EFFECT OF PLANT GROWTH REGULATOR ON GROWTH AND FRUIT YIELD OF BRINJAL

J. KROPI¹, B.P. GAUTAM², A. PHONGLOSA³*, C.D. KALITA^4
1Department of Horticulture, Biswanath College of Agriculture, Assam Agricultural University, Biswanath Chariali, Sonitpur, Assam,784176, India
²Department of Horticulture, Biswanath College of Agriculture, Assam Agricultural University, Biswanath Chariali, Sonitpur, Assam,784176, India
³Directorate of Extension Education, Odisha University of Agriculture and Technology, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, 751003, India
⁴Assistant Agricultural Information Officer, Diphu, Karbi Anglong, Assam ,782460, India
* Corresponding Author : soilamit12@rediffmail.com

Received : 20-09-2018     Accepted : 26-09-2018     Published : 30-09-2018
Volume : 10     Issue : 18       Pages : 7199 - 7201
Int J Agr Sci 10.18 (2018):7199-7201

Keywords : Brinjal, Plant Growth Regulator, Growth, Fruit yield
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : Authors thankful to Assam Agricultural University, Biswanath Charliali, Sonitpur, 784176, India for financial & logistic support
Author Contribution : All author equally contributed

The experiment was carried out in the Instructional cum Research Farm, Department of Horticulture, Biswanath College of Agriculture (AAU) Biswanath Chariali, Sonitpur district of Assam during 2014-15 in order to study the effect of plant growth regulators on growth and fruit yield of brinjal (Solanum melongena L.) cv. JC -1. The experiment was laid out in a Randomized Block Design with three replications accommodating ten treatments in each replication. The details of treatment comprised of GA3 (25, 50 and 100 ppm), IAA (25, 50 and 100 ppm), NAA (25, 50 and 100 ppm) and control (distilled water). During the period of investigation the growth regulators showed significant response on morphological, Physiological and yield attributing characters of brinjal. The result revealed that morphological characters with respect to plant height (93.70 cm), number of leaves per plant (53.10) and number of branches per plant (6.90) were significantly improved by GA3 treatment at 100 ppm (T3). The maximum leaf area index (2.82) was recorded under GA3 at100 ppm (T3) while GA3 at 50 ppm (T2) recorded the highest (802.40 g) total dry weight per plant at harvest. However, the highest leaf chlorophyll content index (44.50) was recorded under treatment with NAA at 50 ppm (T8). The treatment with GA3 at 50 ppm (T2) exhibited significantly higher total number of flower per plant (38.49), number of fruit per plant (18.56) and fruit yield (1.58 kg/plant and 377 q/ha). It may be concluded from the experiments that GA3 proved to be the best in improving the morphological, physiological and yield attributing parameters in brinjal.

1. Kaur S., Bal S.S., Singh G., Sidhu A.S. and Dhillon T.S. (2004) Acta Hort. 659, 345-350.
2. Bhatia K.H., Kausar N., Rashid U., Hussain K., Nawaz K. and Hussain Siddiqi E. (2013) World Appl. Sci. J., 26, 302-311.
3. Gopalan C., RamaSastri B.V. and Balasubramanian S.(2007) Nutritive Value of Indian Foods, published by National Institute of Nutrition (NIN), ICMR
4. Panse V.G. and Sukhatme P.V. (1985) Statistical Methods for Agriculture Workers. ICAR, New Delhi, 14-33.
5. Netesh N., Vyakaranahal B.S., Gouda M.S and Deshpande V.K. (2005) Karnataka J. Agric. Sci., 18, 36-38.
6. Khan M.M.A., Gautam C., Siddiqui Md. M.H.S.F., Naeem M. and Khan M.N. (2006) Turk. J. Bot., 30, 11-16.
7. Uddain J., Hossain A.K.M., Mostafa M.G. and Rahman M.J. (2009) Intl. J. Sustain. Agric., 1, 58-63.
8. Choudhury S., Islam. N., Sarkar M.D. and Ali M.A. (2013) Intl. J. Sustain. Agric., 5, 25-28.
9. Fawzy Z.F., El-Bassiony M., El-Nemr M.A and El-DesuKi, M. (2011) J. Appl. Sci.., 7, 2047-2055.
10. Ayyub C.M., Manan A., Pervez M.A., Ashraf M.I., Afzal M., Ahmed S., Rehman S., Jahangir M.M., Anwar N. and Shabeen M.R. (2013) African.J. Agric. Res., 8, 3299-3302.
11. Kumar A., Biswas T.K., Singh N. And Lal E.P. (2014) J. Agri. Vet. Sci., 7, 28-30.
12. Rahman S., Islam N., Tahar Md. A. And Abdul Karim M (2004) Pak. J. Biol. Sci.,7, 1851-1857.
13. Hoque M. and Haque S. (2002) Pak. J. Biol. Sci., 5, 401-403.
14. Chatterjee R. and Choudhuri P. (2012) J. Crop and weed, 8, 158-159.
15. Ramesh R. and Ramprasad E. (2013) Helix, 6, 441-447.
16. Prasad R.N., Singh S.K., Yadava R.B. and Chaurasia S.N.S. (2013) Veg. Sci., 40, 195-197.
17. Rajesh K., Reddy S., Reddy A.P.K. and Singh B.G. (2014) Intl. J. Develop. Res., 4, 1110-1112.
18. Hidayatullah T., Mahmood Farooq M., Khokhar M.A. and Hussain S.I. (2012) Pak. J. Agric., 25, 50-54.
19. Akand H., Khairul Mazed H.E.M., Pulok Md. A.I., Chowdhury Md., Shah. N. and Moonmoon J.F. (2015) Intl. J. Appl. Res., 1, 71-74.