rand haw a

Chapter – I

INTRODUCTION

The pear is one of the most commonly grown fruits in temperate

region of India. Due to its wider adaptability under different agro-climatic

conditions, it is grown in different parts of the world. All pear cultivars belong to

genus Pyrus which is a member of family Rosaceae and order Rosales. This genus

(Pyrus) has probably originated in mountaineous region of Western China where

from it moved to both in east and west directions (Bell and Hough 1986).

Speciation has occurred mainly in Eastern and Central Asia, the Himalaya,

Caucasus, Asia minor, and Eastern Europe.

The pear is an ancient fruit tree and is said to be under cultivation

since times immemorial. Ancient Greek poet ‘Homer’ praised pear as the ‘gift of

God’. The European pear is considered by many to be the most delectable fruit as

it combines a buttery, juicy texture with unsurpassed delicacy of flavour and

aroma. Pear has high nutritional value. Two hundred grams of pear pulp provide

122 calories, 260 mg of potassium, 16 mg of calcium, 14 mg of magnesium, 4mg

of sodium and 30.8 gms of carbohydrates (Ensminger 1983). The pear fruit is not

rich in any particular vitamin. However, the range of values of various vitamins

are 1 - 50 IU vitamin A, 2 - 50 µg thiamine, 7 - 30 µg riboflavin and 1 - 11 mg

/100 g ascorbic acid (Anon 1969). The protein content of 0.6 per cent recorded in

pear fruit is rather low (Gopalan et al 1987). The fruit peel is richer than pulp in

ascorbic acid. The pear fruit can be consumed even by diabetic patients because

of low sugar content and this helps in maintaining a desirable acid base balance in

1

human body (Anon 1969). Like the majority of other fruits in India, pear fruits are

mostly used for table purpose but in the Western countries, a substantial portion of

the crop is subjected to juice and wine making, canning, drying and cooking.

'Bartlett' fruits are mostly canned because of their uniform shape, white flesh and

comparatively free from grit cells. The waste left after canning is good for making

vinegar, brandi or alcohol (Anon 1969). For preserving pear fruits, oven dried

product is better than sun dried, which is tender, pliable, translucent and light in

colour. Pear can also be candied and sweet pickled.

The cultivated pear cultivars are mainly derived from Pyrus

communis and Pyrus pyrifolia (Burm) Nakai, synonymous Pyrus serotina Rehd.

and to lesser extent from their hybrids. 'Patharnakh' belongs to latter species while

'Baggugosha' is believed to be a natural hybrid between these two groups. The

pear [Pyrus pyrifolia (Brum) Nakai] originated in China where its culture dates

back to 2500 to 3000 years (Shen 1980). It may have been introduced into India

during the time of Lord Kaniska (120-170 A.D.) who settled some Chinese

hostage around village ‘Harsa Chhina’ in Amritsar district (Cheema and Dhillon

1991). Its cultivation appears to have spread to other parts of Northern India from

this place. According to FAO (1999), the world pear production has been 15829,

000MT. The major world pear producers are China (7915,000MT), South America

(934,000MT), USA (855,000MT), Italy (854,000MT), Argentina (540,000MT),

Germany (358, 000MT), France (300,000MT) and India (135, 000MT).

Amongst the delectable temperate fruits, the pear is next to apple in

importance, acreage, production and varietal diversity (Rathore 1991). The pear

can be grown from foothills to high hills (600-2700 m amsl), experiencing 500 to

2

1500 chilling hours. It thrives best in areas which are located on North- Eastern

aspect at lower elevation. Due to very high chilling requirements, the superior

cultivars of Pyrus communis viz. 'Superb', 'Delicious', 'Conference', and 'Clapp's

Favourite' are confined to high hills of Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh and parts of

Uttar Pradesh, whereas some low chilling types like 'LeConte', 'Kieffer', 'Smith',

'William', 'Patharnakh', 'Gola' and 'Baggugosha' are quite successful in the

Northern plains of India. However, the quality of low chilling pear cultivars is not

comparable with high chilling cultivars. In Northern India, Punjab occupies a

place of prominence in pear cultivation and area under this fruit is on the

increasing trend due to hardy nature of the tree and more remunerative returns.

Presently, it ranks forth in Punjab on an area of 2068 hectares with an annual

production of 41360 tones of fruit (Anon. 2000).

Among the recommended cultivars of pear in Punjab, 'Patharnakh'

ranks first both in area and production followed by 'Baggugosha'/'LeConte'.

Though the production potential, keeping quality and ability to withstand distant

transportation is good in case of 'Patharnakh' yet its consumption as table fruit in

North India especially in Punjab is very low due to more gritty fruit flesh and the

hardy nature of fruit and its poor fruit quality. Therefore, farmers are not getting

remunerative returns. On the other hand, semi-soft pear cultivars 'Baggugosha' and

'LeConte' are shy and alternate bearer but their fruit quality is superior which

fetches high returns as compared to 'Patharnakh'. Therefore, lot of efforts have

been made during the past 10 years to collect the new strains of semi-soft pear

which have higher yield potential, regular bearing habit and better fruit quality.

Some of the elite strains collected from indigenous and exotic sources have started

3

flowering and fruiting. The present investigations were, therefore proposed with

following the objectives :

To collect information on vegetative, flowering and fruiting behaviour and

nutrient status of semi-soft pear strains.

To study the variation in yield and fruit quality in relation to their leaf

nutrient status.

The results of the present studies have shown that the strain I, II, VII

and VIII are promising in terms of vegetative, fruiting, yield and quality

characters.

4

Chapter – II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The variation in plant growth, flowering, yield and quality characters

amongst the different pear varieties / cultivars / strains of both European and Asian

pears have been reported by several workers. A brief resume of work on the

performance of these varieties / cultivars / strains under different agro-climatic

conditions of pear growing areas of world has been reviewed here under the

following heads and sub heads :-

2.1 Vegetative Characters

2.1.1 Tree characters

2.1.2 Leaf characters

2.1.2.1 Time and duration of leaf emergence

2.1.2.2 Leaf size and area

2.2 Flowering and Fruiting Characters

2.2.1 Flowering characters

2.2.2 Self compatibility/incompatibility

2.2.3 Fruit drop

2.2.4 Fruit set

2.3 Yield Characters

2.4 Fruit Characters

2.4.1 Physical characters

2.4.1.1 Fruit colour

2.4.1.2 Length of pedicel5

2.4.1.3 Fruit size

2.4.1.4 Fruit weight

2.4.1.5 Fruit volume

2.4.1.6 Fruit density

2.4.1.7 Fruit firmness

2.4.1.8 Juice percentage

2.4.2 Chemical characters

2.4.2.1 Total soluble solids (TSS)

2.4.2.2 Acidity

2.4.2.3 TSS : acid ratio

2.4.2.4 Sugars

2.4.2.4.1 Total sugars

2.4.2.4.2 Reducing sugars

2.4.2.4.3 Non-reducing sugars

2.5 Nutritional Status of Leaves

2.1 VEGETATIVE CHARACTERS :

2.1.1. Tree Characters

While studing the growth habit of 'Danbai' cv of pear (Hong et al

1972) reported as upright. Gupta and Chohan (1976) reported that average tree

height of 'Patharnakh' was 5.8 m, whereas that of 'LeConte' and 'Smith' pear was

4.4 m. The average trunk girth of 'LeConte' and 'Smith' pear was 39.2 cm and 38.1

cm, respectively. The maximum trunk girth (50.5 cm) and spread (3.57 m) were

found in 'Patharnakh' and the lowest trunk girth (38.1 cm) and spread (2.91 m) in

'Smith'.

6

The study conducted on Asian pears, Griggs and Iwakiri (1977)

reported that the trees of 'YaLi' was large, vigorous, upright, somewhat spreading

and dense whereas, the trees of 'Nijisseiki' was of medium in size and vigour, semi

upright, spreading and dense. The trees of 'Shinseiki' were medium in size and

vigour, spreading and medium dense, whereas, 'Chojuro' and 'Kikusui' trees were

medium in size, vigour, spreading and slightly drooping and dense. In Punjab, all

pear cultivars like 'Patharnakh', 'Baggugosha' and 'Smith' obtained greater tree

volume on Kainth rootstock as compared to Patharnakh suckers (Sharma et al

1979).

In China, Shen (1980) reported that tree size of Pyrus sinkiangensis

was very large, obtaining a height of about 30 m and branch spread to 20-25 m,

with trunk circumference of 3.4 m. Rathore (1982) evaluated pear varieties for tree

and fruit characters and reported that cultivar 'Manning Elizabeth' produced small

and compact tree, whereas 'Flemish Beauty', 'Devoc', and 'Max Red Bartlett'

produced tall and vigorous trees. Sherman et al (1982) reported that 'Florda Home'

pear trees were vigorous and upright but with medium short internodes. Singh et al

(1983) reported that 'Gola' produced medium to big trees while 'Naga' and

'Tumariya' cultivars produced medium and small trees, respectively.

In Punjab, the tree size of 'Patharnakh' was recorded to be 5.73 m,

whereas that of 'Baggugosha' was 5.76 m (Sharma et al 1988). The spread of

'Baggugosha' from north-south and east to west was 2.35 m and 2.24 m while in

'Patharnakh' it was 2.91 m and 2.93 m, respectively. The stock girth of

'Patharnakh' was 48.90 cm and and that of 'Baggugosha' was 44.33 cm, while

scion girth of 'Patharnakh' and 'Baggugosha' was recorded as 39.00 cm and 39.90

cm, respectively.

7

Carrera (1989) reported that the trunk girth of cultivar 'Agua-de-

Aranjuez' was 50.2 cm, whereas that of 'Aurora' was 28.3 cm on Quince A

rootstock. The trunk girth of 'Beurre Hardy' was higher (50.3 cm) on Quince BA-

29 rootstock. During the evaluation of pear strain in Punjab, Kumar (1997)

reported that the maximum tree height (5.4 m) was observed in strain III while the

minimum (4.8 m) in strain IX. However tree spread was the maximum (1.9 m) in

strain X and XI and the minimum in strain VIII and strain IX (1.4 m). The

differences in trunk girth varied from strain to strain, with the maximum (37.5 cm)

in strain III and the minimum (27.9 cm) in strain IX. The range of the tree volume

was between 4.9 m3 to 9.6m3 in strain IX and XI, respectively.

In a study of Asian pears in Punjab, Singh (1998) reported that

maximum tree height (5.4 m), spread (1.8 m) and volume (9.1 m3) was recorded in

'Hosui'. The internodal length ranged from 3.2 cm to 4.0 cm in 'Nijisseiki' and

'Kosui' and 'YaLi', respectively. The maximum stock (38.7 cm) and scion girth

(29.5 cm) was observed in 'Hosui' while it was the minimum (33.7 cm) and (20.0

cm) in 'Nijisseiki'. Kishimoto et al (1998) observed the increase in volume of

Japanese pears like 'Chojuro', 'Hosui', and 'Kosui' trees after year.

2.1.2 Leaf Characters :

The leaves are the indispensable organ of a plant which play a major

role in the synthesis of plant food. The number of leaves and leaf area have been

found to have a direct bearing on flowering and fruit set (Chandler and Heinicke

1925), yield and quality in grapes (Winkler 1930).


Watanabe et al (1984) reported that out of 23 pear cultivars, 'YaLi'

8

and 'Kimizuka Wase' were earlier to come into leaf. In a study of evaluation of

some cultivars in Punjab, Kumar (1997) reported that leaf emergence occured

between 2nd week of February to 3rd week of March, while leaf fall in all strains

started in last week of August to mid of September whereas end of leaf fall was

observed from the end of October to 2nd week of December. He further reported

that the leaf of all the strains have dark green upper surface and greenish lower

surface but considerable differences were observed in all strains in respect of leaf

emergence. While studying the growing behaviour of Asian pears, Singh (1998)

noted that the leaf emergence of 'Nijisseiki', 'Shinseiki', 'Hosui', 'Kosui' and 'YaLi'

occured between the first week of March to mid of March. Duration of leaf

emergence ranged from 19 days in 'Hosui' to 23 days in 'Nijisseiki' and 'Kosui'.

Off- season leaf fall in all these cvs. started on 1st week of September, whereas

duration of leaf fall occured between 9 days in 'Nijisseiki' and 'Kosui' to 13 days in

'Hosui'. Off-season sprouting was observed in the last week of September in all the

cultivars. The leaves of all the cvs. had dark green upper surface and greenish

lower surface.

2.1.2.2 Leaf size and area

Kumar (1997) recorded the maximum leaf length (10.4 cm) in

strain XII and the minimum (9.8 cm) in strain I. The leaf breadth was the

maximum (6.3 cm) in strain I and the minimum (5.7 cm) in strain XI. The leaf

area ranged from 57.5 cm2 (Strain XI) to 63.8 cm2 (Strain X). However, in Asian

pears, Singh (1998) reported that leaf length was the maximum (12.0 cm) in

'Kosui' and the minimum (9.5 cm) in 'Nijisseiki', while leaf breadth was the

maximum (7.5 cm) in 'YaLi' and the minimum (6.0 cm) in 'Nijissseiki'. The leaf

9

area ranged from 57.0 cm2 in 'Nijisseiki' to 82.5 cm2 in 'YaLi'.

2.2 FLOWERING AND FRUITING CHARACTERS

2.2.1 Flowering Characters

The flowering in 'Kieffer' and 'Smith' started on 16th and 'LeConte'

on 19th February and is extended upto 22nd March (Mukherjee and Rana 1966).

Full bloom was observed during March 8 to 10 i.e. three weeks after the first

flower had opened. In a study, Durdevic and Soskic (1968) reported the duration

of flowering in 77 early, medium early, medium late and late flowering pear

cultivars and observed that the average number of days from the start of flowering

to full bloom were 4.8 to 14.2.

Similarly, Simovski and Spriovska (1968) found that pear cultivars

at Skopje started flowering between 1st and 12th April. They also found that the

full bloom in all the cultivars was between 14th and 17th April except in

'Smokvarka' where it was on 22nd April. Similar investigations were made by

Brozik and Nyeki (1971) on flowering phenology in important pear cultivars

grown in Hungary and revealed that the flowering of 410 different pear cultivars

occurred between 1st April and 20th of May.

The floral investigations of some Asian pears, Griggs and Iwakiri

(1977) reported that 'Tsu Li' (3/10 to 3/18) took 8 days, 'Nijisseiki' (3/18 to 3/25),

'Chojuro' (3/17 to 3/24) and 'YaLi' (3/10 to 3/17) took 7 days, whereas minimum

five days were taken by cultivar 'Shinseiki' (3/18 to 3/23) from first bloom to full

bloom. Similarly, Lal and Misra (1980) observed that the floral buds in pear

cultivars 'China' and 'LeConte' opened in the third and last week of February,

whereas in 'Smith', these were delayed upto 2nd week of March. Full bloom

10

occurred in the cultivar 'China' in the last week of February to 1st week of March,

while in 'LeConte' it took place in the 1st week of March but was delayed in

'Smith' i.e. 2nd to 3rd week of March. End of flowering was observed in third

week of March in 'China' and end of March in case of 'LeConte' while in 'Smith' it

was observed in the first week of April.

Aulakh et al (1981) while studying the flowering duration in

different cultivars of pear, found that it ranged from 21 days in 'Baggugosha' to 29

days in 'Smith'. They further recorded that 'Patharnakh' and 'Smith' started

flowering in the third week of February, whereas 'Kieffer' and 'LeConte'

commenced flowering in the first week of March. Sharma (1982) observed that the

full bloom in 'China' and 'Gola' pears was recorded on 31st March and 27th March

respectively. Daniell et al (1982) reported that dates of full bloom in 'Kieffer' was

occured on February 17 to March 18, while in 'Spadling', the date of full bloom

varied from March 18 to 24. The date of full bloom in 'Magness' and 'Old Home'

was commenced between last week of March to first week of April.

Watanabe et al (1984) recorded the flowering dates in 'YaLi' and

'Kimizuka Wase' as 9th and 26th April, respectively. Studies conduced by Salwan

in 1985 revealed that time taken from commencement of flowering to full bloom

stage was the maximum (10– 5 days) in 'Smith' and the minimum (4-8 days) in

'Baggugosha'.

Workum (1987) reported that the peak of flowering occurred

between 28th September and 2nd October for most of the cultivars of pears. In

'Hakko', 'Hokusei' and 'Hokkan' cultivars, the peak flowering was observed during

6th to 8th October. The flowering occurred between 23rd September and 10th

11

October in 'Hosui', 'Kosui', 'Shinseiki', 'Shinsui' and 'Nijisseiki' cultivars. However,

cultivar 'Hosui' was the first to flower. In a rootstock trial, Carrera (1989) reported

that date of full bloom in Autumn pear cultivar like 'Agua-de-Aranjuez', 'Aurora'

and 'Sirrine' was 24/3, 3/4 and 3/4, respectively on Quince. While in winter pear,

the date of full bloom was on 30/3, 8/4 and 23/3 in 'Beurre Anjou', 'Beurre Bosc'

and 'Roma', respectively on seedlings.

During the evaluation of pear cultivars in Kashmir, Farooqui and

Happa (1990) reported that average time of full bloom in all the 12 cultivars

ranged from 5th to 14th April. End of flowering took place 21 days in 'King’s

pear', 'Doyenne Bussoch', and 'William Bartlett' whereas 'Vicar of Winkfield',

'Beurre-de-Amanalis', 'Monarch', 'Beurre Giffard' and 'Fertility' took 19 days.

Mathe et al (1994) recorded the shortest flowering period of 5 days during 1988

whereas the longest one of 15 days was recorded in 1990 in pear (Pyrus

communis).

The evaluation of some pear strains in Punjab, Kumar (1997)

indicated that strain VIII started to bloom on 4th March, whereas Strain XII

bloomed on 18th March. The full bloom was noticed on 17th March in Strain VIII

and XII and 28 March in Strain XI. As far as the end of flowering was concerned,

it occurred on strain VIII and XII (23rd March) and was last of all (5th April) in

strain XII. The total duration of flowering varied from 16 days in strain III to 19

days in strain VIII and IX. Gondorne et al (1994) observed flowering

characteristics of 14 pear cultivars and noted that the overlap of flowering period

between cultivars was unstable. Ketchie et al (1995) reported that flowering period

of 'Bartlett', 'Forelle' and 'Nijisseiki' corresponded most closely with that of

12

'Beurre'd Anjou'.

Dibuz (1996) found a close relationship between duration of

flowering and fruit set. Singh (1998) reported that cultivars 'YaLi' started to bloom

on 7th March followed by 'Hosui' (10th March), 'Shinseiki' (15th March) and

'Kosui' (17th March). The full bloom occurred early in 'YaLi' (22nd March) which

was followed by 'Hosui' (24th March), 'Shinseiki' (25th March) and 'Kosui' (1st

April). The flowering ended in 'YaLi' on 26th March, 'Hosui' on 28th March,

'Shinseiki' on 30th March and 'Kosui' 4th April. The duration of flowering varied

from 16 days in 'Shinseiki' to 20 days in 'YaLi'. The off-season flowering was in

the 1st week of September.

2.2.2 Self-compatibility/incompatibility

Mukherjee and Shah (1962) reported that most of the pear cultivars

were self-fruitful, whereas certain other like 'Seckel' and 'Bartlett' were found

cross-incompatible. In fruit breeding studies, Kang et al (1997) reported that

'Kosui' and 'Tama' were self-incompatible while 'Shinseiki' is weakly self-

compatible. In 'LeConte', there was no fruit set in natural self - pollinated flowers

(Singh 1999).

2.2.3 Fruit drop

In a study on fruit development in pear, Mukherjee and Rana (1966)

reported that higher percentage of fruit drop was recorded during second and third

fortnight of May and June respectively, probably due to strong hot and dry winds.

Amongst the cultivars under study, the maximum fruit drop (73.7%) was noticed

in 'Smith' followed by 'LeConte' (73.0%) and 'Kieffer' (42.9%), respectively.

13

2.2.4 Fruit set

Mukherjee and Rana (1966) studied the fruit set in different pear

cultivars and observed that the percentage of natural fruit set was found to be the

highest (18.6%) in 'LeConte' followed by 'Kieffer' (13.8%) and 'Smith' (5.9%).

Seth and Kukshal (1981) conducted the studies on the pollination of some

commercial cultivars grown in the hills of Uttar Pradesh and found the maximum

fruit setting in combination of 'Thumb' pear and 'Victoria' (73.20%) followed by

'Victoria' and 'Thumb pear' (72.30%). While studying the fruit set, Dhaliwal et al

(1982) stated that under open pollinated conditions the fruit set ranged from 17.3

per cent in 'LeConte' to 32.6 per cent in 'Patharnakh'. In the same study, they also

recorded the highest flower density in 'LeConte' followed by 'Baggugosha' and

'Kieffer'. Gupta and Mehrotra (1985) observed that the fruit set in 'Patharnakh' was

similar with open pollination and selfing (20 vs. 19.3%). However in 'LeConte' it

was higher with open ollination (27.1 vs. 20.9%). Further more the fruit set in

'LeConte' was higher on pollination with 'Smith' than with 'LeConte' pollens (54.6

vs 39.3%). While studying the fruit set in some pear strains, Kumar (1997)

recorded considerable difference in fruit set in different pear strains but maximum

fruit set (6.8%) was recorded in strain III and minimum (3.5%) was in strain IX.

2.3 YIELD CHARACTERS

Singh and Sharma (1973) recorded the maximum yield (108.640 kg /

plant) in 'Chinese pear' followed by 'LeConte' (96.283 kg / plant), 'Kashmir pear'

(94.0 kg / plant) and 'Kieffer' (60.124 kg / plant). In 'Patharnakh', the yield was the

highest (88.0 kg / plant) whereas the lowest yield (49.0 kg / plant) was obtained in

'Smith' which was at par with that of 'LeConte' (53.20 kg / plant) as reported by

14

Gupta and Chohan (1976).

In a study on fruiting behaviour of some pear cvs., Lal and Misra

(1980) recorded the highest yield (69.60 kg/tree) in 'China pear' followed by

'LeConte' (49.33 kg) and 'Smith' (36.55 kg). Rathore (1982) recorded maximum

yield (34.55 kg / tree) in 'Devoc' followed by 'Flemish Beauty' (27.0 kg / tree),

'Manning Elizabeth' (25.40 kg / tree) and the lowest yield (20.60 kg / tree) was

recorded in Shinsui. During the study of some Asian pears, Watanabe et al (1984)

observed that 'Kosui' was the heaviest cropper with average yield of 180 – 200 kg /

tree.

In a study of 9 Asian pears as well as 'William’s Bonchretien' and

'Conference' pears, Rusterholz and Husistein (1988) concluded that 'William’s

Bonchretien' was the heaviest yielder (67.7 kg / tree) followed by 'Conference'

(58.7 kg / tree). In Autumn pears, the commulative yield per tree was the greater in

'Agua-de-Aranjuez' (270.5 kg/tree) followed by 'Aurora' (218.4 kg) on Quince-A

rootstock. However in winter pears, the highest commulative yield was recorded

in 'Beurre Bosc' (385.4 kg / tree) followed by 'Roma' (299.8 kg / tree) with same

rootstock (Carrera, 1989). In a rootstock trial, Walsh and Hogmire (1993)

observed that 'Hosui' on betch rootstock, yielded the heaviest crop (30.5 kg / tree).

The average yield of 12 pear cultivars was also recorded by Farooqui

and Happa (1990) who reported that variety 'William Bartlett' produced the

heaviest average yield (80.457 kg) followed by 'China pear' (75.730 kg) and

'Merry Red Bartlett' produced the minimum average yield (16.60 kg / tree)

Similarly, Sandhu et al (1994) recorded the maximum average yield (105.1 kg

tree) in 'Red Blush' followed by 'Punjab Nectar' (94.2 kg / tree), 'Punjab Gold'

15

(87.2 kg / tree) and 'LeConte' (48.3 kg / plant), whereas the lowest yield was

recorded in 'Baggugosha' (38.0 kg / tree) Gautam et al (1995) reported that many

cultivars like 'Common pear', 'Ishiiwase', 'Conference', and 'New pear' (Russetted)

were higher and efficient yielder.

Sharma et al (1997) reported that all the ten cultivars studied under

Himachal Pradesh conditions were regular bearing with variation in yield from

year to year. The maximum fruit yield (8.62 kg / tree) was recorded in 'Laxton’s

Superb', followed by 'Sentya Brpnskaya' (6.42 kg / tree). Cultivar 'Chojuro' least

productive, around 3.0 kg / tree per year. While in Asian pears, Singh (1998)

recorded the highest estimated yield (17.5 kg / plant) in 'YaLi' closely followed by

'Hosui' (16.8 kg / plant), whereas the minimum was in 'Kosui' (9.5 kg / plant).

Similarly, Kishimoto et al (1998) reported that the cultivar 'Shinsui' produced the

lowest fruit yield (10-20 tones / ha) whereas, 'Hosui', 'Kosui' and 'Chojuro' yielded

between 20 to 45 tones / ha. However, Yin et al (1999) reported that 'Luli No. 1', a

new bud sport from 'Bartlett' pear produced higher yield (63.4 kg / tree) compared

with 46 kg in 'Bartlett'. Nath and Rai (2000) reported that pear cultivars 'Netarhat

Local' and ‘Nakh pear’ gave highest yield of 200–300 kg and 100-150 kg / tree,

respectively.

2.4 FRUIT CHARACTERS

2.4.1 Physical Characters


Singh and Sharma (1973) observed greenish yellow colour of

'LeConte' and 'Kashmir' pear at maturity, whereas it was dull yellowish green in

'Chinese pear' and yellow in 'Kieffer' at maturity. Similarly, Griggs and Iwakiri

16

(1974) reported that pear cultivar 'California' showed light green ground colour

which turned yellow when ripe with bright red over-colour on the surface exposed

to the sun. Gupta and Chohan (1976) observed that fruit colour was greenish

yellow in 'Patharnakh', 'LeConte', and 'Smith' cultivars but it attained yellowish

tinge on full ripening in 'Patharnakh'. In a study of some Asian pear, Griggs and

Iwakiri (1977) reported yellow colour in 'Shinseiki', yellowish green in 'Kikusui',

greenish yellow in 'Nijisseiki', greenish brown to brown in 'Chojuro', light

greenish yellow in 'YaLi' and light green to yellowish green in 'Tsu Li'. At

maturity, light yellow colour of 'Patharnakh' fruits was reported by Mann et al

(1978).

Shen (1980) observed that fruit skin colour of 'Ussurian pear' (Pyrus

ussuriensis Maxim) was green or greenish yellow whereas colour of 'Chinese

White pear' (Pyrus bretschneideri Rehd) was yellow. The fruit skin colour of

'Chinese Sand pear' (Pyrus pyrifolia Nakai) was usually russeted but occasionally

greenish yellow. Rathore (1982) reported yellowish green fruit colour in cultivar

'Manning Elizabeth' and light green in 'Flemish Beauty' and 'Devoc'. Singh et al

(1983) revealed that surface colour of cultivars 'Gola', 'Naga' and 'Tumariya' varies

from yellowish green to light yellow green.

Kim et al (1985) reported yellow colour of fruits in new mid-season

pear cultivar 'Whangkeum Bae'. Similarly, Mann and Singh (1985) observed that

colour of fruit varies from yellow green to green yellow in 'LeConte' pear. While

studying the variation in fruit size and its effect on quality, Minhas et al (1988)

reported light yellow colour of all the grades of 'Baggugosha' pear. In 'Gourmet'

pear, greenish yellow to yellow fruit colour was observed by Peterson and

Waples (1988).

17

In a study of quality aspects of some semi-soft pears, Sandhu et al

(1994) observed yellowish green colour in fruit of 'Punjab Nectar', 'Baggugosha'

and 'LeConte'. While yellow ground colour with red-over colour was observed in

'Red Blush' whereas golden yellow colour was found in 'Punjab Gold'. Shibata et

al (1994) reported yellowish red brown fruit of Japanese pear ‘Meisui’. Similarly,

Wei (1994) observed light yellow coloured fruits of variety ‘Bayuesu’.

Kumar (1997) reported that in semi-soft pear strain ground

colour of fruits ranged from yellowish to greenish yellow, whereas no over colour

was marked on fruits of any strain. The fruits of pear cultivar ‘Pingboxiang’ were

yellow with a red blush on sunny side (Cui et al 1997). In ‘Pitaiguo’ pear the fruit

skin was yellowish green and becoming dark brown at maturity as reported by An

and An (1997).

Sharma et al (1997) observed green yellow fruit colour in 'Beurre-

de-Amanlis', brown in 'Beurre Hardy', green in 'Jargonella' yellows in 'Junska

Zlato', yellow green in 'Laxton’s Superb', green in 'Nonveau Pointeau', yellow with

red blushed in 'Sentya Brpnskaya' and green with red blushed in 'Shimsui'. Kan et

al (1998) observed glossy, greenish yellow skin which turns golden yellow when

ripe in ‘Ciyuesu’ pear cultivar. In ‘Red Princes’ pear, yellow green (RHS–145 A)

fruits with a greyed purple (RHS 185 A) over colour was found by Giankos (1998)

However,Singh (1998) reported that fruit colour was yellowish green in

'Shinseiki', greenish in 'YaLi', orange yellow in 'Hosui' and pale yellow in 'Kosui'.

2.4.1.2 Length of pedicel

Griggs et al (1960) studied the stalk length of 'Bartlett pear' and

reported that in case of self-pollinated treatments, it was 25.0 mm while in case of

18

cross pollinated treatments it was 26.4 mm. During the investigations of some

Asian pears, Griggs and Iwakiri (1977) observed the maximum stalk length (40

mm) in 'Tsu Li' followed by 'Okusankichi' (35 mm), 'Kikusui' (31 mm), 'Chojuro'

(28 mm), 'Nijisseiki' (25 mm), 'Shinseiki' (19 mm) and the minimum (17 mm) in

'YaLi'. Similarly Singh et al (1983) observed the maximum stalk length of 3.47

cm in 'Naga' followed by 2.62 in 'Tumariya' and 1.77 cm in 'Gola' pear. Singh

(1998) studied the performance of some Asian pears and reported that stalk length

ranged from 3.0 cm to 5.3 cm in 'Kosui' and 'YaLi', respectively.

2.4.1.3 Fruit size

Griggs and Iwakiri (1956) observed maximum length (63.4 mm) and

breadth (70.6 mm) in 'Bartlett' pear. Mukherjee and Rana (1966) reported

maximum fruit length in 'Kieffer' (5.8 cm) when compared to 'Smith' (5.4 cm) and

'LeConte' (4.8 cm). The diameter was also found the maximum in 'Kieffer' (5.3

cm) than that of 'Smith' (5.1 cm) and 'LeConte' (4.2 cm). Singh and Sharma (1973)

reported that fruit size of 'LeConte', 'Kashmir pear', 'Chinese pear' and 'Kieffer'

was 6.10 x 5.63 cm, 6.88 x 6.10 cm, 5.68 x 6.12 cm and 6.43 x 5.96 cm,

respectively. Similarly, Gupta and Chohan (1976) observed the average fruit size

of 'Patharnakh', 'Smith' and 'LeConte' as 6.22 x 6.44 cm, 6.42 x 6.53 cm and 6.50 x

5.81 cm, respectively.

Griggs and Iwakiri (1977) observed that fruit size of 'Shinseiki',

'Kukusui', 'Nijisseiki', 'Chojuro', 'Okusankichi', 'YaLi' and 'Tsu Li' was 57 x 67

mm, 58 x 73 mm, 55 x 66 mm, 54 x 66 mm, 83 x 93 mm, 82 x 70 mm and 88 x 75

mm, respectively. In a trial with five pear cultivars, Rathore (1982) reported that

fruit size of 'Manning Elizabeth', 'Shinsui', 'Flemish Beauty', 'Devoc' and 'Max Red

19

Bartlett' was 4.03 x 4.24 cm, 4.66 x 5.51 cm, 7.0 x 6.84 cm, 9.13 x 6.31 cm and

7.33 x 6.37 cm, respectively.

The fruit size of pear cultivar 'China' and 'Gola' was 6.08 x 5.06 cm

and 6.15 x 6.36 cm, respectively (Sharma 1982). Similarly Singh et al (1983)

observed the maximum fruit length (8.62 cm) in cultivar 'Naga' whereas, it was the

minimum (6.8 cm) in cultivar 'Tumariya'. Breadth was also found the maximum

(6.84 cm) in 'Gola' and the minimum (6.23 cm) in 'Tumariya'. The fruit size in

'LeConte' pear was 5.79 x 5.24 cm as reported by Mann and Singh (1985). Grewal

et al (1988) revealed that the fruit length and breadth of 'Patharnakh' ranged

from .43 to 7.16 cm and 6.00 to 7.22 cm, respectively. Similarly, Minhas et al

(1988) reported that fruit length and breath varied from 6.4 to 7.2 cm and 5.4 to

6.7 cm respectively, in 'Baggugosha'. Farooqui and Happa (1990) observed the

maximum fruit length (10.15 cm) in 'Merry Red Bartlett' followed by 'Vicar of

Winkfield' (9.38 cm) and it was the minimum (4.39 cm) in 'William Bartlett'. They

also reported that all the cultivars had a diameter between 5 to 10 cms while the

maximum diameter (7.50 cm) was observed in 'Merry Red Bartlett' followed by

'Beurre Giffard' (6.13 cm).

Working on the Asian pears, Aswapati and Uthaibuthra (1990)

observed the maximum fruit length (9.09 cm) in 'Red pear' when compared to

'Pien Pu' (8.72 cm), 'Pathanak' (7.11 cm) and 'Shing Sing' (6.69 cm). The

minimum fruit length (5.38 cm) was recorded in 'Kosui' followed by 'New

Century' (5.68 cm). Among the new promising pear selections, Sandhu et al

(1994) reported that fruits of 'Red Blush' were slightly bigger (7.9 x 6.1 cm) than

that of 'Punjab Gold' (7.8 x 6.0 cm) and 'Punjab Nectar' (7.7 x 6.0 cm). However,

20

all the three selections had large sized fruits as compared to 'LeConte' (6.5 x 5.3

cm) and 'Baggugosha' (7.0 x 6.0 cm) cultivars. Kumar (1997) recorded that the

strain X had the maximum fruit length (6.7 cm) and strain VII had the minimum

(5.9 cm). However, the maximum breadth (5.4 cm) was observed in strain VIII

and the minimum (4.8 cm) was in strain VII and XI.

Sharma et al (1997) reported that the maximum fruit length (8.3 cm)

was recorded in 'Simsui' followed by 'Jargonelle' (7.2 cm), 'Beurre-de-Amanlis'

(6.8 cm) and 'Nouveau Pointeau' (6.7 cm) whereas the minimum (5.2 cm) was

recorded in cultivar 'Junska Zlato'. While, breadth of all cultivars ranged from 4.7

to 6.5 cm but the maximum breadth (6.5 cm) was observed in 'Beurre-de-Amanlis'

and 'Beurre Hardy'. Whereas, it was the minimum (4.7 cm) in 'Smajkanska

Pozdniaza'. Singh (1998) reported that cultivar 'YaLi' had the maximum fruit

length (6.8 cm) and breadth (6.4 cm). However, the minimum fruit length (5.3 cm)

and breadth (5.8 cm) was noticed in 'Hosui'. Nath and Rai (2000) reported that the

length of 'Nakh pear' (7.8 cm) was more than that of 'Netarhat Local pear' (7.4 cm)

but in diameter, the fruits of 'Netarhat Local pear' were bigger (7.6 cm) than that of

'Nakh pear' (6.4 cm)


Griggs and Iwakiri (1956) reported that average fruit weight was

143.6 g in 'Bartlett' pear. Similarly, Griggs et at (1960) observed that fruit weight

was 200 g in self-pollinated and 196.8 g in cross-pollinated fruit of 'Bartlett' pear.

Singh and Sharma (1973) reported that fruits weight of 'LeConte', 'Kashmir pear',

'Chinese pear' and 'Kieffer' was 125.126 g, 144.145 g, 141.350 g, and 166.0 g,

respectively. In pear, Gupta and Chohan (1976) observed the maximum fruit

21

weight (160.0 g) in 'Smith' followed by 'Patharnakh' (155.8 g), whereas the

minimum fruit weight (114.4 g) was recorded in 'LeConte'.

Rathore (1982) observed the maximum fruit weight (173.0 g) in pear

cultivars 'Devoc' and 'Flemish Beauty' (172.00 g) followed by 'Max Red Bartlett'

(135.0 g) and the minimum fruit weight (38.0 g) was recorded in 'Manning

Elizabeth'. Similarly, Sharma (1982) observed that average fruit weight was higher

in 'Gola' (150.66 g) at maturity than 'Chinese pear' (63.13 g). Singh et al (1983)

reported that fruit weight of pear cultivars 'Gola', 'Naga' and 'Tumariya' was

170.50 g, 230.40g, and 120.0 g, respectively. In pear cultivar 'Kosui', the

maximum fruit weight (300 g) was reported by Watanabe et al (1984). While,

Mann and Singh (1985) reported that fruit weight of cultivar 'LeConte' was 89.30g

only. The average fruit weight of new pear cultivar 'Hokken' was 240 g. (Nakajima

et al 1985). In 'Golden pear' (Bhangkeum Bae), Kim et al (1985) observed

maximum fruit weight of 430g.

Grewal et al (1988) reported that weight of large fruits of

'Patharnakh' was 211.93 g, whereas small sized fruits were 101.62 g only.

Similarly, Minhas et al (1988) reported that fruit weight of 'Baggugosha' ranged

from 58.2 g to 165.60 g in small to large sizeed fruits, respectively. Rusterholz and

Husistein (1988) studied 9 Asian pears as well as 'William’s Bonchretien' and

'Conference' pears and observed that fruit weight of all Asian pear cultivars ranged

from 100 to 150 g. In 'Marry Red Bartlett', Farooqui and Happa (1990) observed

maximum fruit weight (273.30 g).

Aswapati and Uthaibuthra (1990) revealed that the maximum fruit

weight (428.25 g) was recorded in 'Red pear' followed by 'Pien Pu' (294.48 g),

22

'Song Mao' (240.05 g) and 'Yokoyama' (236.95 g). The minimum fruit weight

(120.0 g) was recorded in 'Kosui'. However, Jiang et al (1991) reported that

average fruit of new hardy Chinese variety, 'QiouXiang–7' was 65.4 g.

In a rootstock trial, Walsh and Hogmire (1993) reported that variety

'Tsu Li' gave the heaviest fruits of 226.0 and 221.5 g on Cal and betch rootstocks,

respectively. Sandhu et al (1994) reported maximum fruit weight to the tune of

139.7 g in 'Punjab Gold' followed by 'Red Blush' (134.5 g) and 'Punjab Nectar'

(132.0 g) while, the lowest (93.9 g) was in 'LeConte'. Similarly, Shibata et al

(1994) reported that fruit weight of new Japanese pear 'Meisui' was 300 g. The

fruit weight of variety 'Bayuesu' was 260 g as reported by Wei (1994). While

studies on promising pear strains, Kumar (1997) reported that average fruit weight

ranged from 83.6 g to 98.6 g in strain I and strain III, respectively.

Sharma et al (1997) revealed that bigger fruit was recorded in

'Shimsui' (147.5 g) than that of 'Beurre Hardy' (141.1 g), and 'Laxton’s Superb'

(138.1 g) whereas the minimum fruit weight was recorded in cultivar 'Junska

Zlato' (56.0 g). Singh (1998) reported that average fruit weight ranged from 70 g

to 117 g in variety 'Shinseiki' and 'YaLi', respectively. On an average 233 g fruit

weight was observed in red skinned pear variety 'Bayvehong' by Cheng et al

(1999). In new pear cultivar 'Zhongli-1', an average fruit weight of 220 g was

observed by Li et al (1999). Nath and Rai (2000) reported that average fruit weight

was higher (260.9 g) in 'Netarhat Local' than that of 'Nakh pear' (175.1 g).


Srivastava and Misra (1970) reported that fruit volume was the

maximum (231.50 ml) in 'Beurre Hardy' followed by 'William Bartlett' (197.50

23

ml) and 'Victoria' (190.00 ml), whereas the minimum fruit volume (38.00 ml) was

observed in 'Thumb pear'. In a study of pear performance in Northern Thailand,

Aswapati and Uthiabuthra (1990) recorded higher mean fruit volume (422.43 ml)

in 'Red pear' as compared to 'Pien Pu' (289.25 ml) 'Song Mao' (240.73 ml), and

'Yokoyama' (236.95 ml). The minimum fruit volume (116.55 ml) was found in

'Kosui' followed by 'New Century' (122.58 ml) pear cultivars. Nath and Rai

(2000) reported that fruit volume was the maximum (255.0 cc) in 'Netarhat Local

pear' while it was the minimum (150.0 cc) in 'Nakh pear'.


Westwood (1962) reported that the specific gravity was highest,

early in the season and decreased slowly and levelled off prior to harvest in 'Anjou'

and 'Bartlett pear'. The higher specific gravity of pear flesh (relative to apple and

peach) is thought to be due to the result of lignification of stone cells in the pear

flesh. In 'Patharnakh' fruit, the specific gravity was greater at the earlier stages of

fruit development and followed a decreasing trend until harvest maturity (Mann

and Singh 1985).


Griggs et al (1960) reported that the flesh firmness of 'Bartlett' was

16.3 lb / inch2 in self-pollinated, while it was 15.3 lb / inch2 in case of cross-

pollinated treatments. Mann and Singh (1985) found that fruit firmness in

'LeConte' pear decreased from 1.674 to 0.931 kg / cm2 from 90 to 135 days after

fruit set. Aswapati and Uthaibuthra (1990) reported that fruit of 'Red pear' was

more firm (18.50 kg / cm2) when compared to 'Pathanak' (14.29 kg / cm2),

'Yokoyama Wase' (12.75 kg / cm2) and 'Yokoyama' (12.60 kg / cm2). The

24

minimum fruit firmness was recorded in fruits of 'Xiang Sui' (9.70 kg / cm 2) and

'Kosui' (10.69 kg / cm2). Kumar (1997) reported that fruit firmness ranged from

13.5 lb / inch2 (strain III) to 14.4 lb / inch2 (strain X). However, Singh (1998)

reported that flesh firmness ranged from 9.0 lb / inch2 in 'YaLi' to 10.7 lb / inch2 in

'Shinseiki'. In a new bud sport cultivar ‘Hongnanguo’, Jiao et al (1999) observed

that fruit hardiness was 7.77 kg / cm2.

2.4.1.8 Juice (%)

In a trial with six pear cultivars, Srivastava and Misra (1970)

reported that the variety 'Beurre Hardy' had the highest juice percentage (62.66)

followed by 'William Bartlett' (56.00%), 'Victoria' (54.00), 'Louise Bonne De

Jerry' (34) and 'Doyenne-du-Comice' (29.00), Singh et al (1983) reported that the

fruits of cultivar 'Naga' and 'Tumariya' were juicy than 'Gola'.

Sandhu et al (1994) reported the highest juice percentage in 'Punjab

Nectar' (48.3) followed by 'Red Blush' (44.2), 'Punjab Gold' (43.2) and

'Baggugosha' (37.4), whereas it was recorded the lowest in 'LeConte' (36.3).

Kumar (1997) observed that fruit juice percentage varied from 38.2 in strain XI to

40.3 in strain III. In Asian pears, the juice percentage varied from 33.3 in 'Hosui'

to 77.8 in 'YaLi' (Singh, 1998).

2.4.2 Chemical Characters


Studies conducted by Griggs et al (1960) revealed that TSS varied

from 9.6 per cent to 11.3 per cent in seedless pear and 10.9 per cent to 12.4 per

cent in seeded pears. Similarly, Mookherjee et al (1963) reported that 'Hard' pear

contained 12.0 per cent TSS at harvest maturity. Mukherjee and Rana (1966)

25

studied the chemical characters of 'LeConte', 'Nakh', 'Baggugosha', 'Kieffer' and

'Smith'. They found the highest TSS (17.0%) in 'LeConte' followed by 'Nakh' (13.4

%), 'Baggugosha' (11.6 %) and the minimum (10.8 %) in both 'Kieffer' and

'Smith'.

Srivastava and Misra (1970) evaluated some promising varieties of

pear and recorded the maximum TSS in 'Beurre Hardy' (14.59%) followed by

'Doyenne-du-Comice' (14.3%) and 'Louise Bonne-De-Jersy' (13.6%), whereas the

minimum TSS were found in 'William Bartlett' (11.8%) and 'Thumb pear' (12 %).

Similarly, Singh and Sharma (1973) observed that 'Kashmir pear' had the highest

TSS (16.8%) followed by 'LeConte' (16.0%) and 'Kieffer' (14.0%), whereas the

minimum TSS (12.5%) was recorded in 'China pear'. Working on California pears,

Griggs and Iwakiri (1974) found that mean TSS value of 14.8 per cent was slightly

higher than that in the 'Bartlett' pear at harvesting. Gupta and Chohan (1976)

recorded maximum TSS (15.3%) in 'LeConte' followed by 'Patharnakh' (13.5%)

and 'Smith' (12.9%).

Among Asian pears, Griggs and Iwakiri (1977) observed maximum

TSS (14.4%) in 'Kukusui' followed by 'Chojuro' (13.4%), 'Tsu Li' (13.1%),

'Shinseiki' (12.7%) and 'Nijisseiki' (12.3%). However the least amount of TSS

were found in 'YaLi' (11.7%). Rathore (1982) observed that the TSS ranged from

15.16 per cent in 'Shinsui' to 12.23 per cent in 'Manning Elizabeth'.

In a study, Singh et al (1983) recorded that the variety 'Naga' had the

highest TSS (13.20%) followed by 'Tumariya' (12.20%) and 'Gola' (12.00%). In

'Shinsui' cultivar, Watanabe et al (1984) reported the highest TSS to the tune of

13.0 per cent. Similarly, Kim et al (1985) observed 14.9 per cent TSS in

26

'Whangkeum Bae' pear. In pear cultivar 'Hokken', 11.0 to 12.0 per cent TSS were

reported by Nakajima et al (1985). However, Mann and Singh (1985) reported that

TSS increased from 8.65 to 14.25 per cent during the course of fruit development

in 'LeConte'. Grewal et al (1988) reported that the TSS ranged from 10.5 per cent

in small size fruits to 11.5 per cent in large size fruits of 'Patharnakh'. Similarly,

Minhas et al (1988) reported that the total soluble solids ranged from 11.2 to 13.0

per cent in 'Baggugosha' fruits.

In Asian pears study, Aswapati and Uthaibuthra (1990) recorded

highest TSS (12.7%) in 'Song Mao' followed by 'Shing Sing' (12.6%) and 'Red

pear' (12.4%) whereas minimum TSS were found in 'Xiang Sui' (10.6%) and

'Yokoyama Wase' (11.1%). Farooqui and Happa (1990) reported that the

maximum TSS (18.2%) were found in 'Flemish Beauty' whereas the minimum

TSS (10.5 %) were recorded in 'Beurre-de-Amanalis' while cultivar 'China pear'

and 'Fertility' had 10.7 per cent TSS. In new pear cultivar 'QiouXiang–7', Jiang et

al (1991) observed the mean TSS content as 17.68 per cent.

Amongst the promising pear selections made at Ludhiana, Sandhu et

al (1994) observed maximum TSS (15.1%) in 'Red Blush' which was followed by

'Punjab Gold' (14.5%), 'Punjab Nectar' (14.1%) and 'Baggugosha' (13.0%),

whereas TSS content (12.5%) was minimum in 'LeConte'. Similarly Shibata et al

(1994) reported that TSS was 12.0 per cent in 'Meisui pear'. Kumar (1997)

recorded the highest TSS (14.3%) in strain III and the lowest (12.1%) in strain

XII. Among some Asian pears, Singh (1998) reported that the highest TSS

(14.0%) was found in 'Hosui' and lowest (11.0%) in 'YaLi'. Yin et al (1999)

reported that the TSS content was 12.1 per cent at harvest and 13.4 per cent at

27

maturity in 'Luli No.1' a bud sport from 'Bartlett' pear. Similarly Li et al (1999)

observed 12 to 13.5 per cent TSS content in Zhongli 1, pear. Nath and Rai (2000)

recorded the higher TSS (16.2%) in 'Nakh pear' whereas the lowest TSS content

(12.2%) was found in 'Netarhat Local pear'.

2.4.2.2 Acidity

Mookherjee et al (1963) found that 'Hard pear' contained 0.26 per

cent acidity in fresh fruit juice. In a trial with three pear cultivars under sub-

tropical conditions, Mukherjee and Rana (1966) revealed that lowest juice acidity

(0.10%) was observed in 'LeConte' and highest (0.43%) in 'Baggugosha' followed

by 'Kieffer' (0.29%) and 'Nakh' (0.27%). Similarly, Srivastava and Misra (1970)

reported that juice acid content was the maximum (0.444%) in 'Doyenne-du-

Comice' followed by 'Thumb pear' (0.312%), 'Louise Bonne-De-Jersy' (0.284%),

'William Bartlett' (0.237%) and 'Victoria' (0.195%). The level of juice acid was

found to be the minimum (0.188%) in 'Beurre Hardy'.

Singh and Sharma (1973) recorded the minimum juice acidity (0.408

%) in 'Chinese pear' followed by 'LeConte' (0.278%) and 'Kashmir pear' (0.201%).

Similarly, in a study on three pear cultivars, Gupta and Chohan (1976) reported

that acidity of 'Patharnakh' ranged from 0.33 to 0.37 per cent, whereas, 'LeConte'

had the lower acids (0.31%) and 'Smith' had higher juice acids (0.40 to 0.43%) as

compared to 'Patharnakh' with varying nitrogen level.

Rathore (1982) reported that the minimum acidity (0.12%) was

found in 'Max Red Bartlett' and the maximum (0.22%) in 'Shinsui'. Similarly,

Singh et al (1983) observed lower level of juice acids (0.81%) in cultivar 'Naga',

whereas it was the maximum (0.96%) in 'Gola'. In 'LeConte', total acids decreased

28

from 0.59 to 0.21 per cent during the course of fruit development as reported by

Mann and Singh (1985).

Grewal et al (1988) revealed that juice acid level ranged from 0.30

to 0.38 per cent in medium to large sized fruits of 'Patharnakh'. They further

reported that acidity level was higher (0.36%) in the middle of the fruits, while it

decreased (0.23%) towards the styler end of the fruits. Similar investigations made

by Minhas et al (1988) on 'Baggugosha' reported that juice acidity ranged from

0.21 to 0.23 per cent in large to medium small sized fruits. Farooqui and Happa

(1990) observed the maximum acidity (0.67%) in 'King’s pear' followed by

'Flemish Beauty' and 'Merry Red Bartlett' (0.54%), whereas lesser level of juice

acid (0.11%) was found in fruits of 'Beurre-de-Amanalis' and 'Fertility' pear.

Working on soft pear the varieties, Sandhu et al (1994) recorded the

maximum juice acid content (0.33%) in 'Red Blush' followed by 'Punjab Gold' and

'LeConte' (0.32%), and 'Punjab Nectar' (0.31%), whereas it was observed to be the

minimum (0.29%) in fruits of "Baggugosha'. Similarly, Kumar (1997) reported

that juice acid ranged from 0.38 per cent (Strain XI) to 0.44 per cent (Strain VIII).

In Asian pears, Singh (1998) reported that acidity ranged from 0.23 per cent in

'Shinseiki' and 'Kosui' to 0.33 per cent in 'Hosui'. Jiao et al (1999) observed that

the juice acid content was 0.515 per cent in fruits of 'Hongnanguo' pear. Nath and

Rai (2000) reported that total acids content ranged from 0.6 to 0.7 per cent in

'Netarhat Local' and 'Nakh pear'.

2.4.2.3 TSS : Acid ratio

Grewal et al (1988) reported that TSS : acid ratio ranged from 30.0

in small fruits to 30.40 in large fruits, whereas higher TSS : acid ratio (36.40) was

29

observed in medium sized fruits. In a similar investigations made by Minhas et al

(1988) on 'Baggugosha' revealed that the TSS : acid ratio ranged from 53.60 to

62.00 in small to large fruits.

Sandhu et al (1994) reported non-significant differences in terms of

TSS : acid ratio, in diferent pear varieties. The highest average TSS : acid ratio

(48.5) was observed in 'Red Blush' followed by 'Punjab Gold' (47.5) and

'Baggugosha' (46.6). The minimum TSS : acid ratio (39.7) were recorded in

'LeConte'. However, Kumar (1997) reported that the maximum TSS : acid ratio

(35.8) was recorded in strain III and the minimum (31.0) in strain XII. In Asian

pears, Singh (1998) recorded the maximum TSS : acid ratio (54.3) in 'Shinseiki'

and the minimum (36.7) in 'YaLi'.

2.4.2.4 Sugars


In a study of some important commercial cultivars of pear

Mukherjee and Rana (1966) reported that sugar percentage of 'Kieffer', 'LeConte',

'Smith', Baggugosha' and 'Nakh' was 6.56, 9.62, 6.25, 9.09 and 8.33, respectively.

Similarly, in a trial with six pear cultivars, Srivastava and Misra (1970) revealed

that the total sugars content ranged from 9.88 per cent in 'Victoria' to 10.0 per cent

in 'Beurre Hardy'.

Rathore, (1982) observed maximum total sugars (8.56%) in variety

'Devoc' followed 'Manning Elizabeth' (8.40%), 'Shinsui' (8.17%) 'Max Red

Bartlett' (7.94%), whereas the minimum total sugar content (7.89%) was recorded

in 'Flemish Beauty'. Similarly, Singh et al (1983) observed higher level of total

sugars content (10.31%) in cultivar 'Naga' followed by 'Tumariya' (9.30%) and

30

minimum (7.54%) in 'Gola'. In 'LeConte' total sugars were increased during the

course of fruit development (Mann and Singh, 1985). They also observed the

maximum total sugars (11.76%) in fruits when harvested, 135 days after fruit set.

Farooqui and Happa (1990) reported the maximum total sugars

content (15.82%) in variety 'Flemish Beauty' followed by 'Merry Red Bartlett'

(14.70%) and the minimum (2.12%) in 'Beurre-de-Amanalis'. Similarly, Kumar

(1997) reported that the maximum total sugars (11.8 %) were found in strain I and

III and the minimum (10.0%) in Strain XII. While Singh (1998), reported that total

sugars content ranged from 10.5 per cent in 'Shinseiki' to 7.5 per cent in 'Kosui'.


Srivastava and Misra (1970) reported that the maximum reducing

sugars (9.22%) were found in 'Beurre Hardy' followed by 'Thumb pear' (7.18%),

'William Bartlett' (7.02%), 'Louise Bonee De Jersey' (6.94 %) and 'Doyenne-du-

Comice' (6.57%), whereas minimum reducing sugars content (6.20%) were

observed in cultivar 'Victoria'.

Study conducted by Mann et al (1978) on 'Patharnakh' showed that

there was an increase in reducing sugars from 0.54 to 6.85 per cent during

development of fruits. Similarly, Rathore (1982) reported the maximum reducing

sugars (7.57%) in 'Shinsui' followed by 'Devoc' (7.47 %), 'Max Red Bartlett'

(7.08%), 'Flemish Beauty' (7.05%) and the minimum (3.59 %) in 'Manning

Elizabeth'. Singh et al (1983) reported that reducing sugars of pear cultivar 'Naga'

were the maximum (9.43%) followed by 'Tumariya' (7.76%), whereas the

minimum (7.33%) were in 'Gola'. However, Mann and Singh (1985) observed that

range of reducing sugars content ranged from 0.90 to 6.24 per cent during course

31

of fruit development in 'LeConte pear'. Similarly Farooqui and Happa (1990)

recorded the maximum reducing sugar (13.88%) in 'Flemish Beauty' and the

minimum reducing sugars (1.89%) in 'Beurre-de-Amanalis' cultivar.

Kumar (1997) reported considerable differences in reducing sugars

among different stains with maximum of 10.9 cent in strains I and III, whereas

little differences were observed in strais XII and XI i.e. 9.1 and 9.3 per cent,

respectively. In Asian pears, Singh (1998) recorded maximum reducing sugars

(6.2%) in 'Kosui', whereas it was the minimum (4.7%) in 'Shinseiki'. In 'Nakh

pear', the highest level of reducing sugars (11.4%) was recorded while the lowest

(8.1%) were recorded in 'Netarhat Local' pear (Nath and Rai 2000).


The maximum non-reducing sugars (2.53%) were recorded in

'Manning Elizabeth' followed by 'Devoc' (0.98%) and 'Max Red Bartlett' (0.77%),

whereas the minimum in 'Shinsui' (0.53%) and 'Flemish Beauty' (0.75%) (Rathore

1982). Similarly, Singh et al (1983) reported that the higher level of non-reducing

sugars (1.45%) in 'Tumariya' pear than that of 'Naga' (0.84%) and 'Gola' (0.20%).

Farooqui and Happa (1990) reported the range of non-reducing sugars between

0.23 per cent in 'Beurre-de-Amanalis' to 2.20 per cent in 'Merry Red Bartlett'.

Working on some promising pear strains, Kumar (1997) reported

that little differences were observed in non-reducing sugars in different pear stains

which ranged from 0.80 per cent (strain XI) to 1.09 per cent (strain II). In Asian

pears, Singh ( 1998) reported that non-reducing sugars content ranged from 1.3 per

cent in 'Kusui' to 5.8 per cent in 'Shinseiki'.

32

2.5 NUTRITIONAL STATUS OF LEAVES

Increase in leaf nitrogen was associated with increased fruit set and

yield (Proebsting 1934). Hosoi et al (1963) found that the leaf nitogen level as

associated with optimum growth and fruiting varied between 2.0 and 2.20 per cent

dry matter. Similarly, Hewitt et al (1967) reported that nitrogen level in foliage

affects the fruit set and 2.3 per cent or more nitrogen in June appeared to be

necessary to ensure adequate fruit set in following year. They further reproted that

with in the range of 1.4 to 2.8 per cent leaf nitrogen, no difference in TSS and fruit

firmness were observed.

In New York, Fisher et al (1959) reported that potassium

fertilization had no effect on the yields of 'Bartlett' pear and yield in one of the

orchards was reduced from potassium fertilization. While studying the nutrient

level of different 'Patharnakh' pear orchareds in Punjab, Shah (1978) reported that

the TSS of fruits were increased with leaf iron, whereas copper and maganese

status of leaf showed non-significant effect. While studying on 'Patharnakh' plants,

Seth (1997) found positive and significant coorelation between yield and

phosphour status of leaf.

Jovanovic (1972) repsorted that manganese application increased the

fruit size and yield of 'Golden Delicious' apple. Jovanovic and Dzamic (1977)

studied the correlation of major nutrients in leaves and yield in apple cultivar

'Jonathan' and observed a positive correlation between leaf N content and yield

and a negative correlation between P and K content with yield.

In Japanese pear cultivar 'Chojuro', Koto et al (1979) reported that

N, Ca, and Mg level were low in leaves whereas Mn level was high and other

33

elements like P, K and B were found at optimum level. Similarly, Nayital and

Awasthi (1982) determined the mineral composition of leaves of some apple

cultivars and reported that 'Red Delicious' had the maximum level of N (2.67 %),

P (0.22 %), K (1.60 %), Ca (1.36 %) and Mg (131. %) whereas the minimum N

(2.32 %) and Ca (1.08 %) were found in case of 'McIntosh', while the minimum P

(0.16 %) and Mg (0.23 %) were recorded in 'Richardson'. The lowest value of K

(0.48 %) was observed in cultivar 'RusPippen'.

Rana et al (1984) determined the nutritional status of apple and

reported that N, P, K, Ca, Mn and Zn were found deficient but Mg and Fe were

found at optimum or at higher level. The content of different elements in apple

leaves varied from 1.0 to 3.0 per cent of N, 0.07 to 0.38 per cent of P, 0.5 to 3.0

per cent of K and 0.9 to 2.4 per cent of Calcium. The Mg and Fe status was

optimum i.e. 0.23 to 0.64 per cent and 40 to 380 ppm, respectively. While Mn, Cu,

and Zn varied from 85 to 100, 5 to 25 ppm and 10 to 44 ppm, respectively.

Kamboj et al (1987) studied the nutritional status of 'Patharnakh' and

'LeConte' leaves from different shoot length and reported that N, P, Ca, Mg, Mn

and Zn were the highest while K was lowest in terminal leaves of the shoot. The

average values for these elements were found in mid shoot leaves in both the

cultivars. The study also revealed that N, P, K, Cu, B and Zn decreased while Ca,

Mg, and Mn increased with advancing leaf age in both the cultivars.

Raese and Staiff (1988) reported that high rate of N fertilizers

resulted in greater tree vigour and higher yield of Golden Delicious apple and

pear. Ystass (1990) observed that increase in N had no effect on trunk cross

sectional area, fruit set, yield and quality.

34

In a study of secondary and micro nutrients status of pear, Arora et

al (1992) reported that the concentration of Ca, Mg and S in the leaves varied from

1.24 to 3.34, 0.26 to 0.56 and 0.02 to 0.13 per cent, respectively. Whereas the

concentration of Zn, Cu, Fe, and Mn in leaves ranged from 4.3 to 30.9, 2.6 to 17.9,

103 to 499 and 26 to 211 mg / kg, respectively. Similarly, in 'Starking Delicious'

apple, Kainth and Awasthi (1994) reported that concentration of K exhibited

significant positive correlation with fruit yield, whereas leaf N, Mg and Zn

exhibited weak, negative and non-significant correlation with fruit yield. However,

leaf P, Ca, Mn, Fe and Cu contents showed positive non-significant correlation

with fruit yield during 1990 whereas leaf P, Ca, Mn and Zn showed a negative

non-significant correlation with fruit yield during 1991.

Sanchez and Silva (1994) studied the relationship between yield and

mineral nutrients content in pear orchard. Thirty-seven commercial blocks of

'William's Bartlett', 'Packham's Triumph' and 'Beurred Anjou' pear were surveyed

in 'Argentina'. The yield ranged from 12.7 to 92.6 tons per hectare. These were

significant negative correlations when nutrients were expressed on per leaf area

basis. High yielding plots corresponded with the less amount of nutrient per leaf

area expression which have been purposed for diagnostic assessments of the

nutrients. In practical, it will be difficult to distinguish between low values

associated with nutritional deficiencies and low values caused by high yield.

35

Chapter – III

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The present studies on ‘Vegetative and Fruiting Behaviour of Semi-

soft Pear Strains in Relation to Nutrient Status’ were conducted in the New

Orchard of Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, during the fruiting season of

1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. All the strains were grafted on Kainth root-

stock. Soil of experimental field was classified as sandy-loam. Ludhiana is situated

at 30 and 56 North latitude and 75 52 East longitude at a mean height of 247

metres above the mean sea level. This tract experiences, three distinct season in a

year namely, hot and dry early summer, hot and humid summer monsoon period

and cold winter. In summer air temperature above 38C is of common occurrence

while frosty spells are common during December and January. The annual

precipitation is 1040 mm and 75 per cent of which is received during the summer

monsoon from July to September. This region gets nearly 250-300 hours of

chilling period. The details of materials and methods adopted during these studies

are given below :-

Number of treatments (Strains) - 13

Replications of each strain - 4

Plant unit per replication - 1

Total number of plants - 52

Age of plants - 9 & 10 years

Experimental design - Randomized Block Design (RBD)

36

Observations Recorded:

The data in respect of tree characters (height, spread, volume, trunk

girth and internodal length), leaf characters and flowering were recorded for 2000

and 2001 except for off-season leaf fall, leaf emergence and flowering for which

data were recorded during 1999 and 2000. The data regarding fruit drop, fruiting,

yield and physico-chemical character were recorded during 1999, 2000 and 2001.

The nutritional status of leaves for macro and micro nutrients were recorded for

the year 1999 and 2000. All the observations were recorded on all the plants of

each strain. The methodology adopted for each attribute is given below :

3.1 VEGETATIVE CHARACTERS

3.1.1 Tree Characters

3.1.1.1 Tree height

The height was measured from ground level to the top of the highest

branch of trees with the help of calibrated bamboo pole ignoring only the off-type

shoots and average was calculated in meters.

3.1.1.2 Tree spread

The distance between points to which most of the branches of tree

had grown in the north-south and east-west directions was measured and averaged.

The off-type shoots were not considered.

3.1.1.3 Tree volume

Tree volume was calculated with the help of following formula as

suggested by Westwood (1978)

Tree Volume = 4/3 a2b

Where a = Half of the major axis (height)

37

b = Half of the minor axis (spread)

3.1.1.4 Trunk girth (scion and stock girth)

The data on the trunk girth was recorded with the help of measuring

tape at the height of 5 cms above and below graft union. The data were expressed

as trunk girth of scion and stock in centimeters

3.1.1.5 Internodal length

The length of ten internodes in the middle of the ten shoots of

current seasion's growth which were selected in four directions was measured with

the help of scale and expressed in terms of centimeters.

3.1.2 Leaf Characters

The following observations were recorded in relation to leaf

characters.


The date of leaf emergence was recorded when 5 per cent leaves had

started emerging. The duration of leaf emergence was also worked out starting

from leaf emergence till the end of leaf emergence.

3.1.2.2 Normal leaf fall

Normal leaf fall was recorded when the fall started till the end of leaf

fall before going into dormancy.

3.1.2.3 Off-season leaf fall

Off-season leaf fall was recorded when the fall started after fruit

harvesting.

3.1.2.4 Leaf colour

The colour of dorsal and ventral surfaces was noted by comparing

38

with Royal Horticultural Society Colour Chart (Wilson, 1938).

3.1.2.5 Off-season leaf emergence

Off-season leaf emergence was observed after off-season leaf fall.

3.1.2.6 Leaf size

In order to record the data of leaf size (length and breadth), twenty

leaves from the current season's growth were selected at random leaving terminal

immature leaves. Then the length and breadth of leaf blade or lamina were

measured with a scale and average was expressed in term of centimeters.

3.1.2.7 Leaf area

The leaf area was calculated by using ‘Planimetre’.

3.2 FLOWERING AND FRUITING CHARACTERS:

3.2.1 Start of flowering

Date of start of flowering was recorded when about 5 to 10 per cent

flowers had opened.

3.2.2 Date of full bloom

Full bloom was considered to have reached when about 70 per cent

of flowers opened.

3.2.3 End of flowering

Date of end of flowering was recorded when about 5 to 10 per cent

flower buds were still to open.

3.2.4 Duration of flowering

Duration of flowering was calculated from date of start of flowering

to the date of end of flowering.

39

3.2.5 Date of off-season flowering

Date of off-season flowering was noted when off-season flowering

was started after off-season leaf emergence.

3.2.6 End of off-season flowering

End of off-season flowering was recorded when tree was no more

flowering during off-season.

3.2.7 Flowering density

Data on flowering density was recorded by selecting four branches

on each direction of each tree. Number of flowers per meter length of each branch

was counted and average was calculated.

3.2.8 Self-compatibility

Self compatibility of each strain was judged by bagging the counted

unopened flower buds and then counting the number of fruits that had set in the

bag. Self-compatibility was calculated in percentage.

3.2.9 Fruit set

Data on fruit set was recorded 30 days after full bloom by tagging

the four branches on each tree. The total number of flowers and then fruits were

counted on each branch and per cent fruit set was estimated.

Number of fruitsFruit set (%) = x 100

Number of flower buds

3.2.10 Fruiting density

Number of fruits per meter length after 30 days of full bloom on four

selected branches were counted and averaged.

40

3.2.11 Fruit drop

The data on fruit drop were recorded by counting the number of

fruits dropped daily, starting from whenever first fruit drop observed and

expressed on the basis of average of 7 days. The percentage of fruit drop was

calculated as follows : Total no. of fruits dropped

Fruit drop (%) = x 100 Total no. of fruit dropped + total no. fruits harvested


3.3.1 Number of fruits per tree

Total number of fruits on each strain were counted at full maturity

stage and the mean worked out.

3.3.2 Estimated yield per plant

Total number of fruits on each tree was counted at the time of

maturity. Yield was estimated from the average weight of ten fruits multiplied by

total number of fruits including pre-harvest drop and calculated in kg per plant.

3.3.3 Yield efficiency

Yield efficiency was calculated by the following formula given by

Westwood (1978)Kg yield / tree

Yield efficiency = Cm2 TCSA

Where, TCSA = Trunk cross sectional area


The observations on all the fruit characters were recorded on 10

randomly selected fruits from each trees of all strains.



Fruit colour (ground and over) was observed with the help of Royal

41

Horticultural Society Colour Chart (Wilson, 1938) at the time of full fruit

maturity.


The length of pedicel of fruit was measured with the help of a scale

and expressed in centimeters.

3.4.1.3 Fruit size

The length and breadth of fruits were recorded in centimeters with

the help of scale and then averaged.


The weight of ten randomly selected fruits of each strain was

determined and their average was calculated to find out the weight per fruit in

grams.


The data on fruit volume were recorded with the help of water

displacement method given by Westwood (1978).


Fruit density was calculated by dividing the fruit weight with fruit

volume. Fruit weight

Fruit density = Fruit volume


The fruit firmness was measured with the help of ‘Penetrometre’

after removing about one square inch of skin of the fruit from the shoulder of the

fruit. The pressure reading were taken in kg/cm2 unit.

42

3.4.1.8 Juice (%)

Juice percentage was recorded by extracting juice of ten fruits in the

juice extractor. The juice was strained through a muslin cloth and weighed. The

percentage was calculated on the basis of total fruit weight.



The strained juice of each sample was thoroughly stirred before

taking a reading. Total soluble solids content of juice was determined with the

help of 'Bausch and Lamb' hand refractometer in term of degrees Brix (%). The

readings were corrected to 20C.

3.4.2.2 Juice acidity

The juice acidity was determined by titrating five ml. of juice against

0.1 N NaOH solution, using phenolphthalein as an indicator. The end point was

noted at the appearance of light pink colour and the results were expressed in

terms of malic acid. 0.1 N NaOH used

Juice acidity (%) = 0.0067 x x 100 Juice taken

(1 ml of 0.1 N NaOH = 0.0067 g malic acid)

3.4.2.3 TSS : Acid ratio

The ratio was calculated by dividing the value of TSS with that of

the corresponding tritratable juice acidity.

3.4.2.4 Sugars

The Sugars were determined by the method of Lane and Eynon –

AOAC (1980). Fresh 10 ml fruit juice was taken and the volume was made upto

43

100 ml with distilled water. Extraneous material was precipitated with the help of

lead acetate. Excess of lead acetate was removed with potassium oxalate.

Thereafter solution was filtered with a filter paper and filtrate solution was used

‘Aliquot’ for further studies.


Total sugars were estimated by taking 25 ml of above 'Aliquot' in

100 ml of measuring flask. To this solution 25 ml of distilled water and 5 ml of 60

per cent concentrated HCl was added and then left for 24 hours at room

temperature for acid hydrolysis. Flasks were placed on water bath which had been

heated previously. The excess of HCl was neutralized with 10 per cent NaOH in

the initial stage and with 0.1 per cent NaOH near the neutralization point. Then the

neutralized solution was titrated against Fehling’s solution A and B (5 ml each)

using methylene blue as the indicator. Titration was continued till brick red colour

appeared. The results were expressed in percentage.

Final volume made Total sugar (%) = Reducing sugar x ------------------------------- x 100

Aliquot solution taken


The Aliquot was poured in 50 ml burette with a stop cock

arrangement and was titrated against boiling Fehling’s solution A and B (5 ml

each). Methylene blue was used as an indicator and was titrated to brick red colour

as the end point to estimate the reducing sugars. The results were expressed in

percentage. Fehling's solution factor (0.05) Dilution made

Reducing sugar (% ) = ------------------------------------ x ------------------------x 100 Volume of filtrate used Weight of sample taken

44


Substraction of reducing sugars from the total sugars in juice gave

the figure of non reducing sugars after multiplying the values with the factor

(0.95) as suggested by AOAC (1980).

3.5 DETERMINATION OF MACRO AND MICRO NUTRIENTS

3.5.1 Collection and preparation of leaf samples

Samples were collected from middle of each shoot from current

season’s growth during the month of September. Each sample comprised of 60

leaves taken at random from all sides of the plant and were put into paper bags.

These were washed to make free from dust and dirt in running tap water followed

by rinsing in acidified deionized water and finally in deionized water. Leaves after

drying in shade, were finally dried at 60°C in hot air oven for 48 hours, these were

ground in stainless steel Willey mill to a fineness of 40 mesh. The ground samples

were sealed in moisture proof butter paper bags for chemical analysis.

For the estimation of N, 1 g of ground leaf sample was digested in

25 ml conc. H2SO4 alongwith digestion mixture and the total nitrogen in leaf

sample was determined by Micro Kjedahl’s method (AOAC 1980). For the

estimation of values of macro nutrients including P and K, 0.5 gm of leaf sample

was digested in 10 ml of Nitric acid (HNO3) and Perchloric acid (HClO4) used in

the ratio of 3:1. The value of total P in leaf sample was determined by

Vanadomolybdo phosphoric yellow colour method (Chapman and Pratt, 1961)

while total K and Ca were estimated by Flame Photometer method (AOAC 1980)

and Cu, Zn, Fe, Mn and Mg were determined with Atomic Absorption

Spectrophotometer method described by Bradfield and Spencer (1965).

45

3.6 NUTRIENT CORRELATIONS STUDIES

The correlation of maco and micro nutrients with tree characters,

flowering, fruiting and fruit quality of different strains were worked out.

3.7 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The data were subjected to Duncan's Multiple Range Test (DMRT)

to test singinficance of the results. Correlation matrix was analysied to find the

correlation between the observed parameters (Gomez and Gomez 1986).

46

Chapter - IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results of the present investigations entitled "Vegetative and

fruiting behaviour of semi-soft pear strains in relation to nutrient status",

conducted during the years 1999, 2000 and 2001 at the New Orchard, Department

of Horticulture, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, are presented here

under. The salient findings have been discussed in the light of scientific

information available on the subject. Also some conclusions have been drawn,

wherever the data have supported to do so.

4.1 VEGETATIVE CHARACTERS

4.1.1 Tree Characters

4.1.1.1 Tree height

A significant variation in tree height was observed in different

strains of semi-soft pear during both the years (Table 1). During 2000, maximum

tree height (7.27 m) was recorded in strain II and it was found to be at par with

strain XIV (7.16 m), strain VIII (6.95 m), strain X (6.89m), strain XV (6.77 m),

strain I (6.63 m), strain IV (6.58 m) and strain IX (6.57 m). Minimum tree height

(5.84 m) was observed in strain XII.

During the year 2001, maximum tree height (7.37 m) was noted in

strain XIV which was significantly higher over strain XII (6.03 m) strain III (6.56

m) and strain XVI (6.60m). Whereas the tree height of rest the strains was found

to be at par with strain XIV.

The average of both the years showed that strain II was significantly

47

taller (7.31 m) than strain XII (5.94 m) strain III (6.49 m) and strain XVI (6.52 m).

The variation in tree height in different strains may be due to genetic variation in

these strains as all the environmental factors were almost uniform. Likewise,

Gupta and Chohan (1976) also reported the variation in tree height in different

cultivars of pear where 'Patharnakh' was found to be taller as compared to

'LeConte' and 'Smith'. In some Asian pears, Griggs and Iwakiri (1977) observed

that 'Ya Li' had large tree size than that of 'Nijisseiki' and 'Shinseiki'. In many

other cultivars/ strains of pear, variability in tree height had also been reported by

Rathore (1982), Singh et al (1983) and Sharma et al (1988).

4.1.1.2 Tree spread

The data on tree spread show significant variation in different strains

during both the years (Table 1). During 2000, the maximum tree spread (3.56 m)

was recorded in strain II which was closely followed by strain I (3.46 m) and

strain VII (3.16 m). The other strains viz. strain III (2.90 m), strain IV and strain X

(each with 2.80 m) also showed more tree spread and were found statistically at

par with strain II. The minimum tree spread (1.66 m) was observed in strain XII.

During 2001, tree spread was also maximum (4.02 m) in strain II

and the minimum (2.02 m) in strain XII. Amongst other promising strains, strain I

(3.71 m), strain VII (3.67 m) and strain VIII (3.51 m) had shown almost similar

spread being statistically at par with strain II.

The commulative data of both the years showed that maximum and

minimum tree spread were registered in strain II (3.79 m) and strain XII (1.84 m),

respectively which clearly showed that strain II was taller while strain XII

was smaller and other strains were medium in tree size. The variability in tree

48

spread may also be due to genetic variation as observed in tree height of these

strain also. In some earlier studies in pear, Singh et al (1983) observed that 'Gola'

produced medium to big tree while 'Naga' and 'Tumariya' cultivars produced

medium and small trees, respectively. The tree spread of 'Patharnakh' was more

when compared with to 'Baggugosha' tree (Sharma et al 1988). Among Japanese

pears, the tree spread in 'Hosui' was greater than that of 'Nijisseiki' pear cultivar as

reported by Singh (1998).

4.1.1.3 Tree volume

A significant variation was observed in tree volume in different

strains of pear during both the years (Table I). During 2000, the tree volume was

the maximum (49.51 m3) in strain II which was statistically at par with strain I

(43.68 m3) and strain VII (34.34 m3) but differed significantly from other strains.

The minimum tree volume (9.96 m3) was recorded in strain XII.

During 2001 also strain II had shown the maximum tree volume

(63.77 m3), where the minimum tree volume (15.80 m3) was recorded in strain XII.

The tree volume of strain XVI (25.21 m3), strain XIV (25.51 m3) and strain XV

(36.54 m3) was found to be statistically at par with strain XII, while rest of the

strains were at par with strain II. However, strain XI attained medium tree volume

(39.87 m3) and was par with both strain II and strain XII.

The average tree volume was the highest (56.64 m3) in strain II

followed by strain I (47.88 m3) and strain VII (41.66 m3). The lowest tree volume

(12.88 m3) was registered in strain XII. A perusal of data on tree volume clearly

shows that there are large, medium and small sized strains among the pear

germplasm under study. In earlier studies, also the variation in tree volume in

49

semi-soft pear selections and Chinese and Japanese pear cultivars had been

reported by Kumar (1997) and Singh (1998).

4.1.1.4 Trunk girth

Perusal of data in Table 2 reveal that trunk girth of different strains

varied significantly during both the years. During 2000, the maximum trunk girth

(63.50 cm) was recorded in strain VIII which was found to be significantly higher

than that of strain XII (44.50 cm), whereas all other strains were statistically at par

with each other.

Similarly during 2001, strain VIII had the maximum trunk girth

(66.62 cm) and it was at par with all other strains except strains XII, III and XIV.

The minimum trunk girth (47.00 cm) was recorded in strain XII.

The mean data of two years showed the maximum trunk girth (65.06

cm) in strain VIII and it was the minimum (45.75 cm) in strain XII. The other

strains were found statistically at par with strain VIII except strain III (54.62 cm)

and strain XIV (55.12 cm) which had medium level of trunk girth. This difference

in trunk girth may be due to their genetic makeup and to the differential uptake of

mineral elements by the scion strains. Similar findings had also been reported by

Gupta and Chohan (1976) where genetically different cultivars like 'Patharnakh'

had more trunk girth as compared to 'Smith' and 'LeConte'. Sharma et al (1988)

also observed higher trunk girth in 'Patharnakh' than that of 'Baggugosha'. In Asian

pears, 'Hosui' had more trunk girth than 'Nijisseiki' as reported by Singh (1998).

50

4.1.1.5 Internodal length

It is evident from the data that internodal length in different strains

was found to be significant during both the years (Table 2). During 2000,

significantly more internodal length (3.12 cm) was recorded in strain X as

compared to strain XVI (2.15 cm). However, in strain XI (2.85 cm), strain II (2.80

cm), strain IV (2.75 cm), strain XII (2.72 cm), strain IX (2.70 cm) and strain VII

(2.67 cm) were next in order in respect of internodal length but were statistically at

par with strain X.

During 2001, also the longest internodal length (3.15 cm) was

recorded in strain X, whereas it was recorded shortest (2.17 cm) in strain XVI. The

internodal length of strain II (2.95 cm), strain VIII (2.87 cm) and strain XI (2.75

cm) were found to be statistically at par with strain X but significantly higher than

strain XII, strain XV and strain XVI.

The mean data of both the years also confirmed the individual years

results with the maximum (3.13 cm) and the minimum (2.16 cm) internodal length

in strain X and strain XVI, respectively. This variation in internodal length in

different strains may be due to different genetic make up of these strains. Similar

types of variation in internodal length was also observed in 'Florda Home' pear

(Sherman et al 1982) and in some Asian pear cultivars studied under Punjab

conditions (Singh 1998).

4.1.2 Leaf Characters


Data pertaining to the time and duration of leaf emergence in

different strains are presented in Table 3. During 2000, the earliest sprouting (23-

51

26 Feb) was observed in strain XII, whereas it was late (26-3 Feb/Mar) in strain

IX. Similarly during 2001, sprouting was earliest (23-25 Feb) in strain XII,

whereas it was late (26-27 Feb.) in strain IX and XIV. The time of sprouting

amongst these strains did not vary markedly during the either year. However, the

sprouting was earlier in year 2001 than in 2000. This could be due to warming up

of weather earlier in 2001 than in 2000. The difference of 1 to 2 days in sprouting

amongst the experimental trees could be due to some environmental factors than

the genetic difference. The aspect and location of trees in the orchard would have

affected the growth and development process of a plant.

The different strains commenced leafing on different dates (Table 3).

During 2000 the earliest leaf emergence (1-2 Mar) was observed in strain VIII,

whereas it was late (4-7 Mar) in strain IX. In other strains starting of leaf

emergence took place in between these dates. However, during 2001, earlier

leafing (28-1 Feb/Mar) was recorded in strain II, followed by strain I and strain

VIII (28-2 Feb/Mar) whereas it was started late (3-7 Mar) in strain XII.

The end of leaf emergence varied in different strains (Table 3).

However, during 2000 it was observed from 28-30 Mar (strain VIII) to 4-6 April

(strain IX). During 2001, the respective dates were recorded from 23-26 March

(strain VIII) to 2-6 April (strain IV).

Data in Table 3, clearly showed that during 2000, duration of leaf

emergence was longest (35 days) in strain IV, while the shortest duration of leaf

emergence (29 days), was recorded in strain VIII, strain XII and strain XIV.

Similarly during 2001, strain IV had long duration of leaf emergence (33 days),

whereas it was shortest (26 days) in strain VIII and strain XII.

52

The variation in leaf emergence was also reported by Watanabe et al

(1984), who observed that 'Ya Li' and 'Kimizuka Wase' were earlier to come into

leafing out of 23 pear cultivars. Similarly the leaf emergence from 2nd week of

February to 3rd week of March was observed by Kumar (1997) in different pear

strains. While studying the growing behaviour of Asian pears, Singh (1998)

reported that leaf emergence of 'Nijisseiki', 'Shinseiki', 'Hosui', 'Kosui' and 'Ya Li'

started in the first week of March to mid March and duration of leaf emergence

ranged from 19 days in 'Hosui' to 23 days in 'Nijisseiki' and 'Kosui'.

4.1.2.2 Normal leaf fall

An examination of data presented in Table 4 shows that the different

strains started normal leaf fall at different dates in both years. During 2000, strain

I started leaf fall earlier (17-2 Dec/Jan) than other strains. However, in strain XII

it was late (28-10 Dec/Jan) as compared to all other strains. The leaf fall during

2001 started late for few a days comparatively year 2000. However, the leaf fall

started earlier (18-31 Dec) in strain XI followed by strain XII (20-28 Dec),

whereas it was late (27-4 Dec/Jan) in strain I.

The end of leaf fall in different strains came on different dates

during both the years (Table 4). During 2000, the end of leaf fall was first noticed

(12-19 Jan) in strain XII, whereas it was late in (24-25 Jan) in strain XI. The

respective dates of leaf fall of other promising strains varied in between these two

strains. During 2001, earliest shedding of leaf fall (18-22 Jan) was also observed

in strain XII while it was found to be late (28-30 Jan) in strain II.

The variation in start of leaf fall and there end in different strain

might be due to the differences in genetic base of these strains and other possible

53

reason is that cold waves came earlier in year 2000 as compared to 2001.

4.1.2.3 Off-season leaf fall

During 1999, strain III started off-season leaf fall earlier (2-5

September) than all other strains (Table 4). However, in strain XII the leaf fall was

late (14-20 September) as compared to all other strains. The off-season leaf fall

during 2000 started earlier for few a days as compared to previous year. However,

leaf fall first started earlier (20-25 August) in strain VII followed by strain XV and

strain XVI each on 21-26 August, whereas the leaf shedding was late (29-2

Aug/Sept) in strain XII than all other strains. Off-season leaf fall was late in strain

XII during both the years.

The end of off-season leaf fall in different strains came on different

dates during both the years. During 1999, the end of off-season leaf fall was

observed from 24-27 September in strain III to 15-19 October in strain XIV. The

respective dates of end of off-season leaf fall of other promising strains varied in

between these two strains. During 2000, the strain VII registered earliest ending of

off-season leaf fall (20-22 Sept), whereas it was late (25-29 October) in strain I.

The variation in the off-season leaf emergence and leaf fall during

1999 and 2000 may be due to the difference in weather parameters which affected

the spread of leaf spot disease which is considered one of the important factors

affecting off-season leaf fall, leafing and flowering.

4.1.2.4 Leaf colour

No significant difference in leaf colour of ventral surface (upper)

and dorsal surface (lower) was observed in different strains (Table 4). However,

54

the ventral surface was dark green (YG 147-A) and dorsal surface was greenish

(YG 147-B) in all strains. The present findings in respect of leaf colour are similar

to those reported by other workers (Kumar 1997 and Singh 1998).

4.1.2.5 Off-season leaf emergence

A perusal of data in table 5 reveals that the different strains

commenced off-season leafing on different dates. During 1999, earliest off-season

leaf emergence (12-17 September) was observed in strain III followed by strain

IV (15-19 September), whereas it was late (27-25 Sept/Oct) in strain XII.

However, during 2000, the off-season leaf emergence was observed earlier as

compared to previous year. It was first noticed on 3 to 10 September in strain VII

followed by strain VIII (4-13 Sept), whereas late off-season leaf emergence (27-10

Sept/Oct) was recorded in strain XII.

It was observed that the off-season leaf emergence in different

strains ended on different dates (Table 5). During 1999, strain III had been found

ending off-season leaf emergence earlier i.e. on 10 to 12 October, whereas it was

late (24-15 Oct/Nov) in strain XII. However, during 2000, the off-season leaf

emergence ended first (24-27 Sept) in strain XIV followed by strain I (30-2

Sept/Oct). In strain XII leaf emergence continued till late (5-9 Nov).

The data (Table 5) clearly show that during 1999, the duration of

off-season leaf emergence was the longest (47 days) in strain XII followed by

strain XVI (42 days), while the shortest duration of off-season leafing (24 days)

was recorded in strain XIV. Similarly, during 2000, the longest duration (42 days)

followed by strain XVI (37 days) and it was shortest (20 days) in strain XIV.

During both the years, strain XII had longest to leaf emergence and strain XIV had

55

shortest span as compared to all other strain under study.

4.1.2.6 Leaf Size

4.1.2.6.1 Leaf length

A significant variation in leaf length was recorded in different strains

of pear during both the years (Table 6). During 2000, the longest leaf (8.12 cm)

was observed in strain XV followed by strain IX (8.10 cm) and strain XII (7.97

cm) which was statistically at par with each other. However, the shortest leaf (6.85

cm) was recorded in strain XI and it varied significantly from strain XV, strain IX

and strain XII, while it was statistically at par with other strains under study.

During 2001, also strain XV had maximum leaf length (8.32 cm)

and it was statistically at par with strain IX (8.25 cm), strain XII (7.90 cm), strain

XIV (7.75 cm) and strain VII (7.72 cm). The minimum leaf length (7.07 cm) was

recorded in strain XI which was found to be statistically at par with all other

strains except strain IX, strain XII and strain XV.

Taking the average of both the years, almost similar results were

obtained when average value of both the years were calculated. The maximum

(8.22 cm) and the minimum (6.96 cm) leaf length was observed in strain XV and

strain XI. However, the leaves of strain IX (8.17 cm), strain XII (7.93 cm), strain

XIV (7.68 cm) and strain VII (7.66 cm), respectively were quite longer than most

of other strains under evaluation and were found to be statistically at par with

strain XV. The variation in leaf length in different strains may be due to genetical

differences in these strains. The present findings are also in agreement with those

of Kumar (1997) who observed variation in leaf length in different pear strains.

Singh (1998) observed the longest leaf in 'Kosui' cultivar over the other Asian

56

pears.

4.1.2.6.2 Leaf breadth

Data presented in Table 6 show that during 2000, the maximum leaf

breadth (5.42 cm) was recorded in strain XII which varied significantly from other

strains. The minimum leaf breadth (4.17 cm) was registered in strain I. The leaf

breadth of strain VII (4.92 cm), strain XV (4.90 cm) and strain X and strain XVI

(each with 4.80 cm) were found to be at par with each other and exhibited medium

leaf breadth.

The significant differences were recorded in leaf breadth in different

strains during 2001 (Table 6). The maximum leaf breadth (5.37 cm) was observed

in strain XII which differed significantly than other strains. However, strain I

showed the minimum leaf breadth (4.25 cm), while it was at par with strain III

(4.40 cm), strain VIII (4.47 cm) and strain IV (4.52 cm). All other strains had

medium leaf breadth and were statistically at par with each other.

Considering the average leaf breadth of both years, strain XII had

maximum leaf breadth (5.39 cm), whereas it was minimum (4.21 cm) in strain I.

The differences in leaf breadth may be due to the genetical differences in these

strains. Similar results were also reported by Singh (1998) who observed that leaf

breadth was found more in cultivar 'Ya Li' as compared to 'Nijisseiki'.

57

4.1.2.7 Leaf area

The variation in leaf area in different strains of pear was found to be

significant during both the years (Table 6). The maximum leaf area (34.68 cm2)

was recorded in strain XII which was statistically at par with strain XV (31.20

cm2), strain VII (29.87 cm2) and strain IX (29.29 cm2). The minimum leaf area

(23.98 cm2) was observed in strain I while it was statistically at par with other

strains except strain VII, strain XII and strain XV.

Similarly during 2001, the maximum leaf area (33.77 cm2) was

observed in strain XII when compared to strain I which had minimum (23.51 cm2)

leaf area. The leaf area of strain XV (32.29 cm2), strain IX (30.07 cm2) and strain

XIV (29.71 cm2) were found to be statistically at par with strain XII. The other

strains had medium leaf area which ranged from strain VIII (26.21 cm2) to strain

VII (28.53 cm2).

The mean data of both years showed similar trend as the leaf area

was the maximum (34.22 cm2) in strain XII and the minimum (23.74 cm2) in strain

I. These differences in leaf area was due to difference in leaf length and breadth of

different strains under study. These findings are in conformity with the results

obtained by Kumar (1997) in 'Baggugosha' strains and Singh (1998) in some

Asian pears where leaf area ranged from 57.0 cm2 in 'Nijisseiki' to 82.5 cm2 in

'Ya Li'.

4.2 FLOWERING AND FRUITING CHARACTERS

4.2.1 Time and duration of flowering

An examination of data given in Table 7 shows that the different

strains under study commenced flowering at different dates. During 2000,

58

flowering commenced earlier (2-3 March) in strain II, whereas the flowering

started last (5-9 March) of all in strain XV and strain X (7-8 March). The

commencement of flowering in other prominent strains ranged in between these

dates. During the year 2001, all the strains commenced flowering with in the first

week of March, whereas the flowering started earlier (4-5 March) and last (5-9

March) of all in strain II and strain XII, respectively.

The dates of full bloom are depicted in Table 7 and it varied in

different strains. During 2000, the full bloom was first noticed on 14th March in

strains VIII, whereas it was late (18 March) in strain I and strain IV. In other

strains, the full bloom was recorded on 15 to 17 March. During 2001, the full

bloom in different strains took place earlier as compared to previous year

(Table 7). However, full bloom was first observed on 11th March in strain I, strain

II, strain IV and strain XI, whereas it was late (13th March) in strain VII. In all

other promising strains, full bloom was observed on 12th March.

End of flowering during 2000 varied amongst different strains

(Table 7). It was first completed (17-20 March) in strain VIII followed by strain

IV (19-20 March). The end of flowering was noticed last of all (22 March) in

strain I followed by strain X (21-22 March). However, during 2001, end of

flowering recorded 4 to 5 days earlier as compared to previous year. It observed

first (13-14 March) in strain XIV, whereas flowering ended late (15-17 March) in

strain VII.

Data of flowering duration (Table 7) showed variation in different

strains. During 2000, the duration of flowering was longer (19 days) in strain II

followed by strain XIV (18 days). However, minimum duration of 15 days, was

59

observed in strain X. During 2001, the overall duration of flowering in all strains

was short by 4 to 5 days. The longest duration of flowering (12 days) were

registered in strain VII and strain XII, whereas it was shortest (9 days) in strain

XIV. The variation in time of ending of flower opening and duration of flowering

could be due to temperature variation during March in both the years under study.

Similar results have been obtained by Lal and Misra (1980) who

observed that floral buds in 'China' and 'LeConte' pear opened in third and last

week of February, whereas in 'Smith' it was delayed upto 2nd weak of March. Full

bloom occurred in 'China pear' in last week of February to 1st week of March,

while in 'LeConte' it took place in 1st week of March but delayed in 'Smith' (2nd

to 3rd week of March). End of flowering was observed in third week of March in

'China' and end of March in case of 'LeConte' while in 'Smith', it was observed in

first week of April. Likewise, Aulakh et al (1981) reported that 'Patharnakh' and

'Smith' started flowering in the 3rd week of February, whereas 'Kieffer' and

'LeConte' commenced flowering in the first week of March. Flowering duration in

different pear cultivars ranged from 21 days in 'Baggugosha' to 29 days in 'Smith'.

However, full bloom period was found to be much shorter and varied between 4

and 7 days in 'LeConte' and 'Smith' respectively.

4.2.2 Time and duration of off-season flowering

The data of off-season flowering in different strains is presented in

Table 8 which show variation amongst all the strains during 1999. The off-season

flowering started on 27th September in strain X followed by strain VII (28-30

Sept), whereas it was late (3-15 Nov) in strain XIV. However, during 2000 the

emergence of off-season flowering was first noticed in strain II from September 26

60

to October 1 and it was from September 25 to October 3 in strain III and strain VII

and last (26-24 Sep/Oct) in strain XV.

The end of off-season flowering was observed first (25-30 Oct/Nov)

in strain II, closely followed by strain XII (12 Nov) during 1999 (Table 8),

whereas it was noticed last (8-15 Dec) of all in strain I. However, during, 2000,

the off-season flowering ended first on 10 to 16 November in strain XII followed

by strain XVI (18-23 Nov), whereas it was found to be late (28-15 Nov/Dec) in

strain XIV.

Data on duration of off-season flowering showed variation amongst

different strains during both years (Table 8). During 1999, the longer duration of

off-season flowering (77 days) was observed in strain I and strain IV, whereas it

was recorded shortest (27 days) in strain XII. While during 2000, strain VII had

registered longer duration of off-season flowering (79 days) followed by strain

XIV (77 days). The minimum duration of 40 days, however, was observed again

in strain XII.

The phenomenon of off-season flowering in some pears such as

'Baggugosha' may be due to off-season leaf fall due to leaf spot disease which

stimulated off-season leafing and flowering. The exogenous factors viz. climate,

season etc. brought about change in the level of phytoharmones which regulate

mineral nutrient uptake and potential of photosynthetic efficiency (Jain 1995)

thereby affecting flowering and fruiting in plants. Imbalance in any of these

factors could cause off-season flowering and fruiting. Likewise, in some Asian

pears, Singh (1998) observed the off-season flowering in the first week of

September.

61

4.2.3 Flowering density

The different semi-soft pear strains under study showed great

variability in respect of flower density (Table 9). During 2000, the highest flower

density (121. 00 flowers/m ) was observed in strain VII which was statistically at

par with strain II (106.30 flower/m) but it was higher than other strains. The

lowest flower density (64.50 flowers/m) was registered in strain XVI. During

2001, the maximum flower density (113.20 flowers/m) was again recorded in

strain VII which was significantly higher than other strains. However, flower

density was the minimum (25.0 flowers/m) in strain XIV.

The average data of both the years confirmed the similar trend with

the maximum flowering density (117.10 flowers/m) in strain VII which was

significantly higher than that of other strains. The lowest flowering density (51.62

flowers/m) was recorded in strain XIV. The difference in flowering density in

different strains may be due to the genetic variability. However, year to year

variation in flowering density could be due to higher flowering density in one year

which influenced the next year flowering. Similar type of variation was reported

by Dhaliwal et al (1982), where higher flowering density was recorded in

'LeConte' as compared to 'Baggugosha' and 'Kieffer'.

4.2.4 Fruiting density

It is obvious from the data presented in Table 9 that the significant

differences in fruiting density were observed in different strains of semi-soft pear

during both the years. During 2000, the maximum fruiting density (14.50 fruits/m)

was recorded in strain II which was found to be statistically at par with strain VII

(13.50 fruits/m) and strain I (12.75 fruits/m). However, the minimum fruiting

62

density (5.50 fruits/m) was recorded in strain XII.

During 2001, strain VII showed higher fruiting density (9.75

fruits/m) as compared to strain XII which was having lowest fruiting density (3.25

fruits/m). However, the strain I (8.50 fruits/m) and strain X (8.25 fruits/m) were

next in fruiting density but were statistically at par with strain VII.

Average fruiting density of both the years was the maximum (11.62

fruits/m) in strain VII followed by strain II (10.87 fruits/m) and strain I (10.63

fruits/m). These strains were found to be at par with each other. The minimum

fruiting density (4.37 fruits/m) was recorded in strain XII. It is evident from the

data that fruiting density was comparatively low in 2001 as compared to 2000.

This might be due to higher flowering density and more fruitset during 2000,

which caused imbalance of C/N ratio and plants showed alternation. The genetic

variation could also be a reason for the variability in fruiting density in different

strains as stain VII had higher fruiting density during both the year as compared to

all other strains..

4.2.5 Self-compatibility

Perusal of the data in Table 10 reveal that during 2000, the self-

compatibility in different strains ranged from 0.00 per cent in strain XV to 1.46

per cent in strain I, whereas all strain found to be statistically at par with each

other. During 2001, also the maximum self-compatibility (1.35%) was registered

in strain I followed by strain II (1.10%), strain IX (1.04%) and strain XII (0.93%).

These strains were found to be statistically at par with each other. The minimum

self-compatibility (0.10%) was recorded in strain XV which was at par with all

strains except strain I, strain II, strain IX and strain XII.

63

The average of both the years showed the highest self-compatibility

(1.40%) in strain I while it was found to be the lowest (0.05%) in strain XV. This

variation in self-compatibility in different strains might be due to different genetic

behaviour of these strains. Kang et al (1997) observed the 'Kosui' and 'Tama'

cultivars of pear were self-compatible, whereas 'Shinseiki' was weakly self-

compatible. In 'LeConte', self-incompatibility was reported by Singh (1999) who

observed no fruit set in natural self-pollinated flowers.

4.2.6 Fruit set

A significant variation in fruit set was recorded in different strains of

semi-soft pear during both the years (Table 10). The maximum fruit set (11.06%)

was observed in strain I during 2000 and it was found to be at par with strain II

(10.82%), strain VII (9.89%), and strain VIII (9.47%). However, the minimum

fruit set (5.42 %) was registered in strain XII followed by strain X (5.93%), strain

XI (5.99%), strain III (6.04%), strain XV (6.83%) and strain XIV (7.25%), while

these strains were statistically at par with each other.

During 2001 also the higher fruit set (10.27%) was registered in

strain I whereas it was recorded lowest (3.06%) in strain XI, followed by strain

XIV (3.08%), strain XII (3.14%) and strain XV (4.92%). The per cent fruit set is

strain VII (10.05%) was recorded next higher and was statistically at par with

strain I.

The average fruit set was found to be the highest (10.67%) in strain I

which was statistically at par with strain VII (9.97%) but higher than that of rest of

the strains. The lowest fruit set (4.28%) was recorded in strain XII. It is evident

from the data of both the years that there was less variation in fruit set in strain I

64

and strain VII as compared to other strains. In general the fruit set was higher

during 2000 than 2001 in all other strains except in strains VII and X. The reason

for low fruit set during 2001 may be due to less duration of flowering because of

early rise in temperature. Moreover, the flowering density was also lower during

2001 as compared to 2000 which resulted in lower fruit set. The higher flowering

and fruiting density during 2000 might have caused imbalance of C/N ratio

leading to alternate bearing in these strains. However, in strain VII, very less

variation was observed during both the years which clearly showed that this strain

is more regular in bearing as compared to all other strains. The variation in fruit

set in different pear cultivars had also been reported by many workers (Mukherjee

and Rana 1966, Dhaliwal et al 1982, Gupta and Mehrotra 1985 and Kumar 1997).

4.2.7 Fruit drop

The data presented in Table 11, 12 and 13 and figure 1 show the

percentage of fruit drop during 1999, 2000 and 2001, respectively.

During 1999, the data on fruit drop was recorded from 10th June

onwards till harvest. It is evident from the data that, the periodic percentage of

fruit drop in different strains was low in month of June and then it was accelerated

till the maturity of fruits. The overall highest per cent fruit drop (99.97) was

recorded in strain XI followed by strains XV (98.33 %) and strain XVI (97.32%).

The minimum fruit drop (61.63%) was however, recorded in strain I .

The data during 2000 showed that the per cent fruit drop was the

highest during early stage of fruit development (IInd fortnight of May) in different

strains (Table 12). The second wave in fruit drop was noticed near maturity. The

65

overall minimum fruit drop (57.94%) was recorded in strain VII followed by strain

I (62.95%). The highest fruit drop (93.72%) was observed in strain XVI.

During 2001, the data of per cent fruit drop revealed the similar

trend i.e. maximum drop at early fruit development phase followed by near

maturity (Table 13). The overall highest percent fruit drop (93.21) was registered

in strain XII as compared to strain I where the fruit drop was found to be minimum

(31.09%).

The higher fruit drop in different strains in the early fruit

development stage could be due to the increased competition between developing

fruit at this stage. The second wave in fruit drop near maturity seems to be

attributed to climatic factors such as rain and strong winds and as well as due to

fruit fly attack. The highest per cent fruit drop in different strains during 1999,

compared with later years was due to a severe attack of fruit fly during that season

as no preventive measures to check this pest could be taken. However, during the

later years the pesticides were sprayed periodically which resulted in the minimum

fruit fly attack thereby checking the fruit drop. Mukherjee and Rana (1966) also

reported higher percentage of fruit drop during second and third fortnight of May

and June, respectively whereas the maximum fruit drop (73.7%) was noticed in

'Smith' followed by 'LeConte' (73.0%) and 'Kieffer' (42.9%).


4.3.1 Number of fruits per tree

It is evident from the data given in Table 14 that during 1999, higher

number of fruits per tree (520.0) were harvested from strain II followed by strain

VIII (516.0) and strain I (393.8) which were found to be statistically at par with

66

each other. The minimum fruits (60.5) were counted on strains XII.

During 2000, the higher number of fruits per tree were obtained

from strain II (888.2), strain I (733.7) and strain VII (780.5) which were at par

with each other. The lowest number of fruits (227.7) were harvested from strain

XII as in the previous year. However, the strain XVI (250.7), strain XI (253.2),

strain X (283.7), strain XV (294.2) strain IX (345.2) and strain XIV (378.2) were

at par with strain XII.

During 2001, the maximum number of fruits per tree (696.2) were

harvested from strain I followed by strain VII (580.0) which were at par with each

other but significantly higher than that of other strains under study. The minimum

number of fruits (45.7) were again obtained from strain XII.

The commulative mean data (Table 14) showed that the highest

number of fruits per tree were harvested from strain I (607. 9) followed by strain II

(601.1) and strain VII (547.9) and all these strains were statistically at par with

each other. The minimum number of fruits (111.3) were obtained from strain XII.

It is evident from the data that fruiting in different strains varied

from year to year. The number of fruit per tree were comparatively less in 1999

and 2001 as compared to 2000 in all the strains. This may be due to higher

number of fruits in one year which could influence the next year fruiting

behaviour. This leading to alternate bearing in these strains. The higher number of

fruits during 2000 may be attributed to the high fruit-set during that year. Similar

type of variation was reported by Singh (1998) who observed higher number of

fruits per tree in 'Hosui' than that of 'Kosui'.

67

4.3.2 Estimated yield per plant

A significant variation in estimated yield was recorded in different

strains of semi-soft pear during three years of study (Table 14). During 1999,

maximum estimated yield per tree (81.09 kg) was recorded in strain II and it was

found to be statistically at par with strain VIII (75.73 kg), strain I (66.90 kg), strain

VII (58.25 kg) and strain IV (58.17 kg). The lowest estimated yield (12.24 kg) was

noted in strain XII.

During 2000, also the maximum estimated yield per tree (158.40 kg)

was found in strain II which was significantly higher than that of all other strains.

The lowest estimated yield (34.15 kg) was recorded in strain XII, while other

strains were at par.

During 2001, the estimated fruit yield per tree was the maximum

(108.65 kg) in strain I followed by strain VII (91.10 kg) which was statistically at

par with each other. However the strain II (72.45 kg), strain X (69.93 kg), strain

VIII (64.04 kg) and strain III (58.21 kg) were found to be at par. The minimum

yield (10.05 kg) was registered in strain XII.

The commulative data of three years (Table 14) showed that the

strain II gave the maximum yield per tree (103.98 kg) which was at par with strain

I (93.48 kg) but higher than that of other strains. The minimum estimated yield

(18.81 kg) was, however, recorded in strain XII. The estimated yield was

comparatively higher in 2000 than 1999 and 2001. This variation might be due to

higher per cent fruit set during year 2000 which contributed higher number of

fruits/tree. On the other hand genetic differences in different strains might be

another possible reason for this variation in estimated yield. Likewise, Singh and

68

Sharma (1973), Gupta and Chohan (1976), Rathore (1982), Farooqui and Happa

(1990), Sandhu et al (1994), Gautam et al (1995), Sharma et al (1997), and Nath

and Rai (2000) reported that different pear cultivars varied in the estimated yield

under different agro-climatic conditions.

4.3.3 Yield Efficiency

Yield efficiency in different strains was found to be significant

during both the years (Table 14). During 2000, the maximum yield efficiency

(0.530 kg cm-2) was recorded in strain II which was at par with strain I (0.437 kg

cm-2) but significantly higher than that of other strains. The minimum yield

efficiency (0.205 kg cm-2) was registered in Strain XII.

However, during 2001, the maximum yield efficiency (0.372 kg

cm-2) was observed in strain I and it was significantly higher than that of other

strains. The minimum yield efficiency (0.047 kg cm-2) was recorded in strain XII

which was significantly lowest than that of all other strains.

The mean yield efficiency (0.405 kg cm-2) was recorded highest in

strain I which was at par with strain II (0.379 kg cm -2) but higher than other

strains. The minimum yield efficiency (0.126 kg cm-2) was observed in strain XII.

The variation in yield efficiency might be due to the differences in the genetic

behaviour of different strains. Gautam et al (1995) observed that pear cultivars like

'Common pear', 'Conference', and 'New pear' were higher and efficient yielder.




The data pertaining to the fruit colour presented in Table 15. It

69

showed that the ground colour of the fruit of different strains varied from

yellowish in strain XIV, XV and XVI to greenish yellow in strain I, II, III, IV, VII,

VIII, IX, X, XI and XII, whereas golden yellow over colour was observed in fruits

of strain III. These results are in conformity with that of Singh and Sharma

(1973), Gupta and Chohan (1976), Mann et al (1978), Rathore (1982), Mann and

Singh (1985), Minhas et al (1988), Singh et al (1988), Sandhu et al (1994), Kumar

(1997) and Sharma et al (1997) who also reported variability in fruit colour at

maturity in different pear varieties.


Data on length of pedicel showed significant variation in different

strains of semi-soft pear during three years (Table 15). During 1999, the maximum

length of pedicel (4.23 cm) was recorded in strain XIV followed by strain VIII

(4.20 cm) and strain IV (4.15 cm). These strains were statistically at par with each

other. The minimum length of pedicel (3.31 cm) was registered in strain XII.

However, during 2000, again strain XIV had shown the maximum

length of pedicel (4.37 cm), whereas it was found to be the minimum (3.22 cm) in

strain XII. The other strains, viz. strain IV (4.31 cm), strain XVI (4.27 cm) and

strain IX (4.26 cm) were next in length of pedicel and were statistically at par with

strain XIV.

During third year of study, length of pedicel was found to be

maximum (4.38 cm) in strain XIV followed by strain I (4.20 cm) and strain IX

(4.04 cm). The medium length of pedicel (3.79 cm) was noted in strain VIII

followed by strain XV (3.94 cm), strain VII (3.95 cm) and strain XVI (3.97 cm).

However, the minimum length of pedicel was observed in strain XII (3.52 cm).

70

The commulative data of three years confirmed that strain XIV had

maximum length of pedicel (4.32 cm) over the other strains, while minimum (3.35

cm) was registered in strain XII. This variation in length of pedicel might be due

to genetic variation of different strains. Similarly Singh et al (1983) observed

maximum stalk length in 'Naga' as compared to 'Tumariya' and 'Gola' pear. Stalk

length ranged from 3.0 to 5.3 cm in 'Kosui' and 'Ya Li', respectively (Singh 1998).

4.4.1.3 Fruit size

4.4.1.3.1 Fruit length

A significant variation in fruit length was recorded in different

strains of semi-soft pears during three years of study (Table 16). The maximum

fruit length (8.12 cm) was observed in strain XVI during the year 1999 and it was

statistically at par with strain XV (8.07 cm) and strain XII (8.02 cm) but differed

significantly from other strains. The minimum fruit length (7.07 cm) was recorded

in strain I.

In 2000, the maximum fruit length (7.63 cm) was observed in strain

XI which was found to be statistically at par with strain XVI (7.59 cm), strain X

(7.41 cm), strain XV (7.33 cm), strain III (7.31 cm) and strain IV (7.28 cm).

However, the minimum fruit length was recorded in strain XII (5.62 cm) and it

differed significantly from other strains. The medium fruit length was observed in

strain VIII (6.85 cm), strain I (6.68 cm) and strain II (6.58 cm) and these strains

were statistically at par.

However, during 2001, the maximum (8.00 cm) and the minimum

(7.25 cm) fruit length was recorded in strain XV and strain XII, respectively. The

71

fruit length of strain XIV (7.94 cm) and strain XVI (7.90 cm) was found to be at

par with strain XV and differed significantly from other strains.

The average fruit length was the maximum (7.87 cm) in strain XVI

followed by strain XV (7.80 cm) which was at par with each other but differed

significantly from other strains. The minimum average fruit length (6.91 cm) was

recorded in strain VII and it was found to be at par with strain XII (6.97 cm), strain

II (7.03 cm) and strain I (7.05 cm). The variability in fruit length might be due to

genetic variation in these strains. These results are in line with those of Griggs and

Iwakiri (1956), Mukherjee and Rana (1966), Singh et al (1983), Grewal et al

(1988), Farooqui and Happa (1990), Sandhu et al (1994), Sharma et al (1997)

and Nath and Rai (2000), who also reported variability in fruit length in different

pear cultivars.

4.4.1.3.2 Fruits breadth

The data on fruit breadth had shown significant variation in different

strains during three years (Table 16). During 1999, the maximum fruit breadth

(6.63 cm) was recorded in strain XV. The fruit breadth of strain XVI (6.53 cm),

strain XII (6.49 cm), strain IV (6.43 cm), strain IX (6.39 cm) and strain III (6.33

cm) was found to be at par with strain XV. The minimum fruit breadth (6.09 cm)

was observed in strain VIII followed by strain II (6.12 cm) and strain I ( 6.15 cm),

which were statistically at par with each other.

However, during 2000, strain XI had shown the maximum fruit

breadth (6.46 cm) followed by strain XVI (6.43 cm) and strain X (6.41 cm), which

was statistically at par with each other but differed significantly from all other

72

strains under study. The minimum fruit breadth (5.26 cm) was found in strain XII

and it was at par with strain VII (5.46 cm).

Fruit breadth was the maximum (6.71 cm) in strain XIV during third

year, whereas it was found to be the minimum (5.95 cm) in strain VII. The fruit

breadth of strain XV (6.65 cm), strain XVI (6.54 cm), strain III (6.56 cm) and

strain X (6.52 cm) was recorded to be at par with strain XIV. However, the

medium fruit breadth was registered in strain I (6.14 cm), strain XI (6.13 cm)

strain XII (6.12 cm) and strain II (6.11 cm). Fruit breadth of these strains was

found to be at par with each other.

It is concluded from the average data of three years that strain XV

and strain XVI had maximum fruit breadth (6.50 cm), which was at par with strain

X (6.40 cm) and strain III (6.36 cm). The minimum fruit breadth (5.89 cm) was

observed in strain VII. The differences in fruit breadth in different strains might

be due to genetic variability exists in these strains. The variability in fruit breadth

in different pear cultivars was also reported by Gupta and Chohan (1976) who

observed that the average fruit breadth of 'Smith' was more (6.53 cm) as compared

to 'Patharnakh' (6.44 cm) and 'LeConte' (5.81 cm). However, the fruit breadth

ranged from 6.84 cm in 'Flemish Beauty' to 4.24 cm in 'Manning Elizabeth' as

reported by Rathore (1982). Similarly, Minhas et al (1988) reported that fruit

breadth varied from 5.4 cm to 6.7 cm in 'Baggugosha' cultivars. Sandhu et al

(1994) also reported that fruits of 'Red Blush' were slightly bigger (6.1 cm) than

those of 'Punjab Gold' (6.0 cm) and 'Punjab Nectar' (6.0 cm).

73


It is clear from the data presented in Table 16 that during 1999, the

maximum fruit weight (174.8 g) was recorded in strain XVI, which was

statistically at par with strain XV (171.2g) but significantly more than other

strains. The minimum fruit weight (124.5 g), however, was observed in strain XI.

The variation in fruit weight (Table 16) in different strains was

found to be significant during 2000. The maximum fruit weight (166.1 g) was

recorded in strain XVI which was statistically at par with strain X (164.7 g), strain

XI (158.7 g) and strain XV (153.3 g). The lowest fruit weight (99.6 g) was

recorded in strain XII.

During third year, (Table 16) fruit weight was found to be the

maximum (185.1 g) in strain XIV followed by strain XV (183.5 g), strain III

(177.9 g) and strain X (170.3 g). These strains were at par with each other in fruit

weight. The least fruit weight (138.5 g) was registered in strain VII.

The commulative mean data of fruit weight (Table 16) confirmed the

maximum (170.1 g) and the minimum (125.5 g) fruit weight in strain XVI and

strain VII, respectively. The variable fruit weight in different pear cultivars and

clones have been reported by many workers (Griggs and Iwakiri 1956, Singh and

Sharma 1973, Gupta and Chohan 1976, Rathore 1982, Sharma 1982, Singh et al

1983, Mann and Singh 1985, Sandhu et al 1994, Shibata et al 1994, Sharma et al

1997, Li et al 1999, and Nath and Rai 2000).

74


The data on fruit volume in different strains varied significantly

during 1999 (Table 17). The maximum fruit volume (172.8 cc) was observed in

strain XVI followed by strain XV (169.4 cc), strain IV (158.8 cc) and strain III

(155.4 cc). These strains were found to be statistically at par with each other. The

minimum fruit volume (123.1 cc), however, was recorded in strain XI.

During 2000, the highest fruit volume (165.3 cc) was recorded in

strain XVI, while it was minimum (98.4 cc) in strain XII. The other strains viz.

strain X (162.7 cc), strain XI (157.8 ml) and strain XV (155.6 cc) had next higher

fruit volume and were statistically at par with each other.

During the third year of study, strain XIV was having the maximum

fruit volume (184.6 cc) followed by strain XV (184.4 cc) and strain III (175.6 cc),

which were at par with each other. The minimum fruit volume (144.6 cc) however,

was recorded in strain XII.

It is clear from mean data that fruit volume was found to be the

maximum (169.8 cc) and the minimum (124.0 cc) in strain XV and strain VII ,

respectively. This variation in fruit volume might be due to difference in maturity

period in these strains. These results are in accordance with Srivastava and Misra

(1970) who observed higher fruit volume in 'Beurre Hardy' (231.50 ml) than

'Victoria pear' (190.0 ml). In 'Red pear', fruit volume was higher (422.43 ml) as

compared to 'New Century pear' (125.58 ml) (Aswapati and Uthaibuthra 1990).

Similar type of variability in fruit volume in 'Netarhat Local pear' (255.0 cc) and

'Naka pear' (150.0 cc) was observed by Nath and Rai (2000).


75

It is evident from the data (Table 17) that during 1999, the fruit

density was found to vary significantly in different strains. The maximum fruit

density (1.065 g/cc) was registered in strain II, which was statistically at par with

strain XII (1.053 g/cc) but higher than that of other strains. The strain IX, strain

XI, strain XIV and strain XVI were at par in fruit density (1.011 g/cc) and found to

have lowest fruit density as compared with other strains.

During 2000, strain VII had shown maximum fruit density (1.023

g/cc), whereas it was found to be minimum (0.984 g/cc) in strain XV (Table 17).

The other strains viz. strain IV (1.022 g/cc), strain II (1.019 g/cc) and strain X

(1.012 g/cc) exhibited next higher fruit density and it was statistically at par with

strain XV.

However, during 2001, the fruit density was the maximum (1.016

g/cc) and minimum (0.997 g/cc) in strain XII and strain VII, respectively and

difference was found to be significant (Table 17).

On the basis of average on three years maximum fruit density (1.031

g/cc) was recorded in strain II which was at par with strain XII (1.027 g/cc) but

higher than that of other strains under study. The minimum fruit density (0.999

g/cc), however, was observed in strain XV. The variability in fruit density was due

to the differences in fruit weight and volume in different strains. These results are

in line with the findings of Westwood (1962) in apple, pear and peach fruits and

Mann and Singh (1985) in 'Patharnakh' fruits.


The fruit firmness varied significantly in different strains of semi-

soft pear during the three years (Table 18). During 1999, the maximum fruit

76

firmness (6.75 kg/cm2) was recorded in strain III. It was statistically at par with

strain IV (6.65 kg/cm2), strain II (6.64 kg/cm2), strain I (6.54 kg/cm2), strain XII

(6.45 kg/cm2) and strain VII (5.98 kg/cm2). The minimum fruit firmness (5.08

kg/cm2) was registered in strain XVI.

Strain IV had shown highest fruit firmness (5.05 kg/cm2) during the

year 200 and it was followed by strain X (4.89 kg/cm2), strain XII (4.75 kg/cm2),

strain I (4.65 kg/cm2) and strain XI (4.60 kg/cm2). The firmness of these strains

was however, statistically at par with each other. However, the minimum fruit

flesh firmness (4.14 kg/cm2) was registered in strain VII.

The data during 2001, showed maximum fruit flesh firmness (4.93

kg/cm2) in strain IX, whereas it was recorded minimum (3.93 kg/cm2) in strain

XVI. The firmness in strain III (4.85 kg/cm2) strain XII (4.77 kg/cm2), strain VIII

(4.63 kg/cm2), strain I and IV (4.56 kg/cm2), strain II (4.51 kg/cm2) and strain XIV

(5.40 kg/cm2) was statistically at par with strain IX.

From the mean data, it is confirmed that the strain IV and strain XVI

were having maximum (5.42 kg/cm2) and minimum (4.46 kg/cm2) fruit firmness

respectively. However, the fruit firmness in strain III (5.35 kg/cm2), strain XII

(5.32 kg/cm2), strain I (5.25 kg/cm2) and strain II (5.18 kg/cm2) was found to be

statistically at par with strain IV. However, the variation in fruit firmness in

different strains might be due to differences in the stage of fruit maturity at harvest

because the harvesting of all strains was done on the same day. The fruit of early

maturing strains may had become softer resulting in lesser fruit firmness. Similar

type of variability in fruit firmness have also been reported by Griggs et al (1960),

Mann and Singh (1985), Aswapati and Uthaibuthra (1990), Kumar (1997), Singh

77

(1998) and Jiao et al (1999) in different pear cultivars.

4.4.1.8 Juice (%)

A significant variation in juice percentage in different strains was

observed during the three years of study (Table 18). During 1999, the maximum

juice percentage (57.44) was recorded in strain VII, which was closely followed

by strain IX (57.12). The minimum juice percentage (52.39) was registered in

strain XII. However, all strains under study were found to be statistically at par

with each other in juice percentage.

During 2000, highest level of juice percentage (59.65) was recorded

in strain XIV, than strain XV, which had minimum juice percentage (52.31). The

other promising strains viz. strain VII (59.49%), strain XII (59.46%) and strain

VIII (58.40%) gave next higher fruit juice but were statistically at par with strain

XIV.

During year 2001, juice percentage was found to be maximum

(63.02) in strain I followed by strain III (62.40). Both strains were statistically at

par with each other but were having higher juice than that of other strains under

study. The minimum (52.06) juice percentage was registered in strain X.

It is concluded from mean data that juice percentage was the

maximum (58.07) and the minimum (54.28) in strain I and strain XV, respectively.

The difference in fruit juice might be due to differences in the genetic variability

in different strains but differences in fruit firmness at harvest can not be ruled out

to be a cause for variation in juice percentage. Likewise, Srivastava and Misra

(1970) recorded the highest juice percentage in 'Baurre Hardy' (62.66%) as

compared to 'Doyenne-du-Comice' (29.00%). 'Naga' and 'Tumariya' pear cultivars

78

were juicy, whereas lesser juice percentage was recorded in fruits of Gola, as

reported by Singh et al (1983). Similar type of variation was observed by Sandhu

et al (1994) in the juice percentage in some pear cultivars, where the higher juice

percentage was recorded in 'Punjab Nectar' as compared to 'LeConte'.


4.4.2.1 Total soluble solids

Data presented in Table 19 show significant variation in total soluble

solids content in different stains of semi-soft pear during the three years of study.

During 1999, the highest total soluble solids (14.80%) were recorded in strain XIV

and it was found to be at par with strain II (14.27%) and strain IX (13.92%). The

minimum total soluble solids (12.40%) content were registered in strain XII.

However, during 2000, the maximum total soluble solids (14.43%)

were observed in strain XI followed by strain XVI (14.35 %) and strain IV (13.83

%), which were statistically at par with each other. The lowest level of total

soluble solids content (12.12%) was observed in strain XII. The TSS of strain VIII

(12.75%), strain VII (12.65%) and strain XIV (12.60%) were found to be

statistically at par with strain XII.

The higher total soluble solids (15.07%) were registered in strain

XVI during 2001 and it was followed by strain XV (15.05%), strain IV and strain

VIII (14.35%), and strain XIV (14.25%). The TSS of these strains were

statistically at par with each other. The minimum TSS content (12.45%) were

found to be in strain I and it was pat par with strain VII (12.52%), strain II

(12.75%) and strain III (13.10%).

79

The average data of TSS concluded that maximum total soluble

solids (14.37%) were registered in strain XVI followed by strain XV (14.00%),

which were found to be at par. However, the minimum total soluble solids

(12.67%) were recorded in strain XII. The variation in TSS content among the

different strains might be due to different genetic make up of these strains but the

other factors may be that harvesting of fruits at proper stage of maturity during

2000 and 2001 had showed higher level of TSS content as compared to 1999.

Going by this hypothesis, there was concurrent increase in TSS with the decrease

in fruit firmness. The variability in TSS of different pear cultivars had also been

reported by many workers. Griggs et al (1960) revealed that TSS varied from 9.6

to 11.3 per cent in seedless pear and 10.9 to 12.4 per cent in seeded pears.

'LeConte' had maximum TSS (15.3%) followed by 'Patharnakh' (13.5%) and

'Smith' (12.9%) as observed by Gupta and Chohan (1976). TSS ranged from 15.16

per cent in 'Shinseiki' to 12.23 per cent in 'Manning Elizabeth' (Rathore 1982). In

'Baggugosha' fruits, TSS ranged from 11.2 to 13.0 per cent as reported by Minhas

et al (1988). Sandhu et al (1994) observed maximum TSS in 'Red Blush' (15.1%)

and minimum in 'Baggugosha' (13.0%). Nath and Rai (2000) recorded higher TSS

(16.2%) in 'Nakh pear', whereas the lowest TSS content (12.2%) was found in

'Netarhat Local pear'.

80

4.4.2.2 Acidity

A significant variation in total titratable acids was recorded in

different strains of semi-soft pear during the three years of study (Table 19).

During 1999, the maximum titratable acidity (0.330%) was registered in strain III.

The total acids in fruit juice of strain IV (0.325%), strain II (0.312%), strain XII

(0.307%), strain VII and XI (0.302), strain X (0.300%), strain I (0.285%) and

strain IX (0.282%) were next higher and found to be statistically at par with strain

III. The lowest acids content (0.227%) was observed in strain XIV.

However, during 2000, the acidity was higher (0.189%) in strain IX

and strain X which was statistically at par with strain IV (0.184%), strain XII

(0.177%), strain XI (0.174%) and strain VII (0.172%). The minimum acids

(0.120%) were found in strain II which differed significantly from strain III, strain

IV, strain VIII, strain IX, strain X, strain XI and strain XII but statistically at par

with all other strains.

During 2001, the maximum acids content (0.280%) was recorded in

strain XV has compared to strain I which had minimum acid contents (0.178%).

The acidity in strain VII (0.212%), strain II (0.205%) and strain III (0.203%) were

found to be statistically at par with strain I.

The average data of three years showed that the acids content was

highest (0.256%) in strain IV, whereas, it was found to be lowest (0.201%) in

strain I. It is evident from the data (Table 19) that during 1999, the total aicds in

fruit juice were higher as compared to latter years. The possible reason, might be

the early harvest when fruits were more firm at harvesting during that year as

compared to later ones. Similar variation in acidity has also been reported by

81

Mukherjee and Rana (1966), Singh and Sharma (1973), Rathore (1982), Grewal et

al (1988), Farooqui and Happa (1990), Sandhu et al (1994), Jiao et al (1999) and

Nath and Rai (2000), in different pear cultivars and selections of soft pear under

different agro-climatic conditions.

4.4.2.3 TSS/Acid ratio

The data presented in Table 19 reveal that during 1999, the

maximum TSS : acid ratio (66.11) was observed in strain XIV which was found

to be statistically at par with strain XVI (59.04) but differed significantly from all

other strains. The minimum TSS : acid ratio (40.52) was recorded in strain III.

During 2000, the maximum TSS : acid ratio (112.50) was registered

in strain II and it was at par with strain XVI (103.10), strain XV (101.30) and

strain XIV (100.50) but differed significantly from other strains. However, the

minimum TSS : acid ratio (68.01) was recorded in strain XII followed by strain

IX (72.08), strain VII (73.90), strain X (74.74) and strain IV (75.60). These strains

were statistically at par with each other in TSS : acid ratio.

During 2001, the highest TSS : acid ratio (69.83) was recorded in

strain I, whereas it was found to be the lowest in strain XI (52.95). The TSS :

acidity ratio of strain III (64.65) and strain II (63.69) was statistically at par with

strain I, while all other strains were statistically at par with each other in TSS :

acid ratio.

The average TSS : acid ratio of three years showed that strain II had

shown maximum TSS : acid ratio (74.02) as compared to strain XII which had

minimum TSS : acid ratio (54.41). The variation in TSS : acid ratio in different

strains might be due to variability in TSS and acidity of these strains. Likewise,

82

Minhas et al (1988) observed that TSS : acid ratio ranged from 53.60 to 62.00 in

small to large fruits of 'Baggugosha'. The variation in TSS : acid ratio was also

reported by Sandhu et al (1994), where it was maximum in Red Blush (48.5)

followed by 'Punjab Gold' (47.5) and 'Baggugosha' (46.6). The TSS : acid ratio

was higher during 2000 as compared to 1999 and 2001. The higher TSS and low

acidity during 2000 could be the reason for this.

4.4.2.4 Sugars


The data on total sugars presented in Table 20 showed significant

variation in different strains of semi-soft pear. The maximum total sugars (9.74%)

were recorded in strain VIII, whereas minimum total sugars (7.77%) were

observed in strain XV. The content of total sugars in strain XVI (8.05%), strain

XIV, (8.55%) and strain XII (8.70%) was found to be statistically at par with

strain XV while the other strains were at par with strain VIII.

During 2000, strain VII had significantly more total sugars (10.57%)

in fruit juice than strain XII which was having the minimum total sugars (6.93%).

However, the strain XVI (10.53%), strain X (10.13%), strain IV (9.78%) and

strain XIV (9.71%) recorded the next higher total sugar content which were at par

with strain VII. However, the lower level of total sugars (7.80%) in fruit juice was

estimated in strain VIII and it was found to be at par with strain XII.

During 2001, the highest content of total sugars (8.93%) was

estimated in strain VIII and it was recorded lowest (7.10%) in strain II. The other

strains viz. strain XVI (8.83%), strain IX and X (8.65%), strain XV (8.63%), strain

IV (.8.49%) and strain III (8.39%) recorded a higher level of total sugars in fruit

83

juice, which were statistically at par with strain VIII.

It is concluded from the mean data, that strain X registered the

maximum total sugars (9.42%) followed by strain VII (9.42%), whereas the

minimum (7.88%) in strain XII which differed significantly from other strains.

This variation in total sugars might be due to the phtosynthetic efficiency of

various strains and the rate of diversion of these metabolites from leaf to the sink,

i.e. fruit. Similar results had been reported by Mukherjee and Rana (1966),

Srivastava and Misra (1970), Rathore (1982), Singh et al (1983), Mann and Singh

(1985), Farooqui and Happa (1990), Kumar (1997) and Singh (1998) in different

cultivars of pear.


The data for reducing sugars were found to vary significantly in

different strains of semi-soft pear during the three years of study (Table 20).

During 1999, the maximum reducing sugars (8.87%) were estimated in strain VIII

and the minimum reducing sugars content (6.63%) was observed in strain XVI.

The strain XV and strain XIV, respectively had 6.65 and 7.35 per cent reducing

sugar content in fruit juice which were at par with strain XVI.

During 2000, the maximum reducing sugars (9.71%) were recorded

in strain XVI, which were statistically at par with strain X (9.52%), strain VII

(9.44%) and strain XIV (8.93%). The minimum reducing sugars (5.94%) were

found in strain XII, while it was at par with strain VIII (6.90%) but differed

significantly from other strains.

During 2001, highest reducing sugar content (8.36%) was recorded

in strain VIII, whereas it was lowest in strain I (6.72%). The reducing sugars of

84

strain III (7.91%), strain IV (7.74%), strain X and strain XI (7.72%) and strain IX

(7.70%) were found to be at par with strain VIII but differed significantly from

strain I.

An examination of the mean data reveals that the content of reducing

sugars was fount to be higher (8.63%) in strain X which was at par with strain VII

(8.37%), strain IV (8.23%), strain III and IX (each with 8.19%). However, the

minimum reducing sugars (6.98%) were registered in strain XII which differed

significantly from all other strains. The results are in agreement with those of

Mann et al (1978), Rathore (1982), Singh (1983), Farooqui and Happa (1990),

Kumar (1997) and Nath and Rai (2000) who observed the similar type of variation

in reducing sugars in different pear cultivars.


Significant differences were observed in non-reducing sugars in

different strains under study (Table 20). During 1999, the highest non-reducing

sugars level (1.24%) was observed in strain III, which was statistically at par with

all other strains except strain II, which registered minimum level of non-reducing

sugars (0.76%).

During 2000, the maximum non-reducing sugars (1.39%) were

recorded in strain XI followed by strain IV (1.26%), strain XV (1.15%) and strain

VII (1.12%), which were statistically at par with each other. The minimum non

reducing sugars (0.62%) were registered in strain III and it was differed

significantly from strain XI and strain IV while being at par with all strains under

study.

However, during 2001, the maximum non reducing sugars (1.45%)

85

were registered in strain XVI and it was at par with strain VII (1.16%) but differed

significantly from all other strains. All other strains, registered significantly lower

values of non-reducing sugars except the strain IX (0.89%), strain XV (0.88%)

and strain X (0.87%). The lowest value of non-reducing sugars (0.45%) were

observed in strain III.

On an average, highest non reducing sugars (1.14%) were recorded

in strain XVI and the lowest (0.72%) were registered in strain II. The present

findings in respect of variation in non-reducing sugars are similar to those reported

by some other workers (Rathore 1982, Singh et al 1983, Farooqui and Happa

1990, Kumar 1997 and Singh 1998).

4.5 NUTRIENT CORRELATION STUDY

4.5.1 Correlations of tree volume with nutrient status

The data regarding the volume and nutrient status (macro and micro)

of different strains of semi-soft pear are presented in Table 21 and 22.

The leaf nitrogen (r = 0.656) and phosphorus (r = 0.610) status of

different strains showed a significant positive correlations with tree volume

whereas potassium had shown negative correlation (r = -0.469). However, the tree

volume was positively correlated but non-significantly with calcium (r = 0.385)

and Magnesium (r = 0.123).

It is clear from the Table 21 that nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium

status of leaf ranged between 2.07 to 2.63, 0.135 to 0.195 and 1.10 to 1.44 per

cent, respectively. Similar observations were recorded by Kamboj et al (1987),

who found that mid shoot leaves of 'Patharnakh' registered 2.14, 0.13 and 1.44 per

cent of mean value of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium, respectively. Similarly

86

Arora et al (1992) reported that the concentration of Ca and Mg in leaves varied

from 1.24 to 3.34 and 0.26 to 0.56 per cent, respectively.

Leaf nitrogen level is associated with growth. Hosoi et al (1963)

found that leaf nitrogen level as associated with optimum growth and fruiting,

varied between 2.0 to 2.20 per cent of dry matter in pear. Raese and Staiff (1988)

reported that high rate of N fertilizers resulted in greater tree vigour in 'Golden

Delicious' apple and 'Anjou pear'. On the contrary, Ystass (1990) observed the

increase in N had no effect on trunk cross sectional area.

Further more, the correlation were also worked out between tree

volume and micro-nutrients of leaf. The data in Table 22 indicates that there was

positive and significant correlation between tree volume and manganese (r = 0.

429) and copper (r = 0.576). On the contrary, iron and zinc status of leaf exhibited

negative correlation with tree volume. However, the leaf Mn, Fe, Zn and Cu

status varied from 112 to 135 ppm, 148-209 ppm, 24 to 39 ppm and 9 to 18 ppm,

respectively in different strains of semi-soft pear. Similar observations regarding

the range of micro nutrients were also reported by Arora et al (1992) who

observed that the concentration of Zn, Cu, Fe and Mn in leaves ranged from 4.3 to

30.9, 2.6 to 17.9, 103 to 499 and 26 to 211 ppm, respectively in pear orchard in

Punjab.

4.5.2 Correlation of yield with nutrient status

The data pertaining yield and nutrient status (macro and micro) of

leaf of different strains of semi soft pear are tabulated in Tables 23 and 24.

Data presented in Table 23 showed that the yield was positively

correlated with both nitrogen (r = 0.858), phosphorus ( r = 0.853) and calcium

87

(r = 0.475). These correlations, however, were significant. On the contrary,

potassium showed a negative correlation (r = -0.311) with yield. On the other

hand, magnesium status of leaf had positive but non-significant (r = 0.235)

correlation with yield.

The range of N (2.07-2.63%), P (0.135-0.115%) and K (1.10-1.44%)

nutrients in the present study are similar to those as reported by Kamboj et al

(1987) in leaves of Patharnakh pear. The concentration of Ca (1.42-2.42%) and

Mg (0.34-0.36%) are in line with the findings of Arora et al (1992) who reported

that these nutrient in leaves varied from 1.2 4 to 3.34 and 0 .26 to 0. 56 per cent,

respectively.

The significant and positive correlation of nitrogen and yield in

present study was supported by Raese and Staiff (1988), who reported that high

rate of nitrogen fertilizer resulted higher yield of 'Golden Delicious' apple and

'Anjou pear'. Similarly in 'Bartlett pear' Proebsting (1934) reported that the

increase in leaf nitrogen was associated with increased yield. In apple cultivar

Jonathan, Jovanovic and Dzamic (1977) observed a positive correlation between

leaf nitrogen content and yield and a negative correlation between potassium,

content and yield. Seth (1997) reported that phosphorus content of leaf showed a

positive correlation with fruit yield in 'Patharnakh' pear. Potassium fertilizer had

no effect on the yield of 'Bartlett' pear and yield in one of the orchards was

reduced from potassium fertilizers (Fisher et al 1959).

It is clearly showed from the Table 23 that leaf status of manganese

(r = 0.535) and copper (r = 0.799) had positive and significant correlation with

yield. On the other hand, Fe and Zn showed negative correlation with yield. Leaf

88

manganese was directly related to fruit yield and size as observed by Jovanoic

(1972), who reported that manganese applications increased fruit size and yield of

Golden Delicious apple. However the leaf Mn, Fe, Zn and Cu status ranged from

110 to 134 ppm, 153.1 to 207.8 ppm, 23.65 to 49.37 ppm and 7.87 to 15.67 ppm

respectively in different strain. In apple cultivar 'Starking Delicious', Kainth and

Awasthi (1994) reported that leaf Mn and Cu content showed positive but non-

significant correlation with fruit yield during 1990, whereas Zn content showed a

negative but non-significant correlation with fruit yield during 1991. These results

supported the present findings.

4.5.3 Correlations of total soluble solids with nutrient status

The data of total soluble solids and nutrient status of leaf of different

strains of semi-soft pear are presented in Table 23&24. There was a significant

positive correlation between total soluble solids and leaf potassium (r = 0.550).

Nitrogen, and magnesium also showed a positive but non-significant correlation

but these correlations were non-significant. On the contrary, phosphorus and

calcium showed a negative but non-significant correlation with total soluble

solids.

The concentration of macro nutrient viz. N, P, K ranged from 2.01-

2.58, 0.124 to 0.187 and 1.04 to 1.40 per cent in leaf in semi-soft pear strains of

present study are in line with Kamboj et al (1987) who found that mid shoot

leaves of 'Patharnakh' registered 2.14, 0.13 and 1.44 per cent of mean value of

nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium, respectively. Similarly concentration of Ca

(2.0 3 %) and Mg (0.36%) corroborated in findings of Arora et al (1992) in leaves

of pear.

89

Hewitt (1967) found no correlation between leaf nitrogen and total

soluble solids over a range of 1.4 to 2.8 per cent leaf nitrogen. Shah (1978)

reported that P content in leaf had non-significant correlation with total soluble

solids in pear fruit. The previous studies supported the findings of present study.

The data in Table 24 indicates the mean, values of total soluble solids and micro-

nutrients status of leaf. It is clear from table that leaf Fe, Zn and Cu content

showed a positive correlation with total soluble solids but the correlation however,

were non-significant. On the contrary, Mn showed a negative non-significant

correlation with total soluble solids. In a survey of Patharnakh orchard Shah

(1978) reported that Cu and Mn had no significant correlation with total soluble

solids, while Fe showed a positive correlation with TSS in 'Patharnakh' fruits.

Chapter - V

SUMMARY

90

The present investigations on the vegetative and fruiting behaviour

of semi-soft pear strains in relation to nutrient status were undertaken at the New

Orchard, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, during the years 1999, 2000

and 2001. The salient features of the findings are summarized below :

The maximum tree height (7.31 m), spread (3.79 m) and volume (56.64 m3)

was recorded in strain II, whereas the minimum height (5.94 m), spread

(1.84 m) and volume (12.88 m3) was observed in strain XII.

The significant differences for trunk girth was noted in different strains,

with the maximum in strain VIII (65.06 cm) and the minimum in strain XII

(47.00 cm). The internodal length was 3.13 cm and 2.16 cm in strain X and

strain XVI, respectively.

Sprouting in all the strains started in last week of February during both the

years, whereas leaf emergence started in the first week of March and it was

ended on first weak of April during 2000, whereas last weak of March or

first weak of April during 2000 in all strains. Duration of leaf emergence

ranged from 29 days in strain VIII, XII and XIV to 35 days in strain IV

during 2000. Similarly, it was ranged from 26 days in strain VIII and XII

to 33 days in strain IV.

Off-season leaf fall in all the cultivars started in the first fortnight of

September during 1999, while it started in last fortnight of August during

2000. The end of off-season leaf fall was observed in the last week of

September to Second week of October during both the year.

Off-season leaf emergence started in the last week of September to first

week of October during 1999, while during 2000, it was observed through

91

out September. Duration of off-season leaf emergence ranged from 24 days

in strain XIV and 47 days in strain XII during year 1999. It was

comparatively shorter 2000, i.e. 21 days in strain XI and 42 days in strain

XII.

The leaf of all the strains have dark green upper surface and greenish lower

surface.

The leaf length was the maximum (8.22 cm) in strain XV and the minimum

(6.96 cm) in strain XI. The leaf breadth was the maximum (5.39 cm) in

strain XII and the minimum (4.21 cm) in strain I. However, the leaf area

ranged from 23.74 cm2 in strain I to 34. 22 cm2 in strain XII.

The strain II started blooming on 2-3 March and 4-5 March during 2000

and 2001, respectively and it continued upto 7-8 March in strain X during

2000 and 5-9 March in strain XII during 2001. The end of flowering was

first observed on strain VIII (17-20 Mar) during 2000 and strain XIV (13-

14 Mar) during 2001 and it was the last (22 Mar) of all, in strain I during

2000 and strain VII (15-17 Mar) during 2001.

The total duration of flowering varied from 15 days in strain X to 19 days

in strain II during 2000 while it was 9 days in strain XIV to 12 days in

strain VII and XII. The off-season flowering was noticed in last week of

September to the first week of October during both the years. The end of

off-season flowering varied among the different strains as it occured in

November and December during both the years. The duration of off-season

flowering ranged from 27 days in strain XII to 77 days in strain II and IV,

whereas it ranged from 40 days in strain XII to 79 days in strain VII.

92

Under self-pollination conditions, the maximum fruit set (1.40%) was

recorded in strain I and minimum (0.05%) in strain XV. However, in the

open pollination, the maximum fruit set (10.67%) folowed by strain VII

(9.97%), was observed in strain I whereas it was the minimum (4.28%) in

strain XII.

The highest number of flowers per meter (117.10) were recorded in strain

VII, while it was the lowest (51.62) in strain XIV. Strain VII produced the

maximum number of fruits per meter (11.62), whereas it was the minimum

(4.37) in strain XII.

The per cent fruit drop during 1999, was the maximum (99.97) in strain XI,

whereas the minimum (61.63) in strain I. Similarly during 2000, the highest

per cent fruit drop (93.72) was recorded in strain XVI and lowest (57.38) in

strain VII. In year 2001, the maximum drop (93.21) was observed in strain

XII as compared to strain I (31.09%).

Strain I produced the maximum number of fruits per tree (607.9) whereas

the minimum (111.3) in strain XII. The highest fruits yield per plant

(103.98 kg) was recorded in strain II, while it was the lowest (18.81 kg) in

strain XII. Highest yield efficiency (0.405 kg/cm2) was recorded in strain I

as compared to strain XII (0.126 kg/cm2).

The pedicel length was the longest (4.32 cm) in strain XIV, while it was

found to be the shortest (3.35 cm) in strain XII.

Strain XVI had the maximum fruit length (7.87 cm) and breadth (6.50 cm).

However, the minimum fruit length (6.91 cm) and breadth (5.89 cm) were

noticed in strain VII. The average fruit weight ranged from 125.0 to 170.1g

93

in strain VII and strain XVI, respectively.

Maximum fruit volume (169.8 cc) was recorded in strain XV, closely

followed by strain XVI (169.2), whereas it was the minimum (124.0 cc) in

strain VII. The fruit density ranged from 0.999 cc in strain XV to 1.031 cc

in strain II.

Fruit firmness ranged from 4.46 kg/cm2 (strain XVI) to 5.42 kg/cm2 (strain

IV). The fruit juice percentage varied from 54.28 per cent in strain XV to

58.07 per cent in strain I.

The highest TSS (14.37%) was found in strain XVI and the lowest

(12.67%) in strain XII.

Acidity ranged from 0.201 per cent in strain I to 0.256 per cent in strain IV.

However, the maximum TSS : acid ratio (74.02) was recorded in strain II

and the minimum (54.41) in strain XII.

Total sugars were found to be maximum (9.43%) in strain X and the

minimum (7.88%) in strain XII. The highest reducing sugars (8.63 %) were

recorded in strain X, whereas the minimum (6.98%) in strain XII. Non-

reducing sugar ranged from 0.72 per cent in strain II to 1.14 per cent in

strain XI.

The status o N, P, K, Ca and Mg in the leaf during 2000 ranged from 2.07

to 2.63, 0.135 to 0.199, 1.10 to 1.44, 1.45 to 2.46 and 0.34 to 0.54 per

cent, respectively in different strain of semi soft pear, while micro nutrients

viz. Mn, Fe, Zn and Cu ranged from 112 to 135 ppm, 148 to 215 ppm, 24

to 50 ppm and 9 to 18 ppm respectively. The nitrogen, phosphorus,

maganese and copper showed a positive and significant correlation with

94

tree volume. There was also showed positive correlation of tree volume

with calcium and magnesium but the correlations however, were non-

significant. On the contrary, leaf K, Fe and Zn status had negative

correlation with tree volume.

During the years 1999 and 2000, the mean value of N, P, K, Ca and was

recorded 2.32, 0.157, 1.19, 2.03 and 0.36 per cent, respectively in different

strains semi-soft pear. Leaf N, P, Ca Mn and Cu showed a significant

positive correlation with fruit yield. However Mg also showed positive

correlation but non-significant. On contrary, K, Fe and Zn were found

negatively correlated with fruit yield. The correlations of TSS with leaf

nutrients were found to be non-significant except K which showed positive

and significant correlation with TSS.

In conclusion, amongst the performance of various semi-soft pear strains

in term of important vegetative, fruiting, yield and fruit quality characters, strain I, II, VII

and VIII were found to be the promising strains under agro-climatic conditions of the

Punjab state.

REFERENCES

95

An SK and An SK (1997) The pear variety 'Pitaiguo'. J Fruit Sci 14 : 110-111 (Original not seen. Abstr in CAB Abstracts, CD-ROM, AN 981608476, 1997).

Anonymous (1969) Wealth of Indian Series. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, New Delhi.

Anonymous (2000) Area and production of fruits in Punjab. Directorate of Horticulture, Punjab, Chandigarh.

AOAC (1980) Official methods of Analysis. Association of official Analytical chemists, AOAC, Benjaminn, Franklin Station, 12th Edition, Washington, DC.

Arora CL, Brar MS, and Dhatt AS (1992) Secondary and micronutrient status of pear orchards in Punjab. Indian J Hort 49(2) : 150-154.

Aswapati OW and Uthaibuthra J (1990) Fruit quality of Asian pears in the high land of Northern Thailand. Acta Hort 279 : 493-500.

Aulakh, PS, Dhaliwal GS and Jawanda JS (1981) Investigation on floral biology in sub tropical pear I. Studies on flower bud development, flowering, anthesis and flower density in pear. Punjab Hort J 21 : 175-181.

Bell R L and Hough L F (1986) Interspecific and intergeneric hybridization of Pyrus. HortScience 21 : 62-64.

Bradfield EG and Spencer D (1965) Leaf analysis as a guide to the nutrition of fruit crops. Determination of Mg, Zn, Cu, by Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy. J Sci Fd Agri 16 : 13-38.

Brozik S and Nyeki J (1971) Flowering-phenological and fertilization relationship in the more important pear varieties grown in Hungary. Szolo-es Gyumolcstermesztes 6 : 43-73. (Original not seen. Abstr in Hort Abstracts, 42 : Entry No.5535, 1972).

Carrera M (1989) Performance of Autumn and winter pear varieties in the Middle Ebro Basin. Acta Hort 256 : 35-41.

Chandler WH and Heinicke AJ (1925) Some aspects of pruning on the growth of grape vines. Proc Am Soc Hort Sci 22 : 74-80.

Chapman HD and Pratt PF (1961) Methods of analysis for soils, plants and water. Uni Cali Div Agri Sci, Barkley.

96

Cheema S and Dhillon WS (1991) Punjab-di-Shan, 'Nashpati', Changi Kheti, January, pp 20-23.

Cheng CunGang, Cong PeiHua, Wei-Chengcun, Cheng-CG, Cong PH and Wei CC (1999) The characteristics and cultural techniques of red skinned pear variety 'Bayvehong'. China Fruit. 3 , 45 (Original not seen. Abstr in CAB Abstracts, CD-ROM, AN 19990312615, 1999).

Cui, BZ, Jin BJ, Jin ZX, Jin ZH, Yu GH, Jiang CK, Cui BZ, Jin BJ, Jin ZX, Jin ZH, Yu-GH, and Jiang CK (1997) A new, promising, hardy pear variety – 'Pingboxiang'. China Fruit 2 : 12-13. (Original not seen, Abstr in CAB abstracts, CD-ROM, AN 971609853, 1997).

Daniell JW, Lane RP, Chandler WA and Krewar G (1982) 'Spalding' Pear. HortScience 17(4) : 685-686.

Dhaliwal GS, Aulakh PS and Jawanda JS (1982) Investigations on floral biology in pear (Pyrus commronis L.) II. Studies on pollen germination and pollination in relation to fruit set. Punjab Hort J 22 (3-4) : 164-168.

Dibuz E (1996) The type of sequence of blooming in the inflorescence of pear varieties. HortScience 28 : 45-47.

Durdevic B and Soskic M (1968) A contribution to the study of flowering in pear varieties of Pec. Jugoslov Vacarstvo 2 : 13-21 (Original not seen. Abstr in Hort Abstracts, 39, Entry No. 2173, 1969).

Ensminger AH (1983) Food and Nutrition Encyclopedia volume I, pp 885-889 .

FAO (1999) Production year book of FAO, Rome, Italy, 52 : 158.

Farooqui KD and Happa RK (1990). Evaluation of pear cultivars (Pyrus communis Linn) in Kashmir. Prog Hort 20 (3-4) : 263-268.

Fisher EG, Parker KG, Luepschen NS and Kwong SS (1959) The influence of P, K, mulch and soil drainage on fruit size, yield, and firmness of 'Bartlett' pear and on development of fire blight diseases. Proc Amer Soc Hort Sci 73 : 78-90.

Gautam DR, Jindal KK and Negi RS (1995). Pear cultivation in Himachal Pradesh - Past and Present. Haryana J Hort Sci 24 (3-4) : 234-239.

Giankos P (1998) Variety : 'Red princes' : Application no. 95/046. Plant Var J 11(2) : 39-40 (Original not seen. Abstr in CAB Abstracts, CD-ROM, AN

97

981613602, 1998)

Gomez KA and Gomez AA (1986) Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research, 2nd Ed John Willey and Sons

Gondorne-Pinter M, Nyeki J, Szabo Z and Sugar D (1994) Simultaneous flowering of pear varieties and overlap of flowering curves in different variety combination. Acta Hort 367 : 76-86.

Gopalan C, Ramasastri BV and Balasubramanian SC (1987) Nutritive value of Indian Foods. NIN, ICMR, Hydrabad, India, p. 90.

Grewal GPS, Minhas PPS, Singh SN and Sandhu AS (1988) Variation in fruit size and its influence on fruit quality in Sand pear [Pyrus pyrifolia (Burm) Nakai]. Punjab Hort J 28 (1-2) : 47-49.

Griggs WH and Iwakiri BT (1956) A comparison of methods of obtaining growth curves of Bartlett pear. Proc Amer Soc Hort Sci 67 : 91-94.

Griggs WH and Iwakiri BT (1974) California a new fresh market. Calif Agri, December pp 8-9.

Griggs WH and Iwakiri BT (1977) Asian pear in California. Calif Agri, January pp 8-4.

Griggs, WH, Claypool LL and Iwakiri BT (1960) Further comparison of growth, maturity and quality of seedless and seeded Bartlett pear. Proc Amer Soc Hort Sci 76 : 74-84.

Gupta MR and Chohan GS (1976) Performance of pear cultivars at Bahadurgarh. Punjab Hort J 16(1/2) : 115-120.

Gupta MR and Mehrotra NK (1985) Studies on pollination in pear. J Res PAU 22 (3) : 463-466 .

Hewitt A A, Beutel J A and Lilleland O (1967) Nitrogen fertilization for 'Bartlett' pear. Calif Agric 21 (12) : 4-5.

Hong SB, Kinn YH, Oh SD, Kong SJ, Lee DK and Lee JC (1972) The breeding history and characteristics of a new pear variety 'Danbai', Pyrus serotina, Research report of the office of Rural Development, Horticulture 13 : 1-4 (Original not seen. Abstr in Hort Abstracts, 42 : Entry No.555, 1972).

Hosoi H, Endo M and Iwasaki K (1963) Effect of various nitrogen, phosphoric acid and potassium concentrations on growth and yield of 'Nijisseiki' pear under sand culture. J Jap Soc Hort Sci 32 : 271-77.

98

Jain R (1995) Plant bioregulator studies in 'Gola' pear. M.Sc. Thesis, GBPUAT, Pantnagar.

Jiang Jei, Yin JF, and Wang BL (1991) Newhardy pear – 'QiouXiang 7'. China Fruits. 2: 18-19 (Original not seen. Abstr in Hort Abstracts, 63, EN 9040, 1992).

Jiao-Yanying, Zhao-GuiMin, Chen-Jizhong, Jiao-YY, Zhao-GM and Chen JZ (1999) 'Hongnanguo', a new bud sport cultivar of 'Nanguo' pear. China Fruit. 3, 22 (Original not seen. Abstr in CAB Abstracts, CD-ROM, 19991610658, 1999).

Jovanoic M (1972) The effect of B and Mn nutrition on the properties of Golden delicious apple fruits. Zbornik Radova Poljoprivrednog Faculteta 20 (5) : 1-56 (Original not seen. Abstr in Hort Abstracts 44 : 8237, 1974 ).

Jovanovic M and Dzamic R (1977) Correlation and regression analysis of major elements in leaves and yield in apple cv. 'Jonathan'. Jugoslovensko Vacarstvo 10 (39-40) : 437-41 (Original not seen. Abstr in Hort Abstracts 49 : Entry No 2365, 1979).

Kainth NS and Awasthi RP (1994) Correlation and regression analysis between yield and nutrient status of 'Starking Delicious' apple. Indian J Hort 51(3) : 226-28.

Kamboj JS, Dhatt AS and Rehalia AS (1987) Standardization of leaf-sampling technique in sub-tropical pear. Punjab Hort J 27(3-4) : 121-132.

Kan KP, Wei YL, Liu YH, Ling YK, Gao FK, Kan KP, Wei YL, Liu YH, Ling YK and Gao FK (1998) Extra early new pear variety “Ciyuesu”. South China Fruits 27 : 5 (Original not seen. Abstr in CAB Abstracts, CD-ROM, AN 991605849, 1998).

Kang SS, Cho HM, Cho KS, Koh GC , Kim KY, Kang SS, Cho HM, Cho KS, Koh GC, Kim KY (1997) Study on the breeding of self-compatible pear cultivars (Pyrus pyrifolia Nakai). RDA – J Hort Sci 39 : 1, 117-126 (Original not seen. Abstr in CAB Abstracts, CD-ROM, AN 981608476, 1997).

Ketchie DO, Drake S and Fairchild ED (1995) Good fruit grower of Beurre d’ 'Anjou' pear. Good Fruit Grower 46 (9) : 44-47 (Original not seen. Abstr in Hort Abstracts 65, Entry No.8685, 1995).

Kim YS, Kim WC, Hong KH, Kim JB, Lee UJ, Hong SB, Kim JH, Kim YK, Moon JY, Kim KY, Cho MD, Lee DK and Park DM (1985) A new mid-

99

season pear cv 'Whangkeum Bae' with a high soluble solids content and attractive appearance.Research Report, Rural Development Administration, Korea Republic Horticulture 27(1) : 103-106 (Original not seen. Abstr in Hort Abstracts 56 Entry No 3168, 1986)

Kishimoto O, Hongo H, Itani J, Hiruta M, Murata N, Fukamachi and H Tomomatsu A (1998) Varietal difference of fruit productivity in Japanese pears. I. Yearly trends in matured. Bulletin of the College of Agriculture, Utsunomiya University. 17 (1) : 1-11 (Original not seen Abstr in CAB Abstracts, CD-ROM, AN 990300335, 1998).

Koto M, Takeshita S, and Tsumita M (1979) Studies on the diagnosis of the nutrient status of orchards. The chemical composition of leaves and soil and their effect on the quality of Japanese pear fruit. Bulletin of the Kanagawa Horticultural Experiment Station 26 : 13-25 (Original not seen. Abstr. In Hort Abstracts 52 : Entry No.1402, 1982).

Kumar M (1997) Evaluation of some promising sub-tropical soft pear strains. M.Sc. Thesis, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana.

Lal H and Misra SP (1980) Fruiting behaviour and income performance of commercial plum and pear cultivars grown at Sharanpur. Prog Hort 12(3) : 29-36.

Li-XG, Yan ZH, Yang J, Li XG, Yan ZH and Yang J (1999) Zhongli I, a promising early pear variety suitable to be grown in south China. South China fruit 28 : 5, 47-48. (Original not seen. Abstr in CAB Abstracts, CD-ROM, AN 19991613319, 1999).

Mann SS and Singh B (1985) Some aspects of developmental physiology of LeConte pear. Acta Hort 158 : 211-215.

Mann SS, Chand D and Dhillon BS (1978) Physical and biochemical changes in the developing patharnakh pear fruit. Punjab Hort J 18 (1/2) : 87-91.

Mathe A, Gondor J and Nyeki J (1994) Numerical expression of the flowering pear (Pyrus communis). Acta Hort 367 : 121-127.

Minhas PPS, Grewal GPS, Sandhu AS and Singh SN (1988) The variation in fruit size and its effect on fruit quality in pear cv. 'Baggugosha'. Punjab Hort J 28 (3-4) : 164-166.

Mookherjee KK, Tandon GL and Siddapa GS (1963) Some typical fruit products from 'Hard pears'. Ind Fd Pack 17 : 12.14.

100

Mukherjee SK and Rana DS (1966) Studies on floral biology, fruit set, and fruit development in pear grown under subtropical conditions. Punjab Hort J 6 : 149-168.

Mukherjee SK and Shah SC (1962) Pollination problems in delicious fruit trees. Him Hort 2-3 : 149-158.

Nakajima F, Nishyama Y, Kawamura E, Miyashita K, and Takayama E (1985) New Japanese pear cv. 'Hokkan'. Res Bull Hukkaido National Agri Expt Sta No 141 : 43-55 (Original not seen. Abstr in Hort Abstracts, 55 : Entry No. 6698 : 1985).

Nath V and Rai M (2000) Cultivating pear in Netarhat area of Chota Nagpur plateau. Indian Hort, Oct-Dec, pp 25-27.

Nayital RK and Awasthi AP (1982) A note on the mineral composition of leaves of some important apple cultivars. Haryana J Hort Sci 11(1-2) : 68-69.

Peterson RM and Waples JR (1988) 'Gourmet Pear'. HortScience 23 (1) : 33.

Proebsting E L (1934) A fertilizer trial with Bartlett pears. Proc Am Soc Hort Sci 30 : 55-57.

Raese JT and Staif DL (1988) 'Chlorosis' in 'Anjou' pear reduced with foliar sprays. of iron compound. J Pl Nutr 11 (6-11) : 1379-85.

Rana RS Sharma R P and Azad K C (1984) Nutritional status of apple orchards in Himachal Pradesh. Indian J Hort 41(1-4) : 240-50.

Rathore DS (1982) Performance of promising pear cultivars at Shimla. Prog Hort 14(4) : 202-204.

Rathore DS (1991) Pears. In : Mitra S K, Bose T K and Rathore D S (ed) Temperate Fruits pp 123-178. Horticultural and Allied Publishers 27/3, chakraberia Lane, Calcutta, India.

Rusterholz P and Husistein A (1988) The Asian Pear an exclusive fruit from the land of smiles. Schweizerische Zeitzchrift fur Obst-und Weinbau 124 (4) : 94-100 (Original not seen. Abstr in Hort Abstracts 58, Entry No 2685, 1988).

Salwan DB (1985) Behaviour of some pear cultivars on two Pyrus rootstocks. M.Sc. Thesis, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana.

Sanchez E and Silva M (1994) Relationship between yield and leaf mineral content in pear orchard. Acta Hort 367: 309.

101

Sandhu AS, Singh R Mann SS, Dhillon DS, Minhas PPS, Sharma KK and Grewal GPS (1994) New promising pear selections for Punjab. Acta Hort 367 : 39-45.

Seth JN and Kukshal RP (1981) Pollination studies on some commercial varieties of pear grown in the hills of Uttar Pradesh. Prog Hort 13 : 23-25.

Seth R (1997) Early prediction of nutrient status of Patharnakh Plant. M.Sc. Thesis, PAU, Ludhiana.

Shah V L (1978) Nutritional survey of Patharnakh orchard in Amritsar. M.Sc. Thesis, PAU, Ludhiana.

Sharma G, Kumar K, and Sharma L (1997) Promising pear germplasm for mid hills of Himachal Pradesh. The Hort J 10(2): 7-14.

Sharma KK, Brar SS and Rehalia AS (1979) Leaf composition and tree volume of pear cultivars on two rootstocks. Punjab Hort J 19 : 125-129.

Sharma RC, Dhillon DS and Grewal GPS (1988) Prebearing performance of pear on different rootstocks. Pb Hort J 28(1-2) : 44-46.

Sharma SD (1982) Studies on the fruit development in 'China and Gola' pears. Prog Hort 14 (1) : 67-68.

Shen T (1980) Pears in China. Hort Sci 15(1) : 13-17.

Sherman WB, Andrews CP, Lyrene PM and Sharpe RH (1982) 'Florda Home' Pear. HortScience 17(2) : 270.

Shibata K, Hishitani M and Watanabe H (1994) Breeding process and characteristics of 'Meisui' a new Japanese pear cultivar. Bull Kanagawa Hort Exp Stn 44 : 1-3 (Original not seen. Abstr in Hort Abstracts 65, Entry No 10540, 1995).

Simovski K and Spriovska R (1968) A contribution of flowering in some pear varieties at Skopje. An Fac Agric Sylvic Agri 21 : 131-136 (Original not seen. Abstr in Hort Abstract 40 Entry No. 5703, 1970).

Singh AK (1999) Studies on pollination and fruit set in relation to yield and quality of pear cv. 'LeConte'. Ph.D. dissertation, PAU, Ludhiana.

Singh R, Srivastava RP, Verma VK and Phoghat KPS (1983) A note on physico-chemical characteristies of some pear cultivars grown in the Nainital area of Kumaon hills. Punjab Hort J 23 : 193-196.

102

Singh RN and Sharma HC (1973) Top pear varieties can be grown in the plains. Indian Hort, January-March : 3-5, 10.

Singh S (1998) Performance of Asian pears [Pyrus pyrifolia (Burm) Nakai] in Punjab. M.Sc. Thesis, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana.

Srivastava RP and Misra RS (1970) Studies on some commercial varieties of pears grown in the hills of Uttar Pradesh. Prog Hort 2 : 61-66.

Walsh C S and Hogmire H (1993) Asian pear varieties and rootstocks. Pensylvania Fruit News 73 (4) : 78-81 (Original not seen. Abstr in Hort Abstract 65 Entry No. 7744, 1995).

Watanabe Y, Yamamoto M, Hiyama H, Iijima K, Karashima N, Adachi M and Hoshino M (1984) Studies on the ecological characteristics of fruit tree cultivars in Ibaraki (1) Pear cultivars. Bull Ibaraki Ken Hort Exp Stn No.19 : 95-112 (Original not seen. Abstr in Hort Abstracts 56, Entry No.5888, 1986).

Wei WD (1994) A new early and high cropping pear variety 'Bayuesu'. J Fruit Sci 11 (4) : 258-260.

Westwood MN (1962) Seasonal changes in specific gravity and shape of apple, pear and peach fruits. Proc Amer Soc Hort Sci 80: 90-96.

Westwood, MN (1978) Temperate Zone Pomology. W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco. pp 248.

Wilson, RR (1938) Horticultural colour charts. Wilson Colours Ltd in collaboration with the Royal Horticultural Society and British Council.

Winkler AJ (1930) The relation of number of leaves to size and quality of table grapes. Proc Am Soc Hort Sci 27 : 158-160.

Workum MV (1987) Nashi flowering sequences. Newzealand fruit and produce journal, April-May, 28-30. (Original not seen. Abstr in Hort Abstracts 57 : Entry No.7573, 1987)

Yin-YongSheng, Xu-Zengkai, Song-Fuzheng, Li-Ruizhi, Wang Quingsheng, Yin-YS, Xu-ZK, Song-FZ, Li-RZ, Wang-QS (1999) Luli No.1, a new bud sport from 'Bartlett' pear. China-Fruit 3, 23. (Original not seen Abstr in CAB Abstracts, CD-ROM, AN 19991610657, 1999).

Ystaas J (1990) Pear nutrition. A. Effect of different nitrogen supply via roots or leaves on yield fruit size and fruit quality Moltke pear. Acta Agriculturae

103

Scandinavica 40(4) : 357-62 (Original not seen Abstr in Hort Abstracts 61, Entry No. 1802, 1991).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I feel an immense pleasure in expressing sincere gratitude and indebtedness to my esteemed major advisor, Dr. S N Singh Sr Horitculturist Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana for the constant supervision, profound interest, vivid suggestions, liberal attitude and critical appraisal throughout the course of this investigations which resulted in successful completion of this work.

104

Words are compendious to express my deep sense of gratitude to Dr. Wasakha Singh Dhillon Horticulturist, Department of Horticulture, for ever-willing guidance, mature suggestions, constructive criticism and incessant encouragement during the period of my study and research.

I am extremely grateful to the members of advisory committee, Dr. A.S. Dhatt, Professor, Department of Horticulture, Dr. (Mrs.) Savita Khattra, Associate Professor, Department of Botany and Dr. P.S. Brar, Assistant Horticulturist, Department of Horticulture for their meticulous suggestions and critical evaluation of this manuscript.

Amongst many teachers, I particularly remember with great affection Dr. A.S. Bindra, Dr. J.S. Kanwar, Dr. G.S. Dhaliwal, Dr. G.S. Bajwa, Dr. Y. R. Chanana, Dr. K.K. Sharma and Dr. W.S. Dhillon, who taught me things that are very precious in may academic career.

I am highly thankful to Dr. L.S. Brar, Senior Agronomist, Department of Agronomy, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana for providing necessary facilities to complete this research work.

I wish to record my cordial thanks to Dr. Sukhwinder Singh, Assistant Agronomist (ZRS-Ballowal Saunkhry) and Mr. Kamal Vatta, Research Officer (AERC) for their unending and whole hearted help during course of study.

No words can suffice my feelings of gratitude and regards to my revered parents and other family members whose blessing, motivation, supreme sacrifice and understanding were the constant source of inspiration during the entire period of my study.

My special and sincere thanks are due to my loving friends and well wishers whose help, moral support, encouragement and cheerful company was the source of inspiration during my study, making it a golden period for me.

I feel proud to be a part of this institution where I learnt a lot and spent some unforgettable moments of life.

All may not be mentioned but none is forgotten.

Department of Horticulture (Tajinder Singh)Punjab Agricultural University Ludhiana- 141 004

Jan, 2002

105

rand haw a

Documents