35 1 2006 48 35-46 OncidiumGower Ramsey ) 2 1(CK1) 2(CK2) 1(T1) 2(T2) (93 5 28 95 1 9 ) 94 1-2 5-6 8-10 94 7 CK1 43 (A 44.2 ) CK2 66 (A 48.5 ) T1 40 (A 47.5 ) T2 73 (A 46.6 ) 3 CK2 T1 T2 CK1 2006 8 16 1. 325 2. 712 70
36 ( Oncidium spp.) (11) (10) 2000 3000 700 (8) (Dancing Orchid) 1980 (Onc. Gower Ramsey) ( 100 ) ( 10 ) ( 100 ) (3) 1500 (5) 150 (6) 2 8 2 1 5 3 4 5 8 5-6 9-10 10 20 25 (4) 15 Oncidium Gower Ramsey )
37 2 CK1 5 4 2 (14 12 14)7 ( ) CK2 5 =4 4 2 Spray stake(netafim) (57x37x17cm) 6 CK2 Spray stake(netafim) Peters20 20 20 Peters10 30 20 EC0.8) 2 2 Peters Stem 1000 T1 T2 2 6 93 5 28 93 9 14 94 2 16 ( A B C D D ) 10 200ppm 8-HQ(8-Hydroxyquinonine) 95 1 9 SAS ANOVA (Procedure) (2) Duncan ) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 100% 1 2 2 3 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3-2 6-3 3 4 3-2(3-1 4 ) 6 7 7Z 6-3(6-1 6-2 7 7Z ) 6-3-1 6-3-1-1 6-3-1-1-1
38 Fig 1, Standardized model for nomenclature of Oncidium buds. 6-3 6-3-1 6-3-1 6-3-1-1 6-3-1-1-1 ( ) 5 5X 6-3-1 6-3-1Y 7 7Z X Y Z M N 4 5 5X 6 7 7Z 6-3 6-3-1 6-3-1Y X Y Z M N P Q 3-2 3-3 3 4 3-2 3-3 5X 6X 6X 7X F 7
39 8 8F T1 7 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5X 6X 7X 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4 5 5X 5X 6X 7X CK2 3 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 3 1-2 2-2 3-2 1-2 1-2-1 1-2-1X 1-2-1 1-2-1-1 1-2-1-1Y 1-2-1-1 1-2-1-1-1 1-2-1-1-1M 1-2-1-1Y 1-2-1-1Y-1 1-2-1-1Y-1Z 1-2-1X 1-2-1X-1 2-2 2-2-1 2-2-2 2-2-1-1 2-2-2-1 3-2 3-2-1 3-2-2 93 5 CK2 T1 T2 CK1 CK2( ) T1( ) T2( ) 5 94 3 2 94 3 7-9 CK1 CK2 T1 T2 CK2 1-1.5 94 3 CK1 6.8 CK2 8.4 CK1 14 CK2 21 T1 CK1 94 3 6.9 12 T2 CK1 CK2 93 12 94 1 94 2 CK2 94 3
40 8.7 20 Fig 2, Comparison on mean value of accumulated buds per plant by each month between different treatments of Oncidium hydroponic culture. 93 9 3 94 2 4 3 4 6 CK1 75.9 29.5 16.7mm 106.9 41.5 26.9mm CK2 T1 T2 CK1 3 CK2 T1 T2 1. Table 1. Comparison on the bulb size between different treatments of Oncidium hydroponic culture. Treat 3rd bulb 4th bulb Length Width Thick Length Width Thick CK1 75.9 a 29.5 a 16.7 a 106.9 a 41.5 a 26.9 a CK2 92.3 b 37.6 b 23.1 b 130.4 b 51.2 b 35.4 b T1 83.3 ab 36.0 b 21.1 c 120.3 b 49.4 b 34.0 b T2 78.8 ab 37.3 b 21.7 c 123.4 b 49.0 b 33.8 b ANOV A df Mean square Treat 3 ns ** ** * ** **
41 The 3rd and 4th bulbs were investigated on 9/14/04 and 2/16/05, respectively. The scale was mm. abc Mean value within a column followed by the same letters do not differ significantly at p=0.05 according to Duncan s multiple range test. *, ** means significant test of mean square at p=0.05 or p=0.01, respectively. 3 CK2 T1 T2 CK1 95 1 12 CK1 43 CK2 66 T1 40 T2 73 CK2 T2 CK1 53-70 T1 CK1 Fig 3, Comparison on cut flower yield between different treatments of Oncidium hydroponic culture. A( 90cm 8-9 ) B( 70-90cm 5-7) C( 50-70cm 5 ) D( ) 4 (1) A B C D CK1 A 44 B 30 C 21 D 5 CK2 A 48 B 26 C 18 D 8 T1 A 48 B 20 C 20 D 13 T2 A 47
42 B 19 C 16 D 18 4 4 CK1 3 CK2 T1 T2 0.4-1.4 Fig 4, Comparison on the quality grade of cut flower between different treatments of Oncidium hydroponic culture. 2. Table 2. Comparison on cut flower quality between different treatments of Oncidium hydroponic culture. Treat Vase Stalk No. of No. of No. of life length spikelet flower flower bud (day) (cm) (no.) (no.) (no.) CK1 10.1 a 128 a 7.4 a 26.3 a 42.1 a CK2 11.5 b 130 a 7.9 a 28.0 a 51.3 a T1 10.5 ab 123 a 7.6 a 31.2 a 49.8 a T2 11.5 b 123 a 7.1 a 25.8 a 42.4 a
43 ANOVA df Mean square Treat 3 * ns ns ns ns abc Mean value within a column followed by the same letters do not differ significantly at p=0.05 according to Duncan s multiple range test. *, ** means significant test of mean square at p=0.05 or p=0.01, respectively. 12 93 8 95 1 CK1 93 5 94 7 8-9 10 11-12 95 1 3 CK2 T1 T2 93 5 94 1-2 94 5-6 94 8-10 3 7 Fig 5, Comparison on cut flower yield per month between different treatments of Oncidium hydroponic culture.
44 4 CK2 T2 CK1 53-70 2 6 T1 CK1 CK1 T1 12 5 6-8 8 5 8 4-6 1-2
45 14 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- 1. 1996 (6) 62-65 2. 2004 ( ) P.341 3. 1997 4. 2000 171-185 5. 2005 2004 94(10) 9 6.2005 2005 11 219 7.. 1995... pp. 14. 8.Hawkes, A. D. 1970. Encyclepaedia of cultivated orchids. Latimer Trend & Co. Ltd. pp. 324-339. 9.Kaiser, R. 1993. The scent of orchids. Elsevier. pp. 114-118. 10.Sheehan, T. and M. Sheehan. 1994. An illustrated survey of orchid genera. Timber Press. pp. 260-263. 11.Webster, P. 1992. The orchid book. pp, 10.1-10.10.
46 Development of Hydroponic Culture Technique for Cut Flower Production of Oncidium. 1 Chen, Y. H., Y. C. Wang, Y. T. Chang and S. S. Wang 2 Summary This experiment was aimed on the development of hydroponic culture technique for cut flower production of Oncidium. The traditional potted culture with routing substrate composition and routing water and fertilizer supply, was as the first check (CK1). The plant of the second check (CK2) was planted in the same pot and the same substrate composition, but was dripped with liquid solution same as the hydroponic culture. The plant of the first treatment (T1) was raised by hydroponic culture. Beside the bulb on which the cut flower was harvested, all the other bulbs on the T1 plant were removed. The plant of the second treatment (T2) was also raised by hydroponic culture, but no any bulb was removed. At first, this paper was reported a nomenclature system for Oncidium buds. We can recognize each bud on Oncidium plant with this system. The result of this experiment was showed that the plant with hydroponic culture growed vigorously. Bud numbers of CK2, T1 and T2 was more than that of CK1 and Buld size was also bigger. The earlier flowering date of CK2, T1 and T2 were observed. For CK2, T1 and T2, there were three major harvesting seasons in January to February, May to June and August to October in 2005. For CK1, there was only one harvesting season until July in 2005. Total numbers of the cut flower harvested was 43 for CK1, 66 for CK2, 40 for T1 and 73 for T2. The traits with regards to the cut flower quality, including quality grade, vase life, stalk length, spikelet numbers, flower numbers
47 and flower bud numbers were all no significantly different among CK2, T1, T2 and CK1. Key words : Oncidium, cut flower, hydroponic culture, bud nomenclature, Gower Ramsey. Accepted of publication : 16 Auguest, 2006 1.Contribution No. 325 from Tainan District Agricultural Research and Extension Station, Council of Agriculture, the Executive Yuan. 2.Associate researcher, assistant researcher, assistant researcher, researcher and head of Department of Corp Improvement, respectively, Tainan District Agricultural Research and Extension Station.