Agricultural Science Digest

  • Chief EditorArvind kumar

  • Print ISSN 0253-150X

  • Online ISSN 0976-0547

  • NAAS Rating 5.52

  • SJR 0.176, CiteScore (0.357)

Frequency :
Bi-monthly (February, April, June, August, October and December)
Indexing Services :
BIOSIS Preview, Biological Abstracts, Elsevier (Scopus and Embase), AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Submit

Agricultural Science Digest, volume 29 issue 3 (september 2009) : 194-197

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

R.C. Misra, S. Das, 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.
Reviewed By

Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)