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

Research Articles

Early Access

Effect of indole-3-butyric acid concentrations on root and shoot morphogenesis and nursery establishment of dragon fruit (Hylocereus undatus (Haw.) Britton & Rose) stem cuttings

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.17149
Submitted
31 July 2026
Published
30-10-2026

Abstract

The rapid expansion of commercial dragon fruit (Hylocereus undatus (Haw.) Britton & Rose) cultivation necessitates the standardisation of reliable vegetative propagation protocols for producing high-quality planting material. A 2-year field investigation (2023–24 and 2024–25) was conducted at the Central Nursery, Vasantrao Naik Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth, Parbhani, Maharashtra, India (19.26° N, 76.78° E, 409 m above mean sea level), to evaluate the effects of different indole-3-butyric acid (IBA) concentrations (I1 = 5000 ppm, I2 = 6000 ppm and I3 = 7000 ppm; quick dip for 10–15 sec) on adventitious rooting, shoot morphogenesis, sapling survival and economic returns. Exogenous IBA treatments induced significant (P < 0.05) variation in all evaluated parameters. Application of IBA at 6000 ppm (I2) consistently gave superior performance in both seasons and in the pooled analysis. The minimum number of days to shoot initiation was recorded under I2 (34.34 days) and this treatment also gave the greatest shoot length at 120 days after sprouting (DASp) (38.13 cm), absolute growth rate (0.25 cm day-1), relative growth rate (0.019 cm cm-1 day-1), shoot fresh weight (130.63 g) and shoot dry weight (26.10 g). For rhizogenesis, IBA at 6000 ppm produced the highest number of primary roots per cutting (18.20 at 120 DASp), maximum root length (25.20 cm), root density (0.112 mg cm-3, equivalent to 1.84 mg in-3), root fresh weight (15.20 g) and root dry weight (5.28 g). The same treatment optimised nursery establishment, with a peak survival of 83.07 %, lowest mortality of 16.93 % and a balanced root-to-shoot length ratio of 0.80. Increasing the concentration to 7000 ppm (I3) produced supra-optimal auxin inhibition, delaying sprouting (36.96 days), reducing primary root number (16.70) and root density (0.094 mg cm-3) and raising mortality to 32.77 %. Economic evaluation, recomputed treatment-wise, established IBA at 6000 ppm as the most profitable treatment (gross B:C ratio 2.33; net B:C ratio 1.33). A quick-dip treatment of IBA at 6000 ppm is therefore recommended for efficient, high-quality and commercially viable nursery production of dragon fruit saplings.

References

  1. 1. Balaji M, Das U, Vashishth R. Dragon fruit (Hylocereus spp.) as a potential crop for nutraceutical properties, livelihood enhancement and climate change mitigation. Cogent Food Agric. 2025;11(1):1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2025.2544956
  2. 2. Kakade VD, Morade AS, Salunkhe VN, Boraiah KM, Reddy KS. Dragon fruit cultivation in new areas: challenges, management strategies, and insights from India. Discov Agric. 2025;3:168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44279-025-00243-2
  3. 3. Kumari S, Thakur D, Singh S, Bakshi M, Singh SK. Dragon fruit: exploring bioactive compounds and their promising role in functional food innovation. J Food Compos Anal. 2025;141:107370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2025.107370
  4. 4. Meena PK, Maji S, Ali M. Augmentation of rooting and shooting in stem cuttings of dragon fruit [Hylocereus costaricensis (Web.) Britton and Rose]. Indian J Ecol. 2023;50(2):404–7.
  5. 5. Sanoamuang N. The challenges and experiences of dragon fruit farming and marketing channels for growers. FFTC Agric Policy Platf. 2019;1:1–4.
  6. 6. Anonymous. Tropical fresh fruit exporter guide to China: market research report. Bonn and Eschborn: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH; 2024. p. 1–47.
  7. 7. Karunakaran G, Arivalagan M. Dragon fruit - a new introduction crop with promising market. Indian Hortic. 2019;63(1):8–11.
  8. 8. Madrewar SS, Jadhav A, Kakade P, Patil K. Expansion and productivity of dragon fruit (Kamalam, Hylocereus spp.) in India: regional trends and yield patterns. Int J Bus Manag Pract. 2026;6(3):415–24. https://doi.org/10.59890/ijbmp.v3i6.121
  9. 9. Arivalagan M, Karunakaran G, Roy TK, Dinsha M, Sindhu BC, Shilpashree VM. Biochemical and nutritional characterization of dragon fruit (Hylocereus species). Food Chem.2021;353:129426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2021.129426
  10. 10. Parmar V, Karetha K. Physical and biochemical analysis of dragon fruit species from different regions of Gujarat. J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2020;9(5):2863–6.
  11. 11. Ganesan K, Sundram R, Selvakumar G, Kanupriya C, Prakash K, Thimmarayappa R. Microbial inoculants and organic amendments facilitate cutting establishment of dragon fruit (Selenicereus spp.). Sci Hortic. 2026;355:114571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2025.114571
  12. 12. Markam S, Jha MK. Advances in production technologies of major underutilized fruit crops. Pharma Innov J. 2023;13(5):5925–33.
  13. 13. Bhatt BB, Tomar YK. Effects of IBA on rooting performance of Kagzi-lime (Citrus aurantifolia Swingle) in different growing conditions. Nat Sci. 2010;8(7):8–11.
  14. 14. Hartmann HT, Kester DE, Davies FT, Geneve RL. Plant propagation: principles and practices. 6th ed. New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India; 2002. p. 321–85.
  15. 15. Srivastava HS. Plant physiology, biochemistry and biotechnology. Vol. 1. New Delhi: Kalyani Publishers; 2012. p. 182.
  16. 16. Aloni R, Aloni E, Langhans M, Ullrich CI. Role of cytokinin and auxin in shaping root architecture. Ann Bot. 2006;97(5):883–93. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcl027
  17. 17. Polat AA, Çalışkan O. Effect of indolebutyric acid (IBA) on rooting of cutting in various pomegranate genotypes. Acta Hortic.2009;818:187–92. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2009.818.27
  18. 18. Hansen H, Grossmann K. Auxin-induced ethylene triggers abscisic acid biosynthesis and growth inhibition. Plant Physiol.2000;124(3):1437–48. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.124.3.1437
  19. 19. Perrot-Rechenmann C. Cellular responses to auxin: division, growth and differentiation. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2010;2(5):a001446. https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a001446
  20. 20. Jackson ML. Soil chemical analysis. New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India; 1973. p. 38–336.
  21. 21. Walkley A, Black IA. An examination of the Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter. Soil Sci. 1934;37(1):29–38. https://doi.org/10.1097/00010694-193401000-00003
  22. 22. Subbiah BV, Asija GL. A rapid procedure for the estimation of available nitrogen in soils. Curr Sci. 1956;25(8):259–60.
  23. 23. Olsen SR, Cole CV, Watanabe FS, Dean LA. Estimation of available phosphorus in soils by extraction with sodium bicarbonate. Washington: USDA Circular 939; 1954. p. 1–19.
  24. 24. Blake GR, Hartge KH. Bulk density. In: Klute A, editor. Methods of soil analysis, part 1. 2nd ed. Madison: ASA-SSSA; 1986. p. 363–75. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssabookser5.1.2ed.c13
  25. 25. Hunt R. Basic growth analysis: plant growth analysis for beginners. London: Unwin Hyman; 1990. p. 1–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-9117-6_1
  26. 26. Drüge U, Hilo E, Perez-Perez JM, Yildiz Y, Klopotek Y, Hajirezaei MR. Molecular and physiological control of adventitious rooting in cuttings. Plant Cell Environ. 2019;42(5):1205–25.
  27. 27. Pires MV, Almeida AA, Figueredo AS. Physiological and enzymatic regulation of bud break in succulent stem propagation. J Plant Growth Regul. 2025;44(2):112–24.
  28. 28. Fogaça CM, Fett-Neto AG. Role of auxin, its transporters and co-factors in adventitious rooting of Eucalyptus species. Plant Growth Regul. 2005;45(3):219–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10725-004-6547-7
  29. 29. Zhao Y, Zhang X, Wang L. Auxin transport and signaling during adventitious root formation in vegetative cuttings. Front Plant Sci. 2022;13:892104.
  30. 30. Seran TH, Thiresh A. Root and shoot growth of dragon fruit (Hylocereus undatus) stem cutting as influenced by indole butyric acid. Agric Biol Sci J. 2015;1(2):27–30.
  31. 31. Dhruve L, Suchitra V, Vani VS, Subbaramamma P, Saravanan L. Rooting and shooting behaviour of red and white pulped varieties of dragon fruit (Hylocereus undatus) in relation to indole butyric acid concentrations. Int J Agric Sci.2018;14(1):229–34. https://doi.org/10.15740/HAS/IJAS/14.1/229-234
  32. 32. Chhetri S, Hasan MA, Tamang A. Influence of varying length of stem cutting and IBA concentrations on root and shoot growth in dragon fruit cv. Giant White (Hylocereus undatus L.). Environ Ecol. 2021;39(4A):1114–8.
  33. 33. Barkha, Panda B, Sahu PK, Sahu V, Upadhyay S. Influence of different concentrations of growth regulators on the stem cuttings of dragon fruit. Int J Adv Biochem Res.2025;SP-9(10):464–8. https://doi.org/10.33545/26174693.2025.v9.i10Sf.5874
  34. 34. Rymbai H, Verma VK, Talang H, Devi MB, Mawlein J. Higher propagation and nutrient use efficiency of cladode cuttings in dragon fruit (Hylocereus costaricensis) due to substrates and growth regulators. Discov Plants. 2025;2(1):282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44372-025-00363-5
  35. 35. Singh A, Chander S, Brar JS, Kaur N. Enhancing dragon fruit [Hylocereus undatus (Haw.) Britt and Rose] propagation with indole-3-butyric acid (IBA) and cutting techniques. N Z J Crop Hortic Sci. 2025;53(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/01140671.2025.2455049
  36. 36. Pazmiño DM, Rodríguez-Serrano M, Romero-Puertas MC, Sandalio LM. Differential response of plant organs to auxin-induced oxidative stress. Plant Biol. 2012;14(3):466–75.
  37. 37. Kabir MA, Prince MH, Karim R, Rahman S, Hasnat GNT. Vegetative propagation of Punica granatum by stem cuttings using non-mist propagator. Int J Agric Syst. 2017;5(2):185–92. https://doi.org/10.20956/ijas.v5i2.1310
  38. 38. Wadhekar NB, Nainwad RV, Munde GR, Gaikwad GB, Jivrag KP. Effect of chemicals and biomix on root growth and survival of cuttings in dragon fruit (Hylocereus undatus). Pharma Innov J. 2022;11(11):1553–5.
  39. 39. Malik V, Joseph AV, Rana S, Singh K. Effect of organic manures and IBA on shoot growth and survival percentage of dragon fruit (Hylocereus polyrhizus) cuttings. Ecol Environ Conserv. 2023;29:S94–8. https://doi.org/10.53550/EEC.2023.v29i04s.015

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.