Advertisement

Plant Growth Regulation

, Volume 30, Issue 2, pp 117–123 | Cite as

Physiological response and yield of paclobutrazol treated tomato plants (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.)

  • Malgorzata Berova
  • Zlatko Zlatev
Article

Abstract

Experiments were conducted to study the physiologicaleffect of the plant growth retardant paclobutrazol(PBZ) and its impact on the yield of tomato plants(cv. Precador). Seedlings were treated at the time of prickingout with soil and foliar applications of PBZ atconcentrations of 1.0 and 25.0 mg l-1respectively. The results established that:

-- The reduced height and the increased thickness ofthe young plant stem, as well as the accelerated rootformation are a significant advantage of the PBZtreatment, contributing to the improvement of seedlingquality at planting.

-- Soil treatment (1 mg l-1) and foliar treatment(25 mg l-1) with PBZ improves the photosyntheticactivity and water balance of tomato cv. Precador.

-- PBZ accelerates fruit formation and increases earlyfruit yield.

-- The concentrations of the retardant used and themode of its application ensure the production offruits without any residual retardant and harmless tohuman health from a phytosanitary point of view.

leaf gas exchange Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. paclobutrazol (PBZ) residual amounts yield 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Aloni B and Pashkar T (1987) Antagonistic effects of paclobutrazol and gibberellic acid on growth and some biochemical characteristics of pepper (Capsicum annum) transplants. Scientia Horticulturae 33: 167-177Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baruah G, Arora S and Pandita M (1993) Effect of paclobutrazol (PP333) and nitrogen levels on fruit yield of tomato cv. Pusa Ruby. Haryana Agricultural University Journal of Research 23: 230-236Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Borkowski J, Dobrzanski A and Bakowski J (1989) The effect of paclobutrazol on the growth and cropping of tomatoes. Biuletyn Warzywniczy 2: 121-124 (Pl)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Borkowski J and Dobrzanski A (1990) The influence of paclobutrazol and other retardants on the growth and yield of tomato plants. XXIII International Horticultural Congress, Italy, Abstract of contributed papers, 2 Poster, abstr.N 4263Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Buchenauer H, Kutzner B and Koths T (1984) Effect of various triazole fungicides on growth of cereal seedlings and tomato plants as well as on gibberellin contents and lipid metabolism in barley seedlings. Zeitschrift fur Pflanzenkrankheiten und Pflanzenschutz. 91: 506-524Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dalziel J and Lawrence D (1984) Biochemical and biological effects of kaurene oxidase inhibitors such as paclobutrazol. In: Biochemical aspects of synthetic and naturally occurrin plant growth regulators. British Plant Growth Regul Group Monograph 11: 43-57Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Davis T and Curry E (1991) Chemical regulation of vegetative growth. Critic Review Plant Science 10: 204-216Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dicks J (1980) Mode of action of growth retardants. British Plant Growth Regulator Group Monograph 4: 1-14Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dumitrescu L and Stoicescu M (1981) Effect of plant growth regulators on tomato plants. In: Genchev S (ed) The Application of Vegetative Growth Regulators in Vegetable Production. Plovdiv: Hristo G. Danov Publishing House, pp 74-76 (Bg)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    El-Hindi M, Hassan A and El-Fouli M (1981) Increase in tomato yield induced by chlormequat chloride. In: Genchev S (ed) The Application of Vegetative Growth Regulators in Vegetable Production. Plovdiv: Hristo G. Danov Publishing House, pp 77-83 (Bg)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fletcher R and Hofstra G (1988) Triazoles as potential plant protectans. In: Berg D and Plempel M (eds) Sterol Synthesis Inhibitors in Plant Protection. Cambridge: Ellis Horwood Ltd, pp 321-331Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gao J, Hofstra G and Fletcher R (1988) Anatomical changes induced by triazoles in wheat seedlings. Can J Bot 66: 1178-1185Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Genchev S (1981) The Application of Vegetative Growth Regulators in Vegetable Production. Plovdiv: Hristo G. Danov Publishing House (Bg)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Grossmann K (1990) Plant growth retardants as tools in physiological research. Physiologia Plantarum 78: 640-648Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kachnovich L and Khodorenko V (1964) On methods of sampling in chlorophyll content determinations. Fizjologia Rasteniy 115: 933-936 (Ru)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kaloyanova F (1993) Pesticids-information Sheets for Secure Application. Sofia: Medicine (Bg)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kartalov P, Petrov H, Doikova M and Boshnakov P (1990) Vegetable and Seed Production. Sofia: Zemizdat (Bg)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kraus T and Fletcher A (1994) Paclobutrazol protects wheat seedlings from heat and paraquat injury. Is detoxification of active oxygen involved? Plant Cell Physiology 35: 45-52Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Latimer J (1992) Drought, paclobutrazol, abscisic-acid and gibberellic-acid as alternatives to daminozide in tomato transplant production. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 117: 243-247Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Manolov P, Kolev K, Mavradiev St and Gevrenov K (1988) Cultar-plant regulator for species of fruits. Ovoshtarstvo, Gradinarstvo i Konservna promishlenost 69: 10-11 (Bg)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mojecka-Berova M and Kerin V (1995) Regulation of green pepper vegetative growth and fruit-bearing capacity with paclobutrazol. Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science 1: 253-257Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Petrikova K (1989) The effect of the retardant EMA on young tomato plants. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae, Facultas Horticulturae 4: 25-31Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Planchon C (1976) Essais de détermination de critéeres physiologiques en vue de l'amélioration du blé tendre: les facteurs de la photosynthése de la derniére feuille. Ann Améliot Plantes 26(4): 717-744Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Popov D and Karanov E (1974) Stimulation and Inhibition of Plants. Sofia: Zemizdat (Bg)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rademacher W (1991) Inhibitors of gibberellin biosynthesis: Applications in agriculture and horticulture. In: Takahashi N, Phinney B and MacMillan J (eds) Gibberellins. New York: Springer-Verlag, pp 296-310Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Turner NC (1988) Measurement of plant water status by the pressure chamber technique. Irrigation science 9: 289-308Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Van den Boogaard R (1994) Variation among wheat cultivars in efficiency of water use and growth parameters. PhD thesis, Utrecht University, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Malgorzata Berova
    • 1
  • Zlatko Zlatev
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Plant PhysiologyInstitute of AgriculturePlovdivBulgaria

Personalised recommendations