Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Vol. 13 No. 3 (2026)

Enhancing yield and quality of mango cv. Amrapali through foliar and soil application of boron: Enhancing yield and quality of mango cv. Amrapali

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.13050
Submitted
3 December 2025
Published
04-08-2026 — Updated on 12-08-2026
Versions

Abstract

This experiment was conducted at Bangladesh Agricultural University Germplasm Centre (BAU-GPC) and Postharvest Laboratory of the Department of Horticulture, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh during November 2023 to July 2024 to explore the effects of boron (B) on reduction of fruit cracking and improvement of yield and quality of mango cv. Amrapali. The experiment was laid out in randomised complete block design (RCBD) with 3 replications. The study comprised of eight treatments viz., T1: Control, T2: 50 g/plant of boric acid (BA) by soil application (SA), T3: 100 g/plant of BA by SA, T4 : 150 g/plant of BA by SA, T5: 0.5 % of BA by foliar application (FA), T6 : 1 % of BA by FA, T7: 1.5 % of BA by FA, T8: 50 g of BA by SA + 0.5 % BA by FA. Boron was applied in December, while FA was done in twice at pea and marble sizes of fruits. Results show that number of fruits per plant (182.67), fresh weight (188.83 g/fruit), length (10.31 cm), diameter (7.02 cm), weight of fruits (19.73 kg/plant), weight of marketable fruits (19.64 kg/plant), marketable yield (7.86 t/ha) and total sugar content (16.11 %) were the highest, while fruit cracking (0.37 %), titratable acidity (TA) (0.21 %) were the lowest in treatment T6 (1 % of BA by FA) as compared to control. The control plants exhibited the maximum fruit cracking, lowest total sugar, highest TA with lower fruit quality and smaller fruits, whereas treatment T6 performed successful for nominal cracked fruits, highest marketable fruit yield and better quality of mango cv. Amrapali.

References

  1. 1. Mukharjee SK. Introduction: botany and importance. In: Litz RE, editor. Mango: botany, production and uses. Wallingford: CAB International; 1998. p. 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781845934897.0001
  2. 2. Mustari NU, Rasal-Monir MD, Sani MD, Hasan MM, Biswas SA, Hossain MS, et al. Effect of indigenous techniques on postharvest quality and shelf life of mango. J Biol Nat. 2020;11(3):22–31. ­
  3. 3. FAO. Food and Agriculture Organization. Rome: FAO; 2022.
  4. 4. Salunkhe DK, Desai BB. Postharvest biotechnology of fruit. Vol. 1. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 1984. p. 77–94.
  5. 5. Hossain AKA. Manual on mango cultivation in Bangladesh. Gazipur: Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute; 1989. p. 39–58.
  6. 6. BBS. Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, Planning Division. Dhaka: Ministry of Planning, Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh; 2023.
  7. 7. Saran PL, Kumar R. Boron deficiency disorders in mango (Mangifera indica L.): field screening, nutrient composition and amelioration by boron application. Indian J Agric Sci. 2011;81(6):506.
  8. 8. Prakash O, Srivastava KC. Mango diseases and their management: a world review. New Delhi: Today & Tomorrow's Printers and Publishers; 1987. p. 175.
  9. 9. Opara LU, Studman CJ, Banks NH. Fruit skin splitting and cracking. Hortic Rev. 1996;19:217–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470650622.ch4
  10. 10. Ram S, Bist LD, Sirohi SC. Internal fruit necrosis of mango and its control. Acta Hortic. 1989;231:805–13. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.1989.231.48
  11. 11. Raja ME, Kumar SC, Raju SY. Boron deficiency in mango (Mangifera indica L.): a cause delineation study in acidic soils of Maharashtra, India. Soil Sci Plant Nutr. 2005;51(5):751–4. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-0765.2005.tb00106.x
  12. 12. Mengel K, Kirkby EA. Principles of plant nutrition. 5th ed. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2001. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-1009-2
  13. 13. Ranganna S. Handbook of analysis and quality control for fruit and vegetable products. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill; 1986.
  14. 14. Jayaraman J. Laboratory manual of biochemistry. New Delhi: Wiley Eastern Ltd.; 1981. p. 180.
  15. 15. Loomis WE, Shull CA. Methods in plant physiology. New York: McGraw Hill Book Co.; 1937.
  16. 16. George D, Mallery P. IBM SPSS statistics 26 step by step: a simple guide and reference. New York: Routledge; 2019. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429056765
  17. 17. Gomez KA, Gomez AA. Statistical procedures for agricultural research. New York: Wiley Interscience; 1984. p. 67–215.
  18. 18. Bhowmick N, Banik BC, Hasan MA, Ghosh B. Response of pre-harvest foliar application of zinc and boron on mango cv. Amrapali under new alluvial zone of West Bengal. Indian J Hortic. 2012;69(3):428–31.
  19. 19. Monira S, Rahim MA, Islam MA. Pre-harvest factors affecting yield, quality and shelf life of mango cv. Amropali. Res Agric Livest Fish. 2015;2(2):279–86. https://doi.org/10.3329/ralf.v2i2.25011
  20. 20. Pavithra G, Alila P, Maiti CS, Sarkar A, Sahu AK. Effect of different sources of boron on flowering and yield of mango cv. Amrapali. J Pharm Innov. 2022;11(4):909–13.
  21. 21. Morwal BR, Das S. Foliar application of boron and calcium nitrate decreased fruit cracking and improved quality in pomegranate (Punica granatum L.). J Krishi Vigyan. 2021;9(2):72–5. https://doi.org/10.5958/2349-4433.2021.00014.3
  22. 22. Bora L, Singh AK, Singh CP. Characterization of mango (Mangifera indica L.) genotypes based on physio-chemical quality attributes. J Appl Nat Sci. 2017;9(4):2199. https://doi.org/10.31018/jans.v9i4.1510
  23. 23. Kumar A, Kumar A, Prakash S, Kumar V, Singh A, Singh MK, et al. Evaluation on morphological and quality attributes of mango cultivars in western Uttar Pradesh. J Adv Biol Biotechnol. 2024;27:485–97. https://doi.org/10.9734/jabb/2024/v27i91320
  24. 24. Hossain MM, Haque MA, Rahim MA, Rahman MH. Physio-morphological and compositional variation in ripe fruit of three mango varieties. J Biol Sci. 2001;1(11):1101–2. https://doi.org/10.3923/jbs.2001.1101.1102

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.