Upload
others
View
35
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
EVALUATION OF MARIGOLD GENOTYPES FOR
FLOWER AND XANTHOPHYLL YIELD UNDER
AGRO-CLIMATIC CONDITION OF
CHHATTISGARH PLAINS
M. Sc. (Ag) Thesis
by
Harish Manik
DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE
FACULTY OF AGRICULTURE
INDIRA GANDHI KRISHI VISHWAVIDYALAYA
RAIPUR (Chhattisgarh)
2015
EVALUATION OF MARIGOLD GENOTYPES FOR
FLOWER AND XANTHOPHYLL YIELD UNDER
AGRO-CLIMATIC CONDITION OF
CHHATTISGARH PLAINS
Thesis
Submitted to the
Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur
by
Harish Manik
IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE DEGREE OF
Master of Science
in
Agriculture
(Horticulture)
Roll No. 20131418391 ID No.120113011
JULY, 2015
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I take the golden opportunity to express my heartfelt and deepest sense of
gratitude to those who helped me to make my research possible. These words are
acknowledgement but never fully recompense for their great help and co-operation.
I feel immense pleasure in expressing my heartiest thank and deep sense of
gratitude to my esteemed advisor Dr. Gaurav Sharma, Assistant Professor,
Department of Floriculture and Landscape Architecture, IGKV, Raipur, and
chairman of my advisory committee for his enduring interest, kind attitude,
scholastic guidance, inspiring suggestions, constant supervision, sustained
support, constructive criticism coupled with kindness and patience in leading my
path to achieve the destination during the entire move despite his heavy schedule
of work.
I feel proud to convey my heartfelt sense of gratitude to Dr. Jitendra Singh,
Professor & Head, Department of Vegetable Science, IGKV, Raipur, for his
regular encouragement, timely advice whenever required, for enriching with
productive scientific discussions and above all for being an excellent human being
during the most trying time in this tenure of research work.
With a sense of high resolve and reverence, in a deep impact of
gratefulness, thanks to the members of my advisory committee Dr. Dharmendra
Khokhar, Scientist, Department of Plant Physiology, Agricultural Biochemistry,
Medicinal and Aromatic Plants and Dr. R. R. Saxena, Professor, Department of
Statistics, Mathematics and Computer Science for their kind cooperation,
guidance, continued inspiration and valuable suggestions throughout the tenure of
this investigation.
I am highly obliged to Hon’ble Vice-Chancellor Dr. S.K. Patil, Dr. S.S.
Rao, Dean, College of Agriculture, Dr. J.S. Urkurkar, Director Research Services
and Dr. S.S. Shaw, Director of Instructions, IGKV, Raipur for providing necessary
facilities to conduct the investigation.
It is great pleasure to extend profuse thanks to Dr. Niraj Shukla, Dr. S.N.
Dikshit, Dr. H.G. Sharma, Dr. G.D. Sahu, Dr. Dhananjay Sharma, Dr. Jitendra
Trivedi, Shri T. Tirkey, Dr. G.L. Sharma, Dr. (Smt.) Pushpa Parihar, Smita Mam,
Vandana Mam and other technical and non-technical staff members of the
Department of Horticulture, IGKV, Raipur for their help, affectionate
encouragement and useful suggestions during the tenure of this investigation.
I would like to thanks to the unrelenting support of non technical staff of my
department Shri T.S. Harinkhere, Shri Purshottam Sahu and Gautam Sahu for
their help during this piece of work.
I am extremely thankful to all of my respected seniors Naresh Sahu, Purnendra
Sahu, Okesh Chandrakar, Kiran Nagraj, Patram Painkra, Nanakchand Banjara,
Hariom Prakash Ratre, Ruchi Sharma, Shrinkhla Sharma, Shasmita Priydarshini Das,
iii
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS V
LIST OF TABLES Vii
LIST OF FIGURES Viii
LIST OF NOTATIONS/SYMBOLS X
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Xi
ABSTRACT Xii
Chapter Title Page
I INTRODUCTION 1
II REVIEW OF LITERATURE 4
2.1 Growth and flowering attributes 4
2.2 Xanthophyll yield and its attributes 9
III MATERIALS AND METHODS 14
3.1 Location of experiment site 14
3.2 Geographical situation 14
3.3 Agro-climatic condition 14
3.4 Soil characteristics of the experimental field 16
3.5 Experimental details 17
3.6 Cultural operations 20
3.6.1 Field preparation 20
3.6.2 Raising of seedlings 20
3.6.3 Transplanting and gap filling of seedlings 20
3.6.4 Manures and fertilizers 20
3.6.5 Irrigation and weeding 20
3.6.6 Pinching 21
3.7 Observations recorded 21
3.7.1 Observations on vegetative phase 21
3.7.1.1 Plant height (cm) 21
3.7.1.2 Plant spread (cm) 21
3.7.1.3 Number of primary branches plant-1
21
3.7.1.4 Number of secondary branches plant-1
21
3.7.2 Observations on flowering attributes 21
3.7.2.1 Days to 50 per cent flowering
22
3.7.2.2 Number of flowers plant-1
22
3.7.2.3 Flower diameter (cm) 22
3.7.2.4 Weight of flowers plant-1
(g)
3.7.2.5 Dry weight of flowers plant-1
(g)
22
22
v
3. 7.2.6 Duration of flowering (days)
3. 7.2.7 Flower yield (kg plot-1
)
3.7.2.8 Flower yield (t ha-1
)
22
22
22
3.8 Observation on xanthophyll and its attributes
3.8.1 Petal meal yield (g)
3.8.2 Petal meal yield (kg ha-1
)
3.8.3 Xanthophyll content kg-1
of petal meal (g)
3.8.4 Xanthophyll yield (kg ha-1
)
23
23
23
23
23
3.9 Chemical analysis
3.9.1 Xanthophyll estimation
3.9.1.1 Apparatus and reagents
3.9.1.2 Procedure
3.9.1.2.1 Preparation of solutions
3.9.1.2.2 Hot saponification
3.9.1.3 Calculation
23
23
23
24
24
24
24
3.10 Statistical analysis 29
IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 30
4.1 Vegetative growth parameters
4.1.1 Plant height (cm)
4.1.2 Plant spread (cm)
4.1.3 Number of primary branches plant-1
4.1.4 Number of secondary branches plant-1
30
30
34
34
39
4.2 Flowering attributes and yield 42
4.2.1 Days to 50 per cent flowering 42
4.2.2 Number of flowers plant-1
4.2.3 Flower diameter (cm)
4.2.4 Duration of flowering (days)
4.2.5 Weight of flowers plant-1
(g)
4.2.6 Dry weight of flowers plant-1
(g)
4.2.7 Flower yield (kg plot-1
)
4.2.8 Flower yield (t ha-1
)
42
47
47
47
51
51
51
4.3 Xanthophyll yield and its attributes 55
4.3.1 Petal meal yield kg-1
of fresh flower (g) 55
4.3.2 Petal meal yield (kg ha-1
) 55
4.3.3 Xanthophyll content kg-1
of petal meal (g) 59
4.3.4 Xanthophyll yield (kg ha-1
) 59
V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 67
REFERENCES 70
APPENDIX 76
Appendix – A
VITA 77
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Page
3.1 Physio-chemical properties of the experimental soil 16
3.2 Treatment details 16
3.3 The skeleton of the analysis of variance 29
4.1 Mean performance of marigold genotypes for plant height (cm) 31
4.2 Mean performance of marigold genotypes for plant spread (cm) 35
4.3 Mean performance of marigold genotypes for primary branches plant-1
38
4.4 Mean performance of marigold genotypes for secondary branches plant-1
40
4.5 Mean performance of marigold genotypes for days 50 per cent
flowering 43
4.6 Mean performance of marigold genotypes for number of flowers plant-1
45
4.7 Mean performance of marigold genotypes for flower diameter (cm) 48
4.8 Mean performance of marigold genotypes for duration of flowering
(days) 50
4.9 Mean performance of marigold genotypes for weight of flowers plant-1
(g) 52
4.10 Mean performance of marigold genotypes for dry weight of flowers
plant-1
(g) 54
4.11 Mean performance of marigold genotypes for flower yield (kg plot-1
) 56
4.12 Mean performance of marigold genotypes for flower yield (t ha-1
) 58
4.13 Mean performance of marigold genotypes for petal meal yield (g) 60
4.14 Mean performance of marigold genotypes for petal meal yield (kg ha-1
) 61
4.15 Mean performance of marigold genotypes for xanthophyll content kg-1
of petal meal (g) 63
4.16 Mean performance of marigold genotypes for xanthopyll yield (kg ha-1
) 65
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title Page
3.1 Weekly meteorological observation during crop growth period (Kharif, 2014) 15
3.2 Layout plan of the experimental field 18
3.3 A view of layout of experimental field 19
3.4 A view of experimental field 19
3.5 Flower petal drying 25
3.6 Petal meal different genotypes 26
3.7 Preparation of solutions 27
3.8 Hot saponification in water bath 27
3.9 Separation of final dilution 28
4.1 Mean performance of marigold genotypes for plant height (cm) 32
4.2 Variation in plant height of different genotypes at 30 DAT 33
4.3 Plant height of genotype T11 at 30 DAT 33
4.4 Plant spread in genotype T11 followed by genotype T2 at 60 DAT 36
4.5 Plant spread in genotype T2 at 60 DAT 36
4.6 Mean performance of marigold genotypes for plant spread (cm)
37
4.7 Mean performance of marigold genotypes for number of primary branches
plant-1
37
4.8 Mean performance of marigold genotypes for number of secondary
branches plant-1
41
4.9 Mean performance of marigold genotypes for day to days 50 per cent
flowering 44
4.10 Mean performance of marigold genotypes for number of flowers plant-1
44
4.11 Number of flowers plant-1
in genotype T11 46
4.12 Diameter of flower in genotype T5 46
4.13 Mean performance of marigold genotypes for flower diameter (cm) 49
4.14 Mean performance of marigold genotypes for duration of flowering (days) 49
4.15 Mean performance of marigold genotypes for weight of flowers plant-1
53
4.16 Mean performance of marigold genotypes for dry weight of flowers plant-1
53
4.17 Mean performance of marigold genotypes for flower yield
(kg plot-1
) 57
4.18 Mean performance of marigold genotypes for flower yield (t ha-1
) 57
viii
4.19 Mean performance of marigold genotypes for petal meal yield (g) 62
4.20 Mean performance of marigold genotypes for petal meal yield (kg ha-1
) 62
4.21 Mean performance of marigold genotypes for xanthophyll content kg-1
of
petal meal 64
4.22 Mean performance of marigold genotypes for xanthophyll yield (kg ha-1
) 66
ix
LIST OF NOTATIONS/SYMBOLS
Symbols/
notations
Description Symbols/n
otations
Description
% Per cent M Metre
@ At the rate ha-1
Per hectare
SEm+ Standard error of mean 0C Degree Celsius
T Tonnes 1 Litre
G Gram m-2
Per square meter
Ha Hectare
x
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviations Description Abbreviations Description
Pg Picogram viz. For example
B:C Benefit cost ratio Rs Rupees
DAT Days after
transplanting
Cm Centimetre
m ha Million hectare Fig. Figure
Mt Million ton et al. And co-worker/ and others
kg-1
Per kilogram DF Degree of freedom
t ha-1
Ton per hectare Anova Analysis of variance
Kmph Kilometre per hour CD Critical Difference
No.
Number RDF Recommended Dose of
Fertilizer
i.e. That is Azo Azospirillum
Kg
Kilogram NPK Nitrogen, Phosphorus,
Pottasium
cv.
Cultivar
xi
performed best with regards to duration of flowering and fresh and dry weight of flowers
plant-1
.
Flower yield ha-1
was recorded maximum in genotype T11 whereas, the petal meal
yield ha-1
was found maximum in genoype T6. The genotype T11 recorded maximum
xanthophyll content kg-1
of petal meal and xanthophyll yield ha-1
.
‘lkjka’k
;g v/;;u NÙkhlx<+ dh eSnkuh n’kk esa vÝhdh xsank Qwy dh iUnzg thu¨Vkbi a dk] ftuesa rqyuk gsrq
,d ekud iztkfr ¼iwlk ukajxh xsank½ dks ’kkfey djrs gq,] fodkl gsrq fd;k x;kA iz;ksx bafnjk xka/kkh Ñf"k
fo’ofo|ky; dh m|kfudh foHkkx ds m|kfudh; vuqla/kku lg vuqns’kd iz{ks= esa o"kZ 2014 ds [kjhQ ekSle esa
fd;k x;kA
o`f)] iq"iu ,oa mit dh ekiksa gsrq lHkh thu¨Vkbi a us egRoiw.kZ fofHkUurk,W n’kkZ;haA ikS/k jksi.k dh 30
,oa 60 fnuksa ds ckn vf/kdre ikS/k mWaaaspkbZ T11 esa ntZ dh xbZA tcfd ikS/k jksi.k dh 90 fnuksa ckn vf/kdre
ikS/k mWpkbZ T3 esa ntZ dh xbZA ikS/k jksi.k dh 30] 60] ,oa 90 fnuksa ckn vf/kdre ikS/k QSyko T11 esa FkhA
ikS/k jksi.k dh 30] 60 ,oa 90 fnuksa ckn izkFkfed ’kk[kkvksa dh vf/kdre la[;k T11 esa ik;h xbZ] tcfd
ikS/k jksi.k dh 30 fnuksa ckn f}rh;d ’kk[kkvksa dh la[;k T11 ,oa ikS/k jksi.k dh 60 ,oa 90 fnuksa ckn T5 esa
FkhA Qwyksa dh vf/kdre la[;k Vh11 esa ik;h xbZ rFkk Qwy dh O;kl T5 esa vf/kdre FkhA iq"iu dh 50 izfr’kr
voLFkk lcls igys T15 esa ns[kh xbZA tcfd] Qwy dh lw[kh Hkkj ,oa iq"iu dh lcls yEch le;kof/k T6 esa
ik¸kh xbZA
Qwy dh izfr gsDVs;j mit T11 esa vf/kdre ik;h xbZ] tcfd isVy ehy mit T6 esa vf/kdre ntZ
dh xbZA mipkj Vh11 us tsUFkksfQy dh lokZf/kd ek=k xzke izfr fdyksxzke ,oa tsUFkksfQy mit izfr gsDVs;j ntZ
dhA
xiii
CHAPTER - I
INTRODUCTION
African marigold (Tagetes erecta L.) belongs to the family Asteraceae and
is one of the most important commercially exploited flower crops. Genus Tagetes
consists of 33 species, of which Tagetes erecta L. is commonly grown for their
exquisite blooms. The name Tagetes was given after ‘Tages’, a demigod known
for his beauty. According to Kaplan (1960) it is a native of Central and South
America, especially Mexico, from where it spread to different parts of the world
during the early 16th century. Marigold is broadly divided into two groups, viz.,
African marigold and French marigold (Tagetes patula Linn). The former
generally grows tall and is known as tall marigold and latter is short called as
dwarf marigold. As compared to other flowering annuals, marigold is a hardy plant
with height of more than 150 cm and a life span of four and half months. It is
adaptable to various conditions of soil and climate with a fairly good keeping
quality. It is commercially propagated by seeds. The flowers of this species are
generally large in size with wide spectrum of attractive colours ranging from
yellow to orange.
Marigold is a potential flower crop that is gaining popularity throughout
India on account of its easy cultivation and wide adaptability. Its habit of free and
early flowering, bright shades of colours, shape and size with long blooming
period has attracted the attention of flower growers. It has great demand for loose
flowers, garlands, garden display and decorative purposes at various religious and
social functions. It is grown in a herbaceous border and is also ideal as a filler for
newly planted shrubberies. For landscaping purpose, it is grown in flower beds,
borders and also as potted plants.
Apart from its significance in commercial floriculture, it has been valued for
multipurpose use. Flower extract is considered as blood purifier and a cure of
bleeding piles and ulcers. It is also being grown as trap crop in agriculture against
some of lepidopterans, coleopterans and nematodes (Polthance and Yamazaki,
1
1966). It is most effective against the nematode species Pratylenchus peneteans
(Olabiyi and Oke, 2006). It is also being used effectively to dye fabrics, where its
ethanol-based flower extracts produce different colours on fabrics (Vankar et al.,
2009). Marigold flowers are one of the richest sources of natural carotenoids and
its carotenoid pigment namely xanthophyll (Naik et al., 2005). Carotenoids are
responsible for the yellow, orange and red pigments in the plant.
Carotenoids have been reported to be beneficial in several aspects of human
health such as supporting eyes and skin, and reducing the failure of the eyesight
due to age-related macular degeneration (AMD), coronary heart disease and cancer
(Boonnoun et al., 2012). Industrial use of carotenoids extracted from flowers is
being used commercially in pharmaceuticals, food supplements, animal feed
additives and as food colourant.
Basically, it is the marigold flower petals which are significant source of the
xanthophyll and have a much higher concentration of this pigment compared to
other plant materials (Verghese, 1998). Therefore, petals are used for extraction of
xanthophylls. They are the major source of pigment for poultry industry as a feed
additive to intensify the yellow colour of egg yolk and broiler skin (Sharma et al.,
2013). Of late, many multinational companies are being involved for extraction of
carotenoid pigments from the flower petals. There are large areas under contract
farming of marigold in Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra and to a
limited extent in Tamil Nadu, but most of the extraction units are located in Kerala
and Andhra Pradesh.
In Chhattishgarh, marigold is one of the most dominating flower in the local
market with year round demand. Majority of the trade of marigold is in the form of
loose flowers. Commercially, it is cultivated for loose flower production. The
estimated area under marigold cultivation is about 3663 ha with a production of
26158 MT (Anon., 2014). The three agro-climatic zones of Chhattisgarh offer
many natural advantages like abundant sunshine, favorable temperature and soil
conditions for its growth. It is this variability of climate coupled with a
phenomenal range of biological diversity in flora that makes the state very
potential area for obtaining diverse marigold genotypes. Apart from this, it can be
produced throughout the year viz. in summer, rainy and winter season. However,
2
low productivity of marigold in Chhattisgarh is one of the major constraints in its
commercial production. With diverse genotypes of indigenously available
marigold, there is a lot of potential to explore and identify marigold genotypes
with higher yield. For this, different genotypes of marigold available in
Chhattisgarh need to be evaluated for growth, flowering and yield attributes
including xanthophyll yield.
Therefore, depending on the diverse marigold genotypes available in the
different agro-climatic zones of Chhattisgarh, there is a scope of finding
remarkable variations in the growth and flowering attributes which can be used for
commercial exploitation. Keeping these views in concern, the present investigation
entitled “Evaluation of marigold genotypes for flower and xanthophyll yield
under Agro-climatic condition of Chhattisgarh plains” was carried out with the
following objectives:
To find out the genotypes of marigold suitable for Chhattisgarh plain
condition
To identify suitable marigold genotypes having higher growth, flowering
attributes and yield
To identify marigold genotypes containing high amount of xanthophyll
3
CHAPTER - II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
A brief review of research work done on the “Evaluation of marigold
genotypes for flower and xanthophyll yield under Agro-climatic condition of
Chhattisgarh plains” is being discussed in this chapter. It includes brief results of
the research work done in India and elsewhere which is similar to or closely
related with the present investigation. The works on the Evaluation of marigold
genotypes for growth, flower and xanthophyll yield of marigold and other
floricultural crops have been summarized under following heads:
2.1 Growth and flowering attributes
2.2 Xanthophyll yield and its attributes
2.1 Growth and flowering attributes
Howe and Waters (1982) evaluated twenty two marigold (Tagetes spp.)
cultivars as bedding plants. Marigold cultivars Torch, Yellow Jacket, Spinwheel,
Tiger Eyes, Gypsy Sun shine, Boy O' Boy, Harvest Moon Improved, Yellow Boy
and Manie Flame performed well during early spring.
Kelly and Harbaugh (2002) evaluated eighty four cultivars of african
marigold (Tagetes erecta) and french marigold (T. patula). Cultivars viz., `Inca
Gold' and `Royal Gold' (African marigold), `Disco Granada' (French marigold) and
Golden Boy' and `Hero Gold' (French dwarf-double gold class) were observed to
perform well with similar heat and cold hardiness zones.
Verma et al. (2004) collected twelve genotyopes of T. patula and twenty
genotypes of T. erecta from Uttaranchal, India and evaluated for 9 character traits
viz., plant height, number of leaves plant-1
, leaf length, leaf width, peduncle length,
number of branches plant-1
, stem diameter, plant canopy and flower diameter. The
tallest plants (208.01 cm) were observed in the genotype NIC-14859, while the
shortest plant was observed in NIC-14839. The highest number of branches plant-1
4
(25.80) was obtained from NIC-14841. The highest stem diameter was obtained
from NIC-14847 (1.81 cm). The plant canopy spread was highest (6855.11 cm2) in
NIC-14848, while the lowest was in NIC-14834. The flower diameter (7.67 cm)
was maximum in NIC-14865.
Naik et al. (2005) conducted an experiment to find a suitable and stable
genotype for higher flower production in African marigold across the
environments. The results of the stability analysis over three environments (viz,
Kharif 2001-02 (E1), Rabi 2001-02 (E2) and Kharif 2002-03 (E3) revealed that the
genotype, African Marigold Orange (AMO) recorded significantly higher flower
yield (16.47 t ha-1
) ha-1
with a B : C ratio of 3.28 as compared to the local check
(Orange Double).
Singh and Singh (2005) conducted an experiment to evaluate thirteen
germplasm of Tagetes patula (TP1 to TP13) and two of Tagetes minuta (TMI and
TM2). Among these germplasm, TP7 germplasm of Tagetes patula exhibited
better performance in terms of diameter of flower and yield of flowers plant-1
.
Both the germplasm of Tagetes minuta i.e., TMI and TM2 resulted in maximum
vegetative growth in terms of number of leaves and number of secondary branches
plant-1
.
Singh and Singh (2006) reported significant variation in marigold
germplasm. The germplasm TEG16 exhibited best performance on number of
primary branches plant-1
, number of flowers plant-1
and dry weight of leaf.
However, germplasm TEG17 resulted in maximum flower longevity and dry
weight of flower, whereas maximum duration of flowering was recorded with
TEG13. Germplasm TEG23 recorded poorest performance on various growth and
flowering attributes.
Suma and Patil (2006) carried out an investigation to evaluate the
performance of eight daisy genotypes with respect to various morphological
characters and yield. The genotypes Purple Monarch, Dark Milka, Blue Moon and
White Prestige, showed good performance for growth attributes as well as yield
attributes viz., plant height and total dry matter production and these genotypes
produced more number of flowers plant-1
and flower spikes plant-1
. The genotypes
Milka Star and Pink Milka showed minimum plant height and the genotypes
5
Painted Lady, Peter’s White and Pink Milka, produced less number of flower
spikes plant-1
. Size of flower, length of flower spike and vase life was more in the
genotypes Purple Monarch, Dark Milka and Blue Moon.
Verma and Beniwal ( 2006) evaluated thirty two marigold genotypes for
their resistance to the root knot nematode. No susceptible or highly susceptible
reaction was observed in any of the genotypes, including the local control (Pusa
Narangi). Eight genotypes (MGH-126, MGH-127, MGH-131, MGH-138, MGH-
141, MGH-154, MGH-159 and MGH-160) exhibited moderate resistence. Only
one genotype (MGH-136) was highly resistant to the root knot nematode.
Singh and Misra (2008) evaluated nine parents of marigold to ascertain
genetic parameters of variability, heritability and genetic advance. In first year,
heritability estimates were high for all the characters except total chlorophyll
content of leaf, seed germination percentage and length of ray floret, whereas in
the second year total chlorophyll content of leaf, number of leaves plant-1
, leaf
biomass, number of secondary branches plant-1
, peduncle length and shelf life of
flowers attained lower heritability values.
Singh and Mishra (2008) conducted an experiment to assess the diversity of
forty five genotypes of marigold (Tagetes spp) under plain condition of UP.
Marigold germplasm exhibited significant variation for various growth parameters.
Cross 'Sutton Orange' x 'Crackerjack Mix' recorded maximum plant height (127.80
cm), whereas parent 'French Dwarf' attained maximum plant spread and maximum
secondary branches plant-1
(76.61 cm and 107.40). 'Pusa Narangi Gainda' x 'Late
Summer' attained the maximum flower diameter (13.00), flower yield ha-1
(182.13). Cross 'Seraceul' x 'Late Summer' exhibited the maximum duration for
flowering (134.00 days) in the first year and cross 'Pusa Narangi Gainda' x 'French
Dwarf' attained the longest flowering duration (132.33 days) in the second year.
Singh et al. (2008) studied twenty nine lines of African marigold (Tagetes
erecta) to assess the diversity present in the population for various growth and
flowering attributes. Germplasm TEG 26 recorded maxmum plant height, flower
diameter and number of petals plant-1
. Germplasm TEG 26 also attained second
earliest value for days taken to flowering. Maximum number of secondary
6
branches plant-1
was observed in germplasm TEG 17, whereas TEG 19 attained
maximum flower yield plant-1
among all the twenty nine accessions
Karuppaiah and Kumar (2010) carried out an investigation with thirty four
genotypes of African marigold to asses association of yield components and their
direct and indirect effects on flower yield. Results of correlation analysis indicated
that the flower yield plant-1
was found to be significantly and positively correlated
with number of branches plant-1
, flower size, flower weight, number of flowers
plant-1
and xanthophylls content. The study indicated that flower diameter,
number of flowers plant-1
and xanthophylls content are important characters in
deciding the flower yield plant-1
.
Narsude et al. (2010a) studied the different genotypes of marigold for
growth and yield attributes. The genotype Pakharsangavi Local had significantly
maximum plant height (114.64 cm) as compared to other genotypes, whereas,
African Giant Double Mixed had the lowest (87.98 cm). Maximum spread of plant
(64.48 cm) was observed in genotype Tuljapur Local-2, whereas, minimum (51.98
cm) was observed in genotype Marigold Orange Bunch. Maximum number of
branches (21.46) were recorded in genotype Tuljapur Local-1, whereas, it was
minimum (14.26) in genotype Latur Local. As regards to yield characters like
number of flowers per plant, yield per plant and yield per hectare, the genotype
Tuljapur Local-1 showed significantly superior performance and produced
maximum number of flowers (71.00), yield plant-1
(630.48 g) and maximum yield
(24.67 MT ha-1
), followed by genotypes Pakharsangavi Local and Tuljapur Local-
2.
Anuja and Jahnavi (2012) studied genetic variability and heritability
involving thirty genotypes of French marigold and indicated that there were highly
significant differences between the genotypes for flower yield and other growth
and flower attributes.
Krol (2012) evaluated five genotypes of pot marigold which differed in
colour and in size of inflorescences viz., ’Orange King’, ‘Persimmom Beauty’
‘Promyk’, ‘Radio’ and ‘Santana’. For, morphological features ‘Orange King’
performed best. It produced the most numerous and shapeliest inflorescences, with
the biggest number of ligulate flowers. Raw material yield of compared cultivars
7
oscillated from 849 to 1661 kg ha-1
of flower heads, and the ligulate flowers
themselves from 449 to 1141 kg ha-1
. In both cases the highest yield was obtained
by ‘Orange King’, and the lowest by ‘Promyk’.
Munikrishnappa et al. (2013) conducted an investigation to evaluate
suitable varieties on growth and flower yield of China aster. The maximum flower
yield (37.91 t ha-1
) was recorded in Phule Ganesh White and it was lowest Mixed
Variety Local (9.97 ton). Number of cut flower production was maximum (55.43)
in variety Phule Ganesh Violet and the lowest number of cut flower plant-1
was
produced in Shashank (40.92). The maximum number of cut flowers (40.76 lakh
ha-1
) was recorded in Phule Ganesh Violet and minimum number of cut flower
(31.64 lakh ha-1
) was recorded in variety Kamini.
Bharathi and Jawaharlal (2014) conducted an investigation to evaluate
twenty eight genotypes of African marigold (Tagetes erecta. L) for growth and
flowering traits. The marigold germplasm exhibited significant variation for
various growth and flowering traits. The highest plant height was recorded in
Dharmapuri local (113.27 cm) and the highest number of primary and secondary
branches plant-1
was observed in Bidhan-1 (22.40 and 41.47, respectively). The
highest flower yield plant-1
was recorded in Coimbatore Local Orange (1.48kg)
followed by Coimbatore local orange (1.12 kg).
Choudhary et al. (2014) conducted a study on the performance of thirty
genotypes of marigold. All the genotypes showed significant variations for growth,
flowering and yield parameters. The genotype Hisar Jaffri-2 exhibited best
performance in terms plant spread (77.72 cm), numbers of secondary branches
plant-1
(150.97), number of buds plant-1
(217.10), duration of flowering (76.53
days) and flower yield plot-1
(20.99 kg). The genotype MGH-148-3-3 recorded
maximum stem diameter (2.14 cm) and dry weight of plant (130.72 g), whereas it
was minimum (0.61 cm and 9.91 g, respectively) in Hisar Beauty. Maximum
diameter of flower (8.21cm) was recorded in MGH-09-276, while it was minimum
(4.01 cm) in Hisar Jaffri-2. The maximum dry weight of flower (2.04 g) was
recorded in MGH-09-271.
Singh et al. (2014) evaluated twenty one genotypes of African marigold
(Tagetes erecta L.) for growth and flowering. Analysis of variance for all the traits
8
showed significant differences among genotypes for all the growth and flowering
related traits. The result showed variation in plant height (64.00-106.67 cm), plant
spread (49.33-72.00 cm), flower diameter (3.77-6.17 cm), days required for
flowering (78.67-99.33 days), number of secondary branches (22.13-37.47) and
flower duration (26.00-44.83 days).
2.2 Xanthophyll yield and its attributes
Asen et al. (1972) reported that the flower colour is usually due to two
different types of pigments. One is the lipid soluble carotenoid and other is water
soluble flavonoids present in the vacuoles of epidermal cells in true flowers
Gregory et al. (1986) used high performance liquid chromatography to
analyze the lutein esters in Marigold flowers (Tageres erecta). Result showed that
the lutein ester concentrations in fresh Marigold flowers varied from 4 pg g-1
in
greenish yellow flowers to 800 pg g-1
in orange brown flowers.
. El-saeid et al. (1996) recorded the maximum carotenoid content, volatile
oil and biomass yield with the application of 238 kg N ha-1
in Tagetus patula.
Vargas and Lopez (1997) conducted an experiment to study the identity of
lutein isomers of marigold (Tagetes erecta) samples treated with enzymes.
Enzymatic treatment on a 5% solids slurry produced the marigold meal with the
highest all trans-lutein content (25.1 g kg-1
) dry weight. The solids content was the
principal factor that affected the carotenoid profiles. An analysis of the distribution
showed that 15% solids gave the highest all-trans-lutein percentage in treated
meals. Interestingly, with 20% solids both the degradation of lutein and the
percentage of all-trans-zeaxanthin were the highest.
Hadden et al. (1999) cunducted HPLC analyses on two normal-phase
columns (β-Cyclobond and silica) and on a C30 reversed phase column. The extract
contained 93% utilizable pigments (detected at 450 nm), consisting of all trans and
cis isomers of zeaxanthin (5%), all trans and cis isomers of lutein, and lutein esters
(88%). This compositional determination is important for the application of
marigold extract in nutritional supplements and increases its value as a poultry
feed colorant because it contains more biologically useful lutein compounds than
previously believed.
9
Vargas and Lopez (1999) reported that the highest carotenoid yields were
obtained using the enzyme ECONASE-CEP. This enzyme at 0.1% w/w increased
extraction from 1.7 to 7.4 g kg-1
of marigold flower in dry weight and that such
treatment may enhance carotenoid extraction at the industrial level as well.
Naik (2003) reported that, petal meal yield ha-1
and xanthophyll content per
kilogram of petal meal was increased with increase in the level of N and P which
was maximum (22.36gm and 19.90g ka-1
petal meal) at a treatment combination of
‘N’ 250 kg and P at 120 kg ha-1
in marigold.
Bolanos et al. (2004) studied the effect of a noncommercial enzyme
preparation on xanthophyll extraction from marigold flower (Tagetes erecta). The
results show that the extraction yield depends directly on the extent of the
enzymatic hydrolysis of cell walls in the flower petals and that it is possible to
reach yields in excess of those previously reported for treatments with
commercially available enzymes (29.3 g kg-1
of dry weight).
Cantrill et al. (2004) reported that lutein, prepared by saponification and
crystallization, contains more than 80% total carotenoids of which lutein is present
at 70 – 78 %, zeaxanthin 2 – 9% and other carotenoids are also present. Waxes
(14%) and fatty acids (1%), present in the unprocessed oleoresin, make up the
balance of the material.
Rao et al. (2005) screened different cultivars of African marigold for yield
and pigments. Better plant growth was found in Orange Double cultivar with the
highest plant height. The cultivar Orange Double gave the highest fresh flower
yield with a total carotenoids yield of 51.07 kg ha-1
. The cultivar Pusa Narangi
Gainda produced the highest total carotenoids g-1
of fresh weight of flower petals
followed by Orange Double. Early flowering was observed in Orange Double
cultivar followed by Pusa Narangi Gainda. Duration of flowering was also
observed to be higher in Orange Double cultivar followed by Pusa Basanti Gainda.
The highest flower yield of Orange Double cultivar might be due to the highest
fresh weight and flower diameter of single flower.
Kaul and Bedi (2006) conducted a study with eight genotypes of African
marigold for xanthophyll as natural source. The result showed the ranges of
10
xanthophylls content varaied from 0.76 to 1.42. per cent Among all the genotypes
the highest xanthophyll (5 kg ha-1
) was found in orange colour genotypes
suggesting them use for commercial production.
Shubha (2006) reported that in marigold, yield components like petal meal
yield, xanthophyll yield ha-1
with maximum net returns were maximum in the
treatment combination of vermicompost (12.5 % N) + poultry manure (12.5 % N)
+ Azo along with 75% RDN ha-1
.
Tinoi et al. (2006) used HPLC to determine the composition and
concentration of carotenoids in fresh and dried petal extracts of selected flowers
from four families viz., Compositae, Bignoniaceae, Apocynaceae and Cannaceae,
The highest amount of total carotenoids within this study was found in the family
Compositae, especially in Tagetes erecta, Melampodium divaricatum and Cosmos
bipinnatus, respectively. It was present in the largest amount in fresh and dried
petal extracts in family Compositae, especially in the petal extract of T. erecta
(83% and 88% w/w of total carotenoids in fresh and dried extracts).
Deineka et al. (2007) studied the accumulation of xanthophylls in five
cultivars representing three marigold species including T. erecta (Rhodes and
Orange Snow cultivars), T. patula (Bolero and Harmony) and T. tenuifolia (Red
Gem) of marigold (Tagetes) species and observed that more than 90% of
xanthophylls in flowers are retained upon drying and the content of lutein diesters
in the dry material can exceed 15 mg g-1
.
Li et al. (2007) analyzed eleven Chinese cultivars of marigold to determine
their major phytochemical contents and antioxidant activities. The different
cultivars of marigold showed considerable variations in their lutein ester contents,
ranging from 161.0 to 611.0 mg per 100 g of flower (dry basis). The different
cultivars of marigold also showed marked variations in total phenols and
flavonoids.
Ma et al. (2008) extracted lutein esters from marigold (Tagetes erecta L.).
The results showed that the maximum yield of lutein esters was 1263.62 mg 100 g-
1 marigold.
Singh et al. (2008) carried out an investigation to estimate carotenoids and
its fractions in six promising genotypes of African marigold followed by effect of
11
grading of flowers and harvesting stage on recovery of total carotenoids and its
fractions, i.e. carotene, mono-hydroxy pigment (MHP) and di-hydroxy pigment
(DHP) including dry matter and moisture content. Pusa Narangi Gainda showed
maximum recovery of total carotenoids and di-hydroxy pigment, while Selection-
19 and Selection-22 had the maximum carotene and mono-hydroxy pigment
respectively at half bloom stage. Large flower gave maximum recovery of
pigments than small flowers in all the genotypes.
Pratheesh et al. (2009) showed in his study that the well-preserved flowers
exhibit a high yield of xanthophyll content (105.19 g kg-1
) in contrast to the
unpreserved flower sample (54.87 g kg-1
), emphasizing the significance of flower
preservation in the extraction of xanthophyll. The stability and amount of
xanthophyll also increased from 105.19 g kg-1
to 226.88 g kg-1
on saponification
and subsequent purification with Ethylene Dichloride.
Bhattacharyya et al. (2010) analyzed three different cultivars of marigold
flowers (Tagetes patula L.) (marigold orange, marigold yellow, and marigold red)
for the lutein ester contents, and the in vitro antioxidative activities of the flower
extracts were compared. Result showed that the marigold orange (MGO) variety
contains the maximum amount of lutein.
Sujith et al. (2012) conducted supercritical fluid extraction of lutein esters
from marigold flowers and found the saponification of lutein esters after
preconcentration gives a much higher yield of lutein compared to the lipase
catalyzed hydrolysis. The modified saponification method of the pre-concentrated
lutein esters serves to be an efficient and economical process for the production of
lutein. The lutein thus produced is a potent nutraceutical and a natural colourant
that can be incorporated into different foods after proper encapsulation to improve
its stability in foods.
Ahmad et al. (2011) studied the effects of various NPK levels on growth,
flowering, and xanthophyll contents of African marigold (Tagetes erecta, ‘Double
Eagle’) and French marigold (Tagetes patula, ‘Yellow’). Result showed the
xanthophyll contents were higher in plants fertilized with 15:20:10 g m-2
NPK
application.
12
Sarkar et al. (2012) found that saponification of carotenoid esters leads to
decomposition at high temperature and high concentration of alkali. Lutein ester is
collected from marigold flower. Findings showed efficient saponification in 0.5 M
KOH at 500oC for 30 minute.
Shivakumar et al. (2014) cunducted a field investigation on 15 diverse
genotype of African marigold for correlation analysis to understand the association
between component characters and their relative contribution to xanthophyll
content to bring about a rational improvement in the desirable direction. The 19
characters related to growth, flowering, and xanthophyll content revealed that, the
genotypic and phenotypic correlation of xanthophyll content was found to be
positively highly significant with petal meal yield ha-1
, flower yield plant-1
, number
of petals flower-1
, flower weight, flower diameter, number of flower plant-1
,
flowering duration, day to 50 % flowering, secondary branches, primary branches,
plant height.
Tiwary et al. (2014) conducted an experiment with the main objective to
optimize petal yield from important marigold gwnotypes viz., African marigold-
Double (AFM-D), African marigold-Single (AFM-S), African marigold-Orange
(AFM-O), French marigold-Orange (FRM-O), French marigold-Double (FRMD),
and LC (Local type). Among them FRM-O produced highest petal meal 82 g kg-1
of fresh flower and the genotype FRM-D produced lowest petal meal yield 69 g kg-
1 of fresh flower.
13
CHAPTER - III
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The present chapter deals with information regarding the materials used
and techniques employed during the course of investigation entitled “Evaluation
of marigold genotypes for flower and xanthophyll yield under Agro-climatic
condition of Chhattisgarh plains” conducted at the Horticultural Research cum
Instructional Farm of the Department of Horticulture, College of Agriculture,
Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur during 2014-2015.
3.1 Location of experimental site
The experimental site was located at the Horticultural Research cum
Instructional Farm of the Department of Horticulture, College of Agriculture,
Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh where adequate
facilities for irrigation and drainage existed.
3.2 Geographical situation
Raipur, the place of investigation, is situated in the central part of
Chhattisgarh at 21°16° N latitude, 81°36° E longitude and at an altitude of
286.56m from mean sea level.
3.3 Agro-climatic condition
Raipur is located in dry sub humid agro-climatic region. The annual rainfall
of the region ranges from 1200-1325 mm, which is received from third week of
June to first week of September and very little during October and February. The
pattern of rainfall, particularly during June to September months has great
variation from year to year. The maximum temperature of this region may reach as
high as 46 °C during summer and minimum may fall to 6 °C during winter. The
atmospheric humidity is high from June to October. Weekly average
meteorological data during the span of experimentation June 2014 to December
2014 as recorded at Meteorological Observatory, IGKV, Raipur have been
presented in Appendix-A and depicted through Fig. 3.1.
14
Fig. 3.1 Weekly meteorological observation during crop growth period (Kharif, 2014)
3.4 Soil characteristics of the experimental field
The soil of the experimental field was silt-loam. The soil samples (upto a
depth of 20 cm) were collected randomly from five different places of the
experimental site before layout of experiment. The samples were mixed thoroughly
and a uniform sample was analyzed for assessing the physico-chemical properties
of the soil. The physico-chemical composition of soil sample is presented in the
Table 3.1.
Table 3.1 Physico-chemical characteristics of the experimental soil
No
.
Particulars Values Rating Methods used
A. Physical properties
1. Mechanical composition
Sand (%) 25.68 %
International pipette method
(Black,1965)
Silt 56.21 % Silt loam
Clay (%) 20.39 %
B. Chemical composition
1 Available N (kg
ha-1
)
260.42 Low Alkaline permanganate method
(Subbiah & Asija, 1956)
2 Available P (kg
ha-1
)
16.44 Medium Olsen’s method (Olsen, 1954)
3 Exchangeable K
(kg ha-1
)
352.55 High Flame photometric method
3. Exchangeable K (kg/ha) 352.55 High (Jackson, 1973)
4 Soil pH 7.20 Neutral Glass electrode Ph meter
4. Soil pH 7.20 Natural (Piper, 1967)
5 Organic carbon
(% )
0.46 Low Walkley and Black’s Rapid
titration method (Black, 1965)
6 EC (dS m-1
at
250C)
0.18 Normal Digital electrical conductivity
6. EC (dS/m at 250C) 0.18 Normal meter
16
3.5 Experimental details
The experiment field was laid out in randomized block design with three
replications. Each replication consisted of 15 treatments. The experimental details
are as under (Table 3.2 and Fig. 3.2 to 3.4)
Table 3.2 Treatment details:
S. No. Notation Genotypes/ Treatments Location/Source
1. T1
CGRG-1 Raigarh
2. T2
CGRG-2 Raigarh
3. T3
CGJS-1 Jashpur
4. T4
CGJS-2 Jashpur
5. T5
CGRJ-1 Rajnandgaon
6. T6
CGRJ-2 Rajnandgaon
7. T7
CGJS-3 Jashpur
8. T8
CGJS-4 Jashpur
9. T9
CGMS-1 Mahasamund
10. T10
CGMS-2 Mahasamund
11. T11
CGSG-1 Sarguja
12. T12
CGDU-1 Durg
13. T13
CGDU-2 Durg
14. T14
CGSG-2 Sarguja
15 T15
Pusa Narangi Gainda. New Delhi
Crop : African marigold (Tagetes erecta L.)
Genotypes/variety : 14 Local genotypes + 1 Standard Check (Variety)
Design of experiment : Randomized Block Design (RBD)
Number of treatments : 15
Number of replications : 03
Number of plots : 45
Gross plot size : 1.2 m × 1.2 m
Net plot size : 90 cm × 90 cm
Number of plants plot-1
: 16
Spacing : 30 cm × 30 cm
RDF : 20:20:20 g m-2
(N: P2O5: K2O)
17
T1
T1
R1
T2
T3
T15
T12
T13
T14
T9
T11
T10
T8
T7
T6
T5
T4
R2
T15
T11
T14
T12
T13
T10
T9
T6
T7
T8
T5
T4
T3
T2
T1
T7
T8
T4
T10
T9
T15
T3
T2
T1
T11
T12
T5
T6
T13
T14
R3
25 m
4.6 m
Gross Plot Size
1.2×1.2 m
Net Plot Size
90 ×90 cm
Fig. 3.2 Layout plan of the experimental field
S
N
W E
18
Fig. 3.3 A view of layout of experimental field
Fig. 3.4 A view of experimental field
19
3.6 Cultural operations
3.6.1 Field preparation
Field preparation was done by ploughing the field with mould board plough
once, followed by leveling and weeding manually. Harrowing was done to break
the clods followed by criss-cross ploughing by cultivator, then the field was
pulverized by rotavator. During harrowing, well rotten FYM was incorporated in
the soil. The experiment was laid out with the help of measuring tape, rope and
bamboo pegs. The small-sized beds were prepared.
3.6.2 Raising of seedlings
Marigold seeds were sown on raised beds. Line sowing of seeds were done
at 5 cm spacing. The seed beds were covered with a mixture of garden soil and
coarse sand. The nursery beds were covered by the paddy straw after sowing.
Initially, watering was done with watering can at alternate days. The sowing was
done on 18th
June. The seeds were germinated within 3-4 days of sowing and
thereafter mulch cover was removed. The seedlings were hardened by withdrawing
the watering 2-3 days before lifting the seedlings.
3.6.3 Transplanting and gap filling of seedlings
Marigold seedlings were transplanted after 27 days of sowing. Light
irrigation was given just after planting with the help of hazara (rose can). Marigold
seedlings are generally soft, tender and susceptible to damping off. Hence, gap
filling was done after two weeks of transplanting in case of mortality.
3.6.4 Manures and fertilizers
Well decomposed FYM @ 20 tonnes ha-1
was applied at the time of land
preparation. The recommended dose of 200:200:200 kg ha-1
NPK was applied in
two splits i.e. 50 per cent ‘N’ and full dose of P and K at the time of transplanting
and remaining 50 per cent ‘N’ was applied 40 DAT in the form of urea.
3.6.5 Irrigation and weeding
Four irrigations were applied during entire crop season. Soil was kept moist
after monsoon and heavy irrigation was avoided to check moisture stress. Manual
20
weeding (4 times) was done during the entire cropping period at an interval of 15-
20 days.
3.6.6 Pinching
Pinching by removal of the terminal portion or new growth of the plants
was done in 30 days after transplanting.
3.7 Observations recorded
3.7.1 Observations on vegetative phase
3.7.1.1 Plant height (cm)
The plant height of five randomly selected plants from each plot was
measured from the ground level to the tip of the plant with the help of meter scale.
The average height was calculated by dividing the summation with five.
3.7.1.2 Plant spread (cm)
The plant spread was measured in the five tagged plants with the help of
meter scale in the North-South and East-West direction. The average value was
then worked out.
3.7.1.3 Number of primary branches plant-1
Number of primary branches plant-1
of the five randomly selected plants
from each plot was counted at bud stage and the average was then calculated by
dividing the summation with five.
3.7.1.4 Number of secondary branches plant-1
Number of secondary branches plant-1
of the five randomly selected plants
from each plot was counted at bud stage and the average was then calculated by
dividing the summation with five.
3.7.2 Observations on flowering attributes
3.7.2.1 Days to 50 per cent flowering
When 50 per cent of the plants came into flowering, this observation was
taken with reference to the date of planting.
21
3.7.2.2 Number of flowers plant-1
The total number of flowers plant-1
was counted in each plot from the five
tagged plants at the flowering stage and then averaged to get the value.
3.7.2.3 Flower diameter (cm)
The maximum diameter of five flowers from the tagged plants plot-1
at
fully open stage was recorded and then averaged for arriving at the flower size.
The flower diameter was measured with the help of meter scale.
3.7.2.4 Weight of flowers plant-1
(g)
Fully mature five flowers were randomly selected per tagged plant and
weighed after each picking till all the flowers were harvested. Their mean weight
was calculated as average fresh weight of flowers plant-1
.
3.7.2.5 Dry weight of flowers plant-1
(g)
After oven drying the fresh flowers, dry weight was determined with the
help of electronic balance.
3.7.2.6 Duration of flowering (days)
Number of days taken from the first flowering to the last flowering plant-1
was recorded as total duration of flowering for each treatment..
3.7.2.7 Flower yield (kg plot-1
)
Flower yield plot-1
was calculated from the flower weight plant-1
of the
tagged plants for all the treatments in all replications and then averaged.
3.7.2.8 Flower yield (t ha-1
)
It was calculated by multiplying total number of plants and flower yield
plant-1
for each plot and then worked out per unit area (t ha-1
).
22
3.8 Observation on xanthophyll and its attributes
3.8.1 Petal meal yield (g)
A total of one kilogram of fresh flowers was taken from the tagged plants
of each treatment and then shade dried. The dried petals were grinded to fine
powder after removal from calyx after due care. The ground powder obtained kg-1
of fresh flower was recorded as petal meal yield for each treatment.
3.8.2 Petal meal yield (kg ha-1
)
Petal meal yield ha-1
was worked out on the basis of petal meal yield
obtained kg-1
of fresh flower and it was multiplied by using the total flower yield
ha-1
and expressed as kg ha-1
.
3.8.3 Xanthophyll content kg-1
of petal meal (g)
Xanthophyll content kg-1
of petal meal was calculated based on chemical
analysis as descried under heading chemical analysis.
3.8.4 Xanthophyll yield (kg ha-1
)
After estimating the xanthophyll content from one kilogram of petal petal
meal it was multiplied by the total total petal meal yield ha-1
and expressed as
xanthopyll meal yield kg ha-1
.
Xanthophyll yield (kg ha-1
) =
Total xanthophyll (g kg-1
petal meal) × Petal meal (yield kg ha-1
)
3.9 Chemical analysis
3.9.1 Xanthophyll estimation
Xanthophyll was estimated by AOAC method (Lawrence, 1990). The
procedure in follwed is as follows (Fig 3.5 to 3.9):
3.9.1.1 Apparatus and reagents
1) Spectrophotometer
2) Extractant: 10 parts of hexane + 7 parts of acetone + 6 parts of absolute
alcohol + 7 parts toluene.
23
3) Sodium sulphate – 10 per cent in distilled water
4) Methanolic potassium hydroxide – 40 per cent (Dissolve 40 g KOH in 100
ml methanol).
3.9.1.2 Procedure
3.9.1.2.1 Preparation of solutions
Homogenize well, the dried petals into fine powder. Then accurately weigh
0.05 g of petal meal into 100 ml volumetric flask, pipette 30 ml extractant into
flask, shake well for 10-15 minutes.
3.9.1.2.2 Hot saponification
Pipette 2 ml of 40 per cent methanolic KOH into flask. Shake for one min.
Reflux the flask in a water bath at 56°C. Attach air condenser to prevent loss of
solvent. Cool the sample. Keep it in dark for one hour then pipette 30 ml hexane
into flask. Shake for one minute makeup the volume with 10 per cent sodium
sulphate solution and shake vigorously for one minute. Keep in dark for one hour.
Collect the upper phase in a 50 ml volumetric flask. Pipette 3 ml of upper phase
into 100 ml volumetric flask and makeup the volume with hexane mixed well
(Plate 2) and measure absorbance at 474 nm.
3.9.1.3 Calculation
The total xanthophyll content in the sample was calculated by using the
formula:
D × 474
Total xanthophyll (g kg-1
petal meal) =
W x 236
Where, Where,
A474 = Absorbance at 474nm
W = Weight of the sample (petal meal) in g
50×100
D = Final dilution =
3
236 = Translation specific absorbitivity for 1gm l-1
24
Fig. 3.5 Flower petal drying
T11
T6 T14
T2
T15
25
Fig. 3.16 Petal meal T2 Fig. 3.17 Petal meal T6
Fig. 3.18 Petal meal T11 Fig. 19 Petal meal T13
Fig. 3.6 Petal meal different genotypes
T2
T11
T6
T13
T14
26
Fig. 3.7 Preparation of solutions
Fig. 3.8 Hot saponification in water bath
27
Fig. 3.9 Separation of final dilution
28
3.10 Statistical analysis
The data obtained on various characters under study were analyzed
statistically by using the method of analysis of variance for RBD design and
significance was tested by Gomez and Gomez (1984). The skeleton of ANOVA is
as follows:
Table 3.3: The skeleton of the analysis of variance
Source of
variation
DF SS MSS F Calculated Tabulated
Replication (r) (r-1) RSS RMSS RMSS/
ErMSS
-
Treatment (t) (t-1) TrSS TrMSS TrMSS/
ErMSS
-
Error (Er) (r-1)
(t-1)
ErSS ErMSS - -
Total (rt-1) TSS
Where,
r = Number of replication, t = Number of treatment, RSS = Sum of square for
Replication, TrSS = Sum of square for Treatment, ErSS = Error sum of square,
RMSS = Mean sum of square for replication, TrMSS = Mean sum of square for
treatment, ErMSS = Mean sum of square for error
29
CHAPTER-IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The data recorded on various characters during the course of investigation
entitled “Evaluation of marigold genotypes for flower and xanthophyll yield
under Agro-climatic condition of Chhattisgarh plains” have been presented in
this chapter along with appropriate tables and figures under the following heads:
4.1 Vegetative growth parameters
4.2 Flowering attributes and yield
4.3 Xanthophyll yield and its attributes
4.1 Vegetative growth parameters
4.1.1 Plant height (cm)
Data recorded on the plant height presented in Table 4.1 and depicted
through Fig. 4.1 reveals significant difference in plant height of different
genotypes of marigold plant at all the stages of crop growth viz., 30, 60 and 90
DAT (Fig. 4.2 and Fig 4.3).
The maximum plant height (33.32 cm) at DAT was recorded in the
treatment T11 and was found to be at par with the treatments T14 and T6 (32.67 and
32.25 cm, respectively) but significantly superior over standard check variety
(T15). The minimum plant height was recorded in the treatment T10 (18.30 cm). At
60 DAT, the maximum plant height was recorded in T11 (78.42 cm) which
however, was at par with T14 (76.37 cm), T2 (76.16 cm) and T3 (75.19 cm) but
significantly higher than T15 (standard check). Whereas, the minimum plant height
was recorded in T10 (42.21 cm). At 90 DAT, maximum plant height was recorded
in T3 (109.47 cm) and the minimum was recorded in T10 (60.24).
Variation in plant height among the genotypes at all the stages of plant
growth, may be due to it being a genetically controlled factor. Similar variation in
plant height due to varieties was observed by Nalawadi (1982) in marigold.
30
Table 4.1: Mean performance of marigold genotypes for plant height (cm)
Treatments
Plant height (cm)
30 DAT 60 DAT 90 DAT
T1 19.18
47.96
76.18
T2 29.22
72.69
93.63
T3 28.22
75.19 109.47
T4 20.66
51.44
73.74
T5 21.35
60.17
90.33
T6 32.25
76.16
103.83
T7 25.75
63.89
87.96
T8 28.58
62.64
82.08
T9 26.25
61.37
94.99
T10 18.30
42.21
60.24
T11 33.32
78.42
102.75
T12 22.94
53.61
83.47
T13 25.41
62.67
92.05
T14 32.67
76.37
94.33
T15 26.65
70.48
76.03
SEm± 1.29 2.58 3.56
C.D. at 5% 3.73 7.49 10.31
31
Fig. 4.1: Mean performance of marigold genotypes for plant height (cm)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 T13 T14 T15
Pla
nt
hie
gh
t (c
m)
Treatments
30 DAT 60 DAT 90 DAT
32
Fig. 4.2.: Variation in plant height of different genotypes at 30 DAT
Fig. 4.3: Plant height of genotype T11 at 30 DAT
33
4.1.2 Plant spread (cm)
A significant difference in plant spread was recorded among the different
genotypes (Table 4.2 and Fig. 6) at different stages of plant growth.
At 30 DAT, significantly maximum plant spread was recorded in T11
(26.25 cm) followed by T2 (25.04 cm) and T5 (24.22 cm) whereas, the minimum
was noticed in T10 (18.34 cm) (Fig 4.4 and 4.5).
A similar trend was noticed at 60 and 90 DAT. Significantly maximum
plant spread was recorded in T11 (42.19 and 49.49 cm, respectively) as compared to
standard check (33.00 and 38.69 cm, respectively) and the minimum was recorded
in T10 (23.98 and 32.69 cm, respectively).
Variation in plant spread has been attributed to the additive gene effects.
Taller genotypes tend to have more plant spread than shorter cultivar (Poonam and
Kumar, 2007) and it might be also due to increased number of branches. Similar
variations in plant spread have also been observed by earlier workers Narsude et
al. (2010 b) and Choudhary et al. (2014) also observed in different genotypes of
marigold.
4.1.3 Number of primary branches plant-1
The perusal of data on number of primary branches plant-1
presented in
Table 4.3 and Fig. 4.7 shows a significant difference among the different
genotypes.
The number of primary branches plant-1
varied significantly due to the
different genotypes at different stages of crop growth.
At 30 DAT, the maximum number of primary branches plant-1
were
noticed in T11 (4.43), which was closely followed by T5 (4.25) and T6, all at par
with each other but significantly superior to T15 (standard check). However,
minimum number of primary branches plant-1
was recorded in T10 (2.41).
At 60 DAT, considerable variation was observed for number of primary
branches plant-1
with maximum recorded in T11 (8.00) followed by T5 (7.38) and
T6 (7.35) which were however observed to be at par each other but significantly
higher than standard check (4.44). The minimum number of primary branches
plant-1
was observed in T10 (3.69).
34
Table 4.2: Mean performance of marigold genotypes for plant spread (cm)
Treatments Plant spread (cm)
30 DAT 60 DAT 90 DAT
T1 20.52
31.44
36.83
T2 25.04
35.21
39.98
T3 19.70
34.45
43.76
T4 21.67
26.42
31.05
T5 24.22
40.88
47.48
T6 21.78
34.31
42.95
T7 24.37
32.82
40.16
T8 20.22
32.47
35.73
T9 21.51
27.12
38.70
T10 18.34
23.98
32.69
T11 26.25
42.19
49.49
T12 20.74
28.70
32.41
T13 20.22
35.47
40.22
T14 21.57
37.09
40.82
T15 20.64
33.00
38.69
SEm± 0.41 0.62 0.83
C.D. at 5% 1.21 1.80 2.42
35
Fig. 4.4: Plant spread in genotype T11 followed by genotype T2 at 60 DAT
Fig. 4.5: Plant spread in genotype T2 at 60 DAT
36
Fig. 4.6: Mean performance of marigold genotypes for plant spread (cm)
Fig. 4.7 Mean performance of marigold genotypes for number of primary
branches plant-1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 T13 T14 T15
Pla
nt
sore
ad (
cm)
Treatments
30 DAT 6O DAT 90 DAT
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 13 T14 T15
Nu
mb
er o
f p
rim
ary
bra
nch
es p
lan
t-1
Treatments
30 DAT 60 DAT 90 DAT
37
Table 4.3: Mean performance of marigold genotypes for number of
primary branches plant-1
Treatments Number of primary branches plant-1
30 DAT 60 DAT 90 DAT
T1 2.82
5.23
8.57
T2 3.50
6.45
13.24
T3 2.66
5.40
9.06
T4 2.42
4.11
7.21
T5 4.25
7.38
13.95
T6 4.08
7.35
13.13
T7 2.70
4.52
9.95
T8 2.65
4.64
8.63
T9 2.62
4.17
7.52
T10 2.41
3.69
6.30
T11 4.43
8.00
15.54
T12 2.40
3.73
7.65
T13 2.57
5.53
11.66
T14 2.74
6.37
13.02
T15 2.54
4.44
13.01
SEm± 0.12 0.17 0.24
C.D. at 5% 0.37 0.50 0.70
38
At 90 DAT, maximum number of primary branches plant-1
was recorded in
T11 (15.54) which was significantly superior over all the other genotypes including
check variety Pusa Narangi Gainda. Treatment T10 recorded minimum number of
primary branches plant-1
(6.30).
The difference in primary branches plant-1
among the genotypes could be
due to the influence of genetical makeup of the genotypes. Similar variations for
number of branches were also observed by Rao and Negi (1990) and Ravikumar
(2002) and Munikrishnappa et al. (2013) in China aster.
4.1.4 Number of secondary branches plant-1
The data with respect to genotypic effect on number of secondary branches
plant-1
showed significant difference and are given in Table 4.4 and depicted
through Fig. 4.8.
The maximum number of secondary branches plant-1
at 30 DAT were
noticed in T11 (12.62), which was significantly superior over all the other
genotypes including standard check (4.79). However, the minimum number of
secondary branches plant-1
was recorded in T10 (2.70).
At 60 and 90 DAT, similar trend was observed with respect to number of
secondary branches plant-1
, with maximum recorded in T5 (27.33 and 42.81,
respectively) followed by T6 (25.99 and 38.29, respectively), T2 (25.73 and 37.38,
respectively) and T11 (23.48 and 37.19, respectively). However, they were found to
be at par with each other but significantly superior to standard check variety (12.32
and 28.56, respectively). The lowest was recorded in T10 (6.76 and 11.45,
respectively).
The numbers of secondary branches plant-1
significantly increased after 30
DAT in each observation due to pinching of plant which forced the auxiliary buds
to thrive well. Similar results have also been reported by Khanvilkar et al. (2003)
in marigold and Munikrishnappa et al. (2013) in China aster.
39
Table 4.4: Mean performance of marigold genotypes for number of
secondary branches plant-1
Treatments Number of secondary branches plant-1
30 DAT 60 DAT 90 DAT
T1 4.60
10.58
20.58
T2 9.39
25.73
37.38
T3 8.42
19.22
29.10
T4 7.34
18.11
29.16
T5 11.10
27.33
42.81
T6 9.67
25.99
38.29
T7 6.72
19.64
29.64
T8 8.30
18.88
34.37
T9 4.46
10.83
13.36
T10 2.70
6.76
11.45
T11 12.62
23.48
37.19
T12 0.00
10.55
17.70
T13 8.06
18.40
34.19
T14 6.43
15.36
29.23
T15 4.79
12.32
28.56
SEm± 0.25 0.54 0.87
C.D. at 5% 0.72 1.57 2.52
40
Fig. 4.8: Mean performance of marigold genotypes for number of secondary
branches plant-1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 T13 T14 T15 Nu
mb
er o
f se
co
nd
ary
bra
nch
es p
lan
t-1
Treatments
30 DAT 60 DAT 90 DAT
41
4.2 Flowering attributes and yield
4.2.1 Days to 50 per cent flowering
Days to 50 percent flowering was significantly influenced by the different
genotypes of marigold as shown in Table 4.5 and depicted in Fig. 4.9. The
genotype variation had significant effect on number of days taken to 50 per cent
flowering.
Among all the treatments the, 50 per cent flowering was significantly
earliest in the standard check variety Pusa Narangi Gainda (63.23 days) followed
by T8 (84.26 days) and T13 (88.96 days). Whereas, T4 (138.44 days) took the
maximum number of days for 50 per cent flowering.
The differences in flowering might be due to the different time period taken
by the different genotypes based on their genetic makeup. The findings also
corroborates with the findings of Palai et al. (2008) in chrysanthemum.
4.2.2 Number of flowers plant-1
Various genotypes showed a significant difference on the number of
flowers plant-1
(Table 4.6 and Fig. 4.10).
Significantly maximum number of flowers plant-1
(80.88) was recorded in
the treatment T11 (Fig. 4.11) followed by the treatment T3 (79.28). The minimum
number of flowers plant-1
was recorded in the treatment T10 (31.29). Whereas,
standard check variety, Pusa Narangi Gainda recorded 60 flowers plant
-1.
The number of flowers plant-1
significantly depended on vigor of plant,
primary and secondary branches produced by an individual plant during crop
period. Genotypes having more numbers of primary branches produced more
numbers of secondary branches resulting in more number of flowers in that plant.
The variation in number of flower plant-1
might be due to hereditary traits
of the genotypes. Number of flowers plant-1
may have increased with the increase
in number of branches plant-1
(Laishram et al., 2013).Moreover, different
photosynthesis efficacy of genotypes may have enhanced food accumulation
resulting in better plant growth and subsequently higher number of flowers per
plant (Sunitha et al., 2007). These results are in accordance with the findings
obtained by Singh and Sangama (2000) in China aster.
42
Table 4.5: Mean performance of marigold genotypes for days to 50
per cent flowering
Treatments Days to 50 per cent
flowering
T1 106.47
T2 91.84
T3 99.74
T4 138.44
T5 97.28
T6 95.22
T7 90.28
T8 84.26
T9 109.26
T10 110.46
T11 95.67
T12 100.12
T13 88.96
T14 90.45
T15 63.23
SEm± 2.21
CD at 5% 6.40
43
Fig. 4.9 Mean performance of marigold genotypes for day to 50 per cent
flowering
Fig. 4.10 Mean performance of marigold genotypes on number of flowers
plant-1
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 T13 T14 T15
Day
to
50
% f
low
eri
ng
(in
day
s)
Treatment
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 T13 T14 T15
Nu
mb
er
of
flo
we
rs p
lan
t-1
Treatment
44
Table 4.6: Mean performance of marigold genotypes for number of flowers plant-1
Treatments Number of flowers plant-1
T1 65.74
T2 72.84
T3 79.28
T4 50.18
T5 72.23
T6 70.75
T7 75.09
T8 67.93
T9 48.20
T10 31.29
T11 80.88
T12 64.55
T13 73.71
T14 63.74
T15 60.00
SEm± 5.75
C.D. at 5% 16.67
45
Fig. 4.11: Number of flowers plant-1
in genotype T11
Fig. 4.12 Diameter of flower in genotype T5
T5
46
4.2.3 Flower diameter (cm)
Significant variation was observed in diameter of flower due to different
genotypes (Table 4.7 and Fig. 4.12 and 4.13).
The treatment T5 (6.58 cm) recorded maximum flower diameter (Fig. 4.12)
followed by T6 (6.38 cm), T11 (6.21 cm), T8 (5.57 cm) and T2 (5.47 cm) which,
however, were found to be at par with each other but superior over standard check
(T15). The minimum flower diameter was observed in T10 (3.22 cm).
Variation in flower diameter among different genotypes of marigold might
be influenced by the genetic makeup of different genotypes. The results are in line
with the findings of Panwar et al. (2013) and Narsude et al. (2010a) in African
marigold.
4.2.4. Duration of flowering (days)
The duration of flowering varied with the different genotypes as shown in
Table 4.8 and Fig. 4.14.
The treatment T6 recorded longest duration of flowering (94.36 days)
followed by T7, T14, T11 and T13 (93.29, 93.12, 92.33 and 90.50 days, respectively)
all at par with each other but significantly superior over standard check. The
minimum duration of flowering was observed in T10 (54.74 days).
The genetic control of the characters and modification in their expression
due to environmental conditions might be the possible cause of observed variation
in duration of flowering. Panwar et al. (2013) reported a general high range for
duration of flowering in African marigold.
Similar findings have been also reported by Rao et al. (2005) and
Raghuvanshi and Sharma (2011) in African marigold.
4.2.5 Weight of flowers plant-1
(g)
Significant differences among the genotypes were observed with regard to
flower weight plant-1
(Table 4.9 and Fig. 4.15).
Maximum flower weight plant-1
(330.86 g) was recorded in treatment T6,
which, however, was found to be statistically equal with T11 (323.10 g) but
significantly higher than all the other genotypes including standard check. The
47
Table 4.7: Mean performance of marigold genotypes for flower diameter
(cm)
Treatment Flower diameter (cm)
T1 4.59
T2 5.47
T3 4.05
T4 4.79
T5 6.58
T6 6.38
T7 4.73
T8 5.57
T9 4.68
T10 3.22
T11 6.21
T12 5.58
T13 4.48
T14 5.32
T15 4.48
SEm± 0.20
C.D. at 5% 0.60
48
Fig. 4.13 Mean performance of marigold genotypes for flower diameter
(cm)
Fig. 4.14 Mean performance of marigold genotypes for duration of
flowering (days)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 T13 T14 T15
Flo
we
r d
iam
ete
r (c
m)
Treatment
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 T13 T14 T15
Du
rati
on
of
flow
erin
g (
in d
ays)
Treatments
49
Table 4.8: Mean performance of marigold genotypes for duration of
flowering (days)
Treatments Flowering duration (days)
T1 69.21
T2 80.83
T3 82.87
T4 66.54
T5 88.12
T6 94.36
T7 93.29
T8 84.96
T9 72.19
T10 54.74
T11 92.33
T12 73.24
T13 90.50
T14 93.12
T15 71.04
SEm± 2.33
C.D. at 5% 6.71
50
minimum flower weight plant-1
was recorded in T10 (61.53 g).
The genotypes having more numbers of flowers plant-1
had increased
flower weight plant-1
. Differences in flower weight plant-1
might be due to the
effect of parameters viz., flower diameter and flower size, resulting in flower
weight. Similar findings was also reported by Kumar et al. (2014) in marigold.
4.2.6 Dry weight of flowers plant-1
The dry weight of flowers plant-1
differed significantly due to different
genotypes as presented in Table 4.10 and Fig. 4.16.
The treatment T6 recorded maximum flower dry weight (75.91g) plant-1
followed by T11 (73.94 gm). Both the treatments were at par but significantly
superior to other treatments. The minimum dry weight was recorded in the
treatment T10 (25.05 gm).
The difference in dry weight of flower might be due to inherent characters
of the individual genotypes and also affected by flower weight and diameter
(Singh and Singh, 2006).
4.2.7 Flower yield (kg plot-1
)
Data presented in Table 4.11 and Fig. 4.17 indicated significant differences
among the genotypes for flower yield plot-1
.
The maximum flower yield plot-1
(3.74 kg) was recorded in T11 followed
by T6 (3.71 kg), which were having at par values but significantly superior over
standard check (T15) with 2.62 kg plot-1
. While it was observed to be lowest in T10
(0.73 kg).
Data recorded on flower yield plot-1
might have varied due to inherent
capacity of genotypes to yield flowers (Raghuwansi and Sharma, 2011). Similar
result was also revealed by Behera et al. (2002) in chrysanthemum.
4.2.8 Flower yield (t ha-1
)
Different genotypes demonstrated significant differences on flower yield
ha-1
(Table 4.12 and Fig. 4.18).
51
Table 4.9: Mean performance of marigold genotypes for weight of flowers
plant-1
(g)
Treatments Weight of flowers plant-1
(g)
T1 164.61
T2 271.21
T3 292.48
T4 201.77
T5 283.81
T6 330.86
T7 192.23
T8 241.73
T9 290.66
T10 61.53
T11 323.10
T12 291.77
T13 259.32
T14 240.04
T15 219.00
SEm± 10.88
C.D. at 5% 31.54
52
Fig. 4.15 Mean performance of marigold genotypes for weight of flower
plant-1
Fig. 4.16 Mean performance of marigold genotypes for dry weight of
flower plant-1
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 T13 T14 T15
Flo
we
r fr
esh
we
igh
t g
pla
nt-1
Treatment
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 T13 T14 T15
Flo
we
r d
ry w
eig
ht
g p
lan
t-1
Treatment
53
Table 4.10 Mean performance of marigold genotypes for dry weight of
flowers plant-1
Treatments Dry weight of flowers plant
(g)
T1 27.06
T2 61.98
T3 36.07
T4 57.17
T5 63.68
T6 75.91
T7 62.26
T8 60.23
T9 38.35
T10 25.05
T11 73.94
T12 32.64
T13 57.78
T14 72.37
T15 72.09
SEm± 0.98
C.D. at 5% 2.85
54
The maximum flower yield (26.14 t ha-1
) was recorded in T11 which was
followed by T6 (25.87 t ha-1
) both having at par values with respect to flower yield
but significantly superior to all other treatments. The standard check variety recorded
18.19 t ha-1
whereas, minimum flower yield was obtained in the treatment T10 (5.15 t
ha-1
).
The increase in flower yield ha-1
may be due to increased flower weight
and number of flowers plant-1
of specific genotypes. Variation in flower yield of
varieties was also observed in China aster by Negi and Raghava (1985) and by
(Howe and Waters, 1991) in marigold.
4.3 Xanthophyll yield and its attributes
4.3.1 Petal meal yield kg-1
of fresh flower (g)
Petal meal yield kg-1
of fresh flowers was influenced by the different
genotype of marigold as evident from Table 4.13 and Fig. 4.19.
The standard check variety, Pusa Narangi Gainda recorded maximum petal
meal yield (75.18 g) which however, was having at par value with T6 (72.91 g) but
significantly super than all the remaining treatments. The minimum petal meal
yield was recorded in the treatment T1 (36.70 g).
Petal meal yield kg-1
of fresh flower might have varied due to individual
characteristics of the genotypes. The present findings confirm with the findings of
Shubha (2006) and Baldwin et al. (1993) in African marigold.
4.3.2 Petal meal yield (kg ha-1
)
Different genotypes had significant effect on petal meal yield ha-1
(kg) as
evident from Table 4.14 and Fig. 420.
The maximum petal meal yield was recorded in the treatment T6 (1886.18
kg) followed by T11 (1876.59 kg) which, however, were having at par values. The
minimum petal meal yield was recorded in T10 (297.20 kg).
The petal meal yield varied according to performance of different
genotypes based on flower yield and petal meal kg-1
. Variation in petal meal yield
ha-1
might have been affected by the difference in the number, diameter and dry
weight of flowers due to the characteristics of a genotype. Similar findings were
55
Table 4.11: Mean performance of marigold genotypes for flower yield (kg
plot-1
)
Treatments Flower yield plot-1
(kg)
T1 1.94
T2 3.25
T3 2.01
T4 2.42
T5 3.27
T6 3.71
T7 2.58
T8 2.89
T9 2.03
T10 0.73
T11 3.74
T12 2.31
T13 2.96
T14 2.99
T15 2.62
SEm± 0.11
C.D. at 5% 0.32
56
Fig. 4.17: Mean performance of marigold genotypes for flower yield
(kg plot-1
)
Fig. 4.18: Mean performance of marigold genotypes for flower yield (t ha-1
)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 T13 T14 T15
Flo
we
r yi
eld
kg
plo
t-1
Treatment
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 T13 T14 T15
Flo
we
r yi
eld
kg
ha
-1
Treatment
57
Table 4.12: Mean performance of marigold genotypes for flower yield (t ha-1
)
Treatments Flower yield (t ha-1
)
T1 13.80
T2 22.59
T3 14.06
T4 16.90
T5 21.41
T6 25.87
T7 18.00
T8 20.14
T9 14.31
T10 5.15
T11 26.14
T12 16.09
T13 20.66
T14 22.81
T15 18.19
SEm± 0.73
C.D. at 5% 2.13
58
reported by Rao et al. (2005)in chrysanthemum.
4.3.3 Xanthophyll content kg-1
of petal meal (g)
The xanthophyll content varied significantly due to the influence of
different genotypes (Table 4.15 and Fig. 4.21).
Significantly maximum xanthophyll content (26.18 g) was recorded in the
treatment T11 which was significantly superior to all other treatments including
check variety followed by T15 (24.02 g). The minimum xanthophyll content was
recorded in T10 (10.58 g).
The xanthophyll content variation may be due to colour of flower and also
due to different genetic makeup of genotypes. The findings are in conformity with
the research finding of Rao et al. (2005) and Iftikhar et al. (2011) in African
marigold.
4.3.4 Xanthophyll yield (kg ha-1
)
The xanthophyll yield ha-1
varied significantly due to the influence of
different genotypes evident from Table 4.16 and Fig. 4.22.
Significantly maximum xanthophyll yield ha-1
as compare to all the other
treatments was recorded in T11 (49.12 kg ha-1
) followed by T6 (38.23 kg ha-1
).
Whereas, standard check variety recorded 32.84 kg ha-1
. The minimum
xanthophyll yield was recorded in T10 (3.14 kg ha-1
).
The variation in xanthophyll yield ha-1
might be due to different genetic
makeup of the genotypes. Also, the colour of flower affected the pigments. The
orange/dark coloured flowers contain more xanthophyll than yellow/light coloured
flowers (Deineka, 2007). Similar findings have been reported in marigold by
Subha (2006).
59
Table 4.13: Mean performance of marigold genotypes for petal meal yield
(g)
Treatments Petal meal yield kg-1
of fresh flower (g)
T1 36.70
T2 70.12
T3 38.27
T4 47.74
T5 70.75
T6 72.91
T7 45.23
T8 67.43
T9 41.30
T10 57.71
T11 71.79
T12 44.18
T13 53.04
T14 71.07
T15 75.18
SEm± 0.95
C.D. at 5% 2.75
60
Table 4.14: Mean performance of marigold genotypes for petal meal yield
(kg ha-1
)
Treatments Petal meal yield (kg ha-1
)
T1 506.46
T2 1584.04
T3 537.69
T4 806.06
T5 1514.76
T6 1886.18
T7 814.14
T8 1358.04
T9 591.03
T10 297.20
T11 1876.59
T12 710.85
T13 1095.80
T14 1621.10
T15 1367.52
SEm± 75.27
C.D. at 5% 218.05
61
Fig. 4.19 Mean performance of marigold genotypes for petal meal yield (g)
Fig 4.20 Mean performance of marigold genotypes for petal meal yield (kg
ha-1
)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 T13 T14 T15
Pet
al m
eal
yie
ld g
kg
-1vof
fres
h f
low
er
Treatment
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 T13 T14 T15
Pet
al m
eal
yie
ld k
g h
a-1
Treatment
62
Table 4.15: Mean performance of marigold genotypes for xanthophyll
content kg-1
of petal meal
Treatments Xanthophyll content (g)
T1 14.64
T2 20.48
T3 18.47
T4 12.54
T5 13.99
T6 20.27
T7 14.37
T8 13.84
T9 14.17
T10 10.58
T11 26.18
T12 18.37
T13 19.67
T14 20.83
T15 24.02
SEm± 0.24
C.D. at 5% 0.69
63
Fig. 4.21 Mean performance of marigold genotypes for xanthophyll
content kg-1
of petal meal
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 T13 T14 T15
Xa
nth
op
hy
ll c
on
ten
t g
kg
-1 o
f d
ried
pet
al
Treatment
64
Table 4.16: Mean performance of marigold genotypes for xanthophyll yield
(kg ha-1
)
Treatments Xanthopyll yield (kg ha-1
)
T1 7.41
T2 32.44
T3 9.93
T4 10.1
T5 21.19
T6 38.23
T7 11.69
T8 18.79
T9 8.37
T10 3.14
T11 49.12
T12 13.05
T13 21.55
T14 33.76
T15 32.84
SEm± 0.91
C.D. at 5% 2.66
65
Fig 4.22 Mean performance of marigold genotypes for xanthophyll yield
(kg ha-1
)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 T13 T14 T15
Xa
nth
op
hy
ll y
ield
kg
ha
-1
Treatment
66
CHAPTER-V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The present investigation entitled “Evaluation of marigold genotypes for
flower and xanthophyll yield under agro-climatic condition Chhattisgarh of
plains’’ was carried out in the Department of Horticulture, College of Agriculture,
Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur (C.G.) during the year 2014-15.
The investigation was undertaken to evaluate some indigenously available
marigold genotypes for growth, flowering and yield under Chhattisgarh plains
condition.
The experiment consisted of 15 genotypes including one check variety of
African marigold i.e., CGRG-1, CGRG-2, CGJS- 1, CGJS-2, CGJS-3, CGJS-4,
CGMS-1, CGMS-2, CGRJ-1, CGRJ-2, CGSG-1, CGSG-2, CGDU-1, CGDU-2
and Pusa Narangi Gainda (Standard check). The experiment was conducted in
Randomized Block Design with three replications.
Five plants from each plot were tagged for observation. Observations were
taken at 30, 60 and 90 DAT for vegetative growth parametres. Yield and yield
attributing parameters were also recorded. Chemical analysis was done for
estimation of xanthophyll and its yield attributes. The results of experiment
obtained during studies are summarized as follows:
The maximum plant height (33.32 cm) at 30 DAT, was recorded in the
treatment T11 and was found to be at par with the treatments T14 and T6 (32.67 and
32.25 cm, respectively). At 60 DAT, the maximum plant height was recorded in
T11 (78.42 cm) which however, was at par with T14 (76.37 cm), T2 (76.16 cm) and
T3 (75.19 cm). At 90 DAT, maximum plant height was recorded in T3 (109.47 cm).
At 30, 60 DAT, the maximum plant spread was recorded in T11 (26.25 and
49.49 cm, respectively) which was significantly superior to standard check.
Treatment T11 recorded maximum number of primary branches plant-1
at
30, 60 and 90 DAT (4.43, 8.00 and 15.54, respectively), closely followed by T5
(4.25, 7.38 and 13.95, respectively). Whereas, number of secondary branches
plant-1
was maximum in T5 (42.81) at 90 DAT followed by T6 (38.29).
67
Among all the treatments, the 50 per cent flowering was significantly
earliest in the standard check variety Pusa Narangi Genda (63.23 days) followed by
T8 (84.26 days) and T13 (88.96 days).
The maximum number of flowers plant-1
was recorded in the treatment T11
(80.88) followed by the treatment T3 (79.28). Whereas, standard check variety
Pusa Narangi Genda recorded 60 flowers plant
-1.
The treatment T5 (6.58 cm) recorded maximum flower diameter followed
by T6 (6.38 cm), T11 (6.21 cm), T8 (5.57 cm) and T2 (5.47 cm) which however, was
found to be at par with each other.
The treatment T6 recorded longest duration of flowering (94.36 days)
followed by T7, T14, T11 and T13 (93.29, 93.12, 92.33 and 90.50 days, respectively)
all at par with each other.
Maximum flower weight plant-1
(330.86 g) was recorded in treatment T6,
which was statistically equal with T11 (323.10 g) but significantly higher than all
the other genotypes including standard check. Whereas, the treatment T6 recorded
maximum flower dry weight (75.91g) having at par with T11 (73.94 gm).
The maximum flower yield plot-1
(3.74 kg) was recorded in T11 followed
by T6 (3.71 kg), T5 (3.27 kg) and T2 (3.25 kg) and the maximum flower yield
(26.14 t ha-1
) was recorded in T11 which was followed by T6 (25.87 t ha-1
) both
having at par values with respect to flower yield but significantly superior to all
other treatments.
The standard check variety, Pusa Narangi Genda recorded maximum petal
meal yield kg-1
of fresh flower (75.18 g) while the maximum petal meal yield ha-1
was recorded in the treatment T6 (1886.18 kg) followed by T11 (1876.59 kg).
Xanthophyll content kg-1
of petal meal was recorded maximum in the
treatment T11 (26.18 g) followed by T15 (24.02 g) which was significantly superior
to all other treatments. The maximum xanthophyll yield ha-1
was recorded in T11
(49.12 kg ha-1
) followed by T6 (38.23 kg ha-1
).
68
CONCLUSIONS
At 30 and 60 DAT, the maximum plant height was recorded in T11 whereas,
at 90 DAT, the treatment T3 recorded maximum plant height.
Plant spread was recorded maximum in the treatment T11 at 30, 60 and 90
DAT.
The number of primary and secondary branches plant-1
were found to be
maximum in treatment T11.
Maximum number of flowers plant-1
was recorded the treatment T11
resulted in higher yield.
Treatment T5 had the maximum flower diameter.
Earliest days to 50 per cent flowering was noticed in standard check variety
(Pusa Narangi Gainda). Whereas, the treatment T6 recorded longest
duration of flowering and it can be grown for taking number of picking.
Maximum petal meal yield kg-1
of fresh flower was recorded in Pusa
Narangi Gainda. Wheres, petal meal yield ha-1
was recorded maximum in
T6.
Genotype T11 recorded hieghst xanthophyll content kg-1
of petal meal and
xanthophyll yield ha-1
.
SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE WORK
The result of present investigation are based on one year of
experimentation, therefore, before reaching to any definite conclusions and
recommendation, it needs to be repeated during successive years.
The same study can be carried out for different varieties of marigold.
Similar study can be conducted at different locations in Chhattisgarh and in
other seasons on different soil type.
The effect of different chemicals on the total production of xanthophyll
content marigold could be studied.
Experiment on different locally available genotype should be conducted
correlating it with weather parameters.
69
REFERENCES
Ahmad, I., Asif, M., Amjad, A. and Ahmad, S. 2011. Fertilization enhances
growth, yield, and xanthophyll contents of marigold. Turk J. Agric., 35
(3): 641-648.
Anonymous. 2014. Chhattisgarh Database, Directorate of Horticulture.
Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur.
Anuja, S. and Jahnavi, K. 2012. Variability, heritability and genetic advance
studies in French marigold (Tagetes patula L.). The Asian J. of
Horticulture, 7(2): 362-364.
Asen, S., Stewart, N. and Norris, K.H. 1972. Co-pigmentation of anthocyanin in
plant tissues and its effect on colour. J. of Phytochemistry, 11: 139-144.
Baldwin, R.E., Waldenmaier, C.M. and Lambe, R.C. 1993. Marigold research
report. Va. Polytechnic Inst. and State Univ., Painter, VA.
Behera, T.K., Sirohi, P.S. and Pal, A. 2002. Assessment of chrysanthemum
germplasm for commercial cultivation under Delhi condition. J. Orna.
Hort., 5(2): 11-14.
Bharathi, T. and Jawaharlal, M. 2014. Evaluation of African marigold (Tagetes
erecta. L). genotypes for growth and flower yield under Coimbatore
conditions. Trends in Biosciences, 7(16): 2197-2201.
Bhattacharyya. S., Datta. S., Mallick. B., Dhar, P. and Ghosh, S. 2010. Lutein
content and in vitro antioxidant activity of different cultivars of Indian
marigold flower (Tagetes patula L.) extracts. J. Agric. Food Chem.,
58(14): 8259-8264.
Black, C.A. 1965. Method of soil analysis, Amer. Argon. Due. Madison,
Wisconsin, USA, pp. 131-137.
Bolanos, N.J.L., Islas, J.H., Alvarez, B.E., Martinez, R. R. and Lopez, P. O. 2004.
Improving xanthophyll extraction from marigold flower using
cellulolytic enzymes. J. Agric Food Chem., 52(11): 3394-8.
Boonnoun, P., Opaskonkun, T., Prasitchoke, P., Goto, M., Shotipruk, A. 2012.
Purification of free lutein from marigold flowers by liquid
chromatography. Eng. J., 16: 145–155.
Cantrill, R. 2004. Lutein from Tagetes erecta. Chemical and Technical
Assessment (CTA), FAO. 63rd JECFA, 1(5): 5.
Choudhary, M., Beniwal, B. S. and Kumari, A. 2014. Evaluation of marigold
genotypes under semi-arid conditions of Haryana. Annals of
Horticulture, 7(1): 30-35.
70
Deineka, V. I., Sorokopudov, V. N., Deineka, L.A. and Tretyakov, M. U. 2007.
Flowers of marigold (Tagetes species) as a source of xanthophyll.
Pharmaceutical Chem. J., 41(10): 540-542.
Gomez, K.A. and Gomez, A.A. 1984. Statistical procedure for Agricultural
research. Second Edition, Wiley publication.
Gregory, G.K., Chen, T. and Philip, T. 1986. Quantitative analysis of lutein esters
in marigold flowers by high performance liquid chromatography. J. of
Food Sci., 51(4): 1093–1094.
El-Saeid, H. M., Hussen, M. S., Sterbeny, S. E., and Omer, E. A. (1996). Effect of
nitrogen on yield and active constituents of Tagetes Patula. Egyptian J.,
of Horticulture, 23 (1): 101-112.
Hadden, W.L., Watkins, R.H., Levy, L.W. and Regalado, E. 1999. Carotenoid
composition of marigold (Tagetes erecta) flower extract used as
nutritional supplement, 20: 4189–4194.
Howe, T.K. and Waters, W.E. 1982. Evaluation of flowering annuals: Marigold
and zinnia. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc., 95: 282-285.
Howe, T.K. and Waters, W.E. 1991. Evaluation of marigold cultivars as bedding
plants, spring and fall. Proc. Florida State Hort. Soc., 103: 332-337.
Iftikhar, A. Muhammad, A., Atyab, A. and Ahmad, S. 2011. Fertilization enhances
growth, yield, and xanthophyll contents of marigold. Turk J. Agric., 35:
641-648.
Jackson, M.L. 1973. Soil chemical analysis. Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd., New
Delhi, p. 498.
Kaplan, L. 1960. Historical and ethnobotanical aspects of domestication in
Tagetes. Economic Botany, 14(3): 200–202.
Karuppaiah, P. and Kumar, P.S. 2010. Correlation and path analysis in African
marigold (Tagetes erecta L.). Electronic J. of Plant Breeding, 1(2): 217-
220.
Kaul, K. and Bedi, Y.S. 2006. Natural source of luetien: Marigold (Tagetes erecta
L.), Introduction, cultivation, selection and quality improvement under
mid hill condition of Himachal Pradesh.
Khanvilkar, M.H. Kokate, K.D. and Mahalle, S.S. 2003. Performance of African
marigold (Tagetes erecta L.) in North Konkan coastal zone of
Maharashtra. J. Maharashtra Agric Univ., 28: 333-334.
Kelly, R.O. and Harbaugh, B.K. 2002. Evaluation of marigold cultivars as bedding
plants in Central Florida. Hort.Technology, 12: 3477-3484.
71
Krol, B. 2012. Yield and chemical composition of flower heads of selected
cultivars of pot marigold (Calendula officinalis L.). Acta Sci. Pol.,
11(1): 215-225.
Kumar, A., Pratap, B. and Beer, K. 2014. Studies on genetic variability and
character association in French Marigold (Tagetes patula L.). Trends in
Biosciences, 7(2): 122-124.
Lawrence, J.F. 1990. Determination of total xanthophyll and marigold oleoresin.
Journal of Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 2: 970-975.
Laishram, N., Dhiman, S.R., Gupta, Y.C., Bhardwaj, S.K. and Singh, A. 2013.
Microbial dynamics and physico-chemical properties of soil in the
rhizosphere of chrysanthemum (Dendranthema grandiflora) as
influenced by integrated nutrient management. Indian J. of Agricultural
Sci., 83(4): 447-455.
Li, W., Gao, Y., Zhao, J. and Wang, Q. 2007. Phenolic, flavonoid, and lutein ester
content and antioxidant activity of 11 cultivars of chinese marigold. J
Agric. Food Chem., 55(21): 8478-8484.
Ma, Q., Xu, X., Gao, Y., Wang, Q. and Zhao, J. 2008. Optimisation of supercritical
carbon dioxide extraction of lutein esters from marigold (Tagetes erecta
L.) with soybean oil as a co-solvent. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol., 43:
1763–1769.
Munikrishnappa, P.M., Patil, A.A., Patil, V.S., Patil, B.N., Channappagoudar, B.
B. and Alloli, T. 2013. Studies on the growth and yield parameters of
different genotypes of China aster (Callistephus chinensis Nees.).
Karnataka J. Agric. Sci., 26(1): 107-110.
Naik, B. 2003. Stability analysis and standardization of production technology for
flower and xanthophyll yield in marigold (Tagetes spp.). Ph.D. Thesis,
University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad.
Naik, B.H., Patil, A.A. and Basavaraj, N. 2005. Stability analysis in African
marigold (Tagetes erecta L.) genotypes for growth and flower yield.
Karnataka J. Agric. Sci., 18(3): 758-763.
Nalawadi, U.G. 1982. Nutritional studies in some varieties of marigold (Tagetes
erecta L.). Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad.
Narsude, P.B., Kadam, A.S. and Patil, V. K. 2010 a. Studies on the growth and
yield attributes of different African marigold (Tagetes erecta L.)
genotypes under Marathwada conditions. Asian J. of Horticulture, 5(2):
284-286.
Narsude, P.B., Kadam, A.S. and Patil, V.K. 2010 b. Studies on the growth and
quality attributes of different African marigold (Tagetes erecta L.)
genotypes under Marathwada condition. The Asian J. of Horticulture, 5
(2): 407-410.
72
Negi, S.S. and Raghava, S.P.S. 1985. Improvement of chrysanthemum and China
aster through breeding. Annual Rep., 21(4): 380-389.
Olabiyi, T.I., and Oke, J. M. 2006. Bio-nematicidal potentials of African marigold
(Tagetes erecta). J. of Agric. Res. and Development, 5(1) :27-35.
Olsen, S.R., Cole, C.V., Watanabe, F.S. and Dean, L. S. 1954. Estimation of
available P in soil by extraction with sodium bicarbonate. Circ. U. S.
Dept. Agric., p. 939.
Palai, L., Pratap, M. and Amrender, S. 2008. Evaluation of yellow coloured
chrysanthemum cv for growth, flowering and yield. The Orissa Journal
of Horticulture, 36(11): 116-119.
Panwar, S., Singh, K.P., Janakiram, T. and Namita 2013. Genetic variability,
heritability and genetic advance in African marigold (Tagetes erecta L.)
genotypes. Progressive Horticulture, 45(1): 135-140.
Piper, C. S. 1967. In Soil and plant analysis. Hans publication, Bombay, p.368.
Polthance, A. and Yamazaki, K. 1966. Effect of marigold (Tagetes patula L.) on
parasitic nematodes of rice in north-east Thailand. Kaen-Kasut-Khon-
Kaen Agril. J., 24(3): 105-107.
Poonam and Kumar, A. 2007. Garden beauty – A, promising chrysanthemum
cultivars of garden decoration. J. Orna. Hort., 10(3): 165-168.
Pratheesh, V.B., Benny, N. and Sujatha, C.H. 2009. Isolation, stabilization and
characterization of xanthophyll from marigold flower, Tagetes erecta L.
Modern Applied Science, 3(2): 19-28.
Raghuvanshi, A. and Sharma, B.P. 2011. Varietal evaluation of French marigold
(Tagetes patula Ninn.) under mid-hill zone of Himachal Pradesh.
Progressive Agriculture, 11(1): 123- 126.
Rao, C.C., Goud, P.V., Reddy, K. M. and Padmaja, G. 2005. Screening of African
marigold (Tagetes erecta L.) cultivars for flower yield and carotenoid
pigments. Indian J. of Horticulture, 62(3): 276-279.
Rao, T.M. and Negi, S.S., 1990. Heritable components of biometric characters in
China aster. In: Floriculture Technology, Trade and Trends, pp. 318-
321
Ravikumar. 2002. Evaluation of China aster (Callistephus chinesis (L.) Nees)
genotypes under transitional zone of north Karnataka. M.Sc. (Agri.)
Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad (India).
Sarkar, C.R., Bhagawati, B., Das, L. and Goswami, B.C. 2012. An efficient
condition of saponification of lutein ester from marigold flower. Annals
of Biological Res., 3(3):1461-1466.
73
Sharma, G., Dikshit, S.N. and Khokhar, D. 2013. Lutien from marigold : natural
carotenoids for food, feed and pharmaceutical industries. In: National
Seminar on “NTFP, MAP and spices, IGKV, Raipur, p. 152.
Shivakumar, Srinivasa, V., Sudeep, H.P., Shivayya, K.M. and Ketana, G.B. 2014.
Correlation studies in African marigold (Tagetes erecta L.) genotypes.
International J. on Biological Sci., 5 (2): 83-87.
Singh, D., Kumar, S., Singh A.K. and Prabhat, P. 2008. Assessment of African
marigold (Tagetes erecta) genotypes in Uttarakhand. J. of Orna. Horti.,
11(2): 112-117.
Singh, D and Misra, K. K. (2008). Comparative performance of different
genotypes of marigold (Tagetes spp.). Indian Journal of Agricultural
Sciences, 78(4):308-317
Singh, D. and Misra, K.K. 2008. Genetic variability in quantitative characters of
marigold. Indian J. Hort., 65(2): 187-192.
Singh, D. and Singh. A.K. 2005. Evaluation of French marigold (Tagetes patula
Linn.) and Wild marigold (Tagetes minuta Linn.) under
submountainous tarai conditions. J. of Orna. Hort., 8(2): 134-136.
Singh, D. and Singh, A.K. 2006. Characterization of African marigold (Tagetes
erecta Linn.). J. of Orna. Hort., 9(1): 40-42.
Singh, K.P. and Sangama. 2000. Effect of graded level of N and P on China aster
(Callistephus chinensis) cv. 'Kamini'. Indian J. Hort., 57(1): 87-89.
Singh, K.P., Raju, D.V.S., Namita, N and Janakiram, T. 2014. Determination of
genetic variation for vegetative and floral traits in African marigold
(Tagetes erecta). Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 84(9): 1057-
1062.
Subbiah, B.V. and Asija, G.L. (1956). A rapid procedure for the determination of
available nitrogen in soil. Current Sci., 25: 259-260.
Subha, B.M. (2006). Integrated nutrient management for growth, flowering and
xanthophyll yield of marigold (Tagetes erecta L.). M. Sc. (Ag.) Thesis,
Dharwad University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad.
Sujith, A., Hymavathi, T.V. and Devi, P.Y. 2012. Supercritical fluid extraction of
lutein esters from marigold. In. J. of Biological and Life Sciences, 6: 2
67-75.
Suma, V. and Patil, V.S. 2006. Flower Quality Parameters in Daisy (Aster amellus
L.) genotypes. Karnataka J. Agric. Sci., 19 (3): 653-656.
Sunitha, H.M., Ravi, Hunje, Vyakaranahal, B.S. and Bablad, H.B. (2007). Effect of
pinching and growth regulators on plant growth, flowering and seed
yield in African marigold (Tagetes erecta Linn.). J. of Orna. Hort.,
10(2): 91-95.
74
Tinoi, J., Rakariyatham, N. and Deming, R.L. 2006. Determination of major
carotenoid constituents in petal extracts of eight selected flowering
plants in the North of Thailand. Chiang Mai J. Sci., 33(2): 327-334.
Tiwary, B.K., Kumar, A., Nanda, A.K. and Chakraborty, R. 2014. A study on
optimization of marigold petal yield, pure lutein, and formulation of
free-flowing lutein esters. J. Crop Sci. Biotech., 17(3): 175 – 181
Vankar, P.S., Shanker. R. and Wijayapala, S. 2009. Utilization of temple waste
flower, Tagetes erecta for dyeing of cotton, wool and silk on industrial
scale. J. Textile Apparel Tech. Management, 6: 1-15.
Vargas, F.D. and Lopez, O.P. 1997. Effects of Enzymatic Treatments of Marigold
Flowers on Lutein Isomeric Profiles. J. Agric. Food Chem., 45(4):
1097–1102.
Vargas, F.D. and Lopez, O.P. 1999. Effects of Enzymatic Treatments on
carotenoid extraction from marigold flowers (Tagetes erecta). pp. 42-
72.
Verghese, J. 1998. Focus on xanthophylls from Tagetes Erecta L the giant natural
complex-I. Indian Spices, 33(4): 8–13.
Verma, K.K. and Beniwal, B.S. 2006. Evaluation of marigold (Tagetes erecta L.)
genotypes for resistance against root-knot nematode, Meloidogyne
javanica. Nat. J. of Plant Improvement, 8(2): 184-185.
Verma, S. K., Singh, R. K., and Arya, R. R. (2004). Evaluation of Tagetes
germplasm. Scientific Horticulture, 9:219-224.
75
Appendix - A : Weekly meteorological data during crop period season (Kharif, 2014 )
Week No. Date Temperature (°C) Rainfall
(mm)
Relative Humidity (%) Wind Velocity
(Kmph)
Evaporation
(mm)
Sun Shine
(hours) Max. Min. I II 25 June 18-24 33.6 26 30 79 60 9.5 5.7 3
26 25-01 35.7 26 27.6 78 50 8.1 6.4 3.3
27 Jul 02-08 37.7 27 9 72 44 9 8.5 5.3
28 09-15 34.3 23.8 152.8 92 72 8.4 6.6 4.1
29 16-22 28.5 24.6 260.2 95 88 12.1 2.8 0.5
30 23-29 28.7 23.8 37.2 95 82 9.4 2.7 1.6
31 30-05 29.8 24.8 136 95 86 9.7 4 1.9
32 Aug 06-12 30.2 24.8 42.1 91 71 9.1 3.6 2.8
33 13-19 31.8 25.3 45 91 70 7 4.7 5.5
34 20-26 32.3 25.1 25.8 92 73 4 3.7 3.4
35 27-02 31.8 25 84.8 91 76 5.8 4.1 3.6
36 Sep 03-09 25.1 28.3 79.5 94 83 6.2 1.7 0.5
37 10-16 30.5 24.3 41 95 79 5.8 3.3 3.4
38 17-23 32.1 24.6 57.6 94 68 3.6 3.7 4.4 39 24-30 33.4 24 0 93 57 2.1 4.1 8.3 40 Oct 01-07 33.2 24 0 91 57 2.5 3.9 8.3 41 08-14 30.4 23.6 52.2 89 66 6.9 3.6 4.9 42 15-21 31.5 22.5 1.2 91 56 2.6 3.4 8.4 43 22-28 29.1 19.4 5.4 92 52 2 2.8 5.9 44 29-04 30.1 16.9 0 94 37 1.9 3 8 45 Nov 05-11 30.7 17.6 0 88 44 3 3.4 7.8 46 12-18 31.4 19.3 0 84 35 2.8 3.6 6.8 47 19-25 29.3 11.9 0 91 28 1.9 2.9 8.5 48 26-02 30.2 12.5 0 90 26 1.9 3.2 8.6 49 Dec 03-09 28.9 10.8 0 90 28 2.2 3.4 9 50 10-16 28.6 15.8 0 89 49 2.3 2.2 3 51 17-23 25 8.3 0 89 31 2.2 2.8 7.8 52 24-31 26 9.9 0 86 34 2.2 2.9 8.3