BIBLIOGRAPHY LARDIZABAL, MARJORIE B. APRIL...
BIBLIOGRAPHY
LARDIZABAL, MARJORIE B. APRIL 2006. Effect of pH of Holding Solution
on the Vaselife and Cutflower Quality of Peruvian Lily (
Alstromeria sp. L). Benguet
State University, La Trinidad, Benguet.
Adviser: Dr. Araceli G. Ladilad, PhD
ABSTRACT
This study was conducted to determine the effects of pH of holding solution on
the vaselife and cutflower quality of Peruvian Lily; and to determine the best pH of
holding solution that will prolong the vaselife and preserve the quality of cutflowers.
Alstromeria cutflowers harvested at 50% anthesis were held in different pH of
3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 5.0 and 6.5 of the holding solution contain tapwater + 20% sucrose + 1 ml
chlorox + citric acid.
Results showed using holding solutions with a pH of 4.0 containing 20% sucrose
+ 1 ml chlorox + citric acid promoted the longest duration of flower opening resulting to
longer vaselife of cutflowers.
Likewise, holding solutions with a pH of 3.0 and 4.0 promoted better petal quality
rating of Alstromeria cutflowers while holding solutions with pH of 4.0 and 5.0 also
prolonged stem freshness thus, with a higher stem quality rating.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i
Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ii
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Use of Preservatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4
Longevity of Flowers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5
Holding Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5
Floral Preservatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6
Senescence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6
Water pH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8
Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Vaselife (Days). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12
Volume of Solution Taken-up (ml) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
Number of Days from Flower Immersion to
Full Flower Opening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
Petal Quality Rating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14
ii
Leaf Quality Rating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
15
Stem Quality Rating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21
Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21
LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24
iii
1
INTRODUCTION
Peruvian lily (
Alstromeria sp.) or lily of the Incas belongs to the family of
Liliaceae, became an increasingly important part of the commercial cutflower trade. The
flowers came in the variety of types and colors. All have a long postharvest life.
Typically terminated by petal wilting and or drop and yellowing of leaves. The specie
was subsequently named after The Swedish Consul in Spain, Clas Alstroemer.
Alstromeria, commonly called the Peruvian Lily or Lily of the Incas is a South
American
genus of about 50
species of flowering plants, mainly from cool, mountainous
regions in the Andes. Alstromeria flowers are similar to lilies although smaller. The
plants also tend to be quite small compared to lilies. These plants grow annually from
tuber and can make large groups after a few years (Glick, 2001).
The plants are tuberous or rhizomatous perennials.
The young plant start growing
from main rhizome, sending up
, per year, between 60-80 flowering stems. They grow to
a height of 50-130 cm. Each erect stem grows foliage of a few lanceolate leaves and ends
in an umbel of 3-10 flowers. These have six petals with spots, striped markings and
contrasting patches (Glick, 2001)
.
Alstromeria, a new garden plant that is being grown for its beautiful, large
infloresences of purple, lavender, red, pink, yellow, orange, white and bicolors. The
flowers are delicate and trumpet like. Stems are 2-3 feet long. Since it has several
flowers on one stem, it is a good flower to “fill in” the empty spots in an arrangement. In
large bunch,
Alstromeria looks lovely all by itself. Flowers of
Alstromeria are highly
sensitive to ethylene. Although untreated
Alstromeria flowers have long vaselife; petal
Effect of pH of Holding Solution on the Vaselife and Cutflower Quality
of Peruvian Lily (
Alstromeria sp. L) / Marjorie B. Lardizabal. 2006
2
drop (particularly a problem if there is ethylene in the environment). In some cutflowers,
leaf yellowing occurs before flower senescence. It can be delayed by a pulse treatment
with a preservative containing growth regulators (gibberellins or cytokinins).
Alstromeria grow best in full sun, but can also grow when given partial shade.
Height of the plants will vary from 1-3 ft tall depending on the cultivars, the amount of
light the plant receives, and plant cultures. Flowering stems are shorter on plants that are
grown in full sun. Plant will also remain shorter during the growing season if flowering
stems are removed after they bloom.
Alstromeria plants that are grown in the garden
respond positively to the application of mulch, watering procedures and fertilizers
applied. The plant should be kept moist and cool, but should not be allowed in poorly
drained soils. In cold regions, the rhizomes of Alstromeria can be stored and kept cool
(1-3 oC) and not allowed to dry out.
For long-distance markets, flowers are harvested when the buds are about to open
and start to color. For local markets, harvest is delayed until the first three flowers have
opened. Flowers are pulled off or cut depending on the variety where pulling may
damage the underground parts of the plant, the stem should be cut. If flowers are cut, the
remaining stem should be removed later. At least one flower per stem should be open at
time of purchase.
Growing
Alstromeria can be developed as a profitable business in Baguio-
Benguet. Production of
Alstromeria cutflower could also provide a good source of
income. Growers of cutflowers are not yet knowledgeable on the issues concerning
postharvest losses as a result, the country’s efficiency on cutflower production declines.
The cutflower industry must then be quick to adopt the continually changing market
Effect of pH of Holding Solution on the Vaselife and Cutflower Quality
of Peruvian Lily (
Alstromeria sp. L) / Marjorie B. Lardizabal. 2006
3
demand if it is to remain viable. This includes the need to respond to increasingly
sophisticated cutflowers in terms of quality and volume.
Finally, it is hoped that this study will help
Alstromeria growers and retailers in
prolonging the postharvest life of their cutflowers and make these flowers available in the
market on a year round basis.
The objective of the study was to determine the effects of different pH of holding
solution on the vaselife of Peruvian Lily (
Alstromeria sp.).
The study was conducted at the Department of Horticulture Service Laboratory,
College of Agriculture, Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet from December
2005 to March 2006.
Effect of pH of Holding Solution on the Vaselife and Cutflower Quality
of Peruvian Lily (
Alstromeria sp. L) / Marjorie B. Lardizabal. 2006
4
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Use of Preservatives
The main reason for the failure of cutflowers to develop and survive to an extent
similar to that intact flowers are due to the lack of sufficient carbohydrate reserves
needed for the growth and difficulties in the absorption of water apparently due to the
formation of stem blockage in the stem of cutflowers attributed to physical and chemical
causes (Rogers, 1973).
According to Rimando (1982) as cited by Nagpala (2003), preservative solutions
are used to prolong vaselife, stimulate flower opening and to condition cutflowers and
cutfoliage before shipment. The basic components of most preservatives are: a source of
sucrose to enhance the water retaining capacity of the tissues and the a source of
substrate; a germicide to help maintain the efficient uptake of water conducting function
of the stem; an acidifying agent and buffer to inhibit the activity of certain enzymes and
heavy metals to help stabilize color and prevent microbial build-up.
Fifty percent of 7-up (carbonated soda) solution significantly lengthen the vaselife
of some cutflower compared to other holding solutions (Ladilad, 1980). Sugar supports
the processes fundamental for prolonging vaselife such as maintaining mitochondrial
structure and functions, improving water balance by regulating transportation and
increasing water uptake. All sugar present in floral preservatives make excellent media
for the growth of microorganism that plug water vessels in a stem. Therefore, sugar must
be combined with germicide in the preservative mixture.
Effect of pH of Holding Solution on the Vaselife and Cutflower Quality
of Peruvian Lily (
Alstromeria sp. L) / Marjorie B. Lardizabal. 2006
5
Longevity of Flowers
Temperature is the major factor affecting the storage and vaselife of flowers. This
is through its influence on the respiration rate of the flowers and their response to
ethylene, moisture loss and physical change. Cooling is also necessary to reduce other
metabolic activities and to show the rate of opening of flower. The temperature of flower
at harvest is normally close to that of the ambient air. At this temperature respiration
activity is very high and storage/vaselife will be short. Ethylene reduces the longevity of
some flowers and foliage by causing rapid wilting of petals, shedding or shattering of
petals or other change to petal tissues such as loss or change of color. Therefore, flowers
which are sensitive to ethylene should not be held in the same cool store as ethylene
producing fruits, vegetable or foliage or be exposed to exhaust fumes.
According to Coorts (1965), the respiratory rate for intact rose was quite high and
reduced at minimum at the time when the sepals had folded out from the developing bud.
At commercial harvest, when the first petals were breaking away from the flower body,
respiration declined.
Further, he stated that to maintain cutflower quality, cutflower should be
harvested at the right stage of maturity; however, maturity stages vary from flower to
flower under different cultural and marketing situations. In most cases, flowers are cut at
the harvest stage in order to assure full opening in the vase.
Effect of pH of Holding Solution on the Vaselife and Cutflower Quality
of Peruvian Lily (
Alstromeria sp. L) / Marjorie B. Lardizabal. 2006
6
Holding Solutions
Sucrose as a holding solution is beneficial because it is the source of energy due
to the closure of stomata and reduction of water loss (Wheally, 1992). Marovsky (1969)
found that sucrose solution increased the fresh weight and longevity of cutflowers.
According to Rimando (1982), the optimum leaves of sucrose must be provided to
successfully open cutflowers to quality blooms. Furthermore, the preservatives in
addition to extending the vaselife of cutflowers had been used as opening solutions for
cutflowers harvested at immature stage of flower development.
Floral Preservatives
Sucrose had been shown to increase the fresh weight and longevity of cutflowers.
Sucrose also reduces moisture stress in cutflowers by decreasing the size of leaf stomata
(Marovsky, 1969). Flowers held in sucrose were comparable to field opened flowers.
Sucrose in the holding solution is beneficial because it is the source of energy of
cutflowers.
There is probably no preservative that is equally effective for all flower types; the
optimal concentration of the different components of preservatives would vary from
flower to flower (Rimando and Maralit, 1980).
Organic acids are used to lower the pH of the solution. A low pH was shown to
favor the activity of the presumed enzyme since acidification of the vase water tends to
minimize physiological stem blockage (Coorts, 1965). A pH of 3.5 to 4.0 extends shelf-
life because it inhibits indigenous enzymes essential for stem plugging (Rimando, 1982).
Effect of pH of Holding Solution on the Vaselife and Cutflower Quality
of Peruvian Lily (
Alstromeria sp. L) / Marjorie B. Lardizabal. 2006
7
Senescence
A freshly cut flower is still living and is an actively metabolizing entity whose life
span is subsequently terminated by senescence, as distinguished from aging which
involves gradual changes that are deteriorative but not lethal in themselves (Leopold,
1975).
Senescence is a concept of physiological and biochemical process. The initial
event of senescence remains obscure, during the development of some cutflowers like
carnation and rose, a climacteric rise in ethylene production signifies the promotion of
senescence. Therefore, a change in permeability of the tissues can be detected (Mayak,
1987).
Water pH
Acidity alteration is the most important of the three considerations of components
of floral preservatives since alkaline or high pH water/solution is damaging to cutflowers.
Reduced water potential of the holding solution usually influences and decreases pH of
water and sugar uptake. A low pH inhibits indigenous enzymes essential for stem
plugging and tends to minimize physiological stem blockage (Reid, 2000).
Various chemicals are used to increase the acidity of a solution. The most
available chemical is vinegar. However, vinegar whitened the stem submerged in the
solution.
Effect of pH of Holding Solution on the Vaselife and Cutflower Quality
of Peruvian Lily (
Alstromeria sp. L) / Marjorie B. Lardizabal. 2006
8
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Materials
The materials used were
Alstromeria cutflowers, catsup bottles and holding
solutions, stirring rod, beaker and weighing balance used in the preparation of the
solution. A pH meter utilized for determining the pH level of the preservative solutions.
The preservative or holding solutions used were the following:
1. Ascorbic acid (to replace citric acid) at different rates to vary the pH solution.
2. Sucrose - 20% by weight
3. Chlorox - 1 ml/l solution
Methods
Newly harvested
Alstromeria flowers at 50% anthesis were obtained from a
flower shop in Baguio City. The stem ends were cut back about 1 cm and soaked for one
(1) night in tap water before being held in the different holding solutions.
The experiment was laid out following the completely randomized design (CRD)
with three replications and was conducted at ambient room temperature averaging 15 0C-
160C. Two flowers represented one treatment replication. The following were the
treatments:
Treatment
pH of the Holding Solution
T1
3.0
T2
3.5
T3
4.0
T4
5.0
T5
6.0
T6
7.0 (control) - tap water only
Effect of pH of Holding Solution on the Vaselife and Cutflower Quality
of Peruvian Lily (
Alstromeria sp. L) / Marjorie B. Lardizabal. 2006
9
The data gathered were:
1. Vaselife (Days). The number of days covering the period from holding of the
cutflower in the solution up to the termination of the aesthetic value of the flowers.
2. Volume of solution taken-up (ml). The final volume of solution per treatment at the
termination of the postharvest life of the sample flowers was deducted from the initial
volume of 200 ml per catsup bottle.
3. Number of days from immersion to full flower opening. This was done by recording
the number of days from immersion to full flower opening.
4. Petal quality rating. The quality of petals of each flower was noted daily using the
following index:
Rating Index
Description
1
51 - 60% open
2
61 - 80% open
3
81 - 100% open
5. Stem quality. The stem quality of each flower was rated using the following rating:
Rating Index
Description
1
dark green, no injury
2
dark green and rotting at the base ( 2.0 cm)
3
dark green and rotting at the base ( 2.5 cm)
4
green and rotting at the base ( 3.0 cm)
5
green and rotting at the base ( 3.5 cm)
6
yellow green and rotting at the base ( 4.0 cm)
7
yellow green and rotting at the base ( 4.5 cm)
Effect of pH of Holding Solution on the Vaselife and Cutflower Quality
of Peruvian Lily (
Alstromeria sp. L) / Marjorie B. Lardizabal. 2006
10
6. Leaf quality rating. This was obtained by using the following rating index:
Rating Index
Description
1
1 - 20% yellowing of the leaves
2
21 - 40% yellowing of the leaves
3
51 - 60% yellowing of the leaves
4
61 - 80% yellowing of the leaves
5
81 - 100% yellowing of the leaves
7. Documentation of the study in pictures.
Effect of pH of Holding Solution on the Vaselife and Cutflower Quality
of Peruvian Lily (
Alstromeria sp. L) / Marjorie B. Lardizabal. 2006
Plate 1. Overview of the experimental cutflowers
pH 3.0
pH 3.5
pH 4.0
pH 5
pH 5.0
pH 6.5
Plate 2. Overview of the cutflowers at various pH range
12
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Vaselife
Table 1 shows that Alstromeria cutflowers held in holding solutions and tapwater
only with a pH of 3.5, 5.0, 6.0 and 6.5 had the longest vaselife of 18 days followed by
those held in 20% sucrose + 1 ml chlorox + citric acid with a pH of 4.0 had a vaselife of
17.66 days. Flowers held in solutions with 20% sucrose + 1 ml chlorox + citric acid with
a pH of 3.0 had the shortest vaselife of 16.66 days.
However, statistical analysis did not show any significant differences among the
different pH of the holding solutions as far as vaselife is concerned. Further, the onset of
senescence may be related to some antecedent changes that occur before harvest. The
most decisive factor, however, which may trigger senescence of cutflower at any stage of
its development. Senescence concerns physiology and biochemical processes (Mayak,
1987). Havey and Mayak (1979) further stated that the most obvous symptoms of the
final stages of senescence is the loss of fresh weight, drying and shrivelling. Further,
Rimando (1980) stated that the loss of turgidity, exposure to ethylene and shortage of
respirable substances are the most decisive factor which may trigger the onset of
senescence of cutflower at any stage of their development whether they are still attached
or already detached from the plant. Waters (1966) concluded that proper storage,
methods and postharvest procedures can extend vaselife but if not used correctly may
reduce vaselife.
Effect of pH of Holding Solution on the Vaselife and Cutflower Quality
of Peruvian Lily (
Alstromeria sp. L) / Marjorie B. Lardizabal. 2006
13
Table 1. Vaselife (days)
===============================================================
TREATMENT
MEAN
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pH 3.0
16.67a
pH 3.5
18.00a
pH 4.0
17.67a
pH 5.0
18.00a
pH 6.0
18.00a
pH 6.5
18.17a
===============================================================
Means with same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Volume of Solution Taken-up
Statistical analysis showed that there were no significant differences in the
volume of solution taken-up by the alstromeria cutflowers as affected by the different pH
levels in the holding solutions. Cutflowers held in a solution with pH 4.0 had higher rate
of absorption, taking up 48.33 ml of the holding solution at the termination followed by
those held in solutions with pH of 6.5, 3.5, 5.0 and 6.0 whereas flowers held in solution
with a pH of 3 absorbed the least.
Number of Days from Flower Immersion to
Full Flower Opening
The number of days to full flower opening ranged from 6 to 9 days. Statistical
analysis showed significant differences obtained on the number of days from immersion
to full flower opening as affected by the different pH levels of the holding solution (Table
3). Cutflowers held in 20% sucrose + 1 ml chlorox + citric acid with a pH of 4.0
promoted the longest duration of flower opening with a mean of 9.0 days followed by
those held in
Effect of pH of Holding Solution on the Vaselife and Cutflower Quality
of Peruvian Lily (
Alstromeria sp. L) / Marjorie B. Lardizabal. 2006
14
Table 2. Volume of solution taken-up (ml)
===============================================================
TREATMENT
MEAN
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pH 3.0
35.83a
pH 3.5
43.50a
pH 4.0
48.33a
pH 5.0
39.67a
pH 6.0
38.33a
pH 6.5
45.33a
===============================================================
Means with same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
solutions with pH 5, 6.5 and 6.0; whereas alstromeria cutflowers held at pH 3.0 and 3.5
had the shortest duration to flower opening with full opened flowers after 6.5 and 6.6
days.
Rimando and Maralit (1980) found that in Shasta daisy the presence of 10%
sucrose resulted in the successful further opening of cutflower buds to quality blooms
which was comparable and even bigger than field opened blooms. However, 8% sucrose
appeared to be the optimum sugar level as regards to vaselife irrespective of flower bud
stage at harvest.
Petal Quality Rating
The petal quality rating for all the cutflowers in the experiment was done every
two days.
Statistical anlysis showed that there was no significant differences from day 2 to
day 4 on the petal quality rating of alstromeria cutflowers held in holding solutions with
different pH.
Effect of pH of Holding Solution on the Vaselife and Cutflower Quality
of Peruvian Lily (
Alstromeria sp. L) / Marjorie B. Lardizabal. 2006
15
Table 3. Number of days from immersion to full flower opening
===============================================================
TREATMENT
MEAN
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pH 3.0
6.50b
pH 3.5
6.67b
pH 4.0
8.50a
pH 5.0
7.17b
pH 6.0
7.00b
pH 6.5
7.17b
===============================================================
Means with same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
On the 6th day, Alstromeria cutflowers held in the solutions with a pH 3.0, 3.5 and
4.0 had the highest petal quality rating of 1.5, while those held in the solutions with a pH
of 5.0 and 6.5 had the lowest petal quality rating of 2.33.
On the 8th day, there were no significant differences noted on the petal quality
rating. On the 10th, cutflowers held in solutions with a pH of 3.0 and 4.0 had the highest
petal quality rating of 2.17 while the lowest petal quality rating was observed in solutions
with pH 5.0, 6.0 and 6.5, both had a mean of 3.0.
On the 12th day, highest petal quality rating was observed in cutflowersheld in
solutions with a pH of 4.0 with a mean of 2.50 while the lowest petal quality rating was
noted on the solution with a pH of 5, 6 and 6.5 with a mean of 3.0.
From day 14 to 18, cutflowers held in solutions with the different pH had all the
same means of 3.0 which means that all the flower petals are fully opened.
Effect of pH of Holding Solution on the Vaselife and Cutflower Quality
of Peruvian Lily (
Alstromeria sp. L) / Marjorie B. Lardizabal. 2006
16
Table 4. Petal quality rating
===============================================================
TREATMENT DAY 2 DAY 4 DAY 6 DAY 8 DAY 10
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pH 3.0
1.0a
1.0a 1.50a 1.83a
2.17a
pH 3.5
1.0a
1.0a 1.50a 1.83a
2.33a
pH 4.0
1.0a
1.0a 1.50a 1.83a
2.17a
pH 5.0
1.0a
1.0a 2.33a 2.83a
3.00a
pH 6.0
1.0a
1.0a
2.17a 2.67a
3.00a
pH 6.5
1.0a
1.0a 2.33a 2.83a
3.00a
===============================================================
Means with same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Table 4b. Petal quality rating
===============================================================
TREATMENT DAY 12 DAY 14 DAY 16 DAY 18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pH 3.0
2.83a
3.00a 3.00a 3.00a
pH 3.5
2.83a
3.00a 3.00a 3.00a
pH 4.0
2.50a
3.00a 3.00a 3.00a
pH 5.0
3.00a
3.00a 3.00a 3.00a
pH 6.0
3.00a
3.00a 3.00a 3.00a
pH 6.5
3.00a
3.00a 3.00a 3.00a
===============================================================
Means with same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Leaf Quality Rating
Statistical analysis showed that there were no significant differences observed on
the 2nd day of observations on the leaf quality rating of Alstromeria cutflowers held in
solution with different pH.
Effect of pH of Holding Solution on the Vaselife and Cutflower Quality
of Peruvian Lily (
Alstromeria sp. L) / Marjorie B. Lardizabal. 2006
17
On day 4, no significant differences were likewise observed; however,
Alstromeria cutflowers held in a solution with pH 3.0 had the highest leaf quality rating
with a mean of 1.17 while the lowest quality rating was observed on the cutflowers held
in a solution with pH 3.0, 4.0 and 5.0 with a mean of 1.67.
On day 6, Alstromeria cutflowers held in solution with a pH of 6.0 had the highest
leaf quality rating of 1.5 while the lowest quality was observed on the cutflowers held in
solution with a pH of 3.5 and 4.0 with a mean of 2.17.
On day 8, Alstromeria cutflowers held in a solution with a pH of 6.0 and 6.5 had
the highest leaf quality rating of 2.17 while the lowest leaf quality rating was observed on
the cutflowers held in solution with a pH of 3.5 with a mean of 2.83.
On the 10th day, highest quality rating was observed on the cutflowers held in
solutions with a pH of 3.5 and 4.0 both had a mean of 3.0 while the lowest leaf quality
rating was observed on the cutflower held in a solution with a pH of 3.0 and 5.0 with a
mean of 3.33.
On the 12th day, cutflowers held in a solution with a pH of 3.5 and 6 had the
highest leaf quality rating of 3.83 while the lowest leaf quality rating was observed on the
cutflowers held in a solution with a pH of 5 with a mean of 4.33.
Stem Quality
Statistical analysis showed that there was no significant differences from day 2 to
8 on the stem quality of Alstromeria as affected by the different pH levels of the holding
solution.
Effect of pH of Holding Solution on the Vaselife and Cutflower Quality
of Peruvian Lily (
Alstromeria sp. L) / Marjorie B. Lardizabal. 2006
18
Table 5. Leaf quality rating
===============================================================
TREATMENT DAY 2 DAY 4 DAY 6 DAY 8 DAY 10
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pH 3.0
1.0
1.17a 2.00a 2.67a
3.33a
pH 3.5
1.0
1.50a 2.17a 2.83a
3.00a
pH 4.0
1.0
1.67a 2.17a 2.33a
3.00a
pH 5.0
1.0
1.67a 2.00a 2.33a
3.33a
pH 6.0
1.0
1.67a 1.50a 2.17a
3.17a
pH 6.5
1.0
1.67a 1.83a 2.17a
3.17a
===============================================================
Means with same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Table 5b. Leaf quality rating
===============================================================
TREATMENT DAY 12 DAY 14 DAY 16 DAY 18
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pH 3.0
4.17a
4.83a
4.83a 5.00a
pH 3.5
3.83a
4.67a
5.00a 5.00a
pH 4.0
4.17a
4.67a
5.00a 5.00a
pH 5.0
4.33a
4.67a
5.00a 5.00a
pH 6.0
3.83a
4.33a
4.83a 5.00a
pH 6.5
4.00a
4.17a
4.83a 5.00a
===============================================================
Means with same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
On day 10, Alstromeria cutflowers held in the solution with a pH of 3.5, 4.5 and 6
had the highest mean of 1.83 while cutflowers held in the solution with a pH of 3.0 had
the lowest quality rating of 2.17.
Effect of pH of Holding Solution on the Vaselife and Cutflower Quality
of Peruvian Lily (
Alstromeria sp. L) / Marjorie B. Lardizabal. 2006
19
On the 12th day, highest stem quality rating was observed in the solution with a
pH of 6.0 with a mean of 2.17 while cutflowers held in solution with a pH of 3 and 3.5
had the lowest stem quality rating with a mean of 3.17.
On day 14, highest stem quality rating was observed in the solution with a pH of
6.0 and 6.5 with a mean of 3.17 while the lowest stem quality rating was noted on the
solution with a pH of 3.0 with a mean of 4.17 which means that the stems were still dark
green.
On the 16th day, cutflowers held in the solution with a pH of 5.0 had the highest
stem quality rating of 3.83 while those held in the solution with a pH of 3 had the lowest
stem quality rating of 4.50.
On the last day of observation, cutflowers held in a solution with a pH of 4.0 and
5.0 had the highest stem quality rating of 4.33 while, those held at pH 6.5 had the lowest
stem quality, the stems were green and rotting at the base.
Other Observation
Fungal mycellia were noted at the stem ends in alstromeria cutflowers held in
solutions with pH 5.0, 6.0 and 6.5 on the last day of observations.
Table 6. Stem quality rating
===============================================================
TREATMENT DAY 2 DAY 4 DAY 6 DAY 8 DAY 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pH 3.0
1.0
1.0
1.0 1.0
2.17a
pH 3.5
1.0
1.0
1.0 1.0
1.83a
pH 4.0
1.0
1.0
1.0 1.0
1.83a
pH 5.0
1.0
1.0
1.0 1.0
1.83a
pH 6.0
1.0
1.0
1.0 1.0
1.83a
pH 6.5
1.0
1.0
1.0 1.0
2.00a
===============================================================
Means with same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Effect of pH of Holding Solution on the Vaselife and Cutflower Quality
of Peruvian Lily (
Alstromeria sp. L) / Marjorie B. Lardizabal. 2006
20
Table 5b. Stem quality rating
===============================================================
TREATMENT DAY 12 DAY 14 DAY 16 DAY 18
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pH 3.0
3.17a
4.17a
4.50a 5.00a
pH 3.5
3.17a
3.83a
4.33a 5.00a
pH 4.0
2.50a
3.53a
4.83a 4.33a
pH 5.0
2.67a
3.50a
4.00a 4.33a
pH 6.0
2.17a
3.17a
3.83a 4.67a
pH 6.5
2.33a
3.17a
4.33a 5.17a
===============================================================
Means with same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Effect of pH of Holding Solution on the Vaselife and Cutflower Quality
of Peruvian Lily (
Alstromeria sp. L) / Marjorie B. Lardizabal. 2006
21
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Summary
Alstromeria cutflowers were harvested at 50% anthesis and were held in holding
solutions containing 20% sucrose + 1 ml chlorox + citric acid.
Results showed that alstromeria cutflowers harvested at 50% anthesis held in
tapwater only and in holding solutions with pH 6.5, 6.0, 5.0 and 3.5 had longer vaselife
compared to cutflowers held in holding solutions with pH 3.0, 4.0 and 5.0 which had the
shortest vaselife.
All the cutflowers held in solutions with different pH showed different extents of
stem damage and had yellowing of the leaves at the termination of observations.
The lowest cutflower quality rating were recorded in cutflowers held in solutions
containing 20% sucrose + 1 ml Chlorox + citric acid with a pH of 6.0. Cutflowers held in
solutions containing 20% sucrose + 1 ml Chlorox + citric acid with a pH of 4 and 5 had
higher stem quality rating on the last day of observations compared to other treatments.
Conclusion
Results showed that using holding solution with a pH of 4.0 containing 20%
sucrose + 1 ml Chlorox + citric acid promoted the longest duration of flower opening
resulting to longer vaselife of Alstomeria cutflowers.
Recommendation
Based on the findings, it is recommended that using a holding solution with a pH
of 4.0 containing 20% sucrose + 1 ml Chlorox + citric acid can be used to promote longer
duration of flower opening, thereby promoting longer cutflower vaselife.
Effect of pH of Holding Solution on the Vaselife and Cutflower Quality
of Peruvian Lily (
Alstromeria sp. L) / Marjorie B. Lardizabal. 2006
22
LITERATURE CITED
COORTS, G.D. 1975. Internal metabolic changes in cutflowers. Hort. Sci. 8:196-198.
COORTS, G.D. 1965. Effects of Senescence and Preservatives on Respiration in
Cutflower. Rona Hybrid, “Velvet time”. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sc. Pp. 779-
780.
GLICK, B. 2001. Alstromeria. Sunshine Farm and Gardens.
Http://Sunfarm.com/images/Alstromeria. Txt.Renick, West Virginia, USA.
__________. 2001. Flowering Season. Http://www.bluewisteria
co.UK/bluewisteria.html.flowers/Alstromeria. Html.
HALVEY, H.H. and MAYAK S. 1979. Senescence and Postharvest Physiology of
Cutflowers. Hort. Rev. 3:59-143.
LADILAD, B.D. 1980. Effects of harvesting and holding solutions on the vaselife of
cutflowers (
Chrysanthemum morifolium L.). MSAC Res. J. 6(7)92-102.
LEOPOLD, A. 1975. Aging, Senescence and Turning-Over in Plants. Bio.
Sci.25:659-662.
MADULID, D.A. 1995. A Pictorial Encyclopedia of Philippine Ornamental Plants.
Bookmark Inc. 264 Vito Cruz Ext., Makati. P. 98.
MARALIT T.J. and M.C. MARALIT. 1980. Postharvest handling and opening
in-vitro
of cut Shasta Daisy. A paper presented to the Annual Conference of the
Crop Science Society of the Philippines. VISCA, Baybay, Leyte. 14 Pp.
MAYAK, S. 1987. Senescence of Cutflowers. Hort. Sci. 22:863-865.
MAROVSKY, F.J. 1969. Vascular blockage, water absorption, stomatal opening and
respiration of ‘Cut Better Times’ rose treated with 8-hydroxyquinoline citrate.
Amer. Hort. Sci. 94:223-229.
NAGPALA, C.L. 2003. Effect of different holding solutions on the post and vaselife of
Japanese Anthurium (
Spathiphyllum kochii L.). Unpublished Investigatory
Research. Secondary Laboratory School, CTE, BSU.
REID, M.S. 2000. Postharvest Technology, Research and Information Center.
http://postharvest.vcdavis.edu./index.html.
Effect of pH of Holding Solution on the Vaselife and Cutflower Quality
of Peruvian Lily (
Alstromeria sp. L) / Marjorie B. Lardizabal. 2006
23
RIMANDO, T.J. 1982. Postharvest physiology and handling of cutflower, A
Professorial Chair Lecture on Ornamental Horticulture, UPLB-CA, College,
Laguna. 35 Pp.
RIMANDO, T.J. and M.C. MARALIT. 1980. Postharvest handling and opening
in vitro
of Shasta daisy (
Chrysanthemum maximum L.). Paper presented at the Annual
Conference of the Crop Science Society of the Phil. VISCA, Baybay, Leyte.
14Pp.
ROGERS, H.M. 1973. A historical and critical review of Postharvest Physiology
Research on Cutflower. Hort. Sci 8(3):189-194.
SALDA, M.S. 2002. Postharvest characteristics of leaf and shoot cutfoliage as affected
by different holding solutions. BS Thesis. BSU, La Trinidad, Benguet
WHEALLY, A.C. 1992. Carnation. Introduction to Floriculture. Ray Larsen. 2nd ed.
New York. Academic Press. Pp. 43-46.
Effect of pH of Holding Solution on the Vaselife and Cutflower Quality
of Peruvian Lily (
Alstromeria sp. L) / Marjorie B. Lardizabal. 2006
24
APPENDICES
APPENDIX TABLE 1. Vaselife
===============================================================
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT -----------------------------------------------
TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T1
16
16
18
50.00
16.67
T2
18
18
18
54.00
18.00
T3
17
18
18
53.00
17.67
T4
18
17
18
54.00
18.00
T5
18
18
18
54.00
18.00
T6
18
18
18
54.50
18.17
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
===============================================================
Analysis of Variance
===============================================================
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation freedom squares square F 0.05 0.01
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treatment
5
4.625 0.925
3.171ns
3.11 5.06
Error 12
3.500 0.292
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 17
===============================================================
Coefficient of variation = 3.04%
Effect of pH of Holding Solution on the Vaselife and Cutflower Quality
of Peruvian Lily (
Alstromeria sp. L) / Marjorie B. Lardizabal. 2006
25
APPENDIX TABLE 2. Volume of solution taken-up
===============================================================
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT -------------------------------------------------- TOTAL MEAN
I
II
III
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T1
37.50
32.50
37.50
107.50 35.83
T2
38.00
37.50
55.00
130.50 43.50
T3
50.00
50.00
45.00
145.00 48.33
T4
41.50
40.00
37.50
119.00 39.67
T5
32.50
45.00
37.50
115.00 38.33
T6
55.00
43.50
37.50
136.00 45.33
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
===============================================================
Analysis of Variance
===============================================================
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation freedom squares square F 0.05 0.01
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treatment
5
330.667 66.133 1.663ns
3.11 5.06
Error 12
477.333 39.778
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 17
===============================================================
Coefficient of variation = 15.08%
Effect of pH of Holding Solution on the Vaselife and Cutflower Quality
of Peruvian Lily (
Alstromeria sp. L) / Marjorie B. Lardizabal. 2006
26
APPENDIX TABLE 3. Days from immersion to full flower opening
===============================================================
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT -------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T1
6.0
6.5
7.0
19.50
5.60
T2
7.0
6.5
6.5
20.00
6.67
T3
8.5
9.0
8.0
25.50
8.50
T4
7.0
7.0
7.5
21.50
7.17
T5
6.5
7.5
7.0
21.00
7.00
T6
7.5
7.5
6.5
21.50
7.17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
===============================================================
Analysis of Variance
===============================================================
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation freedom squares square F 0.05 0.01
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treatment
5
7.500 1.500
7.200**
3.11 5.06
Error 12
2.500 0.208
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 17
===============================================================
Coefficient of variation = 6.37%
Effect of pH of Holding Solution on the Vaselife and Cutflower Quality
of Peruvian Lily (
Alstromeria sp. L) / Marjorie B. Lardizabal. 2006
27
APPENDIX TABLE 4. Petal quality rating (day 2)
===============================================================
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT -------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T1
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
T2
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
T3
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
T4
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
T5
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
T6
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
===============================================================
APPENDIX TABLE 5. Petal quality rating (day 4)
===============================================================
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT ------------------------------------------------ TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T1
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
T2
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
T3
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
T4
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
T5
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
T6
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
===============================================================
Effect of pH of Holding Solution on the Vaselife and Cutflower Quality
of Peruvian Lily (
Alstromeria sp. L) / Marjorie B. Lardizabal. 2006
28
APPENDIX TABLE 6. Petal quality rating (day 6)
===============================================================
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT ------------------------------------------------- TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T1
1.5
2.0
1.0
4.5
1.50
T2
2.0
1.5
1.0
4.5
1.50
T3
2.0
1.5
1.0
4.5
1.50
T4
2.0
3.0
2.0
7.0
2.33
T5
1.0
3.0
2.5
6.5
2.17
T6
3.0
2.0
2.0
7.0
2.33
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
===============================================================
Analysis of Variance
===============================================================
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation freedom squares square F 0.05 0.01
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treatment
5
2.778 0.556
1.333ns
3.11 5.06
Error 12
5.000 0.417
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 17 7.778
===============================================================
Coefficient of variation = 34.17%
Effect of pH of Holding Solution on the Vaselife and Cutflower Quality
of Peruvian Lily (
Alstromeria sp. L) / Marjorie B. Lardizabal. 2006
29
APPENDIX TABLE 7. Petal quality rating (day 8)
===============================================================
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT ------------------------------------------------ TOTAL
MEAN
I
II III
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T1
1.5
2.0
2.0
5.5
1.83
T2
2.0
2.0
1.5
5.5
1.83
T3
2.0
2.0
1.5
5.5
1.83
T4
4.0
2.5
2.0
8.5
2.83
T5
3.5
2.5
2.0
8.0
2.67
T6
4.0
2.5
2.0
8.5
2.83
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
===============================================================
Analysis of Variance
===============================================================
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation freedom squares square F 0.05 0.01
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treatment
5
4.069 0.814
1.628ns
3.11 5.06
Error 12
6.000 0.500
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 17 10.069
===============================================================
Coefficient of variation = 30.67%
Effect of pH of Holding Solution on the Vaselife and Cutflower Quality
of Peruvian Lily (
Alstromeria sp. L) / Marjorie B. Lardizabal. 2006
30
APPENDIX TABLE 8. Petal quality rating (day 10)
===============================================================
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT ----------------------------------------------
TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T1
3.0
1.0
2.5
6.5
2.17
T2
2.0
3.0
2.0
7.0
2.33
T3
3.0
2.5
1.0
6.5
2.17
T4
3.0
3.0
3.0
9.0
3.00
T5
3.0
3.0
3.0
9.0
3.00
T6
3.0
3.0
3.0
9.0
3.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
===============================================================
Analysis of Variance
===============================================================
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation freedom squares square F 0.05 0.01
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treatment
5
2.778 0.925
1.333ns
3.11 5.06
Error 12
5.000 0.292
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 17
7.778
===============================================================
Coefficient of variation = 3.04%
Effect of pH of Holding Solution on the Vaselife and Cutflower Quality
of Peruvian Lily (
Alstromeria sp. L) / Marjorie B. Lardizabal. 2006
31
APPENDIX TABLE 9. Petal quality rating (day 10)
===============================================================
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT -----------------------------------------------
TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T1
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
T2
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
T3
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
T4
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
T5
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
T6
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
===============================================================
Analysis of Variance
===============================================================
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation freedom squares square F 0.05 0.01
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treatment
5
4.625 0.925
3.171ns
3.11 5.06
Error 12
3.500 0.292
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 17
===============================================================
Coefficient of variation = 3.04%
Effect of pH of Holding Solution on the Vaselife and Cutflower Quality
of Peruvian Lily (
Alstromeria sp. L) / Marjorie B. Lardizabal. 2006
32
APPENDIX TABLE 10. Petal quality rating (day 12)
===============================================================
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT -----------------------------------------------
TOTAL
MEAN
I
II III
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T1
4.0
2.5
2.0
8.5
2.83
T2
2.5
2.0
4.0
8.5
2.83
T3
3.0
2.5
2.0
7.5
2.50
T4
3.0
3.0
3.0
9.0
3.00
T5
3.0
3.0
3.0
9.0
3.00
T6
3.0
3.0
3.0
9.0
3.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
===============================================================
Analysis of Variance
===============================================================
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation freedom squares square F 0.05 0.01
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treatment
5
0.569 0.114
0.283ns
3.11 5.06
Error 12
4.833 0.403
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 17
5.403
===============================================================
Coefficient of variation = 22.18%
Effect of pH of Holding Solution on the Vaselife and Cutflower Quality
of Peruvian Lily (
Alstromeria sp. L) / Marjorie B. Lardizabal. 2006
33
APPENDIX TABLE 11. Petal quality rating (day 14)
===============================================================
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT ------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T1
3.0
3.0
3.0
9.0
3.0
T2
3.0
3.0
3.0
9.0
3.0
T3
3.0
3.0
3.0
9.0
3.0
T4
3.0
3.0
3.0
9.0
3.0
T5
3.0
3.0
3.0
9.0
3.0
T6
3.0
3.0
3.0
9.0
3.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
===============================================================
APPENDIX TABLE 12. Petal quality rating (day 16)
===============================================================
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT ------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T1
3.0
3.0
3.0
9.0
3.0
T2
3.0
3.0
3.0
9.0
3.0
T3
3.0
3.0
3.0
9.0
3.0
T4
3.0
3.0
3.0
9.0
3.0
T5
3.0
3.0
3.0
9.0
3.0
T6
3.0
3.0
3.0
9.0
3.0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
===============================================================
Effect of pH of Holding Solution on the Vaselife and Cutflower Quality
of Peruvian Lily (
Alstromeria sp. L) / Marjorie B. Lardizabal. 2006
34
APPENDIX TABLE 13. Petal quality rating (day 18)
===============================================================
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT --------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T1
3.0
3.0
3.0
9.0
3.0
T2
3.0
3.0
3.0
9.0
3.0
T3
3.0
3.0
3.0
9.0
3.0
T4
3.0
3.0
3.0
9.0
3.0
T5
3.0
3.0
3.0
9.0
3.0
T6
3.0
3.0
3.0
9.0
3.0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
===============================================================
APPENDIX TABLE 14. Stem quality rating (day 2)
===============================================================
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT ------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T1
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
T2
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
T3
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
T4
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
T5
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
T6
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
===============================================================
Effect of pH of Holding Solution on the Vaselife and Cutflower Quality
of Peruvian Lily (
Alstromeria sp. L) / Marjorie B. Lardizabal. 2006
35
APPENDIX TABLE 15. Stem quality rating (day 4)
===============================================================
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT ----------------------------------------------
TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T1
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
T2
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
T3
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
T4
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
T5
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
T6
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
===============================================================
APPENDIX TABLE 16. Stem quality rating (day 4)
===============================================================
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT -------------------------------------------------- TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T1
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
T2
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
T3
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
T4
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
T5
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
T6
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
===============================================================
Effect of pH of Holding Solution on the Vaselife and Cutflower Quality
of Peruvian Lily (
Alstromeria sp. L) / Marjorie B. Lardizabal. 2006
36
APPENDIX TABLE 17. Stem quality rating (day 6)
===============================================================
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT ---------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T1
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
T2
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
T3
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
T4
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
T5
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
T6
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
===============================================================
APPENDIX TABLE 18. Stem quality rating (day 8)
===============================================================
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT )))))))))))))))))))))))))
TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T1
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
T2
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
T3
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
T4
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
T5
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
T6
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
===============================================================
Effect of pH of Holding Solution on the Vaselife and Cutflower Quality
of Peruvian Lily (
Alstromeria sp. L) / Marjorie B. Lardizabal. 2006
37
APPENDIX TABLE 19. Stem quality rating (day 10)
===============================================================
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT ----------------------------------------------
TOTAL
MEAN
I
II III
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T1
2.5
2.0
2.0
6.5
2.17
T2
2.0
2.0
1.5
5.5
1.83
T3
2.0
2.0
1.5
5.5
1.83
T4
2.0
1.5
2.0
5.5
1.83
T5
2.0
2.0
1.5
5.5
1.83
T6
2.0
2.0
2.0
6.0
2.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
===============================================================
Analysis of Variance
===============================================================
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation freedom squares square F 0.05 0.01
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treatment
5
0.292 0.058
0.840ns
3.11 5.06
Error 12
0.833 0.069
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 17
1.125
===============================================================
Coefficient of variation = 13.75%
Effect of pH of Holding Solution on the Vaselife and Cutflower Quality
of Peruvian Lily (
Alstromeria sp. L) / Marjorie B. Lardizabal. 2006
38
APPENDIX TABLE 20. Stem quality rating (day 12)
===============================================================
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT ------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T1
3.5
3.0
3.0
9.5
3.17
T2
3.0
3.0
3.5
9.5
3.17
T3
3.5
2.0
2.0
7.5
2.5
T4
3.5
2.5
2.0
8.0
2.67
T5
2.0
2.0
2.5
6.5
2.17
T6
2.0
3.0
2.0
7.0
2.33
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
===============================================================
Analysis of Variance
===============================================================
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation freedom squares square F 0.05 0.01
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treatment
5
2.667 0.533
1.671ns
3.11 5.06
Error 12
3.833 0.319
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 17
6.500
===============================================================
Coefficient of variation = 21.19%
Effect of pH of Holding Solution on the Vaselife and Cutflower Quality
of Peruvian Lily (
Alstromeria sp. L) / Marjorie B. Lardizabal. 2006
39
APPENDIX TABLE 21. Stem quality rating (day 14)
===============================================================
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT -----------------------------------------------
TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T1
5.0
4.0
3.5
12.50
4.17
T2
4.5
3.5
3.5
11.50
3.83
T3
4.5
3.0
3.0
10.55
3.53
T4
4.0
3.0
3.0
10.55
3.50
T5
3.0
3.5
3.0
9.50
3.17
T6
3.5
3.0
3.0
9.50
3.17
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
===============================================================
Analysis of Variance
===============================================================
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation freedom squares square F 0.05 0.01
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treatment
5
2.403 0.481
1.331ns
3.11 5.06
Error 12
4.333 0.361
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 17
6.736
===============================================================
Coefficient of variation = 17.03%
Effect of pH of Holding Solution on the Vaselife and Cutflower Quality
of Peruvian Lily (
Alstromeria sp. L) / Marjorie B. Lardizabal. 2006
40
APPENDIX TABLE 22. Stem quality rating (day 16)
===============================================================
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT -----------------------------------------------
TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T1
5.0
4.5
4.0
13.5
4.50
T2
5.0
4.0
4.0
13.0
4.33
T3
4.5
3.5
3.5
11.5
3.83
T4
5.0
4.0
3.0
12.0
4.00
T5
4.5
3.5
3.5
11.5
3.83
T6
3.0
4.0
3.0
12.0
4.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
===============================================================
Analysis of Variance
===============================================================
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation freedom squares square F 0.05 0.01
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treatment
5
2.569 0.514
1.194ns
3.11 5.06
Error 12
5.167 0.431
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 17
7.736
===============================================================
Coefficient of variation = 16.52%
Effect of pH of Holding Solution on the Vaselife and Cutflower Quality
of Peruvian Lily (
Alstromeria sp. L) / Marjorie B. Lardizabal. 2006
41
APPENDIX TABLE 23. Stem quality rating (day 18)
===============================================================
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT -----------------------------------------------
TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T1
5.0
5.0
5.0
15.0
5.00
T2
5.0
5.0
5.0
15.0
5.00
T3
5.0
4.0
4.0
13.0
4.33
T4
4.0
4.0
5.0
13.0
4.33
T5
5.0
5.0
4.0
14.0
4.67
T6
5.5
5.0
5.0
15.5
5.17
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
===============================================================
Analysis of Variance
===============================================================
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation freedom squares square F 0.05 0.01
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treatment
5
1.958 0.392
2.169ns
3.11 5.06
Error 12
2.167 0.181
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 17
4.125
===============================================================
Coefficient of variation = 8.95%
Effect of pH of Holding Solution on the Vaselife and Cutflower Quality
of Peruvian Lily (
Alstromeria sp. L) / Marjorie B. Lardizabal. 2006
42
APPENDIX TABLE 24. Leaf quality rating (day 2)
===============================================================
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT ------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T1
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
T2
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
T3
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
T4
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
T5
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
T6
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
===============================================================
Effect of pH of Holding Solution on the Vaselife and Cutflower Quality
of Peruvian Lily (
Alstromeria sp. L) / Marjorie B. Lardizabal. 2006
43
APPENDIX TABLE 25. Leaf quality rating (day 4 )
===============================================================
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT ------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T1
1.5
1.0
1.0
3.5
1.17
T2
1.5
2.0
1.0
4.5
1.50
T3
2.0
1.0
2.0
5.0
1.67
T4
2.0
1.0
2.0
5.0
1.67
T5
1.5
1.0
1.0
3.5
1.17
T6
1.5
1.0
1.0
3.5
1.17
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
===============================================================
Analysis of Variance
===============================================================
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation freedom squares square F 0.05 0.01
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treatment
5
0.944 0.189
0.971ns
3.11 5.06
Error 12
2.333 0.194
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 17
3.278
===============================================================
Coefficient of variation = 31.75%
Effect of pH of Holding Solution on the Vaselife and Cutflower Quality
of Peruvian Lily (
Alstromeria sp. L) / Marjorie B. Lardizabal. 2006
44
APPENDIX TABLE 26. Leaf quality rating (day 6)
===============================================================
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT ------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T1
2.5
2.0
1.5
6.0
2.00
T2
2.5
2.0
2.0
6.5
2.17
T3
2.5
2.0
2.0
6.5
2.17
T4
2.0
2.0
2.0
6.0
2.00
T5
1.5
2.0
1.0
4.5
1.50
T6
1.5
2.0
2.0
5.5
1.83
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
===============================================================
Analysis of Variance
===============================================================
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation freedom squares square F 0.05 0.01
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treatment
5
0.944 0.189
1.511ns
3.11 5.06
Error 12
1.500 0.125
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 17
2.444
===============================================================
Coefficient of variation = 18.18%
Effect of pH of Holding Solution on the Vaselife and Cutflower Quality
of Peruvian Lily (
Alstromeria sp. L) / Marjorie B. Lardizabal. 2006
45
APPENDIX TABLE 27. Leaf quality rating (day 8)
===============================================================
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT -----------------------------------------------
TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T1
3.5
2.5
2.0
8.0
2.67
T2
4.0
2.5
2.0
8.5
2.83
T3
3.0
2.0
2.0
7.0
2.33
T4
2.0
2.0
3.0
7.0
2.33
T5
3.0
1.0
2.5
6.5
2.17
T6
1.0
3.0
2.5
6.5
2.17
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
===============================================================
Analysis of Variance
===============================================================
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation freedom squares square F 0.05 0.01
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treatment
5
1.125 0.225
0.300ns
3.11 5.06
Error 12
9.000 0.750
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 17 10.125
===============================================================
Coefficient of variation = 35.84%
Effect of pH of Holding Solution on the Vaselife and Cutflower Quality
of Peruvian Lily (
Alstromeria sp. L) / Marjorie B. Lardizabal. 2006
46
APPENDIX TABLE 28. Leaf quality rating (day 10)
===============================================================
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT ------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T1
4.0
3.0
3.0
10.00
3.33
T2
3.0
3.0
3.0
9.00
3.00
T3
3.0
3.0
3.0
9.00
3.00
T4
2.5
2.5
5.0
10.00
3.33
T5
3.5
3.0
3.0
9.50
3.17
T6
3.5
3.0
3.0
9.50
3.17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
===============================================================
Analysis of Variance
===============================================================
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation freedom squares square F 0.05 0.01
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treatment
5
0.333 0.067
0.155ns
3.11 5.06
Error 12
5.167 0.431
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 17
5.500
===============================================================
Coefficient of variation = 20.72%
Effect of pH of Holding Solution on the Vaselife and Cutflower Quality
of Peruvian Lily (
Alstromeria sp. L) / Marjorie B. Lardizabal. 2006
47
APPENDIX TABLE 29. Leaf quality rating (day 12)
===============================================================
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT ------------------------------------------------ TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T1
4.0
4.0
4.5
12.5
4.17
T2
4.0
4.0
3.5
11.5
3.83
T3
4.5
4.0
4.0
12.5
4.17
T4
5.0
4.0
4.0
13.0
4.33
T5
3.5
4.0
4.0
11.5
3.0
T6
4.0
4.0
4.0
12.0
1.0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
===============================================================
Analysis of Variance
===============================================================
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation freedom squares square F 0.05 0.01
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treatment
5
0.611 0.122
1.100ns
3.11 5.06
Error 12
1.333 0.111
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 17
1.944
===============================================================
Coefficient of variation = 8.22%
Effect of pH of Holding Solution on the Vaselife and Cutflower Quality
of Peruvian Lily (
Alstromeria sp. L) / Marjorie B. Lardizabal. 2006
48
APPENDIX TABLE 30. Leaf quality rating (day 14)
===============================================================
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT ---------------------------------------------
TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T1
5.0
5.0
4.5
14.5
4.83
T2
5.0
4.5
4.5
14.0
4.67
T3
4.5
4.5
5.0
14.0
4.67
T4
5.0
4.5
4.5
14.0
4.67
T5
5.0
4.0
4.0
13.0
4.33
T6
4.5
4.0
4.0
12.5
4.17
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
===============================================================
Analysis of Variance
===============================================================
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation freedom squares square F 0.05 0.01
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treatment
5
0.944 0.189
1.511ns
3.11 5.06
Error 12
1.500 0.125
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 17
2.444
===============================================================
Coefficient of variation = 7.76%
Effect of pH of Holding Solution on the Vaselife and Cutflower Quality
of Peruvian Lily (
Alstromeria sp. L) / Marjorie B. Lardizabal. 2006
49
APPENDIX TABLE 31. Leaf quality rating (day 16)
===============================================================
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT ----------------------------------------
TOTAL
MEAN
I
II III
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T1
5.0
5.0
4.5
14.5
4.83
T2
5.0
5.0
5.0
15.0
5.00
T3
5.0
5.0
5.0
15.0
5.00
T4
5.0
5.0
5.0
15.0
5.00
T5
5.0
5.0
4.5
14.5
4.83
T6
5.0
5.0
4.5
14.5
4.83
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
===============================================================
Analysis of Variance
===============================================================
Source of Degrees of Sum of Mean Computed TABULAR F
variation freedom squares square F 0.05 0.01
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Treatment
5
0.125 0.025
0.600ns
3.11 5.06
Error 12
0.500 0.042
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL 17
0.625
===============================================================
Coefficient of variation = 4.15%
Effect of pH of Holding Solution on the Vaselife and Cutflower Quality
of Peruvian Lily (
Alstromeria sp. L) / Marjorie B. Lardizabal. 2006
50
APPENDIX TABLE 32. Leaf quality rating (day 18)
===============================================================
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT ------------------------------------------
TOTAL
MEAN
I
II
III
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
T1
5.0
5.0
5.0
15.0
3.0
T2
5.0
5.0
5.0
15.0
3.0
T3
5.0
5.0
5.0
15.0
3.0
T4
5.0
5.0
5.0
15.0
3.0
T5
5.0
5.0
5.0
15.0
3.0
T6
5.0
5.0
5.0
15.0
3.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
===============================================================
Effect of pH of Holding Solution on the Vaselife and Cutflower Quality
of Peruvian Lily (
Alstromeria sp. L) / Marjorie B. Lardizabal. 2006
Document Outline
- Effect of pH of Holding Solutionon the Vaselife and Cutflower Quality of Peruvian Lily (Alstromeria sp. L).
- BIBLIOGRAPHY
- ABSTRACT
- TABLE OF CONTENTS
- INTRODUCTION
- REVIEW OF LITERATURE
- Use of Preservatives
- Longevity of Flowers
- Holding Solutions
- Floral Preservatives
- Senescence
- Water pH
- MATERIALS AND METHODS
- RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
- Vaselife
- Volume of Solution Taken-up
- Number of Days from Flower Immersion toFull Flower Opening
- Petal Quality Rating
- Leaf Quality Rating
- Stem Quality
- Other Observation
- SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
- LITERATURE CITED
- APPENDICES