EFFECT OF GROWING SUBSTRATES AND POT
SIZES ON GROWTH AND FLOWERING OF
Primula malacoides Franch.
Thesis
by
JAGREETI GUPTA
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
(HORTICULTURE)
FLORICULTURE AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
1985
COLLEGE OF HORTICULTURE
Dr. Yashwant Singh Parmar University
of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni,
Solan-173 230 (H.P.), INDIA
2013
Dr. B. S. Dilta
Associate Professor
Department of Floriculture and Landscaping
College of Horticulture
Dr. Y. S. Parmar University of Horticulture
and Forestry, Nauni, Solan - 173230 (H.P.)
CERTIFICATE-I
This is to certify that the thesis entitled, “Effect of growing substrates and pot sizes
on growth and flowering of Primula malacoides Franch.”, submitted in partial fulfillment
of
the
requirements for the
award
of
degree
of
MASTER
OF
SCIENCE
(HORTICULTURE) FLORICULTURE AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE to
Dr. Yashwant Singh Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni, Solan (H.P.) is a
bonafide record of research work carried out by Ms. Jagreeti Gupta (H-2011-30-M) under
my guidance and supervision. No part of this thesis has been submitted for any other degree
or diploma.
The assistance and help received during the course of investigations have been fully
acknowledged.
Place: Nauni, Solan
Date : 4th July, 2013
Dr. B. S. Dilta
Chairman
Advisory Committee
CERTIFICATE-II
This is to certify that the thesis entitled, “Effect of growing substrates and pot
sizes on growth and flowering of Primula malacoides Franch.”, submitted by
Ms. Jagreeti Gupta (H-2011-30-M) to Dr. Yashwant Singh Parmar University of
Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni, Solan (H.P.) in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the award of degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE (HORTICULTURE) FLORICULTURE
AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE has been approved by the Student’s Advisory
Committee after an oral examination of the same in collaboration with the internal examiner.
Dr. B. S. Dilta
Chairman
Advisory Committee
Internal Examiner
Dr. Narender Sharma
(Professor)
Deptt. Of Fruit Science
Members, Advisory Committee
Dr. Y.C.Gupta
( Professor and Head)
Deptt. of Floriculture and
Landscaping
Dr. R. K. Gupta
(Professor)
Deptt. of Basic Science
Dr. Satish Bhardwaj
( Professor and Head)
Deptt. of Environmental Sciences
Dean’s Nominee
Dr. Rajinder Kaur
(Professor)
Deptt. Of Biotechnology
Professor and Head
Department of Floriculture
and Landscaping
Dean
College of Horticulture
3
CERTIFICATE-III
This is to certify that all the mistakes and errors pointed out by the external examiner
have been incorporated in the thesis entitled, “Effect of growing substrates and pot sizes on
growth and flowering of Primula malacoides Franch.”, submitted to Dr Y.S. Parmar
University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni, Solan (H.P.) by Ms. Jagreeti Gupta
(H-2011-30-M) in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE (HORTICULTURE) FLORICULTURE AND LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTURE.
________________________________
Dr. B. S. Dilta
Chairman
Advisory Committee
________________________________
Professor and Head
Department of Floriculture and Landscaping
Dr Y S Parmar UHF, Nauni, Solan (HP)
4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all I must express profound sense of obligations to the Almighty creator for showering
immense blessings upon me due to which I could be able to accomplish the academic endeavor.
Where emotions are involved words cease to mean, lexicon could not have the words to
express the affection, blessings, encouragement, sacrifice and love of my beloved parents without
which I would have never come to this proliferative stage and engaged myself in career building. It
would be my bounded duty to put on record a line of utmost gratitude to my beloved father Sh. Naresh
Kumar Gupta and Mother Mrs. Saroj Gupta, who as a matter of fact have been a real source to put
me of the horizon of this success.
I am overwhelmed with rejoice to avail this rare opportunity to evince my profound sense of
reverence and gratitude to my advisor, Dr. B.S. Dilta, Associate Professor, Department of
Floriculture and Landscaping and Chairman of my Advisory Committee for imparting his valuable
and expert guidance, constructive criticism, constant encouragement, painstaking efforts, unending
benevolence, vital suggestions and debonair discussions throughout this course of investigation right
from the initiation of the work to the ship-shaping (preparation) of the manuscript.
I am highly grateful and indebted to the members of my Advisory Committee, Dr. Y.C. Gupta,
Professor and Head, Department of Floriculture and Landscaping, Dr. S.K. Bhardwaj and Dr. R.K.
Gupta for their exclusive help, concrete suggestions and meticulous guidance during the course of
investigations.
I deem it a great privilege to express my inner feelings of heart for my teachers
Dr. S.R.
Dhiman, Dr. B. P. Sharma, Dr. Rajesh Bhalla, Dr. Priyanka Thakur, Dr. Puja Sharma, Dr. Bharati
Kashyap, Dr. SVS Choudhary, Mr. Singh, Mr. Chaman, Hari Chand ji, Sunder ji and Thappa ji for
their unflinching interest, relentless efforts, valuable advice, close supervision, constant
encouragement and motivation during the entire period of study. Also I owe a special thanks to Dr.
Manikandan for his support and guidance.
I seize this opportunity to express my heartfelt feelings and deep sense of love to my dearest
sister Bhavita Gupta for her affection, patience, inspiration and blessings.
`“A friend is one whom you can pour your heart out”. I find lacunae of words to express my
feelings but from core of my heart I would like to express my thanks and love to my friends specially
Ashish, Suman Thapa, Tamasi, Sapna, Nzan, Neha Mittal, Arshi di, Dasta, Neha Dogra, Nivedita,
Vinay, Urvi, Neha Sharma, Kanika and Bharti who always stand by me in all seasons of life.
Mere words are insufficient to express thanks to my Seniors namely Arvinder sir, Nomita di,
Priyanka di, Bhavya sir, Jujhar sir, Kalkame di, RajKumar sir, Pratibha di, Meenakshi di, Palmsey
di, Rishu di, Avnish sir, Ashutosh sir, Narender Negi sir, Poonam di and Priyadarshini di for
supporting, encouraging and helping me wherever and whenever I needed during course of
investigation.
Place: Nauni
Date: 04.07.2013
(Jagreeti Gupta)
5
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all I must express profound sense of obligations to the Almighty creator for showering
immense blessings upon me due to which I could be able to accomplish the academic endeavor.
Where emotions are involved words cease to mean, lexicon could not have the words to
express the affection, blessings, encouragement, sacrifice and love of my beloved parents without
which I would have never come to this proliferative stage and engaged myself in career building. It
would be my bounded duty to put on record a line of utmost gratitude to my beloved father Sh. Naresh
Kumar Gupta and Mother Mrs. Saroj Gupta, who as a matter of fact have been a real source to put
me of the horizon of this success.
I am overwhelmed with rejoice to avail this rare opportunity to evince my profound sense of
reverence and gratitude to my advisor, Dr. B.S. Dilta, Associate Professor, Department of
Floriculture and Landscaping and Chairman of my Advisory Committee for imparting his valuable
and expert guidance, constructive criticism, constant encouragement, painstaking efforts, unending
benevolence, vital suggestions and debonair discussions throughout this course of investigation right
from the initiation of the work to the ship-shaping (preparation) of the manuscript.
I am highly grateful and indebted to the members of my Advisory Committee, Dr. Y.C. Gupta,
Professor and Head, Department of Floriculture and Landscaping, Dr. S.K. Bhardwaj and Dr. R.K.
Gupta for their exclusive help, concrete suggestions and meticulous guidance during the course of
investigations.
I deem it a great privilege to express my inner feelings of heart for my teachers
Dr. S.R.
Dhiman, Dr. B. P. Sharma, Dr. Rajesh Bhalla, Dr. Priyanka Thakur, Dr. Puja Sharma, Dr. Bharati
Kashyap, Dr. SVS Choudhary, Mr. Singh, Mr. Chaman, Hari Chand ji, Sunder ji and Thappa ji for
their unflinching interest, relentless efforts, valuable advice, close supervision, constant
encouragement and motivation during the entire period of study. Also I owe a special thanks to Dr.
Manikandan for his support and guidance.
I seize this opportunity to express my heartfelt feelings and deep sense of love to my dearest
sister Bhavita Gupta for her affection, patience, inspiration and blessings.
`“A friend is one whom you can pour your heart out”. I find lacunae of words to express my
feelings but from core of my heart I would like to express my thanks and love to my friends specially
Ashish, Suman Thapa, Tamasi, Sapna, Nzan, Neha Mittal, Arshi di, Dasta, Neha Dogra, Nivedita,
Vinay, Urvi, Neha Sharma, Kanika and Bharti who always stand by me in all seasons of life.
Mere words are insufficient to express thanks to my Seniors namely Arvinder sir, Nomita di,
Priyanka di, Bhavya sir, Jujhar sir, Kalkame di, RajKumar sir, Pratibha di, Meenakshi di, Palmsey
di, Rishu di, Avnish sir, Ashutosh sir, Narender Negi sir, Poonam di and Priyadarshini di for
supporting, encouraging and helping me wherever and whenever I needed during course of
investigation.
Place: Nauni
Date: 04.07.2013
(Jagreeti Gupta)
6
CONTENTS
Chapter
Title
Page(s)
1.
INTRODUCTION
1-3
2.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
4-20
3.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
21-26
4.
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
27-45
5.
DISCUSSION
46-60
6.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
61-68
7.
REFERENCES
69-75
ABSTRACT
76
APPENDICES
I-III
7
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Title
Page(s)
1.
Effect of growing substrates and pot sizes on plant height (cm) of Primula
malacoides Franch.
28
2.
Effect of growing substrates and pot sizes on number of branches or shoots
per plant of Primula malacoides Franch.
29
3.
Effect of growing substrates and pot sizes on shoot length (cm) of Primula
malacoides Franch.
30
4.
Effect of growing substrates and pot sizes on plant spread (cm) of Primula
malacoides Franch.
32
5.
Effect of growing substrates and pot sizes on days to flower bud formation
(days) of Primula malacoides Franch.
33
6.
Effect of growing substrates and pot sizes on days to first flower opening
(days) of Primula malacoides Franch.
34
7.
Effect of growing substrates and pot sizes on length of inflorescence stalk
(cm) of Primula malacoides Franch.
36
8.
Effect of growing substrates and pot sizes on inflorescence diameter (cm)
of Primula malacoides Franch.
37
9.
Effect of growing substrates and pot sizes on number of inflorescences per
plant of Primula malacoides Franch.
39
10.
Effect of growing substrates and pot sizes on number of flowers per
inflorescence of Primula malacoides Franch.
40
11.
Effect of growing substrates and pot sizes on number of flowers per plant
of Primula malacoides Franch.
41
12.
Effect of growing substrates and pot sizes on duration of flowering (days)
of Primula malacoides Franch.
43
13.
Effect of growing substrates and pot sizes on pot presentability score of
Primula malacoides Franch.
44
8
LIST OF PLATES
Title
Between
pages
1.
Pots of various sizes (P1, P2, P3) filled with different growing
substrates and ready for planting.
24-25
2.
Effect of growing substrates and pot sizes on vegetative growth
of Primula malacoides Franch.
30-31
3.
Effect of growing substrates and pot sizes on flowering of
Primula malacoides Franch.
40-41
4.
A view of Primula malacoides Franch. at peak flowering.
42-43
5.
Effect of growing substrates and pot sizes on growth and
flowering of Primula malacoides Franch. on pot-presentability.
44-45
6.
Effect of growing substrates and pot sizes on growth and
flowering of Primula malacoides Franch. on pot-presentability.
45-46
Plates
9
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
%
:
Percentage
a.i.
:
Active ingredient
ANOVA
:
Analysis of variance
B
:
Boron
C:N ratio
:
Carbon nitrogen ratio
Ca
:
Calcium
CD
:
Critical difference
CEC
:
Cation Exchange Capacity
cm
:
Centimeters
CRD
:
Completely Randomized Design
Cu
:
Copper
cv.
:
Cultivar
cvs.
:
Cultivars
d.f.
:
Degree of freedom
EC
:
Electrical conductivity
FYM
:
Farm yard manure
g
:
Gram
H.P
:
Himachal Pradesh
K
:
Potassium
l
:
Litre
m
:
Meter
meq
:
Milli equivalents
Mg
:
Magnesium
Mo
:
Molybdenum
mS
:
Milli Siemens
N
:
Nitrogen
o
C
:
Degree Celsius
OC
:
Organic carbon
P
:
Phosphorous
SMC
:
Spent mushroom compost
Sp.
:
Species
syn.
:
Synonym
v/v
:
Volume by Volume basis
10
Chapter-1
INTRODUCTION
Primulas are excellent winter and spring flowering herbaceous plants,
found through out the temperate regions of the northern hemisphere. The genus
Primula contains over 400 different species and some of them require protection
from severe winters and frosts ( Bailey, 1963).
Primula malacoides Franch. is among the most important and magnificent
flowering pot plants of temperate zone. It is a non hardy species generally grown
in pots as an annual for indoor use. The names primula and primrose have been
derived from the Italian word ‘Primaverola’ meaning, ‘first flower of spring’. It
belongs to family Primulaceae. It is also known as ‘fairy primrose’, because of
light, airy and graceful appearance of its foliage and flowers. The inflorescence is
a loose, open umbel borne on graceful slender stem and the plant attains a
maximum height of 40-50 cm. The flowers are arranged in whorls and very
numerous with a diameter of 1.5-2.0 cm in purple, pale-pink, crimson, rose-red,
white or lavender-mauve in colour and delicately perfumed.
It is a very attractive garden plant and needs a long and very cool weather
continuously. It prefers to grow more luxuriantly on very high elevations. The
Primulas like a damp, humid atmosphere, which is never stagnant except in case
of bog loving species and require a well drained porous soil or growing medium
that is also moist. In majority of cases, they prefer to grow under partial shade
(Pizzeti and Cocker, 1978). They flower in succession over a long period in
winter and spring extanding upto early summer months. Because of their cool
growing conditions and natural blooming time, they make marvellous Valentine’s
Day and Easter pot plants. Due to compact and dwarf growth habit as well as
freedom of profused flower production, primulas are especially desirable for
growing in pots/containers to cater the consumer’s needs of indoor flowering
potted plants especially during winter and spring seasons.
1
The selection of suitable growing substrates and pot sizes play an
important role in manipulating the growth, development and flowering of
Primula malacoides Franch. It is well documented that growing substrates have
some considerable effects on growth, flowering and presentability of various
container grown foliage and flowering indoor plants including Primulas So,
selection and formulation of an appropriate growing medium is critical for the
success of all production stages of primulas. Some researchers have made efforts
to utilize forest soils/ leaf litters of various forest species available to the growers
to produce quality potted primulas. In the very early stages of germination and
growth of primula seedlings, the nutrient requirements are low but the physical
aspects of the compost play a very important role. Organic matter rich in
carbohydrates helps in improving the water holding capacity of the mixture and
also acts as fertilizer and soil conditioner. Besides this, it also helps to keep the
mixture loose; provides good drainage and allows better aeration and nutrient
uptake as well.
Therefore, the selection and/or engineering of a suitable growing substrate
is of paramount importance for the quality growth, flowering and presentability
of and potted primulas in particular. Similarly, the container size also plays an
important role in manipulating the growth, development and flowering besides
the presentability of indoor plants in general potted primula. The container size
has been known to alter the rooting volume of the plants, which in turn greatly
affects plant growth, flowering and presentability attributes as well. In general,
as container size increases, leaf area, shoot bio-mass and root bio-mass as well
presentability score increases linearly (Cantliffe, 1993).
Shoot growth is greatly impacted by varying container size and root
restriction. Shoot height and bio-mass reduction have been reported in small
containers which exhibited increased values when grown in larger size containers
for marigold (Latimer, 1991). The increase in top bio-mass of Euonymus
japonica and Azalea was found to be linearly correlated with increasing in pot
size (Keever et al., 1985). Similarly, root and shoot bio-mass of Salvia splendens
2
also increased linearly with the corresponding increase in container volume (Van
Iersel, 1997).
Keeping in view the above cited reasons, the present investigations
entitled, “Effect of growing substrates and pot sizes on growth and flowering
of Primula malacoides Franch.” were carried out at the Experimental Farm of
Department of Floriculture and Landscaping, Dr.Y.S.Parmar University of
Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni, Solan (H.P) during September 2012 to April
2013 with following objective:
To select the most suitable growing substrate and pot size for producing
best quality potted primula.
3
Chapter-2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
In this chapter an attempt has been made to review the work done on the
use of growing substrates and pot sizes on growth and flowering of Primula
malacoides Franch. Besides optimum environmental conditions, growing
medium also plays a crucial role in quality of any potted plant.
Similarly, the importance of pot size in improving presentability of any
container grown plant cannot be just overlooked. Therefore, efforts have been
made to summarise the relevant literature avialable for various indoor plants
under the following heads:
2.1 Growing substrates
2.2
Pot sizes
2.1
GROWING SUBSTRATES:
Primula can be grown in any growing medium, if plants get the proper
environment, adequate water, balanced amount of essential nutrients in available
forms and proper attention. The use of soil as growing substrate in protected
cultivation faces serious limitations. Over the years, it has been observed that
there is a frequent decrease in soil fertility coupled with soil salinity.
Furthermore, soil borne diseases and pests may limit productivity particularly of
high value crops. Therefore, substrate culture offers a valuable and much viable
alternative to maximize yield, improve flowering and to overcome limitation of
using soil as growing medium.
A number of studies have been carried out to access the effect of growing
subatrates on growth and flowering of Primulas and are summarised as below:
Nagamura and Urabe (1973) studied the effects of growing substrates
based on sawdust and supplemented with chaff in varied proportionsi.e 100, 75,
4
50, 25 or 0% for growing Cyclamens, Begonia × hiemalis, Primula malacoides,
Kalanchoe, Saintpaulias, Dianthus, Antirrhinum and Chrysanthemums. They
found better results when plants were grown in the substrates comprising of
sawdust and chaff in the ratio of 1:3, v/v for all the above mentioned
ornamentals.
Thomas and McCurran (1979) grew polyanthus ( Primula veries ‘Pacific
Giant’) in a medium containing peat: sand: sawdust (1:1:1,v/v) with three N
levels with or without lime and found that high N and low lime levels were best
for growth and flowering.
Leinfelder and Fischer (1980) investigated the effect of Lime rates on
seven different peat-based substrates on production of potted Primula obconica
cv. ‘Bayerblut’. They found white peat: compost (1:1, v/v) with high P and K
contents as well as white peat: black peat (1:1, v/v) humosoil with highest
nutrition levels as the most suitable mixtures for vegetative and reproductive
growth of Primula obconica cv. ‘Bayerblut’.
In an another study by Seager (1989) the effect of compost fertilizer
content and liquid fertilization on growth of primrose was investigated by
growing seedlings of Primula acaulis in Bord na Mona all- peat composts in 9
cm pots from autumn to early spring. Maturity measurements showed that larger
and more attractive plants were produced in slow-N compost than in one
containing standard NK levels. Liquid fertilization @ 200:20:200 ppm NPK
regime from mid November to flowering improved foliage colour and crop
growth.
Smith (1995) ascertained the effect of various growing substrates
comprising peat and coir based composts on some container grown ornamentals.
He reported very encouraging results in coir-based composts for the container
grown plants of Fuschia, Primula, Impatiens, Poinsettia cv. ‘Lilo’,Cineraria and
Pansy as well.
5
Sramek and Dubsky (1997) investigated the substitution of peat in
growing media with composted bark, primary and secondary sludges from paper
mills, composted flax (Linum usitatissimum) waste, composted wood chips, wood
waste fibres, cultifibre and coir fibre for preparation of growing media in equal
parts for growing various ornamental plants including Primula vulgaris.They
reported that greenhouse cultivation of various flowering plants particularly
Primula vulgaris were more successful in the amended substrates in comparison
to peat substrate alone.
Pathak and Sharma (1998) ascertained the effects of different potting
mixtures viz., leaf mould, FYM and soil (1:1:1, v/v), soil, sand and moss
(2:1:1,v/v) and John Innes potting mixture no.2 on pot plant production of
Primula obconica. They reported better growth, flowering and presentability
score in the potting mixture comprising leaf mould, FYM and soil (1:1:1, v/v).
Scagliarini (1998) studied the effect of compost as a substrate for
production of potted plants of Poinsettia cv. ‘Angelica’, Petunia cv.
‘Grandiflora’, Begonia semperflorens cv. ‘Florida’ and Primula polyantha cv.
‘Romina Miscuglio’ in varied ratio. They obtained better results when growing
media were supplemented with 50% of compost for all the potted plants under
study.
Lazcano and Dominguez (2010) studied the effects of vermi-compost as a
potting amendment for commercially grown Primula acaulis and Pansies (Viola
× wittrockiana ssp. delta).They reported better results in the peat based growing
medium supplemented with 5% pig slurry vermi-compost for the production of
potted Primula and Pansy.
OTHER ORNAMENTAL PLANTS
Gartner and Mclntyre (1962) evaluated the efficacy of perlite and sand in
soil for growing chrysanthemum in pots and obtained satisfactory results in
perlite + soil mixture. They recorded better growth and flowering of pot mums in
6
the compost based on horticultural peat as compared to a peat sand mixture as the
later was having lesser nutritional value.
Mastalerz (1962) observed excellent growth and flowering when
chrysanthemum plants were grown in a mixture of soil, saw dust and sphagnum
peat (3:1/2:1/2, v/v).
Poole et al. (1968) studied the effect of soil media on container grown
Hibiscus and Aralia. The results indicated that satisfactory plants can be grown in
many different soil mixes when water and fertilizer are adequately supplied. As
large as the mixture contains satisfactory physical properties such as drainage and
aeration, the growth of plants grown in the medium containing lower %age of
soil as well as in amended soil were comparatively better than those grown in soil
alone.
Nelson (1969) observed micronutrient deficiencies in chrysanthemum cv.
‘Giant Besty Rose’ (Susceptible to alkaline reaction) when grown in palabora
vermiculite (pH 9.8) that could be overcome by incorporating sphagnum peat
moss into the medium.
Gogue and Sanderson (1975) conducted the foliar analysis of
chrysanthemum for various essential elements to ascertain their effects on growth
and flowering parameters. They concluded that municipal compost could be used
as soil amendment for chrysanthemum culture.
In carnation, Skalska (1976) observed higher yield of quality flowers in
cv. 'Lena' when grown in soil-peat substrate. In another study, Haber and
Kafarski (1979) also recorded greater uptake of Mo, Cu and B from peat
substrate with pH 6.5 in carnation cvs. 'Laddie Sim', 'Red Sim', 'Carry Sim' and
'Crowley's Sim'.
Mahdi and Sallam (1978) mixed Arvo-Humus (a commercial product
made of conifer bark containing macro and micro- nutrients) ranging from 20%
to 80% with sand as a growing medium for production of Pelargonium cv. ‘Care
7
Free Deep Salmon’ and based on the results obtained, recommended a growing
mixture of 20% Arvo-Humus and 80% sand for cultivating the above mentioned
Pelargonium cultivar.
Marcussen (1979) recommended peat/sawdust supplemented with
fertilizers for commercial growth of chrysanthemum. Strojny (1979) used five
substrates alone, or in different combinations for growing pot chrysanthemums
and reported the best growth and flowering in a mixture of composted ground
bark and peat (1:1, v/v) followed by a mixture of bark, peat, soil and perlite
(1:1:1:1, v/v).
Will (1979) studied white peat/black peat mixtures in the ratio of 70: 30,
50: 50 and 30: 70 on volume by volume basis as substrates for growing of pot
plants of Calceolaria hybrids, Elatior begonia, poinsettias, Pelargoniums (zonale)
and Cinerarias were grown in white peat/black peat mixtures in ratios of 70:30,
50:50 and 30:70. The 50:50 ratios gave good results for all plants. In a second
trial, Adiantum scutum cv. Roseum, cyclamens and Erica gracilis were grown in
a 50:50 white peat/black peat mixture or in white peat/black peat/Hygropor at
35:35:30. The addition of Hygropor enhanced the development of all 3 plants. In
a third trial with a white peat/black peat mixture, increasing the fertilizer rate
improved results with Aphelandra squarrosa, Browallia speciosa, E. gracilis and
Pachystachys lutea.
Sawdust is one of the cheapest and easily available substrate. Worrall
(1981), while working with some foliage and flowering pot plants, reported better
growth rate in potting mixtures containing 50 to 80 per cent composted hardwood
sawdust than that of the equal percentage of sphagnum peat both receiving the
same levels of liquid or slow release fertilizers.
Schwemmer (1981) used Bark composts with slow-release fertilizers for
cyclamen growing. The growth and flowering of cyclamen, cv. Leuchtfeuer SC,
plants were compared in 12 substrates, including various bark, peat, humus and
8
soil mixtures with 2 slow-release fertilizers (Osmocote 15-12-15 and Nutricote
13-13-11) and a trace element supplement (Flory 3). The bark composts gave
intermediate results, while the peat-based substrate Humosoil produced the
largest plants and the most flowers. Osmocote was the most effective fertilizer
generally, but Nutricote gave better results towards the end of the growing
period. Flory 3 stimulated early flowering but had no other effect.
Soukup (1982) experimented on preparation and properties of bark-peat
substrates mainly prepared from composted pine or spruce bark and peat
mixtures(1:1, v/v) and tested then for greenhouse cultivation of various plants
species including Azalea, Begonia, Cyclamen, Gerbera, Chrysanthemums,
Pelargonium and Petunia. They reported better results in the peat growing
substrate amended the pine or spruce bark than in substrate alone.
Hicklenton (1983) reported that plants of chrysanthemum cultivars
‘Mountain Peak’, ‘Gold Star’ and ‘Cir Bronze’ grown in peat lite (Sphagnum
Peat/vermiculite) mixture produced thickest and longest stems compared to plants
grown in saw dust or saw dust mixed with Ca(NP2). Growth of chrysanthemum
cultivar ‘White Horim’ was best when placed in 100 per cent peat or in peat +
Pinus (pines) bark as compared to peat + composted bark of Picea smithiana,
Abies pindrow, Pinus insignia and Pinus sylvestris in a ratio of 1:2, v/v (Sant et
al., 1983).
Marfa et al. (1984) studied the effects of different substrates and irrigation
regimes on crop and plant-water relationships of Asplenium nidus-avis Hort. and
Cyclamen persicum Mill. They grow A. nidus-avis in peat: perlite (3:1) or
composted pine bark: peat (3:1) substrate and irrigated at 20, 40 or 100 cm water
suction and C. persicum cv. Rosa d'Alsmeer grown in peat: perlite (3:1) or peat:
pine bark: pine leaf mould (1:1:1) substrate which was irrigated at 20, 50 or 120
cm water suction. In A. nidus-avis there were no significant differences in growth
parameters between irrigation treatments but the substrate effect was significant.
Also plants in the peat: perlite substrate grow better comparatively. In C.
persicum growth was better in the peat : pine bark : pine leaf mould than in the
9
other substrate and the plants were generally more sensitive to water stress than
those of A. nidus-avis.
Lal and Danu (1985) observed good plant survival (43.3% to 63.3%) in
carnation cvs. `Scania’ and `Arthur Sim’, when grown in medium containing
sand only. In another study, Volf et al. (1985) recorded 26.4 per cent higher yield
in carnation plants grown in bark-peat than in soil. Alluvial soil, peat and sand in
the ratio of 3:1:1; v/v was found to be the best growing medium for greenhouse
grown carnation flowers (Kaptan, 1988).
Tesi and Tallarico (1985) investigated the use of worm-compost(10, 20,
30 and 40%) in combination with 90, 80, 70 and 60% of growing mixture
comprising of peat (80%) and polystyrene (20%) on volume by volume basis for
the cultivation of potted plants of Cyclamen and Poinsettia under greenhouse
conditions. They also applied CaCO3 @ 4g/l and a liquid fertilizer (20:20:20,
NPK) @ 2g/l to all the treatments. They did not observe significant differences
among the treatments as well as plant species in terms of plant size.
Taller plants with higher flower weight in five chrysanthemum cultivars
were produced in a medium containing coarse sphagnum peat moss. (Gislerod,
1988).
Abad et al. (1989) analysed the physical and chemical properties of sedge
peat based media and their relation to plant growth and prepared potting mixtures
for growing Begonia, Pelargonium hortorum and Tagetes sp. They reported
better growth in
the mixture containing peat + 40 % by volume of
undecomposed sphagnum peat + control release base fertilizer than in the
fertilized control mix composed of 2/3 sphhagnum peat, 1/3 perlite.
Park and Andersen in 1989 studied the effect of potting mixtures on
rooting and growth of geranium cuttings. The cuttings of Pelargonium zonale cv.'
‘Snow White’ were planted in peat, perlite, vermiculite, fine peat, or granulated
Grodan Green [rockwool], or their mixtures. The greatest fresh and dry weights
10
of aerial parts and roots and maximum number of flowers and leaves were
obtained in fine peat or combinations of Grodan Green and peat.
Strojny (1989) on the basis of trials conducted on chrysanthemum cvs.
'Mountain Snow' and 'Gold Star' for 3 years using five substrates alone or in
different combinations, reported that the best growth and flowering was observed
in a mixture of composted ground bark and peat (1: 1, v/v) followed by mixture
of bark, peat, soil and perlite in a ratio of 1 : 1: 1: 1, v/v and 1: 1 : 2 : 2, v/v,
respectively in both the cultivars.
Bailey and Clark (1991) suggested the growing medium comprising of
mature bark: sand: sphagnum peat (3:1:1, v/v) for successful growth and
flowering of hydrangea cultivars ‘Bottstein’, ‘Enziandom’, ‘Kasteln’, ‘Mathilde
Gutges’, ‘Merritt’s Supreme’, ‘Red Star’ and ‘Schenkenburg’ in pots (6”
diameter).
Hammer (1991) and Bethke (1993) reviewed various factors involved in
the selection of suitable growing medium for production of geranium and
concluded that geraniums require a pasteurized and well drained medium for
adequate root aeration.
Lamanna et al. (1991) worked on compost based media as an alternative
to peat on ten pot grown ornamentals namely, Gerbera jamesonii cv. ‘Valentine’,
Ficus elastica cv.‘Robusta’, Philodendron cv. ‘Emerald Red’, Euphorbia
pulcherrima cv. ‘Angelica’, Pelargonium zonale cv. ‘Empress’, Dracaena
deremensis cv. ‘Warneckei’, Cyclamen persicum cv. ‘Vuurbaak Turbo’,
Spathiphyllum cv. ‘Mauna Loa’, Kalanchoe blossfeldiana cv. ‘Calypso’,
Saintpaulia ionantha cv. ‘Heidran’using 9 commercially available growing media
containing peat, bark, grape stalks, sewage sludge, clay granules, perlite,
hydrogel and phenolic resins as their main components.
They found better
growth and flowering in all the container grown ornamentals in the potting
mixture consisting peat and compost in equal ratio on volume by volume basis.
11
Longer stems and bigger flowers were produced in carnation cv. `Dark
Lena’ when grown in peat + sawdust mixtures than those grown in peat or
sawdust alone (Starch et al., 1991). It was further observed that application of
higher N rates produced bigger flowers in plants grown in saw dust or a mixture
of 25 per cent peat + 75 per cent saw dust.
Verhagen (1993) while working on two chrysanthemum cultivars
‘Improved Fun Shine’ and ‘Cassa’, grown in different grades of peat recorded the
highest plant weight on the most coarse graded peat substrate for year round
flower production. Similarly, Smith and Hall (1994) compared perlite based
potting mixes (fine and coarse perlite with or without vermiculite) with
traditional peat based potting mixes and reported that perlite based potting mixes
were better alternatives to peat based ones for growing of Ficus elastica cv.
‘Robusta’ and chrysanthemum cv. ‘Bright Golden Anne’. However, vermiculite
was found to be detrimental for chrysanthemum.
Bowman et al. (1994) planted chrysanthemum cultivar ‘ Bright Golden
Anne’ in the pots (1.56 litre capacity) in the growing substrate comprising sand :
sawdust (1:2,v/v) or medium in which coarsely or finely ground particles of
rubber were substituted for 33, 67 and 100 % of saw dust. They found that flower
weight and number of open flowers were significantly low in rubber amended
medium than in saw dust. Similarly different growing substrates like; expended
clay, perlite, pumice and pumice : peat (1:1,v/v) were tested to produce
chrysanthemum cvs. ‘Talk Town’ and ‘Stafour’ and good quality cut flowers
were produced in expanded clay, perlite and pumice with or with out mixing with
peat (1:1, v/v) by Malorgio et al. (1994).
Boztok et al. (1995), while studying the effect of different growing media
on Carnation cultivars found greatest cut flower yield (number of stems/m2) and
stem length in pumice for cvs. 'Manon', ‘Astor' and 'Melody'.
Cocopeat is the waste product of coir industry and is prepared by
composting the coir dust for several months. Cocopeat is becoming a very
important substrate for growing ornamental plants. Consequently, Evans et al.
12
(1996), analysed the physico-chemical properties of coir dusts of five different
sources mainly from Philippines, Srilanka and Indonesia. They reported
significant differences in their physical and chemical properties of coir dust under
study and could be attributed to the source, degree of grinding, screen size,
degree of screening and age of the coir dust.
Newman et al. (1997) studied the growth and nutrition of geraniums
grown in media developed from waste tyre components. The zonal geranium
(Pelargonium × hortorum) cultivars, ‘Danielle’ and ‘Kim’ were grown in the
substrates containing three grind fractions of rubber fibre (2, 4, 6 or 10 mm)
obtained from the fabric belting waste tyres processing factory and mixed with
peat and vermiculite to formulate the different media viz., rubber : peat (1:1,v/v),
rubber : vermiculite : peat (1:1:2,v/v) and rubber : vermiculite : peat (2:1:1,v/v)
along with two control media namely, vermiculite : peat (1:1, v/v) and rock wool
: peat (1:1, v/v). They reported that growing medium containing rubber:
vermiculite: peat medium, (1:1:2, v/v) regardless of rubber size fraction or the
presence of tyre fibre, produced plants of equal quality as those produced in rock
wool and peat. However, the growing substrate comprising vermiculite: peat (1:1,
v/v) exhibited the best growth and highest flower count in both the cultivars in
comparison to other substrates tested.
Artetxe et al. (1997) investigated the effect of eight growing substrates
comprising of peat, pine bark, granulated slag, crystallized slag and slag wool in
varied ratio using C17 size container on growth and flowering of Hydrangea
macrophylla and reported the best results in a growing substrate comprised of
peat and pine bark (3:1, v/v). In an another experiment, they also compared the
effect of different container sizes (C12, C14, C17 and C21) using the growing
substrate made up of peat and pine bark (3:1, v/v) and recorded better production
of Hydrangea plants in C17 size containers.
Roeber and Leinfelder (1997) while comparing the efficacy of 11
different growing media on Saintpaulia ionantha and Sinningia hybrida found
significantly more number of flowers and flower buds per plant when the plants
13
were grown in Toreso cocopeat as compared to standard substrate and peat clay
archut substrate.
Khalil and Helal (1998) studied the effect of growing media (clay, sand
and clay + sand in the ratio of 1:1, 1:2 or 2:1, v/v) and Delta spray (containing N,
P, K, Mg and trace elements) fertilizer (as soil application at 1, 2 and 3g per pot,
or foliar application at 100, 200 and 400 ppm) on the performance of geranium
(Pelargonium × hortorum). The plants grown in clay were the tallest and had the
greatest stem dry weight. The highest number of leaves was obtained in clay and
clay + sand (2:1, v/v). Leaf dry weight per plant, number of inflorescence per
plant, and N, P, K as well as carbohydrate contents were increased with increase
in the clay percentage in the growing medium. Leaf area was greatest with clay
and clay + sand at 2:1 ratio. In general, Delta spray was more effective in the
enhancement of growth and flowering when applied to soil than to foliage. The
application of 3g fertilizer per pot was superior with regard to plant height,
number of inflorescences and leaves per plant, leaf area, number of axillary
shoots per plant and N, P, K and carbohydrate contents.
Lopez et al. (1998) investigated the effects of compost based substrates
on growth and nutrition of geranium (Pelargonium zonale cv. ‘Lucky Bark F’2)
and reported better results in a potting mixture containing good quality
commercial substrate made up of peat supplemented with mineral fertilizers.
Noguera et al. (2000) analysed the physico-chemical properties of
coconut coir waste (cocopeat) obtained from various sources and found that
coconut coir (cocopeat) waste is a new, viable and ecologically friendly peat
substitute. They reported that cocopeat is a low weight material with high total
porosity (over 94%), slightly acidic pH, CEC ranging between 32-95 meq./100g
and a C/N ratio of 117. It contained low amount of N, Ca and Mg but high P and
K levels. In addition, they also manipulated two individual coir waste samples
obtained from Mexico and Srilanka in order in order to prepare suitable coir
waste-based container media for growing Calendula officinalis and Coleus
blumei.
14
Eleni et al. (2001) investigated the effects of three growing substrates
viz., cocopeat (alone), perlite : cocopeat (3:1, v/v) and perlite : zeolite (3:1,v/v)
on yield and flower quality of two rose cultivars ‘Biance’ and ‘First Red’. They
reported varied interactive effects of growing substrates and rose cultivars. The
cultivar ‘Bianca’ gave better performance in the growing substrate comprising
perlite : cocopeat (3:1,v/v/) or perlite : zeolite (3:1,v/v) whereas, the cultivar
‘First Red’ recorded excellent results in cocopeat or cocopeat : perlite (1:3,v/v).
Effect of different potting mixture i.e. FYM, river sand, loam soil,
leafmould, cocopeat and coconut fibre was studied in Anthurium by Jawaharlal et
al. (2001). Among the various media, cocopeat in single or in combination with
leafmould or FYM produced maximum number of suckers per plant.
Raviv et al. (2001) evaluated the growth, flowering and yield of rose cv.
‘Kardinal’ grown in 5 litre capacity containers filled with two growing substrate
namely coconut coir (made up of shredded, partially composted husk fibres) and
university of California (UC) mix (i.e. 42% composted fir bark, 33% peat and
25% sand) under glass house. They recorded 19% higher yield in coir grown rose
plants than that of UC mix grown plants.
Sekar and Sujata (2001) tested the efficacy of five growing substrates viz.,
coirpith medium ( coirpith + garden soil + FYM ), sawdust medium ( sawdust +
garden soil + FYM), commercial mixture (sand + red soil + FYM), sand medium
(sand + FYM) and red soil medium (red soil + FYM) in equal ratio on volume
basis on growth and flowering of (Gerbera jamesonii Bolus.) cv. ‘Mammut’
grown in pots. They reported best results in the coirpith medium comprising
coirpith, garden soil and FYM (1:1:1, v/v)
Barreto and Jagtap (2002) used different growing media consisting of
coco peat, peat, soilrite, perlite, vermi-compost and compost in various
combinations and studied the economics of different media as per the prevailing
retail market rates of the substrates and the returns obtained in wholesale market.
The growing medium containing coco peat combined with compost (1:1, v/v)
15
produced flowers with highest net returns followed by the growing medium
containing cocopeat, perlite and rice husk (3:1 :1 v/v).
In an another study, Atta-Alla (2003) while working with pot plants,
evaluated the effects of 10 different growing media on the vegetative growth and
flowering of Cineraria and recorded the highest values for plant height, number
of shoots, leaves and flowers per plant, and inflorescence diameter in the potting
mixture consisting of loam sand, chicken manures and sewage sludge in the ratio
of 2:1:1, v/v.
Iniguez and Crohn (2004) conducted a greenhouse pot experiment to
evaluate the use of a slaughter house waste compost (SWC) as fertilizer for
potted geranium plants. This SWC was mixed with agave bagasse compost
(ABC) in the ratio of 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90 and 100% by volume
basis. Samples of SWC and ABC were used to prepare 6 different mixtures.
Potted geraniums grew well in the mixtures of SWC and ABC without additional
fertilizer applications.
Dede et al. (2006) studied the effects of organic waste substrates on the
growth of impatiens. Results indicated that hazelnut husk and maize straw based
substrates appear to be promising growing media components for containergrown ornamental plants. Furthermore, poultry manure and MSWC (municipal
solid waste compost) could be alternatives to slow release nutrient sources for
container-grown ornamental plants that improve plant vigour and appearance.
However, EC of MSWC (municipal solid waste compost) must be taken into
consideration before using it in container substrates. Higher electrical
conductivity (EC) of the substrate and lower nitrogen content in peat + MSWC
and peat + hazelnut husk + MSWC reduced the number of flowers per plant more
than the control. On the other hand, plants in commercial peat flowered
abundantly at the beginning of season, while plants in the substrate with MSWC
and poultry manure added flowers 1 or 2 weeks later and had a longer abundant
flowering period. The results suggest that it is possible to use organic materials,
as an alternative growing media component to peat.
16
Al-Menaie et al. (2008) evaluated growth and flowering patterns of
Gardenia jasminoides as influenced by growing media in both indoor and
outdoor varieties for producing good quality plants with better foliage and
flowering habits. The experiment was carried out with various combinations of
sand, potting soil peat moss and perlite as the growing media. Results indicated
that a mixture of potting soil : perlite in 1:1 ratio for indoor plants and potting soil
: peat moss in 1:1 ratio for outdoor plants had a positive effect on healthy canopy
development and thereby maximized flower production. They concluded that
moisture, aeration and organic matter of the growing medium were the three
major factors that influenced growth and flowering of Gardenia jasminoides
plants, considerably.
Wazir et al. (2009) tested the efficacy of five growing media viz., soil +
cocopeat + vermicompost + FYM + Sand, soil + MSW + leafmould + FYM +
sand, Mashobra peat + vermicompost + FYM + sand, Mashobra peat + MSW +
FYM + sand and soil + sand + FYM (control) for pot plant production of three
Alstroemeria cultivars. They reported the best results for various vegetative,
flowering and pot presentability attributes of all Alstroemeria Cultivars in the
growing medium comprising soil + cocopeat + vermicompost + sand (1:1:1:1,
v/v).
Awang et al. (2010) compared the effects of five different growing
substrates namely, M1 (compost 100%), M2 (compost 70% + Burnt Rice hull 30
%), M3 (cocopeat 70 % + perlite 30%), M4 (cocopeat 70 % + Kenaf Core Fibre)
and M5 (cocopeat 40 % + Kenaf Core Fibre 60 %) to explore the dynamics of
growth, development and flowering of Celosia cristata. They obtained higher
growth, development and flowering when plants were grown in the medium
comprising of 40 % cocopeat and 60 % Kenaf Cora Fibre.
Singh (2010) investigated the effect of seven growing media viz., M1
(Rhododendron forest soil : FYM : Vermicompost , 1:1:1, v/v), M2
(Rhododendron forest soil : FYM : Vermicompost, 2:1:1, v/v), M3 (Rai forest soil
: FYM : Vermicompost (1:1:1, v/v), M4 (Rai forest soil : FYM : Vermicompost,
17
2:1:1, v/v), M5 (Mohru oak forest soil : FYM : Vermicompost, 1:1:1, v/v), M6
(Mohru oak forest soil : FYM : Vermicompost, 2:1:1, v/v) and M7 (soil + FYM +
sand, 1:1:1, v/v) on growth, flowering and pot presentability of florists geranium.
He reported best growth, flowering and pot presentability of geranium in growing
substrate consisting of Rai Forest soil : FYM : Vermicompost (2:1:1, v/v).
Younis et al. (2010) studied the effects of different growing media on the
growth of Codiaeum variegatum cv. ‘Gold Sun’. Different growing media
included normal soil, perlite, silt, sand, leaf compost, farm yard manure and spent
composts (Button and Oyster) in different combinations. The results indicated
that combination of sand+ silt+ leaf compost+ spent compost (button) in ratio of
(1:1:1:1, v/v) proved to be the best medium for growth and development of
croton plants. Analysis of potted medium reflected that medium with low
nutrients, organic matter and water-holding capacity, can be amended with
different organic materials with different combinations in varied ratios.
Latpate (2011) studied the effect of growing media and daminozide
application on growth and flowering of Hydrangea macrophylla Thunb. He
concluded that hydrangea plants grown in growing media consisiting of forest
soil (Rai) : FYM : vermicompost (2:1:1,v/v) and sprayed with 5000 ppm dose of
diaminozide resulted in most desirable and presentable potted hydrangea with a
benefit - cost ratio of 1.92 : 1.
2.2
POT SIZES
Container size also plays an important role in manipulating the growth,
development and flowering besides the presentability of potted plants.
Biermann (1982) conducted the variety tests of Cyclamen with various
dates and various pot sizes. Ten miniature cyclamen cultivars were sown on 1st
February or 1st March and grown in 8 or 9 cm pots for 200 days. Plants from
early sowing produced 35.4 % more flowers and were larger than those from later
sowing. Plants from earlier sowing flowered 16 days earlier and were salable 42
18
days earlier than plants from the later sowing. Plants grown in 8 cm pots were
smaller in diameter than those grown in 9 cm pots.
The top bio-mass of Euonymus japonica and Azalea was found to be
linearly correlated with increase in pot size ( Keever et al., 1985).
The container size alters the rooting volume of the plants, which in turn
greatly affects plant growth and flowering as well. In general, as container size
increases, leaf area, shoot bio-mass and root bio-mass increases linearly
(Cantliffe,1993). Similarly, root and shoot bio-mass of Salvia splendens also
increased linearly with the corresponding increase in container volume (Van
Iersel, 1997)
Artetxe et al. (1997) compared the effects of container sizes (C12, C14,
C17 and C21 on growth and flowering of Hydrangea macrophylla and recorded
better production of Hydrangea plants in C17 size containers.
Zhang and Bravdo ( 2001) investigated the effect of root restriction on the
growth of Wine grape ‘Caberneet Sauvignon’. Three pot sizes i.e. 10, 20, 50
litres were used and they found that root dry weight of 50 litre pot was higher
than that of 20 and 10 litre pots, respectively. Above ground growth of of the
plant was also affected negatively by root restriction. Leaf and shoot dry weight,
leaf area as well as photosynthesis decreased significantly with root restriction.
Vernieri et al. (2003) studied the effect of cultivars, timing, growth
retardents and potting type on production of
potted Sunflowers. They
investigated the effect of different sowing periods ( early, mid and late spring),
container size ( 12 or 16 cm diameter), product typology ( single or multiple plant
per pot) and growth retardents ( paclobutrazol and flurprimidol) on plant height
and diameter, and on blooming period and ornamental characteristics of the
flower. They found that early sowing induced blooming and reduced plant height
in all tested genotypes with respect to late sowing date, where as plants grown in
larger pots showed more compact growth and a slight earliness in blooming.
Growing multiple plants per pot resulted in a reduced size of each single plant.
19
These experiments indicated that the four genotypes tested, gave best results if
treated with growth retardents which not only reduce plant height, but also
increase plant uniformity. Between the two compound tested, paclobutrazol was
more effective than flurprimidol in reducing size, without negative effects on
crop quality.
Geply et al. (2011) studied the effect of different pot sizes and growth
media on the agronomic performance of Jatropha curcas. Two different pot sizes
i.e. 2.5 cm and 5 cm and three different growth media made up of Top soil, river
sand and saw dust were used. They found that river sand in 5 cm pot size has the
maximum value in height and girth, while the highest number of leaves was
counted from top soil in 5cm pot size.
20
Chapter-3
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The present investigations entitled, “Effect of growing substrates and
pot sizes on growth and flowering of Primula malacoides Franch.” were
carried out at the experimental farm of department of Floriculture and
Landscaping, Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni,
Solan (H.P.) with effect from September 2012 to April 2013.
3.1
GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION
The farm is located at an elevation of 1270 m amsl having latitude of
30052'0" N and longitude of 77011'30" E. The climate of this area is typically
semi-temperate type.
3.2
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
In all, there were 21 treatment combinations each having 5 pots replicated
thrice in a completely randomized design (factorial). The details of treatments of
growing substrates and pot sizes as experimented are given below:
1.
Growing substrates
:
7
2.
Pot sizes
:
3
3.
Replication
:
3
4.
No. of treatment combinations
:
7x3=21
5.
No. of plants per pot
:
1
6.
No. of pots per replication
:
5
7.
Design
:
CRD (Factorial)
TREATMENTS OF GROWING SUBSTRATES:
T1
=
Soil : FYM : Sand (1:1:1, v/v)
T2
=
Quercus semicarpifolia leaf mould : FYM : Soil (2:1:1, v/v)
T3
=
Rhododendron arboreum leaf mould : FYM : Soil (2:1:1, v/v)
21
T4
=
Picea smithiana leaf mould : FYM : Soil (2:1:1, v/v)
T5
=
Chirpine leaf mould : FYM : Soil (1:1:1, v/v)
T6
=
Cocopeat : FYM: Sand (1:1:1, v/v)
T7
=
Spent mushroom compost: FYM : Sand (2:1:1, v/v)
Pot sizes:
P1
:
15 cm diameter pots
P2
:
20 cm diameter pots
P3
:
25 cm diameter pots
3.3
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS:
Data were analysed by analysis of variances, using completely
randomized design (factorial) as suggested by Gomez and Gomez (1984). Levels
of significance used for ‘F’ and‘t’ test were 0.05% from Fisher’s (1970) tables.
3.4
EXPERIMENTAL METHODLOGY
3.4.1 Source of planting material
The seedlings of Primula malacoides Franch. cv. ‘ Lace Wing’ were
procured from RHRS, Mashobra, Shimla (HP). The cultivar ‘Lace Wing’ is from
Bodger series and produce lilac colour flowers. It attains a maximum plant
height of 40-50 cm depending upon the growing substrates, pot sizes and
prevailing climatic conditions.
3.4.2 Sources of growing substrates
Type of soil
Quercus semicarpofolia leafmould
Source
Forest Beat Oachghat, Forest Division Solan
Rhododendron arboreum leafmould
Lutkeri Forest Beat
Forest Range Kanda,
Forest Division Chopal, Distt. Shimla
Picea smithiana leafmould
Lutkeri Forest Beat
Forest Range Kanda,
Forest Division Chopal, Distt. Shimla
Chir pine leafmould
Forest Beat Oachghat, Forest Division Solan
Spent mushroom compost
Deptt. Of MPP, Dr.YSPUHF,Nauni,Solan
22
3.4.3 Preparation of growing substrate
Seven growing substrates viz., Soil : FYM : Sand (1:1:1, v/v), Quercus
semicarpifolia leafmould : FYM : Soil (2:1:1, v/v) , Rhododendron arboreum L.
Leafmould : FYM : Soil (2:1:1, v/v), Picea smithiana L. Leafmould : FYM : Soil
(2:1:1, v/v), Pinus roxburghii L. Leafmould : FYM : Soil (1:1:1, v/v), Cocopeat :
FYM : Sand(1:1:1, v/v), Spent mushroom compost : FYM : Sand (2:1:1, v/v)
were prepared after thoroughly mixing of various ingredients on volume by
volume basis.
3.5
CULTURAL PRACTICES
3.5.1 Transplanting
The stocky seedlings of Primula malacoides Franch. were planted in
plastic pots of 15cm, 20 cm and 25 cm diameter pots containing a sterilized
mixtures of different growing substrates as detailed above in the shade net house
on 1st September, 2012.
3.5.2
Nutrition and irrigation
To facilitate vegetative growth, foliar spray of urea was given @ 4g/10
litre of water on 5th October and foliar spray of Multi K @ 1g/10 litre of water
was given on 25th October. Two irrigations per week were applied during
September to February and four irrigations per week were applied during MarchApril depending upon the weather conditions.
3.5.3
Plant protection measures
All plants were inspected for disease/insect-pest infestation at regular
intervals. Attacks of greenhouse white flies ( Trialeurodes vaporariorum ),
Bacterial soft rot (Erwinia caratovora), Cucumber mosaic virus were observed in
Primula malacoides Franch. Drenching with Diathane M-45 @ 0.2% and
Bavistin @ 0.1% was done at fortnightly intervals. For white flies, yellow traps
were used and Cypermethrin @ 1ml/litre was sprayed. Drenching of Diathane M45 @ 0.2%, Bavistin @ 0.1% was done for bacterial soft rot and also
23
chloropyriphos @ 2 ml/litre was drenched to safeguard the root system from root
borer.
3.6.3
Weeding
Manual weeding was done at weekly intervals.
3.6
OBSERVATIONS RECORDED:
The observations on plant height, number of branches or shoots per plant,
shoot length, plant spread, days to flower bud formation, days to first flower
opening, length of inflorescence stalk, inflorescence diameter, number of
inflorescences per plant, number of flowers per inflorescence, number of flowers
per plant, duration of flowering, pot presentability score attributes were recorded
at the time of peak flowering.
3.6.1
Plant height (cm)
Plant height was measured from the base of the plant i.e. just from the
soil level up to the top of inflorescence of the longest shoot.
3.6.2
Number of branches or shoots per plant
The total numbers of branches or shoots produced per plant were
counted.
3.6.3
Shoot length (cm)
The length of individual flowering shoot was measured from where it was
attached to the crown and up to the apical growing portion.
3.6.4
Plant spread (cm)
The plant spread was measured as “the average of the distance between
outer most side leaves in East to West direction and the distance between outer
most side leaves in North to South direction” at the time of peak flowering.
3.6.5
Days to flower bud formation
Days to flower bud formation were recorded as the time taken from
transplanting till the visibility of colour of flower buds.
24
T1
P3
P2
P1
A stocky seedling of Primula
T2
P1
P2
T3
P3
P3
P2
T5
P1
P2
T4
P3
P1
P3
P2
T6
P2
P1
T7
P1
P3
P3
P2
Treatments of growing substrates :
Pot sizes :
T1 = Soil : FYM : Sand (1:1:1,v/v)
P1
T2 = Ban Oak leafmould : FYM : soil (2:1:1,v/v)
P2
:
20 cm dia. Pots
T3 = Rhododendron leafmould : FYM : soil (2:1:1,v/v)
P3 :
25 cm dia. Pots
:
P1
15 cm dia. Pots
T4 = Rai leafmould : FYM : soil (2:1:1, v/v)
T5 = Chirpine leafmould : FYM : soil (1:1:1, v/v)
T6 = Cocopeat : FYM : sand (1:1:1, v/v)
T7 = Spent mushroom compost : FYM : sand (2:1:1, v/v)
Plate-1: Pots of various sizes (P1 ,P2 ,P3 ) filled with different growing substrates
and ready for planting.
3.6.6
Days taken to first flower opening
Numbers of days taken to first flower opening were recorded as the time
taken in days from transplanting of seedlings to the opening of first flower.
3.6.7
Length of inflorescence stalk (cm)
The inflorescence stalk length was measured from visible base of the
stalk to the base of the inflorescence.
3.6.8
Inflorescence diameter (cm)
This observation was recorded by taking average diameter of the fully
opened inflorescences per plant. This was measured as the average of the distant
apices of distal florets of the inflorescence in East to West and North to South
Direction.
3.6.9 Number of inflorescences per plant
This observation was recorded by counting the total number of
inflorescences produced per plant.
3.6.10 Number of flowers per inflorescence
This observation was recorded by counting the total number of flowers
per inflorescence.
3.6.11 Number of flowers per plant
This observation was recorded by counting the total number of flowers
produced per plant.
3.6.12 Duration of flowering (days)
Duration of flowering was recorded as the time taken in days from first
flower opening till at least a single inflorescence per plant remained fresh or
presentable.
25
3.6.11 Pot presentability score
Pot presentability was calculated on the basis of point system modified
after Conover (1986). The parameters studied and points allotted to each
parameter out of maximum of 100 points were as follows:
Parameters
1) Appearance as whole
plant
2) Flowering (1)
(2)
3) Form
4) Stem and foliage
Description
1) Fresh appearance, no indication
of senescence, mechanical and
insect damage in inflorescence/
stem
2) Fresh appearance but very less
indication of senescence
3)
Fresh
appearance
but
considerable
indication
of
senescence
Scoring of the pots at the time of
peak flowering (number of
inflorescences / plant)
i.
≥35
ii.
≥30 to 34
iii.
≥25 to 29
iv.
≥20 to 24
v.
<20
Number of flowers per plant
i.
>1000
ii.
>800-1000
iii.
>600-800
iv.
>400-600
v.
>200-400
vi.
<200
1) Plant in balance with pot,
neither too large nor too small
(generally 1.5-2.0 times the height
of the container) and optimum
plant spread.
2) Plants to large or to small and
less plant spread
1) Plant self supportive with very
strong stems. Foliage healthy and
free of any infestation of insectpests diseases and bruises etc.
2) Plants less self supportive.
Foliage healthy and very less
infestation
of
insect-pests,
diseases and bruises etc.
3) Plants not self supportive with
less strong stems. Foliage
unhealthy and infestation of
insect- pests, diseases and bruises
etc.
26
Maximum points
20 (20)
15 (20)
10 (20)
20 (20)
18 (20)
16 (20)
15 (20)
10 (20)
20 (20)
19 (20)
15 (20)
12 (20)
10 (20)
7 (20)
20 (20)
12 (20)
20 (20)
15 (20)
10 (20)
Chapter-4
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
The experimental results obtained on different aspects of the study
entitled, “ Effect of growing substrates and pot sizes on growth and flowering
of Primula malacoides Franch.” are presented in this chapter. The analysis of
variances for different characters studied are presented in the Appendix-II.
4.1
PLANT HEIGHT (cm)
A perusal of data presented in Table-1 indicated the significant effect of
growing substrates and pot sizes on plant height. Maximum plant height (43.05
cm) was obtained in T6 i.e. growing substrate composed of cocopeat: FYM: sand
(1:1:1, v/v) and found to be significantly higher over all other growing substrates.
Whereas, minimum plant height (31.49 cm) was recorded in T1 i.e. when plants
were grown in medium consisting of soil: FYM: sand (1: 1: 1, v/v).
As regards the effect of pot sizes, maximum plant height (37.20 cm) was
recorded in P3 i.e. 25 cm diameter pots and found to be at par with the plants
grown in P2 i.e. 20 cm diameter pots (35.78 cm). However, minimum plant height
(32.70 cm) was recorded in P1 i.e. 15 cm diameter pots.
The interaction between growing substrates × pot sizes exhibited
significant effects on plant height. The interaction effect of growing substrates
and pot sizes recorded maximum plant height (46.26 cm) in T6 × P3 i.e. when
plants were grown in cocopeat: FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v) and using 25 cm diameter
pots and found to be at par with T6 × P2 (43.33 cm) i.e. when plants were grown
in cocopeat: FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v) and using 20 cm diameter pots. Whereas, the
minimum plant height (26.18 cm) was recorded in T1 × P1 i.e. when plants were
grown in soil:FYM:sand (1:1:1, v/v) and pots of 15 cm diameter.
27
Table-1.
Effect of growing substrates and pot
plant height (cm) of Primula malacoides Franch.
Pot sizes
Growing
substrates
Plant height (cm)
P2
P3
(20 cm dia pots) (25 cm dia.pots)
32.01
36.27
sizes
on
T1
P1
(15 cm dia. pots)
26.18
Mean
T2
33.42
35.02
37.16
35.20
T3
33.48
31.93
34.01
33.26
T4
32.67
35.83
31.27
33.24
T5
32.19
32.57
34.94
33.14
T6
39.57
43.33
46.26
43.05
T7
31.40
39.73
40.51
37.21
Mean
32.70
35.78
37.20
31.49
CD0.05
Growing substrates
Pot sizes
Growing substrates × Pot sizes
:
:
:
2.28
1.49
3.95
Treatments of growing substrates:
T1 = Soil: FYM: Sand (1:1:1, v/v)
T2
= Quercus semicarpifolia leaf mould: FYM: Soil (2:1:1, v/v)
T3
= Rhododendron arboreum leaf mould: FYM: Soil (2:1:1, v/v)
T4
= Picea smithiana leaf mould : FYM: Soil (2:1:1, v/v)
T5
= Chirpine leaf mould: FYM: Soil (1:1:1, v/v)
T6
= Cocopeat: FYM: Sand (1:1:1, v/v)
T7
= Spent mushroom compost : FYM: Sand (2:1:1, v/v)
4.2
NUMBER OF BRANCHES OR SHOOTS PER PLANT
A perusal of data in Table-2 indicated the significant effects of growing
substrates and pot sizes on number of branches or
shoots per plant. The
maximum shoots or branches per plant (36.37) were observed in T6 i.e. growing
substrate comprising
cocopeat: FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v) and found to be
statistically at par with T7 (33.56 ) i.e. growing substrate containing Spent
mushroom compost: FYM: sand (2:1:1, v/v). Whereas, minimum branches or
shoots per plant (18.64) were produced in T1 i.e. when plants were grown in soil:
FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v).
28
As regards the effects of pot sizes, maximum
branches or shoots per
plant (35.16) were obtained in pot size of 25 cm diameter and minimum
branches or shoots (20.33) in pot size of 15 cm diameter.
The interaction effects of growing substrates x pot sizes exhibited
maximum number of branches or shoots per plant (47.07) in T6 × P3 i.e. when
plants were grown in cocopeat: FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v) and using pots of size 25
cm diameter and found to be statistically at par with T6 × P2 (42.33) and T7 × P3
(42.47). Whereas, number of branches or shoots were minimum (12.60) in T1 ×
P1 i.e. when plants were grown in Soil: FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v) and using 15 cm
diameter pots which was found to be at par with T3 × P1 (15.00) and T3 × P2
(16.57), respectively.
Table-2. Effect of growing substrates and pot sizes on number of branches or
shoots per plant of Primula malacoides Franch.
Pot sizes
Growing
substrates
Number of branches or shoots per plant
P2
P3
(20 cm dia pots) (25 cm dia.pots)
19.27
24.05
T1
P1
(15 cm dia. pots)
12.60
T2
20.73
27.58
33.53
27.28
T3
15.00
16.57
25.33
18.97
T4
24.07
27.07
37.07
29.40
T5
26.00
31.23
36.63
31.29
T6
19.70
42.33
47.07
36.37
T7
Mean
24.23
33.97
42.47
33.56
20.33
28.29
35.16
CD0.05
Growing substrates
Pot sizes
Growing substrates × Pot sizes
:
:
:
3.48
2.28
6.03
Treatments of growing substrates:
T1 = Soil: FYM: Sand (1:1:1, v/v)
T2
= Quercus semicarpifolia leaf mould: FYM: Soil (2:1:1, v/v)
T3
= Rhododendron arboreum leaf mould: FYM: Soil (2:1:1, v/v)
T4
= Picea smithiana leaf mould : FYM: Soil (2:1:1, v/v)
T5
= Chirpine leaf mould: FYM: Soil (1:1:1, v/v)
T6
= Cocopeat: FYM: Sand (1:1:1, v/v)
T7
= Spent mushroom compost : FYM: Sand (2:1:1, v/v)
29
Mean
18.64
4.3
SHOOT LENGTH (cm)
The perusal of data presented in Table-3 indicated the significant effects
of growing substrates and pot sizes on shoot length. Longest shoots (25.38 cm)
were produced in T6 i.e. growing medium composed of cocopeat: FYM: sand
(1:1:1, v/v) and found to be significantly higher over other growing substrates.
Whereas, minimum shoot length (19.07 cm) was recorded in T1 i.e. when the
plants were grown in substrate comprising soil: FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v) and
found to be significantly lower than other substrates tested.
As regards the effect of pot sizes, maximum shoot length (23.18 cm) was
recorded in P3 and minimum (20.43 cm) in P1.
Table-3. Effect of growing substrates and pot sizes on shoots length (cm) of
Primula malacoides Franch.
Pot sizes
Growing
substrates
T1
Shoot length (cm)
P1
P2
P3
(15 cm dia. pots) (20 cm dia pots) (25 cm dia.pots)
18.99
18.71
19.52
Mean
19.07
T2
T3
19.74
21.50
23.44
20.65
24.89
21.35
22.69
21.16
T4
20.09
21.02
22.03
21.05
T5
T6
19.45
20.92
21.38
23.32
19.92
20.43
25.16
22.25
21.74
27.67
25.43
23.18
20.58
25.38
T7
Mean
CD0.05
Growing substrates
Pot sizes
Growing substrates × Pot sizes
:
:
:
0.52
0.34
0.90
Treatments of growing substrates:
T1 = Soil: FYM: Sand (1:1:1, v/v)
T2
= Quercus semicarpifolia leaf mould: FYM: Soil (2:1:1, v/v)
T3
= Rhododendron arboreum leaf mould: FYM: Soil (2:1:1, v/v)
T4
= Picea smithiana leaf mould : FYM: Soil (2:1:1, v/v)
T5
= Chirpine leaf mould: FYM: Soil (1:1:1, v/v)
T6
= Cocopeat: FYM: Sand (1:1:1, v/v)
T7 = Spent mushroom compost : FYM: Sand (2:1:1, v/v)
30
22.54
T1
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
Treatments of growing substrates :
Pot sizes :
T1 = Soil : FYM : Sand (1:1:1,v/v)
P1
T2 = Ban Oak leafmould : FYM : soil (2:1:1,v/v)
P2
:
20 cm dia. Pots
T3 = Rhododendron leafmould : FYM : soil (2:1:1,v/v)
P3 :
25 cm dia. Pots
:
15 cm dia. Pots
T4 = Rai leafmould : FYM : soil (2:1:1, v/v)
T5 = Chirpine leafmould : FYM : soil (1:1:1, v/v)
T6 = Cocopeat : FYM : sand (1:1:1, v/v)
T7 = Spent mushroom compost : FYM : sand (2:1:1, v/v)
Plate-2: Effect of growing substrates and pot sizes on vegetative growth of
Primula malacoides F.
The interaction, growing substrates × pot sizes exhibited significant
effects on shoot length. The interaction effects of growing substrates and pot
sizes exhibited longest shoots (27.67 cm) in T6 × P3 i.e. when plants were grown
in cocopeat: FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v) and planted in pots of 25 cm diameter and
were significantly more over other interactions. Where as, minimum shoot length
was observed in T1 × P2 (18.71 cm) i.e. when grown in soil : FYM : sand (1:1:1,
v/v) and using pot size of 20 cm diameter and found to be at par with T1 × P1
(18.99 cm) and T1 × P3 (19.52 cm), respectively.
4.4
PLANT SPREAD (cm)
A perusal of data presented in Table-4 revealed maximum plant spread
(36.58 cm) in T6 i.e. growing substrates comprising cocopeat: FYM: sand (1:1:1,
v/v) and found to be at par with T4 (35.89 cm) i.e. growing substrate consisting of
Picea smithiana leafmould: FYM: soil (2:1:1,v/v) Whereas, minimum plant
spread (32.30) was observed in T5 i.e. growing medium consisting of Chir pine
leafmould: FYM : sand (2:1:1, v/v) and found to be at par with T1(32.41 cm) and
T7 (33.20 cm).
As regards the effects of pot sizes, maximum plant spread (39.50 cm)
was obtained when plants were grown in P3 i.e. 25 cm pot size and minimum
plant spread (28.96 cm) was obtained with P1 i.e. when plants were grown in 15
cm diameter pots.
The interactions, growing substrates × pot sizes revealed maximum
plant spread (41.71 cm) in T6 × P3 i.e. when the plants were grown in the
substrate comprising cocopeat: FYM: sand (1:1:1,v/v) and using 25 cm diameter
pots and found to be at par with T2 × P3 (40.12 cm) i.e. when plants were grown
in the substrate comprising Quercus semicarpifolia leafmould: FYM: soil
(2:1:1,v/v) and using pots of 25 cm diameter and minimum (25.88 cm) in T1 × P1
i.e. when the plants were grown in the substrate comprising soil : FYM : sand
(1:1:1,v/v) and using 15 cm diameter pots and found to be at par with T5 × P1
(27.78 cm).
31
Table-4. Effect of growing substrates and pot sizes on plant spread (cm) of
Primula malacoides Franch.
Pot sizes
Growing
substrates
T1
Plant spread (cm)
P1
P2
P3
(15 cm dia. pots) (20 cm dia pots) (25 cm dia.pots)
25.88
31.68
39.66
Mean
32.41
T2
29.07
35.62
40.12
34.93
T3
30.83
33.16
37.17
33.72
T4
30.30
37.72
39.66
35.89
T5
27.78
31.08
38.05
32.30
T6
30.84
37.18
41.71
36.58
T7
Mean
28.02
28.96
31.44
33.98
40.14
39.50
33.20
CD0.05
Growing substrates
Pot sizes
Growing substrates × Pot sizes
:
:
:
1.14
0.75
1.98
Treatments of growing substrates:
T1 = Soil: FYM: Sand (1:1:1, v/v)
T2
= Quercus semicarpifolia leaf mould: FYM: Soil (2:1:1, v/v)
T3
= Rhododendron arboreum leaf mould: FYM: Soil (2:1:1, v/v)
T4
= Picea smithiana leaf mould : FYM: Soil (2:1:1, v/v)
T5
= Chirpine leaf mould: FYM: Soil (1:1:1, v/v)
T6
= Cocopeat: FYM: Sand (1:1:1, v/v)
T7
= Spent mushroom compost : FYM: Sand (2:1:1, v/v)
4.5
DAYS TO FLOWER BUD FORMATION
The data in Table-5 envisaged the effects of growing substrates and pot
sizes on number of days to flower bud formation. Maximum time to flower bud
formation (108.90 days) was recorded in T4 i.e. growing substrate consisting of
Picea smithiana leafmould : FYM : soil (2:1:1, v/v) and found to be at par with
T3 (106.70 days) and T7 (107.60 days). Whereas, the earliest flower bud
formation (104.1 days) was observed in T6 i.e. when the plants were grown in
cocopeat: FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v) and found to be at par with T1 (105.00 days), T2
(105.00 days) and T5 (104.70 days), respectively.
32
Table-5.
Effect of growing substrates and pot sizes on days to flower
bud formation (Days) of Primula malacoides Franch.
Pot sizes
Growing
substrates
T1
Days to flower bud formation (days)
P1
P2
P3
(15 cm dia. pots) (20 cm dia pots) (25 cm dia.pots)
101.50
105.60
107.90
Mean
105.00
T2
101.50
105.60
107.90
105.00
T3
101.70
108.40
109.90
106.70
T4
105.50
110.40
110.80
108.90
T5
101.60
107.80
104.60
104.70
T6
99.83
106.40
106.20
104.10
T7
Mean
104.20
102.30
109.30
107.70
109.30
108.10
107.60
CD0.05
Growing substrates
Pot sizes
Growing substrates × Pot sizes
:
:
:
2.46
1.62
NS
Treatments of growing substrates:
T1 = Soil: FYM: Sand (1:1:1, v/v)
T2
= Quercus semicarpifolia leaf mould: FYM: Soil (2:1:1, v/v)
T3
= Rhododendron arboreum leaf mould: FYM: Soil (2:1:1, v/v)
T4
= Picea smithiana leaf mould : FYM: Soil (2:1:1, v/v)
T5
= Chirpine leaf mould: FYM: Soil (1:1:1, v/v)
T6
= Cocopeat: FYM: Sand (1:1:1, v/v)
T7
= Spent mushroom compost : FYM: Sand (2:1:1, v/v)
As regards the effects of pot sizes, the maximum time to flower bud
formation (108.10 days) was taken when plants were grown in P3 i.e. when plants
were grown in 25 cm diameter pots and found to be at par with P2 (107.70 days)
i.e. when plants were grown in 20 cm diameter pots. Whereas, minimum number
of days to flower bud formation (102.30 days) were recorded in P1 i.e. when
plants were grown in 15 cm size pots, which was significantly less than all other
pot sizes.
The interaction between growing substrates × pot sizes exhibited nonsignificant effects on number of days to flower bud formation. However,
33
interaction effects of growing substrates and pot sizes took maximum time for
flower bud formation (110.80 days) in T4 × P3 i.e. growing medium consisting of
Picea smithiana leafmould : FYM : soil (2:1:1, v/v) and in pot size of 25 cm.
Whereas, minimum number of days to flower bud formation (99.83 days) were
recorded in T6 × P1 i.e. when plants were grown in cocopeat: FYM: sand (1:1:1,
v/v) and planted in pot size P1 i.e. 15 cm diameter pots.
4.6
DAYS TO FIRST FLOWER OPENING
A perusal of data in Table-6 indicated the effect of growing substrates and
pot sizes on number of days to first flower opening. Maximum time for first
flower opening (111.60 days) was recorded in T4 i.e. growing medium composed
Table-6.
Effect of growing substrates and pot sizes on days to first flower
opening (Days) of Primula malacoides Franch.
Pot sizes
Growing
substrates
T1
Days to flower bud formation (days)
P1
P2
P3
(15 cm dia. pots) (20 cm dia pots) (25 cm dia.pots)
105.50
107.90
109.60
Mean
107.70
T2
105.50
107.90
109.60
107.70
T3
105.70
109.90
112.40
109.40
T4
109.50
110.90
114.40
111.60
T5
105.60
104.60
111.80
107.40
T6
103.80
106.20
110.40
106.80
T7
Mean
108.20
106.30
109.30
108.10
113.30
111.70
110.20
CD0.05
Growing substrates
Pot sizes
Growing substrates × Pot sizes
:
:
:
2.47
1.62
NS
Treatments of growing substrates:
T1 = Soil: FYM: Sand (1:1:1, v/v)
T2
= Quercus semicarpifolia leaf mould: FYM: Soil (2:1:1, v/v)
T3
= Rhododendron arboreum leaf mould: FYM: Soil (2:1:1, v/v)
T4
= Picea smithiana leaf mould : FYM: Soil (2:1:1, v/v)
T5
= Chirpine leaf mould: FYM: Soil (1:1:1, v/v)
T6
= Cocopeat: FYM: Sand (1:1:1, v/v)
T7
= Spent mushroom compost : FYM: Sand (2:1:1, v/v)
34
of Picea smithiana leafmould : FYM : soil (2:1:1, v/v) and found to be at par with
T3 (109.40 days) and T7 (110.20 days). Whereas, the earliest first flower opening
(106.80 days) was observed in T6 i.e. cocopeat: FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v) and
found to be at par with T1 (107.70 days), T2 (107.70 days) and T5(107.40 days),
respectively.
As regards the effects of pot sizes, maximum time to first flower opening
(111.70 days) was taken by the plants grown in 25 cm diameter pots and found
to be significantly higher over other pot sizes. Whereas, minimum time to first
flower opening (106.3 days) was observed in plants grown in 15 cm size pots.
The interaction, growing substrates × pot sizes exhibited non-significant
effects on number of days taken to first flower opening. The interaction effects of
growing substrates and pot sizes recorded maximum time to first flower opening
(114.40 days) when plants were planted in Picea smithiana leaf mould: FYM :
soil (2:1:1, v/v) and using 25 cm size pots and minimum time for first flower
opening (103.80 days) was recorded in T6 × P1 i.e. by growing plants in cocopeat:
FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v) and using pot size of 15 cm.
4.7
LENGTH OF INFLORESCENCE STALK (cm)
A critical observation of data presented in Table-7 indicated non-
significant effects of growing substrates and pot sizes on length of inflorescence
stalk. The longest inflorescence stalks (17.43 cm) were produced in T6 i.e.
growing medium composed of cocopeat: FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v) and minimum
length of inflorescence stalk (15.01 cm) in T4 i.e. growing medium consisting
Picea smithiana leafmould: FYM: soil (2:1:1, v/v).
As regards the effects of pot sizes, maximum length of inflorescence stalk
(16.78cm) was observed when plants were grown in 25 cm diameter pots and
minimum length of inflorescence stalk (14.57 cm) for the plants grown in 15 cm
diameter pots.
The interaction between growing substrates × pot sizes exhibited nonsignificant effects on the length of inflorescence stalk. The interactive effects of
35
growing substrates and pot sizes recorded maximum length of inflorescence stalk
(18.31cm) in T6 × P3 i.e. growing substrate composed of cocopeat: FYM: sand
(1:1:1, v/v) and using pot size of 25 cm diameter and minimum (13.86 cm) in T4
× P1 i.e. growing medium comprising Picea smithiana leafmould: FYM: soil
(2:1:1, v/v) and using pots of 15 cm diameter.
Table-7. Effect of growing substrates and pot sizes on length of
inflorescence stalk (cm) of Primula malacoides Franch.
Pot sizes
Growing
substrates
T1
Length of inflorescence stalk (cm)
P1
P2
P3
(15 cm dia. pots) (20 cm dia pots) (25 cm dia.pots)
13.98
15.69
16.02
Mean
15.23
T2
14.90
15.62
17.74
16.09
T3
14.09
14.80
16.58
15.16
T4
13.86
14.95
16.22
15.01
T5
14.06
15.25
16.43
15.24
T6
16.47
17.52
18.31
17.43
T7
Mean
14.62
14.57
15.58
15.63
16.14
16.78
15.45
CD0.05
Growing substrates
Pot sizes
Growing substrates × Pot sizes
:
:
:
NS
NS
NS
Treatments of growing substrates:
T1 = Soil: FYM: Sand (1:1:1, v/v)
T2
= Quercus semicarpifolia leaf mould: FYM: Soil (2:1:1, v/v)
T3
= Rhododendron arboreum leaf mould: FYM: Soil (2:1:1, v/v)
T4
= Picea smithiana leaf mould : FYM: Soil (2:1:1, v/v)
T5
= Chirpine leaf mould: FYM: Soil (1:1:1, v/v)
T6
= Cocopeat: FYM: Sand (1:1:1, v/v)
T7
= Spent mushroom compost : FYM: Sand (2:1:1, v/v)
4.8
INFLORESCENCE DIAMETER (cm)
The effects of growing substrates and pot size on inflorescence diameter
were found to be significant.The data in Table-8 revealed maximum
inflorescence diameter (5.89 cm) in T6 i.e. the growing medium consisting of
36
cocopeat: FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v) and found to be significantly higher over other
substrates. However, minimum diameter was found in T1 (4.88 cm) i.e. when
plants were grown in soil: FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v) and was found to be
significantly lower than other growing substrates.
As regards the effect of pot sizes, inflorescence diameter was maximum
(5.66 cm) when plants were grown in 25 cm diameter pots and found to be
significantly higher than other pot sizes. Where as, minimum diameter was
reported (5.14 cm) in P1 i.e. when plants were grown in 15 cm pot sizes.
Table-8. Effect of growing substrates and pot sizes on inflorescence diameter
(cm) of Primula malacoides Franch.
Pot sizes
Growing
substrates
T1
Inflorescence diameter (cm)
P1
P2
P3
(15 cm dia. pots) (20 cm dia pots) (25 cm dia.pots)
4.66
4.87
5.10
Mean
4.88
T2
5.17
5.42
5.68
5.42
T3
5.15
5.42
5.49
5.35
T4
5.18
5.49
5.64
5.43
T5
5.23
5.45
5.70
5.46
T6
5.43
5.84
6.40
5.89
T7
Mean
5.18
5.14
5.40
5.41
5.59
5.66
5.39
CD0.05
Growing substrates
Pot sizes
Growing substrates × Pot sizes
:
:
:
0.17
0.11
0.30
Treatments of growing substrates:
T1 = Soil: FYM: Sand (1:1:1, v/v)
T2
= Quercus semicarpifolia leaf mould: FYM: Soil (2:1:1, v/v)
T3
= Rhododendron arboreum leaf mould: FYM: Soil (2:1:1, v/v)
T4
= Picea smithiana leaf mould : FYM: Soil (2:1:1, v/v)
T5
= Chirpine leaf mould: FYM: Soil (1:1:1, v/v)
T6
= Cocopeat: FYM: Sand (1:1:1, v/v)
T7
= Spent mushroom compost : FYM: Sand (2:1:1, v/v)
37
The interaction between growing substrates × pot sizes exhibited nonsignificant effects on inflorescence diameter. The maximum inflorescence
diameter (6.40 cm) was observed in T6 × P3 i.e. growing substrates composed of
cocopeat: FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v) and using pots of size 25 cm diameter and
found to be significantly more over other interactions. In contrast, minimum
diameter (4.66 cm) was observed in T1 × P1 i.e. when plants were grown in soil:
FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v) in the 15 cm diameter pots and found to be at par with T1
× P2 (4.87 cm).
4.9
NUMBER OF INFLORESCENCES PER PLANT
The data presented in Table-9 envisaged maximum number of
inflorescences per plant (37.54) in T6 i.e. by growing plants in cocopeat: FYM:
sand (1:1:1, v/v) and found to be significantly higher over all other growing
substrates. Whereas, the minimum number of inflorescences per plant (17.86)
were recorded in T1 i.e. growing medium consisting of soil: FYM: sand
(1:1:1,v/v).
As regards the effect of pot sizes, maximum inflorescences per plant
(34.65) were observed in P3 i.e. when plants were grown in pots of 25 cm
diameter and found to be significantly higher over other pot sizes. Whereas,
minimum number of inflorescences per plant (21.71) were produced in 15 cm
diameter pots.
The interaction, growing substrates × pot sizes exhibited significant effect
on number of inflorescences per plant. The interaction effect of growing
substrates and pot sizes recorded maximum number of inflorescences per plant
(47.56) in T6 × P3 i.e. growing medium composed of cocopeat: FYM: sand (1:1:1,
v/v) and using 25 cm diameter of pots and found to be statistically at par with T6
× P2 (42.45) and T7 × P3 (43.42), respectively . Whereas, minimum number of
inflorescences per plant (12.47) were produced in T1 × P1 i.e. growing substrate
containing soil: FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v) and using 15 cm diameter of pots and
found to be statistically at par with T3 × P1 (18.00).
38
Table-9. Effect of growing substrates and pot sizes on number of
inflorescences per plant of Primula malacoides Franch.
Pot sizes
Growing
substrates
T1
Number of inflorescences per plant
P1
P2
P3
(15 cm dia. pots) (20 cm dia pots) (25 cm dia.pots)
12.47
18.41
22.70
Mean
17.86
T2
21.30
28.13
33.17
27.53
T3
18.00
21.33
28.95
23.03
T4
25.69
29.68
34.71
30.03
T5
28.28
30.06
32.04
30.13
T6
22.60
42.45
47.56
37.54
T7
Mean
22.82
21.71
35.38
29.35
43.42
34.65
33.87
CD0.05
Growing substrates
Pot sizes
Growing substrates × Pot sizes
:
:
:
3.23
2.12
5.61
Treatments of growing substrates:
T1 = Soil: FYM: Sand (1:1:1, v/v)
T2
= Quercus semicarpifolia leaf mould: FYM: Soil (2:1:1, v/v)
T3
= Rhododendron arboreum leaf mould: FYM: Soil (2:1:1, v/v)
T4
= Picea smithiana leaf mould : FYM: Soil (2:1:1, v/v)
T5
= Chirpine leaf mould: FYM: Soil (1:1:1, v/v)
T6
= Cocopeat: FYM: Sand (1:1:1, v/v)
T7
= Spent mushroom compost : FYM: Sand (2:1:1, v/v)
4.10
NUMBER OF FLOWERS PER INFLORESCENCE
A perusal of data in Table-10 indicated the significant effects of growing
substrates, pot sizes and interaction of growing substrates and pot sizes on
number of flowers per inflorescence. Maximum number of flowers per
inflorescence (18.28) were observed in T6 i.e. when plants were grown in
cocopeat: FYM: sand and found to be significantly more over other substrates.
However, minimum number of flowers per plant were recorded in T1 (15.98) i.e.
growing substrate comprising soil: FYM: sand (1:1:1,v/v).
39
As regards the effects of pot sizes, maximum number of flowers per
inflorescence (20.13) were recorded in P3 i.e. 25 cm pot size and found to be
significantly higher than other sizes. Where as, minimum (14.80) flowers per
inflorescence were observed in P1 i.e. 15 cm diameter pots.
The interaction, growing substrates × pot sizes exhibited maximum
number of flowers per inflorescence (21.02) in T6 × P3 i.e. growing of plants in
cocopeat: FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v) and using 25 cm diameter pots and were found
to be significantly higher over other interactions. However, minimum (13.68)
flowers were produced in T1 × P1 i.e. growing substrate consisting of soil: FYM:
sand (1:1:1, v/v) and using 15 cm diameter pots which were significantly lower
than other interactions.
Table-10. Effect of growing substrates and pot sizes on number of flowers
per inflorescence of Primula malacoides Franch.
Pot sizes
Growing
substrates
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7
Mean
Number of flowers per Inflorescence
P1
P2
P3
(15 cm dia. pots) (20 cm dia pots) (25 cm dia.pots)
13.68
15.54
18.73
14.38
16.95
20.57
15.71
16.29
19.67
15.47
16.54
20.60
14.60
16.30
19.65
15.57
18.25
21.02
14.22
15.29
20.64
14.80
16.45
20.13
CD0.05
Growing substrates
Pot sizes
Growing substrates × Pot sizes
:
:
:
0.35
0.23
0.60
Treatments of growing substrates:
T1 = Soil: FYM: Sand (1:1:1, v/v)
T2
= Quercus semicarpifolia leaf mould: FYM: Soil (2:1:1, v/v)
T3
= Rhododendron arboreum leaf mould: FYM: Soil (2:1:1, v/v)
T4
= Picea smithiana leaf mould : FYM: Soil (2:1:1, v/v)
T5
= Chirpine leaf mould: FYM: Soil (1:1:1, v/v)
T6
= Cocopeat: FYM: Sand (1:1:1, v/v)
T7
= Spent mushroom compost : FYM: Sand (2:1:1, v/v)
40
Mean
15.98
17.30
17.22
17.54
16.85
18.28
16.72
T1
T2
P3
P3
P2
P2
P1
T3
P3
P3
P2
P1
P1
T4
P3
P3
P2
P2
P3
P3
P1
T5
P2
P2
P1
T6
P3
P3
P2
P2
P1 P1
P3
P3
P2
P2
T7
P3
P3
P1
P2 P2 P1
Treatments of growing substrates :
Pot sizes :
T1 = Soil : FYM : Sand (1:1:1,v/v)
P1
T2 = Ban Oak leafmould : FYM : soil (2:1:1,v/v)
P2
:
20 cm dia. Pots
T3 = Rhododendron leafmould : FYM : soil (2:1:1,v/v)
P3 :
25 cm dia. Pots
:
15 cm dia. Pots
T4 = Rai leafmould : FYM : soil (2:1:1, v/v)
T5 = Chirpine leafmould : FYM : soil (1:1:1, v/v)
T6 = Cocopeat : FYM : sand (1:1:1, v/v)
T7 = Spent mushroom compost : FYM : sand (2:1:1, v/v)
Plate-3: Effect of growing substrates and pot sizes on flowering of
Primula malacoides Franch.
P1
P1
4.11
NUMBER OF FLOWERS PER PLANT
Data
arranged in Table-11 indicated the significant effects of growing
substrates and pot sizes on number of flowers per plants. Maximum flowers per
plant (707.20) were produced in T6 i.e. growing substrate composed of cocopeat:
FYM: sand (1:1:1,v/v) and found to be significantly higher over all other
treatments. However, minimum number of flowers per plant (293.90) were
observed in T1 i.e. when plants were grown in soil: FYM: soil (1:1:1,v/v) which
were significantly lower than other treatments.
Table-11. Effect of growing substrates and pot sizes on number of
per plant of Primula malacoides Franch.
Pot sizes
Growing
substrates
T1
Number of flowers per plant
P1
P2
P3
(15 cm dia. pots) (20 cm dia pots) (25 cm dia.pots)
170.41
286.10
425.10
flowers
Mean
293.90
T2
306.30
474.70
682.40
487.80
T3
295.10
347.50
569.60
404.00
T4
397.40
490.90
718.20
535.50
T5
413.00
489.50
629.30
510.60
T6
348.50
773.50
999.50
707.20
T7
324.30
541.00
897.20
587.50
Mean
322.10
486.20
703.10
CD0.05
Growing substrates
Pot sizes
Growing substrates × Pot sizes
:
:
:
62.28
40.77
107.88
Treatments of growing substrates:
T1 = Soil: FYM: Sand (1:1:1, v/v)
T2
= Quercus semicarpifolia leaf mould: FYM: Soil (2:1:1, v/v)
T3
= Rhododendron arboreum leaf mould: FYM: Soil (2:1:1, v/v)
T4
= Picea smithiana leaf mould : FYM: Soil (2:1:1, v/v)
T5
= Chirpine leaf mould: FYM: Soil (1:1:1, v/v)
T6
= Cocopeat: FYM: Sand (1:1:1, v/v)
T7
= Spent mushroom compost : FYM: Sand (2:1:1, v/v)
41
As regards the effects of pot sizes, maximum flowers per plant (703.10)
were produced in P3 i.e. when plants were grown in 25 cm diameter pots and
found to be significantly higher than other pot sizes. In contrast, minimum
flowers per plant were obtained in P1 (322.10) i.e. when plants were grown in 15
cm pot size.
The interactive effects of growing substrates and pot sizes exhibited
significant effects on number of flowers per plant. Maximum number of flowers
per plant were produced in T6 × P3 (999.50) and found to be significantly higher
over all other interactions. Minimum number of flowers per plant were reported
in T1 × P1 (170.41) and found to be significantly less than other interactions.
4.12
DURATION OF FLOWERING (days)
The data presented in Table-12 envisaged the significant effects of
growing substrates, pot sizes and interaction of growing substrates and pot sizes
on duration of flowering. Maximum duration of flowering (111.90 days) was
observed in T6 i.e. growing medium composed of cocopeat: FYM: sand (1:1:1,
v/v) and found to be significantly superior over all other treatments. In contrast,
minimum duration of flowering (79.30 days) was reported in T1 i.e. growing
substrate consisting of soil: FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v).
As regards the effects of pot sizes, duration of flowering was maximum
(99.60 days) when plants were grown in 25 cm pots size and found to be
significantly higher over all other pot sizes. Whereas, minimum duration of
flowering (83.45 days) was recorded with P1 i.e. when plants were grown in 15
cm size pots.
The interaction, growing substrates × pot sizes exhibited longest duration
of flowering (118.70 days) in T6 × P3 i.e. when plants were grown in cocopeat:
FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v) and using 25 cm diameter pots and found to be
significantly superior over all other interactions. However, minimum duration of
flowering (70.60 days) was recorded in T1 × P1 i.e. growing of plants in soil:
FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v) and in pots of size 15 cm.
42
Plate-4: Primula malacoides Franch. at peak flowering
Table-12. Effect of growing substrates and pot sizes on
flowering (Days) of Primula malacoides Franch.
Pot sizes
Growing
substrates
T1
Duration of flowering (days)
P1
P2
P3
(15 cm dia. pots) (20 cm dia pots) (25 cm dia.pots)
70.60
79.83
87.47
duration of
Mean
79.30
T2
80.93
84.40
93.17
86.16
T3
77.40
83.73
91.67
84.26
T4
82.43
89.13
102.20
91.26
T5
87.63
94.83
108.00
96.82
T6
105.00
112.00
118.70
111.90
T7
80.20
89.40
96.00
88.53
Mean
83.45
90.48
99.60
CD0.05
Growing substrates
Pot sizes
Growing substrates × Pot sizes
:
:
:
1.66
1.08
2.87
Treatments of growing substrates:
T1 = Soil: FYM: Sand (1:1:1, v/v)
T2
= Quercus semicarpifolia leaf mould: FYM: Soil (2:1:1, v/v)
T3
= Rhododendron arboreum leaf mould: FYM: Soil (2:1:1, v/v)
T4
= Picea smithiana leaf mould : FYM: Soil (2:1:1, v/v)
T5
= Chirpine leaf mould: FYM: Soil (1:1:1, v/v)
T6
= Cocopeat: FYM: Sand (1:1:1, v/v)
T7
= Spent mushroom compost : FYM: Sand (2:1:1, v/v)
4.13 POT PRESENTABILITY SCORE
The analysis of data exhibited the significant effects of growing substrates
and pot sizes on pot presentability score (Table-13). Maximum pot presentability
score (84.22) was found in T6 i.e. when the plants were grown in soil : FYM :
sand (1:1:1, v/v), and found to be at par with T2 (77.44), T3 (77.78), T5 (79.00)
and T7 (78.00) . Whereas, minimum pot presentability score (68.89) was reported
in T1 i.e. for plants grown in soil: FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v) and found to be at par
with T4 (75.67) i.e. when plants were grown in Picea smithiana leafmould: FYM:
soil (2:1:1,v/v).
43
As regards the effects of pot sizes, highest pot presentability score (81.67)
was recorded with P3 i.e. 25 cm pot size and was found to be at par with P2
(78.19) i.e. when plants were grown in 20 cm diameter pots, Whereas pot
presentability score was minimum (72.00) when plants were grown in 15 cm pot
size.
The interaction between growing substrates × pot sizes exhibited nonsignificant effects on pot presentability score.
Table-13. Effect of growing substrates and pot
presentability of Primula malacoides Franch.
Pot sizes
Growing
substrates
T1
sizes
Pot presentability score
P1
P2
P3
(15 cm dia. pots) (20 cm dia pots) (25 cm dia.pots)
68.67
64.67
73.33
on
Mean
68.89
T2
68.67
80.00
83.67
77.44
T3
74.67
76.00
82.67
77.78
T4
75.33
74.67
77.00
75.67
T5
74.00
83.33
79.67
79.00
T6
74.00
87.00
91.67
84.22
T7
68.67
81.67
83.67
78.00
Mean
72.00
78.19
81.67
CD0.05
Growing substrates
Pot sizes
Growing substrates × Pot sizes
:
:
:
6.88
4.50
NS
Treatments of growing substrates:
T1 = Soil: FYM: Sand (1:1:1, v/v)
T2
= Quercus semicarpifolia leaf mould: FYM: Soil (2:1:1, v/v)
T3
= Rhododendron arboreum leaf mould: FYM: Soil (2:1:1, v/v)
T4
= Picea smithiana leaf mould : FYM: Soil (2:1:1, v/v)
T5
= Chirpine leaf mould: FYM: Soil (1:1:1, v/v)
T6
= Cocopeat: FYM: Sand (1:1:1, v/v)
T7
= Spent mushroom compost : FYM: Sand (2:1:1, v/v)
44
pot
15 cm dia.pots
20 cm dia.pots
25 cm dia.pots
T1
T2
T3
T4
Treatments of growing substrates :
Pot sizes :
T1 = Soil : FYM : Sand (1:1:1,v/v)
P1
T2 = Ban Oak leafmould : FYM : soil (2:1:1,v/v)
P2
:
20 cm dia. Pots
T3 = Rhododendron leafmould : FYM : soil (2:1:1,v/v)
P3 :
25 cm dia. Pots
:
15 cm dia. Pots
T4 = Rai leafmould : FYM : soil (2:1:1, v/v)
T5 = Chirpine leafmould : FYM : soil (1:1:1, v/v)
T6 = Cocopeat : FYM : sand (1:1:1, v/v)
T7 = Spent mushroom compost : FYM : sand (2:1:1, v/v)
Plate-5: Effect of growing substrates and pot sizes on growth and flowering of
Primula malacoides Franch. on Pot-presentability.
The maximum pot presentability score (91.67) was observed in T6 × P3
i.e. when the plants were grown in cocopeat: FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v) and using 25
cm diameter pots and was significantly higher over other interactios. However,
minimum pot presentablity score (64.67) was recorede in T1 × P2 i.e growing
medium consisting of soil: FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v) and pot size of 20 cm.
45
15 cm dia.pots
20 cm dia.pots
25 cm dia.pots
T5
T6
T7
Treatments of growing substrates :
Pot sizes :
T1 = Soil : FYM : Sand (1:1:1,v/v)
P1
T2 = Ban Oak leafmould : FYM : soil (2:1:1,v/v)
P2
:
20 cm dia. Pots
T3 = Rhododendron leafmould : FYM : soil (2:1:1,v/v)
P3 :
25 cm dia. Pots
:
15 cm dia. Pots
T4 = Rai leafmould : FYM : soil (2:1:1, v/v)
T5 = Chirpine leafmould : FYM : soil (1:1:1, v/v)
T6 = Cocopeat : FYM : sand (1:1:1, v/v)
T7 = Spent mushroom compost : FYM : sand (2:1:1, v/v)
Plate-6: Effect of growing substrates and pot sizes on growth and flowering of
Primula malacoides Franch. on Pot-presentability.
Chapter-5
DISCUSSION
Experimental evidences generated during the course of investigations
entitled, “Effect of growing substrates and pot sizes on growth and flowering
of Primula malacoides Franch.” have been presented in the preceding chapter.
In this chapter, efforts have been made for interpreting the experimental results in
the light of available literature and classical knowledge.
Various researchers have worked hard to develop innovative production
technologies which are well suited to the varied agro-climatic conditions so that
the growers could produce the Primula plants as per the choice of consumers for
various occasions. Consequently, they are offering very good quality Primula
plants by employing the innovative and best proven production technologies.
Although, Primulas can be grown nearly in any growing substrate, if the
plants get appropriate environment (cool temperature and reduced light intensity),
adequate moisture, balanced amount of essential nutrients containing nothing
toxic or harmful and proper attention (White,1970). However, Primula
malacoides Franch. will grow more luxuriantly and produce excellent quality
flowers as well as most presentable pots, if grown in a substrate that must supply
plant the support, water, nutrients in available forms, adequate gas exchange to
the roots and to provide an environment to maintain a requisite balance of
biological properties.
The top soils alone (without amendments), which are generally used as
the growing substrates/potting mixtures, cannot fulfill the requisite physicochemical and biological properties that are essentially warranted for the optimum
growth, development and flowering of any flower crop in general and Primulas in
particular. In addition to it, the use of soil as a growing medium under protected
cultivation of flower crops as well as for pot plant production faces some serious
limitations mainly because of the reasons that over the years, there is a frequent
46
and considerable decrease in the soil fertility status coupled with soil salinity
especially under protected cultivation. Further more, soil borne insect-pests and
diseases may limit the productivity and quality of the produce. So much so, the
use of soil as potting mixtures also faces the serious limitations as the pot plants
do not get proper aeration due to compactness of potting mixture, non-availability
of nutrients for a longer period which may get exhausted or lost due to leaching
as soil has more infiltration rate besides contributing for soil borne pathogens.
Hence majority of the container grown plants including Primulas do not relish to
be grown in soils alone. Therefore, substrate culture offers a very valuable and
much viable alternative to maximize the yield, improve flowering and quality of
the produce as well as will be helpful to overcome the limitation of using soil as a
growing substrate under protected cultivation and in potting mixtures. Thus, the
overall profitability of potted plants in general and primula in particular grown in
soil-less substrate and/or growing medium consisting of forest soils will be much
higher than those grown in soil and/or soil-based growing media mainly due to
the fact that soil less substrates and/or forest soils possess superior physicochemical and biological properties (Appendix-III), besides, low infestation rate
with pathogenic pests as well as ease in disinfestations (decontaminations) among
growing cycles. Owing to the fact that forest soils and/or peat based growing
substrates are rich in organic matter/organic carbon, retain sufficient moisture,
ensure adequate drainage as well as having less infiltration rate, hence they
provides congenial environment by possessing superior physico-chemical
properties as well as help in maintaining the requisite biological balance on
substachable basis. Therefore, present investigations were aimed and conducted
to utilize the forest leaf mould of Rai (Picea smithiana), Rhododendron
(Rhododendran arboreum), Chir pine (Pinus roxburghii), Ban Oak (Quercus
semicarpifolia), cocopeat, well rotten farm yard manure (FYM), soil, Spent
mushroom compost (SMC) and sand in varied rates to engineer and formulate
different growing substrates for the quality production of potted Primula
malacoides Franch.
Since, growing substrates and pot sizes are known to improve and
manipulate growth and flowering as well as presentability of potted primula so,
47
the present studies were planned and carried out to ascertain the effect of growing
substrates and pot sizes on quality production of potted primula to cope up its
market demand and satisfying the consumers choice of quality products. The
Primula malacoides Franch. prefers to grow more luxuriantly in a damp, humid
atmosphere having adequate drainage and sufficient nutrients in available forms,
besides offering superior physico-chemical and biological properties of the soil or
growing substrate for its better growth and flowering in succession over a long
period to exhibit excellent pot presentability. Therefore, the present investigations
entitled, “Effect of growing substrates and pot sizes on growth and flowering
of Primula malacoides Franch.” were carried out to select the most suitable
growing substrate and pot size for producing best quality and most presentable
potted Primulas. Thus, the results obtained from the present study are discussed
in the light of available literature and classical knowledge as under:
5.1
PLANT HEIGHT (cm)
Different growing substrates have exhibited significant responses to plant
height of primula and the growing substrate comprising of cocopeat: FYM: sand
(1:1:1, v/v) recorded maximum plant height (43.05 cm) which was found to be
significantly higher over all other growing substrates. More height of primula
plants grown in this substrate may be ascribed to the fact this growing medium
have provided optimal physico-chemical properties especially the retention of
sufficient moisture besides maintaining a requisite biological balance which have
contributed to the better growth of plants in comparison to the other growing
substrates tested. These findings get the support from the earlier reports of Wazir
et al. (2009) in Alstroemeria. Similar findings have also been reported in Dutch
rose cv. ‘Naranga’ by Hazarika et al. (2010). However, minimum plant height
(31.49 cm) was observed in the growing substrate comprising soil: FYM: sand
(1:1:1, v/v) which might be due to the reason that this medium has not been able
to provide better growing conditions and consequently the plants could not put up
sufficient growth. Hence, less plant height.
Similarly, the response of pot sizes on plant height varied with the
diameter of pots and taller plants (37.20 cm) were produced when grown in 25
48
cm diameter pots. The higher plant height in large size pots could be due to the
reason that bigger containers could have accommodated more amount of growing
substrate that has been helpful in providing sufficient nutrients and space for
growth of adequate root system. Thus resulting in better growth of plants which
in turn grew longer. These results are also in close conformity with the findings
of Vernieri et al. (2003) in Sunflower. Similar findings have also been reported in
Weeping Fig and Loquat by McConnell in 1987. However, minimum plant
height (32.70 cm) was observed when plants were grown in 15 cm pots. The
drastic reduction in plant height is as a consequence of increased root restricting
conditions in small containers. In general, as container height and width are
decreased the amount of medium pore space decreases, leading to reduction in
both media water holding capacity and aeration and hence decreases plant
growth, so there is less plant height. These results are also in agreement with the
earlier work of Bilderback and Fonteno (1991).
The interaction of different growing substrates and pot sizes have
exhibited maximum plant height (46.26 cm) when plants were grown in cocopeat
: FYM : sand (1:1:1, v/v) and using 25 cm pots and found to be statistically at par
with T6 × P2. More plant height in growing substrate composed of cocopeat :
FYM : sand 1:1:1, v/v) grown in 25 cm pots might be attributed to the conducive
interactive effects of this growing substrate and larger size of pots that could have
accommodated more amount of substrate which assure better physico-chemical
properties for better growth of primula plants. So more plant height was
observed. These results are in close agreement with the earlier findings of Geply
et al. (2011) who concluded that river sand in big pots has the highest values in
height. However, the shortest plants (26.18 cm) were found when grown in soil:
FYM : sand (1:1:1, v/v) and using 15 cm pot size. This may be due to poor
physico-chemical properties of growing substrates and use of small size
containers that could results in less growth of plants.
5.2
NUMBER OF BRANCHES OR SHOOTS PER PLANT
The maximum branches or shoots per plant (36.37) were observed when
grown in cocopeat: FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v) and found to be statistically at par
49
with T7 (33.56) which may be due to the reason that the said growing substrates
might have provided optimal conditions for the better growth and consequently
there were more production of branches or shoots per plant. Similar findings have
been reported by Khelikuzzaman (2007) in Tradescantia sp. Whereas, minimum
number of shoots per plant (18.64) were produced in the growing medium
consisting of soil: FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v) which may be ascribed to the reason
that control growing substrates could not assure requisite for the better growth of
the plants. Hence, less shoots per plant. These results are in close agreement with
the earlier work of Singh (2010) in Geranium.
As regards the effect of pot sizes, the number of branches or shoots per
plant increased with the corresponding increase in pot size and found to be
maximum (35.16) when plants were grown in 25 cm pot size. Whereas,
minimum number of shoots per plant (20.33) were observed in pot size of 15 cm
diameter. Due to root restriction in small size container branching of shoots
decreases as roots did not get sufficient space for their growth besides the fact
that the small containers could accommodate less substrate so failed to provide
requisite growing conditions and hence in small size pots number of branches or
shoots per plant was less and on the contrary, more shoots were produced in the
larger size pots due to availability of more space and higher amount of growing
substrate which provided superior physico-chemical and biological properties for
the growth of Primula malacoides Franch. These results get the support of earlier
finding of Van Iersel (1997) in Salvia splendens.
The interaction of different substrates and pot sizes exhibited more shoots
(47.07) per plant when the plants were grown in cocopeat: FYM: sand (1:1:1,
v/v) and using 25 cm pot size and found to be statistically at par with the
interactive effect of T6 × P2 i.e. (42.33). More number of shoots per plant in these
interactions might be attributed to the conducive interactive effects of this
growing substrate and larger size of pots that could accommodate more amount
of substrate which assured superior physico-chemical properties for better growth
particularly the ability to retain sufficient amount of moisture, requisite pore
space and bulk density etc. Whereas, number of shoots or branches were
50
minimum in T1 × P1 (12.60) which could be as a consequence of the fact that the
said interaction failed to provide conducive environment for the growth of plants.
These results are in close agreement with the earlier work of Singh (2010) in
Geranium.
5.3
SHOOT LENGTH (cm)
The growing medium comprising of cocopeat: FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v)
produced longest shoots (25.38cm) in comparison to the other growing media
tested. Whereas, the minimum shoot length (19.07 cm) was recorded in soil:
FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v). The production of taller shoots in the cocopeat enriched
medium might be due to better physico-chemical and biological properties
(Appendix-III) exhibited by the said growing substrate which the plants have
utilized optimally to put up more vegetative growth so much so, the availability
of required level of nitrogen also increase the availability of cytokinins to the
shoots which are normally produced in the root tips thus, resulted in enhanced
shoot formation and development (Sattelmacher and Marashner, 1978 and
Goodwin and Erwee, 1983). The present findings are also in close agreement
with the earlier work of Khelikuzzaman (2007). However, the growing substrate
comprising soil: FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v) failed to provide requisite physicochemical and biological properties, so resulted in less shoot length. Similar
results have been reported by Singh (2010) in Geranium.
As regards the effects of pot sizes on shoot length, maximum shoot length
(23.18 cm) was obtained when plants were grown in 25 cm pot diameter where as
minimum shoot length (20.43 cm) was observed with 15 cm pot diameter. Shoot
growth is greatly influenced by varying container size and root restriction. Shoot
height and biomass reduction in small containers have been reported for Tomato
by Peterson et al. (1991) and in marigold by Latimer (1991). Similar results have
also been reported by Schenk and Brundert (1979) in Dieffenbachia.
The interaction of different growing substrates and pot sizes on shoot
length recorded maximum value ( 27.67 cm) i.e. when plants were grown in
cocopeat: FYM: sand (1:1:1,v/v) and planted in pots of 25 cm diameter, whereas
minimum shoot length (18.71 cm) was observed in T1 × P2. Maximum shoot
51
length in cocopeat enriched substrate and 25 cm diameter pots were due to the
better physico-chemical properties of growing substrate and more amount of
substrate could be accommodated in larger size containers and so, the roots were
able to grow and move free in large size pots. Similar results have also been
reported by Geply et al. (2011) in Jatropha curcas.
5.4
PLANT SPREAD (cm)
Maximum plant spread (36.58 cm) was achieved when the plants were
grown in T6 i.e. cocopeat: FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v). Whereas, it was minimum
(32.30 cm) in T1 i.e. growing substrate composed of soil: FYM: sand (1:1:1,v/v).
More plant spread in T6 may be due to the reason that this medium might have
exhibited more conducive growing environment besides supplying the requisite
amount of essential nutrients required for better growth and development of
primula plants in comparison to other growing substrate. Furthermore, better
uptake of nutrients have been utilized optimally so leading to more vegetative
growth and plant spread. Similar finding have also been reported in Alstroemeria
by Wazir et al. (2009).
Maximum plant spread (39.50 cm) was recorded with 25 cm pot diameter.
Our findings are in close agreement with the earlier work of Biermann (1982) in
Cyclamen. Whereas minimum plant spread (28.96 cm) was achieved with 15 cm
diameter pots. More plant spread in 25 cm diameter pots is due to more amount
of growing substrate, that have assured optimum physico-chemical properties.
Similar findings were reported by Vernieri et al. (2003) in Sunflower.
The interaction of different growing substrates and pot sizes on plant
spread recorded maximum value (41.71 cm) when plants were grown in T6 i.e.
cocopeat: FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v) and using 25 cm pot diameter. However,
minimum plant spread (25.88 cm) was recorded in T1 × P1 i.e. soil: FYM: sand
(1:1:1, v/v) and with 15 cm pot size. The more spread of plants grown in
cocopeat: FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v) and using 25 cm pot diameter could be
attributed to the engineering of better growing environment and production of
more number of laterals at the expense of increasing space for root growth. Hence
52
more plant spread. Similar results have been reported in Weeping Fig and Loquat
by McConnell in 1987.
5.5
DAYS TO FLOWER BUD FORMATION
The time taken for flower bud formation varied considerably with the
different growing substrates. The maximum time (108.90 days) was taken by the
plants which were grown in T4 i.e. Picea smithiana leafmould: FYM: Soil (2:1:1,
v/v) which may be ascribed to the fact that plants grown in above mentioned
growing medium could not provide congenial physico-chemical and biological
properties as a result of what the plants took more time for putting up requisite
vegetative growth and consequently delayed the flower bud formation because of
low potassium and C: N ratio. The minimum days to flower bud formation
(104.10 days) were recorded in T6 i.e. cocopeat: FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v). Similar
findings have been reported by Hazarika (2010) in Dutch rose cv. ‘Naranga’. The
earlier flower bud formation in this growing substrate could be ascribed to the
fact that plants grown in this medium might have utilized the available nutrients
more efficiently. Similar findings have been reported by Sekar and Sujata (2001)
in gerbera.
As regards the effect of pot sizes, maximum time for flower bud
formation (108.10 days) was recorded when the plant were grown in 25 cm pots.
This might be due to the prolonged vegetative phase which in turn delayed flower
bud formation. The earliest flower bud formation was noticed with use of 15 cm
pot size. Similar findings have also been reported by Vernieri (2003) in
Sunflower. Whereas, Schenk and Brundert (1979) opined that in small size pots
growth was less vigorous, hence occurrence early flowering.
The plants grown in T4 i.e. Picea smithiana leafmould : FYM : soil (2:1:1,
v/v) and using 25 cm pot size have taken maximum time (110.80 days) for flower
bud formation. This may be due to the reason that this growing medium could not
assure requisite potassium and especially in the presence of higher level of
nitrogen which delayed the flower bud formation mainly because of the fact that
the plants grown in the said medium took more time for vegetative growth as
53
well as for initiation of flower buds. The formation of flower buds was reported
in lesser time (99.83 days) in the plants grown in cocopeat: FYM: sand (1:1:1,
v/v) and using 15 cm pot size. The earliest flower bud formation in cocopeat
enriched growing substrate may be due to the reason that this growing substrate
might have provided conducive environment as a result of which the plants could
put up requisite vegetative growth in lesser time period and pots of small size
reduce the vegetative growth due to less root volume and hence resulted in early
bud formation.
5.6
DAYS TO FIRST FLOWER OPENING
The maximum time for first flower opening (111.60 days) was taken
when plants were grown in T4 i.e. Picea smithiana leafmould: FYM : soil (2:1:1,
v/v) which may be due to the fact that plants grown in above mentioned growing
medium have utilized the nutrients for attaining maximum vegetative growth
comparatively in more time. The minimum days to first flower opening (106.80
days) were recorded in T6 i.e. cocopeat: FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v).
Plants grown in this medium might have utilized the available nutrients
more efficiently for putting up requisite vegetative growth and formation of
flower buds comparatively in less time so, flower opening was commercial
comparatively in shorter time. Similar results have been reported by Farthing and
Ellis (1990) in geranium and Anuje (2004) in Gerbera.
As regards the effects of pot sizes, maximum time for first flower opening
(111.70 days) was recorded when the plants were grown in 25 cm pot.
However, minimum days (106.30 days) were recorded by the plants grown in 15
cm pot size. As the pot size increases days to flower formation also increases
mainly due to the fact that large container could put more vegetative growth so,
took more time. Similar findings have also been reported by Wehner et al (1986)
in Cucumber. However, contradictory results were reported by Kemble et al.
(1994) in tomato and Van Iersel (1997) in Salvia who concluded that as rooting
volume increased, the time from sowing to anthesis was shortened.
54
The maximum days taken from bud formation to first flower opening
(114.40 days ) were taken by the plants grown in T4 i.e. Picea smithiana
leafmould: FYM: soil (2:1:1, v/v) and using 25 cm pot size. This may be due to
the reason that growing medium enriched with Rai leafmould have provided
excellent growing conditions as a result of which the plants have put up more
vegetative growth and so took longer time for first flower opening. However,
minimum time for first flower opening (103.80 days) was observed by the plants
grown in T6 × P1 i.e. cocopeat: FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v) and using 15 cm pot size,
which might be ascribed to the fact that this interaction of growing medium and
pot size might have proved to be a critical factor for the opening of flowers in
lesser time as compared to the other interactions of growing media and pot sizes,
respectively.
5.7
LENGTH OF INFLORESCENCE STALK (cm)
The maximum length of inflorescence stalk (17.43 cm) was recorded in
T6 i.e. growing substrate comprised of cocopeat: FYM; sand (1:1:1, v/v).
The
higher length of inflorescence stalk in this growing substrate might be due to the
reason that this growing substrate might have provided comparatively better
physical environment besides exhibiting requisite physico-chemical and
biological properties than the other growing media used. Similar findings have
been reported by Sekar and Sujata (2001) in gerbera. However, the growing
substrate comprising soil: FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v) failed to provide requisite
physico-chemical and biological properties, so resulted in less length of
inflorescence stalk. Similar results have been reported by Singh (2010) in
Geranium.
The inflorescence stalk length was recorded maximum (16.78 cm) when
plants were grown in 25 cm pots. However, minimum stalk length (14.57 cm)
was recorded in 15 cm pot size. As the pot diameter decreased, space for root
growth was less and hence less root shoot ratio. Similar results also reported by
Schenk and Brundert (1979) in Dieffenbachia.
55
As regards the interaction effects, maximum length of inflorescence stalk
(18.31 cm) was observed in growing medium T6 i.e. cocopeat: FYM: soil (1:1:1,
v/v) and using 25 cm pot size. However, the minimum stalk length (13.86 cm)
was observed in the interaction of T4 × P1.
5.8
INFLORESCENCE DIAMETER (cm)
The plants grown in cocopeat: FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v) produced the
inflorescences of maximum size (5.89 cm). This may be attributed to the fact that
the constituents of above growing medium have engineered better structure and
other physico-chemical properties. The minimum inflorescence diameter (4.88
cm) was recorded in soil: FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v) which may be ascribed to the
fact that the plants grown in this medium could produce inflorescences of lesser
diameter. Similar findings have been reported by Sekar and Sujata (2001) in
gerbera.
As regards the effects of pot sizes, maximum inflorescence diameter (5.66
cm) was recorded in 25 cm pot size. Whereas, minimum inflorescence diameter
(5.14 cm) was observed in 15 cm pot size. The interaction effect of growing
substrates and pot sizes recorded maximum inflorescence diameter (6.40 cm)
with T6 × P3 i.e. growing substrate composed of cocopeat: FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v)
with pot size of 25 cm. This might be due to the superiority of above cited
growing substrate and pot size. Whereas, minimum inflorescence diameter (4.66
cm) was recorded in T1 × P1 and may be ascribed to the fact that control medium
especially coupled with smaller pot size could not provide requisite conditions
and hence, less inflorescence diameter. Similar results have been reported by
Singh (2010) in Geranium.
5.9
NUMBER OF INFLORESCENCES PER PLANT
The plants grown in cocopeat: FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v) recorded maximum
number of inflorescences per plant (37.54). This may be due to the fact that this
growing medium has provided congenial growing conditions and produced
maximum number of flowering shoots per plant that have resulted in the
production of increased number of inflorescences. Similar findings have been
56
reported in Alstroemeria by Wazir et al. (2009) and Geranium by Singh (2010).
However, the minimum number of inflorescences per plant (17.86) were recorded
in soil: FYM: sand: (1:1:1, v/v) as a consequence of the fact this medium
produced less number of vegetative shoots that get converted in to flowering
shoots so, producing less number of inflorescences. Similar results have been
obtained by Wazir et al. (2009) in Alstroemeria. The effect of pot sizes has
proved to be beneficial for induction of more inflorescences and the highest
inflorescences per plant (34.65) were recorded with 25 cm pot size. However,
minimum inflorescences per plant (21.71) were recorded in pot size of 15 cm
diameter. This may be due to the reason that large size containers produce more
number of flowering shoots per plant and so, more inflorescences than the small
size pots.
The interaction of different growing substrates and pot sizes, recorded
maximum inflorescences per plant (47.56) by the plants grown in T6 and using 25
cm diameter pots which may be due to the reason that the substrate enriched with
cocopeat: FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v) and grown in 25 cm pots have shown great
promise to produce more number of inflorescences per plant. This might be due
to the superiority of the cocopeat enriched growing medium in terms of better
porosity and more nutrient availability besides, other physico-chemical and
biological properties that have contributed significantly for the production of
more number of vegetative shoots which have converted into flowering shoots
thus produced higher number of inflorescences per plant especially in the large
size (25 cm) container. Similar findings have been documented by Singh (2010).
5.10
NUMBER OF FLOWERS PER INFLORESCENCE
Maximum number of flowers per inflorescence (18.28) were recorded in
the plants grown in cocopeat: FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v) and. The more number of
flowers per inflorescence with growing media might be ascribed to the reason
that the said growing medium enriched with cocopeat could engineer better
growing environment that produced more number of flowers per inflorescence.
57
The effect of pot sizes has recorded the highest number of flower per
inflorescence (20.13) when grown in 25 cm pots which may be due to the reason
that increasing pot size exhibited positive effect on the induction of more number
of flowers per inflorescences in comparison to small size containers.
The interaction effects indicated that growing substrate comprising of
cocopeat: FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v) and using 25 cm pot size resulted in the
maximum number of flowers per inflorescence (21.02). This may be ascribed to
the fact that cocopeat enriched growing medium and using 25 cm pots had
created conducive growing environment for production of more number of
flowers per inflorescence.
5.11 NUMBER OF FLOWERS PER PLANT
The maximum number of flowers per plant (707.20) were produced when
plants were grown in cocopeat: FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v). The production of higher
number of flowers per plant in the said substrate could be attributed to the reason
that this growing substrate have produced more inflorescences per plant as well
as more number of flowers per inflorescence. Hence, resulted in higher number of
flowers per plant. Similar finding have been reported in Gerbera by Anuje
(2004). Whereas minimum number of flowers per plant (293.90) were observed
in growing substrate comprising of soil: FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v) and could be
attributed to the fact that said substrate failed to produce higher number of
flowering stalks and less flowers per inflorescence. These results are in close
agreement with the earlier work of Banswal (2012) in Ornithogalum.
The effects of pot sizes have recorded maximum number of flowers per
plant (703.10) in pot size of 25 cm. Our results are in close agreement with the
work of Biermann (1982) in Cyclamen. However minimum number of flowers
per plant (293.90) were produced in 15 cm pot size which could be due the
reason that small container resulted in less production of flowering shoots, as
well as less number of flowers per inflorescence. So, produce fewer flowers per
plant.
58
5.12
DURATION OF FLOWERING
Maximum duration of flowering (111.90 days) was recorded in cocopeat:
FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v) which may be due to the reason that this growing medium
might have provided congenial growing environment particularly in the root zone
besides supplying sufficient nutrients in available forms as well engineered better
physico-chemical and biological properties which have led to better growth and
flowering of plants. Thus, exhibiting maximum duration of flowering. Similar
results have been reported by Wazir et al. (2009) in Alstroemeria. However,
minimum duration of flowering (79.30 days) was registered in soil: FYM: sand
(1: 1: 1, v/v) and may be ascribed to in the fact that this medium failed to provide
congenial conditions for the optimum growth and flowering of primula plants.
Similar results have been documented by Singh (2010) in Geranium.
The increase in pot size has increased flowering duration considerably
and maximum increase in duration of flowering (99.60 days) was recorded with
the use of 25 cm pot size. Our findings are in close agreement with the earlier
work of Vernieri et al. (2003) in Sunflower. The interactive effects of growing
substrates and pot sizes recorded maximum duration of flowering (118.70 days)
with T6 × P3 i.e. growing medium comprising of cocopeat: FYM: sand (1:1:1,
v/v) and using 25 cm diameter pots. This might be due to the facts that the given
growing medium exhibited with better physico-chemical properties as specially
coupled with 25 cm pot size. Hence, enhanced the duration of flowering
considerably.
5.13
POT PRESENTABILITY
The maximum pot presentability score (84.22) was recorded when plants
were grown in cocopeat: FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v) which might be ascribed to the
fact that this growing medium assured better growing environment, supplied
sufficient nutrients, besides exhibiting excellent physico-chemical and biological
properties required for the production of best quality potted primula. Similar
findings have been reported by Wazir et al. (2009) in Alstroemeria. However,
minimum pot persentability score (68.89) was found in T1 i.e. soil: FYM: sand
59
(1:1:1, v/v) which may be due the fact that this medium failed to provide the
requisite environment needed for production of the best presentable potted
primula.
The use of 25 cm pot size recorded maximum pot presentability score
(81.67). Whereas minimum pot presentability score (72.00) was recorded with
the use of 15 cm pot size. This may be due to the fact that in small pots root
restriction conditions were more pronounced and there was less space for root
growth and thus growth of top biomass reduced accordingly.
The interaction effects indicated that growing substrate comprising of
cocopeat: FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v) and use of 25 cm diameter pot resulted in
maximum pot presentability score (91.67). This may be due to the fact that this
growing medium provided better physico-chemical and biological properties to
produce good quality growth and the use of 25 cm pot diameter assured to
produce plants with better root and shoot biomass. In general, as container size
increased plant leaf area, shoot biomass and root biomass also increased linearly
(Cantliffe, 1993). Whereas, minimum pot presentability score (64.67) was
recorded with the interaction effects of T1 × P2. This may due to the fact that the
interactive effects of these growing medium and pot size failed to provide
sufficient amount of nutrition for growth and flowering of primula plant and
resulted in less pot presentability. Similar results have already been documented
by Singh (2010) in Geranium, Latpate (2011) in Hydrangea and Banswal (2012)
in Ornithogalum.
60
Chapter-6
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The present investigations entitled, “Effect of growing substrates and
pot sizes on growth and flowering of Primula malacoides Franch.” were
conducted at the Experimental farm of Department of Floriculture and
Landscaping, during the year 2012-2013. The experimental treatments comprised
of seven growing substrates viz., Soil: FYM: Sand (1:1:1, v/v), Ban Oak
(Quercus semicarpofolia) leafmould : FYM : soil (2:1:1, v/v), Rhododendron
(Rhododendron arboreum L.) leafmould : FYM : soil (2:1:1, v/v), Rai (Picea
smithiana L.) : FYM : soil (2:1:1, v/v), Chirpine (Pinus roxburghii L.) leafmould:
FYM: soil (1:1:1,v/v), Cocopeat: FYM: sand (1:1:1,v/v), Spent mushroom
compost: FYM: sand (2:1:1,v/v) and three pot sizes i.e. 15, 20, 25 cm diameter
pots, respectively. The healthy, disease free and stocky seedlings of Primula
malacoides Franch. were transplanted into plastic pots of 15, 20, 25 cm size as
per the experimental details. Standard cultural practices were followed for raising
a successful crop. The results obtained from the present investigations are
summarized and concluded as below:
6.1
PLANT HEIGHT (cm)
Maximum plant height (43.05 cm) was recorded in cocopeat: FYM: sand
(1:1:1, v/v); whereas it was minimum (31.49 cm) in the growing substrate
comprising soil: FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v). As regards the effect of pot sizes,
maximum plant height (37.20 cm) was recorded in P3 i.e. 25 cm and minimum
(35.78 cm) in P1 i.e. 15 cm diameter.
The interaction, T6 × P3 (46.26 cm) recorded maximum plant height and it
was minimum (26.18 cm) in T1 × P1.
6.2
NUMBER OF BRANCHES OR SHOOTS PER PLANT
The maximum shoots or branches per plant (36.37) were observed in T6
i.e. growing substrate comprising cocopeat: FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v) and found to
61
be statistically at par with T7 (33.56) i.e. growing substrate containing Spent
mushroom compost: FYM: sand (2:1:1, v/v). Whereas, minimum branches or
shoots per plant (18.64) were produced in T1 i.e. when plants were grown in soil:
FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v).
As regards the effects of pot sizes, maximum
branches or shoots per
plant (35.16) were obtained in pot size of 25 cm diameter and minimum branches
or shoots (20.33) in pot size of 15 cm diameter.
The interaction, growing substrates × pot sizes exhibited maximum
branches or shoots per plant (47.07) in T6 × P3 and minimum (12.60) in T1 × P1.
6.3
SHOOT LENGTH (cm)
Longest shoots (25.38 cm) were produced in T6 i.e. growing medium
composed of cocopeat: FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v) and found to be statistically at par
with T2 (22.69 cm), T3 (21.16 cm), T4 (21.05 cm), T5 (20.58 cm) and T7 (22.54
cm). Whereas, minimum shoot length (19.07 cm) was recorded in T1 i.e. when
the plants were grown in substrate comprising soil: FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v) and
found to be at par with T2 (22.69 cm), T3 (21.16 cm), T4 (21.05 cm), T5 (20.58
cm) and T7 (22.54 cm), respectively.
As regards the effect of pot sizes, maximum shoot length (23.18 cm) was
recorded P3 and minimum (20.43 cm) in P1.
The interaction effects of growing substrates and pot sizes exhibited
longest shoots (27.67 cm) in T6 × P3 and minimum shoot length was observed in
T1 × P2 (18.71 cm).
6.4
PLANT SPREAD (cm)
Maximum plant spread (36.58 cm) in T6 i.e. growing substrates
comprising cocopeat: FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v) and found to be at par with T4
(35.89 cm) i.e. growing substrate consisting of Picea smithiana leafmould: FYM:
soil (2:1:1,v/v) Whereas, minimum plant spread (32.30) was observed in T5 i.e.
62
growing medium consisting of Chirpine leafmould: FYM : sand (2:1:1, v/v) and
found to be at par with T1(32.41 cm) and T7 (33.20 cm).
As regards the effects of pot sizes, maximum plant spread (39.50 cm) was
obtained when plants were grown in P3 i.e. 25 cm pot size and found to be at par
with P2 i.e. 20 cm diameter pots. However, minimum plant spread (28.96 cm)
was obtained with P1 i.e. when plants were grown in 15 cm diameter pots and
found to be at par with P2 (33.98 cm) i.e. when plants were grown in 20 cm pot
size.
The interactions, growing substrates × pot sizes revealed maximum plant
spread (41.71 cm) in T6 × P3 and minimum (25.88 cm) in T1 × P1.
6.5
DAYS TO FLOWER BUD FORMATION (DAYS)
Maximum time to flower bud formation (108.90 days) was recorded in T4
i.e. growing substrate consisting of Picea smithiana leafmould : FYM : soil
(2:1:1, v/v) and found to be at par with T3 (106.70 days) and T7 (107.60 days).
Whereas, the earliest flower bud formation (104.1 days) was observed in T6 i.e.
when the plants were grown in cocopeat: FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v) and found to be
at par with T1 (105.00 days), T2 (105.00 days) and T5 (104.70 days), respectively.
As regards the effects of pot sizes, the maximum time to flower bud
formation (108.10 days) was taken when plants were grown in P3 i.e. when plants
were grown in 25 cm diameter pots and found to be at par with P2 (107.70 days)
i.e. when plants were grown in 20 cm diameter pots. Whereas, minimum number
of days to flower bud formation (102.30 days) were recorded in P1 i.e. when
plants were grown in 15 cm size pots, which was significantly less than all other
pot sizes.
The interaction effects of growing substrates and pot sizes took
maximum time for flower bud formation (110.80 days) in T4 × P3 and minimum
(99.83 days) in T6 × P1.
63
6.6
DAYS TO FIRST FLOWER OPENING (DAYS)
Maximum time for first flower opening (111.60 days) was recorded in T4
i.e. growing medium composed of Picea smithiana leafmould : FYM : soil (2:1:1,
v/v) and found to be at par with T3 (109.40 days) and T7 (110.20 days). Whereas,
the earliest first flower opening (106.80 days) was observed in T6 i.e. cocopeat:
FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v) and found to be at par with T1 (107.70 days), T2 (107.70
days) and T5 (107.40 days), respectively.
As regards the effects of pot sizes, maximum time to first flower opening
(111.70 days) was taken by the plants grown in 25 cm diameter pots and found to
be significantly higher over other pot sizes. Whereas, minimum time to first
flower opening (106.3 days) was observed in plants grown in 15 cm size pots.
The interaction effects of growing substrates and pot sizes recorded
maximum time to first flower opening (114.40 days) when plants were planted in
Picea smithiana leaf mould: FYM : soil (2:1:1, v/v) and using 25 cm size pots
and minimum (103.80 days) in T6 × P1.
6.7
LENGTH OF INFLORESCENCE STALK (cm)
The longest inflorescence stalks (17.43 cm) were produced in T6 i.e.
growing medium composed of cocopeat: FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v) and minimum
length of inflorescence stalk (15.01 cm) in T4 i.e. growing medium consisting
Picea smithiana leafmould: FYM: soil (2:1:1, v/v).
As regards the effects of pot sizes, maximum length of inflorescence stalk
(16.78cm) was observed when plants were grown in 25 cm diameter pots and
minimum length of inflorescence stalk (14.57 cm) for the plants grown in 15 cm
diameter pots.
The interactive effects of growing substrates and pot sizes recorded
maximum length of inflorescence stalk (18.31cm) in T6 × P3 and minimum
(13.86 cm) in T4 × P1.
64
6.8
INFLORESCENCE DIAMETER (cm)
Maximum inflorescence diameter (5.89 cm) in T6 i.e. the growing
medium consisting of cocopeat: FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v) and minimum (4.88 cm)
in T1 i.e. when plants were grown in soil: FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v).
As regards the effect of pot sizes, inflorescence diameter was maximum
(5.66 cm) when plants were grown in 25 cm diameter pots and minimum (5.14
cm) in P1 i.e. when plants were grown in 15 cm pot sizes.
The maximum inflorescence diameter (6.40 cm) was observed in T6 × P3
and minimum diameter (4.66 cm) was observed in T1 × P1.
6.9
NUMBER OF INFLORESCENCES PER PLANT
Maximum number of inflorescences per plant (37.54) in T6 i.e. by
growing plants in cocopeat: FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v) and found to be significantly
higher over all other growing substrates. Whereas, the minimum number of
inflorescences per plant (17.86) were recorded in T1 i.e. growing medium
consisting of soil: FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v).
As regards the effect of pot sizes, maximum inflorescences per plant
(34.65) were observed in P3 i.e. when plants were grown in pots of 25 cm
diameter and found to be significantly higher over other pot sizes. Whereas,
minimum number of inflorescences per plant (21.71) were produced in 15 cm
diameter pots.
The interaction effect of growing substrates and pot sizes recorded
maximum number of inflorescences per plant (47.56) in T6 × P3 and minimum
number of inflorescences per plant (12.47) were produced in T1 × P1.
6.10.
NUMBER OF FLOWERS PER INFLORESCENCE
Maximum number of flowers per inflorescence (18.28) were observed in
T6 i.e. when plants were grown in cocopeat: FYM: sand and minimum in T1
(15.98) i.e. growing substrate comprising soil: FYM: sand (1:1:1,v/v).
65
As regard the effects of pot sizes, maximum number of flowers per
inflorescence (20.13) were recorded with P3 i.e. 25 cm pot size and minimum
(14.80) P1 i.e. 15 cm pot size.
The interaction, growing substrates × pot sizes exhibited maximum number
of flowers per inflorescence (21.02) in T6 × P3 and minimum (13.68) flowers
were produced in T1 × P1.
6.11
NUMBER OF FLOWERS PER PLANT
Maximum flowers per plant (707.20) were produced in T6 i.e. growing
substrate composed of cocopeat: FYM: sand (1:1:1,v/v) and found to be
significantly higher over all other treatments; However minimum number of
flowers per plant (293.90) were observed in T1 i.e. when plants were grown in
soil: FYM: soil (1:1:1,v/v).
As regards the effects of pot sizes, maximum flowers per plant (703.10)
were produced in P3 i.e. when plants were grown in 25 cm diameter pots and
found to be significantly higher than other pot sizes. In contrast, minimum
flowers per plant were obtained in P1 i.e. when plants were grown in 15 cm pot
size.
Maximum number of flowers per plant were produced in T6 × P3 (999.50)
and Minimum number of flowers per plant were reported in T1 × P1 (170.41).
6.12
DURATION OF FLOWERING (DAYS)
Maximum duration of flowering (111.90 days) was observed in T6 i.e.
growing medium composed of cocopeat: FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v) and found to be
significantly superior over all other treatments. In contrast, minimum duration of
flowering (79.30 days) was reported in T1 i.e. growing substrate consisting of
soil: FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v).
As regards the effects of pot sizes, duration of flowering was maximum
(99.60 days) when plants were grown in 25 cm pots size and found to be
significantly higher over all other pot sizes. Whereas, minimum duration of
66
flowering (83.45 days) was recorded with P1 i.e. when plants were grown in 15
cm size pots.
The interaction, growing substrates × pot sizes exhibited longest duration
of flowering (118.70 days) in T6 × P3 and minimum duration of flowering (70.60
days) was recorded in T1 × P1.
6.13
POT PRESENTABILITY SCORE
Maximum pot presentability score (84.22) was found in T6 i.e. when the
plants were grown in soil: FYM: soil (1:1:1, v/v), and found to be at par with T2
(77.44), T3 (77.78), T5 (79.00) and T7 (78.00). Whereas, minimum pot
presentability score (68.89) was reported in T1 i.e. for plants grown in soil: FYM:
sand (1:1:1, v/v) and found to be at par with T4 (75.67) i.e. when plants were
grown in Picea smithiana leafmould: FYM: soil (2:1:1, v/v).
As regards the effects of pot sizes, highest pot presentability score (81.67)
was recorded with P3 i.e. 25 cm pot size and was found to be at par with P2 i.e.
when plants were grown in 20 cm diameter pots, Whereas pot presentability score
was minimum (72.00) when plants were grown in 15 cm pot size.
The interaction between growing substrates × pot sizes exhibited nonsignificant effects on pot presentability score.
CONCLUSION
From the results of the present investigation, following conclusions have
been drawn which may be beneficial for popularizing the primula as a flowering
pot plant under mid hill conditions of Himachal Pradesh.
The growing substrate comprising cocopeat: FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v)
proved its superiority over all other growing substrates with respect to
most of the desirable vegetative and flowering parameters of potted
primula.
The use of 25 cm diameter pot size gave better performance of the potted
primula by providing more space for root growth and hence shoot
67
growth, also amount of substrates in large pot size was more that has
been helpful in providing sufficient nutrients and space for growth of root
system enhanced the scores of the various presentability attributes of
potted primula.
The study indicated that most desirable and presentable potted plants of
primula can be raised in 25 cm diameter pots by using cocopeat : FYM : sand
(1:1:1, v/v) growing substrate.
68
Chapter-7
REFERENCES
Abad M, Martinez MD, Noduera V and Fornes F. 1989. Physical and chemical
properties of sedge peat-based media and their relation to plant growth. Acta
Horticulturae, 238: 45-53
Al- Menaie HS, Al- Shatti AA and Suresh N. 2008. Effect of growing media on
growth and flowering patterns of Gardenia jasminoides under arid conditions.
European Journal of Scientific Research, 24 (1): 69-73
Anuje AA, Dalal SR, Gonge VS and Deshpande RM. 2004. Effect of growing
media on growth, flowering and yield of Gerbera under polyhouse conditions.
Orissa Journal of Horticulture, 32 (2):106-108
Artetxe A, Terea V and Beunza AI. 1997. Effect of container size and substrates
on Hydrangea macrophylla growth. Acta Horticulturae, 450: 419-424
Atta-Alla HK. 2003. Effect of different growing media and fertilization on the
vegetative growth, flowering and chemical composition of Cineraria (Senecio
cruentus) plants. Alexandria Journal of Agricultural Research, 48 (2): 101114
Awang Y, Shaharom SS, Mohamad RB and Selamat A. 2010. Growth dynamics
of Celosia cristata grown in cocopeat, burnt rice hull and kenaf core fibre
mixtures. American Journal of Agricultural and Biological Sciences, 5 (1):
70-76
Bailey DA and Clark B. 1991. Summer application of plant growth retardants
affect spring forcing of hydrangea. Hort Technology, 2 (2): 213-216
Bailey LH.1963. Primula. In: The Standard Encyclopaedia of Horticulture volIII.New York, U.S.A.:Mac Millan Company pp.2782-2802
Banswal A. 2012. Effect of bulb sizes, growing substrates and paclobutrazol
doses in potted Chincherinchee ( Ornithogalum thyrsoides Jacq.). M.Sc.
Thesis submitted to Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry,
Nauni, Solan, Himachal Pradesh.
Barreto MS and Jagtap KB. 2002. Assessment of substrate media for the
economical production of gerbera flowers under protected conditions. In:
National Symposium on Indian Floriculture in New Millenium, held at
Bangalore, 25-27 Feb., 2002
Bethke CL. 1993. Growing media. In : Geraniums IV, 4th edition, White JW (ed).
Ball publishing, Geneva, Illinosis. pp.3-23
Biermann W.1982. Variety tests with various sowing dates and using of various
pot sizes.Gb-+-Gw. 82 (46): 1097-1101
69
Bilderback TE and Fonteno WC. 1991. Effects of container geometry and media
physical properties on air and water volumes in containers. Journal
Environment Hort. 5: 180-182
Bowman DC, Evans RY and Dodge LL. 1994. Growth of chrysanthemum with
ground automobile tires used as a container soil amendment. HortScience, 29
(7): 774-776
Boztok S, Ookuysal B and Yildirim TB. 1995. Effect of different growing media
on yield and quality of carnation (Dianthus caryophyllus L.) production.
Ziraat Fakultesi Dergisi, 32 (2): 111-118
Cantliffe DJ. 1993. Pre and Postharvest practices for improved vegetable
transplant quality. Hort Technology, 3:415-417
Conover CA. 1986. Quality. Acta Horticulturae, 181: 201-205
Dede OH, Koseoglu G, Ozdemir S and Celebi A. 2006. Effects of organic waste
substrates on the growth of Impatiens. Turk Journal of Agriculture, 30: 375381
Eleni M, Sabri K, Dimitra Z, Maloupa E and Gerasopoulos D. 2001. Effect of
growing media on the production and quality of two rose varieties. Acta
Horticulturae, 548: 79-83
Evans MR, Konduru S and Stamps RH. 1996. Source variation in physical and
chemical properties of cocopeat coir dust. HortScience, 31 (6): 965-967
Farthing JG and Ellis SR. 1990. Growth regulants for modules bedding plants.
Acta Horticulturae, 272: 293-297
Fisher RA. 1970. Statistical Methods for Research Workers. 14th Ed. Oliver and
Boyd. Ltd. London
Gartner JB and Mclntyre ML. 1962. The use of perlite and slow available
fertilizer material in pot chrysanthemum culture. St. Flor. Ass. Bull. 227: 4-7
Geply OA, Baiyewu RA, Adegoke IA, Ayodele OO and Ademola IT. 2011.
Effect of different pot sizes and growth media on the agronomic performance
of Jatropha curcas. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition, 10 (10): 952-954
Gislerod H R. 1988. Effect of growing media on chrysanthemums grown in
continuous flowing solution. Acta Horticlturae, 21: 197-201
Gogue GJ and Sanderson KC. 1975. Municipal compost as a medium
amendment for chrysanthemum culture. Journal of American Society of
Horticultural Science, 100 (3): 213-216
Gomez LA and Gomez AA. 1984. Statistical procedure for agricultural research.
John Wiley and Sons, Singapore, 680p
Goodwin PB and Erwee MG. 1983. Hormonal influence on leaf growth. In : The
Growth and Functioning of Leaves. (Eds J.E. Dale and F.L. Mithorpe),
Cambridge University Press, New York. pp. 207-203
70
Haber Z and Kafarski K. 1979. Uptake of minor elements from the peat substrate
by greenhouse carnations in relation to pH. Roczniki Akademii Rolniczej w
Poznanium Ogrodictwo, 114 (8): 63-74
Hammer PA. 1991. Nutrition. In: Tips on Growing Zonal Geraniums, 2nd edition,
Tayama HK and Roll TJ, (eds.) Ohio Cooperative Extension Service, Ohio
State University, Columbus, Ohio. pp.18-22
Hazarika Ankita, Dhaduk BK and Yadav MK. 2010. Vegetative growth and
flowering of greenhouse Dutch rose cv.Naranga influenced by different
potting media. Horticultural Journal, 23 (2): 85-87
Hicklenton PR. 1983. Flowering, vegetative growth and mineral nutrition of pot
chrysanthemums in sawdust and perlite media. Scientia Horticulturae, 21 (2):
189-197
Iniguez G and Crohn DM. 2004. Utilization of by products from the tequila
industry. Part 6: Fertilization of potted geranium with slaughter house waste
compost. Revista Internacional de contamination Ambiental, 20 (2): 53-58
Jawaharlal M, Prem Joshua J, Arumugam S, Subramanium S and Vijaykumar M.
2001. Standardization of growing media for Anthurium andreanum cv.
‘Temptation’ under shade net house. South Indian Horticulture, 49: 323-324
Kaptan H. 1998. The effect of commercial fertilizers and different soil mixtures
on yield and quality of carnation. Bahce, 14 (1-2): 3-10
Keever JM. 1985. Effects of container dimension and volume on growth of three
woody ornamentals. HortScience, 20: 276-278
Kemble JM, Davis JM, Gardner RG and Sanders DC. 1994. Root cell volume
affects Growth of compact habit tomato transplants. HortScience, 29: 261-261
Khalil MM and Helal AA. 1998. Response of geranium to some cultural media
and fertilization treatments. Annals of Agricultural Science, 36 (3): 1815-1828
Khelikuzzaman MH. 2007. Effect of different potting media on growth of a
hanging ornamental plant (Trandescantia sp.). Journal of Trop. Agric. and
Fd. Sc. 35 (1): 41-48
Lal SD and Danu NS. 1985. Rooting of carnation cuttings as influenced by
different growing media. Progressive Horticulture, 17 (2): 145-147
Lamanna D, Castelnuovo M and Angelo G. 1991. Compost based media as
alternative to peat on ten pot ornamentals. Acta Horticulturae, 294: 125-129
Latimar JG. 1991. Container size and shape influence growth and landscape
performance of marigold seedlings. HortScience, 26: 124-126
Latpate MB. 2011. Studies on the effect of Growing media and daminozide
application on Growth and flowering of Hydrangea macrophylla Thunb.
M.Sc. Thesis submitted to Dr. Y.S.Parmar University of Horticulture and
Forestry, Nauni, Solan, Himachal Pradesh
71
Lazcano C and Dominguez J. 2010. Effects of vermi- compost as a potting
amendment of commercial grown Primula acaulis. Spanish Journal of
Agricultural Research, 8 (4): 1260-1270
Leinfelder J and Fischer P. 1980. Lime rates and the development of Primulas
grown in peat. Deutscher-Gartenbau, 34 (2): 58-60
Lopez R, Duran C, Murillo JM and Cabrera F. 1998. Geranium’s response to
compost based substrates. Acta Horticulturae, 469: 255-262
Mahdi MZ and Sallam S. 1978. Mixture of sandy soil and Arvo-Humus as
improved media for geranium plants. Libyan Journal of Agriculture, 7: 97100
Malorgio F, Lemmetti S, Tognoni F and Compiotti CA. 1994. Effect of substrate
and watering regime on chrysanthemum grown with soilless culture. Acta
Horticulturae, 361: 495-500
Marcussen KH. 1979. Enriched rooting medium. Ministry of Agriculture and
Fisheries Bulletin, 19: 1-6
Marfa O, Save R, Rabella R, Sabater F, Pages M and Tio M. 1984. Effects of
different substrates and irrigation regimes on crop and plant water
relationships of Asplenium nidus avis Hort. and Cyclamen persicum Mill. Acta
Horticulturae, 150: 337-348
Mastalerz JW. 1962. Sawdust suitable for greenhouse soil mixtures. Science for
the Farmer, 9 (3): 13
McConnell DB. 1987. Container size and potting medium affect growth rate of
Weeping Fig and loquat. Proc.Fla.State Hort.Soc. 100: 337-339
Nagamura S and Urabe S. 1973. Studies on standard composts for potted
flowering plants. Bulletin of the Nara Agricultural Experiment Station, 5: 3440
Nelson PV. 1969. Assessment and correction of alkalinity problem associated
with parabora vermiculite. Journal of American Society of Horticultural
Science, 94: 664-667
Newman SE, Panter KL, Roll MJ and Miller RO. 1997. Growth and nutrition of
geraniums grown in media developed from waste tire components.
HortScience, 32 (4): 674-676
Noguera P, Ahad M and Noguera V. 2000. Coconut coir waste: a new and viable
ecologically friendly peat substitute. Acta Horticulturae, 517: 279-283
Park NB and Andersen AS. 1989. The effect of potting media mixtures on
rooting and growth of geranium cuttings. Research Reports of the Rural
Development Administration Horticulture, 31 (4): 9-15
Pathak Narender and Sharma YD. 1998. Effect of plant bioregulators and potting
mixture on Primula obconica. Journal of Ornamental Horticulture, 4 (1/2):
30-32
72
Peterson TA, Reinsel MD and Krizek DT. 1991. Tomato (Lycopersicon
esculentum Mill.cv ‘Better Bush’) plant response to root restriction. Journal
Expt.Bot. 42: 1233-1240
Pizzeti I and Cocker. 1978. Primula. In: Flowers- A guide for your garden.volII.New York, U.S.A.: Hery N. Abrams, Inc.,pp. 1038-1054
Poole RT, Greaves BA and Silva JA. 1968. Effect of soil media on container
grown Hibiscus and Aralia. Proceedings of the Florida State Horticultural
Society, 81: 443-447
Raviv M, Heinrich LJ and Wallach R. 2001. The effect of root zone physical
properties of coir and UC mix on performance of cut rose cv. Cardinal. Acta
Horticulturae, 554: 231-237
Roeber R and Leinfelder J. 1997. Influence of wood fiber substrates and water
quality on plant quality and growth of Saintpaulia x ionantha and Sinningia x
hybrida. Acta Horticulturae, 450: 97-103
Sant D, Gislerod HR, Selemer Olesen AR, Solbraa K and Caballero A. 1983.
Utilization of composted bark in cultivation of chrysanthemum ‘White
Horim’. Almeria Spain Socieded Espana de Ciencia Horticolas Primer
Congresso Nacional, 1: 73-83
Sattelmacher B and Marashner H. 1978. Nitrogen nutrition and cytokinin activity
in Solanum tuberosum. Plant Physiology, 42: 185-189
Scagliarini S. 1998. Compost as a substrate for greenhouse Floriculture. Colture
Protette, 27 (2): 111-116
Schenk M and Brundert W. 1979. Effect of pot material and size on growth in
hydroculture. Deutscher-Gartebau, 33 (21): 898
Schwemmer E. 1981. Cyclamen grown in various substrates with slow-release
fertilizers and different nutrient supply. Zierpflanzenba, 19 (19): 800-802
Seager JCR. 1989. Effect of compost fertilizer content and liquid fertilization on
growth of primrose. Acta Horticulturae, 238: 197-204
Sekar K and Sujata A. 2001. Effect of growing media and GA3 on grown and
flowering of gerbera (Gerbera jamesonii H. Bolus) under naturally ventilated
green house. South Indian Horticulture, 49: 338-339
Sekar K and Sujata A. 2001. Effect of growing media and GA3 on grown and
flowering of gerbera (Gerbera jamesonii H. Bolus) under naturally ventilated
green house. South Indian Horticulture, 49: 338-339
Sharma YD and Wazir JS. 2006. Primula. In: Advances in Ornamental
Horticulture.vol-II.Jaipur : Pointer Publisher. pp.182-220
Singh J. 2010. Studies on the effect of growing media and paclobutrazol on
growth and flowering of geranium (Pelargonium x hortorum L.H. Bailey).
M.Sc. Thesis submitted to Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and
Forestry, Nauni, Solan, Himachal Pradesh
73
Singh J. 2010. Studies on the effect of growing media and paclobutrazol on
growth and flowering of geranium (Pelargonium x hortorum L.H. Bailey).
M.Sc. Thesis submitted to Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and
Forestry, Nauni, Solan, Himachal Pradesh
Skalska E. 1976. Seasonal fertilizer requirements of American carnations.
Sbornik UVTIZ Zahradnictri, 3 (6): 105-117
Smith C. 1995. Coir: a viable alternative to peat for potting. Horticulturist, 4 (3):
25-28
Smith CA and Hall DA. 1994. Development of perlite as the potting substrate for
ornamental plants. Acta Horticulturae, 361: 159-166
Soukup J. 1982. Preparation and properties of bark-peat substrates. SbornikUVTIZ Zahradnictvi, 9 (3): 177-188
Sramek F and Dubsky M. 1997. Substitution of peat in growing media. Acta
Pruhoniciana, 64: 247-257
Starch JR, Lukaszuk K and Maciejewski M. 1991. Effect of fertilizer nitrogen
and potassium upon yield and quality of carnation grown in peat and sawdust.
Acta Horticulturae, 294: 289-296
Strojny Z. 1979. Effect of supplementing substrates with different types of bark
and with FYM on growth and flowering of chrysanthemum under plastic
tunnels. Prace instytutu sandownictwa i Kwiaciarstwa W Skierniwicach Seria
B. Rosling Ozdobone, 4: 97-105
Strojny Z. 1989. Year round cultivation of pot chrysanthemums in Poland. IISubstrates for year round cultivation of pot chrysanthemum. Prace instytutu
sandownictwa i Kwiaciarstwa W Skierniwicach Seria B. Rosling Ozdobone,
11: 79-97
Tesi R and Tallarico R. 1985. The use of worm compost for the cultivation of
cyclamen and poinsettia in pots. Colture-Protette, 14 (4): 102-104
Thomas MB and McCurran AM. 1979. Influence of N and lime rates on
polyanthus (Primula
veries “Pacific Giant”). Mitteilungen aus der
Biologischen Bundesanstalt fur Land und Forstwirtschaft Berlin Dahlem, 191
(18): 1-8
Van Iersel M. 1997. Root restriction effects on growth and development of Salvia
splendens. HortScience, 32: 1186-1190
Verhagen JBGM. 1993. Peat as a substrate for year round chrysanthemum
growing. Acta Horticulturae, 342: 221-227
Vernieri P, Incrocci G, Tognoni F and Serra G. 2003. Effect of Cultivar, timing,
Growth Retardants, Potting type on potted Sunflowers production. Acta
Horticulturae, 614 (1): 313-318
Volf M, Soukup J and Votruba R. 1985. Carnation cultivation in bags with barkpeat substrate. Sbornik UVTIZ, 12(1): 73-78
74
Wazir JS, Sharma YD and Dhiman SR. 2009. Performance of potted
Alstroemeria (Alstroemeria hybrida L.) in different growing media under wet
temperate conditions. Journal of Ornamental Horticulture, 12 (3): 167-174
Wehner TD and Horton RR. 1986. Effect of pot size on Growth and flowering of
Cucumber in the Greenhouse. CGC, 9: 47-50
White JW. 1970. Growing media. In: Geraniums 2nd ed. Mastalerz JW (ed.).
University Park, Pennsylvania
Will H. 1979. White peat/black peat mixture as substrate for ornamental (pot)
plants. Deutscher Gartenbau, 33 (50): 2107-2108
Worrall R J. 1981. Comparison of composted hardwood and peat based media for
the production of seedling, foliage and flowering plants. Scientia
Horticulturae, 15: 311-319
Younis A, Riaz A, Waseem M, Asif Khan M and Nadeem M. 2010. Production
of quality croton (Codiaeum variegatum) plants by using different growing
media. American-Eurasian Journal of Agricultural & Environmental
Sciences, 7 (2): 232-237
Zhang Cheng Lin and Bravdo BA. 2001. Effect of root restriction on growth of
wine grape ‘Cabernet Sauvignon’. Acta Horticulturae-Sinica, 28 (5): 448-450
75
Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry,
Nauni, Solan (H.P.)-173230
Department of Floriculture and Landscaping
Title of Thesis
Name of the Student
Admission Number
Major Advisor
Major Field
Minor Field
Degree Awarded
Year of Award of Degree
No. of pages in Thesis
No. of words in Abstract
: Effect of growing substrates and pot sizes on growth and
flowering of Primula malacoides Franch.)
: Jagreeti Gupta
: H-2011-30-M
: Dr. B.S. Dilta, Associate Professor
: Floriculture and Landscaping
: Soil Science
: M.Sc. (Horticulture) Floriculture and Landscape Architecture
: 2013
: 76+III
: 447
ABSTRACT
The present investigations entitled, “Effect of growing substrates and pot sizes on growth and flowering of
Primula malacoides Franch.” were carried out at experimental farm of Department of Floriculture and Landscaping, Dr. Y.
S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni, Solan (H.P) during September, 2012- April, 2013 to work out the
most suitable growing substrate and pot size for producing the best quality and most presentable potted Primulas. The
experiment was laid out in Completely Randomized Design (factorial) having 21 treatment combinations of growing
substrates and pot sizes replicated thrice with five pots per treatment. Seven growing substrates viz., Soil: FYM: Sand (1:1:1,
v/v), Ban Oak (Quercus semicarpofolia) leafmould : FYM : soil (2:1:1, v/v), Rhododendron (Rhododendron arboreum L.)
leafmould : FYM : soil (2:1:1, v/v), Rai (Picea smithiana L.): FYM : soil (2:1:1, v/v), Chirpine (Pinus roxburghii L.)
leafmould : FYM: soil (1:1:1, v/v), Cocopeat : FYM : sand (1:1:1, v/v), Spent mushroom compost : FYM: sand (2:1:1, v/v)
and three pot sizes i.e. 15, 20, 25 cm diameter pots, respectively. The observations were recorded on plant height (cm),
number of branches or shoots per plant, shoot length (cm), plant spread (cm), days to flower bud formation (days), days to
first flower opening (days), length of inflorescence stalk (cm), inflorescence diameter (cm), number of inflorescences per
plant, number of flowers per inflorescence, number of flowers per plant, duration of flowering (days) and pot presentability
score at the time of peak flowering.
The growing substrate comprising cocopeat: FYM: sand (1:1:1, v/v) recorded maximum values in terms of plant
height (43.05 cm), number of shoots or branches per plant (36.37), shoot length (25.38 cm), plant spread (36.58 cm), length
of inflorescence stalk (17.43 cm), inflorescence diameter (5.89 cm), number of inflorescences per plant (37.54), number of
flowers per inflorescence (18.28), number of flowers per plant (707.20) highest pot presentability score (84.22), minimum
days to flower bud formation (104.10 days ) as well as days to first flower opening (106.80 days). As regards the effects of
pot sizes, 25 cm diameter pots exhibited, maximum plant height (37.20 cm), number of branches or shoots per plant
(35.16), shoot length (23.18 cm), plant spread ( 39.50 cm), days to flower bud formation (108.10 days), days to first flower
opening (111.70 days), length of inflorescence stalk (16.78 cm), inflorescence diameter (5.89 cm), number of inflorescences
per plant (34.65), number of flowers per inflorescence (20.13), number of flowers per plant (703.10), duration of flowering
(99.60 days) and pot presentability score (81.67). The study indicated that most desirable and presentable potted plants of
primula can be raised in 25 cm diameter pots by using cocopeat : FYM : sand (1:1:1, v/v) growing substrate.
Signature of the Major Advisor
Signature of the Student
Countersigned
Professor and Head
Department of Floriculture and Landscaping
Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture & Forestry
Nauni, Solan, (H.P.) - 173 230
76
APPENDIX-I
Mean monthly meteorological data of Dr.Y.S.Parmar University of Horticulture
and Forestry, Nauni, Solan (H.P.) for the year 2012-2013
(W.e.f. September, 2012 to April, 2013)
Months
Temperature (0C)
Maximum
Minimum
Rainfall
(mm)
Relative
humidity
(%)
Sunshine
hours
(Hours/min.)
September, 2012
27.7
16.2
74
111.8
7.9
October, 2012
25.9
8.2
53
3.5
7.5
November, 2012
22.3
4.2
53
3.9
5.7
December, 2012
20.3
2.1
48
18.4
5.5
January, 2013
17.0
1.1
56
113.6
5.4
February, 2013
17.8
4.5
64
184.3
3.4
March, 2013
25.2
8.3
53
85.6
5.7
April, 2013
26.9
11.5
39
5.4
7.7
Source: Meteorological Observatory, Department of Environmental Sciences, Dr.Y.S.
Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni, Solan (H.P.) 173230.
i
APPENDIX-II
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for parameters under study for Experiment
Source of variation
Degree of freedom
6
Mean sum of squares
Plant height (cm)
137.09
Growing Substrates
Pot Sizes
2
111.15
Growing Substrates x Pot Sizes
12
18.869
Error
42
5.7544
Source of variation
Degree of freedom
Mean sum of squares
Number of branches or shoots per
Plant (cm)
425.03
1156.8
Growing Substrates
Pot Sizes
6
2
Growing Substrates x Pot Sizes
12
45.643
Error
42
13.425
Source of variation
Degree of freedom
Mean sum of squares
Shoot length (cm)
36.059
Growing Substrates
6
Pot Sizes
2
39.820
Growing Substrates x Pot Sizes
12
4.2611
Error
42
0.30751
Source of variation
Degree of freedom
Mean sum of squares
Plant spread (cm)
25.615
583.77
Growing Substrates
Pot Sizes
6
2
Growing Substrates x Pot Sizes
12
7.5988
Error
42
1.4596
Source of variation
Degree of freedom
Mean sum of squares
Days to flower bud formation
27.909
Growing Substrates
6
Pot Sizes
2
221.07
Growing Substrates x Pot Sizes
12
3.7056
Error
42
6.7408
Source of variation
Degree of freedom
Mean sum of squares
Days to first flower opening
27.909
157.87
Growing Substrates
Pot Sizes
6
2
Growing Substrates x Pot Sizes
12
3.7056
Error
42
6.7408
ii
Pot Sizes
6
2
Mean sum of squares
Length of inflorescence
Stalk (cm)
6.6028
25.632
Growing Substrates x Pot Sizes
12
0.36543
Error
42
0.101162
Source of variation
Growing Substrates
Degree of freedom
Growing Substrates
6
Mean sum of squares
Inflorescence diameter (cm)
0.77869
Pot Sizes
2
1.3956
Growing Substrates x Pot Sizes
12
0.035776
Error
42
0.035637
Source of variation
Source of variation
Degree of freedom
Degree of freedom
Mean sum of squares
Number of inflorescences per
Plant
389.38
888.78
Pot Sizes
6
2
Growing Substrates x Pot Sizes
12
49.54
Error
42
11.59
Growing Substrates
Source of variation
Growing Substrates
Degree of freedom
6
Mean sum of squares
Number of flowers per
inflorescence
4.6239
Pot Sizes
2
155.93
Growing Substrates x Pot Sizes
12
0.9969
Error
42
0.14049
Source of variation
Degree of freedom
Mean sum of squares
Number of flowers per plant
155540
766650
Growing Substrates
Pot Sizes
6
2
Growing Substrates x Pot Sizes
12
24824
Error
42
4286.4
Growing Substrates
6
Mean sum of squares
Duration of flowering (days)
1020.4
Pot Sizes
2
214.02
Growing Substrates x Pot Sizes
12
10.225
Error
42
3.0500
Source of variation
Source of variation
Degree of freedom
Degree of freedom
Pot Sizes
6
2
Growing Substrates x Pot Sizes
Error
12
42
Growing Substrates
Mean sum of squares
Pot presentability score
187.44
503.48
52.106
52.333
iii
APPENDIX-III
a)
Chemical properties of various Growing Substrates
Growing Substrates
T1 = Soil : FYM : Sand (1:1:1, v/v)
Major elements (kg/ha)
N
P
K
203
349.5
854
pH
1:2.5
7.2
EC
(ms)
1.1
T2 = Quercus semicarpifolia leafmould :
FYM : soil (2:1:1, v/v)
287
157.4
1990
7.5
1.6
T3 = Rhododendron arboreum leafmould :
FYM : soil (2:1:1, v/v)
595
241.35
990
6.8
1.8
T4 = Picea smithiana leafmould : FYM : soil
(2:1:1, v/v)
707
196.64
2620
7.1
2.2
T5 = Chirpine leafmould : FYM : soil (2:1:1,
v/v)
469
215.09
815
7.1
1.5
T6 = Cocopeat : FYM : sand (1:1:1, v/v)
315
377.27
1640
7.2
0.9
T7 = Spent mushroom compost : FYM : soil
(2:1:1, v/v)
455
385.69
1995
7.3
1.2
b)
Physical properties of various Growing Substrates
Growing Substrates
Bulk density
(g/cc)
1.25
Particle density
(g/cc)
1.6
Percent Pore
space (%)
25
T2 = Quercus semicarpifolia leafmould : FYM :
soil (2:1:1, v/v)
0.92
4.5
32.4
T3 = Rhododendron arboreum leafmould :
FYM : soil (2:1:1, v/v)
0.86
1.53
43.4
T4 = Picea smithiana leafmould : FYM : soil
(2:1:1, v/v)
0.79
1.08
22.91
T5 = Chirpine leafmould : FYM : soil (2:1:1,
v/v)
0.90
1.25
27.27
T6 = Cocopeat : FYM : sand (1:1:1, v/v)
0.80
1.33
40
T7 = Spent mushroom compost : FYM : soil
(2:1:1, v/v)
1.25
1.42
12.5
T1 = Soil : FYM : Sand (1:1:1,v/v)
Source: The physical and chemical properties of above cited growing media were analyzed
at Directorate of Mushroom Research, Chambaghat and Department of Environmental
Sciences, Dr. YSPUHF, Nauni, Solan, H.P.
iv
CURRICULUM VITAE
Name
:
Jagreeti Gupta
Father’s Name
:
Sh. Naresh Kumar Gupta
Date of Birth
:
20.04.1990
E- mail address
:
[email protected]
Sex
:
Female
Marital Status
:
Unmarried
Nationality
:
Indian
Educational Qualifications:
Certificate/ degree
Class/ grade
Board/ University
Year
10
First
H.P.B.S.E., Dharamshala
2005
10+2
First
H.P.B.S.E., Dharamshala
2007
B.Sc. Horticulture
First
UHF, Nauni, Solan (H.P.)
2011
Whether sponsored by some state/
Central Govt./Univ./SAARC
:
No
Scholarship/ Stipend/ Fellowship, any
Other financial assistance received
during the study period
:
M.Sc.: University
Merit Stipend
Jagreeti Gupta