Legume Research

  • Chief EditorJ. S. Sandhu

  • Print ISSN 0250-5371

  • Online ISSN 0976-0571

  • NAAS Rating 6.80

  • SJR 0.32, CiteScore (0.906)

  • Impact Factor 0.8 (2024)

Frequency :
Monthly (January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November 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

Legume Research, volume 32 issue 2 (june 2009) : 133-135

INFLUENCE OF SEED SIZE ON SEED QUALITY OF CHICK PEA (CICER ARIETINUM L.)

R. Anuradha, P. Balamurugan, P. Srimathi, S. Sumathi
1Department of Seed Science and Technology Tamil Nadu Agriculture University, Coimbatore- 641 003, India

  • Submitted|

  • First Online |

  • doi

Cite article:- Anuradha R., Balamurugan P., Srimathi P., Sumathi S. (2025). INFLUENCE OF SEED SIZE ON SEED QUALITY OF CHICK PEA (CICER ARIETINUM L.). Legume Research. 32(2): 133-135. doi: .

ABSTRACT

The influence of seed size on physiological and biochemical seed quality characters were
evaluated in Bengal gram cv. CO 4 using seeds retained on 19/64", 18/64", and 16/64", round
perforated metal sieves and with seeds passed through 16/64", round perforated metal sieves
along with control. The estimations revealed that larger size seeds retained on 19/64" round
perforated metal sieves recorded the maximum germination and seedling vigour. The protein
content, dehydrogense and á-amylase activity were also more in larger sized seeds followed by
medium sized seeds, indicating that the seed size had a positive association with seed quality
parameters in chick pea.

REFERENCES

  1. Abdul-Baki, A.A. and Anderson J.D. (1973). Crop Sci., 13: 630-633.
  2. Ali-Khan, S.T. and Youngs C.G. (1973). Can J. Pl. Sci., 53: 37-41.
  3. Ashby, E. (1936). Ann. Bot., 16: 1006- 1032.
  4. Gontia, A.S., and Awasthi M.K. (1999). Crop Res., 18(3): 328-332.
  5. Gurbanov, Y. V. and Bertii Z.G. (1970). Indian J. Pl. Physiol., 25(4): 427-431.
  6. Table 1: Effect of seed size on seed and seedling quality characters
  7. Seed grades Recovery 100 seed Germination Root length Shoot length Dry matter prod Vigour index Speed of
  8. (%) weight (g) (%) (cm) (cm) uction (mg seedling1) gemination
  9. Control - 27.33 80 (59.19) 18.3 25.1 175 3195 5.2
  10. 19/64"R 36.06 32.92 86 (68.58) 19.1 26.1 193 3903 6.6
  11. 18/64"R 46.33 25.63 85 (60.23) 18.8 25.5 187 3781 6.1
  12. 16/64"R 15.90 19.93 70 (56.62) 17.2 24.8 156 2923 5.2
  13. 16/64" P 1.71 11.68 25 (29.83) 14.3 18.6 115 813 1.5
  14. Mean 25.00 23.50 69 (54.89) 17.5 24.0 165 2924 4.9
  15. SEd 0.548 0.325 2.653 0.624 0.602 7.86 158.63 0.263
  16. CD(P=0.05) 1.144 0.678 5.535 1.301 1.255 16.40 330.91 0.548
  17. (Figures in the parentheses indicate arcsine values) R- Retained, P- Passed
  18. Table 2: Effect of seed size on biochemical characteristics of seed
  19. Size Grades Electrical conductivity (dSm-1) Protein content (%) Dehydrogenase activity (OD value) a-amylase activity (mm)
  20. Control 2.42 21.30 0.425 15.2
  21. 19/64" R 2.28 22.25 0.540 29.4
  22. 18/64" R 2.37 21.53 0.472 18.4
  23. 16/64" R 2.53 21.03 0.397 12.6
  24. 16/64" P 2.40 21.53 0.4583 18.9
  25. SEd 0.024 0.344 0.011 0.714
  26. CD (P=0.05) 0.051 0.750 0.023 1.556
  27. R- Retained, P- Passed
  28. Vol. 32, No. 2, 2009 135
  29. ISTA. (1999). Seed Sci. and Technol., Supplement Rules, 27: 25-30.
  30. Kalavathi, D. and K. Vanangamudi. (1990). Madras Agric. J., 77(1): 39-40.
  31. Kittock, D.A. and A.G. Law. (1968). Agron. J., 60: 286-288.
  32. Maguire, J.D. (1963). Crop Sci., 2: 176-177.
  33. Panse, V. G and P.V. Sukhatme, (1999). Statistical Methods for Agricultural Workers. ICAR, New Delhi.
  34. Paramasivam, V. (1990). M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore.
  35. Pollack, B.M. and E.E. Roos. (1972). Seed Biology I. T.T. Kozlowaski, Academic Press New York, pp. 313-387.
  36. Presley, J.T. (1958). Pl. Dis. Reptr., 42(7): 852.
  37. Simpson and Naylor. (1962). Can J. Bot., 40: 1599-1673.
  38. Sundaralingam, K. (1995). M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore.
  39. Tulfia, O.P. and Ahuja, S.L. (1989). Seed Res., 17: 135-138.
Reviewed By

Download Article
Contact us
Follow us

Editorial Board

View all ()