Nội dung

Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2019) 8(12): 323-328 International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences ISSN: 2319-7706 Volume 8 Number 12 (2019) Journal homepage: http://www.ijcmas.com Original Research Article https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2019.812.043 Effect of Pruning Intensities under Different Levels of Irrigation and Nitrogen on Fruit Set and Yield of Plum cv. Santa rosa Ashima Suklabaidya* and Kuldeep Mehta Department of Pomology, Dr. Y. S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni, Solan – 173 230 *Corresponding author ABSTRACT Keywords Plum trees, Prunus salicina, Pruning, nitrogen fertilization, Irrigation, Yield Article Info Accepted: 04 November 2019 Available Online: 10 December 2019 An experiment was conducted to standardize the renewal pruning intensities under different irrigation and nitrogen levels for getting better yield and quality fruits in Santa Rosa plum. There were three irrigation levels, four pruning severities and two nitrogen levels. Pruning was done in the month of January every year. Pruning treatments exhibited a significant effect on fruit set during both the years of study. Among all the pruning treatment highest fruit set and yield was found in T3 treatment and lowest in T1 treatment. In N-fertilization higher yield was observed with N1 treatment as compared to N2 treatment. Plants irrigated at 20 per cent soil moisture depletion of field capacity showed highest yield and fruit set while the lowest was found in 60 per cent soil moisture depletion of field capacity. Introduction Among the stone fruits, ‘Santa Rosa’ plum (P. salicina) is one of the important fruit crop of the temperate regions. Efficient orchard management practices have a key role in enhancing the productivity of plums. Pruning, nitrogen fertilization, and irrigation are important cultural practices which affect yield and quality in plums. Work on the standardization of plum and fertilizer requirement of plum have been conducted separately by several workers under different set of agro-climatic conditions, but virtually no work has been carried out to standardize the optimum levels of pruning, irrigation and N-fertilization for regular and quality production of Santa Rosa plum. Keeping these facts in view, the present studies were undertaken. Materials and Methods The present studies were undertaken in the experimental orchard of Department of pomology, Dr. Y. S. Parmar University of 323 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2019) 8(12): 323-328 Horticulture and Forestry, Solan (H.P) during 2010-2012. Seventy two trees of Santa Rosa plum with equal age and vigour, spaced at 6 m x 6 m were selected for trial purpose. The experiments was laid out in split-split plot design with, irrigation levels as the main plot, pruning levels as the Sub-plots and nitrogen levels as the Sub-Sub-plot treatment. The experimental unit consisted of a single tree. There were three irrigation levels, four pruning severities and two nitrogen levels with three replications. Three irrigation levels are – I1 – Irrigation at 20 per cent soil moisture depletion of field capacity I2 – Irrigation at 40 per cent soil moisture depletion of field capacity I3 – Irrigation at 60 per cent soil moisture depletion of field capacity Normal pruning: - In this system recommended practice of pruning is followed. Pruning was done in January every year. There were two nitrogen levels i-e, N1, and N2 N1 – 75 percent additional nitrogen of recommended dose as CAN N2 – 50 percent additional nitrogen of recommended dose as CAN Nitrogen was applied through CAN (25% N), phosphorus through SSP (16% P2O5) and potassium through muriate of potash (60% K2O). CAN was applied to soil in the month of February by broad-casting evenly under the trees starting 30 cm away from the tree trunk. The S.S.P and MOP were placed in alternate circular trenches 23 to 30 cm deep and 15 to 18 cm wide. The fertilizers were spread evenly in the tree basin and mixed thoroughly in the soil surface. Yield was recorded as the total fruit weight harvested from the tree in each year and expressed as kg/tree. The pooled analysis (over years) was done. There were four pruning severities – T1 – Heading back of scaffolds (75 percent) T2 – Heading back of scaffolds (50 percent) Results and Discussion T3 – Heading back of scaffolds (25 percent) Heading back of scaffolds 75%:- Shortening of scaffolds branches was done by 3/4th and consisted of 45 to 50 percent thinning out. The data on the effects of different irrigation, pruning intensity and nitrogen fertilization treatments with respect to fruit set are presented in Table 1a to 1c. Different levels of irrigation exhibited significant effect on fruit set. Heading back of scaffolds 50%:- In this treatment the shortening of scaffolds branches was done by and 45 to 50 percent thinning out. Heading back of scaffolds 25%:rd It consists of shortening of shoots by and 45 to 50 percent thinning out. The maximum fruit set was recorded in trees irrigated at 20 per cent soil moisture depletion of field capacity. These results are in line with the findings of Zani (10), who observed marked increase in fruit set in peaches under higher soil moisture levels. T4 – Normal pruning Agabbio (1) also recorded a significant increase in fruit set of apricot with frequent 324 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2019) 8(12): 323-328 irrigation. pruning treatments has significant effect on the fruit set during both the year of study. The results are in conformity with the findings of Singh (8), Daulta and Singh (3), Singh (7) and Thakur (9). The reduction in fruit setting in T1 treatment (HB of scaffolds 75%) may be due to the active utilization of Carbohydrates nutrients and water by the newly growing vegetative shoots. Trees irrigated at 20 per cent soil moisture depletion of field capacity gave significantly higher yield as compared to 60 percent soil moisture depletion of field capacity. These results are in line with those of Marangoni et al., (5) and Sharma and Chandel (6). Table.1a Effect of different levels of irrigation, pruning and nitrogen on fruit set (%) and fruit yield (kg tree-1) Fruit yield (kg tree-1) 2010- 2011-12 Pooled 11 Irrigation levels (Main Plot Treatment) 7.22 15.33 11.28 7.75 24.33 16.04 I1 (20% SMD of field (2.63) (3.65) (3.09) (2.70) (4.39) (3.54) capacity) 6.41 11.19 8.80 7.05 22.20 14.63 I2 (40% SMD of field (2.49) (3.11) (2.70) (2.58) (4.16) (3.35) capacity) 5.95 7.71 6.83 6.44 18.03 12.24 I3 (60% SMD of field (2.37) (2.54) (2.32) (2.48) (3.69) (3.02) capacity) CD0.05 0.07 1.42 0.10 0.05 0.10 0.06 Pruning (Sub plot treatment) 0.00 2.25 1.12 0.00 1.01 0.50 T1 (Heading back of (1.00) (1.45) (1.031) (1.00) (0.99) (0.69) scaffolds 75%) 2.47 5.97 4.22 3.00 9.81 6.41 T2 (Heading back of (1.83) (2.41) (2.02) (1.98) (3.11) (2.51) scaffolds 50%) 12.42 19.84 16.13 13.14 39.24 26.19 T3 (Heading back of (3.66) (4.40) (3.99) (3.75) (6.25) (5.11) scaffolds 25%) 11.24 17.58 14.41 12.20 36.02 24.11 T4 (Normal Pruning) (3.49) (4.14) (3.77) (3.63) (5.98) (4.90) CD0.05 0.06 0.10 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.03 Nitrogen (Sub-sub plot treatment) 6.75 12.14 9.58 7.27 22.39 14.84 N1 (75% additional N as (2.54) (3.25) (2.81) (2.62) (4.18) (3.38) CAN) 6.21 10.41 8.36 6.88 20.65 13.77 N2 (50% additional N as (2.45) (2.95) (2.59) (2.56) (3.98) (3.23) CAN) CD0.05 0.03 0.07 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.02 Treatments Fruit set (%) 2010-11 2011-12 Pooled 325 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2019) 8(12): 323-328 Table.1b Effect of different interaction I x T, I x N and T x N on fruit set (%) and fruit yield (kg tree-1) Interactions I1T1 I1T2 I1T3 I1T4 I2T1 I2T2 I2T3 I2T4 I3T1 I3T2 I3T3 I3T4 CD0.05 I1N1 I1N2 I2N1 I2N2 I3N1 I3N2 CD0.05 T1N1 T1N2 T2N1 T2N2 T3N1 T3N2 T4N1 T4N2 CD0.05 2010-11 0.00 (1.00) 3.59 (2.13) 13.11 (3.75) 12.21 (3.63) 0.00 (1.00) 2.57 (1.88) 12.22 (3.63) 10.87 (3.44) 0.00 (1.00) 1.24 (1.49) 11.93 (3.59) 10.65 (3.41) 0.11 7.46 (2.67) 6.99 (2.58) 6.79 (2.55) 6.03 (2.42) 5.99 (2.39) 5.91 (2.35) 0.05 0.00 (1.00) 0.00 (1.00) 2.84 (1.93) 2.09 (1.74) 12.55 (3.68) 12.29 (3.64) 11.61 (3.54) 10.88 (3.44) 0.40 Fruit set (%) 2011-12 3.39 (1.83) 8.03 (2.83) 26.25 (5.10) 23.64 (4.85) 2.16 (1.46) 6.11 (2.47) 19.75 (4.44) 16.72 (4.08) 1.20 (1.07) 3.77 (1.93) 13.52 (3.67) 12.37 (3.51) 2.11 16.56 (3.80) 14.09 (3.51) 12.16 (3.25) 10.21 (2.97) 8.51 (2.71) 6.91 (2.38) 1.02 2.60 (1.58) 1.89 (1.32) 6.41 (2.51) 5.53 (2.31) 21.61 (4.60) 18.07 (4.20) 19.03 (4.32) 16.13 (3.97) 1.46 Pooled 1.695 (1.29) 5.81 (2.40) 19.68 (4.42) 17.93 (4.23) 1.08 (1.03) 4.34 (2.08) 15.99 (3.99) 13.79 (3.70) 0.60 (0.75) 2.50 (1.57) 12.72 (3.56) 11.51 (3.39) 0.15 12.02 (3.19) 10.54 (2.98) 9.47 (2.81) 8.12 (2.59) 7.25 (2.42) 6.41 (2.21) 0.05 1.30 (1.12) 0.94 (0.93) 4.62 (2.12) 3.81 (1.92) 17.08 (4.11) 15.18 (3.88) 15.32 (3.89) 13.50 (3.65) 0.08 Figures in parentheses are square root transformed values 326 Fruit yield (kg tree-1) 2010-11 2011-12 Pooled 0.00 (1.00) 1.38 (1.17) 0.69 (0.83) 3.89 (2.20) 12.13 (3.48) 8.01 (2.82) 13.95 (3.86) 43.91 (6.62) 28.93 (5.37) 13.16 (3.76) 39.90 (6.31) 26.53 (5.15) 0.00 (1.00) 1.08 (1.00) 0.50 (0.70) 2.80 (1.94) 10.22 (3.19) 6.51 (2.55) 13.08 (3.75) 39.70 (6.30) 26.39 (5.13) 12.34 (3.65) 37.86 (6.15) 25.10 (5.01) 0.00 (1.00) 0.64 (0.79) 0.32 (5.59) 2.30 (1.81) 7.10 (2.65) 4.70 (2.16) 12.38 (3.65) 34.10 (5.83) 23.24 (4.81) 11.09 (3.47) 30.29 (5.49) 20.69 (4.54) 0.11 0.11 0.05 8.03 (2.75) 25.01 (4.46) 16.52 (3.60) 7.47 (2.66) 23.65 (4.33) 15.56 (3.48) 7.11 (2.59) 22.74 (4.22) 14.93 (3.39) 6.99 (2.57) 21.66 (4.10) 14.33 (3.31) 6.68 (2.52) 19.43 (3.87) 13.06 (3.14) 6.20 (2.44) 16.64 (3.51) 11.42 (2.89) NS 0.05 0.03 0.00 (1.00) 1.11 (1.05) 0.55 (0.74) 0.00 (1.00) 0.90 (0.92) 0.45 (0.65) 3.19 (2.03) 10.51 (3.23) 6.85 (2.60) 2.80 (1.94) 9.12 (2.99) 5.96 (2.42) 13.51 (3.80) 40.70 (6.37) 27.10 (5.20) 12.76 (3.70) 37.78 (6.13) 25.27 (5.02) 12.41 (3.66) 37.25 (6.09) 24.83 (4.97) 11.99 (3.60) 34.79 (5.88) 23.39 (4.82) NS NS NS Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2019) 8(12): 323-328 Table.1c Effect of irrigation, pruning and nitrogen fertilization (I x T x N) interaction of fruit set (%) and fruit yield (kg tree-1) Interaction T1N1I1 T2N1I1 T3N1I1 T4N1I1 T1N2I1 T2N2I1 T3N2I1 T4N2I1 T1N1I2 T2N1I2 T3N1I2 T4N1I2 T1N2I2 T2N2I2 T3N2I2 T4N2I2 T1N1I3 T2N1I3 T3N1I3 T4N1I3 T1N2I3 T2N2I3 T3N2I3 T4N2I3 CD0.05 2010-11 0.00 (1.00) 4.18 (2.27) 13.26 (3.77) 12.42 (3.66) 0.00 (1.00) 3.00 (2.00) 12.96 (3.73) 12.01 (3.60) 0.00 (1.00) 2.84 (1.95) 12.81 (3.71) 11.52 (3.53) 0.00 (1.00) 2.30 (1.81) 11.64 (3.55) 10.21 (3.34) 0.00 (1.00) 1.50 (1.57) 11.60 (3.54) 10.87 (3.44) 0.00 (1.00) 0.98 (1.40) 12.26 (3.64) 10.42 (3.37) NS Fruit set (%) 2011-12 3.74 (1.92) 8.34 (2.88) 28.92 (5.37) 25.26 (5.01) 3.04 (1.74) 7.73 (2.78) 23.57 (4.83) 22.03 (4.69) 2.45 (1.56) 6.56 (2.56) 21.12 (4.59) 18.50 (4.30) 1.86 (1.36) 5.66 (2.38) 18.38 (4.28) 14.94 (3.86) 1.62 (1.27) 4.33 (2.08) 14.78 (3.84) 13.33 (3.65) 0.78 (0.87) 3.21 (1.79) 12.36 (3.50) 11.41 (3.37) NS Pooled 1.87 (1.36) 6.26 (2.50) 21.09 (4.59) 18.84 (4.33) 1.52 (1.23) 5.36 (2.31) 18.36 (4.26) 17.02 (4.12) 1.22 (1.10) 4.70 (2.16) 16.96 (4.11) 15.01 (3.87) 0.93 (0.96) 3.98 (1.99) 15.01 (3.87) 12.57 (3.54) 0.81 (0.89) 2.91 (1.70) 13.19 (3.63) 12.10 (3.47) 0.39 (0.61) 2.09 (1.44) 12.26 (3.50) 10.92 (3.30) NS Fruit yield (kg tree-1) 2010-11 2011-12 Pooled 0.00 (1.00) 1.46 (1.20) 0.73 (0.85) 4.20 (2.27) 12.51 (3.53) 8.35 (2.88) 14.59 (3.94) 45.66 (6.75) 30.12 (5.48) 13.34 (3.78) 40.43 (6.35) 26.89 (5.18) 0.00 (1.00) 1.30 (1.14) 0.65 (0.80) 3.58 (2.13) 11.76 (3.42) 7.67 (2.76) 13.32 (3.78) 42.16 (6.49) 27.74 (5.26) 12.98 (3.73) 39.38 (6.27) 26.18 (5.11) 0.00 (1.00) 1.07 (1.03) 0.53 (0.73) 2.90 (1.97) 10.76 (3.28) 6.83 (2.61) 13.12 (3.75) 40.86 (6.39) 26.99 (5.19) 12.45 (3.66) 38.25 (6.18) 25.35 (5.03) 0.00 (1.00) 0.94 (0.97) 0.47 (0.68) 2.71 (1.92) 9.68 (3.11) 6.19 (2.48) 13.03 (3.74) 38.54 (6.20) 25.78 (5.07) 12.23 (3.63) 37.48 (6.12) 24.86 (4.98) 0.00 (11.86) 0.82 (0.90) 0.41 (0.64) 2.48 (3.71) 8.27 (2.87) 25.38 (2.31) 12.82 (3.52) 35.57 (5.96) 24.19 (4.91) 11.43 (3.52) 33.07 (5.75) 22.25 (4.71) 0.00 (1.00) 0.46 (0.67) 0.23 (0.47) 2.12 (1.75) 5.94 (2.43) 4.03 (2.00) 11.93 (3.59) 32.64 (5.71) 22.28 (4.72) 10.75 (3.42) 27.50 (5.24) 19.13 (4.37) NS 0.05 0.08 Figures in parentheses are square root transformed values The highest yield was observed in lightly pruned trees (HB of Scaffolds 25%) and lowest in heavily pruned trees (HB of Scaffolds 75%) in both the years. The yield reduction in the medium and heavily pruned trees was due to the removal of higher proportion of the fruiting wood by shoot shortening. Similar increase in yield due to light pruning have also been reported by Kanwar and Nijjar (4), Badiyala and Awasthi (2) and Singh (7). The effect of Fertilizer on fruit set and yield revealed that N1 treatment gave the highest fruit set and yield and lowest was obtained from N2 treatment. Interaction I x N was non significant on the percent fruit set while I x T had significant influenced. This might be due to the collective effects of pruning and irrigation treatments. I x T and I x N exhibit significant effect on fruit yield while T x N interaction had non significant effect. The increase in yield may be due to cumulative effect of frequent irrigation, pruning N-fertilization. 327 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2019) 8(12): 323-328 The present study revealed that highest fruit set and yield was obtained in trees irrigated at 20 per cent soil moisture depletion of field capacity (I1), T3 (Heading back of scaffolds 25%) and N1 (75% additional N as CAN) treatment. The lowest fruit set was recorded in 60 per cent SMD of field capacity irrigation treatments. References Agabbio M. 1973. The effect of water regime on the morphological differentiation of the flower buds and on successive stages of the reproductive cycle in apricots, cultivar ‘Caninos’. Studi Sassaresi 21 (1): 283-296. Badiyala S D and Awasthi R P. 1989. Effect of pruning severity on yield and quality of peach (Prunus persica Batsch) cv. Elberta. Haryana Journal of Horticultural Sciences 18(3-4): 204209. Daulta B S. and Singh D. 1986. Effect of severity of pruning on yield and quality of peach cv. Sharbati. Indian Journal of Horticulture 43(3/4): 180183. Kanwar J S and Nijjar G S. 1983. Effect of different pruning and fertilizer treatments on growth, yield and quality of peach (Prunus persica Batsch) cv. Flordasun Indian Journal of Horticulture 40: 48-54. Marangoni B, Scudellari D, Gaspari N and Risa P R. 1988. Effect of irrigation depth and system on yield, tree size, canopy and fruit distribution of apricot. Acta Horticulturae 228: 205-212. Sharma N C and Chandel J S. 2005. Effect of different levels of irrigation regimes on yield, fruit quality and nutrient status of apricot (Prunus armeniaca L.) Progressive Horticulture 37(1):78-81. Singh D. 1992. Effect of pruning intensities under different levels of nitrogen on growth, yield and quality of peach cv. July Elberta. Ph.D. Thesis, Dr. Y. S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Solan H. P. India. Singh N P. 1982. The studies on the nutrition of peach (Prunus persica Batsch.). cv. Flordasun in relation to pruning. M.Sc. Thesis, Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishva Vidyalaya, Palampur, India. Thakur S S. 1993. Optimization of fruit bearing shoots in July Elberta peach trees. M. Sc. Thesis, Dr. Y S Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Solan, India. Zani A. 1984. Drip irrigation of peach. Informatore Agrario 40(46): 73-76. How to cite this article: Ashima Suklabaidya and Kuldeep Mehta. 2019. Effect of Pruning Intensities under Different Levels of Irrigation and Nitrogen on Fruit Set and Yield of Plum cv. Santa rosa. Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci. 8(12): 323-328. doi: https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2019.812.043 328