INDIAN SOCIETY OF PULSES RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

(Regn. No. 877)

The Indian Society of Pulses Research and The contribution to the Journal, except in case of
Development (ISPRD) was founded in April 1987 with the invited articles, is open to the members of the Society
following objectives:
only. Any non-member submitting a manuscript will be
 To advance the cause of pulses research
 To promote research and development, teaching and
required to become annual member. Members will be
extension activities in pulses entitled to receive the Journal and other communications
 To facilitate close association among pulse workers issued by the Society.
in India and abroad
 To publish “Journal of Food Legumes” which is the Renewal of subscription should be done in January
official publication of the Society, published four times each year. If the subscription is not received by February
a year. 15, the membership would stand cancelled. The
Membership : Any person in India and abroad interested membership can be revived by paying readmission fee of
in pulses research and development shall be eligible for ` 50/-. Membership fee drawn in favour of Treasurer,
membership of the Society by becoming ordinary, life or
corporate member by paying respective membership fee. Indian Society of Pulses Research and Development,
through D.D. may be sent to the Treasurer, Indian
Membership Fee Indian (`) Foreign (US $)
Ordinary (Annual) 500 40 Society of Pulses Research and Development, ICAR-
Life Member 5000 400 Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur
Admission Fee 50 10
Library/ Institution 5000 400 208 024, India. In case of outstation cheques, an extra
Corporate Member 7500 - amount of ` 50/- may be paid as clearance charges.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL : 2017-2020

Chief Patron Patron
Dr Trilochan Mohapatra Dr A K Singh
Co-patron
Dr NP Singh
President Vice President
Dr NP Singh Dr Guriqbal Singh
Secretary
Dr PK Katiyar
Joint Secretary Treasurer
Dr Jitendra Kumar Dr RK Mishra

Councillors

Zone I : Dr Brij Nandan, SKUAST, Samba (J&K) Zone V : Dr DK Patil, Badnapur

Zone II : Dr C Bharadwaj, IARI, New Delhi Zone VI : Dr P Jagan Mohan Rao, RARS, Warangal
Zone III : Dr Rajib Nath, BCKV, Kalyani Zone VII : Dr P Jayamani, TNAU, Coimbatore
Zone IV : Dr Baldev Ram, AU, Kota Zone VIII: Dr AK Parihar, ICAR-IIPR, Kanpur

Editor-in-Chief
Dr CS Praharaj

Editors
Dr Puran Gaur, ICRISAT, Hyderabad Dr Aditya Pratap, ICAR-IIPR, Kanpur
Dr Shiv Kumar, ICARDA, Morocco Dr Narendra Kumar, ICAR-IIPR, Kanpur
Dr BB Singh, GBPUA&T, Pantnagar Dr Naimuddin, ICAR-IIPR, Kanpur
Dr DK Agarwal, ICAR-IISS, Mau Dr Meenaal Rathore, ICAR-IIPR, Kanpur
Dr Sarvajeet Singh, PAU, Ludhiana Dr Archana Singh, ICAR-IIPR Regional Station, Bhopal
Dr J Souframanian, BARC Dr Abhishek Bohra, ICAR-IIPR, Kanpur
 Journal of Food Legumes
(Formerly Indian Journal of Pulses Research)

Vol. 32 (3) July-September, 2019

CONTENTS
RESEARCH PAPERS
1. Heterosis and nature of gene action for yield and its components in faba bean (Vicia faba L.) 139
Kanhaiya Lal, CB Yadav, Shiva Nath and DK Dwivedi

2. Exploiting combining ability in CGMS based pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan L.) hybrids 144
Sudhir Kumar, PK Singh, CV Sameer Kumar and KB Saxena

3. Combining ability analysis and gene action estimates of selected physiological traits under heat stress in
chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) 147
Uday Chand Jha, Paresh Chandra Kole and Narendra Pratap Singh

4. Effect of storage condition and its duration on seed quality of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) 152
Amrit Lamichaney, Vaibhav Kumar, PK Katiyar and NP Singh

5. Studies on seed development and maturation in relation to yield and seed vigour in fieldpea (Pisum sativum L.) 157
RDS Yadav, Vineet Dheer, PK Katiyar and Pradeep Yadav

6. Nutrient management in pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.] + cereal intercropping system under rainfed
environment of Bundelkhand region of India 161
AK Tripathi, HS Kushwaha, Dipali Singh and CS Praharaj

7. Evaluation of pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millisp.] genotypes against root-knot nematode
(Meloidogyne javanica) 170
Devindrappa, Satheesh Naik SJ, Abhishek Bohra, Bansa Singh and NP Singh

8. Elucidation of host resistance for chickpea wilt (Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceris) 174
PR Saabale, Manju Nath L, Shripad Bhat, Revanappa S Biradar, RK Mishra, Naimuddin,
Ram G Chaudhary, AK Srivastava1, SK Chaturvedi1 and NP Singh

9. Effect of induced meteorological changes due to staggered planting on pest incidence in chickpea 178
T Pavani, T Ramesh Babu, D Sridevi, K Radhika and HC Sharma

10. Growth and decomposition analysis of chickpea production in India 186

Hemant Kumar, Shripad Bhatt, Devraj and Rajesh Kumar
SHORT COMMUNICATIONS
11. Path coefficient analysis of yield attributes in mungbean [Vigna radiata (L.) Wilezek] 189
Prabhat Singh and Manoj Katiyar

12. Performance of urdbean [Vigna mungo (L.) Hepper] as influenced by land configuration
and foliar supplementation 191
Ghanshyam Baggad and RP Singh
13. Response of zero-till lentil (Lens culinaris Medik) to residual effect of planting systems, nitrogen and weed
management practices in rice 194
Suryendra Singh, S Elamathi, Anandhi P, Lalita Prakash Masih, Abeysingha NS and Gautam Ghosh

14. Monitoring of adult moth populations of gram pod borer (Helicoverpa armigera Hubner) in chickpea
using pheromone trap 200
Saxena Narayan, PS Singh and RS Meena

15. Enhancing yield of lentil by integrating various technologies under biotic stress and nutrient deficient soil 202
Nishant Prakash, Shipra Karn Nadeem Akhtar, Nimita Kandwal and Parul Barteja

16. Nutrient and pest management practices for enhancing growth and yield of pigeonpea (Cajanas cajan L.) 206
VT Jadhav and NS Kute

List of Referees for Vol. 32(3) 208

Journal of Food Legumes 32(3): 139-143, 2019
Heterosis and nature of gene action for yield and its components in faba bean
(Vicia faba L.)
KANHAIYA LAL, CB YADAV, SHIVA NATH and DK DWIVEDI
Narendra Deva University of Agriculture and Technology, Kumarganj, Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh, India;
Email: kanhaiya_vis04@yahoo.co.in
(Received : March 5, 2019; Accepted : May 26, 2019)
ABSTRACT
Fifteen diverse lines of faba bean (10 exotic, 2 indigenous
and 3 improved lines) were crossed with 3 testers to generate
45 hybrids during winter season 2016-17. These F 1’s
alongwith their 18 parents and two checks were evaluated at
Students’ Instructional Farm of Narendra Deva University
of Agriculture and Technology, Kumarganj, Ayodhya (Uttar
Pradesh) during winter season Rabi 2017-18 in yield trials
to study the heterosis and nature of gene action for protein
content, earliness, yield and yield components traits. Mean
squares of genotypes were highly significant for all the traits.
The results showed that the majority of crosses exhibited
significant heterosis in both the directions over better parent
and standard varieties (HFB 1 and Vikrant) for all the studied
traits. The results indicated that the magnitude of additive
genetic variance (ó2A) were positive and lower than those of
non-additive (ó2D) one for all the studied traits except plant
height indicating that non additive gene action played a
major role in the inheritance of different traits. The broad
sense heritability estimates (h 2bs ) were more than their
corresponding narrow sense heritability (h2ns %) for all the
traits. Highly significant and positive gca effects for grain
yield per plant were recorded by HB 10, HB 50, EC 454751
and EC 301470. The eleven crosses having positive and
desirable sca effects for grain yield and some of its component
traits merit attention in breeding programmes for
exploitation as hybrid cultivars of faba bean.
Key words: Fababean, Gene action, General combining ability,
Heterosis, Specific combining ability
Faba bean (Vicia faba L.) is one of the most important
pulse crops. Currently, faba bean is cultivated in more than
60 countries of the world. The world production of faba
bean was 4.84 million tons from an area of 2.46 million ha in
the year 2017. It plays an important role in world agriculture
due to the high protein content, its ability to fix atmospheric
nitrogen and its capacity to grow and yield well on marginal
lands. The heterosisandcombining ability provide important
information for improving seed yield and contributing traits
in faba bean. Superiority of hybrids over the better parent
and standard varieties for grain yield and its attributes are
associated with the magnitude of heterotic effects in
important yield attributes, These heterotic effects may
range from significantly positive to significantly negative
for various traits according to genetic makeup of the
parents.
In this context, different magnitude of heterotic
effects were obtained by many researchers for yield and
yield contributing traits in faba bean and desirable heterotic
values over better parent and standard varieties for protein
content, early flowering and maturity;and yield contributing
traits. The objective of the present study was to study
heterosis and the types of gene action controlling the
inheritance of protein content, early flowering and maturity;
and yield component traits of faba bean.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The experimental material was based on a line x tester
set of 45 hybrids (F1s) developed by crossing 15 lines
(females) viz.; EC 243626, EC 329706, EC 301470, EC 454751,
EC 263620, EC 5873, EC 10719, EC 329627, EC 25085, HB 10,
HB 30, HB 50, IC 598958, IC 374731 and EC 10845 with 3
testers (males) viz., DFB 14-1, HB 09-15 and HB 09-16. The
45 F1’s alongwith their parents including two checks, HFB1
and Vikrant were evaluated in randomized complete block
design with three replications during Rabi 2017-18. Each
plot consisted of a single row of 3 m length with inter and
intra row spacing of 30 cm and 10 cm, respectively. The
sowing was done on 26th November, 2017. The observations
were recorded on five randomly selected competitive plants
of a genotype in a plot in each replication for twelve
characters. The combining ability analysis was carried out
following line x tester mating design outlined by
Kempthorne (1957) and further elaborated by Arunachalam
(1974). Line × tester analysis was used to estimate general
combining ability and specific combining ability variances
and their effects. Average degree of dominance was
calculated using formula given by Kempthorne and Curnow
(1961).Predictability ratio was calculated by the formula
proposed by Baker (1978) and heritability in narrow sense
(h2ns) was calculated as suggested by Kempthorne (1957).
The heterosis was computed as per cent increase or
decrease of the mean values of crosses (F1’s) over better
parent (heterobeltiosis) and standard variety (Standard
heterosis).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Genotypic variations: The mean squares due to treatments
were highly significant for all the twelve characters
indicating considerable variability among the treatments
for all the characters studied. These results are in harmony
140 Journal of Food Legumes 32(3), 2019
with those obtained by Ibrahim 2010 and Obiadalla-Ali
et al. 2013
Heterotic effects: A wide range of variation in the estimates
of heterobeltiosis and standard heterosis in positive and
negative direction was observed for grain yield per plant.
In case of grain yield per plant, heterobeltiosis ranged from
-35.75 to 100.74 per cent and standard heterosis varied from
-35.10 to 46.30 per cent over SV1 (HFB 1) and from -33.26 to
50.46 per cent over SV2 (Vikrant). Sixteen crosses exhibited
positive and significant heterosis over BP, nineteen crosses
exhibited positive and significant heterosis over both SV­1
and SV2. The best ten cross combinations were HB 30 x HB
09-15 (100.74 %), EC 243626 x HB 09-16 (63.82 %), HB 10 x
HB 09-16 (61.69 %), HB 10 x HB 09-15 (61.30 %), EC 454751
x DFB 14-1 (43.09 %), EC 454751 x HB 09-16 (40.72 %), HB 30
x DFB 14-1 (39.49 %), HB 10 x DFB 14-1 (38.54 %), EC 329706
x HB 09-16 (37.37 %), EC 454751 x HB 09-15 (28.04 %) over
BP. The top five crosses for standard heterosis over SV1
were EC 243626 x HB 09-16 (46.30 %), HB 30 x HB 09-15
(45.12 %), HB 50 x HB 09-15 (41.28 %), HB 10 x HB 09-16
(40.29 %) and HB 10 x HB 09-15 (39.95 %). The best five
cross combinations over SV2 were EC 243626 x HB 09-16
(50.46 %), HB 30 x HB 09-15 (49.25 %), HB 50 x HB 09-15
(45.30 %), HB 10 x HB 09-16 (44.28 %) and HB 10 x HB 09-15
(43.93 %). Relationship of positive and significant standard
heterosis over SV1 (HFB 1) and SV2 (Vikrant) for grain yield
per plant with standard heterosis for other characters have
been presented in Table 4.
El-Harty et al. 2007 reported significant and positive
better parent heterosis for number of branches, number of
pods, number of seeds, 100-seed weight and seed yield per
plant. He concluded that the heterotic effects for seed yield
per plant was the effect of heterotic effects in the yield
component traits. Alghamdi, 2009 reported significant
positive heterosis over better parent for plant height,
number of pods per plant, number of seeds per plant, and
seed yield per plant. Ibrahim, 2010 also found positive and
significant heterosis over better parent for both seed yield
and 100-seed weight. Significantly negative heterosis was
expressed for 100-seed weight and seed protein content as
reported by Obiadalla-Ali et al. 2013. Zeinab and El-Emam,
2013 reported negative and significant better parent
heterosis in plant height and 100-seed weight. El-Banna
et al. 2014 reported significant negative better parent
heterotic effects for number of days to flowering and
number of days to maturity. They also found highly
significant positive heterotic effects over better parents
for plant height, number of branches per plant, number of
pods per plant, number of seeds per plant,100-seed weight
and seed yield.
It was also noted that higher heterosis over better-
parent was found in some lower yielding crosses when
compared to other crosses which have displayed high yield
(Table 2 and 3). This suggested that while selecting the
best hybrid, besides the heterotic response over better-
parent, the mean performance of the crosses should also
be given due to consideration. Since, heterosis estimate
results from F1-BP and F1-SV and depends more or less on
the mean of the parents in question, there is every
possibility of getting a cross with lower mean performance
but high heterotic response, in case the parental
performance is very poor. On the contrary, there can be a
cross with high mean performance but low heterosis in
case parental performance is also high. The mean
performance being the realized value and the heterotic
response being an estimate, the former should be given
due consideration while making selection of cross
combinations especially when objective is to identify a
hybrid for commercial cultivation as in present case. In this
context, the most desirable crosses showing high mean
performance and high and significant heterosis over better
parent and standard varieties for grain yield per plant were
EC 243626 x HB 09-16, HB 30 x HB 09-15, HB 50 x HB 09-15,
HB 10 x HB 09-16, HB 10 x HB 09-15. EC 454751 x DFB 14-1,
EC 454751 x HB 09-16, EC 301470 x HB 09-15, HB 50 x HB 09-
16 and EC 329706 x HB 09-16 for faba bean as listed in Table
5. These crosses merit further testing and evaluation in
large plot size to validate their stable performance at on-
station for recommendation as hybrid cultivars of faba
bean.
Gene action and components of genetic variance:The
mean squares due to replications appeared non- significant
for all the traits. The mean squares due to testers emerged
non-significant for all the characters under study. The
variance due to lines was found to be non- significant for
all the characters except plant height, number of pods per
plant, biological yield per plant and grain yield per plant.
The mean squares due to lines x testers’ interactions,
representing importance of specific combining ability and
non-additive gene effects, were found to be highly
significant for all the twelve characters under study.This
suggests predominant role of non-additive gene effects
represented by specific combining ability variances for all
the characters (Table 1).
The estimates of sca variance were higher than the
corresponding estimates of gcavariance for all the traits.
The values of average degree of dominance were more than
unity(>1) revealing over dominance for all the characters
except plant height. The predictability ratio was lesser than
one for all the characters indicated the predominance of
non-additive gene action. The values of average degree of
dominance, more than unity (>1) revealing over dominance
have also been reported by Obiadalla-Ali et al. 2013 for
days to the 50 per cent flowering, days to the 50 per cent
maturity, plant height, number of branches per plant, pod
setting percentage, total dry seed, number of pods per plant,
pod filling percentage and 100-seed weight. Similar findings
have also been reported by Toker (2009). Obiadalla-Ali
et al. 2013 also reported that sca variances were greater for
 Lal et al. : Heterosis and nature of gene action for yield in Faba bean
number of branches per plant, seed yield and number of
pods per plant which indicated the preponderance of non-
additive gene action. Ibrahim, 2010 also reported non-
additive gene action for seed yield per plant.
The estimates of heritability in narrow sense (h 2n)
have been classified by Robinson, 1966 into three
categories viz., high (>30%), medium (<30->10) and low
(<10). High estimates of heritability in narrow sense were
found for plant height, number of pods per plant, grain
yield per plant, harvest index and biological yield per plant,
while medium estimate of heritability in narrow sense were
recorded for pod length, number of branches per plant,
days to maturity, number of seeds per pod, 100-seed weight
and days to 50 per cent flowering. The low estimate of
heritability was recorded for protein content. Low estimates
of genetic advance were recorded for all the characters
studied.
The little role of additive gene effects of fixable nature
for grain yield and most of other yield components in the
present study suggested that these traits are not amenable
to improvement through selection even in early generations.
This indicated that considerable improvement in status of
grain yield and important yield attributes in faba bean cannot
be achieved by following conventional breeding procedures
normally used in often cross-pollinated crops leading to
development of inbred lines. The predominance of non-
additive gene effects representing non-fixable dominance
genetic variance indicated that maintenance of
heterozygosity would be highly fruitful for improving the
characters. Hence, the suitable breeding strategy for
attaining high yield would be the full or partial exploitation
of heterosis through development of hybrid, synthetic or
composite cultivars. Since, the technology for development
of faba bean hybrids for commercial purposes is being
widely and successfully used in different countries, it is
recommended to explore possibility of isolating high
yielding commercial hybrids utilizing the materials of the
present investigation.
General combining ability effects: The significant and
positive gca effects for grain yield per plant were exhibited
by four lines, HB 10 (3.02), HB 50 (2.88), EC 454751 (2.54)
and EC 301470 (1.80). The parent with highest gca effects
for grain yield, HB 10, also showed significant gca effects
in desirable direction for plant height, number of branches
per plant, number of pods per plant, biological yield per
plant and 100-seed weight. Testers, HB 09-16 and HB 09-15
showed good general combining ability for grain yield per
plant. Tester, HB 09-16 also exhibited significant and positive
gca effect for plant height, pod length, number of seeds
per pod, harvest index and 100-seed weight.The six parents
showing positive and significant gca effects for grain yield
and other important traits may serve as valuable parents
for hybridization programme or multiple crossing programme
for obtaining high yielding hybrid varieties or transgressive
141
segregants for developing high yielding varieties of faba
bean. Most of the lines showing significant positive gca
effects for grain yield per plant also exhibited positive and
significant gca effects for some of the important yield
components traits. This indicated that the significant gca
effects for grain yield in positive direction resulted from
similar gca effects of some other yield components
suggesting that the combining ability for grain yield was
influenced by the combining ability of its components.
Therefore, simultaneous improvement in important yield
components and other associated traits along with grain
yield may be better approach for raising yield potential in
faba bean.
Specific combining ability effects: In present study, several
crosses exhibited significant and desirable sca effects for
one or more characters. Out of forty five crosses, eleven
emerged with positive and significant sca effects for grain
yield per plant. The top ten crosses EC 243626 x HB 09-16,
HB 30 x HB 09-15, EC 329627 x HB 09-15, EC 263620 x HB
09-16, EC 301470 x DFB 14-1, EC 10845 x HB 09-16, EC
454751 x DFB 14-1, EC 25085 x DFB 14-1, IC 598958 x HB 9-
16 and EC 329706 x HB 9-16 showed significant and positive
sca effects for grain yield per plant as well as some other
yield components. The cross having highest positive and
significant sca effects for grain yield per plant, EC 243626 x
HB 09-16 also recorded significant sca effects in desirable
direction for days to 50 per cent flowering, days to maturity,
plant height, number of branches per plant, number of pods
per plant, pod length, biological yield per plant and harvest
index. The second ranking cross for higher positive and
significant sca effect for grain yield per plant, HB 30 x HB
09-15 showed significant and desirable sca effects for
number of podsper plant, pod length, number of seeds per
pod, biological yield per plant, harvest index and 100-seed
weight. Similarly, remaining nine crosses having significant
and positive sca effects for grain yield per plant also
possessed significant sca effects in desirable direction for
some other characters also.
The eleven crosses having positive and desirable
sca effects for grain yield and some of its component traits
merit attention in breeding programme for exploitation as
hybrid cultivars. The eleven crosses having significant and
positive sca effects for grain yield per plant also showed
positive and desirable significant sca effects for some other
characters viz., biological yield per plant, 100-seed weight,
pod length, plant height and days to 50 per cent flowering.
This suggested that manifestation of sca effects for grain
yield is related with higher sca effects for important yield
components.
In general, the crosses showing significant and
desirable sca effects were associated with better per se
performance for respective traits. However, the crosses
having high sca effects in desirable direction did not always
have high mean performance for the character in question.
142 Journal of Food Legumes 32(3), 2019

Table 1. Components of genetic variance, average degree of dominance, predictability ratio and heritability in narrow sense
and genetic advance for 12 characters in faba bean
gca sca Average degree Predictability Genetic
Characters variance variance of dominance ratio σ2A σ2 D h2 (ns) (%) Advance at
(σ2g) (σ2s) ( σ 2s/2σ 2g ) ( 2σ 2g/2σ 2 g  σ 2s) 5%
Days to 50 per cent flowering 0.1965 2.0433** 2.2804 0.1613 0.3929 2.0433 13.6580 0.4772
Days to maturity 0.2393* 2.0833** 2.0864 0.1868 0.4786 2.0833 15.3748 0.5588
Plant height (cm) 17.3070** 32.9687** 0.9759 0.5122 34.6139 32.9687 50.5132 8.6138
Number of branches per plant 0.0310 0.3220** 2.2797 0.1614 0.0620 0.3220 15.5907 0.2025
Number of pods per plant 1.4293** 4.5738** 1.2649 0.3846 2.8586 4.5738 36.7101 2.1103
Pod length (cm) 0.0578 0.5523** 2.1862 0.1730 0.1156 0.5523 16.7910 0.2869
Number of seeds per pod 0.0067 0.0677** 2.2431 0.1658 0.0135 0.0677 14.8862 0.0922
Biological yield per plant (g) 4.9512** 20.7524** 1.4476 0.3230 9.9025 20.7524 31.0214 3.6105
Harvest index (%) 1.6820** 5.7698** 1.3096 0.3683 3.3641 5.7698 33.7213 2.1941
100-seed weight (g) 0.2931 3.4474** 2.4252 0.1453 0.5861 3.4474 14.3709 0.5979
Protein content (%) 0.0997 8.5479** 6.5484 0.0228 0.1993 8.5479 2.2639 0.1384
Grain yield per plant (g) 1.2762** 4.3182** 1.3007 0.3715 2.5523 4.3182 35.0059 1.9472
*, ** Significant at 5% and 1% probability levels, respectively

Table 2. Relationship of positive heterobeltiosis for grain yield per plant with desirable heterobeltiosis of other characters
Characters Grain Days to Days to Plant Branches Pods per Pod Seeds Biological Harvest 100- Protein
yield per 50% maturity height per plant plant length per pod yield per Index seed content
plant flowering (cm) (cm) plant (g) (%) weight (%)
(g)
Crosses
HB 30 x HB 9-15 100.74 0 0 + + + 0 + + + 0 -
EC 243626 x HB 9-16 63.82 - - + + + + 0 + + - -
HB 10 x HB 9-16 61.69 + + + + + - 0 + 0 + -
HB 10 x HB 9-15 61.30 0 0 + + + + + + + - 0
EC 454751 x DFB 14-1 43.09 0 0 + 0 + 0 0 + + + +
EC 454751 x HB 9-16 40.72 - - + 0 + 0 0 + + - -
HB 30 x DFB 14-1 39.49 - - + + + - 0 + - 0 -
HB 10 x DFB 14-1 38.54 0 0 + + + 0 0 + 0 - +
EC 329706 x HB 9-16 37.37 + 0 + + + - 0 + 0 + 0
EC 454751 x HB 9-15 28.04 0 0 + - + 0 - + 0 - -
EC 329627 x HB 9-15 26.00 - - - 0 + - - + + - -
EC 301470 x HB 9-15 25.91 0 - 0 + + - 0 + + - +
EC 263620 x HB 9-16 25.62 0 0 - 0 0 + + 0 + - -
EC 301470 x DFB 14-1 23.38 0 0 + 0 + - 0 + + - -
HB 50 x HB 9-15 22.87 0 0 + + + - - + 0 - 0
Where + = Significant and positive heterosis, - = Significant and negative heterosis, 0 = Non-significant heterosis.

Table 3. Relationship of positive and significant standard heterosis over SV1 (HFB 1) and SV2 (Vikrant) for grain yield per
plant with standard heterosis for other characters
Characters Grain Days to Days to Plant Branches Pods Pod Seeds per Biological Harvest 100-seed Protein
yield per 50% maturity height per plant per length pod yield per Index weight content
plant flowering (cm) plant (cm) plant (g) (%) (g) (%)
Crosses
SV1 (HFB 1)
EC 243626 x HB 9-16 46.30 - - + + + + + + + - -
HB 30 x HB 9-15 45.12 0 0 + + + + + + + + 0
HB 50 x HB 9-15 41.28 0 0 + + + 0 0 + + - 0
HB 10 x HB 9-16 40.29 0 0 + + + 0 0 + 0 + -
HB 10 x HB 9-15 39.95 + 0 + + + + + + + 0 -
SV2 (Vikrant)
EC 243626 x HB 9-16 50.46 - - + + + + 0 + + 0 -
HB 30 x HB 9-15 49.25 + 0 + + + + 0 + + + -
HB 50 x HB 9-15 45.30 0 0 + + + 0 - + + 0 0
HB 10 x HB 9-16 44.28 + 0 + + + 0 0 + 0 + -
HB 10 x HB 9-15 43.93 + 0 + + + + 0 + + + -
Where, + = Significant and positive heterosis, - = Significant and negative heterosis, 0 = Non-significant heterosis.
 Lal et al. : Heterosis and nature of gene action for yield in Faba bean
Thus, the sca effect of the crosses may not be directly
related to their per se performance. This may be attributed
to the fact that per se performance is a realized value whereas
sca effect is an estimate of F1 performance over parental
one. Therefore, both per se performance along with sca
effects should be considered for evaluating the superiority
of a cross, although the former may be more important if
development of F1 hybrids is the ultimate objective.
The results revealed that the crosses exhibiting high
order of significant and desirable sca effects for different
characters involved parents having all types of
combinations of gca effects such as high × high (H × H),
high × average (H × A), high × low (H × L), average ×
average (A × A), average × low (A × L) and low × low (L × L)
general combiner parents. The foregoing observation
clearly indicated that there was no particular relationship
between positive and significant sca effects of crosses with
gca effects of their parents for the characters under study.
Farag, 2007have also found that crosses having high order
of positive sca effects for grain yield resulted from parents
having high x high as well as high x low gca effects for
grain yield.
The most desirable crosses showing high mean
performance alongwith high and significant heterobeltiosis
and standard heterosis for grain yield per plant wereEC
243626 x HB 9-16, HB 30 x HB 9-15, HB 50 x HB 9-15, HB 10
x HB 9-16 and HB 10 x HB 9-15. The cross, EC 243626 x HB
9-16, showed highest mean performance (17.28 g),
heterobeltiosis (63.82 %), standard heterosis over SV1 (46.30
%) and SV2 (50.46 %) for grain yield per plant while highest
yielding parent, HB 50 produced mean grain yield 13.58 g.
The other four of the five crosses mentioned above also
produced higher grain yield than HB 50. The five crosses
mentioned above also showed positive sca effects for grain
yield per plant as well as some other characters. These five
crosses merit further testing and evaluation in large plot
size.
REFERENCES
Abdelmula AA. 2006. Combining ability analysis for drought tolerance
in some European and Mediterranean faba bean (Vicia faba L.)
genotypes. U.K. the Journal of Agricultural Science 14(2): 207-222
Abd-Elrahman RAM, Ibrahim MA, Sabah M, Attia M and El-
Marsafawy TS. 2012. Combining ability analysis for yield and
some agronomic traits in seven faba bean genotypes, Egyptian
Journal of Plant Breeding 16(3): 135-145
Alghamdi SS. 2009. Heterosis and combining ability in a diallel cross
of 8 faba bean (Vicia faba L.) genotypes. Asian Journal of Crop
Science 1(2): 66-76
Arunachalam V. 1974. The fallacy behind the use of modified line x
tester design. Indian Journal of Genetics and Plant Breeding
34(2): 200-207
143
Ashrei AAM, Rabi EM, Shafei WWM, EL-Garhy AM and Abo-
Mostafa RA. 2014. Performance and analysis of F1and F2 diallel
crosses among six parents of faba bean. Egyptian Journal of
Plant Breeding 18(1): 125-137
BakerRJ. 1978. Issues in diallel analysis. Crop Science 18: 533-536
Bakhit BR and Abdel-Fatah BE. 2013. Gene action and molecular
markers associated with Orobanche resistance in faba bean (Vicia
faba L.) Biotechnology, 12(1): 1-13
Dhillon BS. 1975. The application of partial diallel crosses in plant
breeding: A review of Crop Improvment 8: 7-15.
El-Banna MN, Mansour SH, Nassar MAA and Ibrahim RAM. 2014.
Genetic analysis of yield, its components and earliness in some
faba bean (Vicia faba L.) crosses. Middle East Journal of
Agriculture Research 3(4): 955-961.
EL-Harty EH,Shaaban M, Omran MM and Ragheb SB. 2007.
Heterosis and genetic analysis of yield and some characters in
faba bean (Vicia faba L.). Minia Journal of Agricultural Research
and Development 27(5): 897-913.
Farag HIA and Afiah SA. 2012. Analysis of gene action in diallel
crosses among some faba bean (Vicia faba L.) genotypes under
Maryout conditions. Annals of Agricultural Science 57(1): 37-46.
Farag ST.2007. Relative importance of genetic variance for improving
broadbean (Vicia faba L). Egyptian Journal of Plant Breeding
11: 301-315
Fonseca Sand Patterson FL. 1968. Hybrid vigour in seven parent
diallel cross in common wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Crop
Science 3: 85-88.
Haridy AGH and Amein KA. 2011. The inheritance of some
agronomical traits, protein content and seed beetle (Callosobrucus
maculates Fab.) infestation in faba bean (Vicia faba L.). Australian
Journalof Basic and Applied Science 5(6): 1215-1222.
Ibrahim M and Hossam. 2010. Heterosis, combining ability and
components of genetic variance in faba bean (Vicia faba L.).
JKAU: Met., Env. & Arid Land Agric. Sci. 21(1): 35-50
Kempthorne O. 1957. An Introduction to Genetical Statistics. John
Wiley and Sons Inc. New York, pp. 468-471.
Kempthorne O and Curnow RN. 1961. The partial diallel cross.
Biometrics 17: 229-250.
Obiadalla-Ali HA,Naheif EMM, Ahmed AG and Mohamed HZE.
2013. Heterosis and nature of gene action for yield and its
components in faba bean (Vicia faba L.). Journal of Plant
Breeding and Crop Science 5(3): 34-40
Robinson HF.1966. Quantitative genetics in relation to breeding on
the centennial of mendelism. Indian Journal of Genetics and
Plant Breeding 26(A): 171-187.
Toker G. 2009. Estimates of broad-sense heritability for seed yield
and yield criteria in faba bean (Vicia faba L.). Hereditas 140(3):
222-225.
Zeinab EG and El-Emam EAA. 2013. Genetic behavior of some
yield components in four crosses of faba bean. Egyptian Journal
of Plant Breeding 17(3): 57-66
Zeinab EG and Helal AG.2014. Diallel analysis and separation of
genetic variance components in eight faba bean genotypes,
Annals of Agricultural Science 59(1): 147-154
Journal of Food Legumes 32(3): 144-146, 2019
Exploiting combining ability in CGMS based pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan L.)
hybrids
SUDHIR KUMAR1, PK SINGH2, CV SAMEER KUMAR1 and KB SAXENA1
1
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Hyderabad, Telangana, India;
2
Bihar Agricultural University, Sabour, Bihar, India; E-mail: sudhirk121@gmail.com
(Received : February 22, 2019; Accepted : June 18, 2019)
ABSTRACT
Thirty hybrids were made from 13 parents in a line x tester
mating design in order to ascertain combing ability during
kharif 2012-13 and tested in a Randomized Block Design
with two replications during kharif 2013-14. Analysis of
variance for quantitative traits revealed that all accessions
were significantly different and a wide range of variability
exists for most of the traits studied. Most promising
combinations for seed yield per plant were ICPA 2047 x ICPL
20126, ICPA 2048 x ICPL 20106, ICPA 2047 x ICPL 20108 and
ICPA 2047 x ICPL 20098. The general combining ability
revealed that among the testers, ICPL 20126 and ICPL 20108
were good general combiners for seed yield/plant. The results
also revealed that some crosses exhibited high order
significant and desirable SCA effects for different characters
involved parents having different GCA effects.
Key words: CGMS, General combining ability, Pigeonpea,
Specific combining ability
The total pulse production in India is 17.21 million
tonnes from an area of 24.78 mhaand productivity being
694 kg/ha, which is still short of the present consumption
of ~19 million tonnes and thus forcing the country to import
pulses to the tune of 1.5-2.0 million tonnes annually. The
per capita availability of pulses in the India is 28 g/day,
while WHO recommended it should be 80 g/day,
consequently most serious problem of the malnutrition
exists among the poor people. Thus, increase in
productivity of pulse crop is very essential for proper
nutrition balance. Hybrid breeding is one of those
approaches in pigeonpea which offers a great promise in
enhancing the productivity.
Pigeonpea is a unique food legume because of its
partial (20-30%) outcrossing nature, which provides an
opportunity to breed commercial hybrids. (Saxena, 2007)
reported that CGMS based pigeonpea hybrids gave 50-
100% yield advantage over the popular variety.
Combining ability analysis is frequently employed
to identify the desirable parents and crosses. Therefore, in
the present study quest was made to identify the best
combiners and desirable crosses. Line x tester analysis is
an extension of top cross method in which several testers
are used (Kempthorne, 1957) which provides information
about general and specific combining ability of parents.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The experimental materials comprised three CMS
lines (ICPA2047, ICPA 2048 and ICPA2092) and ten testers
(ICPL20093, ICPL20096, ICPL20098, ICPL20106, ICPL20108,
ICPL20111, ICPL20123, ICPL20126, ICPL20129 and
ICPL87119) obtained from International Crops Research
Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Patancheru, India.
Thirty crosses were made in a line x tester fashion in kharif,
2012-13 and corresponding 30 F1’s along with 13 parents
were grown in Randomized Block Design with two
replications during kharif, 2013-14. Each of the parents and
F1s were sown in two rows of 4 meters length with a spacing
of 75 x 30cm row to row and plant to plant. Observations on
five randomlyselected competitive plants were recorded
for days to 1st flowering, days to 50 per cent flowering,
days to maturity, plant height(cm), number of primary
branches/plant, number of secondary branches/
plant,number of pods/plant, number of grains/pod, 100-
seed weight (g), grain yield/plantand pollen viability (%).The
general combining ability (GCA) and specific combining
ability (SCA) variances were worked out as per the method
given by Kempthorne (1957).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The analysis of variance revealed highly significant
differences among the parents and hybrids for most of the
yield traits indicating large parental diversity. The mean
squires due to lines x tester interactions were found to be
highly significant for number of primary branches/plant,
number of secondary branches/plant, number of pod/
plant,number of seeds/pod,100 seed weight(g), grain yield/
plant(g), pollen fertility % and non-significant for other
characters. Variances due to lines were only significant for
100 seed weight.
General and specific combining ability: The general
combining ability (Table1) revealed that among the testers,
ICPL 20126 and ICPL 20108 were good general combiners
for seed yield/plant.Among the testers, ICPL 20126 and
ICPL 20108 exhibited negative GCA effect for days to first
flowering with highly positive significant GCA effect for
seed yield/plant.For days to maturity, ICPL 20123 had highly
significant negative GCA effect. From early maturating point
of view, among the testers ICPL 20123 had significant
negative GCA effect for days to maturating, but it showed
 Kumar et al.: Combining ability studies in CGMS based pigeonpea hybrids 145

Table 1. Estimates of general combining ability (GCA) effects

S.No Tester Days to Days to Days to Plant Primary Secondary Pods/ Seeds/ 100 seed Grain Pollen
first 50% maturity height branches/ branches/ plant pod weight yield/plant fertility
flower flowering (cm) plant plant (g) (g) (%)
1. ICPL 20093 -1.60 2.30 4.43** -13.63* -1.46 -0.97 -30.36** 0.045 0.85** -1.57 -1.00
2. ICPL 20096 1.23 -0.70 1.43 5.03 -0.93 0.12 -27.16* 0.09 0.01 -5.09 -13.41**
3. ICPL20098 0.40 -1.53 0.60 2.53 2.83** 1.59 -15.39 0.07 0.07 2.40 4.01**
4. ICPL 20106 2.40* 2.63* 1.93 5.20 -1.93 0.72 7.47 -0.04 0.29* 2.84 -0.34
5. ICPL 20108 -0.60 -1.86 -1.56 11.53 2.60* 1.39 59.30** 0.037 0.20 9.62** 6.69**
6. ICPL 20111 1.56 1.80 -0.56 5.36 1.96 0.29 29.97* -0.11 -1.32** -0.07 0.72
7. ICPL 20123 0.73 0.96 -2.56* -8.46 -0.96 -3.37** -16.32 -0.17** -0.71** -15.20** 1.12
8. ICPL 20126 -2.93** -2.03 -1.40 -0.96 -0.76 -0.006 -6.52 0.08 -0.06 11.85** 4.42**
9. ICPL 20129 -0.43 1.13 -0.40 2.70 -3.00** -0.24 -30.38* 0.08 0.37** -4.55 -7.83**
10. ICPL 87119 -0.76 -2.70* -1.90 -9.30 1.66 0.46 29.40* -0.09 0.28* -0.22 5.60**
SE(gi) 1.02 1.20 1.01 6.55 1.02 0.96 10.93 0.06 0.14 3.56 1.06
SE(gi-gj) 1.44 1.70 1.43 9.26 1.44 1.36 15.46 0.09 0.19 5.04 1.50
Lines
1. ICPB 2047 0.23 -0.78 -0.21 -5.86 -0.73 0.84 2.81 -0.05 -0.25** 2.37 1.29*
2. ICPB 2048 0.18 0.86 0.03 5.48 0.80 0.52 -5.16 0.05 0.49** -0.98 -2.13**
3. ICPB 2092 -0.41 -0.08 0.18 0.38 -0.06 -1.36* 2.34 0.004 -0.23** -1.39 0.84
SE(gi) 0.56 0.65 0.55 3.59 0.55 0.53 5.99 0.037 0.07 1.95 0.58
SE(gi-gj) 0.79 0.93 0.78 5.07 0.79 0.75 8.47 0.05 0.10 2.76 0.82

*, ** Significant at P =0.05 and P = 0.01, respectively, SE(gi) = standard error due to lines, SE(gi-gj)= standard error due to testers.

Table 2. Estimates of specific combining ability (SCA) effects

S. Cross Days to Days to Days to Plant Primary Secondary Pods/ Seeds/ 100 seed Grain Pollen
No. first 50% maturity height branches/ branches/ plant pod weight yield/plant fertility
flower flowering (cm) plant plant (g) (g) (%)
1. ICPA 2047 x ICPL 20093 -0.40 1.95 0.71 1.53 -1.16 -2.20 -4.21 -0.21 -1.33** -4.79 1.39
2. ICPA 2047 x ICPL 20096 -2.40 -3.38 0.21 6.20 0.30 -4.90** -32.54 0.20 -0.57* -6.26 0.23
3. ICPA 2047 x ICPL 20098 0.76 -3.21 3.21 6.86 6.83** 4.99** -18.04 0.29** -0.29 14.18* 3.51
4. ICPA 2047 x ICPL 20106 3.76* 6.45** 4.05** 18.70 -4.29* -4.14* -49.47** -0.07 1.13** -5.69 -5.71**
5. ICPA 2047 x ICPL 20108 -4.9** -3.71 -2.45 10.86 -2.66 2.82 84.72** -0.15 -1.01** 14.62* 2.87
6. ICPA 2047 x ICPL 20111 1.43 0.45 0.21 3.03 1.40 -0.97 -6.54 0.04 0.42 -7.39 -1.13
7. ICPA 2047 x ICPL 20123 0.93 -0.38 -4.95** -39.8** -0.63 -2.94 3.81 -0.38** 0.39 -7.76 3.22
8. ICPA 2047 x ICPL 20126 -3.23 -0.05 -2.28 -1.63 5.60** 4.69** 93.28** 0.10 -0.65** 29.87** 17.04**
9. ICPA 2047 x ICPL 20129 2.10 3.61 1.21 -0.63 -2.13 1.72 -87.25** 0.12 0.81** -9.09 -22.34**
10. ICPA 2047 x ICPL 87119 1.93 -1.71 0.05 -5.13 -3.26 0.92 16.25 0.04 0.39 -17.67** 0.90
11 ICPA 2048 x ICPL 20093 -0.18 2.30 2.46 -26.98* 1.96 0.11 37.76 0.012 0.40 6.88 13.15**
12. ICPA 2048 x ICPL 20096 2.65 1.46 1.96 -8.98 -1.47 2.14 -78.60** 0.002 1.23** -13.83* -34.15**
13. ICPA 2048 x ICPL 20098 2.98 1.13 0.80 13.01 4.69** 1.64 19.32 -0.06 -0.12 -1.46 2.63
14. ICPA 2048 x ICPL 20106 5.15** 1.30 -1.03 14.68 -0.90 1.81 26.76 0.04 0.15 20.47** 0.60
15. ICPA 2048 x ICPL 20108 -1.35 -1.53 -4.03* 10.85 2.26 0.41 1.02 0.21* 0.03 -10.84 7.40**
16. ICPA 2048 x ICPL 20111 -1.68 -1.36 1.46 17.51 -1.70 2.11 32.02 -0.02 -0.31 4.90 4.01*
17. ICPA 2048 x ICPL 20123 -0.68 2.30 -1.20 12.35 -3.83* -2.82 -44.00* -0.05 -1.57** -17.33** -1.29
18. ICPA 2048 x ICPL 20126 -3.85** -1.36 -1.70 -6.48 -6.00** -3.45* -45.20* -0.07 -0.85** 4.03 1.29
19. ICPA 2048 x ICPL 20129 -3.01 -1.20 1.96 -12.31 -6.63** -3.15 -52.07** 0.16 1.28** -4.98 -7.41**
20. ICPA 2048 x ICPL 87119 -0.01 -3.03 -0.70 -13.65 11.63** 1.18 102.9** -0.21* 0.45 12.15 13.76**
21 ICPA 2092 x ICPL 20093 -4.25** 2.58 3.65* -9.38 -5.63** -1.57 -51.71** 0.11 1.72** -2.55 -7.17**
22. ICPA 2092 x ICPL 20096 0.08 -2.75 2.31 -4.21 -4.26* 0.72 -67.08** 0.20 1.71** -7.57 -13.38**
23. ICPA 2092 x ICPL20098 0.08 -2.58 2.15 -5.55 1.70 1.76 5.77 0.008 -0.37 2.40 8.17**
24. ICPA 2092 x ICPL 20106 -0.58 1.25 -1.18 0.11 0.13 4.89** 73.25** -0.16 0.60 0.64 12.89**
25. ICPA 2092 x ICPL 20108 2.25 0.41 1.15 -6.38 4.70** -2.77 40.78* -0.02 -0.42 10.22 -0.57
26. ICPA 2092 x ICPL 20111 5.58** 5.58** -3.68* -0.38 5.96** 2.82 57.31** -0.15 -1.93** 5.69 -6.96
27. ICPA 2092 x ICPL 20123 4.75** 0.25 0.81 22.28 4.36* -3.60* 22.55 -0.12 -1.43** -14.17** 4.67*
28. ICPA 2092 x ICPL 20126 -5.75** -5.08* -4.18* -7.55 -1.86 -3.70 -32.58 0.09 -0.55* 1.50 4.68*
29. ICPA 2092 x ICPL 20129 -2.08 0.08 0.31 12.61 -3.83* 2.39 -24.78 0.22 1.26** 6.05 -2.28
30. ICPA 2092 x ICPL 87119 -0.08 0.25 -1.35 -1.55 -1.26 -0.94 -23.51 -0.18 -0.59* -2.22 -0.04
SE(Sij) 1.77 2.08 1.76 11.35 1.76 1.67 18.94 0.11 0.24 6.17 1.84
SE(Sij-Ski) 2.51 2.94 2.49 16.05 2.50 2.37 26.79 0.16 0.34 8.73 2.60
*, ** Significant at P =0.05 and P = 0.01, respectively

negative GCA effect for yield/plant. Among the lines, ICPB associated traits along with seed yield may be better
2047 had negative GCA effect for days to maturity with approach for raising yield potential in pigeonpea. Similar
positive GCA value for yield/plant.Therefore, simultaneous findings were also reported by Vaghelaet al. 2009 and Shoba
improvement in important yield components and other and Balan, 2010).
146 Journal of Food Legumes 32(3), 2019
The estimate of SCA effects of the hybrids are
presented in Table 2.On the basis of specific combining
ability four crosses were identified with positive and
significant SCA effects for seed yield per plant. Most
promising combinations for seed yield per plant were ICPA
2047 x ICPL 20126, ICPA 2048 x ICPL 20106, ICPA 2047 x
ICPL 20108 and ICPA 2047 x ICPL 20098.SCA effect is
generally considered the best criteria for selection of
superior combinations for hybrid breeding. For earliness,
hybrid ICPA 2047 x ICPL 20106 showed highly significant
negative SCA effect, whereas ICPA 2092 x ICPL 20126, ICPA
2048 x ICPL 20108 and ICPA 2092 x ICPL 20111 showed
significant negative SCA effect for days to maturity
suggesting their importance in development in early
maturing hybrids.
Among the all the cross combinations, none of the
hybrids showed positive significant SCA for plant height.
Two hybrids, ICPA 2047 x ICPL 20123 and ICPA 2048 x ICPL
20093depicted significant negative SCA effect for plant
height.Hybrids ICPA 2048 x ICPL 87119, ICPA 2047 x ICPL
20098, ICPA 2092 x ICPL 20111, ICPA 2047 x ICPL 20126,
ICPA 2092 x ICPL 20108 and ICPA 2048 x ICPL 20098 were
showed highly significant positive SCA effect for number
of primary branches/plant. Three hybrids, ICPA 2047 x ICPL
20098, ICPA 2092 x ICPL 20106and ICPA 2047 x ICPL 20126
were showed highly significant SCA values for number of
secondary branches/plant.
For pods/plant, ICPA 2048 x ICPL 87119 was the best
cross combination and ICPA 2047 x ICPL 20098 for number
of seeds/pod and seven hybrids showed highly significant
SAC effect for 100 seed weight. Among all 30 hybrids, none
of them emerged as good specificcombination for all the
yield contributing characters.
The critical examination of results revealed that some
crosses exhibiting high order significant and desirable SCA
effects for different characters involved parents having
different types of combinations of GCA effects such as
high × high, high × low, and low × low. Pandey and Singh
(2002) have also observed involvement of high x high and
low x high general combiner parent in manifestation of high
order significant and desirable SCA effects for seed yield
per plant and its components.
Pollen fertility (%) is an important character to
evaluate the restoration of fertility and amount of viable
pollens produced by particular hybrid which is a basic need
for the successful production of high yieldingCGMSbased
hybrid of pigeonpea. In present investigation out of 30
hybrids, 18 showed positive SCA effect, whereas out of 10
tester, 6 showed positive GCA effect. For full exploitation
of heterosis, hybrids should be good combiner for pollen
fertility. Similar/resultswere also reported by Wanjariet al.
2007.
The study clearly indicated that there was no
particular relationship between positive and significant SCA
effects of crosses with GCA effects of their parents for the
characters under study and also supported by previous
workers in pigeonpeaPandey and Singh, 2002;Shoba and
Balan, 2010, Gupta et al. 2011, Kumar et al. 2012,Yarimaniet
al. 2013). The cross ICPA 2047 x ICPL 20126 showed highly
positive significant SCA effect for grain yield/plant when
both the parents also had positive GCA effect. It revealed
the operation of non-additive gene effects. Similar results
were also reported by Patilet al.2014 for grain yield.
The hybrid breeding programme in most of crops is
primarily based on the concept of specific combining ability.
On the basis of general combining ability the most promising
parent was ICPA 2047 among the CMS lines. Four crosses,
ICPA 2047 x ICPL 20126, ICPA 2048 x ICPL 20106, ICPA 2047
x ICPL 20108 and ICPA 2047 x ICPL 20098 were showed
significant and desirable SCA effects for seed yield/plant,
may be considered for hybrid breeding programme. The
development of synthetics and composites cultivars are
also exploiting GCA (fixable component of genetic variance)
and to some extent the SCA (non-fixable gene effects).
REFERENCES
Gupta DK, Acharya S and Patel JB. 2011.Combining ability and
heterosis studies in pigeonpeausing A2 cytoplasm from Cajanus
scarabaeoidesas source of male sterility. Journal of Food Legumes
24: 58-64.
Kumar CVS, Sreelakshmi CH and Shivani D. 2012. Gene effects,
heterosis and inbreeding separate depression in pigeonpea
(Cajanus cajan L.). Electronic Journal of Plant Breeding 3:
682-685.
Pandey N and Singh NB. 2002. Hybrid vigour and combining ability
in long duration pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.] hybrids
involving male sterile lines. Indian Journal of Genetics and Plant
Breeding 62:221-225.
Patil SB, Hingane AJ, Kumar CVS, Mula MG, Kumar RV and Saxena
KB. 2014. Combining ability studies of pigeonpea cytoplasmic
male sterilelines with an obcordate leaf marker. Journal of Plant
Breeding and Crop Science 6(7): 84-90.
Saxena KB. 2007. Breeding hybrids for enhancing productivity in
pigeonpea. Paper presented at 7th International conference on
sustainable agriculture for food, bio-energy and livelihood
security.
Shoba D and Balan A. 2010. Combining ability in CMS/GMS based
pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.]hybrids. Madras
Agricultural Journal 97: 25-28.
Vaghela KO, Desai RT, Nizama JR, Patel JD and Sharma V. 2009.
Combining ability analysis in pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.)
Millsp.]. Legume Research 32: 274-277.
Wanjari KB, Bhongle SA and Sable NH. 2007.Evaluation of heterosis
in CMS based hybrids in pigeonpea. Journal of Food Legumes.
20(1):107-108.
Yerimani AS, Mehetre S and Kharde MN. 2013.Genetic variability
for yield and yield component traits in advanced F3 and F4
generations of pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.)]. Molecular of
Plant Breeding 4(16): 136-140
Journal of Food Legumes 32(3): 147-151, 2019
Combining ability analysis and gene action estimates of selected physiological
traits under heat stress in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)
UDAY CHAND JHA*1, PARESH CHANDRA KOLE2 and NARENDRA PRATAP SINGH1
ICAR-Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, India; 2Institute of Agriculture, Visva-Bharati
University, Sriniketan, Bolpur, West Bengal, India; E-mail : uday_gene@yahoo.co.in
(Received : April 10, 2019; Accepted : July 9, 2019)
ABSTRACT
During the last decade increasing events of heat stress put
serious challenge for global food security. Heat stress causes
detrimental effects on overall plant growth and thus, limit
crop yield including chickpea worldwide. Given the
importance of ‘physiological trait breeding’, elucidation of
gene action of important physiological traits playing critical
role in adaptation plant under heat stress could be one of
the important options for tailoring heat stress resilient
chickpea genotypes. Therefore, in the current investigation
following diallel analysis, a total of six parents and their all
possible F1 combinations excluding (reciprocal crosses) were
used for estimating gene action of six important physiological
traits and one phenological and one yield traits by planting
the F 1 seeds in normal sown (NS) and late sown (LS)
conditions. Genetic analysis suggested presence of both
additive and non additive genetic variance for the studied
traits under both conditions. However, preponderance of
additive gene action was recorded based on the results of
higher general combining ability (GCA) variance than
specific combining ability (SCA) variance, with predictability
ratio > 0.5 for most of traits under both conditions. Results
of estimates of GCA effect suggested KWR108 and
ICCV92944 parents were the better general combiner for
the studied traits under both conditions. Similarly, DCP92-
3 ×ICC4958, and KWR108 × ICC4958 cross combinations
were the most appropriate combination for the given traits.
Thus, parents with high GCA effect and cross combinations
with high SCA effect could be potentially incorporated in
breeding programme for improving heat stress tolerance in
chickpea.
Key words: Chickpea, Diallel, Gene action, Heat stress,
Physiological trait
Globally chickpea remains as one of the important
grain legume crops, nutritionally rich in various essential
micronutrients, and also serves as one of the cheapest
sources of ‘plant based dietary protein’ to the global human
populations for fighting against protein related malnutrition
and hidden hunger problems (Wallace et al. 2016) .Given
the increasing evidences of rising global temperature,
chickpea being a cool season grain legume encounters high
temperature stress (>350C) especially during reproductive
stage causing abnormalities in anthesis process, and serious
aberration in vital processes viz., pollen development, ovule
*Ph.D. Dissertation of the 1st author
development, pod formation and pod filling and seed
development (Krishnamurthy et al. 2011; Devasirvatham
et al.2012; Jha et al. 2014). Taken together, these results
ultimately lead to significant yield loss in chickpea.
Therefore, to tackle this rising problem, serious effort of
exploring chickpea genotypes contributing to heat stress
tolerance has been initiated (Krishnamurthy et al.2011; Jha
et al. 2017).Concurrently classical breeding based genetic
inheritance, genomics based approaches and biochemical
and physiological studies deciphering the genetic and
molecular basis of heat tolerance have been reported
(Krishnamurthy et al. 2011; Devasirvatham et al. 2013;
Kaushal et al. 2013; Paul et al. 2018). Elucidation of gene
action controlling phenological and physiological traits
remains one of the important approaches for developing
chickpea genotype able to adapt under heat stress
condition. However, limited knowledge on genetic control
of important physiological traits contributing to heat stress
tolerance has restricted the improvement in breeding for
heat tolerance in chickpea. Thus, the aim of the current
study is to understand gene action of six important
physiological traits critical for heat stress adaptation and
one phenological (days to 50% flowering) and one yield
trait (yield/plant) through diallel analysis in chickpea by
growing the parents and the derived F1’s under normal and
late sown conditions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Based on diallel model (Griffing 1956a) a total of six
parents [see Table 1, for details see Jha et al. (2018)] were
selected and crossed during the year 2016-17. The 15 F1
cross combinations excluding reciprocals along with the
parents were planted under normal sown (NS) [third week
of November] and late sown (LS) [first week of January]
conditions at the experimental farm of Indian Institute of
Pulses Research (26º29' N, 80º16’E and 130 m) Kanpur during
the year 2017-18. The mean weekly temperature recorded
during NS and LS is depicted in Fig.1.To understand the
Table 1. Chickpea genotypes used for diallel analysis
Code Genotype name
P1 ICC4958
P2 ICC V92944
P3 DCP92-3
P4 ICC1205
P5 ICC96030
P6 KWR108
148 Journal of Food Legumes 32(3), 2019

response of studied traits under HS, the parents and the controlling the traits. Moreover, high predictability ratio
F1’s were planted under LS to face HS. All the parents and also supported that FF, Anth, NBI, MSI traits were
F1’s were grown in randomized complete block design controlled by additive gene action except chlorophyll
(RCBD) with three replications. Each plot consisted of one content, normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI),
ridge of 3 m length and 30 cm width. Plant to plant spacing flavonoid content (Flv), and yield/plant under NS condition.
was kept 10 cm. Similar agronomic packages and practices Likewise, under LS condition FF, Chl, Anth, Flv, NDVI and
were followed and two irrigations were given for each set YPP were under the control of additive gene action except
of trial. Five competitive plants were randomly sampled NBI and MSI traits. Thus, it implied that simple selection
from each plot during harvest. The following phenological may help in further improvement of these traits under both
[days to 50% flowering (FF)], physiological [chlorophyll conditions. In this regard, evidence of both additive and
content (Chl), anthocyanin content (Anth),flavonoid non-additive types of gene actions for controlling various
content (Flv), nitrogen balance index (NBI), membrane physiological traits such as cell membrane stability in wheat
stability index (MSI), normalized deviation vegetation index (Dhanda and Munjal 2012), and in cotton (Saleem et al.
(NDVI)] and yield trait [yield/plant (YPP)] were investigated 2015) was observed. Similarly chlorophyll content in cotton
under normal and late sown conditions. Leaf spectrometer (Song et al. 2014), flavonoid content in cowpea (Nassourou
was used for measuring Chl, Anth, Flv, NBI and Green leaf et al. 2016), and NDVI in maize under drought stress
seeker was used to measure NDVI value. MSI was measured (Adebayo et al. 2017) were controlled by both additive and
as suggested by Blum and Ebercon (1979). Half diallel non-additive gene action. Preponderance of dominant gene
analysis relying on Griffing’s method I of model II was action for canopy temperature traits (Saint Pierre et al. 2010)
performed by using INDOSTAT software. Significant and for MSI under heat stress (Yildrim et al. 2009) in wheat,
genetic variance of each trait was further partitioned to and for chlorophyll content in cotton under drought stress
GCA, SCA, and experimental error. Predictability ratio was has been reported (Abid et al. 2016; Song et al. 2014).
calculated as Predictability ratio= 22GCA/ (2SCA+2 2GCA) However, presence of additive gene action for anthocyanin
[Baker 1978], where, 2GCA =Mean square due to GCA, content in brassica (Dai et al. 2016), and in brinjal
2SCA = Mean square due to SCA. (PatelArpita et al. 2017) has also been reported. Likewise,
evidences of both additive and non additive gene actions
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION governing various phenological traits, yield and yield-
Genetic variability for physiological and other traits: The related traits in tomato (Hazara et al. 2008; Bhattarai et al.
statistical analysis explained significant difference in all 2016), in maize (Muraya et al. 2006;Iqbal et al. 2007; Naveed
the six parents and their 15 F1 crosses for all the eight traits et al. 2016) under heat stress have been recorded.
studied under NS and LS conditions (Table 2). The results GCA and SCA analysis of studied traits: Combining ability
suggested presence of significant amount of genetic explains ability of parent to transfer its superior performance
variability in the studied parents and their F1 hybrids that to the F1 cross progenies (Sprague and Tatum 1942). GCA
could be of great importance for selection and utilization of remains an important parameter for representing the
these traits for improvement of various physiological and performance of parent involved in crossing with another
yield traits in chickpea breeding programme for developing parent, and it is related to additive gene action of parental
heat stress tolerant variety. Analysis of variance for genes. Thus, GCA remains pivotal in selecting superior
combining ability suggested variances due to GCA and parent in crop breeding programme. Estimates of GCA
SCA of all the eight traits studied to be significant under effects recorded for the studied traits in all the parental
NS and LS conditions (Table 2). This further indicated genotypes are given in (Table 3). For phenological traits
presence of both additive and non-additive gene actions
Table.2 Analysis of variance for various studied traits in parents and their 6× 6 half diallel crosses under NS and LS
Sources Of variation E Treatment Parents Hybrids P vs H Error Total  2GCA 2SCA Error 2GCA/ 2SCA Predictability ratio
Degree of freedom 20 5 14 1 40 62 5 15 40
FF E1 128.183** 275.822 *** 73.714 *** 152.540 *** 1.321 42.457 103.632 ** 22.426 *** 0.44 4.62 0.9
E2 55.921 *** 64.989 *** 56.105 *** 8.002 2.735 20.05 35.120 *** 13.147 *** 0.912 2.67 0.72
Chl content E1 85.005** 138.596 *** 68.680 *** 80.858 ** 9.74 33.965 11.261 ** 34.810 *** 2.909 0.033 0.39
E2 52.159 * 21.785 56.323 * 145.729 * 28.074 40.878 13.59 18.652 * 9.358 0.72 0.59
Anth E1 0.01** 0.010 *** 0.010 *** 0.006 *** 0 0.003 0.002 *** 0.003 *** 0 0.088 0.57
E2 0.001 * 0.001 ** 0 0 0 0 0.001 0.001 0 1 0.66
Flv E1 0.072** 0.119 *** 0.057 *** 0.046 ** 0.072 0.026 0.018 *** 0.026 *** 0.001 0.083 0.39
E2 0.019 *** 0.013 0.022 *** 0 0.006 0.011 0.011 *** 0.005 * 0.002 2.2 0.84
NBI E1 22.267** 35.675 *** 13.119 ** 83.312 *** 4.585 10.216 8.914 *** 6.925 *** 1.528 1.28 0.72
E2 46.220 *** 31.070 * 44.190 *** 150.382 *** 10.537 26.272 7.084 18.181 *** 3.512 0.38 0.43
MSI% E1 174.898** 214.167 *** 172.629 *** 10.363 19.973 72.192 58.542 *** 58.220 *** 6.657 1 0.66
E2 52.529 28.719 58.666 85.656 32.139 44.305 5.014 21.675 * 10.713 0.23 0.31
NDVI E1 0.051** 0.003 * 0.043 *** 0.400 *** 0.001 0.017 0.003 *** 0.022 *** 0 0.016 0.22
E2 0.011 *** 0.015 *** 0.010 *** 0.003 0.001 0.005 0.004 *** 0.004 *** 0 1 0.67
YPP E1 101.988** 102.167 *** 83.559 *** 34.253 *** 1.973 28.451 70.879 *** 14.483 *** 0.385 4.91 0.49
E2 3.333 *** 1.2 4.071 *** 3.656 * 0.72 1.561 1.163 ** 1.093 *** 0.24 1.064 0.68

Significance Levels * = <.05, ** = <.01 & *** = <.001 E=environment

 Jha et al. : Combining ability analysis and gene action estimates in chickpea under heat stress 149

Table 3 Estimate of general combining ability effects of parents for various phenological and physiological traits
GCA effect E P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6
FF E1 -0.931 *** -1.847 *** 2.986 *** 3.986 *** -5.764 *** 1.569 ***
E2 -2.528 *** -0.653 * 2.472 *** 0.222 2.347 *** -1.861 ***
Chl content E1 -1.260 * 1.569 ** -0.46 0.919 0.019 *** -1.289 *
E2 1.29 1.453 -1.701 0.528 -1.181 -0.389
Anth E1 -0.011 ** 0.002 0.002 -0.028 *** 0.003 0.016 ***
E2 -0.004 0.001 0.001 0.004 0.006 -0.007 *
Flv E1 0.031 * 0.008 -0.064 *** 0.013 -0.049 *** 0.060 ***
E2 -0.068 *** 0.043 ** 0.018 0.011 -0.014 0.01
NBI E1 -1.325 ** 0.579 1.321 ** 0.762 -0.308 -1.029 *
E2 -0.461 0.918 -1.365 * 1.189 0.026 -0.307
MSI% E1 -0.649 5.201 *** -2.707 ** -1.24 -0.482 -0.124
E2 0.378 0.949 -0.831 -0.86 0.728 -0.364
NDVI E1 0.009 -0.034 *** -0.006 0.019 ** -0.004 0.017 **
E2 0.036 *** 0 -0.01 0.013 -0.020 ** -0.017 *
YPP E1 3.818 *** 0.185 -3.153 *** -3.882 *** 1.718 *** 1.314 ***
E2 -0.602 *** 0.286 -0.043 -0.092 -0.067 0.518 **
Significance Levels * = <.05, ** = <.01 & *** = <.001 E=environment

such as FF trait, the parent P1, P2 and P5 showed desirable
high significant and negative GCA effect under (NS
condition) and P3, P4 and P6 exhibited high and significant
positive effect under NS. Under LS condition P1 and P6
displayed high significant and negative GCA effect and P5
and P3 showed significant positive effect under LS
condition. Thus, ICC4958, ICC92944 and ICC 96030 parents
could be potentially utilized as donor for transferring early
phenological traits for improving HS tolerance in chickpea.
Similarly, based on the results of combining ability analysis
Murtadha et al. (2018) identified important donors for early
tasseling in maize under water stress. Considering
physiological traits such as chlorophyll content indicator
of delayed senescence, P2 and P5 parents showed positive
and significant GCA effect under NS condition. Likewise,
P6 parent exhibited positive and significant GCA effect for
anthocyanin content under NS. For flavonoid content, P1
and P6 showed positive and significant GCA under NS,
while, only P2 parent showed positive significant GCA effect
for the same trait under LS. Similarly under NS, P3 and P2
displayed positively significant GCA effect for NBI and
MSI, respectively. Regarding NDVI, indicator of stay green
trait, P4 and P6 parents (under NS) and P1 parent (under
LS) showed positive and significant GCA effect. Likewise,
positively significant GCA effect for various physiological
traits such as chlorophyll content in potato under drought
stress (Hirut et al. 2017), for membrane stability index in
wheat (Dhanda and Munjal 2009; Yildirim et al. 2009), in
cotton under heat stress (Rahman, 2006), for anthocyanin
content in brinjal (Bhusan et al. 2012; Patel Arpita et al.2017),
for flavonoid content in cowpea (Nassourou et al. 2016)
and for NDVI in maize (Adebayo et al. 2017) under drought
stress has been reported. For yield /plant (YPP) trait, P1, P5
and P6 (under NS) and KWR 108 parent (under LS) revealed
high and positive significant GCA effect. Therefore, good
general combining ability of ICC 92944 and KWR 108could
be potentially utilized for improving the yield related traits
under both conditions in chickpea. Thus, these two
genotypes and their F1 hybrid could be incorporated in
chickpea breeding programme for improving the seed yield
and seed yield related traits. Similar findings were also
reported in common bean under drought stress (Goncalves
et al. 2015), in maize (Murtadha et al. 2018) under both heat
stress and drought stress, and in wheat under both heat
and drought stress (Mia et al. 2017).
The SCA effect enables us to estimate the non -
additive gene effects. The SCA effects are given in (Table
4) for the studied traits. A set of eleven crosses (P1 × P2, P1
× P4, P1 × P5, P1 × P6, P2 × P3, P2 × P5, P2 × P6, P3 × P5, P3
× P6, P4 × P6 and P4 × P5) showed positive and high
significant SCA effect for FF trait under NS (Table4). The
cross combinations (P1 × P2, P1 × P5, P2 × P4 and P4 × P6)
displayed desirable negative and significant SCA effects
under LS. Thus, the cross combinations showing negative
and highly significant SCA effects for phenological traits
could be utilized for developing genotypes for earliness
traits that helps in escaping heat stress. Similar finding has
been reported in chickpea (Jha et al. 2018d).
Considering HS related physiological traits, a set of
five F1’s (P1 × P3, P1 × P6, P2 × P3, P2 × P5 and P4 × P6)
exhibited positive and significant SCA effect for chlorophyll
content under NS. Under LS two F1’s P1 × P4 and P1 × P5
showed positive and significant SCA effect for this trait.
For anthocyanin content four F1’s (P1 × P4, P2 × P3, P3×P5,
P5 × P6) showed positive and significant SCA effect under
NS. Under LS, P1 × P6 cross displayed positive and
significant SCA effect. Thus in the present study selection
for chlorophyll content and anthocyanin traits could be
effective in later generations. A total of four F1’s (P1 × P3,
P1 × P6, P2 × P3 and P2 × P4) showed positive and
significant SCA effect for flavonoid content under NS,
whereas, only, P3 × P4 cross showed positive and significant
SCA effect for this trait under LS. Under LS condition, three
F1’s (P1 × P4, P1 × P6 and P3 × P5) displayed positive and
significant SCA effect for nitrogen balance index. Taking
150 Journal of Food Legumes 32(3), 2019

Table.4 Estimate of specific combining ability effects of F1 crosse

Trait E P1 × P2 P1 × P3 P1× P4 P1 × P5 P1× P6 P2 × P3 P2× P4 P2 × P5 P2 × P6 P3 × P4 P3× P5 P3 × P6 P4 × P5 P4 × P6 P5 ×P6
FF E1 1.762 ** -2.738 *** 2.262 ** 5.012 *** -9.988 *** 5.845 *** -3.821 *** 2.262 ** 3.262 *** -1.988 ** 3.095 *** 2.429 *** 2.762 *** 2.762 *** 1.845 **
E2 -3.994 *** 0.214 3.464 *** -4.994 *** 6.214 *** 3.006 ** -2.077 * -1.536 -0.327 2.798 ** 2.673 ** 0.881 -1.744 -4.536 *** 3.339 **
Chl content E1 -1.468 7.527 *** -7.452 *** -4.985 ** 5.12** 3.398 * -3.581 * 4.386 * -3.806 * -6.685 *** 0.148 1.623 -8.064 *** 5.377 ** -2.289
E2 0.608 -4.538 9.233 ** 7.008 * 1.416 1.999 -0.863 0.512 -0.146 -1.309 0.466 4.608 -5.496 0.245 0.687
Anth E1 0.004 0.015 0.115 *** -0.069 *** -0.06 0.042 *** -0.008 -0.078 *** -0.042 *** -0.021 * 0.052 *** -0.052 *** -0.034 ** -0.038 *** 0.078 ***
E2 -0.003 -0.006 0.001 -0.007 0.036 *** -0.001 -0.014 -0.003 -0.01 0.003 0.008 0.004 -0.009 -0.006 -0.014
Flv E1 -0.055 0.216 *** -0.240 *** -0.039 0.076 * 0.330 *** 0.116 ** 0.065 0.057 -0.090 * -0.122 ** -0.03 0.058 -0.015 0.063
E2 0.066 -0.100 * 0.012 0.053 -0.064 0.067 0.021 -0.108 * -0.025 0.085 * -0.027 0.066 -0.029 -0.096 * 0.068
NBI E1 -0.964 0.928 -2.414 * -1.643 3.678 ** -0.576 0.582 1.353 0.728 -1.66 -4.560 *** 1.078 -1.368 0.057 -1.939
E2 0.245 -2.605 5.840 ** 0.403 5.003 ** -1.785 -1.239 3.39 0.724 -3.755 * 9.707 *** -2.093 1.686 0.553 -1.418
MSI% E1 0.106 6.948 ** -10.186 *** -1.311 -12.469 *** 0.164 -0.636 4.439 -0.673 0.148 10.473 *** -10.519 *** 7.789 ** 5.689 * -3.502
E2 2.558 6.237 * -1.967 4.445 -8.596 ** -0.534 2.595 0.041 -3.767 0.141 -5.88 0.945 5.116 5.508 4.22
NDVI E1 -0.079 *** 6.948 ** 0.008 0.094 *** -0.003 0.036 * -0.132 *** -0.139 *** -0.012 -0.050 ** -0.233 *** -0.067 *** 0.042 * 0.031 -0.260 ***
E2 0.012 -0.048 * 0.032 -0.039 0.005 0.011 -0.018 0.074 ** 0.092 *** -0.098 *** 0.028 0.038 0.075 ** -0.021 -0.079 ***
YPP E1 10.480 *** 0.138 4.588 *** -2.124 ** -4.008 *** -9.945 *** -6.362 *** 9.526 *** -0.958 0.541 8.696 *** -0.883 -0.233 1.917 * 1.638 *
E2 1.879 *** -1.342 ** -0.823 0.345 -0.553 0.786 0.872 -1.184 * 0.526 -0.598 0.256 1.125 * 1.535 ** 0.044 -0.585

Significance Levels * = <.05, ** = <.01 & *** = <.001 E=environment

GCA effect remains an important criterion for

Fig.1 Mean weekly minimum and maximum day temperature
recorded during crop growing period under NS and LS conditions
note of membrane stability index, a total of four F1’s (P1 ×
P3, P3 × P5, P4 × P5 and P4 × P6) under NS and (P2× P3)
F1cross under LS exhibited positive and significant SCA
effect for this trait. Likewise, a total of four F1’s (P1 × P3, P1
× P5, P2 × P3 and P4 × P5) under NS and three F1’s (P2 × P5,
P2 × P6 and P4 × P5) under LS exhibited positive and
significant SCA effect for NDVI. Similarly, positive and
significant SCA effect for chlorophyll content in tomato
under heat stress (Bhattarai et al. 2016), in wheat under
drought stress (Mia et al. 2017), for anthocyanin content
in brinjal (Arpita Patel et al. 2017), for flavonoid content in
cowpea (Nassourou et al. 2016), for membrane stability in
wheat (Yildirim et al. 2009; Dhanda and Munjal, 2009), and
for NDVI in maize (Adebayo et al. 2017) under drought
stress have been recorded. Thus, the results indicated that
physiological traits could be potentially used as in breeding
programme for designing terminal heat stress tolerant
genotypes in chickpea.
Taking note of YPP trait six F1’s (P1 × P2, P1 × P4, P2
× P5, P3 × P5, P4 × P6, P5 × P6) revealed positive and highly
significant effects under NS. Importantly, ICC 4958 × ICCV
92944, ICC 1205× ICC 96030and DCP 92-3 × KWR
108crosses displayed positive and significant SCA effect
under LS. Thus, cross combinations having high SCA
developed from parents having higher GCA could be
potentially used for better performing genotypes under heat
stress.
predicting superior hybrid combination, while SCA effects
are associated with heterosis. In the present study, GCA
effects for most of the studied traits were associated to
SCA value of the corresponding cross combinations, where
ICC 4958(P1) and ICC 96030 (P5) displayed positive and
significant GCA effect (under NS) and KWR108 (P6) showed
positive and significant GCA effect (under LS). These
parents produced some crosses such as P1 × P2, P1 × P3,
P2 × P5, P4 × P6, P5 × P6 (under NS) and P4 × P5, P3 × P6, P1
× P2,P1 × P3, P1 × P4 (under LS) that exhibited high and
significantly positive SCA effects for various traits. Thus,
KWR108 and ICC4958 parents and (DCP92-3 × KWR108,
DCP 92-3 × ICC 4958 and ICCV 92944 × ICC4958) crosses
could be promisingly utilized for development of HS
tolerance in chickpea breeding programme. These results
are in consistent with the result suggested by Rainey and
Griffiths (2005b) in common bean under HS.
Elucidation of gene action controlling important
physiological traits related to heat stress tolerance could
be an important avenue for developing heat tolerant
chickpea genotypes. Result of combining ability analysis
suggested existence of both additive and non-additive gene
action with higher magnitude of additive gene action.
Therefore, selection of superior crosses with high SCA,
through incorporating parents possessing high GCA could
be one of the potential breeding strategies for improving
heat stress tolerance in chickpea.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Authors acknowledge financial support from Indian
Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), India.
REFERENCES
Abid MA, Malik W, Yasmeen A, Qayyum A, Zhang R, Liang C, Guo
S and Ashraf  J  .2016.  Mode  of  inheritance  for  biochemical  traits
in genetically engineered cotton under water stress. Annals of
Biology Plants pii: plw008.
Adebayo MA, Menkir A, Hearne S and Kolawole AO. 2017. Gene
action controlling normalized difference vegetation index in
crosses of elite maize (Zea mays L.) inbred lines. Cereal Research
and Communication 45: 675-686.
 Jha et al. : Combining ability analysis and gene action estimates in chickpea under heat stress
Baker RJ. 1978. Issues in diallel analysis. Crop Science 18: 533–6.
Bhattarai U, Sharma A, Das R and Talukdar P. 2016. Genetic Analysis
of Yield and Yield-Attributing Traits for High Temperature
Resistance in Tomato. International Joural of Vegetable Science
22: 585-597.
Bhushan B, Sidhu AS, Dhatt AS and Kumar A. 2012. Studies on
combining ability for yield and quality traits in brinjal (Solanum
melongena L.). J Hortl Sci 7: 145-151.
Blum A, and Ebercon A. 1979. Cell membrane stability as a measure
of drought and heat tolerance in wheat. Crop Science 21: 43–47.
Dai W, GirdthaiI T, Huang Z, Ketudat-Cairns M, Tang R and Wang
S. 2016. Genetic analysis for anthocyanin and chlorophyll
contents in rapeseed. Ciência Rural, Santa Maria 46: 790-795.
Devasirvatham V, Tan, DKY, Gaur PM, Raju TN and Trethowan
RM. 2012. High temperature tolerance in chickpea and its
implications for plant improvement. Crop and Pasture Science
63: 419-428.
Devasirvatham V, Gaur P, Mallikarjuna N, Raju TN, Trethowan RM
and Tan DKY. 2013. Reproductive biology of chickpea response
to heat stress in the field is associated with the performance in
controlled environments. Field Crops Research 142: 9–19.
Dhanda SS, and Munjal R .2012. Heat tolerance in relation to acquired
thermotolerance for membrane lipids in bread wheat. Field Crops
Research 135: 30–37.
Gonçalves JGR, Chiorato AF, da Silva DA, de Fátima Esteves JA,
Bosetti, F, and Carbonell S.A.M. 2015. Combining ability in
common bean cultivars under drought stress. Bragantia Campinas
74: 149-155.
Griffing B. 1956a. Concept of general and specific combining ability
in relation to diallel crossing systems. Australian Journal of
Biological Science 9: 463–93.
Hazara PP, and SH. Ansary. 2008. Genetics of heat tolerance for
floral and fruit set to high temperature stress in tomato (Lycopersicon
esculentum Mill.). SABRAO Journal of Breeding and Genetics
40: 117–125.
Hirut B, Shimelis H, Fentahun M, Bonierbale M, Gastelo M and
Asfaw A. 2017. Combining ability of highland tropic adapted
potato for tuber yield and yield components under drought.
PLoS ONE 12: e0181541.
Iqbal AM, Nehvi FA, Wani SA., Qadir R and Dar Z.A. 2007.
Combining ability analysis for yield and yield related traits in
maize (Zea mays L.). International  Journal  of  Plant  Breeding
and Genetics 1: 101–105.
Jha UC, Chaturvedi SK., Bohra A, Basu PS, Khan MS and Barh D.
2014. Abiotic stresses, constraints and improvement strategies
in chickpea. Plant Breeding 133: 163–78.
Jha UC, Bohra A, Jha R and Parida S. 2017. Integrated ‘omics’
approaches to sustain major global grain legume productivity
under heat stress. Plant Breeding 136: 437–459.
Jha UC, Kole PC and Singh NP. 2018. Nature of gene action and
combining ability analysis of yield and yield-related traits in
chickpea (Cicer arietinum) under heat stress. Indian Journal of
Agricultural Sciences 89: 500–8.
Kaushal N, Awasthi R, Gupta K, Gaur PM, Siddique KHM and Nayyar
H. 2013. Heat-stress-induced reproductive failures in chickpea
(Cicer arietinum) are associated with impaired sucrose metabolism
in leaves and anthers. Functional Plant Biology 40: 1334–1349.
151
Krishnamurthy L, Gaur PM, Basu PS, Chaturvedi SK, Tripathi S,
Vadez V, Rathore A, Varshney RK and Gowda CLL. 2011. Large
genetic variation for heat tolerance in the reference collection
of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) germplasm. Plant Genetic
Resource 9: 59–69.
Mia MS, Liu H, Wang X, Lu Z and Yan G. 2017. Response of wheat
to post-anthesis water stress, and the nature of gene action as
revealed by combining ability analysis. Crop and Pasture Science
68: 534-543.
Muraya MM, Ndirangu CM and Omolo E.O. 2006. Heterosis and
combining ability in diallel crosses involving maize (Zea maysL.)
S1 lines. Austrailan  Journal of  Experimental Agriculture 46: 387–394
Murtadha MA, Ariyo OJ and Alghamdi SS. 2018. Analysis of
combining ability over environments in diallel crosses of maize
(Zea mays). Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences
17: 69-78.
Nassourou MA, Njintang YN, Noubissie TJB, Nguimbou RM. and
Bell J.M. 2016. Genetics of seed flavonoid content and
antioxidant activity in cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.  Walp.).
The Crop Journal 4: 391-397.
Naveed M, Ahsan M, Akram HM, Aslam M and Ahmed N. 2016.
Measurement of cell membrane thermo-stability and leaf
temperature for heat tolerance in maize (Zea mays L): Genotypic
variability and inheritance pattern. Maydica 61: 1-7.
Patel Arpita A, Gohil DP, Patel NB and Patel DD. 2017. Combining
ability and gene action studies in brinjal (Solanum melongena
L.). Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry 6: 2137-
2143.
Paul PJ, Samineni S, Thudi M, Sajja SB, Rathore A, Das RR, Khan
AW et al. 2018. Molecular mapping of QTLs for heat tolerance
in chickpea. International Journal of Molecular science 19(8)
pii: E2166.
Rahman H. 2006. Environmental interaction, additive and non-
additive genetic variability is involved in the expression of tissue
and whole-plant heat tolerance in upland cotton (Gossypium
hirsutum. L).Genetics and Molecular Biology 29: 525-532.
Rainey KM and Griffiths PD. 2005. Diallel analysis of yield
components of snap beans exposed to two temperature stress
environments. Euphytica 142: 43–53.
Saint Pierre C, Crossa J, Manes Y and Reynolds MP. 2010. Gene
action of canopy temperature in bread wheat under diverse
environments.Theoretical and Applied Genetics 120: 1107-17.
Saleem MA, Malik TA and Shakeel. 2015. Genetics of physiological
and agronomic traits in upland cotton under drought stress.
Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Science 52: 317–324.
Song M, Fan S, Pang C, Wei H and Yu S. 2014. Genetic analysis of
the antioxidant enzymes, methane dicarboxylic aldehyde (MDA)
and chlorophyll content in leaves of the short season cotton
(Gossypium hirsutum L.). Euphytica 198: 153–162.
Sprague GF and Tatum LA. 1942. General vs. specific combining
ability in single crosses of corn. Agronomy Journal 34: 923–32.
Wallace TC, Murray R and Zelman KM. 2016. The Nutritional Value
and Health Benefits of Chickpeas and Hummus. Nutrients 8:
76 6.
Yildirim M, Bahar B, Koc M and Barutcular C. 2009. Membrane
thermal stability at different developmental stages of spring
wheat genotypes and their diallel cross populations. Tarim
Bilimleri Dergisi 15: 293-300.
Journal of Food Legumes 32(3): 152-156, 2019
Effect of storage condition and its duration on seed quality of chickpea
(Cicer arietinum L.)
AMRIT LAMICHANEY, VAIBHAV KUMAR, PK KATIYAR and NP SINGH
ICAR-Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh; Email:amritiipr@gmail.com
(Received : April 21, 2019; Accepted : July 12, 2019)
ABSTRACT
The present study was conducted to evaluate the effect of
types of storage and duration on seed quality of extra large
seeded kabuli chickpea (Kripa). The seeds were stored for
20 months in four different types of seed storage i.e. gunny
bag, silo, polypropylene sacks, hermetic polyethylene bag.
The study showed that types of storage had significant effect
on chickpea seed quality. The moisture content, electrical
conductivity, proportion of abnormal and dead seeds
gradually increased along with storage period, while the
proportion of normal seedlings (germination%) and seed
vigour decreased gradually. Irrespective of storage condition
seeds were able to maintain the germination percentage, up
to eight months after which it declined sharply. After 20
months seeds stored in jute gunny bag, silo, conventional
propylene sack and hermetic polyethylene bag recorded 6,
36, 20 and 48% germination, respectively. The reduction in
germination upon storage could be attributed to change or
alteration in the seed storage protein as a number of peptides
with molecular weight ranging between 14 to 45 kDa were
lost after 16 months of storage as compared to fresh seeds.
Keywords Chickpea, Electrical conductivity, Germination,
Proteins, Types of storage
Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is an important pulse
crop which is grown in over 50 countries throughout the
world and consumed in over 120 countries. India contributes
about 68% share in global chickpea production and is a
leading chickpea producing country (FAO 2014). Chickpea
is of two types, desi and kabuli.Desi types are generally
small seeded with thick and colouredseed coat, while kabuli
types are usually large seeded with thin and non-pigmented
seed coat. Phenolic compounds (tannin) imparts seed coat
colour (Caldes and Blair 2009), which are considered to
also have antifungal, antimicrobial properties at the same
time is also reported to protect the seed from insect pests
and precocious germination. The seed coat and chemical
composition of seed coat arephysical and chemical
defensive mechanisms,respectively for seed to survive
through various biotic and abiotic stresses. Therefore, the
desi type with thick seed coat coupled withhigh tannin
content are reported to have better seed vigour than kabuli
type (Lamichaney et al. 2016, 2017a, 2017b). Seed vigour
differences in pigmented and un-pigmented seeds are
reported in other legumes as well (Kantar et al. 1996; Peksen
et al. 2004; Saeidi, 2008). High seed vigour implies to greater
ability of seeds to survive in harsh environmental condition,
to perform better in wide environments and also to have
better longevity (Finch Savage and Bassel 2016).
Differences in longevity due to seed coat colour has been
reported in soybean (Soogannaet al. 2016) whereby, dark
coloured soybean are considered a better storer then yellow
seeded soybean. Desi and kabuli chickpea behaves similar
to black and yellow colouredsoybean, whereby kabuli
chickpea, especially extra large seeded, loses viability
rapidly if stored under poor condition. Infestation by
bruchid during storage is the main reason that affects
quality of the seed, which can be overcome by storing the
seed under moisture proof conditions and other modern
seed storage types. In India, about 60-70% of food grains
produced are stored in traditional storage structures like
bamboo baskets, mud structures and gunny bags (Kanwar
and Sharma 2003; Channal et al. 2004), which leads to
reduction in the quality of the produce during storage.
Considering the importance of storage conditionson
maintaining the quality of seeds and availability of very
few storage alternatives in small farms, this work evaluated
four types of storage (jute gunny bags, hermetic
polyethylene bag, silo and conventional propylene sacks)
for 20 months, aiming to minimize the loss of seed quality.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The seed of kabuli chickpea variety Kripa was used
in this experiment. After harvesting the crop in 2015-16 rabi
season, the moisture content of the seed was adjusted by
sun drying to about 10-11%. The seeds were kept in jute
gunny bags, hermetic polyethylene bag, silo and
conventional propylene sacks at normal laboratory
condition and were stored for 20 months. At a periodic
interval of 4 months i.e. [0 (before storing), 4, 8, 12, 16 and
20 months after storing] seeds were sampled and tested for
different seed quality parameters. The moisture content
(%) was determined using the standard high temperature
oven method (130 ± 2oC) for 1 h, according to ISTA (2015).
For electrical conductivity determination, fifty seeds
were weighed and soaked in 250 ml of distillwater and kept
inside dark incubator maintained at 20°C for 24 hrs, after
which, electrical conductivity was measuredusing electrical
conductivity meter and expressed as Scm-1 g-1 of seed.
The protocol available at ISTA rules (ISTA 2015) was
followed to conduct germination test. Briefly, one
hundredseeds were placed in pre-moistened germination
towels, which was rolled and covered with butter paper to
avoid moisture loss.The germination towels were than kept
for germination in a dark incubator maintained at 20ºC. After
7 days of incubation, seedlings were categorized as normal
seedlings, abnormal seedlings, freshly un-germinated seeds
 Lamichaney et al.: Effect types of storage and its duration on seed quality of chickpea 153

(FUS) and dead seeds. Proportion of normal seedlings only RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
was considered for determining germination percentage.
The seed moisture content of chickpea was
Ten random and similar looking seedlings were
significantly influenced by the interaction of storage
selected;their root and shoot lengths were measured and
duration and storage condition, and the variability can be
dried for 24 hrsin an oven maintained at 80 ºC to determine
observed in Fig.1. The moisture content of seeds stored in
the seedling dry weight. Vigour indices i.e. VI-I and VI-II
jute gunny bag, silo and conventional propylene sacks
were calculated according to the formula of Abdul Baki and
reduced upto 4 months of storage, thereafter a gradual
Anderson (1973).
increase in moisture content can be observed with time.
Vigour index I = germination (%) X Seedling length (cm)
However, in hermetic polyethylene bag, the moisture
content reduced up to 16 months, and presented the lowest
Vigour index II = germination (%) X Seedling dry weight (g) values. Seeds stored in gunny bag had the highest moisture
content, reaching over 11%, while hermetic polyethylene
For SDS PAGE analysis, total protein was extracted
bag recorded lowest (9.8%) after 20 months of
from seed (200 mg) by grinding it in chilled extraction buffer
storage.Higher moisture content in seeds stored in gunny
(0.1MTris (pH7.5), 1% Triton X-100). Lowry’s method
bag then other airtight containers may be due to free
(Lowry, 1951) was used to quantify the amount of total
protein. 20 g of protein mixed with 4X loading buffer was
resolved over 12% gel and electrophoresis was carried out
at 80 V for fractionation of proteins. After the electrophoresis
was over, the gel was kept for staining overnight in a
staining solution comprising of 10% glacial acetic acid, 50%
methanol and 0.1% Coomassie brilliant blue R-250. After
washing several times in destaining solution comprising of
10% glacial acetic acid and 40% methanol, the gel was
scanned, and standard protein markers was used to predict
the molecular mass of the expressed peptides. Fig 1. Mean moisture content percentage of chickpea seeds during
20 months of storage in different storage condition
Table 1. Mean percentages of normal seedling, abnormal seedling and dead seed for Kripa seeds stored for 20 months in
different storage conditions
Time (months) Types of storage
Gunny bag Hermetic bag Silo Propylene sack Mean
Normal seedling (%)
0 80 80 80 80 80.0
4 78 80 78 74 77.5
8 74 80 86 72 78.0
12 66 68 66 62 65.5
16 24 46 38 40 37.0
20 6 48 36 20 27.5
Mean 54.7 67.0 64.0 58.0
LSD (5%) Storage duration: 3.49, Type of storage: 2.85, Interaction: 6.99
Abnormal seedling (%)
0 19 19 19 19 19.0
4 18 20 12 20 17.5
8 20 17 4 16 14.3
12 24 22 25 26 24.3
16 36 40 44 38 39.5
20 17 25 29 36 26.8
Mean 22.3 23.8 22.2 25.9
LSD (5%) Storage duration: 3.84, Type of storage: NA, Interaction: 7.68
Dead seed (%)
0 1 1 1 1 1.0
4 4 0 10 6 5.0
8 6 3 10 12 7.8
12 10 10 9 12 10.3
16 40 14 18 22 23.5
20 77 27 35 44 45.8
Mean 23.0 9.2 13.8 16.2
LSD (5%) Storage duration: 3.85, Type of storage: 3.14, Interaction: 7.70
LSD (5%) Storage duration: 3.49, Type of storage: 2.85, Interaction: 6.99
LSD (5%) Storage duration: 3.84, Type of storage: NA, Interaction: 7.68
LSD (5%) Storage duration: 3.85, Type of storage: 3.14, Interaction: 7.70
154 Journal of Food Legumes 32(3), 2019
exchange of gases and/or water vapour between the seed
and the environment(De Domenico, 2015).
The process of seed ageing, though, starts
immediately after its development and maturation within
plants (Anderson and Baker, 1983; McDonald, 2004),
chickpea seeds usually, have above 90% fresh seed
germination following processing. The rate by which the
seed deteriorates increases with passage of time during
prolong storage eventually leads to fall in germination
percent below the prescribed 85% germination standard.
Better condition during seed storage can reduce or
slowdown the rate of deterioration, which otherwise is an
inexorable and irreversible process. In the present
investigation, physiological changes in terms of
germination and related parameters were studied by storing
seeds in different storage containers or materials.The
germination percent (normal seedlings) significantly
decreased by the interaction of storage duration and
storage condition, and the variability can be observed in
Table 1 and Fig. 2. The germination of Kripa seeds was 80%
before storage. The reduction in germination after 4 months
of storage was significant only for propylene sacks. The
reduction in germination was much pronounced after 16
months of storage. After 20 months of storage, jute gunny
bag, silo and conventional propylene sack and hermetic
polyethylene bag recorded 48, 36, 20 and 6% germination
respectively. Likewise, with storage duration the proportion
of abnormal and dead seeds increased significantly. The
Fig 2. Mean germination percentage of chickpea seeds during 20
months of storage in different storage condition
Fig 3. Physical purity of chickpea seeds stored at gunny bag and
hermetic polyethylene bag after 20 months of storage
Fig 4. Changes in germination of chickpea seed with storage
proportion of abnormal seedlings was less after 20 months
of storage in all the storage types as compared to 16 months
which was due to increase in the proportion of dead seeds
(Table 1).Bruchid infestation was much pronounced in
gunny bag as compared to other storage types, which lead
to decline in seed germination (Fig. 3). Seedling length and
seedling dry weight were significantly affected by storage
duration and not by storage type while vigour index I and
II were affected by both storage duration and storage type
(Table 2). Seedling length, seedling dry weight, vigour index
I and II irrespective of storage type increased after 4 months
of storage, thereafter, it decreased significantly from 24.1
cm, 1.19 g, 1866.78 and 92.43 (4 months) to 7.1 cm, 0.28 g,
195.50 and 7.78 (20 months) respectively (Table 2; Fig. 4).
Electrical conductivity (EC) is a standard vigour test
for kabuli chickpea (ISTA, 2015), higher the value of EC
lower is the seed vigour and vice versa. The electrical
conductivity of seed leachate increased by the interaction
of storage duration and storage condition (Fig. 5). After 16
months of storage the seeds stored in jute bag recorded
maximum conductivity of seed leachate and minimum was
observed for the seeds stored in hermetic bag. Cell
membrane integrity is maintained by the proteins
responsible for maintaining cell structure. The low ability
of seeds to germinate after storage may be due to ageing
enabled inhibition in repair mechanism of cellular membrane.
The EC of seeds stored in hermetic polythene bag recorded
lowest EC after 20 months of storage and maximum EC was
observed in seeds of gunny bag. Thus, seeds stored at
gunny bag are of low vigouras compared to hermetic
Fig 5. Mean electrical conductivity of chickpea seeds during 20
months of storage in different storage condition
 Lamichaney et al.: Effect types of storage and its duration on seed quality of chickpea 155

Table 2. Seedling length, seedling dry weight and vigour indices of Kripa seeds stored for 20 months in different storage
conditions
Time (months) Types of storage
Gunny bag Hermetic bag Silo Propylene sack Mean
Seedling length (cm)
0 21.3 21.3 21.3 21.3 21.3
4 24.3 25.2 23.2 23.7 24.1
8 13.9 15.8 16.7 13.2 14.9
12 13.6 14.8 13.2 8.8 12.6
16 7.4 9.6 9.0 8.2 8.5
20 6.4 6.7 7.5 7.7 7.1
Mean 14.5 15.6 15.2 13.8
LSD (5%) Storage duration: 4.19, Type of storage: NS, Interaction: NS

Seedling dry weight (g)

0 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84
4 1.17 1.25 1.23 1.11 1.19
8 0.73 0.62 0.72 0.63 0.68
12 0.38 0.47 0.48 0.38 0.43
16 0.32 0.37 0.40 0.32 0.35
20 0.26 0.28 0.28 0.30 0.28
Mean 0.62 0.64 0.66 0.60
LSD (5%) Storage duration: 0.062, Type of storage: NS, Interaction: NS

Vigour index I
0 1704.00 1704.00 1704.00 1704.00 1704.00
4 1895.40 2012.00 1809.60 1750.10 1866.78
8 1026.40 1267.20 1431.90 951.80 1169.33
12 900.24 1006.40 873.80 545.60 831.51
16 177.60 443.40 343.50 329.20 323.43
20 38.60 321.60 268.20 153.60 195.50
Mean 957.04 1125.77 1071.83 905.72
LSD (5%) Storage duration: 134.04, Type of storage: 109.44, Interaction: NS

Vigour index II
0 67.2 67.2 67.2 67.2 67.20
4 91.3 100.4 95.9 82.1 92.43
8 54.0 49.6 61.9 45.4 52.73
12 25.1 31.9 32.0 23.6 28.15
16 7.6 17.1 15.14 12.8 13.16
20 1.6 13.4 10.1 6.0 7.78
Mean 41.13 46.60 47.04 39.52
LSD (5%) Storage duration: 6.46, Type of storage: 5.27, Interaction: NS
LSD (5%) Storage duration: 4.19, Type of storage: NS, Interaction: NS
LSD (5%) Storage duration: 0.062, Type of storage: NS, Interaction: NS
LSD (5%) Storage duration: 134.04, Type of storage: 109.44, Interaction: NS
LSD (5%) Storage duration: 6.46, Type of storage: 5.27, Interaction: NS

polythene bag. Our findings are in accordance with the
findings of Sacandeet al. (2001), Khan et al. (2004),
Ratajczak and Pukacka (2005), Eliud et al. (2010) as they
also reported higher electrical conductivity of seed leachate
upon storage.
SDS PAGE profiling of fresh seed (before storage)
and 16 months old seed indicated significant differences in
protein pattern upon ageing. Most of the changes were
observed in proteins of molecular weight ranging between
14 to 45 kDa. Notably, peptide of about 45, 28, 30, 20, 16 and
14 kDadegraded as such peptides were absent in 16 months
old seed (Fig 6). In general, the band intensity as well as
the number of proteins were higher in fresh seed then aged
seed. Most of the seed storage proteins get accumulated
during early to mid seed maturation stage which acts as a
source of energy supply during seed germination and
subsequent growth and development of seedling(Li et al.
2007). Post-translational alterations and modifications,
ageing induced protein degradation may be associated with
lossof protein bands (Rajjouet al. 2008). The results are in
accordance with that of Kapoor et al. (2010), Machado et
al. (2001), Vasudevan et al. (2012).
In general, the seed germination percent and vigour
(as revealed by EC, vigour indices and seedling dry weight)
reduced with storage period. The reduction in germination
and vigour may be attributed to change in the function and
properties of seed storage protein as a number of peptides
were lost in old seed as compared to fresh seeds. Comparing
the storage types, seeds stored at hermetic polyethylene
bag recorded much higher germination even after 20 months
156 Journal of Food Legumes 32(3), 2019
Fig 6. Effect of seed storage period on protein expression
of storage; therefore, it may be recommended for safe
storage of kabuli seeds.
REFERENCES
Abdul-Baki AA and Anderson JD. 1973. Vigour determination in
soybean seed by multiple criteria. Crop Science 13: 630-633.
Anderson J and Baker J. 1983. Deterioration of seeds during aging.
Phytopathology 73(2): 321-325.
Caldas GVand Blair MW. 2009. Inheritance of seed condensed tannins
and their relationship with seed-coat colour and pattern genes
in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Theoretical Applied
Genetics 119: 131-142.
Chanal G, Nagnur S and Nanjayyanamath C. 2004. Indigenous grain
storage structures, Leisa India 6(3): 10.
Di Domenico AS, Christ D, Hashimoto EH, Busso C and Coelho
SRM. 2015. Evaluation of quality attributes and the incidence
of Fusarium sp. and Aspergillus sp. in different types of maize
storage. Journal of Stored Products Research 61: 59-64.
Eliud R, Reuben M and Linnet G. 2010. Longevity of bean (Phaseolus
vulgaris) seeds stored at locations varying in temperature and
relative humidity. InternationalJournal of Agriculture Pure and
Applied Science and Technology 5: 60-70.
Finch-Savage WE and Bassel GW. 2016. Seed vigour and crop
establishment: extending performance beyond adaptation,
Journal of Experimental Botany 67(3): 567–591.
FAOSTAT. 2014. Food and agriculture organization of the united
nations, Rome.
ISTA. 2015. International Rules for Seed Testing, International
Seed Testing Association, Bassersdorf, Switzerland.
Kantar F, Pilbeam C and Hebblethwaite P. 1996. Effect of tannin
content of faba bean (Viciafaba) seed on seed vigour, germination
and field emergence. Annals Applied of Biology 128: 85-93.
Kanwar P and Sharma N. 2003. An insight of indigenous crop storage
practices for food security in Himachal Pradesh. Food and
nutritional security, agrotechnology and socioeconomic aspects.
Pp 175-179.
Kapoor N, Arya A, Siddiqui M, Amir A and Kumar H. 2010. Seed
deterioration in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) under accelerated
ageing. Asian Journal of Plant Science 9(3): 158-162.
Khan MM, Iqbal MJ, Abbas M, Raza H, Waseem R and Ali A. 2004.
Loss of vigour and viability in aged onion (Allium cepa L.) seeds.
International Journal ofAgriculture and Biology 6: 708-711.
Lamichaney A and Katiyar PK. 2017b. Plant emergence and T 50
responses of two chickpea cultivar differing in seed coat colour
to PEG-osmopriming at sub-optimal temperature. National
Academy Science Letters 40(6): 399-403.
Lamichaney A, Katiyar PK, Natarajan S and Sripathy KV. 2016.
Relationship among some seed characters, laboratory
germination and field emergence in chickpea (Cicer arietinum
L.) genotypes differing in testacolour. Journal of Food Legumes
29(1): 29-32.
Lamichaney A, Kudekallu S, Kamble U, Sarangapany N, Katiyar PK
and Bohra A. 2017a. Differences in seed vigour traits between
desi (pigmented) and kabuli (non-pigmented) ecotypes of
chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) and its association with field
emergence. Journal of Environmental Biology 38(5): 735-742.
Li Q, Wang BC, Xu Yand Zhu YX. 2007. Systematic studies of 12S
seed storage protein accumulation and degradation patterns during
Arabidopsis seed maturation and early seedling germination
stages. Journal ofBiochemical and Molecular Biology 40(3):
373-381.
Lowry OH, Rosebrough NJ, Farr AL and Randall RJ. 1951. Protein
measurement with the Folin phenol reagent. Journal of Biology
andChemistry 193: 265-275.
Machado N, Custodio C and Takaki M. 2001. Evaluation of naturally
and artificially aged seeds of Phaseolus vulgaris L. Seed Science
and Technology 29(1): 137-149.
McDonald MB. 2004. Orthodox seed deterioration and its repair.
In: Benech-Arnold R.L. and Sanchez R.A. (ed) Handbook of
seed physiology: applications to agriculture. Food Products Press
and The Haworth Reference Press, imprints of The Haworth
Press, Inc, New York, London pp: 273–304.
Peksen A, Peksen E and Bozoglu H. 2004. Relationships among
some seed traits, laboratory germination and field emergence in
cowpea genotypes. Pakistan Journal ofBotany 36: 311-320.
Rajjou L, Lovigny Y, Groot SP, Belghazi M, Job C and Job D. 2008.
Proteome-wide characterization of seed aging in Arabidopsis: a
comparison between artificial and natural aging protocols. Plant
Physiology 148(1): 620-641.
Ratajczak E and Pukacka S. 2005. Decrease in beech (Fagus
sylvatica) seed viability caused by temperature and humidity
conditions as related to membrane damage and lipid composition.
Acta Physiology Plant 27(1): 3-12.
Sacande M, Golovina EA, Van Aelst AC and Hoekstra FA. 2001.
Viability loss of neem (Azadirachtaindica) seeds associated with
membrane phase behaviour. Journal ofExperimental Botany
52(358): 919-931.
Saeidi G. 2008. Genetic variation and heritability for germination, seed
vigour and field emergence in brown and yellow-seeded genotypes
of flax. International Journal of Plant Production 2: 15-22.
Sooganna Jain SK, Bhat KV, Lamichaney A and Lal SK. 2016.
Characterization of soybean (Glycine max) genotypes for seed
longevity using SSR markers. Indian Journal of Agriculture
Science 86(5): 605–610.
Vasudevan SN, Shakuntala NM, Doddagoudar SR, Mathad RC and
Macha SI. 2012. Biochemical and molecular changes in aged
peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) seeds. The Ecoscan 1: 347-352.
Journal of Food Legumes 32(3): 157-160, 2019
Studies on seed development and maturation in relation to yield and seed vigour
in fieldpea (Pisum sativum L.)
RDS YADAV, VINEET DHEER1, PK KATIYAR2 and PRADEEP YADAV2
Acharya Narendra Deva University of Agriculture and Technology, Kumarganj, Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh, India;
1
C.S.A. University of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, India; 2ICAR-Indian Institute of
Pulses Research, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, India; Email: rdsnduat@gmail.com
(Received : January 18, 2019; Accepted : June 16, 2019)
ABSTRACT
Studies on seed development and maturation in fieldpea
were taken up in order to quantify the precise stage of
harvesting at which its maximum yield and seed vigour were
achieved under normal soil and sodic soil conditions. The
seed attained maturity about one week earlier and also low
seed vigour under sodic soil in comparison to the normal
soil condition. The maximum seed dry weight was observed
at 50-55 days after anthesis and around 30-35 per cent seed
moisture content which resemblance to physiological or mass
maturity. Further, the maximum seed quality and /or vigour
parameters viz., germination, seedling length, vigour index
and field emergence were recorded at 55-60 days after
anthesis and around 20-24 percent seed moisture content
just before to harvest maturity which was accorded at 60-65
days after anthesis and around 14 per cent seed moisture
content. Therefore, it can be concluded that seed viability
appeared before mass maturity and was increased until
sometime after mass maturity but before harvest maturity
and declined thereafter. These valuable findings are being
utilized in quality seed production of field pea.
Key words: Fieldpea, Seed development, Seed vigour
Field pea (Pisum sativum L.) is an important Rabi/
cool season crop. It is being grown in about 0.82 million
hectare with annual production of about 0.99 million tonnes
and productivity of1.2 tonnes per hectare (Anon., 2019).
Uttar Pradesh is a leading state for its production by
contributing 46.37% followed by 17.76% Madhya Pradesh
of total production of field pea in India
(agriexchange.apeda.gov.in).Salt affected land adversely
affects the productivity of approximately 1000 million
hectares of agricultural land worldwide. It is spread over
about 6.73 million hectares in India, of which about 56% is
sodicsoil and the remaining 44% are saline (Sharma et al.,
2016. Acharya Narendra Deva University of Agriculture
and Technology, Kumaraganj, Ayodhya is surrounded by
sodicity in its most populous land. Field pea offers flexibility
for wider adaptation to soil type relatively tolerant of sodic
soil (www.pulses.com.au).Quality seed, being a vital input,
play a paramount role for increasing the production and
productivity. Its only inclusion in cultivation leads to 15-20
per cent increase in yield. The maximum seed viability and
seed vigour could be achieved if seed crops are harvested
at the optimum stage of maturity. Delayed harvest leads to
decline seed quality, severe crop lodging, greater soil
contamination, over drying, increased pod shattering and
increased crop vulnerability to weather, birds and animal’s
damage. Thus, seed crop should be harvested soon after
attaining the maximum seed quality. Physiological maturity,
mass maturity and harvest maturity are important terms
which are concerned to seed quality. Physiological maturity
was probably first defined by Shaw and Loomis (1950) as
the stage in seed development when seed reaches its
maximum dry weight and yield. This same stage was also
termed as relative maturity byAldrich (1943), morphological
maturity by Anderson (1955) and in the recent past mass
maturity by Ellis and Pieta-Filho (1992). The moisture
content of the seed is often too high at Physiological
maturity which leads the problems for mechanical harvesting
and threshing. Harvest maturity is defined as the seed
moisture declines to a harvestable level in those crops
harvested as dry seeds and / or fruits (Tekrony and Egli
1997).It is widely accepted that Physiological maturity
represents the end of the seed filling period and the maximum
yield for any crop harvested as dry seed. Harrington (1972)
proposed that developing seed attain maximum quality
(vigour) at Physiological maturity, after which deterioration
starts and seed germination and vigour decline. This
hypothesis was supported by researchers for more than
two decades. Later on,Ellis and his associates have
advocated that maximum seed quality (vigour) does not
occur until sometime after Physiological maturity (Pieta-
Filho and Ellis 1991). They elaboratedthat maturing seed of
soybean and corn do not attain their maximum ability to
survive storage (potential longevity). Hence, they refer to
this stage as mass maturity, rather than Physiological
maturity (Ellis and Pieta-Filho 1992). In such cases seed
quality (vigour) may continue to increase even after the
seed have reached maximum dry weight (mass maturity)but
before harvest maturity, the stage at which a grain crop is
harvestableie. usually 10-14 per cent seed moisture
content.Furguson (1993) found that in different cultivars
of combining pea maximum seed quality was attained 14 to
19 days after the stage of maximum seed dry weight. In his
study, seed quality did not decline before harvest maturity.
He concluded that Harrington’s hypothesis may be rejected
in case of combining pea.Tekrony and Egli (1997) suggested
that the relationship between the occurrence of maximum
seed dry weight and maximum seed vigour may depend on
the experimental techniques used in the investigation,
158 Journal of Food Legumes 32(3), 2019

particularly how the seed are harvested and dried.Further,

the indeterminate growth habit of fieldpea varieties led the
seed mature progressively from the bottom to the top of
the plant. Thus, creates difficulty to reckon the various
stages of seed maturity even on individual plant as well as
variability in seed quality (Yadavet al., 2020).The present
investigation was therefore undertaken to study the seed
development and maturation in order to optimize the best
stage of harvest at which maximum yield and vigour could
be obtained under both normal and sodic soil conditions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The experiment was conducted in two sets. First was
under normal soil condition characterized by silty loam,
with 0.38% organic carbon, 283.50 kg available N/ha, 18.35
kg available P2O5/ha, 212 available K2O/ha and 7.5 pH.The
second set of experiment was taken upunder sodic soil Fig 1: Seed moisture content (%) and 100 seed dry weight (g)
which was characterized by 0.31% organic carbon, 180 kg during various stages of harvesting after anthesis in filed
available N/ha, 11.80 kg available P2O5/ha, 180 kg available pea under normal/silty loam soil condition
K2O/ha,8.9 pH and 0.96 dS/m.Uniform and healthy seed
(moisture, 9-10%) of field pea cv. Aman was sown at spacing normal condition. The differences of about 6-7 days were
of 30 cm between the rows and 10 cm between the plants in noticed for seed development and maturation between loam
a 100 m2under both conditions during last week of October, andsodic soil conditions.
2019. Other recommended package of practices was The 100 seed dry weight computed on dry- wet basis
followed time to time to raise an ideal crop.A large number at different harvest stages under both conditions are given
of flowers were tagged and pods were picked up after 30, in table 1. The dry weight was increased as stages of
35, 40, 45, 50, 55,60,65,70, 75and 80 days afteranthesis in harvest were progressed. The higher seed weight was
both conditions. Seed were shelled out from respective recorded in loamy soil in comparison to sodic soil. Thus,
pods very carefully and subjected to determine their the present study revealed that the bold seed was produced
moisture content on dry-wet basis and thereafter kept to under normal soil as compared to sodic soil. Harvesting
dry under ambient condition to the level of 9-10% moisture the crop at early stage showed high seed moisture content,
level.One hundred seed with thrice replicates from already high percentage of immature seed andlow seed weight.
collected seed at each stage were again randomly separated Further, as seed development and maturation progressed,
and weighed. These thrice replicated seed were thoroughly more seed were filled, seed moisture content was declined
mixed in Boerner type divider to ensure homogeneity. Out and consequently average seed weight increased in both
of these, 50 seed were placed on moist blotter paper in 3 conditions. There was a gradual increase in seed dry
replications and placed in BOD incubator at 22±10C to weightwith reduction of seed moisture content.
record the germination and seedling length as per ISTA
Table 1. Seed moisture content (%) and seed dry weight
Rules (1999). Seedling vigour index was computed as (g) during seed development and maturation
Germination (%) X Seedling length (cm). Besides, 50 seed under normal and sodic conditions in field pea.
were placed in soil at 30 x 10 cm apart in 4 replications and
Days after Seed moisture content 100 seed dry weight (g)
final emergence was recorded after its 21 days as no further anthesis (%)
emergence was occurred. Data were statistically analyzed. Normal soil Sodic soil Normal soil Sodic soil
30 74 71 07.37 06.26
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 35 67 61 09.16 08.32
The studies on seed development and maturation 40 58 52 12.52 13.09
45 49 43 16.27 14.53
werecarried out on the fundamental basis of seed moisture
50 40 35 17.51 15.56
content and subsequent dry matter accumulation in seed 55 30 24 18.13 15.34
at different stages of harvest in both conditions. The seed 60 19 15 17.32 14.76
moisture content (%) obtained at different harvest stages 65 14 12 17.23 14.52
under both conditions are presented in Fig. 1. The seed 70 13 12 16.14 14.30
moisture content was declined with progressive stages of 75 12 11 16.05 14.00
harvest in both conditions. There was comparatively faster 80 11 10 15.21 13.12
reduction of moisture content during seed development CD (5%) 7.73 6.67 3.46 2.94
and maturation under sodic soil condition as compared to Days after anthesis Seed moisture content (%) 100 seed dry weight
(g)
 Yadav et al. : Studies on seed development and maturation in relation to yield and seed vigour in fieldpea
Fig 2: Seed moisture content (%) and 100 seed dry weight (g)
during various stages of harvesting after anthesis in filed
pea under sodic soil condition
Fig 3: Germination (%) of seed harvested at various stages of
seed development and maturation in field pea under normal
(silty loam) and sodic soil condition.
Fig 4: Seedling length (cm) of seed harvested at various stages
of seed development and maturation in field pea under
normal (silty loam) and sodic soil condition.
159
Fig 5: Vigour index of seed harvested at various stages of seed
development and maturation in field pea under normal
(silty loam) and sodic soil condition
Fig 6: Seedling length (cm) of seed harvested at various stages
of seed development and maturation in field pea under
normal (silty loam) and sodic soil condition.
In normal and sodic soil condition after attaining
around 30 and 35 per cent seed moisture content, pea seed
did not show any increase in dry weight, even when their
moisture content decreased to the level of 14 and 12 per
cent, respectively. In these studies thus, mass maturity
stage occurred when pea seed attained around 30 and 35
per cent moisture content in normal and sodic soil,
respectively. It was also observed at mass maturity the
pods of field pea was turned completely brown. The increase
in seed dry weight towards maturity may be due to the
accumulation of non structural carbohydrates, reducing
sugars and fibre(Siddique and Wright, 2003).
The seed germination from some initial stage was
zero which might be duo immature seed development.
Further, seed obtained after 40 days of anthesis did not
germinate to the level of Indian Minimum Seed Certification
Standard i e., 75 per cent. The seed moisturecontent at this
stage was 58 and 52 per cent under normal and sodicsoil ,
respectively. Pea seed showed maximum germination (93%)
and 86% at 60 and 55 days after anthesis, when seed attained
around 20 % moisture content. The percentage of
germination even higher tha the IMSCS was maintained
until 75 DAA, when their moisture content was around 12
160 Journal of Food Legumes 32(3), 2019
per cent and thereafter declined to IMSCS though only in
seed produced under sodic soil condition.
The seedling length measured on final count (8th day)
of seed obtained at different stages under both conditions
are depicted in Fig.3. It is evident that the length of
seedlings was increased stages of seed development and
maturation progressed. Comparatively shorter seedlings
were noticed at early stages of harvest. The longest
seedlings were obtained when maximum dry weight of seed
was attained. Thus, there was a very close relationship
between seed size and seedling length. The longer seedlings
were recorded under normal soil as compared to the
seedlings of seed developed under sodic soil.
Seedling vigour index being a product of germination
percentage and seedling length (cm) of different stages
under both conditions are shown in Fig.4. It is clearly
appeared the seed vigour index was quite less at early stages
of seed development and also declined during delayed
harvesting the seed produced under normal soil showed
for high vigour as compared to the vigour of seed produced
under sodic soil. The maximum vigour index was observed
when seed moisture content was around 20 per cent and
at60 days after anthesis under normal soil condition where
as undersodic soil, it was maximum at 55 days after anthesis
having around 25 per cent seed moisture content. Thereafter
gradual declining trend was recorded under both
conditions.
The field emergence of seed harvested early at 30
days after anthesis and at around 74 per cent seed moisture
content) in soil was very low as compared to laboratory
germination percentage. Field emergence increased as
harvesting was progressed even after some time after
physiological maturity it increased up to 60 days after
anthesis and at around 20 per cent under normal soil where
as under sodic soil it increased up to 55 days after anthesis
and at around 25 per cent. Besides, field emergence was
significantly decreased after 75 days after anthesis under
both conditions. These findings are in very close
conformity to Siddique and Wright (2003). Low
emergencein very mature seedmay be attributed due to
changes in the ability of the cotyledons to withstand
enhanced drying (Matthews,1971).
It is imperative to accord that maximum seed dry
weight was observed at 50-55 days after anthesis and
around 30-35 per cent seed moisture content which
resemblance to physiological or mass maturity. Further, the
maximum seed quality and/or vigour parameters
viz.,germination,seedling length,vigour index andfield
emergence were recorded at 55-60 DAA and around 20-24
percent seed moisture content just before to harvest
maturity which was accorded at 60-65 DAA and around 14
per cent seed moisture content.Thus, the seed viability
appeared before mass maturity and was increased until
sometime after mass maturity and declined thereafter.
Maximum seed vigour was also appeared some time after
mass maturity. These findings are in agreement with the
findings of Ellis and Pieta-Filho(1992), Furguson(1993),
Siddique and Wright (2003)and Yadavet al.(2020), and in
disagreement with Harrington (1972).Harvest of field pea
crops should be done as soon as seed moisture falls below
14per cent otherwise significant losses in both yield as
well as in seed vigour would be realized.
REFERENCES
Aldrich SR. 1943.Maturity measurements in corn and an indication
that grain development continues after premature cuttings.
Journal of American Society of Agronomy. 35: 667-680.
Anderson SR. 1955. Development of pods and seeds of bird foot
trefoil, Lotus corniculatus L. as related to maturity and seed
yields. Agronomy Journal. 47: 483-487.
Anonymous, 2019. Project Coordinator’s Report. All India
Coordinated Research Project on MULLaRP (ICAR). pp. 48.
Ellis RH andPieta-Filho C.1992. The development of seed quality
inspring and winter cultivars of barley and wheat. Seed Science
Research. 2: 9-15.
Furguson AJ.1993.The agronomic significance of seed quality in
combining peas (Pisum sativum L.). Ph. D. Thesis, University
of Aberdeen.
Harrington JF. 1972. Seed storage and longevity. In: Seed Biology
(ed.) TT Kozlowski. New York; Academic Press III: 142-245.
ISTA. 1999. International Rules for seed testing. Seed Science and
Technology 27 (Suppl.): 285-297.
Matthews S. 1971.Astudy of seed lots of peas (PisumsativumL.)
Annals of Applied Biology. 68: 177-183.
Pieta-Fihlo C and Ellis RH. 1991.The development of seed quality
in spring barley in four environments.1. Germination and
Longevity. Seed Science Research. 1: 179-185.
Sharma DK, Singh Anshuman, Sharma PC, Dagar JC and Chaudhari
SK. Sustainable management of sodic soils for crop production:
Opportunities and Challenges. Journal of Soil Salinity and Water
Quality 8(2): 109-130, 2016.
Shaw RH and Loomis WE.1950. Bases for the prediction of corn
yields. Plant Physiology. 25: 225-244.
Siddique AB and Wright D.2003. Effects of time of harvest at different
moisture content on seed fresh weight, dry weight, quality
(viability and vigour) and food reserve of peas (Pisumsativum
L.). Asian Journal of Plant Science. 2(13): 983-992.
Yadav RDS, Singh RK, dheer Vineet and Tripathi RM. 2020. Effect
of harvest stages on seed yield and its quality in chickpea
(Cicerarietinum L.). International Journal of Chemical Studies.
8(3): 1249-1251.
Journal of Food Legumes 32(3): 161-169, 2019
Nutrient management in pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.] + cereal
intercropping system under rainfed environment of Bundelkhand region of India
AK TRIPATHI, HS KUSHWAHA, DIPALI SINGH and CS PRAHARAJ1
Mahatma Gandhi Chitrakoot Gramodaya Vishwavidyalaya Chitrakoot, Satna, Madhya Pradesh, India;
1
ICAR-Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, India; E-mail: kushwaha_hs@rediffmail.com
(Received : January 6, 2019; Accepted : May 11, 2019)
ABSTRACT
A field experiment was conducted during two rainy seasons
of 2012-14 in sandy loam soil of Uttar Pradesh (Lalitpur,
India) to study the effect of NPK on growth, nutrient uptake,
productivity of pigeonpea based intercropping systems and
post-harvest soil nutrient status. Intercropping of sorghum
with pigeonpea (1:1 row ratio) produced higher growth and
development of the latter (through increased plant height,
trifoliate number, LER, ATER, dry matter content, pods/plant,
and 100-seed weight)compared to those of pearlmillet
(intercropped with pigeonpea). These effects in former were
similar to those with pigeonpea sole (grown with 100%
recommended dose of fertilizers, RDF). Grain, straw and
stick yields of pigeonpea in its intercropping system with
sorghum were also higher during 2012-13. Application of
NPK to pigeonpea alone also resulted in higher per plant
trifotiates and pods, seeds/pod, 100-grain weight, grain and
straw yields. Intercropping competition parameters (like,
land equivalent ratio write or LER, area time equivalent
ratio write or ATER, aggressivity and relative crowding
coefficient) were improved in the above treatment. In
addition, monetary advantage index (MAI) was also
favourable in pigeonpea+sorghum and NPK application to
pigeonpea alone during 2013-14. Crop uptake in terms of N
and K were significantly enhanced following application of
NPK alone to pigeonpea. All the pigeonpea based
intercropping systems had positive balance of available
nutrients in soil (with higher available N during first year
while, higher available P and K during both the years). Seed-
protein content was not influenced by intercropping system
and nutrient supply. Amongst intercropping systems,
however, pigeonpea + pearl millet (1:1) was observed to be
an efficient intercropping system in respect of higher
nodules/plant, better yield attributes, enhanced seed, straw
and stick yield, improved crop equivalent yield, more N, P
and K uptake by pigeonpea, and balanced LER and ATER. It
was inferred further that in terms of total productivity
measured through crop equivalent yield, pigeonpea + pearl
millet with RDF to former and 75% RDF to latter was the
most remunerative nutrient management schedule under
rainfed Bundelkhand region of India.
Key words: Fertility balance, Intercropping, Nutrient uptake,
Protein content
Intercropping has been in vogue for centuries to
combat weed problem, minimize risk, utilize the lag phase
and improve productivity (Aiyer 1949, Willey 1979,
Ghosh2004). This may be due to some of the established
and speculated advantages for intercropping systems such
as higher yields, greater land-use efficiency and
improvement of soil fertility through the addition of N by
fixation and excretion from the component legume (Willey
1979; Ofori and Stern 1987). Pigeonpea [Cajanuscajan(L.)
Millsp.]is intercropped with crops likemaize, sorghum, pearl
millet and groundnut in its traditional growing areas of India
by marginal and small farmers during rainy season (Vermaet
al. 1999). Appropriate pigeonpea based intercropping
system is known to increase the total productivity of land
through efficient utilization of space, water, and nutrient
(Rana and Pal 1997). Pigeonpea based intercropping is more
popular because of its greater yield advantage as compared
to sole cropping. Besides realization of stabilized production
over a longer period, these widely-spaced cropsoffers an
opportunity to accommodate another short duration crop
as an intercrop because of its slow growthduring initial
stages. Therefore, in order to accommodate the wide inter-
row space between two rows of pigeonpea along with
additional yields, fast-growing,short duration and high
yielding cereals and/or oilseeds are preferred (Praharaj et
al. 2017, 2018). This sort of intercrop arrangement also
offers compatibility with the main crop without any
competition. Seeds of most commonly preferred crops, like
sorghum, pearl millet and maize are mixed or intercropped
with that of pigeonpea to cover risk associated with sole
crop besides additional monetary return accrued following
such intercrops (Sarkaret al. 1995).
Fertilizer is one of the costliest inputs of crop
production. It is, therefore, very important to analyze the
economic use of fertilizers. Intercropping of legumes with
non-legume mixtures probably reduce competition for
nitrogen (N), since the legume depends mainly on its N
fixed symbiotically while, the cereal uses mineral N (Ofori
and Stern 1987; Rerkasemet al.1988). Several studies of
cereal/legume intercropping have also shown that the
quantity of N fixed by the legume depends on such factors
as the morphology, density and competitive ability of the
legume (Ofori and Stern 1987), the effectiveness of the
rhizobia symbiosisand the system of intercropping
(Rerkasem and Rerkasem1988). Cereals intercropped with
legumes at full population responded to nitrogen in a similar
way to sole cropped cereals, though the response in terms
of kg grain produced per kg of applied nitrogen might be
less in intercropping because ofcompetition from the
162 Journal of Food Legumes 32(3), 2019
legume (Anonymous 1980). Nitrogen and phosphorus are
known to have a great impact on nodulation and thereby,
on productivity of legumes (Singh et al. 1998). Availability
of phosphorus is also an issue in legume based cropping
system as it is considered most important nutrient limiting
pulses production. In general, intercropping may not require
additional P as there is little competition for P between
component crops, particularly in P deficient soil (Srinivasan
and Ahlawat 1990). Crop uptake of potassium exceeds N
by 60 per cent on a gross basis. Depletion of K relative to N
is high in cropping systems involving cereal and fodder
crops. Since most Indian soils are considered adequate in
native K, its application did not receive much attention.
Mining of native K under intensive cropping and
continuous neglect of replacement through fertilizers led
to K deficiency in many soils; and thus, responses to its
application became spectacular in different cropping
systems (Goswamiet al. 1976). Fertilizer requirement of a
cropping system may be increased, unaltered or reduced
compared to individual crops in a season or intercropping
system depending on crops involved in the system.
Therefore, the present study aims at finding out an optimum
NPK doses for pigeonpea + sorghum/pearl millet
intercropping system Besides this, there is a need to assess
the pigeonpea + cereals intercropping system as a means
to better resource management with respect to crop growth,
productivity, competition and monetary advantage.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Field experiments were conducted at the Agriculture
Research Farm of Nehru P.G. College, Lalitpur (U.P.) India
(78010’E, 240 10’N and 400meters above mean sea level)
during 2012-13 and 2013-14. The experimental site is located
in a semi-arid and sub-tropical climate with hot dry summers
and cold winters with mean annual rainfall of 803 mm. In
this region, the onset of monsoon happens to be in the
4thweek of June. The rainfall is confined to four months
during rainy season from June to September with copious
(136.1mm) rainfallduring both winter and summer (Oct to
June). May and June are the hottest months with
temperature ranging from 40 to 500C. January is the coldest
month of the year with the average minimum temperature
of 4.30C. The soil of experimental field is classified as
mixedred and black (sandy loam,Raker) with pH of 7.3 to
7.5. The soil is also characterized by low organic carbon
(0.40%) and total N (152-164 kg/ha), medium available P
(11-13 kg P2O5/ha) and available K (265-281 kg K2O/ha).
The experiment consisted of two intercropping
systems (pigeonpea+sorghum and pigeonpea+pearl millet)
in 1:1 row ratios(of both the crops) with six fertility levels
[pigeonpea (no NPK or RDF) + intercrop (RDF); pigeonpea
(RDF) + intercrop (no RDF) ; pigeonpea (RDF) + intercrop
(25%RDF); pigeonpea (RDF) + intercrop (50%RDF);
pigeonpea (RDF) + intercrop (75%RDF); pigeonpea (RDF)
+ intercrop (100%RDF)]. Besides these, six controls
treatments involving sole cropping of pigeonpea, sorghum
and pearl millet grown with zero and RDF were also taken
for comparison. The experiment was evaluated in a
randomized block design with three replications.
The seeds of pigeonpea, sorghum and pearl millet
were treated with thiram 75% WP at 2.5 g/kgseed. However,
pigeonpea seed was uniformly treated with Rhizobium
culture at 20 g/kgseed and phosphorus soluble mobilizer
(PSM) at 40 g/kgseed. The gross and net plot size were 5m
× 3.75m,3m × 2.25m, respectively. Row to row distance was
maintained at 75 cm for pigeonpea and 45 cm for sorghum
and pearl millet as sole crop. However, in intercropping
system, one line of sorghum/pearl millet was adjusted
between two rows of pigeonpea (1:1)spaced at 75 cm apart
in additive series. The lines were marked at desired distance
and shallow furrows were opened with the help of country
plough. The seeds were drilled manually in the furrow using
the recommended seed rate of pigeonpea (cv. Amar) at 15
kg/ha, sorghum (cv. CSV-15) at 12 kg/ha and pearl millet (cv.
Pioneer-7688) at 3 kg/ha. Full amount of NPK for pigeonpea
was applied as basal, while for the sorghum and pearl millet,
1/3rd dose of N with full doses of P and K were applied as
basal, and remained 2/3rd of N was given in two equal split
doses at 30 and 50days of sowing (DAS) of crop. Urea
(46.4% N), single super phosphate (16% P2O5) and muriate
of potash (60% K2O) were used to supply N,P and K,
respectively. The sowing of all crops was completed by
15th July in both the experimental years (2012-13 and 2013-
14),while harvesting of pearl millet, sorghum and pigeonpea
was completed by 1st and 2nd week October, and 3rd week of
February (1st week of Marchduring 2013-14) during both
the years, respectively. Necessary plant protection and
weed control practices were followed during crop growth
cycle. The crop was entirely grown under rainfedcondition
(without irrigation). The crop was hand weeded at 25 DAS
to keep the field free of weeds. No serious incidence of
insects or diseases was observed.
Pigeonpea plants from each plot were sampled for
growth analysis as per standard procedure. Three
pigeonpea plants were uprooted with a ball of soil for
recording nodulation. Keeping the root portion intact, ball
of soil was washed gently with clean running water followed
by washing with camel hair brush to dislodge any soil
particles adhering to it. Nodules from roots were removed,
counted and dry mass was measured at 90 DAS (Vincent
1970). Nitrogen content of seeds and shoot was estimated
by Micro-Kjeldhal methods (AOAC1965). The protein
content was obtained by multiplying the analysednitrogen
content by a factor of 6.25. Available P and K of seed and
plant were also determined by Olsen’smethod (Olsen et al.
1954) and Jackson method (1962), respectively. The fertility
balance in term of nutrient was calculated by subtracting
the initial soil test value from that of final at harvest.
The yield advantage of intercropping was calculated
 Tripathi et al.: Nutrient management in pigeonpea + cereal intercropping system
according to Ofori and Stern (1987), Willey and Osiru (1972),
Willey and Rao (1980). The land equivalent ratio (LER) gives
an accurate assessment of the greater biological efficiency
of the intercropping situation and was calculated as LER =
(Yab/Yaa) + (Yba/Ybb), where, Yaa and Ybb are yields as sole
crops; and Yab and Yba are yields as intercrops. LER values
greater than 1 are considered advantageous. LER has also
been used to calculate monetary advantage. Relative
crowding coefficient (RCC) is a measure of relative
dominance of one component crop over the other in an
intercropping system. For crop ‘a’ in association with ‘b’,
Kab = YabXba/(Yaa-Yab)X ab, where Xab is the sown proportion
of ‘a’ in mixture of ‘b’ and Xba the sown proportion of ‘b’ in
mixture of ‘a’. The product of two coefficients (KabKba) is
equal to K. If K > 1, there is a yield advantage;and K=1,
there is no yield advantage, and again if K <1, there is a
yield disadvantage. Aggressivity is another index that
represents a simple measure of how much the relative yield
increase in ‘a’ crop is greater than that of ‘b’ crop in an
intercropping system. It was calculated as Aab=(Yab/YaaXab)-
(Yba/YbbXba); if Aab=0, both crops are equally competitive, if
Aab is positive, ‘a’ is dominant, and again if A ab is
negative,’a’ is the dominated crop. Welley and Rao (1980)
suggested the ratio of these terms, which they designated
as competition ratio (CR), instead of taking the difference
of two terms in aggressivity. The CR represents simply the
ratio of individual LERs of the two component crops, but
taking into account the proportion of the crops in which
they were initially sown, CRa= (LERa/LERb) (Xba/Xab), and if
CRa<1, there is a positive benefit and the crop can be grown
in association. However, if CRa>1, there is negative benefit.
The reverse is true for CRb. Thus, the yield and economic
performance of the intercropping was used to decide
whether pigeonpea yield and additional cereal yield are
sufficient to justify the (economic) benefits accrued to
farmers following a particular intercropping system. Since
none of the competition indices explains economic
advantage of an intercropping system, thus, we computed
monetary advantage index (MAI) as MAI= Value of
combined intercrops×(LER-1)/LER. The higher the index
value (MAI), the more profitable is the cropping system.
The data recorded for various studies were subjected to
analysis of variance (ANOVA) for randomized block design
(Cochron and Cox 1958).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Crop Growth: Growth parametersin sole pigeonpea
plots,such as plant height, trifoliate leaves and dry matter
per plant, under RDF were superior to those with no
fertilizers at 150 DAS during both the years of study. The
improvement in morphological as well as photosynthetic
parameters as evident from higher number of trifoliate leaves
and chlorophyll content was due to nutrient (RDF)
application as it could have resulted in better light
interception and utilization of radiant energy. As a result, it
163
led to higher photosynthesis rate and accumulation of dry
matter both in individual plant and crop (Patidar and Mali
2004).
Similarly, growing pigeonpea + sorghum as an
intercropping system significantly enhanced plant height,
trifoliate leaves and dry matter/plant of pigeonpea compared
to pigeonpea + pearl millet system at 150 DAS during first
year. Similar was the trend for the second year (with trifoliate
leaves/plant was significantly higher over sole pigeonpea
system applied either with or without RDF). Higher value
of growth parameters were in fact, associated with
significantly greater value of plant spreading at the stages
of observation. Among the fertility levels, plant height of
pigeonpea was marginally increased up to RDF applied to
pigeonpea and no RDF to intercrop at 50 DAS during 2012-
13 and 2013-14. However, with increasing the doses of RDF
to intercrop, the alteration in plant height was not evident.
Trifoliate leaves/plant during 2012-13 was also significantly
increased following without application of RDF to intercrop
only,while during 2013-14 the intercropping responded up
to 75% RDF.To the contrary, dry matter/plantduring both
the years was significantly enhanced up to 100% RDF to
intercrop (with RDF to both the crops). Such varied
responses in the growth parameters to NPK might be due
to poor N status of soil (along with medium status of P and
K).Nevertheless, trifoliate leaves/plant were invariably
increased following application of RDF to pigeonpea alone
(and no NPK to intercrop) at most of the stages.
When sole crop was compared with intercropping
system, plant height of pigeonpea was significantly
enhanced under pigeonpea + sorghum system compared
to both the sole pigeonpea systems(with or without RDF)
during first year of study; and more or less similar trend
was obtained during the second year also.Almost similar
responses were observed under varied fertility levels
compared to sole system. On the contrary, dry matter/plant
was significantly higher under pigeonpea sole applied with
RDF over both the intercropping systems during both the
years. Such reduction in growth and development
parameters of pigeonpea under intercropping situation
might be due to faster initial growth of cereals (with relatively
better competitive advantages over pigeonpea) compared
to pulses (pigeonpea). Cereals are also known to pose
competition to pigeonpea for light and space resulting in
taller plants of associated pigeonpea crop (Ahlawatet al.
2005 and Sarkaret al.2003).
Nodulation behaviour: Pigeonpea sole with RDF also had
significantly higher nodules/plant over that with no NPK
at 90 DAS. Here, the response was associated with
remarkable higher root length, breadth and its dry weight
in pigeonpea. It was also reported that starter dose of N
application along with balanced supply of P in lentil helped
in better establishment of the crop. This had further resulted
in extensive development of root growth, and nodulation
164 Journal of Food Legumes 32(3), 2019

bacteria to work efficiently as their need for N was fulfilled of above yield attributes were also evident. These responses
through starter N supply (Sahuet al. 2002). Corresponding might be due to greater plant and root growth as well as
increase in nodule formation and nitrogenase activity earlier phenology (50% flowering, 50% pod formation and
following P application was also supported by the finding 75% maturity). The number of secondary branches/plant,
(Kantavaet al. 2005). In the current investigation also, length/pod and seeds/pod were also superior in pigeonpea
pigeonpea + pearl millet gave significantly higher nodules/ + pearl millet system during both the years. This may be
plant as compared to pigeonpea + sorghum although these due to better nodulation as well as early harvesting of pearl
were significantly decreased following intercropping over millet as compared to sorghum, which further decreased
pigeonpea sole fertilized with RDF. Higher number of competition to its companion crop of pigeonpea resulting
nodules/plant under the former (pigeonpea + pearl millet) in improvement in yield attributes. Among the fertility levels,
wasdue to improved microbial based rhizospheric activities yield attributes such as pods/plant, seeds/pod, and 100-
in pearl millet resulting in release of certain growth seed weight during both the years, and length/podduring
promoting substances like,IAA, gibberellins and cytokinins second year were significantly improved under intercrop
(Choudhary and Gautam 2007 and Waniet al. 1988). In the with no NPK (and RDF to pigeonpea) over other
existing experiment with varied fertility levels, nodules of combination(s). No fertilizer to intercrop sorghum/pearl
intercrop pigeonpea were significantly increased following millet also promoted better growth and development in
application of no fertilizer to intercrop (and RDF to pigeonpea (Kumar and Singh 2006).
pigeonpea) during 2013-14 although significantly maximum Grain yield: Pigeonpea sole plots with RDF had
nodules/plant in intercroppigeonpea was obtained under significantly higher grain yield (67%higher over pigeonpea
50% RDF to intercrop (and RDF to pigeonpea)during 2012- sole with no RDF) during both the years. This increase in
13. But these values were found significantly lower than grain yield might be due to profound influence of RDF (N,
those in pigeonpea sole applied with RDF during both the P and K fertilization) on vegetative and reproductive growth
years. Such enhancement of nodules/plant of pigeonpea of the crop with increased nutrient accumulation and
might be due to initial starter dose of NPK which improved translocation for yield formation (Patidar and
supplemented nutritional needs of microbes for initial Mali 2004). Significantly higher growth characters,
establishment(Praharaj et al. 2017, 2018). nodulation and yield attributes also supported for higher
Yield traits: Yield attributes such as pods/plant, length/ grain yield realization inpigeonpea (Shivramet al. 2000,
plant, seeds/pod and 100-seed weight of pigeonpea sole Praharaj et al. 2017, 2018). Similarly, the advantage of
crop fertilized with RDF were significantly improved over pigeonpea + sorghum over pigeonpea + pearl millet was
no fertilizer application. Such increase in yield attributes evident in terms of higher grain seed yield of pigeonpea
was ascribed to greater growth parameters, better root during 2012-13 (Vermaet al. 1999) although the reverse trend
development and more nodule formation which further was obtained during 2013-14. These results could be
promoted greater yield formation and its related traits ascribed to greater nodule formation and higher yield
(Shrivastavaet al. 2004). In intercropping system, both pods/ attributes of pigeonpea in respective years. Among the
plant and 100-seed weight were significantly higher under fertility levels, seed yield of intercrop pigeonpea was
pigeonpea + sorghum (during 2012-13)compared to significantly increased following application of no NPK to
pigeonpea + pearl millet. Similarly in 2013-14, higher values intercrop (with RDF to pigeonpea) during both the years. It
Table 1.Effect of intercropping and fertility levels on growth parameter and nodulation of pigeonpea
2012-13 2013-14
Plant height Trifoliate Dry matter/ Nodules/ Plant Trifoliate Dry matter/ Nodules/
(cm) leaves/ plant plant (g) plant height (cm) leaves/plant plant(g) plant
150DAS 150DAS 150DAS 90DAS 150DAS 150DAS 150DAS 90DAS
Control
Pigeonpea sole with no NPK 159.0 50.0 35.9 5.0 155.6 33.0 26.8 5.0
Pigeonpea sole with RDF 160.9 54.0 40.6 66.0 157.3 58.0 53.5 67.0
C.D. (0.05) NS NS NS 1.2 NS 1.9 1.7 1.6
Intercropping system
Pigeonpea + sorghum 194.1 62.0 35.7 15.0 165.8 71.3 37.5 25.5
Pigeonpea + pearl millet 159.5 53.5 24.6 18.2 158.0 71.3 36.1 29.7
C.D. (0.05) 11.1 2.6 2.3 1.7 NS NS NS 2.2
Fertility level (Pigeonpea + intercrop)
P (No RDF) + I (RDF) 167.1 47.5 25.3 6.5 153.1 53.5 31.3 8.5
P (RDF) + I (No RDF) 192.2 68.5 33.3 21.0 179.5 63.0 36.7 60.0
P (RDF) + I (25% RDF) 175.8 61.0 26.1 12.5 151.6 67.5 28.9 14.0
P (RDF) + I (50% RDF) 176.6 51.0 26.6 26.5 157.5 73.5 34.7 20.0
P (RDF) + I (75% RDF) 175.1 51.0 32.5 25.5 161.2 91.0 42.2 27.5
P (RDF) + I (100% RDF) 173.6 67.5 37.1 7.5 169.2 81.0 46.6 35.5
C.D. (0.05) NS 4.5 3.9 2.9 NS 4.5 4.1 3.9
Control versus Treatment
C.D. (0.05) 14.7 3.4 3.0 2.2 NS 3.5 3.1 2.9

P- Pigeonpea, I – intercrop DAS-days after sowing NS.:nonsignificant.

 Tripathi et al.: Nutrient management in pigeonpea + cereal intercropping system 165

Table 2. Effect of intercropping and fertility levels on yield attributes and yield of pigeonpea at harvest stage
Treatment 2012-13 2013-14
Pods/ Length/ Seeds/ 100-seed Grain yield Straw Stick Pods/ plant Length/ Seeds/ 100-seed Grain yield Straw Stick
plant pod (cm) pod weight (g) (q/ha) yield yield pod (cm) pod weight (g) (q/ha) yield yield
(q/ha) (q/ha) (q/ha) (q/ha)
Control
Pigeonpea sole with no 17.70 3.90 2.60 7.70 3.20 2.90 14.20 18.30 3.80 2.70 7.70 3.80 2.90 9.90
NPK
Pigeonpea sole with RDF 37.50 4.20 3.30 10.20 9.70 10.80 24.80 60.10 5.90 3.60 11.20 11.60 12.00 36.20
C.D. (0.05) 1.18 0.06 0.03 0.26 0.35 0.50 0.81 0.91 0.06 0.15 0.22 0.29 0.62 1.06
Intercropping system
Pigeonpea + sorghum 43.35 4.25 2.80 9.77 7.42 (14.3) 8.88 22.98 41.05 4.07 3.05 9.43 6.83 (15.7) 7.07 17.57
Pigeonpea + pearl millet 36.18 4.50 2.97 9.03 5.70 [21.16] 5.85 17.23 39.97 4.73 3.07 9.33 7.33 [16.2] 7.32 22.35
C.D. (0.05) 1.66 0.08 0.05 0.36 0.49 0.70 1.15 NS 0.08 NS NS 0.41 NS 1.50
Fertility level (Pigeonpea + intercrop)
P (No RDF)+ I(RDF) 30.65 4.10 2.80 8.45 4.35 (14.6) [22.9] 4.25 12.30 27.90 3.45 2.85 7.95 3.95 (18.0) [18.0] 4.00 11.75
P (RDF)+ I (No RDF) 43.75 4.45 3.00 9.65 7.75 (11.5) [7.2] 9.15 29.50 57.95 5.60 3.35 10.48 10.30 (12.6) [6.2] 10.95 26.80
P (RDF)+ I(25% RDF) 39.50 4.20 2.75 9.65 7.30(12.6)[12.6] 7.90 20.95 30.90 3.70 2.85 8.80 5.20 (13.9) [12.4] 4.95 14.25
P (RDF)+ I (50% RDF) 40.05 4.40 2.80 9.55 7.15(14.2)[26.4] 7.85 20.70 33.45 4.20 2.95 9.30 5.95 (15.1) [13.2] 6.55 17.90
P (RDF)+ I (75% RDF) 42.55 4.60 3.00 9.55 7.10 (17.0)[29.0] 8.35 22.25 41.85 4.45 3.10 9.70 7.80 (18.2) [25.2] 7.25 22.35
P (RDF)+ I (100% RDF) 42.10 4.50 2.95 9.55 5.70(15.9)[28.9] 6.70 14.95 51.00 5.00 3.25 10.05 9.30 (16.4) [22.0] 9.45 26.70
C.D. (0.05) 2.88 0.14 0.08 0.63 0.85 1.21 1.98 2.24 0.14 0.21 0.53 0.70 1.52 2.60
Control versus Treatment
C.D. (0.05) 2.20 0.11 0.06 NS NS NS NS NS 0.11 NS NS 0.54 NS 1.99
P-pigeonpea, I-intercrop and NS.: Non significant; In bracketsmall () yield of intercropped sorghum and in bracket large [] yield of intercropped
pearlmillet are given in the table.

Table 3. Effect of intercropping and fertility levels on protein content in seed and nutrient uptake of pigeonpea
Protein content (%) and N,P and K uptake (kg/ha)
Treatment 2012-13 2013-14
Protein content (%) N P K Protein content (%) N P K
Control
Pigeonpea sole with no NPK 18.06 9.73 3.61 21.70 19.05 9.08 2.57 16.48
Pigeonpea sole with RDF 21.12 52.76 13.55 54.11 21.56 62.05 15.60 73.42
C.D. (0.05) 0.24 1.32 0.50 1.04 0.20 1.17 0.44 1.26
Intercropping system
Pigeonpea + sorghum 19.67 30.66 6.80 44.89 20.40 28.84 5.96 39.55
Pigeonpea + pearl millet 19.75 21.47 5.15 33.43 20.35 32.52 6.56 44.83
C.D. (0.05) NS 1.86 0.71 1.48 NS 1.66 NS 1.78
Fertility level (Pigeonpea + intercrop)
P (No RDF)+ I(RDF) 18.18 13.05 3.34 26.57 19.44 12.57 2.95 23.14
P (RDF)+ I (No RDF) 20.99 44.07 6.92 54.30 21.12 53.66 8.57 63.20
P (RDF)+ I(25% RDF) 18.50 23.85 5.48 38.66 20.71 17.55 3.34 26.69
P (RDF)+ I (50% RDF) 19.09 26.88 5.97 39.44 21.43 23.60 4.76 38.69
P (RDF)+ I (75% RDF) 20.93 28.95 8.25 44.14 20.06 35.75 8.62 50.60
P (RDF)+ I (100% RDF) 20.59 19.62 5.88 31.87 19.50 40.94 9.33 50.81
C.D. (0.05) 0.59 3.22 1.24 2.56 0.49 2.87 1.08 3.09
Control versus Treatment
C.D. (0.05) NS 2.46 0.94 NS NS 2.19 0.83 2.36
P- pigeonpea, I - intercrop and NS.: Non significant

Table 4. Effect of intercropping and fertility levels on productivity and efficiency of the system of pigeonpea
Treatment 2012-13 2013-14
Crop Monetary Land Area-time Relative Competition Crop Monetary Land Area-time Relative Competition
equiva- advantage equival- equivalent Aggressi- Crowding index equivalent advantage equivale equivalent Aggressi- Crowding index
lent index ent ratio ratio vity coefficient (CI) yield index nt ratio ratio vity coefficient (CI)
yield (MAI) (LER) (ATER) (RCC) (CEY) (MAI) (LER) (ATER) (RCC)
(CEY)
Control
Pigeonpea sole with 320.00 1.00 1.00 380.00 1.00 1.00
no NPK
Pigeonpea sole with 970.00 1.00 1.00 1160.00 1.00 1.00
RDF
Intercropping system
I1Pigeonpea + 1371.60 12367 1.92 1.31 0.00 5.0 - 0.01 1389.83 11094 1.72 1.09 - 0.01 3.0 0.13
sorghum
I2Pigeonpea + pearl 1525.21 13334 1.84 1.11 0.00 2.0 0.05 1461.58 9959 1.56 1.04 0.00 3.7 0.28
millet
Fertility level
(Pigeonpea +
intercrop)
P (No RDF)+ I (RDF) 1271.46 14134 2.33 1.71 0.00 3.2 - 0.31 1207.25 11590 1.93 1.37 0.00 3.8 - 0.04
P (RDF)+ I (No RDF) 1191.05 11794 2.03 1.25 0.01 4.8 0.01 1453.00 15695 2.18 1.37 - 0.01 8.0 - 0.01
P (RDF)+ I(25% 1292.15 7421 1.43 1.00 0.00 4.4 0.29 1111.75 1876 1.09 0.69 - 0.01 0.8 0.75
RDF)
P (RDF)+ I (50% 1623.82 14083 0.79 1.12 0.00 3.4 0.01 1231.75 4219 1.21 0.77 0.00 1.1 0.48
RDF)
P (RDF)+ I (75% 1739.23 16416 0.93 1.19 - 0.01 3.7 - 0.03 1756.50 14660 1.71 1.06 - 0.01 2.0 0.03
RDF)
P (RDF)+ I (100% 1572.72 13256 0.75 1.01 0.01 1.4 - 0.01 1794.00 15119 1.72 1.14 0.00 4.2 0.03
RDF)
P- pigeonpea and I - intercrop
166 Journal of Food Legumes 32(3), 2019

Table 5.Effect of intercropping and fertility levels on fertility balance of soil

Treatment Fertility balance (kg/ha)
N P K
2012-13 2013-14 2012-13 2013-14 2012-13 2013-14
Control
Pigeonpea sole with no NPK 12.00 0.00 - 0.10 -0.10 - 2.00 - 2.33
Pigeonpea sole with RDF 44.00 9.00 0.50 0.70 5.00 2.00
Intercropping system
Pigeonpea + sorghum 24.17 - 1.67 0.20 0.20 3.50 3.67
Pigeonpea + pearl millet 28.34 - 7.33 0.55 0.37 3.67 2.33
Fertility level (Pigeonpea + intercrop)
P (No RDF)+ I(RDF) 47.00 - 0.50 0.55 0.08 2.50 2.00
P (RDF)+ I (No RDF) 21.50 0.00 0.55 0.45 3.50 2.50
P (RDF)+ I(25% RDF) 12.50 1.50 0.15 0.25 4.00 3.50
P (RDF)+ I (50% RDF) 29.00 - 25.50 0.20 0.20 4.00 3.50
P (RDF)+ I (75% RDF) 24.00 - 6.50 0.40 0.35 3.50 2.50
P (RDF)+ I (100% RDF) 23.50 4.00 0.35 0.35 4.00 4.00
P- pigeonpea and I - intercrop

was decreased with increasing the doses of RDF to
intercrop besides normal fertilization (RDF) to pigeonpea.
Such increases in seed yield might be due to reduction in
plant competition by cereals. This trend was also evident
from higher value of yield attributes i.e. pods/plant, seeds/
pod, 100-seed weight and seed weight/plant. Higher grain
yield under the above treatment might be due to relatively
lesser growth of cereal intercrop with reduced plant
competition and growth promotion in pigeonpea. Similar
findings were also reported by Guggari and Kalaghatagi
(2005) and Kumar and Singh (2006). Grain yield of pigeonpea
was also found significantly higher under pigeonpea sole
with RDF over both the intercropping system during 2013-
14 with similar trend in 2012-13. Similar results were obtained
by Tripathiet al. (2005). Similar trends were obtained with
straw and stick yields of pigeonpea (Singh and Rai 2004).
Sarkaret al. (2003) reported that intercropping of pigeonpea
with non-legumes was not feasible without some loss to
the yield of pigeonpea. Therefore, intercropping of cereal
with pigeonpea could be advantageous (Praharaj et al. 2017,
2018) keeping in view of fulfillment of nutritional needs
from different strata of soils (Cereal - shallow rooted and
pulses – deep/tap rooted system).
Protein Content: Protein content in seed under sole
pigeonpea with RDF was significantly higher over that in
pigeonpea sole without fertilizers during both the years. It
could be due to better crop growth and development as a
result of improved root development and nodulation
following better crop nutrition (addition of RDF). The results
are in conformity with Prasad et al. (1999). The protein
content in seed of pigeonpea did not show significant
differences due to the intercropping systems. This may be
due to the fact that pigeonpea crop receiving recommended
dose of fertilizer (RDF) accumulated sufficient amount of
NPK required for amino acid and protein synthesis.
Amongst varied fertility levels, protein content (%) in seed
of pigeonpea significantly increased up to no RDF to
intercrop (and pigeonpea with RDF) during both the years.
Similar trend was obtained in other intercropping systems
with varied fertility combinations. Higher nodule formation,
N uptake and better accumulation of amino acid under the
above the intercropping combination resulted in higher
protein accumulation in pigeonpea seeds.
Nutrient uptake: Higher N, P and K uptake under pigeonpea
sole with RDF was significantly recorded over pigeonpea
sole with no fertilizers.In intercropping system, NPK uptake
by pigeonpea under pigeonpea + sorghum werealso
significantly higher than that of pigeonpea + pearl millet
during 2012-13. While reverse was observed during 2013-
14. Such variable trends were associated with higher values
of grain, straw and stick yields of pigeonpea in respective
years. During second year, the intercrops did not receive
rainfall from October to February causing substantial soil
moisture deficit. The pearl millet being a hardy crop requiring
relatively less water than sorghum in completing its life
cycle, moisture accrued through soil profile was available
to its companion crop of pigeonpea. Therefore, the nutrient
uptake of pigeonpea was more when it was grown in
association with pearl millet. On varied fertility levels to
intercrops, nitrogen and potassium uptake by pigeonpea
were significantly higher with intercrop applied with no
RDF(and pigeonpea with RDF) over other levels during
both the years. Higher uptake of N by pigeonpea was due
to its larger share of contribution from atmospheric N
fixation (to growth, biomass and protein yield) as legumes
are known to be poor competitors for P and K especially
when they are intercropped with fast growing short duration
cereals (Ramesh and Reddy 2004). Thus, N and K uptake
by pigeonpea under intercropping system was significantly
increased up to no RDF to intercrop (along with RDF to
pigeonpea) over other levels during both the years.
Increasing addition of N further to intercrop showed with
significant reduction in N uptake. Contrary to this, P uptake
by pigeonpea was significantly increased up to 75% RDFto
intercrop(and RDF to pigeonpea) over other fertility levels
during both years. Further addition of P did not increase in
P uptake by pigeonpea.
When sole crop was compared with intercrop, N and
P uptake of pigeonpea were significantly enhanced by it
when combined with RDF compared to the intercrop(s).
 Tripathi et al.: Nutrient management in pigeonpea + cereal intercropping system
Almost similar trend in K uptake was found in 2013-14,
while in first year, the K uptake due to intercrop
pigeonpeawas similar with that of sole pigeonpea.When
varied fertility levels of intercrop pigeonpea was compared
to sole crop, N and P uptake due to sole pigeonpea with
RDF were significantly higher over control during both the
years. Almost similar results were noted in K uptake during
2013-14. However, NPK uptake by pigeonpea was
significantly higher under pigeonpea sole with RDF over
those by both intercropping (pigeonpea + sorghum/pearl
millet) systems during both the years. This could be due to
the greater availability of nutrients which in turn increased
the grain yield, nutrient content, and its uptake. Similar
findings also reported by Srivastava and Bohra (2006).
Total productivity and competition efficiency: Monetary
advantage index (MAI)of pigeonpea + pearl millet was
found to be remarkably higher (by INR 967) than that of
pigeonpea + sorghum during 2012-13. Similar was the trend
for crop equivalent yield. While in 2013-14 (rainfed
situation), it was also conspicuous in pigeonpea + sorghum
(due to higher average yield) compared to pigeonpea +
pearl millet (Table 4).Among the fertility levels, crop
equivalent yieldand MAI increased with each subsequent
addition of NPK to cereal intercrop upto 75% of RDF during
2012-13. While in 2013-14, it was higher at no fertilizers to
intercrop (along with RDF to pigeonpea).These results
wereconfirmedfrom the findings of Guggari and Kalaghatagi
(2005). On intercropping system, monetary advantage index
was higher with 75% RDF to intercrop (with RDF to
pigeonpea) in first year while, in second year, it was again
accrued under no NPK to intercrop (along with RDF to
pigeonpea). This variation might be due to combined effect
of LER and seed yield of pigeonpea as well as seed yield of
intercrops.
Crop equivalent yieldof both the intercropping
systemswas significantly higher over pigeonpea sole
because of higher yield and remunerative prices of
intercrops along with pigeonpea. Thus, pigeonpea + pearl
millet had higher pigeonpea equivalent yield (PEY) over
pigeonpea + sorghum during two years because of higher
grain yield of pearl millet compared to sorghum. The
differential behaviour in CEY was on account of
productivity of crops in intercropping systems and their
relative market prices (Ahlawatet al. 2005).
However, yield advantage in term of LER of pigeonpea
+ sorghum was better over pigeonpea + pearl millet during
both the years. Among the fertility levels, pigeonpea + cereal
system gave more LER at RDF to intercrop + no fertilizers
to pigeonpea followed by its counterpart (no fertilizers to
intercrop + RDF to pigeonpea) during 2012-13. However in
2013-14, LER of pigeonpea + cereal system was higher in
the latter treatment followed by the former (Table 4).
Moreover, LER of both the pigeonpea + cereals were higher
than sole pigeonpea. Such yield advantage owing to
intercropping might be attributed to combined effect
167
resulting in better utilization of natural resources than sole
cropping of companion crops alone. As a result, it had
higher productivity per unit area (Dutta and Bandyopathyay
2006). Similar were the findings of Ghosh (2004).
Both the intercropping systems recorded
conspicuously higher area time equivalent ratio(ATER) than
that of pure system which indicated better land utilization
efficiency than their sole counterparts. Pigeonpea +
sorghum system gave greater ATER values in comparison
to pigeonpea + pearl millet system (0.20 and 0.05) during
2012-13 and 2013-14, respectively because of longer
duration of sorghum intercrop as compared to pearl millet.
This showed better land utilization efficiency per unit area
per unit time under pigeonpea + sorghum system.
Similarly,aggressivity(index) ofboth the intercropping
system was found similar and equal to zero during 2012-13.
However in2013-14, it was negative in pigeonpea + sorghum
and zero in pigeonpea + pearl millet. Such trend was also
found in pigeonpea + pearl millet during second year. Thus,
it was inferred that pigeonpea was less dominant in this
intercropping system and both the intercrops were equally
competitive.
Relative crowding coefficient (RCC)was more than
unity under pigeonpea + sorghum and pigeonpea + pearl
millet during both the years. Pigeonpea + sorghum
intercropping system showed higher RCC over pigeonpea
+ pearl millet during first year because of higher grain yield
of pigeonpea during 2012-13. However, it indicated that
pigeonpea + sorghum was more advantageous over
pigeonpea + pearl millet. In second year, RCC was marginally
higher in pigeonpea + pearl milletdue to higher seed yield
of pigeonpea in association with pearl millet. Both the
intercropping systems gave higher RCC which indicated
superior biological sustainability of both the intercrop over
sole crop. On varied fertility levels, RCC of pigeonpea +
cereal intercropping was also higher at RDF to pigeonpea
with no NPK to intercrop over other levels during both the
years. Thus, application of recommended quantity of RDF
to pigeonpea with no NPK to cereal intercrop was better as
it could utilize land more efficiently since it faced more crowd
and competition among component crops of the system.
These results are in conformity with those of Tripathiet al.
(2005).
Competition index (CI) at both the pigeonpea + cereals
intercropping was less than unity which indicated the
advantage of mixing crops. Since competition index was
lower in pigeonpea + sorghum than that of pigeonpea +
pearl millet during both the years, thus, pigeonpea +
sorghum system was more efficient in terms of CI.
Competition indexof pigeonpea + cereal system was less
than unity at each fertility level during both the years. In
varied fertility levels also, competition index of pigeonpea
+ cereal intercrop at all the fertility levels was less than
unity.
168 Journal of Food Legumes 32(3), 2019
Nutrient balance in soil: Soil fertility balance was assessed
on the basis of residual value of total N, available P and
available K after harvest of the crops. Fertility balance in
terms of N was recorded positive in both the sole systems
of pigeonpea (with and without RDF) during both the years
due to symbiotic N fixing capability of pigeonpea providing
higher residual N status to soil. Application of RDF to
pigeonpea sole with positive P and K balance in soil was
possibly due to addition of recommended dose of P and K
to the soil through chemical fertilizers. While, in case of no
NPK to pigeonpea sole, the trend was just reverse.In
intercropping system, pigeonpea + pearl millet had greater
positive N balance in soil than that of pigeonpea + sorghum
at harvest of crop during 2012-13; but in 2013-14 both the
intercropping system showed negative N balance due to
deficit soil moisture status (rainfed). Undervaried fertility
levels, maximum positive N balance was analyzed in the
intercropping treatment where no fertilizer was applied to
pigeonpea and RDF to intercrop during 2012-13. While in
2013-14, variable responses were observed. The above trend
in N fertility was possibly due to beneficial effect of
pigeonpea through symbiotic N fixation and root exudation
as well as supplementation of RDF to intercrops. Nitrogen
additions through various organic forms may not
immediately available for crop uptake which could be
attributed to its positive fertility balance in soil.
For P and K balance in soil, it was observed positive
under both the pigeonpea based intercropping systems
and at all the fertility levels during both the years (Table 5).
Maximum P level in soil was recorded at RDF to pigeonpea
(and no fertilizers to intercrop) during both the years.
However, K balance in soil was highly variable.This could
be ascribed to application of P and K through chemical
fertilization and its various dynamic transformation
processes. Adhikaryet al.(1991) reported that legumes alone
or intercropped with other cereals increased soil organic
carbon content in soil and had no adverse effects on N, P
and K contents.
Thus, pigeonpea + pearl millet (with balanced nutrient
schedule viz., RDF to pigeonpea and 75% RDF to pearl
millet)was the most remunerative intercropping system in
term of total productivity measured through crop equivalent
yield. Hence,pigeonpea + pearl millet intercropping (1:1)
was identified as a most compatible combination for rainfed
areas of India Bundelkhand.
REFERENCES
AOAC. 1965. Association of Official Agricultural Chemists. Official
Method of Analysis
Adhikary S, Bagchi DK, Ghosal P, Banerjee RN and Chatterjee BN.
1991.Studies on maize-legume intercropping and their residual
effects on soil fertility status and succeeding crop in upland
situation. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 167: 289-
29 3.
Ahlawat IPS, Gangaiah B and Singh Ompal. 2005. Production
potential of chickpea (Cicerarietinum) -based intercropping
systems under irrigated conditions. Indian Journal of Agronomy
50(1): 27-30
Aiyer KKYN. 1949. Mixed cropping in India. Indian Journal of
Agricultural Science 19: 439-445
Anonymous. 1980. Annual Report ICRISAT, 1980, Hyderabad,
India.
Choudhary RS and Gautam RC. 2007. Effect of nutrient–
management practices on growth and yield of pearl millet
(Pennisetumglaucum). Indian Journal of Agronomy 52(1): 64-66
Cochron WG and Cox GM. 1958. Experimental Designs, 2 nd ed.
Wiley, New York.
Dutta D and Bandyopadhyay P.2006. Production potential of
intercropping of groundnut (Arachishypogaea) with pigeonpea
(Cajanuscajan) and maize (Zea mays) under various row
proportions in rainfedAlfisols of West Bengal.Indian Journal of
Agronomy 51(2): 103-106
Ghosh PK. 2004. Growth, yield, competition and economics of
groundnut/cereal fodder intercropping systems in the semi-arid
tropics of India.Field Crop Research 88: 227-237
Goswami MN, Lilavathi MCR and Singh RN. 1976. Potassium in
soils, crops and fertilizers. Bulletin, Indian Journal of Soil Science
10: 186-194
Guggari AK and Kalaghatagi SB. 2005. Effect of fertilizer and
biofertilizer on pearl millet (Pennisetumglaucum) and pigeonpea
(Cajanuscajan) intercropping system under rainfed conditions.
Indian Journal of Agronomy 50(1): 24-26
Jackson ML. 1962.Soil Chemical Analysis. Asia Publishing House,
New Delhi, India
Kantawa SR, Ahlawat IPS and Gangaiah B. 2005. Effect of land
configuration, post-monsoon irrigation and phosphorus on
performance of sole and intercropped pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan).
Indian Journal of Agronomy 50(4): 278-280
Kumar A and Singh BP. 2006. Effect of row ratio and phosphorus
level on performance of chickpea (Ciceraritinum) - Indian
mustard (Brassica juncea) intercropping. Indian Journal of
Agronomy 51(2): 100-102
Ofori F and Stern WR. 1987. Cereal-legume intercropping systems.
Advances of Agronomy 41: 41-90
Olsen SR, Cole CV, Watanable FS and Dean LA. 1954. Estimation of
availablephosphorus in soil by extraction with sodium bi
carbonate. USDA Circulor 939 (Washington) pp. 19
Patidar M and Mali AL. 2004. Effect of farmyard manure, fertility
levels and bio-fertilizers on growth, yield and quality of sorghum
(Sorghum bicolor). Indian Journal of Agronomy 49(2): 117-
12 0.
Praharaj CS, Ummed Singh, SS Singh and N Kumar 2018. Tactical
water management in field crops: the key to resource conservation.
Current Science 115(7): 1262-1269.
Praharaj CS, Ummed Singh, SS Singh and N Kumar 2017. Micro-
irrigation in rainfedpigeonpea-Upscaling productivity under
Eastern Gangetic Plains with suitable land configuration,
population management and supplementary fertigation at critical
stages. Current Science 112(1): 95-107.
Prasad K, Yadav CB and Kendurkar PS. 1999.Effect of cropping
system and phosphorus on grain quality of pigeonpea and soybean
under rainfed condition. Indian Journal of Agriculture Bio-
chemistry 12(1): 42-43.
 Tripathi et al.: Nutrient management in pigeonpea + cereal intercropping system
Ramesh P and Reddy KS. 2004. Productivity and nutrient use
efficiency of soybean (Glycine max) and sorghum (Sorghum
bicolor) intercropping at different levels of nitrogen in rainfed
deep vertisols. Indian Journal of Agronomy 49(1): 31-33.
Rana KS and Mahendra Pal. 1997. Indian Journal of Agronomy
42(4): 576-580.
Rerkasem B, Rerkasem K, People MB, Herrigde BF and Bergersen
FJ. 1988. Measurement of N 2 fixation in maize (Zea mays L.)-
rice bean [Vigna umbellate (Thumb.) Ohwi and Ohashi]
intercrops. Plant and Soil 108: 125-135.
Rerkasem K and Rerkasem B. 1988. Yields and nitrogen nutrition of
intercropped maize (Zea mays L.) and rice bean [Vignaumbellta
(Thumb.) Ohwi and Onashi]. Plantand Soil. 108: 151-162.
Sahu JP, Singh NP, Kaushik MK, Sharma BB and Singh VK. 2002.
Effect of Rhizobium, phosphorus and potash application of the
productivity lentil. Indian Journal of Pulses Research 15(1): 39-
42
Sarkar RK, Goswami S and Pal PK. 2003. Production potential and
economic feasibility of sunflower (Helianthus annus) and
pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan) intercropping system on rainfed
upland condition. Indian Journal of Agronomy 48(4): 263-266.
Sarkar RK, Shit D and Chakarabarty A. 1995. Yield and economics
of pigeonpea based intercropping system on rainfed upland of
Chotanagpur Plateau. Indian Journal of Agronomy 40: 30-34.
Shivram PL, Ahlawat IPS and Shivram DR. 2000. Effect of
phosphorus and sulphur on pigeonpea and succeding wheat in
pigeonpea wheat cropping system. Indian Journal of Agronomy
45(1): 25-30.
Shrivastava GK, Lakpale R, Choubey NK and Singh AP. 2004.
Productivity and economics of pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan) +
Urdbean (Phaseolus mungo) intercropping system under various
planting geometry and fertilizer management in rainfed condition
of Chhattisgarh. Indian Journal of Agronomy 49(2): 101-103.
Singh GV, Rana NS and Ahlawat IPS. 1998. Effect of nitrogen,
Rhizobium inoculation and phosphorus on growth and yield and
pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan). Indian Journal of Agronomy 43(2):
358-361.
169
Singh R and Rai RK. 2004. Yield attributes, yield and quality of
soybean (Glycine max) as influenced by integrated nutrient
management. Indian Journal of Agronomy 49(4): 271-274.
Srinivasan A and Ahlawat IPS. 1990. Growth and yield response of
short duration of pigeonpea to intercropping with mung bean
and sorghum to phosphate fertilization. Journal of Agronomy
and Crop Science 165(5): 329-339.
Srivastava RK and Bohra JS. 2006. Performance of wheat
(Triticumaestium) + Indian mustard (Brasicajuncea)
intercropping in relation to row ratio, Indian mustard variety
and fertility levels. Indian Journal of Agronomy 51(2): 107-
11 1.
Tripathi HN, Chand S and Tripathi AK. 2005. Biological and
economical feasibility of chickpea (Ciceraritinum) + Indian
mustard (Brassica juncea) cropping systems under varying levels
of phosphorus. Indian Journal of Agronomy 50(1): 31-34
Verma KP, Singh RA and Warsi AS. 1999. Response of sorghum
(Sorghum bicolor) varieties with pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan) in
intercropping system. Indian Journal of Agronomy 44(4): 680-
69 1.
Vincent JM. 1970. AManual for the practical study of root nodule
bacteria, IP Hand book No. 15. Black well Scientific Publication,
London.
Wani SR, Chandrapaliah S, Zambre MA and Lee KK. 1988.
Association between N 2 -fixing bacteria and pearl millet plants:
response mechanisms and persistence. Plant and Soil 68: 289-
30 2.
Willey RW. 1979. Intercropping, its importance and research needs,
Part-I. Competition andyield advantage. Field Crop Abstracts
32: 1-10.
Willey RW and Osiru DSO. 1972. Studies on mixtures of maize and
beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) with particular references to plant
population. Journal of Agricultural Science (Cambridge) 79: 519-
52 9.
Willey RW and Rao MR. 1980. A competitive ratio for quantifying
competition between intercrops. Experimental Agriculture 16:
117-125.
Journal of Food Legumes 32(3): 170-173, 2019
Evaluation of pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millisp.] genotypes against root-
knot nematode (Meloidogyne javanica)
DEVINDRAPPA, SATHEESH NAIK SJ, ABHISHEK BOHRA, BANSA SINGH and NP SINGH
ICAR-Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh; E-mail: satheeshnaikagri@gmail.com
(Received : March 3, 2019; Accepted : July 6, 2019)
ABSTRACT
Root-knot nematode (Meloidogyne javanica) is an important
nematode pest of pigeonpea causing extensive losses to grain
yield and quality. Nematicides are less effective in terms of
cost and management of root-knot nematodes. Therefore,
the present study was aimed at evaluating a set of 24 different
pigeonpea genotypes against M. javanica under controlled
PVC pipe (30×10 cm, L×W) condition. Each pipes were
uniformly filled with sterilized soil (2.25 kg) and five
infective juveniles (IJs)/cc of soil was inoculated. The results
revealed that, the wild Cajanus scarabaeoides accession ICP
15701 did not develop root galls and recorded the lowest
reproduction factor (0.26) hence, categorised as immune
write. This was followed by five genotypes viz., DPPA 85-12,
DPPA 85-8, DPPA 85-1, DPPA 85-13 and IPA 15-1 showing
moderately resistant reaction of the total 24 genotypes
examined write.Thirteen, three and two genotypes showed
moderately susceptible, susceptible and highly susceptible
reactions, respectively against M. javanica based on their
number of egg mass, gall index and reproduction factor of
nematode.
Key words: Cajanus scarabaeoides, Host plant, Meloidogyne
javanica, Pigeonpea, Resistance
Pigeonpea is an important grain legume crop grown
in tropical and subtropical countries for food, feed and
fuel. Its role in soil nitrogen fixation is one of the great
benefits in agricultural ecosystem. In India, pigeonpea is
covering an area of 4.65 m ha with annual production of
4.87 mt and an average productivity of 800 kg/ha. Pigeonpea
encounters various pests and diseases by being long-
standing crop in field compare to other legumes. Sharma
(1985) reported that, large numbers of plant parasitic
nematode species have been found to be associated with
pigeonpea on a worldwide. Root-knot nematodes
(Meloidogyne spp.) are sedentary endoparasites and
polyphagous group of highly adapted obligate plant
pathogens most widely distributed worldwide and
parasitize nearly every species of higher plants (Karssen
and Moens 2006). There are five known species of
Meloidogyne viz., M. incognita, M. javanica, M. arenaria,
M. hapla and M. acronea. The most prevalent species is
M. javanica, widely distributed in pigeonpea growing
regions of the country and causing significant yield decline
in pigeonpea (Reddy et al. 1990; Bridge, 1981; Sharma et
al. 1996). Infection by Meloidogyne javanica may cause 9-
19% yield reduction in pigeonpea cv. Bahar (Khan et al.
2004). The uses of nematicides are often toxic to plants,
farmers and natural soil ecosystem (Fuglie 1998).
There are various reports claiming that, accessions
and cultivars of pigeonepa have been shown to have
resistance to Meloidogyne incognita (Wani and Alam, 1995;
Suhail et al. 2001), Meloidogyne arenaria race 2 (Siddiqui
et al. 1991) and Meloidogyne javanica (Patel et al. 1987).
The relationship between the root-knot nematode and host
is genetically regulated in both organisms and host plant,
has resulted in the evolution of the resistance genes in
many crop species (Sidhu & Webster, 1981). Host plant
resistance is one of the major components in Integrated
Pest Management as it is environmental friendly, sustainable
and socially adaptable (Jindal et al. 2007). Therefore,
identification of resistant/tolerant source in pigeonpea
cultivars against to Meloidogyne javanica is eco-friendly
and sustainable approach for maintaining productivity and
production. Kaplan, 1982 suggested that prior to release, a
cultivar should be carefully studied to determine its level
of resistance to various nematode races and its reaction on
nematode reproduction. The present study was, therefore,
carried out with an objective to evaluate resistance of
pigeonpea accessions against M. javanica and to identify
promising source of resistance for further breeding
improvement in pigeonpea.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Isolation and Maintenance of Root knot Nematode
culture: Isolation of nematode for pure culture and maintain
sufficient number of nematode for the experiment,
Meloidogyne javanica was collected from infested field at
New Research Campus, ICAR-Indian Institute of Pulses
Research, Kanpur and maintained at greenhouse, Division
of crop protection, ICAR- IIPR, Kanpur. The population of
the test nematode was developed single egg mass according
to the method given by Khan (2008), well ahead of the
beginning of the experiment. After two months of
inoculation on brinjal plant, the pure culture of nematode
has been maintained for the layout of experiment.
Seed material: Seeds of pigeonpea accessions were
procured from crop improvement division, ICAR-Indian
Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur. The genotypes
studied included 11 germplasm lines, 9 breeding lines, one
landrace, one variety and two wild species of pigeonpea
(Table 1).
 Devindrappa et al.: Evaluation of pigeonpea genotypes against root-knot nematode 171

Table 1. List of pigeonpea genotypes used for screening Data recording and statistical analysis: The infected roots
against root knot nematode were observed for nematode egg mass/roots; number of
SN Genotype name Pedigree Material type gall/roots, gall index, final population of nematodes,
1 IPA 15-1 Type 7/ Dholi dwarf Breeding line reproduction factors of nematodes and degree of resistance
2 IPA 15-20 IPA 6-1 selection Breeding line for different pigenapea accessions were recorded. Infected
3 IPA 2014-7 Pusa 9/kudrat 3 Breeding line juveniles of M. javanica were extracted from the soil of
4 IPA 9-1 Breeding line Breeding line
each pipe after uprooting plants, by using Cobb’s decanting
5 IPA 13-1 Mal 13/NA1 Breeding line
6 IPA 2015-2 Mal 13/NA1 Breeding line
and sieving method followed by Baermann funnel technique
7 IPA 2015-19 Ranchi local/UPAS 120 Breeding line (Southey, 1986) to determine the soil population of
8 IPA 2014-2 Pusa 9/kudrat 3 Breeding line nematodes. The host suitability of cultivars (degree of
9 IPA 2015-4A Mal 13/kudrat 3 Breeding line resistance) was determined on the basis of GI and Rf,
10 JBP 13 Germplasm line Germplasm line according to the modified scheme of Canto-Saenz (Sasser
11 DPPA 85-12 Germplasm line Germplasm line et al. 1984), followed by gall index 0 to 5 scale has been
12 DPPA 85-8 Germplasm line Germplasm line calculated based on Taylor and Sasser, (1978) protocol
13 DPPA 85-1 Germplasm line Germplasm line
(Table 2). However, reproduction factor of nematodes were
14 DPPA 85-13 Germplasm line Germplasm line
calculated according to the formula Rf = Pf/Pi given by
15 DPPA 85-3 Germplasm line Germplasm line
16 IPAC 74-3 Germplasm line Germplasm line
Sasser et al. (1984) (Table 3).
17 IPAC 66-7 Germplasm line Germplasm line Table 2. Resistance rating of genotypes based on gall
18 DPPA 85-16 Germplasm line Germplasm line numbers and gall index.
19 IPAC 68-6 Germplasm line Germplasm line
20 IPA 79 Germplasm line Germplasm line SN Number of Gall index Resistance rating
galls
21 Dholi dwarf Land race Land race
1 0 0 Immune (I)
22 IPA 203 Bahar/AC314//AC314 Variety
2 1 to 2 1 Resistant (R)
23 ICP 15691 Cajanus scarabaeoides Wild germplasm 3 3 to 10 2 Moderately resistant (MR)
24 ICP 15701 Cajanus scarabaeoides Wild germplasm 4 11 to 30 3 Moderately susceptible (MS
5 31 to 100 4 Susceptible (S)
Experimental procedure: The sandy loam soil was 6 100+ 5 Highly susceptible (HS
autoclaved at 15 kg/cm2 pressure at 121oC for 30 min and Table 3. Resistance rating scale for root-knot nematode.
cooled to room temperature, then mixed with nematode S. Root gall R-factor host Host status
culture contained soil. The maintained initial nematode N. indexa efficiencyb
inoculation level at the rate of 5 Infective Juveniles per cc 1 <2 <1 Resistant
2 <2 >1 Hyper susceptible
of soil, then filled in PVC pipes (10×30 cm, W×L), half of the 3 >2 <1 Tolerant
length of the pipes were inserted into the soil for maintain 4 >2 >1 Susceptible
natural soil temperature for the nematode infection. Twntey a
Gall index: 0 ¼ no gall formation; 5 ¼ heavy gall formation.
pigeonpea seeds were sown in each pipes, in three b
Reproductive factor: R ¼ Pf/Pi, where Pi ¼ Initial Population
replications (Figure 1a). Ninety days after sowing, the plants Density (IPD) and Pf ¼ Final Population Density (FPD).
were uprooted and roots were washed under running tap
water to remove soil particles from roots and examined for The statistical data analysis on egg mass, gall index,
nematode infection (Figure 1b & 1c). final population and reproduction factors of nematodes
were analysed in completely randomised design using web-
based agricultural statistics package (WASP, version, 2.0)
developed by ICAR-Central Coastal Agricultural Research
Institute, Goa, India which is an open source soft-ware
available online at http://www.ccari.res.in/waspnew.html.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Host plant resistance of pigeonpea against nematode
reproduction had been reported in case of Meloidogyne
spp. (Rahman et al. 2004). The screening of pigeonpea
accessions against M. javanica under controlled condition
revealed significant variation among the genotypes in terms
of gall number, egg mass, reproduction factors of
nematodes. The wild genotype Cajanus scarabaeoides (ICP
15701) recorded less number of egg mass, root galls and
Figure 1: (a) Screening facilities(b) Immune and highly susceptible
nematodes reproduction factor (0.2) in the roots hence, it
accessions of pigeonpea
was categorized as imune, followed by five breeding lines
172 Journal of Food Legumes 32(3), 2019

Table 4. Reaction of pigeonpea genotypes to infection by M. javanica

SN Genotype name Egg mass/root Galls/roots GI IPD/cc soil FPN/cc soil Rf Reaction type
1 ICP 15701 1.00 0 0 5 1.33 0.26 I
2 DPPA 85-12 7.66 7.33 2 5 5.66 1.13 MR
3 DPPA 85-8 8.00 6.33 2 5 4.66 0.93 MR
4 DPPA 85-1 7.66 7.33 2 5 6.00 1.20 MR
5 DPPA 85-13 10.33 9.00 2 5 6.66 1.33 MR
6 IPA 15-1 9.33 6.33 2 5 4.66 0.93 MR
7 DPPA 85-3 11.66 13.33 3 5 7.66 1.53 MS
8 IPA 15-20 15.00 22.33 3 5 9.00 1.80 MS
9 Dholi dwarf 11.33 19.33 3 5 10.33 2.06 MS
10 IPA 2014-7 9.00 14.66 3 5 6.00 1.20 MS
11 IPA 203 13.33 16.00 3 5 7.33 1.46 MS
12 IPAC 74-3 11.66 23.33 3 5 8.00 1.60 MS
13 IPA 9-1 10.66 14.33 3 5 6.66 1.33 MS
14 IPA 13-1 13.66 16.33 3 5 6.66 1.33 MS
15 IPAC 66-7 8.66 13.33 3 5 5.66 1.13 MS
16 ICP 15691 17.00 31.33 3 5 11.66 2.33 MS
17 IPA 2015-2 15.00 17.33 3 5 8.00 1.60 MS
18 IPA 2015-19 16.33 21.33 3 5 8.00 1.60 MS
19 IPA 2014-2 8.66 14.33 3 5 6.33 1.26 MS
20 DPPA 85-16 73.00 94.00 4 5 54.00 10.8 S
21 IPAC 68-6 55.00 48.33 4 5 24.00 4.80 S
22 IPA 79 36.33 36.33 4 5 15.66 3.13 S
23 JBP 13 78.33 145.00 5 5 62.66 12.53 HS
24 IPA 2015-4A 83.00 153.33 5 5 70.33 14.06 HS
CD (5%) 6.88 0.96 - - 4.64 - -
CV 17.71 1.67 - -- 17.35 - -

viz., DPPA 85-12, DPPA 85-8, DPPA 85-1, DPPA 85-13 and
IPA 15-1, which could be considered as moderately resistant
since these cultivars allowed reproduction of the nematode
but minimal root damage was recorded in terms of gall index
(Table 4).
Earlier, Sobczak et al. (2005) reported that, formation
of fewer root galls in resistant to moderately resistant
cultivars was probably due to failure of the nematode
infective juveniles to produce functional feeding sites in
the host after invasion. The chemical inhibitors in the host
tissue counteract or neutralize the salivary secretions of
the nematode that induces gall formation (Barrons, 1939).
For the host plant root colonization of nematodes,
chemotoxis involving exudate components have also been
reported (De Weert et al. 2002).
The genotypes viz., DPPA 85-3, IPA 15-20, Dhali dwarf,
IPA 2014-7, IPA 203, IPAC 74-3, IPA 9-1, IPA 13-1, IPAC 66-
7, ICP 15691, IPA 2015-2, IPA 2015-19, and IPA 2014-2
exhibited moderately susceptible, while genotypes DPPA
18-16, IPAC 68-6, IPA 79 lines remained susceptible. Breeding
lines JBP 13 and IPA 2015-4. A were found to be highly
susceptible to the nematode infestation (Table 4). Most of
these cultivars supported higher nematodes populations,
higher reproduction and root galling. However, wide range
of variation was recorded in the experimnetal materail vis a
vis reproduction factor that ranged from 0.2 to 14.0. This
suggests that galling and nematode reproduction cannot
be deemed strong and stable indicator of nematode
resistance. Previosuly, other researchers have also reported
weak correlations among root galling, reproduction factors
and plant growth reduction in crop plants including pulses,
cereals and cotton (Ansari et al. 2004).
Reactions of these accessions suggest that, genes
for resistance to the M. javanica may differ among various
pigeonpea accessions. Our results underline the importance
of evaluating breeding lines with the root knot nematode
populations, regardless of the crop’s gene pool, in order to
achieve broad spectrum durable resistance. The present
study showed that, the wild genotype C. scarabaeoides
(ICP 15701) expressed related to source of resistance gene
against M. javanica. Some other aceesssions of C.
scarabaeoides are have also been reported as promising
sources of resistance to Heteroderacajani, along with
carrying desirable attributes of early maturity and high seed
protein (Sharma, 1993). Though root knot index could serve
as best indicator to judge host plant resistance in preliminary
evaluations, selection in advanced evaluation against
nematode reproduction is recommended to confirm the
stability of resistance. Development of high-yielding
pigeonpea cultivars with tolerance to M. javanica would
greatly help to reduce losses in pigeonpea productivity
and production.
In summary, resistant cultivars are the most effective
and ecofriendly solution for the management of root-knot
nematode. The immune response found in wild germplasm
C. scarabaeoides (ICP 15701) that belonged to secondary
gene pool can be harnessed in pigeonpea breeding
programs given its cross-compatibility with the cultivated
 Devindrappa et al.: Evaluation of pigeonpea genotypes against root-knot nematode
pigeonpea. Therefore, the gneotype could be further used
in the pre-breeding programme for developing resistant
pigeopea cultivars against root knot nematodes.
REFERENCES
Ansari MA, Patel BA, Mhase NL, Patel DJ, Dauaik A and Sharma
SB. 2004. Tolerance of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) lines to
root-knot nematode, Meloidogyne javanica (Treub) Chitwood,
Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 51: 449-453.
Barrons KC. 1939. Studies of the nature of root knot resistance.
Journal of Agricultural Research 58: 263-271.
Bridge JC. 1981. Nematodes. In: Pest control in tropical grain
legumes. Centre for Overseas Pest Research ODA, London, pp.
111-125.
De Weert S, Vermeiven H, Mulders IHM, Kuiper I, Hendrick N,
Bloemberg GV, Vanderleyden J, De Mot R and Lugten berg BJJ.
2002. Flagella driven chemotoxis towards exudates components
is an important trait for tomato root colonization by
Pseudomonas fluorescens, Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions
15: 1173-1180.
Fuglie LJ. 1998. Producing food without pesticides: Local solutions
to crop pest control in West Africa. Wageningen, The
Netherlands: CTA.
Jindal V, Arora R and Kumar R. 2007. Screening of cotton genotypes
for resistance to sucking pests. Annals of Plant Protection
Science 15: 26-29.
Kaplan DT. 1982. Plant resistance to nematodes: Symposium
Introduction. Journal of Nematology 14: 1-2.
Karssen G and Moens M. 2006. Root-knot nematodes. In: Perry
RN, Moens M, editors. Plant nematology. Wallingford (UK):
CAB International. Pp. 59-90.
Khan MR. 2008. Plant Nematodes: Methodology, Morphology,
Systematics, Biology and Ecology. Science Publishers, New
Hampshire, USA.
Khan SM, Khan MR and Mohiddin FA. 2004. Development and
evaluation of bio pesticides for the management of fungus
nematode wilt disease complex of pigeonpea. National
symposium on Paradigms in Nematological Research in
Biodynamic Farming. 17-19 November, 2004. University of
Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore.
Patel BA, Chavda JC, Patel ST and Patel DJ. 1987. Reaction of
some pigeon pea lines to reniform nematode (Rotylenchulus
reniformis). International Pigeonpea Newsletter 6: 57-59.
173
Rahman MF, Bora A and Choudhary BN. 2004. Screening of some
blackgram and pigeonpea varieties for resistance against
Meloidogyne incognita. Indian Journal of Nematology 34: 205-
23 8.
Reddy MV, Sharma SB and Nene YL. 1990. In: The Pigeonpea, (eds.
YL Nene, Susan, D Hall and VKK Sheila) CAB International pp. 335.
Sasser JN, Carter CC and Hartman KM. 1984. Standardization of
host suitability studies and reporting of resistance to root-knot
nematodes. Raleigh: North Carolina State University Graphics.
Sharma SB, Ali SS, Upadhyay KD and Ahmad F. 1996. Potential
nematode constrains of Pigeonpea in Uttar Pradesh in Northern
India. Asian Journal of Neamtology 6: 151-155.
Sharma SB, Remanandan P and Jain KC. 1993. Resistance to cyst
nematode (Heterodera cajani) in pigeonpea cultivars and in
wild relatives of Cajanus. Annals of Applied Biology 123: in
press.
Sharma SB. 1985. A world list of nematode pathogens associated
with chickpea, groundnut, pearl millet, pigeon pea and sorghum.
Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India: ICRISAT.
Siddiqui ZA, Husain SI and Fazal M. 1991. Response of twenty
varieties of pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan L.) against M. javanica.
Current Nematology. 2: 139-142.
Sidhu GS and Webster JM. 1981. Genetics of plant nematode
interaction. In: Plant Parasitic Nematodes vol. III, (Eds.B.M.
Zukherman and R.A. Rohde) Academic press, New York, pp.
61-87.
Sobczak M, Avrova A, Jupowicz J, Phillips MS, Ernst K and Kumar
A. 2005. Characterization of susceptibility and resistance
responses to potato cyst nematode (Globodera spp.) infection
of tomato lines in the absence and presence of the broad spectrum
nematode resistance hero gene. Molecular Plant-Microbe
Interactions 18: 158-168.
Southey JF. 1986. Laboratory methods for work with plant and soil
nematodes. London, UK: Her Majesty stationary office, pp. 202.
Suhail A, Alam MM and Anver S. 2001. Reaction of pigeon pea
accessions to root-knot nematode M. incognita and
Rotylenchulus reniformis. Int Chickpea Pigeon pea Newsletter
8: 41-42.
Taylor AL and Sasser JN. 1978. Biology, identification and control
of root-knot nematodes (Meloidogyne species). A cooperative
publication of the Department of Plant Pathology, North
Carolina State University and The United States Agency for
International Development. Raleigh, North Carolina USA 111pp.
Wani AH and Alam MM. 1995. Susceptibility of some pigeon pea
varieties to the root-knot nematode, M. incognita. Annals of
Plant Protection Science 3: 182-183.
Journal of Food Legumes 32(3): 174-177, 2019
Elucidation of host resistance for chickpea wilt (Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceris)
PR SAABALE 1 , MANJU NATH L, SHRIPAD BHAT, REVANAPPA S BIRADAR 1 , RK MISHRA,
NAIMUDDIN, RAM G CHAUDHARY, AK SRIVASTAVA, SK CHATURVEDI and NP SINGH
ICAR-Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, India; 1ICAR-Indian Institute of Pulses
Research, Regional Centre, Dharwad, Karnataka India; E-mail: sparashu@gmail.com
(Received : August 20, 2019; Accepted : September 7, 2019)
ABSTRACT
A total of 1890 elite chickpea breeding lines were phenotyped
against wilt disease of chickpea incited by Fusarium
oxysporum f.sp. ciceris (race 2) during 2004-2011 and were
also evaluated for yield potential. Finally, 67 best performing
lines were further evaluated for wilt resistance during 2012-
15. Pooled data of three years indicated that the wilt incidence
in elite breeding lines of chickpea varied from 6.7 to 19.8%.
Significant (P< 0.001) difference in wilt incidence was
noticed among the elite breeding lines due to the presence
of unique genetic diversity. In the present study, ten lines
viz. IPC2010-121 (3249 kg/ha), IPC2005-45 (2628 kg/ha),
IPC2007-04 (2758 kg/ha), IPC2007-36 (2568 kg/ha), IPC2010-
03 (3042 kg/ha), IPC2010-05 (2767 kg/ha), IPC2010-78 (3042
kg/ha), IPC2010-173 (2975 kg/ha), IPC2011-94 (3418 kg/ha)
and IPC2012-03 (3030 kg/ha) were showed resistance against
Fusarium wilt with higher yield. The resistant lines
identified in the present study can be utilized in breeding
programmes for developing wilt resistant cultivars in
chickpea. Some of the high yielding resistant lines identified
can be used for cultivation after fulfilling required criteria
for releasing variety for cultivation.
Key words: Elite breeding lines, Race 2, Resistance, Screening,
Wilt
Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is an important pulse
crop after peas and common bean grown over 50 countries
(Gaur et al. 2014). It is used as an important source of dietary
protein and plays pivotal role in human nutrition and animal
feed. India is the major producer of chickpea with an area of
8.25 million ha with a production of 7.33 million tons
(Anonymous, 2016). The productivity of chickpea is less
than the potential productivity due to its vulnerability to
various biotic and abiotic stresses throughout the growing
season. Among biotic stresses, wilt caused by Fusarium
oxysporum f. sp. ciceris (Padwick) Matuo and K. Sato
(Foc), is a highly destructive pathogen of chickpea
worldwide and is estimated to cause 10-90% annual yield
loss across the world (Jimenez-Diaz et al. 1989). In India,
wilt causes 10-15% annual yield losses (Singh and Dahiya,
1973). However, losses depends on the stage of crop
infection, early and late wilting causes 77- 94% and 24-
65%, respectively (Haware and Nene, 1980). Efforts of
several national as well as international chickpea breeding
programmes yielded several resistant cultivars against wilt
disease but, resistance is not durable due to high variability
in the pathogen. The variability in the pathogen has been
distinguished into eight races across the world (Haware
and Nene, 1982 and Jimenez-Gasco et al. 2001). However,
recent study indicated that, existence of all eight races on a
new set of chickpea differentials in India (Dubey et al. 2012).
Management of chickpea wilt is difficult by cultural and
chemical methods because the pathogen survives in the
soil for many years in absence of host (Haware et al. 1996).
Currently, deployment of diverse resistance sources is more
effective, economic and eco-friendly strategy for
management of chickpea wilt (Govil and Rana, 1994).
Consequently, considerable efforts have been made to
identify resistance sources against wilt across the world
(Halila and Strange, 1997, Pande et al. 2006, Sharma et al.
2012 and Saabale et al. 2017) and several are being utilized
in breeding programs. But, host resistance in disease
management is seriously curtailed as a result of genetic
breakdown or change in the virulence of the pathogen
making imperative to continuously search for resistant
sources against wilt pathogen. In present study, evaluation
of elite breeding lines of chickpea was undertaken to identify
stable wilt resistant sources against Fusarium wilt (race 2)
in artificially developed sick plot.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Plant material: A total of 1890 ‘desi’ and ‘kabuli’ elite
breeding lines were developed under chickpea breeding
program of Division of Crop Improvement, ICAR-IIPR,
Kanpur, India. These elite breeding lines were evaluated
against wilt disease caused by F. oxysporum f. sp. ciceris
(race 2) in sick plot and simultaneously, these lines were
evaluated for their yield in normal field during 2004-05 to
2010-11. Seeds of checks viz., JG 62 (Susceptible check)
and JG 315 (Resistant check) were obtained from Division
of Crop Protection, IIPR, Kanpur, India.
Wilt sick plot: Fusarium wilt sick plot is located at 26.490
north latitude and longitude of 80.270east. The soil is alluvial
with a pH 7.9 and area receives an annual average rainfall
of 885mm. The Fusarium wilt sick plot of size 3000 m2
developed at Kanpur during late 1980s against F. oxysporum
f. sp. ciceris race 2, a predominant race of Northern India.
Sick plot used in the present study is located in North East
Plain Zone (NEPZ) of India and is designated for screening
 Saabale et al.: Elucidation of host resistance for chickpea wilt 175

of All India Coordinated Research Project (AICRP) and (ANOVA) was calculated to study the effect of genotype
International Crop Research Institute for Semi-Arid Tropics (G), year (Y) and their interaction (G×Y) assuming year and
(ICRISAT) entries. Acceptable threshold inoculum level replications are fixed and genotype as random using SAS
(~7460 CFU/g of soil) of sick plot was maintained by software version 9.1. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc).
incorporating wilted plants along with wilt inoculum
prepared in laboratory on sorghum grains using dynamic RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
culture of Foc race 2 maintained in the laboratory. Incorporation of disease resistance involves pairwise
Field screening of genotypes and Analysis: A total of 67 crossing of compatible parents, usually one parent is
promising chickpea elite breeding lines identified over the chosen for disease resistance while other chosen parent
years were revalidated in the wilt sick plot during 2012-13, has suitable agronomic features for higher yield. Bhardwaj
2013-14 and 2014-15. The pedigrees and yield of 67 selected et al. (2012) used similar crossing strategy for incorporating
breeding lines used in this study are presented in Table 1. the resistance in the progenies. In the present study,
The experiment was laid in a randomized complete block evaluation of elite breeding lines developed at IIPR Kanpur
design (RCBD) with two replications. Each genotype was were undertaken in a Fusarium wilt sick plot having the
planted in 2 rows of 4m length with row to row spacing of threshold inoculum level of ~7460 Colony Forming Units
30 cm and plant to plant distance of 10cm. The chickpea (CFU) per gram of soil. Hence, it was unlikely that test lines
genotype JG 62 was used as susceptible check and WR- would have chance to escape from infection. However,
315 genotype was used as a resistant check after every 10 previous studies showed that, Foc population 1795±253
test rows to serve as indicators. CFU/g of soil is adequate for identifying resistance sources
Data on periodical wilt incidence was recorded during (Halila and Strange, 1997). Similar wilt sick plots were
seedling, flowering/podding and at near maturity stages of developed in ICRISAT, Hyderabad, India (Nene et al. 1981)
the crop. Cumulative percent wilt incidence of each test and Santaella, Cordoba, Spain (Jimenez-Diaz et al. 1991) for
genotype was calculated using formula as Disease large scale screening. In the preliminary trial, 1890 breeding
incidence (%) = (Number of infected plants/ Total number lines showed wide variation for Fusarium wilt incidence
of plants) x 100. The reaction of test genotypes was and ranged from 0 to 100 per cent (Data not shown). Among
determined by following disease rating scale of Sharma et which, 67 promising breeding lines of chickpea were
al. (2012). The test genotypes were grouped as resistant subjected for reconfirmation. Based on the mean percent
(0–10% incidence), moderately resistant (10.1–20% wilt incidence of all the three years (2012-13, 2013-14 and
incidence) susceptible (20.1-50%) and highly susceptible 2014-15) of evaluation, 24 breeding lines were found
(>50.0 % mortality). Data on disease incidence was resistant (d” 10% incidence) and 36 were moderately
subjected to log transformation (Gomez and Gomez, 1984) resistant (10-20% incidence) among desi type whereas,
to make error variance homogeneous. Analysis of variance among kabuli genotypes two were resistant and five were
moderately resistant (Table 1).
Table 1. Percent Fusarium wilt incidence, yield and pedigree of elite breeding lines of chickpea
Sl. No. Genotype Disease incidence (%) Yield Pedigree
2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Pooled data (kg-1 ha)
1 IPC2005-45 8.45 8.00 3.55 6.67 2628 DCP92-3 × IPC 71
2 IPC2005-19 8.10 4.70 8.60 7.13 1844 DCP92-3 × IPC 92-1
3 IPC2007-04 5.10 11.40 5.05 7.18 2758 DCP92-3 × IPC94-19
4 IPC2010-78 6.90 7.30 8.20 7.47 3042 CSG962×ICCV96029
5 IPC2007-36 2.85 12.15 7.95 7.65 2568 DCP92-3×IPC92-3
6 IPC2011-94 5.65 10.30 7.60 7.85 3418 JG16×IPC99-18
7 IPC2010-03 7.85 12.45 3.40 7.90 3042 IPCK96-3 ×IPCK2004-1
8 IPC2007-50 6.70 8.65 8.50 7.95 2440 GNG496×KWR108
9 IPC2007-28 8.90 11.55 3.55 8.00 1422 DCP92-3× SAKI9516
10 IPC2011-76 5.95 10.45 7.95 8.12 1958 CSG-89-26×FG711
11 IPC2009-66 12.00 10.90 2.05 8.32 1453 14222767
12 IPC2011-31 11.60 10.00 3.45 8.35 2185 BG256×PHLEG5
13 IPC2011-28 10.00 7.90 8.05 8.65 2136 HC-5×GL23138
14 IPC2010-121 11.55 9.40 6.35 9.10 3249 IPC1997-7×IPC1995-1
15 IPC2005-41a 6.25 10.10 11.40 9.25 1097 KPG143-2×T39-1
16 IPC2010-128 9.10 10.30 8.85 9.42 1775 ICC30163
17 IPC2010-173 10.65 7.45 10.15 9.42 2975 IPC94-132×BGD1122
18 IPC2005-62 9.65 4.80 14.00 9.48 1911 DCP92-3×T39-1
19 IPC2005-24 11.55 3.40 13.70 9.55 1883 DCP92-3×KPT-1
20 IPC2012-03 7.45 8.75 12.95 9.72 3030 IPC98-12×B1025
21 IPC2005-18 8.00 5.00 16.45 9.82 1889 (DCP92-3×IPC71)×ICC4958
22 IPC2005-26 9.50 4.70 15.40 9.87 1097 KPG143-2×T39-1
23 IPC2010-05 12.75 7.30 9.75 9.93 2767 ANNIGERI ×TYSON
176 Journal of Food Legumes 32(3), 2019

24 IPC2012-198 12.20 11.30 6.40 9.97 1916 C214×K850

25 IPC2009-43 12.70 8.00 11.25 10.65 2886 PGD84-16 × 86-18
26 IPC2005-52 8.50 11.20 12.30 10.67 1300 BG362×BG256
27 IPC2012-99 9.25 11.65 12.25 11.05 1419 GC98×ICC14203
28 IPC2007-51 8.85 13.25 11.80 11.30 2886 PGD84-16×H86-18
29 IPC2010-152 15.05 8.85 11.35 11.75 2843 BG256×JG16
30 IPC2010-71 14.00 13.80 7.80 11.87 2158 DCP92-3×ICCV96029
31 IPC2005-46 9.30 7.75 18.60 11.88 1825 (H82-94×H95-67)×HK89139
32 IPC2005-37 15.45 8.75 11.60 11.93 2072 L149×H82-2
33 IPC2010-123 13.75 11.90 10.25 11.97 3042 CSG8962×K850
34 IPC2005-44 13.85 8.85 13.85 12.18 1830 KPG143-2×T39-1
35 IPC2005-41B 10.80 9.05 16.75 12.20 - KPG143-2×T39-1
36 IPC2004-3 16.25 5.20 15.55 12.33 1610 PA079×9301
37 IPC2012-48 10.40 13.10 15.05 12.85 2111 DCP92-3×BPM
38 IPC2008-10 16.25 9.60 12.75 12.87 2218 PGD84-16×ICC87322
39 IPC2005-15 12.75 11.25 14.70 12.90 1994 H82-2×ICCV10
40 IPC2005-35 15.00 7.55 16.35 12.97 3014 KATILA×BG362
41 IPC2011-99 6.20 18.45 14.70 13.12 3518 BG256×ICC269082
42 IPC2010-185 18.15 9.75 11.55 13.15 2560 CP116-15-22
43 IPC2009-153 18.90 14.00 6.85 13.25 2483 DOLLAR×IPCK96-3
44 IPC2010-61 16.95 13.65 11.10 13.90 2069 ICCV96030×CicerPinnatifidum
45 IPC2007-48 15.40 14.95 13.20 14.52 2600 BG372×ICCV96029
46 IPC2005-59 17.65 11.90 14.30 14.62 2628 DCP92-3×IPC71
47 IPC2009-187 12.35 11.75 20.25 14.78 2667 IPC97-7×IPC95-1
48 IPC2004-8 16.35 11.15 17.40 14.97 1610 PA079×9301
49 IPC2005-54 15.15 11.50 18.30 14.98 2511 PG5×GNG469
50 IPC2011-65 11.05 13.05 22.00 15.37 3313 IPC94-94×IPC2000-4
51 IPC2010-28 12.50 19.25 14.85 15.53 2684 JG315×ICCV92944
52 IPC2010-120 19.00 16.30 12.30 15.87 2125 KWR108×JG62
53 IPC2007-98 15.60 19.60 13.25 16.15 1618 GNG479×ICCV96029
54 IPC2005-34 18.60 13.25 16.85 16.23 2314 ICCV4953×H82-2
55 IPC2012-192 14.95 15.10 19.50 16.52 2222 JG315×RSG865
56 IPC2005-30 21.85 9.55 19.60 17.00 1722 GNG469×KWR108
57 IPC2010-41 17.70 22.00 16.45 18.72 622 C-8
58 IPC2010-207 12.70 21.90 22.40 19.00 2239 CP211-2-3
59 IPC2012-197 19.70 19.35 18.85 19.30 2527 IPC2000-1×ICC14880
60 IPC2010-146 20.00 23.15 16.35 19.83 2357 IIPC94-132×ICCCV96029
61 IPCK2012-306 6.95 9.40 5.55 7.30 1622 ICARDA17122
62 IPCK2012-258 6.40 9.00 10.40 8.60 1533 IPCK96-3×DOLLAR
63 IPCK2012-154 15.90 12.75 7.55 12.07 1055 ICARDA16116
64 IPCK2012-310 12.10 7.65 19.15 12.97 1433 JGK1×ICC16144
65 IPCK2012-293 11.95 13.10 18.60 14.55 1211 ICARDA17103
66 IPCK2012-269 12.60 18.40 16.60 15.87 1333 ICARDA17103
67 IPCK2012-278 14.25 23.80 15.45 17.83 1255 ICARDA17107

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed significant kg/ha), IPC 2011-94 (3418 kg/ha) and IPC 2012-03 (3030 kg/
variation among the 67 elite breeding lines at 1% level of ha) were presented in Table 1. The variations occurred in
significance suggesting that genotypes have considerable per cent wilt incidence and time of wilt development may
variation for the wilt reactions and non significant difference be attributed to genetic makeup of the host plant
was observed across the years indicated that the disease (Upadhyaya et al. 1983). Huisman (1982) reported that,
reactions were stable. Description of the statistics of wilt
incidence of elite breeding lines is given in Table 2. This Table 2. Analysis of variance for Fusarium wilt incidence
signifies that the differences noticed in wilt disease in elite breeding lines of chickpea
incidence were mainly due to the genotypes. Pooled data Anova Mean F R-
Source Pr > F
analysis showed that (P < 0.05), incidence of Fusarium wilt SS Square Value Square
in genotypes had almost no interaction effect of Pooled data Genotype 113.36 1.69 4.87 <.0001
(three years) Replication 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.8222
environment over the years of screening under sick plot. Year 0.76 0.38 1.09 0.3391
0.74

Based on mean incidence of 3 years data, the breeding Genotype*Year 91.64 0.68 1.97 <.0001
lines which showed consistent resistant reaction in all the Genotype 55.96 0.84 5.63 <.0001
2012-13 0.85
Replication 0.68 0.68 4.58 0.036
years of testing with higher yields viz. IPC 2010-121 (3249kg/
Genotype 60.95 0.91 4.22 <.0001
ha), IPC 2005-45 (2628 kg/ha), IPC 2007-04 (2758 kg/ha), IPC 2013-14 0.81
Replication 0.39 0.39 1.81 0.1828
2007-36 (2568 kg/ha), IPC 2010-03 (3042 kg/ha), IPC 2010-05 Genotype 88.09 1.31 1.96 0.0033
2014-15 0.66
(2767 kg/ha), IPC 2010-78 (3042 kg/ha), IPC 2010-173 (2975 Replication 0.18 0.18 0.27 0.6022
 Saabale et al.: Elucidation of host resistance for chickpea wilt
differences among genotypes against Fusarium wilt may
be also due to variations in roots of chickpea genotypes,
which compensate by production of new roots. The data
on overall percentage wilt incidence indicated that ‘kabuli’
breeding lines are more susceptible to wilt compared to
‘desi’ types. The results are in conformity with the results
of Nene and Haware (1980) and Jimenez-Diaz et al. (1991).
The data in our study also showed that, only small
percentage of genetic resistance was observed in elite
breeding lines of chickpea. Haware et al. (1992) identified
only1.2% of accessions collected across the globe were
resistant to race1. Pande et al. (2006) reported 12% of mini-
core accessions (211) were highly resistant against
Fusarium wilt.
The study concludes that immunity in chickpea
against Fusarium wilt is rather scarce. However, desi types
of chickpea are more tolerant than kabuli types. The
difference in per cent wilt incidence may be because of
different genes involved in imparting resistance. The
information generated on these test lines could be a great
value for plant breeders in their efforts in development of
race specific (Race-2) resistant chickpea cultivars.
REFERENCES
Anonymous 2016. Directorate of Economics and Statistics,
Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmer’s Welfare,
Agriculture Statistics at a Glance p. 110.
Bhardwaj V, Srivastava AK, Sharma S, Kumar V, Kaushik SK and
Singh BP. 2013. Efficiency of different potato (Solanum
tuberosum L.) cross combinations in late blight resistance breeding.
International Journal of Innovative Horticulture 2: 63-69.
Dubey SC, Priyanka K, Singh V and Singh B. 2012. Race profiling
and molecular diversity analysis of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp.
ciceris causing wilt in chickpea. Journal of phytopathology 160:
576-587.
Gaur PM, Samineni S, Tripathi S, Varshney RK and Gowda CLL.
2014. Allelic relationships of flowering time genes in chickpea.
Euphytica 203: 295-308.
Gomez KA and Gomez AA. 1984. Statistical procedures for agricultural
research. Singapore: John Wiley & Sons; pp. 139-153.
Govil JN and Rana BS. 1994. Stability of host plant resistance to
wilt (Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceri) in chickpea. International
Journal of Tropical Plant Disease 2: 55-60.
177
Halila MH and Strange RN. 1997. Screening of Kabuli chickpea
germplasm for resistance to Fusarium wilt. Euphytica 96: 273–279.
Haware MP and Nene YL. 1980. Influence of wilt at different
stages on the yield loss in chickpea. Tropical Grain Legume
Bulletin 19: 38-40.
Haware MP and Nene YL. 1982. Races of Fusarium oxysporum f.
sp. ciceri. Plant Disease 66: 809-810.
Haware MP, Nene YL, Pundir RPS and Narayana Rao J. 1992.
Screening of world chickpea germplasm for resistance to Fusarium
wilt. Field Crops Science 30: 147-154.
Huisman OC. 1982. Inter-relations of root growth dynamics to
epidemiology of root-invading fungi. Annual Review of
Phytopathology 20: 303-327.
Jimenez-Diaz RM, Trapero-Casas A, Cabrera de la and Colina J.
1989. Races of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceris infecting
chickpea in Southern Spain. In: Tjamos EC, Beckman CH. (eds)
Vascular wilt diseases of plants. NATO ASI Series, vol. H28.
Springer Verlag, Berlin p. 515–520.
Jimenez-Diaz RM, Singh KB, Trapero-Casas A and Trapero-Casas
JL. 1991. Resistance in ‘kabuli’ chickpea to Fusarium wilt. Plant
Disease 75: 914–918.
Jimenez-Gasco MM, Perez-Artes E and Jimenez-Diaz RM. 2001.
Identification of pathogenic races 0, 1B/C, 5 and 6 of Fusarium
oxysporum f. sp. ciceri with random amplified polymorphic
DNA (RAPD). European Journal of Plant Pathology 107: 237–248.
Nene YL and Haware MP. 1980. Screening chickpea for resistance
to wilt. Plant Disease 64: 379-380.
Nene YL, Haware MP and Reddy MV. 1981. Chickpea diseases:
resistance screening techniques. ICRISAT Information Bulletin
10:10.
Pande S, Kishore GK, Upadhyaya HD and Rao JN. 2006.
Identification of multiple disease resistance in mini core
collection of chickpea. Plant Disease 90: 1214-1218.
Saabale PR, Mishra RK, Naimuddin and Chaturvedi SK. 2017. New
sources of resistance in land races and advance germplasm against
Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceris race 2 causal agent of chickpea
wilt. Legume Research 40: 364-368.
Sharma M, Kiran Babu T, Gaur PM, Ghosha R, Rameshwar T,
Chaudhary RG, Upadhyay JP, Gupta O, Saxena DR, Kaur L,
Dubey SC, Anandani VP, Harer PN, Rathore A and Pande S.
2012. Identification and multi-environment validation of
resistance to Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceris in chickpea.
Field Crops Research 135: 82-88.
Singh KB and Dahiya BS. 1973. Breeding for wilt resistance in
chickpea. In Symposium on Problem and Breeding for Wilt
Resistance in Bengal Gram, IARI, New Delhi pp:13-14.
Journal of Food Legumes 32(3): 178-185, 2019

Effect of induced meteorological changes due to staggered planting on pest

incidence in chickpea
T PAVANI2,1, T RAMESH BABU1, D SRIDEVI2, K RADHIKA1 and HC SHARMA2,3*
2
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Patancheru, Hyderabad, Telangana,
India;1Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, Andhra Pradesh, India; 2Professor Jayashankar Telangana
State Agricultural University, Hyderabad, Telangana, India; 3YSP University of Horticulture & Forestry, Solan,
Himachal Pradesh, India; Email: vcuhf@yspuniversity.ac.in
(Received : December 8, 2018; Accepted : April 5, 2019)

ABSTRACT there is a need to develop strategies to mitigate the effects of

Pest incidence in chickpea was studied across sowing dates
to understand the effect of climatic factors on pest incidence
on five genotypes of chickpea. The egg laying by the pod
borer, Helicoverpa armigera decreased across sowing dates
from October to December, with a slight increase in
oviposition was observed in the January sown crops. ICC
3137 was most preferred for egg laying (9.5 eggs/5 plants),
followed by KAK 2 (6.8 eggs/5 plants). The incidence of H.
armigera decreased with a delay in time of sowing (60.0 larvae/
5plants in the October sown crop to 21.9 larvae/5plants in
the December sown crop). However, a slight increase was
observed in the January sown crop (34.8 larvae/5plants). The
highest incidence of H. armigera larvae was recorded on ICC
3137 (55.1 larvae/5plants), and the lowest on ICCV 10 (29.9
larvae/5plants).The numbers of H. armigera larvae were
negatively correlated with open pan evaporation, temperature
(both maximum and minimum), wind velocity and solar
radiation in all the chickpea genotypes, except in ICCV 10.
However, oviposition by beet armyworm, Spodoptera exigua
was positively correlated with open pan evaporation,
temperature (both maximum and minimum), and solar
radiation in ICC 3137 and ICCV 10. The abundance ofS.
exigua larvae was significantly and positively correlated with
rainfall, open pan evaporation, temperature (both maximum
and minimum), wind velocity and solar radiation, except in
ICCV 10, which showed a non-significant negative
correlation. The pod borer damage was significantly and
positively correlated with rainfall, open pan evaporation,
temperature (both maximum and minimum), wind velocity
and solar radiation, suggesting the global warming will lead
to an increase in pest incidence in chickpea. The numbers
of H. armigera larval parasitoid, Campoletis chlorideae cocoons
were significantly and negatively correlated with rainfall,
open pan evaporation, temperature (both maximum and
minimum), wind velocity and solar radiation, indicating that
increase in temperature will decrease the efficacy of natural
enemies. Grain yield decreased with an increase in rainfall,
open pan evapouration, temperature (both maximum and
minimum), wind velocity and solar radiation, but was
positively correlated with relative humidity. The present
studies suggested that global warming will decrease the
incidence of H. armigera, but with result in an increase in
the incidence of S. exigua. Increase in temperature will also
decrease the extent of parasitization of H. armigera, which
will result in a significant decrease in crop yields. Therefore,
climate change on crop production and food security.
Keywords: Chickpea, Climate change, Helicoverpa armigera,
Pest incidence, Spodoptera exigua
Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) also known as Bengal
gram or gram, is the second most important food legume in
Asia, North Africa, and Mexico. Recently, it has also become
an important grain legume crop in North USA, Canada, and
Australia. It is grown on 13.5 million hectares worldwide,
with an average production of 8.8 million tonnes. India is
the largest producer of chickpea in the world sharing 71.0
and 67.2% of the total area (9.6 mha) and production (8.8mt),
respectively(FAOSTAT, 2013).Several biotic and abiotic
constraints limit the production and productivity of
chickpea, of insect pests are a major constraint to increase
the production and productivity of chickpea (Sharma 2005
and Yadav et al. 2006; Sharma et al. 2011). Losses due to
insect pest damage are likely to increase as a result of
changes in cropping patterns,and global warming.
The pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner), is
one of the most important constraints in chickpea
production (Sharma, 2005). Its populationpeaks generally
correspond to the fullbloom and pod formation stage of
the crop in the post rainy season. Temperature, relative
humidity (Yadava and Lal 1988, Yadava et al. 1991), rainfall
(Tripathi and Sharma 1985), predators (Thakur et al. 1995,
Gunathilagaraj 1996) andparasitoids (Bhatnagar 1980,
Srinivas & Jayaraj 1989, Thakur et al. 1995) affect the
incidence and population densities of H. armigera on
chickpea. Information onpest incidence under field
conditions across sowing dates can be used to assess the
effect of different climatic variables on pest incidence and
grain yield. Therefore, we studied the effect of climatic
factors on pest incidence and grain yield on five genotypes
of chickpea.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Five chickpea genotypes (2 resistant ICCL 86111 and
ICCV 10, 2 commercial cultivars JG 11 and KAK 2 and 1
susceptible genotype ICC 3137) were sown across four
 Pavani et al.: Effect of staggered planting on pest incidence in chickpea 179

planting dates between October-January at monthly

intervals during 2012-14 post rainy seasons under field
conditions. The experiment was laid out in randomized
complete block design with three replications for each
genotype, in a plot of four rows 2 m long (with a spacing of
60 cm between the rows and 10 cm between plants with in
a row). Data were recorded on numbers of insects/plant. at
fortnightly intervals in each planting. Data were also
recorded on leaf feeding (leaf damage rating on a 1 to 9
scale (1=<10% leaf area damaged, and 9=> 80% leaf area
damaged) (Sharma et al. 2005). The incidence/abundance Fig 1. Oviposition by H. armigerafemales on different genotypes
of different insect pests was correlated with the climatic of chickpea in relation to temperature and RH under natural
factors (average temperature, open pan evaporation, infestation in the field.
rainfall, sunshine hours, solar radiation, wind velocity, and
Variation in density of H. armigera larvae on different
relative humidity during the observation period). The crop
genotypes of chickpea across sowings:The incidence of
was raised under normal agronomic practices, and there
H. armigera larvae was highest in the crop sown in October
was no insecticide application in the experimental plots.
(80.7 larvae/5plants), and lowest in the December sown
Weather data during the experimental period was obtained
crop (20.1 larvae/5plants) in 2012 – 13. In the 2013 – 14
from the agro meteorology station at the ICRISAT farm.
cropping season, the incidence of H. armigera was quite
Data on rainfall, temperature, relative humidity, open pan
high in the crop sown in November (40.7 larvae/5plants),
evaporation, sunshine hours, solar radiation and wind
October (39.3 larvae/5plants) and January (38.3 larvae/
velocity during the experimental period was correlated with
5plants), but lowin the December sown crop (23.8 larvae/
lead damage, and egg and larval density (Incidence) during
5plants). Across seasons, the incidence of H. armigera
the experimental period.
declined as the sowing date was advanced from October
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION (60.0 larvae/5plants) to December (21.9 larvae/5plants), but
increased in the January sown crop (34.8 larvae/5plants).
Oviposition by H. armigera females on different genotypes
There were significant differences in numbers of H.
of chickpea: There were significant differences in the
armigera larvae across genotypes in both the seasons,
numbers of H. armigera eggs across different dates of
but the interaction effects were nonsignificant. Highest
sowing in both the seasons, as well as across the seasons.
number of H. armigera larvae were recorded on ICC 3137
The egg laying by the H. armigera females decreased as
(51.9 larvae/5plants), followed by KAK 2 (46.6 larvae/
the sowing dates advanced from October to December
5plants) and ICCL 86111 (41.8 larvae/5plants). The lowest
(19.9–5.2 eggs/5 plants in 2012/13; 9.2–3.7 eggs/5 plants in
incidence of H. armigera larvae was recorded in ICCV 10
2013/14 and 13.9–4.3 eggs/5 plants across the seasons),
(28.2 larvae/5plants), followed by JG 11 (38.3 larvae/5plants).
but a slight increase in oviposition was recorded in the
In 2013 – 14 post rainy seasons, the H. armigera larval
January sown crop (5.9 eggs/5 plants in 2012 –13, 4.3 eggs/
density was significantly higher on ICC 3137 (58.3 larvae/
5 plants in 2013 – 2014, and 5.1 eggs/5 plants across the
5plants) and KAK 2 (37.9 larvae/5plants) than on ICCV 10
seasons). More number of eggs were recorded in 2012 –13
(31.7 larvae/5plants), JG 11 (30.1 larvae/5plants and ICCL
than in 2013 –14. Highest numbers of eggs were observed
86111 (24.7 larvae/5plants). Across seasons, highest
in the crop sown in October in both the seasons.
incidence was recorded on ICC 3137 (55.1 larvae/5plants),
There were significant differences in oviposition on and the lowest on ICCV 10 (29.9 larvae/5plants). The larval
different genotypes across sowing dates, and the
interaction effects were nonsignificant. Among the
genotypes tested, ICC 3137 had the highest number of eggs
across the seasons (11.3 eggs/5 plants, in 2012 - 13; 7.7
eggs/ 5 plants in 2013 - 14 and 9.5 eggs/5 plants across the
seasons), while theoviposition was recorded on JG 11 (6.3
eggs/ 5 plants) in 2012-13, and on ICCV 10 and ICCL 86111
(3.5 eggs/5plants) in 2013-14. Across seasons, ICC 3137
was most preferred for egg laying (9.5 eggs/5plants),
followed by KAK 2 (6.8 eggs/5plants). ICCV 10 and JG 11
(5.9 eggs/5 plants) were relatively non-preferred for egg
laying. (Fig 1). Fig 2. Abundance of H.armigera larvae on different
genotypes of chickpea in relation to temperature and RH
under natural infestation in the field.
180 Journal of Food Legumes 32(3), 2019
density decreased from October to December, but a slight
increase was observed in the crop sown in January. Across
seasons, lowest larval density was recorded on ICCV 10
(15.5 larvae/5plants) in the December sown crop, and highest
on ICC 3137 (84.6 larvae/5plants) in the October sown crop
(Fig 2).
Oviposition by beet armyworm, S. exigua on different
genotypes of chickpea:There were no significant
differences in the numbers of S. exigua egg masses across
the sowings in the 2012-13 cropping season. No egg masses
were observed in the October sown crop in 2012-13. Highest
egg laying was recorded in the January sown crop (0.4 egg
masses/5 plants). The number of egg masses differed
significantly across sowing dates in the 2013-14cropping
season. In 2013-14, significantly highest numbersof egg
masses were recorded in the December sown crop (1.3 egg
masses/5 plants), but the differences in egg laying were
nonsignificant in the crops sown in October, November
and January. Similar trend was observed across seasons.
The highest numbers of egg masses were recorded in the
December sown crop (0.7 egg masses/5 plants), and greater
egg laying was recorded in 2013-14 than in 2012-13 cropping
season.
No egg laying was observed on ICCL 86111, while a
fewer egg masses were recorded on ICCV 10 (0.3 egg
masses/5plants) in the January sown crop, and in JG 11 in
the November and January sown crops. The number of
egg masses deposited on different genotypes differed
significantly during the 2013-14 cropping season, and
highest number of egg masses (1.7 egg masses/5plants)
were recorded on KAK2, while no eggs were recorded in
ICCV 10. Across seasons, highest number of S. exigua egg
masses (1.0 egg masses/5 plants) were recorded on KAK 2,
followed by ICC 3137 (0.4 egg masses/5 plants) and ICCL
86111 (0.4 egg masses/5 plants). The interaction effects
were non–significant across the seasons. No egg masses
were recorded in the October sown crop in both the seasons,
except on KAK 2 in the 2013–14 cropping season (Fig 3).
Fig 3. Oviposition by S. exiguafemales on different
genotypes of chickpea in relation to temperature and RH
under natural infestation in the field.
Population of beet armyworm, S. exigua larvae on
different chickpea genotypes: In the 2012-13 cropping
season, the numbers of S. exigua larvae were highest in
the crop sown in January (16.1 larvae/5plants), followed by
the December (11.6 larvae/5plants), November (10.1 larvae/
5plants) and October (4.7 larvae/5plants) sown crops.
During the 2013-14 cropping season, the numbers of S.
exigua larvae were significantly higher in the crop sown
inJanuary (15.5larvae/5plants), followed by the December
sown crop (11.6 larvae/5plants). Significantly lower larval
population was recorded in the November (1.3 larvae/
5plants) and October (2.0 larvae/5plants) sown crops.
Across the seasons, the S. exigua incidence was
significantly greater in the January sown crop (15.8 larvae/
5plants) than in the crops sown in October, November and
December. The January sown crop was most affected by S.
exigua larvae in both the cropping seasons, as the crop
grew and matured during the warm months of February to
May. The larval incidence was comparatively greater in the
2013-14 than in 2012-13 cropping season.
There were no significant differences in the numbers
of S. exigua larvae on different genotypes in the 2012-13
cropping season. KAK 2 had the maximum numbers of S.
exigua larvae (15.6 larvae/5plants), followed by ICCL 86111
(11.6 larvae/5plants), JG 11 (9.3 larvae/5plants) and ICC 3137
(8.8 larvae/5plants). Less S. exigua larval numbers were
recorded on ICCV 10 (7.8 larvae/5plants). During the 2013-
14 cropping season, there were no significant differences
among the genotypes tested. However, the highest
numbers of S. exigua larvae were observed on JG 11 (12.1
larvae/5plants), followed by ICC 3137 and ICCL 86111 (5.1
larvae/5plants). Across seasons, the highest numbers of S.
exigua larvae were recorded on KAK 2 (12.9larvae/5plants)
and lowest on ICC 3137 (7.0 larvae/5plants).The interaction
effects between the genotypes and sowing dates were not
significant. The lowest (2.5 larvae/5plants) incidence was
recorded in ICCV 10 in the November sown crop, and
highest in KAK 2 in the January sown crop (27.2 larvae/
5plants). Highest numbers of egg masses were also recorded
on KAK 2-Kabuli type genotype, suggesting that it is highly
susceptible to S. exigua. KAK 2 was found to be highly
susceptible to S. exigua, while ICC 3137 was highly
susceptible to H. armigera. ICCV 10 was relatively resistant
to both H. armigera and S. exigua. The S. exigua incidence
Fig 4. Abundance of S. exigua larvae on different genotypes
of chickpea in relation to temperature and RH under natural
infestation in the field.
 Pavani et al.: Effect of staggered planting on pest incidence in chickpea 181

was observed mostly in the early stages of the crop,
irrespective of the planting dates (Fig. 4).
Variation in parasitization of H. armigera by the larval
parasitoid Campoletis chlorideae: During the 2012-13
cropping season, greater numbers of cocoons of C.
chlorideae were observed in the December sown crop (3.4
cocoons/5plants), followed by the October sown crop (2.4
cocoons/5plants). Lowest parasitization (0.1 cocoons/
5plants) were recorded in the January sown crop. In the
2013 – 14cropping season, maximum parasatization (5.7
cocoons/5plants) was recorded in the October sown crop,
and the lowest (0.4 cocoons/5plants) in the January sown
crop. Across seasons, highest (4.0 cocoons/5plants)
activity of the parasitoid was recorded in the October sown
crop, andthe lowest (0.2 cocoons/5plants) in the January
sown crop, suggesting that the parasitoid is mostly active
during the cooler part of the winter season. There were no
significant differences in the numbers of C. chlorideae
cocoons on different genotypes in both the seasons.
However, highest numbers of cocoons were recorded on
ICC 3137 (2.6 cocoons/5plants), and the lowest on KAK 2
and JG 11 (2.0 cocoons/5plants). The interaction effects
were not significant (Fig. 5).
Fig 5. Numbers of C. chloridaeacocoons on different
genotypes of chickpea in relation to temperature and RH
under natural conditions in the field.
Influence of climatic conditions on pest incidence in
chickpea Pod borer, H. Armigera: Leaf and pod damage
byH. armigera was significantly and positively correlated
with rainfall, open pan evaporation, temperature (both
maximum and minimum), wind velocity and solar radiation,
except in ICC 3137. In ICC 3137, leaf damage was
significantly and positively correlated with rainfall, but
negatively correlated with the sunshine hours. There was
a significant and negative association between leaf damage
and relative humidity (morning and evening), except in ICC
3137. Sunshine hours were positively correlated with leaf
damage in ICCL 86111 (Table 6).
The numbers of H. armigera eggs exhibited a
significant and negative correlation with most of the climatic
factors viz., evaporation, temperature (both maximum and
minimum), wind velocity, solar radiation and sunshine hours
in all the chickpea genotypes. Relative humidity (both
morning and evening) showed a significant and positive
correlation, while rainfall had a non-significant but negative
association with oviposition by H. armigera (Table 1).The
numbers of H. armigera larvae were negatively correlated
with open pan evaporation, temperature (both maximum
and minimum), wind velocity and solar radiation in all the
chickpea genotypes, except in ICCV 10, which is relatively
resistant to H. armigera. Larval density on all the
genotypes, except on ICCV 10 showed a significant and
positive correlation with relative humidity, but a non -
significant association with rainfall and sunshine hours
(Table 2).
Beet armyworm, S. Exigua: Oviposition by S. exigua and
rainfall were positively correlated in ICCV 10; while a
significant and positive correlation was observed with open
pan evaporation, temperature (both maximum and
minimum), and solar radiation in ICC 3137 and ICCV 10.
Maximum temperature and oviposition were also negatively
associated on KAK 2, which is highly susceptible to S.

Table 1. Association between climatic factors and oviposition by H. armigera females on different genotypes of chickpea
Temperature (°C) Relative Humidity (%) Solar
Open pan Wind Sunshine
Genotype Rain (mm) radiation
evaporation (mm) Maximum Minimum Morning Evening velocity hours
(mj/m2)
ICC 3137 -0.19 -0.59** -0.52** -0.39* 0.57** 0.87** -0.73** -0.50** -0.52**
ICCL 86111 -0.26 -0.62** -0.57** -0.42* 0.60** 0.91** -0.71** -0.55** -0.61**
ICCV 10 -0.28 -0.63** -0.58** -0.43* 0.61** 0.92** -0.72** -0.56** -0.60**
JG 11 -0.21 -0.62** -0.55** -0.44* 0.61** 0.87** -0.78** -0.53** -0.42*
KAK 2 -0.10 -0.50** -0.44** -0.30 0.49** 0.83** -0.65* -0.41* -0.57**
*, ** Significant at P < 0.05 and 0.01, respectively.
Table 2. Association between climatic factors and abundance of H. armigera larvae on different genotypes of chickpea
Open pan Temperature (°C) Relative Humidity (%) Solar
Rain Wind Sunshine
Genotype evaporation radiation
(mm) Maximum Minimum Morning Evening velocity hours
(mm) (mj/m2 )
ICC 3137 -0.11 -0.56** -0.45* -0.44* 0.56** 0.69* -0.80** -0.44* -0.05
ICCL 86111 -0.50 -0.84** -0.76** -0.76** 0.84** 0.84** -0.97** -0.76** -0.01
ICCV 10 0.44 -0.02 0.11 0.11 0.02 0.28 -0.35 0.11 -0.05
JG 11 -0.20 -0.63** -0.54** -0.49** 0.63** 0.79** -0.84** -0.52** -0.19
KAK 2 -0.37 -0.76** -0.68* -0.62** 0.75** 0.89** -0.90** -0.67** -0.26
*, ** Significant at P < 0.05 and 0.01, respectively.
182 Journal of Food Legumes 32(3), 2019

Table 3. Association between climatic factors and oviposition by S. exigua females on different genotypes of chickpea
Open pan Temperature (°C) Relative Humidity (%) Solar
Rain Wind Sunshine
Genotype evaporation radiation
(mm) Maximum Minimum Morning Evening velocity hours
(mm) (mj/m2 )
ICC 3137 0.31 0.71** 0.62** 0.60** -0.71** -0.81** 0.90** 0.61** 0.09
ICCL 86111 -0.28 0.12 -0.02 0.09 -0.13 -0.13 0.45* -0.01 -0.42*
ICCV 10 0.98** 0.87** 0.93** 0.88** -0.87** -0.70** 0.64** 0.93** 0.21
JG 11 0.02 0.48** 0.36* 0.36* -0.47** -0.62** 0.74** 0.35 0.02
KAK 2 -0.30 -0.54** -0.54** -0.33 0.52** 0.88** -0.53** -0.51** -0.83**
*, ** Significant at P < 0.05 and 0.01, respectively.

Table 4. Association between climatic factors and density of S. exigua larvae on different genotypes of chickpea
Open pan Temperature (°C) Relative Humidity (%) Solar
Rain Wind Sunshine
Genotype evaporation radiation
(mm) Maximum Minimum Morning Evening velocity hours
(mm) (mj/m2 )
ICC 3137 0.97** 0.93** 0.97** 0.91** -0.92** -0.78** 0.74** 0.97** 0.22
ICCL 86111 0.84** 0.97** 0.97** 0.89** -0.96** -0.95** 0.89** 0.96** 0.32
ICCV 10 -0.12 -0.19 -0.24 0.01 0.16 0.58** -0.08 -0.20 -0.99**
JG 11 0.52** 0.84** 0.76** 0.79** -0.84** -0.77** 0.98** 0.76** -0.13
KAK 2 0.92** 0.99** 1.00 0.95** -0.98** -0.89** 0.87** 0.99** 0.21
*, ** Significant at P < 0.05 and 0.01, respectively.

Table 5. Association between climatic factors and abundance of C. chlorideae cocoons on different genotypes of chickpea
Open pan Temperature (°C) Relative Humidity (%) Solar
Wind Sunshine
Genotype Rain (mm) evaporation radiation
Maximum Minimum Morning Evening velocity hours
(mm) (mj/m2)
ICC 3137 -0.84** -0.99** -0.96** -0.97** 0.99** 0.83** -0.97** -0.96** 0.04
ICCL 86111 -0.77** -0.74** -0.81** -0.64** 0.73** 0.83** -0.54** -0.79** -0.65**
ICCV 10 -0.66** -0.70** -0.75** -0.56** 0.68** 0.87** -0.53** -0.73** -0.75**
JG 11 -0.63** -0.81** -0.82** -0.66** 0.80** 0.98** -0.75** -0.80** -0.63**
KAK 2 -0.76** -0.97** -0.94** -0.89** 0.97** 0.95** -0.97** -0.93** -0.20
*, ** Significant at P < 0.05 and 0.01, respectively.

Table 6. Association between climatic factors and H. armigera damage on different genotypes of chickpea
Open pan Temperature (°C) Relative Humidity (%) Solar
Rain Wind Sunshine
Genotype evaporation radiation
(mm) Maximum Minimum Morning Evening velocity hours
(mm) (mj/m2)
ICC 3137 0.50** 0.15 0.20 0.37 -0.17 0.34 -0.04 0.23 -0.67**
ICCL 86111 0.76** 0.91** 0.92** 0.80** -0.91** -0.98** 0.84** 0.90** 0.47**
ICCV 10 0.91** 0.99** 1.00** 0.95** -0.99** -0.89** 0.89** 0.99** 0.19
JG 11 0.90** 1.00** 1.00** 0.97** -1.00** -0.88** 0.91** 1.00** 0.13
KAK 2 0.92** 1.00** 1.00** 0.98** -1.00** -0.85** 0.91** 1.00** 0.08
*, ** Significant at < 0.05 and 0.01, respectively.

exigua. Numbers of S. exigua egg masses and relative
humidity (both morning and evening) were significantly
and negatively correlated, except in ICCL 86111. Wind
velocity was positively correlated with oviposition by S.
exigua,except in KAK 2, where a significant and negative
correlation was observed (Table 3).The abundance of S.
exigua larvae was significantly and positively correlated
with rainfall, open pan evaporation, temperature (both
maximum and minimum), wind velocity and solar radiation,
except in ICCV 10, which showed a non-significant negative
correlation. The abundance of S. exigua larvae on ICC 3137,
ICCL 86111, JG 11 and KAK 2 was significantly and
negatively correlated with relative humidity (morning and
evening), but positively correlated with the minimum
relative humidity in ICCV 10 (Table 4).
Effect of climatic factors on activity and abundance of
the larval parasitoid, C. Chlorideae: The numbers of C.
chlorideae cocoonswere significantly negatively
correlatedwith rainfall, open pan evaporation, temperature
(both maximum and minimum), wind velocity and solar
radiation, but positively correlated with morning and
evening relative humidity across genotypes. However,
asignificant and negative association was observed with
sunshine hours in ICCL 86111, ICCV 10 and JG 11 (Table 5).
Effect of climatic factors on grain yield across sowing
dates:Grain yield was significantly and negatively
correlated with rainfall, open pan evaporation, temperature
(both maximum and minimum), wind velocity and solar
radiation, but positively correlated with morning and
evening relative humidity (Table 7).
 Pavani et al.: Effect of staggered planting on pest incidence in chickpea
Table 7. Association between climatic factors and yield on different genotypes of chickpea
Open pan Temperature
Genotype Rain (mm) evaporation (°C)
(mm) Maximum Minimum
ICC 3137 -0.63** -0.90** -0.86** -0.77**
ICCL 86111 -0.66** -0.92** -0.88** -0.80**
ICCV 10 -0.66** -0.93** -0.88** -0.84**
JG 11 -0.67** -0.94** -0.89** -0.84**
KAK 2 -0.75** -0.97** -0.93** -0.89**
*, ** Significant at P< 0.05 and 0.01, respectively.
In the early sown crop, which developed and matured
during the cooler part of the postrainy season, there were
significant differences in genotypic susceptibility to pod
borer damage, but the differences between the genotypes
were less apparent in H. armigera larvae in the late sown
crops. Though the numbers of H. armigera larvae decreased
with the planting dates, the extent of damage by H. armigera
increased across the planting dates in both cropping
seasons, which could be ascribed to warmer conditions
during crop development and maturity. Parasitization of H.
armigera larvae byC. chlorideae also decreased with the
planting dates, resulting in in a decreased in biological
control of H. armigera larvae, and increased crop damage.
Damage by H. armigeraincreased with an increase in
temperature as a result of reduction in the dry matter and
grain yield.
Shankar et al. (2014) reported that numbers of S.
exigua and H. armigera larvaewere maximum on ICC 3137
at the vegetative, flowering and podding stages in both
the seasons, while ICCL 86111 harboured the lowest
numbers of H. armigera and S. exigua larvae. More H.
armigeramoths were trapped during March to April
(Mahapatra et al.2007), and November sown crops suffered
less pod damage than that sown in December(Prasad et al.
(1989; Begum et al. 1992). Delayed sowing of chickpea is
risky under rainfed conditions due to inadequate stored
soil moisture, and increased risk of damage by H.
armigera.(Prasad and Singh 1997). Oviposition by H.
armigera was low in the crop sown between December to
Mid- February due to cold conditionsin Pakistan (Shah
and Shahzad, 2005), whereas Ali et al. (2009) observed that
the numbers of eggs laid by H. armigera differed
significantly across sowings on different genotypes of
cotton, but there were no significant differences in larval
density and damage across genotypes and sowing dates.
The H. armigera larval population was high in early
sown crops (October 15th to November 1st) than in and
delayed sowings (November 1st to 30th) (Anwar et al.,1994).
The genotypic response to damage by H. amigera vary
across seasons and locations (Sharma et al. 2003). The
genotypes (ICC 506EB, ICC 12476, ICC 12477, ICC 12478
and ICC 12479) that are not preferred for oviposition also
suffer low leaf damage by H. armigera(Narayanamma et al.
2007).The abundance of H. armigera decreased with an
increase in temperature, but plant damage increased with a
rise in temperature.Thismay be due to better plant growth
183
Relative Humidity Solar
Wind Sunshine
(%) radiation
velocity hours
Morning Evening (mj/m2 )
0.89** 0.99** -0.92** -0.85** -0.38
0.91** 0.98** -0.94** -0.87** -0.33
0.93** 0.95** -0.98** -0.88** -0.20
0.93** 0.95** -0.97** -0.89** -0.22
0.96** 0.95** -0.97** -0.93** -0.20
in early sowings than in the late sown crops due to
inadequate soil moisture and dry weather conditions,
whichretarded the plant growth, with less pod setting, and
consequently resulting in poor grain yield. The vegetative
growth and the dry matter production decreased with an
increase in temperature due to water stress.The numbers
of C. chlorideae cocoons decreased with an increase in
temperature. Higher temperatures resulted in reduced
efficacy of control agents ofH. armigera, which may also
have contributed to increase in plant damage. Patnaik and
Senapati (1996) observed a negative correlation between
mean temperature range and larval incidence of H. armigera.
A positive association was observed between H. armigera
and S. exigua larvae, and similar results were earlier reported
by Sharma (2012b). Positive correlation has earlier been
observed between H. armigera larval incidence and the
maximum and the minimum temperatures (Sharma et al. 2005.
Shah and Shahzad, 2005. Upadhyay et al.1989; Pandey
2012). Ugale et al. (2011) reported that moth emergence
was negatively correlatedwith the maximum (r =-0.62) and
minimum temperature (r =-0.75), but there was no association
with relative humidity.Minimum temperature and rainfall
exerted a negative influence on pheromone trap catches of
H. armigera (Prasad et al. (1989)The population of H.
armigera and S. exigua larvae was negatively correlated
with relative humidity across genotypes. However, a
significant and negative correlation has earlier been
reported between H. armigera larval density and maximum
relative humidity (Sharma et al. 2005, Upadhyay et al. 1989,
Pandey 2012 and Shah and Shahzad, 2005). Densities of
eggs and of different larval instars of H. armigera were
significantly and negatively correlated with the maximum
relative humidity, but not with the minimum relative
humidity.Extremes of temperature, humidity and other
weather factors (e.g., wind and hailstorm) might result in
mortality of eggs, larvae and pupae of most of insect
species (Pearson, 1958 and Qayyum and Zalucki, 1987).
Pest outbreaks are more likely to occur with stressed plants
as a result of weakening of plants’ defensive system, and
thus, increasing the level of susceptibility to insect pests.
Global warming will lead to earlier infestation by H. armigera
in North India (Sharma, 2010a), resulting in increased crop
loss. Climate change may also alter the interactions between
the insect pests and their host plants (Sharma, 2014)).
Relationships between insect pests and their natural
enemies will change as a result of global warming, resulting
184 Journal of Food Legumes 32(3), 2019
in both increases and decreases in the status of individual
pest species. Changes in temperature will also alter the
timing of diurnal activity patterns of different groups of
insects and changes in inter specific interactions could
also alter the effectiveness of natural enemies for pest
management (Hill and Dymock, 1989).
Global warming and climate change will influence
survival, development and population dynamics of H.
armigera, and this will have a major bearing on extent of
crop losses, and timing of diferent components of pest
management to minimize the losses due to this pest. Future
studies should focus on simultaneously testing the effects
of multiple environmental factors on insect-plant
interactions, to gain a realistic perspective ofhow global
climatic changes may impact the production of secondary
chemicals and its potential implications for co evolutionary
associations between the interacting plant and insect
species.
REFERENCES
Ali A, Aheer GM, Saleem M, Ashfaq M and Khan MA.2009. Effect
of sowing dates on population development of Helicoverpa
armigera (Hubner) in cotton genotypes. Pakisthan Entomology
31(2): 128-132.
Anwar M, Shafique M, Ahmad M and Shaloori AP. 1994.Incidence
of attack and population fluctuation of Heliothisarmigera in
relation to chickpea phenology and environmental factors.
Proceedings of Pakistan Congress of Zoologypp.12.
Begum N, Husain M and Chowdhury SI. 1992. Effect of sowing date
and plant density on pod borer incidence and grain yield of
chickpea in Bangladesh. International Chickpea Newsletter 27:
19-21.
Bhatnagar VS. 1980. A report on research on Heliothis complex at
ICRISAT (India), 1974–1979. International Crops Research
Institute for the Semi-AridTropics. pp. 23.
Food and Agriculture Organization. 2013. The State of Food Insecurity
in the World.http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1683e/i1683e.pdf
Gunathilagaraj K. 1996. Management of Helicoverpaarmigera in
chickpea with Acridotheres tristis. Madras Agricultural Journal
83: 72-73.
Hill MG and Dymock J. 1989. Impact of Climate Change: Agricultural/
Horticultural Systems. DSIR Entomology Division Submission
to the New Zealand Climate Change Program. Auckland, New
Zealand: Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. 16 pp.
Hossain MA, Haqueb MA and Prodhan MZH. 2008. Incidence and
damage severity of pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner)
in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Bangladesh Journal of Scientific
and Industrial Research 44(2): 221-224.
IPCC. 1990a. Climate change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment.Inter
governmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva and Nairobi,
Kenya: World Meteorological Organization and UN Environment
Program. 365 pp.
IPCC. 1990b. The Potential Impacts of Climate Change on
Agriculture and Forestry. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. Geneva and Nairobi, Kenya: World Meteorological
Organization and UN Environment Program.
Mahapatra SD, Aswal JS and Mishra PN. 2007. Monitoring
population dynamics of tomato fruit borer, Helicoverpa
armigera (Hubner) moths through pheromone traps in
Uttaranchal Hills. Indian Journal of Entomology. 69(2): 172-
17 3
Mahapatra SD, Aswal JS and Mishra PN. 2007. Monitoring population
dynamics of tomato fruit borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner)
moths through pheromone traps in Uttaranchal Hills. Indian
Journal of Entomology 69(2): 172-173.
Narayanamma VL, Sharma HC, Gowda CLL and Sriramulu M.2007a.
Expression of resistance to pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera
(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in relation to HPLC fingerprints of
leaf exudates of chickpea. Ph.D thesis submitted to ANGRAU,
Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India.
Narayanamma VL, Sriramulu M, Gorda CLL, Ghaffar MA and Sharma
HC.2007b. Tolerance to Helicoverpa armigera damage in
chickpea genotypes under natural infestation. Indian Journal of
Plant Protection. 35(2): 227-231
Pandey BM, Tripathi MK and Vijay Lakshmi. 2012. Seasonal
incidence of Helicoverpa armigera on Chickpea. Annals of plant
protection sciences 22(1): 190-239.
Patil SK, Shinde GP and Jamadagni BM. 2007. Reaction of short-
duration chickpea genotypes for resistance to gram pod borer,
Helicoverpa armigera in Maharashtra, India. Journal of SAT
Agricultural Research 5(1): 1-2.
Patil SK, Shinde GP and Jamadagni BM. 2007. Reaction of short-
duration chickpea genotypes for resistance to gram pod borer,
Helicoverpa armigera in Maharashtra, India. Journal of SAT
Agricultural Research. 5(1): 1-2.
Patnaik HP and Senapati B. 1996. Trends in Helicoverpa egg, larval
and adult population changes in the chickpea environment of
Orissa. Indian Journal of Plant Protection 24: 18-23.
Pearson EO.1958. The Insect Pests of Cotton in Tropical Africa.
London: Common Wealth Institute of Entomology pp.355.
Prasad CS and Singh VP.1997. Impact of variety, sowing date and
control measures on incidence of pod borer, Helicoverpa
armigera(Hub) and yield of chickpea. Annals of plant protection
sciences 5: 26-28.
Prasad D, Chand P, Deka NK and Prasad R. 1989. Population
dynamics of Heliothis armigera (Hüb.) on chickpea. Giornale
Italiano di Entomology 4: 223-228.
Qayyum A and Zalucki MP. 1987. Effects of high temperature on
survival of eggs of Heliothis armigera (Hubner) and H.
punctigera Wallengren (lepidoptera: noctuidae). Journal of
Australian Entomological Society 26: 295-296.
Shah ZA and Shahzad MK. 2005. Fluctuation patterns of different
developmental stages of Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera:
Noctuidae) on chickpea (Cicer arietinum) and their relationship
with the environment. Entomology Fennica 16: 201-206.
Shankar M, Munghate RS, Babu TR, Sridevi D and Sharma HC.
2014. Population density and damage by pod borers, Helicoverpa
armigera and Spodoptera exigua in a diverse array of chickpea
genotypes under natural infestation in the field. Indian Journal
of Entomology 76(2): 117-127.
Sharma HC. 2010a. Global Warming and Climate Change: Impact
on Arthropod Biodiversity, PestManagement, and Food Security.
In: National Symposium on Perspectives and Challenges of
Integrated Pest Management for Sustainable Agriculture, 19-21
Nov 2010, Solan.
 Pavani et al.: Effect of staggered planting on pest incidence in chickpea
Sharma HC. 2005. Heliothis/HelicoverpaManagement: Emerging
Trends and Strategies for Future Research. New DelhiIndia:
Oxford & IBH, and Science Publishers, USA. 469 pp
Sharma HC. 2012b. Effect of global warming on insect-host plant-
environment interactions. In: 24 th International Congress of
Entomology 19-24 Aug 2012, Daegu, South Korea.
Sharma HC, Pampapathy G, Lanka SK and Ridsdill-Smith TJ.2005b.
Antibiosis mechanism of resistance to pod borer, Helicoverpa
armigera in wild relatives of chickpea. Euphytica. 142: 107-117.
Singh SS and Yadav SK. 2006. Evaluation of chickpea varieties for
their resistance against gram pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera.
Indian Journal of Entomology. 68(4): 321-324.
Srinivas PR and Jayaraj S.1989. Record of natural enemies of
Heliothis armigera from Coimbatore district, Tamil Nadu. Journal
of Biological Control 3: 71-72.
Thakur JN, Singh JP, Verma OP and Diwakar MC. 1995. Bioecological
studies on gram pod borers Heliothis species under Jammu
conditions. Journal of Advanced Zoology. 16: 118-122.
Tripathi SR and Sharma SK. 1985. Population dynamics of Heliothis
armigera (Hübner) (Lepidoptera Noctuidae) on gram in the
185
Terai belt of NE Uttar Pradesh. Giornale Italiano di Entomology
2: 347-353.
Ugale TB, Toke NR and Shirsath MS. 2011. Population dynamics of
gram pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner). International
Journal of Plant Protection 4(1): 204-206
Upadhyay VR, Vyas HN and Sherasiya RA. 1989. Influence of weather
parameters on larval population of Heliothis armigera (Hubner)
on ground nut. Indian Journal of Plant Protection 17(1): 85-87.
Yadav SS, Kumar J, Yadav SK, Singh S, Yadav VS, Turner NC and
Redden R. 2006. Evaluation of Helicoverpa and drought
resistance in desi and kabuli chickpea. Plant Genetics Resources
4: 198-203.
Yadava CP and Lal SS.1988. Relationship between certain abiotic
and biotic factors and the occurrence of gram pod borer, Heliothis
armigera (Hbn.) on chickpea. Entomology 13: 3-4.
Yadava CP, Lal SS, Ahmad R and Sachan JN. 1991. Influence of
abiotic factors on relative abundance of pod borers of chickpea
(Cicer arietinum). Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 61:
512–515.
Journal of Food Legumes 32(3): 186-188, 2019
Growth and decomposition analysis of chickpea production in India
HEMANT KUMAR, SHRIPAD BHATT, DEVRAJ and RAJESH KUMAR
ICAR-Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, India; E-mail : rushtohemant@rediffmail.com
(Received : May 16, 2019; Accepted : August 2, 2019)
ABSTRACT
Chickpea is an important pulse crop grown and consumed
all over the world, especially in the Afro-Asian countries. It
is also one of the major pulse crops cultivated and consumed
in India and also known as Bengal Gram. In India, chickpea
accounts for about 45% of total pulses production. India is
also the major chickpea producing country as it contributes
towards 69% of total world chickpea production. Chickpea
production in the country has gone up from 3.65 to 9.38
million tones during 1950-51 and 2016-17, registering a
modest growth. During the period while the area has also
gone up from 7.57 to 9.63 million ha, the yield has steadily
increased from 482 to 974 kg/ha. The present data on
production scene could be broadly partitioned into seven
decades in order to demonstrate the trend and growth of
chickepea production in the country. The growth rates for
production and yield of the crop were found to be positive
while for area, it was marginaly negative. The yield effect
has a greater say in chickpea during each decade separately
except ninties. Overall production has increased mainly
due to the yield effect.
Key words: Chickpea, Compund growth rate, Instability,
Interaction
Chickpea is one of the most important pulse crops
grown in India. It has been well recognized as a valuable
source of protein particularly in India where majority of the
population are vegetarian and depends on the low-priced
food for meeting the dietary requirements. It is consumed
as a dry pulse after cooking, germinating, soaking or
fermenting or as a green vegetable. It is also used for the
preparation of various sweets and spicy dishes where either
the split grains or flour (besan) are used besides dhal. India
occupied the first position with 69% of world in terms of
both area and production.
Not withstanding its distribution throughout the
country, four states viz, Madhya Pradesh, Maharastra,
Rajsthan and Karnataka together contribute major part of
area and production. India grows chickpea on about 9.63
million ha producing 9.38 million tonnes of grains, which
represent 32 and 42 percent of the national pulse acreage
and production, respectively. The chickpea production in
the country has gone up from 3.65 to 9.38 million tones
between 1950-51 and 2016-17, registering a modest growth.
During the period while the area also increased from 7.57 to
9.63 million ha, the yield has steadily increased from 482
kg/ha to 974 kg/ha.
In this article, an attempt has been made to assess
the growth performance of chickpea in India and study the
contribution of area, yield and interaction of yield and area
to the total production during 1950-51 to 2016-17.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The time series secondary data on area, production
and yield of chickpea for the period 1950-51 to 2016-17
were collected from various sources mainly from
“Agricultural Statistics at a Glance”, a publication of the
government of India and www.indiaagristat.com. The
present data were broadly partitioned into seven decades
in order to demonstrate the trend of chickpea production in
more convincing and simpler manner for better
comprehension. The partition of the data in decade’s terms
could clearly show the chickpea production status and
growth pattern in the country over time.
The compound growth rate has been determined by
using the following exponential function.
Y= abt
Where
Y = the variable for which growth rate is calculated
t= time variable
b= the regression coefficient
a= intercept
The log form of the above exponential equation is expressed
as
Log (Y)= Log (a) + t Log (b)
The compound growth rate percentage (r %) can be
expressed as
r % = (Antilog (b)-1) x 100
The coefficients of variation in percent (CV %) were
computed using the formula
CV ( % )= (Standard deviation / Mean ) x 100
To study the contribution of area, yield and the interaction
of area and yield towards increasing the chickpea
production in India, a decomposition analysis has been
performed and is expressed as
Production in the base year is given by
Po= Ao x Yo
 Kumar et al.: Growth and decomposition analysis of chickpea production in India 187

Similarly, the production in the n th year is given by in the base year. Similarly, the yield of chickpea recorded
Pn= An x Yn 960 kg/ha in 2016-17 as against 482 kg/ha in 1950-51. It was
highest 1036 kg/ha in 2012-13. Farmer could achieve this
Also Pn = Po + P, An = Ao + A and Yn = Yo + Y increasing trend in production and yield mainly introduction
There fore, Pn = An x Yn to resistant varieties against different diseased and insects
= (Ao + A ) (Yo + Y) and pests, better management , matching improved
production and protection technologies and favourable
= AoYo + AoY + A Yo + AY policy regime.
= Po + AoY + A Yo + AY Table 2 showed decade-wise coefficient of variation
orr P = Pn - Po = Ao Y + YoA + AY and compound growth rate of chickpea in the country. The
compound growth rates of area and production, were found
The first term on the right hand side can be considered
positive in fifties (4.51%), nineties (1.26%) and first decade
as the yield effect, the second term as the area effect and
of this century and there is negative growth from sixties to
the third term as the interaction effect.
eighties. The compound growth rate of yield was found
Where, positive in each decade except seventies. Overall there was
Ao = area in the base year negative growth rate of area (-0.22%) and positive growth
rate of production(0.59%) and yield (0.82%). Critical persual
An = area in nth year
Table 2: Coefficient of variation (CV %) and compound
Po = yield in base year growth rate (r%) of chickpea in different decades
Pn = yield in nth year
Period Area Production yield
Yo = yield in base year CV r CV r CV r
1950-51 to 1959-60 13.68 4.51 21.11 6.54 10.91 1.95
Yn = yield in nth year 1960-61 to 1969-70 9.14 -13.59 16.55 -2.13 14.66 0.75
rA = Change in area (An - Ao) 1970-71 to 1979-80 5.91 -0.18 16.19 -0.59 12.37 -0.40
1980-81 to 1989-90 8.59 -1.42 12.23 -0.79 7.18 0.63
rP = Change in production (Pn - Po) 1990-91 to 99-2000 11.59 1.26 15.11 2.96 7.34 1.69
2001-02 to 2009-10 12.53 4.31 18.45 5.98 7.37 1.59
rY = Change in yield (Yn - Yo) 1950-51 to 2016-17 14.76 -0.22 24.48 0.59 18.63 0.82

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION of Table 2 indicated that chickpea registered highest growth
rate in area (4.51%), production (6.54%) and yield (1.95%)
In the green revolution period, overall growth in
in fifties.
production of food grains was quite impressive, while
pulses didn’t grow at same pace with the overall food The coefficient of variation was used as measure of
production. considering the reduction in per capita instability in the production of chickpea in the country.
availability of pulses, there is an urgent need for increasing Table 2 revealed that the production and yield instability
chickpea and other pulses production through crop specific was of medium order and area instability was of low order.
and region specific strategies. Over all there is medium order of instability in area,
production and yield. The chickpea production growth is
Decade wise area, production and yield of chickpea
not only slow but also unstable ( the coefficient of variation
has been given in Table 1. The area under chickpea in 1950-
of chickpea is 24.98%), as majority of chickpea is grown in
51 was 7.57 million ha which showed a decreasing trend (-
marginal lands and under rainfed conditions. The effect of
0.22% CGR) and was at 9.63 million ha in 2016-17. It was
the instability in production transformed into higher price
highest (9.93 million ha) in 2013-14. The production (0.59%
instability, because one-third of India’s chickpea production
CGR) and yield (0.82% CGR) of the crop witnessed an
is actually marketed and rest is consumed by farm
increasing trend. The production of chickpea was 9.63 million
households. Year-to-year fluctuations in production tend
tons in 2016-17 as the its production was 3.65 million tons
to become transmitted to relatively thin market and in the
Table 1. Area, Production and Yield of chickpea in India absence of stabilization policies this could cause prices of
since 1950-51 to 2016-17 chickpea to fluctuate widely. The instability in production,
Year Area(m.ha.) Production (m.tons) Yield (q/ha) hence prices adversely effects farmer’s motivation to
1950-51 7.57 3.65 4.82 cultivate chickpea and other pulses by increasing risk to
1960-61 9.28 6.25 6.74 farmer incomes.
1970-71 7.84 5.20 6.63
1980-81 6.58 4.33 6.57 Table 3 presents the percentage contribution of area,
1990-91 7.52 5.36 7.12 yield and their interaction in increasing or decreasing the
2000-01 5.19 3.86 7.44 production of chickpea for each decades from 1950-51 to
2010-11 9.21 8.22 9.96 2016-17 and the total period. The area effect has a greater
2016-17 9.63 9.38 9.74
188 Journal of Food Legumes 32(3), 2019

Table 3: Percentage contribution of yield, area and their varieties and technologies, abrupt climatic changes,
interaction in production of chickpea vulnerability to pests and diseases, and generally declining
Period Yield Area Interaction growth rate of total factor productivity. In order to give
1950-51 to 1959-60 24 67 9 much needed fillip to pulse production, the government
1960-61 to 1969-70 -54 147 7
1970-71 to 1979-80 77 31 -8 has included pulses in the NFSM and has been significantly
1980-81 to 1989-90 29 66 -5 increasing MSP for chickpea and most pulses. This has
1990-91 to 99-2000 -379 407 72 resulted in an above normal growth in chickpea production
99-2000 to 2009-10 25 61 14 in recent years taking India towards achieving self
1950-51 to 2016-17 65 17 18
sufficiency.
say in chickpea each decades separately. Response to
increase in production because of increase in acreage is REFERENCES
evident during each decades and overall period. In sixties
Agricultural Statistics at Glance 2017-18. Government of India
and nineties the production is decreased due the reduction Publication.
in yield. The interaction of area and yield is not much except
Devraj, Jha GK, Kumar Hemant and Khare AP. 2006. An analysis of
the nineties. Overall the production has increased mainly growth and instability of chickpea production in Madhya Pradesh.
due to yield affect. Agricultural Situation in India, PP 251-259.
Because of the high level of fluctuation in chickpea Dhake DS and Bhattacharya D. 2013. Growth and instability analysis
production (due to biotic and abiotic stress) and price (in of vegetable in West Bengal, India. International Journal of
the absence of an effective government price support Bio-resource and Stress Management, 4(3): 456-459.
mechanism) farmers are not very keen on taking up chickpea Maurya Omprakash, Reddy AA and Kumar Hemant 2016. Growth
and other pulse crops cultivation despite the high whole and decomposition analysis of pigeonpea in India. International
Journal of Agriculture and Statistical Scnience Vol. 12, Supplement
sale price for chickpea and other pulse price during recent 1, pp. 189-191.
years. Nevertheless, improvement in yields, albeit modest,
Rama Rao VY. 2004. Growth and Instability analysis of pulses
has contributed to higher chickpea production in recent production in Madhya Pradesh. District-wise analysis. Indian
years. Low yield in India compared to other chickpea Journal of Pulses Research 17(1): 70-76.
growing countries is attributed to poor spread of improved
Journal of Food Legumes 32(3): 189-190, 2019

Short Communication

Path coefficient analysis of yield attributes in mungbean {Vigna radiata (L.)

Wilezek}
PRABHAT SINGH and MANOJ KATIYAR
C.S. Azad University of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, India; E-mail: katiyar_manoj@yahoo.com
(Received : January 6, 2019; Accepted : April 9, 2019)

ABSTRACT viz., days to 50% flowering, plant height (cm), days to

Forty-three diverse genotypes of mungbean were evaluated
to for generate parameters with respect to 10 quantitative
traits. The analysis of variance indicated highly significant
differences for all the traits.High heritability estimates were
noted for all the attributes indicating greater contribution
of additive and non additive genetic components. Grain yield
per plant exhibited positive correlation with pods per plant,
number of seeds per pod, plant height and harvest index at
both genotypic and phenotypic levels. Path coefficient
analysis revealed that harvest index had highest positive
direct effect towards grain yield per plant (0.441) followed
by seeds per pod (0.417). The maximum positive indirect
effect on grain yield per plant was showed by plant height
(0.973) followed by biological yield per plant (0.915) and
harvest index (0.462).
Key words: Mungbean, Path analysis, Yield attributes
Mungbean (Vigna radiata L. Wilczek) is an important
pulse crop cultivated across the country during Kharif,
Rabi and Spring/Summer seasons and is considered to be
originated from Vignasublobata. It is also known as green
gram an important short duration grain legume with wide
adaptability, low input requirements and the ability to
improve the soil fertility by fixing atmospheric nitrogen.
Mungbean is well suited to a large number of cropping
systems and constitutes an important source of cereal-
based diets. The crop is grown throughout world accounts
for 65 per cent of the world acreage and 54 per cent of the
world production. In India, mungbean is grown on about
4.00 m ha mainly in Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Andhra
Pradesh, Karnataka, Orissa, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. In a
breeding programme selection of a good performing
genotype depends on two association of yield contributing
traits on grain yield and their direct and indirect effects.
The present study aimed to find out the direct and indirect
contribution of various traits on yield performance using
43 diverse genetic accessions.
The present investigation was carried out at CS Azad
University of Agriculture & Technology Research farm,
Kanpur during kharif 2018. Experiment comprises of 43
diverse mungbean genotypes sown in RBD with three
replications maintaining row to row and plant to plant
spacing of 10x15cms. Five competitive plants were selected
from each entry and evaluated for 10 quantitative traits
maturity, number of branches per plant, pods per plant,
seeds per pod,100-seed weight (g), biological yield per plant
(g), harvest index (%) and grain yield per plant (g). The
analysis of variance, correlation and path analysis was done
as per standard methods.
Analysis of variance revealed the presence of
sufficient variability among the traits under study.
Grain yield showed positive and significant
correlation with plant height, pods per plant, seeds per
pod, 100-seed weight, biological yield and harvest index,
while its association was significantly negative with days
to 50 percent flowering and number of branches per plant
at genotypic level. In case of phenotypic level association
between yield and other characters was same in the same
direction. Plant height showed its positive and significant
relationship with 50 percent flowering, days to maturity,
pods per plant and negative role in biological yield and
harvest index. The association of branches/plant had its
positive and significant relationship with number of seeds/
plant, 100-seed weight and harvest index while negatively
significant with days to 50 percent flowering, plant height,
days to maturity and biological yield. Number of pods/
plant showed positive and significant correlation with
biological yield and harvest index. Number of seeds/pod
had its positive and significant relationship with biological
yield and harvest index. The association of 100-seed weight
with biological yield and harvest index was significantly
positive. Theassociation of biological yield and harvest
index also showed positive and significant role with yield
and its traits.
Maximum direct effect on yield was observed of
biological yield per plant. Other characters contributed very
little directly towards yield. The major indirect effect of
biological yield via number of seeds per pod, 100-seed
weight, number of pods per plant and plant height was
observed, while the negative indirect contribution of
biological yield via branches per plant, day to 50 per cent
flowering and harvest index were noticed.. The genotypic
correlation of number of branches per plant with grain yield
was found to be positive (0.135). On pertaining this
correlation it was observed that number of branches per
plant had positive direct effect (0.012) on grain yield along
with positive indirect effect via days to 50 per cent flowering,
190 Journal of Food Legumes 32(3), 2019

Table. 1: Direct and indirect effects of yield attributes on grain yield in mungbean
Traits Days to 50 Days to Plant Branches Pods per Seeds per 100- seed Biological Harvest Genotype
per cent maturity height(cm) per plant plant pod weight yield index Correlation
flowering with Grain
yield per
plant
Days to 50per cent 0.254 0.185 0.017 -0.043 -0.002 -0.051 0.021 -0.533 0.118 -0.224*
flowering
Days to maturity 0.032 0.045 -0.001 -0.010 0.003 -0.002 0.001 0.424 0.063 0.240*
Plant height(cm) -0.001 0.001 -0.017 -0.001- -0.002 -0.002 -0.003 -0.319 0.157 0.973*
Branches per 0.002 0.003 -0.001 0.012 0.009 -0.003 -0.004 0.608 0.091 0.135
plant
Number of pods -0.003 0.026 0.048 -0.029 0.417 -0.047 -0.049 -0.741 -0.047 0.137
per plant
Number of seeds -0.089 -0.027 0.043 0.096 -0.051 0.441 -0.114 0.648 -0.061 0.241*
per pod
100- seed weight 0.029 0.008 0.006 0.135 -0.042 -0.092 0.354 -0.409 0.409 0.208*
Biological yield -0.007 0.001 0.002 -0.003 0.051 0.020 -0.014 1.046 -0.160 0.915*
Harvest index 0.004 0.002 0.002 0.020 -0.003 0.003 0.409 0.410 0.080 0.462**
*, ** Significant at P=0.05 and P=0.01, respectively

days to maturity, number of pods per plant, biological yield
and harvest index.The genotypic correlation of number of
pods per plant with grain yield per plant was found to be
positive (0.137). On pertaining the correlation it was
observed that number of pods per plant had positive direct
effect (0.417) on grain yield along with positive indirect
effect via days to maturity (0.026) and plant height
(0.048).Genotypic correlation of number of seeds per pod
with grain yield was found to positive (0.241). On
partitioning the correlation it was observed that number of
seeds per pod had positive direct effect (0.441) on grain
yield along with positive indirect effect via plant height
(0.043), number of branches per plant (0.096) and biological
yield..The genotypic correlation of 100-seed weight with
grain yield was found to positive (0.208), on partitioning
the this correlation it was observed that 100-seed weight
had positive direct effect (0.354) on grain yield along with
positive indirect effect via days to 50 per cent flowering,
days to maturity, plant height, number of branches per plant
and harvest index.Genotypic correlation of biological yield
with grain yield was found to be positive (0.915). On
partitioning the correlation it was observed that biological
yield had positive direct effect (1.046) with grain yield along
with positive indirect effect via plant height (0.424), number
of pods per plant (0.608), number of seeds per pod (0.741)
and 100-seed weight. On the other hand biological yield
showed negative indirect effect with grain yield via days to
50 per cent flowering, number of branches per plant and
harvest index.The genotypic correlation of harvest index
with grain yield was found to be positive (0.452), on
partitioning this correlation it was observed that harvest
index had positive direct effect (0.080) on grain yield along
with positive indirect effect via days to 50 per cent flowering,
days to maturity, plant height, number of branches per plant,
number of seeds per pod, 100-seed weight and biological
yield, on the other hand harvest index sowed negative
indirect effect on grain yield via number of pods per
plant.The finding in the present investigation are in
agreement with the previous reports by a number of workers
(Sahoo et al. 2019; Nitesh SD et al. 2018; Katiyar M. et al.
2015;). Positive association between plant heights was also
observed by Nitesh SD et al. (2018) in chickpea and Reddy
(2011).
Grain yield per plant exhibited positive correlation
with pods per plants, number of seeds per pod, plant height
and harvest index at both genotypic and phenotypic levels.
Path coefficient analysis revealed that harvest index had
highest positive direct contribution towards grain yield per
plant followed by seeds per pod. Maximum indirect effects
on grain yield per plant was showed by plant height followed
by biological yield and harvest index. These findings have
been critically discussed in the light of mungbean
improvement programme.
REFERENCES
Katiyar M and Amit Kumar. 2015. Genetics analysis of yield and its
component traits in mungbean (Vigna radiata L. Wilczek).
International Journal of Innovative research and development.
4: 119-121
Nitesh SD, Talwade AC and Katna Gopal. 2018. Correlation and
path analysis studies in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) for seed
yield and its attributes in the Himalayan region. Journal of food
legumes 31: 258-260
Reddy KHP. 2011. Heterosis in greengram (Vigna radiata L.
Wilczek). Annals of Agriculture Research 19: 16-29
Sahoo S, Sanjay S, Neelu K and Bhagawati B. 2019. Estimation of
the various genetic variability parameters for seed yield and its
component traits in Mothbean germplasm. Journal of food
legumes.
Journal of Food Legumes 32(3): 191-193, 2019
Short communication
Performance of urdbean [Vigna mungo (L.) Hepper] as influenced by land
configuration and foliar supplementation
GHANSHYAM BAGGAD and RP SINGH
RVSKVV-RAK College of Agriculture, Sehore, Madhya Pradesh, India; E-mail:shyambaggad7145@gmail.com
(Received : January 4, 2019; Accepted : May 3, 2019)
ABSTRACT
A field investigation was carried out during rainy season
2018 at research farm of RAK College of Agriculture, Sehore
(M.P.), India to investigate the effect of land configuration
and foliar supplementation of nutrients on the performance
of urdbean. The result indicated that sowing of crop under
raised bed and supplementation of NPK (18:18:18) at 2%
spray at flower initiation had higher crop performance in
terms of significantly higher plant height, number of
branches, dry matter accumulation, number of pods/plant.
seeds/pod and grain yield over the rest of the treatments.
Key words: Flat bed, Neem coated urea, Pulse wonder, Raised
bed, Urdbean
Urdbean Blackgram (Vigna mungo L.) is an important
short duration pulse crop grown in many parts of country.
Its seed contains 25-26% proteins, 60% carbohydrates, 1.5%
fat, and minerals combination, amino acid and essential
vitamins etc. Urdbean is originated from Phaseolus
sublobatus, a wild plant. In India during kharif 2017, the
crop was cultivated in an area of about 3.50 million ha with
production of 1.70 million tones and average productivity
of 480 kg/ha.
Pulse crops are sensitive to excess moisture and
terminal drought. As 88% of the area under pulses is rain
fed, efficient water management is crucial for successful
production. The crop is grown under flat-land cultivation
system which is popular in Malwa Agro-climatic zone of
M.P. Extensive cultivation of Kharif crop under faces the
problem of water logging and poor aeration thereby affecting
crop productivity adversely. Therefore, a small change in
land configuration from flat field conditions to raised bed
may help in improving the productivity of Kharif crops in
Vertisols of Malwa region. According to Pramanik and Singh
(2006), black gram planted on raised bed during kharif
season recorded significantly better growth than that
planted on flat beds. They further concluded that raised
bed planting significantly increased branching, nodulation
and root growth. Jadhav et al. (2012) reported that yield
contributing character viz., number of pods plant-1, seed
yield weight (g) plant-1, 100 seed weight (g), seed yield (q
ha-1), straw yield (q ha-1) and harvest index (%) also found
higher in broad bed furrow followed by ridges and furrow
system.
Actual yield of black gram is very low because of the
fact that the crop is mainly grown in rain fed condition with
poor management practices. Apart from the genetic makeup,
the physiological factor viz., insufficient partitioning of
assimilates, poor pod setting due to the flower abscission
and lack of nutrients during critical stage of crop growth,
coupled with a number of disease and pest (Mahala et al.
2001) constitute the major constraints for the poor yield.
The productivity of black gram in our country is very
low. Hence, there is need for enhancement of the
productivity of black gram by proper Agronomic practices.
One of the shortest and quickest way among them is foliar
application of organic and inorganic sources of nutrients
for exploiting genetic potential of the crop. This is
considered to be an efficient and economic method of
supplementing part of nutrients requirements at critical
stages. Foliar application is credited with the advantage of
quick and efficient utilization of nutrients, elimination of
losses through leaching, fixation and regulating the uptake
of nutrients by plant (Manonmani and Srimathi, 2009). Foliar
nutrients usually penetrate the leaf cuticle or stomata and
enter the cells facilitating easy and rapid utilization of
nutrients. Foliar application of N at particular stage may
solve the slow growth, nodule senescence and low seed
yield of pulse without involving root absorption at critical
stage (Latha and Nadanassaba-bady (2003).
A field experiment was conducted at research farm of
R.A.K. College of Agriculture, Sehore (M.P.) on medium
black clay loam and fairly deep soil having 7.6 pH. The
available NPK in soil were 392.5, 13.08, 540.37 kg/ha-1,
respectively. The experiment was laid out in strip plot design
with twelve treatment combinations, replicated three times.
The treatment combinations included. Raised bed + water
spray. Raised bed + Neem coated urea @ 2% spray. Raised
bed + TNAU pulse wonder @ 5 kg/ha-1 spray. Raised bed +
NPK (18:18:18) @ 2% spray. Flat bed followed by ridge
making + water spay. Flat bed followed by ridge making +
Neem coated urea @ 2% spray. Flat bed followed by ridge
making + TNAU pulse wonder @ 5 kg/ha-1 spray. Flat bed
followed by ridge making + NPK (18:18:18) @ 2% spray.
Flat bed + water spray. Flat bed + Neem coated urea @ 2%
spray. Flat bed + TNAU pulse wonder @ 5 kg ha-1spray.
Flat bed + NPK (18:18:18) @ 2% spray.
192 Journal of Food Legumes 32(3), 2019

Farmyard manure @ 5 t ha-1 was incorporated through
broad casting three weeks before sowing in the respective
treatments. An uniform dose of 20:50:20:20 kg
ha-1[N:P2O5:K2O:S] were applied as basal dose through
DAP, MOP and Gypsum respectively in all the experimental
plots. The experimental field was prepared by two cross
harrowing followed by planking to level the field and then
raised bed was made with the help of raiser three rows of
urdbean at 30 row to row spacing were accommodated in a
raised bed (broad bed), while in ridge furrow system, 30 cm
spacing (between ridges) was made. The required quantity
of foliar nutrients and water for each plot were calculated
to prepare solution and sprayed uniformly by hand sprayer
using conical shaped nozzle. The blackgram crop was
harvested when the pods were fully ripened and turned
black. Threshed seeds were sun-dried for 2-3 days to reduce
the moisture content and then the seed yield per plot was
recorded.
Land configuration treatment (raised bed) recorded
significantly higher plant height (48.60 cm), number of
branches plant-1 (5.74) and dry weight plant-1 (11.62 g) over
rest of the treatments (Table-1).
Foliar application of NPK (18:18:18) @ 2% at flower
initiation (N3) recorded significantly higher plant height
(46.07 cm), number of branches plant-1 (5.54) and dry weight
plant-1 (11.08 g) over rest of the treatments (Table-1). More
number of branches and taller plants might be due to more
availability of nitrogen and phosphorus, which played vital
role in cell division. Significant increase in plant height
with foliar application can be attributed to the fact that
micronutrients enhance plant vigour and strengthen the
stalk (Das-1999). During this study we examined that these
results also resembled the findings of Barik et al. (1994)
who reported increase in plant height with foliar application
of nutrients. This might have resulted in better interception,
absorption and utilization of radiant energy, leading to
higher photosynthetic rate and finally more accumulation
of dry matter by the plants. Geetha and Velayutham (2009)
revealed that all the growth parameters, NPK uptake and
yield were significantly influenced following raised bed
planting.
Raised bed also recorded significantly higher grain
yield (758 kg ha-1) and number of pods plant-1 (11.80) over

Table 1. Effect of land configurations and nutrient management on plant height (cm), number of branches plant-1 and dry
weight plant-1 (g) at harvest stage
Symb. Treatments Plant height (cm) No. of branches Dry weight
plant-1 plant-1(g)
A Land configuration
L1 Raised bed method 48.60 5.74 11.62
L2 Flat bed sowing followed by ridge making 42.63 4.85 9.60
L3 Flat bed method 37.55 3.89 6.97
S.Em (+/-) 1.39 0.13 0.31
C.D. (0.05) 5.49 0.52 1.23
B Nutrient management
N0 Control (water spray) 39.55 4.2 7.99
N1 Neem coated urea @ 2% spray at flower initiation 42.07 4.59 8.72
N2 TNAU pulse wonder @ 5 kg ha-1 spray at flower initiation 44.03 4.97 9.80
N3 NPK (18:18:18) @ 2% spray at flower initiation 46.07 5.54 11.08
S. Em ± 0.31 0.04 0.18
C.D. (0.05) 1.09 0.14 0.64

Table 2. Effect of land configuration and nutrient management on yield attributes

Symb. Treatments Pods plant-1 Seeds Seed yield Straw yield Harvest index
pod-1 (kgha-1) (kgha-1) (%)
A Land configuration
L1 Raised bed method 11.80 7.16 758 1241 37.94
L2 Flat bed sowing followed by ridge making 11.04 6.7 679 1172 36.78
L3 Flat bed method 9.22 7 538 1018 34.54
S.Em (+/-) 0.15 0.12 29.9 20.13 1.5
C.D. (0.05) 0.61 NS 117 79.04 NS
B Nutrient management
N0 Control (water spray) 9.25 6.44 588 1008 36.75
N1 Neem coated urea @ 2% spray at flower initiation 10.01 6.66 621 1061 36.75
TNAU pulse wonder @ 5 kg ha-1 spray at flower 11.16 7.11 684 1199 36.15
N2
initiation
N3 NPK (18:18:18) @ 2% spray at flower initiation 12.31 7.61 740 1308 36.03
S. Em ± 0.16 0.09 15 19.26 0.94
C.D. (0.05) 0.58 0.31 52 66.65 NS
 Baggad et al. : Performance of urdbean as influenced by land configuration and foliar supplementation
rest of the land configuration treatments (Table-2). It might
be due to more plant height, branches and good aeration.
The finding is in agreement with the results of Anonymous
et al. (2004) and Singh et al. (2008). The data also revealed
that the effect of land configurations on number of seeds
pod-1 was observed as non-significant.
However, foliar application of NPK (18:18:18) @ 2%
at flower initiation (N3) recorded significantly higher grain
yield (740 kg ha-1), number of pods plant-1 (12.31) and
number of seeds pod -1 (7.61) over rest of the foliar
application treatments (Table-2). This might have
significantly increased the number of pods plant -1 as
reported by Ganapathy et al. (2008). Further, the foliage
applied nitrogen and phosphorus at the initial stages might
have been effectively absorbed and translocated to the
pods resulting in more number of pods plant-1. Similar results
were also obtained by Subba et al. (2011). The increased in
yield might be due to enhanced yield attributes, like number
of pod plant-1, and number of seeds pod-1. It was also due
to increased uptake of nutrients by blackgram through
effective translocation of these from sink to reproductive
area of crop. The positive effect of P in increasing the grain
yield of blackgram was also reported by Das and Jana (2015)
in blackgram.
REFERENCES
Anonymous. 2004. Annual report, of All India Coordinate Research
Project on chickpea, Indian Institute of Pulse Research, Kanpur
pp 125-126.
Anonymous. 2017. Annual Report Kharif. All India Coordinated
Research Project on MULLaRP. 79 pp.
193
Barik A, Jana PK, Sunda J and Mukherjee AK. 1994. Influence of
nitrogen, phosphorus and potash fertilization on growth, yield
and oil of Kharif groundnut. Indian Journal of Agriculture Science
38(2): 105-111
Das PC. 1999. Plants Nutrients. In: Manures and Fertilizers. 2 nd
Edition. Kalyani Publishers, New Dehli, India. Pp 5-10.
Das SK and Jana K. 2015. Effect of foliar spray of water-soluble
fertilizer at pre flowering stage on yield of pulses. Agricultural
Research Communication centre. Pp 275-279.
Ganapathy M, Baradhan G and Ramesh N. 2008. Effect of foliar
nutrition on reproductive efficiency and grain yield of rice fallow
pulses. Legume Research 31(2): 142-144.
Geetha P and Velayutham A. 2009. Refinement of nutrient
management techniques for growth, yield and nutrient uptake
of rice fallow blackgram. Madras Agricultural Journal 96(1/6):
163-166
Jadhav JA, Patil DB and Ingole PG. 2012. Effect of mechanization
with different land configuration on yield and in situ moisture
conservation of soybean. International Journal of Agriculture
Science 8(1): 48-51.
Latha MR and Nadanassababady T. 2003. Foliar nutrition in crops.
Agriculture. Review 24(3): 229-234.
Mahala CPS, Dadheech RC and Kulhari RK. 2001. Effect of plant
growth regulators and yield of blackgram at varying level of
phosphorus. Crop Research 18(1): 163-165
Manonmani V and Srimathi P. 2009. Influence of mother crop
nutrition on seed and quality of balckgram. Madras Agricultural
Journal 96(16): 125-128.
SinghKP and Hari Ram SKand Sonkar PR. 2008. Effect of sowing
techniques and irrigation methods on yield, yield attributes, net
profit and water use efficiency of late sown chickpea. Plant
Archives 8(2): 711-712.
Subba Rami Reddy AJ, Sateesh Babu M, Chandra Sekhar Reddy M,
Mujeeb Khan and M Murali Rao. 2011. Integrated nutrient
management in pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan) International Journal
of Applied Biology and Pharmaceutical Technology 2: 467-470.
Journal of Food Legumes 32(3): 194-199, 2019
Short Communication
Response of zero-till lentil (Lens culinaris Medik) to residual effect of planting
systems, nitrogen and weed management practices in rice
SURYENDRA SINGH, S ELAMATHI, P ANANDHI, LALITA PRAKASH MASIH, NS ABEYSINGHA
and GAUTAM GHOSH
Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences (SHUATS), Prayagraj-211007, Uttar
Pradesh, India; E-mail: suryendra_aligarh@yahoo.com
(Received : June 7, 2019; Accepted : July 9, 2019)
ABSTRACT
A field experiment was conducted to evaluate the residual
effects of rice planting systems with nitrogen and weed
management practices as well as fertilizer application on
the performance of zero-till lentil in a rice-lentil cropping
sequence during 2009-10 and 2010-11. Rice was grown as
transplanted, direct seeded or on dual cropping mode with
sesbania and azolla with three weed management practices.
During winter season, zero-till lentil was sown with 100 and
75% recommended dose of fertilizers (RDF) to evaluate both
direct and residual effect of fertilizers by superimposing
the treatment. Highest grain yield (2.58 t/ha), net return
(INR 1,09,382/ha) and BCR (8.21) of lentil were obtained
under the residual effect of Sesbania dual cropping in direct
seeded rice (DSR) with 100% recommended Dose of nitrogen
(RDN) and pretilachlor plus at 0.3 kg a.i./ha at 2 DAS followed
by hand weeding at 45 DAS compared to all other treatments.
Application of 100% RDF to lentil also produced significantly
higher yield (2.27 t/ha), net return (INR 94,809/ha) and BCR
(6.90) over control although it remained comparable to
75%RDF. Thus it can be inferred that growing of DSR during
rainy season with dual cropping either with sesbania or
azolla with 100% RDN and pretilachlor plus @ 0.3 kg a.i./ha
at 2 DAS fb HW at 45 DAS and that of lentil with 100 or 75%
RDF during winter season could be a viable option for
sustaining productivity and profitability of rice-lentil
cropping system of Eastern Uttar Pradesh.
Key words: Dual cropping, Economic analysis, Fertilizers, Grain
yield, Lentil, Rice planting systems
Lentil (Lens culinaris) is the second largest growing
winter season pulse crop next to chickpea in India. Lentil is
a valuable human food containing protein, carbohydrate,
vitamins and minerals and is thus, an excellent feed for
livestock (Ahmad et al. 2018). In Uttar Pradesh, lentil is
cultivated in an area of 4.29 lakh ha (1 lakh ha =0.1 m ha)
with a production of 3.06 lakh tonnes and productivity of
only 713 kg/ha during 2016-17. It is grown during rabi
season after rice; and thus, rice- lentil cropping sequence
is in vogue in Eastern Uttar Pradesh although the pulses
crop fetches small earnings due to its low productivity
following poor crop management practices (Ahmad et al.
2018). Thus, nutrient management regime could feed the
crop with required nutrients as and when it is needed.
Complementary use of biological sources of plant nutrients
along with inorganic fertilizers is of utmost importance for
sustaining and improving soil health and productivity,
especially in intensive cropping sequences (Prasad 1999).
Therefore, an appropriate planting system could influence
the performance of rice through its effect on crop growth
and development. However, the information on response
of succeeding zero-till lentil to direct fertilizers application,
and to residual effects of crop management practices to
previous rice, is scanty which needs further investigation.
Keeping these facts in view, the present experiment was
undertaken to evaluate the residual effects (of preceding
rice crop planting systems, nitrogen and weed management
practices) as well as the direct effects (of fertilizers
management practices) in lentil (through studying its
growth, yield and economics) in a rice-lentil cropping
system.
The field experiment was conducted at Crop Research
Farm of Department of Agronomy, SHUATS, Prayagraj
(U.P.) India during winter season of 2009-10 and 2010-11.
The soil of the experimental site was sandy loam with pH
8.4, organic carbon 0.54%, available N 208.33 kg/ha,
phosphorous (P) 15.98 kg/ha and potassium (K) 186.64 kg/
ha. The experiment was laid out in spilt plot with 24 main-
plots and three sub-plots. The main plot consisted of
residual effect of previously given treatments to rainy
season rice crop (Table 1), while sub-plots consisted of
three fertilizer levels viz., 0, 75% and 100% of RDF [20:40:00
(N:P2O5:K2O) kg/ha] in winter season lentil. In dual cropping
of DSR (direct seeded rice) + sesbania, sesbania seed at 25
kg/ha was uniformly applied through broadcasting on a
saturated soil on the same day (as it was grown for weed
smothering) and was controlled by spraying of 2, 4-D at
500 g a.i./ha at 37 DAS. In DSR + azolla, the azolla at 200 kg/
ha was applied after a week of rice sowing. In sub-plots
treatment pretilachlor plus (with safener) at 0.3 kg a.i./ha
was applied at 2 DAS (W2) using a knap sack sprayer with
a flat fan nozzle and water as a carrier at 600 l/ha. Field
preparation was made according to the planting systems
(Transplanted/direct seeded/dual cropping). Direct-seeding
of rice ‘Arize 6444’ (50 kg seed/ha) was done using a drum
 Singh et al.: Response of zero-till lentil to residual effect of agronomic practices in rice 195

seeder in rows of 20 cm apart at an intra plant spacing of 10
cm. The plots were kept in saturated condition from sowing
to 10 DAS in case of DSR, while in TPR (transplanted puddle
rice) a thin film of water was maintained at the time of
transplanting. Later, irrigation was applied during rainless
period. The N was applied at 150 kg/ha in three splits, ½ as
basal and the remainder in two equal splits (on tillering at
42 DAS and on panicle initiation stage at 65 DAS) as top
dressing. P and K at 60 kg/ha as well as zinc at 25 kg/ha
were given through broadcasting and mixed in all the plots
uniformly before rice sowing/transplanting. Lentil ‘DPL
62’ seeds were sown with a inter row spacing of 25 cm at a
seed rate of 50 kg/ha after harvest of rice crop manually
with help of rakes as zero-till lentil. All the fertilizers were
applied basally through urea, diammonium phosphate. Intra
row spacing was maintained at 5-7 cm by thinning the
additional plants after 20 days of sowing. A pre-sowing
irrigation was given to lentil crop during both the years.
The observations on lentil’s morphological and
developmental characterswere recorded manually on five
randomly selected representative plants from each plot of
each replication separately at successive growth stages.
The net realization (gross realization-cost of cultivation)
and benefit-cost ratio (BCR is the ratio of gross return/cost
of cultivation) were calculated on the basis of prevailing
market price of different inputs and outputs. Data collected
in the study were statistically analyzed following the
procedures described by Gomez and Gomez 1983.
Variance analysis results (Table 1) revealed that
preceding rice crop planting systems with nitrogen and
weed management practices had significant influenced on
the plant height, number of branches/plant and plant dry
weight during both the years as well as in pooled data. The
study revealed that M3N 1W2 (DSR + sesbania dual
cropping, 100% RDN + pretilachlor plus at 0.3 kg a.i./ha at
2 DAS fb HW at 45 DAS) recorded significantly higher
plant height (35.4 cm), number of branches/plant (10.5) and
plant dry weight (5.28 g). However, it remained statistically
at par with that of M4N1W2 except in case of plant height.
The taller plant and the production of more branches and
plant dry weight under M3N1W2 and M4N1W2 were due to

Table 1. Effect of planting systems with N and weed management practices to preceding rice in rice-lentil sequence on
growth attributes of lentil
Treatments Plant height (cm) at 80 DAS Branches/plant at 80 DAS Plant dry weight (g) at 80 DAS
2009-10 2010-11 Pooled 2009-10 2010-11 Pooled 2009-10 2010-11 Pooled
Preceding rice crop planting systems with N levels and weed management
M1N1W1 22.9 29.8 26.4 3.96 6.98 5.47 1.26 2.00 1.63
M1N1W2 26.8 37.0 31.9 6.44 10.98 8.71 3.00 4.38 3.69
M1N1W3 25.0 33.8 29.4 5.00 8.81 6.90 2.03 3.16 2.60
M1N2W1 22.6 28.9 25.8 3.74 6.59 5.17 1.11 1.77 1.44
M1N2W2 26.5 36.3 31.4 6.11 10.90 8.50 2.74 4.16 3.45
M1N2W3 24.9 33.6 29.3 4.82 8.52 6.67 1.93 3.05 2.49
M2N1W1 21.2 27.8 24.5 3.47 6.01 4.74 0.89 1.55 1.22
M2N1W2 26.3 36.1 31.2 5.93 10.37 8.15 2.61 3.94 3.28
M2N1W3 24.7 33.0 28.8 4.58 8.33 6.46 1.84 2.88 2.36
M2N2W1 18.9 26.4 22.7 3.14 5.25 4.20 0.73 1.11 0.92
M2N2W2 26.2 35.7 31.0 5.70 10.07 7.88 2.53 3.83 3.18
M2N2W3 24.3 32.3 28.3 4.58 8.02 6.30 1.78 2.77 2.28
M3N1W1 24.2 31.9 28.0 4.43 7.86 6.14 1.69 2.61 2.15
M3N1W2 29.7 41.0 35.4 7.74 13.41 10.57 4.51 6.05 5.28
M3N1W3 26.0 35.5 30.7 5.56 9.86 7.71 2.42 3.72 3.07
M3N2W1 23.5 31.1 27.3 4.23 7.37 5.80 1.48 2.22 1.85
M3N2W2 27.6 39.0 33.3 6.93 11.65 9.29 3.56 4.61 4.08
M3N2W3 25.5 34.7 30.1 5.14 9.41 7.27 2.25 3.27 2.76
M4N1W1 23.9 31.6 27.8 4.30 7.60 5.95 1.58 2.38 1.98
M4N1W2 27.8 39.8 33.8 7.20 12.18 9.69 4.00 5.33 4.67
M4N1W3 25.7 35.1 30.4 5.43 9.66 7.55 2.32 3.44 2.88
M4N2W1 23.3 30.5 26.9 4.01 7.25 5.63 1.43 2.16 1.79
M4N2W2 27.1 37.9 32.5 6.63 11.26 8.95 3.19 4.44 3.82
M4N2W3 25.3 34.5 29.9 5.00 9.20 7.1 2.13 3.22 2.68
SEd 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.19 0.32 0.23 0.18 0.17 0.10
CD (P=0.05) 1.5 1.2 1.1 0.38 0.66 0.47 0.38 0.36 0.21
Fertilizer management in lentil
F1-100% RDF** 26.7 34.9 30.8 5.69 9.68 7.68 2.47 3.55 3.01
F2-75% RDF 25.1 33.9 29.5 5.14 8.97 7.06 2.23 3.29 2.76
F3- Control 23.1 32.9 28.0 4.67 8.54 6.61 1.94 2.92 2.43
SEd 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.05 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.03
CD (P=0.05) 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.11 0.13 0.09 0.06 0.08 0.06
@: M1 =Transplanted rice; M2 =DSR (Sole); M3 = DSR + Sesbania; M4= DSR + Azolla; N1= 100% RDN; N2= 75% RDN; W1= No weeding;
W2= Pretilachlor plus 0.3 kg a.i./ha at 2 DAS fb HW at 45 DAS; W3= HW twice at 20 and 45 DAS; RDF** (Recommended Dose of Fertiliser)=
(20:40:00 (N:P:K) kg/ha)
196 Journal of Food Legumes 32(3), 2019

Table 2. Effect of planting systems with N and weed management practices to preceding rice in rice-lentil sequence on yield
attributes of lentil @
Treatments Pods/plant Grains/pod 100-grain weight (g)
2009-10 2010-11 Pooled 2009-10 2010-11 Pooled 2009-10 2010-11 Pooled
Preceding rice crop planting systems with N levels and weed management
M1N1W1 49.7 87.6 68.6 1.36 1.51 1.44 2.87 3.00 2.93
M1N1W2 93.1 170.6 131.9 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.15 3.33 3.24
M1N1W3 70.0 121.4 95.7 1.62 1.88 1.75 3.01 3.22 3.11
M1N2W1 45.8 80.5 63.1 1.25 1.40 1.33 2.84 2.88 2.86
M1N2W2 90.5 161.1 125.8 1.96 2.00 1.98 3.12 3.33 3.22
M1N2W3 67.2 119.0 93.1 1.62 1.84 1.73 3.00 3.22 3.11
M2N1W1 42.1 70.3 56.2 1.14 1.40 1.27 2.72 2.88 2.80
M2N1W2 84.9 152.5 118.7 1.88 1.96 1.92 3.10 3.27 3.19
M2N1W3 65.9 117.2 91.5 1.62 1.81 1.71 2.99 3.16 3.07
M2N2W1 39.0 59.2 49.1 1.03 1.25 1.14 2.58 2.77 2.68
M2N2W2 82.6 144.5 113.6 1.81 1.96 1.88 3.08 3.27 3.18
M2N2W3 63.5 113.2 88.4 1.58 1.81 1.69 2.97 3.16 3.07
M3N1W1 62.1 107.6 84.9 1.44 1.77 1.60 2.96 3.16 3.06
M3N1W2 141.2 209.2 175.2 2.03 2.00 2.01 3.48 3.61 3.54
M3N1W3 80.5 142.0 111.2 1.69 1.96 1.83 3.06 3.27 3.17
M3N2W1 57.4 97.1 77.2 1.40 1.62 1.51 2.90 3.11 3.01
M3N2W2 109.2 191.2 150.2 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.24 3.44 3.34
M3N2W3 76.1 133.8 105.0 1.69 1.96 1.83 3.04 3.27 3.16
M4N1W1 60.0 101.3 80.6 1.40 1.73 1.57 2.92 3.11 3.01
M4N1W2 122.1 199.2 160.7 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.34 3.50 3.42
M4N1W3 77.7 136.6 107.2 1.69 1.96 1.83 3.05 3.27 3.16
M4N2W1 55.1 90.7 72.9 1.36 1.58 1.47 2.89 3.00 2.94
M4N2W2 99.8 181.8 140.8 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.16 3.38 3.27
M4N2W3 73.1 127.8 100.4 1.66 1.96 1.81 3.02 3.27 3.15
SE(diff.) 4.1 6.3 4.1 0.04 0.06 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.03
CD (P=0.05) 8.3 12.7 8.3 0.09 0.12 0.07 0.08 0.14 0.07
Fertilizer management in lentil
F1-100% RDF 81.7 139.4 110.6 1.72 1.86 1.79 3.20 3.42 3.31
F2-75% RDF 75.1 130.5 102.8 1.62 1.83 1.72 3.01 3.22 3.11
F3- Control 69.3 119.5 94.4 1.56 1.73 1.64 2.85 2.97 2.91
SE(diff.) 0.6 0.9 0.5 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01
CD (P=0.05) 1.2 1.8 1.0 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.02
@: Same as in Table 1

additional nutrient supply following decomposition of in
situ incorporated sesbania and azolla that further supported
the growing lentil crop as compared to other treatments.
The results are in agreement with those of (Singh et al.
2001, Singh et al. 2002 and Singh et al. 2004).
As regards to direct fertilizers application to lentil,
the crop supplied with 100% RDF recorded higher plant
height (30.8 cm), branches/plant (7.68) and plant dry weight
(3.01g), although, it remained comparable to 75% RDF (Table
1). The results corroborates the findings of (Singh et al.
2010 and Singh et al. 2011). Application of higher quantity
of fertilizer might have favoured rapid growth and
enlargement of tissues, resulting in higher plant height
(Fatima et al. 2013, Swati and Singh 2018). Singh et al. 2010
also reported that shoot dry weight also improved following
RDF application over control, whereas, it was also reported
that branches/plant increased with increasing nutrient
levels (Singh et al., 2011).
The carry-over effect of rice crop planting systems
with nitrogen and weed management practices had
significant effect on yield attributes (Table 2). The maximum
pods/plant (175), grains/pod (2.0) and 100-grain weight (3.54
g) were recorded under M3N1W2 during both the years and
in pooled analysis too. However, it remained comparable to
M4N1W2; and yet similar to M1N1W2 in case of grains/pod
only. As far as the direct fertilizers application in lentil was
concerned, 100% RDF increased the production of pods
by 7.6% and 17.1% over 75% RDF and control, respectively.
This treatment also recorded highest number of grains/
pod (1.79) and the heaviest grains (3.31g), though it
remained comparable to 75% RDF. The lowest number of
pods/plant, grains/pod and lower seed index were recorded
under the control (without fertilizers application). Similar
results were obtained by Singh et al. 2010, Singh et al.
2011). The rice crop planting systems with nitrogen levels
and weed management practices exert significant effect on
yields of subsequent lentil crop (Table 3). M3N1W2 also
 Singh et al.: Response of zero-till lentil to residual effect of agronomic practices in rice 197

Table 3. Effect of planting systems with N and weed management practices to preceding rice in rice-lentil sequence on yield
and harvest index of lentil @
Treatment Grain yield (kg/ha) Straw yield (kg/ha) Harvest index (%)
2009-10 2010-11 Pooled 2009-10 2010-11 Pooled 200-10 2010-11 Pooled
Preceding rice crop planting systems with N levels and weed management
M1N1W1 1336 1951 1643 3174 3744 3459 29.6 34.2 31.9
M1N1W2 1860 2721 2290 3773 4772 4272 33.0 36.3 34.6
M1N1W3 1626 2283 1954 3514 4197 3855 31.6 35.2 33.4
M1N2W1 1203 1890 1547 3135 3699 3417 27.7 33.8 30.7
M1N2W2 1832 2681 2257 3757 4706 4232 32.7 36.2 34.5
M1N2W3 1598 2247 1922 3491 4138 3815 31.4 35.1 33.2
M2N1W1 1039 1820 1430 3033 3592 3312 25.5 33.6 29.5
M2N1W2 1809 2598 2203 3723 4623 4173 32.7 35.9 34.3
M2N1W3 1570 2198 1884 3455 4061 3758 31.2 35.1 33.1
M2N2W1 819 1646 1232. 2949 3401 3175 21.7 32.6 27.1
M2N2W2 1772 2539 2155 3677 4545 4111 32.5 35.8 34.1
M2N2W3 1539 2148 1843 3392 4006 3699 31.2 34.9 33.0
M3N1W1 1513 2120 1816 3355 3953 3654 31.0 34.9 32.9
M3N1W2 2182 2989 2586 3962 4972 4467 35.5 37.5 36.5
M3N1W3 1740 2489 2114 3639 4457 4048 32.3 35.8 34.0
M3N2W1 1442 2043 1742 3242 3872 3557 30.7 34.5 32.6
M3N2W2 1961 2851 2406 3847 4902 4374 33.7 36.7 35.2
M3N2W3 1682 2371 2027 3549 4317 3933 32.1 35.4 33.8
M4N1W1 1474 2075 1774 3289 3911 3600 30.9 34.6 32.8
M4N1W2 2034 2936 2485 3921 4930 4425 34.1 37.3 35.7
M4N1W3 1710 2434 2072 3601 4396 3998 32.2 35.6 33.9
M4N2W1 1392 2017 1705 3229 3835 3532 30.1 34.4 32.3
M4N2W2 1925 2780 2353 3788 4838 431 33.7 36.4 35.0
M4N2W3 1658 2315 1987 3520 4243 388 32.0 35.3 33.6
SE(diff.) 54.5 111 59.6 112 162 75.5 - - -
CD (P=0.05) 110 223 120 227 327 152 - - -
Fertilizer management in lentil
F1-100% RDF 1897.16 265.50 2275.33 4095.39 4738.47 4416.93 31.65 35.89 33.77
F2-75% RDF 1605.59 2335.45 1970.52 3489.88 4244.58 3867.22 31.51 35.49 33.50
F3- Control 1337.94 2030.20 1684.07 2917.63 3782.13 3349.87 31.43 34.92 33.17
SE(diff.) 11.95 12.90 9.56 22.15 20.68 16.68 - - -
CD (P=0.05) 23.69 25.57 18.95 43.91 40.99 33.06 - - -
@: Same as in Table 1

remained comparable to M4N1W2 in both the years. Perusal
on pooled data also revealed that grain yield of lentil under
residual effect of M3N1W2 was higher by 4.0, 12.7 and 17.3%
over the residual effect of M4N1W2, M1N1W2and M2N1W2,
respectively. Similar observations of higher yield attributes
and yield of succeeding lentil crop following supply of
100% RDN with combination of N from biological sources
applied to precedingrice crop is also reported by Singh et
al. 2002, Singh et al. 2004. M3N1W2 and M4N1W2 both were
(also comparable to each other) recorded higher harvest
index than M1N1W2 and M2N1W2. 100% RDF application to
also lentil recorded the maximum grain yield (2.27 t/ha) with
a yield advantage of 15.2 and 35.1 over 75% RDF and control
(without fertilizers application), respectively. Scaling in yield
might be due to beneficial effect of fertilizers in improving
various symbiotic, growth and yield attributes.Similar
findings of higher yield of lentil due to application of RDF
have been reported by Singh et al., 2010, Singh et al., 2011
and Fatima et al., 2013).
Economic analysis based on cost of cultivation
practices is presented in Table 4. The total investment on
the cultivation of lentil was uniform under each planting
system with nitrogen and weed management practices
adopted to preceding rice crop, but the higher gross income,
net income and BCR (of INR 91,242 and 1,24,532; 76,092
and 1,09,382/ha; and 6.02 and 8.21 were recorded in
M3N1W2 during both the years, respectively and were
comparable to the M4N1W2. The increase in net return was
1.95, 11.07 and 17.14% over that of M4N1W2, M1N1W2 and
M2N1W2 respectively in 2010-11. The profitability under
M3N1W2 and M4N1W2 was higher because of higher grain
yield obtained from these treatments which might be due
to residual effect of N biological sources. Reddy and Reddy
2010 also reported that lentil-based cropping systems are
profitable. Polynomial curve fitting (Fig 1) showed that, if
further increase in cost along with different cultivation
practices, yield will become stagnant and net return would
tend to decrease. Thus, the optimum total cost of cultivation
198 Journal of Food Legumes 32(3), 2019

Table 4. Effect of planting systems with N and weed management practices to preceding rice in rice-lentil sequence on
economics (INR) of lentil crop
Treatments Net returns (x103 `/ha) BCR
2009-10 2010-11 2009-10 2010-11
Preceding rice crop planting systems with N levels and weed management
M1N1W1 41.4 66.6 3.73 5.39
M1N1W2 63.0 98.4 5.15 7.49
M1N1W3 53.4 80.3 4.52 6.30
M1N2W1 36.1 64.1 3.38 5.23
M1N2W2 61.8 96.7 5.08 7.38
M1N2W3 52.2 78.8 4.44 6.20
M2N1W1 29.4 61.2 2.94 5.04
M2N1W2 60.9 93.3 5.02 7.16
M2N1W3 51.1 76.8 4.37 6.07
M2N2W1 20.5 54.0 2.35 4.57
M2N2W2 59.4 90.9 4.92 7.00
M2N2W3 49.8 74.7 4.28 5.93
M3N1W1 48.7 73.6 4.21 5.85
M3N1W2 76.0 109.3 6.02 8.21
M3N1W3 58.0 88.8 4.83 6.86
M3N2W1 45.7 70.4 4.02 5.64
M3N2W2 67.1 103.7 5.43 7.85
M3N2W3 55.6 84.0 4.67 6.54
M4N1W1 47.0 71.7 4.10 5.73
M4N1W2 70.1 107.2 5.62 8.07
M4N1W3 56.8 86.6 4.75 6.71
M4N2W1 43.7 69.3 3.88 5.57
M4N2W2 65.6 100.8 5.33 7.65
M4N2W3 54.6 81.6 4.60 6.39
Fertilizer management in lentil
F1-100%RDF 63.9 94.8 4.98 6.90
F2-75% RDF 51.8 81.8 4.27 6.17
F3- Control 41.2 69.8 3.72 5.60
@: Same as in Table 1, Selling price of grain: INR 4000/q; Selling price of straw:INR 100/q

Azolla with 100% RDN and pretilachlor plus at 0.3 kg a.i./

ha at 2 DAS fb HW at 45 DAS followed by cultivation of
zero-till lentil during winter season with 100 or 75% RDF
can be practiced for sustaining and improving soil health,
productivity and profitability of rice-lentil cropping system
in Eastern Uttar Pradesh.

Fig 1: Polynomial curve fitting between lentil cost of
cultivation and net return in rupees
practices have to be considered for higher return. Direct
fertilizers application to lentil also suggested that 100%
RDF gained the highest net return (INR 94,809/ha), which
was comparable to that following application of 75% RDF.
Similarly, BCR under this treatment (6.90) was higher by
11.8% and 23.2% over that in 75% RDF and control,
respectively during 2010-11.
Therefore, it is inferred from the above that cultivation
of rice under DSR with dual cropping either of Sesbania or
REFERENCES
Ahmad N, Sinha DK and Singh KM. 2018. Economic analysis of
production and instability of lentil in major lentil growing states
of India. International Journal of Pure and Applied Bioscience 6
(1): 593-598.
Annual Report DPD. 2016-17. DAC&FW, Ministry of agriculture
& Farmers Welfare, Government of India.
Fatima K, Nazir H, Pir FA and Mohd Mehdi. 2013. Effect of nitrogen
and phosphorus on growth and yield of Lentil (Lens culnaris).
Elixir Applied Botany 57: 14323-14325.
Gomez KA and Gomez A. 1983. Statistical procedures for agricultural
research. Wiley, New York
Prasad B. 1999. Conjunctive use of fertilizers with organics, crop
residues and green manuring for their efficient use in sustainable
crop production. Fertilizer News 44: 67-73.
 Singh et al.: Response of zero-till lentil to residual effect of agronomic practices in rice
Reddy AA and Reddy GP. 2010. Supply side constrains in production
of pulses in India: A Case Study of Lentil. Agricultural Economics
Research Review 23(1): 129-136.
Singh G, Aggarwal N and Khanna V. 2010. Integrated nutrient
management in lentil with organic manures, chemical fertilizers
and biofertilizers. Journal of Food Legumes 23(2): 149-151.
Singh G, Ram H, Sekhon HS, Aggarwal N and Khanna V. 2011.
Effect of nutrient management on nodulation, growth and yield
of lentil (Lens culinaris medik.) Genotypes. American-Eurasian
Journal of Agronomy 4(3): 46-49.
Singh SK, Varma SC and Singh RP. 2004. Residual effect of organic
and inorganic sources of nutrients in lowland rice on succeeding
lentil. Indian Journal of Agriculture Research 38(2): 121-125.
199
Singh SK, Varma SC and Singh RP. 2001. Effect of integrated nutrient
management on yield, nutrient uptake and changes in soil
fertility under rice (Oryza sativa)-lentil (Lens culinaris) cropping
system. Indian Journal of Agronomy 46(2): 191-197.
Singh SK, Varma SC and Singh RP. 2002. Integrated nutrient
management in rice and its residual effect on lentil. Indian Journal
of Agriculture Research 36(4): 286-289.
Swati and Singh J. 2018. Effect of genotypes, nutrient levels and
seed rates on growth indices of soybean (Glycine max) under
mid-hill condition of Himachal Pradesh. Journal of Food Legumes
31(3): 144-146.
Journal of Food Legumes 32(3): 200-201, 2019
Short Communication
Monitoring of adult moth populations of gram pod borer (Helicoverpa armigera
Hubner) in chickpea using pheromone trap
SAXENA NARAYAN, PS SINGH and RS MEENA
Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India; E-mail:saxenabhu@gmail.com
(Received : December 19, 2018; Accepted : April 10, 2019)
ABSTRACT
An experiment was conducted during 2015-16 and 2016-17
at Agriculture Research Farm, Banaras Hindu University,
Varanasito know the peak populations of male moths of gram
pod borer using pheromone traps and for proper management
measures in time. During the entire investigation period
three peaks were observed. These peaks were during 7th, 11th
,14th standard meteorological week and 8th,12th,14th standard
meteorological week in 2015-16 and 2016-17, respectively.
Maximum and minimum temperature, evening relative
humidity,and sun shine hrs had positive correlation with
male moth catches. Negative association was observed
between morning relative humidity and moth catches during
2015-16whereas in next year temperature sun shine hrs had
positive correlations and significant and negative correlation
was observed in sunshine and relative humidity,respectively.
This investigation may be useful for forecasting of gram pod
borer in chickpea.
Key word: Chickpea, Helicoverpa armigera, Pheromone trap,
Weather parameters
In Chickpea (Cicerarietinum L.) gram pod borer
Helicoverpaarmigera (Hubner) causes heavy economic
loss and as a highly polyphagous.The caterpillar of
H.armigerafeed on tender leaves defoliate the plant and
makes hole in the pod and feed on developing grain.Use of
pheromone trap to monitor its population is an important
component in the IPM programme.
The experiment was conducted during 2015-16 and
2016-17at Agriculture Research Farm, Banaras Hindu
University, Varanasi.The chickpea variety Pusa 362 was
grown as sole crop in 100m 2 plot. All recommended
agronomic practices were adopted for the rabi season.The
pheromone traps were of funnel type PCI trap baited with
Heli lure.The pheromone trap was placed in experimental
block at 1 m height above the ground level and the lure was
replaced with new one after an exposure of 25 days.
The results of the present investigation of its
correlation and regression analysis are given in Table 2
and Table 4.and the diagrammatic representation of the
weather parameters and pheromone trap catches of male
moths of H. armigera are depicted in table (1) and (3) for
experimental year 2015-16 and 2016-17.
The gram pod borer activity was first observed in the
3rd and 4th standard meteorological week of January during
2015-16 and 2016-17 respectively. There were three peaks
observed in both consecutive experimental year. The
intensity of the mean male moths trapped were high
(664)during 2015-16.as compared to 2016-17 (568).This
differences may be due to the fluctuations in the weather
parameters. However similar trend was observed in both
years.The highest peak of 134 in 13th standard week during
2015-16 and 129 during 12th standard week during 2016-17
was observed.EarlierAhmad and Khalique (2002) noted that
1st week of March and mid April and 1st week of June as the
start peak and end of male moths of Helicoverpaarmigera
in pheromone trap, respectively. Moths captures increased
gradually and reached its peak in the moth of April.
The population catches of male moth had positive
correlation with maximum temperature during the both
consecutive experimental years.Whereas rainfall and
relative morning humidity had negative correlation during
both the years.Vaishampayam (1980) observed a negative
and non significant correlation between temperature and
catches of H.armigerain pheromone trap.The population
of male moths was negatively correlated with morning
relative humidity during 2015-16 and 2016-17.The present
finding conform to the findings by Aheeret al.(2009) who
observed that temperature and relative humidity had a
significant positive correlation and significant negative
correlation with trapped moth catches poulations
respectively in cotton based agro system.Vaishampayam
(1980) also reported that relative humidity was unfavourable
to population build-up of Helicoverpa armigera. In the
present investigation sun shine hours perday had
significant positive association on population of
Helicoverpa armigera during both the experimental years.
Hossain (2008) observed that emergence of male moth was
highest possibly due to higher rainfall.
 Narayan & Meena : Monitoring of adult moth populations of gram pod borer 201

Table 1. Moths of H. armigera catches trapped by pheromone trap during 2015-16

S. Week No. Month & Date Rainfall (mm) Temperature 0C Relative Humidity (%) Sunshine hours Moth Catches
Max. Min. Morning Evening
49 Dec 03-09 0.8 24.6 14.8 93 62 2.2 0
50 Dec 10-16 0 22.7 11.4 92 56 3.7 0
51 Dec 17-23 0 22 8.2 91 43 3.8 0
52 Dec 24-31 0 22.8 8 82 37 5.4 0
1 Jan 01-07 0 24.3 9.6 94 47 2.5 0
2 Jan 08-14 0 25 10.7 85 45 5.9 0
3 Jan 15-21 7.7 19 11 94 69 0.6 7
4 Jan 22-28 0 21.7 7.2 85 43 5.2 0
5 Jan 29-04 0 24.7 11.9 79 50 6.5 19
6 Feb 05-11 0 24.5 9.6 83 52 6.3 26
7 Feb 12-18 2.4 27.1 13.5 85 57 6.3 63
8 Feb 19-25 0 28.6 14.9 77 44 8.5 41
9 Feb 26-03 0 29.9 16.2 85 51 6.4 49
10 Mar 04-10 0 30.9 17.9 77 46 7.6 67
11 Mar 11-17 0 28.9 16.6 73 51 6.4 110
12 Mar 18-24 0 33.6 17.3 61 26 9.6 41
13 Mar 25-31 0 35.5 18.4 58 34 9 134
14 April 01-07 0 38.3 23.1 63 26 7.9 97

Table 2. Correlation coefficient (r) between temperature Relative Humidity Sun Shine and Pheromone trap catches of
H. armigera 2015-16
Moth Rainfall (mm) Weather parameters
Temperature (0C) Relative Humidity (%) Sunshine Hours
Maximum Minimum Morning Evening
H. armigera -0.153 0. 410 0.454 -0.247 0.036 0.487*

Table 3. Moths of H. armigera catches trapped per week by Pheromone trap during 2016-17
Temperature 0C Relative Humidity (%)
S. Week No. Month & Date Rainfall (mm) Sunshine hours Moth Catches
Max. Min. Morning Evening
49 Dec03-09 0 20.3 16.3 94 78 2.1 0
50 Dec10-16 0 20.2 10 94 73 3.5 0
51 Dec17-23 0 23.3 9.8 89 50 2.8 0
52 Dec 24-31 0 20.5 10.9 94 69 5.7 0
1 Jan 01-07 0 20.1 11.6 95 76 2.3 0
2 Jan08-14 0 20.7 8.2 91 44 4.8 0
3 Jan 15-21 0 23 8.8 90 49 0.7 0
4 Jan 22-28 1 24.4 10.9 90 58 5.3 2
5 Jan 29-04 0 23.8 14.1 94 57 6.6 5
6 Feb 05-11 0 25.4 10.8 91 47 6.7 13
7 Feb 12-18 0 26.2 12.3 87 53 6.2 22
8 Feb 19-25 0 27.7 13 81 41 8.1 53
9 Feb 26-03 0 29.7 13.1 83 43 6.1 39
10 Mar 04-10 0 29.6 14.6 71 38 6.8 67
11 Mar 11-17 0 28.7 12.3 81 39 6.4 41
12 Mar 18-24 0 33.2 17.6 81 36 9.2 129
13 Mar 25-31 0 38.5 20.1 64 30 8.9 116
14 April 01-07 0 38.8 22.4 70 37 7.7 81

REFERENCES Hossain MA. 2008. Monotoring and evaluation of chickpea pod

Aheer GM Ali A. and Akram M. 2009. Effect of weather factors on
population of Helicoverpa armigera moths at cotton based
agro ecological sites. Entomology Research. 39: 36-42.
borer Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) by using pheromone trap.
Bangladesh journal of Sciences and Industrial Research. 43: 419-426.
Vaishampayam SM. 1980. Seasonal abundance and activity of gram
pod borer moths Heliothis armigera on light trap equipped with
mercury vapour lamp at Jaipur. Indian Journal of Entomology
7: 147-154.
Journal of Food Legumes 32(3): 202-205, 2019

Short Communication

Enhancing yield of lentil by integrating various technologies under biotic stresses

and nutrient deficient soil
NISHANT PRAKASH 1 , SHIPRA KARN 2 NADEEM AKHTAR 3 , NIMITA KANDWAL 4 and
PARUL BARTEJA5
1
Krishi Vigyan Kendra; Arwal, Bihar, India; 2Darwin School of Management, Guwahati, India; 3Krishi Vigyan
Kendra, Saharsa, Bihar, India, 4G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Uttarakhand, India; 5National
Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra, Haryana; India; E-mail: gladiator.nishant@gmail.com
(Received : April 13, 2019; Accepted : June 27, 2019)

ABSTRACT
In order to manage infestation of Cuscuta spp, Fusarium
wilt, insect attack especially aphid and poor soil nutrition in
lentil, various technologies were integrated at farmer’s field.
Soil amendment with Trichoderma spp. at 5 kg/ha and PSB
at 5 kg/ha, seed treatment with Carbendazim at 2 g/kg seed
and Rhizobium spp. at 10 g/kg seed along with pre-emergence
spray with pendimethalin at 3.3 l/ha + spray of imidachlorprid
(17.8 SL) at 120 ml a.i./ha were tried. This integrated
technology resulted in reduction in wilt incidence (67.47%,
73.28%), weed count (73.17%, 50.94%), aphid population
(57.89%, 57.14%) and increase in average number of pods
per plant (14.51%, 15.51%) in the demonstration plot in
comparison to farmers’ plot in the year 2017-18 and 2018-19,
respectively. Lentil yield was increased by 49.17%, 45.53%
in 2017-18 and 2018-19 respectively. Benefit cost ratio
increased up to 3.12 and 1.87 in demonstration plot in
comparison to farmer’s plot with (BCR of) 3.06 and 1.31
during 2017-18 and 2018-19, respectively. Technology gap of
4.91 and 4.60 q/ha while extension gap of 4.47 and 4.28 q/ha
were recorded during both the years, respectively. Thus, this
integrated technology was proved to be feasible and
economically viable.
Keywords : Aphid, Benefit cost ratio, Cuscuta, Grain yield, Lentil,
Wilt
Lentil (Lens culinaris Medik) is a rich source of
protein and important part of vegetarian diet in India. After
chickpea, lentil is the second most important rabi pulse of
India and occupy 1.51 million hectare area with annual
production of 0.95 million ton (Maheshwari et al. 2008). In
India, lentil is consumed as a daal (whole and dehulled)
and also used in preparing other recipe. In lentil, 25%
protein, 0.7% fat, 2.1% mineral, 0.7% fiber and 59%
carbohydrates are found. Major lentil producing states in
India are Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and West
Bengal where lentil is grown on large scale as a rabi pulse.
These states account for 90% production of lentil in India.
Several constraints are there, which adversely affect
lentil production in India. In Arwal district of Bihar, Cuscuta
spp, Fusarium wilt, insect especially aphid significantly
reduce lentil production. A 20-25% yield loss is reported
due to lentil wilt (Maheshwari et al. 2008) while upto 80%
due to Cuscuta spp. (Moorty et al. 2003). Fusarium wilt is
one of the major constraints in lentil production. Under
favourable environmental condition, complete crop failure
is observed (Choudhary and Amarjit, 2002). Cuscuta spp is
another major problem in lentil production. It is a total stem
parasite and completely depends upon host for assimilates,
nutrient supply and water. Manual removal of Cuscuta is
costly, labour intensive and time taking process. Some
insect like aphids and others also cause damage to the
production of lentil in Arwal district of Bihar. Apart from
this, poor soil nutrition significantly lowers yield of lentil.
The cumulative effect of all these constraints account for
approximately 3.45-4.75 q/ha of lentil yield than expected
8.0-12.2 q/ha (Trpathi 2016). Several technologies like seed
treatment with Carbendazim, soil amendment with
Trichoderma spp. suppress wilt in lentil significantly (Singh
et al. 2017). Management of Cuscuta spp is reported by
herbicides like Pendimethalin, Imazethapyr etc. (Choudhary
and Prakash 2018; Mishra et al. 2005). Another major
constraint in lentil production is the inadequate supply of
nutrients and poor practices in soil (Singh and Khan, 2003).
Seed treatment with Rhizobium spp. also significantly
enhances yield of lentil (Huang et al. 2016; Ahemad and
Khan 2010). The objective of this investigation is
enhancement of lentil yield at farmers’ field by integrating
different technologies which successfully manage all
constraints of lentil production. This trial was laid out at
farmers’ field under frontline demonstration program. Impact
of seed treatment with Carbendazim and soil amendment
with Trichoderma spp, spray of Pendimethalin and seed
treatment with Rhizobium spp. and phosphate solubilizing
bacteria (PSB) was observed on lentil production. The
economic viability of adoption of technology was measured
by benefit cost ratio.
To assess the effect of integration of various
technologies for the management of constraints of lentil
cultivation viz., wilt, cuscuta, insect attack, poor soil
nutrition, frontline demonstration trial was conducted at
farmers’ field in Kaler and Arwal block of Arwal district of
Bihar for two consecutive years i.e. 2017-18 and 2018-19.
 Prakash et al. : Enhancing yield of lentil under biotic stress and nutrient deficient soil
The demonstration was laid out at 50 farmers field
accounting 10 ha area (0.20 ha area each). The technology
for the management of wilt, Cuscuta spp, insect attack and
poor soil nutrition was integrated in a following order:
1. Soil amendment with Trichoderma spp. prior to
sowing of seeds at 5 kg/ha
2. Soil amendment with PSB prior to sowing of seeds at
5 kg/ha
3. Seed treatment with Carbendazim at 2 g/kg seed
4. Seed treatment with Rhizobium spp at 10 g/kg seed
5. Pre-emergence spray with Pendimethalin at 3.3 l/ha
6. Spray of Imidachlorprid (17.8 SL) at 120 ml ai/ha
Seed treatment was performed by following FIR
(Fungicideds+Insecticides+Rhiobium) principle. Prior to
soil amendment, Trichoderma spp and PSB were mass
multiplied on rotten cow dung. After that both the
Trichoderma spp. and the PSB were mixed in soil at the
time field preparation. Pendimethalin was sprayed within
72 hours of sowing of seed in soil. Imidachlorprid was
sprayed after 30 days after sowing (DAS).
Two adjacent plot of 0.2 ha size was selected at
farmers field. In demonstration plot, fertilizer rate of
N:P2O5:K2O at 20:50:20 kg/ha were applied through Urea,
DAP and Potash as a basal application. Seed treatment
was done with carbendazim at 2g/kg seed. Further seed
was inoculated with Rhizobium at 10 g/kg seed. Seeds
were sown by broadcasting method using 40 kg/ha of seed
rate. Pendimethalin at 3.3 l/ha was sprayed 24 hours after
sowing. Foliar spray of imidachlorprid (17.8 SL) at 120 ml/
ha. In farmers’ plot, carbendazim 50WP ( at 2 g/kg treated
locally available seed was used. Basal dose of DAP 50 kg/
ha was applied at the time of field preparation. The data of
wilt incidence was recorded by using following formulae
described by Iqbal et al. (2005):
Number of wilted plants
Disease incidence (%) =
Total number of plants
The level of resistance and susceptibility of each
variety was determined by using 1-9 rating scale given in
Table 1. Population of Cuscuta spp. was recorded seven
days after application of pre-emergence herbicides and
attachment of C. campestris to lentil plants was recorded
at 30, 60 and 90 DAS. Aphid population was recorded from
flowering to podding stage. The yield parameters seed
weight per 10- plants of lentil were recorded after maturity
of the crop. Yield increase, net return, benefit cost ratio was
calculated by the formulae given by Das et al. (1998). The
formulae are following:
203
Increase in grain yield = Yield in demonstration plot- ×100
Yield in farmer's plot
Net return = Gross return - Cost of cultivation
Benefit cost ratio = Gross return
Cost of cultivation
To calculate technology gap and extension gap,
following formulae given by Kadian et al. (1997) was used:
Technology gap = Potential yield – Demonstration yield
Extension gap = Demonstration yield – Farmers’ yield
Impact of improved technology on wilt incidence,
cuscuta infestation, aphid population and yield is presented
in Table 2. Wilt incidence in the year 2017-18 and 2018-19 in
demonstration plot were 12.1 and 10.9% while in farmers’
plot were 37.2 and 40.8%. cuscuta infestation was recorded
under two parameters namely weed count and average
number of pod per plant. Weed count in the year 2017-18
and 2018-19 in demonstration plot were 22 and 26 while in
farmers’ plot were 82 and 53. Average number of pod per
plant recorded in demonstration plot were 62 and 58 while
in farmers’ plot were 53 and 49 during the year 2017-18 and
2018-19. Aphid population per plant in demonstration plot
were 8 and (9) while in farmers’ plot were 19 and 21 during
the year 2017-18 and 2018-19. Yield recorded in
demonstration plot were 9.09 and 9.4 while in farmers’ plot
4.62 and 5.12 during the year 2017-18 and 2018-19. It resulted
in reduction in wilt incidence (67.47%, 73.28%), weed count
(73.17%, 50.94%), aphid population (57.89%, 57.14%) and
increase in average number of pod per plant (14.51%,
15.51%) in demonstration plot in comparison to farmer’s
plot in the year 2017-18 and 2018-19. Per cent yield increase
recorded were 96.75 and 83.59 during the year 2017-18 and
2018-19. Wilt incidence, cuscuta infestation and aphid
population in demonstration plot were significantly lower
as compared to farmer plot in both the year 2017-18 and
2018-19. Yield recorded in demonstration plot were
significantly higher as compared to farmers’ plot in both
the year 2017-18 and 2018-19. It is assumed that lower wilt
incidence, cuscuta infestation, aphid population and
enhancement of soil nutrition due to Rhizobium spp. and
PSB enhance the yield of lentil. Adoption of these integrated
technology caused considerable increase in yield i.e. 49.17%
and 45.13% the year 2017-18 and 2018-19 respectively.
The economic viability of adoption of technology in
demonstration plot and farmers’ plot was measured by
calculating benefit cost ratio and presented in Table 3. Cost
Table 1. Wilt incidence rating scale (Iqbal et al. 2005)
S. No. Rating Disease reaction Per cent wilting
1 1 Highly resistant (less than 1% of plant
showing wilting)
2 3 Resistant (1-10% wilted plants).
3 5 Moderately resistant (11-20% wilted plants).
4 7 Susceptible (21-50% wilted plants).
5 9 Highly Susceptible (51% or more wilted
plants).
204 Journal of Food Legumes 32(3), 2019

Table 2. Impact of adoption of technology on wilt incidence, Cuscuta infestation, aphid population and yield in farmers plot
(FP) & demonstration plot (DP)
Year No of Area Wilt incidence (%) Cuscuta incidence Aphid population per Yield
demonstration (ha) Weed Count Average number of plant
pod/plant
FP DP Wilt FP DP Weed FP DP Increase FP DP Aphid FP DP Yield
incidence count (%) population increase
reduction reduction reduction (%)
(%) (%) (%)
2017-18 50 10 37.2 12.1 67.47 82 22 73.17 53 62 14.51 19 8 57.89 4.62 9.09 49.17
2018-19 50 10 40.8 10.9 73.28 53 26 50.94 49 58 15.51 21 9 57.14 5.12 9.4 45.53

Table 3. Economic viability of adoption of technology in demonstration plot and farmers’ plot
Year (q/ha) Cost of Cultivation Gross return (Rs.) Net return (Rs.) BC ratio Technology Extension
gap (q/ha) gap
FP DP FP DP FP DP FP DP Technology Extension
gap (q/ha) gap
2017-18 13560 15636 41500 48796 27940 33160 3.06 3.12 4.91 4.47
2018-19 16140 22900 26075 42905 9935 20005 1.31 1.87 4.60 4.28

of cultivation in the demonstration plot was INR 15636 and
22900 while in farmers’ plot were INR 13560 and 16140 during
the year 2017-18 and 2018-19, respectively. Total return
obtained from the demonstration plot was INR 48796 and
42905; while in farmers’ plot were INR 41500 and 26075
during the year 2017-18 and 2018-19, respectively. Net return
gained by farmer in demonstration plot were INR 33160 and
20005 while in farmers’ plot INR 27940 and 9935 during the
year 2017-18 and 2018-19, respectively. On calculation of
benefit cost ratio, 3.12 and 1.87 in demonstration plot while
3.06 and 1.31 in farmers’ plot were observed during the year
2017-18 and 2018-19. Adoption of technology improved
the benefit cost ratio in demonstration plot than farmers’
plot. In terms of economic viability of these technologies
in lentil production, net return was higher in demonstration
plot as compared to farmers’ plot in both the year 2017-18
and 2018-19. Technology gap implies the gap between
potential yield and demonstration yield of the crop. It
signifies about the scientific intervention required to
increase the yield of the crop. Extension gap implies about
the awareness of the farmers about farming technologies,
availability of agricultural inputs in that particular locality
and other facility like electricity, fuel etc. Technology gap
and Extension gap were calculated using formulae given
by Kadian et al. (1997) and presented in Table 2. Potential
yield of lentil is 14 q/ha (http://dpd.gov.in/VARIETIES-
Web%20site.pdf). In the year 2017-18 and 2018-19,
technology gap calculated were 4.91 and 4.60 q/ha while
extension gap were 4.47 and 4.28 q/ha, respectively. This
technology gap is mainly due to lack of awareness of
farmer’s about improved technology. Farmer’s are also less
skilful in integrating various technologies in package form.
Another major constraint is the non availability of necessary
agriculture inputs in Arwal district.
Tripathi (2016) conducted similar kind of investigation
and integrated various technologies for lentil production.
After integrating various technologies they found
significant reduction of wilt incidence, aphid population
and higher yield in demonstration plot than farmer’s plot.
They also reported higher net return and higher benefit
cost ratio in demonstration field than farmer’s field. Singh
et al. (2017) reported that seed treatment with carbendazim
and Trichoderma harizianum treatment results in reduction
of wilt incidence in lentil. Rafique et al. (2016) reported that
integration of systemic fungicides with biocontrol agent
cause reduction of wilt incidence in lentil. Chaudhary and
Prakash (2018) reported that Pendimethalin caused
reduction of weed count and higher number of pods per
plant. Rhizobium inoculation to seed of lentil enhances
nitrogen availability to lentil and improves yield (Huang et
al. 2016). Rhizobium inoculation have been reported to
increase yield of lentil even in herbicide resistant soil
(Ahemad and Khan 2010). Singh et al. (2002) also reported
that adoption of package of technology enhanced yield of
various crop in demonstration plot than farmer’s plot. Ray
et al. (2010), Singh and Barman (2011) and Tripathi (2016)
reported technology gap and extension gap in. the findings
of these scientists is supporting the result of present finding.
REFERENCES
Ahemad M and Khan M Saghir.2010. Growth promotion and
protection of lentil (Lens esculenta) against herbicide stress by
Rhizobium species. Annals Microbiology 60: 735-745.
Chaudhary RG and Amarjit K. 2002. Wilt disease as a cause of shift
from lentis cultivation in Sangod Tehsil of Kota, Rajasthan.
Indian Journal of Pulses Research 15: 193-194.
Choudhary CN and Prakash N. 2018. Assessment of Pendimethalin,
Quizalfop Ethyl and Imazethapyr on Weed Count of Cuscuta
and Yield Attribute of Lentil. International Journal of Current
Microbiology and Applied Science 7(4): 1386-1392
Das P, Das SK, Mishra PK, Mishra A and Tripathi AK. 1998. Farming
system analysis of results of frontline demonstration in pulse
crops conducted in different agro-climatic Zone of Madhya
Pradesh and Odissa ZCU for TOT Project Zone VII, Jabalpur. 37pp.
 Prakash et al. : Enhancing yield of lentil under biotic stress and nutrient deficient soil
Huang J, Reza Keshavarz Afshar andChengci Chen. 2016. Lentil
Response to Nitrogen Application and Rhizobia Inoculation,
Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 47(21):2458-
24 64
Iqbal SM, Haq IU, Bukhari A, Ghafoor A and Haqqani AM. 2005.
Screening of chickpea genotypes for resistance against Fusarium
wilt. Mycopathology 3 (1-2):1-5.
Kadian KS, Sharma R and Sharma AK. 1997. Evaluation of Frontline
demonstration trials on oilseeds in KangraVally of Himachal
Pradesh. Annals Agriculture Research 18: 40.
Maheshawari SK, Bhat NA, Masoodi SD and Beigh MA. 2008.
Chemical control of lentil wilt caused by Fusarium
oxysporumf.sp. lentis. Annals of Plant Protection Science
16:419-421
Mishra, JS, Moorthy BTS and Bhan M. 2005. Relative tolerance of
kharif crops to dodder and its management in niger. In: Extended
Summaries. National Biennial Conference, ISWS, PAU, Ludhiana,
April 6-9. 213-214.
MoorthyBTS, Mishra JS and Dubey RP. 2003. Certain investigations
on the parasitic weed Cuscutain field crops.Indian Journal of
Weed Science35:214-216
205
Rafique K, Rauf CA, Naz F and Shabbir G. 2016. Management of
vascular wilt of lentil through host plant resistance, biological
control agents and chemicals. Pakistan Journal of Botany 48(5):
2085-2092
Ray BR, Singh SK and Singh AK. 2010. Gap in pulse production
technology in Uttar Pradesh. Indian Journal of Extension
Education. 10: 99-104
Singh SK, Adesh Kumar, Bhanu Pratap Singh, Jay Kumar Yadav and
Khushboo Dubey. 2017. Integrated Management of Lentil Wilt
Caused by Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lentis. International Journal
of Current Microbiology and Applied Science 6(10): 1319-1322.
Singh PK and Barman KK. 2011. Adoption of rice production
Technologies by tribal farmers of Mandala District of Madhya
Pradesh. Indian Journal of Extension Education 47: 6-7
Singh R and Khan MA. 2003. Response of clusterbean varieties to
fertility levels and cropping systems under arid conditions. (in)
Advances in Arid Legume Research. Henry, A. Kumar, D. and
Singh, N. B. (Eds) Scientific Publishers and Indian Society of
Arid Legumes, Jodhpur. pp 225-228.
Tripathi AK. 2016. Productivity enhancement of lentil (Lens
culinaris Medik) through integrated crop management
technologies. Legume Research 39 (6): 999-1002.
Journal of Food Legumes 32(3): 206-207, 2019
Short Communication
Nutrient and pest management practices for enhancing growth and yield of
pigeonpea (Cajanas cajan L.)
VT JADHAV and NS KUTE
Pulses Improvement Project, MPKV, Rahuri Dist. Ahmednagar-413722 Maharashtra, India;
Email.id. vtj2009@rediffmail.com
(Received : January 10, 2019; Accepted : April 17, 2019)
ABSTRACT
A field experiment was conducted during Kharif 2016-17 to
2018-19 at Pulses Improvement Project, Mahatma Phule
Krishi Vidyapeeth Rahuri, Ahmednagar, Maharashtra to study
the effect of different nutrient and pest management
practices on growth, yield and economics of pigeonpea. The
pooled results of three years pertaining to the growth, yield
attributes, yield and economics of pigeonpea revealed that
the nutrient and pest management treatment (i.e.,) RDF +
Multinutrient spray @ 2ml + Indoxacarb spray at 50%
flowering + one systemic insecticide at 15 days after first
spray recorded significantly higher plant height (191.4 cm),
plant spread (79.9 cm), primary branches per plant (501),
number of pods per plant (373.2), grain yield (2213.8 kg/ha),
stalk yield (1011.8 kg/ha), net returns (Rs. 50599/ ha) and
B:C ratio (2.29) of pigeonpea than other treatments.
Key words: Economics, Growth, Nutrients, Pest management,
Yield
Pigeonpea (Cajanascagan L.) is an important crops
among pulses and ranks second after chickpea in the
country, in terms of area and production. In India area grown
under pigeonpea crop was 4.43 mha with production of
4.25 mt with productivity of 960 kg/ha.( Anonymous, 2018).
Maharashtra play big role in meeting the domestic demand
of pigeonpea. It is major source of dhal which is important
constituent in the food habit of Indian peoples. Protein
content ranges (20-22%) in pigeonpea which make it
important sources for supplementing the energy rich cereal
diet, it also fixes atmospheric nitrogen up to 200 kg/ha
(Anonymous, 2010). Water stress (drought and water
logging ), non availability of suitable varieties, inadequate
adoption of technology, problems of insect pests and
diseases and weeds are the major constraints for reduction
in yield of pigeonpea ( Anonymous, 2010). The lower yield
of pigeonpea is not only due to its cultivation in sub
marginal lands but also due to poor management. It is
generally due to soil moisture during critical growth stages,
such as at flowering and pod development stages it is more
susceptible to pod borer complex and root diseases which
often leads to crop failures. Sharma et al. (2010), reported
yield losses of 15-25% due to pests attack on pigeon pea.
Hence in modern agriculture, balanced and efficient nutrient
and pest management are essential in realizing the higher
yield and reducing cost of cultivation. Therefore, the present
investigation was under taken to access the influence of
different nutrient and pest management practices on growth
and yield parameters of pigeonpea.
The field experiment was conducted at Pulses
Improvement Project, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth,
Rahuri. Maharashtra during Kharif 2016 to 2018 in medium
deep soil having pH 8.2 organic carbon (0.53%), available
nitrogen (177 kg ha-1), available phosphorus (14.0 kg ha-1)
and available potassium (263 kg ha-1), which comprises of
eight treatment combinations of different fertilizers and
insecticides, viz. T1-RDF, T2- RDF + 2% urea spray at 50%
flowering, T3- RDF + 0.5.% borax spray at 50% flowering,
T4-RDF + 0.5% ZnSo4 spray at 50% flowering, T5- RDF +
1% urea + 0.25% ZnSo4 + 0.25% borax spray at 50%
flowering, T6- RDF + multinutrient spray @ 2 ml / lit., T7-
RDF + Indoxacarb spray at 50% flowering + one systemic
insecticide 15 days after first spray, T8- RDF + multinutrient
spray @ 2 ml/lit.+ Indoxacarb spray at 50% flowering + one
systemic insecticide 15 days after first spray. All the
treatments were replicated thrice in RBD design. The
recommended dose of NPK, kg/ha were applied at sowing.
Pigeon pea variety Rajeshwari was sown at 90 x 60 cm
spacing. All other recommended package of practices were
followed during crop growth period. The cost of cultivation,
net returns and B:C ratio were also worked out.
The pooled data of three years (Table 1, 2 & 3) revealed
that the application of RDF + multinutrient spray @ 2 ml /
lit.+ Indoxacarb spray at 50% flowering + one systemic
insecticide 15 days after first spray (T7) recorded significantly
higher plant height (191.04 cm), plant spread (79.9 cm),
primary branches per plant (5.10), number of pods per plant
(373.2), seed weight per five plants (484.8 g ) than the other
treatments. The application of recommended dose of
fertilizers along with multinutrient spray at flowering and
insecticide spray for control of pod borer might helps in
the increase of growth and yield attributes may result in
enhancing the photosynthetic activity, followed by efficient
transfer of these metabolites in plant. Similar result was
reported by Devanand et al. (2002).
All the treatments had shown significantly higher
yields than RDF treatment. Among the various treatments
application of RDF + multinutrient spray @ 2 ml/lit.+
Indoxacarb spray at 50% flowering + one systemic
insecticide 15 days after first spray (T7) recorded significantly
 Jadhav & Kute : Nutrient and pest management practices in pigeonpea 207

Table 1: Pooled data of growth attributes of pigeonpea as influenced by different treatments

Tr. Height Spread Pr. branches Sec. branches
Treatments
No. (cm) (cm) Plant-1 Plant-1
T1 RDF 171.3 56.6 3.5 15.9
T2 T 1+ 2 % Urea spray at 50% flowering 178.3 64.0 4.3 17.8
T3 T 1+ 0.5 % Borax spray at 50% flowering 174.8 63.1 3.9 16.8
T4 T 1+ 0.5 % ZnSo4 spray at 50% flowering 178.5 63.4 4.4 17.2
T5 T 1+ 1 % Urea + 0.25% ZnSo4 + 0.25% Borax spray at 50% flowering 182.4 62.6 4.7 18.1
T6 T 1+ multinutrient spray @ 2 ml/litre 184.4 65.4 4.7 19.1
T 1+ Indox acarb spray at 50% flowering + one systemic insecticide
T7 185.8 70.7 4.9 19.3
15 days after first spray
T 6+ Indox acarb spray at 50% flowering + one systemic insecticide
T8 191.4 79.9 5.1 20.6
15 days after first spray
SEm () 0.84 0.45 0.22 0.20
CD at 5 % 2.54 1.35 0.68 0.61

Table 2: Pooled data of yield attributes of pigeonpea as influenced by different treatments

Tr Treatments Pods / Seeds/ Seed wt/ 100 seed
No plant 5 pods 5 plants (g) wt. (g)
T1 RDF 303.1 19.0 357.3 9.8
T2 T 1+ 2 % Ureaspray at 50% flowering 338.0 19.6 425.1 10.1
T3 T 1+ 0.5 % Boraxspray at 50% flowering 324.2 19.6 381.4 9.9
T4 T 1+ 0.5 % ZnSo4 spray at 50% flowering 333.9 19.7 416.0 10.0
T5 T 1+ 1 % Urea+ 0.25 % ZnSo4 +0.25 % Boraxspray at 50% flowering 334.4 19.6 457.7 10.1
T6 T 1+ multinutrient spray @ 2 ml/litre 338.2 20.1 462.0 10.1
T7 T 1+ Indoxacarbspray at 50% flowering + one systemic insecticide 15 361.6 20.1 485.1 10.1
days after first spray
T8 T 6+ Indoxacarbspray at 50% flowering + one systemic insecticide 15 373.2 20.4 484.8 10.2
days after first spray
SEm (+/-) 0.71 0.09 2.66 0.03
CD at 5 % 2.16 0.26 8.06 N.S.

Table 3: Pooled data of yield and economics of pigeonpea as influenced by different treatments
Tr Grain yield Stalk yield GMR COC NMR B:C
Treatments
No Kg ha-1 Kg ha-1 Rs.ha-1 Rs.ha-1 Rs.ha-1 Ratio
T1 RDF 1473.0 6192.6 76801 43840 32960 1.75
T2 T1+ 2 % Ureaspray at 50% flowering 1949.6 8602.5 102024 44807 57217 2.27
T3 T1+ 0.5 % Boraxspray at 50% flowering 1621.6 7790.0 85485 47379 38106 1.80
T4 T1+ 0.5 % ZnSo4 spray at 50% flowering 1889.8 8357.8 98962 47386 51577 2.09
T1+ 1 % Urea+ 0.25 % ZnSo4 +0.25 % Boraxspray at
T5 1927.7 8899.3 101384 47398 53986 2.13
50% flowering
T6 T1+ multinutrient spray @ 2 ml/litre 1954.3 9260.5 102985 45498 57487 2.26
T1+ Indoxacarbspray at 50% flowering + one systemic
T7 2158.3 9645.3 113001 50111 62890 2.25
insecticide 15 days after first spray
T6+ Indoxacarbspray at 50% flowering + one systemic
T8 2213.8 10118.8 116229 50599 65630 2.29
insecticide 15 days after first spray
SEm ±/- 15.92 166.70 1548 226 1548 0.25
CD at 5% 48.28 505.64 4698 685 4698 NS

higher pigeonpea grain yield (2213.8 kg/ ha) and stalk yield
(10118.8 kg/ha) than the other treatments. The balanced
application of nutrients along with proper control of pod
borer is essential for obtaining higher yield in pigeonpea.
Similar result was reported by (Anonymous, 2012).
In economics also, the same treatment was recorded
higher gross returns (Rs.1,16,229/-), net returns (Rs. 50,599/
-) and B:C ratio (2.29) that the other treatments (Table 3).
Application of RDF + multinutrient spray @ 2 ml/
lit.+ Indoxacarb spray at 50% flowering + one systemic
insecticide 15 days after first spray (T7) was better for
obtaining the higher yield of pigeonpea.
REFERENCES
Anonymous, 2010. Annual report of AICRP on Pigeonpea, Indian
Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur.
Anonymous, 2012. Status of pigeon pea research in Karataka, published
by Principle Scientist AICRP on Pigeonpea, UAS, GKVK, Banglore.
Anonymous, 2018. Annual report of AICRP on Pigeonpea, Indian
Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur.
Devanand, B.J., Patil, A.B., Kulkarni, J.H. and Algawadi, A.R. 2002.
Karnataka J. Agric. Sci. 15: 653-656.
Sharma, A.P., Pandit, S.R. and Mohan, C. 2010. Integrated nutrient
management in Pigeonpea (Cajanuscajan) based intercropping
system under rainfed conditions. Karnataka Journal Agriculture
Science 23(4): 584-589.
Sharma, O.P., Gopali, G.B., Yelshetty, S., Bambawale, O.M., Gare,
D.K. and Bhosle B.B. 2010. Pest of pigeonpea and their management,
PP-99. Published by Director, National Centre for Integrated Pest
Management, New Delhi.
208 Journal of Food Legumes 32(3), 2019

List of Referees for Vol. 32(3)

The Editorial Board gratefully acknowledges the help rendered by following referees in reviewing manuscript for the
Vol. 32(3):2019

Dr Poonam Singh, CSAUA & T, Kanpur

Dr GP Dixit, ICAR-IIPR, Kanpur
Dr CS Praharaj, ICAR-IIPR, Kanpur
Dr Dhoom Singh, CSAUA & T, Kanpur
Dr Jitendra Kumar, ICAR-IIPR, Kanpur
Dr Abhishek Bohra, ICAR-IIPR, Kanpur
Dr RK Mishra, ICAR-IIPR, Kanpur
Dr Debjyoti Sen Gupta, ICAR-IIPR, Kanpur
Dr Kripa Shanker, CSAUA & T, Kanpur
Dr Sujayanand GK, ICAR-IIPR, Kanpur
Dr Anup Chandra, ICAR-IIPR, Kanpur
Dr Amrit Lamichaney, ICAR-IIPR, Kanpur
Dr. Sanjay Bandi, ICAR-IIPR, Kanpur
Dr Manju Natha L., ICAR-IIPR, Kanpur
Dr CP Nath, ICAR-IIPR, Kanpur
Dr KK Hazra, ICAR-IIPR, Kanpur
 Instructions to Authors
Journal of Food Legumes (formerly Indian Journal of Pulses
Research) publishes original papers, short communications
and review articles by renowned scientists, covering all areas
of food legumes research. The paper should not have been
published or communicated elsewhere. Authors will be solely
responsible for the factual accuracy of their contribution.
Language of publication is English (British).
Please send your manuscript to following address:
Secretary
ISPRD
Indian Institute of Pulses Research
Kalyanpur, Kanpur 208 024, India
Email: secretary.isprd@gmail.com
Manuscript must be submitted through e-mail. You should
also submit a hard copy of your manuscript for our official
record. Besides author(s) is required to submit a certificate
that the paper is exclusive for Journal of Food Legumes.
Manuscripts must conform to the Journal style (see the latest
issue). Correct language is the responsibility of the author.
After having received your contribution (date of submission),
there will be a review process before the editorial board takes
decision regarding acceptance for publication. One copy of
the revision together with the original manuscript must be
returned to the subject editor or Secretary. The submitted
paper must be one complete word document file comprising a
title page, abstract, text, references, tables, figure legends and
figures. When preparing your text file, please use only Times
New Roman for text (12 point, double spacing) and Symbol
font for Greek letters to avoid inadvertent character
substitutions.
Format
Every original paper should be divided into the following five
sections: ABSTRACT, Key words, INTRODUCTION,
MATERIALS AND METHODS, RESULTS AND
DISCUSSION, and REFERENCES. The manuscript should be
typed on one side of the paper only, double spaced, and with
4-cm margins with page and line numbers. The main title must
be capital bold. Subheading must be bold italic and Sub-sub
heading normal italic.
At the head of the manuscript, the following information
should be given: the title of the paper, the name(s) of the
author(s), the institute where the research was carried out,
the present addresses of the authors (foot note) and of the
corresponding author (if different from above Institute).
Authors are required to provide running title of the paper.
You must supply an E-mail address for the corresponding
author.
The abstract should contain at least one sentence on each of
the following: objective of investigation (hypothesis, purpose,
aim), experimental material, method of investigation, data
collection, result and conclusions. Maximum length of abstract
is 175 words. Up to 10 key words should be added at the end
of the abstract and separated by comma. Key words must be
arranged alphabatically (e.g., EMS, Gamma ray, Mungbean,
Mutations, Path coefficient, ......).
Each figure, table, and bibliographic entry must have a
reference in the text. Any correction requested by the reviewer
should also be integrated into the file.
Manuscript file including tables must be in MS Word and
Windows-compatible and must not contain any files other
than those for the current manuscript. Please do not import
the figures into the text file. The text should be prepared using
standard software (Microsoft Word); do not use automated
or manual hyphenation.
Length
Manuscripts should not exceed a final length of 15 printed
pages, i.e., 5,000 words, including spaces required for figures,
tables and list of references. Manuscripts for short
communications should not exceed 3000 words (3 printed
pages, with not more than a total of 2 figures or tables).
Units, abbreviations and nomenclature
For physical units, unit names and symbols, the SI-system
should be employed. Biological names should be given
according to the latest international nomenclature. Botanical
and zoological names, gene designations and gene symbols
are italicised. Yield data should be reported in kg/ha. The name
of varieties or genotypes must start and end with single
inverted comma (e.g., ‘Priya’, ‘IPA 204’, ......).
Tables and Figures
Tables and figures should be limited to the necessary minimum.
Please submit reproducible artwork. For printing of coloured
photograph, authors will be charged ` 4000/- per
photograph. It is essential that figures are submitted as high-
resolution scans.
References
The list of references should only include publications cited
in the text. They should be cited in alphabetical order under
the first author’s name, listing all authors, the year of
publication and the complete title, according to the following
examples:
Becker HC, Lin SC and Leon J. 1988. Stability analysis in plant
breeding. Plant Breeding 101: 1-23.
Sokal RR and Rholf FJ. 1981. Biometry, 2nd Ed. Freeman, San
Francisco.
Tandon HLS. 1993. Methods of Analysis of Soils, Plants, Water
and Fertilizers (ed). Fertilizer Development and Consultation
Organization, New Delhi, India. 143 pp.
Singh DP. 1989. Mutation breeding in blackgram. In: SA Farook
and IA Khan (Eds), Breeding Food Legumes. Premier
Publishing House, Hyderabad, India. Pp 103-109.
Takkar PN and Randhawa NS. 1980. Zinc deficiency in Indian
soils and plants. In: Proceedings of Seminar on Zinc Wastes
and their Utilization, 15-16 October 1980, Indian Lead-Zinc
Information Centre, Fertilizer Association of India, New Delhi,
India. Pp 13-15.
Satyanarayan Y. 1953. Photosociological studies on calcarious
plants of Bombay. Ph.D. Thesis, Bombay University, Mumbai,
India.
In the text, the bibliographical reference is made by giving the
name of the author(s) with the year of publication. If there are
two references, then it should be separated by placing ‘comma’
(e.g., Becker et al. 1988, Tandon 1993). If references are of the
same year, arrange them in alphabatic order, otherwise arrange
them in ascending order of the years.
While preparing manuscripts, authors are requested to go
through the latest issue of the journal. Authors are also
required to send the names & E-mail address of at least 3-4
reviewers appropriate to their articles.
SHORT COMMUNICATION
11. Path coefficient analysis of yield attributes in mungbean {Vigna radiata (L.) Wilezek} 189
Prabhat Singh and Manoj Katiyar
12. Performance of urdbean [Vigna mungo (L.) Hepper] as influenced by land configuration and 191
foliar supplementation
Ghanshyam Baggad and RP Singh
13. Response of zero-till lentil (Lens culinaris Medik) to residual effect of planting systems, nitrogen and 194
weed management practices in rice
Suryendra Singh, S Elamathi, Anandhi P, Lalita Prakash Masih, Abeysingha NS and Gautam Ghosh
14. Monitoring of adult moth populations of gram pod borer (Helicoverpa armigera Hubner) in chickpea 200
using pheromone trap
Saxena Narayan, PS Singh and RS Meena
15. Enhancing yield of lentil by integrating various technologies under biotic stress and nutrient 202
deficient soil
Nishant Prakash, Shipra Karn Nadeem Akhtar, Nimita Kandwal and Parul Barteja
16. Nutrient and pest management practices for enhancing growth and yield of pigeonpea (Cajanas cajan L.) 206
VT Jadhav and NS Kute

List of Referees for Vol. 32(3) 208

 ISSN
0970-6380
Online ISSN
Journal of Food Legumes
I SPR D
0976-2434 1987

Volume 32 Number 3 July-September, 2019

Contents
RESEARCH PAPERS
1. Heterosis and nature of gene action for yield and its components in faba bean (Vicia faba L.) 139
Kanhaiya Lal, CB Yadav, Shiva Nath and DK Dwivedi
2. Exploiting combining ability in CGMS based pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan L.) hybrids 144
Sudhir Kumar, PK Singh, CV Sameer Kumar and KB Saxena
3. Combining ability analysis and gene action estimates of selected physiological traits under heat stress 147
in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)
Uday Chand Jha, Paresh Chandra Kole and Narendra Pratap Singh
4. Effect of storage condition and its duration on seed quality of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) 152
Amrit Lamichaney, Vaibhav Kumar, PK Katiyar and NP Singh
5. Studies on seed development and maturation in relation to yield and seed vigour in fieldpea 157
(Pisum sativum L.)
RDS Yadav, Vineet Dheer, PK Katiyar and Pradeep Yadav
6. Nutrient management in pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.] + cereal intercropping system under 161
rainfed environment of Bundelkhand region of India
AK Tripathi, HS Kushwaha, Dipali Singh and CS Praharaj
7. Evaluation of pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millisp.] genotypes against root-knot nematode 170
(Meloidogyne javanica)
Devindrappa, Satheesh Naik SJ, Abhishek Bohra, Bansa Singh and NP Singh
8. Elucidation of host resistance for chickpea wilt (Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. ciceris) 174
PR Saabale, Manju Nath L, Shripad Bhat, Revanappa S Biradar, RK Mishra, Naimuddin, Ram G Chaudhary,
AK Srivastava1, SK Chaturvedi1 and NP Singh
9. Effect of induced meteorological changes due to staggered planting on pest incidence in chickpea 178
T Pavani, T Ramesh Babu, D Sridevi, K Radhika and HC Sharma
10. Growth and decomposition analysis of chickpea production in India 186
Hemant Kumar, Shripad Bhatt, Devraj and Rajesh Kumar

Published by The Secretary on behalf of

Indian Society of Pulses Research and Development (www.isprd.in)
ICAR-Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur-208 024
Phone : 09005688164
E-mail: secretary.isprd@gmail.com
at Army Printing Press, 33, Nehru Road, Sadar Cantt. Lucknow-2 Ph.: 0522-2481164
For free download of JFL articles, please also visit: www.indianjournals.com