30.11.2012 Views

Tamarind monograph.pdf - Crops for the Future

Tamarind monograph.pdf - Crops for the Future

Tamarind monograph.pdf - Crops for the Future

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

extensive root system. In experimental plots in India, 25 g urea and 25 g<br />

single super phosphate per plant have been used, although response of<br />

tamarind to fertiliser application is reported as poor (Gupta and Mohan,<br />

1990). In India, inorganic fertilisers are not normally applied to tamarind<br />

trees, but 5 kg of farmyard manure is applied to <strong>the</strong> planting hole at <strong>the</strong> time<br />

of planting. Every year <strong>the</strong>reafter 5 kg of farmyard manure and 5 kg of neem<br />

cake are applied per tree in <strong>the</strong> months of March and April. The commercial<br />

sweet tamarind growers in Thailand use inorganic fertilisers, mostly urea at<br />

100-200 g/tree, which supports high yields. In <strong>the</strong> Philippines, <strong>the</strong> general<br />

recommendation is to apply 100-200 g/tree of ammonium sulphate, about a<br />

month after planting and an equal amount at <strong>the</strong> end of <strong>the</strong> rainy season. The<br />

amount of fertiliser is gradually increased as <strong>the</strong> trees grow. When <strong>the</strong> tree<br />

begins to bear fruits, about 500g of a complete fertiliser containing high<br />

amounts of nitrogen and potassium is applied per tree twice a year. A full<br />

bearing tree should receive 2-3 kg of an NPK complete fertiliser each year,<br />

<strong>the</strong> <strong>for</strong>mula depending upon <strong>the</strong> nutrient content of <strong>the</strong> soil (Gunasena and<br />

Hughes, 2000).<br />

Ilango and Vijayalakshmi (2002) reported that foliar spray of Cycocel (1500<br />

ppm), Ethrel (500 ppm), Triacontanol (20 ml tree -1 ), IBA (150 ppm),<br />

Planofix (100 ppm), micronutrient mixture (0.5%), ZnSO4 (0.5%) + boric<br />

acid (0.3%) + FeSO4 (0.5%) and Urea (1.5%) significantly improved<br />

flowering, pod set and retention, yield and quality attributes of tamarind<br />

compared to non-sprayed trees. Treatment with foliar feeding urea resulted<br />

in maximum number of flowering (76%), with Cycocel resulted in<br />

maximum pod set (32%) and retention (55%) per unit area, and with<br />

Triacontanol (20 ml tree -1 ) resulted in maximum pod yield (8.3 kg tree -1 ).<br />

Fertilisation during <strong>the</strong> nursery stage is recommended to produce healthy<br />

plants <strong>for</strong> af<strong>for</strong>estation programmes (Thiyageshwari et al. 2003). Among <strong>the</strong><br />

treatments, 0.6 g urea, 2 g single superphosphate and 0.6 of muriate of<br />

potash with 5 g of compost and 0.5 g of phosphobacteria recorded<br />

significant increase in shoot length (48 cm), root length (39 cm) and dry<br />

weight (11.2 g).<br />

5.4.3.2 Nitrogen fixation<br />

Leguminous species are associated with Rhizobium bacteria in root nodules<br />

which fix atmospheric nitrogen. Very little in<strong>for</strong>mation is available on<br />

nitrogen fixing bacteria in tamarind compared to o<strong>the</strong>r cultivated legumes.<br />

<strong>Tamarind</strong> was initially considered to be a non-nodulating species (Allen and<br />

Allen, 1981). However, some evidence suggests that it does <strong>for</strong>m a<br />

symbiotic association with Rhizobium bacteria (Postgate, 1979; Athar and<br />

Mahmood, 1982; Quiniones, 1983) enabling <strong>the</strong> tree to fix atmospheric<br />

nitrogen under appropriate conditions (Quiniones, 1983; Ding et al., 1986).<br />

Root nodules collected from tamarind trees grown in plantations on acidic<br />

soils in Guangdong Province, China, described as elliptical or circular and<br />

66

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!