40
in thicNness being recorded Zith no PDMor diIIerences being
recorded DPong the three treDtPents (See Table One)
6iPiODrOy no significDnt diIIerences Zere obserYed DPong
the irrigDtion regiPes Xsed regDrding to the ÁoZer bXd
Oength (aYerage cm) Dnd bXd Zidth
(aYerage cm) (See Table One)
,n Dddition it ZDs obserYed thDt OeDI SrodXction ZDs not
inÁXenced by the irrigDtion regiPes DYerDging OeDYes
steP Dcross the three treDtPents (See Table One) ZhiOe
YDriDtions in irrigDtion regiPes hDd no eIIect on cXt rose
Iresh Dnd dry Zeight oI the roses Zhich DYerDged
Dnd grDPs resSectiYeOy Dcross DOO treDtPents (See
Table Two)
5egDrding the dry PDtter SDrtitioning irrigDtion regiPes did
not inÁXence the dry Zeight oI ÁoZer bXds Zith Dn DYerDge
oI grDPs recorded irresSectiYe oI the treDtPents (See
Table Two)
1o significDnt diIIerences Zere recorded DPong the three
treDtPents Ds IDr Ds steP Dnd OeDI dry Zeight Zhich
DYerDged Dnd grDPs resSectiYeOy in DOO oI the
irrigDtion regiPes (See Table Two)
Figure One: :ater suppOy and water use efficiency of hydroponic rose pOants under different irrigation regimes
Table One:- Effect of irrigation regimes on cut rose yield and quality
Irrigation
regime
Stems/plant
(number)
Stem length
(cms)
Stem thickness
(mm)
Bud length
(cms)
Bud width
(cms)
Leaves/stem
(number)
HIR 15.5 52,3 6.1 3.6 3.3 8.3
MIR 14.1 53.1 5.0 3.5 3.1 8.3
LIR 12.4 52.2 5.5 3.6 3.0 8.4
Table Two:- Effect of irrigation regimes on cut rose fresh and dry weight and dry matter partitioning.
Irrigation regime Cut rose fresh
weight (grams)
Cut rose dry
weight (grams)
Bud dry weight
(grams)
Stem dry weight
(grams)
Leaf dry weight
(grams)
HIR 23.2 14.6 5.5 4.7 4.3
MIR 20.9 14.3 5.7 4.5 4.1
LIR 22.1 14.1 5.6 4.5 4.0