DESC:FIELD OF THE INVENTION
[001] This invention relates to a composition to improve bud-break in a variety of trees or crops including deciduous fruit trees, grape vines and shrubs, or bushes, to its method of preparation, and to its method of use.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
[002] “Bud break” in deciduous fruit trees such as apples, plums, nectarines, peaches, grapes and pears, grape vines and shrubs, or bushes is very essential to facilitate their new growth. It is the first stage of the growth cycle which finally yields fruits. These buds appear in summer of previous growth cycle and are covered in scales. During winter dormancy, they turn brown until the vine and shrub begins the process of bud break.
[003] These Deciduous fruit trees, grape vines and shrubs, or bushes normally require enough winter chilling hours to produce a crop of fruit. The amount of chilling required depends upon the kind of fruit and the cultivar. Problems can arise in tropical and semi-tropical climates when there is no chilling, or in desert climate zones where there is insufficient chilling. The result of these problems can be growth abnormalities such as delayed and uneven blossoming, poor leaf cover, and insufficient or inconsistent fruit-set and reduced fruit size can occur. At the end of a vegetation period, such plants cease growing after bearing fruit and form buds. This budding enables a meristem, which has undifferentiated leaf and blossom structures, to survive under the unfavorable environmental conditions of winter because buds, in the latent stage, are much more resistant to frost and low temperatures than active tips of vegetation. Without sufficient chilling, the buds can be devoid of a commercially acceptable yield of fruit.
[004] Many horticultural regions do not experience cold winters, and changes in local climatic conditions are increasingly exacerbating the problem of poor winter chill. It is possible to overcome the effects of poor winter chill and in some plants or to augment the benefits of good winter chill by chemical treatment of plants in the latter part of dormancy.
[005] In the past, several measures have been followed like bending and twisting of canes to increase bud break which gradually became impractical owing to the amount of labor involved. Moreover, these operations sometimes resulted in damage to the sprouted buds.
[006] Another method to overcome the effects of poor winter chill or to augment the benefits of good winter chill is by chemical treatment of plants in the latter part of dormancy. The simplest chemical “bud-breaker agents” are 4, 6-dinitro-o-cresol, now deregulated in most countries, and hydrogen cyanamide (HC), which is still widely used in some countries. Unfortunately, HC is a very toxic chemical and was excluded from Annex I to Directive 91/414/EEC in October 2008, and its continued use in non-European countries is under threat. The chief concerns are damage to non-target crops and human exposure, which can produce contact dermatitis, respiratory and gastrointestinal tract irritation, headaches, and liver damage when exposure is followed by alcohol consumption. In addition, in some crops HC produces too strong a response and can produce undesirable side effects. For example when applied to yellow-fleshed kiwifruit varieties such Hort16A (Actinidia chinensis Planch. var. chinensis ‘Hort16A’) and Go1d3 (Actinidia chinensis Planch, var. chinensis‘Zesy002’), HC produces too many flowers and increases the frequency of unwanted lateral flowers.
[007] In view of the above, safer bud-break compositions with more refined activity in plants are clearly needed for overcoming the aforementioned problems.

DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION
[008] The present invention is directed towards a composition for bud breaking which is safe to use and ameliorates the disadvantages of the earlier known bud breaking agent. The said composition also provides safe bud breakings well in advance as compared to hydrogen cyanamide and also results in high yield.
[009] In one aspect, the present invention provides a composition for bud breaking, the composition comprising at least one compound of formula (I) and Homobrassinolide

Wherein,
R= -C(O)-Me, -C(O)-(CH)mCH3, -C(O)-CF3, -C(O)-CHF2, -C(O)- CH2F, -C(O)-CCl3, -C(O)-CHCl2, C(O)-CH2Cl, CBr3, C(O)-CHBr2, C(O)-CH2Br, -C(O)-CH2OCH3, -C(O)-CH2CH2OCH3, H, -CH2-Me, -C H2-(CH)mCH3, -CH2-CF3, -CH2-CHF2, -CH2-CH2F, -CH2-CCl3, -CH2-CHCl2, CH2-CH2Cl, CBr3, CH2-CHBr2, CH2-CH2Br,- CH2-CH2OCH3, , , , , , ;
n=1,2 or 3;
m=0, 1, 2 or 3;
X and Y= H, amino acids selected from S-acetyl cysteine, Glu, Cys, Asp, Gly, Arg, His, Ala, Leu, Ile, Val, Lys, Val, Pro, Met, Gln.
[010] In an embodiment of the invention, the specific compounds of formula (I) includes compounds where R= H, Me or-C(O)-Me, n = 1 or 2, Y = OH or NH-CH2-C(O)OH, and /or X = -C(O)-Me, -C(O)- -CH2--CH2-CH(NH2)-C(O)OH.
[011] In another embodiment the specific compounds of formula (I) of the composition of the present invention include following compounds 1, 2, 3 & 4.

[012] It was found that compound of formula (I) worked synergistically with addition of Plant Growth Regulator Homobrassinolide (HBR), resulting in faster and more robust bud break. It was found that the addition of HBR to the composition significantly enhanced the activity of the compounds of Formula (I). Exogenous HBR application surprisingly improved the functioning and activity of antioxidant enzymes. Increase in antioxidant enzyme activity plays a vital role in preventing lipid peroxidation and in eliminating ROS production. HBR enhances ethylene biosynthesis which in turn plays a very important role in detoxification of H2O2.
[013] HBR helps in scavenging and neutralizing of ROS thus preventing the overproduction of ROS (O2 – and H2O2). HBR also alters the mechanical properties of cell walls. HBR considerably enhances protein content in the cells. It alters the activity of proteins and other enzymes within the membrane either by affecting protein confrontation or protein activity by direct protein-sterol interactions. Activities of superoxide dismutase (SOD), Glutathione Reductase (GR), and Catalase (CAT) increase after HBR application to buds. HBR action is regulated via the receptor/ligand complex which binds to nuclear or cytoplasmic sites to regulate the expression of specific genes. The augmentation of antioxidant activities of HBR seems to be the result of activation of de novo synthesis of enzymes regulated through the transcription and translation of specific genes.
[014] In an embodiment of the invention, the compound of formula (I) and Homobrassinolide is in a ratio in the range of 100 – 350 : 0.5 – 2. In a specific embodiment, the ratio of the compound of formula (I) and Homobrassinolide is 200:1.
[015] In an aspect, the composition may comprise acceptable agrochemical additives. The additives may include surfactant selected from, but not limited to, Amine ethoxylate, EO/PO block copolymer, Ether sulfate, Fatty alcohol alkoxylate, Fatty alcohol ethoxylate, Methyl oleyl taurate, Olefin sulfonate, Sulfosuccinate.
[016] In another aspect, the composition is in the form of Wettable powder, soluble concentrate, water soluble granule, water dispersible granule, emulsifiable concentrate, oil dispersion, gel.
[017] In an embodiment of the invention, the formulation may further comprise conventional bud break agents selected from Hydrogen Cyanamide, Rape seed Oil Methyl ester; Potassium Nitrate (KNO3), Salicylic acid, Thidiazuron, Benzyl adenine, Fresh extract of Garlic, Allicin, Choline salt, Thibarbituric acid, 6-chloro-2-mercapto benzoic acid, Vitamin B6, Gallic acid, Rosolic acid, Glucosinolate (95% Allyl isothiocyanate), N-Acetly L Cysteine, N-Acetyl L Methionine, Sodium 4 amino salicylate dihydrate, Brassinolide derivatives and Epibrassinolide derivatives and/or L Glutathione (GSH-reduced form).
[018] The invention also relates to a method for preparation of the composition comprising the steps of preparing an aqueous solution of compound of formula (I) and adding HBR and required additives to the same.
[019] The invention also relates to a process of inducing bud break comprising the steps
i. Dissolving a composition comprising compound of formula I and HBR in water; and
ii. Application of the aqueous solution of composition at the prescribed time after pruning.
[020] In an embodiment, the prescribed time is preferably on the day immediately following the day of pruning but necessarily within 48 hrs. after pruning.
[021] In an embodiment, the application of the composition is by using a suitable cotton cloth or sponge with good water absorption capacity as a carrier for the composition and swabbing on the four apical buds of each cane starting from the lower one (4th bud) and towards the apical one.
[022] The invention further relates to use of a composition comprising compound of formula (I) and HBR for inducing bud break. In an aspect, the composition may further comprise conventional bud break agents.
[023] Advantageously, the present invention provides a composition for bud break, the composition comprising at least one compound of formula (I) as defined and HBR. This composition is safe for use and also avoids toxic chemicals conventionally used for bud break. Moreover, the shelf life of the composition is very high compared to the shelf-life of conventionally used chemicals such as Hydrogen Cyanamide. Hydrogen cynamide formulation has a shelf life of 6 months whereas the shelf life of composition is two years. It is found that the use of this composition results in early bud break and in high yields.

EXAMPLES
[024] The following example is illustrative of the invention but not limitative of the scope thereof:

Example 1
1.75 g of L-?Glu-S-Ac-L-Cys-Gly-OH powder (Compound No. 4) + 1.75 g of Castor oil Ethoxylate surfactant + 8.4 mg. Homobrassinolide (HBR) was dissolved in 100 ml. distilled water. 60 ml. of above mixture was dissolved in one litre water to give the final working solution. pH of this solution was adjusted so that the final working solution was in the slightly acidic range of 6 to 6.5. Next the canes were individually swabbed starting from the bud on the lower end of the cane. Only the top four buds were swabbed using cotton or cloth of good water absorbing capacity which was dipped in the solution.

Data on Field trials:
Percent Bud break data for Season 2016-17:
Four field trials were undertaken on different grape varieties at multiple locations. Bud Break were recorded at weekly intervals 14 DAA (Days after application).
The individual compositions were applied to ten vines each which were pruned the previous day. This applied to all the four trials undertaken. Application was made by swabbing the apical four buds of all canes for each of the vine. Observations for bud break were recorded 14 DAA (Days after application) for number of buds sprouted of the four buds applied for ten individual canes of each vine and their total was taken into account to calculate the % bud break. These four field trials involved evaluation of five different formulations vis-à-vis hydrogen cyanamide @ 2.5%.
Bud Break was recorded for 400 buds in all per treatment 14 DAA.
Season 2016-17:

Table 1
Variety: Thompson Seedless; Location: Nasik
Percent Bud Break for individual treatment
(Total No of buds sprouted / 400 buds)
Vine No. Treatment
HBR
@ 5 ppm N Acetyl L Cysteine
@ 5 mM Compound No. 4
@ 5 mM N Acetyl L Cysteine @ 5 mM + HBR 5 pm Compound No. 4 @
5 mM +
HBR 5 ppm H2CN2
2.5%
(Farmer’s
Practice)
1 24 17 32 25 38 36
2 22 16 33 27 36 33
3 23 17 31 29 38 34
4 22 14 31 25 39 35
5 23 16 33 24 38 33
6 21 17 31 28 39 34
7 22 18 30 25 37 35
8 20 15 32 28 40 37
9 21 16 34 24 39 36
10 21 15 32 23 38 34
Total Buds Sprouted 219 161 319 258 382 347
Percent Bud Break 55% 40% 80% 65% 96% 87%

Inference:

1. HBR @ 5 ppm, N Acetyl L Cysteine @ 5 mM and Compound No. 4 @ 5 mM result in 55%, 40% and 80% bud break resp.

2. However, N Acetyl L Cysteine @ 5 mM and Compound No. 4 @ 5 mM when used in combination with HBR @ 5 ppm result in 65% and 96% bud break resp.

3. It can be concluded from the above data that there is synergism when N Acetyl L Cysteine @ 5 mM and Compound No. 4 @ 5 mM are used in combination with 5 ppm HBR.

4. Formulation of Compound No. 4 @ 5 mM + 5 ppm HBR results in the highest percent bud break of 96% which is higher than 87% for that of 2.5 % H2CN2 (Farmer’s Practice).

Table 2
Variety: Tas-E Ganesh; Location: Niphad
Percent Bud Break for individual treatment
(Total No of buds sprouted / 400 buds)
Vine No. Treatment
HBR
@ 5 ppm N Acetyl L Cysteine
@ 5 mM Compound No. 4
@ 5 mM N Acetyl L Cysteine @ 5 mM + HBR 5 pm Compound No. 4 @
5 mM +
HBR 5 ppm H2CN2
2.5%
(Farmer’s
Practice)
1 22 19 32 26 39 34
2 23 16 30 25 37 35
3 25 17 34 30 37 35
4 22 19 31 28 38 34
5 21 18 32 25 39 34
6 24 18 33 29 37 33
7 20 19 34 28 38 36
8 19 20 31 27 39 35
9 23 18 34 25 38 35
10 24 18 34 24 37 34
Total
Buds Sprouted 223 182 325 267 379 345
Percent Bud Break 56% 46% 81% 67% 95% 86%

Inference:

1. HBR @ 5 ppm, N Acetyl L Cysteine @ 5 mM and Compound No. 4 @ 5 mM result in 56%, 46% and 81% bud break resp.

2. However, N Acetyl L Cysteine @ 5 mM and Compound No. 4 @ 5 mM when used in combination with HBR @ 5 ppm result in 67% and 95% bud break resp.

3. It can be concluded from the above data that there is synergism when N Acetyl L Cysteine @ 5 mM and Compound No. 4 @ 5 mM are used in combination with 5 ppm HBR.

4. Formulation of Compound No. 4 @ 5 mM + 5 ppm HBR results in the highest percent bud break of 95% which is higher than 86% for that of 2.5 % H2CN2 (Farmer’s Practice).

Table 3
Variety: Manikchaman; Location: Sangli
Percent Bud Break for individual treatment
(Total No of buds sprouted / 400 buds)
Vine No. Treatment
HBR
@ 5 ppm N Acetyl L Cysteine
@ 5 mM Compound No. 4
@ 5 mM N Acetyl L Cysteine @ 5 mM + HBR 5 pm Compound No. 4 @
5 mM +
HBR 5 ppm H2CN2
2.5%
(Farmer’s
Practice)
1 21 22 34 24 38 33
2 24 18 33 23 38 32
3 22 16 32 28 39 33
4 24 17 30 27 37 35
5 25 19 31 26 36 33
6 22 18 32 25 38 34
7 23 17 33 24 37 35
8 21 22 32 23 38 33
9 22 19 33 27 36 32
10 23 19 34 25 37 33
Total
Buds Sprouted 227 187 324 252 374 333
Percent Bud Break 57% 47% 81% 63% 94% 83%

Inference:

1. HBR @ 5 ppm, N Acetyl L Cysteine @ 5 mM and Compound No. 4 @ 5 mM result in 57%, 47% and 81% bud break resp.

2. However, N Acetyl L Cysteine @ 5 mM and Compound No. 4 @ 5 mM when used in combination with HBR @ 5 ppm result in 63% and 94% bud break resp.

3. It can be concluded from the above data that there is synergism when N Acetyl L Cysteine @ 5 mM and Compound No. 4 @ 5 mM are used in combination with 5 ppm HBR.

4. Formulation of compound No. 4 @ 5 mM + 5 ppm HBR results in the highest percent bud break of 94% which is higher than 83% for that of 2.5 % H2CN2 (Farmer’s Practice).

Table 4
Variety: Flame Seedless; Location: Nasik
Percent Bud Break for individual treatment
(Total No of buds sprouted / 400 buds)
Vine No. Treatment
HBR
@ 5 ppm N Acetyl L Cysteine
@ 5 mM Compound No. 4
@ 5 mM N Acetyl L Cysteine @ 5 mM + HBR 5 pm Compound No. 4 @
5 mM +
HBR 5 ppm H2CN2
2.5%
(Farmer’s
Practice)
1 20 24 35 26 37 32
2 25 19 36 24 36 34
3 23 17 32 26 38 35
4 21 16 33 26 36 33
5 22 18 30 24 37 34
6 24 17 34 27 39 33
7 21 19 35 23 38 36
8 23 21 33 25 37 34
9 24 21 34 26 38 33
10 22 19 35 24 39 34
Total Buds Sprouted 225 191 337 251 375 338
Percent Bud Break 56% 48% 84% 63% 94% 85%

Inference:

1. HBR @ 5 ppm, N Acetyl L Cysteine @ 5 mM and Compound No. 4 @ 5 mM result in 56%, 48% and 84% bud break resp.

2. However, N Acetyl L Cysteine @ 5 mM and Compound No. 4 @ 5 mM when used in combination with HBR @ 5 ppm result in 63% and 94% bud break resp.

3. It can be concluded from the above data that there is synergism when N Acetyl L Cysteine @ 5 mM and Compound No. 4 @ 5 mM are used in combination with 5 ppm HBR.

4. Formulation of Compound No. 4 @ 5 mM + 5 ppm HBR results in the highest percent bud break of 94% which is higher than 85% for that of 2.5 % H2CN2 (Farmer’s Practice).

Conclusions based on four multi location field trials in Season 2016-17:
1. There is synergism when HBR @ 5 ppm is added to N Acetyl L Cysteine @ 5 mM and Compound No. 4 @ 5 mM.
2. Combination of Compound No. 4 @ 5 mM + 5 ppm HBR results in the highest percent bud break in all the four field trials despite having different grape varieties was found to be better than Farmer’s practice of using H2CN2 @ 2.5%.
3. There was no adverse impact on bud break despite application being done in temperature as high as 31 degree centigrade.

Percent Bud break data for Season 2017-18:
Three field trials were undertaken on different grape varieties at multiple locations. Bud Break were recorded at weekly intervals viz. 7 DAA and 14 DAA (Days after application) on 400 buds in all per treatment.
The individual formulations were applied to vines each which were pruned the previous day. This applied to all the three trials undertaken. Application was made by swabbing the apical four buds of all canes for each of the vine. Observations for bud break were recorded at weekly intervals viz.7 DAA and 14 DAA for number of buds sprouted of the four buds applied for ten individual canes of each vine and their total was taken into account to calculate the % bud break.
Table 5
Trial No. Treatment
H2CN2 Compound No. 4 + HBR
% BB 7 DAA % BB 14 DAA % BB 7 DAA % BB 14 DAA
1 30.8 88.0 56.3 95.0
2 35.8 93.0 54.3 96.0
3 41.3 94.0 65.8 96.5
Mean 36.0 91.7 58.8 95.8
In all the three trials, bud break initiation at 7 DAA / 14 DAA was earlier and higher for vines treated with compound no. 4 + HBR @ 5 ppm than the vines treated with H2CN2.
Based on the observations at 7 DAA / 14 DAA, it can be concluded that the composition comprising compound no. 4 + HBR gave faster and higher percent bud break than H2CN2.

Percent Bud break data for Season 2018-19:
Three field trials were undertaken on different grape varieties at multiple locations. Bud Break was recorded 7 DAA and 14 DAA for 400 buds in all per treatment.
The individual formulations were applied to ten vines each which were pruned the previous day. This applied to all the three trials undertaken. Application was made by swabbing the apical four buds of all canes for each of the vine. Observations for bud break were recorded at weekly intervals viz.7 DAA and 14 DAA for number of buds sprouted of the four buds applied for ten individual canes of each vine and their total was taken into account to calculate the % bud break

Table 6
Trial No. Treatment
H2CN2 Compound No. 4 + HBR
% BB 7 DAA % BB 14 DAA % BB 7 DAA % BB 14 DAA
1 56.3 94.0 78.0 96.0
2 64.5 91.0 86.5 97.0
3 71.5 97.0 90.0 97.5
Mean 64.0 94.0 82.5 96.8

In all the three trials, bud break initiation at 7 DAA / 14 DAA was earlier and higher for vines treated with Compound No. 4 + HBR than the vines treated with H2CN2
Based on the observations at 7 DAA / 14 DAA, it can be concluded that the composition compound no. 4 + HBR @ 5 ppm gave faster and higher percent bud break than H2CN2.

Percent Bud break data for Season 2019-20:
Three field trials were undertaken on different grape varieties at multiple locations. Bud Break was recorded 7 DAA and 14 DAA for 400 buds in all per treatment.
The individual formulations were applied to ten vines each which were pruned the previous day. This applied to all the three trials undertaken. Application was made by swabbing the apical four buds of all canes for each of the vine. Observations for bud break were recorded at weekly intervals viz.7 DAA and 14 DAA for number of buds sprouted of the four buds applied for ten individual canes of each vine and their total was taken into account to calculate the % bud break.

Table 7
Trial No. Treatment
H2CN2 Compound No. 4 + HBR
% BB 7 DAA % BB 14 DAA % BB 7 DAA % BB 14 DAA
1 57.0 83.0 67.0 96.0
2 62.0 87.0 77.0 98.0
3 61.0 90.0 72.0 97.0
Mean 60.0 86.7 72.0 97.0

In all the three trials, bud break initiation at 7 DAA / 14 DAA was earlier and higher for vines treated with compound no. 4 + HBR than the vines treated with H2CN2.
Based on the observations at 7 DAA / 14 DAA, it can be concluded that the composition comprising compound No. 4 + HBR @ 5 ppm gave faster and higher percent bud break than H2CN2.

Harvest data for Season 2018-19:
Field Trial was initiated in October 2018 on Flame Seedless variety and grapes were harvested in March 2019. In this field trial, the harvest data (Number of Grape bunches and their weight) was recorded for five vines each treated with H2CN2 and those treated with compound no. 4 + HBR @ 5 ppm respectively.

Table 8 - Yield data at Harvest:
Treatment Wt.(g) Bunch No. Single
Bunch Wt. % rise in yield
Wt.(g) % rise (Bunch Nos.)
2.5% H2CN2
(Farmer’s Practice) 21200 105 201.9 --- ---
Compound no. 4 + HBR 27500 135 203.7 29.7% 28.6%

Conclusion:
Formulation of Compound No.4 @ 5 mM + 5 ppm HBR resulted in increasing the number of bunches by 29% and yield by as high as 30% viz a viz H2CN2 @ 2.5%

Harvest data for Season 2019-20:
Field Trial was initiated in October 2019 on Thomson Seedless variety and grapes were harvested in March 2020. In this field trial, the harvest data (Number of Grape bunches and their weight) was recorded for five vines each treated with H2CN2 and those treated with compound no. 4 + HBR @ 5 ppm respectively.
Table 9 - Yield data at Harvest:
Treatment Wt.(g) Bunch No. Single
Bunch Wt. % rise in yield
Wt. (g) % rise (Bunch Nos.)
2.5% H2CN2
(Farmer’s Practice) 31400 110 285.5 --- ---
Compound no. 4 + 5 ppm HBR 46000 149 296.6 46.5% 35.5%

Conclusion:
Formulation of Compound No.4 @ 5 mM + 5 ppm HBR resulted in increasing the number of bunches by 36% and yield by as high as 47% viz a viz H2CN2 @ 2.5%

[025] The foregoing description of the invention has been set merely to illustrate the invention and is not intended to be limiting. Since the modifications of the disclosed embodiments incorporating the spirit and substance of the invention may occur to the person skilled in the art, the invention should be construed to include everything within the scope of the disclosure.

,CLAIMS:We Claim
1. A composition for bud breaking comprising at least one compound of formula (I) and Homobrassinolide

Wherein,
R= -C(O)-Me, -C(O)-(CH)mCH3, -C(O)-CF3, -C(O)-CHF2, -C(O)- CH2F, -C(O)-CCl3, -C(O)-CHCl2, C(O)-CH2Cl, CBr3, C(O)-CHBr2, C(O)-CH2Br, -C(O)-CH2OCH3, -C(O)-CH2CH2OCH3, H, -CH2-Me, -C H2-(CH)mCH3, -CH2-CF3, -CH2-CHF2, -CH2-CH2F, -CH2-CCl3, -CH2-CHCl2, CH2-CH2Cl, CBr3, CH2-CHBr2, CH2-CH2Br,- CH2-CH2OCH3, , , , , , ;
n=1,2 or 3;
m=0, 1, 2 or 3;
X and Y= H, amino acids selected from S-acetyl cysteine, Glu, Cys, Asp, Gly, Arg, His, Ala, Leu, Ile, Val, Lys, Val, Pro, Met, Gln.

2. The composition as claimed in claim 1, wherein R= H, Me or-C(O)-Me.

3. The composition as claimed in claim 1, wherein n = 1 or 2.
4. The composition as claimed in claim 1, wherein Y = OH or NH-CH2-C(O)OH.

5. The composition as claimed in claim 1, wherein X = -C(O)-Me, -C(O)- -CH2--CH2-CH(NH2)-C(O)OH.

6. The composition as claimed in claim 1, wherein the compound of formula (I) is

7. The composition as claimed in claims 1-6, wherein the compound of formula (I) and Homobrassinolide is in a ratio in the range of 100 – 350: 0.5 – 2.

8. The composition as claimed in claims 1-67 wherein the composition comprises acceptable agrochemical additives.

9. A method of inducing bud break comprising the steps of dissolving the composition as claimed in claim 1 in water; and application of the composition at the prescribed time after pruning.

10. Use of a composition comprising at least one compound of formula (I) and Homobrassinolide as claimed in claims 1-7 for inducing bud-break.