Physiological response of mungbean for grain yield and yield components under normal and late planting conditions

Paper Details

Research Paper 01/02/2020
Views (865)
current_issue_feature_image
publication_file

Physiological response of mungbean for grain yield and yield components under normal and late planting conditions

Muhammad Imran Khan, Amina Batool, Waheed Arshad, Ali Nawaz, Muhammad Zeeshan, Shiraz Ali, Manzoor Hussain, Ghulam Nabi, Saadia
Int. J. Biosci. 16(2), 40-44, February 2020.
Copyright Statement: Copyright 2020; The Author(s).
License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Abstract

Mungbean (Vigna radiata L.) is a leguminous crop having capability of fixing atmospheric nitrogen through specific bacteria present in nodulated roots. To study the physiological response of mung bean ( Vigna radiata L. ), an experiment was conducted at Barani Agricultural Research Station, Fatehjang to examine five Mungbean genotypes viz., AZRI Mung 2006, NM 2006, Chakwal Mung 2006, Chakwal Mung 97 and NCM 209 under normal and late sowing dates. Data on mungbean growth, development and grain yield were recorded from twenty randomly selected plants. Among all these varieties, AZRI-Mung 2006 ranked first in terms of yield (715.28 kg/ha) followed by Chakwal Mung 2006 (678.12 kg/ha), NM-2006 (632.45 kg/ha), Chakwal Mung 97 (598.11 kg/ha) and NCM-209 (537.29 kg/ha). Maximum grain yield 687.11 kg/ha was obtained under normal condition as compared to 411.43 kg/ha under late sowing condition. AZRI-Mung 2006 was found consistent under both planting condition while NCM-209 showed sensitivity under late sowing condition.

Ali M, Gupta S. 2012. Carrying capacity of indian agriculture: Pulse crops. Current Science 102, 874-881.

Algan N, Celen AE. 2011. Evaluation of mungbean (Vignaradiata L.) as green manure in Aegean conditions in terms of soil nutrition under different sowing dates. African Journal of Agricultural Research 6, 1744-1749. http://dx.doi.org/10.5897/AJAR10.486

Brar NS, Kumar A, Kumar B. 2017. Performance of summer mungbean (Vignaradiata L.) under different sowing time at farmersfield. International Journal Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences 6(8), 2211-2219. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2017.608.260

Farz RA, Iqbal J, Bakhsh MAAHA. 2006. Effect of sowing dates and planting pattern on growth and yield of mungbean (Vignaradiata L.). Cv. M-6. International Journal Agriculture and Biology 8, 63-65.

Miah MAK, Anwar MP, Begum M, JuriamiAS Islam MA. 2009. Influence of sowing date on growth and yield of summer mungbean varieties. Journal Agriculture & Social Science 5, 73-76.

Patil BL, Hegde VS, Saliath PM. 2003.Studies on genetic divergence over stress and non-stress environment in mungbean. Indian Journal of Geneticsand Plant Breeding 63, 76-77.

Reddy AA. 2009. Pulses production technology. Status and way forward. Economic & Political Weekly 44, 73-80.

Sadeghipour O. 2008. Response of mungbean varieties to different sowing dates. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences 11, 2048-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.3923/pjbs.2008.2048.2050

Sarkar MAR, Kabir MH, Begum M, Salam MA. 2004. Yield performance of mungbean as affected by planting date, variety and plant density. Journalof Agronomy 3, 18-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.3923/ja.2004.18.24

Singh, Guriqbal, Sekhan HS, Hari Ram, Gill KK, Sharma P. 2010. Effect of date of sowing on nodulation, growth, thermal requirement and grain yield of kharifmungbean genotypes. Journal of Food Legumes 23, 132-134.

Singh AK, Kumar P, Chandra N. 2013. Studies on seed production of mungbean (Vignaradiate) sown at different dates. Journal of Environmental Biology 34, 1007-1011.

Soomro NA. 2003. Response of mungbean genotypes to different dates of sowing in kharif season under rainfed condition. Asian Journalof Plant Sciences 2, 377-379. http://dx.doi.org/10.3923/ajps.2003.377.379

Related Articles

Anti-proliferative potential of seed derived proteins from Vitis vinifera and Mangifera indica

Hareeshthulasi, V. Vinotha, R. Rajakumar*, Int. J. Biosci. 28(4), 129-137, April 2026.

Valorisation of table waste and fruit waste by black soldiers (Ullicens hermetica)

Ayaba Adéline Hounnou, Vanessa Chabi, Jomini Marc Sène Alitonou, Franck Sokenou, Mickael Vitus Martin Kpessou Saïzonou, Fidèle Paul Tchobo, Guy Alain Alitonou*, Int. J. Biosci. 28(4), 123-128, April 2026.

Murraya koenigii (Linn.) Spreng.: An opulent source of fatty acid

Shahin Aziz*, Int. J. Biosci. 28(4), 116-122, April 2026.

Design and architecture of an IoT-enabled bamboo resource management system: Data-driven approach for sustainable agriculture

Charlot L. Maramag*, Dorothy M. Ayuyang, Richard R. Ayuyang, Int. J. Biosci. 28(4), 107-115, April 2026.

Physicochemical and microbiological characterization of flours from the local variety of purple corn (Zea mays L.) produced and marketed in Katiola (Côte d’Ivoire)

Moumouny Traore*, N´Zebo Desiré Kouame, Pepiesin Marie Ange Melem Soro, Zamblé Bi Irié Abel Boli, Int. J. Biosci. 28(4), 98-106, April 2026.

In the shadows of governance: Exploring youth participation in local peacebuilding initiatives

Juramie R. Rubia, Benny R. Rubia, Nancy E. Aranjuez*, Int. J. Biosci. 28(4), 85-97, April 2026.

Evaluation of the agronomic performance, beta-carotene content and dry matter content of 228 sweet potatoes (Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam) genotypes in Burkina Faso

Nattan Gamsore*, Koussao Some, Djakaridja Tiama, Pauline Bationo_Kando, Int. J. Biosci. 28(4), 73-84, April 2026.

Geomatics tools for agricultural and farm disaster risk management and reduction: A survey of farmers in South-South coastal communities, Nigeria

G. O. Nwodo, O. J. Ugwu, E. U. Onah, A. Ugwuoti, E. Elijah Ebinne*, O. P. Nogheghase, S. I. Ogbaa, U. E. Ahuchaogu, T. O. Ogbuji, C. P. Owuamalam-Chidi, C. O. Osuagwu, M. O. Igwenagu, O. E. Mbakaogu, J. U. Chikaire, Int. J. Biosci. 28(4), 59-72, April 2026.