int. j. sustain. crop prod. 11(2): 7-17 (may 2016) effect...

Reprint ISSN 1991-3036 (Web Version)

International Journal of Sustainable Crop Production (IJSCP)

(Int. J. Sustain. Crop Prod.)

Volume: 11 Issue: 2 May 2016

Int. J. Sustain. Crop Prod. 11(2): 7-17 (May 2016)

EFFECT OF FOLIAR APPLICATION OF CHITOSAN ON GROWTH AND YIELD IN

TOMATO, MUNGBEAN, MAIZE AND RICE

M.T. ISLAM, M.M.A. MONDAL, M.S. RAHMAN, S. KHANAM, M.B. AKTER, M.A. HAQUE AND N.C. DAFADAR

An International Scientific Research Publisher

Green Global Foundation©

Web address: http://ggfjournals.com/e-journals archive

E-mails: [email protected] and [email protected]

http://ggfjournals.com/e-journals

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

7 Int. J. Sustain. Crop Prod. 11(2):May 2016

EFFECT OF FOLIAR APPLICATION OF CHITOSAN ON GROWTH AND YIELD IN TOMATO,

MUNGBEAN, MAIZE AND RICE

M.T. ISLAM*, M.M.A. MONDAL, M.S. RAHMAN, S. KHANAM, M.B. AKTER, M.A. HAQUE AND N.C. DAFADAR1

Crop Physiology Division, Bangladesh Institute of Nuclear Agriculture, Mymensingh;

1CSO, Bangladesh Atomic Energy Commission, Dhaka.

*Corresponding author & address: Dr. Md. Tariqul Islam, E-mail: [email protected]

Accepted for publication on 25 April 2016

ABSTRACT

Islam MT, Mondal MMA, Rahman MS, Khanam S, Akter MB, Haque MA, Dafadar NC (2016) Effect of foliar application of chitosan on

growth and yield in tomato, mungbean, maize and rice. Int. J. Sustain. Crop Prod. 11(2), 7-17.

Pot and field experiments were conducted under sub-tropical condition (24075´ N and 90050´ E) to investigate the effect of foliar application of chitosan on morphological, growth and reproductive characters and its consequence on

fruit or grain yield of summer and winter tomato, summer mungbean, maize and, Aman and Boro rice. Chitosan was

sprayed @ 25, 50, 75 and 100 ppm for tomato and mungbean, 50, 75, 100 and 125 ppm for maize and 25, 50 and 75 ppm for rice. Chitosan was sprayed two times on tomato and mungbean at vegetative and flowering start phases.

Chitosan was sprayed three times on maize and rice at vegetative and flowering stages. Foliar application of chitosan

at vegetative stage enhanced plant growth and development which resulted increased in total dry mass production of tomato, mungbean, maize and rice. However, among the studied crops, foliar application of chitosan on rice had little

effect on growth and development. Application of chitosan increased the prime yield component, number of fruits or

pods or grain plant-1 and resulting increased fruit or grain yield of summer and winter tomato, summer mungbean, maize and rice. Among the concentrations, 75, 50, 100 and 50 ppm respectively for tomato, mungbean, maize and rice

had superiority for yield components and seed or fruit yield over other concentrations. Therefore, application of

chitosan @ 75, 50, 100 and 50 ppm, respectively for tomato, mungbean, maize and rice may be recommended for increasing yield.

Key words: chitosan, plant growth regulator, tomato, mungbean, maize, rice, yield

INTRODUCTION

Tomato (Lycopersicon esculenturn Mill.) is grown not only in Bangladesh but also in many countries of

the world for its taste and nutritional status. The crop performs better under an average monthly

temperature of 20-250C. But commercially, it may grow at temperature ranging from 15-27

0C (Haque et

al. 1999). In Bangladesh, congenial atmosphere remains for tomato production during November to March.

So, tomato is widely grown in Bangladesh usually in winter season (November-March). High temperature

during day and night above 320 and 21

0C, respectively was recorded as limiting factor to fruit set due to

impaired complex physiological processes in the pistil which results on floral or fruit abscission (Picken

1984) during summer season. However, the yield performance of summer tomato varieties is very poor. So,

it is urgent to increase tomato yield by proper management and cultural practices. Plant growth regulators are

one of the most important factors for increasing higher yield. Application of hormone has good management

effect on growth and yield of tomato. On the other hand, flower and fruit abortion are common phenomenon in

tomato (Imam et al. 2010). A large proportion of tomato reproductive structures abscise before reaching

maturity, which is the primary cause of lowering yield in summer season (Rahman et al. 1996; Mondal et al.

2011). Fruit yield of tomato can be increased through reducing reproductive abscission. Hormones regulate

abscission process and synthetic hormones may reduce abscission of flowers and ultimately increase in yield of

fruit crops (Imam et al. 2010; Rahman et al. 2015).

Mungbean, [Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek] is one of the most important pulses in south-east Asia. However, its

yield is much lower than that of other legume crops such as grasspea, chickpea and lentil due to large number of

flower and pod abortion is a common phenomenon in mungbean and abscission of a large proportion of

reproductive structures (69-90%) before maturity, would be the primary cause of lowering yield in mungbean

(Mondal et al. 2009). There are reports that application of growth regulators reduced abscission, increased yield

components thereby increased in yield of soybean (Nahar and Ikeda, 2002) and tomato (Imam et al. 2010).

Maize (Zea mays L.), after rice and wheat, is the most important cereal crop in South-East Asia. Maize is a

unique crop because of its high yield potentiality and versatile use, low cost per unit of production (Rashid

2009). Due to the high yield potentiality and versatile uses, almost year round growth ability and higher per

hectare yield than other cereals, area and production of maize is increasing day by day in South-East Asia (FAO

2010). Despite significant annual increase in fertilizer use, its yield has stagnated and even declined in some

cases. So far, different conventional approaches have been used to improve the yield of maize. These

approaches are not much effective in many cases in improving the yield or narrowing down the gap between

potential and farmer’s obtained yields. This situation forces us to use non-conventional approaches such as

biotechnology, genetic engineering and use of plant hormones. Application of plant growth regulator (PGR)

seems to be one of the important practices in view of convenience, cost and labor efficiency.

Rice (Oryza sativa L.) is one of the most important food crops in the world. Rice is consumed by more than

50% of the world’s population which provides 45-60% of the dietary calories (Yang and Zhang, 2010). The

ISSN-1991-3036 (Online)

Int. J. Sustain. Crop Prod. 11(2):7-17(May 2016)

Copyright© 2016 Green Global Foundation

www.ggfjournals.com


yield of rice is an integrated result of various processes including canopy photosynthesis, conversion of

assimilates to biomass and partitioning of assimilates to grains (Jeng et al. 2006). Further, grain yield can be

defined as the product of yield sink capacity and filling efficiency. To increase yield further and to break the

yield ceiling, breeding efforts have expanded the yield sink capacity (the maximum size of sink organs to be

harvested) mainly by increasing the number of spikelets per panicle. As a result, cultivars with large panicles or

extra-heavy panicle types with numerous spikelets per panicle have become available such as the New Plant

Type of the IRRI, and hybrid and ‘super’ rice in China (Peng et al. 2008). These cultivars, however, frequently

do not exhibit their high yield potential due to their many unfilled grains (Yang et al. 2002; Yang et al. 2006;

Tang et al. 2009). There are reports that application of growth regulators reduced number of unfilled grains

thereby increased in yield of rice (Razzaque and Rahman, 2005; Berahim et al. 2014).

Chitosan is a natural biopolymer derived from chitin, a polysaccharide found in exoskeleton of shellfish such as

shrimp, lobster or crabs and cell wall of fungi is known to possess biological activity (Gornik et al. 2008). Very

few efforts were done to study the effect of chitosan on plant growth and development and its productivity

which mainly applied as to stimulate immunity of plants, to protect plants and food products against

microorganisms (bacteria and fungi) (Hadwiger et al. 2002; ChunYan et al. 2003; Devlieghere et al. 2004;

Patkowska et al. 2006; No et al. 2007; Gornik et al. 2008). Recently, some workers reported that chitosan

enhanced plant growth and development (Gornik et al. 2008; Abdel-Mawgoud et al. 2010; Mondal et al. 2012).

To the best of our knowledge, there has also been no previous report regarding the effects of foliar application

of chitosan on growth, reproductive characters and its consequence on yield in summer and winter tomato,

summer mungbean, maize and rice. Considering the above facts, the present research work was undertaken to

study the effect of chitosan on morph-physiological features, yield attributes and yield in maize, rice, mungbean

and tomato under sub-tropical (24075´ N and 90

050´ E) conditions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Summer tomato: The experiment was conducted at the pot yard of Bangladesh Institute of Nuclear Agriculture,

Mymensingh, during the period from February to May 2011 to investigate the response of different

concentrations of chitosan on tomato grown in summer season. BINA tomato-6 was used as planting material.

Five different concentrations of Chitosan viz., 0, 25, 50, 75 and 100 ppm were sprayed at two growth stages

(vegetative and reproductive stages) of tomato. In control, water was sprayed as per treatment. The chitosan was

sprayed by a hand sprayer at afternoon. Foliar applications were carried out until run off the solution. The pots

were filled with 12 kg sandy loam soil. Fertilizers were used as per fertilizer recommendation guide (BARC

2005). The experiment was laid out in completely randomized design with four replications. Each pot contained

one plant and denotes a replication. Twenty five days old seedlings were transplanted on 24 February, 2011.

Winter tomato: The field experiment was conducted at BINA sub-station Ishurdi during the period from

November 2012 to April 2013. Five concentrations viz. 0, 50, 75, and 100 ppm was sprayed at vegetative and

reproductive stage. The experiment was laid out in randomized complete block design with 3 replicates. The

unit plot size was 4 m × 3 m and spacing was 50 cm × 50 cm. Intercultural operations like irrigation, weeding,

mulching and pest control were followed as and when necessary for normal plant growth and development. The

morphological, reproductive and yield attributes were recorded during tomato harvest. Per cent fruit set to

flowers was calculated as follows: % fruit set = (Number of fruits plant-1

÷ Number of flowers plant-1

) × 100.

Harvesting was done at different dates depending on fruit ripening.

Mungbean: The first experiment was conducted at the pot yard of the Bangladesh Institute of Nuclear

Agriculture (BINA), Mymensingh, during the period from February to May 2011 to investigate the response of

different concentrations of chitosan in two summer mungbean varieties viz., Binamoog-7 and Binamoog-8. Five

different concentrations of chitosan viz., 0, 25, 50, 75 and 100 ppm were sprayed twice at two growth stages of

mungbean i.e Chitosan spayed @ 0, 25, 50, 75 and 100 ppm both at vegetative (25 days after sowing) and

flowering and fruiting stages (40 days after sowing). In control, water was sprayed as per treatment. Foliar

applications were carried out until run off the solution. The pots were filled with 12 kg sandy loam soil.

Fertilizers were used as per fertilizer recommendation guide (BARC 2005). The experiment was laid out in two

factor completely randomized design with four replications. Each pot contained two plants and denotes a

replication. Intercultural operations like irrigation, weeding, mulching and pest control were followed as and

when necessary for normal plant growth and development.

The second experiment was conducted at research farm of Bangladesh Institute of Nuclear Agriculture during

March to May 2013. Five different concentrations of chitosan viz., 0, 50, 75, 100, and 125 ppm were sprayed at

vegetative and reproductive stages of two mungbean varieties, Binamoog-7 and Binamoog-8. The experiment

was laid out in randomized complete block design with 3 replicates. The unit plot size was 2 m × 3 m and plant

spacing was 30 cm × 10 cm. Recommended cultural practices were done as when as necessary. The grain yield

was recorded on plot basis and converted in t ha-1

.

Islam et al.


Maize: The first experiment was conducted at the farmer field, Mymensingh, Bangladesh, during the period

from December 2011 to April 2012 to investigate the response of grain yield to different concentrations of

Chitosan growth promotor. Quality protein maize-1 (QPM-1) was used as planting material. Five different

concentrations of Chitosan viz., 0, 50, 75, 100 and 125 ppm were sprayed three times at 40, 55 and 70 days after

sowing (DAS). In control, water was sprayed as per treatment. The experiment was laid out in a randomized

complete block design with three replications. The unit plot size was 4 m × 5 m. Plant spacing was 70 cm × 30

cm. Fertilizers such as urea, TSP, MP and gypsum were applied @ 285, 250, 180 and 40 kg ha-1

, respectively.

Urea was applied in three splits at 30, 50 and 70 DAS and other fertilizers were applied as basal dose during the

final land preparation. Other cultural practices such as weeding and pest control were done as and when

necessary for normal plant growth and development.

The second experiment was conducted at farmer’s field of Rangpur district during November 2012 to April

2013. The hybrid variety BARI Hybrid Maize-9 was used as planting material. Five different concentrations of

chitosan viz., 0, 50, 75, 100, and 125 ppm was sprayed four times starting from 20 days after sowing with 15

days interval. The experiment was laid out in randomized complete block design with 3 replicates. The unit plot

size was 3.9 m × 4.9 m and plant spacing was 70 cm × 30 cm. Recommended cultural practices were done as

when as necessary. The grain yield was recorded on plot basis and converted in tones ha-1

.

Rice: The first experiment was conducted at the field Laboratory of Bangladesh Institute of Nuclear

Agriculture, Mymensingh, during the period from July to December 2010 to investigate the response of fine

grain rice to different concentrations of chitisan hormone under three growth stages. The two fine grain rice

varieties viz., BRRI dhan34 and Kalizira were used as planting materials. The experiment comprised of (a)

hormone spray at three growth stages of vegetative, booting and heading phase i.e. (i) chitosan spray one time at

tillering stage only (T1), 30 days after transplanting (DAT); (ii) chitosan spray two times both at tillering and

booting stages (T2), 30 and 55 DAT; and (iii) chitisan spray three times at tillering, booting and heading stages

(T3), 30, 55 and 70 DAT and (b) four levels of chitosan viz., 0, 25, 50 and 75 ppm. The experiment was laid out

in three factors randomized complete block design with three replications. The unit plot size was 4 m × 3 m.

Plant spacing was 20 cm × 15 cm. Fertilizers such as urea, TSP, MP and gypsum were applied @ 50, 60, 70 and

40 kg ha-1

, respectively. Urea was applied in two splits at 15 and 45 DAT and other fertilizers were applied as

basal dose during the final land preparation. Other cultural practices such as weeding and pest control were done

as and when necessary for normal plant growth and development.

The second experiment was conducted at the field Laboratory of Bangladesh Institute of Nuclear Agriculture,

Jamalpur, during the period from December 2010 to May 2011. Iratom-24 was used as planting material. The

experiment comprised of (a) hormone spray at three growth stages of vegetative, booting and heading phase i.e.

(i) chitosan spray one time at tillering stage only (T1), 30 days after transplanting (DAT); (ii) chitosan spray two

times both at tillering and booting stages (T2), 30 and 60 DAT; and (iii) chitisan spray three times at tillering,

booting and heading stages (T3), 30, 60 and 90 DAT and (b) four levels of chitosan viz., 0, 25, 50 and 75 ppm.

The experiment was laid out in two factors randomized complete block design with three replications. The unit

plot size was 4 m × 3 m. Plant spacing was 20 cm × 20 cm. Fertilizers such as urea, TSP, MP and gypsum were

applied @ 185, 150, 80 and 40 kg ha-1

, respectively. Urea was applied in three splits at 10, 30 and 50 DAT and

other fertilizers were applied as basal dose during the final land preparation. Other cultural practices such as

weeding and pest control were done as and when necessary for normal plant growth and development. The

collected data of eight experiments of four crops were analyzed statistically separately using the computer

package program, MSTAT-C and the mean differences were adjudged by Duncan’s Multiple Range Test

(DMRT).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Summer tomato: The influence of chitosan application at different concentrations on yield attributes and fruit

yield was significant (Table 1). Results showed that flower and fruit number, reproductive efficiency (RE) and

fruit yield were greater in chitosan applied plants than control plants. Results indicated that flower and fruit

number and fruit yield increased with increasing concentration of chitosan till 75 ppm followed by a decline.

This result indicates that application of chitosan @ 100 ppm may be toxic for plant growth and development

thereby fruit yield. The lowest number of fruits per flower cluster as well as RE was recorded in 100 ppm of

chitosan and the higher was recorded in 50 and 75 ppm of chitosan. These results indicate that application of

chitosan increased flower production as well as increased RE which resulted increase yield attributes and

thereby fruit yield.

The highest fruit yield was recorded in 75 ppm chitosan (614 g plant-1

) due to production of higher number of

fruits plant-1

with superior RE. In contrast, the lowest fruit yield was observed in control plants (393 g plant-1

)

due to inferior performance of yield attributes.

Effect of foliar application of chitosan on growth and yield in tomato, mungbean, maize and rice


Table 1. Effect of different concentrations of chitosan on yield attributes and fruit yield of summer tomato

Chitosan

concentration (ppm)

Flowers

plant-1

(no.)

Fruits

plant-1

(no.)

Single fruit

weight (g)

Reproductive

efficiency (%)

Fruit yield

plant-1

(g)

0 24.8 b 8.17 d 47.8 a 33.1 c 393 d

25 25.9 b 10.8 bc 44.0 bc 41.5 ab 474 c

50 27.4 b 11.1 b 48.5 a 40.4 ab 534 b

75 31.8 a 13.3 a 46.4 ab 41.9 a 614 a

100 25.9 b 10.1 c 41.9 c 38.9 b 425 d

F-test ** ** ** ** ** In a column, figures bearing same letter (s) do not differ significantly at P ≤ 0.05 by DMRT;

* and ** indicate significance at 5% and 1% level of probability, respectively.

Winter tomato: The foliar application of chitosan had significant effects on yield attributes and fruit yield

except fruit size and plant height in winter tomato (Table 2). All the plants characters were greater in chitosan

applied plants than control plant. Results revealed that all the characters were increased with increasing

concentration of chitosan. The higher fruit yield was recorded in 75 and 100 ppm chitosan both per plant and per

hectare with being the highest in 100 ppm. The fruit yield was higher in 75 and 100 ppm due to increase number

of fruits with apparently larger fruit size. Therefore, 75 ppm chitosan may be applied to increase yield of both

summer and winter tomato.

Table 2. Effect of different concentrations of chitosan on morphological characters, yield attributes and fruit yield of

winter tomato

Concentration of

chitosan (ppm)

Plant

height (cm)

Branches

plant-1

(no)

Fruit

plant-1

(no)

Single fruit

weight (g)

Fruit weight

plant-1

(kg)

Fruit yield

(t ha-1

)

0 108.6 5.23 c 32.1 b 42.61 1.37 b 54.7 b

50 108.6 5.56 c 33.6 b 42.79 1.44 ab 57.5 ab

75 110.2 5.92 b 36.9 ab 43.02 1.59 a 63.5 a

100 110.0 6.50 a 37.5 a 43.06 1.60 a 63.8 a

F-test NS ** ** NS * * In a column, figures bearing same letter (s) do not differ significantly at P ≤ 0.05 by DMRT;

* and ** indicate significance at 5% and 1% level of probability, respectively.

Pot experiment of mungbean: The influence of chitosan application at different concentrations on yield

attributes and yield of mungbean was significant (Table 3). Results revealed that plant height, number of pods

plant-1

, seeds pod-1

, 1000-seed weight as well as seed yield plant-1

was greater in chitosan applied plants than in

control plants. Results further revealed that seed yield increased with increasing chitosan concentration till 50

ppm followed by a decline. This result indicates that application of chitosan @ 75 and 100 ppm may be toxic for

plant growth and development thereby seed yield. The highest seed yield (9.27 g plant-1

) was recorded in 50

ppm chitosan due to production of higher number of pods plant-1

. In contrast, the lowest seed yield was observed

in control plants (7.15 g plant-1

) due to inferior performance of yield attributes. For interaction, yield attributes

as well as seed yield was maximum in Binamoog-7 when chitosan was sprayed @ 50 ppm and the seed yield of

Binamoog-8 was maximum at 50 and 75 ppm concentrations of chitosan which showed about 30% higher seed

yield over control. Between the two varieties, the seed yield and yield related traits were superior in Binamoog-7

than Binamoog-8.

Islam et al.


Table 3. Effect of foliar application of chitosan on yield attributes and seed yield of mungbean cultivars

Treatments Plant

height (cm)

Pods

plant-1

(no)

Seeds

pod-1

(no)

1000-seed

weight (g)

Seed yield

plant-1

(g)

Yield increased

over control (%)

Variety

Binamoog-7 (V1) 29.8 b 30.5 a 10.7 b 29.71 b 8.74 a

Binamoog-8 (V2) 39.9 a 16.6 b 11.6 a 45.08 a 7.81 b

F-test ** ** ** ** **

Chitosan

concentration (ppm)

0 32.1 c 21.1 c 10.8 37.32 ab 7.15 c --

25 36.6 a 23.9 b 11.2 37.62 a 8.37 b 17.1

50 36.2 a 26.4 a 11.2 37.60 a 9.27 a 29.6

75 35.2 ab 23.3 b 11.2 37.65 a 8.45 b 18.2

100 34.4 b 23.1 b 11.4 36.80 b 8.16 b 14.1

F-test ** ** NS * **

Interaction of variety

and concentration

V1 × 0 ppm

V1 × 25 ppm

V1 × 50 ppm

V1 × 75 ppm

V1 × 100 ppm

V2 × 0 ppm

V2 × 25 ppm

V2 × 50 ppm

V2 × 75 ppm

V2 × 100 ppm

27.7 e

32.2 c

31.1 c

30.0 cd

28.3 de

36.5 b

41.0 a

41.3 a

40.5 a

40.5 a

27.5 c

31.8 b

35.3 a

28.3 c

29.5 c

14.6 f

16.0 ef

17.5 de

18.3 d

16.7 def

10.6 cd

10.8 bcd

10.4 d

11.0 bcd

10.8 bcd

11.0 bcd

11.6 ab

12.0 a

11.4 abc

12.0 a

29.43 cd

30.14 bc

30.50 b

29.90 bc

28.60 d

45.20 a

45.10 a

44.70 a

45.40 a

45.00 a

7.74 de

9.31 b

10.1 a

8.38 c

8.20 c

6.56 f

7.44 e

8.44 c

8.52 c

8.12 cd

---

20.3

30.4

8.30

5.90

---

13.4

28.6

29.9

23.7

F-test * ** * * **

CV (%) 4.25 6.09 4.75 1.59 4.45

In a column, figures bearing same letter (s) do not differ significantly at P ≤ 0.05 by DMRT; NS = Not significant; * and ** indicate

significance at 5% and 1% level of probability, respectively.

Field experiment of mungbean: The influence of foliar application of chitosan on most of the plant parameters

was significant except plant height, pod length and 1000-grain weight (Table 4). Result showed that all the plant

parameters were greater in chitosan applied plants than control plants. Result further revealed that the prime

yield contribute, number of pods plant-1

, increased with increasing concentration of chitosan till 50 ppm

followed by decline indicating high concentration of chitosan may be toxic for mungbean yield. The higher seed

yield both in per plant and per hectare were recorded in 25 and 50 ppm chitosan due to production of the higher

number of pods plant-1

. The third highest seed yield was recorded in 75 ppm chitosan with non-significant

different to 25 and 50 ppm chitosan. The lowest seed yield was recorded in control plants.

The interaction effect of variety and concentration of chitosan on morphological parameters and yield

components as well as seed yield was significant except pod length and 1000-seed weight (Table 5). The highest

seed yield in Binamoog-7 was recorded in 50 ppm whereas the highest seed yield in Binamoog-8 was recorded

in 25 ppm of chitosan. This result indicates that optimum concentration of chitosan for maximizing the yield

depends on variety.

Table 4. Effect of foliar application of chitosan on yield and yield attributes of mungbean

Concentration

of chitosan

(ppm)

Plant

height

(cm)

Branches

plant-1

(no)

Pods

plant-1

(no)

Pod

length

(cm)

1000-

seed

weight

(g)

Seeds

pod-1

(no)

Seed

weight

plant-1

(g)

Straw

weight

plant-1

(g)

Seed

weight

(Kg ha-1

)

0 41.99 0.70 b 13.87 d 7.42 39.46 10.0 c 4.29 d 6.75 c 1289 d

25 39.39 0.83 ab 17.70 b 7.40 39.62 10.5 ab 5.58 a 7.88 ab 1674 a

50 41.50 0.63 b 19.17 a 7.55 39.45 10.1 bc 5.58 a 7.99 a 1666 a

75 43.50 1.03 a 17.37 bc 7.44 39.54 10.9 a 5.46 b 7.57 b 1637 ab

100 39.11 0.70 b 16.67 c 7.58 39.63 10.6 a 4.96 c 7.50 b 1489 c

F-test NS * ** NS NS * ** * ** In a column, the figures with similar letter(s) do not differ significantly by DMRT at P ≤ 0.05;

*, ** indicates significant at 5% and 1% level of probability, respectively; NS, Not significant



Table 5. Interaction of variety and concentration of chitosan on yield and yield components of mungbean

varieties

Interaction Plant

height

(cm)

Branch

plant-1

(no.)

Pod

plant-1

(no.)

Pod

length

(cm)

1000-

seed

weight

(g)

Seeds

pod-1

(no.)

Seed

weight

plant-1

(g)

Straw

weight

plant-1

(g)

Seed

weight

(kg ha-1

) Variety

Conc.

(ppm)

Bin

amo

og

-7 0 44.22 a 1.10 b 14.87 e 6.56 31.82 9.40 f 4.19 g 6.59 1259 h

25 41.00 abc 1.23 b 20.13 b 6.82 32.03 10.73 bc 5.11 d 6.84 1534 e

50 42.67 ab 1.00 b 22.07 a 6.72 31.90 9.86 ef 5.41 c 7.00 1623 d

75 44.56 a 1.76 a 18.60 c 6.43 32.03 10.33 cde 5.11 d 6.79 1533 e

100 44.00 ab 1.10 b 18.87 c 6.74 32.17 10.00 de 5.07 d 6.26 1524 e

Bin

amo

og

-8 0 39.56 bc 0.30 c 12.87 f 8.28 47.10 1060 cd 4.40 f 6.91 1321 g

25 37078 cd 0.43 c 15.27 de 8.13 47.20 10.27 cde 6.04 a 6.92 1814 a

50 40.33 abc 0.30 c 16.27 d 8.38 47.01 10.47 cd 5.76 b 6.98 1690 c

75 42.45 ab 0.30 c 16.13 d 8.45 47.04 11.40 a 5.80 b 6.35 1741 b

100 34.22 d 0.30 c 14.47 e 8.42 47.09 11.20 ab 4.84 e 7.25 1453 f

F-test * * ** NS NS * NS * In a column, the figures with similar letter(s) do not differ significantly by DMRT at P ≤ 0.05;

*, ** indicates significant at 5% and 1% level of probability, respectively; NS, Not significant

Maize: Chitosan concentration had significant effect on plant height, biological yield, harvest index, yield

components and seed yield in maize except number of cobs plant-1

(Table 6). Results revealed that all the plant

parameters were greater in chitosan applied plants than control plants except 50 ppm chitosan. The highest plant

height (218 cm), biological yield (278.0 g plant-1

), yield attributes (except 100-seed weight) and seed yield

(132.7 g plant-1

and 6.32 t ha-1

) was recorded in 100 ppm followed by 125 ppm and 75 ppm. The seed yield was

higher in 100 ppm chitosan might be due to increase number of seeds cob-1

. In contrast, the lowest above

mentioned parameters was recorded in control plants where no chitosan was sprayed. Further, the highest 100-

grain weight and harvest index was recorded in 125 ppm chitosan indicating dry matter partitioning to economic

yield was better in 125 ppm concentration than the other concentrations. However, the grain and biological yield

was lower in 125 ppm than 100 ppm chitosan indicating application of chitosan @ 125 ppm may be toxic for

maize production.

Table 6. Effect of different levels of chitosan on some morphological characters, yield attributes and seed yield

in maize cv. QPM-1 conducted in 2011-2012

Concentration

Plant

height

(cm)

Biolo-

gical

yield

plant-1

(g)

Cobs

plant-1

(no)

Cob

length

(cm)

Seeds

cob-1

(no)

100-

seed

weight

(g)

Seed

weight

plant-1

(g)

Seed

yield

(t ha-1

)

Harvest

index

(%)

0 190.0 c 235.5 c 1.00 15.8 b 456.2 b 22.94 d 107.6 bc 5.10 c 45.69 ab

50 188.0 c 229.3 c 1.00 15.6 b 436.2 c 23.31 cd 95.52 c 4.64 d 41.66 b

75 211.0 b 258.8 b 1.14 16.8 a 450.0 b 24.08 bc 117.3 ab 5.59 bc 45.48 ab

100 218.0 a 278.0 a 1.14 17.4 a 511.7 a 23.95 b 132.7 a 6.32 a 47.74 a

125 212.0 ab 255.6 b 1.14 17.0 a 460.7 b 25.08 a 125.0 a 5.95 ab 48.91 a

F-test ** ** NS * * * ** ** **

CV (%) 3.43 7.81 7.73 4.67 5.94 4.07 9.77 5.55 5.76 In a column figures having same letter (s) do not differ significantly at P ≤ 0.05; *, ** indicates significant at 5% and 1% level of

probability; NS = Not significant

The influence of foliar application of chitosan on most of the plant parameters was significant except plant

height and days to maturity (Table 7). Result showed that yield components such as number of cobs plant-1

,

number of seeds cob-1

, 1000-seed weight and dry matter partitioning to economic yield (HI) were the highest in

75 ppm resulting the highest seed yield both in per plant and per hectare followed by 50 ppm chitosan. The yield

components were inferior in 100 ppm and 125 ppm as compared to 75 ppm might be due to toxic concentration

for maize. In contrast, the lowest yield was recorded in control plant due to inferior performance in yield

components. However, chitosan had no effect on plant height and days to maturity. So, chitosan may be applied

thrice @ 75 or 100 ppm for increased grain yield.

Islam et al.


Table 7. Effect of different levels of chitosan on some morphological characters, yield attributes and seed yield

in maize cv. BARI Maize-9 conducted in 2012-2013

Concentration

of chitosan

(ppm)

Plant

height

(cm)

Cobs

plant-1

(no.)

Seeds

Cob-1

(no.)

1000-seed

weight

(g)

Seed

weight

plant-1

(g)

Straw

weight

plant-1

(g)

Seed

yield

(t ha-1

)

Harvest

index

(%)

Days

to

maturity

0 212.7 1.33 b 383.1 c 283.2 c 184.1 c 133 c 8.76 c 27.43 c 154

50 216.2 1.56 b 439.9 a 301.6 ab 225.1 b 154.2 b 10.71 b 32.80 b 156

75 214.1 1.78 a 425.6 ab 313.2 a 248.5 a 148.5 bc 11.83 a 35.30 a 156

100 216.4 1.78 a 416 b 314.5 a 221.5 b 198.2 a 10.54 b 33.40 b 156

125 217.7 1.67 a 387.4 c 295.6 bc 211.4 b 155.3 b 10.60 b 32.87 b 154

F-test NS * * * * ** ** ** NS In a column, the figures with similar letter (s) do not differ significantly by DMRT at P ≤ 0.05;

* and ** indicate significant at 5% and 1% level of probability, respectively.

Aman rice: The influence of chitosan application at different growth stages was not significant in most of the

plant parameters except number of effective tillers hill-1

and panicle length (Tables 8 & 9). The number of

effective tillers hill-1

and panicle length were greater in T2 treatment (when hormone was sprayed two times both

at tillering and booting stages) than the other treatments. However, hormone concentration had tremendous

effect on morphological parameters, yield attributes and yields in fine grain aromatic rice except plant height

and panicle length (Tables 8 & 9). Results revealed that all the plant parameters were greater in hormone applied

plants than control plants. Results showed that number of effective tillers hill-1

, number of filled grains panicle-1

,

1000-grain weight and grain yield were increased with increasing hormone concentration till 50 ppm followed

by a decline. These results indicate that application of chitosan @ 75 ppm or above may be toxic for plant

growth and development there by yield. The grain yield was the highest in 50 ppm chitosan due to increased

number of effective tillers hill-1

and filled grains panicle-1

. For interaction effect, results showed that yield

attributes as well as yield was the highest when chitosan was sprayed @ 50 ppm at two growth stages of tillering

and booting in both the varieties. But the increment of grain yield in hormone applied plants was not highly

distinct different over control. Further experimentation is needed for confirmation of the results.

Table 8. Effect of hormone application stages and concentrations on plant characters of fine grain aromatice rice

(mean of two varieties)

Treatments Plant

height (cm)

Effective tillers

hill-1

(no.)

Panicle length

(cm)

Straw yield

(t ha-1

)

Frequency of hormone application

T1 (One spray at tillering stage) 155.0 7.50 c 26.2 ab 4.80

T2 (Two spray at tillering and booting stages) 153.5 9.20 a 26.6 a 4.95

T3 (Three spray at tillering,

booting and heading stages) 155.4 8.50 b 25.6 b 4.88

F-test NS ** * NS

Hormone concentration (ppm)

0 152.4 7.87 c 25.5 4.64 b

25 154.9 8.40 b 26.1 4.97 a

50 155.2 8.93 a 26.3 4.95 a

75 155.9 8.40 b 26.5 4.95 a

F-test NS * NS **

Interaction of hormone application

frequency and concentration

T1 × 0 ppm

25 ppm

50 ppm

75 ppm

T2 × 0 ppm

25 ppm

50 ppm

75 ppm

T3 × 0 ppm

25 ppm

50 ppm

75 ppm

151.7

156.2

155.0

157.0

152.0

154.0

154.2

153.8

153.6

154.4

156.4

157.0

6.80 g

7.80 ef

7.80 ef

7.60 f

8.60 cd

9.00 bc

9.80 a

9.40 ab

8.20 de

8.40 d

9.20 b

8.20 de

25.6 bc

25.8 abc

26.0 abc

27.3 ab

26.3 abc

26.4 abc

27.4 a

26.3 abc

24.7 c

26.1 abc

25.5 c

25.9 abc

4.50 e

4.80 bcd

5.10 ab

4.80 cd

4.70 de

5.15 a

4.95 a-d

5.00 a-d

4.72 de

4.95 a-d

4.80 cd

5.05 abc

F-test NS ** * *

CV (%) 3.05 3.74 3.41 4.20 In a column, figures bearing same letter (s) do not differ significantly at P ≤ 0.05 by DMRT;

NS = Not significant; * and ** indicate significance at 5% and 1% level of probability, respectively



Table 9. Effect of hormone application stages and concentrations on yield attributes and yield of fine grain

aromatice rice

Treatments

Filled

grains

panicle-1

1000-grain

weight (g)

Grain yield (t ha-1

) Yield

increased

over

control

BRRI

dhan34 Kalizira Mean

Frequency of hormone

application

T1 (One spray at tillering stage) 170.4 10.51 2.75 2.61 2.68

T2 (Two spray at tillering and

booting stages)

164.8 10.59 2.82 2.52 2.67

T3 (Three spray at tillering,

booting and heading stages)

166.3 10.56 2.86 2.49 2.68

F-test NS NS NS NS NS

Hormone concentration

(ppm)

0 160.6 b 10.21 b 2.62 b 2.42 c 2.55 b ---

25 169.3 ab 10.64 a 2.85 a 2.60 ab 2.73 a 7.10

50 173.8 a 10.77 a 2.91 a 2.62 a 2.77 a 8.63

75 164.9 ab 10.58 a 2.84 a 2.50 bc 2.67 a 4.71

F-test * ** ** ** *

Interaction of hormone application


T1 × 0 ppm

25 ppm

50 ppm

75 ppm

T2 × 0 ppm

25 ppm

50 ppm

75 ppm

T3 × 0 ppm

25 ppm

50 ppm

75 ppm

163.2

176.0

174.8

167.7

158.5

164.0

174.5

162.2

160.1

168.0

172.2

164.8

10.28

10.40

10.76

10.60

10.36

10.88

10.60

10.52

10.00

10.64

10.96

10.63

2.60 bc

2.87 ab

2.80 ab

2.73 abc

2.53 c

2.80 ab

3.00 a

2.93 a

2.73 abc

2.89 a

2.93 a

2.87 ab

2.53 abc

2.67 a

2.67 a

2.55 abc

2.33 c

2.67 a

2.60 ab

2.47 abc

2.40 bc

2.47 abc

2.60 ab

2.47 abc

2.57 b

2.77 a

2.74 a

2.64ab

2.53 b

2.74 a

2.80 a

2.70 a

2.55 b

2.68 a

2.77 a

2.67 a

---

7.78

6.61

2.72

---

8.30

10.7

6.72

---

5.10

8.63

4.70

F-test NS NS * * * ---

CV (%) 6.87 2.90 5.08 4.85 5.43 ---

In a column, figures bearing same letter (s) do not differ significantly at P ≤ 0.05 by DMRT; NS = Not significant; * and **

indicate significance at 5% and 1% level of probability, respectively.

Boro rice: The influence of foliar application of chitosan at three growth stages was significant in most of the

plant parameters except plant height and number of filled grain panicle-1

(Table 10). The grain yield, 1000-grain

weight and harvest index were greater in T2 treatment (when chitosan was sprayed two times both at tillering

and booting stages) than the other treatments. There was non-significant different in filled grains panicle-1

but

yield was greater in T2 than the other two spray times due to increased grain size. The harvest index was also

higher in T2 treatment (50.9%) indicating dry matter partitioning to economic yield was better when chitosan

was sprayed two times both at tillering and booting stages.

Chitosan concentration had significant effect on filled grain number, grain and straw yield but had non-

significant influence on plant height and number of effective tillers hill-1

(Table 10). Results revealed that all the

plant parameters were greater in chitosan applied plants than control plants. The higher grain yield was recorded

in 25 and 50 ppm with being the highest in 50 ppm (6.50 t ha-1

) due to increased grains panicle-1

and the lowest

was recorded in control (5.89 t ha-1

). The grain yield as well as harvest index was lower in 75 ppm than 25 and

50 ppm chitosan indicating application of chitosan @ 75 ppm may be toxic for boro rice production. For

interaction effect, results showed that grain yield was the highest (7.0 t ha-1

) when Chitosan was sprayed @ 50

ppm at two growth stages of tillering and booting and also showed good dry matter partitioning to economic

yield (51.5%). The highest yield increment over control was also observed in the treatment combination of T2 ×

50 ppm chitosan (13.3%). So, chitosan may be applied @ 50 ppm at two growth stages of tillering and booting

for increased grain yield of boro rice.

Islam et al.


Table 10. Effect of chitosan application stages and concentrations on yield attributes and grain yield of boro rice

cv. Iratom-24

Treatments

Plant

height

(cm)

Effectiv

e tillers

hill-1

(no.)

Filled

grains

panicle-1

(no.)

1000-

grain

weight

(g)

Grain

yield

(t ha-1

)

Straw

yield

(t ha-1

)

Harvest

index

(%)

Yield

increased

(+)/decrease

d (-) over

control (%)

Frequency of hormone

application

T1 (One spray at

tillering stage) 72.5 10.88 b 98.2 28.7 ab 6.08 b 6.59 a 47.9 b ---

T2 (Two spray at

tillering and

booting stages)

74.4 10.73 b 97.4 29.1 a 6.53 a 6.29 b 50.9 a + 7.40

T3 (Three spray at

tillering, booting

and heading

stages)

73.4 11.92 a 99.0 27.9 b 6.08 b 6.67 a 47.6 b 0.00

F-test NS * NS * ** ** *

Chitosan concentration(ppm)

0 73.0 11.34 92.0 c 27.5 b 5.89 c 6.49ab 47.5 ---

25 73.6 11.06 102.3 a 29.2 a 6.42 ab 6.44 b 49.9 + 9.00

50 73.7 11.35 101.5 a 28.2 b 6.50 a 6.75 a 49.0 + 10.3

75 73.5 10.95 97.0 b 29.4 a 6.12 bc 6.39 b 48.8 + 3.90

F-test NS NS ** ** ** *

Interaction of application


T1 × 0 ppm

25 ppm

50 ppm

75 ppm

T2 × 0 ppm

25 ppm

50 ppm

75 ppm

T3 × 0 ppm

25 ppm

50 ppm

75 ppm

71.6

72.5

73.5

72.4

73.9

74.7

74.4

74.9

73.5

73.7

73.4

73.2

11.20 b

10.40 b

10.70 b

11.20 b

10.53 b

10.40 b

11.07 b

10.93 b

12.30 a

12.37 a

12.27 a

10.73 b

95.0 cd

105.0 ab

103.0 ab

90.0 d

91.0 cd

94.0 cd

106.6 a

98.0 bc

90.0 d

108.0 a

95.0 cd

103.0ab

27.3 c

29.0 bc

28.6 bc

29.9 ab

27.1 c

30.9 a

28.4 bc

30.0 ab

28.2 bc

27.7 c

27.5 c

28.2 bc

5.95 bc

6.42 ab

6.42 ab

5.54 c

6.18 b

6.43 ab

7.00 a

6.53 ab

5.74 c

6.42 ab

6.08 bc

6.30 b

6.83 ab

6.65 abc

6.60 abc

6.30 c

6.13 c

6.15 c

6.60 abc

6.29 c

6.52 bc

6.52 bc

7.05 a

6.60abc

46.5 bc

49.1abc

49.3abc

46.8 bc

50.2 ab

51.1 a

51.5 a

50.9 a

45.9 c

49.6abc

46.3 bc

48.8abc

---

+ 7.90

+ 7.90

- 6.89

---

+ 4.00

+ 13.3

+5.66

---

+ 11.8

+ 5.92

+ 9.75

F-test NS ** ** * * * *

CV (%) 2.91 4.76 5.40 3.57 5.44 4.16 4.49 In a column, figures bearing same letter (s) do not differ significantly at P ≤ 0.05 by DMRT; DAT = Days after transplanting; Ns = Not

significant; * and ** indicate significance at 5% and 1% level of probability, respectively.

DISCUSSION

Chitosan has been mainly described to stimulate immunity of plants, to protect plants and food products against

microorganisms (bacteria and fungi). However, these studies intended to focus on growth and productive

responses of tomato, mungbean, maize and rice plants. In these study, recorded parameters of both morpho-

physiological and yield components responded positively to the application of chitosan although fruits or grains

production, the prime yield attribute was not highly significantly affected, there was a tendency for a positive

response.

However, TDM was greater in chitosan applied plants than control plants might be due to increase LA. These

results indicate that application of chitosan at early growth stages had effect on growth and development in

tomato, mungbean, maize and rice. Application of carboxymethyl chitosan increased key enzymes activities of

nitrogen metabolism (nitrate reductase, glutamine synthetase and protease) which enhanced plant growth and

development, thereby increased TDM in rice as reported by Ke et al. (2001). Similar phenomenon may have

happened in the present experiments and resulting increased TDM in chitosan applied plants than control plants

in field crops. These results have conformity with El-Tantawy (2009) who reported that plant growth and

development enhanced by the application of chitosan in tomato. Mondal et al. (2012) applied chitosan on okra

and reported that leaf number increased by chitosan application that supported the present experimental results.

Further, RE increased in chitosan applied plants (especially tomato and mungbean) for decreased flower



abortion. Again, higher RE in chitosan applied plant might be resulting from the translocation of sufficient

assimilate to the flowers (Nahar and Ikeda, 2002).

The fruit yields of tomato both per plant and per hectare were higher in 75 ppm of chitosan due to increase

production of fruits plant-1

than the other treatments (Tables 1 & 2). Similarly, the seed yields of mungbean and

rice both per plant and per hectare were higher in 50 ppm of chitosan due to increase production of pods or

grains plant-1

and higher number of seeds pod-1

or panicle-1

than the other treatments (Tables 3, 4, 9, 10). The

grain yields of tomato both per plant and per hectare were higher in 100 and 125 ppm of chitosan due to increase

production of cobs plant-1

, higher number of seeds cob-1

and bolder seed size than the other treatments (Tables 7

& 8). In contrast, the lowest seed yield was recorded in control plants might be due to inferiority in yield

attributes of tomato, mung, maize and rice. Again, fruits cluster-1

for tomato, seeds cob-1

for maize increased in

chitosan applied plants than control plants might be due to increase RE (tomato) and cob size (maize) thereby

increase seed yield in tomato or maize. Chibu et al. (2002) reported that application of chitosan at early growth

stages increased plant growth and development thereby increased seed yield in rice and soybean. Similar results

were also observed by other two workers (Vasudevan et al. 2002; Rehim et al. 2009) in maize and bean.

CONCLUSION

Foliar application of chitosan at vegetative stage enhances plant growth and development which resulting

increased fruit or seed yield in tomato, mungbean, maize and rice. However, among the studied crops, foliar

application of chitosan on rice had little effect on growth and development. Among the concentrations, 75, 50,

100 and 50 ppm respectively for tomato, mungbean, maize and rice had superiority for plant growth, yield

components and seed yield over other concentrations. Therefore, application of chitosan @ 75, 50, 100 and 50

ppm respectively for tomato, mungbean, maize and rice may be recommended for cultivation.

REFERENCES

Abdel-Mawgoud AMR, Tantawy AS, El-Nemr MA, Sassine TN (2010) Growth and yield response of

strawberry plants to chitosan application. European J. Sci. Res. 39: 170-177.

BARC (2005) Fertilizer Recommendation Guide. 2005. Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council (BARC). p.

66.

Berahim Z, Ismail MR, Halimi MS, Mondal MMA, Panhwar QA, Islam MR (2014) Effectiveness of different

phytohormones on grain filling and yield of rice under drought stress. J. Food, Agric. and Environ., 12(2), 697-

700.

Chibu H, Shibayama H, Arima S (2002) Effects of chitosan application on the shoot growth of rice and soybean.

Japanese J. Crop Sci. 71: 206-211.

ChunYan L, GuoRui M, WenYing H (2003) Induction effect of chitosan on suppression of tomato early blight

and its physiological mechanism. J. Zhejiang Univ. Agric. Life Sci. 29: 280-286.

Devlieghere F, Vermeulen A, Debevere J (2004) Chitosan: antimicrobial activity, interactions with food

components and applicability as a coating on fruit and vegetables. Food Microb. 27: 703-714.

El-Tantawy EM (2009) Behavior of tomato plants as affected by spraying with chitosan and aminofort as

natural stimulator substances under application of soil organic amendments. Pak. J. Biol. Sci. 12: 1164-1173.

FAO (2010) Production Year Book of 2014 Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Rome, Italy. No. 69, p.

154.

Gornik, K, Grzesik M, Duda BR (2008) The effect of chitosan on rooting of gravevine cuttings and on

subsequent plant growth under drought and temperature stress. J. Fruit Ornamental Plant Res. 16: 333-343.

Hadwiger LA, Klosterman SJ, Choi JJ (2002) The mode of action of chitosan and its oligomers in inducing

plant promoters and developing disease resistance in plants. pp. 452-457. In: K Suchiva, S Chandrkrachang, P

Methacanon, MG Peter (eds), Advances in Chitin Science, Bangkok.

Haque MA, Hossain AKMA, Ahmed KU (1999) A comparative study on the performance of different varieties

of tomato. II. Varietal response of different seasons and temperature in respect of yield and yield components.

Bangladesh Hort. 26: 39-45.

Imam MH, Mondal MMA, Prodhan AKMA, Malek MA, Islam MO (2010) Effect of foliar application of

miyobi hormone on morphophysiological attributes and yield in summer tomato. J. Agrofor. Environ. 4: 197-

200.

Jeng TL, Tseng TH, Wang CS, Chen CL, Sung JM (2006) Yield and grain uniformity in contrasting rice

genotypes suitable for different growth environments. Field Crops Res., 99(1), 59-66.

Islam et al.


Ke L, XiangYang L, LiSha P (2001) Effects of carboxymethyl chitosan on key enzymes activities of nitrogen

metabolism and grain protein contents in rice. J. Hunan Agric. Univ. 27: 421-424.

Mondal MMA, Akter MB, Razzaque AHM (2011) Effect of seasonal seeds on growth and yield in tomato

genotypes. Int. J. Expt. Agric. 2: 12-16.

Mondal MMA, Malek MA, Puteh AB, Ismail MR, Ashrafuzzaman M (2012) Effect of foliar application of

chitosan on growth and yield in okra. Australian J. Crop Sci. 6: 918-921.

Mondal MMA, Rahman MA, Akter MB (2009) Flower production and yield in mungbean. Bangladesh J. Crop

Sci., 20: 181-185.

Nahar BS, Ikeda T (2002) Effect of silver-sheet and figaron on flower production, abscission of reproductive

organ, yield and yield components in soybean. J. Agron. Crop Sci., 188: 193-200.

No HK, Meyers SP, Prinyawiwatkul W, Xu Z (2007) Applications of chitosan for improvement of quality and

shelf life of foods: a review. J. Food Sci. 72: 87-100.

Patkowska E, Pieta D, Pastucha H (2006) The effect of biochikol 020 pc on microorganisms communities in the

rhizosphere of Faba bean plants. Polish Chitin Soc. Monog. 11: 171-178.

Peng S, Khush GS, Virk P, Tang Q, Zou Y (2008) Progress in ideotype breeding to increase rice yield potential,

Field Crops Res., 108(1), 32-38.

Picken AJE (1984) A review of pollination and fruit set in tomato. J. Hort. Res. 31: 1778-1784.

Rahman MS, Haque MA, Mostofa MG (2015) Effect of GA3 on biochemical attributes and yield of summer

tomato. J. Biosci. and Agril. Res. 3(2), 73-78.

Rahman MS, Islam MM, Islam MT, Begum S, Begum K, Uddin MN (1996) Adaptive performance of selected

tomato lines in different seasons of Bangladesh. Bangladesh J. Nuclear Agric., 12: 73-78.

Rashid MM (2009) A hand book of agricultural technology. Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute,

Gazipur-1701, Bangladesh, pp. 352-356.

Razzaque AHM, Rahman MS (2005) Effect of IAA on yield and yield contributing characters of aman rice

under irrigated and moisture stress conditions. J. Bangladesh Agril. Univ. 3(2), 239-242.

Rehim HAA, Hegazy EA, El-Barbary AM (2009) Radiation modification of natural polysaccharides for

application in agriculture. Polymer 50: 1952-1957.

Tang T, Xie H, Wang Y, Lu B, Liang J (2009) The effect of sucrose and abscisic acid interaction on sucrose

synthase and its relationship to grain filling of rice. J. Expt. Bot., 60: 2641-2652.

Vasudevan P, Reddy MS, Kavitha S, Velusamy P, PaulRaj RSD, Purushothaman SM, Priyadarisini VB,

Bharathkumar S, Kloepper JW, Gnanamanickam SS (2002) Role of biological preparation in enhancement of

rice seedling growth and yield. Current Sci. 83:1140-1143.

Yang J, Peng S, Zhang Z, Wang Z, Visperas RM, Zhu Q (2002) Grain and dry matter yields and partitioning of

assimilates in japonica/indica hybrids. Crop Sci., 42: 766-772.

Yang J, Zhang J (2010) Grain filling problem in ‘super’ rice. J Expt. Bot., 61(1), 1-5.

Yang J, Zhang J, Wang Z, Liu K, Wang P (2006) Post-anthesis development of inferior and super spikelets in

rice in relation to abscisic acid and ethylene. J Expt. Bot., 57(1), 149-160.


int. j. sustain. crop prod. 11(2): 7-17 (may 2016) effect...

Documents