Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T09:01:37.374Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Alar on Growth, Flowering and Yield of Okra

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

W. Godfrey-Sam-Aggrey  and
Alex S. Ndoleh
W. Godfrey-Sam-Aggrey
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Njala University College, University of Sierra Leone, Njala, Sierra Leone
Alex S. Ndoleh
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Njala University College, University of Sierra Leone, Njala, Sierra Leone
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Effects of Alar on growth, flowering and yield parameters of standard-planted and closely-planted late-bearing okra were studied. Lower concentrations of Alar, applied once 6 weeks after sowing on standard-planted okra, significantly advanced days to first flowering and depressed height at first flowering and final height. Higher Alar concentrations, particularly 2000 ppm applied twice after 3 and 6 weeks on closely-planted okra, produced more, longer and heavier pods, and therefore higher total pod yield in unstopped than in stopped okra, in addition to advancing days to first flowering and depressing height at first flowering and final height. The agronomic practice of stopping okra at 6 weeks reduced pod number, pod weight/plant and total pod yield/ha in unsprayed plants.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , April 1978 , pp. 121 - 128
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Barden, J. A. (1965). Proc. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 93, 33 and 78.Google Scholar
Batjer, L. P., Williams, M. W. & Martin, G. C. (1964). Proc. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 85, 11.Google Scholar
Brittain, J. A. (1967). Ph.D. Diss. Virginia Polytechnic Institute.Google Scholar
Byers, R. E. (1968). M.S. Thesis Purdue Univ. Lafayette, Ind.Google Scholar
Calvert, A. (1959). J. Hort. Sci. 34, 154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennis, D. T., Upper, C. D. & West, C. A. (1965). Plant Physiol. 40, 948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennis, F. G. Jr (1968). Proc. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 93, 53.Google Scholar
Edgerton, L. J. & Hoffman, M. B. (1965). Proc. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 86, 28.Google Scholar
Greenhalgh, W. J. & Edgerton, L. J. (1967). Proc. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 91, 9.Google Scholar
Jackson, D. I. & Coombe, B. G. (1966). Science 154, 277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odell, R. T., Dijkerman, J. C, Van Vuure, W., Melsted, S. W., Beaver, A. H., Sutton, P. M., Kurtz, L. T. & Miedema, R. (1974). Bull. 748, Agric. Exp. Sta. Coll. Agric. Univ. I., Urbana; Bull. 4 Njala Univ. Coll. Sierra Leone.Google Scholar
Paleg, L. G., Kendeh, N. H. & Lang, A. (1965). Plant Physiol. 40, 165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Read, P. E. (1967). Ph.D. Diss. Univ. Delaware, Newark, Del.Google Scholar
Tukey, L. D. & Fleming, H. K. (1968). Proc. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 93, 300.Google Scholar
Ystaas, J. (1971). Nord. Jordyrforskn 52, 115.Google Scholar