An investigation was undertaken during 2015-16 in the trial field of Department of Horticulture, Khalsa College, Amritsar (Punjab) to study the effect of integrated nutrient management on the yield and quality of fruits in Cape gooseberry cv.‘ Aligarh’. Treatments consisted of application of inorganic fertilizers alone and in combination with bio fertilizers and FYM. The experiment was laid out in Randomized Block Design with seven treatments replicated four times. Results of the study revealed that the seedlings treated with 75% NPK + 1.25 t/acre FYM proved to be the best in terms of plant height, shoot length, juice percentage, while maximum yield was recorded with the treatment of 50% NPK+ 0.7t/a FYM+ bio fertilizers.

Cape gooseberry (Physalis peruviana L.) is an important tropical fruit crop under minor fruit category of India. It is known by different names like golden berry (South Africa and UK), giant ground cherry, pervuvian golden cherry (US), poha (Hawaii), jam fruit (India) and uchuva (Colombia). It belongs to family Solanaceae¹ and it is a potential underutilized fruit crop which is grown as perennial in tropics and as an annual in temperate and subtropical regions of the world (Morton 1987). It is native to tropical highlands in Peru and Chile in South America. The name of cape gooseberry was derived from Cape of Good Hope in South Africa,² where it is commercially grown. It is widely grown in Australia, New Zealand, United States, Mexico, India, Sri Lanka, United Kingdom, China, South Africa, Kenya, Egypt, Caribbean, California and Hawaii. In China, India and Malaya, it is commonly grown but on a lesser scale. Inspite of numerous beneficial aspects of Cape gooseberry it is restricted to limited area in our country. Thus there is a great scope to increase production and productivity of Cape gooseberry. For getting higher yields and quality produce, soil health is a critical factor. In recent days, consumers are becoming more and more health conscious and are ready to pay more prices for organically grown quality fruits, due to its taste, appearance, more shelf life and richness in nutritive parameters. Bio fertilizers are natural fertilizers containing carried based micro-organisms which help to enhance productivity by biological nitrogen fixation, producing vitamins and other growth factor required for plant growth.³ The growers also have realized the importance of the same as the cost of chemical fertilizers is increasing day by day. Hence, keeping these views in mind and to know if the quantum of inorganic fertilizers can be substituted with organic manures and/or bio fertilizers, without reducing the yield and deteriorating the quality of fruits.⁴ Therefore, chemical fertilizers must be integrated with organic fertilizers such as FYM and bio fertilizers. Hence, the present investigation was carried out to study the integrated effect of chemical fertilizers in combination with organic manures and bio fertilizers on growth and quality parameters of Cape gooseberry.

The present investigation was carried out at an experimental orchard and laboratory of Department of Horticulture, Khalsa College, Amritsar during 2015-16. For raising a nursery, seeds of Cape gooseberry genotype ‘Aligarh’ were sown on 15 June 2015 in raised nursery beds measuring 1m x 1m. Seedlings were transplanted a month after sowing i.e., in mid July (when these attained a height of 20cm) in well-prepared field beds measuring 4m x 2m. Plant-to-plant and row-to-row spacing was 1m x 1m. The experiment was laid out in Randomized Block Design. The experiment consisted of 7 treatments with 4 replications. FYM was applied according to the treatments 20 days before transplanting. Nitrogen was applied in the form of urea and phosphorous in the form of SSP before transplanting. There was no need of applying potash according to soil test report. Non-symbiotic bio fertilizers (Azotobacter, Azospirillium), well known for their broad spectrum utility in various crops, were used in the experiment. These were applied @ 10g/plant by mixing with1kg FYM during the time of transplanting. Effect of different combinations of biological and chemical fertilizers on crop was recorded in terms of plant height, shoot number, shoot length, stem girth, leaf area, apparent fruit maturity, Organoleptic rating, juice percentage and yield/plant from randomly selected plants from each replication.

Treatment details

T₁-100% NPK
T_{2 -}75% NPK + 1.25t/acre FYM
T_3- 50% NPK + 0.70t/acre FYM + bio fertilizers (Azotobacter and Azospirillum @10g/plant)
T_4- 1.0t/acre FYM + bio fertilizers (Azotobacter and Azospirillum @10g/plant)
T_5- 2.0t/acre FYM
T_6- Bio fertilizers (Azotobacter and Azospirillum @10g/plant)
T_7- Control (No fertilizers)

Pseudostigmaeus solanumus n.sp.

Female: Dorsum: (Figure1A-Figure 1D): Description of female dorsum (n=2). The measurement of holotype followed by two paratypes in parentheses

Figure 1A Pseudostigmaeus solanumusn. sp. Gnathosoma.

Figure 1B Pseudostigmaeus solanumus n.sp. (Dorsum).

Figure 1C Pseudostigmaeus solanumus n.sp.(Venter).

Figure 1D Pseudostigmaeus solanumus n.sp. Legs I-IV.

Body long having the length of 362 (361-364)µm (without gnathosoma), 192µm (191-93) wide. Gnathosoma length 112 (112-115), Cheliceral length 78 (77-79), stylets 37 (36-38). Padipalp 102(100-104), palptarsus slightly longer than main tibial claw, palptarsus provided with 4 setae and trifidsensillium. Solenidian and spine absent. Palpfemur provided with 2 setae, palpgenu with 1 seta and palptibia with 2 setae. Peritreme prominent 52 (52-54). Eyes 1 pair, postocular body absent (Figure 1A). Propodosomal shield incomplete in appearance provided with rounded corners. The base of seta ve on propodosomal plate present in front of eyes. The third pair seta sci shorter in length than ve; seta sci and sce approaching outside the propodosomal plate corners. Humeral seta heabsent dorsally. The area of metapodal shield covered with dense striations; an incomplete line of metapodal shield visible just above the seta e1. All the dorsal seta shorter in length than the length of h1 and h2. The particular distances between seta vi-vi 30 (28-32), ve-ve52 (52-55), sci-sci107 (105-108), c1-c1 60 (60-63), e1-e1 42 (41-43), e1-f1 30 (28-30), d1-d1 98 (96-99), c1-d1 87 (87-90), d1-e1 57 (55-57), d2-d2 150 (147-151), e2-e2 130 (130-134),f1-f1 75 (74-75). Dorsal setae length as vi 15 (15-16), ve 25 (24-26), sci 20 (18-20), sce 20 (20-21), c1 18 (17-19), d1 18 (18-19), e1 20 (20-22), d2 15 (15-16), e2 13 (13-15), f1 17 (17-19), h2 27 (26-28) and h1 32 (32-33).

Venter: Ventrally gnathosoma provided 2 pair of sub capitular setae i.e or 1, or 2. three pair of ventral idiosomal setae (1a, 3a, 4a), 1^st pair greatly longer than others. Area between coxae III and coxae IV covered with striations. Humeral setaheseen able. Smooth 2 pairs of anogenital setae ag1, ag2, genital setae g11 pair, and three pair of setae ps3, ps2 and ps1 slightly barbed (Figure 1C).

Legs: The arrangement and numbers of setae legs I=IV i.e., Chaetotaxy includes solinidion on tarsus (Figure 1D): coxae 2-01-2-2; trochanters 01-01-01-2; femora 04-04-2-2; genua03-1-0-0; tibiae 04-5-4-4; tarsi 10-7-7-6.

Etymology: The new species name is agreed according to the crop from where it was collected.

Adult Male: Yet unknown

Type: The female (Holotype) collected from Muzafarghar (South Punjab) by Bilal Saeed Khan on Brinjal crop (Solanummelongena). 12 para type females collected from same locality and 3 paratypes collected from Jhang city on Bitter gourd. All collected individuals were placed in laboratory of Acarology, Department of Entomology, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad.

Key to genus Pseudostigmaeus form Punjab, Pakistan (females)

1. Tridentate spine absent on tarsalpeg; palptibia with 1 seta; palp tarsalpeg equal with main claw; dotted striations on propodosomal shield; 11-pairs dorsal setae…angensis (n.sp)
2. Tridentate spine present; palptibia with more than 1 seta; palp tarsalpeg longer than main claw; propodosomal shield without dotted striations; 12-13 pairs dorsal setae…….. 2
3. Propodosomal shield incompletely visible; the base of metapodal shield visible; ventral idiosoma partially striated; paraproctal setae serrate/ barbed.…… solanumus (n.sp)
4. Propodosomal shield completely visible; the base of metapodal shield not visible; ventral idiosoma completely striated; paraproctal setae not serrate……3
5. Dorsal setae smooth; humeral seta ventrally present; anogenital plate not rounded in shape; smooth paragenital setae; barbed anogenital setae; 3 setae on tibia-I..……sorghumus (n.sp)
6. Dorsal setae not smooth; humeral seta ventrally absent; anogenital plate rounded shape; paragenital setae not smooth; anogenital setae not barbed; more than 3 setae on tibia-I……4
7. Palpgenu with 2 setae; postocular body absent; seta f1 present; 4 pairs of anogenital setae; ventral idiosoma provided with 5 setae…… ueckermani (Ueckermann)
8. Palpgenu without setae; postocular body present; seta f1 absent; 3 pairs of anogenital setae; ventral idiosoma provided with 6 setae ………..capensis (Meyer).

Note: (Male and immatures were not in collection and yet unknown.)

Remarks: 1

This new species is closely resembled with P. jhangensis 2014 but can be differentiated due to following morphological points:

1. Peritremal length 52mm in this n.sp. while 75mm in Pseudostigmaeusjhangensis.
2. Propodosomal shield incompletely visible while completely visible in Pseudostigmaeusjhangensis.
3. Humeral seta ventrally visible while absent in Pseudostigmaeusjhangensis.
4. Sci-sci 107mm while 132mm in Pseudostigmaeusjhangensis.
5. Venter of gnathosoma provided with 2 pairs of setae while 3 pairs in Pseudostigmaeusjhangensis.
6. 4 pairs of setae (g1, ps1-ps3) within genital chamber in this n.sp. provided ps2 and ps1 barbed while 3 pairs in Pseudostigmaeusjhangensis.
7. Chaetotaxy of leg I-IV differ remarkably in both species.
8. Ventral idiosomal setae 3 in this new species, while 4 in Pseudostigmaeusjhangensis.

Remarks: 2

This new species also having some similar characters with P. ueckermani, but can be separated due to following characters:

1. The number of setae remarkably different on leg I-IV.
2. Dorsal setae vary in length and distances/ ratio in both of specie.

None.

The authors declared there is no conflict of interest.

1. Oudemans AC. Acarologische Aanteekeningen. Ent Ber Nederl. 1931;8(179):251‒263.
2. Wood TG. New Zealand mites of the family Stigmaeidae (Acari: Prostigmata). Trans Roy Soc NZ Zool. 1967;9(9):93‒139.
3. Meyer MKP, Ryke PAJ. Some stigmaeid mites from South Africa (Acari: Trombidiformes). Acarologia. 1969;11(2):207‒217.
4. Kuznetzov NN, Petrov VM. Predacious mites of the blatic republics (Parasitiformes: Phytoseiidae, Acariformes: Prostigmata). Zinatne, Riga, USSR, 1984. 144 p.
5. Momen FM. Three new species of stigmaeid mites (Acari; Prostigmata) from Ireland. Zeitschrift fur AngewandteZoologie. 1987;74(2):223‒229.
6. Wood TG. Stigmaeidae (Acari: Prostigmata) from Campbell Island. Acarologia. 1970;12(4):677‒683.
7. Wood TG. New species and records of stigmaeidae (Acari: Prostigmata) from New Zealand. ID. Genus Stigmaeus Koch. NZJ Sci. 1971;14(1):54‒61.
8. Grandjean F. Observations sur les acariens de la famille des stigmaeidae. Arch Sci Phys Nat. 1944;26:103‒131.
9. Gonzalez RH. A taxonomic study of the genera Mediolata, Zetzellia and Agistemus (Acari: Stigmaeidae). Univ Calif Publ Ent. 1965;41:1‒64 p.
10. Summers FM. Several stigmaeid mites formerly included in Mediolatare described in Zetzellia Oudemans and Agistemus, new genus. Proc Ent Soc Wash. 1960;62(4):233‒247.
11. Kethley J. Acarina: Prostigmata (Actinedida). In: Soil Biology Guide. In: Dindal DL, editor. USA: John Wiley & Sons; 1990. 1376 p.