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

Paper Details

Research Paper 01/02/2020
Views (760)
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

Protein profiling and antioxidant enzymatic activity of the ethanol extract of Cocculus hirsutus (L.) W. Theob. efficacy against Rhynchophorus ferrugineus

Marimuthu Malarvizhi, Jothi Dheivasikamani Abidharini, Arthi Boro, Murugesan Loganathan, Krishnaswamy Sujatha*, ArumugamVijaya Anand, Int. J. Biosci. 28(2), 222-241, February 2026.

Impact of organic and mineral fertilizers on the growth and biomass production of amaranth (Amaranthus cruentus L.) in Burkina Faso

Sidnoma Marie Emeline Vanessa Sompougdou*, Hugues Roméo Bazié, Philippe Bayen, Caroline Bassono, Int. J. Biosci. 28(2), 210-221, February 2026.

Antimicrobial resistance profiling and molecular characterization of a multidrug-resistant Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium from poultry environments in Bangladesh

Rashna Islam, Rubaya, Jahangir Alam, Anjuman Ara Bhuyan, Md. Abdul Alim, M. M. Kamal Hossain, Mir Rowshan Akter, Md. Sagir Ahmed, Shohel Mahmud*, Int. J. Biosci. 28(2), 201-209, February 2026.

Lived experiences, psychosocial challenges and quality of life of drug surrenders

Van Ryan I. Alipoyo*, Int. J. Biosci. 28(2), 184-200, February 2026.

Evaluation of the sensorial quality of peppermint (Mentha piperita) ice cream

Iriz Klir Austria, Michael Sta. Ana, Marigen E. Toraja*, Int. J. Biosci. 28(2), 177-183, February 2026.

Epidemiology of polycystic ovary syndrome among young adult women: A cross sectional analysis

Ch. B. Praveena Devi*, S. Priya, P. Tanvi, S. Swathika, G. Bhavitha Sri, Int. J. Biosci. 28(2), 170-176, February 2026.

Comparative assessment of mixed and intercropping of lentil (Lens culinaris) and sunflower (Helianthus annuus)

Md. Shamim Ahmed*, Mohammad Tojammel Haq, Int. J. Biosci. 28(2), 151-158, February 2026.