Use of paclobutrazol in fruit crops

SEMINAR 0N
USE OF PACLOBUTRAzOL IN FRUIT CROPS
SPEAKER :
Halepotara Farheen H.
Reg No. : 2020616005
M.Sc (Horticulture) Fruit Science
Dept. Of Horticulture
JAU, Junagadh
15-04-2017

3
FLOW OF PRESENTATION
Introduction
History
Application of Paclobutrazol
 Method of application
 Mode of action
 Advantages and disadvantages
 Precautions
 Review of research work
 Vegetative growth and flowering
 Yield and yield attributes
 Quality
 Cost/ benefit
 Conclusion

Introduction
India is the second largest fruit producer in the world which contribute about
63.58 lakh ha Area, 88.819 MT production and 13.97 tonne/ha productivity (Anon., 2015). In
the history of horticulture attempts were made to reduce the plant height and allow tree with a
compact growth for easy agronomical practices in the orchard. The attempts were also made
for the induction of early as well as synchronized flowering in a orchard to achieve higher
prices by early entry in the market. Synchronized flowering will give synchronized maturity
and early harvesting thereby reduce the cost of harvesting and transportation and to meet bulk
demand in the market.
Irregular and alternate bearing in fruits is a major problem faced by fruit
growers. This problem causes great economic loss to the growers with poor yield and selling of
produce at low price during “on year” due to fruit glut in the market.
04

Plant height, flowering, yield and quality including alternate bearing can
be overcome by various horticultural practices like pruning, thinning of fruits, use of
chemicals like Paclobutrazol etc. out of these use of Paclobutrazol is commonly
practiced by the horticultural growers.
On Year Off Year
05

History
• 1950 - Used NAA and MH as an inhibitor of growth
• 1970 - EPRI screened two types of growth regulating compounds
(I) Cell division inhibitors (ABA)
(II) Cell elongation inhibitors
• Paclobutrazol belongs to second group
• 1980- PBZ applied as
• Soil and plant trunk injection
• Foliar spray, soil drench
• 1990- Application rate and equipment refined
06

Chemical structure of Paclobutrazol
(2RS, 3RS) 1-(4 chlorophenyl)-4, 4 dimethyl -2(1, 2, 4- triazol-1yl)-pentan-3-ol)
07

Physical properties of Paclobutrazol
• Molecular weight - 293 g·mol−1
• Melting point - 165-166°C
• Solubility - water
• Physical state - white crystal
• Stability - stable under normal
conditions
• Solubility in water - 26 mg/L (20 °C)
• Density - 1.19 g/cm
3
08

At what age trees should be treated with PBZ?
• In high tree density situations with closer spacing, it is recommended to
apply paclobutrazol early when trees are about three years old.
• When trees are spaced at 10 m, early application with paclobutrazol will
reduce canopy size and the fruit bearing area. In such a situation,
treatment can commence when trees are about five years old.
• In dry conditions, a light irrigation is recommended after application.
• Paclobutrazol applied soon after harvesting in older tree.
12

• The application of paclobutrazol to soil as a drench around the
tree trunk (collar drench) is the most effective method.
• The required quantity is mixed in approximately 1 L of water and
poured onto the soil around the trunk in a circular band.
13

Flowering in off year in paclobutrazol (cultar)
treated tree
Method of paclobutrazol (cultar) use Use of paclobutrazol (cultar) in trees
above 25 years of age
Heavy fruiting
15

Mode of action
Flowering in the terminal shoots
ABA induces Florigin formation
Increased ABA and the chlorophyll component phytol
Reduced growth in the diameter of the trunk and branches
Shoots, leaves and internodes compressed into a shorter length
Restricts the terminal growth
Blocks the gibberellic acid biosynthesis
Application of paclobutrazol in plant
16

Application of
Paclobutrazol
Acropetal
movement
GA(-)
GA (-)
GA (-)
ABA (+) ABA(+)
ABA (+)
Mode of
action
Phytol (chlorophyll content)
17

Advantages of
PBZ
Induce
Dwarfing
Tolerance to
environme-
ntal stress
Resistance
to fungal
diseaseIncrease
chlorophyll
content
Solves
protandry
problem
Increase
flowering
18

Bacterial leaf scorch affected tree
Before treatment After treatment
19

• Reduces xylem thickness in plant.
• Inhibits water and nutrient uptake.
Disadvantages of PBZ
20

• There is concern that it damages the liver and is possibly a
carcinogen.
• Evidence shows that it is not dangerous to intact skin. It causes eye
irritation and inhalation is unpleasant.
• To be really safe avoid contact with broken skin by using gloves and
other measures and do not ingest or breathe powder or solutions.
• An effective application of recommended dose of fertilizers is
mandatory to avoid harmful effect on plant and human health.
Precautions
21

Crop
PBZ
concentration
Mode of
application
Effect Source
Mango
1.0 g a. i./m
canopy Soil
application
Growth reduction, flower
induction
Burondkar and
Gunjate (1993)
20-40 g/tree
Growth reduction, increased sex
ratio, flowering and yield
Singh (2000)
Litchi
5 g/m2 plant
spread
Soil
application
Growth reduction, enhanced
flowering and yield
Faizan et al. (2000)
Mexican
lime
15 g a.i./ plant
Soil
application
Enhanced flowering
Medina-Urrutia and
Buenrostro-Nova
(1995)
Mandarin 1.0-2.0 g
Soil
application
Growth regulation dos Santos et al. (2004)
Cashew
nut
1-3 g/plant
Soil
application
Growth regulation and nut yield Meena et al. (2014)
IIHR, Bangalore Kishore et al. (2015)
Table 1. Efficacy of paclobutrazol in perennial fruit crops
22

• Inhibits of cell elongation
• Reduces length of internodesStem
• Reduces size and volume
• Increases chlorophyll productionLeaves
Effect of PBZ on Vegetative growth
23

hbbb
Effect of PBZ on tree vigour
Before treatment After treatment24

Effect of PBZ on panicle size
25

• Inhibits gibberellin biosynthesis
• Increases Auxin level
• Increases concentration of soluble solids
• Increases starch content
• Decreases starch hydrolysis
• Reduces amylase activity
Sugar
Flowering
and fruiting
Effect of PBZ on physiology of plant
26

Effect of PBZ on plant Physiology
Before treatment After treatment27

Soil
Rainfall/
flooding
Paclobutrazol
Percolation/
leaching
Direct contact
Plant
Fruits
Human being
Vaporization
Inhalation
Soil
adsorption
Groundwater
Water bodies
Runoff
Sub-surface flow
Fish
Schematic presentation of paclobutrazol residue movement in the environment
IIHR, Bangalore Kishore et al. (2015)28
Maximum
residual limit of
PBZ in fruits
for export as
per APEDA
– 0.01 ppm

Bhattacherjee and Singh (2015)Lucknow, UP
Table 2.Persistence of PBZ @ 0.8 g a.i./tree in mango cv. Dashehari
Soil (240 days of application) 0.95 mg/kg
Inflorescence (150 days after application) 0.27 mg/kg
Premature fruits (harvested 40 and 70 days after fruit
set)
0.5 mg/kg
Mature fruits (85 days after fruit set)
NOT
DETECTED
29

VEGETATIVE GROWTH
AND FLOWERING
31

Table 3: Effect of combination of different bio regulators and growth regulator sprays on reproductive growth of
mango cv. Banganpalli.
Treatments
Floweri
ng (%)
Panicle
Length (cm)
Panicle Breadth
(cm)
Fruit Set Per
Panicle (%)
Fruit
no.
Fruit
Weight (g)
T₁ GA₃ – 20 ppm 75.00 21.81 9.25 8.86 113.00 301.00
T₂ NAA - 80 ppm 73.33 29.36 14.20 9.06 126.00 315.67
T₃ PBZ - 3ml/m canopy 91.67 30.57 22.20 13.13 133.00 309.33
T₄ CPPU – 20 ppm 61.67 20.88 11.40 9.26 131.66 299.67
T5 ZnSO₄+GA₃ (0.1%+ 20 ppm) 48.33 24.32 12.98 10.13 112.33 301.67
T6 ZnSO₄+NAA (0.1 %+ 80 ppm) 35.00 24.97 17.06 8.20 120.66 297.33
T7 ZnSO₄+PBZ (0.1 %+ 3ml/mcanopy) 56.67 26.61 18.51 8.43 131.33 309.00
T8 ZnSO₄+ CPPU (0.1%+20 ppm) 55.00 25.52 21.82 13.00 122.66 305.33
T9 K₂SO₄ +GA₃ (1.0%+ 20 ppm) 51.67 24.34 10.53 10.86 126.00 306.33
T10K₂SO₄ +NAA (1.0%+ 80 ppm) 50.00 26.96 16.41 11.33 123.33 307.33
T11K₂SO₄ +PBZ (1 .0%+ 3ml/m canopy) 68.33 25.66 16.61 12.80 130.00 299.33
T₁2K₂SO₄ + CPPU(1.0%+20 ppm) 45.00 25.46 15.87 8.33 123.33 309.00
T13Control 35.00 19.30 8.33 8.00 110.66 296.67
F- test * * * * * *
CD at (5%) 21.50 6.09 4.45 3.62 6.68 9.05
College of Horticulture, Rajendranagar (Hyderabad) Dheeraj et al. (2016)
1,2-chloro-4 pyridal 3-phenyl urea
32

Treatments
Shoot
length(cm)
Number of
leaves /shoot
Width of
panicle (cm)
Hermaphrodite
flowers (%)
Fruit set (%)
T1 (1st week of June) 17.24 20.10 0.51 12.50 2.788
T2 (3rd week of June) 17.20 19.29 0.52 12.61 2.976
T3 (1st week of July) 16.27 18.30 0.61 14.24 3.444
T4 (3rd week of July) 15.80 16.48 0.83 14.87 3.866
T5 (1st week of August) 17.02 17.09 0.77 13.74 3.364
T6 (3rd week of August) 17.91 26.98 0.66 13.08 3.401
T7 (1st week of September) 18.90 27.28 0.61 13.30 2.936
T8 (3rd week of September) 19.14 24.21 0.57 12.16 2.875
T9 (1st week of October) 19.94 28.14 0.56 11.89 2.774
T10 (3rd week of October) 24.53 27.78 0.56 11.68 2.724
T11 Control 25.04 29.19 0.46 10.17 1.722
Range 15.80-25.04 16.48-29.19 0.46-0.83 10.17-14.87 1.722-3.866
Mean 18.99 23.17 0.60 12.75 3.06
S. Em ± 1.00 1.33 0.03 0.41 0.09
C. D. (5%) 3.07 4.01 0.119 1.24 0.299
CV % 20.73 21.10 24.99 12.41 19.20
Table 4: Vegetative characters as influenced by time of Paclobutrazol application in
Alphonso mango.
BSKKV, Dapoli (M.H.) Shinde et al. (2015)
Paclobutrazol @ 3 ml/canopy m2
33

Treatments
Fruit Retention
(%)
Days to harvest No. of fruits/
plant
Av. weight of
fruit (g)
Yield kg/
plant
T1 (1st week of June) 0.993 116.05 132.98 232.96 30.98
T2 (3rd week of June) 1.195 113.30 147.10 226.03 33.18
T3 (1st week of July) 1.221 110.63 159.91 222.90 35.64
T4 (3rd week of July) 1.386 108.14 206.07 222.16 45.73
T5 (1st week of August) 1.356 109.70 151.06 223.81 33.81
T6 (3rd week of August) 0.975 113.12 108.04 228.09 24.64
T7 (1st week of September) 0.871 115.57 104.95 231.72 24.32
T8 (3rd week of September) 0.861 115.60 100.60 234.84 23.62
T9 (1st week of October) 0.838 118.43 89.11 234.64 20.94
T10 (3rd week of October) 0.885 118.39 86.18 241.43 20.80
T11 Control 0.243 142.26 66.49 255.42 16.99
Range 0.243-1.386 108.14-142.26 66.49-206.07 222.16-255.42 16.99-45.73
Mean 1.03 116.47 122.95 232.18 28.24
S. Em ± 0.12 1.20 12.23 1.003 2.81
C. D. at 5% 0.369 3.61 36.71 3.02 8.43
CV % 18.53 17.41 23.32 22.64 20.83
Table 5: Generative characters as influenced by time of paclobutrazol application in
Alphonso mango.
BSKKV, Dapoli (M.H.) Shinde et al.(2015)
Paclobutrazol @ 3 ml/ m2 canopy
34

Treatment
Vegetative shoots (%)
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 mean
D0T0 Control 16.2 14.5 9.5 14.0 12.5 16.5 13.8
D₁T₁ 3ml/m canopy PBZ applied 60 days BBB 7.5 10.5 3.5 1.7 13.8 17.5 10.5
D₁T₂ 3ml/m canopy PBZ applied 90 days BBB 16.2 12.0 4.5 1.0 2.5 17.8 9.0
D₁T₃ 3ml/m canopy PBZ applied 120 days BBB 7.5 13.0 4.0 2.3 11.5 15.5 8.9
D₂T₁ 5ml/m canopy PBZ applied 60 days BBB 10.0 9.5 3.2 1.2 12.0 4.5 6.7
D₂T₂ 5ml/m canopy PBZ applied 90 days BBB 2.5 7.5 3.5 1.7 10.0 10.0 5.8
D₂T₃ 5ml/m canopy PBZ applied 120 days BBB 6.2 9.0 3.8 4.3 11.0 16.5 8.4
F.test ** * * * * *
S.Em± 1.3 1.2 1.6 1.1 1.5 2.1
CD at 5% 3.9 3.6 4.8 3.4 4.5 6.3
CV% 3.2 5.4 1.5 2.8 3.7 4.2
Table 6. Effect of time and dose of application of Paclobutrazol on vegetative shoot of
mango cv. Alphonso.
IIHR, Bangalore Reddy and Kurian (2014)
PBZ – Paclobutrazol , BBB – Before Bud Break
35

Treatment
Flowering shoots (%)
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 mean
D0T0 Control 93.8 85.5 70.5 71.0 80.0 69.0 73.8
D₁T₁ 3ml/m canopy PBZ applied 60 days BBB 92.5 89.5 86.5 97.3 83.7 74.0 87.4
D₁T₂ 3ml/m canopy PBZ applied 90 days BBB 83.8 88.0 89.0 98.5 96.3 81.0 89.9
D₁T₃ 3ml/m canopy PBZ applied 120 days BBB 92.5 87.0 86.9 97.4 87.3 83.0 88.6
D₂T₁ 5ml/m canopy PBZ applied 60 days BBB 90.0 90.5 89.9 98.8 86.5 94.0 87.9
D₂T₂ 5ml/m canopy PBZ applied 90 days BBB 97.5 92.5 90.0 95.8 90.0 83.5 87.8
D₂T₃ 5ml/m canopy PBZ applied 120 days BBB 93.8 91.0 88.4 92.4 87.0 82.0 85.0
F.test ** * * * * *
S.Em± 1.3 1.2 3.4 3.5 3.8 1.5
CD at 5% 3.9 3.8 9.3 10.8 11.5 4.5
CV% 3.0 2.0 1.5 4.8 5.1 4.1
Table 7. Effect of time and dose of application of paclobutrazol on flowering shoots of
mango cv. Alphonso.
IIHR, Bangalore Reddy and Kurian (2014)
PBZ – Paclobutrazol , BBB – Before Bud Break
36

Treatments
Height of plant (cm) Internodes length (cm)
Y1 Y2 Y3 Mean Y1 Y2 Y3 Mean
PBZ@1g a.i./plant 237.4 244.7 261.1 247.8 1.0 1.0 3.1 1.6
PBZ@2g a.i./plant 229.5 241.8 256.3 242.5 0.7 0.8 3.1 1.5
PBZ@3g a.i./plant 229.2 240.7 259.3 243.0 0.6 0.7 2.9 1.4
Control 262.6 270.4 275.7 269.6 3.4 3.5 3.4 3.4
Mean 239.7 249.4 263.1 1.4 1.5 3.1 2.0
SEm± 3.40 2.94 5.88 0.08 0.07 0.14
LSD (p<0.05) 9.68 8.38 NS 0.23 0.20 0.40
Directorate of Cashew Research Station (Karnataka) Meena et al .(2014)
Table 8. Effect of Paclobutrazol on plant height and internodes length of Cashew cv.
Ullal-3.
37

Treatments
Extent of flowering (%)
Earliness in flowering over control
(days)
Year I Year II Year III Pooled Year I Year II Year III Pooled
PBZ 15th May 57.62 49.91 46.50 51.34 98.5 89.5 68.2 85.4
PBZ 15th June 66.75 58.67 51.27 58.997 64.0 55.0 51.5 56.9
PBZ 15th July 73.25 62.10 69.07 68.140 26.2 18.5 16.2 20.3
PBZ 15th Aug 78.00 66.44 72.25 72.230 7.7 2.0 13.0 7.6
KNO3 Aug 32.50 28.71 42.92 34.710 -2.2 10.5 17.5 8.6
KNO3 Sept 34.20 30.25 39.38 34.610 -2.2 9.5 8.5 5.3
Control 45.00 38.10 48.69 43.930 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
SEm± 0.472 0.465 0.915 1.712 1.9 1.2 1.5 5.1
LSD (P=0.05) 1.401 1.381 2.718 5.274 5.6 3.6 4.4 15.7
Table 9. Effect of time of PBZ application on induction of flowering in Alphonso mango
under lateritic soil in Konkan.
BSKKV, Dapoli (M.H.) Burondkar et al.(2013)
PBZ – @ 2.5 ml/m canopy
38

Treatments
Time of harvesting Earliness in harvesting (Days)
Year I Year II Year III Year I Year II Year III Pooled
PBZ 15th May
4th week of
January
1st week of
February
3rd week of
February
91.0 80.7 76.0 82.83
PBZ 15th June
2nd week of
February
3rd week of
February
1st week of
March
76.0 68.0 63.0 69.00
PBZ 15th July
2nd week of
March
2nd week of
March
4th week of
March
47.0 42.2 43.0 44.17
PBZ 15th Aug
1st week of
April
2nd week of April
3rd week of
April
22.0 19.5 17.0 19.75
KNO3 Aug
4th week of
April
2nd week of May
3rd week of
May
0.5 -4.5 -7.5 -3.83
KNO3 Sept
4th week of
April
1st week of May 1st week of June -2.7 7.0 9.0 4.42
Control 1st week of May 1st week of May
2nd week of
May
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.00
LSD (P=0.05) - - 12.0 10.4 6.6 8.37
Table 10. Effect of time of PBZ application on time of Alphonso mango harvesting under lateritic soil in
Konkan.
BSKKV, Dapoli (M.H.) Burondkar et al. (2013)
PBZ - @ 2.5 ml/m canopy
39

Table 11. Effect of plant bio-regulators on flowering of pear cv. Gola.
Treatment
Flowering
Number of flowering
cluster /metre branch
Number of
flowers /metre branch
T1 control 2.33 20.50
T2 GA₃ @ 250 ppm 1.75 17.83
T3 BA @ 250 ppm 3.25 24.42
T4 GA₃ + BA @ 250 ppm 3.00 28.50
T5 PP333@ 0.2g cm-1 3.67 31.25
T6 GA₃ + BA @ 250 ppm
each + PP333 @ 0.2g /cm
3.33 24.33
T7 PP333 @ 250 ppm 4.25 34.67
SEm± 0.32 0.92
P< 0.05 0.99 2.82
G. B. Pant university of agriculture science and technology, Pantnagar Manoj et al. (2013)40

Treatments
No. of shoots /
terminal
Shoot length (cm) Date of full bloom
Alpho
nso
Kesar
Raja
puri
Alpho
nso
Kesar
Raja
puri
Alphonso Kesar Rajapuri
T₁ Cultar 20 ml/tree (mid July) 0.98 1.02 1.11 11.08 11.40 10.56 24th Dec. 23rd Dec. 18th Dec.
T₂ Cultar 20 ml/tree (mid Aug) 1.17 1.11 1.27 11.84 12.84 13.30 28th Dec. 3rd Jan. 23rd Dec
T₃ Cultar 20 ml/tree (mid Sept) 1.29 1.21 1.30 12.45 13.34 13.40 26th Dec. 24th Dec. 23rd Dec.
T₄ Ethrel 200 ppm (mid Sept) 2.08 2.01 2.02 17.54 16.57 16.04 9th Jan. 10th Jan. 13th Jan.
T5 KNO₃ 2%(mid Sept- Oct) 1.98 2.07 2.03 17.02 17.75 17.00 1st Jan. 12th Jan. 15th Jan.
T6 Control 2.20 2.25 2.21 22.06 23.90 21.41 15th Jan. 18th Jan. 22nd Jan.
S. Em ± 0.07 0.04 0.06 0.51 0.50 0.49 - - -
C. D. at 5% 0.20 0.11 0.16 0.47 1.45 1.41 - - -
CV % 11.81 7.24 9.59 9.80 9.62 9.77 - - -
Table 12. Effect of different bio-regulators on vegetative growth and flowering in different
varieties of Mango.
NAU, Navsari (Gujarat) Tandel and Patel (2011)41

Paclobutrazol
concentration
Length of
Terminal shoot
(cm)
No. of leaves/
Terminal
shoot
Leaf
area(cm2)
Length of
panicle
(cm)
No. of secondary
branches/panicle
No. of
panicles/
plant
2500 ppm 14.66 9.66 56.49 23.03 24.30 61.67
5000 ppm 11.21 8.91 52.10 23.59 27.55 71.58
7500 ppm 9.87 8.25 48.76 24.03 30.33 115.67
10000 ppm 8.51 7.47 48.30 20.72 23.19 105.17
control (water
application)
21.12 13.17 59.87 18.95 21.92 55.33
CV(%) 9.94 11.20 7.23 6.97 6.70 8.55
LSD (0.05) 1.58 1.29 4.65 1.87 2.07 8.50
Table 13. Leaf, shoot and panicle characters as influenced by Paclobutrazol in mango
cv. Amrapali.
BAU, Bangladesh Sarker and.Rahim (2012)42
Solution of 2500, 5000, 7500 and 10000 ppm were prepared by dissolving 10, 20, 30 and 40 ml of 25% PBZ/ L of
water each respectively.

Paclobutrazol
concentration
Time of
application
Length
of
terminal
Shoot(cm)
No. of
leaves/
terminal
shoot
Leaf
area
(cm2)
Length of
panicle
(cm)
No. of
secondary
branches/
panicle
Date of
first
appearance
of panicle
No. of
panicles/
plant
2500 ppm
15 October 11.87 7.66 53.30 23.23 26.11 24.01.06 66.00
15 December 17.45 11.67 59.67 22.83 22.50 28.01.06 57.33
5000 ppm
15 October 9.60 6.61 51.03 23.62 26.55 24.01.06 67.50
15 December 12.82 11.21 53.17 23.55 28.55 28.01.06 75.67
7500 ppm
15 October 8.13 6.17 47.76 24.23 31.22 18.01.06 125.00
15 December 11.62 10.33 49.77 23.83 29.44 27.01.06 106.33
10000 ppm
15 October 6.90 5.67 48.59 21.31 23.44 18.01.06 120.67
15 December 10.11 9.28 48.01 20.13 22.93 27.01.06 89. 67
Control
(water appli.)
15 October 20.40 12.78 58.48 18.75 21.67 06.02.06 56.33
15 December 21.85 13.58 61.26 19.15 22.17 06.02.06 54.33
CV (%) 9.94 11.20 7.23 6.97 6.70 - 8.55
LSD (0.05) 2.23 1.82 6.58 2.64 2.92 - 12.01
Table 14. Leaf, shoot and panicle characters of influenced by the combined effect of paclobutrazol and its
time of application in mango cv. Amrapali.
BAU, Bangladesh Sarker and.Rahim (2012)43
Solution of 2500, 5000, 7500 and 10000 ppm were prepared by dissolving 10, 20, 30 and 40 ml of 25% PBZ/ L of water each respectively.

Treatments
Tagged branches
flowered (%)
No. of days for
inflorescence
development
Hermaphrodite
flowers (%)
Soil drench
0 (control) 41.67e 116.0a 43.08ef
2.75 g a.i./tree 60.00c 105.0b 56.30c
5.50 g a.i./tree 69.00b 87.78d 69.35a
8.25 g a.i./tree 76.89a 82.22e 73.09a
Foliar spray
0 (control) 40.78e 116.8a 41.84f
2.75 g a.i./tree 48.78d 115.7a 46.21e
5.50 g a.i./tree 57.33c 106.3b 50.36d
8.25 g a.i./tree 66.44b 99.44c 60.82b
SED 1.68 1.73 1.87
University of Pretoria (South Africa)
Table 15. Effects of methods and rates of paclobutrazol applications on flower related parameters of
mango cv. Tommy Atkins.
Yeshitela et al. (2004)
Means followed by different letters in the same column are significantly different by LSD test at P< 0.05.
44

Treatments
Height of trees
(m)
Tree volume
(m3)
Length of new
shoots (cm)
Soil drench
0 (control) 5.64a 98.55a 26.50a
2.75 g a.i./tree 5.24b 90.06b 23.09b
5.50 g a.i./tree 5.3 1ab 90.07b 23.24b
8.25 g a.i./tree 5.22b 86.53bc 22.99b
Foliar spray
0 (control) 5.62a 95.99a 26.02a
2.75 g a.i./tree 5.30ab 89.96b 23.16b
5.50 g a.i./tree 5.30ab 87.85bc 23.13b
8.25 g a.i./tree 5.19b 85.78c 22.96b
SED 0.05 1.65 0.64
Table 16. Effects of methods and rates of paclobutrazol (PBZ) on tree height, volume, and shoot length
of mango cv. Tommy Atkins.
University of Pretoria (South Africa) Yeshitela et al. (2004)
Means followed by different letters in the same column are significantly different by LSD test at P< 0.05.
45

Application dose
(ppm)
Average shoot length (cm)
Reduction at growth
(% comparative control)
0 ( Control ) 10.16 100.00
125 8.50 83.66
250 8.00 78.74
500 7.80 76.77
1000 7.20 70.86
2000 4.50 44.29
4000 1.00 9.84
Ak (2002)Harran University (Turkey)
Table 17. Effect of paclobutrazol (PP-333) on vegetative growth at male pistachio
trees.
46

Table 18. Effect of Paclobutrazol and GA₃ on fruit weight (g) Terminal shoot length
(cm) and Relative trunk girth increment (%) on peach cv. Redhaven.
Treatment Fruit weight (g)
Terminal shoot length
(cm)
Relative trunk girth
increment (%)
Paclobutrazol
Control 119 57.4 16.9
1 g a. i. /plant 126 23.6 4.7
2 g a. i. /plant 135 22.1 4.5
Significance * *** ***
GA₃
Control 117 59.1 20.2
1000 ppm 95 73.5 34.7
Significance * ** ***
Zaragoza, Spain Monge et al . (1994)47

Treatments
Fruit length (cm) Fruit breadth (cm) Fruit size (cm) Fruit weight (cm3)
2011 2012 Pooled 2011 2012 Pooled 2011 2012 Pooled 2011 2012 Pooled
T0 Control 5.86 5.88 5.87 5.91 5.92 5.91 34.63 34.81 34.72 159.88 159.86 159.87
T1 250 ppm
PP333
6.20 6.35 6.27 6.79 6.83 6.81 42.10 43.37 42.73 162.73 163.57 163.15
T2 500 ppm
PP333
6.28 6.44 6.36 6.98 7.00 6.99 43.83 45.08 44.45 164.18 165.03 164.60
T3 750 ppm
PP333
6.35 6.62 6.48 7.06 7.09 7.07 44.83 46.94 45.88 165.01 165.98 165.49
T4 SP I 6.31 6.71 6.51 7.23 7.05 7.14 45.62 47.31 46.46 163.88 164.79 164.33
T5 250 ppm
PP333+ SP I
6.53 6.77 6.65 7.31 7.25 7.28 47.73 49.08 48.40 164.93 166.35 165.64
T6 500 ppm
PP333 + SP I
6.41 6.82 6.61 7.50 7.31 7.40 48.08 49.85 48.96 165.74 168.08 166.91
T7 750 ppm
PP333 + SP I
6.60 6.9 6.75 7.08 7.40 7.24 46.73 51.06 48.89 170.00 175.63 172.81
Table 19. Effect of paclobutrazol and summer pruning on physical characteristics of apple cv. Red Delicious.
Cont.....48

Treatments
Fruit length (cm) Fruit breadth (cm) Fruit size (cm) Fruit weight (cm3)
T8 SP II 6.47 7.01 6.74 7.28 7.12 7.20 47.10 49.91 48.50 164.61 165.63 165.12
T9 250 ppm PP333
+ SP II
6.65 7.09 6.87 7.47 7.28 7.37 49.68 51.62 50.65 165.01 166.94 165.97
T10500 ppm PP333
+ SP II
6.50 7.13 6.81 7.56 7.34 7.45 49.14 52.33 50.73 168.03 170.51 169.27
T11 750 ppm PP333
+ SP II
6.69 7.17 6.93 7.43 7.64 7.53 49.71 54.78 52.24 172.13 177.23 174.68
T12 SP I + SP II 6.60 7.21 6.90 7.66 7.33 7.49 50.56 52.85 51.70 167.14 171.01 169.07
T13 250 ppm PP333
+ SP I + SP II
6.79 7.26 7.02 7.70 7.82 7.76 52.28 56.77 54.52 177.96 180.50 179.23
T14 500 ppm PP333
+ SP I + SP II
6.94 7.29 7.11 7.81 7.85 7.83 54.20 57.23 55.71 180.52 187.10 183.81
T15 750 ppm PP333
+ SP I + SP II
7.03 7.32 7.17 7.86 7.87 7.86 51.04 55.27 53.15 182.75 193.64 188.19
CD (p≤0.05) 0.11 0.13 0.12 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.20 0.26 0.23 2.20 2.28 2.24
University of Agricultural Sciences &Technology, Kashmir Naira (2013)
SP I = summer pruning I, 8 weeks after full bloom (Thinning out water sprouts and unwanted branches)
SP II = summer pruning II, 12 weeks after full bloom (25% heading back from upper, medium and lower canopy)
49
Cont.....

Table 20. Effect of paclobutrazol and summer pruning on physical characteristics of apple cv. Red
Delicious.
Treatments
Fruit volume (cm3) Fruit firmness (kg/cm²) Fruit colour (score)
2011 2012 Pooled 2011 2012 Pooled 2011 2012 Pooled
T0 Control 161.08 160.06 160.57 8.53 8.44 8.48 2.22 2.19 2.20
T1 250 ppm
PP333
163.67 165.19 164.43 9.41 10.84 10.12 2.68 2.81 2.74
T2 500 ppm
PP333
166.61 168.81 167.71 9.50 11.03 10.26 2.72 2.94 2.83
T3 750 ppm
PP333
169.44 170.25 169.84 9.74 11.25 10.49 2.79 3.02 2.90
T4 SP I 164.94 166.02 165.48 9.46 11.17 10.31 2.69 2.99 2.84
T5 250 ppm
PP333+ SP I
170.19 171.07 170.63 9.98 11.35 10.66 2.87 3.17 3.02
T6 500 ppm
PP333 + SP I
171.33 172.37 171.85 10.28 11.70 10.99 2.96 3.29 3.12
T7 750 ppm
PP333 + SP I
176.34 177.01 176.67 10.50 12.16 11.33 3.03 3.33 3.18
Cont.....50

Treatments
Fruit volume (cm3) Fruit firmness (kg/cm²) Fruit colour (score)
T8 SP II 169.06 169.14 169.10 9.69 11.21 10.45 2.77 3.09 2.93
T9 250 ppm PP333 + SP II 170.81 171.98 171.39 10.16 11.55 10.85 2.91 3.24 3.07
T10500 ppm PP333 + SP II 172.29 173.05 172.67 10.42 11.85 11.13 2.99 3.31 3.15
T11 750 ppm PP333 + SP
II
181.87 182.25 182.06 10.62 12.22 11.42 3.05 3.35 3.20
T12 SP I + SP II 171.08 172.90 171.99 10.34 11.85 11.09 2.94 3.30 3.12
T13 250 ppm PP333 + SP I
+ SP II
182.59 185.17 183.88 10.82 12.34 11.58 3.08 3.37 3.22
T14 500 ppm PP333 + SP I
+ SP II
183.64 187.36 185.50 10.98 12.53 11.75 3.10 3.55 3.32
T15 750 ppm PP333 + SP I
+ SP II
186.37 189.87 188.12 11.14 12.82 11.98 3.14 3.67 3.40
CD (p≤0.05) 2.23 2.26 2.24 0.21 0.19 0.20 0.02 0.05 0.04
University of Agricultural Sciences &Technology, Kashmir Naira (2013)51
Cont.....

Treatment
Fruit yield (Kgplant)
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Pooled Mean
D 0T0 Control 11.7 16.1 14.1 12.5 12.0 20.1 14.9 14.9
D₁T₁ 3ml/m canopy PBZ at 60 days BBB 14.6 17.3 20.5 16.5 20.2 37.3 21.4 25.4
D₁T₂ 3ml/m canopy PBZ at 90 days BBB 20.7 16.0 18.1 35.6 18.9 39.8 25.8 25.7
D₁T₃ 3ml/m canopy PBZ at 120 days BBB 14.0 16.5 20.4 21.8 16.1 37.2 21.1 22.1
D₂T₁ 5ml/m canopy PBZ at 60 days BBB 15.2 16.9 18.9 27.0 18.1 32.8 23.3 22.8
D₂T₂ 5ml/m canopy PBZ at 90 days BBB 13.7 14.8 17.5 21.8 20.5 38.9 24.9 23.0
D₂T₃ 5ml/m canopy PBZ at 120 days BBB 16.6 17.9 16.0 23.2 19.4 28.5 21.0 21.0
F.test * NS * * * * * *
S.Em± 2.1 2.9 1.4 3.2 1.6 2.5 2.0 3.5
CD at 5% 6.2 - 4.3 9.8 4.7 7.6 6.3 7.8
CV% 1.1 3.7 4.5 3.0 1.5 3.0 4.2 5.0
Table 21. Fruit yield of ‘Alphonso’ mango as influenced by Paclobutrazol application.
IIHR Bangalore
BBB- Before bud break , PBZ - Paclobutrazol
Reddy and Kurian (2014)53

Table 22. Effect of plant bio-regulators on yield of pear cv. Gola.
Treatment
Fruit setting
/metre branch
Yield (No. of fruits
harvested /tree)
T1 control 20.00 126.92
T2 GA₃ @ 250 ppm 17.25 133.92
T3 BA @ 250 ppm 24.00 135.58
T4 GA₃ + BA @ 250 ppm 27.83 149.08
T5 PP333@ 0.2g cm-1 30.83 149.75
T6 GA₃ + BA @ 250 ppm
each + PP333 @ 0.2g /cm
23.42 134.17
T7 PP333 @ 250 ppm 33.67 153.17
SEm± 1.07 2.50
P< 0.05 3.30 7.71
G.B. Pant University of Agriculture science and Technology, Pantnagar Manoj et al. (2013)54

Treatments
Number of fruit/tree Yield (kg/tree)
Year I Year II Year III Mean Year I Year II Year III Mean
PBZ 15th May 154.75 132.50 112.00 133.08 38.65 33.88 28.52 33.69
PBZ 15th June 165.75 143.25 125.00 144.67 40.79 35.77 30.61 35.72
PBZ 15th July 177.25 151.25 156.00 161.50 42.53 36.77 38.81 39.37
PBZ 15th August 186.00 159.25 173.00 172.75 43.03 36.92 42.21 40.72
KNO₃August 93.50 85.00 103.25 93.92 25.09 22.78 27.51 25.13
KNO₃September 90.75 81.50 91.00 87.75 24.15 21.69 24.22 23.36
Control 114.75 101.50 120.00 112.08 29.39 27.06 31.52 29.33
Table 23. Effect of time of PBZ application on yield of mango cv. Alphonso under
lateritic soil in Konkan.
BSKKV, Dapoli (M.H.) Burondkar et al.(2013)
PBZ – 2.5 ml/m canopy
55

Table 24 : Effect of paclobutrazol and summer pruning on yield characteristics of apple cv. Red
Delicious.
Treatments
Fruit set (%) Fruit : leaf ratio Maturity (DAFB)
T0 Control 42.95 42.68 42.81 24.14 24.10 24.12 165.58 165.91 165.74
T1 250 ppm
PP333
43.22 44.68 43.95 25.80 26.93 26.36 160.37 160.06 160.21
T2 500 ppm
PP333
44.20 45.94 45.07 26.17 27.08 26.62 159.60 158.47 159.03
T3 750 ppm
PP333
44.71 47.33 46.02 26.62 27.46 27.04 157.73 156.72 157.22
T4 SP I 43.55 44.78 44.16 26.13 26.98 26.55 161.04 160.46 160.75
T5 250 ppm
PP333+ SP I
44.59 45.17 44.88 26.81 27.64 27.22 159.93 158.65 159.29
T6 500 ppm
PP333 + SP I
45.66 47.76 46.71 28.93 31.78 30.35 156.42 156.21 156.31
T7 750 ppm
PP333 + SP I
45.98 49.19 47.58 30.62 33.90 32.26 154.98 152.30 153.64
Cont.....56

Treatments
Fruit set (%) Fruit : leaf ratio Maturity (DAFB)
T8 SP II 43.98 45.65 44.81 26.50 27.31 26.90 160.78 158.83 159.80
T9 250 ppm PP333 + SP II 45.26 46.46 45.86 27.48 28.92 28.20 158.16 157.02 157.59
T10500 ppm PP333 + SP II 45.71 48.49 47.10 29.76 32.16 30.96 155.52 155.39 155.45
T11 750 ppm PP333 + SP II 46.43 51.00 48.71 31.06 34.82 32.94 154.57 150.12 152.34
T12 SP I + SP II 45.54 46.46 46.00 29.28 32.04 30.66 160.05 157.05 158.55
T13 250 ppm PP333 + SP I +
SP II
46.42 51.04 48.73 33.06 35.36 34.21 153.29 147.21 150.25
T14 500 ppm PP333 + SP I +
SP II
46.55 52.83 49.69 34.52 37.18 35.85 152.17 144.13 148.15
T15 750 ppm PP333 + SP I +
SP II
46.69 54.16 50.42 36.17 39.02 37.59 150.23 142.11 146.17
CD (p≤0.05) 0.38 0.32 0.35 1.07 1.15 1.11 1.06 1.12 1.08
Cont.....
57

Table 25. Effect of paclobutrazol and summer pruning on yield characteristics of apple cv.
Red Delicious.
Treatments
Return bloom (%) Yield (kg/tree)
2012 2011 2012 Pooled
T0 Control 22.03 81.73 81.65 81.69
T1 250 ppm PP333 28.55 83.22 90.69 86.95
T2 500 ppm PP333 30.77 83.82 92.05 87.93
T3 750 ppm PP333 32.71 84.32 93.50 88.91
T4 SP I 30.53 85.76 91.98 88.87
T5 250 ppm PP333+ SP I 34.48 85.12 94.89 90.00
T6 500 ppm PP333 + SP I 36.17 89.11 97.06 93.08
T7 750 ppm PP333 + SP I 40.01 92.52 99.09 95.80
Cont.....58

Treatments
Return bloom (%) Yield (kg/tree)
2012 2011 2012 Pooled
T8 SP II 33.37 86.93 93.44 90.18
T9 250 ppm PP333 + SP II 35.09 87.91 96.71 92.31
T10500 ppm PP333 + SP II 38.31 91.11 98.15 94.63
T11 750 ppm PP333 + SP II 41.17 93.11 100.06 96.58
T12 SP I + SP II 37.34 84.22 97.67 90.94
T13 250 ppm PP333 + SP I + SP II 43.25 94.80 101.02 97.91
T14 500 ppm PP333 + SP I + SP II 44.96 96.56 103.04 99.80
T15 750 ppm PP333 + SP I + SP II 46.54 97.89 104.14 101.01
CD (p≤0.05) 1.70 0.83 1.01 1.04
Cont.....
59

Treatments
Fruit set at pea stage
(%)
Fruit set at marble
stage (%)
Fruit set at harvest
(%)
Fruit retention (%)
Alph
onso
Kesar
Raja
puri
Alph
onso
Kesa
r
Raja
puri
Alph
onso
Kesar
Raja
puri
Alph
onso
Kesa
r
Rajap
uri
T₁ Cultar 20 ml/tree (mid July) 11.74 11.17 11.33 1.68 1.87 1.74 1.07 0.87 1.04 9.10 7.81 9.31
T₂ Cultar 20 ml/tree (mid Aug) 11.44 10.81 10.93 1.46 1.34 1.65 0.99 0.75 0.92 8.68 6.96 8.50
T₃ Cultar 20 ml/tree (mid Sept) 11.26 10.52 10.54 1.39 1.30 1.53 0.91 0.67 0.82 8.05 6.43 7.82
T₄ Ethrel 200 ppm (mid Sept) 10.35 9.53 9.77 1.20 1.06 1.35 0.67 0.44 0.49 6.47 4.63 5.05
T5 KNO₃ 2%(mid Sept- Oct) 10.26 9.18 9.82 1.18 1.07 1.38 0.49 0.31 0.43 4.87 3.42 4.34
T6 Control 8.11 6.30 8.56 0.69 0.63 0.54 0.16 0.07 0.17 2.02 1.19 1.98
S. Em ± 0.32 0.33 0.28 0.09 0.16 0.19 0.04 0.03 0.06 0.31 0.33 0.65
C. D. at 5% 0.91 0.93 0.80 0.25 0.59 0.67 0.11 0.08 0.23 0.89 0.96 2.37
CV % 9.00 10.15 8.28 18.09 17.58 11.59 15.22 16.40 15.88 14.09 19.42 18.58
Table 26. Effect of different bio-regulators on fruit setting in different varieties of mango.

Treatments
Pulp: skin ratio Stone weight (g) TSS (%)
Alphonso Kesar Rajapuri Alphonso Kesar
Rajap
uri
Alpho
nso
Kesar
Rajap
uri
T₁ Cultar 20 ml/tree (mid July) 5.46 4.93 5.61 32.88 36.43 53.09 20.20 18.05 16.84
T₂ Cultar 20 ml/tree (mid Aug) 5.53 4.73 5.71 32.62 36.32 52.51 20.04 17.77 16.55
T₃ Cultar 20 ml/tree (mid Sept) 5.70 5.58 5.88 30.62 33.68 50.51 20.63 17.68 16.39
T₄ Ethrel 200 ppm (mid Sept) 4.81 4.68 5.25 36.79 36.73 52.07 19.39 17.74 16.80
T5 KNO₃ 2%(mid Sept- Oct) 4.78 5.00 4.91 36.18 35.47 52.34 19.72 17.42 16.79
T6 Control 4.84 4.73 4.39 38.25 37.89 55.69 19.51 17.25 16.92
S. Em ± 0.14 0.12 0.11 0.82 0.60 0.67 0.24 0.25 0.93
C. D. at 5% 0.41 0.33 0.32 2.35 1.73 1.91 0.70 NS NS
CV % 8.36 7.09 6.35 7.01 4.68 3.74 3.57 4.32 2.27
Table 27. Effect of different bio-regulators on quality parameters in different varieties of
mango.

Treatments
Yield (kg/ha)
Alphonso Kesar Rajapuri
T₁ Cultar 20 ml/tree (mid July) 11310 11826 25188
T₂ Cultar 20 ml/tree (mid August) 10458 11124 24096
T₃ Cultar 20 ml/tree (mid September) 9894 10254 23352
T₄ Ethrel 200 ppm (mid September) 9156 9678 22260
T5 KNO₃ 2%(mid September- October) 9708 9732 21654
T6 Control 7404 6133 16632
S. Em ± 282.6 393.6 399.3
C. D. at 5% 802.2 1116.6 1138.1
CV % 10.58 14.08 6.78
Table 28. Effect of different bio-regulators on yield in different varieties of mango.

Treatments
Number of fruits/ plant Yield /plant (kg) Yield /ha (tonnes)
Raspuri Dashehari Amrapali Raspuri Dashehari Amrapali Raspuri Dashehari Amrapali
T₁PCS + PBZ 103.66 119.33 154.33 21.33 22.08 12.6 4.35 4.50 3.61
T₂ PCS 29.33 25.16 87.83 5.4 4.50 13.5 1.10 0.91 2.75
T₃ PPS + PBZ 78.0 84.00 70.66 15.66 12.83 19.5 3.19 2.61 3.97
T₄ PPS 9.33 6.66 58.66 1.86 1.19 14.5 0.37 0.24 2.95
T5 PBZ 146.66 135.5 149.16 28.08 24.00 20.6 5.72 4.89 4.20
T6 Control 57.5 96.66 98.33 16.83 15.30 12.0 3.43 3.12 2.05
CD at 5%
Pruning 76.01 62.59 64.61 10.50 10.50 9.84 2.14 2.14 2.00
PBZ 62.06 51.11 52.76 8.58 8.58 8.03 1.75 1.75 1.63
Pruning X
PBZ
107.49 88.52 91.38 14.86 14.86 13.02 3.03 3.03 2.83
IIHR, Bangalore Srilatha et al. (2015)
Table 29. Combined effects of pruning and paclobutrazol on yield attributes in different
cultivars of mango.
PCS - Pruning of current season’s growth , PPS - Pruning of previous season’s growth
PBZ - @ 3 ml/m canopy diameter,
63

Paclobutrazol
concentration
Time of
application
Fruit set
Per
panicle
No. of fruits retained per panicle at
22.03.06
01.04.
06
11.04.
06
21.04.
06
01.05.
06
11.05.0
6
21.05.0
6
31.05.0
6
Harvest
2500 ppm
15 Oct 13.32 3.32 2.53 1.59 1.35 1.35 1.27 1.20 1.13 1.13
15 Dec 12.33 2.90 2.12 1.34 1.12 0.96 0.97 0.97 0.87 0.87
5000 ppm
15 Oct 21.83 5.67 3.67 2.33 1.45 1.45 1.45 1.35 1.35 1.35
15 Dec 19.64 4.93 2.40 1.83 1.33 1.07 1.07 1.07 0.93 0.93
7500 ppm
15 Oct 28.08 7.37 6.20 3.70 2.32 2.23 2.23 2.23 2.15 2.10
15 Dec 24.21 6.22 4. 57 2.58 2.30 1.85 1.78 1.78 1.65 1.65
10000 ppm
15 Oct 20.08 5.23 2.70 2.17 1.57 1.50 1.43 1.30 1.30 1.30
15 Dec 15.89 4.10 2.02 1.57 1.55 1.17 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10
Control (water
application)
15 Oct 8.49 2.70 2.03 1.22 1.08 0.83 0.77 0.67 0.67 0.67
15 Dec 9.33 3.13 2.58 1.33 1.10 1.03 0.95 0.87 0.87 0.72
CV (%) 9.89 8.42 4.13 5.01 4.78 7.72 6.19 7.01 7.15 7.83
LSD (0.05) 2.94 0.66 0.22 0.17 0.12 0.18 0.13 0.15 0.14 0.16
BAU, Bangladesh
Table 30. Fruit set and number of fruits retained per panicle as influenced by the combined effect of
paclobutrazol and its time of application in mango cv. Amrapali.
Sarker and Rahim (2012)64

Paclobutrazol
concentration
No. of
fruits
per plant
Fruit wt.
(g)
Fruit pulp
(%)
Stone:
pulp ratio
Peel: pulp
ratio
Shelf life
(days)
2500 ppm 43.08 216.02 66.09 0.25 0.25 7.01
5000 ppm 52.17 243.62 66.69 0.24 0.24 7.06
7500 ppm 106.32 330.44 69.18 0.22 0.22 7.25
10000 ppm 73.00 254.65 67.58 0.24 0.23 6.99
Control
(water appli.)
31.33 200.80 65.19 0.27 0.30 6.58
CV (%) 6.46 4.86 2.42 5.41 5.46 4.80
LSD (0.05) 4.79 14.69 1.96 0.01 0.01 0.41
Table 31. Number of fruits per plant and fruit characters as influenced by the effect of
paclobutrazol in mango cv. Amrapali.
BAU, Bangladesh Sarker and Rahim (2012)65
Solution of 2500, 5000, 7500 and 10000 ppm were prepared by dissolving 10, 20, 30 and 40 ml of 25%
PBZ/ L of water each respectively.

Treatments
No. of
inflorescences
developed
Av. fruit set
per 20 panicles
(no.)
Total no. of
fruit per tree
Total fruit
weight
per tree (kg)
Average fruit
weight (kg)
Methods
Soil 164.25a 6.53a 253.17a 95.77a 0.371a
Spray 128.00b 5.95a 177.75b 68.35b 0.378a
SED 14.64 0.39 16.76 11.28 0.02
Rates
0 (control) 104.17c 4.29c 131.80d 47.85c 0.368a
2.75 g a.i./plant 131.80bc 6.28b 183.7c 66.12bc 0.362a
5.50 g a.i./plant 160.00ab 6.44b 247.0b 93.28ab 0.368a
8.25 g a.i./plant 188.50a 7.95a 299.3a 121.00a 0.398a
SED 20.70 0.55 23.71 15.95 0.03
University of Pretoria (South Africa)
Table 32. Effects of paclobutrazol (PBZ) application methods and PBZ rates on flowering and fruit
growth of mango cv. Tommy Atkins.
Yeshitela (2004)
Means followed by different letters in the same column are significantly by LSD test at P < 0.05. (DW, dry
weight.)
66

Treatments
No. of bunches
per vine
av. wt. of
Bunches (g)
Yield per
vine (kg )
Yield per
vine (%)
A) Treatment of vines in the current year
1. Control 31 148 4.610 100
2. Treatment with 1% PBZ – bud bursting 36 151 5.440 118
3. Treatment with 0.1% PBZ –two weeks
before anthesis
33 153 5.050 109
4. Treatment with 0.1 % PBZ –anthesis 26 134 3.550 77
5. Two treatments with PBZ –bud bursting
+ two weeks before anthesis
37 152 5.580 121
6. Two treatments with PBZ –bud bursting
+ anthesis
27 165 4.410 96
LSD ( 5% ) 3 13 0.310
Institute of Plant Physiology Bulgaria
Table 33. Influence of paclobutrazol application on yield and fruit composition of grapevine,
cv. Rkatsiteli
Christo et al. (1995)
PBZ 1% & 0.1% - 250g/l a.i.
67

Table 34. Influence of paclobutrazol application on yield and fruit composition of grapevine,
cv. Rkatsiteli.
Treatments
No. of bunches
/ vine
av. wt. of
Bunches (g)
Yield per
vine (kg )
Yield per
vine (%)
B) Treatment of vines in the previous year
1. Control 33 143 4.725 100
2. Treatment with 1% PBZ – bud bursting 35 153 5.360 113
3. Treatment with 0.1% PBZ – two weeks before
anthesis
31 159 4.830 102
4. Treatment with 0.1 % PBZ –anthesis 27 147 3.970 84
5. Two treatments with PBZ –bud bursting +
two weeks before anthesis
38 137 5.216 110
6. Two treatments with PBZ –bud bursting +
anthesis
29 150 4.354 92
LSD ( 5% ) 2 10 0.250
Institute of Plant Physiology Bulgaria Christo et al. (1995)
PBZ 1% & 0.1% - 250g/l a. i.
68

Table 35 : Effect of Paclobutrazol and summer pruning on chemical characteristics of apple cv. Red
Delicious.
Treatments
Total sugars (%) Reducing sugars (%) Non-reducing sugars (%)
T0 Control 8.60 8.59 8.59 6.41 6.39 6.40 2.19 2.20 2.19
T1 250 ppm PP333 9.42 9.67 9.54 7.32 7.51 7.41 2.10 2.16 2.13
T2 500 ppm PP333 9.48 9.82 9.65 7.40 7.72 7.56 2.08 2.10 2.09
T3 750 ppm PP333 9.57 9.94 9.75 7.48 7.81 7.64 2.09 2.13 2.11
T4 SP I 9.46 9.73 9.59 7.37 7.68 7.52 2.09 2.05 2.07
T5 250 ppm PP333+ SP
I
9.65 10.07 9.86 7.59 7.89 7.74 2.06 2.18 2.12
T6 500 ppm PP333 +
SP I
9.81 10.36 10.08 7.76 7.97 7.86 2.05 2.39 2.22
T7 750 ppm PP333 +
SP I
10.14 10.43 10.28 7.98 8.09 8.03 2.16 2.34 2.25
Cont.....
70

Treatments
Total sugars (%) Reducing sugars (%) Non-reducing sugars (%)
T8 SP II 9.55 9.91 9.73 7.46 7.76 7.61 2.09 2.15 2.12
T9 250 ppm PP333 + SP II 9.72 10.21 9.96 7.68 7.93 7.80 2.04 2.28 2.16
T10 500 ppm PP333 + SP II 10.06 10.39 10.22 7.91 8.02 7.96 2.15 2.37 2.26
T11 750 ppm PP333 + SP II 10.19 10.47 10.33 8.04 8.14 8.09 2.15 2.33 2.24
T12 SP I + SP II 10.03 10.41 10.22 7.87 7.98 7.92 2.16 2.43 2.29
T13 250 ppm PP333 + SP I
+ SP II
10.28 10.52 10.4 8.09 8.27 8.18 2.19 2.25 2.22
T14 500 ppm PP333 + SP I
+ SP II
10.51 10.71 10.61 8.26 8.32 8.29 2.25 2.39 2.32
T15 750 ppm PP333 + SP I
+ SP II
10.72 10.88 10.80 8.37 8.39 8.38 2.35 2.49 2.42
CD (p≤0.05) 0.10 0.13 0.12 0.07 0.10 0.09 0.02 0.03 0.02
University of Agricultural Sciences &Technology (Kashmir) Naira (2013)
Cont.....
71

Treatment
Fruit
weight(g)
TSS(°B)
Acidity
(%)
Ascorbicacid
(mg /100)
Total
carotenoids
(mg /100)
Control 245.79 12.10 0.21 6.59 3.17
Paclobutrazol treated
(3.0 ml / m canopy
diameter)
266.09* 13.51* 0.18* 8.42** 3.89*
CD (P=0.05) 13.75 0.14 0.02 0.02 0.03
Table 36. Effect of paclobutrazol on fruit quality attributes in mango cv. Totapuri.
IIHR, Hessaraghatta, Bangalore Reddy et al. (2013)
72

Treatment
Total sugars
(mg /100)
Reducing sugars
(mg /100)
Non-reducing
sugars(mg /100)
Control 74.41 53.31 21.12
Paclobutrazol treated
(3.0 ml / m canopy diameter)
91.79* 69.07* 22.79
CD (P=0.05) 3.51 1.69 2.96
Table 37. Effect of Paclobutrazol on content of Total sugars, reducing sugars and
non-reducing sugars in mango cv. Totapuri.
IIHR, Hessaraghatta, Bangalore Reddy et al .(2013)
73

Table 38. Effect of plant bio-regulators on quality of pear cv. Gola.
Treatment
Quality
TSS
(°Brix)
Titratable
acidity (%)
Ascorbic
acid (mg/100 g)
Reducing
sugar (%)
T1 Control 11.06 0.63 6.16 6.43
T2 GA₃ @ 250 ppm 12.27 0.56 5.88 6.89
T3 BA @ 250 ppm 11.86 0.58 6.37 7.00
T4 GA₃ + BA @ 250 ppm each 12.20 0.53 6.01 7.09
T5 PP333@ 0.2 g/cm 12.43 0.52 6.58 7.51
T6GA₃ + BA @ 250 ppm each +
PP333 @ 0.2 g/cm
12.09 0.62 6.24 6.58
T7 PP333 @ 250 ppm 12.31 0.53 6.51 6.68
SEm± 0.04 0.01 0.10 0.08
P< 0.05 0.50 0.02 0.09 0.24
G.B. Pant University of Agriculture science and Technology, Pantnagar Manoj et al .(2013)74

Table 39. Effect of paclobutrazol and summer pruning on organoleptic rating of apple
cv. Red Delicious.
Treatments
Taste (Score) Texture (Score) Flavour (Score)
T0 Control 2.32 2.30 2.31 2.38 2.62 2.50 2.37 2.49 2.43
T1 250 ppm PP333 2.44 2.53 2.48 2.49 2.80 2.64 2.46 2.61 2.53
T2 500 ppm PP333 2.49 2.57 2.53 2.52 2.84 2.68 2.50 2.66 2.58
T3 750 ppm PP333 2.49 2.59 2.54 2.57 2.89 2.73 2.55 2.72 2.63
T4 SP I 2.53 2.55 2.54 2.50 2.82 2.66 2.48 2.64 2.56
T5 250 ppm PP333+
SP I
2.47 2.61 2.54 2.59 2.94 2.76 2.57 2.83 2.70
T6 500 ppm PP333 +
SP I
2.58 2.72 2.65 2.68 3.07 2.87 2.63 2.94 2.78
T7 750 ppm PP333 +
SP I
2.67 2.86 2.76 2.77 3.24 3.00 2.68 3.08 2.88
Cont.....75

Treatments
Taste (Score) Texture (Score) Flavour (Score)
T8 SP II 2.75 2.58 2.66 2.55 2.87 2.71 2.53 2.70 2.61
T9 250 ppm PP333 + SP II 2.51 2.66 2.58 2.62 2.99 2.80 2.60 2.89 2.74
T10500 ppm PP333 + SP II 2.63 2.80 2.71 2.73 3.12 2.92 2.65 2.99 2.82
T11 750 ppm PP333 + SP II 2.72 2.92 2.82 2.86 3.29 3.07 2.70 3.17 2.93
T12 SP I + SP II 2.78 2.78 2.78 2.71 3.10 2.90 2.64 2.96 2.80
T13 250 ppm PP333 + SP I
+ SP II
2.69 3.09 2.89 2.89 3.32 3.10 2.72 3.21 2.96
T14 500 ppm PP333 + SP I
+ SP II
2.84 3.27 3.05 2.94 3.47 3.20 2.76 3.34 3.05
T15 750 ppm PP333 + SP I
+ SP II
2.93 3.36 3.14 2.98 3.51 3.24 2.82 3.42 3.12
CD (p≤0.05) 0.10 0.10 0.12 0.01 0.09 0.02 0.07 0.04 0.05
Cont.....
76

Table 40. Effect of paclobutrazol and summer pruning on chemical characteristics of apple cv.
Red Delicious.
Treatments
TSS (°Brix) Acidity (%) TSS : acid ratio Anthocyanin (mg/100g)
T0 Control 11.85 11.86 11.85 0.39 0.40 0.39 30.38 29.65 30.01 6.19 6.23 6.21
T1 250 ppm
PP333
13.21 12.83 13.02 0.36 0.35 0.35 36.69 36.66 36.67 8.41 8.76 8.58
T2 500 ppm
PP333
13.28 12.60 12.94 0.35 0.34 0.34 37.94 37.06 37.50 8.47 8.87 8.67
T3 750 ppm
PP333
13.31 13.40 13.35 0.33 0.32 0.32 40.33 41.88 41.10 8.55 9.03 8.79
T4 SP I 13.27 13.40 13.33 0.36 0.35 0.35 36.86 38.29 37.57 8.45 8.84 8.64
T5 250 ppm
PP333+ SP I
13.39 13.34 13.36 0.32 0.31 0.31 41.84 43.03 42.43 8.12 9.15 8.63
T6 500 ppm
PP333 + SP I
13.46 13.49 13.47 0.30 0.28 0.29 44.87 48.18 46.52 8.81 9.33 9.07
T7 750 ppm
PP333 + SP I
13.53 13.66 13.59 0.28 0.26 0.27 48.32 52.54 50.43 9.03 9.54 9.28
Cont.....77

Treatments
TSS (°Brix) Acidity (%) TSS : acid ratio Anthocyanin (mg/100g)
T8 SP II 13.34 13.42 13.38 0.34 0.32 0.33 39.24 41.94 40.59 8.52 8.97 8.74
T9 250 ppm PP333 +
SP II
13.44 13.52 13.48 0.31 0.30 0.30 43.35 45.07 44.21 8.73 9.24 8.98
T10500 ppm PP333 +
SP II
13.49 13.65 13.57 0.29 0.27 0.28 46.52 50.56 48.54 8.92 9.43 9.17
T11 750 ppm PP333
+ SP II
13.75 13.78 13.76 0.27 0.25 0.26 50.93 55.12 53.02 9.11 9.61 9.36
T12 SP I + SP II 13.75 13.94 13.84 0.30 0.28 0.29 45.83 49.79 47.81 8.86 9.38 9.12
T13 250 ppm PP333
+ SP I + SP II
13.93 14.18 14.05 0.27 0.25 0.26 51.59 56.72 54.15 9.19 9.75 9.47
T14 500 ppm PP333
+ SP I + SP II
14.25 14.32 14.28 0.26 0.23 0.24 54.81 62.26 58.53 9.30 9.87 9.58
T15 750 ppm PP333
+ SP I + SP II
14.43 14.51 14.47 0.24 0.22 0.23 60.13 65.95 63.04 9.42 10.03 9.72
CD (p≤0.05) 0.17 0.13 0.15 0.02 0.01 0.01 2.23 2.21 2.22 0.10 0.06 0.08
Cont.....
78

Paclobutrazol
concentration
Time of
application
TSS
(°Brix)
Titratable
acidity (%)
Vitamin C
(mg/100g)
Dry matter
Content (%)
Reducing
Sugar (%)
Non-reducing
Sugar (%)
Total sugar
(%)
2500 ppm
15 Oct 25.80 0.22 29.95 19.20 5.07 13.16 18.23
15 Dec 25.00 0.23 29.38 19.22 5.00 12.98 17.98
5000 ppm
15 Oct 26.15 0.22 30.98 20.02 5.17 13.41 18.58
15 Dec 25.67 0.23 30.22 19.59 5.12 13.27 18.39
7500 ppm
15 Oct 28.55 0.20 34.67 22.90 5.52 14.30 19.82
15 Dec 27.80 0.22 32.49 22.02 5.37 13.94 19.31
10000 ppm
15 Oct 26.57 0.19 33.31 21.32 5.36 13.91 19.27
15 Dec 24.94 0.20 31.51 20.53 5.26 13.64 18.90
Control (water
application)
15 Oct 24.04 0.25 28.10 18.91 4.92 12.87 17.79
15 Dec 24.00 0.25 28.25 18.96 4.94 12.92 17.86
CV (%) 5.56 4.35 3.94 4.57 3.23 2.81 3.22
LSD (0.05) 2.46 0.01 2.08 1.59 0.29 0.65 1.03
Table 41. Fruit quality attributes as influenced by the combined effect of paclobutrazol
concentration and its time of application in Mango cv. Amrapali.
BAU, Bangladesh Sarker and Rahim (2012)79

Treatment Gross returns Net returns
Cost benefit
ratio
D0T0 Control 45850 23650 1:1.06
D₁T₁
3ml/m canopy PBZ applied 60
days before bud break
45850 45050 1:2.12
D₁T₂
67550 54500 1:2.52
D₁T₃
77000 44350 1:1.99
D₂T₁
66850 45750 1:2.08
D₂T₂
68250 44700 1:1.98
D₂T₃
67200 43300 1:1.95
IIHR Bangalore
Table 42. Cost benefit ratio of ‘Alphonso’ mango as influenced by paclobutrazol.
Reddy and Kurian (2014)81

Treatment
Yield
(kg/ha)
Income
(Rs/ha)
Net realization
(Rs/ha)
CBR
T₁ Cultar 20 ml/tree (mid July) 11310 226200 188705 5.03
T₂ Cultar 20 ml/tree (mid Aug) 10458 209160 172091 4.64
T₃ Cultar 20 ml/tree (mid Sept) 9894 197880 161093 4.38
T₄ Ethrel 200 ppm (mid Sept) 9158 183120 149242 4.40
T5 KNO3 2% (Mid Sept and Oct) 9708 194160 161706 4.98
T6 Control 7404 148080 118278 3.96
NAU, Navsari (Gujarat)
Table 43. Effect of different bio-regulators on economics of mango cv. Alphonso.
Tandel and Patel (2011)
82

Treatment
Yield
(kg/ha)
Income
(Rs/ha)
Net realization
(Rs/ha)
CBR
T6 Control 6132 91980 63914 2.27
NAU, Navsari (Gujarat) Tandel and Patel (2011)
Table 44. Effect of different bio-regulators on economics of mango cv. Kesar.
83

Treatment
Yield
(kg/ha)
Income
(Rs/ha)
Net realization
(Rs/ha)
CBR
T6 Control 16632 133056 101940 3.27
NAU, Navsari (Gujarat) Tandel and Patel (2011)
Table 45. Effect of different bio-regulators on economics of mango cv. Rajapuri.
84

Treatments
ABA (ng/g)
Raspuri Dashehari Amrapali
45 days after
PBZ
75 days after
PBZ
45 days after
PBZ
75 days after
PBZ
45 days after
PBZ
75 days after
PBZ
T₁PCS + PBZ 31.4 41.84 3.93 108.62 11.74 26.72
T₂ PCS 11.6 9.02 1.91 47.26 7.17 19.08
T₃ PPS + PBZ 28.76 36.72 2.37 67.48 10.84 19.63
T₄ PPS 4.16 7.77 2.45 40.06 8.82 12.17
T5 PBZ 30.91 41.69 3.78 96.23 11.2 25.12
T6 Control 11.74 14.17 2.05 39.43 4.89 16.29
CD at 5%
Pruning 0.99 1.04 0.53 3.19 0.74 2.11
PBZ 0.81 0.84 0.43 2.61 0.6 1.73
Pruning X PBZ 1.4 1.47 0.76 4.52 1.05 2.99
IIHR, Bangalore
Table 46: Combined effects of pruning and paclobutrazol on hormone in different cultivars of mango.
Srilatha et al .(2015)
86

Treatments
GA3 (ng/g)
Raspuri Dashehari Amrapali
45 days after
PBZ
75 days after
PBZ
45 days after
PBZ
75 days after
PBZ
45 days after
PBZ
75 days after
PBZ
T₁PCS + PBZ 80.77 47.42 135.55 124.25 251.43 78.94
T₂ PCS 198.65 768.09 190.62 156.73 508.43 521.07
T₃ PPS + PBZ 461.32 335.97 150.14 130.25 626.74 332.35
T₄ PPS 900.07 699.59 212.72 173.99 691.92 588.04
T5 PBZ 352.47 267.87 150.14 126.82 477.35 298.33
T6 Control 578.61 467.4 185.77 150.14 580.13 531.26
CD at 5%
Pruning 15.5 23.79 7.55 7.46 22.05 21.58
PBZ 12.66 19.42 6.17 6.09 18 17.62
Pruning X PBZ 21.93 33.64 10.68 10.55 31.19 30.51
IIHR, Bangalore
Table 47: Combined effects of pruning and paclobutrazol on hormone in different cultivars of mango.
Srilatha et al. (2015)
87

Sr. Treatments
1. FYM 100 kg + 750 gm N + 160 gm P2O5 + 750 gm K2O + 0.0 g. a. i. paclobutrazol
4. FYM 125 kg + 937.5 g N + 200 g P2O5 + 937.5 g K2O (125%) + 0.0 g. a. i. paclobutrazol
7. FYM 150 kg + 1125 g N + 240 g P2O5 + 1125 g K2O + 0.0 g. a. i. paclobutrazol
Where: F =Fertilizer P = Paclobutrazol FYM : Farm yard manure
Note:
a. Application of fertilizers: Farm yard manure, half dose of nitrogen with full dose of phosphorus and potash was
applied during the month of June. The remaining half dose of nitrogen was applied during the end of February.
b. Application of paclobutrazol: Soil application of Paclobutrazol was done in mid-July.
c. 40 years old mango tree cv. Kesar were headed back 5-6 meter height from ground level.
Ongoing experiments on paclobutrazol at Sakkarbaug, JAU, Junagadh
Title: Effect of fertilizers and paclobutrazol on bearing behavior of rejuvenated mango trees (Mangifera indica L.) cv. Kesar.
88

From the foregoing discussion it can be concluded that soil application of
paclobutrazol is effective to restrict vegetative growth, early flowering, increase yield and
improve quality. An application of PBZ @ 3 ml/m canopy reduce endogenous gibberellin
and promotes abscisic acid in mango.
Application of Paclobutrazol @ 7500 ppm on 15th October (Mango), @ 4000 ppm
(Pistachio nut) and @ 3 g/l a.i. (Cashew nut) restricts the vegetative growth. Its application
induces early flowering @3 ml/m canopy in 3rd week of July (Mango) which also leads to
early harvesting, moreover early flowering was also induced by PP333 @ 250 ppm (Pear)
and 2 g/l a.i. (Peach). PBZ increased yield when applied @ 3 ml/m canopy in 3rd week of
July (Mango), 3 g/l a.i. (Cashew nut), 750 ppm with summer pruning (Apple) and @250 g/l
a.i. (Grape). It improves quality parameters (like increase in TSS, RS, NRS, taste, flavour
and reduced acidity) on application @ 750 ppm with summer pruning (Apple), @ 0.2 g/l
a.i. (Peach) and @ 3 ml/m canopy (Mango).
Thus, judicious use of PBZ restricts plant height and overcomes alternate bearing. It
also produce early and synchronized flowering which leads to increase yield and improve
quality.
90

7/30/2017 viveksu1194@hotmail.com 91
THANK YOU

Use of paclobutrazol in fruit crops

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Use of paclobutrazol in fruit crops

Similar to Use of paclobutrazol in fruit crops (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Use of paclobutrazol in fruit crops