Journal of Crops Improvement

Current Issue

By Issue

By Author

By Subject

Author Index

Keyword Index

About Journal

Aims and Scope

Editorial Board

Publication Ethics

Indexing and Abstracting

Related Links

FAQ

Peer Review Process

Journal Metrics

News

Reviewers

Publons Membership and Review Guide

Instructions for removing the reviewers's name from the comments in Word

Evaluation of yield and physiological growth indices of mungbean genotypes to planting date

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Assistant Professor, Department of Seed Breeding, Agriculture and Natural Resource Research Center of Tehran province,Tehran, Iran

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, Varamin-Pishva Branch, Islamic Azad University, Varamin, Iran

3 M.Sc, Former Student, Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture, Shahr-e-rey Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahr-e-rey, Iran

Abstract

In order to study the effects of planting date and cultivar on yield, protein percentage and physiological growth indices of Mungbean an experiment was conducted in Agriculture and Natural Resource Research Center of Tehran province in 2011-12. Four mungbean [Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek] cultivars (‘Parto’, ‘Gohar’, ‘Mehr’ and a promising line ‘NM-94’) were sown at 3 dates with 30 days intervals starting from 21 April to 22 June to identify the suitable variety(s) and optimum sowing date for getting maximum yield of mungbean. The design was a split-plot replicated three times with sowing date as main plots and cultivar as sub-plots. Promising line ‘NM-94’ was ranked first in terms of seed yield (1797.4 kg ha-1) followed in order of ‘Gohar’ (1674.8 kg ha-1). The highest seed yield (1678.2 kg ha-1) was obtained from 22 June sowing date. Delayed sowing caused to decrease of growth period length from 92.9 (for 22 April) to 82.6 (for 22 June) that it resulted to a significant decrease of vegetative growth indices such as plant height and biological yield. The maximum LAI and CGR were obtained at a longer time and had more value for earlier sowing dates. The growth period length decreased for the last sowing date, but early entering to flowering stage increased grain filling portion from total growth period. Sowing date had not a significant effect on protein percentage, but this effect was significant for varieties. ‘NM-94’ line and 22 June were the best choices for south east region of Tehran province.
 
 
 

Keywords

References
 
1 . آبروش ع (1389) بررسی اثر تاریخ کاشت بر عملکرد و اجزای عملکرد ارقام ماش در شرایط آب‌و‌هوایی دزفول. فیزیولوژی گیاهان زراعی. 8: 33-26.
2 . احمدی ا (1387) تأثیر تاریخ کاشت و جهت ردیف­های کشت بر عملکرد کمی، کیفی و برخی ویژگی‌های ماش در منطقۀ شهرری. پایان‌نامۀ کارشناسی ارشد. دانشکده کشاورزی. دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد شهرری. 167 ص.
3 . ارکان­نژاد ع (1388) اثر تاریخ‌های کاشت بر عملکرد و اجزای عملکرد ارقام و لاین‌های امیدبخش ماش در منطقۀ ورامین، پایان­نامۀ کارشناسی ارشد. دانشکدۀ کشاورزی. دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد ورامین. 152 ص.
4 . حبیب‌زاده ی، مامقانی ر و کاشانی ع (1385) اثر تراکم بوته بر عملکرد دانه و خصوصیات مرفوفیزیولوژیک سه ژنوتیپ ماش در شرایط اهواز. علوم زراعی ایران. 8(1): 78-66.
5 . حسن­زاده ع (1370) ارزیابی اثرات تاریخ و تراکم کاشت بر درصد پروتئین، عملکرد و اجزای عملکرد ماش در منطقۀ اصفهان. پایان‌نامۀ کارشناسی ارشد. دانشگاه صنعتی اصفهان. 144 ص.
6 . صباغ­پور ح (1384) گزارش نهایی طرح بررسی و تعیین بهترین تراکم بوته و تاریخ کاشت رقم جدید نخود هاشم در استان گلستان. چکیدۀ مقالات هفتمین کنگره علوم زراعت و اصلاح نباتات ایران. کرج. مؤسسۀ تحقیقات اصلاح و تهیۀ نهال و بذر. 361 ص.
7 . عزیزی م، فرامرزی ع، عبدی ع م و اجلی ج (1384) بررسی اثر تاریخ‌های مختلف کاشت بر عملکرد و اجزای عملکرد چهار رقم سویا در منطقۀ میانه. دانش نوین کشاورزی. 2: 75.
8 . فراهانی‌پاد پ، پاک‌نژاد ف، فاضلی ف، ایلکایی م ن و داوودی فرد م (1391) اثر تاریخ کاشت بر مادۀ خشک و اجزای عملکرد چهار رقم سویا رشد نامحدود. زارعت و اصلاح نباتات. 8(1): 212-223.
9 . قوامی ف و رضایی ع م (1386) بررسی تنوع و ارتباط خصوصیات مرفولوژیکی و فنولوژیکی در ماش در تاریخ­های مختلف کاشت. علوم کشاورزی ایران. 31(1): 147.
10 . لطیفی ن و نواب­پور س (1379) واکنش شاخص­های رشد و عملکرد دو رقم لوبیای چیتی به فاصلۀ ردیف و تراکم بوته. علوم کشاورزی ایران. 31: 362-353.
11 . Afzal MA, Bashir MM, Luna NK, Bakr MA and Moynul Haque M (2003) Relationship between seed size, protein content and cooking time on mungbean seeds. Asian Journal of  Plant Science. 2(14): 1008-1009.
12 . Ahmad Khan K, Shad Khan AZ, Marwat KB and Afzal A (2008) The role of seed priming in semi-arid area for mungbean phenology and yield. Pakistan Journal of Botany. 40(6): 2471-2480.
13 . Ahmad Khan K and Shad Khan AZ (2010) Effect of leaf area on dry matter production in aerated mungbean seed. International Journal of Plant Physiology and Biochemistry. 2(4): 52-61.
14 . Ahmad R, Ikraam M, Ullah E and Mahmood A (2003) Influence of different fertilizer levels on the growth and productivity of three mungbean (Vigna radiata) cultivars. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology. 5(3): 335-338.
15 . Akbari N, Barani M and Ahmadi H (2008) Change of Grain Protein Content and Correlations with Other Characteristics under Planting Pattern and Starter N Fertilizer of Mungbean (Vigna radiata L. Wilczek). American-Eurasian Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Science. 4(3): 306-310.
16 . Board JE and Harville BG (1990) Branch dry weight in relation to yield increases in narrow-row soybean. Agronomy Journal. 82: 540-544.
17 . Bullock DG, Simmons FW, Chung IM and Johnson GI (2003) Growth analysis of corn grown with or without starter fertilizer. Crop Science. 33: 12-117.
18 . Dwyer LM, Stewart DM, Carrigan L, Ma BL, Neave P and Bichin D (1999) A general Thermal index for maize. Agronomy Journal. 91: 940-946.  
19 . Karimi MM and Siddique KH (1991) Crop growth and relative growth rate of old and modern wheat cultivars. Austoralian Journal. Pp. 213-222.
20 . Makeen K, Abrahim G, Jan A and Singh AK (2007) Genetic variability and correlations studies on yield and its components in mungbean. Journal of Agronomy. 6(1): 216-218.
21 . McKenzie RH, Middleton AB and Bremer E (2005) Fertilization, seeding date, and seeding rated for malting barley yield and quality in southern Alberta. Canadian Journal of Plant Science. 85: 603-614.
22 . Muchow RC and Edwards DA (1982) An analysis of the growth of mungbean at a range of plant densities in tropical Australia. Seed Production. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research. 33: 53-61.
23 . Naidu N, Grosoiah V, Satyanarayna A and Raja Rajeswari V (1993) Variation in developmental and morpho-physiological traits under different environments and their relation to grain yield of greengram [Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczk]. Indian Journal of Agricultural Science. 63(8): 473-478.
24 . Rosenthal WD, Gerik TJ, and Wad LJ (2004) Radiation– use efficiency among grain sorghum cultivars and plant densities. Agronomy Journal. 85: 703-705.
25 . Sadeghipour O (2008) Response of mungbean varieties to different sowing dates. Pakistan Journal of Biological Science. 11: 2048-2050.
26 . Sarkar AR, Kabir H and Mahfuza B (2004) Yield Performance of Mungbean as Affected by Planting Date, Variety and Plant Density. Journal of Agronomy. 3(1): 8-24.
27 . Sinclair TR (2004) Increasing yield potential of legume crops – similarities and contrasts with cereals. 4th International Crop Science Congress. Brisbane. Pp. 204-213.
28 . Summerfield RG, Wien HC and Minchin FR (1997) Integrated field and glass house screening for environmental sensitivity in cowpea. Experimental Agriculture. 12: 241-248.
 
 
Journal of Crops Improvement
Volume 17, Issue 4 - Serial Number 4
January 2016
Pages 953-966
Files
Share
How to cite
Statistics