Final SPH -JHS Coverpage 16-2 Jan 2021 single J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 16(2) : 152-163, 2021 This is an open access article d istributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommer cial-ShareAl ike 4.0 International License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, d istribution, and reproduction in any med ium, provide d the original author and source are credited. Original Research Paper Studies on high density planting and nutrient requirement of banana in different states of India Debnath Sanjit1, Bauri F.K.1, Swain S.2, Patel A.N. 3, Patel A.R. 3, Shaikh N.B. 4, Bhalerao V.P. 4, Baruah K. 5, Manju P.R. 6, Suma A.6, Menon R.6, Gutam S.7 and Patil P.7* ICAR-All India Coordinated Research Project on Fruits; 1BidhanChandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya, Mohanpur, West Bengal 2Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology, Bhubaneswar, Odisha; 3Navsari Agriculture University, Gandevi, Gujarat 4Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Jalagon, Maharashtra; 5Assam Agricultural University, Jorhat, Assam 6Kerala Agriculture University, Kannara, Kerala; 7Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, Hessarghatta, Bengaluru *Corresponding author Email : pcfruits.iihr@icar.gov.in ABSTRACT An experiment was conducted under the ICAR-All India Coordinated Research Project on Fruits to study the high density planting (HDP) and nutrient requirement of banana at six research centres across the country, including Bhubaneswar (Orissa), Gandevi (Gujarat), Jalgaon (Maharashtra), Jorhat (Assam), Kannara (Kerala) and Mohanpur (West Bengal) to enable higher productivity of banana and profit to farmers. Objective of this study was to explore the possibility of increasing productivity through intervention of only per unit plant population (through planting system) and level of nutrition, but without any interference to the regional choices of variety (e.g. choice variety Nendran for Kerala or Martaman for West Bengal), production system (mono/poly- clone, single/multi-year plantation, and POP of respective states), for which national productivity ranges are much skewed also. Results indicated that intervention of only plant density could increase productivity of banana within the existing system of production and choice of variety of different region or states. The experiment was laid out in RBD with four planting densities (S1P2, S1P3, S2P2and S2P3, where S1=2m x3m, S2=1.8m x3.6m, P2=2 suckers/hill, P3=3 suckers/hill), three nutrition levels (F1, F2and F3, which is 100%, 75% and 50% of RDF) and one with region-specific conventional planting density and nutrition (100% of RDF) practices as control.The results of this experiment showed that HDP (S1P3, 5000 plants / ha) in banana, accommodating three suckers per hill at 2m x 3m spacing increased productivity over the conventional system at the Bhubaneswar, Gandevi, Jorhat, Kannara and Mohanpur centres. The increase in productivity due to HDP (5,000/ha) over control was 28.9% (RDF 25%) to 50.6% (RDF 100%) at Bhubaneswar, 15.2% (RDF 25%) to 21.9% (RDF 100%) at Gandevi, 4.0% (RDF 25%) to 7.4% (RDF 100%) at Jorhat, 33.5%(RDF 25%) to 43.5% (RDF 100%) at Kannara and 46.5%(RDF 25%) to 79.0% (RDF 100%) at Mohanpur. The nutrient requirement under HDP was 100% RDF at Kannara, 75% RDF at Bhubaneswar and Mohanpur and 50% RDF at Gandevi and Jorhat centres, which indicates a saving in cost of fertilizer input by 25% -50%. It is therefore, recommended for HDP (5000 plants/ha) in banana, accommodating three suckers per hill at 2m x 3m (6.6 ft x 3.8 ft) spacing with 50% RDF in the agro-climatic regions of Gandevi and Jorhat, with 75% RDF in the agro-climatic regions of Bhubaneswar and Mohanpur and with 100% RDF in the agro-climatic region of Kannara in order to ensure higher productivity and profit to farmers. Keywords: Banana, productivity, input saving, nutrition strategy and planting 153 J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 16(2) : 152-163, 2021 INTRODUCTION Sustainable increase in productivity is the key objective of commercial fruit cultivation to meet the per-head demand of fruits for human nutrition. High density pla nting (HDP), media ted by ca nopy management, wa s found to be very useful for increasing the productivity of fruit crops. However, the commonly used canopy management tools for perennial fruit trees (training, pruning and dwarfing rootstocks) were not feasible for canopy management and HDP of herbaceous perennial plants such as banana (Debnath et al., 2015). Productivity in bananas is governed by the ‘source’ and ‘sink’ components of the plant system and its usefulness necessitates distinguishing between physiological and agronomic approaches (Turner, 1998). HDP in banana was found to have direct effect on growth and yield parameters, viz., pseudostem height, girth, leaf number, leaf area index, absorption of solar light, bunch weight and productivity (Nalina et al., 2000; Thippesha et al., 2005; Debnath et al., 2017). This, therefore, indicated the need forregion-specific fine-tuning of agronomic practices including spacing, plant density, nutrition and so on, for successful HDP in banana. For HDP of cv. Martaman (AAB) in the Gangetic alluvium region of West Bengal, the identified optimum leaf area index (LAI) was 5.50, corresponding to a plant population of 5000/ha, accommodating 3 plants/pit at 2m × 3m spacing (Debnath et al., 2015). These technological inputs on HDP in banana through research works are essentially needed for intervention and betterment of the much-skewed distribution of banana productivity across the different states in India. The average national productivity of banana in India is 34.86 t/ha, of which only five states recorded a productivity of more than 45 t/ha - Madhya Pradesh (69.52 t/ha), Gujarat (65.62 t/ha), Andhra Pradesh (56.24 t/ha), Maharashtra (52.04 t/ha) and Uttar Pradesh (45.72 t/ ha). In fact, banana is grown in rest of the states with much lower productivity (3.40 to 44.94 t/ha) (Anon, 2018). With this back ground, an experiment was conducted to study the HDPand nutrient requirement of banana across the different states in the country for increasing productivity and profitability of the farmers. MATERIALS AND METHODS T he I ndia n Council of Agr icult ur a l Res ea r ch (ICAR), through its All India Coordinated Research P r ojec t ( A I C R P ) on F r u it s , c o ndu c t ed a n experiment between 2009 to 2015 to study the HDP and nutrient requirement of banana at six research centres across the country, including Bhubaneswar ( O r is s a ) , G a ndevi ( G u ja r a t ) , J a lga on (Maharashtra), Jorhat (Assam), Kannara (Kerala) and Mohanpur (West Bengal) to ensure higher productivity of bana na and profit for far mer s ( Ta b le1 ) . T he ex p er iment wa s l a id ou t in Randomized Block Design (RBD), replicated four t imes wit h 15 pla nt s p er r eplica tion a nd 1 3 treatment combinations, including four planting dens it i es ( S 1 P 2 , S 1 P 3 , S 2P 2 a nd S 2P 3 , wh er e S1=2mx3m, S2=1.8m x3.6m, P 2=2 suckers/hill, P3=3 suckers/hill), three nutrition levels (F1, F2 and F3=100%, 75% and 50% of RDF) and with one Table 1. Soil type, agro-climatic region and location of experimental sites under ICAR-AICRP on Fruits Centre Soil type, agro-climatic region and location Bhubaneswar Soil: Saline, lateritic, alluvial, red and mixed red and black; East and South East OUAT, Odisha Coastal Plain; 20015’N latitude and 85052’ E longitude Gandevi Soil: Clay loam; Agro-climatic region-I (south Gujarat) and heavy rainfall area; NAU, Gujarat 210N latitude, 730E longitude, 7.6 m above mean sea level Jalgaon Soil: Black; Deccan plateau, hot semi-arid eco region; 210Nlatitude, MPKV, Maharashtra 74.330Elongitude Jorhat Soil: Sandy loam; upper Brahmaputra valley zone; 26.750Nlatitude, AAU, Assam 94.220Elongitude Kannara Soil: Clay loam; 10°32’6.5" N latitude, 76°20’9.8" E longitude, 58m above mean KAU, Kerala sea level Mohanpur Soil: Clay-loam; the Gangetic Alluvium region of West Bengal; 23.50North latitude, BCKV, West Bengal 890 Elongitude, 9.75 m above mean sea level Studies on high density planting and nutrient requirement 154 Sanjit et al region-specific conventional planting density and nutrition (100%RDF) practice as control. For a p a r t ic u la r r egion/ s t a t e, ex is t ing p a c ka ge of practices (POP) was fixed and followed both for conventiona l densit y a nd t r ea tment densit ies. Compared the impact of density and nutrition level (variable factor) only, while the POP (including irrigation method and amount) was a constant for the same region/state. Details were given above on the variable factors only, viz., plant population (S1P2, S1P3, S2P2& S2P3) and nutrition levels (F1, F2 & F3). Uniform, healthy sword suckers were disinfected and planted in 1m3 pits as per spacing treatments. Region-specific recommended varieties and POP (nutrition, irrigation, protection, and so on) wer e followed for the r espective resear ch centres (Table 2). Initial soil nutrient status was estimated from the soil samples randomly collected Variety & Conventional Recommended dose of Irrigation Centre planting spacing & plant fertilizer method material population/ha (RDF/plant/crop cycle) followed Bhubaneswar Grand Nain 1.8 m x 1.8 m, 10 Kg FYM + 200g N + 50g Drip (AAA), Sucker 3086 P2O5 + 200g K2O Gandevi Grand Nain, 1.8 m x 1.8 m, 10 Kg FYM + 300g N + 90g Drip Sucker 3086 P2O5 + 200g K2O Jalgaon Grand Nain, 0.9x1.5x2.1m, 10 Kg FYM + 200g N + 40g Drip Sucker 4444 (paired P2O5 + 200g K2O row system) Jorhat Jahaji (AAA), 1.5m x1.5m, 12 Kg FYM + 110g N + 33 g Rainfed Sucker 4444 P2O5 + 330 g K2O Kannara Nendran (AAB), 2 m x 2 m, 10 Kg FYM + 190g N + 115 g Basin Sucker 2500 P2O5 + 300 g K2O Mohanpur Martaman (AAB), 2 m x 2 m, 10 Kg FYM + 200g N + 40g Check basin Sucker 2500 P2O5 + 200g K2O Table 2. Variety, planting materials, conventional spacing, plant population, recommended fertilizer dose (RDF) and irrigation method followed at different centres Table 3. Initial soil nutrient status of experimental plots at different centres Centre Organic Total Available Soil Available Soil Available Soil carbon nitrogen Nitrogen (N) Phosphorus (P2O5) Potassium (K2O) (%) (%) content (kg/ha) content (kg/ha) content (kg/ha) Bhubaneswar 0.61 0.67 200.0 67.6 134.4 Gandevi 0.66 - 230.0 52.8 230.0 Jorhat 0.60 0.64 192.2 40.1 119.1 Kannara 0.70 0.70 260.0 55.0 155.0 Mohanpur 0.78 0.70 285.0 58.0 165.0 f r om ex p er i ment a l f ield du r ing f ina l la nd preparation (Table 3). Observations on gr owth characters (viz., pseudostem height (m), girth (cm), lea f numb er, lea f a r ea index, da ys ta ken f or shooting) a nd lea f nit r ogen, p hos phor us a nd potassium content (N, P & K in %) were recorded at shooting or flowering stage of the plant. The crop duration (days), finger number per bunch, finger weight (g), bunch weight (kg), yield (t/ha), TSS (0B), acidity (%), shelf-life (days) of fruits, yield increase over contr ol (%), B: C r atio and soil nutrient status (available N, P2O5and K2O in kg/ ha) were recorded after harvest. Quality of fruit was analyzed as per A.O.A.C. (1984) methods. The available nitrogen was determined by using the alkaline potassium permanganate method (Subbiah J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 16(2) : 152-163, 2021 155 and Asija, 1956). The available soil phosphorus was estimated by Olson method (Jackson, 1967). Available soil potassium was determined by using Flame photometric method, whereas Walkley and Bla c k’s r a p id t it r a t ion met hod wa s u s ed t o determine the organic carbon content of the soil (Jackson, 1967). The micro-kjeldahl method as described by Black (1965) was used to estimate the leaf N content. The Leaf P content was estimated by using the Va nado-molybda te yellow colour method and the leaf K content was determined by using Fla me photometr y (Cha pma n a nd Pr a tt, 1961). The amount of nutrients applied per hectare was estimated on the basis of plant population per hectare under HDP and conventional systems and the recommended fer tilizer dose (RDF) at the respective centres, considering that per ton FYM contributed 0.5 kg N, 0.2kg P2O5 and 0.5 kg K2O. The amount of nutrients removed through fruit harvest from HDP (those that produced higher yield and highest B:C ratio) and conventional systems was calculated based on fruit yield and nutrient removal (6.7 kg N, 1.7 kg P2O5and 6.7 kg K2O) per ton banana produce (Ganeshamurthy et al., 2011). Pooled da ta for three cr op cycles’ was analyzed for statistical inference by following the statistical method for RBD, as described by Gomez and Gomez (1983). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The Major objective of this study was to investigate productivity increase, if any, due to variations in per unit plant population and nutrition level. Yield increase for each region/state was estimated separately, in respect of its variety and POP only, by comparing the yield under HDP & conventional density of that pa r ticula r va r iety. It wa s r eflected fr om the observations that HDP could increase productivity in different region/state with the same variety & POP of respective region, only including intervention of HDP system. It was observed that the plant growth characters showed significant variations (C.D. at 5%) due to density of planting and a level of nutrition at all centres (Ta bles 4, 5 a nd 6). Ma ximum height of the pseudostem was recorded with a planting density of 5000/ha with 100% RDF (S1P3F1) at all centres Treat- No. of Bhubaneswar Gandevi Jorhat Kannara Mohanpur ment Plants/ha. H G H G H G H G H G S1P2F1 3333 2.32 55.12 1.85 61.18 1.22 61.27 3.23 42.25 2.90 64.38 S1P2F2 plant/ 2.30 54.53 1.78 59.38 1.21 58.30 3.12 40.92 2.87 62.80 S1P2F3 ha 2.28 53.82 1.73 58.05 1.18 59.40 3.06 41.35 2.83 62.53 S1P3F1 5000 2.41 53.91 1.98 59.88 1.81 53.30 3.38 41.15 3.02 62.42 S1P3F2 plant/ 2.39 51.62 1.89 59.01 1.76 55.67 3.29 40.66 2.99 61.10 S1P3F3 ha 2.37 50.23 1.86 55.47 1.40 63.50 3.24 39.15 2.97 60.46 S2P2F1 3086 2.31 56.83 1.79 60.21 1.58 57.20 3.23 43.10 2.87 65.43 S2P2F2 plant/ 2.27 55.74 1.75 56.77 1.12 63.10 3.14 41.70 2.86 64.83 S2P2F3 ha 2.25 54.95 1.69 56.33 1.10 56.10 3.11 42.25 2.82 63.19 S2P3F1 4630 2.38 54.94 2.00 58.25 1.28 57.53 3.37 41.65 2.99 62.47 S2P3F2 plant/ 2.33 53.91 1.93 55.99 1.39 56.10 3.29 41.15 2.92 61.73 S2P3F3 ha 2.31 52.87 1.86 55.98 1.36 65.10 3.25 40.00 2.90 61.33 Control 2.20 57.01 1.87 62.78 1.13 74.10 3.05 46.85 2.78 66.18 SEm (±) 0.02 0.33 0.04 1.05 0.004 0.65 1.23 0.41 0.04 0.79 C.D. at 5% 0.07 1.54 0.12 2.96 0.008 0.42 0.03 1.139 0.08 1.62 Table 4. Variations in pseudostem height (H in m) and girth (G in cm) at shooting stage of plant due to different planting densities and nutrition levels J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 16(2) : 152-163, 2021 Studies on high density planting and nutrient requirement 156 Table 5. Variations in leaf number per plant and leaf area index (LAI) at shooting stage of plant due to different planting densities and nutrition levels. Treat- No. of Bhubaneswar Gandevi Jorhat Kannara Mohanpur ment Plants/ Leaf/ LAI Leaf/ LAI Leaf/ LAI Leaf/ LAI Leaf/ LAI ha. Plant Plant Plant Plant Plant S1P2F1 3333 10.59 3.58 20.89 1.02 24.65 2.60 11.00 5.48 12.70 3.25 S1P2F2 plant/ 10.44 3.47 20.33 0.99 26.16 2.65 10.40 5.17 12.40 3.17 S1P2F3 ha 10.32 3.36 20.04 0.97 24.33 2.44 10.20 5.29 11.90 3.05 S1P3F1 5000 10.21 4.35 19.79 1.00 26.64 2.83 10.80 8.16 11.60 4.45 S1P3F2 plant/ 9.82 4.22 19.47 0.98 25.62 2.58 10.40 8.11 11.30 4.35 S1P3F3 ha 9.64 4.15 19.02 0.94 25.32 2.72 10.00 7.98 11.00 4.22 S2P2F1 3086 11.02 3.26 20.78 1.00 23.76 2.45 11.67 3.53 13.10 3.11 S2P2F2 plant/ 10.64 3.14 20.35 0.97 24.03 2.16 11.27 3.65 12.80 3.03 S2P2F3 ha 10.62 3.09 19.56 0.90 23.74 2.49 10.70 3.47 12.10 2.87 S2P3F1 4630 10.32 4.14 19.65 0.99 26.33 2.53 10.80 5.30 11.70 4.16 S2P3F2 plant/ 10.27 4.05 19.50 0.95 26.05 2.65 10.40 5.33 11.40 4.05 S2P3F3 ha 9.84 3.92 19.30 0.93 26.15 2.71 10.50 5.14 11.00 3.91 Control 11.24 2.70 21.53 1.04 21.45 6.48 13.50 1.72 13.60 2.61 SEm (±) 0.17 0.17 0.42 0.02 0.53 0.22 0.31 0.56 0.27 0.50 C.D. at 5% 0.52 0.52 1.17 0.07 1.10 0.46 0.92 1.20 0.55 1.01 Table 6. Variations in days taken for shooting (DS in days) and crop duration (CD in days) due to different planting densities and nutrition levels. Treat- No. of Bhubaneswar Gandevi Jorhat Kannara Mohanpur ment Plants/ha. DS CD DS CD DS CD DS CD DS CD S1P2F1 3333 217.4 309.3 288.5 398.1 254.7 341.7 247.5 336.1 297.1 389.1 S1P2F2 plant/ 214.3 304.2 294.8 390.3 253.3 342.9 248.2 338.7 293.3 383.3 S1P2F3 ha 212.5 299.3 298.9 402.8 252.0 341.2 258.5 343.7 292.6 379.6 S1P3F1 5000 240.4 338.4 312.2 413.0 279.7 335.4 259.6 348.1 309.7 407.7 S1P3F2 plant/ 236.7 332.7 302.7 421.5 281.7 352.7 259.5 347.5 303.4 399.4 S1P3F3 ha 219.3 312.7 311.4 420.8 284.7 350.1 265.8 354.1 298.6 391.6 S2P2F1 3086 218.6 308.4 291.2 393.7 245.0 332.1 239.6 329.5 295.3 385.3 S2P2F2 plant/ 216.8 303.4 285.3 383.2 242.0 326.0 240.7 330.2 293.5 380.5 S2P2F3 ha 215.5 299.3 293.8 407.8 240.7 322.9 247.6 336.1 296.1 380.1 S2P3F1 4630 236.6 331.5 313.7 411.5 270.7 351.0 251.5 339.5 306.4 401.4 S2P3F2 plant/ 237.4 329.8 313.3 415.7 272.3 351.6 257.3 345.3 304.2 396.2 S2P3F3 ha 219.8 307.9 324.0 414.5 269.7 347.2 259.8 348.5 299.9 387.9 Control 210.3 296.0 291.5 378.1 230.7 328.0 219.3 309.3 275.4 374.5 SEm (±) 3.63 5.23 6.73 6.90 0.86 0.57 1.26 1.80 8.57 8.57 C.D. at 5% 10.60 15.50 19.65 19.40 1.77 1.25 4.55 5.28 17.50 17.50 Sanjit et al J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 16(2) : 152-163, 2021 157 except at Ga ndevi, wherea s maximum gir th of pseudostem was recorded with conventional planting density and nutrition at all centres. Leaf number per plant at the shooting stage was recorded to be maximum in conventional planting at all centres except Jorhat, however, the leaf area index was recorded to be maximum in highest density of planting with 100% RDF (S1P2F1) at the Bhubaneswar, Kannara and Mohanpur centres. It was seen that more time (days) was required from planting to harvesting under the higher density of planting (5000 plant/ha), when compared to a lower plant population of 3086, 3333 and 4630 /ha. Such variations in pla nt growth characters viz., increase in pseudostem height, leaf area index, durations for shooting and harvesting, but reduction in pseudostem girth and leaf number per plant at shooting, as a result of high-density planting in banana were also established by the findings of Rodriguez et al. (2007), Thippesha et al. (2007), Pujari et al. (2011) and Debnath et al. (2015). Fruit yield and quality parameters were found to vary significantly due to different densities of planting and nutrition levels, across the centres (Tables 7,8 and 9). Finger number per bunch was recorded as being higher under lower density of planting, including control, at all centres except Jalgaon. Similarly, the weight of an individual bunch was also higher under lower density of planting. But the total fruit yield per unit area, that is, the productivity of banana showed steady increase due to increase in the density of planting. Maximum content of total soluble solids and shelf life of fruit were recorded under conventional plant density and nutrition at the Bhubaneswar, Jorhat and Mohanpur centres, whereas non-significant effect was recorded on the total soluble solids content of the fruit at Gandevi and Kannara centres. A plant population of 5000/ha with 100% RDF resulted in maximum fruit acidity at all centres. These results corroborated with the findings of Nalina et al. (2000), Thippesha et al. (2007), Pujari et al. (2011) and Debnath et al. (2015). The per cent increase in productivity over control due to different planting densities and nutrition levels varied from 8.3 to 50.6 at Bhubaneswar, 8.8 to 21.9 at Gandevi, 2.4 to 7.4 at Jorhat, 4.5 to 43.5 at Kannara and 5.7 to 79.0 at Mohanpur centre (Table 10). Maximum productivity and B: C ratio Table 7. Variations in finger number (FN) and finger weight (FW in gram) due to different planting densities and nutrition levels Treat- No.of Bhubaneswar Gandevi Jalgaon Jorhat Kannara Mohanpur ment Plants/ha. FN FW FN FW FN FN FW FN FW FN FW S1P2F1 3333 128.4 119.3 129.9 142.8 154.0 151.3 145.9 52.4 166.5 108.7 122.2 S1P2F2 plant/ 123.6 118.4 123.0 141.6 148.0 145.1 144.1 51.0 165.2 102.4 121.1 S1P2F3 ha 112.7 116.5 116.5 133.8 125.0 150.8 140.6 50.8 157.4 96.4 119.8 S1P3F1 5000 124.4 114.2 113.5 128.6 131.0 173.8 123.8 52.0 148.3 104.0 119.3 S1P3F2 plant/ 122.0 112.7 105.1 128.1 124.0 177.8 127.1 50.7 148.1 100.9 118.0 S1P3F3 ha 108.9 111.3 99.7 122.3 110.0 196.6 104.3 50.3 142.5 87.5 116.6 S2P2F1 3086 127.3 125.2 131.0 146.7 154.0 159.4 154.5 52.0 163.4 107.5 124.8 S2P2F2 plant/ 124.5 123.1 126.9 140.8 142.0 175.4 150.6 51.2 159.1 103.5 123.2 S2P2F3 ha 118.4 119.8 121.5 134.3 127.0 155.4 155.2 50.5 151.5 97.8 120.5 S2P3F1 4630 122.3 118.7 110.9 131.9 136.0 166.1 119.8 51.3 149.8 104.0 121.2 S2P3F2 plant/ 120.7 116.4 108.0 124.7 125.0 158.9 112.3 50.7 144.3 101.0 119.9 S2P3F3 ha 108.3 115.3 105.4 118.4 110.0 188.1 102.9 50.5 139.9 88.8 117.5 Control 130.2 129.4 133.7 147.5 147.0 269.5 161.8 56.9 168.7 110.7 125.3 SEm (±) 2.97 2.91 4.01 3.55 1.95 0.31 1.68 0.19 1.95 4.31 1.05 C.D. at 5% 9.01 8.92 11.3 9.98 5.69 0.67 NS 0.53 3.66 8.81 2.15 J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 16(2) : 152-163, 2021 Studies on high density planting and nutrient requirement 158 Treat- No.of Bhubaneswar Gandevi Jalgaon Jorhat Kannara Mohanpur ment Plants/ha. BW Y BW Y BW Y BW Y BW Y BW Y S1P2F1 3333 14.4 48.1 17.2 57.3 20.4 67.9 14.1 47.1 8.7 29.1 12.1 40.1 S1P2F2 plant/ 13.6 45.4 16.3 54.2 19.3 64.3 14.0 46.7 8.4 28.1 11.3 37.5 S1P2F3 ha 13.4 44.6 15.1 50.4 14.9 49.6 13.1 43.8 8.0 26.7 10.5 34.3 S1P3F1 5000 12.0 59.8 15.3 76.5 18.8 93.8 15.5 77.6 7.7 38.5 11.2 55.7 S1P3F2 plant/ 11.6 57.8 14.9 74.7 17.1 85.3 15.8 78.7 7.5 37.5 10.9 54.4 S1P3F3 ha 10.2 51.2 14.5 72.3 13.9 69.3 16.1 80.2 7.2 35.8 9.2 45.6 S2P2F1 3086 15.1 46.8 16.7 51.5 20.8 64.2 12.6 38.9 8.5 26.2 12.3 37.8 S2P2F2 plant/ 14.3 44.2 16.1 49.6 19.6 60.4 11.4 35.1 8.1 25.2 11.6 35.5 S2P2F3 ha 13.9 43.0 13.9 42.9 15.3 47.3 13.1 40.4 7.6 23.6 10.7 32.9 S2P3F1 4630 12.0 55.7 17.3 80.3 19.6 90.6 16.5 76.4 7.7 35.6 11.3 52.0 S2P3F2 plant/ 11.6 53.8 14.7 68.3 17.3 80.3 16.5 77.0 7.3 33.9 11.0 50.1 S2P3F3 ha 10.7 49.7 14.1 65.4 14.3 66.1 16.6 77.0 7.1 32.7 9.5 43.3 Control 15.9 49.0 20.3 62.8 21.2 94.2 17.2 74.7 10.7 26.9 12.4 31.1 SEm (±) 0.52 0.60 0.71 2.45 0.90 3.31 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.56 0.55 0.64 C.D. at 5% 1.54 1.80 2.09 6.90 2.65 9.65 0.18 0.12 0.15 0.98 1.13 1.30 Table 8. Variations in bunch weight (BW in kg) and yield (Y in t/ha) of fruit due to different planting densities and nutrition levels Table 9. Variations in total soluble solids (TSS in 0Brix), acidity (A in %), and shelf-life (SL in days) of fruits due to different planting densities and nutrition levels Treat- No.of Bhubaneswar Gandevi Jorhat Kannara Mohanpur ment Plants/ha. TSS A SL TSS A SL TSS A SL TSS TSS A SL S1P2F1 3333 22.9 0.30 6.90 20.1 0.37 9.14 18.8 0.15 7.50 30.4 24.6 0.48 10.1 S1P2F2 plant/ 22.3 0.29 6.70 19.7 0.35 9.26 17.9 0.19 8.33 30.2 23.8 0.46 9.70 S1P2F3 ha 22.1 0.27 6.20 19.7 0.30 8.80 19.2 0.16 8.06 30.0 23.2 0.42 9.50 S1P3F1 5000 22.7 0.37 6.80 19.9 0.39 8.94 20.2 0.31 8.80 30.4 24.4 0.59 9.80 S1P3F2 plant/ 21.6 0.36 6.40 19.6 0.35 9.49 19.6 0.21 9.27 30.2 23.7 0.58 9.50 S1P3F3 ha 20.9 0.34 6.00 19.8 0.32 9.85 19.5 0.26 9.08 29.9 23.1 0.56 9.10 S2P2F1 3086 23.1 0.33 7.00 20.0 0.35 8.93 16.7 0.16 7.73 30.0 24.8 0.55 10.2 S2P2F2 plant/ 23.0 0.33 6.80 19.6 0.33 9.03 13.7 0.21 8.60 29.8 24.5 0.55 9.80 S2P2F3 ha 22.4 0.30 6.60 19.6 0.30 9.05 18.6 0.17 7.69 30.0 24.1 0.48 9.60 S2P3F1 4630 22.6 0.36 6.80 20.1 0.37 9.33 19.6 0.35 7.18 30.1 24.5 0.55 9.90 S2P3F2 plant/ 21.7 0.35 6.50 19.4 0.36 8.95 19.2 0.22 8.75 29.8 23.9 0.54 9.80 S2P3F3 ha 21.1 0.32 6.10 19.6 0.31 9.00 21.0 0.23 8.81 29.6 23.3 0.51 9.50 Control 23.2 0.31 7.30 20.1 0.31 8.97 24.0 0.14 11.3 29.5 25.1 0.49 10.4 SEm (±) 0.21 0.01 0.18 0.23 0.01 0.20 0.25 0.01 0.19 0.2 0.33 0.05 0.28 C.D. at 5% 0.64 0.04 0.54 NS 0.02 0.56 0.53 0.01 0.39 NS 0.67 0.10 0.58 Sanjit et al J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 16(2) : 152-163, 2021 159 were estimated due to highest planting density of 5000 plants/ha at all centres, except Jalgaon. It va ried fr om 28. 9% to 50.6% at Bhuba neswa r, 15.2% to 21. 9% a t Gandevi, 4.0% to 7.4% at Jorhat, 33.5% to 43.5% at Kannara and 46.5% to 79.0% at Mohanpur, over the conventional system (control). However, the estimated B: C ratios varied with the levels of nutrition (50%, 75% and 100% of RDF) within the same planting density of 5000/ ha. For Kannara centre, maximum B: C ratio was 2.65 with 5000 plant/ha and 100% RDF, whereas, for Mohanpur and Bhubaneswar centres, it was 2.65 and 2.67, respectively with 5000 plants/ha and 75% RDF. In case of Jorhat and Gandevi centres, the B:C ratio was 4.94 and 5.40, respectively with 5000 plants/ha and 50% RDF. Hence, there were savings in fertilizer input by 25% at the Mohanpur and Bhubaneswar centres and by 50% at the Jorhat and Gandevi centres. It was noted that although the bunch weight of an individual plant under high density planting decreased, the total number of plants and bunches per unit area was much higher and hence the productivity much higher (Debnath et al., 2015). Increase in the photosynthetic canopy surface and light interception under high density planting are reported to be the major contributing f a c t or s f or higher p r odu c t ivit y in b a na na (Thippesha et al., 2007, Debnath et al., 2015). Significant variations were recorded in the soil nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium content (kg/ha) after harvesting of banana and in the leaf N, P and K content at the shooting stage of the fruit at all centres (Tables 11, 12, 13and 14). As compared wit h s oil nu t r ient s t a t u s a f ter ha r ves t int he convent iona l sys tem (cont r ol) , no signific a nt depletion was observed due to the combination of high density planting and nutrition treatment (that resulted in higher yield and maximum B:C ratio) in the available soil nitrogen content (except at the Gandevi, Jalgaon and Jorhat centres), the available soil phosphorus content (except at the Gandevi and Jalgaon centres) and the available soil potassium content (except at the Jalgaon and Jorhat centres). At the Bhubaneswar centre, maximum leaf N and P content was recorded in control, whereas it was lowest in the 50 00 pla nts /ha with 50% RDF treatment. But leaf K content was recorded as being maximum under the 3086 plants/ha with 100% RDF treatment and lowest in the 4630 plants/ha with 50% RDF treatment. However, leaf N, P and Table 10. Variations in yield increase over control (YI in %) and B:C ratio due to different planting densities and nutrition levels Treat- No.of Bhubaneswar Gandevi Jalgaon Jorhat Kannara Mohanpur ment Plants/ha. YI BCR YI BCR YI BCR YI BCR YI BCR YI BCR S1P2F1 3333 21.1 2.47 - 3.90 -27.9 2.32 - 2.78 8.3 2.13 29.0 2.41 S1P2F2 plant/ 14.4 2.54 - 4.12 -31.7 2.25 - 3.06 4.5 2.02 20.7 2.56 S1P2F3 ha 12.4 2.49 - 4.31 -47.3 1.77 - 3.15 -0.7 2.05 10.5 2.45 S1P3F1 5000 50.6 2.41 21.9 4.24 -0.4 2.76 4.0 3.73 43.5 2.60 79.0 2.42 S1P3F2 plant/ 45.6 2.67 19.0 4.77 -9.4 2.58 5.4 3.93 39.8 2.55 75.9 2.65 S1P3F3 ha 28.9 2.32 15.2 5.40 -26.4 2.16 7.4 4.94 33.5 2.47 46.5 2.34 S2P2F1 3086 17.8 2.44 - 3.57 -31.8 2.25 - 2.22 -2.4 2.13 21.4 2.45 S2P2F2 plant/ 11.4 2.57 - 3.84 -35.9 2.16 - 2.15 -6.3 2.02 14.1 2.54 S2P2F3 ha 8.3 2.43 - 3.65 -49.8 1.73 - 2.94 -12.1 2.02 5.7 2.44 S2P3F1 4630 40.4 2.34 27.9 4.76 -3.8 2.75 2.4 4.00 32.5 2.52 67.2 2.31 S2P3F2 plant/ 35.4 2.47 8.8 4.51 -14.8 2.50 2.7 4.32 26.1 2.45 61.2 2.45 S2P3F3 ha 25.2 2.29 4.2 5.00 -29.8 2.15 3.1 4.40 21.7 2.41 39.3 2.28 Control - 2.25 - 4.57 - 2.91 - 3.99 - 1.74 - 2.49 SEm (±) - - - - - - - - - - - - C.D. at 5% - - - - - - - - - - - - J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 16(2) : 152-163, 2021 Studies on high density planting and nutrient requirement 160 Table 11. Variations in available soil nitrogen (N) content (kg/ha) after harvest due to different planting densities and nutrition levels Treatment No.of Pl./ha Bhubaneswar Gandevi Jalgaon Jorhat Kannara Mohanpur S1P2F1 3333 196.0 259.3 225.0 276.5 280.0 281.3 S1P2F2 plant/ 194.0 249.7 222.0 301.5 274.3 279.2 S1P2F3 ha 187.0 244.7 208.0 234.6 289.0 272.4 S1P3F1 5000 191.0 265.0 211.0 194.8 312.2 278.1 S1P3F2 plant/ 185.0 256.1 209.0 205.7 356.6 274.2 S1P3F3 ha 177.0 249.7 203.0 200.2 328.8 270.5 S2P2F1 3086 198.0 260.2 220.0 211.6 285.6 282.3 S2P2F2 plant/ 196.0 250.5 212.0 227.0 274.2 280.3 S2P2F3 ha 189.0 247.3 209.0 216.6 269.3 274.8 S2P3F1 4630 195.0 264.1 214.0 193.2 286.1 279.3 S2P3F2 plant/ 188.0 248.8 211.0 204.5 295.0 276.1 S2P3F3 ha 182.0 244.3 205.0 183.6 268.1 271.1 Control 198.0 263.2 214.0 206.1 266.2 282.3 SEm (±) 7.62 - 0.61 2.05 3.56 5.20 C.D. at 5% 15.54 - 1.79 4.24 8.20 10.62 Table 12. Variations in available soil phosphorus (P2O5) content (kg/ha) after harvest due to different planting densities and nutrition levels Treatment No.of Pl./ha Bhubaneswar Gandevi Jalgaon Jorhat Kannara Mohanpur S1P2F1 3333 64.0 61.0 19.8 14.2 136.4 55.5 S1P2F2 plant/ 62.0 57.8 19.3 19.2 139.9 53.4 S1P2F3 ha 59.0 56.1 18.4 14.6 115.2 50.1 S1P3F1 5000 60.0 61.8 19.1 17.9 129.8 51.2 S1P3F2 plant/ 58.0 57.1 18.9 9.8 139.9 48.3 S1P3F3 ha 55.0 54.8 17.9 17.7 128.5 43.6 S2P2F1 3086 67.0 61.9 19.3 10.9 115.3 56.4 S2P2F2 plant/ 64.0 57.1 18.9 10.9 126.4 54.1 S2P2F3 ha 61.0 53.9 18.3 11.5 120.8 51.3 S2P3F1 4630 65.0 61.4 19.2 12.2 142.6 53.5 S2P3F2 plant/ 61.0 57.1 19.2 14.6 139.6 51.4 S2P3F3 ha 57.0 54.4 18.2 18.8 129.2 45.7 Control 69.0 60.7 19.2 13.3 70.2 57.6 SEm (±) 5.20 - 0.11 0.07 3.69 4.76 C.D. at 5% 14.04 - 0.31 0.15 7.25 9.97 Sanjit et al J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 16(2) : 152-163, 2021 161 Table 13. Variations in available soil potassium (K2O) content (kg/ha) after harvest due to different planting densities and nutrition levels Treatment No.of Pl./ha Bhubaneswar Gandevi Jalgaon Jorhat Kannara Mohanpur S1P2F1 3333 129.0 333.9 631.0 74.4 397.6 160.2 S1P2F2 plant/ 125.0 323.7 628.0 67.2 532.0 156.7 S1P2F3 ha 120.0 316.3 614.0 77.3 425.6 150.4 S1P3F1 5000 124.0 327.5 622.0 69.4 436.8 154.5 S1P3F2 plant/ 118.0 319.0 619.0 50.4 565.6 151.2 S1P3F3 ha 112.0 310.8 602.0 81.8 515.2 143.2 S2P2F1 3086 130.0 334.7 630.0 87.3 459.2 161.4 S2P2F2 plant/ 127.0 324.8 627.0 74.9 481.6 158.1 S2P2F3 ha 120.0 317.3 616.0 86.7 470.4 151.1 S2P3F1 4630 126.0 324.7 625.0 65.0 526.4 157.3 S2P3F2 plant/ 123.0 317.2 624.0 85.2 487.2 154.3 S2P3F3 ha 118.0 310.6 607.0 79.4 414.4 149.4 Control 130.0 330.7 622.0 71.7 330.4 162.5 SEm (±) 5.84 - 2.76 3.74 2.65 6.28 C.D. at 5% 14.60 - 8.04 7.73 7.40 13.12 Treat- No.of Bhubaneswar Jorhat Kannara Mohanpur ment Plants/ha. N P K N P K N P K N P K S1P2F1 3333 2.76 0.33 3.59 2.83 0.29 4.23 2.41 0.04 0.49 2.82 0.28 3.71 S1P2F2 plant/ 2.72 0.32 3.57 3.21 0.35 5.31 1.95 0.13 0.84 2.78 0.26 3.69 S1P2F3 ha 2.62 0.27 3.50 2.93 0.19 4.84 2.31 0.14 0.83 2.68 0.23 3.60 S1P3F1 5000 2.74 0.33 3.60 3.04 0.20 4.88 2.28 0.11 0.85 2.80 0.26 3.70 S1P3F2 plant/ 2.67 0.29 3.58 3.04 0.14 5.44 1.67 0.13 0.78 2.73 0.24 3.62 S1P3F3 ha 2.58 0.23 3.48 4.06 0.18 5.84 2.10 0.09 0.74 2.64 0.18 3.52 S2P2F1 3086 2.77 0.32 3.68 2.43 0.25 4.34 1.72 0.14 0.79 2.83 0.27 3.71 S2P2F2 plant/ 2.70 0.30 3.62 2.71 0.36 3.13 2.48 0.11 0.83 2.76 0.25 3.65 S2P2F3 ha 2.64 0.27 3.58 2.75 0.32 4.71 2.41 0.05 0.59 2.70 0.22 3.61 S2P3F1 4630 2.77 0.32 3.55 2.85 0.33 4.80 2.49 0.08 0.71 2.81 0.27 3.68 S2P3F2 plant/ 2.71 0.30 3.51 2.32 0.34 4.21 2.42 0.05 0.57 2.74 0.25 3.64 S2P3F3 ha 2.63 0.24 3.41 3.41 0.23 5.34 2.58 0.04 0.66 2.66 0.19 3.54 Control 2.79 0.34 3.65 3.45 0.30 3.11 2.81 0.04 0.50 2.85 0.20 3.72 SEm (±) 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.32 0.01 0.01 0.67 C.D. at 5% 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 Table 14. Variations in leaf N, P and K content (%) at the shooting stage due to different planting densities and nutrition levels J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 16(2) : 152-163, 2021 Studies on high density planting and nutrient requirement 162 *Estimated on the basis of RDF and planting density in HDP and conventional systems. **Calculated as per Ganeshamurthy et al. (7) and fruit yield from HDP and conventional systems. Table 15. Nutrient applied to and nutrient removed through fruit harvest from HDP (producing higher yield and highest B:C ratio) and conventional system (control) Centre HDP producing higher yield and Conventional system producing lower highest B:C ratio yield and lower B:C ratio Nutrient applied Nutrient removed Nutrient applied Nutrient removed (kg/ha)* through fruit (kg/ha)* through fruit harvest (kg/ha)** harvest (kg/ha)** N P2O5 K2O N P2O5 K2O N P2O5 K2O N P2O5 K2O Bhubaneswar 1375 550 1500 387 98 550 848 339 926 266 67 266 Gandevi 1875 750 1500 484 123 750 1157 463 926 421 107 421 Jorhat 1000 525 2250 537 136 400 889 467 1999 500 127 500 Kannara 1325 875 2000 258 65 530 662 437 1000 180 46 180 Mohanpur 1375 500 1500 364 92 550 687 250 750 208 53 208 K content showed no specific trend at the Jorhat and Kannara centres. At the Mohanpur centre, minimum leaf N, P and K content was recorded under the highest planting density (5000 plants/ha) with the lowest nutrition level (50% RDF). The nutrients applied to and nutrients removed through fruit harvest from HDP (producing higher yield and highest B:C ratio) and conventional systems were calculated and are presented in Table 15. Under the HDP system, the region-specific, per-plant RDF was increased in proportion to the increase in plant population per unit area, therefore, any remarkable depletion in soil and plant nutrient status may not have shown at many centres. It was observed by Debnath et al. (6) that the root zone of plants under the high density planting system had more density of effective feeder roots compared to the root zone of plants under the conventional (low density) planting system and it indicated better uptake of applied manures and fertilizers. In present study, the site-specific application of nutrients (RDF) to the high-density feeder root zones of banana p la nt s u nder H DP might ha ve c a us ed bet ter u tiliza t ion of a p p lied nu tr ient s , r esu lting in 25%-50% savings of RDF. CONCLUSION The results of this experiment showed that high density pla nting (HDP:5000pla nts/ha ) of ba na na , accommodating three suckers per hill at 2m x3m spacing,increased productivity over the conventional planting system at the Bhubaneswar, Gandevi, Jorhat, Kannara and Mohanpur centres. Under the HDP system, the nutrient requirement was 100% RDF at the Kannara centre, 75% RDF at the Bhubaneswar and Mohanpur centres and 50% RDF at the Gandevi and Jorhat centres. This indicated a savings in cost of fertilizer input by 25% at the Bhubaneswar and Mohanpur centres and by 50% at the Gandevi and Jorhat centres. It was therefore, recommended that HDP (5000 pla nts/ha ) in ba na na be a dopted, accommodating three suckers per hill at 2m x3m (6.6 ft x 3.8 ft) spacing with 50% RDF in the agro-climatic region of Gandevi and Jorhat, with 75% RDF in the agro-climatic region of Bhubaneswar and Mohanpur and with 100% RDF in the agro-climatic region of Ka nnar a for higher productivity a nd return on investment to farmers. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work was carried out with the financial support of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) and the collaborative organizations (SAUs/ICAR Institutes) under ICAR-All India Coor dinated Research Project (AICRP) on Fruits. The authors wish to acknowledge the ICAR and the collaborative organizations for providing the required research facilities and support. Sanjit et al J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 16(2) : 152-163, 2021 163 REFERENCES A.O.A.C. 1984. Official Methods of the Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemist. Washington, D. C., 14thEdn. Anonymous 2018. Horticultural Statistics at a Glance 2018. Hor ticultur a l Sta tistics Division, Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers’ Welfare, Ministry of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers’ Welfare, Govt. of Indai. New Delhi. Page: 174. Black, C.A. 1965. Methods of soil analysis. American Soc. Agron. Inc. Madison. pp. 1171-1175. Chapman, H.D. and Pratt, P.F. 1961. Methods of Analysis for Soil, Plants and Water. Univ. California, USA. p.6. Debnath, S., Bauri, F.K., Bandyopadhyay, B., Misra, D.K., Mandal, K.K., Murmu, I. and Patil, P. 2015. Identification of optimum leaf area index (LAI) for high density planting of banana cv. Martaman under Gangetic Alluvium region of West Bengal. J. Crop and Weed, 11(2):63-66. Debnath, S., Bauri, F.K., Mandal, K.K. and Patil, P. 2017. Effect of planting density on canopy orientation and root distribution of banana cv. Martaman (AAB). Paper presented at the national seminar on ‘Enhancing productivity of fruit crops – mitigating major challenges’, held on 8th January, 2017 at ICAR-IIHR, Bengaluru. Ganeshamurthy, A. N., Satisha, G. C. and Patil, P. 2011. Potassium nutrition on yield and quality of fruit crops with special emphasis on banana and grapes. Karnataka J. Agric. Sci.,24 (1) : 29-38. Gomez, K.A. and Gomez, A.A. 1983. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research, 2ndEdn., John Willey and Sons, New York. pp. 20-29. Jackson, M.L. 1967. Soil Chemical Analysis. Prentice Hall, India. Nalina, L., Kumar, N. and Sathiamoorthy, S. 2000. Studies on high density planting in banana cv. Robusta (AAA). 1. Influence on vegetative characters. IndianJ. Hort., 57(3): 190-195. Pujari, C. V., Pawar, R. D. and Marbhal, S. K. 2011. Studies on the effect of planting density and sucker arrangement on growth and flowering in banana. Adv. PlantSci., 24(2): 617-619. Rodriguez, W., Araya, J. C. and Perez, L. 2007. Effect of plant spacing and density on canopy structure and efficiency, growth and yield of banana (Musa AAA, cv. Willia ms). CORBANA, 33(60): 1-14. Subbiah, B.V. and Asija, G.L. 1956. A rapid procedure for the estimation of available nitrogen in soils. Curr. Sci., 25 : 259. Thippesha, D., Raju, B., Jagannath, S., Naik, D. J., Mahantesh, B. and Poornima, G. 2005. Studies on planting systems and spacing on growth characters of banana cv. Robusta (Musa AAA) under tr a nsitiona l zone of Ka r na ta ka . KarnatakaJ. Hort., 1(3): 63-69. Thippesha, D., Srinivas,V., Mahanthesh,B. Janardhan, G. a nd Vishnuvar dhana . 2007. Effect of different planting systems on flowering and crop duration with different levels of nutrition and spacing in banana cv. Robusta (AAA). Asian J. Hort., 2(2): 280-284. Turner, D.W. 1998. Ecophysiology of bananas: the generation and functioning of the leaf canopy. Acta Hort., 490: 211-221. (Received on 05.02.2021, Revised on 02.12.2021 and Accepted on 06.12.2021) J. Hortl. Sci. Vol. 16(2) : 152-163, 2021 Studies on high density planting and nutrient requirement 03 Debanath.pdf