INTRODUCTION Tulips are hardy spring flowering bulbs with most stems terminating into a single flower which has six petals (Anonymous, 2001-2002) and represents the largest geophyte crop worldwide. It has gained popularity owing to its beauty and economic value. The use of tulips vary from cut flowers, formal plantings in borders and flower beds, indoor forcing and planting on the rock gardens. Tulips have tremendous potential both in the international and domestic markets (Desh Raj, 1999). However, the quality of cut tulips production are known to be influenced by both pre and post-harvest practices. Post harvest losses can be reduced by suitable pre and post harvest management practices. Information on the quality of clones of field grown cut tulip blooms at room temperatures following low temperature dry storage is essential for profitable storage and marketing of tulip blooms (New, 1964). Since the information available on storage of cut tulips in scanty, the present investigation was undertaken with the objective of finding out suitable storage duration for cut tulips. MATERIAL AND METHODS Healthy and blemish-free scapes were cut, pre-cooled in a refrigerator and were divided into two lots. The scapes were weighed and stored at 40C. One lot of scapes was kept in large beakers with their base dipped in distilled water and the Effect of dry and wet storage on post harvest life and flower quality in cut tulip cv. Cassini Nelofar, F. U. Khan, A. Q. Jhon and M. M. Mir Division of Floriculture, Medicinal and Aromatic Plants Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology of Kashmir Shalimar Campus, Srinagar-191121 (Jammu & Kashmir), India ABSTRACT Experiments were conducted during 2002-03 and 2003-04 to study the influence of storage methods and duration on post harvest quality of cut tulip cv. Cassini. Cut tulips cv. Cassini stored either dry or wet at 40C for 0,2,4,6 and 8 days showed that days to flower opening was the lowest in those kept under wet storage for 6 and 8 days. Flower opening was better with 0.2 and 4 days of dry or wet storage whereas flowers stored dry for 8 days did not open at all. Flower size and vase life decreased with the increase in storage period. Larger flowers were obtained with dry and wet storage of 0 and 2 days whereas higher vase life was obtained with zero days of wet and dry storage and 4 and 6 days of wet storage. Key words: Tulip, storage, vase life other lot was bunched and stored dry at 40C. The control scapes were placed directly in distilled water for observations. Scapes were taken out from both the lots after 2, 4, 6 and 8 days of storage and placed in the distilled water for vase life studies. The observations on vase life were recorded as per the procedure given by Venketarayappa et al., (1980). Days taken to flower opening: Data of flower opening was recorded and then days calculated from the date of placing in the distilled water in vase. Fresh weight changes (% of initial weight): The difference between the weight of flask solution + scape weight of flask + solution represented the fresh weight (g) of the scape on that particular date. Fw= (C+S+F)- (C+S) Where: Fw = Fresh weight C = Container (flask) S = Solution F = Scape After this the per cent fresh weight change was calculated by the formula: F.W of a particular day- initial fresh weight Fresh weight change (%) = x 100 Initial fresh weight J. Hort. Sci. Vol. 2 (2): 143-147, 2007 143 144 Water uptake (g/scape): The difference between consecutive measurement of the flask + solution (without scape) represented the water uptake: W U = {C+S} 1 - {C+S} 2 Where W U = water uptake Water loss (g/scape) transpirational g/scape: The difference between consecutive measurements of flask + solution + flower scape represented the water loss. W 1 (transpirational loss) = {C+S+F} 1 – {C+S+F} 2 Where W 1 = water loss Water balance (g/scape): Water uptake minus transpirational loss of water represented water balance: W U = W U – W 1 Where W B = Water balance Water loss/ water uptake ratio: Transpirational loss of water divided uptake represented the water loss/ water uptake ratio: W 1Ratio = W U Flower opening (%): Number of flowers that opened fully in the vase was counted and then per cent flower opening counted out of the total flowers placed in the containers. Flower diameter (cm): Flower diameter was taken across the fully opened flowers. Vase life (days): Number of days was counted from the date of opening till the tepals lost their decorative value. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION In general, number of days taken to flower opening decreased with the increase in storage period either in dry or wet storage. During first year significantly maximum days (7.0) to flower opening were taken by zero day storage in water which was at par with 0 and 2 days of dry storage (6.44 and 6.11, respectively). Cut scapes stored in water for 6 and 8 days took minimum days of 3.66 each for flower opening whereas tulip flowers stored dry for 8 days did not open at all. Similar trend was followed during the second year also (Table 1). During both the years of study cut tulips stored in water for 8 days gave minimum flower opening percentage (54.73 and 48.24, respectively.) Whereas, significantly maximum flower opening was recorded with scapes stored for 0,2 and 4 days of dry and wet storage. Aekyung et al (1996) reported that when cut lilium flowers were treated with certain preservatives before storage at 3 or 6 oC for 1-5 days, they failed to open after storage for 5 days or showed rolling of petals and sepal edges. In Narcissus cut flowers stored either dry or wet for 14 days at 1-2 oC at >90 per cent RH, some flowers failed to open when transferred to ambient temperatures (Nicholas and Wallis, 1972; Rees, 1985). Flower diameter also exhibited decreasing trend with the increase in dry or wet storage (Table1). During both the years larger flowers (6.90 and 7.0 cm, respectively) were obtained with zero day dry storage which was at par with zero day of wet storage (6.36 and 6.61 cm, respectively). Flower scapes stored dry for 6 days and wet for 8 days were at par with each other in recording the smaller flowers of 5.52 and 5.62 cm, respectively, during first year and 5.54 and 5.40 cm during second year. Wallis (1968) reported that increased storage duration reduced flower diameter in cut Narcissus. Katwata et al (1995) reported that size of the second floret of Polianthes tuberosa decreased with the increase in storage from 24-72 h at 4oC. Daily water uptake, water loss and water balance of cut tulips did not follow any general trend because all the treatments were not placed in vase on a single day. Pooled data of two years revealed (Table 2) that on day 8, when all the treatments were in vase, maximum water uptake was recorded by zero day wet and dry stored samples (3.73 and 3.29 g/ scape, respectively) and minimum water uptake (1.47 g/scape) by 2 day dry stored samples Song et al (1992) reported that water uptake of cut roses cv. Sonia decreased with increased in length of dry storage. Song et al (1995) further reported that solution uptake decreased with the increase in storage duration of cut hybrid delphinium. On day 8 and 10, maximum water loss was (Table 2) recorded by zero day in dry storage (3.59 and 3.38 g/ scape, respectively). Minimum water loss on day 8 was observed in scapes stored in water for 4 days (1.66 g/ scape) and on day 10 in scapes stored dry for 8 days (1.44 g/scape). The cut tulips did not open at all under later treatment and water loss was less owing to less surface available for transpirational loss. As per Sanket et al (1994) water loss slowed in cut Anthurium as the storage temperatures decreased. Treatments exhibited negligible variation as regards water balance upto 6 days of storage whether dry or wet but on 8th and 10th day many treatments showed negative water balance. On day 8, lowest negative water balance (-0.60 g/ scape) was recorded by 4 days of dry storage and highest positive water balance was recorded by 6 days in dry storage Nelofar et al J. Hort. Sci. Vol. 2 (2): 143-147, 2007 145 Table 1. Effect of dry and wet storage on vase life studies of cut tulips (2002-04) Treatments Days to flower Flower diameter(cm) Vase life(day) Flower opening(%) opening 1a Highly Mean I II Mean I II Mean I II Mean significant Dry storage (days) (0) 6.44 6.77 6.60 6.90 7.0 6.95 7.21 7.66 7.43 100.00 88.89 94.44 (90.00)** (78.24) (84.12) (2) 6.11 6.55 6.33 6.71 6.30 6.50 7.10 6.77 6.93 100.00 88.89 94.44 (90.00) (78.24) (84.12) (4) 6.11 6.44 6.27 5.59 5.58 5.58 6.10 5.70 5.60 88.89 77.77 83.33 (78.24) (66.48) (72.36) (6) 4.88 4.11 4.49 5.52 5.54 5.53 4.74 4.99 4.86 77.77 66.66 72.21 (66.48) (54.73) (60.60) ( 8) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (-0.00) (-0.00) (-0.00) Wet storage (days) (0) 7.0 6.88 6.94 6.36 6.61 6.48 7.55 7.99 7.78 100.00 100.00 100.00 (90.00) (90.00) (90.00) (2) 5.66 5.33 5.49 6.13 6.38 6.25 7.44 7.88 7.66 100.00 100.00 100.00 (90.00) (90.00) (90.00) (4) 4.55 4.44 4.49 5.91 6.19 6.05 6.88 6.44 6.66 100.00 88.89 94.44 (90.00) (78.24) (84.12) (6) 3.66 4.00 3.83 5.80 4.48 5.64 4.99 5.33 5.16 77.77 66.66 72.21 (66.48) (54.73) (60.60) (8) 3.66 3.88 3.77 5.62 5.40 5.51 4.66 4.22 4.44 66.66 55.55 61.10 (54.73) (48.24) (51.48) CD (P=0.05) 2.50 2.22 - 0.86 1.33 - 0.73 1.94 - 18.99 26.44 - a Year 2002-03 b Year 2003-04 * Data in parenthesis are the arc sin transformed values. Table 2. Effect of dry and wet storage on daily water uptake , water loss and water balance (g/scape) of cut tulips cv. Cassini (Pooled data of two years). Treatments Days in vase 0 2 4 6 8 10 WU WL WB WU WL WB WU WL WB WU WL WB WU WL WB WU WL WB Dry storage (days) (0) 5.57 3.60 1.96 4.17 2.69 1.48 3.59 3.31 0.29 3.01 3.70 0.81 3.29 3.59 -0.29 2.57 3.38 -0.80 (2) - - - 3.58 1.85 1.73 3.01 2.07 0.94 2.13 1.88 0.24 1.47 1.89 -0.42 1.28 1.47 -0.14 (4) - - - - - - 3.96 9.48 0.98 2.36 1.22 1.26 2.20 2.70 -0.60 1.49 2.20 -0.63 (6) - - - - - - - - - 2.97 1.63 1.34 2.28 1.43 0.84 1.97 1.46 0.50 (8) - - - - - - - - - - - - 2.20 1.24 0.97 1.43 1.44 0.31 Wet storage (days) (0) 4.67 3.24 1.49 3.85 2.86 0.99 3.49 2.96 0.69 2.12 1.32 0.96 3.73 2.82 0.90 1.73 2.76 -1.01 (2) - - - 4.33 3.29 2.20 3.56 3.06 0.49 3.11 3.45 -0.33 1.93 2.43 -0.16 1.51 2.53 -1.02 (4) - - - - - - 4.77 3.63 1.40 3.22 2.83 0.67 2.29 1.66 0.63 2.10 3.32 -0.87 (6) - - - - - - - - - 4.85 3.44 1.40 2.45 2.33 0.31 3.13 2.66 0.47 (8) - - - - - - - - - - - - 2.0 1.79 0.21 2.47 2.35 0.12 CD (P=0.05) NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS: Non-significant; WU: Water uptakeWL: Water lossWB: Water balance (0.50 g/ scape). Sanket et al (1994) reported that all the components of water balance declined rapidly at all storage temperatures for first 5 days when cut Anthuriums were held for 30 days at 8, 13, 18 and 280C (Table 2). The trend depicted (Table 1) that vase life of cut tulips decreased with the increase in storage period. During both the years, significantly maximum vase life of 7.55 and 7.99 days, respectively was recorded with cut scapes when Effect of dry and wet storage in tulip J. Hort. Sci. Vol. 2 (2): 143-147, 2007 146 stored wet for zero day. Minimum vase life of 4.66 and 4.22 days was recorded with wet storage for 8 days whereas flowers did not open when tulip cut scapes were dry stored for 8 days. Swart (1986) reported that a long period of dry storage (3 days at 2 oC) had an adverse effect on vase life of cut tulips but storing cut flowers by placing them in water prevented these negative effects. Vase life of tulips decreased as the storage temperature increased (Doss, 1986) and longer periods of storage were possible at 1.10 oC than at 4-5 or 10 oC. Mor et al. (1989) also reported that vase life of roses cv. Gabriella stored at 1oC for 3 weeks was less than vase life of fresh flowers. Changes in fresh weight were influenced significantly by dry and wet storage (Table-3) throughout the period of study though all treatments were not placed in vase on one single day. The general trend revealed that tulip scapes gained weight upto 8 days of observation, thereafter, some of the treatments showed decrease in fresh weight. Swart (1991) reported that flowers stored in water showed an increase in fresh weight. After all storage period, dry stored flowers showed increase in fresh weight upto day three thereafter, it decreased and the decrease in fresh weight corresponded with a visual decline in flower quality. REFERENCES Aekyung, L., Sub, l. K., Lee, A. K., Sub, J. K., Lee, J. S. and Roh, M. S. 1996. Effect of harvest stage, pre and post harvest treatment on longevity of cut Lilium flowers. Acta Hort. 414:287-293 Anonymous, 2001-02. Annual Progress Report. Division of Floriculture, Medicinal and Aromatic Plants, S.K. University of Agricultural Sciences & Technology of Kashmir, Shalimar, Srinagar Desh Raj, 1999. Potential of tulip production in wet temperate Himalayas. Ann. Agril. Res., 20:365-366 Doss, R. P. 1986. Preliminary examination of some factors that influence the vase life of cut bulb flowers. Acta Hort., 177:655-662 Katwate, S. M., Patil, M. T. and Singh, B. R. 1995. Influence of low temperature storage on longevity of cut spikes of tuberose. J. Maharashtra Agril. Univ., 20:289-290 Mor, Y., Johnson, F. and Faragher, J. D. 1989. Long term storage of roses. Acta Hort., 261:271-279 New, E. H. 1964. Lasting qualities of selected clones offield grown cut tulips following cold storage. Proceedings Ameri. Soc. Hort. Sci., 85:647-656 Nichols, R. and Wallis, L. W. 1972. Cold storage of cut narcissus. Experimental Hort., 24:68-76 Table 3. Effect of dry and wet storage on fresh weight changes (%) of cut tulips scapes in vase (pooled data of two years) Treatments Days in vase 0 2 4 6 8 10 Dry storage (days) (0) 14.71 15.31 25.66 28.65 33.05 32.67 (22.32)* (30.13) (31. 79) (34.88) (34.22) (2) 10.59 4.05 18.51 26.08 28.51 25.52 (10.86) (24.88) (30.51) (32.22) (30.17) (4) 12.63 - 9.17 13.63 18.84 20.98 (16.66) (20.91) (25.60) (26.78) (6) 12.14 - - 7.16 11.51 14.00 (14.39) (18.80) (19.00) (8) 08.84 - - - 14.08 18.10 (20.73) (23.09) Wet storage (days) (0) 11.11 19.24 38.75 45.22 41.07 41.70 (25.07) (38.39) (42.84) (39.61) (40.05) (2) 11.96 14.74 23.56 28.32 22.35 22.79 (21.11) (28.42) (31.61) (27.16) (26.22) (4) 12.55 - 15.26 20.29 35.92 29.84 (21.65) (26.00) (35.99) (32.98) (6) 11.73 - - 27.84 34.58 36.39 (29.08) (35.37) (36.81) (8) 11.98 - - - 37.01 39.86 (36.31) (38.33) CD (P=0.05) NS 9.52 13.03 12.80 11.28 13.05 NS : Non-significant * Data in parentheses are the arc sin transformed values. Nelofar et al J. Hort. Sci. Vol. 2 (2): 143-147, 2007 147 Rees, A. R. 1985. Tulipa pp. 272-77. In: Handbook of Flowering VoU CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida Sanket, C. K., Mujaffar, S. and Sass, P. 1994. Water balance in cut Anthurium flowers in storage and its effects on quality. Acta Hort., 368:723-732 Song, 1. S., Harkema, H. and Song, J.S. 1995. Water balance and vase life of cut iris flowers as influenced by cycloheximide and some plant growth regulators. J. Korean Soc. Hort. Sci., 36:900-906 Song, C. Y., Shin, D. G., Woo, l. S. and Lee, J. S. 1992. Studies on the vase life extension of cut gladiolus. J. Korean Soc. Hort. Sci., 33:95-101 Swart, A. 1986. Effect of a post harvest treatment at the grower’s on bulb flower quality. Acta Horticulturae No. 181:435-438 Swart, A. 1991. The effect of low temperatures on the keepability of bulb flowers. Acta Hort., No. 298:263-266 Venkatarayappa, T., Tsuijita, M. J. and Murr, D. P. 1980. Influence of cobaltous ion (Co2+) on the post harvest behaviour of ‘Samantha’ roses. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci., 105:148-151 Walis, L. W. 1968. Growing flower bulbs in nees. Diche Gartnerborse, 68:201-203 (M S Received 9 April 2007, Revised 3 September 2007) Effect of dry and wet storage in tulip J. Hort. Sci. Vol. 2 (2): 143-147, 2007