Abid Thesis (Results and Discussion)

Chapter 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A field experiment was conducted to investigate the effect of encapsulated

calcium carbide on production and post harvest performance of potato (Solanum

tuberosum L) hybrid “Sante” at the research farm of the Department of Horticulture,

University of Arid Agricuture Rawalpindi during January 2006.

Data regarding the effect of ECC on growth, yield and post harvest life are

presented and discussed in the following pages.

4.1 Number of days required for Seed tuber sprouting

The data regarding number of days required for germination is present in

Table-1. The data shows that maximum number of days (25.57) required for seed

sprouting were observed in the treatment T1 (control) while minimum (21.72) in

treatment T3 (ECC 60 kg ha-1).The ANOVA reveals that the treatments T1 (control), T2

(ECC 30 kg ha- 1),T4 (ECC 90 kg ha-1) and T5 (ECC 120 kg ha-1) did not statistically

differ from each other but differed statistically from the treatment T3 (ECC 60 kg ha-1).

It clearly indicates that the ethylene produced by the calcium carbide

stimulates the germination rate by triggering the respiration rate as in general many

cellular process such as respiration are suppressed during dormancy. It clears the fact

the ECC enhance the seed tubers sprouting by producing ethylene. And these results

are same as Bibik (1995 )and Muromstev et al. (1991).

Table 4.1: Mean values of treatments for number of days required for seed tuber Treatments Original order Ranked order

T1 (control) 25.57a+0.65 T1 25.57a

T2 ( ECC 30 Kg/ha ) 23.95ab+0.96 T2 23.95ab

T3 ( ECC 60 Kg/ha ) 21.72b+0.38 T5 23.55ab

T4 ( ECC 90 Kg/ha) 23.39ab+0.58 T4 23.39ab

T5 ( ECC 120 Kg/ha) 23.55ab+0.82 T3 21.72b

sproutingAny two means not sharing a letter differ significantly at 95 % level of probability.

4.2 Tubers sprouting percentage

The ANOVA regarding sprouting is presented in Table-2 and tabulated in

Appendix II. The analysis variance shows that the sprouting percentage is more in

case where the different doses of ECC were applied. The data shows that maximum

(94.83%) sprouting percentage was found in the treatment T3 (ECC 60 kg ha-1).The

treatment T1 (control) produces lowest tubers sprouting percentage (80.47%). Data

represented shows that the control treatment T1 and T5 (ECC 120 kg ha-1) did not

differ from each other statistically but differ from all other treatments significantly.

The treatment T2 (ECC 30 kg ha-1) and T5 (ECC 120 kg ha-1) also did not differ from

each other but these treatment differ statistically from all other treatments. The

treatment T3 (ECC 60 kg ha-1) differ significantly from the treatments T1, T2, T4 and

T5. The treatment T4 (ECC 90 kg ha-1) also differed significantly from other treatments

T1, T2, T3 and T5.The treatment T5 (ECC 120 kg ha-1) did not differ from the treatment

T1 (control) and T2 (ECC 30 kg ha-1) but differed statistically from the treatment T3

(ECC 60 kg ha-1) and T4 (ECC 60 kg ha-1). The descending order of treatments is like

T3 > T4 > T5 >T2 > T1.

Maximum tubers sprouting percentage (94.83%) was observed due to the

production of ethylene via ECC which breaks the dormancy by enhancing the

respiration rate. It also reduces the growth inhibiting hormone (ABA) produced in

dormant potato tuber. These results are in relation with the results of Bibik (1995) and

Cvikrova et al (1994).

Table 2:- Mean values of treatments for tubers sprouting percentageTreatments Original order Ranked order

T1 (control) 80.47d +0.41 T3 94.83a

T2 ( ECC 30 Kg/ha ) 84.30c +1.45 T4 85.69b

T3 ( ECC 60 Kg/ha ) 94.83a +1.20 T2 84.30c

T4 ( ECC 90 Kg/ha) 85.69 b+1.94 T5 83.35cd

T5 ( ECC 120 Kg/ha) 83.35cd+2.29 T1 80.47d

Figures in the same column with different letters differ significantly (α = 0.05) by LSD

4.3 Plant Height (cm)

Data regarding the effect of ECC on plant height are graphically shown in

Table-3 and presented in Appendix III. Data clearly indicate that ECC application

reduces the plant height. Maximum plant height (36.07 cm) was observed in treatment

T1 (control) while minimum plant height (26.12 cm) was observed in T3 (ECC 60 kg

ha-1). The data in table (4.3) reveals that the treatment T1 (control) differ statistically

from all other treatment. The treatment T2 (ECC 30 kg ha-1) also differ statistically

from the other treatments T1, T3, T4 and T5.The treatment T3 (ECC 60 kg ha-1), T4

(ECC 30 kg ha-1) and T5 (ECC 120 kg ha-1) did not differ significantly among each

other but differed statistically from the treatment T1 (control) and T2 (ECC 30 kg ha-1).

The descending order of the treatments is T1 > T2 > T5 > T4 >T3.

Application of ECC has non-significant effect on plant height over control.

Analysis of variance shows that plant height was significantly decreased by the

application of ECC as compared to control. This decrease in height was significantly

more in T3, T4, T5 where ECC was applied @ 60,90,120 kg ha-1 as compared to

control or T2 where ECC was applied @ 30 kg ha-1. This response is proven character

of ethylene released from ECC. This is because ethylene inhibits the movement of

auxin in stem tissue, possibly reducing auxin’s ability to promote stem elongation

(Morgan and Gausman 1966). Many workers such as Slife and Earley (1970), Brown

and Earley (1973) have reported this behavior of ethylene.

Table 3:- Mean values of treatments for plant height (cm)


Treatments Original order Ranked order

T1 (control) 36.37a+1.10 T1 36.37a

T2 ( ECC 30 Kg/ha ) 33.07b+1.43 T2 33.07b

T3 ( ECC 60 Kg/ha ) 26.12c+0.99 T5 28.47c

T4 ( ECC 90 Kg/ha) 26.95c+1.09 T4 26.95c

T5 ( ECC 120Kg/ha) 28.47c+1.04 T3 26.12c

4.4 Number of stems per plant

The data regarding number of stem per plant is graphically shown in Table-4

and tabulated in appendix IV. The ANOVA shows a significant difference among the

treatments. The number of stems is more in case where ECC was applied. The data

shows that maximum number of stems (7.01) were produced in case of T3 where ECC

was applied @ 60 kg ha-1 while T4 where ECC was applied @ 90 kg ha-1 follows it.

The minimum number of stems per plant (2.06) were found in the treatment T1

(control).The control treatment T1 differed significantly from the other treatments.

The data in table also shows that treatment T2 (ECC 30 kg ha-1) and treatment T5 (ECC

120 kg ha-1) did not differ significantly from each others but statistically differ with

treatment T1 (control), T3 (ECC 60 kg ha-1) and T4 (ECC 90 kg ha-1) respectively. The

treatment T3 (ECC 60 kg ha-1) differed significantly from all other treatments. The

treatment T4 (ECC 90 kg ha-1) also differed significantly from all other treatments T1,

T2, T3 and T5.The descending order of all the treatments is T3 > T4 > T2 > T5 > T1.

It is because of the production of ethylene and acetylene produces after the

breakdown of ECC. Ethylene triggers the formation of adventitious roots while

acetylene increases the N use efficiency of plant. With the extension of roots and

increase in N use efficiency vegetative growth is enhanced. These results are in line

with the findings of Keerthisinghe et al. (1993), Keerthisinghe et al. (1996),

Seenewera et al. (2003) and Rehim et al. (2004). All of them have reported similar

results in different crops.

Table 4:- Mean values of treatments for number of stems per plant



T1 (control) 2.06d+0.16 T3 7.01a

T2 ( ECC 30 Kg/ha ) 2.91c+0.14 T4 3.99b

T3 ( ECC 60 Kg/ha ) 7.01a+0.09 T5 3.02c

T4 ( ECC 90 Kg/ha) 3.99b+0.04 T2 2.91c

T5 ( ECC 120 Kg/ha) 3.02c+0.11 T1 2.06d

4.5 Number of leaves per plant.

Data regarding the effect of calcium carbide on number of leaves per plant

showed significant differences among the treatments means. The data is present in

Table-5 and tabulated in appendix V. Statistical analysis of the data showed that ECC

treatments T3 (ECC 60 kg ha-1) and T4 (ECC 90 kg ha-1) were statistically non

significant from each other but differed significantly from all other treatments.

Maximum number of leaves per plant (98.97) was observed where ECC was applied

@ 60 kg ha-1 while minimum number of leaves (80.47) were observed in the treatment

T1 (control). Similarly treatments T1 (control), T2 (ECC 60 kg ha-1) and T5 (ECC 120

kg ha-1) were found non significant with each other.

It is obvious from the data that ECC had marked influence on plant vegetative

growth. With the extension of roots and increased N use efficiency number of leaves

per plant were increased. While in case of T5 where ECC was applied @ 120 kg ha-1

number of leaves per plant were less (86.5) because of more ethylene production in

the root zone which inhibits the plant growth. These results are similar with the

findings of Keerthisinghe et al. (1993), Keerthisinghe et al. (1996), Seenewera et al.

(2003), Rehim et al. (2004) and Andrew et al (1981). All of them have reported

similar results in different crops.

Table 5:- Mean values of treatments for number of leaves per plant.

Figures in the same column with different letters differ significantly (α = 0.05) by

LSD


T1 (control) 80.45b+2.22 T3 98.97a

T2 ( ECC 30 Kg/ha ) 86.01b+2.75 T4 98.8a

T3 ( ECC 60 Kg/ha ) 98.97a+2.25 T5 86.5b

T4 ( ECC 90 Kg/ha) 98.8a+2.49 T2 86.01b

T5 ( ECC 120Kg/ha) 86.5b+0.86 T1 80.45b

4.6 Leaf area (cm2)

The data regarding leaf area is graphically presented in Table-6 and tabulated

in appendix VI. The statically analysis of the data showed a significant difference

among the treatments. The data in table reveals that the treatments T3 (ECC 60 kg ha-1)

and T4 (ECC 90 kg ha-1) were non significant from each other and differ statistically

among all other treatments. The treatments T2 (ECC 60 kg ha-1), T4 (ECC 90 kg ha-1)

and T5 (ECC 120 kg ha-1) were also found non significant with each other but

significant with T3 (ECC 60 kg ha-1) and T1 (control).The treatment T3 (ECC @) 60 Kg

ha-1) gave maximum leaf area (65.48 cm2) while minimum leaf area (48.18 cm2) was

found in case of T1 (control).

The treatments receiving ECC gave better results as the ECC produces

acetylene which decreases the nitrification process and enhance the nitrogen use

efficiency in the plants which ultimately results in the more vegetative growth. And as

the acetylene is then converted into ethylene which increases the root area so more

nutrient absorption and more growth of the plants. In case of control where no

acetylene is produced the leaf area is less and so there is less photosynthesis rate and

less metabolic processes. These results are in accordance with the findings of Arshad

et al 1993.

Table 6:- Mean values of treatments for leaf area (cm2)



T1 (control) 48.18c+1.06 T3 65.48a

T2 ( ECC 30 Kg/ha ) 59.08b+1.26 T4 61.79ab

T3 ( ECC 60 Kg/ha ) 65.48a+1.94 T2 59.08b

T4 ( ECC 90 Kg/ha) 61.79ab+1.31 T5 58.06b

T5 ( ECC 120 Kg/ha) 58.06b+1.24 T1 48.18c

4.7 Photosynthesis rate

The statistical data concerning photosynthesis rate is presented in Table-7 and

tabulated in appendix VII.The data was collected through Infrared gas analyzer

(IRGA). The data clearly indicates that the treatment T3 (ECC @) 60 Kg ha-1) had

pronounced effect on the photosynthesis rate with maximum photosynthesis rate

(27.10 u mole/ m2/sec) while minimum photosynthesis rate (18.14 u mole/m2/sec) was

observed in the treatment T1 (control). The treatment T3 (ECC @) 60 Kg ha-1) was

closely followed by T5 (ECC @) 120 Kg ha-1), T4 (ECC @) 90 Kg ha-1) and T2 (ECC

@ 30 Kg ha-1) with numerical value 24.82 u mole/m2/sec, 22.86 u mole/m2/sec and

21.02 u mole/m2/sec respectively.

The data clearly indicates that the ECC affects the photosynthesis rate. This

high photosynthesis rate is due to the effect of acetylene on the N fertilizers applied.

The acetylene reduces the losses of N via nitrification inhibition and increasing the

vegetative growth like number of leaves per plant and number of stem per plant. As

no of leaves per plants are more, the photosynthesis rate is more. The treatment T3

(ECC @) 60 Kg ha-1) gave the best results as it provide the optimum level of ethylene

necessary for plant growth while the other treatments, though have significant

difference when comparing with control, have less photosynthesis rate may be

because of more ethylene production in the rhizosphere of the plant which slowed

down the growth gradually. These results coincide with the results of Brown and

Earley (1973), Keerthisinghe et al. (1993), Keerthisinghe et al. (1996) and Seenewera

et al. (2003).

Table 7:- Mean values of treatments for photosynthesis rate



T1 (control) 18.14d+0.13 T1 27.10a

T2 ( ECC 30 Kg/ha ) 21.02cd+0.13 T5 24.82ab

T3 ( ECC 60 Kg/ha ) 27.10a+0.07 T4 22.86bc

T4 ( ECC 90 Kg/ha) 22.86bc+0.19 T2 21.02cd

T5 ( ECC 120Kg/ha) 24.82ab+0.08 T1 18.14d

4.8 Number and weight of small size tubers per plant

The statistical analysis of data is given in Appendix (VIII & IX) and

represented in Table-8 and Table-9. In Table-9 mean values for number of small size

tuber differ significantly. Analysis of variance showed that the treatments T1 (control),

T2 (ECC @) 30 Kg ha-1) and T5 (ECC @) 120 Kg ha-1) did not differ statistically from

each other but differed from the treatment T3 (ECC @) 60 Kg ha-1). Maximum number

of small size tubers per plant (3.35) were found in the treatment T5 (ECC @) 120 Kg

ha-1) while minimum number of small size tubers (2.57) were present in the treatment

T3 (ECC @) 60 Kg ha-1).

The data shows clear impact of ECC on potato crop. Calcium carbide produces

ethylene under soil moisture condition which triggers adventitious root formation at

optimum level. In accordance with the data in case of the treatment T5 (ECC @) 120

Kg ha-1), maximum number of small size tubers might be due to the more production

of ethylene gas which inhibits the root and stolons extension. This may lead towards

limited area for tuber production.

The data pertaining the weight of small size tubers per plant is presented in

Table- 9. Weight of tubers is directly related with number of tubers. Statistical

analysis of the data reveals that treatments T3 (ECC @) 60 Kg ha-1) and T4 (ECC @)

60 Kg ha-1) did not differ statistically with each other but these were found significant

from the treatments T1 (control) and T5 (ECC @) 120 Kg ha-1). Maximum weight of

small size tubers per plant (118.32 g) was recorded from the treatment T5 (ECC @)

120 Kg ha-1) while minimum weight of small size tubers (90.94 g) was found in the

treatment T3 (ECC @) 60 Kg ha-1).

Data regarding the weight of small size tubers directly correlate with the

number of small size tubers per plant. It might be due to the more production of

ethylene (T5) which inhibits the root and stolon extension or might be due to the lack

of nutrient uptake efficiency (control).

Table 8:-Mean values of treatments for number of small size tubers per plant


Table 4.9:-Mean values of treatments for weight (g) of small size tubers per plant Treatments Original order Ranked order

T1 (control) 112.14a+3.01 T5 118.32a

T2 ( ECC 30 Kg/ha ) 108.16ab+4.74 T1 112.14a

T3 ( ECC 60 Kg/ha ) 90.94c+6.01 T2 108.16ab

T4 ( ECC 90 Kg/ha) 96.24bc+6.66 T4 96.24bc

T5 ( ECC 120 Kg/ha) 118.32a+4.20 T3 90.94c


LSD


T1 (control) 3.17a+0.08 T5 3.35a

T2 ( ECC 30 Kg/ha ) 3.06ab+0.13 T1 3.17a

T3 ( ECC 60 Kg/ha ) 2.57c+0.17 T2 3.06ab

T4 ( ECC 90 Kg/ha) 2.72bc+0.18 T4 2.72bc

T5 ( ECC 120 Kg/ha) 3.35a+0.11 T3 2.57c

4.9 Number and weight of medium size tubers per plant

The statistical analysis of data is given in Appendix (X & XI) and represented

in Table-10 and Table-11. In Table-10 data regarding the number of medium size

tubers is presented. These results indicate positive interaction among the treatments.

Data further revealed that there was statistically non significant difference between

the treatments T3 (ECC @) 60 Kg ha-1) and T4 (ECC @) 90 Kg ha-1) while the

treatments T3 and T4 were found statistically significant from the treatments T1

(control), T2 (ECC @) 30 Kg ha-1) and T5 (ECC @) 120 Kg ha-1). In accordance with

the data maximum number of medium size tubers per plant (5.95) were found in the

treatment T3 (ECC @) 60 Kg ha-1) while minimum number of medium size tubers per

plant (3.65) were recorded in the treatment T1 (control).

Data clearly indicates the positive impact of ECC on potato tuber size. Reason

for higher number of medium size tubers per plant might be due to the good nutrients

availability as ethylene accelerates the formation of the adventitious roots, providing

ample supply of nutrients to develop medium size tubers per plant.

Data regarding the weight of medium size tubers are presented in Table-

11.The treatments pertaining calcium carbide application showed that the treatment T3

(ECC @) 60 Kg ha-1) and T4 (ECC @) 90 Kg ha-1) were significantly different from

the treatment T1 (control), T2 (ECC @) 30 Kg ha-1) and T5 (ECC @) 120 Kg ha-1).

Maximum weight of medium size tubers per plant (228.47 g) was recorded with T3

(ECC @) 60 Kg ha-1) while minimum weight of medium size tubers per plant (139.97

g) was noted with T1 (control).

Probable reason for higher weight of medium size tubers per plant might be

due to more number of medium size tubers per plant (Table-10). This might also be

due to the ethylene which develops good root system which ensures more

conservation of the nutrients and water. So, more nutrients are stored which improves

the photosynthesis. Higher rate of photosynthates production and their translocation to

the developing tubers might have resulted in production of more weight of medium

size tubers per plant.

Table 4.10:- Mean values of treatments for number of medium size tubers per plant


Table 4.11:- Mean values of treatments for weight (g) of medium size tubers per plant



T1 (control) 3.65b+0.13 T3 5.95a

T2 ( ECC 30 Kg/ha ) 3.95b+0.13 T4 5.57a

T3 ( ECC 60 Kg/ha ) 5.95a+0.07 T2 3.95b

T4 ( ECC 90 Kg/ha) 5.57a+0.19 T5 3.92b

T5 ( ECC 120 Kg/ha) 3.92b+0.08 T1 3.65b


T1 (control) 139.97b+5.07 T3 228.47a

T2 ( ECC 30 Kg/ha ) 151.48b+5.07 T4 213.80a

T3 ( ECC 60 Kg/ha ) 228.47a+2.83 T2 151.48b

T4 ( ECC 90 Kg/ha) 213.80a+7.56 T5 150.52b

T5 ( ECC 120 Kg/ha) 150.52b+3.27 T1 139.97b

4.10 Number and weight of large size tubers per plant

The statistical analysis of data is given in Appendix (XII & XIII) and

represented in Table-12 and Table-13. Data in Table-12 shows number of medium

size tubers per plant. The ANOVA of data showed that maximum number of large

size tubers per plant (4.15) were present in the treatment T3 (ECC @) 60 Kg ha-1)

while minimum number of large size tubers per plant (2.25) were present in the

treatment T1 (control). Data revealed that the treatment T3 (ECC @) 60 Kg ha-1) differ

statistically from the treatments T1 (control), T2 (ECC @) 30 Kg ha-1) and T5 (ECC @)

120 Kg ha-1) while non significant interaction was found with T4 (ECC @) 90 Kg ha-

1).

Application of calcium carbide showed positive impact over number of large

size tubers per plant. Calcium carbide on decomposition liberates the ethylene which

triggers the different vegetative phase of plant i.e. adventitious roots, number of stem,

number of leaves, leaf area and photosynthesis rate. Increase in vigour results in more

photosynthates assimilation in the leaf cells. Later on these photosynthates are

exported to the developing tubers through phloem producing more number of large

size tubers per plant. The reason for lower number of tubers per plant in case of T5

might be due to the more production of ethylene which inhibits the root and stolons

extension minimizing the area for tuber production.

Data regarding the weight of large size tubers per plant is presented in Table-

13. Analysis of variance reveals that the treatment T3 (ECC @) 60 Kg ha-1)

significantly differ with T1 (control), T2 (ECC @) 30 Kg ha-1) and T5 (ECC @) 120

Kg ha-1). Maximum weight of large size tubers per plant (158.94 g) was recorded in

the treatment T3 (ECC @) 60 Kg ha-1) while minimum weight of large size tubers per

plant (86.75) was noted in the treatment T1 (control).

Reason for maximum weight of large size tubers per plant might be due to the

production of more number of leaves per plant resulting in more production of

photosynthates which might have translocated to the tuber for storage leading to the

increase in weight of large size tubers.

Table 4.12:- Mean values of treatments for number of large size tubers per plant


Table 4.13:- Mean values of treatments for weight (g) of large size tubers per plant



T1 (control) 2.25d+0.23 T3 4.15a

T2 ( ECC 30 Kg/ha ) 3.1bc+0.19 T4 3.57ab

T3 ( ECC 60 Kg/ha ) 4.15a+0.11 T2 3.1bc

T4 ( ECC 90 Kg/ha) 3.57ab+0.25 T5 3.1cd

T5 ( ECC 120 Kg/ha) 3.1cd +0.26 T1 2.25d


T1 (control) 86.17d+9.18 T3 158.94a

T2 ( ECC 30 Kg/ha ) 118.73bc+7.49 T4 136.92ab

T3 ( ECC 60 Kg/ha ) 158.94a+4.55 T2 118.73bc

T4 ( ECC 90 Kg/ha) 136.92ab+9.68 T5 96.70cd

T5 ( ECC 120 Kg/ha) 96.70cd+10.2 T1 86.17d

4.11 Total number and weight of tubers per plant

Data regarding the effect of different doses of ECC application on total

number and weight of tubers per plant are graphically shown in Table-14 and Table-

15. Data in Table-14 shows the effect of ECC on total number of tubers. The analysis

of variance revealed that the treatment T3 (ECC @) 60 Kg ha-1) had non significant

difference with T4 (ECC @) 90 Kg ha-1) but significantly differed with T1 (control), T2

(ECC @) 30 Kg ha-1) and T5 (ECC @) 120 Kg ha-1). Maximum number of tubers

(12.68) were recorded in the treatment T3 (ECC @) 60 Kg ha-1) while minimum total

number of tubers per plant (9.07) were noted in T1 (control).

Total number of tubers can be attributed to the number of small, medium and

large size tubers per plant. ECC @) 60 Kg ha-1 might be an optimum level of ethylene

production, providing the suitable conditions for various physiological processes in

plants resulting in better vegetative growth, which might be the possible reason for

more total number of tubers per plant.

Data regarding the total weight of tubers per plant is presented in Table-

15.The results regarding the total weight of tubers per plant indicated that the

treatment T3 (ECC @) 60 Kg ha-1) and T4 (ECC @) 90 Kg ha-1) did not differ

significantly from each other but differ significantly from all other treatments.

Maximum weight of tubers per plant (478.36 g) was recorded with T3 (ECC @) 60 Kg

ha-1) while minimum weight of tubers per plant (338.29 g) was noted with the

treatment T1 (control).

In accordance with the data calcium carbide have positive role in term of

weight. Increase in weight by ECC application might be due to the fact that ECC

reduces the nitrification losses, increase N- use efficiency. Beside that application of

ECC can also attribute to increase in level of ethylene which increases the respiration

and rapid growth of lateral branches and leaves resulting in higher number of tubers

which in turn produced maximum total weight of tubers per plant.

These results are in line with the findings of Slife and Earley (1970), Brown

and Earley (1973), Keerthisinghe et al. (1993), Keerthisinghe et al. (1996) and

Seenewera et al. (2003). All of them reported similar results in different crops.

Table 14:- Mean values of treatments for total number of tubers per plant


Table 15:- Mean values of treatments for total weight (g) of tubers per plant


LSD


T1 (control) 9.07b+0.32 T3 12.68a

T2 ( ECC 30 Kg/ha ) 10.11b+0.40 T4 11.87a

T3 ( ECC 60 Kg/ha ) 12.68a+0.32 T2 10.11b

T4 ( ECC 90 Kg/ha) 11.87a+0.23 T5 9.8b

T5 ( ECC 120 Kg/ha) 9.8b+0.38 T1 9.07b


T1 (control) 338.29b+12.22 T3 478.36a

T2 ( ECC 30 Kg/ha ) 378.38b+15.29 T4 446.97a

T3 ( ECC 60 Kg/ha ) 478.36a+12.07 T2 378.38b

T4 ( ECC 90 Kg/ha) 446.97a+9.33 T5 365.55b

T5 ( ECC 120 Kg/ha) 365.55b+14.48 T1 338.29b

4.12 Yield kg ha-1

Yield of potato crop is directly related to number of tubers and their weight

and indirectly related to the plant expansion(i.e. number of stem, number of leaves

and leaf area) to facilitate photosynthetic rate. Data presented in Table-16 showed that

yield differed statistically among all the treatments.

The analysis of variance showed that maximum yield (26281.98kg ha-1) was found

in the treatment T3 (ECC @) 60Kg ha-1) while minimum yield (16930.39kg ha-1) was

observed in the treatment T1(control).The data shows that the treatment T1 (control),

T2 (ECC @) 30Kg ha-1) and T5 (ECC @) 120Kg ha-1) did not statistically differ from

each other but these treatments differed significantly from the treatments T3 (ECC @)

60 Kg ha-1) and T4 (ECC @) 90 Kg ha-1). The treatment T3 (ECC @) 60 Kg ha-1)

significantly differ from all other treatments. The treatment T4 (ECC @) 90 Kg ha-1)

also statistically differ from all other treatments.

In general, results indicate that yield was significantly increased by the application

of ECC and is attributed to the enhanced nutrient uptake by the tubers due to:

Increased adventitious root that was stimulated by ethylene release.

It may occur also due to ability of ECC to inhibit nitrification, thus reducing N

losses and assuring its availability for long period. As N cannot be stored in

leaves and its continuous supply is required especially in tuber forming stage.

These results are in complete compliance with the findings of Rao and Fritz

(1987), Zhang et al. (1992), Bronson et al. (1993), Smith et al. (1993), Tanimoto et

al. (1995), Chaiwanakupt (1996), Hazzrika and Sarkar (1996), Seenewera et al.

(2003) and Rehim et al. (2004).

Table 16:- Mean values of treatments for yield kg ha-1


LSD


T1 (control) 7.59a+0.60 T2 11.63a

T2 ( ECC 30 Kg/ha ) 11.63a+0.70 T3 11.02a

T3 ( ECC 60 Kg/ha ) 11.02a+3.69 T4 10.02a

T4 ( ECC 90 Kg/ha) 10.02a+3.37 T5 8.54a

T5 ( ECC 120 Kg/ha) 8.54a+0.65 T1 7.59a

4.13 Disease Incidence percentage

The data regarding disease incidence percentage is presented in Table-17 and

tabulated in appendix XVII. The ANOVA reflects that maximum disease incidence

percentage (11.63 %) was found in the treatment T2 (ECC @) 30 Kg ha-1) while

minimum disease incidence percentage (7.59 %) was observed in the treatment T1

(Control). Analysis of variance shows that all the treatments have non significant

difference from each other.

Data in table clearly indicates that ECC treatments means were found more

susceptible to disease as compared to control. Potato crop was affected by the

Anthracnose disease (Celletotrichum spp) during the month of February but it was

controlled at initial level with the help of fungicide (Diathian M-45) and no severe

damage was occurred. As for as disease susceptibility is concerned, it might be due to

the application of ECC which enhances the production of the growth regulator

ethylene which triggers the vegetative growth. Such lush green crop with succulent

leaves and stem became susceptible for the pathogens. Similar results were reported

by Jones and Jones (1993).

Table 17:- Mean values of treatments for disease incidence percentage



T1 (control) 16930.39c+790.87 T3 26281.98a

T2 ( ECC 30 Kg/ha ) 19471.54c+473.99 T4 23587.98b

T3 ( ECC 60 Kg/ha ) 26281.98a+861.51 T2 19471.54c

T4 ( ECC 90 Kg/ha) 23587.98b+657.10 T5 19011.62c

T5 ( ECC 120 Kg/ha) 19011.62c+1862.94 T1 16930.39c

4.14 Weight loss percentage

Table-18 showed the data regarding weight loss percentage by the tubers. The

statistical analysis showed highly significant results among the treatments. The data

shows that maximum weight loss percentage (19.65 %) was observed in the treatment

T1 (control), closely followed by T5 (ECC @) 120 Kg ha-1) as (19.06 %). Minimum

weight loss percentage was investigated in the treatment T3 (ECC @) 60 Kg ha-1).

Analysis of variance also reflects that the control treatment and T5 (ECC @) 1200 Kg

ha-1) did not differ statistically from each other but these treatments differ statistically

from the treatment T2 (ECC @) 30 Kg ha-1) and T3 (ECC @) 60 Kg ha-1). Like wise

the treatment T4 (ECC @) 90 Kg ha-1) and T5 (ECC @) 120 Kg ha-1) were found non

significant from each other but statistically differ from the treatments T2 (ECC @) 30

Kg ha-1) and T3 (ECC @) 60 Kg ha-1).

The hormonal effect of ethylene liberated by ECC under soil moisture

conditions enhances the activity of nutrient utilization by the plant (saleem at el

2002).Due to high uptake of N the tubers might have developed thick rind (periderm)

which does not allow frequent loss of water from the tubers. So there is minimum loss

of water where the tubers were supplemented with ECC which might have prevented

weight loss.

Table 18:- Mean values of treatments for weight loss percentage


LSD


T1 (control) 19.65a+1.05 T1 19.65a

T2 ( ECC 30 Kg/ha ) 15.85c+0.95 T5 19.06ab

T3 ( ECC 60 Kg/ha ) 14.26c+0.49 T4 16.7bc

T4 ( ECC 90 Kg/ha) 16.7bc+0.80 T2 15.85c

T5 ( ECC 120 Kg/ha) 19.06ab+1.12 T3 14.26c

4.15 Shrivillage percentage

Data regarding the shrivillage percentage is presented in the Table-19. The

statistical analysis of data reveals that maximum shrivillage percentage was observed

in the control treatment (26.25 %) followed by the treatment T5 (ECC @) 120 Kg ha-1)

while the minimum shrivillage percentage (15 %) was observed in the treatment T3

(ECC @) 60 Kg ha-1) .The data reflects that the treatment T1, T2 and T5 did not differ

statistically from each other but these treatments differed significantly from the

treatments T3 (ECC @) 60 Kg ha-1) and T4 (ECC @) 90 Kg ha-1).The treatments T3

(ECC @) 60 Kg ha-1) and T4 (ECC @) 90 Kg ha-1) did not differ statistically from

each other. The descending order of the treatments pertaining to shrivillage

percentage is like T1 > T5 > T2 > T4 > T3.

Data reflects that ECC has positive effect on post harvest life of potato tubers

as acetylene and ethylene assists the plant in uptake and assimilation of nutrients. .

Shrivillage is directly related with the water loss due to which turgidity of the

periderm is decreased. So, the possible reason for minimum shrivillage in T3 might be

the more rigid periderm which might have resulted in less shrivillage percentage. And

it is opposite in case of control. These findings are same as the results of Borton

(1982)

Table 19:- Mean values of treatments for shrivillage percentage



T1 (control) 26.25a+3.14 T1 26.25a

T2 ( ECC 30 Kg/ha ) 20ab+3.53 T5 23.75ab

T3 ( ECC 60 Kg/ha ) 15b+2.04 T2 20ab

T4 ( ECC 90 Kg/ha) 16.25b+1.25 T4 16.25b

T5 ( ECC 120 Kg/ha) 23.75ab+3.14 T3 15b

4.16 Sprout percentage

The data regarding sprout percentage is presented in Table-20 and tabulated in

appendix XX. The data pertaining to sprout percentage shows that the maximum

sprout percentage (17.25 %) was found in the treatment T1 (control) while minimum

sprout percentage (3.75 %) was investigated in the treatment T3 (ECC @) 60 Kg ha-1).

Data presented in table reflects that the treatment T1 (control) differed statistically

from the treatments T2 (ECC @) 30 Kg ha-1), T3 (ECC @) 60 Kg ha-1), T4 (ECC @) 90

Kg ha-1) and T5 (ECC @) 120 Kg ha-1). The treatments T2 (ECC @) 30 Kg ha-1), T3

(ECC @) 60 Kg ha-1), T4 (ECC @) 90 Kg ha-1) and T5 (ECC @) 120 Kg ha-1) were

found non significant but numerically minimum sprout percentage (3.75 %) was

recorded in the treatment T3 (ECC @) 60 Kg ha-1).

The data clearly indicates that the ECC decrease the sprout percentage which

is unwanted character. Dormancy weakens as storage continues. Both ABA and

ethylene are required for the initiation of tuber dormancy. This low sprout percentage

in ECC treated might be due to some extra accumulation of ethylene which in

correlation with ABA maintains the tubers dormant in storage. This might be possible

due to the fact that ethylene and ABA are known to interact synergetically and

antagonistically in a number of developmental processes. The ethylene and ABA

reduces the pre mature sprouting by extending dormancy (Suttle 2001).

Table 20:- Mean values of treatments for sprout percentage



T1 (control) 17.5a+1.44 T1 17.5a

T2 ( ECC 30 Kg/ha ) 7.5b+2.5 T2 7.5b

T3 ( ECC 60 Kg/ha ) 3.75b+2.39 T5 6.25b

T4 ( ECC 90 Kg/ha) 5b+2.04 T4 3.75b

T5 ( ECC 120 Kg/ha) 6.25b+2.39 T3 5b

Abid Thesis (Results and Discussion)

Documents

Transcript of Abid Thesis (Results and Discussion)