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 29 issue 2 (june 2006) : 102 - 105

EVALUATION OF GROUNDNUT VARIETIES FOR YIELD AND QUALITY CHARACTERS

Chuni Lal, T. Radhakrishnan, R.K. Mathur, P. Manivel, M.Y. Samdur, H.K. Gor, B.M. Chikani
1National Research Centre for Groundnut, Junagadh - 362 001, India
  • Submitted|

  • First Online |

  • doi

Cite article:- Lal Chuni, Radhakrishnan T., Mathur R.K., Manivel P., Samdur M.Y., Gor H.K., Chikani B.M. (2024). EVALUATION OF GROUNDNUT VARIETIES FOR YIELD AND QUALITY CHARACTERS. Legume Research. 29(2): 102 - 105. doi: .
Six groundnut varieties were evaluated under rainfed situations for yield and quality characters for stability analysis. Mean square due to G × E (linear) interaction was significant for pod yield and hundred pod weight only. Non-linear component was significant for all the traits indicating the presence of variability among the varieties regulated by various environmental conditions prevailing in different years. S-2d was significant for all the characters studied invalidating the linear prediction of performance of varieties. The variety B 95 registered highest pod yield, hundred-pod weight and hundred-kernel weight across the environments. Based on its non-responsiveness to the fluctuating environmental conditions this variety was adjudged to be more adaptive for these characters.
    1. Chuni Lal, et al. (1998). Indian J. Genet., 58: 125-126.
    2. Eberhart, S.A. and Russel, W.A. (1966). Crop Sci., 6: 36-40.
    3. Joshi, H.J. et al. (2003). Legume Res., 26: 20-23.
    4. Kandaswami, M. (1989). Madras Agric. J., 76: 323-332.
    5. Kumar, P. et al. (1984). HAU J. Res., 14: 180-183.
    6. Patil, P.S. et al. (1984). Madras Agric. J., 71: 78-80.
    7. Senapati, B.K. and Sarkar, G. (2002). J. Oilseeds Res., 19: 26-31.
    8. Singh, M. et al. (1975). Indian J. Genet., 35: 26-28.
    9. Sojitra, V.K. and Pertain, K.V. (1994). Indian J. Genet., 54: 321-324.
    10. Sojitra, V.K. and Pertain, K.V. (1998a). Legume Res., 21: 213-216.
    11. Sojitra, V.K. and Pertain, K.V. (1998b). Indian J. Genet., 58: 215-218.
    12. Tai, P.Y.P. and Hammons, R.O. (1978). Peanut Sci., 5: 72-74.
    13. Vindhiya Varman, P. et al. (1989). Madras Agric. J., 76: 247-251.
    14. Yadav, T.P. and Kumar, P. (1978). India J. Agric. Res., 12: 1-14.
    15. Yadav, T.P. and Kumar, P. (1979). Indian J. Agric. Sci., 49: 318-321.

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)