Indian Journal of Agricultural Research

  • Chief EditorV. Geethalakshmi

  • Print ISSN 0367-8245

  • Online ISSN 0976-058X

  • NAAS Rating 5.60

  • SJR 0.293

Frequency :
Bi-monthly (February, April, June, August, October and December)
Indexing Services :
BIOSIS Preview, ISI Citation Index, Biological Abstracts, Elsevier (Scopus and Embase), AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Submit

Full Research Article

Indian Journal of Agricultural Research, volume 58 issue 4 (august 2024) : 676-680

Effect of Spacing, Nutrition and Their Interaction on Growth and Yield of Nerium (Nerium oleander L.) cv. Pink Single

B.S. Manjula 1,2,*, Balaji S. Kulkarni1, P.M. Munikrishnappa1
1Department of Floriculture and Landscape Architecture, College of Horticulture, Bengaluru-560 065, Karnataka, India.
2Department of Agriculture, School of Agricultural Sciences, Karunya Institute of Technology and Sciences, Coimbatore-641 114, Tami Nadu, india.
Cite article:- Manjula B.S., Kulkarni S. Balaji, Munikrishnappa P.M. (2024). Effect of Spacing, Nutrition and Their Interaction on Growth and Yield of Nerium (Nerium oleander L.) cv. Pink Single . Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 58(4): 676-680. doi: 10.18805/IJARe.A-6037.

ABSTRACT

Background: Commercial cultivation of a crop needs improved agro techniques, such as optimum plant density, application of a required quantity of manures and fertilizers, etc. As such, for nerium cultivation no specific recommendations are available on spacing and nutrition requirements and majority of growers are practicing varied spacing with different nutritional levels. Optimum spacing helps not only in obtaining increased production of better quality but also in the proper utilization of land and other inputs. Excess use of fertilizers may result in wastage of resources apart from damage to plant, soil and environment, whereas, undernutrition leads to low production and poor-quality flowers. The current study aimed to standardize optimum plant spacing and nutrition for commercial production of Nerium.

Methods: This field investigation was started in 2018 and carried out up to 2019. The planting materials were planted at the College of Horticulture-Bengaluru with three levels of spacing combined with four levels of nutrition using a factorial randomized complete block design.

Result: The effect of spacing, nutrition and interaction studies of Nerium genotype ‘Pink Single’ for various growth and yield parameters showed significant differences for the growth and yield parameters studied. Among the interaction of different levels of spacing and nutrition, yield/hectare was higher (14.43 t) in S2F1 (1.2 m × 1.2 m, 5 kg FYM/plant + 90:180:180 g NPK/plant).

INTRODUCTION

Nerium (Nerium oleander L.) belongs to the family Apocynaceae and is native to the Mediterranean region extending to subtropical Asia, but is now well distributed in all the tropical and subtropical countries. Nerium is a perennial shrub; plants are easily propagated by cuttings or by layering and can be kept bushy and handsome by regular pruning after the flowering season is over. Nerium, flowers throughout the year, but are at their best during summer. Flesh Pink Single, Pink Double, Deep Rose, White Single and Deep Rosy Red flowers are common in both their single and double forms.

The successful cultivation of any crop is influenced by various factors, one such is the response of the crop to various agro techniques like different levels of spacing and nutrition. These things not only will help in obtaining production but also in proper utilization of land and other inputs (Bharadwaj and Kumar, 2001). However, no specific recommendations are available on spacing and nutrition requirements for the commercial cultivation of Nerium. Therefore, the present research is an attempt to bridge this knowledge gap in order to study the effects of different spacing levels and nutrition on the growth and yield of the Nerium genotype ‘Pink single’ to help the Nerium growing farming community.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The planting material for spacing and nutritional studies, the ‘Pink Single’ genotype was procured from Krishnendra nursery located at Siddapura, Lalbagh, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India. The plant materials were planted at the College of Horticulture-Bengaluru with three levels of spacing i.e., S1: 0.9 m × 0.9 m, S2: 1.2 m × 1.2 m and S3: 1.5 m × 1.5 m also combined with four levels of nutrition i.e., F0: 5 kg FYM, F1: 5 kg FYM + 90:180:180 g NPK/plant, F2: 5 kg FYM + 120: 240: 240 g NPK/plant and F3: 5 kg FYM + 150: 300: 300 g NPK/plant. The experiment was started in the year 2018 and carried out up to 2019 with a factorial randomized complete block design. Observations were recorded on five randomly selected plants in each replication for all the growth and yield traits such as plant height, plant spread, number of branches, chlorophyll estimation, flower yield per plant and flower yield per hectare. For growth parameters, observations were recorded at 2 months interval from the date of planting until 300 DAP (Days after planting). Here results are provided for 300 DAP. Chlorophyll estimation was conducted at 300 DAP and yield data was recorded from 2018 to 2019.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The data on growth and yield parameters are presented in the table (Table 1-3). There are significant differences in the parameters discussed in this paper.

Table 1: Growth and yield parameters in Nerium cv. ‘Pink Single’ as influenced by various levels of spacing.



Table 2: Growth and yield parameters in Nerium cv. ‘Pink Single’ as influenced by various levels of nutrition.



Table 3: Growth and yield parameters in Nerium cv.‘Pink Single’ as influenced by interaction of various levels of spacing and nutrition.


 
Plant height as influenced by spacing, nutrition and their interaction
 
At 300 DAP, among spacing levels, plant height was higher (128.16 cm) in S1 (90 cm × 90 cm), which was on par with S2 (1.2 m × 1.2 m) with 128.08 cm and the least plant height (125.77 cm) was recorded in S3 (1.5 m × 1.5 m). More plant height at closer spacing might be due to heavy competition between plants for light, which resulted in elongation of the main stem and also might be due to the fact that the plants tend to grow vertically when they are crowded owing to the shadowing effect of the plants on one another. Results are in conformity with the findings of Balachandra et al., (2004) in ageratum, Srivastava et al., (2005) in marigold and in rice Uddin et al., (2010). Among nutrition levels, the highest plant height (133.94 cm) was recorded when plants were supplemented with 5 kg FYM/plant along with 90: 180: 180 g NPK/plant (F1), which was on par (128.56 cm height) with F2 (5 kg FYM/plant + 120: 240: 240 g NPK/plant). The least plant height (122.87 cm) was recorded in F0 (5 kg FYM/plant). The reason behind this, might be due to better availability of nutrients leading to quick and better vegetative growth i.e., nitrogen along with phosphorous and potassium help to build vegetative growth by forming healthy roots and stems. The result is in accordance with the findings of Aboyeji and Babalola (2013) in Thevetia peruviana J. and Atta et al., (2010) in roselle. Among interactions, highest plant height (138.00 cm) was recorded in S1F1 (90 cm × 90 cm + 5 kg FYM/plant with 90: 180: 180 g NPK/plant), which was followed by S1F2 (90 cm × 90 cm + 5 kg FYM/plant with 120: 240: 240 g NPK/plant) and S1F0 (90 cm × 90 cm + 5 kg FYM/plant) with the values of 131.50 cm and 132.33 cm respectively. Least plant height (119.00 cm) was recorded in S2F0 (1.2 m × 1.2 m + 5 kg FYM/plant). This might be due to high competition for nutrient levels, light intensity and temperature in the plants planted at closer spacing, a similar trend was reported by Viradia and Singh (2004) in rose.
 
Plant spread as influenced by spacing, nutrition and their interaction
 
At 300 DAP, among spacing levels, plant spread was higher (3025.00 cm2) in S2 (1.2 m × 1.2 m), which was followed by S3 (1.5 m × 1.5 m) with 2767.50 cm2 and the least plant spread (2731.00 cm2) was recorded in S1 (90 cm × 90 cm). This may have been due to the fact that the optimum quantum of light intensity has reached this level compared to closer spacing. These observations were in conformity with the results of Singh and Dadlani (1988) and Sujatha and Singh (2003) in rose. Among nutrition levels, the highest plant spread (3117.78 cm2) was recorded when plants were supplemented with 5 kg FYM/plant along with 90: 180: 180 g NPK/plant (F1), which was followed by 2974.56 cm2 in F3 (5 kg FYM/plant + 150: 300: 300 g NPK/plant). The least plant spread (2394.44 cm2) was recorded in F0 (5 kg FYM/plant). This result was similar to the findings of Anamika and Lavanya (1990) in rose. This might be due to better availability of nutrients leading to quick and better vegetative growth. Among interactions, highest plant spread (4050.00 cm2) was recorded in S2F1 (1.2 m × 1.2 m + 5 kg FYM/plant with 90: 180: 180 g NPK/plant), which was followed by S2F2 (1.2 m ×1.2 m + 5 kg FYM/) with 3166.67 cm2. Least plant spread (2100.00 cm2) was recorded in S1F0 (90 cm × 90 cm + 5 kg FYM/plant).
 
Number of branches as influenced by spacing, nutrition and their interaction
 
At 300 DAP, among the spacing treatments, the number of branches was maximum (39.41) in S2 while minimum (35.75) was noticed in S1. This may be due to the fact that the optimum quantum of light intensity has reached this level compared to closer spacing. Among the nutrient levels, the number of branches was higher (40.89) in F1, while the lowest (31.22) was noticed in F0 at 300 DAP. Increase in the number of branches per plant might be due to stimulation of growth by the nutrient application. Similar results were obtained by Singh et al., (2004). These results were in line with the findings of Girase et al., (1976) and Bhattacharjee (1988) in rose. Among the interactions, the maximum number of branches was (49.67) recorded in S2F1, while the minimum (29.33) was recorded in S1F0. The wider availability of space creates less competition among the plants and might encourage the growth of more roots and shoots with better utilization of nutrients by them. The wider spacing also leads to more compact growth, with less internodal length and more number of branches compared to the plants grown under a closer spacing regime. These results were in accordance with the findings of Sunitha et al., (2007) and Singh et al., (2008) in marigold.
 
Chlorophyll content as influenced by spacing, nutrition and their interaction
 
Spacing influenced significantly the chlorophyll content at the grand growth stage. Among various levels of spacing, chlorophyll content was higher (1.18 mg/g) in S2 (1.2 m × 1.2 m), which was on par with S3 (1.5 m × 1.5 m) with 1.14 mg/g and the least chlorophyll content was recorded in S1 (90 cm × 90 cm) with 1.11 mg/g. Among various levels of nutrition, chlorophyll content was higher (1.39 mg/g) in F3 (5 kg FYM + 150:300:300 g NPK/plant), which was on par with F1 (5 kg FYM + 90: 180: 180 g NPK/plant) with 1.37 mg/g. The least chlorophyll content was recorded in F0 (5 kg FYM/plant) with 0.81 mg/g). This may be due to optimum nitrogen application and its availability to a greater extent for the uptake of nitrogen by the plants. Phosphorus might have increased the uptake of nitrogen by the plants due to which the chlorophyll content increased. Similar findings were also reported by Girish (2006) in heliconia.

Yield parameters were significantly influenced by different levels of spacing, nutrition and interactions (Table 1-3).
 
Yield per plant as influenced by spacing, nutrition and their interaction
 
Among various levels of spacing, yield/plant was higher (1.34 kg) in S2 (1.2 m × 1.2 m), which was on par with S3 (1.5 m × 1.5 m) with 1.26 kg. The least (1.22 kg) yield/plant was recorded in S1 (90 cm × 90 cm). Higher flowering in wider spacing may be due to optimum growth parameters viz., plant spread, number of branches, leaf length, leaf width, chlorophyll content and leaf area which helped in the production of more photosynthates resulting in greater accumulation of dry matter which in turn directly or indirectly leads to the production of more flower yield. These observations are in conformity with the results obtained for roses by Bhattacharya et al., (2000) and Nagaraju et al., (2003) and in cluster bean by Deka et al., 2015. Among various levels of nutrition, yield/plant was higher (1.67 kg) in F1 (5 kg FYM/plant with 90:180:180 g NPK/plant), which was followed by F2 (5 kg FYM/plant + 120: 240: 240 g NPK/plant) with 1.62 kg. The least flower yield/plant (0.76 kg) was recorded in F0 (5 kg FYM/plant). The higher flower yield per plant is due to the optimum application of nutrients. A similar trend was reported in roses by Mukesh and Chattopadhyay (2001), Nagaraju et al., (2003) and Singh et al., (2004). Among the interactions, yield/plant was higher (2.10 kg) in S2F1 (1.2 m × 1.2 m, 5 kg FYM/plant + 90:180:180 g NPK/plant), which was followed by S2F2 (1.2 m × 1.2 m, 5 kg FYM/plant + 120: 240: 240 g NPK/plant) with 2.03 kg. The least flower yield/plant was recorded in S1F0 (90 cm × 90 cm + 5 kg FYM/plant) with 0.56 kg. The trend is same as that of Hussain (2012) in rose. This might be due to efficient utilization of space, light and nutrients.
 
Yield per hectare as influenced by spacing, nutrition and their interaction
 
Among various levels of spacing, yield/hectare was higher (9.59 t) in S1 (90 cm × 90 cm, which was followed by S2 (1.2 m × 1.2 m) with 8.69 t. The least (8.26 t) yield/hectare was recorded in S3 (1.5 m × 1.5 m). Higher yield per hectare recorded at closer spacing accrued primarily due to the increased plant population, despite compromise in yield per plant. Similar results were obtained in rose by Sujatha and Singh (2003), Viradia and Singh (2004), Bhattacharya et al., (2001). Among various levels of nutrition, yield/ hectare was higher (10.19 t) in F1 (5 kg FYM/plant with 90:180:180 g NPK/plant), which was followed by F2 (5 kg FYM/plant + 120:240:240 g NPK/plant) with 9.52 t. The least flower yield/hectare (8.41) was recorded in F0 (5 kg FYM/plant). The higher flower yield per plant is due to the application of the optimum dose of nutrients. A similar trend was reported in roses by Mukesh and Chattopadhyay (2001), Nagaraju et al., (2003) and Singh et al., (2004). Among the interactions, yield/ hectare was higher (14.43 t) in S2F1 (1.2 m × 1.2 m, 5 kg FYM/plant + 90:180:180 g NPK/plant), which was followed by S2F2 (1.2 m × 1.2 m, 5 kg FYM/plant + 120:240:240 g NPK/plant) with 13.83 t. The least flower yield/plant was recorded in S3F0 (1.5 m × 1.5 m + 5 kg FYM/plant) with 2.43 t. The trend is same as that of Hussain (2012) in rose. This might be due to efficient utilization of space, light and nutrients.

CONCLUSION

Among the different levels of interaction of spacing and nutrition at 300 DAP, highest plant height (138.00 cm) was recorded in S1F1 (90 cm × 90 cm + 5 kg FYM/plant with 90: 180: 180 g NPK/plant), highest plant spread (4050.00 cm2) was recorded in S2F1 (1.2 m × 1.2 m + 5 kg FYM/plant with 90: 180: 180 g NPK/plant), the maximum number of branches was (49.67) recorded in S2F1; chlorophyll content was higher (1.39 mg/g) in F3 (5 kg FYM + 150:300:300 g NPK/plant); yield/plant was higher (1.67 kg) in F1 (5 kg FYM/plant with 90:180:180 g NPK/plant) and yield/ hectare was higher (10.19 t) in F1 (5 kg FYM/plant with 90:180:180 g NPK/plant) were noticed.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors sincerely acknowledge the Department of Floriculture and Landscape Architecture, College of Horticulture, Bengaluru for providing the facilities.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

REFERENCES


  1. Aboyeji, C.M. and Babalola, F.D. (2013). Effect of inorganic fertilizer application on growth and yield of Thevetia peruviana (pers) schum. (Yellow oleander) in the Southern Guinea savannah of Nigeria. Agrosearch. 13: 32-41.

  2. Anamika and Lavanya, M.L. (1990). Effect of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium on growth, yield and quality of rose. Haryana Journal of Horticultural Sciences. 19: 291-298.

  3. Atta, S., Sarr, B., Bakasso, Y., Diallo, A.B., Lona, I., Saadou, M. and Glew, R.H. (2010). Roselle (Hibiscus sabdariffa L.) Yield and yield components in response to nitrogen fertilization in Niger. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 44: 96-103.

  4. Balachandra, R.A., Deshpande, V.K., Shekhargouda, M. (2004). Effect of growth regulators on seed yield and quality of ageratum. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 17: 110-111.

  5. Bharadwaj and Kumar. (2001). Effect of planting time and spacing on chincherinchee. Journal of Ornamental Horticulture. 4: 98-101.

  6. Bhattacharjee, S.K. (1988). Studies on the effect of split doses of nitrogen on J. grandiflorum L. Indian Perfumer. 32: 321- 326.

  7. Bhattacharya, J., Sable, A.S., Gaikwad, A.M. (2000). Effect of plant density on growth and yield of rose cv. Gladiator. Research  on Crops. 1: 363-366.

  8. Bhattacharya, J., Sable, A.S., Gaikwad, A.M. (2001). Effect of plant density on growth and yield of rose cv. gladiator. Journal of Ornamental Horticulture. 4: 126-127.

  9. Deka, K.K., Das, M.R., Bora, P. and Mazumder, N. (2015). Effect of sowing dates and spacing on growth and yield of cluster bean (Cyamopsis tetragonoloba) in subtropical climate of Assam, India. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 49: 250-254. doi: 10.5958/0976-058X.2015.00039.6.

  10. Girase, P.D., Kamble, L.B., Deokar, A.B. (1976). Effect of nitrogen on commercial flower production. Journal of Maharashtra Agricultural Universities. 1: 148-149.

  11. Girish, J. (2006). Effect of Growing Conditions, Spacing and Nutrition on Growth, Flowering and Flower Yield of Heliconia (Heliconia sp.). M.Sc. (Hort.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, Karnataka, India. 

  12. Hussain, A. (2012). Effect of Planting Geometry and Nutrient Levels on Growth, Yield and Quality of Rose cv. Charisma. M. Sc. (Hort.) Thesis, Univ. Hort. Sci., Bagalkot, Karnataka, India. 

  13. Mukesh, K. and Chattopadhyay, T.K. (2001). Effect of N P and K on the growth and flowering of rose cv. Montezuma. Environment and Ecology. 19: 932-934.

  14. Nagaraju, C.G., Reddy, T.V., Madaiah, D. (2003). Effect of N, K and multiplex on growth, production and quality at harvest of field grown roses cultivar Gladiator. Journal of Ornamental  Horticulture. 6: 287-293.

  15. Singh, B. and Dadlani, N. K. (1988). Effect of different spacing treatments on growth and flowering in Rosa damascena. South Indian Horticulture, 36: 62-64.

  16. Singh, A.K., Kavita, K. and Shiva, J. (2004). Response of nitrogen on growth and flowering parameter in rose. Journal of Ornamental Horticulture. 7: 90-94.

  17. Singh, Y., Verma, P., Singh, J.P. (2008). Effect of NPK, spacing and MH on flower yield of African marigold. Annals of Horticulture. 11: 27-31.

  18. Srivastava, S.K., Singh, H.K., Srivastava, A.K. (2005). Spacing and pinching as factors for regulating flowering in marigold cv. Pusa Basanti Gainda. Haryana Journal of Horticultural Sciences. 34: 75-77.

  19. Sujatha, K. and Singh, K.P. (2003). Effect of spacing and pruning on rose. Journal of Ornamental Horticulture. 6: 153.

  20. Sunitha, H.M., Hunje, R., Vyakaranahal, B.S., Bablad, H.B. (2007). Effect of plant spacing and INM on yield and quality of seed and vegetative growth parameters in African marigold. Journal of Ornamental Horticulture. 10: 245-249.

  21. Uddin, M.J., Hasan, M.M., Ahmed, S. and Hasan, M. (2010). Effect of spacing on morpho-physilogical response of different t. Aman rice cultivars under coastal high land ecosystem. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 44: 251-258.

  22. Viradia, R.R. and Singh, S.P. (2004). Quality production of cut roses cv. Gladiator as influenced by nutrient, plant density and water management. Journal of Ornamental Horticulture. 7: 171-176.
Reviewed By

Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)