Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T10:46:42.631Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of Brassica juncea to chlorocholine chloride and ethrel sprays in association with nitrogen application

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

H. S. Grewal  and
J. S. Kolar
H. S. Grewal
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana 141 004, India
J. S. Kolar
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana 141 004, India
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Field studies conducted in 1983/84–1985/86 at Ludhiana showed that the response of physiological and yield characters of Brassica juncea to foliar sprays of chlorocholine chloride as cycocel (CCC) at 250 and 500 p.p.m. and ethrel at 500, 1000 and 1500 p.p.m. differed at different doses of N (O, 50 and 100 kg/ha). The crop did not respond to CCC or ethrel in the absence of N, whereas a significant response was obtained with 250 p.p.m. CCC or 500 p.p.m. ethrel at 50 kg N/ha and 500 p.p.m. CCC or 1000 p.p.m. ethrel at 100 kg N/ha. Response to increasing doses of N increased in the presence of CCC or ethrel spray. The highest concentration of ethrel (1500 p.p.m.) proved detrimental at 0 and N/ha. CCC and ethrel reduced the crop canopy, enhanced the chlorophyll content of leaves, interception of photosynthetically active radiation and sink capacity (number of pods per plant and 1000-seed weight) at 50 and 100 kg N/ha. A higher leaf area index was obtained during the pod development phase with CCC and ethrel sprays. The oil content and germination potential of seeds from crops treated with CCC (250 and 500 p.p.m.) and ethrel (500 and 1000 p.p.m.) were as high as in the untreated crop, irrespective of N dose. However, 1500 p.p.m. of ethrel sprayed on a crop raised without N suppressed germination capacity.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 114 , Issue 1 , January 1990 , pp. 87 - 91
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Abdelhadi, N., Prioul, J. L. & Borden, R. (1980). Contrasting effects of CCC (2-chloroethyl trimethyl ammonium chloride) on photosynthetic gas exchange and carboxylase activities. Photosynthelica 14, 437–440.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. M. & Boardman, N. K. (1964). Studies of greening of dark-grown bean plants. VI. Development of photochemical activity. Australian Journal of Biological Sciences 17, 93–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bangal, D. B., Desmukh, S. N. & Patil, V. A. (1982). Note on the effect of growth regulators and urea on yield attributes of gram (Cicer arietinum). Legume Research 5, 54–56.Google Scholar
Bouniols, A. J., Decan, A. P., Mondies, M. & Pijol, B. (1979). Effect of plant growth regulators (B-9 and CCC) on development and fruiting of soyabean grown under different irrigation conditions and plant densities. Field Crop Abstracts 12, 6885.Google Scholar
Gill, K. S. & Singh, O. S. (1978). Physiological response of dwarf wheat to chlorocholine chloride under soil moisture stress. Biologia Plantarum 20, 421–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goring, H. & Koshuchowa, S. (1980). Influence of chlorocholine chloride and ethrel on chlorophyll and the Epinatic response of the primary leaf of wheat seedlings. Biologia Plantarum 22, 332–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, C. F., Dawkins, T. C. K. & Mcdonald, H. G. (1985). Influence of chlorocholine chloride on grain growth of barley in the field. Journal of Experimental Botany 36, 1126–1133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kettlewell, P. S., Richards, A. P. & Taylor, L. D. (1984). Effect of growth regulators and dry matter production and yield of oil seed rape. Annals of Applied Biology 104, 94–95.Google Scholar
Korateng, G. O. & Matthews, S. (1982). Modifications of the development of spring barley by early application of CCC and GA3 and subsequent effects on the yield components and yield. In Chemical Manipulation of Crop Growth and Development (Ed. Mclaren, J. S.). London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Lam Sanchez, A., Bareta, M. & Pittali, R. A. (1975). Effect of CCC (2-chloroethyl ammonium chloride) on soyabean. Cienlifica 3, 48–57.Google Scholar
Scarisbrick, D. H., Daniels, R. W. & Rawi, A. B. N. (1982). The effect of chlormequat on the yield and yield components of oil seed rape. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 99, 453–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, H., Chandra, S. & Jolly, R. S. (1987). Effect of growth regulators in relation to time of sowing and yield of soybean cultivars. Annals of Biology 3, 36–43.Google Scholar
Singh, B. B. & Sarkar, S. It. (1976). Effect of growth regulators on growth, flowering, productivity and chemical composition of soybeans. Haryana Journal of Horticultural Science 5, 195–202.Google Scholar
Treharne, R., Hewitt, E., Hoad, G. & Chold, R. (1983). The bioregulation of wheat growth and yield. In Belter British Wheat (Ed. Hardcastle, J.), pp. 19–21. London: Agricultural Research Council.Google Scholar
Vikhi, S. V., Bangal, D. B. & Patil, V. A. (1983). Effect of growth regulators and urea on pod number of pigeonpea cv.148. International Pigeonpea Newsletter 2, 39–40.Google Scholar