Seminar (Pawan Kumar Nagar)

1Welcome….

HAPPY NEW YEAR

Major GuideDr. B. N. Satodiya

Principle & Unit OfficerSeth D. M. Polyt. in

Horticulture, Model farm, AAU, Vadodara

Co-GuideDr. H. L. Dadhuk

Associate ProfessorDepartment of Genetics &

Plant Breeding,B.A.C.A., A.A.U., Anand

Advance production technology of guava

SPEAKER Pawan Kumar NagarM.Sc. (Hort.) 3rd sem.

Fruit ScienceDepartment of

HorticultureBACA, AAU, Anand 2

Content

Propagation Planting Cultivars

Pruning/Rejuvenation

Crop regulation

Growth regulators/

Micro-nutrient

Post harvest management Conclusion Future

thrust

Irrigation

Manure &fertilizers

3

INTRODUCTION

4

5

INTRODUCTION Guava is also known as the “Apple of tropics” It is common fruits of the tropical and sub-tropical regions Guava is the fourth most important fruit of India It is precocious and prolific bearer, having good quality with

high nutritive value, medicinal attributes It is used both as fresh fruit and after processing by

preparation of jelly, toffee, candy, pulp, juice, jam, guava nectar etc.

It is rich source of Vitamin-C (299mg/100g)

5

Nutritive value of guava/100g fruitConstituents Range valueTotal sugars 5.0-10.25 g

Protein 0.9-1.40 gCrude Fat 0.10-0.70 gVitamin A 250 IUVitamin C 205-10 mg

Niacin 0.20-2.30 mgThiamine 0.06-0.20 mgRiboflavin 0.04-0.20 mgCalcium 10.50-31.80 mg

Phosphorus 21.00-39.60 mgIron 0.55-1.36 mg 6

Constituents Range valueTotal sugars 5.0-10.25 g

Protein 0.9-1.40 gCrude Fat 0.10-0.70 gVitamin A 250 IUVitamin C 299 mg

Niacin 0.20-2.30 mgThiamine 0.06-0.20 mgRiboflavin 0.04-0.20 mgCalcium 10.50-31.80 mg

Phosphorus 21.00-39.60 mgIron 0.55-1.36 mg

Nutritional value of Guava/100g fruit

6

Scenario of guava

Year 2014 – 2015

Guava Area(in’000 ha)

Production (in Lakh T)

Productivity(Mt/ha)

India 251.02 40.8 16.3

Gujarat 10.81 1.40 13.3

NHB, Database (2014-15)

7

Leading guava producing states

NHB, Database (2013-14)8

Production Statistics of guava

NHB, Database (2013-14)9

Guava

Various advanced techniques used in guava

Propagation

Planting

Manures and fertilizers

IrrigationPruning/

Rejuvenation Crop

regulation

Growth regulators/

Micro-nutrients

Post harvest managemen

t10

PROPAGATION T - budding Air layering Stooling/Mound layering

11

T - budding

12

Air layering

13

Stooling in guava

14

Table 1: Effect of time of budding on days taken for bud sprout and growth of budded plants of guava cv. Allahabad Safeda

Treatments Days taken for bud sprout Budding success (%) Shoot length (cm) Leaves/sprout

Mid April 27.3 34.0 5.4 4.7End April 25.6 51.3 8.3 7.3Mid May 23.8 79.3 10.2 8.0End May 22.3 88.0 11.2 10.3Mid June 18.0 93.3 14.9 12.7End June 18.3 91.3 14.9 12.7

Mid July 19.5 88.7 11.5 11.3

End July 21.3 83.0 10.0 9.0Mid August 22.5 65.3 7.1 6.7End August 29.9 58.3 59 4.3Mid September 33.3 40.0 3.9 1.7End September 36.7 19.3 1.3 1.5C.D. (P=0.05) 2.1 8.0 1.9 1.5

Ludhiana, (Punjab) Kumar et al. (2007)15

Table 2: Effect of IBA, NAA and its combination on rooting in stooled shoots of guava cv. Sardar

Treatments Rooted shoots

(%)

Number of

roots/shoot

Root length (cm) Survival (%)

IBA (5000 ppm) 93.33 37.07 6.72 41.17

IBA (7500 ppm) 96.67 46.93 8.45 75.00

IBA (10,000 ppm) 90.00 29.13 5.21 64.43

NAA (5000 ppm) 86.67 20.70 4.28 36.50

NAA (7500 ppm) 90.00 31.43 6.82 60.25

NAA (10,000 ppm) 93.33 45.10 7.32 64.25

IBA (5000 ppm) +NAA (5000 ppm) 90.00 22.30 4.37 52.32

IBA (7500 ppm)+NAA (5000 ppm) 93.33 31.43 5.22 70.00

IBA (10,000 ppm)+NAA (5000 ppm) 96.00 46.00 7.12 65.07

Control (Only lanoline paste) 40.00 7.03 2.73 10.05

C.D. (P=0.05) 9.96 11.16 1.02 11.28

Lal et al. (2007)Pantnagar, (Uttrakhand) 30 Days after stooling 16

Table 3: Effect of IBA concentration, time of layering and rooting media on root parameters of guava cv. Sardar

Factor Rooting (%) Primary roots Secondary roots Length of longest root (cm)

Root weight (g)

Fresh Dry

I0 (Control) 63.70 2.80 4.77 1.76 0.445 0.081

I1 (2000 ppm) 74.45 5.04 10.82 4.87 1.276 0.230

I2 (3000 ppm) 78.47 6.79 17.53 6.95 1.831 0.335

I3 (4000 ppm) 83.15 9.14 22.82 8.92 2.346 0.433

C.D. (P=0.05) 0.30 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.004 0.001

M1 (15 June) 71.94 4.99 12.04 4.53 1.280 0.231

M2 (15 July) 74.95 6.07 14.30 5.81 1.503 0.277

M3 (15 August) 77.94 6.77 15.61 6.53 1.641 0.302

C.D. (P=0.05) 0.41 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.006 0.001

SM 76.55 6.22 14.59 5.91 1.533 0.281

CP 73.34 5.67 13.37 5.34 1.416 0.259

C.D. (P=0.05) 0.36 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.005 0.001Rymbai and Reddy (2010)Hyderabad, (Telangana) CP = Coco peat, SM = Sphagnum moss 17

Table 4: Effect of rooting media on root parameters in air-layers of guava cv. Sardar

Rooting media

Rooting (%)

Primary roots Secondary

roots

Length of longest

root (cm)

Roots weight (g)

Establish-ment

(%)

Number of leaves

(60 DAT)Dry fresh

CP 80.00 9.60 19.20 9.336 2.45 0.45 77.50 8.00

SM 82.50 9.80 20.40 10.133 2.57 0.46 79.17 13.00

CP + SM 85.00 10.80 22.40 10.78 2.72 0.51 83.33 13.83

C.D. (P=0.05) 0.44 0.83 1.12 0.82 0.09 0.02 2.62 1.15

Hyderabad, (Telangana) Rymbai et al. (2012)

Note-75 Days after layering (CP= Coco peat, SM= Sphagnum moss)

18

Table 5: Effect of rooting media on rooting parameters of guava air layers cv. Sardar

Treatments Number of primary roots

Length of primary roots (cm)

Number of secondary roots

Number of leaves

Number of side shoots Survival (%)

T1 - Sphagnum moss 5.67 4.34 5.00 12.33 3.66 72.22

T2 - vermi-compost 4.67 2.35 2.67 1.89 1.22 22.22

T3 - Sawdust 5.00 3.11 3.33 3.44 1.33 27.77

T4 - Coco peat 8.17 4.77 6.67 10.00 3.55 66.66

T5 - Coir pith 4.00 2.33 2.00 1.66 1.02 22.11

T6 - Sphagnum moss + vermi-compost (1:1) 5.50 4.22 4.67 7.33 2.00 38.89

T7- Sawdust + vermi-compost (1:1) 5.00 2.72 3.67 2.88 1.05 22.11

T8 – Coco peat + vermi-compost (1:1) 5.33 3.88 4.33 1.89 1.55 27.66

T9 – Coir pith + vermi-compost (1:1) 4.33 2.39 2.67 1.89 1.27 22.22

T10 - Sawdust Sphagnum motss (1:1) 5.00 3.61 3.67 5.00 1.55 38.89

T11 – Coco peat + Sphagnum moss (1:1) 5.60 4.30 4.93 7.55 2.67 41.11

T12 – Coir pith + Sphagnum moss (1:1) 4.17 2.38 2.33 1.83 1.22 24.33

T13 – Sawdust + Coco peat (1:1) 4.67 2.66 4.67 3.55 1.55 33.33

T14 – Sawdust + Coir pith (1:1) 4.33 3.44 4.67 3.88 1.44 27.66

T15 – Coco peat + Coir pith (1:1) 5.33 2.83 4.33 4.33 2.11 33.33

C.D. (P=0.05) 1.94 0.97 1.89 3.47 1.50 16.96

Naik et al. (2016)Bagalkot, (Karnataka) 19

PLANTING

20

Table 6: Different spacing and density of plant/ha of guava

Planting system Spacing (m) Density of plant/ha

Low density 8 × 8 156

Medium density 6 × 6 277

High density 3 × 3 1,111

Ultra-high density 3 × 1.5 2,222

Meadow orcharding 2 × 1 5,000

Lucknow, (Uttar Pradesh) Singh (2010)21

High Density Ultra High Density

Medow orchard

3 x 3 m 3 x 1.5 m

2 x 1 m22

Advantages of HDP

Increases yield

Improves fruit quality

Reduces labour cost resulting in low cost of production

Enables mechanization of fruit crop production

It facilitates more efficient use of fertilizers, water, solar radiation, fungicides, weedicides and pesticides

23

Table 7: Effect of different spacing on physico-chemical parameter of guava cv. Sardar

Spacing (m) Tree height (m) Tree spread (cm) Fruit breadth(cm)

Breadth

TSS(ºBrix)

N-W E-W

6 x 4 4.28 5.60 5.63 6.46 9.77

6 x 5 4.58 5.82 6.10 6.67 10.31

6 x 6 4.66 5.90 6.33 6.78 10.77

C.D. (P=0.05) 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.25 0.51

Bal and Dhaliwal (2003)Ludhiana, (Punjab) 24

Table 8: Effect of planting density on fruit and quality characters of guava cv. Sardar

Spacing (m x m) Fruit set (%) Yield/ha(q)

Vitamin-C (mg/100g pulp)

6 x 6 61.2 102.4 141.4

4 x 4 60.7 205.1 139.5

3 x 3 57.6 333.7 133.3

2.5 x 2.5 68.8 446.5 131.9

C.D. (P=0.05) 2.21 35.3 4.029

Kundu (2007)Ludhiana, (Punjab)25

Table 9: Effect of different spacing on yield and quality parameters of guava cv. Sardar

Treatment (m) Fruit weight (g) Yield (kg/plant)

T1- (2.0 x 2.0 ) 77.50 1.32

T2- (2.0 x 1.5 ) 75.40 1.25

T3- (1.5 x 1.5 ) 71.20 1.12

T4- (2.0 x 1.0 ) 73.00 1.05

T5- (1.0 x 1.5) 68.05 0.86

C.D. (P=0.05) 5.6888 0.2027

Kumawat et al. (2014)Udaipur, (Rajasthan) 26

CULTIVARS

4. Shweta 5. Lalit 6. Apple color

1. Arka Mridula 2. Arka Kiran 3. Arka Rashmi

27

Varietal Improvement

Less and soft seed content for edible purpose

Less pectin content for edible purpose

More pectin content for processing

High keeping quality

Uniform ripening

28

Table 10: Characteristics of fruit of newly developed hybrids of guava

Hybrids/CultivarsFruit weight (g) Fruit length (cm) Fruit diameter (cm)

RCGH-1 154.75 6.26 6.48

Allahabad Safeda 142.63 5.98 6.15

RCGH-7 135.22 6.24 6.42

L-49 151.68 6.25 6.45

RCGH-4 175.73 6.54 6.99

Lalit 131.11 6.08 6.30

C.D. (P= 0.05) 9.70 0.25 0.31

Deshmukh et al. (2013)Umiam, (Meghalaya) 29

Table 11: Biochemical characteristics of newly developed hybrids of guava

Hybrids/CultivarsTSS

(ºBrix)Acidity

(%)Ascorbic

acid (mg/100g)

Total Sugar (%)

Pectin (%)

RCGH-1 10.83 0.50 231.86 8.07 1.33

Allahabad Safeda 10.14 0.61 182.06 6.97 0.92

RCGH-7 10.39 0.51 205.26 8.05 1.31

L-49 10.16 0.5054 195.80 7.14 0.97

RCGH-4 9.87 0.56 186.68 6.42 0.82

Lalit 9.59 0.67 168.78 6.58 1.07

C.D. (P= 0.05) 0.29 0.12 27.86 0.49 0.09Deshmukh et al. (2013)Umiam, (Meghalaya) 30

MANURES & FERTILIZERS

31

For Spacing of 3.0 x 1.5 m (2,222 plants/ha); 3.0 x 3.0 m (1,111 plants/ha) and 6.0 x 3.0 m (555 plants/ha)Year Urea (g/plant) SSP (g/plant) MOP (g/plant)

1st 182 375 100

2nd 364 750 200

3rd 546 1125 300

4th 728 1500 400

5th & Above 910 1875 500

For Spacing of 2.0 x 1.0 m (5000 plants/ha)Year Urea (g/plant) SSP (g/plant) MOP (g/plant)

1st 90 185 50

2nd 180 370 100

3rd 270 555 150

4th 360 740 200

5th & Above 450 900 250

Nutrient requirement

Lucknow, (Uttar Pradesh) Singh (2008)32

Table 12: Effect of foliar application of nutrients on physico-chemical characters of guava cv. Sardar

Nutrient Concentration (%) Fruit weight (g) Yield/tree (kg) TSS (ºBrix)

Ascorbic acid

(mg/100g)

Total sugar (%)

K2SO4 (0.5) 130 60.9 13.2 176 6.80

K2SO4 (1.0) 134 63.9 13.2 183 7.10

K2SO4 (1.5) 138 66.9 13.6 186 7.34ZnSO4 (0.5) 128 63.0 12.4 173 6.90ZnSO4 (1.0) 131 68.0 12.6 176 7.09ZnSO4 (1.5) 133 68.0 12.6 182 7.15H3BO3 (0.5) 135 68.0 12.5 177 7.04H3BO3 (1.0) 141 71.0 13.5 173 7.00H3BO3 (1.5) 141 73.0 13.9 185 7.37

Control 125 58.0 13.7 181 7.26

C.D. (P= 0.05) 05 5.1 0.3 10 0.35

Bhatia et al. (2001)Hisar, (Hariyana) 33

Table 13: Effect of N, Zn, and Mn on qualitative characteristics of guava cv. Allahabad Safeda

Treatment (g/plant) TSS (ºBrix) Acidity (%) Ascorbic acid(%)

Reducing sugar (%)

Non reducing sugar (%) Total sugar (%) Pectin (%)

N0 (0) 8.35 0.53 133.6 3.08 2.25 7.26 1.80

N1 (300) 9.96 0.48 159.1 3.53 2.60 7.82 1.87

N2 (600) 11.25 0.47 176.9 3.91 2.81 8.06 2.04

C.D. (P=0.05) 0.29 0.06 2.2 0.29 0.17 0.05 0.07

Zn0 (0) 8.95 0.51 141.5 3.24 2.34 7.42 1.79

Zn1(300) 9.95 0.49 159.0 3.58 2.63 7.76 1.93

Zn2 (600) 10.65 0.48 169.1 3.77 2.69 7.96 2.01

C.D. (P=0.05) 0.29 0.06 2.2 0.29 0.17 0.05 0.07

Mn0 (0) 9.09 0.51 143.5 3.27 2.41 7.49 1.79

Mn1 (300) 10.05 0.49 159.9 3.57 2.58 7.76 1.95

Mn2 (600) 10.35 0.48 166.1 3.67 2.66 7.85 1.98

C.D. (P=0.05) 0.29 0.06 0.29 0.29 0.17 0.05 0.07

Lal and Sen (2001)Jobner, (Rajasthan) 34

Table 14: Influence of bio-fertilizers on physico-chemical properties of guava cv. Sardar

Treatments Fruit weight (g)

Fruit length (cm)

Fruit diameter (cm) TSS (°Brix) Vitamin- C

(mg/100g)

Azotobactor 136.30 3.93 4.35 9.68 129.0

Azospirillum 135.30 3.85 4.03 9.25 136.0

VAM 147.00 4.15 4.58 10.10 151.8

Microphos 139.80 4.00 4.45 9.58 147.5

Phosphobacterin 154.50 4.27 4.68 9.68 149.3

Control 128.50 3.25 3.68 9.30 140.0

C.D. (P=0.05) 8.80 0.18 0.40 0.18 5.04

Dey et al. (2005)Ranchi, (Jharkhand) 35

Table 15: Effect of organic and inorganic fertilizers on yield parameters of guava cv. Hisar Safeda

Bhobia et al. (2006)Hisar, (Hariyana)

Treatments Fruit

Number of fruit/plant Yield (kg/plant)

Length (cm) Breadth(cm)

T1 (Control) 6.13 6.00 245 44

T2 (100% N through Urea ) 6.73 6.90 249 56

T3 (80 % N through Urea + 20% N through FYM) 7.30 7.40 259 63




T7 (100% N through FYM) 6.46 6.38 288 58

C.D. (P=0.05) 0.32 0.36 12 8

36

Table 16: Effect of organic and inorganic fertilizers on biochemical parameters of guava cv. Hisar Safeda

Bhobia et al. (2006)Hisar, (Hariyana)

Treatments TSS (ºBrix) Total sugar (%) Reducing sugar (%) Non reducing sugar (%)

T1 (Control) 10.2 8.10 4.25 3.85

T2 (100% N through Urea ) 10.2 8.53 4.63 3.95

T3 (80 % N through Urea + 20% N through FYM) 10.4 8.94 4.81 4.12




T7 (100% N through FYM) 10.4 8.36 4.42 3.94

C.D. (P=0.05) 0.4 0.13 0.03 0.03

37

Table 17: Effect of organic treatments on yield and quality parameters of guava cv. Allahabad Safeda

Ram et al. (2007a)Lucknow, (Uttar Pradesh)

Treatments Fruit weight (g) Fruit diameter (cm) TSS

(%)

vermi-compost 5 kg 209.33 7.07 12.20

FYM- 20 kg + vermi-wash 126.66 6.15 11.06

FYM- 20 kg + BD-500 206.00 7.07 14.13

FYM- 20 kg + CPP-500 g 212.00 7.13 14.00

FYM- 20 kg + 250 g Azospirillum 128.66 5.91 13.40

FYM- 20 kg + 250 g Azotobactor 188.66 6.96 13.66

FYM- 10 kg + 5 Kg Ceil rich 145.22 6.22 16.20

NPK (350:200:350) g 170.00 6.70 13.53

C.D. (P=0.05) 75.55 0.83 3.03

CPP = Cow Pat Pit, BD-500 = Fermented cow dung 38

Table 18: Effect of different integrated nutrient treatments on yield and quality attributes of guava cv. Sardar

Ram et al. (2007b)Lucknow, (Uttar Pradesh)

Nutrient combination (g) Number of fruit/plant Yield (kg/plant) TSS (°Brix) Reducing sugar (%)

NPK (500:200:500) 845 120.71 12.50 3.25

NPK (250:100:250) + 5 kg neem cake 696 87.0 12.65 3.41

NPK (250:100:250) + 10kg FYM 592 84.50 12.47 3.12

NPK (250:100:250) + Sesbenia as green manure 698 99.80 12.21 2.35

NPK (250:100:250) + Azotobactor 700 112.00 12.25 3.54

NPK (250:100:250) + Azospirillum 985 135.45 12.25 3.23

NPK (250:100:250) + 10 kg FYM +Azospirillum 854 132.45 12.50 3.50

NPK (250:100:250) + 10 kg FYM +Azotobactor 1200 150.25 13.50 3.58

NPK (500:100:500) 685 111.20 13.00 3.50

PK (100:250) + Azotobactor 878 128.50 12.50 3.20

PK (100:250) + Azotobactor 658 115.32 11.45 3.45

Control 560 80.50 11.25 3.28

C.D. (P=0.05) 290.12 98.35 1.00 0.20

39 Azotobactor and Azospirillum @ 250 g

Table 19: Effect of inorganic and bio-fertilizer on yield and yield attributes of guava cv. Sardar

Dutta et al. (2009)Mohanpur, (West Bengal)

Treatments Length of fruit (cm) Diameter of fruit (cm) Weight of fruit (g) Yield

(kg/plant)

T1 = 100%N + 100%P + Azospirillum 9.4 8.8 248.5 45.07

T2 =50%N + 100%P + Azospirillum 6.7 6.2 181.5 34.19

T3 = 100%N + 100%P + VAM 8.7 8.3 225.8 38.78

T4 = 100% N + 50%P + VAM 9.1 8.4 230.3 49.14

T5 = 100% N + 100%P + Azospirillum + VAM 9.5 8.9 255.0 51.26

T6 = 50%N + 50%P + Azospirillum + VAM 7.1 6.6 190.8 40.14

T7 = 100%N + 100%P 8.5 8.1 220.5 50.29

T8 = 50% N + 50%P 6.4 6.0 162.0 36.94

T9 (Control) 6.3 5.9 142.1 23.42

C.D. (P=0.05) 0.15 0.22 7.47 2.700

40 100% N = 260 g N, 100% P = 320 g P, Azospirillum and VAM @ 30 g/plant

Table 20: Effect of NPK on yield and quality attributes of guava cv. Allahabad Safeda

Kumar et al. (2009)Bhubaneswar, (Orissa)

Treatments (g) Number of fruit/ tree Yield (kg/tree) Fruit size (cm) TSS (°Brix)

N1- 300 340.90 35.45 7.06 x 6.88 12.49

N2- 600 380.55 38.12 7.28 x 7.06 12.57

N3- 900 406.86 42.61 7.46 x 7.08 12.72

C.D. (P=0.05) 35.67 4.35 - NS

P1- 300 355.74 34.78 7.21 x 6.94 12.49

P2- 600 396.11 36.97 7.32 x 7.03 12.62

C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS - NS

K1- 300 342.76 36.90 7.15 x 7.02 12.44

K2- 600 377.62 41.75 7.33 x 7.13 12.63

K3- 900 412.42 45.45 7.39 x 7.18 12.88

C.D. (P=0.05) 35.67 4.35 - 0.35

Control 293.63 25.25 6.30 x 6.20 12.38

41

Table 21: Effect of FYM, Urea and Azotobactor on yield and yield parameters of guava cv. Sardar

Treatment Yield (kg/plant) Length (cm) Diameter (cm) Fruit weight (g)

T1 – 100% N through FYM 24.74 7.73 7.44 153.65

T2 - 75% N through FYM + 25% N through Inorganic fertilizer 26.30 7.80 7.47 156.66

T3 - 50% N through FYM + 50% N through In-organic fertilizer 34.16 7.97 7.60 176.60


T5 - 100% N through Inorganic fertilizer 32.97 7.87 7.52 170.91

T6 – Azotobactor 22.30 7.56 7.20 137.96

T7 –Azotobactor + T1 29.55 7.80 7.49 169.05

T8 –Azotobactor + T2 35.05 7.98 7.64 187.06

T9 – Azotobactor +T3 38.70 8.27 7.80 197.40

T10 – Azotobactor + T4 41.14 8.39 7.94 244.24

T11 – Azotobactor +T5 38.95 8.32 7.86 239.00

T12 - Absolute 18.86 7.34 7.15 128.17

C.D. (P=0.05) 6.27 0.13 0.12 1.33

Jammu, (Jammu & Kashmir) Sharma et al. (2013)42 Azotobactor 200 g/plant

Table 22: Effect of FYM, Urea and Azotobactor on biochemical parameters of guava cv. Sardar

Treatment TSS (°Brix) Total sugar (%) Reducing sugar (%) Non- Reducing sugar (%)

T1 – 100% N through FYM 11.89 7.59 4.46 2.98




T5 - 100% N through Inorganic fertilizer 12.35 7.76 4.53 3.07

T6 – Azotobactor 11.73 7.42 4.32 2.77

T7 –Azotobactor + T1 12.12 7.65 4.52 2.97

T8 –Azotobactor + T2 12.67 8.20 4.73 3.30

T9 – Azotobactor + T3 12.95 8.61 4.83 3.58

T10 – Azotobactor + T4 12.86 8.55 4.81 3.56

T11 – Azotobactor + T5 12.70 8.24 4.75 3.31

T12 - Absolute 11.58 7.10 4.23 2.73

C.D. (P=0.05) 0.03 0.10 0.02 0.07

Jammu, (Jammu & Kashmir) Sharma et al. (2013)43 Azotobactor 200 g/plant

IRRIGATION

44

Table 23: Effect of irrigation/fertigation levels on yield and yield parameters of guava cv. Shweta

Treatments (g) Fruit weight (g) Pulp weight (g) Pulp: Seed ratio Yield (kg/plant)

I0 -(Basin) 147.63 123.05 23.53 5.29

I1 -(50%) 135.26 112.74 21.62 5.21

I2 -(75%) 160.67 135.09 24.97 5.82

I3 -(100%) 163.71 138.17 25.01 5.87

C.D. (P=0.05) 6.186 5.181 0.734 0.217

F0- (NPK 60:20:40) 150.25 125.75 23.84 5.12

F1- (NPK 30:10:10) 134.79 112.79 21.61 5.10

F2 - (NPK45:20:20) 159.79 134.15 24.73 5.96

F3 -(NPK 60:30:30) 162.43 136.37 24.95 6.01

C.D. (P=0.05) 6.186 5.181 0.734 0.217

Ramniwas et al. (2012)Udaipur, (Rajasthan) 45 Irrigation of irrigation water/cumulative pan evaporation (IW/CPE)

Conti….Treatments Fruit weight (g) Pulp weight (g) Pulp: Seed ratio Yield (kg/plant)

I0F0 (Basin) + (NPK 60:20:40) 151.00 125.78 23.99 5.08

I0F1 (Basin) + (NPK 30:10:10) 135.00 112.46 21.75 5.05

I0F2 (Basin) + (NPK 45:20:20) 151.67 126.49 24.15 5.48

I0F3 (Basin) + (NPK 60:30:30) 152.83 127.46 24.21 5.57

I1F0 (50%) + (NPK 60:20:40) 135.67 113.01 21.68 5.00

I1F1 (50%) + (NPK 30:10:10) 132.33 110.23 21.35 5.09

I1F2 (50%) + (NPK 45:20:20) 136.00 113.42 21.69 5.41

I1F3 (50%) + (NPK 60:30:30) 137..06 114.31 21.75 5.34

I2F0 (75%) + (NPK 60:20:40) 155.00 129.74 24.69 5.22

I2F1 (75%) + (NPK 30:10:10) 135.83 113.69 21.74 5.16

I2F2 (75%) + (NPK 45:20:20) 174.17 147.00 26.62 6.56

I2F3 (75%) + (NPK 60:30:30) 177.67 149.95 26.83 6.53

I3F0 (100%) + (NPK 60:20:40) 159.33 134.38 24.99 5.18

I3F1 (100%) + (NPK 30:10:10) 136.00 114.78 21.60 5.10

I3F2 (100%) + (NPK 45:20:20) 177.33 149.67 26.44 6.40

I3F3 (100%) + (NPK 60:30:30) 182.17 153.75 27.02 6.59

C.D. (P=0.05) 12.371 10.362 1.467 0.434Ramniwas et al. (2012)Udaipur, (Rajasthan) 46 Irrigation of irrigation water/cumulative pan evaporation (IW/CPE)

PRUNING/REJUVENATION

47

Rejuvenation

48

Table 24: Effect of pruning intensity on sprouting and yield attributes of guava cv. Sardar

Pruning intensity

Days to new sprouting

Number of fruits/shoot

Fruit length (cm)

Fruit breadth

(cm)

Fruit weight (g) Yield (kg/tree)

15 cm 9.8 3.0 6.1 5.9 137.6 104.7

30 cm 8.8 3.8 7.0 6.6 168.0 131.0

60 cm 8.0 4.0 6.8 6.5 164.2 131.8

Control 12.6 2.8 5.6 5.4 125.6 81.1

C.D. (P=0.05) 1.2 0.8 0.3 0.3 14.5 37.5

Hisar, (Haryana) Mohammed et al (2006)Pruning from top portion in May 49

Table-25: Effect of time of pruning on yield and yield attributes of guava cv. Sardar

Time of pruning Number of fruits/plant) Yield (kg/plant)

March 275.25 71.58

April 290.00 78.28

May 94.25 26.38

June 29.75 6.98

July 17.75 3.70

Control (Unpruned) 196.5 37.33

C.D. (P=0.05 48.424 12.363

Basu et al. (2007)Mohanpur, (West Bengal) 50 Pruning in year 2003

Table 26: Effect of various pruning treatment on crop regulation of guava cv. Allahabad Safeda

Treatments Yield (kg/tree) TSS (ºBrix)

T1 - (Heading back of current season shoot) 100.91 8.85

T2 - (Total pruning of bearing portion of current season shoot) 104.98 9.12

T3 -( Half Heading back of terminal branches to half length) 29.74 8.87

T4 - (Control no pruning) 7.78 7.45

C.D. (P=0.05) 36.03 0.77

Bahadurgarh, (Punjab) Singh et al (2007)51 Pruning at first week of May

Table-27: Effect of pruning on yield and quality attributes of guava cv. Sardar under ultra high density planting system (1 x 2m)

Treatments Fruit weight (g) Yield (t/ha)

T1 - (No pruning) 108.25 19.06

T2 - (80% pruning in May) 122.32 22.56

T3 - (60% pruning in May) 119.45 20.58

T4 - (80% pruning in October) 129.94 12.11

T5 - (60% pruning in October) 130.01 9.25

T7 - (pruning three times in a year) 110.60 23.26

C.D. (P=0.05) 9.04 3.06

Mehta et al. (2012)Ranchi, (Jharkhand) 52 Thrice pruning at March, May, and October

Table-28: Influence of pruning intensity on yield parameters of guava cv. Sardar

Treatment(Pruning intensity) Duration of flowering (Days) Number of fruits Yield (kg/tree)

0-node 41 258.0 31.0

2- node 38.5 284.0 36.4

4- node 37 308.0 40.0

6- node 34 456.5 59.5

8- node 32 349.5 46.5

10- node 30.9 304.5 46.1

C.D. (P=0.05) 2.16 8.36 1.95

Singh (2012)Muktsar, (Punjab) 53 Regular pruning in first week of march from top portion

Table 29: Effect of various pruning intensity on fruit quality of guava cv. Sardar

Treatments (cm) Fruit diameter (cm)

Fruit weight (g)

Yield(kg/tree)

TSS (ºBrix)

Total Sugar (%)

No Pruning (0) 5.89 221.3 5.98 8.43 7.56

Light (7.10) 6.15 245.6 8.70 9.08 8.73

Moderate (5.86) 6.45 298.1 9.60 9.82 8.81

Severe (4.81) 7.15 300.2 11.66 10.1 9.12

Mean 6.41 266.30 8.99 9.36 8.56

Basar, (Arunachal Pradesh) Bhagwati et al (2015)54 Pruning at first week of May

CROP REGULATION

55

Crop regulationSr. No.

Bahar Flowering Fruiting Quality

1. Ambe Feb. –March July – Sept. Watery, Poor

2. Mrig June – July Nov. - Jan. Excellent

3. Hast October Feb. - April Good, Yield Low

3 Crop/year (Maharashtra and Tamilnadu)In North India Mrig Bahar is preferredIn South India Hast Bahar is preferredIn Gujarat Mrig Bahar is preferred

56

Table 30: Effect of foliar application of chemicals for maximizing yield and fruit quality of guava

TreatmentsAllahabad Safeda Sardar

Yield (kg/plant) Fruit weight (g) Yield (kg/plant) Fruit weight (g)

Urea (10%) 18.5 116.3 10.6 151.9

Urea (20%) 22.4 111.1 7.5 134.5

NAA (100 ppm) 24.3 108.2 11.4 145.7

NAA (200 ppm) 28.1 113.0 22.9 146.5

2,4-D (40 ppm) 27.6 109.1 9.4 143.1

2,4-D (60 ppm) 28.0 109.1 15.0 147.8

KI (1%) 27.3 115.3 17.8 161.2

KI (2%) 16.3 110.5 10.9 154.2

Control, 13.5 112.7 5.0 146.2

C.D. (P=0.05) 8.69 NS 3.29 19.7

Das et al. (2007)Ranchi, (Jharkhand)

Spray twice (mid-April and first week of May) @ 3 ltr/plant/spray

57

Table 31: Effect of NAA, flower bud thinning and pruning on yield and yield attributes of guava cv. Sardar

Treatments Number of flower bud /branch

Number of fruit set /branch Yield (kg/tree)

T1- NAA @ 600ppm 38.00 30.75 65.00

T2- NAA @ 800ppm 42.00 32.25 84.00

T3- Flower bud thinning 30.00 24.50 76.00

T4- One leaf pair pruning 43.00 36.00 88.00

T5- Two leaf pair pruning 33.00 27.25 61.00

T6- Control 3.50 2.77 4.50

C.D. (P=0.05) 7.94 5.42 8.27Pantnagar, (Uttrakhand) Tiwari and Lal (2007)58Spray at 1st week of May

Growth regulators/Micro-nutrients

59

Table 32: Effect of growth regulators on physico-chemical attributes of guava cv. Sardar

Growth regulator (ppm) Fruit weight(g) Yield/tree (kg) Ascorbic acid (mg/100g) Total sugar (%)

NAA @ 20 132 64.6 188 6.70

NAA @ 40 142 68.0 189 6.76

NAA @ 60 143 71.0 191 6.80

Mean 139 67.8 189 6.75

GA3 @ 50 138 61.0 178 6.61

GA3 @ 100 140 66.0 178 6.71

GA3 @ 150 142 68.0 180 6.72

Mean 140 65.0 179 6.68

Ethrel @ 50 119 47.4 175 7.08

Ethrel @ 100 117 46.2 173 7.05

Ethrel @ 150 116 46.0 174 7.05

Mean 117 46.5 174 7.04

Control 124 58.0 165 6.21

C.D. (P=0.05) 0.5 4.7 10 0.38

Hisar, (Haryana) Yadav et al (2001)Spray at 9th November (15 yr old) 60

Table 33: Effect of nutrients and plant growth regulators on physico-chemical composition of guava cv. Sardar

Treatments Reducing sugar (%) TSS (°Brix) Total sugar (%)

T1 Urea 4.25 10.20 6.94

T2 K2SO4 4.32 10.85 7.25

T3 Zinc 4.30 10.35 7.18

T4 NAA 4.30 10.55 7.21

T5 GA3 3.48 9.75 6.42

T6 Urea + K2SO4 3.89 9.25 6.74

T7 Urea + Zinc 3.92 9.40 6.78

T8 Urea + K2SO4 + Zinc 3.90 9.80 6.82

T9 Urea + NAA 3.95 10.40 7.00

T10 Urea + K2SO4 + NAA 3.90 3.90 6.92

T11 Urea + K2SO4 + NAA + Zinc 3.99 10.60 7.18

T12 Urea + GA3 3.12 9.75 6.00

T13 Urea + K2SO4 + GA3 3.37 9.85 5.99

T14 Urea + K2SO4 + Zinc + GA3 3.42 9.90 6.12

T15 Control 3.32 8.55 5.95

C.D. (P=0.05) 0.17 1.52 0.75

Dutta and Banik (2007)Mohanpur, (West Bengal)Urea= 1%, K2SO4=1%, Zinc=0.1%, GA3=50ppm, NAA=50ppm 1st spray at flowering, 2nd at fruit setting and 3rd at 3 week after fruit setting.

61

Conti….Treatments Yield (kg/plant) Acidity (%) Ascorbic acid (mg/100g)

T1 Urea 52.12 0.44 124.43

T2 K2SO4 44.39 0.49 128.19

T3 Zinc 47.27 0.48 128.54

T4 NAA 45.28 0.39 134.44

T5 GA3 42.37 0.49 128.22

T6 Urea + K2SO4 54.12 0.46 129.10

T7 Urea + Zinc 53.74 0.52 121.00

T8 Urea + K2SO4 + Zinc 54.22 0.43 125.16

T9 Urea + NAA 54.00 0.42 125.00

T10 Urea + K2SO4 + NAA 54.42 0.48 125.12

T11 Urea + K2SO4 + NAA + Zinc 59.28 0.39 135.42

T12 Urea + GA3 54.22 0.42 127.10

T13 Urea + K2SO4 + GA3 54.38 0.48 129.42

T14 Urea + K2SO4 + Zinc + GA3 54.85 0.59 119.10

T15 Control 43.25 0.62 118.28

C.D. (P=0.05) 9.25 0.11 6.92

Dutta and Banik (2007)Mohanpur, (West Bengal)Urea= 1%, K2SO4=1%, Zinc=0.1%, GA3=50ppm, NAA=50ppm 1st spray at flowering, 2nd at fruit setting and 3rd at 3 week after fruit setting

62

Table-34: Effect of pre-harvest application of micro-nutrient for maximizing yield and fruit quality of guava cv. Allahabad Safeda

Treatments TSS (°Brix) Reducing sugar (%) Total sugar (%) Ascorbic acid (mg/100g)

Zinc Sulphate (0.2%) 11.12 4.60 7.88 218.20

Zinc Sulphate (0.4%) 11.52 4.70 8.34 223.61

Calcium nitrate(1.0%) 11.32 4.44 7.75 210.88

Calcium nitrate(2.0%) 10.64 4.39 7.49 207.03

Borax (0.2%) 10.04 4.21 6.99 197.31

Borax (0.4%) 10.40 4.31 7.24 203.99

Control 9.64 4.03 5.98 182.10

C.D. (P=0.05) 0.174 0.065 0.072 1.337

Singh et al. (2007)Lucknow, (Uttar Pradesh) Spray at 20 days before harvest @ 5 ltr/tree 63

Table 35: Effect of pre-harvest application of nutrient and growth regulators on physico-chemical attributes of guava cv. Sardar

Treatments Fruit weight (g) TSS (ºBrix) vitamin-C (mg/100g) Total Sugar (%)

KNO3 (0.5%) 131.5 10.4 140.5 7.38

KNO3 (1.0%) 133.3 10.7 145.8 7.55

KNO3 (1.5%) 135.4 10.8 148.6 7.80

SADH (20 ppm) 124.1 10.2 136.4 7.31

SADH (30 ppm) 124.8 10.2 135.9 7.33

SADH (40 ppm) 126.1 10.3 138.1 7.33

Ethephon 300 ppm 120.2 10.8 142.3 7.65

Ethephon 400 ppm 120.8 11.1 149.8 7.98

Ethephon 500 ppm 118.6 11.0 146.8 7.54

Control 122.7 10.1 135.2 7.29

C.D. (P=0.05) 3.6 0.5 9.8 0.3

Ludhiana, (Punjab) Gill and Bal (2010)Spray at first week of December (5 yr old) 64

Post Harvest Management

65

Table 36: Effect of different doses of gamma radiation and chemicals on chemical composition of guava fruits

Treatments TSS (ºBrix) Acidity (%) Vitamin-C (mg/100g)

Reducing sugar (%)

Non-reducing (%)

Total sugar (%)

Marketable fruits (%)

Control 12.8 0.14 192.6 4.3 4.0 8.3 8.00

50 Gy 13.0 0.12 199.2 4.3 4.0 8.3 53.84

100 Gy 13.6 0.12 204.8 5.0 4.6 9.6 57.14

200 Gy 12.8 0.24 203.2 4.8 4.3 9.1 24.0

300 Gy 13.6 0.25 201.6 4.3 4.0 8.3 2.66

1 KGy 12.3 0.25 190.6 4.4 4.2 8.6 0.00

2 KGy 12.6 0.24 178.9 4.0 4.0 8.0 0.00

3 KGy 11.3 0.24 164.0 3.9 3.4 7.3 0.00

C.D. (P=0.05) 0.84 0.2 24.1 0.4 0.4 0.5 -

Jabalpur, (Madhya Pradesh) Baghel et al. (2005)Observation recorded at 12 Days after storage 66

Table 37: Effect of pre-harvest application of calcium compounds on bio-chemical composition of guava cv. Sardar

Treatments TSS (ºBrix) Reducing sugar (%) Pectin (%) Shelf-life (Days)

CaCl2 0.5% 11.60 2.82 0.30 8.67

CaCl2 1.0% 11.57 3.07 0.37 9.00

Ca(NO3) 2 0.5% 12.90 3.24 0.47 10.00

Ca(NO3) 2 1.0% 13.03 3.55 0.51 11.67

CaSO4 0.5% 11.53 2.15 0.30 7.33

CaSO4 1.0% 11.60 2.23 0.30 7.67

Control 9.77 1.80 0.21 7.00

C.D. (P=0.05) 0.66 0.22 0.023 1.80

Hyderabad, (Andhra Pradesh) Jayachandran et al. (2005)

Spray at 15 days before harvest (15 year old) and observation recorded at 9th day after storage67

Table 38: Effect of different doses of gamma radiation on chemical composition of guava fruits

Treatments PLW (%) Marketable fruit retained (%) TSS (ºBrix) vitamin-C

(mg/100g) Total sugar (%)

Control 27.7 13.3 13.1 190.0 7.2

50Gy 29.1 36.6 14.0 195.3 8.1

100Gy 24.7 53.3 14.3 201.3 9.4

200Gy 28.8 26.6 11.3 176.3 6.9

250Gy 29.6 20.0 11.1 165.6 6.1

CC-250ppm 24.4 50.0 15.2 194.0 8.6

CC-500ppm 22.9 60.0 15.8 201.0 9.0

CC-750ppm 24.0 40.0 14.7 192.6 9.0

MH-250ppm 24.8 30.0 14.8 200.3 9.2

MH-500ppm 25.9 43.3 15.4 201.7 9.4

MH-750ppm 29.7 23.3 14.2 187.7 9.4

Mustard oil 17.3 60.0 15.1 193.0 9.3

Coconut oil 7.1 100.0 16.1 195.0 10.0

Liquid paraffin 14.1 83.4 15.1 194.7 9.4

C.D. (P=0.05) 3.28 - 0.47 4.07 0.46

Pandey et al. (2010)Jabalpur, (Madhya Pradesh) 68Observation recorded at 12 Days after storage

ConclusionPropagation Air layering with treatment of IBA @ 4000 ppm with combination of

rooting media Coco peat/Sphagnum moss found better for rooting

Planting HDP at 2.5 x 2.5 or 2.0 x 2.0 m gave more yield with better quality fruits

Manures and fertilizers Integrated nutrient management produce the highest yield with better quality fruits

Irrigation Irrigation 100 % IW/CPE with NPK (60:30:30 g) combination found better for quality characters

Pruning/Rejuvenation Pruning intensity 60 cm and April is as time of pruning found better for quality production

Crop regulation One leaf pair pruning and spraying of KI @ 1 % or NAA @ 200 ppm produce highest yield

Growth regulators/micro-nutrients Spraying of NAA @ 60 ppm, urea @ 1%, K2SO4 @ 1%, GA3 @ 50ppm, ethephon @ 400 ppm and ZnSO4 @ 0.4 % found better for quality parameters

Post-harvest management Spraying of Ca(NO3) 2 1.0% and fruit treatment with 100 Gy, Coconut oil found better for increasing shelf-life and fruit quality

69

Future thrust Crop Improvement- Need to develop variety having less and soft seed as well as

seedless cultivar Need to develop High yielding, early bearing having good

quality, high keeping quality and insect-pest and disease resistant varieties

Need to develop dwarfing rootstock for high density planting Crop production- Need to Standardization of training and pruning practices for

HDP Post-harvest technology- Need to Standardization of packaging techniques and Post

harvest techniques70

for Your Attention

Your right is to work only,

but never with its fruits;

let not the fruits of actions

be your motive,nor let your attachment

be to inaction

--The Great Geeta

Education

Seminar (Pawan Kumar Nagar)