Research Paper: GROWTH AND YIELD OF MUKHIKACHU (Colocasia esculenta L.) cv. BILASHI TO DIFFERENT CORM SIZE

1. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS, SOCIAL AND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
ISSN: 2309-7892, Volume: 2, Issue: 1, Page: 31-34, July-September, 2014
Invited Paper
GROWTH AND YIELD OF MUKHIKACHU (Colocasia esculenta L.) cv. BILASHI
TO DIFFERENT CORM SIZE
R. Sikder
1
, M.I. Asif
2
, M.M.A. Khan
3
, H. Mehraj
4
and AFM Jamal Uddin
4
*
R. Sikder, M.I. Asif, M.M.A. Khan, H. Mehraj and AFM Jamal Uddin (2014). Growth and Yield of Mukhikachu
(Colocasia esculenta l.) cv. Bilashi to Different Corm Size. Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci. Res. 2(1): 31-34. Retrieve from
http://www.ijbssr.com/currentissueview/14013043
Received Date: 30/06/2014 Acceptance Date:10/07/2014 Published Date: 11/07/2014
Abstract
An experiment was conducted at the Horticultural farm of Sher-e-Bangla agricultural
University, Bangladesh to find out the optimum cormel size for higher yield o f
mukhikachu during the period from February 2012 to March 2013. The experiment
consisted three different corm size viz. C1: Small size (5.0-7.5 g); C2: Medium size
(7.5-10.0 g) and C3: Large size (10.0-12.5 g). Tallest plant (53.7 cm at harvest),
maximum number of leaves (4.5 at harvest), foliage coverage (47.3% at harvest),
sucker/hill (8.0), weight of individual corm (80.9 g), number of cormels/plant (21.8),
yield of corm (2.1 kg/plot), yield of corm (5.9 t/ha), yield of cormels (8.6 kg/plot),
yield of cormels (23.9 t/ha) but minimum weight loss (16.7%), rotten cormel (13.5%)
was found from C3 while minimum from C1.
Key words: Mukhikachu, corm size, growth and yield.
Introduction
Mukhikachu (Colocasia esculenta L. Scott) belongs to Araceae family an edible aroid. It also compares
favorably in nutritional value with other root crops such as cassava, yam, sweet potato (Plucknett et al.,
1970). In Bangladesh very little research works on this edible aroids had been done. Mukhikachu is largely
propagated by its corms and cormels. Growth and yield are affected by various factors. Yield of aroids are
markedly influenced by planting materials. Seed size had significant influence on the growth and yield of
different root crops (Enyi, 1972; Taleb et al., 1973; Bhuyan et al., 1982). The diameter and weight of corm
greatly influence yield and quality of mukhikachu (Siddique et al., 1988). Biggest corm size (5 cm) gave
the highest total dry weight and corm dry weight yield while the smallest corm size (1 cm) gave the lowest
(Thititaweesin et al., 2010). There is a scope of increasing the yield as well as economic benefits of
mukhikachu with appropriate corm size. Considering the above mentioned facts, present study was
undertaken to find out the proper corm size for better yield of mukhikachu.
Materials and Methods
The study was conducted at the Horticultural Farm and Laboratory of Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural
University (SAU), Dhaka, Bangladesh during the period from February 2012 to March 2013 to study the
effect of plant spacing on the growth, yield and storability of mukhikachu. The experiment consisted three
different corm size viz. C1: Small size (5.0-7.5 g); C2: Medium size (7.5-10.0 g) and C3: Large size (10.0-
12.5 g) followed by Randomized Complete Block Design with three replications. The size of the each plot
was 2.0 m × 1.8 m. The distance maintained between two blocks and two plots were 1.0 m and 0.5 m
respectively. Corms were sown in the plot with maintaining distance as per treatment. Cormels were
planted at a depth of 7-8 cm. Cowdung (15 tha
-1
), urea (150 kgha
-1
), TSP (150 kgha
-1
), MP (175 kgha
-1
),
gypsum (30 kgha
-1
), zinc sulphate (15 kgha
-1
) and boric acid (5 kgha
-1
) were applied. The entire cowdung,
TSP, gypsum, zinc sulphate, boric acid, ½ urea, ½ MP were applied during final land preparation. Rest of
the urea and MP were applied in two installments, firstly at 45 DAP (Days after planting) and secondly at
100 DAP (BARI, 2008). Earthing up was done at 60 and 120 days after planting followed by weeding on
both sides of rows by taking the soil from the space between the rows by a small spade. After harvesting of
mukhikachu cormel treatment wise 250 g cormel were stored in room temperature. In the storage room a
polythene sheet was spread and 1 inch thickness sand was applied on the polythene sheet. Treatment wise
cormel was placed on the sand and again 1 inch thickness sand was applied above the cormel. Weight loss
*Corresponding Authors Email: jamal4@yahoo.com
1
Horticulture Development Division, BADC, Dhaka-1000, Bangladesh
2
Department of Seed Technology, Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University, Dhaka-1207, Bangladesh
3
Seed Processing Centre, Mirpur,Dhaka-1216, Bangladesh
4
Department of Horticulture, Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University, Dhaka-1207, Bangladesh

2. Sikder et al.
http://www.ijbssr.com
32
and number of rotten cormel was counted from the storage cormel at 120 days. Data were collected on plant
height, number of leaves/plant, foliar coverage, number of sucker/hill, weight of individual corm, number
of cormels/plant, yield of corm/plot, yield of corm/ha, yield of cormels/plot, yield of cormels/ha, weight
loss (%), rotten cormel (%). Collected data were statistically analyzed using MSTAT-C Computer Package
Program. The significance of difference among treatments means was estimated by LSD test at 1% level of
probability (Gomez and Gomez, 1984).
Result and Discussion
Plant height: Plant height of mukhikachu varied significantly due to the variation of corm size at different
days after planting. Tallest plant was found from C3 (67.9) which was statistically similar with C2 (66.7)
whereas shortest from C1 (63.3) at 180 DAP (Fig. 1a). Plant height was reduced after 180 DAP and on that
case tallest plant was also found from C3 (53.7 cm) whereas shortest from C1 (50.8 cm) at harvest (Fig. 1a).
The plant height was maximum in larger cormel size because of larger cormel had huge stored food
material that support to increase vegetative growth of plants. Largest cormel size gave maximum vegetative
growth and ultimately produced tallest plant (Thititaweesin et al., 2010).
Number of leaves/plant: Maximum number of leaves/plant was found from C3 (7.3) which was statistically
similar with C2 (7.1) whereas minimum from C1 (6.7) at 180 DAP but after 180 DAP number o f
leaves/plant reduced and on that case maximum number of leaves was also found from C3 and C2 (4.5)
while minimum from C1 (4.1) at harvest (Fig. 1b).
Foliage coverage: Maximum foliage coverage was found from C3 (84.3%) which was statistically similar
with the C2 (81.5%) while minimum from C1 (74.3%) at 180 DAP, after that foliage coverage of plant
gradually reduced and on that case the maximum foliage coverage was also found from C3 (47.3%) and
minimum from C1 (39.1%) at harvest (Fig. 1c). Foliage coverage was maximum in larger cormel size that
might be due to larger cormel had huge stored food.
Number of sucker/hill: Maximum number of sucker/hill was found from C3 (8.0) which was statistically
similar with C2 (7.4) while minimum from C1 (6.5) at 150 DAP (Fig. 2). The increased number o f
suckers/hill was obtained from the large cormel might be due to the higher number of potential eyes present
in large cormel which led to production of maximum sucker/hill.
Weight of individual corm: Weight of individual corm was varied significantly among the different corm
size. Maximum weight of individual corm was found from C3 (80.9 g) followed by C2 (79.5 g) while
minimum from C1 (65.7 g) (Table 1).
Number of cormel/plant: Number of cormel/plant was varied significantly due to the different corm size.
Maximum number of cormel/plant was found from C3 (21.8) followed by C2 (21.6) while minimum from
C1 (19.1) (Table 1).
Yield of corm/plot: Yield of corm/plot varied significantly due to different corm size. Maximum yield o f
corm/plot was found from C3 (2.1 kg) followed by C2 (1.9 kg) whereas minimum from C1 (1.6 kg) (Table
1).
Yield of corm/ha: different corm size showed significant variation for yield of corm/ha. Maximum yield of
corm/ha was found from C3 (5.9 t) followed by C2 (5.2 t) whereas minimum from C1 (4.4 t) (Table 1). It
was primarily due to high food reserves in large cormels which ultimately contributed to produce high yield
through increase vegetative growth of plants and rapid development of corm. Largest cormel size (5 cm)
gave maximum yield while smallest cormel size (1 cm) gave minimum yield (Thititaweesin et al., 2010).
Yield of cormel/plot: Yield of cormel/plot was varied significantly due to the variation of corm size.
Maximum yield of cormel/plot was found from C3 (8.6 kg) followed by C2 (8.3 kg) whereas minimum from
C1 (7.69 kg) (Table 1).
Yield of cormel/ha: Different corm size showed a significant variation for yield of cormel/ha. Maximum
yield of cormel/ha was found from C3 (23.9 t) followed by C2 (23.1 t) whereas minimum from C1 (21.1 t)
(Table 1). Weight of cormel greatly influence yield of mukhikachu (Siddique et al., 1988; Bhuyan et al.,
1982; Rasul et al., 1994).
Weight loss: Different corm size showed a non-significant variation for weight loss. However, minimum
weight loss was found from C3 (16.7%) and C2 (16.7%) while maximum from C1 (16.9%) (Table 1).
Rotten cormel: Rotten cormel was not varied significantly due to the variation of corm size. However,
minimum rotten cormel was found from C3 (13.5%) followed by C2 (13.7%) while maximum from C1
(13.8) (Table 1).

3. Growth and Yield of Mukhikachu
http://www.ijbssr.com
33
10.0
30.0
50.0
70.0Plantheight(cm).
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
Numberofleaves.
10.0
40.0
70.0
100.0
60
90
120
150
180
210
harvest
Days after planting (DAP)
Foliagecoverage(%).
C1 C2 C3
Fig 1. Response of mukhikachu to different corm size on a) plant height, b) number of leaves and c) foliage
coverage
0.0
3.0
6.0
9.0
60 90 120 150
Days after planting (DAP)
Numberofsucker/hill..
C1
C2
C3
Fig. 2. Response of mukhikachu to different corm size on number of sucker/hill
a) b)
c)

4. Sikder et al.
http://www.ijbssr.com
34
Table 1. Response of mukhikachu (Colocasia esculenta) to different corm size on yield and storability
Corm
size
Weight of
individual
corm (g)
Number
of
cormel/
plant
Yield of
corm
(kg/plot)
Yield
of
corm
(t/ha)
Yield of
cormel
(kg/plot)
Yield of
cormel
(t/ha)
At 120 days after
storage
Weight
loss (%)
Rotten
cormel
(%)
C1 65.7 c 19.1 c 1.6 c 4.4 c 7.6 c 21.1 c 16.9 a 13.8 a
C2 79.5 b 21.6 a 1.9 b 5.2 b 8.3 b 23.1 b 16.7 a 13.7 a
C3 80.9 a 21.8 a 2.1 a 5.9 a 8.6 a 23.9 a 16.7 a 13.5 a
LSD(0.
01) 1.1 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.9 0.8
CV (%) 4.8 3.9 6.3 6.3 5.3 5.3 1.3 1.7
In a column means having similar letter(s) are statistically similar and those having dissimilar letter(s)
differ significantly at 0.05 level of probability
Conclusion
Finally, the large size cormels produced momentous findings in almost all the parameters. The plants
produced were vigorous which resolutely produced good in number and quality of corms and cormels.
Reference
BARI. 2008. Mukhikachu Unnato Utpadan Koushal. Tuber Crop Reserch Centre (TCRC), BARI.
Joydevpur, Gazipur. p. 6.
Bhuyan, M. A. J., M. M. Haque and R. Haque. 1982. Effect of seed size and spacing on the yield of Mukhi
kachu (Colocasia esculenla). Bangladesh Hort. 10(2): 5-8.
Enyi, B. A. C. 1972. The effect of seed size and spacing on growth and yield of lesser yam (Dioscorea
esculenta). Ann. Appi. Biol. 72: 53-60.
Gomez, K. A. and Gomez, A. A. 1984. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. Jhons Wiley and
Sons, New York. P. 67.
Plucknet D. L, Pena R. S, Dela and Obrero R T. (1970). Taro (C. esculenta). Field Crop Abstracts 23: 413-
326
Rasul, M. G., M. S. Akter, M. S. Nahar, M. A. Mannan and M. M. Rashid. 1994. Effect of mulches and
seed types on the growth, yield attributes and yield of Mukhi Kachu. Bangladesh J. Sci. Ind. Res.
29(3): 53-61.
Siddique, M. A., Dhar, M. and Rabbani, M. G. 1988. Effects of seed cormel size and plant spacing on the
yield of Mukhikachu. Bangladesh J. Agril. Res., 13(1):31-36.
Taleb, A., A. Husain and A. Siddique. 1973. Effect of seed size and spacing on the yield of potato. Indian J.
Agric. Sci. 43: 237-240.
Thititaweesin, S., Datpirattanamongkhon, S. and Yoosukyingsataporn, S. 2010. Effects of corm size on
growth and yield of taro. Proc. 48
th
Kasetsart Univ. Annl. Conf., Kasetsart, p. 43-48.