Asian journal of Agricultural Sciences 4(2): 126-133, 2012
ISSN: 2041-3890
© Maxwell Scientific Organization, 2012
Submitted: December 28, 2011
Accepted: January 31, 2012
Published: March 26, 2012
Stability and Environmental Indices Analyses for Yield Attributing Traits in
Indian Vigna radiata Genotypes under Arid Conditions
1
1
Aparna Raturi, 1S.K. Singh, 2Vinay Sharma and 1Rakesh Pathak
Central Arid Zone Research Institute, Jodhpur-342003. Rajasthan, India
2
Banasthali Vidyapeeth, Banasthali, Rajasthan, India
Abstract: The performance of 44 elite mungbean genotypes for nine quantitative traits under three
heterogeneous environments was evaluated for genotype×environment interactions and stability parameters.
The genotype×environment interaction was significant for 1000-seed weight, number of seeds/pod and days
to 50% flowering. In all 22 genotypes exhibited stability across the environments with regard to one or more
morphological characters. Water stress during early stages of development to flowering stage and/or from pod
development to harvest during 2009 and 2011 resulted in the lower seed yields. Contrary to this, during 2010
continuous rains coupled with high relative humidity and comparatively the lower temperatures during the
cropping season resulted in higher seed yields. Despite of the fact that 18 genotypes were recorded with higher
seed yields, of which only four genotypes MH-521, GM-9924, ML-1333 and Ganga-8 exhibited stability across
environments indicating their adoption to arid and semi-arid regions.
Key words: Genotype×environment, mungbean, performance, seed yield, stability
a large proportion of alleles of higher productivity have
been lost in the present populations of mungbean due to
overriding role of natural selection even long after the
crop domestication.
The genotype×environment (G×E) interactions have
immense importance in breeding programmes for
identifying stable genotypes that are widely or specifically
adapted to unique environments (Verma et al., 2008). The
assessment of stability and wider adaptability of breeding
lines against biotic and abiotic stresses is a pre requisite
in any breeding programme. Various workers emphasized
the importance of genotypes over environment, the linear
regression of genotypes over environmental index and the
deviation from regression coefficient for determination of
stability and adaptation of genotypes for yield and other
important yield contributing traits in mungbean (Dwivedi,
2006; Abbas et al., 2008).
Stability in performance of a genotype over a wide
range of environment is a desirable attribute and depends
upon the magnitude of the G×E interactions (Ali and
Sarwar, 2008). Abbas et al. (2008) carried out stability
analysis in mungbean and indicated that G×E interactions
were highly significant and were cross over in type. The
response level of mungbean genotypes have been reported
to differ for stability parameters (Raje and Rao, 2004;
Swamy and Reddy, 2004).
Singh et al. (2009) emphasized that the role of
environment and G×E interactions must be taken into
account while planning and implementing selection or
breeding programmes in mungbean. There are cultivars
INTRODUCTION
Mungbean [Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek], one of the
Asiatic species is an important grain legume in Thailand,
Philippines, Sri Lanka, India, Burma, Bangladesh and
Indonesia. It is a minor crop in Australia, China, Iran,
Korea, Kenya, Malaysia, Peru, Middle East, Taiwan and
the USA (Morton et al., 1982; Tah, 2006). About 70% of
total world production of mungbean occurs in India,
which devotes around 12% of total pulse area of the
country. Mungbean is mostly grown under dry land
farming systems where erratic rains often expose the crop
under moisture stress (Azab, 1997). Due to short duration
and wide adaptability it is grown throughout the year in
double and multiple cropping systems. It is grown as a
mixed-, inter-, and relay crop (Morton et al., 1982;
Chakravorty and Khanikar, 2002).
The major constraints for achieving higher yields are
inherently low yielding potential of the varieties that lack
genetic variability, absence of suitable ideotypes for
different cropping systems, poor harvest index and
susceptibility to biotic and abiotic stresses (Sarobol, 1997;
Souframanien and Gopalakrishnan, 2004; Srinives, 2006).
This is probably due to the utilization of only a few
selected genotypes of mungbean in cultivar development
programme and underutilization of the gene pool of the
Indian subcontinent (Gupta et al., 2004). Therefore,
identification and deployment of diverse genotypes is
required for breeding new cultivars from the point of view
of food and nutritional security. Jain (1994) attributed that
Corresponding Author: Aparna Raturi, Central Arid Zone Research Institute, Jodhpur-342003. Rajasthan, India
126
Asian J. Agric. Sci., 4(2): 126-133, 2012
where, Y ij = mean of the ith genotype at jth environment (I
= 1……G; j = 1……..L); :i = mean of the ith genotype
over the environments; $i = regression coefficient
measuring response of the ith genotype to the change of
environment; Ij = environmental index (mean of all the
genotypes at location jth-grand mean); Fij = deviation from
regression.
that perform similarly regardless of the environment, and
others whose performance is directly related to the
productivity potential of the environment (Fehr et al.,
1991) indicating importance of stability analysis. The
present investigation was carried out to assess the stability
of performance and environmental indices among 44
mungbean genotypes under varied environments of arid
zone.
$i = 3(Yij Ij) / 3 Ij2 F2di = 3F2ij / L-2- F2e/r; F2e =
estimate of pooled error mean square.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The regression coefficient ($i) was tested for significant
differences from unity t-tests, while the significance of the
deviations from regression (F2di) were tested by the F-test
based on pooled deviation estimates.
Field experimentations: Forty-four promising genotypes
of mungbean including two check varieties procured from
All India Coordinated Research Project, CAZRI, Jodhpur
were evaluated in rainy seasons (July to October)
consecutively for three years (2009, 2010 and 2011) using
randomized block design with three replications at Central
Research Farm, Central Arid Zone Research Institute,
Jodhpur (27º18’N latitude and 73º01’E longitude),
Rajasthan, India. Each plot was accommodating three
rows of 4 m length with 30 and 10 cm distance from rows
and plants, respectively. The recommended agronomical
practices viz., thinning, weeding, uprooting of off-type
plants etc were carried out time to time throughout crop
duration. The experiments were carried out strictly under
rain-fed conditions and no additional irrigation was
provided. A basal dose of 20 kg N and 40 kg of P2O5/ha
was applied during each cropping season. The data of
nine morphological characters viz., plant height (cm),
number of primary branches, number of secondary
branches, number of pods/plant, number of seeds/pod and
pod length (cm) were recorded at maturity, whereas,
observations on flowering was recorded for different
genotypes as and when they attained 50% flowering stage.
The 1000-seed-weight and seed yield/plot were recorded
after thrashing of the harvested crop.
Environmental indices: The environmental index was
calculated as the mean of all the forty-four mungbean
genotypes at each environment by subtracting the grand
mean. The daily observations of maximum and minimum
temperatures, morning and evening relative humidity and
rainfall were converted in to corresponding
meteorological week.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Genotype×environmental interactions: Pooled analysis
of variance of nine morphological traits studies over three
consecutive years (three environments) indicated
significant differences in most of the traits for genotypes
except for plant height, number of primary and secondary
branches (Table 1). Whereas, the differences over
environments were highly significant for all the traits.
Genotype×environment (G×E) interaction was highly
significant for 1000-seed weight and was significant for
number of seeds/pod and days to 50% flowering when
tested against pooled deviation. Significant environments
(linear) interaction showed highly significant differences
among genotypes for regression means for all the nine
morphological traits studied. G×E (linear) interaction was
highly significant for 1000-seed weight, days to 50%
flowering and number of seeds/pod, while, it was
significant for number of primary branches/plant.
Significant pooled deviation was observed for plant
height, number of secondary branches, number of
Statistical analysis: The stability of the trait for each
genotype was calculated by regression of the mean yield
of the individual genotypes on the environmental index
and by calculating the deviations of the regression
coefficient from the unity as suggested by Eberhart and
Russell (1966). The model is:
Y ij = :i + $i Ij + Fij
Table 1: Stability ANOVA (Summary) of different morphological characters in vigna radiata
PH
PB
SB
PPP
SPP
PL
1000
SY
df
(cm)
(No.)
(No.)
(No.)
(No.)
(cm)
DFF
SW (g)
(Kg/ha)
Rep within Env.
6
64.62*
5.09***
82.76***
2.80
0.84
4.63**
54.20***
1.42
19255.04***
Varieties
43
21.26
0.57
4.59
33.10***
6.63***
3.01**
58.79***
74.47***
39087.86***
Env.+ (Var.* Env.)
88
202.13***
1.14***
6.44*
6.80
1.80**
1.06
7.46***
27.73***
42451.29***
Environments
2
7559.51***
28.76***
150.82***
92.69***
24.08***
9.08**
168.96***
754.95***
1735639.00***
Var.* Env.
86
31.02
0.49
3.08
4.80
1.28*
0.87
3.70*
10.82***
3074.85
Envs (Lin.)
1
15119.02*** 57.53***
301.64***
185.37***
48.16***
18.15*** 337.92***
1509.91*** 3471278.00***
Var.* Env. (Lin.)
43
34.47
0.66*
2.67
5.00
1.75**
0.50
5.31**
18.78***
3065.89
Pooled deviation
44
26.95*
0.32
3.42***
4.50***
0.80
1.21***
2.05
2.79
3013.72
Pooled error
258
17.82
0.27
1.64
1.34
0.56
0.26
2.98
2.70
2214.75
Total
131
142.76
0.95
5.83
15.43
3.39
1.70
24.31
43.07
41347.27
PH: Plant Height; PB: Primary Branches/plant; SB: Secondary Branches/plant; PPP: Pods/plant; SPP: Seeds/pod; PL: Pod Length; DFF: Days to 50% Flowering; 1000
SW: 1000 Seed Weight; SY: Seed Yield; *: significant at 5%; **: significant at 1%; ***: significant at 0.1
127
Asian J. Agric. Sci., 4(2): 126-133, 2012
Table 2: Estimation of mean and stability parameters of different morphological characters in vigna radiata
PH (cm)
PB (No.)
SB (No.)
PPP
SPP (No.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Genotype
M
R
D
M
R
D
M
R
D
M
R
D
M
R
D
ML818
45
0.7
- 2.9
7
0.1
- 0.3
7
1.7
- 3.5
14
2.3
- 1.2
9
- 0.6
- 0.6
GANGA 8
48
0.5
5.4
7
0.2
- 0.1
7
1.7
- 2.5
17
- 0.6
4.2
10
1.4
- 0.6
MH-521
49
1.2
20.3
7
0.7
- 0.2
10
0.6
- 2.9
19
0.4
1.4
11
0.0
0.3
RMG-977
52
0.9
76.8
8
0.8
- 0.4
9
2.0
4.2
15
1.7
- 1.3
10
0.3
- 0.3
AKM-9911
50
1.2
- 18.1
7
1.7
- 0.3
10
2.1
- 3.0
16
1.2
1.8
11
0.7
1.7
ML 1333
48
1.1
- 18.5
7
0.9
- 0.3
9
0.8
- 0.9
16
2.3
11.5
10
- 0.8
1.7
NDM 7-34
54
1.3
37.5
8
1.8
- 0.4
8
1.6
- 3.4
14
- 0.3
6.7
10
1.1
- 0.6
COGG-934
50
1.3
- 6.4
8
3.2
0.0
8
1.6
- 1.1
9
1.2
0.3
9
- 0.6
0.1
PM 04-27
49
1.2
29.4
7
0.5
- 0.3
8
1.4
- 3.3
13
3.2
- 0.9
10
0.5
0.3
GS 69-99
47
0.9
- 17.4
7
1.0
- 0.2
8
1.3
- 2.8
12
2.7
- 0.7
9
0.3
- 0.5
BGS-9
45
1.1
- 15.4
7
0.0
- 0.1
8
1.2
- 2.5
12
2.2
0.2
9
- 0.1
- 0.4
ML 1405
48
0.8
- 5.5
7
0.7
- 0.4
10
0.0
- 0.1
17
1.9
2.9
11
1.4
- 0.6
KM2262
46
1.5
1.5
7
0.6
- 0.2
8
1.2
- 2.9
12
0.9
0.8
9
1.1
0.2
GM 02-13
49
1.0
- 17.6
7
1.5
0.1
9
1.5
- 3.0
15
0.8
0.1
11
2.2
- 0.5
PUSA 0771
47
1.0
- 12.0
7
1.9
0.3
9
1.0
0.6
13
0.1
8.2
9
1.4
0.9
MH-530
47
1.2
- 18.7
8
1.3
- 0.2
10
0.4
0.9
14
0.8
3.3
10
0.6
- 0.6
PUSA 0772
48
1.2
- 11.0
7
1.3
- 0.3
8
0.9
- 2.3
13
1.7
0.1
9
0.3
0.0
SKAM 300
47
0.9
- 15.9
7
0.5
0.0
10
1.3
- 2.3
14
1.9
5.2
10
- 0.1
0.9
OBGG11-1
50
1.1
- 6.3
8
0.8
- 0.1
12
0.3
- 0.1
21
- 0.3
11.1
12
0.7
- 0.5
IPM 02-14
51
1.8
2.8
8
1.2
0.7
10
1.7
- 0.9
15
0.3
0.4
10
0.5
0.0
PM 04-7
47
1.3
- 18.3
8
0.1
0.1
10
1.4
- 3.1
16
0.7
4.3
11
2.1
1.9
TMB 26
46
0.7
- 18.8
8
0.3
- 0.4
9
0.9
- 2.6
19
0.2
- 0.8
12
3.6
0.5
IPM 02-19
51
1.4
- 2.8
8
-0.4
- 0.3
11
0.8
11.9 18
0.4
- 0.6
11
0.5
- 0.2
NDM 7-31
51
0.4
- 16.1
7
0.4
- 0.4
10
0.7
- 2.3
14
2.6
4.9
10
0.1
- 0.4
NDM 5-6
49
0.6
26.5
7
0.1
- 0.3
10
0.4
14.7 23
- 1.6
1.9
14
4.5
2.7
GM-9924
49
0.5
- 18.9
7
0.6
- 0.1
9
0.9
2.2
18
1.0
4.0
11
1.5
- 0.1
PUSA 0672
48
0.9
- 17.5
8
1.0
1.6
9
1.4
- 3.2
18
0.8
- 1.4
11
1.8
- 0.5
KM 2260
51
1.0
- 11.8
7
1.6
- 0.3
9
1.3
- 1.0
18
- 0.3
2.8
12
2.5
0.5
RMG 976
51
0.9
15.9
8
0.4
- 0.4
12
- 0.2
- 2.8
22
0.8
6.5
13
1.1
0.0
ML1349
46
1.0
- 17.9
7
1.8
0.4
8.1
1.1
2.6
12
0.9
- 0.7
9
0.4
- 0.2
HUM-23
45
0.5
17.4
7
0.5
- 0.1
9.8
- 0.4
8.6
20
0.3
8.4
13
3.0
- 0.6
PUSA 0671
40
1.0
26.1
7
1.6
- 0.2
7.6
1.0
- 2.1
14
2.6
- 1.2
11
- 0.2
- 0.4
MH 418
45
1.0
36.0
7
1.5
- 0.4
9.4
1.3
4.3
14
2.6
- 1.3
11
0.9
- 0.5
MH 429
47
0.8
104.2 7
1.1
1.5
7.9
1.2
- 0.4
14
2.0
- 1.2
10
- 0.2
0.1
COGG-936
46
0.2
- 4.3
7
1.5
- 0.4
7.1
1.4
- 3.2
14
1.6
- 1.2
9
- 0.3
0.3
PUSA 0571
45
1.0
77.7
7
1.7
- 0.2
8.6
0.2
0.4
18
0.4
- 1.2
12
2.1
- 0.5
GM-9925
50
0.9
18.9
7
1.9
- 0.4
7.3
1.2
- 0.8
15
1.7
3.0
10
0.6
- 0.2
RGM-34
47
1.6
- 5.8
8
1.8
- 0.4
8.2
1.1
- 3.4
16
0.9
- 1.1
11
0.9
0.4
NVL-1
44
1.1
12.9
7
1.6
0.2
7.1
1.7
- 3.0
9
1.1
- 1.1
7
- 0.9
2.1
KM2241
44
0.9
- 0.9
7
1.2
0.1
7.1
1.1
- 1.6
15
0.6
27.9
11
2.5
1.3
RMG-267
49
0.6
- 17.8
7
0.5
- 0.4
7.1
0.8
- 3.1
17
0.1
11.9
12
2.8
2.9
S-8
52
1.1
18.0
7
0.1
- 0.0
9.4
- 0.5
15.5 21
- 1.3
- 1.1
13
2.3
- 0.3
K-851
51
1.1
135.6 7
1.7
- 0.4
7.1
1.3
- 3.1
14
2.0
0.0
10
- 0.8
0.4
RMG-62
52
1.3
8.8
8
0.7
0.9
9.2
- 0.3
4.6
23
- 0.3
20.4
14
3.1
- 0.2
Population
48
7
8.8
16
11
mean
PL (cm)
DFF
1000 SW (gm)
SY (kg/ha)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Genotype
M
R
D
M
R
D
M
R
D
M
R
D
ML818
7
- 1.3
- 0.2
40
1.4
- 3.4
40
1.6
1.4
404
1.1
- 1986
GANGA 8
9
3.6
1.2
40
-0.2
- 4.1
45
- 0.9
- 1.9
473
0.7
10548
MH-521
9
1.4
0.3
32
0.3
- 2.3
43
0.7
- 0.9
563
1.0
- 1030
RMG-977
8
- 0.4
- 0.1
39
-0.1
1.6
40
1.5
- 2.2
421
0.9
- 2437
AKM-9911
9
0.7
4.6
39
0.9
- 0.7
41
1.8
- 2.6
454
0.8
1706
ML 1333
8
- 0.4
6.1
36
0.2
- 3.4
40
1.6
- 2.7
480
0.9
10723
NDM 7-34
7
1.5
0.0
36
0.4
- 3.5
41
1.1
- 2.7
376
0.8
8591
COGG-934
6
0.8
0.2
43
2.6
- 3.1
35
0.9
- 1.9
270
0.7
542
PM 04-27
8
0.6
- 0.4
45
0.9
- 2.3
40
1.6
- 2.3
399
0.9
420
GS 69-99
7
0.7
0.2
41
2.2
- 2.9
39
1.7
- 2.7
318
0.9
- 998
BGS-9
7
0.6
- 0.3
45
1.1
1.8
40
1.4
- 2.6
333
0.9
- 2270
ML 1405
8
0.7
- 0.3
35
2.8
6.2
41
1.3
- 2.2
531
1.3
4087
KM2262
7
0.5
- 0.3
38
0.6
- 3.8
40
1.6
0.7
330
0.8
- 348
GM 02-13
8
1.9
0.7
35
2.4
- 2.1
40
1.0
- 2.4
402
0.8
- 792
PUSA 0771
7
0.8
1.4
38
0.4
- 2.5
41
1.1
- 1.7
342
0.8
9564
MH-530
7
1.7
2.7
29
-0.1
- 3.3
41
1.5
- 1.6
387
0.9
- 607
PUSA 0772
7
0.7
0.6
42
2.2
- 3.4
40
1.5
- 2.3
361
0.9
- 2360
SKAM 300
7
0.4
0.0
32
0.4
- 3.0
40
1.7
- 2.3
396
0.7
- 22
OBGG 11-1
9
1.7
- 0.3
34
1.2
- 4.0
53
0.6
0.8
662
1.2
- 2565
128
Asian J. Agric. Sci., 4(2): 126-133, 2012
Table2: (Continued)
PL (cm)
DFF
1000 SW (gm)
SY (kg/ha)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Genotype
M
R
D
M
R
D
M
R
D
M
R
D
IPM02-1451
7
0.2
- 0.3
34
0.3
- 3.7
41
1.6
3.3
403
0.8
- 2504
PM04-7
8
2.2
1.5
41
1.4
- 3.9
44
1.1
2.9
492
1.3
- 1229
TMB 26
9
2.4
- 0.3
36
-0.3
3.2
44
0.3
- 2.5
593
1.2
- 1403
IPM 02-19
9
1.1
1.2
31
0.9
- 4.1
45
1.4
- 2.4
575
1.2
- 308
NDM 7-31
9
0.5
3.0
35
1.1
- 3.5
41
1.7
- 2.7
424
0.8
5655
NDM 5-6
10
4.0
- 0.1
31
0.8
0.4
55
- 0.4
- 2.5
681
1.2
- 1436
GM-9924
8
0.1
- 0.3
32
0.4
- 3.8
44
1.7
- 2.4
527
0.9
5672
PUSA 0672
8
0.1
0.0
33
0.4
- 3.5
43
1.3
- 2.7
555
1.3
1177
KM 2260
8
2.6
3.2
33
0.2
3.6
45
0.3
- 0.9
544
1.2
- 47
RMG 976
10
2.4
0.0
32
0.5
- 1.1
54
0.9
- 0.7
681
1.3
- 2582
ML1349
7
1.3
0.3
43
0.8
- 4.1
33
0.1
49.3
361
0.7
- 2508
HUM-23
9
1.5
- 0.2
31
1.0
- 3.7
46
- 0.1
13.2
612
1.2
- 1941
PUSA 0671
7
0.4
- 0.1
40
1.8
- 3.7
40
1.4
- 2.2
406
0.9
- 1121
MH 418
7
0.2
0.0
34
0.5
- 4.1
41
1.5
3.1
421
1.2
- 2449
MH 429
7
0.7
1.4
41
1.6
- 3.6
41
1.8
- 0.8
392
0.9
- 2599
COGG-936
7
1.5
0.0
34
0.4
- 3.8
41
1.7
0.6
372
0.8
- 2140
PUSA 0571
8
0.4
- 0.4
33
0.0
- 2.7
44
0.6
- 2.7
548
1.1
- 2587
GM-9925
8
0.7
0.7
44
2.1
- 2.4
45
0.1
- 2.2
444
1.2
- 1731
RGM-34
8
1.1
- 0.2
42
1.4
- 3.1
41
1.4
- 2.6
461
0.9
- 2567
NVL-1
6
- 0.3
- 0.3
42
2.4
- 3.3
31
0.2
- 1.7
237
0.7
- 1978
KM2241
7
0.2
0.0
30
1.7
0.6
43
1.0
- 0.7
450
1.2
5769
RMG-267
9
- 0.7
5.0
33
0.8
0.4
42
- 0.9
- 2.6
531
1.2
5616
S-8
10
2.6
- 0.4
35
1.1
2.2
53
- 0.3
- 2.2
649
1.2
- 1930
K-851
9
0.2
7.3
35
0.8
- 2.1
41
1.9
- 0.9
419
1.1
- 2491
RMG-62
10
2.7
0.2
31
2.5
- 4.1
54
0.4
0.2
700
1.1
- 991
Population
8
37
43
463
mean
PH: Plant Height; PB: Primary Branches/plant; SB: Secondary Branches/plant; PPP: Pods/plant; SPP: Seeds/pod; PL: Pod Length; DFF: Days to 50%
Flowering; 1000 SW: 1000 Seed Weight; SY: Seed Yield; M: (:M: pooled mean values); R: ($i: Regression coefficient); D: ( 2di: Deviation from
regression)
pods/plant and pod length. Whereas, it was nonsignificant for number of primary branches, number of
seeds/pod, days to 50% flowering, 1000-seed weight and
seed yield.
G×E interactions are of immense importance to the
plant breeders in developing improved varieties by
comparing them over a series of environments revealing
differences in the relative rankings. This causes difficulty
in demonstrating the significant superiority of any variety
(Eberhart and Russel, 1966). Therefore, before proceeding
for stability analyses it is important to assess the
significance of G×E. Under present study G×E
interactions were partitioned as data analysed using
(Eberhart and Russel, 1966) model of stability.
Accordingly, a stable variety is the one with seed yield
greater than grand mean yield, $i = 1 and F2di = 0 and
those significantly deviating from unity are either adopted
to high yielding environments if $i>1 or low yielding
environments if $i<1.
The perusal of pooled analysis of variance (Table 1)
validates significant differences in most of the traits for
genotypes except plant height, number of primary
branches and number of secondary branches. G×E
interaction was highly significant for 1000-seed weight
and was significant for number of seeds/pod and days to
50% flowering when tested against pooled deviation.
Highly significant pooled d eviation for number of
secondary branches/plant and number of pods/plant and
significant pooled deviation for plant height indicates the
predominant role in manifestation of G×E interaction for
these traits and linear components play key role for nonsignificant traits i.e. number of primary branches, number
of seeds/pod, days to 50% flowering, 1000-seed weight
and seed yield.
Stability parameters: Perusal of data presented vide
Table 2 revealed that all the forty-four genotypes of
mungbean had non-significant deviation from regression
(F2di) for all the nine morphological traits studied. This
validates that all the genotypes were stable to
environmental vagaries for all the morphological traits
studied.
Genotypes having regression coefficient
approximately to unity ($i = 1), deviation from regression
(F2di) as small as possible and higher mean performances
are considered as stable genotypes (Eberhart and Russel,
1966). The pattern of stability parameters observed for
various morphological traits revealed that out of fortyfour mungbean genotypes twenty-eight genotypes
exhibited stability across the environments with regard to
one or more morphological characters. Whereas, sixteen
genotypes lacked one or the other pre-requisites such as
regression coefficient ($i>1), higher values of deviation
from regression (F2di) and lower mean performances and
thus were considered unstable genotypes.
129
Asian J. Agric. Sci., 4(2): 126-133, 2012
Table 3: Environmental index of different morphological traits of
Vigna radiata in stability analysis
Morphological character
2009
2010
2011
Plant height (cm)
- 15.12
7.02
8.10
Primary branches (No.)
- 0.93
0.56
0.37
Secondary branches (No.)
- 1.69
- 0.28
1.98
Pods/plant (No.)
0.09
1.40
- 1.49
Seeds/pod (No.)
- 0.11
- 0.68
0.79
Pod length (cm)
0.02
- 0.46
0.45
50% flowering (days)
2.25
- 1.33
- 0.92
1000-seed weight (g)
2.43
2.35
- 4.78
Seed yield (Kg/ha)
- 134.91
228.07
- 93.16
and advocated judicious exploitation of these genotypes
in breeding programmes in arid tracts. Henry and Mathur
(2007) studied G×E interactions cluster and diversity in
21 genotypes of mungbean under rain-fed conditions and
on the basis of stability the genotypes based on their
responses were grouped for favorable, adverse and
varying environmental conditions.
Environmental indices: The environmental index was
calculated as the mean of all the forty-four mungbean
genotypes at each environment by subtracting the grand
Out of twenty-eight stable genotypes, seventeen
genotypes were recorded stable across environments for
number of pods/plant, fourteen for number of secondary
branches, eleven for 1000-seed weight, eight for number
of primary branches, seven for plant height, six each for
pod length and days to 50% flowering while four each for
number of seeds/pod and seed yield. The genotype MH521 was recorded stable for most of the characters except
for plant height, pod length and days to 50% flowering.
The genotypes OBGG 11-1 and RMG-976 were found
stable for five morphological traits and IPM 02-19, GM9924 and RMG-62 were found stable for four
morphological characters studied. Only four genotypes
i.e., MH-521, GM-9924, ML-1333 and Ganga-8 (Ch)
exhibited stability across the environments with regard to
seed yield.
Under present study, out of forty-four mungbean
genotypes only twenty-eight genotypes were recorded
stable for one or more morphological traits. Despite of the
fact that eighteen genotypes were recorded with
appreciable seed yields (>463.15 kg/ha grand mean) of
which only four genotypes i.e., MH-521, GM-9924, ML1333 and Ganga-8 (Ch) could meet all the criteria of
Eberhart and Russel (1966) model and exhibited stability
across environments with regard to seed yield, whereas,
rest of the fourteen high yielding genotypes lacked one or
more pre-requisites of the model and did not qualify to be
designated as stable genotypes but could perform better
under favourable environments only. Motawea (2006)
subjected the data on number of seeds/plant; 100-seed
weight and seed yield/plant in mungbean to stability
analysis also observed that there was a lack of association
between stability and high-yielding ability.
In recent past, a number of researchers have used
Eberhart and Russel (1966) model for identifying
genotypes showing stable seed yield under varying
environments in mungbean (Abbas et al., 2008), in
cowpea (Adewale et al., 2010), in barley (Bahrami et al.,
2008), in potato (Pandey et al., 2009), in clusterbean
(Pathak et al., 2010). Iranna and Kajjidoni (2006) reported
that G×E interaction was significant for all the characters
except 100 seed weight indicating differential response of
genotypes in different environments. Henry and Mathur
(2006) reported significant G×E interactions for seed
yield and various plant characters and observed that
certain genotypes performed especially better under
favourable growing situation with better yield potential
Max. and min temp. (oC).
mean. The environmental index for different traits
(Table 3) showed that an environment which was
favourable for a particular trait was unfavourable for the
other trait. The variable response of different traits to
these weather conditions is evident from the fact that the
year 2009 was unfavourable year for plant height, number
of primary branches, number of secondary branches,
number of seeds/pod and eventually the seed yield. On the
contrary, year 2010 was favourable for morphological
traits like plant height, number of primary branches,
number of pods/plant, 1000-seed weight and seed yield
which finally resulted in the maximum mean seed yield
across the environments. Whereas, despite of being
favourable year for plant height, number of primary
branches, number of secondary branches, number of
seeds/pod and pod length, higher seed yield could not be
achieved in the year 2011 due to unfavourable weather
conditions for number of pods/plant, days to 50%
flowering, 1000-seed weight and seed yield.
It is evident from the environmental index (Table 3)
that an environment which was good for a trait was poor
for another. Even though a plant is a single development
unit but different traits get expressed in different phases
and drought conditions at the beginning, middle or end of
the crop season affect the expression of the traits
differently. Mungbean being a short duration crop usually
flowers within 30-60 days after sowing depending on
photo-thermal regime and matures within 60-120 days
depending on photo-thermal regime (Lawn et al., 1995).
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
2009 Max
2009 Min
2010 Max
2010 Min
2011 Max
2011 Min
22
20
29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41
Meteorological week
Fig. 1: The maximum and minimum temperatures variation
across three environments
130
Asian J. Agric. Sci., 4(2): 126-133, 2012
72. The total rainfall of 286 mm was recorded during the
cropping period (16th July to 10th October 2011).
In the year 2009, there was a water stress from 30th to
th
34 meteorological week and subsequently from 37th to
39th week with the meager total rainfall of 124.2 mm
during the entire cropping period (Fig. 3). This has
adversely affected relative humidity of the corresponding
meteorological week during the stressed period coupled
with higher minimum and maximum temperatures. The
meteorological data for the year 2009 placed the crop
under stress during early stages of development upto
flowering stage and subsequently from pod formation to
harvest that has eventually resulted in the minimum seed
yield of 328.24 kg/ha and thus was the worst environment
for seed yield in general. Therefore it is clear from the
environmental index (Table 3) that this unfavourable
environment eventually culminated into poor plant height,
least number of primary branches and secondary branches
and lesser number of seeds/pod that explained poor mean
seed yield. Boutraa and Sanders (2001) withheld water
during the flowering and pod filling growth stages and
found that yields were reduced, and that the yield
component most affected was the number of pods/plant.
Oweis et al. (2005) studied the effect of water stress on
growth and yield of a local variety (Hama 1) in northern
Syria and they concluded that biomass and yield
decreased and water use efficiency was reduced under
water stress.
Contrary to this, during the year 2010 through out
continuous total rainfall (438.4 mm) coupled with high
relative humidity and comparatively the low minimum
and maximum temperatures during the cropping seasons
resulted in the highest mean seed yield of 691.21 kg/ha as
compared to other two environments. Thus, it was a
favourable year for plant height, number of primary
branches, number of pods/plant, 1000-seed weight and
seed yield. The vegetative growth of mungbean mostly
ceases at the onset of the reproductive phase; the crop is
able to produce second flushes of flowers if conditions are
favourable (Ludlow and Muchow, 1990). Muchow (1985)
reported that mungbean is very sensitive to water stress
during flowering and grain formation than vegetative
stage. Pandey et al. (1984) found that irrigation increased
the number of seeds/pod. Dapaah et al. (2000) showed a
50% increase in seed yield with irrigation. Prasad et al.
(1989) found higher straw and grain yield of mungbean
with three irrigations as compared to one or no irrigation.
Sangakkara (1994) reported that irrigation increased shoot
growth, 100-seed weight and yield/plant. Irrigation
applied at vegetative and flowering stage might have
resulted in adequate and timely availability of nutrients,
which boosted the crop development resulting in higher
yields (Malik et al., 2006).
Whereas, the year 2011 was again an unfavourable
environment due to water stress almost from 37th to 41st
2010 Eve
2011 Mor
2011 Eve
Relative humidity (%)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
2009 Mor
2009 Eve
2010 Mor
10
00
29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41
Meteorological week
Fig. 2: Morning and evening relative humidity (%) variation
across three environments
160
140
2009
2010
2011
Rainfall (mm)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41
Meteorological week
Fig. 3: Weekly rainfall pattern across three environments
The desired maturity duration for spring/summer season
is 58-62 days, with determinate growth habit, high harvest
index, photo-insensitivity and thermo-insensitivity
(Dikshit et al., 2009).
Meteorological observations: The meteorological data
i.e. the maximum and minimum temperature, morning and
evening relative humidity (RH) and weekly rainfall of the
experimental site during kharif 2009, 2010 and 2011 is
presented vide Fig. 1, 2 and 3, respectively. During the
year 2009, the maximum temperature varied from 34.2 to
39.1ºC, the minimum temperature varied from 25.5 to
27.7ºC, RH (morning) from 58 to 85, RH (evening) from
26 to 62. The total rainfall of 124.2 mm was recorded
during the cropping period (18th July to 24th September
2009). During the year 2010, the maximum temperature
varied from 31.2 to 36.1ºC, the minimum temperature
ranged from 23.1 to 27.2ºC, RH (morning) from 75 to 91,
RH (evening) from 37 to 77. The total rainfall of 434.8
mm was recorded during the cropping period (24th July to
20th September 2010). During the year 2011, the
maximum temperature ranged from 31.3 to 37ºC, the
minimum temperature ranged from 20.1 to 28.2ºC, the
RH (morning) from 76 to 91, the RH (evening) from 35 to
131
Asian J. Agric. Sci., 4(2): 126-133, 2012
Bahrami, S., M.R. Bihamta, M. Salari, M. Soluki,
A. Ghanbari, A.A.V. Sadehi and A. Kazemipour,
2008. Yield stability analysis in Hulless Barley
(Hordeum vulgare L.). Asian J. Plant Sci., 7:
589-593..
Boutraa, T. and F.E. Sanders, 2001. Influence of water
stress on grain yield and vegetative growth of two
cultivars of bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). J. Agron.
Crop Sci., 187: 251-157.
Chakravorty, A. and M. Khanikar, 2002. Studies on
maize and pulse intercropping system during summer
season. J. Agri. Sci. Soc. North East India, 15(2):
188-191.
Dapaah, H.K., B.A. McKenzie and G.D. Hill, 2000.
Influence of Sowing Date and Irrigation on the
Growth and Yield of Pinto Beans (Phaseolus
vulgaris) in a Sub-Humid Temperate Environment. J.
Agri. Sci., 134: 33-43.
Dikshit, H.K., T.R. Sharma, B.B. Singh and J. Kumari,
2009. Molecular and morphological characterization
of fixed lines from diverse cross in mungbean (V.
radiata L. Wilczek). J. Genet., 88(3): 341-344.
Dwivedi, N.K., 2006. Germplasm characterization in
indigenous greengram [Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek]
from arid and semi-arid region, India. J. Arid
Legumes, 3(1): 55-59.
Eberhart, S.A. and W.W. Russell, 1966. Stability
parameters for comparing varieties. Crop Sci., 6:
36-40.
Fehr, W.R., G.A. Welke, E.G. Hammond, D.N. Duvick
and S.R. Cianzio, 1991. Inheritance of reduced
palmitic acid content in seed oil of soybean. Crop
Sci., 31: 88-89.
Gupta, S., S. Kumar and B.B. Singh, 2004. Relative
genetic contributions of ancestral lines to Indian
mungbean cultivars based on coefficient of parentage
analysis. Indian J. Genet., 64: 299-302.
Haqqani, A.M. and R.K. Pandey, 1994. Response of
Mungbean to aterstress and irrigation at various
growth stages and plant densities: II.Yield and yield
components. Trop. Agri., 71(4): 289-294.
Henry, A. and B.K. Mathur, 2006. Phenotypic stability of
grain yield and its components in mungbean in arid
regions of Rajasthan. J. Arid Legumes, 3(2): 17-21.
Henry, A. and B.K. Mathur, 2007. Genetic diversity and
stability studies in promising mungbean selections. J.
Arid Legumes, 4(2): 130-133.
Iranna, N. and S.T. Kajjidoni, 2006. Genotype X
environment interaction for seed yield and its
components in advance breeding lines of green gram
[Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek]. Res. Crops, 7(3):
738-742.
Jain, H.K., 1994. Pulses- The wonder plants of world
agriculture. In: Ali, M., A.N. Asthana and
S.L. Mehta, (Eds.), Twenty Five years of Pulses
Research in India. Indian Institute of Pulses
Research, Kanpur, India, pp: 1-4.
meteorological week with the meager total rainfall of 286
mm during the entire cropping period (Fig. 3). This has
adversely affected relative humidity during evening hours
and resulted in delayed harvest with steep fall in the
minimum temperatures (Fig. 1). During this year, the
agro-climatic variations were recorded unfavourable for
most of the yield attributing traits viz., number of
pods/plant, 1000-seed weight and seed yield. During rainy
season, missing irrigation at the pod formation stage in
the absence of rainfall has been reported to drastically
reduce seed yield compared to irrigated crop (Shekhon
et al., 2004). Haqqani and Pandey (1994) also observed
that mungbean suffering water stress resulted in decreased
seed yield, pod number, number of seeds/pod and 1000seed weight.
CONCLUSION
Since present study was conducted strictly under
rainfed conditions, it is concluded that the four mungbean
genotypes MH-521, GM-9924, ML-1333 and Ganga-8
showing stable seed yield under varying environments
may be useful in a breeding programme for direct release
as a variety or for evolving high yielding mungbean
varieties well adopted to arid and semi-arid regions of the
country.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors are thankful to Dr. M. M. Roy, Director,
Central Arid Zone Research Institute, Jodhpur for
providing necessary laboratory and field facilities and
Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR),
New Delhi for providing financial assistance to carry out
this study.
REFERENCES
Abbas, G., B. Manzoor, T. Mahmood, M. Siddique and
H.M. Ahsanul, 2008. Stability analysis for seed yield
in Mungbean [Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek]. J. Agri.
Res., 46(3): 223-228.
Adewale, B.D., C. Okonji, A.A. Oyekanmi, D.A.C.
Akintobi and C.O. Aremu, 2010. Genotypic
variability and stability of some grain yield
components of Cowpea. Afri. J. Agri. Res., 5(9):
874-880.
Ali, Y. and G. Sarwar, 2008. Genotype X Environment
interaction in cowpea genotypes. Int. J. Environ.,
2(2): 125-132.
Azab, M.A., 1997. Salt tolerance of two varieties of
Mungbean (Vigna radiata L. Wilczek). Zagazig. J.
Agri. Res., 24: 11-21.
132
Asian J. Agric. Sci., 4(2): 126-133, 2012
Lawn, R.J., R.J. Summerfield, R.H. Ellis, E.H. Roberts,
P.M. Chay, J.B. Brouwers, J.L. Rose and S.J. Yeates,
1995. Towards the reliable prediction of time to
flowering in six annual crops. VI. Applications in
crop improvement. Expt. Agri., 31(1): 89-108.
Ludlow, M.M. and R.C. Muchow, 1990. A critical
evaluation of traits for improving crop yields in water
limited environments. Adv. Agron., 43: 107-153.
Malik, A., A. Fayyaz-Ul-Hassan, A. Abdul Wahieed,
G. Qadir and R. Asghar, 2006. Interactive effects of
irrigation and phosphorus on green gram (Vigna
radiata L.). Pak. J. Bot., 38(4): 1119-1126.
Morton, J.F., R.E. Smith and J.M. Poehlman, 1982. The
Mungbean. Department of Agronomy and Soils
Special Publication. University of Puerto Rico.
Mayaguez, Puerto Rico.
Motawea, M.H., 2006. Genotype environment interaction
in mungbean (Vigna radiata L.). Assiut. J. Agri. Sci.,
37(1): 41-54.
Muchow, R.C., 1985. Phenology, seed yield and water
use of grain legumes grown under different soil water
regimes in a semi-arid tropical environment. Field
Crops Res., 11: 81-87.
Oweis, T., A. Hachum and M. Pala, 2005. Faba bean
productivity under rainfed and supplemental
irrigation in northern Syria. Agri. Water Manag., 73:
57-72.
Pandey, R.K., W.A.T. Herrera and J.W. Pendleton, 1984.
Drought response of grain legume under irrigation
gradient. I. Yield and yield components. Agron. J.,
76: 549-553.
Pandey, S.K., S.V. Singh, P. Manivel, T.A. Joseph, R.S.
Marwaha and D. Kumar, 2009. Performance and
stability of indigenous and exotic potato (Solanum
tuberosum) cultivars for processing. Indian J. Agri.
Sci., 79(1): 8-11.
Pathak, R., S.K. Singh, M. Singh and A. Henry, 2010.
Performance and stability of Cyamopsis
tetragonoloba (L.) Taub. Genotypes under rainfed
conditions. Indian J. Dryland Agri. Res. Devp.,
25(2): 82-90.
Prasad, R., B. Lal and G. Singh, 1989. Herbicide use and
irrigation effects on weed growth and productivity of
spring planted Mungbean. Ind. J. Weed Sci., 21: 1-8.
Raje, R.S. and S.K. Rao, 2004. Stability analysis for seed
yield in mung bean [Vigna radiata (L.)Wilczek].
Legume Res., 27(1): 11-18.
Sangakkara, U.R., 1994. Yield and seed quality of
mungbean as affected by irrigation in a dry season. J.
Agron. Crop Sci., 172(5): 327-332.
Sarobol, N., 1997. Mungbean: Past, present and future.
In: Proceedings of the National Mungbean Research
Conference VII held at Golden Grand Hotel,
Thailand, 2-4 December 1997, pp: 1-20.
Shekhon, H.S., G. Singh, J.S. Star, S.
Shanmugasundaram, T.S. Bains and B.S. Kooner,
2004. Technology package for Mungbean cultivation
in Punjab (India). DFID-AVRDC-PAU, Mungbean
Project.
Singh, S.K., I.P. Singh, B.B. Singh and O. Singh, 2009.
Stability analysis in mungbean (Vigna radiata (L.)
Wilczek). Legume Res., 32(2): 108-112.
Souframanien, J. and T. Gopalakrishnan, 2004. A
comparative analysis of genetic diversity in black
gram genotypes using RAPD and ISSR markers.
Theor. Applied Genet., 109: 1687-1693.
Srinives, P., 2006. Research direction and legume crop
development. In: Proceedings of the National
Legume Crop Research Conference I held at Rimkok
Resort Hotel, Chiang Rai, Thailand, August 2006,
pp: 389.
Swamy, A.A. and G.L.K. Reddy, 2004. Stability analysis
of yield in mung bean (Vigna radiata L. Wilczek).
Legume Res., 27(2): 107-110.
Tah, P.R., 2006. Induced macromutation in mungbean
[Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek]. Int. J. Bot., 2(3):
219-228.
Verma, S.K., O.P. Tuteja and D. Monga, 2008.
Evaluation for Genotypes×Environment interaction
in relation to stable genetic male’s sterility based
Asiatic cotton (Gossypium arborecium) hybrid of
north zone. Ind. J. Agri. Sci., 78(4): 375-378.
133