Journal
Journal of Applied Horticulture, 14(2): 152-156, 2012
Appl
Enhancing water relations and vase life of cut tulip (Tulipa
gesneriana L.) using floral preservatives
R. Kumar*, N. Ahmed, D.B. Singh and O.C. Sharma
Laboratory of Post Harvest Technology, Central Institute of Temperate Horticulture, Srinagar-190 007,
Jammu and Kashmir, India. *E-mail: rameshflori@gmail.com
Abstract
The influence of different floral preservatives were assessed to determine their effect on the water relations and vase life of cut tulip cv.
Yellow Purissima. Uniform size scapes of tulip at bud colour break stage were kept in ten different treatments of floral preservatives
comprised of sucrose-(2, 4 and 6%), aluminium sulphate (100, 200 and 300 ppm) and 8-HQS (100, 200 and 300 ppm) along with control
(distilled water). All the preservatives improved water relations and vase life of cut tulip significantly in comparison to control. The
greatest cumulative water balance and maximum vase life were recorded in 8-HQS 300 ppm (10.5 g/scape and 10.1 days) followed by
aluminium sulphate 300 ppm (9.67 g/scape and 8.9 days) over control (2.53 g/scape and 5.4 days), respectively. Maximum fresh weight
change (10th day) was recorded in 8-HQS 300 ppm (105.13%) followed by aluminium sulphate 300 ppm (103.75%) in comparison to
control (89.91%). The floral preservatives delayed the senescence of cut tulip by improving water uptake and post harvest physiology,
thereby maintained better water balance leading to improved fresh weight and vase life.
Key words: Floral preservatives, sucrose, aluminium sulphate, 8-HQS, Tulipa gesneriana, water relations, vase life
Tulip (Tulipa gesneriana L.) is an important bulbous flowering
crop owing to its wide range of cultivars having attractive colours
and exquisite shapes. It occupies 4th position among the top ten
cut flowers in global floriculture trade (Jhon and Neelofar, 2006).
In India, tulips are grown successfully in temperate regions of
Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh and Uttrakhand. Like
other spring flowering bulbs, tulips are characterized by a short
vase life by tepal senescence i.e. change in colour followed by
dehydraton and tepal abscission (Iwaya-Inoue and Tikata, 2001).
The vase life and post harvest quality of cut tulip is an important
phenomenon of physiological process which depends upon
water uptake, transpirational loss of water and water balance.
Unlike fruits and vegetables, cut flowers are comprised of many
morphological units like- sepal, petal, androcium, gynocium, stem
and often leaves. The relationship among these parts determines
the water balance and ultimately quality of cut flowers (Khan et
al., 2007).
The floral preservatives are mainly composed of sugars, biocides
and acidifiers. Usually loss of turgor due to depletion of water
results in deterioration of quality and vase life of cut flowers.
Floral preservatives have been reported to maintain turgor,
water balance and thus prolong the cut flower life. These floral
preservatives reduce microbial growth, prevent vascular blockage
and improve water balance to keep the flower fresh for longer
duration (Patil, 2009). When cut flower is detached from the
plant, the continuity of water to flower is disrupted. Hence, water
relations play an important role in postharvest physiology of cut
flowers (Bhaskar et al., 1999). Exogenous supply of sucrose
balanced the depletion of carbohydrate and improved the vase
life and quality of many cut flowers (Van Doorn, 2004). Chua
(1971) suggested that 8-hydroxy quinoline sulphate (8-HQS) has
cytokinin like activity in retarding senescence in cut flowers. HQS
has also been reported to inhibit ethylene production (Wilkins,
1973). Aluminium sulphate overcome the water stress through
its effect as germicides (Mukhophadhyay, 1982) and thereby
encouraging continuous water transport through the cut stem.
Hence, the present attempt was made to study the role of sucrose,
aluminimum sulphate and 8-HQS in maintaining water relations
for improving the keeping quality of cut tulips.
Materials and methods
Complementary Copy
Introduction
Tulip cv. Yellow Purissima was grown during 2009-2011 in
the experimental farm of CITH, Srinagar using recommended
growing practices. Tulip scapes were harvested at bud colour
break stage in the morning during third week of March. The
flowers were precooled at 5°C for about one hour to remove field
heat. Then scapes were sorted to uniform length of 25 cm and
lower leaves removed to prevent them touching the preservative
solution. After recording initial weight, scapes were placed in
conical flask (250 mL) containing vase solution of different floral
preservatives. Ten different treatments of floral preservatives were
as follows: T1 (sucrose 2 %), T2 (sucrose 4 %), T3 (sucrose 6 %),
T4 (aluminium sulphate 100 ppm), T5 (aluminium sulphate 200
ppm), T6 (aluminium sulphate 300 ppm), T7 (8-HQS 100 ppm),
T8 (8-HQS 200 ppm), T9 (8-HQS 300 ppm) and T0 control
(distilled water).
The experiment was laid out in Completely Randomized Design
(CRD) with three replications and five scapes constituted one
sample unit. The flask were plugged with cotton and covered
with aluminium foil to prevent loss of water due to evaporation.
The experiment was conducted in the laboratory of Postharvest
Technology, CITH, Srinagar at temperature 16 ± 2° with relative
humidity 70 ± 5 under natural light. The weight of each container
Enhancing water relations and vase life of cut tulip
The difference between the initial and consecutive volume of
solution in the flask was recorded as water uptake expressed
as g/scape and the difference between consecutive weights of
flask with solution plus flower scape recorded as transpirational
loss of water (g/scape). The water balance in the flower scape
was computed by subtracting the transpirational loss of water
from water uptake. The fresh weight change, measured by the
difference between initial and the consecutive fresh weight
of scape, was expressed as per cent of fresh weight of scape
taking original as 100 per cent. The termination of vase life was
considered when tepals started wilting, falling and discolouration
etc. Data obtained were analyzed statistically by the methods
suggested by Gomez and Gomez (1984).
Results and discussion
Water uptake: Analysis of data revealed that different floral
preservatives had significant influence on water relations and
vase life of cut tulips. The water uptake by tulip scapes was
significantly affected by different preservatives and the increasing
concentration of preservatives improved water uptake. On the
first day, the water uptake was recorded maximum (Table 1).
Among all the treatments, the maximum uptake was found in 8HQS 300 ppm (7.20 g/scape) followed by 8-HQS 200 ppm (6.72
g/scape) and was at par with control. There was no significant
difference in the water uptake between 8-HQS 200 ppm and
8-HQS 300 ppm and similar trend was also observed among
different concentration of aluminium sulphate. Minimum water
uptake was recorded with sucrose 2 % (5.15 g/scape) followed by
sucrose 4 % (5.20 g/scape). On the whole, all treatments showed
a decreasing trend of water uptake up to 5th day and thereafter a
slight increase on 6th day was observed with all the treatments.
On day 8th, water uptake increased with different concentrations
of aluminium sulphate and 8-HQS. While decreased water
uptake was recorded with different concentrations of sucrose and
control on 8th day. On day 7th, 9th and 10th, all treatments recorded
decreased water uptake.
The highest cumulative water uptake was found in 8-HQS 300
ppm (48.61 g/scape) followed by 8-HQS 200 ppm (43.37 g/scape)
and minimum in sucrose 2% (28.37 g/scape) (Fig.1). This may
be attributed to the fact that 8-HQS and aluminium sulphate
acidifies the holding solution and act as biocides and keep it free
from micro-organism and thus helps in preventing the plugging
of conducting tissues (Bhaskar et al., 1999). Increased water
uptake was reported with application of 8-HQS (0.4 %) in daisy
by Patil (2009) and 8-HQS (200 ppm) application in gerbera
cut flowers by Prasanth et al. (2009). Increased water uptake
maintains turgidity, freshness of flowers and thus enhances vase
life of cut tulips owing to improved water balance and postharvest
physiology.
Transpirational loss of water (TLW): The tulip scapes held in
different preservatives treatments differed significantly on TLW
(Table 2). On each day, among different preservatives, maximum
TLW was recorded with 8-HQS followed by aluminium sulphate
and sucrose. On first day maximum TLW was recorded with
8-HQS 300 ppm (4.68 g/scape) followed by 8-HQS 200 ppm
(4.37 g/scape), which were at par with control and minimum
TLW was recorded with sucrose 2% (3.05 g/scape). There were
no significant differences among different concentrations of
8-HQS and similar tendency was also reported with different
concentration of aluminium sulphate and sucrose. On 2nd day,
again maximum TLW was recorded with 8-HQS 300 ppm (4.45
g/scape) followed by 8-HQS 200 ppm (4.26 g/scape) but were
differed significantly over control (2.80 g/scape). On 3rd day,
maximum TLW was recorded with 8-HQS 300 ppm (4.29 g/
scape) and minimum with control (2.19 g/scape). On 4th and 5th
day, maximum TLW was recorded with 8-HQS 300 ppm (3.56
and 3.48 g/scape) and minimum with sucrose 4 % (1.73 and 1.78
g/scape), respectively. On 6th day, maximum TLW was noticed
with 8-HQS 300 ppm (4.95 g/scape) followed by 8-HQS 200 ppm
Table 1. Effect of floral preservatives on water uptake of tulip cut flower (g/scape)
Treatment
Days after keeping scape in preservative solution
T0-Control
1
6.83
2
4.80
3
3.60
4
3.46
5
2.81
6
3.20
7
1.60
8
1.50
9
1.10
10
0.80
T1-2 % Sucrose
5.15
4.90
4.30
3.20
2.92
3.10
1.70
1.10
1.30
0.70
T2-4 % Sucrose
5.20
4.98
4.40
3.25
3.00
3.32
1.60
1.20
1.40
0.90
T3-6 % Sucrose
5.80
5.30
4.70
3.65
3.31
3.47
1.75
1.31
1.20
0.95
T4-Alumunium sulphate 100 ppm
6.16
5.80
5.55
4.30
3.77
4.00
2.70
3.70
2.28
2.00
T5-Alumunium sulphate 200 ppm
6.20
5.91
5.68
4.34
3.82
4.03
3.15
3.60
2.40
1.80
T6-Alumunium sulphate 300 ppm
6.25
6.05
5.75
4.40
3.95
4.22
2.81
3.42
2.27
1.90
T7-8-HQS 100 ppm
6.50
6.10
5.92
4.63
4.12
4.52
3.00
3.63
2.10
1.80
T8-8-HQS 200 ppm
6.72
6.32
6.10
4.87
4.31
4.81
2.80
3.50
2.22
1.72
T9-8-HQS 300 ppm
7.20
6.80
6.42
5.40
4.80
5.22
3.32
4.25
2.80
2.40
LSD (P=0.05)
0.62
0.20
0.15
0.62
0.15
0.16
0.10
0.08
0.07
0.11
Complementary Copy
with and without flower scape were recorded daily up to 10th
day, when more than 90% scapes lost their keeping quality as
indicated by tepal fall, discolouration, wilting and scruffy form.
Keeping quality of flowers was determined by flower size, shape,
condition, longevity, colour, texture, appearance, water balance,
fresh weight and wilting.
153
154
Enhancing water relations and vase life of cut tulip
Table 2. Effect of floral preservatives on transpirational water loss of tulip cut flower (g/scape)
Treatment
Days after keeping scape in preservative solution
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
T0-Control
4.76
2.80
2.19
3.04
2.91
3.42
1.98
2.80
1.62
1.63
T1-2 % Sucrose
3.05
3.10
2.76
2.00
2.12
2.99
1.78
1.25
1.60
1.11
T2-4 % Sucrose
3.06
2.98
2.78
1.73
1.78
3.11
1.72
1.41
1.72
1.48
T3-6 % Sucrose
3.62
3.26
2.93
1.98
2.01
3.13
1.93
1.55
1.72
1.75
T4-Alumunium sulphate 100 ppm
3.91
3.88
3.85
2.58
2.91
3.90
2.52
3.74
2.38
2.17
T5-Alumunium sulphate 200 ppm
3.89
3.78
3.92
2.46
2.62
3.88
2.89
3.66
2.55
2.01
T6-Alumunium sulphate 300 ppm
3.78
3.80
3.81
2.67
2.68
3.99
2.44
3.51
2.47
2.22
T7-8-HQS 100 ppm
4.20
4.13
4.22
2.88
3.32
4.33
2.77
3.71
2.26
1.99
T8-8-HQS 200 ppm
4.37
4.26
4.27
2.93
3.19
4.53
2.55
3.44
2.34
1.88
T9-8-HQS 300 ppm
4.68
4.45
4.29
3.56
3.48
4.95
2.93
4.12
2.99
2.66
LSD (P=0.05)
0.59
0.15
0.15
0.18
0.09
0.12
0.12
0.11
0.10
0.13
The highest cumulative TLW found in 8-HQS 300 ppm (38.11
g/scape) followed by 8-HQS 100 ppm (33.81 g/scape) and
minimum in sucrose 2% (21.76 g/scape) (Fig.1). Patil (2009)
and Prasanth et al. (2009) also obtained increased water loss by
8-HQS (0.4 % and 200 ppm) application in daisy and gerbera cut
flowers, respectively. It is apparent from the study that besides
increased water uptake, reduction in TLW helps in improving
water balance and is essential for extending the vase life of
cut flowers. However, water uptake and TLW both were high
in 8-HQS but the improved water balance in 8-HQS helped in
improving the turgidity and freshness, and ultimately enhanced
vase life of cut tulip.
Water balance: Among all the treatments, 8-HQS (200 and 300
ppm) maintained positive water balance up to 8th day; aluminium
sulphate and 8-HQS (100 ppm) maintained positive water balance
up to 7th day, whereas sucrose maintained positive water balance
up to 6th day. In control positive water balance was maintained up
to 4th day only (Table 3). On first day, maximum water balance
was recorded with 8-HQS 300 ppm (2.52 g/scape) followed by
alumunium sulphate 300 ppm (2.47 g/scape) and minimum with
control (2.06 g/scape). There were no significant differences
among the concentrations of each one preservative. On 2nd and
3rd day, maximum water balance was recorded with 8-HQS 300
ppm (2.35 and 2.13 g/scape) followed by alumunium sulphate
300 ppm (2.25 and 1.93 g/scape), respectively. On 4th day, water
balance was recorded maximum with 8-HQS 200 ppm (1.94 g/
scape) followed by alumunium sulphate 200 ppm (1.88 g/scape)
and minimum with control (0.42 g/scape). All preservatives
improved water balance over control but there were no significant
differences among different preservative treatments except 8HQS 200 ppm which was statistically superior from sucrose 2 %.
On 5th day, maximum water balance was recorded with 8-HQS
300 ppm (1.32 g/scape) followed by alumunium sulphate 300
ppm (1.27 g/scape) and minimum with control (-0.10 g/scape).
On 6th day, maximum water balance was recorded with sucrose
6 % (0.34 g/scape) followed by 8-HQS 200 ppm (0.28 g/scape)
and minimum with control (-0.22 g/scape). On 7th and 8th day
maximum water balance was recorded with 8-HQS 300 ppm
(0.39 and 0.13 g/scape) and minimum with control (-0.38 and
-1.30 g/scape), respectively. On 9th and 10th day, all the treatments
maintained negative water balance.
Complementary Copy
(4.53 g/scape) and minimum with sucrose 2% (2.99 g/scape). On
8th, 9th and 10th day, maximum TLW was recorded with 8-HQS
300 ppm (4.12, 2.99 and 2.66 g/scape) and minimum with sucrose
2% (1.25, 1.60 and 1.11 g/scape), respectively.
Table 3. Effect of floral preservatives on water balance of tulip cut flower (g/scape)
Treatment
Days after keeping scape in preservative solution
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
T0-Control
2.06
2.00
1.40
0.42
-0.10
-0.22
-0.38
-1.30
-0.52
-0.83
T1-2 % Sucrose
2.10
1.80
1.53
1.20
0.80
0.11
-0.08
-0.15
-0.24
-0.41
T2-4 % Sucrose
2.14
2.00
1.61
1.52
1.22
0.21
-0.12
-0.21
-0.28
-0.58
T3-6 % Sucrose
2.18
2.04
1.76
1.67
1.30
0.34
-0.18
-0.24
-0.45
-0.80
T4-Alumunium sulphate 100 ppm
2.25
1.92
1.69
1.72
0.86
0.10
0.18
-0.04
-0.07
-0.17
T5-Alumunium sulphate 200 ppm
2.31
2.13
1.75
1.88
1.20
0.15
0.26
-0.06
-0.13
-0.21
T6-Alumunium sulphate 300 ppm
2.47
2.25
1.93
1.73
1.27
0.23
0.37
-0.09
-0.17
-0.32
T7-8-HQS 100 ppm
2.30
1.97
1.70
1.75
0.80
0.19
0.23
-0.08
-0.16
-0.19
T8-8-HQS 200 ppm
2.35
2.06
1.83
1.94
1.12
0.28
0.25
0.06
-0.12
-0.16
T9-8-HQS 300 ppm
2.52
2.35
2.13
1.84
1.32
0.27
0.39
0.13
-0.19
-0.26
LSD (P=0.05)
0.25
0.28
0.21
0.70
0.16
0.17
0.13
0.15
0.17
0.18
Enhancing water relations and vase life of cut tulip
155
Fig. 1. Effect of floral preservatives on water uptake, TLW and water balance of cut tulip
Fresh weight change: Change in fresh weight differed
significantly among the different treatments (Table 4). Increase in
fresh weight change was found up to 6th day and then decreased
sharply during 7th to 10th day in different treatments. On the whole,
tulip scapes kept in solution of 8-HQS and aluminium sulphate
maintained increased fresh weight over initial up to 9th day, while
sucrose maintained increased fresh weight over initial up to 7th day
as compared to control (up to 6th day). On 6th day, fresh weight
change was found maximum with 8-HQS 300 ppm (129.28
%) followed by aluminium sulphate 300 ppm (126.29 %) and
minimum with control (108.97 %). Treatments 8-HQS (200 and
300 ppm) and aluminium sulphate (200 and 300 ppm) maintained
increased fresh weight over initial on 10th day also, while other
treatments showed decreased fresh weight over initial on 10th
day. On tenth day, maximum fresh weight change was recorded
in 8-HQS 300 ppm (105.13%) followed by aluminium sulphate
300 ppm (103.75%) in comparison to control (89.91%). Stimart
(1983) reported that there was initial increase in fresh weight
changes followed by decline and increase being larger in flower
kept in preservatives than those kept in de ionised water. Decline
in fresh weight of scapes may be attributed to poorer water relation
parameters. 8-HQS might have reduced the physiological stem
plugging, whereas aluminium sulphate acted as antimicrobial
agent (Mukhopadhyay, 1982) and improved water uptake and
thereby maintained the improved fresh weight of scapes over
control. Decrease in pool of dry matter and respiratory substrate
especially in tepal might be considered as other important factors
responsible for decline in fresh weight of cut tulip.
Complementary Copy
The cumulative water balance was recorded highest with 8-HQS
300 ppm (10.50 g/scape) followed by alumunium sulphate 300
ppm (9.67 g/scape) and minimum with control (2.53 g/scape)
(Fig. 1). The variation in water balance might be on account of
different water uptake and water loss behaviour under treatments.
Active role of sugar in improving the water uptake and restricting
the stomatal closure might have resulted in improved water
balance. Antimicrobial agent (8-HQS and aluminium sulphate)
improved water balance by inhibiting vescular blockage (Wani
et al., 2010). Aluminium sulphate reduces transpiration and
improves water balance due to stomatal closure, thus keep flowers
afresh for a longer duration (Patil, 2009).
A significant improvement in vase life of cut tulip was observed
due to various preservative treatments (Fig. 2). Floral preservative
showed their superiority in enhancing vase life and maximum
vase life was recorded in 8-HQS 300 ppm (10.1 days) followed
by aluminium sulphate 300 ppm (8.9 days), 8-HQS 200 ppm (8.8
days), aluminium sulphate 200 ppm (8.6 days) as compared to
control (5.4 days).
Table 4. Effect of floral preservative on fresh weight change (%) of tulip cut flower
Treatment
T0-Control
1
110.55
2
111.66
Days after keeping scape in preservative solution
3
4
5
6
7
8
113.03
116.13
119.64
108.97
97.20
95.02
9
93.59
10
89.91
T1-2 % Sucrose
109.66
112.12
113.25
116.46
120.16
122.67
114.36
99.64
97.73
96.43
T2-4 % Sucrose
109.83
112.50
113.42
116.62
120.74
123.81
115.00
104.97
99.55
97.73
T3-6 % Sucrose
110.02
113.10
113.86
117.45
121.98
124.75
114.97
108.06
99.44
99.83
T4-Alumunium sulphate 100 ppm
110.35
113.29
114.69
118.37
121.60
124.58
111.62
107.90
103.5
97.73
T5-Alumunium sulphate 200 ppm
110.63
113.57
116.18
119.11
122.04
125.49
115.24
111.35
106.00
102.37
T6-Alumunium sulphate 300 ppm
111.35
114.74
116.35
119.55
123.53
126.29
115.55
110.77
106.13
103.75
T7-8-HQS 100 ppm
114.30
116.28
116.90
120.33
122.65
125.30
117.15
109.88
104.47
99.66
T8-8-HQS 200 ppm
114.97
116.41
117.45
120.80
123.09
126.04
119.47
111.38
109.11
103.45
T9-8-HQS 300 ppm
115.19
116.40
117.48
123.81
124.91
129.28
119.66
114.36
106.35
105.13
4.25
2.71
0.32
0.45
0.52
0.41
0.38
1.37
0.48
0.41
LSD (P=0.05)
156
Enhancing water relations and vase life of cut tulip
References
Depletion in sugar pool, plugging of vascular tissue by micro organism and
damage by ethylene have been identified as the major cause of poor keeping
quality of many cut flowers (Qadri et al., 2001 and Khan et al., 2007).
Applied sugar might have countered the depleted sugar and improved
vase life over control. While aluminium sulphate and 8-HQS improved
the water balance and protected the flower from microbial vascular
blockage and thus improved vase life of cut tulips. The fact of 8-HQS in
the improving the vase life of cut flowers may be attributed to its nature as
broad specturum bactericide and fungicide that reduce physiological stem
blockage by chelating metal ions of enzymes active in creating the stem
blockage (Marousky, 1972).
It is, therefore, concluded that improved water relations due to low
microbial activity in tulip scapes held in 8-HQS and aluminium sulphate
solutions lead to higher water potential in comparison to control. The floral
preservatives delayed the senescence of cut tulip by maintaining turgidity
and improving postharvest physiology of cut tulips. The preservatives
improved water uptake and thereby maintained better water balance
leading to improved fresh weight and vase life of cut tulips. Among all the
treatments, the greatest cumulative water balance and maximum vase life
were recorded in 8-HQS 300 ppm (10.5 g/scape and 10.1 days) followed by
aluminium sulphate 300 ppm (9.67 g/scape and 8.9 days) over control (2.53
g/scape and 5.4 days), respectively. Hence, enhanced water relations and
vase life of tulip can be achieved through the use of 300 ppm aluminium
sulphate and 8-HQS.
Complementary Copy
Fig. 2. Effect of floral preservatives on vase life of cut tulip
Bhaskar, V.V., P.V. Rao and Y.N. Reddy, 1999. Effect of minerals
on post harvest vase life of cut tuberose (Polianthes tuberosa
L.) cv. Double. Indian J. Horti., 56 (4): 368-374.
Chua, S.E. 1971. Cytokinin like activity of 8-hydroxy Quinoline
Sulphate. Nature, 225: 101.
Gomez, K.A. and A.A. Gomez, 1984. Statistical Procedures
for Agricultural Research. Second edition. John Wiley and
Sons. Inc., New York, USA.
Iwaya-inoue, M. and M. Tikata, 2001. Trehalose and
chloremphenicol prolong the vase life of tulip flowers.
HortScience, 36: 946-950.
Jhon, A.Q. and Neelofar, 2006. Tulip. In: Advances in
Ornamental Horticulture, Vol. 3: Bulbous Ornamental
and Aquatic Plants, S.K. Bhattacharjee (eds). Pointers
Publishers, Jaipur-302 003 (Raj.), India. p.1-72.
Khan, F.U., F.A. Khan, N. Hayat and S.A. Bhat, 2007.
Influence of certain chemicals on vase life of cut tulip.
Indian J. Plant Physiol., 12(2): 127-132.
Marousky, F.J. 1972. Water relations, effect of floral preservative
on bud opening and keeping quality of cut flowers.
HortScience, 7: 114-116.
Mukhopadhyay, T.P. 1982. Effect of chemicals on flower
development and vase life of tuberose (Polyanthus tuberosa
L.) var. Single. South Indian Horticulture.30: 281-284.
Patil, V.S. 2009. Effect of chemical preservatives on vase life
of daisy (Aster amellus L.) flowers. Journal Ornamental
Horticulture, 12(1): 54-58.
Prasanth, P., R. Chandrasekhar and K.C.S. Reddy, 2009. Effect
of postharvest application of biocides on water relations and
vase life of cut gerbera (Gerbera jamesonii Bolus ex Hook.).
Journal Research, SKUAST-J, 8(1): 40-49.
Qadri, Z.A., A.Q. John and Z.A. Rather, 2001. Effect of
chemicals on longevity of cut Dutch iris. Journal
Ornamental Horticulture, 4(1): 40-43.
Stimart, P. 1983. Effect of physiological factors on flower zinnia.
Journal Horticultural Sciences, 14: 62-73.
Van Doorn, W.G. 2004. Is petal senescence due to sugar
starvation? Plant Physiol., 134: 35-42.
Wani, S.A., M.A.A. Siddique, F.U. Khan, Z.A. Qadri, F.A.
Khan, Q.A.H. Dar and S. Ali, 2010. Effect of various floral
preservatives on post harvest quality of Asiatic lilium cv.
Novecento. Journal Ornamental Horticulture, 13(1): 55-58.
Wilkins, H.F. 1973. Proceedings of workshop on postharvest
physiology of floral crops. HortScience, 8: 189-205.
Received: March, 2012; Revised: October, 2012;
Accepted: November, 2012