This is an outdated version published on 04-08-2026. Read the
most recent version.
Research Articles
Early Access
Enhancing yield and quality of mango cv. Amrapali through foliar and soil application of boron: Enhancing yield and quality of mango cv. Amrapali
Department of Horticulture, Faculty of Agriculture, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh 2200, Bangladesh; Nepal Agricultural Research Council, Kathmandu 44600, Nepal
Department of Horticulture, Faculty of Agriculture, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh 2200, Bangladesh
Department of Horticulture, Faculty of Agriculture, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh 2200, Bangladesh
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. 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. 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. FAO. Food and Agriculture Organization. Rome: FAO; 2022.
- 4. Salunkhe DK, Desai BB. Postharvest biotechnology of fruit. Vol. 1. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 1984. p. 77–94.
- 5. Hossain AKA. Manual on mango cultivation in Bangladesh. Gazipur: Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute; 1989. p. 39–58.
- 6. BBS. Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics, Planning Division. Dhaka: Ministry of Planning, Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh; 2023.
- 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. Prakash O, Srivastava KC. Mango diseases and their management: a world review. New Delhi: Today & Tomorrow's Printers and Publishers; 1987. p. 175.
- 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. 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. 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. 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. Ranganna S. Handbook of analysis and quality control for fruit and vegetable products. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill; 1986.
- 14. Jayaraman J. Laboratory manual of biochemistry. New Delhi: Wiley Eastern Ltd.; 1981. p. 180.
- 15. Loomis WE, Shull CA. Methods in plant physiology. New York: McGraw Hill Book Co.; 1937.
- 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. Gomez KA, Gomez AA. Statistical procedures for agricultural research. New York: Wiley Interscience; 1984. p. 67–215.
- 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.