effect of different dactylifera males and their whorl pollen grain on ...

512
M. Iqbal et al.
Table 5.
Effect <strong>of</strong> <strong>whorl</strong> <strong>pollen</strong> <strong>grain</strong>s on fruit set (%) <strong>of</strong> cv. Dhakki.
Whorl
Male
M 1 M 2 M 3 M 4 M 5 M 6 M 7 M 8 M 9 Mean
2007
W 1 79.16c 90.66b 37.50o 63.00f-h 38.50no 54.00jk 61.50gi 54.33j 64.00eg 60.29a
W 2 68.33de 95.66a 43.00mn 63.00f-h 41.16m-o 58.00ij 69.50d 58.00ij 66.50df 62.57a
W 3 59.16hi 94.3ab 45.16lm 64.00e-g 49.50k-i 58.50h-j 68.50de 59.66gi 59.66gi 62.05a
Mean 68.88b 93.55a 41.88e 63.33c 43.05e 56.88d 66.50bc 57.33d 63.38c
2008
W 1 83.16 84.16 38.66 63.33 42.52 53.83 66.88 56.88 69.88 62.13ab
W 2 93.50 87.16 42.00 62.50 51.83 61.00 64.33 61.88 70.88 66.16a
W 3 66.66 60.50 47.16 52.66 27.50 51.50 60.00 55.88 64.88 54.07b
Mean 81.11a 70.44ab 42.61e 59.50cd 40.61e 55.44d 63.72cd 58.16d 68.50bc
Fruit drop percentage
The significantly lowest fruit drop (34.38 <strong>and</strong> 33.38%) was recorded when
plants were pollinated with M 2 in both years (Table 6). The results indicated
that <strong>different</strong> <strong>pollen</strong> sources play an important role in reduction <strong>of</strong> fruit drop.
The statistically lowest fruit drop was recorded with minimum economical
losses when pollination was done by 2 nd <strong>whorl</strong> <strong>pollen</strong> <strong>grain</strong> in both years. The
lowest fruit drop <strong>of</strong> 30.00 <strong>and</strong> 29.16 percent was noted when W 2 was
pollinated with M 2 in both years. These results confirmed earlier findings (12,
16,18), where <strong>different</strong> <strong>pollen</strong> sources had significant <strong>effect</strong> on fruit drop.
Table 6. Effect <strong>of</strong> <strong>whorl</strong> <strong>pollen</strong> <strong>grain</strong>s on fruit drop (%) <strong>of</strong> cv. Dhakki.
Whorl
Male
M 1 M 2 M 3 M 4 M 5 M 6 M 7 M 8 M 9 Mean
2007
W 1 43.50 31.50 58.53 58.50 67.66 58.00 47.00 57.66 52.33 52.72a
W 2 40.50 30.00 56.50 48.50 58.88 56.83 46.66 45.66 48.33 47.75a
W 3 42.50 41.56 52.50 65.33 60.16 56.50 48.00 57.16 52.00 52.87a
Mean 42.16d 34.38e 55.77ab 57.44ab 62.22a 57.11ab 46.55cd 53.50dc 50.88bc
2008
W 1 38.50 35.00 60.00 54.30 59.50 61.50 42.83 58.50 41.00 50.14
W 2 37.33 29.16 56.00 55.50 53.16 53.16 40.50 49.50 39.16 45.94
W 3 40.00 36.00 62.33 55.00 57.00 57.00 48.66 48.16 43.00 49.68
Mean 38.61e 33.38f 59.44a 55.00b 56.55b 57.22ab 44.00d 52.05c 41.05e
Fruit characteristics
Fruit weight: The data (Table 7) showed that Dhakki trees pollinated with M 9
male gave the significantly maximum fruit weight (18.14g) in 2007 <strong>and</strong> with
M 5 (15.18g) in 2008. Pollination with <strong>different</strong> <strong>whorl</strong> <strong>pollen</strong> <strong>grain</strong>s showed
non-significant <strong>effect</strong> on fruit weight in 2007. The interactive <strong>effect</strong> <strong>of</strong> male x
J. Agric. Res., 2011, 49(4)