Banner
Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First Articles
Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First Articles
Legume Research
Print ISSN: 0250-5371
Online ISSN: 0976-0571
NASS Rating
6.80
SJR
0.32
CiteScore
0.906

Chief Editor:
J. S. Sandhu
Vice Chancellor, SKN Agriculture, University, Jobner, VC, NDUAT, Faizabad, Deputy Director General (Crop Science), Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), New Delhi
Frequency:Monthly
Indexing:
BIOSIS Preview, ISI Citation Index, Biological Abstracts, Elsevier (Scopus and Embase), AGRICOLA, Go...

Legume Research, volume 32 issue 2 (june 2009) : 103-107

PHYSIOLOGICAL TRAITS AND PRODUCTIVITY OF RAINFED CHICKPEA IN RELATION TO UREA SPRAY AND GENOTYPES

C.B. Verma, R.S. Yadav, I.J. Singh, A.K. Singh
1Department of Crop Physiology, C.S. Azad University of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur-208 002, India

  • Submitted|

  • First Online |

  • doi

Cite article:- Verma C.B., Yadav R.S., Singh I.J., Singh A.K. (2025). PHYSIOLOGICAL TRAITS AND PRODUCTIVITY OF RAINFED CHICKPEA IN RELATION TO UREA SPRAY AND GENOTYPES. Legume Research. 32(2): 103-107. doi: .

ABSTRACT

A field experiment was carried out to study the effect of three concentrations of urea @ 0.25, 0.50
and 1.0% as foliar spray at 45 and 65 days after sowing against control on three chickpea genotypes
namely KDG-1168, Udai and Awarodhi during rabi 2005-06 and 2006-07 under rainfed condition.
At 50% flowering stage, nitrate reductase activity (NRA), relative water content (RWC) and chlorophyll content were estimated and found maximum with 1.0% urea spray. All the genotypes significantly improved their NRA, RWC and chlorophyll content in leaf with increase in urea concentrations upto 1.0%. Plant height, l000-seed weight and harvest index also improved significantly upto 1.00%. Number of branches-1 plant showed significant increase only upto 0.5% urea spray. Whereas seed yield of all genotypes increased upto 1.00% urea spray. Among genotypes, 'Awarodhi' was found significantly superior followed by 'Udai' in almost all characters studied.

REFERENCES

  1. Arnon, D.I. (1949). Am. J. Pl. Physiol. 24:1-15.
  2. Barrs, H.D. and Wealther, P.E. (1962). Aust. J. Biol. Sci. 15:413-428.
  3. Bell, et al. (1971). Plant Physiol. 48:413-415.
  4. Boyer, J. S. (1976). Water Deficits and Plant Growth. Vol. 4, (Kozolowski, T.T.) Academic Press New York., pp 153-190.
  5. Bray, E.A. (1993). Plant Physiol. 103:1035-1040.
  6. Chandra Chandrasekar, V. et al. (2000). J. Agron. Crop. Sci., 185:219-227.
  7. Deltour, R. and Jacqmard, A. (1974). Zea mays L. Ann. Bot. 38:524-534.
  8. Good, A.G. and Zaplachinski, S.T. (1994). Physiol. Plant. 90:9-14.
  9. Kleeper, L. et al. (1971). Pl. Physiol. 48:580-590.
  10. Kushwaha, B.L. (1994). Indian J. Agron. 39(1):34-37.
  11. Munjal et al. (1998). J. Plant Physiol. 152:77-79.
  12. Poonam Sharma et al., (2003). Indian J. Plant Physiol. 12 8 (1).
  13. Rana, N.S., et al. (1998). Indian J. Agron. 43(1):114-117.
  14. Reddy, P.S., et al. (1990). Indian J. Exp. Biol. 28:273-276.
  15. Saxena, H.K. and Shrivastava, R.D.L. (1947-2001), Farm Sci. J.P. 79.
  16. Sprent, J.I. (1981). Physiology and Biochemistry of Drought Resistance in Plants. Academic Press, Sydney,pp 131-144.
Reviewed By

Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)