Printer Friendly

Growth and flowering response of cut chrysanthemum under root restriction to plant density grown in soilless culture.

INTRODUCTION

Chrysanthemum is one of the most popularcut flowers in the world. Commercial production of this plant is still predominantly in soil which faced many problems such as soil degradation and accumulation of soil born disease Cut chrysanthemum production in soilless system have been tried more than three decades ago [17].However, the higher cost productionis a problem [18]. Manipulation plant density can be an option to decrease cost production of soilless culture by increasing the productivity. However, changing plant density affected to growth and flower quality of chrysanthemum due to available light per plant [9]. Many studies were carried out and the results were varied. Huld and Andersson [6] reported that plant height and leaf area index of chrysanthemum grown at 83 plants [m.sup.-2] was higher than at 125 plants [m.sup.-2]. In contrast, Kahar and Mahmud [7] found that plant height of chrysanthemum grown at 44 plant [m.sup.-2] did not differ significantly from 104 plants [m.sup.-2]. Langton et al., [9] also reported that chrysanthemum height did not increase with increasing plant density. Carvalho et al., [2] reported that number of flowers decreased from 33 flowers to 9 flowers when plant density increased from 32 plants [m.sup.-2] to 80 plants [m.sup.-2] with 45% light intensity. Spray diameter and number of flower bud decreased significantly when plant density increased from 44 plants [m.sup.-2] to 104 plants [m.sup.-2] while vase life was not affected [7].

Light intensity and light duration were the important factors that influence growth at different density. Carvalho et al., [3] reported that

combinations of plant density and duration of long-day can offer similar total fresh mass of chrysanthemum without effect to flower size or number of flower. Accordingly, Lee et al., [10] reported that increased light level and plant density increased dry mass of chrysanthemum per square meter and final leaf area index. Chrysanthemum had variation response to plant density. The effect of plant density on growth of chrysanthemum in substrate culture has not been studied widely.

Objective:

This experiment investigated effect of plant density on growth and flowering response of chrysanthemum grown in restricted root condition.

Materials and Methods

The experiment was carried out at the Malaysia Agricultural Research and Development Station (MARDI), Cameron Highland, Pahang, Malaysia from August 2013--January 2014 in a shade house with average temperature of 34[degrees] C and relative humidity of 47.08%. Rooted cuttings of chrysanthemumcv 'New White' and 'New yellow' were grown in seedling tray (Bumnong, Korea), each hole can contain coconut peat of 140 ml. Six seedling trays were used for 1 [m.sup.2]. Plants were arranged in seedling tray with three different densities at 64, 81, and 99 plants [m.sup.-2] in a random complete block design with 4 replications.

Plants were irrigated by drip irrigation system via drip emitter 6 times per day with nutrient solution containing N 200, P 30, K 200, Ca 150, Mg 50, Fe

1.05, Mn 0.58, Zn 0.35, B 1, Cu 0.05 and Mo 0.05 mg/L. The electric conductivity (EC) was maintained at 1.3-1.5 mS [cm.sup.-1] and pH was kept between 5.5-6.5. Night interruption from incandescent lamp (Phillip, 100 w) was given from 11.00 pm-3.00 am after transplanting until 8 weeks.

Plant height, stem diameter, total leaf area and root length were measured every two weeks. Total leaf area was measure by leaf area meter (Licor, USA). Fresh root samples were washed and root morphology was determined by WINRHIZO program. Leaf area index (LAI) was measured by plant canopy analyzer LAI-2200 (Licor, USA). Plant samples were separated and then dried in oven at 70[degrees]c for 48 hours. Dry weight of leaf, stem, root and flower were record.

Chlorophyll content was determined by method of Coombs [5]. Four leaf discs 1 [cm.sup.2] from fully expand leaf were put in 10 ml of 80% acetone. Samples were kept in dark condition for 72 hours to extract chlorophyll from tissue. Absorbance of extraction were measured by spectrophotometer (Shimazu, Japan) at wavelength 664 and 647 nm. Chlorophyll a, b and total chlorophyll content were calculated from Coombs method (Coombs et al., 1987) Chlorophyll a (mg [cm.sup.-2]) = 13.19 [A.sub.664]--2.57 [A.sub.647], Chlorophyll b (mg [cm.sup.-2]) = 22.10 [A.sub.647]--5.26 [A.sub.664] and Total chlorophyll content (mg [cm.sup.-2])

3.5 x (Chlorophyll A + Chlorophyll B)/4

Ten fully expanded leaves from the apex of plant sample were dried in oven and grinded. Dried samples were digested. Nutrient concentration was determined by autoanalyzer (Quickchem, USA) and atomic absorption spectrophotometer (PerkinElmer, USA)

The time to produce flower bud was observed when bud diameter was larger than 0.3 cm. At harvesting, shoot fresh weight, number of flower, flower diameter, inflorescence diameter, number of petal and pedicel length were determined. The color of the petals were measured by Chromameter (Konica Minolta, Japan). Two plant samples per plot were cut at length 30 cm and putin distilled water 300 ml to observed vase life. The Analysis of variance was implemented by SAS statistical package at significance level p < 0.05. Means were compared by Tukey's test.

Results:

As shown in Table 1, there were no significant differences for leaf area, leaf length, leaf thickness and leaf area index between two varieties of chrysanthemum. Chrysanthemum grown at 64 plant [m.sup.-2] had highest leaf area of 258.12 [cm.sup.2], leaf length of 7.39 cm and leaf thickness of 33.33 [micro]m but the differences were not significant. Plant density significantly affected to leaf area index. Increasing plant density tended to increase leaf area index (LAI). Plants grown at 81 plant [m.sup.-2] had LAI of 2.76 which was significantly higher than 64 plant [m.sup.-2] of 2.28.

The number of internode was significant affected by variety. Chrysanthemum 'New Yellow' had number of internode of 29.83 significantly higher than 'New White' of 26.25 (Table 2). However, number of internode and stem diameter of chrysanthemum in this experiment were not significantly different between the plant density. Plant density significantly affected to pedicle length, pedicle length of plants grown at 99 plant [m.sup.-2] was longer than of 64 plant [m.sup.-2] by 18.33%.

There was interaction effect between variety and plant density on number of leaf (Fig. 1). The number of leaf tended to decrease when plant density increased for variety 'New White'. In contrast to 'New Yellow', the number of leaf tended to increase with increasing plant density but there was no significant different. The highest number of leaf was recorded in chrysanthemum 'New Yellow' grown at 99 plant [m.sup.-2] of 36 leaves.

No significant differences were observed between variety and plant density on root length, root surface area, root diameter, root volume and root shoot ratio (Table 3). The longest root length of 633.69 cm was observed in chrysanthemum grown at 99 plant [m.sup.-2] and highest root surface area was exhibited in 81 plant [m.sup.-2]. The highest root diameter was recorded at the plant density of 64 plant [m.sup.-2].

Root diameter, epidermis, cortex, and stele of root also did not show any differences between variety and plant density (Table 4). Chrysanthemum grown at 99 plant [m.sup.-2] had highest root diameter of 65.75 [micro]m, root cortex of 20 pm and stele of 19.50 pm. Plants grown at 64 plant [m.sup.-2] showed highest root epidermis thickness of 2.75 [micro]m.

Chrysanthemum 'New Yellow, had higher chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b and total chlorophyll than 'New White' but the differences were not significantly(Table 5). Plant density had no significant effect on chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b and total chlorophyll of chrysanthemum but plants grown at 99 plant [m.sup.-2] exhibited the highest chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b and total chlorophyll of 8.13, 3.48 and 10.16 mg [cm.sup.-2] respectively.

Stem fresh weight and total dry weight of chrysanthemum 'New Yellow' were higher than 'New White' but the difference was not significant (Table 6). There was no difference between fresh weight means of chrysanthemum grown at different plant density Maximum fresh weight was 27.91 g obtained from the plant density of 99 plants [m.sup.-2]. Leaf, stem, root, flower and total dry weight of chrysanthemum did not show significantly difference between variety or plant density. However, at a plant density of 64 plants [m.sup.2] produced the highest dry weight of 5.91 g.

Results from leaf nutrient analysis at 6 weeks after transplanting indicated that there were no significantly differences of nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium and magnesium level between variety and plant density (Table 7). While, result from nutrient analysis at fourteenth week after transplanting showed that chrysanthemum 'New yellow' had higher potassium than 'New White' significantly but there were no significant differences between other nutrients (Table 8).

There were no significant differences of photosynthesis rate, stomatal-conductant, transpiration rate, between variety and plant density even at six week or fourteenth week after transplanting (Table 9 and Table 10). Chlorophyll fluorescence efficiency (Fv/Fm) of chrysanthemum 'New White' and 'New Yellow' did not differ significantly. Even plants grown at 64 plant [m.sup.-2] had highest Fv/Fm value of 0.85 but it was not significant difference from other plant density. Water potential significantly affected by variety, chrysanthemum 'New Yellow' was significantly higher than 'New White' both at six week and fourteenth week. There was no significant difference of water potential among plant density.

Maximum plant height of 61.28 cm was recorded from the density of 99 plants [m.sup.-2]. However, there were no significant differences for the plant height between variety or plant density as shown in Table 11. Day to flowering was not affected by variety and plant density. Chrysanthemum took 76-77 days after transplanting to start flowering. Number of flowers was not difference between variety and plant density but chrysanthemum grown at 64 plant [m.sup.-2] had highest average number of flower of 5.69. Flower diameter and inflorescence diameter also did not show significant differences between variety or plant density. From measurement of flower color, lightness and hue angle value of chrysanthemum 'New White' did not significantly differ from 'New Yellow', except the chroma value (Table 11). While there were no differences of flower color between plant density. Vase life of chrysanthemum 'New white' was 14.79 day, a few longer than 'New Yellow of 13.83 day. No significant differences were observed for vase life among plant density treatments.

Discussion:

Plant density altered the light intensity at the plant canopy. This influenced to morphology and physiology of plants. Carvalho and Heuvelink [3], informed that increasing plant density reduced leaf area, leaf number, leaf size, and leaf thickness of chrysanthemum. Khattakef al., [8] also reported that leaf area of chrysanthemum decreased with the increasing of plant density. But, there were no significant differences between leaf area and leaf length of chrysanthemum at different plant density in this experiment. Increasing plant density tended to increase leaf area index (LAI). LAI of chrysanthemum grown at 81 and 99 plant [m.sup.-2] were higher than 64 plant [m.sup.-2]. This result agreed with report of Lee et al., [10] who stated that leaf area index increased with increasing plant density. In contrary, Huld and Anderson [6] reported that leaf area index of chrysanthemum grown at 83 plant [m.sup.-2] was higher than at 125 plant [m.sup.-2]. Number of internode was significant affected by variety, chrysanthemum 'New Yellow' had number of internode significantly higher than 'New White'. This may be due to chrysanthemum cultivar had variation response to plant density due to the ability of inherent [11,10].

In this experiment, plant density did not clearly affect to stem fresh weight and total dry weight. There were no significant differences between stem fresh weight and total dry weight of chrysanthemum between different plant density. This result varied from finding of Lee et al., [11] who reported that fresh and dry matter of chrysanthemum was decreased with increasing plant density. While Lee et al., [10] reported that fresh weight and dry weight of chrysanthemum increased with increasing plant density.

Plant density did not affected to root morphology of chrysanthemum, root length, root surface area, root diameter, root volume and root shoot ratio did not differ between plant density. This result contrasted with report of Panahandehet et al., [14] who stated that root length and root diameter of chichory grown in hydroponic were significant differences with plant density.

There were no significant differences on nutrient level between plant density at 6 week or 14 week after transplanting. These results can be concluded that plant density did not affect to nutrient level which similar to Russo [15], who reported that element concentration in plant tissues were not affected by plant density. Chlorophyll A, chlorophyll B and total chlorophyll did not affect by plant density. This finding agreed with finding of Arouieeet al., who reported that plant density did not significantly affect on leaf chlorophyll of sweet pepper.

Carvalho and Heuvelink noted that increasing plant density decreased photosynthesis rate. However, there were no significantly differences of photosynthesis, stomatal-conductant, transpiration rate and Fv/Fm among plant density at six week or fourteenth week after transplanting. This result corresponded with the report in corn of Xiuming [19] who said that photosynthesis and transpiration were not affected by plant density. This may be the density was not so high until it influenced to the photosynthesis. Because Li et al., [13] informed that when maize was grown at density exceeded 82,500 plants per [hm.sup.2], photosynthesis and Fv/Fm decreased significantly.

Plant height of chrysanthemum had strongly response to plant density [11]. However, there was no significant difference for the plant height between variety either or plant density This result corresponded with report of Kahar and Mahmud, [7] who found that plant height of chrysanthemum grown at 104 plant [m.sup.-2] did not differ significantly from 44 plants [m.sup.-2]. Lee et al., [11] also indicated that chrysanthemum stem length hardly responded to plant density.

Significantly differences of day to flowering was not observed between different plant density of chrysanthemum. This result contrasted with finding of Langton et al., [9] who reported that increasing plant density related to slow flowering of chrysanthemum. Number of flower also was not difference between plant density. In contrast with other findings [11,3,16] which reported that increasing plant density decreased number of flower. Inflorescence diameter did not show significant differences between variety or plant density. In contrast, Kahar and Mahmud [7] reported that spray diameter of chrysanthemum decreased significantly when plant density increased from 44 plant [m.sup.-2] to 104 plant [m.sup.-2]. This might because of the assimilation was not difference obviously between plant density. Plant density did not affect to vase life as report of Kahar and Mahmud [7] who informed that vase life of chrysanthemum grown at 44 plant [m.sup.-2] did not differ from 104 plant [m.sup.-2].

Conclusion:

Chrysanthemum grown under root restriction at high density of 81 and 99 plants [m.sup.-2] did not show significant differences on growth and flowering with 64 plants [m.sup.-2] except pedicle length. An increasing in plant density increased number of stem per area which can utilize greenhouse space. Considering the yield per square meter, growing chrysanthemum at 99 plants [m.sup.-2] appeared to be recommendable for the cultivation under root restriction.

Received: 25 June 2014; Received: 8July 2014; Accepted: 10 August May 2014; Available online: 30 August 2014

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the support of SEARCA and MARDI, Cameron Highlands for supporting of the experiment.

References

[1.] Aminifard, M.H., H. Aroiee, A. Ameri and H. Fatemi, 2012. Effect of plant density and nitrogen on growth, yield and fruit quality of sweet pepper (Capsicum annum L.).Afr. J. Agric. Res., 7(6): 859-866.

[2.] Carvalho, M.P.S., E. Heuvelink, Kooten, O. van, 2002. Effect of light intensity, plant density, and flower bud removal on the flower size and number in cut chrysanthemum. Acta Hort. (ISHS), 593: 33-38.

[3.] Carvalho, S.M.P. and E. Heuvelink, 2003. Effect of assimilate availability on flower characteristics and plant height of cut chrysanthemum: An integrated study. J HorticSci Biotech, 78(5):711-720.

[4.] Carvalho, S.M.P., B.D. Vrishali, E. Heuvelink, 2003. Interactive Effects of duration of long-day period and plant density on external quality of cut chrysanthemum. ActaHort (ISHS), 624: 335-342.

[5.] Coombs, J., G. Hind, R.C. Leegood, L.L. Tieszen and A. Vonshak, 1985. Analytical Techniques. In: Techniques in Bioproductivity and photosynthesis 2nd edition. Eds J. Coombs, D.O. Hall, S.P. Long and J.M.O. Scurlock.London:Pergamon Press, pp: 219-220.

[6.] Huld, A. and N.E. Andersson, 1997. The Influence of plant density and gradual shading on vegetative growth of Dendranthema. Acta Hort. (ISHS), 435: 209-218.

[7.] Kahars, A.B. and T.M.M. Mahmud, 2005. Growth, flowering and cut flower quality of spray chrysanthemum (Chrysanthemum morifolium Ramat) cv. V720 at different planting densities. J Trop Agr Food Sci., 33(2):177-184.

[8.] Khattak, A.M., S. Pearson and C.B. Johnson, 2004. The effects of far red spectral filters and plant density on the growth and development of chrysanthemums.SciHortic, 102(3): 335-341.

[9.] Langton, F.A., L.R. Benjamin and R.N. Edmondson, 1999. The effects of crop density on plant growth and variability in cut-flower chrysanthemum (Chrysanthemum morifolium Ramat.).J HorticSci Biotech, 74(4):493-501.

[10.] Lee, J.H., E.P. Heuvelink and M.J. Bakker, 2009. Interaction effects between light level and plant density on plant growth, development and external quality in year-round cut chrysanthemum. Korean JHortic Sci., 27(3): 391-398.

[11.] Lee, J.H., E. Heuvelink and H. Challa, 2002. Effects of planting date and plant density on crop growth of cut chrysanthemum. J HorticSci Biotech, 77(2): 238-247.

[12.] Lee, S.Y., H.J. Kim, and J.H. Bae, 2010. Effect of planting density on growth and quality in hydroponics of Sedum sarmentosum. Korean JHortic Sci., 28(4): 580-584.

[13.] Li, H.Q., R.J. Pei, H.M. Lin, L.G. Yuan, W.W. Hu, H.J. Zhao and J.Z. Wang, 2012. Effects of planting density and mode on summer maize chloroplast D1 protein and photo-system II. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 20(9): 1142-1148.

[14.] Panahandeh, J., S. Abdollahi, H.D. Kazemnia and N. Mahna, 2012. Effect of plant density on root yield and leaf area in chichory (Cichoriumintybusl).Acta Hort. (ISHS), 932: 427-430.

[15.] Russo, V.W., 1991. Effect of fertilizer rate, application timing and plant spacing on yield and nutrient content of bell pepper.J Plant Nutr, 14(10): 1047-1056.

[16.] Van der Ploeg, A., S.M. Carvalho and E. Heuvelink, 2009. Genotypic variation in the response to suboptimal temperature at different plant densities in cut chrysanthemum. J Am SocHortic Sci., 134(1): 31-40.

[17.] Van Os, E.A., 1980. Complete mechanization of the growing of cut chrysanthemums in nutrient film. In the Proceedings, Fifth International Congress on Soilless Culture, pp: 187-196.

[18.] Van Os, E., T.H. Gieling, and J.H. Lieth, 2008. Technical equipment in soilless production systems.In: Soilles culture theory and practice. Eds., Raviv M., LiethJ.H.editors. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp:157-207.

[19.] Xiuming. H., 1999. Effects of Plant Density on Growth, Yield, and Quality of Fresh-market Sweet Corn.HortScience, 34(3): 478.

Corresponding Author: TaweesakViyachai, Department of Crop Science, Faculty of Agriculture, University Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia.

Tel: 601-1130-99701; Fax: 603-8940 8445; E-mail: viyachai@yahoo.com

(1) TaweesakViyachai, (1) Thohirah Lee Abdullah, (1) SitiAishah Hassan, (2) NittyHirawaty Kamarulzaman, (3) Wan Abdullah Wan Yusof

(1) Departmentof Crop Science, Faculty of Agriculture, University Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia, 43400.

(2) Department of Agribusiness and Information system, Faculty of Agriculture Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia, 43400.

(3) Agro Technology Park, MARDI Cameron Highlands, Tanah Rata, Pahang, Malaysia, 39007

Table 1: Leaf area, leaf length, leaf thickness and leaf area
index of chrysanthemum as affected by variety and plant density
under soilless culture.

Treatments       Leaf area      Leaf      Leaf       Leaf
                ([cm.sup.2])   length   thickness    area
Variety                         (cm)    ([micro]m)   index

New White         223.01 a     6.97 a    31.83 a    2.58 a
New Yellow        251.43 a     7.46 a    31.54 a    2.57 a
Plant density
64 plant          258.12 a     7.39 a    33.44 a    2.28 b
[m.sup.-2]

81 plant          226.58 a     6.96 a    28.75 a    2.76 a
[m.sup.-2]

99 plant          226.96 a     7.30 a    32.88 a    2.69 ab
[m.sup.-2]

Variety (V)          ns          ns        ns         ns
Plant                ns          ns        ns        0.05
density (P)

VxP                  ns          ns        ns         ns

Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different
at p < 0.05 by Tukey's test ns=nonsignificant

Table 2: Number of internode, stem diameter and pedicle length of
culture. chrysanthemum as affected by variety and plant density
under soilless

Treatments      Number of     Stem     Pedicle
                Internode   diameter   length
                              (cm)      (cm)

Variety
New White        26.25 b     0.39 a    7.07 a
New Yellow       29.83 a     0.40 a    6.79 a
Plant density
64 plant         27.38 a     0.40 a    6.15 b
[m.sup.-2]

81 plant         27.88 a     0.38 a    7.14 ab
[m.sup.-2]

99 plant         28.88 a     0.40 a    7.50 a
[m.sup.-2]

Variety (V)       0.05         ns        ns
Plant              ns          ns       0.05
density (P)

VxP                ns          ns        ns

Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different
at p < 0.05 by Tukey's test ns=nonsignificant

Table 3: Root length, root surface area, root diameter root
volume and root:shoot ratio of chrysanthemum as affected by
variety and plant density under soilless culture.

Treatments        Root     Root surface     Root
                 length        area       diameter
                  (cm)     ([cm.sup.2])     (mm)

Variety
New White       570.83 a     126.33 a      0.70 a
New Yellow      621.96 a     131.95 a      0.68 a
Plant density
64 plant        540.27 a     124.83 a      0.73 a
[m.sup.-2]

81 plant        615.23 a     132.76 a      0.69 a
[m.sup.-2]

99 plant        633.69 a     129.84 a      0.66 a
[m.sup.-2]

Variety (V)        ns           ns           ns
Plant              ns           ns           ns
density (P)

VxP                ns           ns           ns

Treatments          Root       Root:
                   volume      shoot
                ([cm.sup.3])

Variety
New White          2.27 a      0.15 a
New Yellow         2.25 a      0.14 a
Plant density
64 plant           2.32 a      0.14 a
[m.sup.-2]

81 plant           2.32 a      0.15 a
[m.sup.-2]

99 plant           2.15 a      0.14 a
[m.sup.-2]

Variety (V)          ns          ns
Plant                ns          ns
density (P)

VxP                  ns          ns

Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different
at p < 0.05 by Tukey's test ns=nonsignificant

Table 4: Root diameter, epidermis, cortex and stele of
chrysanthemum as affected by variety and plant density under
soilless culture.

Treatments              Root      Epidermis    Cortex      Stele
                      diameter    ([micro]m)   ([micro]m)  ([micro]m)
                      ([micro]m)

Variety
New White             60.75 a     2.58 a       17.42 a     18.33 a
New Yellow            66.58 a     2.33 a       21.33 a     18.83 a
Plant density
64 plant [m.sup.-2]   60.50 a     2.75 a       19.50 a     17.25 a
81 plant [m.sup.-2]   64.75 a     2.13 a       18.63 a     19.00 a
99 plant [m.sup.-2]   65.75 a     2.50 a       20.00 a     19.50 a
Variety (V)              ns         ns           ns          ns
Plant density (P)        ns         ns           ns          ns
VxP                      ns         ns           ns          ns

Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different
at p < 0.05 by Tukey's test ns=nonsignificant

Table 5.Chlorophyll content of chrysanthemum leaves as affected
by variety and plant density under soilless culture.

Treatments            Chlorophyll    Chlorophyll         Total
                         a (mg          b (mg       chlorophyll (mg
                      [cm.sup.-2])   [cm.sup.-2])    [cm.sup.-2])

Variety
New White                7.39 a         3.17 a          9.24 a
New Yellow               8.14 a         3.38 a          10.08 a
Plant density
64 plant [m.sup.-2]      7.60 a         3.12 a          9.37 a
81 plant [m.sup.-2]      7.57 a         3.22 a          9.44 a
99 plant [m.sup.-2]      8.13 a         3.48 a          10.16 a
Variety (V)                ns             ns              ns
Plant density (P)          ns             ns              ns
VxP                        ns             ns              ns

Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different
at p < 0.05 by Tukey's test ns=nonsignificant

Table 6: Fresh weight and dry weight of chrysanthemum as affected
by variety and plant density under soilless culture.

Treatments                  Stem fresh weight

                        (g)      Leaf     Stem

Variety
New White             23.31 a   1.12 a   2.45 a
New Yellow            29.08 a   1.23 a   2.92 a
Plant density
64 plant [m.sup.-2]   27.16 a   1.27 a   2.95 a
81 plant [m.sup.-2]   23.53 a   1.19 a   2.66 a
99 plant [m.sup.-2]   27.91 a   1.06 a   2.44 a
Variety (V)             ns        ns       ns
Plant density (P)       ns        ns       ns
VxP                     ns        ns       ns

Treatments                   Dry weight (g)

                       Root    Flower   Total

Variety
New White             0.65 a   0.84 a   5.06 a
New Yellow            0.69 a   1.03 a   5.87 a
Plant density
64 plant [m.sup.-2]   0.68 a   1.01 a   5.91 a
81 plant [m.sup.-2]   0.71 a   0.84 a   5.40 a
99 plant [m.sup.-2]   0.62 a   0.96 a   5.08 a
Variety (V)             ns       ns       ns
Plant density (P)       ns       ns       ns
VxP                     ns       ns       ns

Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different
at p < 0.05 by Tukey's test ns=nonsignificant

Table 7: Nutrient concentrations of chrysanthemum as affected by
variety and plant density at sixth week after transplanting.

Treatments              N        p        K        Ca       Mg
                                          %

Variety
New White             1.78 a   0.18 a   4.11 a   1.29 a   0.44 a
New Yellow            1.74 a   0.16 a   3.38 a   1.23 a   0.39 a
Plant density
64 plant [m.sup.-2]   1.47 a   0.15 a   3.49 a   1.07 a   0.35 a
81 plant [m.sup.-2]   1.77 a   0.17 a   3.65 a   1.38 a   0.44 a
99 plant [m.sup.-2]   2.04 a   0.20 a   4.10 a   1.32 a   0.45 a
Variety (V)             ns       ns       ns       ns       ns
Plant density (P)       ns       ns       ns       ns       ns
VxP                     ns       ns       ns       ns       ns

Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different
at p < 0.05 by Tukey's test ns=nonsignificant

Table 8.Nutrient concentrations of chrysanthemum as affected by
variety and plant density at fourteenth week after transplanting

Treatments              N        p       K %       Ca       Mg

Variety
New White             3.33 a   1.04 a   4.94 b   0.30 a   3.33 a
New Yellow            3.91 a   1.15 a   5.54 a   0.35 a   3.91 a
Plant density
64 plant [m.sup.-2]   3.60 a   0.27 a   5.06 a   1.04 a   0.35 a
81 plant [m.sup.-2]   3.28 a   0.34 a   5.21 a   1.09 a   0.38 a
99 plant [m.sup.-2]   3.98 a   0.37a    5.46 a   1.15 a   0.40 a
Variety (V)             ns       ns      0.05      ns       ns
Plant density (P)       ns       ns       ns       ns       ns
VxP                     ns       ns       ns       ns       ns

Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different
at p < 0.05 by Tukey's test ns=nonsignificant

Table 9: Photosynthesis, stomatalconductant, transpiration rate,
Fv/Fm, proline, water potential of chrysanthemum at 6 weeks as
affected by variety and plant density.

Treatments            Photosynthesis      Stomatal
                       ([micro]mol       conductant
                        [m.sup.-2]     (cm [s.sup.-1])
                       [s.sup.-1])

Variety
New White                15.49 a           0.17 a
New Yellow               16.32 a           0.17 a
Plant density
64 plant [m.sup.-2]      16.79 a           0.14 a
81 plant [m.sup.-2]      15.61 a           0.20 a
99 plant [m.sup.-2]      15.32 a           0.16 a
Variety (V)                 ns               Ns
Plant density (P)           ns               ns
VxP                         ns               ns

Treatments             Transpiration    Fv/Fm
                      (mol [m.sup.-2]
                        [s.sup.-1])

Variety
New White                 1.58 a        0.81 a
New Yellow                1.59 a        0.83 a
Plant density
64 plant [m.sup.-2]       1.39 a        0.85 a
81 plant [m.sup.-2]       1.85 a        0.82 a
99 plant [m.sup.-2]       1.51 a        0.81 a
Variety (V)                 ns            ns
Plant density (P)           ns            ns
VxP                         ns            ns

Treatments             Proline       Water
                      ([micro]g)   potential
                                     (bar)

Variety
New White               6.25 a      -3.35 b
New Yellow              6.84 a      -4.80 a
Plant density
64 plant [m.sup.-2]     7.08 a      -3.50 a
81 plant [m.sup.-2]     6.27 a      -4.13 a
99 plant [m.sup.-2]     6.29 a      -4.59 a
Variety (V)               ns          ns
Plant density (P)         ns          ns
VxP                       ns          ns

Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different
at p < 0.05 by Tukey's test ns=nonsignificant

Table 10: Photosynthesis, stomatalconductant, transpiration rate,
Fv/Fm, proline, water potential of chrysanthemum at 6 weeks as
affected by variety and plant density.

Treatments            Photosynthesis      Stomatal
                       ([micro]mol       conductant
                        [m.sup.-2]     (cm [s.sup.-1])
                       [s.sup.-1])

Variety
New White                15.23 a           0.12 a
New Yellow               12.21 a           0.09 a
Plant density
64 plant [m.sup.-2]      11.19 a           0.09 a
81 plant [m.sup.-2]      17.14 a           0.11 a
99 plant [m.sup.-2]      12.82 a           0.11 a
Variety (V)                 ns               ns
Plant density (P)           ns               ns
VxP                         ns               ns

Treatments            Transpiration   Fv/Fm
                       ([micro]mol
                       [m.sup.-2]
                       [s.sup.-1])

Variety
New White                1.18 a       0.79 a
New Yellow               0.98 a       0.75 a
Plant density
64 plant [m.sup.-2]      1.02 a       0.85 a
81 plant [m.sup.-2]      1.10 a       0.82 a
99 plant [m.sup.-2]      1.12 a       0.81 a
Variety (V)                ns           ns
Plant density (P)          ns           ns
VxP                        ns           ns

Treatments             Proline       Water
                      ([micro]g)   potential
                                     (bar)

Variety
New White               4.13 a      -2.80 b
New Yellow              4.00 a      -3.70 a
Plant density
64 plant [m.sup.-2]     3.62 a      -3.35 a
81 plant [m.sup.-2]     4.35 a      -2.99 a
99 plant [m.sup.-2]     4.22 a      -3.41 a
Variety (V)               ns         0.05
Plant density (P)         ns          ns
VxP                       ns          ns

Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different
at p < 0.05 by Tukey's test ns=nonsignificant

Table 11: Plant height, number of flowers, flower diameter,
inflorescence diameter of chrysanthemum as affected by variety
and plant density.

Treatments             Plant     Day to       Number
                      Height    flowering   of flowers
                       (cm)

Variety
New White             55.38 a    76.67 a      5.00 a
New Yellow            60.85 a    76.58 a      5.83 a
Plant density
64 plant [m.sup.-2]   55.94 a    77.00 a      5.69 a
81 plant [m.sup.-2]   57.13 a    76.50 a      5.06 a
99 plant [m.sup.-2]   61.28 a    76.38 a      5.50 a
Variety (V)             ns         ns           ns
Plant density (P)       ns         ns           ns
VxP                     ns         ns           ns

Treatments             Flower    Inflorescence
                      diameter     diameter
                        (cm)         (cm)

Variety
New White              6.64 a       13.55 a
New Yellow             6.76 a       13.87 a
Plant density
64 plant [m.sup.-2]    6.45 a       13.14 a
81 plant [m.sup.-2]    6.86 a       13.98 a
99 plant [m.sup.-2]    6.80 a       14.02 a
Variety (V)              ns           ns
Plant density (P)        ns           ns
VxP                      ns           ns

Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different
at p < 0.05 by Tukey's test ns=nonsignificant

Table 12: Vase life lightness, chroma, hue value of chrysanthemum
of chrysanthemum as affected by variety and plant density.

Treatments            Lightness   Chroma      Hue      Vase life
                                                         (day)

Variety
New White              57.30 a    1.61 b    91.05 a     14.79 a
New Yellow             60.46 a    38.54 a   100.45 a    13.83 b
Plant density
64 plant [m.sup.-2]    57.62 a    21.22 a   93.57 a     14.56 a
81 plant [m.sup.-2]    58.96 a    18.27 a   94.91 a     13.94 a
99 plant [m.sup.-2]    60.06 a    20.73 a   98.77 a     14.44 a
Variety (V)              ns        0.01        ns        0.05
Plant density (P)        ns         ns         ns         ns
VxP                      ns         ns         ns         ns

Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different
at p < 0.05 by Tukey's test ns=nonsignificant
COPYRIGHT 2014 American-Eurasian Network for Scientific Information
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2014 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Research Article
Author:TaweesakViyachai; Abdullah, Thohirah Lee; Hassan, SitiAishah; Kamarulzaman, NittyHirawaty; Yusof, Wa
Publication:American-Eurasian Journal of Sustainable Agriculture
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:9MALA
Date:Aug 30, 2014
Words:5604
Previous Article:Study of droplet size for palm bio-fuel blends.
Next Article:Effect of flame on various swirler angle in combustion performance.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters