INFLUENCE OF GROWTH REGULATORS ON GROWTH

PHYSIOLOGY, YIELD AND YIELD COMPONENTS IN ONION

(Allium cepa L.) GENOTYPES

Thesis submitted to the

University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE (AGRICULTURE)

IN

CROP PHYSIOLOGY

By

ROOPA B. PATIL

DEPARTMENT OF CROP PHYSIOLOGY

COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, DHARWAD
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
DHARWAD – 580 005

AUGUST, 2012
 ADVISORY COMMITTEE

DHARWAD (C. M. NAWALAGATTI)

AUGUST, 2012 MAJOR ADVISOR

Approved by :

Chairman : ____________________________
(C. M. NAWALAGATTI)

Members : 1. __________________________
(M. B. DODDAMANI)

2. __________________________
(D. S. UPPAR)

3. __________________________
(VIRUPAKSHA PRABHU)

4. __________________________
(V. B. KULIGOD)
 CONTENTS

Sl. No. Chapter Particulars

CERTIFICATE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF PLATES
1. INTRODUCTION
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1 Morpho-physiological characters
2.2 Biochemical parameters
2.3 Yield and yield components
3. MATERIAL AND METHODS
3.1 Experimental site
3.2 Climate
3.3 Soil and its characteristics
3.4 Experimental details
3.5 Cultural practices
3.6 Collection of experimental data
3.7 Statistical analysis
3.8 Economics
4. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
4.1 Morphological characters
4.2 Dry matter production
4.3 Growth analysis
4.4 Biochemical parameters
4.5 Yield and yield components
4.5 Economics
5. DISCUSSION
5.1 Morphological characters
5.2 Dry matter production and partition
5.3 Growth parameters
5.4 Biochemical parameters
5.5 Yield and yield parameters
6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES
 LIST OF TABLES
Table
Title
No.
Monthly meteorological data for the experimental year 2011 and
1 average of 60 years (1950-2010) at Main Agricultural Research
Station, UAS, Dharwad
2 Physical and chemical properties of the experimental site
3 Salient features of the growth regulators used in the experiment
Influence of plant growth regulators on plant height (cm) at different
4
growth stages in onion genotypes
Influence of plant growth regulators on number of leaves per plant at
5
different growth stages in onion genotypes
Influence of plant growth regulators on leaf dry weight (g plant -1) at
6
different growth stages in onion genotypes
-1
Influence of plant growth regulators on bulb dry weight (g plant ) at
7
different growth stages in onion genotypes
Influence of plant growth regulators on total dry weight (g plant -1) at
8
different growth stages in onion genotypes
2 -1
Influence of plant growth regulators on leaf area (cm plant ) at
9
different growth stages in onion genotypes
Influence of plant growth regulators on leaf area index (LAI) at different
10
growth stages in onion genotypes
Influence of plant growth regulators on leaf area duration (LAD, days)
11
at different growth stages in onion genotypes
Influence of plant growth regulators on absolute growth rate (AGR, g
12 plant -1 day-1) and relative growth rate (RGR, g g-1 day-1) at different
growth stages in onion genotypes
-2
Influence of plant growth regulators on crop growth rate (CGR, g cm
-1 -2 -1
13 land area day ) and net assimilation rate (NAR, g dm leaf area day )
at different growth stages in onion genotypes
-1
Influence of plant growth regulators on biomass duration (BMD, g
14
days) at different growth stages in onion genotypes
2 -1
Influence of plant growth regulators on leaf area ratio (LAR, cm g ) at
15
different growth stages in onion genotypes
Influence of plant growth regulators on specific leaf weight (SLW, mg
16 -2
cm ) at different growth stages in onion genotypes
2 -
Influence of plant growth regulators on specific leaf area (SLA, cm mg
17 1
) at different growth stages in onion genotypes
Influence of plant growth regulators on chlorophyll ‘a’ content (mg g-1
18
fr.wt) at different growth stages in onion genotypes
-1
Influence of plant growth regulators on chlorophyll ‘b’ content (mg g
19
fr.wt) at different growth stages in onion genotypes
-1
Influence of plant growth regulators on total chlorophyll content (mg g
20
fr.wt) at different growth stages in onion genotypes
Influence of plant growth regulators on nitrate reductase activity (µ mol
21 -1 -1
NO2 g fr.wt hr ) at different growth stages in onion genotypes
Influence of plant growth regulators on yield and yield components in
22
onion genotypes
Effect of growth regulators on economics of onion (Allium cepa L.)
23
genotype Arka Kalyan
 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Title
No.

1 Plan of layout of the experiment

 LIST OF PLATES

Plate
Title
No.

1 General view of experimental plot

2 Effect of growth regulators on morpho-physiological and bulb size

in onion genotype Nasik Red

3 Effect of growth regulators on morpho-physiological and bulb size in

onion genotype Arka Kalyan

4 Effect of growth regulators on size of bulbs in onion genotype Nasik

Red

5 Effect of growth regulators on size of bulbs in onion genotype Arka

Kalyan
 INTRODUCTION
India is the second largest producer of vegetables, next to China. The major
vegetables grown all over the world are tomato, brinjal, potato, onion, chillies, okra and
cucurbits. Among these, onion (Allium cepa L.) is one of the most important commercial
vegetable crops in India. It is mainly used as condiment cum bulb vegetable. The aroma and
pungency is due to a sulphur constituted volatile oil known as “allyl propyl disulphide”.
In India, onion is grown in an area of 1.02 million ha with a production of 14.82 m
-1
tonnes and productivity is 14.61t ha (Anon., 2011). The prominent growing states in India
are Maharashtra, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, Orissa, Karnataka, Tamilnadu & Andra Pradesh. In
Karnataka, it occupies an area of 0.15 m ha with the production of 2.38 m tones and
-1
productivity of 16.05 t ha (Anon., 2011). Dharwad, Chitradurga, Bijapur, Bellary and
Gulbarga are major districts of onion cultivation. Karnataka is the second leading producer of
onion in India. It contributes 18.6 per cent to the total onion production in the country. In
Karnataka, Dharwad occupied the highest area of 26,978 hectares and the production is
4,35,276 metric tonnes with the productivity of 16.13 tonnes per hectare. Dharwad alone
contributes 20 per cent of the total state production.
The onion bulb is a strongly contracted subterranean shoot with thickened, fleshy,
scaly leaves as food organs and bulb is composed of 86.8 per cent moisture, 11 per cent
carbohydrates and 1.2 per cent proteins, vitamin ‘B’ and ‘C’ and traces of phosphorus,
calcium and iron. Onions has wider use in manufacture of soups, sauces, ketchups, onion
flakes (dehydrated) and food seasoning besides being used as salad and pickle. Extracts of
onion are being used in the prevention of atherosclerosis and coronary heart disease as they
can inhibit the aggregation of human blood platelets to form the clots which have the potential
for arterial blocking.
Study of growth and yield parameters help in assessing the reasons for differences in
productivity among the genotypes growing in a particular environment. The economic yield of
any crop is a function of total dry matter produced and constitutes the portion translocated in
the yield bearing organ. Biological yield of the crop is influenced not only by photosynthetic
rate, but also by the functional leaf area or size of the photosynthetic apparatus.
It is known that the use of synthetic growth regulators have their effects through
changing the internal levels of the naturally occurring hormones, thereby causing the
modification of growth and development in the desired direction and to the desired extent
(Mathur,1971; Singh et al.,1982). Plant growth regulators have contributed a great deal to the
progress of agricultural science by modifying and controlling the growth behavior of many
crop plants. They have, therefore, became one of the most important tools for agriculturists
and horticulturists to increase crop production.
Plant growth regulators so far have emerged as “magic chemicals” that could
increase agricultural production at an unprecedented rate and help in removing and
circumventing many of the barriers imposed by genetics and environment. Plant growth
regulators when added in small amounts; modify the natural growth regulatory system right
from seed germination to senescence in several crop plants. Some examples are the use of
GA3 for increasing berry size in grapes and other fruits increase of latex flow in rubber tree by
ethylene, use of growth retardants and inhibitor for the control of sprouting in onion and
potato, dwarfing in cereals to prevent lodging, and preventing premature ripening and
deterioration of fruits.
Plant growth regulators (promoters, inhibitors or retardants) play key role in
contributing internal mechanism of plant growth by interacting with key metabolic processes
such as nucleic acid metabolism and protein synthesis. Growth retardants are known to
reduce inter-nodal distance, thereby enhancing source-sink relationship and stimulate the
translocation of photo assimilates to the sink (Luib et al., 1987). The enhanced source-sink
relationship with the use of plant growth regulators stimulates the translocation of photo-
assimilates, thereby increasing the productivity. Though, the plant growth regulators have
great potential, its application and accrual assessment etc. have to be judiciously planned in
terms of optimal concentration, stage of application, species specificity and seasons.
 Plant growth retardants are synthetic compounds used to retard the shoot length of
plants in desired way without changing developmental pattern or evoke phytotoxic effects.
This has been achieved not only by reducing cell elongation but also by lowering the rate of
cell division and regulating the plant height physiologically (Rademacher, 2000). Most plant
growth retardants inhibit the formation of growth-active gibberellins and can thus be used to
reduce unwanted shoot elongation (Singh, 2004 and Manasuroglu et al., 2009).
The studies on the use of plant growth regulators in onion are meager. Hence there is
an urgent need to evaluate various growth regulators in different genotypes of onion and to
study the various morpho-physiological components and yield quality aspects in relation to
use of growth regulators. With this background, the present investigation was carried out to
study the effect of plant growth regulators on physiological aspects and yield potential in two
onion genotypes with the following objectives.
1. To study the effect of plant growth regulators on morpho-physiological traits in onion
genotypes.
2. To study the influence of plant growth regulators on biophysical and biochemical
parameters in onion genotypes.
3. To study the effect of growth regulators on yield and yield components in onion
genotypes.
 REVIEW OF LITERATURE
It is established and well accepted that normal plant growth and development is
controlled by chemicals synthesized by the plant itself. The production of these chemicals
inturn is under genetic control and these are called growth regulators. It is also apparent that,
synthetic growth regulating chemicals are becoming increasingly important and valuable in
the control of crop growth. It may be possible to regulate the mobilization of metabolites
during grain filling stage by shortening the plant canopy and delaying the leaf senescence,
thereby increasing the yield.
Several attempts have been made to regulate the crop growth and yield by applying
growth retardants. The discovery of a new group of growth regulators, growth retardants by
Mitchell et al. (1949) gave an importance to the research on the control of plant growth and
development.
Cathey (1964) defines a growth retardant as a chemical that decreases the cell
division and cell elongation in the shoot apex and regulates plant height physiologically
without formative effects. The effect of growth retardants vary with plant species, varieties,
concentration used, method of application, frequency of application and various other
features, which influence the uptake and translocation of the chemicals.
It is well known that the plant growth regulators bring about rapid changes in the
growth and development of the plant by affecting various physiological and biochemical
processes. The literature on the effect of plant growth regulators (both promoters and
retardants) on various morpho-physiological, biochemical, and yield components in onion is
very meagre.
The results of the earlier investigations on the effect of various growth retardants viz.,
mepiquat chloride (chamatkar), CCC, lihocin and Miraculan on growth, yield and biochemical
aspects of onion (Allium cepa L.) and other crops is reviewed and presented in this chapter
under the following headings.
2.1 Morpho-physiological characters
2.1.1 Plant height and Number of leaves
Rakava and Minor (1970) reported that, the treatment with MH resulted in retarded
vegetative growth of pea plants at higher concentration of (10-20 mg/l). In a study to know the
effect of different growth regulators such as GA, TIBA, MH, 2,4-D and NAA on groundnut, MH
showed the significant inhibition in the plant growth during both kharif and rabi seasons (Patel
and Shrivastava, 1971). Similar results in peas were reported by (Suryanarayana, 1977).
Chailakhyan and Atuynya (1973) observed that soil application 0.5 to 2 per cent or
foliar application of 0.1 to 0.5 per cent CCC decreased the plant height in soybean. Similarly
Tickoo et al. (1974) noticed that foliar application of 75 ppm TIBA increased the plant dry
matter and branch number and decreased plant height in Bengal gram cv.BG-6 and Pusa-53.
Mepiquat chloride as a growth regulator is known to suppress vegetative growth in cotton
(Cothern, 1978; Willard, 1979 and York, 1982).
Hurde and Parjosavulese (1981) treated soybean seeds with Atonik, Ame-
ChenT6AS63, TIBA and CCC at various concentration and noticed decrease in plant height
with an increase in concentration of these growth retardants. Deshpande (1983) observed
that the application of TIBA in red gram caused a significant reduction in plant height and an
increase in number of branches. Application of GA3 @ 40 ppm to roots of five-week-old onion
seedlings for 24 hours produced the highest number of leaves as compared to control in
onion (Singh et al., 1983).
Baz et al. (1984) treated soybean cv. Clark with foliar spray of 50, 100 and 150 ppm
GA3, CCC and IBA, respectively at 45 and 70 to 110 days and found increased plant height.
Experiment of Castro and Crocomo (1984) on the action of TIBA and CCC on the
development of soybean in green house trial revealed that, plant height was reduced with the
application of these chemicals. Whereas, Nigam et al. (1984) studied the effect of GA3, B-9
and CCC in groundnut and reported that except GA3, other growth regulators increased the
number of primary and secondary branches.
 Ogilvy (1985) indicated that, foliar application of cycocel (chlormaquat), cerone
(ethephon) and terpla (mepiquat chloride) at the time of the stem extension resulted in
retarding vegetative growth in rape, but none of the growth regulators affected the branching
pattern. In soybean cultivars, reduction in plant height and increased LAI during the seed
filling stage was observed by Singh and Yadav (1987) with the foliar spray of 300 ppm
cycocel at flower initiation.
Lin et al. (1987) reported that application of maleic hydrazide (MH) reduced the plant
height by reducing the number of nodes in peanut varieties. Similarly, decrease in plant height
by the application of maleic hydrazide (MH) was observed in calendula (Shrivastava and
Bajpai, 1964). The experimental results of Vello and Castro (1987) in soybean cv. Davis
revealed that, pre-flowering foliar spray of GA3 (100 ppm) significantly increased the plant
height. While, CCC (2000 ppm) reduced it, the experiment results of Kandagal (1988)
revealed that, application of 50 ppm TIBA in mung bean increased the number of primary
branches, while, the plant height was reduced significantly.
Navalagatti (1988) studied the effect of different levels of plant growth regulators on
growth and yield of groundnut and found that, the application of 50 to 60 ppm TIBA resulted in
reduced plant height, while, 10-20 ppm NAA increased the plant height. Sorte et al. (1989)
reported that increased concentration of chlormequat chloride resulted in more number of
flowers in groundnut.
Salah and Abd (1989) indicated that the application of NAA @ 150 ppm increased the
plant height and number of leaves per plant in onion significantly. While, Nandekar and
Sawarkar (1992) indicated that the application of GA @ 40 ppm as root dip to six weeks old
onion seedlings increased the number of leaves per plant significantly as compared to control.
Kulakarni (1993) reported that, foliar application of TIBA and CCC on sunflower
significantly reduced the plant height. Whereas, Application of mepiquat chloride considerably
reduced the plant height and inter nodal length in cotton from 10 to 24.15 per cent depending
on the cultivar (Ramesh Babu et al., 1993).
Souza and Casali (1994) observed that, the application of mepiquat chloride (PIX) did
not show any effect on plant height when sprayed @ 1000/2000/3000 ml per hectare at five
leaf stage in garlic (Dashora and Jain, 1994). Foliar spray of miraculan increased plant growth
in soybean. Neelam et al. (1995) opined that foliar application of triacontanol (1g/ml) to lentil
increased the plant height and number of branches/plant.
Various concentrations (50 to 250 ppm) of growth retardants viz., TIBA and B-9 had a
stimulatory effect on number of leaves, branches, leaf area, dry weight and seed yield, while
they have a retardant effect on plant height. TIBA @ 100 ppm and B-9 @ 250 ppm were
found to be most effective as they reduced plant height to greater extent (Deotale et al.,
1996). Wasnik and Bagga (1992) noticed that in chickphea cv. BG384, number of secondary
and tertiory branches and leaf area increased with the application of mepiquat chloride.
Shukla et al. (1997) found that double sprays of miraculan (1500 ppm) enhanced the plant
height and number of branches in soybean. Mandal et al. (1997) reported a significant
increase in the number of branches per plant due to the application of CCC @ 100 ppm in
greengram.
Asane et al. (1998) found that, cycocel at 500 and 1000 ppm reduced the plant height
in pea. Norton and Silvertooth (2000) reported that mepiquat chloride is a gibberellic acid
suppressant that is absorbed by the green portions of the plant and serves to reduce cell
elongation, thus offering the potential of decreasing leaf area and restricting additional plant
height thus, enhancing earliness with regards to fruit development in cotton.
Krishnamoorthy and Madalageri (2000) noticed application of GA3 300 ppm in ajowan
(Trachyspermum ammi L.) increased plant height and recorded maximum number of
secondary and tertiary branches followed by that of CCC and NAA. Kumaravelu et al. (2000)
recorded that foliar application of 0.5 mg dm-2 triacontanol significantly promoted the plant
height.
Borse and Dhumal (2001) to enhance solasodine contents in Solanum kharianum,
GA, IAA and CCC were used as foliar sprays in different concentrations. Results revealed
that, all the treatments increased number of branches and leaves per plant and reduced
spines on leaves and stem.
 Kothule et al. (2003) found that plant growth substances like, GA, NAA, CCC and
salicylic acid each @ 100-200 ppm and urea @ 1 and 2%, when applied exogenously as
foliar spray improved morphological characters viz., plant height, number of branches, leaf
area, total dry matter of plant and reduce the number of days to per cent flowering in
soybean. GA3 @ 200 ppm was found most effective in increasing plant height. While Garai
and Datta (2003) reported that foliar application of cycocel reduced the plant height and
increased the primary branches per plant in green gram. Decreased plant height and
increased number of branches and leaves were observed with the application of chamatkar
@ 120 ppm (Prakash et al., 2003). Significant reduction in the plant height, number of
branches and number of leaves in broadbean were noticed by Dhaka and Anamika (2003)
with the application of mepiquat chloride.
Cato et al. (2006) revealed that the application of TIBA at phenological stages in
soybean (cv. Pintado) was effective in reducing plant height without affecting parameters
related to productivity. The exogenous application of GA3; @ 30, 60 and 90 mg/l had a
significant effect in increasing plant height, first nodal height, leaf area and number of leaves
per plant in cowpea while, it had no significant effect on plant senescence (Emongor, 2007).
Vasudevan et al. (2008) observed significant increase in plant height, number of
productive branches and seed yield (8.53 q/ha) in fenugreek sprayed with GA3 (100 ppm) as
foliar spray at 50 per cent flowering. Zhang et al. (2009) observed that CCC reduced plant
height and lodging without having any effect on seed qulity in alfalfa. Shinde (2010) observed
the influence of different plant growth regulators viz., progibb (20, 40 and 60 ppm), CCC (500
and 1000 ppm) and TIBA (100 and 200 ppm) on growth in soybean and opined that viz.,
cycocel and TIBA decreased the plant height whereas, progibb increased it significantly. The
number of branches increased significantly with different PGRs.
The pre-harvest application of plant growth regulators, influenced in a different way
the course of plant development as it was reported by Ouzounidou et al. (2008; 2010) for
other plant species.
2.1.2 Dry matter accumulation and dry matter production and partitioning
Plant growth, development and economic yield depend on dry matter accumulation
and its destitution at various growth stages. Total dry matter is the spatial and temporal
integration of all plant process and, therefore dry matter is a relevant parameter in the study
of crop canopy. Dry matter production at each stage and its partitioning to reproductive
organs during pre-flowering to maturity period has immense importance in determining the
productivity. The pattern of translocation of phytosynthate before and after flowering is
important (Poehlman, 1991).
Mathur (1971) reported that the foliar application of NAA @ 300 ppm (at two weeks
interval) significantly increased the fresh weight of leaves as compared to other treatment in
onion. Similarly, Srivatsava and Adhikari (1972) also reported that the application of GA3 @
50 ppm as seed treatment for 6 hours recorded maximum fresh weight and dry weight of
leaves as compared to other treatments. Further, Singh et al. (1983) reported that the
application of GA3 @ 40 ppm and NAA @ 40 ppm improved the weight of the green leaves
per plant when applied as root treatment for five-week-old onion seedlings for 24 hrs.
Experimental results of Tanner and Ahmed (1974) in soybean showed that, TIBA has
no effect on total dry matter production and rate of total dry matter production while, seed
yield and rate of reproductive dry matter production were influenced by the treatments. Similar
results were also obtained by Singh and Sarkar (1976) in soybean. Kandagal (1988) reported
that the application of 50 ppm TIBA mungbean resulted in increased dry matter production.
Salah and Abd (1989) also reported that the foliar application of GA3 @ 500 ppm
increased the fresh weight and dry weight of plants in onion. Mishrinky et al. (1990) reported
that both CCC and GA3 increased dry matter content in peas. Shah and Prathapsenan (1991)
studied effect of cycocel on greengram and indicated that there was an increase in leaf dry
weight by 52.7 per cent over control. The combination of triacontanol with paras or planofix
increased the dry matter accumulation in mustard (Ghosh et al., 1991).
Kelaiya et al. (1991) reported an increase in plant dry weight in groundnut by applying
NAA, triacontanol and CCC. Application of 160 ppm of cycocel (chlormequat) increased the
allocation of dry matter to the pods (Brar et al., 1992).
 Singh et al. (1993) noticed that application of 100 ppm cycocel has significantly
increased pod dry weight and seed yield in mungbean. The application of GA3 @ 40 ppm as
root dip to 6 week old seedings increased the weight of green leaves per plant (Nandekar and
Sawarkar, 1992) in onion. Similarly, Nirmal et al. (1994) also reported that the application of
GA3 @ 30 ppm and 60 ppm as root dip, foliar spray and root dip increased the dry matter
production of leaves per plant.
Chetti et al. (1995) observed in sunflower that the spraying of CCC (1000 ppm) and
mepiquat chloride (1000 ppm) reduce the stem and leaf dry weight and increased capitulum
dry weight. Similarly the application of 125 ppm mepiquat chloride resulted in maximum leaf
weight, halum weight, and total plan dry weight in groundnut (Chandrababu et al., 1995). In
sunflower, application of cycocel has significantly reduced the stem and leaf dry weight but
has increased head dry weight (Kulkarni et al., 1995).
Ramcharan (2000) reported that the application of Progibb (100 µl/l) was optimum for
maximum leaf production in culantro. Chandrasekhar and Bangarusamy (2003) observed that
the total dry matter production (TDM) and yield component in mung bean were influenced by
the application of the growth regulating chemicals and nutrients and their combination. The
combination of 100 ppm salicylic acid, 2% DAP, 1% KCl and 40 ppm of NAA has influenced
the total dry matter production and increased grain yield.
The foliar application of GA, NAA, CCC and salicylic acid each @ 100 and 200 ppm
and urea @ 1 and 2% improved morphological characters viz. leaf area and total dry matter
of plant (Kothule et al., 2003). The experiment results of Hanchinamath (2005) revealed that
the application of lihocin (1000 ppm) resulted in increased total dry matter and biomass
duration (BMD).
Total dry matter production and BMD in soybean genotypes were increased with the
application of the growth retardants viz. TIBA, mepiquat chloride and cycocel (Pankaj Kumar
et al., 2006). Kalyankar et al. (2008) reported that the foliar spray of GA3 (150 ppm) increased
number of leaves and leaf area. While, NAA (100 ppm) was effective in increasing total dry
matter content.
Field studies conducted in soybean by Shinde (2010) revealed a significant increase
leaf dry weight , stem dry weight, dry weight of reproductive part and total dry weight with the
application of Progibb (20, 40 and 60 ppm), CCC (500 and 1000 ppm) and TIBA (100 and
200 ppm).
2.1.3 Growth and growth parameters
Growth analysis is a physiological probe on the development on the crop
chronological sequence to elucidate and account the causes for differences in yield
throughout the events that have occurred at different stages of growth (Krishnamurthy et al.,
1973).
Hawthorn (1946) found that partial defoliation or complete defoliation caused marked
reduction in yield and defoliation at the start of bulbing resulted in 100 per cent loss in yellow
Bermuda onion and 95.4 per cent loss in Barbosa onion. Baker and Wilcox (1961) found that
as the degree of defoliation increased, the bulb yield decreased and the maximum reduction
in yield occurred when defoliation was at the stage of maximum leaf development and bulb
formation.
Several other authors also established that the defoliation and leaf damage have the
same effect on yield if they occurred around the time of bulb (Kato, 1964; Kato, 1963a and
Vliet et al., 1966). These defoliation experiments indirectly indicate the influence of leaf area
on bulb yield in onion. The number of leaves increase until the bulbs reach half of the
maximum diameter and decline thereafter. This was due to the cessation of new leaves and
senescence of old leaves (Yamaguchi et al., 1975).
Kalubarme and Pandey (1979) reported that specific leaf weight (SLW) is a stable
character and was initially low and improved subsequently and reached the maximum value
at 42 days in greengram genotypes. Similarly, crop growth rate (CGR) was found to be low
during early vegetative phase but increased with the advancement of growth in greengram.
 Shekhar (1974) reported that leaf area index increased with an increase in time to a
maximum, coinciding with maximum top growth and later it declines in onion. While, Dowker
et al. (1976) found negative correlation between leaf production and leaf length but positive
correlation between yield and leaf length.
Knypl (1979) indicated that the application of GA3 significantly increased the leaf size
as compared to other treatments in onion. Whereas Srivastava and Tiwari (1981) studied the
effect of TIBA in chickpea and they observed significant positive correlation between RGR,
NAR with the number of flowers.
Singh et al. (1983) also reported that the application of GA @ 40 ppm or NAA @ 40
ppm increased the length of leaves significantly in onion genotypes. Banerjee and Das (1984)
observed higher LAI values during the active tuber bulbing period (40-70 DAP) when sprayed
with cycocel (500ppm) at 36days after planting in potato. They further reported that the crop
growth rate, net assimilation rate and bulb rate were also found to be significantly higher
when compared to control.
In soybean cultivars increased leaf area index during the seed filling stage was
observed by Singh et al. (1987) with the foliar spray of 300 ppm cycocel at flower initiation
stage. Similarly, Li et al. (1987) noticed increased leaf area index in sesamum when treated
with 0.01 per cent Pix (mepiquat chloride) and similar results were also obtained by child et al.
(1989) in rapeseed.
Kandagal (1988) observed that the application of 50 ppm TIBA in mungbean resulted
in increased net assimilation rate and crop growth rate. Kelaiya et al. (1991) reported in
increased LAI and plant dry weight in groundnut by applying NAA, triacontanol and CCC.
Ravichandran and Ramaswami (1991) observed decreased LAI and increased CGR and
NAR in soybean with the application of TIBA. Whereas, Baghel and Yadava (1992) noticed an
increased LAI, NAR and CGR by the application of NAA in Vigna mungo L.
Navalagatti et al. (1991) studied the effect of different levels of plant growth regulators
an growth and yield in groundnut and found that application of 50 ppm TIBA and 10 to 20 ppm
NAA increased LAI, dry matter production, NAR and CGR as compared to control. Similar
results have been also reported by Kelaiya et al. (1991) with application of NAA, Triacontanol
and cycocel in groundnut.
Nandekar and Sawarkar (1992) indicated that the application of GA @ 40 ppm as
root dip to six weeks old seedlings significantly increased the length of the leaves, LAI and
LAD. Madalageri and Ganiger (1993) found increase in LAI by spraying of Mepiquat chloride
(150 ppm) at 45 DAP in potato.
Similar increase in LAI was also reported by Gasti (1994) in potato. Nirmal et al.
(1994) also reported that the application of GA at 30 ppm and 60 ppm as root dip, foliar spray
and root dip + foliar spray increased the leaf area significantly in onion seedlings.
Dashora and Jain (1994) found that spraying of triacontanol significantly increased
leaf area index (LAI) by 27.9 per cent in soybean. Foliar application of TIBA, cycocel and
mepiquat chloride significantly increased absolute growth rate (AGR), relative growth rate
(RGR), net assimilation rate (NAR) and CGR in soybean (Patil, 1994).
Detotal and Sorte (1996) found that among various concentration of TIBA (100 ppm)
and B-9 (200 and 250 ppm), showed stimulatory effect on CGR, NAR and leaf nitrogen
content which ultimately increased the grain yield in soybean. Madalageri (1996) observed
imporevement in net assimilation rate (8.3%) and harvest index (24.1%) by spraying of growth
retardants viz. cycocel, TIBA and Mepiquat Chloride against unsprayed control in TPS
genotypes HPS-1/13 at 30 days after transplanting in potato.
Jeyakumar and Thangaraj (1996) reported that the application of mepiquat chloride or
cycocel (chlormequat) decreased the LAI and increased CGR in groundnut. Phulekar et al.
(1998) found that application of cycocel (chlormequat), mepiquat chloride decreased the leaf
area, leaf area index and leaf area duration while specific leaf weight was increased.Whereas
Gali (1995) reported lower leaf area and LAI in chickpea with TIBA @75 ppm and maximum
AGR, CGR, RGR, and NAR values were recorded with cytozyme (1000 ppm) treatment.
 Bangarusamy et al. (2001) reported an increased leaf area, and LAI in pigeon pea
with the application of MC @ 125 ppm. Significantly higher leaf area, LAI, RGR, CGR, NAR,
SLW, LAR, LAD and biomass duration (BMD) in green gram over control were recorded with
the application of 2000 ppm miraculan (Saishankar, 2001)
Sarkar et al. (2002) Showed that double spray of GA3 and IAA at 20 and 42 days
after sowing increased LAI, CGR and NAR in soybean (cv.BS-3).Prakash et al. (2003)
reported that foliar application of chamatkar @ 120 ppm in blackgram increased the LAI and
specific leaf weight (SLW).
The experiment conducted Hanchinamath (2005) revealed that the application of
miraculan (1000 ppm) recorded highest leaf area, leaf area index and leaf duration in cluster
bean while the application of lichocin (1000 ppm) resulted in increased total dry matter,
absolute growth rate and biomass duration.
Shinde (2010) reported that in soybean there was a significant increase the growth
parameters viz. leaf area, LAD, SLW, BMD, CGR, AGR, and RGR due to the treatment with
PGRs like., Progibb (20, 40 and 60 ppm), CCC (500 and 1000 ppm) and TIBA (100 and 200
ppm) where cycocel was found to be effective in increasing CGR, SLW and BMD whereas,
Progibb was very effective in increasing in leaf area, LAI and LAD.
2.2 Biochemical parameters
2.2.1 Chlorophyll content
Though chlorophyll content is one of the chief factors in photosynthesis, still it is
surprising to find that it has a weak influence on photosynthesis when it is abundant. Emerson
et al. (1940) found that with other external conditions being optimum, the ratio of chlorophyll
molecules present to molecules of carbon dioxide reduced (photosynthesis) was not constant
but depended on its previous growth and age of the culture.
Ferry and Ward (1959) stated that chlorophyll content is not considered to be a
limiting factor in the photosynthetic rate of plants unless it is greatly reduced by mineral
deficiency. According to Leopold (1964), even though chlorophyll is essential for
photosynthesis, the abundance of this pigment surprisingly exerted a weak influence on
photosynthesis in the field.
Kharchenko (1970) observed in onion plants that maximum photosynthesis and
chlorophyll pigment occurred in bulb crop during bulb formation and in seed crop during
flowering.
Gencev (1970a) in determinations of chlorophyll in three years of onion cultivation
observed that maximum chlorophyll content was reached at about 30 days after sprouting
during first year and in the second year crop, this took place at 12 to 15 days after the
beginning of strong growth.
The maximum chlorophyll content in the third year lasted throughout. He also found
that chlorophyll ‘a’ and ‘b’ was about 3:1 and change in the pigment content during
ontogenesis resulted mainly from the change in chlorophyll a.
In his later studies Gencev (1970b) found that chlorophyll content of different parts of
leaves and different leaves varied considerably and there existed a positive correlation
between chlorophyll content and peroxidase and catalase activity as well as vitamin C
content.
Whiteside et al., (1975) analysed chlorophyll, carbohydrates, protein and total dry
weight at different growth stages of onion and found that all the parameters were maximum at
21 weeks and declined rapidly then onwards.
Alam and Islam (1989) found that, 500 ppm cycocel when sprayed at 21 DAP in
potato produced the maximum amount of chlorophyll a and b contents, while the cycocel
induced the largest amount of total chlorophyll content in leaf.
In groundnut, foliar spray of 100, 200, 300, 400, 500 and 1000 ppm cycocel applied
20 days after sowing showed that with an increase in the concentration of cycocel, there was
an increase in the chlorophyll content in leaves (Sorte et al., 1989).
 Kumari et al. (1990) the application of cycocel at 1000 ppm not only reduced the plant
height but also increased the chlorophyll content in sunflower. Micro schnichenko and
Manankov (1991) have reported that, application of GA @ 500 mg/litre reduced the content of
chlorophylls in onion genotypes. While, increased chlorophyll content was observed when
CCC (1000 ppm) was sprayed to wheat genotypes at tillering and anthesis stage (Sairam et
al., 1991).
Chetti (1991) reported that the application of Mepiquat chloride and Lihocin increased
the Chl. a, Chl. b and total chlorophyll contents significantly as compared to control in
groundnut genotypes JL-24 and DH-8. Shah and Prathapasenan (1991) indicated that
application of 1000 ppm cycocel increased the leaf chlorophyll content in mungbean.
Janardhana (1992) also found that soaking pigeonpea seeds with triacontanol (1-6
ml) increased leaf chlorophyll content in groundnut. Ganiger (1992) reported increase in
photosynthetic pigments (Chl. a, Chl. b and total chlorophyll) by spraying CCC and Mepiquate
chloride on seed tuber planted potato over unsprayed control.
Similar results were reported by Gasti (1994) in potato. Kulkarni et al. (1995) found
that the foliar application of mepiquat chloride (1000 ppm) at 45 DAS significantly icnreased
the total chlorophyll content in both hybrid and variety of sunflower.
Neelam et al. (1995) indicated that the foliar application of 1.5 g/ml of triacontanol
increased the leaf chlorophyll and decreased the chl. a/b ratio in lentil. The chlorophyll content
of leaf increased with mepiquat chloride compared to control during reproductive stage
chickpea (Wasnik and Bagga, 1996). Mahla et al. (1999) reported that application of 2 ppm of
mixtalol (triacontanol) increased the leaf chlorophyll content in blackgram.
Zaky et al. (1999) studied the effect of Pix (mepiquat chloride) in Vicia faba plants and
reported a significantly higher concentration of chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b and total
chlorophyll content. Bangarusamy et al. (2001) reported increased leaf chlorophyll content
and soluble protein, in pigeonpae with the application of MC @ 125 ppm. Saishankar (2001)
found that the application of cycocel @ 20 ppm at 50 per cent flowering increased the
chlorophyll content in greengram as compared to control.
The experiment results obtained by Hanchinamath (2005) revealed that the
biochemical parameters viz., chlorophyll ‘a’, chlorophyll’b’, total chlorophyll content and nitrate
reductase activity recorded maximum with the application of lihocin (1000 ppm) in cluster
bean.
Foliar application of triacontanol @ 10 ppm increased the chlorophyll content in
pearlmillet (Sivakumar et al., 2002). Increase in the chlorophyll content in green-gram due to
spraying of mepiquat chloride was reported by Senthilaam et al. (2003), in cotton by Kumar et
al. (2003).
According to Arteca and Dong (1981), Ouzounidou and Ilias, (2005) and Shah et al.
(2007) GA3 induces enhancement of ultrastructural morphogenesis of plastids, which coupled
with the retention of chlorophyll, delay plant senescence in onion and garlic.
The application of growth retardants at 35 DAS in cowpea increased the chlorophyll
content. The maximum chlorophyll ‘a’, chlorophyll ‘b’ and total chlorophyll content was
recorded with the application of maleic hydrazide and lihocin concentration (Reddy et al.,
2009).
Shinde (2010) reported that in soybean there was a significant increase biochemical
parameters viz., chlorophyll ‘a’, chlorophyll ‘b’, total chlorophyll content due to the application
PGRs viz., Progibb (20, 40 and 60 ppm), CCC (500 and 1000 ppm) and TIBA (100 to 200
ppm).
Chen et al. (2010) and Ouzounidou et al. (2008) reported that in onion and garlic
Chlorophyll a was more affected than chlorophyll b due to application of PGRs. In sweet
potato and green pepper leaves and suggested that ethephon, an ethylene-releasing
compound, can induce leaf senescence and chloroplast breakdown.
2.2.2 Nitrate reductase activity
The nitrate reductase activity (NRA) which is the key enzyme in nitrogen metabolism
is known to be regulated by various environmental factors apart from its own substrate,
nitrate. It is also believed that the reduction of nitrate to nitrite by NRA is the rate limiting
process for the utilization of nitrogen in the form of nitrate.
Goswami and Srivatsava (1989) found that repeated application of benzyladenine
keeps the sunflower leaves functional for a longer period and there by maintains higher nitrate
reductase activity during reproductive development in order to supply the nitrogen for the
synthesis of enzymes and maintenance of higher photosynthetic rate in the leaves.
Sairam et al. (1991) showed that the foliar application of CCC (1000 ppm) to wheat
genotypes at tillering and anthesis stages, increased the nitrate reductase activity in the leaf.
Similarly it was observed that spraying of 500 ppm cycocel at the beginning of flowering
increased the nitrate reductase activity in the leaves of S-8 when compared to ‘Pusa Baisakhi’
green gram variety. It was further concluded that lower seed yield of Pusa Baisakhi was due
to lower nitrate reductase activity, whereas, the improvement in yield of S-8 by cycocel
treatment was due to greater allocation of biomass to grain yield (Wasnik and Bagga, 1992).
Muthuchelian et al. (1994) indicated that foliar spray of triacontanol significantly
increased the nitrate reductase activity in Erythrina variegata seedlings. Antony (1995)
reported that nitrate reductase activity was correlated with TDM at early stage but did not
have positive correlation with any of the yield and yield components in groundnut. Foliar
application of cycocel with 3000 ppm to sunflower at 33 and 53 days after sowing decreased
the nitrate reductase activity during growth stages, while 5000 ppm chlormequat decreased
nitrate reductase activity throughout all growth stages (Pando et al., 1988).
Kumaravelu et al. (2000) indicated that foliar spray of 0.5 and 1.0 mg dm-3
triacontanol increased the nitrate reductase activity in greengram. Whereas, Sivakumar et al.
(2002) indicated that foliar application of triacontanol @ 10 ppm significantly increased the
nitrate reductase activity at 60 DAS in pearl millet.
Foliar application of mepiquat chloride (50 ppm) and salicylic acid (100 ppm) in
combination with other growth regulators has increased the soluble protein and nitrate
reductase activity in pearl millet (Sivakumar et al., 2001). Hanchinmath (2005) reported a
higher nitrate reductase activity in clusterbean with the application of lihocin (1000 ppm).
Shinde (2010) reported that in soybean there was a significant increase nitrate reducatase
activity due to the application of PGR viz., Prpgibb (20, 40 and 60 ppm), CCC (50 and 1000
ppm) and TIBA (100 and 200 ppm), where NAR was significantly higher with the application
of CCC (500 ppm).
2.3 Yield and yield components
2.3.1 Yield
Vaish (1969) reported that the application of NAA @ 1 ppm as root dip and 10 ppm
as seed treatment increased the size of the onion bulb and yield significantly. Mathur (1971)
also reported that foliar application of NAA @ 300 ppm at 2 weeks intervals increased the
yield of onion bulbs significantly as compared to control. Similarly, Srivatsava and Adhikari
(1972) indicated that the application of GA @ 50 ppm increased the yield of bulbs.
Singh et al. (1982) revealed that the application of NAA and GA @ 20 ppm as seed
treatment increased the yield of onion significantly and was due to increased bulb length and
bulb diameter. Similarly, Singh et al. (1983) reported that the application of GA (40 ppm) and
NAA (40 ppm) increased the yield of onion bulbs significantly due to increase in yield
components.
Abd-El-Gawad et al.,(1986) showed that the application of GA @ 100 ppm twice
increased the bulb yield slightly. Whereas, Singh and Yadav (1987) indicated that the
application of NAA increased the bulb yield by 59 per cent as compared to control. Further,
Maurya and Lal (1987) also reported that the application of GA @ 60 ppm as root dipping to
six weeks old seedlings increased the yield of bulbs significantly. While, Vanangamudi et al.,
(1988) reported that the application of GA @ 100 ppm as seed treatment for 3 hrs increased
the bulb yield significantly.
2.3.2 Bulb length
Tomar et al. (1988) showed that the application of GA @ 200 ppm increased the bulb
yield, bulb diameter and bulb length significantly as compared to control. Similarly, Salah and
Abd (1989) indicated that the application of GA3 or NAA at 150 ppm increased the total bulb
yield significantly.
Kaynas (1990) suggested that the application of PIX(Mepiquat chloride) @ 1.5 - 2.0
-1
litre ha increased the bulb yield by 4000 - 5000 kg in Yalova - 3 and Yalova - 12 Varieties of
onion due to increased bulb length and diameter as compared to control.
The application of GA @ 50 ppm as root dip to seven weeks old seedlings resulted is
increased yield significantly (Singh et al. 1982). Nandekar and Sawarkar (1992) also reported
that GA @ 40 ppm to six weeks old seedlings increased the yield significantly.
Nirmal et al., (1994) indicated that the application of GA @ 30 ppm and 60 ppm as
root dip, foliar spray and the combination of both increased the bulb yield of onion
significantly. lbarra et al., (1994) indicated at the application of gibberellic acid @ 200 ppm to
the seed gave 34 per cent increase in the yield.
Gasti (1994) reported the maximum yield of 27.17 t ha-1 of potato tubers when treated
with Mepiquat chloride (175 ppm). Madalageri (1996) reported 25.8 per cent higher yield in
potato when sprayed with mepiquat chloride @ 600 ppm at 30 DAT in TPS genotype HPS-
1/13 as compared to unsprayed check.
Daykin et al. (1997) and Hisamatsu et al. (1998) reported that GA3 supply leads to a
vigorous plant growth and yield those showing that GA3 stimulates both cell division and cell
elongation in onion and garlic.
2.3.3 Bulb diameter
The application of NAA @ 1 ppm as root dip and 10 ppm as seed treatment
increased the mean diameter of bulbs due to increase in cell elongation (Vaish, 1969). While,
Mathur (1971) indicated that the foliar plication of NAA @ 300 ppm gave the highest bulb
diameter as compared to control. Singh et al. (1982) reported that the application of NAA or
GA @ 20 ppm as seed soaking increased the bulb size (diameter) significantly as compared
to control. Srivatsava and Adhikari (1972) reported that the application of GA @ 50 ppm
increased not only the size of the bulb, but also the length and diameter of the bulb
significantly as compared to control. Similarly, Singh et al. (1983) also reported that the
application of GA (40 ppm) and NAA (40 ppm) increased the size of bulbs significantly.
Maurya and Lal (1981) indicated that the application of GA at60 ppm as root dipping
at six weeks old seedling stage increased the bulb size (i.e. length and diameter). However,
Tomar et al., (1988) reported that the application of GA @ 200 ppm increased the volume of
bulb significantly. Deore and Bharud (1991) and Nirmal et al. (1994) found that the application
of GA @ 60 ppm as root dip + foliar spray increased the diameter of the bulb.
 3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
A field experiment was conducted to study the effect of foliar spray of growth regulators viz.,
Chlormequat chloride, Mepiquat chloride and Triacontanol on growth and yield in onion genotypes
viz., Nasik Red and Arka Kalyan. The experiment was conducted during Kharif 2011 at the
Agricultural College Farm, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad. The details of the materials
used and techniques adopted during the course of investigation are described in this chapter.
3.1 Experimental site
The experiment was carried out in plot no. 126 of E-block; belonging to, the Department of
Crop Physiology, College of Agriculture, University of Agriculture Sciences, Dharwad. Which is
situated at 15° 26’ N latitude, 75° 07’ E longitude and at an altitude of 678 m above mean sea level.
3.2 Climate
The College of Agriculture, Dharwad is located in the northern transitional tract of Karnataka.
The total rainfall during the experimental year was 922.7 mm, which was distributed from February to
November with a peak in October.
The meteorological data for 2011 and the mean of previous 60 years is presented in Table 1.
The mean maximum temperature during 2011 varied from 34.9°C in April to 26.2°C in August and the
mean minimum temperature ranged from 21.3°C in May to 12.5 C in January. The per cent Relative
Humidity was highest during August (87) and lowest during March (44). During the crop growth
period, the total rainfall received was 357.4 mm.
3.3 Soil and its characteristics
The experimental site consisted of medium black loam soil. Composite soil samples were
collected from the experimental site and analyzed for various physical and chemical properties as per
producer of Piper and Jackson (Piper., 1966 and Jackson, 1967). The details are presented in Table
2.
3.4 Experimental details
The experiment consisting of nine growth regulator treatments viz., Chlormequat chloride
(500, 750, 1000, 1250 ppm) Mepiquate chloride (750, 1500 ppm) Triacontanol (1000, 2000 ppm) and
Control (water spray). Details of the plant growth regulators used in the experiment are given in the
Table 3 and the details of the treatment are given below.
3.4.1 Treatment details
Main plot treatment = varieties.
V1 = Nasik Red
V2 = Arka kalyan
3.4.2 Treatments
Sub plot treatments – Nine sub plot treatment were
T1 = Chlormequat chloride (500 ppm)
T2 = Chlormequat chloride (750 ppm)
T3 = Chlormequat chloride (1000 ppm)
T4 = Chlormequat chloride (1250 ppm)
T5 = Mepiquat chloride (750 ppm)
T6 = Mepiquat chloride (1500ppm)
T7 = Triacontanol (1000 ppm)
T8 = Triacontanol (2000 ppm)
T9 = Control (water spray)
Table 1: Monthly meteorological data for the experimental year 2011 and average of 60 years (1950-2010) at Main Agricultural Research Station,
UAS, Dharwad

Rainfall(mm) Mean Temperature(ºC) Relative humidity (%)

Months Maximum Minimum
2011 1950-2010 2011 1950-2010
2011 1950-2010 2011 1950-2010
January 0.0 0.039 29.2 28.7 12.5 14.07 59 64.81
February 21.6 0.684 30.8 31.6 14 16.56 48 54.41
March 0.8 15.02 32.2 34.9 18.6 19.71 44 64.24
April 77.4 41.54 34.9 36.6 20.2 20.11 57 78.05
May 66.6 65.74 34.7 35.2 21.3 29.95 61 75.78
June 19.4 107.51 27.5 30.2 21.3 21.68 84 86.29
July 131 137.72 26.9 27.3 20.6 20.85 85 89.18
August 124.2 150.45 26.2 27.2 20.7 20.16 87 88.6
September 82.8 132.33 28.1 27.9 19.9 19.96 80 86.68
October 219.7 97.63 29.9 29.5 19.5 18.65 73 79.4
November 4.6 53.49 29.8 28.9 15.8 15.93 55 73.62
December 0.0 2.26 29.6 27.8 13.7 13.20 57 69.12
Total 922.7 804.38
Table 2: Physical and chemical properties of the experimental site

Value
SI. No. Particulars Method employed
obtained
I Physical properties
1 Corse sand (%) 6.28 International pipette Method (Piper,1966)

2 Fine sand (%) 14.27 International pipette Method (Piper,1966)

3 Silt (%) 27.52 International pipette Method (Piper,1966)

4 Clay ((%) 51.99 International pipette Method (Piper,1966)

5 Bulk density 1.33 Core sample Method

II Chemical properties
1 Soil pH 7.60 pH meter

2 Electrical Conductivity (ds/m) 0.28 Conductivity bridge (Jackson,1967)

-1
3 Organic carbon (g Kg ) 0.52 Walkely and Black Wet oxidationmethod
(Jackson,1967)
4 Available Nitrogen (kg/ha) 221.0
Modified Kjeldhal method (Jackson,1967)
5 Available Phosphorous (kg/ha) 32.9
Olsen’s method ((Jackson,1967)
6 Available Potassium (kg/ha) 318.7
Flame photometer (Jackson,1967)
Table 3: Salient features of the growth regulators used in the experiment

SI. Common/ Chemical Mode of

Physiological effect and uses
No. Trade Name Name Action
1 Chlormequat 2-chloroethyl Anti-gibberellin, inhibits cell Improves sturdiness, prevents lodging, increase yields, control vegetative
chloride/cycocel, trimethyl elongation, may increase growth, thus more compact plants
cycogan,CCC, ammonium chlorophyll formation and root
lihocin chloide development

2 Mepiquat 1, 1-dimethyl Anti-gibberellins, bio-regulator, Length reduction and strengthening of straw in barley, controls vegetative
chloride/fix, DPC, piperidinium growth inhibitor growth, boll retention, uniform maturity and yield in cotton
Chamatkar chloride

3 Miraculan/TRIA
Growth promoter, promotes Growth promoter has been found to increase crop yield, in dry beans,
.Triacontanol cell elongation sweet corn, tomato, cucumber, rice, maize, cotton, sugarbeet; increases
(TRIA) the the photosynthetic activity, mobilization of photosynthates, rapid increase
straight in reducing sugars, soluble protein, succinate and amino acids, increase in
chain alcohol the activity of 6-phospho gluconate hydrogenase and changes the
permeability of plant membranes.
 These growth regulators were sprayed at 40 DAS (days after sowing) & 60 DAS. The details
of each of these growth regulators are given in Table 3.
3.4.3 Design and layout
The experiment was laid out in a split plot design with three replications. The main plot
comprised of two varieties and sub plots contain nine growth regulator treatments. The plan of layout
is depicted in Fig.1.
Gross plot size : 3.0 m x 1.8 m
Net plot size : 2.85 m x 1.2 m
3.5 Cultural practices
3.5.1 Land preparation
The land was ploughed and harrowed twice to bring it to a fine tilth and leveled.
3.5.2 Fertilization
-1
The crop was fertilized with nitrogen, phosphorus and potash @ 125:50:125 NPK Kg ha in
the form of urea, single super phosphate and muriate of potash, respectively as basal dose. The
required quantities of fertilizers per plot were worked out and applied into soil.
3.5.3 Sowing
Seeds were sown on 24-6-2011 with a spacing of 30 cm between rows and 7.5 cm between
plants within a row.
3.5.4 After care
Hand weeding (Intercultural operation) was carried out twice at 30 and 60 days after sowing
(DAS). The crop was sprayed with endosulphon @ 1.5 ml/litre and monochrotophos @ 1.0 ml/litre at
30 DAS, against leaf eating caterpillar.
3.5.5 Harvesting
In onion the physiological maturity is indicated by yellowing of leaves and full growth of bulbs.
At physiological maturity, the bulbs were dug from net plot area @ 5 plants/plot and the top portion of
the plants was removed and roots were separated for dry matter production and bulb yield. The bulb
yield was calculated both on plant basis and hectare basis based on the bulb yield of five plants and
net plot area, respectively.
3.6 Collection of experimental data
Five plants from each plot were uprooted randomly at 30, 60, 90 and 120 DAS for recording
various morpho-physiological observations and the remaining plants in plots were used for recording
yield and yield components at harvest.
3.6.1 Morphological-Physiological characters
3.6.1.1 Plant height
The height of the plant was recorded in centimeter from ground level to the tip of the longest
leaf, when leaves were held vertical and it was expressed in cm.
3.6.7.2 Number of leaves
Five plants were uprooted at the time of each observation and the leaf number was noted at
each stages and the average was worked out.
3.6.1.3 Leaf area (cm2/plant)
Linear measurements were made for calculation of leaf area at 30, 60, 90 and 1 20 DAS.
The leaf area was calculated by using following formula (Mahesh Babu, 1984).
Leaf area=Leaf length (cm) x 2 Breadth (cm) x 0.7865 (cm)
 LEGEND

GENOTYPE : V1 - Nasik Red (N-35)

: V2 - Arka Kalyan

TREATMENTS : T1 = Chlormequat chloride (500 ppm)

T2 = Chlormequat chloride (750 ppm)

T3 = Chlormequat chloride (1000 ppm)

T4 = Chlormequat chloride (1250 ppm)

T5 = Mepiquat chloride (750 ppm)

T6 = Mepiquat chloride (1500ppm)

T7 = Triacontanol (1000 ppm)

T8 = Triacontanol (2000 ppm)

T9 = Control (water spray)

Fig. 1: Plan of layout of the experiment
 Plate 1: General view of experimental plot

3.6.1.4 Dry weight of leaf (g.plant-1)

Dry weight of leaf was recorded at 30, 60, 90 and 1 20 DAS from the samples collected for
-1
recording various morpho-physiological characters and expressed as g plant .
3.6.1.5 Dry matter production (g. plant-1) and its distribution.
Dry matter accumulation in various plant parts (shoot and bulb portion) and the total dry
matter were recorded after drying the samples in hot air oven at 80° C for 72 hours.
3.6.1.6 Bulb length and diameter (cm)
The length of the bulb was measured at different growth stages by using the scale and the
diameter was measured by using vernier callipers and expressed in cm.
3.6.2 Growth analysis
3.6.2. 1 Leaf Area Index (LAI)
Leaf area index is defined as the leaf area produced by plant per unit land area and was
calculated by the following formula (Sestak et al., 1972).
2
Leaf area per plant (cm )
LAI = 2
Land area per plant (cm )

3.6.2.2 Crop Growth Rate (CGR) (g m-2 day-1)

Crop growth rate is the rate of dry matter production per unit ground area per unit time
(Watson, 1952). It was calculated by using the following formula and expressed as g m-2 day-1.
W2 – W1 1
CGR = x
T2 – T1 P

Where,
W1 = Dry weight of the plant (g m-2) at time T1
-2)
W2 = Dry weight of the plant (g m at time T2
T2-T1 = Time interval in days
P = Unit land area (m2)
3.6.2.3 Absolute Growth Rate (AGR) (g plant-1 day-1)
It expresses the dry weight increase per unit time and was calculated by using following
formula and expressed as g plant-1 day-1 (Radford, 1967).
W2 – W1
AGR =
T2 – T1

Where,
W 2 and W 1 are the total dry weights per plant at time T2 and T1 respectively.
3.6.2 Relative Growth Rate (RGR) (g g-1 day-1)
It is the ratio of increase in dry weight per unit dry weight already present and is expressed in
-1 -1
g g day . Relative growth at various stages was calculated as suggested by Radford (1967) and
-1 -1
expressed as g g day .
Loge W 2 – loge W 1
RGR =
T2 – T1

Where,
W 1 = Dry weight of plants (g) at time T1
W 2 = Dry weight of plants (g) at time T2
T2- T1 = Time interval in days
3.6.2.5 Net Assimilation Rate (NAR) (g dm-2 day-1)
Net assimilation rate is the rate of dry weight increase per unit leaf area per unit time. It was
calculated by following formula (Watson, 1952) and expressed as g dm-2
-1
day .
W2 – W1 Loge L2 – loge L1
NAR = x
T2 – T1 L2 – L1
Where,
L1 and W 1 = Leaf area (dm2) and dry weight of the plant (g), respectively at time T1
2
L2 and W 2 = Leaf area (dm ) and dry weight of the plant (g), respectively at time T2
T2 – T1 = Time interval in days
3.6.2.6 Leaf Area Duration (LAD) (days)
Leaf area duration is the integral of leaf area index over a growth period (Watson, 1952). LAD
for various growth periods was worked out as per the formula of Power et al. (1967) and expressed in
days.
Li + (Li + 1)
LAD = x (Ti+1-Ti)
2

Where,
th
Lì = LAI at ì stage
th
Lì + 1 = LAI at (i + 1) stage
Ti+1 & Ti = Time intervals in days
3.6.2.7 Specific Leaf Weight (SLW) (mg cm-2)
The specific leaf weight indicates the leaf thickness and was determined by the method of
Radford (1967). It was expressed as mg cm-2.
Leaf dry weight (mg)
SLW =
Leaf area (cm2)
3.6.2.8 Specific Leaf Area (SLA) (cm2mg-1)
The inverse of the specific leaf weight is the specific leaf area and was calculated as follows
and it was expressed as cm2 mg-1.
2
Leaf area (cm )
SLA =
Leaf dry weight (mg)

3.6.2.9 Leaf area ratio (LA R) (cm2 g-1)

2 -1
The leaf area ratio was calculated as per the following formula. it was expressed as cm g .
Leaf area (cm2)
LAR =
Total dry matter (g)

3.6.2.10 Biomass Duration (BMD) (g days)

The BMD was calculated by using the following formula expressed in g.days.

TDM (T1) + TDM (T2)

BMD = x (T2 – T1)
2

Where,
TDM (T) = TDM at T1 stage
TDM (T2) = TDM at T2 stage
T2 – T1 = Time interval between two stages in days
3.6.3 Yield and yield components
3.6.3.1 Bulb yield
From each net plot area, ten matured plants were selected at random and the fresh weight of
bulbs was recorded for expressing yield on per plant basis. For expressing hectare basis, bulbs
collected from the net plot area was used.
3.6.3.2 Bulb length and diameter
Ten bulbs from each plot were selected randomly and their length and diameter were
determined and expressed in cm.
3.6.4 Biochemical parameters
3.6.4.1 Estimation of chlorophyll content
The chlorophyll content was measured by following the method as prescribed by Arnon.
(1949). A 0.25 g of fresh leaves were cut into small pieces and homogenized with pure acetone in a
mortar with pestle. Then decanted supernatant through whatman No. 42 filter paper into a 25 ml
volumetric flask. Then 80 per cent acetone is added to the residue in the mortar and repeat the
extraction until residue is decolorized. Then volume was made up to 25 ml with 80 per cent acetone
and the absorbance of the extract was measured at 663, 645 & 653 nm in spectrophotometer
(Systronics, UV-VIS spectrophotometer 108) using 80 per cent acetone as blank. The total chlorophyll
content was estimated in leaves at 30, 60 and 90 DAS by using the following formula.
V
Chlorophyll ‘a’ = (12.7 x A663) – (2.69 x A645) x
1000 x a x W

V
Chlorophyll ‘b’ = (22.9 x A645) – (4.68 x A663) x
1000 x a x W

V
Total chlorophyll = (20.2 x A645) – (8.02 x A663) x
1000 x a x W
or
 = Chlorophyll ‘a’ + chlorophyll ‘b’
Where,
A645 = Absorbance of the extract at 645 nm
A663 = Absorbance of the extract at 663 nm
a = Path length of Cuvette (1cm)
V = Final volume of the Chlorophyll extract (ml)
W = Fresh weight of the sample (g)
3.6.4.2 Nitrate reductase activity in leaves
The nitrate reductase activity (NRA) in vivo was assayed by the method of Sardhambal et al.
(1978). Leaves were cut into small round discs, weighed and suspended in 0.1 M KNO3 under bright
light for 1 hour for complete stomatal opening.
Then discs were transferred to 25 ml volumetric flasks containing 5 ml of stock solution which
contained 0.1 M phosphate buffer (pH 7.5), 0.02 M KNO3, propanol (5%) and 2 drops of
chloremphenicol (0.5 mg/ml).
The flasks are incubated at 30°C for 30 minutes in dark, and the reaction was stopped by
adding 0.1 ml of zinc acetate (1.0 M) and 1 .9 ml of ethanol (70%). The contents were centrifuged at
3,000 rpm for 10 minutes and supernatant was collected. To the supernatant, 1 ml of sulphanil amide
(1%) and 1 ml of NNEDA (N-Naphthyl Ethylene Diamine dihydrochloride (0.02%) and incubated at
room temperature for 20 minutes. The activity of nitrate reductase was determined from a standard
curve of KNO2 and expressed as µ moles NO2 formed per g fresh weight per hour.
3.7 Statistical analysis
The data recorded from the experiment at different growth stages were subjected to statistical
analysis as described by Gomez and Gomez (1984). The level of significance used in ‘F’ and ‘t’ tests
was P = 0.05. Critical differences were calculated whenever ‘F’ test was found significant. In case of
non-significant effects, value of standard error of means alone is presented in tables.
3.8 Economics
Additional cost involved and returns obtained by applying different growth regulators was
worked out, taking into consideration, the market rates of all the applied inputs during experimentation
on per hectare basis.
 EXPEREMENTAL RESULTS
A field experiment was conducted during Kharif 2011 at Main Agriculture Research Station,
University of Agriculture Sciences, Dharawad to study the effect of different plant growth regulators
viz., Chlormequat chloride (500,750,1000 and 1250), Mepiquat chloride (750 and 1500 ppm) and
Triacontanol (1000 and 2000 ppm) on various morpho-physiological, biochemical and yield parameter
in onion genotypes. The crop was sprayed with at 40 and 60 (DAS).
4.1 Morphological characters
4.1.1 Plant height (cm)
The data on plant height presented in Table 4, indicted significant differences between the
treatments at all the growth stages except at 30 days. However the genotypes recorded significant
differences at 60DAS and at harvest. While the interaction between treatments and varieties was
found non-significant at all the stages.
In general the plant height increased progressively up to 90 DAS and decline thereafter in
both Nasik Red and Arka Kalyan genotypes. Among the Varieties plant height was maximum in Arka
Kalyan compared to Nasik Red at all the growth stages.
At 60 DAS plant growth retardants (Chlormequat chloride and Mepiquat chloride) reduced
plant height compared to control. While growth promoter (Triacontanol) recorded higher plant height
(67.2 cm) at Triacontanol 2000 ppm followed by (66.8 cm) Triacontanol 1000 ppm in Arka Kalyan.
While the minimum plant height (55 cm) was recorded in Mepiquat chloride (1500 ppm) in Nasik Red.
Among the treatments Triacontanol (2000 and 1000 ppm) recorded significantly higher plant
height as compared to all the growth retardants treatments. Among genotypes Arka Kalyan recorded
significantly higher plant height (62.3 cm) as compared to Nasik Red (59 cm) the interaction between
genotypes and growth regulators was found non-significant.
At 90 DAS significantly higher plant height (68.7 cm) was recorded in Triacontanol (2000
ppm) as compared to all the growth retardants treatments. However the differences between the plant
height among the genotypes and the interaction effects were was nonsignificant.
Similar trend was observed at harvest for treatments. While among genotypes Arka Kalyan
recorded significantly higher plant height (46.2 cm) as compared to Nasik red (44.4 cm).
4.1.2 Number of leaves
All the growth regulator treatments significantly increased leaf number as compared to control
and the number of leaves were more in Arka Kalyan than Nasik Red (Table 5). Leaf number
increased up to 90 DAS and decreased there after towards harvest. The differences in leaf number
among the growth regulator treatments and among the genotypes were significant at all the growth
stages (60, 90 DAS and at harvest) except at 30 DAS. The interaction effect was found significant
only at 60 DAS.
At 60 DAS that is after treatment imposition CCC (1000 ppm) recorded significantly higher
(8.5) number of leaves per plant as compared to control (5.3) and all other treatments except
Chlormequat chloride (1250 ppm).
The number of leaves were significantly higher in Arka Kalyan (7.3) as compared to Nasik
Red (6.5). among the interaction Arka Kalyan with Chlormequat chloride 1000 ppm (9) recorded
significantly higher number of leaves followed by chlormequat chloride 1250 ppm (8.7) as compared
to all other intraction combination and control, except chlormequat chloride 750 ppm (8.3) and 500
ppm (8.2).
At 90 DAS significantly higher number of leaves per plant was recorded in treatment
Chlormequat chloride 1000 ppm (9.8) compared to control (7.9) and among genotypes Arka Kalyan
(9.2) recorded significantly higher number of leaves than Nasik Red (8.8). While the interaction
between genotypes and growth regulators treatments was nonsignificant. Similar trend was observed
at harvest.
 Table 4. Influence of plant growth regulators on plant height (cm) at different growth stages in onion genotypes

30 DAS 60 DAS 90 DAS Harvest

Treatment Nasik Arka Nasik Arka Nasik Arka Nasik Arka
Mean Mean Mean Mean
Red Kalyan Red Kalyan Red Kalyan Red Kalyan

Chlormequat chloride (500ppm) 23.2 24.3 23.8 58.0 62.2 60.1 63.0 64.1 63.6 44.2 45.7 45.0
Chlormequat chloride (750ppm) 22.9 23.1 23.0 57.7 61.9 59.8 62.5 63.7 63.1 43.5 45.0 44.3
Chlormequat chloride (1000ppm) 23.5 23.2 23.4 56.4 61.4 58.9 61.8 63.3 62.6 43.2 44.6 43.9
Chlormequat chloride (1250ppm) 21.7 24.5 23.1 55.3 59.6 57.5 61.1 62.4 61.8 42.2 43.2 42.7
Mepiquat chloride(750ppm) 22.4 24.7 23.6 56.7 60.2 58.5 61.8 62.8 62.3 41.3 43.8 42.5
Mepiquat chloride(1500ppm) 23.4 22.6 23.0 55.0 58.3 56.7 60.2 61.0 60.6 40.3 42.5 41.4
Triacontanol(1000ppm) 22.7 22.5 22.6 64.1 66.8 65.5 67.5 68.2 67.8 49.3 50.7 50.0
Triacontanol(2000ppm) 23.8 23.4 23.6 65.3 67.2 66.2 68.1 69.3 68.7 50.2 52.1 51.1
Control(water spray) 23.7 23.5 23.6 62.3 63.3 62.8 64.7 65.3 65.0 45.8 48.3 47.1

Mean 23.0 23.5 23.3 59.0 62.3 60.7 63.4 64.4 63.9 44.4 46.2 45.3

For comparing means of SE m+ CD at 5% SE m+ CD at 5% SE m+ CD at 5% SE m+ CD at 5%

Genotypes 0.34 NS 0.64 1.84 0.71 NS 0.67 1.74
Growth regulators 0.72 NS 1.36 3.91 1.54 4.43 1.43 4.10
Interaction 1.02 NS 1.92 NS 1.85 NS 1.89 NS
4.2 Dry matter production
4.2.1 Leaf dry weight (g/ plant)
The data on leaf dry weight (Table 6) showed that it increased up to 90 DAS and decreased
thereafter at harvest. The differences for the leaf dry weight were non-significant for treatments
genotypes and interaction during the early stage of growth (30DAS).
At 60 DAS Chlormequat chloride 1000 ppm recorded significantly higher leaf dry weight (2.46
g) compared to all other treatments and control (1.39 g) Followed by Chlormequat chloride 1250 ppm
(1.95 g) and Chlormequat chloride 500 ppm (1.78 g). Among the genotypes Arka Kalyan was
significantly superior compared to Nasik Red with (1.85 and 1.75 g) leaf dry weight, respectively.
Similar trends were observed at 90 DAS and at harvest, where in Chlormequat chloride 1000
ppm continued to be having significantly higher leaf dry weight (3.78 and 3.21 g) at 90 DAS and at
harvest, respectively. Significantly lower leaf dry weight was observed in control.
4.2.2 Bulb dry weight (g/ plant)
In general bulb dry weight increased progressively up to harvest. The data on bulb dry weight
at various stages indicated significant differences due to growth regulator treatments at all the stages
and genotypes at 60 DAS (Table 7). The interaction effect between genotypes and growth regulators
were non-significant at all the stages.
The bulb dry weight was more in Arka Kalyan than Nasik Red at all the stages. at 60 DAS the
bulb dry weight was significantly higher in Chlormequat chloride 1000 ppm and 1250 ppm with (0.62
g) compared to all other treatments. While the control recorded significantly lower bulb dry weight
(0.26 g). Among genotypes Arka Kalyan recorded significantly higher (0.46 g) bulb dry weight than
Nasik Red (0.41 g). Similarly bulb dry weight was significantly higher in Chlormequat chloride 1000
ppm 3.07 and 4.73 g as compared to control ( 1.85 g ) and (3.10 g) at 90 DAS and at harvest,
respectively.
The differences for bulb dry weight between the genotypes and interaction effects were found
to be non-significant at 90DAS and at harvest. However the bulb dry weight was more in Arka Kalyan
compared to Nasik Red.
4.2.3 Total dry weight (g/plant)
The results pertaining to total dry matter (Table 8) indicated that the total dry weight increase
from 30 DAS to harvest in all the treatments and in both the genotypes. The maximum total dry weight
was noticed at harvest in all the growth regulator treatments and in both the genotypes. The
maximum total dry weight was noticed at harvest in all the growth regulator treatments and in both the
genotypes.
The maximum dry weight was noticed at harvest in all growt regulator treatments and
increase was higher during 60 to 90 DAS. Among the genotypes Arka Kalyan recorded higher total
dry matter production as compared to Nasik Red at all the stages and was significantly higher at 90
DAS and at harvest. Similarly the interaction effects between genotypes and treatments were also
found significant at 90 DAS and at harvest.
At 30 and 60 DAS more significant differences were observed between the genotypes.
However total dry weight was more in Arka Kalyan than Nasik Red. At 60 DAS among the treatments
the growth retardants Chlormequat chloride 1000 ppm followed by Chlormequat chloride 1250 ppm
recorded significantly higher total dry weight (3.08 and 2.73 g) as compared to control (1.46 g).
The treatments Chlormequat chloride (1000 and 2500 ppm) produced significantly higher total
dry matter 7.14 and 6.71g at 90 DAS and 7.94 and 7.46 g and at harvest, respectively, over rest of
the treatments. While control recorded significantly lower total dry weight 4.22 and 4.48 g at 90 DAS
and at harvest, respectively. Among genotypes Arka Kalyan produced significantly higher total dry
weight compared to Nasik Red at both 90 DAS and at harvest.
The interaction effects for total dry weight were also significant at these stages. In Arka
Kalyan treated with Chlormequat chloride 1000 ppm recorded significantly higher total dry weight 7.42
and 8.31 g, while control in Nasik Red recorded significantly lower total dry weight 4.17 and 4.39 g at
90 DAS and at harvest, respectively.
 Table 5. Influence of plant growth regulators on number of leaves per plant at different growth stages in onion genotypes

30 DAS 60 DAS 90 DAS Harvest

Treatment Nasik Arka Nasik Arka Nasik Arka Nasik Arka
Mean Mean Mean Mean
Red Kalyan Red Kalyan Red Kalyan Red Kalyan
Chlormequat chloride (500ppm) 3.3 3.7 3.5 6.7 8.2 7.4 9.2 9.7 9.4 5.7 6.7 6.2
Chlormequat chloride (750ppm) 3.7 3.3 3.5 7.3 8.3 7.8 9.3 9.8 9.6 5.7 7.0 6.3
Chlormequat chloride (1000ppm) 3.3 3.3 3.3 8.0 9.0 8.5 9.7 10.0 9.8 6.7 7.3 7.0
Chlormequat chloride (1250ppm) 3.3 3.0 3.2 7.7 8.7 8.2 9.5 9.8 9.7 6.3 7.3 6.8
Mepiquat chloride(750ppm) 3.7 3.3 3.5 5.7 5.8 5.8 8.3 8.7 8.5 5.0 6.0 5.5
Mepiquat chloride(1500ppm) 3.0 3.7 3.4 5.3 6.2 5.8 8.3 8.4 8.4 5.3 6.3 5.8
Triacontanol(1000ppm) 3.3 3.7 3.5 5.7 6.7 6.2 8.7 9.0 8.8 5.3 6.7 6.0
Triacontanol(2000ppm) 3.7 3.0 3.4 7.0 7.0 7.0 9.0 9.3 9.2 5.7 6.7 6.2
Control(water spray) 3.7 3.3 3.5 5.0 5.5 5.3 7.7 8.1 7.9 4.7 5.7 5.2

Mean 3.4 3.4 3.4 6.5 7.3 6.9 8.8 9.2 9.0 5.6 6.6 6.1
For comparing means of SE m+ CD at 5% SE m+ CD at 5% SE m+ CD at 5% SE m+ CD at 5%
Genotypes 0.06 NS 0.07 0.21 0.11 0.32 0.09 0.25
Growth regulators 0.12 NS 0.16 0.45 0.28 0.80 0.18 0.53
Interaction 0.17 NS 0.22 0.63 0.38 NS 0.26 NS
Table 6. Influence of plant growth regulators on leaf dry weight (g plant -1) at different growth stages in onion genotypes

30 DAS 60 DAS 90 DAS Harvest

Treatment Nasik Arka Nasik Arka Nasik Arka Nasik Arka
Mean Mean Mean Mean
Red Kalyan Red Kalyan Red Kalyan Red Kalyan
Chlormequat chloride (500ppm) 0.08 0.10 0.08 1.75 1.81 1.78 3.00 3.17 2.76 1.74 2.12 1.93
Chlormequat chloride (750ppm) 0.12 0.12 0.09 1.83 2.11 1.95 3.08 3.50 3.21 1.93 2.36 2.15
Chlormequat chloride (1000ppm) 0.13 0.14 0.08 2.41 2.51 2.46 3.98 4.16 3.78 3.00 3.42 3.21
Chlormequat chloride (1250ppm) 0.09 0.11 0.11 2.08 2.14 2.09 3.55 3.90 3.57 2.90 3.17 3.04
Mepiquat chloride(750ppm) 0.12 0.13 0.07 1.46 1.43 1.45 1.69 1.78 2.54 1.48 1.69 1.59
Mepiquat chloride(1500ppm) 0.10 0.12 0.06 1.49 1.64 1.57 1.87 2.16 2.62 1.62 1.71 1.67
Triacontanol(1000ppm) 0.09 0.15 0.08 1.78 1.87 1.63 2.63 2.80 2.72 1.96 2.06 2.01
Triacontanol(2000ppm) 0.11 0.13 0.09 1.82 1.93 1.68 2.87 3.09 2.83 2.03 2.14 2.09
Control(water spray) 0.12 0.14 0.07 1.17 1.24 1.39 1.33 1.40 2.13 1.30 1.45 1.38
Mean 0.10 0.13 0.08 1.75 1.85 1.77 2.67 2.88 2.91 2.00 2.24 2.12

For comparing means of SE m+ CD at 5% SE m+ CD at 5% SE m+ CD at 5% SE m+ CD at 5%

Genotypes 0.01 NS 0.03 0.08 0.07 0.19 0.08 0.22
Growth regulators 0.01 NS 0.07 0.19 0.16 0.46 0.18 0.52
Interaction 0.02 NS 0.10 NS 0.22 NS 0.25 NS
Table 7. Influence of plant growth regulators on bulb dry weight (g plant -1) at different growth stages in onion genotypes

60 DAS 90 DAS Harvest

Treatment Nasik Arka Nasik Arka Nasik Arka
Mean Mean Mean
Red Kalyan Red Kalyan Red Kalyan
Chlormequat chloride (500ppm) 0.40 0.49 0.45 2.21 2.44 2.32 4.05 4.24 4.15
Chlormequat chloride (750ppm) 0.44 0.58 0.51 2.29 2.44 2.37 4.06 4.38 4.22
Chlormequat chloride (1000ppm) 0.60 0.64 0.62 2.87 3.26 3.07 4.56 4.89 4.73
Chlormequat chloride (1250ppm) 0.60 0.63 0.62 2.90 3.06 2.98 4.21 4.63 4.42
Mepiquat chloride(750ppm) 0.30 0.36 0.33 2.61 2.60 2.60 3.17 3.22 3.20
Mepiquat chloride(1500ppm) 0.33 0.38 0.36 2.86 2.64 2.75 3.37 3.53 3.45
Triacontanol(1000ppm) 0.35 0.41 0.38 2.20 1.95 2.08 3.31 3.31 3.31
Triacontanol(2000ppm) 0.38 0.45 0.42 2.16 2.13 2.15 3.53 3.79 3.66
Control(water spray) 0.27 0.24 0.26 1.81 1.93 1.85 3.09 3.11 3.10

Mean 0.41 0.46 0.44 2.55 2.59 2.57 3.71 3.90 3.80

For comparing means of SE m+ CD at 5% SE m+ CD at 5% SE m+ CD at 5%

Genotypes 0.02 0.04 0.13 NS 0.21 NS
Growth regulators 0.04 0.11 0.25 0.72 0.39 1.12
Interaction 0.05 NS 0.37 NS 0.58 NS
Table 8. Influence of plant growth regulators on total dry weight (g plant -1) at different growth stages in onion genotypes

30 DAS 60 DAS 90 DAS Harvest

Treatment Nasik Arka Nasik Arka Nasik Arka Nasik Arka
Mean Mean Mean Mean
Red Kalyan Red Kalyan Red Kalyan Red Kalyan
Chlormequat chloride (500ppm) 0.08 0.10 0.09 2.15 2.30 2.23 5.21 5.61 5.41 5.79 6.36 6.08
Chlormequat chloride (750ppm) 0.12 0.12 0.12 2.27 2.69 2.48 5.37 5.94 5.66 5.99 6.74 6.37
Chlormequat chloride (1000ppm) 0.13 0.14 0.13 3.01 3.15 3.08 6.85 7.42 7.14 7.56 8.31 7.94
Chlormequat chloride (1250ppm) 0.09 0.11 0.10 2.68 2.77 2.73 6.45 6.96 6.71 7.11 7.80 7.46
Mepiquat chloride (750ppm) 0.12 0.13 0.12 1.76 1.79 1.78 4.30 4.38 4.34 4.65 4.91 4.78
Mepiquat chloride (1500ppm) 0.10 0.12 0.11 1.82 1.97 1.92 4.58 4.80 4.77 4.99 5.24 5.12
Triacontanol (1000ppm) 0.09 0.15 0.12 2.13 2.28 2.21 4.79 4.97 4.79 5.27 5.37 5.32
Triacontanol (2000ppm) 0.11 0.13 0.12 2.20 2.38 2.29 5.03 5.22 5.13 5.56 5.93 5.75
Control(water spray) 0.12 0.14 0.13 1.44 1.48 1.46 4.17 4.24 4.22 4.39 4.56 4.48

Mean 0.10 0.13 0.12 2.16 2.32 2.24 5.22 5.48 5.35 5.70 6.14 5.92

For comparing means of SE m+ CD at 5% SE m+ CD at 5% SE m+ CD at 5% SE m+ CD at 5%

Genotypes 0.01 NS 0.14 NS 0.08 0.23 0.15 0.43
Growth regulators 0.02 NS 0.29 0.82 0.17 0.49 0.35 1.04
Interaction 0.03 NS 0.42 NS 0.24 0.69 0.48 1.43
4.2.4 Leaf area (cm2/plant)
The data presented in (Table 9) indicated the significant differences in leaf area among the
treatments at all the stages except at 30 DAS and among the genotypes the differences for leaf area
was significant only at 90 DAS. From the table it is clear that the leaf area increased from 30 to 90
DAS and decreased there after towards the harvest.
All the treatments, genotypes and interaction effect on leaf area was non-significant at 30
DAS and at 60 DAS. Leaf area differed significantly due to treatments. Among the treatments leaf
area was significantly higher in Chlormequat chloride (1000 ppm) followed by Triacontanol (1000
ppm) and Chlormequat chloride (750 ppm) with 368.0, 345.8 and 334.9 (cm2 plant-1), respectively as
2 -1
compared to control (282.6 cm plant ).
Similarly at 90 DAS and at harvest, Chlormequat chloride 1000 ppm recorded significantly
higher leaf area. While significantly lower leaf area was observed in control. Among the genotypes
Arka Kalyan recorded significantly higher leaf area 497.6 cm2plant-1 compared to Nasik Red 472.9
2 -1
cm plant . The interaction effects on leaf area was also significant at 90 DAS and at harvest, where
Chlormequat chloride 1000 ppm in Arka Kalyan recorded significantly higher leaf area. In Nasik Red
control recorded significantly lower leaf area.
4.3 Growth Analysis
4.3.1 Leaf Area Index
The leaf area index increased from 30 to 90 DAS and declined thereafter at harvest
irrespective of treatment and genotypes (Table 10). Among the genotypes Arka Kalyan recorded
higher leaf area index compared to Nasik Red at all the stages of crop growth and the differences
were significant only at harvest. While interaction effects between genotypes and growth regulators
was not found significant at all growth stages. Among the treatments Chlormequat chloride 1000 ppm
showed significantly higher leaf area index over rest of the treatments. While control recorded
significantly lower leaf area index at 60, 90 DAS and at harvest.
4.3.2 Leaf Area Duration (days)
The data pertaining to LAD presented in Table 11 indicated that LAD increased from 30-60 to
60-90 DAS. The treatment effects and genotypic variation were found significant. While the interaction
effects were non-significant in all stages of the growth.
At 30-60 DAS Chlormequat chloride 1000 ppm recorded significantly higher leaf area duration
(27.0 days) compared to rest of the treatments. Whereas significantly lower leaf area duration (21.3
days) was noticed in control. Among genotypes Arka Kalyan (24.4 days) recorded significantly higher
leaf area duration than Nasik Red (22.7 days). Similar trend was observed in both at 60-90 DAS to
harvest. Chlormequat chloride 1000 ppm continued to have the higher leaf area duration over rest of
the treatments in Arka Kalyan over Nasik Red.
4.3.3 Absolute growth rate (g/plant/day)
The data presented in (Table 12) indicated significant differences for absolute growth rate.
among the treatments between both 30-60 and 60-90 DAS. Absolute growth rate increased
continuously up to 90 DAS in all the treatments. The differences for absolute growth rate were not
significant between genotypes. However the values for absolute growth rate were higher in Arka
-1 -1
Kalyan compared to Nasik Red. Significantly higher absolute growth rate (9.83 g plant day ) was
-1 -1
recorded in Chlormequat chloride 1000 ppm followed by (8.79 g plant day ) in Chlormequat chloride
1250 ppm as compared to control (4.43 g plant-1 day-1).
A similar trend was noticed at 60-90 DAS with Chloromequat chloride 1000 ppm, recording
-1 -1
significantly higher absolute growth rate (13.52 g plant day ) followed by Chlormequat chloride 1250
ppm with (13.27 g plant day ) as compared to control (9.15 g plant-1 day-1) Except Chlormequat
-1 -1

chloride 1000 ppm and 1250 ppm all the growth regulators treatment and control were onpar with
each other. The interaction effects for absolute growth rate at both growth stages were found to be
non-significant.
Table 9. Influence of plant growth regulators on leaf area (cm2 plant -1) at different growth stages in onion genotypes

30 DAS 60 DAS 90 DAS Harvest

Treatment
Nasik Arka Nasik Arka Nasik Arka Nasik Arka
Mean Mean Mean Mean
Red Kalyan Red Kalyan Red Kalyan Red Kalyan

Chlormequat chloride (500ppm) 30.2 34.4 32.3 304.5 307.6 306.1 515.0 531.5 523.2 148.2 159.5 153.9

Chlormequat chloride (750ppm) 36.1 33.2 34.7 313.4 356.4 334.9 522.5 584.6 553.6 156.3 164.8 160.6

Chlormequat chloride (1000ppm) 35.7 38.3 37.0 363.8 372.2 368.0 592.2 607.4 599.8 187.5 221.7 204.6

Chlormequat chloride (1250ppm) 31.3 33.0 32.1 321.3 326.8 324.1 539.9 587.0 563.4 174.0 191.3 182.7

Mepiquat chloride (750ppm) 34.7 36.7 35.7 334.5 321.6 328.1 381.9 395.0 388.5 130.8 140.5 135.7

Mepiquat chloride (1500ppm) 32.8 34.2 33.5 314.6 322.1 318.3 389.2 418.5 403.9 136.4 148.6 142.5

Triacontanol (1000ppm) 31.9 38.5 35.2 344.0 347.5 345.8 500.0 513.1 506.6 165.3 179.4 172.4

Triacontanol (2000ppm) 33.8 35.8 34.8 325.3 330.9 328.1 505.4 521.1 513.3 177.7 184.2 181.0

Control (water spray) 35.3 37.4 36.3 277.4 287.7 282.6 309.8 320.2 315.0 127.5 138.3 132.9

Mean 33.5 35.7 34.6 322.1 330.3 326.2 472.9 497.6 485.2 156.0 169.8 162.9

For comparing means of SE m+ CD at 5% SE m+ CD at 5% SE m+ CD at 5% SE m+ CD at 5%

Genotypes 0.92 NS 6.71 NS 8.02 21.97 4.98 NS

Growth regulators 2.08 NS 13.44 38.27 17.38 49.49 10.39 29.59

Interaction 2.89 NS 19.38 NS 24.43 68.89 14.78 41.69

Table 10. Influence of plant growth regulators on leaf area index (LAI) at different growth stages in onion genotypes

30 DAS 60 DAS 90 DAS Harvest

Treatment Nasik Arka Nasik Arka Nasik Arka Nasik Arka
Mean Mean Mean Mean
Red Kalyan Red Kalyan Red Kalyan Red Kalyan
Chlormequat chloride (500ppm) 0.13 0.15 0.14 1.35 1.37 1.36 2.29 2.36 2.33 0.66 0.71 0.68
Chlormequat chloride (750ppm) 0.16 0.15 0.15 1.39 1.58 1.49 2.32 2.60 2.46 0.69 0.73 0.71
Chlormequat chloride (1000ppm) 0.16 0.17 0.16 1.62 1.65 1.64 2.63 2.70 2.67 0.83 0.99 0.91
Chlormequat chloride (1250ppm) 0.14 0.15 0.14 1.43 1.45 1.44 2.40 2.61 2.50 0.77 0.85 0.81
Mepiquat chloride (750ppm) 0.15 0.16 0.16 1.49 1.43 1.46 1.70 1.76 1.73 0.58 0.62 0.60
Mepiquat chloride (1500ppm) 0.15 0.15 0.15 1.40 1.43 1.41 1.73 1.86 1.80 0.61 0.66 0.63
Triacontanol (1000ppm) 0.14 0.17 0.16 1.53 1.54 1.54 2.22 2.28 2.25 0.73 0.80 0.77
Triacontano l(2000ppm) 0.15 0.16 0.15 1.45 1.47 1.46 2.25 2.32 2.28 0.79 0.82 0.80
Control (water spray) 0.16 0.17 0.16 1.23 1.28 1.26 1.38 1.42 1.40 0.57 0.61 0.59

Mean 0.15 0.16 0.15 1.43 1.47 1.45 2.10 2.21 2.16 0.69 0.75 0.72

For comparing means of SE m+ CD at 5% SE m+ CD at 5% SE m+ CD at 5% SE m+ CD at 5%

Genotypes 0.01 NS 0.03 NS 0.13 NS 0.02 0.04
Growth regulators 0.01 NS 0.07 0.20 0.28 0.80 0.05 0.48
Interaction 0.02 NS 0.10 NS 0.40 NS 0.06 NS
Table 11. Influence of plant growth regulators on leaf area duration (LAD, days) at different growth stages in onion genotypes

30-60 DAS 60-90 DAS 90 DAS-Harvest

Treatment Nasik Arka Nasik Arka Nasik Arka
Mean Mean Mean
Red Kalyan Red Kalyan Red Kalyan
Chlormequat chloride (500ppm) 22.3 22.8 22.6 54.6 55.9 55.3 44.2 46.1 45.1
Chlormequat chloride (750ppm) 23.3 26.0 24.6 55.7 62.7 59.2 45.3 50.0 47.6
Chlormequat chloride (1000ppm) 26.6 27.4 27.0 63.7 65.3 64.5 52.0 55.3 53.6
Chlormequat chloride (1250ppm) 23.5 24.0 23.7 57.4 60.9 59.2 47.6 51.9 49.7
Mepiquat chloride (750ppm) 24.6 23.9 24.2 47.8 47.8 47.8 34.2 35.7 34.9
Mepiquat chloride (1500ppm) 23.2 23.8 23.5 46.9 49.4 48.1 35.0 37.8 36.4
Triacontanol (1000ppm) 25.1 25.7 25.4 56.3 57.4 56.8 44.4 46.2 45.3
Triacontanol (2000ppm) 23.9 24.4 24.2 55.4 56.8 56.1 45.5 47.0 46.3
Control (water spray) 20.8 21.7 21.3 39.1 40.5 39.8 29.2 30.6 29.9

Mean 23.7 24.4 24.1 53.0 55.2 54.1 41.9 44.5 43.2

For comparing means of SE m+ CD at 5% SE m+ CD at 5% SE m+ CD at 5%

Genotypes 0.20 0.57 0.71 2.02 0.76 2.17
Growth regulators 0.49 1.39 1.58 4.51 1.79 5.10
Interaction 0.66 NS 2.21 NS 2.45 NS
4.3.4 Relative growth rate (g/g/day)
The results on relative growth rate indicated significant differences for genotypes treatments
and interaction during both stages of growth that is 30-60 and 60-90 DAS. Except between genotypes
at 60-90 DAS (Table 12).
Among the genotypes Nasik Red recorded higher relative growth rate (4.37 g g-1 day-1).
Among the treatments significantly higher relative growth rate was recorded in Chlormequat chloride
-1 -1 -1 -1
1250 ppm (4.83 g g day ) and in Mepiquat chloride 1500 ppm (1.31 g g day ) at 30-60 and 60-90
DAS respectively. While controle recorded significantly lower relative growth rate in both stages.
4.3.5 Crop growth rate (g/m2/day)
The effect of plant growth regulators and the genotypic variations and there interaction effects
on Crop growth rate (CGR) is presented in Table 13. It is evident from the table that irrespective of
genotypes and treatments, There was an increase in crop growth rate as the crop growth advances
up to 90 DAS and the minimum CGR was noticed at 60-90 DAS. The genotype, Arka Kalyan recorded
higher crop growth rate compared to Nasik Red in both crop growth stages and the difference was
significant at 60-90 DAS. Among the treatments, Chlormequat chloride 1000 ppm recorded
significantly higher crop growth rate at 30-60 DAS and also at 60-90 DAS while significantly lower
crop growth rate was recorded in control.
The interaction effects for crop growth rate was significant at 60-90 DAS in Chlormequat
chloride treatment. Arka Kalyan recording significantly higher crop growth rate and in Nasik Red
control recording significantly lower Crop growth rate.
4.3.6 Net assimilation rate (g/cm2/day)
The observations on net assimilation rate (NAR) presented in the Table 13 indicated a study
decline in net assimilation rate with an advancement in crop growth rate irrespective of treatments and
genotypes. The difference for net assimilation rate between the genotypes were nonsignifcant in all
crop growth stages.
However, among genotypes Araka Kalyan recorded higher net assimilation rate than Nasik
-2 -1 -2 -1
Red. Significantly higher (3.02 g dm day ) and lower (1.60 g dm day ) net assimilation rates were
observed in Chlormequat chloride 1250 ppm and in control, respectively at 30-60 DAS.
While at 60-90 DAS, Chlormequat chloride 1250 ppm recorded significantly higher (1.33 g
dm-2 day-1) and Triacontanol 1000 ppm recorded significantly lower (0.92 g dm-2 day-1) net assimilation
rate. The interaction effects for net assimilation rate during this stages was nonsignificant.
4.3.7 Biomass Duration ( g days)
The results on Biomass duration (BMD) presented in Table 14 showed an increase in
biomass duration from 30-60 DAS to 90 DAS to harvest irrespective of treatments and genotypes.
The biomass duration differed significantly due to growth regulators treatments and genotypes.
However the interaction effects were found non-significant in all the stages of crop growth. Among the
genotypes Arka Kalyan recorded higher biomass duration as compared Nasik Red at all the stages.
During 30-60 DAS Chlormequat chloride 1000 ppm recorded significantly higher biomass
duration (48.2 days) over all other treatments followed by Chlormequat chloride 1250 ppm (42.3 days)
whereas control was found to have significantly lower biomass duration (23.9 days).
Similar trend was observed at 60-90 DAS and 90 DAS to harvest. Where in Chlormequat
chloride (1000 ppm) recorded significantly higher biomass duration (153.2 and 226.1 days) at both the
stages, followed by Chlormequat chloride (1250 ppm). Whereas, significantly lower biomass duration
at both the stages (85.0 and 130.2 days) was recorded in control. Among genotypes during both
stages significantly higher (117.3 and 174.6 days) and significantly lower (110.4 and 163.4 days)
biomass duration were recorded in Arka Kalyan and Nasik Red, respectively.
4.3.8 Leaf Area Ratio (cm2/g)
The effects of growth regulators and the genotypic variations on leaf area ratio are presented
in Table 15. From the table it is clear that leaf area ratio declined with the advancement in the crop
duration irrespective of treatments and varieties. Among genotypes leaf area ratio was higher in Nasik
Red than Arka Kalyan in all the stages and differences were significant at 30 and 90 DAS.
Table 12. Influence of plant growth regulators on absolute growth rate (AGR, g plant -1 day-1) and relative growth rate (RGR, g g-1 day-1)
at different growth stages in onion genotypes.

Absolute growth rate Relative growth rate

Treatment 30 -60 DAS 60-90 DAS 30 -60 DAS 60-90 DAS
Nasik Arka Nasik Arka Nasik Arka Nasik Arka
Mean Mean Mean Mean
Red Kalyan Red Kalyan Red Kalyan Red Kalyan
Chlormequat chloride (500ppm) 6.91 7.33 7.12 10.20 11.03 10.62 4.83 4.51 4.67 1.28 1.29 1.29
Chlormequat chloride (750ppm) 7.18 8.56 7.87 10.33 10.83 10.58 4.31 4.47 4.39 1.25 1.15 1.20
Chlormequat chloride (1000ppm) 9.62 10.03 9.83 12.80 14.23 13.52 4.61 4.51 4.56 1.19 1.24 1.22
Chlormequat chloride (1250ppm) 8.65 8.87 8.76 12.57 13.97 13.27 5.00 4.67 4.83 1.27 1.33 1.30
Mepiquat chloride (750ppm) 5.48 5.53 5.51 8.47 8.63 8.55 3.94 3.80 3.87 1.29 1.30 1.29
Mepiquat chloride (1500ppm) 5.73 6.18 5.96 9.20 9.43 9.32 4.20 4.10 4.15 1.34 1.29 1.31
Triacontanol (1000ppm) 6.79 7.11 6.95 8.87 8.97 8.92 4.55 3.97 4.26 1.17 1.13 1.15
Triacontanol (2000ppm) 6.98 7.51 7.24 9.43 9.47 9.45 4.38 4.25 4.31 1.20 1.14 1.17
Control (water spray) 4.39 4.47 4.43 9.10 9.20 9.15 3.57 3.44 3.50 1.14 1.12 1.13
Mean 6.86 7.29 7.07 10.11 10.64 10.37 4.37 4.19 4.28 1.28 1.27 1.27
For comparing means of SE m+ CD at 5% SE m+ CD at 5% SE m+ CD at 5% SE m+ CD at 5%
Genotypes 0.46 NS 0.45 NS 0.06 0.17 0.01 NS
Growth regulators 1.08 3.07 1.10 3.14 0.14 0.41 0.03 0.09
Interaction 1.48 NS 1.49 NS 0.20 0.55 0.04 0.11
Table 13. Influence of plant growth regulators on crop growth rate (CGR, g m -2 land area day-1) and net assimilation rate
-2 -1
(NAR, g dm leaf area day ) at different growth stages in onion genotypes

Crop growth rate Net assimilation rate

Treatment 30 -60 DAS 60-90 DAS 30 -60 DAS 60-90 DAS
Nasik Arka Nasik Arka Nasik Arka Nasik Arka
Mean Mean Mean Mean
Red Kalyan Red Kalyan Red Kalyan Red Kalyan
Chlormequat chloride (500ppm) 3.07 3.26 3.16 4.53 4.90 4.72 2.53 2.55 2.54 1.11 1.17 1.14
Chlormequat chloride (750ppm) 3.19 3.80 3.50 4.59 4.81 4.70 2.43 2.73 2.58 1.10 1.02 1.06
Chlormequat chloride (1000ppm) 4.27 4.46 4.37 5.69 6.33 6.01 2.95 2.97 2.96 1.19 1.29 1.24
Chlormequat chloride (1250ppm) 3.84 3.94 3.89 5.59 6.21 5.90 3.02 3.01 3.01 1.30 1.37 1.33
Mepiquat chloride (750ppm) 2.44 2.46 2.45 3.76 3.84 3.80 1.80 1.83 1.81 1.03 1.05 1.04
Mepiquat chloride (1500ppm) 2.55 2.75 2.65 4.09 4.19 4.14 2.00 2.09 2.04 1.14 1.11 1.13
Triacontano l(1000ppm) 3.02 3.16 3.09 3.94 3.99 3.96 2.25 2.20 2.22 0.92 0.92 0.92
Triacontanol (2000ppm) 3.10 3.34 3.22 4.19 4.21 4.20 2.35 2.46 2.41 1.00 0.98 0.99
Control (water spray) 1.95 1.99 1.97 4.04 4.09 4.07 1.62 1.58 1.60 1.35 1.32 1.33
Mean 3.05 3.24 3.14 4.49 4.73 4.61 2.33 2.38 2.35 1.12 1.14 1.13
For comparing means of SE m+ CD at 5% SE m+ CD at 5% SE m+ CD at 5% SE m+ CD at 5%
Genotypes 0.22 NS 0.07 0.20 0.08 NS 0.04 NS
Growth regulators 0.45 1.29 0.19 0.53 0.17 0.47 0.08 0.22
Interaction 0.64 NS 0.25 0.69 0.23 0.66 0.11 NS
Table 14. Influence of plant growth regulators on biomass duration (BMD, days) at different growth stages in onion genotypes

30-60 DAS 60-90 DAS 90 DAS-Harvest

Treatment Nasik Arka Nasik Arka Nasik Arka
Mean Mean Mean
Red Kalyan Red Kalyan Red Kalyan
Chlormequat chloride (500ppm) 33.4 36.0 34.7 110.4 118.7 114.5 165.0 179.6 172.3
Chlormequat chloride (750ppm) 35.8 42.2 39.0 114.6 129.5 122.0 170.4 190.2 180.3
Chlormequat chloride (1000ppm) 47.0 49.4 48.2 147.9 158.6 153.2 216.2 236.0 226.1
Chlormequat chloride (1250ppm) 41.5 43.2 42.3 137.0 146.0 141.5 203.4 221.4 212.4
Mepiquat chloride (750ppm) 28.1 28.8 28.5 90.9 92.6 91.7 134.3 139.4 136.8
Mepiquat chloride (1500ppm) 28.8 31.3 30.0 96.0 101.6 98.8 143.6 150.6 147.1
Triacontanol (1000ppm) 33.3 36.4 34.9 103.8 108.8 106.3 150.9 155.1 153.0
Triacontanol (2000ppm) 34.6 37.6 36.1 108.5 114.0 111.2 158.9 167.3 163.1
Control (water spray) 23.4 24.3 23.9 84.2 85.8 85.0 128.4 132.0 130.2

Mean 34.0 36.6 35.3 110.4 117.3 113.8 163.4 174.6 169.0
For comparing means of SE m+ CD at 5% SE m+ CD at 5% SE m+ CD at 5%
Genotypes 1.08 NS 2.10 5.98 3.40 9.71
Growth regulators 2.27 6.48 5.18 14.77 8.57 24.40
Interaction 3.23 NS 7.00 NS 11.51 NS
Table 15. Influence of plant growth regulators on leaf area ratio (LAR, cm2 g-1) at different growth stages in onion genotypes

30 DAS 60 DAS 90 DAS Harvest

Treatment Nasik Arka Nasik Arka Nasik Arka Nasik Arka
Mean Mean Mean Mean
Red Kalyan Red Kalyan Red Kalyan Red Kalyan
Chlormequat chloride (500ppm) 395.3 337.6 366.5 141.6 133.7 137.7 98.8 94.7 96.8 25.6 25.1 25.3
Chlormequat chloride (750ppm) 311.4 271.2 291.3 138.1 132.5 135.3 97.3 98.4 97.9 26.1 24.5 25.3
Chlormequat chloride (1000ppm) 285.6 273.5 279.5 120.9 118.2 119.5 86.5 81.9 84.2 24.8 26.7 25.7
Chlormequat chloride (1250ppm) 368.1 299.7 333.9 119.9 118.0 118.9 83.7 84.3 84.0 24.5 24.5 24.5
Mepiquat chloride (750ppm) 298.7 282.5 290.6 190.0 179.7 184.9 88.8 90.2 89.5 28.1 28.6 28.4
Mepiquat chloride (1500ppm) 327.6 295.1 311.3 172.8 163.5 168.2 85.0 87.2 86.1 27.3 28.4 27.8
Triacontanol (1000ppm) 347.7 261.9 304.8 161.5 152.4 157.0 104.4 103.2 103.8 31.4 33.4 32.4
Triacontanol (2000ppm) 315.7 284.4 300.1 147.9 139.0 143.5 100.5 99.8 100.2 32.0 31.1 31.5
Control (water spray) 288.2 271.6 279.9 192.6 194.4 193.5 74.3 75.5 74.9 29.0 30.3 29.7

Mean 326.5 286.4 306.4 153.9 147.9 150.9 91.0 90.6 90.8 27.6 28.1 27.9
For comparing means of SE m+ CD at 5% SE m+ CD at 5% SE m+ CD at 5% SE m+ CD at 5%
Genotypes 5.93 16.91 1.65 4.71 1.60 NS 0.22 NS
Growth regulators 11.81 33.64 4.43 12.62 4.10 11.69 0.47 1.33
Interaction 17.06 48.11 5.85 NS 5.49 NS 0.66 NS
 At 30 DAS Chlormequat chloride (500 ppm) recorded significantly higher leaf area ratio
followed by Chlormequat chloride (1250 ppm). While, Chlormequat chloride (1000 ppm) recorded
lower leaf area ratio. However it is on par with other treatments and control. Among genotypes higher
(326.5 cm2 g-1) and lower (286.4 cm2 g-1) leaf area ratio were recorded in Nasik Red and Arka Kalyan
respectively.
The interaction effects for leaf area ratio were significant in chlormequat chloride (500
ppm).Nasik Red recorded higher and Triacontanol (1000 ppm) in Arka Kalyan recorded significantly
lower leaf area ratio.
At 60 DAS significantly higher leaf area ratio was recorded in mepiquat chloride (750 ppm)
followed by Mepiquat chloride 1500 ppm. While significantly lower leaf area ratio was recorded in
control. At 90 DAS, Triacontanol (1000 ppm) followed by Traiacontanol (2000 ppm) recorded higher
leaf area ratio, while it was significantly lower in control.
Similar trend was observed at harvest. In Both Triacontanol treatments recorded higher leaf
area ratio. while significantly lower leaf area ratio was recorded in Chlormequat chloride 1250 ppm.
The interaction effects on leaf area ratio were non-significant at 60, 90 DAS and at harvest.
4.3.9 Specific Leaf Weight (mg /cm2)
Influence of growth regulators and variety at various growth stages on specific leaf weight
(SLW) is presented in Table 16. In general spcific leaf weight increased with the advancement of crop
age from 30 to 90 DAS and maximum specific leaf weight was observed at 90 DAS.
The genotypes differed significantly at 30 DAS while the differences for specific leaf weight
were nonsignificnt at 60 and 90 DAS. The genotypes Arka Kalyan recorded higher specific leaf weight
than Nasik Red in all crop growth stages.
At 60 DAS treatment Chlormequat chloride (1000 ppm) recorded higher specific leaf weight
(6.68 mg cm2) followed by Chlormequat chloride 1250 ppm (6.51 mg cm2) and Control recorded
significantly lower specific leaf weight (4.26 mg cm2). However the treatments mepiquat chloride 750
and 1500 ppm were on par with control and Triacontanol 1000 and 2000 ppm and Chlormequat
chloride 500 and 750 ppm were on par with each other.
The interaction effects for specific leaf weight were also significant. Chlormequat chloride
1000 ppm in Arka Kalyan and control in Nasik Red recorded significantly higher and lower specific
leaf weight, respectively. Similar trend was observed at 90 DAS with significantly higher SLW (6.78
2 2
mg cm ) in Chlormequat chloride 1000 ppm and significantly lower (4.33 mg cm ) in control.
4.3.10 Specific leaf area(cm2/g)
The data presented in Table 17 indicated significant differences in Specific leaf area among
the treatments at 60 and 90 DAS. While Specific leaf area was non-significant between the genotypes
at all the stages of the crop growth. The interaction effects between genotypes and growth regulators
were non-significant only at 60 DAS. Specific leaf area decreased from 30 to 90 DAS continuously.
Maximum specific leaf area was observed at 30 DAS. Where as in genotypes, growth regulators and
also the interaction effects were nonsignificant.
At 60 DAS significantly higher specific leaf area was recorded in Mepiquat chloride (750 ppm)
followed by Mepiquat chloride (1500 ppm). While Specific leaf area was significantly lower in
Chlormequat chloride (1000 ppm).
Similar trend was followed with higher and lower values recorded in Mepiquat chloride 750
ppm and Chlormequat chloride (1000 ppm), respectively at 90 DAS.
4.4 Biochemical parameters
4.4.1 Chlorophyll ‘a’ Content (mg/g fr.wt)
The data on chlorophyll ‘a’ content at different growth stages presented in Table 18 indicated
that chlorophyll ‘a’ was maximum at 60 DAS and it decreased thereafter. Among the genotypes Arka
Kalyan recorded higher chlorophyll ‘a’ compared to Nasik Red in all growth stages.
Table 16. Influence of plant growth regulators on specific leaf weight (SLW, mg cm-2) at different growth stages in onion genotypes

30 DAS 60 DAS 90 DAS

Treatment Nasik Arka Nasik Arka Nasik Arka
Mean Mean Mean
Red Kalyan Red Kalyan Red Kalyan
Chlormequat chloride (500ppm) 2.53 2.96 2.75 5.75 5.88 5.82 5.83 5.97 5.90
Chlormequat chloride (750ppm) 3.21 3.69 3.45 5.84 5.92 5.88 5.90 5.98 5.94
Chlormequat chloride (1000ppm) 3.50 3.66 3.58 6.62 6.74 6.68 6.72 6.84 6.78
Chlormequat chloride (1250ppm) 2.72 3.34 3.03 6.47 6.55 6.51 6.57 6.65 6.61
Mepiquat chloride (750ppm) 3.35 3.54 3.44 4.37 4.45 4.41 4.43 4.51 4.47
Mepiquat chloride (1500ppm) 3.05 3.39 3.22 4.74 5.09 4.91 4.81 5.17 4.99
Triacontanol (1000ppm) 2.88 3.82 3.35 5.17 5.38 5.28 5.25 5.46 5.36
Triacontanol (2000ppm) 3.17 3.52 3.34 5.59 5.83 5.71 5.68 5.92 5.80
Control (water spray) 3.47 3.68 3.58 4.22 4.31 4.26 4.28 4.37 4.33

Mean 3.10 3.51 3.30 5.42 5.57 5.50 5.50 5.65 5.58

For comparing means of SE m+ CD at 5% SE m+ CD at 5% SE m+ CD at 5%

Genotypes 0.09 0.26 0.17 NS 0.18 NS
Growth regulators 0.20 NS 0.38 1.08 0.39 1.10
Interaction 0.28 NS 0.53 1.49 0.55 1.54
Table 17. Influence of plant growth regulators on specific leaf area (SLA, cm2 mg-1) at different growth stages in onion genotypes

30 DAS 60 DAS 90 DAS

Treatment Nasik Arka Nasik Arka Nasik Arka
Mean Mean Mean
Red Kalyan Red Kalyan Red Kalyan
Chlormequat chloride (500ppm) 0.395 0.338 0.366 0.174 0.170 0.172 0.171 0.167 0.169
Chlormequat chloride (750ppm) 0.311 0.271 0.291 0.171 0.169 0.170 0.169 0.167 0.168
Chlormequat chloride (1000ppm) 0.286 0.273 0.280 0.151 0.148 0.150 0.149 0.146 0.147
Chlormequat chloride (1250ppm) 0.368 0.300 0.334 0.154 0.153 0.154 0.152 0.150 0.151
Mepiquat chloride (750ppm) 0.299 0.283 0.291 0.229 0.225 0.227 0.226 0.222 0.224
Mepiquat chloride (1500ppm) 0.328 0.295 0.311 0.211 0.196 0.204 0.208 0.193 0.201
Triacontanol (1000ppm) 0.348 0.262 0.305 0.193 0.186 0.190 0.190 0.183 0.187
Triacontanol (2000ppm) 0.316 0.284 0.300 0.179 0.171 0.175 0.176 0.169 0.173
Control (water spray) 0.288 0.272 0.280 0.237 0.232 0.235 0.234 0.229 0.231

Mean 0.326 0.286 0.306 0.189 0.183 0.186 0.186 0.181 0.183

For comparing means of SE m+ CD at 5% SE m+ CD at 5% SE m+ CD at 5%

Genotypes 0.025 NS 0.005 NS 0.007 NS
Growth regulators 0.049 NS 0.010 0.027 0.015 0.042
Interaction 0.071 NS 0.014 0.039 0.021 NS
Table 18. Influence of plant growth regulators on chlorophyll ‘a’ content (mg g fr.wt-1) at different growth stages in onion genotypes

30 DAS 60 DAS 90 DAS

Treatment Nasik Arka Nasik Arka Nasik Arka
Mean Mean Mean
Red Kalyan Red Kalyan Red Kalyan
Chlormequat chloride (500ppm) 1.77 1.87 1.82 2.24 2.38 2.31 1.85 1.96 1.90
Chlormequat chloride (750ppm) 1.65 1.69 1.67 2.31 2.45 2.38 1.90 2.01 1.96
Chlormequat chloride (1000ppm) 1.65 1.73 1.69 2.34 2.48 2.41 1.93 2.04 1.98
Chlormequat chloride (1250ppm) 1.51 1.78 1.64 2.40 2.55 2.48 1.98 2.09 2.03
Mepiquat chloride (750ppm) 1.67 1.80 1.74 1.86 2.03 1.94 1.47 1.60 1.54
Mepiquat chloride (1500ppm) 1.58 1.65 1.62 1.98 2.10 2.04 1.56 1.66 1.61
Triacontanol (1000ppm) 1.79 1.59 1.69 2.16 2.29 2.22 1.70 1.81 1.76
Triacontanol (2000ppm) 1.67 1.71 1.69 2.01 2.13 2.07 1.59 1.68 1.63
Control (water spray) 1.53 1.74 1.64 1.72 1.82 1.77 1.36 1.44 1.40

Mean 1.65 1.73 1.69 2.11 2.25 2.18 1.70 1.81 1.76
For comparing means of SE m+ CD at 5% SE m+ CD at 5% SE m+ CD at 5%
Genotypes 0.02 0.06 0.04 0.12 0.08 NS
Growth regulators 0.05 NS 0.09 0.27 0.17 0.48
Interaction 0.06 NS 0.13 NS 0.24 NS
 At 30 DAS significantly higher chlorophyll ‘a’ (1.73 mg g-1 fr. wt) was recorded in Arka Kalyan
-1
than Naisk Red (1.65 mg g fr.wt). At 60 DAS among the treatments Chlormequat chloride 1250 ppm
recorded significantly higher chlorophyll ‘a’ which was on par with Chlormequat chloride 1000 ppm,
750 ppm, 500 ppm and Triacontanol 1000 ppm.While chlorophyll ‘a’ was significantly lower in control.
Similarly, at 90 DAS, Chlormequat chloride 1250 ppm recorded significantly higher and control
recorded significantly lower Chlorophyll ‘a’ content was non-significant in all the crop growth stages.
4.4.2 Chlorophyll ‘b’ Content (mg/g fr.wt)
Chlorophyll ‘b’ followed the some trend as Chlorophyll ‘a’ with higher Chlorophyll ‘b’ content in
Arka Klayan than Nasik Red (Table 19). Among growth regulators Chlormequat chloride 1250 ppm
and control recorded significantly higher and lower Chlorophyll ‘b’ content, respectively at both 60 and
90 DAS. While the interaction effects in all crop growth stages was non-significant.
4.4.3 Total chlorophyll Content (mg/g fr.wt)
Total Chlorophyll content increased initially from 30 to 60 DAS and decreased there after with
the advancement in crop growth (Table 20). Among the genotypes total Chlorophyll was significantly
higher in Arka Kalyan than Nasik Red at 30 to 60 DAS.
Among growth regulator treatments Chlormequat chloride 1250 ppm recorded significantly
higher total Chlorophyll content which followed by Chlormequat chloride 1000 ppm, chlormequat
chloride 750 ppm and Chlormequat chloride 500 ppm. While control recorded significantly lower total
Chlorophyll content at 60 and 90 DAS. Influence of genotypes and growth regulators interaction was
non-significant for total Chlorophyll in all stages of crop growth.
4.4.4 Nitrate reductase activity (NRA, µ mol NO2 g-1 fr.wt . hr-1)
The data on nitrate reductase activity is presented in Table 21. In general it was observed that
maximum nitrate reductase activity was found at 30 DAS and it declined during later stages of crop
growth. The nitrate reductase activity was significant only at 30 DAS for genotypes while it was
significant at 60 and 90 DAS for growth regulator treatments. Among the genotypes Arka Kalyan
recorded higher nitrate reductase activity than Nasik Red in all the stages and it was significantly
higher with nitrate reductase activity (50.31) compared to( 46.340) at 30 DAS.
At 60 DAS significantly higher nitrate reductase activity was observed in Chlormequat chloride
(1000 ppm) which was on par with Chlormequat chloride 1250 ppm, Triacontanol 1000 and 2000
ppm. While significantly lower nitrate reducase activity was recorded in control. Similarly at 90 DAS,
Chlormequat chloride 1000 ppm recorded significantly higher and control recorded significantly lower
nitrate reducatse activity was recorded in Arka Kalyan with Chlormequat chloride 1000 ppm. While it
was significantly lower in Nasik Red with control.
4.5 Yield and Yield Components
The data on yield and yield component presented in Table 22.
4.5.1 Bulb Yield (g plant-1)
-1
The data on bulb yield g plant (Table 22) indicated significant differences among growth
regulator treatments and genotypes. Between the genotypes Arka Kalyan recorded significantly
higher Bulb yield 44.14 as compared to Nasik Red 39.05.
Among the Growth regulators treatments significantly higher bulb yield was recorded in
-1
Chlormequat chloride 1000 ppm (48.54 g plant ) followed by Chlormequat chloride 1250 ppm (47.14),
Chlormequat chloride 750 ppm (46.54) as compared to control (33.82). Due to interaction significantly
higher bulb yield was noticed in Arka Kalyan treated with Chlormequat chloride 1000 ppm and it was
significantly lower in Nasik Red with control.
4.5.2 Bulb Yield (q ha-1)
-1
The data related to bulb yield (q ha ) indicated significant differences among growth regulator
treatments and also with genotypes (Table 22). Among the treatments significantly higher bulb yield
was recorded in Chlormequat chloride 1000 ppm followed by Chlormequat chloride 1250 ppm,
Chlormequat chloride 750 ppm and Chlormequat chloride 500 ppm (215.5, 209.5, 206.9 and 184.7 q
-1 -1
ha , respectively). While control recorded significantly lower bulb yield (196.1 q ha ) in Arka Kalyan
as compared to (173.5 q ha-1) in Nasik Red.
Table 19. Influence of plant growth regulators on chlorophyll ‘b’ content (mg g fr.wt-1) at different growth stages in onion genotypes

30 DAS 60 DAS 90 DAS

Treatment Nasik Arka Nasik Arka Nasik Arka
Mean Mean Mean
Red Kalyan Red Kalyan Red Kalyan
Chlormequat chloride (500ppm) 0.64 0.73 0.69 0.71 0.77 0.74 0.44 0.47 0.45
Chlormequat chloride (750ppm) 0.63 0.64 0.64 0.73 0.76 0.74 0.43 0.47 0.45
Chlormequat chloride (1000ppm) 0.60 0.67 0.63 0.75 0.78 0.77 0.46 0.48 0.47
Chlormequat chloride (1250ppm) 0.55 0.69 0.62 0.78 0.80 0.79 0.47 0.49 0.48
Mepiquat chloride (750ppm) 0.64 0.70 0.67 0.68 0.75 0.72 0.42 0.46 0.44
Mepiquat chloride (1500ppm) 0.59 0.63 0.61 0.65 0.73 0.69 0.40 0.45 0.42
Triacontanol (1000ppm) 0.70 0.60 0.65 0.69 0.76 0.72 0.42 0.46 0.44
Triacontanol (2000ppm) 0.64 0.66 0.65 0.68 0.74 0.71 0.41 0.46 0.43
Control (water spray) 0.57 0.67 0.62 0.63 0.70 0.67 0.39 0.43 0.41

Mean 0.62 0.66 0.64 0.70 0.76 0.73 0.43 0.46 0.44

For comparing means of SE m+ CD at 5% SE m+ CD at 5% SE m+ CD at 5%

Genotypes 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.04 0.01 NS
Growth regulators 0.03 NS 0.03 0.08 0.01 0.03
Interaction 0.04 NS 0.05 NS 0.03 NS
Table 20. Influence of plant growth regulators on total chlorophyll content (mg g fr.wt-1) at different growth stages in onion genotypes

30 DAS 60 DAS 90 DAS

Treatment Nasik Arka Nasik Arka Nasik Arka
Mean Mean Mean
Red Kalyan Red Kalyan Red Kalyan
Chlormequat chloride (500ppm) 2.41 2.60 2.51 2.95 3.15 3.05 2.29 2.43 2.36
Chlormequat chloride (750ppm) 2.28 2.33 2.31 3.03 3.21 3.12 2.33 2.48 2.41
Chlormequat chloride (1000ppm) 2.25 2.40 2.32 3.09 3.27 3.18 2.39 2.52 2.45
Chlormequat chloride (1250ppm) 2.06 2.47 2.26 3.18 3.35 3.26 2.45 2.58 2.52
Mepiquat chloride (750ppm) 2.31 2.50 2.40 2.54 2.78 2.66 1.89 2.06 1.98
Mepiquat chloride (1500ppm) 2.17 2.28 2.22 2.63 2.83 2.73 1.96 2.11 2.03
Triacontanol (1000ppm) 2.49 2.19 2.34 2.84 3.04 2.94 2.13 2.27 2.20
Triacontanol (2000ppm) 2.31 2.37 2.34 2.68 2.87 2.78 2.00 2.14 2.07
Control (water spray) 2.10 2.41 2.25 2.35 2.52 2.43 1.74 1.87 1.81

Mean 2.26 2.39 2.33 2.81 3.00 2.91 2.13 2.27 2.20

For comparing means of SE m+ CD at 5% SE m+ CD at 5% SE m+ CD at 5%

Genotypes 0.04 0.11 0.06 0.17 0.07 NS
Growth regulators 0.11 NS 0.13 0.37 0.15 0.42
Interaction 0.15 NS 0.18 NS 0.21 NS
Table 21. Influence of plant growth regulators on nitrate reductase activity (µ mol NO2 g-1 fr.wt.-1hr -1) at different growth stages in onion genotypes

30DAS 60 DAS 90 DAS

Treatment Nasik Arka Nasik Arka Nasik Arka
Mean Mean Mean
Red Kalyan Red Kalyan Red Kalyan
Chlormequat chloride (500ppm) 47.25 52.14 49.69 37.33 41.38 39.36 23.14 25.66 24.40
Chlormequat chloride (750ppm) 46.54 51.81 49.17 35.68 40.56 38.12 22.12 25.15 23.63
Chlormequat chloride (1000ppm) 49.26 50.24 49.75 51.90 56.24 54.07 32.18 34.87 33.52
Chlormequat chloride (1250ppm) 48.81 47.64 48.23 46.85 48.40 47.63 29.05 30.01 29.53
Mepiquat chloride(750ppm) 44.48 48.72 46.60 33.47 35.26 34.37 20.75 21.86 21.31
Mepiquat chloride(1500ppm) 42.73 47.16 44.95 30.62 34.58 32.60 18.98 21.44 20.21
Triacontanol(1000ppm) 49.04 52.43 50.73 42.34 43.26 42.80 26.25 26.82 26.54
Triacontanol(2000ppm) 45.32 53.12 49.22 39.75 44.17 41.96 24.65 27.39 26.02
Control(water spray) 43.62 49.57 46.60 22.53 26.35 24.44 13.97 16.34 15.15

Mean 46.34 50.31 48.33 37.83 41.13 39.48 23.45 25.50 24.48
For comparing means of SE m+ CD at 5% SE m+ CD at 5% SE m+ CD at 5%
Genotypes 1.09 3.11 2.19 NS 1.53 NS
Growth regulators 2.17 NS 4.55 12.96 3.19 9.08
Interaction 3.14 NS 6.49 18.29 4.54 12.79
Table 22. Influence of plant growth regulators on yield and yield components in onion genotypes

Bulb yield (g plant-1) Bulb yield (q ha-1) Bulb length (cm) Bulb diameter (cm)
Treatment Nasik Arka Nasik Arka Nasik Arka Nasik Arka
Mean Mean Mean Mean
Red Kalyan Red Kalyan Red Kalyan Red Kalyan
Chlormequat chloride (500ppm) 40.17 43.08 41.63 178.3 191.1 184.7 4.14 4.60 4.37 4.83 5.17 5.00
Chlormequat chloride (750ppm) 41.62 51.46 46.54 185.2 228.7 206.9 4.16 4.62 4.39 4.97 5.53 5.25
Chlormequat chloride (1000ppm) 43.57 53.50 48.54 193.5 237.6 215.5 4.20 4.73 4.47 5.46 5.82 5.64
Chlormequat chloride (1250ppm) 42.54 51.73 47.14 189.0 229.9 209.5 4.19 4.64 4.42 5.18 5.60 5.39
Mepiquat chloride (750ppm) 36.30 39.37 37.84 161.4 174.8 168.1 3.85 4.12 3.99 4.26 4.75 4.51
Mepiquat chloride (1500ppm) 37.26 40.64 38.95 165.6 180.7 173.2 3.93 4.19 4.06 4.53 4.97 4.75
Triacontanol (1000ppm) 38.00 41.35 39.68 168.8 183.6 176.2 3.97 4.38 4.18 4.57 4.89 4.73
Triacontanol (2000ppm) 38.25 42.20 40.23 169.9 187.5 178.7 4.02 4.45 4.24 4.10 4.57 4.34
Control (water spray) 33.71 33.92 33.82 149.7 150.8 150.3 3.80 4.00 3.90 4.12 4.48 4.30
Mean 39.05 44.14 41.59 173.5 196.1 184.8 4.03 4.41 4.22 4.67 5.09 4.88

For comparing means of SE m+ CD at 5% SE m+ CD at 5% SE m+ CD at 5% SE m+ CD at 5%

Genotypes 1.39 3.98 5.35 15.26 0.06 0.16 0.08 0.24
Growth regulators 2.87 8.17 10.69 30.46 0.13 0.36 0.17 0.48
Interaction 4.10 11.56 15.43 43.51 0.18 NS 0.24 NS
 Control Chlormequat chloride Chlormequat chloride
(500 ppm) (750 ppm)

Chlormequat chloride Chlormequat chloride Mepiquat chloride

(1000 ppm) (1250 ppm) (750 ppm)

Mepiquat chloride Triacontanol Triacontanol

(1500 ppm) (1000 ppm) (2000 ppm)

Plate 2: Effect of growth regulators on morpho-physiologycal and bulb size in onion

genotype Nasik Red
 Control Chlormequat chloride Chlormequat chloride
(500 ppm) (750 ppm)

Chlormequat chloride Chlormequat chloride Mepiquat chloride

(1000 ppm) (1250 ppm) (750 ppm)

Mepiquat chloride Triacontanol Triacontanol

(1500 ppm) (1000 ppm) (2000 ppm)

Plate 3: Effect of growth regulators on morpho-physiologycal and size in onion

gehotype Arka Kalyan
 Control Chlormequat chloride(500 ppm) Chlormequat chloride(750 ppm)

Chlormequat chloride (1000 ppm) Chlormequat chloride (1250 ppm) Mepiquat chloride (750 ppm)

Mepiquat chloride (1500 ppm) Triacontanol(1000 ppm) Triacontanol (2000 ppm)

Plate 4: Effect of growth regulators on size of bulb in onion genotype Nasik Red
 Control Chlormequat chloride(500 ppm) Chlormequat chloride(750 ppm)

Chlormequat chloride (1000 ppm) Chlormequat chloride (1250 ppm) Mepiquat chloride (750 ppm)

Mepiquat chloride (1500 ppm) Triacontanol(1000 ppm) Triacontanol (2000 ppm)

Plate 4: Effect of growth regulators on size of bulb in onion genotype Arka Kalyan
4.5.3 Bulb length
The data pertaining to Bulb length presented in (Table 22) indicated significant differences
due to growth regulator treatments. Among the treatments bulb length was significantly higher in
Chlormequat chloride1000 ppm, while it was lower in control. Among the genotypes Arka Kalyan
recorded significantly higher bulb length as compared in Nasik Red.
4.5.4 Bulb Diameter
Sparying the growth regulators influenced the bulb diameter as compared to control (Table
22). Where in the bulb diameter was significantly higher in all Chlormequat chloride treatments. The
genotype Arka Kalyan recorded significantly higher bulb diameter than Nasik Red. Interaction effects
due to growth regulator treatments and the genotypes were non-significant for both bulb length and
bulb diameter.
4.6 Economics
The data on economics of growth regulators used in onion genotypes Arka Kalyan is
presented in Table 23. Among the growth regulator treatments, the application of chlormequat
chloride (1000 ppm) recorded highest cost benefit ratio (1:8:0) followed by chlormequat chloride (750
pppm) (1:7.8).
Table 23. Effect of growth regulators on economics of onion (Allium cepa L.) genotype Arka Kalyan

Additional cost
Bulb Gross Total cost of
due to plant Net returns Cost :
yield returns cultivation -1
Treatments -1 -1 growth -1 (Rs.ha ) Benefit
(q ha ) (Rs.ha ) (Rs.ha )
regulators (A-B) ratio
(A) (B)
(Rs.ha-1)

Chlormequat chloride (500 ppm) 191.1 191100 630 25630 165470 1:6.5

Chlormequat chloride (750 ppm) 228.7 228700 945 25945 202755 1:7.8

Chlormequat chloride (1000 ppm) 237.6 237600 1260 26260 211340 1:8.0

Chlormequat chloride (1250 ppm) 229.9 229900 1575 26575 203325 1:7.6

Mepiquat chloride (750 ppm) 174.8 174800 1260 26260 148540 1:5.7

Mepiquat chloride (1500 ppm) 180.7 180700 2520 27520 153180 1:5.6

Triacontanol (1000 ppm) 183.6 183600 840 25840 157760 1:6.1

Triacontanol (2000 ppm) 187.5 187500 1680 26680 160820 1:6.0

Control (water spray) 150.8 150800 - 25000 - -

1. Basic cost of cultivation = Rs. 25000/ha

2. Price of onion = Rs. 1000/q
3. Cost of chemicals a) Chlormequat chloride = Rs. 450/liter b) Mepiquat chloride = Rs. 600/liter c) Triacontanol = Rs. 300/liter
 5. DISCUSSION
The pattern of growth and development of plant is the result of a complex interplay
between genetic, hormonal and environmental factors. Growth regulators exhibit different
mechanisms of action, which inturn alter the source sink relationship and modify the plant
performance in a desirable manner. Studies showed that the use of growth regulators is one
of the force in improving the growth and development in plants. Plant growth regulators
(growth promoters and retardants) are known to regulate the metabolism in the plant by
increasing the duration of the there by maintaining the proper balance of source and sink. The
degree of perfect physiological relations indirectly affects the flowering without caring
malformation in the plant parts. So the application of plant growth regulators (PGRs) in
various crops, for higher yields is gaining momentum. Plant growth regulator-induced higher
yields are mainly due to altered photosynthates, distributive patterns within the plant by
coordinating plant processes to synthesize maximum dry matter and portioning the major
quantum of this increased dry matter into effective yield contributing factors.
Along with five recognized group of plant growth regulators (auxin, gibberellins,
cytokinins, abscisic acid and ethylene) there are synthetic bio regulators, which are involved
in the regulation of growth and developmental behavior of plants without inducing phytotoxic
or malformative effects. The bio-regulators comprise of both retardants and promoters which
when used in appropriate concentration, influences the plant growth and architecture in
typical fashion.
Various growth regulators are known to affect different physiological processes. The
Chlormequat chloride(CCC) is known to be anti-gibberellin, cell inhibitor,
and elongation and known to increase chlorophyll formation and root development that
improves the sturdiness, control vegetative growth, prevent lodging, increase yield. Whereas,
Triacontanol is a growth promoter, which affects many physiological traits like stimulation of
cell decision, photosynthesis and mobilization of photosynthates, increase in amino acids,
organic acids, chlorophyll content. Whereas, Mepiquat chloride is a growth retardant which
controls vegetative growth and increased chlorophyll (Setia et al., 1991).
The application of growth regulator like NAA and Mepiquat chloride resulted in
enhanced chlorophyll content in leaf and capsule walls, increased total dry matter and leaf
duration in sesamum (Chougale, 1977). With this background, the present investigation was
designed with two onion genotypes to evaluate the influence of different growth regulators on
morphological, physiological, growth, biochemical parameters and yield and yield
components. The results obtained on these aspects are discussion in this chapter.

5.1 Morphological characters

The effects of various growth regulators on morphological characters such as plant
height, number of leaves, leaf area, dry matter production and its distribution in different plant
parts indicated that growth regulator treatments differed significantly with respect to all the
above parameters. Both the genotypes differed significantly with respect to important
morphological characters.
One of the important morphological character influenced by plant growth regulators
are the plant height. Even though plant height is basically a generically controlled character,
but several studies indicated that the plant height can be either increased on decreased by
the application of synthetic plant growth regulators.
In general, application of growth retardants viz., Cholrmequat chloride and Mepiquat
chloride decreased the plant height whereas Triacontanol which is a growth promoter
increased the plant height after imposition of treatments as compared to control at all the crop
growth stages. Similarly plant height due to application of growth retardants CCC, Mepiquat
chloride and Triacontanol was reported by Moore, (1980) and Shukla et al., (1997).
The mechanism of reduction in plant height due to Chlormequat chloride and
Mepiquat chloride appears due to slowing down of cell division and reduction in cell
expansion due to anti-gibberellins quality (Sankhla et al., 1985).
 While increase in plant height in Triacontanol treatments could be due to increased
cell division, expression, elongation and differentiation there by leading to increased plant
height (Reineeke and Bondurski, 1987). Similar beneficial effort of growth regulators on plant
height has been reported by Dashora and Jain (1994) in soybean and Neelam et al. (1995) in
lentil.
In general, application of Triacontanol increased the plant height at all the stages.
Whereas, Mepiquat chloride and Chlormequat chloride decreased the plant height at all stage
of plant growth. Similar results of increased plant height was recorded due to the application
of Triacontanol (Shukla et al., 1997).
Increasing concentration of growth retardants like Mepiquat chloride (CCC)
significantly reduced the plant height to a greater extent and the application of Mepiquat
chloride (1500 ppm) caused a greater reduction in plant height and this might appears to be
due to slowing down of cell division and reduction in cell expansion. CCC and Mepiquat
chloride belong to two categories of growth retardants viz., anti-gibberellins and antiauxin.
Anti-gibberellins dwarfing agent, CCC and Mepiquat chloride belongs to the group of
compounds, which is known to interfere in GA biosynthetic pathway, leading to a deficiency of
gibberellins in one plant and reduce the height by blocking the cycliz ation of geranyl
pyrophosphate to copyl pyrophosphate which is the first step of gibberllin synthesis (Moore,
1980). Thus, the reduced plant height is due to retardation of transverse cell division,
particularly in stellar cambium, which is zone of meristenuric aridity at the base of the
internodes (Grossman, 1990).
It mainly retard the plant growth by inhibiting basiperal polar transport of auxin by
blocking auxin transport proteins leading to decrease in the plant height (Hopkins, 1995).
Kulakarni et al. (1995) reported the mepiquat chloride, or anti-gibberellins significantly
decreased the plant height in sunflower. Similarly, Deotale and Sorte (1996) and Garai and
Datta (2003) reported that application of growth retardants TIBA and CCC decrease the plant
height in soybean and green gram respectively as compared to control.
Mehetre and Lad (1995) and Jayakumar and Thangraj (1996) also found the
decreased in plant height in soybean and groundnut due to application of Maleic hydrazide
and CCC. Among the genotypes, Nasik Red had significantly higher plant height compared to
Arka Kalyan showing different response of growth regulators with genotypes.
The number of leaves are important morphological characters which are directly
related to yield. The number of leaves per plant differed significantly among the treatments
and varieties and it increased with the application of plant growth retardants.
The data on the number of leaves revealed that the number of leaves increased upto
90 DAS and declined thereafter towards maturity due to senescence and shedding. Arka
kalyan possessed significantly higher number of leaves than Nasik Red in all the stages
except at 30 DAS.
Among the treatments increased number of leaves were observed in chlormequat
chloride (1000 to 1250 ppm) followed by chlormepiquat chloride (500 to 750 ppm) Compared
as to other treatments. However Chlorpmepiquat chloride (1000 ppm) recorded maximum
number of leaves as compared to other treatments. The results were similar in accordance
with the study of Mandal et al. (1997) in green gram.
There was increase in the number of leaves. While, decreased plant height and
increase in number of branches were observed in cluster bean with application of (1000 ppm)
Lihocin (Hanchinmath 2005). Significant reduction in the number of branches in broad bean
was notocied by Dhaka and Anamika (2003) with the application of Mepiquat chloride.
However, Souza and Casali (1994) reported that the application of Mepiquat chloride (PIX)
significant increased the number of leaves in onion.
An increase in the number of leaves could be due to the inhibition in the auxin activity
in the plant due to application of CCC, which acts more or less as anti-gibberellin. The
application of growth retardants thereby diverting the polar transport of auxin towards the
basal buds leading to increased branching. The present study also indicated that the number
of leaves per plant had significant positive correlation with yield and this factor is very
important in the determination of bulb yield of onion.
5.2 Dry matter production and partition
The amount of total dry matter produced is an indication of the overall efficiency of
utilization of resources and better interception of light even if the dry matter production in
general is the indication of the efficiency of genotypes. The enhanced productivity of crop
through approaches is chiefly achieved by coordinating plant processes to synthesize
maximum dry matter and partitioning of the major quantum of this increased dry matter into
effective yield contributing factors. Poor translocation of assimilates to the reproductive parts
(bulb) is the major constraints in onion. This can be overcome by the application of growth
regulators, which can improve canopy structure and increase the productivity through
manipulation of source-sink relationship.
In the present study, it was observed that partitioning of total dry matter in leaf and
bulb parts varied significantly due to the genotypes and growth regulator treatments. In both
genotypes, leaf dry weight increased only upto 90 DAS and declined thereafter till harvest.
During early stage (30 DAS) of crop growth no significant differences were noticed
among the growth regulator treatments with respect to leaf dry weight. This is because at 30
DAS no growth regulator treatments were imposed. However, the application of growth
regulators significantly increased the leaf dry matter at later stages. The treatments
Chlormequat chloride (1000 ppm), Mepiquat chloride (1500 ppm) and Triaontanol (2000 ppm)
recorded significantly higher leaf dry weight, indicating greater influences of these chemicals
on leaf development.
The decline in leaf dry weight towards harvest could be due to translocation of stored
photoassimilates towards development of storage organs (bulbs). Similarly, several research
workers have also reported increased leaf dry weight due to application of cycocel in
greengram (Shah and Prathapsenan,1991). Mishrinky et al. (1990) reported an increased dry
matter production in pea with foliar application of CCC and GA3 and Chandrababu et al.
(1995) reported that application of Mepiquat chloride resulted in maximum leaf dry weight,
haulm dry weight and total plant dry weight in groundnut. Mehetre and Lad (1995) increase
the dry matter production due to application of Triacontanol in blackgram and chilli,
respectively.
The data on bulb dry weight indicated significant differences due to growth regulators
in both the genotypes at 60 DAS only, but significant differences in the growth regulator
treatment at all stages. The bulb dry weight increased from 60 DAS to harvest and higher
bulb dry weight was observed in Arka Kalyan compared to Nasik Red. The application of
Chlormequat chloride (1000 ppm), Mepiquat chloride (1500 ppm) and Triacontanol (2000
ppm) showed significantly higher bulb dry weight over others, suggesting positive influence of
these growth regulators on bulb growth and development and finally bulb dry weight. Similar
effects were found in mungbean and chickpea due to application of chlormequat chloride
(Singh et al.,1993 and Brar et al., 1992). Similar results of increased bulb dry matter
due to application of growth promoters NAA, GA, triacontanol has been reported by Singh et
al. (1982).
The amount of total dry matter (TDM) produced is an indication of the overall
efficiency of the utilization of resources and better light interception. The data pertaining to
total dry weight per plant indicated that, it increased from 30 DAS to harvest. The increase in
TDM upto harvest may be due to higher rate of CO2 fixation and RUBP Carboxylase activity
in the early stage of crop growth. The total dry weight was significantly higher in Arka Kalyan
compared to Nasik Red and this genotype also had higher yield. The application of growth
regulators significantly improved total dry matter. From the data it is also seen that TDM has
significant positive correlation with bulb yield in onion. Similarly, Salah and Abd (1989) also
reported that application of growth regulators (GA/NAA/Triacontanol) increased the total dry
matter in onion. Whereas, Keleiya et al. (1991) reported an increase in plant dry weight in
groundnut by applying NAA, triacontanol and CCC. Mehetre and Lad (1995) increase the d y
matter production due to application of triacontanol in black gram and chilly respectively.
Jayakumar and Thangaraj (1998) reported that the application of cycocel (CCC) was found to
increase the RUBP carboxylase enzyme activity. Photosynthesis and dry matter partitioning in
groundnut increased stem, leaf, reproductive parts and total dry weight groundnut was
reported with application of growth retardants viz., MC, lihocin (CCC) and MH (Chetti, 1991).
5.3 Growth parameters
Crop yield is mainly dependent on the interplay of various physiological and
biochemical function of the plant in addition to the impact of growing environment. The cause
and effect relationship is difficult to understand the interplay several processes and functions
which ultimately to lead to changes not only in the growth development and physiology, but
also in yield which is the most complex character, So growth analysis technique has
substantial contribution to the current understanding of the physiological basis of yield
variation in different crops, but the information on onion is very meager.
The leaf area, leaf area index, AGR, CGR, RGR, TDM, NAR and BMD are the
important parameters influencing yield which depend not only on the genotype, but also on
the environmental and management practices. The growth analysis technique has been
adopted as one of the standard approaches in the absence of sophisticated instrument to
analyse the structure of yield in several crops.
Leaf area fairly gives a good idea of the photosynthetic capacity of the plant. In the
present study, it has been observed that the application of plant growth regulators and
chemicals had profound influence on assimilatory surface area and its associated characters.
Several authors have indicated that greater influence of leaf area and leaf area index
on bulb yield in onion (Kato, 1964, Singh et al., 1983 and Nirmal et al., 1994). In general, leaf
area and leaf area index increased from 30 DAS to upto harvest. It is interesting to note that
the genotype Arka Kalyan had significantly higher leaf area and leaf area index upto the
harvest.
All the growth regulator treatments increased leaf area and leaf area index and the
greater effect was noticed with Chlormequat chloride (1000 ppm) followed by Chlormequat
chloride (1250 ppm) compared to other treatment and control. Miraculan increased the leaf
area, leaf area index compared to Mepiquat chloride (750 and 1500 ppm) and then control, it
comes under the categories of growth parameters (Nirmal et al., 1994, Knyple, 1973 and
Singh et al., 1983). The results of the present investigation are in accordance with the
observations of Chougle (1997) who reported leaf area increase due to the application of
growth retardants in sesamum.
Similar results were obtained by Wasnik and Bagga (1992) in chickpea. They
reported increased leaf area and leaf area index with foliar spray of Mepiquat chloride as
compared to control. Likewise, Navalagatti et al. (1991) and Kaleiya et al. (1991) reported the
increased leaf area and leaf area index in groundnut with the application of CCC and TIBA.
The results of the investigation are also in conformity with the findings of
Hanchinamath (2005), who reported an increase in leaf area and leaf area index due to
application of Lihocine (1000 ppm) in clusterbean and similar results were obtained in
bengalgram by Prabhakar Reddy (2002). The foliar application of Mepiquat chloride (1500
and 750 ppm) had marked effects on the assimilatory surface area in both the genotypes from
30 DAS to harvest.
Leaf area duration (LAD) is an important parameter which is determined by the leaf
area index of two consecutive growth stages. LAD is the total duration of leaf area present
over particular period of growth. It is a useful parameter, not only for predicting the efficiency
of photosynthetic system but also for dry matter production (Chetti and Shirohi, 1995).
The leaf area duration increased from 30 to 90 DAS and declined thereafter towards
harvest due to senescence of the leaves. The application of Chlormequat chloride (1000
ppm), Triacontanol (1000 ppm) recorded significantly higher LAD. It increased from 30 DAS to
90 DAS and Chlormequat chloride (1000 ppm) and Triacontanol (1000 ppm) recorded
significantly higher LAD. Watson (1952) a significant positive correlation between leaf area
duration and bulb yield in onion.
Saishankar (2001) reported that significantly higher leaf area duration with the
application of (2000/1000 ppm) in green gram. Shinde (2010) reported that in soybean there
was significant increase in growth parameters like leaf area duration with the application of
CCC (500 and 1000 ppm).
 The absolute growth rate (AGR) was more at 60 to 90 DAS compared to 30 to 60
DAS. In general genotype Arka Kalyan had higher AGR at both the stages as compared to
Nasik Red, which could be attributed to higher TDM and leaf area. The application of growth
regulators significantly increased the absolute growth rate at both the stages which indicated
the effectiveness of growth regulators on AGR. However, among the treatments, the
application of Chlormeqiat chloride (1000 ppm) resulted in increased AGR in clusterbean.
Shinde (2010) reported that increased AGR by application of CCC (500 and 1000 ppm). Patel
and Saxena (1995) observed the application of cycocel increased the AGR in mungbean.
The relative growth rate was also influenced significantly by various growth regulators
and the treatments. Chlormequat chloride (1250 ppm), Mepiquat chloride (1500 ppm),
Triacontanol (2000 ppm) recorded significantly higher RGR at 30-60 DAS and 60-90 DAS.
RGR is also one of the important growth parameter which influences the yield. Brewster
(1979) indicated significant differences in RGR among onion genotypes and also showed that
RGR was maximum during early stages of crop growth.
Patil (1994) reported that the foliar application of cycocel, mepiquat chloride and TIBA
significantly increased the RGR in soybean. Similarly, Prakash and Ganesen (2000) also
reported that RGR increased with the application of Chamatkar (125 ppm) and CCC (1000
ppm) in sesame.
Crop growth rate (CGR) is influenced by LAI, photosynthetic rate and leaf angle and
is an index of the amount of light intercepted. The spraying of growth retardant resulted
significantly higher CGR over control. The CGR increased and reached its peak at 30-60
DAS to 60-90 DAS. In increased from 30-60 DAS and the variety Arka Kalyan possessed
significantly higher CGR at both the stages (30-60 DAS and 60-90 DAS).
Watson (1952) and Shekhar (1974) also reported that during kharif season, CGR was
more between 60-90 DAS.In the present study, the higher CGR in Arka Kalyan might be one
of the reasons for getting higher yields in this genotype and also have high rate dry matter
production in this genotype.
The response was more with Chlormequat chloride (1000 ppm and 1250 ppm) at
both the stages. It also appears from the data that CGR had positive association with bulb
yield in onion. The rapid increase in CGR observed under the effect of growth regulator over
that of control might be due to higher production of dry matter due to increased photosytnetic
activities coupled with increased cell multiplication.
The present results are agreement with Hanchinamath (2005) in cluster bean and
Jayakumar and Thankgaraj (1986) in groundnut they reported that application of Chlormequat
chloride (CCC) has positive effect on CGR Similar results were also obtained by Deotale and
Sorte (1996). Sarkar et al. (2002) in soybean.
In onion the net assimilation rate decreased with the age of the crop (Thorne, 1960)
several research workers (Sekhar, 1974 and Brewster, 1979) indicated significant differences
in NAR among different genotypes of onion and showed that NAR is one of the important
yield determining factors.
In the present study also NAR was highest during early stages (30-60 DAS) and
declined thereafter (60-90 DAS). The decline in NAR with advancement in the crop growth
could be attributed to declined in the rate of dry matter production and the decline in leaf area.
In general application of growth regulators showed higher value of NAR. Growth regulator
treatments especially Chlormequat chloride (1000 ppm) significantly increased NAR at all the
stages. This contributed to increased dry matter production by maintaining more number of
leaves. Also more photosynthetic products were available to growing parts like storage
organs (bulb) for higher assimilation. These results are conformity with Prabhakar (2002),
who found increased NAR due to application of Lihocin, Mepiquat chloride and Salecyclic acid
in chickpea. Similarly positive correlation between NAR and yield due to application of CCC in
mungbean (Shah and Prathapsenan, 1992). Similar results also obtained by Deotale and
Sorte (1996) and Rahman et al. (2004) in soybean.
Biomass duration (BMD) indicates the enhancement of dry matter over a period of
time and is essential for prolonged supply of photosynthates to the developing sinks. The
BMD increased with the age of the crop upto 120 DAS. The genotype Arka Kalyan pocessed
significantly higher BMD at all the stages as compared to Nasik Red.
 The growth regulator treatments significantly increased the BMD at al the growth
stages and in general the application of CCC (1000 ppm) Tricontanol and Mepiquat chloride
(1500 ppm) compared to control. Similarly Chougale (1997) also indicated significant
differences in BMD among different genotypes of sesamum and also reported increased BMD
with application of growth regulators.
The increase in BMD with age and growth regulator treatments could be mainly
attributed to increase in TDM, which again depends on the development of leaf area. Similar
results reported with the application of increased BMD by growth retardants (Saishankar,
2001), Lihocin (1000 ppm) which resunted in increased BMD.
The leaf area ratio (LAR) indicates the size of the assimilatory surface in relation to
total dry matter The leaf are ratio was more during early stages and decreased towards
maturity. The genotype Nasik Red recorded significantly higher LAR at all the growth stages
as compared to Arka Kalyan. Different growth regulators have shown differential response
and no definite trend was observed LAR. However, 90 DAS and harvest, CCC (1000 ppm)
Tricontanol (1000 ppm) significantly increased LAR as compared to control. Similarly
Brewaster (1979) also indicated that in onion LAR differed with genotypes and decreased
towards maturity.
The specific leaf weight is the indicative of leaf thickness which is due to the
compactness and staking of mesophyll cell and it increased from 30 to 90 DAS. Among
treatments CCC (1000 ppm) recorded significantly higher specific leaf weight compared to all
other treatments. Similar results were obtained by Kulkarni (1993) in sunflower, who reported
increased specific leaf weight due to growth retardants like Cycocil and Mepiquat chloride
similar results were also observed in green gram (Saishankar, 2001) and soybean (Shinde,
2010).
The specific leaf area was highest was during 30 DAS, 60 DAS and at 90 DAS it
decreased due to dry matter accumulation. Nasik red has higher SLA as compared to Arka
Kalyan.
At 60 to 90 DAS among the growth regulator treatments Mepiquat chloride (750
ppm), Trichotanol (1000 ppm) Chlormequat chloride (500 ppm) had highest SLA as compared
to other treatments. The application of growth regulators had differential response for SLA in
sunflower (Kulkarni, 1993) and in sesamum (Chougale, 1997).
The growth regulator treatments at all stages increased TDM, LAI, LAD, AGR, CGR,
NAR and SLW. Similar results were reported by Saishankar (2001) in green gram.

5.4 Biochemical parameters

The plant performance is attributed to the genetic factors which are controlled by the
differences in the biochemical parameters. It is well known that the thousands of biochemical
reactions are concurrently undergoing in plant which ultimately decides the plant growth
development and the final yield. Plant growth regulators have been shown to influence these
parameters in one way or the other.
Chlorophyll has been rightly designated as pigment of life because of its central role
in leaving systems responsible for harvesting sunlight and transforming energy into
biochemical energy essential for life. In the present study it was observed that growth
retardants had profound influence on chlorophyll content in leaf. Significant differences were
observed among the treatments with respect chlorophyll ‘a’, chlorophyll ‘b’ and total
chlorophyll content in the leaf at all the growth stages. The variation in chlorophyll content due
to PGRs may be attributed to decreased chlorophyll degradation and increased chlorophyll
synthesis.
Kharchenko (1970) observed significant difference in chlorophyll content among
onion genotypes and also indicated that maximum chlorophyll content increased at 60 DAS
and it decreased at later stage of the crop. The declined chlorophyll content at later stages of
crop may be attributed to the senescences of leaves (Arteca and Dong, 1981). The genotype
Arka Kalyan recorded significantly higher chlorophyll content as compared to Nasik Red at all
the growth stages. The maximum chlorophyll ‘a’, chlorophyll ‘b’ and total chlorophyll contents
were recorded with the application of CCC.
 It has been suggested that variation in chlorophyll content due to application of
growth retardants may be attributed to inhibition of cell division, decreased chlorophyll
degradation, increased chlorophyll biosynthesis and development of chloroplast, as a result
plant treated with growth retardants has much dark green leaves than those of untreated
plants (Cathey, 1964).
The results of present investigation are in conformity with the findings of Kulkarni
(1995) in sunflower, Jayakumar and Thangaraj (1998) in groundnut, Wasnik and Bagga
(1996) in chickpea and Bangarswamay et al. (2001) in pigeonpea.
Nitrate reductase (NRA) a key enzyme in nitrogen metabolism is known to be
regulated by various environmental factors, apart from its own substrate nitrate. It is also
believed that reduction of nitrate to nitrite by nitrate reductase activity (NRA) is the rate
limiting step for the utilization of the nitrogen in the form of nitrate (Beevers and Hageman,
1969). Plant growth regulators exhibited significant differences in nitrate reductase activity
(NRA) in leaf. The present study recorded that NRA increased significantly with the foliar
application of Chlormequat chloride (1000 ppm) followed by Chlormequat chloride (1250 ppm)
as compared to control.
Maximum NRA was observed at early stage and later on it decreased. Its activity
should always be higher to have high nitrogenous compounds in plants. It is generally
believed that NRA depends on the activity of substrates and portentous compounds and
therefore it is suggested that the application of plant growth regulators results in enhanced
nitrate uptake by plants (Kychenberg and Tung, 1989). Increase in NRA due to plant growth
regulators were observed by Goswami and Srivastava (1989) in sunflower and Wasnik and
Bagga (1996) in chickpea. Similar results were also obtained by Pankaj Kumar (1998) in
soybean and Reddy et al., (2009) in cowpea.
Several workers have shown that leaf nitrogen content was associated with
photosynthetic rate (Murata, 1969 and Janardhan 1997). The leaf nitrogen content was more
in Arka Kalyan as compared to Nasik Red at all the stages. Similarly, Nagai (1967) also
reported that during early stage, onion leaves possessed higher leaf nitrogen content and
thereafter leaves export nitrogenous compared during the bulb development. Koti (1997) also
reported significant variation in leaf nitrogen content among various soybean genotypes.

5.5 Yield and yield parameters

In general, the bulb yield depends on the accumulation of photo assimilates and
partitioning in to different parts of the plant Bulb yield to onion was strongly influenced by the
application of different growth regulators in both the genotypes, indicating the role of these
chemicals in increasing the bulb yield through their effect on various morpho-physiological
and biochemical traits.
The growth regulators are capable of partitioning of dry matter in plants, there by
brining on improvement in the yield (Reddy 2009, and Patil, 1994, Chetti, 1991 and
Chandrababu et al., 1995).
Among various growth regulators Chlormequat chloride (1000 ppm) recorded
maximum bulb yield followed by Chlormequat chloride (1250 ppm). The increase in bulb yield
was mainly attributed to increased bulb length and bulb density. However the Arka Kalyan
recorded significantly higher bulb yield compared to Nasik Red. The present study also
indicated that, the bulb yield had significant positive association with number of leaves, bulb
length, total dry matter, chlorophyll content and nitrate reductase activity indicating the
importance of these parameters in improving the yield potential in onion.
Several workers have shown significant increase in bulb yield due to the application
of growth regulators (Singh et al., 1993, Nirmal et al., 1994 and Ibarra et al., 1994). Similarly
Kulkarni (1993) also reported increased yield due to the application of Triacontanol through
the beneficial effects on growth compounds. Among the various growth regulators tried
growth retardants were found to have more beneficial effect on bulb yield than growth
parameters. Similarly, foliar application of CCC (1500 ppm) increased the seed yield, number
of seeds per pod and 100 seed weight as compared to control in soybean (Kamal et al.,
1995). Similar results were also obtained by Jayakumar and Thangaraj (1991) in groundnut
with the foliar application of Mepiquat chloride.
 In the present study also results were in accordance with the results obtained by
Wasnik and Bagga (1996) and Mandavia et al. (2006) in chickpea, who reported significant
differences in seed yield and quality due to growth regulator treatment.

Future line of work

Based on the results obtained in the present investigation, suggestions for further
studies in the field of hormonal regulation of plant growth and development and its
subsequent influence on the productivity of onion are given below.
1. There is a need to screen large number of commercially available plant growth
regulators on different onion genotypes which have profound influence on bulb yield.
2. Several studies indicated that photassimilates distribution within the plant is under
hormonal control and there is scope for detailed anatomical and biochemical studies
regarding effect of plant hormones on various connection between vegetative and
bulb development and also on the activity of various enzyme is very important.
3. It is also important to study interaction between the genotypes and plant growth
regulators, as well as interaction effects between retardants and promoters.
4. There is also a need to study the influence of plant growth regulators on the source
sink relationship and various enzymatic changes under taken in the plant by their
application.
 6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A field study was conducted to find out the effect of different growth regulators on
onion genotypes during kharif 2011 at Agriculture College Farm, University of Agricultural
Sciences, Dharwad. An experiment was laid out in split plot design with two genotypes and
during treatments in three replications. The results obtained are summarized in this chapter.
1. The plant height increased upto 90 DAS and decreased thereafter. The genotype
Arka Kalyan recorded significantly higher plant height as compared to Nasik Red at
all stages of crop growth and the plant height was significantly more in treatment
Triacontanol 2000 ppm followed by Triacontanol 1000 ppm at 60, 90 DAS and at
harvest.
2. The number of leaves increased upto 90 DAS and genotype Arka Kalyan recorded
higher number of leaves as compared Nasik Red at all the stages and the treatments
Chlormequat chloride 1000 and 1250 ppm recorded significantly higher number of
leaves.
3. The leaf dry weight increased upto 90 DAS and thereafter decreased at harvest.
Treatment Chlormequat chloride 1000 ppm recorded significantly higher leaf dry
weight in all the stages.
4. Bulb dry weight increased from 60 DAS and Where as total dry weight increased
from 30 DAS upto the harvest. Arka Kalyan recorded significantly higher bulb dry
weight and total dry weight compared to Nasik Red and both of these parameters
were significantly higher in Chlormequat chloride 1000 ppm followed by Chlormequat
chloride 250, 750 and 500 ppm.
5. The leaf area and leaf area index (LAI) increased upto 90 DAS and decreased
towards maturity. At 90 DAS, genotype Arka Kalyan recorded significantly higher leaf
area and leaf area index and all the genotype regulator treatments significantly
increased both the parameters with higher values with Chlormequat chloride (1000
ppm), Chlormequat (1250 ppm) and Triacontanol (2000 ppm), respectively.
6. The leaf area duration increased from 30-60 DAS to 60-90 DAS and decreased at 90
DAS-harvest. At 60-90 DAS Arka Kalyan possessed significantly higher LAD
compared to Nasik Red. The growth regulator treatment Chlormequat chloride 1000
ppm recorded higher LAD followed by Chlormequat chloride 1250 and 750 ppm with
healped to maintained higher leaves in both the genotypes.
7. The data on AGR, RGR, CGR and NAR indicated that they increased significantly
due to growth regulator treatments as compared to control.
All these parameters were significantly higher in Arka Kalyan as compared to
Nasik Red. AGR was significantly higher in Chlormequat chloride (1000 ppm)
followed by Chlormequat chloride 1250 ppm.AGR is significantly more in
Chlormequat chloride (1000 ppm) followed by Chlormequat chloride (1250).
Whereas, CGR increased from 30-60 DAS and upto 60-90 DAS in Chlormequat
chloride (1000 ppm), NAR increased from 60 DAS and thereafter decreased.
8. All growth regulator treatments significantly increased the biomass duration and
genotype Arka Kalyan possessed higher BMD at all the stages. The BMD significantly
higher in application of Chlormequat chloride 1000 ppm followed by Chlormequat
chloride (1250 pppm).
9. The LAR differed significantly due to genotypes and growth regulator treatment at 60
DAS. The genotype Nasik Red recorded higher LAR compared to Nasik Red from 60
to 90 DAS.
10. The specific leaf weight increased from 30 to 90 DAS. Arka Kalyan recorded higher
SLW compared to Nasik Red. Among the treatment Chlormequat chloride 1000 ppm
recorded significantly higher SLW as compared to other treatments.
11. The specific leaf area was highest at 30 DAS and decreased thereafter. Chlormequat
chloride 1250 ppm recorded significantly higher SLA compared to all other
treatments.
12. The biochemical parameters viz., chlorophyll ‘a’, chlorophyll ‘b’, chlorophyll and
nitrate reductase activity significantly increased due to growth regulator treatments.
Chlorophyll ‘a’, Chlorophyll ‘b’ and Total chlorophyll increased from 30 DAS to 60
DAS and decreased at 90 DAS. Chlormequat chloride 1000 ppm recorded
significantly higher chlorophyll ‘a’, chlorophyll ‘b’ and total chlorophyll.
13. Nitrate reductase activity increased from 30 to 90 DAS and thereafter decreased.
Chlormequat chloride (1000 ppm) recorded significantly higher nitrate reductase
activity.
14. The bulb yield was significantly higher in Arka Kalyan compared to Nasik Red.
Whereas Growth regulator treatments Chlormequat chloride 1000 ppm recorded
significantly higher bulb yield followed by Chlormequat chloride 1250, 750 and 500
ppm and Control recorded significantly lower bulb yield compared to other treatments.
Similar results were found in bulb length and bulb diameter. Increased bulb length
and bulb diameter increases the bulb yield in onion.
 REFERENCES
Abd-El-Gawad, A. A., El-Tabbakh, A. M., El-habbal, M. S. and Thabet, E .M. A., 1986, Effect
of spraying on onion plants with IAA and GA3 on yield and chemical composition
of onion bulbs. Ann. Agril. Sci., 31(2) : 1021-1031.
Alam, S. M. and Islam, M. T., 1989, Effect of some growth regulators on growth, Yield and
chemical composition of potato. Indian J. Agril. Res., 23 : 52-58.
Anonymous, 2011, Agriculture, Economic survey- 2010-2011. Government of India, ministry
of Finance, Economic division , New Delhi, pp. 118-133.
Anotony, E., 1995, Nitrogen utilization studies in groundnut (Arachis hypogea L.) genotypes.
M.Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agril. Sci. , Dharawad.
Arnon, D. I., 1949, Copper enzyme in isolated chloroplasts polyphenol oxidase in Beta
vulgaris. Plant Physiol., 24 : 1-15.
Arteca, R. N. and Dong, C. N., 1981, Increased photosynthetic rates following gibberelic acid
treatments to the roots of tomato plants. Photosynth. Res., 2 (2) : 243-249.
Asane, G. B., Lawande, K. E., Nirmal, S. V., Shinde, K. G. and Desale, S.B., 1998, Effect of
cytozyme, triacontanol and cycocel on growth, yield and quality of pea (Pisum
sativum L.). Adv. Plant Sci., 11 (2) : 31-34.
Baghel, M. S. and Yadava, H. S., 1992, response of black gram to dates of sowing and
growth regulators. Bharatiya Krishi Anusudhana patrika., 7(4) : 243-2247.
Baker, R.S. and Wilcox, G. E., 1961, Effect of foliage damage and stand reduction on onion
yield. Proceeding of American Society for Horticulture Sciences, 78 : 400-405.
Banerjee, N. C. and Das , T. K., 1984, Effect of plant growth regulators on growth and tuber
yield of potato. South Indian Horti. Sci., 32 (2) : 75-77.
Bangarusamy, U., Jeyakumar, P., Magudapathy, K. and Djanaguriraman, M., 2001, Effect of
growth regulators on growth and development of pigeon pea. National seminar
on Role of plant physiology for sustaining quality and quantity of food production
in relation to environment, pp. 5-7
Baz, A. I., Safurat, M. S. and Abdulan, A. R., 1984, some physiological studies on soyabean
plant effect of some growth regulators on growth, yield, nodulation and chemical
composition. Ann. Agric. Sci. Mashtohor., 21(2) ; 79-82.
Beevers, L. and Hageman, R. H., 1969, Nitrate reduction in higher plants. Ann. Rev. Pl.
Phusiol., 20 : 495-522.
Borse, S. G. and Dhumal, K. N., 2001, Use of plant growth regulators for improving growth
and yield of Solanum kharianum. J. Medi. Aromat. Plant Sci., 22: 308-310.
Brar, Z.S., Deol, J. S. and Kaul, J. N., 1992, Influence of plant growth regulators on grain
production and dry matter partitioning in chickpea. International Chickpea News
Lett., 27 : 25-27.
Brewster, J. L., 1979, The response of growth rate to temperature in seedlings of several
Allium crop species. Ann. Appl. Biol., 93 : 351-357.
Castro, P. R. C. and Crocomo, O. J., 1984, Effect of growth regulators on protein and amino
acid contents of soyabean (Glycine max. cv. Davis). Turriaba., 34(2) : 229-232.
*Cathey, H. M., 1964, Physiology of growth retarding chemicals. Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol., 15:
271-302.
Cato, S. C., Castro, P. R. and Camargo, D. E., 2006, Height reduction in soyabean plants
caused by 2, 3, 5- triodobenzoic acid. Cienc. Rural, 36(3) : 981-984.
Chailakyan, M. K. H. and Atuynya, R. S. H., 1973, Effect of gowth retardant CCC on growth of
leguminous plant and nodule formation under different methods of application.
Doklady Akademic nank Arunyanskoi SSS, 56(3) : 182-187.
Chandrababu, R., Manian, K., Nagarajan, M. and Ramachandran, T. K., 1995, Effect of
mepiquat chloride on growth and yield of groundnut. Madras Agril. J., 82 (3) :
229-230.
Chandrasekhar, C. N. and Bangarusamy, U., 2003, Maximizing the yield of mung bean by
foliar application of growth regulating chemicals and nutrients. Madras Agric. J.,
90 (1-3); 142-230.
Chen, H. J., Tsai, Y. J., Chen, W. S., Huang, G. J., Huang, S. S. and Lin, Y. H., 2010.
Ethephon-mediated effects on leaf senescence are affected by reduced
glutathione and EGTA in sweet potato detached leaves. Botanical Studies, 51:
171- 181.
Chetti, M. B., 1991, Evaluations of chamatkar on groundnut. Pestol., 15(8) : 43-50.
Chetti, M. B., kulkarni, S.S. and Mummigatti, U. V., 1995, Influence of growth retardants on
the relationship of dry matter accumulation with seed yield in sunflower.
Pestology, 19(8): 30-36.
Child, R. D., Butter, D. R. and Eavans, D. E., 1989, Effects of changes in canopy structure
with growth retardants on the yield of oilseed rape. Proceedings of the Plant
Growth Regulator Soc. American Ann. Meet., 16 : 173-179.
Chougale, D. Y., 1997, Influence of growth regulators on productivity potential in sesamum
(Sesamum indicum L.) genotypes. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agril. Sci.,
Dharwad.
*Cothern, J. T., 1978, “Pix” a cotton growth regulator, Ark. Farm Res., July-August 1979, p.5.
Dashora, L. D. and Jain, P. M., 1994, Effect of growth regulators and phosphorus levels on
growth and yield of soybean. Madras Agril. J., 81 : 235-237.
Daykin, A., Scott, I. M., Francis, D. and Causton, D. R., 1997, Effects of gibberellin on the
cellular dynamics of dwarf pea internode development. Planta, 203: 526-535.
Deore, B.P. and Bharud, R. W., 1991, Effect of growth substances on the growth and yield of
onion (Allium cepa L.) cv. N-2-4-1. Maharashtra J. Horti., 5(2) :64-67.
Deotale, R. D. and Sorte, N. D., 1996, Effect of TIBA and B-9 on growth parameters,
biochemical and yield of soyabean. J. Soil. Crop, 6(1) : 89-93.
Deshpande, S. N., 1983, Effect of growth regulators and their spraying times on flower
abscission, seed yield and quality of three cultivars on pigeonpea. M. Sc. (Agri)
Thesis, Univ. Agril. Sci. Bangalore.
Dhaka, T.V.S and Anamica, 2003, Effect of mepiquat chloride (DPC) and urea on growth and
yield attributes of broad bean (Vicia faba L.), Plant Archives, 3(2) : 291-
Dowker, B. D., Hardwich, R. C., Fennell, I. F. M. and Andrews, D. J., 1976, Genotypeic and
environmental correlations between leaf growth and bulb size in onions. Ann.
Appl. Biol., 82 ; 341-348.
Emerson, R., Green, L. and Webb, J. L., 1940, Relation between quantity of chlorophyll and
capacity for photosynthesis. Plant Physiol., 15 : 311-317.
Emongor, V., 2007, Gibberelic acid (GA3) influence on vegetative growth, nodulation and yield
of cowpea (Vigna unquiculata) (L.,) Walp.). J. Agron., 6(4) :509-517.
Ferry, J. F and Ward, H. S., 1959, Fundamentals of Plant Physiology. Macmillan and Co.,
New York, pp.120-124.
Gali, S.S., Janagoudar, B.S. and Katageri, I.S., 1997, Effect of growth regulators on growth
and yield of chick pea. Abstract: National seminor ISSP, March 19-21, IARI, New
delhi.
Ganiger, V. M., 1992, Use of growth retardants in potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) production.
M.Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agril. Sci , Dharawad.
Garai, A. K. and Datta, J. K., 2003, Effect of growth regulators on growth and yield of
chickpea. Abstract: National seminor ISSP, March 19-21, IARI, New delhi.
Garai, A. K. and Datta, J. K., 2003, Effect of phosphorus sources and cycocel spray on
greengram (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek). Leg. Res., 26 (1) : 15-19.
Gasti, V. D., 1994, Response of commercial vegetable to growth retardants. M. Sc. (Agri.)
Thesis, Univ. Agril. Sci., Dharawad.
Gencev, S., 1970b, Studies on plant pigments in onion (Allium cepa L.) – II. Dynamics of
chlorophyll and carotenoids during onion ontogenesis. Fiziologijia, Rastenijata
Sofia, 1 : 11-23.
Gencev, S., 1970b, Studies on plant pigments in onion (Allium cepa L.) – III. On the link
Between chlorophyll, catalase and peroxidase enzymes and ascorbic acid in
Onion leaves. Fiziologija Rastenijata Sofia. 1 : 25-31.
Ghosh, R. K., Mandal, B. K. and Chtterjee, B. N., 1991, Effect of growth regulators on the
productivity of some major oil seed crops. J. Agro Crop Sci., 167: 221-228.
Gomez, K. A. and Gomez, A. A., 1984, Statistical Procedure for agricultural Research. An
International rice research institute book, a. Wiley-inter science, John Wiley And
Sons Inc. New York, United states of America.
Goswami, G. K. and Srivatsava, G. L., 1989, Effect of benzyladenine on nitrate reeducatase
Enzyme in sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.). Indian J. Plant Physiol., 32(4) :
325-329.
Grossman, K., 1990, Plant retardants as tools in physiological research. Physiol. Plantarum,
78 : 642-648.
Hanchinamath, P. V., 2005, Effect on yield plant growth regulators, organic and nutrients on
yield and quality of cluster bean. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agri. Sci,
Dharawad.
Hawthorn, H. R., 1946, defoliation studies as a basis for the estimation of hail losses in
onions. Bulletin Texas Agriculture Experimental statio, No.682, p.22.
Hisamatsu, T., Koshioka, M. Kubota, S. and King, R.W., 1998. Effect of gibberellin A4 and GA
biosynthesis inhibitors on growth and flowering of stock [Matthiola incana (L.)
R.Br.]. J. Japanese Soc. Hort. Sci., 67: 537-543.
Hopkins, G. W., 1995, The role of hormones in plant development. Introduction to plant
physiology, John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York, pp. 285-309.
Hormones and Their Role in Plant Growth and Development, Ed. Devies,
Hurde, N. and Parjosavulese, I., 1981, Influence of some growth regulators on soyabean
germination, growth and development. Analetu Insitutului de cerutari Pentru
careas si plant. Technic Fundulae, 48 : 479-491.
Ibarra, M. D. L. R., Maiti, R. and De-leon, B., 1994, Effect of gibberellic acid and 2.4-D on the
Cultivation yield of garlic (Allium sativum L.). Phyton (Buenos Aires), 56(O) : 91-
94.
Jackson, M. L., 1967, Soil Chemical Analysis, Prentice Hall of India, Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, pp,
183-192.
Janardhana, K., 1992, Triacontanol promoted seed germination, seedling growth and
chloroplast pigment content in leguminous crops. Adv. Plant Sci., 5: 290-295.
Jeyakumar, P. and Thangaraj, M., 1996, Physiological and biochemical effects of mepiquat
chloride in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea). Madras Agril. J., 85 :23-26.
Kalubarme, M. H. and Pandey, R. K., 1979, Note on the growth analysis of greengram
genotypes. Indian J. Agril. Sci., 49 : 975-977.
Kalyankar, S. V., Kadam, G. R., Borgaonkar, S. B., Deshmukh, D. P. and Kadam, B.P., 2008,
Effect of foliar application of growth regulators on seed yield and yield
components of soyabean (glycine max (L.) Merill). Asian J. Bio. Sci., 3(1) : 229-
230.
Kamal, M., Takahashi, H., Mikoshiba, H., Ota, Y., 1995, Analysis of soybean Yield
components as affected by plant growth regulators applied at flowering stages.
Japanese J. Trop. Agric.,39(3) :184-189.
Kandagal, S. S., 1988, Effect of growth regulators and nutrients on growth yield and seed
viability of mung bean (Vigna radiata L.) genotypes. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ.
Agril. Sci,Dharawad.
Kato, T., 1963a, Physiology studies on bulb formation and dormancy in the onion plant. I. The
Process of bulb formation and development. J. Japan Soc. Horti. Sci., 32 :229-
237.
Kato, T., 1963b, Physiological studies on bulb formation and dormancy in the onion plant. II.
Histological observations on the bulb formation and development.
J. Japan Soc. Horti. Sci., 32 : 303-310.
Kato, T., 1964, Physiological studies on bulb formation and dormancy in the onion plant III.
Effects of external factors on the bulb formation and development. J. Japan Soc.
Horti. Sci., 33 : 53-61.
Kayans, K., 1990, Effect of PIX on Yield and storage quality of onions, BASF Agricultural
News, 1 : 17-20.
Kelaiya, V. V., Jethwa, M. G., Patel. J.C. and Sardaria, S. G., 1991, Effect of growth
regulators and their spraying schedule on ground nut. Indian J. Agro., 36(1) ; 11-
113.
Kharchenko, A. I., 1970, Some physiological and biochemical characteristics of onion hybrids.
Sbornik Trudov Aspirantov Molodykh nauchnykh Sotrunikov, Leningrad, 1970,
No. 17 :325-331 pp.
Knypl, J. S., 1979, Increasing bulb growth in onion with growth retardants and reversal of the
Effect by gibberellins. Plant Sci. Lett., 14(2) : 193-198.
Kothule, V. G., Bhalerao, R. K. and Sathe, B. V., 2003, Effect of exogeneous application of
growth regulators on growth, biomass and yield in soyabean. Annl. Pl. Phsiol.,
17(1) : 95-99.
Koti, R. V., 1997, Influence of seasons on phenology, reproductive efficiency and
physiological indices in soybean genotypes. Ph. D., Thesis, Univ. Agril. Sci.,
Dharwad.
Krishnamoorthy, V. and Madalageri, M. B., 2000, Influence of plant growth regulating on
growth and seed yield and oil content in ajowan (Trachyspermum ammi L.).
Indian Perfumer, 44(4): 255-259.
Krishnamurthy, K, Bommegouda, A., Venugopal, N., Jagannath, M.K., Raghunath, C. and
Rajashekar, B. G., 1973, Investigation on the varital differences in the growth
component of sorghum. Mysore J. Agril Sci., 8 : 52-59.
Kulakarni, S. S., Chetti, M. B. and Amaregoud, A., 1995, Influence of growth retardants on
morphological characters in sunflower (Helianthus annus L.) genotypes.
Karnataka J. Agril. Sci., 8 : 40-45.
Kulakarni, S. S., Chetti, M. B. and Uppar, D. S., 1995, Influence of growth retardants on
biochemical parameter in sunflower. J. Maharashtra Agril. Univ., 20(3) : 352-
354.
Kulkarni, S. S., 1993, Influence of growth retardants on growth and development of sunflower
(Helianthus annuus L.) genotyepes. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agril. Sci.,
Dharawad.
Kumar, K.A.K., Patil, B. C. and Chetti, M. B., 2003, Effect of plant parameters on yield of
hybrid cotton. Karnataka J. Agril. Sci., 16(4): 591-594.
Kumari, S., Bharti, S. and Khan, M. I. 1990, Effect of cycocel on growth and metabolism of
Sunflower (Helianthus annus L.) Indian J. Agril. Res., 24(2) : 87-93.
Kumarvelu, G., Livingstone, V. D. and Ramanujam, M. P., 2000, Triacontanol induced
changes in the growth, photosynthetic pigments, cell metabolites, flowering and
yield in greengram. Biologia Plantarum, 43(2): 287-290.
Kychengerg, R. and Jung, J., 1989, Changes in root shoot ratio and uptake of maize (Zea
mays L.) from soil as influenced by plant growth regulator. Pl. Soil, 109 : 151-
157.
Leopold, A.C., 1964, plant growth and development McGraw Hill Inc., New York.
Li, C. H., Tu, Y. C. and Xie, L. H., 1987, Study on physiological effects of sesame seed
treatment. Oilseed Crops of China, 2 : 44-47.
*Lin, C.H., Jaw, G.Y., Lin and El. Yzwyk, K.V., 1987, Plant growth regulator effects on
vegetative and reproductive growth of two peanut varieties. In Proceedings of
the National Science Council, Publication of China, 11(4): 380-387.
Luib, M., Koehle, H., Hoppner, P. and Rademacher, W., 1987, Further result with
BAS11104W, a new growth regulator for use in oilseed rape. In : Plant growth
Regulators for Agriculture and Amenity Use. Ed. Hawkins, A. F., Stead, A. D.
and Pinfield, N. J., BCPC Publication, Monograph No. 36, pp. 37-34.
Madalageri, B. B. and Ganiger, V. M., 1993, Mepiquat chloride increased potato yield. J.
Indian Potato Associat., 20(3) : 45.
Madalageri, M. B., 1996, Investigations on the true potato production in rainfed vertisols. Ph.
D. Thesis, Univ. Agril. Sci., Dharawad.
Mahesh babu, M.G.,1984, Physiological analysis of yield in onion (Allium cepa L.) genotypes
as influenced by production systems. M.Sc.(Agri.) Thesis, University of
Agriculture Sciences, Bangalore.
Mahla, C. P. S., Dadheech, R. C. and Kulhari, R. K., 1999, Effect of plant growth regulators
on growth and yield of blackgram (Vigna mungo (L.) Hepper) at varying levels of
phosphorus. Ann. Biol., Ludhiana, 15 (2) : 205-207.
Mandal, S., Chakraborty, T. and Datta, J. K., 1997, Influence of growth retardant and rock
phosphate on growth and development of green gram (Vigna radiate L.
Wilczek). Indian J. Pl. Physiol., 2: 32-35.
Mandavia, M.K., Karkar, C., Mandavia, C. and Khasiya, V, 2006, Effect of salicylic acid and
brassinolides on yield and quality traits of chickpea seeds, Indian J. of Agri
Biochem 19 (1) : 29-31.
Mansuroglu, S., O. Karaguzel, V. Ortacesme and Sayan, M. S., 2009, Effect of paclobutrazol
on Flowering, leaf and flower colour of Consolida orientalis. Pak. J. Bot., 41 :
2323-2332.
Mathur, M. M., 1971, Responses of Allium cepa Line transplants to different plant growth
regulators. Indian J. Hort., 28(4) : 296-300.
Maurya, A. N. and Lal, S., 1981, Effect of plant growth regulators on the growth and
Development of onion (Allium cepa L.) transplants. Bangladesh Horti., 3(2) :11-
16.
Maurya, C. P. and Lal, H., 1987, Effect of IAA, NAA and GA on growth and yield of onion
(Allium cepa L.) and vegetable chilli (Capsicum annuum). Progr. Horti., 19(3-4) :
203-206.
Mehetre, S. S. and Lad, S. K., 1995, Effect of foliar application of growth substances on
growth and yield. Soybean Genet. New Lett., 22 : 132-134.
Microschinichenko, T. A. and Manankov, M. K., 1991, Effect of gibberellins and chloro-choline
Chloride on the pigment complex of onions. Fiziologiya : Biokhimiya Kultumykh
Rastenil, 23(5) : 452-455.
Mishrinky, J. F., NI-Fadlay, K. A. and Badwai, M. A., 1990, Effect of gibberellic acid and
chlormequat (CCC) on growth, yield and quality of pea. Bullet. Faulty Agril. Univ.
of Cairo., 785-797.
Mitchell, J. W., Wirwille, J. W. and Weil, L., 1949, Plant growth regulating properties of
some nictoninum compounds. Sci., 110: 252-254.
Moore, T. C., 1980, Biochemistry and physiology of plant hormone, Naroja publishing House,
New Delhi, pp. 107-131.
Murata, Y., 1969, Physiological responses to nitrogen in plants. In: Physiological aspects of
crop Yield, J. D Eastin et al. (Eds.), American Society Agronomy, crop. Sciences
Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin, U.A.S, pp. 235-259.
Muthuchelian, K., Murugan, C., Harigovindan, R. and Nedunchelhian, S., 1994, Effect of
triacontanol in flooded Erythrina variegata. Changes in CO2 fixation and RUBP
lase, photosystem and NRAase activities. Phytosynthetica, 40 : 407-413.
Nagai, M. and Hanaoka, T., 1976, Growth of the onion as a summer crop I. The maturing
Process and the phases of vegetative growth. J. Japan Soc. Horticulture Sci., 36
: 99-108.
Nagai, M., 1967, Growth of onions in a summer crop II. Fresh Weight and dry matter content
of The leaves as indicators for measuring growth and maturity. J. Japan Soc.
Hortic. Sci., 36 : 299-305.
Nandekar, D. N. and Sawarkar, S. D., 1992, Note on effect of growth regulators on growth,
Yield and quality of Kharif onion. Indian J. Horti., 49(3) : 267-269.
Navalagatti, C. M., 1988, Effect of plant growth regulators on growth yield and seed Viability
of groundnut (Arachis hypogea L.) genotypes. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agril
Sci. Dharawad.
Navalagatti, C. M., Panchal, Y. C., Manjunath, S. and Cannappagoudar, B. B., 1991, Effect of
different level of plant growth regulators on growth and yield of groundnut. J.
Maharashta Agril. Univ., 16(1) : 122-123.
Neelam Setia Sangeeta, Setia, R. C. and Setia, N., 1995, Effect of triacontanol on lentil yield
and yield components. Lens News Lett., 22 (1-2) 24-27.
Nichiporovich, A. A., 1960, Photosynthesis and the theory obtaining high crop Yield. Field
Crop Abstracts, 13 : 169-175.
Nigam, R. K., Varkey, M. and Rauban, D. E., 1984, Effect of gibberellic acid, B-9 and CCC on
the growth and flower sex in Arachis hypogea L., Indian J. Agril. Res., 17(/2) :
17-24.
Nirmal, S. V., Deore, B. P. and Patil, R. C., 1994, Effect of growth substances on yield and
yield Contributing traits in onion. J. Maharashtra Agril. Univ., 19(1) : 136-137.
Norton, E. J. and Silvertooth, 2000, Mepiquat chloride effects on irrigated cotton in Arizona.
Arizona Cotton Report, The University of Arizona college of Agriculture.
Ogilvy, S., 1985, Changing the shape of oilseeds rape. Ann. Rev. High Mowthrope Expt.
Husbandry Farm, 8 : 24-27.
on dry matter production and distribution and shelling percentage in determinate
and semi-determinate soybean genotype. Legume Res.,29 (3):191-195.
Ouzounidou, G, P. Papadopoulou, A. Giannakoula and Ilias, I., 2010, Comparative study on
the effects of various plant growth regulators on growth, quality and physiology
of Capsicum annuum L. Pak. J. Bot., 42: 805-814.
Ouzounidou, G. and Ilias, I., 2005, Hormone-induced protection of sunflower photosynthetic
apparatus against Cu toxicity. Biologia Plantarum, 49: 223-228.
Ouzounidou, G., P. Papadopoulou, A. Giannakoula and I. Ilias. 2008. Plant growth regulators
treatments modulate growth, physiology and quality characteristics of Cucumis
melo L. plants. Pak. J. Bot., 40: 1185-1193.
P.J., Boston, Martinus, Nijhoff, pp. 24-42.
Pando, S. B., Srivastava, G. C. and Deshmukh, P. S., 1988, Influence of cycocel (2-
chloroethyl trimethyl ammonium chloride) on nitrogen metabolism in sunflower.
Ann. Plant Physiol., 2 : 212-215.
Pankaj Kumar, 1998, Influence of growth regulators on physiological aspects in soyabean
(Glycine max (L.) merill). M.Sc.(Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agril. Sci., Dharawad.
Pankaj Kumar, Hiremath, S. M. and Chetti, M. B., 2006, Influence of growth regulators
Patel, E. and Saxena, O. P., 1995, Effect of PGRs on biochemical changes in developing
mungbean, Pl.Physiol.Biochem.,22(2) : 147-150
Patel, R. A. and Shrivastava, V. K., 1971, Growth and yield of pea as affected by
concentration of sprays of MH and GA on plant of different ages. Udaipur Agril.
Res. J., 9: 89-90.
Patil, S. B., 1994, Effect of population levels and growth retardants on growth, yield and yield
attributes and quality of soybean. M.Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agril. Sci.,
Dharwad.
Phulekar, C. S., Chetti, M. B., Nalini, A. S. and Patil, A. B., 1998, Relationship of leaf
characters with total dry matter and yield in groundnut as influenced by growth
retardants. Indian J. Agril. Res., 32 (3) : 195-200.
Piper, C. S., 1966, soil and plant analysis, Hans publishers, Bombay, monograputeh from The
Waits. Agriculture research institute, university of Adelaide, Pp. 47-111, 197-
200.
Poehlman, J. M., 1991 The mungbean. Oxford and IBH Publishing Co. Pt. Ltd., New Delhi,
pp.375-380.
Power, J. F., Willis, W. O., Gunes, D. L. and Peichman, G. A., 1967, Effect of soil
temperature, Phosphorus and plant age on growth analysis of barley. Agron. J.,
59: 231-234.
Prabhakar Reddy, V., 2002, Effect of growth regulators on growth, physiology and yield in
chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agril. Sci., Dharwad.
Prakash, M. and Ganesen J., (2000), Sesame and Safflower newsletter no. 15, institute of
Sustainable Agriculture (IAS), CSIC, Apartado 4084, Cordoba, Spain.
Prakash, M., Siddeshkumar, J., Kannan, K., Senthikumar, M. and Ganeshan, J., 2003, Effect
of plant growth regulators on growth, physiology and yield of black gram. Leg ,
Res., 26(3) : 183-187.
Rademacher, W., 2000, Growth retardants: Effect of gibberellins biosynthesis and other
metabolic Pathways. Ann. Rev. plant Physiology. Mol. Biol., 501-531.
Radford, P. I., 1967, Growth analysis formulae. Their use and abuse. Crop Sci., 7 : 171-178.
Rahman, M. S., Nashirul, M. I., Tahar, A. And karim, M. A., 2004, Influence of GA3 and MH
and their time of spray on morphology, yield contributing characters and yield of
soybean. Asian J. Pl. Sci., 3 (5) : 602-609.
Rakava, A. and Minor, J., 1970, Effect of B-indole-acetic acid, Maleic hydrazide and 2,3,5 – tri
– codobenzic acid on N, P, K and Ca accumulation by Pea Plants. Biologia
Pl.,12: 348-358.
Ramcharan, C., 2000, The Effect of Progibb Sprays on Leaf and flower Growth in Culantro
(Eryngium foetidum). Herbs, Spices Medi. Pl.., 7(1) : 59-63.
Ramesh Babu, Rao, M.V.H., Subhash Gumaste, Radder, G. D. and Itnal, C. J., 1993, Effect
of chamatkar (mepiquat chloride)- A growth retardant on growth and yield of
cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) Pestol., 17(1): 33-36.
Ravichndran, V. K. and Ramaswami, C., 1991, Source and sink relationship in soybean. As
influenced by TIBA. Indian J. Pl. Physiol., 34(1) :80-83.
Reddy, N. Y. and Sing, B. G. 1985, Effect of growth regulators on seed quality in soyabean
genotypes. Seeds Farms., 14(1) : 25-28.
Reddy, P., Ninganur, B.T., Chetti, M.B. and Hiremath, S. M., 2009, Effect of growth retardants
and nipping on chlorophyll content, nitrate reductase activity, seed protein
content and yield in cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.) Karnataka J. Agri Sci., 22(2) :
289-292.
Reinecke, D.M. and Bandurski, 1987, Auxin biosynthesis and metabolism. Plant
Sairam, R. K., Deshmukh, P. S. and Shukla, D. S., 1991, Influence of chloromequat chloride
on Photosynthesis and nitrate assimilation in wheat genotypes under Stress.
Indian J. Plant Physiol., 34(3) : 222-227.
Saishankar, S., 2001, Influence of plant growth regulators, chemicals and nutrients in green
gram (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek). M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis. Univ. Agril. Sci.,
Dharawad.
Salah, M. M. S. and Abd, Q. J., 1989, Effect of gibberellic acid and naphthalene acetic acid on
Growth, yield and quality of onion. Dirsat, 16(9) ; 39-51.
Sankhla, N., Davies, T.D., Upadhyaya, A.A., Sankhla D., Walser, R.H., and Smith,B.N., 1985,
Growth and metabolism of soyabean as affected by paclobutrazol. Plant cell and
Physiology, 26 : 913-921.
Saradhambal, K.V., Singh, S. P., Prakash, S. and Naik, M. S., 1978, Effect of bacterial blight
on The activities of nitrate reductase and peroxidase in rice plants. Indian J.
Biochem. Biophy., 15 : 105-107
Sarkar, M. C., Singh, H. A., Yadav, D. S and Sharma, R. P., 1979, Effect of growth regulators
on performance of pigeon pea. Ann. Repot. Res., pp. 75-76.
Sarkar, P. K., Haque, M. S. and Karim, M. A., 2002, Growth analysis of soybean as
influenced by GA3 and IAA and their frequency of application. Pakistan J.
Agron., 1(4): 123-126.
Senthilam, A., Pathamnabhan, G. and Thangraj, M., 2003. Effect of growth regulators on
certain physiological and biochemical aspects of green gram var VBN-1 (Vigna
radiate L.) Legume Res., 26(3): 200-203.
Sestak, Z., Catasky, J. and Jarvis, P. G., 1972, Plant Photosynthetic Production Manual of
Methods ED. Junk, N. V., The Haque Publishers, pp. 343-381.
Setia, R.C., Setia Nelam and Malik, C.P.,1991, Plant growth regulators : Overview and role in
crop productivity. Recent Advance in Plant Biology : 47-76.
Shah, S. H., Ahmad, I. and Samiullah, K., 2007, Responses of Nigella sativa to foliar
application of gibberellic acid and kinetin. Biologia Plantarum, 51: 563-566.
Shah, T. and Prathapasenan, G., 1991, Effect of cycocel on the growth and yield of
mungbean (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek var. Guj-2). Journal of Agronomy, 166 (1)
: 40-47.
Shekhar, V. C., 1974, Effect of nitrogen on growth and yield components of two cultivars of
Onion (Allium cepa Linn). M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agril. Sci., Bangalore.
Shinde, R. V., 2010, Influence of plant growth regulators on growth regulators on growth
physiology, yield and quality of soybean (Glycine max (L.)Merrill). M. Sc. (Agri)
Thesis, Univ. Agri. Sci., Dharawad.
Shrivatsava, V. K. and Bajpai, P. N., 1964, A note on MH treated calendula. Madras Agril. J.,
51: 515- 516.
Shukla, K. C., Singh, O. P. and Samaiya, R. K, 1997, Effect of foliar spray of plant growth
regulators and nutrients complex on productivity of soyabean. Var. JS 7981
crop. Res., 13 : 213-215.
Singh, A. K., 2004. Response of pot marigold (Calendula officinalis) to plant growth
regulators. Ind. J. Agric. Sci., 74 : 130-132.
Singh, A. R., Pankaj, S. L. and Singh, G. N., 1983, Effect of growth regulators on growth, yield
And quality of onion. Punjab Hortic. J., 23(1/2) : 100-104.
Singh, B. B. and Sarkar, S. K., 1976, Effect of growth retardants on growth, flowering,
productivity and chemical composition of soyabean. Haryana J. Hort. Sci., 5 :
195-202.
Singh, H., Chandra, S. and Jolly, R. S., 1987, Effect of growth regulators in relation to time of
sowing and yield of soyabean cultivars. Ann. Biol., 3(10 : 36-43.
Singh, J., Kavel, J. N. and Brar, Z. S., 1993, Compartmentation of canopy dry matter and
seed yield of summer mungbean in relation to irrigation and cycocel regimes.
Indian J. Pulses Res., 6 : 207-209
Singh, K. K., Singh, M. P., Sharma, C. P. and Singh., D. B., 1982, Effect of growth regulators
along With nitrogen and potash on growth and yield of onion (Allium cepa L.),
JNKVV Res. J., 16 : 3.
Singh, M. and Yadav, H. S., 1987, Effect of transplanting and role of growth regulators on
onion Yield. Bharatiya Krishi Anusandhan Patrika, 2(1) : 43-46.
Singh, S., Singh, K. and Singh, S. P., 1995, Effect of hormones on growth and yield
characters of seed crop of kharif onion (Allium cepa L.) . Indian J. Plant Physiol.,
38(3) : 193-196.
Sivakumar, K. Kalarani. M. K. Sujatha, K. B. and Vanangmudi. M., 2001, Effect of growth
regulators on biochemical attributes, grain yield and quality in pearl millet.
Madras Agril. J. 88: 256-259.
Sivakumar, R., Pathmanaban, G., Kalarani, M. K., Mallika Vanangamudi and Srinivasan, P.
S., 2002, Effect of foliar application of growth regulators on biochemical
attributes and grain yield in pearl millet. Indian J. Plant Physiol., 7 (1) : 79-82.
Sorte, N. V., Deotale, R. D., Ratnaparkhi, V. P. and Shastri, N. R., 1989, Effect of foliar
application of cycocel on peanut (Arachis hypogeal L.) Progressive Horti., 24(1-
2) : 66-69.
Souza, R. J. D. and Casali, V. W. D., 1994, Effects of PIX (mepiquat chloride) growth
regulator up on productivity and over sprouting of garlic (Allium sativum L.).
Ciencia Practica, 16(2) : 29-223.
Srivastava, S. K. and Tiwari, D. K., 1981, Correlation of physiological growth parameters of
productivity in chickpea. Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya Res. J., 15:
75-76.
Srivatasava, R. P. and Adhikari, B. S., 1972, Effect of pre-sowing treatment with growth
Substances on important vegetable crops. V. Onion. Punjab Horti. J., 12(2/3) ;
183-188.
Suryanarayana, N., 1977, Effect of growth regulators on growth, development and yield of
groundnut. Thesis Abstract, Agriculture College, Tirupathi, Andhra Pradesh,
India, 3: 452.
Tanner, J. W. and Ahmed, S., 1974, Growth analysis of soybeans treated with TIBA. Crop
Sci., 14 : 371-374.
Thorne, G. N., 1960, Variation wit age in net assimilation rate and other growth attributes of
Sugar beet, potato and barley in a controlled environment. Annals of Bot., 24 :
356-371.
Tickoo, J. L., Singh, S. P. and Mchra, R. S., 1974, Effect of TIBA on Bengalgram. Indian J.
Genet., 34: 805-808.
Tomar, S. P. S., Singh, T. P. and Tomar, G. S., 1988, Effect of planting date and hormone on
onion (Allium cepa L.) yield. Indian J. Agril. Sci., 58(2) : 136-138.
Vaish, C. P., 1969, Effect of growth substances on onion (Allium cepa L.) variety Patna Red.
Punjab Horti. J., 9 : 203-209.
Vanangamudi, K., Kalavathi, D. and Ramamoorthy, K., 1988, Effect of gibberellic acid on
Dormancy, Flowering, Bulb and seed production in bellary onion (Allium cepa L.)
Indian J. Plant Physiol., 31(2) : 190-192.
Vasudevan, S. N., Sudarshan, J. S., Kurdikeri, M. P. and Dharamatti, P. R., 2008, Influence of
pinching of apical bud and chemical sprays on seed yield and quality of
fenugreek. Karnataka J. Agric. Sci., 21(1) : 26-29.
Vello, N. A. and Castro, P. R. C., 1987, Action of growth regulators on development of
soyabean cultivar ‘Davis’, Anais da Escola. Superiourde Agriculture. Luiz de
quieroz., 38(1) : 269-279.
Vliet, M., Vander, M. and Scheele, J., 1966, The economic importance of leaf damage in
onions. Versal Landbouwk Onderz, No.669, pp.27.
Wasnik, K. G. and Bagga, A. K., 1992, Effect of Cycocel on nitrate reductase activity and
grain Yield in chickpea (Vigna radiate L. Wilczek). Indian J. Plant Physiol., 35(1)
: 104-107.
Wasnik, K. G. and Bagga, A. K., 1996, Effect of mepiquat chloride on growth and yield of
chickpea (Cicerarietinum L.). Indian J. Pl. Phsio.,1 (4) : 239-242.
Watson, D. J., 1952, The physiological basis of variation in yield. Adv. Agron, 4: 101-145.
Watson, D. J., 1956, Leaf growth in relation to crop yield in the growth of leaves. Ed.
Milthrope, F.L., Butterworths Scientific Publication, London, pp. 178-191.
Whiteside, W. F., Vademark, K. S. and Splittstoesser, W. E., 1975, Changes in various
Constituents of onion as influenced by two light regimes. Horti. Sci., 10: 18-20.
*Willard, J. I., 1979, Pix plant regulator research-past and future. In : M. Abdel – Rahaman
(Ed) Proceedings of Sixth Annual Meet. Plant Growth Reg. Work Group Las
Vegas, Nov. 20-23, Aug. 1979, Longmont.
Yamaguchi, M., Paulson, K. N. and Bernhard, R. A., 1975, Effect of soil temperature on
growth And quality of onion bulbs (Allium cepa L.) used for dehydration. J.
American Soc. Horti. Sci., 100 : 415-419.
*York, A. C., 1982, Response of cotton to mepiquat chloride with varying N rates and plant
population. Agron. J., 75: 667-672.
Zaky, L.M., El-Bahay, M.M., Dowidar, A.E. and Latif, H.H., 1999, Some physiological studies
on the effect of the growth retardants (pix) on Vicia faba plant. Egyptian J. of
Physi. Sci., 23(3) : 335-359.
Zhang, T., Wang, X., Wang, Y., Han, J., Mao, P. and Majerus, M., 2009, Plant growth
regulator effect on balancing vegetative and reproductive phases in alfalfa seed
yield. Agron. J., 101(5) ; 1139-1145.
 INFLUENCE OF GROWTH REGULATORS ON
GROWTH PHYIOLOGY, YIELD AND YIELD
COMPONENTS IN ONION (Allium cepa L.)
GENOTYPES

ROOPA B. P. 2011 Dr. C. M. NAWALGATTI

MAJOR ADVISOR

ABSTRACT
A field experiment was conducted during Kharif, 2011 at Main Agricultural Research
Station (MARS) University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad to study the effect of plant
growth regulators on growth physiology, yield and yield components in onion (Allium cepa L.)
genotypes. The experiment consists of nine treatments viz., The foliar spray of chlormequat
chloride at four levels (500, 750, 1000 and 1250 ppm), two levels of mepiquat chloride (750
and 1500 ppm), two levels of triacontanol (1000 and 2000 ppm) and control. The onion
genotypes used in the study are Nasik red and Arka kalyan. The experiment was laid out in
split plot design with three replications. The foliar spray of these chemicals were taken at 40
DAS and 60 DAS. The results of the experiment reveled that, the plant height was increased
with the application of triacontanol (1000 and 2000 ppm) as compared to control. While, it was
significantly decreased with the application of mepiquat chloride followed by chlormequat
chloride in both the genotypes. Among the treatments, chlormequat chloride @ 1000 ppm has
increased significantly number of leaves at all the stages except at harvest stage. The growth
parameters viz., LAI, LAD, AGR, RGR, NAR, CGR, BMD had significantly higher values with
the application of 1000 and 1250 ppm chlromequat chloride. It was noticed that, the total dry
matter content (TDM) has been significantly increased in the treatment of chlormequat
chloride (1000 and 1250 ppm) as compared to other treatments. The same treatment also
significantly enhanced the biochemical parameters viz., Chlorophyll ‘a’, Chorophyll ‘b’, total
chlorophyll and nitrate reductase.
Similarly bulb yield was significantly higher with the application of chlormequat
chloride (1000 ppm) as compared to other treatments and the lowest yield was obtained in
control. The increase in bulb yield was due to increase in bulb length and bulb diameter.
Among the genotypes Arka kalyan was found more superior than Nasik red with the respect
to all the characters. From the study, it is inferred that the application of chlormequat chloride
@ 1000 ppm is found to be more economic.