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
0
You can add this document to your study collection(s)
Sign in Available only to authorized usersYou can add this document to your saved list
Sign in Available only to authorized users(For complaints, use another form )