Indian Journal Of Agricultural Research
your articles with us

Quick Facts

Payment Options

payment portals

Click here to pay directly


Devmani Bind* and V.K. Dwivedi
Department of Genetic and Plant Breeding Janta Vedic College Baraut Baghpat-250 609, India

Page Range:
Article ID:
Online Published:
M1 generation of cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L) Walp] was raised by treating the dormant seeds were studied in the two genotype of cowpea variety Pusakomal and V-240(Rambha).With varied concentration of gamma rays (Gy), Ethyl methane sulphate (EMS ) and their combined treatments(Gy+EMS). The mutagenic treatments seeds were tested for lethal dose 50 % for all mutagens, separately and the dose at which 50 % of the seed germination was considered as LD50 values. Gamma rays, EMS and combined mutagens are produced a high frequency as well as a wide 50 % spectrum of mutation. The frequency of mutation was more in combined treatments than gamma rays and EMS. The mutagenic effectiveness and efficiency was calculated based on biological damage. In M1 generation based on seed lethality (L) and seedling injury (I) and M2 generation was carefully screened for various chlorophyll and viable mutations. Mutagenic effectiveness and efficiency increased with the decreased in dose or concentration. In the present study EMS was provided to be more effective and efficient in causing mutations as compared to gamma rays and the combined treatments. A dose dependant decrease was noticed in most of the characters in M1 generation. The results indicated that the reduction in germination present over control was noticed in all mutagenic treatments in both the cultivars, while increased pollen sterility was associated with corresponding increases in dose per concentration of mutagens. Results indicated that higher doses were more effective.
EMS, Gamma rays, Germination, Mutagens, Plant survival, Pollen sterility.
  1. Dhanavel, D. Girija, M. (2009).Effect of EMS, DES and SA on quantitative traits of cowpea (Vignaanguiculata (L.)Walp.)in M1 generation. Crop Research (Hisar); 37(1/3):239-241.
  2. Gaur Seema, Singh Manju Rathore Neetu Bhati, P. S. Kumar, D. (2003). Radiobiological responses of cowpea. Advances in Arid Legumes Research; :75-78.
  3. Geeta P. Patil and Wakodemanish M., (2011.)Effect of physical and chemical mutagens on cowpea.Curr.Bot. 2(4): 12-4.
  4. Kumar, G. Verma Shweta (2010). Individual and combined mutagenesis of EMS and gamma rays in Vigna unguiculata L. Journal of Plant Science Research; 26(2):159-163.
  5. Kamble G.C. and Patil A.S.(2014)Comparative Mutagen city of EMS and Gamma Radiation in Wild Chickpea International Journal of Science, Environment and Technology, 3(1) 166 – 180.
  6. Kumar, V. A. Kumari, R. U. Amutha, R. Kumar, T. S. Hepziba, S. J. Kumar, C. R. A. (2009). Effect of chemical mutagen on expression of characters in arid legume pulse-cowpea (Vignaunguiculata (L.)Walp.). Research Journal of Agriculture and Biological Sciences; 5(6):1115-1120.
  7. Khan, S. and Wani M. R., (2005.) Genetic variabilityand correlation studies in Cowpea mutants. J. Cytol.Genet. 6: 155-160.
  8. Kulkarni Ganesh B., E(2011) Effect of mutagens on fertility and other parameters in horse gram (Macrotylomauniflorum (Lam.) Verdcourt). Bioscience Discovery. 2(1): 146-150.
  9. Nawale, S. R. Apte, U. B. Jadhav, B.B. (2006). Effect of gamma-rays and ethyl methane sulfonate on seed germination and survival of seedlings in cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.)Walp). Journal of Arid Legumes; 3(1):102-105.
  10. B. Ramya, Nallathambi G. and Ganesh Ram S. (2014) The effect of mutagens on M1 population of black gram (Vignomungo L. Hepper). African Journal of Biotechnology 13(8): pp. 951-956
  11. Uma ,M.andsalimath, P.M. (2001)Effect of ionizing radiation on germination and emergence of cowpea seeds . Karnataka J.Agr. Sci. 14(4):1063-1064
  12. Ugorji, O. U. Ikpeme, E. V. Obu, J. A. Ekpenyong, E. D. (2012). Assessing the mutagenic effects of gamma irradiation on Cajanuscajan (L.) Huth and Vigna unguiculata (L.)Walp land races using morphological markers. Comunicata Scientiae; 3(4):271-281.
Global footprints

© 2015 ARCC JOURNALS. All Rights Reserved. Powered By ARCC JOURNALS