Loading...

MUNGBEAN SEED YIELD : II. EFFECT OF PHENOLOGY, GROWTH PARAMETERS AND TOTAL DEGREE-DAYS DURING DIFFERENT CROP GROWTH DURATIONS

Article Id: ARCC3638 | Page : 79 - 88
Citation :- MUNGBEAN SEED YIELD : II. EFFECT OF PHENOLOGY, GROWTH PARAMETERS AND TOTAL DEGREE-DAYS DURING DIFFERENT CROP GROWTH DURATIONS.Legume Research.2006.(29):79 - 88
Vijaylaxmi and A. Bhattacharya
Address : Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur - 208 024, India

Abstract

Twenty-five mungbean genotypes were involved in field trials to elucidate the effect of different growth and developmental parameters in different plant parts at various crop growth stages. Different growth and developmental parameters viz., RGRs of plant parts, NAR, LAD and SLW were estimated at flowering, podding, 20 days after podding and at maturity. It is concluded that genotypic variability exists in mungbean for growth parameters viz., relative growth rates of different plant parts, net assimilation rate, leaf area duration, and specific leaf weight at various crop growth stages and yield is determined positively by the shoot relative growth rate during 20 days after podding and maturity, and negatively through dry matter portioned in leaf and stem during these growth stages. Mean temperature between flowering and 20 days after has very high effect on mungbean seed yield. However more in depth studies are still needed to under stand the mechanism of dry matter partitioning the plant parts at different crop growth stage and the role of temperature (both maximum and minimum) on dry matter partitioning.

References

  1. Bhattacharya, A. (1996). Legume Res., 19: 179-184.
  2. Bhattacharya, A. (2000). Indian J. Pulses Res., 13: 50-55.
  3. Dahiya, B.S. et al. (1988). Haryana J. Agron., 4: 116-118.
  4. Dart, P.J. et al. (1975). In: Proc. Int. Workshop on Grain Legumes, ICRISAT, pp. 63-66.
  5. Dewey, D.R. and Lu, K.H. (1959). Agron. J., 51: 515-519.
  6. Eshel, Y. (1967). Israel J. Agric. Res., 18: 31-33.
  7. Ganguly, S.B. (1992). Ph.D. Thesis, Kanpur University, Kanpur.
  8. Ganguly, S.B. et al. (1999). Indian J. Pulses Res., 12: 65-74.
  9. Hays, H.K. et al. (1955). In: Methods of Plant Breeding, International Student Eddition, McGraw Hill Book Company Inc. Tokyo, pp. 442-443. Vol. 29, No. 2, 2006 87
  10. Khanna-Chopra, R. and Sinha, S.K. (1989). In: Climate and Security, International Symposium, 1987, New Delhi, pp. 2119-236.
  11. Muehlbauer, F.J. and Singh, K.B. (1987). In: The Chickpea, (Saxena, M.C. and Singh, K.B. eds.). CAB International, UK, pp. 99-126.
  12. Reddy, P.R. et al. (1980). In: Progress Report, Part I, 1978-80, Department of Plant Physiology, APAU, Hyderabad, pp. 31-32.
  13. Sinha, S.K. (1973a). Indian J. Genet., 34(A): 988-994.
  14. Sinha, S.K. (1973b). In: Recent Advances in Plant Science, (Singh, D.P. ed.).
  15. Sinha, S.K. and Khanna, R. (1975). Adv. Agron., 27: 123-474.
  16. Snedecor, G.W. and Cocharan, W.G. (1978). Statistical Methods. Oxford and IBH Publishing Co., Calcutta, 6th Edition.
  17. Summerfield, R.J.S. et al. (1980). In: Proc. Int. Workshop on Chickpea Improvement,” 1979, ICRISAT, Hyderabad, pp. 121-149.
  18. Tickoo, J.L. et al. (1996). In: Recent Advances in Mungbean Research, IIPR, Kanpur, pp. 197-213

Global Footprints