Loading...

Response of Physiological Parameters in Greengram (Vigna radiata L. Wilckzek) cv. GAM-5 to Source Manipulation, Plant Growth Regulators and Chemical

DOI: 10.18805/LR-4120    | Article Id: LR-4120 | Page : 785-792
Citation :- Response of Physiological Parameters in Greengram (Vigna radiata L. Wilckzek) cv. GAM-5 to Source Manipulation, Plant Growth Regulators and Chemical.Legume Research.2021.(44):785-792
Parthvee Rupsinh Damor, Arvind D. Patel p.r.damor@gmail.com
Address : Regional Research Station, Anand Agricultural University, Anand-388 110, Gujarat, India. 
Submitted Date : 16-01-2019
Accepted Date : 7-04-2021

Abstract

Background: Among the pulse crops mungbean is one of the richest sources of protein. There is great loss in the yield of mungbean due to various reasons may be biotic or abiotic constraints. To overcome the yield loss various physiological activities are studied. Physiological activities of the plant are greatly influenced by the source manipulation, plant growth regulators and chemical in mungbean. In correspondence to this, an experiment was conducted to study the physiological parameters in greengram.
Methods: A factorial randomized block design in two respective years, i.e. 2016 and 2017 to study the response of source manipulation (nipping, 25% defoliation and 50% defoliation), plant growth regulators (GA3 and NAA at 25 and 50mg/l respectively) and chemical (Thiourea 500 and 1000mg/l) on the physiological parameters like Crop Growth Rate (CGR), Relative Growth Rate (RGR), Net Assimilation Rate (NAR) and Leaf Area (LA) in greengram at 30, 45, 60 and 75 DAS/harvest at Regional Research Station, Anand Agricultural University, Anand. 
Result: From the obtained results it can be proposed that the physiological parameters like crop growth rate, relative growth rate and net assimilation rate increased with the increasing phase and decreased at harvesting stage. While leaf area increased significantly at each growth phase. The treatment of nipping M2 was noted significantly higher value for CGR i.e., 8.42, 16.17 and 11.48 g/cm2/day/10, for RGR i.e., 0.544, 2.967 and 1.290 g/day, for NAR i.e., 0.466, 2.959 and 1.484 mg/cm2/day and for LA i.e. 96.87, 218.94, 381.88 and 588.78 cm2. While the treatment S2 GA3 25 mg/l was noted significantly higher value for CGR i.e, 8.60, 16.67 and 11.69 g/cm2/day/10, for RGR i.e., 0.568, 2.938 and 1.202 g/day, for NAR i.e., 0.372, 3.043 and 1.529 mg/cm2/day and for LA i.e., 96.61, 224.75, 382.20 and 580.42 cm2 contributing to the higher seed yield under M2 nipping treatment i.e., (1719.7 kg/ha) and S2 treatment i.e., GA3 25 mg/l (1714.1 kg/ha). Thus, GAM-5 had a better source-sink partitioning efficiency.

Keywords

Crop growth rate Greengram Nipping Plant growth regulators Relative growth rate

References

  1. AVRDC (1974). Mungbean Annual Report for 1973. Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center. SHanhua, Tanian, Taiwan.
  2. AVRDC (1976). Mungbean Annual Report for 1975. Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center. Shanhua, Tanian, Taiwan.
  3. Brar, Z.S. and Singh, M. (1983). Effect of plant growth regulators on biomass and productivity of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Indian J. Ecol. 10(2): 254-259.
  4. Clifford, P.E. (1979). Source limitation of sink yield in mungbeans. Ann. Bot. 43: 397-399.
  5. Deotale, R.D., Mask, V.G., Sorte, N.V., Chimurkar, B.S. and Yerne A.Z. (1998). Effect of GA3 and IAA on morpho-physiological parameters of soybean. J. Soils and Crop. 8(1): 91-94. (Cited from Field Crop Abst. 1998. 51(11): 1114.
  6. Doyle, J.J. (1994). Phenology of the legume family: An approach to understanding the origin of nodulation. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 25: 325-349.
  7. Ganiger, T.S., Kareekatti, S.P. and Patil, B.C. (2002b). Effect of plant growth regulators on growth and yield in cowpea. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 15 (4): 701-704.
  8. Haloi, B. and Baldev, B. (1986). Effect of irrigation on growth attributes in chickpea when grown under different dates of sowing and population pressure. Indian J. Plant Physiol. 24: 14- 27.
  9. Hoque, M.M. and Hoque, M.S. (2002). Effects of gibberellic acid on physiological contributing characters of mungbean (Vigna radiata L.). Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences. 5(4): 401-403.
  10. Katiyar, R.P. (1980). Development changes in leaf area index and other growth parameters in cotton. Indian J. Agri. Sci. 50: 684-691.
  11. Mackenzie, D.R., Chen, N.C., Liou, T.D., Henry, B.F. and Oyer, E.B. (1975). Response of Mungbean [Vigna radiata (L.) Wilezek) and soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] to increasing plant density. Amer. Soc. Hort. 100(5): 579-583.
  12. Radford, P.J. (1967). Growth analysis formulae-their use and abuse. Crop Sci. 7: 171-175.
  13. Rahman, S.M., Tahar, N.I.M.A. and Karim, M.A. (2004). Effect of GA3 and MH and their time of spray on dry matter accumulation and growth attributes of soyabean. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences. 7(11): 1851-1857.
  14. Reddy, P. (2005). Effect of growth retardants and nipping on growth and yield parameters in cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.). M.Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. of Agric. Sci., Dharwad, Karnataka (India).
  15. Shah, T. and Prathapasenan, G. (1991). Effect of CCC on growth and yield of mungbean. Welizec var. Guj-2. J. Agron. and Crop Sci. 166(1): 40-47.
  16. Srivastava, S.K. and Tiwari, D.K. (1981). Correlation of physiological growth parameters of productivity in chickpea. JNKV Res. J. 15: 75-77.
  17. Taiz, L. and Zeiger, E. (2003). Auxin – The Growth Hormone. Plant Physiology, Panima Publishing Croporation, New Delhi pp. 423-456.
  18. Watson, D.J. (1952). The physiological basis of variation in yield. Advances in Agronomy. 4: 101-145.

Global Footprints