BIBLIOGRAPHY ZAPARITA, CAROLYN I. ...
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ZAPARITA, CAROLYN I. APRIL 2011. Varietal Response of Minature Roses (Rosa
cheninsis minima) to Different Potting Media Formulations. Benguet State University, La
Trinidad. Benguet.
Adviser: Araceli G. Ladilad, PhD.
ABSTRACT
The study was conducted to determine the effect of different potting media mixtures on
the growth and flowering of potted miniature roses; and to determine the interaction and
economics of using the different potting media compositions (using sandy loam soil, alnus
compost, rice hull, sawdust, BSU compost and mushroom compost) on the growth and
flowering of the six varieties of potted miniature roses namely: ‘Joycie’, ‘Teddy Bear’,
‘Cupcake’, ‘Rainbows End’, ‘Fragrant Cloud’ and ‘Marie Shields’.
Results showed that cv. ‘Teddy Bear’ had significantly faster growth and had produced
the biggest flowers at full-bloom stage. On the other hand, cv. ‘Fragrant Cloud’ had significantly
produced higher number of leaves and flowers compared to the other rose cultivar used. Cv.
‘Cupcake’ produced flowers significantly earlier, followed by the cv. ‘Teddy Bear’.
With regards to the effect of the different growing media formulations used, a mixture of
1:1 alnus compost + sandy loam soil had significantly affected the flower quality of the plants,
promoting the production of higher numbers of flowers per plant and had the biggest flowers at
full-bloom stage. In terms on the vegetative growth; a mixture of 1:1 rice hull + sandy loam soil
had promoted the production of higher number of leaves per plant and had the tallest plants at
calyx-flex stage.
Growing miniature roses in a media of 1:1 BSU compost + sandy loam soil, and 1:1
sawdust + sandy loam soil only resulted to slowed vegetative growth and had the longest
duration to reach reproductive growth and flowering.
Based on the results of the study, the mixture of 1:1 alnus compost + sandy loam soil and
1:1 rice hull + sandy loam soil were the best media compositions for the culture of potted
miniature roses.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Bibliography………………………………………………………. ……
i
Abstract ……………………………………………………………………
i
Table of Contents ………………………………………………………….
ii
INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………
1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE………………………………………………
3
MATERIALS AND METHODS ………………………………………….
6
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION……………………………………………
10
Vegetative Growth ……………………………………………………...
10
Initial Height ……………………………………………………….
10
Height at Calyx-flex Stage …………………………………………
10
Final Number of Leaves ……………………………………………
14
Days from Transplanting to Flower Bud Formation ……………….
15
Days from Transplanting to Calyx-Flex Stage ……………………..
16
Numbers of Flowers Produced Per Plant …………………………...
18
Flower Diameter at Full Bloom Stage ……………………………..
20
Final Height of the Plant at Full Bloom Stage …………………….
21
Occurrence of Insect Pest and Diseases ……………………………
22
Cost and Return Analysis …………………………………………..
23
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION …………….
24
Summary ……………………………………………………………
24
Conclusion ………………………………………………………….
25
Recommendation …………………………………………………..
25
LITERATURE CITED ……………………………………………………
26
APPENDICES …………………………………………………………….
27
INTRODUCTION
Rose is a perennial flower shrub or a shrubby vine of the genus Rosa within the
family Rosaseae that contains approximately 2000 species and more than 20,000
varieties. Roses are grown the whole year not only because it is one fo the world’s
favorite flower but also because it serves a s a symbol of perfection, elegance, romance
and love. Roses are generally produced by specialized growers in large greenhouse and
are utilized in landscape gardening (Allan, 1999).
Rose plant range in size from compact, climbers to miniature roses. Miniature
roses (Rosa cheninsis minima) came originally from China and are a form of Rosa
cheninsis and there are hundreds of different varieties of miniature roses and new ones
are appearing each year like Red ace, Snow bride, Yellow sin blaze, Minnie pearl and
many more Swayne (1994).
Potted miniature roses are available in almost every color of the rainbow except
blue. They range from six inches to eighteen inches in height. They perform best in
sunny location with rich and well drained soils.
Roses are useful for many purposes, the climbing forms serves as screen on
porches and against buildings but more frequently on posts, fences and arbors. Certain
types are useful for mass planting and foundation borders.
The newer hybrids are adopted for the production of colorful effects in the garden
and for cutflower purposes. Among flower growers, Rose is becoming very popular. The
useful, of this flower has greatly increased. New varieties are developed with greater
hardiness, as well as variety of color and forms.
Varietal Response of Minature Roses (Rosa cheninsis minima) to Different Potting Media
Formulations. ZAPARITA, CAROLYN I. APRIL 2011
2
This study aimed to determine the response of miniature rose to different potting
media formulations to guide growers on the best growing media to use in the miniature
rose production. Specifically, the study aimed to determine the varietal response and
effect of potted miniature roses; and to determine the interaction and economics of using
the different potting media formulations for the culture of miniature rose.
The study was conducted at the Ornamental Horticulture Research Area, Benguet
State University, La Trinidad, Benguet from October 2010 to January 2011.
Varietal Response of Minature Roses (Rosa cheninsis minima) to Different Potting Media
Formulations. ZAPARITA, CAROLYN I. APRIL 2011
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Culture of Miniature Roses
Roses are propagated by sexual or asexual methods such as cuttings; marcotting
and budding are used if the roses are to be culture as pot plants. Roses that are
propagated by cuttings are preferred to as “own root” plants. They are acquired from
mature stem or from mature laterals or shoots of current year growth. They should be cut
at about 5 to 8 inches long with thickness of an ordinary pencil or smaller (Janick, 1972).
He stated that the production of rose plants for garden cultivation uses a very
specialized operation. To achieve rapid and economical increase or new selection to
meet the market demands. Production of roses requires skilled hand labor in budding
operation and expensive field maintenance.
Mattock and et al (1994) stated that the species of miniature roses are such
adaptable little plants that they can be grown in a variety of situation. He stated that true
miniature roses a re obtained from plants raised from cuttings. Select from plants having
firm shoots and have finished flowering and make the cuttings about 15 cm long or 6
inches long. Laurie and Ries (1950) added that rose bed should be placed in an open
location that gets at least a day of sunlight. Proximity to trees should eb avoided because
of the loss of nutrients and moisture from the soil.
Growing Media/Potting Media
Bautista (1993) as cited by Pakias (2008) Organic matter in the soil perform
several functions such prevention of the loss of nutrients by forming complexes with the
nutrient elements, facilities absorption and perculation of water into through the soil.
Varietal Response of Minature Roses (Rosa cheninsis minima) to Different Potting Media
Formulations. ZAPARITA, CAROLYN I. APRIL 2011
4
Thus, increasing water holding ability and reducing erosion also source of nutrient
elements and improves the penetration of roots through the soil by good structure brought
by its decomposition.
Parnes (1986) stated that composting is an excellent way of using a combination
of organic residues which might otherwise be nuisance or having a little value. The
product has a high concentration of minerals with an ideal carbon and nitrogen balance.
The successful production of compost depends primarily on physical factors such as
moisture content, aur supply and the quantity of material. Compost also supplies
nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus and sulfur which are essential for plant growth.
Mushroom compost is the growing medium that results from the mushroom
growing process. It is made from agricultural materials, such as hay, straw and cocoa
shells. Mushroom compost has high water and nutrient holding capacity. As a fertilizer
and soil amendment for farming mushroom compost supports plant growth and inhibits
artillery fungus.
Sawdust is a good potting media in foliage plants. However, it should not be
more than 25 percent by volume of potting mixture. Sawdust is compost of 5 lbs of
nitrogen, 2 lbs of potassium and 4 lbs of phosphorous per ton of sawdust, on an oven dry
weight bases (Adamson and Maas, 1971).
Einert (1972) stated that rice hulls are good as soil amendments especially in
heavy clay soils. He reported that maximum effectiveness is obtained when rice hull is
not more than 20 percent by volume of potting mixture. Rice hull provides a light to
medium texture with good drainage and aeration and does not affect the soil pH.
Varietal Response of Minature Roses (Rosa cheninsis minima) to Different Potting Media
Formulations. ZAPARITA, CAROLYN I. APRIL 2011
5
Cabalo (2001) mentioned that media compositions of 1:1:1 sand + sawdust + rice
hull + cow manure will promote thicker stems, bigger cymes diameter, larger aesthetic
duration and high return on investment in milflores.
As recommended by Diaz (2000) a mixture of 1:1:1 rice hull + compost + sand
could be recommended for growing of “non-stop rose petticote” (Begonia sp.) under La
Trinidad, Benguet condition.
Varietal Response of Minature Roses (Rosa cheninsis minima) to Different Potting Media
Formulations. ZAPARITA, CAROLYN I. APRIL 2011
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Materials
The materials used in this study were potted miniature roses of cultivars ‘Teddy
Bear’, ‘Joycie’, “Rainbow’s End’, ‘Cupcake’, ‘Fragrant Cloud’, ‘Marie Shields’, BSU
compost, Mushroom compost, Alnus compost, sandy loam soil, sawdust, burnt rice hull,
polyethylene plastic bags and labeling materials.
Methods
The study was arranged in factorial design completely randomize design (CRD)
with the six varieties of miniature roses as Factor A and; the different potting media as
Factor B. There were three sample plants per treatments, replicated four times. The
treatments were as follows:
Factor A (Miniature Rose Variety)
V1 = Teddy bear (brown)
V2 = Joycie (light orange)
V3 = Cupcake (forsting pink)
V4 = Fragrant cloud (dark orange)
V5 = Marie shields (pink)
V6 = Rainbow’s end (yellow)
Varietal Response of Minature Roses (Rosa cheninsis minima) to Different Potting Media
Formulations. ZAPARITA, CAROLYN I. APRIL 2011
7
Factor B Potting Media
T0 = 1:1 Sandy loam soil + alnus compost (farmers practice)
T1 = 1:1BSU compost + sandy loam soil
T2 = 1:1 Burnt Rice hull + sandy loam soil
T3 = 1:1 Mushroom compost + sandy loam soil
T4 = 1:1 Sawdust + sandy loam soil
T5 = 1:1:1 Rice hull + BSU compost + sandy loam soil
All routine management practices for the maintenance of the potted miniature
roses were uniformly applied to all test plants. Watering was done every other day.
The data gathered were the following:
1. Initial height of the plant at transplanting (cm). The heights were measured
from the base to the tip of the plants at transplanting.
2. Plant heights at flowering Calyx-flex stage (cm). This were obtained by
measuring the height of the plant from the base to the tip of the flower in cm at flowering.
3. Initial number of leaves per plant at transplanting.
4. Final number of leaves. The number of leaves were recorded at full bloom
stage.
5. Number of days from transplanting to flower bud formation. These were
obtained by counting the number of days from transplanting until flower buds were
formed.
6. Number of days from transplanting to Calyx-flex stage. These were taken by
counting the days from transplanting until Calyx-flex stage.
Varietal Response of Minature Roses (Rosa cheninsis minima) to Different Potting Media
Formulations. ZAPARITA, CAROLYN I. APRIL 2011
8
7. Number of flowers produced per plant. The numbers of flowers produced per
plant were recorded for the whole duration of the cropping period.
8. Flower diameter at full bloom stage (cm).
9. Flower length at full bloom stage (cm).
10. Occurrence of insect pest and diseases. The insect pest and diseases were
identified and recorded during the conduct of the study.
11. Cost and return analysis.
12. Documentation of the study in pictures.
Varietal Response of Minature Roses (Rosa cheninsis minima) to Different Potting Media
Formulations. ZAPARITA, CAROLYN I. APRIL 2011
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Vegetative Growth
Initial Height
Effect of variety. Table 1 show that there were significant variations on the
different miniature rose varieties on the initial height at transplanting. Cultivars ‘Teddy
bear’, ‘Joyce’ and ‘Cupcake’ were the tallest with the means of 14.51, 14.34 and 13.84
cm while cultivar ‘Rainbows end’ was the shortest with a mean of only 10.73 cm.
Effect of media. There were no significant differences observed among the six
media formulation of miniature roses on the initial height. However, plants grown in a
1:1 mushroom compost + sandy loam soil were the tallest with a mean of 13.55 cm while
the shortest was obtained from the plants grown in BSU compost with a mean of 12.69
cm.
Interaction effect. There were no significant interaction effects between the
different varieties of the miniature roses and the different media formulations on the
initial heights of the rose plant.
Height at Calyx-flex Stage
Effect of variety. Statistical analysis showed highly significant differences on the
height of miniature rose plants at calyx-flex stage as affected by the variety used.
Cultivars ‘Teddy Bear’ and ‘Joycie’ produced the tallest plans with means of 27.08 and
25.07 cm from the date of transplanting, respectively; cultivar ‘Rainbows End’ was the
shortest with plant height at calyx-flex stage of 21.58 cm (Table 2).
Varietal Response of Minature Roses (Rosa cheninsis minima) to Different Potting Media
Formulations. ZAPARITA, CAROLYN I. APRIL 2011
11
Table 1. Initial height of the plant at transplanting
TREATMENT
MEAN
Variety
Teddy Bear
14.51a
Joycie
14.34a
Cupcake
13.84a
Fragrant Cloud
13.36b
Marie Shields
12.49c
Rainbows End
10.73d
Media
1:1 Alnus compost + sandy loam soil
13.09a
1:1 BSU compost + sandy loam soil
12.69a
1:1 Rice hull + sandy loam soil
13.09a
1:1 Mushroom compost + sandy loam soil
13.55a
1:1 Sawdust + sandy loam soil
13.42a
1:1:1 Rice hull + BSU compost + sandy loam soil
13.44a
Within a column, means with the same letter are not significantly different at .05
level DMRT.
Effect of media. Table 2 shows the height at calyx-flex stage of miniature rose
plants from transplanting date as affected by the different potting media formulations.
The tallest miniature roses at calyx-flex stage were recorded from plants grown in a
mixture of 1:1 rice hull + sandy loam soil with a mean of 25.20 cm. Plants grown in 1:1
sawdust + sandy loam soil were the shortest with a mean of 22.08 cm.
Varietal Response of Minature Roses (Rosa cheninsis minima) to Different Potting Media
Formulations. ZAPARITA, CAROLYN I. APRIL 2011
12
Table 2. Plant height at calyx-flex stage
TREATMENT
MEAN
Variety
Teddy Bear
25.08a
Joycie
25.07a
Cupcake
22.47bc
Fragrant Cloud
23.38abc
Marie Shields
23.84ab
Rainbows End
21.58c
Media
1:1 Alnus compost + sandy loam soil
24.58ab
1:1 BSU compost + sandy loam soil
23.84abc
1:1 Rice hull + sandy loam soil
25.20a
1:1 Mushroom compost + sandy loam soil
22.58bc
1:1 Sawdust + sandy loam soil
22.08c
1:1:1 Rice hull + BSU compost + sandy loam soil
23.13bc
Within a column, means with the same letter are not significantly different at .05
level DMRT.
Interaction effect. Results show that there were no significant interaction on the
combined effects between the six varieties of miniature roses and the six different potting
media formulations with regards to the height of the plant at calyx-flex stage.
Varietal Response of Minature Roses (Rosa cheninsis minima) to Different Potting Media
Formulations. ZAPARITA, CAROLYN I. APRIL 2011
13
Initial Number of Leaves per Plant
Effect of variety. Results show highly significant variations on the initial number
of leaves produced per plant as affected by the miniature rose cultivars. The variety
‘Teddy bear’ had the highest number of leaves produced per plant with a mean of 17.11
while ‘Rainbows End’ had the lowest mean with only 8.61 leaves per plant at flowering.
Table 3. Initial and final numbers of leaves per plant
INITIAL
FINAL NUMBER
TREATMENT
NUMBER
OF LEAVES
Variety
Teddy Bear
17.11a
61.89c
Joycie
13.33bc
61.72c
Cupcake
15.06ab
74.00b
Fragrant Cloud
12.67bc
111.11a
Marie Shields
11.89c
54.06c
Rainbows End
8.61c
17.56d
Media
1:1 Alnus compost + sandy loam soil
12.39a
69.50a
1:1 BSU compost + sandy loam soil
13.72a
59.39a
1:1 Rice hull + sandy loam soil
12.28a
64.11a
1:1 Mushroom compost + sandy loam soil
13.44a
58.94a
1:1 Sawdust + sandy loam soil
13.67a
65.00a
1:1:1 Rice hull + BSU compost + sandy loam soil
13.17a
65.39a
Within a column, means with the same letter are not significantly different at .05
level DMRT.
Varietal Response of Minature Roses (Rosa cheninsis minima) to Different Potting Media
Formulations. ZAPARITA, CAROLYN I. APRIL 2011
14
Effect of media. Results showed that there were no significant effects of the
different potting media mixture used in terms of the initial numbers of leaves at
transplanting.
Interaction effect. Again, the statistical interaction between the six different
varieties of miniature rose and the six different growing media composition obtained on
the number of leaves per pot at transplanting were not significant.
Final Number of Leaves
Effect of variety. Cultivars ‘Fragrant cloud’ had highly significant higher leave
counts with a mean of 111.11 leaves per plant. Cultivars ‘Rainbows end’ had
significantly lesser number of leaves with a mean of only 17.56 leaves.
This may be explained by the varietal differences as well as the inherent
characteristics of the different miniature rose varieties grown.
Effect of media. Statistical analysis shows that there were no significant effects
of the different growing media formulations on the final number of leaves at full bloom
stage. Although, plants grown in a miniature of 1:1 Alnus compost + sandy loam soil
produced the highest number of leaves. Final numbers of leaves counted were
significantly comparable with a means ranging from 69.50 to 58.94 at full bloom stage.
Interaction. There were no significant interaction effects between the six
miniature rose varieties grown and the different media mixtures in terms on the final
number of leaves at full bloom stage.
Within a column, means with the same letter are not significantly different at .05
level DMRT.
Varietal Response of Minature Roses (Rosa cheninsis minima) to Different Potting Media
Formulations. ZAPARITA, CAROLYN I. APRIL 2011
15
Days from Transplanting
to Flower Bud Formation
Effect of variety. Significant differences with regards to the number of days from
transplanting to flower bud formation were obtained on the six varieties of miniature
roses grown.
Table 4. Number of days from transplanting to flower bud formation
TREATMENT
MEAN
Variety
Teddy Bear
24.58ab
Joycie
23.84abc
Cupcake
25.20a
Fragrant Cloud
22.58bc
Marie Shields
22.08c
Rainbows End
23.13bc
Media
1:1 Alnus compost + sandy loam soil
30.78a
1:1 BSU compost + sandy loam soil
33.33a
1:1 Rice hull + sandy loam soil
32.00a
1:1 Mushroom compost + sandy loam soil
32.89a
1:1 Sawdust + sandy loam soil
32.17a
1:1:1 Rice hull + BSU compost + sandy loam soil
32.78a
Within a column, means with the same letter are not significantly different at .05
level DMRT.
Varietal Response of Minature Roses (Rosa cheninsis minima) to Different Potting Media
Formulations. ZAPARITA, CAROLYN I. APRIL 2011
16
Cultivar ‘Marie Shields’ had bloomed earlier with a mean of 22.08 days from
transplanting, while cultivar ‘Cupcake’ flowered later with flower buds visible after a
mean of 25.20 days from transplanting.
Effect of media. Statistical analysis showed that there were no significant effects
on the different growing media mixtures on the duration of days from transplanting to
flower bud formation. Although, plants grown in a mixture of 1:1 Alnus compost +
sandy loam soil showed the earliest flower buds formed; while the longest durations to
form flower buds were obtained from plants grown in the mixture of 1:1 BSU compost +
sandy loam soil.
Duration of days from transplanting to flower bud formation counted was
significantly comparable with a means ranging from 33.33 to 30.78 days from
transplanting to flower bud formation.
Interaction effect. Significant interaction effects were obtained between the
varieties of miniature roses and the different media formulation on the number of days
from transplanting to flower bud formation. Plant of cultivar ‘Marie Shields’ grown in
1:1 Alnus compost + sandy loam soil showed the earliest flower buds formed; while the
longest durations to form flower buds were obtained from the plant of cultivar ‘cupcake’
grown in 1:1 BSU compost + sandy loam soil.
Days from Transplanting
to Calyx-Flex Stage
Effect of variety. Significant differences with regards to the number of days from
flower bud formation to calyx flex stage were obtained in the six cultivars grown (Table
5). Cv. ‘Teddy Bear’ had the longest duration of flower development from 0.5 cm bud
Varietal Response of Minature Roses (Rosa cheninsis minima) to Different Potting Media
Formulations. ZAPARITA, CAROLYN I. APRIL 2011
17
Table 5. Numbers of days from transplanting to calyx-flex stage
TREATMENT
MEAN
Variety
Teddy Bear
43.33a
Joycie
42.28ab
Cupcake
36.89c
Fragrant Cloud
37.78bc
Marie Shields
41.49abc
Rainbows End
40.28abc
Media
1:1 Alnus compost + sandy loam soil
38.22a
1:1 BSU compost + sandy loam soil
42.47a
1:1 Rice hull + sandy loam soil
40.00a
1:1 Mushroom compost + sandy loam soil
40.11a
1:1 Sawdust + sandy loam soil
41.00a
1:1:1 Rice hull + BSU compost + sandy loam soil
40.44a
Within a column, means with the same letter are not significantly different at .05
level DMRT.
size to reach calyx flex stage only after a mean of 43.33 days; while Cv. ‘Cupcake’
showed the shortest time to reached calyx-flex stage after a mean of only 36.89 days from
transplanting.
Effect of media. Statistically, results showed no significant differences on the
duration of days from transplanting to calyx-flex stage as affected by the different potting
Varietal Response of Minature Roses (Rosa cheninsis minima) to Different Potting Media
Formulations. ZAPARITA, CAROLYN I. APRIL 2011
18
media formulations used. Calyx-flex stage was reached simultaneously by all rose plants
grown in the different media formulation after 38.22 to 42.47 days from transplanting.
Interaction. Significant effects were obtained between the different miniature
rose varieties and the different growing media formulations. Plant of cultivar ‘Teddy
Bear’ grown in a media of 1:1 BSU compost + sandy loam soil showed the longest
duration of flower development from 0.5 cm bud size; while the shortest time to reach
calyx-flex stage were obtained from the variety ‘Cupcake’ grown in a media of 1:1 alnus
compost + sandy loam soil.
Numbers of Flowers Produced Per Plant
Effect of variety. The number of flowers produced per plant is presented in Table
6. Statistically, results showed significant varietal differences. Cultivar ‘Fragrant Cloud’
produced significantly more flowers having a mean of 1.522 flowers per plant followed
by Cvs. ‘Teddy Bear’ with a mean of 11.78 flowers and by Cvs. ‘Cupcake’ with a mean
of 10.00 flowers. Cvs. ‘Joycie’, ‘Marie Shields’ and ‘Rainbows End’ had produced the
least number of flowers per plant which ranged from 3.89 to 15.22.
Effect of media. Differences observed on the effect of the different media
formulations on the number of flowers produced per plant were likewise, significant.
The highest number of flowers were counted on the plant grown on a media of 1:1 Alnus
compost + sandy loam soil with a mean of 11.50 flowers per plant. The lowest number
of flowers per plant were counted from those grown on a media of 1:1 of BSU compost +
sandy loam soil with only a mean of 8.44 flowers; followed by those plant grown on a
media of 1:1 mushroom compost + sandy loam soil with a mean of 9.00 flowers per
plant.
Varietal Response of Minature Roses (Rosa cheninsis minima) to Different Potting Media
Formulations. ZAPARITA, CAROLYN I. APRIL 2011
19
Table 6. Number of flowers produced per plant
TREATMENT
MEAN
Variety
Teddy Bear
11.78b
Joycie
9.33a
Cupcake
10.00c
Fragrant Cloud
15.22a
Marie Shields
8.11d
Rainbows End
3.89c
Media
1:1 Alnus compost + sandy loam soil
11.50a
1:1 BSU compost + sandy loam soil
8.44a
1:1 Rice hull + sandy loam soil
9.50bc
1:1 Mushroom compost + sandy loam soil
9.00bc
1:1 Sawdust + sandy loam soil
9.44bc
1:1:1 Rice hull + BSU compost + sandy loam soil
10.44ab
Within a column, means with the same letter are not significantly different at .05
level DMRT.
Interaction. Results show that there were no significant interaction effects
between the different cultivars of miniature roses and different media formulations in
terms of the number of flowers produced per plant.
Varietal Response of Minature Roses (Rosa cheninsis minima) to Different Potting Media
Formulations. ZAPARITA, CAROLYN I. APRIL 2011
20
Flower Diameter at Full Bloom Stage
Effect of variety. The different miniature rose varieties had significantly affected
the flower diameter measured at full bloom stage. Cv. ‘Teddy Bear’ produced the biggest
blooms with a mean of 5.37 cm among the varieties tested. The smallest bloom was
obtained from Cv. ‘Rainbows End’ with a mean of 3.79 cm across, at full bloom stage.
Table 7. Flower diameter at full bloom stage
TREATMENT
MEAN
Variety
Teddy Bear
5.37a
Joycie
4.27b
Cupcake
4.13b
Fragrant Cloud
4.10b
Marie Shields
4.23b
Rainbows End
3.79c
Media
1:1 Alnus compost + sandy loam soil
4.45a
1:1 BSU compost + sandy loam soil
4.07b
1:1 Rice hull + sandy loam soil
4.38a
1:1 Mushroom compost + sandy loam soil
4.39a
1:1 Sawdust + sandy loam soil
4.25ab
1:1:1 Rice hull + BSU compost + sandy loam soil
4.36a
Within a column, means with the same letter are not significantly different at .05
level DMRT.
Varietal Response of Minature Roses (Rosa cheninsis minima) to Different Potting Media
Formulations. ZAPARITA, CAROLYN I. APRIL 2011
21
Effect of media. Significant differences were obtained from the different media
formulations used with regards to the diameter at full bloom stage. Plant grown in a
mixture of 1:1 Alnus compost + sandy loam soil had produced the biggest blooms with a
mean of 4.45 cm followed by plants grown in the mixture of 1:1 mushroom compost +
sandy loam soil with a mean of 4.39 cm. Followed by plants grown in a mixture of 1:1:1
Rice hull + BSU compost + sandy loam soil with a mean of 4.36 cm. Plants grown in a
mixture of 1:1 BSU compost + sandy loam soil produced the smallest blooms with a
mean of only 4.07 cm.
Interaction. The interaction effects between the different variety of miniature
roses and different media compositions on the flower diameter at full bloom stage were
not significant.
Final Height of the Plant at Full Bloom Stage
Effect of variety. Statistical analysis showed significant differences on the final
height of the miniature rose plants as affected by the variety used. Brown cultivar ‘Teddy
Bear’ was the tallest with a mean of 35.48 cm while the shortest were obtained from the
cultivar ‘Rainbows Eng’ with a mean of 21.03 cm.
Effect of media. Statistically, results showed that there were no significant effects
of the different media formulations on the final height of the miniature roses at full bloom
stage. Although, plants grown in a media of 1:1 alnus compost + sandy loam soil
produced the highest mean in terms of the final height at full bloom stage.
Interaction. Interaction effects between the different miniature rose cultivar and
different media formulations on the final height at full bloom stage were not significant.
Varietal Response of Minature Roses (Rosa cheninsis minima) to Different Potting Media
Formulations. ZAPARITA, CAROLYN I. APRIL 2011
22
Table 8. Final height of plants at full bloom stage
TREATMENT
MEAN
Variety
Teddy Bear
35.48a
Joycie
30.87b
Cupcake
29.33bc
Fragrant Cloud
27.53cd
Marie Shields
25.83d
Rainbows End
21.03c
Media
1:1 Alnus compost + sandy loam soil
29.47a
1:1 BSU compost + sandy loam soil
27.17a
1:1 Rice hull + sandy loam soil
28.36a
1:1 Mushroom compost + sandy loam soil
28.85a
1:1 Sawdust + sandy loam soil
27.07a
1:1:1 Rice hull + BSU compost + sandy loam soil
29.17a
Within a column, means with the same letter are not significantly different at .05
level DMRT.
Occurrence of Insect Pest and Diseases
The occurrence of insect pest and diseases observed during the conduct of the
study. Symptoms of insect pests that infest the plants during the reproductive growth
flowering stages were white thrips, green aphids and spotted beetles that causes the
wilting, yellowing of leaves and black spot on the leaves of the plant.
Varietal Response of Minature Roses (Rosa cheninsis minima) to Different Potting Media
Formulations. ZAPARITA, CAROLYN I. APRIL 2011
23
Cost and Return Analysis
As shown in Table 9, rose plants grown in a potting media of 1:1 alnus compost
+ sandy loam soil obtained the highest return on investment (ROI) with 80%. This was
followed by plants grown in a media mixes of 1:1 rice hull + sandy loam soil with ROI of
79%; and 1:1:1 rice hull + BSU compost + sandy loam soil with an ROI of 78%; and of
1:1 sawdust + sandy loam soil had an ROI of 77%; media mixes 1:1 mushroom compost
+ sandy loam soil and 1:1 BSU compost with an ROI of 60% which was the lowest ROI
in the production of miniature roses in the study. With regards to the expenses, the
different miniature rose cultivar were bought with the same prize, and in terms to the
treatments used, BSU compost was the most expensive among the six media formulation
used.
Table 9. Cost and return analysis
GROSS
TREATMENT
MARKETABLE
SALE
EXPENSES
NET ROI RANK
YIELD (NO.)
(PhP)
(PhP)
(PhP) (%)
1:1 Alnus compost +
sandy loam soil
18
1440
800
640 80%
1
1:1 BSU compost +
Sandy loam soil
14
1120
750
450 60%
6
1:1 Rice hull + sandy
Loam soil
16
1280
860
685 79%
2
1:1 Mushroom compost
+ sandy loam soil
18
1440
800
610 76%
5
1:1 Sawdust + sandy
loam soil
15
1200
720
560 77%
4
1:1 :1 Rice hull + BSU
Compost + sandy
Loam soil
18
1440
715
560 78%
3
Varietal Response of Minature Roses (Rosa cheninsis minima) to Different Potting Media
Formulations. ZAPARITA, CAROLYN I. APRIL 2011
24
Varietal Response of Minature Roses (Rosa cheninsis minima) to Different Potting Media
Formulations. ZAPARITA, CAROLYN I. APRIL 2011
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Summary
The study was conducted at the Ornamental Horticultural Research Area of
Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet from November 2010 to February 2011
to determine the effect of different potting media mixtures on the growth and flowering
of potted miniature roses and to identify the interaction and economics of using the
different potting media compositions potted miniature rose production.
Results show that among the six varieties of miniature roses grown, cultivar
‘Teddy Bear’ produced plants that were significantly taller, produced the biggest flowers
in terms of flower diameter and had the shortest duration to reached calyx-flex stage.
Cultivar ‘Fragrant cloud’ had produced the highest leaf count and had produced
significantly more flowers.
Plants of cv. Rainbow End’ were the shortest and had the smallest blooms in
terms of diameter, had smallest number of flowers per plant and had the least number of
leaves at full bloom stage.
With regards to the effect of different growing media mixture used; a media of 1:1
Alnus compost + sandy loam soil showed the shortest time to reached flower bud
formation and calyx-flex stage and had promoted production of more leaves.
Plants g rown in a media of 1:1 Rice hull + sandy loam soil had significantly
produced the tallest plants at calyx-flex stage.
Observations showed that among the six media used mixture of 1:1 alnus compost
+ sandy loam soil and 1:1:1 rice hull + BSU compost + sandy loam soil had produced the
highest number of flowers per plant.
Varietal Response of Minature Roses (Rosa cheninsis minima) to Different Potting Media
Formulations. ZAPARITA, CAROLYN I. APRIL 2011
LITERATURE CITED
ADAMSON, R. M. and E. F. MAAS. 1971. Sawdust and other substitutes and
Amendments in greenhouse tomato production. Horti. Sci. 699:397-399.
ALLAN, B. G. 1999. Effect of rose (Rosa hybrida) to different potting media
composition. BS Thesis. BSU, La Trinidad, Benguet.
CABALO, C. F. 2001. Growth and flowering of milflores (Hydrangea macrophylla) as
affected by different potting media compositions. BS Thesis. BSU, La
Trinidad, Benguet. P. 19.
DIAZ, C. Y. 2000. Response of Four varieties of Begonia sp. to different potting media.
BS Thesis, BSU, La Trinidad, Benguet. P. 26.
EINERT, A. E. 1972. Performance of rice hulls media for plant. Easter Lilies under La
Trinidad, Benguet.
JANICK, J. 1972. Horticulture Sciences. 2nd ed. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co.
Pp. 200-201, 315, 325.
LAURIE, A. and V. H. RIES. 1950. Floriculture Fundamentals and Practices. 2nd ed.
Mc-Graw Hill Book Company, Inc. New York, Toronto London. P. 330.
MATTOCK, J., F. WITCHELL., S. McCANN and P. WOOD. 1994. The Complete
Book of Roses. Wardlock Limited, Villiers House, London: Accasel Imprint.
Pp. 170-185.
PAKIAS, R. D. 2008. Growth and flowering of medinilla as affected by different
potting media compositions. BS Thesis. BSU, La Trinidad, Benguet. P. 8.
PARNES, R. 1986. Organic and Inorganic Fertilizers. Woods End Agricultural
Instutute. P. 40.
SWAYNE, V. 1992. Growing Roses. William Barry Thompson Foundation Marketing
Development Programme Kangarro Press. P. 22.
Varietal Response of Minature Roses (Rosa cheninsis minima) to Different Potting Media
Formulations. ZAPARITA, CAROLYN I. APRIL 2011
APPENDICES
Appendix Table 1. Initial height of transplanting
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT
I
II
III
TOTAL
MEAN
V1T0
15.80
14.50
13.00
43.30
14.43
V1T1
15.00
15.00
14.00
44.00
14.67
V1T2
13.60
14.20
14.50
42.30
14.10
V1T3
14.00
15.00
15.20
44.20
14.93
V1T4
15.00
14.80
14.00
43.80
14.60
V1T5
14.30
15.00
14.30
43.60
14.53
V2T0
14.50
13.00
15.00
42.50
14.17
V2T1
15.00
14.00
13.00
42.00
14.00
V2T2
14.30
13.80
15.00
43.10
14.37
V2T3
14.00
14.50
15.20
43.70
14.57
V2T4
15.00
14.20
15.00
42.20
14.07
V2T5
14.30
14.60
15.00
44.60
14.86
V3T0
14.50
14.00
13.50
42.00
14.00
V3T1
14.00
13.80
12.80
40.60
13.53
V3T2
13.80
14.00
12.00
39.80
13.23
V3T3
14.00
15.00
13.50
42.50
14.17
V3T4
15.20
13.50
14.00
42.70
14.23
V3T5
18.30
14.00
14.30
41.60
13.87
V4T0
13.00
12.00
12.50
37.50
12.50
V4T1
11.50
12.40
11.20
35.10
11.70
V4T2
12.50
13.00
14.50
40.00
13.33
V4T3
13.70
14.00
14.00
41.70
13.90
V4T4
15.50
15.00
14.60
45.10
15.03
V4T5
13.00
13.80
14.30
41.10
13.70
V5T0
13.50
13.00
11.80
38.30
12.77
V5T1
12.00
11.00
13.50
36.50
12.17
V5T2
13.80
13.40
11.20
38.40
12.80
V5T3
14.50
12.50
13.00
40.00
13.33
V5T4
11.40
10.00
12.00
33.40
11.33
V5T5
13.30
13.00
12.00
38.30
12.77
V6T0
10.00
10.30
11.80
32.10
10.70
V6T1
9.00
13.00
8.20
30.20
10.07
V6T2
12.00
11.00
9.00
32.00
10.67
V6T3
11.80
11.00
9.00
31.80
10.60
V6T4
10.30
11.50
12.20
34.00
11.93
V6T5
11.30
9.50
12.00
32.80
10.93
28
V x T Two Table
TREATMENT
V1
V2
V3
V4
V5
V6
TOTAL MEAN
T0
14.43
14.17 14.00 12.50 12.77 10.70
78.57
13.09
T1
14.67
14.00 13.53 11.70 12.17 10.07
76.14
12.69
T2
14.10
14.37 13.23 13.33 12.90 10.67
78.50
13.08
T3
14.73
14.57 14.17 13.90 12.33 10.60
91.30
13.55
T4
14.60
14.07 14.23 15.03 11.33 11.33
80.39
13.39
T5
14.53
14.86 13.87 13.70 10.93 10.93
80.66
13.44
TOTAL
87.06 142.47 83.03 80.16 74.97 64.30 475.56
79.24
MEAN
14.51
23.74 13.33 13.36 12.49 10.71
79.26
13.20
ANOVA TABLE
SOURCE OF DEGREES OF
SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED
VARIATION FREEDOM
SQUARES SQUARES
F
PROB
Factor A
5
180.692
36.138
37.3273
0.0000**
Factor B
5
9.230
1.846
1.9067
0.7038ns
AB
25
27.141
1.086
1.1214
0.3434ns
Error
72
69.707
0.968
TOTAL
107
286.769
** = Highly significant
Coefficient of variation = 7.45%
ns = Not significant
29
30
V x T Two Table
TREATMENT
V1
V2
V3
V4
V5
V6
TOTAL MEAN
T0
25.03 27.00 23.33 22.87 26.33 22.93 147.49
24.58
T1
25.93 27.83 23.33 21.60 23.27 20.60 143.46
23.91
T2
24.33 28.50 23.33 25.70 25.83 24.17 151.86
25.31
T3
26.13 22.63 17.56 24.57 22.06 20.50 135.45
22.57
T4
24.67 21.40 23.40 21.30 21.33 19.96 132.06
22.01
T5
25.13 23.03 21.33 23.83 24.20 21.33 118.85
19.80
TOTAL
151.11 150.39 134.78 139.87 143.02 129.49
MEAN
25.20 22.46 23.31 23.84 21.58
ANOVA TABLE
SOURCE OF DEGREES OF
SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED
VARIATION FREEDOM
SQUARES SQUARES
F
PROB
Factor A
5
176.125
35.225
4.3308
0.0017**
Factor B
5
128.688
25.738
4.1643
0.0123*
AB
25
204.776
8.191
1.0071
0.4703ns
Error
72
585.620
8.134
TOTAL
107
1095.209
** = Highly significant
Coefficient of variation = 7.45%
* = Significant
ns = Not significant
31
32
V x T Two Table
TREATMENT
V1
V2
V3
V4
V5
V6
TOTAL MEAN
T0
73.33 70.67 81.33 132.00 48.67 17.33 423.33
70.55
T1
69.67 53.00 56.67 118.00 45.33 14.33 357.00
59.50
T2
55.33 64.67 69.00 118.67 62.33 16.33 386.33
64.38
T3
61.00 48.67 76.67 96.44 56.00 17.67 356.34
59.39
T4
61.33 74.00 85.00 125.33 52.67 18.67 417.00
69.50
T5
55.53 66.00 75.33 109.67 59.33 21.00 386.86
64.47
TOTAL
376.19 386.34 444.00 700.00 324.33 105.33 2326.86 387.79
MEAN
62.66 64.39 74.00 116.66 54.05 17.55
ANOVA TABLE
SOURCE OF DEGREES OF
SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED
VARIATION FREEDOM
SQUARES SQUARES
F
PROB
Factor A
5
82401.111
16480.222
59.4159
0.000
Factor B
5
1431.889
286.378
1.0325
0.4052
AB
25
5170.000
206.800
0.7456
Error
72
19970.667
277.370
TOTAL
107
108973.667
Coefficient of variation = 7.45%
33
34
V x T Two Table
TREATMENT
V1
V2
V3
V4
V5
V6 TOTAL MEAN
T0
33.33 30.67 27.00 18.67 30.33 30.00 170.00
28.33
T1
27.67 35.33 30.67 29.00 46.00 31.33 200.00
33.33
T2
42.00 32.67 30.00 28.33 30.67 28.33 192.00
32.00
T3
32.33 33.00 28.33 36.67 32.00 35.00 197.33
32.88
T4
33.33 39.00 30.00 26.00 33.00 34.67 193.00
32.16
T5
42.67 26.65 31.33 35.67 32.00 28.33 196.67
32.77
TOTAL
211.33 177.33 174.34 201.00 187.66
MEAN
35.22 32.89 29.55 33.50 31.27
ANOVA TABLE
SOURCE OF DEGREES OF
SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED
VARIATION FREEDOM
SQUARES SQUARES
F
PROB
Factor A
5
482.380
96.476
2.5271
0.0365*
Factor B
5
73.157
14.631
0.3833
ns
AB
25
1861.454
74.458
1.9504
0.0149
Error
72
2748.667
38.176
TOTAL
107
* = Significant
Coefficient of variation = 19.11%
ns = Not significant
35
36
V x T Two Table
TREATMENT
V1
V2
V3
V4
V5
V6
TOTAL MEAN
T0
41.33 45.67 34.00 32.33 37.67 38.33 229.33
38.22
T1
36.33 43.44 38.67 36.67 54.00 44.00 253.00
42.16
T2
51.00 40.33 37.00 30.00 38.67 37.00 234.00
39.00
T3
39.67 40.67 35.33 44.67 40.00 43.00 243.39
40.55
T4
41.33 47.67 38.33 34.33 38.00 44.33 243.99
40.66
T5
50.33 34.00 38.00 42.67 40.00 39.67 242.67
40.44
TOTAL
259.99 253.67 221.33 220.67 248.34 244.33
MEAN
43.33 42.27 36.88 36.77 41.39 40.72
ANOVA TABLE
SOURCE OF DEGREES OF
SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED
VARIATION FREEDOM
SQUARES SQUARES
F
PROB
Factor A
5
581.269
116.254
2.8126
0.224*
Factor B
5
151.824
30.365
0.7346
ns
AB
25
1954.565
78.183
1.8915
0.019*
Error
72
2976.000
41.333
TOTAL
107
5663.657
* = Significant
Coefficient of variation = 15.94%
ns = Not significant
37
38
V x T Two Table
TREATMENT
V1
V2
V3
V4
V5
V6
TOTAL MEAN
T0
5.55
4.42
4.27
4.09
4.82
3.53
26.68
4.44
T1
5.77
3.94
3.76
4.07
3.76
3.68
24.38
4.06
T2
5.21
4.33
4.37
4.39
4.06
3.71
26.07
4.34
T3
5.40
4.57
4.29
3.94
4.27
3.87
26.34
4.39
T4
4.27
4.07
3.96
3.92
4.27
3.96
25.45
4.24
T5
5.60
4.24
4.13
4.17
4.03
3.96
26.13
4.35
TOTAL
32.20 28.57 24.78 24.58 25.21 22.71
MEAN
5.36
4.26
4.13
4.09
4.20
3.78
ANOVA TABLE
SOURCE OF DEGREES OF
SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED
VARIATION FREEDOM
SQUARES SQUARES
F
PROB
Factor A
5
26.728
5.346
42.4087 0.0000**
Factor B
5
1.757
0.351
2.7886
0.0233*
AB
25
3.121
0.125
0.9904
ns
Error
72
9.075
0.126
TOTAL
107
40.081
** = Highly Significant
Coefficient of variation = 7.45%
* = Significant
ns = Not significant
39
40
V x T Two Table
TREATMENT
V1
V2
V3
V4
V5
V6
TOTAL MEAN
T0
36.73 37.33 31.00 28.97 24.90 19.93 178.86
29.81
T1
35.33 28.50 29.33 25.43 23.93 20.47 162.99 278.16
T2
35.67 34.17 27.83 29.27 24.50 20.80 173.67
28.94
T3
35.00 30.50 28.23 27.30 29.40 22.67 173.10
28.85
T4
34.50 28.37 27.40 26.50 26.50 19.18 162.40
27.06
T5
35.67 34.50 28.50 27.33 27.33 23.20 175.03
29.17
TOTAL
212.90 193.37 172.29 165.20 155.06 126.20
MEAN
35.48 32.220 28.71 27.53 25.84 21.03
ANOVA TABLE
SOURCE OF DEGREES OF
SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED
VARIATION FREEDOM
SQUARES SQUARES
F
PROB
Factor A
5
21136.747
427.249
47.5944
0.0000**
Factor B
5
93.963
10.793
2/0930
0.0761*
AB
25
235.871
9.435
1.0508
0.4193ns
Error
72
646.487
8.979
TOTAL
107
3113.069
* = Significant
Coefficient of variation = 19.11%
ns = Not significant
41
42
V x T Two Table
TREATMENT
V1
V2
V3
V4
V5
V6 TOTAL MEAN
T0
13.37 11.67 11.00 17.33 10.33 5.33
69.33
11.55
T1
10.33
6.67
9.00 15.33
6.00 3.33
50.66
8.44
T2
11.67
7.67
9.00 16.33
8.00 3.67
56.34
9.39
T3
12.00
9.33
9.67 11.67
7.33 4.00
54.00
9.00
T4
10.67
9.67
9.33 15.00
8.33 3.67
56.67
9.44
T5
12.67 11.00 11.33 15.67
8.67 3.33
62.67
10.44
TOTAL
71.01 56.01 59.33 91.33 48.66 23.33
MEAN
11.83
9.33
9.88 15.22
8.11 3.88
ANOVA TABLE
SOURCE OF DEGREES OF
SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED
VARIATION FREEDOM
SQUARES SQUARES
F
PROB
Factor A
5
1283.889
256.778
53.0249
0.0000**
Factor B
5
107.333
21.467
4.4329
0.0014*
AB
25
75.778
3.031
0.6259
ns
Error
72
348.667
4.843
TOTAL
107
1815.667
** - Highly significant
Coefficient of variation = 19.11%
* = Significant
ns = Not significant
43
ZAPARITA, CAROLYN I. APRIL 2011. Varietal Response of Minature Roses (Rosa
cheninsis minima) to Different Potting Media Formulations. Benguet State University, La
Trinidad. Benguet.
Adviser: Araceli G. Ladilad, PhD.
ABSTRACT
The study was conducted to determine the effect of different potting media mixtures on
the growth and flowering of potted miniature roses; and to determine the interaction and
economics of using the different potting media compositions (using sandy loam soil, alnus
compost, rice hull, sawdust, BSU compost and mushroom compost) on the growth and
flowering of the six varieties of potted miniature roses namely: ‘Joycie’, ‘Teddy Bear’,
‘Cupcake’, ‘Rainbows End’, ‘Fragrant Cloud’ and ‘Marie Shields’.
Results showed that cv. ‘Teddy Bear’ had significantly faster growth and had produced
the biggest flowers at full-bloom stage. On the other hand, cv. ‘Fragrant Cloud’ had significantly
produced higher number of leaves and flowers compared to the other rose cultivar used. Cv.
‘Cupcake’ produced flowers significantly earlier, followed by the cv. ‘Teddy Bear’.
With regards to the effect of the different growing media formulations used, a mixture of
1:1 alnus compost + sandy loam soil had significantly affected the flower quality of the plants,
promoting the production of higher numbers of flowers per plant and had the biggest flowers at
full-bloom stage. In terms on the vegetative growth; a mixture of 1:1 rice hull + sandy loam soil
had promoted the production of higher number of leaves per plant and had the tallest plants at
calyx-flex stage.
Growing miniature roses in a media of 1:1 BSU compost + sandy loam soil, and 1:1
sawdust + sandy loam soil only resulted to slowed vegetative growth and had the longest
duration to reach reproductive growth and flowering.
Based on the results of the study, the mixture of 1:1 alnus compost + sandy loam soil and
1:1 rice hull + sandy loam soil were the best media compositions for the culture of potted
miniature roses.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Bibliography………………………………………………………. ……
i
Abstract ……………………………………………………………………
i
Table of Contents ………………………………………………………….
ii
INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………
1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE………………………………………………
3
MATERIALS AND METHODS ………………………………………….
6
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION……………………………………………
10
Vegetative Growth ……………………………………………………...
10
Initial Height ……………………………………………………….
10
Height at Calyx-flex Stage …………………………………………
10
Final Number of Leaves ……………………………………………
14
Days from Transplanting to Flower Bud Formation ……………….
15
Days from Transplanting to Calyx-Flex Stage ……………………..
16
Numbers of Flowers Produced Per Plant …………………………...
18
Flower Diameter at Full Bloom Stage ……………………………..
20
Final Height of the Plant at Full Bloom Stage …………………….
21
Occurrence of Insect Pest and Diseases ……………………………
22
Cost and Return Analysis …………………………………………..
23
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION …………….
24
Summary ……………………………………………………………
24
Conclusion ………………………………………………………….
25
Recommendation …………………………………………………..
25
LITERATURE CITED ……………………………………………………
26
APPENDICES …………………………………………………………….
27
INTRODUCTION
Rose is a perennial flower shrub or a shrubby vine of the genus Rosa within the
family Rosaseae that contains approximately 2000 species and more than 20,000
varieties. Roses are grown the whole year not only because it is one fo the world’s
favorite flower but also because it serves a s a symbol of perfection, elegance, romance
and love. Roses are generally produced by specialized growers in large greenhouse and
are utilized in landscape gardening (Allan, 1999).
Rose plant range in size from compact, climbers to miniature roses. Miniature
roses (Rosa cheninsis minima) came originally from China and are a form of Rosa
cheninsis and there are hundreds of different varieties of miniature roses and new ones
are appearing each year like Red ace, Snow bride, Yellow sin blaze, Minnie pearl and
many more Swayne (1994).
Potted miniature roses are available in almost every color of the rainbow except
blue. They range from six inches to eighteen inches in height. They perform best in
sunny location with rich and well drained soils.
Roses are useful for many purposes, the climbing forms serves as screen on
porches and against buildings but more frequently on posts, fences and arbors. Certain
types are useful for mass planting and foundation borders.
The newer hybrids are adopted for the production of colorful effects in the garden
and for cutflower purposes. Among flower growers, Rose is becoming very popular. The
useful, of this flower has greatly increased. New varieties are developed with greater
hardiness, as well as variety of color and forms.
Varietal Response of Minature Roses (Rosa cheninsis minima) to Different Potting Media
Formulations. ZAPARITA, CAROLYN I. APRIL 2011
2
This study aimed to determine the response of miniature rose to different potting
media formulations to guide growers on the best growing media to use in the miniature
rose production. Specifically, the study aimed to determine the varietal response and
effect of potted miniature roses; and to determine the interaction and economics of using
the different potting media formulations for the culture of miniature rose.
The study was conducted at the Ornamental Horticulture Research Area, Benguet
State University, La Trinidad, Benguet from October 2010 to January 2011.
Varietal Response of Minature Roses (Rosa cheninsis minima) to Different Potting Media
Formulations. ZAPARITA, CAROLYN I. APRIL 2011
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Culture of Miniature Roses
Roses are propagated by sexual or asexual methods such as cuttings; marcotting
and budding are used if the roses are to be culture as pot plants. Roses that are
propagated by cuttings are preferred to as “own root” plants. They are acquired from
mature stem or from mature laterals or shoots of current year growth. They should be cut
at about 5 to 8 inches long with thickness of an ordinary pencil or smaller (Janick, 1972).
He stated that the production of rose plants for garden cultivation uses a very
specialized operation. To achieve rapid and economical increase or new selection to
meet the market demands. Production of roses requires skilled hand labor in budding
operation and expensive field maintenance.
Mattock and et al (1994) stated that the species of miniature roses are such
adaptable little plants that they can be grown in a variety of situation. He stated that true
miniature roses a re obtained from plants raised from cuttings. Select from plants having
firm shoots and have finished flowering and make the cuttings about 15 cm long or 6
inches long. Laurie and Ries (1950) added that rose bed should be placed in an open
location that gets at least a day of sunlight. Proximity to trees should eb avoided because
of the loss of nutrients and moisture from the soil.
Growing Media/Potting Media
Bautista (1993) as cited by Pakias (2008) Organic matter in the soil perform
several functions such prevention of the loss of nutrients by forming complexes with the
nutrient elements, facilities absorption and perculation of water into through the soil.
Varietal Response of Minature Roses (Rosa cheninsis minima) to Different Potting Media
Formulations. ZAPARITA, CAROLYN I. APRIL 2011
4
Thus, increasing water holding ability and reducing erosion also source of nutrient
elements and improves the penetration of roots through the soil by good structure brought
by its decomposition.
Parnes (1986) stated that composting is an excellent way of using a combination
of organic residues which might otherwise be nuisance or having a little value. The
product has a high concentration of minerals with an ideal carbon and nitrogen balance.
The successful production of compost depends primarily on physical factors such as
moisture content, aur supply and the quantity of material. Compost also supplies
nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus and sulfur which are essential for plant growth.
Mushroom compost is the growing medium that results from the mushroom
growing process. It is made from agricultural materials, such as hay, straw and cocoa
shells. Mushroom compost has high water and nutrient holding capacity. As a fertilizer
and soil amendment for farming mushroom compost supports plant growth and inhibits
artillery fungus.
Sawdust is a good potting media in foliage plants. However, it should not be
more than 25 percent by volume of potting mixture. Sawdust is compost of 5 lbs of
nitrogen, 2 lbs of potassium and 4 lbs of phosphorous per ton of sawdust, on an oven dry
weight bases (Adamson and Maas, 1971).
Einert (1972) stated that rice hulls are good as soil amendments especially in
heavy clay soils. He reported that maximum effectiveness is obtained when rice hull is
not more than 20 percent by volume of potting mixture. Rice hull provides a light to
medium texture with good drainage and aeration and does not affect the soil pH.
Varietal Response of Minature Roses (Rosa cheninsis minima) to Different Potting Media
Formulations. ZAPARITA, CAROLYN I. APRIL 2011
5
Cabalo (2001) mentioned that media compositions of 1:1:1 sand + sawdust + rice
hull + cow manure will promote thicker stems, bigger cymes diameter, larger aesthetic
duration and high return on investment in milflores.
As recommended by Diaz (2000) a mixture of 1:1:1 rice hull + compost + sand
could be recommended for growing of “non-stop rose petticote” (Begonia sp.) under La
Trinidad, Benguet condition.
Varietal Response of Minature Roses (Rosa cheninsis minima) to Different Potting Media
Formulations. ZAPARITA, CAROLYN I. APRIL 2011
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Materials
The materials used in this study were potted miniature roses of cultivars ‘Teddy
Bear’, ‘Joycie’, “Rainbow’s End’, ‘Cupcake’, ‘Fragrant Cloud’, ‘Marie Shields’, BSU
compost, Mushroom compost, Alnus compost, sandy loam soil, sawdust, burnt rice hull,
polyethylene plastic bags and labeling materials.
Methods
The study was arranged in factorial design completely randomize design (CRD)
with the six varieties of miniature roses as Factor A and; the different potting media as
Factor B. There were three sample plants per treatments, replicated four times. The
treatments were as follows:
Factor A (Miniature Rose Variety)
V1 = Teddy bear (brown)
V2 = Joycie (light orange)
V3 = Cupcake (forsting pink)
V4 = Fragrant cloud (dark orange)
V5 = Marie shields (pink)
V6 = Rainbow’s end (yellow)
Varietal Response of Minature Roses (Rosa cheninsis minima) to Different Potting Media
Formulations. ZAPARITA, CAROLYN I. APRIL 2011
7
Factor B Potting Media
T0 = 1:1 Sandy loam soil + alnus compost (farmers practice)
T1 = 1:1BSU compost + sandy loam soil
T2 = 1:1 Burnt Rice hull + sandy loam soil
T3 = 1:1 Mushroom compost + sandy loam soil
T4 = 1:1 Sawdust + sandy loam soil
T5 = 1:1:1 Rice hull + BSU compost + sandy loam soil
All routine management practices for the maintenance of the potted miniature
roses were uniformly applied to all test plants. Watering was done every other day.
The data gathered were the following:
1. Initial height of the plant at transplanting (cm). The heights were measured
from the base to the tip of the plants at transplanting.
2. Plant heights at flowering Calyx-flex stage (cm). This were obtained by
measuring the height of the plant from the base to the tip of the flower in cm at flowering.
3. Initial number of leaves per plant at transplanting.
4. Final number of leaves. The number of leaves were recorded at full bloom
stage.
5. Number of days from transplanting to flower bud formation. These were
obtained by counting the number of days from transplanting until flower buds were
formed.
6. Number of days from transplanting to Calyx-flex stage. These were taken by
counting the days from transplanting until Calyx-flex stage.
Varietal Response of Minature Roses (Rosa cheninsis minima) to Different Potting Media
Formulations. ZAPARITA, CAROLYN I. APRIL 2011
8
7. Number of flowers produced per plant. The numbers of flowers produced per
plant were recorded for the whole duration of the cropping period.
8. Flower diameter at full bloom stage (cm).
9. Flower length at full bloom stage (cm).
10. Occurrence of insect pest and diseases. The insect pest and diseases were
identified and recorded during the conduct of the study.
11. Cost and return analysis.
12. Documentation of the study in pictures.
Varietal Response of Minature Roses (Rosa cheninsis minima) to Different Potting Media
Formulations. ZAPARITA, CAROLYN I. APRIL 2011
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Vegetative Growth
Initial Height
Effect of variety. Table 1 show that there were significant variations on the
different miniature rose varieties on the initial height at transplanting. Cultivars ‘Teddy
bear’, ‘Joyce’ and ‘Cupcake’ were the tallest with the means of 14.51, 14.34 and 13.84
cm while cultivar ‘Rainbows end’ was the shortest with a mean of only 10.73 cm.
Effect of media. There were no significant differences observed among the six
media formulation of miniature roses on the initial height. However, plants grown in a
1:1 mushroom compost + sandy loam soil were the tallest with a mean of 13.55 cm while
the shortest was obtained from the plants grown in BSU compost with a mean of 12.69
cm.
Interaction effect. There were no significant interaction effects between the
different varieties of the miniature roses and the different media formulations on the
initial heights of the rose plant.
Height at Calyx-flex Stage
Effect of variety. Statistical analysis showed highly significant differences on the
height of miniature rose plants at calyx-flex stage as affected by the variety used.
Cultivars ‘Teddy Bear’ and ‘Joycie’ produced the tallest plans with means of 27.08 and
25.07 cm from the date of transplanting, respectively; cultivar ‘Rainbows End’ was the
shortest with plant height at calyx-flex stage of 21.58 cm (Table 2).
Varietal Response of Minature Roses (Rosa cheninsis minima) to Different Potting Media
Formulations. ZAPARITA, CAROLYN I. APRIL 2011
11
Table 1. Initial height of the plant at transplanting
TREATMENT
MEAN
Variety
Teddy Bear
14.51a
Joycie
14.34a
Cupcake
13.84a
Fragrant Cloud
13.36b
Marie Shields
12.49c
Rainbows End
10.73d
Media
1:1 Alnus compost + sandy loam soil
13.09a
1:1 BSU compost + sandy loam soil
12.69a
1:1 Rice hull + sandy loam soil
13.09a
1:1 Mushroom compost + sandy loam soil
13.55a
1:1 Sawdust + sandy loam soil
13.42a
1:1:1 Rice hull + BSU compost + sandy loam soil
13.44a
Within a column, means with the same letter are not significantly different at .05
level DMRT.
Effect of media. Table 2 shows the height at calyx-flex stage of miniature rose
plants from transplanting date as affected by the different potting media formulations.
The tallest miniature roses at calyx-flex stage were recorded from plants grown in a
mixture of 1:1 rice hull + sandy loam soil with a mean of 25.20 cm. Plants grown in 1:1
sawdust + sandy loam soil were the shortest with a mean of 22.08 cm.
Varietal Response of Minature Roses (Rosa cheninsis minima) to Different Potting Media
Formulations. ZAPARITA, CAROLYN I. APRIL 2011
12
Table 2. Plant height at calyx-flex stage
TREATMENT
MEAN
Variety
Teddy Bear
25.08a
Joycie
25.07a
Cupcake
22.47bc
Fragrant Cloud
23.38abc
Marie Shields
23.84ab
Rainbows End
21.58c
Media
1:1 Alnus compost + sandy loam soil
24.58ab
1:1 BSU compost + sandy loam soil
23.84abc
1:1 Rice hull + sandy loam soil
25.20a
1:1 Mushroom compost + sandy loam soil
22.58bc
1:1 Sawdust + sandy loam soil
22.08c
1:1:1 Rice hull + BSU compost + sandy loam soil
23.13bc
Within a column, means with the same letter are not significantly different at .05
level DMRT.
Interaction effect. Results show that there were no significant interaction on the
combined effects between the six varieties of miniature roses and the six different potting
media formulations with regards to the height of the plant at calyx-flex stage.
Varietal Response of Minature Roses (Rosa cheninsis minima) to Different Potting Media
Formulations. ZAPARITA, CAROLYN I. APRIL 2011
13
Initial Number of Leaves per Plant
Effect of variety. Results show highly significant variations on the initial number
of leaves produced per plant as affected by the miniature rose cultivars. The variety
‘Teddy bear’ had the highest number of leaves produced per plant with a mean of 17.11
while ‘Rainbows End’ had the lowest mean with only 8.61 leaves per plant at flowering.
Table 3. Initial and final numbers of leaves per plant
INITIAL
FINAL NUMBER
TREATMENT
NUMBER
OF LEAVES
Variety
Teddy Bear
17.11a
61.89c
Joycie
13.33bc
61.72c
Cupcake
15.06ab
74.00b
Fragrant Cloud
12.67bc
111.11a
Marie Shields
11.89c
54.06c
Rainbows End
8.61c
17.56d
Media
1:1 Alnus compost + sandy loam soil
12.39a
69.50a
1:1 BSU compost + sandy loam soil
13.72a
59.39a
1:1 Rice hull + sandy loam soil
12.28a
64.11a
1:1 Mushroom compost + sandy loam soil
13.44a
58.94a
1:1 Sawdust + sandy loam soil
13.67a
65.00a
1:1:1 Rice hull + BSU compost + sandy loam soil
13.17a
65.39a
Within a column, means with the same letter are not significantly different at .05
level DMRT.
Varietal Response of Minature Roses (Rosa cheninsis minima) to Different Potting Media
Formulations. ZAPARITA, CAROLYN I. APRIL 2011
14
Effect of media. Results showed that there were no significant effects of the
different potting media mixture used in terms of the initial numbers of leaves at
transplanting.
Interaction effect. Again, the statistical interaction between the six different
varieties of miniature rose and the six different growing media composition obtained on
the number of leaves per pot at transplanting were not significant.
Final Number of Leaves
Effect of variety. Cultivars ‘Fragrant cloud’ had highly significant higher leave
counts with a mean of 111.11 leaves per plant. Cultivars ‘Rainbows end’ had
significantly lesser number of leaves with a mean of only 17.56 leaves.
This may be explained by the varietal differences as well as the inherent
characteristics of the different miniature rose varieties grown.
Effect of media. Statistical analysis shows that there were no significant effects
of the different growing media formulations on the final number of leaves at full bloom
stage. Although, plants grown in a miniature of 1:1 Alnus compost + sandy loam soil
produced the highest number of leaves. Final numbers of leaves counted were
significantly comparable with a means ranging from 69.50 to 58.94 at full bloom stage.
Interaction. There were no significant interaction effects between the six
miniature rose varieties grown and the different media mixtures in terms on the final
number of leaves at full bloom stage.
Within a column, means with the same letter are not significantly different at .05
level DMRT.
Varietal Response of Minature Roses (Rosa cheninsis minima) to Different Potting Media
Formulations. ZAPARITA, CAROLYN I. APRIL 2011
15
Days from Transplanting
to Flower Bud Formation
Effect of variety. Significant differences with regards to the number of days from
transplanting to flower bud formation were obtained on the six varieties of miniature
roses grown.
Table 4. Number of days from transplanting to flower bud formation
TREATMENT
MEAN
Variety
Teddy Bear
24.58ab
Joycie
23.84abc
Cupcake
25.20a
Fragrant Cloud
22.58bc
Marie Shields
22.08c
Rainbows End
23.13bc
Media
1:1 Alnus compost + sandy loam soil
30.78a
1:1 BSU compost + sandy loam soil
33.33a
1:1 Rice hull + sandy loam soil
32.00a
1:1 Mushroom compost + sandy loam soil
32.89a
1:1 Sawdust + sandy loam soil
32.17a
1:1:1 Rice hull + BSU compost + sandy loam soil
32.78a
Within a column, means with the same letter are not significantly different at .05
level DMRT.
Varietal Response of Minature Roses (Rosa cheninsis minima) to Different Potting Media
Formulations. ZAPARITA, CAROLYN I. APRIL 2011
16
Cultivar ‘Marie Shields’ had bloomed earlier with a mean of 22.08 days from
transplanting, while cultivar ‘Cupcake’ flowered later with flower buds visible after a
mean of 25.20 days from transplanting.
Effect of media. Statistical analysis showed that there were no significant effects
on the different growing media mixtures on the duration of days from transplanting to
flower bud formation. Although, plants grown in a mixture of 1:1 Alnus compost +
sandy loam soil showed the earliest flower buds formed; while the longest durations to
form flower buds were obtained from plants grown in the mixture of 1:1 BSU compost +
sandy loam soil.
Duration of days from transplanting to flower bud formation counted was
significantly comparable with a means ranging from 33.33 to 30.78 days from
transplanting to flower bud formation.
Interaction effect. Significant interaction effects were obtained between the
varieties of miniature roses and the different media formulation on the number of days
from transplanting to flower bud formation. Plant of cultivar ‘Marie Shields’ grown in
1:1 Alnus compost + sandy loam soil showed the earliest flower buds formed; while the
longest durations to form flower buds were obtained from the plant of cultivar ‘cupcake’
grown in 1:1 BSU compost + sandy loam soil.
Days from Transplanting
to Calyx-Flex Stage
Effect of variety. Significant differences with regards to the number of days from
flower bud formation to calyx flex stage were obtained in the six cultivars grown (Table
5). Cv. ‘Teddy Bear’ had the longest duration of flower development from 0.5 cm bud
Varietal Response of Minature Roses (Rosa cheninsis minima) to Different Potting Media
Formulations. ZAPARITA, CAROLYN I. APRIL 2011
17
Table 5. Numbers of days from transplanting to calyx-flex stage
TREATMENT
MEAN
Variety
Teddy Bear
43.33a
Joycie
42.28ab
Cupcake
36.89c
Fragrant Cloud
37.78bc
Marie Shields
41.49abc
Rainbows End
40.28abc
Media
1:1 Alnus compost + sandy loam soil
38.22a
1:1 BSU compost + sandy loam soil
42.47a
1:1 Rice hull + sandy loam soil
40.00a
1:1 Mushroom compost + sandy loam soil
40.11a
1:1 Sawdust + sandy loam soil
41.00a
1:1:1 Rice hull + BSU compost + sandy loam soil
40.44a
Within a column, means with the same letter are not significantly different at .05
level DMRT.
size to reach calyx flex stage only after a mean of 43.33 days; while Cv. ‘Cupcake’
showed the shortest time to reached calyx-flex stage after a mean of only 36.89 days from
transplanting.
Effect of media. Statistically, results showed no significant differences on the
duration of days from transplanting to calyx-flex stage as affected by the different potting
Varietal Response of Minature Roses (Rosa cheninsis minima) to Different Potting Media
Formulations. ZAPARITA, CAROLYN I. APRIL 2011
18
media formulations used. Calyx-flex stage was reached simultaneously by all rose plants
grown in the different media formulation after 38.22 to 42.47 days from transplanting.
Interaction. Significant effects were obtained between the different miniature
rose varieties and the different growing media formulations. Plant of cultivar ‘Teddy
Bear’ grown in a media of 1:1 BSU compost + sandy loam soil showed the longest
duration of flower development from 0.5 cm bud size; while the shortest time to reach
calyx-flex stage were obtained from the variety ‘Cupcake’ grown in a media of 1:1 alnus
compost + sandy loam soil.
Numbers of Flowers Produced Per Plant
Effect of variety. The number of flowers produced per plant is presented in Table
6. Statistically, results showed significant varietal differences. Cultivar ‘Fragrant Cloud’
produced significantly more flowers having a mean of 1.522 flowers per plant followed
by Cvs. ‘Teddy Bear’ with a mean of 11.78 flowers and by Cvs. ‘Cupcake’ with a mean
of 10.00 flowers. Cvs. ‘Joycie’, ‘Marie Shields’ and ‘Rainbows End’ had produced the
least number of flowers per plant which ranged from 3.89 to 15.22.
Effect of media. Differences observed on the effect of the different media
formulations on the number of flowers produced per plant were likewise, significant.
The highest number of flowers were counted on the plant grown on a media of 1:1 Alnus
compost + sandy loam soil with a mean of 11.50 flowers per plant. The lowest number
of flowers per plant were counted from those grown on a media of 1:1 of BSU compost +
sandy loam soil with only a mean of 8.44 flowers; followed by those plant grown on a
media of 1:1 mushroom compost + sandy loam soil with a mean of 9.00 flowers per
plant.
Varietal Response of Minature Roses (Rosa cheninsis minima) to Different Potting Media
Formulations. ZAPARITA, CAROLYN I. APRIL 2011
19
Table 6. Number of flowers produced per plant
TREATMENT
MEAN
Variety
Teddy Bear
11.78b
Joycie
9.33a
Cupcake
10.00c
Fragrant Cloud
15.22a
Marie Shields
8.11d
Rainbows End
3.89c
Media
1:1 Alnus compost + sandy loam soil
11.50a
1:1 BSU compost + sandy loam soil
8.44a
1:1 Rice hull + sandy loam soil
9.50bc
1:1 Mushroom compost + sandy loam soil
9.00bc
1:1 Sawdust + sandy loam soil
9.44bc
1:1:1 Rice hull + BSU compost + sandy loam soil
10.44ab
Within a column, means with the same letter are not significantly different at .05
level DMRT.
Interaction. Results show that there were no significant interaction effects
between the different cultivars of miniature roses and different media formulations in
terms of the number of flowers produced per plant.
Varietal Response of Minature Roses (Rosa cheninsis minima) to Different Potting Media
Formulations. ZAPARITA, CAROLYN I. APRIL 2011
20
Flower Diameter at Full Bloom Stage
Effect of variety. The different miniature rose varieties had significantly affected
the flower diameter measured at full bloom stage. Cv. ‘Teddy Bear’ produced the biggest
blooms with a mean of 5.37 cm among the varieties tested. The smallest bloom was
obtained from Cv. ‘Rainbows End’ with a mean of 3.79 cm across, at full bloom stage.
Table 7. Flower diameter at full bloom stage
TREATMENT
MEAN
Variety
Teddy Bear
5.37a
Joycie
4.27b
Cupcake
4.13b
Fragrant Cloud
4.10b
Marie Shields
4.23b
Rainbows End
3.79c
Media
1:1 Alnus compost + sandy loam soil
4.45a
1:1 BSU compost + sandy loam soil
4.07b
1:1 Rice hull + sandy loam soil
4.38a
1:1 Mushroom compost + sandy loam soil
4.39a
1:1 Sawdust + sandy loam soil
4.25ab
1:1:1 Rice hull + BSU compost + sandy loam soil
4.36a
Within a column, means with the same letter are not significantly different at .05
level DMRT.
Varietal Response of Minature Roses (Rosa cheninsis minima) to Different Potting Media
Formulations. ZAPARITA, CAROLYN I. APRIL 2011
21
Effect of media. Significant differences were obtained from the different media
formulations used with regards to the diameter at full bloom stage. Plant grown in a
mixture of 1:1 Alnus compost + sandy loam soil had produced the biggest blooms with a
mean of 4.45 cm followed by plants grown in the mixture of 1:1 mushroom compost +
sandy loam soil with a mean of 4.39 cm. Followed by plants grown in a mixture of 1:1:1
Rice hull + BSU compost + sandy loam soil with a mean of 4.36 cm. Plants grown in a
mixture of 1:1 BSU compost + sandy loam soil produced the smallest blooms with a
mean of only 4.07 cm.
Interaction. The interaction effects between the different variety of miniature
roses and different media compositions on the flower diameter at full bloom stage were
not significant.
Final Height of the Plant at Full Bloom Stage
Effect of variety. Statistical analysis showed significant differences on the final
height of the miniature rose plants as affected by the variety used. Brown cultivar ‘Teddy
Bear’ was the tallest with a mean of 35.48 cm while the shortest were obtained from the
cultivar ‘Rainbows Eng’ with a mean of 21.03 cm.
Effect of media. Statistically, results showed that there were no significant effects
of the different media formulations on the final height of the miniature roses at full bloom
stage. Although, plants grown in a media of 1:1 alnus compost + sandy loam soil
produced the highest mean in terms of the final height at full bloom stage.
Interaction. Interaction effects between the different miniature rose cultivar and
different media formulations on the final height at full bloom stage were not significant.
Varietal Response of Minature Roses (Rosa cheninsis minima) to Different Potting Media
Formulations. ZAPARITA, CAROLYN I. APRIL 2011
22
Table 8. Final height of plants at full bloom stage
TREATMENT
MEAN
Variety
Teddy Bear
35.48a
Joycie
30.87b
Cupcake
29.33bc
Fragrant Cloud
27.53cd
Marie Shields
25.83d
Rainbows End
21.03c
Media
1:1 Alnus compost + sandy loam soil
29.47a
1:1 BSU compost + sandy loam soil
27.17a
1:1 Rice hull + sandy loam soil
28.36a
1:1 Mushroom compost + sandy loam soil
28.85a
1:1 Sawdust + sandy loam soil
27.07a
1:1:1 Rice hull + BSU compost + sandy loam soil
29.17a
Within a column, means with the same letter are not significantly different at .05
level DMRT.
Occurrence of Insect Pest and Diseases
The occurrence of insect pest and diseases observed during the conduct of the
study. Symptoms of insect pests that infest the plants during the reproductive growth
flowering stages were white thrips, green aphids and spotted beetles that causes the
wilting, yellowing of leaves and black spot on the leaves of the plant.
Varietal Response of Minature Roses (Rosa cheninsis minima) to Different Potting Media
Formulations. ZAPARITA, CAROLYN I. APRIL 2011
23
Cost and Return Analysis
As shown in Table 9, rose plants grown in a potting media of 1:1 alnus compost
+ sandy loam soil obtained the highest return on investment (ROI) with 80%. This was
followed by plants grown in a media mixes of 1:1 rice hull + sandy loam soil with ROI of
79%; and 1:1:1 rice hull + BSU compost + sandy loam soil with an ROI of 78%; and of
1:1 sawdust + sandy loam soil had an ROI of 77%; media mixes 1:1 mushroom compost
+ sandy loam soil and 1:1 BSU compost with an ROI of 60% which was the lowest ROI
in the production of miniature roses in the study. With regards to the expenses, the
different miniature rose cultivar were bought with the same prize, and in terms to the
treatments used, BSU compost was the most expensive among the six media formulation
used.
Table 9. Cost and return analysis
GROSS
TREATMENT
MARKETABLE
SALE
EXPENSES
NET ROI RANK
YIELD (NO.)
(PhP)
(PhP)
(PhP) (%)
1:1 Alnus compost +
sandy loam soil
18
1440
800
640 80%
1
1:1 BSU compost +
Sandy loam soil
14
1120
750
450 60%
6
1:1 Rice hull + sandy
Loam soil
16
1280
860
685 79%
2
1:1 Mushroom compost
+ sandy loam soil
18
1440
800
610 76%
5
1:1 Sawdust + sandy
loam soil
15
1200
720
560 77%
4
1:1 :1 Rice hull + BSU
Compost + sandy
Loam soil
18
1440
715
560 78%
3
Varietal Response of Minature Roses (Rosa cheninsis minima) to Different Potting Media
Formulations. ZAPARITA, CAROLYN I. APRIL 2011
24
Varietal Response of Minature Roses (Rosa cheninsis minima) to Different Potting Media
Formulations. ZAPARITA, CAROLYN I. APRIL 2011
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Summary
The study was conducted at the Ornamental Horticultural Research Area of
Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet from November 2010 to February 2011
to determine the effect of different potting media mixtures on the growth and flowering
of potted miniature roses and to identify the interaction and economics of using the
different potting media compositions potted miniature rose production.
Results show that among the six varieties of miniature roses grown, cultivar
‘Teddy Bear’ produced plants that were significantly taller, produced the biggest flowers
in terms of flower diameter and had the shortest duration to reached calyx-flex stage.
Cultivar ‘Fragrant cloud’ had produced the highest leaf count and had produced
significantly more flowers.
Plants of cv. Rainbow End’ were the shortest and had the smallest blooms in
terms of diameter, had smallest number of flowers per plant and had the least number of
leaves at full bloom stage.
With regards to the effect of different growing media mixture used; a media of 1:1
Alnus compost + sandy loam soil showed the shortest time to reached flower bud
formation and calyx-flex stage and had promoted production of more leaves.
Plants g rown in a media of 1:1 Rice hull + sandy loam soil had significantly
produced the tallest plants at calyx-flex stage.
Observations showed that among the six media used mixture of 1:1 alnus compost
+ sandy loam soil and 1:1:1 rice hull + BSU compost + sandy loam soil had produced the
highest number of flowers per plant.
Varietal Response of Minature Roses (Rosa cheninsis minima) to Different Potting Media
Formulations. ZAPARITA, CAROLYN I. APRIL 2011
LITERATURE CITED
ADAMSON, R. M. and E. F. MAAS. 1971. Sawdust and other substitutes and
Amendments in greenhouse tomato production. Horti. Sci. 699:397-399.
ALLAN, B. G. 1999. Effect of rose (Rosa hybrida) to different potting media
composition. BS Thesis. BSU, La Trinidad, Benguet.
CABALO, C. F. 2001. Growth and flowering of milflores (Hydrangea macrophylla) as
affected by different potting media compositions. BS Thesis. BSU, La
Trinidad, Benguet. P. 19.
DIAZ, C. Y. 2000. Response of Four varieties of Begonia sp. to different potting media.
BS Thesis, BSU, La Trinidad, Benguet. P. 26.
EINERT, A. E. 1972. Performance of rice hulls media for plant. Easter Lilies under La
Trinidad, Benguet.
JANICK, J. 1972. Horticulture Sciences. 2nd ed. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co.
Pp. 200-201, 315, 325.
LAURIE, A. and V. H. RIES. 1950. Floriculture Fundamentals and Practices. 2nd ed.
Mc-Graw Hill Book Company, Inc. New York, Toronto London. P. 330.
MATTOCK, J., F. WITCHELL., S. McCANN and P. WOOD. 1994. The Complete
Book of Roses. Wardlock Limited, Villiers House, London: Accasel Imprint.
Pp. 170-185.
PAKIAS, R. D. 2008. Growth and flowering of medinilla as affected by different
potting media compositions. BS Thesis. BSU, La Trinidad, Benguet. P. 8.
PARNES, R. 1986. Organic and Inorganic Fertilizers. Woods End Agricultural
Instutute. P. 40.
SWAYNE, V. 1992. Growing Roses. William Barry Thompson Foundation Marketing
Development Programme Kangarro Press. P. 22.
Varietal Response of Minature Roses (Rosa cheninsis minima) to Different Potting Media
Formulations. ZAPARITA, CAROLYN I. APRIL 2011
APPENDICES
Appendix Table 1. Initial height of transplanting
R E P L I C A T I O N
TREATMENT
I
II
III
TOTAL
MEAN
V1T0
15.80
14.50
13.00
43.30
14.43
V1T1
15.00
15.00
14.00
44.00
14.67
V1T2
13.60
14.20
14.50
42.30
14.10
V1T3
14.00
15.00
15.20
44.20
14.93
V1T4
15.00
14.80
14.00
43.80
14.60
V1T5
14.30
15.00
14.30
43.60
14.53
V2T0
14.50
13.00
15.00
42.50
14.17
V2T1
15.00
14.00
13.00
42.00
14.00
V2T2
14.30
13.80
15.00
43.10
14.37
V2T3
14.00
14.50
15.20
43.70
14.57
V2T4
15.00
14.20
15.00
42.20
14.07
V2T5
14.30
14.60
15.00
44.60
14.86
V3T0
14.50
14.00
13.50
42.00
14.00
V3T1
14.00
13.80
12.80
40.60
13.53
V3T2
13.80
14.00
12.00
39.80
13.23
V3T3
14.00
15.00
13.50
42.50
14.17
V3T4
15.20
13.50
14.00
42.70
14.23
V3T5
18.30
14.00
14.30
41.60
13.87
V4T0
13.00
12.00
12.50
37.50
12.50
V4T1
11.50
12.40
11.20
35.10
11.70
V4T2
12.50
13.00
14.50
40.00
13.33
V4T3
13.70
14.00
14.00
41.70
13.90
V4T4
15.50
15.00
14.60
45.10
15.03
V4T5
13.00
13.80
14.30
41.10
13.70
V5T0
13.50
13.00
11.80
38.30
12.77
V5T1
12.00
11.00
13.50
36.50
12.17
V5T2
13.80
13.40
11.20
38.40
12.80
V5T3
14.50
12.50
13.00
40.00
13.33
V5T4
11.40
10.00
12.00
33.40
11.33
V5T5
13.30
13.00
12.00
38.30
12.77
V6T0
10.00
10.30
11.80
32.10
10.70
V6T1
9.00
13.00
8.20
30.20
10.07
V6T2
12.00
11.00
9.00
32.00
10.67
V6T3
11.80
11.00
9.00
31.80
10.60
V6T4
10.30
11.50
12.20
34.00
11.93
V6T5
11.30
9.50
12.00
32.80
10.93
28
V x T Two Table
TREATMENT
V1
V2
V3
V4
V5
V6
TOTAL MEAN
T0
14.43
14.17 14.00 12.50 12.77 10.70
78.57
13.09
T1
14.67
14.00 13.53 11.70 12.17 10.07
76.14
12.69
T2
14.10
14.37 13.23 13.33 12.90 10.67
78.50
13.08
T3
14.73
14.57 14.17 13.90 12.33 10.60
91.30
13.55
T4
14.60
14.07 14.23 15.03 11.33 11.33
80.39
13.39
T5
14.53
14.86 13.87 13.70 10.93 10.93
80.66
13.44
TOTAL
87.06 142.47 83.03 80.16 74.97 64.30 475.56
79.24
MEAN
14.51
23.74 13.33 13.36 12.49 10.71
79.26
13.20
ANOVA TABLE
SOURCE OF DEGREES OF
SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED
VARIATION FREEDOM
SQUARES SQUARES
F
PROB
Factor A
5
180.692
36.138
37.3273
0.0000**
Factor B
5
9.230
1.846
1.9067
0.7038ns
AB
25
27.141
1.086
1.1214
0.3434ns
Error
72
69.707
0.968
TOTAL
107
286.769
** = Highly significant
Coefficient of variation = 7.45%
ns = Not significant
29
30
V x T Two Table
TREATMENT
V1
V2
V3
V4
V5
V6
TOTAL MEAN
T0
25.03 27.00 23.33 22.87 26.33 22.93 147.49
24.58
T1
25.93 27.83 23.33 21.60 23.27 20.60 143.46
23.91
T2
24.33 28.50 23.33 25.70 25.83 24.17 151.86
25.31
T3
26.13 22.63 17.56 24.57 22.06 20.50 135.45
22.57
T4
24.67 21.40 23.40 21.30 21.33 19.96 132.06
22.01
T5
25.13 23.03 21.33 23.83 24.20 21.33 118.85
19.80
TOTAL
151.11 150.39 134.78 139.87 143.02 129.49
MEAN
25.20 22.46 23.31 23.84 21.58
ANOVA TABLE
SOURCE OF DEGREES OF
SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED
VARIATION FREEDOM
SQUARES SQUARES
F
PROB
Factor A
5
176.125
35.225
4.3308
0.0017**
Factor B
5
128.688
25.738
4.1643
0.0123*
AB
25
204.776
8.191
1.0071
0.4703ns
Error
72
585.620
8.134
TOTAL
107
1095.209
** = Highly significant
Coefficient of variation = 7.45%
* = Significant
ns = Not significant
31
32
V x T Two Table
TREATMENT
V1
V2
V3
V4
V5
V6
TOTAL MEAN
T0
73.33 70.67 81.33 132.00 48.67 17.33 423.33
70.55
T1
69.67 53.00 56.67 118.00 45.33 14.33 357.00
59.50
T2
55.33 64.67 69.00 118.67 62.33 16.33 386.33
64.38
T3
61.00 48.67 76.67 96.44 56.00 17.67 356.34
59.39
T4
61.33 74.00 85.00 125.33 52.67 18.67 417.00
69.50
T5
55.53 66.00 75.33 109.67 59.33 21.00 386.86
64.47
TOTAL
376.19 386.34 444.00 700.00 324.33 105.33 2326.86 387.79
MEAN
62.66 64.39 74.00 116.66 54.05 17.55
ANOVA TABLE
SOURCE OF DEGREES OF
SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED
VARIATION FREEDOM
SQUARES SQUARES
F
PROB
Factor A
5
82401.111
16480.222
59.4159
0.000
Factor B
5
1431.889
286.378
1.0325
0.4052
AB
25
5170.000
206.800
0.7456
Error
72
19970.667
277.370
TOTAL
107
108973.667
Coefficient of variation = 7.45%
33
34
V x T Two Table
TREATMENT
V1
V2
V3
V4
V5
V6 TOTAL MEAN
T0
33.33 30.67 27.00 18.67 30.33 30.00 170.00
28.33
T1
27.67 35.33 30.67 29.00 46.00 31.33 200.00
33.33
T2
42.00 32.67 30.00 28.33 30.67 28.33 192.00
32.00
T3
32.33 33.00 28.33 36.67 32.00 35.00 197.33
32.88
T4
33.33 39.00 30.00 26.00 33.00 34.67 193.00
32.16
T5
42.67 26.65 31.33 35.67 32.00 28.33 196.67
32.77
TOTAL
211.33 177.33 174.34 201.00 187.66
MEAN
35.22 32.89 29.55 33.50 31.27
ANOVA TABLE
SOURCE OF DEGREES OF
SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED
VARIATION FREEDOM
SQUARES SQUARES
F
PROB
Factor A
5
482.380
96.476
2.5271
0.0365*
Factor B
5
73.157
14.631
0.3833
ns
AB
25
1861.454
74.458
1.9504
0.0149
Error
72
2748.667
38.176
TOTAL
107
* = Significant
Coefficient of variation = 19.11%
ns = Not significant
35
36
V x T Two Table
TREATMENT
V1
V2
V3
V4
V5
V6
TOTAL MEAN
T0
41.33 45.67 34.00 32.33 37.67 38.33 229.33
38.22
T1
36.33 43.44 38.67 36.67 54.00 44.00 253.00
42.16
T2
51.00 40.33 37.00 30.00 38.67 37.00 234.00
39.00
T3
39.67 40.67 35.33 44.67 40.00 43.00 243.39
40.55
T4
41.33 47.67 38.33 34.33 38.00 44.33 243.99
40.66
T5
50.33 34.00 38.00 42.67 40.00 39.67 242.67
40.44
TOTAL
259.99 253.67 221.33 220.67 248.34 244.33
MEAN
43.33 42.27 36.88 36.77 41.39 40.72
ANOVA TABLE
SOURCE OF DEGREES OF
SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED
VARIATION FREEDOM
SQUARES SQUARES
F
PROB
Factor A
5
581.269
116.254
2.8126
0.224*
Factor B
5
151.824
30.365
0.7346
ns
AB
25
1954.565
78.183
1.8915
0.019*
Error
72
2976.000
41.333
TOTAL
107
5663.657
* = Significant
Coefficient of variation = 15.94%
ns = Not significant
37
38
V x T Two Table
TREATMENT
V1
V2
V3
V4
V5
V6
TOTAL MEAN
T0
5.55
4.42
4.27
4.09
4.82
3.53
26.68
4.44
T1
5.77
3.94
3.76
4.07
3.76
3.68
24.38
4.06
T2
5.21
4.33
4.37
4.39
4.06
3.71
26.07
4.34
T3
5.40
4.57
4.29
3.94
4.27
3.87
26.34
4.39
T4
4.27
4.07
3.96
3.92
4.27
3.96
25.45
4.24
T5
5.60
4.24
4.13
4.17
4.03
3.96
26.13
4.35
TOTAL
32.20 28.57 24.78 24.58 25.21 22.71
MEAN
5.36
4.26
4.13
4.09
4.20
3.78
ANOVA TABLE
SOURCE OF DEGREES OF
SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED
VARIATION FREEDOM
SQUARES SQUARES
F
PROB
Factor A
5
26.728
5.346
42.4087 0.0000**
Factor B
5
1.757
0.351
2.7886
0.0233*
AB
25
3.121
0.125
0.9904
ns
Error
72
9.075
0.126
TOTAL
107
40.081
** = Highly Significant
Coefficient of variation = 7.45%
* = Significant
ns = Not significant
39
40
V x T Two Table
TREATMENT
V1
V2
V3
V4
V5
V6
TOTAL MEAN
T0
36.73 37.33 31.00 28.97 24.90 19.93 178.86
29.81
T1
35.33 28.50 29.33 25.43 23.93 20.47 162.99 278.16
T2
35.67 34.17 27.83 29.27 24.50 20.80 173.67
28.94
T3
35.00 30.50 28.23 27.30 29.40 22.67 173.10
28.85
T4
34.50 28.37 27.40 26.50 26.50 19.18 162.40
27.06
T5
35.67 34.50 28.50 27.33 27.33 23.20 175.03
29.17
TOTAL
212.90 193.37 172.29 165.20 155.06 126.20
MEAN
35.48 32.220 28.71 27.53 25.84 21.03
ANOVA TABLE
SOURCE OF DEGREES OF
SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED
VARIATION FREEDOM
SQUARES SQUARES
F
PROB
Factor A
5
21136.747
427.249
47.5944
0.0000**
Factor B
5
93.963
10.793
2/0930
0.0761*
AB
25
235.871
9.435
1.0508
0.4193ns
Error
72
646.487
8.979
TOTAL
107
3113.069
* = Significant
Coefficient of variation = 19.11%
ns = Not significant
41
42
V x T Two Table
TREATMENT
V1
V2
V3
V4
V5
V6 TOTAL MEAN
T0
13.37 11.67 11.00 17.33 10.33 5.33
69.33
11.55
T1
10.33
6.67
9.00 15.33
6.00 3.33
50.66
8.44
T2
11.67
7.67
9.00 16.33
8.00 3.67
56.34
9.39
T3
12.00
9.33
9.67 11.67
7.33 4.00
54.00
9.00
T4
10.67
9.67
9.33 15.00
8.33 3.67
56.67
9.44
T5
12.67 11.00 11.33 15.67
8.67 3.33
62.67
10.44
TOTAL
71.01 56.01 59.33 91.33 48.66 23.33
MEAN
11.83
9.33
9.88 15.22
8.11 3.88
ANOVA TABLE
SOURCE OF DEGREES OF
SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED
VARIATION FREEDOM
SQUARES SQUARES
F
PROB
Factor A
5
1283.889
256.778
53.0249
0.0000**
Factor B
5
107.333
21.467
4.4329
0.0014*
AB
25
75.778
3.031
0.6259
ns
Error
72
348.667
4.843
TOTAL
107
1815.667
** - Highly significant
Coefficient of variation = 19.11%
* = Significant
ns = Not significant
43
Document Outline
- Varietal Response of Minature Roses (Rosacheninsis minima) to Different Potting Media Formulations
- BIBLIOGRAPHY
- TABLE OF CONTENTS
- INTRODUCTION
- REVIEW OF LITERATURE
- MATERIALS AND METHODS
- RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
- SUMMARY
- LITERATURE CITED
- APPENDIX