Indian Journal of Agricultural Research

  • Chief EditorV. Geethalakshmi

  • Print ISSN 0367-8245

  • Online ISSN 0976-058X

  • NAAS Rating 5.60

  • SJR 0.293

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

Indian Journal of Agricultural Research, volume 40 issue 1 (march 2006) : 10 - 17

HETEROSIS FOR SEED AND OTHER QUANTITATIVE CHARACTERS IN TOBACCO (NICOTIANA TABACUM L.)

D. Lalitha Devi1, R. Lakshminarayana, J.B. Atluri2
1Central Tobacco Research Institute, Rajahmundry - 533 105, India

  • Submitted|

  • First Online |

  • doi

Cite article:- Devi1 Lalitha D., Lakshminarayana R., Atluri2 J.B. (2024). HETEROSIS FOR SEED AND OTHER QUANTITATIVE CHARACTERS IN TOBACCO (NICOTIANA TABACUM L.). Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 40(1): 10 - 17. doi: .

ABSTRACT

Field experiments were conducted during rainy seasons of 2001 and 2002 to evaluate the uptake of major primary nutrients by maize legume intercropping system under the influence of weed control. Maize intercropped with cowpea and soybean produced significantly lower weed dry matter and NPK depletion by them. All intercropping systems produced higher biological yield of crops. Maize + soybean resulted in higher N uptake while all intercropping systems were at par and resulted in significantly higher P uptake than sole maize. While K uptake by crops was unaffected by intercropping systems. Weed control through pre-emergence application of metolachlor 1 kg ha-1, alachlor 2 kg ha-1 and hand weeding at 30 DAS significantly reduced the weed dry matter and NPK uptake by them. These treatments also increased the total biological yield of crop and their total NPK uptake.

KEYWORDS

    REFERENCES

    1. Ashok Kumar, A. et al. (1999). Ann. Agric. Res., 20: 478-480.
    2. Chari, M.S. (1995). In “The Hindu Survey of Indian Agriculture 1995” pp 81-91.
    3. Jayalakshmi, V. et al. (2000). Agnc. Sci. Digest, 20: 114-115.
    4. Kowsalya, R. et al. (1999). Madras Agric. J., 86: 362-365.
    5. Lakshmmarayana, R. (1987). In: “Heterosis exploitation-Prospects” Proc. National Symposium held at Marathwada Agric University, Parbhani.
    6. Lalitha Devi, D. et al. (2002). Tob. Res., 28: 90-96.
    7. Manivel, P. et al. (1999). Madras Agric. J., 86: 65-68.
    8. Matzinger, D.F. (1968). Crop Sci., 8: 732-735.
    9. Mishra, A.K. and Yadav, L.N. (1996). J. Oilseeds Res., 13: 88-92.
    10. Moll, R.H. et al. (1965). Genetics, 52: 139-144.
    11. Panse, V.G. and Sukhatme, P.V. (1969). Statistical Methods for Agricultural Workers. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi.
    12. Ragiba, M. and Raja Reddy, C. (2000). Ann. Agric. Res., 21: 338-341.
    13. Ramana Rao, V.V. and Krishna Murthy, A.S. (1987). In: “Heterosis Exploitation-Prospects” Proc. National symposium - held at Marathwada Agric. University, Parbhani.
    14. Shinde, Y.M. et al. (1991). J.Oil Seeds Res., 10: 46-55.
    15. Swamy Rao, T. (1970). Euphytica, 19: 539-542.
    16. Thakur, L.S. et al. Tob. Res., 24: 65-69.
    17. Verma, N.K. et al. (1989). J. Oil Seeds Res., 6: 32-40
    Reviewed By

    Download Article
    In this Article
      Contact us
      Follow us

      Editorial Board

      View all (0)