Divergence studies of blackgram (Vigna mungo L) for selection of drought tolerant genotypes under rainfed conditions of North Western Himalayas in J & K, India

DOI: 10.18805/LR-4083    | Article Id: LR-4083 | Page : 158-163
Citation :- Divergence studies of blackgram (Vigna mungo L) for selection of drought tolerant genotypes under rainfed conditions of North Western Himalayas in J & K, India.Legume Research.2021.(44):158-163
Sanjeev Kumar, Anil Kumar, Sonika Jamwal, Vikas Abrol, A.P. Singh, Brinder Singh and Jai Kumar ssalgotra@gmail.com
Address : Advanced Centre for Rainfed Agriculture Dhiansar, Shere Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology Jammu-181 133, Jammu and Kashmiir, India.
Submitted Date : 19-09-2018
Accepted Date : 7-12-2018


The present investigation was aimed at ascertaining the nature and magnitude of genetic diversity among a set of twenty five blackgram genotypes through Mahalanobis D2 method. Field experiments were conducted continuously during Kharif 2016 and 2017 to examine the selection indices and genetic divergence among twenty five black gram genotypes under rainfed conditions. This study assessed the drought response of twenty five genotypes of blackgram grown in a randomized block design (R.B.D.) during Kharif  2016 and 2017. The genotypes under study fall into six clusters. The cluster-V contained the highest number of genotypes (06) followed by cluster-VI (05) and Cluster-III (05) and cluster IInd  and IVth each contained 04 genotypes. It is suggested that the recombinant should be made between genotypes of cluster V, III and VI for enhancing the seed yield potential of crop as well as improving important economic traits to develop a high yielding variety or cultivar for rainfed areas in future breeding programme. On the basis of selection indices scores, genotypes are arranged in the order of merit and top 05 or 10% of total used genotypes may be selected for further breeding programmes. The genotype Uttara (262.31) gained maximum selection indices score followed by genotypes NP 16 (255.37), PU 99 (251.90), UH86-4(251.09) and No.13/11(246.86) and these genotypes shall also be utilized for future breeding programme.


Blackgram Heritability Selection indices Variability.


  1. Bhatt, G. M. (1973). Comparison of various methods of selecting parents for hybridization in common bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Australasian Journal of Agriculture Science, 24: 457-464.
  2. Devasirvatham, V., Gaur, P.M., Mallikarjuna, N., Raju, T.N., Trethwan, R.M., Tan, D.K. (2013). Reproductive biology of chickpea response to heat stress in the field is associated with the performance in controlled environments. Field Crop Research, 142:9-19.
  3. Ghafoor, A., Ahmad, Z. and Sharif, A. (2000). Cluster analysis and correlation in blackgram germplasm. Pakistani Journal of Biological Science, 3(5): 836-839.
  4. Gupta, S.K., Subramanian, J. and Gopalakrishna, T. (2008). Construction of a genetic linkage map of blackgram based on molecular markers and comparative studies. Genome, 51: 628-637.
  5. Hadad, N. I., Boggo, T. P., and Muchibauer, F. J. (2004). Genetic variation of six agronomic characters in three lentil crosses. Euphytica, 31:113-120
  6. Mahalanobis, P. C. (1936). On the generalized distance in statistics. Proceedings of National Institute of Sciences. (Indian) 2:49-55.
  7. Parveen, S. I., Reddi Sekhar, M., Mohan Reddy, D and Sudhakar P. (2011). Correlation and path coefficient analysis for yield and yield components in blackgram (Vigna mungo (L.) Hepper). International Journal of Applied Biology and Pharmaceutical Technology. Volume: 2: Issue-3: July-Sept -2011
  8. Rao, C. R. (1952). Advanced Statistical Methods in Biometrical Research. John Wiley and Sons. New York. pp. 236-272.
  9. Singh, R. K. and Chaudhary, B. D. (1977). Biometrical Methods on Quantitative Ggenetic Analysis. Kalyani Publishers. New Delhi. pp. 215-218.
  10. Swathi, S., Senthil, N., Vinod Kumar, V., Sathish, S., Jagadeesh N. S., and Raveendran, M. (2013). Proteome data Base-Black Gram Proteome American Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 3(4): 971-976.

Global Footprints