Banner
Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive
Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive

volume 29 issue 3 (september 2009) : 194-197

GENOTYPE × ENVIRONMENT INTERACTION IN EARLY DURATION FINGER MILLET AND EVALUATION OF YIELD STABILITY AND ADAPTABILITY

R
R.C. Misra
S
S. Das
N
N. Senapati
1Department of Plant Breeding and Genetics, Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology, Bhubaneswar-751 003, India

  • Submitted|

  • First Online |

  • doi

Cite article:- Misra R.C., Das S., Senapati N. (2025). GENOTYPE × ENVIRONMENT INTERACTION IN EARLY DURATION FINGER MILLET AND EVALUATION OF YIELD STABILITY AND ADAPTABILITY. Agricultural Science Digest. 29(3): 194-197. doi: .

ABSTRACT

Multilocation yield trials on fifteen early duration (90-105 days) finger millet (Eleusine coracana
G.) genotypes were conducted under early and late transplanting condition at Bhubaneswar and
early direct sown condition at Berhampur for three years 2004-2006, during kharif season. G´E
interaction analysis in Eberhart and Russell model revealed highly significant differences among
genotypes and environments. The G´E interaction component was also significant indicating
differential performance of genotypes over environments. Considering mean, regression and
deviation from regression together VL 149 showed stability and adaptability to all environments,
while OEB 65, RAU 8, BM 107-2 and DM 7 showed specific adaptation to favourable environments
and Neelachal showed specific adaptation to unfavourable environments.

REFERENCES

  1. Eberhart S.A. and Russell W.A.(1966). Crop Sci., 6:36-40.
  2. Mallana K.N. et al. (1982). Indian J. Agric. Sci., 52:151-153.
  3. Marimuthu R. et al. (1995). Madras Agric. J., 82:246-248.
  4. Navale, P.A. et al. (2005). J. Maharashtra Agric. Univ., 30:106-107.
  5. Patil H.E. (2007). Int. J. Agric. Sci., 3:84-86.
  6. Seetharam A. (1995). The Hindu Survey of Indian Agriculture, 51-56.
  7. Sharathbabu et al. (2008). Karnataka J. Agric. Sci. 21:190-193.
  8. Solanki J.S. et al. (2000). Indian J. Agric. Res., 34:268-270.
Published In
Agricultural Science Digest
Article Metrics
Metrics Icon
0
Views
0
Citations
Reviewed By
Share Article
Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    volume 29 issue 3 (september 2009) : 194-197

    GENOTYPE × ENVIRONMENT INTERACTION IN EARLY DURATION FINGER MILLET AND EVALUATION OF YIELD STABILITY AND ADAPTABILITY

    R
    R.C. Misra
    S
    S. Das
    N
    N. Senapati
    1Department of Plant Breeding and Genetics, Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology, Bhubaneswar-751 003, India

    • Submitted|

    • First Online |

    • doi

    Cite article:- Misra R.C., Das S., Senapati N. (2025). GENOTYPE × ENVIRONMENT INTERACTION IN EARLY DURATION FINGER MILLET AND EVALUATION OF YIELD STABILITY AND ADAPTABILITY. Agricultural Science Digest. 29(3): 194-197. doi: .

    ABSTRACT

    Multilocation yield trials on fifteen early duration (90-105 days) finger millet (Eleusine coracana
    G.) genotypes were conducted under early and late transplanting condition at Bhubaneswar and
    early direct sown condition at Berhampur for three years 2004-2006, during kharif season. G´E
    interaction analysis in Eberhart and Russell model revealed highly significant differences among
    genotypes and environments. The G´E interaction component was also significant indicating
    differential performance of genotypes over environments. Considering mean, regression and
    deviation from regression together VL 149 showed stability and adaptability to all environments,
    while OEB 65, RAU 8, BM 107-2 and DM 7 showed specific adaptation to favourable environments
    and Neelachal showed specific adaptation to unfavourable environments.

    REFERENCES

    1. Eberhart S.A. and Russell W.A.(1966). Crop Sci., 6:36-40.
    2. Mallana K.N. et al. (1982). Indian J. Agric. Sci., 52:151-153.
    3. Marimuthu R. et al. (1995). Madras Agric. J., 82:246-248.
    4. Navale, P.A. et al. (2005). J. Maharashtra Agric. Univ., 30:106-107.
    5. Patil H.E. (2007). Int. J. Agric. Sci., 3:84-86.
    6. Seetharam A. (1995). The Hindu Survey of Indian Agriculture, 51-56.
    7. Sharathbabu et al. (2008). Karnataka J. Agric. Sci. 21:190-193.
    8. Solanki J.S. et al. (2000). Indian J. Agric. Res., 34:268-270.
    In this Article
      Contact us
      Follow us
      Published In
      Agricultural Science Digest

      Editorial Board

      View all (0)