Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
Qualitative parameters
The results for the qualitative parameters for the different experiments are summarised in Tables 3.2 and 3.4. There was a slight difference in the pH of the fruit juice among the treatments, where the lowest acidity (high pH) was recorded for treatment 5 (2fr/pan+50%pan) in experiments 1b (5.06) and 2 (5.03) (Table 3.4). The result was not significantly different between all treatments except treatment 4 (2fr/pan) and the control. Thinning treatments did not affect the titratable acids of the fruits in experiments 1a and 2. However, a significantly higher TA was recorded for treatments 4 (2fr/pan) (72 m eq/l) and the control (73.8 m eq/l) in experiment 1b (Table 3.4). There was a significantly higher TSS (16.3 oBrix) for treatment 3 (1fr/pan+50%pan) in experiment 1a, which was not significantly different from treatments 2 (1fr/pan) (16.2 oBrix) and 5 (2fr/pan+50%pan) (16.2 oBrix) (Table 3.2). In experiments 1b and 2, fruit from the control trees recorded a significantly lower TSS (15 and 15.07 oBrix respectively) as compared to all treatments except treatment 4 (2fr/pan) (15.8 oBrix) in experiment 2 (Table 3.4). In experiment 2, fruit were significantly firm from trees sprayed with Corasil.E and where treatment 5 (2fr/pan+50%pan) was applied. In experiment 1a fruit from trees where treatment 3 and 5 were applied had firm fruit. There was no significant difference in fruit firmness among treatments in experiment 1b. On the other hand, even if there was no significant difference, the highest incidence of the physiological problem (jelly seed) was observed for treatment 3 (1fr/pan+50%pan) while the lowest for treatment 1 (Corasil.E) (Table 3.4).
Tree phenology and starch reserve
During October, when the first samples were collected to do the analysis right before treatment application, the wood starch concentration for all treatment trees was high especially when compared to the months of January, March and May (Fig. 3.4). Treatment 1 (all fruit thinned) had a significantly lower wood starch reserve than all the other treatments (18.31 mg/g). The overall wood starch status of the trees in January was low as compared to all the other months except being relatively better than that of March, especially for the control (1.83 mg/g) and treatment 1 (all fruit thinned) (2.92 mg/g) (Fig. 3.4). Wood starch status during early March was even lower than that of January (lower than all other periods) and there was no clear variation among the treatments (Fig. 3.4). There was a substantial build-up of wood reserve for all treatments towards May and more especially, a significantly higher wood reserve (24.2 mg/g) was recorded for treatment 1 (all fruit thinned) (Fig. 3.4). There was a clear increasing trend of wood reserve for treatment 1 (all fruit thinned) in July even if the value was not significant from the other treatments (Fig. 3.4). The general bark starch status of the trees during January was very low as compared to October and the various treatments did not cause a significant variation on the bark starch status of the trees during both months (Table 3.5). The same trend as that of wood reserve was observed for bark starch status of the trees. Since the fruit were small in size and still had to develop further, their starch concentration during October was low (Table 3.5). After attaining the full-grown size (elapsing the different fruit developmental phases), the starch concentration of the fruit in January was higher than other months. Of all the periods and the plant parts for which starch analyses were done, starch concentration in the fruit during January was the highest. Nevertheless, no significant differences were observed among the treatments during both analyses periods (Table 3.5). The starch analyses results for the fruit of treatment 1 (all fruits thinned) were from the second (2003) harvest. The reason for this being that, there was no fruit for the 2002 harvest as to the nature of the treatment. Leaf starch followed the same trend as that of bark and wood starch and there were no significant differences among the treatments in both analyses periods (Table 3.5).
Vegetative growth parameters
Significantly higher numbers (185.69) and the longest new flushes (23.32 cm) were seen in treatment 1 (all fruits thinned) (Fig. 3.5 and 3.6). The control as well as treatment 4 (2fr/pan) had the lowest numbers (65.32 and 58.46 respectively) and shortest new flushes (14.31 and 11.74 cm respectively). The significantly higher number of new leaves per new flush (14.57) was observed for trees that received treatment 1 (all fruit thinned) and the lowest for the control trees (8.78) (Fig 3.5). The average leaf area of the forty sample leaves proved not to be affected by the treatments (data not shown).
CHAPTER 1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
1.2 Problem statement
1.3 Main objectives of the project and hypotheses tested
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Effects of inductive temperature periods and chemicals on flowering of some mango cultivars—-
2.2 The impact of panicle and shoot pruning on vegetative growth, inflorescence and yield-related developments in some mango cultivars
2.3 Effects of potassium nitrate on flowering and yield promotions of mango
2.4 Effect of Paclobutrazol on control of vegetative growth, leaf nutrient content, flower development, yield and fruit quality of mango
2.5 Effects of fruit thinning on some yield and fruit quality components as well as starch reserves of mango
CHAPTER 3 EFFECT OF FRUIT THINNING ON ‘SENSATION’ MANGO TREES WITH RESPECT TO FRUIT QUALITY, QUANTITY AND TREE PHENOLOGY
3.1 ABSTRACT
3.2 INTRODUCTION
3.3 MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.4 RESULTS
3.5 DISCUSSION
3.6 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 4 PACLOBUTRAZOL SUPPRESED VEGETATIVE GROWTH AND IMPROVED YIELD AS WELL AS FRUIT QUALITIES OF ‘TOMMY ATKINS’ MANGO IN ETHIOPIA
4.1 ABSTRACT
4.2 INTRODUCTION
4.3 MATERIALS AND METHODS
4.4 RESULTS
4.5 DISCUSSION
4.6 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 5 THE IMPACT OF PANICLE AND SHOOT PRUNING ON INFLORESCENCE AND FRUIT RELATED DEVELOPMENTS IN TWO MANGO CULTIVARS
5.1 ABSTRACT
5.2 INTRODUCTION
5.3 MATERIALS AND METHODS
5.4 RESULTS
5.5 DISCUSSION
5.6 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 6 EFFECTS OF VARIOUS INDUCTIVE PERIODS AND CHEMICALS ON FLOWERING AND VEGETATIVE GROWTH OF TOMMY ATKINS AND KEITT MANGO CULTIVARS
6.1 ABSTRACT
6.2 INTRODUCTION
6.3 MATERIALS AND METHODS
6.4 RESULTS
6.5 DISCUSSION
6.6 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 7 POTASSIUM NITRATE AND UREA SPRAYS SHOWED AN IMPACT ON FLOWERING AND YIELDS OF ‘TOMMY ATKINS’ MANGO IN ETHIOPIA
7.1 ABSTRACT
7.2 INTRODUCTION
7.3 MATERIALS AND METHODS
7.4 RESULTS
7.5 DISCUSSION
7.6 CONCLUSION
CHAPTER 8 GENERAL DISCUSSION
8.1 Major problem areas identified and initiation of experiments
8.2 Why specific fruit thinning?
8.3 The need for growth retardants
8.4 Is pruning essential?
8.5 Use of chemicals for floral induction
8.6 Attributes of spraying potassium nitrate and urea
8.7 Recommendations for both Ethiopian and South African farmers
8.8 Aspects that need further investigation
SUMMARY
REFERENCES
