Biochemical and physiological studies on Rhizobium inoculated chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) cultivar  grown in eastern U.P.

DOI: 10.18805/lr.v0iOF.9103    | Article Id: LR-3722 | Page : 263-266
Citation :- Biochemical and physiological studies on Rhizobium inoculated chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) cultivar grown in eastern U.P..Legume Research.2018.(41):263-266
Harendra Singh, Mritunjay Tripathi, Pratibha Singh and Rajan Pratap Singh mritunjay.biochem@gmail.com
Address : Department of Biochemistry, N.D. University of Agriculture and Technology, Kumarganj, Faizabad-224 229, Uttar Pradesh, India
Submitted Date : 29-04-2016
Accepted Date : 23-03-2017


Health promoting biochemical parameters of fifteen distinct chickpea cultivar (Desi and Kabuli) showed wide variability in their biochemical and physiological composition, malic acid content, days to 50% flowering, primary branches per plant, number of pods per plant. Malic acid content polled mean  ranged from 0.40 to 0.49 % in control, rhizobium inoculated 0.46 to 0.54% and 0.42 to 0.50% in control, rhizobium inoculated 0.49 to 0.54 % at 45 DAS and 90 DAS respectively, pooled mean primary branches per plant in different genotypes ranged from 4.45 to 5.70 in control and 4.90 to 6.45 in rhizobium inoculated chickpea genotypes, days to 50% flowering in chickpea ranged from 75.00-87.00 days in control, rhizobium inoculated 75.00-86.00 days, number of pods per plant in chickpea ranged from 21.98-62.91 in control, rhizobium inoculated 26.85-73.02. The research result about the biochemical characteristics of control and rhizobium inoculated chickpea genotypes are expected to provide guidelines for the researches confronted with the need to use such typical food seed in India as well as in the rest of the world.


Cultivar Days to 50% flowering Malic acid content Number of pods per plant Primary branches per plant.


  1. A.O.A.C. (1970). Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington D.C., 11th ed.
  2. Ali, N., Seyed, S.R., Teymur, K. (2011). Growth analysis and yield of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) in relation to organic and inorganic nitrogen fertilization. Ekologija, 57(3):97.
  3. F.A.O (2005). Year Book. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nation. 
  4. Koundal, K.R. and Sinha, S.K. (2006). Evaluation of the significance of malic acid secretion in chickpea. Physiology Planturm, 58: 189-192.
  5. Qureshi, A.S.; Shaukat A., Bakhsh. A., Arshad. M. and Ghafoor. A. (2004). An assessment of variability for economically important trait in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) Pak. J. Bot. 36 (4): 779-785.
  6. Shah, T.M., Atta, B.M., Haq. M.A. and Mirza. J.I. (2012). Induced genetic variability in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). IV. Spectrum of morphological mutations Pakistan J. Bot. 43 (4): 2039-2043.
  7. Sehiralis, S. (1988). Yemeklik Dane Bakiagiller. A.U. Ziratt Fakultesi Yayinlari:1089, Ankara, 435.
  8. Togay N., Togay Y., Cimrin K. M., Turan M (2008). Effect of Rhizobium inoculation, sulfur and phosphorus application on yield, yield components and nutrient uptake in chick pea (Cicer aretinum L.) // African Journal of Biotechnology. 7(6): 776–782
  9. William, P.C. and Singh, U. (1987). Nutritional quality and the evaluation of quality in breeding programmes pp. 329-356. In The Chickpea (Ede Mc Saxena and K.B. Singh), CAB International/ICARDA, Wallingford, U.K.
  10. Wealth of India (1950). A Dictionary of Indian raw Materials and Industrial Products; 11: 154 Pub. C.S.1 R., New Delhi.
  11. Yadav, S.S., Redden, R.J., Chem. W. and Sharma. B. (2007). Chickpea Breeding and Management. CABI, p.101. 

Global Footprints