MAKERERE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

SCHOOL OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION

GROWING Carthamus Tinctorius, Celosia spicata, And Callistephus chinensis UNDER

LOW IRRADIANCE
BY
KIBAIRE ABEL KENNETH
BSc HORTICULTURE
REG.NO: 19/U/0419
STUDENT NUMBER: 1900700419
SUPERVISOR: Dr. ROBERT CYRUS OKELLO ONGOM

A SPECIAL PROJECT REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF
SCIENCE IN HORTICULTURE MAKERERE UNIVERSITY
2023
 DECLARATION
I hereby declare that this special project report is my original work except where explicit
citation has been made, and it has not been presented to any institution of higher learning for
any academic award.

KIBAIRE ABEL KENNETH

(BSc. Horticulture)
Signature …………………………… Date: …………………………………...

i
 APPROVAL
I certify that this special project report entitled “Growing Carthamus tinctorius, Celosia
spicata, and Callistephus chinensis under low irradiance” has been made under my
supervision and is submitted for examination with my approval.

Signature: ……………………………… Date: …………………………..

Dr. Robert. Cyrus Okello Ongom

Department of Agricultural Production,

Makerere University

ii
 DEDICATION
This research paper is dedicated to my beloved my father and mother, Mr. Siraje Ssalongo
Magoba and Ms. Agnes Babirye and who have supported me financially and encouraged me
attentively with fullest and truest attention to accomplish my work with truthful self-
confidence.

I also dedicate my research to the family of Mr. Johnson Sibasi, your encouragement and
prayers have kept me moving.

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I would like to acknowledge and give my warmest thanks to my supervisor (Dr. Robert.
Cyrus Okello Ongom) who made this work possible. His guidance and advice carried me
through all the execution stages of my project. I would also like to thank the Research project
committee members for letting my defense be an enjoyable moment, and for your brilliant
comments and suggestions, thanks to you.

I would like to thank Mr. Bob Rwotonen, Mr. Swadik Yasin, Ms. Bridget Nayiga, Mr.
Boniface Salongo, and my fellow coursemates; Siraje Ssengendo, Emiu Denis, Nayiga, and
Mwikirize Ronald for their contribution to my research project.

I would also like to give special thanks to my family as a whole for their continuous support
and understanding when undertaking my research and writing my project. Your prayer for me
was what sustained me this far.
Finally, I would like to thank God, for letting me through all the difficulties. I have
experienced your guidance day by day. You are the one who let me finish my degree. I will
keep on trusting you for my future.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

iv
DECLARATION.......................................................................................................................i
APPROVAL.............................................................................................................................ii
DEDICATION........................................................................................................................iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT........................................................................................................iv
LIST OF TABLES.................................................................................................................vii
ABSTRACT...........................................................................................................................viii
1. CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION.............................................................................1
1.1. Background of my study........................................................................................................1
1.2. Problem statement.................................................................................................................2
1.3. Objectives..............................................................................................................................2
1.3.1. Main objectives..............................................................................................................2
1.3.2. Specific objectives.........................................................................................................2
1.4. Hypothesis.........................................................................................................................3
1.5. Justification of my study....................................................................................................3
2. CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW................................................................4
2.1 SUMMER FLOWERS..........................................................................................................4
2.1.1 Introduction...........................................................................................................................4
2.2 Importance of the summer flowers.........................................................................................4
2.3 Growth requirements.............................................................................................................5
2.3.1 Soil and fertilization.......................................................................................................5
2.3.2 Light..............................................................................................................................5
2.3.3 Water.............................................................................................................................5
2.4 Raising summer flowers........................................................................................................6
2.5 Management of summer flowers............................................................................................6
2.5.1 Growing flowers under low irradiance (shade nets).......................................................7
2.6 Effect of low irradiance on the plant growth, development and quality.............................7
3. CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY......................................................................9
3.1. Study site...............................................................................................................................9
3.2. Material..................................................................................................................................9
3.2.1. Planting material............................................................................................................9
3.2.2. Other material................................................................................................................9
3.3. Experimental setup................................................................................................................9
3.3.1. Field operation...............................................................................................................9
3.3.2. Experimental designs and treatment.............................................................................10
3.3.3. Trial establishment and management...........................................................................10
3.4. Data collection.................................................................................................................10

v
 3.5. Data analysis....................................................................................................................11
4. CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS......................................................................................12
4.1. Plant morphology.................................................................................................................12
4.1.1. Plant temperature (0c)...........................................................................................................12
4.1.2. Quantum yield (Phi2)...........................................................................................................14
4.1.3. Plant height..........................................................................................................................14
4.1.4. Leaf number.........................................................................................................................15
4.1.5. Internode number.................................................................................................................15
4.1.6. Leaf area..............................................................................................................................16
4.2. Development........................................................................................................................16
4.2.1. Time to flower initiation......................................................................................................16
4.3. Yield....................................................................................................................................17
4.3.1. Flower number.....................................................................................................................17
4.4. Quality.................................................................................................................................17
4.4.1. Stem diameter......................................................................................................................17
4.5. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS............................................................................................18
4.5.1. Plant morphology...............................................................................................................18
4.5.1.1. Plant temperature.........................................................................................................18
4.5.1.2. Quatum yield (Phi2).....................................................................................................18
4.5.1.3. Plant height..................................................................................................................18
4.5.1.4. Leaf number.................................................................................................................19
4.5.1.5. Internode number.........................................................................................................19
4.5.1.6. Leaf area......................................................................................................................19
4.5.2. Development.......................................................................................................................19
4.5.2.1. Time to flower initiation..............................................................................................19
4.5.3. Yield....................................................................................................................................20
4.5.3.1. Stem number................................................................................................................20
4.5.4. Quality................................................................................................................................20
4.5.4.1. Stem diameter..............................................................................................................20
4.6. CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................20
4.7. RECOMMENDATION.....................................................................................................21
5. CHAPTER FIVE: REFERENCES...............................................................................21

vi
 LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Quantum yield for the species in the shade and no shade environment.
Table 2: Plant height (cm) for the light and shade environment.
Table 3: Leaf number for the light and shade environment.
Table 4: Internode number for the light and shade environment.
Table 5: Leaf number for the light and shade environment.
Table 7: Time to flower initiation number for the light and shade environment.
Table 8: Flower number for the light and no shade environment.
Table 9: Stem diameter for the light and no shade environment.

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Leaf temperature for Carthamus tinctorius flowers for the light and shade
environment..............................................................................................................................12
Figure 2: Leaf temperature for Celosia spicata for the light and shaded environment............13
Figure 3: Leaf temperature for Callistephus chinensis for the light and shade environment. .13

vii
 ABSTRACT
The floriculture industry of Uganda needs to adapt to newer species if it’s to survive. Summer
flower species have proved to be a better option since they have gained much attention in the
international market in Europe and U.S.A. However, Uganda notably experiences higher
solar irradiance that directly increases the air temperatures which make her hotter; the
prevalence of the above conditions make carbon dioxide a limiting factor in the
photochemical reactions of flowers by impairing the rate of its assimilation in photosystem II,
this reduces the quantum yield thus reducing the biomass. Many growers allude that this
could be the reason why the cut flowers produced in Uganda have reduced in quality and
productivity by with shorter heights and smaller flower head sizes. The present investigation
was carried out to determine the effect of growing summer flower species; Carthamus
tinctorius, Celosia spicata, and Callistephus chinensis under low irradiance with the
conjecture that it could increase flower production and quality by increasing their quantum
yield thus increase biomass. The experiment was laid out in a two grouped completely
randomized design with 3 replicates, flowers were grown under shade and light environments
as treatments, data collected was subjected to a paired t-test analysis using R on R studio
platform. Low irradiance increased the quantum yield of the flowers but in the long run
reduced their biomass, thus reduced their productivity and quality. By having higher light
requirements, the species diverted more photo assimilates to stem elongation to access
unfiltered light on the expense of formation of leaves thus reduced the total biomass
accumulated which in turn reduced their growth and quality than those in the light
environment. The flowers species proved tolerance to high light intensities and air
temperatures by performing better agronomically with higher plant heights, number of leaves,
leaf area, and reproductively with a higher flower number with better quality in the light
environment than the shaded.
1

1
Key words: Irradiance, Quantum yield, CO2 assimilation, Photochemical reactions, Photosystem.

viii
ix
 1. CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background of my study
Floriculture is the cultivation of flowering and ornamental plants for gardens and floristry
(UTC, 2022). Floricultural products are Uganda’s third-largest non-traditional export after
gold and fish, earning her approximately $30 million in foreign exchange per year
(Wereldomroep, 2009). Uganda’s flowers are grown almost exclusively for the export
market, with 98% of the production exported to the Netherlands (UWEA, 2011). Of this, 90%
of the flowers are sold through auctions and 10% are sold through direct sales, mainly to
florists. The floriculture industry, which largely produces roses and cuttings, began to take off
in the early 1990s but its development has still stalled (Evers, 2014) with less diversity in the
flower species grown (Langan, 2011) and only 14 flower farms on only 170ha. The Global
cut flowers market size was US$ 28,891.5 million in 2021 and is forecast to reach US$
47,965.5 million by 2030, growing at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 5.8%
during the forecast period from 2022 to 2030 (Astitute, 2020). Ugandan floriculture industry
needs to enhance flower production, quality and also adapt to newer species in regards to
achievement of the above target which requires a scientific approach and promotion of
relevant management practices (Pal, 2019). Optimization of the light environment is one of
the scientific approaches required to achieve the above target. Uganda notably experiences
higher solar irradiance that directly increases the air temperatures which make her hotter
(Biira & Kilama, 2014); the prevalence of the above conditions make carbon dioxide a
limiting factor in the photochemical reactions of flowers by impairing the rate of its
assimilation in photosystem II, this reduces the quantum yield thus reducing the biomass
(Bjorkman& Adams, 1995). Many growers allude that this could be the reason why the cut
flowers produced in Uganda have reduced in quality and productivity by with shorter heights
and smaller flower head sizes. The present investigation was carried out to determine the
effect of growing summer flower species; Carthamus tinctorius, Celosia spicata, and
Callistephus chinensis under low irradiance with the conjecture that it could increase flower
production and quality by increasing their quantum yield thus increasing their biomass.

1
 1.2. Problem statement
The floriculture industry in Uganda has 14 flower growers on 170 ha with a total investment
estimated at US$500 million (Chege, 2021) and less diversity in flower species growing
mainly roses and chrysanthemums (NAPE, 2012). Biira and Kilama (2014) reported that
most of the regions in Uganda receive high solar radiations annually and low sunshine hours
are only encountered from November to December and lowest from March to May which
make her hotter. Damak and others (2019) reported that the increased solar irradiance directly
increases the air temperature. Bjorkman & Adams (1995) reported that the prevalence of
higher light intensity and air temperature reduces the rate of photosynthesis by reducing the
photosynthetic carbon dioxide assimilation rate (PAR) (Guidi et al. 2000, Dai et al. 2009),
thus reducing the quantum yield and biomass accumulation. Many growers have a conjecture
that this is the reason for the increasing deduction in flower production and quality with
shorter heights and small head sizes for the roses and chrysanthemums. Excessively high
irradiance and growing air temperatures negatively impacted the longevity and quality of cut
roses (Moe, 1975; Wahid et al., 2007). Han et al., (2021) reported that reduction in irradiance
to 55% enhanced the production and quality of Chrysanthemums unlike full irradiance. As
flower farms seek to adapt to newer species, defining their optimal light environments is vital
(Han et al.2017) so as to ensure that their productivity and quality won’t be negatively
impacted like in chrysanthemums and roses whence the present investigation carried out to
determine the effect of growing summer flower species; Carthamus tinctorius, Celosia
spicata, and Callistephus chinensis under low irradiance with the conjecture that it could
increase their PAR, their quantum yield thus increase their biomass which would definitely
increase their productivity and quality.

1.3. Objectives
1.3.1. Main objectives
 To improve the productivity and quality of cut flowers grown in Uganda through
optimization of the light environment.

1.3.2. Specific objectives

 To determine the effect of low irradiance on the growth and development of
Carthamus tinctorius, Celosia spicata, and Callistephus chinensis.
 To determine the effect of low irradiance on the quality of Carthamus tinctorius,
Celosia spicata, and Callistephus chinensis.

2
 1.4. Hypothesis.
1.4.1. Null Hypothesis (Ho)
There is no significant difference in the effect of the shade and light environment
on the growth, development and quality of Carthamus tinctorius, Celosia spicata,
and Callistephus chinensis.
1.4.2. Alternative Hypothesis (H1)
There is a significant difference in the effect of the shade and light environment
on the growth, development and quality of Carthamus tinctorius, Celosia spicata,
and Callistephus chinensis.

1.5. Justification of my study

The Flower industry in Uganda must introduce new species if it is to survive and these
species to be introduced are those traditionally grown in temperate regions. This work will
provide investors in the flower industry with clues on how to improve cut flower quality.
Knowledge of the effect of the growing of Carthamus tinctorius, Celosia spicata, and
Callistephus chinensis under low irradiance will guide growers on how best they can
optimize the light environment of these flower species so as to fetch higher profits from the
international market. It will boost the development of the floricultural industry in Uganda
through diversity of the floral species grown by the inclusion of summer flower species thus
breaking the dependency on only roses and flower cuttings as well as broadening the targeted
market for a surplus of flowers. It will also enable the growers to fit in the current trends of
the floriculture industry which requires more bouquets of flower species on the international
market which will be met by the diversity in floral species.

3
 2. CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 SUMMER FLOWERS
2.1.1 Introduction
Summer flowers are annual flowers grown during the summer season and can bear high
temperatures to produce flowers. The seeds are sown in February−end or the beginning of
March, and the seedlings are transplanted at the end of March or April (NCERT, 2019). The
wide range of colors, sizes, and species adapted to either sun or shade makes it possible to
plant annual flowers almost anywhere. Annuals are perfect for beds, borders, rock gardens,
window boxes, hanging baskets, or as temporary ground covers and fillers (Anne Streich,
2001). Summer flowers are often grown as specialty flowers and they have become of
economic importance in the United States (Green et al., 2010).
2.2 Importance of the summer flowers.
Summer flowers are regarded as one of the most important alternatives of product
diversification in the sector of flower cutting especially Callistephus chinensis; This is used
as fresh and dry cut flower and attract attention as being one of the most indispensable
elements of arrangement and bouquet in domestic market (Đnan, 2006; Korkmaz, 2007). It
ranks next to chrysanthemums and marigold (Munikirshnappa, 2013). Summer flowers are
likely to contribute to the US $100 million of export value target that the floriculture industry
seeks to earn from sale of flowers (Langan, 2011). Summer floral arrangements can add
color, fragrance and a touch of excitement to your day. From just one or two stems, to simple
posies, this floral trend includes natural looking summer centerpieces or large bouquets
bursting with color, summer blooms remind us to enjoy the warmer weather and the beauty of
the season (Moshes, 2019). These floral trends are now highly demanded on the international
market in form of bouquets. Summer flowers can be a prime source of color to accent and
enliven a home's landscape. They are an excellent way to draw attention to building and
home entrances, walkways and outdoor living spaces and to provide homeowners and visitors
with pleasing "up-close" visual and fragrant experiences. They can play an important role in a
well-designed landscape (Anne Streich, 2001). Carthamus tinctorius is reputed to have a
number of beneficial health benefits. Its extracts and oil are important with numerous
pharmacological activities in the world and its seeds are used for edible oil (Jinous, 2013).
Celosia spicata is also reputed in traditional medicine for treatment of headache, sores, ulcers,
eye inflammations and painful menstruations (Chadwick, 2017).

4
2.3 Growth requirements
2.3.1 Soil and fertilization
Judkins (2018) suggests that summer flowers will grow best on a well-drained fertile loam
soil, with a pH of 6.0 to 6.5. If you have an infertile sandy soil, or a heavy clay, it should be
improved with organic matter. This can be done by plowing or rototilling an organic mulch
into the soil when it is prepared for planting. Use about one inch of fresh sawdust, finely
shredded fresh bark or wood chips, peat moss, pine needles, or leaves. According to Sakata
(2022), fertilize as needed to maintain a soil E.C. of 0.7 to 1.0 mmhos. (2:1 slurry) because
soil E.C. levels less than 0.5 will cause lower leaves to yellow and E.C levels greater than 1.0
will promote large leaves, delayed flowering and decreased vase life. KF (2022) asserts that
raised beds ease movement and control poor drainage. If your soil is poorly drained you may
have better results by planting your flowers on raised beds. Summer flowers require
moderate amounts of fertilizer to promote good growth and flower production (Steinegger et
al, 1984). Excessive applications may cause succulent vegetative growth and few flowers.
For most soils use about 4 pounds of 5-10-5 fertilizer or 2 pounds of 10-10-10 per 100 square
feet, broadcast over the entire area before the ground is rototilled, harrowed, or spaded before
planting. Use only half as much on rich, loamy soils (Judkins, 2018).
2.3.2 Light
Most summer flower species grow best under full sunshine (Singh, 2013). Sun-loving plants
that are grown in shade tend to be spindly and produce fewer flowers. Likewise, shade-loving
annuals tend to get leaf scorch and flower poorly when grown in too much sun (Michael et
al., 2016). Black & Tjia (2002) assert that selection of summer flowers is greatly influenced
by the available light in an area whereby some species perform best in full sun while others,
such as impatiens and dahlia, grow best in areas receiving several hours of morning or
afternoon sun. There are no flowering annuals that will perform well under heavy shade.
However, annuals such as crossandra and tuberous begonia grow best in areas receiving no
direct sunlight. Light enhances elongation and flowering of shoots and its inadequacy results
into shorter heights of shoots and less profuse flowering (KF, 2022)
2.3.3 Water
Annual flowers generally require 1 to 1 1/2 inches of water each week. Be sure the water
penetrates to the root zone. Generally, hand watering is not adequate to supply sufficient and
uniform amounts of water. Soaker hoses are the most efficient because there is very little
runoff, and evaporation and soil compaction are slight (Steinegger et al., 1984). Avoid

5
overhead watering, particularly in the evening. Foliar diseases can be reduced by watering in
early morning, rather than at night (Anne Streich, 2001).
2.4 Raising summer flowers
Most summer flowers can be direct-seeded while others should be started indoors and
transplanted outdoors at the appropriate time. Growing seedlings indoors requires proper light
and temperature, a pasteurized growing medium and several weeks of careful attention
(Steinegger et al., 1984). Instead of direct seeding or raising the seedlings in nursery, most
gardeners are better off purchasing transplants from breeders (Anne Streich, 2001).
Transplanting often results in heavy causalities the seedlings are pricked before transplanting.
Pricking is the practice of transplanting young seedlings into small pots individually or in the
nursery beds with richer soil giving wider space (10-13 cm), pricking is normally done when
the seedlings are produced 2-4 leaves. This helps to increase the fibrous root system and to
develop vigorous plants (Krushi, 2018). One month after planting when the seedlings have
produced six to eight leaves, they can be transplanted into main bed. During direct seeding or
transplanting, the grower should space the flowers according to the specifications of the
breeder since different species have varying spacing (Shinn, 2021).
2.5 Management of summer flowers.
There are several management practices involved in the growth and development of summer
flowers. Anne (2001) says they require higher levels of both maintenance and water, so plant
the beds in easily-accessible areas and near water sources. Therefore, precision irrigation is
needed.
These flowers have insect and disease problems, and to maintain healthy and attractive plants
these problems must be recognized and control measures initiated. The best method of
reducing insect and/or disease problems is to keep the plants growing vigorously and free
from stress (Black et al., 2001). Pinching is also an important management practice as it
increases the number of flower stems produced by the plants (Ciaffi et al., 2011). Weed
management and mulching is also done for reduction of competition and conservation of soil
moisture respectively according to Michael (2016). Annuals should be monitored frequently
for insects and diseases. Infestations detected in the early stages can be controlled before the
entire flower bed is infested. An insect infestation on a few plants can be controlled by
picking insects off by hand picking or in the case of disease by removing infected leaves
(Black & Tjia, 2002).

6
2.5.1 Growing flowers under low irradiance (shade nets)
According to Stamps (2009), higher plants respond to light quantity, quality, direction, and
periodicity. There are numerous photoreceptors in plants, including chlorophylls,
phytochromes, cryptochromes, phototropins, and ones that react to green light (Batschauer,
1999; Folta & Maruhnich, 2007). Light, along with other environmental cues, enables plants
to adapt to environmental conditions. Efforts to manipulate plant morphology and physiology
using photoselective filters have been ongoing for decades, especially in greenhouse
environments (Cerny et al., 2003; Ilias and Rajapakse, 2005). More recently, shade nets
designed specifically for manipulating plant development and growth has become available.
These nets can be used outdoors as well as in greenhouses. They increase the relative
proportion of diffuse (scattered) light as well as absorb various spectral bands, thereby
affecting light quality. These effects can influence crops as well as the organisms associated
with them. Stamps (2009) assert that photo selectivity. Relative humidity is often higher
under netting than outside as a result of water vapor being transpired by the crop and reduced
mixing with drier air outside the netted area (Elad et al., 2007), even when temperatures
under the netting are higher than outside (Stamps, 1994). Nettings reduce radiation reaching
crops underneath. Obviously, the higher the shade factor, the more radiation will be blocked.
Reductions in radiation resulting from netting will affect temperatures (air, plant, soil) and
relative humidity (Stamps, 1994). Shade nets can influence the radiation direction as well as
scattering radiation, especially ultraviolet because netting is usually made using ultraviolet-
resistant plastic (Wong, 1994).

2.6 Effect of low irradiance on the plant growth, development and quality
Cavagnaro and Trione (2007) reported that low irradiance can induce a shift in the allocation
of dry matter towards the extension of leaf surface area. Higher Chlorophyll content was
observed in the 25% and 55% irradiance-treated plants which was attributed to their higher
photosynthetic rate in leaves of these plants, which is consistent with the previous reports
(Dai et al. 2009, Deng et al. 2012a). Han et al. (2017) reported that chlorophyll content in
the leaves of plants grown under 15% irradiance decreased significantly which implies that
the reduced chlorophyll content was attributed the increase in surface leaf area. Zavala and
Ravetta (2001), reported that low light intensity inhibits plant growth and productivity by
depressing gas exchange (Gregoriou et al., 2007) and induces an increase in leaf area. Tsang
et al. (20220 reported that when many shade-intolerant plants exhibit a well-known shade
avoidance syndrome (SAS) that increases their adaptive and competitive ability. The SAS

7
responses include increased leaf hyponasty, specific leaf area and ratio of palisade/spongy
tissues; hypocotyl, petiole and stem elongation; reduced tillering (monocots)/branching
(dicots); and increased internode length. Mause et al. (2001) reported physiological changes
that occur within plants growing under low light intensity, such as decreased leaf carbon
assimilation and enzyme activity also occur. Sandhu (1971) reported that, Cicer arietinum
flower species produced late and few flowers under the lower light intensity.

8
 3. CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
3.1. Study site
The experiment was done in a greenhouse Makerere University Agricultural Research
Institute Kabanyolo (MUARIK) which is located 17 kilometers north of Kampala in Wakiso
district, Uganda (Latitude 0_28000.38” N, Longitude 32_36046.01” E and 1161m above sea
level). MUARIK is characterized with a typical tropical climate with average maximum
temperatures of 28.50C and minimum temperatures of 140C. The mean annual rainfall
approximates 1200 mm in a bimodal distribution, with the short rains coming between March
to June, and the long rains from September to December. The soil type is clay-loamy
according to (Mibulo & Kiggundu, 2018). The soils are formed on colluvium from quartzite,
gneiss and other basement complex rocks; on the hill slopes, colluvium enriched soils with
lateritic gravel are common (Basamba et al., 2016).
3.2. Material
3.2.1. Planting material
Seeds for the selected summer flower species that is; Callistephus chinensis, Carthamus
tinctoruis, and Celosia spicata. They were procured from the breeder, Evanthia in
Netherlands.

3.2.2. Other material

Growth medium (soil, peatmoss, charcoal dust), greenhouse (glazing material allows 77%
light), black shade net (allows 50% light), drip line fertigation system, fertilizers (organic
manure and artificial fertilizers such as Calcium Nitrate, Potassium Nitrate, Magnesium
Sulphate, Chelated ion, Mono ammonium phosphate, Mono potassium phosphate and
hydrochloric acid) germination trays, Biological preparations which include Bio-fertilizers
(Trichoderma asperellum for control of nematodes and fungal pathogens, Flourish to
enhance root development) and Biopesticide (Bacillus subtills cells for powdery meldew,
Metarhizium anisopliae for control of white flies, aphids and thrips), Hypoapsis spp and
Amblyseius swirskii to control thrips.

3.3. Experimental setup

3.3.1. Field operation
Soil was potted in 72 potting bags each measuring 4 x 18 inches big which were be aligned
on two metallic beds within the greenhouse; 36 pots per bed. Each bed was divided into 3
plots, each plot constituted 12 pots, the plots along the two beds formed a block that is; block
A, block B and block C. A Shade net was applied randomly on three plots and the other 3
plots will be left open within the green house. The soil was mixed with organic manure,

9
treated with a spray of Trichoderma asperellum for control of nematodes and fungal
pathogens, Flourish to enhance root development. Seeds of three selected summer flower
species; (Carthamus tinctorius, Celosia spicata and Callistephus chinensis) were first raised
in the nursery, sown in trays and watered twice a day under a shade net till they germinated,
they were after transplanted into the pots.

3.3.2. Experimental designs and treatment

The experiment was laid out in a two grouped completely randomized design with 3
replicates. There were two treatments; the shade net environment and the non-shade net
environment. Each replicate comprised of four (4) plants per species for three (3) species, and
each treatment was applied three times randomly.

3.3.3. Trial establishment and management

Seeds of Carthamus tinctorius, Celosia spicata, and Callistephus chinensis were sown in the
nursery and then transplanted into the pots on raised beds in the greenhouse. Management
practices for the flowers were implemented that is; weeding, pinching, fertigation, pest and
disease control and pruning. Fertigation was done on the basis of precision nutrition.
Weeding was done in the pots when it’s necessary to keep them free from weeds and protect
the flower species from their adverse effects. Summer flowers do not need frequent irrigation
(NCERT, 2019) and this was done based on the soil and plant water requirements.

3.4. Data collection

Data was collected from all the plants on growth and development parameters. The data on
the following selected parameters was collected for analysis. The parameters include;
Quantum yield, Plant temperature, Plant height, Number of leaves, Leaf area, Number of
internodes, Number of shoots, Time to flower initiation, Time to harvest, Stem diameter, Stem
height, and Number of flowers. Data collection was done on a weekly basis.
Quantum yield was taken using a MultiSpeq
Leaf temperature was taken using a Pico logger in degrees Celsius
Plant height was obtained by measuring the height (cm) of the main stem from the root collar
to the apical meristem.
Number of leaves was obtained by physically counting the number of leaves on the plant.
Leaf area was obtained by measuring the length (cm) and width (cm) of the largest leaf and
obtaining their product

10
Number of internodes was obtained by physically counting the number of internodes from the
root collar to the apical meristem on the plant.
Time to flower initiation was obtained by recording the time taken for the first flower to
merge out on a plant.
Time to harvest was obtained by recording the time taken for 50% flowering for a given
species or cultivar.
Stem diameter was obtained by measuring the diameter (mm) of the cut stems using a vernier
caliper
Stem height was obtained by measuring the length of the harvested flower stems.
Number of flowers was obtained by physically counting the number of flowers on the plant.
3.5. Data analysis
The data recorded on flower growth, development, and quality parameters was subjected to
statistical analysis for evaluation using R on the R Studio platform under a two-way ANOVA
to draw logical conclusions.

11
 4. CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
4.1. Plant morphology
4.1.1. Plant temperature (0c)
Plant temperature (0c) was significantly different between the two light environments (P
<0.001) with that of the light environment being higher than that of the shaded for all the
species with a mean difference of 2.080c for Carthamus, 3.580c for Celosia, and 2.820c for
Callistephus chinensis.

Figure 1: Leaf temperature for Carthamus tinctorius flowers for the light and shade environment.

12
Figure 2: Leaf temperature for Celosia spicata for the light and shaded environment

Figure 3: Leaf temperature for Callistephus chinensis for the light and shade environment

13
 4.1.2. Quantum yield (Phi2)
There was a significant difference in the Quantum yield (Phi2) between the light and shade
environments at (P <0.001; Table1) for Celosia and Callistephus species. There was no
significant difference in the quantum yield between the light and shade environment for
Carthamus denoted by a p value 0.2198. Callistephus chinensis under the light environment
had the highest average quantum yield of 0.69.
Table 2: Quantum yield for the species in the shade and no shade environment.

Species Carthamus Celosia Callistephus

Mean light (Phi2) 0.65 0.57 0.65

Mean shade (Phi2) 0.66 0.63 0.69

Mean difference (Phi2) -0.01 -0.06 -0.04

P value 0.2198 <0.001 <0.001

4.1.3. Plant height

There was a significant difference in the plant height (cm) between the light and shade
environments at (P <0.001; Table2) for Carthamus, Celosia, and Callistephus species. The
species had a higher plant height in the light than the shaded environment.
Table 2: Plant height (cm) for the light and shade environment.

Species Carthamus Celosia Callistephus

Mean light (cm) 61.17 50.15 38.42

Mean shade (cm) 41.38 15.38 25.63
Mean difference (cm) 19.79 34.77 12.79
P value <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

14
 4.1.4. Leaf number
There was a significant difference in the leaf area between the light and shade environments
at (P <0.001; Table3) for Carthamus, Celosia, and Callistephus species. The species had a
higher leaf number in the light than the shaded environment.
Table 3: Leaf number for the light and shade environment.

Species Carthamus Celosia Callistephus

Mean light 60.17 59.10 31.50

Mean shade 35.33 24.25 28.83

Mean difference 24.84 34.85 2.67

P value <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

4.1.5. Internode number

There was no significant difference in the internode number between the light and shade
environments at denoted by a p value of 0.4608, 0.004168, and 0.4608 for Carthamus,
Celosia, and Callistephus species respectively which was greater than 0.001.
Table 4: Internode number for the light and shade environment.

Species Carthamus Celosia Callistephus

Mean light 27.00 25.30 18.80

Mean shade 24.90 18.62 18.75

Mean difference 2.10 6.68 0.05

P value 0.4608 0.004168 0.4608

15
 4.1.6. Leaf area
There was a significant difference in the leaf area between the light and shade environments
at (P <0.001; Table 5) for Carthamus, Celosia, and Callistephus species. Leaf area was larger
in the shade environment than the light environment
Table 5: Leaf number for the light and shade environment.

Species Carthamus Celosia Callistephus

Mean light (cm2) 48.20 50.48 62.17

Mean shade (cm2) 18.81 18.63 25.63

Mean difference (cm2) 29.39 31.85 36.54

P value <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

4.2. Development
4.2.1. Time to flower initiation
Time to flower initiation (days) was significantly different between the light and shade
environment at (P <0.001, Table 7) for Celosia and Callistephus, where by Celosia under
shade delayed to flower than in the light environment. Callistephus under shade flowered
earlier than that under the light environment. There was no significant difference in the time
to flower initiation for Carthamus denoted by a P value of 0.03 which was greater than 0.001.

Table 7: Time to flower initiation number for the light and shade environment.

Species Carthamus Celosia Callistephus

Mean light (days) 51.00 35.77 45.50

Mean shade (days) 42.88 56.78 36.90

Mean difference (days) 8.12 -21.01 8.60

P value 0.03 <0.001 <0.001

16
 4.3. Yield
4.3.1. Flower number
Flower number was significantly different between the light and shade environment at (P
<0.001, Table 8) for Carthamus, Celosia and Callistephus. The species had a higher flower
number in the light than the shaded environment.

Table 8: Flower number for the light and no shade environment.

Species Carthamus Celosia Callistephus

Mean light 10.37 25.6 15

Mean shade 1.67 3.75 5.4

Mean difference 11 20 9.583

P value <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

4.4. Quality
4.4.1. Stem diameter
Stem diameter was significantly different between the light and shade environment at (P
<0.001, Table 9) for Carthamus, Celosia and Callistephus. The species had a larger diameter
in the light than the shaded environment.

Table 9: Stem diameter for the light and no shade environment.

Species Carthamus Celosia Callistephus

Mean light 8.47 11.26 8.03

Mean shade 4.83 4.53 4.84

Mean difference 3.64 6.73 3.19

P value <0.001 <0.001 <0.001

17
18
 4.5. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
4.5.1. Plant morphology
4.5.1.1. Plant temperature
The plant temperature was greatly affected by the environment; the shade net reduced the air
temperature by scattering the amount of light intensity directed onto the plants. This reduced
the air temperatures under shade and consequently lowered the plant temperature, Hamdani
& Mubarok (2018) reported the same effect where the shade net reduced the air and plant
temperature and by 20c. The plants under no shade were exposed to higher light intensities
and high temperatures within the greenhouse, therefore more thermal energy was absorbed
across the leaf surfaces of plants. The variations of plant temperature with the species were
due to their distinction genetically whereby they had varying leaf thickness, size and shapes
which could attribute to thus differences.
4.5.1.2. Quatum yield (Phi2)
The quantum yield (ϕ) of photosynthesis is the molar ratio between oxygen released in
photosynthesis (or carbon assimilated) to photons absorbed in the process. The plants under
shade had a higher quantum yield because of the increased carbon dioxide assimilation,
increased stomatal conductance, little or no light energy absorbed by the leaves was emitted
as heat energy or chlorophyll fluorescence thus no photoinhibition. Higher thermal radiations
increased photoinhibition in plants under no shade thus more light energy was dissipated as
heat energy and less was used in photosynthesis. Cohen (2020) reported that in very sunny
conditions, plants convert only about 30% of the available sunlight into sugar, while the rest
is released as heat most of the light energy. Dia et al., (2009) also reported that excessive
light inhibits CO2 assimilation thus impairing photosynthesis. Ludlow (1987), reported that
exposing plants to a combination of high light intensities and high temperatures causes the
same effects by impairing the function of PSII in chloroplasts. The differences within species
are attributed to the differences in their plant physiology and morphology.
4.5.1.3. Plant height
Under the shade, plant height was higher than under no shade for the first 3 weeks because
most of the flower species exhibited a shade avoidance syndrome (SAS) that increases their
adaptive and competitive ability. Stem elongation is one of these SAS responses as means to
elongate the plants so as to gain access to unfiltered light. This effect was as well reported by
Tsang et al., (2022). However, allowing plant elongation due to shading comes at a cost in
that carbon resources must be redirected to stems to promote their elongation at the expense
of production of new leaves, which consequently reduced the biomass build up thus the

19
reason why the plant height later became higher in the non-shade environment. The variations
within the species are likely attributed to their morphological differences and variations in
acclimation responses to low and high intensities under the shade and no shade respectively.
4.5.1.4. Leaf number
Leaf number was significantly different between the light and shade environment with that of
the shade being lower because most of the plant species physiologically diverted more photo
assimilates to stem elongation in the bid to enhance light perception on the expense of leaf
formation thus fewer number of leaves. The same effect was reported by Tsang et al (2022)
in an investigation of the effect of light intensity on plant morphology of alfalfa seedlings.
4.5.1.5. Internode number
Internode number was significantly different between the environments which shows that
they had less or no effect on the internode number. However, the internode length in the
shade was higher than that of the light environment because of stem elongation to access
unfiltered light.
4.5.1.6. Leaf area
Leaf area was significantly different between the environments with the light environment
having the largest leaf area than the shade because of the effect of SAS responses to light
intensity among the plants. As reported by Tsang et al (2022), plants diverted more photo
assimilates to stem elongation on the expense of growth and multiplication of leaves which
reduced leaf area under shade. Initially, the leaf area was larger in the shade environment for
week 2and 3 to trap more light but due to continued shading, more photo assimilates were
diverted to stem elongation in contrast to the light environment where more photo assimilates
accumulated with increase number of leaves thus the increase in leaf area. The results were in
agreement with Pan et al. (2020), who showed that increased light intensity significantly
increases dry matter accumulation of each organ, indicating that in turn additional
photosynthates are partitioned among all organs.

4.5.2. Development
4.5.2.1. Time to flower initiation
Time to flower initiation was significantly between the environments with most of the shaded
plants flowering earlier; Callistephus, Carthamus, and Celosia flowering earlier in the light
environment than under shade. Plants flowered earlier under shade because of the low light
intensity which stressed them. The species being summer flowers, there light requirements
are higher. The low light intensity stressed the plants under shade which induced earlier
flowering. The same results were reported by Wada (2010) who asserts that many plant

20
species can be induced to flower by responding to stress factors such as poor nutrition or low-
intensity light. The differences within the species are more attributed to the variations in the
endogenous plant hormonal responses. More reports suggest that the cooler temperatures
induced early flowering by vernalization.

4.5.3. Yield
4.5.3.1. Stem number
The stem number varied significantly between the environments because under the shade
environments, plants exhibited acclimation responses to the low light intensity through
enhancement of increased growth in plant height in bid to gain access to unfiltered light as
seemingly reported by Hussein et al. (2020) in his investigation of the acclimation strategy
and plasticity of different soybean genotypes in intercropping, this occurred at a cost of
reduced leaf formation which reduced the total dry matter accumulation for other plant
organs thus reduced formation of flower stems in the shade in contrast to under no shade
where the increased leaf number increased the total bio mass accumulation synergically thus
availing more photo assimilates for increased formation of flower stems
4.5.4. Quality
4.5.4.1. Stem diameter
Stem diameter varied significantly between the light and shade environments. Stem diameter
in the shade environment was smaller than that in the light environment because more photo
assimilates were diverted to enhancement of stem elongation in the bid to increase plant
height for increased light perception. This occurred at the expense of the leaf formation as
reported by Tsang (2022), which led to less bio mass build up, thus with in the stem.
4.6. CONCLUSION
From the results I obtained, low light intensity increased the quantum yield for the species but
also lowered the productivity, yield and quality of summer flowers species therefore it’s not
optimal for growing summer flower species; Carthamus tinctorius, Celosia spicata, and
Callistephus chinensis. These species have high light requirements and are tolerant to high
light intensities and temperatures therefore as flower farms seek to diversify their sector with
newer species, Carthamus tinctorius, Celosia spicata, and Callistephus chinensis are worth it
because they will be able to acclimatize to the Ugandan climatic conditions more specially
the higher light intensities and high temperatures unlike the traditional grown Roses and
Chrysanthemums.

21
 4.7. RECOMMENDATION
Summer flower species such as Carthamus tinctorius, Celosia spicata, and Callistephus
chinensis should be opted for by growers who seek to diversify the flower industry as they
have proved to be more tolerant to high light intensities and higher temperatures.
More research needs to be done to obtain the best optimal light intensities by growing the
flowers under different percentages of light environment that is; 15%, 25% 50%, 75% and
100%. More research to define more optimal conditions for growing summer flower species
such as the optimal plant nutrition and water requirements.

22
 5. CHAPTER FIVE: REFERENCES
Basamba, T. A., Okurut, S. P., Wasige, J., Tumushabe, A., & Ssekabira, K. Carbon
Sequestration for Enhanced Soil Quality in the Lake Victoria Crescent of East Africa.
Green, S. R., Picchioni, G. A., Murray, L. W., & Wall, M. M. (2010). Yield and Quality of
Field-grown Celosia and Globe Amaranth Cut Flowers at Four Plant
Densities. HortTechnology, 20(3), 612-619.
De Paula Vasconcelos, Paulo César, et al. “Mechanisms underlying the diuretic effect of
Gomphrena celosioides Mart. (Amaranthaceae).” Journal of ethnopharmacology 202 (2017):
85-91.
Wesley P. Judkins. “Growing Annual Flowers”, MH 56 Reprinted March 1978.
Michael N. Dana and B. Rosie Lerner, “Growing Annual Flowers” 2016

Black, Robert John, and B. Tjia. Annual Flowers for Florida. University of Florida
Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agriculture Sciences, EDIS, 2000.
Singh, Vrijendra, and N. Nimbkar. “Safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.).” Chapter 6 (2006):
167-194.
Dogra, A. K., and Pitam Chandra. “Development of an intelligent controller for greenhouse
management.” International Symposium on Design and Environmental Control of Tropical
and Subtropical Greenhouses 578. 2001.
Nobes, Samantha R., Karen L. Panter, and Randa Jabbour. “Greenhouse and high tunnel
production of specialty cut flowers.” HortTechnology 1.aop (2021): 1-10
Wien, H. C. “Optimizing high tunnel use for cut flower production in the northeastern United
States.” International Symposium on High Tunnel Horticultural Crop Production 987. 2011.
Chowdhuri, T. K., et al. “Performance evaluation of different varieties of China aster
(Callistephuschinensis L. Ness.) in Sub tropical belt of West Bengal.” International Journal of
Pharmaceutical Science Invention 5.8 (2016): 15-18.
Muthoka, N. M., & Muriithi, A. N. (2006, August). Smallholder summer flower production
in Kenya: A myth or a prospect?. In XXVII International Horticultural Congress-IHC2006:
International Symposium on Ornamentals, Now! 766 (pp. 219-224).
Robin, Nyamweha Bruce, Candia Geoffrey Levuson1 Aheebwa Junior, and Uwiholeye
Ezra1and Tusingwire Moses. “Greenhouse and outdoor conditions of growing carnations in
Kabarole district western Uganda” (2018).

Langan, M. (2011). Uganda’s flower farms and private sector development. Development

and Change, 42(5), 1207-1240.

Korkmaz, M., & Özçelik, H. (2011). Economic importance of Gypsophila L., Ankyropetalum
fenzl and Saponaria L.(Caryophyllaceae) taxa of Turkey. African journal of
Biotechnology, 10(47), 9533-9541.

23
KF (KF Bioplants), “Gypsophila manual” (2022).

Sakata (2022). “Aster production” Sakata Seed America

Streich, Anne; Schoneweis, Susan D.; and Rodie, Steven, “NF01-472 Growing Annual
Flowers” (2001). Historical Materials from University of Nebraska-Lincoln Extension. 792.

Steinegger, Don; Schoneweis, Susan D.; Rodie, Steven; and Streich, Anne, “G84-721
Growing Annual Flowers” (1984). Historical Materials from University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Extension. 981. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/extensionhist/981

Meghan Shinn (2021), “Garden Spacing for Annuals and Other Advice”

Sun, Jianteng, et al. “Comparison of greenhouse and open field cultivations across China: soil
characteristics, contamination and microbial diversity.” Environmental Pollution 243 (2018):
1509-1516.

Batschauer, A. 1999. Light perception in higher plants. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 55:153–166.

Stamps, R.H. 1994. Evapotranspiration and nitrogen leaching during leatherleaf fern
production in shadehouses. SJRWMD Spec. Publ. SJ94- SP10. St. Johns River Water
Management District, Palatka, FL.

Stamps, R.H. 2008. Differential effects of colored shade nets on three cut foliage crops. Acta
Hort. 770:169–176.

Guenter, S., B. Stimm, M. Cabrera, M.L. Diaz, M. Lojan, E. Ordonez, M. Richter, and M.
Weber. 2008. Tree phenology in montane forests of southern Ecuador can be explained by
precipitation, radiation and photoperiodic control. J. Trop. Ecol. 24:247–258.

Retamales, J.B., J.M. Montecino, G.A. Lobos, and L.A. Rojas. 2008. Colored shading nets
increase yields and profitability of highbush blueberries. Acta Hort. 770:193–197.

Pe´rez, M., B.M. Plaza, S. Jime´nez, M.T. Lao, J.Barbero, and J.L. Bosch. 2006. The
radiation spectrum through ornamental net houses and its impact on the climate generated.
Acta Hort. 719:631–636.

Elad, Y., Y. Messika, M. Brand, D.R. David, and A. Sztejnberg. 2007. Effect of colored
shade nets on pepper powdery mildew (Leveillula aurica). Phytoparasitica 35:285–299.

24
Ada, N. L., Farkash, L., Hamburger, D., Ovadia, R., Forrer, I., Kagan, S., & Michal, O. S.
(2008). Light-scattering shade net increases branching and flowering in ornamental pot
plants. The Journal of Horticultural Science and Biotechnology, 83(1), 9-14.

Uter, J. (2008). Safflower in European floriculture: a review. In Proceedings of the 7th

International Safflower Conference, Wagga Wagga, New South Wales, Australia.

Shrestha, A. K., Thapa, A., & Gautam, H. (2019). Solar radiation, air temperature, relative
humidity, and dew point study: Damak, jhapa, Nepal. International Journal of
Photoenergy, 2019.

Hamdani, J. S., & Mubarok, S. (2018). Effect of shading net and interval of watering increase
plant growth and yield of potatoes’ Atlantic’. Journal of Applied Sciences, 18(1), 19-24.

25
 APPENDIX: DATA ANALYSIS: Celosia Species (Rscript)
KIBAIRE ABEL KENNETH

2023-01-1
library(tidyverse)
library(stats)

# getwd
# working directory
setwd("C:/Users/User/Desktop/Abelo")

# data importation

carthamus <- read.csv("Celosia.csv", header = T)

names(carthamus)

## [1] "Block" "Species" "Plant" "Phshade" "PHlight"

"LNshade"
## [7] "LNlight" "Nodeshade" "Nodelight" "LAshade" "LAlight"
"TFshade"
## [13] "TFlight" "SDshade" "SDlight" "FNshade" "Fnlight"

# plant height celosia

attach(celosia)

plantH <- t.test (PHlight, Phshade, paired = T)

plantH

## Paired t-test
## data: PHlight and Phshade
## t = 7.8586, df = 7, p-value = 0.0001021
## alternative hypothesis: true mean difference is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
## 23.61876 43.94999
## sample estimates:
## mean difference
## 33.78437

# leaf number
leafnumber <- t.test(LNlight, LNshade, paired = T)
leafnumber

##
## Paired t-test
##
## data: LNlight and LNshade
## t = 6.1729, df = 7, p-value = 0.0004572
## alternative hypothesis: true mean difference is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
## 21.88955 49.07295
## sample estimates:

26
## mean difference
## 35.48125

# Internode no
Internodenumber <- t.test(Nodelight, Nodeshade, paired = T)
Internodenumber

##
## Paired t-test
##
## data: Nodelight and Nodeshade
## t = 5.1448, df = 7, p-value = 0.001332
## alternative hypothesis: true mean difference is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
## 7.442171 20.101579
## sample estimates:
## mean difference
## 13.77187

# Leaf area
Leafarea <- t.test(LAlight, LAshade, paired = T)
Leafarea

##
## Paired t-test
##
## data: LAlight and LAshade
## t = 6.6192, df = 7, p-value = 0.0002989
## alternative hypothesis: true mean difference is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
## 19.99875 42.22856
## sample estimates:
## mean difference
## 31.11366

# Time to flower initiation

Flowering <- t.test(TFlight, TFshade, paired = T)
Flowering

##
## Paired t-test
##
## data: TFlight and TFshade
## t = -9.6038, df = 9, p-value = 5.004e-06
## alternative hypothesis: true mean difference is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
## -26.08379 -16.13843
## sample estimates:
## mean difference
## -21.11111

# Stem diameter
Stemdiameter <- t.test(SDlight, SDshade, paired = T)
Stemdiameter

27
##
## Paired t-test
##
## data: SDlight and SDshade
## t = 5.98, df = 7, p-value = 0.0005532
## alternative hypothesis: true mean difference is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
## 3.908336 9.020789
## sample estimates:
## mean difference
## 6.464563

# Number of flowers
Flowernum <- t.test(Fnlight, FNshade, paired = T)
Flowernum

##
## Paired t-test
##
## data: Fnlight and FNshade
## t = 6.6989, df = 8, p-value = 0.0001529
## alternative hypothesis: true mean difference is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
## 13.25005 27.16106
## sample estimates:
## mean difference
## 20.20556

28