Studies on production potential of cape gooseberry (Physalis peruviana L.) in sodic soil under varying agronomic manipulations
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Abstract
Present study aimed to evaluate the production potential of cape gooseberry (Physalis peruviana L.) in sodic soil (pH 8.56) under varying plant spacing and soil fertility levels. The spacing treatments were S1-75 x 60 cm, S2-75 x 75 cm and S3-90 x 75 cm, while native soil fertility was manipulated through the application of NPK fertilizers i.e. F0-control (no NPK fertilizers), F1 - 60:40:40, F2 - 80:60:60, and F3 - 100:80:80 kg NPK ha-1. Two year’s data from the study revealed that spacing and NPK treatment had significant effect on vegetative growth and fruit yield during both the years. Closest spacing (75 x 60 cm) resulted tallest plants (103.41 and 100.35 cm) and maximum fruit yield (86.69 and 83.56 q ha-1), but this treatment was statistically at par with 75 x 75 cm spacing. Widest spacing (90 x 75cm) resulted maximum number of branches (34.14 and 32.49 plant-1), number of leaves (167.31 and 162.70 plant-1) and average fruit weight (9.26 and 9.18 g), but was statistically at par with 75 x 75 cm spacing. Amongst the fertilizer treatments, application of NPK @100:80:80 kg ha-1 resulted maximum plant height (114.88 and 11.65 cm), number of branches (35.78 and 34.82 plant-1), number of leaves (174.82 and 172.55 plant-1), fruit weight (9.62 and 9.57 g) and fruit yield (101.08 and 98.08 q ha-1). Biochemical quality of fruits (TSS, ascorbic acid, acidity, and reducing, non-reducing and total sugars) was increased due to increased fertility level and recorded maximum with the application of 100:80:80 kg NPK ha-1. These findings will be helpful in exploring cape gooseberry cultivation in sodic soils (pH 8.56) through suitable agronomic manipulations in plant spacing and soil fertility levels.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Cape gooseberry, Physalis peruviana, Productivity, Soil fertility, Spacing, Vegetative growth
AOAC (1990). Official Methods for Analytical Chemists, 15th ed. Washington DC, USA.
Ayala, C. (1992). Evaluation of three planting distances and three systems of pruning in cape gooseberry under greenhouse conditions. Acta Hort., 310: 206.
Chahal, T.S. and Bal, J.S. (2005). Effect of NPK on growth and yield of cape gooseberry (Physalis peruviana L.). Haryana J. Hort. Sci., 34(3-4): 246-249.
Chattopadhyay, T.K. (1996). Cape gooseberry. In: Chattopadhyay T.K. (ed.) A Textbook on Pomilogy.Vol-II. Kalyani Publishers, Calcutta, India, pp. 209-314.
Crawford, M. (2004). Physalis: Groundcherries. Yearbook: West Austr. Nut and Tree Crops Assoc., 27: 42-51.
CSIR (1969). The Wealth of India (Vol.-VIII). CSIR, New Delhi, India, pp. 38-40.
Fischer, G., Herrera, A. and Almanza, P.J. (2011). Cape gooseberry ( Physalis peruviana L.). In: Yahia, E.M. (ed.) Postharvest biology and technology of tropical and subtropical fruits. Woodhead Publishing Ltd., Cambridge, UK. pp. 374-392.
Ghimire, J., Singh. N., Dahia. M.S. and Malik, Y.S. (2002). Response of nitrogen and method of planting on seed yield and seed quality of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) cv. Hisar Lalit. Haryana J. Hort Sci., 31(3-4): 2278-2280.
Girapu, R.K. and Kumar, A. (2006). Influence of nitrogen and spacing on growth, yield and economics of cape gooseberry (Physalis peruviana L.) production. In: Proceedings of national symposium on production utilization and export of underutilized fruits with commercial potentialities, BCKV, Mohanpur, West Bengal (India), Nov. 22-24, 2006. pp. 145-149.
Jackson, M.L. (1973). Soil chemical analysis. Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, India.
Khan, K.F, and Gowder, R.B. (1955). The cape gooseberry-a remunerative intercrop for orchards in Nilgiris. South Indian Hort. 3 (4): 104-107.
Klinac, D.J. (1986). Cape gooseberry (Physalis peruviana L.) production systems. New Zealand J. Exp. Agric., 14 (4): 425-430.
Legge, A.P. (1974). Notes on the history, cultivation and uses of Physalis peruviana L. J. Royal Hort. Society, 99 (7): 310-314.
Majumdar, B.C. (1979). Cape gooseberry. The jam fruit of India. World Crops. 31: 19-23.
Majumdar, B.C. and Bose, T.K. (1979). Analysis of cape gooseberry fruits. Plant Sci., 11: 101
Mehla, C.P., Srivastava, V.K. and Singh, J. (2000). Response of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) varieties to N and P fertilization and spacing. Indian J. Agric. Res., 34 (3): 182-184.
Mengel, K., Kirby, E.A., Kosegarten, H. and Appel, T. (2001). Principles of plant nutrition. Kluwer Acadmic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Miranda, D., Ulrichs, C., and Fischer, G. (2010). Imbibition and percentage of germination of cape gooseberry (Physalis peruviana L.) seeds under NaCl stress Agron. Colomb., 28 (1): 29-35.
Morton, F.J. (1987). Cape Gooseberry, In: Morton, F.J. (ed.) Fruits of warm climates. University of Miami, Miami, USA, pp. 430-434.
Munns, R. and Tester, M. (2008). Mechanisms of salinity tolerance. Ann. Rev Plant Biol., 59: 651-681.
Panse, V.G. and Sukhatme, P.V. (1985). Statistical methods for agricultural workers, 4th edn. ICAR Publications, New Delhi, India.
Prasad, I.D., Sengupta, B.N., Singh, R.K. and Singh, S. (1985). Effect of NPK on yield, yield attributes and quality of cape gooseberry (Physalis peruviana). Haryana J. Hort. Sci., 14 (3-4): 151-155.
Raghav, M. (2000). Effect of nitrogen and spacing plant growth, dry matter accumulation and quality of hybrid tomato. Prog. Hort., 32(1): 90-94.
Rangana, S. (1986). Handbook of analysis and quality control of fruit and vegetable products, 2nd edn. Tata McGrew Hill Publishing Co., New Delhi, India.
Schwabe, K.A., Iddo, K. and Knap, K.C. (2006). Drain water management for salinity mitigation in irrigated agriculture. Am. J. Agric. Ecol., 88: 133-140.
Sharma P.C. and Gupta, S.K. (2010). CSSRI at a glance. Central Soil Salinity Research Institute, Karnal (Haryana), India.
Singh, A.K., Parmar, A.S. and Pathak, R. (2002). Effect of spacing and nitrogen doses on yield and its attributes of determinate and indeterminate types of hybrid tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum). Prog. Hort., 34 (2): 215-217.
Singh, U.R., Pandey, I.C. and Prasad, R.S. (1977). The effect of N, P and K on growth, yield and quality of cape gooseberry. Punjab Hort. J., 17 (3-4): 148-151.
Subbaiah, B.V. and Asija, G.L. (1956). A rapid procedure for estimation of available nitrogen in soils. Curr. Sci., 5: 656-659.
Tisdale, S.L., Nelson, W.L., Beaton, J.D. and Havlin, J.L. (1997). Soil fertility and fertilizers, 5th edn. Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.
Trinchero G.D., Sozzi G.O., Cerri, A.M., Vilella, F. and Fraschina A.A. (1999). Ripening-related changes in ethylene production, respiration rate and cell-wall enzyme activity in goldenberry (Physalis peruviana L.), a solanaceous species. Postharvest Biol. Tech., 16: 139-145.
Tuan, N.M. and Mao, T.M. (2015). Effect of plant density on growth and yield of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) at Thai Nguyen, Vietnam. Intl. J. Plant Soil Sci., 7(6): 357-361.
Walkley, A. and Black, A.I. (1934). Soil and plant analysis. Hans Publications, Bombay, India.
This work is licensed under Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) © Author (s)
