orchard floor management in fruit crop

SPEAKER
Parmar Chandrakant B.
3rd Sem, M.Sc. (Hort.) Fruit science
Reg. No. : 04-2932-2016
Department of Horticulture,
A.A.U., Anand
Co-Guide :
Dr. A. S. Thounaojam
Assistant Research Scientist
Medicinal and Aromatic plant processing
station
A.A.U., Anand
Major Guide:
Dr. H. H. Sitapara
Assistant Professor
Department of Horticulture
B. A. College of Agriculture
A.A.U., Anand
FLOOR MANAGEMENT IN FRUIT ORCHARD

Introduction
What is orchard floor management ?
Objectives of orchard floor management
Components
Brief Review of research work
Conclusion
Future thrust
Content
3

Introduction
 India, can take the pride of attaining second position in the
production of fruit crops (92846 thousand MT) with the covering an
area (6480 thousand ha) but the productivity of most fruit crops is
low (NHB, Database 2016-17, 2nd Advance Estimates).
 In spite of higher production, India’s contribution for export in
global market is less as compared to other countries.
 One of the reason is poor quality of produce and low yield.
 Management of the orchard floor can influence the
effectiveness of irrigation, nutrient and soil management practices.
 Proper orchard floor management is vital to the health and
productivity of fruit trees, with management practices impacting
tree growth, yield and quality of fruit.
4

Table1: Area, Production and Productivity of major fruit crops
during the (2014-15) year
INDIA
CROPS
AREA
(thousand HA)
PRODUCTION
(thousand MT)
PRODUCTIVITY
(IN MT/HA)
Mango 2516.0 18431.0 8.1
Banana 803.0 29725.0 37.0
Papaya 133.0 5639.0 42.3
Guava 238.0 3668.0 13.7
Sapota 177.0 1744.0 9.9
Custard apple 21.77 165.15 8.3
Citrus 1078.0 11147.1 10.3
Apple 313.0 2498.0 8.0
Pomegranate 130.8 1345.601 30.3
Source: NHB, Database (2015)5

Orchard floor management refers to the
management of the orchard soil in such a
manner that the fruit trees give higher yield of
quality fruits in successive years for sustainable
economic returns
What is Orchard floor management ?
6

Objectives of Orchard Floor Management
 To provide optimum soil moisture during the critical plant growth
stages
 Prevent or reduce soil erosion
 Increase or at least maintain organic matter in soil.
 Increase nutrients status of soil
 Control weeds in the orchard
 Improve soil structure and loosen it for good aeration and water
percolation
 To ensure additional income from the interspaces of the orchard,
especially during the pre-bearing stage
 Enhance bio-control and improve microbial activity
7

Clean cultivation
Sod culture
Sod mulch
Use of herbicides
Mulching
Intercropping
Cover crops
Soil management practices
9

• The inter space between
the trees is kept clean by
tillage and removal of
weeds
• Dis-favour in respect to
maintaining soil fertility
• Moisture loss aggregates
Clean cultivation
High density peach orchard under clean
cultivation10

 Improves soil aeration and physical conditions
 Controls weeds and thus reduces competition for light,
nutrients and moisture
 Eliminates or avoids alternate hosts for pests and
diseases
 Improves the infiltration of water through breaking the
hard soil surface crust
 Enhances biological activity in the soil through better
aeration
Advantages
11

 Grasses are allowed
to grow in the
interspaces between
the trees without
tillage or mulching
 The grasses are
mowed periodically to
reduce competition
for water and
nutrients with the
trees
Sod culture
12

 Controls soil erosion
 Maintains optimum soil moisture and organic matter
 Provides better aeration to the roots
 Enhances microbiological activity in the soil through
better aeration
 Avoids bruising of falling fruits
Advantages
13

 Grasses are allowed to grow in
the entire area of the orchard
 Tree basins are mulched with
straw, instead of tilling
 The grasses are mowed down
regularly and are spread to
maintain the mulch in basins
 Sod mulch implies to use of
cut over grasses as a mulch in
fruit cultivation
Sod mulch
14

 Moisture conservation
 Temperature regulation
 Weed suppression
 Better nutrient availability
 Hastended microbial activity
 Minimized soil compaction
 Controlling or checked soil erosion
 Improves fruit colouration
and enhances fruit maturity
SOD MULCH
BENEFITS OF SOD MULCH
15

• Herbicide also commonly known as weed killers, are
chemical substances used to control unwanted plants
• Herbicides are applied to soil to manage weeds
• While it is desirable for the chemicals to control weeds
during the season of application, it is not desirable for
them to persist and affect subsequent crop growth
Use of herbicides
16

• It is a technique of covering soil by organic or
inorganic materials for maintain moisture and
improve soil conditions
Mulching
Mulch in strawberry and banana
17

Organic mulch
 Paddy straw
 Compost
Manure
Saw dust
Wooden piece
 Rice husk
Leaf litter
News paper
Onion garlic scales
Inorganic mulch
Plastic mulch
 Metal foil
 Gravel
Stone
Types of Mulching
18

Grass mulching in papaya
Plastic mulching in banana
19

 Conserves soil moisture
 Organic mulches add organic matter and nutrients to the soil
upon decomposition thus save fertilizer requirements
 Improves the soil structure, nutrient availability and micro flora
 Controls soil erosion
 Improves water infiltration and controls weed growth due to
etiolation
 Reduces soil temperature fluctuation
 Mulch acts as a cushion for dropping fruits and thus avoiding
physical injury
 Growth, production, colour and quality of fruits are improved
Advantage of mulching
20

It is the practice of growing
one or more short duration
crops between inter-spaces of
trees in the same field
Types of intercropping
1. Parallel intercropping
2. Companion
intercropping
3. Multiple intercropping
Intercropping
21

It gives additional yield or income/unit area than
sole cropping
Higher productivity per unit area
Maintain soil fertility
Reduction in soil run-off and control weeds
Provide shade and support to the other crops
It utilizes resources sufficiently and their
productivity is increased
Intercropping with cash crops is highly profitable
Advantages
22

 It is the cheapest and most effective method of maintaining soil
productivity and soil structure
 Which are raised between the tree rows during rainy season.
Cover crops affect:
 Weeds
 Soil C, N, other nutrients
 Soil biology, moisture
 Pests (insect, disease)
 N fixation (legumes)
 Soil and orchard temperature
 Manage excess vigour
 Increase fruit cleanliness / quality at
harvest
Cover crops
23

 In tropical and subtropical countries, 70% of the labour input is diverted for
weeding
 Weed interferes with agricultural operations and reduces the yield of crops
 In India, yield loss due to weeds is approximately 33% of total production, and on
an average 30 per cent of the total production cost is spent on tillage operations
alone
 In case of heavy infestation 70 to 80% losses are observed in the crops where
weeds are allowed to grow along with the crops till harvesting
 Weeds competition with main crop for light, water, nutrients, and interfere with
other operational factors
Weed is defined as a unwanted plant in the field.
24

 Irrigation is a vital management practice in fruit production regions of the world,
particularly in arid and semi-arid climates
 Optimum growth and production of fruit crops is strongly linked managing
irrigation water
 Insufficient water supply may result in reduced tree growth, yield and fruit quality
due to water stress
 Excessive irrigation may increase nutrient leaching, water-logging problems,
incidence of pests and diseases and the associated cost of frequent operation and
maintenance of the irrigation system
 commonly adopted methods of irrigations methods are : 1) Drip irrigation
2) Basin irrigation method
Irrigation management
25

Drip irrigation is an irrigation method that saves water and
fertilizer by allowing water to drip slowly to the roots of plants,
either onto the soil surface or directly onto the root zone, through a
network of valves, pipes, tubing, and emitters.
Advantages
 Save water.
 Increase yield and fruit quality.
 Higher returns per unit area and time.
 It saves labour cost.
 Improved water penetration.
 Eliminate soil erosion.
 Reduced weed growth.
 Saving in fertilizers and chemicals (40-60%).
Drip irrigation method
26

The combined use of different sources of plant nutrients for
the maintenance and improvement of soil fertility and plant
nutrient supply at an optimum level for desired crop productivity.
 Provides balanced nutrition to crops and minimizes the
antagonistic effects
 Improves the physical, chemical and biological properties of
soil
 Minimizes the deterioration of soil, water and ecosystem by
reducing nutrient losses to ground and surface water bodies and
to atmosphere
Integrated nutrient management
27

BRIEF REVIEW OF RESEARCH WORK
28

O.U.A.T., Koraput (Odisha) Swain (2014)
Table 2: Effect of intercropping on nutrient status of soil and mango
plant cv. Totapuri (8 year old mango orchard)
Treatment
Available N
(kg/ha)
Available P2O5
(kg/ha)
Available K2O
(kg/ha)
Leaf nutrient
status (% dry wt.)
0-15cm 15-30cm 0-15cm 15-30cm 0-15cm 15-30cm N P K
T1 331.5 280.5 18.9 16.9 360.4 325.5 1.33 0.14 0.63
T2 320.4 285.9 18.6 16.0 358.5 330.3 1.38 0.12 0.62
T3 321.7 272.3 16.3 14.5 350.4 317.4 1.35 0.13 0.62
T4 356.7 317.3 18.4 16.3 380.7 345.3 1.42 0.15 0.74
T5 341.8 305.4 17.5 15.4 372.5 340.3 1.40 0.14 0.75
T6 317.4 270.3 16.4 13.5 350.0 315.6 1.28 0.13 0.52
T7 315.3 265.5 15.8 13.0 342.4 310.6 1.20 0.11 0.50
T8 322.3 275.6 17.1 14.6 368.4 329.3 1.28 0.13 0.69
T9 288.3 253.5 14.5 12.3 330.4 300.4 1.10 0.08 0.47
C. D. at
5%
33.76 33.67 1.45 0.91 13.47 21.60 0.09 0.02 0.05
30

Treatments details:
T1 - Mango + Guava+ M. ginger
T2 - Mango+ Guava+ Turmeric
T3 - Mango+ Guava+ Tomato
T4 - Mango+ Guava+ Cowpea
T5 - Mango+ Guava+ French bean
T6 - Mango+ Guava+ Ragi
T7 - Mango+ Guava+ Niger
T8 - Mango+ Guava+ Paddy
T9 - Mango+ Guava+ No intercrop
Note : Soil sample taken from different depth of soil for analysis
31

O.U.A.T., Koraput (Odisha) Swain (2014)
Table 3: Effect of intercropping on yield and quality parameters of mango cv. Totapuri
(8 year old mango orchard)
Treatment
Fruit yield
(kg/tree)
TSS (0Brix) Acidity (%) Total sugar (%)
2009-10 2010-11 2009-10 2010-11 2009-10 2010-11 2009-10 2010-11
T1 25.25 28.10 13.8 13.9 0.25 0.26 12.3 13.0
T2 26.20 28.50 14.2 13.9 0.25 0.26 12.8 12.4
T3 25.30 27.82 13.9 14.0 0.26 0.25 13.0 13.7
T4 32.50 34.10 14.2 14.1 0.23 0.24 13.5 13.0
T5 29.70 31.80 14.1 14.2 0.24 0.24 13.1 12.9
T6 24.41 24.00 14.0 14.1 0.26 0.25 12.9 11.9
T7 22.12 22.30 13.7 13.9 0.27 0.26 13.1 12.6
T8 24.75 25.20 13.8 13.9 0.24 0.25 12.4 13.8
T9 20.56 22.40 13.7 13.6 0.27 0.26 12.0 13.3
C. D. at 5% 2.14 3.88 N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S.
32

Table 4: Effect of irrigation levels on the yield and quality of mango cv. Dashehari
(15 year old tree)
Treatments No. of
fruits/tree
Yield
(q/ha)
WUE
(q/ha-cm)
Pulp
(%)
TSS
( ̊Brix)
T1 194.31 26.95 0.98 64.25 17.50
T2 222.67 31.65 1.16 65.98 19.50
T3 360.27 45.27 1.72 67.98 18.50
T4 293.14 44.92 1.75 70.33 20.25
T5 278.71 40.72 1.70 68.24 19.98
T6 328.53 52.95 2.29 71.58 22.65
T7 239.30 35.46 1.52 67.95 21.05
T8 366.17 59.92 3.21 72.60 23.35
T9 225.23 31.88 1.24 64.00 18.98
T10 262.08 38.10 1.65 61.72 20.98
C. D. at 5% 27.96 1.12 0.102 1.42 0.840
IGKV, Raipur Panigrahi et al. (2010)
T8 = Drip irrigation with 0.6 V-volume of water + polythene mulch
33

T1 = Basin irrigation with 1.0 V-volume of water (control)
T2 = Basin irrigation with 1.0 V-volume of water + polythene mulch
T3 = Drip irrigation with 1.0 V-volume of water
T10= Drip irrigation with 0.4 V-volume of water + polythene mulch
Where V = Irrigation water requirement
Treatment details:
34

Table 5: Effect of irrigation and mulch on yield, water use efficiency of
banana cv. Dwarf Cavendish
Treatments
Number of
hands/bunch
Yield
(q/ha)
WUE
(kg/ha-mm)
Water
saving(%)
T1 6.82 272.66 19.06 -
T2 6.95 321.27 23.65 7.69
T3 7.75 330.16 26.40 11.37
T4 8.07 385.41 30.82 12.59
T5 7.61 358.76 35.69 36.43
T6 8.27 434.58 43.23 47.54
T7 7.62 369.58 49.26 50.72
T8 8.90 498.68 66.46 61.83
T9 7.08 342.36 62.72 21.41
T10 7.38 418.16 76.60 29.72
CD at 5% 0.29 33.55 - -
Agrawal and Agrawal (2005)IGAU, Raipur (UP)
36

T1 = Basin irrigation with 1.0 V-volume of water (control)
T2 = Basin irrigation with 1.0 V-volume of water + plastic mulch
T4 = Drip irrigation with 1.0 V-volume of water + plastic mulch
T10= Drip irrigation with 0.4 V-volume of water + plastic mulch
Where V = Irrigation water requirement
Treatment details:
37

Table 6: Effect of intercropping on yield attributes of banana cv.
Grand Naine
Treatment
Number of
hands/Bunch
Weight of
Bunch (kg)
Yield (t/ha)
T1- banana + onion (A1) 10.29 23.68 82.22
T2- banana + onion (A2) 10.32 25.67 89.14
T3- banana + onion (A3) 10.22 23.26 80.76
T4- banana + garlic (A1) 10.30 24.41 84.75
T5- banana + garlic (A2) 10.37 25.45 91.84
T6- banana + garlic (A3) 10.28 23.49 81.56
T7- banana + cauliflower (A1) 10.19 22.74 78.95
T10- sole banana 10.31 24.68 85.70
CD at 5 % NS 2.76 9.50
NAU (Navsari) Patil et. al. (2015)
38
A1- 25% (cauliflower) and 27% (onion and garlic) (without lateral shifting);
A2- 33% (with lateral shifting in between rows); A3- combination of three above intercrops

Table 7: Effect of integrated nutrient management on yield and its attributes
in tissue culture banana cv. Grand Naine
Treatments
No. of
hands
/bunch
Bunch
weight
(kg)
No. of
fruits/
bunch
Yield
(t/ha)
TSS
(ºBrix)
Acidity
(%)
Reducing
sugar (%)
T1 8.91 19.35 136.58 53.65 20.25 0.91 3.57
T2 9.25 19.80 139.16 54.89 21.25 1.09 3.50
T3 9.16 20.91 144.58 57.97 22.06 0.61 3.61
T4 9.41 22.00 145.41 60.99 22.19 0.72 3.52
T5 9.50 23.50 144.33 65.15 22.34 0.87 3.57
T6 10.33 23.92 150.08 66.31 24.00 0.62 3.22
T7 9.16 21.50 150.25 59.61 21.33 1.05 3.41
T8 9.25 20.40 137.00 56.57 21.55 0.70 3.51
T9 8.83 19.75 138.41 54.76 22.19 1.15 3.49
T10 10.00 21.41 141.66 59.36 21.73 0.82 3.65
T11 10.75 24.53 156.50 68.02 23.83 0.66 3.65
CD at 5% 0.91 2.46 8.62 6.81 1.76 NS NS
Dr.Y.S.R.H.U, Venkataramannagudem (AP) Hussain et al. (2015)39

Treatments details
T1- 100% RDF
T2 - 80% RDF (240:40:240 g NPK/ plant crop ) + 20% RDN through
vermicompost
T3- 80% RDF + 20% RDN through VC + Azospirillum
T4- 80% RDF + 20% RDN VC + Phosphate solubilizing bacteria (PSB)
T5- 80% RDF + 20% RDN through VC + Frateuria aurantia (KMB)
T6- 80% RDF + 20% RDN through VC + Azospirillum + PSB + KMB
T7- 80% RDF 20% RDN Farm Yard Manure (FYM)
T8- 80% RDF +20% RDN through FYM + Azospirillum
T9 - 80% RDF + 20% RDN through FYM + PSB
T10 - 80% RDF + 20% RDN through FYM + KMB
T11- 80% RDF + 20% RDN through FYM + Azospirillum + PSB + KMB
Note : RDF= 300-60-300 g NPK/ plant
40

Treatments No. of
hands per
bunch
No. of
fingers per
bunch
Finger
length
(cm)
Finger
girth (cm)
Bunch
weight
(kg)
Yield
(MT/ha)
T1 10.8 154.6 20.6 12.0 21.2 94.2
T2 11.2 160.5 21.1 12.2 21.7 96.4
T3 12.2 173.3 22.1 12.5 23.5 104.4
T4 11.6 165.7 21.7 12.3 23.1 102.7
T5 9.8 146.9 20.3 11.8 19.9 83.4
CD at 5% 1.51 7.22 0.50 0.31 0.92 7.52
Table 8: Effect of different mulches on yield of banana cv. Grand Naine
Shaikh et al. (2017)Banana Research Station, Jalgaon (MH)
T1: Soybean straw
T2: Banana plants part
T3: Silver-Black polyethylene mulch
T4: Black-Black polyethylene mulch
T5: Control
41

Treatments
O.C (%)
Available N
(kg/ha)
Available P2O5
(kg/ha)
Available K2O
(kg/ha)
Pre
harvest
Post
harvest
Pre
harvest
Post
harvest
Pre
harvest
Post
harvest
Pre
harvest
Post
harvest
T1 0.38 0.59 189.21 267.40 16.14 24.40 175.00 162.25
T2 0.45 0.62 192.56 308.53 16.87 26.63 180.00 210.75
T3 0.48 0.65 229.32 322.40 23.54 30.95 182.00 190.25
T4 0.5 0.68 229.82 341.20 24.12 35.17 183.11 215.00
T5 0.51 0.75 230.50 360.81 24.95 37.89 184.00 239.50
C. D. at 5% 0.04 0.21 5.23 19.47 0.58 0.95 27.25 52.43
O.U.A.T, Bhubaneswar (Odisha) Chhuria et al. (2016)
Table 9 : Effect of integrated nutrient management on soil physical and
chemical parameters of tissue culture banana cv. Grand Naine
42
T5-100% RDF (300:100:300 g NPK/Plant) + 125 g of bio-fertilizers

T1 Control
T2 100% RDF (300:100:300 g ) N:P:K/ Plant
T3 100% RDF + 75 g of bio-fertilizers
Treatments details:
43
Bio- fertilizer: Azotobactor, Azospirillium and PSB were applied

Table 10: Effect of organic manures, inorganic manures and bio- fertilizers on soil
nutrient status of papaya orchard cv. CO- 7
Treatments
Nitrogen (kg/ha) Phosphorus (kg/ha) Potassium (kg/ha)
2004-05 2005-06 2004-05 2005-06 2004-05 2005-06
T1 273.30 274.80 25.80 25.91 263.85 264.62
T2 264.66 266.10 22.25 22.76 263.25 263.12
T3 262.83 265.62 22.55 22.43 263.60 263.55
T4 281.83 285.19 27.82 28.61 265.33 266.39
T5 278.01 284.66 27.57 28.47 265.30 265.30
T6 253.42 258.62 20.87 20.84 260.07 261.85
T7 252.73 256.20 20.55 20.81 257.62 260.59
T8 256.11 257.13 23.53 19.83 261.62 262.35
T9 255.38 258.00 23.68 24.73 260.79 261.52
T10 284.41 278.52 28.08 28.92 271.25 271.90
T11 282.93 287.52 28.29 28.68 271.00 271.54
CD at 5% 4.15 2.35 0.55 0.51 3.19 2.48
N.D.U.A.T, Faizabad (UP) Srivastava et al. (2014)45

Treatment detail
T1 - FYM +1 100 % NPK- Control
T2 -FYM + 50 % NPK + Azotobacter)
T3 -FYM + 50 % NPK+ Azospirillum)
T4 -FYM + 50 % NPK + Azotobacter +PSB
T5 -FYM + 50 % NPK + Azospirillum + PSB
T6 -FYM + 25 % NPK + Azotobacter)
T7 -FYM + 25 % NPK + Azospirillum)
T8 -FYM + 25 % NPK + Azotobacter + PSB
T10 -FYM + l 00 % NPK + Azotobacter + PSB
Note: FYM- 20kg/plant at the time of pit preparation,
RDF @ 250:250:500 g NPK/plant
46

Treatment Yield (kg/ plant) TSS (%) Acidity (%) Total sugar (%)
2004-05 2005-06 2004-05 2005-06 2004-05 2005-06 2004-05 2005-06
T1 34.78 37.10 14.93 15.20 0.151 0.152 12.94 13.47
T2 28.28 29.60 14.26 14.50 0.160 0.157 10.84 11.35
T3 25.72 26.63 14.16 14.67 0.159 0.156 11.26 11.24
T4 43.95 44.20 16.50 16.71 0.142 0.142 15.24 15.53
T5 42.78 44.08 16.38 16.60 0.143 0.143 14.92 15.35
T6 21.07 20.86 12.45 12.90 0.172 0.171 10.17 10.32
T7 20.44 19.47 12.48 12.83 0.173 0.170 9.48 10.17
T8 24.08 24.95 13.61 13.33 0.168 0.166 10.60 10.44
T9 22.87 24.ll 12.90 12.95 0.169 0.166 10.51 10.66
T10 46.07 46.18 16.78 16.80 0.140 0.139 15.39 15.84
T11 44.89 45.40 16.50 16.73 0.142 0.141 15.31 15.73
C.D. at 5% 4.39 5.06 0.49 0.51 0.0040 0.0029 0.58 0.50
Srivastava et al. (2014))N.D.U.A.T, Faizabad (UP)
Table 11 : Effect of organic manures and bio- fertilizers on yield and quality of
papaya cv. CO-7
47

Treatments
Fruits
/plant
Fruit
weight(g)
Yield
(t/ha)
Water use
efficiency (kg/
ha/cm)
(A) Irrigation methods
T1- Drip
irrigation
23.43 630.11 20.38 127.53
T2- Basin irrigation
with straw mulch
24.76 677.67 23.17 112.78
T3- Basin irrigation
without straw mulch
20.55 585.78 18.31 74.94
C. D. at 5% 0.88 56.84 1.11
Table 12: Effect of irrigation methods on yield attributing characters of papaya cv.
CO-2 (pooled 2010-2012)
O.U.A.T, Sambalpur (Odisha) Nayak et al. (2015)
48

50
Treatments No. of
fruits/plant
Fruit yield
(kg/plant)
Fruit wt.
(g)
Pulp
wt./fruit (g)
TSS
(˚Brix)
Total sugar
(%)
T1 1309.00 103.40 79.05 62.60 19.90 16.30
T2 1271.00 98.08 77.15 60.00 19.93 16.81
T3 1355.00 135.57 99.99 79.50 21.26 16.28
T4 1566.00 175.53 112.03 87.50 21.86 17.86
T5 1512.66 185.20 122.35 98.66 21.63 17.72
T6 1247.66 110.30 88.43 71.10 20.00 17.35
T7 1262.66 113.93 90.20 71.50 21.46 17.57
T8 1236.33 106.17 85.83 68.40 20.33 17.55
T9 1569.33 197.53 125.87 101.66 23.16 18.03
T10 1274.00 100.71 79.00 62.76 20.26 17.72
T11 1186.00 73.99 61.33 47.50 16.06 15.76
C. D. at 5% 30.09 13.09 6.86 10.35 1.94 0.18
Table 13: Effect of integrated nutrient management on fruit yield and
quality of sapota
P.D.K.V, Akola (MH) Baviskar et al. (2011)
T9 -1125:750:375 g NPK + 15 kg vermicompost + 250 g Azotobacter + 250 g PSB/plant
50

T1
1500:1000:500 g NPK + 50 kg FYM / plant
T2
1125:750:375 g NPK + 50 kg FYM + 250 g Azotobacter / plant
T3
1125:750:375 g NPK + 50 kg FYM + 250 g Azospirillium / plant
T4
1125:750:375 g NPK + 50 kg FYM + 250 g Azotobacter + 250 g PSB /
plant
T5
1125:750:375 g NPK + 50 kg FYM + 250 g Azospirillium + 250 g PSB/
plant
T6
1125:750:375 g NPK + 15 kg vermicompost /plant
T7
1125:750:375 g NPK + 15 kg vermicompost + 250 g Azotobacter/plant
T8
1125:750:375 g NPK + 15 kg vermicompost + 250 g Azospirillium/plant
T9
1125:750:375 g NPK + 15 kg vermicompost + 250 g Azotobacter + 250 g
PSB/plant
T10
1125:750:375 g NPK + 15 kg vermicompost + 250 g Azospirillium + 250 g
PSB/plant
T11
Control
Treatment details:
51

Table 14 : Effect of drip irrigation and fertigation on No. of fruits/ tree, fruit yield
and TSS of sapota cv. Kalipatti (14 year old tree)
Treatments No. of fruits/ tree Fruit yield (t / ha) TSS (ºBrix)
T1 1789 11.47 17.90
T2 1775 11.35 17.87
T3 1901 12.47 19.90
T4 1713 10.98 18.83
T5 1897 12.35 20.07
T6 2082 13.37 20.83
T7 1824 11.65 18.17
T8 2211 14.41 18.40
T9 2243 14.91 17.17
C.D. at 5% 339.10 2.60 1.40
Anonymus (2015)A.A.U, Anand
52

T1 = 0.4 PE Fraction + 50% NPK of RDF
T2= 0.4 PE Fraction + 75% NPK of RDF
Note: RDF- 900:450:450 g NPK/ plant
Treatments details :
Conti….
53

Table 15 : Effect of intercrops on improvement of soil fertility status of aonla
orchard cv. NA-6 (Average of three year) Eight year old plants
Treatments
Bulk density
(g/cc)
Available
N (kg/ha)
Available P
(kg/ha)
Available
K (kg/ha)
Organic
matter (%)
T1- Mustard 1.41 214.12 16.35 233.60 0.65
T2- Pea 1.40 214.75 16.45 234.86 0.67
T3- Gram 1.44 209.62 14.25 224.40 0.61
T4- Linseed 1.45 208.50 14.19 223.81 0.59
T5 - Fennel 1.47 206.62 13.97 223.21 0.57
T6- Fenugreek 1.46 207.12 14.00 223.87 0.60
T7- Sole crop 1.50 201.50 13.09 219.65 0.48
CD at 5% - - - - -
N.D.U.A.T, Faizabad (UP) Singh et al. (2008)
55

Treatment
Fruit set (%) Yield (kg/ tree) TSS (ºBrix)
Ascorbic acid
(mg/100 g juice)
2007-08 2008-09 2007-08 2008-09 2007-08 2008-09 2007-08 2008-09
T1 68.10 68.80 90.00 92.00 10.50 11.50 2.95 3.10
T2 64.25 63.20 80.00 86.00 9.50 10.30 2.34 3.00
T3 67.00 67.50 85.00 82.00 10.00 10.50 3.00 3.00
T4 59.70 60.20 78.00 80.00 9.65 10.20 2.31 2.65
T5 70.20 71.00 95.00 98.00 11.00 12.10 3.16 3.20
T6 72.20 73.20 105.00 106.00 12.00 12.20 3.20 3.35
T7 56.00 56.40 72.00 85.00 9.60 10.00 2.30 2.50
T8 54.70 56.20 75.00 89.00 9.50 9.50 2.20 2.44
T9 48.20 48.00 70.00 76.00 9.00 9.20 1.96 2.00
T10 54.60 54.20 73.00 79.00 9.50 9.50 2.16 2.40
C.D. at 5% 8.59 7.13 13.67 10.13 1.35 0.45 0.31 0.32
Yadav et al. (2009))N.D.U.A.T, Faizabad, (UP)
Table 16 : Effect of integrated nutrient management on yield and quality of
aonla cv. NA-6 (10 year old trees)
56

Treatment detail
T1 - 100 % - (NPK + FYM)
T2 -75 % NPK + 25% FYM + Azotobacter
T3 - 50 % NPK + FYM 50% + Azospirillum
T4 - 25 % NPK+ 25% FYM + Azotobacter +PSB
T5 - 75 % NPK + 25%FYM+ Azotobacter + Azospirillum + PSB
T6 - 50 % NPK + 50% FYM + Azotobacter + Azospirillum + PSB
T7 -25 % NPK + 100% FYM + Azotobacter + Azospirillum + PSB
T8 - 100% FYM + Azotobacter + Azospirillum + PSB
T9 - 100% FYM
T10 - Azotobacter + Azospirillum + PSB
Note : 100% dose of NPK & FYM, NPK: 1000:500:500 g, FYM: 100 kg,
were 250 g each bio-fertilizers
57

Treatments
Organic
carbon (%)
N (kg/ha) P2O5 (kg/ha) K2O (kg/ha)
T1 - Maize straw 0.55 165.20 10.45 155.00
T2 - Paddy straw 0.58 170.15 11.10 158.18
T3 - Rice husk 0.37 156.00 10.00 151.00
T4 - Grasses 0.48 161.00 10.25 152.15
T5 - Subabul lopping 0.53 163.00 10.45 154.87
T6 - Control 0.33 150.00 7.50 150.00
CD at 5%
0.05 15.95 1.05 06.75
CHES, Vejalpur (Gujarat) Singh et al. (2010)
Table 17: Effect of organic mulches on physico-chemical properties of soil of
aonla cv. NA-7 (4 year old plants) (Average of two year)
58

Treatments
O.C
(g/kg)
Available N
(kg/ha)
Available P2O5
(kg/ha)
Available K2O
(kg/ha)
2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010
T1 -Control
4.26 4.46 224.50 225.50 16.31 17.43 157.52 154.52
T2-Bajra straw 5.36 5.56 235.25 236.75 16.90 17.96 163.69 160.94
T3-Maize straw 5.90 6.10 239.50 241.00 17.03 18.27 168.18 164.31
T4-Ficas leaf 5.16 5.36 232.00 234.25 16.48 17.02 160.33 158.45
T5-Brankad
(Adhotada vassica)
6.16 6.30 243.00 244.50 17.31 18.31 170.99 167.11
T6-FYM 6.66 6.85 248.00 249.50 18.00 19.06 174.92 176.48
T7-Black polythene 4.20 4.22 222.50 224.00 16.48 17.21 156.40 153.96
C.D. at 5%
0.08 0.08 5.53 6.47 0.83 0.95 3.11 3.17
S.K.U.A.S.T, Raya (J&K) Kumar et al. (2013)
Table 18 : Effect of mulches on soil properties of mandarin cv. Kinnow
(3 year old orchard)
60

Treatment
Plant
height (m)
Soil moisture
content
(50 DAM)
Weed
population
(Plants/m2)
Yield
(kg/ha)
T1 - Control 2.59 6.82 80 1560
T2 - Bajra straw 2.81 8.60 50 1700
T3 - Maize straw 2.93 8.05 60 1720
T4 - Grasses 2.75 7.58 40 1680
T5 - Brankad 3.00 8.84 58 1744
T6 - FYM 3.09 9.52 38 1780
T7 - Black polythene 3.16 10.16 35 1848
C. D. at 5% 0.15 0.63 10.4 34.41
Kumar (2014)S. K.U.A.S.T, Raya, (J&K)
Table 19: Effect of mulching on plant height, soil moisture
content, weed suppression and yield of Eureka lemon
61

Treatment
Average
fruit weight
(g)
Fruit yield
(kg/tree)
TSS
(°Brix)
Ascorbic Acid
(mg/100 g juice)
Acidity (%)
T1- 100% RDF (50 kg FYM, 900 g :
750 g : 500 g NPK/tree)
40.25 33.41 6.88 24.10 7.95
T2- 75% RDF + 5 kg Castor cake/tree 42.67 35.09 7.42 25.13 7.87
T3-T2 + AAU PGPR Consortium (3.5
ml/tree)
49.83 36.13 7.73 26.90 7.82
T4-50% RDF + 10 kg Castor cake/tree 48.68 34.90 7.57 26.20 7.73
ml/tree) 50.17 42.42 8.60 28.03 7.40
T6-75% RDF + 9 kg
Vermicompost/tree
47.00 37.53 7.92 27.67 7.50
ml/tree) 53.20 46.92 8.85 29.63 7.32
T8-50% RDF + 18 kg
Vermicompost/tree 45.75 41.68 8.37 27.83 7.43
T9 - T8 + AAU PGPR Consortium (3.5
ml/tree) 51.92 46.68 8.72 28.53 7.35
C. D. at 5% 5.19 4.95 0.57 1.88 0.43
Table 20: Effect of integrated nutrient management (INM) on yield and quality
attributing characters of acid lime cv. kagzi lime
Nurbhanej et al. (2016)A.A.U, Anand 62

Treatments
Fruit yield
(kg/plant)
TSS
(°Brix)
Reducing
sugar (%)
Total sugar
(%)
T1 - Control 14.62 23.80 15.91 17.21
T2 - Circular basin with
5% slope
14.85 24.33 16.05 17.60
T3 - Crescent bunding 15.49 24.81 16.15 17.66
T4 -Circular basin with
5% slope and
mulching locally
available organic
material
16.08 24.85 16.69 17.91
C. D. at 5%
0.89 0.77 0.53 0.58
JAU, Junagadh Polara et al. (2013)
Table 21: Effect of in situ water harvesting and mulching on yield and quality
parameters of custard apple cv. Sindhan (5 year old plants)
64

Treatments
O.C .
(%)
Available N
(kg/ha)
Available
P2O5
(kg/ha)
Available
K2O (kg/ha)
T1 -Control 0.535 215.44 24.31 336.10
T2- Circular basin with 5% slope 0.541 220.46 25.66 344.43
T3- Crescent bunding 0.534 221.74 25.14 337.89
T4- Circular basin with 5%
slope and mulching locally
available organic material
0.548 225.68 25.98 340.90
CD at 5% NS 8.67 1.15 NS
JAU, Junagadh Polara et al. (2013)
Table 22: Effect of in situ water harvesting and mulching on available
nutrients in custard apple (5 year old plants)
65

Treatments
Flower drop
(%)
Fruit set
(%)
Total fruit
drop (%)
Number of
fruits/plant
Yield
(t/ha)
T1- Cover crops
(cowpea)
28.74 71.26 45.71 277.51 10.20
T2- Sugarcane trash 30.71 69.29 49.86 267.85 9.46
T3- Saw dust 23.33 76.67 45.81 252.19 9.15
T4-Dry leaves 27.74 72.26 48.30 275.21 10.77
T5- Paddy straw 17.85 82.15 40.31 286.26 12.34
T6-Black polythene 19.02 81.06 40.02 347.95 13.08
T7-White polythene 21.69 78.31 42.12 340.17 12.42
Control 36.82 63.18 51.33 245.15 7.71
C. D. at 5% 0.94 0.96 0.78 5.62 1.56
B.C.K.V, Mohanpur, (WB) Das et al. (2010)
Table 23: Effect of soil covers on flower drop, fruit set, fruit drop, number
of fruits/plant and yield of guava cv. L-49 (14 year old plants)
67

Treatments
TSS
(°Brix)
Total sugar
(%)
Reducing
sugar
(%)
Non-reducing
sugar
(%)
T1 -Cover crops(cowpea) 7.67 5.20 3.04 2.16
T2 - Sugarcane trash 7.47 5.42 3.12 2.30
T3 - Saw dust 7.73 5.93 3.26 2.67
T4 - Dry leaves 8.40 6.01 3.33 2.68
T5 -Paddy straw 8.53 6.53 3.81 2.72
T6 - Black polythene 7.73 6.35 3.69 2.66
T7 - White polythene 7.53 6.08 3.56 2.52
Control 7.07 5.07 3.01 2.06
C. D. at 5% 0.64 0.138 0.35 0.11
B.C.K.V, Mohanpur (W.B) Das et al. (2010)
Table 24: Effect of soil covers on dimension and bio-chemical composition of
fruits of guava cv. L-49 (14 year old plants)
68

Table 25 : Effect of integrated nutrient management on fruit yield and quality of guava
Treatment
No. of fruit
per plant
Fruit yield
(Kg/plant)
Fruit
weight (g)
TSS(°B)
Total
sugar(%)
Acidity (%)
T1 143.00 24.45 191.10 10.01 7.32 0.330
T2 146.00 26.56 215.44 11.15 8.28 0.327
T3 153.00 27.98 215.20 10.40 8.27 0.341
T4 205.00 39.45 289.40 12.51 8.70 0.259
T5 179.66 35.68 246.10 11.57 8.32 0.305
T6 84.00 21.78 182.30 9.95 7.32 0.312
T7 91.00 25.12 198.70 9.78 7.32 0.335
T8 129.00 22.63 183.50 10.10 7.34 0.355
T9 165.00 33.41 211.70 11.45 8.26 0.394
T10 154.00 31.27 206.20 11.20 7.64 0.389
T11 73.00 12.74 131.80 9.45 6.07 0.359
C. D. at 5% 8.81 4.27 8.93 0.77 0.22 0.04
P.D.K.V, Akola (MH) Barne et al. (2011)
69

Treatments detail:
T1 650 : 325 : 375 g NPK + 50 kg FYM / plant
T2 487.5 : 243.75 : 281.25 g NPK + 50kg FYM + 250 g Azotobacter / plant
T3 487.5 : 243.75: 281.25 g NPK + 50 kg FYM + 250 g Azospirillum
T4 487.5 : 243.75 : 281.25 g NPK + 50 kg FYM + 250 g Azotobacter + 250 g PSB
/plant
T5 487.5 :243.75: 281.25 g NPK + 50 kg FYM + 250 g Azospirillum+ 250g PSB
/plant
T6 650 : 325 : 375 g NPK + 15 kg vermicompost / plant
T8 487.5:243.75:281.25 g NPK + 15 kg vermicompost + 250 g Azospirillum / plant
T9 487.5 : 243.75 : 281.25 g NPK + 15 kg vermicompost + 250 g Azotobacter +
250g PSB / plant
T10 487.5 : 243.75 : 281.25 g NPK + 15 kg vermicompost + 250 g Azospirillum +
250g PSB / plant
T11 Control
70
Conti….

Table 26 : Effect of orchard floor management treatments on fruit set, fruit drop, fruit
crack, total no. of fruit and yield of pomegranate cv. Kandhari Kabuli
(Seven year old plants)
Treatments
Fruit set
(%)
Fruit
drop (%)
Fruit
crack
(%)
No of
fruits per
tree
Yield
(kg)/plant
T1 - Grass mulch
(10cm thick) 51.52 13.45 1.76 44.33 12.35
T2 - Black polythene mulch 53.40 12.32 1.36 51.66 13.05
T3 - Clean basin + herbicidal
treatment (7ml/litre) 45.28 24.13 2.60 35.66 7.50
T4 - Ridge basin + grass
mulch 47.47 20.34 1.98 39.66 6.90
T5 -Control 42.34 25.66 2.80 34.00 7.35
CD at 5% 1.82 2.11 0.14 2.23 0.73
YSPUHF, Solan (HP) Sharma et al. (2017)
72

Treatments
TSS
(Brix)
Titratable
acidity (%)
Total
sugar
(%)
Reducing
sugar
(%)
Non-
Reducing
sugar (%)
Ascorbic
acid
(mg/100g )
T1 12.66 0.43 11.52 9.31 2.21 15.67
T2 13.33 0.33 11.86 9.54 2.32 15.81
T3 11.43 0.42 11.30 9.16 2.14 13.26
T4 11.93 0.49 10.22 8.52 1.70 14.01
Control 11.10 0.54 9.84 8.40 1.44 12.82
CD at 5 % 0.68 0.05 0.13 0.08 0.08 0.36
Sharma et al. (2017)
Table 27: Effect of orchard floor management treatments on physico-chemical
characters of pomegranate cv. Kandhari Kabuli
73
YSPUHF, Solan (HP)

Table 28: Effect of orchard floor management practices on yield parameters of apple cv. Royal
Delicious (19 year old orchard)
Treatments
Initial fruit set (%) Final fruit set (%) Fruit yield (kg/tree)
2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016
T1 74.0 70.0 60,0 58.3 68.17 65.10
T2 73.7 71.7 61.0 59.5 70.57 68.03
T3 77.3 74.0 63.8 62.5 74.23 71.60
T4 79.3 73.3 63.3 62.0 74.13 71.53
T5 76.7 74.3 64.0 63.0 78.10 77.13
T6 66.0 75.3 64.7 63.7 80.43 79.93
T7 78.0 71.0 60.6 59.4 70.23 68.70
T8 79.7 70.0 60.2 59.4 69.43 67.60
T9 74.3 70.3 60.7 59.1 70.23 67.83
T10 76.3 75.7 64.8 63.9 82.03 80.60
T11 73.3 74.3 63.3 62.7 74.53 73.40
T12 73.7 74.0 63.0 62.0 74.37 73.10
T13 74.3 74.3 63.2 62.5 74.40 73.37
T14 78.7 75.0 64.3 63.6 79.13 78.00
T15 75.7 74.0 63.5 62.8 78.50 77.87
C.D. at 5% NS 1.92 1.30 1.21 1.14 1.42
Hussain et al. (2017)SKUAST, Shalimar (J&K) 75

T1 - Control (no weeding)
T2 - Farmer practices (hoeing during March and May)
T3- zero weeds (weeding at frequent intervals)
T4 – Clean cultivation (weeding at 30 days interval)
T5 - Bicolour polythene mulch (250 μm)
T6 - Paddy straw mulch (10 cm thick)
T7 - Oxyflourfen @ 1.0 l /ha (pre-emergence)
T8 - Atrazine @ 3.0 kg/ha (pre-emergence)
T9 - Pendimethalin @ 2.0 l /ha (pre-emergence)
T10 - Paddy straw mulch (10 cm thick) followed by application of glyphosate @ 2.0 l/ ha
(post-emergence)
T11 - Oxyflourfen @ 1.0 l ha-1 (pre-emergence) followed by glyphosate @ 2.0 l/ha (post-
emergence)
T12 - Atrazine @ 3.0 kg ha-1 (pre-emergence) followed by glyphosate @ 2.0 l/ ha (post-
emergence)
T13 - Pendimethalin @ 2.0 l ha-1 (pre-emergence) followed by glyphosate @ 2.0 l/ha (post-
emergence)
T14 - Cowpea (green manure)
T15 - White clover (cover crop)
TREATMENTS DETAIL:
76

Table 29: Effect of orchard floor management practices on chemical characteristics of apple cv.
Royal Delicious (19 year old orchard)
Treatments
TSS (ºBrix) Fruit acidity (%) Total sugar (%)
2015 2016 2015 2016 2015 2016
T1 13.57 13.65 0.28 0.28 8.65 8.64
T2 13.67 13.79 0.26 0.25 8.78 8.79
T3 14.47 14.59 0.22 0.20 8.85 8.86
T4 14.49 14.67 0.22 0.20 8.84 8.86
T5 14.60 14.73 0.21 0.19 8.87 8.89
T6 14.33 14.70 0.23 0.22 8.84 8.85
T7 13.77 13.93 0.27 0.26 8.75 8.77
T8 13.77 13.85 0.28 0.27 8.73 8.72
T9 13.80 13.98 0.27 0.27 8.75 8.75
T10 14.53 14.63 0.22 0.20 8.85 8.86
T11 13.90 14.30 0.26 0.24 8.83 8.85
T12 13.93 14.03 0.25 0.24 8.80 8.81
T13 13.73 13.83 0.26 0.24 8.81 8.83
T14 14.17 14.53 0.24 0.22 8.83 8.85
T15 14.10 14.17 0.25 0.24 8.81 8.82
C.D. at 5% 0.17 0.19 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.04
SKUAST, Shalimar (J&K) Hussain et al. (2017)77

Conclusion
 Orchard soil management practices and integrated nutrient
management with use of organic manures (FYM, vermicompost,
bio-fertilizers, cakes etc.) and cover cropping helps in improving
physical, chemical and biological properties of the soil for
quality fruit production.
 Mulching encourages proliferation of feeder roots resulting in
efficient uptake of plant nutrients and more retention of moisture
and improves thermal regimes under weed free conditions as well
as drip irrigation with use of plastic mulch significantly influence
tree yield and fruit quality.
78

FUTURE THRUST
 To make aware about more use of organic sources of
nutrient for sustainability of orchard soil
 Fruit crops are long time establishment at a single spot,
so it is needed to manage fruit orchard according to its
root system and growth habit.
 There is scope to work on soil nutrient analysis on
recommendation base
79

orchard floor management in fruit crop

orchard floor management in fruit crop

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Ähnlich wie orchard floor management in fruit crop

Ähnlich wie orchard floor management in fruit crop (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

orchard floor management in fruit crop

Hinweis der Redaktion