The Journal of Research ANGRAU

More documents

Recommendations

Info

AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF BLACKGRAM IN GULBARGA Table 3 Regression estimates of determinants of profit margin for blackgram Y= Profit margin per quintal of blackgram Variables Coefficients Standard Error t Stat Intercept Operating cost of production Fixed cost of production 455.30* 176.86 2.57 -0.72** 0.10 -6.85 0.02 0.27 0.06 Marketing cost -5.66 ++ 2.62 -2.16 Market price of the produce 0.74** 0.09 8.01 Education level 455.30 176.86 2.57 F value 27.61 R 2 0.92 Adj. R 2 0.89 N 18 ++ Significant at 5 % level, * Significant at 5 % level, ** Significant at 1 % level Note: Operating cost and fixed costs of production includes total of all components REFERENCES Banerjee, Gangadhar and Palke, L. M. 2010. Economics of Pulses Production and Processing of India. National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development. Occasional Paper - 51 Govind Pal. 2002. Marketing of gram in Block Shahabganj; district Chandauli, Uttar Pradesh (an economic analysis). Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics. 57(3): 388 78
Research Notes J.Res. ANGRAU 41(1) 74-78, 2013 GENE ACTION AND COMBINING ABILITY STUDIES IN CHICKPEA (Cicer arietinum L.) B. REDDY YAMINI, V. JAYALAKSHMI, B. NARENDRA and P. UMAMAHESHWARI Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding, Agricultural College, Acharya N.G.Ranga Agricultural University, Mahanandi -518 503 Date of Receipt : 07.06.2012 Date of Acceptance : 26.12.2012 Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) 2n=2x=16, is the third most important food legume globally, occupying an area of 11.55 m ha with a production of 10.46 m t (FAO STAT 2010). India is the largest producer of chickpea in the world sharing about 72% of area and production globally and accounts for about 30% and 38% of national pulse acreage and production respectively. Though India is the largest producer of chickpea, the productivity is low (943 kg/ha) compared to other chickpea producing countries viz., Mexico (1809 kg/ha), Australia (1268 kg/ha) and Ethiopia (1265 kg/ha) and the production is not adequate to meet the domestic demand. Consequently India is importing chickpeas every year. Hence, there is every need to to improve the productivity potential of chickpea through appropriate breeding strategies. Choice of an appropriate breeding procedure for improving a trait depends mainly on the nature of gene action involved in the inheritance of the character, thus, emphasizing the importance of genetic analysis for yield and its components. In the present investigation, an attempt has been made to assess the nature of gene effects for yield and its component characters following the diallel analyses, so as to design breeding strategies for improvement of chickpea yield potential. The experimental material consisted of seven parents and also twenty-one F 1 s, derived from seven parental genotypes viz., NBeG-3, JG-11, ICCV 05106, MNK-1, ICCV 95333, KAK-2 and Vihar, crossed in diallel fashion excluding reciprocals. The experimental material was sown in a Randomized Block Design with three replications during Rabi 2011- 12. Data were recorded on five competitive randomly selected plants per replication from each treatment for seven characters viz., days to 50 per cent flowering, days to maturity, plant height, number of branches per plant, number of pods per plant, seed yield per plant and 100-seed weight. Data is subjected to combining ability analysis according to Model I and Method II of Griffing (1956). The analysis of variance revealed significant differences among the treatments for all the seven traits indicating considerable amount of variability thus justifying the use of material under study. Analysis of variance for combining ability (Table 1) revealed significant general combining ability (gca) and specific combining ability (sca) for all the characters studied, indicating the importance of both additive as well as non additive genetic components of variation in the expression of these attributes. Importance of both types of gene effects has been observed earlier in chickpea for seed yield and related attributes by Preethi Verma and Waldia (2010), Bharadwaj et al (2009) and Patil et al (2006). However, variance components indicated that the magnitude of the non additive (sca) variance was considerably higher than additive (gca) variance for all the characters except plant height and 100 seed weight, indicating the preponderance of non additive genetic effects (dominance and epistasis) in controlling the expression of these characters. The predominance of non additive gene action was reported by Sarode et al. (2001) for days to 50 per cent flowering and days to maturity; Bhardwaj and Sandhu (2009) for number of branches per plant, number of pods per plant and seed yield per plant. Gupta et al. (2007) reported the importance of additive gene action in inheritance of plant height and 100 seed weight. The estimates of gca effects (Table 2) indicated that parents NBeG-3, JG-11, ICCV 05106 and Vihar were good general combiners for number of pods per plant, where as NBeG-3 and JG-11 showed significantly higher gca effects for number of branches per plant. With regard to phenological email: reddyyamini56@gmail.com 79
Page 1 and 2:
1
Page 3 and 4:
CONTENTS PART I : PLANT SCIENCE Eff
Page 5 and 6:
J.Res. ANGRAU 41(1) 1-4, 2013 EFFEC
Page 7 and 8:
EFFECT OF FOLIAR APPLICATION OF NPK
Page 9 and 10:
J.Res. ANGRAU 41(1) 5-13, 2013 NUTR
Page 11 and 12:
NUTRIENT UPTAKE BY RICE CROP UNDER
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
LAKSHMI et al Fig 1. Changes in C/N
Page 21 and 22:
LAKSHMI et al Changes in C/N ratio
Page 23 and 24:
LAKSHMI et al Table 3. Changes in h
Page 25 and 26:
J.Res. ANGRAU 41(1) 20-29, 2013 INF
Page 27 and 28: PRASAD and PRASADINI of bulk densit
Page 29 and 30: PRASAD and PRASADINI to as high as
Page 31 and 32: PRASAD and PRASADINI Table 4 . Infl
Page 33 and 34: PRASAD and PRASADINI Table 8. Influ
Page 35 and 36: J.Res. ANGRAU 41(1) 30-38, 2013 GEN
Page 37 and 38: VEMANNA et al The range in mean val
Page 39 and 40: VEMANNA et al grain yield per plant
Page 41 and 42: VEMANNA et al 41
Page 43 and 44: VEMANNA et al Singh, S. P and Khan,
Page 45 and 46: RAMANA et al RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Page 47 and 48: J.Res. ANGRAU 41(1) 42-46, 2013 A S
Page 49 and 50: RAJANNA et. al. Table 2. Reasons fo
Page 51 and 52: RAJANNA et al the present findings
Page 53 and 54: NARASIMHA et al Table 1. Proximate
Page 55 and 56: NARASIMHA et al Maynard, L., Lossli
Page 57 and 58: RAMANA et al with small follicles m
Page 59 and 60: RAMANA et al Characteristics of fol
Page 61 and 62: Research Notes J.Res. ANGRAU 41(1)
Page 63 and 64: KIRTHY et al Akhtar et al., 2008; S
Page 65 and 66: KIRTHY et al El Gharras H. 2009. Po
Page 67 and 68: SANDYARANI et al Weed parameters li
Page 69 and 70: SANDYARANI et al Table 2. Influence
Page 73 and 74: KUMAR et al Table 2. Effect of seed
Page 77: DEEPAK et al Table 2 Price spread a
Page 81 and 82: YAMINI et al Table 3. Estimates of
Page 83 and 84: YAMINI et al coupled with high per
Page 85 and 86: LOKESH et al Table 1. Clustering pa
Page 87 and 88: LOKESH et al Table 4. Mean values o
Page 89 and 90: ABIRAMI et al Socio-economic Impact
Page 91 and 92: ABIRAMI et al socio-economic impact
Page 95 and 96: VEMANNA et al Table 1. Discriminant
Page 97 and 98: VEMANNA et al total biomass, fresh
Page 99 and 100: RAO et al Table 1. Plant height, nu
Page 103 and 104: DEVI et al S.No Category Frequency
Page 105 and 106: DEVI et al extension contact and ma
Page 107 and 108: NIRMALA and VASANTHA earliness in a
Page 109 and 110: NIRMALA and VASANTHA adopted this t
Page 111 and 112: SUDHARANI et al Table 1. Genotypic
Page 113 and 114: SUDHARANI et al At genotypic level,
Page 115 and 116: NIRMALA et al weight of pods per pl
Page 117 and 118: NIRMALA et al Table 3. Cluster mean
Page 123 and 124: PUNYAVATHI and VIJAYALAKSHMI 6.5 6.
Page 125 and 126: PUNYAVATHI and VIJAYALAKSHMI REFERE
Page 127 and 128: KATTEL et al Table 1. Item Analysis
Page 129 and 130:
Research Notes J.Res. ANGRAU 41(1)
Page 131 and 132:
RADHIKA et al Thus, the results of
Page 133 and 134:
RAJU et al estimated daily dietary
Page 135 and 136:
RAJU et al Table 3. Physico-chemica
Page 137 and 138:
Research Notes J.Res. ANGRAU 41(1)
Page 139 and 140:
MINNIE et al Table 2. Estimates of
Page 141 and 142:
Statement about ownership and other
Page 143 and 144:
GUIDELINES FOR THE PREPARATION OF M
Page 145:
ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSIDER
show all

The Journal of Research ANGRAU

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?