Legume Research

  • Chief EditorJ. S. Sandhu

  • Print ISSN 0250-5371

  • Online ISSN 0976-0571

  • NAAS Rating 6.80

  • SJR 0.391

  • Impact Factor 0.8 (2023)

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
Legume Research, volume 31 issue 1 (march 2008) : 57 - 59

GENETIC DIVERSITY IN BLACKGRAM [VIGNA MUNGO (L.) HEPPER]

R. Elangaimannan, Y. Anbuselvam, P. Karthikeyan
1Department of Agricultural Botany Faculty of Agriculture Annamalai University, Annamalai Nagar 608 002, India
  • Submitted|

  • First Online |

  • doi

Cite article:- Elangaimannan R., Anbuselvam Y., Karthikeyan P. (2024). GENETIC DIVERSITY IN BLACKGRAM [VIGNA MUNGO (L.) HEPPER]. Legume Research. 31(1): 57 - 59. doi: .
55 genotypes collected from various sources were grouped into seven clusters following Mahalanobis’ D2 statistics. Cluster I was the largest (34 genotypes) followed by clusters IV (eight), II (Six), V (four) and three monogenotypic clusters (III, VI and VII). The maximum intra-cluster distance was observed in cluster I suggesting that genotypes are having diverse genetic architecture. The inter-cluster distance was high between clusters II and VI there by indicating wide range of variation among the clusters. The per cent contribution towards genetic diversity was high in number of pods per plant (26.12%). Based on cluster mean and per se performance, seven genotypes were selected for hybridization.
    1. Gupta, M.D. and Singh, R.B. (1970). Indian J. Genet., 30: 212-221.
    2. Mahalanobis, P.C. (1936). J. Genet., 4: 159 – 193.
    3. Rao, C.R. (1952). Advanced ststistical Methods in Biometrical Research. John Wiley and Sons, New York, pp. 390.
    4. Shanmugam, A.S. and Sreerangaswamy, S.R. (1982). Madras Agric. J., 69: 631-636

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)