EFFECT OF DIFFERENT PLANT SPACING AND PINCHING ON … · 4.7 Effect of spacing and pinching on...

i

EFFECT OF DIFFERENT PLANT SPACING AND PINCHING ON GROWTH, YIELD AND FLOWER

QUALITY OF MARIGOLD (Tagetes erecta L.)

M.Sc . (Ag.) THESIS

BY

HEMENDRA SINGH RATHORE

DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE

INDIRA GANDHI KRISHI VISHWAVIDYALAYA RAIPUR (C.G.)

2007

ii

EFFECT OF DIFFERENT PLANT SPACING AND

PINCHING ON GROWTH, YIELD AND FLOWER QUALITY

OF MARIGOLD (Tagetes erecta L.)

Thesis

Submitted to the

Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur (C.G.)

By


IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

DEGREE OF

Master of Science

In

Agriculture

(Horticulture)

Roll No. 7375 ID No. UG/AG/AMB/2001/09

SEPTEMBER 2007

iii

CERTIFICATE - I

This is to certify that the thesis entitled “EFFECT OF DIFFERENT

PLANT SPACING AND PINCHING ON GROWTH, YIELD AND

FLOWER QUALITY OF MARIGOLD (Tagetes erecta L.)‟‟, submitted in

partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of “MASTER OF

SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURE” of the Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya,

Raipur, is a record of the bonafide research work carried out by Shri

HEMENDRA SINGH RATHORE under my guidance and supervision. The

subject of the thesis has been approved by the Student's Advisory Committee and

the Director of Instructions.

No part of the thesis has been submitted for any other degree or

diploma (certificate, awarded etc.) or has been published/ published part has been

fully acknowledged. All the assistance and help received during the course of the

investigations have been duly acknowledged by him.

Date: Chairman

Advisory Committee

THESIS APPROVED BY THE STUDENT'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Chairman: Dr. S.N.Dikshit ______________________

Member: Dr. C.R.Gupta ______________________

Member: Dr. H.G.Sharma ______________________

Member: Dr. (Smt.) Pratibha Katiyar ______________________

Member: Dr. R.R.Saxena ______________________

iv

CERTIFICATE - II

This is to certify that the thesis entitled “EFFECT OF DIFFERENT

PLANT SPACING AND PINCHING ON GROWTH, YIELD AND

FLOWER QUALITY OF MARIGOLD (Tagetes erecta L.)” submitted by

Shri HEMENDRA SINGH RATHORE to the Indira Gandhi Krishi

Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur (C.G.) in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the

degree of M.SC. (Ag) in the Department of Horticulture has been approved by

the Student's Advisory Committee after oral examination in collaboration with

the external examiner.

Date: External Examiner

Major Advisor ______________________

Head of the Department/ Section ______________________

Dean Faculty ______________________

Director of Instructions ______________________

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Education plays of fundamental role in personal and social

development and teacher plays a fundamental role in imparting education.

Teachers have crucial role in preparing young people not only to face the further

with confidence but also to build up it with purpose and responsibility. There is

no substitute for teacher- pupil relationship. I start in the name of God-who has

bestowed upon me all the physical and mental attributes that I possess and

skills to cut through and heal a fellow human.

With a sense of high resolve and reverence. I, in a deep impact of

gratefulness thank to my sincere and deep sense of gratitude to adorable Dr.

S.N.Dikshit, Associate Professor, Department of Horticulture, College of

Agriculture, Raipur (C.G.), who is chairman of my advisory committee. I have

no word to express my heartfelt thanks to him for invaluable inspiring guidance,

unfailing encouragement, suggestions, research insight, unique supervision,

constructive criticism, scholarly advice, sympathetic attitude and keen interest,

throughout the investigation and preparation of this manuscript.

I have immense pleasure in expressing my whole hearted sense of

appreciation for the other members of my Advisory Committee, Dr.

C.R.Gupta,Professor & Head, Department of Horticulture, Dr. H.G.Sharma

Senior Scientist (Horticulture), Dr. (Smt.) P.Katiyar, Senior Scientist (Plant

Physiology) and Dr. R.R.Saxena, Senior Scientist (Agril. Stat. Math. And

Computer Science) for providing proper guidance and encouragement throughout

the research work. Without their kind cooperation, it would not have been easy

for me to complete this manuscript.

I am deeply obliged to Dr. C.R.Gupta, Professor and Head,

Department of Horticulture, College of Agriculture, Raipur (C.G.), whose

inspiring suggestions, enthusiastic interest and encouragement provided me

solace during the tenure of investigation.

vi

I am highly obliged to Hon’ble Vice Chancellor Dr. C.R. Hazra, Dr.

B.S. Thakur, Dean, College of Agriculture, Raipur, Dr. R.B. Sharma, Director

Research Services, Dr. R.B.S. Sengar, Director Extension Services and Dr. S.S.

Kolhe, Director of Instructions, IGKV, Raipur for providing necessary facilities

to conduct the investigation.

I am highly obligated to all teaching staff members of Department of

Horticulture, Shri P. Dubey, Dr. Prabhakar singh, Dr. Jitendra singh, Dr.

Neeraj Shukla, Dr. Vijay Jain, Shri Jitendra Trivedi, Shri Satish Verma, Shri T.

Tirkey, Shri Praveen Sharma and Shri Dhanajay Sharma.

I wish to express my grateful thanks to Shri P.L. Sinha, Shri T.S.

Harinkhede, Shri Kashyap, Purosattam, Deepak, and all staff members of

Department of Horticulture, College of Agriculture, I.G.K.V., Raipur for their

time to time co-operation.

Words can hardly express the heartfelt gratitude to my beloved

Father Shri V.S.Rathore, Mother Smt. Kamla singh, whose selfless love, filial

affection, obstinate sacrifices and blessing mate my path easier. My most cordial

thanks goes to my brothers Mrigendra Singh and my sisters Smt. Neelam, Smt

Rekha, Smt Sandhya and Smt. Sheelu and my all family members whose

obstinate sacrifice, filial affection and blessing made my path earlier. I express

the heartfelt loving my wife Smt. Sonu Singh to make me easy.

I am highly thankful my seniors particularly Hemant Sir, Ganesh Sir,

Mohan Sir, Pooja Madam, Bharti Madam, Rajesh Sir,Naseer Sir,Nagir Sir,

Surya Narayan Sir,Urvesh Sir, Sandeep Sir, Anjeet Sir, Om Prakash Sir,

Rajendra Sir, Vijay Sir and Mahendra Sir.

I express my sincere thanks to my colleagues Ramendra, Nitesh,

Pradeep, Sachin, Tukesh, Sandeep, Jahangir, Rakesh, Suresh, Satyajeet,

Hemant, Dipti, Sweta, Smita, Pramila, Rajeshwari, Madhubala, Rajesh,

Kamal, Jai shankar, Umesh, Santosh, Ravindra, Parihar, Diwedi Prasad,

Janmejai, Tarun, Anil, Manohar.

vii

I am also thankful to my juniors Ashutosh, Devendra, Praveen, Ravi,

Ram, Toran, Roshan, Manju, Piyush, Manish, Ashish, Rajan, Dilip, Ajay,

Animesh, and Pranav.

I express my thanks to Shri Ajay Kaushik who help me during typing

and composing to this manuscript in time.

I would like to convey my cordial thanks to all those who helped me

directly or indirectly to fulfill my dream.

How can I express my thanks to “God” because there is no any word

to express it. So, my lord, please realize and accept my feelings.

Department of Horticulture

College of Agriculture,

I.G.K.V., Raipur (C.G.)

Date: …………….

(HEMENDRA SINGH RATHORE)

viii

C O N T E N TS

CHAPTER

PARTICULARS PAGE

NO.

I. INTRODUCTION

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1 Effect of spacing on plant growth and flower yield

2.2 Effect of pinching on plant growth and flower yield

2.3 Effect of spacing and pinching on plant growth and flower

yield

2.4 Correlation between growth and yield parameters

2.5 Economics

III. MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 Geographical situation

3.2 Agro-climatic condition

3.3 Weather condition during the crop period

3.4 Physico-chemical properties of the soil

3.5 Experimental details

3.6 Treatment details

3.7 Cultural operations

3.7.1 Field preparation

3.7.2 Nursery

3.7.3 Transplanting

3.7.4 Fertilizer Application

3.7.5 Gap filling

3.7.6 Pinching

3.7.7 Irrigation and Weeding

ix

CHAPTER PARTICULARS PAGE

NO.

3.7.8 Plant protection

3.7.9 Harvesting

3.8 Observations recorded

3.8.1 Plant height (cm)

3.8.2 Number of leaves plant-1

3.8.3 Stem diameter (cm)

3.8.4 Number of primary branches plant-1

3.8.5 Number of secondary branches plant-1

3.8.6 Days to first bud emergence (days)

3.8.7 Days to first flowering (days)

3.8.8 Bud size (cm)

3.8.9 Flower diameter (cm)

3.8.10 Fresh weight plant-1

(g)

3.8.11 Dry weight plant-1

(g)

3.8.12 Pedicel length (cm)

3.8.13 Number of flowers plant-1

3.8.14 Plant spread (cm)

3.8.15 Weight of individual flower (g)

3.8.16 Period of bloom (days)

3.8.17 Number of days taken for 50 per cent flowering

3.8.18 Flower yield plant-1

(g)

3.8.19 Flower yield plot-1

(kg)

3.8.20 Flower yield ha-1

(q)

3.8.21 Vase life of cut flowers (days)

x


NO.

3.9 Statistical analysis

3.10 Correlation studies

3.11 Cost of cultivation

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Plant height (cm)

4.2 Number of leaves per plant

4.3 Stem diameter (cm)

4.4 Number of primary branches per plant

4.5 Number of secondary branches per plant

4.6 Fresh weight per plant (g)

4.7 Dry weight per plant (g)

4.8 Plant spread (cm)

4.9 Bud size (cm)

4.10 Pedicel length (cm)

4.11 Days to first bud emergence (days)

4.12 Days to first flowering (days)

4.13 Period of bloom (days)

4.14 Number of days taken for 50% flowering

4.15 Flower diameter (cm)

4.16 Weight of individual flower (g)

4.17 Flower yield plant-1

(g)

4.18 Number of flower per plant

4.19 Flower yield per plot (kg)

4.20 Flower yield per ha (q)

xi


NO.

4.21 Vase life of cut flowers (days)

4.22 Correlation coefficient

4.23 Economics

V.

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

FOR FUTURE RESEARCH WORK

ABSTRACT

REFERENCES

APPENDICES

xii

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE

NO.

PARTICULARS PAGE No.

3.1 Physico-chemical properties of the soil

4.1 Effect of spacing and pinching on plant height of marigold

4.2 Effect of spacing and pinching on number of leaves per

plant of marigold

4.3 Effect of spacing and pinching on stem diameter of

marigold

4.4 Effect of spacing and pinching on number of primary and

secondary branches per plant of marigold

4.5 Effect of spacing and pinching on fresh and dry weight per

plant of marigold

4.6 Effect of spacing and pinching on plant spread of marigold

4.7 Effect of spacing and pinching on pedicel length and bud

size of marigold

4.8 Effect of different plant spacing and pinching on days to

first bud emergence and days to first flowering in marigold

4.9 Effect of spacing and pinching on period of bloom and days

taken for 50 per cent flowering in marigold

4.10 Effect of different plant spacing and pinching on flower

diameter and weight of individual flower of marigold

4.11 Effect of different plant spacing and pinching on number of

flowers and flower yield per plant of marigold

4.12 Effect of spacing and pinching on flower yield per plot and

per ha of marigold

4.13 Effect of spacing and pinching on vase life of cut flowers of

marigold

4.14 Correlation coefficient of flower yield per plant of marigold

with other characters

4.15 Economics of marigold flower production (Rs./ha)

xiii

LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE

NO.

PARTICULARS BETWEEN

PAGES

3.1 Weekly meteorological graph during experimental period

(Kharif and Rabi season)

3.2 Lay out plan of experimental field

4.1 Effect of spacing and pinching on plant height of

marigold

4.2 Effect of spacing and pinching on number of leaves

plant-1

of marigold

4.3 Effect of spacing and pinching on stem diameter of

marigold

4.4 Effect of spacing and pinching on number of primary and

secondary branches plant-1

of marigold

4.5 Effect of spacing and pinching on fresh and dry weight of

plant-1

of marigold

4.6 Effect of spacing and pinching on plant spread

of

marigold

4.7 Effect of spacing and pinching on bud size of marigold

4.8 Effect of spacing and pinching on pedicel length of

marigold

4.9 Effect of spacing and pinching on number of flower

plant-1

of marigold

4.10 Effect of spacing and pinching on flower yield plant-1

of

marigold

4.11 Effect of spacing and pinching on flower yield plot-1

of

marigold

4.12 Effect of spacing and pinching on flower yield ha-1

of

marigold

xiv

LIST OF PLATES

No. PARTICULARS BETWEEN

PAGES

I A view of experimental site of marigold

II Performance of pinching level P3 (pinching at 40

DAT) on vegetative and reproductive phase of

marigold compared with P0 (no pinching)

xv

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX PARTICULARS PAGE

NO.

I Weekly meteorological observations during crop

growth period of marigold (Sept., 2006-Feb., 2007-

Kharif and Rabi season)

II Cost of cultivation of marigold

xvi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviations Description

% Per cent

@ at the rate

B: C ratio Benefit- cost ratio

CD Critical Difference

cm Centimetre

c.f. Cited from

DAT Days after transplanting

et al. and co-workers/ and others

Fig. Figure

FYM Farm Yard Manure

g Gram

ha Hectare

hr Hour

i.e. That is

kg Kilogram

l Litre

ml Millilitre

m2 Square metre

NPK Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium

NS Non- significant

P Pinching 0C Degree Celsius

q Quintal

q/ha Quintal per hectare

Rs Rupees

Rs/ha Rupees /ha

S Spacing

SEm+ Standard error of mean

t Tonnes

t/ha Tonnes /ha

Viz. For example

Var Variety

* Original not seen

18

CHAPTER- I

INTRODUCTION

Marigold (Tegetes erecta L.) is mainly cultivated for ornamental purpose all over

the world. It is a native of central and South America, especially Mexico, from

where it spread to different parts of the world during the early 16th

century, but it

has adapted so well to Indian conditions that it is as good as a native to India as

well.

In India, marigold was introduced by Portuguese. It became popular and spread

quickly because of its easy cultivation, adaptability to varying soils and climatic

conditions. It can be grown almost throughout the year. The flowers are beautiful

with along blooming period and have excellent vase life. The variable flower size

and colours make marigold an ideal flower for decoration as well as garden

landscaping.

The leaves and flowers of marigold have got medicinal value too. Leaf paste is

used externally against boils and carbuncles. Flower extract is considered as

blood purifier and good remedy for eye diseases and ulcers. Good quality of

perfumes can also be made from its essential oils. Its petals are used for deriving

food colours.

Besides these, marigold is planted to control the soil nematodes. The earliest

report about the resistance of Tagetes to nematodes (Meloidogyne spp.)

infestation was reported by Tyler (1938) and Steiner (1941) in a field experiment.

Marigold is one of the most important flower crops grown commercially in

different parts of India. The estimated area under marigold in India was 17600 ha

with a production of 2, 00,000 metric tonnes (Anon, 2003) during the year 2003-

04. It has also a very good market in Chhattisgarh, especially in Raipur. There is

19

a large demand of flowers during the festivals like Dushehra and Diwali as well

as marriage seasons. Most of the flower requirements are met by the growers and

suppliers of Chennai, Bangalore, Kolkata and Nagpur.Hence, there is a large gap

between the supply and demand, which the local growers may utilize this

advantage and ultimately fulfill the requirement of flowers in the state.

Chhattisgarh is blessed with many natural advantages like abundant sunshine,

favorable temperature for growth of marigold in different seasons and its

location. The Chhattisgarh plains is in an ideal region to become a leading player

in the state, regarding marigold production. In agro- climatic condition of

Chhattisgarh plains, marigold may be grown in summer, rainy and winter season.

Its production should be planned according to the need of the market. So, small

or marginal farmers can earn a good profit per unit area.

In general, the commercially cultivated marigold is of two types i.e., African and

French marigold. The African marigold is taller and an annual with profuse

branching habit. It produces large-sized quality flowers of different colours,

which fetches high prices in the market. But, apical dominance, delay in

flowering and long and weak stems are some of the problems, which results in

poor yield/economic returns. As far as favorable climatic conditions are

concerned, they are beyond the control of human intervention. However,

judicious cultural operations, balanced nutrition and physiological manipulations

like pinching definitely improve the yield of the crop. In marigold cultivation,

plant spacing is also a factor, which contributes to the total yield.

Although, marigold is grown by a large number of growers in Chhattisgarh, but

there is very little information available regarding its actual package of practices

to achieve higher as well as quality flower production. Thus, keeping in view the

20

above facts, the present study entitled “Effect of different plant spacing and

pinching on growth, yield and flower quality of Marigold (Tagetes erecta L.)”

was carried out with the following objectives:

1. To find out the optimum spacing for maximum flower production per

unit area.

2. To standardize the pinching technique for obtaining higher flower

yield of marigold.

3. To know the interaction of spacing and pinching on the yield /net

profit per unit area.

21

CHAPTER - II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Marigold is one of the most important floriculture crops, because of its very wide

regional, seasonal adaptability, short duration and good market value. Its

successful cultivation depends a lot on proper spacing and pinching.

Pinching is invariably the limiting factor for marigold crop. It improves the

vegetative growth and increases the number of flowers as well as flower yield.

A brief review of research work done on these aspects is being discussed in the

following chapter. It includes brief results of the research work done in India and

abroad which is similar to or closely related with the present investigation.



2.3 Effect of spacing and pinching on plant growth and flower yield


2.5 Economics


Gowda and Jayanthi (1986) observed at Bangalore that when the plants of

marigold cv. Bangalore Local were transplanted at 20x30 cm, 20x40 cm and

20x50 cm, at 2-months interval starting from 1st January, transplanting at 20x50

cm in September gave the highest flower yield (21.68 t/ha).

Ravindran et al. (1986) studied at Tirupati and reported that the highest flower

yield (142.48 q/ha) of marigold was obtained with a spacing of 30x30 cm. They

also observed that more number of secondary branches and plant spread occurred

22

under wider spacing (60x60 cm), whereas significantly more number of flowers

per plot were obtained with closer spacing of 30x30 cm.

Arora and Khanna (1989) recorded maximum flower yield with the spacing of

20x20 cm in case of French marigold cv. “Red Brocade” at Ludhiana condition.

Yadav and Bose (1988) concluded that the maximum flower yield was obtained

by planting of Tagetes erecta at a distance of 40x40 cm in cv. Giant Double

African Orange.

Chanda and Roychaudhury (1991) reported that increased number of leaves,

plant spread, number of primary branches, number of flowers and flower yield

per plant were obtained at a wider spacing (40x40 cm), but the highest yield was

obtained at the spacing of 30x30 cm.

Belorkar et al. (1992) conducted an experiment with three levels of plant spacing

(30x30, 45x30 and 60x30 cm) and found that the greatest flower diameter (6.52

cm) and flower yield (83.92 q/ha) was obtained with a spacing of 45x30 cm.

Patil and Kale (1992) revealed that the plant height increased significantly with

an increase in plant population of marigold. They also observed that the number

and weight of flowers per plant as well as the yield per hectare were significantly

more with the spacing of 60x60 cm.

Avari and Patel (1993) highlighted that the number of main as well as lateral

branches, stem diameter and dry weight of plant were maximum with wider

spacing of 60x45 cm, but significantly higher flower yield was obtained with

closer spacing of 45x30 cm.

Mohanty et al. (1993) studied at Bhubaneshwar on marigold cv. „African

Yellow‟ with different dates (May, July, Sept., Nov.) at four levels of spacing (

30x20 cm, 40x20 cm, 30x30 cm, 40x30 cm) and revealed that the maximum

23

vegetative growth was recorded under the spacing 40x30 cm. The spacing had

no effect on flower size. They also found that the most profitable crop was

obtained from September planting at a spacing of 40x30 cm.

Singh et al. (1995) found that a spacing of 60x45 cm gave the highest flower

yield of marigold (Tegetes erecta L.).

Dhemro et al. (1997) concluded that a close spacing of 15x15 cm gave the best

result in terms of number of days required for emergence of flower buds, days

required for flower opening after bud emergence and days required for first

flower opening. The duration of flowering was more at wider spacing.

Mohanty et al. (1997) at Bhubaneshwar observed that fresh weight per flower

and stem thickness both increased significantly as plant spacing increased and the

highest flower yield per plant was achieved at a spacing of 40 x 30 cm.

Raghava (1998) stated that a spacing of 45x45 cm is optimum for commercial

cultivation of marigold.

Samantaray et al. (1999) conducted an experiment at Bhubaneshwar and reported

that fresh weight of individual flowers and flower yield/plant increased with

wider row spacing (40x30 cm) and the highest yield of flowers/plant was

obtained at the spacing of 40 x30 cm.

Singh et al. (1999) reported that the maximum flower yield of marigold (Tagetes

erecta L.) was obtained by planting at a distance of 40x30 cm.

Natarajan and Vijayakumar (2002) investigated at Coimbatore that the highest

number of flowers per plant, number of seeds per flower, seed yield per plant

/plot, 100-seed weight, germination percentage, root and shoot lengths, dry

matter production, and vigour index were obtained with a row spacing of

60x40 cm.

24

Jadhav et al. (2002) studied at Pune (Maharashtra) and reported that closer

spacing (60x30 cm) gave early flowering, whereas flower quality was better

under wider spacing (60x60 cm).

Dixit (2004) studied at Raipur and revealed that wider spacing (40x30 cm)

produced maximum number of branches, plant spread, main stem diameter and

number of flowers, but flower yield per hectare was recorded significantly more

in closer spacing (30x20 cm).

Yadav et al. (2004) observed at Raipur that among three different spacing viz.,

40x30 cm, 45x45 cm, 60x45 cm tried, wider spacing (60x45 cm) produced more

number of leaves and branches per plant, maximum plant spread, stem diameter

as well as fresh weight per plant. Maximum number of flowers as well as flower

yield/ plant was also recorded at wider spacing i.e., 60x45 cm.

Karuppaiah and Krishna (2005) at Annamalainagar (Tamil Nadu) reported that a

spacing of 30x30 cm recorded the maximum value of growth characters viz.,

plant height, number of primary and secondary branches, number of leaves, leaf

area and dry matter production and flower characters viz., number of flowers,

single flower weight, flower diameter, flower stalk length and carotenoid content.

Sreekanth et al. (2006) investigated at Hyderabad and reported that when

marigold plants are planted within three spacings viz., 40x30 cm, 50x30 cm and

60x30 cm, closer spacing of 40x30 cm recorded maximum flower diameter, yield

plant-1

and yield hectare-1

. A wider spacing of 60x30 cm recorded maximum

colour intensity.


Arora and Khanna (1986) reported that pinching did not increase flower

production but delayed it by 10-20 days in Ludhiana condition. They suggested

that the delay could be useful for regulating flower production and avoiding a

glut in the market.

25

Pathania et al. (2000) observed at Solan (H.P.) that double pinching produced

maximum number of cut blooms/ m2

(177.77) and delayed flowering, but the

stems were weak and short (21.10 cm) and the unpinched plants were early to

flower (100.53 days), had longest stems (48.77 cm) and maximum flower size

(6.98 cm), but the flower yield/ m2 was very low (11.11).

Joshi and Barad (2002) studied at Junagadh (Gujarat) that pinching treatments

significantly increased fresh and dry weights of the plant as compared to no

pinching. The pinching treatments also increased the N content, as well as N and

P uptake.

Kumar et al. (2002) investigated at Hissar and revealed that pinched plants were

delayed in bud initiation (99.74 days), flower opening (129.93 days) and peak

flowering (154.53 days) as compared to unpinched plants.

Khandelwal et al. (2003) studied at Jaipur that pinching at 30 days after

transplanting recorded a minimum of 60.81 cm plant height. The minimum

internodal length (4.87 cm) and maximum stem diameter (2.56 cm), number of

flowers per plant (63.15) and flower yield (167.8 q/ha) was obtained with

pinching at 20 days after transplanting. The appearance of first flower bud took

highest days (45.12 DAT) with pinching at 30 days after planting, which was

significantly higher over other pinching treatments.

Sehrawat et al. (2003) investigated at Hissar and reported that the increase in the

plant height was checked with pinching treatments as compared to control.

Pinching at 30 days after transplanting resulted in minimum height but maximum

number of flowers and flower yield. Number of branches, number of days to first

flower bud initiation, 50 per cent flowering and duration of flowering increased

significantly by pinching treatments.

26

Naik et al. (2004) observed at Dharwad that two levels of pinching at 40 days

after transplanting and chemicals spray recorded highest xanthophyll yield (16.53

kg/ha) and maximum flower yield (16.44 t/ha) in marigold.

Rakesh et al. (2004) investigated at Hissar and revealed that flower size and

flower stalk length were maximum in non-pinched plants, whereas, yield of

flower per plant was found maximum in plants pinched at 35 days after

transplanting.

Tomar et al. (2004) studied at New Delhi that the double pinching at 25 days

after single pinching increased the number of flowers, seed yield and 1000 seed

weight. The maximum number of flowers (48.34) and seed yield (17.71 g) was

noted in double pinching.

Sharma et al. (2006) observed at Jabalpur that pinching at 40 days after

transplanting produced maximum plant height, number of primary branches per

plant, number of leaves per plant and flowering span. While plant spread and

number of secondary branches per plant were recorded maximum with pinching

at 20 days after transplanting.

2.3 Effect of spacing and pinching on plant growth and flower yield

Singh and Arora (1980) studied on the effect of spacing and pinching on flower

yield of Tagetes erecta at Ludhiana and reported that flower yield per plant was

found to be highest at the widest spacing (40x50 cm) in the plants pinched after

40 days of transplanting.

Bhati and Chitkara (1987) studied the effect of spacing at 40x40 cm, 40x50 cm,

50x50 cm and of pinching 15 or 30 days after transplanting in marigold at Hissar.

They found that plant height is highest under closer spacing (40x40 cm), whereas

27

pinching reduced plant height but increased the plant spread. Flower yield per

plant was obtained highest at the widest spacing (50x50 cm), but yield per unit

area was highest with the closest spacing (40x40 cm).

Srivastava et al. (2002) observed at Faizabad (U.P.) that spacing of 40x50 cm and

pinching at 40 days after transplanting resulted in optimum flower yield (52.15

tonnes/ha) with better quality flowers of marigold.

Srivastava et al. (2005) observed maximum flower yield (331.47 q/ha) under

closer spacing (40x40 cm) and with delayed pinching (40DAT) at Faizabad

(U.P.). Planting at wider spacing and delayed pinching (40 DAT) increased the

number of secondary branches and flowers per plant and also improved the

quality of flowers. Delay in flowering and increase in flowering duration were

recorded under delayed pinching (40 DAT) treatment.


Ravindran (1986) studied at Tirupati and revealed that the growth attributes like

plant height, number of primary branches and number of flowers per plant were

significantly and positively correlated with flower yield.

Janakiram and Rao (1995) found that the flower yield was positively and

significantly correlated with plant height, number of main branches, number of

lateral branches per plant, plant spread and number of flowers per plant except

flower size and flower weight under closer spacing of 40x30 cm in marigold.

2.5 Economics

Chanda and Roychaudhury (1991) reported that the maximum flower yield per

unit area was recorded with a spacing of 30x30 cm. It had also given the highest

net profit.

28

Mohanty et al. (1993) found that the most profitable crop was obtained from the

September planting at 40x30 cm spacing at Bhubaneswar condition.

Singh et al. (1998) reported that income under African marigold production is Rs.

75000 to 1, 35, 000 per hectare under normal cultivation practices.

Singh et al. (1999) noted that gross income from sale of the marigold flowers

would be Rs. 2,00,000 @ Rs. 10.00/kg if the average production is 200 q/ ha.

They also estimated the gross expenditure on seed, field preparation, chemical

and labour charges. Therefore, a net profit of Rs. 1, 20,000/ha may be obtained.

29

CHAPTER – III

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The chapter deals with a concise description of materials and method adopted during

the course of investigation. The present investigation entitled “Effect of different

plant spacing and pinching on growth, yield and flower quality of marigold (Tagetes

erecta L.)” was conducted at Precision Farming Development Centre, Department of

Horticulture, College of Agriculture, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur

(C.G.) in winter season, during the year 2006-07.

3.1 Geographical Situation

Geographically, Raipur is situated in the central part of the Chhattisgarh and lies

between 2116‟N latitude and 81 36‟ E longitudes at an altitude of 289.56

metres above the mean sea level.

3.2 Agro- climatic condition

Raipur, the capital of Chhattisgarh state comes under dry, sub- humid agro-

climatic region of Chhattisgarh plains. The region receives 1200 mm average

annual rainfall, out of which about 88 per cent is received during the rainy

season (June to September) and the rest 12 per cent during winter season

(October to February). January is the coolest and May is the hottest month. The

maximum temperature of the region goes as high as 46º C during summer and as

low as 9º C during winter months.

3.3 Weather condition during the crop growth period

The meteorological data of rainfall, temperature, relative humidity, sunshine and

Potential Evapo-Transpiration (PET) during crop season from September to

February, 2007 are furnished in Appendix- I and depicted in Fig- 3.1 and 3.2.

30

The crop growth period received 75.5 mm of rainfall. The maximum temperature

during growth period varied between 26.70C in first week of January to 37.6

0C in

the second week of February, whereas, minimum temperature varied between

9.60C in the first week of January to 24.4

0C in third week of September. The

average maximum temperature for different months varied 28.8 to 33.10C, while

monthly average minimum temperature ranged between 11.54 to 23.750C.

Relative humidity throughout season varied between 80 to 94 per cent at

morning and 21 to 70 per cent in the evening hours. The average maximum

relative humidity for different months varied from 84.33 to 92.2 per cent at

morning, while monthly average minimum relative humidity varied between 33

to 67 per cent at evening. The wind velocity ranged between 1.9 to 6.6 km hour-

1. The open pan evaporation average values ranged from 2.3 to 4.9 mm day

-1,

whereas the bright sunshine varied from 2.8 to 10.2 hours day-1

.

3.4 Physico- chemical characteristics of the experimental soil

Five samples were taken randomly from the experimental field a day before

layout of experiment to evaluate the nutrient status of the soil. The samples were

taken upto 30 cm depth with the help of the soil auger and composite sample was

made to analyse the initial status of the soil. The physio- chemical analysis of the

experimental soil has been summarized in Table 3.1.

The soil of experimental field was clay-loam locally known as “Dorsa”. The soil

was neutral in reaction. It has low nitrogen, medium phosphorus and high

potassium content.

Table 3.1: Physico- chemical properties of the experimental soil

S.

No.

Particulars Value Rating Method

31

A. Mechanical

Analysis

(i) Sand (%) 25.00 Clay- loam International pipette

method

(ii) Silt (%) 43.45 (Dorsa) (Black, 1965)

(iii) Clay (%) 34.90

B. Chemical Analysis

1. Organic carbon (%) 0.47 Medium Walkley and Black‟s

rapid titration method

(Jackson, 1967)

2. Available N (kg ha-1

) 187.00 Low Alkaline permagnate

method

(Subhaiah & Asija, 1956)

3. Available P (kg ha-1

) 16.80 Medium Olsen‟s method (Olsen,

1954)

4. Available K (kg ha-1

) 298.00 High Flame photometric

method

(Jackson, 1973)

5. Soil reaction (pH) 7.40 Neutral Glass electrode pH meter

(Piper, 1967)

6. Ec (dSm-1

at 250C) 0.45 Normal Solubridge conductivity

method (Black, 1965)

3.5 Experimental details

1. Crop : Marigold (Tagetes erecta L.)

2. Cultivar : Double Sierra Orange

3. Design : Factorial Randomized Block

Design

4. Number of replications : Four

5. Number of treatments

A. Spacing : Four

B. Pinching : Four

6. Number of treatment combinations : 16

7. Total number of plots : 64

8. Plot size : 12 m x 1m

9. Distance between two replications : 1.5 metre

32

10. Distance between two plots : 0.5 metre

11. Total area : 1236.75 sq metres

3.6 Treatment details

There were sixteen treatment combinations of four spacing (40 x 30 cm, 40 x 40

cm, 40 x 50 cm, and 40 x 60 cm) and four levels of pinching (No pinching,

pinching at 20 DAT, 30 DAT and 40 DAT). The details of treatments are given

below:

(A) Spacing

1. 40 x 30 cm (S1)

2. 40 x 40 cm (S2)

3. 40 x 50 cm (S3)

4. 40 x 60 cm (S4)

(B) Pinching levels

1. No pinching (P0)

2. Pinching at 20 DAT (P1)



(C) Spacing x Pinching levels (S x P)

T1 (40 x 30 cm) x No pinching S1P0

T2 (40x 30 cm) x pinching at 20 DAT S1P1

T3 (40 x 30 cm) x pinching at 30 DAT S1P2






33









3.7 Cultural operations

3.7.1 Field preparation

The land was brought to fine tilth by cross-ploughing and cross-harrowing.

During harrowing, well rotten FYM was incorporated in the soil @ of 20 tonnes

per hectare.

3.7.2 Nursery

Marigold is usually propagated through seeds. In this experiment, the seeds were

sown on raised seed beds, measuring 120 x60x 10 cm. The sowing was done on

23 September, 2006. The seeds germinated within 5-6 days of sowing.

3.7.3 Transplanting

The seedlings are generally transplanted between 25-30 days after sowing. In this

experiment, seedlings were transplanted after 28 days of sowing.

3.7.4 Fertilizer Application

Phosphorous (as Single Super Phosphate) and potash (as Mureate of Potash) were

applied at the rate of 80 kg each per hectare during the land preparation. Nitrogen

fertilizer (as urea) at the rate of 150 kg per hectare was applied in two split doses,

(20 and 40 days after transplanting) as top dressing.

34

3.7.5 Gap Filling

Marigold seedlings are generally soft, tender and susceptible to damping off. As a

result, mortality of some of the seedlings were observed. Hence, gap filling was

done after two weeks of transplanting.

3.7.6 Pinching

Removal of the terminal portion, or new growth of the plants, or early flower

buds, is called pinching. This practice encourages the development of side shoots

and makes the plant more floriferous. Pinching was done at 20, 30 and 40 days

after transplanting.

3.7.7 Irrigation and weeding

Irrigation was provided at an average interval of 6-8 days. Weeding was done at

an interval of 15-20 days. A total of two weedings were carried out during the

entire cropping period.

3.7.8 Plant protection

Leaf spot and leaf blight were noticed during the plant growth. To control this,

Dithane M-45 @ 2.5 g/litre water, was applied twice at 15 days interval during

the vegetative growth.

3.7.9 Harvesting

Marigold flowers were plucked when they had attained the full size. Plucking of

flowers was done during morning by hand. A total of six pickings

were done during entire flowering period.

3.8 Observations recorded

For growth, flowering and yield parameters, five plants were randomly selected

from each plot of all the replications. The procedure for recording the data are

mentioned with appropriate headings.

35

3.8.1 Plant height (cm)

The height of five selected plants was measured in cm from the soil surface upto

the terminal top portion of the plant with the help of a metre scale at an interval

of 20, 40, 60, 80 and 100 days after transplanting and their mean was calculated.

3.8.2 Number of leaves plant-1

Number of leaves of five randomly selected plants were counted at an interval of

20, 40, 60, 80 and 100 days after transplanting and mean value was calculated as

the number of leaves plant-1

.

3.8.3 Stem diameter (cm)

Stem diameter of five selected plants was measured in cm using vernier calipers

at just above the soil surface at an interval of 20, 40, 60, 80 and 100 days after

transplanting and their mean was estimated.

3.8.4 Number of primary branches plant -1

Number of primary branches per plant were counted from the selected plants till

the end of flowering period and then averaged.

3.8.5 Number of secondary branches plant -1

Number of secondary branches per plant were counted from the selected plants

till the end of flowering period and then its mean was calculated.

3.8.6. Days to first bud emergence (days)

Number of days taken for the emergence of first bud from the date of

transplanting, were counted and averaged.

3.8.7 Days to first flowering (days)

Number of days taken for the first flowering from the date of transplanting, were

counted and their mean was determined.

36

3.8.8 Bud size (cm)

The size of the fully developed flowering buds were measured in cm as diameter

of bud with the help of vernier calipers and then averaged.

3.8.9 Flower diameter (cm)

Five flowers from each plant were selected at the full bloom stage. The flower

diameter was recorded in centimetre using the vernier calipers and their mean

values were calculated.

3.8.10 Fresh weight plant -1

(g)

The fresh weight of the selected five plants were taken in gram at the final

observation and their mean was calculated.

3.8.11 Dry weight plant -1

(g)

The selected five plants were oven-dried for their dry weights at the final

observation and their mean was calculated in gram.

3.8.12 Pedicel length (cm)

The pedicel length was measured with the help of a scale in centimetre and then

averaged.

3.8.13 Number of flowers plant -1

Total numbers of flowers obtained from the selected plants from each plot were

counted for the entire flowering period and averaged.

3.8.14 Plant spread (cm)

The plant spread was measured in cm at the final observation period (100 DAT)

and the values were averaged.

3.8.15 Weight of individual flower (g)

The weight of individual flower was taken in gram from all the treatments in all

replications and mean was calculated.

37

3.8.16 Period of bloom (days)

A regular watching was done on the experimental field. The duration of bloom

was calculated on the basis of days of bloom from first anthesis upto the last

picking. This was done with all the five selected plants in all the treatments and

their mean values were calculated.

3.8.17 Number of days taken for 50 per cent flowering

Number of days taken for 50 per cent flowering from the date of transplanting,

were counted and averaged.

3.8.18 Flower yield plant-1

(g)

Flower yield of five observational plants were added and then mean weight was

calculated as average yield per plant in gram.

3.8.19 Flower yield plot -1

(kg)

Flower yield per plot was calculated in kg from the flower weight per plant for all

the treatments in all replications and then averaged.

3.8.20 Flower yield ha –1

(q)

Flower yield per hectare was calculated in quintal from the flower weight per plot

for all the treatments in all replications and then averaged.

3.8.21 Vase life of cut flowers (days)

The flowers were kept at room temperature in conical flask with distilled water to

observe their vase life. When the flowers started wilting, number of days were

recorded. The exact number of days were calculated by referring back to the date

of picking.

3.9 Statistical analysis

38

The present experimental data was analysed statistically by the techniques of

analysis of variance as applicable to factorial randomized block design. The

significance of the treatment was tested by „F‟ test value. Critical difference (CD)

at 5% level of significance was worked out for comparison and statistical

interpretations of significant treatment means. The standard error of difference

was given in each case for significant treatment effect. Critical difference (CD) of

different spacing, pinching and their interaction at 5% level of probability was

calculated, wherever „F‟ test was significant.

3.10 Correlation studies

The relationship of some important morphological parameters and yield attributes

were studied by means of simple correlation. Correlation coefficients were

calculated by the analysis of variance and covariance technique.

3.11 Cost of cultivation

The cost of cultivation was calculated by recording the total expenditure made

under different treatments right from the land preparation to harvesting stage. The

income was registered after selling the flowers in the local market at the

prevailing rates. Gross income for each treatment was recorded separately. Net

income or profit was determined by deducting the total expenditure from the

gross income, for each treatments.

39

CHAPTER - IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The experiment entitled “Effect of different plant spacing and pinching on

growth, yield and flower quality of marigold ( Tagetes erecta L. )‟‟ was

conducted during the year 2006-07 in winter season with a view to study the

effect of different plant spacing and pinching on plant growth, flowering and

yield-attributes of marigold. The experimental findings computed on the basis of

the observations recorded and statistical analysis are presented and discussed

precisely in this chapter under the following heads:









4.9 Bud size (cm)


4.11 Days to first bud emergence

4.12 Days to first flowering


4.14 Number of days taken for 50% flowering (days)

40



4.17 Flower yield per plant (g)

4.18 Number of flowers per plant

4.19 Flower yield per plot (kg)

4.20 Flower yield per ha (q)



4.23 Economics


The observations on plant height as influenced by different plant spacing and

pinching were recorded periodically and the data are given in Table 4.1 and

illustrated in Fig. 4.1.

It is vivid from the data that there was a continuous increase in plant height of

marigold with all the spacing and pinching treatments from the initial observation

i.e., 20 days to final observation i.e., 100 days after transplanting. The rate of

increase in plant height was grater during 20 to 80 days after transplanting.

Thereafter, it declined after 80 days of transplanting.

The plant height at 40, 60, 80 and 100 days after transplanting was significantly

influenced by the spacing treatments. It was observed that the wider spacing i.e.,

S3 (40x 50 cm) recorded significantly maximum plant height (71.36 cm) followed

by S2 (40x40 cm) and S1 (40x30 cm) which was at par with S2 (40x40 cm). But, it

was found minimum (64.40 cm) with wider spacing i.e., S4 (40x60 cm).

The increased plant height with wider spacing of S3 (40x50 cm) may be due to

fact that the plants with the sufficient spacing had no competition with other

41

plants for nutrient availability which ultimately resulted better growth of plants.

The wider spacing is also favourable for lateral growth of plants. Similar results

of increased plant height due to wider spacing have also been reported by Patil

and Kale (1992).

Similarly, the plant height at 20, 40, 60, 80 and 100 days after transplanting was

significantly influenced by the pinching treatments. It was observed that the

pinching at 40 DAT(P3) showed significantly more plant height (70.58 cm)

followed by pinching at 30 DAT(P2), 20 DAT(P1) and no pinching (P0).The

minimum plant height (65.02 cm) was recorded with no pinching (P0).The

treatments of pinching P3 (40DAT), P2 (30 DAT) and P1 (20 DAT) were at par.

A perusal at the response exhibited by the pinching revealed that pinching at 40

days after transplanting produced significantly taller plants, as pinching plays an

important role in vegetative development, photosynthesis and cell division.

Simultaneously, it increases metabolic activities, cell size and elongation of cells.

The cumulative effect of pinching on above activities might have increased the

plant height. Similar results of increased plant height due to the pinching have

been reported by Khandelwal et al. (2003).

The interaction effect between spacing and pinching (Table 4.1) were found to be

significant at 60, 80 and 100 days after transplanting. The pinching at 30 days

after transplanting with closer spacing of 40x50 cm (S3P2) gave significantly

taller plants (75.66 cm) which was followed by S1P3, S2P1, S4P3 and S3P0.

Whereas, wider spacing (40x60 cm) without pinching (S4P0) gave shorter plants

(58.74 cm). The treatment combinations S1P3, S2P1, S4P3, S3P0 and S3P1 were at

par.


42

The data pertaining to effect of various spacing and pinching on number of

leaves per plant recorded at different intervals are presented in Table 4.2 and


It was observed that the number of leaves increased from the second observation

to the last observation (40 days to 100 days after transplanting), but the rate of

increase was more between 40 to 80 days of transplanting.

The data on number of leaves per plant at 40, 60 and 80 days after transplanting

showed remarkable effect due to plant spacing. It was observed that the wider

spacing i.e., S4 (40x60 cm) yielded significantly higher number of leaves

(180.65) followed by S3 (40x50 cm) and S2 (40x40 cm). Number of leaves per

plant was reduced (131.69) significantly in closer spacing treatment i.e., S1

(40x30 cm).

The wider spacing (40x60 cm) favoured for production of more number of leaves

per plant. This might be due to greater availability of plant nutrients, water and

better sunlight exposure under wider spacing, which favours more lateral growth

of plants. The present findings are in confirmity with the report of Chanda and

Roychoudhary (1991).

Similarly, the data on the effect of pinching indicated that pinching at 40 days

after transplanting gave significantly more number of leaves (173.45) followed

by other treatments i.e., P2, P1 and P0. The least number of leaves per plant

(118.25) was observed under the treatment P0 (no pinching).

Marked increase in number of leaves per plant was noticed with pinching at 40

days after transplanting. The possible reason for higher number of leaves per

plant in different interval of pinching may be due to the increase in metabolic

activities, photosynthetic activity and increased cell division.

43

The combined effects of spacing and pinching were found to be significant for

number of leaves per plant. The highest number of leaves per plant (189.09) was

recorded in wider spacing of 40x60 cm with pinching at 40 days after

transplanting (S4P3) followed by S4P2, S4P1, S4P0 and S2P3. The treatment

combinations S4P2 and S4P1 were at par with S4P3. Whereas, lowest number of

leaves per plant (88.19) was obtained under (S1P0).


The data with respect to effect of different plant spacing and pinching treatments

on stem diameter recorded periodically are presented in Table 4.3 and depicted in

Fig. 4.3.

It is obvious from the data that the rate of increase in stem diameter was more

during the growth period of 40 to 60 days after transplanting. The rate of increase

in stem diameter reduced after 60 days of transplanting.

The stem diameter was significantly influenced by the spacing and pinching

treatments from 20 DAT to 100 DAT but their interaction (SxP) at 60 DAT were

found to be non-significant.

The data (Table 4.3) revealed that the wider spacing of 40x60 cm (S4) showed

significantly maximum stem diameter (1.72 cm) followed by the treatments S3

and S2. A closer spacing of 40x30 cm under the treatment S1 produced minimum

diameter (1.51 cm).

The increased thickness of stem could be ascribed to a better availability of

nutrients per unit area due to sufficient space resulting in less competition among

the plants. The results are in accordance with the report of Yadav et al. (2004).

Similarly, the pinching at 40 days after transplanting (P3) produced significantly

highest stem girth as compared with P2 (pinching at 30 DAT ), P1(pinching at 20

44

DAT) and P0 (no pinching). The data recorded at final observation (100 DAT)

clearly indicated that the pinching at 40 days after transplanting (P3) produced

maximum stem diameter (1.66 cm) followed by P2 (pinching at 30 DAT) and P1

(pinching at 20 DAT). While, the minimum stem diameter (1.50 cm) was

recorded under P0 with no pinching. The increase in stem diameter due to

pinching could be attributed to promoted cell division, cell enlargement and

ultimately increased cell size of stem.

The interaction effects between spacing and pinching at 100 days after

transplanting showed significant difference. Maximum stem diameter (1.77 cm)

was observed with the treatment combination of S4P2 followed by S4P3, S2P3 and

S3P0, which was at par with S4P3. Whereas, the minimum stem diameter (1.28

cm) was recorded under S1P0.


The data on number of primary branches per plant are presented in Table 4.4 and


The results revealed that the number of primary branches significantly increased

due to spacing, pinching and their interaction effects.

Significantly higher number of primary branches per plant (13.71) was recorded

under S4 (40x60 cm) followed by S3 (40x50 cm) and S2 (40x40 cm). Whereas, the

minimum number of primary branches per plant (9.08) was recorded with closer

spacing of 40x30 cm (S1). The spacing treatments S3 and S4 were at par.

Remarkably higher number of primary branches per plant was noted in wider

spacing (S4 &S3) as compared to closer spacing (S1). This may be due to grater

availability of plant nutrients, water and better sunlight exposure under wider

45

spacing, which favours more lateral growth of plant. The results are in agreement

with the findings of Avari and Patel (1993) and Janakiram and Rao (1995).

It is apparent from the data (Table 4.4) that maximum number of primary

branches were recorded under P3 (13.15) followed by P2 (12.30) and P1 (11.61).

The minimum number of primary branches (8.77) was noted with no pinching

(P0). The pinching treatments P2 and P3 were at par.

The formation of primary branches per plant was also affected by different levels

of pinching. Maximum number of primary branches recorded under pinching at

40 DAT might have resulted due to enhanced cell division, increased cell size as

well as higher leaf area and thus greater photosynthesis activity.

The interaction effect between spacing and pinching revealed that significantly

higher number of primary branches per plant (17.34) was observed with S4P3

(40x60 cm spacing and pinching at 40 DAT) followed by S3P2,S3P3 and S4P2. The

treatment combinations S3P2 and S3P3 were at par. Whereas, the minimum

number (7.98) was noted in S3P0 (40x50 cm and no pinching).


The data on number of secondary branches per plant are presented in Table 4.4

and depicted in Fig. 4.4.

It is evident from the data that the number of secondary branches increased

significantly due to spacing, pinching and their combination effects.

In case of plant spacing, the maximum number of secondary branches plant-1

(43.80) was recorded under wider spacing of 40x60 cm (S4) followed by S3 and

46

S2. Minimum number of secondary branches (24.37) was noted under closer

spacing S1 (40x30 cm).

More number of secondary branches per plant recorded under wider spacing may

be due to fact that wider spacing provides a congenial growing condition like

more space available for growth of root and shoot and less competition for

nutrients among the plants. Another reason could be mentioned that higher

number of primary branches also yields more number of secondary branches.

Similar findings have also been reported by Avari and Patel (1981), Ravindran et

al. (1986) and Mukhopadhyay (1981).

The data on pinching treatments (Table 4.4) revealed that higher number of

secondary branches per plant (42.47) was recorded under P3 (pinching at 40

DAT) followed by P2 (pinching at 30 DAT) and P1 (pinching at 20 DAT). The

minimum number of secondary branches per plant (27.35) was recorded with no

pinching treatment (P0).The treatment combinations P2 and P3 were at par.

Marked increase in number of secondary branches per plant was noticed with

every pinching treatment. The possible reason for more number of secondary

branches per plant under different pinching treatments may be due to cell

elongation, which finally results in more number of secondary branches per plant.

The interaction effect between spacing and pinching revealed that significantly

more number of secondary branches per plant (49.75) was recorded with S4P3

followed by S3P3 S4P2, S3P2 and S2P3. Whereas, the minimum number of

secondary branches per plant (22.33) was found under the treatment S1P0. The

treatment combinations S4P3, S4P2, S3P3, S3P2 and S2P3 were at par.


47

The average fresh weight per plant (g) recorded at the time of final flower picking

is given in Table 4.5 and illustrated in Fig. 4.5.

The data revealed that fresh weight per plant was significantly affected by the

spacing and pinching treatments. The highest fresh weight per plant (321.55 g)

was observed with wider spacing of 40x60 cm (S4) which was found significantly

better than closer spacing treatments i.e., S3, S2 and S1 at final picking stage (100

DAT).

The highest fresh weight of plants with wider spacing might be due to higher

plant spread, more number of branches, leaves and increased girth of stem. The

present findings are in accordance with the report of Avari and Patel (1993).

In case of different pinching treatments, pinching at 40 DAT (P3) was found

significantly better than the rest of the pinching levels for increasing fresh weight

of plants, which was followed by pinching at 30 DAT (P2), 20DAT (P1) and no

pinching (P0), respectively at final observation. The maximum fresh weight of

plant was recorded under P3 (308.29 g), whereas the minimum fresh weight

(178.61 g) was observed under P0 (no pinching).

The maximum fresh weight per plant recorded under pinching at 40 DAT might

be due to enhanced vegetative growth of plants which resulted in more fresh

weight of the plants.

The interaction between spacing and pinching were found significant for this

attribute and a wider spacing of 40x60 cm with pinching at 30 DAT (S4P2)

produced highest fresh weight per plant (377.25 g) in comparison to other

treatment combinations. The minimum fresh weight (156.83 g) was observed

under S1P0 (spacing of 40x30 cm with no pinching).


48

The data on average dry weight per plant (g) recorded after final picking of

flowers are presented in Table 4.5 and illustrated in Fig. 4.5.

It is vivid from the data that dry weight per plant was significantly affected by

different spacing and pinching treatments. The highest dry weight per plant

(71.87 g) was observed at wider spacing of 40x60 cm (S4) which was found

significantly better than closer spacing of 40x30 cm (S1 ) at final picking stage

(100 DAT) of flowers.

The highest dry weight per plant with wider spacing might be due to higher plant

spread, more number of branches, leaves and increased girth of stem. These

observations are in agreement with the findings of Avari and Patel (1993).

In case of different pinching treatments, pinching at 40 DAT(P3) was found

significantly better than the other levels of pinching in increasing dry weight per

plant, followed by pinching at 30 DAT (P2), 20 DAT(P1) and no pinching (P0),

respectively at final observation. The maximum dry weight of plant was recorded

under P3 (65.07 g), whereas the minimum weight was observed under P0 (39.51

g).

The maximum dry weight per plant was recorded under pinching at 40 DAT

could be attributed to enhanced vegetative growth of the plants resulting in

increased dry weight per plant.

The interaction between spacing and pinching treatments were found significant

for dry weight of plants. However, a wider spacing of 40x60 cm with a

combination of pinching at 30 DAT (S4P2) produced highest dry weight per plant

(83.46 g) in comparison to other treatment combinations. The treatment

combinations S4P1 and S4P2 were at par.


49

The data on plant spread recorded at the time of final flower picking are

presented in Table 4.6 and depicted in Fig. 4.6.

The data showed that there was a significant difference in the plant spread due to

plant spacing and pinching treatments. The maximum spread was recorded at the

spacing of 40x60 cm under S4 (45.22 cm) followed by S3 (42.60 cm) and S2

(40.75 cm), whereas, the minimum spread was noted at the spacing of 40x30 cm

with S1 (34.11cm). The treatment combinations S2 and S3 were at par.

The present study revealed that the plant spread was more under wider spacing

that may be due to favourable growing conditions like more space available for

growth of roots and shoots, which ultimately helps in higher uptake of nutrients

and water from the soil. Similarly, more amount of sunshine was also available in

wider spacing that might have increased rate of photosynthesis and thereby

growth of plants. Similar views have also been expressed by Chanda and

Roychaudhury (1991), Ravindran et al. (1986), Janakiram and Rao (1995) and

Mukhopadhyay (1981).

Amongst the pinching, significantly maximum plant spread was observed in case

of P2 (46.65 cm) followed by P3 (42.96 cm) and P1 (41.13 cm). The minimum

plant spread (31.95 cm) was recorded with P0 (no pinching).

Significant increase in plant spread was recorded with pinching at 30 DAT. The

possible reason for more plant spread under different pinching treatments may be

due to cell elongation and pinching reduced the apical growth of stem, which

finally results in more number of secondary branches per plant.

The interaction between spacing and pinching were found to be significant for

this trait. Maximum plant spread was recorded with S4P2 (54.18 cm) followed by

50

S3P2, S4P3 and S2P3. The minimum plant spread (29.29 cm) was noted under S1P0.

The treatment combinations S4P2 and S3P2 were at par.

4.9 Bud size (cm)

The data on size of bud (cm) are presented in Table 4.7 and depicted in Fig. 4.7.

It apparent from the data that the bud size increased significantly due to various

spacing and pinching treatments.

Maximum size of bud (1.34 cm) was recorded with S4 (40x60 cm) followed by S2

(40x40 cm) and S3 (40x50 cm), while minimum size (1.23 cm) was noted under

S1 (40x30 cm). The spacing treatments S4 and S2 were at par.

The data on the effect of pinching revealed that maximum size of bud (1.35 cm)

was recorded with P2 (pinching at 30 DAT) followed by P3 (pinching at 40 DAT)

and P1 (pinching at 20 DAT). Whereas, minimum size (1.18 cm) was noted under

P0 (no pinching). The treatment combinations P2 and P3 were at par.

The interaction effects between spacing and pinching treatments were also found

significant for size of bud. However, a closer spacing (40x40 cm) with a

combination of pinching at 30 DAT (S2P2) produced maximum bud size (1.49

cm) in comparison to other treatment combinations. Whereas, minimum bud size

(1.09 cm) was noted under S1P0 (spacing of 40x30 cm with no pinching).


The data on pedicel length are presented in Table 4.7 and depicted in Fig. 4.8.

The data revealed that pedicel length was found non- significant under different

plant spacing as well as in the treatment combinations (SxP).

The data on the effect of pinching revealed that maximum length of pedicel (8.41

cm) was recorded with P2 (pinching at 30 DAT) followed by P1 (pinching at 20

DAT) and P3 (pinching at 40 DAT). Whereas, minimum pedicel length (6.79 cm)

51

was noted under Po (no pinching). The pinching treatments P2, P1 and P3 were at

par.

4.11 Days to first bud emergence

The mean value showing the influence of different spacing and pinching

treatments on the days taken to first bud emergence are presented in Table 4.8.

The days to first bud emergence were affected significantly by varying plant

spacing. However, wider spacing of 40x60 cm required more days (59.18) as

compared to closer spacing of 40x30 cm (S1). The plant spacing of 40x30 cm

required minimum period (51.25 days) for first bud emergence. The treatments

S4, S3 and S2 were at par. The closer spacing required minimum period for first

bud emergence. The present findings are in accordance with the report of Dhemro

et al. (1997).

It is evident from the data that there was a significant difference in the days to

first bud emergence due to pinching. Maximum number of days to first bud

emergence (60.12days) was required in case of P3 (pinching at 40 DAT) followed

by P2 (pinching at 30 DAT) and P1 (pinching at 20 DAT), while minimum (51.25

days) was noted under P0 (no pinching). The treatments P3 and P2 were at par.

The pinching took more days to first bud emergence and this might be due to

different vegetative growth pattern as a result of various pinching treatments

which prolonged vegetative growth and resulted in delayed onset of reproductive

phase.

The treatment combination of spacing and pinching showed significant effect in

days to first bud emergence. However, comparatively less time (49.50 days) was

required in the treatment combination of closer spacing (40x30 cm) with no

pinching (S1P0), while more period (64.00 days) was taken in wider spacing of

52

40x60 cm with pinching at 40 DAT (S4P3) for first bud emergence. The treatment

combinations S4P3, S4P2, S3P3 and S2P3 were at par.

4.12 Days to first flowering

The mean value showing the influence of different spacing and pinching

treatments on the days taken to first flowering are presented in Table 4.8.

The data showed that there was a significant difference in days to first flowering

due to plant spacing and pinching treatments. The treatment combinations (SxP)

were also found non-significant.

There was a significant difference in the days to first flowering due to spacing.

The maximum period (69.31 days) for first flowering was recorded under wider

spacing of 40x60 cm (S4) followed by S3 (40x50 cm) and S2 (40x40 cm), while

minimum period (60.00 days) for first flowering was required under closer

spacing of 40x30 cm (S1). The treatments of spacing S4, S3 and S2 were at par.

Similar findings have also been reported by Dhemro et al. (1997).

It is evident from the data that there was a significant difference in the days taken

to first flowering due to pinching. The total period from transplanting to first

flowering was comparatively less (60.68 days) in pinching treatment P0 (no

pinching). While, comparatively more (69.50 days) period for first flowering was

noted under P3 (pinching at 40 DAT) followed by P2 (pinching at 30 DAT) and P1

(pinching at 20 DAT). The treatments of pinching P3, P2 and P1 were at par.

Similar views have also been expressed by Srivastava et al. (2005).


The data pertaining to effect of various plant spacing and pinching on period of

bloom are presented in Table 4.9.

53

The data showed that the period of bloom was significantly influenced by plant

spacing and pinching treatments. The treatment combinations (SxP) were found

to be non-significant.

It is evident from the data that the maximum duration of bloom (95.75 days) was

recorded under S4 (40x60 cm) followed by S3 (40x50 cm) and S2 (40x40 cm).

While, minimum duration of bloom (80.25 days) was recorded under S1 (40x30

cm). The treatments of spacing S4, S3 and S2 were at par.

The long period of bloom recorded under wider spacing may be due to fact that

wider spacing provides a congenial growing condition like more availability of

nutrients, sun light and soil moisture to individual plant, which increased the

duration of bloom.

In case of different pinching treatments, the maximum duration of bloom (97.81

days) was recorded under P3 (pinching at 40 DAT) followed by P2 (pinching at

30 DAT) and P1 (pinching at 20 DAT). The minimum duration of bloom (82.06

days) was recorded under P0 (no pinching). The treatments of pinching P3 and P2

were at par.

The possible reason for long period of bloom under different pinching treatments

may be due to the fact that after removal of apical portion of the plant, the plant

enters into the vegetative phase and the new shoots took longer time to get

physiological maturity, thereby resulting longest duration of flowering. The

present findings are in agreement with the report of Srivastava et al. (2005).

The interaction effects between plant spacing and pinching treatments were found

non-significant for this character.

4.14 Number of days taken for 50 per cent flowering

54

The data pertaining to effect of various spacing and pinching on number of days

taken for 50 per cent flowering are presented in Table 4.9.

The data revealed that number of days taken for 50 per cent flowering was

significantly affected by the pinching treatments. Different plant spacing and the

interaction effects (SxP) were found to be non-significant.

It was observed from the data (Table 4.9) that there was a significant difference

in the days taken for 50 per cent flowering due to pinching treatments. The

maximum number of days taken for 50 per cent flowering (79.68 days) was

observed under P3 (pinching at 40 DAT) followed by P2 (pinching at 30 DAT)

and P1 (pinching at 20 DAT). While, the minimum number of days taken for 50

per cent flowering (66.43) was found under P0 (no pinching). The treatments of

pinching P3 and P2 were at par.

Marked increase in days taken for 50 per cent flowering was noticed with every

pinching treatment. The possible reason for maximum days taken for 50 per cent

flowering under different pinching treatments may be due to fact that new shoots

which emerged after pinching took more time to become physiologically mature

to bear flowers. The present findings are in accordance with the report of

Sehrawat et al. (2003).


The data with respect to effect of different spacing and pinching treatments on

flower size recorded periodically are presented in Table 4.10.

It is obvious from the data that the diameter of flower was found non- significant

under different spacing treatments. However, pinching and the treatment

combinations significantly influenced the flower diameter.

55

It was observed under different pinching treatments that larger size of flower

(7.44 cm) was recorded under P2 (pinching at 30 DAT) followed by P3 (pinching

at 40 DAT) and P1 (pinching at 20 DAT). Smaller size of flower (6.12 cm) was

observed under P0 (no pinching). The treatments of pinching P2 and P3 were at

par.

The interaction effects between plant spacing and pinching showed significant

difference for this character. However, larger flower size (8.52 cm) was recorded

with S4P3 (spacing 40x60 cm with pinching at 40 DAT), closely followed by S4P2

(spacing 40x60 cm with pinching at 30 DAT). While, the smaller size of flower

(5.83 cm) was obtained under S4P0 (spacing 40x60 cm with no pinching). The

treatment combinations of S4P3 and S4P2 were at par.


The data on weight of individual flower recorded after picking of flowers are

presented in Table 4.10.

It is apparent from the data that weight of individual flower was significantly

affected by the different spacing, pinching and their combined effects.

The maximum flower weight (11.58 g) was recorded under S4 (40x60 cm)

followed by S3 (40x50 cm) and S2 (40x40 cm). While, minimum flower weight

(7.94 g) was observed under S1 (40x30 cm).

This may be due to favorable conditions, like availability of nutrients, sun light

and soil moisture to individual plant at wider spacing, which ultimately increased

the weight of flowers. Samantaray et al. (1999) have also reported similar results.

It is clear from the data that the maximum flower weight (10.14 g) was recorded

under P2 (pinching at 30 DAT) followed by P3 (pinching at 40 DAT) and P0 (no

56

pinching). The minimum weight of flower (9.15 g) was noted with P1 (pinching

at 20 DAT). The treatments of pinching P3 and P2 were at par.

The interaction effects between plant spacing and pinching were found to be

significant for this character. However, maximum weight of flower (12.84 g) was

recorded with S4P0, closely followed by S4P2 (spacing 40x 60 cm with pinching

at 30 DAT). While, the minimum weight of flower (7.40 g) was obtained under

S1P0 (spacing 40x30 cm with no pinching).

4.17 Flower yield per plant (g)

The data on flower yield per plant under various spacing and pinching treatments

are presented in Table 4.11 and illustrated in Fig. 4.10.

It is vivid from the data that wider spacing of 40x60 cm (S4) produced

significantly maximum flower yield per plant (248.08 g) followed by the spacing

of 40x50 cm (S3) and 40x40 cm (S2). While minimum flower yield (149.52 g)

was recorded under closer spacing of 40x30 cm (S1). The treatments S4 and S3

were at par. Similar results were also reported by Chanda and Roychoudhury

(1991).

Amongst the various pinching treatments, pinching at 30 DAT (P2) was found

significantly superior in producing higher flower yield per plant (269.57 g) than

the other pinching treatments. Lowest flower yield per plant (130.52 g) was

recorded under no pinching (P0). The treatments of pinching P3 and P2 were at

par.

The interaction effects between plant spacing and pinching treatments were also

found to be significant for this attribute. Maximum flower yield per plant (301.52

g) was recorded in S3P3, which was followed by the treatment combinations S3P2,

S4P2, S4P3, S2P3 and S2P2. Minimum flower yield per plant (112.90 g) was

57

recorded in S1P0. The treatment combinations S3P2, S4P2, S4P3, S2P3, S2P2 and

S4P1 were at par with S3P3.

4.18 Number of Flowers per plant

The data pertaining to effect of various spacing and pinching on number of

flowers plant-1

are presented in Table 4.11 and illustrated in Fig. 4.9.

It is vivid from the data that number of flower plant-1

was significantly influenced

by plant spacing and pinching treatments. The interaction effects (SxP) were

found non-significant.

Maximum number of flowers per plant (55.12) was obtained under S4 (40x60 cm)

followed by S3 (40x50 cm) treatment, while, minimum number of flowers per

plant (39.32) was recorded under S1 (40x30 cm). The spacing treatments S4 and

S3 were at par.

The increase in number of flowers with wider spacing may be due to production

of more number of primary and secondary branches per plant which ultimately

produced more number of flowers per plant. The present findings are in

accordance with the report of Chanda and Roychoudhary (1991) and Yadav et al.

(2004).

The treatments of pinching also increased the number of flowers per plant.

Maximum number of flowers per plant (53.62) were recorded under P3 (pinching

at 40 DAT) followed by P2 (pinching at 30 DAT) and P1 (pinching at 20 DAT),

which was at par with the treatment P2. While, minimum number of flowers per

plant (42.30) was recorded under P0 (no pinching).

The interaction effects between spacing and pinching (SxP) were found non-

significant for this attribute.

4.19 Flower yield per plot

58

The data on flower yield plot-1

as influenced by different spacing and pinching

treatments are presented in Table 4.12 and illustrated in Fig. 4.11.

The data showed that flower yield plot-1

was significantly influenced by the plant

spacing, pinching and also their interaction effects.

It is apparent from the data that the maximum flower yield per plot (24.98 kg)

was obtained under S3 (40x50 cm) which was closely followed by S4 (40x60 cm)

treatment. While, minimum flower yield per plot (16.97 kg) was obtained under

S1 (40x30 cm). The treatments S4 (40x60 cm) S2 (40x40 cm) were at par with S3

(40x50 cm).

The maximum flower yield per plot obtained with wider spacing may be due to

greater availability of plant nutrients, water and better sunlight exposure under

wider spacing, which favours for more flower production. Similar views have

also been expressed by Yadav et al. (2004).

The pinching treatments also increased the flower yield per plot. Maximum

flower yield per plot (26.45 kg) were recorded under P2 (pinching at 30 DAT)

followed by P3 (pinching at 40 DAT) and P1 (pinching at 20 DAT). Whereas,

minimum flower yield per plot (13.31 kg) was recorded under P0 (no pinching).

The increase in yield of flowers under pinching treatments may be due to the fact

that pinching checked the apical dominance and diverted extra metabolites into

the production of more number of flowers. The present findings are in conformity

with the report of Sharma et al. (2006).

The interaction between plant spacing and pinching was found significant for this

character. However, maximum flower yield plot-1

(32.17 kg) was recorded with

S3P3 which was closely followed by S2P3 (28.55 kg). While, the minimum flower

yield plot-1

(12.51 kg) was obtained under S1P0 combination.

59

4.20 Flower yield per ha

The flower yield per ha recorded under different treatments are presented in

Table 4.12 and illustrated in Fig. 4.12.

The data revealed that flower yield ha-1

was significantly influenced by the plant

spacing, pinching and also their interaction effects.

The maximum flower yield ha-1

(208.24 q) was recorded under wider spacing S3

(40x50 cm) followed by S4 (40x60 cm) and S2 (40x40 cm). While, minimum

flower yield ha-1

(141.45 q) was observed under S1 (40x30 cm). Maximum flower

yield per unit area may be due to favorable conditions, like availability of plant

nutrients, sunlight and soil moisture to individual plant at wider spacing, which

increased the weight of flowers and ultimately flower yield. Similar results have

also been reported by Patil and Kale (1992).

It was observed that under different pinching treatments, maximum flower yield

ha-1

(220.48 q) was recorded under P2 (pinching at 30 DAT) followed by P3

(pinching at 40 DAT) and P1 (pinching at 20 DAT). Minimum flower yield ha-1

(110.93 q) was observed under P0 (no pinching). Similar results were also

reported by Khandelwal et al. (2003).

The interaction between plant spacing and pinching was found significant for this

character. However, maximum flower yield ha-1

(268.10 q) was recorded with

S3P3 which was closely followed by S2P3 (237.98 q). While, the minimum flower

yield ha-1

(104.3 q) was obtained under S1P0 combination.


The data on vase life of cut flowers are presented in Table 4.13.It was observed

that the vase life of cut flowers was significantly influenced by the pinching

60

treatments. The plant spacing and the interaction effects (SxP) were found non-

significant.

The data showed that the maximum vase life of cut flower (7.18 days) was

observed in P3 (pinching at 40 DAT), followed by P2 (pinching at 30 DAT) and

P1 (pinching at 20 DAT). However, minimum vase life of cut flowers (5.42 days)

was observed under P0 (no pinching). The treatments of pinching P3 and P2 were

at par.

The significant increase in vase life of flowers may be due to the effect of

pinching that helped in improving the lusture and keeping quality of flower. The

pinching accelerates most of the physiological attributes, which results in

increased cell division and cell elongation. The cell enlargement occurs as a

result of plasticity of cell wall. This reduces the wall pressure around the cell wall

and turgor pressure caused by osmotic forces in the vascular sap which lead to

entry of water into the cell resulting in cell enlargement and thereby enhancing

the vase life of flowers.


The simple correlation coefficient of different morphological characters and

yield-contributing attributes were calculated with flower yield per plant and the

data are presented in Table 4.14.

It is vivid from the data that characters viz., stem diameter, number of primary

branches plant-1

, number of secondary branches plant-1

, plant spread, flower

diameter, fresh and dry weight plant-1

and number of flowers plant-1

had positive

and also highly significant correlation with flower yield plant-1

. Number of leaves

plant-1

, plant height also had positive correlation but these attributes except plant

height, showed significant correlation with flower yield plant-1

. However, the

61

highest value of the coefficient of correlation (0.8789) was calculated for plant

spread followed by number of secondary branches per plant (0.8904), fresh

weight of plant-1

(0.8789),number of flowers plant-1

(0.8534), dry weight of plant-

1(0.8422), number of primary branches plant

-1, flower size (0.7171), number of

leaves plant-1

and stem diameter(0.4965), whereas the lowest value of the

coefficient of correlation was calculated with plant height (0.2824).

4.23 Economics

The data presented in Table 4.15 showed the levels of investments and returns

per hectare of different treatment combinations between different plant spacing

and pinching. In this study, investment refers to the cash expenses paid for raising

marigold flower, whereas returns denote the value of the product calculated with

the help of its market value. The data revealed that the cost of flower production

ranged from Rs 46069.00 in case of S4P0 (40x60 cm spacing with no pinching) to

Rs.52876.00 in case of S1P1, S1P2 and S1P3.

The highest gross return of Rs. 214480.00 was found in S3P3 (40x50 cm spacing

with pinching at 40 DAT) followed by S2P3 (Rs190384.00), whereas the lowest

(Rs. 78624.00) in case of S2P0. Thus, it can be calculated that the highest net

profit was obtained under S3P3 followed by S2P3. The highest benefit-cost ratio

was calculated in S3P3 (3.48) followed by S3P2 (2.97). So, the treatment

combination S3P3 (40x50 cm spacing with pinching at 40 days after

transplanting) proved to be the most beneficial.

62

CHAPTER – V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

FOR FUTURE WORK

The present investigation entitled “Effect of different plant spacing and pinching

on growth, yield and flower quality of Marigold (Tagetes erecta L.)” was

conducted at Precision Farming Development Center, Department of

Horticulture, College of Agriculture, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya,

Raipur (C.G.) during the year 2006-07 in winter season. The experiment was

undertaken with four treatments of plant spacing i.e., S1 (40x30 cm), S2 (40x40

cm), S3 (40x50 cm) and S4 (40x60 cm) and employing four pinching treatments

viz., P0 (no pinching), P1 (pinching at 20 DAT), P2 (pinching at 30 DAT) and P3

(pinching at 40 DAT).Thus, there were sixteen treatment combinations, which

were replicated four times. Total numbers of plots were sixty four. The

experiment was laid out in factorial randomized block design.

During the course of study, the observations were recorded on growth characters

viz., plant height, number of leaves per plant, stem diameter, plant spread,

number of primary and secondary branches per plant and fresh and dry weight of

plant. As regards flowering and yield, observations on size of bud, days to first

bud emergence, days to first flowering, length of pedicel, flower size, weight of

individual flower, period of bloom, number of days taken for 50% flowering,

number of flowers per plant, flower yield per plant and per plot as well as yield

per ha were recorded. With respect to quality of flowers, vase life of cut flowers

was also calculated.

63

The correlation of flower yield per plant with plant height, number of leaves per

plant, number of primary and secondary branches per plant, stem diameter, plant

spread, fresh and dry weight per plant were studied.

While suggesting the best combination of spacing and pinching, the economics of

flower production was duly considered.

The results of the investigation are summarized as follows:

1. The peak period of growth in terms of plant height was recorded

between 20 to 80 days after transplanting. The treatment of spacing S3

(40x50 cm) and pinching P3 (pinching at 40 DAT) gave significantly

taller plants. However, the interaction between spacing and pinching

(S3P2) gave maximum plant height.

2. More number of leaves per plant were found under wider spacing

treatment S4 (40x60cm) and pinching P3 (pinching at 40 DAT) and

their interaction (S4P3) had also significant effect on this trait.

3. Maximum stem diameter was found under wider spacing treatment S4

(40x60 cm) and pinching P3 (pinching at 40 DAT), but the treatment

combination S4P2 caused maximum stem diameter.

4. The treatment of wider spacing i.e., S4 (40x60 cm) and pinching P3

(pinching at 40 DAT) as well as their interaction (S4P3) gave the

maximum number of primary and secondary branches per plant.

5. The highest spread of plants was recorded under wider spacing

treatment S4 (40x60 cm) and pinching P2 (pinching at 30 DAT) and

with their treatment combination S4P2 (spacing 40x60 cm and

pinching at 30 DAT).

64

6. The wider spacing S4 (40x60 cm) and pinching P3 (pinching at 40

DAT) and the interaction between spacing and pinching S4P2 resulted

the maximum fresh and dry weight per plant.

7. The maximum bud size was recorded under wider spacing S4 (40x60

cm), pinching P2 (pinching at 30 DAT) and with the treatment

combination S2P2 (spacing 40x40 cm and pinching at 30 DAT).

8. The days to first bud emergence were significantly affected by

different spacing, pinching and also their interaction (SxP). Less time

was taken to first bud emergence (51.25 & 51.25 days, respectively)

under the treatments S1 (40x30 cm) and P0 (no pinching) and their

interaction (S1P0) had also significant effect on this trait.

9. The days to first flowering were significantly affected by different

spacing and pinching treatments. Less time was taken to first

flowering (60.00 & 60.68 days, respectively) under the treatments S1

(40x30 cm) and P0 (no pinching). But, the interaction (SxP) had non-

significant effect on this trait.

10. The maximum flower diameter was recorded under pinching

treatment P2 (pinching at 30 DAT) and the treatment combination

S4P3. However, the effect of spacing was found to be non-significant.

11. The pedicel length was neither affected by the treatments of spacing

nor by their interaction (SxP). The pinching treatment P2 (pinching at

30 DAT) produced the maximum length of pedicel.

12. The maximum period of bloom was recorded under wider spacing S4

(40x60 cm) and pinching P3 (pinching at 40 DAT). The treatment

combination (SxP) had no effect on period of bloom.

65

13. The maximum days taken for 50% flowering were recorded under

pinching treatment P3 (pinching at 40 DAT). The treatment

combinations (SXP) and spacing had no significant effect on days

taken for 50% flowering.

14. The maximum weight of individual flower was recorded under wider

spacing S4 (40x60 cm), pinching P2 (pinching at 30 DAT) and with

the treatment combination (S4P0).

15. The maximum number of flowers plant-1

was recorded under wider

spacing S4 (40x60 cm) and pinching P3 (pinching at 40 DAT). The

treatment combinations were found to be non-significant for this

character.

16. The maximum flower yield plant-1

was recorded under wider spacing

S4 (40x60 cm), pinching P2 (pinching at 30 DAT) and with the

treatment combination S3P3 (spacing 40x50 cm and pinching at 40

DAT).

17. The maximum flower yield plot-1

was recorded under wider spacing

S3 (40x50 cm) and pinching P2 (pinching at 30 DAT) and with the

treatment combination S3P3 (spacing 40x50 cm and pinching at 40

DAT).

18. The maximum flower yield ha-1

was recorded under wider spacing S3

(40x50 cm), pinching P2 (pinching at 30 DAT) and with the treatment

combination S3P3 (spacing 40x50 cm and pinching at 40 DAT).

19. The maximum vase life of cut flowers was recorded under pinching

treatment P3 (pinching at 40 DAT). The effect of treatment

combinations (SxP) and spacings were found non-significant.

66

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of results obtained from the present investigation, it may be

concluded that:

1. The wider spacing of 40x60 cm was found to be superior for the

growth, yield and quality of marigold.

2. The maximum flower yield per plant and enhanced flower quality of

marigold was observed under pinching at 40 days after transplanting.

It also resulted in ideal growth of the plants.

3. Highest flower yield per unit area was obtained under wider spacing

(40x50 cm) with a combination of pinching at 40 days after

transplanting, it also proved to be economically profitable in respect

of net benefit-cost ratio.

SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE WORK

Based on the results obtained and the experiences gained from the present study,

following suggestions are given for future line of work:

1. The experiment may be repeated to confirm the results of the present

study.

2. The effect of other factors on marigold flower production like date of

planting, drip irrigation, fertigation, fertilizer (N, P &K) application may

be studied in coming years.

3. Study on seed production of marigold may also be undertaken.

67

4. The experiments on the effect of plant growth regulators on flower

production of marigold may also be conducted.

5. The studies on spacing and pinching may also be carried out for

improved varieties and F1 hybrids of marigold.

6. The experiment may be carried out in other seasons on various soil

types under agro-climatic condition of Chhattisgarh region to see the

effect of varying locations and weather conditions.

68

“EFFECT OF DIFFERENT PLANT SPACING AND PINCHING ON

GROWTH, YIELD AND FLOWER QUALITY OF MARIGOLD

(TAGETES ERECTA L.)”

By


ABSTRACT

The present investigation was carried out at Precision Farming Development Center,

Department of Horticulture, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur (C.G.)

during winter season of the year 2006-07. The experiment was laid out in

Randomized Block Design (Factorial) with four replications comprising sixteen

treatment combinations of four plant spacing (40x30 cm, 40x40 cm, 40x50 cm and

40x60 cm) and four pinching levels (no pinching, pinching at 20 DAT, pinching at

30 DAT and pinching at 40 DAT).

The result indicated that the important growth characters were significantly

influenced by different plant spacing and pinching treatments tried under this

investigation. Plant height was found to be significantly more under the spacing of

40x50 cm and pinching at 40 DAT. The combination of spacing and pinching was

found most superior for height of the plant. Rest of the growth parameters viz.,

number of branches, plant spread, fresh and dry weight of plant, number of leaves per

plant and stem diameter also showed superior performance under wider spacing

(40x60 cm) and pinching at 40 DAT. The combination of wider spacing and pinching

at 40 DAT was found to be superior for these traits. The pinching treatments had

significant effect on flower diameter, pedicel length, days taken for 50% flowering

and vase life of cut flowers.

As regards flower yield and quality parameters, wider spacing was found to be

superior. Similarly among pinching treatments, pinching at 40 DAT was found

significantly superior for these traits. The interaction effect of spacing and pinching

was also found effective for these parameters. The maximum number of flowers per

plant was found at wider spacing of 40x60 cm with a combination of pinching at 40

DAT and the maximum weight of individual flower was found at wider spacing of

40x60 cm with no pinching. But the highest flower yield per plant, flower yield per

plot and per unit area (268.10 q/ha) was found in combination of wider spacing

(40x50 cm) with pinching at 40 DAT, which also proved to be the most economical

followed by the spacing of 40x40 cm with combination of pinching at 40 days after

transplanting. The characters like plant height, number of leaves per plant, number of

primary and secondary branches per plant, plant spread, fresh and dry weight per

plant, flower size and number of flowers per plant had positive correlation with

flower yield per plant. On the basis of economics of the experimental data, the

treatment combination S3P3 (40x50 cm spacing with pinching at 40 days after

transplanting) gave maximum net return and hence proved to be the most beneficial

for flower production of marigold.

Department of Horticulture (Dr. S.N. Dikshit)

College of Agriculture Major Advisor & Chairman

I.G.K.V., Raipur (C.G.) Advisory Committee

69

REFERENCES

Anonymous. 2003. Database, National Horticulture Board. pp. 395.

Arora, J.S. and Khanna, K. 1986. Effect of nitrogen and pinching on growth and

flower production of marigold (Tagetes erecta L.). Indian J. Hort., 43 (3): 291-

294.

*Avari, R.F. and Patel, B.M. 1993. Effect of spacing and nitrogen levels on

growth and yield of marigold (Tagetes erecta L.) Ibid. pp. 137-138.

Arora, J.S. and Khanna K. 1989. Effect of spacing on height, flower and seed

yield of T. patula cv. Red Brocade. Commercial flowers (Bose, T.K. and Yadav,

L.P. ed), Naya Prokash, Calcutta. pp. 380-383.

Belorkar, P.V., Patil, B.N., Golliwar, V.J. and Kathare, A.J. 1992. Effect of

nitrogen levels and spacing on growth, flowering and yield of African marigold

(Tagetes erecta L.). Journal of soils and crops, 2 (1): 62-64.

Bhati, R.S. and Chitkara, S.D. 1987. Effect of pinching and planting distance on

the growth and yield of marigold (Tagetes erecta L.). Research and Development

Reporter, 4 (2): 159-164. (c.f. CAB Abstract).

*Black, C.A. 1965. Method of Soil Analysis. Amer. Agron. Inc., Madison.

Wisconsin, USA. pp. 131-137.

Chanda, S. and Roychoudhury, N. 1991. Effect of time of planting and spacing

on growth, flowering and yield of African marigold (Tagetes erecta L.) cv.

Siracole. Horticultural Journal, 4 (2): 53-56.

Dhemro, J.K., Shirsath, N.S. and Naphade, A.S. 1997. Effect of different plant

densities and seasons on flowering of China aster. Journal of Soils and Crops,

7(2): 136-138.

70

Dixit, Amit. 2004. Effect of plant spacing and nitrogen on growth, flowering and

yield of annual chrysanthemum cv. Local White. Orissa J. Hort., 32 (2): 55-56.

Gowda, J.V.N. and Jayanthi, R. 1986. Studies on the effect of spacing and season

of planting on growth and yield of marigold (Tagetes erecta L.). South

Indian Hort., 34 (3): 198-203.

Janakiram, T. and Rao, T.M. 1995. Effect of plant density on genetic parameters

in African marigold. Indian J. Hort., 52 (4): 309-312.

Jadhav, V.M., Patil, M.T., Gaikwad, A.M. and Mote, P.U. 2002. Effect of plant

densities and nitrogen levels on flowering and yield characters of marigold.

Floriculture research trend in India Proc. National Symposium on Indian

floriculture in the new millennium, Lal Bagh, Bangalore, 25-27 Feb. pp. 332-333.

(c.f. CAB Abstract).

Joshi, A.S. and Barad, A.V. 2002. Effect of N,P and pinching on the nutrient

composition and uptake by African marigold. Floriculture research trend in

India Proc. National Symposium on Indian floriculture in the new millennium,

Lal Bagh, Bangalore, 25-27 Feb. pp. 334-335. (c.f. CAB Abstract).

*Jackson, M.L. 1973. Soil chemical analysis. Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd.,

New Delhi. pp. 42-48.

Karuppaiah, P. and Krishna, G. 2005. Response of spacing and nitrogen levels on

growth, flowering and yield characters of French marigold (Tagetes erecta L.).

Journal of Ornamental Horticulture, 8 (2): 96-99.

Khandelwal, S.K., Jain, N.K. and Singh, P. 2003. Effect of growth retardants and

pinching on growth and yield of African marigold (Tagetes erecta L.). Journal of

Ornamental Horticulture, 6 (3):271-273.

71

Kumar,Ramesh, Singh Kartar and Reddy, B.S. 2002. Effect of planting time,

photoperiod, GA3 and pinching on carnation. Journal of Ornamental

Horticulture, 5 (3):271-273.

Mohanty, C.R., Behera, T.K. and Samantaray, D. 1993. Effect of planting density

and planting time on growth and flowering in African marigold (Tagetes erecta

L.) Journal of Ornamental Hort., 1 (2): 55-60.

Mohanty, C.R., Behera, T.K. and Samantaray, D. 1997. Effect of planting time

and spacing on growth and flower yield of marigold (Tagetes erecta L.) cv.

African Yellow. South Indian Hort., 45 (1/2): 41-44.

Natarajan, K. and Vijyakumar, A. 2002. Effect of fertilizer and spacing on seed

yield and quality in marigold cv. African Giant. Advances in plant science, 15

(2): 525-532.

Naik Hemla B., Patil, A.A., Patil, V.S., Basavaraj, N. and Heremath, S.M. 2004.

Effect of Pinching and chemicals on xanthophyll yield in African marigold

(Tagetes erecta L.).Journal of Ornamental Horticulture, 7(3-4): 182-190.

*Olsen, S.R. 1954. Estimation of available phosphorus in soils by extraction with

sodium bi-carbonate. USDA circ. No. 939: 1-19.

Patil, M.T. and Kale, P.N. 1992. Effect of different plant densities on growth,

yield and keeping quality of marigold (Tagetes erecta L.). Maharashtra J. Hort.,

6(1): 83-84.

Pathania, N.S., Sehgal, O.P. and Gupta Y.C. 2000. Pinching for flower regulating

in sim carnation. Journal of Ornamental Hort., 3 (2): 114-117.

*Piper, C.S. 1967. Soil and Plant Analysis. Asia Publishing House, New Delhi.

pp. 30-38.

72

Ravindran, D.V.L., Rao, R.R. and Reddy, E.N. 1986. Effect of spacing and

nitrogen levels on growth, flowering and yield of African marigold (Tagetes

erecta L.). South Indian Hort., 34 (5): 320-323.

Raghava, S.P.S. 1998. New Marigolds. Indian Horticulture, July-Sept. pp.31-32.

Rakesh, Singhrot, R.S., Beniwal, B.S. and Moond, S.K. (2004). Effect of GA3

and pinching on quality and yield of flowers in chrysanthemum. Haryana J. Hort.

Sci., 33(3&4): 224-226.

Samantaray, D., Mohanty, C.R. and Behera, T.K. 1999. Effect of planting time

and spacing on growth and flower yield of marigold (Tagetes erecta L.) cv.

African Yellow. Indian J. Hort., 56(4): 382-385.

Sehrawat, S.K., Dahiya, D.S., Singh, S. and Rana, G.S. 2003. Effect of nitrogen

and pinching on growth, flowering and yield of marigold (Tagetes erecta L.) cv.

African Giant Double Orange. Haryana J. Hort. Sci., 32(1&2): 59-61.

Sharma, D.P., Patel, M., and Gupta, N. 2006. Influence of nitrogen, phosphorus

and pinching on vegetative growth and floral attributes in African marigold

(Tagetes erecta L.). Journal of Ornamental Horticulture, 9 (1): 25-28.

Sreekanth, P., Padma, M., Chandrasekhar, R. and Madhulety, T.Y. 2006. Effect

of planting time, spacing and nitrogen levels on yield and quality of African

marigold (Tagetes erecta Linn.). Journal of Ornamental Horticulture, 9(2): 97-

101.

Srivastava, S.K., Singh, H.K. and Srivastava, A.K. 2002. Effect of spacing and

pinching on growth and flowering of Pusa Narangi gainda marigold (Tagetes

erecta L.)Indian J. agricultural Sciences, 72(10): 611-612.

73

Srivastava, S.K., Singh, H.K. and Srivastava, A.K. 2005. Spacing and pinching as

factors for regulating flowering in marigold cv. Pusa Basanti gainda. Haryana J.

Hort. Sci., 34(1-2): 75-77.

Singh, Jaswinder and Arora, J.S. 1980. Effect of spacing and pinching on growth

and flower production of marigold (Tagetes erecta L.) c.v African Giant Double

Orange. Proc. Nat. Sem. Prodn. Tech. comm. flower crops, Tamil Nadu

Agriculture University. Coimbatore, pp. 85-87. (c.f. CAB Abstract).

Singh, V., Sood, R.P., Singh, B. and Kaul, V.K. 1995. African Marigold.

Advances in Horticulture vol. II. pp. 789-793.

*Singh, J. and Arora, J.S. 1988. Effect of planting times and spacing on growth,

flower and seed production of marigold cv. “African Giant Double Orange”. The

Punjab Veg. Gr., 23: 41-44.

*Singh, R., Dhankhar, D.S. and Rana, J.S. 1998. Be merry with marigold. Indian

Farmers Digest, Vol. No. XXXI, No.6: 11-12.

Singh, A.K., Singh, V.B. and Bijimol, G. 1999. Production Technology of

marigold in commercial ventures. Farmer and Parliament, vol. No. XXXVI, No.

6: 13-14.

*Steiner, G. 1941. Proc. Biol. Soc., Washington, 54: 31-34.

*Subhiah, B.V. and Asija, G.L. 1956. A rapid method for the estimation of

nitrogen in soils. Current science, 26: 259-260.

Tomar, B.S., Singh, B., Negi, H.C.S. and Singh, K.K. 2004. Effect of pinching on

seed yield and quality traits in African marigold. Journal of Ornamental

Horticulture, 7(1): 124-126.

Tyler, J. 1938. Plant Dis. Reptr. Supp., 109: 133-151.(c.f. Commercial flowers,

Bose, T.K. and Yadav, L.P. ed).

74

Yadav, L.P. and Bose, T.K. 1988. Influence of planting time and plant density on

growth, flowering and seed yield in marigold. Bangladesh-Horticulture, 16: 17-

21. (c.f. CAB Absract).

Yadav, R.M., Dubey, P. and Asati, B.S.2004. Effect of spacing and nitrogen

levels on growth, flowering and flower yield of marigold (Tagetes erecta L.).

Orissa J. Hort., 32 (1): 41-45.

*Original not seen.

c.f. (cited from)

76

Appendix I: Weekly meteorological observations during crop growth period of marigold (Sept., 2006 – Feb., 2007 Kharif and Rabi

season)

Temperature

ºC

Rainfall

(mm)

Relative Humidity

(%)

Vapour pressure

(mm)

Wind

Velocity

(kmph)

Evaporation

(mm)

Sunshine

(hour)

Weak no.

Max.

temp

ºC

Min.

temp

ºC

Morning

(1)

Evening

(I1)

1 11

Sept.,2006 38 30.9 24.4 11.6 90 70 22.4 22.6 6.6 3.8 6.7

39 31.5 23.1 34 90 64 21 21 4.2 4.1 7.7

Oct.,2006 40 31.8 23.7 5.9 94 63 23 22.1 4.4 3.5 7.7

41 33.7 23 0 91 43 21.1 16 2 3.9 8.6

42 33.3 20.8 0 93 46 19.2 16.8 2.4 4.1 9

43 31.3 18.8 0 90 47 16.7 14.9 2.5 4 9.3

44 27.8 20.8 1.6 93 65 18.5 17.4 3.6 2.3 2.8

Nov.,2006 45 29.6 18.3 0 92 43 15.9 13 2.7 3.1 5.6

46 29.4 14.6 0 91 35 13.2 10.7 2.6 3.4 9

47 31 15.2 0 89 31 13.2 10.1 2.1 3.3 8.4

48 30.7 18 0 87 41 14.8 13.1 2.3 3.5 7.2

Dec.,2006 49 30.8 15 0 88 32 12.5 10.3 1.9 3.4 8.3

50 29.4 12.2 0 88 29 10.5 8.5 2.2 3.3 8.5

51 26.9 10.6 0 90 35 9.4 8.8 2.4 3.1 8.1

52 28.1 11.9 0 88 36 10 9.8 2.2 2.7 8.1

Jan.,2007 1 26.7 9.6 0 88 30 8. 8 7.6 2.6 3.1 8.5

3 28.8 10.6 0 89 32 9. 3 9.1 2 3 8.3

3 28.4 11.5 0 83 30 9.2 8.4 2.5 3.4 7.5

4 29.4 10.4 0 83 22 8.5 6.6 2.2 3.8 9

5 31.6 15.6 0 80 32 11.5 10.5 2.2 3.9 7.1

Feb., 2007 6 31.3 16.4 0 85 37 12.8 12 4.5 4.6 7.6

7 37.6 15 22.4 87 43 12.2 10.9 4.2 4 8.2

8 30.4 13 0 81 21 10.3 6.9 2.9 4.9 10.2

78

Appendix-II Cost of cultivation of marigold

S.

No.

Particulars Inputs Rate Total cost

(Rs/ha)

1. Land Preparation

i. Ploughing (once) 1 Tractor

for 4 hrs

Rs. 300.00 hr-1

1200.00

ii. Harrowing (once) For 3 hrs Rs. 300.00 hr-1

900.00

iii. Rotavator (once) For 3 hrs Rs. 300.00 hr-1

900.00

iv. Levelling / Pata (once) For 2 hrs Rs. 300.00 hr-1

600.00

v. Preparation of field for

nursery bed

For 1 hrs Rs. 300.00 hr-1

300.00

2. Labour charges No. of labours

i. Preparation of nursery

bed 5

Rs. 80 day-1

400.00

ii. Nursery operations like

sowing, covering of

seed, irrigation, hoeing

and spraying of

fungicide

10

Rs. 80 day-1

800.00

iii. Preparation of plots,

bunds and irrigation

channel

35

Rs. 80 day-1

2800.00

iv. Transplanting

S1 50 Rs. 80 day-1

4000.00

S2 40 Rs. 80 day-1

3200.00

S3 32 Rs. 80 day-1

2560.00

S4 25 Rs. 80 day-1

2000.00

v. Irrigation 16 Rs. 80 day-1

1280.00

vi. Plant protection 8 Rs. 80 day-1

640.00

vii. Spreading of FYM and

basal application of

fertilizer

6

Rs. 80 day-1

480.00

viii. Application of fertilizer

as top dressing 2

Rs. 80 day-1

160.00

ix. Weeding & interculture

(2 times)

I

II

55

55

Rs. 80 day-1

4400.00

4400.00

x. Pinching

P0 0

- -

P1 8 Rs. 80 day-1

640.00

P2 8 Rs. 80 day-1

640.00

P3 8 Rs. 80 day-1

640.00

xi. Picking 60 Rs. 80 hr-1

4800.00

79

3. Cost of inputs

i. Cost of FYM 5 trollies ha-1

Rs. 500/ trolly 2500.00

ii. Cost of seedlings

S1

83333.00

seedlings

Rs. 10 of 100

seedlings

8333.00

S2 62500.00

seedlings

Rs. 10 of 100

seedlings

6250.00

S3 50000.00

seedlings

Rs. 10 of 100

seedlings

5000.00

S4 41666.00

seedlings

Rs. 10 of 100

seedlings

4166.00

iii Irrigation charge 12 Irrigation Rs.

450/Irrigation

ha-1

5400.00

iv. Cost of chemical like

Dithane M-45

1.25 kg ha-1

Rs.220 kg-1

275.00

v. Cost of fertilizers

a. Urea 326 kg/ha Rs 5.00/kg 1630.00

b. Single Super Phosphate 500 kg/ha Rs 3.60/kg 1800.00

c. Mureate of potash 133 kg/ha Rs 4.80/kg 638.00

4. Packing charges _ 500.00

5. Transportation

charges

_ 1600.00

6. Land Revenue _ Rs. 500 ha-1

500.00

7. Miscellaneous _ 1000.00

80

Treatment

Combinations

Total

Cost

(Rs.)

Yield

(q/ha)

Gross

return

(Rs./ha)

Net return

(Rs.)

Net

benefit-

cost

ratio

S1P0 52236.00 104.30 83440.00 31204.00 0.59

S1P1 52876.00 136.63 109304.00 56428.00 1.06

S1P2 52876.00 188.29 150632.00 97756.00 1.84

S1P3 52876.00 136.60 109280.00 56404.00 1.06

S2P0 49353.00 98.28 78624.00 29271.00 0.59

S2P1 49833.00 188.33 150664.00 100831.00 2.02

S2P2 49833.00 237.65 190120.00 140287.00 2.81

S2P3 49833.00 237.98 190384.00 140551.00 2.82

S3P0 47463.00 124.82 99856.00 52393.00 1.10

S3P1 47863.00 202.50 162000.00 114137.00 2.38

S3P2 47863.00 237.53 190024.00 142161.00 2.97

S3P3 47863.00 268.10 214480.00 166617.00 3.48

S4P0 46069.00 116.30 93040.00 46971.00 1.01

S4P1 46389.00 214.38 171504.00 125115.00 2.69

S4P2 46389.00 218.44 174752.00 128363.00 2.76

S4P3 46389.00 213.45 170760.00 124371.00 2.68

*Market sale rate of marigold – Rs. 8/kg.

82

Table No. 4.1. Effect of different plant spacing and pinching on plant height

Treatments Plant height (cm)

20 DAT 40 DAT 60 DAT 80 DAT 100 DAT

Spacing (cm)

40 x 30 (S1) 24.98 36.31 51.41 62.20 66.60

40 x 40 (S2) 25.65 37.56 54.07 65.36 70.13

40 x 50 (S3) 25.32 36.17 53.60 65.14 71.36

40 x 60 (S4) 25.46 33.50 50.37 58.15 64.40

SE (m) ± 0.391 0.932 0.495 1.008 1.195

CD at 5% NS 2.65 1.40 2.87 3.403

Pinching No pinching (P0) 24.96 34.49 50.84 59.03 65.02

Pinching at 20 DAT (P1) 24.55 33.94 50.36 61.64 67.37

Pinching at 30 DAT (P2) 26.04 37.07 52.38 64.46 69.50

Pinching at 40 DAT (P3) 25.86 38.03 55.88 65.73 70.58

SE (m) ± 0.391 0.932 0.495 1.008 1.195

CD at 5% 1.11 2.65 1.40 2.87 3.403

Treatment combination ( Spacing x Pinching )

S1P0 - spacing 40 x30 cm and no

pinching

24.65 33.78 48.57 55.11 60.65

S1P1 - spacing 40 x30 cm and

pinching at 20 DAT

24.52 33.29 47.46 58.80 62.52

S1P2 - spacing 40 x 30 cm and

pinching at 30 DAT

25.37 38.63 53.24 66.40 69.35


pinching at 40 DAT

25.37 39.53 56.38 68.47 73.88


pinching

25.37 36.67 51.33 65.66 69.65


pinching at 20 DAT

25.32 37.10 54.51 67.92 72.26


pinching at 30 DAT

25.72 35.68 51.43 63.98 69.57


pinching at 40 DAT

26.17 40.79 59.01 63.88 69.04


pinching

25.00 35.90 53.17 61.83 71.03


pinching at 20 DAT

24.00 32.34 50.99 64.08 70.44


pinching at 30 DAT

26.22 37.59 54.81 69.02 75.66


pinching at 40 DAT

26.07 38.86 55.44 65.64 68.30


pinching

24.82 31.64 50.28 53.52 58.74

S4P1 -spacing 40 x60 cm and

pinching at 20 DAT

24.35 33.05 48.49 55.76 64.28


pinching at 30 DAT

26.85 36.38 50.04 58.43 63.44


pinching at 40 DAT

25.82 32.93 52.67 64.91 71.12

SE (m) ± 0.781 1.863 0.990 2.015 2.389

CD at 5% NS NS 2.81 5.74 6.805

83

Table No. 4.2. Effect of different plant spacing and pinching on number of leaves plant-1

Treatments Number of leaves plant-1


Spacing (cm)

40 x 30 (S1) 11.31 33.01 79.71 101.41 131.69

40 x 40 (S2) 12.00 33.80 83.23 117.69 138.82

40 x 50 (S3) 12.56 36.32 81.49 120.80 143.41

40 x 60 (S4) 15.31 37.48 90.20 150.25 180.65

SE (m) ± 0.349 0.597 0.988 0.984 1.702

CD at 5% 0.99 1.70 2.81 2.80 4.84


Pinching at 20 DAT (P1) 13.75 35.91 83.39 108.57 143.06

Pinching at 30 DAT (P2) 13.43 35.96 84.66 133.70 159.81

Pinching at 40 DAT (P3) 13.87 38.71 91.30 144.55 173.45

SE (m) ± 0.349 0.597 0.988 0.984 1.702

CD at 5% 0.99 1.70 2.81 2.80 4.84



pinching

10.25 27.23 70.92 81.09 88.19


pinching at 20 DAT

13.25 29.34 73.27 95.57 123.34


pinching at 30 DAT

9.75 35.62 82.84 105.84 148.10


pinching at 40 DAT

12.00 39.86 91.82 123.16 167.13


pinching

10.75 29.39 76.91 91.03 103.42


pinching at 20 DAT

13.50 34.96 80.02 100.94 132.33


pinching at 30 DAT

13.25 33.86 85.48 135.07 148.79


pinching at 40 DAT

10.50 37.01 90.49 143.73 170.76


pinching

8.75 30.97 73.57 92.60 109.68


pinching at 20 DAT

12.75 42.08 89.82 100.14 137.18


pinching at 30 DAT

14.50 35.22 75.39 136.17 159.94


pinching at 40 DAT

14.25 37.01 87.19 154.27 166.83


pinching

10.75 32.56 79.71 148.64 171.72


pinching at 20 DAT

15.50 37.25 90.45 137.62 179.40


pinching at 30 DAT

16.25 39.14 94.95 157.73 182.40


pinching at 40 DAT

18.75 40.96 95.71 157.03 189.09

SE (m) ± 0.698 1.195 1.977 1.968 3.403

CD at 5% 1.98 3.40 5.63 5.60 9.693

84

Table 4.3: Effect of different plant spacing and pinching on stem diameter of marigold

Treatments Stem diameter (cm)


Spacing (cm)

40 x 30 (S1) 0.57 0.79 1.25 1.49 1.51

40 x 40 (S2) 0.59 0.85 1.34 1.55 1.57

40 x 50 (S3) 0.61 0.81 1.30 1.58 1.60

40 x 60 (S4) 0.69 0.92 1.41 1.69 1.72

SE (m) ± 0.006 0.006 0.025 0.007 0.007

CD at 5% 0.018 0.016 0.071 0.020 0.019


Pinching at 20 DAT (P1) 0.60 0.84 1.27 1.58 1.60

Pinching at 30 DAT (P2) 0.62 0.86 1.37 1.61 1.63

Pinching at 40 DAT (P3) 0.66 0.89 1.38 1.64 1.66

SE (m) ± 0.006 0.006 0.025 0.007 0.007

CD at 5% 0.018 0.016 0.071 0.020 0.019



pinching

0.54 0.75 1.14 1.26 1.28


pinching at 20 DAT

0.60 0.81 1.20 1.48 1.50


pinching at 30 DAT

0.55 0.80 1.32 1.56 1.58


pinching at 40 DAT

0.58 0.81 1.34 1.65 1.68


pinching

0.54 0.76 1.36 1.35 1.38


pinching at 20 DAT

0.53 0.82 1.25 1.60 1.61


pinching at 30 DAT

0.64 0.88 1.36 1.57 1.59


pinching at 40 DAT

0.66 0.92 1.38 1.70 1.72


pinching

0.60 0.78 1.28 1.69 1.71


pinching at 20 DAT

0.56 0.77 1.24 1.59 1.61


pinching at 30 DAT

0.59 0.83 1.34 1.56 1.58


pinching at 40 DAT

0.69 0.89 1.36 1.48 1.50


pinching

0.68 0.87 1.34 1.62 1.64


pinching at 20 DAT

0.71 0.95 1.41 1.68 1.70


pinching at 30 DAT

0.68 0.95 1.48 1.75 1.77


pinching at 40 DAT

0.70 0.92 1.43 1.74 1.76

SE (m) ± 0.013 0.012 0.050 0.014 0.014

CD at 5% 0.037 0.033 NS 0.040 0.038

85

Table No. 4.4. Effect of different plant spacing and pinching on number of

Primary branches plant-1

Treatments No. of primary branches plant

-1

Spacing (cm) 40 x 30 (S1) 9.08 40 x 40 (S2) 10.00 40 x 50 (S3) 13.04 40 x 60 (S4) 13.71 SE (m) ± 0.429 CD at 5% 1.22 Pinching No pinching (P0) 8.77 Pinching at 20 DAT (P1) 11.61 Pinching at 30 DAT (P2) 12.30 Pinching at 40 DAT (P3) 13.15

SE (m) ± 0.429 CD at 5% 1.22 Treatment combination ( Spacing x Pinching )


pinching 8.19


pinching at 20 DAT 9.50






pinching 8.77








pinching 7.98








pinching 10.15







SE (m) ± 0.858 CD at 5% 2.44

86

Table No. 4.5. Effect of different plant spacing and pinching on number of

Secondary branches plant Treatments No. of secondary branches plant

-1




pinching 22.33








pinching 22.49








pinching 26.25








pinching 38.36







SE (m) ± 2.344 CD at 5% 6.67

87

Table No. 4.6. Effect of different plant spacing and pinching on fresh weight

of plant-1

(g) Treatments Fresh weight of plant

-1 (g)




pinching 156.83








pinching 179.22








pinching 192.21








pinching 186.17







SE (m) ± 2.559 CD at 5% 7.28

88

Table No. 4.7. Effect of different plant spacing and pinching on dry weight

of plant-1

(g) Treatments Dry weight of plant

-1 (g)




pinching 30.58








pinching 40.27








pinching 44.27








pinching 42.90







SE (m) ± 1.084 CD at 5% 3.08

89

Table No. 4.8. Effect of different plant spacing and pinching on plant spread

Treatments Plant spread (cm) Spacing (cm) 40 x 30 (S1) 34.11 40 x 40 (S2) 40.75 40 x 50 (S3) 42.60 40 x 60 (S4) 45.22 SE (m) ± 0.729 CD at 5% 2.07 Pinching No pinching (P0) 31.95 Pinching at 20 DAT (P1) 41.13 Pinching at 30 DAT (P2) 46.65 Pinching at 40 DAT (P3) 42.96



pinching 29.29








pinching 31.80








pinching 31.56








pinching 35.16







SE (m) ± 1.459 CD at 5% 4.15

90

Table No. 4.9. Effect of different plant spacing and pinching on bud size

Treatments Bud size (cm) Spacing (cm) 40 x 30 (S1) 1.23 40 x 40 (S2) 1.31 40 x 50 (S3) 1.29 40 x 60 (S4) 1.34 SE (m) ± 0.014 CD at 5% 0.04 Pinching No pinching (P0) 1.18 Pinching at 20 DAT (P1) 1.30 Pinching at 30 DAT (P2) 1.35 Pinching at 40 DAT (P3) 1.34



pinching 1.09








pinching 1.13








pinching 1.17








pinching 1.32







SE (m) ± 0.029 CD at 5% 0.08

91

Table No. 4.10. Effect of different plant spacing and pinching on days to

first bud emergence Treatments Days to first bud emergence Spacing (cm) 40 x 30 (S1) 51.25 40 x 40 (S2) 58.31 40 x 50 (S3) 58.31 40 x 60 (S4) 59.18 SE (m) ± 0.508 CD at 5% 1.44 Pinching No pinching (P0) 51.25 Pinching at 20 DAT (P1) 56.06 Pinching at 30 DAT (P2) 59.62 Pinching at 40 DAT (P3) 60.12



pinching 49.50








pinching 51.50








pinching 51.75








pinching 52.25







SE (m) ± 1.017 CD at 5% 2.89

92

Table No. 4.11. Effect of different plant spacing and pinching on days

to first flowering Treatments Days to first flowering Spacing (cm) 40 x 30 (S1) 60.00 40 x 40 (S2) 67.12 40 x 50 (S3) 67.62 40 x 60 (S4) 69.31 SE (m) ± 1.112 CD at 5% 3.16 Pinching No pinching (P0) 60.68 Pinching at 20 DAT (P1) 65.25 Pinching at 30 DAT (P2) 68.62 Pinching at 40 DAT (P3) 69.50



pinching 58.75








pinching 61.00








pinching 60.25








pinching 62.75







SE (m) ± 2.224 CD at 5% NS

93

Table No. 4.12. Effect of different plant spacing and pinching on pedicel length

Treatments Pedicel length (cm) Spacing (cm) 40 x 30 (S1) 7.45 40 x 40 (S2) 7.65 40 x 50 (S3) 7.84 40 x 60 (S4) 7.58 SE (m) ± 0.342 CD at 5% NS Pinching No pinching (P0) 6.79 Pinching at 20 DAT (P1) 7.83 Pinching at 30 DAT (P2) 8.41 Pinching at 40 DAT (P3) 7.49



pinching 6.47








pinching 6.98








pinching 6.88








pinching 6.83







SE (m) ± 0.685 CD at 5% NS

94

Table No. 4.13. Effect of different plant spacing and pinching on period

of bloom Treatments Period of bloom (days) Spacing (cm) 40 x 30 (S1) 80.25 40 x 40 (S2) 90.31 40 x 50 (S3) 93.06 40 x 60 (S4) 95.75 SE (m) ± 2.378 CD at 5% 6.77 Pinching No pinching (P0) 82.06 Pinching at 20 DAT (P1) 86.93 Pinching at 30 DAT (P2) 92.56 Pinching at 40 DAT (P3) 97.81



pinching 78.50








pinching 81.75








pinching 82.75








pinching 85.25







SE (m) ± 4.756 CD at 5% NS

95

Table No. 4.14. Effect of different plant spacing and pinching on number

of days taken for 50% flowering Treatments No. of days taken for 50% flowering Spacing (cm) 40 x 30 (S1) 67.62 40 x 40 (S2) 73.56 40 x 50 (S3) 75.12 40 x 60 (S4) 75.37 SE (m) ± 2.595 CD at 5% NS Pinching No pinching (P0) 66.43 Pinching at 20 DAT (P1) 71.81 Pinching at 30 DAT (P2) 73.75 Pinching at 40 DAT (P3) 79.68



pinching 65.50








pinching 65.75








pinching 68.25








pinching 66.25







SE (m) ± 5.191 CD at 5% NS

96

Table No. 4.15. Effect of different plant spacing and pinching on flower diameter

Treatments Flower diameter (cm) Spacing (cm) 40 x 30 (S1) 6.65 40 x 40 (S2) 6.82 40 x 50 (S3) 6.98 40 x 60 (S4) 7.28 SE (m) ± 0.179 CD at 5% NS Pinching No pinching (P0) 6.12 Pinching at 20 DAT (P1) 6.76 Pinching at 30 DAT (P2) 7.44 Pinching at 40 DAT (P3) 7.41



pinching 6.04








pinching 6.23








pinching 6.38








pinching 5.83







SE (m) ± 0.357 CD at 5% 1.01

97

Table No. 4.16. Effect of different plant spacing and pinching on weight

of individual flower Treatments Weight of individual flower (g) Spacing (cm) 40 x 30 (S1) 7.94 40 x 40 (S2) 9.18 40 x 50 (S3) 9.87 40 x 60 (S4) 11.58 SE (m) ± 0.205 CD at 5% 0.584 Pinching No pinching (P0) 9.57 Pinching at 20 DAT (P1) 9.15 Pinching at 30 DAT (P2) 10.14 Pinching at 40 DAT (P3) 9.71



pinching 7.40








pinching 9.48








pinching 8.56








pinching 12.84







SE (m) ± 0.410 CD at 5% 1.169

98

Table No. 4.17. Effect of different plant spacing and pinching on number

of flower plant-1

Treatments No. of flower plant

-1




pinching 38.45








pinching 41.10








pinching 43.99








pinching 45.67







SE (m) ± 4.186 CD at 5% NS

99

Table No. 4.18. Effect of different plant spacing and pinching on flower

yield plant-1

Treatments Flower yield plant-1




pinching 112.90








pinching 117.20








pinching 153.59








pinching 138.41







SE (m) ± 10.107 CD at 5% 28.78

100

Table 4.19. Effect of different plant spacing and pinching on flower yield plot-1

/ ha-1

Treatments Flower yield plot-1(kg) Flower yield ha-1 (q)

Spacing (cm)

40 x 30 (S1) 21.62 141.45

40 x 40 (S2) 17.93 190.57

40 x 50 (S3) 23.14 208.24

40 x 60 (S4) 25.00 190.64

SE (m) ± 0.727 3.358

CD at 5% 2.07 9.56

Pinching

No pinching (P0) 16.97 110.93

Pinching at 20 DAT (P1) 22.86 185.47

Pinching at 30 DAT (P2) 24.98 220.48

Pinching at 40 DAT (P3) 22.87 214.03

SE (m) ± 0.727 3.358

CD at 5% 2.07 9.56



pinching

16.97 104.30


pinching at 20 DAT

22.95 136.63


pinching at 30 DAT

24.17 188.29


pinching at 40 DAT

22.40 136.60


pinching

13.26 98.28


pinching at 20 DAT

19.42 188.38


pinching at 30 DAT

19.25 237.65


pinching at 40 DAT

19.80 237.98


pinching

18.12 124.82


pinching at 20 DAT

23.60 202.50


pinching at 30 DAT

27.18 237.53


pinching at 40 DAT

23.64 268.10


pinching

19.54 116.30


pinching at 20 DAT

25.48 214.38


pinching at 30 DAT

29.33 218.44


pinching at 40 DAT

25.65 213.45

SE (m) ± 1.453 6.716

CD at 5% NS 19.12

101

Table No. 4.20. Effect of different plant spacing and pinching on vase life

of cut flower Treatments Vase life of cut flower (days) Spacing (cm) 40 x 30 (S1) 6.10 40 x 40 (S2) 6.81 40 x 50 (S3) 6.54 40 x 60 (S4) 6.56 SE (m) ± 0.221 CD at 5% NS Pinching No pinching (P0) 5.42 Pinching at 20 DAT (P1) 6.54 Pinching at 30 DAT (P2) 6.87 Pinching at 40 DAT (P3) 7.18



pinching 5.27








pinching 5.42








pinching 5.75








pinching 5.25







SE (m) ± 0.441 CD at 5% NS

102

Table 4.21 Correlation coefficient of flower yield plant-1

of marigold with other

characters.

S.No. Characters „r‟ values

01. Plant height 0.2824

02. No. of leaves 0.6891٭٭

03. Stem diameter 0.4965٭

04. No. of primary branches 0.7756٭٭

05. No. of secondary branches 0.8904٭٭

06. Plant spread 0.8909٭٭

07. Fresh weight of plant 0.8789٭٭

08. Dry weight of plant 0.8422٭٭

09. Flower size 0.7171٭٭

10. No. of flower per plant 0.8534٭٭

.Significant at 5% level ٭

.Significant at 1% level ٭٭

104

Treatment Details:

T1 40X30 cm x no pinching

T2 40X30 cm x pinching at 20 DAT















Design : Factorial RBD

Treatment : 16

Replication : 4

Crop : Marigold

Total area : 1236.75 m2

Spacing between

Plot to plot : 0.5 m

Replication : 1.0 m

Plot size : 12 x 1m =12 m-2

Fig.3.2 : Lay out plan of experimental field

N

W

S

E

T1 T16T15T14T13T3 T12T2 T11T4 T10T6T5 T7 T8 T9 T5 T4T3T2T1T7 T16T6 T15T8 T14T10T9 T11 T12 T13

T9 T8T7T6T5T11 T4T10 T3T12 T2T14T13 T15 T16 T1 T13 T12T11T10T9T15 T8T14 T7T16 T6T2T1 T3 T4 T5

R-I

R-IVR-III

R-II

24 m

25

m

106

M

ax

.

te

m

p

M

in.

te

m

p

Rai

nfal

l

(m

m)

R

H

I

R

H

I

I

Wi

nd

Vel

ocit

y

Evapo

ration

Sun

shin

e

38

30.

9

24.

4 11.6

9

0

7

0 6.6 3.8 6.7

39

31.

5

23.

1 34

9

0

6

4 4.2 4.1 7.7

40

31.

8

23.

7 5.9

9

4

6

3 4.4 3.5 7.7

41

33.

7 23 0

9

1

4

3 2 3.9 8.6

42

33.

3

20.

8 0

9

3

4

6 2.4 4.1 9

43

31.

3

18.

8 0

9

0

4

7 2.5 4 9.3

44

27.

8

20.

8 1.6

9

3

6

5 3.6 2.3 2.8

45

29.

6

18.

3 0

9

2

4

3 2.7 3.1 5.6

46

29.

4

14.

6 0

9

1

3

5 2.6 3.4 9

47 31

15.

2 0

8

9

3

1 2.1 3.3 8.4

48

30.

7 18 0

8

7

4

1 2.3 3.5 7.2

49

30.

8 15 0

8

8

3

2 1.9 3.4 8.3

50

29.

4

12.

2 0

8

8

2

9 2.2 3.3 8.5

51

26.

9

10.

6 0

9

0

3

5 2.4 3.1 8.1

52

28.

1

11.

9 0

8

8

3

6 2.2 2.7 8.1

1 26. 9.6 0 8 3 2.6 3.1 8.5

107

7 8 0

3

28.

8

10.

6 0 89 32 2 3 8.3

Shoot infestation at 35 days after planting (%)




Transgenic MHB-80 Bt 1.66 1.66 0.55 1.11

MHB-4 Bt 1.66 2.22 1.11 4.44

MHB-9 Bt 3.33 1.66 0 0.55

MHB-10 Bt 2.77 0.55 0 3.88

MHB-99 Bt 3.33 3.33 0 0.55

Non-transgenic MHB-80 6.66 19.44 10.55 26.66

MHB-4 17.21 34.44 26.1 19.44

MHB-9 10.66 18.88 11.1 13.33

MHB-10 9.43 29.44 16.66 14.99

MHB-99 9.99 28.88 9.99 9.99

Check Pusa-H-6 12.21 16.93 7.77 8.33

Local check 4.44 27.21 18.88 17.22

108

Fruit infestation level at first picking

Fruit infestation level at second picking

Fruit infestation level at third picking

Fruit infestation level at fourth picking

Fruit infestation level at fifth picking

Fruit infestation level at sixth picking

Transgenic MHB-80 Bt 0 0.55 8.88 18.32 7.21 9.99

MHB-4 Bt 0 0 1.66 4.44 8.88 10.55

MHB-9 Bt 0 1.11 5.55 11.1 7.21 11.1

MHB-10 Bt 0 0 0.55 0 1.66 3.33

MHB-99 Bt 18.33 34.99 34.99 47.21 6.66 42.21

Non-transgenic MHB-80 0 19.99 6.1 21.66 84.99 79.99

MHB-4 0 2.97 2.77 13.88 45.55 44.66

MHB-9 0 0 15.55 41.1 61.66 67.21

MHB-10 0 0 0.55 2.77 15.55 17.77

MHB-99 5.55 14.99 94.99 98.88 72.17 76.66

Check Pusa-H-6 0 7.22 43.88 82.77 74.44 68.88

Local check 0 0 6.66 14.99 49.99 43.88

110

Temperature (

oC)

Rainfall (mm)

Relative humidity (%)

Wind Velocity (kmph)

Evaporation (mm/day)

Sunshine (hrs)

Max. Min. RH I RH II

29 28.9 24.1 193.0 95 83 5.4 4.0 0.7

30 28.1 24.2 224.0 92 87 8.4 2.4 0.9

31 28.9 24.3 70.6 91 73 12.3 2.4 3.1

32 29.5 24.4 100.4 95 84 11.6 3.6 1.5

33 28.8 24.1 120.7 92 74 6.6 2.8 2.0

34 33.5 25.9 1.0 91 61 11.0 3.0 6.1

35 32.8 25.3 7.4 91 72 2.6 4.2 5.9

36 29.5 24.2 252.2 93 81 3.8 4.3 2.6

37 29.8 24.4 17.2 89 74 7.8 3.5 3.5

38 31.0 23.9 0.0 90 64 9.3 3.6 7.8

39 31.9 23.7 0.0 92 55 4.8 3.9 6.5

40 31.6 22.0 0.0 93 59 2.5 3.6 8.6

41 28.5 22.3 121.8 96 76 2.8 3.7 3.0

42 29.3 21.3 0.0 93 60 3.8 2.1 6.9

43 29.7 17.7 0.0 87 44 3.6 3.0 6.4

44 28.4 13.0 0.0 91 29 3.3 3.6 9.3

45 28.4 13 0 91 29 2.6 3.6 9.3

46 29.4 11.9 0 90 25 2.1 3.5 9.7

47 29.5 10.9 0.0 92 24 1.8 3.3 9.0

48 28.8 12.9 0.0 91 32 2.3 3.2 8.8

49 28.1 11.5 0.0 88 26 2.3 3.1 6.4

50 25.8 7.7 0.0 88 25 2.3 3.1 7.8

51 26.5 12.4 0.0 90 44 3.4 2.9 5.4

52 26.4 9.6 0.0 91 31 1.9 2.4 6.9

1 27.5 9.9 0.0 91 31 2.1 3.1 8.0

2 28.8 9.2 0.0 87 25 1.7 3.1 9.0

3 31.0 12.6 0.0 87 29 2.5 3.6 7.9

4 27.3 9.4 0.0 83 26 3.2 3.9 9.5

5 30.7 9.7 0.0 82 21 1.9 3.7 9.2

6 30.8 10.8 0.0 82 19 2.1 4 9.4

7 33.3 14.6 0.0 81 25 3.0 4.5 9.2

112

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

S1 S2 S3 S4 P0 P1 P2 P3

Treatments

Pla

nt

he

igh

t (c

m)


Fig 4.1: Effect of different plant spacing and pinching on plant height of

marigold

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

S1 S2 S3 S4 P0 P1 P2 P3

Treatments

Nu

mb

er

of

lea

ve

s p

er

pla

nt


Fig 4.2: Effect of different plant spacing and pinching on number of leaves

per plant of marigold

113

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

S1 S2 S3 S4 P0 P1 P2 P3

Treatments

Ste

m d

iam

etr

e (

cm

)


Fig 4.3: Effect of different plant spacing and pinching on stem diametre of

marigold

0

10

20

30

40

50

S1 S2 S3 S4 P0 P1 P2 P3

Treatments

Nu

mb

er

of

pri

mary

an

d

seco

nd

ary

bra

nch

es p

er

pla

nt

No. of primary branches plant-1 No. of secondary branches plant-1

Fig 4.4: Effect of different plant spacing and pinching on number of primary

and secondary branches per plant of marigold

114

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

S1 S2 S3 S4 P0 P1 P2 P3Treatments

Fre

sh

weig

ht

an

d d

ry

weig

ht

(g)

Fresh w eight of plant-1 (g) Dry w eight of plant-1 (g)

Fig 4.5: Effect of different plant spacing and pinching on fresh and dry

weight of plant-1

of marigold

0

10

20

30

40

50

S1 S2 S3 S4 P0 P1 P2 P3

Treatments

Pla

nt

sp

read

(cm

)

Plant spread (cm)

Fig 4.6: Effect of different plant spacing and pinching on plant spread of

marigold

115

1.05

1.1

1.15

1.2

1.25

1.3

1.35

1.4

S1 S2 S3 S4 P0 P1 P2 P3

Treatments

Bu

d s

ize (

cm

)

Bud size (cm)

Fig 4.7: Effect of different plant spacing and pinching on bud size of marigold

0

2

4

6

8

10

S1 S2 S3 S4 P0 P1 P2 P3

Treatments

Ped

icel le

ng

th (

cm

)

Pedicel length (cm)

Fig 4.8: Effect of different plant spacing and pinching pedicel length of

marigold

116

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

S1 S2 S3 S4 P0 P1 P2 P3

Treatments

No

. o

f fl

ow

ers

per

pla

nt

No. of flowers per plant

Fig 4.9: Effect of different plant spacing and pinching on number of flowers

per plant of marigold

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

S1 S2 S3 S4 P0 P1 P2 P3

Treatments

Flo

wer

yie

ld p

er

pla

nt

Flower yield per plant

Fig 4.10: Effect of different plant spacing and pinching on flower yield per

plant of marigold

117

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

S1 S2 S3 S4 P0 P1 P2 P3

Treatments

Flo

wer

yie

ld p

er

plo

t (k

g)

Flower yield per polt (kg)

Fig 4.11: Effect of different plant spacing and pinching on flower yield per

plot of marigold

0

50

100

150

200

250

S1 S2 S3 S4 P0 P1 P2 P3

Treatments

Flo

wer

yie

ld p

er

ha (

q)

Flower yield per ha (q)

Fig 4.12: Effect of different plant spacing and pinching on flower yield per ha

of marigold

118

PLATE I : A VIEW OF EXPERIMENTAL FIELD OF MARIGOLD

119

PLATE II: PERFORMANCE OF PINCHING LEVEL P3 (PINCHING AT 40 DAT) ON

VEGETATIVE AND REPRODUCTIVE PHASE OF MARIGOLD COMPARED

WITH P0 (NO PINCHING).

P3 P0

EFFECT OF DIFFERENT PLANT SPACING AND PINCHING ON … · 4.7 Effect of spacing and pinching on...

Documents

Transcript of EFFECT OF DIFFERENT PLANT SPACING AND PINCHING ON … · 4.7 Effect of spacing and pinching on...