Effects of Aluminum Sulphate, Ethanol, Sucrose and their Combination on the Longevity and Physiological Properties of Rose ( L.) Cut Flowers

Hailay Gebremedhin

Open Access

Effects of Aluminum Sulphate, Ethanol, Sucrose and their Combination on the Longevity and Physiological Properties of Rose (Rosa hybrida L.) Cut Flowers

Hailay Gebremedhin

| Jun 30, 2020

Journal of Horticultural Research

Volume 28 (2020): Issue 1 (June 2020)

About this article

Cite

Page range: 29 - 38

Received: Dec 01, 2019

Accepted: May 01, 2020

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/johr-2020-0013

Keywords
flower quality, pretreatment solutions, vase life

© 2020 Hailay Gebremedhin, published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Effects of different solutions used for 24-h treatment (A) and cultivars (B) on flower head diameter (FHD) and flower longevity. Means that do not differ significantly from each other at the p = 0.05 are illustrated with the same letter on the bar graph

Effects of different preservative solutions on solution uptake (A) and relative fresh weight (B) of rose cut flowers. Means that do not differ significantly from each other at the p = 0.05 are illustrated with the same letter on the bar graph

Effects of different concentration of Al2(SO4)3, ethanol, and sucrose on flower longevity (FL), flower head diameter (FHD), solution turbidity (ST), and water content ratio of the rose cut flowers

Factors	Treatment	FL (days)	FHD (cm)	ST	Water content ratio (g·g⁻¹)

					Vase life (days)

					1^st	4^th	8^th	12^th
Al₂ (SO₄)₃	water	12.00b	7.00	0.07a	6.82	5.79b	4.02b	3.12b
	0.5 g·dm⁻³	14.50a	6.98	0.05b	7.89	7.03a	5.63a	4.50a
	1.0 g·dm⁻³	13.00b	7.15	0.05b	7.89	6.49a	4.56b	3.52b
	1.5 g·dm⁻³	12.00b	6.55	0.04b	7.82	5.08c	4.14b	3.26b
	LSD_0.05	1.170	ns	0.01	ns	0.54	0.55	0.69

Cultivar	‘Red Sky’	13.67a	6.41b	0.05	8.20a	6.36a	4.34	3.86a
	‘Blizzard’	12.08b	7.43a	0.05	7.01b	5.84b	4.44	3.34b
	LSD_(0.05)	0.83	0.25	ns	0.78	0.38	ns	0.49

Al₂ (SO₄)₃ × cultivar interaction		ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns

	CV (%)	7.4	9.3	18.8	12.0	7.34	9.8	15.9

Ethanol	water	12.00c	7.00c	0.07a	6.82b	5.79bc	4.02b	3.12b
	4%	14.67a	7.93a	0.06b	8.63a	6.96a	6.04a	4.57a
	8%	13.50b	7.47b	0.05b	8.44a	6.22ab	5.00ab	3.21b
	12%	13.00bc	7.26bc	0.05b	6.90b	5.07c	4.08b	3.19b
	LSD_0.05	1.03	0.41	0.01	0.93	0.86	1.16	0.79

Cultivar	‘Red Sky’	13.92	6.66b	0.06	7.77	6.26	4.95	3.89a
	‘Blizzard’	12.67	8.17a	0.06	7.62	5.77	4.62	3.15b
	LSD_0.05	ns	0.29	ns	ns	ns	ns	0.56

Ethanol × cultivar interaction		ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns

	CV (%)	6.3	4.6	9.4	9.9	11.8	19.8	18.5

Sucrose	water	12.00c	7.00b	0.07c	6.82b	5.79b	4.02b	3.12b
	10 g·dm⁻³	13.50b	7.60a	0.07bc	7.83ab	6.33ab	4.60ab	3.55ab
	20 g·dm⁻³	14.83a	8.09a	0.08ab	8.16a	6.67ab	5.39a	4.21a
	30 g·dm⁻³	13.33b	8.19a	0.09a	8.36a	7.26a	4.60a	3.25b
	LSD_0.05	1.19	0.60	0.017	1.09	0.96	0.86	0.89

Cultivar	‘Red Sky’	13.91a	7.19b	0.08a	8.11	7.22a	5.22a	3.99a
	‘Blizzard’	12.92b	8.26a	0.07b	7.48	5.81b	4.26b	3.07b
	LSD_0.05	0.84	0.42	0.005	ns	0.67	0.62	0.63

Sucrose × cultivar interaction		ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns

	CV (%)	7.3	6.4	7.8	11.4	12.0	14.9	20.7

Effects of 24-h treatment with different solutions and cultivars on solution turbidity and solution uptake

Cultivars	Solution turbidity (on day 12^th)					Solution uptake (on day 16^th)

	24-h solutions treatments

	T1	T2	T3	T4	T5	T1	T2	T3	T4	T5
‘Red Sky’	0.08a	0.05de	0.06cd	0.068bc	0.047e	–	0.23c	0.23c	0.27ab	0.29a
‘Blizzard’	0.07ab	0.05de	0.07ab	0.065bc	0.053de	–	0.16e	0.19d	0.16e	0.27ab
LSD	0.06					0.02

p-values of PS × cultivar interaction	0.003					0.004

CV	15					8.5

Effects of different concentrations of Al2(SO4)3, ethanol and sucrose on solution uptake and relative fresh weight of cut flowers of rose cultivars

Factors	Treatment	Vase solution uptake (ml·day⁻¹·g⁻¹)				Relative fresh weight (%)

		day of experiment

		1^st	4^th	8^th	12^th	1^st	4^th	8^th	12^th
Al₂(SO₄)₃	Water	0.31	0.24b	0.21b	0.20b	101.79	91.12b	83.87b	67.86c
	0.5 g·dm⁻³	0.40	0.30a	0.28a	0.25a	109.01	100.72a	93.86a	83.55a
	1 g·dm⁻³	0.38	0.28ab	0.23b	0.21b	104.34	91.88b	86.27b	76.27b
	1.5 g·dm⁻³	0.37	0.24b	0.21b	0.20b	101.95	90.78b	82.19b	69.56c
	LSD_0.05	ns	0.05	0.04	0.04	ns	6.48	6.87	6.26

Cultivars	‘Red Sky’	0.38	0.26	0.23	0.21	103.44	94.03	85.52	75.27
	‘Blizzard’	0.35	0.27	0.24	0.22	105.11	93.16	87.58	73.38
	LSD_0.05	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns

Al₂(SO₄)₃ × cultivar interaction		ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns

	CV	11.6	15.5	17.2	15.2	6.9	5.7	6.5	6. 9

Ethanol	Water	0.31b	0.24b	0.21c	0.20b	101.78	91.02b	83.87b	67.86c
	4%	0.39a	0.31a	0.29a	0.27a	108.14	102.04a	97.76a	82.60a
	8%	0.37a	0.28a	0.26ab	0.25a	104.42	98.76a	93.11a	74.92b
	12%	0.37a	0.23a	0.22c	0.20b	107.70	98.42a	92.85a	75.16b
	LSD_0.05	0.04	0.04	0.04	0.04	ns	6.68	7.83	6.87

Cultivars	‘Red Sky’	0.36	0.27	0.24	0.23	107.10	97.21	91.53	75.15
	‘Blizzard’	0.35	0.29	0.25	0.23	103.92	97.91	92.26	75.12
	LSD_0.05	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns

Ethanol × cultivar interaction		ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns

	CV	8.7	13.7	14.6	16.4	6.9	5.6	7.0	7.5

Sucrose	Water	0.31b	0.24c	0.21b	0.20ab	88.96b	79.12b	75.99b	68.31c
	10 g·dm⁻³	0.40a	0.32b	0.26a	0.23a	116.76a	105.16a	89.62b	81.40b
	20 g·dm⁻³	0.41a	0.35a	0.25a	0.23a	110.28a	103.81a	107.26a	93.91a
	30 g·dm⁻³	0.42a	0.35a	0.24a	0.17b	110.29a	105.28a	109.80a	97.44a
	LSD_0.05	0.03	0.03	0.03	0.04	6.84	8.19	15.75	11.72

Cultivars	‘Red Sky’	0.41a	0.31	0.23	0.21	104.63	100.39	97.64	86.18
	‘Blizzard’	0.30b	0.31	0.24	0.21	108.52	96.29	93.70	84.35
	LSD_0.05	0.02	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns

Sucrose × cultivar interaction		ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns	ns

	CV	8.5	8.3	10.8	15.5	5.2	6.8	13.5	11.2

Effects of 24-h treatment with different solutions and cultivars on water content ratio (g·g−1) in outer petals

Factors	Combinations	Days of experiment

		1	4	8	12	16
Solutions	T1	5.9c	5.1c	4.1c	3.3c	–
	T2	7.5ab	6.9b	5.6ab	5.3b	3.7b
	T3	7.4ab	6.5b	5.2b	4.9b	3.8b
	T4	7.2b	6.5b	5.2b	5.7b	3.8b
	T5	8.3a	8.1a	6.2a	6.8a	4.5a
	LSD_0.05	1	1.1	0.9	1	0.5

Cultivars	‘Red Sky’	7.8a	7.2	5.7a	5.7a	4.1
	‘Blizzard’	6.7b	6.0	4.8b	4.7b	3.9
	LSD_0.05	0.6	ns	0.6	0.6	ns

Solution × cultivar interaction		ns	ns	ns	ns	ns

	CV (%)	11.8	14.5	15	16.2	10.9

eISSN:: 2300-5009
Language:: English

Publication timeframe:: 2 times per year
Journal Subjects:: Life Sciences, Biotechnology, Plant Science, Ecology, other

Journal RSS Feed

Effects of Aluminum Sulphate, Ethanol, Sucrose and their Combination on the Longevity and Physiological Properties of Rose (Rosa hybrida L.) Cut Flowers

Published Online: Jun 30, 2020

Page range: 29 - 38

Received: Dec 01, 2019

Accepted: May 01, 2020

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/johr-2020-0013

Keywords
flower quality, pretreatment solutions, vase life

© 2020 Hailay Gebremedhin, published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Effects of different concentration of Al2(SO4)3, ethanol, and sucrose on flower longevity (FL), flower head diameter (FHD), solution turbidity (ST), and water content ratio of the rose cut flowers

Effects of 24-h treatment with different solutions and cultivars on solution turbidity and solution uptake

Effects of different concentrations of Al2(SO4)3, ethanol and sucrose on solution uptake and relative fresh weight of cut flowers of rose cultivars

Effects of 24-h treatment with different solutions and cultivars on water content ratio (g·g−1) in outer petals

Effects of Aluminum Sulphate, Ethanol, Sucrose and their Combination on the Longevity and Physiological Properties of Rose (Rosa hybrida L.) Cut Flowers

Published Online: Jun 30, 2020

Page range: 29 - 38

Received: Dec 01, 2019

Accepted: May 01, 2020

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/johr-2020-0013

Keywordsflower quality, pretreatment solutions, vase life

© 2020 Hailay Gebremedhin, published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Effects of different concentration of Al2(SO4)3, ethanol, and sucrose on flower longevity (FL), flower head diameter (FHD), solution turbidity (ST), and water content ratio of the rose cut flowers

Effects of 24-h treatment with different solutions and cultivars on solution turbidity and solution uptake

Effects of different concentrations of Al2(SO4)3, ethanol and sucrose on solution uptake and relative fresh weight of cut flowers of rose cultivars

Effects of 24-h treatment with different solutions and cultivars on water content ratio (g·g−1) in outer petals

Keywords
flower quality, pretreatment solutions, vase life