Effect of different pruning date and severity on growth, yield and quality parameters of Ber (Zizyphus mauritiana Lamk) in arid condition
Keywords:
Ber, Day After Pruning, fruit set, shamsAbstract
The research was carded out at experimental field of Agricultural Research Stadon. Manclor. Joclhpur during April. 2016 to February. 2017 to evaluate the response of pruning time and severity on fmit production. quality and profit.ability of Ber cv. Gola. Six ye..v old grafted U'ees of ber were pnmed al intervals. i.e. on 30 April. 15 May. 30 1'.•1ay, 15 June with two pruning severity levels i.e. 30 per cem and 50 per cent removal of previous season growth. l1le yield impl'oving growlh parameters viz .. comparath•ely Je.ss number of ma.in shoots (21.43 plant'1). maximum number of btanche.s (240.25 planf1). minimum shoOl h::ngth (I 17.60 cm} and girth of shoots ( 13.26 cm) have be.ell markedly promoted by the 15th June pruning with 30 per c.en1 severity th::in 1-e.1;1 of the tl'ea1ments. Eal'ly pruning (30 ApriJ) with hjghest severity (50%) has been found to increase the vegerntive growth like shoo1 length and girth but yielrl has been formed inversely proportional supra-op1imal Jevel of pnining. Flowering and fruit sening: was delay by J 5 days in tree pn.mcd on t5'h Jtane., which was significan1ly rcdtice tlower and fruit drop. AJI 1he yield p;\ramcter aud fruit yield viz., fruit set per cent (29.40%). fruit retention per cenl (29.95%). fn1i1 harveSl per cenl (8.80%), number of fn1j1s in sq. meter 1 canopy of plant ( l65), fruit yield planf1 (72.09 kg) and fmit yield ha·' (200.41 q) was significantly higher in Ts lrcalment. Highest economic performance viz .. Gross relurn (Rs. 180368.85). nel return (Rs. 134368.5 I) and B : C nlljo (2.92) was recorded maximum in trees pnmed on I 5111 June with 30 per cent severity whereas quality charactl'!rs of fmits like highest Total Soluble Solids ( 15.4008rix ). lowest acidity (0. l 3%). high ascorbic acid (61.4 l mg 100g'1• highest fruit surface colour score (8.43). fn1it rnste score (8.20) and overall quality score of fruits (8. 76) was reported in ·r2 treatmenl. Minimum fniil Oy infC$la1io1l (3.93%) was J'cported in TI) lJ'eatmeJ\1.Downloads
References
AOAC. 1984. Official Methods of Analysis. 12"' (edJ, Association of Official Agricultural Chemist. Washington. DC. USA.
Amel'ine. M. A .• Pangbl'on. R. M. and Rossler. E. A. 1965. Principles of si;nsory evaluation of food. AcacJcmic Press, New York and LoncJon.
Anonymous, 2016. Indian Honiculture Darnbase-2015-l 6, 2"'1 Adv�mce csti�1le or area and producOon of horticulture: crop (2016-17). Mjnis1ry of Agticulture. Government of India.. Gurgaon. p5-
6.
An,mymous. 2015. Ag,ricultural Vjrnl. M.in.is1ry of Agticulture. Government of Rajal>Lhan. Jaipur. p29-35.
Bhardw•j. R. L .. Choudhary, D. •nd Solanki. V. R. 2015. Bench ,nark survey of her unfrui1fulness in district Pali. Jodhpur and Sirohi. K VK. Sirohi. Agriculture University. Jodhpt1r, p3-6.
Dhaliwal, G. S. and RajwanL, K. 2003. Effect of Lime and pl'uning iotensity 011 age of bearing shoot and fruil quality of ·Sardar' guava. Haf)'
Gill, K.S. and Bal. J .S. 2006. lntluc.oce of pruoiog. severity and time on yield and fruit quality of btr (Zil:yplms mtturitiam, L.) cv. UrnrAn. huUan Journal of Horrkulture. 63(2): 162-165.
Ha.rit Kumar, Katiyar P.N .. Singh A.K.. and R�jkumar, B.V. 2014. Effect of difforent pnmjng scveril) on growth and yield of Ber (Zizyp/mJ mauritiww L..1.mk). cv. Banarsi Karaka. lnt. J. Curr. Microbiol. App. Science, 3(5); 935-940.
0.263 0.2.17 0.480 1.026
Khan, M. ancl Syamal, M.M. 2004. Effect of pmning intensity on tlow.:ring and fruiting of Kl'lgzi lime (Citm:r aurtmtifolitt Swingle). Indian .lounwl Horricuhure. 61 (2): 171-172.
R,uscp. R .. Karp, K.. Vool, £. and Tonutarc. T. 2014. Effec1 of pruning 1ime and method on hybrid gl'apevine (vi1is sp.) 'hasaoski sladki' berry maturi1y in a cool clim,ne condi1ions. Acu, Sci. Pnl. Nortnmm Cultus. J 3(6): 99-l 12.
Shaban. A. E. A. and lfaseeb. G. M. M. 2009. Effect or pruning severity and spraying some chemical subsiancc:s on growth and frui1i.ng of guava trees. Arneric.;.ll-Eurasian. Joumal <>l Agrit:ultural and Environn,em Sde11(·e. 5: 825-31.
Singh. A .• Ocka. B. C .. Patel. R. K .. Nath, A, and MUiich, $. R. 2012. Effect of pruning Lime. severity and u·u aspeccs on h;.wvestiog f)el'iod and fruit quality of low chilling peach (Prwms pe,.ska). Indian lourm,I of Agrit.:11/tuml Sciem:es, 82(10): 34-3&.
Singh, S .. Singh. B. and Siogh. t-.•I. 2010. Inlluence or time and severity of pnming on vegetative growth, fruiL qutdity ::ind yidd of ber cv. Um.ran. Na1ion:tl Seminar on recent trends and developme.nt. CCS. HAO. Hissar : 57-58.
Singh, H .. 8:}1. J.S. anti Singh. G. 2004. Srnntlard_iiation of pruning lechnique in her. A Review. Juditm JounMI Horticulture. 61(3): 259-260.
Singh. R. and Bal. J .S. 2008. Pruning in be,. (Zizvplms maurirww Lamk.): A Review. Agriculture Review. 29 (IJ 61-67.
Singh. S.K. (2005). Stttdics on pruning behavior in AonU, (EmbU<.·u o,{fidmili.,; Garten.) cv. NA-7 NDUAT thesis Kumarganj. Faizabad. (U.P).