might be the possible reason forlower growth rate of 45 days old calli.The reduced growth rate following the liquid mediumshaking treatment (control II) could be due todisintegration of the surface parenchymatous cellsduring the process of shaking. The parenchymatouscells actively participate in the process of cell division(4). The further inhibition of callus growth withincreasing dose of chemical mutagens in the shakingmedium can be linked to the toxicity of the chemicalsto the callus (7). The optimum mutagenic dose of EMSfor both the age groups of calli (30 and 45 days oldcalli) was in the range of 0.2 to 0.3%. However, incase of MMS, though the optimum dose for 45 daysold calli was in between 0.2 and 0.3% but the optimumdose for 30 days old calli fell between 0.1 and 0.2%,which suggests that MMS is relatively more toxic thanEMS. The higher toxicity of MMS as compared toEMS is linked to its higher potential for inducingchromosomal breaks (9).After 10 days of culturing, the control II and mutagens(EMS/MMS) treated calli emitted an alcoholic odour,which could be responsible for the reduced survival andregeneration of calli in these treatments. Moreover,during liquid medium shaking, the disintegration of thesurface cells of the calli takes place. The surface cellspredominantly are of parenchymatous type, whichdifferentiate into shoot buds (4). The survival percentagein control II calli of 60 days age was more as comparedto 45 days old calli. The relatively less mortality in calliof 60 days age could be due to the high degree ofcompactness due to which, the less amount of mutagenmight have been absorbed. For the production ofmutants, regeneration from the mutated calli is of utmostimportance. In this study, only the 45 days old calliregenerated after treatment with either of the chemicalmutagen. At concentration more than 0.1%, themutagens (EMS/MMS) completely inhibited the callusregeneration. Therefore, the 45 days old calli can betreated with 0.1% EMS and MMS for the routineproduction of mutants.The reduced regeneration in the presence of NaCl inthe medium could be due to ultra-structural and

biochemical changes (7). Polyethylene glycol (PEG)is an artificial drought stress inducing agent. It isgenerally used for screening against drought stress.PEG interferes with the membrane stability by virtueof increasing electrolytes leakage. The reduceddifferentiation of callus with increase in theconcentration of PEG in the medium was possibly dueto the damaged cell membrane (12), which ultimatelyled to the loss of cellular integrity.For the genetic improvement of genotypes throughmutation breeding, the estimation of the optimum doseof the mutagens is the most essential step. Theoptimum dose of the mutagens reported in this study,therefore, will help not only for salt and droughttolerance but will also prove beneficial for themanipulation of this rootstock for other traits.

LITERATURE CITED

1. FAO. 2004. FAO Production Year Book. FAO, Rome.2. Ferguson, J. J. 2002. Your Florida dooryard citrus guide

young tree care. In : http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/HS119.3. Ferreira, A. L. and Lima Costa, M. E. 2008. Growth and

ultra-structural characteristics of Citrus cells grownin medium containing NaCl. Biol. Plant. 52 : 129-132.

4. Grinblat, U. 1972. Differentiation of citrus stem in vitro.J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 97 : 599-603.

5. Jain, A. K. and Datta, R. K. 1992. Shoot organogenesisand plant regeneration in mulberry (Morus bombycisKoidz) : Factors influencing morphogenetic potentialin callus cultures. Plant Cell Tiss. Org Cult. 29 : 43-50.

6. Kumar, K. 2009. Development of salt tolerance in roughlemon (Citrus jambhiri Lush.) through in vitromutation breeding. Ph. D. dissertation, PunjabAgricultural University, Ludhiana, India.

7. Moustafa, R. A. K., Duncan, D. R. and Widholm, J. M.1989. The effect of gamma radiation and N-ethyl-N-nitrosourea on cultured maize callus growth and plantregeneration. Plant Cell Tiss. Org. Cult. 17 : 121-132.

8. Nafees, A., Rehman, A., Bhatti, I. A. and Ali, L. 2009.Tissue culture of citrus cultivars. Electronic J.Environ. Agri. Fd. Chem. 7 : 3326-3333.

9. Natarajan, A. T. 2005. Chemical mutagenesis : from plantsto human. Curr. Sci. 89 : 312-317.

10. Predieri, S. 2001. Mutation induction and tissue culturein improving fruits. Plant Cell Tiss. Org. Cult. 64 :185-210.

11. Soost, R. K. and Cameron, J. W. 1975. Citrus. In :Advances in Fruit Breeding, Janick, J. and Moore,J. N. (eds.). Purdue University Press, West Lafayatte.pp. 229-241.

12. Venkateswarlu, B. and Ramesh. 1993. Cell membranestability and biochemical response of cultured cellsof groundnut under polyethylene glycol inducedwater stress. Plant Sci. Limerick 90 : 179-185.


Effect of Gamma Irradiation on Growth, Flowering and Bulbs Production inTuberose (Polianthes tuberosa L.) cv. Double

RAJBIR SINGH1, R. K. GOYAL AND N. R. GODARADepartment of Horticulture, CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar-125 004 (Haryana), India

ABSTRACT : The bulbs of tuberose cv. Double were irradiated with the gamma rays @ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 kr by placing ingamma irradiation chamber G-900, Cobalt-60, source emitting 3 kr/min. The plant height and number of leaves decreasedsignificantly in 2 and 3 kr gamma irradiation in VM1 and VM2 generations. In both the generations flowering occurred early incomparison to control. In VM1 generation, flowering was delayed 9 to 16 days with 1 and 2 kr gamma irradiation, respectively.The number of florets per spike in VM1 and VM2 generations ranged from 12.32 to 20.74 and 23.77 to 29.13, respectively. In VM1generation, weight of spike varied between 47.97-56.41 g, whereas in VM2 generation it ranged from 58.13 to 69.24 g. Thenumber of bulbs per plant in VM1 generation ranged between 10.82 to 17.59 and in VM2 between 17.45 to 16.92.

Key words : Tuberose, Polianthes tuberosa, gamma irradiation, growth, flowering, bulb

Tuberose (Polianthes tuberosa L.) is a bulbousornamental, which belongs to the familyAmaryllidaceae. Among the ornamental plants,tuberose is valued much higher by the aesthetic worldfor beauty and fragrance of their flowers. It has a greateconomic importance for cut flowers trade and inessential oil industry. The improvement in growth,flowering, yield of spikes and bulbs can be done eitherby taking crops to the non-traditional areas, improvedcultural practices viz., timely irrigations, balanced useof fertilizers, use of growth substances or by breeding.Out of these, breeding tools improve growth, yield,quality of flowers and bulbs permanently, butconventional methods of breeding are laborious andtime consuming. One more area to be exploited iscreation of variation in the germplasm throughinduction of mutations. Physical mutagens bring theimprovement through change at chromosome level,so any change that produces variation in colour offlorets, leaves, spike length and duration of flowering,increases oil contents and fragrance becomes moreacceptable to the growers. Hence, keeping in view theimportance and scope, the present experiment on effectof gamma irradiation on growth, flowering and bulbproduction in tuberose cultivar Double was carried out.


The uniform bulbs of cv. Double size (2-2.5 cm indiameter) were selected for irradiation. The treatmentwas given by placing bulbs into gamma irradiationchamber G-900, Cobalt-60, source emitting 3 kr/minat Department of Genetics, CCS Haryana AgriculturalUniversity, Hisar. The bulbs were irradiated with the

gamma rays @ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 kr. The bulbs wereplanted directly into the field at a distance of 30 x 30cm in the plot size of 1.2 x 1.2 m at experimentalorchards of Department of Horticulture. The treatmentwas given during VM1 generation only. The treatmentswere not repeated and the data were recorded in secondyear to see their impact. The experiment was laid outin a randomized block design, using single plot as oneunit. The observations recorded on plant height,number of leaves, days to flowering, diameter of spike,length of spike, number of florets per spike, spikeweight, weight of 100 florets and number of bulbs perplant were statistically analyzed following Panse andSukhatme (6).


A significant effect of gamma irradiation was observedon plant height (Table 1), but its higher doses (4 and 5kr) caused mortality 40 days after sprouting of thebulbs. Therefore, observations of these treatmentscould not be taken in both the generations. The 1.0 krdose was found effective where maximum height ofthe plant was observed in VM1 and VM2 generations(39.45 and 46.89 cm), respectively, but it decreased athigher doses. The maximum number of leaves (36.64)was recorded under 1.0 kr followed by control. Higherconcentrations resulted in a sharp decline in productionof leaves, whereas in VM2 generation maximumnumber of leaves (45.93) was counted in control. Thevalues under 1 and 2 kr were at par but a significantreduction was observed in 3 kr. The inhibitory effectof gamma irradiation on number of leaves wasobserved except 1 kr of gamma irradiation in VM1


1Asstt. Scientist, Horticulture, PAU RFRS, Bahadurgarh, Patiala.

and VM2 generations. The number of leaves and plantheight decreased significantly with higher levels ofgamma irradiation. At lower doses certain growthchemical substances such as enzymes, which are setfree by irradiations, play an important role in plantmetabolic activities resulting in stimulating plantgrowth. Higher doses may have harmful effect onauxins and other growth substances, reduction inmitotic activities (3). Reduction in growth can beexplained at differential killing of meristematic celldue to genetic injury (9). Quastler et al. (7) concludedthat growth inhibition was not solely and directlyaffected due to radiation effect on mitosis but also dueto physiological changes. It might also be possible thatgrowth inhibition following irradiation was due toinability of cells to utilize available material. In VM1generation, flowering was delayed 9 to 16 days byusing 1 and 2 kr of gamma irradiation, respectively,whereas in VM2 flowering occured earlier in control,but difference of flowering in 1 and 2 kr as comparedto control was only 1.27 and 1.06 days.Maximum diameter of spike was measured in 1 kr(5.61 mm) and minimum (5.23 mm) in control (Table2), whereas in VM2 generation also 1 kr dose of gamma

irradiation recorded maximum diameter of spike (6.87mm) followed by control (6.11 mm), however,minimum diameter of spike was observed in 2 kr doseof gamma irradiation (5.95 mm). In both thegenerations, length of spike decreased significantlywith the use of 1 and 2 kr of gamma irradiation incomparison to control. However, in VM1 and VM2generations, maximum length of spike (63.57 and81.25 cm) was recorded in control, respectively, and asharp reduction in length of spike was observed byusing higher dose of gamma irradiation. The lengthof spike in VM1 and VM2 generations among variousdoses of the gamma irradiation ranged between 37.66to 63.5 cm and 69.32 to 81.25 cm, respectively. Thenumber of florets per spike in tuberose cv. Double inVM1 and VM2 generations ranged from 12.32-20.74and 23.77 to 29.13, respectively. In both thegenerations maximum number of florets per spike wasnoted in control and number decreased under higherdose (Table 2).The maximum weight of spike in both the generationswas recorded in control. In VM1 generation, weightof spike varied between 47.97 g to 56.41 g, whereasin VM2 generation it ranged from 58.13 to 69.24 g.

Table 1. Effect of gamma irradiation on growth and flowering in tuberose cv. Double

Doses (kr) Plant height (cm) No. of leaves/plant Days to flowering

VM1 VM2 VM1 VM2 VM1 VM2

0 38.90 (6.27) 46.32 (6.84) 34.86 (5.95) 45.93 (6.81) 113.09 (10.66) 121.67 (11.05)1 39.45 (6.32) 46.89 (6.88) 36.64 (6.09) 37.57 (6.17) 124.93 (11.20) 122.94 (11.11)2 21.22 (4.65) 45.90 (6.81) 20.81 (4.62) 38.73 (6.27) 130.37 (11.44) 124.00 (11.16)3 13.57 (3.75) 41.61 (6.49) 15.23 (3.97) 23.77 (4.93) 0 (0.7) 0 (0.7)4 0 (0.7) 0 (0.7) 0 (0.7) 0 (0.7) 0 (0.7) 0 (0.7)5 0 (0.7) 0 (0.7) 0 (0.7) 0 (0.7) 0 (0.7) 0 (0.7)C. D. (P=0.05) 0.37 0.13 0.20 0.17 0.16 0.08

Transformed values are given in parentheses.

Table 2. Effect of gamma irradiation on floral attributes in tuberose cv. Double

Doses (kr) Diameter of spkike (mm) Length of spike (cm) No. of florets/spike


0 5.23 (2.39) 6.11 (2.57) 63.57 (8.0) 81.25 (9.04) 20.74 (4.60) 29.13 (5.44)1 5.61 (2.47) 6.87 (2.79) 40.39 (6.39) 75.93 (8.74) 19.87 (4.51) 25.20 (5.07)2 5.40 (2.43) 5.95 (2.54) 37.66 (6.18) 69.32 (8.36) 12.23 (3.71] 23.77 (4.93)3 0 (0.7) 0 (0.7) 0 (0.7) 0 (0.7) 0 (0.7) 0 (0.7)4 0 (0.7) 0 (0.7) 0 (0.7) 0 (0.7) 0 (0.7) 0 (0.7)5 0 (0.7) 0 (0.7) 0 (0.7) 0 (0.7) 0 (0.7) 0 (0.7)C. D. (P=0.05) 0.06 0.07 0.18 0.07 0.15 0.13



The data related to weight of the 100 florets presentedin Table 3 show that maximum weight of the 100florets in VM1 generation was found in 1 kr i. e. 174.93g followed by 2 kr (170.50). While in VM2 generation2 kr doses of gamma irradiation were foundsignificantly effective and superior in comparison to1 kr of gamma irradiation and control, as weight of100 florets was recorded maximum in 2 kr (142 g).Similar results were reported by Misra and Bajpai (4)with 2 and 3 kr doses in gladiolus.

The length of spike decreased significantly

Table 3. Effect of gamma irradiation on floral attributes and bulbs production in tuberose cv. Double

Doses (kr) Weight of spike (g) Weight of 100 florets (g) No. of bulbs/plant


0 56.41 (7.54) 69.24 (8.35) 169.46 (13.04) 137.0 (11.73) 14.44 (3.86) 14.45 (3.86)1 52.48 (7.27) 65.33 (8.11) 174.93 (13.24) 134.20 (11.60) 17.59 (4.24) 16.92 (4.17)2 47.97 (6.96) 58.13 (7.66) 170.50 (13.08) 142.0 (11.93) 15.68 (4.02) 13.82 (3.78)3 0 (0.7) 0 (0.7) 0 (0.7) 0 (0.7) 10.82 (3.36) 11.45 (3.45)4 0 (0.7) 0 (0.7) 0 (0.7) 0 (0.7) 0 (0.7) 0 (0.7)5 0 (0.7) 0 (0.7) 0 (0.7) 0 (0.7) 0 (0.7) 0 (0.7)C. D. (P=0.05) 0.15 0.18 0.14 0.08 0.37 0.27


in both the generations with increasing doses ofgamma irradiation. High growth reduction andblindness of plants show severe damage in thesynthesis of growth substances like auxins and othergrowth regulators (8). The number of florets andweight of spike decreased due to decreased length ofspike. The decrease in number of florets may be theresult of consequences of somatic competition, (5);weight of 100 florets may be increased due todecreased number of florets per spike as compared tocontrol.

It is further evident from the data that 1 and 2kr doses of gamma irradiation significantly affectedthe production of bulbs in both the generations. In VM1generation number, of bulbs per plant varied between10.82 to 17.59 and in VM2 generation 11.45 to 16.92.In VM2 generation, 1 kr dose of gamma irradiationwas found significantly effective followed by controland 2 kr, the highest dose of gamma irradiation (3 kr)caused reduction in production of bulbs in both thegenerations. The reduction in number of bulbs couldbe due to the toxic effect of the treatment as ithampered root system and cessation of growth of theauxiliary buds present on the bulbs by inactivation ofthe enzymes and auxins responsible for such growth(2). While on the other hand, lower doses releasedenzymes which play an important role in plantmetabolism causing stimulative effect on growth andcell multiplication (1).

LITERATURE CITED

1. Gordon, S. A. 1957. The effect of ionizing radiation onplants, biochemical and physiological aspect.Quartely Review of Bioogyl. 32 : 3-14.

2. Grabowska, B. and Mynett, K. 1970. Induction of changes

in garden gladiolus (G. hybridus) under the influenceof gamma rays. Instytuter Hodowic AklimatyzacjiRoslin (IHAR), 1-2 : 85-88.

3. Gray, L. H. 1956. Biological damage from ionizingradiation. Proc. Int. Conf. on Peaceful Uses ofAtomic. Energy Geneva. pp. 209-212.

4. Misra, R. L. and Bajpai, P. N. 1983. Mutational studieson gladiolus. II. Effect of mutagens on cormsmultiplication and storage. Punjab Hort. J. 23 : 233-237.

5. Nybom, N. 1970. Mutation breeding in vegetativelypropagated plants. In : Manual of Mutation Breeding.FAO/IAEA Tech. Rep. Ser. 119, Vienna. pp. 141-147.

6. Panse, V. G. and Sukhatme, P. V. 1985. Statistical Methodsfor Agricultural Workers.ICAR, New Delhi, India.

7. Quastler, H., Chertiger, A. M. and Stewart, W. N. 1952.Inhibition of growth by irradiation. IV. Growth ofplants vs. effect of mutagenic activity. J. CellularComp. Physiol. 34 : 357-369.

8. Skoog, F. 1935. The effect of x-irriadiations on lauxinsand plant growth. J. Cellular Camp. Physiol. 7 :227-270.

9. Sparrow, A. H., Cauny, R. L., Miksche, J. P. and Schairer,L. A. 1961. Some factors affecting the responses ofplants to acute and chronic radiation. Rad. Bot. 1 :10-34.

130 Singh and others


Molecular Characterization of Ber Hybrids and their Parents Using RAPDMarkers

SURESH KUMAR, V. P. AHLAWAT, S. K. SEHRAWAT AND K. S. BOORA1

Department of Horticulture, CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar-125 004 (Haryana), India

ABSTRACT : Ber, being a hardy and drought tolerant fruit crop, fits well into the marginal ecosystem of semi-arid and aridzones. Twelve ber hybrids and their parents were molecularly characterized using RAPD markers. Of the 35 random primerstested, 26 primers showed amplification of which 24 generated polymorphic bands, while two of the primers showed monomorphicbands. Fifteen primers amplified all the ber hybrids and their parents. Five primers (OPE-1, OPE-2, OPE-11, OPE-13 and OPA-18) amplified specific band in ber hybrid or their parent. In total, 165 bands were produced, of which 144 bands were polymorphic,while 21 bands were monomorphic. For the genotypes tested, between 2-24 bands were obtained for each primer with an averageof 6.34 bands per primer. The highest number of bands i. e. 24 were generated by OPE-1. The amplified DNA fragments rangedfrom 100-800 base pair. With un-weighted group method using arithmetic mean (UPGMA) cluster analysis, 12 ber hybrids andtheir parents fell into two major clusters.

Key words : Ber, Ziziphus mauritiana, RAPD, molecular characterization

1Department of Biotechnology and Molecular Biology, CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar-125 004 (Haryana), India.

Ber or Indian jujube (Ziziphus mauritiana Lamk.) isone of the most ancient and common fruit indigenousto India. It belongs to family Rhamnaceae. It growsthroughout the tropical, sub-tropical and arid region(4). It is quite popular due to low cost of cultivation,wide adaptability, ability to withstand drought andgood economic returns.Ber is widely cultivated in Punjab, Haryana, UttarPradesh, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh,Maharashtra and to some extent in several other statesof India. There are more than 125 cultivars grown inIndia (4). These cultivars have been developed byselection in different regions. Lot of confusion existsin classification or naming of these cultivars. Apartfrom morphological characterization, it is desirable todevelop alternative methods, which are rapid, reliableand more or less not influenced by environment.Analysis of polymorphism at molecular level candifferentiate the genotypes which are non-distinguishable by other tests. Presently more and morescientific work is underway to develop suitablemolecular techniques for assisting in plant breeding,genetic engineering and varietal identification.Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) based randomamplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) markers havebeen extensively used in DNA finger printing (1).


Twelve ber hybrids and their parents were selectedfrom experimental orchard of Department ofHorticulture, CCS Haryana Agricultural University,in order to explore the possibility of RAPD markers

to detect polymorphism in ber. Genomic DNA wasisolated from 1 to 2 weeks old young, not fullyexpanded leaves of ber genotypes following CTABextraction method of Murray and Thompson (2). DNAextracted contained very high amount of RNA andpolysaccharides. DNA sample was treated with RNAse(50 mg/ml) and incubated in water bath at 37ºC for 4 hto remove RNA contamination from DNA samples.DNA of the genotypes which did not form a clearsolution and showed gelatinous appearance waspurified by phenol purification. A total of 35 unique10-base random oligonucleotide primers were used tofind out polymorphism among the ber hybrids and theirparents. PCR was carried out in 20 µ1 of reactionmixture containing 50 ng of genomic DNA, 1.5 unitsof Taq DNA polymerse, 2 µl of 10 X Taq DNApolymerase buffer (10 mM Tris-HCI (pH 9.0), 50 mMKCl, 0.1% Triton (X-100), 1.5 mM MgCl2, 100 µMof each dNTP’s and 0.2 µM of primer. Amplificationwas carried out in PTC-100 programmable thermalcycler (MJ Research). PCR conditions for RAPDanalysis included an initial predenaturation step of 3min at 94ºC and followed by 45 cycles of amplification: denaturation at 94ºC for 1 min, annealing at 40ºCfor 1 min, extension at 72ºC for 3 min and finalextension was carried out at 72ºC for 15 min.Amplified DNA fragments were resolved bysubmerged horizontal electrophoresis in 1.0% agarosegel and visualized by staining with ethidium bromide.PCR amplification products were viewed byfluorescence under UV light (high UV wavelength 350nm). Molecular weight of different fragments wasdetermined by using EcoRI-Hind III double digest of

λ DNA as standard marker. The gel was photographedusing VDS Image Master of Pharmacia Biotech.The banding patterns from RAPD analysis for eachprimer were scored by visual observation. Thepresence of an amplified band in each position wasrecorded as 1 and absence as 0. Data generated fromdetection of polymorphic fragments were analyzed byNei and Li (3) equation. 2Mx

Similarity (F) =–––––––––My + Mz

Dissimilarity = I-FWhere,Mx=Number of shared fragments between genotypes

Y and Z.My=Number of scored fragments of genotype Y.Mz = Number of scored fragments of genotype Z.Based on the pair-wise dissimilarities, cluster analysiswas done using unweighed pair group cluster analysisby arithmetic means (UPGMA).


Thirty-five random decamer primers obtained fromoperon technologies, USA having 60% or more G+Ccontent were used for RAPD analysis of different berhybrids and their parents to detect polymorphism. Outof 35 primers, 26 primers showed amplification (Table1), and 15 primers amplified all the ber hybrids andtheir parents. A total of 165 clear and reproduciblebands were obtained from 26 primers. For thegenotypes tested, between 2-24 bands were obtainedfor each primer with an average of 6.34 bands perprimer. The highest number of bands i. e. 24 weregenerated by OPE-1 (CCCAAGGTCC) followed byOPE-2 (GGTGCGGGAA), which gave 14 bands. Thedescripton of RAPD primers, which generatedpolymorphism and number of bands scored at eachone is shown in Table 1. A large number of

polymorphic bands were generated by the primers. Thepolymorphic bands size ranged from 100-800 base pairfor the primer OPE-1 (Fig. 1) and OPE-9. The lowestnumber of polymorphic bands was generated byprimers OPA-5, OPA-11, OPA-17 and OPA-18 whichgave one band each. The average per centpolymorphism was 79.84%. The high level ofpolymorphism obtained is due to the fact that berpossesses a mating system of out crossing, which hasresulted in maintenance of high levels of geneticvariability in the gene pool, which is reflected in theber genotypes, selected for study.

Table 1. Random primers used for amplification of genomicDNA of ber hybrids and their parents

Total primers used 35Primers which showed amplification 26Primers which were polymorphic 24Primers which were monomorphic 2Total number of bands produced 165No. of polymorphic bands 144No. of monomorphic bands 21Average no. of bands per primer 6.34Percentage of polymorphism 79.84

Fig. 1. Lane L λ DNA marker, Lane 1-12 ber hybrids and lane 13-22 parents showing polymorphism generated by OPE-1.

The UPGMA dendrogram generated from similaritymatrix, based on molecular characterization is depictedin Fig. 2. In the dendrogram, the ber hybrids and theirparents were broadly divided into two major clustersat a similarity coefficient of 0.52-0.85. Cluster Iconsisted of IL ( Illaichi) and cluster II comprised theremaining ber hybrids and their parents and was sub-divided into two sub-clusters, A and B. Sub-cluster Ahad 20 ber hybrids and their parents which were placedaccording to their similarity with each other, whereas

Fig. 2. Dendrogram (NTSYS-PC) showing genetic relationshipsamong ber hybrids and their parents based on RAPDmarkers analysis.


Abbreviations given to different ber hybrids and their parents

Parental genotypes Abbreviations Hybrids Female parent Male parent Abbreviations

Umran U Hybrid-1 Umran Kaithli UKLKaithli KL Hybrid-2 Umran Safeda Selected USSSafeda Selected SS Hybrid-3 Laddu Safeda Rohtak LDSRLaddu LD Hybrid-4 Kaithli Safeda Selected KLSSSafeda Rohtak SR Hybrid-5 Umran Mundia Murhara UMMMundia Murhara MM Hybrid-6 Kaithli Laddu KLLDReshmi RM Hybrid-7 Umran Reshmi URMIllaichi IL Hybrid-8 Illaichi Umran ILUKathaphal KP Hybrid-9 Umran Kathaphal UKPSandhura Narnaul SN Hybrid-10 Sandhura Narnaul Umran SNU

Hybrid-11 Safeda Selected Safeda Rohtak SSSRHybrid-12 Safeda Rohtak Safeda Selected SRSS

Hybrid KLSS (Kaithli x Safeda Selected) was presentalone in sub-cluster B.It is postulated that in RAPD reaction the comparisonof amplified products is determined by a comparisonbetween the potential priming sites in the templateDNA rather than by the total number of priming sitesavailable. Therefore, a variation in the amplificationpatterns and polymorphism was observed for differentprimers (5). One of the advantages of RAPDs methodwas that the entire plant genome was targeted forprimer annealing, facilitating development of a higherdensity map.RAPD markers are mostly dominant and detectvariation in both coding and non-coding region ofgenome and provide an approach to know the exactgenetic diversity existing among the genotypes. RAPDanalysis is technically simple and provides an approachto characterize different ber genotypes, thus to estimategenetic diversity which will be useful to breeders forimprovement of ber. Polymorphism can be

successfully scored and used for studying geneticvariation and diversity.

LITERATURE CITED

1. Luro, F., Laigret, F. and Murie, B. 1995. DNA amplifiedfinger printing. A useful tool for determination ofgenetic origin and diversity analysis in citrus. Hort.Sci. 30 : 1063-1067.

2. Murray, M. G. and Thompson, W. F. 1980. Rapid isolationof high molecular weight plant DNA. Nucleic AcidsRes. pp. 4321-4325.

3. Nei, M. and Li, W. 1979. Mathematics model for studyinggenetic variations in terms of restrictionendonucleases. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., USA 76 : 5269-5273.

4. Pareek, O. P. 2001. Ber. International Centre forUnderutilized crops, Southampton, U. K.

5. Rafalaski, J. A., Tingely, I. V. and Williams, J. G. K. 1991.RAPD markers–a new technology for geneticmapping and plant breeding. Agbiotech. News andInformation 3 : 645-648.



Effect of Foliar Application of Nutrients and Growth Regulators on Fruit Drop,Cracking, Yield and Quality in Bael (Aegle marmelos Correa)

SURENDER SINGH, J. R. SHARMA1, R. S. SAINI2 AND R. A. KAUSHIK3

Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Regional Research Station, Bawal-123 501 (Rewari), India

ABSTRACT : Foliar application of nutrients and plant growth regulators on bael revealed that lowest fruit drop was observedwith borax 0.1% (85.60%) and 0.2% (90.10%), whereas highest fruit drop was recorded with ZnSO4 0.75% (94.83%) followed bycontrol. Application of borax was also effective in reducing the extent of fruit cracking. Borax 0.1 and 0.2% recorded minimumfruit cracking 3.69 and 4.60%, respectively, which was significantly better over all other treatments and control. However, averagefruit weight was significantly higher under both the treatments of urea and borax as compared to control. A significant higher yieldwas also recorded in both the borax treatments followed by urea 1.5%. Not much difference in TSS was observed among differenttreatments but minimum acid content (0.34%) in fruits was obtained under NAA 15 ppm.

Key words : Bael, Aegle marmelos, nutrients, growth regulators, decline and fruit cracking

1Deaprtment of Horticulture, CCSHAU, Hisar, Haryana.2KVK, Mandkola, Haryana.3Department of Horticulture, MPUA & T, Udaipur (Rajasthan), India.

Bael (Aegle marmelos Correa) is a crosss-pollinatedcrop and polyembryonic in nature. It is an importantfruit crop of arid and semi-arid regions. Its cultivationrequires the least input and care. It is the hardiest plantand can thrive well under adverse climatic conditions.Problems of poor fruit set, fruit drop and fruit crackingare the important limiting factors which result in yieldloss. Being a deep rooted fruit crop, basal applicationmay not be effective for rectifying the deficiency forimmediate response. Foliar applications of nutrientshave been reported to be useful in overcoming theseirregularities in certain fruit crops (1). Plant growthregulators have also been found to accelerate thetranslocation of metabolites from other parts of theplant towards developing fruits. Not much work hasyet been done on this aspect on bael crops. Keepingin view the above facts, the present investigation wasundertaken to study the effect of foliar application ofnutrients and plant growth regulators on fruit drop andcracking in bael.


The study was carried out on 25-years old bael treesof cv. Kagzi planted at 9 x 9 m distance in theexperimental orchard of CCSHAU Regional ResearchStation, Bawal during 2004-06. The experiment waslaid out in randomized block design and a single treewas kept as a unit for each treatment having threereplications. Three nutrients i. e. B, Zn and urea andtwo plant growth regulators i. e. NAA and 2, 4-D, eachin two concentrations were applied through foliarspray. All the treatments were given thrice after fruit

set (end of July, end of August and end of September).In case of Zn, half the quantity of lime was added forneutralization. Uniform cultural practices werefollowed for these trees throughout the study period.Observations were recorded on fruit drop, fruitcracking, yield, TSS and acidity of fruit. Fruit dropwas calculated by counting number of flowersdeveloped into fruits on each selected shoot and thefinally retained fruits and converted into per cent. TSSwas recorded with Abbey’s refractometer (0-100%scale) and acidity according to Saini et al. (3).


The data presented in Table 1 reveal that foliarapplication of 0.1 and 0.2% borax significantlyreduced the fruit drop over control throughout thestudy period (2004-06). However, borax 0.1% wasfound most effective in reducing the fruit drop(85.60%). Maximum fruit drop (97.33%) was observedunder control. Similar findings have been reported bySingh and Ahlawat (6) and Yadav (7) in ber. Thedecrease in fruit drop as a result of nutrients and plantgrowth regulators sprayed trees might be due to thereduced abscission as its application increases auxinsynthesis. Boron application also helps in sugartranslocation to the target sites which result in betterpollination and fruit set. The application of boraxtreatments (0.1 and 0.2%) also effectively reduced theextent of fruit cracking. Borax 0.1% recordedminimum (3.69%) fruit cracking which wassignificantly lower than all other treatments exceptborax 0.2%, whereas it was maximum (7.57%) in

control. These results are in close conformity withthose of Singh et al. (4) in litchi. This reduction infruit cracking might be due to borate bridging withcell wall constituents and giving elastic response to it.Fruit size was significantly increased by foliarapplication of nutrients and growth regulators overcontrol except 2, 4-D. Maximum fruit size (11.47 x10.43 cm) was recorded in 1.5% urea treatment,whereas it was minimum (9.43 x 8.67 cm) in control.Accordingly all the treatments significantly improvedthe fruit weight over control. Maximum fruit weight(1.03 kg/fruit) was recorded from the plants sprayedwith 1.5% urea closely followed by urea 1.0% (0.985kg/fruit) and borax 0.1% (0.983 kg/fruit), whereas itwas minimum (0.765 kg/fruit) in control.Number of fruits and fruit yield per plant weresignificantly increased with the application of nutrientsand growth regulators over control. Maximum numberof fruits (148.7) and fruit yield (146.17 kg) per treewas recorded from the plants applied with borax 0.1%spray closely followed by borax 0.2% treatment andminimum in control. Reduced fruit drop due tonutrients spray could give higher number of fruits andconsequently increased the yield (6). Increase in yieldin various fruit crops by foliar application of nutrientshas also been observed by Dahiya et al. (1) and Singhet al. (4). Total soluble solids increased and aciditydecreased by all treatments as compared to control.Maximum TSS (34.30%) and minimum acid content(0.34%) in fruits were obtained under NAA 15 ppm.These findings are closely associated with those ofPandey (2) and Singh and Vashishtha (5). This might

be due to that under the influence of chemicals, theacids might have been quickly converted into sugarand its derivatives by the reactions involving reversalof glycolytic pathway.

LITERATURE CITED

1. Dahiya, S. S., Joon, M. S. and Daulta, B. S. 1993. Effectof foliar application of micronutrients on yield andquality of guava (Psidium guajava L.) cv. L-49. Int.J. Trop. Agric. 11 : 284-286.

2. Pandey, V. 1999. Effect of NAA and GA3 spray on fruitretention, growth, yield and quality of ber (Ziziphusmauritiana Lamk.) cv. Banarsi Karaka. Orrisa J.Hort. 27 : 69-73.

3. Saini, R. S., Sharma, K. D., Dhankhar, O. P. and Kaushik,R. A. 2000. Laboratory Manual of AnalyticalTechniques in Horticulture. Agrobios (India) Jodhpur.p. 113.

4. Singh, A. K., Sharma, P., Sharma, R. M. and Tiku, A. K.2005. Effect of plant bioregulators and micronutrientson tree productivity, fruit cracking and aril proportionof litchi (Litchi chinensis Lonn.) cv. Dehradun.Haryana J. hortic. Sci. 34 : 220-221.

5. Singh, R. S. and Vashishtha, B. B. 1997. Effect of foliarspray of nutrients on fruit crop, yield and quality ofber (Ziziphus mauritiana Lamk.) cv. Seb. HaryanaJ. hortic. Sci. 26 : 20-24.

6. Singh, S. and Ahlawat, V. P. 1996. Effect of foliarapplication of urea and zinc sulphate on yieldparameters of ber (Ziziphus mauritiana Lamk.) cv.Umran. Haryana J. hortic. Sci. 25 : 33-35.

7. Yadav, B. 2001. Studies on the effect of NAA, urea andZn on fruit drop, yield and quality of ber cv. Umran.M. Sc. thesis, CCSHAU, Hisar.

Table 1. Effect of foliar application of nutrients and growth regulators on fruit drop, cracking and yield in bael (Pooled dataof 2004-06)

Fruit Fruit Size of fruit Average No. of Yield TSS Aciditydrop cracking (L x B) fruit wt. fruits/ (kg/tree) (%) (%)(%) (%) (cm) (kg) tree

Borax (%) 0.1 85.60 3.69 11.23 x 10.27 0.983 148.7 146.17 34.06 0.370.2 90.10 4.60 11.13 x 10.27 0.972 147.8 143.66 33.93 0.39

ZnSO4 (%) 0.5 92.53 6.22 10.63 x 10.00 0.935 141.6 132.89 33.17 0.420.75 94.83 6.83 11.27 x 10.27 0.933 139.6 130.24 33.47 0.41

NAA (ppm) 15 92.17 6.25 10.57 x 10.17 0.890 138.3 123.09 34.30 0.3420 92.90 6.82 11.10 x 10.50 0.880 136.3 119.94 34.20 0.36

2, 4-D (ppm) 15 91.70 5.55 10.17 x 09.97 0.928 145.0 129.05 32.95 0.4020 91.06 5.90 09.63 x 09.50 0.926 138.6 120.58 32.93 0.41

Urea (%) 1.0 92.16 6.42 11.36 x 10.27 0.985 138.0 135.93 32.00 0.371.5 91.67 6.35 11.47 x 10.43 1.030 138.0 140.08 32.62 0.37

Control 97.33 7.57 09.43 x 08.67 0.765 133.6 102.20 30.67 0.44C. D. (P=0.05) 5.16 0.93 1.03 x 0.83 0.061 8.9 8.1 2.7 0.04Mean 91.73 5.98 10.70 x 9.98 0.922 139.1 129.90 33.02 0.39S. Em 1.70 0.29 0.33 x 0.27 0.218 2.98 2.64 0.89 0.013C. V. (%) 13.61 20.02 17.56 x 16.44 13.97 14.64 14.25 16.41 18.25



Adoption Level of Package of Practices for Kinnow Cultivation among Farmers

J. S. GORA, SULTAN SINGH, S. K. SEHRAWAT, JAGAT SINGH AND SATPAL BALODADepartment of Horticulture, CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar-125 004 (Haryana), India

ABSTRACT : The present investigation was carried out in the blocks of Hisar, Sirsa and Fatehabad districts of Haryana duringthe year 2010-11. A total number of 20 farmers were selected for purpose of investigation. An interview schedule was developedon the basis of recommended package of practices for kinnow production. The adoption score of the farmers ranged from 11 to 32,out of maximum score of 40. The mean adoption score was moderate (21.65). The adoption level of time of planting, plantingdistance, land preparation and training and pruning practices was comparatively high. Important practices like drip irrigation(40%), plant protection measures (45%), weed control (45%) and intercropping (45%) had very low adoption level. The maximumadoption gap was observed in planting of wind break, post-harvest treatment and fruit packaging.

Key words : Package of practices, adoption level, orchard, pruning, kinnow

The kinnow, a mandarin hybrid (Citrus nobilis Lour xCitrus deliciosa Tan.), is successfully grown in Punjab,Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Western Rajasthan andUttar Pradesh. Kinnow helped in replacing thetraditional citrus fruits viz., Sweet Orange and localmandarin to some extent and strengthening the statusof citrus industry in India especially in Punjab andHaryana.In Haryana, Sirsa district leads in the highest area andproduction of kinnow which is about 65% of the totalproduction of Haryana. The productivity of Sirsadistrict is higher than other districts of Haryana butlower than other states of India. The possible cause oflow kinnow productivity in Haryana may be due tolow adoption of improved technology. The propermanagement of kinnow orchards is essential to obtainhigh yield. Any neglect of orchards management bythe farmers and lack of proper scientific knowledgemay lead to decrease in yield. Researchers haveestablished that adoptions of the recommendedproduction technology are pre- requisite for obtaininghigher productivity of any crop. Although there are several factors affecting theproductivity and production, but the most importantfactor is a sound knowledge of the improvedtechnology and full scale use of the recommendedpackage of practices for successful results. The use ofproduction technology encounters problems ofmultifarious nature in the adoption of technology,therefore; there is a need to study the level of adoptionof scientific practices in kinnow. Such a study wouldbe helpful in understanding this important factor andits implication on the production of kinnow in the state.The economic feasibility of kinnow cultivation has tobe worked out on the profitability of kinnowcultivation. Therefore, an attempt has been made inthis study to increase adoption level of package of

practices in kinnow orchards of Haryana.


The study was conducted in Haryana, out of 21districts, Hisar, Sirsa and Fatehabad districts wereselected for this research work because they are themajor growing areas of kinnow in the state. Thus, atotal number of 20 farmers were selected for thepurpose of investigation. For the study, adoption refersto continuous use of recommended package ofpractices for the last two years for kinnow production.This was measured with the help of a schedule,developed on the basis of package of practicesrecommended by Department of Horticulture,CCSHAU, Hisar/Directorate of Horticulture,Government of Haryana for kinnow production.Exhaustive lists of practices were prepared inconsultation with the experts working in theDepartment of Horticulture, College of Agriculture,CCSHAU, Hisar. It was screened and all the majorpractices were retained in the final schedule.All the technological procedures were categorized into20 broad categories, namely, orchard planning, landpreparation, soil testing, time of planting, digging andfilling of pits, planting distance, source of planting ofmaterial, planting of wind breaks, irrigation schedule,drip irrigation, training and pruning, manure andfertilizers, intercrops, control of fruit drop, weedcontrol, harvesting methods, harvesting period, fruitpackaging, post-harvest treatment and plant protectionmeasures. In all 20 practices, the responses includedin the questionnaire were obtained on three-pointcontinuum i. e. full adoption, partial adoption and noadoption with the assigned scores of 2, 1 and 0,respectively. On the basis of this score range, threeadoption categories were formulated having equal

class interval width mentioned as : Low (0-33),Medium (34-66) and High (67-100).Accordingly, the farmers were categorized into low,medium and high adoption categories.Technological gap is operationally defined as the gapbetween the recommended practices and their levelof adoption. The technological gap in differentrecommended practices was computed in the form ofpercentage with the help of following formula :

R-ATechnological gap index/Adoption gap=______× 100 RWhere,R=Maximum possible adoption scores that respondent

could be awarded in respect of a given componentof technology.

A=Scores obtained by a respondent by virtue of hislevel of adoption of a given component oftechnology.


The adoption of kinnow cultivation practices variedfrom individual to individual and aspect-wise also. Anattempt has been made to find out the adoption levelof package of practices for kinnow cultivation by thefarmers. The adoption score of the farmers ranged from

11 to 32, out of the maximum possible score of 40(Table 1). The mean adoption score was 21.65, whichmay be considered comparatively moderate. ManoharLal, Vivekanand and Subash obtained highestadoption score i. e. 32, 31 and 29 with 80.00, 77.50and 75.00% of adoption level of package of practices,while Vineet Kumar and Harpal were at the lowestscore of 11 (27.50%) and 13 (32.50%) of adoptionlevel of package of practices.The perusal of data revealed that 15% of the farmersbelonged to low adopter category, while 55% of themwere observed to be in the medium adopter categoryfollowed by 30% in high adopter category (Table 2).About 70% of the farmers had low to medium level ofadoption of package of practices of kinnow. It has beengenerally observed by the extension functionaries thata new technology is likely to be adopted by the lessnumber of farmers or progressive farmers and oncethe technology is proven, it is adopted by majority ofthe farmers, however, small number of farmers stilladopts it very late. All farmers do not adopt packageof practices or any new technology at same time (4).Perhaps, it occurred in case of adoption of package ofpractices of kinnow production. The adoption of aninnovation usually follows a normal bell shaped curve.The similar finding was reported by Sehrawat andKharab (5) that majority of farmers (70.20%) belongedto medium adoption categories in cotton production

Table 1. Adoption level of farmers based on recommended package of practices of kinnow cultivation

Name of farmers Maximum Adoption Adoption level Adoption gapadoption score (%) (%)

score

Karam Chand 40 29 72.50 27.50Balram 40 23 54.76 45.24Om Prakash 40 21 52.50 47.50Atma Ram 40 20 50.00 50.00Subash 40 30 75.00 25.00Kuldeep 40 21 52.50 47.50Manphool 40 18 45.00 55.00Amardeep 40 19 47.50 52.50Jagdeesh 40 23 54.76 45.24Leeladhar 40 18 45.00 55.00Harpal 40 13 32.50 67.50Vineet Kumar 40 11 27.50 72.50Vivekanand 40 31 77.50 22.50Manohar Lal 40 32 80.00 20.00Gaurav 40 20 50.00 50.00Hetram 40 17 42.50 57.50Ram Kumar 40 19 47.50 52.50Vikas 40 21 52.50 47.50Atmram 40 24 60.00 40.00Sriram 40 23 57.50 42.50Average 40 21.65 53.80 46.149


technology, while the percentage of high and lowadoption category was 16.19 and 12.90, respectively.These findings are in conformity with the results ofBhatia (1) and Singh (6) who pointed out that about40% were medium adopters of sugarcane and cottoncrops.The data were further analyzed to know the adoptionlevel on different practices adopted by kinnow growingfarmers and are presented in Table 3. The data revealedthat adoption level of time of planting, plantingdistance, land preparation and training and pruningpractices was comparatively high. The practices likeplanting of wind break (3 adoption score), post-harvesttreatment (5 adoption score) and fruit packaging (11adoption score) were least adopted score by thefarmers. Important practices like drip irrigation (16adoption score), all three plant protection measures,weed control and intercrops (18 adoption score) had

Table 2. Overall adoption level of farmers based onrecommended package of practices of kinnowcultivation

S. Adoption level Adoption Frequency Percentage ofNo. category of score farmers

farmers

1. Low 0-13 3 15.002. Medium 14-26 11 55.003. High 27- 40 6 30.00

Table 3. Adoption index and gap of recommended package of practices of kinnow cultivation

Package of practices Maximum Adoption Adoption Adoptionadoption score index gap

score (%) (%)

Orchard planning 40 27 67.50 32.50Land preparation 40 34 85.00 15.00Soil testing 40 22 55.00 45.00Time of planting 40 35 87.50 12.50Digging and filling of pit 40 29 72.50 27.50Planting distance 40 35 87.50 12.50Source of plant material 40 26 65.00 35.00Planting of wind breaks 40 3 7.50 92.50Irrigation 40 25 62.50 37.50Drip irrigation 40 16 40.00 60.00Training and pruning 40 32 80.00 20.00Manures and fertilizers 40 23 57.50 42.50Intercrops 40 18 45.00 55.00Control of fruit drop 40 20 50.00 50.00Weed control 40 18 45.00 55.00Harvesting methods 40 25 62.50 37.50Harvesting period 40 23 57.50 42.50Fruit packaging 40 11 27.50 72.50Post-harvest treatment 40 5 12.50 87.50Plant protection 40 18 45.00 55.00

very low adoption score. The adoption index washigher for practices like the time of planting (87.50%)and planting distance (87.50%) followed by landpreparation (85.00%), while it was lowest in case ofplanting of wind break (7.50%), which was followedby post-harvest treatment (12.50%) and fruit packaging(27.50%). There was adoption gap in various packagesof practices. The maximum adoption gap was recordedin case of planting of wind break (92.50%), followedby post-harvest treatment (87.50%) and fruit packaging(72.50%).The farmers were further categorized into threecategories on the basis of adoption level and thedistribution is given in Table 4. Out of the 20 farmerssurveyed, two farmers were having low adoption level(0-33 score), whereas 14 farmers had medium level(34-66 score). The frequency of high adoption level(67-100 score) was low i. e. four only. It was foundthat majority of the farmers (70.00%) had a mediumlevel of adoption. Only about 20% of the farmers fellin higher adopters’ category, while the percentage offarmers falling in low adoption category was 10.00%.The adoption index of practices like planting distance,land preparation and time of planting was very highfor all the farmers. This package of practices had highlevel of adoption perhaps as these were perceived bythe farmers to be essential for establishment of kinnoworchards. The practices of planting of wind break on

138 Gora and others

Table 4. Overall adoption score of the recommended package of practices of kinnow cultivation

S. No. Adoption level Adoption Frequency Percentage ofcategory of farmers score farmers

1. Low 0-33 2 10.002. Medium 34-66 14 70.003. High 67-100 4 20.00

the boundary of orchards were least adopted by thefarmers because the farmers could not observe theimpact of wind break immediately on kinnowproduction. The practices of giving any post-harvesttreatment were also not widely adopted as farmers soldthe fruit immediately after harvesting. Moreover, theorchards in many cases were taken over by thecontractor who was least interested in following therecommended practices. The adoption index of plantprotection control measure, manure and fertilizers andirrigation fell in medium range. It is perhaps due tothe non-adoption of these practices that is why theproductivity of kinnow in the state is less than that ofneighbouring states of Haryana. The main reasonsbehind the low to medium adoption of recommendedpackage of practices for kinnow cultivation may belack of knowledge about plant protection controlmeasures, fertilizer doses and irrigation schedule.Singh (6) and Pandhu (3) also observed that theorchardists of Sirsa who had a higher know-howadopted the practices more quickly.

LITERATURE CITED

1. Bhatia, Rajesh. 1991. Sugarcane Cultivation–Technological Gap and Constraints. M. Sc. thesis,Department of Extension Education, CCSHAU,Hisar.

2. Kumar, B. 2009. Indian horticulture database. NationalHorticulture Board, Ministry of Agriculture,Govt. of India, Gurgaon. pp. 12-15.

3. Pandhu, K. S. 1988. Extent of adoption of selectedrecommended practices by kinnow growers inFerozepur and Faridkot districts of Punjab. M. Sc.thesis, P. A. U., Ludhiana.

4. Ray, G. L. 2008. Extension Communication andManagement, edn. VII. Kalyani Publishers, NewDelhi. pp. 197-199.

5. Sehrawat, P. S. and Kharab, R. K. 1993. Adoption ofimproved agricultural technology for cotton crop inHisar district. Parasarika Raj. J. Ext. pp. 38-40.

6. Singh, B. 1998. Adoption of improved practices of kinnow(mandarin hybrid) in Haryana. M. Sc. thesis,Department of Extension Education, CCSHAU,Hisar.



Influence of Pruning Intensity and Pruning Frequency on ReproductiveAttributes and Leaf C/N Ratio in Sardar Guava

GURDARSHAN SINGH1

Department of Horticulture, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana-141 004 (Punjab), India

ABSTRACT : Investigations were carried out in the New Orchard of Department of Horticulture, Punjab Agricultural University,Ludhiana. Pruning intensities consisted of removal of shoot tip to 0, 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th and 10th node. Pruning frequency comprisedregular and alternate year pruning. The results of investigation revealed that duration of flowering exhibited a significant declinewith the increased severity of pruning. Regular pruning significantly shortened the duration of flowering. However, the highestfruit yield was obtained in trees subjected to 6-node pruning intensity. Interaction between pruning intensity and pruning frequencyshowed that 6-node regular pruning treatment emerged as the best treatment with respect to fruit yield. There was a significantincrease in leaf C/N ratio with the enhanced severity of pruning during both the years. Regular pruning surpassed alternatepruning by registering superior C/N ratio. The interaction effect of pruning intensity and pruning frequency was found significantand regular pruning to 10 nodes recorded the highest C/N ratio.

Key words : Guava, pruning intensity, pruning frequency, fruit yield

1Assistant Professor (Hort.), KVK, Muktsar (Punjab), India.

Guava is hardy, prolific bearer and highly remunerativefruit crop grown on a variety of soils under varied agro-climatic conditions. In Punjab and most of the otherparts of northern India, it flowers once in April-Mayfor the rainy season crop and again in August-September for the winter season crop. Flowers areborne solitary or in cymes of two or three flowers, onthe current season’s growth which necessitates thereplacing of old wood by the new one by pruning.Moreover, observations have shown that after 8-10years of age, guava trees show considerable declinein yield with sub-optimal fruit quality owing tovigorous vegetative growth and frequent interminglingof the branches particularly in the lower half of thetree leading to unfruitfulness, as fruitful buds becomeblind. Such unproductive trees can be made to bearprofitable crop for more years by judicious pruning.The results of studies have indicated that wheneverpruning has been attempted in guava, there has beennoticed vast improvement in yield, especially, withlight pruning (3). On the other hand, Jadhao et al. (5)reported that severe pruning (60 cm from the tip)resulted in the most vigorous vegetative growth andthe highest fruit yield in guava. To ascertain the abovefacts, a study was conducted to find out the effect ofpruning intensity and pruning frequency onreproductive attributes and leaf C/N ratio of Sardarguava.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The present study was conducted on twelve-year-oldgrafted plants of Sardar guava planted 6 m2 apart in

the New Orchard of Department of Horticulture,Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana. The pruningtreatments were applied in the first week of March,with six pruning levels i. e. removal of shoot tip to 0,2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th and 10th node. There were fourreplications with two tree units per replication. In all,there were 48 trees, which were under observation.In each treatment, there were eight trees. During thefirst year of study, except the control trees (8), all the40 trees were subjected to pruning. During thesucceeding year, out of 40, only 20 trees were pruned,while the remaining 20 were kept unpruned. Thus,there were 20 trees which were subjected to regularpruning for two years and 20 others which were prunedin the alternate year. The observations on flowering,fruit set, fruit yield, leaf C/N ratio and leaf chlorophyllcontent were recorded.Nitrogen content of leaves was estimated by micro-Kjeldahl’s method (2) and the nitrogen percentage wascalculated by using the formulae below :

Total dilution x 0.0014 x (10-X)Per cent nitrogen=______________________________x 100

Volume of aliquot taken

Where, X=Volume of N/10 NaOH used forneutralizing excess of H2SO4Total carbohydrates were estimated by the standardmethod recommended by A. O. A. C. (2) and thepercentage of carbohydrates :

ppm Total dilutionPer cent carbohydrates=_________ x________________x 100 1000000 Weight of sample

The experimental data were statistically analyzed usingrandomized block design with factorial arrangement.


The data presented in Table 1 depict that severepruning minimized the span of flowering as severepruning levels of 8-node and 10-node pruningintensities recorded the shortest duration of floweringduring both the rainy and winter season crops of boththe years under study. Although there was incrementin fruit set with the enhanced severity of pruning, theresults were non-significant. The data presented inTable 2 show that beyond 6-node pruning intensity,any subsequent increase in severity of pruning led tosubstantial reduction in fruit number and yield per tree.6-node pruning intensity recorded significantly higherfruit number and yield per tree during both thecropping seasons of both the years.Regular pruning shortened the duration of floweringquite significantly as compared to alternate pruning.On the other hand, per cent fruit set, fruit number andfruit yield were not statistically altered by pruningfrequency. The interaction effect of pruning intensityx pruning frequency revealed that trees pruned to 6-node under regular pruning treatment recordedsignificantly higher fruit number (Table 3) and yieldper tree (Table 4) than rest of the treatments duringboth the cropping seasons. The lower fruit numberunder severe and regular pruning treatments as

compared to regular pruning to 6 nodes was perhapsdue to reduction in the bearing area. Though thebearing area was the maximum under control trees andtrees subjected to lighter pruning intensities (2-nodeand 4-node), yet these treatments recordedsignificantly lower fruit number per tree than rest ofthe treatments. This might be attributed to the fact thatthere was more number of blind flower buds in treessubjected to such pruning intensities. The findings arefound in consonance with those of Bajpai et al. (3),Gopikrishna (4) and Singh (7).The data presented in Table 5 depict that there was asignificant increase in leaf C/N ratio with the enhancedseverity of pruning during both the years. It is quiteobvious that 10-node pruning intensity recorded thehighest C/N ratio to the tune of 9.07 and 8.81,respectively, during the 1st and 2nd year under study.These values were significantly higher than thoserecorded in the control and 2-node pruning level.However, pruning levels of 4-node, 6-node, 8-nodeand 10-node could not exhibit any glaring differencesamong themselves with respect to C/N ratio.Regular pruning surpassed alternate pruning byregistering superior C/N ratio. The interaction effectof pruning intensity and pruning frequency was alsofound significant. Regular pruning to 10 nodesrecorded the highest C/N ratio of 8.98. The higher C/N ratio in severely and regularly pruned trees may beascribed to the fact that such treatments may havestimulated the photosynthetic activity of leaves as a

Table 1. Influence of pruning intensity and pruning frequency on duration of flowering (days) and per cent fruit set in Sardar guava

Treatment Duration of flowering Per cent fruit set

1st year 2nd year 1st year 2nd year

Rainy Winter Rainy Winter Rainy Winter Rainy Winterseason season season season season season season seasoncrop crop crop crop crop crop crop crop

Pruning intensity0 38 40 39.0 41.0 59.70 58.56 58.40 58.702-node 37 38 37.5 38.5 60.06 60.70 61.80 61.254-node 37 37 36.0 37.0 61.70 61.25 62.95 62.356-node 35 34 34.5 34.0 62.00 63.25 64.45 64.808-node 34 32 33.5 32.0 63.73 65.73 66.45 67.0010-node 32 31 31.5 30.9 64.30 67.60 67.50 68.90C. D. (P=0.05) 3.52 3.71 2.36 2.16 NS NS NS NSPruning frequencyRegular pruning - - 34.00 34.13 - - 64.33 64.17Alternate pruning - - 36.67 37.00 - - 62.85 63.50C. D. (P=0.05) - - 1.36 1.24 - - NS NS

NS–Not Significant.


result of enlarged mesophyll cell size and increasedchlorophyll content. Moreover, such trees put forthluxuriant vegetative growth and there was enhancedutilization of foliar nitrogen for the vegetative growth,which ultimately led to decline in foliar nitrogen.Similar results were quoted by Rom and Ferree (6)and Abo-El-Ez (1) in peach and persimmon,respectively.

Table 2. Influence of pruning intensity and pruning frequency on fruit number and fruit yield per tree (kg) in Sardar guava

Treatment Fruit number Fruit yield

1st year 2nd year 1st year 2nd year

Rainy Winter Rainy Winter Rainy Winter Rainy Winterseason season season season season season season seasoncrop crop crop crop crop crop crop crop

Pruning intensity0 234.0 253.0 238.0 258.0 27.8 30.9 28.5 31.02-node 261.0 269.0 274.5 284.0 31.7 34.4 33.4 36.44-node 270.0 278.0 285.0 308.0 33.3 36.1 35.2 40.06-node 391.0 420.0 412.0 456.5 49.6 54.6 51.9 59.58-node 336.0 353.0 332.0 349.5 43.8 47.0 43.3 46.510-node 301.0 307.0 301.5 304.5 42.5 46.2 42.4 46.1C. D. (P=0.05) 17.16 16.96 10.61 8.36 2.26 2.46 1.39 1.95Pruning frequencyRegular pruning - - 306.8 326.66 - - 39.33 43.33Alternate pruning - - 307.5 326.83 - - 38.80 43.02C. D. (P=0.05) - - NS NS - - NS NS

*Interaction effect of pruning intensity x pruning frequency was significant and presented in Tables 3 and 4. NS–Not Significant.

Table 3. Interaction effect of pruning intensity and pruning frequency with respect to fruit number per tree

Treatment Pruning frequency

Fruit number/tree

Rainy season crop Winter season crop

Alternate Regular Mean Alternate Regular Meanpruning pruning pruning pruning

Pruning intensity0 238.0 238.0 238.0 258.0 258.0 258.02-node 270.0 279.0 274.5 283.0 285.0 284.04-node 279.0 291.0 285.0 300.0 316.0 308.06-node 404.0 420.0 412.0 443.0 470.0 456.58-node 341.0 323.0 332.0 361.0 338.0 349.510-node 313.0 290.0 301.5 316.0 293.0 304.5Mean 307.5 306.8 - 326.83 326.66 -C. D. (P=0.05)Pruning intensity (A) 10.61 8.36Pruning frequency (B) NS NSInteraction (A x B) 15.01 11.83


CONCLUSIONS

Severe pruning minimized the span of flowering assevere pruning levels of 8-node and 10-node pruningintensities recorded the shortest duration of floweringduring both the rainy and winter season crops of boththe years under study. Although, there was incrementin fruit set with the enhanced severity of pruning, the

142 Singh

Table 5. Influence of pruning intensity and pruning frequencyon leaf C/N ratio in Sardar guava


Leaf C/N ratio

1st year 2nd year

Alternate Regular Meanpruning pruning

Pruning intensity0 7.46 7.35 7.35 7.352-node 8.06 7.99 8.13 8.064-node 8.73 8.60 8.69 8.656-node 8.76 8.48 8.74 8.618-node 9.04 8.65 8.92 8.7910-node 9.07 8.65 8.98 8.81Mean - 8.29 8.47 -C. D. (P=0.05) 1st year 2nd yearPruning intensity (A) 0.65 0.70Pruning frequency (B) - 0.16Interaction (A x B) - 0.56

Table 4. Interaction effect of pruning intensity and pruning frequency with respect to fruit yield (kg/tree)


Fruit yield (kg/tree)

Rainy season crop Winter season crop

Alternate Regular Mean Alternate Regular Meanpruning pruning pruning pruning

Pruning intensity0 28.5 28.5 28.5 31.0 31.0 31.02-node 32.4 34.4 33.4 36.0 36.7 36.44-node 34.3 36.1 35.2 38.7 41.3 40.06-node 50.3 53.5 51.9 57.5 61.4 59.58-node 44.1 42.4 43.3 47.8 45.2 46.510-node 43.3 41.4 42.4 47.1 45.0 46.1Mean 38.80 39.33 - 43.02 43.43 -C. D. (P=0.05)Pruning intensity (A) 1.39 1.95Pruning frequency (B) NS NSInteraction (A x B) 1.96 2.76


results were non-significant. 6-node pruning intensityrecorded significantly higher fruit number and yieldper tree during both the cropping seasons of both theyears. Beyond 6-node pruning intensity, anysubsequent increase in severity of pruning led tosubstantial reduction in fruit number and yield per tree.

The interaction effect of pruning intensity x pruningfrequency revealed that trees pruned to 6-node underregular pruning treatment recorded significantly higherfruit number and yield per tree than rest of thetreatments during both the cropping seasons. The lowerfruit number under severe and regular pruningtreatments as compared to regular pruning to 6 nodeswas perhaps due to reduction in the bearing area.Though the bearing area was the maximum undercontrol trees and trees subjected to lighter pruningintensities (2-node and 4-node), yet these treatmentsrecorded significantly lower fruit number per tree thanrest of the treatments. This might be attributed to thefact that there was more number of blind flower budsin trees subjected to such pruning intensities. Therewas a significant increase in leaf C/N ratio with theenhanced severity of pruning during both the years.Regular pruning surpassed alternate pruning byregistering superior C/N ratio. The interaction effectof pruning intensity and pruning frequency was alsofound significant. Regular pruning to 10 nodesrecorded the highest C/N ratio.

LITERATURE CITED

1. Abo-El-Ez, A. T. 2009. Effect of pruning severity ongrowth, yield, alternate bearing and fruit quality of“Costata” Persimmon (Diospyras kaki L.) trees. J.Appl. Sci. Res. 5 : 2421-2434.

2. A. O. A. C. 1990. Official Methods of Analysis, 15th edn.


Association of Official Analytical Chemists,Washington, D. C, USA.

3. Bajpai, P. N., Shukla, H. S. and Chaturvedi, A. M. 1973.Effect of pruning on growth, yield and quality ofguava (Psidium guajava L.) var. Allahabad Sufeda.Prog. Hort. 5 : 73-79.

4. Gopikrishna, N. S. 1981. Studies on the effect of pruningon vegetative growth, flowering and fruiting in Sardarguava. M. Sc. thesis, Univ. Agric. Sciences, Dharwad,India.

5. Jadhao, B. J., Damke, M. M., Mahorkar, V. K., Dod, V.

N. and Wgh, A. P. 1998. Studies on effect of timeand severity of pruning on growth and yield of guava(Psidium guajava L.) cv. Sardar. J. Soils and Crops8 : 139-141.

6. Rom, C. R. and Ferree, D. C. 1985. Time and severity ofpruning influence young peach tree netphotosynthesis, transpiration and dry weightdistribution. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 10 : 455-461.

7. Singh, G. 2001. Response of vegetative growth, floweringand fruiting to pruning in Sardar guava. M. Sc. thesis,Punjab Agric. Univ., Ludhiana, India.

144 Singh


Screening of Tuberose (Polianthes tuberosa L.) Cultivars under Agro-climaticConditions of Allahabad

A. CHATURVEDI, K. KANDPAL AND P. L. SARANG. B. P. U. A. & T., Horticulture Research and Extension Centre, Dhakrani, Dehradun-248 142 (Uttarakhand), India

ABSTRACT : To know the superiority, better adaptation and acclimatization, over local cultivars of tuberose, this trial wasconducted during 2007-08, at A. A. I., Allahabad, including five tuberose cultivars. Local cultivar took minimum days (12.46days) for 50% sprouting of bulbs and spike initiation (81.25 days). Cultivar Shringar showed better performance over other fornumber of leaves (17.16), maximum number of florets (55.50), maximum florets size (6.35 cm), maximum spike length (93.00cm), maximum spike durability (38 days) and maximum number of bulblets production (30.50). However, cultivar Prajwal showedsuperiority over cultivar Local regarding maximum weight of bulb (56.17 g) and diameter of bulb (4.35 cm) as compared to othercultivars. In terms of economic gain, maximum B : C ratio was achieved with cultivar Shringar (2.68).

Key words : Polianthes tuberosa L., varietal screening, B : C ratio

Flowers are grown and admired by human beingswherever they live. In India, various floriculturalactivities including flower trade, bedding plantindustry, plant rental services, floral perfumes, flowerseeds and dry flower industry are different ways oftheir promotion. As regards the aesthetic value of cutflowers, the bulbous flowers are very popularthroughout the world and it constitutes one of the mostimportant groups of the floriculture wealth of thecountry.Tuberose (Polianthes tuberosa L.) is one of the mostimportant tropical ornamental plants and cultivated forproduction of long lasting, 90 cm long flowers spikes.Single varieties are more fragrant than double typedand contained 0.08 to 0.14% concrete which is usedin highly grade perfumes (6). There is high demandof tuberose concrete and absolute in internationalmarket and fetches a good price. Flowers of the singletype (single row perianth) are commonly used forextraction of essential oil, loose flowers, makinggarland, etc., while double varieties (more than tworows of perianth) are used as cut flowers, gardendisplay and interior decoration. In India, West Bengal,Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Karnataka are majortuberose growing states, out of them West Bengal hasmaximum area and production (1).Some cultivars of tuberose have been introduced, whilesome are evolved in India. Adaptation andacclimatization of these cultivars in different agro-climatic conditions of India and Uttar Pradesh are tobe confirmed for their better performance. This notonly helps the farmers to grow released and newintroduced and improved cultivars but it also helps inmaking them understand their superiority overpresently grown local cultivars. So, keeping the abovefacts in view, efforts were made to know different

morphological characters, best quality, bulbs andbulblets production and economics of differentcultivars.


A field experiment was conducted during summerseason of 2007-08 at Horticulture Research Farm, A.A. I., Allahabad, U. P. The bulbs of five cultivars(Local, Suvasini, Viabav, Prajwal and Shringar) weretransplanted in a plot size of 1.50 x 1.0 m2 at 40 x 30cm spacing. The experiment was laid out inrandomized block design (RBD) with five treatmentsand four replications. Five plants were randomlyselected for each plot for recording the observations.The observations viz., days to 50% sprouting of bulbs,plant height (cm) and number of leaves per plant wererecorded 60 days after planting, spike durability (daysfrom 50% first floret opening), spike length (cm)recorded 50 days after flowering, number of floretscounted after fully opening of floret, average lengthof florets per spike recorded in cm after 50% of fullyopening of florets, shelf life (days after 50% floretwithering), average number of bulblets produced perplanted bulb and number of bulb produced per plantedbulb were recorded after harvesting. Weight of bulbswas recorded by single pan balance and diameter ofbulb was recorded with the help of Vernier calipers.


The cultivar Local took minimum duration (12.46days) for 50% sprouting followed by Vaibhav (14.14days) in Table 1. This might be due to the fact thatcultivar Local was well adapted in these agro-climaticconditions. Similar findings were suggested by Bist

Tabl

e 1.

Com

para

tive

stud

y of

diff

eren

t tra

its o

f tub

eros

e cu

ltiva

rs

S.Va

rietie

s50

% s

prou

ting

Plan

tSp

ike

No.

of

Spik

eN

o. o

fLe

ngth

of

Dur

atio

n of

No.

of

Wei

ght o

fD

iam

eter

No.

of

No.

of b

ulbs

heig

htem

erge

nce

leav

es/p

lant

leng

thflo

rets

/flo

rets

/bl

oom

ing

bulb

lets

/bu

lbs

of b

ulb

bulb

s/pl

ante

d(d

ays)

(cm

)(d

ays)

(cm

)sp

ike

spik

esp

awn

plan

ted

(g)

(cm

)bu

lb(c

m)

(day

s)bu

lb

1.Lo

cal

12.4

612

0.25

81.2

512

.14

51.0

042

.50

4.72

20.2

52.

7436

.11

3.54

30.0

02.

Suva

sini

14.1

713

0.54

85.5

014

.02

69.5

047

.25

5.01

22.8

54.

2041

.21

2.66

20.2

53.

Vaib

hav

14.1

410

8.25

96.0

014

.62

61.0

052

.00

4.73

34.0

03.

0048

.25

3.08

17.5

04.

Praj

wal

16.2

310

3.72

101.

0013

.92

65.5

040

.50

5.86

24.5

02.

5856

.17

4.35

22.2

55.

Shrin

gar

19.9

995

.28

84.7

513

.16

93.0

055

.50

6.35

38.0

02.

8333

.83

2.71

30.5

0

146 Chaturvedi and others

(3). The tallest plant was recorded with cultivarSuvasini (130.54 cm) as compared with cv. Local(120.0 cm), however, minimum plant height (95.20cm) was measured with Shringar. A wide range ofvariation was obtained in plant height of differenttuberose varieties. This variation might be due togenetic constitution of the germplasm which has closebearing on the response to selection (4).Minimum days taken for spike initiation were observedwith cultivar Local (81.25) fallowed by Shringar(84.75). However, cultivar Prajwal took maximumdays for spike initiation (101.00 days). The significantdifference in spike emergence might be due to earlysprouting of cultivar Local, fast growth that ultimatelyled to earlier spike emergence than others. Similarresults were reported by Bist (3).The cultivar Shringar performed better in traits viz.,maximum spike length ( 93.00), maximum number offlorets per spike (55.50), maximum length of florets(6.35 cm), maximum blooming spawn (38 days) andmaximum number of bulblets (30.50) as compared tominimum length of spike (51.00 cm) and minimum lengthof florets (4.72 cm) with Local, whereas minimumblooming spawn (20.25 days) and minimum number ofbulblets (17.50) were recorded with Vaibhav. These floralcharacters were having significant differences due to the

presence of sufficient genetic variability (2, 5).Cultivar Prajwal performed better for maximum bulbweight (56.17 g/bulb) and maximum diameter of bulb(4.35 cm) as compared to Local (3.54 cm) in whichbulb weight and bulb diameter were 36.11 g and 3.54cm, respectively. Meanwhile minimum weight per bulbwas recorded with Shringar (33.83 g) and minimumdiameter of bulb was recorded with cultivar Suvasini(2.66 cm). These differences might be due todifferences on genetic characters of the differentvarieties taken for the study.From economic point of view, cultivar Shringar wasfound best because it had maximum benefit : cost ratio(2.68) as compared to other cultivars (Table 2). It alsoshowed best in terms of economic values because itfetched best spike rate (Rs. 2.50/spike), producedmaximum bulb yield hence maximum income. So, thisgot maximum gross income, maximum net incomewhich automatically generated maximum benefit : costratio.On the basis of results obtained, it may be concludedthat cultivar Shringar was found to be promising inrespect of spike quality, net income and benefit : costratio, while cultivar Prajwal was found to be superiorin terms of bulb and bulblets production underAllahabad agro-climatic conditions.

Table 2. Economics of different cultivars of tuberose

Cultivar Cost of Spike Bulb Bulblet Gross Net B : Ccultivation (in numbers) (in numbers) income income ratio

(Rs./ha) Yield/ha Rate (Rs.) Income (Rs./ha) (Rs./ha)Yield/ha Income Yield/ha Income

(Rs./ha) (Rs./ha)

Local 233899 120000 2.00 240000 203942 203942 249999 49999 493941 260042 2.11Suvasini 233899 120000 2.40 288000 235832 235832 249999 49999 573831 339932 2.45Vaibhav 233899 120000 2.10 252000 236871 236871 141660 28332 517203 283304 2.21Prajwal 233899 120000 2.25 270000 236105 236105 168749 33750 539855 305956 2.31Shringar 233899 120000 2.50 300000 291665 291665 175421 35084 626749 392850 2.68

Net Return = Gross return–Total cost of cultivation.Benefit : cost ratio (B : C ratio) = Gross return (Rs./ha)/Cost of cultivation (Rs./ha) 1 Re./bulb, 0.20/bulblet.

LITERATURE CITED

1. Anonymous. 2006. Indian Horticulture Database.Published by National Horticulture Board, Gurgoan(NHB).

2. Bichoo, G. A., Jhon and Wani, S. A. 2003. Geneticvariability in some quantitative characters ofgladiolus. J. Orn. Hort. 5 : 22-24.

3. Bist, D. (2005). Screening of tuberose (Polyanthustuberosa L.) varieties for suitability under taraiconditions. M. Sc., thesis, G. B. Pant University of

Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar. 39 p.4. Panse, V. G. 1957. Genetics of quantitative characters in

relation to plant breeding. Indian J. Genet. and PlantBreed. 17 : 318-328.

5. Radhakrishna, K. N., Srinivas, M. and Jankiram, T. 2003.Performance of promising genotypes of tuberose. In: National Symposium on Recent Advances in IndianFloricule, Kerala held from Nov. 12-14.

6. Singh, K. P. and Uma, S.1995. Studies on ratoon crop intuberose cv. Single and Double. Indian Perfumer 39: 158-160.



Screening of Carnation (Dianthus caryothyllus L.) Varieties under Semi-aridConditions

SANTOSH KUMAR, SULTAN SINGH, S. K. SEHRAWAT, B. S. YADAV AND SATPAL BALODADepartment of Horticulture, CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar-125 004 (Haryana), India

ABSTRACT : The performance of carnation varieties under field and polyhouse conditions was carried out in the experimentalorchard of the Department of Horticulture, CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, Haryana during 2008-09. Fifteen carnationvarieties viz., Baltico, Charment, Dark Rendeous, Dover, Farida, Firato, Kazhuca, Madras, Malga, Master, Pink Diamante, Tabor,Tasman, Tiker and Varna were selected for evaluation. The cuttings with well developed roots were planted at 25 x 25 cm spacingin the month of December 2008. There were significant variations in plant growth and flower quality parameters of differentvarieties of carnation. In field conditions, maximum plant height (57.27 cm), number of leaves (174.53), and number of flowersper plant were recorded in variety Varna, whereas in polyhouse conditions, maximum plant height (86.27 cm), number of leaves(196.93) and number of flowers per plant were recorded in variety Charment. Dark Rendeous, Baltico, Madras, Firato andTasman were found to take minimum number of days for bud initiation under field and polyhouse conditions. In field conditions,the longest primary flower stalk length was observed in variety Varna (54.27 cm) followed by Malga (50.00 cm) and secondaryflower stalk length in variety Tabor (25.00 cm). Variety Varna produced primary flower of maximum diameter (6.10 cm) followedby varieties Baltico (6.07 cm) and Malga (6.03 cm). The diameter of secondary flower was maximum in Baltico (6.02 cm). Inpolyhouse conditions, the significantly longest primary flower stalk length was observed in variety Charment (82.13 cm) followedby Malga (77.67 cm), Dover (75.67 cm) and Varna (75.33 cm) and secondary stalk length in Dark Rendeous (29.00 cm). Themaximum diameter of primary flower was recorded in Charment (6.78 cm) followed by Malga (6.73 cm), whereas the secondaryflower diameter was maximum in Malga (6.34 cm) which was significantly superior over other varieties.

Key words : Evaluation, carnation, varieties, polyhouse, field

In India, carnation is grown mostly in Karnataka, TamilNadu, Maharashtra, Himachal Pradesh, Chandigarh,Punjab, Delhi, parts of U. P. and Haryana. The areaunder flower cultivation in India during 2007-08 was1, 60,720 ha. with a production of 870.37 MT (looseflower) and 43417.46 lakh (cut flower). In India,contribution by leading flower growing states to looseflower are Tamil Nadu (25%), Karnataka (19%),Andhra Pradesh (14%), whereas in cut flower WestBengal (45%), Karnataka (13%) and Maharashtra(13%). Tamil Nadu stands first in flower cultivationarea with 26740 ha. The Haryana state has 6110 haarea under flower cultivation with production of cutflower 10.53 lakh (numbers) and loose flower 61.76MT (5).As limited area is available for floriculture due tourbanization and other factors, farmers are looking forhigher returns per unit area. There are reportssuggesting growing of flowers particularly carnationunder protected condition yields higher returns (4).Therefore, to obtain carnation flower of proper stalklength with appropriate size and higher yield, there isan urgent need to evaluate carnation varieties for fieldand polyhouse conditions.There is wide fluctuation in the climatic parameterslike temperature, light intensity and relative humidity,which not only affects the quality parameters of thecut flower but also limits their availability for a

particular period of the year. This has necessitated themodification of the environmental conditions suitablefor growing under adverse condition.Carnation has immense potential to be grown underopen and protected conditions in semi-arid zone ofIndia. However, its performance under semi-aridcondition has not been carried out in Haryanasystemically. Due to closer proximity to Delhi andavailability of infrastructural facilities, Haryana is quitesuitable for production of flowers. Carnation has highexport potential with substantial exports from Indiaparticularly South India. The cultivation of carnationis limited in field conditions of semi-arid zone inHaryana because of sudden rise in temperature duringMarch-April. Due to the occurrence of frost duringwinter, vegetative growth is arrested, whereas underprotected conditions the warmer temperaturesprevailing in the polyhouse encourage the vegetativegrowth thereby stimulating the flower production.Attempts have been made in growing carnation bothunder field and polyhouse conditions in north India.The need of the hour is to enhance the sustainabilityof the semi-arid zone by increasing the returns per unitarea. The cultivation of carnation under protectedconditions would prolong the growing and floweringperiod by mitigating the temperature rise.Therefore, a need has been felt to introduce and studythe performance of different varieties of carnation

under semi-arid conditions of Haryana in field andprotected conditions.


The present investigation was carried out in theexperimental orchard of the Department ofHorticulture, CCS Haryana Agricultural University,Hisar, Haryana during 2008-09. The soil of theexperimental site was analysed for various physico-chemical attributes. On the basis of soil analysis andthe mean values, the soil was found to be sandy loamin texture, medium in organic carbon, low in availablenitrogen, medium in phosphorus and high with respectto available potassiumThe experimental material included 15 varieties ofcarnation (Baltico, Charment, Dark Rendeous, Dover,Farida, Firato, Kazhuca, Madras, Malga, Master, PinkDiamante, Tabor, Tasman, Tiker and Varna) whichwere subjected to evaluation under field and polyhouseconditions.The polyhouse was constructed with steel pipescovered with 200 micron ultraviolet stabilizedpolyethylene sheet. For providing requisite sunlight,movable shade nets were also fitted in the polyhouse.It was also fitted with Fan-Pad cooling system formaintaining temperature. The polyhouse had the microirrigation system (drip and micro jet) for irrigation withthe automation system for fertigation and climate

control. Polyhouse was also equipped with foggers tomaintain the relative humidity.Single rooted cuttings of uniform size (8-9 cm) ofcarnation varieties were planted in the field (at 25 x25 cm) on 6 December 2008. Watering was donemanually immediately after planting. Regular weedingwas done to check the growth of weeds. Afterestablishment of plants, irrigation was done at aninterval of 5-7 days in winter and 2-3 days in summerand recommended plant protection measures weretaken to control the pest and diseases. A foliar spraywas made with NPK (19 : 19 : 19) @ 0.4 g/l of water.After flowering, plants were foliar sprayed with NPK(15 : 08 : 35) @ 0.4 g/l of water.


The data on plant height of carnation varieties atdifferent intervals under field and polyhouseconditions are presented in Table 1. In field conditions,the plant height was significantly maximum in varietyVarna (13.73 cm) which was statistically at par withvarieties Malga (12.07 cm), Baltico and Tasman (11.87cm) at 30 days after planting. Similarly, at 60 daysafter planting also, maximum plant height wasrecorded in variety Varna (26.67 cm) followed by DarkRendeous (26.00 cm), Malga (25.13 cm) and Baltico(23.20 cm). At 90 days after planting, maximum plantheight was recorded in varieties Varna (53.07 cm),

Table 1. Plant height (cm) of carnation varieties at different stages under field and polyhouse conditions

Varieties Field Polyhouse

Planting 30 60 90 Harvesting Planting 30 60 90 Harvestingtime DAP DAP DAP time DAP DAP DAP

Baltico 8.80 11.87 23.20 43.47 49.33 8.80 21.00 41.67 68.23 70.07Charment 8.67 11.47 20.47 45.47 50.67 8.67 21.20 49.73 80.40 86.27Dark Rendeous 8.27 10.27 26.00 43.80 50.93 8.27 16.80 41.07 63.80 68.00Dover 8.87 9.80 21.07 49.27 53.87 8.87 15.33 32.73 73.20 79.80Farida 8.07 10.60 18.67 43.13 47.87 8.07 18.40 38.87 67.27 75.20Firato 8.13 11.60 23.07 44.53 48.73 8.13 14.93 28.27 54.60 58.20Kazhuca 8.67 11.53 17.13 47.13 51.60 8.67 16.60 36.93 70.73 76.33Madras 8.07 11.33 21.20 44.33 50.40 8.07 19.47 41.13 60.93 63.93Malga 8.67 12.07 25.13 48.33 54.00 8.67 20.60 43.47 76.67 82.20Master 8.80 11.20 19.13 42.93 48.07 8.60 15.13 30.07 62.80 68.27Pink Diamante 8.93 10.87 16.67 45.27 50.93 8.93 16.53 36.67 69.87 74.60Tabor 8.27 9.73 19.20 43.53 48.93 8.27 17.33 34.33 67.20 72.27Tasman 8.67 11.87 20.93 45.13 50.53 8.67 16.93 41.00 66.07 72.47Tiker 8.60 9.20 13.80 33.40 38.20 8.80 17.80 35.13 64.60 69.27Varna 8.73 13.73 26.67 53.07 57.27 8.73 18.73 40.73 73.00 81.27C. D. (P=0.05) NS 1.93 3.59 5.27 4.05 NS 1.92 3.50 2.87 3.42



Dover (49.27 cm) and Malga (48.33 cm) and thesimilar trend was observed upto harvesting stage. Inpolyhouse conditions, the plant height wassignificantly higher in variety Charment (21.20 cm)which was statistically at par with varieties Baltico(21.00 cm), Malga (20.60 cm) and Madras (19.47 cm)at 30 days after planting and significantly superior overother varieties. At 60 days after planting plant heightwas recorded significantly higher in variety Charment(49.73 cm) and the similar trend was observed up toharvesting stage. Comparing both the conditions,polyhouse gave better performance for all thecharacters due to favourable temperature and humidityinside the polyhouse. The reason for variation indifferent vegetative parameters under differentvarieties might be attributed to different genetic makeup of the plant and their adaptability behaviour underagro-climatic condition. The night temperatures in theopen field were incongenial for producing quality cropof carnations but polyhouse due to warmerenvironment encouraged quick vegetative growth,elongation of internodes and produced long stemswhich are similar to the findings of Sherry andGoldsberry (12). The marked variation in the plantheight may be due to varietal characters andenvironmental factors under field and polyhouseconditions. Similar observations have been reportedby Dwivedi and Kareem (3) in carnation. The resultof the present study is in conformity with Arora et al.

(1) who found that among the carnation cultivarsLaurella recorded maximum plant height.Numbers of leaves of carnation varieties at differentstages of growth were recorded under field andpolyhouse conditions and are presented in Table 2. Infield conditions, the number of leaves was significantlyhigher in variety Varna (17.80) which was statisticallyat par with varieties Farida (17.73), Master (17.47),Tasman (17.40), Kazhuca (17.27), Baltico (17.27),Charment (17.00), Malga (16.40), Madras (16.40) andDark Rendeous (16.07) at 30 days after planting. At60 days after planting, the maximum number of leaveswas recorded in variety Varna (71.67) which wasstatistically at par with varieties Madras (68.93),Baltico (67.60) and Malga (66.87) and weresignificantly superior over other varieties and thesimilar trend was observed up to harvesting. Whereasin polyhouse conditions, the number of leaves wassignificantly higher in variety Charment (19.97) whichwas statistically at par with varieties Tasman (19.33),Malga (19.20), Kazhuca (19.13), Tabor (19.07), PinkDiamante (18.87), Madras (18.67), Baltico (18.47) andVarna (18.40) at 30 days after planting. At 60 daysafter planting the maximum number of leaves wasrecorded in Charment (95.87) which was statisticallyat par with varieties Kazhuca (93.80) and Tasman(93.13) and the similar trend was observed up to 90days after planting which were superior over othervarieties. At harvesting stage significantly maximum

Table 2. Number of leaves of carnation varieties at different stages under field and polyhouse conditions


Planting 30 60 90 Harvesting Planting 30 60 90 Harvestingtime DAP DAP DAP time DAP DAP DAP

Baltico 8.47 17.27 67.60 156.00 171.53 8.20 18.47 69.40 145.00 176.80Charment 8.13 17.00 61.33 142.53 160.00 8.27 19.97 95.87 167.93 196.93Dark Rendeous 8.87 16.07 51.40 134.53 152.13 8.87 17.60 64.60 145.60 163.93Dover 8.27 15.73 48.87 131.67 145.87 8.40 17.07 59.33 135.67 165.40Farida 9.13 17.73 62.27 125.27 157.47 9.13 17.87 74.93 139.40 163.73Firato 7.87 14.27 47.67 106.73 120.20 8.00 16.53 36.93 103.60 115.27Kazhuca 8.13 17.27 66.27 152.53 168.40 8.53 19.13 93.80 165.27 192.60Madras 9.00 16.40 68.93 155.00 174.33 8.93 18.67 88.20 162.00 181.93Malga 7.87 16.40 66.87 154.07 175.13 8.07 19.20 85.73 162.40 185.20Master 8.60 17.47 62.40 142.27 153.47 8.60 18.00 67.13 148.87 164.53Pink Diamante 8.93 15.40 51.67 133.87 153.93 8.87 18.87 65.47 146.27 168.33Tabor 8.73 15.00 50.20 119.33 144.67 8.73 19.07 66.40 125.60 155.73Tasman 9.40 17.40 60.93 142.07 164.53 9.33 19.33 93.13 164.33 191.20Tiker 7.40 12.40 34.33 94.47 113.27 7.60 17.27 38.40 113.07 121.13Varna 8.73 17.80 71.67 159.77 175.53 8.67 18.40 77.00 148.60 175.93C. D. (P=0.05) NS 2.00 4.82 4.82 4.36 NS 1.72 3.09 4.26 4.85



number of leaves was recorded in variety Charment(196.93) which was statistically at par with varietyKazhuca (192.93) and followed by variety Tasman(191.20). The leaves are the prime important functionalunits for photosynthesis, which greatly influences thegrowth and flower yield. Leaf production of plantdecides the spread of plant. This effect may beattributed to the genetic make-up of the cultivars.Variation in leaf production per plant has also beenreported by Reddy et al. (10). The effect of cultivarson variation in number of leaves per plant has alsobeen advocated by Shiragur et al. (13) in carnationthat attributed this effect may be due to increased plantheight and number of shoots.The leaf length, leaf width, leaf area and stem diametervaried significantly under both the conditions. Thevariation in leaf length, leaf width, leaf area and stemdiameter was significant for the two different growingconditions (Table 3). The maximum leaf length wasrecorded in variety Varna (15.33 cm) which was atpar with varieties Pink Diamante (15.26 cm), Baltico(14.22 cm) and Tasman (13.91 cm). The maximumleaf width was recorded in variety Dover (1.07 cm)which was at par with varieties Malga (0.96 cm) andFarida (0.95 cm). It is evident from the data that therewas a significant difference in leaf area amongdifferent varieties. The maximum leaf area wasrecorded in variety Malga (10.89 cm2) which was atpar with varieties Dover (10.50 cm2), Charment (9.81cm2), Farida (9.58 cm2), Varna (9.38 cm2), Baltico (9.31

cm2) and Tasman (9.15 cm2). The stem diameter variedsignificantly among different varieties. The stemdiameter was significantly maximum in variety PinkDiamante (0.73 cm) which was at par with varietiesCharment (0.68 cm), Malga (0.66 cm) and Baltico(0.65 cm), while the minimum stem diameter wasrecorded in varieties Kazhuca and Firato (0.57 cm)under field conditions. On the other hand, in polyhousecondition, it is evident from the data that there was asignificant difference in leaf length, leaf width, andleaf area and stem diameter. The maximum leaf lengthwas recorded in a variety Charment (17.80 cm) whichwas at par with varieties Pink Diamante (17.70 cm),Varna (17.27 cm), Dover (16.86 cm), Tasman andBaltico (16.33 cm). The maximum leaf width wasrecorded in variety Malga (1.25 cm). There was alsosignificant difference in leaf area among differentvarieties. The maximum leaf area was recorded invariety Charment (14.67 cm2) which was at par withvarieties Malga (14.60 cm2), Dover (14.45 cm2), DarkRendeous (14.07 cm2) and Tasman (13.96 cm2). Thestem diameter was significantly maximum in varietyTasman (0.84 cm) which was at par with varietiesDover (0.82 cm), Madras (0.81 cm), Malga and PinkDiamante (0.80 cm). Leaf length varied from 10.66 to15.33 cm under field and 11.90 to 17.80 cm underpolyhouse conditions. Leaf width varied from 0.56 to1.07 cm under field and 0.69 to 1.25 cm underpolyhouse conditions. Leaf area varied from 5.25 to10.89 cm2 under open field and 6.94 to 14.67 cm2 under

Table 3. Vegetative characters of different carnation varieties under field and polyhouse conditions


Leaf Leaf Leaf Stem Leaf Leaf Leaf Stemlength width area diameter length width area diameter(cm) (cm) (cm2) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm2) (cm)

Baltico 14.22 0.76 9.31 0.65 16.33 0.92 12.28 0.78Charment 13.50 0.86 9.81 0.68 17.80 1.01 14.67 0.77Dark Rendeous 12.02 0.70 6.93 0.64 14.94 1.14 14.07 0.77Dover 12.60 1.07 10.50 0.60 16.86 1.07 14.45 0.82Farida 12.58 0.95 9.58 0.58 14.13 0.83 9.64 0.75Firato 11.47 0.82 7.57 0.57 14.33 0.93 10.77 0.66Kazhuca 10.98 0.56 5.25 0.57 11.90 0.69 6.94 0.69Madras 13.08 0.81 8.80 0.61 15.18 0.83 10.72 0.81Malga 13.83 0.96 10.89 0.66 14.27 1.25 14.60 0.80Master 12.56 0.71 7.48 0.60 15.23 0.94 12.22 0.70Pink Diamante 15.26 0.60 7.74 0.73 17.70 0.82 12.20 0.80Tabor 11.86 0.82 7.93 0.59 12.31 1.04 10.59 0.70Tasman 13.91 0.81 9.15 0.60 16.33 1.05 13.96 0.84Tiker 10.66 0.65 5.93 0.58 12.23 0.78 7.35 0.76Varna 15.33 0.79 9.38 0.61 17.27 0.86 12.47 0.69C. D. (P=0.05) 1.49 0.14 1.80 0.08 1.82 0.10 1.86 0.05


polyhouse conditions. Stem diameter varied from 0.57to 0.73 cm under field and 0.66 to 0.84 cm underpolyhouse conditions. Variation in leaf size among thecultivars of carnation may be due to their varietalcharacters. Variation in leaf size among the cultivarsof carnation also has been previously observed by Patil(9). Reddy et al. (10) also reported variation in leaflength and stem diameter of carnation. These findingsare in line with results obtained previously in carnationcultivars by Atanasova and Batcharova (2), Mahesh(8) and Patil (9).The data recorded on number of flower buds, furledand unfurled per plant by different carnation varietiesunder field and polyhouse conditions are presented inTable 4. In field condition, the number of flower buds,furled and unfurled per plant was found significant inall the varieties. The maximum number of flower budsper plant recorded in variety Varna (14.87) which wasstatistically at par with varieties Charment (14.80),Kazhuca (14.73), Tasman (14.27), Madras (14.20) andBaltico (14.13), while variety Tiker producedminimum number of flower buds per plant (10.00).The number of flower buds furled per plant variedsignificantly among different varieties. The maximumnumber of flowers furled per plant was recorded invariety Kazhuca (8.60) which was at par with varietiesVarna (8.07) and Baltico (8.00). The maximum numberof flower buds unfurled per plant was recorded invariety Charment (6.93). In polyhouse condition, thenumber of flower buds, furled and unfurled per plant

Table 4. Number of flower buds, furled and unfurled of different carnation varieties under field and polyhouse conditions


No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. offlower buds/ flower buds flower buds flower buds/ flower buds flower buds

plant furled/plant unfurled/plant plant furled/plant unfurled/plant

Baltico 14.13 8.00 6.13 16.07 9.93 6.14Charment 14.80 7.87 6.93 17.16 10.00 7.16Dark Rendeous 13.33 6.80 6.53 14.67 8.80 5.87Dover 12.33 6.73 5.60 14.33 8.47 5.86Farida 12.47 6.33 6.14 13.80 8.07 5.73Firato 12.20 6.00 6.20 13.87 6.60 7.27Kazhuca 14.73 8.60 6.13 15.60 10.53 5.07Madras 14.20 7.73 6.47 16.13 10.27 5.86Malga 13.73 7.60 6.13 15.53 7.40 8.13Master 12.93 6.73 6.20 14.07 8.73 5.34Pink Diamante 12.07 6.87 5.20 14.00 8.27 5.73Tabor 12.74 6.87 5.87 14.00 8.67 5.33Tasman 14.27 7.74 6.53 16.13 9.60 6.53Tiker 10.00 4.93 5.07 14.20 7.93 6.27Varna 14.87 8.07 6.80 14.27 8.87 5.40C. D. (P=0.05) 1.57 0.71 0.74 1.04 0.69 0.87

was found significant in all the varieties. The maximumnumber of flower buds per plant was recorded invariety Charment (17.16) which was statistically at parwith varieties Madras (16.13), Tasman (16.13), Baltico(16.07) and Kazhuca (15.60), whereas variety Faridaproduced minimum number of flower buds per plant(13.80). The number of flower buds furled per plantvaried significantly among different varieties. Themaximum number of flowers furled per plant wasrecorded in variety Kazhuca (10.53) which was at parwith varieties Madras (10.27), Charment (10.00) andBaltico (9.93). The maximum number of flower budsunfurled per plant was recorded in variety Malga(8.13). The results are in accordance with the findingsof Shiragur et al. (13) in carnation who observed yieldof flower in terms of number of flowers per plant washighest in cultivars West pretty followed by Desio,Aicardi and Madane collette white, cv. Sugar Babyproduced lowest number of flowers per plant. Similarvariation in carnation with respect to flower yield wasalso observed by Satisha (11), Kumar et al. (6) andPatil (9). The trend of results of the present studies issimilar to Reddy et al. (10).It is evident from the data that there was significantvariation for stalk length and flower diameter amongdifferent carnation varieties under field and polyhouseconditions (Table 5). In field conditions, the longestprimary flower stalk length was observed in varietyVarna (54.27 cm) followed by Malga (50.00 cm),Dover (49.87 cm), Kazhuca and Dark Rendeous (47.60


Table 5. Stalk length (cm) and flower diameter (cm) of different carnation varieties under field and polyhouse conditions


Primary Secondary Primary Secondary Primary Secondary Primary Secondarystalk stalk flower flower stalk stalk flower flower

length length diameter diameter length length diameter diameter

Baltico 45.33 21.30 6.07 6.02 66.13 22.00 6.48 6.19Charment 46.67 23.90 5.74 5.49 82.13 19.70 6.78 5.67Dark Rendeous 47.60 22.70 5.20 5.02 65.80 29.00 6.43 5.77Dover 49.87 16.77 5.25 4.82 75.67 19.00 6.07 5.50Farida 44.53 17.00 5.48 5.08 69.00 20.70 5.61 5.73Firato 45.73 19.00 4.84 4.43 55.60 20.30 5.29 4.76Kazhuca 47.60 23.00 4.57 4.60 71.53 19.70 5.73 4.75Madras 46.40 21.70 5.83 5.72 61.33 24.00 6.65 5.79Malga 50.00 22.00 6.03 5.74 77.67 27.07 6.73 6.34Master 44.07 14.00 5.43 5.11 63.33 27.03 5.88 5.34Pink Diamante 46.93 18.30 5.65 5.46 71.93 23.70 6.64 5.85Tabor 44.60 25.00 4.93 4.55 68.13 27.00 5.93 4.97Tasman 46.53 22.00 5.54 5.48 66.67 19.70 6.42 5.60Tiker 36.20 15.63 5.47 5.29 64.73 18.00 6.04 5.50Varna 54.27 20.00 6.10 5.68 75.33 25.00 6.40 5.74C. D. (P=0.05) 3.50 0.32 0.03 0.06 4.26 1.68 0.04 0.15

cm). The longest secondary flower stalk length wasrecorded in variety Tabor (25.00 cm) followed byCharment (23.90 cm), Kazhuca (23.00 cm), DarkRendeous (22.70 cm), Tasman (22.00 cm) and Madras(21.70 cm). Variety Varna produced primary flowerof maximum diameter (6.10 cm) which was at par withvariety Baltico (6.07 cm) followed by Malga (6.03 cm),Madras (5.83 cm) and Charment (5.74 cm). The largestsecondary flower was recorded in Baltico (6.02 cm)followed by Malga (5.74 cm) and smallest secondaryflower was noticed in variety Firato (4.43 cm). Inpolyhouse conditions, significantly longest primaryflower stalk length was observed in variety Charment(82.13 cm) followed by Malga (77.67 cm), Dover(75.67 cm) and Varna (75.33 cm), whereas longestsecondary stalk length was recorded in Dark Rendeous(29.00 cm) followed by Malga (27.07 cm), Master(27.03 cm), Tabor (27.00 cm) and Varna (25.00 cm).The maximum diameter of primary flower wasrecorded in Charment (6.78 cm) followed by Malga(6.73 cm), Madras (6.65 cm) and Pink Diamante (6.64cm). The largest secondary flower diameter wasrecorded in Malga (6.34 cm) which was significantlysuperior over other varieties . The increase in flowerdiameter was probably due to bigger ray florets. Itmight be due to ideal growing condition withtemperature, light intensity and carbohydratesavailable to the plants. The above results are inconformity with the findings of Reddy et al. (10) whofound that cultivar Madane Collette recorded

maximum flower diameter. Similar results were alsorecorded by Lal et al. (7) in carnation varieties. Theresults are in accordance with those of Shiragur et al.(13) who reported the variation in flower diameter dueto their genetic characters of particular genotypes.

LITERATURE CITED

1. Arora, J. S., Kaur, A. and Sidhu, G. S. 2002. Performanceof carnation in polyhouse. J. Orn. Hort. 5 : 58.

2. Atanasova, B. Y. and Batcharova, R. B. 1995. Spraycarnation breeding in Bulgaria. Acta Hort. 420 : 138-139.

3. Dwivedi, S. K. and Kareem, A. 2004. Introduction andevaluation of carnation (Dianthes caryophyllusLinn.) varieties cold arid region of India. J. Orn. Hort.7 : 207-209.

4. Gill, A. P. S. and Arora, J. S. 1988. Performance of 10sim carnations under sub-tropical climatic conditionsof Punjab. Ind. J. Hort. 45 : 32.9-33.5.

5. Kumar, B. 2009. Indian Horticulture Database 2008.National Horticuture Board, Publ. Gurgaon, India.pp. 12-13.

6. Kumar, P. N., Singh, B., Sindhu, S. S. and Voleti, S. R.1999. Effect of growing environments on carnationflowering. J. Orn. Hort. 2 : 137-138.

7. Lal, S. D., Danu, N. S. and Solanki, S. S. 1998. Studieson performance of different varieties of carnation inU. P. Hills. Prog. Hort. 30 : 36-39.

8. Mahesh, K. 1996. Variability studies in carnation(Dianthus caryophyllus L.). M. Sc. thesis, Universityof Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore.

9. Patil, R. T. 2001. Evaluation of standard carnation


(Dianthus caryophyllus) cultivars under protectedcultivation. M. Sc. thesis, University of AgriculturalSciences, Dharwad.

10. Reddy B. S., Patil, R. T., Jholgiker, P. and Kulkarni, B. S.2004. Studies on vegetative growth, flower yield andquality of standard carnation (Dianthes caryophyllus)under low cost polyhouse condition. J. Orn. Hort. 7: 217-220.

11. Sathisha, S. 1997. Evaluation of carnation (Dianthuscaryophyllus L.) cultivars under low-costgreenhouse. M. Sc. thesis, University of Agricultural

Sciences, Bangalore.12. Sherry, W. J. and Goldsberry, K. L. 1980. Carnation

production responses to solar radiation transmittedthrough plastic greenhouse covers. J. Am. Soc. Hort.Sci. 105 : 579-582.

13. Shiragur, M., Shirol, A. M., Reddy, B. S. and Kulkarni,B. S. 2004. Performance of standard carnation(Dianthus caryophyllus) cultivars under protectedcultivation for vegetative characters. J. Orn. Hort. 7: 212-216.



Variability and Correlation Studies in French Marigold (Tagetes patula L.)

REENA MATHEW, B. S. BENIWAL, S. K. BHATIA AND V. S. MORDepartment of Horticulture, CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar-125 004 (Haryana), India

ABSTRACT : Fifteen diverse genotypes were studied for various growth and yield parameters for assessing the variability andrelative contribution of different yield attributes on flower yield and seed yield. A wide range of variability was reflected for thecharacters studied. PCV and GCV were observed to be high for seed yield, flower yield, number of flowers per plant, number ofbuds per plant and plant height. These characters also showed high heritability with high genetic gain indicating the effectivenessof selection for these characters. Correlation study revealed that the characters like number of flowers per plant, number of budsper plant, fresh weight of flower and dry weight of flower showed positive and highly significant correlation with flower yield,while the seed yield had highly significant positive correlation with flower yield, number of flowers per plant and dry weight offlower.

Key words : PCV, GCV, heritbaility, correlation, marigold

Marigold (Tagetes patula L.) belonging to the familyAsteraceae is one of the most popular flowers grownon commercial scale in our country. The smallflowered cultivars are grown for loose flowers, whichare used for making garlands, veni and floraldecoration. It is short duration flower crop and hasgained wide popularity due to wide spectrum ofattractive colours, shape and size. The plant alsoexhibits medicinal and repellant properties. Thegenetic improvement of any crop depends on thegenetic variability present in the available cultivars.This necessitates the partitioning of the observedphenotypic variability into its heritable and non-heritable components of variation with suitable geneticparameters such as genotypic coefficient of variation,heritability and genetic advance. The variability in thesmall flowered marigold is considerably large in ourcountry. Hence, the present study was undertaken tostudy the variability present in the genotypes and alsoto assess the correlation, which is helpful indetermining the components contributing to yield.


The experiment was conducted at the Research Farmof Department of Horticulture, CCS HaryanaAgricultural University, Hisar during 2002-03 and2003-04 from August-February. Fifteen genotypes ofFrench marigold were taken. The experiment was laidout in randomized block design with three replications.The row to row and plant to plant distance wasmaintained 40 cm with a plot size of 4.50 x 1.50 maccommodating 40 plants per plot. Five plants wereselected randomly and observations were recorded forvegetative floral and seed characters. The data weresubjected to statistical analysis in accordance with

Panse and Sukhatme (7). Heritability in broad sensewas estimated as suggested by Hanson et al. (1).Genetic advance was calculated according to formulagiven by Johnson et al. (4), while correlationcoefficients were estimated by the method describedby Searle (8).


The results of variability and heritability andcoefficient studies in French marigold for the years2002-03 and 2003-04 are given in Tables 1, 2, 3 and4. A wide range of variability was observed forcharacters like number of flowers per plant, numberof buds per plant and flower yield. Though most ofthe characters showed a wide range of phenotypicvariation this did not reveal the relative amount ofheritable and non-heritable components of variation.This was ascertained with the help of geneticparameters like genetic coefficient of variation,heritability and genetic advance.The genetic coefficient of variation in both the yearswas highest for characters like flower yield (51.78 and60.72), number of flowers per plant (41.70 and 46.83),number of buds per plant (40.36 and 47.48) and plantheight (30.95 and 28.25), while lowest GCV was foundin seed length (5.96 and 6.08). Mishra et al. (6) alsoobserved a wide range of genotypic coefficient ofvariation in dahlia.The heritability values ranged from 64.14 to 99.51%in first year and 64.22 to 99.13% in second year. Highheritability indicates the effectiveness of selectionbased on phenotypic performance. Highest heritabilityvalues were observed in characters like number of budsper plant (99.51 and 99.07) and number of flowersper plant (9.26 and 98.46), while genetic advance as

Table 2. Phenotypic and genotypic coefficients of variation, heritability and expected genetic advance as per cent of mean forFrench marigold (2003-04)

Character Range Mean Phenotypic Genotypic Heritability % Genetic Genetic advance(broad sense) advance as % of mean

Plant height (cm) 35.06-98.46 61.07 31.1 28.25 82.56 32.45 52.89No. of branches 13.06-41.46 29.14 32.29 28.64 78.68 14.36 52.33Plant spread (cm) 27.10-67.86 55.69 24.3 21.29 76.74 21.70 38.42Size of flower (cm) 3.20-4.50 3.81 11.37 10.15 79.70 0.71 18.67Days to first flower 57.13-93.46 79.56 23.16 18.56 64.22 15.17 30.64Duration of first flower 34.26-63.26 50.87 18.39 13.85 56.69 10.93 21.48No. of buds/plant 23.06-390.06 206.36 47.70 47.48 99.07 205.06 97.36No. of flowers/plant 18.86-370.66 184.15 47.19 46.83 98.46 180.30 95.73Fresh weight of flower (g) 1.88-4.03 2.82 27.28 26.28 92.77 1.52 52.15Flower yield/plant (g) 49.56-1074.91 533.37 61.61 60.72 97.13 704.86 123.28Flower yield/plot (kg) 1.98-42.99 22.86 61.45 60.52 97.00 28.12 122.8Flower yield/ha (q) 30.82-671.82 360.09 61.64 60.75 97.13 440.64 123.34Seed yield/plant (kg) 0.011-0.451 0.196 62.10 61.83 99.13 2.62 126.83Dry wt. of flower (g) 0.20-0.42 0.31 21.47 20.67 92.67 0.124 40.991000-seed weight (g) 2.41-4.52 2.89 17.22 16.78 95.02 1.04 33.71Seed density (g/cc) 0.72-1.25 0.976 18.41 18.03 95.87 0.35 36.37Seed length (mm) 9.27-11.49 10.36 7.25 6.08 70.38 1.09 10.52Seed breadth (cm) 0.993-1.57 1.24 15.05 14.64 94.75 0.36 29.37Root length (cm) 1.76-5.80 3.26 28.74 26.77 86.73 1.67 51.36Shoot length (cm) 6.96-12.10 9.13 15.87 13.81 75.73 2.41 24.76Standard germination 38.00-72.00 54.30 19.26 18.47 91.95 19.78 36.48Seedling length (cm) 10.10-15.81 13.02 16.12 13.94 74.83 3.23 24.76Seed vigour 1 384.18-894.96 701.39 21.63 19.23 79.00 247.18 35.21Seed vgour 11 754.53-1515.13 1137.91 20.64 16.91 67.10 349.44 28.53

Table 1. Phenotypic and genotypic coefficients of variation, heritability and expected genetic advance as per cent of mean forFrench marigold (2002-03)

Character Range Mean Phenotypic Genotypic Heritability % Genetic Genetic advance(broad sense) advance as % of mean

Plant height (cm) 31.93-90.06 58.87 32.01 30.95 93.49 36.1 61.65No. of branches 15.06-38.06 26.12 27.92 25.35 82.41 13.16 47.41Plant spread (cm) 34.03-66.50 54.60 18.47 16.89 83.65 17.17 31.82Size of flower (cm) 3.12-4.58 3.90 14.06 11.86 71.11 0.80 20.60Days to first flower 60.06-87.06 74.62 17.97 16.25 81.79 13.71 30.28Duration of first flower 29.8-58.86 41.63 16.59 15.61 88.53 13.10 30.25No. of buds/plant 30.05-432.73 195.09 40.46 40.36 99.51 168.52 82.94No. of flowers/plant 22.0-400.06 164.27 41.86 41.70 99.26 160.45 85.60Fresh weight of flower (g) 2.16-4.06 3.22 26.41 25.95 96.55 1.57 52.54Flower yield/plant (g) 62,53-1260.18 589.07 52.17 51.78 98.50 609.78 105.87Flower yield/plot (kg) 2.50-50.40 23.55 52.17 51.78 98.50 24.39 105.88Flower yield/ha (q) 39.60-787.61 368.12 52.19 51.79 98.50 381.14 105.90Seed yield/plant (kg) 0.016-0.462 0.224 58.01 57.37 97.84 2.75 116.90Dry weight of flower (g) 0.20-0.42 0.295 20.60 19.96 93.92 0.12 39.861000-seed weight (g) 2.52-5.00 3.80 19.42 19.20 97.72 1.24 39.11Seed density (g/cc) 0.72-1.36 0.936 19.09 17.46 83.59 0.34 32.88Seed length (mm) 9.38-11.22 10.32 6.08 5.96 95.93 1.24 12.02Seed breadth (cm) 1.02-1.54 1.15 13.42 12.78 90.57 0.3 25.05Root length (cm) 2.00-5.50 2.93 26.35 25.18 91.35 1.54 49.59Shoot length (cm) 6.50-11.50 9.41 14.78 13.44 83.18 2.37 25.25Standard germination 44.00-68.00 55.20 16.84 15.30 82.55 15.87 28.65Seedling length (cm) 9.5-14.80 11.78 14.48 12.99 80.49 3.00 24.01Seed vigour I 419.78-877.50 774.41 21.93 17.56 64.14 200.74 28.97Seed vgour II 794.13-1562.26 1204.54 20.38 17.35 72.54 366.87 30.45

156 Mathew and others

Tabl

e 3. G

enot

ypic

(abo

ve d

iago

nal)

and

phen

otyp

ic (b

elow

dia

gona

l) co

rrel

atio

n co

effic

ient

s am

ong

diff

eren

t pai

rs o

f cha

ract

ers i

n Fr

ench

Mar

igol

d (2

002-

03)

Cha

ract

erPl

ant

No.

of

Plan

tSi

ze o

fD

ays t

oD

urat

ion

ofN

o. o

fN

o. o

fFr

esh

Flow

erSe

edD

ry w

eigh

t10

00-

Seed

Seed

Seed

Roo

tSh

oot

Stan

dard

Seed

ling

Seed

Seed

heig

htbr

anch

essp

read

flow

erfir

stflo

wer

ing

buds

/flo

wer

s/w

t. of

yiel

d/yi

eld/

of fl

ower

seed

dens

ityle

ngth

brea

dth

leng

thle

ngth

germ

inat

ion

leng

thvi

gour

-Ivi

gour

-II

flow

erpl

ant

plan

tflo

wer

plan

tpl

ant

wei

ght

Plan

t hei

ght

1.00

00.

407

0.64

3-0

.210

0.20

20.

237

0.26

00.

255

0.31

20.

338

0.06

60.

355

-0.4

42-0

.374

0.05

10.

012

-0.0

230.

405

0.52

20.

302

0.67

90.

640

No.

of b

ranc

hes

0.34

31.

000

0.12

2-0

.164

0.40

10.

337

0.06

80.

077

0.03

40.

074

-0.0

480.

091

-0.3

65-0

.298

0.35

1-0

.060

0.35

30.

104

0.53

60.

249

0.61

30.

579

Plan

t spr

ead

0.56

1*0.

239

1.00

0-0

.431

0.51

90.

684

0.67

90.

686

0.24

30.

617

0.55

70.

394

-0.4

27-0

.123

0.32

30.

059

0.33

10.

659

0.21

80.

676

0.65

40.

596

Size

of f

low

er-0

.202

-0.1

06-0

.314

1.00

0-0

.150

-0.2

41-0

.225

-0.2

330.

224

-0.0

91-0

.369

0.16

40.

350

0.10

6-0

.193

0.42

90.

181

-0.3

79-0

.678

-0.2

10-0

.722

-0.7

89D

ays t

o fir

st fl

ower

0.16

90.

399

0.50

1*-0

.091

1.00

00.

494

0.64

90.

660

0.25

40.

622

0.47

40.

399

-0.4

100.

260

0.48

4-0

.250

0.21

20.

525

0.17

30.

517

0.48

10.

362

Dur

atio

n of

flow

erin

g0.

228

0.27

70.

582*

-0.1

570.

420

1.00

00.

570

0.58

20.

307

0.60

00.

654

0.43

4-0

.117

0.27

60.

659

-0.1

080.

652

0.71

60.

022

0.87

60.

613

0.47

6N

o. o

f bud

s/pl

ant

0.25

20.

072

0.62

9*-0

.185

0.59

0*0.

544*

1.00

01.

000

0.22

50.

853

0.83

70.

307

-0.3

230.

188

0.26

9-0

.084

0.12

90.

678

0.24

20.

601

0.61

90.

507

No.

of f

low

ers/

plan

t0.

245

0.07

90.

633*

-0.1

890.

600*

0.55

6*0.

998*

*1.

000

0.22

20.

852

0.84

50.

306

-0.3

220.

189

0.26

7-0

.097

0.14

50.

671

0.24

30.

603

0.62

20.

509

Fres

h w

t. of

flow

er0.

296

0.03

40.

217

0.17

30.

227

0.27

60.

220

0.21

51.

000

0.69

30.

354

0.95

90.

049

0.17

10.

165

0.34

00.

277

0.33

6-0

.103

0.39

30.

186

-0.0

21Fl

ower

yie

ld/p

lant

0.32

30.

076

0.56

6*-0

.071

0.56

2*0.

569*

0.84

8**

0.84

8**

0.69

2**

1.00

00.

823

0.73

7-0

.208

0.26

30.

309

0.04

30.

220

0.67

90.

131

0.64

20.

556

0.35

9Se

ed y

ield

/pla

nt0.

077

-0.0

440.

509

-0.3

030.

421

0.62

3*0.

832*

*0.

839*

*0.

342

0.81

3**

1.00

00.

433

-0.1

160.

301

0.21

5-0

.119

0.29

70.

620

0.15

80.

632

0.57

40.

443

Dry

wei

ght o

f flo

wer

0.32

80.

084

0.34

90.

130

0.36

90.

372

0.29

60.

295

0.94

90.

726*

*0.

410

1.00

00.

012

0.23

10.

266

0.22

30.

331

0.42

9-0

.139

0.49

10.

223

0.00

410

00-s

eed

wei

ght

-0.4

28-0

.313

-0.3

750.

308

-0.3

52-0

.096

-0.3

16-0

.315

0.04

6-0

.202

-0.1

100.

010

1.00

00.

660

-0.0

300.

079

0.24

8-0

.253

-0.5

31-0

.075

-0.4

46-0

.445

Seed

den

sity

-0.3

34-0

.241

-0.1

020.

058

0.23

10.

262

0.17

00.

175

0.14

10.

234

0.27

90.

179

0.63

61.

000

0.46

1-0

.348

0.07

10.

246

-0.3

650.

234

-0.1

04-0

.191

Seed

leng

th0.

052

0.32

80.

303

-0.1

770.

418

0.61

4*0.

266

0.26

50.

156

0.30

40.

210

0.25

7-0

.031

0.40

01.

000

-0.0

720.

226

0.61

4-0

.151

0.59

20.

264

0.18

1Se

ed b

read

th0.

025

-0.0

450.

061

0.34

3-0

.204

-0.0

62-0

.070

-0.0

800.

314

0.05

3-0

.105

0.20

50.

080

-0.3

04-0

.025

1.00

00.

348

-0.1

30-0

.339

0.06

4-0

.270

-0.2

56R

oot l

engt

h-0

.016

0.34

20.

313

0.14

00.

173

0.60

8*0.

129

0.14

60.

259

0.21

90.

283

0.31

30.

231

0.03

70.

262

0.38

01.

000

0.21

2-0

.278

0.64

50.

197

0.12

4Sh

oot l

engt

h0.

376

0.15

00.

592*

-0.2

850.

431

0.63

5*0.

625

0.62

1*0.

298

0.62

7*0.

565*

0.38

1-0

.227

0.17

70.

615

-0.0

160.

290

1.00

0-0

.023

0.88

40.

579

0.48

4St

anda

rd g

erm

inat

ion

0.46

70.

516

0.23

5-0

.514

0.16

90.

051

0.22

90.

231

-0.0

920.

132

0.14

4-0

.107

-0.4

62-0

.325

-0.0

67-0

.207

-0.1

370.

122

1.00

0-0

.152

0.74

10.

798

Seed

ling

leng

th0.

277

0.26

90.

600*

-0.1

550.

416

0.76

6**

0.54

7*0.

553*

0.34

50.

588*

0.56

80.

433

-0.0

670.

161

0.59

60.

161

0.67

50.

902

0.03

41.

000

0.54

60.

438

Seed

vig

our-I

0.54

6*0.

541*

0.54

9*-0

.474

0.37

30.

506

0.50

90.

514

0.15

00.

466

0.46

20.

195

-0.3

43-0

.121

0.30

9-0

.068

0.31

30.

649

0.78

10.

643

1.00

00.

977

Seed

vig

our-I

I0.

536*

0.52

5*0.

528*

-0.5

630.

293

0.41

30.

443

0.44

6-0

.016

0.32

20.

376

0.02

6-0

.367

-0.2

040.

238

-0.0

950.

237

0.55

40.

832

0.53

50.

969

1.00

0

*,**

Sign

ifica

nt at

P=0

.05

and

P=0.

01 le

vels

, res

pect

ivel

y.


Tabl

e 4. G

enot

ypic

(abo

ve d

iago

nal)

and

phen

otyp

ic (b

elow

dia

gona

l) co

rrel

atio

n co

effic

ient

s am

ong

diff

eren

t pai

rs o

f cha

ract

ers i

n Fr

ench

mar

igol

d (2

003-

04)

Cha

ract

erPl

ant

No.

of

Plan

tSi

ze o

fD

ays t

oD

urat

ion

ofN

o. o

fN

o. o

fFr

esh

Flow

erSe

edD

ry w

eigh

t10

00-

Seed

Seed

Seed

Roo

tSh

oot

Stan

dard

Seed

ling

Seed

Seed

heig

htbr

anch

essp

read

flow

erfir

stflo

wer

ing

buds

/flo

wer

s/w

t. of

yiel

d/yi

eld/

of fl

ower

seed

dens

ityle

ngth

brea

dth

leng

thle

ngth

germ

inat

ion

leng

thvi

gour

-Ivi

gour

-II

flow

erpl

ant

plan

tflo

wer

plan

tpl

ant

wei

ght

Plan

t hei

ght

1.00

00.

446

0.51

7-0

.399

0.37

30.

245

0.19

30.

208

0.28

20.

211

-0.0

240.

299

-0.4

020.

088

0.16

7-0

.146

0.01

90.

537

0.51

10.

410

0.78

30.

654

No.

of b

ranc

hes

0.37

31.

000

0.18

8-0

.361

40.

6742

0.21

210.

0112

0.01

360.

050.

038

0.10

00.

079

-0.4

00-0

.133

0.47

9-0

.217

0.20

40.

1229

0.39

10.

192

0.47

50.

567

Plan

t spr

ead

0.42

70.

099

1.00

0-0

.327

80.

5375

0.71

990.

7192

0.79

90.

538

0.76

0.54

10.

583

-0.2

820.

656

0.41

0.00

20.

334

0.84

010.

120

0.77

80.

630

0.62

8Si

ze o

f flo

wer

-0.2

96-0

.282

-0.2

491.

000

-0.2

39-0

.254

-0.0

66-0

.109

0.11

4-0

.011

-0.1

670.

158

0.14

2-0

.142

-0.3

890.

255

0.14

2-0

.314

-0.5

02-0

.160

-0.5

750.

792

Day

s to

first

flow

er0.

299

0.41

30.

632

-0.1

591.

000

0.27

40.

588

0.57

50.

245

0.52

90.

521

0.29

2-0

.423

0.40

90.

264

-0.5

010.

200

0.64

30.

276

0.58

50.

648

0.60

8D

urat

ion

of fl

ower

ing

0.18

50.

049

0.73

0-0

.249

0.47

31.

000

0.45

10.

558

0.33

70.

601

0.62

70.

329

-0.0

770.

482

0.77

6-0

.302

0.61

60.

795

-0.0

530.

878

0.51

90.

490

No.

of b

uds/

plan

t0.

185

0.00

80.

644

-0.0

510.

486

0.35

61.

000

0.98

30.

403

0.86

90.

801

0.36

2-0

.334

0.50

3-0

.012

-0.0

740.

063

0.59

70.

344

0.48

40.

640

0.56

3N

o. o

f flo

wer

s/pl

ant

0.20

30.

008

0.71

3-0

.089

0.47

40.

439

0.98

31.

000

0.43

50.

90.

792

0.39

4-0

.304

0.53

20.

085

-0.0

510.

081

0.63

70.

301

0.51

70.

621

0.55

9Fr

esh

wei

ght o

f flo

wer

0.20

60.

035

0.49

80.

066

0.22

90.

304

0.39

00.

421

1.00

00.

744

0.48

90.

972

-0.3

560.

421

0.19

50.

227

0.36

50.

417

-0.0

880.

479

0.26

50.

176

Flow

er y

ield

/pla

nt0.

187

0.03

00.

693

-0.0

300.

452

0.49

40.

861

0.89

20.

744

1.00

00.

853

0.68

3-0

.196

0.59

00.

239

-0.0

240.

209

0.64

90.

145

0.58

20.

567

0.43

0Se

ed y

ield

/pla

nt-0

.013

0.08

30.

486

-0.1

450.

429

0.68

40.

800

0.79

20.

473

0.84

91.

000

0.39

2-0

.042

0.59

30.

320

-0.2

130.

267

0.59

10.

176

0.57

40.

557

0.49

7D

ry w

eigh

t of f

low

er0.

221

0.04

70.

510

0.11

60.

244

0.28

20.

347

0.37

80.

961

0.67

60.

377

1.00

0-0

.095

0.46

40.

119

0.25

70.

387

0.35

6-0

.112

0.44

50.

218

0.11

410

00- s

eed

wei

ght

-0.3

66-0

.357

-0.2

470.

145

-0.3

52-0

.085

-0.3

23-0

.292

-0.0

40-0

.187

-0.0

41-0

.077

1.00

00.

193

0.13

30.

076

0.33

8-0

.044

-0.6

360.

122

-0.4

49-0

.377

Seed

den

sity

0.06

6-0

.136

-0.1

240.

348

0.39

10.

497

0.52

20.

399

0.57

30.

582

0.43

90.

183

1.00

00.

072

-0.3

670.

216

0.48

6-0

.046

0.46

30.

323

0.22

7Se

ed le

ngth

0.11

70.

425

0.18

8-0

.293

0.26

70.

381

-0.0

230.

052

0.15

80.

184

0.24

80.

111

0.15

40.

056

1.00

0-0

.235

0.44

30.

642

-0.2

470.

674

0.20

10.

331

Seed

bre

adth

-0.1

55-0

.183

-0.0

250.

241

-0.4

22-0

.065

-0.0

82-0

.061

0.21

9-0

.033

-0.2

090.

252

0.07

9-0

.348

-0.1

491.

000

0.36

1-0

.146

-0.4

130.

060

-0.3

82-0

.214

Roo

t len

gth

0.01

90.

171

0.25

90.

111

0.15

30.

384

0.04

40.

056

0.29

00.

159

0.23

50.

306

0.30

90.

192

0.32

40.

330

1.00

00.

320

-0.4

710.

718

0.05

00.

108

Shoo

t len

gth

0.42

80.

124

0.62

1-0

.23

0.42

90.

456

0.50

90.

538

0.32

20.

537

0.50

20.

268

-0.0

160.

398

0.47

3-0

.153

0.39

21.

000

-0.0

400.

889

0.55

90.

512

Stan

dard

ger

min

atio

n0.

436

0.32

10.

144

-0.4

230.

254

0.00

60.

332

0.28

8-0

.058

0.14

80.

171

-0.0

76-0

.582

-0.0

38-0

.174

-0.3

69-0

.432

-0.0

561.

000

-0.2

420.

751

0.74

4Se

edlin

g le

ngth

0.31

90.

175

0.56

5-0

.12

0.38

50.

496

0.40

40.

427

0.36

20.

467

0.48

10.

329

0.88

10.

376

0.48

10.

031

0.73

80.

908

-0.2

201.

000

0.44

90.

440

Seed

vig

our-I

0.62

40.

385

0.50

9-0

.441

0.48

30.

322

0.55

90.

535

0.22

00.

458

0.48

50.

178

-0.3

630.

272

0.18

2-0

.326

0.15

30.

597

0.70

60.

521

1.00

00.

990

Seed

vig

our-I

I0.

533

0.39

80.

420

-0.6

490.

374

0.25

70.

463

0.45

90.

108

0.34

10.

410

0.05

7-0

.303

0.16

00.

147

-0.2

010.

162

0.45

40.

603

0.41

90.

810

1.00

0

158 Mathew and others

per cent of mean was higher for flower yield (105.87and 113.28) and seed yield (116.90 and 126.83).Johnson et al. (4) have cautioned that both i. e.heritability value and genetic advance should beconsidered simultaneously while making selection.The present results are in agreement with those ofHemlata et al. (2) in chrysanthemum. Low value ofgenetic advance for seed length (12.02 and 10.52) andsize of flower (20.60 and 18.67) indicate lesser scopeof selection due to low range of genetic variability.The study of correlation coefficients among differentcharacters indicate that the magnitude of correlationcoefficient at genotypic level was found higher thanthe corresponding correlation at phenotypic levelindicating thereby a strong inherent associationbetween various characters under study. This is inaccordance with Wahi and Bhattacharjee (9) inHippeastrum.The correlation studies in the years 2002-03 and 2003-04 showed highly significant positive correlation offlower yield for number of flowers per plant (0.848and 0.892), number of buds per plant (0.848 and0.675), seed yield (0.813 and 0.849), dry weight offlower (0.813 and 0.676) and fresh weight of flower(0.892 and 0.744). The results are in consonance withthe earlier findings of Janakiram and Rao (3) inmarigold.Seed yield in both the years showed a highly significantassociation with number of flowers (0.839 and 0.792),number of buds (0.832 and 0.800), flower yield (0.813and 0.849) and duration of flowering (0.623 and

0.684). These results are supported by the findings ofLakshmanaiah (5) in sunflower. Thus, the knowledgeabout association between characters helps us toidentify characters that have importance in selectionprogramme.

LITERATURE CITED

1. Hanson, C. H., Robinson, H. F. and Comstock, R. E. 1956.Biometrical studies of yield in segregatingpopulations of Korean lespedeza. Agron. J. 48 : 268-272.

2. Hemlata, B., Patil, A. A., Nalawadi, U. G. and Barigidad,H. 1992. Variability studies in chrysanthemum. Prog.Hort. 24 : 55-59.

3. Janakiram, T. and Rao, T. M. 1995. Effect of plant densityon genetic parameters in African marigold. Indian J.Hort. 52 : 309-312.

4. Johnson, H. W., Robinson, H. F. and Comstock, R. E.1955. Estimates of genetic and environmentalvariability in soybeans. Agron. J. 47 : 314-318.

5. Lakshmanaiah, V. H. 1980. Genetic variability andassociation of morphological characters with seedyield and oil content in sunflower. Mysore J. Agric.Sci. 14 : 259.

6. Mishra, Y. K., Joshi, R. P. and Solanki, S. S. 1997. Geneticvariability in dahlia (Dahlia variabilis). Prog. Hort.29 : 61-64.

7. Panse, V. G. and Sukhatme, P. V. 1995. Statistical Methodsfor Agricultural Workers. ICAR, New Delhi. pp. 359.

8. Searle, S. R. 1961. Phenotypic, genotypic andenvironmental correlation. Biometrics 17 : 474-480.

9. Wahi, S. D. and Bhattacharjee, S. K. 1986. Correlationand path coefficient analysis in Hippeastrumhybridum. South Indian Hort. 34 : 244-251.



Studies on Cultivation of Gladiolus in Open and Protected Conditions

MOHAMMAD SAALIM SAAIE, V. P. AHLAWAT, S. K. SEHRAWAT AND B. S. YADAVDepartment of Horticulture, CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar-125 004 (Haryana), India

ABSTRACT : An experiment was carried out during the year 2009-10 in the Department of Horticulture, CCS Haryana AgriculturalUniversity, Hisar with a view to standardize the time of planting of gladiolus under open, low-cost polyhouse and Hi-tech greenhouse.Studies on the effect of different growing conditions and sowing dates on growth and yield attributes of gladiolus revealed that theplanting during August to November recorded with minimum number of days and significantly highest percentage of sprouting,leaf area, number of days taken to emergence, number of florets/spike, length of spike, length of rachis, diameter florets andweight of corms during studies in comparison to six planting dates in all growing conditions. Among the various growingconditions (open field, low-cost polyhouse and Hi-tech greenhouse) tested, the open field exhibited significantly highestperformances till November planting, low-cost polyhouse was low in all objectives particularly in floral parts and greenhousegave best results during November planting.

Key words : Cultivation, gladiolus, open, protected

Gladiolus is an important cut flower crop growncommercially in many parts of the world. It has gainedpopularity owing to its magnificent, unsurpassedbeauty, attractive colours, various sizes and shapes ofthe flowers with their beautiful long lasting spikes.During winter season when whole Europe is undersnow cover and flower cultivation can only take placeunder controlled conditions, it is the best season foropen field cultivation in India. Cheap labour is thenext best advantage to compete in the internationalmarket due to low production cost. The gladiolusdemand is elastic in nature in domestic andinternational markets, so production has to beregulated according to fluctuations in the marketdemand. It can be successfully grown in a wide varietyof climatic conditions. The planting should be adjustedin such a way that gladiolus crop enjoys favourableweather conditions throughout its growing, flowering,corm and cormel production period. Planting timevaries from hills to plains. Generally middle ofFebruary to May in hills and September to Novemberin plains is the optimum time for planting of corms(4). In some parts of the country which have favourableclimatic conditions, gladiolus is planted almostthroughout the year. In northern India, gladiolus isplanted from September to November (5). However,farmers take risk and go for early and late planting.The use of polyhouse and greenhouse may be madegrowing of gladiolus throughout the year. However,the information is not available on the production ofgladiolus flower under protected environment. Thepresent study is aimed at exploring the possibility ofproducing a high valued crop from greenhouse andopen field and to standardize the time of planting.Keeping in view the above problems, the presentstudies were undertaken to standardize the time of

planting of gladiolus under open, low cost and Hi-tech polyhouse conditions.


The present investigations were carried out at precisionfarming development center of Department ofHorticulture, CCS Haryana Agricultural University,Hisar during the year 2009-10. The uniform sizedcorms were planted at depth of 7 and 20 cm apart,with a row to row distance of 30 cm on 18 August, 16September, 20 October, 16 November, 15 Decemberand 15 January with three replications in every monthplanting in open, low-cost polyhouse (naturallyventilated) and Hi-tech polyhouse (Hi-techgreenhouse) conditions. Observations were recordedon vegetative and floral characters as per usualmethods.


The gladiolus corms planted on 20 October tookminimum number of days for sprouting under allgrowing conditions and increased with late planting(16 November to 15 January) (Table 1). The reasonfor late sprouting under late sown condition might bedue to downfall in temperature which starteddecreasing from beginning of November. Days takenfor sprouting by greenhouse were less than open fieldand naturally ventilated which might be due to morehumidity and cooling under pad system with controlledcondition. Nijiasure and Ranpise (7) in gladiolus cv.American Beauty in Maharashtra condition obtainedsame results. Minimum days were taken for sproutingfrom October planting. It was observed that percentage of sprouting was not

affected by growing conditions. Time of plantingaffected significantly the percentage of sprouting ofcorms and 100% sprouting was recorded on 18August, 16 September and 20 October and late plantingafter October it decreased (Table 2). This might beattributed to the fact that during early planting the dayand night temperature was very favourable forsprouting of corms. It clearly showed that decrease intemperature affected the percentage of sproutingparticularly the corms which were planted on 15December and 15 January. Similar results were

reported by Bhat and Zahoor Ahmad (3) in gladiolusplanting under Kashmir condition.Leaf area was more in plants where planting was madeon 16 November followed by 18 August and 16September and decreased significantly on 15December followed by 15 January (Table 3). Plantsgrown in greenhouse on 16 November produced moreleaf areas increased which might due to effect of bettergrowing conditions. Variations in number of leaveswere also recorded in cv. Friendship (11) in gladiolus.Variation in number of leaves and leaf area due todifferent planting dates and growing conditions wasobserved significantly in naturally ventilatedpolyhouse. Similar variation in production of leavesdue to varieties has been reported previously ingladiolus (6).

Table 1. Number of days for sprouting of gladiolus corms cv.American Beauty as affected by planting dates andgrowing conditions

Planting dates Growing conditions

Open Greenhouse Naturally Overallfield ventilated mean

18 August 21.5 16.7 19.3 19.216 September 12.0 10.7 15.3 12.720 October 9.0 9.7 13.0 10.516 November 13.7 13.3 24.3 17.115 December 31.3 35.3 39.7 35.415 January 43.7 27.0 29.7 33.4Overall mean 21.86 18.78 23.55C. D. (P=0.05) : Planting date=1.50, Growing condition=2.12,

Date × Condition=3.67

Table 2. Percentage of sprouting of gladiolus cv. AmericanBeauty as affected by planting dates and growingconditions



18 August 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0(89.39) (89.39) (89.39) (89.391)

16 September 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0(89.39) (89.39) (89.39) (89.39)

20 October 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0(89.39) (89.39) (89.39) (89.39)

16 November 84.4 88.9 77.8 83.7(67.26) (74.40) (61.89) (67.85)

15 December 71.1 63.9 75.5 70.2(57.67) (53.81) (60.38) (57.29)

15 January 71.1 55.5 33.3 53.3(49.80) (48.16) (35.23) (44.4)

Overall mean 87.77 84.71 81.10(73.82) (74.09) (70.94)

C. D. (P=0.05) : Planting date=5.93, Growing condition=NS,Date × Condition=NS

Figures in parentheses are the arc-sine transformed values.

Table 3. Leaf area (cm2) per plant of gladiolus cv. AmericanBeauty as affected by planting dates and growingconditions



18 August 768.73 532.70 442.67 581.3716 September 463.20 402.00 264.37 376.5220 October 474.03 409.50 367.43 416.9816 November 596.23 586.20 424.60 535.6915 December 424.83 467.60 179.43 357.2815 January 218.80 469.70 181.20 289.91Overall mean 490.97 477.95 309.95C. D. (P=0.05) : Planting date=77.91, Growing condition=55.09,

Date × Condition=134.95

Number of florets per spike showed the significanceof planting dates and growing conditions whichaffected the floral parts of plants planted in differentdates under protected and open field conditions.Maximum numbers of florets per spike were countedfrom the spikes of plants which were planted on 16November and 20 October, in 16 November date ofplanting, the maximum florets per spike were countedin greenhouse (12.8) followed by open field (12.6)and naturally ventilated polyhouse (9.1). The numberof florets obtained from open field on 18 August and16 September was at par (Table 4). The results ofexperiment are in agreement with those of Arora et al.(1) who reported about two times of plantingperformances in months of October and November inPunjab condition. Open conditions produced morenumbers of florets per spike which might be due tomore light required by gladiolus.There were significant differences in spike and rachis


length due to different timings of planting and growingconditions. Maximum spike length (111.5 cm) ingreenhouse was recorded in November planting andopen field (89.77 cm) in August planting (Table 5).In November planting, the maximum rachis length

Table 4. Total number of florets per spike of gladiolus cv.American Beauty as affected by planting dates andgrowing conditions



18 August 9.57 - - 3.19(3.25) (1.00) (1.00) (1.75)

16 September 9.30 - - 3.10(3.2) (1.00) (1.00) (1.73)

20 October 10.20 8.75 8.5 9.14(3.32) (2.41) (2.39) (2.7)

16 November 12.60 12.80 9.1 11.50(3.69) (3.71) (2.45) (3.28)

15 December 11.30 8.83 - 6.72(3.5) (3.12) (1.00) (2.54)

15 January - - - -(1.00) (1.00) (1.00) (1.00)

Overall mean 8.83 5.06 2.93(2.99) (2.04) (1.47)

C. D. (P=0.05) : Planting date=0.51, Growing condition=0.36,Date × Condition=0.88.

Figures in parentheses are the squared root transformed values.

Table 6. Length of rachis (cm) of gladiolus cv. AmericanBeauty as affected by planting dates and growingconditions



18 August 29.17 - - 9.72(5.48) (1.00) (1.00) (2.49)

16 September 27.47 - - 9.16(5.33) (1.00) (1.00) (2.44)

20 October 26.70 19.33 12.30 19.46(5.25) (3.97) (3.28) (4.17)

16 November 37.03 38.47 14.70 30.06(6.17) (6.27) (3.85) (5.42)

15 December 22.00 22.67 - 14.89(4.79) (4.27) (1.00) (3.34)

15 January - - - -(1.00) (1.00) (1.00) (1.00)

Overall mean 23.73 13.41 4.50(4.67) (2.92) (1.85)

C. D. (P=0.05) : Planting date=1.05, Growing Condition=0.74,Date × Condition=1.83


Table 5. Length of spike (cm) of gladiolus cv. American Beautyas affected by planting dates and growing conditions



18 August 89.77 - - 29.92(9.52) (1.00) (1.00) (3.84)

6 September 79.40 - - 26.47(8.97) (1.00) (1.00) (3.65)

20 October 68.00 59.50 41.67 56.39(8.29) (6.64) (5.63) (6.85)

16 November 78.87 111.50 66.77 85.71(8.93) (10.6) (8.22) (9.25)

15 December 79.33 73.67 - 51.00(8.94) (7.36) (1.00) (5.77)

15 January - - - -(1.00) (1.00) (1.00) (1.00)

Overall mean 65.89 40.78 18.07(7.6) (4.6) (2.98)

C. D. (P=0.05) : Planting date=1.93, Growing condition=1.37,Date × Condition=3.36


(38.47 cm) was recorded in greenhouse followed byopen field (37.03 cm) and low-cost polyhouse (14.77cm) (Table 6). Increase in spike and rachis length ofgladiolus inside the greenhouse might be due toavailability of more fertilizers and suitability ofenvironmental factors mainly the light and temperaturein greenhouse. The results of the present investigationare in conformity with results of Nijiasure and Ranpise(7).

Diameters of florets of gladiolus were noted differentlyin size within planting dates and growing conditions.Plants grown on 16 November gave the largest size offlorets (10.37 cm) in greenhouse followed by openfield (10 cm) and low-cost polyhouse produced thesmallest size of floret in all planting dates. Floretsproduced in open field on 18 August were at par withflorets of 16 September (Table 7). Increase in size offlorets on November might be due to normality oftemperature and light during growth of plants. Shiraguret al. (9) reported the variation in carnation flowerdiameter due to their genetic characters of particulargenotypes.Weight of corms was affected by planting dates andgrowing conditions, early planting produced near toequal in weight of corms in open field and it wasreduced by delay in planting. Greenhouse plants whichproduced the highest weight of corms only on 16November planting and low-cost polyhouse gave the

162 Saaie and others

Table 8. Weight of corm (g) of gladiolus cv. American Beautyas affected by planting dates and growing conditions



18 August 53.67 37.17 29.17 40.0(7.39) (6.15) (5.49) (6.34)

16 September 42.10 26.37 20.33 29.6(6.56) (5.23) (4.62) (5.47)

20 October 46.67 37.00 18.83 34.2(6.90) (6.16) (4.45) (5.84)

16 November 34.60 62.27 15.33 37.4(5.90) (7.95) (4.00) (5.95)

15 December 23.33 - - 7.8(4.93) (1.00) (1.00) (2.31)

15 January - - - -(1.00) (1.00) (1.00) (1.00)

Overall mean 33.39 27.13 13.94(5.45) (4.58) (3.42)



Table 7. Diameter of florets (cm) of gladiolus cv. AmericanBeauty as affected by planting dates and growingconditions



18 August 9.31 - - 3.10(3.21) (1.00) (1.00) (1.73)

16 September 8.52 - - 2.84(5.33) (1.00) (1.00) (2.44)

20 October 7.72 5.33 4.67 5.90(2.94) (2.33) (2.22) (2.5)

16 November 10.00 10.40 4.83 8.40(3.32) (3.37) (2.25) (2.98)

15 December 8.83 9.17 - 6.00(3.13) (3.19) (1.00) (2.44)

15 January - - - -(1.00) (1.00) (1.00) (1.00)

Overall mean 7.39 4.14 1.58(3.16) (1.98) (1.41)



low weight of corms among them (Table 8).The results of this experiment are in agreement withthose of Arora and Sandhu (2) who reported abouttimes of planting performances in months of Octoberand November in Punjab condition.

LITERATURE CITED

1. Arora, J. S., Kaur, A. and Sidhu, G. S. 2002. Performanceof carnation in polyhouse. J. Orn. Hort. 5 : 58.

2. Arora, J. S. and Sandhu, G. S. 1987. Effect of two plantingdates on the performance of 15 gladiolus cultivars.Punjab. J. Hort. 27 : 243-249.

3. Bhat and Zahoor Ahmad 2007. Growth, flowering andproduction of gladiolus as influenced by plantdensity, corm size and time of sowing undertemperate conditions of Kashmir. KrishPrabhaDatabase, http://www.hau.ernet.in/.

4. Bose, T. K., Dhua, R. S., Das, P. and Maiti. 1999.Floriculture and Landscaping. Naya Prokash,Culcutta. pp. 477-478.

5. Bose, T. K. and Yadav, L. P. 1989. Commercial Flowers.Naya Prokash, Culcutta. pp. 305-307.

6. Kalasaraddi, P. T. 1996. Effect of time of planting andcorm size on growth, flowering and flower qualityof gladiolus (Gladiolus hybrida Hort.). M. Sc. thesis,University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad.

7. Nijiasure, S. N. and Ranpise, S. A. 2005. Effect of date ofplanting on growth, flowering and spike yield ongladiolus. Haryana J. hortic. Sci. 34 : 73-74.

8. Patil, R. T. 2001. Evaluation of standard carnation(Dianthus caryophyllus) cultivars under protectedcultivation. M. Sc. thesis, University of AgriculturalSciences, Dharwad.

9. Shiragur, M., Shirol, A. M., Gorabal, K., Reddy, B. S.and Kulkarni, B. S. 2004. Evaluation of standardcarnation cultivars for their flowering, flower qualityand yield parameters under protected cultivation. J.Orn. Hort. 7 : 206-211.

10. Singh, K. P., Sangama and Mandhar, S. C. 2001.Evaluation of post-harvest qualities of standardcarnation flowers grown under natural ventilatedgreenhouse. J. Orn. Hort. 4 : 53-54.

11. Sujatha, K. and Singh, K. P. 1991. Effect of differentplanting densities on growth, flowering and cormproduction in gladiolus. Indian J. Hort. 48 : 273-276.



Evaluation of Temperate Lawn Grass Species under Mid Hill Conditions ofHimachal Pradesh

RAJESH BHALLA AND PRERNA VERMADepartment of Floriculture & Landscaping, Dr. Y. S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni,Solan (H. P.), India

ABSTRACT : Lawns form an integral part of any landscape design and its aesthetic quality depends upon the adaptation of agrass species to a particular environment. Seven lawn grass species were evaluated under mid-hill conditions of H. P. duringMarch 2006 to June 2007. Experiment was laid out in a randomized block design with four replications. Presentability of thespecies for a complete year was assessed on parameters like number of mowings required (based on culm length), weed intensity,turf colour and leaf blade texture and the species were graded based on their performance. Minimum cumulative growth for culmlength and number of required mowings were recorded in Agrostis vinealis and Phleum bertolonii. Weed intensity was minimumin the plots of Lolium perenne. Variations in turf colour were observed in the months of December, January and May when thecolour changed from green to yellow and greyed-brown. Festuca rubra and Lolium perenne exhibited fine texture throughout theyear. Based on the above described parameters, scores were allotted to each species and presentability was worked out accordingly.Festuca rubra and Lolium perenne were graded as A, Agrostis capillaris, Agrostis vinealis, Phleum bertolonii and Dactylisglomerata were graded as B, while Festuca arundinacea was graded as C.

Key words : Evaluation, temperate, lawn grass, mid hill conditions

Floriculture and landscaping are related industries. Inthe past, landscaping was commonly regarded as aluxury for the wealthy or as a cosmetic for maskingmediocre and average architecture. The major toolsinvolved in landscaping are the use of plant materiallike trees, shrubs, climbers, annuals, ground coversand lawn grasses. Over the past 50 years, landscapearchitects and designers have used the ornamentalgrasses to create a soft, dreamy, impressionistic effectin the garden. Members of the family Poaceae, grassesnumber 600 genera and 9000 species (5), out of which20-25 species are used for turf production (9). Lawngrasses are usually categorized as cool-season grassesand warm-season grasses (3). Their utility is increasingwith the emphasis on recreation, sports, outdoor living,urbanization and beautification. Turf grasses beautifyour parks and landscapes and provide environmentalprotection and enhancement by purifying andprotecting our water, soil and air wherever they aregrown. In India, not much work has been done on theperformance of lawn grasses under different agro-climatic zones (1). Hence, present investigation wasundertaken to evaluate different temperate lawn grassspecies under mid-hills (sub-temperate zone) ofHimachal Pradesh.


The study was carried out at the experimental farm ofDr. Y. S. Parmar University of Horticulture andForestry, Nauni, Solan situated at 1276 m amsl at alatitude of 30o52′02′′ N and at a longitude of 77o11′

30′′ E. In the experiment, seven lawn grass speciesviz., Agrostis capillaris L. (common bent), Agrostisvinealis Schreb. (brown bent), Dactylis glomerata L.(cock’s foot) , Festuca arundinacea Schreb. (tallfescue), Festuca rubra L. (slender creeping redfescue), Lolium perenne L. (perennial rye grass) andPhleum bertolonii D. C. (smaller cat’s tail) wereevaluated. The experiment was laid out in arandomized block design with four replications plantedin plots of size 1 m2. The seedlings were transplantedin the field from the nursery when they attained aheight of about 5 cm at a spacing of 10 x 10 cm.Grasses were clipped at a height of 5 cm above theground level at monthly interval. Observations on culmlength, number of mowings required, weed intensity,leaf blade texture and turf colour were recorded atmonthly interval from July 2006 to June 2007. Basedon these parameters, presentability of the species wasworked out to grade them as A, B and C.


Culm length was measured on monthly basis with helpof a scale from the crown portion to the tip of the shoot(culm). The increase in growth of the culm wasrecorded by maintaining a standard length of 5 cm.Monthly increase in the culm length was expressed incm as well as in per cent and has been presented inTable 1. Depending upon the monthly increase ingrowth of the culms, the number of mowings wasrecorded (Table 2). The cumulative growth showedthat the minimum monthly increase in culm length

(cm) was recorded in A. vinealis and P. bertolonii and,hence, both the species required minimum number ofmowings among all the lawn grass species. Rorisonand Roderick (6) also allotted points to various lawngrass species on the basis of number of mowingsrequired. According to their studies A. vinealis and P.bertolonii scored highest points, which is in line withour findings.Number of weeds per m2 was counted and is presentedin Table 3. Minimum weed intensity was recorded inthe plots where L. perenne was grown. This could beattributed to the fact that L. perenne took minimumnumber of days to establish itself as compared to other

species which resulted in a quick ground cover therebysuppressing weed growth. Greenfield (4) reported thatL. perenne’s rapid growing and ability to cover groundquickly exclude weeds. Bo (2) also reported about100% ground cover in L. perenne which resulted inminimum weeds to emerge throughout the year ascompared to F. rubra which had a ground cover of 28to 84% only within the same period of time.Colour of the grass leaves (turf) was recorded monthlywith the help of colour charts of “The RoyalHorticultural Society”, London. Turf colour of lawngrass species (Table 4) remained consistent for theentire year with the exception in the months of

Table 1. Monthly increase in culm length (cm) of different lawn grass species

Months Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May. Jun. CumulativeSpecies 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 growth

Agrostis capillaris 0.44 1.09 1.56 2.07 2.91 2.71 2.16 5.18 8.17 9.28 7.56 9.68 52.81(0.83) (2.06) (2.95) (3.92) (5.51) (5.13) (4.09) (9.81) (15.47) (17.57) (14.32) (18.33)

Agrostis vinealis 0.26 0.78 1.23 1.70 2.05 1.91 1.76 2.16 2.92 3.17 2.26 2.98 23.17(1.12) (3.37) (5.31) (7.34) (8.85) (8.24) (7.60) (9.32) (12.60) (13.68) (9.75) (12.82)

Dactylis glomerata 0.62 1.71 2.90 4.24 5.41 4.97 4.24 5.91 6.53 7.64 7.19 10.11 61.47(1.01) (2.78) (4.72) (6.90) (8.80) (8.09) (6.90) (9.61) (10.62) (12.43) (11.70) (16.45)

Festuca arundinacea 0.63 1.78 2.69 3.69 4.83 4.64 4.22 5.17 7.42 8.76 8.00 9.20 61.03(1.03) (2.92) (4.41) (6.05) (7.91) (7.60) (6.91) (8.47) (12.16) (14.35) (13.11) (15.07)

Festuca rubra 0.29 0.65 1.49 2.01 2.44 2.31 2.00 3.91 5.83 6.73 4.73 6.82 39.21(0.74) (1.66) (3.80) (5.13) (6.22) (5.89) (5.10) (9.97) (14.87) (17.16) (12.06) (17.39)

Lolium perenne 0.47 0.96 1.78 2.29 2.66 2.51 2.16 4.07 6.05 7.11 6.98 8.78 45.82(1.03) (2.10) (3.88) (5.00) (5.81) (5.48) (4.71) (8.88) (13.20) (15.52) (15.23) (19.16)

Phleum bertolonii 0.28 0.83 1.30 1.65 2.04 1.92 1.66 2.04 2.51 2.83 2.24 2.65 21.92(1.28) (3.79) (5.93) (7.53) (9.31) (8.76) (7.44) (9.31) (11.45) (12.91) (10.22) (12.09)

S. E± 0.06 0.15 0.20 0.28 0.39 0.38 0.36 0.52 0.88 1.03 0.98 1.19C. D. (P=0.05) 0.23 0.50 0.73 1.20 1.55 1.55 1.66 1.45 1.89 2.20 1.74 1.22

Figures in parentheses are per cent values of increase in culm length.

Table 2. Monthly number of mowings required for different lawn grass species based on increase in culm length

Months Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May. Jun.Species 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006

Agrostis capillaris 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 5 5 4 5Agrostis vinealis 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2Dactylis glomerata 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 6Festuca arundinacea 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 5 4 5Festuca rubra 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 4 3 4Lolium perenne 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 4 4 4 5Phleum bertolonii 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 2

Increase in culm length (cm) No. of mowings0-2 One mowing2-4 Two mowings4-6 Three mowings6-8 Four mowings8-10 Five mowings10-12 Six mowings


months of December and January could be the effectof severe frost and very low average minimumtemperature. Colour was regained into normal greencolour in the month of February 2007 when the frost

Table 3. Weed intensity (weed plants/m2) in different lawn grass species during July 2006 to June 2007

Months Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun.Species 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007

Agrostis capillaris 18.50 21.63 25.55 28.97 26.52 23.94 20.26 24.50 26.39 28.07 30.27 33.69Agrostis vinealis 29.00 34.30 38.35 39.00 37.51 33.62 28.34 30.30 33.80 35.58 37.29 40.12Dactylis glomerata 15.43 18.00 19.47 20.83 17.11 15.23 12.50 16.96 19.57 22.36 24.61 27.34Festuca arundinacea 32.30 37.43 45.34 41.33 38.69 31.16 25.44 29.74 34.26 38.31 43.23 49.39Festuca rubra 13.50 20.13 17.07 19.07 17.76 12.65 9.91 12.63 15.20 17.21 19.74 21.18Lolium perenne 11.20 18.47 16.80 14.82 10.90 7.30 4.74 7.74 10.05 13.46 15.14 18.44Phleum bertolonii 27.83 32.90 41.44 43.63 40.81 37.46 32.10 34.02 37.44 40.28 42.70 44.46S. E± 3.33 3.13 4.75 4.58 4.67 4.53 4.06 4.00 4.24 4.26 4.48 4.74C. D. (P=0.05) 2.07 1.40 1.11 1.34 1.19 1.84 1.78 3.76 2.42 3.07 2.57 1.88

Table 4. Turf colour of different lawn grass species during July 2006 to June 2007

Months Jul. 2006 Aug. 2006 Sep. 2006 Oct. 2006 Nov. 2006 Dec. 2006

Species Green Yellow

Agrostis capillaris Green Green Green Green Green Yellow-green Greyed-orangegp-137-C gp-137-C gp-137-C gp-137-B gp-137-A gp-146-A gp. 164-B

Agrostis vinealis Green Green Green Green Green Yellow-green Greyed-yellowgp-137-B gp-137-B gp-137-C gp-137-B gp-137-A gp-144-A gp. 161-B

Dactylis glomerata Yellow-green Yellow-green Yellow-green Yellow-green Yellow-green Yellow-green Greyed-orangegp-144-A gp-144-A gp-144-B gp-144-B gp-144-A gp-147-A gp. 164-B

Festuca arundinaceae Green Green Green Green Green Yellow-green Greyed-yellowgp-137-B gp-137-B gp-137-C gp-137-B gp-137-A gp-137-A gp. 161-C

Festuca rubra Green Green Green Green Green Yellow-green Greyed-browngp-137-A gp-137-A gp-137-B gp-137-B gp-137-A gp-144-A gp. 199-C

Lolium perenne Green Green Green Green Yellow-green Yellow-green Greyed-yellowgp-143-B gp-143-B gp-143-C gp-143-B gp-144-A gp-144-A gp. 161-C

Phleum bertolonii Yellow-green Yellow-green Yellow-green Yellow-green Yellow-green Yellow-green Yellowgp-144-A gp-144-A gp-144-B gp-144-B gp-144-A gp-146-A gp. 13-B

Contd.

Table 4 contd.

Months Jan. 2007 Feb. 2007 Mar. 2007 Apr. 2007 May 2007 Jun. 2007

Species Green Yellow Green Yellow

Agrostis capillaris Yellow-green Greyed-yellow Green Green Green Yellow-green Greyed-yellow Greengp-146-B gp. 161-A gp-137-A gp-137-B gp-137-A gp-146-A gp. 161-B gp-138-A

Agrostis vinealis Yellow-green Greyed-orange Green Green Green Yellow-green Greyed-orange Greengp-144-B gp. 164-B gp-137-A gp-137-B gp-137-A gp-144-B gp. 164-B gp-137-A

Dactylis glomerata Yellow-green Yellow-orange Yellow-green Yellow-green Yellow-green Yellow-green Greyed-orange Greengp-147-A gp. 22-A gp-144-A gp-144-B gp-144-A gp-147-B gp. 164-A gp-137-A

Festuca arundinaceae Yellow-green Greyed-yellow Green Green Green Yellow-green Greyed-yellow Greengp-137-B gp. 161-A gp-137-A gp-137-C gp-137-B gp-137-A gp. 161-C gp-147-A

Festuca rubra Yellow-green Greyed-yellow Green Green Green Yellow-green Greyed-yellow Greengp-144-B gp. 161-A gp-137-A gp-137-B gp-137-A gp-144-A gp. 161-B gp-143-A

Lolium perenne Yellow-green Greyed-yellow Green Green gp-143-C Green Yellow-green Greyed-orange Greengp-143-A gp. 161-C gp-144-A gp-137-B gp-143-B gp-144-A gp. 164-D gp-143-A

Phleum bertolonii Yellow-green Yellow Yellow-green Yellow-green Yellow-green Yellow-green Yellow Yellow-greengp-146-B gp. 13-A gp-144-A gp-144-B gp-144-A gp-146-B gp. 13-B gp-144-A

December 2006, January and May 2007 when thecolour changed to yellow and greyed-brown. F. rubraand L. perenne were quite consistent for colourthroughout the year. This variation in colour in the

166 Bhalla and Verma

Table 6. Scores allotted to various parameters for evaluating the presentability of lawn grass species

Parameter Description (as observed) Points allotted

(a) No. of mowings required 1 52 43 34 25, 6 1

(b) Weed intensity 1 to 10 5(weeds/m2) 11 to 20 4

21 to 30 331 to 40 241 and above 1

(c) Turf colour Green group-137-A, 137-B, 137-C 5(RHS) Colour chart Green group-143-A, 143-B, 143-C 4

Yellow-green group-144-A, 144-B, 146-A, 146-B, 147-A, 147-B 3Yellow-green group-144-A, 144-B, 146-A, 146-B, 147-A, 147-B 2and Greyed-yellow group-161-A, 161-B, 161-C, Yellow group-13-A,13-B, Greyed-orange group-164-A, 164-B, 164-B, Greyed-brown group-199-CGreyed-yellow group-161-A, 161-B, 161-C, Yellow group-13-A, 13-B, Greyed- 1orange group-164-A, 164-B, 164-B, Greyed-brown group-199-C

(d) Leaf blade texture Fine 5Fine to medium 4Medium 3Coarse to medium 2Coarse 1

determined the turf grass quality on the basis of somefactors like speed of initial establishment, persistenceunder mowing, freedom from weeds, texture and goodappearance based on dark or light colour, uniformityof colour, absence of seasonal variation in colour (deadleaf, yellowing) etc., absence of seed heads andgrouped the various lawn grass species into threegroups A, B and C. Turgeon (8) selected the criterialike establishment vigour, leaf texture and mowingheight adaptation for assessing the presentability ofthe lawn grasses. Based on the above mentioned fourparameters, scoring of species was done by allotting amaximum of five points to each parameter making thetotal to be a maximum of 20, as given in Table 6. Thescores out of 20, thus obtained have been presented inTable 7. On the basis of the scores attained by eachspecies, grading of each species was done. F. rubraand L. perenne were graded as A with mean scores of16.75 and 16.03, respectively, while A. capillaris, A.vinealis, D. glomerata and P. bertolonii were gradedas B with mean scores of 14.94, 14.94, 12.36 and10.53, respectively. F. arundinacea was graded as Cwith a mean score of 9.72 only. Therefore, based onthe above studies, F. rubra and L. perenne have a goodpotential for lawn making under mid-hill conditionsof H. P.

Table 5. Texture of the leaf blade of different lawn grassspecies during July 2006 to June 2007

1. Agrostis capillaris Fine2. Agrostis vinealis Fine3. Dactylis glomerata Coarse to medium4. Festuca arundinacea Coarse to medium5. Festuca rubra Fine6. Lolium perenne Fine7. Phleum bertolonii Fine

attack decreased. During May 2007 the yellowing ofthese two species could have been a result of hightemperature and low rainfall, however, the greencolour was regained in June 2007.Leaf blade texture was noted by “Hand Feel” methodgiven by Srivastava and Kumar (7). It was recorded atmonthly intervals and has been presented in Table 5.F. rubra, L. perenne, A. capillaris, A. vinealis and P.bertolonii exhibited fine texture throughout the year.Vengris (9) also reported F. rubra, L. perenne, A.capillaris, A. vinealis and P. bertolonii to be havingfine texture.

The presentability of each species was assessed onthe basis of number of mowings required, weedintensity, turf colour and leaf blade texture. Otherworkers have also assessed the presentability on thebasis of these parameters. Rorison and Roderick (6)


Table 7. Presentability scores (out of 20) obtained by different lawn grass species during July 2006 to June 2007

Months Jul. Aug. Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Mean GradeSpecies 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007

Agrostis capillaris 19.00 18.33 18.67 16.67 16.33 13.67 12.67 16.33 13.33 12.67 9.33 12.33 14.94 BAgrostis vinealis 17.67 17.33 16.67 16.67 12.33 13.33 10.33 16.67 15.67 16.33 11.67 14.67 14.94 BDactylis glomerata 13.00 13.33 13.00 10.33 10.67 10.33 9.67 11.67 9.67 8.67 7.67 8.33 10.53 BFestuca arundinacea 14.33 13.33 12.33 12.33 11.67 8.33 8.67 13.00 10.67 9.67 6.00 7.67 9.72 CFestuca rubra 18.67 17.67 18.67 18.33 18.67 14.33 14.67 18.33 17.33 16.33 13.33 14.67 16.75 ALolium perenne 17.67 18.00 18.67 19.00 15.67 14.67 15.67 15.33 15.67 14.67 13.00 14.33 16.03 APhleum bertolonii 15.33 13.00 12.67 13.33 12.33 12.67 9.33 12.33 13.67 11.67 10.67 12.33 12.36 BS. E± 0.70 0.92 1.14 1.01 1.06 0.88 1.09 0.86 0.88 1.02 1.03 1.01 - -C. D. (P=0.05) 0.79 1.15 1.01 1.22 0.95 0.91 1.07 1.19 1.10 1.07 1.35 1.10 - -

Scores (out of 20) Grades15-20 A10-<15 B5-<10 C0-<5 D

LITERATURE CITED

1. Anonymous. 2010. Industry turf initiative.www.googles.com.

2. Bo, S. 1989. Development in turf grasses during the yearof sowing. Norsk Landbruksforsking 3 : 39-48.

3. Carpenter, P. L., Walker, T. D. and Lanphear, F. O. 1975.Plants in the Landscape. Freeman and Company, SanFransico. pp. 317-318.

4. Greenfield, I. 1962. Turf Culture. Leonard Hill (Books)Limited, London. pp. 44-92.

5. Rademacher, J. 2003. The Art of Grasses. AmericanNurseryman. 18 p.

6. Rorison, I. H. and Roderick, H. 1980. Amenity Grassland: An Ecological Perspective. John Wiley & Sons,New York. pp. 69-98.

7. Srivastava, R. P. and Kumar, S. 2002. Fruit and VegetablePreservation : Principle and Practices. InternationalBook Distributing Company, Lucknow, India. pp.331-335.

8. Turgeon, A. J. 1980. Turf Grass Management. RestonPublishing Company, Virginia. pp. 26-29.

9. Vengris, J. 1973. Lawns : Basic Factors, Constructionand Maintenance of Fine Turf Areas, 2nd edn.Thomson Publications, California. pp. 22-54.

168 Bhalla and Verma


Resistance to Stalk Rot and its Inheritance in Late Group Cauliflower (Brassicaoleracea var. botrytis L.)

BHUPINDER SINGH THAKURDr. Y. S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Regional Horticultural Research Station, Bajaura, Kullu-175 125(H. P.), India

ABSTRACT : Germplasm of late group cauliflower was screened for resistance to stalk rot under the field conditions afterartificially inoculation with the pathogen culture. This screening of the available germplasm revealed that Janavon and RSK 1301were the genotypes resistant to stalk rot. These resistant genotypes were selected as parents for making crosses with the commonhigh yielding susceptible varieties. Therefore, crosses between susceptible PSB 1 (commercial variety) and KJ 47 (elite line) andresistant parents (Janavon and RSK 1301) were attempted to work out the inheritance pattern of disease resistance. All the F1’s ofsusceptible × resistant parents with mean disease incidence of 60.67 to 71.19% were found to be susceptible to stalk rot disease.As resistance was not shown by any of the F1‘s, therefore, it was clear that the genes responsible for resistance could not expressthemselves. The disease reaction recorded in the F1’s revealed that resistance to stalk rot was recessive to susceptibility. Theintermediate disease reaction in the F2 generation and low disease reaction in the back cross generations indicated that resistanceto stalk rot was polygenic in nature. Additive effect of the genes was evident from the generation means analysis and revealedpronounced effect of additivity of genes in inheritance of the resistance to stalk rot.

Key words : Cauliflower, Brassica oleracea, stalk rot, Sclerotinia, epiphytotic, inheritance, resistance, segregating

Cauliflower (Brassica oleracea var. botrytis L.) is oneof the most important cruciferous vegetable crops inIndia and popularity of the crop has been constantlyincreasing with the introduction of hybrid varieties,which have wide adaptability and high yield potentialas well. Himachal Pradesh is also contributing to thenational production through cultivation of off-seasoncrop and seed of the crop as well which is consideredas the monopoly of the state. Besides, other cruciferousvegetables are also grown in the state on large scale,due to this reason, some bottlenecks in the form ofdiseases and insect-pests have emerged and becomesynonymous with these cruciferous crops. The diseaseslike black rot, stalk rot and curd rot complex are themost severe throughout the state. Stalk rot/white mold(Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (Lib.) deBarry) damagescauliflower seriously during the critical stages of itsgrowth and development. It has been reported to causelosses up to 90% in seed crop (8), thus needs utmostattention. The resistance breeding work on this diseasein cauliflower is being done but no significantachievement has been made so far. Keeping in viewthe above facts and the seriousness of the disease, aneffort was made to screen out the source of resistancefrom available genotypes of late cauliflower and tofind out the mode of inheritance of resistance.


In the present studies, 25 genotypes comprisingstandard cultivars such as PSB 1 and PSB K 1 andother elite lines (Table 1) were evaluated for resistance

against stalk rot during 1996-97 at Vegetable ResearchFarm of Dr. Y. S. Parmar University of Horticultureand Forestry, Nauni, Solan, Himachal Pradesh. Afteridentification of the sources of resistance differentcrosses were attempted during the subsequent yearsinvolving susceptible and resistant parents. Thesegregating generation F2 and backcross generationswere also developed. All the generations includingparents, F1’s, F2’s and back crosses were evaluated aswell as screened during 1998-99 in a randomized blockdesign for stalk rot resistance, under artificially createdepiphytotic conditions in three replications.Screening of the germplasm for stalk rot resistancewas done by artificially inoculating the plants withthe pathogen. The inoculation was done with a weekold culture of S. sclerotiorum multiplied on corn : sandmedium (1 : 1 w/w) as suggested by Dohroo (6) bymixing the culture in soil around the plant. The quantityof culture mixed was 5-10 mg for seedling and 50 mgfor mature plant at curd initiation stage. To maintainhigh soil moisture, irrigations were provided everyfourth day. Inoculation was also made on the curds byplacing mycelium on it. The disease incidence basedon number of leaves affected and later plants showingthe disease symptoms were recorded after 20 days ofinoculation and subsequently at weekly intervals tillthe final harvest. The final disease incidence figureswere worked out after taking the mean of all thereadings and the genotypes were grouped into fourcategories as resistant (1-10%), moderately resistant(11-20%), susceptible (21-40%) and highly susceptible(>40%).

The mean disease incidence of four crosses wasanalyzed for estimating the gene effects throughgeneration mean analysis.


Out of the 25 genotypes screened for the diseaseresistance, majority showed the susceptible reaction(Table 1). The genotypes Janavon, EC 162587 andRSK 1301 were found to be resistant with less than10% incidence of stalk rot. Janavon S 3, Pyramis andKN 81 with 11-20% disease incidence weremoderately resistant, while all remaining genotypeswere susceptible to highly susceptible in nature.Janavon and RSK 1301 were used as resistant parents,while PSB 1 (commercial variety) and KJ 47 (eliteline) were used as susceptible parents in the crossingprogramme. The mean disease incidence of theparents, crosses and segregating generations wasanalyzed for generation means.

All the F1’s of susceptible × resistant parents with meandisease incidence of 60.67 to 71.19% were susceptible.As resistance was not shown by any of the F1’s, it wasclear that the genes responsible for resistance couldnot express themselves. So, owing to non-expressionof the resistance genes they can be said to have therecessive- ness to the genes responsible forsusceptibility. Further perusal of the data (Table 2)showed that interaction phenotype of the disease in F1generation although on susceptible side but was notcomplete. Dickson and Petzoldt (1995) also reportedresistance to stalk rot/white mold to be recessive in B.oleracea. The average disease incidence in the F2population was less than F1 and it varied from 51.74%in KJ 47 × Janavon to 57.5 per cent in PSB 1 × RSK1301. The expected and observed values in most ofthe crosses were at par with each other, which indicatedthat the genes responsible for resistance had theircumulative effect in reducing the disease incidence.Further, the mean disease incidence in F2 generationof the susceptible × resistant crosses was lower thantheir respective F1’s and was intermediate to theirrespective parents and in susceptible range. This typeof difference in the mean disease incidence could beattributed to the involvement of more number of genesand partial dominance of the susceptibility operatingin the inheritance of disease resistance. These resultsare in line with those reported by Baswana et al. (2).Coyne et al. (3) while working on Phaseolus vulgarisL. also reported low habitability of resistance to whitemold.In the backcross to susceptible parent there was anincrease in the disease incidence in all the crosses, whilethe backcrosses to the resistant parent showed reductionin the disease incidence. The reduction in diseaseincidence in the backcross to the resistant parentindicated accumulation of more number of genes whichcontrolled the resistance, whereas backcrossing to thesusceptible parent decreased their number henceincrease in the disease incidence. This indicates clearlytowards the additive nature of the genes controllingresistance. Agbo and Wood (1) and Fuller et al. (7) alsoreported that resistance to white mold (S. sclerotiorum)was quantitatively inherited in beans. The backcrossesespecially B2 also showed deviation from the expectedmean values thus indicating involvement of otherfactors/gene effects in the inheritance of resistance.Additive × dominance model was found to beinadequate for all the crosses. On the basis of six-parameter model (Table 2), it can be concluded thatadditive gene action played an important role in theinheritance of resistance to stalk rot. All the crosses gave

Table 1. Incidence of stalk rot and the disease reaction ofgenotypes

Name of the lines/ Disease incidence (%) Reactiongenotypes

Laboratory Field(Seedling stage) (Leaf lesion

basis)

KJ 38 58.09 56.91 HSKJ 47 57.28 63.59 HSKM 1 36.11 33.29 SSnowball 16 81.50 67.64 HSPyramis 18.70 19.21 MRMonopreco 27.50 22.95 SJanavon 9.71 7.66 RHolland Special 72.32 58.10 HSHimanshu Snow 68.77 62.52 HSPusa Himjyoti 88.25 74.16 HSEC 162587 11.48 10.43 MRRSK 1301 8.78 9.40 RBR 2 47.82 42.36 HSSN 445 75.45 55.82 HSKT 9 87.25 59.06 HSKT 25 75.73 56.79 HSPusa Synthetic 31.91 35.58 SKathmandu Local 55.15 54.21 HSJanavon S 3 12.87 14.40 MRKN 81 17.16 12.43 MRKK 104 24.16 21.37 SACC 641 23.55 20.76 MRJawahar Moti 84.78 65.92 HSPSB 1 86.95 72.52 HSPSBK 1 89.65 67.18 HS

HS–Highly susceptible, S–Susceptible, MR–Moderatelyresistant and R–Resistant.

170 Thakur

significant influence of additive × additive (i) geneeffects. Only one cross KJ 47 × Janavon gavecomplementary gene action as both dominance ×dominance (l) as well as dominance (h) gene actionwas positive and significant. Fuller et al. (7) Baswanaet al. (2) and Dickson and Petzoldt (5) also reportedpreponderance of additive gene effects in inheritanceof resistance to white mold. From these results it is clearthat there are a number of genes involved in controllingthe resistance, which act in an additive fashion and havelow heritability. Presence of some complementary geneaction cannot be ruled out. These results also indicatethat rigorous selection may help in bringingimprovement for stalk rot resistance, which has earlierbeen successfully utilized by Dickson and Hunter (4)in breeding of bean varieties resistant to white mold.

LITERATURE CITED

1. Agbo, F. M. O. and Wood, D. R. 1979. Inheritance ofresistance to white mold in beans (Phaseolus vulgarisL.). Agron. Abstr. 54.

Table 2. Generation mean analysis for stalk rot resistance in cauliflower

Crosses Generation means

P1 P2 F1 F2 B1 B2

PSB 1 × Janavon 72.52 7.66 71.19 (40.09) 56.41 (55.64) 65.32 (71.85) 49.18 (39.42)PSB 1 × RSK 1301 72.52 9.40 64.66 (40.96) 57.45 (52.81) 69.81 (68.59) 45.05 (37.03)KJ 47 × Janavon 63.59 7.66 60.67 (35.63) 51.74 (48.14) 63.75 (62.13) 46.28 (34.16)KJ 47 × RSK 1301 63.59 9.40 58.05 (36.49) 54.63 (47.28) 60.70 (60.89) 45.60 (33.74)RSK 1301 × Janavon 9.40 7.66 8.17 (8.53) 10.13 (8.35) 9.03 (8.78) 8.20 (33.74)

Scaling test

A B C Joint scaling

PSB 1 × Janavon -13.07*±5.68 19.51±4.30 3.08±6.52 30.48PSB 1 × RSK 1301 2.44±6.64 16.03*±6.96 18.56±13.01 6.89KJ 47 × Janavon 3.23±3.59 24.23*±4.83 14.37±9.60 25.70KJ 47 × RSK 1301 -0.27±3.27 23.73*±7.96 29.37*±6.09 32.09RSK 1301 × Janavon -0.49±1.72 0.69±3.46 7.12±5.77 -

Gene effects

m d h i j l

PSB 1 × Janavon 56.41*±0.99 16.14*±2.82 34.45*±7.37 3.35±6.90 -16.28±3.27 -9.79±13.04PSB 1 × RSK 1301 57.45*±3.02 24.76*±4.34 23.61*±15.09 0.08±14.90 -6.79±4.65 -18.39±21.72KJ 47 × Janavon 51.74*±2.14 17.46*±2.54 38.13*±10.19 13.08±9.96 10.49*±2.65 40.55*±13.97KJ 47 × RSK 1301 54.63*±1.44 15.09*±4.21 15.66±4.21 -5.93±10.20 -11.99*±4.28 17.52±17.92RSK 1301 × Janavon 10.13±2.38 0.8±1.23 -6.36±4.33 -6.00±7.82 0.07±1.01 4.88±3.42

*Significant at P=0.05.

2. Baswana, K. S., Rastogi, K. B. and Sharma, P. P. 1991.Inheritance of stalk rot resistance in cauliflower(Brassica oleracea var botrytis). Euphytica 57 : 93-96.

3. Coyne, D. P., Steadman, J. R. and Schwartz, H. 1977.Inheritance and breeding strategy for white molddiseae (Sclerotinia sclerotiorum) resistance andavoidance in beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Hort. Sci.12 : 397.

4. Dickson, M. H. and Hunter, J. E. 1982. Progress inbreeding to white mold resistance. Annual ReportBean Improv. Coop. 25 : 100-101.

5. Dickson, M. H. and Petzoldt, R. 1995. White mold orSclerotinia sclerotiorum resistance in Brassicaoleracea. Cruciferae Newsl. No. 18 : 120-121.

6. Dohroo, N. P. 1988. Reaction of cauliflower germplasmto stalk rot (Sclerotinia sclerotiorum). Indian J. Pl.Path. 6 : 144.

7. Fuller, P. A., Coyne, D. P. and Steadman, J. R. 1984.Inheritance of resistance to white mold disease in adiallel cross of dry beans. Crop Sci. 24 : 929-933.

8. Sharma, R. C. 1979. Stalk rot of cauliflower caused bySclerotinia sclerotiorum (Lib.) deBarry. Crop Improv.9 : 167-168.



Heterosis for Growth, Yield and Quality Traits in Brinjal (Solanum melongenaL.)

B. BHUSHAN, A. S. DHATT, A. S. SIDHU AND AJAY KUMARDepartment of Vegetable Crops, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana-141 004 (Punjab), India

ABSTRACT : An experiment on hetrosis in brinjal was conducted involving 60 hybrids and two checks at Punjab AgriculturalUniversity, Ludhiana during the year 2006-07. Observations were recorded on days to 50% flowering, days to first fruit harvest,average fruit weight (g), fruit length (cm), fruit girth (cm), number of fruits per plant, plant height (cm), plant spread (cm), numberof primary branches, yield per plot (kg), yield per hectare (q), dry matter (%), total sugars (%), total phenols (mg/100 g) andanthocyanin (mg/100 g). Cross combination of Punjab Barsati × U-8-61-3 showed maximum negative heterosis over better parentand check hybrid for earliness. For average fruit weight cross JPM-105-2 x BB-93C was better than checks and for fruit lengthcross PB-1 × U-8-61-3 showed significant superiority. JBR-3-16 × U-8-61-3 exhibited maximum heterosis over better parent andover standard checks for fruit girth. The best heterotic hybrid over both the checks for yield and number of fruits was HABL-1 ×JBSR-98-2, whereas Punjab Barsati × U-8-61-3 was better than check hybrid BH-1.

Key words : Eggplant , heterosis, growth, yield, quality

Heterosis in brinjal (Solanum melongena L.2n=2x=24) referred to superiority of hybrid over eitherparents or standard check in terms of yield, qualityand resistance to insect-pests and diseases. Thisphenomenon is commercially viable in brinjal due toheterotic potential and availability of large number ofseeds per pollination (2, 4, 7, 8, 9). Brinjal is an oftencross pollinated crop possessing considerable diversityfor plant type, fruit colour, fruit shape, fruit size, yieldand other quality traits. Thus, it offers an opportunityto exploit using material of different geneticbackgrounds. Punjab Agricultural University hasreleased two hybrids, namely, BH-1 and BH-2 forcultivation, but there is a need to find out newcombinations having high yield and better quality indifferent groups of shape and size. Therefore, presentinvestigation was planned with the objectives toestimate the magnitude of heterosis over better parentand standard checks for growth, yield and quality traits.


The experiment was conducted in the Department ofVegetable Crops, Punjab Agricultural University,Ludhiana during rainy season in 2006-07. The materialwas comprised of 15 diverse female lines and fourmale lines to produce 60 F1 hybrids along with twostandard checks. The crosses were attempted duringrainy season of year 2006 and seeds of F1 hybrids alongwith their parents and standard checks (BH-1 and BH-2) were sown on 22 June, 2007 and were transplantedin the field on 24 July, 2007. The spacing betweenrows and plants was 60 and 45 cm, respectively. Othercultural practices for the crop were followed as per

package of practices recommended by PunjabAgricultural University, Ludhiana. The experimentwas laid out in a randomized block design (RBD) withthree replications. The observations on the followingcharacters were recorded on randomly marked fiveplants in each treatment for days to 50 per centflowering, days to first fruit harvest, average fruitweight (g), fruit length (cm), fruit girth (cm), numberof fruits per plant, plant height (cm), plant spread (cm),number of primary branches, yield per plot (kg), yieldper hectare (q), dry matter (%), total sugars (%), totalphenols (mg/100 g) and anthocyanin (mg/100 g). Thedata were recorded on per plot basis in threereplications of the experiment. The analysis of variancefor the design was performed to obtain estimate ofexperimental error mean squares, which was used forfurther analysis. The heterosis over standard check wascalculated as superiority of F1 cross over standardchecks viz., BH-1 and BH-2.


The heterosis over better parent ranged between -0.72to -13.43 for days to 50% flowering (Table 1). PunjabBarsati × U-8-61-3 was earliest to flower, followedby JBR-3-16 × PB-64 and H-8 × PB-64, however, noneof the crosses was better than the check hybrids. Thedays to first fruit harvest was early by -7.14% in onecross only (Punjab Barsati × U-8-61-3) over the BH-1. Heterosis for earliness depends upon parents andfruit size (1). The maximum heterosis for fruit weightwas observed 83.33, 72.55 and 62.96% in cross JPM-105-2 x BB-93C over the better parent, BH-1 and BH-2, respectively. Fruit length of PB-1 × U-8-61-3 was

23.38 cm, which was longer by 67.6, 84.38 and 79.02%over better parent, BH-1 and BH-2, respectively. Therange of desirable positive heterosis over BH-1 variedfrom 6.62 to 84.38%, while over BH-2 from 3.52 to79.02%. Significant positive heterosis over betterparent for fruit length was reported by Mankar et al.(5) and Das and Barua (3) also.Out of 60, 11 crosses displayed significant heterosisfor fruit girth over better parent. The highest positiveheterosis (78.83%) was in JBR-3-16 × U-8-61-3 cross.Significant positive heterosis over standard checks forfruit girth was observed in five crosses viz., JBR-3-16× U-8-61-3 (65.66%), H-8 × BB-93-C (55.91%), BSR-11 × U-8-61-3 (30.31%), IVBR-3 × JBSR-98-2(19.13%) and RCMBL-1-1 × BB-93-C (14.39%).Mankar et al. (5) and Prasath et al. (6) also reportedheterosis over better parent for fruit girth.The number of fruits per plant was significantly betterin nine hybrids. Cross HABL-1 × JBSR-98-2expressed highest heterosis to the tune of 69.23%followed by HABL-1 × U-8-61-3 (51.22%), IVBR-3× PB-64 (50.03%), BSR-11 × BB-93-C (38.29%),BSR-11 × JBSR-98-2 (31.91%), JBR-3-16 × BB-93-C (27.95%), JBR-3-16 × U-8-61-3 (27.95%), JBR-3-16 × JBSR-98-2 (25.97%) and IVBR-3 × JBSR-98-2(19.57%). However, nine crosses exhibited significantpositive heterosis over BH-1 and four crosses over BH-2, where, HABL-1 × JBSR-98-2 displayed the highestdesirable heterosis of 70.02 and 62.91% over BH-1and BH-2, respectively. The range of heterosis overbetter parent for number of fruits per plant wasrecorded -63.1 to 40.6 by Ingale and Patil (4) and 12.64to 116.45% by Ashwani and Khandewal (1).Six crosses measured significantly tall for plant height,where, HABL-1 × U-8-61-3 was 114 cm with 10.33%heterosis. Singh and Prasad (11) reported 2.30 to20.32% heterosis over better parent and Prasath et al.(6) recorded -34.19 to 27.26% range for plant heightalso. Plant spread ranged between 0.41 to 13.52% withmaximum spread in RCMBL-1-1 × JBSR-98-2(13.52%) followed by KS-331 × BB-93-C (12.96%),HABL-1 × U-8-61-3 (12.92%), PB-2 × U-8-61-3(12.59%), KS-331 × U-8-61-3 (10.18%), RCMBL-1-1 × PB-64 (9.20%), PB-2 × JBSR-98-2 (9.15%), KS-331 × JBSR-98-2 (7.50%), PPL × JBSR-98-2 (7.46%)and HABL-1 × BB-93-C (7.15%). The standardheterosis over BH-1 and BH-2 was found significantlybetter in nine crosses.The number of primary branches was significantlybetter in 16 hybrids over better parent. Cross PBR-91-1 × JBSR-98-2 expressed highest heterosis of

19.43%. The range of positive heterosis over betterparent was 0.96 to 19.43%. Six crosses exhibitedsignificant positive heterosis over BH-1 and 16 crossesover BH-2. The cross combination IVBR-3 × BB-93-C displayed the highest desirable heterosis of 9.74 and15.27 per cent over BH-1 and BH-2, respectively. Therange of positive heterosis over BH-1 varied from 0.64to 9.74% and over BH-2 from 0.84 to 15.27%.Yield per hectare was significantly better in 13 crosscombinations with highest heterosis over better parentin HABL-1 × JBSR-98-2 (60.23%) followed by JBR-3-16 × BB-93-C (38.14%), RCMBL-1-1 × B-93-C(36.42%), Punjab Barsati × U-8-61-3 (31.84%), PB-2× BB-93-C (26.96%), NDB-21 × BB-93-C (20.53%),Punjab Barsati × BB-93-C (20.05%), IVBR-3 × B-93-C (19.83%), PBR-91-1 × BB-93-C (16.69%),RCMBL-1-1 × PB-64 (15.67%), PB-1 × JBSR-98-2(11.84%), BSR-11 × U-8-61-3 (10.27%) and KS-331´ BB-93-C (7.93%), IVBR-3 × BB-93-C (5.21%) andRCMBL-1-1 × U-8-61-3 (4.49%). Prasath et al. (6)reported up to 101.86% heterosis over better parentfor yield per plant. Das and Barua (3) also reportedsignificant positive heterosis for this character. Resultsare in conformity with the findings of Ashwani andKhandewal (1). However, significant heterosis overstandard check BH-1 was 7.37% in one cross PunjabBarsati × U-8-61-3 only.The dry matter content was significantly better in fivecrosses over better parent, with maximum advantageof 14.65% in HABL-1 × JBSR-98-2 followed byHABL-1 × PB-64 (7.01%), HABL-1 × U-8-61-3(5.56%), IVBR-3 × BB-93-C (5.33%) and JPM-105-2 × BB-93-C (3.42%). However, over standard checks25 crosses were better than BH-1 and 40 over BH-2.Cross HABL-1 × JBSR-98-2 recorded maximumpositive heterosis 40.17 and 58.35% over BH-1 andBH-2, respectively. The range of positive heterosis was1.22 to 40.17% over BH-1 and from 0.39 to 58.35%over BH-2. Verma (13) also reported significantpositive heterosis for the dry matter content in brinjal.Anthocyanin content of fruits ranged from 3.35 to60.50%. Three cross combinations exhibitedsignificant positive heterosis over BH-1 and eightcombinations over BH-2. The cross JPM-105-2 × BB-93-C showed maximum positive heterosis of 10.81%over BH-1 followed by RMBL-1-1 × PB-64 (4.32%)and Punjab Barsati × JBSR-98-2 (3.24%). However,over BH-2, it was significantly better in JPM-105-2 ×BB-93-C, RCMBL-1-1 × PB-64, Punjab Barsati ×JBSR-98-2, HABL-1 × U-8-61-3, Jamuni Gola ×JBSR-98-2, PBR-91-1 × JBSR-98-2, PBR-91-1 × BB-


Tabl

e 1.

Mea

n pe

rfor

man

ce o

f cro

sses

and

per

cen

t het

eros

is o

ver t

he b

ette

r pa

rent

and

stan

dard

che

cks (

BH

-1 a

nd B

H-2

) for

diff

eren

t cha

ract

ers i

n br

inja

l

Cro

sses

Day

s to

50%

flow

erin

gD

ays t

o 1s

t fru

it ha

rves

tAv

erag

e fr

uit w

eigh

t

Mea

nH

eter

osis

Mea

nH

eter

osis

Mea

nH

eter

osis

BP

BH

-1B

H-2

BP

BH

-1B

H-2

BP

BH

-1B

H-2

BSR

-11

× B

B-9

3-C

47.6

75.

9312

.62*

*19

.18*

58.6

7-2

.22

4.77

*8.

65**

110.

50-3

0.94

*-3

5.00

**-3

8.61

BSR

-11

× U

-8-6

1-3

47.3

35.

1811

.81

18.3

3*62

.00

3.33

10.7

1**

14.8

1**

174.

99-6

.26

2.94

-2.7

8B

SR-1

1 ×

PB-6

446

.67

3.71

10.2

516

.68*

60.3

30.

557.

73**

11.7

2**

126.

67-2

8.30

*-2

5.49

*-2

9.63

BSR

-11

× JB

SR-9

8-2

45.3

30.

737.

0913

.33

60.3

30.

557.

73**

11.7

2**

133.

33-1

8.86

-21.

57-2

5.93

IVB

R-3

× B

B-9

3-C

46.3

30.

729.

4515

.83

60.6

7-0

.54

8.34

**12

.35*

*16

0.00

0.00

-5.8

8-1

1.11

IVB

R-3

× U

-8-6

1-3

45.0

0-2

.17

6.31

12.5

060

.00

-1.6

47.

14**

11.1

1**

151.

67-1

8.75

-10.

78-1

5.74

IVB

R-3

× P

B-6

445

.67

-0.7

27.

8914

.18

62.0

01.

6410

.71*

*14

.81*

*10

0.00

-43.

40**

-41.

18**

-44.

44*

IVB

R-3

× J

BSR

-98-

245

.00

-2.1

76.

3112

.50

63.3

33.

82*

13.0

9**

17.2

8**

131.

76-1

3.79

-16.

66-2

1.29

HA

BL-

1 ×

BB

-93-

C58

.33

29.6

2**

37.8

0**

45.8

3**

73.0

019

.67*

*30

.36*

*35

.19*

*11

3.33

-30.

61*

-33.

34**

-37.

04H

AB

L-1

× U

-8-6

1-3

47.0

04.

4411

.03

17.5

0*57

.67

-6.4

9**

2.98

6.80

**17

6.67

-5.3

63.

92-1

.85

HA

BL-

1 ×

PB-6

447

.67

5.93

12.6

219

.18*

63.6

73.

2413

.70*

*17

.91*

*14

0.00

-20.

76-1

7.65

-22.

22H

AB

L-1

× JB

SR-9

8-2

44.3

3-1

.49

4.72

10.8

355

.00

-10.

82**

-1.7

9-1

.85

145.

6611

.56

7.84

1.85

Pb B

arsa

ti ×

BB

-93-

C48

.33

8.19

14.1

7*20

.83*

*63

.00

5.58

**12

.50*

*16

.67*

*14

3.33

-10.

42-1

5.69

-20.

37Pb

Bar

sati

× U

-8-6

1-3

38.6

7-1

3.43

**-8

.65

-3.3

352

.00

-12.

85**

-7.1

4**

-3.7

018

5.00

7.14

17.6

511

.11

Punj

ab B

arsa

ti ×

PB-6

442

.33

-5.2

40.

005.

8358

.33

-2.2

54.

16*

8.02

**12

8.85

-15.

10-1

1.76

-16.

67Pb

Bar

sati

× JB

SR-9

8-2

50.0

011

.93*

*18

.12*

25.0

0**

65.0

08.

93**

16.0

7**

20.3

7**

180.

009.

545.

880.

00JP

M-1

05-2

× B

B-9

3-C

49.0

08.

1015

.76*

22.5

0**

64.6

78.

38**

15.4

8**

19.7

6**

177.

6883

.33*

*72

.55*

*62

.96*

*JP

M10

5-2

× U

-8-6

1-3

45.3

30.

007.

0913

.33

62.6

75.

03**

11.9

1**

16.0

6**

130.

76-8

.93

0.00

-5.5

6JP

M10

5-2

× P

B-6

448

.33

6.62

14.1

7*20

.83*

*65

.00

8.93

**16

.07*

*20

.37*

*10

0.00

-43.

40**

-41.

18**

-44.

44*

JPM

105-

2 ×

JBSR

-98-

245

.33

0.00

7.09

13.3

360

.33

1.11

7.73

**11

.72*

*11

3.33

-31.

04*

-33.

34**

-37.

04PB

R-9

1-1

× B

B-9

3-C

45.0

0-0

.73

6.31

12.5

060

.00

-0.5

57.

14**

11.1

1**

165.

36-3

5.42

**-3

9.22

**-4

2.59

*PB

R-9

1-1

× U

-8-6

1-3

45.3

30.

007.

0913

.33

61.6

72.

2210

.13*

*14

.20*

*11

1.67

-40.

18**

-34.

31**

-37.

96PB

R-9

1-1

× PB

-64

46.3

32.

219.

4515

.83*

62.0

02.

7710

.71*

*14

.81*

*86

.67

-50.

94**

-49.

02**

-51.

85*

PBR

-91-

1 ×

JBSR

-98-

245

.67

0.75

7.89

14.1

864

.00

6.08

**14

.29*

*18

.52*

*16

0.00

58.2

2**

52.9

4**

44.4

4*R

CM

BL-

1-1

× B

B-9

3-C

47.6

72.

1412

.62*

*19

.18*

63.6

74.

38*

13.7

0**

17.9

1**

175.

0062

.50*

*52

.94*

*44

.44*

RC

MB

L-1-

1 ×

U-8

-61-

348

.33

3.56

14.1

7**

20.8

3**

66.6

76.

96**

19.0

5**

23.4

6**

185.

3362

.50*

*78

.43*

*68

.52*

*R

CM

BL-

1-1

× PB

-64

45.3

3-4

.95

7.09

13.3

364

.67

1.05

15.4

8**

19.7

6**

173.

83-1

.61

2.25

-3.4

3R

CM

BL-

1-1

× JB

SR-9

8-2

44.6

7-6

.29

5.53

11.6

858

.33

-8.8

6**

4.16

*8.

02**

173.

835.

782.

25-3

.43

PB-1

× B

B-9

3-C

46.0

0-1

.44

8.67

15.0

0*64

.33

5.46

**14

.88*

*19

.13*

*15

6.67

-2.0

8-7

.84

-12.

96PB

-1 ×

U-8

-61-

348

.00

2.85

13.3

920

.00*

*66

.67

6.96

**19

.05*

*23

.46*

*15

3.33

-17.

86-9

.81

-14.

82PB

-1 ×

PB

-64

45.3

3-8

.11

7.09

13.3

362

.00

-6.5

3**

10.7

1**

14.8

1**

158.

33-1

0.38

-6.8

6-1

2.04

PB-1

× J

BSR

-98-

245

.33

-8.1

17.

0913

.33

61.6

7-7

.03*

*10

.13*

*14

.20*

*12

0.00

-26.

98*

-29.

41*

-33.

33H

-8 ×

BB

-93-

C46

.00

-1.4

48.

6715

.00*

60.6

7-0

.54

8.34

**12

.35*

*14

7.32

32.6

6**

27.4

5*20

.37

H-8

× U

-8-6

1-3

45.3

3-2

.87

7.09

13.3

363

.33

1.60

13.0

9**

17.2

8**

133.

33-2

8.57

**-2

1.57

-25.

93 Con

td.

174 Bhushan and others

Tabl

e 1

cont

d.

H-8

× P

B-6

443

.67

-9.0

2**

3.17

9.18

59.3

3-8

.26*

*5.

95**

9.87

**12

3.33

-30.

19**

-27.

45-3

1.48

H-8

× JB

SR-9

8-2

47.3

3-1

.40

11.8

118

.33*

64.0

0-1

.04

14.2

9**

18.5

2**

135.

7021

.71

17.6

511

.11

ND

B-2

1 ×

BB

-93-

C47

.00

10.1

5**

11.0

317

.50*

63.6

712

.35*

*13

.70*

*17

.91*

*17

8.22

37.5

0**

29.4

1*22

.22

ND

B-2

1 ×

U-8

-61-

346

.67

9.37

10.2

516

.68*

62.6

710

.59*

*11

.91*

*16

.06*

*17

3.33

-7.1

51.

96-3

.71

ND

B-2

1 ×

PB-6

447

.33

10.9

2**

11.8

118

.33*

61.6

78.

82**

10.1

3**

14.2

0**

161.

67-8

.49

-4.9

0-1

0.18

ND

B-2

1 ×

JBSR

-98-

248

.00

12.4

9**

13.3

920

.00*

*64

.67

14.1

2**

15.4

8**

19.7

6**

123.

33-2

4.95

*-2

7.45

*-3

1.48

JBR

-3-1

6 ×

BB

-93-

C61

.33

40.4

4**

44.8

9**

53.3

3**

60.3

34.

61*

7.73

**11

.72*

*13

5.25

31.2

5*23

.53*

16.6

7JB

R-3

-16

× U

-8-6

1-3

47.0

07.

6311

.03

17.5

0*64

.00

10.9

8**

14.2

9**

18.5

2**

177.

7830

.35*

*43

.14*

35.1

8JB

R-3

-16

× PB

-64

39.3

3-9

.94*

*-7

.09

-1.6

856

.67

-1.7

31.

204.

94*

175.

6620

.75

25.4

9*18

.52

JBR

-3-1

6 ×

JBSR

-98-

246

.00

5.34

8.67

15.0

0*63

.67

10.4

0**

13.7

0**

17.9

1**

140.

00-1

4.81

-17.

65-2

2.22

KS-

331

× B

B-9

3-C

45.3

324

.77*

*7.

0913

.33

64.3

324

.50*

*14

.88*

*19

.13*

*18

6.67

16.6

79.

813.

71K

S-33

1 ×

U-8

-61-

345

.33

24.7

7**

7.09

13.3

361

.00

18.0

6**

8.93

**12

.96*

*16

6.67

-10.

71-1

.96

-7.4

1K

S-33

1 ×

PB-6

447

.00

29.3

7**

11.0

317

.50*

63.3

322

.57*

*13

.09*

*17

.28*

*10

0.00

-43.

40**

-41.

18**

-44.

44*

KS-

331

× JB

SR-9

8-2

46.3

327

.53*

*9.

4515

.83*

61.6

719

.35*

*10

.13*

*14

.20*

*11

8.33

-27.

99-3

0.39

*-3

4.26

Jam

uni G

ola

× B

B-9

3-C

45.0

010

.65*

*6.

3112

.50

59.6

718

.56*

*6.

55**

10.5

0**

156.

67-6

.00

-7.8

4-1

2.96

Jam

uni G

ola

× U

-8-6

1-3

45.6

712

.29*

*7.

8914

.18

62.3

323

.84*

*11

.30*

*15

.43*

*11

5.00

-38.

39**

-32.

35-3

6.11

Jam

uni G

ola

× PB

-64

44.6

79.

845.

5311

.68

59.0

017

.23*

*5.

36**

9.26

**10

3.33

-41.

51**

-39.

22*

-42.

59*

Jam

uni G

ola

× JB

SR-9

8-2

44.3

39.

004.

7210

.83

62.0

023

.19*

*10

.71*

*14

.81*

*12

0.00

-28.

00-2

9.41

-33.

33PP

L ×

BB

-93-

C48

.67

11.4

514

.98*

21.6

8**

65.0

022

.64*

*16

.07*

*20

.37*

*13

3.45

-26.

53*

-29.

41-3

3.33

PPL

× U

-8-6

1-3

48.0

09.

9213

.39*

*20

.00*

*63

.33

19.4

9**

13.0

9**

17.2

8**

145.

00-2

2.32

-14.

71-1

9.44

PPL

× PB

-64

48.3

310

.67

14.1

7**

20.8

3**

64.0

020

.75*

*14

.29*

*18

.52*

*11

6.67

-33.

96**

-31.

37-3

5.18

PPL

× JB

SR-9

8-2

47.0

07.

6311

.03

17.5

0*58

.33

10.0

6**

4.16

*8.

02**

160.

00-2

.63

-5.8

8-1

1.11

PB-2

× B

B-9

3-C

45.0

013

.44*

*6.

3112

.50

59.3

317

.88*

*5.

95**

9.87

**14

0.66

14.5

87.

841.

85PB

-2 ×

U-8

-61-

345

.00

13.4

4**

6.31

12.5

059

.67

18.5

6**

6.55

**10

.50*

*15

0.00

-19.

64-1

1.76

-16.

67PB

-2 ×

PB

-64

45.3

314

.27*

*7.

0913

.33

64.0

027

.16*

*14

.29*

*18

.52*

*12

8.33

-27.

36-2

4.51

-28.

71PB

-2 ×

JB

SR-9

8-2

45.3

314

.27*

*7.

0913

.33

62.3

323

.84*

*11

.30*

*15

.43*

*16

0.00

-2.6

3-5

.88

-11.

11C

. D. (

P=0.

05)

5.84

5.84

5.84

2.21

2.21

2.21

39.7

939

.79

39.7

9C

. D. (

P=0.

01)

7.72

7.72

7.72

2.93

2.93

2.93

52.6

652

.66

52.6

6C

ontd

.


Tabl

e 1

cont

d.

Cro

sses

Frui

t len

gth

Frui

t girt

hN

o. o

f fru

its/p

lant

Mea

nH

eter

osis

Mea

nH

eter

osis

Mea

nH

eter

osis

BP

BH

-1B

H-2

BP

BH

-1B

H-2

BP

BH

-1B

H-2

BSR

-11

× B

B-9

3-C

6.49

-53.

71**

-48.

82**

-50.

31**

4.64

-28.

83**

-35.

20**

-27.

04**

21.6

738

.29*

*48

.41*

*51

.48*

*B

SR-1

1 ×

U-8

-61-

37.

37-4

7.17

**-4

1.88

**-4

3.57

**9.

3343

.10*

*30

.31*

*46

.70*

*10

.00

-36.

18**

-57.

73**

-55.

87**

BSR

-11

× PB

-64

20.9

32.

3065

.06*

*60

.26*

*2.

99-5

4.14

**-5

8.24

**-5

2.99

**12

.33

-21.

31-4

7.89

**-4

5.59

**B

SR-1

1 ×

JBSR

-98-

212

.61

-15.

26-0

.55

-3.4

54.

92-2

4.54

-31.

28-2

2.64

20.6

731

.91*

*-1

2.64

-8.7

8IV

BR

-3 ×

BB

-93-

C8.

81-3

7.16

-30.

52-3

2.54

**7.

1741

.42*

*0.

1412

.74

11.3

3-2

6.09

**-5

2.11

**-5

0.00

**IV

BR

-3 ×

U-8

-61-

38.

31-4

0.43

**-3

4.46

**-3

6.37

6.64

10.6

7**

-7.2

64.

4017

.67

15.2

625

.32

-22.

02IV

BR

-3 ×

PB

-64

14.8

4-2

7.47

17.0

313

.63*

*3.

84-2

4.26

-46.

37**

-39.

62**

18.5

750

.03*

*57

.90*

*52

.33*

*IV

BR

-3 ×

JB

SR-9

8-2

9.43

-36.

63**

-25.

63**

-27.

79**

8.53

68.2

419

.13*

*34

.12*

*16

.03

19.5

7**

-22.

53-1

9.11

HA

BL-

1 ×

BB

-93-

C9.

03-3

5.59

**-2

8.79

**-3

0.86

6.25

27.5

5**

-12.

71-1

.73

9.00

-34.

16**

-61.

96**

-60.

28**

HA

BL-

1 ×

U-8

-61-

314

.70

5.38

15.9

312

.56

4.99

-16.

83-3

0.31

-21.

5421

.67

51.2

2**

69.4

1**

56.4

4**

HA

BL-

1 ×

PB-6

47.

60-6

2.85

**-4

0.06

**-4

1.81

**5.

0710

.46

-29.

19**

-20.

2812

.00

-9.9

8-4

9.28

**-4

7.04

**H

AB

L-1

× JB

SR-9

8-2

17.5

818

.15*

38.6

4**

34.6

1**

4.46

-7.2

8-3

7.71

**-2

9.87

**22

.00

69.2

3**

70.0

2**

62.9

1**

Punj

ab B

arsa

ti ×

BB

-93-

C5.

93-6

1.09

**-5

3.23

**-5

4.59

**6.

248.

90-1

2.85

-1.8

920

.00

-4.7

6-1

5.47

-11.

74Pu

njab

Bar

sati

× U

-8-6

1-3

19.2

926

.57*

52.1

3**

47.7

0**

3.19

-46.

83**

-55.

45**

-49.

84**

20.0

0-4

.76

-15.

47-1

1.74

Punj

ab B

arsa

ti ×

PB-6

422

.71

11.0

079

.10*

*73

.89*

*3.

45-3

9.79

**-5

1.82

**-4

5.75

**14

.00

-33.

33**

-40.

83**

-38.

22**

Punj

ab B

arsa

ti ×

JBSR

-98-

28.

37-4

5.08

**-3

3.99

**-3

5.91

**5.

994.

54-1

6.34

-5.8

219

.00

-9.5

2-1

9.70

**-1

6.15

JPM

105-

2 ×

BB

-93-

C8.

97-4

0.87

**-2

9.26

-31.

32**

8.15

19.3

3**

13.8

328

.14

12.6

7-3

5.59

**-4

6.45

-44.

09**

JPM

105-

2 ×

U-8

-61-

317

.11

12.7

934

.94*

*31

.01*

*6.

15-9

.96

-14.

11-3

.30

15.6

70.

0016

.86*

*13

.20

JPM

105-

2 ×

PB-6

49.

85-5

1.86

**-2

2.32

-24.

584.

44-3

4.99

**-3

7.99

**-3

0.19

**11

.33

-42.

40**

-52.

11**

-50.

00**

JPM

105-

2 ×

JBSR

-98-

28.

12-4

6.47

**-3

5.96

*-3

7.83

**4.

95-2

7.53

**-3

0.87

**-2

2.17

**23

.00

16.9

32.

791.

50PB

R-9

1-1

× B

B-9

3-C

7.51

-54.

95**

-40.

77**

-42.

50**

5.62

-5.0

7-2

1.51

-11.

6417

.67

0.00

25.3

2**

22.0

2**

PBR

-91-

1 ×

U-8

-61-

311

.35

-31.

91-1

0.49

-13.

094.

69-2

1.83

**-3

4.50

**-2

6.26

**16

.33

-7.5

8-3

0.98

**-2

7.93

**PB

R-9

1-1

× PB

-64

8.32

-59.

34**

-34.

38**

-36.

29**

4.48

-24.

32-3

7.43

**-2

9.56

**14

.33

-18.

90-3

9.43

**-3

6.76

**PB

R-9

1-1

× JB

SR-9

8-2

8.56

-48.

65**

-32.

49**

-34.

46**

6.85

15.7

1-4

.33

7.70

13.3

3-2

4.56

**-4

3.66

**-4

1.17

**R

CM

BL-

1-1

× B

B-9

3-C

8.45

-39.

73**

-33.

36**

-35.

30**

8.19

54.8

2**

14.3

9**

28.7

7**

11.3

3-3

4.62

**-5

2.11

**-5

0.00

**R

CM

BL-

1-1

× U

-8-6

1-3

10.4

5-2

5.09

-17.

59-1

9.98

6.49

8.17

-9.3

62.

0412

.33

-28.

85**

-47.

89**

-45.

59**

RC

MB

L-1-

1 ×

PB-6

49.

55-5

3.32

**-2

4.68

-26.

886.

3720

.42

-11.

030.

169.

33-4

6.16

**-6

0.57

**-5

8.83

**R

CM

BL-

1-1

× JB

SR-9

8-2

17.3

516

.60*

36.8

3**

32.8

5**

7.67

44.9

9**

7.12

20.6

018

.00

3.87

-23.

92-2

0.56

PB-1

× B

B-9

3-C

14.5

13.

5014

.43

11.1

06.

377.

06-1

1.03

0.16

17.0

0-1

0.53

-28.

15-2

4.98

PB-1

× U

-8-6

1-3

23.3

867

.60*

*84

.38*

*79

.02*

*4.

48-2

5.33

**-3

7.43

**-2

9.56

**18

.33

-3.5

322

.53*

*19

.11

PB-1

× P

B-6

414

.83

-27.

5216

.96

13.5

54.

46-2

5.04

**-3

7.71

**-2

9.87

**12

.67

-33.

32**

-46.

45**

-44.

09**

PB-1

× J

BSR

-98-

212

.22

-17.

88-3

.63

-6.4

34.

74-2

0.34

-33.

80**

-25.

4717

.67

-7.0

0-2

5.32

-22.

02H

-8 ×

BB

-93-

C10

.75

-23.

32-1

5.22

-17.

6946

.82

59.6

6**

55.9

162

.16*

*19

.67

0.00

16.8

6**

13.2

0H

-8 ×

U-8

-61-

312

.67

-9.1

8-0

.08

-2.9

94.

60-3

1.75

**-3

5.75

**-2

7.67

19.0

0-3

.41

-19.

70-1

6.15

Con

td.


Tabl

e 1

cont

d.

H-8

× P

B-6

411

.98

-41.

45**

-5.5

2-8

.27

4.21

-37.

54**

-41.

20**

-33.

81**

18.3

3-6

.81

-22.

53-1

9.11

H-8

× JB

SR-9

8-2

9.11

-38.

78**

-28.

15-3

0.25

5.93

-12.

02-1

7.18

-6.7

611

.33

-42.

40**

-52.

11**

-50.

00**

ND

B-2

1 ×

BB

-93-

C9.

84-2

9.81

-22.

40-2

4.66

7.13

20.4

4-0

.42

12.1

111

.00

-38.

89**

53.5

1**

-51.

46**

ND

B-2

1 ×

U-8

-61-

312

.60

-9.6

8-0

.63

-3.5

26.

6210

.33

-7.5

44.

0913

.00

-27.

78**

-45.

05**

-42.

63**

ND

B-2

1 ×

PB-6

49.

37-5

4.20

**-2

6.10

-28.

255.

50-7

.09

-23.

18-1

3.52

12.0

0-3

3.33

**-4

9.28

**-4

7.04

**N

DB

-21

× JB

SR-9

8-2

7.85

-47.

24**

-38.

09**

-39.

89**

6.20

4.73

-13.

41-2

.52

18.3

31.

83-2

2.53

-19.

11JB

R-3

-16

× B

B-9

3-C

9.87

-29.

60-2

2.16

-24.

437.

1945

.84*

*0.

4213

.05

21.3

327

.95*

*-9

.85

-5.8

7JB

R-3

-16

× U

-8-6

1-3

13.6

5-2

.15

7.65

4.52

16.7

378

.83*

*65

.66*

*63

.05*

*21

.33

27.9

5**

-9.8

5-5

.87

JBR

-3-1

6 ×

PB-6

410

.57

-48.

34**

-16.

64-1

9.07

6.39

29.6

1**

-10.

750.

4716

.67

0.00

-29.

54**

-26.

43JB

R-3

-16

× JB

SR-9

8-2

14.6

1-1

.81

15.2

211

.87

4.23

-14.

20-4

0.92

**-3

3.49

*21

.00

25.9

7**

-11.

24-7

.33

KS-

331

× B

B-9

3-C

14.3

1-7

.08

12.8

59.

575.

749.

33-1

9.83

-9.7

518

.00

-14.

29-2

3.92

-20.

56K

S-33

1 ×

U-8

-61-

315

.24

-1.0

420

.19*

*16

.69

4.45

-25.

83**

-37.

85*

-30.

03**

18.0

0-1

4.29

-23.

92-2

0.56

KS-

331

× PB

-64

12.2

5-4

0.13

**-3

.39

-6.2

04.

70-1

0.48

-34.

36-2

6.10

20.3

3-3

.19

-14.

07-1

0.28

KS-

331

× JB

SR-9

8-2

9.69

-37.

08**

-23.

58-2

5.80

5.87

11.8

1-1

8.02

-7.7

016

.33

-22.

24**

-30.

98**

-27.

93**

Jam

uni G

ola

× B

B-9

3-C

7.87

-43.

87**

-37.

93**

-39.

74**

7.31

19.6

42.

0914

.94

20.0

03.

47-1

5.47

-11.

74Ja

mun

i Gol

a ×

U-8

-61-

312

.21

-12.

47-3

.71

-6.5

16.

679.

17-6

.84

4.87

19.6

71.

7616

.86*

*13

.20

Jam

uni G

ola

× PB

-64

8.14

-60.

22**

-35.

80**

-37.

67**

6.05

-0.9

8-1

5.50

-4.8

719

.00

-1.7

1-1

9.70

-16.

15Ja

mun

i Gol

a ×

JBSR

-98-

29.

64-3

5.22

-23.

97-2

6.19

6.28

2.78

-12.

29-1

.26

16.3

3-1

5.52

-30.

98-2

7.93

PPL

× B

B-9

3-C

9.90

-42.

21**

-21.

92-2

4.20

7.97

31.3

0**

11.3

125

.31

16.8

5-2

2.79

**-3

8.00

**-3

5.26

**PP

L ×

U-8

-61-

312

.45

-27.

32-1

.81

-4.6

76.

7010

.38

-6.4

25.

3516

.00

-15.

79**

-32.

38**

-29.

39**

PPL

× PB

-64

9.39

-54.

11**

-25.

95**

-28.

105.

84-3

.79

-18.

44-8

.18

14.6

7-2

2.79

**-3

8.00

**-3

5.26

**PP

L ×

JBSR

-98-

211

.35

-99.

34**

-10.

49-1

3.09

5.85

-3.6

2-1

8.30

-8.0

220

.33

7.00

14.0

7*10

.28

PB-2

× B

B-9

3-C

12.4

9-2

1.45

-1.5

0-4

.36

6.42

18.0

1-1

0.34

0.94

18.0

0-1

8.18

-23.

92-2

0.56

PB-2

× U

-8-6

1-3

17.4

19.

50*

37.3

0**

33.3

1**

6.35

5.83

-11.

31-0

.16

17.6

7-1

9.68

-25.

32-2

2.02

PB-2

× P

B-6

413

.52

-33.

92**

6.62

3.52

5.15

-5.3

3-2

8.07

**-1

9.03

**18

.67

-15.

14**

-21.

09-1

7.61

PB-2

× J

BSR

-98-

29.

66-3

9.25

**-2

3.82

-26.

035.

27-3

.13

-26.

40**

-17.

14**

12.0

0-4

5.45

**-4

9.28

**-4

7.04

**C

. D. (

P=0.

05)

2.15

2.15

2.15

1.24

1.24

1.24

3.50

3.50

3.50

C. D

. (P=

0.01

)2.

852.

852.

851.

651.

651.

654.

634.

634.

63C

ontd

.


Tabl

e 1

cont

d.

Cro

sses

Plan

t hei

ght

Plan

t spr

ead

No.

of p

rimar

y br

anch

es

Mea

nH

eter

osis

Mea

nH

eter

osis

Mea

nH

eter

osis

BP

BH

-1B

H-2

BP

BH

-1B

H-2

BP

BH

-1B

H-2

BSR

-11

× B

B-9

3-C

85.8

3-2

0.70

**-1

7.52

**-1

7.49

**78

.28

-16.

34**

-27.

24**

-20.

04**

4.33

-27.

10**

-30.

83**

-27.

35**

BSR

-11

× U

-8-6

1-3

105.

010.

700.

910.

9496

.67

5.21

*-1

0.15

-1.2

65.

77-9

.42

-7.8

3-3

.19

BSR

-11

× PB

-64

96.9

0-1

5.96

**-6

.88*

*-6

.85*

*88

.83

-10.

84**

-17.

44**

-9.2

6**

4.40

-25.

93**

-29.

71**

-26.

17**

BSR

-11

× JB

SR-9

8-2

90.3

3-1

3.38

**-1

3.19

**-1

3.17

**86

.52

-5.8

3-1

9.58

**-1

1.62

**5.

40-9

.09

-13.

74**

-9.4

0IV

BR

-3 ×

BB

-93-

C10

5.33

-2.6

81.

221.

2594

.17

-10.

37-1

2.47

-3.8

16.

8715

.85*

*9.

74**

15.2

7**

IVB

R-3

× U

-8-6

1-3

100.

97-4

.57

-2.9

7-2

.94

94.7

3-9

.84

-11.

95**

-3.2

45.

77-9

.42

-7.8

3-3

.19

IVB

R-3

× P

B-6

411

2.05

-2.8

27.

68**

7.71

**96

.44

-8.2

1-1

0.36

**-1

.49

6.23

11.8

5**

-0.4

84.

53**

IVB

R-3

× J

BSR

-98-

298

.00

-7.3

7-5

.82

-5.8

086

.93

-17.

26**

-19.

20-1

1.21

5.90

5.92

**-5

.75

-1.0

1H

AB

L-1

× B

B-9

3-C

107.

34-0

.82

3.15

3.18

100.

377.

15**

6.71

*6.

52*

6.33

0.96

1.12

6.21

**H

AB

L-1

× U

-8-6

1-3

114.

3010

.33*

*9.

84**

9.87

**10

5.77

12.9

2**

8.69

**8.

04**

6.60

3.61

**5.

43**

10.7

4**

HA

BL-

1 ×

PB-6

410

5.90

-8.1

51.

771.

8010

2.87

3.25

-4.3

95.

08*

5.03

-19.

78**

-19.

65**

-15.

60**

HA

BL-

1 ×

JBSR

-98-

210

8.47

4.70

*4.

244.

2797

.97

4.59

*-8

.94

0.07

6.40

2.07

*2.

24*

7.38

**Pu

njab

Bar

sati

× B

B-9

3-C

107.

11-1

1.84

**2.

932.

9610

3.37

-7.6

0-3

.92

5.59

*5.

50-7

.25

-12.

14**

-7.7

2Pu

njab

Bar

sati

× U

-8-6

1-3

98.8

0-1

8.68

**-5

.05

-5.0

393

.97

-16.

00**

-12.

66**

-4.0

15.

87-7

.85

-6.2

3-1

.51

Punj

ab B

arsa

ti ×

PB-6

499

.17

-18.

43**

-4.7

0-4

.67

93.9

7-1

6.00

**-1

2.66

**-4

.01

5.93

5.89

**-5

.27

-0.5

0Pu

njab

Bar

sati

× JB

SR-9

8-2

112.

87-7

.10

8.47

**8.

50**

103.

12-7

.82

-4.1

55.

33*

6.50

16.0

7**

3.83

**9.

06**

JPM

105-

2 ×

BB

-93-

C11

2.17

-6.0

07.

79**

7.82

**10

2.80

3.91

-4.4

55.

01*

5.37

-9.4

4-1

4.22

**-9

.90

JPM

/PK

B-1

05-2

× U

-8-6

1-3

108.

83-8

.80

4.58

4.61

93.9

8-5

.00

-12.

65**

-4.0

06.

34-0

.47

1.28

6.38

**JP

M10

5-2

× PB

-64

103.

30-1

3.43

**-0

.73

-0.7

089

.80

-9.8

7-1

6.53

**-8

.27

5.07

-7.8

2-1

9.01

**-1

4.93

**JP

M10

5-2

× JB

SR-9

8-2

98.3

0-1

7.62

**-5

.54

-5.5

196

.73

-2.2

2-1

0.09

-1.2

04.

80-1

2.73

**-2

3.32

**-1

9.46

**PB

R-9

1-1

× B

B-9

3-C

101.

67-8

.95

-2.3

0-2

.27

84.7

0-1

1.52

**-2

1.28

**-1

3.48

**5.

63-5

.06

-10.

06-5

.54

PBR

-91-

1 ×

U-8

-61-

310

3.48

-7.3

3-0

.56

-0.5

393

.37

-2.4

7-1

3.22

-4.6

35.

90-7

.38

-5.7

5-1

.01

PBR

-91-

1 ×

PB-6

485

.27

-26.

05**

-18.

06**

-18.

03**

81.2

0-1

8.50

**-2

4.53

**-1

7.06

**4.

20-2

0.30

**-3

2.91

**-2

9.53

**PB

R-9

1-1

× JB

SR-9

8-2

108.

60-2

.75

4.36

4.39

98.3

72.

76-8

.57

0.48

6.33

19.4

3**

1.12

6.21

**R

CM

BL-

1-1

× B

B-9

3-C

100.

78-6

.88

-3.1

5-3

.12

92.9

7-0

.64

-13.

59**

-5.0

45.

00-1

5.68

**-2

0.13

**-1

6.11

**R

CM

BL-

1-1

× U

-8-6

1-3

105.

03-1

.66

0.93

0.96

94.7

22.

73-1

1.96

**-3

.25

5.63

-11.

62**

-10.

06-5

.54

RC

MB

L-1-

1 ×

PB-6

410

3.70

-10.

06**

-0.3

5-0

.32

108.

809.

20**

1.12

11.1

3**

5.63

-3.6

0-1

0.06

-5.5

4R

CM

BL-

1-1

× JB

SR-9

8-2

114.

907.

58**

10.4

2**

10.4

5**

104.

6713

.52*

*12

.71*

*12

.84*

*6.

307.

88**

0.64

5.70

**PB

-1 ×

BB

-93-

C10

6.67

-4.8

42.

512.

5493

.58

-13.

05**

-13.

02-4

.41

6.37

7.42

**1.

766.

88**

PB-1

× U

-8-6

1-3

95.4

0-1

4.89

**-8

.32*

*-8

.30*

*95

.27

-11.

48**

-11.

45**

-2.6

94.

77-2

5.12

**-2

3.80

**-1

9.97

**PB

-1 ×

PB

-64

108.

50-3

.20

4.27

**4.

30**

94.6

7-1

2.04

**-1

2.01

**-3

.30

5.53

-0.7

2-1

1.66

-7.2

1PB

-1 ×

JB

SR-9

8-2

100.

13-1

0.67

**-3

.78

-3.7

598

.43

-8.5

5-8

.51

0.54

5.30

-4.8

5-1

5.34

**-1

1.07

H-8

× B

B-9

3-C

105.

10-7

.38

1.00

1.03

102.

901.

12-4

.36

5.11

*6.

6712

.48*

*6.

55**

11.9

1**

H-8

× U

-8-6

1-3

102.

89-9

.33

-1.1

2-1

.10

91.1

0-1

0.48

-15.

33**

-6.9

54.

70-2

6.22

**-2

4.92

**-2

1.14

**C

ontd

.


Tabl

e 1

cont

d.H

-8 ×

PB

-64

103.

27-1

0.43

**-0

.76

-0.7

395

.53

-6.1

2-1

1.21

-2.4

24.

20-2

6.83

**-3

2.91

**-2

9.53

**H

-8 ×

JBSR

-98-

211

3.37

-0.1

08.

95**

8.98

**94

.55

-7.0

9-1

2.12

**-3

.42

6.57

14.4

6**

4.95

**10

.23*

*N

DB

-21

× B

B-9

3-C

103.

87-4

.03

-0.1

8-0

.15

90.3

0-3

.49

-16.

07**

-7.7

65.

73-3

.37

-8.4

7-3

.86

ND

B-2

1 ×

U-8

-61-

310

1.83

-2.4

3-2

.14

-2.1

189

.20

-2.1

6-1

7.09

**-8

.89

5.67

-10.

99-9

.42

-4.8

7N

DB

-21

× PB

-64

102.

87-1

0.78

**-1

.14

-1.1

287

.27

-12.

41**

-18.

89**

-10.

866.

0112

.55*

*-3

.99

0.84

ND

B-2

1 ×

JBSR

-98-

295

.67

-8.3

4-8

.06*

*-8

.04*

*89

.40

-1.9

4-1

6.91

**-8

.68

4.87

-8.8

0-2

2.20

**-1

8.29

**JB

R-3

-16

× B

B-9

3-C

102.

27-6

.06

-1.7

2-1

.69

96.3

7-6

.05

-10.

43-1

.56

5.14

-13.

32**

-17.

89**

-13.

76**

JBR

-3-1

6 ×

U-8

-61-

310

3.90

-4.5

7-0

.15

-0.1

298

.53

-3.9

5-8

.42

0.64

6.20

-2.6

7-0

.96

4.03

**JB

R-3

-16

× PB

-64

102.

24-1

1.33

**-1

.75

-1.7

210

4.70

2.07

-2.6

96.

95**

4.83

-8.3

5-2

2.84

**-1

8.96

**JB

R-3

-16

× JB

SR-9

8-2

107.

57-1

.19

3.37

3.40

100.

60-1

.93

-6.5

02.

765.

8710

.75*

*-6

.23

-1.5

1K

S-33

1 ×

BB

-93-

C10

4.97

-3.0

10.

870.

9010

5.70

12.9

6**

7.76

**7.

97**

5.91

-12.

70**

-5.5

9-0

.84

KS-

331

× U

-8-6

1-3

102.

93-0

.64

-1.0

9-1

.06

97.4

010

.18*

*9.

47**

8.51

**5.

51-1

8.61

**-1

1.98

**-7

.55

KS-

331

× PB

-64

98.4

3-1

4.63

**-5

.41

-5.3

891

.33

-8.3

3-1

5.11

**-6

.71

5.53

-18.

32**

-11.

66-7

.21

KS-

331

× JB

SR-9

8-2

108.

135.

18*

3.91

3.94

95.5

77.

50**

6.17

*6.

38*

5.20

-23.

19**

-16.

93**

-12.

75**

Jam

uni G

ola

× B

B-9

3-C

98.8

0-8

.71

-5.0

5-5

.03

97.7

00.

41-9

.19

-0.2

05.

50-1

2.70

**-1

2.14

-7.7

2Ja

mun

i Gol

a ×

U-8

-61-

397

.97

-5.4

3-5

.85

-5.8

398

.90

1.64

-8.0

81.

025.

60-1

2.09

**-1

0.54

-6.0

4Ja

mun

i Gol

a ×

PB-6

486

.23

-25.

21**

-17.

13**

-17.

11**

91.9

0-7

.76

-14.

58**

-6.1

34.

63-2

6.51

**-2

6.04

**-2

2.32

**Ja

mun

i Gol

a ×

JBSR

-98-

295

.82

-6.7

9-7

.92*

*-7

.89*

*84

.73

-12.

92**

-21.

25**

-13.

45**

5.50

-12.

70-1

2.14

-7.7

2PP

L ×

BB

-93-

C90

.93

-15.

98**

-12.

62**

-12.

59**

84.0

0-1

0.23

-21.

93**

-14.

20**

4.90

-23.

44**

-21.

73**

-17.

79**

PPL

× U

-8-6

1-3

91.8

0-1

1.38

**-1

1.78

**-1

1.76

**88

.83

0.49

-17.

44**

-9.2

64.

47-3

0.16

**-2

8.59

**-2

5.00

**PP

L ×

PB-6

495

.49

-17.

18**

-8.2

4**

-8.2

1**

90.6

8-8

.98

-15.

72**

-7.3

75.

50-1

4.06

**-1

2.14

**-7

.72

PPL

× JB

SR-9

8-2

110.

577.

56**

6.26

**6.

29**

95.5

37.

46**

11.2

1**

2.42

6.47

1.09

3.35

**8.

56**

PB-2

× B

B-9

3-C

112.

874.

298.

47**

8.50

**99

.10

5.91

*7.

89**

8.23

**6.

372.

251.

766.

88**

PB-2

× U

-8-6

1-3

112.

718.

80**

8.31

**8.

34**

99.5

312

.59*

*7.

49**

7.66

**5.

60-1

2.09

**-1

0.54

-6.0

4PB

-2 ×

PB

-64

104.

97-8

.96

0.87

0.90

90.4

7-9

.19

-15.

91**

-7.5

95.

80-6

.90

-7.3

5-2

.68

PB-2

× J

BSR

-98-

210

3.42

0.60

-0.6

2-0

.59

97.0

39.

15**

-9.8

2-0

.89

6.37

2.25

*1.

766.

88**

C. D

. (P=

0.05

)4.

674.

674.

674.

584.

584.

581.

901.

901.

90C

. D. (

P=0.

01)

6.07

6.07

6.07

5.96

5.96

5.96

2.51

2.51

2.51

Con

td.


Tabl

e 1

cont

d.

Cro

sses

Yie

ld/h

aD

ry m

atte

rA

ntho

cyan

in

Mea

nH

eter

osis

Mea

nH

eter

osis

Mea

nH

eter

osis

BP

BH

-1B

H-2

BP

BH

-1B

H-2

BP

BH

-1B

H-2

BSR

-11

× B

B-9

3-C

808.

25-0

.12

-16.

93**

-22.

19**

5.74

-15.

09**

-0.1

712

.77*

*1.

15-2

0.14

**-3

7.84

**-3

1.55

**B

SR-1

1 ×

U-8

-61-

371

3.54

10.2

7**

-8.2

9-1

4.09

**4.

61-3

4.33

**-1

9.83

**-9

.43

1.49

-16.

76**

-19.

46**

-11.

31**

BSR

-11

× PB

-64

643.

17-3

6.31

**-4

7.03

**-5

0.38

**4.

77-2

8.81

**-1

7.04

**-6

.29

1.44

-7.1

0-2

2.16

**-1

4.29

**B

SR-1

1 ×

JBSR

-98-

282

2.17

1.22

-15.

81**

-21.

14**

5.31

-24.

47**

-7.6

54.

321.

3815

.00*

*-2

5.41

**-1

7.86

**IV

BR

-3 ×

BB

-93-

C68

0.53

19.8

3**

-43.

95**

-47.

50**

7.12

5.33

*23

.83*

*39

.88*

*1.

42-1

.39

-23.

24**

-15.

48**

IVB

R-3

× U

-8-6

1-3

736.

94-5

.24

-22.

83**

-27.

71**

4.42

-37.

04**

-23.

13**

-13.

16**

0.93

-48.

04**

-49.

73**

-44.

64**

IVB

R-3

× P

B-6

475

6.73

-5.9

1-3

7.67

**-4

1.62

**5.

11-2

3.73

**-1

1.13

0.39

1.25

-19.

35**

-32.

43**

-25.

60**

IVB

R-3

× J

BSR

-98-

283

0.57

5.21

**-3

1.27

**-3

5.62

**5.

67-1

9.35

**-1

.39

11.3

9**

0.92

-23.

97**

-50.

27**

-45.

24**

HA

BL-

1 ×

BB

-93-

C57

0.30

-22.

94**

-53.

03**

-56.

00**

5.32

-21.

30**

-7.4

84.

521.

24-1

3.89

**-3

2.97

**-2

6.19

**H

AB

L-1

× U

-8-6

1-3

795.

700.

62-1

8.05

-23.

24**

7.41

5.56

*28

.87*

*45

.58*

*1.

853.

35**

0.00

10.1

2**

HA

BL-

1 ×

PB-6

477

0.33

-4.2

2-3

6.55

**-4

0.57

**7.

177.

01**

24.7

0**

40.8

6**

1.51

-2.5

8-1

8.38

**-1

0.12

**H

AB

L-1

× JB

SR-9

8-2

870.

4360

.23*

*-4

.43

-10.

478.

0614

.65*

*40

.17*

*58

.35*

*1.

3614

.29*

*-2

6.49

**-1

9.05

**Pu

njab

Bar

sati

× B

B-9

3-C

767.

2620

.05*

*-1

1.27

-16.

88**

5.40

-27.

71**

-6.0

96.

09*

1.57

9.03

**-1

5.14

**-6

.55

Punj

ab B

arsa

ti ×

U-8

-61-

399

5.23

31.8

4**

7.37

**0.

586.

29-1

5.80

**9.

39**

23.5

8**

1.32

-26.

26**

-28.

65**

-21.

43**

Punj

ab B

arsa

ti ×

PB-6

482

8.57

-7.5

7-3

1.68

**-3

6.00

**4.

53-3

9.36

**-2

1.22

**-1

1.00

1.51

-2.5

8-1

8.38

**-1

0.12

Punj

ab B

arsa

ti ×

JBSR

-98-

276

7.87

-14.

44-3

6.76

**-4

0.76

**7.

37-1

.34

28.1

7**

44.7

9**

1.91

60.5

0**

3.24

**13

.69*

*JP

M10

5-2

× B

B-9

3-C

953.

67-1

.30

-0.0

5-6

.38

7.26

3.42

*26

.26*

*42

.63*

*2.

0542

.36*

*10

.81*

*22

.02*

*JP

M10

5-2

× U

-8-6

1-3

829.

57-3

2.45

**-3

1.59

**-3

5.92

**5.

52-2

1.37

**-4

.00

8.45

*1.

63-8

.94

-11.

89**

-2.9

8JP

M10

5-2

× PB

-64

613.

53-5

0.10

**-4

9.47

**-5

2.67

**5.

82-1

7.09

**1.

2214

.34*

*1.

16-2

5.16

**-3

7.30

**-3

0.95

**JP

M10

5-2

× JB

SR-9

8-2

819.

70-3

3.33

**-3

2.49

**-3

6.76

**6.

48-7

.82

12.7

0**

27.3

1**

1.58

32.7

7**

-14.

59**

-5.9

5PB

R-9

1-1

× B

B-9

3-C

895.

0316

.69*

*-3

.31

-9.4

36.

64-5

.95

15.4

8**

30.4

5**

1.75

21.5

3**

-5.4

14.

17**

PBR

-91-

1 ×

U-8

-61-

381

6.10

-8.9

6-2

4.56

**-2

9.33

**6.

10-1

3.60

**6.

09*

19.8

4**

1.20

-32.

96**

-35.

14**

-28.

57**

PBR

-91-

1 ×

PB-6

475

6.73

-24.

79**

-37.

67**

-41.

62**

6.83

-3.2

618

.78*

*34

.18*

*0.

93-4

0.00

**-4

9.73

**-4

4.64

**PB

R-9

1-1

× JB

SR-9

8-2

706.

100.

00-1

7.14

-22.

38**

6.72

-4.8

216

.87*

*32

.02*

*1.

7630

.37*

*-4

.86

4.76

**R

CM

BL-

1-1

× B

B-9

3-C

828.

3336

.42*

*-7

.07

-12.

956.

56-8

.12

14.0

9**

28.8

8**

1.53

6.25

**-1

7.30

**-8

.93

RC

MB

L-1-

1 ×

U-8

-61-

372

3.27

4.49

**-1

4.90

**-2

0.28

**6.

83-4

.34

18.7

8**

34.1

8**

1.53

-14.

53**

-17.

30**

-8.9

3R

CM

BL-

1-1

× PB

-64

756.

7715

.67*

*-2

1.20

-26.

19**

6.01

-15.

83**

4.52

*18

.07*

*1.

9324

.52*

*4.

32**

14.8

8**

RC

MB

L-1-

1 ×

JBSR

-98-

270

6.10

-14.

63**

-41.

84**

-45.

53**

6.71

-6.0

216

.70*

*31

.83*

*1.

4622

.69*

*-2

1.08

**-1

3.10

**PB

-1 ×

BB

-93-

C77

2.67

-10.

14-3

6.36

**-4

0.39

**4.

36-3

6.99

**-2

4.17

**-1

4.34

**1.

7521

.53*

*-5

.41

4.17

**PB

-1 ×

U-8

-61-

368

8.83

-30.

34**

-43.

27**

-46.

86**

4.77

-32.

05**

-17.

04**

-6.2

91.

20-3

2.96

**-3

5.14

**-2

8.57

**PB

-1 ×

PB

-64

586.

37-3

1.80

**-5

1.71

**-5

4.76

**4.

62-3

3.24

**-1

9.65

**-9

.23

1.54

-0.6

5-1

6.76

**-8

.33

PB-1

× J

BSR

-98-

266

1.67

11.8

4**

-20.

80**

-25.

81**

5.58

-20.

63**

-2.9

69.

631.

18-0

.84

-36.

22**

-29.

76**

H-8

× B

B-9

3-C

780.

20-9

9.02

**-1

1.03

-16.

66**

5.02

-25.

74**

-12.

70-1

.38

1.63

13.1

9**

-11.

89-2

.98

Con

td.


Tabl

e 1

cont

d.

H-8

× U

-8-6

1-3

578.

97-9

9.11

**-1

9.37

**-2

4.47

**6.

02-1

4.25

**4.

70*

18.2

7**

1.21

-32.

40**

-34.

59**

-27.

98**

H-8

× P

B-6

465

3.03

-99.

41**

-46.

22**

-49.

62**

4.56

-31.

94**

-20.

70**

-10.

411.

49-3

.87

-19.

46**

-11.

31H

-8 ×

JBSR

-98-

278

8.30

-99.

29**

-35.

07**

-39.

18**

6.86

-2.4

219

.30*

*34

.77*

*1.

4817

.46*

*-2

0.00

**-1

1.90

**N

DB

-21

× B

B-9

3-C

772.

7720

.53*

*-1

1.65

-17.

24**

6.28

-7.1

09.

22*

23.3

8**

1.34

-6.9

4-2

7.57

**-2

0.24

**N

DB

-21

× U

-8-6

1-3

698.

10-9

.18

-26.

03**

-30.

71**

5.08

-27.

64**

-11.

65-0

.20

1.22

-31.

84**

-34.

05**

-27.

38**

ND

B-2

1 ×

PB-6

475

7.97

-14.

84**

-37.

57**

-41.

52**

5.27

-21.

34**

-8.3

53.

541.

20-2

2.58

**-3

5.14

**-2

8.57

**N

DB

-21

× JB

SR-9

8-2

745.

63-4

.99

-30.

35**

-34.

76**

7.05

0.28

22.6

1**

38.5

1**

1.37

15.1

3**

-25.

95**

-18.

45**

JBR

-3-1

6 ×

BB

-93-

C83

5.72

38.1

4**

-6.4

6-1

2.38

6.82

-1.7

318

.61*

*33

.99*

*0.

80-4

4.44

**-5

6.76

**-5

2.38

**JB

R-3

-16

× U

-8-6

1-3

654.

90-3

.43

-21.

35**

-26.

33**

5.14

-26.

78**

-10.

610.

980.

98-4

5.25

**-4

7.03

**-4

1.67

**JB

R-3

-16

× PB

-64

786.

37-4

.35

-35.

23**

-39.

33**

5.91

-14.

84**

2.78

16.1

1**

1.39

-10.

32**

-24.

86**

-17.

26**

JBR

-3-1

6 ×

JBSR

-98-

270

1.17

-14.

72-4

2.25

**-4

5.91

**4.

53-3

5.56

**-2

1.22

**-1

1.00

1.40

10.2

4**

-24.

32**

-16.

67**

KS-

331

× B

B-9

3-C

782.

637.

93**

-19.

07**

-24.

19**

4.85

-28.

25**

-15.

65**

-4.7

21.

02-3

0.14

**-4

4.86

**-3

9.29

**K

S-33

1 ×

U-8

-61-

382

3.67

-16.

70-3

2.16

**-3

6.46

**4.

38-3

7.61

**-2

3.83

**-1

3.95

**1.

61-1

0.06

**-1

2.97

**-4

.17

KS-

331

× PB

-64

672.

77-2

6.11

**-4

4.59

**-4

8.10

**6.

21-7

.31

8.00

*22

.00*

*1.

23-2

0.65

**-3

3.51

**-2

6.79

**K

S-33

1 ×

JBSR

-98-

276

4.30

-16.

05-3

7.05

**-4

1.04

**6.

35-1

6.78

**10

.43*

*24

.75*

*1.

18-1

9.18

**36

.22*

*-2

9.76

**Ja

mun

i Gol

a ×

BB

-93-

C68

9.93

-16.

93**

-17.

64**

-22.

86**

6.03

-12.

354.

87*

18.4

7**

1.08

-25.

00**

-41.

62**

-35.

71**

Jam

uni G

ola

× U

-8-6

1-3

795.

03-2

5.64

**-2

6.28

**-3

0.95

**6.

97-0

.71

21.2

2**

36.9

4**

1.21

-32.

40**

-34.

59**

-27.

98**

Jam

uni G

ola

× PB

-64

726.

00-3

9.68

**-4

0.21

**-4

3.99

**5.

00-2

7.33

**-1

3.04

**-1

.77

1.37

-11.

61**

-25.

95**

-18.

45**

Jam

uni G

ola

× JB

SR-9

8-2

673.

57-4

4.04

**-4

4.52

**-4

8.04

**6.

58-6

.40

14.4

3**

29.2

7**

1.83

53.7

8**

-1.0

88.

93**

PPL

× B

B-9

3-C

834.

53-1

0.85

-26.

08**

-30.

76**

5.19

-23.

22**

-9.7

41.

960.

82-4

3.06

**-5

5.68

**-5

1.19

**PP

L ×

U-8

-61-

372

2.17

-28.

27**

-40.

52**

-44.

29**

6.51

-7.2

613

.22*

*27

.90*

*1.

67-6

.70

-9.7

3-0

.60

PPL

× PB

-64

663.

30-3

4.11

**-4

5.37

**-4

8.83

**5.

85-1

2.69

1.74

14.9

3**

1.05

-32.

26**

-43.

24**

-37.

50**

PPL

× JB

SR-9

8-2

679.

70-1

2.62

-27.

55**

-32.

13**

6.50

-7.5

413

.04*

*27

.70*

*1.

6212

.50*

*-1

2.43

**-3

.57

PB-2

× B

B-9

3-C

855.

4526

.96*

*-6

.15

-12.

096.

63-6

.88

15.3

0**

30.2

6**

1.22

-18.

12**

-34.

05**

-27.

38**

PB-2

× U

-8-6

1-3

733.

90-5

.56

-23.

08**

-27.

95**

6.39

-10.

2511

.13*

*25

.54*

*1.

10-3

8.55

**-4

0.54

**-3

4.52

**PB

-2 ×

PB

-64

804.

90-1

0.32

-33.

71**

-37.

90**

6.34

-10.

9610

.26*

*24

.56*

*1.

39-1

0.32

**-2

4.86

**-1

7.26

**PB

-2 ×

JB

SR-9

8-2

742.

80-1

7.24

**-3

8.82

**-4

2.69

**5.

62-2

1.07

**-2

.26

10.4

1**

1.29

8.40

**-3

0.27

**-2

3.21

**C

. D. (

P=0.

05)

2.65

2.65

2.65

1.64

1.64

1.64

0.79

0.79

0.79

C. D

. (P=

0.01

)3.

463.

463.

462.

172.

172.

171.

041.

041.

04C

ontd

.


Table 1 contd.

Crosses Total sugar Total phenol

Mean Heterosis Mean Heterosis

BP BH-1 BH-2 BP BH-1 BH-2

BSR-11 × BB-93-C 1.43 -17.34** -13.86** -15.88** 143.50 -25.99** -18.70** -28.57**BSR-11 × U-8-61-3 1.83 9.58** 10.24** 7.65** 147.37 -24.00** -16.50** -26.65**BSR-11 × PB-64 1.80 5.88** 8.43** 5.88** 128.70 -33.63** -27.08** -35.94**BSR-11 × JBSR-98-2 1.57 -5.99 -5.42 -7.65 179.57 -7.39 1.74 -10.62IVBR-3 × BB-93-C 1.77 2.31 6.63** 4.12* 200.83 1.17 13.78** -0.03IVBR-3 × U-8-61-3 1.97 23.13** 18.67** 15.88** 212.77 7.19** 20.55** 5.91*IVBR-3 × PB-64 1.73 1.76 4.22** 1.76 175.53 -11.57** -0.55 -12.63**IVBR-3 × JBSR-98-2 1.63 1.87 -1.81 -4.12 182.27 -8.18 3.27 -9.27HABL-1 × BB-93-C 1.67 -3.47 0.60 -1.76 158.80 -14.77** -10.03** -20.96**HABL-1 × U-8-61-3 1.53 0.00 -7.83 -10.00 176.57 -5.24 0.04 -12.11HABL-1 × PB-64 1.73 1.76 4.22** 1.76 201.47 8.13** 14.15** 0.28HABL-1 × JBSR-98-2 1.70 6.25** 2.41 0.00 162.90 -12.57** -7.71 -18.91**Punjab Barsati × BB-93-C 1.43 -17.34** -13.86** -15.88** 162.93 -21.16** -7.69 -18.90**Punjab Barsati × U-8-61-3 1.60 -7.51 -3.61 -5.88 177.83 -13.95** 0.75 -11.48Punjab Barsati × PB-64 1.80 4.05** 8.43** 5.88** 219.10 6.01** 24.14** 9.06**Punjab Barsati × JBSR-98-2 1.83 5.78** 10.24** 7.65** 179.57 -13.11** 1.74 -10.62JPM105-2 × BB-93-C 1.57 -9.25 -5.42 -7.65 191.20 -4.94 8.33** -4.83JPM105-2 × U-8-61-3 1.80 10.43** 8.43** 5.88** 177.10 -11.95** 0.34 -11.85JPM105-2 × PB-64 1.90 11.76** 14.46** 11.76** 244.70 21.66** 38.64** 21.80**JPM105-2 × JBSR-98-2 1.87 14.72** 12.65** 10.00** 196.57 -2.27 11.37** -2.16PBR-91-1 × BB-93-C 1.80 -1.64 8.43** 5.88** 189.97 3.23* 7.63** -5.44PBR-91-1 × U-8-61-3 1.60 -12.57** -3.61 -5.88 185.50 0.80 5.10* -7.67PBR-91-1 × PB-64 1.67 -8.74** 0.60 -1.76 200.27 8.43** 13.47** -0.31PBR-91-1 × JBSR-98-2 1.63 -10.93** -1.81 -4.12 269.73 45.70** 52.82** 34.26**RCMBL-1-1 × BB-93-C 1.83 0.00 10.24** 7.65** 182.00 -4.68 3.12 -9.41RCMBL-1-1 × U-8-61-3 1.77 -3.28 6.63** 4.12* 168.83 -11.57 -4.35 -15.96**RCMBL-1-1 × PB-64 1.57 -14.21** -5.42 -7.65 172.47 -9.67 -2.28 -14.15**RCMBL-1-1 × JBSR-98-2 1.63 -10.93** -1.81 -4.12 174.10 -8.81 -1.36 -13.34**PB-1 × BB-93-C 1.87 8.09** 12.65** 10.00** 193.23 2.66* 9.48** -3.82PB-1 × U-8-61-3 2.03 29.30** 22.29** 19.41** 193.90 3.01* 9.86** -3.48PB-1 × PB-64 1.90 11.76** 14.46** 11.76** 194.33 3.24* 10.10** -3.27PB-1 × JBSR-98-2 1.70 6.25** 2.41 0.00 173.03 -8.08 -1.97 -13.87**H-8 × BB-93-C 2.00 15.61** 20.48** 17.65** 122.07 -36.59** -30.84** -39.24**H-8 × U-8-61-3 1.77 8.59** 6.63* 4.12* 209.20 8.68** 18.53** 4.13*H-8 × PB-64 1.80 5.88* 8.43** 5.88* 185.67 -3.55 5.20 -7.58H-8 × JBSR-98-2 1.87 14.72** 12.65** 10.00** 202.53 5.21* 14.75** 0.81NDB-21 × BB-93-C 1.77 2.31 6.63** 4.12* 174.73 -15.86** -1.00 -13.03NDB-21 × U-8-61-3 1.67 2.45 0.60 -1.76 201.93 -2.76 14.41** 0.51NDB-21 × PB-64 1.87 10.00** 12.65** 10.00** 171.03 -17.64** -3.10 -14.87**NDB-21 × JBSR-98-2 1.90 16.56** 14.46** 11.76** 176.00 -15.25** -0.28 -12.39**JBR-3-16 × BB-93-C 1.77 2.31 6.63** 4.12** 171.67 -22.88** -2.74 -14.55**JBR-3-16 × U-8-61-3 1.73 13.07** 4.22** 1.76 150.93 -32.20** -14.49** -24.87**JBR-3-16 × PB-64 1.70 0.00 2.41* 0.00 178.67 -19.73** 1.23 -11.07JBR-3-16 × JBSR-98-2 1.53 -4.38 -7.83 -10.00** 150.40 -32.43** -14.79** -25.14**KS-331 × BB-93-C 1.70 -3.95 2.41 0.00 163.52 -21.00** -7.35 -18.61**KS-331 × U-8-61-3 1.63 -7.91 -1.81 -4.12 177.97 -14.02** 0.83 -11.41

Contd.


93-C, PB-1 × BB-93-C with 22.02, 14.88, 13.69,10.12, 8.93, 4.76, 4.17 and 4.17% heterosis,respectively. Singh (12) also reported Significantpositive heterosis for the anthocyanin content inbrinjal. In case of total sugars, 20 cross combinationsshowed positive heterosis over better parent withmaximum value in PB-1 × U-8-61-3, (29.30%)followed by IVBR-3 × U-8-61-3 (23.13%), PPL × U-8-61-3 (20.63%), NDB-21 × JBSR-98-2 (16.56%), H-8 × BB-93-C (15.61%), H-8 × JBSR-98-2 (14.72%),JBR-3-16 × U-8-61-3 (13.07%), PB-1 × PB-64(11.76%), JPM-105-2 × U-8-61-3 (10.43%), NDB-21× PB-64 (10.00%), BSR-11 × U-8-61-3 (9.58%), H-8× U-8-61-3 (8.59%), PB-1 × BB-93-C (8.09%), PB-1× JBSR-98-2 (6.25%), BSR-11 × PB-64 (5.88%),Punjab Barsati × JBSR-98-2 (5.78%) and PunjabBarsati × PB-64 (4.05).Total phenol was significantly better in 10 crosses withmaximum heterosis in PBR-91-1 × JBSR-98-2(45.70%) followed by PB-1 × U-8-61-3 (22.15%),JPM-105-2 × PB-64 (21.66%), PB-2 × PB-64(20.59%), PPL × PB-64 (11.04%), H-8 × U-8-61-3(8.68%), PBR-91-1 × PB-64 (8.43%), HABL-1 × PB-64 (8.13%), IVBR-3 × U-8-61-3 (7.19%) and PunjabBarsati × PB-64 (6.01%). Similarly, the estimation ofheterosis for total phenols over standard check BH-1was in 20 and over BH-2 in five crosses. The crossPBR-91-1 × JBSR-98-2 exhibited maximum positiveheterosis (52.82%) over BH-1 followed by JPM-105-2 × PB-64 (38.64%), PB-2 × PB-64 (26.19%), PB-2× U-8-61-3 (25.59%), Punjab Barsati × PB-64

(24.14%), IVBR-3 × U-8-61-3 (20.55%), H-8 × U-8-61-3 (18.53%), PPL × PB-64 (16.20%), H-8 × JBSR-98-2 (14.75%), NDB-21 × U-8-61-3 (14.41%), HABL-1 × PB-64 (14.15%), IVBR-3 × BB-93-C (13.78%),PBR-91-1 × PB-64 (13.47%), JPM-105-2 × JBSR-98-2 (11.37%), PB-1 × PB-64 (10.10%), PB-1 × U-8-61-3 (9.86%), PB-1 × BB-93-C (9.48%), JPM-105-2× BB-93-C (8.33%), Jamuni Gola × JBSR-98-2(8.08%) and PBR-91-1 × BB-93-C (7.63%). Howeverover BH-2, it was significantly better in PBR-91-1 ×JBSR-98-2, JPM-105-2 × PB-64, PB-2 × PB-64, PB-2 × U-8-61-3, Punjab Barsati × PB-64 with 34.26,21.80, 10.87, 10.34 and 9.06%. Significant positiveheterosis for total phenol was also reported by Sharma(10).

LITERATURE CITED

1. Ashwani, R. C. and Khandewal, R. C. 2003. Hybrid vigourin brinjal (Solanum melongena L.). Ann. Agric. Res.News Series 24 : 833-837.

2. Dahiya, M. S., Dhankar, B. S. and Kalloo, G. 1984. Hybridperformance in eggplant (Solanum melongena L.).Haryana J. hortic. Sci. 13 : 147-149.

3. Das, G. and Barua, N. S. 2001. Heterosis and combiningability for yield and its components in brinjal. Ann.Agric. Res. News Series 22 : 399-403.

4. Ingale, B. V. and Patil, S. J. 1997. Heterosis breeding ineggplant (Solanum melongena L.). PKV Res. J. 21 :25-29.

5. Mankar, S. W., Kale, P. B., Dod, V. N., Wankhade, R. V.and Jadhao, B. J. 1995 Heterosis in eggplant (Solanummelongena L.). Crop Res., Hisar 10 : 331-337.

Table 1 contd.

KS-331 × PB-64 1.50 -15.25** -9.64 -11.76** 170.23 -17.76** -3.55 -15.27**KS-331 × JBSR-98-2 1.83 3.39* 10.24** 7.65** 170.03 -17.86** -3.67 -15.37**Jamuni Gola × BB-93-C 1.77 2.31 6.63** 4.12* 180.00 -0.39 1.98 -10.40Jamuni Gola × U-8-61-3 1.67 4.37* 0.60 -1.76 170.90 -5.82 -3.17 -14.93**Jamuni Gola × PB-64 1.63 -4.12 -1.81 -4.12 176.37 -4.51 -0.07 -12.21**Jamuni Gola × JBSR-98-2 1.53 -4.38 -7.83 -10.00** 190.77 3.05* 8.08** -5.04PPL × BB-93-C 1.67 -3.47 0.60 -1.76 177.03 2.33 0.30 -11.88PPL × U-8-61-3 1.93 20.63** 16.27** 13.53** 168.73 -7.02 -4.40 -16.01**PPL × PB-64 1.73 1.76 4.22* 1.76 205.10 11.04** 16.20** 2.09PPL × JBSR-98-2 1.67 4.37* 0.60 -1.76 171.97 -7.11 -2.57 -14.40**PB-2 × BB-93-C 1.77 2.31 6.63** 4.12* 183.37 5.61* 3.89* -8.73PB-2 × U-8-61-3 1.57 -1.88 -5.42 -7.65 221.67 22.15** 25.59** 10.34**PB-2 × PB-64 1.57 -7.65 -5.42 -7.65 222.73 20.59** 26.19** 10.87**PB-2 × JBSR-98-2 1.63 1.87 -1.81 -4.12 183.20 -1.04 3.80* -8.81C. D. (P=0.05) 0.45 0.45 0.45 2.78 2.78 2.78C. D. (P=0.01) 0.60 0.60 0.60 3.87 3.87 3.87

*,**Significant at P=0.05 and P=0.01 levels, respectively.


6. Prasath, D., Natarajan, S. and Thamburaj, S. 2000. Linex tester analysis for heterosis in brinjal (Solanummelongena L.). Orissa J. Hort. 28 : 59-64.

7. Ram, D., Singh, S. M., Chauhan, Y. S. and Singh, N. D.1981. Heterosis in brinjal (Solanum melongena L.).Haryana J. hortic. Sci. 10 : 210-216.

8. Randhawa, K. S. and Sukhija, B. S. 1973. A study ofheterosis and retention in following generations inbrinjal (Solanum melongena L.). Haryana J. hortic.Sci 2 : 76-82.

9. Sawant, S. V., Desai, U. T., Kale, P. N. and Joi, M. B.1992. Heterosis studies in brinjal. J. MaharashtraAgric. Univ. 17 : 394-396.

10. Sharma, C. M. 1985. Inheritance of some biochemicaltraits with special reference to bitterness and

discolouration in (Solanum melongena L.). M. Sc.thesis, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana,India.

11. Singh, D. P. and Prasad, V. S. R. K. 1995. Heterosis ineggplant (Solanum melongena L.). Indian J. Hort.52 : 291-295.

12. Singh, I. 2000. Diallel analysis in a group of geneticallydiverse lines of brinjal (Solanum melongena L.).M. Sc. thesis, Punjab Agricultural University,Ludhiana, India.

13. Verma, S. 1977. Heterosis, combining ability andinheritance studies in brinjal (Solanum melongenaL.). M. Sc. thesis, Punjab Agricultural University,Ludhiana, India.


Documents

Present Status of Guava Research and Future Thrusts in India · ABSTRACT : Guava (Psidium guajava L.) is considered poor man’s fruit or ‘apple of tropics’. Guava fruits are