Evaluation Fruit Physical and Yield Parameters of Different Mango (Mangifera indica L.) Varieties under High Density Planting System

Evaluation Fruit Physical and Yield Parameters of Different Mango (Mangifera indica L.) Varieties under High Density Planting System

Kavitha. R^* , Nataraja. K. H , Naik. N

Department of Fruit Science, Kittur Rani Channamma College of Horticulture, University of Horticultural Sciences Bagalkot, Karnataka, India

Corresponding Author Email: kavithagr25@gmail.com

DOI : http://dx.doi.org/10.53709/CHE.2018.v04s05.0024

Abstract

Keywords

Download this article as:

INTRODUCTION

Mango (Mangifera indica L.) is one of the India’s most important fruit crop and it belongs to Anacardiaceae family, which includes 75 genera and 700 species [1-4]. The origin and the center of diversity of this genus is mainly Southeast Asia. It is the most important species of this genus and is currently grown throughout the tropical regions of the world. Internationally it is recognized as the ambassador fruit of India and because of delicious taste, excellent flavor, attractive fragrance, religious and medicinal importance of the plant it is considered to be the “King of fruits” and “National Fruit of India”. It is also rich in vitamin A and C. The High density planting (HDP) system is an intensive system of fruit production that is extremely important for the food and nutritional security of the world’s growing population. It is one of the most cutting-edge ideas for increasing productivity without compromising fruit quality. Fruit crops such as mango [5-7] and citrus [8] have been successfully implicated in this planting system since it results in grater exploitation of natural resources. HDP gives earlier production, improved return per unit area, easy harvesting, eco-friendly and allows for effective use of land, resources such as light, water and fertilizers, as well as efficient pesticides application. Plant response to planting density is influenced by internal plant characteristics such as rootstock, canopy age, vigour and extrinsic factors such as soil and climate [9-12]. One of the prerequisites for effective mango production is the evaluation of mango varieties for specific conditions under high density planting system. This research will aid in identifying the suitability of variety for growing under HDP system among the varieties under study.

Materials and Methods

The experiment was undertaken at Kittur Rani Channamma College of Horticulture, Arabhavi (Belagavi), University of Horticultural Sciences, Bagalkot (Karnataka), India during June – 2017 to May – 2018 to evaluate the performance of different mango varieties for fruit physical and yield parameters under high density planting. Arabhavi is situated in Northern dry tract of Karnataka state at 16°15′ North latitude and 74°45′ East longitude and at an altitude of 612.03 m above the mean sea level. The orchard was established during 2013 and the grafted mango varieties viz., Alphonso (T₁), Amrapali (T₂), Kesar (T₃), Mallika (T₄) and Totapuri (T₅) were planted at 3.0 m × 2.0 m spacing in black deep soil with drip irrigation. The experiment was laid out in Randomized Block Design (RBD) with six replications. Five matured fruits from each replication of each treatment were collected and were used to record the different physical parameters of fruit after harvesting at physiological maturity (Fig. 1). Length and width of fruit and stone were measured by using the digital vernier calipers. Matured fruits were weighed and stone weight was measured after separation from the ripe fruit. The fruit volume was determined by the conventional water displacement method and expressed in cubic centimeter. Pulp and peel was extracted from the ripe fruit and weighed with the help of digital balance expressed in gram. Pulp to peel and pulp to stone ratio was calculated by dividing pulp weight by the peel weight and pulp weight to the stone weight respectively. Yield parameters viz., number of fruits/plant, fruit yield (kg/plant) and fruit yield per hectare were recorded at harvest.

Figure 1. Fruits of different mango varieties under high density planting

RESULTS

Physical parameters of fruits

 It is evident from the Table 1. that among the different mango varieties Mallika recorded maximum in terms of fruit weight (386.00 g), fruit length (13.38 cm), fruit breadth (7.92 cm), fruit volume (383.00 cc), pulp weight (200.33 g), stone length (12.06 cm), stone width (4.77 cm), stone weight (32.19 g), ratios of pulp to peel (6.35) and pulp to stone (6.23). The minimum fruit length (8.47 cm) was recorded in Alphonso. The minimum fruit width was recorded in Amrapali (5.38 cm). The other varieties had fruits that were of medium length and width. The maximum fruit volume was recorded in Mallika. The minimum fruit volume was recorded in Amrapali as the size and weight was less when compared to other varieties. The pulp weight was recorded maximum in Mallika and minimum pulp weight was recorded in Amrapali (55.43 g). The minimum peel weight was recorded in Amrapali (19.87 g). The variety Totapuri recorded maximum peel weight (42.68 g. The stone length was found minimum in Alphonso (6.72 cm) and was recorded maximum in Mallika. The minimum stone width (3.01 cm) and stone weight (20.04 g) were recorded in the variety Amrapali. The stone width and stone weight were recorded maximum in Mallika. The maximum pulp to peel ratio (6.35) and pulp to stone ratio (6.23) were recorded in Mallika and the minimum pulp to peel ratio (2.83) and pulp to stone ratio (2.79) were recorded in Amrapali.

     Table 1 Fruit physical parameters of different mango varieties under high density planting system

Treatment	Length (cm)	Width (cm)	Weight (g)	Volume (cc)	Pulp weight (g)	Peel weight (g)	Stone length (cm)	Stone width (cm)	Stone weight (g)	Pulp to peel ratio	Pulp to stone ratio
T1	8.47	6.64	198.67	196.83	116.78	33.27	6.72	3.74	30.68	3.53	3.82
T2	8.71	5.38	124.67	115.83	55.43	19.87	7.23	3.01	20.04	2.83	2.79
T3	9.15	6.16	188.67	196.67	94.96	28.24	7.91	3.38	29.32	3.36	3.25
T4	13.38	7.92	386.00	383.00	200.33	31.56	12.06	4.77	32.19	6.35	6.23
T5	12.85	7.00	268.00	285.17	135.09	42.68	11.33	3.80	29.67	3.19	4.58
SEm ±	0.30	0.08	11.39	12.74	6.14	1.19	0.19	0.06	0.55	0.20	0.22
CD @ 5%	0.87	0.23	33.61	37.58	18.11	3.52	0.56	0.17	1.63	0.59	0.64
CV (%)	6.91	2.93	11.97	13.25	12.48	9.39	5.10	3.77	4.78	12.77	12.82

Yield parameters

In the present study the number of fruit harvested per plant, fruit yield per tree and tons per hectare showed significant difference among the varieties (Table 2) and (Fig.2). More number of fruits per tree and high yield are the prime factors to be considered in any varietal evaluation. The maximum number of fruits per plant was recorded in Kesar (48.10) and minimum count of fruits per plant was recorded in Mallika (26.29). The fruit yield on weight basis per plant and yield per hectare was recorded maximum in Mallika (10.15 kg/plant and 16.91 t/ha) and it is due to less number of fruits per plant increases the size and is also due to genetic makeup of the plant. The minimum fruit yield per plant and yield per hectare was recorded in Amrapali (4.97 kg/plant and 8.28 t/ha respectively.

DISCUSSION

Physical parameters of fruits

 The variety Mallika recorded the maximum fruit size (length and width) and weight as this variety recorded minimum number of fruits per plant. The fruit size and weight are much dependent on the number of fruits per panicle per plant because, carbohydrate accumulation decreases with increased number of fruits per plant as the developing fruits act as sink and available carbohydrate is distributed among the fruits. This observation corroborated the findings of [13-15]. The minimum fruit length was recorded in Alphonso. These observations were similar to the findings of [16-18]. The minimum fruit width and weight was recorded in Amrapali. The result was supported by the findings of [19-21]. The other varieties had fruits that were of medium length and width. Variation in fruit length and breadth among cultivars could be due to changes in geographical location or underlying genetic variances. The findings of the current study are likewise consistent with those of Kher and Sharma, 2002, who found that mango cultivars differed in fruit length and breadth depending on their genetic composition. The fruit size is positively related to fruit weight, the maximum fruit size was recorded in Mallika which increased the fruit volume. This result corroborated with the findings of [22-23]. The minimum fruit volume was recorded in Amrapali as the size and weight was less when compared to other varieties. Similar results were recorded by [24]. The highest fruit size, weight and volume was recorded in Mallika because the number of fruits per panicle which increased the carbohydrate accumulation among the fruits and the reduced size, weight and volume in Amrapali might be due to the fact that it has produced more number of fruits per panicle than other varieties, which may be have led to high competition for assimilate during fruit development. The volume of the fruit is directly proportional to the size of fruits and it is a purely varietal character which is influenced by environment and location. [25-26] reported that the fruit weight has highly significant and positive correlations with the fruit length, fruit breadth, fruit volume and stone length in mango. [27-28] reported that the fruit size is governed by polygenes in mango. The different parameters like cell size, lactiferous canals, intercellular space leads to difference in fruit size of different mango varieties. The variation in the physical parameters could be attributed to the varietal traits and trait response to varied environmental conditions.

   Table 1 Fruit physical parameters of different mango varieties under high density planting system

Treatment	Length (cm)	Width (cm)	Weight (g)	Volume (cc)	Pulp weight (g)	Peel weight (g)	Stone length (cm)	Stone width (cm)	Stone weight (g)	Pulp to peel ratio	Pulp to stone ratio
T1	8.47	6.64	198.67	196.83	116.78	33.27	6.72	3.74	30.68	3.53	3.82
T2	8.71	5.38	124.67	115.83	55.43	19.87	7.23	3.01	20.04	2.83	2.79
T3	9.15	6.16	188.67	196.67	94.96	28.24	7.91	3.38	29.32	3.36	3.25
T4	13.38	7.92	386.00	383.00	200.33	31.56	12.06	4.77	32.19	6.35	6.23
T5	12.85	7.00	268.00	285.17	135.09	42.68	11.33	3.80	29.67	3.19	4.58
SEm ±	0.30	0.08	11.39	12.74	6.14	1.19	0.19	0.06	0.55	0.20	0.22
CD @ 5%	0.87	0.23	33.61	37.58	18.11	3.52	0.56	0.17	1.63	0.59	0.64
CV (%)	6.91	2.93	11.97	13.25	12.48	9.39	5.10	3.77	4.78	12.77	12.82

Yield parameters

In any varietal evaluation number of fruits per tree and high yield are the prime factors to be considered. Variation in the yield of fruits in different cultivars might be due to the inherent variation in the absorption and translocation of photosynthates and plant hormones, fruit set, fruit retention, tree size and leaf area of an individual variety. The maximum number of fruits per plant was recorded in Kesar and similar results were obtained by [29]. The minimum count of fruits per plant was recorded in Mallika which was in line with the findings of Singh et al. (2014). Higher number of fruit per plant may be due to enhanced number of panicles per branch, higher net photosynthetic rate. The fruit yield on weight basis per plant and yield per hectare was recorded maximum in Mallika due to less number of fruits per plant which increased the size and is also due to genetic makeup of the plant. The result was in line with the findings of [30-32]. The minimum fruit yield per plant and yield per hectare was recorded in Amrapali that corroborated with the findings of [33]. The increase in the yield in terms of weight might be either due to large sized fruits or due to number of fruits per plant. The variation among the varieties may be due to varietal differences. The findings of the study are supported by the idea that yield is highly variable factor depending upon the cultivar, climatic conditions, incidence of pest and diseases. Majority of the workers opined that the yield potential was varietal character.

Table 2 Yield parameters of different mango varieties under high density planting system

Treatments	No of fruits/plant	Fruit yield (kg/plant)	Fruit yield (t/ha)
T1 – Alphonso	33.07	6.55	10.91
T2 – Amrapali	40.05	4.97	8.28
T3 – Kesar	48.10	9.04	15.07
T4 – Mallika	26.29	10.15	16.91
T5 – Totapuri	31.15	8.35	13.91
SEm ±	2.10	0.51	0.85
CD @ 5%	6.20	1.50	2.50
CV (%)	14.41	15.93	15.93

Figure 2. Different mango varieties under high density planting

CONCLUSION

Based on the findings of the present study it can be deduced that, among the different varieties evaluated Mallika has recorded maximum fruit weight, fruit length, fruit breadth, fruit volume, pulp to peel ratio and pulp to stone ratio with highest fruit yield. Hence, Mallika is suitable for growing under high density planting system.

REFERENCES

• Chanana, Y. R., Josan, J. S. and Arora, P. K. (2005). Evaluation of some mango cultivars under North Indian conditions. In: International conference on Mango and Date Palm: Culture and Export, held at University of Agriculture, Faisalabad. pp. 34-38.
• Das, S. C. (2013). Status and performance of different mango varieties and hybrids under climatic condition of Tripura. Asian Journal of Horticulture, 8, 572-576.
• Dangi, K. K., Singh. A. K., Varan, R. and Jain, V. K. (2017). Characterization of different mango cultivars for fruit set and yield. Indian Journal of Ecology,44,751-754.
• Gunjate, R. T., Kumbhar, A. R., Thimaiah, I. M. and Amin,S. M. (2009). Growth and fruiting of some mango cultivars under high density plantation in arid conditions of Gujarat (India).  Acta Horticulture, 820, 403-406.
• Goswami, A. M., Saxena, S. R. and Kurein. (1993). High density planting in citrus. Advances in Horticultre,2, 645-648.
• Hada, T. S. and Singh, A. K. (2018). Evaluation of mango (Mangifera indica L.) cultivars for physical characteristics and quality parameters of fruit under Indo-gangetic plains. International Journal of Chemical Studies,6, 2560-2563.
• Kher, R. and Sharma, R. M. (2002). Performance of some mango cultivars under sub-tropical rain-fed region of Jammu. Haryana Journal of Horticultural Science, 31, 8-10.
• Kumar, A. (2003). Studies on phenotypic and physico-chemical characteristics on mango hybrids (Mangifera indica L.). Ph.D Thesis, Birsa Agricultural University, Ranchi (Jharkhand, India).
• Kumar, K. R. (2009). Evaluation of mango (Mangifera indica L.) varieties for growth, yield and quality under coastal zone of Karnataka. M.Sc. Thesis,University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore.
• Kumar, R. (2000). Analysis of fruit weight components in mango. Orissa Journal of Horticulture, 28, 70-72.
• Kumar, R. and SINGH, S. (2005). Evaluation of mango genotypes for flowering, fruiting and fruit quality attributes. Orissa Journal of Horticulture, 33, 77-79.
• Lizada, C. (1993). In: Mango, Seymour, G. B., Taylor, J. E. and Tucker, G. A. (eds). Biochemistry of fruit ripening. Chapman and Hall, London, pp 255-271.
• Santharam. (1993). High density planting in mango. Advances in Horticulture, Fruit Crops,2, 641-644.
• Sarkar, S. K., Gautam, B., Neeraja. and Vijaya, N. (2001). Evaluation of mango hybrids under Telangana region of Andhra Pradesh. Horticultre Journal, 14, 13-21.
• Sathiamoorty, S. and Mustaffa, M. M. (2001). High density planting system in banana planting – An overview. South Indian Horticulture, 49, 6-12.
• Singh, R., Manav, K. M. and Sharma, A. (2014). Effect of weather parameters (Abiotic factors) on flowering fruiting and quality behavior of mango cultivars. ‎International Journal of Environmental Research, 5, 103-109.
• Singh, S. K., Singh, S. K. and Sharma, R. R. (2010). Pruning alters fruit quality of mango cultivars (Mangifera indica L.) under high density planting. Journal of Tropical Agriculture,48, 55–57.
• Yamakura, T., Hosomi, A. and Hirayama, D. (2008). Effect of tree spacing on vegetative growth and reproduction in an early growth stage in two cultivars of fig (Ficus carica L.). Japanese Society for Horticultural Science, 77, 7-16.
• Asrey, R., Patel, V. B., Barman, K., & Pal, R. K. (2013). Pruning affects fruit yield and postharvest quality in mango (Mangifera indica L.) cv. Amrapali. Fruits, 68(5), 367-380.
• Rajbhar, Y. P., Singh, S. D., Lal, M., Singh, G., & Rawat, P. L. (2016). Performance of high density planting of mango (Mangifera indica L.) under mid-western plain zone of Uttar Pradesh. Annals of Horticulture, 9(1), 114-116.
• Yadav, S. K., Homa, F., Prasad, R., & Kumar, P. (2013). Fruit Quality of Different Mango (Mangifera indica L.) Cultivars Grown in the Foothills of Shiwaliks. Journal of Postharvest Technology, 1(01), 97-103.
• Gajera, H. P., Bambharolia, R. P., Domadiya, R. K., Patel, S. V., & Golakiya, B. A. (2014). Molecular characterization and genetic variability studies associated with fruit quality of indigenous mango (Mangifera indica L.) cultivars. Plant Systematics and Evolution, 300(5), 1011-1020.
• Singh, Y., Prakash, S., Prakas, O., & Kumar, D. (2017). Effect of integrated nutrient management on fruit yield and quality of Amrapali mango (Mangifera indica L.) under high density planting. International Journal of Pure and Applied Bioscience, 5(3), 6773.
• Pramod, K., Joshi, A. K., & Chauhan, V. K. (2018). Stem pruning severities affect growth, physiological and quality consequences in high density planting system of mango (Mangifera indica) in Shiwalik foothills. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 88(2), 296-306.
• Spreer, W., Nagle, M., Neidhart, S., Carle, R., Ongprasert, S., & Müller, J. (2007). Effect of regulated deficit irrigation and partial rootzone drying on the quality of mango fruits (Mangifera indica L., cv.‘Chok Anan’). Agricultural water management, 88(1-3), 173-180.
• da Silva, A. C., de Souza, A. P., Leonel, S., de Souza, M. E., Ramos, D. P., & Tanaka, A. A. (2014). Growth and flowering of five mango cultivar under subtropics conditions of Brazil. American Journal of Plant Sciences, 2014.
• Krishna, H., & Singh, S. K. (2007). Biotechnological advances in mango (Mangifera indica L.) and their future implication in crop improvement—a review. Biotechnology Advances, 25(3), 223-243.
• I Saad, R., Said, G. A., & Abdalla, M. Y. (2007). Evaluation of mango trees production grown between date palms. Alexandria Science Exchange Journal, 28(JANUARY-MARCH), 25-35.
• Kumar, K., Adak, T., Singha, A., Shukla, S. K., & Singh, V. (2012). Appraisal of soil fertility, leaf nutrient concentration and yield of mango (Mangifera indica L.) at Malihabad region, Uttar Pradesh. Current Advances in Agricultural Sciences (An International Journal), 4(1), 13-19.
• Moreno, M., Castell‐Perez, M. E., Gomes, C., Da Silva, P. F., & Moreira, R. G. (2006). Effects of electron beam irradiation on physical, textural, and microstructural properties of “Tommy Atkins” mangoes (Mangifera indica L.). Journal of food science, 71(2), E80-E86.
• Singh, R., Singh, R., & Gurjar, P. S. (2011). Varietal performance of mango (Mangifera indica L.) in terms of physico-chemical and yield attributing characters in vindhya region of Madhya Pradesh. Progressive Horticulture, 43(1), 83-88.
• Sinha, R., Jaiswal, U. S., Ahmad, M. F., Mishra, P. K., & Sinha, S. (2017). Elemental accumulation in mango (Mangifera indica L.) as a function of maturity stage and variety. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 40(13), 1805-1815.
• Santhirasegaram, V., Razali, Z., & Somasundram, C. (2013). Effects of thermal treatment and sonication on quality attributes of Chokanan mango (Mangifera indica L.) juice. Ultrasonics sonochemistry, 20(5), 1276-1282.