Effect of Shoot Pruning on Growth, Flowering and Fruiting Characteristics of Different Guava (Psidium Guajava L.) Cultivars

Figures & data

Table 1. Chemical properties of the experimental soil.

Particulars	Value	Method employed
pH	5.30	The soil pH was determined in 1:2:5 soil water suspension by using Beckmen’s pH meter (Black, 1965)
Organic carbon (%)	0.93	Walkley and Black’s rapid titration method (Jackson, 1973)
Available N (kgha^−1)	210.58	Alkaline; KMNO4 method developed by Subbiah and Asija (1956)
Available P (kgha^−1)	18.24	Brays' method-Bray and Kurtz, (Jackson, 1973)
Available K (kgha^−1)	110.38	Flame Photometer method (Black, 1965)

Figure 1. Effect of heading back and pinching on days taken for the emergence of vegtative buds.

Figure 2. Effect of heading back and pinching on number of primary shoot.

Figure 3. Effect of heading back and pinching on length of the primary shoots (cm).

Figure 4. Effect of heading back and pinching on fresh and dry weight of new shoots.

Figure 5. Effect of heading back and pinching on carbohydrate content (g) of new shoots.

Figure 6. Effect of heading back and pinching on sugar content (g) of new shoots.

Table 2. Effect of shoot pruning on flowering and fruiting characteristics.

Treatments	Days taken for emergence of first flower bud after pruning	Number of flowering buds	Number of flowers	Flowering percentage (%)	Number of fruit set	Fruit set percentage (%)
T1 (L-49)	230.50^ab	99.67^b	76.17^b	60.76^a	37.33^b	44.19^c
T2 (Allahabad Safeda)	228.50^ab	124.50^ab	102.50^ab	65.65^a	60.83^a	60.02^ab
T3 (Baruipur)	223.33^b	122.00^ab	102.33^ab	66.11^a	55.67^ab	54.76^bc
T4 (Doodh Khaja)	230.40^ab	132.67^a	107.17^a	63.98^a	57.83^a	57.96^abc
T5 (Kafri)	232.67^a	110.17^ab	86.67^ab	62.23^a	49.17^ab	52.54^bc
T6 (Bhagalpur)	232.17^a	110.83^ab	90.17^ab	64.30^a	54.50^ab	55.01^bc
T7 (Harichal)	234.50^a	125.17^ab	94.00^ab	60.41^a	67.33^a	73.20^a
S.Em. (±)	2.61	9.76	9.24	2.11	6.22	4.94
L.S.D (P ≤ .05)	8.06	30.08	28.48	NS	19.19	15.25

**Means with the same letter are not significantly different; values in a parenthesis are arc sine value.

Table 3. Effect of shoot pruning on fruit quality characteristics.

Treatments	Fruit weight (g)	Fruit diameter (cm)	TSS (^0B)	Reducing sugar (%)	Total sugar (%)	Ascorbic acid (mg/100 g)	Acidity (%)
T1 (L-49)	169.41^ab	5.77^c	8.73^bc	2.85^ab	7.35^b	175.22^bc	0.23^b
T2 (Allahabad Safeda)	158.25^bc	5.92^c	8.60^c	2.68^abc	7.28^bc	172.58^c	0.22^b
T3 (Baruipur)	180.83^a	6.79^a	9.60^a	2.95^a	8.41^a	185.25^a	0.28^a
T4 (Doodh Khaja)	176.25^a	6.39^b	9.00^b	2.87^ab	8.15^a	179.50^b	0.23^b
T5 (Kafri)	157.00^c	5.81^c	8.40^c	2.54^cd	7.05^bcd	165.20^d	0.21^bc
T6 (Bhagalpur)	141.41^d	5.19^d	8.00^d	2.32^d	6.83^cd	159.28^e	0.17^c
T7 (Harichal)	149.25^dc	5.32^c	8.00^d	2.62^bcd	6.73^d	165.20^d	0.18^c
S.Em. (±)	3.80	0.08	0.12	0.09	0.15	1.43	0.01
L.S.D (P ≤ .05)	11.72	0.26	0.39	0.30	0.49	4.43	0.04

**Means with the same letter are not significantly different.

Figure 7. Comparison of shoot pruning of different guava cultivars.

Black, C.A. 1965. Methods of soil analysis. Part II, Agron. Ser. No. 9. American Society of Agronomy Inc, Madison, USA.

 Google Scholar

Jackson, M.L. 1973. Soil Chemical Analysis. 2nd. Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi. p. 111–182.

 Google Scholar

Subbiah, B.V., and G.L. Asija. 1956. A raid procedure of determination of available nitrogen in soil. Current Sci 25:259–260.

 Google Scholar