EVALUATION OF VARIETIES AND EFFECTS OF PLANtI'ING DATE AND GROWTH REGULATORS ON
THE PERFORMANCE OF CHRYSANTHEMUM (Dendranthema indicum)
BALAJI S. KULKARNI
DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, DHARWAD
C UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES, DHARWAD - 580 005
MAY, 2003
EVALUATION OF VARIETIES AND EFFECTS OF PLANTING DATE AND GROWTH REGULATORS ON
THE PERFORMANCE OF CHRYSANTHEMUM (Dendranthema indicum)
Thesis submitted to the University of ' Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad
in partial fulfilment of the requiremen~s for the
Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHYLOSOPHY t,."" .. _.~"._w.. IN
HORTICULTURE
By
BALAJI S. KULKARNI
DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, DHARWAD
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES, DHARWAD - 580 005
MAY, 2003
DIVISION OF HORTICULTURE· UlUVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
DHARWAD - 580 005
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the thesis entitled " EVALUATION
OF VARIETIES AND EFFECTS OF PLANTING DATE AND GROWTH
REGULATORS ON THE PERFORMANCE OF CHRYSANTHEMUM
(Dendranthema indicum) " submitted by Mr. BALAJI. S. KULKARNI
for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN HOR1ICULTURE, of the
University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, is a record of research work
done by him during the period of his study i:1 this University under my
guidance and supervision and the thesis has not previously formed the
basis for the award of any degree, diploma, associateship, fellowship or
other similar titles.
Dharwad May, 2003
Approved by
Chairman:
Members: 1.
2.
3.
4.
~ -(B.~ '. ~Y) ::AdviSOr Director of Instruction (Hort)
K.R.C.College of Horticulture, Arabhavi
(B. S
C?t. ( S. LINGARAJU )
~-'''''ilG;' ( P. L. PATIL)
(~~==--(P.R. DHARMATTI)
· tlecf¥L~ deCUca:teiL- toWo/grlat~ 13AKULA13AI
AC7(NOWLEVGEMENT
I ~Y"eM' »0/ deep ~ of Wca:-,;tude.- ~ ~ "ta
Dy. '8. S~~'Y'~ R~, PY"~ & tle<ML, Dep~ of
F1or~(!./ ~ L~(!./ GCl¥~ ~ DCYec;tor of I~uct'LOnt
(tlOY't), K.1<.C.CoUefje- of tlort'~(!./, Ara.bhavv, ~ ~ee.m.ed,. C~er!01'V'
of »0/ AdNiMny Co-mm.(.ttee,. {or- 'hL!r vaUuil~ ~ C01'\4t'CWLt
e.t'\CO"UY~ ~ ~uct'w(!./ ~L.O'VlI,y' clur~ t;he;- C01M'"~ of
Wwe.w~L.Ont.
Witl-v ~ ~ of pri'.d.e-~~, I ~e0-' ~ t;he;-~~ of
~ AdNUory Co-m.mittee-, Dr. L~cy"w, 5., A~ Pr~, Dept: of
P~P~, Dy. P.L. P~~ A~Pr~, Dept: ofSoWS~
Dy. '8.C.P~L4 A~ Pr~, Dep~ of Crop P~~,
Dy. P.R. Dharrnctttv, A~ Pr~, Dr. A.N. M~ tlea-cL of ~
Dep~ ~ other fW.ff ~~ of~ dep~ of horL~(!./,
Unwer.\it"y ofA$fY~altS~ DhcM-wad.-fOr t;he.(..y ~~ ~
'h,e;Lp cUw~~couy~ofuw~~L.Ont.
SeNeralt of »0/ ~ hcw(!./ hclpeAL dM.Y~ C01M"~ Of ~ ~ ~ cU.r~ or (,vuU,y~, of themt ~ hclp ~
by lvir. N./h.a~ lvir. S.L. J~ Dr. (MYl') 'B~Cl¥cye.\hwCl¥v,
Dr. (Mr~) PY~ Dr. N.K. tl~ Mr. M. 1<CW~, Dr. PrcweEWll
J~, Dr. J.D. A~ Mr. ye:tla:pp~Gc;;u;W.d.V ~Mr. G~~p~
1<. ~(!./ ~ecUiW m.et'lt"'L.Ont. I a4o-~ Dr. L.N. tl~ A~CWLt
Pro{e-M;Or, Dept: of M~ & A~ P~ K.'R.C.CoUefje- of
tlort'~(!./, AYia.bhavv{or 'hL!r hclp {,w prepCl¥~ cdlo-ur~$fY~hy
I cwcML ~ oppor'tlM1i;t:y "t& ~ Wo/ ~ fy~ of "ttuv Vep~ ~Y.~~ ~Y. ~~ ~(M, ~ ~y G~
Sw~, ~Y. SlM"~ Ku,wu;t.Y, , ~Y. R. T. 'Pc¢'fl" ~Y. K~ ~Y. N~cyw,
My. ShiN~ ~Y. VL.n.od1 ~Y. Sy£.t1.W~ ~Y. ~CiWIj~ 'Pc¢'fl"
~Y. NCiCtCU"cy ~ ~Y. Ry~ for the,(,y help.
~y ~W1'l/ w"too-poor "t&tv~ Wo/ ~e-~ of iHt.de.bt"e.dtw.w
"t& Wo/ 'Par~ Shrv. Shr~, Sow. L~ Wo/ ~J.'P. Kr...cIkctrn,4
m:Y et.«N\ty Sow. K~ brother- SCiWljw, ~S' Sow. S~ ~
Sow. S~ ~ w£fe- Sow. A~ ~ 11.ttle.. ~ Ch&. V~v ~
other m.emlxwS' of ~ fcc..rn4y for the,(,y whdle-~ l.ov~ a{fect'WYLI ~
~~~thr~the-perUnLofWo/~.
I wl4h- ID-~ w(;th., ~ ffYc¢'t:tu.d..e-, Wo/ em:ploy~ UYllNersit"y of
A~'rLcultLwal; S~ VYuitrwad" for ffY~ m.e- part t"c.m.e- facCU;t:"UMr
.dur~·the-CCrW'"~of~.
I cwc;u1.. ~ oppor'tlM1i;t:y "t& ~ Shrv. 'B~pCf,/ ShlrCiUjfUr {or
perm1;WIA1fr me-"t& CO"YUiuct- Wo/ y~~ O"W 'I14-fiel<L
:~ p~ 'DTlA'RWAV ('BALAJI s. KUL1<ARNI)
CONTEN"TS
Sl. Title Page No. No.
I INTRODUCTION 1-4
II REVIEW OF LITERATURE 5 - 36
III. MATERIAL AND METHODS' 37 - 54
IV EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS 55"- 128
V DISCUSSION 129 - 161 ;
c . VI , SUMMARY i , I 162 -168
,
VII REFERENCES 169 -194
~ ,
APPENDICES
Table" No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
LIST OF TABLES
Title
Influence of dates of planting on plant height during the growing period of chrysanthemum cv. Saraval
Influence of dates of planting on plant spread, number of primary branches, number of secondary branches and stem girth at grand growth stage and number of suckers per plant at final harvest stage of chrysanthemum cv. Saraval.
Influence of various dates of planting on number of leaves per plant at various stages of plant growth and leaf area at grand growth stage of chrysanthemum cv. Sarawal
Influence of dates of planting on flowering of chrysanthemum cv. Saraval
Influence of dates of planting on flower yield and quality pf chrysanthemum cv. Saraval
Plant height and plant spread as influenced by different chrysanthemum cultivars (pooled data)
Number of primary branches as influenced by different chrysanthemum cultivars (pooled data)
Page No.
57
60
63
66
69
73
76
8 Number of secondary branches as influenced by '·78 different chrysanthemum cultivars (pooled data) , i I
9 .- Number of leaves per plant as influenced by different chrysanthemum cultivars (pooled data)
10 Leaf area, stem girth, total dry matter content at grand growth stage and number of suckers per plant at the time of last harvest in different genotypes of chrysanthemum (pooled data)
81
84
Contd .. Table
No.
11
Title
Chlorophyll content as influenced by different chrysanthemum cultivars (pooled data)
Page No.
86
12 Flowering as influenced by different chrysanthemum 88
13
cultivars (pooled data) "
Flower yield and quality parameters and per cent disease index of Alternaria as influenced by different chrysanthemum cultivars
93
14 Reaction of chrysanthemum cultivars against 94
15
16
t Alternaria leaf spot
Influence of growth regulators on plant height and plant spread of chtysanthemum cv. Karnool (pooled data)
Influence of growth regulators on number of primary branches of chtysanthemum cv. Karnool (pooled data)
98
103
17 Influence of growth regulators on number of secondary 107 branches of chrysanthemum cv. Karnool (pooled data)
18 Influence of growth regulators on number of leaves per III plant of chtysanthemum cv. Karnool (pooled data)
19 Influence of growth regulate>rs on leaf area, stem girth, 115 chlorophyll content and number of suckers per plant o(chrysanthemum cv. Karnool (pooled data)
20 Influence of growth regulators on flowering characters 119 . ~ J I
of chrysanthemum cv. Karnool (pooled data)
21 Influence of growth regulators on flower yield and· 124 quality parameters of' chtysanthemum cv. Karnool (pooled data)
22 Effect of various growth regulators on shelf life of 126 chrysanthemum flowers
Figure No.
1
2
3
4
LIST OF FIGURES
Title
Influence of dates of planting on plant height during the growing period of chrysanthemum cv. Saraval
Influence of dates of planting on number of branches and leaf area at grand growth stage of chrysanthemum cv. Saraval
Influence of dates of planting on flowering and yield of chrysanthemum cv. Sara val
Height of plant as influenced by different chrysanthemum genotypes
Between pages
57-58
63-64
69-70
73-74
5 Number of branches at harvest as influenced by 78 - 79 different chrysanthemum genotypes
6 Leaf area and total dry matter content as 84 - 85 influenced by different chrysanthemum genotypes
7 Flowering as influenced by different chrysan- 88 - 89 themum genotypes
8 Flower yield as influenced by different chrysan- 93 - 94 themum genotypes
9 Influence of growth regulators on plant height of 98 - 99 ~ ,chrysanthemum cv. Karnool
. 10 Influence of growth regulators·· on number of 112 - 113 branches and leaf area of chrysanthemum cv. Kamoo!
11 Influence of growth regulators on flowering and 121 - 122 yield of chrysanthemum cv. Kamool
12 Effect of various growth regulators on post 127 - 128 harvest life of chrysanthemum flowers on fifth day of storage
FigureNo.
1
2
3
4
LIST OF PLATES
Title
General view of experimental plot
'Harvest Home' a superior genotype of chrysanthemum
'Kamoo!' a superior genotype of chrysanthemum
'Saraval' a superior genotype of chrysanthemum
Between pages
38-39
94 - 95
94 - 95
94 - 95
5 'Selection-5' a superior genotype of chrysanthemum 94 - 95
6 'Mutant No.9' a superior genotype of chrysan- 94 - 95 themum
7 Plate showing the typical symptoms of Alternaria 94 - 95 leaf spot disease in chrysanthemum
8 Control plants of chrysanthemum at vegetative 119 - 120 (Plate A) and reproductive (Plate B) stages
9 ~!ates showing the effect of GA 100 ppm in pinched 119 - 120 chrysanthemum plants on vegetative (Plate A) and reproductive (Plate B) parameters
10 Plates showing the effects of BRs 0.75 ppm in 119 - 120 pinched ch:rysanthemum plants on vegetative (Plate A) and reproductive (Plate B) parameters
11 Plates showing the effects of mepiquat chloride in 119 - 120 pinched chrysanthemum plants on vegetative (Plate A) and reproductive (Plate B) patameters
12 Influence of growth regulators on flower size of 122 - 123 chrysanthemum cv~ Kamool
13 Post-harvest studies in chrysanthemum cv. Kamoo! 125 - 126
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix Title No.
1 Meteorological data during the period of experimentation collected at Agricultural Research Station, Arabhavi
2 Chemical properties of soil of experimental site
3 Plant height and plant spread as influenced by different chrysanthemum cultivars
4 Number of primary branches as influenced by different chrysanthemum cultivars
5 Number of secondary branches as influenced by different chrysanthemum cultivars
6 Number of leaves per plant as influenced by different chrysanthemum cultivars
7 Leaf area, stem girth, total dry matter content at grand growth stage and number of suckers per plant at the time of last harvest as influenced by different chrysanthemum cultivars
8 Chlorophyll content as influenced by different chrysanthemum cultivars
9 Flowering as influenced by different chrysanthemum genotypes
10 Flower yield and quali1y parameters as influenced by different chrysanthemum cultiva;rs
11 Influence of growth regulators on plant height and plant spread of chrysanthemum cv. Karnool
12 Influence of growth ref.,'Ulators on number of primary branches of chrysanthemum cv. Karnool
( 11l1td ....
Appendix Title No.
13 Influence of growth regulators on number of secondary branches per plant of chrysanthemum cv. Karnool
14 Influence of growth regulators on number of leaves per plant of chrysanthemum cv. Karnool .
15 Influence of growth regulators on leaf area, stem girth, chlorophyll content and number of suckers per plant of chrysanthemum cv. Karnool
16 Influence of growth regulators on flowering characters of chrysanthemum cv. Karnool.
17 Influence of growth regulators on flower yield and quality parameters of chrysanthemum cv. Karnool
• INTRODUCTION
"
I. INTRODUCTION
Chrysanthemum belonging to the family Asteraceae, is one among the
important cOlnmercial flower crops of the world. It is native to northern
hemisphere, chiefly Europe and Asia. Many authorities claim that it is
originated from China (Dhua, 1999) and spread throughout the world.
Chrysanthemum has been extolled as the 'Queen of the East' and has
admirers and enthusiastic lovers all over the world. It is regarded as
'Symbol of Royalty' in Japan. The name 'Chrysanthemum' means 'golden
coloured flower', coming from the Greek words Chrysos (gold) and anthos
(flower). The scientific name of the cultivated species has been changed many
times over the years from Chrysanthemum indicum L. to C. indicum hybrids to
C. morifolium Ramat. to Dendranthema grandijZora Kitam. and fmally to the
internationally accepted name the Dendranthema indicum (Mammenmappillai
and Vanzanten, 1997).
In many countries, including the United States and, Japan, "
chrysanthemum is considered as number one, while in other leading flower
producing countries, it is next only to rose in terms of value of the crop
produced (Dhua, 1999) ... It occupies third rank in the international cut flower
trade. In India, chrysanthemum is grown commercially and it occupies third
rank after jasmine and rose with an area of about 4000 ha. (Janakiram and
Manjunathr?-o, 2001). It is used for garlands, hair decoration and head
ornaments, divine offerings, religious rituals and also as a cut flower. The
2
major chtysanthemum growing states are Tamil Nadu, Karnataka,
Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Rajastan, Madhya Pradesh and Bihar. It is
one of the most economic and commercially cultivated flower crops in South
India. In Karnataka, cluysanthemum occupies an area of about 2945 ha.
with an estimated flower production of 26,033 t. The major chrysanthemum
growing districts are Kolar, Bangalore, Chitradurga, Haveri, Mandya, Hassan,
Tumkur, Davanagere, Belgaum and Gadag (Anonymous, 2001). The
simultaneous blooming habit, easy cultivation and availability in diversified
shapes, sizes and colors have made it more popular among flower crops for
both growers and consumers.
Increased flower production, quality of flowers and perfection in the
form of plants are the important objectives to be reckoned in commercial
cluysanthemum flower production. Though the yield potentiality is primarily
a varietal trait, it is greatly influenced by prevailing climatic conditions,
nutrition and other cultural practices like pinching and use of growth
regulators. DitIerent varieties / genotypes are being cultivated in ~erent
parts of our couney and they vazy in their performance. Cultivar 'Kundan'
was superior ·to other cultivars under Pune conditions (Anonymous, 1985),
whereas 'Saraval' cultivar was superior to other cultivars under Dharwad
conditions (Barigidad, 1991).
Exposing the crops to optimum climatic conditions goes a long way in
maximising the flower yields. Raman et ale (1969) recorded the highest yield
3
in May planting, whereas Shanmugam and Muthuswamy (1973)
recommended planting of chrysanthemum in July.
Flowering of chrysanthemum is very seasonal, generally from August to
December. During periods of peak production, there will be a glut in the
market. Crop regulation (growth and flowering) is therefore desirable to have
staggered production, increased,yield, enhanced quality, extended duration of
flowering, etc. Chrysanthemum being a photosensitive crop shows a high
degree of response to both physic81 and chemical crop regulation practices.
Commercially followed practices include pinching, disbudding, photoperiodic
manipulation and chemical regulation (Khader et al., 1995).
There is a scarcity of information pertaining to its scientific cultivation
under Ghataprabha Command Area. This supports the importance of
conducting such studies to meet the evergrowing demand for chrysanthemum
flowers in domestic and, international markets. In fact, Ghataprabha
irrigation project has come as a 'boon' to the farmers of this area. Therefore,
the identification of high yielding genotype / variety, standardisation of
production technology, viz., optimum planting date, identification of growth
regulators and their optimum concentrations for production and post-harvest
handling can be a great help to the farmers to take up chrysanthemum
cultivation as a new alternate crop and to realise more profit.
4
Considering all these points, investigations were undertaken with the
following objectives.
1. To study the effect of different dates of planting on growth, flowering, yield
and quality of chIysanthemum flowers.
2. To study the growth and yield performance of different chIysanthemum
cultivars in order to identify s.uitable cultivars for maximising the flower
production having good flower quality.
3. To study the influence of growth regulators along with pinching on growth,
flowering, yield and quality of flowers and
4. To study the effect of different growth substances for extending shelf life of .
chrysanthemum flowers.
REVIEW Of LITtRA TURE
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Chrysanthemum is one of the important commercial crops grown for
it's attractive coloured flowers which are used as loose and as well as cut
flowers. The selection of cultivar is an important factor for successful
cultivation of chrysanthemum.. In recent years, several new cultivars of
cluysanthemum with wide range of colours have entered the market. But,
their performance with respect to yield, quality and shelf life have differed
greatly in different regions. This is because of the fact that a variety
performing well in a particular region may not perform well in other
regions, because of differences in agro-climatic conditions.
Light, temperature and relative humidity are most important limiting
factors for plant growth and development. Climatic factors like day length,
day and night temperatures and relative humidity have greater influence on
the performance of crops in terms of vegetative growth, flower initiation,
flower development, yield and quality of flowers and incidence of pests and
diseases. Adverse effect of these climatic factors may lead to low yields or
complete failure of the crop. The effect of date or season of planting on
growth and develop:ment in chrysanthemum is very important for
commercial cultivation.
The use of plant growth regulators with recommended horticultural
practices in specific cultivars seems to be a novel theme of modifying plant , .
6
architecture for sustained production (Pal, 1972 and Smith and Kohl, ~"I
1970). At proper concentrations, the plant growth regulators were found to
mani pulate growth and flowering in a desirable direction. The high
economic value of chrysanthemums has made a tempting targets for growth
regulator applications.
Among horticultural prpducts, flower is the most perishable
commodity compared to other products. Because of short life,
chrysanthernum flowers in India are cultivated traditionally in places
nearer to market centers. Until recently, little attention was paid to shelf
life, transportation and storage. It is a common practice by flower traders /
growers to sprinkle water on the loose flowers and keep them wrapped in
moist cloth to extend the shelf . life. In this connection, no much· efforts
have been made to extend the shelf life of chrysanthemum.
Wherever the information on these above aspects of chrysanthemum
was meagre, the information on other related crops is also reviewed. ",
Review pertaining to the objectives of study are cited under the following
major heads.
2.1 Date / Season of planting
2.2 Varietal performance
2.3 Pinching and growth regulators
2.4 Post harvest life
2.1 DATE I SEASON OF PLANTING
2.1.1 Effect of date of planting
2.1.2 Effect of different seasons
2.1.3 Effect of light
2.1.4 Effect of temperature
2.1.5 Effect of relative humidity
2.1.1 Effect of date of planting
2.1.1.1 Effect of date of planting on vegetative parameters
of chrysanthemum
· 7
Influence of date of planting on the chrysanthemum has been
reported previously by very few workers. Planting in May resulted in good
and well developed plants, while late plantings resulted in reduction in
stem height and overall vegetative growth in chrysanthemum (Kiyatkin,
1975). The plant height was promoted by early planting when wild
chrysanthemums were sown at monthly intervals from June to August
(Shin et al., 1995). Plant height was maximum in chrysanthemum cv. Raja
in case of June planting at 120 days after planting (Deotale et al., 1995).
Chrysanthemum planting in May at Pune conditions produced the tallest
and most spreading plants when compared to June or July plantings
(Meher et al., 1999a).
2.1.1.2 Effect of date of planting on reproductive parameters
of chrysanthemum
8
Previous workers have reported the influence of date of planting on
the reproductive parameters of chrysanthemum. The short day treatment
(8 or 8.5 hours) to the vegetative shoots of garden cluysanthemum resulted
in quick initiation of flower buds (Cockshull and Kofranek, 1992). The days
from planting to bud appearance was favoured by later planting dates when
chrysanthemum cv. Chandrama was planted at 2 week intervals from 15th ,
July to 30th September (Barman et aI., 1993). Among the four dates of'
planting in clnysanthemum Le. 15th May, 4th June, 24th June and 14th
July, time of bud initiation, flower opening and the difference between the
two were reduced with later planting dates (Deotale et aI., 1994). Later
planting dates delayed flowering when wild chrysanthemum was sown at
monthly intervals from June to August (Shin et al., 1995). Among the
planting dates, July planted plants were early to reach 50 per cent
flowering at Pune conditions (Meher et al., 1999b).
The yield was llighest from the May planting and it decreased with
the later plantings upto November in Chrysanthemum indicum (Raman
et aI., 1969). Among the four planting dates of chrysanthemum Le. 15th
May, 4th June, 24th June and 14th July, planting on 24th June gave the
highest flower yield of 474 g per plant (Deotale et al., 1994). Among the
9
planting dates, cut flower yield was the highest in May planting at Pune
conditions (Meher et al., 1999b).
The flowers of duysanthemum cv. Raja were heaviest (2.15 g) in 24th
June planted plants as compared to 15th May, 4th June, 24th June and 14th
July planting dates. The mean diameter of flowers was the highest from
the May planting and it decreased in later plantings (Raman et aI., 1969).
Planting of chrysanthemum on 24th June resulted in the production of
largest flowers (6.42 cm diameter) among the four planting date in
chrysanthemum Le. 15th May, 4th June, 24th June and 14th July (Deotale
et al., 1994). The highest saleable chrysanthemum flowers were obtained
from the plants planted in July and August than from those plants planted
in the month of September (Gill et al., 1995).
2.1.2 Effect of different seasons
Heidemans and Stolk (1984) evaluated fifteen chrysanthemum
cultivars for spring culture and reported cultivars Bright Lumeet, Impala
and Lucky Steike as the best cultivars. Cut flower chrysanthemum
cultivars Buttercup, pay Mark, Pink Day Mark, Yellow Day Mark, Cream
Day Mark, Palaver and Wall Stree could be grown successfully in unheated
greenhouse during the period from November to April (Cormeno, 1989).
The chrysanthemum cultivars Basanti, Bazuria Red, Dhruba White, Jaya,
KS-6, KS-16, KS-17, KS-19, Maharaja, Pink Star and Sharadmala were
highly suitable for commercial cultivation as winter crops under Kalyani
10
(Weal Bengal) conditions (Mukeshkumar and Chattopadhyay, 2002). There
WOI reduction in flower size in summer forcing as compared to natural
cultivation in autumn (Shin et al., 1994) ..
2.1.3 Effect of light
2.1.3.1 Effect of light on vegetative parameters of chrysanthemum
Lawrence (1950) Hassan and Newton (1975) found that a daily
radiation integral between 1.2 and 1.6 MJjm2jday is necessary for
adequate growth in chrysanthemum. According to Antably et al. (1991) the
indigenous gibberellin contents (bioassayed) gradually decreased under
short days, but increased under long days to a level at which roots were
formed in chrysanthemum. Endogenous auxin contents behaved similarly,
but the levels of growth inhibitors increased sonlewhat under short day
conditions. The plant height of wild chrysanthemum was reduced by short
day treatment, Le., 7 hours treatment (Shin et al., 1995). In contrast, long
days (16 hours) promoted stem elongation in chrysanthemum (Yulian et al.,
1995).
2.1.3.2 Effect of light on reproductive parameters of chrysanthemum
The optimum day length for flower bud differentiation· and
development in chrysanthemum is nine to ten hours (Nishio et al., 1988).
The short day treatment (8 or 8.5 hours) to the vegetative shoots of garden
chzysanthemum resulted in quick initiation of flower buds (Cockshull and
11
Kofranek, 1992}. Short day treatment (7 or 11 hours) for four weeks
promoted early flowering in wild chrysanthemum (Shin et al., 1995). There
was delay in commencement of flowering in chrysanthemum cv. CO-l with
a day length of 18 hours for 30 days beginning two months after planting
(Dutta et al., 1995). According to Hanke (1996), chrysanthemum plants
grown in natural day length bloomed much later than those subjected to
short days (19.8 hours dark period). Longer the day length, earlier was the
bud initiation in chrysanthemum (Yulian et al., 1996).
Duration of flowering (205.33 days) was the longest when plants were
subjected to day length of 16 hours beginning one month after planting for
15 days (Dutta et ai., 1995).
2.1.4 Effect o£temperature
2.1.4.1 Effect of temperature on vegetative parameters
of chrysanthemum
The lateral shoots and internodes were longer than· the normal when
the telnperature exceeded 300 C during the dark periods, but they were
shorter than normal when the temperature exceeded 250 C during the dark , ,
i
periods in chrysanthemum (Nishio et al., 1988). A six hour drop in day
temperature reduced the shoot length of duysanthemum which was more
pronounced when the drop treatment was given at the start of the day and
12
the effectiveness increased with increasing temperature drop up to 80 C
(Cockshull et al., 1995).
In chrysanthemum cv, Powerhouse, cool night temperature was
ineffective in preventing a decrease in lateral branching of plants grown
under high (35°C) day temperature conditions ( Faust and Heins, 1992).
Nurnber of incomplete leaves in chrysanthemum increased when the
temperature exceeded 250 C during the dark periods (Nishio et al., 1988).
Dry matter accumulation in chrysanthemum was low with negative DIF for
two or six hours before sun rise and high with negative DIF for two hour
arOlmd midnight (Jensen, 1993).
2.1.4.2 Effect of temperature on reproductive parameters
of chrysanthemum
Flowering was delayed in chrysanthemum when the temperature
exceeded 25 °C in darkness during flower development (Nishio et al., 1988).
The rate of progress of flowering increased linearly with increasing effective
temperature in chrysanthemum (Pearson et al., 1993). There was a
reduction in number of days taken to visible bud appearance in
chrysanthemum cv. Choral Charm when grown at night temperature 60 C
higher than the day temperature for two hours before sunrise (Jensen,
1993).
2.1.5 Effect of relative humidity
2.1.5.1 Effect of relative humidity on vegetative parameters
of chrysanthemum
13
The shoot length and leaf area increased significantly in
chrysanthemum with increase in relative humidity from 60 to 90 per cent
(Gislerod and Mortensen, 1991). Among the humidity treatments of 0.1,
0.4, 0.7 and 1.1. Kpa vapour pressure deficit, there was some reduction in
the total leaf area of chrysanth~mum in the highest humidity treatment
(Hand et al., 1996).
2.1.5.2 Effect of relative humidity on reproductive parameters
of chrysanthemum
There was a reduction in the time taken for flowering in
chrysanthemum as the relative humidity increased from 60 to 90 per cent
(Gislerod and Mortensen, 1991).
High humidity delayed the flower development upto four to five days
in chrysanthemum (Hand et al., 1996). Higher relative humidity increased
the flower production (number of flowers) in chrysanthemum (Gislerod and
Mortensen, 1991). But, according to Hand et al. (1996), high humidity at
harvest stage resulted 4I reduction in flower dIy weight.
14
2.2 VARIETAL PERFORMANCE
2.2.1 Vegetative parameters
Chezhian et al. (1985a) assessed the peIformance of 27
chrysanthenlum cultivars over two years under pot conditions. The hieght
of the plants ranged from 6.15 cm to 33.55 cm in first year and 8.15 cm to
33.45 cm in the second year. The number of branches ranged from 4.5 to
21.55 and 6.0 to 21.55 during first and second year, respectively.
Wilfert (1985) evaluated chIysanthemum cultivars grown as centre
disbudded plants in six inch containers. The cv. Garland produced
maximum plant height (40.25 cm) with maximum plant diameter (17.3
inches), while the cv. Esta produced the smallest plants (25.0 cm). The cv.
Ritz recorded the lowest plant diameter (12.80 inches).
Kanamadi and Patil (1993) studied the peIformance of eight
cluysanthernum cultivars in the transitional tract of Karnataka and
recorded the highest plant height (82.67 cm) in cultivar Basanthi, the
lowest in Sharadmala (29.50 cm). The maximum number of leaves per
plant was observed in the cultivar Red Gold (168.33) and it was minimum
in CO-l (58.00). The cv. CO-1 produced the highest number of branches
(20.33), while Basanthi (4.00) produced the lowest. Mishra (1999) reported
the tallest plants with maximum plant spread in cv. Suneel.
15
Evaluation of chrysanthemum cultivars under two different
environmental conditions (open and polyhouse) by Gaikwad and
(Jurnbrepatil (2001) revealed that, polyhouse planting resulted in better
growth compared to open planting. The cultivar Indira had maximum
height and spread and higher number of branches as compared to other
cultivars.
In an evaluation of chrysanthemum cultivars (Amar, Apsara, Basant,
DhrU.ba White, ,..Taya, Kanhai, Maharaja, Nanaku, Red Gold, Saradmala and
Vasantika) under sub-tropical humid climate of West Bengal, some
cultivars exhibited significant differences for plant height, which ranged
from 25.93 cm (Amar) to 67.02 cm (Maharaja). The maximum number of
branches (10 .. 32) per plant was recorded in Red Gold (Mukesh Kumar and
Chattopadhyay, 2002).
2.2.2 Reproductive parameters
Among the 27 chrysanthemum cultivars assessed for two years
under field conditions, cv. Sharad Shobha was found to be the earliest to
flower in both the seasons (Chezhian et al., 1985a). Among the 33
chrYsanthemum cultivars evaluated, cv. MDU-1 flowered late (140 days)
when compared to local cultivar which took 120 days (Rajshekaran et al.,
1985).
16
Negi et ale (1988) evaluated 12 chrysanthemum varieties along with
three local varieties fo~ three years under Bangalore conditions and found
that variety Indira was the earliest to flower (107.97 days), followed by
IIHR-Sel-5 (114.18 days), while IIHR Sel-4 was late to flower (140.52 days).
Mishra (1999) reported the longest period to bloom fully in CV.
Kundan.
Chezhian et al. (1985b) initially evaluated 73 cultivars of
chrysanthemum for flower yield. Seven of them were advanced to
comparative yield trial. They compared several local varieties and the new
cultivar CO-1 and reported that the mean yield of CO-1 was 16.7 t/ha
when compared to 9.28 to 16.00 t / ha in the local cultivars. The cultivar
MDU-1 produced the highest yield (30.59 t/ha) as compared to the local
check, which produced the lowest yield of 26.44 t / ha (Rajasehkaran et al.,
1985).
Among the 12 chrysanthemum varieties and three local varieties
evaluated for three years under Bangalore conditions, variety Red Gold
produced the highest flower yield (419.22 g / plant), followed by IIHR Sel-5
(363.62 g / plant) and these two were good for loose flower purpose among
the red or pink coloured flower groups. In white coloured flower group,
IIHR Sel-6 gave the highest flower yield (Negi et al., 1988).
17
The number of flowers per plant was maximum in cv. Maghi (38.75),
followed by Jayanti (108.5), whereas it was minimum in Sonall Tara (16.0),
Megami (18.57) and Viva (23.0). The maximum yield per plant was
obtained in the cv. Maghi (691.81 g), followed by Jayanti (149.0 g), Flirt
(131.68 g), Shyamal (131.40 g), Lilith (114.43 g) and Jaya (96.50 g). The
flower yield was minimum in Viva (18.5 g), Megami (24.72 g) and Sonall
Tara (29.33) (Tewari and Umashankar, 1990).
Laskar and Yadav (1991) studied the performance of 14 small
flowering chIysanthemum cultivars during 1986 to 1997 at Horticultural
Research Station, Mondouri, India, for plant growth characters and flower
yield. They found that the cultivars Basanti, Jubilee and Alison produced
the highest yield of 71, 63 and 60 lakh flowers per hectare, respectively.
Kanamadi and Patil (1993) evaluated eight dllysanthemum cultivars
in the transitional tract of Karnataka and reported that cv. Megami
recorded the highest flower yield (82.33 g / plant), while Shanthi was the
lowest (25.08 g / plant). Among the 15 genotypes of chtysanthemum
evaluated for their relative performance during kharif (monsoon) of 1990 at
Dharwad, Karnataka, C(v. Indira proved tobe the best for number of flowers
per plant (29.0) and flower yield (36.04 g / plant). But taking into account
the market preference for yellow flowers, Bangalore (31.11 g / plant)
followed by Karnool (29.60 g / plant) and Sarva! (29.32 g / plant) were
recommended (Bangidad and Patil, 1997).
18
In a chIysanthemum varieties performance trial for flower production
under Akola (Maharashtra) conditions, Damke et al. (1998) recorded the
highest flower yield per plant in cv. Tara (47.8 g) followed by Kirti (43.3 g).
Mishra (1999) reported the highest number of flowers per plant in cv.
Suneel.
Gaikwad and Dumbrepatil (2001) reported higher yield (35-40%) from
polyhouse grown chIysanthemum compared to open planting. The cultivar
Indira recorded maximum number of flowers per spray followed by Mutant
No.9.
Mukeshkumar and Chattopadhdyay (2002) evaluated chtysan
themum cultivars under sub-tropical humid climate of We~t Bengal. They
. found higher flower yields of 1855.02 g and 1663.07 gin cvs. Nanaku and
Kanhai, respectively as compared to other varieties.
Among the eight chtysanthemum cultivars assessed by Kl;mamadi
and Patil (1993) in the I transitional tract of Karnataka, cv. Indira recorded
the highest flower diameter of 7.56 cm, while cv. CO-2 recorded the lowest
diameter of 3.80 cm. Allman and Streitz (1995) assessed eleven
chtysanthemum cultivars for their ability, commercial quality and outdoor
pot production. These cultivars differed for various plant development
characters and flower diameter. Data recorded on shoot and spray length,
inflorescence diameter and number of inflorescence and buds showed that,
19
cv. Moonstone gave the best and most consistent results in terms of quality
and cv. Iris the poorest results (Przymeska, 1997).
Misbra (1999) reported that the biggest flower from cv. Shyamal's
blooms and the longest freshness retaining flowers from cv. Jayanti.
Among the chrysanthemum cultivars evaluated, cultivars lndira
followed by Mutant No.9 recorded good spray length and maximum flower
dian"leter (Gaikwad and Dumbrepatil, 2001).
2.2.3 Disease incidence
Blotch disease caused by Septaria chrysanthemella Sacco on
chrysanthemum was common and wide spread and has been reported from
Pusa, Bihar and Debra Dun, Uttar Pradesh (Pavgi and Upadhyay, 1966)
and Ludhiana, Punjab. The varieties Flirt, Gumti, Philips and SHG-3 were
resistant to blotch disease (Khara and Kaursatvinder, 1983).
sixty chrysanthemum cultivars were screened against leaf spot
disease caused by Septaria chrysanthemella and Alternaria sp. None of
them were free from disease. Ten were classed as resistant, 13 as
moderately resistant and the remaining 37 cultivars were moderate to
highly susceptible (Sen and Pathania, 1997).
The spring chrysanthemum cultivars Jushanbei, Jushan Huang and
Jushan Hong, the autumn cultivars Jaguar and Marvelousrose and winter
20
cultivar Beijing Huang were found highly resistant to the disease caused by
Puccinia horiana (Ding and Dungdin, 2001).
2.3 PINCHING AND GROWTH REGULATORS
2.3.1 Pinching
'2.3.1.1 Effect of pinching on vegetative parameters
Removal of terminal growing portion of stem reduced plant height
and promoted axillary branches and helped in breaking resetting
(Bubenheim and Lewis, 1986). Pinching of chrysanthemum cultivar CO-I
once in four weeks after planting promoted number of lateral branches,
besides reducing the plant height (Chezhiyan et al., 1986). On the
contrary, Yoo et ai, (1999) reported that pinching resulted in reduction in
number of shoots in chrysanthemum cv. Zawadski. Sen and Naik (1977)
reported increased leaf area by pinching.
Nutrient uptake (K, N, Ca, P and Mg) was higher in chrysanthemum
variety Cartago where pinching was practiced to produce plants with three
stems when compared to in Heredia variety where pinching was not done
(Gonzalet and Bartsch, 1989).
2.3.1.2 Effect of pinching dn reproductive parameters
Removal of terminal growing portion of stem delays flowering. Time
and severity of pinching depends on the type of chrysanthemum and
21
desired objectives. The time of last pinching influences blooming date
(Bubenheim and Lewis, 1986). Pinching reduced the growth cycle of cv.
Alba by 13 days (Ferrato et aI., 1996), delayed flowering by 9 to 27 days in
cluysanthemum cv. Zawadski (Yoo et al., 1999). On the contrary, Sen and
Naik (1977) and Bubenheium and Lewis (1986) reported that pinching
alone had no effect on days to flower.
Pinching increases number of flowers per plant and yield (Sen and
Naik, 1977). Pinching of cluysanthemum cv. CO-1 once four weeks after
planting is reported to increase number of flowers and yield (Chezhiyan
et al., 1986).
Trials conducted at the Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana
revealed that pinching twice 4 and 7 weeks after planting increased the
yield of cv. Shanti. Similarly, Kalyani Centre of Bidhan Chandra Krishi
Vishwa Vidyalaya in West Bengal reported improved flower yield in the cv.
Local Yellow when plants are pinched twice. It was reported from AICFIP
Centre at Pune, that the pinching of plants once four weeks after planting
in cultivar Zipri resulted in higher yield than in unpinched control (Khader
et al., 1995). On the contrary, Yoo et al. (1999) reported that pinching
results in reduction in number of flowers produced per plant in
cluysanthemum cv. Zawadski.
22
Ferrato et al. (1996) reported that pinching did not have any
significant effect on fresh weight, stalk length and inflorescence size of
chrysanthemum.
2.3.2 Growth promoters
2.3.2.1 Gibberelins
2.3.2.1.1 Effect of gibberelins on vegetative parameters
GA caused hyper elongation of stem and internodes and also
increased leaf area and petiole length. At higher levels of GA, there was
increase in dry matter percentage of leaf in chrysanthemum (Sen and
Maharana, 1972). GAs (100 ppm) application as spray increased the plant
height and N concentration in chrysanthemum cv. Forester plants
(Koreiesh et al., 1989). Holcomb et al. (1991) reported increased plant
height with GAs application (20 mg / 1) at fIrst, second or third weeks after
uniconazole treatment (0.1 mg as root drench) and no effect with GAs
when applied after four or fIve weeks.
Rajapaske and Kelly (1991) studied the response of chrysanthemum
cv. Bright Golden Anne plants to GAs under different situations and
reported that GAs application at 0.14 mM increased the plant height under
both control and CUS04 fliter, but the height increase under CUS04 fliter
was about 20 per cent greater than that under the control fliter.
23
Verma (1995) reported increased length of stem due to GA3 (100
ppm). GA3 spray at 200 ppm. spray on leaves once between the fIrst and
sixth weeks after light off. Stem and peduncle lengths were promoted by
spraying with GA3, but the most effective spraying time was different
between the two cultivars. In cv. Ha-Lei, GA3 three or four weeks after
light off increased stem length by 3 to 5 cm compared with controls, while
in (-,v. Chin-Sin-Hwang it increased the stem length by 4 to 5 cm when
applied at fIrst to fourth weeks after light off (Sheu et al., 1998).
Pot chIysanthemum cultivars Cassablanch White, Gander, Piecas,
Pink Elani, Orange Elani, Verla and Verla Rote were trained as standards
with or without application of gibrescol (gibberellic acid) at 500 mg per
litre, t..lrree times at weekly intervals. Gibrescol increased the stem length
by 19.5 to 22.1 per cent in all cultivars except Verla Rote where it had no
effect (Zalewska, 1998).
2.3.2.1.2. Effect of gibberellins on reproductive parameters
Flowering was accelerated by about 13 days by GA (50 ppm)
application in chrysanthemum (Sen and Maharana, 1972). Time for 50 per
cent flowering was hastened (17 to 21 days) by GA3 (100 and 200 ppm)
treatment compared with control (NagaIjuna et al.) 1988). GA3 application
resulted in early flowering and increased the duration of flowering in
chrysanthemum cv. CO-1 (Dutta et al., 1993). On the contrary, Zalewska
(1998) reported that gibrescol had no effect on duration of flowering.
24
Dutta et al. (1993) obtained the highest flower yield with G& at 150
ppm in chrysanthemum cv. CO-L G& (10 to 40 ppm) spray helped to
increase flower yield (Talukdar and Paswan, 1998). The percentage of
flowering plants increased significantly with the application of G& (100
PPln) and the number of flowers per plant was significantly increased in
GAJ treated plants over control (Farooqi et al., 1999).
Flower diameter was maximum (5.92 to 5.99 cm) with G& at 200
ppm (NagaIjuna et al., 1988). Holcomb et al. (1991) reported that G&
application (20 mg / 1) two or three weeks after uniconzaole treatment (0.1
mg as root drench) resulted in increased peduncle length and corrected the
undesirable clubby appearance resulting from uniconzaole treatment. The
foliar application of 100 ppm G& to chrysanthemum cultivars Shalla, C-5,
No.8, A-25, NH-8, Harvest Home, DJ-9, Anjela, Flirt, MM-7, Sharad Prabha
and Gomati increased the weight and diameter of flowers, the diameter of
the flower disc and vaselife (Dehale et al., 1993). Flowering quality (size
and stalk length) was improved by G& treatment (Dutta et al., 1-9,93). G&
(10 to 40 pprn) spray helped to increase flower size and shelf life (Talukdar
and Paswan, 1998). On the contrary, Zalewska (1998) reported that
giberscol had no effect on the diameter and girth of the head and the
diameter of inflorescences.
25
2.3.2.2 Brassino steroids
Brassino steroids (BRs) are a novel ubiquotuous group of 08turally
occurring polyphydoxy steroids. BRs were flrst isolated from the pollen of
rape (Brassica napus L.) by Mitchell et al. (1970).
BRs were f01md to evoke chracteristic biological activity termed as
'brassin activity' which includes elongation, curvature and swelJjng and
splitting of the treated internode in the bean second internode bioassay
(Mitchell et al., 1970) which was later attributed to its ability to i.!l-duce cell
enlargement and cell multiplication in the BR treated parts (Worley and
Mitchell, 1971).
Younger tissues are more responsive to BR than old tissues
suggesting that primary effect of BR on the growing region of We plant is
probably due to higher indigenous auxins or higher sensitivity of
meristematic tissues to BR (Mandava, 1988).
Mitchell et al. (1970) and Workley and Mitchell (1971) reported that
BRs application to bean causes cell enlargement, cell division, stem
elongation, splitting and stem morphogenesis.
Treatment of Brassica . c'hinensis stems and hypocoty1s with BRs
resulted in elongation with little or no change in the mechanical properties
26
of cell walls, but with an increase in cell wall relaxation properties and a
passive dilution of osmotic pressure of the cell sap (Wang et al., 1993).
Krizek and Mandava (1983 a & b) reported that application of BRs to
beans resulted in enhanced chlorophyll and assimilation in bean seedlings
which suggests a possible mobilization role of BR and importance of
photosynthetic photons flux density in swelling and splitting of treated
part. Bean seedlings treated with BRs results in overall growth including
roots (Gregory, 1981 and Mitchell and Gregory, 1972). Bean plants tissues
treated with BRs had increased RNA and .DNA polymerase activities
suggesting the involvement in transcription and replication during tissue
growth (Cerana et aI., 1983 and Kalinch et al., 1985).
Arteca et al. (1983); Burg (1973); Katsumi (1985); Takeno and Pharis
(1982) and Yopp et al. (1981) treated beans and cucumber epicotyl and
hypocotyl hooks with BRs· and noted internodal elongation, stem elongation
and ethylene synthesis and they attributed to a powerful BR-JAA
synergism.
BRs in beans etiolated segments possibly stimulates AlC syntheses
and ethylene production (Kaufman et al., 1982; Schlagnhaufer et al., 1984
and Yoshi and Irnaseki, 1981). Foliar spray of BRs to beans resulted in cell
enlargement and cell division which is chracteristic responses of
gibberellins and cytokinins, respectively (Worley and Mitchell, 1971).
27
Epicotyl, hypocotyl hooks of beans and peas treated with BRs results
in elongation responses specific to either IAA or GA (Mandava et al., 1981).
BRs promotes ethylene and / or 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid
synthase directly or indirectly via BR-IAA synergism or cytokinin BR
interaction in epicotyl and hypocotyl hooks etiolated segments of beans
(Arteca et al., 1983; Burg, 1973; Schlagnhaufer et al., 1984; Takeno and
Pharis, 1982; Yopp et al., 1981 and Yoshi and Imeseki, 1981).
Foliar spray of BRs in potatoes, pepper, bush beans, lettuce and
tomatoes hastened maturation, increased fresh weights and yields (Meudt
et al., 1983 and Nunez et al., 1995). Foliar spray of BRs results in
increased yield and helped in overcoming environmental stress in fruits and
vegetables (Mandava, 1988).
Application of BRs at 5 ppm in rose plants pruned to 25 cm and 45
cm resulted in increased plant spread. Relatively higher number of basal
canes were obtained in plants pruned to 45 em and sprayed with)3Rs at 5
and 10 ppm. Shoot length, shoot girth, internodal length and pedicel girth
were enhanced by BRs at 5 ppm in plants pruned to 45 em. Early
flowering was induced by BRs at 5 ppm at all the levels of pruning. Floral
attributes viz., bud length, diameter, number of petals, petal length and
width were magnified by BRs at 5 ppm on plants pruned to 45 em. The
28
yield of marketable flowers was higher in plants pruned to 45 cm and
sprayed with BRs at 5 ppm (Dias, 1998).
2.3.3
2.3.3.1
Growth retardants
Paclobutrazol
2.3.3.1.1 Effect of pac1obutrazol on vegetative parameters
Pac1obutrazol (Cultar) at 50 ppm reduced the plant height during
early stages of plant growth compared with untreated control in
chrysanthemunl cv. Jantar (Rounkova, 1989). Barret and Nell (1990)
studied the effects of pac1obutrazol and uniconazole on chrysanthemum
and repOlted that incr~asing concentrations of both pac1obutrazol and
uniconazole resulted in increased reduction in stem elongation.
Uniconazole was more effective than pac1obutrazol.
In a greenhouse trial, potted chrysanthemum plants (cvs. Yellow
Marble, White Marble and Purple Marble) were treated with pac1obutrazol
either as a single root drench (0.12 to 0.60 ppm ai.) or as one or two foliar
sprays (25 to 200 ppm ai.). With the foliar spray, plant height decreased
with increasing pac1obutrazol concentrations, but with the root drench
treatments plant height increased slightly with increasing concentrations
in all three cultivars. The best results were obtained with single spray of
100 ppm paclobutrazol one month after potting (Lozoya, 1994).
Pac1obutrazol at 100 and 175 ppm spray to chrysanthemum cultivars was
29
most effective in reducing plant height, number of leaves, leaf area, number
of intemodes and length of internodes and in producing more compact
plants (Yewale et al., 1998).
Potted plants of four chrysanthemum cultivars were treated with
pac1obutrazol at 1 to 32 mg ai. per pot one weak after the last pinching.
Plants treated with 8 mg per pot showed marked inhibition of stem growth.
The inhibitory effects varied with the cultivar. Cultivars Ziyusongye and
Daziqiu were sensitive, whereas no effect was observed in cv.
Chunshuilubo. After treatment with pac1obutrazol, the reducing sugars,
soluble sugar and starch contents of the leaves decreased, while P, K, Ca,
Mg, Mn, Cu, Fe, AI, Sr and Pb contents increased (Gao et al., 1991).
Robert and Mathews (1995) reported that, plantlets of
chrysanthemum C'V. Pennine Reel treated with pac1obutrazol or enantiomer
25, 35 had significantly shorter stems, smaller leaves, lower shoot FW : DW
ratios, more wax per unit leaf area, smaller stomatal aperatures and
shorter, thicker roots than controls.
Pac1obutrazol application in chrysanthemum cv. Lilian Hock as soil
drench (50 ml containing 5 mg ai.) resulted in thick leaves, reduced stem
diameter and roots with an increased diameter and segmented appearance.
Increased leaf thicknes~ was partly due to additional layer of palisade
mesophyll, although individual palisade cells· were shorter and of smaller
diameter and more tightly packed. The narrower stems had an increased
30
development of secondary xylems, but had a marked reduction in the
number of scleronchyma bundle caps. Increased root diameter was due to
an i..'1crease in the number of rows and diameter of cortical cells (Burrows
et al., 1992).
Paclobutrazol (PP) 333 at 1000 ppm effectively inhibited growth in
chrysanthemum and their effect varied with the number of sprays. Treated
plants were shorter and greener as compared to control plants. B-9 also
inhibited growth, but its effect was significantly lesser than that of PP 333
(Qiu and Liu, 1989), whereas Zalewska (1989) reported that daminozide
(0.25%) had greatest effect in reducing plant height in chrysanthemum
than paclobutrazol at the same concentration.
2.3.3.1.2 Effect of paclobutrazol on reproductive parameters
Qiu and Liu (1989) obtained delayed flowering and increased
flowering period in chrysanthemum by application of paclobutrazol and
B-9. Paclobutrazol treatments (25-100 ppm) delayed the flowering in
chrysanthemum cvs. Raja, Beauty, Miss Rojar Thompson and Shefali.
Flowering delayed increasingly as the paclobutrazol concentration
increased (Yewale et aI., 1997). Application of 15 or 30 mg uniconazole or
30 or 60 mg paclobutrazol per litre (20 ml / 1.5 litre pot) as spray at 0, 2
or 4 weeks after pinching of chrysanthemum cv. Bright Golden Anne
resulted in an increased flowering duration. Plants were more responsive
to unicanazole treatment and early applications (Gilbertz, 1992). Growth
31
was retarded and flowering was delayed in duysanthemum cultivar White
Stafour and Bronze Mandial with increase in pac1obutrazol concentrations
(Singh et al., 1999).
Singh et ale (1999) obtained more number of flowers over the control
in cv. White Stafour with foliar application of 10 and 20 ppm pac1obutrazol
and in Bronze Mandial with 20 and 40 ppm.
Pac1obutrazol at 2.5, 5.0 or 10 m1 per litre and chlormequat at 2.0 g
per litre increased the flower diameter (Ripka and Szanto, 1988). On the
contrmy, Gilbertz (1992) reported that uniconazole (15 or 30 mg / 1) and
pac1obutrazol (20 m1 / 1.5 litre pot) application did not affect the flower
diameter in chIysanthemum cv. Bright Golden Anne.
2.3.3.2 Mepiquat chloride
2.3.3.2.1 Effect of mepiquat chloride OD vegetative parameters
Madalageri and Ganiger (1993) reported decreased height of the
potato plants due to application of mepiquat chloride (150 ppm). Similar
reduction in plant height by mepiquat chloride application was also
reported by Gasti (1994) in vegetable crops. There was a reduction in plant
height (11.4, 18.5 and 23.8% at 45, 60 and 75 DAP, respectively) due to
growth retardant mepiquat chloride spray at 600 and 800 ppm as against
unsprayed control in TPS genotype HPS 1/13 (Madalageri, 1996).
32
Mepiquat chloride (1000 ppm) reduced the plant height of potato (Prakash,
1998).
Application of mepiquat chloride at 150 ppm increased the number
of tillers per plant in potato (Gasti, 1994). Similar increase in number of
tillers per plant was reported by Prakash (1998).
Madalageri and Ganiger (1993) found increased leaf area and leaf
area index in potato with mepiquat chloride (150 ppm). In contrast,
Madalageri (1996) reported decrease in leaf area with growth retardants as
compared to control n: true potato seed variety HPS 1/13. Similarly,
Prakash (1998) reported decreased leaf area with mepiquat chloride at 500
ppm and 1000 ppm levels.
Report of Prakash (1998) indicated that there was an increase in
steIn thiclmess of the ·potato plants treated with mepiquat chloride (1000
ppm).
2.3.3.2.2 Effect of mepiquat chloride on reproductive parameters
Madalageri (1996) observed an improvement in the net assimilation
rate (8.3%) and harvest index (24.1%) by spraying with growth retardant
mepiquat chlO1ide as against unsprayed control in TPS genotype HPS 1/13
at 30 days after transplanting.
According to Hassan et al. (1989), mepiquat chloride application (250 ,
ppm) resulted in the highest number of potato tubers per plant when
33
applied at 45 days after planting. Mepiquat chloride at 175 ppm registered
significantly higher number of tubers per hill (11.45) while, the lowest
number (7.76) was in untreated control (Gasti, 1994). Prakash (1998)
observed an improvement in the potato tuber yield (t/ha) by spraying
mepiquat chloride at 1000 ppm.
Further, Hassan et al. (1989) observed the highest number of large,
medium and small sized tub~rs per plant with mepiquat chloride (250 ppm)
application at 45, 66 and 87 DAP, respectively. Gasti (1994) reported the
maximum yield of 27.17 t ha-1 of tubers with mepiquat chloride treatment
(175 ppm). Madalageri (1~96) reported 25.8 per cent higher yield with
mepiquat chloride @ 600 ppm application at 30 DAT in TPS genotype HPS
1/13 as compared to unsprayed check.
Ganiger (1992) reported an increase in photosynthetic pigrilents
(chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b and total) with mepiquat chloride spraying on
seed tuber planted potato over unsprayed control. Similar results were
reported by Gasti (1994) and Prakash (1998).
2.4 POST HARVEST PHYSIOLOGY
2.4.1 Water relations
Water is an important component of the cut flower and it's loss
without replenishment causes the flower to wilt and droop (Aarts, 1957a
and Siegelman, 1952). Hence, the maintenance of a favourable water
34
status in the cut 110wers is of prime importance in determining post-harvest
longevity. The reduction in water uptake coupled with, continuous
transpiration, leads to water deficit and reduces turgidity in the cut flowers
(Burdett, 1970). Spraying jasmine flowers with water before packaging
reduced the PLW and helped in maintaining the higher freshness for a
longer period (Nirmala and Reddy, 1994).
2.4.2 Importance of sugars
Sucrose as an ingredient in floral preservatives is a prime pre
requisite and serves as an energy source for the respiring cut flowers.
Sucrose in holding solutions, suppresses the amount of solution
absorption, but improves water balance of the cut flowers and helps in
sustaining freshness of cut flowers ( Aarts, 1957 a and b and Halevy and
Mayak, 1974).
Exogenously supplied sugars play an important role in maintaining
substrate levels thus, promoting respiration in senescing Velvet Times rose
petals (Coorts, 1973 and Nichols, 1973). However, Kaltaler and Steponkus
(1976) contended that a decline in respiration of Forever Yours rose petals
was not due to substrate limitations, but to the inability of mitochondria to
utilize the substrate. FUrthermore, they concluded that the main effect of
applied sugars in extending the longevity of cut rose petals was by
maintaining mitochondrial integrity and function. Sucrose has shown anti-
35
desiccant property in cut flower keeping studies, with the principal
mechanism being partial closure of the stomata (Rogers, 1973).
One of the main effects of applied sugars on flower longevity was
attributed to their role in osmotic adjustment of the cut flowers (Halevy and
Mayak, 1981). Jasmine flowers sprayed with sucrose before packing
maintained higher freshness for a longer time with reduced PLW (Nirmala
and Reddy, 1994).
2.4.3 Growth regulators
It has generally been acc~pted that many plant processes including
senescence, are controlled through a balance between plant hormones
interacting with each other and with other internal factors (Mayak and
Halevy, 1980).
An external application of cytokinins delays senescence in rose
(Mayak and Halevy, 1970) and carnations (Heide and Oydvin, 1969). The
cytokinins delay processes assoc:iated with flower senescence and thus
maintain the integrity of the cell (Mayak and Halvey, 1974) they also
decrease sensitivity of the plant tissue to ethylene.
Suh and Kwack (1994) studied the effects of BA and / or GA spray
tretments (each at 50 mg / 1) after harvesting on leaf yellowing of
chrysanthemum cultivars Seolpoong and Baekyang. In colour analysis 14 I
days after treatment, extents of yellowness (b) and lightness (1) in control
•
36
and GA treatments were ,generally greater than those of either BA or BA +
GA treatments which retained their leaf colour throughout the dry storage.
The gibberellic acid extended the longevity of carnations (Garrod and
Harris, 1978). GA3 (1 to 5 ppm) delayed the leaf yellowing in
chIysanthemum flower stems (Hont, 1991) .
lvlA TERrAL AND lvlETflc9DS
III. MATERIAL AND METHODS
The present investigations were carried out at a farmer's field near
K.R.C.College of Horticulture (University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad),
Arabhavi, Gokak TaJuk, Belgaum District during the years 2000 and 2001.
Details of material used, techniques adopted and observations recorded
during the course of study are furnished in this chapter.
3.1 GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION OF THE EXPERIMENTAL SITE
Arabhavi is situated in northern dIy tract of Karnataka at 160 15' North
latitude and 94045' East longitude at an altitude of 612 m above mean sea
level.
3.2 CLIMATE
Arabhavi lies in the zone-3 of the region-2 of agro-climatic zone of
Karnataka. The average rainfall of the area is about 530 mm distributed over
a period. of· six to seven months (May to November) with prominent peaks
during June to October. The mean minimum temperature during the period
of experimentation ranged from 12.27°C to 24.48°C in 2000 and from 17.12°C
to 25.52°C in 2001. The mean maximum temperature during the same
periods ranged from 27.29°C to 34.30°C in 2000 and 24.42°C to 35.45°C in
2001. The mean relative humidity ranged from 53.54 per cent to 79.15 per I
cent in 2000 and from 54.27 per cent to 80.30 per cent in 2001. The highest
38
rainfall during the period of experimentation in 2000 was 226.10 mm in
Septelnber followed by 166.80 mm in October. The highest rainfall during the
second year of experimentation (2001) was 153.30 nun in September 2001
followed by 106.70 rom in October 2001. The meteorological data was
recorded from the meteorological observatory of Agricultural Research
Station, Arabhavi, ·three kilometers from the experimental site (Appendix-I).
3.3 SOIL CHARACTERISTICS
The experiment was conducted on red sandy loam soil. Soil samples
were collected from each replication and the composite samples were used for
analysis of pH and available NPK status of soil. The data of which is
presented in Appen<iLx 2.
3.4 EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS
Four experiments were conducted during the course of study viz.,
i) Effect of dates of planting on growth and flowering of
chrysanthemum cv. Saraval.
ti) Evaluation of genotypes of Dendranthema indicum.
iii) Effect of growth regulators on growth and flowering of
chrysanthemum cv. Karnool.
iv) Effect of post-harvest spray of growth regulators on shelf life of
chrysanthemum flowers.
PIa18A
Plate B
1. General view of experimental plot (plate A - Farmer, plate B - Researcher)
39 3.4.1 EXPERIMENT - I
EFFECT OF DATES OF PLANTING ON GROWTH AND FLOWERING OF CHRYSANTHEMUM cv. SARAVAL
TIle experiment was carried out by planting 30 days old rooted cuttings
of cv. Saraval in the fIrst week of every month at monthly intervals from April
2000 to December 2000. The crop was raised and maintained by following
recommended package and'practices (Anonymous, 2002).
Experimental details (Planting time):
Design Randomised Block Design
Replications Three
Treatments Nine
Spacing 30x30 cm
Treatment details:
April D4 : July D7 : ,October
'May Ds : August DB : November
June D6 : September D9 : December
3.4.2 EXPERIMENT-II
EVALUATION OF GENOTYPES OF Dendranthema indicum
This experiment was carried out by planting uniform suckers in the
fIrst week of May 2000 and 2001. The crop was raised by following
recommended package of practices (Anonymous, 2002).
Experimental details:
Design
Replications
Treatments
Spacing
Randomised Block Design
Three
Seventeen
30x30 cm
Treatment details (genotypes)
S1. No. Name of the genotype Color
1 Lohin Green White with pinkish tip
2 Nanako Yellow
3 Baggi White
4 Mutant No.9 Yellow
5 Pink Cascade Pink
6 Spray Purple Purple
7 Selection-5 Pink
8 Harvest Home R~d (Pink)
9 Sonali Tara Yellow
10 Saraval Y~llow
11 Karnool Yellow
12 Raja White
13 Mattur Yellow
14 Bangalore Yellow
15 Chandrika White
16 Vasantika Yellow
17 Kirti White
40
41 3.4.3 EXPERIMENT-III
EFFECT OF GROWTH REGULATORS ON GROWTH AND FLOWERING OF CHRYSANTHEMUM ev. KARNOOL
Based on the results of previo~s experiments conducted at various
places and the approaches suggested to improve plant productivity, the
following treatments were imposed to identify a superior strategy viz., growth
regulators + pinching practice in order to increase the production and
regulate the flowering of the chrysanthemum crop.
This experiment was carried out by planting uniform suckers in the
first week of April 2000 and 2001. The plants were pinched one month after
planting and sprayed with gibberellic acid (GA) , pac1obutrazol,
mepiquatchloride and brassinosteroid (BR) at different concentrations.
The crop was raised and maintained by following recommended
package and practices (Anonymous, 2002).
Experimental details
Design Randomised Block Design
Replications Three
Treatments Sixteen
Spacing 30x30 cm
Treatment detans:
S1.No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
The treatment details are as below:
Treatm~nt
Pinching
Pinching + GA 50 ppm
Pinching + GA 100 ppm
Pinching + GA 200 ppm
Pinching + Paclobutrazo150 ppm
Pinching + Paclobutrazol 100 ppm
Pinching + Paclobutrazo1200 ppm
Pinching + Paclobutrazol 400 ppm
Pinching + Mepiquatchloride 250 ppm
Pinching + Mepiquatchloride 500 ppm
Pinching + Mepiquatchloride 750 ppm
Pinching + Brassinosteroid 0.25 ppm
Pinching + Brassinosteroid 0.50 ppm
Pinching + Brassinosteroid 0.75 ppm
Pinching + Bras sino steroid 1.50 ppm
Control (No pinching, no spray)
42
43
3.4.4 EXPERIMENT - IV
EFFECT OF POST-HARVEST SPRAY OF GROWTH REGULATORS ON SHELF LIFE OF CHRYSANTHEMUM
This study was conducted in the -laboratory of the Department of
Floriculture and Landscape Gardening, K.R.C.College of Horticulture,
Arabhavi in the month of September, 200 1. Fully developed loose flowers of
Dendranthema indicum cv. Kamool were given a drenching spray with water
or sucrose (2%»), or growth regulators (GA, BA, pac1obutrazol) or in
combinations and placed in a plate and stored at room temperature.
Observations were recorded daily for physiological loss in weight (PLW).
Experimental details:
Design Completely Randomised Design
Replications Three
Treatments Fifteen
Sample size 250 g
Treatment detaUs :
1 Spraying with GA 50 ppm
2 Spraying with GA 100 ppm
3 Spraying with BA 25 ppm
4 Spraying with BA 50 ppm
5 Spraying with Pac1obutrazol 25 ppm
6 Spraying with Pac1obutrazol 50 ppm
44
7 Spraying with Sucrose (2%)
8 Spraying with Sucrose (2%) + GA (50 ppm)
9 Spraying with Sucrose (2%) + GA (100 ppm)
10 Spraying with Sucrose (20/0) +-BA (25 ppm)
11 Spraying with Sucrose (2%) + BA (50 ppm)
12 Spraying with Sucrose (2%) + Pac1obutrazol (25 ppm)
13 Spraying with Sucrose (2%) + Pac1obutrazol (50 ppm)
14 Spraying with Water
15 ContTol (No spray)
3.5 VARIETAL SOURCE I EXPERIMENTAL MATERIAL
The genotypes of Dendranthema indicum were collected from the
farmers field of Lakkundi village (Gadag District, Karnataka) and from All
India Co-ordinated Floriculture Improvement Project Centre, Pune.
3.6 PREPARATION OF EXPERIMENTAL PLOTS
The land was brought to a good tilth by ploughing and harrowing. A
spacing of 0.5 m between two replications and 0.3 m between two plots was
provided for laying out of irrigation channels and bunds, respectively. The
experirrlenta1land was divided into plots of measuring 2.1 m x 1.8 m.
45
3.7 PLANTING
Uniform planting material (suckers / rooted cuttings) was dipped in a
solution of carbendazim (0.1%) as a preventive measure for wilt and other soil
bome diseases and was planted with a spacing of 30 cm x 30 cm. There were
seven rows each having 6 plants and totally 42 plants per plot. Light
irrigation was given immediately after planting.
3.8 FERTILIZER APPLICATION
Nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium were applied in the form of urea, !
single super phosphate and hluriate of potash at the rate of 100, 150 and 100
kg per hectare, respectively (Anonymous, 2002). At the time of planting, half
the dose of nitrogen and full doses of phosphorus and potassium were applied
in a circular band of about 3 to 4 cm around each plant and the crop was top
dressed with. remaining half dose nitrogen at 30 days of planting.
3.9 WEEDING AND IRRIGATION
The plots were kept free from weeds by periodical hand weeding.
Irrigations were given at an interval of 5-7 days throughout the period of
experimentation depending on the soil moisture status and climatic
conditions.
46
3.10 PLANT PROTECTION
Timely and suitable plant protection measures (Anonymous, 2002) were
taken up to protect the experimental crop from the attack of pests and
diseases.
3.11 COLLECTION OF EXPERIMENTAL DATA
The data were collected on various parameters of vegetative, flowering
and flower yield from the five randomly tagged plants in each plot.
3.11.1 Vegetative characters
3.11.1.1 Height of plant
The plant height was measured from the base to the growing tip of the
plant at 30, 60, 90,120 days after planting and at the time of last harvest
from the tagged plants and average was worked out and expressed in
centimeters.
3.11.1.2 Number of leaves per plant
Number of leaves produced per plant was recorded by counting the
number of leaves at 30, 60, 90, 120 days after planting and at the time of last
harvest from tagged plants and average number of leaves per plant was
worked out.
47
3.11.1.3 Girth of plant stem
Stem girth at grand growth stage was measured at the collar region by
using vernier calliper and expressed in centimeters.
3.11.1.4 Spread of plant
It was measured at grand growth stage by recording and multiplying
the diameter of North-South and East-West directions of tagged plants and
expressed in centimeters.
3.11.1.5 Leaf area per plant
The leaf area (cm2) was estimated using LICOR portable leaf area meter
at grand growth stage. This was recorded by taking 25 leaves evenly from the
bottom, nliddle and top portion of the plant.
3.11.1.6 Number of primary and secondary branches per plant
The number of main branches arising from the main stem as the
primary branches and the branches arising from the primaries as the
secondaty branch were counted and recorded and the averages were worked
out.
48
3.11.1. 7 Dry weight of plant
Total dIy matter production was determined for vegetative parts
(leaves + stem + root) at [mal stage of crop growth. Three randomly selected
plants were uprooted and oven dried at 600 C till they attained constant
weight. Dry matter production was recorded and expressed in grams.
3.11.1.8 Sucker production
The number of suckers arising from the root was counted at the time of
[mal harvest.
3.11.2 Flowering and flower yield
Flowering characters like time taken for first flower bud initiation, for
fIrst flowering, for flfty per cent flowering and duration of flowering and flower
yield characters such as number of flowers per plant, flower yield per plant
and flower yield per hectare were recorded.
3.11.2.1 Time taken for rust flower bud initiation
This was recorded by counting the days from the date of planting to the
stage at which fIrst flower bud was formed. . This was recorded from the
tagged plants and average was worked out.
49 3.11.2.2 Time taken for first flowering
This was recorded by counting the number of days from the date of
planting to the stage at which the fIrst flower bloomed in each plot. This was
recorded from the tagged five plants and average was worked out.
3.11.2.3 Time taken for fifty per cent flowering
The number of days taken for 50 per cent of the plants to produce fIrst
flower in each plot was recorded by counting the days from the date of
planting.
3.11.2.4 Duration of flowering
Number of days taken from the fIrst flowering to the last flowering was
recorded as the total duration of flowering in each treatment. This was
observed in tagged plants.
3.11.2.5 Number of flowers per plant
Number of flowers produced from the tagged plants was recorded and
the average number of flowers produced per plant was worked out.
3.11.2.6 Flower yield per plant (g)
From the tagged plants, yield per plant was worked out by recording
weight of flowers at each harvest and the mean value per plant was worked
out and expressed in grams.
50 3.11.2.7 Flower yield per hectare ( t I hal
This was worked out by totalling the weight of the flowers harvested
from net plots.
3.11.3 Flower quality parameters
Ten marketable flowers from each experimental plot were randomly
selected for recording the following observations.
3.11.3.1 Average weight of fresh flower
Ten flowers were selected randomly at full bloom stage and weight of
these flowers was recorded and the average weight of flower was worked out
and expressed in grams (g).
3.11.3.2 Length of stalk
The length of the flower stalk was taken from the origin of the stalk to
the neck of the flower on the main stem at the bottom, middle and top of the
plant and expressed in centimeters (cm).
3.11.3.3 Peduncle length
The peduncle length was recorded and the average value was worked
out and expressed in centimeters (cm).
51 3.11.3.4 Diameter of flowers
Diarneter of the flower was measured at the point of maximum breadth.
This was measured by using vernier calliper and average diameter in
centimeters was worked out.
3.11.3.5 Shelf life
Fresh flowers initially weighing 250 g each were kept open on the paper
plates at room temperature for the study. This was continued until the
flowers lost their visual mar-ketable value.
3.11.3.6 Physiological loss in weight
Flowers were weighed daily and the consecutive difference in weights
represents the weight loss from the flower and expressed in percentage.
3.11.3.7 Per cent fresh flowers
The flowers were observed for their freshness. Wilting of .pne or two
petals was taken as the end of shelf life and remaining fresh flowers were
counted and expressed in percentage.
3.11.4 Chemical analysis
Chlorophyll content in leaf: Chlorophyll content of leaf was analysed
by collecting the healthy, fully opened and matured leaves from the centre
portion of the plants at peak growth stage. Chlorophyll 'a', chlorophyll 'b' and
52
total chlorophyll contents of leaf tissue were determined by non destructive
method of chlorophyll estimation using dimethyl sulfoxide (DMS) as suggested
by Shoaf and Lium (1976).
Fresh and fully matured leaves from the plant were brought in
polyethylene bags from the field and were cut into small pieces. Known
weight of sample (100 mg) was incubated in 7.0 m1 of DMS at 650 C for 60
minutes. After the incubation, supernatant was collected after decanting.
Then the volume of the supernatant was made upto 10 m1 using DMS.
The absorbance of the extract was measured at 645 nm and 663 nm
using DMS as blank in spectrophotometer.
The chlorophyll 'a' and chlorophyll 'h' and total chlorophyll contents
were calculated by using the following formulae:
Chlorophyll 'a'
Chlorophyll 'h'
Total Chlorophyll (mg /g fresh weight)
Wherein,
= 12.7 (A 663)- (2.69 x A 645)
= 22.9 (A 645)- (4.68 x A 663)
= 22.9 (A 645)- (4.68 x A 663)
v --- - x W 1000
v ---- ._. x W 1000
V --- ._. x W 1000
A = V = W =
A =
Absorbance at specific wavelengths (645 nm and 663 nm)
Volume of the extract (10 ml)
Fresh weight of the sample (100 mg) I
Path length of light in cuvette (1 cm)
xa
53
3.11.5 Incidence of Alternaria disease
Screening of different chrysanthemum genotypes against the Alternaria
disease was undertaken to fmd out resistant sources, if any. The disease
intensity was recorded using 0 to 5 point disease rating scale. The
observations on severity of disease was recorded from randomly selected
plants in each genotype. This was done for the frrst season crop.
Observations and grading
Observations on the intensity of disease was recorded from the
randomly selected leaves from each of the five randomly selected plants from
each cultivar and graded as per 0 to 5 scale (Kotasthane and Agarwal, 1976).
Scale: 0-5
o Leaves free from infection
1 Up to 5 per cent of leaf area affected
2 6 to 20 per cent of leaf area affected
3 21 to 40 per cent of leaf area affected
4 41 to '70 per cent leaf area affected
5 71 per cent and above leaf area affected
'The per cent disease index was calculated by using the following formula
PDI= Sum of all rating X 100
Tot.'ll nmnber of leaves observed x maximum class rating
54
To assess the degree of susceptibility or resistance in chrysanthemum
genotypes, the following disease rating and varietal reaction table was used
(Deshapande et al., 1979).
Disease rating
0-5 per cent infection
6-15 per cent infection
16-35 per cent infection
36-55 per cent infection
56 per cent and above
3.12 Statistical analysis
Varietal reaction
Resistant ( R )
Moderately resistant (MR)
Moderately susceptible (MS)
Susceptible (S)
Highly susceptible (HS)
Statistical analysis of data was carried out by following the Fisher's
analysis of variance technique as given by Panse and Sukhatme (1967) for
randomised completely block design. The level of significance employed for 'F'
and 't' test was P=O.05.
EXPERIMENT A L RESULTS
IV. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
The results of the three field experiments carried out to achieve the
objectives of the experimentation are presented in this chapter. The results
of second and third experiments are presented on the basis of the pooled
data of the two years of the experimentation. The data pertaining to the
first year (2000) and second year (2001) of the experimentation are
furnished in Appendices.
4.1 EXPERIMENT-I
EFFECT OF DATES OF PLANTING ON THE PERFORMANCE OF CHRYSANTHEMUM ev. SARAVAL
4.1.1 Vegetative characters
The data pertaining to vegetative characters are presented in Table-1
to 3.
4.1.1.1 Plant height
The data on the plant height as affected by dates of planting are
presented in Table 1. ' Planting of chrysanthemum on different dates
resulted in significant differences in plant height at all the stages of the
crop growth.
At 30 days: In general, the plant height as affected by dates of planting
gradually decreased right from April planting to December planting. Early
56
planting resulted in taller plants (41.71 cm) when compared to other dates
of planting, whereas planting in later months resulted in reduction in plant
height. The plants of December recorded the least plant height (16.82 cm).
At 60 days: The plant height as recorded at 60 DAP was also higher in the
early plantings as compared to later plantings. The plant height was
maximum (54.29 cm) in plants of April planting and it was least (19.53 cm)
in plants of December planting.
At 90 days: June planting recorded the highest plant height (65.90 cm),
whereas December planting recorded the lowest plant height (19.53 cm).
April (61.06 cm) and May (60.14 cm) plantings were statistically on par with
June planting, while November planting (22.13 em) was on par with
December planting.
At 120 days: The plants planted in April were the tallest ones (72.48 cm)
however, these were at par with May and June planted plants (71.69 cm
and 70.24 cm, respectively). Plants of December and November planting
were dwarf and recorded 19.53 cm and 22.13 cm plant height,
respectively.
At harvest: The plant height which was maximum (73.54 cm) in April
planting decreased to minimum (19.53 em) in December planting. April
planting was at par with May (73.44 cm) and June (70.24 cm) plantings,
I
57
Table 1. Influence of dates of planting on plant height during the growing period of chrysanthemum cv. Saraval
Treatment Plant height (cm) at different days of plant growth
(month of 30 60 90 120 At last planting) harvest
April 41.71 54.29 61.06 72.48 73.54
May 34.03 48.23 60.14 71.69 73.44
June 32.06 52.38 65.90 70.24 70.24
July 30.93 50.13 56.24 58.87 58.87
August , 30.13 39.93 45.57 45.57 45.57
September I 26.12 30.13 33.20 33.20 33.20
October I
27.27 32.60 i 32.60 32.60 32.60
November I 17.94 21.96 22.13 22.13 22.13
December I 16.82 19.53 19.53 19.53 19.53
SEnti
I
1.24 1.32 2.00 1.73 1.89
CD at 5% 3.71 3.95 5.98 5.19 5.68
:( o l'l o g o 2 o :;! a
I ... 0
" -8 &.
i CII c ~ 0 .... '" CII
I .J:. ... a c 'I:
.. ._. '~':;: --~
) - _' __ ;-- -: .. . ~- - _..::.
:::I-
i " ~ 1: I! .. .5!'~
c: .! :> .. c: C <>
~ a. .!! E - 0.:::1
:I 0 c E iO o G> c: a: 0 :e c c
E ::I t .!!~
o..J:. OS <> VI 1l
1 ... " OS CII <> c: III
j; :::I ::Ii ~
.... co u::
5! o
----
58
while plants of December which were small were at par with November
planting (22.13 cm).
4.1.1.2 Plant spread
Planting of chtysanthemum on different dates resulted in significant
differences with respect to plant spread at grand growth stage (Table 2).
In general, plant spread as affected by different dates of planting
gradually decreased right from April planting to December planting.
Planting of chrysanthemum in April resulted in higher plant spread
(1617.35 cm2) when compared to other dates of planting, whereas planting
in later months resulted in reduction in plant spread. Mter April planting,
May planting was next in the order for increased plant spread
(1307.37 cm2). The plants of December recorded the least plant spread
(486.22 cm2) and was at par with October (566.73 cm2) , September
(579.23 cm2) , November (587.50 cm2) , August (616.29 cm2) and July
(647,,35 cm2) plantings.
4.1.1..3 Number of primary branches
The data indicated significant differences with respect to number of
primary branches p:r~oduced per plant due to different dates of planting at
grand growth stage (Table 2). Significantly higher number of primaty
branches per plant was recorded in April and May planted plants (16.93
and 16.27, respectively) as compared to other planting dates. The
59
reduction was noticed upto December planting which recorded 1.93
number of primary branches per plant. December planting was at par with
November (3.07), October (3.47) and September (5.13) plantings for number
of primary branches produced per plant.
4.1.1.4 Number of secondary branches
Significantly higher number of secondary branches per plant (30.2)
was recorded in April planted plants when compared to other dates of
planting at grand growth stage (Table 2). In later months, there was
reduction in number of secondary branches produced per plant. These
decreased right upto December planting which recorded 4.73 number of
secondazy branches per plant. Mter April planting, May planting was next
in the order for increased production of secondary branches per plant
(25.27). December planting was at par with November (5.47) and October
(7.13) plantings for number of secondary branches produced per plant.
4.1.1.5 Stem girth
The plant stem girth varied significantly due to planting of
cluysanthemum on different dates .of planting at grand growth stage of
the crop (Table 2).
May followed by April plantings resulted in increased stem girth (1.4
cm and 1.39 cm, respectively), whereas planting in later months resulted
in reduction in stem girth. The plants of July recorded the least stem girth
60
Table 2. Influence of dates of planting on plant spread, number of primary branches, number of secondary branches and stem girth at grand growth stage and number of suckers per plant at final harvest stage of chrysanthemum cv. Saraval.
Treatment Plant No. of No. of Stem No. of (month of spread primary secondary girth suckers / planting) (cm2) branches/ branches/ (cm) plant
plant plant
April 1617.35 16.93 30.20 1.39 11.40
May 1307.37 16.27 25.27 1.40 9.67
June 895.00 13.20 20.13 1.19 8.00
July 647.35 10.33 16.40 0.98 8.20
August 616.29 6.47 10.67 0.99 6.53
September 579.23 5.13 9.80 1.02 5.20
October 566.73 3.47 7.13 1.00 4.93
November 587.50 3.07 5.47 1.04 3.73
December 486.22 1.93 4.73 0.99 2.13
SEmt 101.46 1.22 1.51 0.06 0.91
CD at 5% 304.04 3.66 4.51 0.18 2.74
61
(0.98 cm) and was on par with August (0.99 cm), September (1.02 cm),
October (1.00 cm), Novenlber (1.04 cm) and December (0.99 cm) plantings.
4.1.1.6 Number of suckers per plant
The data indicated significant differenc<?s in number of suckers
produced per plant due to different dates of planting (Table 2). The sucker
production as affected by dates of planting gradually decreased with delay
in planting from May to December. Significantly increased number of
suckers per plant was recorded in April and May planted plants (11.40 and
9.67, respectively). December planting was on par with November for
number of suckers produced per plant (2.13 and 3.73, respectively).
4.1.1. 7 Number of leaves
The data indicated significant differences in number of leaves
produced per plant due to different dates of planting at all the stages of
crop growth (Table 3).
"
At 30 days: Significantly increased number of leaves per plant (28.80) were
recorded in April planted plants and in later plantings there was reduction
right upto December planting which recorded 13.27 leaves per plant.
Except April planting, all other plantings were on par for leaf production at
30 days.
62
At 60 days: April pl~ted plants had maximum number of leaves (110.07),
whereas December planted plants had minimum (34.53). June followed by
May planting dates were next in the order for increased number of leaves
per plant (79.40 and 76.13 Il:umber of leaves, respectively).
At 90 days: April planting continued to record the highest number of
leaves (140.20) and was on par with May planting (131.27). Number of
leaves produced per plant was lower in December, November and October
planting dates (34.53, 37.13 and 42.87, respectively) as compared to other
plantings.
At 120· days: April planting recorded the highest number of leaves per plant
(192.13), whereas December planting recorded the least (34.53). After April
planting, May followed by June planting dates were next in the order for
increased leaf production per plant (174.27 and 162.07, respectively).
December planting was at par with November (37.13) and October (42.87)
plantings for number of leaves produced per plant.
At harvest: April planting continued to record the highest (202.80)
number of leaves per plant, whereas December planting continued to
record the least (34.53). After April planting, May followed by June
planting dates were next in the order for increased number of leaves per
plant (177.07 and 162.07, respectively). December planting was at par
with November (37.13) and October (42.8) plantings for number of leaves
produced per plant.
63
Table 3. Influence of various dates of planting on number of leaves per plant at various stages of plant growth and leaf area at grand growth stage of chrysanthemum cv. Saraval.
Number of leaves per plant at different days Leaf area Treatment after planting (cm2/plant) at (month of 30 60 90 120 At last grand growth planting) harvest stage
April 28.80 110.07 140.20 192.13 202.80 5761.53
May 16.13 76.13 131.27 174.27 177.07 4573.63
June 15.87 79.40 128.07 162.07 162.07 3730.77
July 15.93 54.67 6.13 115.47 115.53 2764.10
August 15.20 43.93 75.20 75.33 75.33 1893.88
September 13.80 45.60 74.67 "14.60 74.60 1705.35
October 13.67 42.87 42.87 42.87 42.80 873.19
November 13.73 37.13 37.13 37.13 37.13 735.24
December 13.27 34.53 34.53 34.53 34.53 595.01 -
SEm± 1.52 3.69 4.04 5.72 5.48 132.56
CD at 5% 4.55 11.04 12.12 17.15 16.41 397.24
I !
t I ~ j I
I
•
cr..; __ , -,..,
1'1 •
ft. ! ,....,~ .. -
I •
•
l
I • : •
64
4.1.1.8 Leaf area per plant
Planting of chrysanthemum on different dates resulted in significant
differences in leaf area (LA) per plant at grand growth stage (Table 3).
Significantly higher LA per plant (5761.53 cm2) .was recorded in April
planted plants as compared to other plantings. In the later plantings, leaf
area per plant decreased right upto December planting which recorded
595.01 cm2 LA per plant. After April planting, May planted plants were
next in the order for increased LA per plant (4573.63 cm2). December
planting was at par with November (735.24 cm2) and October (873.19 cm2)
plantings for LA per plant.
4.1.2 Flowering
Planting of chrysanthemum on different dates resulted in significant
differences with respect to days taken for flrst flower bud iriltiation, fIrst
flowering, 50 per cent flowering and flowering duration (Table 4).
4.1.2.1 Days to first flower bud initiation
Bud initiation was early as the dates of planting advanced from April
to December. December followed by November planted plants were early to
initiate flower buds (17.47 and 22.00 days after planting, respectively),
whereas April planted plants were late to initiate flower buds (114.67 days
after planting).
65
4.1.2.2 Days required for first Dowering
December and November planted plants were e~ly in flowering
(42.93 and 47.27 days after planting, respectively), whereas April planted
plants were late in flowering (145.20 days after planting).
4.1.2.3 Days taken for 50 per cent Dowering
The data indicated significant differences among the cluysanthemum
plants planted at different dates for days taken to reach 50 per cent
flowering. In general, the days taken to reach 50 per cent flowering
gradually decreased from April planting to December planting. December
followed by November planted plants were the earliest ones to reach 50 per
cent flowering (49.00 and 51.67 days after planting, respectively), whereas
April planted plants were last to attain 50 per cent flowering (179.33 days
after planting).
4.1.2.4 Duration of Dowering
Significant differences were seen with respect to duration of flowering
in chrysanthemum due to different dates of planting. In general, duration
of flowering decreased gradually from April planting to December planting.
April and May plantings had longer duration of flowering (65.67 days and
62.0 days, respectively) as compared to that of December planting which
experienced very short flowering duration (13.67 days). December planting
66
Table 4. Influence of dates of planting on flowering of chrysanthemum cv. Saraval
Treatnlent Days Days required Days Flowering (month of required for for fIrst required duration planting) flower bud flowering for 50% (days)
initiation flowering April 114.67 145.20 179.33 65.67
May 93.47 123.13 160.33 62.00
June 84.33 111.47 130.00 46.33
July 68.27 96.33 111.33 40.00
August 55.13 82.20 97.33 25.67
September 48.07 76.20 93.00 28.33
October 31.87 56.07 65.00 18.33
November 22.00 47.27 51.67 17.00
December 17.47 42.93 .. 49.00 13.67
SEm± 1.79 1.95 3.85 2.32
CD at 5% 5.36 5.84 11.54 6.97
67
was on par vvith November (17.0 days) and October (18.33 days) plantings
for duration of flowering.
4.1.3 Yield and quality parameters
The data on yield and quality parameters of chrysanthemum as
affected by different dates of planting are presented in Table 5.
4.1.3.1 Number of flowers per plant
Flower production in chrysanthemum varied significantly due to
different dates of planting. The number of flowers produced per plant
which was maximum in April planting gradually decreased in later months
and reached minimum in December planting (Table 5).
Significantly more number of flowers per plant was recorded in April
and May planted plants (67.60 and 63.33, respectively), whereas the flower
production was least (13.87) in December planting. Mter April and May
plantings, June planting was next in the order for increased number of
flowers per plant (54.47). December planting was on par with November
(15.40) and October (15.60) plantings for number of flowers produced per
plant.
68 4.1.3.2 Flower yield per plant
There were significant differences in chIysanthemum for flower yield
due to planting on different dates (Table 5). The flow~r yield gradually
decreased with delay in planting from April to December. Flower yield per
plant was higher in plants planted in April (135.16 g) and May (134.16 g),
while it was lower in plants planted in December (20.19 g), followed by
November (27.13 g) and October (29.09 g) months.
4.1.3.3 Flower yield per hectare
In general, the flower yield gradually decreased right from April
planting to December planting (Table 5). The plants planted in April and
May recorded the higher flower yield (15.03 tfha and 14.91 t/ha,
respectively) as compared to the plants planted in December, November
and October which recorded significantly lower yields (2.24 t, 3.02 t and
3.23 per hectare, respectively). After April and May plantings, June
planting was next in the order for higher flower yield per hectare (12.31
t /ha) as compared to later plantings.
4.1.3.4 Flower diameter
The average flower diameter of chIysanthemum varied significantly
due to different dates of planting (Table 5). The flowers obtained from the
plants planted in May followed by April were larger in size (5.04 and 4.99
cm, respectively), whereas the flower diameter was minimum (2.87 cm) in
69
Table 5. Influence of dates of planting on flower yield and quality of chrysanthemum cv. Saraval .
•
Treatment No. of Flower Flower Flower Average
(month of flowers/ yield per yield diameter weight of fresh flower planting) plant plant (g) (t / ha) (cm)
_(gl April 67.60 135.16 15.03 4.99 2.00
May 63.33 134.16 14.91 5.04 2.12
.June 54.47 110.76 12.31 4.62 2.03
July 38.40 72.14 8.01 3.80 1.88
August 25.67 48.44 5.38 3.82 1.89
September 26.47 50.27 5.58 3.80 1.90
October 15.60 29.09 3.23 3.48 1.86
November 15.40 27.13 3.02 3.51 1.75
December 13.87 20.19 2.24 2.87 1.46
SEm± 2.55 5.38 0.60 0.12 0.04
CD at 5% 7.65 16.12 1.79 0.37 0.19
r
I J • r I f o f ~ I
! D
- ---- 1
/ I I
I l
../ L I
.r l I
/ L <I I
<I l I
• ! , ! ! , • • , - • ...........
70
December planting. June planted plants were next in the order for larger
flower diameter (4.62 cm).
4.1.3.5 Weight of fresh flower
Data varied significantly with respect to weight of flowers due to
planting of chrysanthemum on different dates (Table 5). In general, the
weight of fresh flower decreased as the planting dates advanced from April
to December.
Significantly heavier flowers were obtained from the plants planted in
May (2.12 g J :flower) followed by June (2.03 g J flower) and April (2.00 g J
flower) months, whereas the flowers obtained from December planting were
light in weight (1.46 gJflower). Other dates of plantings July, August,
September, October and November were at par, recording 1.88 g, 1.89 g,
1.90 g, 1.86 g and 1.75 g of fresh weight per flower, respectively.
4.2 EXPERIMENT - II
EVALUATION OF GENOTYPES OF Dendranthema indicum
4.2.1 Vegetative characters
The data on the vegetative characters of the genotypes are presented
in Tables 6 to 11.
71
4.2.1.1 Plant height
There were significant differences with. reference to the plant height
among different genotypes of Dendranthema indicum at all the five crop
growth stages.
At 30 days: Genotype Harvest Home recorded the highest plant height
(27.93 cm) and was on par with Mutant No.9 which recorded 2S.37 cm.
The next genotype in the order was Lohin Green (2S.07 em), however it was
on par with Selection-S (23.41 cm) and Baggi (23.13 cm). Genotype Kirti
recorded the least plant height of 13.49 cm.
At 60 days: Genotype Harvest Home recorded the highest plant height
(46.63 em) and it was significantly superior over other genotypes. The next
accession in the order for plant height was Lohin Green (41.39 cm) and this
was on par with Mutant No.9 (40.82 cm), Selection-5 (39.43 cm) and Baggi
(38.69 cm). Accession Sonall Tara recorded the minimum plant height
(26.23 cm).
At 90 days: The plant height recorded at 90 days also varied significantly
and was the highest in Harvest Home (60.84 em). The next best genotype
for plant height was Saraval (5S.1S cm) and this was on par with Lohin
Green (S4.90 cm), Karnool (S2.89 cm), Mutant No.9 (S1.77 cm), Spray
Purple (S1.62 cm), Bangalore (S1.47 cm) and Pink Cascade (S1.41 cm). The
plant height was minimum (33.26 ~m) in Kirti.
72
At 120 days: Accession Harvest Home recorded maximum plant height
(68.70 cln) and was on par with accession Saraval (65.38 cm). The next
genotype in the order for plant height was LoWn Green (62.55 cm) and it
was on par with Pink Cascade (61.85 cm), Baggi (60.14 cm), Bangalore
(59.82 cm), Spray Purple (59.60 cm), Selection-5 (58.84 cm), Mutant No.9
(58.77 cnl) and Karnool' (58.72 cm). Accession Kirti recorded minimum
plant height (37.20 cm).
At hal vest: The plant height which varied significantly at harvest stage was
higher in genotype Saraval (73.77 cm) and Harvest Home (73.61 cm) over
other genotypes. The next genotype in the order for increased plant height
was Mutant No.9 (65.30 cm) and this was on par with Pink Cascade (65.24
cm), Selection-5 (65.08 cm), Lohin Green (64.89 cm), Bangalore (64.55 cm),
Karnool (63.93 cm), Baggi (63.92 cm), Spray Purple (63.41 cm) and Raja
(62.05 cm). Genotype Kirti continued to record the minimum plant height
(38.06 crn).
4.2.1.2 Plant spread
Plant spread as recorded at grand growth stage varied significantly
among chrysanthemum cultivars (Table 6). The plants of accession Harvest
Home recorded higher plant spread (2365.54 cm2) as compared to other
genotypes. Next in the order for plant spread were Mutant No.9 (2024.34
cm2) and Selection-5 (1822.82 cm2). The plant spread was lowest (570.14
cm2) in accession Spray Purple.
73
Table 6. Plant height and plant spread as influenced by different chrysanthemum cultivars (pooled data)
Plant height (cm) at different stages of plant Plant spread growth (cm2) at grand
Treatment 30 60 90 120 At last growth stage harvest
Lohin Green 25.07 41.39 54.90 62.55 64.89 873.81
Nanako 15.09 30.37 46.03 53.06 56.81 826.41
Baggi 23.13 38.69 49.82 60.14 63.92 1127.85
Mutant No.9 25.37 40.82 51.77 58.77 65.30 2024.34
Pink Cascade 13.87 37.70 51.41 61.85 65.24 836.22
Spray Purple 20.69 39.98· 51.62 59.60 63.41 570.14
Selection-5 23.41 39.43 50.46 58.84 65.08 1822.82
HatVest Home 27.93 46.63 60.80 68.70 73.61 2365.54
Sonall Tara 16.57 26.23 34.81 42.84 46.29 832.39
Saraval 24.09 37.22 55.15 65.38 73.77 1388.42
Karnool 17.07 35.64 52.89 58.72 63.93 1557.70
Raja 15.38 32.13 49.72 56.56 62.05 821.96
Mattur 15.60 30.46 47.96 54.64 60.93 660.15
Bangalore 18.71 32.90 51.47 59.82 64.55 1001.51
Chandrika 18.04 30.92 44.80 54.14 60.42 1344.58
Vasantilm 18.25 36.29 48.50 56.59 61.37 810.02
Kirti 13.49 27.18 33.26 37.20 38.06 815.67
SEm± 0.98 1.18 1.32 1.62 1.19 91.13
CD at 5% 2.84 3.40 3.80 4.68 3.42 262.55
~ .. , i c
~ ..
1 '" E "
.. j
D ...
, co
~
.. .. l'I
" ~ ~
D
u
...
, co
~
!
g
, ~
c
" ... ~.,J
,..
2i
...
Ii!
" .. D
u c
~
.. ~~
.a
~
-.: D
.. .. "- .. c
" ..!!I Q. -0
~. '\ .. ~ 'Is-, .S!' :! , .-: ,
I? ,~ ' .... ,11I1!f8<I1U9Id
74
4.2.1.3 Number of primary branches per plant
The data recorded on the number of primacy branches per plant at
monthly intervals beginning from 30 days till 120 days and at harvest in
different genotypes of chrysanthemum are presented in Table 7. The
differences with reference to the number of primaIy branches produced per
plant among the different genotypes were significant at all the growth
stages.
At 30 days: Accession Mutant No.9 recorded the highest number of
primacy branches per plant (4.74) which differed significantly over the other
accessions. The next variety in the order for increased number of primacy
branches was Chandrika (2.60) which was on par with Mattur (2.34).
Accession Spray Purple recorded the least number of Primazy branches per
plant (0.27).
At 60 days: At this stage of plant growth, the differences for production of
primalY branches were also significant. The highest number of primacy
branches per plant (15.67) and the lowest number of primaIy branches per
plant (3.94) were observed in Harvest Home and Spray Purple, respectively.
The next genotype in the order for increased number of primaIy branches
was Karnool {13.87} and this was on par with Chandrika (13.57),
Selection-5 (13.47) and Mutant No.9 (12.77).
75
At 90 days: The highest number of primary branches per plant (19.20) was
recorded in accession Harvest Home, while the lowest number of primary
branches per plant (7.04) was recorded in Spray Purple. The next
accessions in the order for increased number of primary branches were
Karnool (16.74), Mutant No.9 (16.44), Chandrika (15.94) and Selection-5
(15.80), however, these did not differ significantly among themselves.
At 120 days: The genotype Harvest Home recorded the highest number of
primary branches per plant (21.44), but was on par with Mutant No.9
(19.00) and Kamool (18.90). The next genotypes in the order for number of
primary branches per plant were Chandrika (18.04), Selection-5 (17.64),
Saraval (15.70), Bangalore (15.64) and Sonali Tara (15.47). However, these
did not differ significantly among themselves. The number of primary
branches per plant was least (9.20) in Pink Cascade.
At harvest: Genotype Harvest Home continued to record the highest
number of primary branches per plant at harvest stage also (21.44).
Harvest Home, Mutant No.9 (20.84), Karnool (20.24),' Selection-5 (19.17)
and Chandrika (18.53) were statistically on par with each other. The
number of primary branches produced per plant was least (9.60) in
genotype Spray Purple.
76
Table 7. Number of primary branches as influenced by different chrysanthemum cultivars (pooled data)
I Number of primary branches per plant at different
Treatment stages of plant growth
30 60 90 120 At last harvest
Lobin Green 0.37 6.24 9.17 11.54 11.54
Nanako 0.30 7.74 11.24 12.94 13.07
Baggi 0.44 8.60 11.84 13.24 13.24
Mutant No.9 4.74 12.77 16.44 19.00 20.84
Pink Cascade 1.07 8.54 11.10 11.10 13.20
Spray Purple 0.27 3.94 7.04 9.60 9.60
Selection-5 2.17 13.47 15.80 17.64 19.17
Harvest Home ·0.97 15.67 19.20 21.44 21.44
Sonali Tara 1.64 10.70 13.30 15.47 15.50
Saraval 0.30 7.84 12.47 15.70 17.40
Kamool 0.97 13.87 16.74 18.90 20.24
Raja 1.70 8.44 11.34 12.74 12.87
Mattur 2.34 7.54 10.47 11.77 12.34
Bangalore 0.57 10.84 13.47 15.64 16.04
Chandrika 2.60 13.57 15.94 18.04 18.53
Vasantika 0.30 10.07 12.60 14.10 14.64
Kirti 0.47 9.54 12.77 14.67 14.67
SEnl± 0.12 0.44 0.42 1.15 1.02 f--CD at 5% 0.35 1.26 1.21 3.32 2.94
77
4.2.1.4 Number of secondary branches per plant
The data pert~g to the number of secondazy branches per plant
recorded at different growth stages are presented in Table 8.
There were significant differences among different accessions of
chrysanthemum. for the number of secondary branches per plant at all the
crop growth stages.
At 30 days: The highest number of secondary branches per plant was
recorded in accession Mutant No.9 (0.93) and it was significantly superior
over other accessions. The cultivars Sonall Tara, Pink Cascade, Raja,
Harvest Home, Mattur, Karnool, Selettion-5 and Chandrika recorded
number of secondary branches per plant in the range of 0.13 to 0.77,
whereas, cultivars Lohin Green, Nanako, Spray Purple, Saraval, Bangalore
and Vasantika did not produce secondary branches at all.
At 60 days: Genotype Harvest Home recorded the highest number of
secondary branches per plant (11.04), however, it was on' par with
Chandrika (11.00), Selection-5 (10.7), Karnool (10.67), Mutant No.9 (10.27)
and Kirti (9.64). The number of secondary branches produced per plant
was least (2.83) in Spray Purple.
At 90 days: At 90 days the production of secondary branches was in the
range of 10.10 in Spray Purple to 28.30 in accession Harvest Home.
Genotypes Harvest Home, Karnool (26.87), Chandrika (26.70) and Mutant
78
Table 8. Number of secondary branches as influenced by different chrysanthemum cultivars (pooled data)
Number of secondary branches per plant at different stages of plant ~owth
Treatment 30 60 90 120 At last
harvest Lobin Green 0.00(0.71)* 5.27 13.90 18.04 18.10
Nanako 0.00(0.71) 5.64 18.26 23.00 23.00
Baggi 0.10(0.77) 7.07 19.07 26.14 26.14
Mutant No.9 0.93(1.20) 10.27 26.37 34.54 40.03
Pink Cascade 0.13(0.79) 6.64 18.37 27.70 27.70
Spray Purple 0.00(0.71) 2.83 10.10 13.14 13.14
Selection-5 0.43(0.97) 10.70 24.77 32.87 35.40
Harvest Home 0.31(0.90) 11.04 28.30 40.04 40.04
Sonali Tara 0.13(0.79) 9.84 21.80 28.87 28.87
Saraval 0.00(0.'71) 8.67 22.37 32.80 35.60
Karnool 0.33(0.91) 10.67 26.87 37.07 39.27
Raja 0.27(0.87) 9.23 17.77 22.80 23.40
Mattur 0.33(0.91) 8.97 15.23 19.20 20.70
Bangalore 0.00(0.71) 9.54 23.04 31.97 32.60
Chandrika 0.77(1.19) 11.00 26.70 34.74 35.27
Vasantika 0.00(0.71) 9.57 21.44 27.64 ··28.14
Kirti 0.13(0.79) 9.64 19.70 27.33 27.34
SEm± 0.03 0.50 0.87 0.82 0.79
CD at 5% 0.09 1.43 2.50 2.36 2.29 . . .
* Figures m paranthesls are square root transformed values .
•
, , ,
, • ,
I
'I..--__ _,_. \ ----~ I ''----+i-----r J
• /"
• I •
I • ~
\ • --
L·
"" • "-
• \ •
/' • I
I
•
I
J I I
i I H j I J IJ • I
I J
---- r---------111 I , , I I I • , I I •
IZW>_,..,
• t c 8. E ::J
I .. • ~ .<;
" 'C ! ~ ... ... ..a
'i " c ! 0::
-= • .. -c $ c 0 " ~ II • .. E ~ ... ~ ... c .. ~ to -~ • CO 10:
79
No.9 (26.37) were on par with each other. The next genotype in the order
for increased number of secondruy branches per plant was Selection-5
(24.77) and was on par with Bangalore (23.04) and Saraval (22.37).
At 120 days: Significantly the highest (40.04) and lowest (13.14) number of
secondruy branches per plant over all other genotypes were observed in
Harvest Home and Spray Purple, respectively. The next genotypes in the
order for increased number bf secondruy branches were Karnool (37.07)
and Chandrika (34.74), however, these two did not differ significantly
between themselves.
At harvest: Genotype Harvest Home which continued to record the highest
(40.04) number of secondruy branches per plant was on par with Mutant
No.9 (40.03) and Karnool (39.27). The next genotype in the order for
increased number of secondruy pranches was Saraval (35.60) and which
again was on par with Selection-5 (35.40) and Chandrika (35.27).
Genotype Spray Purple recorded the lowest (13.14) number of secondruy
branches per plant.
4.2.1.5 Number of leaves per plant
The data on number of leaves at different stages of growth of
chtysanthemum cultivars are presented in Table 9.
There were significant differences among different accessions of
chtysanthemum' at all the stages of crop growth.
80
At 30 days: The accession Mutant No.9 recorded the highest number of
leaves per plant (46.00) and differed significantly with other accessions.
The next genotype in the order for maximum number of leaves per plant
was Sonall Tara (42.57), however, it was on par with Chandrika (41.50).
Genotype Pink Cascade recorded the minimum (16.73) number of leaves
per plant.
At 60 days: Significantly the highest (123.00) and the lowest (33.04)
number of leaves per plant were obselVed in the genotypes Chandrika and
Nanako, respectively. The next genotype in the order for maximum
number of leaves per plant over others was Selection-5 (117.40).
At 90 days: The leaf production was maximum in the accession HaIVest
Home (232.97) and was significantly higher over other accessions.
Accession Chandrika was next in the order for maximum number of leaves
per plant (226.47). The leaf production was minimum (67.33 leaves /
plant) in accession Nanako.
At 120 days: The leaf production per plant was maximum (336.33) in
accession HaIVest Home, whereas, it was least (77.23) in accession Nanako.
Genotype Chandrika continued to next in the order for increased number of
leaves (257.70).
At harvest: Accession HaIVest Home recorded the highest number of leaves
per plant (348.10) and was significantly superior over other accessions.
81
Table 9. Number of leaves per plant as influenced by different chrysanthemum cultivars (pooled data)
Number of leaves per plant at different stages of plant growth
Treatment 30 60 At last
90 120 harvest
Lobin Green 17.80 51.55 81.67 91.63 92.07
Nanako 16.80 33.04 67.33 77.23 82.43
Baggi 30.80 65.20 107.80 115.77 123.53
Mutant No.9 46.00 110.00 208.30 243.10 267.70
Pink: Cascade 16.73 44.97 86.47 92.73 99.07
Spray Purple 27.60 53.43 85.43 97.70 106.30
Selection-5 20.00 117.40 179.60 205.83 226.87
Harvest Home 32.73 98.23 232.97 336.33 348.10
Sonall Tara 42.57 85.33 150.00 174.63 184.63
Saraval 17.00 99.40 132.00 180.80 190.03
Karnool 21.85 83.54 137.73 163.40 171.03
Raja 17.00 60.77 115.36 144.73 146.43
Mattur 20.90 65.64 128.63 148.73 157.33
Bangalore 21.80 68.94 129.16 149.73 156.67
Chandrika 41.50 123.00 226.47 257.70 271.70
Vasantika 25.80 63.37 96.63 108.27 118.43
Kirti 17.40 52.70 102.93 112.93 119.00
SEm± 1.16 1.43 1.29 1.38 3.46
CD at 50/0 3.34 4.11 3.73 3.97 9.96
82
The next accession in the order for highest number of leaves per plant was
Chandrika (271.70), however, it was on par with Mutant No.9 (267.70).
Accession Nanako recorded the least number of leaves per plant (82.43).
4.2.1.6 Leaf area
The data on leaf area, stem girth, total dty matter content and
number of suckers per plant of chrysanthemum cultivars are presented in
Table 10.
Significant difference was observed among different genotypes for
leaf area at grand growth stage. The genotype Selection-5 recorded
maximum leaf area (4485 cm2 / plant) while, the genotype Spray Purple
recorded minimum leaf area per plant (10 12 cm2). The next genotypes in
the order for higher leaf area per plant were Harvest Home (4408 cm2),
Mutant No.9 (4357 cm2), Kamool (4340 cm2), Saraval (4230 cm2) and
Chandrika (4095 cm2).
4.2.1.7 Stem girth
Plant stem girth as recorded at grand growth stage (Table 10) differed
significantly among the cultivars. The stem girth was maximum (1.52 cm)
in Harvest Home, however, it was on par with the genotypes Mutant No.9
(1.41 cm) and Saraval (1.39 cm). The next genotypes in the order for higher
stem girth were Kamool and Selection-5 (1.33 cm each) which were on par
83
with Mattur (1.32 cm), Chandrika (1.32 cm), Baggi (1.30) and Lohin Green
(1.19). Plant stem girth was minimum in Spray Purple (0.95 cm).
4.2.1.8 Tota.! dry matter accumulation
Significant varying differences were recorded among the different
'chrysanthemum cultivars for total dry matter accumulation at grand
growth stage of plants (Table 10). The genotype Harvest Home recorded
maximum total dry matter (47.81 g / plant), whereas the genotype Spray
Purple recorded minimum dry matter (21.68 g / plant). The next genotype
in the order for maximum dry matter accumulation per plant was
Selection-5 (43.23 g/plant) however, it was on par with Mutant No.9 (43.16
g/plant), Saraval (42.36 g/plant), Karnool (41.29 g/plant) and Chandrika
(40.45 g/plant).
4.2.1.9 Number of suckers per plant
Chrysanthemum genotypes differed significantly for number of
suckers produced per plant (Table 10). Sucker production was maximum
in Karnool (13.92) and was minimum in Spray Purple (3.14). The next
genotype in the order for maximum number of suckers per plant was
Harvest Home (12.44), however, it was on par with Chandrika (11.64),
Vasantika (9.84) and Saraval (9.57).
84
Table 10. Lea! area, stem girth, total dry matter content at grand growth stage' and number of suckers per plant at the time of last harvest in different genotypes of chrysanthemum (pooled data)
Total dry Number of Leaf area Stem girth matter suckers per Treatment per plant (cm) content (cm2) (g/plant)
plant
Lobin Green 1695 1.19 26.06 3.97
Nanako 1741 0.98 30.82 4.80
Baggi 1888 1.30 32.35 5.97
Mutant NO.9 4357 1.41 43.16 6.30
Pink Cascade 2755 1.18 31.06 6.54
Spray Purple 1012 0.95. 21.68 3.14
Selection-5 4485 1.33 43.23 8.04
Harvest Home 4408 1.52 47.81 12.44
Sonali Tara 2854 1.13 31.68 7.60
Saraval 4230 1.39 42.36 9.57
Karnool 4340 1.33 41.29 13.92
Raja 4153 0.99 30.98 4.30
Mattur 3913 1.32 29.17 6.30
Bangalore 3849 1.19 30.50 7.40
Chandrika 4095 1.32 40.45 11.64
Vasantika 1907 1.08 30.84 9.84
Kirti 1868 1.16 29.76 8.90
SEm± 16.35 0.05 1.32 0.18
CD at 5% 47.11 0.14 3.80 0.53 '------
., .. ,c g e! .0
1!' .. ~ .. (f)
[J II> .. g e! .0
i!' .. E 'I: 0-[J
l
L
I
I l
l
l
l
I
l
l
~
o o
~
.~
~'" ~ , 'b
~~
" ... c::
~? e "'~ ~ ~t-
"0 >-.0 "0
,~ .. u c:: .. ::I I;
~" .!: II> ..
~ ! ... .. ..
", ~ c: .. .. !
'\. ~ =~ .. 0
+" .. c:: .. .. ,c Ol .$', ~ g E I! ::I
~ .0 E
'% ~ .. o£
CY.". ... c::
" Jl :x E ~ ::I,c Z u
it, ... (p. ~
9j,~ 01 i:L ,"J.
85
4.2.1.10 Chlorophyll content
The data on chlorophyll content of chrysanthemum cultivars at grand
growth stage of plant are presented in Table 11. The genotype Selection-5
recorded significantly the highest content of chlorophyll 'a' (1.04 mg/ g) and
was on par with Karnool (1.02 mg/g), Saraval (0.99 mg/g), Harvest Home
(0.96 mg/g) and Chandrika (0.90 mg/g). The chlorophyll 'a' content was
minimum (0.50 mg/g) in Raja genotype.
Genotype Selection-5 recorded significantly the highest chlorophyll 'b'
content (0.62 mg/ g) and was on par with Karnool (0.59 mg/ g) and Saraval
(0.57 mg/g). The next genotype in the order for higher chlorophyll 'b'
content was Chandrika (0.54 mg/g) and this was on par with Harvest Home
(0.52 mg/g) and Mutant No.9 (0.50 mg/g). The chlorophyll 'b' content was
least (0.27 mg/ g) in Mattur genotype.
Total chlorophyll content was higher in Selection-5 (1.67 mg/g) ,
Karnool (1.61 mg/g), Saraval (1.56 mg/g) and Mutant No.9 (1.53 mg/g).
However, these did not differ significantly among themselves. The next
genotype in the order was Harvest Home (1.48 mg/ g) and this was on par
with Chandrika (1.45 mg/g). The total chlorophyll content was least in
Raja genotype (0.79 mg/g).
Table 11. Chlorophyll content as influenced by different chrysanthemum cultivars (pooled data)
Total
86
Chlorophyll 'a' Chlorophyll 'b' Treatment chlorophyll (mg/ g) (mg / g)
(mg / g) Lohin Green 0.74 0.40 1.14
Nanako 0.68 0.47 1.14
Baggi 0.69 0.40 1.10
Mutant No.9 1.03 0.50 1.53
Pink Cascade 0.69 0.40 1.09
Spray Purple 0.66 0.36 1.06
Selection-5 1.04 0.62 1.67
Harvest Home 0.96 0.52 1.48
Sonall Tara 0.66 0.47 1.14
I Saraval 0.99 0.57 1.56
I Karnool 1.02 0.59 1.61
0.50 0.29 0.79 Raja
Mattur 0.53 0.27 0.81
Bangalore 0.68 0.41 1.09
Chandrika 0.90 0.54 1.45
Vasantika 0.53 0.34 0.88
Kirti 0.56 0.28 0.84
SEm± 0.09 0.02 0.05
CD at 5% 0.24 0.06 0.16
87 4.2.2 Flowedng
The data on days taken for flower bud initiation, for fIrst flowering,
for 50 per cent flowering and flowering duration are presented in Table 12.
4.2.2.1 Days taken for first flower bud initiation
Significant differences were observed among the chrysanthemum
genotypes for the days taken for fIrst flower bud initiation. The genotype
Karnool was fIrst to show its visible flower bud (67.97 days after planting)
followed by Kirti (68.06 days after planting), Pink Cascade (69.07 days after
planting) and Mattur (69.67 days after planting). However, these were on
par with each other. The genotype Saraval was last to initiate flower bud
(88.90 days after planting).
4.2.2.2 Days taken for f"lI'St flowering
Cultivars varied significantly for fIrst flowering. Genotype Kirti was
early to flower (99.93 days after planting) and was on par with Lohin Green
(102.07 days after planting). Genotypes Saraval (123.03 days after
planting) and Spray Purple (120.11 days after planting) were late to flower.
4.2.2.3 Days taken for 50 per cent flowering
The difference for days taken to reach 50 per cent flowering varied
s,ignificantly among chrysanthemum genotypes. The genotype Karnool
88
Table 12. Flowering as influenced by different chrysanthemum cultivars (pooled data)
Days Days required Days Duration of required for for first required for flowering Treatment flower bud flowering 50% (days)
initiation flowering
Lohin Green 72.67 102.07 122.67 25.00
Nanako 72.'47 107.63 126.17 39.00
Baggi 78.80 109.03 130.33 31.53
I Mutant No.9 75.37 111.83 131.00 61.33
Pink Cascade 69.07 105.40 124.00 36.83
Spray Purple 88.17 120.11 131.00 23.83
Selection-5 74.93 116.37 134.33 59.50
Harvest Home 71.37 110.70 126.83 31.33
Sonall Tara 75.50 107.27 135.50 31.17
Saraval 88.90 123.03 156.83 63.83
Karnool 67.97 106.83 114.17 57.33
Raja 79.43 111.73 133.17 49.16 "
Mattur 69.67 110.13 125.66 42.83
Bangalore 74.83 112.40 131.58 42.67
Chandrika 73.36 105.63 124.33 60.67
Vasantika 78.20 111.88 138.16 32.50 ':
Kirti 68.06 99.93 120.00 35.50
SEm± 1.02 1.69 1.89 1.77
CD at 5% 2.94 4.88 5.46 5.10
1
89
which was early to initiate flower bud, was early to reach 50 per cent
flowering (114.17 days after planting). Kirti was next early genotype to
reach 50 per cent flowering· (120.0 days after planting) and was on par with
Lohin Green (122.67 days after planting), Pink Cascade (124.0 days after
planting) and Chandrika (124.33 days after planting). The genotype
Saraval took more number of days (156.83 days after planting) for reaching
50 per cent flowering.
4.2.2.4 Flowering duration
Data in Table 12 reveal significant variations among chrysanthemum
genotypes for flowering duration. Genotype Saraval flowered for a
maximum period of 63.83 days, however, it was on par with genotypes
Mutant No.9, Chandrika and Selection-5 which recorded 61.33 days, 60.67
. days and 59.50 days, respectively, for flowering period. The next genotype
in the order for maximum flowering duration was Karn.ool (57.33 days).
Flowering duration was minimum in Spray Purple (23.83 days).
4.2.3 Flower yield
The data on number of flowers per plant, flower yield per plant and
flower yield per hectare are presented in Table 13.
90
4.2.3.1 Number of flowers per plant
Chrysanthemum genotypes differed significantly for number of
flowers produced per plant. Flower production was maximum (68.60) in
Harvest Home but it was on par with Saraval (64.67), Karnool (62.94),
Spray Purple (62.54) and Chandrika (61.94). The next genotypes in the
order for maximum number of flowers per plant was Mutant No.9 (55.30)
and Selection-5 (51.17). The genotype Lobin Green recorded the lowest
number of flowers per plant (18.23).
4.2.3.2 Flower yield per plant
Significant differences were observed for flower yield per plant in
chrysanthemUln genotypes. The flower yield was maximum (133.84 g /
plant) in Harvest Home, but this was on par with Mutant No.9 (132.13
g/plant), Karnool (131.99 g), Selection-5 (127.85 g), Saraval (127.15 g) and
Chandrika (121.82 g). The flower yield was minimum (28.06 g / plant) in
Spray Purple.
4.2.3.3 Flower yield per hectare
Differences in flower yield in terms of per hectare were significant
among the chrysanthemum cultivars. The flower yield was maximum
(14.87 t / hal in Harvest H<?me, however, it was on par with Mutant No.9
(14.68 t/ha), Karnool (14.24 t/ha), Selection-5 (14.20 t/ha), Sara val (14.13
91
t/ha) and Chandrika (13.70 t /ha). The flower yield was minimum (3.12
t/ha) in Spray Purple genotype.
4.2.4. Flower quality parameters
The data on flower size, flower weight, stalk length and shelf life are
presented in Table 13.
4.2.4.1 Flower diameter
Cultivars differed significantly for flower diameter. The genotype
Mutant No.9 recorded the widest flower (diameter 5.70 em) but it was on
par with Harvest Home (5.65 cm), Sonali Tara (5.53 em), Kamool (5.51 cm),
Chandrika (5.41 em), Saraval (5.39 em) and Bangalore (5.27 em). The
flower diameter was least (1.64 cm) in Spray Purple.
4.2.4.2 Average weight of fresh flower
Average weight of fresh flower, which varied significantly among the
duysanthemum genotypes, was maximum (2.50 g) in Selection-5. The next
genotypes in the order for higher weight were Nanako (2.20 g), Pink
Cascade (2.18 g), Sonall Tara (2.17 g), Chandrika (2.16 g), Kamool (2.07 g),
Mutant NO.9 (2.06 g), Lohin Green (2.01 g), Harvest Home (2.01 g), Saraval
(1.99 g) and Bangalore (1.95 g). The average flower weight was minimum in
Spray Purple (0.5 g).
92
4.2.4.3 Stalk length
Stalk length of different cultivars differed significantly with each
other. The stalk length was maximum (44.67 cm) in Harvest Home, closely
followed by genotypes Saraval (42.06 cm) and Mutant No.9 (41.94 cm).
Genotypes, Selection-5, Lohin Green, Pink Cascade, Karnool, Bangalore,
Chandrika, Baggi . and Vasantika were at par recording stalk length in the
range of 35.69 cm to 39.53 cm. The stalk length was minimum (28.62 cm)
in Kirti genotype.
4.2.4.4 Shelf life
Loose flowers of cluysanthemum genotypes differed significantly
with each other for shelf life. The shelf life was maximum (3.78 days) in
Saraval genotype but was on par with that of Selection-5 (3.50 days).
Genotypes Mattur (3.45 days), Bangalore (3.39 days), Raja (3.28 days),
Sonall Tara (3.22 days), Karnool, Baggi, Kirti (3.33 days each) were at par
with respect to shelf life of loose flowers. The shelf life was least n.45 days)
in Spray Purple.
4.2.4.5 Alternaria disease incidence
Cultivars of chrysanthemum varied significantly for per cent disease
index of Alternaria on leaves (Table 13). The percent disease index (PDI)
was minimum (10.55%) in Mutant No.9, however, it was on par with that of
genotype Selection-5 (15.95%). The next genotype in the order for
-N~~-~O~NOO~OO~~~-~OO ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~ NN~NN-~N~~~~~~NN~OO
OO~~~~~~~~~OO~-N~~N
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~O~-OO~~~ONOO~~~~~OO ~~~~~~~~~V~~~~~~N-V
-N~~OOOO-~~~~O~~~-O~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-N NN-NNONNN-N---N--OO
N~~O~V~~~~-~V~-~N~~ -~~~N~~~~~~V-NV~~-~
~N~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~OO
93
I J t I 1 j " !
o
- - • • . I ~
\ _l ,-~. ------=: : 1
~ ~
1 • I ~
1
"_J
~I ,\1
1
1 _. /
.~I ~ I ----..
~,
o
J
i j
I I I c & , E :> E ..
J ~ .. .. ~
I .,. u -c
! t ~
~ J .., 1;
H 1 • .. I
:> ., .E
1 := ::s!
I ~ ,] ~
~ .2
• i ... eO
I ~ ... f
j I
t 0
I
I
94
Table 14. Reaction of chrysanthemum cultivars against Alternaria leaf spot
Rating Reaction Response of cultivars
0-5 per cent Resistant ( R ) -
6-15 per cent Moderately resistant (MR) Mutant No.9, Selection-5
16-35 per cent Moderately susceptible Harvest Home, (MS) Saraval, Karnool,
Chandrika
36-55 per cent Susceptible (S) Lohin Green, Pink Cascade, Sonali Tara, Bangalore
56 per cent and Highly susceptible Nanako,Ba~,Spray
above Purple, Raja Mattur, Vasantika, Kirtl.
2. 'Harvest Home' a superior genotype of chrysanthemum
3. 'Kamool ' a superior genotype of chrysanthemum
4. 'Saraval' a superior genotype of chrysanthemum
5. 'Selection- 5' a superior genotype of chrysanthemum
6. 'Mutant No. g' a superior genotype of chrysanthemum
7. Plate showing the typical symptoms of Altemaria leaf spot disease In chrysanthemum
95
minimum PDI was Harvest Home (19.27%), Chandrika (22.180/0) and
Saraval (24.10%). The PDI was maximum (86.87%) in Raja genotype. There
were no cultivars, which were resistant (Table 14).
4.3 EXPERIMENT-III
4.3.1
EFFECT· OF DIFFERENT GROWTH REGULATORS ON GROWTH, YIELD AND QUALITY OF Dendranthema indicum
Morphological characters
4.3.1.1 Plant height
The data as influenced by different growth regulators on the plant
height of chrysanthemum at monthly intetvals beginning from 30 days after
imposing treatments are presented in Table-IS. There were significant
differences with reference to the plant height among the plants treated with
different growth regulators at all the five crop growth stages.
At 30 days after treatment: Application of GA at 100 ppm and Brassino
Steroid (BR) at 0.75 ppm increased the plant height, whereas paclobutrazol
and mepiquat chloride (at all the concentrations) decreased it significantly
when compared to control.
The plant height was maximum (23.89 cm) in plants pinched and
sprayed with GA at 100 ppm, BR at 0.75 ppm (22.27 cm) and GA at 200
pm (21.69 cm). There was reduction in plant height with the application of
paclobutrazol at 400 ppm (13.83 cm), followed by pac1obutrazol at 200
96
ppm (14.04 cm), mepiquat chloride at 500 ppm (14.44 cm), mepiquat
chloride at 750 ppm (14.61 cm), pac1obutrazol at 50 and 100 ppm (14.74
each) along with pinching and pinching alone (16.30 cm). The control
plants recorded an average of 18.71 cm plant height.
At 60 days after treatment: GA at 100 ppm significantly increased the
plant height while, pac1obutrazol (200 and 400 ppm) and mepiquat chloride
(500 and 750 ppm) decreased the plant height in pinched plants when
compared to control.
The plant height was maximum (43.67 cm) in plants pinched and
sprayed with GA at 100 ppm followed by BR at 0.75 ppm (39.82 cm) and
GA at 200 pprn (38.82 cm) however they did not differ significantly among
themselves. The plant height was least (24.97 cm) in plants treated with
paclobutrazol at 400 ppm in pinched plants. The control plants recorded an
average height of 34.81 cm.
At 90 days after treatment: Application of GA at 100 ppm significantly "
increased. the plant height while, pac1obutrazol (200 ppm and 400 ppm)
application in pinched plants decreased the plant height over control.
Application of GA at 100 ppm to pinched plants resulted in increased
plant height (56.32 cm), however it was on par with that of the treatments
of pinching + BR at 0.75 ppm (52.0 cm), pinching + GA at 200 ppm (50.27
97
cm) and pinching + BR at 0.5 ppm (48.70 cri;l.). The plant height was least
(31.26 cm) in plants of pinching + paclobutrazol (400 ppm) treatment.
At 120 days after treatment: GA at 100 ppm significantly increased the
plant height in pinched plants. While, pinching alone and pac1obutrazol,
mepiquat chloride (at all concentrations) in pinched plants decreased the
plant height significantly when compared to control.
The plant height was higher in plants pinched and sprayed with GA
at 100 ppm (61.37 cm), BR at 0.75 ppm (57.31 cm) and GA at 200 ppm
(57.19 cm) as compared to that of other treatment combination. The plant
height was least in plants pinched and sprayed with pac1obutrazol at 400
ppm (35.85 cm) followed by pac1obutrazol at 200 ppm (37.27 cm). The
plants in control treatment recorded an average height of 51.87 cm.
At harvest: GA at 100 ppm and BR at 0.75 ppm to pinched plants
increased the plant height significantly while, growth retardants
(paclobutrazol and mepiquat chloride) reduced the plant height as
compared to control. Increased concentrations of both pac1obutrazol and
mepiquat chloride reduced the plant height proportionately. Pac1obutrazol
was more effective than mepiquat chloride in reducing the plant height.
The plant height was maximum (62.34 cm) in the treatment
combination of pinching + GA (100 ppm), however it was on par with the
treatment combinations of pinching + BR at 0.75 ppm (61.0 cm), pinching +
..c: ...... ~ 8 OJ)
+-I $:l cd ..... 0..
(o....j
0 rtJ Q) OJ) cd
+-I rtJ +-I $:l Q) 1-0
~ ...... ..... '"d +-I cd
S (.) --
+-I ..c: .~ Q)
..c: +-I $:l cd .....
0..
... -+oJ rn rn td Q)
:~ <.s::
~ Q 0 ~ ~
~ Q 0 0'1
E-< « Q 0 1.0
~ Q 0 ('Ij
~OO~O'I~OO~~~~('IjO('lj~~~ooo
~~~~~~~~~~~~.~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~('Ij
I
i
O~O'IO'IVVV('lj~V~OOO~~~~oo
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~oo I.OOO('lj~vvv('lj~vv~ONO'IOO~('Ij ~~~~~~~~~~~~~N~~
98
- ,
., -
.. 0 .. 0 - !: .. >< .. > ., E
" N E ..
;; .<: .. C ~
.. • HH~H .. !' .<: .c
« " to ; ~ :". W': " J:
0 - ~tl!:::-0 0 ~ <7pH
.... .<: H~ IP « ~ U;'I t a .. 0 .<: <'< .. ;; l~J .ll a; o'l '" ~ • c ... 1 ........ 0 ! .! HHHH • Q.
I-0
; c « .. 0
a ~ ~i=:::~it~ 0 .!! !~H en 0 !!
" <T. =,. . .... I- oo
!H~jH « ! a 0
.. -= ~ ;r,l4i i ;0 ~;:;~:..:..~ <D e 0 .-++-+ ... +-+ at
HIIlIH l- V) -« 0
a .. ., .:.r· ..... ... ".Ji,..t. 0 c .., .. 0 .. ~
E-m .2' U-
N
: : •
,
99
GA at 200 ppm (60.10 cm) and pinching + BR at 0.5 ppm (58.50 cm). The
plant height was least (38.6 cm) in treatment combination of pinching +
pac1obutrazol at 400 ppm and pinching + paclobutrazol at 200 ppm (38.94
cm).
4.3.1.2 Plant spread
Plant spread as influenced, by growth regulators varied significantly
among the treatments at grand growth stage (Table 15).
Application of GA at all the concentrations, mepiquat chloride at 250
ppm and BR at 0.5 and 0.75 ppm, to pinched plants resulted in higher
plant spread as compared to that of control plants. The treatment
combination of pinching + GA at 100 ppm resulted in maximum plant
spread of 1946.42 cm2. This was however on par with that of treatment
combination of pinching + BR at 0.75 ppm (1909.79 cm2) and pinching +
mepiquat chloride at 250 ppm (1900.03 cm2). Significantly the plant
spread was minimum in the pinched plants sprayed with paclobutrazol at.
400 ppm (465.27 cm2), followed by paclobutrazol at 200 ppm (615.15 cm2).
4.3.1.3 Number of primary branches per plant
The data recorded at monthly intervals on the number of primacy
branches per plant as influenced by growth regulators are presented in
Table-16. There were significant differences due to the influence of growth
100
regulators for the number of primary branches per plant at all the crop
growth- stages.
At 30 days after treatment: Application of GA at 100 and 200 ppm,
mepiquat chloride at 250 ppm and BR's at 0.25, 0.5, 0.75 ppm levels, to
pinched plants significantly increased the number of primary branches per
plant. While, application of pac1obutrazol at 200 and 400 ppm levels to
pinched plants reduced the primary branches significantly when
cornpared to control.
The production of primary branches per plant was highest (10.40) in
plants pinched and sprayed with GA at 100 ppm, BR at 0.75 ppm (9.40)
and mepiquat chloride at 250 ppm (8.77), while it was lower in plants
pinched and sprayed with pac1obutrazol at 400 and 200 ppm (3.03 and
3.80, respectively) as compared to control plants which produced an
average of 5.83 number of primary branches per plant.
At 60 days after treatment: Application of GA, mepiquat chloride, BRs at
all the concentration levels and pac1obutrazol at lower level (50 ppm), to
pinched plants increased the number of primary branches per plant.
While, application of pac1obutrazol (200 and 400 ppm) decreased the
primary branches over control.
The num.ber of primary branches per plant was higher (18.23) in
plants pinched and sprayed with GA at 100 ppm followed by BR at 0.75
101
ppm (17.87), mepiquat chloride at 250 ppm (16.90) and GA at 200 ppm
(15.83). Greater reduction in number of primary branches was observed in
pinched plants with application of pac1obutrazol at 400 ppm (4.58),
followed by pac1obutrazol at 200 ppm (6.40). The control plants recorded
10.8 number of primary branches per plant.
At 90 days after treatment: The treatments, pinching, pinching + GA,
pinching + mepiquat chloride, pinching + BR at all the concentrations and
pinching + pac1obutrazol (50 and 100· ppm) significantly increased the
number of primary branches per plant when compared to control
treatment. Paclobutrazol application at 200 and 400 ppm levels, drastically
reduced production of primary branches per plant.
The number of primary branches produced per plant were maximum
(20.93) in plants pinched and sprayed with GA at 100 ppm followed by BR
at 0.75 ppm (20.23) and mepiquat chloride at 250 ppm (19.27). The
number of primary branches produced per plant were lower in plants
pinched and sprayed with pac1obutrazol at 400 ppm (5.33) and
pac1obutrazol at 200 ppm (6.80) as compared to that of control plants
which recorded 11.50 number of primary branches per plant.
At 120 days after treatment: Application of GA, mepiquat chloride and
BRs at all the concentrations and pac1obutrazol at 50 and 100 ppm, to
pinched plants enhanced the production of primary branches per plant
102
considerably, while paclobutnizol at 200 and 400 ppm considerably
reduced the number of primazy branches over the control.
The number of primazy branches produced per plant were maximum
(22.37) in plants pinched and sprayed with GA at 100 ppm, followed by BR
at 0.75 ppm (21.20) and mepiquat chloride at 250 ppm (20.43). The
number of primazy branches produced per plant were minimum in plants
pinched and sprayed with pac1obutrazol at 400 ppm (5.40) followed by
paclobutrazol at 200 ppm (6.90). The control plants recorded an average
11.87 number of primarY branches per plant.
At harvest: Pinching and application of GA, mepiquat chloride and BR at
all the concentrations, paclobutrazol at 50 and 100 ppm levels enhanced
the number of primaIy branches per plant considerably, whereas
paclobutrazol at 200 and 400 ppm levels considerably reduced the
production of primaIy branches.
The treatment of GA at 100 ppm to pinched plants continued to
result in maximum number of primaIy branches per plant (22.73). Next in
the order for increased production of primaIy branches per plant were the
treatmen.ts pinching + BR at 0.75 ppm (21.97) and pinching + mepiquat
chloride at 250 ppm (20.80). The number of primazy branches produced
per plant were minimum in pinched plants sprayed with pac1aobutrazol at
400 ppm (5.43), followed by pac1obutrazol at 200 ppm (6.93). An average
to-. o I-< Q)
.0 S ::J Z
..... CIJ Q)
~O~~~~~~~O~~O~~~~NO ~~~~~~~~7~~~~~~~~~~ ~7~N~~~~~O~~~~~~NON 'I' ~~N~~~ N~~~~N~~ .......
E-< ~~O~~~~OO~~~~~OO~OO~ O~~~~~~~v~~~~~~~~OO~ 07~N~~~~~O~~~OO~~~ON N~~N~~~ N~~~~N~~ ~
E-< ~~~~~~~O~~O~~~OO~7~ Ol:'-~ .~07000l:'-~7~N70000~OO
o~~8oo~~~~oo~~oooo~~~o~ ~
103
104
12.13 number of primary branches per plant was observed in control
plants ..
4.3.1.4 Number of secondary branches per plant
Number of secondary branches produced per plant due to growth
regulators varied significantly among the treatments at all the crop growth
stages (Table 17).
At 30 days after treatment: GA, mepiquat chloride, BR at all the
concentrations and paclobutrazol at 50 ppm significantly increased and
paclobutrazol at 400 ppm drastically reduced the number of secondary
branches produced per plant as compared to control. The control plants
recorded an average number of 6.53 secondaty branches per plant.
The number of secondary branches produced per plant was
maximum (11.83) in plants pinched and sprayed with GA at 100 ppm,
followed by BR at 0.75 ppm (11.57) While, branches were minimum (3.90)
in plants pinched and sprayed with paclobutrazol at 400 ppm.
At 60 days after treatment: Application of GA (50, 100 and 200 ppm),
mepiquat chloride (250 ppm) BR (0.25, 0.5, 0.75 ppm) resulted in increased
number of secondary branches per plant. While, paclobutrazol at 400 ppm
in pinched plants decreased the same when compared to control.
105
The treatment of GA (100 ppm) to pinched plants resulted in
maximum number of secondary branches per plant (16.70). However, it
was ·on par with mepiquat chloride at 250 ppm (15.90), BR at 0.75 ppm
(15.77), BR at 0.25 ppm (15.47), GA at 200 ppm (14.10) and BR at 0.50
ppm (13.73). The secondary branches per plant were minimum (5.27) in
plants pinched and sprayed with paclobutrazol at 400 ppm, followed by
paclobutrazol at 200 ppm (6.80), whereas, the control plants recorded an
average of 8.93 number of secondary branches per plant.
At 90 days after treatment: GA and mepiquat chloride at all the
concentrations, paclobutrazol at 50 and 100 ppm levels; BRs at 0.25, 0.50,
0.75 ppm levels significantly increased the number of secondary branches
per plant in pinched plants. While, paclobutrazol at 200 and 400 ppm
levels decreased the same as compared to control.
The number of secondary branches produced per plant was
maximum (31.13) in the plants pinched and sprayed with GA at 100 ppm,
followed by mepiquat chloride at 250 ppm (30.73), BR at 0.50 PPIl'l: (30.07),
BR at 0.25 ppnl (29.03) and BR at 0.75 ppm (28.87). The number of
secondary branches produced per plant were minimum in plants pinched
and sprayed with paclobutrazol at 400 and 200 ppm (8.33 and 10.06,
respectively). The control plants recorded an average 15.53 number of
secondary branches per plant.
106
At 120 days after treatment: Significantly increased number of secondary
branches per plant over control treatment were obtained with the
application of GA (50, 100 and 200 ppm), mepiquat chloride (250 ppm) and
BR (0.25, 0.5, 0.75 ppm) in pinched plants, whereas paclobutrazol (200
and 400 ppm) drastically reduced the same when compared to control.
The treatment with GA (100 ppm) to pinched plant resulted in higher
number of secondary branches over control (36.10), however, this was on
par with the BR at 0.75 ppm in pinched plants (33.63). While, the
paclobutrazol at 400 ppm and 200 ppm drastically reduced the number
of secondary branches produced per plant (8.63 and 10.37, respectively).
The control plants recorded an average of 17.63 number of secondary
branches per plant.
At harvest: GA at all the concentrations, BR at 0.25, 0.5 and 0.75 ppm
levels and mepiquat chloride at lower concentration (250 ppm) significantly
increased the secondary branches, whereas paclobutrazol at higher levels
(200 and 400 ppm) drastically reduced the same in pinched plants when
compared to control.
The highest number of secondary branches produced per plant
(36.87) was recorded in plants pinched and sprayed with GA at 100 ppm,
followed by BR at 0.75 ppm (34.50). The treatments pinching + mepiquat
chloride (250 ppm), pinching + BR (0.5 ppm) and pinching + BR (0.25 ppm)
107
...... .j..J CI.l C C!)
cd ~ ..... 0.-
t.-t ..d 0 ......
CI.l rn cd CI) ..... CD ...... cd <: .j..J
rn
108
were next in the order for increased number of branches per plant which
recorded 33.37, 32.17 and 31.77 number of branches, respectively.
TI~e number of secondary branches produced per plant was least
(8.67) in the treatment pinching + pac1obutrazol (400 ppm). The control
plants recorded an average of 18.23 number of secondruy branches per
plant.
4.3.1.5 Number of leaves per plant
The data recorded on the number of leaves produced per plant at
monthly intervals are presented in Table 18. There were significant
differences among the treatments with reference to number of leaves
produced per plant at all the plant growth stages.
At 30 days after treatment: GA, mepiquat chloride and BR at all. the
concentrations and pac1obutrazol at 50 ppm increased the number of
leaves per plant in pinched plants over control. The number of leaves per
plant was maximum (39.50) in plants pinched and sprayed with BR at 0.5
ppm, followed by BR at 1.5 ppm (36.73). The pinched and sprayed plants
with pac1obutrazol at 400 ppm produced minimum number of leaves
(11.87), whereas the control plants recorded 15.80 number of leaves per
plant.
At 60 days after treatment: GA at 100 and 200 ppm levels, pac1obutrazol
at 100 and 200 ppm levels, mepiquat chloride at 250, 500 and 750 ppm
109
levels and BR at 0.25, 0.5 and 0.75 ppm concentrations, significantly
increased the number of leaves, whereas pac1obutrazol at higher
concentration· (400 ppm) drastically reduced the same in pinched plants
when compared to control.
The highest number of leaves per plant (88.40) was recorded in
pinChing + J:?R (0.5 ppm) treatment and it differed significantly with other
treatments. The treatment pinching + mepiquat chloride (250 ppm) was
next in the order for increased number of leaves per plant (73.00) however,
it was on par with the treatments pinching + GA 200 ppm (72.87) and
pinching + GA 100 ppm (72.17). The number of leaves produced per plant
was least (40.07) in the treatment pinching + pac1obutrazol (400 ppm). The
control plants recorded an average of 56.77 nqmber of leaves per plant.
At 90 days after treatment: All the treatments except pacIobutrazol (100,
200 and 400 ppm) increased the number of leaves per plant in pinched
plants over that of control. The plants of treatment pinching + BR (0.5
ppm) had the highest number of leaves per plant (251.90), whereas those of
treatment pinching + pacIobutrazol (400 ppm) had the lowest number of ! '
leaves per plant (84.73).
At 120 days after treatment: Mepiquat chloride at all the concentrations,
pac1obutrazol at lower level (50 ppm), GA at 100 and 200 pprp. levels and
BRs at 0.25, 0.5, 0.75 ppm concentrations, increased the nt:.Jmber of leaves
per plant in pinched plants, while paclobutrazol at the highest
110
concentration ·(400 ppm) significantly reduced the same as compared to
control.
The number of leaves produced per plant was highest (268.04) in the
treatment pinching + BR (0.5 ppm) and this differed significantly with other
treatments. The treatment pinching + GA (100 ppm) which recorded an
average number of 250.70 leaves per plant was next in the order. The
number of leaves produced per plant was least (94.17) in pinching +
paclobutrazol (400 ppm) treatment. The control plants recorded an average
122.97 number of leaves per plant.
At harvest: GA at 100 and 200 ppm concentration, mepiquat chloride at
250 and 500 ppm concentration and BR at 0.25, 0.5 and 0.75 ppm
concentrations significantly increased the number of leaves produced per
plant, whereas pac1obutrazol at higher concentration (400 ppm)
significantly reduced the same when compared to control.
The number of leaves produced per plant was the highest (273.13) in
pinched plants sprayed with BR at 0.5 ppm, followed by GA at 100 ppm
spray (255.73). The treatments pinching + GA at 200 ppm and pinching +
mepiquat chloride at 250 ppm which recorded 233.43 and 220.37 number
of leaves, respectively were next in the order. The number of leaves
produced per plant was least in the treatment pinching + pac1obutrazol at
400 ppm (106.87). The control plants recorded 127.70 number of leaves
per plant.
a ::I a 4>
~ ~
I ta '5 '" 0 ..., = S ~ ... 4> ~ Ul <1>-~.5 Q) CG _"= ~"= o_! ... 0 4> 0 .c~ s-= rn ~:a ~.5 o Ci!I
~~ oW 0
ltD 4> Ul lot = ~] I
o I> tb oW
1M CIS 00 4) 0 U a ~ CG 4>td a. s t .
00 w-4
4> -.g fo4
..c: ~
~ 0 ;... bJ)
~
!:: as ..... 0.. ._ 0 II?
~ ~ II? ~
!:: 4) ;...
~ t+-i ..... "'C ~ as ~
!:: as --0.. ;... 4)
0.. II? 4)
~ 4) ..... ._ o ;... 4)
..0 E! :::l Z
...... (I) ~
~~o~~~~~~~ooo~~~o @~~~vo~~oo~~~~~~~~~~ :OO~~~~~~~O~~N~~N~V~ (I)~V~~V~~O~~v~~ov~OO~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ---+-,
<::
111
112 4.3.1.6 Leaf area
Perusal of Table 19 reveales that GA, mepiquat chloride and BR at
all the concentrations and paclobutrazol at lower levels (50 and 100 ppm)
increased the leaf area at grand growth stage over control. The leaf area
was maximum in plants pinched and sprayed. with GA at 100 ppm
(7122.35 cm2) followed by BR at 0.75 ppm (6691.69 cm2), while, the leaf
area was minimum in pinching + paclobutrazol at 400 ppm (2368.73 cm2).
Among mepiquat chloride levels, 250 ppm in pinched plants recorded
maximunlleaf area (6485.73 cm2), whereas the control plants recorded an
average leaf area of 3310.36 cm2.
4.3.1. 7 Stem girth
Plant stem girth as recorded at grand growth stage (Table 19) differed
significantly among the treatments. Application of paclobutrazol (100 and
200 ppm) mepiquat chloride (250, 500 and 750 ppm) and BR at lower
concentration (0.25 ppm) increased the stem girth when compared to
control.
The . stem girth was maximum (1.94 cm) in plants pinched and
sprayed with mepiquat chloride at 500 ppm followed by paclobutrazol at
100 ppm (1.91 cm) and it was minimum (1.30 em) in BR at 1.5 ppm. The
control plants recorded an average stem girth of 1.42 cm.
l
r-• ! • '; • ~
1 .. • "" .. " ~ .0
?:-• '" " 0 .. • co
~ .. • "" .. " • .l; ?:-• ~ Q.
]
o o o .. o
/ /~
" , \ "\
r
/
L..-
.___
~
/ /'
~ \.
o
-'" GI
~ c: ..
~ .. GI .t:.
: ... c:
'" ... : .Q -0 ~ ...
GI UlUH :! .Q
E HHiH :l c: 0 1HII1I c: 0
e 0 c: ... fffa 01 .. 03 .. '" 'ftt++i" ... ::.::: HHHH .. 0 c -• .. > e :l ... -Ji=~~i:'! .. '; CJI E IJH • ~
GI :l ... ~ E J_:.r.~
.t:. ~H~lij - GI
3: .t:. .. - ..tH.t. 0 c: ~.t:-t:~1iAJ ... CJlOI '='-:"'."'~c..
~ +f'r++-++ .. HUIIH ->-0 ...
~ 4D .t:. ... ... ~ .. ', .,_ -+ ./, .0 ,:. .. c: -n GI 0 :l '" -GI
N c: ... '"
0 -CJI u..
113
4.3.1.8 Chlorophyll content
The data on chlorophyll content in leaf at grand growth stage of
chrysanthemum crop as influenced by different treatments are presented in
. Table-19.
4.3.1.8.1 Chlorophyll 'a'
There was no significant difference among the treatments for
chlorophyll content in leaf. However, the treatment pinching + mepiquat
chloride (750 ppm) recorded maximum chlorophyll.'a' content (1.08 mg/g).
The grov.rth retardants ,pac1obutrazol and mepiquat chloride at all the
concentrations and growth promoter BR at 1.5 ppm level recorded more
than 1.0 mg per g of chlorophyll 'a'. The chlorophyll 'a' content was the
lowest (0.85 mg/g) in control treatment.
4.3.1.8.2 Chlorophyll 'b'
Application of gibberelins at all the levels resulted in reduction in
chlorophyll 'b' content in the leaf. The chlorophyll 'b' content 'was the
lowest (0.46 mg / g) in GA (100 ppm) sprayed pinched plants. While, it was
the highest (0.71 mg/g) in pinched plants treated with pac1obutrazol (200
ppm). The control plants recorded an average 0.63 mg per g chlorophyll 'b'
content.
114 4.3.1.8.3 Total chlorophyll content
Significant differences for total chlorophyll content in leaf was noticed
due to growth regulator treatments at grand growth stage. Among the
growth retardants, pac1obutrazol at higher concentration levels (100, 200
and 400 ppm), mepiquat chloride at all the concentrations (250, 500 and
750 ppm) and growth promoter BR at highest concentration (1.5 ppm)
increased the total chlorophyll content significantly over the control,
whereas it was reduced to a great extent by the treatment with gibberelins.
The total chlorophyll content was highest (1.71 mg/ g) in the pinched
plants sprayed with pac1obutrazol at 200 ppm, however, it was statistically
on par with that of the treatments pac1obutrazol at 400 ppm (1.70 mg/g),
BR at 1.5 ppm (1.69 mg/g), mepiquat chloride at 500 and 750 ppm (1.68
mg /g each), mepiquat chloride at 250 ppm (1.67 mg /g), pac1obutrazol at
100 ppln (1.66 mg / g), BR at 0.75 ppm (1.61 mg / g) and pac1obutrazol at
50 ppm (1.56 mg / g). The total chlorophyll was least (1.41 mg / 100 g) in
GA (50 and 100 ppm) sprayed pinched plants. The total chlorophyll in
control plants was 1.49 mg / g.
4.3.1. 9 Number of suckers per plant
There were significant difference among the treatments for the
production of suckers per plant (Table 19). GA at 100 and 200 ppm levels,
pac1obutrazol at all the concentrations, mepiquat chloride at 250 and 750
bi ~ E~·-----+----------------------------~~~ .... s:: 11) .... s:: o u
o 1-0 o ......
..c: ()
...... ...... E 0.._ o cd 1-0 ~
o ::a ()
~~~~~v~vv~O~~~OOMv~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~O~ 000000000000000000
~...-lvC':j...-lC':jO~~OOOet:lt'-t'-...-l1./')
O'!O'!O'!O'!~~~~~.-;~~O'!O'!~~ 0000...-l...-l...-l...-l...-l...-l~000...-l0
w Z
~~C':jC':jet:l~et:lI./')~vC':jO~C':jOC':jI./')~
~~~~O'!O'!~.-;~O'!~~~~~~O~ ...-l...-l...-l...-l...-l...-l...-l...-l~~~~...-l~~~00
115
116
ppm concentrations and BR at 0.75 ppm concentration increased the
sucker' production per plant in pinched plants over control treatment.
However, the number of suckers per plant were maximum (18.20) in
pinched plants and sprayed with GA at 200 ppm, followed by GA at 100
ppm (16.57) and mepiquat chloride at 250 ppm (16.00), whereas the
number of suckers per plant were least (10.2) in control plants.
4.3.2 Flowering
The data on time taken for fIrst flower bud initiation, for fIrst
flowering, for 50 per cent flowering and flowering duration are presented in
Table 20.
4.3.2.1 Days taken for rust flower bud initiation
GA trea.ted pinched plants were significantly early to initiate flower
bud, whereas pac1obutrazol (50, 200, 400 ppm) treated plants were late to
initiate flower bud as compared to control plants. GA at 200 ppm was
early to induce flower bud (88.60 days after planting), while pac1obutrazol
at 400 ppm (101.63 days after planting) followed by 50 ppm and 200 ppm
(100.3 days after planting each) were late to induce flower bud. The bud
initiation in control plants was observed after 97.10 days after planting.
117 4.3.2.2 Days taken for first flowering
Application of GA at all the concentrations, promoted early flowering
in pinched plants, whereas paclobutrazol at 50, 200 and 400 ppm levels
and mepiquat chloride at higher concentrations (500 and 750 ppm) delayed
the flowering.
The flowering was early (117.93 days after planting) in pinched and
GA (200 ppm) sprayed plants, whereas, it was late (144.63 days after
planting) in pinched and paclobutrazol (400 ppm) sprayed plants. Among
mepiquat chloride levels, 500 and 750 ppm dalayed the flowering (134.83
and 134.80 days after planting, respectively) in pinched plants whereas
plants of control flowered in 129.87 days after planting.
4.3.2.3 Days taken for fifty per cent flowering
There were significant differences among the treatments for days
taken to reach 50 per cent flowering in chrysanthemum due to application
of growth regulators. GA (50, 100 and 200 ppm) and BR (0.5 ppm) were
early to induce 50 per cent flowering in pinched plants while, paclobutrazol
(50, 200 and 400 ppm), mepiquat chloride (750 ppm) sprayed pinched
plants were late to reach the same when compared to control plants.
The treatment pinching + GA (200 ppm) which was early to initiate
flower bud and for ftrst flowering, was early to induce 50 per cent flowering
(142.00 days after planting) however, it was on par with pinching + GA at
118
50 ppm (146.00 days after planting). Paclobutrazol (400 ppm) sprayed
pinch~d plants were late (174.33 days after planting) to reach 50 per cent
flowering when compared to control plants (155.67 days after planting).
Among mepiquat chloride levels, application of 750 ppm to pinched
plants delayed 50 per cent flowering (166.33 days after planting).
4.3.2.4 ."lowering duration
Data in Table 20 reveal significant variations among the treatments
for flowering duration as influenced by growth regulators.
GA at 100 and 200 ppm, paclobutrazol and mepiquat chloride at
lower concentrations (50 and 250 ppm, respectively) and BR at 0.75 ppm, ."
in pinched plants improved the flowering duration significantly over
control. While, paclobutrazol and mepiquat chloride at higher
concentrations reduced the same.
GA (200 ppm) sprayed pinched plants flowered for a maximum period ",
of 61.67 days, which were on par with the plants pinched and sprayed
with mepiquat chloride at 250 ppm (59.67 days), GA at 100 ppm (59.00
days) and BR at 0.75 ppm (58.67 days). Flowering duration was minimum
with the treatments pinching + pac1obutrazol at 400 ppm (26.33 days) and
pinching + mepiquat chloride at 750 ppm (29.33 days). Control plants
flowered for the period of 43.00 days.
['-o['-C") C")C")['-C") ['-C")o 00 If:) C")['-OO~~~O~~C")OOOOOV['-~OOlf:)O
~~~~OO~~~~~~~OOOOO~C")~ C")~~-C")C")C")v~C")C")C")~~C")~-C")
----------------
119
8. Control plants of chrysanthemum at vegetative (plate A) and reproductive (plate B) stages
9. Plates sowing the effects of GA 100ppm in pinched chrysanthemum plants on vegetative (plate A) and reproductive (plate B) parameters
Plate A Plate B
10. Plates showing the effe<:ts of BRs 0.75 ppm in pinched chrysanthemum plants on vegetative (Plate A) and reproductive (Plate B ) parameters
Plate A Plate B
11. Plates showing the effe<:ts of meplquat chloride in pinched chrysanthemum plants on vegetative (Plate A) and reproductive (Plate B) parameters.
120
4.3.3 Flower yield
The data (Table 21) on number of flowers per plant, flower yield per
plant and flower yield per hectare indicated significant differences among
the treatments.
4.3.3.1 Number of flowers per plant
Application of GA (50 and 200 ppm), BR (0.25, 0.5 and 1.5 ppm)
pac1obutrazol (50 and 100 ppm) and mepiquat chloride (250 and 500 ppm)
increased the number of flowers per plant significantly in pinched" plants,
while pac1obutrazol at higher level (400 ppm) decreased flower production
when compared to control (Table 21).
The highest number of flowers per plant was recorded in pinched
plants sprayed with pac1obutrazol at 50 ppm (66.97) however, it was on par
with the treatments GA (50 and 200 ppm), pac1obutrazol (100 ppm),
mepiquat chloride (250, 500 and 750 ppm) and Brassinosteroids (0.25, 0.5 "',
and 1.5 ppm). The flower production in terms of number of flower per plant
was least (46.07) in pinched plants sprayed with pac1obutrazol at 400 ppm.
4.3.3.2 Flower yield per plant
Differences were sigQ.ificant among the treatments for flower yield per
plant in chrysanthemum (Table 21).
121
GA and mepiquat chloride at all the concentrations, BR at 0.25, 0.5,
0.75 ppm levels and paclobutrazol at 500 ppm significantly increased the
flower yield per plant in pinched plants, whereas paclobutrazol at higher
levels (200 and 400 ppm) drastically reduced the same when compared to
control. The maximum flower yield of 153.00 g per plant was recorded in
the treatment pinching + GA (100 ppm) and was on par with the treatments
pinching + BR at 0.75 ppm( 147.51 g / plant) and pinching + mepiquat
chloride at 250 ppm (146.38 g / plant). The minimum flower yield
(69.17 g / plant) was recorded in treatment pinching + paclobutrazol (400
ppm). The control plants yielded 117.04 g/plant.
4.3.3.3 Flower yield per hectare
Differences were significant among the growth regulator treatIilents
for flower yield per hectare (Table 21).
Application of GA (50, 100 and 200 ppm), BR (0.25, 0.5, 0.75 and
1.5 ppm), mepiquat chloride (250, 500, 750 ppm) and paclo~utrazol (50
ppm) promoted the flower yield in pinched plants, whereas paclobutrazol at
higher concentration levels (200 and 400 ppm) reduced the flower yield
significantly when compared to control.
The flower yield was maximum (17.00 t / hal in treatment pinching
+ GA (100 ppm), followed by pinching + BR at 0.75 ppm (16.39 t / hal and
pinching + mepiquat chloride at 250 ppm (16.26 t/ha) and it was lower in
• • .2 ...
f
.. ... 0
o Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o • • ~ NO. • ~ N ...
.A:I'PJO ·ON
L
>.
" r::: .. "" C .. 3: o -r::: o
o _ ~_
c .2 0 ... 0
0. ! - c . " -~ 01 fa
Il) "'~~
... .
.<; > - U
~ E ~ " ""E - CO 0.<; COu r::: r::: .. CO .. ,,>. - ~ - .<; L __________ ~ r::: u
I
122
pinching + paclobutrazol (400 ppm) and pinching + paclobutrazol (200
ppm) treatments (7.69 and 10.05 tjha, respectively).
The treatments pinching + GA (200), pinching + BR (0.5 ppm),
pinching + BR (0.25 ppm), pinching + GA (50 ppm), pinching + mepiquat
chloride (500 ppm), pinching + mepiquat chloride (750 ppm), pinching +
paclobutrazol (50 ppm) and pinching + BR (1.5 ppm) were at par with each
other which recorded the flower yield of 15.34, 15.28, 15.19, 15.11, 14.69,
14.65, 14.43 and 14.29 t j ha, respectively. The control plants yielded
12.99 tjha.
4.3.4 Flower quality parameters
The data on flower size, average weight of fresh flower and peduncle
length are presented in Table 21.
4.3.4.1 Flower diameter
Treatments differed significantly with respect to flower diameter. GA
at aU the concentrations) mepiquat at lower concentrations (250 ppm) and
BR at 0.25, 0.5, 0.75 ppm levels increased the flower diameter in pinched
plants, whereas paclobutrazol at higher concentrations (200 and 400 ppm)
reduced the same significantly when compared to control treatment.
The flower diameter was maximum (5.66 cm) in the plants pinched
and sprayed with GA 100 ppm followed by BR at O.75·ppm (5.26 cm) and
12. Influence of growth regulators on flower size of chrysanthemum cv. Kamool
123
mepiquat chloride 250 ppm (5.21 cm), whereas the flower diameter was
least (2.43 cm) in pinched and pac1obutrazol sprayed plants at 400 ppm.
The control plants produced flowers of 4.19 cm size.
4.3.4.2 Flower weight
Average weight of fresh flower differed significantly due to different
growth regulator treatments. GA at 100 ppm, BR at 0.75 ppm and
mepiquat chloride at 250 ppm significantly increased the weight in pinched
plants, whereas pac1obutrazol at 200 and 400 ppm levels reduced the
flower weight when compared to control.
The maximum average weight (2.50 g) was recorded in the treatment
pinching + GA (IOO ppm) followed by pinching + BR at 0.75 ppm (2.40 g).
The treatments pinching + mepiquat chloride (250 ppm), pinching + BR (0.5
ppm), pinching + mepiquat chloride (750 ppm), pinching + GA 50 ppm,
pinching + GA 200 ppm and pinching + BR (0.25 ppm) were at par
recording 2.21, 2.13, 2.12, 2.10, 2.08 and 2.07 g per flowers, resp~ctively.
The minimum average weight (1.49 g) was recorded in pinching +
paclobutrazol (200 ppm) treatment and was on par with pinching +
paclobutrazol at 400 ppm (1.50 g).
4.3.4.3 Peduncle length
Data in Table 21 reveals significant variations among the treatments I
for peduncle length. GA at 100 and 200 ppm and BR at 0.75 ppm in
Ct-t 0 fIl ... IU
..fJ Q)
S as ... as c:lt
.t' == as = 0'"
'0 s:t as
:!:! Q) .... ~Cd ... ..fJ Go) as ~"C 0'0 =.2 s:: 0 o 0 fI).e ... _ o 0
..fJ 0 .s ~ g,:; Q)~ ... ~ t o a t;,=
Cto4 a o 4> Q):i u ~ s:t CI1 Q) rn
~t' s:t.cl ~O
. "'"' (iii
Q) _ ~
I
~7~O~~OOM~~~MN~~~~OO ~O~OO~~~~N~N~OON~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~OO
124
125
pinched plants, increased the peduncle length while, paclobutrazol at all
the conpentrations and mepiquat chloride at higher levels (500 and 750
ppm) reduced the peduncle length as compared to control.
The peduncle length was maximum (14.28 cm) in plants pinched and
sprayed with GA at 100 ppm, followed by BR at 0.75 ppm (13.99 cm) and
GA at 200 ppm (13.54 'cm). Reduced peduncle length was observed in
plants with the application of paclobutrazol at 200 ppm (7.43 cm),. 400
ppm (7.58), 100 ppm (8.60), 50 ppm (8.72 cm) and mepiquat chloride at
750 ppm (8.75 cm) and 500 ppm (9.54).· The control plants recorded an
average of 12.04 cm peduncle length.
4.4 EXPERIMENT - IV
EFFECT OF POST-HARVEST SPRAY OF GROWTH REGULATORS ON SHELF LIFE OF CHRYSANTHEMUM
. 4.4.1 Physiological loss in weight
All the treatments (growth regulators / chemicals) including water
spray significantly reduced the weight loss of chIysanthemum loose flowers "
when compared to control on all the days of the storage (Table 22).
On 1st clay: Significantly the lowest weight loss of 7.43 per cent was
recorded in flowers treated with sucrose (20/0) + BA 25 ppm followed by
sucrose + GA 100 ppm (9.620/0). The weight loss was maximum in control
flowers (37.82%).
13. Post- harvest studies in chrysanthemum cv. Kamool
Table 22. Effect of various growth regulators on shelf life of chrysanthemum flowers
Per cent loss in weight on different days of storage
Treatment After 1st After 2nd After After day day 3rd 4th
day day
GA50ppm 32.31 43.59 53.72 63.14
GA 100 ppm 21.15 34.74 46.92 58.01
aA 25 ppm 12.82 30.64 42.18 53.33
BA50ppm 17.56 30.26 43.08 54.11
Paclobutrazol 25 ppm 28.72 41.41 52.05 62.12
Paclobutrazol 50 ppm 26.79 40.00 49.75 59.56
Sucrose 2% 32.82 41.54 53.85 62.76
Sucrose 2%+ GA 50 ppm 26.41 38.72 48.72 58.91
Sucrose 2>10+ GA 100 ppm 9.62 27.18 39.75 52.50
Sucrose 2>/0+ BA 25 ppm 7.43 24.74 38.21 50.71
Sucrose 2>10+ BA 50 ppm 12.18 26.67 42.18 54.62
Sucrose 2>/0+ Paclobutrazol 25 ppm 24.87 40.51 50.00 61.16
Sucrose ~-b + Paclobutrazol 50 ppm 21.02 35.38 47.82 56.46
Water 20.64 36.02 45.1 56.54
Control 37.82 52.03 62.05 70.71
SEm;i: 1.12 1.79 1.43 1.44
CD at 1% 4.34 6.74 5.54 5.55
CD at 5% 3.22 5.16 4.11 4.12
126
Per cent fresh
flowers on 5th day
5.13
9.55
12.12
11.16
6.60
8.08
4.42
8.72
14.49.
16.79
14.23
8.97
8.61
9.81
2.91
2.08
8.07
5.98
127
On 2nd day: The flowers treated with sucrose (2%) + BA (25 ppm), sucrose
(2%) + BA 50 ppm, sucrose (2%) + GA (100 ppm), BA 50 ppm and BA 25
ppm lost minimum weight (24.74%,26.67%, 27.18%, 30.26% and 30.64%,
respectively), while flowers without any treatment (control) recorded the
highest weight los~ (52.030/0).
On 3 m day: The highest weight loss was recorded in control flowers
(62.05%), while the lowest loss of 38.21 per cent was observed in flowers
treated with sucrose (2%) + BA (25 ppm) followed by sucrose (2%) + GA (100
ppm), sucrose + BA (50 ppm), BA (25 ppm) and BA at 50 ppm (39.75%,
42.180/0, 42.18% and 43.08%, respectively).
On 4th day: Flowers without any treatment tend to lose maximum weight
(70.71%), while flowers treated with sucrose (z>/o) + BA (25 ppm) and
sucrose (2%) + GA (100 ppm), BA (25 ppm), BA (50 ppm) and sucrose (2%)
+ BA (50 ppm) lost minimum weight of 50.71 per cent, 52.50 per cent,
53.33 per cent, 54.11 per cent and 54.62 per cent, respectively_
4.4.2 Per cent fresh flowers
Significant differences were observed in per cent fresh flowers on 5th
day of storage as influenced by various post harvest treatments (Table 22).
BA (25 and 50 ppm) and GA (100 ppm) with or without sucrose,
paclobutrazol (25 ppm) and GA (50 ppm) with sucrose (2%) and only water
I 1 I
t t • J i I
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ I " \ I •
I .. ,,/
I
I
I
....
"'" ,. /' ., \ ..
/" I •
/ <II
"-I ...
""'" •
.. • ! c:
~ • E " , ~ I: ~ c: •
" .. ~ I:
" " -0
~ = ~ ..
i: ~
to I: -..
h -, ~ Hili -~ ~ ~1Il1iI 1; :; H~ i'
. .. .. .. - iCiCH .
- ~ .. IHH~' !! ! .. 0 o.~:~= ~ ~ .. li • "-.2 0 - ,., .. .. .!-o l 01: i: H iii
III iii ~ IIJ 0
ilHlr~ " N
~ IiIhlilJ U g ~~u ... • •• , •• • I
- ~"' 1' '''''''''.
128
spray treatments, helped to maintain good amount of fresh flowers on flith
day of storage in the range of 8.72 per cent to 16.72 per cent when
compared to control flowers (2.91%).
However, the highest per cent fresh flowers (16.79%) was recorded in
the treatment combination of sucrose (2%) + BA (25 ppm).
DISCUSSION
v. DISCUSSION
5.1 EFFECT OF DATES OF PLANTING ON CHRYSANTHEMUM
Among the various factors that influence plant growth and
development, climatic conditions play an important role in the performance
of crops. For successful cultivation of any crop, crop should be exposed to
an optimum climatic conditions during the growing period, so as to get
maximum production of quality flowers.
Difference in planting dates would bring about a variation in growth,
yield and flower quality of chrysanthemum. So, selection of suitable time of
planting is necessary to maximise the flower yield and to get quality flowers
in chrysanthenlum.
5.1.1 Growth parameters
Plant height differed significantly at all the stages of crop growth. At
[mal stage of crop growth, the plants of April planting were th,e tallest,
followed by those of May and June plantings. The plants planted during
December followed by November were dwarf. The plants planted in April,
May and June experienced favourable climatic conditions particularly the
light intensity and duration accompanied by optimum temperature and
relative humidity.
130
Light affects the growth of chrysanthemum quantitatively by
influencing photosynthetic activity and qualitatively due to the
phenomenon of photoperiodism. Lawrence (1950) and Hassan and Newton
(1975) found that a daily radiation integral between 1.2 and 1.6 MJ / m 2 /
day is necessary for adequate growth in chrysanthemum.
The plants planted in December, November and October were
eAlJosed to lower light intensity and duration and lower night temperature
during the period of their rapid vegetative growth stage. The decreased
plant height in later planting dates (October, November and December) was
also due to the early induction of flowering which limited the vegetative
growth. These results are in confumation with those of Kiyatkin (1975),
Shin et al. (1995) and Meher et al. (1999a).
Plant spread was influenced significantly by different dates of
planting and it decreased from April to December planting. The plants
planted in April and May experienced increased plant spread, while those
planted in July and onwards recorded decreased plant spread, at grand
growth stage. The vigorous growth in plants of April and May plantings
was mainly due to increased production of branches. Comparatively,
reduced growth was observed in plants planted in July and onwards
because of reduction in number of branches which could be their exposure
to less congenial weather conditions during their growth period, which
coincided with winter months.
131
The plants planted in April and May produced increased number of
primmy and secondmy branches. Those planted in· December, November
and October produced decreased number of branches, probably due to less
congenial growing conditions that prevailed during their rapid growth
period.
The number of leaves produced per plant decreased with delay in
planting from April to December. The number of functional leaves
developed were maximum at fmal stage of crop growth in April planting.
May and June planting dates were next in the order for increased number
of leaves per plant. This increased number of leaves in early planting dates
could be directly correlated to the fact that early planted plants had
increased number of leaf bearing points in terms of increased number of
branches per plant. The plants planted in December and November
produced minimU1n number of leaves, probably due to the fact that they
did not experience favourable growing conditions during their grand
vegetative growth period. The results obtained in the present study are in
conformity with the fmdings of Kiyatkin (1975) in chIysanthemum.
Leaf area in chtysanthemum differed significantly due to different
dates of planting. The leaf area per plant was highest in plants planted in
April. The next planting date in the order for increased leaf area was May.
Leaf area was minimum in plants planted during December, November and
October. This reduced leaf area in later planting dates might be due to
132
production of less number of leaves, which could be due to reduction in
plant height and number of branches. Increased leaf area in the plants of
April and May plantings could be attributed to the production of more
number of leaves per plant which could be directly correlated to the
increased plant height and number of branches.
In general, the plants planted during May and April recorded higher
stem girth as compared to those plants planted in the other months.
Increased stem girth in case of May plants might be due to synchronization
of vegetative growth of plants with optimum light intensity and duration, ,
ten1perature, relative humidity, which favoured the development of plants.
The plants planted in July and later recorded minimum stem girth,
possibly, due to the fact that the grand growth phase synchronized with low
light intensity and duration and low night temperature in the winter
months.
The sucker production per plant decreased with delay in planting
from April to December. The plants planted in April and May produced
higher number of suckers per plant as compared to the plants planted in
November and December which produced minimum number of suckers per
plant. The plants of April and May plantings which experienced congenial
long day conditions during vegetative growth resulted in vigorous growth
which enabled them to produce more suckers. November and December
plantings experienced unfavourable climatic conditions (short days and low
133
temperature) and as a result had poor growth and in turn had less sucker
production.
5.1.2 Flowering
Flowering was early with the advanced dates of planting from April
to December.
The plants of November and December plantings were early to
initiate flower buds, early to flower and early to reach 50 per cent flowering,
while the plants of April were late for the same. Early flowering in
November and December plants could be due to exposure of plants to
lmfavourable climatic conditions during the vegetative growth period as a
result they entered early into the reproductive phase as they experienced
short days and low temperature which favours flowering in chrysanthemum
The earliness in flowering due to short days may be attributed to an earlier
morphological differentiation of flowers. The earlier cessation of vegetative
phase immediately after planting as observed in the plant hei~ht and
number of leaves per plant at early stages of!th~ growth in the treatments
of November and December plantings should have also contributed to the
earliness in flowering in these· treatments. Earliness in flowering due to SD
conditions has been reported by previous workers in chrysanthemum
(Barman et al.) 1993 and Meher et al., 1999b}. On the otherhand, the
plants planted in April experienced congenial climate (long days and
134
optimum temperature) and remained sufficiently longer in vegetative phase.
The delay may be attributed to the floral inhibitors produced by the leaves
under long day conditions which in turn affects the apical differentiation as
suggested by Tanaka (1968).
Long flowering duration was observed in plants of April and May
plantings and this was possibly due to increased number of branches and
leaves which might have enabled them to synthesise increased amounts of
photosynthates which in turn resulted in increased flowering duration. On
the otherhand, plants of later plantings (October, November and
December), which experienced lower light intensity and duration, lower
night temperature during their vegetative growth period, remained dwarf
and had less number of branches and leaves and as a result had decreased
flowering duration. Similarly, Nagaraju (2001) reported wider flowering
duration in China aster when planted during May months.
5.1.3 Flower yield and quality parameter
The flower yield decreased with delay in planting from April to
December. April and May plantings proved best to obtain higher yields.
The plants of April and May plantings which experienced congenial climatic
conditions had luxurious vegetative growth in terms of pl~t height,
number of branches, number of leaves, leaf area, plant spread and stem
girth which enabled them to produce increased amount of photosynthates
135
and in turn resulted in more dry matter accumulation, longer flowering /"
duration, flower yield and quality. On the otherhand, the plants of October,
November and December plantings experienced unfavourable climatic
conditions and as a result produced short plants with less number of
branches, plant spread, leaves and leaf area which might have resulted in
reduction in flowering duration, small flowers and lesser number of
flowers per plant and ultimately leading to less yield. Similarly, Meher et
aI. (1999b) and Saud and Talukdar (1999) obtained higher flower yield in
May planting.
The plants of April and May plantings produced better quality flowers
in terms of flower size, whereas the plants of December planting produced
small flowers. The plants of April and May were taller with increased stem
girth, number of primary and secondary branches and plant spread which
in tutTI resulted in increased number of leaves and increased leaf area.
This might have favoured production of increased photosynthates by these
plants which increased the flower size and quality. On the otherhand, the
plants of December planting produced less number of branches which in
turn produced less number of leaves. TIlls might have resulted in
reduction in production of photosynthates and resulted in decreased flower
size. The results are in line with the fmdings of Raman et aI. (1969).
5.2 EVALUATION OF CHRYSANTHEMUM GENOTYPES
5.2.1 Growth parameters
136
Vegetative growth is best measured in terms of plant height, plant
stem girth, number of leaves, number of primary and secondary branches,
plant spread, chlorophyll content, dry matter accumulation in the plants.
The genotypes Saraval and Harvest Home were vigorous in growth in
tenns of plant height, whereas the genotypes Mutant No.9, Pink Cascade,
Selection-5, Lahin Green, Bangalore, Karnool, Baggi, Spray Purple and Raja
were medium in vigour in terms of plant height. The cultivar Kirti was
dwarf recording minimum plant height at harvest. Being a genetically
controlled factor, the plant height varied among the cultivars. Similar
variation in plant height due to genotypes was also observed previously in
chrysanthemum (Chezhian et aI., 1985a; Rajashekaran et al., 1985; Wilfret,
1985; Kanamadi and Patil, 1993; Alirnann and Streitz, 1995; Mishra, 1999;.
Anuradha et al., 2000; Gaikwad and Dumbrepatil, 2001 and Mukeshkumar
and Chattopadhyay, 2002).
The plant spread was maximum in genotype Harvest Home. The
cultivars Mutant No.9 and Selection-5 were next,in the order for increased
plant spread. This increase in plant spread was mainly due to production
of increased number of branches and wider angles between the primary
and secondary branches at the point of origin. It was minimum in
137
cv. Spray Purple and this in fact was due to production of less number of
/"
both primary and secondary branches and also erect growth habit of
branches in this cl:utivar. Varietial differences in plant spread was also
reported earlier by Chezhian et ai. (198Sa), Kanamadi and Patil (1993),
Gaikwad and Dumbrepatil (2001) and Mukeshkumar and Chattopadhyay
(2002).
Number of primary branches produced per plant was higher in
cvs. Harvest Home, Mutant No.9, Karnool, Selection-S and Chadrika as
compared to other varieties. The difference in number of primary branches
could be attributed to the genetical makeup of the cultivars.
Secondary branches were minimum in cv. Spray Purple, while these
were ma,yimum in cvs. Harvest Home and Mutant No.9. The cultivars
Saraval, Selection-5 and Chandrika were next in the order for increased
number of secondary branches per plant. The difference in branches
among the genotypes could be due to the influence of genetical makeup of
the cultivars. Similar variations for number of branches were also observed
previously in chrysanthemum by Chezhian (1985a), Kanamadi and Patil
(1993), Gaikwad and Dumbrepatil (2001) and Mukeshkumar and
Chattopadhyay (2002).
Leaves are the functioning units for photosynthesis which influence
the growth and flower yield. Leaf production was maximum in cvs. Harvest
Home, Chandrika and Mutant No.9. The production of more number of
leaves in these cultivars was due to vigorous growth, increased number of
primary and secondary branches, spread which in turn facilitate better
harvest of sunshine by the plants to increase the photosynthesis. Similar
results were obtained previously in chrysanthemum cultivars (Chezhian
et al., 1985a and Kanamadi and Patil, 1993).
In general, the cultivars Selection-5, Harvest Home, Mutant No.9,
Kamool, Saraval and Chandrika recorded maximum leaf area. Higher leaf
area in these cultivars was due to the increased number of leaves and their
size. Smaller leaves resulted in minimum leaf area in cv. Spray Purple.
Since cultivars varied for their number of leaves and size of the leaf, leaf
area also varied. Variation in leaf production could be expected among the
cultivars as the attribute is genetically controlled one. Variation in leaf
area due to cultivars was also observed by Gelder et ai. (1990) in
chrysanthemum.
At peak growth stage, chrysanthemum cultivars showed variation in
plant stem girth. The stem girth was maximum in cvs. Harvest Home, .
Mutant No.9, Saraval and it was minimum in cultivar Spray Purple. The
difference in stem girth is a varietal trait as it is governed by the genetical
makeup. Similar variations in stem girth were also observed in China
aster cultivars by Angadi {2000).
Varying amount of difference was recorded among the different
chrysanthemum cultivars for total dry matter accumulation at grand
139
growth stage of the crop. In general, cvs. Harvest Home, Selection-5,
--Mutant No.9, Saraval, Kamool and Chandrika recorded maximum total dIy
matter accum.ulation. This increased accumulation was due to vigorous
growth, m~re number of leaves, more leaf area and production of fairly
more number of primary and secondary branches in these cultivars. The
efficient photosynthetic ability of these genotypes resulted in accumulation
of increased carbohydrates in stems, which in turn increased the dIy
matter accumulation. The lesser number of branches, lesser leaf area and
stem girth in cv. Spray Purple resulted in less dIy matter accumulation as
compared to other cultivars.
Further, increased efficiency of photosynthesis in some of the
cultivars was due to higher chlorophyll content as compared to other
genotypes.
The differerice in chlorophyll content in duysanthemum cultivars
varied significantly. In general, the total chlorophyll content was more in
cvs. Se1ection-S, Kamool, Saraval and Mutant No.9. The cultivars Harvest
Home and Chandrika were next in the order for increased total chlorophyll
content. The leaf chlorophyll content is a varietal character that differs
from cultivar to cultivar. The cultivars Selection-S, Karnool, Saraval and
Mutant No.9 produced darker green leaves as compared to other cultivars.
The cv. Raja which recorded less chlorophyll content in leaves was affected
by the leaf spot disease caused by Alternaria fungus at grand growth stage
140
which resulted in reduction in leaf chlorophyll content. Similar variations
with respect to chlorophyll content was also reported by Angadi (2000) in
China aster.
ChIysanthemum genotypes differed significantly for sucker
production. The sucker production was more in cvs. Kamool, Harvest
Home, Chandrika, Vasantika and Saraval. The plants of these varieties
had luxurious growth which enabled them to produce more suckers. The
plants of cv. Spray Purple had lesser growth in turn less number of sucker
production. The differences in number of suckers could be attributed to
the genetical makeup of the cultivars.
5.2.2 Flowering characters
The time taken for flrst flower bud initiation was minimum in cvs.
Kamool, Kirti, Pink Cascade and Mattur. The cultivars Kirti and Lohin
Green were early to flower. The cultivars Kamool, Kirti, Lobin Green, Pink
Cascade and Chandrika took minimum number of days to reach 50 per
cent flowering. Hence, these cultivars were said to be early in flowering.
The cultivar Saraval was late to initiate flower bud, to flower and to reach
50 per cent flowering.
As far as flowering duration was concerned, the cvs. Saraval, Mutant
No.9, Chandrika and Selection-5 had maximum flowering duration followed
by cultivar Kamool. Whereas, it was minimum in cv. Spray Purple.
141
Variations in flowering characters was expected among the chrysanthemum
cultivars due to the differences in the genetical makeup. Similarly,
variation in flowering character was reported previously by Chezhian et al.
(1985a), Rajashekaran et al. (1985), Negi et al. (1988) and Mishra (1999).
5.2.3 Flower yield
The number of flowers produced per plant was maximum in cvs.
Harvest Home, Saraval, Kamool, Spray Purple and Chandrika and was
minimum in cv. Lohin Green. The cultivars Mutant No.9 and Selection-5
were next in the order to produce increased number of flowers per plant.
Similar variations in yield with respect to number of flowers per plant had
been reported by Tewari and Umashankar (1990), Laskar and Yadav (1991),
Mishra (1999) and Gaikwad and Dumbrepatil (2001).
The flower yield per plant and per hectare was maximum in cvs.
Harvest Home, Mutant No.9, Kamool, Selection-5, Saraval and Chandrika.
These cultivars had fairly high chlorophyll content and dry matter
accumulation which resulted in increased flower size and flower weight and
ultimately increased flower yield. The flower yield was minimum in cv.
Spray Purple. This was because of the fact that, it had lesser number of
branches, plant spread, leaf area, etc, which resulted in less dry matter
accumulation and small sized flowers eventhough the cultivar recorded
fairly more number of flowers. Variation in flower yield among the
1~2
genotypes was also observed previously by Chezhian et al. (1985b),
Rajashekaran et al. (1985), Tewari and Umashankar (1990), Kanamadi and
Pati1 (1993), Barigidad and Patil (1997), Damke et al. (1998) and
Mukeshkumar and Chattopadhayay (2002).
5.2.4 Quality parameters
The flower diameter was maximum in cvs. Mutant No.9, Harvest
Home, Sonall Tara, Karnool, Chandrika, Saraval and Bangalore and it was
rninimllin in cv. Spray Purple. Variation in· flower diameter was due to
varietal variation in their genetical make up. Similar variations have been
reported previously by Rajashekaran et al. (1985), Kanamadi and Patil
(1993), Przymeska (1997) and Mishra (1999) in chrysanthemum.
In general, the average weight of fresh flower was maximum in cvs.
Selection-5, Nanako, Pink Cascade, Sonall Tara, Chandrika, Karnool,
Mutant No.9, Lohin Green, Harvest Home, Saraval and Bangalore, whereas
it was minimum in Spray Purple. This variation among the cultivars was
mainly because of increased flower size with fairly increased number of
florets. Further, being a genetical factor, variations were expected among
the cultivars of chrysanthemum.
With regard to stalk length, it was maximum in cvs. Harvest Home,
Saraval and Mutant No.9. Other cultivars with increased stalk length were
Nanako, Selection-5, Lohin Green, Pink Cascade, Karnool, Bangalore,
143
Chandrika, Baggi and Vasantika. The stalk length was minimum in Kirti.
Similar variations in stalk length was reported by Przymeska (1997) and
Gaikwad and Dumbrepatil (2001).
In general, the shelf life of loose flowers was higher in cvs. Saraval,
Selection-5, Mattur, Bangalore, Raja, Sonall Tara, Kamool, Baggi and Kirti
than compared to other varieties, while it was less in Lobin Green. The
variation in shelf life among the cultivars was also reported previously in
chIysanthemilln by Mishra (1999).
5.2.5 Incidence of disease
With regard to Alternaria disease, the per cent disease index on
leaves was maxirnum in cv. Raja and was minimum in cvs. Mutant No.9
and Selection-5. The cultivars Harvest Home, Chandrika and Saraval also
recorded comparatively minimum disease incidence. The degree of
variations occurred with respect to the response of cultivars to Alternaria
leaf spot disease was expected, since any resistance or susceptibility of the
cultivars to the disease is controlled by the genetic constitution of cultivars.
5.3 EFFECT OF GROWTH REGULATORS ON· GROWTH AND
FLOWERING OF CHRYSANTHEMUM
Flowering in chrysanthemum is very seasonal, generally from August
to December. During periods of peak production, there will be a glut in the
market. Crop regulation (growth and flowerfug) is therefore desirable to
144
have staggered production throughout the year, and to produce high yields
of quality flowers, besides to have wider duration of flowering.
Chrysanthemum being photosensitive shows a high degree of response to
both physical and chemical crop regulation practices. These practices
include pinching, disbudding, photoperiodic manipulation and chemical
regulation (Khader et al., 1995).
The growth and flowering is greatly influenced by the environment,
but it's growth and flowering is determined largely by the interaction of
internal factors, including endogenous growth substances that control the
activity of numerous meristems. Substances are now available that modify
plant organs differentially and influence fmal plant form, flowering, yield
and quality of the produce. Such substances are therefore potentially
useful in agriculture, because when these are applied at optimum
concentrations and at appropriate times will regulate the crop in a
beneficial way in terms of growth, flowering, yield and quality by altering
dry matter production and its distribution.
In this direction, the role of plant growth regulators on
chrysanthemum is emphasized.
5.3.1 Growth parameters
Basically, plant height is a genetically controlled character, but
several studies have indicated that plant height can be either increased or
145
decreased by the application of synthetic plant regulators (Rajapaske and
Kelly, 1991, Mitchell et al., 1970, Yewale et al., 1998 and Prakash, 1998).
In the present study there were significant differences for the plant
height at grand growth stage due to treatments. In pinched plants the
plant height increased significantly due to growth promoters (GA and BRs)
and reduced due to growth retardants (pac1obutrazol and mepiquat
chloride). Pac1obutrazol was more effective in reducing the plant height
than mepiquat chloride and its effect was more pronounced at higher
concentrations than at its lower ones.
The effects of GA and BRs on plant height was due to increased stem
elongation. The action of GA is through mainly cell elongation and also
through cell division. While, that of BR is through a synergistic
interaction with indigenous auxins accelerating cell division and
enlargement. These results were in corroboration with that of Koriesh et
al., (1989), Rajapaskeand Kelly (1991) Sheu et al. (1998), Zalewska (1998)
and Talukdar and Paswan (1998) in cluysanthemum by GA and Dias
( 1998) in rose by BRs. Mitchell and Gregory (1972) pointed out that
brassins accelerated overall plant growth when applied near the terminal
meristems of bean and elm seedlings and elongation and plant
morphogenesis in beans (Krizek and Mandava, 1983a).
The mechanism of reduction in plant height due to growth retardants
appears to be because of reduction in cell division and cell elongation. This
146
is again attributed to the inhibito:ry action of growth retardants in the bio
synthetic pathway of gibberellins (Moore, 1980). Furthermore, he
concluded that cycocel and mepiquat chloride are anti-gibberellin dwarfmg
agents leading to a deficiency of gibberellic acid in plants and reduced
growth. This is achieved by blocking the conversion of geranyl geranoil
pyrophosphate to copalyl pyro phosphate which is the frrst step of
gibberellin synthesis. Similarly, Pandita and Hooda (1979) reported
reduced plant height in potato and attributed to reduction in the growth of
important sinks (all auxilia:ry buds), which in turn might change the
distribution pattern of assimilates. Gao et al. (1991) reported paclobutrazol
inhibited stem growth. After treatment, the reducing sugars, soluble sugar
and starch contents of leaves decreased while P, K, Ca, Mg, Mn, eu, Fe, Al,
Sr and Pb contents increased. Present results are in corroboration with
that of Rounkova (1989), Qiu and Liu (1989), Barret and Nell (1990),
Gilbertz (1992), Lowya (1994), Robert and Mathews (1995), Yewale et al.
(1998) and Singh et al. (1999) in chtysanthemum by pac1obutrazol, and
Madalageri and Ganiger' (1993), Gasti (1994), Madalageri (1996) and
Prakash (1998) in potato by mepiquat chloride.
Application of growth regulators (GA, BRs and mepiquat chloride) to
pinched plants resulted in increased plant spread. The increase was more
pronounced at 100 ppm of GA, 0.75 ppm of BRs and 250 ppm of mepiquat
chloride. 'Ibis increase in plant spread was mainly due to increased
number of branches and wider angles between the primary and secondary
147
branches at the point of origin. This ultimately resulted in vigorous growth. --There was a significant reduction in plant spread due to application of
pac1obutrazol at higher concentrations (200 and 400 ppm). This infact
could be attributed to production of very erect and few number of branches
in these treatments.
Increase in plant spread due to the application of BR and GA in rose
was reported by Dias (1998). Yewale et al. (1998) reported that,
pac1obutrazol (100 and 175 ppm) was most effective in reducing plant
height, number of leaves, leaf area, number of internodes and length of
internodes, thereby producing more compact plants.
GA, mepiquat chloride, BRs at all the concentrations and
paclobutrazol at lower levels (50 and 100 ppm) enhanced the number of
primary branches per plant in pinched plants. The increase was more
pronounced in GA, BR and mepiquat chloride at 100 ppm, 0.75 ppm and
250 ppm levels, respectively. Higher concentration (200 and 400 ppm) of
paclobutrazol drastically reduced the number of primary branches when
compared to control.
Num.ber of secondary branches per plant was increased by GA (at all
the concentrations), mepiquat chloride (250 ppm) and BRs (0.25, 0.5 and
0.75 ppm) application, while it was reduced by paclobutrazol (200 and 400
ppm) in pinched plants. Number of secondary branches were maximum in
pinched plants when treated with GA at 100 ppm'and BRs at 0.75 ppm.
148
Evidences suggest that a complex character such as yield, is much
regulated by component characters like ability to form branches and other
yield components. In young chrysanthemum plants, the possibility of
promoting formation of branches by horticultural practices viz., spraying of
growth regulators and pinching practices is envisaged by various scientists.
The release from apical dominance in order to produce . lateral branches,
can be achieved by several methods viz., pinching (Bubenheim and Lewis,
1986) and growth regulators (Carpenter, 1975, and Ohkawa, 1979).
Several authors suggest that, horticultural plant strategies like pruning,
pinching and disbudding have their main effect on the storage of
carbohydrates in lower parts of the plants (Zieslin et al., 1975 and Morisot
et al., 1996). For branch production, the stems sezve as a resezvoir for
normal shoot development. Storage and mobilization of carbohydrates
resezves in plant parts are essential for growth and production. In this
direction, pinching was found better in increasing the number of branches
along with growth regulators.
Relatively, higher number of branches in BRs treated plants is its
indirect effect via auxin induced ethylene production. The effect of ehtylene
in breaking dormancy of buds and releasing them from correlative
inhibition is known in many plants. Zieslin et ale (1972) reported increase
in number of basal canes in roses by ethephon. The production of ethylene
by BRs is elicited by Arteca et ale (1983), who demonstrated enhanced
149
auxin induced ehylene production by BRs by several folds. This increase in
endogenous ethylene may be either BR preventing the degree of conjugation
of auxin or promoting endogenous levels of auxin.
Another possible reason . is the synergistic response between
cytokinin and IAA which is related to ACe synthase activity (Y oshi and
Imaseki, 1981). Thus, BRs and cytokinin may increase the levels of free
endogenous IAA which in turn increases ethylene production by further
stimulating ACe synthase. Furthermore, they concluded that when BRs
and cytokinin are applied in combination there may be a direct synergism
stimulating ACe synthase activity and, an extremely low threshold level of
endogenous IAA may be required for BR elicited effect such as increased
synthesis of ethylene.
Another possible reason is that plant growth regulators release lateral
buds from paradormancy and cause concomitant changes in galacto and
phospholipids and the ratio of unsaturated fatty acids to saturated fatty
acids. A decrease in ratio of free sterol to phospholipids and an inCrease in
ratio of campesterol + stigmasterol to sitosterol ruso accompanies bud
break (Wang and Faust, 1989a and b). Relatively higher number of
branches were obtained by Sen and Maharana (1972) in chIysanthemum
sprayed with GA at 100 ppm and by Dias (1998) in rose plants pruned to
45 cm and sprayed with BR at 5 ppm.
150
The increase in the production of number of branches per plant with
mepiquat chloride could be due to the suppression of apical dominance as
a result of increase in the auxin activity due to the application of growth
retardant, thereby directing the polar transport of auxins towards the basal
buds leading to increased branching. Similarly, Madalageri and Ganiger
(1993), Gasti (1994) and Prakash (1998) reported increased number of
tillers per plant in potato by application of mepiquat chloride.
Application of GA (100 and 200 ppm), mepiquat chloride (250 and
500 ppm) and BRs (0.25, 0.5 and 0.75 ppm) application significantly
increased the number of leaves per plant in pinched plants, while
pac1obutrazol at highest concentration (400 ppm) drastically reduced it
when compared to control. However, the highest number of leaves per
plant was in BRs treatment at 0.5 ppm followed by GA at 100 ppm, while it
was minimum in paclobutrazol (400 ppm) treatment.
Increased number of leaves in growth regulator sprayed pinched "
plants was due to vigorous growth, increased number of prirhary and
secondary branches and plant spread, which in turn facilitated better
harvest of sunshine by the plants to produce more number of leaves.
Reduction in number of leaves by paclobutr~ol at higher concentration
was due to lesser number of branches which resulted in reduction in
growth and number of leaves. These results are in line with those of Yewale
et al. (1998) who reported that reduction in leaf production due to
151
pac1obutrazol spray in chIysanthemum cultivars at 100 and 175 ppm
levels.
In general, GA, BR and mepiquat chloride at· optimum concentrations
increased the leaf area. The highest leaf area was in GA at 100 ppm
followed by BR at 0.75 ppm. Sen and . Maharana (1972) also reported an
increase in leaf area with GA (100 and 200 ppm) as compared to control in
chIysanthemum cv. Early White. Mepiquat chloride increased the leaf area
and it was maximum at 250 ppm. However, it reduced with an increase in
the concentration. These results are in accordance with the results of
Madalageri and Ganiger (1993) who found increased leaf area and leaf area
index with 150 ppm of mepiquat chloride. In contrast, mepiquat chloride
at 500 ppm and 1000 ppm reduced the leaf area in potato (Prakash, 1998).
There was a significant reduction in leaf area due to the application
of pac1obutrazol at higher concentration which could be mainly attributed
to decrease in number of leaves. Robert and Mathews (1995) reported
reduction in leaf size in plantlets of chIysanthemum cv. Pennine Reel
treated with paclobutrazol or enantiomer 25, 35. Similarly, Yewale et al.
(1998) reported that pac1obutrazol was most effective in reducing leaf area
at 100 and 175 ppm levels in chrysanthemum.
Better growth and development of the plant architecture is essential
to have optimum production which depends on the food reseIVoir of the ~'-
plant. Apart from this it is important to have better photosynthetic rate so
152
as to keep the plant in healthy and vigorous. For a plant to show
mcreased relative growth rate it depends on its efficiency in utilizing the
available resources to the extent possible. Among the various resources,
the major natural factor initiating photosynthetic factory is the solar
energy. Harvestability of this solar energy to an optimum level by the plant
depends on several factors, with the pigment complex (chlorophyll etc.)
being the prime factor to initiate photosynthesis and expedite
photoassimilates overall. In this connection paclobutrazo1, mepiquat
chloride and BRs increased the chlorophyll content considerably as
compared to GA.
The plants treated with GA were light· green while, they were dark
green with other growth regulators (Personal observation). GA appeared to
reduce the chlorophyll content. Sayed and Muthuswamy (1974) in
chrysanthemum, reported reduction in leaf chlorophyll content due to GA
spray. Krizek and Mandava (1983b) reported enhanced chlorophyll content
and assinillation of photosynthates by BRs which was correlated to the "'<,
importance of radiant energy and spectral quality of light (as pre
requisites). Increased assimilate partitioning was attributed to increased
membrane penneability. In this perspective, plant height and plant spread
are the important parameters which increase with the photosynthetic area.
Similarly, Dias (1998) reported BR increased chlorophyll content in rose.
153
It has been observed by Cathey in 1964 that growth retardants in
addition to the inhibition of cell division caused induction of grana and
initiated the development of chloroplasts, as a result plants treated with
growth retardants had much greener leaves than those of untreated plants.
True to the fmdings of Cathey (1964), it was observed in the present study
that there was an increase in the chlorophyll content due to the application
of growth retardants at all the concentrations.
These results are in line with those of Qiu and Liu (1989) who
reported that PP 333 (pac1obutrazol) treated duysanthemum plants at
1000 ppm were shorter, but with green leaves. Ganiger (1992) reported an
increase in photosynthetic pigments (chlorophyll a, b and total) by spraying
mepiquat chloride on seed tuber planted potato. Similar results were
reported by Gasti (1994) and Prakash (1998) in potato with mepiquat
chloride.
Both growth promoters and retardants increased the sucker
production. in the pinched plants. However, the maximum, sucker
production was obtained with application of GA (100 and 200 ppm) and
m.epiquat chloride (250 ppm).
Growth regulators :might have helped the production of good number
of quality roots in the plants, in turn the sucker production. Robert and
Mathews (1995) reported that plantlets of chrysanthemum cv. Pennine Reel
treated with paclobutrazol or enantiomer 25, 35 had significantly thicker
154
roots than controls. Increased root diameter was due to an increase in the
number of rows and diameter of cortical cells (Burrows et al., 1992).
5.3.2 Flo1VerLng
Harvesting of chIysanthemum flowers to coincide with market
demdnd on a particular occasion / festival is very essential. It is here that
days to 50 per cent flowering gains its pride. Flowering of chIysanthemum
is very seasonal, generally from August to December. During periods of
peak production, there will be a glut in the market. Manipulation of
flowering (Le. either pre-pone or postpone) by efficient use of physical
(pinching, disbudding and photoperiodic manipulation) and chemical
(growth promoters and retardants) means helps to explore the market
potentiality of chIysanthemum. Thus, it is noteworthy to pointout GA and
BR resulted earliness in the pinched plants to reach 50 per cent flowering,
while growth retardants (pac1obutrazol and mepiquat chloride) delayed it.
GA at 200 pprTl BR at 0.5 ppm were competent enough to induce earliness
(nearly 14 days and 5 days, respectively), whereas pac10butrazpdl and
lnepiquat chloride were competent enough to delay it (nearly 19 and 11
days, respectively) when compared to control.
The treatment pinching + GA (200 ppm) which was early to initiate
flower bud and for flrst flowering, was early to induce 50 per cent flowering.
Advanced bud formation and onset of flowers in GA treated plants is
155
attributed to enhanced extension growth stimulated by GA. Increased
photosynthesis and respiration with enhanced C02 fIxation in the treated
plants are also associated with early flowering (Sen and Sen, 1969).
Nagarj~a et al. (1988) reported that GA3 at 100 and 200 ppm hastened
time to 50 per cent flowering in chrysanthemum. Similarly, Sen and
Maharana (1972) and Dutta et al. (1993) obtained early flowering in
chrysanthemum with GAl and Dias (1998) in rose with' BRs. Sirpilarly,
delay Ll1 the plants to reach 50 per cent flowering with pac1obutrazol was
also reported by Qiu and Liu (1989), Gilbertz (1992) and Yewale et al.
(1997). Delay in flowering may be due to inhibition of GA biosynthesis and
reduction in the rate of flower bud development by the applied chemicals
(Dutta et ai., 1993).
GA at higher concentrations (100 and 200 ppm) BR at 0.75 ppm,
paclobutrazol and mepiquat chloride at lower concentrations (50 and 250
ppm), improved the flowering duration in pinched plants, while growth
retardants at higher concentrations reduced it. Long flowering duration
which was observed in these plants was possibly, due to increased number
i \ of branches, leaves and leaf area which' enabled them to synthasise
mcreased amOlmts of photosynthates which in turn resulted in increased
flowering duration. Similarly, Dutta et al. (1993) and Qiu and Liu (1989)
reported wider flowering duration in chrysanthemum with growth promoter
(GA) and retardant (paclobutrazol).
156
5.3.3 Flower yield
Improvement in yield according to Humphries (1979) could happen in
two ways Le. by adopting the existing varieties to grow better in their
environment or by altering the relative proportion of different plant parts so
as to increase the yield of economically important parts.
The impulse of progress in crop production by use of growth
regulators was propelled by a better understanding and an appropriate
exploitation of plant architecture and horticultural practices. However, the
choice of growth regulators to increase the production is based on the mode
of action and potentiality of the specific chemicals.
The use of plant growth regulators with recommended horticultural
practices in specific cultivars seems to be a novel theme of modifying plant
architecture for sustained production (Pal, 1972 and Smith and Kohl,
1970). At proper concentrations, the plant growth regulators were found to
manipulate growth and 'flowering in a desirable direction. The high
economic value of chrysanthemums had made a tempting targets for
growth regulator applications. Growth regulators elicit an ovezwhelming
array of responses in plants directly (cell elongation and cell permeability
and other physiological activities such as uptake of nutrients, water and
157
partitioning of photoassimilates) and indirectly (via kick staring an
interplay of endogenous hormones) conducive towards accretion and yield.
In this direction, growth promoters and retardants proved better to
elevate the yield levels. Application of GA, BRs and mepiquat chloride at all
the concentrations and pac1obutrazol at lower concentration (50 ppm)
promoted the flower yield per hectare in pinched plants. However, the
flower yield was significantly increased in pinched and sprayed plants with
GA at 100 ppm followed by BRs at 0.75 ppm and mepiquat chloride at 250
ppm. The effect of these plant growth regulators in augmenting the yield
levels was also reported by Dutta et al. (1993) and Talukdar and Paswan
(1994) in chrysanthemum with GA, Mandava (1988) in fruits and
vegetables and Dias (1998) in rose with BRs, Gasti (1994) and Prakash
(1998) jn potato with mepiquat chloride and Singh et al. (1999) in
chrysanthemum with pac1obutrazol.
Increased yields in growth regulator treated plants had been
attributed to the productio~ of large number of laterals which had
sufficient reserve carbohydrate for proper flower bud differentiation (Dutta
et al. 1993). Growth regulators promoted vegetative growth of plants in
terms of optimum plant height, increased number of branches, leaves, leaf
area and plant spread which enabled them to produce increased amounts
of photosynthates and in turn resulted in high dry matter accumulation,
increased flowering duration, flower quality and yield.
158
The increase in yields due to growth retardants could be attributed to
reduction in vegetative growth thereby resulting in diversion of assimilates
to reproductive growth, giving increased yield potential. It was also
observed that there was an increase in the chlorophyll content due to
growth retardants and BRs which might have also contributed for increased
yield and yield components.
5.3.4 Quality parameters
Growth promoters (GA and BRs) at all the concentrations and growth
retardant at lower level (mepiquat chloride at 250 ppm) increa~ed the flower
diameter in pinched plants. However, the flower diameter was maximum in
the plants pinched and sprayed with GA at 100 ppm followed by BR at 0.75
ppm and mepiquat chloride at 250 ppm and it was minimum in
·pac1obutrazol (400 ppm) sprayed plants.
Enhancement of flower size due to growth promoters could be
attributed to increased length of petals and pedicels accompanied by
increased number of petals. It was opined by Zieslin et al. (1975) that the
enlargement of flower size is caused by drawing of photosynthates to the
flower as a consequence of intensification of the sink. The pinched plants
sprayed with lower level of mepiquat chloride produced good amount of
vegetative growth in turns of more number of branches, leaves, leaf area,
159
plant spread which might have favoured production of increased
photosynthates by the plants which increased the flower size.
The effect of these plant growth regulators in augmenting the flower
quali1y was also evidenced by NagaIjuna et al. (1988), Dehale et al. (1993)
and Dutta et al. (1993) with GA and Ripka and Szanto (1988) with
pac1obutrazol in chrysanthemum.
The peduncle length increased in pinched plants with the application
of growth promoters, while it decreased with growth retardants. However,
it was maximum with GA at 100 ppm followed by BR at 0.75 ppm and GA
at 200 ppm and was minimum with paclobutrazol (200 ppm).
As suggested by Dutta et al. (1993) enhancement in the length of
flower stalk might have resulted from increased cell division and elongation
under the influence of growth promoters, whereas its reduction could be
due to suppression or inhibition of cell division and elongation under the
influence of growth retardants. Increase in peduncle length has been
reported by Sheu et al. (1998) and Dias (1998) in chIysanthemum with
GA and in rose with BRs, respectively.
160
5.4 EFFECT OF POST-HARVEST SPRAY OF GROWTH REGULATORS ON SHELF LIFE OF CHRYSANTHEMUM
Flowers, due to their perishable nature, higher moisture contents,
susceptibility to lnicro-organisms and improper storage and transport
conditions deteriorate both in quality (colour fading, longevity etc) and
quantity (shrinkage 20 to 30%) very fast and pose problems in post harvest
handling.
Flowers removed from the plant routinely deteriorate much more
quickly than other flower left on the plant under similar environmental
conditions. Water is a frrst and self-evident need of the excised flower. A
source of respirable substrate is also very important. Finally, there is
indirect evidence that roots supply a natural antisenescence factor,
probably hormonal in nature, which would have to be supplied to maximise
the keeping quality of the flowers (Rogers, 1973). Keeping these facts in
view an experiment was conducted to study the post harvest life of flowers.
All the treatments (growth regula~ors / chemicals) including water spray
significantly reduced the weight loss of chrysanthemum flowers when
compared to control treatment. However, Benzyl Adenine (25 and 50 ppm)
proved as best chemical for increasing the post harvest life of
chrysanthemum loose flowers, followed by GA (100 ppm) in combination
with sucrose (2%) by reducing PLW and maintaining freshness for the
longer period. The cytokinins delay processes associated with flower
161
senescence and thus m~tain the integrity of the cell (Mayak and Halvey,
1974) decrease sensitivity of the plant tissue to ethylene (Esinger, 1977).
Heide and Oydvin (1969) reported that an external application of BA
delays senescence in carnation. Garrod and Harris (1978) found an
increased longevity of carnation flowers with GA.
Sucrose at 2 per cent in these experiments was found beneficial in
maintaining the weight. Similarly, reduced PLW and higher freshness for a
longer time was obtained by Nirmala and Reddy (1994) with the external
application of sucrose and water. There will be a sharp decline in the
carbohydrate content of cut flowers, immediately after harvest. Hence,
addition of sucrose serves as an alternate source of energy. Apart from
serving as a respiratory substrate, it also acts as an antidessicant (Coorts,
1973) with the principal mechanism being partial closure of the stomata
(Rogers, 1973).
Future line of work:
1. Cultivar Harvest Home is high yielding, but single type need to be
improved by breeding to produce double flowers.
2. Standardization of production technology viz., nutrition requirements
can be taken up.
3. Studies on year round production of chrysanthemum may be initiated.
SUMMARY
VI. SUMMARY
Experitnents were conducted on " Evaluation of varieties and effects
of planting date and growth regulators on the performance of
cluysanthemum (Dendranthema indicum)" in the farmer's field near Kittur
Rani Channamma College of Horticulture (University of Agricultural
Sciences, Dharwad), Arabhavi, Gokak Taluk, Belgaum District. The results
obtained are summarized hereunder.
1. Effect of dates of planting on the performance of chrysanthemum
cv. Saraval.
Planting of chrysanthemum cv. Saraval was done at monthly
intervals starting from April 2000 to December 2000. The experiment was
laid out by following Randomized Block Design with three replications.
The plants of April followed by May plantings had optimum vegetative
growth. The plants planted in these months were tall, spreading, sturdy,
and had more number of branches, suckers, leaves and more leaf 'area per
plant.
The plants of April were late to flower (145.20 days after planting),
while the plants of December followed by November plantings flowered early
(42.93 and 47.27 days after planting, respectively).
16~~ .
nlU'ation of flowering decreased gradually from April planting to
December planting. April and May plantings flowered for longer duration
(65.67 days and 62.00 days, respectively) as compared to other plantings.
Flower yield gradually decreased right from April planting to
December planting. The flower yield was maximum in plants planted in
April (15.03 t / hal and May (14.91 t / hal.
Flower quality in terms of flower diameter was the best in May
planting (5.04 cm) followed by April planting (4.99 cm). The plants of
December plantings produced small sized flowers (4.62 cm).
2. Evaluation of genotypes of chrysanthemum
Seventeen genotypes were planted in the flrst week of May 2000 for
first season and for the second season 2001. The experiment was
conducted in a randomised block design with three replications.
The chrysanthemum cultivars showed variations in growth, yield,
quality and disease incidence.
Among the different accessions, Harvest Home, Mutant No.9,
Selection-5, Kamool, Saraval and Chandrika were vigorous in growth. At
harvest stage the cvs. Saraval and Harvest Home recorded higher plant
height (73.77 cm and 73.61 cm, respectively), whereas cv. Kirti recorded
minimum plant height (38.06 cm).
164-
Plant spread was maximum in accession Harvest Home (2365.54
cm2) , Mutant No.9 (2024.34 cm2) and Selection-5 (1822.82 cm2). It was
minimum (570.14 cm2) in Spray Purple.
Cultivars Harvest Home, Mutant No.9, Kamool, Selection-5, Saraval
and Chandrika produced higher number of branches when compared to
other accessions_
Accession Harvest Home recorded the highest number of leaves per
plant (348.10) and was significantly superior to other accessions. The next
accessions in the order, for higher number of leaves per plant were
Chandrika (271.70) and Mutant No.9 (267.70). Accession Nanako recorded
the least (82.43) number of leaves per plant.
Leaf area was higher in the genotypes Selection-5 (4485 cm2/ plant),
Harvest Home (4408 cm2/ plant), Mutant No.9 (4357 cm2/plant), Karnool
(4340 cm2/ plant), Saraval (4230 cm2 / plant) and Chandrika (4095 cm2 /
plant) as compared to other varieties, while it was minimum (1012 cm2/
plant) in Spray Purple.
Stem girth was more in Harvest Home (1.52 cm), Mutant No.9 (1.41
cm) and Saraval (1.39 cm) and it was minimum in Spray Purple (0.95 cm).
The genotype Harvest Home recorded maximum total clIy matter
(47.81 g / plant), whereas the genotype Spray Purple recorded minimum
16 5~
(21.68 g / plant). The next genotypes in the order for higher dIy matter
accumulation were Selection-5 (43.23 g / plant), Mutant No.9 (43.16 g /
plant), Saraval (42.36 g / plant), Kamool (41.29 g / plant) and Chandrika
(40.45 g / plant).
Sucker production was maximum in Kamool (13.92) and was
minimum in Spray Purple (3.14). The next genotypes in the order for
increased number of suckers per plant were Harvest Home (12.44),
Chandrika (11.64) Vasantika (9.84) and Saraval (9.57).
Total chlorophyll content was higher in Selection-5 (1.67 mg/g) ,
Kamool (1.61 mg/g ), Saraval (1.56 mg/g ) and Mutant No.9 (1.53 mg /g )
and it was the lowest (0.79 mg /g) in Raja genotype.
Cultivars Kamoo!, Kirti, Lohin Green, Pink Cascade and Chandrika
took minimum number of days to reach 50 per cent flowering. The cultivar
Saraval was late to initiate flower bud, to flower and to reach 50 per cent
flowering.
Genotypes Saraval, Mutant No.9, Chandrika, Selection-5 and Kamool
flowered for more number of days (63.83, 6i.33, 60.67, 59.50 and 57.33
days, respectively).
Flower yield was higher in Harvest Home (14.87 t / hal, Mutant No.9
(14.68 t/ha), Kamoo! (14.24 t/ ha)~ Selection-5 (14.2 t/ha) , Saraval
166
(14.13 t j hal and Chandrika (13.70 tjha) as compared to other genotypes
and was minimum (3.12 tjha) in Spray Purple genotype.
The genotype Mutant No.9 recorded the widest flower diameter (5.70
cm) but it was on par with Harvest Home (5.65 cm), Sonali Tara (5.53 cm),
Karnool (5.51 cm), Chandrika (5.41 cm), Saraval (5.39 cm) and Bangalore
(5.27 cm). The flower diameter was least (1.64 cm) in Spray Purple.
Stalk length was maximum (44.67 cm) in Harvest Home, closely
followed by genotypes Saraval (42.06) and Mutant No.9 (41.94 cm) and was
minimum (28.62 cm) in Kirti genotype.
Shelf life of loose flowers was more in Saraval (3.78 days), Selection-5
(3.50 days), Mattur (3.45 days), Bangalore (3.39 days), Karnool, Baggi, Kirti
(3.33 days each), Raja (3.28 days), Sonali Tara (3.22 days) and it was least
(1.45 days) in Spray Purple.
3. Effect of different growth regulators on chrysanthemum
The expeliment was undertaken on chrysanthemum cv. Karnool
during 2000 and 2001 (two years) to know the effect of growth regulators
on growth, yield and quality of chrysanthemum.
Application of GA at 100 ppm and BR at 0.75 ppm to pinched plants
increased the plant height: These two treatments and mepiquat chloride at
250 ppm exhibited excellent plant architecture (spread), relatively higher
number of branches and increased leaf area. In tilln, these parameters
resulted in maximum flower production.
Nurnber of leaves produced per plant were the highest (273.13) in
pinched plants sprayed with BR at 0.5 ppm, followed by GA at 100 ppm
spray (255.73). The number of leaves produced per plant was least in the
treatment pinching + pac1obutrazol at 400 ppm (106.87). The control
plants recorded 127.70 number of leaves per plant.
Leaf area was maximum (7122.35 cm2 /plant) in plants pinched and
sprayed with GA at 100 ppm followed by BR at 0.75 ppm (6691.69
cm:.>. / plant), while, the leaf area was minimum in pinching + pac1obutrazol
at 400 ppm (2368.73 cm2 /plant) treatment.
Pac1obutrazol (100, 200 and 400 ppm), mepiquat chloride (250, 500
and 750 ppm) and BR (1.5 ppm) increased the total chlorophyll content
significantly over the control, whereas chlorophyll content was reduced to a
great extent by gibberellins.
GA (100 and 200 ppm), pac1obutrazol (50, 100, 200 and 400 ppm),
Inepiquat chloride (250 and 750 ppm) and BR (0.75 ppm) increased the
sucker production in pinched plants over control treatment.
GA . (100 ppm) induced early flowering. However application of
pac1obutrazol at 400 ppm, mepiquat chloride at 500 and 750 ppm resulted
in delayed flowering.
16S
GA (100 and 200 ppm), BR at 0.75 ppm, paclobutrazol at 50 ppm
and mepiquat chloride at 250 ppm increased the flowering duration when
compared. to control.
Considerable magnitude in the elevation of yield levels in
chrysanthemum by use of growth regulators is evidenced from the present
study. The flower yield was higher in plants pinched and sprayed with GA
at 100 ppm (17.0 t / hal, BR at 0.75 ppm (16.39 t / hal and mepiquat
chloride at 250 ppm (16.26 t / hal as compared to other treatments. These
treatments recorded increased flower weight and diameter.
GA (100 and 200 ,ppm) and BR at 0.75 ppm increased the peduncle
length, while paclobutrazol at all the concentrations (50, 100, 200 and 400
ppm) and mepiquat chloride at higher levels (500 and 750 ppm) reduced
the peduncle length as compared to control.
4. Effect of post-harvest spray of growth regulators on shelf life of chrysanthemum
All the treatments (growth regulators / chemicals) including water
spray significantly reduced the weight loss of chrysanthemum loose flowers.
However, Benzyl Adenine (25 and 50 ppm) proved the best chemical for
increasing the post harvest life of chrysanthemum loose flowers, followed by
GA (100 ppm) in combination with sucrose (2%) by reducing PLW and
maintaining freshness for the longer period.
REfERENCES
VII. REFERENCES
*AARTS, J.R., 1957a, Over de houd baarheid van snijbloemen. Meded van
de Lnad bou whogeschool te Wageningem, 57:1-62.
*AARTS, J.R., 1957b, De ontwikkeling en houdbaarheid van afgeneden
bloemen. Mededelingen Directeur Van de TUinbouw, 20:690-701.
*ALIMANN, A. AND STREITZ, D., 1995, Multiflora chrysanthemums for cut
outdoor production. Gartenbau Magdzin, 3:12-14.
ANGADI, M.S., 2000, Studies on performance of China aster (Callistephus
chinensis Nees.) cultivars. M.Sc. Thesis. University of Agricultural
Sciences, Dharwad.
ANONYMOUS, 1985, Progress report of All India Co-ordinated Floriculture
Improven~ent Project, Pune Centre.
ANONYMOUS, 2001, Horticulture Crop Statistics of Karnataka at a glance
1997-98 to 1999-2000, Government of Karnataka, Department of
Horticulture, Lalbagh, Bangalore.
ANONYMOUS, 2002, Totagarike Belegala Sudharita Besaya Kramagalu (in
Kannada). University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad.
1';'7· '0' JJi' ! ~
*ANTABLY, H.M., HABIB, S.A. AND ROBIE, K.A.E., 1991, The relationship
between the rooting of cuttings, photoperiodism and plant growth
hormones in chrysanthemum. Annals of Agricultural Science Cairo,
36(1):69-83.
ANURADHA, M., ARORA, J.S. AND SIDHU, G.S., 2000, Evaluation of
chrysanthemum varieties for pot culture. Journal of Ornamental
Horticulture, New Series, 3(2):79-82.
ARTECA, R.N., TASI, D.S., SCHLAGHNHAUFER, C. AND MANDAVA,
N.G.B., 1983, The effect of brassinosteroide on auxin induced
ethylene production by etiolated mungbean segments. Physiologia
Plantanlm, 59:539-544.
BARIGIDAD, H.P., 1991, Studies on relative performance, variability,
correlation and path co-efficient analysis in chrysanthemum
(Chrysanthemum morifolium Ramat). MSc. Thesis. University of
Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad.
BARIGIDAD, H. AND PATIL, A.A., 1997, Relative performance of
chrysanthemum cultivars under transitional tract of Karnataka.
Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Science, 10(1):98-101.
171
BARMAN, D., GHOSH, S. AND PAL, P., 1993, Effect of planting date and
pinching height on cut flowering of chIysanthemum (Chrysanthemum
morifolium Ramat.) cv. Chandrama. Horticulture Journal, 6(2):121-
124.
BARRETT, J.E. AND NELL, T.A., 1990, Factors affecting efficiency of
paclobutrazol and uniconazole on petunia and chIysanthemum. Acta
Horticu ltu rae, 272 :229-234.
BUBENHEIM, R.D. AND LEWIS, A.J., 1986, Pre-plant application of
growth retardants to pinched and unpinched chIysanthemum
cuttings. Scientia Horticulturae, 28:159-164.
BURDETT, A.N., 1970, The cause of bent neck in cut roses. Journal of the
American Society for Horticulture Science,. 95:427-431.
BURG, S.P., 1973, Ethylene in plant growth. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Science, USA, 70:591-597.
BURROWS, G.E., BOAG, T.S. AND STEWART, W.P., 1992, Changes in leaf,
stem and root anatomy of chIysanthemum cv. Lillian Hoek following
paclobutrazol application. Journal of Plant Growth Regulation,
11(4): 189-194.
CARPENTER, W.J., 1975, Foam sprays of plant growth regulating
chemicals on rose shoot development at cut back. HortScience,
19:605-606.
CArnEY, H.M., 1964, Physiology of growth retarding chemicals. Annual
Review of Plant Physiology, 15:271-302.
CERANA, R., BONETTI, A., MARRE, M.T., ROMANI, G., LADO, P. AND
MARRE, E., 1983, Effect of a bras sino steroid on growth and
electrogenic proton extrusion in Azuki bean epicotyls. Physiologia
Plantarum, 59:23-27.
CHEZH IAN , N., NANJAN, K. AND ABDUL KHADER, M.D., 1986, Effect of
spacing and pinching in Chrysanthemum indicum cv. CO-I. South
Indian Horticulture, 34:397-400.
CHEZHIAN, N., PONNAUSWAMI, Y., THAMBURAJ, S., KHADER, J.B.M.,
NA..~JAN, K. AND GUNASEKARAN, N., 1985a, Evaluation of
chrysanthemum cultivars. South Indian Horticulture, 33:279-282.
CHEZHIAN, N., THAMBURAJ, S., KHADER, J.M.A., PONNUSWAMI, V.,
SAMBANDAMURTIII, S. AND RANGASWAMY, P., 1985b, New
varieties of horticultural crops released· by Tamil Nadu Agricultural
University, Coimbatore during 1985, CO-I chrysanthemum. South
Indian Horticulture, 33: 72-73.
173 "". J(
COCKSHULL~ K.E. AND KOFRANEK, A.M., 1992, Responses of garden
cluysanthemum to day length. HortScience, 27: 113-115.
COCKSHULL, K.E., LAUGTON, F.A. AND CAVE, C.R.J., 1995, Differential
effects of different DIF treatments on chrysanthemum and poinsettia.
Acta Horticulturae, 378:8-11.
COORTS, G.D., 1973, Internal metabolic changes in cut flowers.
HortScience, 8: 195-198.
CORMENO, P., 1989, Cultivation of chrysanthemum in winter in unheated
greenhouse on the coast of Gulf of Cadiz and areas of maritime
influence. Acta Horticulturae, 246:121-129.
DAMKE, M.M., JADHO, B.J., HEDAU, C.V. AND PATIL, V.S., 1998,
Performance of chrysanthemum varieties for flower production under
Akola conditions. PKV Research Journal, 22(1):148-150.
DEHALE, M.H., DESHMUKH, P.P. AND MOHARKAR, V.K., 1993, Influence
of foliar application of GAa as quality of chrysanthemum. Journal of
Soils and Crops, 3(2):135-137.
DEOTALE, A.B., BELORKAR, PLV., PATIL, S.R., ZODE, V.N. AND KECHE,
M.B., 1994, Effect of date of planting and foliar spray of GAa on
flowering and yield of chrysanthemum. Journal of Soils and Crops,
4(2):148-151.
1·7-4 -' .;t
DEOTALE, A.B., BELORKAR, P.V., PATIL, S.R., DAHALE, M.H. AND
DARNAGE, S.D., 1.995, Effect of date of planting and foliar spray of
GAJ on quality of chrysanthemum. Journal of Soils and Crops,
5(1):70-72.
DESHAPANDE, G.D., ANSERWADEKER, R.W. AND WARKE, D.C., 1979, A
note on the varietal reaction of hybrid T-roses to powdery mildew.
Research BuUetin, Marathawada Agricultural University, 3:81-83.
DHUA, R.S., 1999, Chrysanthemum In. Floriculture and Landscaping Ed.
Bose, T.K. Maiti, R.G., Dhua, R.S. and Das, P. Naya Prokash,
Culcutta, pp.436-466.
DIAS, ·S.M.F., 1998, Effect of growth regulators on growth and flowering of
roses and post-harvest physiology of cut roses. Ph.D. Thesis.
University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad.
DING, S. AND DUNGDIN, X.I., 2001, Infection pattern of Pucdnia horiana
and its control by chemicals. Plant Protection, 27(2):20-22.
DUTrA, J.P., SEEMANTHINI, R., KHADER, M.A. AND RAMDAS, S., 1993,
Regulation of flowering by growth regulators in chrysanthemum
(Chrysanthemum indicum L.) cV. CO-I. South Indian Horticulture,
41(5):293-299.
-11,.76
DUTrA, J.P. SEEMANTHINI AND RAMDAS, 1995, Regulation of flowering in
chIysanthemum cv. CO-1 through supplementary illumination.
Journal of Agricultural Science Society of North East India, 8:29-32.
ESINGER, W., 1977, Role of cytokinins in carnation flower senescence.
Plant Physiology, 59:707.
FAROOQI, A.H.A., KUMAR, R., SHARMA, S., SUSHILKUMAR AND
KUMAR, S., 1999, Effect of plant growth regulators on flowering
behaviour of pyrethrum in north Indian plains. Journal of Medicinal
and Aromatic Plant Sciences, 21(3):681-685.
FAUST, J.E. AND HEINS, R.D., 1992, High night temperatures do not
cause poor lateral branching of chIysanthemum. HortScience,
27:981-982.
*FERRATTO, J., ROTONDO, R., BENEDE'ITO, A.D., DI-BENEDEITO, A.,
1996, Effect of plant density and pinching on production of
cruysanthemum for cut flowers. Horticulture Argentina, 15(39):71-
74.
GAIKWAD, A.M. AND DUMBREPATIL, S.S., 2001, Evaluation of
cruysanL'1.emum varieties under open and polyhouse conditions.
Journal of Ornamental Horticulture, New Series, 4(2):95-97.
176
GANIGER, V.M., 1992, Use of growth retardants in potato (Solanum
tuberosum L.) production. M.Sc.(Agri.) Thesis. University of
Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad.
GAO, Y., MAO, L.S. ZHAO, H.Y. AND LIU, X.J., 1991, Physiological effects
of paclobutrazol on potted chrysanthemum (Dendranthema
morifolium). Plant Physiology Communications, 27(3): 192-194.
GARROD, J.F. AND HARRIS, G.P., 1978, Effects of gibberellic acid on
senescence of isolated petals of carnation. Annals of Applied Biology,
88:309.
GASTI, V.D., 1994, Response of commercial vegetables to growth
retardants. M.Sc. fAgri.) Thesis. University of Agricultural Sciences,
Dharwad.
* GELD ER, A., ETHEMA, J., HOEVEN, A.P. AND JANDER, 1990, An
investigation of usefulness in chrysanthemum : new cultivars tested.
Vakblad Vaorda Bloemisterij, 45:26-31.
GILBERTZ, D.A., 1992, Chrysanthemum response to timing of
paclobutrazol and uniconazole sprays. HortSdence, 27(4):322-323.
GILL, A.P.S., MANDHIR, S. AND PADAKI, P.M., 1995, Effect of date of
planting on the quality of cut flowers of Chrysanthemum morifolium
cv. Chandrama. Journal of Research; 22:253-257.
1'7~7
GISLEROD, H.R. AND MORTENSEN, L.M., 1991, Air humidity and nutrient
concentration affect nutrient uptake and growth of some greenhouse
plants. Acta Horticulturae, 294: 141-146.
*GONZALET, P. AND BARTSCH, F., 1989, Nutrient absorption by
chrysanthemum (Chrysanthemum morifolium) cv. Super White
throughout one life cycle in a greenhouse. Agronomia Costamcense,
13(1):51-60.
GREGORY, L.E., 1981, Acceleration of plant growth through seed treatment
with brassins. American Journal of Botany, 68:586-588.
HALEVY, A.H. AND MAYAK, S., 1974, Improvement of cut flower quality,
opening and longevity by pre shipment treatments. Acta
Horticulturae, 41: 103-116.
HALEVY, A.H. AND MAYAK, S., 1981, Senescence and post-harvest
physiology of cut flowers. In: Horticultural Reviews, Part-II Ed.
Janick, J., AVI Publishing Company, Inc. West Port, Connecticut,
3:59-143.
HAND, D.W., LANGTON, F.A., HANNAH, M.A. COCKSHULL, K.E., 1996,
Effect of humidity on growth and flowering of cut flower
chrysanthemum (Dendrathema grandiflora Tzvelev.). Journal of
Horticultural Science, 71(2):227-234.
1.78
*HANKE, H., 1996, Short day decreases the risk of late flowering of
chrysanthemums. Taspo Gartenbaumagatin, 5(8):8.
*HASSAN, M.R.A. AND NEWTON, P., 1975, Comm. Gr. No.4131, p.484.
HASSAN, M.A.M., FARRAG, M.M. AND FARRAG, LA., 1989, Response of
potato cv. Diamant to various rates of mepiquat applied at three
stages of plant growth. Australian Journal of Agricultural Sciences,
20(3):143-157.
HEIDE, O.M. AND OYDVIN, J., 1969, Effects of 6-benzylamino-purine on
the keeping quality and respiration of glass house carnation.
Horticulture Research, 9:26.
*HEIDEMANS, C. AND STOLK, T.H., 1984, Chrysanthemum cultivars for
. spring culture. Vakblad Voorda Bloemisterij, 39(51/52):57-60.
HOLCOMB, E.J., TUKEY, L.D. AND ROSE, M.A., 1991, Effect of GA on
influence in uniconazole treated chrysanthemums. HortScience,
26(3):312.
HONT, K., LANGESTAG, J. AND DAHIHALIS, B.L., 1991, The effect of
different growth regulators and chemicals treatments used during
post harvest for preserving quality of chrysanthemum. Acta
Horticulturae, 298:211-214.
179
HUMPHPJES, E.C., 1979, Response of crop plants to growth regulators.
Monograph 31. Rothamsted Experimental Station, England.
JACKSON, M.C., 1967, Soil Chemical Analysis. Prentice Hall of India Pvt.
Ltd, New Delhi, pp.183-192.
JANAKIRAM, T. AND MANJUNATHRAO, T., 2001, Chrysanthemum, Indian
Institute of Horticulture Research, Bangalore, pp.36.
JENSEN, H.E.K., 1993, Influence of duration and placement of a night
temperature on morphogenesis of Dendrathema grandiflora. Scientia
Horticulturae, 54:327-335.
KALINCH, J.F., MANDAVA, N.B. AND TODHUTER, T.A., 1985, Relationship
of nucleic acid metabolism to brassinolide - induced responses in
beans. Journal of Plant Physiology, 120:207-214.
KALTALER, R.E.L. AND STEPONKUS, P.L., 1976, Factors affecting
respiration in cut roses. Journal of the American Society for
Horticulture Science, 101:352-354.
KANAMADI, V.C. AND PATIL, A.A., 1993, Performance of chrysanthemum
varieties in the transitional tract of Karnataka. South Indian
Horticulture, 41(1):58-60.
KATSUMI, M., 1985, Interaction of a brassinosteroid with IAA and GA3 in
the elongation of cucumber hypocotyl sections. Plant Cell Physiology,
26:615-625.
KAUFMAN, P.B., DAYANANDAN, P., AND· MEUD, W., 1982, Growth
promotion by brassionosteroid in sheath pu1vini of grasses. Plant
Physiology, 69: 12.
KHADER, M.A., SUNDARAM, K.S. AND KANNAM, M., 1995, Cu1tural
requirer.£lents of chrysanthemum. In: Advances of Horticulture Vol. II
- Ornamental Plants. Ed. Chadha, K.L. and Bhattachatjee, S.K.,
Malhotra Publishing House, New Delhi, pp.703-711.
KHARA, H.S. AND KAURSA1VINDER, 1983, Fungi from Punjab state VI.
Journal of Research. Punjab Agricultural University, 20:318-326.
*KIYATKIN, A.K., 1975, The effect of planting dates on chrysanthemum
growth and development in Uzebekistan 1974. ReJeratiunyizhurnal,
23:755-915.
*KORIESH, E.M., ABOU-DAHAB, A.M., AND ALI, E.W.M., 1989,
Physiological studies on Chrysanthemum moriflolium. Effects of
cycocel, gibberellic acid and nucleic acids on vegetative growth and
some chemical components. Assiut Journal of Agricultural Sciences,
20(1):27-41.
t8-.1
KOTASTHANE, S.R. AND AGARWAL, S.C., 1976, Control of foliar diseases
of mung bean (Phaseolus aureous) by fungicides.
19(8) :35-36.
Pesticides,
KRIZEK, D.T. AND MANDAVA, N.B., 1983a, Influence of spectral quality on
the growth response of intact bean plants to bras sino steroids,
morphogenesis. Physiologia Plantarum, 57:317-323.
KRIZEK, D.T. AND MANDAVA, N.B., 1983b, Influence of spectral quality on
the growth response of intact beans plants to brassinosteroids, a
growth promoting steroidal lactone I. Assimilate partitioning and
chlorophyll content. Physiologia Plantarum, 57:324-329.
LASKAR, M.A. AND YADAV, L.P., 1991, Varietal performance of
chrysanthemum in the plains of West Bengal. Environment and
Ecology, 9:979-982.
*LAWRENCE, W.J.C., 1950, Science and the Glass House, Oliver and Boyd,
Edinburgh.
*WZOYA, S. H., 1994, Growth inhibitors for pot chrysanthemums. II
pac1obutrazol. Revista Chapingo Sene Horticulture, 1(1):11-14.
MADALAGERI, M.B., 1996, Investigations on the True Potato Seed (TPS)
transplants for potato production in rainfed vertisols. Ph.D. Thesis.
University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad.
18~
MADAIAGERI, B.B. AND GANIGER, V.M., 1993, Mepiquat chloride
increases potato yield. Journal of Indian Potato Association, 29(3-
4):45.
MAMMENMAPPILLAI, K.K. AND VANZANTEN, 1997, Chrysanthemum. In:
Progressive Floriculture. Ed. Yadav, I.S. and Choudhary, M.L. The
House of Sarpan (Media), Bangalore, pp.41-48.
MANDAVA, N .B., 1988, Plant growth promoting brassinosteroids. Annual
Reviews of Plant Physiology and Molecular Biology, 39:23-52.
MANDAVA, N.B., SESSE, J.M. AND YOPP, J.H., 1981, Brassinolide, a
growth promoting steroidal lactone-II. Activity in selected gibberellin
and cytokinin bioassays. Physiologia Plantarum, 53:453-461.
MAYPJ{, S. AND HALEW, A.H., 1970, Cytokinin activity in rose petals and
its relation to senescence. Plant Physiology, 46:497.
MAYAK, S. AND HALEW, A.H., 1974, The action of kinetin in improving
the water balance' and delaying senescence processes of cut rose
flowers. Physiol. Plant, 32:330.
MAYAK, S. AND HALEW, A.H., 1980, Flower senescence In: Senescence
plants, Ed. Thimanna, K.V., C.R.C. Press, Boca Raton, 132.
MEHER, S.P., JOITODE, D.J., TURKHEDE, A.B., DARANGE, S.O.,
DHAWAD, C.S. AND TIIORAT, K.A.W., 1999a, Effect of planting time
and growth regulators on growth of chrysanthemum. Crop Research,
Hissar, 18(3):486-489.
MEHER, S.P., JIOTODE, D.J., TURKHEDE, A.B., DARANGE, S.O.,
GHATOL, P.U., AND DHAWAD, C.S., 1999b, Effect of planting time
and growth regulator treatments on flowering and yield of
chrysanthemum. Crop Research, Hissar, 18(3):345-348.
MEUDT, W.J., THOMPSON, M.J. AND BENNETT, H.W., 1983,
Investigations on the mechanism of the brassionosteroid response II.
Techniques for potential enhancement of crop production. 1 ()th
Proceedings of Plant Growth Regulators Society of America, pp. 312-
318.
MISHRA, H.P., 1999, Evaluation of small flowered varieties of
chrysanthemum for calcarious belt of north Bihar. Indian Journal of
Horticulture, 56(2): 184-188.
MITCHELL, J.W. AND GREGORY, L.W., 1972, Enhancement of overall
growth a new response to brassins. Nature, 239:254.
MITCHELL, J.W., MANDAVA, N.B., WORLEY, J.F., PLIMMER, J.R. AND
SMITH, M.V., 1970, Brassins : a new family of plant hormones from
rape pollen. Nature, 225:1065-1066.
MOORE, T.C., 1980, Bio-chemistry and Physiology of Plant Hormones.
Naroja Publishing House, New Delhi, pp.l07-131.
MORISOT, A., BEAREZ; P., BEN SAOULA, M. AND PEREZ, G., 1996, A
downward way of cutting roses : the "SCHUSS' method. Acta
I-Iorticulturae, 424:200.
MUKESHKUMAR AND CHAITOPADHYAY,· T.K., 2002, Evaluation of
chrysanthemum cultivars for commercial cultivation. Environment
and Ecology, 20(1):49-51.
NAGARAJU, 2001, Effect of dates of planting on growth and flowering of
China Aster (Callistephus chinensis Nees). M.Sc. Thesis. University
of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad.
NAGARJUNA, B., REDDY, V.P., RAO, M.R., AND REDDY, E.N., 1988, Effect
of growth regulators and potassium nitrate on growth, flowering and
yield of chrysanthemum (Chrysanthemum indicum L.). South Indian
Horticulture, 36(3):136-140.
NEGI, S.S., RAO, T.M. AND JANAKIRAM, T., 1988, Varietal evaluation in
chrysanthemum In: Floriculture Technology, Trade and Trends. Ed.
Prakash, J. and Bhandary, K.R., Oxford and IBH Co. Pvt. Ltd, New
Delhi, pp.340-344.
185 . - '
NICHOLS, R., 1973, Senescence of the cut flower: respiration and sugar
status. Journal of Horticultural Science, 48: 111-121.
NIRMALA, S. AND REDDY, T.V.K., 1994, Extension of shelf life of
Jasminum multiflorum by, sucrose, silver thiosulphate, maleic
hydrazide and packaging. In: Floriculture Technology, Trades and
Trends. Ed. Prakash, J., Bhandary, K.R., Oxford and IBH Publishing
Co. Ltd, New Delhi, pp.550-552.
*NISHIO, J., YAMAGUCHI, T. AND YONEMURA, K., 1988, Effects of day
length on flowering of chrysanthemum in shade culture. Bulletin of
the Aichi-Ken Agricultural Research Centre, 21: 211-216.
*NUNEZ, M., TORRES, W. AND COLL, R., 1995, Effectiveness of a synthetic
brassinosteroid on potato and tomato yields. Cultivos TropicaZes,
16:26-27.
"
OHKAWA, K., 1979, Prom.otion of renewal canes in greenhouse roses by 6-
Benzylaminopurine without cut back. HortScience, 14:612-613.
PAL, B.P., 1972, The Rose in India, Indian Council of Agricultural Research,
Krishi Anusandhan Bhavan, New Delhi, pp. 290-300.
PANDlTA, M.L. AND HOODA, R.S., 1979, Effect of cycocel on growth, yield
and quality of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) cultivar Kufri
Chandramukhi. Haryana Journal of Horticultural Science, 8(3-4): 139-
142.
PANSE, V.S. AND SUKHATME, P.V., 1967, Statistical Methods for
Agricultural Workers, lCAR, New Delhi, pp.152-155.
*PAVGl, M.S. AND UPADHYAY, H.P., 1966, Parasitic fungi from North India
VI. Mycopath. Mycol. Appli., 30:257-260.
PEARSON, S., HADLEY, PL AND WHELDON, A.E., 1993, A reanalysis of the
effects of temperature and irradiance on time of flowering in
chrysanthemum. Journal of Horticultural Science, 68:89-97.
PRAKASH, P., 1998, Physiological investigations on the effect of plant
growth regulators in tuber and 1PS propagated potato (Solanium
tuberosurn L.). M.Sc.(Agri.) Thesis. University of Agricultural
Sciences, Dharwad.
*PRZYMESKA, J., 1997, Estimation of yields of spray chIysanthemurn
cultivars (Dendroanthema grandiflora) in an unbeated plastic tunnel.
Zeszyty Problemowe Postpow Nauk Rolniczych, 449: 161-172.
QIU, W.D. AND LIU, K.B., 1989, Effects of pactobutrazol PP-333 and B-9 on
stem elongation and flowering characteristics of chrysanthemum.
Plant Physiology Communications, 6:31-33.
RAJAPASKE, N.C. AND KELLY, J.W., 1991, Influence of CuS04 spectral
filters, daminozide and exogenous gibberellic acid on growth of
Dandranthema x grandiflorum (Ramat) Kitmmara. 'Bright Golden
Anne'. Journal of Plant Growth Regulation, 10(4):207':214.
RAJASHEKARAN, L.R., SHANMUGAVELU, K.G. AND NAGRAJA, N.S, 1985,
New varieties of horticultural crops released by Tamil Nadu
Agricultural University, Coimbatore, during 1985, MDU-1
chrysanthemum. South Indian Horticulture, 33:70-71.
RAMAN, K.R. AHMAD SHAH, H. AND SHANMUGAM, A., 1969, A note on
time of planting chrysanthemum. South Indian Horticulture,
17(44):88-90.
*RIPKA, G. AND SZANTO, B., 1988, Studies on the effect of a new growth
regulator on greenhouse ornamentals. Novenayvedetem, 24(9):415-
418.
ROBERT, A.V. AND MATHEWS, D., 1995, The preparation of in vitro
chrysanthemum for transplantation to soil. The 25, 35 enantiomer of
pac1obutrazol improves resistance to desiccation. The Plant Cell,
Tissue and Organ Culture, 40(2):191-193.
ROGERS, M.N., 1973, A historical and critical review of post-harvest
physiology research on cut flowers. HortScience, 8:189-194.
ROUNKOVA, L.V., 1989, Effect of ethylene producing substances and
cultar on some omamental plants. Acta Horticulturae, 251:281-288.
*SAUD, B.K. AND TALUKDAR, M.C., 1999, Performance of spray
chrysanthemum inside and outside low cost plastic greenhouse.
Journal of Interacademicia, 3(1):25-28.
SAYED, S. AND MUTHUSWAMY, S., 1974, Effect of growth regulators on
growth and flowering of Crossandra undulaefolia Satish. South
Indian Horticulture, 22:41-46.
SCHLAGNHAUFER, C., ARTECA, R.N. AND YOPP, J.H., 1984, A
brassinosterioid cytokinin interaction on ethylene production by
etiolated mungbean segments. Physiologia Plantarum, 60:347-350.
SEN, P.K. AND SEN, S.K., 1969, Effects of growth retarding and prQmoting
chemicals on growth and flowering of some annuals. Journal of
Horticulture, 25:219-224.
SEN, S.K. AND MAHARANA, T., 1972, Effect of some growth regulators on
the growth and flowering of chrysanthemum (Chrysanthemum
morifolium Ram.). Indian Journal of Horticulture, 29(2):237-240.
SEN, S.K. AND NAIK, J., 1977, Growth and flowering response of pinched
and unpinched chrysanthemum to growth regulator treatments. The
Indian Journal of Horticulture, 34(1}:86-90.
SEN, S. AND PATHANIA, N.S., 1997, Field evaluation of chrysanthemum
gelmplasm against leaf spot fungi. Plant Disease Research,
12(7): 149-150.
SHANMUGAM, A. AND MUTHUSWAMY, S., 1973, Influence of modified
photoperiod on the carbohydrate and total nitrogen content of
chrysanthemum varieties. South Indian Horticulture, 21(4):123-125.
*SHEU, C., SHEN, C. AND WU, S., 1998, Effects of OA3 spray on spray type
chrysanthemums. Special Publication - Taichung District Agricultural
Improvement Station, 40:159-170.
SHIN, H., KANG, S.H., JUNO, J.W., YU, C.J. AND KWUN, K.C., 1994,
Changes of cutflower qualities in summer forcing to spray - mum "
(Chrysanthemum morifolium). RDA Journal of Agricultural Science,
Horticulture, 36:417-421.
SHIN, H., KIM, J.Y. AND JIN, S., 1995, Control of growth and flowering by
planting time and short day treatments in Korean wild
duysanthernums. RDA Journal of Agricultural Science, 37:389-395.
190
SHOAF, T.W. AND LIUM, B.W., 1976, Improved extraction of chlorophyll a
and b from algae using dimethyle sulfoxide. Limnol. Oceanogr,
21:916-926.
SIEGELMAN, H.W., 1952, The respiration of rose and gardenia flowers.
Proceedings of the American Society of Horticultural Science, 59:503.
SINGH, D.B., SUNJOY, M., BENSAM, N.C. AND MEHRA, S., 1999, Effect of
pactobutrazol on flowering of chtysanthemum.
Ornamental Horticulture, New Series, 2(2):92-96.
Journal of
SMITH, E.D. AND KOHL, H.C., 1970, Effect of height of cut back on
subsequent stimulation of rose renewal canes. Roses, Inc. Bulletin,
March, 19-21.
SUBBAIAH, B.V. AND ASIJA, G.C., 1956, A rapid procedure for the
estimation of available nitrogen in soils. Current Science, 25:259.
SUH, J.N. AND KWACK, B.H., 1994, Effects of GAs and bentylamfropurine
on leaf yellowing of cut chtysanthemum during storage. Journal of
Korean Society for Horticultural Science, 35(3):251-257.
TAKEN ° , K. AND PHARIS, R.P., 1982, Brassinolide induced bending of the
lamina of dwarf rice seedlings : on auxin mediated phenomenon.
Plant Cell Physiology, 23:1275-1281.
TALUKDAR, M.C. AND PASWAN, L., 1994, Effect of GAs and CCC on growth
and flowering of chIysanthemum cv. Tumruli. Horticultural Journal,
7(2):141-144.
TALUKDAR, M.C. AND PASWAN, L., 1998, Effect of GAs and CCC on growth
and flowering of standard chIysanthemums. Journal of Ornamental
Horticulture, New Series, 1(11): 11-16.
TANAKA, T., 1968, Studies on the relationship of chrysanthemum flowering
with special reference to plant regulators II. An inhibitor in non
induced leaves. Journal of Japanese Society of Horticultural Science,
37:83-88.
TEWARI, G.N. AND UMASHANKAR, 1990, Evaluation of chIysanthemum
(Chrysanthemum morifolium Ram) cultivars for cut flowers with
special reference to export In : Floriculture Technology, Trade and
Trends. Ed. Prakash J. and Bhandary, K.R., Oxford and IBH Co. Pvt.
Ltd, New Delhi, pp.136.
VERMA, S.C., HAIDER, M.M. KHER, M.A. AND MURTY, A.S., 1995, A note
on influence of gibberellic acid and ascorbic acid on stem length and
blooming in chrysanthemum cv. Cotton Ball. Journal of Ornamental
Horticulture, 3(1-2):30-31.
WANG, S.Y. AND FAUST, M., 1989a, Nitrogranidines induce bud break and
change sterol content in apple. Journal of Plant Growth Regulator,
8: 143-151.
WANG, S.Y. AND FAUST, M., 1989b, Changes of membrane polar lipids
associated with bud break in apple· induced by nitrogranidines.
Journal of Plant Growth Regulator, 8: 153-161.
WANG, T.W., COSGROVE, D.J. AND ARTECA, R.N., 1993, Brassinosteroid
stimulation of hypocotyl elongation and wall relaxation in Pakchoi
(Brassica chinensis) cv. Lei Choi. Plant Physiology, 101:965-968.
*WILFERT, G.J., 1985, Evaluation of chrysanthemum cultivars growth as
centre-disbuded plants in containers. Proceedings of the Florida State
Horticultural Society, 16:282-289.
WORLEY, J.F. AND MITCHELL, J.W., 1971, Growth responses induced by
brassins (fatty plant hormones) in bean plants. Journal of American
Society for Horticulture Science, 96:270-273.
YEWALE, A.K., BEWRKAR, P.V., CHANEKAR, M.A., PADGILUAR, T.R. AND
CHIMURKAR, B.S., 1997, Effect of growth retardant pac1obutrazol on
flowering of chrysanthemum. Journal of Soils and Crops, 2: 175-177.
YEWALE, A.K., BELOSKAR, P.V., CHANEKAR, M.A., JAYEETA, B. AND
CHIMURKAR, B.S., 1998, Effect of growth retardent - paclobutrazol
on growth parameters of chrysanthemum. Journal of Soils and
Crops, 8( 1) :82-84.
YOO, Y.K., KANG, S.W. AND KIM, H.K., 1999, Effects of pinching and
daminozide treatment on the growth and flowering of
chrysanthemum 'cv. Zawadskii. Journal of Korean Society for
Agricultural Science, 40(5):598-602.
YOPP, J.H., MANDAVA, N.B. AND SASSE, J.M., 1981, Brassinolide, a
growth promoting steriodal lactone-1. Activity in selected auxin
bioassays. Physiologia Plantarum, 53:445-452.
YOSHI, H. AND IMASEKI, H., 1981, Bio-synthesis of auxin induced
ethylene, effects of indole-3-acetic acid, benzyl adenine and abscisic
acid on endogenous levels of 1-amino-cyc1opropane-1-carboxylic acid
(ACe) and ACC synthase. Plant Cell Physiology, 23:369-379.
YULIAN~ FUJIME, Y. AND OKUDA, N., 1995, Effects of day-length on
growth, budding and' branching of garland chrysanthemum.
Technical Bulletin of the Faculty of Agriculture, Kagawa University,
47:7-13.
YULIAN, FUJIME, Y., OKUDA, N. AND KUDOU, R., 1996, Effects of day
length on capitulum formation of garland chrysanthemum. Journal
of Society of High Technology in Agriculture, 22:43-51.
ZALEWSKA, M., 1989, Growth regulators in pot culture of chrysanthemum
cultivars 'Polomo' 'Poranek' and 'Promyk'. Acta Horticulturae,
251:335-340.
*ZALEWSKA, M., 1998, Tree like training in pot chrysanthemum
(Dendranthema grandiflora) by using gibrescol. Folia Universitatis
Agriculturae Stetinensis. Agricultura, 70: 149-155.
ZIESLIN, N. HALEW, A.H., BACHRACH, A. AND SAPIR, 1., 1972, Promotion
of renewal ca..T'1es in roses byethephon. HortScience, 7:74-76.
ZIESLIN, N., HURWITZ, A. AND HALEW, A.H., 1975, Flower production
and the accumulation and distribution of carbohydrates in different
parts of 'Baccara' rose plants as influenced by various pruning and
pinching treatments. Journal of Horticultural Sciences, 50:339-348.
* Original not seen.
APPENDICES
. .-4
...... ......
~s ..... s cO_ o:::
-~~-----+--------------------------~ o o ~
o ~
~ ::s .....
(t)O~OI.()O~~f:_...~f:_...OO f:_...,.....j~,.....jvt_..vvf:_...,.....j1.()1.()
~N~~u)"'u)~~cx5cx5'" ~(t)(t)(t)(t)~~~N~NN
ror_-----r------------------------__, ~
~ s ~
S ::s S .... !:: .... ~
v~-~Nv,.....j\OO,.....jON
~tq~~tq~'""!~~~~-! (t)vO'll.()l.()v(t)N~N~t_.. -,.....j-~NN~~~NN-
g~-~-----+--------------------------~ o ~
6 ,~
~
(t)ONOV\OO'If:_...OOvOf:_... t--:-!N~t--:~~~~~~~ f:_...NV.q-(t)O'If:_...OOO'lO'lOt_.. N(t)(t)(t)(t)NNNN~(t)N
::s ~r------r--------------------------, ~
~ Q .... o
E-<
S ::s S ..... !:: ..... ~
v\O..-jO'l~OO\O-Ovt_..f:_... Ol.()v(t)ov.q-OOI.()NI.()N . . . . . . . . . . . . (t)vO'l(t)(t)vNNNNOON --.-INNNNN~N--
195
196
Appendix 2. Chemical properties of soU of experimental site
I Particulars Value Method adopted obtained
Available nitrogen 138.6 Alkaline permanganate oxidation (kg / hal method (Subbaiah and Asija, 1956)
Available phosphorus 17.5 Olsen's method (kg / ha) (Jackson, 1967)
AvaUable potassium 287.5 Flame photometer (Jackson, 1967) (kg / hal
Soil pH 7.2 pH meter (Jackson, 1967)
197
- ~~~~~~o~v~~~~~~~- ~ ~
§~ -voo-vo~o~~~-~~~_~v t-: -0 M~OMOO~~OOM~~ci~ci~~ 0 ~ -~ O~~O-oo-OO~OO-~Ov~ ~ ~ -0 O~O~~v~~~v~~~~~~~ ~
~ 6h ~ - ~~ ~~ ~- --Q) "t:I ~ '"'§ .... 0.. en ~~~~~O~-~~~-O~~v~ ~ -~6h 0 ~~-~---OO~vv~~~OO~~ Ll) ~ 0 ~OOOOci~~M~O~~~~M~~ v v ]~ 0 ~-~~v-~~O~~ VOO~~~ v 0 ~ ~~Ll)N~~~ NVOOOOO-~OV ~ t--0.. ...-4..... ............................. ,......-4
<6J -OOOO~~OOOOOOOvOO-Ll)O~OO~ ~ 0 en 0 ~O~~vO~~~Ll)vO~vOO~~
~ 0 ~~~oN~~oo~oo~o~ci~~o ~ ~ N ~Ll)~~~~~~v~~~Ll)~~Ll)V ~ ~ J:: <6J
~ 010 ~ 00 V ~ - 00 - 0 0 ~ 00 N 0 ~ Ll) 0 ~ ~ - OLl)Ll)~MOOOOO~~O~O~~O~O t-: 0 <6J ~~~ciOOON~OO~~~~ci~MN~ ~ <: ~Ll)~~~~~~V~~~~~~~M
~
~ ~VO~Ll)OOOOOvLl)d~Ll)~~~o 0 ~ 0 ~O~~~OOOO~V~~-MOv~ ~ ~ ...t:: 0 ooci~ooo~~~~~~~OON~~ .... ~ ~~~Ll)Ll)~Ll)~V~Ll)Ll)Ll)Ll)~Ll)~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~ @: ~
..... 0 OOOOOOvv~OO-vO~~~Ll)OOvO M ~ c 0 ~OO-V~~~~~Ll)OO-~~~~ C<j ~ ~ c. 0 ~~OOM~OOOOMO~O~~~~OO~ -~ ~ ~~Ll)~~~Ll)~v~~Ll)Ll)~~Ll)M .....
0
~ -OLl)Ll)~~O~OOOOLl)v~~~OO v ~ '" ~V~~NLl)~-~~~M~-~OOV "'0 0 C! ~ ..... 0 ~M~~~M~~~N~OO~~M~~ c ~ ~vLl)VVLl)Ll)~~Ll)Ll)vvvvv~ ~ Ll)
Q) .... 0 ~ ~
:.0 0 O-OOV~vOOvO~OO~OOO~ Ll) V ...... 0 Ll)~~~Ll)~~Ll)~0Ll)-~~0~- ~ ~ '" 0 NOOOO~M~~cicioo~~OM~O~ ~ ,.-.. ~ Ll)vvLl)Ll)VV~~Ll)Ll)Ll)Ll)Ll)vLl)~ -E
~ ...... -~vOO~~Ll)Ll)OLl)OOvLl)~O~~~ ...t:: 0 00 :§ 0 ~-~~Ll)~~~OO~~O~O~~~ oq -Q) 0 ~Mci~ci~oo~oo~~~N~N~~ ...t:: ~ VMV~~v~v~M~M~MMMN -Ll) ..... C 0 ~ ~ Q..
0 MOO~-OO~OLl)~O~O~NM ~ V 0 Ll)~O~OO~~O~-Ll)~-OO~OOO V ~ 0 ~~~~NOOO~M~~~OOO~OO~ -~ ~ M~MVVMvVNMM~~M~~N
-OOV~OO~Ll)-~~~Ll)Ll)~Ll)~-OO ~ 0 0 VLl)~~-~~~~Ll)O~O~OOO~ V -0 ~~~ciMMM~~~OO~~O~~~ -v ~ ~-~~-~~N-~---~---
0 M
~MVLl)OOM-O~O~OV~~OOO 0 Ll) -0 ~~OVLl)~~~OO~OO--NVN -C'1 0 M~~OO~~MOOOO~~~~~~~~ -M ~ ~-~N--~~-~-------
Q) t:: ~~~ S
..... Q) citl1f:'Ll)O~ Q)a!aj ~ t:: ~ z~::ss::::c .... ~~ Q) o 0 .... = 0.. .0 t; ~ al "0 .... .; ~ .;:; th s ~. §O>.,:OQ)-a>o::s a +I td ~ ]§~""'~~]5t::;~~~ia~~ ~ 0 Q) 3 ::st::0..Q) 0 ~aj ~ ~ 10.
za:l~O::rnrn::crnrn~O:::~a:lo> rn U E-<
+J
~~+-~---------------------------------------+~~ ~ p. 'o ~o ~ ~r--r--------------------------------------+~~ "0...-1 +J s:: o I-<
~ ~~+-~---------------------------------------+~~ ...... "0
~~+-~---------------------------------------+~r-; ,.0 S ...-IO~OO~~MM~OM~OO~OO~~V ~ O~~~~~~~~~~~qq~q~~~~ Z ~OOOvOO~O...-lO...-l...-lNOMOOOO
O~+-----.------------------------------_'--r-; C0
O~O~O~OO~~~~O~~OO~~V ONVvO~~O~~~~v~~Nv~MO gooo~~o~~~OO~~O~OOO~
~ ____ J _______________________________________ ~~~
198
· It)
...... C/.)
~O~~~OO~O~M~O~OOOOO~~ ~ ...... g~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~V-~<N~~~~~~~~~~;~~~~~~~V
~~~~----------------------------~~~ ~ _O~O~OOOOO~M~OO~~~~N - g~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~I N~~~~~:~~~~~~~g~~~ON 0 0 (/.) ~r-+-------------------------------------~-+~ ~ O~M~OO~M~M~OMOMOOONN ~ O~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OO~~~-~NN~-~MO~~~O .. ~ NNNNMM-MVNMMNN~MNM-~ ~~+-4--------------------------------------+~~
~.Q) ~ _~~~M~OM~O~~~MOO~M~O ~ O~~~~~N~~~~~~~~~~~O...... ON~~VI.J') '~\OOM~~~N\O-r:-- . ~ N_-_N_OONNNNN __ NNN_- M j O~_+-____________________________________ ~-+~
~~OMM~O~OOMO~~~M~OO~~O ~ O~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~VN Q) O~O-OO-NV~M-OOOOvVr:---N' ~ N-NNNN-NNNNN--NNNN- V
199
200
..... -°o~~~oOO~~~~~~OOO 00 CIJ 0 ~o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ "d-(I) ~
t: 0 -~oooooo~~~oo~O~"d-~~~~ ~ ~ o~o~oo~~~~ooo~~~oo~o "d-cO - -~ ~~-~----~-- -..c::: ... , ~~o~oo~oooooooo~o (I)
0 ~ ro ~OO~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0 - 0 ~ ~ .._. 0 N~oo~~~Ooo-~~~OOO~oo -< ~ oooo~~O-N~~~~~~~~-~ ~ --~--~('o')------N--1--.
i -~ooo~oooooo~~~o~o 00 0 0 ~OO~~N~~~~~~~~~~~~ 00 "d-O O~--~NOoo~~OO('o')('o')~OO
~ N O~O~OOOO--~~~('o')~~~-O -~
0 - -N N('o')-~--~~N--~ N a - O~MOOO~~~OOOOOOO~
~ 0 O~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ 0 ~ 00 ro 0 ~~O~~N-~M~~OOM~~~~ ,
"t:I N ooooMMO-O~OO~~~vvvo~ N ~ .._. -N--NM-- ................ N ........ s:: (I)
OOOOMOOOOO~~~~Ooo M
~ -~"d-V~~V~~~~~q~~~~v ~ M 4-i 0 0 0 ..... 0 ' , 'M ' · .... ~~O~M .... ~~ .. "t:I N Ooo~~"d-ooOO .... VVVO(,O,)NM~O N ~ d ~~~N~~~N- .................... N~~
0 .._. ~ ('o')~OOo~OMOOO~O~M~~ 0 0 ~ N cd ~N~~"d-~~~~~~~~~~~~
'0 0 ~ ~ 0 ' 'MM '~~~"d-Mo\~~OO"" .~
N ~~~OooO~"d-~NNNNNNM_ -~ M ~~ .... N~-~N--~---N~-~ (I)
O .... OOMOOO~O~M~~OMO (I) .... ~ 0 ~ 0 ~NN~~V~~V~~M~~~MN ~ -0 ' .. ~ . '0 . '0 ... 'N .. . (I) -(,O,)~_~NN-~_ooVNVM .... OO N ~ ...... N ~~~_(,O,)"d-_~~_OO~~~ .... ~(,O,) ...... 0 0 M 1.0 (I)
0 O~OOO~O~OOOOOOOOO .0 "d-oo~~V"d-q~NoovN~N~vN ~ 0'1 S 0 C'! ~ 0 ~N~~~~vv~~~~~~M~~ :::::s N "d-"d-~O~~-O~OO~~~~ .... ~~ N \0 Z _ .... - ....
.... OOOo~-Oo('o')OOOOOOoo M (t) 0 "d-~~vOOvoo-NMOONvvN\o ~ cq 0 ~NOO~~N~~~~~OON~~~~ N ........ N"d--N-MM-N-NNv(t)- -(t)
0 M
0 OOOOOOO~OOOOOOOOO \0 v 0 Nv"d-I.O"d-N~I.OOoovN\oN~vN ~ ~ 0 ~~~O~~~OO~OOOO~~~~O~ -~ I~ NNM~-('o')NNv---""-MN-
i
(I) ..... (I) (I) S J:: Q ~"t:I...... cd (I) (I) 0 cd e-~ 0 cd
S (I) ZU I:r::~ (I)~cd eft M (I) ::s J:: M • .._. 00 "_'cOll.o.._.~ ...... o o::EI ~
~ o~·""ffiC)~·.cl~~~o a'Ca"t:lffi e d :E 0 gg.._. ~ ~ g t: ~ ~ E.cd ~ § § CI} ~E o cd cd :::::S.O 0.. '0 cd 0 cd cd l? cd ..c::: ro. P:l 0 ~zm~~oooo:r::oooo~~~mC»~ 00 C)
... § _O~M-~NV~OO~N~~-~OON~O d 8~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~v-o MOO~~~~-~ON~NOO~-~~ ~ NNNMVN-VV~V~~NNVNN-V ",,,;:;,,
~]-;-----------------------------+-~ a-e: ~~ON~~O~VN~OOOO~O~OO~OOOO_ ~ O~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~OOV ~ OOOM-MNM~OOM-v~O~~N-5 NNMM~MNVV~VVN~M~MM-~
{:.
°O~~~M~~~~~O~N~V~NM~~ -~-v-~Mv-VMONNM--O-
~~O~~~O~~~~~~~~~~~OO
201
· 00
8~~~~~~~~~~NN~OOOOOOOV ~ O~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ON E N~~~~~O~~~~~OO--OOOO g.bi: 8 "I--r------------------------------------+-+_~ :§ S ]loO~NON~VN~~NO~V~~~~OO ~ o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~
~-----------oo--oooo
I
O-~N~~~~~~~~--V-~~~~~ ~~~~v~~v~~~~NvVNNOO
~ gooooooooooooooooooo ~bi: ~"t-4-----------------------------------+-~~
~ S ::s:l"':::'
U OO~N~~~~~~~~~~oo~-~v~ vvvV~~~~~~~N~V~~NO-gooooooooooooooooooo
202
203
s:: ~o~o~~~~o~o~~o~~o 0 ....-4 t__ Lf.) • .;:::1 0 ~o~o~~~~o~o~~o~~o -N
~ 0 ~~O~~O~~~~O~OO~~O N N~~Lf.)~NLf.)~N~~~~~~N~ N ~
;:j~
~~ ·2 :£ 4) 0 ~oo~oo~o~o~o~~o~o ~ -1.0 0 I.OO~I.OOO~O~O~O~~OI.OO ~ '" 0 0 ONN~N~~~~~~O~~O~~ .....
N N 1.0 rx. N~~~~N~N~~Lf.)Lf.)~~I.O~~
~ 0 o~~~~o~o~o~o~~~~~ 0 ....-4 Lf.) O~~~~O~OI.OO~O~I.O~~~ 00 N 0 ON~~ONO~O~~OO~O~~ 1.0 t__
I-< 0 .Eo.o N N~NNN~~N~I.O-~NNN~- N t__
s:: ....-4_....-4....-4_....-4....-4 __________
'"Cj .!:: 4) 4) .~ ~ 5-0
~o~~~o~~~~o~o~~o~ 4)~ 0 I-< ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0 ~
C'I) 0 N ~
~ 0 Lf.)ON~t__OOOOOONOI.O-~OONN N NN~~N~~N~Lf.)N~~~N~N N 1.0
Q
....-4 ...... _....-4 __ ....-1 __________
..... C'I) I-< o~o~ot--~~~~o~o~o~~
l;:1 ....-4 N~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- ~ Lf.)
I-< 0 t__ 00 .Eo.o 0 ~"'t--O"'-~N-OLf.)Lf.)"'O-Lf.)~
N t__ N ",OO-ON--ONOOO-OO",
13 ·2 ....-4....-4_...-4 __ ...-4...-4_...-4 _____
.~ 4) ;:j ~ 0"0 4)~
0 ~~~~O~"'I.OO~I.O~~ool.O~~
I-< "''''~'''~OOOONN~~t__OO~~'''t__ ~ 1.0 C'I) ° ~~ON~~~~M~~~O~~~~ '" 1.0
~ 0 N oO--O--O-NO---O-O -Lf.)
Q
_...-4_...-4...-4 ____________
s:: O~~O~~O~~~O~O~~OI.O I-< 0 - N '" '.E .p 0 N"'Lf.)OO-~OOLf.)Lf.)N~Lf.)~t__NOOO ~ 0
as 0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~MO~~M '"Cj .... N t__~t__t__l.Ooot__l.Ot__oo~t__~t__t__t__1.O -~ 4).~ .~ s ;:j. 0"'"Cj 4) ::! 1-<.0 C'I) I-< 0 ~o~~oo~o~~~~~~~oo 1.0 -~4) 0 -OO"'OOON~Lf.)Lf.)~"''''~~N ~ N Q ~ 0 ~~O~N~~~~O~O~~~~N -v N t__t__oot__t__oot__t__t__",t__oot__t__t__oot__ ~
..... s:: 4) 4) 4) 4) S
~ s:: '" '"Cj ...... as 4) 0 as e-Lf.) 0 as
as 4) ZU ':r::~ 4) as ~ I-< C'I);:jS:: 1-<~9 0 4) ~ 0 ,.... as p.. .9 tl :: Cd -0 I-< ~ '"Cj . Lf.) I-<
Eo-< S::~·""§C):>''''''4)Cd:>o ;:j §§ +I ai :E § ~,.... ~ ~ ~ ~ s:: ~ ~.aS ~ § C'I) ~E J5 o c;S::!.S 0.. ~ 0 ar as ..d as· Q ~z~~p..~~:r::~~~~~~C»~ ~ C)
20~
! -('I')oq-Noq-ONI.O'<:I" 00'1 N ° I:--N 0'1 ° '<:I" IJ)
° 1.0
~ ° ~-:t:~~~~~~ 000 N ~~~oq~~ -~
:.:::~ N NN('I')('I')N-('I')N ('I') ('I') ('I') ('I') ('I') ('t) N N. ('I') ° 0 :::~ C)
° ..!::~ 0'10'<:1" '<:I" NI:--'<:I" 0'1 oq- I:-- '<:1"1.0 N\OONN I:-- 0 00 ° CC!~~~~~~oq ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~ -IJ)
° N -('I') ('I')NN-('t)N ('I') ('I') ('t) ('I') C'?('t)('I')('t) ('I') -0
~ -OOoq-OC'?N--N 00 C'? 0'1 '<:I" O('t)-N-° '<:I"
° ~~~~~~~~ C'? '<:I" '<:I" N ~~~~~ N '<:I"
° 0'1001.001.0('1')0- 00 ° I:-- ° N'<:I"I.O'<:I"\O ,....; ~S N C'?NC'? '<:1"('1')('1')'<:1" '<:I" N '<:I" ('I') C'? ('I') ('t)('I')('t)N ('I')
_'1! ~
° CO~I:--I.ONN'<:I"N '<:I" 0'1 OONC'?NlI)t---lI) Cd ° 1'. - 1.0 ° lI) 00 - ~ ~ ~O'!oq~~~~
I:-- 00 .... ° cxiNV;~O\c)oOoO -('t)
if) N C'? 0'1 1:--('1')0'11:--1:--- ,....; N C'?('t')('I')VV('l')('t)V ('I') V ('t) ('t')('t)('t)('I')('I')('t) ('I')
S-O'I-Oll)-lI)'<:I"OOOOO'lOt--OONOOll)-UO-OOI.OI.O('I')I:---lI)~~~('t')('I')-('I')lI)ONt---
~~~MN~V;~""';V;V;lI)lI)lI)V;V;V;V;~~oci ~ ~ ~ t~+-------------------------------------~~~
~aOll)l:---'<:I"OC'?ONO'IO'INOOOO('l')OOO('l')I:--OO ~OOI:--I:--I:--NC'?OOI:--'<:I"~~~O'I'<:I"lI)lI)OONI:--~~~~~v;~""';~mll)lI)lI)lI)~mv;~~oci
M OO ..... _- ..... ONO \0 I:-- N lI)I.00~O'IO 0 .....
..... ('I')_~lI)l:--~O'!I:--t-: t-: 1.0 lI) 0. °
\0 lI) N ...... 1.0 \I) lI)
° •• '00 • '1.000 'lI) 1.0 O\~~~~\C)
~:§ N V('I')('I')N('I')l:--NNlI)N N 0'1 I:--('t')1J)1.O ..... lI)N .......... lI) ..... -1.O'<:I"I.O_lI)lJ)
'>, .... M ~
O'INOVI:--NO OO N ° OOO ..... ~OV \0 ~-a ° 00 lI) ~ V
° VOONt-:('I')'<:I"~t-: O'! ('1')1.0'<:1" .OON .... ~
0 ° ' • • lI) , • 0'1 00
'<:I" 00 0'1 • • ·V •• ('I')
ii:: N I:--IJ)O'I('I')NOON('I') 1.0 N N O'IOONNI.OO 00 N ('I')IJ)V ..... I.ON_ ..... -..... '<:I"'<:I"I:--_IJ)\O
N,.r:: 01 000 vC'lOC'l (') V \01.01.0""""""00 01 0 I:'-...... 01 (,)I:'-I:'-C'Iv(,)C'II!){t)\Ov\OO(')O ...... 01 S .... 0 ..f1.Ci..fC'iI.Ci"'t-="'o..f ..... oot-=e")oou5 ..... I!) ~~ 0 0101.0001:'-1:'-\00\0\01.0(') ..... 00 ..... 1:'- \0 (')
~ !in v 01 (')C'IvvOOl\ovv ..... OII:'-C'I(') ..... OI ..... (')
_I _.. _.. .-4 _.. .......... 01 ............... ..... 'I) '0 tij: I-<~2 g. Ul 1:'-1!)(') ..... \O(')Ov ..... C'I0101('){t)OI:'- ..... I:'-.... '"' 0 I:'-I!) ..... OOooOO\OvvI:'-C'IC'1C'1v(]l (]I q ~~ c l.Ci"'ool.Ci ..... OOe")t-="'I.Cie")l.Cioo..ft-=OO 00 .....
0 \0 .... (')(')1:'-(')\001(')(')1:'-0000(')1.0(') 01 \0 0:: CiS C'l C'I\Ovl:'-vC'lI!)"<t-(,)C'I0\Ol!)v"<t-C'1 01 \0 .-4_"~_""""'...-4 01 ................. 01 ..........
205
+oJ ..... .... C'I\O ..... O{t)I!)OI:'-OO ..... I!)I:'- ..... (') Ul u:u:o,!~CX!CX!"!q~~u:u:1':"!"!"!
0 00
~ 8 ..... 0 10 (]I 1I)1I)1!)"<t-(')(')\OV (')\0 v II) 01"'" 01 I.Ci 01 v'Otll)lI)vv('){t)vvvvll)lI)vl!)
,.r:: +oJ Ul
§ ......... OO(]l;1; (,)01:'-(")"'" 1:'-11)(,,)0(,) ~ O'ooot-- ..... O'o \OC'I(]I(]I"<t-C'lC'lt--"<t-v (") v
r..:o\ccilri~o..f..fIri,...jc4o\c4l.Ci,...jo C'! "<t-... 01 I.Ci < C'I 11)11)1010 1I)'Ot'OtIl)II)I!)I!)\O\O\01O
~ ..... t--O'o~g(,,)(,,)O'o(")g(")t--C'l(]III)C'IC'1 "<t- o 8 CX! t--: , ,~"! "! ~ ,t--: CX! "! "! "! ~ 1': (]I 10
~ .... \O'OtC'l .......... C'lO .... (]I(]IC'lOC'lIl)t-- ..... u5 ~ C~ "<t-'OtIl)II)"<t-'Ot(")(")v(")(")vll)lI)v'Ot
Q +oJ 0 § C'I 0 t--t--O\OC'I(")~~""II)O'o~oot--(]IC'I ..... \0 0. ..... 0 lO ..... v(')'Ot.... C'I(]I ..... 11)(")11)0 1': (]I
0 l.Ci..fcciC'iI.Cir..:"";"";~"'~e")ccie4ccil.Ci .f .... 01 '<t1l)101O"<t-v'Otvv'Ot'Ot1l)1I)101I)1I) ...... 0 Ul
i ..... VOC'l\oI!)(]I~OC'l(]lOOIl)~(]IOO C'I v 0 C'I ..... ooOI!)t-- C'Ioot--'Ott--'Ot C'lt--
OC! C'I Ul 0 t-=o,...jIriI.Ciu5r..:r..:",..fIrir..:..fIriO""; I/) ..... ~ 01 (')vll)v(')(')C'IC'1(,)(,,)(")(")'Otvvv ....
I:: ~ ~ 0 0 OO(]lC'lOl ..... voo(")IOt-- ..... OIl)t--I000
i8 II) !~ (]I
0 (jI"<t-oovlOooO(') ..... t--(")(]IOIIOOO .... 0'0 '0 0 ..... cciolri,...;C'iO\I/)C'i ..... c4~C'icci,...jo C'i I/) .... ' C'I vvlOlI)"<t-"<t-(')(')v"<t-vvll)lI)lI)lI) CiS
E t--ooll)(")oolOC'lt--lOoolOoov(jlOOO l.g ..... 10 (jI 0 (jIlOv ..... C'lt--lOvvOvOoo"<t-O(]l II) (") <oJ 0 r..:o ..... u5~I.Ci,...j ..... r..:l.Cil.Cicciolri,...;,...; ,.r::
~ C'i ~ ]: C'I C'I(")v(")C'lC'lC'lC'lC'lC'lC'lC'I(")(")(")(")
]
~ 0 0 OooOl-IO .... <:"It--C'I ..... OII!)t--II)(]IC'I 00 ..... \0
0 "!~CX!u:~C'!u:"':"':"':q"':~'"'!~t--: 0 0
0:: 0 C'It--II)C'I ..... C'I(]100(') .......... I000voot-- 01 '" N (")(")v"<t-(")(")C'IC'1(,,)(,)(,)(")(,)v(')(")
..... 00t--0III)C'I .......... 0 C'I ..... IO 00 11)(,,)0000 II) 0 0 qu:"!C'!~C'!o,!CX!"':qqC'!t-:t-:"!q (') (jI
~ 0 vlO ..... O(")(")C'IC'1(')(')(")lI)ooot--t-- ,...; e") ,~ .......... <:"101 ............................................ <:"1 ..........
0 0 (')(")C'Ivt--OOt--(')oot--t--C'II1) ..... t--v ..... 10 (") a 11)""'''''''''''''''' C'I ..... 00 0100"'" (t) 00 00 (')(') u: (") 0 cci 0 I.Ci e") I.Ci I.Ci Iri ~ ~ Iri I.Ci 0\ C'i C") ,...j 0 ..... .f N ..... C'IC'1C'1 ...................................... <:"IC'lC'lC'I
EEEEE88 0.0.0.0.0.0.0. 88880.0.0.0.0.0.0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0 0 0 II) 0 II) 0 0.0.0.0.~~~C'!U:t-:U: 0000 000 ..... 1I)000_g_g_gvvvv
..... 01 v 'C 'C 'C :g :g :g :g ... ..................... 0000000 s:: E8 0000 ---,",I-<I-<I-< v Eo.o.~~~~-5-5-5~~~~ § o.o.o.bbl:ll:lti1tilti1oooo CiS ~g g .5 .5 .5 _g g. g. g.,~ .~ .~ ,~ v
(::. It) ..... 01 ..8 ..8 ..8 ..8 '0:0:0.. Ul Ul Ul Ul «<UUUUvvvf!f!f!f! C>C>O~~~~::E::E::EIllIllCOCO + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ~
b.Ob.Ob.Ob.Ob.Ob.Ob.Ob.Ob.Ob.Ob.Ob.Ob.Ob.Ob.O 0
.S .S.E.S.S.E.5.S.S.S.E.S.S.S.5o It}
.g .g -5 iHJ ti ti ti .g .g .g .g .g .g .g ~ ~ til
.5 .E.S.S,E~.5.S,S,5.5,S.5,5,S8 0 a..a..o..o..a.. 0..0..0..0..0..0..0..0..0.. CI) ()
206 I .....
tI) ..... Ot---t---O('l')0t---t---Ot---('I')('I')('I)t---('t') t--- 0 -:r
~ 0 q~q~~~\OO~"!~~~~'""'! v L() -:r 0 8~~~8800:£::::::~~~8 00 0 N .....
.s:::
~ ... ~ 0 OOOt---O('l')OO°t---Ot---Ot--O 0 \0 L() g ,,!oq~~~t'-:NOO~,,!q~,,!,,!~ 00 ('I') ~
~ OO ..... t---L()OO~~L() .......... N-:rt--O L() :( N ..... NNNNN NNNNNNN ..... .... ('t') ... a .... N8t---('I')('I') 00 0 t---('I')J:-.. ('I') t---o t--- t-- .... L() -a
8 00 .~t'-:OI~\Oo~t'-:q~~~q 0 00 ('t') ..... t: 'Nt--('I') '0 • ·L() ......... N('t')L()O 00 0 N 0 ('II 01 ............. 01 .... \0\0 ................................
j 0 0
~it--t?o('l')ooooJ:-..ooo('l') N
~ t--- N ....
tI) ..... • • C'i~C'!t'-:NOO~~~~~~'""'! \C! ~ .... ... OO ........ I/)OO~-i-L() ..... ONVt---O L() ..... -i-c: .... ('IINNNN NNNNNNN ..... ~
~ -~ .... i~a; .... o .... ('I')O('l')t--J:-..t---('t') 0 ('I') .... ~ 8 ~. "'\Ooo~C'!t'-:q~qJ:-.. CX! CX! -:r
• ... "I)N ••• ·('t) .... ONNV •
~ N 01 ........... 0\0\\01/)_ ........................ 01 J:-.. 0 N ... ~ 0 -a 0 0 ('t)t? .... 00 .... 8i S .... t?0t--0J:-.. 0 v .... 01 ........ 000\00 oo ..... \Ooovv ~
01 0 ~ L() ~ 0 cx;...;\Ci.;.a\d~.;.u;do,...jM0o\ L() ...... ('I') tI)
N ..... NNN-N NNNNNN ...... ....
11 ..... J:-..t---00 .... ('t)t?('t) .... ~8r--r--r--l'- 0 N 0 0 \OqoqqOt? .... \o~ OC!OO~\o ~ ~ ~ .... 0 ·ON ............ '0 'N • .0 ~ N 00 ................ 0\00"' ..... 010\ .... 01 ..... 00 t--- 0 .....
~ 0 s 0 0 t---('I')t---t---oOl'-('t)t?t?$i ........ ('I') 0 I/) \0 ..... .~ 0 q t'-: \C! \C! \C! ~ \0 I/) t'-: "': • • C'i C'i ~ 0
~ N 0 t---OO('l')Ol'-t---0.;.NooooO\~t?t-- .;. ..... -i-e- N ........... NN......... N ............ N .... .....
0 .... CI)
..0 ...... ('I')OOt---t---('I')t---0l'-O('l') .... 8i(\') .... ~ f""4
S 0 OINNO\oOIOOOOONOIO ('t) N ~ ~
0 ~U")~U")-i-M~~u")u")';'u;u;u;';' C"'i d I::: N f""4 Z
0 0 0 (")('I')Ot---t--('I')('I')t--t--OOO~8 ....
~ 0 ~ ('I') 0 1/)"'"!~\C!VOlL()N~qqC'i •• t"i .... 0 cx)8~:::o\OOu")M:::SS::::::~0\ 00 .
C"'i N ....
SEE e e e a 0. 0.0. 0.. o..o..g; 88860.0..0..0..0..0.. o.o.o..o.0OOl()Ol()O 0. 0. 0. o.l() Ol()Nl() l'-II) N l() l'- • • • • 0000 000-IJ)OOO~~~CI)CI)CI)CI)
..... .... N -:r 'c 'c 'c :9 :9 :'5! :2 . c:: ----ooooooe CI) 6[§.~~~~:g:g:g~~~~ 6 ~ 0. 0. o...b .b .b .tqi! 1d 1ii 0 0 0 0 CI) ~g g .5 .5 .5.5 6- 50 g..~ .~ .~ .S ~ IJ) ..... N 0 0 0 o.~·~·~ tI) ~ ~ ~ ---- 0. 0. o.a:I <:<:<:~~~~CI)CI)CI) ................
OOOp..p..p..p..~~~CQCQCQCQ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
~ bJ)bJ)bJ)bJ)bObObObObJ)bObObObObO~ c:: c:: c:: c:: c: c:: c:: c:: c:: c:: c:: c:: c::. c:: c: '0 S, :s:a:a:a:s:a:a:a:a:a:a:s:s:s:s ~
+I ru u u u u u u u u u u u ~ c:: c:: c:: c:: c: c: c:: c:: c: c:: c:: c:: c:: c: c: 0 0 Ci:itCi:Ci:P:iti£i£P:Ci:Ci:itititit C,) 00 C,)
207 ,r--~_-MMM~M~M~~OMO~~~~~ I 1I)0NM.-I~~lO OCl\ONMNIOOOOO ~O .••••• IOM ••..•••• 0-
OOOMOO~~ • ·.-I~O\OO~Nt--lO •. If :: '" ~ '" "" .. ~ ~ <Xl 1'- '" ~ ~ '" '" '" ~ ~ ~ '"
I~]OMOOOMOOMO~MOOMMMOIOM O~N\O'<t.-l .lOOOO-VN-Mt--IO NIO
~<~~~O~~~~O~~~~~~~O~M a NN'<t~N .-I.-IMNNM~MNN
"S. -('I')~'<t~~OO~MO~lOt--~O~ .... g ~ .C--:~"!"!NN~~~~CX!'<:I:cx!1.C! V 00
0 ~ 00
t ~ N \OON\OOO~oOr--:~O\t--\OOO-lO~ .-I M .-IN('I)N.-I.-I N.-I ..... NNM.-I,....; Q 0 N
~ ('I)ot--~('I)O('l')O~MOOMO~O V 0 ... .-I t"-oN" .-IOOI()OOO""';VN.-IOOIOIO c: ~r-:O\NNO\Nci~~IJ')u;~~~O
.-I ~ ~ N('I)('I)N .... .-I.-IMNNMMMNC'I .-I M
16 'tI
~ .-I t"-ot"-o~t"-oi('l)('I')t"-oog~~oo~~ 0\ ~
8 C"i~ .cq .C--:t"-ocoC"i .CX!"!CX!CX!~CX! C'I t--.... ~
NOOCO~\O\Or-:\C)t"-ot"-oI()'<tlO~N-ta N .-I.-IN .... .-I N-.-INNN,....;,....; .-I M
"S. Q ~ 0 0 oot"-oot"-ot"-oiit"-oi~iMMOO ~ 0\ ~ ..:t 0 OOO\ONCON N 0\ ('I)O\ooN -'<:I: 0 o\r--:Md";o\~o\"':"':"':c>?"':o\o\o\ C/) N .-I M II) -N(t)(t)N ........ MNN(t)('I)N--
.t:: u ~ -OMOOt"-o~M~Oi('l)°it"-oMO
~ lO
~ 0 00 t-: '<:I: '<:I: 00 O'! '" OC!. O'! C"i • CC! t-- N .-I .0 0 '.-I~..:t '0 • ·\oO .... \oN\o ••
~ ~ N OO._l._l_oo_lOV ............ ___ "'''' -('I)
Cl S::o
° .-I~OOO\(t)~M°t"-oMlI)t"-ot"-ot"-ot"-o 810 .... ~ ° <:'!'<:I:~CX!t-:-\() .... ~~t"-oc--:~~cqlD co
~ ° O(')IOM- •• 'lON • ...... 0 • ci C"i ..... N ._�._� ___ ~t--\O ........ "'_ ........ _CO 0
"" ~I ,....; ~0t--t--o~~0~0t--~~ .. t"-o8 I() t"-o
§I!( 0 v'<:l:<:'!<:'!NONC'lI.C!N\o •• "!N t"-o .... 0 'OMO .•• '0 • '00C'? •• d C"i C'I t-- ___ O\OOlOM_OO"'_. __ cot-
Zo
° 0 Ot--~M..:tO~O~Ot--~o"""'t-M M ~ 0 000 .lOlOIONlOooOO .'<t\OI()O \0 0 ~o\8o\r--:~",.q:o\o\oO;::o\o\~1d 0 N ....
ElElElSSSS s::J.s::J.c..s::J.s::J.p,.Q.
ElElElEls::J.s::J.c..s::J.Q.p,.Q. s::J.Q.Q.Q.0OOlOOI/)O Q. c.. Q. p,. lO ° lO N lO t-- I/)
NI/)~ •••• 0000 000-I/)OOO~~~II)II)II)II)
..... - N ~ 'J:: 'J:: 'J:: :s :s :s :5! s:: ----0000000
ElEl~~~~---"'''''''''' II) El ..d..d'fi~~~~ s p,.p,.", ~ uu c/)c/)c/)c/)
tJ s::J.Q.p,. ..... .b .... .btJ1d1doooo II) s::J.oo::s::s::s::s::s::s::ss::s::ss:: {:. o 0 0 ,0 ,0 ,0,0 a' a' a"fi.i 'fi.i • C/) 'fi.i lO_NOOOO ............ ~C/)C/)C/) ----Q.s::J.Q. «<alalalalll)lI)lI)",f!f!f! o 000... 0... 0... o...::g::g::galal alal
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ~ bJ.)bJ.)bJ.)bJ.)bJ.)bJ.)bJ.)bJ.)bJ.)bJ.)bJ.)bJ.)bJ.)bJ.)bI)
s::s::s::s::s::s::s::s::s::s::s::s::s::s::c:- 8, .~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~~ 0
+f ~ 'fi'5ii-5-E-5-E'fi'fi'fi'fi-E-E-5()~ &! s:: s:: s:: s:: s:: s:: s:: s:: s:: c: s:: s:: s:: s:: c: 0 Q l:5:l:5:L:i:L:i:L:i:l:5:L:i:l:5:L:i:L:i:i£i£i£l:5:l:5:u rn u
208
..... ' ..... ('I)"'" 0 t--('I) t--t--OOt--('I)O ('I) V 00('1) \0 0\ I/.) 0 O\~V~l/)vOooV('l)\oo\o\~~o\ ~ "!
~ 0 ,....;\t:)o~~\t:)o\~ooooo.¢...iciU')~ ('I) 00 ~ ('I)~ooOC'l""''''''oOO\OC'lv ..... t--~ ..... .-I ('I) ............... ~ ........................................ C'I ..... .-I .....
..c: .......
~ 0 ('I)ot--O('l)t--ot--t--t--ot--('I)('I)t--t-- 0 ('I)~O\OI/)OOvooC'looooC'l('l)('I)C'lV ('I) 0 .¢ci,....;~o.¢o\U')Oc-')\CiO.¢N~~ r-:
.....
< 0 00 C'I v\O('I)I/)\O('I)('I)o\O ..... \Ooo('l)('I",)l()('I",) 0\ C'I
~ .......... ('I",)~ .................... C'lC'I.-I.-I('I",)C'I.-I .....
~ .-I ot--ot--ot--ooO\('I",)OO('l",)t--l/)ot--II) .-I
0 ~-:t:~~-:t:~~I/)r-:"!~r-:~-;~~ l() oq .......
~ 0 I/) 0 I/) (\") .... 00 t-- I!) ('I",) 0 .-I 0\ .-I ..... 0\ ('I",)
~ .-I @ ~ C'lC'lt--OC'lO.-loot--I.OC'I('I)OI.O.-I ..... C'I ..... .-I ..... C'I.-I.-I.-I .-I ..... .-I.-IN ..... .-I ..... 'E. 0 ..... 0 ('I",)t--OOOO('l",)('I",)O('l)t--OOOt--t--0 N 0 0 (I) .....
0 l/)\OooNI.OC'I.-It--V ..... ooooV\Oool.O t--
~
. ~ O\U')U')N\t:)OU'),....;U')~O.¢~I!)c-')N .....
0 vl()C'lI/)I.I)('I)('I)OI.l)O\Ot--('I",)C'lI/)('I",) 00 ('I",) N ......... ('I",)C'I ..... .-I.-I.-IC'lC'I.-I.-I('I)C'I.-I.-I C'I
V; ...., s:: Ot--('I",)('I)O o t--('I)t--OO('l)O V f:! ..... ~-:t:~-;~~~g-:t:C'1~r-:"!C'1,,!~ C'I 0 .-I ~ 0 O\I/)OI/)O\~.-IM°C'lVI/)I.O('I)I/)~ ~ 0\ :a ~ ~ OOVOOOooOooVC').-I ..... ooC')0O\ 1.0 .-I .......... .-1 ..... .-1 .-I .-1 ..... .-1.-1.-1.-1.-1
~ 0 ...., 0 t--Ot--Ot--O('l)t--0O('l)('I)Ot--OO 0\ ~ 0\0 C'1-:t:~~oq~C'1oo~oqr-:~~~oq~ 00
0 0\ ('I) 'E. 10 0\ 0.-1 t--v 1.1) O\u; 0('1",) \0 0\t--C'l0\t--
.¢ ~ I~ C') V .-I C') V ..... .-I 00 v 0\ vl/)...... .-I ('I) .-I .-I "" .-I ..... ('I)C'I.-I ..... .-I N ..... ...-j ..... ('I)C'I...-j ..... ~ -(I) ..... ('I)Ot--('I",)OOt--O('l)t--('I)t--('I)C')C')O ~
0 r-:~-:t:r-:-:t:~qqr-:~-;~C'1<'1~-:t: 1.0 0\
~ ~
0 \0 t--O 0000 00 \0 C')C'lC'I C')0\t--t--t--C') ~ ~ ~ C'I \0 \0 00 00 \0 v \0 v 00 t-- t-- \0 t-- 1'- \0 \0 C'I t---.... 0 0
"" 0 0 t--Ot--O('l)('.O('l)('.O ..... OooC')O('l",) ~ \0 I/) \0 .0 0 V\OooO ..... oo\O ..... C'lvOVVt--\O.-I
~ \0 a 0 N.¢M~r.OI!)OO~~~U')r.OO\I!).¢O ~ :s C'I 1.I)l/)\OI.I)I/)V\OC')\Ol()l()l()O\l()l/)l.I) C'I
Z
..... ('.00t--t--C')0('.C')('.C').-I00t--('.
~ $ 0 \OONooC'l.-loo~O\O.-lC'l\OC'loo\O
~ 0 r.ON.f\t:)N.fNO.fU;c-')~NOoO.f .... V C'I ..... C'I('I)('I)~.-I.-I.-IC')~C'lC'lv('l).-I.-I
0 0 0 Ot--('I)t--t--Ot--t--OOt--OO('.O('l) 00 ('I) .-I
0 '<:too('l)\O\OvooVC'lVVVvoo\OO\ ~ r-: 0 ~~""';.foO\t:)I!)M""';No\~\CiI!)~\Ci
~ .......... ('I) ('I)""'''''''''''''''' C') N...-j.-l('l)C'I 1/).-1 .-I C')
aaasaaa P.. O.c:l. P.. c:l. c:l. c:l.
ssesc:l.c:l.P..c:l.c:l.c:l.c:l. P..P..P..P..OOOIl)OI/) 0 p"c:l.p"p"I/)OI/)~I/)t--1/) C'I I/) t-- ' , , , 0000 000.-1 I/)OOO~~~~~~~
..... C'I V 'C 'C 'C :g :g :g :g ...., ----0000000
es~~~~---"""""""" s:: S .c:..c:.c: II) 11)11) 4.1 ~ c:l.o.""""""",,()()()t;t;t;'t2 S c:l.P..c:l. ...... ....,....,ai~aioooo ~ c:l.00::S::S::S::S::S::S::SS::S::S::S:: II) o 0 0 ..0 .0 ..0..0 C" 0' 0' 'fi.i 'Ci) 'Ci) 'Ci)
"" 1/) ..... C'I 0 0 0 0,_·_,_ (I) (I) ~ ~ E- UUUU c:l.c:l.c:l.a! a!
<:<:<: ca a! ca a! II) II) ~ "" "" "" "" OOOo..o..o..o..~~~rararara + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
~ b.Ob.Ob.Ob.Ob.Ob.Ob.Ob.Ob.Ob.Ob.Ob.Ob.OtIOtIO fb .5.5,5.5.5.5.5.5.5.5,5.5.5.5.50 ..s::..c:..c:..s::.c:..c:.c:.c:.c:..c:..c:..c:..c:..c:.c:!;2 +i 1ii () () () () () () () () () () () () () () () s:: ~ .5 .5 .5 .5 if .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 .5 ~ .5 ~ 8 0 0..0..0..0.. 0..0..0..0..0..0..0.. 0.. en u
2U9
fIl ... GJ J4 0 ::s
rn ,...,j t--('()t--t--t--ot--t--t--t--C')oot--C')t--'"' ° ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
C') 00 0 ..... ~ ~ ~~ ° C')IDIDOOll)lI)IDVlDlI)OOt--IDt--C')C') N ~~~~~~~~M~~~~~M~ ° N ;:l-rn 0-.....
'"' 0 00t--C')1:'-°0C')('()00C')t--°t--C') 0 0 0 NOO~~ID~~t-:~NOOll)V~ID,...,j 0'1 ID
0- ~ lI) 0 0 . 'IDOO 'NVOII) •• , 'N . , Z N 1:'-00,...,j ..... 0\,...,j .................. 1:'-001:'-1:'- ..... 001:'- ° N
CO ~ 0 ... CI)
"CI S ::s d
:::: ...... N ..... O'IOOII) ...... ('()C')Vll)O'IOOOIDV ...... I:'- ° >. 0 ~~~~~~t-:~~t-:~~~~~~ 0 N 0 ca-a N .......................................................................................... 0 ° ..... 0 o '"' 0
~ Eo-< 0 O ..... v ...... O\ ..... O'IOO ...... OO ..... l:'-lDvl:'-
00 - 0 ~~~~~t-:~~t-:~~~~~t-:~ _
-5 0 Z N .....................................................................................
till 'd d C'4 .... d 4) ..... d 0 Cot -
..§.
~ ..... V .... ~lI)lDC')lI)o\Vll)O'IO\~Oll)O N 00 .... 0 lI)lf) lI)lI)lDlDlf)lDlOlI)lI) 101010 0 0 c: 0 0000000000000000 0 0
~ O-A N s:: EIP 8 0 0 OOI:'-t--t--lf)IDIDNIDO .... ('()I01"-NI:'-- 0 00 - .J:: 0 ~~~~~"!t-:t-:~~~~~~t-:~ z -; C) N 0000000000000000 ~. -J>.
.s:I Cl. 0 ... 0 -.s:I 0 ..
.s:I
0 '"' - ..... ooO\vC')O\oot--C')OOOO\vlOo\ ..... V N 0 >. ° 00000\0\0\0\000 ......... 000\0\0\00 q ...... ::a .J:: ° oooooo~~~~~oocioo 0 0 () O-A N
o (Ij '"' ~ 0 0 NVID(f)VV('()OOvOIDOO ..... O\(f)O - Cfl .J:: 0 0\0\0\0\000\00 ...... 00\00\00\ U 0 oooo~~ci~~~~o~o~o Z
N
't "6b S CI) ..., fIl .. CIS
~g
...... ' ~lf)o\Nt--Vo\('()NOI:'-(t)l:'-o\NO t-- 0
'€ 0 .VN ..... o\OOIDOlDo\lDlf)(t)N(t)(t) q ~ 0 ~ ................ '6))- N ................................................................................... 0 0
9,[ 0 IDCOIONNOOOOOIOl'-OOooIOIOOOV t-- 0\ ~ 0 ~~~~qqt-:~~~t-:~~~~~ q ..... Cfl 0
N ..................... NN ............................................. 0 0
c.. c:!
.;~ d t> 0 fIl
Co)
~ S 1;; ::s -s Q,CI) 4).s:I
-=; ~t' ~'5 c.."'" o 0
8i d_ Cl)Cl. ::s ... -= l d .... I/) ...
.... O\lf)lI)o\ ..... OI:'-VIl)('t)NN ......... NIO N (t)
~ .... v .... OOII)O\O\('t)l'-lI)vvv(t)l'-l'- ..... 0\ t-: 0 O\C'f)~u;~ct5ct5o\c-io~\C)~~c-iu; - 0 1I)001I)(t)IDIDVOOI00\ .......... 0\0(11) 00 10
0- 1"- ..... N 0\ ID 0\0\0 0\ 0\ VO\N ............... NO\II) ..... II) _- N(t)lf)V(t)NNNV(t)('t)vVII)NN '" (Ij 9 o u OIl)IDI:'-No\lD('t)N ..... lOlI)NCO(f)1D a- t-- 0\
0 ..... OOOOOVt--Nt--o\lOlOv(f)ID(t)1I)
° q ~ ° ~~o\c-ioo:to:t~oOct5u5c-iC")u5c-iu; o:t t--~
0 OOO\OOI:'-NlI)l'-VO.-lI:'-II)II)OOt--1D N v N C')IDNNoq-NONOlf)oq-O\NONO N ID Vll)OOlDlI)lI)VNOOII)II)II)IOoolI)V
e e El El S S S 0.0. 0.0. 0.0. p,.
ElSSSo.o.o.p,.p,.p,.p,. 0. p,. 0. 0.0 0 Olf) Olf) 0 o.o.o.o.lf)Oll)NlI)t--lI) N II) t-- ' • • • 0000 000 ..... If)000~~~0000
..... N V 'C 'C 'C :g :g :g :g .... ----0000000 c: SS~~~~---"'''''"''"' 0 So.o. -5-5-5~~~~ ~ p:<0.0..b.b.b.b~~~0000
0.00;:l;:l;:l;:l;:l;:l;:lC:C:C:C: 0 o 0 o.c .0 .0.0 0' cr 0"0 '0'0 '0 f:. If) .... N .9 .9 .9 .9 's,'s, 's, rI) rn rI) rI)
«<~~~~ooof!f!f!f! C!:lOC!:lp..p..p..p..::S::S::SfXlfXlfXlfXl
~ 'd d CI) a. a. <
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + ;:R bObObObObObObObObObObObDbObObO 0
.5.5.5.5,5.5.5,5,5,5,5,5.5,5,50 lI)
.J::.J::.J::.J::.J::.J::.t:.J::.J::.t:.J::-5-5-5-5.b +l ~ U U U U U U U U U U U c: ~ 0 c: c: c: c: c: c: c: c: c: c: c: c: c: c: c: 0 ii:ii:ii:ii:i:i:iS:ii:i:i:itii:itititititu Cfl u
210
211 ~ (f)COC'l~l{)~~(f)l'-CO~Ol'-o\l'-l{) ~ l'-
...... v 0 q~C'!~~O\COC'l~C'lC'lq,""!~~,""! ~ t--; 0._ 0 0~C'lC'l •.. '0 • 'C'lC'lC'l~"'" 0 -sge- C'l .................... l'-l'-~~ ..... l'-CO ......................... ~
bJ)::10 I:: '0 ~
0 ..rco..r(f)0..rl{)(f)l{)0l{)l{)COOl{)..r II) II) (Y) (f) ..Jo.. 0 ~~~'""!~C'lOO\~~C'l~'<J;,""!~~ l'- ..... 0 C'l (f) ~ ..r 0 . • • C'l ~ • (Y) (f) l{) C'l C'I 0 C'l ..................... O\COoo ..... ~O\ ............. ~~ C'I
.... '"' ..... l'-0 .... 0 ..... 000000l{)0\~0 ..... 0\~l'- (Y) 0\ 'Ehll) 8 OC'll{)OO\CO..r..rC'lOC'lOO(y)oo 0 0 ..... ~ cicicici....i....i....i....iciciciciciciciC'i 0 0 ~S C'I
I~~g 0 ooOO\\()l'-C'lOC'lcoO\oovl{) ..... ool'- 0'1 l'-~.!:: 8 O\o..r ..... O\O\l{)l{) ..... O\O'I-C'lvO\O\ q C'l > ..... ....iciC'ici....i....i....i....ici....i....icicici....i....i 0 < 0 C'l 0
]' ..... ~l{)\()vO'lC'l(Y) ..... vl{)\()OC'lOl'-oo (Y) l'-0 o l'-O ......... l'-0\l{)0'I0\(Y)l{)C'l0C'l 0 C'l \() 0
.f.fIf).f.f.fcici.fcv5cv5.f.flri.f.f 0 0 ... - C'l II) ... Ec II) ot ~~ 0 (Y)(Y)l{)l'-..rC'l-~O\O\C'lt--(Y)vl'-"'" C'l ..r 0 (y)(y)C'lvO~O(f)V""'C'l(Y)vl{)\()(Y) C'l \()
:a 0 .fIf)..ou)If).fcv5~u)u)lf)lrilf)u).f.f 0 0 C'l
...... ~o\l'-(y)C'lCO\()vl'-O\O\C'I""'vvo ~ \() '0 0 C'!t--;~q'<J;~ooC'l~~t-:'""!'""!~~oq ~ l'-'il 0
~~~~~~a\r--:~~~~~~~~ '>- (if C'l 0 .....
I ... ..c: 11)_
I a:~ 0 g8~~~~(!;(Y)~Rii)~~(!;:g~ \() .... &: 0 .............. ,-...t ................ ~ 0\ 0
~~~~~~8oo~~~~~~~~ C'l 0 .....
'"' ..... ..r .... (Y)l'-VC'l..r~(f) ......... OO ..... ~\()O co 0\ II)
8 ~t--;q~t--;'""!l'- ..... ~~'""!qq~~~ (Y) 0.. O\l'-O\()O(Y)cx:iu5 OO (Y)Vl'-l'-O\ .... l{) ~ -i '0 - C'l :::~~~~~oo~~~~~~~~::: v 'i)J!g ..... '>, ... ... ~ 11)- Ol'-l'-l{)l'-l{)\()l'-vCOO\ ..... C'l\()l{)O\ t--13:0.. 0 VC'lO'looo~ .......... ..r(Y)l{)..ro ..... voo l{)
0 ..... 0 ~.fu)oioi.f~cv5.fu)oi"Ocx:ilriu)oci 0\
r--: ~ 0 u) C'l ~~~~~~o\l'-~~~~~~~::: .....
'"' (f)00l'-0(y)l'-(Y)0(Y)(f)t--(Y)(f)C')0 II) .... C') 00 0.. 0 l'-C'l00C'lC'll{)0 ..... ~0\0'I..r ..... l{)t--00 \() ~ (/) 0 r--:OOa\C')C')u)o-i....icx:i-iC')C')OOOIf) C'i '"' C'l l{)l{)l{)\()~~\()v~l{)l{)\()\()l{)\()l{) t--11) ....
a: § 0_ t::o.. (f)000t--0000l'-l'-t--0t--t--0 ...... 0 0\ V'J 0 0 l'-V\()V\()C'l~OC'lC'l~..roo\().C'4
t--; q 0 0 ,....;~~o\ou),....;oo,....;C')ocx:ilri.faOo C'I 00 Z C'l ~l'-\()\()l'-\()\()vl'-l'-l'-\()\()\()\()\()
ESSSSE£: 0..0..0..0..0..0..0..
SEESo..o..o..o..o..o..o.. 0.. 0..0.. 0.. 0 0 0l{)0l{) 0 o..o..o..o..~g~~~t-:~ 0000 000 ..... l{)OOO~~~OIl)II)O
I .... C'l v '1:: '1:: '1:: :g :g :g :g .... .................... 000 0000
I:: EE~ooo ......... - ... I-o ... 1-o II) Eo..o.. ~~~-5-5-5E!U:L~ E o..o..o..l:Ibl:lb ............ (/)(/)(/)(/) .... 0.. ::1::!::!::1enenenOOOO en o g g .0 .0 .0.0 g. g. g..~ .~ .~ .~ II)
t:. l{) .... C'l ..9 ..9 .£ .£ '0.'0.'0. (/) (/) (/) (/) «<OOOOOIl)II)f!f!f!f! ooo~~~~~~~lIlo:1lIlo:1 + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
~ bJ) bJ) bJ) bJ) bJ) bJ) bJ)' bJ) bJ) b.I) b.I) b.I) b.I) b.I) b.I)
.5.5.5.5.5.5.5.5.5.5.5.5.5.5.50 l{)
-5-5-5-5-5-5££££££££-5 b ! tij
£.5.5.5.5.5.5.5.5.5.5.5.5.5.58 Q a.. a.. a.. a.. a.. a.. a.. a.. a.. a.. a.. a.. a.. a.. rn C)
Evaluation of"vaIieties and etTects of" plnting date and growth regulators on the performance of chrysanthemwn (Dentiranthema indicum)
Balaji S. Kulkarni 2003
ABSTRACT
Dr. B. Satyanarayan Reddy Major Advi~or.
Studies were conducted to evaluate the genotypes for growth, flowering and yield
and to standardise the date of planting and growth regulators ill ,hrysanthemum
CDendranthema indicum) during the years 2000 and 20tH.
Studies on the effect of dates of planting on vegetative parameters of cv. Kamool
rewaled that the plants of April followed by :May plantings were tall, spreading, sturdy
and had more number of branches. suckers, leaves and more leaf area per plant inturn
more flower yield (15.03 and 14.91 v11a, respectiwly). The flower yie1tl gradually
decreased right from April planting to December planting.
Among the seventeen different aeceSSlOns, Saraval and Harverst Home were
vigorous in growth, while the cultivar Kirti was dwarf in growth habit. The plant
sl;r~aJ was more in Harvest Home, .Mutant No.9 an\! Sclection-5 and it wa.~ minimum in
spray purple. The cultivars Karnoo~ Kirti, Lohin Green, Pink Cascade and Chandrika
were early in flowering, whereas cv. Saraval was late variety. Cultivars Harvest Home,
:\1utant NO.9, Kamool, Selection-5, Saraval and Chandrika produced higher number of -
branches, leaf area inturn higher flower yield.
Application of GA at 100 ppm and brassinosteroid at 0.75 ppm to pinched plants
increased the plant height. These two treanncnts and mepiquatchloride at 250 ppm
exhibited excellent plant architecture (spread). relatively higher number of branches and
increased leaf area intum these parameters resulted in higher flower production. GA
(200 ppm) induced early flowering, whereas padobutrazol at 400 ppm,
mepiquatchloride at 500 and 750 ppm levels delayed the tlowering.
Growth regulators (GA,BA. paclobuu'JZol\ ,",h~micab (sucro,;~) dnd wal~J" spray
'lg!l1iicantJ" reduced the weight loss of chrysilmhmmm loose flowers.
