Effect of nutrient application and irrigation on fruit retention, yield and quality of mango (Mangifera indica L.) cv. Alphonso under Konkan conditions

Introduction

Mango (Mangifera indica L.) is one of the most important fruit crops of India and occupies a premier position due to its excellent taste, flavour and nutritional value. India accounts for nearly 41 per cent of the world's mango production, with Alphonso being the most prized cultivar, especially in the Konkan region of Maharashtra. Despite its commercial importance, productivity of Alphonso mango remains low, mainly due to excessive fruit drop, irregular bearing and sub-optimal orchard management practices. Among various factors affecting mango productivity, nutrient and water management play a crucial role in regulating flowering, fruit retention, yield and fruit quality. Mango trees, though tolerant to drought, are highly sensitive to moisture stress during flowering and fruit development stages, which leads to increased fruit drop and poor fruit growth. Similarly, imbalanced or untimely nutrient application adversely affects carbohydrate accumulation, hormonal balance and sink-source relationship, ultimately reducing fruit retention and yield. Mulching is another important orchard management practice that helps in conserving soil moisture, improving nutrient availability and enhancing microbial activity. Several studies have reported the individual effects of nutrient management, irrigation and mulching on mango productivity. However, information on the combined influence of nutrient application and irrigation with mulching on fruit retention, yield and quality of Alphonso mango under Konkan conditions is limited.

Therefore, the present investigation was undertaken to study the combined effect of nutrient management and irrigation on fruit retention, yield and quality of mango cv. Alphonso.

Materials and Methods

The experiment was conducted during 2023-24 and 2024-25 in the 30 years old mango orchard, at Centre of Excellence for Mango, Department of Horticulture, Dr. Balasaheb Sawant Konkan Krishi Vidyapeeth, Dapoli, Ratnagiri (M.S.). The experiment was laid out in a Factorial Randomized Block Design (FRBD) with twelve treatment combinations, replicated three times. Each treatment consisted of three trees, with a spacing of 10 × 10 m. The treatments comprised four nutrient management practices (Factor A) and three irrigation-mulching regimes (Factor B).

Nutrient management (Factor A)

F 1: RDF (N 1.5 kg, P 2 O 5 0.5 kg and K 2 O 1.0 kg per tree) F 2: RDF in split (N-30% P-40% K-20% after harvest, N-30% P-40% K 20% during fruit set, N-20% K-30% at marble stage, N-20% P-20% K-30% egg stage) F 3: RDF + Amrashakti (2.5%) foliar spray at flowering, one month after flowering and two month after flowering F 4: RDF + KNO 3 (1%) foliar spray at pea, marble and egg stage Irrigation and mulching (Factor B) I₁: No irrigation no mulch I₂: No irrigation with mulch I₃: Irrigation with mulch Irrigation was applied through basin method at 15-day intervals using 150 liters of water per tree. Organic mulch was applied uniformly around the tree basin. Observations were recorded on fruit retention, number of fruits per tree, fruit yield and physical and chemical quality parameters. The data of two years were pooled and statistically analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) as per FRBD. Significance was tested at 5 per cent level.

Results

Fruit retention was significantly influenced during both the years and pooled by the combined effect of nutrient application and irrigation (Table 1.). The maximum fruit retention was recorded in first year, second year and pooled were 6.67, 7.90 and 7.28% in F 2 I 3 and it was at par with F 4 I 3 (6.57 and 7.71%) in first year and second year, respectively. The lowest fruit retention was observed under control treatment F 1 I 1 (RDF without irrigation and mulch) 3.80, 5.89 and 4.85% in first year, second year and pooled, respectively. This increased fruit retention in treatment F 2 I 3 might be due to reducing physiological stress during critical stages such as flowering and early fruit set. Split nutrient doses ensure a steady supply of nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and micronutrients, which supports balanced vegetative and reproductive growth and prevents sudden nutrient depletion that can trigger fruit drop. Adequate irrigation minimizes water stress and maintains turgor pressure in developing fruits, while organic mulch conserves soil moisture, moderates soil temperature and enhances nutrient availability through improved microbial activity. Similar observations were reported by Malshe et al., (2022) [11] in mango, Shinde et al., (2006) [15] in mango and Patra et al., (2003) [13] in guava.

The significant difference was found for days required from flowering to harvest in different treatment (Table 1.). Minimum days required in treatment F 2 I 3 113.98, 117.57 and 115.77 days it was at par with treatment F 3 I 3 114.86, 118.74 and 116.80 days during first year, second year and pooled, respectively. Maximum day's required for flowering to harvest was found in control F 1 I 1 121.52, 122.63 and 122.08 days in first year, second year and pooled, respectively. Minimum days required from flowering to harvest in treatment F 2 I 3 might be due to consistent nutrient availability supports stronger sink activity in developing fruit, maintains auxin flow and reduces stress induced delays in fruit enlargement. Adequate irrigation minimized moisture stress, preventing reduction in photosynthetic rate and metabolic slowdown, while mulching conserves soil moisture, moderates soil temperature and enhances rootzone microbial activity, improving nutrient mineralization and chemical availability. Similar observations were reported by Burondkar (2018) [3] in mango, Malshe et al., (2020) [12] in mango and Bhosale et al., (2022) [2] in mango. [5] and Malshe et al., (2020) [12] in mango both found an increase in fruit number owing to regular fertilizer treatment. Jadhav et al., (2019) [7] in mango found similar result.

The effect of nutrient application and irrigation was found significant on fruit weight in both the years and in pooled (Table 3.). The maximum fruit weight was recorded in first year, second year and pooled were 261.04, 266.82 and 263.93 g in F 2 I 3 during first year, second year and pooled, respectively. The minimum fruit weight 234.04, 241.56 and 237.80 was found in F 1 I 1 during first year, second year and pooled, respectively.

The maximum fruit length 9.98, 10.15 and 10.06 cm was recorded in treatment F 2 I 3 during first year, second year and pooled, respectively. Minimum fruit length 8.90, 9.19 and 9.05 cm was found in control F 1 I 1 during first year, second year and pooled, respectively.

The maximum fruit width 8.50, 8.62 and 8.56 cm was recorded in F 2 I 3 during first year, second year and pooled, respectively, whereas minimum fruit width 7.56, 7.80 and 7.68 cm was found in control F 1 I 1 during first year, second year and pooled, respectively. The maximum fruit weight, fruit length and fruit width was found in F 2 I 3 might be due to a steady supply of key macronutrients (N, P, and K) which enhance cell division, cell expansion and dry-matter accumulation leading to larger fruits. Uninterrupted nutrient and moisture availability supported sustained photosynthesis, stronger sink strength in developing fruits, might be improved carbohydrate translocation and balanced hormone regulation (auxin and cytokinin) all of which promote greater fruit enlargement. Similar observations were reported by Bhosale et al., (2022) [2] in mango, Haldavnekar et al., (2018) [6] in mango, Adak et al., (2012) [1] in mango and Burondkar (2018) [3] in mango.

Pulp: stone ratio

The significant difference was found for pulp: stone ratio in different treatment. Maximum pulp: stone ratio 5.65, 5.42 and 5.54 was recorded in F 2 I 3 during first year, second year and pooled, respectively, whereas minimum 4.42, 4.48 and 4.45 was found in control F 1 I 1 during first year, second year and pooled, respectively. Split nutrient application ensures a continuous supply of nitrogen, potassium, calcium and boron that promotes sustained cell division and cell expansion in the mesocarp (pulp), while preventing nutrient stress that can restrict fruit flesh development.

Physiologically, consistent irrigation prevents moisture stress, maintaining high turgor pressure and maximizing photosynthesis and carbohydrate translocation to the pulp, which enlarges mesocarp tissues more than the seed. Similar observations were reported by Sarker and Rahim (2013) [14] in mango, Thakur and Singh (2004) [17] in mango and Bhosale et al., (2022) [2] in mango. [9] .

The data on titratable acidity (%) in mango cv. Alphonso showed non-significant result among different treatments in first year, second year and pooled. during first year, titratable acidity range varied from 0.32 to 0.39 (%), During second year, 0.29 to 0.35 (%) and pooled its range varied from 0.32 to 0.36 (%).The degradation of organic acids lowers the fruit's overall acidity, contributing to the characteristic sweet flavor of ripe mangoes. Conversion of acids into sugars and their derivatives or as a result of their use in respiration or both Therefore, a decline in titratable acidity is an important indicator of ripening progress and improved palatability. Lakshminarayana (1980) [8] in mango.

There was significant difference among treatments for spongy tissue incidence in mango cv. Alphonso ( [10] in mango, Burondkar and Gunjate (1993) [4] in mango and Singh and Singh (2015) [16] in mango.

Conclusion

The study clearly resulted that the combined application of RDF in split (N-30% P-40% K-20% after harvest, N-30% P-40% K 20% during fruit set, N-20% K-30% at marble stage, N-20% P-20% K-30% egg stage) + irrigation with mulching (F 2 I 3 ) proved to be the most effective for fruit retention, yield and quality parameters and can be recommended for sustainable and profitable cultivation of Alphonso mango in the Konkan region.

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgementThe authors are thankful to the College of Horticulture, Dr. BSKKV., Dapoli, and Chhatrapati Shahu Maharaj National Research Institute (SARTHI) for facilitating guidance and funds, respectively to conduct the investigation.

References

1. Adak T, Kumar K, Singh VK, Singh AK. Effect of different soil moisture regimes on yield and quality of mango. Indian Agronomy Congress. 2012;1416-1418.
2. Bhosale SS, Dhakare BB, Jadhav SB, Kulkarni SS, Joshi VR. Study the effect of nutrient application in split doses on yield characters under high density planting of mango (Mangifera indica L.) cv. Kesar. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2022;11(6):920-924.
3. Burondkar MM. Nutrient and water management for improved mango productivity. Scientia Horticulturae. 2018;64(8):432-436.
4. Burondkar MM, Gunjate RT. Effect of nutrient application on fruit retention and yield in mango. Acta Horticulturae. 1993;341:239-246.
5. Dheware RM, Nalage NA, Sawant BN, Haldavanekar PC, Raut RA, Munj AY, et al. Effect of fertigation on growth and yield of mango cv. Alphonso under Konkan agro-climatic condition. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry. 2020;9(3):2001-2003.
6. Haldavnekar PC, Baviskar SB, Raut RA. Effect of micronutrients on yield and quality of Alphonso mango. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry. 2018;7(5):2447-2449.
7. Jadhav S, Salvi VG, Deshmukh U, Jadhav SC. Yield and quality of Alphonso mango as influenced by foliar application of nutrients. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2019;8(10):14-18.
8. Lakshminarayana S. Mango. In: Nagy S, Shaw PE, editors. Tropical and subtropical fruits. Westport (CT): AVI Publishing; 1980. p. 184-257.
9. Lizada MCC. Mango. In: Seymour G, Taylor J, Tucker G, editors. Biochemistry of fruit ripening. London: Chapman & Hall; 1993. p. 255-271.
10. Majumder D, Sharma DK. Role of mineral nutrition in improving fruit retention of mango. Indian Journal of Horticulture. 1990;12(4):345-349.
11. Malshe KV, Salvi BR, Salvi VG. Influence of postflowering foliar nutrient application on yield and quality attributes of mango (Mangifera indica L.) cv. Alphonso under South Konkan conditions. Journal of Eco-friendly Agriculture. 2022;17(1):62-64.
12. Malshe KV, Shinde VV, Sawant BN, Salvi BR. Effect of irrigation during fruit development on yield in mango cv. Alphonso. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry. 2020;9(2):2338-2339.
13. Patra RK, Das BC, Hasan MA. Flowering behaviour and fruit yield of guava cv. Sardar as influenced by different soil covers. Research on Crops. 2003;4(3):383-387.
14. Sarker BC, Rahim MA. Mulching and irrigation effects on soil environment, growth and yield of mango. Journal of Agroforestry and Environment. 2013;7(1):85-90.
15. Shinde AK, Dabke DJ, Jadhav BB, Kandalkar MP, Burondkar MM. Effect of dose and source of potassium on yield and quality of 'Alphonso' mango (Mangifera indica L.). Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2006;76(4):213-217.
16. Singh R, Singh G. Influence of irrigation and mulching on mango fruit quality and physiological disorders. Journal of Horticultural Sciences. 2015;44(7):669-675.
17. Thakur SK, Singh P. Studies on fertigation of mango cv. Amrapali. Annals of Agricultural Research. 2004;25(3):415-417.