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 3 (september 2006) : 191 - 195

INFLUENCE OF GROWTH REGULATORS ON DRY MATTER PRODUCTION DISTRIBUTION AND SHELLING PRECENTAGE IN DETERMINATE AND SEMIDETERMINATE SOYBEAN GENOTYPES

Pankaj Kumar*, S.M. Hiremath, M.B. Chetti
1Department of Crop Physiology, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad - 580 005, India
  • Submitted|

  • First Online |

  • doi

Cite article:- Kumar* Pankaj, Hiremath S.M., Chetti M.B. (2024). INFLUENCE OF GROWTH REGULATORS ON DRY MATTER PRODUCTION DISTRIBUTION AND SHELLING PRECENTAGE IN DETERMINATE AND SEMIDETERMINATE SOYBEAN GENOTYPES. Legume Research. 29(3): 191 - 195. doi: .
Experiment was conducted to study the effect of foliar application of growth regulators on total dry matter production, distribution towards reproductive parts, biomass duration (BMD) and shelling per cent in two soybean genotypes JS-335 (determinate) and MACS-124 (semideterminate). The growth regulator treatments increased total dry matter production and BMD in both determinate and semideterminate soybean genotypes. The application of growth retandants, TIBA, mepiquat chloride and cycocel were more beneficial in terms of translocation of photoassimilates towards developing reproductive parts as compared to growth promoter kinetin and control. The genotype JS-335 recorded significantly higher percentage of dry weight of reproductive parts and higher shelling percentage as compared to the genotype MACS-124 which was mainly due to its determinate growth habit.
    1. Castro, P.R.C. and Moreas, R.S. (1980). Luiz de Queiroz., 37: 795-803.
    2. Chandrababu, R. et al. (1995). Madras Agric. J., 82: 229-230.
    3. Deotale, R.D. et al. (1995). J. Soil Crops, 5: 172-176.
    4. Goswami, B.K. and Srivastava, G.C. (1987). Indian J. PI. Physiol., 30(4): 337-343.
    5. Grossman, K. (1990). Physiol. PI., 78: 642-648.
    6. Gu-WeiHong and Gu, W.H. (1998). Acta-Agriculturae-Shanghai, 2: 45-50.
    7. Koti, R.V. (1997). Ph.D. Thesis. Univ. Agric. Science, Dharwad, India.
    8. Kulkarni, S.S. (1993). M.Sc. Thesis. Univ. Agric. Science, Dharwad, India.
    9. Mayers et al. (1991). Aust. J. Agric. Res., 42: 517-530.
    10. Morandi et al. (1983). Phyton Argentina., 43: 35-44.
    11. Pando, S.B. and Srivastava, G.C. (1985). Indian J. PI. Physiol., 28(1): 72-80.
    12. Panse, V.G. and Sukhatme, P.V. (1967). Statistical Methods for Agricultural Workers. ICAR, New Delhi, pp. 167-174.
    13. Rafique-uddin, M. (1984). Legume Res., 7: 43-47.
    14. Ravichandran, V.K. et al. (1992). Haryana J. Agron., 8: 166-168.
    15. Ravichandran, V.K. and Ramaswami, C. (1991). Indian J. Pl. Physiol., 34: 80-83.
    16. Reena Tagade et al. (1998). J. Soils Crops, 8: 172-175.
    17. Sharma, K. and Walia, N. (1996). Environ. Ecol., 14: 307-310.
    18. Sheetvanter, M.N. and Patil, S.V. (1988). J. Farm. Systems, 4: 10-13.

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)