INTERNATIONA L JOURNA L OF BUSINESS, SOCIA L AND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH

ISSN: 2309-7892, Volu me: 2, Issue: 2, Page: 86-89, October-December, 2014

Review Paper

EVALUATION OF THE GROWTH AND YIELD PERFORMANCE OF

TWELVE MUSTARD LINES

H. M ehraj1, A.S.M . Nahiyan2, T. Taufique1, I.A. Jahan1 and AFM Jamal Uddin*1

H. Mehraj, A.S.M. Nahiyan, T . Taufique, I.A. Jahan and AFM Jamal Uddin (2014). Evaluation of the Growth and Yield
Performance of T welve Mustard Lines. Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci. Res. 2(2): 86-89. Retrieve from
http://www.ijbssr.com/currentissueview/14013056

Received Date: 25/08/2014 Acceptance Date: 03/09/2014 Published Date: 02/10/2014

Abstract
An experiment was conducted at Horticulture farm, Sher-e-Bangla A gricultural University,
Bangladesh to evaluate the growth and yield performance of mustard lines during the period
from October 2013 to M arch 2014. Twelve lines (coded from L1 to L12) were used on the
experiment using Completely Randomized Design with three replications. M aximum leaves
number (35.2/plant), number of branches (22.7/plant), photosynthetic rate (14.1 µmolm-2s-1),
number of siliquae (222.0/plant), number of seeds (1997.0/plant) and yield (5.84 g/plant, 581.7
g/plot and 3.74 t/ha) with minimum 1000-seeds weight (2.92 g) was found from L1. L7 was
found as best for seeds/siliquae (14.0) and 1000-seed weight (3.22 g). L9 was also performed
well after L1 and provided 166.0 siliquae/plant, 1659.0 seeds/plant, 4.91 g seed/plant, 489.7 g
seeds/plot and 3.26 t seeds/ha. But L1 was the best line concerning yield.

Key words: Mustard lines, growth and yield.

Introduction
Mustard belong to Cruciferae family and genus Brassica. Mustard is an important oil crop in Bangladesh
and has a remarkable demand for edib le oil that supplies more than half of the total edible o il of the
country (BBS, 2002). Seed yield in Bangladesh (0.735 t/ha) is not satisfactory compared to those in
many other countries of the world (FAO, 2002). Production potentiality of mustard can be varied with
genotypes. It is a fact that specified genotypes does not exhib it the same phenotypic characteristics in all
environmental conditions. The different genotypes, growth response varies to different environment and
their relative ranking usually differ (Eberhort and Russel, 1966) and ultimately decides the selection of
genotypes for stabilized higher yields (Finalay and Wilkinson, 1963; Eberhort and Russel, 1966 and
Perkins and Jinks, 1968). Considering these points in view, current study was undertaken to evaluate the
growth and yield performance of the mustard lines.
Materials and Methods
An experiment was conducted at Horticulture farm, Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University, Dhaka,
Bangladesh during October 2013 to March 2014. Experiment consisted twelve mustard lines coded from
L1 to L12 in Randomized Co mplete Block Design with 3 replications. The size of unit plot was 1.5 m x
1.0 m. The distance between both blocks and plots were 0.5 m. Seeds were sown in lines maintaining 30
cm line to line distance. After the germination of the seeds, seedlings were maintained 5 cm plant to
plant distance. Each of the plots contained 100 p lants. Manures and fertilizers were applied as
recommended by BARI (2011). Data were collected on plant height, leaves number, number of
branches/plant, chlorophyll content, photosynthetic rate (A), days to 50% flo wering, number of
siliquae/plant, number of seeds/siliquae, number of seeds/plant, 1000-seed weight, seed yield/plant, seed
yield/plot, seed yield/ha. Plant height, leaves number, number of branches/plant, chlorophyll content
(using SPAD-502) and photosynthetic rate (using LC pro+) were measured at 60 DAT. Collected data
were statistically analy zed using MSTAT-C co mputer package programme. Difference between
treatments was assessed by Least Significant Difference (LSD) test at 5% level of significance (Go mez
and Go mez, 1984).
Results and Discussion
Plant height: Plant height of the twelve mustard lines varied significantly. Tallest plant was found from
L2 (186.9 cm) fo llo wed by L4 (160.7 cm) wh ile shortest from L6 (53.3 cm) (Tab le 1). Chaudhry et al.

*Corresponding Authors Email: jamal4@yahoo.com

1
Department of Horticulture, Sher-e-Bangla agricultural University, Dhaka-1207, Bangladesh
2
Advanced Seed Research and Biotech Center, ACI Limited, Dhaka
Growth and Yield Performance of Twelve Mustard Lines 87

(1987) found differences in plant height of different Brassica spp. This was main ly due to genetic
expression of variety during winter season of 2006 at Dharwad, Karnataka state, India (Yadav et al.,
1994; Reddy and Avilku mar, 1997; Raj Singh et al., 2001 and Rana and Pachauri, 2001).
Leaves number: Maximu m number of leaves was found from L1 (35.2) followed by L5 (33.7) while
minimu m fro m L11 (22.9) (Table 1).
Number of branches/plant: Maximu m nu mber of branches was found from L9 (23.0/plant) which was
statistically similar with L1 (22.7/plant) and L10 (22.3/p lant) whereas minimu m fro m L7 (14.7/plant)
(Table 1). Chaudhry et al. (1987) found significant differences in branches/plant among different
varieties.
Chlorophyll content: Maximu m chlorophyll content was found from L2 (49.4%) fo llo wed by L6 (47.5%)
while minimu m fro m L3 (39.2%) (Table 1).
Photosynthetic rate (A): Maximu m photosynthetic rate was found from L1 (14.1 µmo lm-2 s -1 ) followed by
L10 (12.4 µmolm-2 s -1 )) and L9 (12.3 µmo lm-2 s -1 ) whereas min imu m fro m L7 (8.3 µmo lm-2 s -1 ) which was
statistically similar with L11 (8.4 µmo lm-2 s -1 ) (Table 1).
Days to 50% flowering: Early flowering was found fro m L3 (56.7 days) followed by L1 (58.2 days) while
late flowering was observed from L11 (78.7 days) (Table 2).
Number of siliquae/plant: Maximu m nu mber of siliquae was found from L1 (222.0/plant) followed by L9
(166.0/p lant) while min imu m fro m L11 (27.0/plant) (Table 2). Nu mber of siliquae/plant was differed
significantly fro m variety to variety (Islam et al., 1994; Rakow, 1978).
Seeds/siliquae: Maximu m number of seeds was found from L7 , L11 and L12 (14.0/siliquae) while
minimu m fro m L1 (9.0/siliquae) (Table 2). Similarly, variat ion was also found in seeds/siliquae fro m
variety to variety of mustards, rapes and canola (Jahan and Jakaria, 1997).
Number of seeds/plant: Number of seeds/plant was varied significantly among the mustard lines.
Maximu m nu mber of seeds was found from L1 (1997.0/p lant) followed by L9 (1659.0/plant) while
minimu m fro m L11 (384.3/plant) (Table 2).
Table 1. Performance of some mustard lines on some growth and physiological characters X
At 60 DAT
Mustard
Nu mber of Chlorophyll Photosynthetic
lines Plant height (cm) Leaf number
branches/plant content (%) rate (µmo lm-2 s -1 )
L1 88.1 e 35.2 a 22.7 a 46.3 c 14.1 a
L2 186.9 a 32.5 c 21.0 b 49.4 a 11.2 c
L3 148.3 c 30.8 d 19.1 c 39.2 h 10.3 d
L4 160.7 b 30.8 d 17.9 d 43.6 e 9.3 e
L5 75.0 f 33.7 b 21.1 b 40.4 g 11.3 c
L6 53.3 g 32.1 c 18.8 c 47.5 b 10.4 d
L7 140.6 d 30.6 d 14.7 f 44.4 d 8.3 f
L8 74.3 f 26.1 e 17.2 d 42.7 f 9.3 e
L9 85.7 e 30.5 d 23.0 a 44.5 d 12.3 b
L10 74.3 f 26.3 e 22.3 a 43.3 ef 12.4 b
L11 87.6 e 22.9 f 14.5 f 46.2 c 8.4 f
L12 85.6 e 30.9 d 16.4 e 43.1 ef 9.5 e
LSD0.05 3.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.3
CV% 2.2 1.6 2.40 1.04 1.65
X
In a colu mn means having similar letter(s) are statistically identical and those having dissimilar
letter(s) differ significantly as per 0.05 level of probability

htt p://www.ijbss r.com

Mehraj etal. 88

Table 2.Performance of some mustard lines on crop duration and yield related attributes X

Days to 50% Nu mber of siliquae Nu mber of seed

Mustard lines Seeds/siliquae
flowering /plant /plant
L1 58.2 k 222.0 a 9.0 f 1997.0 a
L2 63.8 i 104.3 c 11.0 d 1147.0 c
L3 56.7 l 64.3 d 12.0 c 773.7 d
L4 67.6 f 56.0 e 13.0 b 729.3 de
L5 73.7 b 104.0 c 11.0 d 1144.0 c
L6 72.9 c 52.0 f 12.0 c 625.3 g
L7 68.5 e 46.0 h 14.0 a 645.3 fg
L8 64.8 h 55.0 e 13.0 b 716.3 def
L9 62.5 j 166.0 b 10.0 e 1659.0 b
L10 65.6 g 102.7 c 11.0 d 1129.0 c
L11 78.7 a 27.3 i 14.0 a 384.3 h
L12 69.6 d 49.0 g 14.0 a 687.3 efg
LSD0.05 0.7 2.7 0.1 72.9
CV% 0.6 1.8 0.1 4.4
X
In a column means having similar letter(s) are statistically identical and those having dissimilar
letter(s) differ significantly as per 0.05 level of probability

1000-seed weight: 1000-seed weight of mustard lines showed significant variation. However, maximu m
1000-seed weight was found fro m L7 , L11 and L12 (3.22 g ) while minimu m fro m L1 (2.92 g) (Table 3).
1000-seed weight was varied fro m variety to variety (Mondal and Wahhab, 2001; Munir and McNeilly,
1992). Maximu m 1000-seed weight in L7 , L11 and L12 may be attributed for having better source-sink
relationship and its less number of utilization units as these were produce less number of seeds/plant.
Seed yield: Seed yield/plant, yield/plot and yield/ha of twelve mustard lines were varied significantly.
Maximu m y ield was found from L1 (5.84 g/plant, 581.7 g/plot and 3.74 t/ha) followed by L9 (4.91
g/plant, 489.7 g/plot and 3.26 t/ha) whereas minimu m fro m L11 (1.89 g/plant, 123.6 g/plot and 0.82 t/ha)
(Table 3). Varietals differences in mustard cultivars were also reported by Tomar et al. (2010). Similar
increase in seed yield with different varieties have also been reported by Yadav et al. (1994), Sharma et
al. (1997), Raj Singh et al. (2001) and Rana and Pachauri (2001). L1 showed the higher seed yield and
that was due to significantly higher nu mber o f branches/plant (22.7) and siliquae/plant (222.0). Seed
yield was increased when the number of branches/plant and siliquae/plant was increased (Yadav et al.,
1994; Reddy and Avilku mar, 1997; Sharma et al., 1997 and Raj Singh et al., 2001).
Table 3.Performance of some mustard lines on yield related attributes and yield

Mustard 1000-seed weight

Yield (g )/plant Seed Yield (g)/plot Seed Yield (t/ha)
lines (g)
L1 2.92 h 5.84 a 581.7 a 3.74 a
L2 2.95 f 3.39 c 337.4 c 2.24 c
L3 2.95 f 2.28 d 227.7 d 1.52 d
L4 3.12 b 2.28 d 226.9 d 1.51 d
L5 2.93 g 3.36 c 334.3 c 2.23 c
L6 3.02 c 1.89 e 188.4 e 1.26 e
L7 3.22 a 2.08 de 207.3 de 1.38 de
L8 3.12 b 2.24 d 222.9 d 1.48 d
L9 2.96 e 4.91 b 489.7 b 3.26 b
L10 3.00 d 3.39 c 337.8 c 2.25 c
L11 3.22 a 1.24 f 123.6 f 0.82 f
L12 3.22 a 2.21 d 220.8 d 1.47 d
LSD0.05 0.002 0.3 25.8 0.2
CV% 0.010 5.2 5.2 6.2
X
In a colu mn means having similar letter(s) are statistically identical and those having dissimilar
letter(s) differ significantly as per 0.05 level of probability
Conclusion
Finally it can be concluded that L1 (Line 1) was yielded mo re than reco mmended variet ies of our country
and L9 were also performed well. So, L1 and L9 may be used in the farmer’s field after further trial.

htt p://www.ijbss r.com

Growth and Yield Performance of Twelve Mustard Lines 89

References
Chaudhry, B.D., S.K. Thukrai, D.P. Singh and A. Kumar, 1987. Research and Development Reporter,
Batl. Agric. Res. Pro ject, Haryan Agric. Un iv. Hissar, India. 42: 125– 9.
Eberhort, S.A. and W.A. Russel. 1966. Stability parameters for co mparing variet ies. Crop Sci. 6: 36-40.
FAO. 2002. FA O Production Year Book. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations,
Ro me 00100, Italy.
Finalay, K.W. and G.N. Wilkinson. 1963. The analysis of adaptation in plant breeding programme. Aust.
J. Agric. Res. 4: 742-754.
Go mez, K.A. and A.A. Go mez. 1984. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. 2nd edn. John
Wiley and Sons. New York.: 680.
Islam, N., M. Choudhury and M.R. Karim. 1994. Effects of sowing dates on growth and development of
mustard and rapes. Progress Agric. 59: 23-29.
Jahan, M.H. and A.K.M. Zakaria. 1997. Growth and yield performance of different varieties of rapeseed,
mustard and canola in level in Barind tract. Progress. Agric. 76(5): 241-246.
Mondal, M.R.I. and M.A. Wahhab. 2001. Production technology of oilseeds. Oilseed Res. Centre,
Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute, Joydevpur, Gazipur. pp: 6-24.
Munir. M. and T. McNielly, 1992. Co mparison of varieties in yield and yield co mponents in forage and
winter o ilseed rape. Pakistan J. Agric. Res. 13: 289– 92.
Perkins, M. Jean and Jinks J.L. 1968, Env iron mental and genotype environmental co mponents of
variability. Heredity. 23: 339-356.
Raj Singh, M. Patidar and B. Singh. 2001, Response of Indian mustard cultivars to different sowing time.
Ind. J. Agron. 46(2): 292-295.
Rako w. G. 1978. Formu lat ing objectives for the breeding of swede. Fette, Seifen, Anotrich mitted, 80:
93– 99.
Rana, D.S. and D.K. Pachauri. 2001, Sensitivity of zero erucic acid genotypes of Oleiferous Brassica to
plant population and planting geometry. Ind. J. Agron. 46(4): 736-740.
Reddy, M.D. and K. Avilku mar. 1997. Effect of dates of sowing on performance of mustard varieties in
non-traditional areas of Andhra Pradesh. J. Oilseeds Res. 14(2): 207-209.
Sharma, J.K., D.S. Ram Mohan Rao and D.P. Singh. 1997, Effect of crop geo metry and nitrogen on yield
and attributes of Brassica species. Ind. J. Agron. 42(2): 357-360.
Tomar, S.S., R.J. Tiwari and N.S. Yadav. 2010. Effect of fertility levels and varieties on yield, quality
and balance sheet of nutrients in mustard. 75th Annual Convention of Indian Society of Soil
Science, (November 14 -17) pp137.
Yadav, R.N., Suraj Bhan and S.K. Uttam. 1994. Yield and moisture use efficiency of mustard in relation
to sowing date, variety and spacing in rainfed lands of central Uttara Pradesh. Ind. J. Soil Cons.
22(3): 29-32.

htt p://www.ijbss r.com