Content uploaded by Kondepalli Venkata subbaiah
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kondepalli Venkata subbaiah on Mar 22, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Subbaiah et al Int. J. Pure App. Biosci. 5 (6): 489-495 (2017) ISSN: 2320 – 7051
Copyright © Nov.-Dec., 2017; IJPAB 489
Effect of Paclobutrazol and Other Chemicals on Yield and Flowering
Characteristics of Mango cv. Banganpalli
K. Venkata Subbaiah1*, N.N. Reddy2, and M.L.N. Reddy, A.V. D. Dorajeerao4 and
A.G.K. Reddy5
Dr. Y.S.R. Horticultural University, Venkataramannagudem, Andhra Pradesh
1Dr. K. Venkata Subbaiah Scientist (Horticulture) KVK, Venkataramannagudem
2Dr. N. N.Reddy Principal Scientist (Horticulture) CRIDA, Hyderabad
3Dr. M.L.N. Reddy Dean of Horticulture
4Dr. YSRHU, Andhra Pradesh
5Dr. A.V.D. Dorajee Rao Associate professior Dr. YSRHU
6Dr. A.G.K. Reddy Scientist (Horticulture) CRIDA, Hyderabad
*Corresponding Author E-mail: venkathort@gmail.com
Received: 6.10.2017 | Revised: 10.11.2017 | Accepted: 14.11.2017
INTRODUCTION
Mango occupied a pre-eminent place amongst
the fruit crops grown in India because of its
great utility. Mango exhibits wide variations in
flowering and fruiting due to its strong
dependency on environment for flowering,
particularly on cool winter temperatures and
the age of the flowering shoots1,2. There are
several reasons that can be attributed for low
productivity, but among them, the major cause
is the dominance of vegetative phase over the
reproductive phase, especially under tropical
conditions.
Available online at www.ijpab.com
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18782/2320-7051.5841
ISSN: 2320 – 7051
Int. J. Pure App. Biosci. 5 (6): 489-495 (2017)
ABSTRACT
The experiment was conducted in an orchard with 11-year old plants in the first evaluation cycle.
Mango Trees were subjected to different concentrations of paclobutrazol and other chemicals
with factorial randomised block design. Among the different treatments
use of Paclobutrazol and
other chemicals was significantly better in getting more number of mango fruits per tree as
compared to the control. The more panicle length (36.24 and 33.83)
was noticed with control,
more per cent hermaphrodite flowers (3.49% and 3.20%) and less days to full bloom (96 and
100.17) was noticed with the treatment P3 (PBZ @ 4 ml m‾2) followed by P2 (PBZ @ 3 ml m‾2).
Maximum number of fruits set per each panicle (17.7 and 15.4) was observed with P3S1 (PBZ @
4 ml m-2 + Spermidine @ 0.02 mM). More fruit number per plant (212.33 and 208.33), yield
(88.53kg, 107.67kg) and maximum fruit weight (625.20g and 588.53g), were noticed with P3S3
(PBZ @ 4 ml m-2 + NAA@ 25ppm). Therefore the conclusion from these results is that
Paclobutrazol and other chemicals are effective in inducing flowering as well as fruiting in
Banganpalli mango.
Key words: Paclobutrazole, Other chemical, Yield, Flower characters
Research Article
Cite this article: Subbaiah, K.V., Reddy, N.N., and Reddy, M.L.N., Dorajeerao, A.V.D. and Reddy,
A.G.K., Effect of Paclobutrazol and Other Chemicals on Yield and Flowering Characteristics of Mango cv.
Banganpalli, Int. J. Pure App. Biosci. 5(6): 489-495 (2017). doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.18782/2320-7051.5841
Subbaiah et al Int. J. Pure App. Biosci. 5 (6): 489-495 (2017) ISSN: 2320 – 7051
Copyright © Nov.-Dec., 2017; IJPAB 490
The improvement in productivity in modern
agriculture system is increasingly dependent
on manipulation of the physiological activities
of the crop by chemical means. Alternate
bearing is one of the major problems in mango
production all over the World. Attempts are
being made to overcome this problem during
the last decades. Though several remedial
measures have been suggested, none of these
was successful until the advent of the plant
growth retardant Paclobutrazol. In commercial
mango plantations, it is desirable to control the
vegetative growth to get uniform and regular
flowering. The concerted research work has
been carried out on use of paclobutrazol to
overcome the alternate bearing problem in
mango from early eighties till date in almost
all the mango growing countries of the World.
paclobutrazol is one of the most important
growth retardant which restricts vegetative
growth and induce flowering in many fruit
species including mango3. The first report
about the use of PBZ on mango came from
India in Dashaheri and Banganapalli4. Keeping
these points in view, the present investigation
was planned to study the effect of
Paclobutrazol and other chemicals on yield
and flowering characteristics of mango cv.
Banganpalli.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The investigation on the effect of
Paclobutrazol and other chemicals on yield
and flowering characteristics of mango cv.
Banganpalli was carried out at on farm
research trials of CRIDA, Hyderabad at
Amarachinta village, Mahaboobnagar district
of Andhra Pradesh during 2013-14 and 2014-
15. It lies at 16° 22' 0" North latitude, 77° 47'
0" East longitude at an altitude of 311m from
mean sea level. Rainfall 1053.2 mm and 658.9
mm rainfall was received during 2013-14 and
2014-15 out of which >93% is during South
West monsoon. The minimum temperature
was 17.29oC and 16.3oC and maximum
temperature was 30.63 and 30.72 oC. The soil
of the orchard selected is a red soils with a pH
of 6.7 and electrical conductivity of 0.6 d S m-
1. It had 131.63 Kg, 16.7 Kg and 179.84 Kg
per hectare of available nitrogen, phosphorus
and potassium contents respectively. The
orchard has a uniform topography.
Paclobutrazol concentration was
calculated based on the diameter of the tree,
and applied @ 2ml m-1, 3ml m-1 and 4ml m-1 of
canopy diameter. The required paclobutrazol
was dissolved in 10 litre of water and poured
in the holes (10-15cm depth) which were made
in the soil around the collar region of the tree
on september 1st of 2013 and 2014. A foliar
spray of KNO3 was applied during last week
of October 2013 and 2014. 10 litres of NAA
@25 ppm (25mg NAA dissolved in 20 ml of
ethanol, diluted it to1litre of water and make
up to 1 liters) solution was sprayed on trees
during fruiting stage for controlling fruit drop.
10 litres of spermidine @ 0.02mM (2.9 mg of
spermidine dissolved in 1 litre of water to get
0.02 mM of spermidine) was prepared and
sprayed on trees during full bloom stage. 10
litres of borax @ 0.6% solution was prepared
and sprayed on trees during full bloom stage
during 2013 and 2014.
The length of the panicle was recorded
and expressed in centimetres. The panicle
lengths of ten randomly selected (North,
South, East and West directions) shoots were
recorded and the mean was calculated.
The breadth of the panicle was
recorded and expressed in centimetres. The
panicle breadths of ten randomly selected
(North, South, East and West directions)
shoots were recorded and the mean was
calculated.
The number of days taken from the
date of paclobutrazol application to full bloom
was recorded. Ten shoots were randomly
tagged (from North, South, East and West
directions) and the Days taken from the date of
paclobutrazol application to full bloom was
recorded. The mean number of days taken for
Days taken from the date of paclobutrazol
application to full bloom was computed.
The percentage of hermaphrodite
flowers was calculated from the randomly
selected ten panicles tree-1 using the following
formula and expressed in percentage.
Percentage of hermaphrodite flower =
100
flowers ofnumber Total flowers itehermaphrod ofNumber
An average of 5 fruited panicles was
considered for calculating the average number
of fruits panicle-1 at the time of fruit set stage.
Subbaiah et al Int. J. Pure App. Biosci. 5 (6): 489-495 (2017) ISSN: 2320 – 7051
Copyright © Nov.-Dec., 2017; IJPAB 491
The total number of fruits harvested tree-1 was
counted after harvest and expressed as number
of fruits plant-1
The total weight of fruits produced by
a tree was recorded to obtain the fruit yield
tree-1 and expressed in kilograms.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Among different paclobutrazol concentrations
significantly more panicle length was noticed
with the control (P4) (36.24, 33.83) followed
by application of PBZ @ 2 ml m-2 canopy (P1)
(30.04, 27.73) in the years 2013-14 and 2014-
15 respectively (Table 1). The lowest panicle
length was found with the application of PBZ
@ 4 ml m-2 canopy (P3) (23.79, 21.36) in the
years 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively.
Interaction between paclobutrazol
concentrations and application of other
chemicals was found significant. The more
panicle length was found with P4S4 (37.60,
35.10) which was statistically at par with P4S1
(36.83, 34.47) in the year 2013-14, 2014-15
respectively. Significantly the less panicle
length was noticed with the treatment P3S3
(22.17, 19.70) which was statistically at par
with P3S2 (22.67, 20.17) during 2013-14,
2014-15 seasons respectively. These results
can be attributed to a reason that the
Paclobutrazol reduces the panicle length by
blocking gibberellin synthesis path way. This
is why because gibberellins are responsible for
cell elongation and in their reduced synthesis
the elongation process gets diminished. This
result is similar to that of Dalziel and
Lawrence5, Quinlan and Richardson6,
Webester and Quinlan7 and Voon et al.8.
Among different paclobutrazol
concentrations significantly more panicle
breadth was noticed with the treatment P3
(24.97, 22.34) followed by P2 (23.11, 20.83) in
the year 2013-14, 2014-15 respectively(Table
2). The lowest panicle breadth was found with
the treatment P4 (14.17, 11.81) in the year
2013-14, 2014-15 respectively.
Among different paclobutrazol
concentrations significantly less days to full
bloom was noticed with the treatment P3 (96,
100.17) followed by P2 (103.5, 107.42) in the
year 2013-14, 2014-15 respectively (Table 3)..
Significantly the more days to full bloom was
recorded with the treatment P4 (126.33, 130.5)
in the year 2013-14, 2014-15 respectively. It
means flowering occurred about 30 days
earlier than those of the control plants, it may
be due to PBZ, owing to its anti-gibberellin
activity and intensify flowering by early
reduction of endogenous gibberellins levels
within the shoots by blocks the conversion of
ent kaurene to ent kaurenol in the terpenoid
pathway. One of the major roles of
gibberellins is the stimulation of cell
elongation. When gibberellins biosynthesis is
inhibited, cell division occurs, but new cells do
not elongate resulting on suppression of
vegetative growth Dalziel and Lawrence5,
Quinlan and Richardson6, Webester and
Quinlan,7, Voon et al.8. Similar results were
also reported in different important mango
cultivars from Australia10, Indonesia8,
Thailand11 and India4.
Among different paclobutrazol
concentrations significantly more
hermaphrodite flowers was noticed with the
treatment P3 (3.49, 3.20) followed by P2 (3.26,
2.99) in the year 2013-14, 2014-15
respectively (Table 4). Significantly the lowest
hermaphrodite flowers was recorded with the
treatment P4 (2.13, 1.98) in the year 2013-14,
2014-15 respectively. The development of
complete (hermaphrodite) flowers probably
needs more reserves from the tree than
unisexual flowers due to the additional
structures. Assuming there are 100,000
flowers and each flower consumes 10 micro
gram of nitrogen, then each time a tree
flowers, it loses one kilogram of nitrogen. The
tree will, therefore, need to have adequate
reserves for flower and subsequent fruit
formation. The higher reserve in the shoots
due to PBZ soil drenching increased the
percentages of hermaphrodite flowers. These
results are similar to the observations made by
Vijayalakshmi and Srinivasan9, Hoda et al.12.
With respect to fruit set, Interaction between
paclobutrazol concentrations and other
chemicals was found significant (Table 5). The
highest fruit set per panicle was found with
P3S1 (17.7) (15.4) in the year 2013-14, 2014-
15 respectively. Significantly the less fruit set
per panicle was noticed with the treatment
P4S1 (6.3) which was statistically at par with
Subbaiah et al Int. J. Pure App. Biosci. 5 (6): 489-495 (2017) ISSN: 2320 – 7051
Copyright © Nov.-Dec., 2017; IJPAB 492
P4S2 (7.3), P4S3 (6.7), P4S4 (8.3), P2S3 (8.3),
P1S3 (6.7), P1S4 (8.3) during 2013-14, whereas
during 2014-15 seasons the lowest fruit set per
panicle was noticed with the treatment P4S1
(4.0). The increase in fruit retention may be
ascribed to synergistic effect of exogenous
application of spermidine and paclobutrazol
and It may also increased effectiveness of
polyamines at full bloom stages may be
improved floral organ development,
pollination, fertilization, and subsequent
embryo and initial fruit development. Our
experimental results support the earlier report
of Singh and Singh13 that time of PA
application significantly affected the fruit set
and retention in ‘Dusehri’ and ‘Langra’
mango.
Different paclobutrazol concentrations
and fruit set improving chemicals exerted
significant influence on fruit number per plant
in the years 2013-14, 2014-15 (Table 6)..
Among different paclobutrazol concentrations,
significantly the highest fruit number per plant
was noticed with the treatment P3 (199.50,
196.25) followed by P2 (177.50, 173.0) in the
year 2013-14, 2014-15 respectively.
Significantly the less fruit number per plant
was found with the treatment P4 (121.50,
117.17) in the year 2013-14, 2014-15
respectively. This findings agreed in the
experiments of Medonca PBZ increased the
productivity of ‘Tommy Atkins’. Most other
researchers also indicated that PBZ treated
trees had a higher yield than non-treated trees.
Interaction between paclobutrazol
concentrations and other chemicals was found
significant. The more fruit number per plant
was found with P3S3, P3S2 (212.33) in 2013-
14, whereas during 2014-15 seasons the more
fruit number per plant was observed with the
treatment P3S3 (209.33). Significantly the less
fruit number per plant was noticed with the
treatment P4S3 (120.0, 116.0) in the year 2013-
14, 2014-15 respectively.
Among different paclobutrazol
concentrations, significantly the highest yield
per plant was noticed with the treatment P3
(83.32, 87.89) in the year 2013-14, 2014-15
respectively (Table 7). Significantly the less
yield per plant was found with the treatment P4
(40.74, 39.28) in the year 2013-14, 2014-15
respectively.
With respect to interaction effect, the
more yield per plant was found with P3S3
(88.53) which was statistically at par with P1S3
(83.74), P2S1 (86.71), P2S2 (82.31), P2S3
(83.57), P3S1 (81.54) and P3S2 (84.40) in 2013-
14, whereas during 2014-15 season the more
yield per plant was observed with the
treatment P3S3 (107.67) followed by P2S3
(89.20), P2S1 (86.86). Significantly the less
yield per plant was noticed with the treatment
P4S4 (36.60, 35.70) in the year 2013-14, 2014-
15 respectively. This may be due to
paclobutrazol hasten photosynthetic activities
where more assimilates were accumulated,
thus mango fruit yields significantly increased
Our results confirms with Kulkarni ,
Burondkar and Gunjate14, Kurian and Iyer15,
Singh and Dhillon16, Singh17, Tandel and
Patel18 and Burondkar et al19.
Table 1: Panicle length as influenced by paclobutrazol and other chemicals in Mango cv. Banganpalli
P1 - PBZ @ 2 ml m‾2 canopy (soil drenching) + foliar spray of KNO3 (3%)
P2 - PBZ @ 3 ml m‾2 canopy (soil drenching) + foliar spray of KNO3 (3%)
P3 - PBZ @ 4 ml m‾2 canopy (soil drenching) + foliar spray of KNO3 (3%)
P4- Control;
S1 - Spermidine @ 0.02 mM; S2 - Borax – 0.6% ; S3 – NAA @ 25ppm; S4- Control
Treatment
Panicle length (cm)
2013-14
2014-15
S1
S2
S3
S4
Mean
S1
S2
S3
S4
Mean
P1
29.00
30.17
32.17
28.83
30.04
26.80
27.93
29.80
26.37
27.73
P2
27.17
25.17
28.53
28.33
27.30
24.70
22.80
26.27
26.00
24.94
P3
26.00
22.67
22.17
24.33
23.79
23.60
20.17
19.70
21.97
21.36
P4
36.83
35.47
35.07
37.60
36.24
34.47
33.13
32.63
35.10
33.83
Mean
29.75
28.37
29.48
29.78
29.34
27.39
26.01
27.10
27.36
26.97
S.Em.(±)
C.D. @ 5%
S.Em.(±)
C.D. @ 5%
Factor- P
0.268
0.779
0.265
0.770
Factor – S
0.268
0.779
0.265
0.770
P × S
0.537
1.558
0.530
1.539
Subbaiah et al Int. J. Pure App. Biosci. 5 (6): 489-495 (2017) ISSN: 2320 – 7051
Copyright © Nov.-Dec., 2017; IJPAB 493
Table 2: Panicle breadth as influenced by paclobutrazol and other chemicals in Mango cv. Banganpalli
Treatment
Panicle Breadth (cm)
2013-14
2014-15
S1
S2
S3
S4
Mean
S1
S2
S3
S4
Mean
P1
15
15.17
17
17.37
16.13
12.93
13
14.7
14.97
13.9
P2
19.67
23.7
24.03
25.03
23.11
17.17
21.4
21.87
22.87
20.83
P3
24.33
24.67
24.17
26
24.79
22
22.2
21.6
23.57
22.34
P4
13
14.17
14.33
15.17
14.17
10.57
12.1
11.9
12.67
11.81
Mean
18
19.43
19.88
20.89
19.55
15.67
17.18
17.52
18.52
17.22
S.Em.(±)
C.D. @ 5%
S.Em.(±)
C.D. @ 5%
Factor- P
0.430
1.249
0.430
1.247
Factor - S
0.430
1.249
0.430
1.247
Interaction (P × S)
0.861
NS
0.859
NS
P1 - PBZ @ 2 ml m‾2 canopy (soil drenching) + foliar spray of KNO3 (3%)
P2 - PBZ @ 3 ml m‾2 canopy (soil drenching) + foliar spray of KNO3 (3%)
P3 - PBZ @ 4 ml m‾2 canopy (soil drenching) + foliar spray of KNO3 (3%)
P4- Control;
S1 - Spermidine @ 0.02 mM; S2 - Borax – 0.6% ; S3 - NAA@ 25ppm; S4- Control
Table 3: Days taken for full bloom as influenced by paclobutrazol and other chemicals in Mango cv.
Banganpalli
Treatment
Days taken for full bloom
2013-14
2014-15
S1
S2
S3
S4
Mean
S1
S2
S3
S4
Mean
P1
103.33
106.33
106.00
104.33
105
106.33
110.33
109.33
108.67
108.67
P2
104.67
104.33
103.33
101.67
103.5
110.00
107.33
107.33
105.00
107.42
P3
100.00
94.00
95.33
94.67
96
104.33
99.33
98.33
98.67
100.17
P4
125.00
126.67
125.67
128.00
126.33
128.33
131.00
131.00
131.67
130.50
Mean
108.3
107.8
107.6
107.2
107.71
112.25
112.00
111.50
111.00
111.69
S.Em.(±)
C.D. @ 5%
S.Em.(±)
C.D. @ 5%
Factor- P
0.697
2.024
0.792
2.299
Factor - S
0.697
NS
0.792
NS
Interaction (P × S)
1.395
NS
1.584
NS
P1 - PBZ @ 2 ml m‾2 canopy (soil drenching) + foliar spray of KNO3 (3%)
P2 - PBZ @ 3 ml m‾2 canopy (soil drenching) + foliar spray of KNO3 (3%)
P3 - PBZ @ 4 ml m‾2 canopy (soil drenching) + foliar spray of KNO3 (3%)
P4- Control;
S1 - Spermidine @ 0.02 mM; S2 - Borax – 0.6% ; S3 - NAA@ 25 ppm; S4- Control
Table 4: Hermaphrodite flowers (%) as influenced by paclobutrazol and other chemicals in Mango cv.
Banganpalli
Treatment
Hermaphrodite flowers (%)
2013-14
2014-15
S1
S2
S3
S4
Mean
S1
S2
S3
S4
Mean
P1
3.03
2.88
2.85
2.9
2.92
2.92
2.72
2.63
2.68
2.74
P2
3.4
3.25
3.36
3.02
3.26
3.08
3.03
3.05
2.80
2.99
P3
3.52
3.6
3.63
3.23
3.49
3.30
3.28
3.27
2.97
3.20
P4
2.08
2.1
2.17
2.18
2.13
1.98
1.98
1.95
2.02
1.98
Mean
3.01
2.96
3.00
2.83
2.95
2.82
2.75
2.72
2.62
2.73
S.Em.(±)
C.D. @ 5%
S.Em.(±)
C.D. @ 5%
Factor- P
0.051
0.149
0.052
0.150
Factor - S
0.051
NS
0.052
NS
Interaction (P × S)
0.103
NS
0.103
NS
P1 - PBZ @ 2 ml m‾2 canopy (soil drenching) + foliar spray of KNO3 (3%)
P2 - PBZ @ 3 ml m‾2 canopy (soil drenching) + foliar spray of KNO3 (3%)
P3 - PBZ @ 4 ml m‾2 canopy (soil drenching) + foliar spray of KNO3 (3%)
P4- Control;
S1 - Spermidine @ 0.02 mM; S2 - Borax – 0.6% ; S3 - NAA@ 25ppm; S4- Control
Subbaiah et al Int. J. Pure App. Biosci. 5 (6): 489-495 (2017) ISSN: 2320 – 7051
Copyright © Nov.-Dec., 2017; IJPAB 494
Table 5: Fruit set panicle-1 as influenced by paclobutrazol and other chemicals in Mango cv. Banganpalli
P1 - PBZ @ 2 ml m‾2 canopy (soil drenching) + foliar spray of KNO3 (3%)
P2 - PBZ @ 3 ml m‾2 canopy (soil drenching) + foliar spray of KNO3 (3%)
P3 - PBZ @ 4 ml m‾2 canopy (soil drenching) + foliar spray of KNO3 (3%)
P4- Control;
S1 - Spermidine @ 0.02 mM; S2 - Borax – 0.6% ; S3 - NAA@ 25ppm; S4- Control
Table 6: Fruit number plant-1 as influenced by paclobutrazol and other chemicals in Mango cv.
Banganpalli
P1 - PBZ @ 2 ml m‾2 canopy (soil drenching) + foliar spray of KNO3 (3%)
P2 - PBZ @ 3 ml m‾2 canopy (soil drenching) + foliar spray of KNO3 (3%)
P3 - PBZ @ 4 ml m‾2 canopy (soil drenching) + foliar spray of KNO3 (3%)
P4- Control; S1 - Spermidine @ 0.02 mM; S2 - Borax – 0.6% ; S3 - NAA@ 25ppm; S4- Control
Table 7: Yield plant-1 as influenced by paclobutrazol and other chemicals in Mango cv. Banganpalli
Treatment
Yield plant-1 (kg)
2013-14
2014-15
S1
S2
S3
S4
Mean
S1
S2
S3
S4
Mean
P1
65.31
69.04
83.74
71.04
72.28
64.04
67.17
82.38
69.76
70.84
P2
86.71
82.31
83.57
77.20
82.45
86.86
79.34
89.20
76.00
82.85
P3
81.54
84.40
88.53
78.79
83.32
82.80
83.55
107.67
77.54
87.89
P4
42.75
43.00
40.62
36.60
40.74
41.00
41.13
39.29
35.70
39.28
Mean
69.08
69.69
74.12
65.91
69.70
68.68
67.80
79.63
64.75
70.22
S.Em.(±)
C.D. @ 5%
S.Em.(±)
C.D. @ 5%
Factor- P
1.225
3.556
1.716
4.979
Factor - S
1.225
3.556
1.716
4.979
Interaction (P × S)
2.450
7.112
3.431
9.958
P1 - PBZ @ 2 ml m‾2 canopy (soil drenching) + foliar spray of KNO3 (3%)
P2 - PBZ @ 3 ml m‾2 canopy (soil drenching) + foliar spray of KNO3 (3%)
P3 - PBZ @ 4 ml m‾2 canopy (soil drenching) + foliar spray of KNO3 (3%
P4- Control;
S1 - Spermidine @ 0.02 mM; S2 - Borax – 0.6% ; S3 - NAA@ 25ppm; S4- Control
Treatment
Fruit set panicle-1
2013-14
2014-15
S1
S2
S3
S4
Mean
S1
S2
S3
S4
Mean
P1
9.0
8.7
6.7
8.3
8.2
6.7
5.4
4.4
7.0
5.9
P2
11.0
9.0
8.3
9.0
9.3
8.7
5.7
6.0
7.7
7.0
P3
17.7
15.0
14.7
13.3
15.2
15.4
11.7
12.4
12.0
12.9
P4
6.3
7.3
6.7
8.3
7.2
4.0
4.0
4.4
7.0
4.9
Mean
11.0
10.0
9.1
9.8
9.98
8.7
6.7
6.8
8.5
7.68
S.Em.(±)
C.D. @ 5%
S.Em.(±)
C.D. @ 5%
Factor- P
0.373
1.083
0.373
1.083
Factor - S
0.373
1.083
0.373
1.083
P × S
0.747
2.167
0.747
2.167
Treatment
Fruit number plant-1
2013-14
2014-15
S1
S2
S3
S4
Mean
S1
S2
S3
S4
Mean
P1
155.33
148.33
186.67
166.67
164.25
152.33
144.33
183.67
163.67
161.00
P2
171.33
177.00
191.67
170.00
177.50
166.33
171.00
187.67
167.00
173.00
P3
185.33
212.33
212.33
188.00
199.50
182.33
208.33
209.33
185.00
196.25
P4
122.00
122.00
120.00
122.00
121.50
117.00
116.67
116.00
119.00
117.17
Mean
158.50
164.92
177.67
161.67
165.69
154.50
160.08
174.17
158.67
161.86
S.Em.(±)
C.D. @ 5%
S.Em.(±)
C.D. @ 5%
Factor- P
1.518
4.407
1.506
4.371
Factor - S
1.518
4.407
1.506
4.371
Interaction (P × S)
3.037
8.813
3.012
8.741
Subbaiah et al Int. J. Pure App. Biosci. 5 (6): 489-495 (2017) ISSN: 2320 – 7051
Copyright © Nov.-Dec., 2017; IJPAB 495
REFERENCES
1. Ramirez, F. and Davenport, T.L. Mango
(Mangifera indica L.) flowering
physiology. Scientia Horticulture, 126:
65-72 (2010).
2. Shankara and Swamy J. Flowering
manipulation in mango: A science comes
of age. J. Today’s Bio. Sci.: Research and
Review, 1(1): 122-137 (2012).
3. Yadav, R.K, Rai, N, Yadav, D.S. and
Asati, B.S. Use of paclobutrazol in
Horticultural crops – A review. Agric.
Rev., 26: 124-132 (20005).
4. Kulkarni, V.J. Further studies on graft-
induced off-season flowering and fruiting
in the mango (Mangifera indica L.). J.
Hortic. Sci. 63: 361–367 (1988).
5. Dalziel, J. and Lawrence, D.K.
Biochemical and biological effects of
kaurene oxidase inhibitors, such as
paclobutrazol. In R. Menhenett & D.K.
Lawrence (eds). Biochemical aspects of
synthetic and naturally occurring plant
growth regulators Wantage: British Plant
Growth Regulator Group. 43-57 (1984).
6. Quinlan, J.A. and Richardson, P.J. Effect
of paclobutrazol on apple shoot growth.
Acta Hortic. 146: 106-111 (1984).
7. Webster, A.D. and Quinlan, J.D. Chemical
control of tree growth of Plum (Prunus
domestica L.). I. Preliminary studies with
the growth retardant paclobutrazol. J.
Hort. Sci. 59: 367-375 (1984).
8. Voon, C.H, Pitakpaivan, C. and Tan, S.J.
1991. Mango cropping manipulation with
Cultar. Acta Hortic. 291: 219-228 (1991).
9. Vijayalakshmi, D. and Srinivasan, P.S.
Impact of chemicals and growth regulators
on induction of flowering in 'off' year
mango cv. Alphonso. Orissa J. Hort. 30:
32-34 (2002).
10. Winston and E.C. Evaluation of
paclobutrazol on growth, flowering and
yield of mango cv. Kensington pride.
Australian Journal of Experimental
Agriculture. 32(1): 97-104 (1992).
11. Tongumpai, P, Jutamanee, K. and
Subhadrabandhu, S. Effect of
paclobutrazol on flowering of mango cv.
‘Khiew Sawoey’. Acta Hort., 291: 67–79
(1991).
12. Hoda, M.N, Singh, S. and Singh, J. Effect
of cultar on flowering, fruiting and fruit
quality of mango cv. Langra. Indian J.
Hort., 58 (3): 224-227 (2001).
13. Singh Z. and Singh L. Increased fruit set
and retention in mango with exogenous
application of polyamines. J. Hortic. Sci.
70: 271–277 (1995).
14. Burondkar, M.M. and R.T. Gunjate.
Control of vegetative growth and
induction of regular and early cropping in
Alphonso mango with paclobutrazol. Acta
Hort., 341: 206-215 (1993).
15. Kurian, R.M. and lyer, C.P.A. Chemical
regulation of tree size in mango
(Mangifera indica L.) cv. Alphonso. II.
Effects of growth retardants on flowering
and fruit set. J. Hon. Sci., 68: 355-60
(1993a).
16. Singh, Z. and Dhillon, B.S. Effect of
paclobutrazol on floral malformation,
yield and quality of mango (Mangifera
indica L.). Acta Horticulturae, 296: 51-54
(1992).
17. Singh, Z and Janes J, Regulation of fruit
set and retention in mango with exogenous
application of polyamines and their
biosynthesis inhibitors. Acta Hortic. 509:
675–680 (2000).
18. Tandel, Y.N. and Patel, N.L. Effect of
chemicals on growth, yield and economics
of mango (Mangifera indica L.).
Karnataka J. Agric. Sci., 24 (3): 362 – 365
(2011).
19. Burondkar, M.M, Gunjate, R.T, Magdum
M.B and Govekar M.A. Rejuvenation of
old and overcrowded ‘Alphonso’ mango
with pruning and use of paclobutrazol.
Acta Hortic. 509: 681–686 (2000).
