evaluation of marigold genotypes for flower … fileevaluation of marigold genotypes for flower and...

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

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


) 55


of petal meal (g) 59


) 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).


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.


)

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

.


of petal meal (g)

Xanthophyll content kg-1

of petal meal was calculated based on chemical

analysis as descried under heading chemical analysis.


)

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:


4.2 Flowering attributes and yield



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


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)


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


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


37

Table 4.3: Mean performance of marigold genotypes for number of


Treatments Number of primary branches plant-1


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


(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


was recorded in T10 (2.70).

At 60 and 90 DAT, similar trend was observed with respect to number of


, 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


Treatments Number of secondary branches plant-1


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


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


Day

to

50

% f

low

eri

ng

(in

day

s)

Treatment

0

20

40

60

80

100

120


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


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


Flo

we

r d

iam

ete

r (c

m)

Treatment

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


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


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


Flo

we

r fr

esh

we

igh

t g

pla

nt-1

Treatment

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


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.


4.3.1 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.


)

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


Flo

we

r yi

eld

kg

plo

t-1

Treatment

0

5

10

15

20

25

30


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.


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.


)

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


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


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


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


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

evaluation of marigold genotypes for flower … fileevaluation of marigold genotypes for flower and...

Documents