Effect of Triacontanol

INFLUENCE OF TRIACONTANOL ON CARBON
EXCHANGE RATE, GROWTH AND PRODUCTIVITY

IN A FEW CROP PLANTS
K. T. PRASANNA
DEPARTMENT OF CROP PHYSIOLOGY

UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
BANGALORE
1987
INFLUENCE OF TRIACONTANOL ON CARBON
EXCHANGE RATE, GROWTH AND PRODUCTIVITY
IN A FEW CROP PLANTS
K. T. PRASANNA
Thesis Submitted to the

University of Agricultural Sciences, G.K.V.K, Bangalore
in partial fulfilment of the requirements
for the award of the Degree of
1D
CROP PHYSIOLOGY
BANGALORE DECEMBER 1987

r-:-'~~;;.; :~;~~oj~
:.~:':':;j t~~ ::., ~Z!5 ~~o)
Tt·· u" ~ =I • '.~.' :., -. c; .., ..
1 5F EU!':H.I_
Th.2172
ei -::; .:.. CI. 11.-. .. ' ._•.. _ .... _
,~- ..... -.,,-......... ....

~~a~c/ ~
~ ~vec/ ~~ene(j.
DE?ARTH3)TT OF C~OP PHYSIOLOGY
UNIVSRS ITY OF AGRIIJ'JLTTJ::i.AL 3(; IENCBS
BANCALORE
CERTIFICAT'3
This is to certify th~t the thesis entitled

"rTFLTJ3~TC"S OF TRIACO~TT A""TOL OTT CA?cBO:'T EXCHA~rG3 PATE,
GRr'~'JTH ANl) JRODrJ~T IVITY IJT A FE'.! CRO? ?LAl'TTS"
suhr1itted by ?1r. K.T. ?:RASANNA, for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PTUIJOSO?TfY in CROP ?f.[{S IOLOGY of the
University of Agricultural 3ciences, Bangalore, is a
record of research work done by him during the period
of his ~"3tudy in this University under my guidance and
supervision and the thesis has not previously formed
the basis of the award of any degree, diploma, associate-
ship, fellowship or other similar'titles.
Banc310re
~~n'l). ~I
Associ3.te .?rofessor '-,
Dec erlber 1987 Department of Crop Physiology
A?-=>:::to'13D BY
=I
Chairman:
(~;
~ ~}l1~J
~k <
Jasad'
f~L~) I~''-CA-Q&tk;~
lA
~ .
Hembers: 1.-4~----------------
(K.S.Krishna Sastry)
tf.~,~
2. 01--;) Udaya Kumar)
3 dic\. -~~
' '_
· S . 'Rama Rao) L
~
_
r'"
4 ~U;bJ
·(K.P.~ Melanta)
ACKNOvlLEDGEMENT
I wish to express my most profound gratitude

and sincere thanks to Dr. T.G. Prasad, Associate Professor,
Department of Crop Physiology, G.K.V.K., Bangalore, and
Chairman of my advisory committee for his valuable guidance,
friendly encouragement and timely advice during the course
of my research and compilation of the thesis.
I am highly indebted to Dr .~1. Udaya Kumar, Professor

of Crop Physiology and member of my advisory committee for
his constructive guidanc9 and criticism throughout the
course of this ~tudy and writing of the thesis.
~y deep sense of gratitude and regaras to Dr.K.S.Krishna

Sastry, former Director of Instruction(Agri), Agricultural
College, Mr. S.Rama Rao, Associate Professor, Crop Physiology
and Dr.K.Ramesh Melanta, Associate Professor, Division of
Horticulture, for being the memoers of my advisory committee,
making \wrthwhile comments during the study and improving
I
the manuscript.
My sincere thanks to Dr. R.Devendra, ~1r. V.R.Shashidhar

and all other staff members of Crop Physiology Department
for their co-operation and encouragement.
I express my gratefulness to my beloved parents,
brothers, other family members, Mr. A.G. Shankar, Mr.B.Raju

and friends for their encouragement, co-operation a~d
unfailing support during the course of the study.
I acknowledge my thanks to the Department of Science

and Technology and the University of Agricultural Science,
Bangalore, for awa~ding fellowship for pursuing my studies.
My sincere thanks to Hindustan Lever Limited and !JOCIL
company for providing the chemical for this study.
Rangalore
'll)tC~~
December ,1987 (K. T. PRASANNA)
CON TEN T S
Chapter Title Page
I DTTRODUCTION ·.. ·.. 1
II REVIE~:J OF LIT3RATU?.E . ·.. 4
III MATERIAL AND METHODS • •• • •• 27

I
i.
tv RESULTS • •• 51
V
--_ ~--
DISCUSSION ·.. ·.. 141
VI SUMMARY ••• j
I
·.. 161
---~
/
--_
·.. · ..
//
VII REFEREl'TCE ' . ..b 168
APPENDIX
LI sr OP TABIES
Table No. Title Page
1 Bffect of Triacontanol on stomatal

conductance and photosynthetic rate
in top and bottom canopy leaves of
sorghum ·.. 53
. I
,
2 Effect of Triacontanol on stomatal
in top and bottom canopy leQves of
ragi ·.. 55

in top and bottom leaves of sunflower • •• 58

in cowpea 60
5 . Effect of Triacontanol on sto:::8.tal

conductance and photosynthetic rate.
in redgram '1 • •• 62
- - -----~ ---- /
{ ..
;
6 Effect of Triacontanol on stomatall
conouctance and photosynthetic rate
in sunflower ·.. 64

in cowpea • •• 66
8 Effect of Triacontanol on photosyn-

thetic rate in Redgram ·.. 68
9 Effect of Triacontanol on photosyn-

thetic rate in groundnut ·.. 70
Continued
LIST OF TABIE S
(continued)
Table !'To. Title Page
10 Effect of Triacontanol on dark respira-

tion rate ·.. 72
11 Effect of Triacontanol on dark respira-

tion rate 75
Effect of Triacontanol on 45 Ca uptake

by Rice.seedling ·.. 78
Effect of Triacontanol foliar spray

on leaf area Index and leaf area duration
in Mey- sown groundnut crop 81
14 Effect of Triacontanol foliar spray on

leaf area Index and leaf area duration
in early June sown groundnut crop. 82
"! "
Bffect of Triacontanol foliar spray on
leaf area index and leaf area duration
in late June sown groundnut crop ·.. 83

dry matter production in May sown
groundnut crop ·.. 87
17 Effect of Triacontanol foliar spray

on dry matter production in May sown

on dry matter production in early
June sown groundnut crop 89

on dry matter production in early
June sown groundnut crop . . .. 90

on dry matter production in late
, June sown groundnut crop • •• 91
Cont inued
LI Sl' OF TABIE S
(continued)
Table l~o. Title Page

dry matter production in late June sown
22 Effect of Triacontanol on net assimila-

tion rate in May sown groundnut crop ·.. 95
23 Effect of Triacontanol on net assimi-

lation rate in early June sown ground-
nut crop 96
24 Effect of Triacontanol on net assimila-

tion rate in late June sown groundnut
crop 97
25 Effect of Triacontanol on Absolute

growth rate in May sown groundnut crop 99
26 Effect of Triacontanol on Absolute

growth rate in early June sown groundnut
c·rop ·.. 100
27 'Effect of Triacontanol on Absolute

growth rate in late June sown groundnut
crop ·.. 101
28 Effect of Triacontanol on relative

growth rate in May sown groundnut crop ·.. 104
29 Effect of Triacontanol on relative

growth rate in early J~e sown ground-
nut crop 105
30 Effect of Triacontanol on relative /
growth rate in late June sown ground-

nut crop ••• 106
Continued.
LIST OF TABLES
(continued)
i
\
Table 't-To. Title Page
jl Effect of Triacontanol on crop growth

r~te in May sown groundnut crop • •• 108

on crop growth rate in early J~e sown
ground nut crop ••• 109
33 Effect of Triacontanol foli~r spray on

crop growth rate in late June sO\m
groundnut crop • •• 110

total number of flowers, n+l branches,
number of mature and immature pods in
May SO\Vl1 groundnut crop ••• 113
Effect of Triacontanol foliar spray on

total number of flowers, n+l branches,
number of mature and number of immature
pods in early June sown groundnut crop ·.. 114

total numher of flowers, n+l branches,
number of mature and immature pods in
late June SQl.oJn groundnut crop ••• 115

pod yield per hectare, pod weight per
plant, shelling per cent and hundred
kernel weight in Nay sown groundnut crop ·. . 120

Pod yield per hectare, pod weight per
kernel weight in early June sown
groundnllt crop ••• 121
Continued
LIST OF TABIE S
(continued)
Tab Ie l'Jo. Title Page

pod yield per hectare, pod ,.,eight "0er
kernel weight in late June sown
40 Effect of Triacontanol on yield of

cowpea ••• 130
41 Effect of'rriacontanol on yield

parameter of Redgram 133
.
42 Effect of Triacontanol on yield of
Redgram ·.. 135
43 Effect of Triacontanol on yield para-

meters in Red gram 137
44 Effect of Triacontanol on yield in

Redgram
, --p
·.. 139
LIST OF FIGUreS
Figure Title Between

Pages
1 Effect of environmental factors

on crop growth and productivity
in groundnut during Kharif, 1985 124 - 125
2 Effect. of environmental factors

on crop growth and productivity
in groundnut during Kharif, 1985 125 126
INTRODUCTION
I. INTRODUCTION
A number of organic compounds which when introduced

into plant in relatively small quantity induce develop-
mental changes. This led to the discovery of plant hor-
mones, ss agents controlling growth and development, and
attempts to modify the growth of crop plants by applying
these compounds in agriculture and horticulture, is being
done extensively.
In many cases, early hopes of vastly increased yields

were not fulfilled, because hormones do not generally
'increase photosynthesis which is the ultimate basis of crop
yield. Over the years, however, many other chemicals useful
for the control of plant gruwth have emerged. Most of these
are structurally related to but not identical with the natural
hormones, so that they are not immediately degraded in the
plant. The changes induced by these substances are often
subtle; they may alter characteristics of the harvest to
maximize the quantity of some desired component or ~ay improve
quality rather than quantity of yield.
Recently, a long chain alcohol 1-Triacontanol (TRIA),

a naturally occurring wax component of many plant speCies,
a saturated straight chain, primary alcohol with 30 carbon
atoms, has been shown experimen~ally to increase seedling
2
growth and crop yield when applied to different crops.

At present, triacontanol would be considered by most
/
to be a secondary plant growth substance. New formula-
tiorsof triacontanol have shown activity with femto molar
do~es. Many workers observed both positive and negative
results ~hen triacontanol ~as used to increase cro? gro~th
and productivity. How triacontanol affects the plants

is still not clear and whether this substance will have
practical value in increasing crop yield in agriculture or
horticulture remains to be seen.
Exogenous application of triacontanol was shown to

influence several physiological and biochemical processes
directly or indirectly. It was shown to increase nitrogen
assimilation and phosphorus uptake. Accumulation of redu-
cing sugar and soluble protein was also observed in plants
applied with triacontanol.
:Many scientists showed that triacontanol increased photo-

synthesis and mobilization of photosynthate to treated pods.
Increase in chlorophyll content was shown in triacontanol
treated tissue. Some group of workers postulate that tria-
contanol affects some process which is involved in regulating
the balance between photosynthesis and photorespiration.
3
Ther,fore the present study was conducted with the

-- following ~bjectives.
\
1. To study the effect of triacontanol on carbon
exchange rate, and plant conductance in a few
C3 'and C plants like cowpea, redgram, ragi,
4
\ sorghum, slmflower and groundnut.
2. To study the effect of triacontanol on dark

respiration and ion uptake •
•: . 1
3. To study the effect of different concentrations

of triacontanol on growth and productivity of
groundnut crop with different sowing dates,
under recommended and double the recommended
doses of fertilizer levels.
/ 4. To study the effect of triacontanol on source

size, flowering, fruitset and productivity in
'-
cowpea and redgram. '

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
4
II. REVIE'.>I OF LITERATURE
Triacontanol and other long chain compounds are

present in the en~ironment wherever there is organic matter.
At present, triacontanol would be considered by most, to be
secondary plant g~owth substance and not a plant hormone.
In Z'eoent yeaZ'.9, Oonsiderable at tention nas been paia to
know the role of triacontanol on ~rowth and yield by applying

this growth stimulant exogenously 0 Literature pertaining
to the effect of triaoontanol on seed germination, photo-
synthesis, photor~spiration, flowering, growth and yield
and also environm~ntal factors which inhibit the triacontanol
effects are reviewed here.
Triacontanol (TRIA), a 30 carbon primary alcohol

(MW 438) was first identified by Chibnall et ale as a natural
component of plants including alfalfa in 1933. The principal
component of the wax from lucerne leaves is a long chain
primary alcohol (MP 86.3 - 86.5) which has been identified as
n-triacontanol by .reduction to n-triacontane (M."'P 65.6-65.8')
and by oxidation to n-triacontanic acid (M.P 93.6 - 93.9').
The purity of all three productS has been confired by X ray
analysis. Later in 1977, Ries and Co-workers working with
Alfalfa meal and ~hloroform extracts of the meal observed the
increase in ~rowth and yield of several plant species. A
crystalline subat~noe isolated from the active fraotion of
5
alfalfa meal increased the dry weight and water uptake of

rice seedlings when sprayed on the foliage or applied in
nutrient culture. The substance was identified as tria-
contanol by mass spectrometry. Sprays containing this
compoun~ also increased the growth of corn and barley grown
in soil. Authentic triacontanol produced a similar res-
ponse over a wide range of concentration~on rice grown in
nutrient cultures and tomatoes grown in soil.
2.1. Triacontanol as a plant growth regulator
Exogenous application of TRIA regulates directly or

indirectly several physiological and biochemical processes.
Several experiments of Ries et' al.(1983) suggest that TRIA,
a metabolite of TRIA, or a secondary messenger moves rapidly
in plant after initial application. Changes in the levels
of several metabolites and the optimum environmental condi-
tions for treatment indicates that car'bohydrate metabolism I
may be involved in the plants response to TRIA. Additionall~
several enzymes relating to carbohydrate metabolism increase

in activity follo~ing TRIA treatment. TRIA has elicited
many growth responses in plants with a rapidity not shown by
other plant hormones or growth regulators.
The movement of TRIA in plants is difficult to prove

because, TRIA is ubiquitous in plants and the quantities
6
of exogenous TRIA required for the response are too small.

However, the sap from sugar maple (Acer sacc~arum) showed
quadratic trends in TRIA concentration with time, suggesting
a possible role in the spring ~rowth of the tree, Houtz et ale
(1983). Since TRIA is insoluble in water at the concentra-
tion found, some carrier or emulsifier may be functioning in
transport of the TRIA from the roots.
Ries (1978) reported triacontanol at 5-500 mg/ha

increased the yield of 7 crops by an average of 12~. Chain
length, presence and position of the hydroxyl group apgears
to be specific for growth stimulatory activity. Stable
isotope tracers showed a rapid increase in the pools of
succinate and ~-amino acids in treated plants and time
dependent incorporation of deuterium into many but not all
of the metabolites.
David and Ranade (1982), tested TRIA in several

bioassay systems and its activi ty compared to that of the
commonly known growth regulants viz. Indole-3-yl acetic acid
(IAA), Gibberellic acid (GA) and 6-amino furfuryl purine (Kn).
Triacontanol produced only slight growth response in these
bioassay. In combination with other growth substances,
TRIA showed a slight syner~ism. The exact role and mode of
action of TRIA in plant growth regulation still remains
uncertain.
7
Triacontanol was found to be active in both delaying

leaf disc senescence and cucumber hypocotyl bioas say. Howeve r,
green house tests with maize, tomatoes, soyabeans, wheat and
field trials with barley, wheat, sorghum, rice, soyabeans,
potatoes, tomatoes, maize, cotton and sugar beet showed no
reproducible positive growth and yield responses. The rea-
sons for this is unclear (Bhalla, 1981). The ability of
various chemicals and aqueous plant extracts to alter the rate
of wound ethylene synthesis was studied by Saltveit et ale
(1979) by first incubating subapical pea stem sections in
solutions under aerobic conditions and then measuring wound
ethylene synthesis after the tissue was transferred to air.
A water soluble heat stable factor of extracts from pea seed-
lings and solutions of 23 nanomolar triacontanol, 10 micro-
molar kinetin or 10 micro molar benzyladenine prevented
the reduction of wound ethylene synthesis, but were ineffe-
ctive if administered after an initial 15 minute!:1 anaerobic
water incQbation. This suggested that the active solution
may have only prevented the loss of some ephemeral factor
rather than actually containing the substrate of inducer of
wound ethylene synthesis.
2.2. ~ffect of TRIA on seed germination and seedling growth
Hoagland (19~0) treated seeds of 15 species which

included weeds, cropsand horticultural plants with 10- 5 M
n-tTIa~ontanol (in 0.31 dimethyl sulfoxide) to determine
B
its effects on germination, morphology and early growth.

Germination was not significantly affected in any of the
15 species tested. Axis length was inhibited in three
species, lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.), sickle pod (Cassia
obtusifolia L.) and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.).
There was no stimulation or inhibition of growth in corn,
sesbania, sorghum, spurred· anoda, pursl~nes, radish, barn-
yard grass, soybean, sida, velvet leaf, pig weed or musk-
melon. Triacontanol, which has been shown to stimulate
growth at ~10-~ can also inhibit growth selectively at
higher concentration.
In another study Charlton et al.(1980) observed the

effect of triacontanol and triacontanol derivatives using
a 10,000 fold concentration range to know the ability of
these compounds influence on germination rate of durum
wheat seeds. "'Tater, Tween-20, octadecano 1., d ihydrogen
octadecyl phosphate and sodium octadecyl sulfate over the
same concentration range were used as control solution
(Tween-20 is a registered trade name for the complex polymer
obtained by reaction of ethylene oxide with sorbitol de~y
dration products). Durum wheat seeds were also treated with

methylene chloride solutions of octadecanol and triacontanol
and grown in soil and sand. After harveating,the fresh
and dry weight of plants were determined. No enhancement
of the rate of germination or growth was found in either
of these studies.
9
Under environmental growth chamber and green house

conditions, seedlings of maize, sorghum, soybean and
Phaseolus vulgaris were sprayed with triacontanol by Steffin
and Horley (1980) and they observed significant increase
in fresh weight in 2 out of 15 experiments 0 In 3 expe riments
using maize seeds soaked in triacontanol there was no signi-
ficant increase in fresh or dry weight. Similarly soybean
grain yield was not significantly increased by soaking seeds
or by using a foliar spray at the 3-5 trifoliate leaf sta~e.
The report by Crizaldo et al.(1979) on Albizia falcataria

where seedlings (15 day-old) were sprayed weekly with 12
treatments of triacontanol (0.05 to 0.60 ppm) for 5 weeks.
0.15 ppm and especially 0.10 ppm treatments produced the most
vigorous seedling growth and root development, but above
0.15 ppm, toxicity symptoms appeared. It is suggested that
seedling vigour is attributable to the profuse root develop-
ment which would be particularly advantageous in dry conditions.
Ge et al.(1984) obtained an increase in plant height

when seedlings of Poncirus trifoliate, 15-16 cm in height were
cultured in distilled water containing 0.1,0.3, 0.5, 1 and
2 ppm of triacontanol. The height of plants cultured in
0.3 and 0.5 ppm triacontanol for 3 months increased by 22.8
and 21.71% respectively. In 0.3 ppm TRIA,the total length
of the root system increased by 62-88~ and lateral root
numbers were 2-3 times higher than in the oontrol.
10
2.3. Effect of Triacontanol on plant cell culture
Increased growth by triacontanol in in vitro cell

culture of haploid tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) was observed
by Hangaster et al.(1978). They also reported that the
fresh weight of cell culture of tomato (Lycopersicon
esculent um), Potato (Solanum tuberosum), bean (Phaseolus
vulgaris' and barley (Hordeum vulgare and g.jubatum) was
also increased. They claim that the increase in growth of
tobacco callus seems to have been due to an increase in
cell number. Another long chain alcohol, octocosanol(C-28)
did not increase the growth of tobacco cell cultures'. But
Marcelle et al.(1978) found that Triacontanol application
to Phaseolus vulgaris cv. limburgse, veoege and sexa,
oat and wheat plants and soybean Cv. Acme callus did not
i
give consistent or reproducible results. I
i
2.4.
/
TRIA effect on photos~nthe3is,

j
/
photorespiration andhloropbyll
Chlamydomonas ~~inhardtii a c
species and Anacystis
3
nidulan~ a c
4 species were used to study the effect of
triacontanol on growth, photosynthesis and photorespiration
(Haugstad et al.,1983). Photosynthetic rate was measured
as CO 2 uptake, and the 02 inhibition of photosynthesis was
used as a measure of photorespiration. Triacontanol
dissolved in chloroform and dispersed in Tween-20 and
11
triacontanol colloidally dispersed in an aqueous solution

of sodium tallow alkyl sulfate were tested. Chlamydomonas
cultures increased significantly in cell number after 4 days
and in chlorophyll content after 3 days of treatment with
2.3 x 10- 8 M TRIA in chloroform/Tween-20. In cultures of
Anaoysti~ the ohlorophyll oontent beoame aignifioantly highe~
3 days after treatment wi th 2.3 x 10- 9 H TRIA and the cell
number was noticeably higher than the controls.
Carbon dioxide uptake by triacontanol treated chlamydo-

monas cultures was about the same in both 2 and 21% 02 and the
02 inhibition was significantly reduced as compared with the
controls. Photosynthesis in Anacystis was 02 insensitive
under the experimental conditions used. '..Jhen Anacyst is was
treated with triacontanol, there was no change in the rate of
CO 2 uptake. It appears that triacontanol effects some process
which regulated the balance between photosynthesis and photo-
respiration, but other processes which results in increased
growth are probably also affected.
In another study, Eriksen et al.(1981) observed signi-

ficant increase in the dry weight of the tomato plants after
4 weeks of triacontanol treatment. Tomato (Cplant) and
3
maize (C 4 plant) were ~rown in a nutrient solution to which
triacontanol was added twice a week. Leaf area and dry
weight measurement of tomato leaves at different stages of
12
development showed that the largest increase in growth

was obtained when triacontanol treatment was initiated
before bud formation. Photosynthesis was inhibited by
27~ in young leaves from triacontanol treated tomato plants
and 391 in the control, when the oxygen concentration was
raised from 2~ to 21~. In maize no effect of the tria-
contanol treatment on dry weight was observed and also no
change in photosynthesis could be observed even after altered
oxygen conc~ntration. The difference in the response of
C3 and C4 p13nts to triacontanol indicates that it regulates
processes r _~ted ~o photosynthesis,
Rao (1985) reported that treatment of 0.5 ppm tria-

contanol to rice cv Guangluai-4 at booting stage increased
heat resistance and photosynthetic rate of the leaves, while
leaf chlorophyll content was unaffected. Triacontanol
treatment increased root exudation and leaf protein and non-
protein N contents. Chen et al.(1982) showed 0.1 ppm tria-
contanol treatment to cotton accelerated photo phosphoryla-
tion in the chloroplast and increased storage of ATP leading
to increased dry matter accumulation in reproductive organs
which del~yed bud shedding and abscission of young bolls.
It was concluded that boll shedding was decreased because
triacontanol treatment increased supply of dry matter to
reproductive organs.
13
In an experiment, Debata et ~0(1981) showed that

foliar suray of triacontanol 10 ppm, 10 days after anthesis
in rice increased the chlorophyll content, retention of
green leaf area and mobilization of 14 0 photosynthates.
Cheng et al.(1982) revealed that spraying of 0 01 ppm tria-
contanol on Astragalus sinicus in budding, beginning of
flower opening improved plasmalemma permeability of leaf
cells, phosphorylation in chloroplast, accumulation of ATP
and assimilation of CO 2 .ATP concentration in leaves increased
significantly 24 hr after the spraying. Phosphorylation,
activity of nitrate reductase and N concentration in leaves
of treated p13nts were 30-44.3, 7.1 and 8.4% respectively
higher than in the controlo
To know the effect of triacontanol on pig~ent formation,

Devlin et ale (1984) worked on leaf discs of Phaseolus vulg_aris
seedlings. At 10- 4., 10- 3 , 10- 2 10- 1 and 1,;:nn concentrations
triacontanol increased total chlorophyll in Phaseolus v~lgaris
leaves by 22, 20, 27, 31 and 37~ respectively, after the

untreated level of 1683 ,gig. The largest increase in caro-
tenoid content was 26% by 1 )IDl triacontanol.
2.5. Effect of Triacontanol on enzyme activity
A study by Henry et al.(1980) showed the effect of

triacontanol on peroxidase activity (apical meristem tissue)
14
and auxin distruction (apical meristem tissue) in little

'Marvel' dwarf and 'Alaska' Pea. Triacontanol treatment
caused an increase in peroxidase activity in both little
Marvel and Alaska plants, compared to untreated controls.
In terms of (1-c 14 / IAA destruction, GA3 + 0.01 mg 1- 1
triacontanol ca~qed appreciable auxin breakdown (40~) in
little Harvel tiSStle, with GA3 + 0.1 mg 1- 1 giving a 43%
decrease compared to untreated control. In Alaska ~ea
tissue 10 ym GA3 increased auxin distruction by 188% whereas

0.1 mg 1- 1 triacontanol caused a 20~ decrease compared to
untreated controls. The effect of triacontanol on peroxi-
dase activity and auxin destruction appears to be cultivar-
specific with respect to little Marvel and Alaska varieties
of Pea.
I
In lif-ht and dark grO\ffl grand rapid seedlings
0.01 - 1.00 mg/ml triacontanol le:ssened polyphenol oxidase
activity in the root and stem but enhanced it in the leaves.
In light and dark grown lettuce 0.1 mg/ml triacontanol
treatment did not enhance polyphenol oxidase activity, but
a 0.01 mg/ml treatment did (Henry et al. 1979).
Hu -
et -al.
-
(1985) reported that in untreated young fruit, pectinase and
cellulase activities peaked before the start of abscission
and again during abscission. Triacontanol application
prevented premature fruit drop. The pre-abscission pectinase
15
and cellulase activities were inhibited by triacontanol and

it also postponed the onset of the second peak of enzyme
activity.
Changes in the activity of several enzymes in maize

seedlings after 1-triacontanol application were analysed by
Lesniak et al.(1983). The specific activity of isocitrate
dehydrogenase (ICDH) and 6-phosphogluconate dehydrogenase
(6 PGDH) in seed ling treated with Triacontanol increased
rapid ly. Three days after treatment, the TRIA treated
seedlings showed 89% and 39% more ICDH or 6 PGDH activity/mg
protein respectively than the untreated plants. Malate dehy-
drogenase activity increased in treated plants at a rate,
approximately equivalent to the increase in soluble protein.
Acid phosphatase, Peroxidase and alkaline phosphatase activity
remained relatively constant on a per plant ~asis and decreased
slightly on per mg protein basiS. No qualitative changes .
were observed in the isoenzyme patterns of the enzymes ana-
lysed by starch gel electrophoresis although quantitative
changes consistent with the increase USing spectrophotometric
assay were observed.
2.6. Effect of Triacontanol on total N in plants and NPK uptak
Triacontanol increased fresh and dry weight and total

reducible nitrogen (total N) of rice (6ryza sativa L.) seedling
~ ..... ,.."twT'Y "'GflIC\JLf~,

i
~
Uf
UNllfl!i'!SIT'Y
'l!;1tV1l
lI3MA~Y
&AII>i.;.u~"":.;ii
. I.. c_
'ib. 21 72
16
within 40 minutes. Increase in total N in the supernatants

from homogenates of corn (Zea mays L) and rice leaves trea-
ted with TRIA for one minute before !Xinding occurred within
30 and 80 minutes respectively. The source for the increase
was investigated by Knowles and Ries (1981) utilizing atmosphe-
ric substitution and enrichment and depletion studies with
15 • The increase in total N in seedlings was shown to be
N
independent of method of N analysis and the presence of
Nitrate in the plants. Automated kjeldahl determinations
showing apparent increase in N composition due to TRIA were
shown to be correlated with hand kjeldahl elemental analysis
and chemilum incscent analysis, in three independent labo-
ratories. TRIA did not alter the nitrate uptake or endo-
genous levels of Nitrate in corn and rice seedlings.
Enrichment experiments revealed that the total N increase in
rice seedlings in Vivo and in supernatants of corn leaf
homogenates in vitro are not due to atmospheric N •
2
TRIA
increased the soluble N pools of the plants, specifically
the free amino acid and soluble protein fractions. No
differences in depletion or enrichment of 15N incorporated
into soluble and insoluble N fraction of rice seedling
could be detected as an atom per cent 15
N basis. The
\
apparent short-term total N increase' cannot be explained i
by current knowledge of major N assimilation pathways.
TRIA may stimulate a change in the chemical composition of

the seedlings resulting in interference with standard method
of N analys'ia.
17
Ries and Wert (1977) observed at relatively high and'

low light intensities as well as in the dark~control plants
lost, but triacontanol treated plants gained dry weight.
The dry weight gain in the dark was however, eliminated by
removing CO 2 from the atmosphere. TRIA treated plants also
inoreased their oontent o:f Kjeldahl N and contained 30 ~ more
total N per plant than control in the dark. In another study,

Ries et ale (1981) reported that maize and rice plants res-
ponded to foliar application of triacontanol within 4 minutes
and showed linear quadratic increase in dry weight, leaf ,I
area, reducing sugars, free amino acids, soluble protein and

total reduced N and chlorophyll.
In a green house experiment by Singletary ~ al.(1978)

various levels of P, N and K were given to maize and soybean.
A foliar application of triacontanol at the 2nd and 3rd true
leaf stage did not significantly alter Nt P and K content
j'
in soyabean although slight increase in growth were observed

in all but the standard and no P nutrient solution. No P
solution gave an increased root K content compared with the P
treatment. The growth promoting effect of triacontanol on
maize seedlings appeared to be related to N and some times
P availability. Subbaiah et al.(1980) found that spraying
of triacontanol (0.1 mg/l), superimposed over N~K treatment
registered the highest ascorbic acid content in tomato fruits
18
than NPK application aloneo The same treatment had also

recorded the highest nutrient uptake value (N, P and K) in
the fruit samples compared to other treatments tried.
2.7. Effec1~ TRIA on fl~wering
Two cultivars of Chrysanthe~um morifolium were culti-

vated in nutrient solution containing triacontanol. Vegeta-
tive growth, production of inflorescence and quality of flo-
wers were neasured (Skogen ~ al.,1982). The dry we ight
of the whole plant and the shoot from both cultivars increased.
The number of inflorescence per plant and the number of flo-
wers per inflorescence also increased in response to tria-
contanol treatment which in turn enhanced the quality of
flowers in accordance with the standards defined by Sales
quality groups. The number of flowers of s~perior quality
/
was more than double.
--J
)
Dendrobium seedlings were sprayed 1, 2, 3 and 4 times
(at monthly intervals from September to December) with tria-
contanol at 0, 0 01, 0.05 or 0.1 mg/ft 2 •
0 Plants sprayed
3 times with 0.01 mg/ft 2 triacontanol flowered earlier (18
months after spraying) followed by plants sprayed 3 times with
2
0.05 mg/ft triacontanol. Plants sprayed 4 times with 0.01
or 0.05 mg/ft flowered 21 ~onths after spraying. Control
unsprayed plants had not flowered by this date (Yee, 1983).
19
In studies on the effect of triacontanol (Han et al.,

1983) on hybrid seed production the fertility of the male
sterile line Zingshan-97 rice treated with triacontanol was
23.64 - 26.421 compared with 22.66C in the control. Uiffer-
encesin flowering time were not significant.
2.8. Bffect of triacontanol on growth and yield
The gro\vth of several vegetable and field crops in the

greenhouse was increased by application of triacontanol to
the foliage, sailor seed (Ries ~ al.,1978). qowever,
neither the seed nor soil treatment increased the yield of
crops in field. However, foliar sprays ranging from 5 to 500
mg/ha significantly increased the marketable yield of 7 to 10
crops tested. The average yield increase was based on compa-
risons of all the different rates and time of triacontanol
applicat ion with untreated controls. The response of tomato,
carrot and wheat seed treatments with triacontanol was shown
to be positively correlated with temperature at time of germi-
nation and early growth.
In field trials Jourdan ~ al.(1983) in 1981-82 at

Arlington i4isconsin, treated Soybean Cv. Hodgson 78 and
Carsoy 79 with triacontanol. Foliar application at late
vegetative or early reproductive stages did not enhance yield
and neither did soaking the seeds in 1, 10 or 100 mg tria-
contanol/l for 2 min.
20
I Bouwkamp et al.(1980) reported that triacontanol

applied at 100 ppb to sweet potato increased per cent dry
.\
weight and per cent nitrogen (dry weight basis) of leaves
soon after treatment but had no measurable effect on root
yields, root protein or percentage dry matter of the roots.
In another study Patil et al.(1985) showed application of
a foli,'lr spray of O. 5~ triacontanol to pigeon pea signifi-
cantly increased the number and weight of seeds/plant.
Triacontanol applied as a soil drench 18 and 43 days

after planting increased the plant height of 71 day old
seedling of Tabasco pepper (CaQsicum frutescens L.) in a
greenhouse experiment. Triacontanol applied as a soil
drench at transplanting significantly increased early maturity,
total yield and number of fruits in the field (Mamat et al.,
1983) • Bosland ~ al.(1979) obtained no positive effect of
.\ TRIA, applied at 0.01, 1.0 and 10.0 ppm as a foliar spray at
the 8 to 10 leaf stage of muskmelons.
In glasshouse trials Sagaral et al.(1978) treated

Phaseolus vulg~ cv. Black Valentine with 0.1 mg tria-
contanol/l. Three weeks after emergence plants had
significantly heavier shoots and pods than the untreated
control. Triacontanol at a concentration of 0.1 mg/litre
applied 2 and 4 weeks after emergence without supplemental
fertilizer had no significant effect except in the presence
of GA. Repeated application at high rates (10 mg/l) of
21
.I
TRIA during the 5th week did not show any significant advan-
tage over the single application. In another field trial
by Ohkogge et al.(1980), maize was treated with triacontanol
at various stages of development. Application at the un-
emerged tassel stage gave average yield increase of 11.7 bu/ac
over application at the 10 em long tassel stage. In 1978
triacontanol applied with D~~P (dinoseb) did not signifi-
cantly affect grain yield but increase of 5.0, 10.1 and 11.8
bu/ac over the untreated plots were observed.
Triacontanol did not affect maize grain yield in six

of eight comparisons of triacontanol treated Vs untreated
plot s. One of the four irrigation X TRIA interaction was
significant, showing a yield increase due to TRIA under irri-
gat ion and a yield decrease in water deficient corn. Harvest
index and percentage earfill were not affected by TRIA
(Regehr, 1982).
2.9. Factors altering response of plant to Triacontanol

I
Triacontanol was shown to be a more effective plant

growth stimulator when formulated as a colloidal dispersion
than as a suspension in chloroform and Tween-20 or acetone,
naphthalene acetic acid (NAA) and CaC1 2 (Ries et al.,1983).
Neither dispersion pH nor water hardness altered activity
of TRIA formulated as a colloidal dispersion. It may be
practical to apply TRIA with a controlled-droplet applicator
22
in volumes of water as low as 8-11 litres/ha. The most

important environmental factors evaluated for their effect
on crop response to TRIA were time of day and temperature
prior to spraying.
Mckeown(1983) observed in growth chamber and green-

house studies, a colloidal dispersion of triacontanol at
0.1 - 10 ,gil stimulated growth of maize seedlings. The pH
of the spray affected the response of the plants: pH "48 was
most effect ive \>lhen applied to maize, rice or soybean. Night
temperature of 10 or 15·C prior to TRIA application increased
the response of maize to TRIA, day temperature after treat-
ment had no effect. tn field trials in 1979-80 in Michigan
and in 1981 in Ontario, yield response of wheat, 8weet corn,
tomatoes and cucumber to TRIA were variable. TRIA was con-
sidered more effective on plants growing unqf'Y mild stress
conditions such as low night temperat1.lre • . j
.J ones et a1. (1979) revealed that seve ral analogs of
1-triacontanol, differing in C-chain length (16-32) inhibited
the increase in growth of rice, maize and tomato by Triacon-
tanol when applied togethero In another study Laughlin et ale
(1983) observed the maximum growth inc rease occurred at 100
nanogram TRIA per cubic decimeter, and at both higher and lower
concentrations less increase growth was observed. The dis-
persian were prepared by Soni~cation, with control of tempera-
ture and composition. Selected su~factants, which facilitate
23
..'
the dispersion process and effective at 1 per cent of the
1-triacontanol composition are non-toxic.
Triacontanol applied to IR-8 rice seedling in nutrient

solution caused an increase in dry weight during a 6 hrs
dark period (Bittenbender et al.,1978). They also observed
this increase was ~ltered by at~ospheric CO and 02 concen-
2
trat ions. The heighest growth response occurred from 200 to
35 0 ?
litrea/litre CO 2 with 5~ °2° The growth response was
characterized by an increase in soluble and insoluble
Kjeldahl N and soluble carbohydrates. The resuonse cause
for dry weight increase \Vas a linear function of log presen-
tat ion time of triacontanol. The response exhibited an
apparent K dose of 25 minutes in 10 ?g/litre triacontanol in
tie dark and 18 minutes in the light. Concentration of 50
i
?g/litre and higher inhibited growth. I
_)
I
2.10. Sffect of ~regulators on grO\vth and yield
Plant scientists have been trying to increase the growth

and yield of crop by applying growth regulators exogenously.
Pua ~ al.(1983) observed the presence of NAA + BA each at
0.5 or 1.0 mg/l was most effective for in vitro shoot prolife- -
ration, but growth was abnormal when Ottawa 3 apple root-
stocks from meristem tips were cultured on modified Hurashige
Skoog med illm.
.
Normal growth was achieved when shoots were
24
cultlll'ed with GA3 + NAA + BA each at 0.5 mg/l. Rooting

of 100~ was achieved after 2 weeks on agar medium supple-
mented with 6.25 mg/l SA.
IAA, GA3 and Kinetin were incorporated into tissue

culture meals at v<3,rious (]omblnatlon~
stimu.lated growth of 13 and 15 days old embryos but resulted

in morphological abnormalities. Kinetin (10- 8 or 10- 7 M)
promoted embryo development and expansion of cotyledons but
inhibited su.bsequent growth. Kinetin (10- 7 or 10- 8 M) in
combination with either GA (10- 7 or 10- 8 M) or IAA (10- 9M)
showed greatest potential for inducing development and growth
of those embryos excised before differentiation had occurred
(~eal and Topoleski, 1985). Roh (1982) treated mature
Lancifolium bulb~ with 100 ppm GA , IAA and Kinetin singly
3
or in all combination. After 4 days bulbils were subjected
to 0, 15 or 30 days cold treatment. Emergence of the second
scale leaf (i.e. breaking of dormancy) was promoted with IAA,
but GA3 and kinetin were ineffective. Thirty days cold
treatment were needed to break dormancy and also produced
the highest bulb weight.
The roots of one year old nursery seedling of Quercus

rubra, Fraxinus americana and Liriodeqdron tulioifera, lifted
in April 1978, we~e pruned, soaked for 20 hr in solution con-
taining combination of IAA, kinetin and GA at varying
25
concentration, and grown in greenhouse for 4 weeks (Hartwig, .'

Larson, 1980). Trees were then harvested and the dry weight
of new stems, leaves and roots determined. Treatment with
IAA at 100 or 200 mg/l increased the number and dry weight
of roots, but this effect was reduced in oak by increased
kinetin concentration. A higher concentration of GA Cupto
50 mg/l) increased stem length in oak and ash, and oak leaf
number, but decreased the root weight in oak. Oak seedlings
given similar root soaking treatments and planted out in Ohio
for 4 months sho\ved the greatest growth when treated with
100 mg/l IAA with 0.1 mg/l kinetin.
Karpov and Belozerova (1985) observed the effects of

500 mg IAA, 100 mg GA and 100 mg Kinetin/l applied to the
3rd top leaf, on CO 2 assimilation in soybean. All the com-
pounds applied individually or in combinations increased
photosynthetic rates. IAA and kinetin increased Source to
Sink translocation of 14 C assimilates. GA caused high accu-
mulation of 14 0 solutes in petioles and delayed their outflow.
Seed tubers of potato Cv. Kufri Chandramukhi were

treated for 24 h with 50 ppm IAA, 10 ppm GA, 5 ppm Kinetin
and their combination and planted in pots (Baijal et al.,1983).
Plants were subjected to short days (SD 2 to 12 h photo-
period) and long days (LD continuous light) under similar
conditions of temperature and relative humidity. Under 2
and 4 h photo~periods plants became etiolated while LD and GA
treatment produced taller plants. GA also increased the
number of plants/seed tuber. The heteroblastic develop-
ment of the leaves was considerably influenced by both
hormonal and photo:period treatment. Fufri Chandramukhi
is a quantitative long day plant with respect to flower
bud ini t iat ion 0 Flower buds opened \.Jith IAA and GA treat-
•
ment under LD and abscised before opening under SD. The
cultivar is a quantitative short day plant in relation to
tuber izat ion. Number of stolons and tubers increased
considerably with GA under SD conditions. The tuber fresh
and dry weights increased with GA under 10 and 12 h photo
period.
Vasudeva (1984) studied the effect of hormones on

Arabica coffee ev. 8.795. The effects of hormonal (auxin ,
GA and cytokinin ), Agronaa (4. 5-~ NAA) and miraculan (c 5%
T riacontanol) were tested. Fruit and clean coffee yields
were increased by all growth substances, compared with
untreated controls, the best results being obtained with
hormonal or miraculan. Bush growth was also enhanced.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
III. MATERIALS AND METHODS
Sxperiments were conducted to study the influence

of triacontanol on physiological processes and productivity.
Pield experiments were conducted to study the effect of
foliar auplicat ion of triacont~ 01 on groundnut, redgram and
cO',"'pea. A nQmber of pot culture experiments were also con-

ducted to see the effect of triacontanol on photosynthetic
rate, dark respiration rate and ion uptake. The details of
the materials used and technique adopted during the course
of this study are described below.
3.1. Pot culture experiments

.
The influence of triacontanol on few physiological
processes were studied in pot culture experiments. The
effect of different concentrations of triacontanol on photo-
synthetic rate, dark respiration rate and ___ion
i
uptake were
~
stud ied.
I
3.1.1. Studies on the influence of triacontanol
on photosynthetic rate
Two sets of experiments were conducted to assess the

effectiveness of triacontanol on photosynthetic rate in
different crop pl~nts. In first set of eXDeriments the
influence of triacont'3.nol on photosynthetic rate was studied
for a short time. In second set of experiment the influence
28
of foliar application of triacontanol on photosynthetic

rate was studied upto 144 hou.rs after application of the
chemical.
?lants were raised by sowing seeds in red loam 30il

t'01ken in battery pots measuring 30 cm x 15 crn. x 20 cm
(L x B x q). Ten seeds were SQ1.m per each pot 0 Ten days
after germi~ation 6 pl'lnts were rrtaintained in eacll ;:lot and
five pots were used for each treatment. \-Then the 8eed lings
were thirty da~ old, plant9 were treated with different
conc8utrations of triacontanol o In t he morn ing h0 1.l.rs
ulqnts
- were snrayed with different concentrations of tria-
~
contanol to wet the foliage thoroughly. In some crops :3.
mixture of IAA + GA + BA at a concentration of 2:20:0.2 ppm

(Hor~onal) were 'lIsa used for spraying. The influence of
foliar application of these growth regulators on photosynthetic
efficiency was ~easured by using portable photosynthetic system
(LI - (-)000).
I
L1-6000 oonsists of a system oonsole, a CO 2 analyser
and a leaf chamber with humid i ty and P \R sensors. MeaSLlre-
ments were made for leaf temperatu.re, relative humidity, CO
2
conoentration and photosynthetioally aotive radiation (PA~).
The LI-6000 is designed to measure Simultaneously and rapidly,

the instantaneous oarbondioxide and water vapour exohange
rates of leaves.
29
.
The LI-6000 incorporates a transient meaS1ITement
technique, whereby an actively photosynthesising and trans-
piring leaf, ,.Jh,en enclosed in a container, causes humidity
of the air in the container to increase and the CO 2 to
decrease. The r'3.t 13 at wh ic h the hllmid i ty and CO change,
2
depends directly u;)on the stomat,'3.1 conductance of the leaf
and its apparent photosynthetic rate. The rates of change
of huaid i ty and COare obtained by TIaking measurements
2
separated by intervals of time. The CO 2 measurement is
made by the IRGA, which ia the :;:>art of the ,. . . hole system.,
The LIGO"R-6000 is t'hus a rapi:1, com)uter aided, gas exchange
measurement system.
3.1.1.1. First set of e~eri.nents
Sorghmn
./
Thirty days 01'1 sorghum seedlings (Cv. C'IS 1) were

sprayed with \v'8.ter, 2,5 and 10 ppm triacontanol. The influ- J
ence of application of different concentrations of triacon-

tanol on stoTU8.tal conJuctance and ohotosynthetic efficiency
were assessed 24 and 48 hours after application of the
chemical to the pl~nt9.
Ragi pl9.nts (Cv •.JNR-71) were raised in soil t8.ken in

battery container. 'tlhen the plants were 30 days old,
. "
· ' 30
foliar tre~tment of different concentrations of triacon-

tanol were given. Plant'3 were sprayed with water, 2, 5 and
10 P9m triacontanol. In addition to different concentra-
tions of triacontanol, plants were also treated i.",ith Hormonql.
The influence of these treatrnents on stomatal conductance
and photosynthetic efficiency were assessed in top and bottom
canopy leaves. Two observations were recorded at the end
of ~4 and 48 hours after the application of chemical to the
,
pla.nts. _ '
Sunflm",er
'rhirty days old sunflower plants (Cv. BSH-1) were sprayed
with water, 2, 5 and 10 ppm of triacontanol o The effect of
these treatments on stomatal conductance and photosynthetic
efficiency was assessed in tOl) and bottom canopy leaves
seuarately. Observat ions of stomatal conductance and photo-
synthetic efficiency were recorded 24 and 48 hours after
foliar s3Hay of the chemical to the plants.
Cowpea
Cowpea plants (Cv. C-152) were raised in soil taken in
battery containers. 1r!hen the plants were thirty days old,
foliar treatment of triacontanol and Hormonal were given.
Triacontanol at concentrations of 0, 2, 5 and 10 ppm were
sprayed over the foliage of the plants. The influence of
triacontanol and Hormonal on stomatal conductance and photo-
synthetic efficiency were assessed 48, 72 and 96 hours after
application of the chemical.
31
Redgram
Redgram plants (Cv. Hyd.3-C) were raised in battery
pots. The influence of different concentrations of tria-
contanol and Hormonal ';Jere studied by giving foliar appli-
cation to the plants. Plants were sprayed \vith 0, 2, 5 and
10 ppm triacontanol and also \vith Hormonal. The influence
of triacontanol and Hormonal treatment on stonatal condu-
ctance '.,!8.8 '3.ssessed 24 hours aft er applic 3. t ion 0 f chemicals.
The influence of the growth regulators treatment on photo-
syntnet ic efficiency was assessed 24 and 48 hours after
application of the chemical to the plants.
3.1.1.2. Second set of exueriments
In another set of experiments the influence of foliar

application of trlacontanol on stomatal conJuctance and
photosynthetic efficiency was studied, for a long durat ion
after application of the chemical to plants.
Sunflower
seedlings
Thirty day old sunflower (Cv. BSH-1'/were sprayed
\vith 0, 1, 2, 5 and 10 ppm triacontanol. The influence of
the chemical on stomatal conductance and photosynthetic
efficiency were assessed 24, 48, 72, 76 and 120 hours after
application of chemical to the plants.
32
Cowpea
~owpea plant (Cv. C-152) raised in battery pots.

When plants were 30 days old they were treated with five
conc8rJ.trations of triacontanol. The concentrations of tria-
contanol used in this ex~)eri:nent were 0, 1, 2, 5 and 10 ppm.
Influe!:;}8 of these treatments on stomatal condu.ctance and
photosynthetic efficiency were assessed 24, 48, 72, 96 and
120 ho')_rs after application of the chemical to the plants.
Redera:n
~hirty da~old ~edgram plants (Cv. Ryd. 3-C) were s~rayed
\.,rith '...Jater, 1, 2, 5 and 10 ppm of triacontanol. 'The effect

of triacontanol trent ment on photosynthet ic rate \.JaS measured
24, 48, 72 and 144 hours after application of chemical to
the plants. I:
Groundnut
-------- --~--.
I
Thirty days old groundnut plants (DH-3-30) were treated
\-lith five concentrations of triacontanol to study the effect
of foliar application of triacontanol on photosynthetic
e ffic iency • the concentrations of triacontanol used in this
experiment were 0, 1, 2, 5 and 10 ppm. Observationson photo-
synthetic efficiency of the leaves were collected at 24, 48,
72, 144 hours after application of chemicals to the plants.
33
3.1.2. Effect of~triaoontanol on dark respiration rate
Groundnut, sunflower, cowpea and redgram seeds were

sown on sand taken in small plastic bowls measuring 30 cm
diameter and 20 em height. Hoagland's nutrient solution
was given every da~ after germination. Fifteen days old
seedlings were treated
, (foliar spray) with triacontanol
o ppm, 1.0 ppm, 2.0 ppm, 5.0 ppm concentration. To measure
dark respiration plastic bowls with the seedling were enclosed
in a whole plant a~similation chamber. The volume of the
chamber was 1.5 litre. The assimilation chamber enclosing
the bowls were mad~ air-tight by placing the lower portion of
the chamber in a water column of 2 cm height. The air from
the assimilation chamber was drawn into analYSis tube of infra
red gas analyser (IRGA model GS 255 B.ADC Great Britain).
The air was then r~cycled from infra red gas analyser back
to the chamber to €et a closed circuit system. Observa-
tions on the influ~nce of friacontanol on dark respiration
rate were studied 24 and 48 hours after the application of
triacontanol to th~ plants.
Seedlings wete kept in dark for one hour before taking

observation. Observations were taken by closing the chambers
with black cloth. Increased carbondioxide in ppm was recor-
ded and time taken for this increase was also noted. The
fresh weight of se<gdlllIgs were weighed SlId recorded.
34
the
The respiration rate was calculated by using /formula
.6 CO x k x 60
DR = 2
(mgC0 2 .g Fr.wt- 1hr- 1 ) Fr.wt x t
~C02 = Change in CO 2 concentration inside the chamber

in ppm.
k = 0.00296 mg CO per ppm change in CO 2 concentra-
2
1
tiod inside the chamber
0.593 mg of CO 2
300 ppm x 1.5(litre chamber) = 0.00296 mg
volume
t = time in minutes for which tissue was kept inside

the chamber
Fr. wt. = Fresh weight of the tissue in gm
bO = Conversion of rate from minutes to hour.
3.1.3. 45 Ca uptake in rice seedlings
An experiment was conducted to study the effect of

triacontanol on the uptake of calcium Ions using radio active
calcium.
Sand was thoroughly washed with dilute acid 2 to 3

times to remove the extraneous material and it was washed
with distilled water 3 times to remove the acid residues
completely. Then the sand was used for filling the pots.
35
Seeds of paddy variety Jaya w~ sown in sand. After

germination, Hoagland nutrient solution was added every
al t ernate day. Twenty day old seedlings were uprooted
without disturbing the root system. qoaglands nutrient
solution was prepared with different concentrationsof tria-
contanol (0 ppm, 1 ppm, 10 ppm, 20 ppm, 40 ppm, 60 ppm,
80 ppm and 100 ppm). Hundred microcurie 45 Ca was added
to each flask containing different concentration of triaconta-
nol in Hoagland's nutrient solution. Roots of ten rice
seedlings were dipped in each concentration solution taken in
conical flask and kept for 24 hours, five replications were
maintained for each treatment. After 24 hours, seedlings
were taken out and the roots of the seedlings were immersed
-< ,..;:
in 20 mM calcium chloride solution for 20 minutes to remove

the 45 Ca in free space. The seedlings were then surface
!
washed with distilled water and dried in an oven kept at 80·B.
The radio activity in the leaves, stem and roots of each
plant from each treatment was determined using "Geiger
Muller Counter" (Model GCS-16). The radio activity was
expressed as CPM/Organ dry weight and also in CFM/100 mg dry
weight.
3.~. Field experiments
The field experiments were conducted at the G.K.V.K.

farm of the University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore.
36
the
The G. T{.V .K. farm is situated in/transition tract 'of
Karnataka State at 12'58' north latitude, 77'35' east
longitude and at an altitude of 930 metres above sea level.
The nature of 90il is red loam.
3.2.1. GroQndnut
, The experiment was carried out during kharif 1985 with
three different sowing dates at an interval of 20 days (Hay 14,
1985, June 4, 1985, July 24, 1985) under protective irrigated
condition. DH~3-30 a bunch type of groundnut, Arachis hypogaea L,
was selected to study the effect of triacontanol foliar spray
on growth\ and yield parameters. The experiment was laid out
in a factorial randomized block design, each sub plot measur-
ing 2.40 x 3.00 m. The experiment had 12 treatments and 3
replicat iom A spacing of 30 cm between rows and 15 em bet-
ween plants was adopted. I
,I
Fertilizer applicat ion and other c~ul tural practices

were carried out according to the recommendations in "Package
of Practices" (llnon., 1984).
Effect of foliar anulication of triacontanol and Hormonal

on cron growth and productivity in groundnut (Kharif, 1985).
Treatments
TA1 Recommended fertilizer dose (10:30:15 N?K) +
control water spray
TA2 Recommended fertilizer dose (10:30:15 NPK) +

0.1 ppm triacontanol foliar spray on 25th
and 50th day after sowing
37
.i

2.0 ppm triacontanol foliar spray on 25th
and 50th day~ after sowing.

10.0 ppm triacontanol foliar spray on 25th and
50th days after sowing
1
TA - Recommend~d fertilizer dose (10:30:15 NPK) +
5
growth regulator mixture (2+20+0.2 ppm IAA+GA+BA)
1 ml in 4 litre water on 25th and 50th days after
sowing
Recommended fertilizer dose (10:30:15 NPK) +

growth regulator mixture (2+20+0.2 ppm IAA+GA+3A)
2 ml in 4 litres wateF on 25th and 50th days
after sowing
TB1 Double fertilizer dose (20:60:30 NPK) +

control water spray I
/ -- - -:.._ /
~ !
TB2 Double fertilizer dose (20:60:30 NPK) + 0.1 ppm
triacontanol foliar spray on 25th and 50th days after
sowing

triacontanol foliar spray on 25th and 50th days
after sowing

triacontanol foliar spray on 25th and 50th days
after sowing
1-
Double fertilizer dose (20:60:30 NPK) + growth

regulator mixture (2+20+0.2 IAA + GA + BA) 1 ml
in 4 lit res water on 25th and 50th days after sowing
TB6 Double fertilizer dose (20:60:30 NPK) + growth

regulator mixture (2 + 20 + 0.2 IAA + GA + BA) 2 ml
in 4 litres on 25th and 50th days aiter sowing
(
- Three sprays with dimethoate 30 ml and 6 g of bavistin
in 18 litres of water were given on 35th, 60th and 75th day
after sowing to control '1ikka' disease and common insects
like red headed caterpillar and aphids.
Meteorological data
All ~eteorological observations like rainfall, tempera-

ture, relative humidity, sunshine hours and solar radiation
during crop growth period were collected daily and mean was
worked out for a week and are presented in the Appendices.
___t-
Rainfall
The rainfall data was collected from G.K.V.K. Farm

observatory.
Tempe rat ure
Maximum and minimum temperature during each day was

recorded from the G.K.V.K. observatory and mean was calculated.
Relative humidity (RH)
,. Relative humidity was recorded t,o/ice in a day during
0730 hr and 1430 hr •
• Sunshine hoUl's
Data on sunshine hours were collected from the fB.rm

observatory. ,
Solar rad iat!..2.!!
Solar radiation data recorded at Bangalore Airport

we'fe obtained from Pune meteorological stat ion. Global
radiation recorded during crop growth period was computed.
Growth degree days
Gro\vth degree days is the sum of degrees of mean diurnal

temp,er~ture, over the period of crop growth. This was cal-
culated as per Chinoy (1974). Daily mean of diurnal tempera-
--J
ture was calculated and from this base temperature of 15·C
was substracted. Cumulative degree days per week and for
ent ire growth period ,,,as computed and given in Append ix. -
~eliothermal units
Heliothermal unit is the product of degree day and

actual duration of bright sunshine hours. This sunshine
hours was multiplied by growth degree to arrive at helio-
thermal units. Cumulative heliothermal units per week as
40
weli as for entire growth period was computed and given

in Appendix.
Solar energy utilization efficiency (Eu)
It is the total energy stored to the total solar

energy received during the crop growth period and expressed
as percentage. This was computed as per the formula
(Kanda, 1975).
(
_B..;;;i;...:;o-.--'m_a_:s;_8~a.:..;t:__t::..!:.l1) 1 00
Eu % = K I:.tn S )
o
K = 3840 Cal. g dry matter
s = Incident solar energy cal/cm2 /day
tn = growth stage upto which Eu computed
Eu1£ was computed upto 30 days and upto harvest.
Pre harvest observation

- --~
Total dry matter, 'Oroduction and parfition' of dry matter
Total dry matter produced and partitioning into stem,

leaves and later into pods was recorded at 30 days intervals
commencing from 30 days after sowing. To determine this
3 plants were taken at random from each replication. The
plants were dried in an oven at 8S·C for 48 hours and dry
weight of stem, leaves and pods were determined separately
for each plant. The mean of three plants was taken for eact
r~plication for analysis.
41,
Studies on flowering behaviour
Total number of flowers per plant was recorded by

noting the flowers developed each day at 8.30 a.m. from the
day of first flower opening. Observations were recorded on
five labelled plants per replication. Flower counting was
continued till only' five per cent of plants continued to
flower.
Absolute growth rate (AGR)
It is the'daily rate of increment in dry matter per

plant and was calculated by the formula given by i'lest et ale
(1920) and expressed in g. pl. day
AGR =
where 1,112 and \IT 1 are dry weights per plant at the time t2 and
t" respectively.
Relative growth rate (RGR)

I
RGR was calculated as per the method of Blackman
(19 19) and expressed in g.g.day.
Log e W2 - log e W1
RGR =
t2 - tl
Where W1 and W2 are total dry weight per plant at time

t, and t2 respectively.
"
42
Leaf area (LA)
Leaf area was determined by using portable leaf area

meter (Model LI-3000). Three plants were selected at random
from each replication, all the leaves '.Jere run through the
meter and total leaf area was recorded.
Ileaf area Index (LAl)
LAI was calculated using formula of \vatson(1947).
Leaf area per_Elant

LAI = Area occupied per plant
Leaf area duration (LAD)
LAD was determined using the formula suggested by

Power et al.(1967).
LAD =
Where, LO and L1 and L2 and Ln1 and Ln2 are leaf area index
\ '
at the time of to' t 1 , t 2 , tn, and tn 2 , re~pectively.
Net assimilation rate (NAR)
NAR was calculated using the method of Gregory(1926)

and expressed in g. dm-2 • day -1 •
log e L2 - log e L1 W2 - w,
NAR = x t - t1
L2 - L, 2
i-lhere, L1 and L2 = leaf area
t1 and t2 = Time at which leaf area was estimated

'/1 1 and 1N2 = Dry weight of plant at t1 and t2
respect ively •
•
Crop growth rate (CGR)
Crop gro~th rate was calculated using the formula

:"'2 -1
suggested by Watson (1952) and expressed in g. dm .day
CGR = NAR x LAI
Observations recorded at harvest
Pod yield per one square metre land area
In each replication 1 m2 area was harvested and pods

were sun-dried for 2-3 days and weight was recorded. Yield
per hectare was calculated in both cases.
Pod dry weight per plant
The pods were separated from five plants in each repli-

cation and well dried. Then the weight of the pods per
plant was taken after drying in an oven kept at 80·C.
Number of mature and immature pods per plant
Fully matured pods and immature Dods in five plants

in each replication were counted and recorded at the time
of harvest.
44
n+1 branches.
Number of n+1 branches were counted from five planta

in each replication and recorded at the. time of harvest.
ShellinB per cent
A known weigpt of sun-dried pods from each plant was

(
taxen, shelled and weight of the kernels was recorded.

Shelling percentage was computed by dividing the weight of
kernels by the weight of pods taken and expressed in per-
centage.
Hundred kernel weight
One hundred kernels were counted at random from each

plot, weighed and hundred kernel weight was recorded.
3.2.2. Cow uea

~ - -_ -:.....
/
I
Bffect of foliar application of triacontanol

on productivitl in cowuea (Kharif, 1984)
Cowpea field experiment was conducted during Kharif

1984 (September 22, 1984) under protective irrigated con-
d it ion. C-152 variety of cowpea was selected for this study.
The experiment ,..,ras laid out in a randomized block design with
3 replications. The plot size was 3 x 3 m and spacing of
47.75 em between rows and 10.5 em between plants wae r
: adopted.
Foliar spray of rogar was done once during the crop growth
period to reduce the insect damage.
45
Fertilizer application and other cultural practices

were carried out according to the recommendBtiomin "Package
of Practices" (Anon., 1982).
Treatments imposed to the crops were:
Control water-spray
f
1 ppm triacontanol foliar spray on 20th day

after sowing
T3 2 ppm triacontanol foliar spray on 20th day

after sowing

after sO\ving
TS 1 ppm triacontanol foliar spray on 40th day

after sowing
T6
• /
after sowing

after sowing
Ta 1 ppm triacontanol foliar spray on 20th and

40th day after sow.ing
T9 2 ppm triacontanol foliar spray 20th and 40th

day after sowing
T10 5 ppm triacontanol foliar spray on 20th and

40th day after s'owing
46
Observation recorded
Pod weight per plant
Pods were harvested from 25 plants in each plot and

weighed then calculated per plant.
f,
Seeds were separated from the pods of 25 plants from

each plot, the: weight was recorded and ca lculated per plant.
qundred seed ~eight '

I
Hundred seeds were counted randomly from each plot,
weighed and the weights were. recorded.
lIJ'et plot seed we ight
The pods were harvested from net plot (9 m2 ) area,dried

and seeds were separated.4he weight of aeeds were taken and
the weight of seeds per hectare was calculated.
" '
3.2.3. Redgram
Two field experiments were conducted, first during

Kharif 1984 (date of sowing August 16, 1984) and second experi-
ment during Kharif 1986 (date of sowing August 1, 1.986) under
protective irrigated condition. Eyderabad-3C variety of red-
gram (Cajanus cajan) was selected to study the effect of tria-
contanol foliar spray on growth and yield parameters. The
experiments were laId out in a randomized block design with

, .
four replications. A spacing of 60 cm between rows ~nd
22.5 cm between plants was. adopted. The plot size of

kharif 1984 experiment was 4.2 x 3.75 m and kharif 1986 was
4.5 sq.m 2 • Foliar spray of rog~r and malathion wa'3 d0}'1,e
3 times du.ring the crop growth period to reduce the Llsect
damage.
(
Fert ilizer applicat ion and other cultural prac i. tees

were carried out according to the recommendation in '?aokage
of Practices" (Anon, 1982).
: (
Exoeriment No.1. Effect of foliar applicat ion of tr5,'lcontanol

on crop yrowth and oroductivity i~_~e,~
(Kharif 984 ).
Treatments:
Control only water spray .i
I
T2 1 PPm triacontanol foliar spray on 30th day
after .sowing .j

after sowing
5 PPm triacontanol foliar spray on 30th day

after sowing

after sowing
2 PPm triacontanol foliar spray on 50th day

after sowing
48

after sowing
Ta 1 ppm triacontanol foliar spray on 30th and

50th day after sowing
T9 2 ppm triacontanol foliar spray on 30th and

t ( .
T 10 5 ppm triacontanol foliar spray on 30th and

Obse rvat ions rec ord ed
Number of pods ner plant
In ten randomly selected plants from each plot, the ;.
.~ number of matured pods were counted immediately after har-

vesting the plants.
Number of seeds per pod
In 10 labelled plants, 25 pods were taken randomly

from each plant and number of seeds formed in pod were
counted and average seed number per pod was calculated.
Dry pod weight per plant
Pods were harvested from 10 plants in each replica-

tion and dried,the weight of the pods were taken and calcu-
lated per plant basis.
49
Seed weight per plant
The seeds were separated from the pods which are

harvested from 10 plants in each replication and weight of
seeds were recorded and calculated per plant.
Hundred seed weight
One hundred seeds were counted at random from each

plot, . weighed and hundred seed weight was recorded.
Pod yield per net plot
The crop was harvested from net plot (15.75 m2 ) area,

pods were separated and the weight was taken. Pod yield
per hectare was calculated.
Seed yield per net plot
The seeds were separated from the pods of net plot and
weight was taken. 1 From this, seed yield per hectare was
calculated.
Experiment 2. Effect of foliar application of triacontanol

on crop growth and productivity in redgram
(Kharif t 1986)
Treatments:
T1 Control water spray

day after sowing
50

day after sowing
T4 1 ppm triacontanol foliar spray 30th, 60th and

T5 2 ppm triacontanol foliar spray 30th, 60th and

90th day aft~r sowing
T6 1 ppm triacontanol foliar spray 30th, 60th,

90th and 120th day after sowing
T7 2 ppm triacontanol foliar spray 30th, 60th,

Ta 3 ppm triacontanol foliar spray 30th, 60th,

Observation recorded
In this experiment also, observations on pod number

per net plot, filled and unfilled pod number, net plot pod
and seed weight and hundred seed weight was recorded.
statistical analysis
The experimental data was statistically analysed

• designs.
using CRD, RCBD and Factorial RCBD Level of
significance used in F Test was 5 per cent.
RESULTS
,
IV. RESULTS
Productivity in many orop plants (grain or seed)

depends on the total biological yield y produced over unit
land area. The amount of biological material produced
over unit land area depends on the duration of the crop,
the total solar energy intercepted and the conversion
efficiency of solar energy to biological yield. The latter
two factors are influenced by leaf area duration and photo-
synthetic efficiency per unit leaf area.
Exogenous application of growth regulators was found

to influence the crop ~owth and productivity by increasing
leaf area duration and as well as photosynthetic efficiency.
In this study, laboratory and field experiments were condu-
cted to assess the effectivenese of triacontanol on some of
the physiological processes like photosynthetic rate, dark
respiration rate and Ion uptake. In addition to the experi-
ments conducted to study the influence of triacontanol on
physiological processes, experimepts were also conducted to
study the influence of triacontanol on growth and productivity
under field conditions.
4.1.1. Effect of Triacontanol on stomatal conductance

and photosynthetic rate in crop plants
Effect of foliar application of triacontanol on stomatal

conductance and photosynthetic rate was studied in sorghum,
52
Ra~i, Cowpea, Sunflower and Red~ram. Seedlings of the

orops were raised separately in small battery oontainers
and when seedlings were 30 days old, different oonoentrations
of triacont~ol was sprayed at two oonseoutiTe days.
Observations on stomatal oonduotance and photosynthetic rate
wereool1eoted by using portable photosynthesis system.
I
In few crop species foliar spray of a mixture of ~rowth
regu1ato~ Auxin,Gibbere1lins and Cytokinin (Hormonal) was

also used to oompare its effeotiveness with different oon-
centrationsof triacontano1.
4.1.1.1. First Set of experiments
Sorghum
App1ioation of Triacontano1 at 2, 5, 10 ppm resulted
in marked increase in stomatal oonductance both in top and
bottom canopy leaves (Table 1). The data collected 24 hr
after triacontanol application showed a significant increase
in stomatal oonductance at a ooncentration of 5 and 10 ppm.
Stomatal conductance record~d at 48 hr after application
of triacontanol also showed marked increase in stomatal
oonduotance particularly at high concentrations. However
the differences were not Significant.
Results on photosynthetic rate 24 hr after spray also

showed a marked increase in photosynthetic rate in bottom
I .'
en 0
r-
~ 0 0
'"' Il:1
r-
en C\J
~ 0
0
C\J
.- 53
,,-{!.)
P-i I..D r-
I.!"\
Q) 1'(\ ** C\J
(\J
I
0 .- 0 · ..- 0
S S
(\J 0
0
I:,)
+" en
(\J
(\J
m
~
t-
en
Ln
+" '0
0 ~
. I:'-
0 (X) I..D 1'<"\ CI)
.~ t1() j:Q 0 ..- ..- (\J (\J Z
+,,8
Q) . O'J
I:,)
0
•
0 0 · 0
..eM
+,,1=4
J.t
~
~ • 0
..d m
~
-.;t 0) 1'(\
(X) 0 ~ .-
(X) 0 CI)
.
0 f:il (l) '<::T 1'(\
+"8 V PI I:'- t-- 0) m Z
o
..e
0.'0
0
0 0
•
0 · 0
s:I 0.
'00 0
s::: 0 E-!
OJ'-J 0 ..- 1'<"\ q.
~ '0 \..0 0) t- (X)
W ~ 0 (\J .- (X) CI)
8tb
Oj~
0
I:,)
(\J
0
(\J
0
C\J
0 ·
(\J
0
~
+"0
g (1)
'Oft-t 1'(\ q. t- O 0
~o r<"\ 0 1'<"\ m C\J
.- ..-
0
0 (1)
<D
re I..D
\.0 0
1'<"\
~
m
(\J
** C\J
....-f :>- E! 0 .- 0 ..- 0
OJ OJ 0
+"W +"
Ojr-l +"
e 0
0 >. p.':\
,.....
+" 0.. "0 (X) 1..0 I.!"\ 0
(1) 0 s::: Ln .- I.!"\ I:'- C\J
s::: Ln (\J ~ I:'- V
**
0
s::o OJ
0
I:,) or- (\J t<\ t<', 0r-
0 0 0 0 0
....-f S (1)
o 0
s:::+"
OJ+,,
~
0
+,,0
s:::..o
..e v (\J l.('\
.- m
(X) 0 0
0 '<::T P:1 (X) 0 1'<"\ \.0 CI)
0"0 (\J P-i I:'- I:'- ..- C\J Z I
~~ 0 0 ..- or-
i
I
J.t
E-! P .. P.
0 0
t;...j..p 8
0 m r<"\ C\J r<"\ I:'-
s::: "0 '<::T 0 0) 1'(\ -.;t
+" .~ s::: (X) l.('\ C\J 0 I..D
or- (\J ,.....
0
Q)Q)
ft-t+"
0
I:,)
0 0
V
0 ·
r<"\
C:
* 0
ft-tct1
1i1J.t
..-• -<
~ ~ H
CD H H ~
....-f p:: p:: E-t
~
,..-! E-t E-t
0 a +"
~ J.t 8 8 P. O'J
+" Pot P. P. Q)
~ Pot Pot E-t
0
(.) (\J l.('\
0
..- IZi §
54
oanopy leaves oompared to plants treated with wate~.
In top oanopy leaves only 5 ppm and 10 ppm triaoontanol

resulted in higher photosynthetio rate although differenoes
were not signifioant amongst the treatments.
Triacontanol at 5 and 10 ppm conoentrations resulted

in marked increase of photosynthetio rate in bottom canopy
leaves, 48 hra after application of spray solutions. In
bottom canopy leaves, significant increase in photosynthetio
rate was observed at all the conoentrations of triacontanol
used. These results suggest that triacontanol at high
conoentrationsof 5 and 10 ppm increased stomatal conductance
and photosynthetio rate in both bottom and top canopy leaves
upto 48 hr af1er foliar application.
Effeot of triaoontanol on stomatal oonduotance and

J
photosynthetio rate in top and bottom canopy leaves were
studied, 24 and 48 hr after application
! -
of spray solution.
At the end of 24 hours after spray,marked inorease in con-
ductance was observed in top and bottom canopy leaves, when
spray concentration was 2 and 5 ppm. Hormonal was not
effeotive in inoreasing stomatal conduotance (Table 2).
ObserTations recorded 48 hrs after spray showed that

triaoontanol as well as Hormonal were effeotive in inoreasing
C\J co 0 C\J CO
0 ~ 55
~
~ I<'. \.D ~
l:"- I<'. I:"-

E!
0
co co
\.D
!'('\ (j\
(j\
(j\ ** !'('\
~
.
+:t 0 0 ,.... 0 0 0
(1)'-'" +:t
0
"trtn
H
r:Q
rc::1 !'('\ 0 I<'. !'('\ 0 I.t'\
(\J Q (j\ 1..0 l.(\ e- (\J
,.... co
01 co 0
.
0 (j\ \.0 I<'.
,....
.r-i E!
.p
CD
.
(\J !7J
0 (\J
0
•
l.(\
0
I<'.
0
"'¢
0
U'\
0
* 0
..dO H
.po :j
Q 0
~~ ..d
mE1
0 co (j\ ,.... 1..0 !'('\ U'\ I<'.
.pf;a "'¢ r:-=t \.0 co \.0 \.0 ,.... (\J
0P-l
..d .. P-l co
(j\
co
o::t-
(j\
"'¢
(\.!
o::t-
1'<'"\
l!"\
*
l.(\
"'¢
~, p.. 0 .-- ,.... ..- .-- 0

'0 0
QE1 E-l
Ci:I 0
<Urc::1
~§ '0 e- t<'\ \.0 0 co
.--
Q 0 t<'\ t<'\
r-
co
Ci:lO 0 (j\ o::t- "'¢ 0 Ul
.p
o ..._.,
:::!
0 (\J
0
(\J
0
t<'\
0 0
.
o::t- "'¢
0
Z
'0 .r-i
Q~
Oal (\J (\J l.(\ "'¢ \.0 0
OH ...... (j\ 0 1..0 0 U'\
e-
r-llf-i
roo E!
re 1'<'"\
OJ
•
t<'.
CD
•
(j\
..- e-
co
1'<'"\
(j\ ** ..-
.p 0 0 0 ..- 0 0 0
Ci:l0J +"
SCD +"
0:>- 0 (j\ (\J
.--
..- U'\ 1'<'"\ 0
t;~ r:Q '0 0 0 e- 1'<'"\ (\J
Q r- ..- co 0
. . ** .
(\J "'¢
r-l 0 "'¢ L('. \.0 "'¢ "'¢ ,....
~ 0 •
0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0
p..
r-l0
OQ OJ
~ro H "'¢ ...... \.0 1'<'"\ \.0 (\J
ro 0 :j co
t:r-l
(j\ (j\
r-
"'¢ l!"\
e- * U'\
,....
.
+" 0 "'¢ (j\ 1'<'"\
QE1 ..d Pl (j\ "'¢ 0 (\J (\J ,* (\J
00
o+" "'¢ 0 ..- ,.... ...... -..- i
I 0
al+" (\J j
-r-i0 p.,
H.o 0
E-l E-l
,.... \.0 l.(\ l!"\ co t<'.
If-i'g rc::1 (\J (j\ r- co (\J
..-
"'¢
o ro Q 0 r-
'*"
(\J 1'<'"\ "'¢
0 "'¢ \.0 r- o::t- -.::t ..-
.p p., 0 •
00 0 0 0 0 0 0
~+"
If-i~
~ .r-i
<
< < H
(\J H H P:i
P:i P=i E-l r-l
(I) r-l E-l E-l c.1
r-l 0 E1 Q +"
.0 H S S p., 0 01
p., p.. p.,
'"
E-i
0
+"
s::0
(\J
p., p.,
l.(\
0
..- ::r:
8
H
0
CD
E-f
J%.t
A
0
stomatal conduotance signifioantly, in bottom canopy
leaves. Triaoontanol at oonoentrations of 5 and 10 ppm
inoreased the~omatal conduotanoe in top canopy leaves also.
But differences were not statistioally significant (Table 2).
A si~iricant increase in photosynthetic rate of top

canopy leaves. vas observed when triacontanol as well as
Hormonal was applied to ragi plants. Only five ppm tria-
contanol was effeotive in increasing photosynthetio rate
of bottom canopy leaves at the end of 24 hr. Increase in
photosynthetic rate was also noticed due to application of
hormonal in top canopy leaves.
Observation recorded at the end of 48 hours also

showed a marked increase in photosynthetic rate due to
foliar application of triacontanol and Hormonal. Tria-
contanol at 5 ppm and Hormonal result~d in high photosynthe-
tic rate in the leaves present at top canopy levels. In
bottom canopy leaves also, a marked increase in rhotosynthe-
tic rate was observed due to triacontanol spray. Amongst
the different oonoentration of triaoontanol used, 5 ppm was
effective in increasing photosynthetic rate both in top as
well as bottom oanopy leaves. Applioation of Hormonal
also resulted in marked inorease in photosynthetic rate in
57
Sunflower
Sunflower plants sprayed with different ooncentrations

of triaoontanol showed that the stomatal oonduotanoe inoreases
markedly within 24 hra after applioation of foliar spray
(Table 3). In top as well as in bottom oanopy leaves, sto-
-
of triacontanol.
.
matal oonduotance ,inoreased with increase in concentration
The stomatal oonductanoe was maximum when
triaoontanol oonoentration was 10 ppm. However, stomatal
conductance values recorded at the end of 48 hrs after spray
did not show ariy trend with concentration of triacontanol.
In top oanopy leaves highest stomatal conductance was observed
when the plants were treated with 10 ppm triacontanol. In
the bottom canopy leaves with increaa~ in the concentration
of triacontanol marked increase in stomatal conductance was
observed. Ten ppm triacontanol resulted in highest stomatal
conduotanoe.
J
/
Photosynthetio rate measured at the end of 24 hr after
applioation of triaoontanol shdwed that triacontanol increases
the photosynthetio rate markedly. However, difference between
treatments were not signifioant. The plants sprayed with 10 ppm
triaoontanol showed hisher photosynthetio rate both in bottom
and top oanopy leaves. When photosynthetio rate was measured
48 hrs after triaoontanol applioation, the difference in photo-
synthetio rate was not signifioant in top oanopy leaves.
aJ \0 \0 0 C\I
re .q.
I:"-
aJ
,..-
.q.
0
(\1
\.0
0
t'-
.q-
(\1 **
\.0
0
r<'I
58
Olr-._
S
,..- ,..- ,..-
•
0 0 0
OP"'- .p
CI'lt op
~1:Il 0
P=l
0(\1 '0 \.0 1<'\ 0 0 \0
•.-; 1 d 0 aJ 0 1<'\ \.D
.pS
Q)
..0
.
C\J
tJl
~
0
0 0
Cl)
(\1
0
,..-
I:"-
•
1...0
C\J
*
0
co
.pO 0 0 r- ,..- C\J 0
QO .d
:;:.,.
co
l~P-l
Oltl()
.q-
08
.p ,...
\.D I..C\
I:"- ,...
\.D 0
t'-
OfZl 1<'\ .q. r- 1.1\ lj)
..oP-i I..C\ 1<'\ \.0 1.1\ Z
0.. ..
.,.... .,.... ,... ,... ,....
'01
s:lm p., #
0
CI'l S 8
OlO 0"1 I..C\ \.0 t-
O '0 (\1 \.0 .q. I..C\
s::'O d I..C\ I..C\ or- 1.1\ lj)
alS::
.pO
00
0
0 I:"-
C\J
1<'\
1<'\
V
1<'\
. CO
t<'.
Z
:::j,-"
'0
s::
O~ \.0 1<'\ CO 0
OOl \.0 0"1 I..C\ t-
~ fZl 1<'\ .q. or- .q- lj)
MO f:.4 0 ..- 0'\ C\.l Z
cdr-!
opG-i .,....• ,....• 0 or-
S
~§ 0
00l +"
.p +"
mG-i 0
0 P=l
s:: '0 Cl) Cl) 0 0 0
00l
Ol
s::0 C\J (\1 0
,..-
t- \.()
C\I
I:"- \.0 t'-
r-!::>- (.) tl) CO l:"- t- CO
Oal
S::Ol tJl 0 · 0 · ,....
0
,.... * 0
• I
alr-!
+' ~ ---'-'..
I
I
S::S 0
00 ...d C\J 0"1 1<'\ 1...0
O+" 0"1 ,.... 1.1\ ...r
CI'l..p .q- Cl) m t'- lj)
";0
J:-t,.o
C\J ff1 m 0 1<'\
1<'\
t<'\ Z
8 0
• r- ..--• ..-
'0 0;
Ct-4s:: 0
OCl'! 8
.pO; r<'I 0 0 \.0 ll'I
00 '0 I..C\ r<'I m m 0
0
**
~+" d 1<'\ I..C\ C\J C\J
0
0 CO 0 C\J 0"1
Ct-4s:: (.)
,....• • • • ,...•
I":L1 .r-! C\J 1<'\ f'{"\
•
f'{"\
..:(
Ol
rl
cC « H
p:::
H H
~ r-!
~
E-i
~
E-i
~
E-l 0 S .p
.p
J:-t S e 0.. m
Ol
0.. 0.. 0..
s::::: 0.. 0.. 8
0 0 A
(.)
0 C\I I..C\ or- iii
59
However, in bottom oanopy leaves a marked inorease in

photosynthetio rate was observed with 10 ppm triacontanol.
In sunflower plants, triacontanol spray resulted in

high stomatal conductance and higher photosynthetic rate.
The effect was marked when the conoentration of spray was
1
5 and 10 ppm. 1
Cowpea
Observations on stomatal conduotanoe recorded 48 hr

after application of different ooncentrationsof triaoontanol
and Hormonal showed that the differenoes between the treat-
ments wer~ not significant. Same trend was observed in the
observation reoorded 72 and 96 hr after application of tria-
contanol or Hormonal.
J
Photosynthetic rate determined 48 hr after spray of

different concentrations of triacontanol and Hormonal ranged
Differe'p.oes between
the treatments were not statistically significant. Obser-
vat ion on photosynthetio rate recorded at the end of 72 and ~
96 hra also showed that the triacontanol as well as Hormonal

were not effective in inoreasing the photosynthetio rate in
cowpea. These observations suggest that triacontanol
was not effective in either inoreasing stomatal oonduotanoe
or pbotosynthetic rate in oowpea (Table 4).
60
lI"\ I:"- C\I 0 0
lI"\ ~ \.0 C\I CT\
0"\ ~ f'I\ I'C"I lZ)
.
~
Q)
.p 0 0 0"1 0"1 CT\ :c:.
Cil
~
171 ,....• ,.... 0 0 0
F-I
::j
0 0
..-I
.p ..c
~ \.0
0"1
~::-, f<"\ en C\I ..... C\J
t- ..... 0"1 0"1 I'C"I
t- I:"- \.0 ro t- C/)
· .
IJl
0 ~ 1..0 ....r ....r ~ ~
.p
0 0 0 0 0 0
if
<0
l'I"'I C\I 1..0 I:"- I'C"I
S \.0
0 i
ro,
l!'\
\.0
f'I\
I'C"I
I'C"I
0"'\
~ C/)
ro 0"1 0"1 l:"- I:'- !;2;
Q)
0
e OJ
0 · 0 0 · 0 0
,p"-'" 1-1
0"- ::j
~tn
0
..c
oN C\I '0 C\I en
~
I'C"I \.0
glS l:"- s:: I'C"I
,.... t- \.0 en
0 '<:t" en l!'\ l!'\ C/)
rl C\.J
alO
t- t- \.0
·
\.0
. l!'\ Z
+,,0
tI1 . 0 0 0 0 0
g~
+"
tore
s:1 .
0
..... '<:t" I:"- l!'\ I'C"I co
\.0 ~ lC\ I'C"I 0
rll m ,.... ,..... lC\ l!'\ C\J C/)
· .
om
~0 Z
t- 0"1 eX) I:'- I:'-
&6
+"0 ..c
0 0 0 0 0
s:1
oro <D
0>:: ..q.
CilO ,.... I'C"I "<t- t- t-
...... C)
<D co I:"- \.0 I'C"I
8
J.i""'--" s:: t- <J\ \.0 <J\ ~ C/)
0 l!'\ lC\ \.0 '<:t" l!'\ l2;
It-iCil
OID
I:)
0 · 0 0 · 0 0
P-<
'+";:J
00
~O
It-ic
1Zl ......
•
~
'<
-< < H
....
'CD
,Q
H
~
H
p:; ~
E-t r-I
.QS r-! E-t E-i ~
I.::. 0 EI d ~
J.4 EI EI p. 0 171
+" Pi 0.. p., S Q)
d Pi P. F-4 E-t
0 0
,.... 0 PI
C) C\I U'\ lJ:: JZ.t 0
61
Red sram
Red gram plants were treated with 2, 5, 10 ppm tria-

contanol and Hormonal. The effect of these treatments on
stomatal conductance and photosynthetic rate was measured
at the end of 24 and 48 hrs after application of triacontanol
(Table 5).
The data collected at 24 hrs after spray su~gested
that low concentration of triacontanol significantly increases

the stomatal conductance. Hormonal was also effective in
increasin~ the stomatal conductance.
Photosynthetic rate at the end of 24 and 48 hours after

treatment was significantly high when plants were treated with
2 and 5 ppm triacontanol. ,
I
In Red ~ram, triacontanol spray at the concentration of
2 and 5 ppm was effective in increasing stomatal conductanoe
and photosynthetic rate upto 48 hoUrs after application of
t riacont8ll.ol.
In the first set of pot cultUre experiments conducted

to study the effect of different ooncentrations of triacontanol
and ~rowth regulator mixture s~gested that· sorghum, ragi,
sunflower and Redgram, showed an increase in oonductance as
well as photosynthetio rate upto 48 hrs after application of
spray solution. However, oowpea was not responsive to anI .
62
Table 5. Effect of Triacontanol on stomatal

in redgram (Cond cm S-1, PE mg CO m- 2 .S- 1 )
2
24 Hours 48 hours
Cond PE , PE
Control 0.4611 0.8323 0.8558
2 ppm TRIA 0.6409 0.9390 1 .0376
5 ppm TRIA 0.4682 1.0216 1.0920
10 ppm TRIA 0.4619 0.8667 0.9450
!Iormonal 0.7194 0.9810 0.8599
F Test --- ** NS **
C.D 0.1322 0.1033

63
concentration of triacontanol. To study the effect of

triacontanol on stomatal conductance and photosynthetic
efficiency, another set of experiments were conducted in
which observations were recorded upto 120 or 144 hours.
In this set of experiments, plants raised in battery con-
tainers were sprayed with different concentrations of tria-
contanol, 30 days after emergence of seedlings and observa-
tions on stomatal conductances and photosynthetic efficiency
were recorded on leaves in upper canopy.
4.1.1.2. Second Set of experiments
Sunflower
Observations on stomatal conductance recorded 24, 48,

72, 96 and 120 hrs after application of triacontanol spray
solution suggested that stomatal conductance increased due to
triacontanol application. Stomatal conductance values were
more in the treatments in which plants were sprayed with 5 and
10 ppm triacontanol. The stomatal conductance in unsprayed
plants at the end of 24,48,72,96 and 120 days were 1.66,
1.84,2.15, 1.61 and 1.01 cm S-1 respectively. The corres-
ponding Talues'in the plants sprayed with 10 ppm triacontanol
-1
were 2.57, 3.09, 2.80, 2.63 and 2.70 cm S respectively.
Out of the fiTe obserTations recorded, significant increase
in stomatal conductance was observed at the end of 24 hrs,
48 hrs and 96 hrs (Table 6).
I.!'I 0 0 0 ['--
0 r- ['- U"I co 64
I:il 0 t<'I ~ t<"\ I.!'I Cf)
Pi 1.(, t<"\ 1"\ ..q- m :Z.
I1.J .- r- .- ,_ .-
~
0 ['-- t- I.{'\ 0 1"\
..d '0 ..q- L.f\ ...t- ['- I.!'I
C .- Cf)
0
. 0
(\J (J') $)
'.-1 0 0 0 \() ...t- ~ ['-- :z
.-•
~ ($ 0
Q) .- 0r- (\) .- N
.c
~ N
C 1 (\J (\J I.!'I l..0, 0 I.!'I
>, 1 N Le\ N ['-- .- ~
(f) 1 1=' ~ r- 01 t<"\ 0
0 1 p; I.!'I ...,j- CO \() 0 * 1"\
.-•
~ IJ] ·1 0
..- .-
~
0 1 or- N
.c 1
p, 0 1 0 t- (\j ['-- 0 \()
r--... ..d 1 '"C CD C)'l N N N (J')
1 s::: .- ['-- CO r.
'0'-
5::1 1.0 I
, 0 1.0
...,j-
CO f'C\ f'C\ 1..0 * 0
['--
(\lCf.'
(I)(\J
~
I
0
.- · or- (\j (\J N 0
01 N t- O tr\ 0
C Ei \.0 $) .- 1.0 f'C\
f.\l CD L.f\ lS', \.0 0 U)
+" N 1=- ...t- LI' lS', t<\ ['-- ~~
00 Ul P,
::3 (} 1--1 ..- or- .- ,...... .-
'C ::3
S:::t.J 0 0 0 II\ N ['--
o S ..d II\ oct N (\J II\
0 '0 II\ oct CO CO 0 Cf)
r-l ('l,
p:: (\J
r-- s:::
0
..- 1", \.0 ill CD :z
('j 0 (\J (\J (\J (\J C\!
~ ~
f.\l.-
[:;1 II\ LC'\ N 0 0
~
on
c:; Ei
. Ii-
p,
c
0
1..0
(\J
CO
\()
t<"\
0)
1.0
~
t-
CO
.-
o
~
Cf)
lz
0 /J]
.- • .- ,_
s::l 1--1 or- .-
Orc ::3
s::: 0
,--
r-lO ..d II\ 0 tr\ t- L(\
o () '"C \.D (J') 0 (J') 1.0 .-
S:::.....___.. s:::
CD
o
"'<t-
a::
['--
CO
(\J ill
.
(J')
* 1..0
~
0:: ...t-
0
..-
1..0 \() 0
* tr\
s::: l'-; (\J C\J C\J 1"\ 0

0
0
OJ 0
(l)
:;:
CD (\J LC\ t- N
'/
'.-1 r-l I1.J "'<t- o C\J I.{'\
,_ ['--
l'-;Ct-l H !L ...t- or- t- ,-- Cf)
f-i§ ::3 P L(\ t- 1.(, 0 .- ? ,I

0
Ct-l (f) ..c: ..-- ,..... ..-- C\J N
0
C ...t-
~ ·rl (\J II\ L.f\ 0 0 I.!'I 0
0 '0 1..0 C\J ..- C\J CD C\J
s::: OJ 1.(, c:- 0
Q)(l)
Ct-l~ 0
(.)
\.C
I.D e- I.{'\
(\J
(Jj I.!'I * 1..0
Ct-lr.;
r=::.- H ..- (\J (\J ($ (\J 0
I..D
Q)
r-l
,.0 -<
OJ < -< -< H
f-i
H H H ~
p:: p:: p:: f-i
r-l f-' E- E--l
0 eCo ~
H S S S I1.J
~ P, p.. p.. p.. QJ
C p.. p.. p.. E--!
0 0 p
(.) ..- (\J II\ ,_ Iii (.)
65
, 1 , .
Photosynthetj.C rate recorded 24 hrs after application

-2 -1
of triacontanol rar1ged from 1.5448 to 2.1172 mg CO 2 m . S •
High rate of photo~ynthesis was observed in the leaves of
plants sprayed wit~ 10 ppm triacontanol. Observation on
photosynthetic rat~ recorded 48 hrs after triacontanol spray
mg CO m- 2 .S- 1 in the leaves of plants treated with 10 ppm

2
triacontanol and i~ untreated plants it was 1.6005 mg C02m-~S-1.
Maximum rate of photosynthesis was recorded in the

leaves of ulants treated with 10 ppm triacontanol even
after 72 hrs. Si~ilar trend was observed at the end of 96 hrs.
However, at the enO of 120 hrs, there was no difference in
photosynthetic rate between untreated and treated plants.
i
I I
The results of the experiment on sunflower plants
treated with diffefent concentrations of trtacontanol showed
an increase in sto~atal conductarlce and photosynthetic rate
upto 96 hrs. Altpough the stomatal conductance was rela-
tively more at the end of 120 hrs in treated plants, there
was no significant increase in photosynthetic rate.
Cowpea
Application of triacontanol to cowpea plants was not

effective in incre~sing the stomatal conductance and photo-
syntbet 1c rat e • 1_'ne stomata'l. conauctances recoraea at tOne
-1
end of 24 hra after spray ra,nged from 1.1208 to 1.7967 cm S •
I
I eo L(\
m
...r ..- N
I
I ~
~
r<\ ..-
I..f\
0
t- t-
eo U)
66
CIlI P-i
HI
.- ['("\ ..- C3 0 :z;
:31 .,- .,- .,- .,- ..-
01
...cl
0 I t- I:"- ..- m L(\
or-! 01 '0 \.() ['("\ ~ aJ 0
+' (\j I ~ L(\ ..- .,- OJ .q U)
:z;
(1) ..-- I 0 W L(\ (\j W "<t
..el I 0
+' I .,- ..- ..- ..- ..-
Q
~
CIl I en C\J 1..11
.,.....
(\j 0
0 I N t<\
~
W
+' I ~ l:"- N 1..11 (\j U)
0 (Jl I P! "<t r<\ t<\ t'<\ r<\ :z;
...c H
>:t :j .,- ,..... .,..... ..-- ..--
0
'C ...c I:"- L(\ C\J 0 0
Q '0 ~ L(\ 1..11 en 0
ttl"...." W ~ r<\ 0 ~ c- eo U)
..- 01 0 l.(\ C\J OJ "<t t'<\ :z;
(1)1 0 ,.....
oW ..- ..- .,..... ..-
Q
CdC\J 0 0 1..11 L(\ t..r\
+' I eo ,..... r<\ "<t ,..... U)
CO ~
0.-.! S 0
. ~
C\J t'<'\
~ ~ '-0 l.(\ .<'1 l.C\ (\j
'D U) Pi .,... .,.....
~ (\j H ..-- .- .-
00 :j
00 0
...c '0 (\j C\J C\J In r<\
r-! QO ,..,.
,--< ..- [J) L(\ ,..... ..-
Cd S (\j 0 .,..... ,..... C 0 ..- U)
+' t- O W 0 0 '-0 CD :z;
,\1 p,q I
SP-1 I ..- C\J (\j ..- .,.....
0
+' I
C::<r- I 0 0 1..11 r<\ t..r\
I I PL1 1..11 t<\ l.(\ 0 (\j
>::V1 WI P1 ~ "¢ ..- ..- t<\ U)
0 HI N "¢ (\j (\j ~ :z;
S :jl
,....
r-! 0 01 .- ..- ..- ..-
0 ..ell
~'D I
r;j >=! OJI '0 0 N 0 0 ~
+' 0 .;:J-I >=! ,- N m '-0 r<\
.;:J-
1 0 C\J
.
S:!0 01 t..r\ l.(\ U)
o '--" I 0 1..11 t'<, -.::r (\j "<t" :z;
0 1
Cd Cd ..-- ..-- .- .,..... ..--
•..-1 (J) I
H 0, 1
E-! :3 I r<\ C\J 1..11 0 CO
0 WI (:t) [J) m 0 r<\ en
ct--I C) HI P-1 0 eo -.::r r<\ ..- U)
..
-.::r ~
0 :jl 1..11 ['("\ "<t r<\
>=! 01 """'
+' •..-1 ..ell ..- ..-- .- ..- ..--
C) I
(1) (1) "<t I
ct-i+, C\.I '0 0 (\j CO (\j t- en
'+-lC'i) I P ...- 1...0 0 "<t \D (\j
~'-=l H I 0 en \.C (\j
.,.....
(\J m t<\
I C.) t- t..r\ t..r\ t- t..r\
I
.,..... .,.....
*
.- ..-- .,..... 0
t-
(1)
r-!
.0
m ~
E-! '< « < H
H H H ~
p:: p:: ~ E-!
r-! E-' 8 E-!
0 El
p
+>
H S S E! 1]]
+> 0 p, p~ P, <V
P Pi Pi Pi E-!
0 0 R
0 .- N l!"\ .- ~ 0
67
The difference in stomatal conductance between the treat-

ments were marginal at the end of 48, 72, 96 and 120 hrs.
Difference in photosynthetic rates 24 hrs after application
of different concentrations of triacontanol was 1.3198 to
1.509 mg CO 2 m-2 .S -1 • Similar trend was observed when rate
of. photosynthesis recorded at the end of 48,72,96 and 120 hr.
This data shows that triacontanol was ineffective in enhancing
stomatal conductance and photosynthetic rate in cowpea (Table 7).
Red gram
In Red gram plants observatio~on rate of photosynthe-

sis in leaves were recorded 24, 48, 72, 96 and 144 hrs after
application of different concentrations of triacontanol. A
marked increase in photosynthetic rate was observed 24 hrs
after spray in the leaves of the plants treated with 1 and 10
ppm triacontanol. However, the differences were not signifi-
cant (Table 8). . J
A significant difference in photosynthetic rate was

observed due to application of triacontanol at the end of
48 hra. The photosynthetic rate ranged from 0.2403 to
-2 -1
0.4867 mg CO 2 m S . High photosynthesis rate was
recorded in the leaves of plants treated with 5 ppm triacon-
tanol. At the end of 72 hrs after application of triacon-
tanol, marked increase in photosynthetic rate was noticed
in plants treated with 10 ppm Triacontanol. However,
68
Table 8. Sffect of Triacont~nol on photosynthetic rate

in redgr3m ( ?S mg CO m- 1S- 1 )
2
24 hr. 48 hr. 72 hr. 144 hr.
Control 0.3684 0.2403 0.5332 0.5384
1 ppm TRIA 0.4546 0.2611 0.5319 0.5473
2 ppm TRIA 0.5584 0.3864 0.5547 0.6323
5 ppm TRIA 0.3791 0.4867 0.5524 0.5835

,,/
--
10 ppm TRIA 0.4558 0.4847 0.6089 0.8095
,
,
F Test 1\ NS " ,
* /' NS * -
~/
-~------
I
CD o. 1666 0.2511
'.-{l_
69
differences were not statistically significant. Data on

photosynthetic rate collected 144 hrs after spray showed
a significant increase in photosynthetic rate in leaves of
plants sprayed with 10 ppm triacontanol.
The~e results s~gested that 10 ppm concentration of

triacontanol was effective in increasing photosynthetic rate
markedly in Red ~ram upto 144 hrs after application.
Groundnut
Higher photosynthetic rate was noticed in groundnut

plants treated with different concentrations of triacontanol.
At the end of 48 hours after spray,photosynthetic rate ranged
from 1.0?64 to 1.9105 mg CO 2 m-2 S-1 • Maximum photosynthetic
/
rate was observed in. the plants treated with 2 ppm triacon-
tanol. The photosynthetic rate was significantly high in the
plants treated with 1, 5 and 10 ppm triacontanol at 96 hrs
after spray (Table 9). Observation recorded at the end of
144 hrs also showed a significant increase in photosynthetic
rate in plants treated with 1 and 10 ppm triacontanol.
Triacontanol was effective in increasing photosynthetic

rate in groundnut upto 144 hrs after application of chemical.
70
Table 9. Effect of Triacontanol on photosynthetic rate

in groundnut (PB mg CO 2 m- 2 S-1)
24 hr. 48 hr. 96 hr. 144 hr.

-----
Control 0.7692 1 .0664 1 .4140 1.4281
1 ppm TRIA 0.9754 1_.2289 2.2345 2.0729
2 pDrn ~RIA 0.7579 1.9105 1 .7176 1 .6073
5 ppm ~nIA 0.8522 1.3373 2. 1961 1 .3132
10 ppm TRIA 0.7407 1 .1108 2.1022 1 .8084

~ -
F Test- NS ** ** -**
CD 0.2212 0.3790 0.3625

71
4.1.2. Effect Qf_foliar application of Triacontanol

on dark respiration in croE_E!§flts
In pot culture experiments, the effect of foliar

application of triacontanol to crop plants on dark respi-
ration rate was studied. Respiration rate was determined
24 and 48 hrs after application of chemical to the foliage
in 15-day old seedlings. Infra red gas analyser was used to
measure CO 2 released during dark respiration under laboratory
condition.
These experiments were repeated twice. Each time

separate plant materials were raised and sprayed with differ-
ent concentrations of chemical. The results of both the
experiments are presented separately.
I
I
4.1.2.1. First set of experiment
/' Cowpea
-----""- -- -
_J
/
Dark respiration rate measured 24 hrs after application
of triacontanol did not show any difference amongst the treat-
ments. However. increasing trend in dark respiration was
observed with increasing concentratio~of triacontanol(Table 10).
Similar trend was observed 48 hrs after application of tria-
contanol. A marked increase in dark respiration was observed
in plants treated With 5 ppm triacontanol. However, the
differences among the treatments were not significant.
• 72
H
...c r:- \.0 Lr\ ..-
(\1 ()'\ ()'\ CD en
ro
.q- ['(\ .q-
Z
Lr\ ('("'\
1j
>:::
'0
§ H
eo
II~
0 (\J (\J r-
H ~A i:'- r- 1..0 U)
(') h-
f"-,
(\1 '<;j- ~ -.:;:t- -.:;:t-
Q) 'H
+" ...c (\J -.:;:t- ('("'\ C'>
t'j
H
S
CD
-.:;:t-
(\1
('("'\
\.0
~
. \.0
('("'\
I:'-
(\J
m
2
('j
>:::r--. H
0..-
'r; 1
+" ...c
t..O
'D
Q)
H ·I
...c (\J r- C'> '<;j-
0
~
p:: eo <B -.:;:t- ..- ~
-.:;:t- ~
.r; +' (\1 ('("'\ ('("'\ "<:I- "<:l-
n. :;:
III
Q) ..c'
H Ul
Q) H
~ H ...c 0 r:- 0 0
::-; 4-i
(1j
'0..- ::-;
(J)
"<::l-
LC\
0J
('("'\
(\J
\.0
C\J
. C'>
(\j
U)
~
I Q)
Q QD ;3
0 0
'd r--l •
r--l Q) 4-i H
.-- .---
I~ I
0
s::
Ul
('j § "<:I-
\.0 I:'- .q-
('("'\
,- en
t'j (!J m ~
+" r--I (\J (\J ('("'\
e
0
(!J
~
(\JI '"
()
(1j (\J
'r; 0 H
H C ...c Lr\ l1\ ('("'\
..-
ro V')
E--' \.0 ~ I:'-
t.J 0) ~
'+-l ~ a:! -.:;:t- .- (\J (\J (\J
0 '--" Q)
o~
+' ;3
·
I~
() 0
Q) 0 "<:l- I:'- 0 CO m
,I~ If) £'- l.{'. 1-- .•
"" t"-
I~
~
r£J (\J (\J ('("'\ ('("'\
0
.
..-
Q)
rl
,.D ~
H
<
H
<
H
Cd
E-I p:: ~ p:;
r--l E-t E---i ~
0 -P
H B S S OJ
+" 0.. 0.. 0, Q)
>::: 0.. 0.. At E-i
0 A
0 t- (\J l1\ ~ 0
73
SWlflower
Observation on dark respiration rate recorded at the

end of 24, 48 hrs showed an increase in dark respiration rate
in plants treated \4ith triacontanol (Table 10). The dark res-
piration rate after 24 hr ranged from 2.64 to 3.41 mg CO 2
-1 -1
re leased g Fr. ,.,t. hr • At the end of 48 hrs also an
increasing trend was noticed at higher concentration of tria-
contanol. But the differences were not statistically signi-
ficant.
Red gram
Dark respiration rate in plants treated with 2 ppm tria-

-1 -1
contanol were 3.81 and 4.64 mg CO 2 released g Fr. ,~t. hr
at the end of 24 and 48 hrs after application of triacontanol.
In untreated plants corresponding values were 3.82 and 3.22
respectively. However, no significant differences were
observed due to triacontanol treatments (Table 10).
Groundnut
Significant variations were not observed in dark res-

piration rate due to triacontanol application. The range in
-1
dark respiration rate was 4.11 to 4.72 mg CO 2 released g
Fr.wt. hr- 1 at the end of 24 hr after spray and 3.81 to 5.27
mg CO 2 released ~-1 Fr.TNt. hr4 at the end of 48 hrs. However,
no trend was observed either due to triacontanol spray or
amongst the different concentrations of triacontanol used
(Table 10).
74
Results on the effect of triacontanol on dark respi-

ration rate in cowpea, sunflower, redgram and groundnut
suggested a marginsl increase in dark respiration rate due
to application of triacontanol.
,
I
I
4.1.2.1. Experiment 11.
Cowuea
Plants treated with triacontanol showed marked increase
in dark respiration rate 24 hr after application of chemical.
Increase in concentration of triacontanol increased dark res-
piration upto 2 pp~. Plants treated with 5 ppm concentra-
tion of triacontanol also showed significantly high dark res-
piration rate. At the end of 48 hrs after spray also a
marked increase in respiration rate was observed in plants
treated with triacontanol. In plants treated with 5 ppm
triacontanol, the dark respiration rate was 1.90 mg CO 2 released
~ -1 -1 -1-1
g Fr. wt. hr compared to 1.22 mg CO 2 released g Fr.wt. hr ,
in untreated plants (Table 11).
Sunflower
Maximum dark respiration rate was observed in plants

treated with 2 ppm triacontanol both at 24 and 48 hrs after
treatment (Table 11). The respiration rates in plants treated
-1
with 2 ppm triacontanol were 2.21 and 2.05 mg CO 2 released ~
i'r. loft.n-1 at the enn of '24 ana 4'0 'nr afiier spray. '1'ne corres-
ponding values in llntreated plants were 1.4d and 1.40 mg CO 2
A marked increase in dark respiration
75
~ N '-0 -.::t 0
.e LC\ t'-- :<'> CO m
"
'0 or- leo I "<:I- '<:j- "<:I- '<:j-
~
Q)I "<:I- I
CJ.l H +"
oj ~ ~
Q)
.-I
s:: ~
'0 t'(\ t'-- t'-- 'r"
ill +" § ..d m m Lf\ 0'. m
H ~ ....".
,c-
O "<:/" "<:/" -.;j- "<:/" -.;j-
NH H (\1
0 ~ 0
(.)
'r"
QO I
8 b.O H
.
Lf\ r<'I (\J "<:/"
'-' ..d N ~ 0 (\1 I:J1
,_.,.
ill
S
eo
-.;;j-
l.{\ -.;:t '-0 In
F-'
+"
oj oj
H H
:.0
c:: rc H t'-- 0
..-
t'-- eo
0 Q) ..d l1". t<\ \0 (/')
'r-! p:j !Z:i
+" "<:/" L0 Lf\ !I'. ~
oj (\.1
H
'r-!
p,
rn I. m
0
I~CO
ill 0 0 LC\ (\j CO
H '<:!- m 0 CO t<'
~ ~
I. '<:!-
'r" ...... (\j ,- * ......
H ill
(1j ~
'0 0 'r"
.-I t"-
s::0 Cr-i H CD N ,- N L-
§ L- 0
I;
'<:!- (\J '<:!-
.-I (I) 0r- r- (\J (\J
* 0
0
s::
(1j
+"
s::
0 H (\! CXj t"- O
0 .e (\j l.{\ t'(\ m m
(1j ~
'r-; CO .-- .- ..--- .. j
H til '<:!-
E--i (l)
P-
'+-i ;;: CO
0
0
0 IH 0 ,...... CO t.f"\
m
0
+"
I.e t'-- (\1 LC\ «:t \.D
l«:t *
~
'+-i
0
Q)
IN .- N (\J N 0
,_.•
,_. < -c:r: <>::
H H H
OJ ~ p::: p:i
r-I .-I EO-< E-' e'
~ ° +"
H 8 S S CJ.l
E-4 +" Po C':' P (l)
:;:: p.. p.. p., 8
0 A
0 .- (\J t.f"\ Iii (.)
76
was observed due to all the concentrationsof triacontanol

spray.
Red gram
In plants treated with different concentrations of

triacontanol the dark respiration rate ranged from 4.68 to
-1 -1
5.57 mg CO 2 released g Fr. ~t. hr 24 hours after spray.
However, the differences were not statistically significant.
Forty eight hours aiter spray the range in dark respiration
was 4.63 to 6.02 mg CO released g-1 Fr. ~t. hr- 1 in different
2
treatments (Table 11). Differences in dark respiration rates
were not significant between treated and untre,~ed plants.
Groundnut , )
Observation on dark respiration recorded 24 and 48 hrs

after spray showed that there was no marked variation in res-
piration rate between treated and untreated plants. The
range in respiration rate 24 hrs after spraying different
concentrations of triacontanol were between 4.57 to 4.93
-1 -1
mg CO 2 released g Fr. wt. hr • Observations recorded
48 hrs after spray also showed a range of 4.34 to 4.80 mg CO 2
released g-1 Fr.wt. hr- 1 , suggesting that respiration rate
did not change due to application of different concentrations
of triacontanol (Table 11).
77
. \
4.1.3. Effect of triacontanol on uptake of

Radio active calcium (45Ca)
The influence of triacontanol on ion uptake in rice

seedling was studied. Roots of twenty days old rice seed-
lings were placed in medium having one half strength
Hoagland's solution plus different concentrations of tria-
contanol. Radio active calcium was provided thr~ugh
Hoagland solution. Roots of seedlings were kept immersed

in Hoagland solution having different concentrations of tria-
contanol over a period of 24 hrs. Aeration was given to
the roots at an interval of 2 hr using aquarium aerator.
Twenty four hrs after treatment the seedlings were removed
from resnective solution. The roots were kept in distilled
water for 2 hrs to remove the calcium in free space. Seed-
lings were separated into root,stem and If-Fives and rad io
I
activity in different organs were measured separately.
A marked variation in calcium uptake was observed due
to different concentrations of triacontanol in the medium.

Calcium activity in the leaf ranged from 1697 to 2671 cpm/
organ. When the rooting medium had 60, 80 and 100 p~m tria-
contanol, there was significant increase in calcium concen-
tration in the leaf tissue (Table 12).
Specific activity of calcium in leaf tissue also

showed ~arked increase due to the presence of triacontanol
78
,
...,
s::l
ro
r-1
-P A (JJ ill (\J W c- W OJ (\J
......... 0 .q-
&
.-t ~ ~
C"-
..- l.C\
['(\
OJ
CJ'I
['(\
0'0
.-
.q-
C"-
['<\
~
~
0
~
l.C\
(JJ
I:J)
~
['<\ ~ ~
P-l 0
o,D
c::
'r-! c.o
r-1 ......... E
..-- .q- 0
~O
'0 W ['<\ (\J l.C\ W
Q) 0 0 ~ t.(\ CJ'I OJ CO ['<\ tr.l
Q)
I'J1
00
.--
['(\
(\J
C"-
(\J
O
(\J
0
['(\
I.D
(\J ""
(\J
L(\
C\J
~
(\J
:z
-P
Q) 0
a 0
'r-! ~
H . . . . . c::
a'3C'j I..{) I.D ...- (\J l.C\ (\J .- I.D
>. .00 1'<"\ ...- 1'<"\ ..- m (\J
.q-
~ C"- U)
..0 0 H (\J .q- (\J l.C\ ['(\ ['(\ v t--,.
F'-.
0 .- .-- .-- .- r-- r-- r-- ..-
(])
~ I \
oj
+"
G, to l.C\
::!
0
......... S
~
P-;O
\..0
-c:r
(\J
t-
['<\
o
<;;j-
01
0
a::;
0
ill
1..0
(\J
.q-
.-
w
L'l
.
l.C\
..q-
Ei
00
..-
CD 0
..-
r,
..-
CD 0
..-
0
..--
0
..--
0
.- ** <;;j-
r-
OJ . / --
.-t +" 0
0 (/] c:: (\1
c:: ......... ~
CD ..-
a:;~
ill l.C"\ (\J l.C\ 0 LC\ l.C\
+"
c:: 00
C"-
~
o
C"-
CJ'I
LC\
(JJ
l!"\
0
C"-
CJ'I
C"-
(\1
<-
'--0
0
C"-
** 1'<"\
..--
0 I
0
oj
.r-!
- ,
I
H
f-l
bO
Ei
) \.0
w
......... ..- OJ ['(\ 0 .q- \..0 CJ'I CD
'+-I (JJ (\J ..q 0 l.C\ 1'<"\ <- l.C\ 0
0
:::80
r"o
0..-
w
C\J
I.D
(\J
..q
r,
C"-
(\J
~
['<\
0
1'<"\
CD
C\i
l.(\
..q
** eo
~
-P OJ
0 <lJ
OJ l>
'+-I d eo
'+-I Q) . . . . . c:: C"- eo 1'<"\ CJ'I (\J 0\ I.D ..- W
p::: H ::8ro l.C\ .- (J) 0 l.C\
**
(J) 0'\ C"-
Ct, bO 1..0 0 C"- (X) ..- ..- 0 '--0 ,-
0 H r-- C\J ..-- .- C\J (\J C\J C\J V
0 ['<\
C'J
..-
Q)
r-1 ~
,.0 « ~ « « ~ H
ro ~ ~ H H H H H p:j
f-l H H ~ p:j IT. p:j p:j E-'
p: p:j E-' E-' f-l f-l 8
E-l f-l
Ei S El S
p,
S
S
P- ...,
El Ei P.. A A 0 A OJ
p, 0.. 0.. 0.. 0.. A p. Q)
p. 0.. 0 E-l
0 0 0 0 0 0 R
0 ..- ..- (\J ..q- 1.0 CO ..- Iii 0
79
in the rooting medium. Radio activity per unit leaf weight

was significantly high in the leaves of the plants kept in
a medium containing 10, 40 and 100 ppm of triacontanol.
Significant increase in calcium activity was observed

even in stem tissue, when seedlings were kept in medium con-
taining 40, 60, 80 and 100 ppm of triacontanol. Calcium
activity calculated per unit weight of organ also showed signi-
ficantly higher calcium uptake in all the concentrations of
triacontanol except at 20 ppm.
Radio activity measured in roots showed that there was

no significant variation in calcium content in the roots.
Similar trend in calcium uptake was noticed when the radio
activity was expressed per unit weight of the organ.
Total radio activity in the plant did not show signifi-

cant variation due to triacontanol treatment. However, plants
kept in the medium containing 20, 40, 60 and 100 ppm of tria-
contanol had relatively high radio activity in the plants.
The effect of triacontanol in the rooting media on

calcium uptake suggests that triacontanol was not effective
in increasing uptake of calcium. However, at higher con-
cent rat ion of triacontanol, there was marginal increase in the
calcium uptake by rice plants.
80
4.2. 1 • Effect of foliar applic~t_ion 0 f Triac ontanol and

Hormonal on crop growth and productivity in groundnut
Pot culture experiments 1,.Jere conducted to study the

influence of triacontanol on stomatal conductances, photo-
synthetic efficiency, d~rk respiration rate ~nd ion uptake
indicated that the chemical is effective in increasing stoma-
tal conductances and photosynthetic rate in many crop plants.
, ,
In a field experiment, the effect of different concen-

trations of triacontanol on growth and productivity was studied
in ground nut • In this experiment, crop was so'~ at three
different dates of sowing which corresponds to early May,
early June and late June sowings with an objective to see the
effect of environmental factors on crop growth and productivity.
Fertilizer treatments and foliar applications of triacontanol
and Hormonal were imposed over dates o.f sowing to see the
influence of triacontanol and Hormonal at different environ-
mental conditions and at different fertilizer levels.
Leaf Area Index (LAl)
Leaf area produced by the plants was determined on 30th,

60th, 90th and 120th days after sowing. Leaf area index was
computed from the leaf area data and are presented in Tables
13 t 14 and 15 • In all the dates of SOWing, LAI values showed
an increased trend upto 90th day after sowing. From 90th
day to harvest, there was reduction in LAI in all the treat-
ments and dates of sowing,
81
.- Ll\ W ..- t<\.,.... t-- 1:'-- II\ Ll\ t<'\ 0 w t--

'<:j-wLl\Ll\II\CO t-- 1:'-- (J"\ W t- t- t- W
or- ~ r- ~ ,- ,.- T"'-" ,- ,..- r- r- 'l' or- ~
I
..- (\J .q- ..-- t<\ ,.... Ll\ t-- (\J Ll\! 0 t-- I '-.0 t'<\
0'I.q-C\.!Ll\C'-0'
o .-- ..-- 0 0 0
0", 1
o- !
o ..- ..- o
0'0'10'01
0..-
• I
..-
.!
en
01
-
I
I
r~'1
~~
00
..
,- C\J
I
'-0 0 t- I CD CO ..- CD I ::J'\O..-
.
(\J L- If\ (\J (J"\ (\J (\J (\J
I_D \.0 c-- 1:'-- 0'1 CO 0' I Ll\ ..- 1...0 t- If\ (\J ['("' , ..- (\, 1..(\ t-
(\J (\J (\J (\J (\J t<\
- I
(\J I
I
- I
t'<\ t'" 0- 0 0 --
1
I
Ol COl t'<\ 0 II\ .q- t<'\.q- 0'1 co at-

..- ,....
>,'0 I_D I t-- C 0 .-- t-- t- CD t- 1
('j ~ - I • f ., • , . ·m
n' ..- I ..- (\J (\J (\J .--..- ..- 1 . - 00 ~:~
1
I
I
1:'-- CO CO t--
o ..- 1 ..- r- ! r- I
t<\ - I • I • I • I
000000 0' 000 0 0 0 ' 010
I
~ ~ ~
'U 'U 'U (]) (])
r-l H H
OOOO.p-p
H IS\ Ll\ Ll\ 'r-i .r-i
.p .. r-I rl
>:: .. Ll\ Q) (])
o Ll\ Lr' (\J .q- .q- rl H H
<:) (\J (\J o o 0 -p '
-p ~ s::: H II\ U' •.-1
+ +" .p ('j 'r-i 'r-i ;-:> rl
t'j ro s::
o Ll\ 1I\Ll\.q-.q-
o (\J (\J (\J
s::: s:::
+ +" +" +" 'r-i .~
ro ~ "j
r-l rl rl I
ill 8 ro t'j ~ 81
['.1 0~ >:: >:: H 1
'r-i p, o 0 p::; (\JI
r-I o 8 S E-I I
'r-i .-- o H H H rl rl I
;-:> -0 o 0 (]) 9 S ro a:l 1
H 0 (\J .-- t::: ~ N p, 0.. s:: CI
(]) .r-i 0, P, 0 0 I
Cr-i + + + + + r-I 8 S I
.r-i ..- 0 o H H I
'0 'U '0 'U -p o 0 1
(]) Q) (]) Q) 14 0 (\J a ::r: ::c 1
'0 'U '0 'U (]) ..- 1
g g (J)
s:::
(])
s::
Q)
Cr-i + + + + + I
I , r-I
8 S E1 S 8 Q) (J) (]) I r-l
8 ~ 8 9 9 rl r-I rl 1 ro
o 0 o 0 o 0
.g .g .g : @ H
<:) <:) <:) <:) <:) <:) Q)
Q) Q) Q) (]) Q) (]) o 0 0 I Q) :>-
p:: ~ p:: P=i ~ P=i AAAI::a: o
1
1 I
82
I I I 1
t I I I
I I 1 I
I I ! I
m 1.0 ~ r:-- (\J 0 1 COl ,.... (\J ['1\ (\J (\J t ,"\ 1 ,7't (0 I
r:-- I_Q t~- I._() I_Q I_D 1 I_Q I t- I_Q t- t:-- t- \,:> I \,J \ .,) 1
~~~~,-or-I ,.... I ~ r- ,- ,....- ,- r-- I 7~~ ,- I
1 I I I
, ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
1
i
i
1
1
I
I
i
I I ,1 I
I I 1 I I
o ,.... r:-- .- r:-- G'I CD (\J I LC\ t- CJ \.0 If\ ~'m' ..- 1
(\J (\J L0 0 ['(' \ C\! --;r ~.(\ I CC· (\' 0'1 ,.... (\J ['("\, C'~ I ['1\ I
Q.O ,.... ., • I
>::1
·rl
• I
,.... I
I
,.... ,.... 0 ..- ..- ..-,..-,
, , • 1
,.... I
1
+'
>::
I
I ,
I
,
I 1
1
l:rj I 1 I
.--I ! 1 ! 1
P., I If\ Q) Lf"I ~ ~ If\ I_Q I ~ CO (\J If\ W (\J I (\J , ~;
CO I.D L[', 1.0 ~ (\,1 If\ 1 W ['("\ t- ~ ~ If\! If\ I L~, I
• I • I • 1 • I
• 1
(\J (\J C\J (\J (\J C\J 1 N I N (\J (\J (\J (\J (\J I (\J I NI
I 1 I I I
I 1 , I
1 I II
en
I
I
,
I
j
II
1
:>,1 ~ ..- ['1\I r:--OO 0 1 C\J !
mlO ..-- (\1 C\J ,
If\ '
(\1 ! If\ID ,.... ~ 1 ['1\ !
PII._() o ,
• 1 • 1 • I
• 1
N ,.... N (\J (\J C\J I (\j ! C\J I N I C\J :
I I 1 I !
I 1 I I
I
I
I
! ,
1 I
I
I I 1 !
~ ~ ('\' t<\ (\J I N 1 t<\ (\J I
(\J
..-..-..-1 ,.... 1 ,.... ,.... ['I\!
,.... I ..- I ..- 1
• I • I
• I • I • I
o o 0 o 0 01 01 o o 0 o 0 01 o I 01
1
,
I 1
I
1
1
I
I
I
1
1
1
I
I
I I 1 I I
ill 01 ! I 1 I
rl o ~ ~I I I I ,
.p
o
~
o
II\
0
L0
L0 +'
·rl
.. rl
-pI
·rl 1
.--I
I
I
I
~
('j , I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
'0
>:: .. L[', 1 (1) (1)1 t I
o If' If\ (\J I .--I o ~ ~I I
() (\) (\J I o o 0 If\ +' +,1 I
I ~ If\ If\ 'rl 'rl 1 I
(1)
!
!
I
+'
~
o L[\
. L0
.. If\
C\J
.. .--I
~
.--II
~I
1
I
I
I
U} I o (\J (\J 1 I
o I I
'"C'I I + I
I 1
~ 8 .--I .--I I -< .--I I
(j] S d p" (Ij ro H
p:;
E1 I
N p, P. P-. :;::: >:: I
~ p_. 0 O! 8 ..- (\J I
o t=1 Ell I
,.... 0 ~ ~I S rl .--I I
• 0 0 01 8 S Gt ('j ro' I
o (\J ,.... ::r:: !I11 P-. o. p~ :;::: C' I
1 P-. P-. 0 01 I
+ + + + + 1 o 8 S I
1 ,.... 0 ~ ~ CI
'0 '0 '01 • 0 0 O! m:
(1) (1) (1)1 o (\) ,.... ::r:: p=!1 (1)1
ra '0 ral I 81
>:: C CI + + + + + I I
(1) (1) (1)1 ! .--I 1
S S 8! (1) OJ ill! .--I 1
El 8 S .--I .--I .--I , edl
o o
()
(l)
0
()
(1)
o
(1)
'2o '30 -
':5 1 ,')
Ol.:t>
i :::: HI
(1)1
:>1
!Xi !Xi p:; ;-=l R AI::,s 01
1 1
83
I
1
1
1
1
I
1
"<t'(\JC\J~.--0"'I1l.J,"'\ CD u')
l.(\ ~ l.(\ l..('\ 1.0 1.0 1 1.0. ~ I :=::0:
,,-,,-,,-,,-,--"-1..- ..-1
I I
I 1
1 1
.. ' 'f· 1 1
1
1
1
I , 1 1
QO 0 f'" £'C\ LrI \.D 0 0
1
I
I
~ I 1.0 ..- l:'- ~ 0"\
I
t-- I 0 ! (\J
1
J L:, co
s:l1(\J
'..-1 I ......
-P I
1"\ 1"\ 1"\
000000101 00000010101
!,(" ~
. .,('<"\ I
.. ,
,," 1 C\! l.(\ 0J 1"\ 1"\ (\J 1 1"\ ,
.. I .)
~f"\ 1 : ")
.. i ~
o
o
0
0
QI 1 1 , I
Cdl 1 I I I 1
rl I I I I \ \
Q,I I 1 1 1 1
1 W co \.D \.D 0 COI~I LrI 0J
C\J11"\1 t-- ~ (\J ~ I
i-t10 \.D t'- LrI t<'\ \.0 (\J 1 U'. I \.D l:'-II.DIU')
\.D t-- \.D t-- 0"'1 I
QJ I ,:J\ • I 0 I • 1 • 1 ~ • I
0J (\J (\J (\J (\J (\J 1 (\J 1 (\J 0J C\! 1 (\J 1 (\J I
~:
(\J (\J (\J
1 1 1 I
Cdl I I 1 I
1 I , 1 I
UJI I I 1 I I
~I ...... 0 \.D LrI ...... COILrlI (\J ~ ~ CD r<'I 1 0"'1 I co 1.01 o m
Cd 1 0 G"'\ LrI ..- t'- \.0 l.(, 1 t-- 1 ~ t-- ['-- 0"\ mrol t-- 1 U) .-- I C\J C\J
RI\.D • 1 • 1 • 1 • I ~ • 1
o
I ~ ~ (\j -r-- ~ ' - 1 ' - 1 ~,-,-,-~~I ..- I ..- 1 o 0
I I I I 1
1 I 1 I 1
I 1 1 I I
I ..- (\J 0 (\J..- O l . . - ! ( \ J . . - 0J C\J 0..... ,.... 1 .-- I
10 (\J (\J (\J C\! C\J (\J , (\J I (\J (\J (\J C\J (\J (\J C\J I C\JI(,)
I i<'I ! • 1 • I • I • I ~
1 0000001010 o 0 0 0 1 { J I 01 o
! 1 1 I 1 1
1 I I 1 I I
I' I I
I I I
I / • 1
I / ~ I
I I 1
1 1 I i-t
~ I I I o
Cd 1 +"
"d Q) Cd
rl H rl
o o 0 ::j
i-t l.(\ U', CD
-P Q)
s::! .. l.(\ Q) i-t
o 1..:'\ l.(\ (\J rl i-t
o (\J (\J o o 0 ..c:
i-t U', 1.0 +" c.!J
+ -P ~
Q)
s::o l..('\ l.(\
.. u"\
('~'
o ~
i-t
Ui o (\J o r'LJ
o
'0 +
Q)
en <:
o H
"d ~
E-i
i-t
Q) El
N P-
•..-1 p,
+ + + + + rJ
'..-1 ..-
-P
i-t 0
Q)
C;.-j + + + + +
Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q)
rl rl rl rl rJ rJ
.g .g .g .g '§ .g
o 0 0 0 0 0
A R R A R A
84
LAI values were always high in crops which received

double the recommended dose of fertilizer. The difference
in LAr in recommended and double the recommended dose of
fertilizer was marked on 60th and 90th day after sowing.
Amongst various concentrations of triacontanol and

Hormonal tried, LAI values were· high (3.68) when crop was
sprayed with 2 ppm triacontanol treatment on 25th and 50th
day after sowing with high dose of fertilizers. However,
crops raised with recommended dose of fertilizer and sprayed
with higher concentration of Hormonal also showed high LAI
I
value at many growth stages of the crop. The mean LAI of all
the treatments were 0.17, 1.78, 3.12 and 0.97 at 30th, 60th,
90th and at harvest respectively in crops sown during May.
In crop raised during early and late June, the ground

cover was increased from 60th and 90th day. Differences in
LAI were not significant in crops raised under recommended
fertilizer dose or under double the recommended dose of ferti-
lizer. A marginal increase in LAI values at different growth
stages were observed, when triacontanol spray was given at the
concentration of 2 ppm (2.72 and 2.77) on 25th and 50th day
after sowing, in crops raised under double the recommended
fertilizer dose. In both early sown crop and late sown crop
during June, significant differences in LAI was not observed
either due to higher doses of fertilizer or due to application
85
of different concentrations of triacontanol or Hormonal.

However, in late June sown crop the absolute values of LAI
was more in cro~raised under double the recommended dose
of fert ilizers.
Leaf Area Duration (LAD)
Leaf area duration reflects the functional leaf area

between germination and harvest and has been shown to be an
important characteristic, determining the productivity in
grOl,mdnut. In crop sown during May, LAD value \.. as high when
compared to crop sown in late June. But LAD was almost equal
in early June crop when compared with crop sown during May
(Table 13).
LAD values were high in crop sown during May with double
the recommended fertilizer dose. But this difference was not
observed in early and late June sowing. In May sowing, lowest
..--~//
LAD (141) was observed in the treatment in which crop was

raised under recommended fertilizer without application of
Triacontanol or Hormonal. Highest LAD 195 was found in double
the recommended fertilize,r plus 2 ppm triacontanol. During
early June sowings, LAD zanged from 160 in recommended ferti-
lizer plus higher concentration of Hormonal to 179 in recommen-
ded fertilizer plus no triacontanol or Hormonal. In late June
sowing, LAD varied from 131 in recommended fertilizer plus
hi'l;her concentration of Hormonal to 169 in double the recommended
86
fertilizer dose plus higher concentration of Hormonal.

ROvlever, the difference between the treatments were not
significant. \
Total dry matter production and partitioning

of dry matter at different stages of growth
The dry matter accumulation is the sum total of the

effect of various plant metabolic processes. Assessment
of dry matter following application of different concentra-
tions of triacontanol and Hormonal would reflect the response
if any, to triacontanol and Hormonal treatments. Total dry
matter production and partitioning of dry matter into leaf,
stem and later into pods was determined on 30th, 60th, 90th
and 120 days after sowing. In all the dates 0fsowing, there
was ~radual increase in dry matter production upto 90th day.
From 90th day to harvest, there was no marked increase in
dry matter production (Tables 16,17,18,19,20 and 21).
In all the growth stages, crop sown during May showed

higher dry matter production. The total dry matter produ-
ction at harvest was highest in crop sown during the May
when compared to early June and later June sowings.
In crop sown during May t the mean dry matter production

of all treatments were 3.97 ! at 30th day, 9.95 g at 60th day,
87
0'1 l:'- tr\ CO tr\ N\ 0 N\ CO \.0 N\ t- --r .- l1',
.- ~ l0 ['(' 0 '--0 C\.! ..- t- CD t-- CO en t-- m
• • •
(1)C\J0'I0'\0..- 0 W ..- CJ"\ 0 CO CO CJ"\ CJ"\
~ ,.- ~ ~ ..- ..-
CY\ .- 0'\ I.{\ NOt-

CD .- t- {'<"\ CO ,71 J'\
{'<"\ \.0 .._;- .._;- "<:t Ll\.t ~ "<:t,-.:;t

I
CJ"\
(\J
CO
{'<"\
{'<"\
t- 0
{'<"\ 0
(\1
N\
r:- IIN ~
N\
o
..-
0
I.{\
0
I..C\
CO
Ll\
"<:t
tC\
t- ~I~
~~7"'~~(1 "<;j- \.0 IS' 1..(\ "<:!- -.:;t ~, I I.{\
I.{\ CO ..-
CJ"\ "<:!- t'\ II' Ot- I
I ,-
c:)"-CJ"\\.OOt-
t<\"<:j-{'<"\tr',"<:!-.;I.;
El
I Q)
o +'
['\ C(}
1..0 .- v m 0 t'\
(\J I..C\ ..- 0 tr', I.{\
•
C\J C\J 0J (\J 0~ C\J
,--l
o 0 0
H L(\ 1..,\ H
+" a
~ Q) Q) ..j...:>
o rl o H ~ i.\l
CJ
+
000
~ 1..[', Ll\ L0
..
.p
•..-l
r-l
.p
•..-l
r-l H
rl
cj
cO
+"
C)
s:::
o Ll\
C\~
IJ)
N
•..-!
Q)
H
r-f,.C
•..-! +" U
+" ::::
< ,,-< 0 ~
~~!X;
1-1
~
8 .- C' J
~ S r-l ,I
Q) S S Q. ('Ij C.
N P, P. P. s::: s::
•..-l P, P. 0 0
+ + + + + rl 0 S S
•..-l ..- 0 ~~;
+" ·000
~O(\J.-::r::::r::
Q)
Cri + + + + +
t<\
\.0
T'-
.
f'(\ \.0 CO
o,\........q-
(X) t(\ \.0
C\J
t.r\
C\J CO
.
C\I
CO
0'\
t<\
0"\
t<\ (\J t<\ t<\ t<\ C\J C\J 88
CDO~t-t<\CO
O'\t-co
t<\..,r ......
CO
.
O'\C\J
.-Ot.r\
.
0'\
o
t-
t-
CO
C\J
..
CO ......
0'\ \.0
0
t.r\
C\J
t.r\
,..- ...- -r- ~ ,- ~
sQ) o co
o
C\J
.p
{/)
r:-
..,r
,....CD..,rt<\Ot-
1.0 I..{"\ C\J ()\ 0
,.- ..,r \.0
0
C\J t(\ t<\
OJ
.
()\ \.0
o ,-
.
OJ
t<\
C\J
~ ,_ ~,...-,-,.-,...,-
en
Q) ..q- t-
~
{/) t.r\ t-
• • • Z o
Q) 0•
H
....-l
ro co t-I..{"\~O"\C(} ......
.p
o
E-l
.
C\J
t-
COt-O
CO
0
CO
(\j Lc\
CO
o
......
OJ
C\J0r-te\CX)
~ 0
•
()\ r- 0'\
(\J C\J t<\ C\J (\J t(\ t<\ C\J C\J C\J
..
t<\..,r..,rI.Ot<\\.O
OOO"\O.-t.r\O
..,rr:-CO()\t.r\CO
.
s t- ~ r- t<\ C\J C\J t.r\
t-
L{'\0
t<\ \.0
()\ ~
C\J
t<\
r:-
()\
()\
Q) O"\()\t-\.O\.O\.O t(\
+"
{/) t<\..,rt<\C\Jt<\t<\ t<\ (\J l{'\ C\J I..{"\ C\J t<\
,- ,- ,.- ,.- ,-
~ r- ,-,...,.-,.- r- ,..-
t<\ \.0 t.r\ t<\ t<\ 0 co OJ ~ 0 CD r- ()\

...... r:- ...... ()\()\\.O I..{"\ ()\m..q-~l..C',..,r
\.0 \D ()\ 1.0 r- CO t-CDO"\r:-r:-OJ
~
ro
o
t.r\
.. t.r\
t.r\t.r\C\J..,r..,r
C\J C\J
.
t--
Q)
en <
<
H
....-l
S
....-l
S
T'-
o H ~
ro ~ E-l ~ C\J
E-l
S ....-l ....-l
p., ro ro
p., s:: s::
o 0
+ + + o H
e H
e
• • 0 o 0
o C\J ~ ::r:: ::r::
+ + + + +
,
o \..O~\..OC\J\..O(J', 89
.
t'-
o
l.1\C\J['('\t-U"\\..O
!<'I,_no!<'l'_
. or-
.- ,_ ,_ ,_ ,_ ,_ ,_ or-
s r<'I!<'I(J',~O..q U"\ U"\ U"\ U"\

Q.) t-OO..q-!<'It- o C\J 1..0 t'- U'l U'l
~ • ••• . Z Z
Cfl ..q-U"\U"\U"\l.1\..q- l.1\ I..() U"\ o
o
\..0 '''.1
0'1
CD
• •
I..() U"\
"'<TC1J\..OV\..O~ m ..q- (0 ['('\ r" C1J c- ..q-

r"\..Oor-CDt'-CC CD '_\..OO'II..()..-O 0'1
['('\ C\J !<'I C\J C\J C\J C\J !<'I C\J C\J C\J !<'I !<'I C\J
UlU'lU'l
o • • ZZZ
!<'I
r-I
000
U"\ U"\ ~
~ ro
j::.j
+'"
s:: .. .. l.1\ '0
o
Q.) Q.)
o U"\ U"\ C\J r-I H j::.j
C) C\J C\J 000
j::.j U"\ U"\
U"\ ..., ...,
+" +"
+ +" .. r-I r-I
s:: .. .. U"\
Q.) r-I r-I o U"\ U"\ C\J
OJ < S 8 (.) C\J C\J
o H
'0 p::: +
E-l
S
P..
.
co
,_
p..
j::.j
Q.)
N
'M
+ + + + r-I
'M ,_
~
j::.j
Q.)
Ct-; + + + + +
CXJ\.OO'I'-'¢''¢' 0"'1 <X) N 1:'-- CO ..- t-
t<\ ('(\ t- I..C\ t- N ...q- ,.- 0"'1 0'\ 0'\ l{\ <X)
• • • ••
NC\lN'-~v N \.0N .- ...... l{\ r<'I 90
NNNNNN N (\J(\JNNN(\J
o co
•
CO
o
•
':Q 0"'1 <l)
... , OJ CO
C\I000N..-
.. 0'\ \.DO
V
l.C\
t" o
..- ,...-..-,._~,...'f"'-
l.C\ COt<\O'\["--r<'I\.D
.
CXJt-<X)(J'1t-CXJ
o::t
CO
. OJ
.
..q-O'\\.QCO'¢'-::t
o <l) CO 0
. 0'\
C\J
C\J
t<\
-.:to
t<\
..
~~...:tI!\OO
t<\
(\Jl.C\N\.,O
<:\J N t<\
. ['<\
OJ
OJ
C\I
ol [ \
l~
0.. mCOo\.OOt-
:>,0 lC'\o::tO"lt-.-\.D
~~
roO N t- m ..q- -::t 0'\ ..- (\J l.C\ t<\
E-t N..-..-NN.- C\J N C\J C\J
S::-P
o ::!
s::
:>''0
~§
r<'ICOO'll.{\l.OCXJ
OO'\O..q-'¢'t-
I.{\r<'Io::t\!)\.D'¢'
...
00..-
P..O
OJ H
mm.-roNt<\
.
Q() C\J
F-I
.~ §
t<\(\JOt-r<'Ilf"
mt-lC'\CO..-O'\
. (\!
o o
.-10 .- ~ .- ,.....
o en
'H
Q)
\.O-.:t\.OO\.ON
~§
["--~(\JCOO'\N
...... -.:tml.f\ ...... 0"'1 If''It-C\!\.Do::tO
s::r-;,
\.OlC'\r<'I\.Ol.C\lC'\ t- l.C\ r:- t-- ro Le"
'"
-P~
S::r4
OH
o n1
.0-1
'" Q)
F-I s::
E-l .0-1
'H ;-,.
O-P
s::
+"a:l
0.-1
~
Q)P_,
~Q()
.
rz"l'-" 0« .-I ,.-4
H S S
p:::
E-l ..- N
S .-f ,.-4 Q)
p.. a:l a:l OJ <
P. s:: s:: o H
o 0 '0 ~
S E! 8
~ ~
o 0
::::r: ::::r:
+ + + + +
+ + + + +
,..... 91
CDOC\JC\I..q-..q- ..- 1.('\ ..- CD .q.('(\
r-f
. 0 I:-
.
('(\ 0'\ 0'\ 0'\
a1 f('NQ)OOI.O 1.('\ ('(\ C\J I:- ,-
CD·I:-·CD-I:-·\.0-
+'" 1.0 0'\ C\J C\J 1.0 ...- 1.0
§ +'"
0 l:- I:- I:- 1.0 0'\ 0'\ 0"\0 CD CD 0..-..-
r-I ..-
p..
~
.
....._,.
E-l
0 El \.0..-1.('\1.('\1.('\0'\ ..-- CD I:- ..q- ..--0"\ ..-- 1.0 ('(\ 1.0 C\J
s:= Q) I.('\..-mr-\.OCC C\.! C\I ,- I:- C\J 1.0 0 ..-
· -----
1.0 ('(\
0
.....
+'"
+'"
W ('(\(,(\(,("\(,(\(\JC\I ('("\ ('("\ ('("\ "d- "d- "d-"d- "d-
1.0
('(\
"<t'
-CI'J
O~..- -
g
'd bO I')}
0 Q) C\JCDI:-I:-O"\..q- 0"\ CD I:- 1.0 (\JC\I
.....Q ('("\ ..-- tc\ ('(\
··-· ..
0'\ 0'\
- .
~ :> CDOCD(f)t<\1:- C\J ('(\ I.{\ 0 I.{\ 0\.0 \.0 "<t ('(\ I.{\ I:-
0, ~ a1
0 -.;j-..q-..q-('(\('(\..q- ..q- ..q- ('(\ I.{\ ..q- I.{\ I.{\ ..q- 000
~
-.;t-
~ 0)
Q)
+'" H
+'"
a1
El ~
Q)
a1
--- ---- O'\I:-..q-Ot'l"\('(\ \.0 ..- CD C\J
r-f 0"1 <D 0 0'\ l:- t"-
- · . - - - ..--.
:.>, a1 cc r:-- I.{\ I.{\ \D 1.0 \D 0 r:--eo 0) 0 0) 0) r:-- ...- CI'J U)
H 0) +" -:z; ~
'd :.>, 0 ,..- ~ ~ -r- ,_ -r- N ..- ..-- ..- C\J ..- ...- ...- 0
Cd E-l
s:= R
0
~ ..--
El o..q-..q-I.{\COCC 0
··. -.-
~ ('(\ 0"1
.,..... 0'1 0"1 "¢ I..D r:--
p..o. 0 Q) ...-0'10)0)<00"1 0'1 0) 0'1 0"1 ,.... 0'1 0 0'\ u)u)CI'J
0)0
HO
H
('("\ +"
(0 ..-00000 0 ..-- 0 0 0 ,....0 ..-- 0 - Z:Z::Z
a1
..... +"
r-f~ 0)
(lJ CDtc\C\JI.('\,,¢r:-- ..- ..-
~,§ 0
('(\ 0'\ C'- ('(\ 0) 0 0'\
§
:>
a1 ·..·..
r:-- 0) r:-- \..0 r:--I..D r:-- 0) 0) 0'1 0'1 0'\0) 0) co OU)CI'J
• :z: :z
r-f
0 0
§H
.s 000000 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0
qo
+" ~
0 ~
Q :.>,:.>,Cd
Cd Cd '0
0 0 '0 '0 Q} Q}
r-f O~F-t
.....a1 l1)
0001.{\+,+" ~ F-t
F-t Q}
E-t §
F-tl.(\1.{\
+"
Q .. .. I.{\
~~ .. .......... ~
'0
:.>,
a1
'0
a1
'0
Q) Q)
0
~
CHI-;} o I.{\I.{\C\J "¢..q- ~ 0 H H ~
0 ONN 0 0 0 I.{\ +' +'" ~
..... .....
.. .
Q) .pS:=S:= H 1.('\ I.{\
HbO
+'" +'" + +,".p a1 .......... +'" ~ ~ Q)Q)
o a1 Cda1 s::: I.{\
I.{\ t.;Jp::
Q)~ (lJ <l;~~ 0 I.{\ N "¢ "¢ .~
'=H O)<~I-;ElEl (.) C\J C\J .-I.e
ct-lQ OHHP:: +" Q Q ..... +" t!)
~.~ 'Op::p:;e-;..--N + +" +" a1 ..... ...-1 .p~
Cd Cd HOl><
F-tE-lE--1Elr-lr-l Q) < r-Ir-I Q} H
0
0) (lJSSACdIlS
N O.p..P,Q Q
l1)
0
-<
H
~
H
H
p:;
EI S I%tC!JJLt
+" ,....
C\J s::: ..... p..p.. 00 'U p:: p:: E--1 C\J
Q) .-I OElEl 8 E-l
Q} S •..-1..-0 - H H H S r-Ir-I "\>S'
r-I +" • • 0 0 0 Q) S S 0, a1 Cd I.{\
+" p..
,.c Cd F-tON..-::r::::r:: N p., 0. Q Q
Cd Q) Q) .~ p.. p., 0 0 .p
H + + + r-I 0 El
8
E-i
ct-l+ +
'0'0'0'0'0'0
Q)Q)Q)Q)Q)Q)
..... ..-
+"
F-t 0
0
C\J
. .,....
0
S
H
0 0
H
::r:::::r::
s:::
a!
Q) +"
a!
s:::
'U'U'U'U'O'O Q) El a!
S:::S:::S::S:::S:::Q ct-l + + + + + 0
Q)Q)(lJQ}Q)(lJ r-I ...-1
SSSSSs Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) r-I ct-l
seeElSe .-I r-I r-I r-I ~ r-I a! •..-1
000000
000000
s:1
Cd .g .g .g .g ~~
s:1
Cd
~
Q) ~
CD (lJ CD CD CD Q) CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q) .....
p::p::p::p::p::p:: X A A A A AA X c!5 rn
M ~co~ol..Oen I.f'\ ~~~~~~ (J) (\J
al en 0\.0 (\J en C'- m 0 1..0 ~ (\J C'- (\J ~ I.f'\ ~
+" • •
o 1..0 (\J (\J 0 ~ 0 ~ t<\ It'\ ,.- ~ \.0"- t<\ t<\
E-i (\J (\J (\J (\J (\J (\J (\J (\J (\J (\J (\J (\J (\J (\J (\J
t<'\ 1.('\ C'- I.f'\ t<\ (\J (J) t:- CY'I ,.- ~ CO.q- 0 m 92
"d C\J,.- (J) ~ N ~ CO t<\ 0 -.;1-,.- 0 m I.f'\ 1..0
o •
P-i 1..0 ~ ~ ,.- 1..0""" ~ tt'\ ~ ,..... t<\ C'-""" t<\ t<\
or-,....,...-...-,...-~ ~ ,......,...-,.-,..-,...-,....-,..-,.-
,..... oeo -.;I-meo,.....

. eo. eo. eo.
Ei 1.f'\(\J0 ~ 0 C'- ,..... C\l
oC\l
Q)
+"
U)
It'\
0"1 t-
m 0 It'\ 0 (\J
0"1
It'\
eo
m
(J)
t<\
0
,.-
0"1 0"1 eo
.
C'- t:- ,.....
0"1
I.f'\
0"1
0
0"1
,..... ,.-
. .. . .
It'\ t<'\ 0 0 ,.- 1..0 (\J t:-t-rot:-t<\0"1
~ 1..0 C\J ro l{\ ~ I.f'\ t<\COI..Ot:-~C\J
•
000000 0 000000 o o
rl C\J (\J eo -.;j- C\l 0"1 1..0 ...- 1..0 C\l "'¢ t:- ro en
ct1 t- t- 0"1 0"1 ~,..... 0"1 C\l t<\ ro ,.- 0 t<\ C\l
+"
o 1..0 t<'\,..... ,..... -.;j- It'\ t<\ It'\o ........ m o e n 0"1 C'-
E-i C\J (\J C\J (\J C\J (\J C\J C\l t<\ t<'\ (\J t<'\ C\J ('oJ C\J
"'¢0C\JC'-C\JC'- t-
C\l ..-- C\J It'\ 0 (\J O
o
o
~ 10"1 ,.....
o Ei ;:;t . . . . t<\ (\J ro t- I 0 "'¢ ~ C'- 0 ro 1..0 ro
,..... 0"1
m Q) YJ ........ -.;j-I.f'\-.;j-(\J:-'O o It'\ It'\ ro (\J CC ro
+" • m •
r:n o t- t:- ro 0"1 ro ro ro ...- (\J (\J ('oJ 0,.- ,.-
,.- or- t"- ,-- ...-
t<'\ (\J tr, t:- t:- "'¢

. mc-oC-C'-(\J
Ll\ ro 0"1 1..0 C'- 0"1
Q) Q)
r-I 0 ~ ~
o 0 0 It'\ +" +"
~ It'\ It'\ oM-.-1
+" .. rl rl
s:: .. .. It'\
....r "'¢
o ~ It'\ C\J
o C\JC\l
+"
ct1
s:: s::
-.-1 -.-1
< rl rl
H S S
p:;
8.-C\J
Eirlrl
p.., ctl ill
p.., s::o s::0
o
o• Ei S
,_ • 0
~
0
~
0
(\J OC\J,.-::r:::r::
+ + +
"d"d"d "d "d "d
Q) Q) <0 Q) Q) Q)
"d "d "d 'O"d"d
s:: Q)
Q)
s:: s::
s:: Q) Q)
s:: s::
Q) Q)
S S S SSe: Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q)
S E3 E S S S rl rl rlrlr-lrl
o
~ ~ ~~~~
0 0 000
o 0 0 000
o 0 o
~&& ~~~
0 0 0
R A RRRR
9'
28.9 g at 90th day and 31.58 g at harvest. There was not
much increase in dry matter production with 2 ppm triacontanol
spray during early stages of growth. But there was marked
increase in dry matter production and partitioning into leaf,
stem and to pod during later stages of growth with 2 ppm of
triacontanol o Differences in dry matter accumulat ion were not
observed between recommended fertilizer dose and double the
recommended fertilizer.
In both early and late June sowing on 90th daY,signifi-

cant difference in dry matter accumulation, amongst the treat-
ments were observed. During early June sowing mean dry matter
production per plant were 2.91 g at 30th day, 11.52 g at 60th
day, 22.43 g at 90th day and 22.95 g at harvest.
I
In late June sowing, mean dry matter production were
1.77,8.13, 27.28 and 23.32 at 30th, 60th, 90th and 120th day
respect i ve ly. Both in early and late June sowing foliar
application of 2 ppm Triacontanol and low concentration of
Hormonal showed an increase in dry matter production at 90th
day.
I' j"" '
. ..
Net Assimilation Rate (NAR)
NAB is the rate of increase in dry weight per unit leaf

area. ~AR is the reflection of the assimilation capaoity
94
of the leaves. Differenoes in the NAR was assessed at

different stages of growth. NAR was generally high during
the vegetative stage and during early flowering period when
compared to other stages of growth.
In May sown orop, 0-30th day the NAR varied £rom O.63~
~.d.2.week in crops raised under recommended fertilizers and

sprayed with 10 ppm triaoontanol and crops raised under double
the recommended dose plus higher conoentration Hormonal to
0.754 g.dm-2 week in crops raised under recommended fertilizers
sprayed with higher concentration of Hormonal. But signifl-
cant differences amongst the treatments were not observed.
During 30-60 day period highest NAR of 0.090 g.dm- 2 .week was
observed in treatment where recommended fertilizer plus higher
/ concentration of Hormonal were applied to plants whereas
lowest NAR of 0.051 g.dm- 2 • week was found in plants raised
~ under recommended fertilizer dose. During 60-90 day oorres-
ponding to aotive pod growth period, there was marginal
increase in NAR, but no significant differences were obs~rved
amongst the treatments (Table 22).
The mean NAR overall treatments in early June sowing

was 0.656 g.d.- 2week during D-30th day and then deolined
to 0.081 g.dm- 2 week during 30-60th day (Table 23).
o
95
C\I 0 a:>C\I~O 0'\ OC\l(J'\O..q-..q- I'{\ \..0
f'f"\C\I ,.- "-~"-C\l0,.- ,.- ,.-
C\I
~
I
o(J"\
o
o
. . o.
0
0
.-
000
C\I
0
0
0
C\I
. o. oo. . . . .
0 000000
000000
o
o
o
o
.
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I
I
I
I
10 1..O,.-f'f"\CD(X)C\I ,.- CDt-t-~-.;tf'f"\ o o
I 0'1 1..0 ~O t-~ ~ I..C\ I..O~I..C\I..C\I..C\\.D \..0 ~
I I
10
0 0 o0 0 'S 000000 o o
I~ 000000 o 000000 o o
I
I
I
I
I
0)1
:>,10 CD -.;t1:'-0\.DlI\C\J CD CD -.;to
C\1 I ~ 1..C\t-1..01..OlI\1..C\ \..0 \..0 ,.- (\.1
A I I '8 000000 o o UlOO
t-O • :z:: • •
I f'f"\ 000000 o 000000 o o 00
,1
10
I
C\I(J'\f'f"\-.:t-~-.;t
C\I-.;tf'f"\f'f"\-.;t1..C\
~
o
f'f"\1.!'\~1..O-.:t-1'{\
I..C\CD\.D-.;tf'f"\(J"I
(J'\
t-
C\J
(J"I
I f'f"\
1 I
10 000000
.
t- 1..0 I:'- 1..0 t- t- I:'-
o
•
t-I..O~I..OI..O\.D
000000
. . . . o. \.0 \..0
o
I
I
I
,-
~
"0
r-I
o 0
~ I..C\ oI..C\ 0
.p
s:o ..
I.!'\
I..C\
o C\I
t +
.p
+ + + + + C\1
+ + + + +
OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ
r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I r-I
.g .g .g .g .g .g
o 0 0 0 0 0
AAAAAA
,
,,
I
I 96
I
I
I
I co co C\J C\J co 0 rt\ l.C'\..-ocoo,.... ~ rt\ (J'\
,.... ,.... ...... a0
10
,,....
I C\J
I I
.. .
0,....""'"", 0
000000
000000
C\J
. c
o
oC\J!'('\o,....,....
ooocoo
•
000000
•
a o
o• o
Ul
z o
. U)
~
10 I I I , I , I I I I I I I I I
I (J'\
I
I
I
I
10 l.C'\ (J'\ l"\ -.;j- (J'\ ~ C\J C\J ,...... \.0 (J'\ ..- a .q-
I (J'\ 1"\ ..- ,.... -.;j- C\J '-' ,....,......,.... OC\J 1"\ '8 ,....
I
10
,
I I.D
I 000000
000000
. .. oo. C\J
oooooe
000000 o
o o
o
I , I
I
i
011
~I
miO -.;j--.;j-l.C'\COO"l t- l.C'\ rt\ t<"\ rt\ 0 t- ,....
PII.O (J'\ \.D co t- ~ t- mcomt-(J'\CO co
I I
10
I l"\
OOOO.._.
0000<:)
o
o
000000
000000
. o ·
o
o
I
,
I
I
I ot-vCDl.C'\,....
,.... t- 0 C\J Q)C\J t- ,....C\J\.DO[l(\!<\ l.C'\ \.0
10 l.C'\ co /'('\ t<\ m C\J r:- m
. . . . . . a. . ..
U")
I 1"'1
I ,
I.D ill ill \.D ill 1...0 1.0 l.Dill\.Dl.C'\t-ill
.. o· \.0 ill
•
,'A
I
000000 000000 o
+ + +
'0 '0 '0 '0 '0 '0
Q) Q) Q) CD Q) Q)
'0 '0 '0 '0 '0 '0
QQs:!Q s:! Q
Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) CD
ElSElE! El S
ElSSS 9 EI
o 0 0 0 0 0
o 0 0 0 0 0
~&&&~~
9'f/
a r- (l)I..f\\.O (j\1..f\1..f\
(\J r- r- ~ \.0 t'\r-~ ~ (\J
r- o
. .
Or-O 000 I..f\ t'\
°m ·
I o o
000000 o o 0. o, 000
I , I , I I I I I I I o a
I
I
10 m r-t-comt-L("\ to (\J
I..f\
'8'8b'8'8~
1 Ci"I \..0 to
I , o o o
10
I
I
to ·
000000 o 000000 a o
I
I
UJI
~,
all
RIO COI..f\(1J'¢Q)r- t- r-t-\.Ol..f\mm r-
L("\
m o
",,"1..f\~~['("\1..f\
. o.
I 1.0 ~ ~~I..f\I..f\['("\1.O '¢
I I cooooo o oocooe o o
10
I t'\
I
·
000000 o 000000
o •
o
I
I
I
I r-1..f\(\J1..f\1..f\1.O r-(\J~(\JI..f\(\J
10 t-CD\.O.q-\.O\.O co\.O\..OI..f\t-t-
I t'\ ,_,......or--,.....~~
T-~""""""""""-
I ,
10 000000 o 000000 o a
I
I
I
Q) «
tI.) H
o p::
'"0 ~
S
p..
P.
r- o
o• 0
• 0
o (\J r-
+ + + + +
98
Differenc~amongst the treatments in NAR were not signifi-

cant during different stages of crop growth. However,
plants raised under double the recommended fertilizer doses
and sprayed with low concentration of Hormonal, showed high
NAR (0.723 g.dm- 2 . week) during 0 to 30th day.
j
Between 30th
and 60th day plants raised under double the recommended dose
of fertilizer only had high ~AR.
Late June sown crop had relatively 10\01 NAR compared to

May and early June sown crop. The NAR ranged between 0.145
g.dm- 2 week to 0.185 g.dm- 2 week during 0-30 day after sowing.
-?
Between 30-60th day maximum N~R of 0.069 g.dm ~ week was
observed in treatments where plants received double the reco-
mmended fertilizer dose plus higher concentration of Hormonal.
/
Minimum NAR of 0.038 g.dm- 2 week was found in plants raised
under recommended fertilizer plus lower concentration of
Hormonal (Table 24). , I
- ..I
~bsolute Growth Rate (AGR)
Absolute growth rate is daily rate of increment in

dry matter per plant. In all the three dates of sowing,
the AGR increased upto 60-90 days and thereafter AGR decreased.
AGR was highest in May sown crop to early and late June sown
crop (Tables 25, 26 and 27).
I
I 99
I
I
I
I
(
I
10 o 1...{)\D(J"I(J"It<'\l(\ o 0
I C'J «::I- ['('\ to,
.
(\J cc..--ml(\-.;:j--.;:j-
I ..- o o ..- ..- ..- 0 0 o G Cf)UJ..--
I I :;-=-~ ~~
10
I
I
C'\
000000
, , o , ,
o 0 0 COO o 0 o
I
I
I
bl~
I
10 (\J Ol \.0 0 l(\ l(\ l(\ t<'\ ['0 .- (\J Ol
I C;, ..-- 0 ..- ..- f''"'\ 0 t- -.;;t ..-- (\J m l(\ 1...0
I
10
I \.0
I \.owC--C--ww
000 0 0 0 c CCC
C-- C-- U;
0
\.0
C
I...{)
C 1
c--il...{)
0 10
OU)-r-
o
.~:
0
.
ml I
J
~I
ml
AI
I
, 0 co r_J\ t- ..- o:;t \.D L!1 o:;t CD \D LC\ t<'\ 0) I '<;j-(\J
~I~I
I \.D -.;;tCCromOI...O t- \.0 C t<'\ t- I..D '<;j-\.O
I
10
, ..-- (' ~ or- ..-- (\J (\J ..-- (\J (\J (\J ..-- ..-- Tj)
~
0
.. 0
I t{"\
I
I
I
I
000000 o oC',oocc
°1°1
I
00
I ..-- CD 0 (\J t- ll'""l L(\ l(\ (\J -.;:j- C «::I- CO m

10 1'-'" «::I- 1'<"'. ("
.
C\J (\J (\J (\J L('. (\J ..-- t<'\ (\J (\j
I 1'<"'. ~ r- or- ,-- ,....... ,-- ..-- r- ,.- or- ,.- ,-- r- ..- ..--
I ,
10 000000 o o 000 C 0 o 0
I
~O
01-;
P..
,
I
o
r-l
o+' H
~ :j (l) (l) o
,\J ~ r-l o H H +'
+' ro o 0 0 L(' +' .p (1)
H Li rl
§§ +'
L(\
..
• .-j
r-l
• .-j
r-l :j
o 0 (l) ~ eJ
ro H rl 0 H (l)
~,
(l)
cr:
• .-j tu) o 0 0 l(\ +-' +"
H H L{\ Le. ..-j • .-j • .-j
8§ +"
~ .. l(\
.. ,--; r-l r-l..c
+' 0
• .-j
+,:3
oo
~o Li l.( (\j """ "'"
om (\J (' HOX
(l) H
R0r:<;
(l) <:t:
1]) <C -< t-<
o ,...... h pc-:
ro p:' P:: E- ..-- (\J
E- EO-
H r-l r-l
()) m ,Ij
c 0 ..-- N ~ ~
.r-i o 0
+ + + + + rl El S
•.-j ..-- (\J H H
+" ·0 o 0
H 00..-- ::r:: ~
(!)
Ct-1 + + + + +
100
a (\Jl{\f('\t<\L-
(\J o L-- 0"\ .-- 1..D.q- t<\ o "<t' (\J "¢ t{\ .q- CD L(\
.- G .- a .-- 0 L-- .q- N\I..ON\O"-o o (\J
a
I
01
o
I
0 000
I I
• • r-
0
0
0
0..-
000000
(\JOC..- a
<='
0
C
.
I I I
I
a(j,
I
L-
1..0
t"',
~
~
r-r \ r-r "
(\J
(\J
(\J
r-r '
L-
L-
~
0"\
01
..q-
L-
(\J
(\J
L-
t- ..-
(\J01
"<;j-..--
.q-
[,(",
L(\'<;J'"~N\
L(\
(\J
1:'-
[,(",
.q-
CD I~ II~
,r-r, tr,
"'-\,0
U1 ..-- ..--
io 10
o • I ;:=--- • •
1..0 aae-acoi e 000000 00
I
I
a
I..D
CD
L(\
.q-
OJ
01
"<t'
L-
t--
(\J
I..D CD
.q- (\J
L(\
1..O"¢t-01'i\0
"",CD "¢..- "<;j-OJ
CD
..--
IICC I
L{',
I (\J (\J (\J (\J (\J.- (\J r-r, (\J r-r, ['(". [,(", C\: N\ i C'<
o • I •
:-<\ 0000000 o 0 a 0 c a o 0
L(\
I
I~
t<\0'\L(\"¢..-t<\ "¢OlL--I..DCD(\J
o o CD 0 0'\ 0'\ 01 01 aCDmCDca
['/\ .- G ..- 0 C 0 o
.I
..- GOO ..- ..-
I
o o 0 0 0 0 0 c COO 0 a 0
I
~ >, ~ "
I
'D Ci:l 'D ,
~
'0 Q) Q) o
r-f 0 0 ~ H +'
o L{', 0 LI-, +> -p ccr
H L(', oM OM rl
+> .. r-f r-f ::l
:;:::: L(', Q) H oj
o (\J r-f Q) Q)
o o:;::.; 0
l{\
0
L{',
Nn:i
+' ..-J.,d
>:: .. L(\ OM +' 0
o l{\ L(\ C\: +>;3
o (\J (\J i-- 0 X
Q) :;::.;
~C.:dl:,
H
Ql
N
oM
Ul r-f .- o
+> o,_' 0 0
~ +> • 0
Q) ~O(\J.-
S (D
+> ~ + + + + +
Cd
Q)
~
8
OM
U1
101
o CDOOOOO m ...-- (\j t- t- -.;t C\J
C\J .- C\J .- t<\ ,..... ..-- o 0 t- (\J co 0 t<\ t-
..-- 000000 o 0...-- t<\ ..-- ..-- C\J o
I • • ~f) Ul
0000000
0, I I 1 I
0-00000 a o :z::?
1 0 I I I I I I 0
...;t- 0'\ tr\ r-- r-- .- o v -.;t .- Lf\ 0'\ OJ If,\ t-

o t<\...;t- CD C\J C\J 0 t-- ..-- r- t-- CD 0 t<\ o t<\ U) ':e
0'\ ~ I..(' -.;t Lf\ '-C ~ Lf\ 1..0 co t-- 1..0 t-- ~ t-- ~ cL(', .
I • :c.:: •
0000000 0000000 o 0 o 0
lC
(J) ill 1..0 0 ('1"\ CO 0 o \0 .- t(\ co ..-..... co -.;t 0'\ 2-

~ .- C\J C\J CO lI\ 0 o CD t-- .q -.;t -.;t co C\J ,...... ..-- -.;t
~TI C\J C\J C\J .- ,..... C\! C\! r- r- C\! (\) (\ I (lJ j (II (\) 0 [JJ 0
H
000000 o 00000010 o 0 • :z: 0 -
.c
~
;3
o
1'-1
Cj (\j
\J.)
~
..q- I..('
Lf\
,......
Lf\
(J"'\
-.;t
v\ If' ('1"\
lC\
o
U)
1..0
"'"'
I.!I ill
'"
Lf\
m
\..0
miN
I
Lf\ \..0
t-
m ..--
Q) 000000 0000000 o 0 r../JCil
~
:j 0.., o o 0 0 0 C 0 o 000000!0 o 0
• ~~:z:
r-l 0
o 1'-1
U1 0
..0
~~
:j
s:::! s::
Or:::
s::
r-l;:i Ql
o 0 r-1 a M '-I
s:::! H o o 0 +> +'
~
If\
wCW H Lf\ I..(' '.-1 .r-j :>, :>,
+' +'
...
.. rl r-l ro ro '0
>::~
o :::
s::
o
...
Lf\
Lf\ ro ro Q) Ql
Lf\ (\j rl 0 H H
o 0 o (\J (\j 000 I..(' +'+'
cry rn +' >::: ~ H Lf\ LC\ .r-j.,.., H '~;J
.r-j + +' +' ~ '--1 .r-j ~ .. rl rl (]) (l)
H<V ro ,'0 ~ .. 1..(', !'-l r:-:
E-' § Q)
C) H<l:;<
<r. o
o
Lf\U,C\J
(\j ("J
<o:;t-""1" .r;
rl
ct--!l-;) OHHP::: ~ ~ s::: 'rl
o '0 P:: E-' r.:: ..-- C\J + ~ ~ cr;: ·01 'rl ~
E- E- ill m M
+' ~
(.)
(l).-.
~ &:
;'1
ct--!C
r~~ .r-j ):.;
,J_; El
N Q 0,
G) .,-j p, p..
ct--! + + + + + rl
.,-j ..-- o
+' -0
H o C\J .-
(l)
'1-1 + + + +
102
In Mew sown crop the mean value of AGR of plants

over all treatments were 0.129 g, 0.208,0.675 g.plant- 1 .day-1,
between 0-30, 30-60, 60-90 days respectively. During 60th
to 90th day after sowing high AGR of 0.776 g.plant.day-1 was
observed in crops raised under double the recommended dose
of fertilizer alone. The AGR was low (0.605 g.plant.day-1)
in plants raised under reco~mended fertilizer plus higher
concentration of Hormonal.
, -1
The mean values of AGR increased from 0.096 g.plant.day
during 0-30 day, to 0.285 g.plant.day during 30-bO day and
-1
0.385 g.plant.day during 60-90 day in crops sown during
early June. Significant differences were not observed
amongst the treatments at early stages of crop growth.
During late June sowing the AGR varied from 0.049

-1
g.plant.day in plants raised under recommended fertilizer
plus 10 ppm triacontanol and recommended fertilizers plus
lower concentration of Hormonal to 0.069 g.plant.day in
plants raised under double the recom~ended fertilizer dose
plus lower concentration of Hormonal during 0-30 da~ after
sowing. Same trend was observed between 30-60 days after
sowing. However, during 60-90 day, there was significant
difference in AGR between plants raised under recommended
fertilizer and ' double the recommended fertilizer dose.
was
The mean AGR of 0.57 g.plant.day/found in plants raised
103
under recommended fertilizer dose, whereas, mean AGR was

0.705 g.plant.day in plants raised under double the recommen-
ded fertilizer dose.
Relative Growth Rate (RGR)
The data on relative growth rate at different growth

stages of the plants are presented in Table (28, 29, 30).
Tn crops sow during May the mean RGR was highest dur-
ing 0-30 days. Thereafter RGR declined with advance in age
of the crop and \~a!3 low between 90th day and harvest. Since
the relative growth rate was less than 3 mg.g -1 . day -1 between
90th day and harvest in many treatments the data on RGR bet-
ween 90th day and harvest are not given. Between 0 to 30
-1 -1
- days maximum RGR 0.051 g.g .day was observed in recommended
fertilizer plus higher concentration of Hormonal, whereas,
- minimum RGR of 0.042 g.g-1. day -1 was observed in three treat-
ments i.e. recommended fertilizer plus 10 ppm triacontanol,
. double the recommended fertilizer plus 2 ppm triacontanol and
double the recommended fertilizer in the low concentration of
Hormonal. However, the differences between the treatments
'\
,.,rere not significant. RGR values calculated between 30th to

60th day and 60th to 90th day also did not show marked varia-
tion due to applic~tion of higher doses of fertilizer. Between
60th and 90th day after sowing, RGR value was high in plants
which did not receive foliar application of either triacontanol
or Hormonal.
104
I
I
I
m 0'1 CD m L[\ m I-q- -<:t-L[\CX)..-t'-01 t'- L[\ -q- r--

t'\ N t'\ t'\ N -q- tr', t'\ 1'-'\ t<\ t'\ (/) 0 0
.
t<\ I!,<\ 1'-"1 t'\
o
o
0
0
0
COO
0 0
° 10
C iC-:; oooooe,
o COO 0 0
c-
O
o
o
t".-:- 0
o
0
0
i
L"I r:i\ C"I ..- 0 N ..- t'- t'- t'\ -q- m "-0
~')
~("\
0
(\j t'I', N ~('\ ~" t'\ 1'<\ N t'\ ~" !'<\ (\J N '(j)
o 0 0 0 000 C 0 COO 0 ~ 0 !2:
000000'''' 00,0000 00 o
I~ I
I
I
-q- <::t C\J -q- ..-
t'\
-q- <::t -<:t- ""'" L[\
-<:t- :1 L[\
-q-
(\J
-q-
L[\
"<t
-q-
I "<t
I~ C:C:~jO
000000
o 0 G C" o 0 ! 000 0
I -'-~---*-- _"
r-I
o oL[\ 0L[\
~
+-'
~ .. IS" CD C'J
o IS', L[\ N o ~ ~
a (\' N o 0 0 IS' 'J-" +-'
~ IS', L[\ •..-t •..-t
+ +-' .. r l r-I
os::
.. LC\
OJ <C IS', L[\ (\,
r:n <>: <:t; H D C', C\J
o H H P:::
m rc OJ ~ E-' .- (\,
+-' e' E';
s:: ~
Q) Q:
5 N
.,-l
r-I o
•..-t .- 0
+-' • 0
~ C C'J .-
OJ +-'
ct-i + + + ('j
Qj
(\J
105
r
o [" """" ,..-C-- <D !'<\ ..- ~ lI\ \.0 ,..- ..- C--
Ci' C\J ,..- C\J C\J (\J C\J C\J ..- C\J (\.: m (\J
.
(\.J (\J
0) I o 0 000 0 oC\J• I"
000 C C' 0 o
'0 I
'-0 000000 o 000000 o
o (\J
1 \..C
I
o!
"(\ 10
.
C 000 0
o""""
o COO
. 000
I
I
C-- C\J <D """" ['0. """" t- C\J L!\ ..- CI ~D L!\
o r.
o""""
i'(\ :-<\ !<\ 1'''. J'<\ J'<\ t<"\ t<"\ i'(\ t<'I t<"\ t<"\ t<"\
/'<\000000 00000 0 o
I
0000000 C o COO 0 0 o
(J) (l)
o H )'1
Lr\ .p +' H
-rl -rl o
.. rl rl .p
QJ (11
rl o H rl
o LC +' +' :j
H 'rl 'M 1'-1 '~"j
+" .. rl rl Q) CD
~ t--l 1'-1
rl o Lf'. 'rl
o
13 ~
5 (\J
(\J
rl
c;
(J)
U1
o
<t'
H
"'1:;
H
I& ~ I
'D pc: P':i E-' ..- (\j
ji , '
10 I E--'
H
(J)S80~ctr.t
5 rl rl I ~~
NP.~Cs::e
-rl p, 0 0 0
+ + + + + rl 0 S E1
·rl .- 0 H H
.p oc,oo
HON~:::!::-.~
(J)
~ + + + + +
106
o m t-- t<\ CO C-- 0 'JI oO..-0\m"'<t 0

()\ ~ i'<\ rl\ i'<\ ..q-..q- t'(', "'<t L!"\ ..q- :<\ ['("\ 1<, <::t
I 0000000 oooooe G
o
\.0 0000000 0000000
o .q- [J', (\J ..q- O'l r- o \.0

\,D ~ ~ LL Ll \ <;j IS\ L[, o
I G 0 COO 0 G U) 0 (:')
o I--,.
"",
f--7
F"-
[,{"" o 0 0 0 o 0 C eGO o o a
c CO "'<t :-<" Ln~.0 \i) NCO'::) CO t<"\ 0, 0 CO tl\

o (\;.,-.,- r- r - " - ..- ("J .,..... (\,J ..- (\J'- ("j ..- 0
('0, caoaoo 0 0000000 o OTJ)UJ
I ~ ~
o 0 C) COO 0 0 000000 C o 0
!
I I
! ,~ i
I
I,
I
'I I>--~~
i o
Q)
~
Q)
~
I~ ~ S; L.;\ +'"
'r!
.. rl
+'"
. .-\
rl
I
+'
>=!
o 1,1"\
..
Lf\
Lf\
0J o
(j)
H
(j)
H
I
o (\_
+ +'
(,J
+'
+'"
C'0
~
•.-1
>=!
•.-\
coo
H
+'
l,[', l,[',
LC,
..
+'"
'.-1
rl
+'
•.-\
rl
I ~N
Q)
(Ij
UJ'''l:<h
S
~rlrl
e s U
>::
o lS \
('J
lS,
(\j
('J "'J' ~ I '.-1
H
·.-\
..c
+' c:
OhHP-' +' ~ :::: +' ;3
rc r:r:: r:r, +
I& ~ ~
E-' ,..... 0J .p .p (ij •.-\ '.-1
E-' E-,: cv cv 1
H S rl rl Q) <C rl H
(J_) e E1 0. (1j ro (fJ ccC 4. H S 8
N C, p., 0, >=! .... o f--. 1-' ;::t;
'r; p, p_. 0 0 'C P:: 1= - E-~ r- ("
rl 0 S S E- E 1
I ",,~
'r; ..- C I h h
+' • 0 0 0 S IS'.
H 0 ('J ..- :t ~ p
o Q) p.
11\ ~ + + + + +
o
Q) +' • 0
rl H 0 ('J
,.Q Q)
,\j ~ + + + +
E-l
Q) (j) (j) Q) (j) Q)
Hrlrlrl rl H
'3 .g ,.a
d
,D
d 3o '3c
o 0 o 0
~ ~ p p p p
107
! '
Both in early June and late June sowing, mean RGR

increased upto 60th day, thereafter declined upto harvest.
RGR reached a peak during 30-60 days in both early and late
-1
June sowing. Maximum RGR 0.050 g.g .day was observed
during 30-60 day neriod in plants raised under double the
recommended fertilizer plus 2 ppm triacontanol and minimum
of 0.040 g.g -1 .day was observed in plants raised under reco-
mmended fertilizer plus 2 ppm triacontanol, and recommended
fertilizer plus higher concentration of Hormonal, in early
June sowing. But in late June sowing lowest RGR 0.043
-1 -1
g.g • day was observed in plants raised under recommended'
fertilizer plus lower concentration of Hormonal. Highest
-1 -1
RGR of 0.057 g.g .day was found in plants raised under
double the recommended fertilizer plus higher concentration
of Hormonal. f
Between 60th and gOth day after sowing in early June

sowing~ high RGR was observed in plants raised under high
~ertilizer levels and sprayed with high concentration of
Hormonal. However, in late June sown crop significant diff-
erencee were not observed either due to high doses of ferti-
lizer or due to foliar application of triacontanol or Hormonal.
Crop growth rate (CRG)
The values of CRG expressed as a mean overall treatments

in May sown crops were 0.125, 0.116, 0.192 g.dm- 2 day during
the periods 0-30 day, 30-60th day and 60-90th day, respectively.
)'
108
o m 0 C\J co ..- C\J ..q- CJ t<\ l.f\ t<\ Lf\
,... ..-
. 0 ..-
C\J C\J t<'\ C\J
. .
.- .-.- (\J .-
.. .
or'
,-- 000 00000000 o ..-
I If) 0 (I)
o o 0 o C o 0 00000000 o ~ ~~
m 1 I I I 1 1 I I I 1 1 I I I 1 o
o Lf\t'-,--\.OI...OI...O .- ('J 0 .- t<"l '<:l- C '..0 C

m C-- Lf\ 0 ~O l--- 0 '<:l- ..-- ,-- t.,\ m 0 N (\J C\J
I .- .- C\J or- or- C\J (\J C\J (\J ..- ..- ('J 000
o
1...0 o 000 0 0 o o 0 0 COO o 0 c
CT1
>,1
ml
010 1...0 ..- t'- or- 0 C\J I_O L(\ t<\ .- I_O m
I 1...0 t-- "<:J'" (' ~ or- ,- i'<\ mLf\C\:'<:l-O'ICO
I I o ,-- or- or- or- ...- o ..- ..- .- 0 0
10
I :A o COO C 0 o o 0 COO 0 o 0 C
I
1
I
I
1 Lf\ l.[\ C\J m m m i'<\ i'<\
..q-
C\J
/,<,
~
.-
.- i'<\ m
10 .-- C', C\; 0 or- ..q- N i'<\ ,_ (\J
I t<\ ~ ~ ~ ,.- ,-- ,-- or' ,.- ,...-,-- r- ~
I I
10 o 0 0 0 0 0 o COO 0 0 0 C 0
1
H
OJ OJ o
o H H +'
L(\ +' +' >, ('j
'r-! 'r-! CIl rl
.. M M r<
'D
~ ~ lL\ OJ (J) ~ t.0
o LC l.[\ (\J -.::r "'<t rl o H H (J) <V
o (\J (\ o 0 0 i..(\ +" +' N H
+" ~ ~ H Lf\ Lf\ 'r-! .r-! .r-!
+ +' +' ~ 'r-! .r-! +' .. M ,....l rl ..c
~ (,'j c ~ l..[\ 'r-! +' 0
G) ~ o L(\ Lf\ C\: '<:l- "'<t ~ :.::
rJ') .:t: <t H (.) C\J (\J H 0 r:-,
o H h H +" s:; ~ OJ )'..1
ra ~ ~ E-' .,..... N + +' +' CIl .r-! 'r-! Iii 0 Ii--
E-i r-' m CT:
H (J) <l! rl rl
OJ (n<r.<CH E! E!
o H H ~
.r-! ra P:; P::: E- ,-- C\J
rl E--> [-,
.r-! ..- C H
+" • 0 Q) E! S I.{"\
H C C\J or' N p_, p_,
Q;' •r-! p_ p. +'
ct-l + + + + + rl o a1
.r-! .- o
+' Q 0
HON..-
(J)
'+; + + + + +
<V (J) (J) (J) OJ OJ
rl rl rl rl rl rl
'§ .g .g .g .g .g
o 0 0 0 0 0
A A R R R P
109
o o OJ t<\ 01 .- 0 '-0 1..0 Q) m t<\ I.D 1..0 l.[\

...- ..- ...- ..- 0 o 0 ..- ..-
° !~
(\J t<\ (\J (\J
~I~
...- o 0 0 COO o 0 0 0 0 0 :n
,.__.._
rn rl)
~ ,__~.
I
o
m °I
0I C
I
O
I
O1 I
o
I
0
1
0
1
0
,
0
1
0
1
r=-- ,.::-.., r:.... . .
I'
I' I I
I
o
Sl
...-
O
..q
l.[\
('J
..-
['-
.--
(\1
..-
t-
0 ~I m
t<\
01
(\J
'0
l.[\
t<\
(\ J
'<:j-
l.[\
CO
t- ~\~IU)mm
o
I or- 0 0 ..- 0 0
01 O 0 0 0 0 0 o ~I~:=?
I
1..0 C1 0 0
I
coo
1 1 °1 000 000
I , Ole!
I, ~! I
II
rolO
R 1 '-0
I I
!o
CD
t- CD
J..,~
~r-~,....-,--,.-
C
t- <D
(\.1 (\J
t- '.0
0
t!1~ ~ ~ or-
't£ l~
I, U1m
~~'
I
I"
(\J ,....- """ or- ,,"""":
~ °
! C 0 C Co 0 c o COO 0 0
°iOI
I
I o
t<\ ..q-[,-t<\..-OO ..q- (\J CO (\j \.0 U\ (\j ['- U\
co
I I
o '
01 t- 01 CD <XJ <XJ
000000 ~I
O1t-mt-mm
o 0 0 0 0 0
CD
o 0
,.-It>,
0,.-1
§ ~
COCo 0 C C C) . Io 0 C' 0 ° 0 ° 0
+"Q) I
Q
o s::: I ,~--
0'''''
ro
.,...j H
H~ o
E-'!>,
CH'C
T, I H
Cl.> Q)
H
+'
Ci'
o •
(\j
II +" ..
+"
.,...j
,.-I
+"
.,...j
,.-I
'
HCW
,.-I
::l
+" 1 s::: .. ..
o E!
Q)'C'
I o
o
U",
(\J
LC\
(\J
l.[\
('J ,.-I
o 0 0
o
IS',
().)
H
.p
H
Cl.>
+"
Q)
1'-'
''';
(I)
H
CH • H U\ L0 '.-1 '''; r-I,C
CH'4 +" .. ,.-I ,.-I 'r-i +' 0
G:' ....__, Q .. l.[\ -P::':
o
I o
l.[\
(\J
l.[\
(\i
(\J H 0 K
(I)
p:-.01=i:-J
H
II
H
Ql
N
.,...j
+ + + + ,.-I o
'''; ..- 0
+' • 0
HC(\J...-
Q)
CH + + + + +
Q) Q) Q) ().) Q) (1)
,.-I ,.-1,.-1,.-1 ,.-I r-l
.g '§ .g '§ .g .g
o 000 C 0
P. R P P. P A
I 110
I ([)t<\t<\([)([)\.O (\J lDOOt<\Ot<\1.!\ t<\
10
I C;g;'c;<38;:: '<;j-
a
"<t t<\
lD
r-
.-
I.!\ t--
0 ..- (\J
(\f 0 C\J
.-
O
. .
(\J (\J
I .-
I I
10
000000
000000
o
o
o
o
0
0
0
0
C'
000
000
. . 0
o
o
I 0"'\ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I
I
I
I
I
10 .-\.0\.00.-0 t-- 0'1 t- t<\ t<\ t<\ t<\ G'\ t<\ '<;j-I.!\I.!\
I ~I
,-0 ([) (\J I.!\ \.0 \.0 I.e\ Ll\ t<\ .- Q) ([) \.0 (1) t- r - (\J t<\
~~,.......,.-,--,-
.- .- (\J (\J .- .- ..-..-- .- 000
I lO COOOOO o 0000000,0 OCO
I
I
1
I
021
~I
('j10 C'J t<\ U\ ([) (\J t<\ t<\ 0"'\ ([) ([) .;:t ([) 0 r- t--
m([)Ot--lDa) a) t- 1..0 en a) "
~I\'o
.
0"'\ C-- t<\
I I 00.-000 o o 0 0 C 0 .- 0 o
10
I [,("" 000000 c o COO 000 o co
I
1
I
I
I t<\ a)
10 1..0 1..0
I t<\ o o
I I
10 000("'00 o 00000000
I "
I
,--
r-l
o o 0
H Lr\ I.!\ 0
+' I.!\
c: '0 Q) Q)
o lJ' Ll\ .. "<t .;:t r-l o H H
o (\J (\! LI'.
C\_ ~
o
H
0
Ll\
0
I.!\
I.!\
.,.,+' +',,.,
+ .,., 'r'
+' .. r-l r-l
~ • .. LC\
o U\ L0. (\J
c._" (\J (\J
H
(lJ
.,., t-~ o
r-l
• .-j r- G
+'
H 0
Q) +'
Cr-i + + + + + m
(J) +'
......~ H 0
(!)
...Q +
c';!
tf-1 + + + +
E--t
111
But in early June sown crop, mean CGR increased from 0.085
g dm- 2 day during 0-30th day to 0.175 g.dm- 2 .day, during
30-60th day. Thereafter the mean CGR declined to 0.039
-2 -1
g.dm .day during 90th day. However, in late June sowing
mean CGR increased upto 90th day then it declined. The mean
CGR was 0.068, 0.087 and 0.173 g.dm- 2 .day during the period
0-30th day, 30-60th day and 60-90th day respectively
(Tables 31, 32 and 33).
_"j The differences amongst the treatments in CGR were signi-

ficant only during 60-90th day in May sown and late June sown
crops. Maximum CGR was recorded during 60-90th day in May
sowing and it ranged from 0.151 g.dm- 2 day in plants raised
under double the recommended fertilizer plus 10 ppm triacon-
tanol to 0.241 g.dm- 2 .day in plants raised under double
the recommended dose of fertilizer alone •
. ./
Total number of flowers
The effect of sowing dates, triacontanol and Hormonal

applied at two levels of fertilizer on daily flower produ-
ction was recorded from first flower opening day (29 days)
upto completion of flowering (85 days). The mean cumulative
flower production was 194 plant- 1 in May sowing and 94 in late
June sowing. In early June sowing mean cumulative flower
production was 130 plant- 1 (Table 34, 35 and 36).
112
In May sown crop highest number of flower production

per plant (209.8) was observed in plants received double
-t he recommended fertilizer dose alone. Whereas, least
n~ber of flower production per plant of 172.4 was found
in recommended fertilizer plus lower concentration of
Hormonal.
Early June sown crop raised under double the reco-

mmended dose of fertilizer produced relat ively more number
o:f flowers plant. -1 • Total number of flowe IS produced per
plant ranged from 110.8 in plant raised under the double
recommended fertilizer plus 0.1 ppm triacontanol to 145.7
in double the recommended fertilizer plus lower concentra-
t ion of Hormonal.
During late June sowing maximum nllmber of flower pro-

duction per plant (105.5) was recorded in plants raised
under double the recommended fertilizer plus lower concen-
tration of Hormonal whereas minimum number of flower produ-
ction per plant (83.8) was found in plants received double
the recommended fertilizer plus 0.1 ppm triacontanol treat-
ment (Tables 34, 35 and 36).
n_+ 1 branches
Number of n+1 branches per plant were more in crops

. raiged under daub Ie 'the recommended dose of fer't i lizer.
1\'
113
It'\O .... Oo,\l:- o .-~tt'\OO'\ .... \0 0«>

• • •
(\Jlt'\lt'\lt'\t<'I~
• • • • •
O'\tt'\(\Jlt'\.-O
• • • • Ul.oI.D
It'\:z; • •
I.D
('('\ (\J (\J (\J (\J (\J C\I C\J(\J('('\C\lC\lC\I C\J C\J tr\
o .. (\J 0
(\J\O""'OO'\('('\
CO
(\J (\J C\I (\J ,.... (\J

. ,.... t<'I o
·
C\I
C\I
. ..
C\Jlt'\00t-t-
~(\J(,(,\C\Jtt'\t
C\J C\I (\J (\J (\J (\J
. co
•
(\J
(\J
"*·
(\J
(\J
\OI.D\.O\OCO~ C\J
• •• •• • •
It'\ It'\ \0 It'\ It'\ \0
I:-~Olt'\~CO co CO .- 0 CO l:-
• •• • • •• ••• •
It'\
•
t<'Ilt'\COC\JC\ltr\
COt"-O'\t-t-O'\ ~gs~gs~~ o(\J
,.... .- .- ,.... .- .- (\J (\J (\J (\J ... ...
.. .. It'\
.
CD It'\lt'\C\I~~
III -< (\J (\J
o H
rc ~
E-I
+ + + + +
+ + + + +
114
C\I \..0 I:- 1'(\ C\I ,- .,q-I:-\..OCOOO

• •• • • •• •
1:-I.l"'II..0000o-.I..O 1..O-.::t"1.l"'I1.l"'I1:-1..O
....... ~ ~ ,..... ~ ,...- ~ ....... y- ,.- .-- ,,_
..
-.:j- \..0 -.:j-
\..01'(\1:--.::t"CO\..O
..-
..
LC\ 0"\
\..0
·
.,q-O\t-OOO\CO
<0 I.l"'I \..0
... I.{\ 0 ~
.
\..0
..-..-,-.,......-.,.... ,- ,- ..- ,- or- (\J ..- ,.-
. .
1'(\
o t-I:-O\..O<OI:-C\J
•
1.l"'I~1.l"'I..q-l(\l(\l(\
• ~.
,.-U)~I.D
I.l"'I 0 0
o
)2; !7l
,-PH
m0
H
Q)
~
\..OI'(\C\I..r.,q-O'I
•
1'(\01'(\0"\00"\
• •
0\
•
I:-
· ..
0\(00
1:-001.D1.l"'I~
.... 1:-<0 U\
C\J
C\J
o
• ro
Z .
co ,-
..-
+'
o
E-!
0
rl
Cr;
1'(\..-t<\(\JC\J1'(\
..-,-..-,-..-,-
C\J
..-
I'(\,.-~..-~~I'(\
,-,.-,- .... ,-,- ,....
1'(\
,....
,~ . . -'
Q) rl rl
!7l « -< S c:C S
o H H H
ra ~ ~ ~ ,.... C\I
• rl rl
a s ep. m '"
Po P. s:: s::
Po P. p. o 0
+ + + + + S 8
o
. o ~
o
~
0
::r:: ::r::
+
C\J
+
....
0
+ + +
115
o o
...- ...- ...- ...- ...- ...-
.
Lr\ 0 C\I
COt-CO\.OCOLr\
. 0
.
\..0 <0
·
1:<". (\J (\J
t-..-O"\t-COCOt-
C\I (\J
. .
\.0 Lr\
...-..-,....,...,.......- ,... (\J ..- ..- ~ ...... ..-
<C 0 0 CO Lr\\.O ...- 0 t- Lr\ ,... Lr\ CD (\1 ...-

• ••• • •
'<:t"l.C\Lr\..q-Lr\Lr\ Lr\Lr\Lr\Lr\l.{\l.(\'<:t"
•
. . . . .
t-\.OOo,,\ ..... t--
r<\OCOt-C\l..q-
co
•
..q- CO
• •
,... 0 (\1 l.{\
•
mmmcomm
r-l
o oLr\ 0
Lr\
J.i
~o .
l.C\
o (\J
+ + + + +
116
The differences were marked in May SO\ffi crop. In May sown

crop n+1 branches ranged between 5.6 in ?lants raised illlder
recommended fertilizer dose alone, recommended fertilizer
plus 0.1 ppm triacontanol and recommended fertilizer plus
10 ppm triacontanol to 7.5 in nlants raised under the double
the dose recommended fertilizer plus 2 ppm triacontanol
(Table 34).
In early June sown crop n+1 branches varied from 4.4

in plants raised under recommended fertilizer plus 0.1 ppm
triacontanol to 5.8 in plants raised under double the reco-
m~ended fertilizer plus lower concentration of Hormonal
(Table 35). During late June sowings more number of n+1
branches (5.7) were observed in crop raised under double the
recommended fertilizer plus 0.1 ppm triacontanol. Less number
of n+1 branches (4.8) '",as found in plants raised under reco-
mmended fertiliz~r alone, recommended fertilizer dose plus
10 ppm triacontanol and double the recommended fertilizer dose
plus higher concentration of Hormonal. However, not much
differences were observed amongst the treatments (Table 36).
Number of mature pods
Pods which ~ well developed and matured were counted

and recorded at harvest. More number of mature pods were
observed in May sown crop when compared to early and late
June sowings (Tables 34, 35 and 36). In May sown crop,
~ r /
117
, I
number of mature pods ranged between 19.1 in plants raised

under the recom~ended fertilizer plus lower concentration
of Hormonal to 27.7 in double the recommended fertilizer
plus higher concentr3~ion of Hormonal. There was no
difference observed amongst the plants raised under reco-
mmended and double the recommended fertilizer dose. Bowever,
significant difference was observed between treatments.
In early June sown crop, highest number of matQre

pods (20.0) were observed in crops raised under double the
recommended fertilizer plus lower concentration of Hormonal.
Lowest number of mature pods (13.6) were found in plants
raised under recommended fertilizer plQS 0.1 ppm triacontanol.
Bowever the differences were significant.(Table 35).
In c rap sown during late June, the number of :nature

pods varied from 15.8 in plants raised under recommended
fertilizer plus higher concentration of Hormonal to 21.2 in
plants raised under dOQble the recommended fertilizer alone.
'1ature pod numbers were relatively more in crop raised under
double the recommended dose of fertilizer. However, signifi-
cant differences were not observed either due to foliar
application of different concentratio~ of triacontanol or due
to application of Hormonal.
118
Number of immature pods

,--- _'_, '
More number of immature pods were observed in May

so\.Jn crop when compared to early June and late June sowings
(Table 34, 35, 36). The mean number of immature pods over
all treatments were 25.6 , 16.6, 10.1 in May sowing, early
June and lqte June sowing respectively. However, differences
i
-
amongst different foliar application treatments were not signi-
ficant in early June and late June sowin~. Amongst the
treatments. application of low concentration of Hormonal
increased the number of immature pods in early June sown crop.
In late June sowing, foliar application of high concentration
of Hormonal recorded higher number of immature pods per
plant.
Dry weight of pods per plant
The dry weight of pods were more in May sown cro~ when
compared to the early June and late June sowings. , May
sown crop raised under double the recommended dose of ferti-
lizer showed marginal increase in pod \.Jeigh t per plant.
However, the differences ,.,rere not significant. Foliar appli-
cation of different concentrations of triacontanol or Hormonal
were not effective increasing the pod weight significantly.
Higher pod yield (16.98 g) was obtained in plants raised under
double the recommended fertilizer plus 2 ppm triacontanol and
lowest pod yield of 11.81 g was observed in crops raised under
recommended fertilizer plus 2 ppm triacontanol (Table 37).
119
The dry weight of pods per plant ranged from 9.51 g

per plant with recommended fertilizer dose plus 1Q ppm of
triacontanol to 12.56 g in plants raised under double the
recommended fertilizer alone, in early June sowing (Table 38).
Raising the crops under double the recom~ended dose of ferti-
lizer resulted in marginal increase in the pod weight per
plant. Foliar application of different concentrations of
triacontanol or Hormonal were.not effective in increasing
the pod weight significantly.
'- __ I
i
In late June sowing maximum dry pod weight (17.08 g)
per plant was obtained in plants raised under double the
recommended fertilizer plus lower concentration of Hormonal.
Minimu~ dry weight of pods per plant (11.32 g) was observed
in plants grown under recommended fertilizer dose plus
higher concentration of Hormonal (Table 39).
Pod yield per hectare
The data on pod yield per net plot was expressed on

hectare basis. The overall mean pod yield per hectare were
3284 kg, 2130 kg and 2382 kg per hectare in May, early June
and late June sown~ops, respectively. A marked increase
in pod yield per hectare was observed with higher doses of
fert ilizer. The mean yield of pods under recommended doses
of fert ilizers in May, early and late June sowings were
120
I
I<"\~O~O'-O
N
•
tr\ tr\ r- r-
••
"':::i"
• .
a ..-
..
1'('\1"\001"\t<'\
1"\ t<'\ 0 t<'\

. I~..-
1<"\1<"\1"\1<"\1<"\1<"\ t<'\t<'\I"\t<'\t<'\t<'\ t<'\
t- 1..0
\.0 I..D
,
(j)
o
• ..
t-COCO,-ON r-
t-No\l..Dl..C'Il..(\'-O
.
m
(\J
1<"\1<"\'-001<"\1<"\
t-1<"\(j\t<'\\.O(\J
..-NOOr-N
t<'\r<'\I"\t<'\t<'\r<'\
--_ ---+
+
Q)
a) <
o H
ro p:
E-l
+ + + + +
ro '0 ro ro ro ro
Q) Q) Q) (]) Q) Q)
ro '0 ro "(' ro '0
~ s::: s:: d d d
Q) Q) Q) <u Q) Q)
S 9 S ~ S ~
s e s CI s CI
00000 0
(,) 0 (,) 0 (,) (,)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
........
!:(O
'U "-" 121
Q)r-I~
~
fo
1"4(l).e
roS:::tlD
§1"4..-i
<o::t
0"1
,....
(\J
\..0
0"1
<o::t
0
0
0
. 0
0 0
C\J
•
I..D
(J'\
~
co
. l'<"\
0
0
(\J
(\J
0
. ,.... . . :z;zz
0 C\J
0
(\J
0
UlUlUl
-..-i (l)(l) C\J l'<"\ (\J l'<"\ l'<"\ l'<"\ l'<"\ C\J (\J l'<"\ l'<"\ l'<"\ l'<"\ !'l'I !'l'I
.. Q) t:r:..!:d~
(I)~
~r-I ~...,.
+"C!) S:::S:::
oS::: ..-i(l)
(1)1"4 r-IO
,dC!) r-I <o::t C\J co 0) \.0 0 0) 0) \..0 0) \.0 t"- o t- t- UlUlUl
J-t
~ Q)
..dw
1-1 \..0 t- \..0 I..D \..0 I:."- \..0 I..D \..0 \..0 1..0 I..D I:."- 1..0 \.0 zzz
(1)'0 Cl)p..
p.,<D
J..4
10'0 ........
b.O
r;j§ ~,
k +I L.--' ~ 0 ~ a:J 0"1 ,-
,.... ~ ~ (.('\ <...0 <...0 (J'\ \.0 (i'\ t-
,...• ,.... zzz
.... ...0 'U.d.p 0 I.C\ I..{'. C\J ....t- O) aJ 0) ,- UlUlU)
~ QOa
m ,..... ,....
..- 0
U"\
. <o::t 0 f'C\ 1'<'.
'0 ,- ,.- C\J 0 C\J ..-
'Os::: ro -..-I '"
OQ)r-I ..- ..- ..- ..- 0
..- ,.... 0
,.... ,... ,...
0
,... ,..... ,... 0r-
o'" Pi~p..
P-4 ...,.
s:::s:::: ro
OQ) .-1- ,...
0
~J..4
a:>~
o..-I,.d
~,
0
t-
l'<"\
I.C\
l'<"\
I.C\
0
()"\
0
f'('\
!'l'I
0)
I..D
0"1
\..0
(\J
0
(\J
\..0
o
f'('\
....t- ,....
I:."- \..0
co 0
...... 0
\..0 t<\
.
I..D
CO(/')Ul
J..4Q)P. b.O t- 0"1 ,..... 0"1 t'- 0"1 ()"\ 0) (\J ....t- l.("\ ('oJ ,....
p,p.o 'O..!:d ,..... ..- ..- ,.... ,.... ..- ('oJ
\..0
C\J ('oJ C\J (\J (\J
!'l'I
C\J (\J ,...
L{\:z<Z
OJ J..4 0"-"
QOo Pi
"' ....
1"4s:l
...,.
.... ..-1:::1
r-I..-Is::I
OeDro
~.g§
r-I 0
0 .. J..4
S:::.p ~ ~ ~
~~s::: ell ~ 'U
Q)
ro ro (I)
s::: r-l ~ r-I 0 J..4 1"4
o P. 0 0 0 0 L{\ .p ...,. 1"4
:>, ~
0
0
ell J..4
0..-1Q)Q)
OJ
~
H
s::0
U"\
..
L{\
.. L{\
.. 0..-1
r-I
-..-I
r--l
I>,
al
ro
al 'U
'0 Q) Q)
~
al
r--l
~ P. § 0
L{\
C\J
l.("\
C\J
C\J -.::t <o::t r--l
0 0 0
0
ll"\
H
.p
H
+" 1-1~
:::I
.. .
Ct-4,e
...,.1-:1
+ +" +"
+"
ell
s::
-,...j
s::
'..-1
1-1
+"
I.t'I U"\ -..-I
M
-..-I
M
Q)
N
Q)
1-1
Ob.O~
..-I r-I
ell al
<: r-I r-I
s:: I.t'I -..-j
1-t
(]J 0 I.t'I U"\ (\J <o::t V r-I.e
...,. '(1) rjJ <: < H S S 0 C\J C\J
...,. s:: s:: ..-I+,,0
O~'"
Q) Q)
0 H
p:;
H
p:;
P::l ,..... ~~
'0 E-i C\J + +'" +" al 'M
•..-j 1-1 0 ~
ft-t'O E-i E-i al ell Q) J..4
~Os::' 1"4 S r-I r--l Q) < r-I M iii(!:Jiii
J::rJ p'.,...j e eP, p. ell < < e e
s::0 s::ell
(l) rjJ H
t\l p.. P. 0 H H p:;
.,...j p.. p, 0 ro ~ p:; f-' ,.... C\J
•
0)
r-I ,.... 0 9 e E-< E-i
CD .,...j 0 J..4 1-1 1-1 S r-I M ~
f'('\
+" +' • ,.....
0 0 0 Q) e sp.. p. ell ell U"\
Q)
s::
(I)
1-1
Q)
0 ('\J l::d ::r:: N 0.. P. s:: s::
0..-1 0.. P. 0 0 ~
r-I E! Ct-4 + + + + + M ,.... 0 e E! ell
,.0
-~
.p
ell '1:1 ro ro ro ro '1:1
'..-1
+"
a
. 0
• ,...
0
• 1"4
0
1-1
0
s::
ell +"
e ells::
Q) Q) CD Q) CD CD CD 1"4 C\J tI:: t:r: Q)
H '0 ro ro '1'J '0 '0 Q)
8 s::
Q) CD
s:: s:: Q)s::
s:: s::: Q) Ct-i + + + + + 0
e s s ~
Q) r--l 0..-1
E! Q) r-I Ct-4
~
(l) Q) (l) Q) (]J
EI EI EI 9 S M r-I r-I r-4 M M ell .,...j
0
0
Q)
0
0
Q)
0
0
(l)
0
0
Q)
0
(.)
Q)
0
0
Q)
s:::
ell
Q)
r§ ,.0
:::I r§ ~ r§
0 ~)~
o Q)
1-1
Q) e,
~
p:: p:: P=i P=i P::l 0 0 0 0 .,...j
p:; ~ A A A A R A ~ Ul
122
r<\
. .
\.0 \.0 0 0 1<'. 1'("1\.00\.00\.0 01
C\J a) t- LC\
~r<\r<\1'("I1<'\1'("I
en a) LC\I<'\\.OLC\t-a)
1'("Ir<\ 1'("11'("1 r<\1'("1
•
il
,......
>, ........ t()
H-t"...__, t-(J).-.a)oo::j- o
"O.P+" r<\O • .--O(J) I..C\
tllp
"0 •..-1 OJ
• I'("I~..-r<\t-.-
O<D..-t ,..... T"- r- ,- ,- ,.-
P-i~p..
~OOOOI'("l a)
\4Ir<\l.('\LC\O-d- a)
1'("1 r- (\J 0 \.0 C\J 1'("1
C\J C\J C\J C\J C\J C\J C\J
.. LC\ _L
LC\ LC\ C\J -c:r oo::j-
C\J C\J
.. .. LC\
LC\ LC\ (\J
C\J C\J
+
(l) <
CO < < H
o H H P:i
"0 P::: P::; E-l ..- C\J
E-l E-l
H E!
(l) EI EI p..
o• C\I• 0
..- N
o,...j
p..
p..
p..
p..
p..
o o.
+ + + + + ..-t
•..-1 <r-
+" • • 0
HOC\J..-
(l)
ct-t + + + + +
123
3153, 1896 and 2376 kg/hat The corresponding value of

nod yield in crops raised under double the recommended dose
of fertilize-r were 3415, 2364 and ?388 kg respectively
(Tables 37, 38 and 39). . - _______ _
,
Shelling per cent
Shelling percentage \o/as relatively high in May and

early June sowings com!_)ared to late June sowings. The average
she lling pe rcentage was 66, 67 and 65 for ;..fay, early June
and late June sowings respectively. However, differences
in shelling per cent due to different fertilizer levels and
triacontanol or Hormonal tre~tments were not significant.
In May SO'..rrl crop shelling per cent ranges from 64 in plants
grown under double the recommended fertilizer alone to 69 in
plants raised under recommended fertilizer plus 2 ppm tria-
contanol foliar spray (Table 37). During early June sowing

higher shelling per cent of 72 observed in'plants raised under
recommended fertilizer plus 0.1 ppm triacontanol and least
shelling per cent of 64 was observed in plants grown under
recommended fertilizer alone. In late June crop the shelling
ner cent ranged from 63 in plants raisea under recommended
fertilizer plus 0.1 ppm triacontanol foliar spray to 67 in
plants gro 1..Jn under recommended fertilizer alone, and under
recommended fertilizer plus higher concentration of Hormonal.
124
Hundred kernel weight
A marginal increase in kernel weight was observed in

late June sowing when compared to May and early June sowing~
(Tables 37, 38 and 39). The mean hundred kernel weight over
treatments were 32.5 g, 30.2 g, 37.2 g in May, early June and
late June sowing; respectively. In Hay sO\.Jn c ro~ hund red
kernel weight under higher dose of fertilizer was 31.8 g
when compared to recommended fertilizer (33.3g). During
early June sowing the hundred kernel weight due to recommended
fertilizer dose and double the recommended fertilizer was same
(30.29). Hundred kernel weight due to recommended fertilize.r
dose was 38.4 g and due to higher dose of fertilizer was
36.0 g in late June sowing. However, the differences amongst
different foliar applicat ion treatments Here not significant
(Table 39).
4.2.1,1. Effect of environmental factors on crop growth

and productivity in groundnut
Results of field experiments conducted to study the

influence of foliar application of triacontanol on crop growth
and product ivi ty in groundnut crop raised under different levels
of fertilizer and different sowing dates subjected that in
was
general the crop growth and productivity/markedly high in early
May sowings, In this part of the results, the effect of
different environmental factors on leaf area development,
crop growth rate and dry matter oroduction is given.
c»
~z
ffio
111111111 ~-
gt-
I IJ..«
1-(.1) 1I liT 1 T T
III
~_J
- 1 ..J
41(
I-
0
t- I-
~:::J
z Z
(!)
ii:
f1 1 ~>- ii: 0
I g~
1J..a: I 11I rTT w
~
S
l-
«
IJ..
L&JW
..... 0
~z
W ~«
CC
9'0 S'O "0 £-0 l-O ro 0 (!)
z 0:::
(°1.) NOI1VSll11n A9 ~3N 3 1T a:
L&J «
_J
1 ~
0
.J 0
IJ.. (J)
11 1 r I f CGG09 00005 croo., 0001)[ ooo~ 00001 0
1 (AVO/zwJ/jDJ NOIIVIOV~ !:jVl0S)

I-W
Q..
:gz
........ (!)
(!)I , , ~
I I 1 1 o::z
~U)
(!)
...
0::
~
~:::J
(!)
z
r SV>
IJ..
z
~
0
~
0
5LA.
.....
III III III
~z <!>
~
Q..« Z
-
L&J
Z
L&J
Z I
w ~ ..,
::> ..,
::> E
, >-
<!>
0 Q,
~
8 9 z o ~
III
>-
_, L&J
..,
0 0:: I-
w -
~o
>- 0:: I- ,~, '" N
s~nOH 3NIHSNns NV31'f < <
:% w < J
u..~
.J
. w
a::: ::J
Q.. ::r:
§
~
0 CD <.!I
3: W
a::
L&J >
~
11111111111 o
.J
t-
«
I IJ..
..... _J
E
I
IIlUJ
G ~a:
o (!)
M
z
" rI I I I I I I I I I II:
W
~
T 0
~
LA.
W
II:
L
~--._--~--~--~--~~~
0, at oz 01 o 06 01 O,t 09 os 0' 0
(:l.> 3~tnlV~3dI'f3.1. NV31'f ('I,) AJ.IOll'fnH 3"IJ.V13~
125
Crop was raised by taking up sowing during the middle of

~ay, early and late June. Meteorological data on tempera-
ture, light duration, relative humidity and rainfall was
collected. The effect of these environmental factors at
9ifferent stages of crop growth on leaf area development
and dry matter accumulation was studied.
Temperature
Temperature prevailed during early stages of crop

growth was high in May sowing, compared to early and late
June sowing. The mean temperature during pre flowering period
(0, to 30 DAS) was relatively high in May sowing compared to
June sowing. The mean temperature in May sowing was 25.6·C
AS against 23.8·C in June sowing, However, the mean tempera-
ture during post-flowering period was almost equal in all the
three sowing dates. The mean temperature ranged from 23.2'C
at May sowing to 22.9·C at late June sowing (Fig. 1).
Relative humidity (RH)
Relative humidity values recorded at 7.30 AM and 2.30 PM

were higher in late June sown crop at all the stages of growth.
In early stages of growth, minimum Rq observed in May sowing
was 77 per cent, whereas for late June sowing it was 84 per cent.
But during post-flowering stages of growth, there was no
difference in RH. The RH observed at 2.30 pm also showed
lIIII1 MAY SOWI NG
•=1 o EARLY JUNE SOWI NG
I(l
.--- B LATE JUNE SOWING
~
N I--
~
I--
co
I
a:
ILl
.....
M
N
I--
I-- -
""
0
..... N
N
~
N
E
0
~
cl
2: f- U
0
>- ~ i-- 4(
0
a: ILl ~
0 I-- a:
,., I-- I--
4( 0
0
..._ ....
N
f--- 4(
ILl 0
'" N
I--
I--
I--
I--
-'
-
-
0
-
I-- I- 0
0
I-- I--
o 0
PRE FLOWERING POST FLOWERING PRE FLOWERING POS T FLOWERING
DRY MATTER LEAF AREA
- ---
c>
c>
_0
'"
:1
VI ~
..... VI
r--
-
z
0
0 .....- .--
I---
>-
..: ~
~ ....
0 c
I-- w I--
_' -'
cl
~
0
0
0
M
I--
ILl
a:
(.!)
0
0
M
I--
a: ILl 1--1--
ILl I-- 0 I--
e
:r: 0 0
l- e I-- 0 I-- I-
N
!:?
-'
N
e
0
I--
I-- ...:r:
~ 0
I-- I--
w 0 I-- I--
~ -
0 I-- r--
:r: (.!)
I-- I-- I-- I--
0 0
PRE FLOWERIN.. POST FLOWERING PRE FLOWERING POST FLOWERING
HELlO THERMAL UNl T5 GROWTH DEGREE DAYS

126
similar trend in all the three sowing dates. The aq
recorded at 2.30 pm during pre-flowering stage ranged

from 47.57 for May sowing to 57.6 per cent for late June
sowing (Fig. 1).
Growth degree days(GDD)
Growth degree days which reflects the cumulative

effect of temperature for crop growth and development were
computed based on mean temperature taking base temperature
During early stages of crop growth upto 30 DAS,
the total degree days were more in Xay sowing compared to
June sowing. The growth degree days during pre-flowering
period ranged from 298.5 for '1ay sowing to 236 at late June
sowing. •
However, during post-flowering period, there was no
difference among the different sowing dates (Fig. 2).
Helio thermal unit (HTU)
HTU is the product of GDD and bright sunshine hours

of the day. Its cumulative effect on crop growth and
development were studied during different stages of growth.
During early stages of growth,HTU was more in May sowing.
The HTU calculated at early stages of crop growth (0-30 DAS)
ranged 2307 for May sowing to 973.8 units for late June sow-
ing. But during post-flowering period of crop growth,HTU
was more in late June sowing (Fig. 2).
121
Solar radiation
.--- --;- ;
Total incoming solar radiation at different stages
of growth was recorded in all the three sowing dates.
The data on total solar radiation recorded during t2e
entire crop growth period was 48470, 46261 and 45593 cal/cm 2
in May, early June qnd late June sowings respectively.
During early growth stages, May sowing received more solar
rad iat ion than ,June sowing. The total solar radiation
received upto 30 days of crop growth in May, early June and
late June SO\ffl crops were 13993, 11858 and 10804 cal/cm 2
respect ively. But between 30-120 days the difference in
solar radiation received did not differ between sowing
dates (Fig. 1).
Solar energy utilization efficiency (ETF&)
Solar energy utilization efficiency (EU~) is the refle-

ction of the ability of a crop to intercept and utilize the
solar radiation ove~ a period of time. It was c~lculated
based on total biomass produced and the amollllt of radiation

received during crop growth period. During ~ay sowing, the
EU~ was high both in early and late stages of crop growth,
compared to June sowing (Fig. 1).
The influence of environmental factors on leaf area

development and biomass ~ccumulation was studied at the end
of 30th day, 90th day and at the end of crop growth.
128
The size of the source organ i.e. leaf area on 30th

day was relatively high in May sown crop compared to early
June and la.te June so',m crops. A marked increase in leaf
area in Hay sown crop was due to higher temperature and low
relative hQ~idity upto 30th day a.fter sowing compared to
early and late June sown c raps. This increase in leaf area
du.e to favourable environmental condition resulted in higher
biomass production by 30th day in early sown crop.
" of growth degree

Helio thermal mlits are the product
days and sunshine hours was also more during early stages of
~ay SO\vu crops. .,----- ,~
Crop raised during June month at early part of June

and late part of ·June, l.oJ'ere exposed to relatively low tem-
peratu.re during early st'3.ges of crop growth. The growth
degree days values calculated upt a 30th day growth \.,ras also
low in June sown crops. The solar radiation, and Helio
thermal unit, received upto 30th day ',.,ras markedly less in
i
JQfi9 sowing crop which resulted in relatively less leaf area
and biomass.
.!. . '
study of the relationship between environmental factor

and leaf area development on 90th day also Showed that ~ay
sown crop produced higher leaf area and higher biomass mainly
due to higher atmospheric temperature and higher total illu-
mination duration received during early stages of crop growth.
129
Heliothermal units computed upto 90th day were also more

during May sown crop.
mass ..
Higher bio/productl.vl.ty in Hay sown crop is achieved
due to rel3.tiv ely higher ::-Ieliothermal unit received during
the entire crop growth period and growth degree days and
so lar rad ia t ion.
4.2.2. Effect of triacontanol on yield in cOvlpea
In a field experiment during kharif season 1984,

the effect of foli8r application of triacontanol on urodu-
ctivity was tested in cowpea. The cowpea plants were given
foliar sprays of triacontanol at the rate of 1 ppm, 2 ppm,
5 ppm on 20th or 40th day after sowing. In some treatments
repeated application of triacontanol both on 20th and 40th
day \.,ras ap;J liea to see the effect on product ivi ty.
Rod_ weight _Qer plant _
The mature pods were harvested two times and the total
dry weight of t he pods were recorded. The pod weight per
plant ranged from 4.4 g in plants treated with 5 ppm foliar
spray of triacontanol on 40th day to 6.5 g in the plants that
received foliar spray of 1 ppm triacontanol on 40th day.
However, significant differences amongst treatments were not
obs~rved (Table 40).
130
"0
Q).p
.
Q)..d
I]}QD"""'_ (\J (\1 (\1 0 r-- 0'\ 1'1'"\ 1..0 t<\ r-- U1
.,-i QD
(I) ..._.,
• :z:
0 0"'\ (J"\ (J"\ (J"\ (J"\ (J"\ (J"\ 0"'\ (J"\ (J"\
0 ~
..-
.p
;3C':l
"0 ~: (J"\ ,.- t- oo ,.- N t- (\J ~ ,.- [I)
OJQD -.::t CD CD (J\ ,.- t- eD t- 1..0 0"'\ :z:
Q),!sj CD r-- r-- t- (J"\ CD r-- CD en en
ro U)
OJ
p..
:>
0 "'-
~
0 j;.p
CH
0
rtj
Q"""""
tOroQD
(lJr-!'-"
Q)p'
(J"\
t<\
tr\
t<\
r:-
t<\
1..0
t<\
. t- o
'<t" ~
.
1..0
1'1'"\
0
'<t"
(\J
~
co
t<\
W
Z
~ m
OJ
......
~
"'-
s::0 +>
):.p
0'-'" t<\ CD 0 0 tr\ N -.::t t<\ en -.::t Ul
~ tOmQ() Z
0 Or-!'-" 1.0 -.::t- I.!'\ I.!'\ \D I.!'\ -.::t I.!'\ U\ U\
~
P-.p,
CIj
..p
~
0
C)
oj
OM
~
E-i :>, :>, ::.;
m ct! (1j .p
ct-i ro '0 '0 ro
0 Q)
..d
.p
..c
.p
..d
.p
E-t
-P
0 :>, :>, :>, :>, :>, :>, 0 0 0 J'r.i
Q) ro (1j (1j (1j ct! ct! -.::t ~ V
ct-i
ct-i
1'r-1
to
..d
'0
..d
'0
..d
ro
..d
'0
..d
'0
..d ..d
. ...d.. ..d
ro +> .p .p .p .p .p .p .p .p
+> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
s:: (\J (\J C\J -.::t ~ -.:t (\J (\J (\J
0 OJ
.q- S
.p
Q
0
~
0
s::0 0s:: s::0 s::0 s::0 0
~ s::0
Q) m
:>, :>, :>, :>, ~ :>,
~
:>,
~
,......I Q)
,..0 H a1 m m m ct! m (1j
oj E-t H H F-i F-i F-i H H H H
E-! p.. 0. 0., 0., p., p., p., 0.. p.,
111 111 Ul 111 Ul I]) 111 111 I]}
< < < <t: <C

< cr: < «
H H H H H H H H H
Ir. p:j p:j p:: P=i p:j p:: P=i p::
r-! E-' E-' 8 8 E-' E--l E--l E-' E--l
0
• H S S a p, e p,
a p., a ep, ep.. p.,
e
+> p, p.. p.,
s::0 0., p. p, p, p., A P, p., p.,
0 ,.- (\J lC\ ,.- (\J lC\ ,.- (\J lC\
131
Seed weight per plant and seed weight per hectare
The seed weight per plant did not differ much among
treatments (Table 40). The seed weight per plant ranged
from 3.5 g in pl3nts sprayed with 1 ppm triacontanol on
I 20th day to 4.7 g in the treatment where plants were given
foliar spray of 1 ppm triacontanol on 40th day. The seed
weight nBr hectare calculated from seed weight from net plot
also showed similar trend.
- ,. ,/
Hundred seed weight
The effect of triacontanol foliar spray treatments on

hundred seed weight was not significant (Table 40). The
hundred seed weight varied from 9.0 g in plants snrayed with
5 ppm triacontanol on 20th day to 9.9 g in plants received
foliar spray of 2 ppm triacontanol on 40th day. In control
plants hundred seed weight was 9.2 g •.
4.2.3. Effect Of triacontanol on £roductivity in

redgram 1.~arif_, 1984)
, I
_,I
Experiment 1.
In a field experiment during Kharif season (1984) the

effect of foliar application of triacontanol on productivity
was tested in redgram. Aqueous spray of triacontanol was
applied at the rate of 1 ppm, 2 ppm, 5 ppm during 30th day,
50th day. Some treatments received different concentrations
132
-
of triacontanol both at 30th and 50th day after sowing.
The results of the eXperiment are presented below.
~umber of pods ner plant
The number of pods per plant was least (77.5) in the

treatment where plants were treated with 2 ppm triacontanol
at 30th and 50th day after sowing. The highest number of
pods per plant (94.0) was obtained with 2 pDm triacont8nol
9"1'_)r3.yed 30 days after sowing. However, there was no signi-
ficant difference observed bet\.Jeen tre·j,7,:n.en ts (Table 41).
Nnmber of seeds Der Dod
The seed number per pod varied between 4.27 in plants

sprayed '..Ji th 2 ppm triacantanol at 50th day to 4.46 in the
treatnents 1 ppm and 2 pnm triacontanal sprayed at 30th day
after sowing CTable 41). There was not much variation
between the treatments.
Pod weight oer.olant
The dry weight of the pods pe l' plant -was recorded to
know the effect of different concentrations of triacontanol.

The pod yield per plant ranged between 57.8 g in plants that
received 1 ppm triacontanal spray on 30th day to 66.85 g in
5 ppm triacontanol foliqr spray on 30th day. However, the
pod weight per plant did not differ significrultly.
~
..d
b;Q~
133
.r-! ~
Q) Cd 00 I:"- 0 0 -=::t- f'("\ 00 .- I:"- CJ\
~..-l (\J (\J co -=::t- 0 0 \.0 .- I:"- 00
Pr' Cf)
ro b;Q .- ..- f'("\ 0 0 \.0 ..- -=::t- \.0 (\J ~
Q) ~'-./ f'("\ f'("\ f'("\ f'("\ f'("\ f'("\ -=::t- f'("\ f'("\ f'("\
Q) Q)
Cf) 0.. ,I. "
S +"
crl ..dOP
~ ~g
b;Q .r-! \..0 0 \..0 l1\ f'("\ \..0 f'("\ f'("\ 0 \..0
'"CI Q)..-l l1\ 00 -=::t- <l) CJ\ -=::t- (\J \.0 -=::t- -=::t-
Q) ~ Of' • U)
~ tID CJ\ I:"- l1\ \..0 (\J f'("\ \..0 ..- co CJ\ Z
ro H '-./ l1\ Lf\ \..0 \..0 \.0 \.0 l1\ l1\
ct-J 0 Q) 'f \.0
0 ~ P4
ro
~
'"'
Q)
ct-Jen 0..
0
0 \.0 \..0 co 'X) I:"- ..- co 0 0
Q) Oro f'("\ '<j- -=::t- (\J (\J (\J f'("\
f'("\ f'("\ f'("\ "f)
9 • Q) ~ Z
crl OQ) 0) "'<T -=::t- -=::t- "'<T -=::t- -=::t- -=::t- -=::t- -=::t- -=::t-
p,
~ ZOl
0..
en
ro ro+"
..-l OS:
Q) 0.. Cd
...-t ..-l f'("\ f'("\ 0 CJ\ \.0 0 -=::t- l1\ l1\ f'("\
>. Ct-io.. Ul
~
0
0
.
00)
~
CJ\
OJ
l1\
OJ
o;;t
CJ\
(\J
CD
0 \..0
CO OJ
l1\
OJ
CO
I:'-
I:'-
l:"-
CJ\
I:'-
Z
Zo..
..-l
0
~
crl
~
s::
0 ~
0 ,-... en
Cd >. >. >. 0)
...-t -=::t- Cd Cd Cd
OJ E-i
~
CJ\ ro ro ro
E-i ..- Ii;
Ct-i .. ..d
~
..d
op
..c
..p
~ crl>. >. 0 0 0
0 ct-J !>, !>, !>,
or-! crl l1\ l1\ U"\
Cd Cd crl
~
~
ro ro ro ro ro ro
0 crl
IV
ct-J g ..c ..c ..c ..c ..>:l
.p
..c ..d
..p
..c ..c
..p
+" +" +" +" +" +"
ct-J '--"
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ii1 Ol t<'. f'("\ f'("\ Lf\ m m f'("\ f'("\ t<'
+"
..p ..p ..p ..p ..p ..p ..p ..p
.-
&
E!
(.'Ij Cd
+"
Cd Cd crl Cd (.'Ij ro (.'Ij
.q- ..p >. >. >. >. >. >. >. >.
(1j
0)
(1j (.'Ij (1j (.'Ij Cd crl (.'Ij ~ (.'Ij
(J) H ~ H H ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
..-l F-t p., p., p.. p~ p., 0.. 0.. p.. P.
..0 E-~ rn en en Ol 0') en rn en 0')
(.'Ij
f-I < < ~ < ~ <s: < < <
H H H H H H H H H
P:< P:< p:; P:< p:; ~ p:: p:: p::
..-l E-i E-i f-I E-I E-I E-I E-' E-I E-i
0
~ 9 9 El 9 9 9 9 9 9
..p P. P- o.., P. P. P. p. p.. 0.,
s::0 p. p_. p., 0.. P, P, p, p_. p_.
0 ..- (\J l.(\ .- (\J l1\ .- (\J l1\
134
I, I
Seed weight per plant

I
The observation recorded on seed weight per pl~nt did

not shO\.J significant difference among the tr_e~tment8. Highest
seed weight per plant (41.68 g) was recorded in plants
3:':lraye1 with 5 ppm triacontanol spra~r on sOth day. The
pl~nt8 which were given 1 ppm triacontanol foliar spray showed
least, :30.04 g seed weight per plant (Table 41).
Net £lot ~ielQ (15.74 m2 ) ~d yield/ha
The total dry pod yield per plot (15.75 m2 ) w~s ranged
between 2.573 kg in p13nts sprayed 5 ppm triacontanol on 30th
and 50th day to 3.640 kg in plants sprayed 2 ppm triacontanol
2
on 30th day. The highest seed yield per plot (15.75 m ) was
/ 1.659 kg observed due to 5 ppm triacontanol spray on 30th day,
whereas least seed yield per plot (1.237 kg) was recorded in
control plants. The data on pod yield and seed yield per
plot (15.75 m2 ) was expressed on hectare baSis. There was not~
much difference observed among the treatments (Table 42).

I
/
qundred seed weight
The hundred seed weight ranged between 12.16 g in the
plants received 2 ppm triacontanol foliar spray on 30th day
to 13.44 g due to 2 ppm triacontanol sprey- on 50th day.
However, s~gnificant difference..=: among the treatments were not
observed.
'0
Q)op 135
(1)..0 ~ l!'\ \..0 \..0 l!'\ ~ (\J ~ 0'1 0'1
O)QO \..0 co .- ~ (\J ~ t', \..0 0'1 r<'\
'r-! U)
0(1) (\J (\J (\J (\J r<'\ r<'\ r<'\ (\J (\J (\J ~
o~ ,-- .- .- .- .-- .-- .- ,_ .- ,--
,--
'Om
,..-.,. 'O...-I..d
~ (1)W' (\J ~ 0'1 t- !'I"\ l.{\ !'I"\ !'I"\ .- t- CI)
co Q).r-! QO l.{\ 1..0 f'(\.... l.{\ (\J 0'1 ~ 0 l.{\ co ~
Ol U) :>,~ co m m m m m 0
......
co 0'1 Q)
,--
'+-i
. 'U
rl
.r-! Q)
'r-! m
g
H
m
'OQO
,
:>,..d t-
r<'\
m 0
1..0
~
f'(\
~
0
......
r<'\
0
Q)
0
.--
0'1
0
,--
l"
;:--
.-- m 0'1 co
m co
0 C\J
1..0
1..0 r.n
:z
'-' O~ ..- C\l C\l C\l N C\l C\l ..- ....... .-
P-!
8
~
H '0
...-I ,..-.,.
tu)
'0 wtu)
Q) '.-1 ~
~ :>''-'' t- m 0 m .- e- .._r l.{\ m ~
!'I"\ .- co l.{\ (\J ~D .q- 1..0 m ~
'+-i
0
+>'0
o
...-IQ)
(1)
(\J !'I"\
.- .- .- .-
~ 1..0 1..0
,--
. ...... ....... ..-
m 1..0 C\J ~ C\J
...... ......
en
:z
'"d P-!O)
rl , . ,
Q)
'.-1 '0
:>, ...-I ,.--..
(1) QO
>=1
0
'.-1 ~
:>''-''
f'(\
(\J
t-
1..0
f'(\
eo
....
0
1..0
f'(\
0
-.:t
CO
1..0
m
f'(\
C\J
t',
.
e- o [,<" 1<'1
oo:;t C\l r<'\ e-
l!\ e- m Lr, if)
:z-;
~ +> '0
0 o 0 C\l C\J f'(\ f'(\ C\J f'(\ f'(\ C\J C\J C\J
>=1 ...-IP-!
P-!
til
+> / -
>=1
0
0
til
'.-1
H +>
E-I U1
Q)
<+-; ~
~
E-l
0
'0
f? '0
CIl
'0 R
+>
0 ..d ..0 ..d
Q)
<+-; :>, :>, 0
+> +> +>
~ ~ 0 0
~
~ m
U1
<+-; +> (1j (1j (1j CIl L(\ L(\ L(\
M s:! '"0 '"0 '"0 '0 '0 '0
(1)
8 ..d ..c: ..d ..d ..d ..d ..d ..d ..d
+> +> +" +" +> +> +" +> +" +"
C\J CIl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ w f'(\ f'(\ f'(\ I.{'\ L(\ L(\ f'(\ r<'\ f'(\
H
OJ E-t +> +" +> +> op +> +> +> +>
~ CIl I.U CIl CIl CIl til til CIl m
.0
til :>, ~ :>, :>, :>, :>, :>, ~ :>,
E-t U1 U1 m U1 CIl ro ro (1j ro
H H H H H H H H M
P. ~ P. P. p., ~ p., p., p,
0) 0) 0) m 0) 0) m 0) m
<I; « <I; q; < <I; -< < <I;
H H H H H H H H H
P:: P:: p:: P:: P:: p.:j P:: P:: p::
...-I 8 8 E-I E-I E-l E-' E-t E-< E-l
0
H EI e EI S ep., ep_ sc. e e
+> P-
p..
p.,
p..
p,
p..
p., P- o..
~ p.. p.. p.. p.. p.. p..
0
0 ,.... C\J L(\ ,- C\J L(\ ,-- (\J L(\
136
Effect of triacontanol on productivity in red gram

(Kharif 1986 J
Experiment 2.
In another field experiment the effect of foliar

anplication of triacontanol on yielu parameter and oroducti-
vity was assessed in redgram (~narif, 1986).
The results of the field experiment conducted in red-

gram during kharif season of 1984 showed t~at triacontanol
foliar application w~s given on 20th or 40th day, was not
effective in increasing the productivity of redgram. In this
experiment, repeated application of different concentrations
of triacontanol was tried to know the effect on yielj para-
meters. Foli8.r application of triacontanol was studied by
,
giVing t\%, three or four sprays during crop growth period.
Plants were sprayed either on 30th and 60th day or on 30th.
60th and 90th day or 30t~, 60th, 90th and 120th day. The
effect of these treatments on yield levels were assessed.
~od number ver plot (4.5 m2 )
At harvest total number of pods produced per plot were

recorded. Highest number of pods (2692) were observed in
plants sprayed thrice \-li th 1 ppm triacontanol during crop
growth period. Appl,icat ion of 2 and 3 ppm triacontanol
four times during the crop growth period also increased the
137
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I l:"-
co ,_ (J) 1:'-..- e-- o e-- I C\J
l.1\
CO
'<:j-
t';;:.
0
\.0
(\J
\.0
\.0
1.[\
(\J
\.0
C\J
I..()
I
I
I
** N
..-
1
I
t
1
i-
t
I
I 0
llJ CO l.1\ t<\ e-- -.;t .- I * .-
C\.I
l.1\
I..()
t'-
,-
t--
'<:j-,-
t'- I..()
(J"\
l.1\
\.0
I:"-
I
1
* (\J
I CO
I
I
I
..p I
o I
H r-l I
<D,:J., I
,0 1 0
I 0
@~ t:--- C\J I
s:: s::
**
['(\ N I CO
\..() \..() I 0
'OH (\J N I t<\
o III I
p~ P..
~ ~
"0
...d
"0
..c ..d
.
..c
-p.p..p~ ..d~ -P>'
>'~000£tl +"al Oal
£tl .u (J) (J"\ (J"\ '0 0'0 (J)'O
'0 '0 01
..d .. ..c:
"..p ..c-P
..dO ..pO
-PN OC\J
0.- \D ..-
. .
--D
s::o :0;: : s::

000
s:: s:: s::o s::o
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ f-I f-I
A P.. P, P, p,
m CQ [7J en [7J
« <C <C « -<

H H H H H
~ ~ Jl:< ~ ~
rl E-' E-~ E-i E-' E-i
C
~
+"
o
s::
o .- C\J ,- C\J ,-
number of pods produced by the plants significantly.
Foliar application of 2 ppm triacontanol two or three times
during the crop growth period also resulted in marked
increase in pod number. o
Filled pod weight and chaffy pod weight per plot

•
More n~~ber of filled pods leads to higher seed yield.
The ,\.,reight of filled "Dads per plot varied from 528 g in
untreated plants to 788 g in the plants sprayed with 2 ppm
triacontanol, four times during growth period. There were
significant differences amongst the treatments. ~p"Dlication
of triacontanol either twice, thrice or four tines, irres-

• nective of concentration resulted in significant increase
in the weight of filled pods (Table 43).
1,.Jeight c,f chaffy pods was more (85.em in untreated

plgnts. ?lants sprayed with 2 ppm triacontanol three times
OUTing growth period recorded very less (56.2) weight of chaffy
pods. Applicati9n of triacontanol resulted in significant
reduction in the weight of chaffy pods.
Net plot pod and seed weight (4.5 m2_h seed weight
per hectare, hundred seed weight
The net plot (4.5 m2 ) pod weight ranged from 632 g in

plants treated with foliar spray of 2 ppm triacontanol two
times during growth period to 900 g in the plants sprayed
139
o
. 0 0 0 0
,_ ,_ or- ...- .,....
~ID
..c:H
ql]ro
." +" C\l
IDO""""" C\J ('(\ c:- (j)
:J:IDtD
..c:~
..--
C\J
('(\
('(\
<Xl
C\J
**
'0 ...__, ..-- ..-- ..-
GJ H
(I)GJ
U)P_
,,-.... •
+" CD
o '-"
r-I ~
p.,"d ..c:
IDQD
+" GJ·"
GJ112(1)
**
:z; :;:
,,-....
.p t.o
o '-"
r-I +"
p.,'O ..c lI"\ o o
OQ.Q
+" P.."';
ro
1..0
\.0
\.0
o
(J'\
** (\j
<Xl
(I) a;
~ :;:
.d ..c
+" +"
o
(J'\
o(j)
. .
, .d
+"
o
1..0
.d
+"
o
\.0
..c: .d ..c:
+" ~ +"
o o 0
('(\ ('(\ ('(\
.co .co .c0

:>. :>.
ro Cd
H H
P.. P..
112 Ol
<:t: ..::r.: <:t: <:I; < < <:I;
H H H H H H H
~ p::; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .'.
E-i E-! E-i E-i E-i E-i E-'
e e e e e ePo ep.
0.. A A A 0..
p, A A A p. A p.
C\J ('(\
140
four times during crop growth period with 2 ppm triacontanol.

l.1arked differences were observed amongst the treatments •
•
Application of 1, 2 and 3 ppm triacontanol four times

during the crop growth period increased the seed weight per
plot (4.5 m2 ) significantly. Highest seed weight of 503 g
was observed in plants sprayed with 2 ppm triacontanol four
times during crop growth period. Foliar application of 1 pp~
triacontanol two times during crop growth period also resulted

in marked increase in seed weight per plot.
Seed weight per hectare was highe3t (1333 kg) in the

treatment in \'I'hich plants were given foliar spray of 2 ppm
triacontanol four times during crop growth period. Seed
weight per hectare was least in untreated plants (1121 kg).
Plants which received foliar application of triacontanol
four time:3 during the crop growth period showed 1239 kg and
1287 kg of seed yield Der hectare with 1 and 3 ppm concentra-
tionso f triacontanol respectively (Table 44).
The effect of triacontanol foliar spray treatment on

hundred seed weight did not show any significant difference
between treatments. The hundred seed weight ranged from
10.1 g in plants treated with 1 ppm triacontanol, two times
during the crop growth period to 10.4 g in plants received
3 ppm triacontanol four times during the crop growth period.
DISCUSSION
V. DISCUSSION
•
Eversince the discovery of phytohormones as endo-
genous substances 'Nhich regulate growth and development,
" plant scientists are trying to apply various agricultural
chemicals which influence crop grovlth and development.
Auxins, Gibberellins~ Cytokinins, Abscisic acid, ethylene
were identified and isolated from the plants in th3t order.
Sach hornone was found to be essential for inducing sooe
specific processes during growth and development of plant.
Thima.nn in one of his classical papers in 1960 showed the
sequence in increase in individual hormone and its effect on
germinat ion, developIUen t, flowering, reprod uct ion, senescence
and abscission processes.
The mode of act ion and the formative effects of all

these endogenous hormones were identified. This knowledge
gaVEl a new thought to manipUlate the format i ve effects in
the desired direction. Auxin was shown to induce root ini-
tiation in plant. !'Tow auxins are used extensive ly in '/
propagation of horticultural plants in layering-, cuttings etc.

Synthetic auxins 8.re being used to inhibit flower abscission
in cott on, chillies and many hart icul tural plants. Exogenous
applicat ion of auxinS were shown to induce fruit set in many
plants (I.·leaver, 1973; Ni-ooh, 1951).
142
Gibberllins induce hydrolysis of starch during ger-

mination and this property is extensively used in malt indus-
tries. Exogenous application of gibberllin to increase berry
... growth is a common practice by grape growers (Yasunobu, 1973) •

Gibberllins are also being used for thinning of flowers,
increasing fruitset and fruit size in grape. Exogenous appli-
cation of gibberllins were shown to induce flowering in plant
species where there is requirement of specific photcperiod.
Cytokinins were known to influence differentiation of

the organs. This formative effect was made use in tissue
culture for micro propagation of horticulture crops. Exo-
genous application of cytokinin was tried to induce germina-
tion of dormant seeds, buds and tubers.
Exogenous application of mixture of auxin, gibberllins,

cytokini~were shown to be very much effective in fruit set-
ting (Chandran, 1978; Chacko and Singh, 1969).
Abscisic acid was tried as an effective anti-tcranspirant

and also to induce flowering. Cost of the chemical and
~onstability for radiation reduced its practical utility.
Ethylene is being used extensively for inducing ripen-

ing. Ethylene is also being used to increase latex flow in
rubber plantations.
143
Recent ly t".]'o other groups of growth regulat ors

claimed as endogenous hormones were identified in higher
plants. These chemicals are named as triacontanol and
Brassinolides. Ries et al.(1978), extensively studied the
influence of triacontanol on growth and productivity on
number of plant species. And also they studied its influ-
ence on physiological and 'biochemical processes like photo-
synthesis, ion uptake, dark respiration, photo-respiration
CRies, 1983). Scientists from Beltsville laboratory identi-
fied another group of chemical in plants and named it as
Brassinolides. The compound was isolated and their chemical
and uhysical characteristics were identified and their effect
was tested on many plants (Mandava, 1981).
Triacontanol is synthesized in plant ~nd is a compo-

nent of most biological substances. It has been snO'Nn to
be effective in micromolar and manomolar concentrations.
Most of the endogenous triacontanol was shown to be bound
in the cuticle. Measurable quantity ~as also observed in
parenchyma tissue. Exogenous application of triacontanol
was shown to regulate several physiological and biochemical
processes directly or indirectly. Although the exact
formative effect of triacontanol is not yet understood, a
number of studies indicate that it is effective in increa-
Sing photosynthetic rate and decreasing photorespiration in
many crop plants. This character is made use of with an
objective to increase crop production either by increasing
144
photosynthetic rate or by reducing the carbon loss due to

photorespiration. A number of workers have shown that '
exogenous application of triacontanol increases dry matter
accumulation and yield in many plant species'Bhall~ 1981;
Bittenbender' et al.,1978; Bouwkamp et al., 1980; Erikson
~~ al., 1982; Skogen et al., 1982~.
~t1ith this background information a number of laboratory

and field ex~eriment9 were conducted to study the influence
of foliar application of triacontanol on photosynthetic rate,
crop growth and productivity in a few field crops. The
main objectives of the study were ----_
1• To assess the influence of triacontanol .on carbon
2.
fixation rate and dark respirat ion.
-.
To study the effect of triacontan 01 on growth and
)
productivity at different environmental conditions.
3~ To study the influence of triacontanol on crop .1
growth and productivity under high levels of ferti-

lizers. ..1
4. To study the influence of repeated application of

triacontanol on crop growth and productivity. '
· ! 145
I
I
Applic~tion of triacontanol haS been sho\ffi to

enhance photosynthesis and mobilization of photosynthates
in rice (Debata and Hurty, 1981). tfaugsted et al.(1983)
postUlate that triacontanol affects some urocesses \.[hich
is involvt:?d in regulat ing the bal:l.Uce betweRn 9~otosynthesis
and photorespiration.
These results suggested that foliar application of

triacontanol might be effective in increasing photosynthetic
r'1te in crop plants and thus crop growth and yield.
this background information a number of experlnents were
conducted in which triacontanol I,HS applied to young seed-
lings in pot culture experiments and its influence on photo-
synthetic rate was assessed. , '
i
'I
In C
4 plants sorghum,
applic~tion of triacontanol as a
foliar apray increased photosynthetic rate only in bottom
canopy 18aves at 24 and 48 hoars after the :3-;}ray. However,
the dat::l collected on stomatal conductance di::! not .3hO'.... any
marked difference due to application of different concentra-
tions of triacontanol. In another C plqnt Ragi, a signi-
4
ficant increase in stomatal conductance \.o/8.S observeL1 both
at the end of 24 and 48 hours after the 'lp9lication of
triacontanol. Photosynthetic rate also showed a signi-
ficant increase at a concentration of 2 ppm triacontanol.
146
In redgram, triacontanql was not effective in increaSing

photosynthetic rate at 24 hours after application. However,
a significant increase in photosynthetic rate was observed
in pl~nts sprayed with 2 and 5 ppm triacontanol at the end
of 48 hours.
(,
\ In another oil seed crop sunflower, foli8.r applicatio'1

of triacontanol increased the stoGl3.tal conduct3.nce \vithin 24
hours of application of the chemical. A significant increase
in photosynthetic rate was observed in bottom and top canopy
leaves whe~ triacontanol at 10 ppm was used. \·..]hen 8 tomatal
conductance and photosynthetic rate was measured at 48 hours
after application, a significant increase was observed.
'However, triacontanol aDplication ~tJas not effective in alter-
"
ing sto~atal conductance or photosynthetic rate in cowpea.
/.
In another set of experinents, the influence of foliar
application of different concentrations of triacontanol on
photosynthetio rate was measured upto 120 hours or 144 hours
after application. In this set of experinents also tria-
contanol was effective in increasing photosynthetic rate upto
144 hours after spray. Application of 2 ppm triacontanol
was found effeotive in increasing the photosynthetio rate
significantly in groundnut seedlings. Two ppm triacontanol
increased the photosynthetic rate to an extent of 79, 21,
12 uer cent over untreated plants at the end of 48, 96, 144
hours after application.
147
, In Redgram a significant increase in photosynthetic

rate was observed at a concentration of 10 ppm when obser-
vation was recorded at the end of 144 hours. In sunflo\.Je r
also, a significant increase in photosynthetic rate was
observed unto 96 hours after application of triacontanol.
\
qowever, similar experimentscondl1.cted in cowpea showed that

triacontanol was not effective in increasing the photo-
synthetic rate.
Bxperiments were conducted to study the influence of

foliar anplication of tri3contanol on photosynthetic rate in
several crop species suggested that triacontanol increases
photosynthetic rate in C crops like Ragi and sorghum and also
4
in C crops like sunflower, groundnut and redgram. qowever,
3
the growth regulator was not effective in increa3ing photo-
sY:1.thet io rate in cowpea. A marked increase in stomatal
conductance for carbondioxide was also observed in crODS which
resnonded to triacontanol. This suggested that photosynthetic
rate iacreases mainly due to reduction in stolTIat:3.l resistance
for carbondioxide. Photosynthetic rate depends upon stomatal
and mesophyll conductances for carbondioxide. In these spe-
cies which responded to triacontanol, a parallel increase
in sto!Tlatal conductance as well as photosynthetic rate sugges-
ted that increase in photosynthetic rate is due to higher
carbondioxide flux through the stomata.
148
A number of 'tlorkers had reported that triacontanol

treatment increases dry matter '1ainly by reducing the Dhoto-
respiration (~{augstad ~ al.,1983; Rao, 1985). C1o'.,leve r , in

this study the influence of triacontanol on stom~tal condu-
ctance Has shO\m in croos like sWlflo':ler and redgram.
I I
Eriksen et al.(1981) '",hile 8tudyinE the effect of

triacont::mol on to r:18.to and :::.aize suggested that triacont-:mol
increases photosynt~etic rate only in 03 plant to~ato.
But triacont3.nol Has shown to be not effective in ~1ai/';e
(C plant) because of absence of photorespiration in C crops.

4 4
In addition to the effect of triacontanol on ;_Jhoto-

respiration, this chemical was also sho\ffi to increase the
rate of yhoto }')ho2')horylqtion (S:len et al.,19·92), ?3?

carboxyl9.se C1:out~, 1920) and chlorophyll and carotenoid
content in the leaf (Debata et al.,1981; ~ies ~t al.,1931;
Devlin et al:,1984). These reports tef'1pt to conclude that

incre3.se in 'Jigments as \{ell as hi[her c':lrboxyl8.tion enzyme
activity increases the ~e80phyll conduct3.nce for carbon
dioxide \'lhich in turn r:lay influence the stor.latal conductance

for carbon dioxide and thus photosynthetic efficiency.
"8xperiment S c onducted with a fe 1t1 cro;_Js like ground nut ,

sunflower, redgram and c0 1t/pea shmved that triacont~:mol
foliar spray did not significantly alter dark respiration.

149
These observations suggested thst triacontanol was effective

in increasing growth and productivity by increasing the
photosynthetic rate rather than by decreasing the dark res-
p irat ion.
Influence of triacontanol on ion uptake was shmm by

a number of workers. Subbaiah et al.(1980) found that spray-
ing of triacontanol recorded t~e hig;::.est nu.trient uptake value
(N, P and K) in the fruits of tomato. In tests with sorghum,
triacontanol increased 32p and 86 Rb uptake within 2 hours of
treatment (Ramani and Kannan, 19S0). Increased P uptake was
also measured in rice seedlings after triacontanol treatments
(Houtz, 1980; Ho and Hou, 1982).
Studies conducted 'Ylith rine seedlings to see the influ-

ence of triacontanol on calcium uptake by immersing roots in
triacontanol with 45 Ca suggest that trjacontanol was effe-
ctive in increasing calcium uptake by rice s~edlings. A sig-
nificant increa:::e in calcium uptake waS observed ",hen the con-
centration of triacontanol was either 40 or 100 ppm. An
increased r~dio-activity was observed in leaves as well as
in stem. Total amount of calcium moved into leaves and stem
as well as the amount of activity ner unit weight of organ
was more when rooting mediahavmg40 and 100 npm triacontanol.
150
. \
Increased nutrient uptake in response to triacontanol

can be explained in two ways. Triacontanol treatmentB were
shown to increase the photosyhthetic rate. This in turn
may help in higher rate of sugar tr~nslocation to root resul-
ting in higher root groHth which in turn may increase ion
uptake. The other possibility is, since ion uptake is an
active process, higher translocation of sugar to the roots
may indu~e the production of high AT? in roots, which may
influence active ion uptake. In this set of experiment in
rice, triacontanol in the rooting medium increased the 45 Ca
uptake. Increased radioactivity in tr~ated plants may be
due to increased photosynthetic rate in the shoot, resulting
in higher sugar translocation and high root activity,
Triacontanol application was also shown to increase

I
number of physiological Drocesses in short term experiments,
In many :3uch experiments the influence of exogenous appli-
cation of triacontanol on some of the physiological processes
\-Jere studied for a short period and in ffi8.ny 8uch attempts a
positive significant influence of triacontanol was shown.
The effect of triacontanol on the level of reducing sugar,
amino aCids, soluble protein and total nitrogen is very
rapid and occurs both in vitro and in vivo with rice and
maize seedlings (Houtz, 1980; Knowles et al., 1981).
151
, I
i
In an invitro Dell free system, starch phosphorylase

and phosphoenol pyruvate (PEP) Carboxylase activities in
the supernatant from maize leaves were increased upto 40
per cent over control, within 20 minutes after leaf treat-
. ment with triacontanol (Houtz, 1980; Houtz and lUes, 1982).
Both dark and light grown lettuce leaf tissue treated with
triacontanol exhibited greater polYphenol oxidase activity
than untreated tissue (Henry et a1., 1979).
A n~~ber of papers, however sQggested th~t triacon-

tanol increases yield in maize (Ohlrogge, 1980), to~ato
(Eriksen et a1.,1982) and also in other crops. Applica-

tion of mixture of triaDontanol and metallic salts was
shown to increase the dry weight yield by 72 per cent corn-
pared to only 20 per cent increase in yield only with
triacontanol alone CWelebir, 1981). Lim(1982) reported
that triacontanol formulation containing calcium chloride
increased the yield of rice, cucumoer, tomato and radish.
Seed treatment with triacor4tanol was found to be

effective in increasing growth of seedling and occasionally
increase the yield of tomato (Ries, 1978). The most
extensive use of triacontanol on vegetable and agronomic
crop has been seen in the Peoples Republic of China.
A significant increase (6 to 18'0 in yield was observed
in number of crops (Chen and Xu-feng, 1982). Application
152
of triacontanol by aerial spray in a large replicated

trial at a concentration of 0.1 to 2.0 ug.litre- 1 showed
significant yield increase in wheat, soyabean and rice.
In one test triacontanol application by aerial spray for an
area of 1700 hectare resulted in 13.3 per cent increase in
yield of wheat.
In this study in the first field experiment, the

influence of foliar application of rlifferent concentrations
of triacontanol and mixture of growth regulators NAA + GA + BA
(qormonal) was studied in groundnut. Crops were raised at
three dates of sowing, (luring Hay, early June and late June
of kharif 1985. ?reponing the date of sowing in kharif
resulted in high leaf area development ~d also increased dry
matter production during early stages of crop growth. Analysis
of meteorological data recorded during that neriod suggests
that \1ay sown crop received relat ively higher mean temperature,
low humid i ty, longer stmshine d ur9.t ion, more growth degree
days and also high heliothermal un:i,ts particularly during
very early stages of crop growth which resulted in higher
photosynthetic surface area resulting in higher biomass.
The yield levels were relatively more in May sown crop,

although the differences were not significant. Higher
level of fertilizer was effective only in increasing the leaf
area and dry matter at early stages of crop growth in May
sowing.
153
Foliar application of triacontanol and mixture of

growth regulators on 25th and 50th day after sowing \'lere
effective in increasing LAI only in Hay sO\m cro,? during
60th and 90th day after sowing when the environmental
conditions were congenial for crop growth and development.
Application of growth regulator was effective in increasing
total dry matter 9roduced by the plants, when applied at
50th day after sowing in May, early June and late June sowing.
However, these growth regulators were not effective in
,
increasing growth parameters like NAR, RGR, AGD.. and CGR.
However, triacontanol and Hormonal \.,rere effective in increa-
sing ~GR betwee~ 30 and 60th day, 60 and gOth day particularly
in late JlU1e smm crop.
The analysis of yield parameters like number of

flo\.Jers produced per plant, number of n+1 branches, number
of mature pods per plant, pod yield per plant, shelling
per cent and hundred seed weight did not vary (1Ue to sowing
dates, fertilizer levels or due to application of different
concentrations of triacontanol or Hormonal. However,
application of double the recommended fertilizer level was
effective in increasing pod yield significantly in May
sowing.
In sowings taken up during early June and late June,

a slight increase in pod yield was observed due to higher
154
doses of fertilizers. However, differences between the

treatments were not significant.
Triacontanol application at concentration of 0.1 ppm,

: 2 ppm and 10 P"9m and higher (~TAA:GA:BA at 2:20.0.2 ppm)
I
. and lower (TJAA:GA:BA at 1 :10:0.1 ppm) concentrations of
growth regulators mixture (Hormonal) applied at 25th and
50th day as foliar spray were not effective in increasing
the yield Significantly.
In another field experiment the influence of three

concentrations of triacontanol namely 1, 2 and 5 ppm applied
on 20th or 40th day after sowing or applied both on 20th
and 40th day after sowing on yield parameters were assessed
in cowpea. The results of this experiment also sugrests
that triacontanol is not effective either increasing pod
weight, seed weight or specific seed weight.
The influence of triacontanol on yield Darameters and

productivity was tested in another field exneriment on
redgram. Three concentrations of triacontanol namely 1, 2
and 5 ppm were sprayed on·30th or 50th day after planting.
In another set of treatments 1,2 and 5 ppm triacontanol
was applied to foliage both at 30th and 50th day after sowing.
Observation on yield parameters like number of pod:3 per plant,
nU.rnber of seBds per plant, pod and seed weight per plant
155
were collected. No s i@'l ificant i:nprovement 'lias observed

in the above parameters due to application of triacontanol.
Th.e results of these three field experiments con-
ducted on ground nut , cowpea and redgram suggests that
• apulicqtion of triacont:::lnol once or t'llice durinF crop growth

period itlaS not effective in increasing the productivity.
A number of field experiments conducted elsewhere

using triacontanol as a foli~r spray al~3o did not result in
increasing productivity. A number of experiments conducted
at the TJnited States shoVled although triacont'3.nol increased
plant gro~th in the laboratory and green house, results in

t he field ,.,ere not encouraging (Ries et al., 1983). Bole
and Dubetz (1978) obt8.ined no positive effect of triacontanol
on yield of l...Jheat. Field experiments conducted by Bosland

et ale (1979) found no increase in yield of muskmelons.
Similar results were reported for sweet potatoes (Bouwkamp
et al., 19(0). Even though use of colloidal dislJersion

has resulted in more consi3tent results in the laboratory
and green house, field applications have not resulted in a

consistent response \..Jith all species or under all environ-
mental conditions (Mckeown, 1983).
In a review article, Hies and Houtz (1983) suggested

that there have been failures than successes in attempts
156
to increase the yield of crops by exogenous application

of triacont·31101 under field conditions. Out of 46 fie ld
exueri;uents conducted in several Darts of the '.-lorld nl)
, " '
significqnt increase in crop yield was obs~rved except in
one eXDeri:nent conducted in Japan, where the yiel(1 of rice
was shown to be increased by 17 to 21 per cent by soil
applic8.tion of 0.057 to 4.0 g triacontanol per hectare.
Ries and !Joutz (1983) suggested the careful selection

of sprayers, water for -preparation of soLttion and rnetallic
and -plastic delivery tube in sprayers. They alao sug[ested
that presence of many long chai~ alcohol inhibits triacon-
t ~n 0 1 ::3.C t i v it Y• A number of spreading agents such as emul-
sifiers and oils, residues from b~arings and pumps or phthalate
esters fro~ plastiC tubing inhibits activity. They opined
that inconsistence is caused in many cases due to pre3ence
of inhibitory substance present in sDray or w~ter supply
system or sometimes water itself.
Application of plant growth regulators in increaSing

productivity of agriculture plants have been met with more
failure than success. A number of chemicals and their
combinations were used as foliar spray to increase t~e
productivity in agricultural crops. In so~e crops like

cotton, chillies which show~ high abscision of flowers,
auxins were used to reduce flower ab'cision. These treatments
157
were met '.-1i th li ttle success in various countries.

, In many other crap plants, although phmt gro 1:Jth regulators
were shmffi to increase product ivi ty, the sequence of changes
in plants which leads to increase )roductivity was not
assessed.
The ~ajor reasons for limited successe3 of plant

grmv'th regulators under field conditions are -
a) The ex~ct concentration necessary to induce the

desired effect is not worked out for crop species and
varieties. ,
b) The concentration of growth regulators entering to
the site of action to induce formative effects is
/
also not known.
c)
-- ~--~--~
I
The knowledge on the fate of applied chemic'3.1 and
its metabolism and d8gradation in different ul'3.nt
SDec ies is also absc~1re.
Growth regulators like IAA, GA, B~, ABA, ethylene

and triacontanol and TIBA were found effective in stimu-
lating some of the plant processes in short term experiments.
The influence of auxin and gibberllic acid on cell division,
cell elongation has been shown in short term exneriments
158
and !nechanism of action of .'1lLxin in inducing ch<.mges are

also well documented. The information is also available
on the cytokinins effects in delaying senescence. The
influence of abscisic acid in stomatal nechanis~, sene-
scence and abscission processes, imposing dormancy in seed
is also well documented.
In this study the short term experLnents conducted

in ,,,hich triacontanol was applied to plants as foliar 3pray
ind icated that a significant increase in pi10tosynthet ic rate
1tlas observed in ragi, sunflm.,rer, redgram and groundnut crops.
This suggested that triacontanol was effective in increa-
sing barbon assimilation rate upto 5 to 6 days after appli-
cation. Since triacontanol is effective in increasing
photosynthetic rate only for a short period, a repeated
application of this chemical might be effective in increasing
carbon assimilation rate of the leaves and canopy uhoto-
synthesis and thus the productivity. Observation on sto-
matal conductance also shm.Jed th.at incre9.se in photosynthetic
rate vIas due to incre8.se in stomatal conductance. The
influence of stomatal conductance on photosynthetic rate
has been shmvn in many crops. A positive significant
relationship between stomatal conductance and photosynthetic
rate was shown by many scientists (Yoshida, 1972; 1976;
Jones 1973; Farquhar ~ al.,1982). A close correlation
159
between photosynthetic rate and leaf conJuctance

observed in rice by Yoshida and Cornell,(1976).
In redgram under fiel) condition the influence of

reueated application of triacontanol at an interval of 30
days was 3tudied by 3praying 1, 2 and 3 ppm of triacontanol
at different stages of crop gro\-Jth. Foliar ap91ication
of 2 or 3 ppm triacontanol on 30, 60, go and 120th day
after so'ving resulted in a sienificant increase in pod number
pe r pl8.nt. Application of 2 ppm and 3 ppm triacontanol
4 times during the crop gro'JJth period increased the weight
of filled pods by 49 and 44 per cent respectively. The
increase in yield is mainly due to increase in pod number
and seed numher. However, no difference was observed in
I
specific seed weight. These results suggests that tria-
contanol was effective in increasing productivity in redgram,
if the crop is sprayed at least 4 tLnes with 1 or 2 ppm
triacontanol. Application of 1 or 2 ppm once or twice
during crop grm'Jth yeriod had no effect in increasing the
product i vi ty.
The results of these set of experiments suggest that
1 ) Triacontanol increased the carbon exchange rate by

increasing stomatal conductance upto 4 to 5 days after
spraying of the chemical.
160
2 ) Triacontanol was not effective in increasing grO\",th

and productivity if the chemical was applied as
foliar spray only once or twice during the crop
growth yeriod in groundnut cO'tipea and redgr9.m..
3 ) In radgram application of triacontanol 8.t a concen-

tration of 2 or 3 ppm on 30, 60, 90, 120 days
increased the productivity by 18 and 14 per cent
respectively.
SUMMARY
VI. StNHARY
I
1.
Experi~ents were conducted to study the influence

o f t r iacontanol on physiological processes and product ivity
in a few crop plants. A number of pot culture experiments
were oonducted to study the influence of triacontanol on
stomatal conductance, photosynthetic rate, dar;( respiration
rate and ion uytake.
Field experiments were also conducted to study the

effect of foliar application of triacontanol on growth and
productivity of ground nut , redgram and cowpea.
"Pot culture eXDeriments

I :\
?hot osynthesis and conductance

}
,J .,'!
Pot culture experiments were conducted to study the

e ffeet of different conoentrat ions 0 f triaoontanol on s to-
mat3.1 conductance and photosynthetic rate. Seed lings of
sorghum, ragi, sunflower, COllipea and redgr3ll \,I"ere raised in
battery pots. Triacontanol spray was given to 30 day old
seedlings. Twenty four hours after spraying and at 24 hrs
int erval thereafter, observat ions were recorded on stomatal
conductance and photosynthet io rate using portab Ie photo-
synthesiS meter.
'.
162
In C plant sorghum, application of triacontanol

4
as a foliar spray increased photosynthetic rate only in \
bottom canopy leaves at 24 and 48 hrs after spray. Ho\Jever,
the data collected on stomatal conductance did not show any
I'
marked difference due to application of different concentra-

t ions of triacontanol.
In another C plant ragi, a significant increase in

4
stomatal conductance was observed both at the end of 24 and
48 hours qfter application of triacontanl. Photosynthet ic
a
rate also showed significant increase at/concentration
of 2 ppm triacontanol.
In redgram, triacontanol was not effective in increasing

photosynthetic rate at 24 hrs after 3Qplication. H01"Jever,
a significant increase in photosynthetic rate \Vas observed in
plants sprayed with 2 and 5 ppm triacontanol ?t the end of
48 hours.
In another oil seed crop sunflowe r foliar applicat ion of

triacontanol increased the stomatal conductance within 24 hrs
of application of chemical. A significant increase in photo-
synthetic rate was observed in bottom and top canopy leaves
when 10 ppm triacontanol was applied.
- /
Triacontanol application was not effective in increasing
stomatal conductance or photosynthetic rate in cowpea seedlings.
163
In another set of experiments the influence of foliar

application of different concentrations of tri~contanol dn
photosynthetic rate \."as measured upto 120 to 144 hrs after
application. In this set of experiments also triacontanol
~as effective, increasing ~hotosynthetic rate uuto 144 hrs
3ft8r spr'3.y. Applic~tion of 2 ppm triacontanol ~as found
effective in increasi~g the photosynthetic rate significantly
in groundnut seedlings. Two ppm triacontanol increased
phot osynthet ic rate to an ext ent of 79;~, 21 ;~, 12·~ over lill-
treated plants at the end of 48, 96 and 144 hrs 3fter appli-
cation.
In redgram a signifiant increase in photosynthetic

r'lte was observed at a concentration of 10 pp:n at the end
of 144 hr after applieation of triacontanol. In sunflower
also a significant increase in photosynthetic rate was
observed upto 96 hrs aftAr application of triacontanol.
Bowever, '3imilar exp~rirnent conllucted in COH~)ea 3hoW2l1 th:lt
triacontanol was not effective in incl'easing the photo-
synthetio rate.
In pot culture experiments the effect of foliar appli-

cation of triaoontanol to crop plants on dark respiration was
studied. Respiration rate was determined in 15 day old
seedlings 24 and 48 hrs after application of the chemicals.
164
In the first set of experiments a marginal increase

in dark respiration rate was observed due to triacont3nol
application in seedlings of cO'Npea and sunflovler. :1Q1..Jever,
the differences between triacontanol treated and untreated
"Olants Here not significant.
\ In the ~l econd set of experiment:., no signi ficant. ch3.nge
in dark respiration rate was observed due to different con-

centrations of triacontanol spra.y in cowpea, gro 11l1dnut, 8un-
flOl.ver and redgram seed lings.
Calc iUln uut ake
~ffect of triacontanol in the nutrient solution on

uutake of ra 'l io active calcium (45 0a ) 'tJas studied in rice
seed lings. A sig;nific!ant increase iYl. calciuIn 119take was
observed when concentrat ions of triacontanol i.<!"!.S either 40

or 100 Dum. Total amount of calcium moved into leaves and
stem as well as the amount of actiYity per unit ,,,eight of
organ was 'nore when rooting media had ,40 and '100 ppm tria-
C ontanol.
Grolmdnut
In a field experiment the influence of environmental

conditions and soil nutrient status on the effectiveness
of foliar aunlication of triacontanol was tested.
~ <
Groundnut
crop was raised at two levels of fertilizer and 3 dates

of sowing during kharif season.
165
'J>
Seedling growth during early stages of era:; grm"rth

was more in ~1ay sO\m crop. Environmental factors like
mean temgerature, growth degree days, lJeliothermal lL.'1.i t s,
solar radi9.tion during the crop growth '/Jere high in :·1ay sovm
crOD comuared to early and late June sown cro:_)s.
The yield levels Here relatively '":lore in }1ay sown

cro':) although the differences were not significant. Higher
level of fertilizer was effective only in increasing the
leaf area and dry matter at early stag~s of crop growth in
May s 0\,[ ing • Different concentrations of triacontanol and
Hormonal were effective in increasing LAI only in :1ay SQ1,Yrl
croo on 60th and gOth day after sowing. Application of

Hormonal and triacontanol was effective in ·increasing total
dry :natter when applied at 50th day after sowing in i1ay,
early June and late .Jcme sown CrO~)3. However, these growth
regulators were not effective in increasing growth para-
meters like NAR, RGR, AGR and CGR. In 19.te ,June sowing
however triacontanol and :tormol1al \'lere ;~ffective in increa-
sing CGR between 30 and 60 day, 60 and go day.
The analysis of yield parameters like number of .

flowers produced per plant, number of n+1 branches, number
of mature pods per pla~t, pod yield per plant, shelling
per cent and hundred seed weight did not vary due to sovling
dates, fertilizer levels or due to application of different
166
concentrations of triacontanol or Hormonal. However, pod

yield significantly increased in May sowing, at double the
recommended fertilizer level.
In another field experiment conducted during TC'1arif 1984

on c o\"pea, the influence of different concentrations of
triacontanol on yield parameterswere assessed. The results
of this experiment showed that triacontanol at all concentra-
tions tried irrespective of time of anplication, was not
effectiiJe in increasing pod weight, seed weight or specific
seed Height.
Redgram I
The influence of triacontanol on yield parameters and
productivity was tested in another field experriment on redgram
during kharif 198A. Three concentrationsof triacontanol
1, 2 and 5 ppm were S9rayed on 30th or 50th day aft er "91qnt ing.
In another set of treatments 1, 2 and 5 ppm triacontanol were

applied to foliage both at 30th and 50th day after sowing.
Observations on yield parameter like number of nod per plant,
number of seeds per plant, pod and seed Height per pl::mt did
not vary amongst the treatments due to application of tria-
contanol. Tri"acontanol was not effective in increasing
specific seed weight also.
167
Since triacontanol application twice at two stages

of groltlth was not effective in increasing productivity, in
\
\
another field experiment during kharif 1986, the influence
of repeated application of triacontanol was studied.
Triacontanol at 1, 2 and 3 ppm ';laS sprayed at an interval
of 30 days. Foliar application of 2 or 3 ppm triacontanol
on 30, 60, 90 and 120th day after sO'Hing resulted in a
significan t increas~ in pod number pe r pL=m t. Application
of 2 ppm and 3 ppm triacontanol 4 times during the crop
growth geriod increased the weight of filled pods.
no difference was observed in specific seed weight.
These results suggests that a repeated foliar appli-

cation of triacontanol at least four times during the crop
growth period is essential to get a significant effect on
yield.
REFERENCES
VII. REFERENCES
Baijal, B.n., Kumar, P., Alka, Siddiqui, H.A., 1983,

Int~raction of growth regulators and photoperiods
on growth, flowering, stolon develop~ent, tuber

initiation and yield in potato (Solanum t1lbe:r:_osum L.)
lndian ~.21.Phy8iol., ~(1): 01-67.
Bhalla, ~.R.., 1981, Triacontanol as plant biostimulant.

3.
Tn froc. ~th Annu. "?lant gro\Vth Regula tor Soc.

Arne r ic8..
Bittenbender, B.C., Dilley, D.~., Wert, R., Ries, S.X.,

1978, Environmental parameters affecting dark
reGuonse of rice seedlings (Oryza ~ativ~ L.)
to triacontanol. Plant 2hysiol., 61: 851-854.
=
I
318.cblan, V.>1., 1919, The compound i~terest law and plant
erowt~ . An~. Bot., 33: 353-360.
-- -_ -
--.~-- ~~ _---
Bole, J.B., Dubetz, S., 1978, Effects of various oils

supplements and water stress on the yield and
yield components of wheat. Can.~.Soil Sci., S8:
321-323.
Boslanri, .J .t<.1., flughes, D. L., Yamaguchi, H., 1979, "Effect

of glyphosine and Triacontanol on growth, yield
and soluble solids content of '?MR-45' Muskmelons.
-
Hort Science, 14(6): 729-730.
--
Bouwkamp, .J .G., McArdle, R.N., 1980, Effect of Triacontanol
on sweet potatoes. Hort Science, 15(1): 69.
-=-
169
,
1 /
\ '
Chacko, E.K., Singh~ R.l'Ir., 1969, Induction of ?nrthenocarpy

in mango ~ing growth regul~tors. B~!~ Sci. ~:
121-123.
Chandran, K.~., 1976, Exogenous application of growth 4

regulators on fruit growth and the translocat ion
of 14C metabolites i:1. (Okra AbelrrlOsch'J.s
esculentus (L.) Honch) H.Sc Thesis submitted
to UAS, B~ngalore.
Chen, ,J.;(., X:TJ-feng~ Y., 1982, 3tudies of the effect of

triacontanol on increasi~g yield of Chinese milk
vetch (~gulu8 Sinicus) Agr.Science of Thejiang
?rovince, ?PC l: ~7-50.
Gharlton, J.1., Hunter, N.R., Green, n.A., Fritz, l:J.,

Addison, 13.'1., Hoodbury, l'J., 1980, The effect of
triacontavol and triacontanol derivatives on ger-
mi~ation 9-nd seedling grmvth of Leeds ourum \vheat.
-- - ----- -- -.----........_
C~n. J. ?lant Sci., 60: 795-797.
Chen, J-X., Ye, X-F., Wang, W-G., Zheng, 3-R., 1982,

~-~--
I
Effect of highly purified l-triacontanol in
controllirlg t~e abscis::3ion of cotton bolls and its
physiologial basis. Acta Agronomica Sinica.,
§(1): 33-,9. ~.
Cheng, J-X., Ye, X-F., Wan, W-G., Yao, D-H., Zhu,X-J.,

Ye, H-H., 1982, Effect of triacontanol on the
physiologieal function for yield increase of
Astragalu~ sinicus. Plant ?hysiol., Comm. 1: 45-47.
170
Chibnall, A.C., ~:lillia~ns, E.F., Latner, A.l., ?ioer, S.H.,

1933, The isolation of n-Triacontanol frofil TJucerne
wax. Biochern. i., 11: 1895-1888.
Chinoy, J.t]., 1974, Role of correlations in breeding "md

selection of crop pl3.nt. In "Breeding rese'lr<~h
in "Ai3ia and Oce8.nia", 1J25-1~3).
Crizaldo, ~.~., Amatorio, M.Q., Lansigan, A.A., 1979,

Effect of Triacontanol on seedlings of ~folucoan .
S3.n (Albizia falcataria (1.) 3ack). Sylvatroo.
1:(4): 261-267.
David, S.B., Banade, S., 1982, ~esnonses of Triacontanol

in Bioassay systems. Indian ~.~l.?hysiol.,
-
2 5 (4 ): 348- 351 •
Debata, A., ~urty, K.S., 1381, 3ffect of growth regulators

on 9hotosynthetic efficiency, translocation and
senescence in rice. India~ ~.~~ 3iol., 22:
986-987.
..~J
Devli:1, R.?1., Karczmarczyk, S.J., '3biee, 1.I., 1934, Effect
of triacontanol on hiomass synthesis and oigment
content in corn and bean. In. Proc. 11th Annu.
Plant growth regulator Soci America.
Eriksen, A.B., ijaugstad, M.K., Nilsen, S., 1981, Comnarative

analysis of tae effect of triacontanol on photo-
synthesis, photorespiration and growth of tomato
(C, plant) and maize (C plant). Planta, 152:
4
44-49.
171
"Sriksen, A.B., Haugstad, H.K., ~Tilsen, 3., 1982, Yield of

tor:mto and mai~e in res~)onse to foliar and root
applications of triacontanol. Pl'3.nt grm.;th
r~eulators, l: 11-14.
Farquhar, G.D., Sharkey, T.!)., 1982, stomatal conductance

and photosynthesis. Ann. :ev. ?lqnt ?hJsiol.
33: 317-345.
...,
Ge, X-H., '3hang, ,-.'1.. , 1984, ~ffects of triacontanol on
~,.
'the seedlings of Poncirus "4rifoliate in ,.,rater

culture. "?l:mt Physiol., Comm., ~: 26-27.
Gregory, F.G., 1926, The effect of cli~atic con~ition3

on the gro'_Jth of harley. Ann. "Sot., ±2: 1-26.
Hang~t~r, R., Ries, K.3., 1978, Effect of triacontanol

on ,lard cell culture in vitro. ?lant 2~3iol~
61 : 855-857.
HartWig, ~.C.,
'l
,
Larson, ~.~., 1990, Hormone root soak can
increase initial growth of planted hardwood stock,
Tree ?lanters' -
Notes 31(1): 29-33.
- - -=
Haugstad, H., Ulsaker, L.K., Ruppel, A., ~:;ilsen, S., 1983,

The effect of triacontanol on growth, photosynthesis
and photorespiration in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii
and Anacystis nidulans. Physiol. ?lant., 58:
451-456.
1{enry, '8."1., Primo, D.J., 1979, The effect of triacontanol

on seedling growth and polyphenol oxidase activity
in dark and light grown lettuce. J.?lant ~Jut.,
l(4): 397-=-4~5 • .
172
Henry, E.l,'T., Gordon, C.J., 1980, The effect of triacontanol

on Peroxidase, IAA and Plant growth in Pisu'1l
sat ivum var. 'Alaska' and 'Li tt le ihrvel'.
~ot. ,__
31: 1297-1303.
Hoagland, R.~., 1980, Effect of triacontanol on seed germi-

nation and early grO\.Jth. Bot. G3Z. 141 (1): 53-55.
Houtz, R.L., 1980, Development and characterization of 3n

in vitro system res~onsive to triacontanol.
HS Thesis, !1ichigan State Univ., Lansing.
Houtz, R.L., Ries, S.K., 1982, Effect of triacont'1nol on

starch phosphorylase and ?E? carboxylase activities.
~1st Intern. Hort. Co~gr. Vol. II 2087 (Abstr.)
Houtz, R.L., Ries, S.K., 1983, Triacontanol levels in
-
ascending sugar ~aple sap. Hort dcience, 18(1):
101-102.
Hu, A., Lin, B., Ren, D., Chen, J., 1985, Abscission of
citrus fruit. I. The effects of triacontanol on
cellulase and pectinase activities in the abscission
of young fruit explants of Bendizao ~andarin.
Acta 110rticulturge Sinica., 12(2): r(7-32. il
Jones, H.G., 1973, Limiting factors in photosynthesis.

?Tew ?hytol., 11: 1089-1094.
Jones, J., Wert, V., Ries, S.K., 1Y79, Specificity of

1-triacontanol as a plant growth stimulator and
inhibition of its effect by other long-chain .
compounds. Plant~. 144. 277-282.
173
t
,I
~Jourdan, S.U., Oplinger, E.S., 1983, '~valuation of tria-

contanol as a potential soybean gro'...,th regulant.
Plant groivth Regulator Bul1etin., 11(4): 6-8.
Kanda, \~
- ... , 1975, In Crop productivity ::md solar energy
utili7.ation in various climates of Japan.
Ed. ~turata Y. (Univ. of Tokyo ?ress, ':!:okyo), 187-198.
Varnov, S.A., Belozerova, O.L., 1985, Sffect of growth

regulators on photosynthesis and 14C-photosynthatE
out flovl from leaves during reprod LlCt i ve grm.Jth
in soyabeans. Fiziologi~ Rastenii, ~(3): 539-544.
Knowles, :T .R., lUes, S.K., 1981, Rapid growth and apparent

total nitrogen increase in rice and corn plants
following applications of triacontanol.
Planl ~hysiol., ~: 1279-1284.
I
!
Laughlin, R.G., Hunyon, R.L., Ries, S.K., 'flert, V.F., 1983,
Growth enhancement of plants by femtomole doses of
colloidally dispersed triacontanol.· C<JC lence,
•
-
219: 1219-1221.
Lesniak, A.?, Rie2, 3.K., 1983, Changes in enzyme activity

of corn seedlines after foliar application of
triacontanol. J.Plant growth ~ulation, ~(2):
121-128.
Lim, U.K., 1982, Studies on the effects of triacontanol on

the growth and yield of crons. Korean J.
Ecology, ~: 1-9.
174
~/famat, A.3.B., Fontenot, J .F., :rewsO'Il, D.':I., 1983, The

effect of Triacontanol on the groVlth and development
of Tobacco pepper. Hort Science, 18(2): 247-249.
,.
~1andava, "T B
:': • J""
., .:Jas s e , J ..'1".
, Yopp, J . H. t 1981, ~rassinolide
a growth promoting steroid31 lactone. I. Activity
in selected gibberllin and cytokinin bioassay.
?hvsiol. ?lant., 53: 453-461.
==-
Marcelle, ~.~.,Chrominaki, A., 1973, Growth regulating

activity of triacontanol. In Prec. 5th Annu Zlant
Grovlth regulator working grouD.
~-1ckeo'..Jn, A.l:!., 1983, Increasing the effectiveness of 1-tria-

contanol applied to plants. Dissertation Abstraots
International, 43(12): 3797-3798.
MD, C.R., Hou, S-K., 1982, The effect of treating paddy

J rice seed grain with triacontanol on the 32 2
absorption of the young seedling. Agricultural
SCience of Kwang XI, PRC, 4: 14-15~
Feal, C.A., ~opoleski, L.U., 1985, Hormonal regulation

of groHth and develo,?ment of to:Yl'1to embryos ir vitro.
I
J.A'Iler. Soc. Hort. Sci., .1..l.Q(6): 869-873.
Nitsch, J.~., 1951, Growth and development in vitro of

excised ovaries. Am. J. -Bot., -_ -
- 38: 566-77.
Ohlrogge, A.J., 1980, Inventor, method of increasing grain

yield of field corn by application of triacontanol.
Trnited States 4,230,385 October 28 Int C1 3 AOIN
31/02 Appl. November 1978.
175
Ohlrogge, A.J., Fulk-~ringman, 3.3., 1985, Triacontanol

effects on the grain yield of field corn. In
?roc Plant growth regulator ~ork~~ group.
?atil, V.~., Bangal, D.B., 1985, Bffect of triacontanol

(:,Uraculan) on yield of pigeon Dea Ca"ianus £ajan
(L) Hills:2. Cu~rent rtesearch Re::Jorter. l(2):
169-170.
Power, J .F., 1:Hlls, '.tI.O., Grunes, 0.1., Reichman, G.A.,

1967, Effect of soil temperature, phosphorus
and plant age on growth analysis in barley.
Agron. ~, 59: 231-234.
===
Chong, C., Rousselle, G.L., 1983, In vitro

prouagation of Ottawa 3 apple root stock.
Can. J. Plant Sci., 63(1): 183-188.
Ramani, 3., Kannan, S., 1980, ~ffect of triacontanol on

the ab~tion and transport of ~b+ and P0 in
4
plants. }.pflanzenphysiol., 99: 427-453.
Rao, B.C., 1985. Physiologicql effect2 of triaco~tanol

on first crop rice at its late growth stages
under high temperature conditions. ?lant
Physiol. Commu. l: 2,3-29.
negehr, D.t., 19B?, ~inoseb and triacontanol as growth

regulqtors in irrigated and non-irrigated field
corn • ~gr on. :Z.., .Ii: 111 -11 5.
Ries, S.K., Wert, V.F., 1977, Growth response of rice

seedlings to triacontanol in light and dark.
Plantae 135: 77-82.
- - - ===
176
~ies, S.~., Wert, V.F., 1977, rri~contanol: A new

naturally occu.rring plant grO'"vth reeul'1tor.
3cie~ce. 192: 1339-1341. -
. Rie s,
ro
.;:). , 1978, The current stat u.s of 1-triacont81101
reGeqrch ~ri!ish RLmt growth ~_g_~la.!_g_£. ~2
"TeHsletter.
Ries, 3.X., Richman, T.1., Hert, V.F., 1978, (;.:rowtl-J. and

yield of crop tr~ated with triacontanol.
- ---- --- ---- --- ---

.J .Ar!ler. Soc. Hort., Sci., 103(3): )61-364.
Ries, 3.K., ':lert, V.F., Boutz, Rot 1981, 1.api(1 in vivo

and i~ vitro effects of triacontanol. In
?roc. 8th Annu. Dlant gro 1,.:th regul8.tor Soc.
America.
Ries, S.X., Houtz, R.L., 1983, rriacont~nol as a plant

growth regulator. Bart 3a lence, ~(5): ~ 54-66 2.
I
~ies, S.X., ',~ert, V.:;'., Biernbaur:l, J.A., 1983, Factors
altering response of plants to triacontanol.
,J.Amer. Soc. Bart. Sci., ~(6): 917-922.
Roh, S.Y1., 19B2, Dor'TIancy and maturity in the bulbil of

Lilium lancifolium 3. The influence of growth
regulator treatment on growth and flowering
res90nses. i..~orean Soc. Hort. Sci., .E.1 (1 ) :
59-fi 3.
Sagaral, BJL, Orcutt, "D.H., Foy, C.t., 1978, Influence of

time and rate of triacontanol applications on the
growth and yields of selected plants. In Proe.
_.2th AnnlJ.. Plant gro\vt h regulat or 1..Jorking £rou£.
177
Saltveit (Jr), M.E., Dilley, R.D., 1979, Studies of

r9.pid ly indue ed ',.,round ethylene syn thes is by exc lsed
sections of etiolated Eisum 83tivum L., CV Alask
IV, Require'1ent of a ".,rater soluble, heat soluble
factors', ?1'1nt ?hysio~" 64: 417-420,
Sing-12t3.I'Y, Go"., FoY, C,L" 1978, "Sffect of triacontanol

on growth all(l !!linera1. nutrition of corn and soyl)8'1n
seedline_:s. "In Proc,_ "plant gro'.'lth ref,ul::ltor "'forking
Skogen, ~" ~riksen, A.B., ~ilsen, S., 1982, Effect of

triaeontanol on :;_)roduction .:md quality of flo'..Jers
of Chrysanthe';1Um mar ifolium ~amat.
-------
3eientia ]ortie., 18: 87-92.
Steffens, G.L., Worley, J.F., 1980, Triacontanol: evaluation

in several plant assays. In Proe. ?lan~ growth
.!'_eR;ulator ~orking 8rouo.
Subb iah, S., Ra~anathan, K.M., Francis, IT.J., 1980,

Effect of triac ontanol on a3corb ic 8.C id c ont ent and
yield of to!!lato var. Pusa Ruby. ~'1adras ~ic. ,J.
£1: 758-761.
Thi'11tl'1)n, K. V., 1977, F{ormone act ion in the '..,rho Ie life of

plants. Un i versi ty of Hassachuset t s .2res 8, ,\mherst.,
44:-· P,;).
Vasudeva, H., 1984, Effect of Hormonal, Miraculan and Agronaa

on yield of arqbica coffee. i.Coffee Res., ~(4):
171-173.
178
"!an, 13. Z., ~'Jang,

Z.S., Liu, D.~v., 1983, Effect of
triacontanol on flm.,rering and fertility in nale-
sterile rice lines. Fujian ~Ton~ kiji. ~: 38-89.
','atson, :D.tJ., 1952, The '9hysiological hasis of variation

in yield. Adv.~gron._,~: 101-145.
'reaver, R •.J., 1973, ;\ltering set and 3ize of grapes ';lith

growth re~ulators (Revie'II). Acta. Tiorticulture,
~4: 275-278.
=
':!elebir, A.,J., 1981, Highly effective :plant grmvth sti-

mu1at ing tormulat ions of 1-tr iacontanol cont '.lining
Ca+
2 and indole-3-acetic acid. Abstracts of
H31st riCS ;1tg. ACiD 042 Harch 29 - April 5,
At Ian t a , Ca •
','[est, C., Brigcs, C.-S., Kidd, F., 1920, ~·1ethods and signi-
ficant relqtions in the quantitative anqlysis of
pl:mt gro'·'lth. ]":e'll Phytol., 1 J: 200-207.
YaS1IDobu, V., 1973 \ The pract ical use --0 f T)

I
lant grm.,rth
regulator~ for grapes. II. Experiments on the
a~plicat iC)n of gibberi1lin for settinr, seedless
Kyoho gra1)ef3. Bull. 0 f KanaR:t'lwa !-fort. 3xnt • 3ta. I
-20: 34-38,
Yee, K.K., 19S), T~iacontanol - Effects of foliar ap91ica-

tions on jendrobium hybrid orchid com:nunity pot
seed lings, Plant PrODa~rqt or. 29 (1 ): 3-4.
--=
179
Yoshida, S., 1972, 2hysiological as:)'3cts of e:rain yield.

Ann. Rev. ?l~nt 2hysiol., 23: 437-464.
Yoshiia, 0., 1976, On

r<
sto~atal frequ~ncy in barley.
I. Th8 relatio~ship bet1Ne~n stolTlJl.tal fl'equency
and 9hotosynthesis. Ja~an ~.3reedin~., 26:
-
130-136.
Yoshid8., S., Coronel, 'I., 1976, ~'Titrogerl nutrition,

leaf resistqn.ce anrl leaf ~hoto8ynthetic rate of
rice pl:mt. Soil 3ci. "inti ?lant :';utri. ~2: 207-211.
=-
APPENDIX
1
'J}
H
(j)"--"
p,o
S·
(lJ .__.,
-P
Cl)
.
O~""~N~~t-~
t-~m~~~t<'\t<'\~1<'\NNNN~~~
.... ~t<'\1<'\rooo~
C H N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
:1j ~
(j).p
:0--, ~
+'
.,..;
'0
.,..; rnl t- ....
t--~OO .... t-Ot-t-t-mt-~t
5 ~t-t<'\ .... N~~~-~t-Nom~o~
::j 0 ~:
~C +> 01 mt-t-Lflt-~t<'\~Nt<'\t<'\t<'\~~~a)~
..dl
Cl) >. 1:>-,
:> crJ (j) I ctl
.,..; :-- C I'D
+"
ctl ;-j
riO
(l)
.,....j
..c
en l..c
>=!I
1"-..
IHri
~
~ ~
S:>
I..DO~~-~.--~
L('\O-t-com~o
. . I.!'\'~
. t-- 0 ~, a t- t("\ \..0
p::<~ ~ I -;j.,..; I..DNt-omCO .... \:.::l t- 0 C'J ~ :0 (\J "-0 N Ll\
(lJ (Ii ( O.p ..- .... (\J (\J N t<'\ t<'\ t{\ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1.[', u\ ~ \..0
.. (lJ
(j) :s:
H ~I 5
~'O +,,1
-P>=! .,....j I O.
cjN '010
~ '--' .,....j I 1<'\ COI..DCO~(\J~N~~O .... (\JL('\CO~L('\(J"\
(j) t<'\~~L('\LflLfI~L['LfI~t-\..OLflLflLflLflLfI
Q.n
EJ 0
3:
.d I
(\J
(j) H I
-PO (j) I 8
:> I crJ
.. y..., .,..; I
.-10 .pIa
r-l aj I 1<'\
crJ..Cl r-ll
'i-1-P"-" (j) I t-
>=!:Sm ~I
.,-j 0 a)
aj~(J"\
~ q,:; ....
I
CDI ~ (J"\ 0 1...0 (\1 0 CC> lI' ..- co t'('\ t<'\ I..!'. ~ 0 C-- L['\
.~
o
B: 000
N N N
m
....
~
....
m
~
<X)
.--
co
..-
m
..-
a)
....
<X)
....
<X)
..-
~
....
c--
....
m
..-
co
....
a)
....
.pI:::::
ctll
HI
<VI
0-; I \.0 0 t<'\ t-- t<'\ ~ ~ 0 t<'\ ti\ 0 ti\ ti, .... 0 t<'\ t'(',
s::: I ><
Q) I ro t<'\Norommc--mcoc--I...OI..Dc--c--mm<X)
81~ t<'\ t<'\ t<'\ (\J N (\J (\J (\J (\J (\J N N (\J (\J (\J (\J (\J
1
LfI~(\JC-- ,.... .... ~c--Q),....,....OO(\~ ....

t<\ t<'\ .... ..- 0 C-- 1...0 t<'\ I.{\ ,_ (\J C-- CD a\ (\J c-- N
L('\ (\J t<'\ 0 0 .... 0 (\J N c-- .... .... N 0 0 N
(\J
....
H
(])
.!:4 .!:4 ~ .!:4 .!:4 ..::c .!:4 ..::c
~1:u.J (]) a: (j) (j) (lJ (]) CD (lJ
~ s::: (J) (lJ Q) (J) OJ (j) (lJ OJ
.,....j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '):
rn ;3
~O ..c ..c ..c ..c ..d ,c r!
(lJen +" +" -P +> .p -P +"
(lJ .... N t<'\ -.::t L['\I..D [-
;3: ..... ~ .-- ..- ..- ~ ..- ,..-
-<:;t-\..Ol.1\t-t-COC\J LC\ t- 1..0 -::t
r:JJ L- 0 L- -<:;t- ..- CO t-CO\..OO
i'C', [,("", .._r t<\ t<\ t<\ 1"\ 1''\ t<\ c<' .._r
Q)
.,.,> .._r !<'\
-P o CO t<\ t<\ ..- 0 ..- W ..-
ro .._rO"lt<\O"\O"IOO"\0J'-O
r-l 1"', \.0 '<:j" en 0"1 I._() C\J 'J\ l:'-
:::s
E C 1<\ \-0 G'I C\J .._r t- 0 C\: LC\ t- 0 .. LC\ cc
::l ~ ~ ..- ..- N (\j N 1"\ 1<\ 1"\ ~ ~ ~ ¢ ~
"'0 (.)
(11 ~
~C\J
(\j'-"
'0
0...
Q) 0 ..- 1<\ ..- 01 C\J 1<\ \..0 t<'\ I._() l.1\ co LC\ ~ I._() ..- cc I._()
Q) H
rl 0 1<\ 0 I._() m ro ~ ..- G'I CC 0 0 ex; I._() ..- 0 C\J N
q,) ~O"It--<:;t-\"o~NLC\N1<\NN¢~I._()t-t<\
Q)'H ..-
'00
.£!,C!
+' -P
:;:; ~
o 0 t<\~COC\JOt<\t-..-t<\"-C\JC\J.._rt-OC\Jm
~ H
QOQ() (\j -<:;t- t- t- l.1\ -<:;t- ..- 0 ~ a) 0 I._() \..0 0 I._() I._() r
0"1 (\J LC\ 0 a) t- CC m t<\ ~ l.1\ :-<"\ (\J ..- ~ l.1\ t<\
s::! cD ~ ~ ~ t<\ t- 0 N I._() ex; 0 C\J ~ L- 0 ~ ,~ N
0:'::
.,., ..- ~ C'J C\J ['("", I'l\ t<\ r, -<:;t- -<:;t- ~ ~ LJ'\ L[' L[', I._()
al H !
+,::l~
~ rd l.1\
'0
;::8\
CO I
riO"- O~O"-NO..-t-t- ..- -.::j. 0 co 0 0 ~
oal·'"
+'
.,., ~
H
Q)
C\J ,-
..- ..-
Ll
,-
U\ U\ 0'\ CD CO CC Q) t- t- cc t- 0'\ 0'\ co
tuJ·,., ,D
o rc E
riroQ)
OH+'
H P.
OHQ) ..- ('\J I._() l.1\ -.::j' 0'\ I._() m CD ..- t<\ W, I._() \..0 ex; 0'\ t-
<vcr;rn
+'r-1 '<:j"'<:j"~OOt<\I._()t<\~LC\I'l\t<\l.1\"-l._()mC\J"
Q) 0 C+-i COI.Dt<\O'\I.DNCO-<:;t-Ow..-wNt-t<\OW
~U20 ,-- C\J C\J I'l\ ~ ~ 1.0 W I.D c-- t- co co 0'\ 0 0
~~~~~~
<v <V (l) (l) (l) (l)
<V (l) <V <V <V (J)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :3
..d ..d ..d ..d ..d ..d ..d ..d
+' '0 '0 ..d ..d ..d ..d ..d ..d +' +' +" -p -p +' -p -P
U2 s::! H +' +' -P -P -p +' 0 ..- C\J t<\ ~ lJ\ W t-
('\; t<\ ~ l.1\ W t- co 0'\ ..- ,......,......r-,....-~,.-
• • • •
...r ...r ...r ('(\ ('(\ ('(\ ('(\ N (\J (\J (\J ...r ...r ('(\ (\J ('(\ ('(\
(\J (\J N (\J (\J N N N N N N N N N (\J N N
,........rOo,.....t-Ot-t-t-~t-~t-,.....,........r
..... N
~ I.!" \ 1..0 ..... 1..0 (\.j \.D \.D t- 0 O't 0 0 t- ('(\
O'l
~t-...r('(\\.D(\J('($'(\('(\ll'I...rDro...rroll'l\.D
~
o
..d
~ ~
....
ro~O~OOONI..O~Ot-~ro~\.D\.DO
OJ N ro ...r O't ~ ro ...r OJ ~ ,..... ~ 0 0 ll'I

. .
~ro ..... ~oooN~t-,.....~m~ro~OJ(\J
,..... ,..... ,..... C'J N ($ (\J 1'<\ 1'<\ 1'<\ ~ ...;j- ~ ~ \.D
:>,1
+' I •
..-tIOS
'"0I t<'. •
-.-II·p_,
SIN
::jl
..dl
I
<VI
>1
-.-I I
+,1
ct11
OS
('(\
• oj
.
...-II t-
<vI
~I
i •
O't m O't ro
. OJ
\..O(\Joro~,.....ro1'<\('(\~\..Oot-~OJmo
O't 00 00 OJ 00 00 O't cO
. (1) t- OJ O't
,...... ,..- ,- ,....- ,... ~ r- ,....- ,- ,..- ,_ ,- ,..... ..- ,- ,..- ,-
I
~~_.P
t-('(\,.....~O('(\ll'IOll'lll'l,.....O('(\('(\ro\.DaJ
• •
OJmmt-mOJt-\..O\..Ot-t-mmOOt-OJt-
(\J (\J (\J N N N ~ N N N N N N N (\J (\J (\J
t- ,.....,.....ll'It-OJ,.....,.....OON,..... ,.....00..-
,.....Ot-\..O(,(\ll'I,.....(\Jt-aJO'tNt-N,.....rot-
1'<\00,..... 0 (\J (\J t-,.....,..... (\J 0 0 N ..... ...r (\J
,.....
.!d .!d .!d .!d ~ ~ .!d

<V Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q)
Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) <V Q)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
..d ..d ..d ..d ..d ..d ..d

+' +' +' +' +' +' +'
,.....N('(\~ll'I...ot
,.....-,.....~,.-..-,.....
,~
'01
........... I
(\J I
91
o I >.::
........... I cj ro ro (\J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ro (\J ~ ~ ~ ~ ro ~ ~
r--l I 0) O(\J~<D~O~~~<D~ro~O~0'\~
rol,?: ~ -.::t ('("\ r(\ ('("\ .q- ('("\ ('("\ ('("\ ('("\ tr\ ('("\ ('("\ -.::t ~ ('("\ ('("\
01
I
m ):!1
+,0 01
.,.., +' • ..-j I
+>1
§Q) cj I (j)
.~ I ;>
.-I§ 'C I .,.., O<D~<D('("\~~N~w('("\wm~('("\n~
S rol+, W~~~~N~O(,("\O('("\~O('("\W~~
.
Lrt J---..
~ ~ ~ ~ 7'\ ~ ,--
0'. <D
.::J'\ ~ C': r. W ('("\ W 0
H I L~ C'J
~c,_, I .-I
Wo f-t I ;j ('("\ -.D 0'1 ~ ~ ~ 0'1 (\J -.::t ~ '::J'\ C'J ~ CO 0 ('("\ ,,0
_C ill 1 § ..- .- ..- ..- (\_J C' ~ C'J (\J ('("\ tr. t<\ .q- ~ --t
+'~ r--l I ;...>
o Q) 010 "
.,.., Q) (iJ I
.-1;3:
Q)
!r+'
"H
CI).~
OJ m(\Jt<\~(,("\~~ro~~~.-ro~~.-('("\
0'\ ~ 0'\CD0 0 CO ~ ..- 0 a.J

.
(' J (\J 01 ~(\ ~ C\1
.
:>,!i; ~~~(\J~(\J('("\(\J(\J--t--t~~t<\~~~
ro"----'
'0
p-.
0) 0
H
.
0)
HO
t.J
Q)'+-i 01 ~W
•
('("\ (\J ~ 0 (\J CO CC (\J CC CC
\...0 ~ (Jl li\
'00 ~(\J.-(\J('("\~mOl~I..C~ ~mL-Nr:-~
..c..c
+' ..p r--.
.. .
('("\CO..- ('("\~c::; O(\J -.::t~C -.::tOl(\J~O-.::t
~ ~ L.C\
OOC)
HH0'\
t..:) t.G..-
(!]
:>,1
I
I s:::
,..
I
ro I Q)
'0 I?:
I
0)1
0)1
HI
WIO)
Q) I :>
'0 I ·ri
I+' m CO t<\ 0 ('("\ (\J ~ ~ ~ 0 0
..c I ill
..plr--l to CX) (\J 0'1 0
3: I ~ \...C) (\J 0'1 ..,j- ..-
o
H I -'
010
1 § ..- ..- (\J ('("\
..
H
Q)
+' .!d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .!d ~
'+-itu) Q) Q) C) (l) (l) (l) Q) (l)
ro5:: (l) Q) Q) 'lJ Q) Q) OJ OJ
•..-j ~ ~ ~ ~ ;; ;3: ~ ~
02 ~
..-":!o ..d ..c ..d ..c ..c ..c ..c ..d
Q) CI) .p '0 '0 ..c ..c ..c ..c ..c ..c .p .p +' .p .p +' +' .p
Q) 02 ):! H .p +' +' .p .p .p o ..- C\1 ('("\ ~ ~ \.D '~
:? (\J ('("\ -.::t I.f\ ~ ~ CD 0'1 ,- ,- ,.- .- ..- ..-
I
I
m
~
(!) --
~ Q, (!) 0 ~t'-t'-~~~!'<\rooo~roro~~~~
(1j~M·
(1)(1):3",---, N'\ t<\ !'<\ r" ('J ('J ('J (\ J ~ "<:j- !'<\ ('J t(", t'-'"', ('J (\I ('J
::2+,+" N ('J N ('J ('J ('J ('J ('J N ('J ('J N ('J ('J ('J ('J N
E!O O~t'-ot'-t'-t'-mt'-mt'-~~"<:j-om('J
~+=' UJ m~~~t'-N~~~OWOt'-!'<\~m~
..e ~
(!) ~ 1<'1 '-D OJ 1" rr, ,,, Lf\ ..q- ~D CO ~ Q) Lf\ \.D 1" l('. ~
(!) ~ c
>- :3
-.-I f-;)
.s:! ~J
C'0
+" (l)ro
~'H ~ ...........
rl 0 -.-I ~ ~
Q) ..e..e ri
:j
r:::~ 1J) Q)
(!)
§ fl ~ ~ 0 W .- L'- 0 ~o 0 t~ !'<\ ~ ('J ('J t'- ~ '-D .-
"(I) :j.r-i ~t'-~~~wm!'<\t'-!'<\w('J'-DO!'<\t'-('J
Ql :?: C..) C) +, ~ .- .- ~ ('J C'J !'<\ !'<\ "<j- "'" U""\ L0 Lf\ '-D
~
::j.....,
+":JJ
C':i ('j
;- rl
Q) ' - '
C-l
C,
(\_\
"/'
(!) S
>- , (\j
-.-I
+" 0
m
rl
!'<\
(!) t'-
~
"
(I)
~
:::::i
+'
m-"
,._ 0
(!) •
0,'-'
e
(!) ..q- 0 t(" L["\ 0 1..'"\ l('. ,...... 0 '" ['(". a:. '-D a:: U"\ ~ r:--
E-,
r:--m~r:--w~r:--r:--mmOOr:--Wr:--~r:--r:-
('J
('J ('J (\I ('J N ('J ('J ('J N (\_ ('J ('J ('J (\_ N ~
rl
rl
(1j ~ m r:-- Q) ~ ~ 0 0 ('J ~ ~ OC ,...... U"\ ~ Q)
Cr-i ,,-.. Ii) 1" m ,...... ('J r:-- ro VI C\: r:-- N ~ CD r:-- !'<\ 0'1 0
~ E"
-r! e
ct'-'
~
H
(!)
+"
c.-,Qi)
~ ~
'r-i
I'1:l :3:
~O
(!)rn
(!)
~ ~
:?:
:>,
m
'0
........
C'\;
S ~
o (1j t- t- CO (\1 I.!\ t- 1O -.:j- CD l1I ..-- ..-- li\ 0'1
........! Q) t--.:j-.- CO t-CD 1..0 C"- 0'1\..0 N..--.:j-
r-l ::? t<\ ~("\ t<\ t("\ t<\ t<\ (,(" -.:j- ~ ~("\ t<\ ~ ~ t-("\
cj
o
I'J) '-./
+'
.r-! 0
§+'
ru
r-lr'
~ ~
E!IJ ..- \.0 ..- ~ L.f\ ~ mlO 0'1 (\J 0 1..0 \.0 ~ \.D t<\ t-
'-, m (\.: \.0 o r· \..0t<\ lO t- ~ t- -:l \..0 0'1 ~ U" r:J\
il)'H '-D t-("\ .-- CD (\J "<t .- t- -.:j- 0 ;:-- LC\ 0 0 0'1 t<\
~c c ('oj L(' CD o t<\ ~. CO 0 t<\ 1O ro ..-
~ t- 0 ~ I.!\
(\J C\J 1<\ t<\ 1<\ -.:j- oc;;j- "<t
+' .-- .- ..- ..- (\J (\J
o~
'r-! w
riil)
(lJ ~
_:j
.p
.. C')
I'J) ('j
>.,ri \.Dt<\'-DL.f\CDl.!\oc;;j-lO..--ro\.Dm~t<\t-(\J1.!\
a:j"-../
mOOOOOOw'--O(\JC\JO'It<\~C\JOt-\.D
(\JL.f\(\Jt<\(\J~~~wt-t<\Wl1ll.!\t<\-.:j-oc;;j-
C) 0
(lJ ~
HO
!:;D
Q)'H
'OC
..c..c
+' +' t-I.!\OlOl1I.-NlO"-'-
:;; :;; O"-lOt-t-lOl.!\t<\t-CO
oar--.. (\c 1..0 t- 0'1 .- tr. \_o 0'1 t<\ (JJ
H~I.!\ ..- ..-- .- ..-- N (\J
t.D t..DCO
(J)
c
a e
~..
•.-; H
I
,
/
/'
(1j H Q'
+,:),..0
(1j '"d 0
'D +' .-t-t-'-"-~OCOOO~CO~oc;;j-lO\.D(\J
eo
.--100 CO co CD Gt-t-COt-O'ImCOt-COCOt-t-t-
(1j.r-!
O+,,'H
'rl (1j 0
cJj 'rl
o '"d ~
ri(1j(lJ
o ~ Q) t- 0 C5' (\1 ~ ~ t- t- m 0 ~ 1..0 (\. t- ~ 0'1 \.0
~ :;;
a H lOm~lOlOQ~O'INlOoc;;j-m.-mt<\lOt
rucu+, ~..-t-('('cocom~..-t-t<\COli\OlO'-lO
.prlCJ ..- ..- (\; ~ t<\ t<\ oc;;j- L[\ L[\ \.0 lO t- CC CO (j\ (j\
Q) 0 m
::E:OJrl
H
Q)
+"
'HQ.) ~.!<!~~~~~~
(1j s::::: Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q)
'rl Q) Q) (l] Q) CD Q) CD (l)
m ;3 :;; ;3 ;3 ~ ::: ::: ::: ;3
..!:Go ..c ..d ..c .c ..c ..d
il) rn '"0 '0 .c .c .p +" +" +" +" +"
-Q) s:: H +' +" (\Jt<\~l.!\lOt-
~ (\J t<\ .q- Lr' r- ,- ~ or- ,--- ,...-
~.. &t :Jt.::s ~,,} ,s~J"'o:$.)
::>~:,)t::) .. ~~o:l;) ~~~ ~. e;~i)
I"h If.,:> " , ~oi'("~O,, ll-,.
1 SF E81S88 ,
; Tits 2172
~::.~.~~::~:.~:

Effect of Triacontanol

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Effect of Triacontanol

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Effect of Triacontanol

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INFLUENCE OF TRIACONTANOL ON CARBON

EXCHANGE RATE, GROWTH AND PRODUCTIVITY

DEPARTMENT OF CROP PHYSIOLOGY

Thesis Submitted to the

BANGALORE DECEMBER 1987

,~- ..... -.,,-......... ....

This is to certify th~t the thesis entitled

I wish to express my most profound gratitude

I am highly indebted to Dr .~1. Udaya Kumar, Professor

~y deep sense of gratitude and regaras to Dr.K.S.Krishna

My sincere thanks to Dr. R.Devendra, ~1r. V.R.Shashidhar

I express my gratefulness to my beloved parents,

brothers, other family members, Mr. A.G. Shankar, Mr.B.Raju

I acknowledge my thanks to the Department of Science

Chapter Title Page

I DTTRODUCTION ·.. ·.. 1

II REVIE~:J OF LIT3RATU?.E . ·.. 4

III MATERIAL AND METHODS • •• • •• 27

VII REFEREl'TCE ' . ..b 168

Table No. Title Page

1 Bffect of Triacontanol on stomatal

3 Effect of Triacontanol on stomatal

4 Effect of Triacontanol on stomatal

5 . Effect of Triacontanol on sto:::8.tal

7 Effect of Triacontanol on stomatal

8 Effect of Triacontanol on photosyn-

9 Effect of Triacontanol on photosyn-

10 Effect of Triacontanol on dark respira-

11 Effect of Triacontanol on dark respira-

Effect of Triacontanol on 45 Ca uptake

Effect of Triacontanol foliar spray

14 Effect of Triacontanol foliar spray on

16 Effect of Triacontanol foliar spray on

17 Effect of Triacontanol foliar spray

18 Effect of Triacontanol foliar spray

19 Effect of Triacontanol foliar spray

20 Effect of Triacontanol foliar spray

Table l~o. Title Page

21 Effect of Triacontanol foliar spray on

22 Effect of Triacontanol on net assimila-

23 Effect of Triacontanol on net assimi-

24 Effect of Triacontanol on net assimila-

25 Effect of Triacontanol on Absolute

26 Effect of Triacontanol on Absolute

27 'Effect of Triacontanol on Absolute

28 Effect of Triacontanol on relative

29 Effect of Triacontanol on relative

30 Effect of Triacontanol on relative /

growth rate in late June sown ground-

jl Effect of Triacontanol on crop growth

32 Effect of Triacontanol foliar spray

33 Effect of Triacontanol foli~r spray on

34 Effect of Triacontanol foliar spray on

Effect of Triacontanol foliar spray on

36 Effect of Triacontanol foliar spray on

37 Effect of Triacontanol foliar spray on

38 Effect of Triacontanol foliar spray on

Tab Ie l'Jo. Title Page

39 Effect of Triacontanol foliar spray on