Abstract The objective of this study is to investigate the effects of climate change (i.e. change in rainfall, maximum temperature, minimum temperature, number of rainy days) on mangosteen production in Phatthalung province, Thailand. The trend of rainfall maximum temperature minimum temperature and average temperature increase but the number of rainy days decreases during the 30 years. A change in the distribution of rainfall affects the phenological of flowering, productivity and quality of fruit each year is different. The mangosteen flowered in in-season and off-season when there was a period of drought before the flowering season but in 2010 found high rainfall and the drought period not enough in July and August. The mangosteens are no inducing flowering and have flushing. The pattern of distribution of rainfall in the year 2009 is suitable for flowering and fruit quality. Carbohydrate intake is non significant difference, but an increasing trend in the growth prior to flowering of plants. The mangosteen has been used in the growth of the flower and development fruit. Nitrogen is different in a statistically significant and tends to decrease when the flowering and flushing. The ratio between carbohydrates and nitrogen is indicative of the growth and during the flowering stage. The ratio of the two will decrease as the plants in the flowering. Quality productivity and production yields increases or decreases are consistent with the drought period before flowering of mangosteen and distribution of rainfall.

1. F
F
Effects of Climatic Condition on Off-season Mangosteen Production
in Phatthalung Province
F
F F
F
F F
2553

2. F F
F F ʾ 2553 F
F F F
F F
F . F
F

3. F
F (
ʾ) F F ʾ 2551 2552 ˈ
F F ʾ 2553 F F F
F F F
30 ʾ
F F
F ʾ F F
F F ʾ 2553 F
F F F F
F F F
ʾ . . 2552 F F
F F F F F F
F F
F F F F
F F F F F F
F F F F F F
F F F
F

4. Abstract
The objective of this study is to investigate the effects of climate change (i.e. change in
rainfall, maximum temperature, minimum temperature, number of rainy days) on mangosteen
production in Phatthalung province, Thailand. The trend of rainfall maximum temperature
minimum temperature and average temperature increase but the number of rainy days decreases
during the 30 years. A change in the distribution of rainfall affects the phenological of flowering,
productivity and quality of fruit each year is different. The mangosteen flowered in in-season and
off-season when there was a period of drought before the flowering season but in 2010 found high
rainfall and the drought period not enough in July and August. The mangosteens are no inducing
flowering and have flushing. The pattern of distribution of rainfall in the year 2009 is suitable for
flowering and fruit quality. Carbohydrate intake is non significant difference, but an increasing
trend in the growth prior to flowering of plants. The mangosteen has been used in the growth of the
flower and development fruit. Nitrogen is different in a statistically significant and tends to
decrease when the flowering and flushing. The ratio between carbohydrates and nitrogen is
indicative of the growth and during the flowering stage. The ratio of the two will decrease as the
plants in the flowering. Quality productivity and production yields increases or decreases are
consistent with the drought period before flowering of mangosteen and distribution of rainfall.

5. F
F
Abstract
1
3
F 7
8
13
F 31
35
F 36
42

6. F
1 F F F ʾ . . 2552-2553 16
2 F , , F, 24
F, F
ʾ . . 2551-2553
3 25
4 F F F 28
ʾ . . 2553
5 F F 29
ʾ . . 2553
6 C:N F F 30
ʾ . . 2553

7. F
1 F 30 ʾ 13
2 F 14
30 ʾ
3 F 3 ʾ (2551 , 15
2552 2553 )
4 F 17
5 F F F F 18
0.125 F
6 F F A, I O 18
ʾ . . 2552 ʾ . . 2553
7 F F 19
8 A, I O ʾ . . 2552 19
ʾ . . 2553
9 F 20
2553
10 F F , F F F 21
F F (
ʾ 2553)
11 F F F F 23
F 13
12 F F F 23
F ʾ 2553

8. ( F )
13 F F 23
ʾ 2553
14 ˈ F F F 24
F
15 F ( F F ) F ʾ . . 2551 - 25
2553
16 F F F F F 26
F F F F F
F ʾ . . 2553
17 F F 26
F ʾ . . 2553
18 F F F 27
ʾ . . 2553
19 F F 29
ʾ . . 2553
20 33

9. F
1 ʾ ʾ . . 2551 -
ʾ . . 2553
42
2 ʾ . . 2551 - ʾ . .
2553
42
3 F F F
A, I O ʾ . . 2552 ʾ . . 2553
43
4 F F 43
1 F 45
2 F 45
3 F 45
4 ˆ F 45
5 ˆ F 45
6 F F 46
7 F 46
8 F F C:N ratio 46

10. 1
(Garcinia mangostana L.) ˈ F F F
F F ˈ
F ( , 2552; F , 2549)
ʾ . . 2552 487,405 F
F 399,438 F F ˈ F 194,792 F
F 157,218 F F 112,184 F F F 714
F F 287,589 F F 242,220 F F 158,370
F F F 654 ( , 2552) F
F F F F ˁ F F
F F
F F ʾ . . 2553 119,263 ˈ F
1,928,806 ( F F , 2553) F
F F F F
F 0 % ˁ F F F F F
F ˈ F F F F F F
F ˆ F ʾ F F F
F ( 80 F F F
F F ) ( F
F , 2550) ˆ F F F ʾ F
F F F F F F
F F ˆ F ʾ
( F , 2544)
F F F F F
ˈ ˆ F F F
ʾ F F
F F F (Evans, 1996)
F
F F ˆ 2 ˆ ˆ ˆ
F ˆ F F F F F F

11. 2
ˈ ˆ ˆ
ˆ F F F F ˆ F F
F F F
F F
F ˈ F F
The World Bank (2010) F
ˈ
F F
F F F
ʾ F F F F F F ˈ ˆ F
F F F ˈ F
F F F F ˆ ˆ
F ʾ F ʾ F F
F F F ˈ
F ˈ F ˈ
F F

12. 3
1.
ˈ F F F F F ˈ
ʽ ( F F, 2540) F F
F F
F ( , 2541) F 9-25
F 4.5-10 F ˈ F F F
( , 2541) F F F F F F
F F F ˈ F ˈ F
F F ˈ F F F ˈ
(terminal bud) ˈ F F F F
3.4-7.5 6-10 F F
F ˈ 4-8 F 80-150 ( ,
2545) F F 13-14 F
18 F
0.49 F F ( F, 2533) ˈ F
F F ˈ F
ˈ F F F ( ,
2545) ˆ F F
F 80 F F 25-35 1,270
F ʾ (Yaacob and Tindall, 1995) F
70 F F F
ˈ F F 5.5-6.5 ( F , 2544)
2. F
ˆ F F F
ˆ
F F F F
F F F F F
F

13. 4
F F
F F F ˈ ˆ
F F
(Chinvanno and Snidvongs, 2007)
F (2552) F F F
F F F
F 1.5-2.5 F F F
F F 20-30 F F F F 10
ˈ F 40 3-4 F F
F 3-30 F F F
F F
F F 35 1-2 F
F F F ʾ F
ˆ 2 F 1 F F
F 1 20 ʾ
F F F
F ˆˉ
F ˈ F F
F F F F ˆˉ F
F ˆˉ
F ˈ
F F F F F
F F F F F F F
F F F ʾ F ʾ ( , 2536; , 2548)
F (2531) F F F F F F
F F F F 10 20 F ˈ
F 2-3 F ( F , 2544)
F ˆ ˈ ˆ ˈ F
F F F F 2550 ˈ
ˈ ˆ F F
F F ( F , 2544)

14. 5
F ˆ F F F
ʾ F Salakpetch (2005) F ʾ 2549 F
F F F F ʾ 2548 F F
F F F ( , 2549)
F (alternate bearing) ˈ ˆ
F F (Hoad, 1984 Salakpetch, 2006)
F F F (Bangerth, 2006) F
F ˆ F F F F F (Hoad, 1984) ˆ
F ˆ F F F
(2540) F ˄ F
F F F
F F F F F F 15
F F 9.8 F F ˈ F
F F F (2541) F
F
F ʾ ʾ . . 2535 2538 F F
F F F F F
F F
F ʾ . . 2536 2537 F F
F F 47.25 F F 40.55 F F
F F ʾ . . 2538
100.53 F F F F
F F (2541) F F
F F F F
F F F F F F F
F F F F
(2541) F 2 6 F
F F F F
F F F 2 F F F
F F F ˀˊ F F F F F
F F F F F F
F F (2539) F

15. 6
F ˈ F F ˀˊ F
F F ˆ F F F
ˆ F F
( , 2529 Salakpetch, 2005) F F
F 21
( , 2538) F
F 16 ( F, 2545) F F F F
F 7-15 F F ( F
, 2542)
3. ˆ F F
F F
F ˆ F F
F F F F
( , 2545)
F F F F F
F F F F F
F F F
F F F
F F F F F F
F F F F ˈ F F F
( 2540)
F ˆ
F F ʾ / F F F ˆ
F F
ˆ ˆ F F F F
ˆ F ʾ F
F F F
ˈ F F F F F F
F F F
ˈ F F ˈ F

16. 7
ˆ F F
F F F F F
ˈ F F F F F F (
F 5 , 2552) F
14,471 F F F ʾ 15.79 F F
21.68 F 12.80 F
( F ) 41.71 F ( , 2550) F
F F F ˈ F F F F
F F F ˆ F F
F
1. F F F
ˈ F F F
F F F F F
ˆ F F F F F
: 2553 2554
ˆ F F F
(Latitude 7° 35' 14.4'' Longitude 99° 59' 56.9'' Altitude 44
above the sea level)

17. 8
F F
F 17-18 ʾ 10 x 8
5-6 129 F ˈ F F
15.85 F F F 16.59 F F 67.58 F F F
F
F F
F F F F F F F F F F
2553 2553 1 ʾ F
ʾ . . 2552 F ˈ F ˈ
F F F Completely Randomized Design: CRD 3
10 (1 F / ) F F
1 F ʾ 2552 (I)
2 F ʾ 2552 (O)
3 F F ʾ ʾ 2552 (A)
F
1 F ʾ
1.1 F
1. F F F F
F
2. F ʾ 2553 F
F F F
F ˈ F F F
3. F F F F F F 1-14
2553 ˈ F F

18. 9
F F F 14 F F
F
4. F F F 2 F
F
4.1 F F F (Pressure chamber) F
3 / F / F F F F F F
F ʽ F F F
F F F 2 F F 10.00 . 12.00 .
14.00 . F F F ˈ F
4.2 F F 3 / F / F
F F F F 2 F F
10.00 . 12.00 . 14.00 . F F F ˈ
F
4.3 F Moisture meter F Delta-T Devices F
HH2 F Profile Probe type PR2
F F 100 F ˆ F ʽ F F F
F ˆ F 10, 20, 30, 40, 60 100 F
F
5. F F F F F F
(Cubic frame) 0.125 F ( F 0.50 x 0.50 x 0.50 )
F F 4 / F / F F F
F F F
F F = x 100
F F F +
6. F F F F
F F F
F F 20 F F F
10 / F / F
6.1 F F F ( ) F F F F F
F F F F

19. 10
6.2 ( ) F ˂ 2
F F F F F
6.3 ( ) F F F
F F F
F F F F
6.4 F ( ) F F F F F
F F F F F F
6.5 F (total soluble solid) F F F
F F F
F F F ˈ F (°Brix) F F F F
6.6 F (titratable acidity) F
NaOH F F 0.1 N F phenolphthalein F F 0.1 F F ˈ indicator
F F F
F F F = N base x . Base x meg.wt. x 100
. F
: N base = F F (normality) F
. Base = F
Meg.wt. = 0.06404
F F F F
6.7 F F F
80 ˈ 4 F F F
F F = F x 100
F F F F
6.8 F F F
80 ˈ 4 F
F F
F F = F x 100
F F F F

20. 11
6.9 F F F
F F F F F F
7. F F F F
F F
F F F
8. F F F Confocal Laser Scanning Microscope
(CLSM) ˈ 3 F F F F IX70, Olympus (Inverted
microscope) Eyepiece10x, Objectives UPLAPO 20x, Filter BA510IF F F
F F
9. F F F Least
Significant Difference Duncan s Multiple Range Test
2 F F
ʾ
F F
F
F F F F
F F 2553 2553 1 ʾ F
ʾ . . 2552 F ˈ F ˈ
F F F Completely Randomized Design:
CRD 3 10 (1 F / ) F F
1 F ʾ 2552 (I)
2 F ʾ 2552 (O)
3 F F ʾ ʾ 2552 (A)
1. F F F 2
ʾ 2552 ˈ F F 1 F
ˈ F 8 F F F F F

21. 12
2. F F Kjeldahl F F ʽ
F F F
3. F F (TNC) Manual Clegg Antrone ( )
F F
TNC = mg glucose equivalent x vol make
wt. of sample x vol take
4. F F F Least
Significant Difference Duncan s Multiple Range Test

22. 13
1 F ʾ
1. F 30 ʾ ( ʾ . . 2523-2553)
F ˆ F ʾ
F F F IPCC ( , 2551)
F F - F
F F
F F F F
30 ʾ F F F
F F
1 F (A) (B) 30 ʾ ( ʾ . . 2523-
2553)
The number of rainy days
Rainfall (A)
RainfallAnomaly(mm)NumberofrainydayAnomaly(d)
(B)
Year

23. 14
2 F (A) (B) (C)
30 ʾ ( ʾ . . 2523-2553)
2. F 2 ʾ ( ʾ . . 2551-2552) F ( ʾ . . 2553)
ʾ . . 2553 F F F F ʾ . .
2551 2552 ( F .) F F
F F F ʾ . . 2551 -
2553 F ʾ . . 2551 698.9
63.2
124.31 54.30
33.3 23.5
F ʾ . . 2552 732.4
(A)
(B)
(C)
TemperatureAnomaly(°C)
Year
Year

24. 15
26.1 F
141 72
36.4 21.5
F F ʾ . . 2553 806.90
10.10 F 153
56.4
35.7 23.87
F 3 ʾ F F F F
F F F F F
F F F F F (
- ) F (2538) F F
F F
ˈ F F F F F F
F ʾ . . 2553 ( - )
3 F 3 ʾ (2551 (A), 2552 (B)
2553 (C)) ( indicated water deficit period, F = Flowering, LFS
= Leaf flushing, H = Harvest)
(A)
(B)
(C)
1st
F 1st
H
2nd
H 2nd
F 2nd
H
1st
F 1st
H
2nd
F
1st
F 1st
H
1st
LFS 2nd
LFS 3rd
LFS
2nd
LFS1st
LFS
Month
Precipitationandevaporation(mm)
2nd
LFS

25. 16
3. ʾ
3.1 F F F - F F F
ʾ . . 2552-2553 F F F ʾ . . 2552
F F 62.03 ʾ . . 2553 F F
63.65 F ʾ . . 2552 F 5.92 ʾ . . 2553 F
F 6.04
1 F F ( ) 50
F ( ) ʾ . . 2552-2553
ʾ . . F F ( ) F ( )
2552 62.03 5.92
2553 63.65 6.04
3.2 F - F
F F F F F
F F
ʾ ʾ . . 2551 15
11 23
F 27 31
4 9 17
19 26
F
4 ʾ . . 2552 23 F
20 29
F 13 13
4 18 30
10
4 ʾ
. . 2553 8 17 27
9
F 30 7 4

26. 17
3.3 F - F 2 ʾ . . 2551
. . 2550 . . 2551 F 2 F
. . 2551 . . 2551 ʾ . . 2552 F F
. . 2551 . . 2552 F 2
. . 2552 F . . 2552 ʾ . . 2553 F
. . 2553 . . 2553 F 2 (2 ) 1 F
2 F
4 F ( ) ( )
3.4 F - F F (cubic frame) ʾ
. . 2553 ˈ F F
ˈ F F F F F (0.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 )
0.125 F F F ( 6 F ) F
F F 15 F 17
12 F F F F 11
3.5 F F F F F F
1 - 14 ʾ . . 2553 F (I), (O)
(A) F F F F F F
F F F ˈ F F
F F ˈ F F F F
( ) ( )

27. 18
F F F (O) F
F F (I) F (A) F
F F 7 F (O) F F
199.66 F F F F (I) (A) 118.66 90 F F
5 F F F F 0.125 F
0
50
100
150
200
250
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
A I O
6 F F ʾ . . 2553
A= F F ʾ ʾ 2552, I= F ʾ 2552 O= F ʾ 2552
FF()
F ( )

28. 19
7 F F ( ) ( )
3.6 ʾ . . 2553
F 1 - 14 F (I), (O) (A) F
F F 1-14 F
F F F 1-7 F
F F 8 ˈ F F F ʾ
. . 2552 ʾ . . 2553 (A) 52.26
F 14 F ʾ . . 2552
ʾ . . 2553 (I) F ʾ . . 2552 ʾ 2553 (O) (50.63
49.35 )
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
A I O
8 A= F F ʾ ʾ 2552, I= F
ʾ 2552 O= F ʾ 2552
0
()
( ) ( )

29. 20
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1
6
11
16
21
26
5
10
15
20
25
30
3
8
13
18
23
28
2
7
12
17
22
27
( )
()
9 F
. . 2553
4. F F
4.1 F - F F F 10.00 14.00 . F
F F (I), (O) (A) F
F F F ( F 1-2
) F A F -1.48
MPa I O F F -1.35 -1.17 MPa F
F F F F F A F
I O ˈ F F
F F F F F F F F
4.2 F - F F F 10.00 14.00
. F F F (I), (O)
(A) F F F (A) F
3.884 µmolCO2 m-2
s-1
F (I) (O) 3.653 3.594 µmolCO2 m-2
s-1
F
F F F F F F F F F
400-600 µmol m-2
s-1
F F

30. 21
4.3 - F F
(I), (O) (A) 10, 20, 30, 40, 60 100 F
20-30 30-40
100
60
F F
F F (A)
F (I) (O) F
-1.6
-1.4
-1.2
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
10 12 14 10 12 14 10 12 14 10 12 14 10 12 14 10 12 14 10 12 14
A I O
10 F F ( ) F F F
( ) F F ( ʾ
. . 2553) A= F F ʾ ʾ 2552, I= F ʾ 2552 O= F ʾ
2552
10.00
12.00
14.00
F ( )
F
FF(MPa)
( )
( )
10.00
12.00
14.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
10.00
12.00
14.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
10.00.
12.00.
14.00.
FFF
(µmolCO2m-2
s-1))
10.00
12.00
14.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
F
F ( )

31. 22
5.
5.1 F F - F F F
F (I), (O) (A) F 13 F F F F
F F (A) F F 40.85 F F F
F F F (I) F F 38.25 F F F F
F F (O) 38.84 F F
5.2 F F F F
(I), (O) (A) F F F F (A)
F F 24.10 F (I)
(O) 15.73 16.17
5.3 F
F F F F
F A 71.00
F F F I (64.00 ) F
O 61.00
F ʾ 2552 8.53
F F ʾ 2553 (8.13 ) F F (A)
8.34 F F F (I) (8.32 ) F F
F F O (7.85 )
F F 3 ʾ F F
ʾ 2553 F F (I) F F 18.12 F
F F F (A) (O) F 17.87 17.04
F
F F ʾ 2551 F F
F 0.66 % F F
ʾ 2552 2553 ʾ 2553 F (A) (I) F F 0.76 %
F (O) F 0.72 %

32. 23
40.85
38.25 38.84
25
30
35
40
45
A I O
(FF)
11 F F F F F 13
(A= F F ʾ ʾ 2552, I= F ʾ 2552 O= F
ʾ 2552)
24.10
15.73 16.17
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
A I O
(FF)
12 F F F F
ʾ 2553 (A= F F ʾ ʾ 2552, I= F ʾ 2552 O= F
ʾ 2552)
71.00
64.00
61.40
40
50
60
70
A I O
()
13 F F ʾ
2553 (A= F F ʾ ʾ 2552, I= F ʾ 2552 O= F ʾ 2552)
: F F F F DMRT
0
a ab b
0
()

33. 24
5.4 ˈ F F
ˈ F 3 ʾ F F ʾ . . 2553
F
F F F F F F
F (I) F F F
( ) F F F ( F )
2 F ( ), ( ), F
(°brix), F (%), F (%) (%)
ʾ . . 2551-2553
Year Season
Fruit Quality
Fruit Weight
(g fruit-1
)
Peel thickness
(mm)
Total soluble solids
(TSS)(°brix)
Titratable
acidity (TA) (%)
Fruit disorder (%)
TFD GB
2008
In-season 58.90 e 7.36 c 17.00 0.66 b 14.35 c 18.25 d
Off-season 88.10 b 7.20 c 17.84 0.77 a 18.95 b 16.66 e
2009
In-season 105.77 a 8.53 a 17.38 0.82 a 12.94 e 19.82 b
Off-season 83.27 c 7.54 c 17.61 0.76 a 21.36 a 23.72 a
2010 In-season 74.67 d 8.13 b 17.67 0.74 a 13.33 d 19.33 c
5% LSD ** ** ns * ** **
CV (%) 2.36 2.56 2.47 6.36 0.64 0.72
* = Means with different letter are significant difference (p≥0.05) by DMRT
**= Means with different letter are significant difference (p≥0.01) by DMRT
ns = non significant difference
0
5
10
15
20
25
A I O
(FF)
 
14 ˈ F F F
F ʾ . . 2553

34. 25
5.5 3 ʾ F F F
ʾ 2552 F F 105.77 F F
ʾ 2551 F F 58.90 F F ʾ
2553 F 388.70 F F 65.47 F
18.67 F F (I) F 371.60 F F 64.00
F , F (O) F 343.50 F F 61.40 F F
(A) F 451.00 F F 71.00 F F
F (A) F 24.10 F F F (I) F 15.73 F F F
(O) F 16.17 F F F F
15 F ( F F ) F ʾ . .
2551 - 2553
**Bars with different letter are significant difference (p≤0.01) by DMRT
3 ʾ . . 2553
( F F ) ( F ) ( F F )
A 451.00 a 71.00 a 24.10
I 371.60 ab 64.00 b 15.73
O 343.50 b 61.40 b 16.17
F-test ** * ns
C.V. (%) 18.30 4.76 27.96
: F F F F F
* F P≤ 0.05
** F P≤ 0.01
ns F F
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
In-season Off-season In-season Off-season In-season
2008 2009 2010
d**
b
a
c bc
Averagefruityield(kgtree-1
)

35. 26
5.6 F Confocal Laser Scanning Microscope (CLSM) -
ˈ F F F F F F 3
F F F
F F F F ˈ
ˈ F F
( F ) ˈ F ˈ F
F ˈ F F F F F
F F F F F F F
F F F F ˈ F
F F F
16 F F F F ( ) F
F F F F ( ) F
F ʾ . . 2553
F
17 F F F
ʾ . . 2553
( ) F
F F
F F
( )

36. 27
2 F F
ʾ
1. F
F F ʾ . . 2553 F
F (A= F F ʾ ʾ 2552, I= F ʾ 2552 O= F ʾ
2552) F F F F F
F F F
F F
F F F
F F F (O) F
21.487 F F (O) F F
17.369 F
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24

A I O
18 F F F
(A= F F ʾ ʾ 2552, I= F ʾ 2552 O=
F ʾ 2552) ʾ . . 2553
0
F(F)

37. 28
4 F F F
(A= F F ʾ ʾ 2552, I= F ʾ 2552 O=
F ʾ 2552) ʾ . . 2553
F
F ( F )
A 21.2709 19.4661 18.7824 17.6565 18.2237 18.0672
I 20.8013 19.0024 20.8928 17.6966 17.5783 20.5058
O 21.2397 19.6449 20.0345 17.3690 18.3770 20.0145
5% LSD ns ns ns ns ns ns
CV (%) 4.34 5.68 6.02 3.21 3.41 6.29
( F )
F ( F )
A 18.7628 20.3149 20.2543 20.8597 20.6292 21.0755
I 19.1913 19.1930 19.8903 21.0843 20.2431 20.7136
O 18.9408 19.4437 20.0179 21.4195 21.4873 20.7431
5% LSD ns ns ns ns ns ns
CV (%) 1.93 2.86 3.37 2.62 3.70 3.47
: ns F F
2.
F ʾ 2553 F
F (A= F F ʾ ʾ 2552, I= F ʾ 2552 O= F ʾ 2552)
F F , F, ,
, , , F
F F F F
F F F F F F
F F
F F F ˈ
F ʾ 2553 F F F
F F (I) F 1.219

38. 29
F F F (O) F F 0.922
F F
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
F
%
A I O
19 F F
(A= F F ʾ ʾ 2552, I= F ʾ 2552 O= F
ʾ 2552) ʾ 2553
3. F F
F F ʾ . . 2553 F
F F F F
F , F, , , ,
F F F F
(A) F 2.25 F (I) F
F 1.495
5 F F
(A= F F ʾ ʾ 2552, I= F ʾ 2552 O=
F ʾ 2552) ʾ 2553
F
(%)
A 1.071 c 1.022 b 1.051 a 1.101 b 1.108 ab 1.119
I 1.219 a 1.135 a 1.109 a 1.184 a 1.153 a 1.075
O 1.146 b 1.154 a 1.080 a 1.124 ab 1.083 b 1.095
5% LSD ** ** ns * * ns
CV (%) 2.54 2.02 2.77 2.66 2.44 3.10
0

39. 30
( F )
(%)
A 1.069 1.006 ab 0.931 b 0.925 b 1.032 1.143 ab
I 1.093 1.055 a 1.020 a 1.077 a 1.085 1.108 b
O 1.081 0.968 b 0.922 b 0.951 b 1.050 1.164 a
5% LSD ns ** ** ** ns **
CV (%) 2.07 2.64 4.43 2.74 3.02 1.84
: * F P≤ 0.05
** F P≤ 0.01
ns F F
6 C:N F F
(A= F F ʾ ʾ 2552, I= F ʾ 2552 O= F
ʾ 2552) ʾ . . 2553
F
F C : N
A 1.939 a 1.904 a 1.787 1.603 1.645 ab 1.614
I 1.707 b 1.674 b 1.882 1.495 1.525 b 1.907
O 1.853 ab 1.703 ab 1.855 1.546 1.697 a 1.828
5% LSD ** ** ns ns ** ns
CV (%) 5.66 5.87 6.90 4.33 5.06 8.35
( F )
F C : N
A 1.755 2.019 a 2.175 a 2.255 a 1.999 1.844
I 1.756 1.819 b 1.949 b 1.958 b 1.866 1.870
O 1.752 2.008 a 2.172 a 2.253 a 2.047 1.781
5% LSD ns ** ** ** ns ns
CV (%) 2.24 0.50 3.13 3.89 4.60 4.57
: * F P≤ 0.05
** F P≤ 0.01
ns F F

40. 31
F
1.
F F ʾ . . 2551 ʾ . . 2553 F
F F F
F F
F F F Boonklong (2005); Boonklong et al (2006)
F F F F
F F
( 20) F F
F ʾ (Osman
Milan, 2006) F F F
F F ˆ F F
F 1-2 F
F F ˈ F F
21-30 F F F
F F
F Salakpetch (2006) F
F F F F ˀ (Salakpetch et al.,
1990), (Salakpetch et al., 1992) (Poonnachit et al., 1996) F F F F
F F F F
ʾ ʾ . . 2551 F
F
F F F F
. .
2551 . . 2552 ʾ . . 2552 F
F F
F
F F
F ʾ . . 2553
ʾ . . 2553 F (

41. 32
1) 2 (2 )
F F ʾ . . 2553
F F ʾ . . 2551 ʾ . . 2553 F
F F ʾ . . 2551 . . 2553 ˈ ʾ
F
F ʾ . . 2552 ʾ . . 2551 F F F
ˈ F ˈ F F
F F F F
ʾ . . 2551 58.90 F
F 88.10 F ˈ F F F F F
ʾ . . 2552 F 105.77 F ( ) 83.27 F
( ) F F F F ʾ . . 2552 ˈ ʾ
F F F
F F F F F ʾ
. . 2553 F F F F
F F
F F ˈ F F
F (2541) F F F F F
F F F F F 2-6
F ˈ F F
F 2 F F
F F F ˀˊ F F F 2-
6 F F F F F
(2539) F F F
F F F F
F F F F F
F (2548) F F F
F F F F F F F F
F F F ʾ
F F F
F F F F F

42. 33
F F F
F Manakasem (1995) F F
F F F F
F F F
20
: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Asia_Koppen_Map.png
2. F
F ʾ
. . 2553 F F F
ˈ F F F F ˈ F F

43. 34
F F F F F
F F F
F F
F F F (
) F F F F F F F F
F ( ) F F F
F F F F F
F F ˈ ˆ F
F
F (I) (O) F F F
F F F F F F
F F F F F F
F F F F
F F F
F Burke et al (1992) F F
F F F F Chaitrakulsup (1981)
total nitrogen (TN) F F TN
F 9 F F Menzel and Simpson (1994) Menzel et
al. (1998) F F F
F F F F
F F C : N F F F F
F F F F
F F F F C : N F
F ( )
F F F F C : N ( ʾ
F ) F F

44. 35
F F
F F ʾ . .
2551 2552 F 2 F ʾ . . 2553 F F
ʾ . . 2553 F
F F F F ʾ . . 2553 F
F F F F F F
F F
F F F F F F
F F F F F F F
F F F F F

45. 36
F
F . 2544. . : F.
F . 2547. F . . F 1: 20-24.
F , 2553 F F http://www.doae.go.th/plant/mungkud.htm F
10 2553
F , 2553) F F http://www.doae.go.th/LIBRARY/html/
detail/hormone/hormone2.htm F 10 2553
. 2552. F . F F http://www.tmd.go.th
F 21 2553
F . 2545. 1. (Garcinia mangostana Linn.) 2.
(Garcinia mangostana
Linn.) F F.
F. 2548. F F
F F.
. 2536. F
F F.
F . 2533. F . F
F.
F . 2545. . : .
. 2529. F F F F .
: F F.
. 2549. F ʾ .
F F.
. 2538. F F
. . 2: 15-20.
F. 2541. F F. : F F F .
F . 2541. F . :
. .

46. 37
F. 2539. F F ˆ
F F (Garcinia mangostana Linn.). F
F F.
F . 2542. F .
: .
. 2532. :
F. . 2552. F F http://www.nfi.or.th/mangosteen/th/
MangosteenClusterBackground.asp. F 21 2553
F F . 2540. F ˄
F F .
F
15 F F 12 14 F 2541.
F . 2541. F F .
: F F.
F , F , F, F F.
2544. F :
F F.
F . 2547. F
F F . F
: F F.
F . 2551. (Hevea
brasiliensis Muell. Arg.) F . F . 26(1):
50-60.
. 2550. F F http://www.mof.or.th/fruit/mangosteen
/mangosteen-ex4749.xls F 21 2553
F. 2552. F F :
http://www.oae.go.th/ewt_news.php?nid=4650. F 19 F 2553
F 5 . 2552. F F :
http://sdoae.doae.go.th/mangosteen.php. F 19 F 2553
F F. 2545. F F. :
F F.

47. 38
F 5 . 2552. F
F. F F http://www.mof.or.th/fruit/mangosteen/mangosteen-
ex4749.xls. F 21 2553
F . 2549. F F F .
F F : http://share.psu.ac.th/blog/surachart-ag001/14215. F 21
2553
. 2541. F . : F
.
F F . 2540. F F F. :
F .
F, F , , , F ,
, F F . 2531.
: F
F.
F F . 2549. F
. F F
F . 2552. . F F : http://www.nidambe11.net/ekonomiz
/2009q3/2009september24p2.htm. F 21 2553
, , F F. 2535.
F F F
F source sink relationship. : F .
F . 2539.
F . :
F . .
. 2548. F ˄ F
(Garcinia Mangostana Linn.) . F
F.
Bangerth, F., D. Naphrom, P. Sruamsiri and P. Manochai. 2006. Control of flower induction
in tropical/subtropical fruit trees by phytohormones using the example of longan and
Mango. Acta Hort 727: 217-226.
Boonklong, O. 2005. Climate change affecting mangosteen productivity in Thailand. Ph.D. Thesis
of Computational Science. Walailak University.

48. 39
Boonklong, O., Jaroensutasinee, M.and K. Jaroensutasinee 2006. Climate change affecting
mangosteen production In Thailand. Proceedings of the 5th WSEAS International
Conference on Environment, Ecosystems and Development, Venice, Italy, November 20-
22. 325-332.
Caldwell, M. M. and R.A. Verginia. 1989. Root systems. In Plant Physiological Ecology. pp.
367-392. Chapman and Hall. London.
Campbell, C. W. 1976. Growing the mangosteen in southern Florida. Proceeding of the
Florida State Horticultural Society Florida USA 79: 399-440.
Chaitrakulsup, T. 1981. Seasonal Changes in Total Nitrogen and Total Nonstructural
Carbohydrate Content in Leaves and Stem Apices of Litchi chinensis Sonn. Var.
Hong Huay . Bangkok: Kasetsart University. 72 p.
Chinvanno, S. and A. Snidvongs. 2007. Assessment of Impact, Vunerability and Adaptation
to Climatie Change: Lessons learned from pilot study in the lower Mekong River region
during 2003 -2006. SEA START RC Techinical Report. Darft.
Dickmann, D.I., P.V.Nguyen, and K.S. Pregitzer.1996. Effects of irrigation and coppicing on
above-ground growth, physiology and fine-root dynamics of two field-grown hybrid poplar
clones. Forest Ecology and Management 80: 163-174.
Ephrath, J.E., M. Silberbush. and P.R. Berliner. 1999. Calibration of minirhizotron reading
against root length density data obtained from soil cores. Plant and Soil 209: 201-208.
Evans, T. E. 1996. The effect of changes in the world hydrological cycle on availability of
water resources. [Online] Available: http://74.125.155.132/scholar?q=cache:hFn
P4va0NkgJ:scholar.google.com/&hl=th&as_sdt=2000. (Access on 19 February 2010)
Heeraman, D. A. and N.G. Juma. 1993. A Comparison of minirhizotron, core and monolith
methods for quantifying Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) and Fababean (Vicia faba
L.) root distribution. Plant and Soil 148: 29-41.
Hoad, G. V. 1984. Hormonal Regulation of Fruit Bud Formation in Fruit Trees. Acta Hort.
149: 13-20.
Ismail, M. R. and I. Iberahim. 2003. Towards sustainable management of environmental
stress for crop production in the tropics. Food Agriculture and Environment 1: 300-303.
Kirkham, M. B., S.J. Grecu, and E.T. Kanemasu. 1998. Comparison of minirhizotron and soil
water-depletion method to determine maize and soybean root length and depth. European
Journal of Agronomy 8: 117-125.

49. 40
Mainiero, R. and M. Kazda. 2006. Depth-related fine root dynamics of Fagus sylvatica during
exceptional drought. Forest Ecology and Management 237: 135-142.
Menzel, C.M. and D.R. Simpson. 1994. Lychee. pp 251-252. In B. Schaffer and P.C.
Anderson (eds). Handbook of Environmental Physiology of Fruit Crops Vol. II Sub-
Tropical and Tropical Crops. Crc Press, Inc.,Boca Raton, Florida.
Menzel, C.M., M.L. Carseldine and D.R. Simpson. 1998. The effect of fruiting status on
nutrient composition of litchi trees (Litchi chinensis Sonn.) during the flowering and
fruiting season. Horticultural Science. 63: 547-556.
Osman, M.B. and A.R. Milan. 2006. Mangosteen- Garcinia mangostana. Southampton Centre for
Underutilized Crops, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Ponti, F., G. Minotta, L. Cantoni, and U. Bagnaresi. 2004. Fine-root dynamics of Pedunculate Oak
and Narrow-leaved Ash in a mixed-hardwood plantation in clay soils. Plant and Soil 259:
39-49.
Poonnachit, U., S. Salakpetch, S. Chandraparnik, and H. Hiranpradit. 1996. Phenological
development and plant vigour affected mangosteen production. Proc. Intl. Tropical Fruit,
23-26 July 1996, Malaysia.
Rytter, R. M. and A.C. Hansson. 1996. Seasonal amount, growth and depth distribution of fine
roots in an irrigated and fertilized Salix viminalis L. plantation. Biomass and Bioenergy 11:
129-137.
Salakpetch, S. 2005. Quality management system: Good agricultural practice (GAP) for on-farm
production in Thailand. Proceedings of International Seminar on Technology Development
for Good Agricultural Practice in Asia and Oceania, October 25-26, 2005. Epochal
Tsukuba, Japan. p. 44-53.
Salakpetch, S. 2006. Quality management system: Good agricultural practice (GAP) in Thailand.
Chanthaburi Horticultural Research Center, Department of Agriculture. Chanthaburi,
Thailand. 91-97.
Salakpetch, S., S. Chandraparnik, W. Chumchit, and S. Worakuldamrongchai. 1992. Technology to
produce quality rambutan (Nephelium lappaceum L.). Chanthaburi Horticultural Research
Center, Department of Agriculture. Chanthaburi, Thailand. (in Thai).
Salakpetch, S. and U. Poonnachit. 2006. Soil moisture stress and irrigation management promote
Mangosteen (Garcinia mangostana L.) flowering. J. Hawaiian pacific agric. 13: 35-41

50. 41
Salakpetch, S. D.W. Turner, and B. Dell. 1990. The flowering of carambola (Averrhoa carambola
L.) is more strongly influenced by cultivar and water stress than by diurnal temperature
variation and photoperiod. Scientia Hort. 43: 88-94.
Schroth, G. and F.L. Sinclair. 2003. Root Systems. pp. 235-246. In G. Schroth and F .L. Sinclair
(eds). Tree, Crops and Soil Fertility Concepts and Research Methods. CABI Publishing,
UK.
Sdoodee, S. and N. Sakdiseata. 2008. The impact of summer rainfall on alternate bearing
of Mangosteen (Garcinia mangostana Linn.) in southern Thailand. The 4th
International
Symposium on Tropical and Subtropical Fruits. November 3-7, 2008. Bogor, West Java,
Indonesia.
The World Bank. 2010. Thailand s environment monitor: Intergrated water resources management.
[Online] Available: http://go.worldbank.org/4HVF8SVSAO (Access on 20 June 2010)
Yaacob, O. and H. D. Tindall. 1995. Mangosteen Cultivation. Kuala Lampur. Malayan Nature
Society.

51. 42
1 ʾ ʾ . . 2551 - ʾ . . 2553
ʾ ʾ . . 2551-2553
ʾ . .
2551
9,17 . .51 19 . .51 26 . .51 . . - . . 51 . . 51 - . . 52 ~ 4
2552
23- . .52 20 . .52 29 . .52 . . - . .52 . . 52 - . . 52 ~ 4
2552
18- . .52 30- . .52 10- . .-52 . . - . . 52 . . 52 . . 52 ~ 4
2553
8, 17 . . 53 27 . . 53 9 . . 53 . . . . 53 . . 53 . . 53 ~ 4
2553
F
* F ˄ 15-15-15 F , F ˄ 12-12-17 F F F , F ˄ 13-8-30 F F
2 ʾ . . 2551 - ʾ . . 2553
F F F
(mm) (g) (mm)
F
(N)
F
(°brix)
F
(%)
2551
54.0 88.00 7.10 - 17.20 0.87
2552
61.2 105.12 8.24 1.12 17.40 0.77
2552
55.6 83.06 7.54 1.22 17.61 0.75
2553
52.4 74.68 7.59 1.11 17.87 0.76

52. 43
3 F F F A, I
O ʾ . . 2552 ʾ . . 2553
F ( )
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
A 4.33 12.66 18.00 32.66 41.66 116.33 90.00
I 8.66 12.33 20.00 36.66 45.66 136.66 118.66
O 12.33 14.33 20.66 44.66 82.66 143.33 199.66
F-Test ** * ns * ** ns **
C.V.(%) 6.83 6.22 11.93 9.48 10.97 8.54 6.62
( F )
F ( )
8 9 10 11 12 13
A 118.00 135.00 52.33 18.66 9.00 2.66
I 117.66 83.66 53.00 22.66 10.00 2.33
O 134.00 164.66 79.66 26.33 14.33 2.33
F-Test ns ns * ns ns ns
C.V.(%) 22.53 26.00 17.80 36.37 28.61 40.90
: * F P≤ 0.05
** F P≤ 0.01
ns F F
4 F F
1. F 52 % F F 70 % F 740
260 F F F F
2. ʽ F F 14 M F F 18.03 M F 760
240 F F F F
3. Antrone 0.1 % F ʽ F ˈ ( F F
F )
4. F F 1,000 F 1
ˈ 1
5. F F 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 100 200
F F F F 1,000 F 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 10

53. 44
20 F 52 % 1.3 F F ˈ 100
1. F 0.1 F
2. 1 F 52 % 1.3
3. F 20
4. F F F F
5. F F 5 F F 10 F
F ˈ 100 F
F
1. F F 1 F
2. Antrone 0.1 % 5
3. F F 80 ˈ 10 14
4. F F F F
F
1. F F F F F
F 630 ˈ F
2. F F
F F F
F F
F F F
F F F F
F F

54. 45
1 F 2 F
3 F 4 ˆ F
5 ˆ F

55. 46
6 F F
7 F
8 F F C:N ratio