Introduction
Mungbean (Vigna radiata L.) is an important
annual, herbaceous and leguminous primordial plant belongs to family Fabaceae
grown as a spring and summer crop in tropical and subtropical areas of the
world (Miklas and Singh 2007; Chauhan et
al. 2010). The genus Vigna has been extended to include about 150 species;
among which 22 are native to India and 16 to Southeast Asia and remaining
species are originated in Africa (Aditya and Jitendra 2011). India is the
primary gene center of diversity and probable center of domestication of
mungbean (Nassar 2003).
Potential
yield of mungbean can be achieved through optimum use of inputs and agronomic
practices. Besides other inputs, planting dates and improved cultivars are of
primary importance (Ali and Gupta 2012). Singh et al. (2010) suggested
that planting date is the most important non-monetary input to obtain optimum
yield from mungbean. Similarly, Sadeghipour (2008) and Miah et al. (2009)
stated that too early sowing may result in poor germination and poor plant
stands, while yield from very late sown crop may be low due to unfavorable
agro-climatic conditions for the growth and development of mungbean.
Selection
of superior genotypes possessing better heritability and genetic advance for
various traits is the pre-requisite for achieving the maximum mungbean
productivity. The yield can be increased to a greater extent by identifying
high yielding cultivars and suitable planting date (Singh et al. 2010; Ali and Gupta 2012; (Hussain et al. 2012a, b).). Similarly, Naveed et al. (2015) indicated that optimum planting date is an important
factor for achieving improved mungbean production in different agro-ecological
zones of the world. In Pakistan the mostly the farmers of rainfed areas
cultivate the mungbean for achieving the maximum yield. A good number of high
yielding mungbean cultivars are available now in Pakistan but, farmers
generally grow the local cultivars using minimum nutrients application and they
rarely maintain the optimum planting time. Moreover, due to low income per unit
of resources invested farmers are losing interest in producing mungbean.
Therefore, attention should be given to increasing yield through selection of
suitable cultivars and adoption of improved cultural practices for establishing
mungbean as a profitable crop.
Delayed
planting reduced the number of pods per plant and test weight of mungbean. The denaturation and/or aggregation of proteins with
concomitant increase in fluidity of cell membrane lipids are the direct harms
caused by temperature due to delayed planting (Howarth 2005). Although,
interaction of planting time and mungbean cultivars has already been
documented, however information regarding germination, seedling growth
including physiological and yield attributes of available mungbean cultivar(s)
at various planting time need to be explored. Therefore, this study was
conducted with the hypothesis that delayed planting had negative effect on
germination, growth, gas exchange traits and yield related traits of mungbean; however,
the different cultivars might behave differently due to their divergent genetic
makeup.
Materials and Methods
Experimental
site and climate
This wire house study was executed at
experimental area of Institute of Agricultural Sciences, University of the
Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan. The experimental site is in subtropical climate
region, with mean temperatures ranging from 6°C to 30°C in winter and from 27°C
to 45°C in summer. The average annual rainfall is around 300 mm, half of which
is recorded between July and August as monsoons; and the weather data during
the growth period is given in Fig. 1.
Experimental
Details
Seeds of 20 mungbean cultivars
(MGP-17, DM-D4, C5/95-3-31, C6/95-3-8, 5-63-94, TM-1407, MGP-01, NM-11, MGP-41,
5-63-1, MGP-16, NM20-21, MUNG-88, NM-121-25, RAMZAN, NM-2016, NM-19-19, 1099,
NM-51 and NM13-1) were collected from Plant Genetic Resource Institute (PGRI),
National Agricultural Research Centre (NARC), Islamabad, Pakistan. Twenty above
mentioned mungbean cultivars were sown on July 01 and on August 01, 2017. This
experiment was planned in completely randomized design (CRD) with factorial
arrangement with three replications.
Crop
management
The planned trial was conducted in 9 L
pots having dimensions (45 cm × 30 cm diameter) allocating three pots for each
treatment. Each pot was filled with 7 kg sand as growth media. The crop was
sown on 1st July and 1st August, 2017 using ten seeds per
pot. After seed germination, five seedlings of equal size were maintained per
pot. Plants were fed with essential nutrients by supplying Hoagland’s nutrient
solution (full strength) after germination. After 10 days nutrient solution was
changed and was continued until maturity. Irrigation was applied as per
requirement of crop and hand weeding was done to avoid weed crop competation.
Mature crop was harvested on Oct 12 and Nov 15, 2017.
Observations,
Measurements and Data Analysis
%20742-750_files/image002.png)
Fig. 1:
Weather data during the crop growth cycle
Stand
Establishement: Data for the stand
establishment was calculated and the seedlings were counted daily after
emergence to determine stand establishment traits by using Handbook AOSA
(1990).
The
mean emergence time was computed by using the formula given by Ellis and Robert
(1981);
%20742-750_files/image004.png){kind=small}
Where, n = Seedlings emerged on day D;
D = Days from initiation of the emergence.
Germination index was determined using the formula of
Association of Official Seed Analyst (1990).
%20742-750_files/image006.png){kind=small}
While the emergence percentage of
final count was computed as a ratio of the seedlings emerged to the total seeds
sown and expressed in percentage.
Growth
attributes
At the end of
experiment, 90 days after sowing (DAS) the shoot length and root length of
selected plants was measured using measuring scale and expressed in cm. Shoot
fresh weight and root fresh weight of selected plants was weighed with electric
weighing balance after separating roots and shoots then expressed in gram (g).
While for the dry weights shoots and roots of all selected plants were dried in
oven at 70oC, expressed in grams (g). Leaves of the selected mungbean
plants were counted from each pot and the average was taken. Leaves of three
selected plant from all replications were detached and the leaf area was
determined with digital leaf area meter. After pulling out the selected plants
from the sand, number of nodules were counted and then averaged.
Physiological
attributes
Stomatal conductance (gs), sub-stomatal CO2
concentration (Ci), photosynthetic
rate (A), transpiration rate
(E) and leaf
temperature was measured on the 45 DAS on fully expanded upper most leaves with
portable photosynthesis system (Infra-Red Gas Analyzer) at light saturating
intensity between 9:00am to 12:00 noon while water use efficiency was
calculated by applying the formula (A/E), while the SPAD chlorophyll values
were measured by SPAD 502 Plus Chlorophyll Meter.
Yield
attributes
All the yield attributes such as pods
per plant, length of pod, grains per pod and 1000 grains weight were measured
by taking three randomly selected plants of each pot following the protocols of
Haider et al. (2020).
Statistical
analysis
Data were analysed using software Statistix 8.1
(Analytical Computer Software, Statistix 8.1; Tallahassee, F.L., Table 1: Effect of planting
dates on germination attributes of mungbean cultivars
|
Treatments |
MGT (Days) |
GI |
FGP (%) |
|
Planting dates (PD) |
|||
|
July 01 |
5.25 A |
4.20 A |
81.78 A |
|
August 01 |
5.15 B |
4.07 B |
75.78 B |
|
HSD value at
p≤0.01 |
0.02 |
0.10 |
0.03 |
|
Mungbean cultivars
(C) |
|||
|
MGP-17 |
5.37 GH |
4.01 |
79.98 E |
|
DM-D4 |
4.56 Q |
2.48 |
71.99 L |
|
C5/95-3-31 |
4.78 MN |
2.82 |
73.99 J |
|
C6/95-3-8 |
4.71 NO |
2.68 |
73.99 J |
|
5-63-94 |
4.66 OP |
2.57 |
72.98 K |
|
TM-1407 |
4.61 PQ |
2.39 |
71.99 L |
|
MGP-01 |
5.30 HI |
3.88 |
78.98 F |
|
NM-11 |
5.45 FG |
4.16 |
79.99 E |
|
MGP-41 |
5.26 IJ |
3.74 |
78.98 F |
|
5-63-1 |
4.85 LM |
2.93 |
75.92 I |
|
MGP-16 |
5.22 IJ |
3.63 |
77.96 G |
|
NM20-21 |
5.52 EF |
4.30 |
81.97 D |
|
MUNG-88 |
4.92 L |
3.05 |
75.99 I |
|
NM-121-25 |
5.83 A |
4.89 |
87.00 A |
|
RAMZAN |
5.17 JK |
3.48 |
76.99 H |
|
NM-2016 |
5.78 AB |
4.73 |
86.99 A |
|
NM-19-19 |
5.70 BC |
4.69 |
84.98 B |
|
1099 |
5.10 K |
3.23 |
76.98 H |
|
NM-51 |
5.64 CD |
4.55 |
84.02 C |
|
NM13-1 |
5.57 DE |
4.43 |
84.01 C |
|
HSD value at
p≤ 0.01 |
0.09 |
0.09 |
0.20 |
|
Significance Level
(PD) |
** |
** |
** |
|
Significance Level
(C) |
** |
NS |
** |
|
Significance Level
(PD × C) |
NS |
NS |
NS |
Means
following same letters, within a column, are not statistically different from
each other at p≤ 0.01 according to HSD test
MGT= Mean
germination time; GI= Germination index; FGP= Final germination percentage; NS=
non-significant; **= significant at p≤ 0.01
U.S.A., 1985–2003) following two-way ANOVA under CRD with
factorial arrangement. In case of significance, Highest Significance Difference
(HSD) test at 1% probability level was used to seprate treatments means (Steel et al. 1997).
Results
Germination and seedling growth attributes
Various planting dates and mungbean cultivars showed
significant variation (p≤0.01)
for mean germination time, germination index and final germination percentage
(Table 1). Both the factors exhibited significant results except for cultivars
in germination index, while the interactive effect of PD × C was
non-significant for germination attributes. For planting dates, reduction in
mean germination time (1.94%), germination index (3.09%) and final germination
percentage (7.33%) was observed when mungbean cultivars were sown on 1st
July as compared to August sowing. Among mungbean cultivars, maximum mean
germination time (5.83 days) and final germination percentage (87.00%) was
observed in NM-121-25 followed by in NM-2016 and NM-19-19 which are
statistically similar with each other. While minimum mean germination time
(4.61 days) and final germination percentage (71.99) was observed in TM-1407.
Planting dates
and mungbean cultivars had significant variation (p≤0.01) for seedling growth attributes (Table 2) except for
number of leaves for planting dates effects and number of nodules for mungbean
cultivars had non-significant effects. However, the interactions for all the
growth attributes were non-significant. Delayed planting (1st
August) significantly impaired the growth of entire mung bean cultivars.
Reduction in shoot length (14.87%), Table 2: Effect of
planting dates on growth attributes of mungbean cultivars
|
Treatments |
Shoot
length (cm) |
Root
length (cm) |
Number of
leaves plant-1 |
Shoot DW
(g plant-1) |
Root DW
(g plant-1) |
Number of
nodules plant-1 |
LA (cm2
plant-1) |
|
Planting dates (PD) |
|
||||||
|
July 01 |
51.76 A |
31.74 A |
8.68 A |
6.41 A |
2.42 A |
7.68 |
131.26 A |
|
August 01 |
44.06 B |
24.34 B |
6.68 B |
5.86 B |
2.10 B |
6.68 |
123.72 B |
|
HSD value at p≤ 0.01 |
0.17 |
0.16 |
1.30 |
0.01 |
0.01 |
NS |
0.01 |
|
Mungbean cultivars (C) |
|
||||||
|
MGP-17 |
49.71 GH |
29.66 GH |
8.66 |
6.47 H |
2.50 E |
6.83 AB |
134.68 G |
|
DM-D4 |
41.95 R |
21.93 QR |
4.66 |
4.81 R |
1.64 N |
4.16 AB |
106.05 R |
|
C5/95-3-31 |
44.48 OP |
24.56 O |
6.33 |
5.34 O |
1.80 KL |
5.83 AB |
112.47 O |
|
C6/95-3-8 |
43.55 PQ |
22.66 OP |
7.33 |
5.18 P |
1.75 LM |
5.16 AB |
110.61 P |
|
5-63-94 |
42.91 QR |
22.73 PQ |
7.00 |
4.93 Q |
1.69 MN |
3.50AB |
107.73 Q |
|
TM-1407 |
40.58 S |
21.03 R |
5.33 |
4.61 S |
1.55 O |
2.83 B |
102.90 S |
|
MGP-01 |
49.01 HI |
30.96 HI |
8.33 |
6.34 I |
2.38 F |
8.16 AB |
131.79 H |
|
NM-11 |
50.28 FG |
30.46 FG |
9.00 |
6.57 G |
2.63 D |
7.83 AB |
136.91 F |
|
MGP-41 |
48.35 IJ |
28.33 IJ |
6.33 |
6.23 J |
2.24 G |
7.50 AB |
129.79 I |
|
5-63-1 |
45.11 KL |
25.56 N |
6.66 |
5.57 N |
1.84 JK |
7.83 AB |
115.56 N |
|
MGP-16 |
47.58 JK |
27.70 JK |
6.33 |
6.15 J |
2.18 G |
6.50 AB |
126.95 J |
|
NM20-21 |
50.91 EF |
31.13 EF |
9.33 |
6.72 F |
2.68 D |
8.83 AB |
139.70 E |
|
MUNG-88 |
45.78 MN |
26.03 MN |
6.66 |
5.71 M |
1.90 IJ |
5.83 AB |
118.77 M |
|
NM-121-25 |
54.28 A |
34.46 A |
11.00 |
7.57 A |
2.98 A |
11.16 A |
148.31 A |
|
RAMZAN |
47.11 KL |
27.00 JK |
6.66 |
6.02 K |
2.04 H |
5.50 AB |
124.11 K |
|
NM-2016 |
53.68 AB |
33.70 AB |
11.00 |
7.47 B |
2.94 AB |
10.83 A |
148.24 A |
|
NM-19-19 |
52.98 BC |
33.13 BC |
10.33 |
7.24 C |
2.89 AB |
9.50 AB |
146.99 B |
|
1099 |
46.35 LM |
26.60 LM |
6.66 |
5.87 L |
1.95 HI |
7.16 AB |
120.49 L |
|
NM-51 |
52.25 CD |
32.36 CD |
8.33 |
7.09 D |
2.85 BC |
9.83 AB |
144.58 C |
|
NM13-1 |
51.38 DE |
31.13 73 DE |
7.66 |
6.89 E |
2.79 C |
8.83 AB |
143.20 D |
|
HSD value at p≤ 0.01 |
1.01 |
0.94 |
NS |
0.09 |
0.09 |
7.89 |
0.08 |
|
Significance Level (PD) |
** |
** |
** |
** |
** |
NS |
** |
|
Significance Level (C) |
** |
** |
NS |
** |
** |
** |
** |
|
Significance Level (PD × C) |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
Means
following same letters, within a column, are not statistically different from
each other at p≤ 0.01 according to HSD test
DW = Dry weight; LA = Leaf area
root
length (23.31%), number of leaves (23.04%), shoot dry weight (8.58%), root dry
weight (13.22%) and leaf area (5.74%) was observed when mungbean cultivars were
sown in the month of August. For mungbean cultivars, maximum shoot length
(54.28 cm), root length (34.46 cm), shoot dry weight (7.57 g), root dry weight
(2.98 g), leaf area (148.31 cm2) and number of nodules (11.16) was
observed in NM-121-25 followed by in NM-2016 and NM-19-19 respectively. While
minimum shoot length (40.58 cm), root length (21.03 cm), shoot dry weight (4.61
g), root dry weight (1.55 g), leaf area (102.90 cm2) and number of
nodules (2.83) was noticed in TM-1407 (40.58 cm) (Table 2).
Gas exchange
attributes and SPAD-chlorophyll values
Different planting dates and mungbean cultivars showed
significant variation (p≤0.01)
for gas exchange attributes, leaf temperature, water use efficiency and SPAD
chlorophyll values (Table 3). Interestingly, the interactive effects were
non-significant for all the attributes except the SPAD chlorophyll values.
Reduction in photosynthetic rate (15.71%), transpiration rate (17.09%),
sub-stomatal CO2 concentration (2.38%), stomatal conductance to
water (30.55%), water use efficiency (3.28%), SPAD chlorophyll contents (7.42%)
and increase in leaf temperature (6.76%) was observed in when mungbean
cultivars were sown in the month of August. For mungbean cultivars maximum
photosynthetic rate (37.65 µmol mm-2 s-1), transpiration
rate (1.30 mmol m-2 s-1), sub-stomatal CO2
concentration (312.21 vpm), stomatal conductance to water (0.41 mmol m-2 s-1),
leaf temperature (38.45°C) in DM-D4, water use efficiency (3.91 kg/ha mm-1)
and SPAD chlorophyll contents (43.94) was observed in NM-121-25 followed by in
NM-2016 and NM-19-19 respectively. While minimum photosynthetic rate (30.45
µmol mm-2 s-1), transpiration rate (0.84 mmol m-2 s-1),
sub-stomatal CO2 concentration (237.12 vpm), stomatal conductance to
water (0.21 mmol m-2 s-1), leaf temperature (35.00°C) in
NM-121-25, water use efficiency (1.90 kg/ha mm-1) and SPAD
chlorophyll contents (29.96) was noticed in TM-1407 (30.45 µmol mm-2 s-1).
While about the interactive effect of PD × C maximum SPAD chlorophyll contents
(58.35) were observed in NM-121-25 followed by in NM-2016 (58.00) was observed
in PD1 when mungbean cultivars were sown on 1st July, while
minimum SPAD chlorophyll contents were noticed in PD2 (49.18) where
mungbean cultivars (TM-1407) were sown on 1st August (Fig. 2).
Yield attributes
Table 3: Effect of planting
dates on physiological attributes of mungbean cultivars
|
Treatments |
PR (µmol
mm-2 s-1) |
TR
(mmol
m-2 s-1) |
Ci (vpm) |
SCW
(mmol
mm-2 s-1) |
LT
(°C) |
WUE
(kg
ha-1 mm-1) |
SPAD
CC |
|
Planting dates (PD) |
|||||||
|
July 01 |
35.77 A |
1.17 A |
271.67 A |
0.36 A |
38.45 B |
2.74 A |
37.73 A |
|
August 01 |
30.15 B |
0.97 B |
265.18 B |
0.25 B |
41.05 A |
2.65 B |
34.93 B |
|
HSD value at p≤ 0.01 |
0.01 |
0.01 |
0.01 |
0.01 |
1.29 |
0.01 |
0.01 |
|
Mungbean cultivars
(C) |
|||||||
|
MGP-17 |
33.52 H |
1.10 D-F |
280.30 H |
0.32 B-E |
40.83 A-C |
2.83 H |
36.94 H |
|
DM-D4 |
30.63 S |
0.88 KL |
239.64 S |
0.22 G |
43.83 A |
1.95 PQ |
30.12 R |
|
C5/95-3-31 |
31.23 P |
0.97 H-J |
244.12 P |
0.23 G |
40.16 AB |
2.13 MN |
32.74 O |
|
C6/95-3-8 |
31.00 Q |
0.94 I-K |
242.25 Q |
0.22 G |
39.83 A-C |
2.06 NO |
32.60 P |
|
5-63-94 |
30.84 R |
0.91 J-L |
240.36 R |
0.21 G |
43.16 AB |
2.00 OP |
30.38 Q |
|
TM-1407 |
30.45 T |
0.84 L |
237.12 T |
0.21 G |
43.16 AB |
1.90 Q |
29.96 S |
|
MGP-01 |
32.96 I |
1.07 E-G |
271.38 I |
0.34 A-D |
40.50 A-C |
2.70 I |
36.60 I |
|
NM-11 |
33.85 G |
1.14 C-E |
282.03 G |
0.34 A-D |
40.83 A-C |
2.95 G |
37.37 G |
|
MGP-41 |
32.63 J |
1.06 E-G |
266.34 J |
0.32 B-E |
40.83 A-C |
2.57 J |
35.41 J |
|
5-63-1 |
31.40 O |
1.00 G-J |
245.50 O |
0.23 FG |
42.83 AB |
2.21 M |
32.80 O |
|
MGP-16 |
32.19 K |
1.04 F-H |
261.56 K |
0.31 B-E |
41.50 A-C |
2.50 JK |
35.10 K |
|
NM20-21 |
34.00 F |
1.16 CD |
284.51 F |
0.35 A-C |
39.50 A-C |
3.11 F |
40.23 F |
|
MUNG-88 |
31.58 N |
1.02 F-I |
248.95 N |
0.25 E-G |
36.16 BC |
2.21 M |
32.99 N |
|
NM-121-25 |
37.65 A |
1.30 A |
312.21 A |
0.41 A |
35.00 C |
3.91 A |
43.94 A |
|
RAMZAN |
31.91 L |
1.01 G-I |
257.28 L |
0.30 C-F |
36.66 A-C |
2.42K |
34.60 L |
|
NM-2016 |
36.86 B |
1.27 AB |
309.53 B |
0.39 AB |
36.50 A-C |
3.77 B |
43.79 B |
|
NM-19-19 |
35.91 C |
1.25 AB |
304.42 C |
0.36 A-C |
36.83 A-C |
3.66 C |
43.60 C |
|
1099 |
31.78 M |
0.99 G-J |
253.26 M |
0.27 D-G |
39.83 A-C |
2.32 L |
33.21 M |
|
NM-51 |
34.57 D |
1.21 BC |
296.58 D |
0.36 A-C |
38.83 A-C |
3.45 D |
42.34 D |
|
NM13-1 |
34.57 E |
1.19 BC |
291.15 E |
0.35 A-C |
38.16 A-C |
3.30 E |
41.97 E |
|
HSD value at p≤ 0.01 |
0.07 |
0.08 |
0.08 |
0.07 |
7.52 |
0.08 |
0.08 |
|
Significance Level
(PD) |
** |
** |
** |
** |
** |
** |
** |
|
Significance Level
(C) |
** |
** |
** |
** |
** |
** |
** |
|
Significance Level
(PD × C) |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
NS |
** |
Means
following same letters, within a column, are not statistically different from
each other at p≤ 0.01 according to HSD test
PR = Photosynthetic
rate; TR = Transpiration rate; Ci =
Sub-stomatal CO2 concentration; SCW = Stomatal conductance to water;
LT = Leaf temperature; WUE = Water use efficiency; SPAD CC = SPAD chlorophyll
contents
%20742-750_files/image008.png)
Fig. 2: Interactive effect
of planting time and mungbean cultivars on SPAD chlorophyll contents of
mungbean
Optimum sowing= July 01; Late sowing= August 01
Both the factors planting dates and mungbean cultivars
exhibited statistically significant effects for morphological attributes except
for mungbean cultivars in grains per pod and pods per plant for sowing dates
while the interactive effect of PD × C also had non-significant response for
all yield attributes except for the 1000-grains weight. Reduction in pod length
(6.03%), grains per pod (28.80%) and 1000 grains weight (7.56%) was observed in
when mungbean cultivars were sown in the month of August. For mungbean
cultivars maximum number of pods per plant (25.83), pod length (11.58 cm) and
1000 grains weight (56.47 g) were observed in NM-121-25 followed by in NM-2016
and NM-19-19. While minimum number of pods per plant (10.16), pod length (5.81
cm) and 1000 grains weight (47.30 g) were noticed in TM-1407. Among the
interactions, maximum 1000 grains weight was observed in NM-121-25 followed by
in NM-2016 was observed in PD1 when mungbean cultivars were sown on
1st July, while minimum 1000 grains weight was noticed in PD2
where mungbean cultivars (TM-1407) were sown on 1st August (Fig. 3).
Discussion
%20742-750_files/image010.png)
Selection of
superior parents is a prerequisite for any yield improvement program (Ahmad et
al. 2008). Planting time, a non-monetary input, is the single most
important factor to obtain optimum yield from mungbean (Sadeghipour 2008; Sarwar et al. 2019). So,
determination of optimum planting time for mungbean is inevitable. Best time of
planting of mungbean may vary from variety to variety and season to season due
to variation in agroecological conditions (Ramakrishna et al. 2000; Reddy
2009). Delayed sowing reduces yield of summer mungbean (Palsaniya et al. 2016; Khanum et al.
2019). It was also described earlier that
different genotypes may revealed significant variation under various
environmental conditions and results of the current research are parallel with previous
findings (Abdelmageed and Gruda 2009).
In this study, result showed that late planting had an adverse effect on the germination and
growth attributes of mungbean including mean germination time, germination
index, final germination percentage (Table 1), root and shoot length, shoot and root dry weight, leaf area per plant,
number of leaves per plant as compared to optimum planting time (Table
2). Similar confirmation of findings
had been reported in field crops and vegetables under control environmental
conditions (Ashraf and Harris 2013). At environmental conditions, number of
genotypes did not show positive growth response compared to others (Ali et al. 2014; Campbell et al. 2019). With vigorous growth
under variable environmental conditions, tolerant genotypes showed their
ability to withstand under variation in environmental conditions due to delayed
planting compared to sensitive ones with significantly less growth reduction (Vorasoot et al. 2003; Thakur et al. 2010). Observations of this study, illustrated that some of the genotypes
studied did not gave satisfactory growth comparable to the rest.
It has been examined in present screening experiment
that delayed planting of mungbean genotypes showed reasonable growth index,
while some of them gave poor performance as demonstrated by other researchers
(Naika et al. 2005). There were
significant differences among growth variables. Those genotypes which reveal
vigorous growth than others signified their capacity to tolerate the adverse
environmental conditions. Similar findings were also noticed in a study where
genetic characterization of mungbean genotypes against variation in the
atmospheric conditions was done (Uddin et
al. 2014). In present research, leaf number was considered as positive
variable which specifies that the genotypes possessed a greater number of
leaves under delayed planting revealed higher photosynthetic rate and hence
increased growth rate with variation in the ambient temperature (Hussain et al. 2007; Asseng et al. 2011; Gezer 2018). Phurailatpam et al. (2007)
also reported similar growth pattern of mungbean and urdbean genotypes under
the delayed or advanced planting.
In all green plants the most fundamental and complicated
physiological process is photosynthesis and all of its components are sensitive
to stress conditions such as photosynthetic pigments, electron transport chain,
carbon dioxide reduction pathways and photosystems; any type of stress at any
stage of life affects overall photosynthetic efficiency of green plants (Ashraf
and Harris 2013; Sharma et al. 2019). Current
study revealed that late sown cultivars had an adverse effect on the physiological attributes of mungbean as
compared to optimum planting due to variation in the ambient temperature
(Fig 1; Table 3). Higher chlorophyll contents
values indicate greater photosynthetic ability of plants. It was seen that
chlorophyll contents of mungbean genotypes revealed a significant variation
with leaf surface temperature, these results showed are in accordance with previous
reports (Guilioni et al. 2003). These results
are in conformity with those of Kaleem et al. (2009) who found that
different temperatures affect photosynthetic rate differently, that is,
photosynthetic rate increased with increase in temperature. Similarly, Baydar
and Erbas (2005) concluded that low temperature is one of the limiting factors
that adversely affect photosynthesis which is sensitive to cold stress.
Similarly, Grulke et al. (2004) who found that the magnitude of stomatal
conductance varies temporally with leaves age, from pre-reproductive to
reproductive stage leaf age caused a decline in stomatal conductance in
sunflower. These results are also in accordance with those of Orta et al.
(2002) who concluded that, as percent soil water decreased, crop water stress
index increased causing decrease in stomatal conductance. Baydar and Erbas
(2005) concluded that low temperature is one of the limiting factors that
adversely affect crop hydraulic and physiological processes i.e. stomatal conductance, sub-stomatal
CO2 concentration, photosynthetic rate, transpiration rate and water
use efficiency. These results are in conformity with those of Bunce (2007) who
concluded that hydraulic conductance in plants is affected by environmental
factors. In the past studies, it has been
reported that in rice seedlings there was greater biomass production due to
high water use efficiency and reduced transpiration rate, ultimately higher
photosynthetic rate (Karaba et al. 2007).
In present study the genotypes with higher transpiration rate showed less water
use efficiency (Table 3). However, some genotypes exhibit less transpiration
and greater water use efficiency resultantly higher photosynthetic rate and
biomass production and withstand under delayed planting conditions.
Table
4: Effect of planting dates on yield attributes of mungbean cultivars
|
Treatments |
Number of pods per plant-1 |
Pod length (cm) |
Number of grains per pod |
1000-grain weight (g) |
|
Planting dates (PD) |
||||
|
July 01 |
19.83 |
8.79 A |
10.46 A |
53.21 A |
|
August 01 |
18.83 |
8.29 B |
7.46 B |
49.46 B |
|
HSD value at p≤ 0.01 |
NS |
1.33 |
1.33 |
0.01 |
|
Mungbean cultivars (C) |
||||
|
MGP-17 |
22.83 A-C |
9.18 D-F |
7.83 |
51.73 H |
|
DM-D4 |
12.16 EF |
6.08 NO |
8.33 |
47.48 S |
|
C5/95-3-31 |
15.83 C-F |
6.91 K-M |
7.83 |
48.12 P |
|
C6/95-3-8 |
14.50 D-F |
6.61 L-N |
7.50 |
47.94 Q |
|
5-63-94 |
12.83 EF |
6.28 M-O |
9.16 |
47.81 R |
|
TM-1407 |
10.16 F |
5.81 O |
7.83 |
47.30 T |
|
MGP-01 |
21.83 A-D |
8.81 E-G |
9.16 |
51.56 I |
|
NM-11 |
24.50 AB |
9.38 DE |
6.50 |
51.94 G |
|
MGP-41 |
19.83 A- E |
8.58 F-H |
8.50 |
51.37 J |
|
5-63-1 |
15.83 C-F |
7.18 J-L |
8.16 |
48.34 O |
|
MGP-16 |
18.16 A-E |
8.38 GH |
8.33 |
50.88 K |
|
NM20-21 |
23.83 AB |
9.81 CD |
10.50 |
53.83 F |
|
MUNG-88 |
16.83 B-F |
7.48 I-K |
8.50 |
48.61 N |
|
NM-121-25 |
25.83 A |
11.58 A |
11.16 |
56.47 A |
|
RAMZAN |
16.83 B-F |
8.15 G-I |
9.83 |
50.78 L |
|
NM-2016 |
25.50 A |
11.28 A |
11.16 |
56.12 B |
|
NM-19-19 |
24.16 AB |
10.81 AB |
10.16 |
55.81 C |
|
1099 |
19.16 A-E |
7.81 H-J |
7.83 |
50.43 M |
|
NM-51 |
22.16 A-D |
10.48 BC |
10.83 |
55.54 D |
|
NM13-1 |
23.83 AB |
10.18 BC |
9.16 |
54.70 E |
|
HSD value at p≤ 0.01 |
7.71 |
0.77 |
NS |
0.07 |
|
Significance Level (PD) |
** |
** |
** |
** |
|
Significance Level (C) |
NS |
** |
NS |
** |
|
Significance Level (PD × C) |
NS |
NS |
NS |
** |
Means following same letters, within
a column, are not statistically different from each other at p≤ 0.01
according to HSD test
Leaf temperature is an important parameter in
physiological life of crop plants. It directly affects photosynthesis and water
use efficiency; ultimately controls all growth stages (Brooks and Farquhar
1985; Lohani et al. 2020). In this experiment genotypes
varied significantly in leaf temperature. Beyond the optimum limit leaf
temperature (optimum planting time) inhibits the photosynthetic rate by
stimulating photorespiration and cause damages to photosynthetic apparatus
(Schrader et al. 2004; Rasmusson et
al. 2020). Rubisco activity is reduced at
moderate elevation in leaf temperature resultantly reduce photosynthetic rate
(Salvucci et al. 2001; Wi et al.
2020). All these studies showed that photosynthesis and water use efficiency
are leaf temperature dependent attributes.
In the present studies, result showed that late sown had an adverse effect on the yield attributes
of mungbean as compared to optimum planting time (Table 4). Soomro
(2003) reported that delay in sowing causes a substantial decrease in all the
growth and development parameters of mungbean. The highest seed yield obtained
from optimum planting might be due to suitable temperature prevailing
accompanied by higher soil moisture content due to sufficient rainfall, which
enhanced the vegetative as well as reproductive growth of the crop. Relatively
higher grain yield from optimum sowing was probably due to higher grain yield
plant-1 and its attributes with number of pods plant-1,
grains pod-1and test weight (Singh et al. 2010; Khanum et
al. 2019). Differential response of different varieties was also observed
by Singh et al. (2010) and Sadeghipour (2008). For obtaining higher
mungbean grain yield, not only vegetative growth and development but efficient
utilization of photosynthates towards economic sink enlargement is also
important (Reddy 2009; Singh et al. 2010; Khanum et al. 2019).
Response to normal planting date also revealed significantly higher
accumulation of total dry matter (g plant-1) in normal sowing than
late sowing and this might have resulted in production of higher biological
yield in normal planting date (Ramakrishna et al. 2000; Reddy 2009;
Khanum et al. 2019).
Conclusion
In crux, delayed planting significantly reduced the
germination, growth, physiological and yield attributes of mungbean cultivars;
though the cultivars differ in their response. Overall NM-121-25 and
NM-2016 performed better as compared to rest of mungbean cultivars, and DM-D4
and TM-1407 cultivars performed poorly. Mungbean cultivars NM-121-25 and NM-2016
can be sown in late sown conditions to get higher yield.
Authors Contributions
AM and MBC Planned the whole work.
AM performed the experiments and MS helped to analyses the DATA.
References
Abdelmageed AHA, N Gruda (2009). Performance of different tomato
genotypes in the arid tropics of Sudan during the summer season. II. Generative
development. J Agric Rural Develop Trop
Subtrop 110:147‒154
Aditya P, K Jitendra (2011). Biology
and Breeding of Food Legumes. Michigan State University, East Lansing,
Michigan, USA
Ahmad MSA, M Hossain, S Ijaz, AK Alvi (2008). Photosynthetic
performance of two mungbean (Vigna radiata) cultivars under lead and
copper stress. Intl J Agric Biol 10:167‒172
Ali M, S Gupta (2012). Carrying capacity of Indian agriculture: Pulse
crops. Curr Sci 102:874‒881
Ali S, AH Shah, R Gul, H Ahmad, H Nangyal, SK Sherwin (2014).
Morpho-Agronomic Characterization of Okra (Abelmuscus
esculentus L.). World App Sci J
31:336‒400
Ashraf M, PJ Harris (2013). Photosynthesis under stressful
environments: An overview. Photosynthetica
51:90‒163
Asseng S, IAN Foster, NC Turner (2011). The impact of temperature
variability on wheat yields. Global
Change Biol 17:997‒1012
Association of Official Seed Analysts (AOSA) (1990). Rules for testing
seeds. J Seed Technol 12:1‒112
Baydar H, S Erbas (2005). Influence of seed development and seed
position on oil, fatty acids and total tocopherol contents in sunflower (Helianthus
annus L.). Turk J Agric 29:179‒186
Brooks A, GD Farquhar (1985). Effects of temperature on the O2/CO2
specificity of ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase and the rate of
respiration in the light. Estimates from gas exchange measurements on spinach. Planta 165:397‒406
Bunce JA (2007). Low carbon dioxide concentrations can reverse stomatal
closure during water stress. Physiol Plantarum 130:552‒559
Campbell, J Brian, FA Berrada, C Hudalla, S Amaducci, JK McKay (2019).
Genotype × environment interactions of industrial hemp cultivars highlight
diverse responses to environmental factors. Agrosys Geosci Environ 2:1‒11
Chauhan YS, C Douglas, RCN Rachaputi, P Agius, W Martin, A Skerman
(2010). Physiology of mungbean and development of the mungbean crop model. In: Proc of the 1st Australian
Summer Grains Conference, pp:21‒24. Gold Coast, Australia
Ellis RA, EH Roberts (1981). The quantification of ageing and survival
in orthodox seeds. Seed Sci Technol
9:373‒409
Gezer B (2018). Adsorption capacity for the removal of organic dye
pollutants from wastewater using carob powder. Intl J Agric For Life Sci 2:1‒14
Grulke NE, R Alonso, T Nguyen, C Cascido, W Dobrowolski (2004). Stomata
open at night in pole-sized and mature ponderosa pine. Tree Physiol
24:1001‒1010
Guilioni L, J Wery, J Lecoeur (2003). High temperature and water
deficit may reduce seed number in field pea purely by decreasing plant growth
rate. Funct Plant Biol 30:1151‒1164
Haider MU, M Hussain, M Farooq, A Nawaz (2020). Optimizing zinc seed
priming for improving the growth, yield and grain biofortification of mungbean
(Vigna radiata (L.) wilczek). J Plant Nutr 43:1438‒1446
Howarth CJ (2005). Genetic improvements of tolerance to high
temperature. In: Abiotic Stresses Plant Resistance through Breeding and Molecular
Approaches, Ashraf M, PJC Harris (eds.). Howarth Press, New York, USA
Hussain MM, LK Balbaa, MS Gaballah (2007). Salicylic acid and salinity
effects on growth of maize plants. Res J
Agric Biol Sci 3:321‒328
Hussain M, M Farooq, G Shabir, MB Khan, AB Zia (2012a). Delay in
planting decreases wheat productivity. Intl
J Agric Biol 14:533‒539
Hussain M, G Shabir, M Farooq, K Jabran, S Farooq (2012b).
Developmental and phenological responses of wheat to sowing dates. Pak J Agric Sci 49:459‒468
Kaleem S, F Hassan, A Saleem (2009). Influence of environmental
variations on physiological attributes of sunflower. Afr J Biotechnol
8:23‒32
Karaba A, S Dixit, R Greco, A Aharoni, KR Trijatmiko, N
Marsch-Martinez, A Pereira (2007). Improvement of water use efficiency in rice
by expression of HARDY, an Arabidopsis drought and salt tolerance gene. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:15270‒15275
Khanum MM, MM Bazzaz, MA Hossain, MS Huda, M Nuruzzaman (2019). Effect
of sowing date on performances of mungbean at Bari research field in Dinajpur. Bangl
J Environ Sci 37:52‒55
Lohani N, MB Singh, PL
Bhalla (2020). High temperature susceptibility of sexual reproduction in crop
plants. J Exp Bot 71:555‒568
Miah MAK, MP Anwar, M Begum, AS Juraimi MA Islam (2009). Influence of
sowing date on growth and yield of summer mungbean varieties. J Agric Soc
Sci 5:73‒76
Miklas PN, SP Singh (2007). Pulses,
Sugar and Tuber Crops. Pulses, Sugar and Tuber Crops. Michigan State
University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA
Naika S, J Juede, M Goffau, M Hilmi, V Dam (2005). Cultivation of Tomato: Production, Processing and Marketing (Rev.
edn.). Agrodok series No. 17. Agromisa/CTA, Wageningen, The Netherland
Nassar NMA (2003). Cassava, Manihot esculent Crantz genetic resources:
VI. Anatomy of a diversity center. Genet
Mol Res 2:214‒222
Naveed M, M Shafiq, CM Rafiq, MS Saeed (2015). Planting date effects on
the incidence of mungbean yellow mosaic virus (MYMV) and cultivars performance
under rainfed environments. Plant Knowl J
Southern Cross Pub Group 4:7‒12
Orta AH, T Erdem, Y Erdem (2002). Determination of water stress index
in sunflower. Helia 37:27‒38
Palsaniya S, R Puniya, A
Sharma, BR Bazaya D Kachroo (2016). Effect of sowing dates and varieties on
growth, yield and nutrient uptake of summer mungbean (Vigna radiata). Ind
J Agron 61:256‒258
Phurailatpam AK, AK Pal, S Singh (2007). Growth pattern and its impact
on seed yield in cultivated and wild genotypes of Vigna. J Food Legum 20:161‒64
Ramakrishna A, CLL Gowda, C Johansen (2000). Management factors
affecting legumes production in the Indo-Gangetic Plain. In: Legumes in Rice and Wheat
Cropping Systems of the Indo-Gangetic Plain-Constraints and Opportunities, pp:156‒165.
Johansen C, JM Duxbury, SM Virmani, CLL Gowda (eds.). ICRISAT, Patancheru,
Andhra Pradesh, India
Rasmusson LM, P Buapet, R George, M Gullström, PC Gunnarsson, M Björk
(2020). Effects of temperature and hypoxia on respiration, photorespiration,
and photosynthesis of seagrass leaves from contrasting temperature regimes. ICES
J Marine Sci 77:2056‒2065
Reddy AA (2009). Pulses production technology: Status and way forward. Eco
Polit Weekly 44:73‒80
Sadeghipour O (2008). Response
of mungbean varieties to different sowing dates. Pak J Biol Sci 11:2048‒2050
Salvucci ME, KW Osteryoung, SJ Crafts-Brandner, E Vierling (2001). Exceptional
sensitivity of Rubisco activase to
thermal denaturation in vitro and in vivo. Plant
Physiol 127:1053‒64
Sarwar MA, SR Malik, W Ahmad, MS Mahmood, M Jawad, M Asadullah, I
Ahmad, M Imran (2019). Production efficiency of promising mungbean genotypes
affected by different sowing dates under rainfed conditions. Pak J Agric Res
32:52‒58
Schrader SM, RR Wise, WF Wacholtz, DR Ort, TD Sharkey (2004). Thylakoid
membrane responses to moderately high leaf temperature in Pima cotton. Plant
Cell Environ 27:725‒735
Sharma A, V Kumar, B Shahzad, M Ramakrishnan, GPS Sidhu, AS Bali, N
Handa, D Kapoor, P Yadav, K Khanna, P Bakshi (2019). Photosynthetic response of
plants under different abiotic stresses: A review. J Plant Growth Regul
1‒23
Singh AK, N Chandra, RC Bharati, SK Dimree (2010). Effect of seed size
and seeding depth on Faba bean (Vicia faba L.) productivity. Environ
Ecol 28:1722‒1727
Somroo AH, MA Aaraen, M Khaelski, B Bhutto (2003). Comparative study on
the Physico-chemical Composition of Industrial yogurt and ingenious dahi. J Biol Sci 3:86‒90
Steel RGD, JH Torrie, DA Dickey (1997). Principles and Procedures of
Statistics: A Biometrical Approach, 3rd
edn. McGraw Hill Book Inc. Co., New York, USA
Thakur P, S Kumar, JA
Malik, JD Berger, H Nayyar (2010). Cold stress effects on reproductive
development in grain crops: An overview. Environ
Exp Bot 3:429‒443
Uddin MS, MM Rahman, MM Hossain, MAK Mian (2014). Genetic diversity in
eggplant genotypes for heat tolerance. SAARC
J Agric 12:25‒39
Vorasoot N, P Songsri, C
Akkasaeng, S Jogloy, A Patanothai (2003). Effect of water stress on yield and
agronomic characters of peanut. J Sci
Technol 3:283‒288
Wi SH, HJ Lee, S An, SK Kim
(2020). Evaluating growth and photosynthesis of kimchi cabbage according to
extreme weather conditions. Agronomy
10; Article 1846