RESPONSE OF MUNGBEAN (Vigna radiata L. WILCZEK) GENOTYPES TO DATES OF SOWING AND FOLIAR NUTRITION IN KHARIF SEASON

Transcription

1 RESPONSE OF MUNGBEAN (Vigna radiata L. WILCZEK) GENOTYPES TO DATES OF SOWING AND FOLIAR NUTRITION IN KHARIF SEASON Thesis submitted to the University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE (AGRICULTURE) IN AGRONOMY BY MADHU G. DEPARTMENT OF AGRONOMY COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, DHARWAD UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES, DHARWAD JUNE, 2013

2 ADVISORY COMMITTEE DHARWAD JUNE, 2013 (GANAJAXI MATH) MAJOR ADVISOR Approved by : Chairman : Members : (GANAJAXI MATH) 1 (SHASHIDHARA G.B) 2. ((VIJAY KUMAR A.G) 3. (YASHODA HEGDE) 4. (J.A HOSAMATH)

3 CONTENTS Sl. No. CERTIFICATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF PLATES LIST OF APPENDIX 1. INTRODUCTION 2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Chapter Particulars 2.1 Performance of mungbean and black gram varieties 2.2 Response to foliar spray 2.3 Interaction of varieties and dates of sowing 3. MATERIAL AND METHODS 3.1 Location of the experimental site 3.2 Climatic conditions 3.3 Soil and its characteristics 3.4 Previous crop of the experimental site 3.5 Experimental details 3.6 Cultural operation 3.7 Collection of experimental data 3.8 Statistical analysis of data 4. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS 4.1 Growth parameters 4.2 Yield and yield components of mungbean 4.3 Total nutrient uptake of mungbean (at flowering stage) 4.4 Total nutrient uptake of mungbean (at harvesting stage) 4.5 Economics 5. DISCUSSION 5.1 Weather condition and crop performance 5.2 Effect of dates of sowing 5.3 Performance of mungbean varieties 5.4 Effect of 2% DAP spray on growth and yield of mungbean 5.5 Quality parameters 5.6 Correlation of yield with other growth and yield parameters growth indices and NPK uptake 5.7 Disease incidence of powdery mildew 5.8 Economics 6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES

4 LIST OF TABLES Table No. Title Average of 60 years weather data ( ) and mean monthly 1 meteorological data during cropping year, at Main Agricultural Research Station, UAS, Dharwad 2 Physical and chemical properties of the experimental field 3 Methods of recording observations on different parameters Plant height (cm) of mungbean varieties at different growth stages as 4 influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Number of branches of mungbean varieties at different growth stages 5 as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Number of effective nodules of mungbean varieties at different growth 6 stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Dry matter production (g plant-1) of mungbean varieties at different 7 growth stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Leaf Area Index (dm2 plant-1) of mungbean varieties at different 8 growth stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Leaf Area Duration (days) of mungbean varieties at different growth 9 stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Crop Growth Rate (g dm2 days-1) of mungbean varieties at different 10 growth stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Net Assimilation Rate (g dm2 days-1) of mungbean varieties at 11 different growth stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Days to 50 % flowering of mungbean varieties at different growth 12 stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Number of flowers before spray and number of flowers after spray of 13 mungbean varieties at flowering stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Number of pods of mungbean varieties at different growth stages as 14 influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Number of seeds of mungbean varieties at different growth stages as 15 influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Pod length (cm) of mungbean varieties at different growth stages as 16 influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition 1000 seed weight (g) and Harvest Index (%) of mungbean varieties at 17 different growth stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Seed yield (kg ha-1) and Haulm yield (kg ha-1) of mungbean varieties at 18 different growth stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Protein content (%) of mungbean varieties at different growth stages as 19 influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition N, P and K uptake (kg ha-1) of mungbean varieties at flowering stage as 20 influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition N, P and K uptake (kg ha-1) of mungbean varieties at harvest as 21 influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Percent Disease index (PDI) of mungbean varieties at flowering stages 22 as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Gross Returns, Net returns, benefit cost ratio of mungbean varieties at 23 flowering stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Correlation of yield with other growth and yield parameters, growth 24 indices and NPK uptake

5 LIST OF FIGURES Figure No. 1a Plan of layout Title Average of 62 years weather data ( ) and mean monthly meteorological data during cropping year, at Main Agricultural Research Station, UAS, Dharwad Plant height (cm) of mungbean varieties at different growth stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Number of branches of mungbean varieties at different growth stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Number of Effective nodules of mungbean varieties at different growth stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Dry matter production (g plant -1 ) of mungbean varieties at different growth stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Leaf Area Index (dm2 plant -1 ) of mungbean varieties at different growth stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Leaf Area Duration (days) of mungbean varieties at different growth stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Crop growth rate (g dm2 days -1 ) of mungbean varieties at different growth stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Number of pods of mungbean varieties at different growth stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Number of seeds of mungbean varieties at different growth stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Pod length (cm) of mungbean varieties at different growth stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition 1000 seed weight (g) of mungbean varieties at different growth stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Seed yield (kg ha -1 ) and Haulm yield (kg ha -1 ) of mungbean varieties at different growth stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Protein content (%) of mungbean varieties at different growth stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition N, P and K uptake (kg ha -1 ) of mungbean varieties at flowering stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Per cent Disease index (PDI) of mungbean varieties at flowering stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Gross Returns, Net returns, benefit cost ratio of mungbean varieties at flowering stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Correlation of yield with other growth and yield parameters growth indices and NPK uptake

6 LIST OF PLATES Plate No. 1 General view of the experimental plot 2 General view 3 2% DAP Sprayed and without spray Title 4 First fort night of June with variety DGGV-2 + 2% DAP spray 5 First fort night of June with variety DGGV-2 without spray 6 First fort night of June with variety IPM % DAP spray 7 First fort night of June with variety SEL-4 + 2% DAP spray 8 Variety IPM % DAP spray 9 Variety IPM without spray 10 Variety SEL-4 + 2% DAP spray 11 Variety SEL-4 + without spray 12 Variety DGGV-2 + 2% DAP spray (45 DAS) 13 Variety DGGV-2 + without spray (45 DAS) 14 Spraying of 2% DAP (45 DAS) 15 Harvesting of crop LIST OF APPENDIX Appendix No. I II III IV Title Prices of input and output Cost of cultivation Seed yied of mungbean (Analysis done in DMRT) Gross returns net returns, B: C ratio (Analysis done in DMRT)

7 INTRODUCTION Mungbean is the third most important pulse crop cultivated in India covering an area of 3.43 m ha, with production of 1.71 m t and an average productivity of 498 kg ha -1 (Anon., 2012). Important mungbean growing states in India are Rajasthan, Orissa, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Bihar among which Rajasthan occupies larger area and production ( thousand ha and 652 thousand tones, respectively). Uttar Pradesh leads first in productivity with an average yield of 686 kg ha -1. In Karnataka, it occupies an area of thousand ha with a total production of thousand tonnes and an average productivity of only 249 kg ha -1 (Anon., 2012). This accounts for less than half of the national productivity there by indicating the scope to improve its productivity. Mungbean contains about 24 per cent protein, this being about two third of the protein content of soybean, twice that of wheat and thrice that of rice. The protein is comparatively rich in lysine, which is deficient in cereal grains. Hence, a diet combining mungbean and cereal grains forms a balanced amino acid diet. Every 100 g of mungbean seeds contains 132 mg calcium, 6.74 mg iron, 189 mg magnesium, 367 mg phosphorus and 124 mg potassium and vitamins like 4.8 mg ascorbic acid, mg thiamine, mg riboflavin, mg niacin, mg pantothenic acid and 114 IU vitamin A (Haytowitz and Matthews, 1986). It is estimated that Indian population will be around 1350 million by 2020 and demand for pulses would further grow in the years to come. The production of pulse crops in India in general and especially mungbean in particular is not enough to meet the domestic demand of the ever growing population. Hence there is need to enhance the productivity of mungbean by adopting proper agronomic practices like dates of sowing and nutrient management apart from evolving new high yielding varieties. Over the years high yielding, disease and pest resistant varieties with varied growth habits have been developed. Introduction of such high yielding varieties has provided the scope for improving overall productivity of mungbean. Yield potentiality of mungbean can be fully harnessed with suitable combination of agronomic practices and recomended varieties. Among different agronomic practices, optimum sowing date is a non cash input which enhances the yield potential of the crop. Suitable time of sowing provides optimum growing conditions favorable temperature, light, humidity and rainfall during the growth phase of the crop. This ultimately decides the selection of varieties for particular or different dates of sowing so as to get higher yields. Apart from this, supplimental nutrition plays a crucial role in increasing seed yield in pulses (Chandrashekar and Bangarusamy, 2003). Foliar application of nutrients is considered to be an efficient and economic method of supplementing the nutrient requirement of the crop which inturn leads to enhanced yield. In addition, foliar application of nutrients was found to be more advantageous than soil application with the elimination of losses through leaching and fixation. It thus increases photosynthetic rate and nutrient translocation from the leaves to the developing seeds (Manomani and Srimathi, 2009). Foliar application of water soluble fertilizer di- ammonium phosphate was found beneficial along with soil application. Foliar spray of 2 per cent on 30 th and 45 th day after sowing increased seed yield (1371 kg ha -1 ) as compared to no spray (1162 kg ha -1 ) in urdbean (Chandrashekar and Bangarusamy, 2003). The production and productivity of mungbean is reported to be low in Northern Transition Zone of Karnataka due to non availability of suitable mungbean varieties for late kharif sown conditions. The yield ability of mungbean is mainly dependent on date of sowing. Hence, new varieties viz., DGGV-2, IPM and SEL-4 were evaluated with four dates of sowing to standardize the time of sowing during kharif to late kharif situation. Keeping in view the above factors and constraints, present investigation was undertaken with the following objectives. Objectives of investigation 1. To identify the best genotype for sowing in late kharif 2. To standardize the suitable date of sowing for obtaining higher yield and quality of mungbean genotype 3. To study the response of varieties (DGGV-2, IPM and SEL- 4) to 2 per cent foliar spray

8 REVIEW OF LITERATURE An attempt has been made to review the work already carried out in respect of Response of Mungbean Genotypes to Dates of Sowing and Foliar nutrition in kharif season. 2.1 Performance of mungbean and urdbean genotypes Varieties play an important role in determining the yield potentiality of crop. The potential yield of varieties within its genetic limit is set by its environment. The release of new short duration varieties of pulses is a major breakthrough in achieving increase in pulse production per unit area and time. Yield of varieties can be further enhanced by providing optimum environment by manipulating agronomic practices. Varieties differ in their yield potential depending on many physiological processes, which are controlled by both genetic makeup and the environment. Singh and Faroda (1982) observed that mungbean variety K-851 recorded significantly higher seed yield ha -1 than all other varieties (T-4, S-8, PS-7, MH-1, H-706 and PS-16) during two years 1981 and 1982 of the study. Patil et al. (1990) noticed that PIMS-4 and PS-7 recorded higher seed yield over other mungbean genotypes in western Vidarbha and Central Vidarbha regions. Further, Singh et al. (1990) while evaluating the promising genotypes of mungbean found that, mungbean genotype 11/395 produced higher seed yield (545 kg ha -1 ) than ML-267 (399 kg ha -1 ) in Punjab situation. Singh (1990) reported that mungbean variety PDM-11 recorded significantly higher seed yield (1253 kg ha -1 ) than SML-117 (1022 kg ha -1 ) which was closely followed by Pusa 105 (928 kg ha -1 ). Sontekey and Patil (1990) reported that TAP 7 was superior to other genotypes of mungbean in yield, harvest index and chlorophyll content. Tomar and Tiwari (1991) conducted varietal trial during summer season at Monera and reported that the black gram genotype GWLS1 recorded significantly higher yield (735 kg ha -1 ) over PU-19 (557 kg ha -1 ) and RU-2 (550 kg ha -1 ) and was on par with JU (605 kg ha -1 ). Patil and Patil (1991) conducted study on mungbean genotypes and pointed out that Type-44 had significantly higher plant height, number of branches per plant, stover and seed yield (937 kg ha - 1 ) over Gujarat-2 (790 kg ha -1 ). The higher yield in Type-44 was mainly due to more number of pods per plant, length of pods and higher test weight. The research undertaken during rabi season at Agricultural Research Station, Hiriyur (Karnataka) showed higher dry matter production and significantly higher seed yield in CO-4 mungbean genotype (924 kg ha -1 ) than in PS-16 (375 kg ha -1 ) (Anon.,1991a ). In southern transitional zones (zone VII), it has been reported that among five black gram genotypes, LBG-625 recorded significantly higher seed yield (1168 kg ha -1 ), 100 seed weight (5.97g) and total number of pods plant -1 (36.88) followed by K-3 and IPU-982 with respect to yield and yield attributing characters (Anon., 2001). In an experiment conducted at Regional Research Station, Shimoga (Karnataka) revealed that among nine genotypes tested, MI-7-21 gave higher seed yield (1370 kg ha -1 ) followed by ML-131 (1278 kg ha -1 ), KDM -1 (1167 kg ha -1 ) and PDM (1130 kg ha -1 ) (Anon., 1991a and 1991b). Trial conducted at Agricultural Research Station, Kathalagere, (Karnataka) revealed that mungbean genotype PDM had higher number of branches, greater plant height and dry matter accumulation in leaves and recorded 65 per cent higher seed yield than Pusa baisakhi (Anon., 1992). Singh et al. (1993) reported that mungbean genotype PDM recorded significantly higher seed yield (1539 kg ha -1 ) than PDM (1403 kg ha -1 ). During rainy season at Nabuha, Mishra (1993) observed that the black gram variety RU-2 recorded significantly higher pods plant -1, seeds pod -1, 1000 seed weight and seed yield than that of BP-1 and local variety. Thakur Singh and Dhingra (1993) observed that mungbean genotype ML-131 recorded higher plant height, number of primary and secondary branches and significantly higher seed yield (15.6 q ha -1 ) than ML-322 (14.4 q ha -1 ). The higher seed yield in ML-131 was due to more number of seeds per pod and higher 100 seed weight.

9 Chaudhary et al. (1994) observed that mungbean genotype T-9 produced more number of trifoliate leaves (24) than the genotype UG-218, PANT U-19 and UPU (22.0, 22.5 and 20.6, respectively). Ravi Kumar (1994) reported that mungbean genotype, GM recorded significantly higher seed yield (1022 kg ha -1 ) than L-851 (928 kg ha -1 ). Increase in seed yield of GM was due to higher number of branches per plant, number of pods per plant and test weight. Results from Agricultural Research Station (ARS) Bheemarayanagudi revealed that among the twelve entries tested, the variety BRB-3 produced the highest seed yield (13.66 q ha -1 ) followed by TAU-1 (13.50 q ha -1 ) and Manikya (13.3 q ha -1 ) and K-3 (13.33 q ha -1 ). While Agricultural Research Station Bidar, BRB-3 produced significantly higher seed yield (21.04 q ha -1 ) than the check variety Manikya (18.37 q ha -1 ) and K-3 (20.14 q ha -1 ) (Anon., 1994). Twelve mungbean genotypes were tested at Regional Research Station, Tiptur (Karnataka) and it was found that genotype ML-5 recorded higher seed yield (4.48 q ha -1 ) followed by MCG -295 (3.95 q ha -1 ) and KCG-1(3.33 q ha -1 ) (Anon., 1995). Jaiswal (1995) evaluated two blackgram varieties under summer conditions at Jalandhar and reported that the variety Mash-218 produced significantly higher seed yield (15.4 q ha -1 ) than PDU-1 (12.7 q ha -1 ). Higher seed yield in Mash-218 was attributed to significantly higher number of pods plant -1 and number of seeds pod -1. An experiment was carried out under rainfed condition at Kirei (Orissa) kharif and it was found that blackgram genotype Sarala gave higher yield (1270 kg ha -1 ) than to S-37 (1160 kg ha -1 ) and was on par with that of T-9 (1225 kg ha -1 ). The higher seed yield, haulm yield and harvest index (%) observed in genotype Sarala were mainly due to higher plant height (cm), number of branches plant -1, dry matter accumulation plant -1 (g), number of pods plant -1, number of seeds plant -1 and seed weight (g) (Mohapatra et al., 1996). A field experiment conducted at Vamban during kharif season revealed that the genotype VB-3 registered higher seed yield (956 kg ha -1 and 770 kg ha -1 in 1993 and 1994 respectively) compared to other genotypes tested (Vairavi et al., 1997). Borah (1997) conducted field experiment at Shillongani (Assam) in mungbean and observed that a higher number of flowers were produced in the variety AAU-39 (60.0 plant -1 ), followed by ML- 131, PS-16, PIMS-1, 11/395 and T-44 (58.7, 55.6, 49.6, 46.3 and 41.2, respectively) and the variety AAU-39 recorded significantly higher seed yield in all the four dates of sowing fallowed by ML-131. Lal Ahmad Mohammad (1998) observed that the blackgram variety TAU-1 recorded higher growth components, yield components and seed yield (12.72 q ha -1 ) than Manikya at Dharwad, Bidar and Bheemarayanagudi. Samantha et al. (1999) reported that the mungbean genotype BINAMUNG-1 recorded the lowest seed yield but highest protein and S content. BINAMUNG-1 gave higher yield in early sowings but Kanti, BINAMUNG-5, BINAMUNG-2 and Patuakhali local recorded higher seed yield under late sown conditions. This might be due to higher temperature under late sown condition. Higher seed yield of BINAMUNG-1 in early sowing was possibly due to lower temperature and short day length. Singh et al. (1999) observed that the blakgram variety Pant U 35 recorded significantly higher seed yield (973 kg ha -1 ) over T-9 (875 kg ha -1 ) during kharif season at Pantnagar. The increase in yield was due to significantly higher number of pods plant -1, number of seeds pod -1 and 100 seed weight (g). Field trials conducted at Baptla (A.P) during rabi season revealed that the seed yield of blackgram cultivars were on par, except cultivar LBG-17 which gave significantly higher seed yield (655 kg ha -1 ) followed by LBG-20 (653 kg ha -1 ), LBG402 (653 kg ha -1 ) (Subba Rao et al., 1999). Patra et al. (2001) reported that, black gram varieties differed significantly with respect to seed yield. LBG-19 produced higher seed yield (1070 kg ha -1 ) than other varieties and was on par with that of LBG-30 (1036 kg ha -1 ) and Sarala (980 kg ha -1 ) in a study conducted at Chiplima (Orissa) during winter season (2001). Rakesh Dhanjal et al. (2000) conducted an experiment at J. V. college farm, Baraut (U.P.) during spring season. Among the five different varieties, Pusa bisakhi recorded significantly higher yield (10.66 q ha -1 ) than other mungbean varieties (PS-105, (7.60 q ha -1 ) PS9032 (5.40 q ha -1 ), K-851 (9.26 q ha -1 ) and ML-337 (7.33 q ha -1 ).

10 Singh and Singh (2000) at Pantnagar found that the genotype IPU 94-1 recorded significantly higher seed yield (1020 kg ha -1 ) compared to rest of the genotypes tested. The increase in yield was due to higher dry matter accumulation (g plant -1 ). Surya Kumari et al. (2000) reported that among the five blackgram genotypes tried, LBG-623 recorded significantly higher seed yield (1350 kg ha -1 ) under irrigated conditions at Bapatla (A.P) compared to other genotypes, which could be attributed significantly to higher number of pods plant -1, number of seeds pod -1 and 1000 seed weight (g) during kharif. In southern transition zone (VII) at Shimoga, thirteen elite lines were evaluated for their yield potential (Anon., 2001). The entries differed significantly with respect to seed yield, plant height, and 100 seed weight and pod length. The genotype VB-3 gave the highest seed yield of 1644 kg ha -1 followed by KU-135 (1458 kg ha -1 ), AKV-7 (1417 kg ha -1 ) and LBG-625 (1352 kg ha -1 ) as against the check variety T-9 (1134 kg ha -1 ) and K-3 (1111 kg ha -1 ) (Anon., 2001). In a varietal trial, blackgram genotypes differed significantly with respect to seed yield, number of pods plant -1, 100 seed weight and pod length. The entry TU ranked first in seed yield (1040 kg ha -1 ) as against the check variety K-3 (1036 kg ha -1 ) (Anon., 2001). Abdur Rahman Sarkar et al. (2004) reported that the Barimung-2 produced significantly higher seed yield (890 kg ha -1 ) than Barimung-3, Barimung-4 and Barimung-5. Parameswarappa et al. (2003) conducted experiment at ARS Baihongal on medium black soil and reported that genotypes differed significantly for their seed yield. Among the varieties, SEL-4 (1073 kg ha -1 ) gave higher seed yield over the chinamung (896 kg ha -1 ). It was superior in resistance to powdery mildew as compared to other test varieties. Thus, SEL-4 was found promising for northern transitional zone of Karnataka. Higher seed yield was mainly due to higher number of pods and number of branches plant -1. Results from the experiment conducted on mungbean in Gujarat with different dates of sowing in summer season (15 th February, 1 st March and 15 th March) revealed that higher plant growth attained with 1 st March sowing (Patel et al., 2003). At Pantnagar on Gurusharan and Sharma (2004) observed increased number of pods and pod weight in March 11 th sown crop compared to February 25 th, March 26th and April 10 th sown crop. Abdur Rahman Sarkar et al (2004) conducted experiment at Bangladesh, reported that mungbean variety BARI Mung-2, BARI Mung-3 and BARI Mung-4 produced higher seed yield as compared to variety BARI Mung-5 and BARI Mung-2. The BARI Mung-2 produced higher number of branches plant -1 and significantly recorded higher seed yield and harvest index where as the lowest seed yield and harvest index were recorded in BARIMung-3. Siddique et al. (2006) reported that mungbean varieties differed significantly among themselves in respect of yield contributing characters and seed yield. BINA MOOG7 was ranked first in terms of seed yield (938 kgha -1 ) followed by BINA MOOG- 6 (711 kgha -1 ), BINA MOOG- 5 (684 kgha -1 ) and BINA MOOG-2 (547 kgha -1 ). Guriqbal Singh et al. (2007) conducted field experiment on loamy sandy soil and reported that variety Pusa 9971 produced higher seed yield over others. Variety Asha was the tallest variety with the highest biological yield and lowest seed yield. SML 668, NM 92 and ML 818 were on par with each other in seed yield. The results of Hozayn et al. (2007) indicated that King genotype surpassed other genotypes in seed yield, number of seeds plant -1, harvest index and 100 seed weight. Moreover, it ranked as the first order due to all growth parameters. In Iran, Sadeghipour, (2008), studied yield and yield components of mungbean varieties for two years. His study revealed that varieties differed significantly in yield components and seed yield. Significantly higher seed yield (114.9 gm -2 ) was produced by VC 4152 variety over others. Interaction effects of sowing dates and varieties were found significant. VC 4152 sown on June 29 recorded significantly higher seed yield (134.7 gm -2 ) as compared to others. Abu Kawsar et al (2009) from Pakistan reported that among the varieties, BINA MOOG 7 ranked first in terms of seed yield ( kg ha -1 ) among the varieties followed by BINA MOOG 6 ( kg ha -1 ), BINA MOOG 5 ( kg ha -1 ) and BINA MOOG 2 (547.80kg ha -1 ). BINA MOOG 6 matured earlier than the other three varieties.

11 Guriqbal Singh et al. (2010) carried out field experiment for two years at Punjab on loamy sand and reported that genotype ML 1265 (1362 kg ha -1 ) produced significantly higher seed yield than SML 668 (1158 kg ha -1 ) in both the years. Total pods per plant, 100 seed weight, days to maturity, biological yield and seed yield per plant considered as selection criteria while selecting superior genotypes under late condition. High yielding advanced breeding lines viz. JG 14, JSC 56, AKG 70, JG , BG 3005, PG 03110, Phule G were found suitable (Anita Babbar et al., 2012) Response of mungbean to sowing dates Sharma et al. (1989) recorded the highest seed yield under early dates of sowing (13 th July). There was significant reduction in seed yield in successive dates (25 th July, 5 th August). Poehlman (1991) concluded that sowing on 11 th April (last sowing date) produced the highest stover yield, which was closely followed by 1 st April sowing. The lowest stover yield on the other hand, was observed on 12 th March sowing. Saini and Jaiswal (1991) observed that the sowing of mungbean during summer season between 1 st March to 15 th March was found to be optimum but further delay in sowing significantly reduced the yield. A field experiment conducted at Palampur during spring season of 1989 and 1990 indicated that the crop sown during last week of March recorded significantly higher seed yield (8.28 q ha -1 ) compared to 15 th March sowing (7.86 q ha -1 ) in the year However, in 1989 there was no significant difference in the yield of crop sown during 15 th March and 30 th March (Chakor and Rana, 1992). Gaaster (1993) reported the lowest harvest index in the later sowing (11 th April), compared to early sowing dates (March 15 th ) which might be due to elevated ambient temperature and higher cumulative rainfall that enhanced vegetative growth of the crop resulting in larger canopy. During kharif season at Pantnagar, blackgram sown during 6 th July resulted in significantly higher plant height (cm), number of trifoliate leaves plant -1, number of branches plant -1 and dry matter production (g plant -1 ) at 30 and 60 days and at harvest compared to the crop sown during 20 th July, 5 th August and 20 th August (Chaudhary et al., 1994). Jaiswal, (1995) carried out a field trial on sandy loam soils during kharif season. He reported that the crop sown during 25 th March produced significantly higher seed yield (14.5 q ha -1 ), seeds pod - 1, seeds plant -1 and number of pods plant -1, compared to crop sown during 5 th April and 15 th March. Singh et al. (1999) concluded that the normal sowing (3 rd August, 24 th July and 25 th July during the three respective years) recorded higher number of pods plant -1, number of seeds plant -1, 100 seed weight (g) and seed yield (kg ha -1 ) compared to late sowing (3 weeks after normal) at Pantnagar during Kharif season. Experiment was conducted with five dates of sowing at an interval of 15 days from December 15 to February 15 during The findings showed that late sown crops produced higher seed yield, protein and mineral contents as compared to early sown crops (Samantha et al., 1999). At Pantnagar during Kharif season, the results of a field experiment revealed that the blackgram sown on 24 th July recorded significantly higher seed yield (1044 kg ha -1 ) than the crop sown on 29 th August (857 kg ha -1 ) (Singh and Singh, 2000). Rakesh Dhanjal et al. (2000) in conducted an experiment at J. V. College farm, Baraut (U.P.) during spring season and observed that date of sowing markedly affected seed yield. Crop sown on 15 th March (10.06 q ha -1 ) recorded significantly higher seed yield over the crop sown on 31 st March and 16 th April (9.68 and 7.37 q ha -1 respectively). An experiment was conducted in Orissa during winter seasons of 1996 and 1997 (Patra et al., 2000) revealed that among the different varieties, Nayagarh local produced significantly higher yield. Incidence of yellow mosaic, cercospora leaf spot and powdery mildew was significantly lower in PDM 54 as compared to Banpur local, Nayagarh local, Rairachol local, Bedelia local, Dhauli and K 851. Singh and Singh (2000) reported that the crop sown during 24 th July recorded significantly higher dry matter at 30, 45, 60 and 75 days than 29 th August sown crop at Pantnagar.

12 In annual report of Southern Transition Zone (Zone VII) for reported from Shimoga, the normal date of sowing (1 st week of July) recorded significantly higher seed yield ( kg ha -1 ) than the late sown crop i.e., first fortnight of August ( kg ha -1 ) (Anon., 2001). Blackgram sown during 1 st January registered significantly higher seed yield (794 kg ha -1 ). The higher number of pods plant -1 (14.0), seeds plant -1 (9.4) and 1000 seed weight (28.1g) were observed in an early sown crop (Patra et al., 2001). At Chiplima (Orissa) during rabi season the results of a field experiment indicated that blackgram sown during 1 st November took maximum days to attain 50% flowering (70) and days to maturity (102) than the 1 st December (95) and 1 st January (92) sown crop (Patra et al., 2001). Roul and Behera (2002) conducted an field experiment in Orissa under sandy loam soils and concluded that the advancement in date of sowing from 1 st January to 20 th January produced significantly lower yield and yield attributes. Incidence of yellow mosaic disease also significantly increased with delay in sowing from 1 st January onwards. In multi-location studies in Punjab, Singh et al. (2003) noticed that sowing between 12 th and 24 th July was the optimum time for getting better yield in mungbean. They, further observed that the crop sown on 8 th July had given significantly higher seed yield than the crop sown on 16 th and 24 th July and 1 st August. The sowing on 16 th July was superior to 24 th July sowing in term of seed yield while 24 th July and 1 st August sowings were at par in seed yield. A significant reduction in seed yield was observed at case of 10 th August sowing. Patel et al. (2003) conducted the experiment on mungbean in Gujarat with different dates of sowing in summer season (15th February, 1st March and 15th March). It was revealed that higher plant growth attributes were recorded with 1st March sowing. At Pantnagar on mungbean, Gurusharan and Sharma (2004) observed increased number of pods and pod weight from March 11 th sown crop as compared to February 25 th, March 26 th and April 10th sowings. Sekhon et al. (2003) observed that higher plant height was recorded in July 5 th sowing which was significantly higher than all other dates of sowing.there was linear decline in plant height with delay in sowing. Branches per plant were not significantly influenced by sowing dates in 2005, however in 2006, July 5 th and July 15 th sowings showed significantly higher branches per plant than July 25 th and August sowing dates. Higher number of pods per plant was recorded in July 25 th sowing which was statistically superior to all other sowing dates. Abdur Rahman Sarkar et al (2004) conducted field experiment at Bangladesh, observed that early planted (03 and 18 February ) crops produced higher yield ( and kg ha -1, respectively) as compared to late planted 5 th and 20 th March sown crops ( and kg ha -1, respectively). The results revealed that higher number of pods plant -1, number of seeds pod -1, 1000-seed weight and harvest index were produced from the crop sown during 3 rd week of July. Similarly higher biological and seed yield ( and kg ha -1 ) was produced from the crop sown during 3 rd week of July (Fraz et al., 2006). Hozayn et al. (2007) concluded that all the varieties recorded suitable seed and straw yield when sown late in kharif (August). Both the varieties King and VC-21 gave the highest value of vegetative growth seed and biological yield at the end of growth seasons. Two years of field experiments was conducted during 2005 and 2006 in Iran by Sadeghipour (2008). Reavealed that seed yield was significantly affected by sowing dates. The higher seed yield (102.9 gm -2 ) was obtained in June 29 th sown crop due to higher number of pods per plant and 1000-seed weight. In Pakistan Abu Kawsar Miah et al (2009) reported that the highest seed yield ( kg ha - 1 ) was obtained from 2 nd March sowing followed by 20 th February ( kg ha -1 ) and 12 th March sowing ( kg ha -1 ). Sowing after 2 nd March gradually decreased the seed yield producing the lowest value at 11 th April sowing ( kg ha -1 ). Rathore et al. (2010) observed that urdbean varieties sown at the onset of monsoon (7 th July) recorded higher seed yield (1185 kg/ha) fallowed by the crop sown on 27th July (20 days after first sowing). The crop sown on 7 th July registered 45 per cent higher yield over crop the sown on 27 th July. Similarly, urdbean sown on 7 th July recorded significantly higher haulm yield (3415 kg ha -1 ) over 27 th July (2432 kg ha -1 ).

13 Nargis Jahan and Golam Adam (2012) reported that mungbean responded significantly to sowing time. Among the different dates, 15 th April sown crop produced higher plant height (68.4 cm), leaves plant -1 (29.33), total dry matter plant -1 (17.99), branches plant -1 (8.17), pods plant -1 (11.33), pod length (8.78 cm), seeds pod -1 (11.17), 1000 seed weight (46.52 g), seed yield plant -1 (5.33 g), yield ha - 1 (1.77 t) and harvest index (29.58%) over others. The seed yield decreased by 36.8 and 49.9% when seed sown early (15 th March) or late (15 th May) compared to April 15 th due to production of inferior yield components. Reza Monem et al. (2012) observed that planting date had significant effect on many of traits which include seed yield, biomass, harvest index, and the number of seeds per pod. The first planting date (5 th May) had the highest seed yield (479 g m -2 ). Anita Babbar et al. (2012) reported that total number of seeds per plant and total number of pods per plant, days to 50% flowering, days to maturity, plant height, 100 seed weight and seed yield per plant showed high heritability coupled with medium genetic advance as percentage of mean. Seed yield per plant showed high significant positive correlation with total number of seeds per plant, total number of pods per plant, biological yield, plant height and 100 seed weight, whereas, significant negative correlation with days to 50% flowering and damaged pod percentage. 2.2 Response to foliar spray Effect of foliar application of nutrients (spray) on growth parameters of mungbean and urdbean and other pulses Foliar application of nutrients constitutes one of the important milestones in the progress of agriculture production. Foliar applications are created with the advantage of quick and efficient utilization of nutrients, elimination of losses through leaching and fixation and helps in regulating the uptake of nutrients by plants. Foliar application of DAP (Di- Ammonium Phosphate) and urea was found beneficial than soil application. Rajendran (1991) conducted field experiments to study the effect of foliar nutrition of urea and DAP on seed yield of mungbean. Results revealed that DAP at 50 kg ha -1 at basal dose followed by spray of 2% urea or DAP twice gave significantly higher yield over others. Shinde and Bhilare (2003) reported that, application of 2% DAP at 65 DAS through foliar spray recorded higher plant height (55.72 cm), number of branches (29.15 plant -1 ) and dry matter plant -1 (33.15 g) over other treatments. An experiment was carried out during kharif season of to study the effect of foliar spray of 2% DAP + NAA (40 ppm) + B (0.2%) + Mo (0.05%) in different combination in green gram. Among the different sprays, foliar application of 2% DAP + NAA (40 ppm) + B (0.2%) + Mo (0.05 %) at 30 days after sowing (DAS) significantly increased the plant height (32.27cm), number of nodules plant -1 (30.99) and dry weight plant -1 (14.70 g) (Dixit and Elemathi, 2007). Malay and Bhowmick (2008) conducted two-year field trail during rabi season of and at Pulses and oilseed research sub-station, Beldanga, Murshidbad (West Bengal) to assess the effect of basal as well as foliar application of nutrients on growth and yield of lentil. They observed that foliar spray of either urea or diammonium phosphate (DAP) at 2% solution twice at pre-flowering and 10 days thereafter in lentil remarkably increased the crop height cm and cm, respectively over control (30.86 cm). Senthil Kumar et al. (2008) observed, a significant increase in growth characters like plant height (47.5 cm), dry matter production (2576 kg ha -1 ) and leaf area index (3.74) of black gram by foliar application of 2% at flowering and pod development stage as compared to no spray (37.1cm, 1712 kg ha -1, and 2.76, respectively). An experiment was carried out during kharif to study the effect of foliar spray of DAP (2%), NAA (40 ppm), B (0.2 %) and Mo (0.05%) in different combinations in greengram. Among different sprays, foliar application of 2 % DAP + NAA (40 ppm) + B (0.2%) + Mo (0.05 %) at 30 days after sowing (DAS) significantly increased plant height (32.27 cm), number of nodules plant -1 (30.99) and dry weight plant -1 (14.70 g) over the others (Dixit and Elamathi, 2008).

14 2.2.2 Effect of foliar application of nutrients (spray) on yield parameters of mungbean and urdbean and other pulses Muthuvel et al. (1985) concluded that, foliar spraying of 2% significantly increased the seed yield (955kg ha -1 ) and 100 seed weight (7.3 g) of blackgram over no spray (898 kg ha -1 ), and it was on par with urea at 1% spray, (904 kg ha -1 and g, respectively). Barik and Rout (1990) reported that, foliar spray of Navaras, Nuspartin, Tracel, urea and DAP enhanced the yield, yield attributing characters and protein content of seeds in blackgram. Navaras produced the highest harvest index (42.45%), whereas urea spray had highest protein content. Foliar application of 2 % DAP produced significantly higher seed yield ( kg ha -1 ) over commercial micronutrient mixtures except urea. One spray of 2% DAP at 20 DAS after sowing was best to maximize the yield. Two sprayings i.e., at 20 and 40 DAS recorded the higher protein content of seed (23.04%) over a single spray at 20 or 30 days after sowing. Rajendran (1991) reported that the seed yield was highest with foliar application of 2% DAP twice with basal application of fertilizers. However, no significant yield difference was observed between urea and DAP spray on equal N basis. Application of lower dose (25 kg ha -1 ) of potash in combination with DAP two per cent at preflowering and pod developing stage, recorded higher seed yield (13.80 q ha -1 ) and 1000-seed weight (33.80 g) over no spray (8.25 q ha -1 and 27.2, respectively) (Yakadri and Thatikunta, 2002). Chandrashekhar and Bangarusamy (2003) observed that, foliar application of 2% DAP + salicylic acid (100 ppm) + KCl (1%) + NAA (40 ppm) significantly increased the number of pods plant -1 (19.45) and seed yield ( kg ha -1 ). However, these treatments were on par with 2% DAP (13.2, kg ha -1, respectively) in green gram. An experiment conducted by Dixit and Elamathi (2007) revealed that, foliar application with DAP (2%) + NAA (40 ppm) + B (0.2%) + Mo (0.05%) at 30 DAS on green gram increased the seeds pod -1 (25.86), 1000 seed weight (30.33), seed yield (10.16 q ha -1 ) and haulm yield (30.33 q ha -1 ) over no spray. Manonmani and Srimathi (2009) concluded that, spraying with 2% DAP or 1% urea recorded higher 100 seed weight (5.6 and 5.5 g), seed yield, (1240 and 1040 kg ha -1 ), germination per cent (92 and 88%, respectively) in black gram Effect of foliar application of nutrients (spray) on nutrient uptake and Soil available nutrients of greengram and blackgram Rajendran (1991) reaveald that DAP at 50 kg ha -1 as basal dose followed by foliar spray of urea and DAP twice significantly increased the Leaf Area Index (LAI) and dry matter production during both kharif and summer seasons. The yield attributes were significantly higher when urea or DAP foliar spray was given. Elayaraja and Angayarkanni (2005) concluded that, foliar application of DAP 2% at 20, 30 and 45 DAS resulted in higher NPK uptake in both seed (43.03, and 6.85 kg ha -1, respectively) and haulm (5.39, 8.18 and kg ha -1, respectively) yields of blackgram. Raman and Venkataramana (2006) studied the effect of foliar nutrients on N, P and K uptake, yield attributes and yield of greengram on inceptisol at Kanpur. The results revealed that foliar spray of 2% with NAA 30 ppm and 0.01% at 20 and 45 DAS recorded higher N, P and K (69.01, and kg ha -1, respectively) uptake over control (58.66, and kg ha -1, respectively). Muthuvel et al. (1985) reported that, foliar spray of 2% DAP and 1% urea at flowering stage, increased the available N, P and K status of soil (131, 6.3 and 134 kg ha -1, respectively) of rainfed blackgram compared to no foliar spray Effect of foliar application of nutrients (spray) on economic parameters of mungbean and urdbean and other pulses Yakadri and Thatikunta (2002) reported higher B:C ratio (3.78) due to application of potash or combination of foliar spray of 2% DAP at flowering and pod development stage in black gram.

15 The highest cost: benefit ratio (3.47) was registered with foliar spray of 2% DAP and it was the cheapest agronomic practice in achieving good seed yield with minimum production cost in green gram (Chandrashekhar and Bangarusamy, 2003). An experiment was carried out during kharif at Allahabad on sandy loam to study the effect of foliar spray of DAP and growth regulators on yield attributes. The results revealed that, 2% foliar spray of DAP and 40 ppm NAA twice at 25 and 35 days after sowing resulted in higher benefit cost ratio (2.58) (Behera Nigamananda and Elamathi, 2007). Kuttimani and Velayutham (2011) reported that foliar applications of 2% DAP ppm salicylic acid % sodium molybdate twice at vegetative and flowering stages of crop growth recorded better yield parameters and economics. However, all the yield attributing parameters recorded with 2% urea ppm salicylic acid % sodium molybdate twice were on par with 2% DAP ppm salicylic acid % sodium molybdate twice. 2.3 Interaction of genotypes and dates of sowing Samantha et al. (1999) reported that the interaction effects for seed yield of all the cultivars except Binamung-1 was better under late sown conditions. Nisar Ahmed Soomro and Habib Rahman Khan (2003), reported that sowing date x genotype interaction for number of seeds per pod was significant. Generally number of seeds per pod showed little decrease in 5 th July, 15 th July and 25 th July but considerable reduction was noted in 5 th August. Among the genotypes NM-92 was relatively more sensitive showing gradual decrease in number of seeds per pod from 5 th July to 5 th August sowing. The interaction effects of sowing dates and varieties were found significant in seed yield and yield components. The VC-4152 variety sown on June 29 th gave the highest seed yield (134.7 g m -2 ) mainly due to increased number of pods plant -1. While the Pusa1973 variety sown on May 30 th gave the lowest seed yield (60.33 g m -2 ) might be due to decreased number of pods plant -1 and 1000-seed weight (Sadeghipour, 2008). Abu Kawsar Miah et al (2009) opined that interaction between variety and sowing date significantly influenced the all most all yield contributing characters of mungbean (except 1000-seed weight) and yield of summer mungbean. Results revealed that BINAMOOG-7 recorded the highest yield when sown on 2 nd March, which was statistically on par with 20 th February and 12 th March sowings. Yield contributing characters like number of pods plant -1, seeds pod -1 and seeds plant -1 contributed maximum to the highest seed yield. Guriqbal Singh et al. (2010) reported that interaction effect between dates of sowing and genotypes for seed was significant during Genotype ML-1265 produced higher (1362 kg ha -1 ), seed yield than the other genotypes (SML-668 (1158 kg ha -1 ), ML-818 (1272 kg ha -1 ) and ML-1405, (1255 kg ha -1 ) recorded seed yield under late sowing i.e. on August 5 th. The genotypic (G) x environment (E) interaction and both variance due to genotypes and environment were significant. The partioning of G x E interaction into linear and non-linear components indicated that both predictable and unpredictable components shared the interaction. On the basis of stability parameters, the top yielding genotypes such as DGGV-2 (964 Kg ha -1 ) DLGG-22 (945 Kg ha -1 ) and DGGS-16 (933 Kg ha -1 ) exhibit the stable performance across the environments. The genotypes BGS-9 (933 Kg ha -1 ), BPMR-1 (903 Kg ha -1 ) and KGS-83 (908 Kg ha -1 ) gave higher yield across the locations but their performance was unstable due to significant deviation from regression. On the basis of results, DGGV-2, DLGG-22 and DGGS-16 were the most suitable and desirable genotypes which showed higher stable seed yields at different agro-climatic regions (Kamannavar et al., 2012).

16 MATERIAL AND METHODS A field experiment was carried out during kharif season of 2012 to study the Response of Mungbean Genotypes to Dates of Sowing and Foliar Nutrition in kharif season. The details of materials used and techniques adopted in the present investigation are described below. 3.1 Location of the experimental site The experiment was conducted at Main Agricultural Research Station, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad (Karnataka) in plot number 127 of E block situated at 15 26' N latitude, 75 01' E longitude and at an altitude of 678 m above mean sea level. The Research Station comes under Northern Transition Zone (Zone-8) of Karnataka which lies between the Western Hilly Zone (Zone 9) and Northern Dry Zone (Zone-3). 3.2 Climatic conditions The data on weather parameters viz., rainfall (mm), mean maximum and minimum temperature ( o C) and relative humidity (%) recorded at Meteorological Observatory, Main Agricultural Research Station, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad during the experimental year and the mean of the last 62 years ( ) are presented in Table 1. The annual rainfall received during 2012 was mm distributed in 47 rainy days (Table 1). The rainfall during cropping period (June-October) was mm which was distributed during crop growth period. It was 24 percent lesser than the normal rainfall (713.8 mm). The rainfall received in the period of first fort night of June to second fort night of July ensured adequate stored moisture for germination, emergence and early establishment of seedlings at first two (I FN of June and II FN of June, respectively) dates of sowing. However the late sown (first fort night July and second fort night of July) crop did not get adequate moisture during crop growth stage. Even though the maximum rainfall in the current year was received in the month of July (112.2 mm) followed by August (90 mm), the distribution of rainfall was erratic. Hence, in delayed sowing dates (I FN of July and II FN of July) crop suffered due to moisture stress during early growth stage of crop. The other parameters viz., maximum and minimum temperature and relative humidity did not have any adverse effect on crop growth and yield. The mean maximum temperature during the period of experimentation ranged from 30.6 o C (June) to 28 o C (September), while the minimum temperature was between 19.8 o C (September) to 21.5 o C (June). The mean relative humidity varied from 58 per cent in the month of November to per cent in the month of June 2012 (Table 1and Fig 2). 3.3 Soil and its characteristics The soil type of experimental site was medium black clay soil. The composite soil sample to a depth of 0-30cm in the experimental area was collected before sowing and analyzed for important physical and chemical properties. The details along with methods used for their determination are furnished in Table 2. The experimental site was low in nitrogen ( kg ha -1 ), medium in phosphorous (21.50 kg ha -1 ) and high in potash ( kg ha -1 ). 3.4 Previous crop at the experimental site During the kharif season of 2012 mungbean crop was grown in the experimental area and wheat was grown during previous rabi In summer, the land was kept fallow. 3.5 Experimental details The details of the experiments with regard to crop, variety, treatment combinations, the design adopted and plot size are given below.

17 Table 1: Monthly meteorological data during crop growth period (2012) and the average of 62 years ( ) at Main Agricultural Research Station, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad Months Rainfall (mm) Rainy Mean Temperature ( o C) Relative humidity (%) days Maximum Minimum (2012) January February March April May June July August September October November December Total

18 Rainfall 2012 Rainfall Mean Max Mean Max Mean Min Mean Min Relative humidity 2012 Relative humidity Rainfall and mean Max Mean Min. and Realtive humidity January February March April May June July August September October November December Months Fig. 1: Monthly meteorological data during crop growth period (2012) and the average of 61 years ( ) at Main Agricultural Research Station, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad -10 Fig. 1: Monthly meteorological data during crop growth period (2012) and the average of 61 years ( ) at Main Agricultural Research Station, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad

19 Table 2: Physical and chemical properties of the experimental field Particulars Value Methods employed 1. Physical properties Particle size distribution Coarse sand (%) 6 Fine sand (%) 14 Silt (%) 28 Hydrometer method (Piper, 1966) Clay (%) 52 Textural class Clayey 2. Chemical properties Available N (kg ha -1 ) Alkaline permanganate method (Subbaiah and Asija, 1956) Available P 2 O 5 (kg ha -1 ) 21.5 Olsen s method (Jackson,1967) Available K 2 O (kg ha -1 ) Flame photometer (Jackson,1967) Organic carbon (%) 0.50 Wet oxidation method (Jackson, 1967) ph (1:2.5, Soil: Water) 7.80 ph mater (Piper, 1966) Electrical conductivity (dsm -1 ) 0.32 EC bridge (Jackson, 1973)

20 Main plots: Dates of sowing D 1 D 2 D 3 D 4 Treatment Details First fortnight of June Second fortnight of June First fort night of July Second fortnight of July Sub plots: Genotype Sub sub plots: Foliar spray V 1 DGGV -02 V 2 IPM V 3 S 1 S 2 SEL-04 (check) 2 % DAP spray Without spray Recommended dose of fertilizer (25:50:0:20 kg ha -1 of N: P 2 O 5 : K 2 O: S) was common to all the treatments Characteristics of genotypes Varieties DGGV- 02 IPM SEL - 04 Salient features It is a new variety which was released from UAS, Dharwad. Maturity days (70-75 days) bold and shining seeds, resistance to pod shattering, yield potential (10-12 q ha -1 ) It is an early maturing variety (65-68 days).this variety was released from IIPR, Kanpur, resistance to MYMV and to leaf spot.yield potential (10-11 q ha -1 ). Maturity period (68-70 days) small and shining seeds, susceptible to powdery mildew. It is a old variety released from UAS, Dharwad yield potential (8-10 q ha - 1 ) Design and layout The experiment was laid out in split- split plot design with three replications.the plan of layout of the experiment is given in Fig. 2 The other details are as follows Plot size Gross plot : 4.2 m x 3.2 m = m 2 Net Plot : 3.6 m 2.8 m = m² Other details Spacing : 30 cm 10 cm Date of sowing: Date of harvest: Days D1= First fort night of June (14 th June) H1 = 26 th August, D2= Second fort night of June (29 th June) H2 = 12 th September, D3= First fort night of July (15 th July) H3 = 29 th September, D4= Second fort night of July (30 th July) H4 = 11 th October,

21 3.6 Cultural operations The details of the cultural operations carried out during the course of investigation are as follows Land preparation After harvest of previous wheat crop, land was ploughed once. Later, on receipt of May showers, ploughing was done on 27 th May and 2 nd June by using mould board plough. The clods were crushed and harrowed twice to bring the soil to fine tilth. Weeds were removed from the experimental area. The plots were marked as per the plan and small bunds were formed around each plot Fertilizer application Fertilizers were applied to all the treatments at the rate of 25 kg N and 50 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1 and 20 kg K 2 O ha -1 in the form of urea, diammonium phosphate and muriarte of potash, respectively. And 20 kg ha -1 of sulphur was applied in the form of gypsum. Entire dose of fertilizers was applied as basal Seeds and sowing Bold and healthy seeds of each variety were sown by dibbling. The seeds were sown with a spacing of 30 cm between rows and intra row spacing of 10 cm. After ten days of sowing, the excess seedlings were thinned out to maintain the optimum plant population After care After thinning, two inter cultivations were carried out at 15 and 30 DAS to check the weed growth with the help of blade hoe and one hand weeding was carried out at 20 days after sowing.two plant protection sprays with Lambra 0.5 ml/l and Carbendazim (0.05%) were taken up at 30 and 45 days after sowing (DAS) to keep the crop free from leaf eating caterpillars and leaf spot, respectively Foliar application of DAP Two foliar sprays of 2 per cent DAP given as per treatment at flowering and pod development stage after sowing which coincided with 30 and 45 DAS Harvesting and threshing The crop was harvested at physiological maturity stage. The plants were uprooted from the net plot and sun dried in threshing yard. Later, the pods were threshed and net plot yield was recorded treatment wise Screening of mungbean genotypes to leaf spot and powdery mildew A field experiment was conducted to find out the resistance source to mungbean leaf spot and powdery mildew. Totally three genotypes were screened against leaf spot and powdery mildew under field condition. The severity of diseases was recorded using 0-9 scale by randomly selecting 10 plants in each genotype (Mayee and Datar,1986) 3.7 Collection of experimental data For recording observations on growth parameters, five plants were randomly selected and tagged in the net plot of all the plots. Observations were recorded on growth, yield, nutrient uptake, nutrient status of soil, quality aspects besides B: C ratio was worked out for mungbean as shown in Table Statistical analysis of data The data collected from the experiment was analyzed statistically following the procedure described by Gomez and Gomez (1984). The level of significance used in F test was P=0.05. The data was subjected to excel and DMRT.

22 Table 3: Methods of recording observations on different parameters I. Growth components Sl. No. Parameters Procedure followed/ Reference 1 Plant height(cm) The plant height from ground surface to the tip of the main stem was measured at 15, 30, 45, 60 DAS (days after sowing) and at harvest. Average height of the randomly selected five plants was recorded and expressed as plant height in centimeters. 2 Number of branches per The number of branches per plant was counted from five tagged plants and their mean was recorded as plant 3 Number of root nodules per plant 4 Dry matter production and distribution(g) number of branches per plant at 15, 30, 45, 60 DAS and at harvest. The number of root nodules count was taken at 15, 30, 45, 60 DAS and at harvest in randomly selected five plants. The plants were carefully removed from the soil without damaging the roots, and roots were dipped gently in a bucket containing water to remove the soil and then nodules count was taken. The five randomly selected plants from net plot area were used to record the dry matter production at different growth stages. The plant samples were separated into leaves, stem and pods. Then samples were dried at 65 C till they attained constant dry weight. Dry weight was recorded separately at each stage of crop growth. The dry matter accumulation in stem, leaves, pods and total dry matter production per plant were expressed in g per plant. 5 Leaf area (dm 2 ) Leaf area was recorded by disc method as suggested by Vivekanandan et al. (1972). Fifty leaf discs of known size were taken using a cork borer from randomly selected twenty leaves from five plants. Both discs and remaining leaf blades were oven dried separately at 65 to 70 C and leaf area was calculated by following the formula at different stages of crop growth (30, 45, and 60 DAS). Wa x A LA = Wd 6 Leaf area index Where, LA = Leaf area (dm²) Wa = Weight of all leaves (including 50 discs in g) Wd = Weight of 50 discs (g) A = Area of 50 disc (dm²) It is defined as an assimilatory surface per unit area of land (Sestak et al. 1971). Leaf area index was worked out at 15, 30, 45 and 60 DAS by dividing the leaf area per plant by land area occupied by the plant. Leaf area per plant (dm²) LAI = Land area occupied by plant (dm²)

23 7 Leaf area duration (days) 8 Net assimilation rate (g dm -2 day -1 ) 9 Crop growth rate (g dm -2 day -1 ) Leaf area duration is the integral of LAI over the growth period and was worked out as per the formula given by Power et al. (1967). L 1 + L 2 LAD = X t 2 t 1 2 Where, L 1 = LAI at time t 1 L 2 = LAI at time t 2 t 2 -t 1 = time interval in days Net assimilation rate is the rate of increase in dry weight per unit leaf area per unit time (Watson, 1952) and is expressed in g dm -2 day -1. It was calculated by using the formula as suggested by Gregory (1926). Where, [W 2 W 1 ] [Log e L 2 - Log e L 1 ] NAR = [t 2 -t 1 ] [L 2 -L 1 ] NAR = Net assimilation rate (g dm -2 day -1 ) L 1 and W 1 = Leaf area in dm² and dry weight of plant in g respectively at time t 1 L 2 and W 2 = Leaf area in dm² and dry weight of plant in g respectively at time t 2 t 2 and t 1 = The time interval in days It is defined as the rate of dry matter production per unit land area per unit time. It was worked out by using the formula proposed by Watson (1952) and is expressed as g dm -2 day -1. Where, W 2 - W 2 1 CGR = t 2 t 1 P CGR = Crop growth rate (g dm -2 day -1 ) W 1 and W 2 = Dry matter production plant -1 (g) at time t 1 and t 2, respectively P = Ground area covered by plant (dm -2 ) II. Yield parameters 1 Number of pods per plant The number pods of five plants were recorded and average per plant was worked out. 2 Number of seeds per pod The seeds from ten representative matured pods were separated and counted. The mean number of seeds per pod was calculated by dividing the number of seeds by the number of pods. 3 Thousand seed weight(g) From seed sample of each treatment, 1000 seeds were counted at random and weighed. The 1000 seed weight was expressed in grams (g). 4 Seed yield(kg/ha) Seed yield per plot was recorded after threshing and winnowing the seeds from each net plot area. The seed yield/ ha was worked out and expressed in kg/ ha.

24 5 Haulm yield (kg/ha) The total biological portion from yield of above ground portion from net plot at harvest was recorded after complete sun drying and haulm yield per ha was worked out by deducting the grain yield. III. Chemical analysis Soil analysis 1 Available nitrogen 2 Available phosphorus 3 Available Available nitrogen content was determined by alkaline permanganate method as described by Subbiah and Asija (1956). Available phosphorus content was determined by Olsen s method as outlined by Jackson (1967). Available potassium content was determined by extracting with neutral normal ammonium acetate solution and using flame photometer (ELICO Model) as outlined by Jackson (1967). potassium Plant analysis 1 Nitrogen Nitrogen content in plants was determined by Micro Kjeldahl method expressed in percentage. N concentration in seed(%) x seed yield (kg/ha) N concentration in haulm(%) x haulm yield (kg/ha) N uptake (kg/ha) = Phosphorous Phosphorus was estimated by Vanadomolybdate method in tri acid mixture as outlined by Jackson (1967) by using Spectrophotometer at 420 nm and expressed in percentage. P concentration in seed(%) x seed yield (kg/ha) P concentration in haulm(%) x haulm yield (kg/ha) P uptake (kg/ha) = Potassium Potassium was estimated by using flame photometer as described by Jackson (1967). IV. Quality parameters K concentration in seed(%) x seed yield (kg/ha) K concentration in haulm(%) x haulm yield (kg/ha) K uptake (kg/ha) = Protein content (%) Nitrogen content in the grain of black gram was estimated by Kjeldahl method (Jackson, 1967), and the protein per cent in the grain was calculated by multiplying the nitrogen content with a factor V. Economics 1 Cost of The prices in rupees of the inputs that were prevailing at the time of their use was considered for working out the cost of cultivation

25 cultivation per hectare treatment wise. 2 Gross return Gross returns per hectare were derived by taking into consideration the price of the product that was prevailing in market after harvest. 3 Net return The net returns per hectare were derived treatment wise by subtracting the total cost of cultivation from gross returns. 4 Benefit cost ratio Benefit cost ratio (B: C) was worked out treatment wise as follows. Gross return (`ha -1 ) B:C = Total cost of cultivation (`ha -1 )

26 Plate 1: General view of the experimental plot Plate 2: General view Plate 3: 2% DAP Sprayed and without spray

27 LEGEND Main plots: Dates of sowing D 1 D 2 D 3 D 4 First fortnight of June (14 th June) Second fortnight of June (29 th June) First fort night of July (15 th July) Second fortnight of July (30 th July) Sub plots: Genotypes V 1 DGGV -02 V 2 IPM V 3 SEL-04 (check) Sub sub plots: Foliar spray S 1 S 2 2 % DAP spray Without spray

28 RI RII RIII S 2 S 2 S 2 V 1 S 1 V 1 S 1 V 1 S 1 D 1 S 1 S 1 S V 1 2 D V S 4 2 D V 2 S S 2 S 2 S 1 S V 2 3 V S 3 V 1 S 2 2 S 1 S 2 S 1 S 1 V 2 S 1 V 2 S 2 V 1 S 2 D 2 S 1 S 1 S V 2 1 D V S 1 3 D V 2 S S 1 V 3 S 1 S 1 S 1 S2 V 1 V S 3 2 S 2 D 3 S 1 S 2 S V 1 2 V S 2 V 2 S 1 1 S 2 S 2 S 1 S V 2 1 D V S 2 1 D V 1 S S S 1 S 1 S V 2 3 V S 3 V 2 S 2 2 S m V S 1 S 2 S 1 1 S V 1 2 S V m S 2 D 4 S 2 S 1 S V 2 3 D V S 3 3 D V 1 S S 1 S 1 S 2 S V 1 2 V S 2 V 2 S 3 1 S 2 1 m 4.2 m 1 m 4.2 m D = Date of sowing V= Varieties S= DAP Spray D 1 = First fort night of June (14th June) V 1 = DGGV-2 S 1 = 2 % DAP Spray D 2 = Second fort night of June (29th June) V 2 = IPM S 2 = without spray D 3 = First fort night of July (15th July) V 3 = SEL-4 NS=Non Significant D 4 = Second fort night of July (30th July) Fig 1a: Plan of layout

29 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS The results of field experiment conducted to study the Response of Mungbean Varieties to Dates of Sowing and Foliar Nutrition in kharif season in Northern Transition Zone of Karnataka at Main Agricultural Research Station, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad during kharif 2012 under rain fed condition are presented in this chapter. 4.1 Growth parameters Plant height (cm) The data on plant height of mungbean (cm) as influenced by dates of sowing, mungbean varieties and foliar nutrition of and their interactions are presented in Table 4. Plant height was not significant at 15 DAS. At 30 DAS, the plant height differed significantly. Among the dates of sowing the crop sown on first fort night of June (32.23 cm) recorded significantly higher plant height over first fort night of July (24.46 cm) and second fort night of July (15.92 cm) sowings. It was on par with second fort night of June sown crop (30.58 cm). Among mungbean varieties, significantly higher plant height was recorded with DGGV-2 (26.77 cm) over other two varieties IPM (25.33 cm) and SEL-4 (25.30 cm) were on par with each other. In respect to plant height none of the interaction effects were significant except dates of sowing and variety. The interaction D 1 V 1 (first fort night of June and variety DGGV-2) recorded significantly higher plant height (36.73 cm) over others and was on par with D 1 V 3 (34.89 cm). The lowest plant height was recorded in the interaction D 4 V 3 (10.12 cm) as compared to other interactions. At 45 DAS, among the dates of sowing, the first fort night of June recorded significantly higher plant height (54.17 cm) over first fort night of July (42.74 cm) and second fort night of July (40.70 cm) and were on par with each other. Significantly higher plant height was recorded with mungbean variety DGGV-2 (49.93 cm) over IPM (45.18 cm) and was on par with SEL-4 (48.29 cm). Significantly higher plant height was recorded in 2 per cent DAP spray (49.20 cm) over without DAP spray (46.40 cm). None of the interaction effects were significant except dates of sowing and variety. The interaction D 1 V 1 (first fort night of June and DGGV-2) recorded significantly higher plant height (59.73 cm) as compared to others. It was on par with D 1 V 3 (55.91 cm), D 2 V 1 (56.58 cm) and D 2 V 3 (56.46 cm). However, the lowest plant height was recorded in D 4 V 3 (39.30 cm) At 60 DAS, plant height differed significantly among the dates of sowing, the crop sown on first fort night of June (64.06 cm) recorded significantly higher plant height over first fort night of July (56.00 cm), second fort night of July (47.37 cm) and it was on par with second fort night of June (62.21 cm). Among mungbean varieties, significantly higher plant height was recorded with DGGV-2 (59.84 cm) over SEL-4 (56.72 cm) and IPM (55.67 cm). Significant difference was observed in plant height between 2 per cent DAP spray (58.91 cm) and without DAP spray (55.91 cm). None of the interaction effects were significant except dates of sowing and variety. Among the interactions, D 1 V 1 (first fort night of June and DGGV-2) recorded significantly higher plant height (68.60 cm) as compared to other treatment combinations and it was on par with D 1 V 3 (64.07 cm), D 2 V 1 (67.66 cm). However, the lowest plant height was recorded in D 4 V 1 (45.07 cm) as compared to other treatment combinations. At harvest, the plant height differed significantly among the dates of sowing. The crop sown on first fort night June (73.19 cm) recorded significantly higher plant height over first fort night of July (65.11 cm), second fort night of July (52.71 cm) and it was on par with second fort night of June (71.99 cm). Among the mungbean varieties, significantly higher plant height was recorded with IPM (66.83 cm) over SEL-4 (64.16 cm) and it was on par with DGGV-2 (66.26 cm). Significant difference was observed in plant height between 2 per cent DAP spray (67.10 cm) and without DAP spray (64.40 cm). None of the interaction effects were significant except dates of sowing and variety. The interaction D 1 V 1 (first fort night of June and DGGV-2) recorded significantly higher plant height (74.90 cm) as compared to other treatment combinations and it was on par with D 1 V 2 (71.14 cm), D 1 V 3 (73.54 cm), D 2 V 1 (73.46 cm), D 2 V 3 (72.55 cm) and D 3 V 2 (72.51 cm). The lowest plant height was recorded in D 4 V 1 (51.40 cm) as compared to other treatment combinations.

30 Table 4: Plant height (cm) of mungbean varieties at different growth stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Treatment 15 DAS 30 DAS 45 DAS Varieties Varieties Varieties Date of sowing (D) DAP spray V 1 V 2 V 3 Mean V 1 V 2 V 3 Mean V 1 V 2 V 3 Mean S D 1 : I FN of June S Mean S D 2 : II FN of June S Mean S D 3 : I FN of July S Mean S D 4 : II FN of July S Mean Mean of S Mean of S Mean Sources S.Em + CD (P = 0.05) S.Em+ CD (P = 0.05) S.Em + CD (P = 0.05) Date of sowing (D) 0.26 NS Varieties (V) 0.18 NS DAP spray (S) 0.09 NS D X V 0.35 NS D X S 0.18 NS 0.75 NS 1.10 NS V X S 0.16 NS 0.65 NS 0.95 NS D X V X S 0.32 NS 1.29 NS 1.90 NS D = Date of sowing V= Varieties S= DAP Spray D 1 = First fort night of June (14th June) V 1 = DGGV-2 S 1 = 2 % DAP Spray D 2 = Second fort night of June (29th June) V 2 = IPM S 2 = without spray D 3 = First fort night of July (15th July) V 3 = SEL-4 NS= Non Significant D 4 = Second fort night of July (30th July) Treatment 60 DAS At harvest Contd

31 Varieties Varieties Date of sowing (D) DAP spray V 1 V 2 V 3 Mean V 1 V 2 V 3 Mean S D S : I FN of June Mean S D S : II FN of June Mean S D S : I FN of July Mean S D 4 : II FN of July S Mean Mean of S Mean of S Mean Sources S.Em+ CD (P = 0.05) S.Em+ CD (P = 0.05) Date of sowing (D) Varieties (V) DAP spray (S) D X V D X S 1.26 NS 0.83 NS V X S 1.09 NS 0.72 NS D X V X S 2.19 NS 1.44 NS D = Date of sowing V= Varieties S= DAP Spray D 1 = First fort night of June (14th June) V 1 = DGGV-2 S 1 = 2 % DAP Spray D 2 = Second fort night of June (29th June) V 2 = IPM S 2 = without spray D 3 = First fort night of July (15th July) V 3 = SEL-4 NS= Non Significant D 4 = Second fort night of July (30th July)

32 DAS 45 DAS 60 DAS Plant height (cm) D1 D2 D3 D4 V1 V2 V3 S1 S2 Dates of sowing Varieties Spray D1V1 D1V2 D1V3 D2V1 D2V2 D2V3 D3V1 D3V2 D3V3 D4V1 Interaction (date of sowing x variety) D4V2 D4V3 Days after sowing Fig. 2: Plant height (cm) of mungbean varieties at different growth stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Fig. 2: Plant height (cm) of mungbean varieties at different growth stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition

33 4.1.2 Number of branches plant -1 The data on number of branches plant -1 of mungbean as influenced by dates of sowing, mungbean varieties and foliar spray and their interactions are presented in Table 5. The number of branches plant -1 was not significant at 15 DAS. At 30 DAS, the number of branches plant -1 differed significantly. Among the dates of sowing the crop sown on first fort night of June (3.83) recorded significantly higher number of branches plant -1 over first fort night of July (3.37) and second fort night of July (2.83) and it was on par with second fort night of June (3.43). Among the mungbean varieties, significantly higher number of branches plant -1 was recorded with DGGV-2 (3.64) followed by SEL-4 (3.32) and IPM (3.15). None of the interaction effects were significant except dates of sowing and variety. The interaction D 1 V 1 (first fort night of June and variety-dggv-2) recorded significantly higher number of branches (4.52). The number of branches plant -1 was the least in D 4 V 1 (2.53). At 45 DAS, the first fort night of June recorded significantly higher number of branches plant -1 (6.23) and it was on par with second fort night of June (5.99), followed by first fort night of July (4.76) and second fort night of July (4.09) among the dates of sowings. Significantly higher number of branches plant -1 was recorded with DGGV-2 (5.59) over IPM (5.15) and SEL- 4 (5.06). Significant difference was observed in number of branches plant -1 between 2 per cent DAP spray (5.60) and without DAP spray (4.93). None of the interaction effects were significant except dates of sowing and variety. The interaction D 1 V 1 (first fort night of June and DGGV-2) recorded significantly higher number of branches plant -1 (6.40) as compared to other treatment combinations. However it was on par with D 1 V 2 (6.03), D 1 V 3 (6.27), D 2 V 1 (5.83), D 2 V 2 (6.17) and D 2 V 3 (5.98). The lowest number of branches plant -1 was recorded in D 4 V 2 (3.60) as compared to other treatment combinations. At 60 DAS, number of branches plant -1 differed significantly. Among the dates of sowing, the crop sown on first fort night of June (8.76) recorded significantly higher number of branches plant -1 over first fort night of July (7.47), second fort night of July (6.10) and it was on par with second fort night of June (8.57). Among the varieties, significantly higher number of branches plant -1 was recorded with DGGV-2 (8.10) over SEL-4 (7.40) which was on par with IPM (7.67). Significant difference was observed in number of branches plant -1 between 2 per cent DAP spray (7.92) and without DAP spray (7.53). None of the interaction effects were significant except dates of sowing and variety. The interaction D 1 V 1 (first fort night of June and DGGV-2) recorded significantly higher number of branches plant -1 (9.22) in comparison to other treatment combinations. It was on par with D 1 V 3 (8.80), D 2 V 1 (8.80), D 1 V 2 (8.25), D 2 V 3 (8.37) and D 2 V 2 (8.53). The lowest number of branches plant-1 were recorded in D 4 V 2 (5.47) as compared to other treatment combinations. At harvest, number of branches plant -1 differed significantly. Among the dates of sowing, the crop sown on first fort night of June (8.99) recorded significantly higher number of branches plant -1 over first fort night of July (7.89), second fort night of July (6.66) and it was on par with second fort night of June (8.85). Significantly higher number of branches were recorded with DGGV-2 (8.40) over IPM (7.99) and SEL-4 (7.91). Significant difference was observed in number of branches plant -1 between 2 per cent DAP spray (8.35) and without DAP spray (7.84). None of the interaction effects were significant except dates of sowing and variety. The interaction D 1 V 1 (first fort night of June and DGGV-2) recorded significantly higher number of branches plant -1 (9.58) as compared to other treatment combinations. It was found on par with D 1 V 3 (9.17), D 2 V 1 (8.71), D 2 V 2 (9.08), and D 2 V 3 (8.76). The least number of branches plant -1 were recorded in D 4 V 2 (5.97) as compared to other treatment combinations Number of effective root nodules plant -1 The data on number of effective root nodules plant -1 of mungbean as influenced by dates of sowing, varieties and foliar nutrition and their interactions are presented in Table 6. The number of effective nodules plant -1 was not significant at 15 DAS. At 30 DAS, the number of effective nodules plant -1 differed significantly, among the dates of sowing. The crop sown on first fort night of June (11.75) recorded significantly higher number of effective nodules plant -1 over first fort night of July (9.19), second fort night of July (7.74) and it was on par with second fort night of June (10.82). Among the mungbean varieties, significantly higher number of effective root nodules plant -1 was recorded with DGGV-2 (10.70) over SEL-4 (8.38) and it was on par with IPM (10.54). None of the interaction effects were significant except dates of sowing and variety.

34 Table 5: Number of branches of mungbean varieties at different growth stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Treatment 15 DAS 30 DAS 45 DAS Varieties Varieties Varieties Date of sowing (D) DAP spray V 1 V 2 V 3 Mean V 1 V 2 V 3 Mean V 1 V 2 V 3 Mean S D S : I FN of June Mean S D S : II FN of June Mean S D S : I FN of July Mean S D 4 : II FN of July S Mean Mean of S Mean of S Mean Sources S.Em+ CD (P = 0.05) S.Em+ CD (P = 0.05) S.Em+ CD (P = 0.05) Date of sowing (D) 0.04 NS Varieties (V) 0.07 NS DAP spray (S) 0.05 NS 0.07 NS D X V 0.15 NS D X S 0.09 NS 0.13 NS 0.27 NS V X S 0.08 NS 0.12 NS 0.23 NS D X V X S 0.16 NS 0.23 NS 0.46 NS D = Date of sowing V= Varieties S= DAP Spray D 1 = First fort night of June (14th June) V 1 = DGGV-2 S 1 = 2 % DAP Spray D 2 = Second fort night of June (29th June) V 2 = IPM S 2 = without spray D 3 = First fort night of July (15th July) V 3 = SEL-4 NS= Non Significant D 4 = Second fort night of July (30th July) Contd

35 60 DAS At harvest Treatment Varieties Varieties Date of sowing (D) DAP spray V 1 V 2 V 3 Mean V 1 V 2 V 3 Mean S D S : I FN of June Mean S D S : II FN of June Mean S D S : I FN of July Mean S D 4 : II FN of July S Mean Mean of S Mean of S Mean Sources S.Em+ CD (P =0.05) S.Em+ CD (P =0.05) Date of sowing (D) Varieties (V) DAP spray (S) D X V D X S 0.26 NS 0.19 NS V X S 0.22 NS 0.16 NS D X V X S 0.45 NS 0.33 NS D = Date of sowing V= Varieties S= DAP Spray D 1 = First fort night of June (14th June) V 1 = DGGV-2 S 1 = 2 % DAP Spray D 2 = Second fort night of June (29th June) V 2 = IPM S 2 = without spray D 3 = First fort night of July (15th July) V 3 = SEL-4 NS= Non Significant D 4 = Second fort night of July (30th July)

36 DAS 45 DAS 60 DAS 8 7 Number fo branches D1 D2 D3 D4 V1 V2 V3 S1 S2 Dates of sowing Varieties Spray D1V1 D1V2 D1V3 D2V1 D2V2 D2V3 D3V1 D3V2 D3V3 D4V1 Interaction (date of sowing x variety) D4V2 D4V3 Days after sowing Fig. 3: Number of branches of mungbean varieties at different growth stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Fig. 3: Number of branches of mungbean varieties at different growth stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition

37 Table 6: Number of effective nodules of mungbean varieties at different growth stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Treatment 15 DAS 30 DAS 45 DAS Varieties Varieties Varieties Date of sowing (D) DAP spray V 1 V 2 V 3 Mean V 1 V 2 V 3 Mean V 1 V 2 V 3 Mean S D S 2 1 : I FN of June Mean S D S 2 2 : II FN of June Mean S D S 2 3 : I FN of July Mean S D 4 : II FN of July S Mean Mean of S Mean of S Mean Sources S.Em+ CD (P = 0.05) S.Em+ CD (P = 0.05) S.Em+ CD (P = 0.05) Date of sowing (D) 0.09 NS Varieties (V) 0.09 NS DAP spray (S) 0.08 NS 0.29 NS D X V 0.17 NS D X S 0.16 NS 0.59 NS 0.63 NS V X S 0.14 NS 0.51 NS 0.54 NS D X V X S 0.28 NS 1.01 NS 1.09 NS D = Date of sowing V= Varieties S= DAP Spray D 1= First fort night of June (14th June) V 1= DGGV-2 S 1= 2 % DAP Spray D 2= Second fort night of June (29th June) V 2= IPM S 2= without spray D 3= First fort night of July (15th July) V 3= SEL-4 NS= Non Significant D 4= Second fort night of July (30th July) Treatment 60 DAS At harvest Contd

38 Varieties Varieties Date of sowing (D) DAP spray V 1 V 2 V 3 Mean V 1 V 2 V 3 Mean S D S : I FN of June Mean S D S : II FN of June Mean S D S : I FN of July Mean S D 4 : II FN of July S Mean Mean of S Mean of S Mean Sources S.Em+ CD (P = 0.05) S.Em+ CD (P = 0.05) Date of sowing (D) Varieties (V) DAP spray (S) D X V D X S 0.63 NS 0.63 NS V X S 0.54 NS 0.54 NS D X V X S 1.09 NS 1.09 NS D = Date of sowing V= Varieties S= DAP Spray D 1 = First fort night of June (14th June) V 1 = DGGV-2 S 1 = 2 % DAP Spray D 2 = Second fort night of June (29th June) V 2 = IPM S 2 = without spray D 3 = First fort night of July (15th July) V 3 = SEL-4 NS= Non Significant D 4 = Second fort night of July (30th July)

39 30 30 DAS 45 DAS 60 DAS 25 Number of effective nodules D1 D2 D3 D4 V1 V2 V3 S1 S2 Dates of sowing Varieties Spray D1V1 D1V2 D1V3 D2V1 D2V2 D2V3 D3V1 D3V2 D3V3 D4V1 Interaction (date of sowing x variety) D4V2 D4V3 Days after sowing Fig. 4: Number of Effective nodules of mungbean varieties at different growth stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Fig. 4: Number of Effective nodules of mungbean varieties at different growth stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutritio

40 The interaction D 1 V 1 (first fort night of June and variety DGGV-2) recorded significantly higher number of effective root nodules plant -1 (12.69) and it was on par with D 1 V 2 (10.85), D 1 V 3 (11.70), D 2 V 1 (10.93), D 2 V 2 (10.93) and D 3 V 2 (10.51). At 45 DAS, among the dates of sowing, the first fort night of June recorded significantly higher number of effective root nodules plant -1 (14.25) over rest of the sowing dates i.e. second fort night of June (12.71), first fort night of July (11.36) and second fort night of July (10.40). Significantly higher number of effective root nodules plant -1 were recorded in mungbean varieties DGGV-2 (13.16) over SEL-4 (10.62) which was on par with IPM (12.75). Likewise, significant difference was observed in number of effective root nodules plant -1 between 2 per cent DAP spray (13.69) and without DAP spray (10.67). None of the interaction effects were significant except dates of sowing and variety. The interaction D 1 V 1 (first fort night of June and DGGV-2) recorded significantly higher number of effective root nodules plant -1 (15.19) as over other interactions except D 1 V 2 (13.68) and D 1 V 3 (13.87). The least number of effective root nodules plant -1 were recorded in D 4 V 3 (7.50) compared to other treatment combinations. At 60 DAS, number of effective root nodules plant -1 differed significantly. Among the dates of sowing, the crop sown on first fort night of June (24.57) recorded significantly higher number of effective root nodules plant -1 over second fort night of June (23.03), first fort night of July (21.68) and second fort night of July (20.72). on other hand, significantly higher number of effective root nodules plant -1 was recorded in DGGV-2 (23.63) over SEL-4 (20.94), which was on par with IPM (22.93). Significant difference was observed in number of effective root nodules between 2 per cent DAP spray (24.01) and without DAP spray (20.99). None of the interaction effects were significant except dates of sowing and variety. The interaction D1V1 (first fort night of June and DGGV-2) recorded significantly higher number of effective root nodules plant -1 (25.51) as compared to other treatment combinations. It was on par with D 1 V 2 (24.00) and D 1 V 3 (24.19). The lower number of effective root nodules plant -1 were recorded in D 4 V 3 (17.82) as compared to other treatment combinations. At harvest, number of effective root nodules plant -1 differed significantly among the dates of sowing. The crop sown on first fort night of June (28.80) recorded significantly higher number of effective root nodules plant -1 over second fort night of June (27.26), first fort night of July (25.91) and second fort night of July (24.95). Among the varieties, significantly higher number of effective root nodules plant -1 were recorded with DGGV-2 (27.86) over SEL-4 (25.17) and it was on par with IPM (27.16). Between the spray schedules, 2 per cent DAP (28.24) spray recorded significantly higher number of effective root nodules plant -1 than without DAP spray (25.22). None of the interaction effects were significant except dates of sowing and variety. The interaction D 1 V 1 (first fort night of June and DGGV-2) recorded significantly higher number of effective nodules (29.74) than other treatment combinations. It was on par with D 1 V 2 (28.23), D 1 V 3 (28.42). The lowest number of effective nodules was recorded in D 4 V 3 (22.05) compared to other treatment combinations Dry matter production (g plant -1 ) The data on dry matter production of mungbean as influenced by dates of sowing, mungbean varieties, and foliar nutrition and their interactions are presented in Table 7. Dry matter production was not significant at 15 DAS. At 30 DAS, the dry matter production differed significantly. The crop sown on first fort night of June (2.38 g plant -1 ) recorded significantly higher dry matter production over first fort night of July (1.91 g plant -1 ) and second fort night of July (1.80 g plant -1 ) and it was on par with second fort night of June (2.10 g plant -1 ). Among the varieties, significantly higher dry matter production was recorded with DGGV-2 (2.27 g plant -1 ) over IPM (1.92 g plant -1 ) and SEL-4 (1.96 g plant -1 ). None of the interaction effects were significant except dates of sowing and variety. The interaction D 1 V 1 (first fort night of June and variety-dggv-2) recorded significantly higher dry matter production (3.06 g plant -1 ) over others. The lowest dry matter production was observed in D 4 V 3 (1.52 g plant -1 ). At 45 DAS, the first fort night of June recorded significantly higher dry matter production (4.57 g plant -1 ) first fort night of July (4.04 g plant -1 ), second fort night of July (3.93 g plant -1 ) and was on par with second fort night of June (4.50 g plant -1 ) among the dates of sowing. Significantly higher dry matter production was recorded with mungbean varietie DGGV-2 (4.42 g plant -1 ) over IPM (4.10 g plant -1 ) and it was on par with SEL-4 (4.26 g plant -1 ). Likewise significantly higher dry matter production was recorded in 2 per cent DAP spray (4.43 g plant -1 ) over without DAP spray (4.10 g plant -1 ). None of the interaction effects were significant except dates of sowing and variety.

41 Table 7: Dry matter production (g plant -1 ) of mungbean varieties at different growth stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Treatment 15 DAS 30 DAS 45 DAS Varieties Varieties Varieties Date of sowing (D) DAP spray V 1 V 2 V 3 Mean V 1 V 2 V 3 Mean V 1 V 2 V 3 Mean S D S : I FN of June Mean S D S : II FN of June Mean S D S 2 3 : I FN of July Mean S D 4 : II FN of July S Mean Mean of S Mean of S Mean Sources S.Em+ CD (P = 0.05) S.Em+ CD (P = 0.05) S.Em+ CD (P = 0.05) Date of sowing (D) 0.07 NS Varieties (V) 0.06 NS DAP spray (S) 0.06 NS 0.06 NS D X V 0.12 NS D X S 0.12 NS 0.13 NS 0.08 NS V X S 0.10 NS 0.11 NS 0.07 NS D X V X S 0.20 NS 0.22 NS 0.14 NS D = Date of sowing V= Varieties S= DAP Spray D 1 = First fort night of June (14th June) V 1 = DGGV-2 S 1 = 2 % DAP Spray D 2 = Second fort night of June (29th June) V 2 = IPM S 2 = without spray D 3 = First fort night of July (15th July) V 3 = SEL-4 NS= Non Significant D 4 = Second fort night of July (30th July) Contd

42 60 DAS At harvest Treatment Varieties Varieties Date of sowing (D) DAP spray V 1 V 2 V 3 Mean V 1 V 2 V 3 Mean S D S : I FN of June Mean S D S : II FN of June Mean S D S : I FN of July Mean S D 4 : II FN of July S Mean Mean of S Mean of S Mean Sources S.Em+ CD (P = 0.05) S.Em+ CD (P = 0.05) Date of sowing (D) Varieties (V) DAP spray (S) D X V D X S 0.08 NS 0.09 NS V X S 0.07 NS 0.08 NS D X V X S 0.14 NS 0.16 NS D = Date of sowing V= Varieties S= DAP Spray D 1 = First fort night of June (14th June) V 1 = DGGV-2 S 1 = 2 % DAP Spray D 2 = Second fort night of June (29th June) V 2 = IPM S 2 = without spray D 3 = First fort night of July (15th July) V 3 = SEL-4 NS= Non Significant D 4 = Second fort night of July (30th July)

43 10 30 DAS 45 DAS 60 DAS 8 Dry matter production (g plant -1 ) D1 D2 D3 D4 V1 V2 V3 S1 S2 Dates of sowing Varieties Spray D1V1 D1V2 D1V3 D2V1 D2V2 D2V3 D3V1 D3V2 D3V3 D4V1 Interaction (date of sowing x variety) D4V2 D4V3 Days after sowing Fig. 5: Dry matter production (g plant -1 ) of mungbean varieties at different growth stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Fig. 5: Dry matter production (g plant-1) of mungbean varieties at different growth stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutritio

44 The interaction D 1 V 1 (first fort night of June and DGGV-2) recorded significantly higher dry matter production (5.18 g plant -1 ) over others except D 1 V 3 (4.80 g plant -1 ) and D 2 V 3 (4.80 g plant -1 ). The lowest dry matter production was recorded in D 4 V 3 (3.71 g plant -1 ) as compared to other treatment combinations. At 60 DAS, dry matter production differed significantly due to the dates of sowing. The crop sown on first fort night of June (9.10 g plant -1 ) recorded significantly higher dry matter production over first fort night of July (8.52 g plant -1 ), second fort night of July (8.43 g plant -1 ), and it was on par with second fort night of June (9.00 g plant -1 ). Among the varieties, significantly higher dry matter production was recorded with DGGV-2 (8.93 g plant -1 ) over IPM (8.59 g plant -1 ) and it was on par with SEL-4 (8.77 g plant -1 ).Significantly higher dry matter production was recorded in 2 per cent DAP spray (8.92 g plant -1 ) over no spray (8.60 g plant -1 ). None of the interaction effects were significant except dates of sowing and variety. The interaction D 1 V 1 (first fort night of June and DGGV-2) recorded significantly higher dry matter production (9.67 g plant -1 ) than other treatment combinations. It was on par with D 1 V 3 (9.34 g plant -1 ), D 2 V 1 (9.30 g plant -1 ) and D 2 V 3 (9.29 g plant -1 ). The lowest dry matter production was recorded in D 4 V 3 (8.19 g plant -1 ) compared to other treatment combinations. At harvest, dry matter production differed significantly among the dates of sowing. The crop sown on first fort night of June (10.45 g plant -1 ) recorded significantly higher dry matter production over first fort night of July (10.05 g plant -1 ), second fort night of July (9.79 g plant -1 ). It was on par with second fort night of June (10.42 g plant -1 ). Significantly higher dry matter production was recorded with DGGV-2 (10.40 g plant -1 ) over IPM (10.03 g plant -1 ) and SEL-4 (10.10 g plant -1 ). Between the spray schedules 2 per cent DAP spray (10.37 g plant -1 ) was significantly superior to without DAP spray (9.99 g plant -1 ). None of the interaction effects were significant except dates of sowing and variety. The interaction D 1 V 1 (first fort night of June and DGGV-2) recorded significantly higher dry matter production (11.21 g plant -1 ) as compared to other treatment combinations. It was on par with D 2 V 1 (10.69 g plant -1 ), D 2 V 3 (10.70 g plant -1 ). The dry matter production was the least in D 4 V 3 (9.52 g plant -1 ) Leaf area index (dm 2 plant -1 ) The data on leaf area index (LAI) of mungbean as influenced by dates of sowing mungbean varieties, and foliar nutrition and their interactions are presented in Table 8. Leaf area index was not significant at 15 DAS. At 30 DAS, the leaf area index differed significantly. Among the dates of sowing the crop sown on first fort night of June (1.65 dm 2 plant -1 ) recorded significantly higher LAI over second fort night of June (1.44 dm 2 plant -1 ), first fort night of July (1.32 dm 2 plant -1 ) and second fort night of July (0.94 dm 2 plant -1 ). Among the varieties significantly higher leaf area index was recorded in DGGV-2 (1.58 dm 2 plant -1 ) over IPM (1.21 dm 2 plant -1 ) and SEL-4 (1.22 dm 2 plant -1 ). No significant difference was observed in LAI due to spray schedule. None of the interaction effects were significant except dates of sowing and variety. The interaction D 1 V 1 (first fort night of June and DGGV-2) recorded significantly higher leaf area index (1.96 dm 2 plant -1 ) as than other treatment combinations. It was on par with D 1 V 3 (1.80 dm 2 plant -1 ), D 2 V 1 (1.71 dm 2 plant -1 ). The LAI was the least in D 4 V 3 (0.69 dm 2 plant -1 ) as compared to other treatment combinations. Among the dates of sowing, the first fort night of June recorded significantly higher leaf area index (2.24 dm 2 plant -1 ) over first fort night of July (1.88 dm 2 plant -1 ), second fort night of July (1.72 dm 2 plant -1 ) and was on par with second fort night of June (2.10 dm 2 plant -1 ) at 45 DAS. Significantly higher leaf area index was recorded with DGGV-2 (2.19 dm 2 plant -1 ) over IPM (1.94 dm 2 plant -1 ) and SEL-4 (1.83 dm 2 plant -1 ). Likewise significantly higher leaf area index was observed at 2 per cent DAP spray (2.15 dm 2 plant -1 ) over no spray (1.83 dm 2 plant -1 ). None of the interaction effects were significant except dates of sowing and variety. The interaction D 1 V 1 (first fort night of June and DGGV-2) recorded significantly higher leaf area index (2.67 dm 2 plant -1 ) as compared to others. However there is no significant difference among other treatment combinations. The lowest leaf area index was recorded in D 4 V 3 (1.21 dm 2 plant -1 ). At 60 DAS, leaf area index differed significantly among the dates of sowings, the crop sown on first fort night of June (3.03 dm 2 plant -1 ) recorded significantly higher leaf area index over first fort night of July (2.64 dm 2 plant -1 ), second fort night of July (2.57 dm 2 plant -1 ) and it was on par with second fort night of June (2.93 dm 2 plant -1 ). Among the varieties, significantly higher leaf area index was recorded in DGGV-2 (2.96 dm 2 plant -1 ) over IPM (2.67 dm 2 plant -1 ) and SEL-4 (2.75 dm 2 plant -1 ). Leaf area index was significantly superior in 2 per cent DAP spray (2.94 dm 2 plant -1 ) as compared to no spray (2.65 dm 2 plant -1 ).

45 Table 8: Leaf Area Index (dm 2 plant -1 ) of mungbean varieties at different growth stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Treatment 15 DAS 30 DAS Varieties Varieties Date of sowing (D) DAP spray V 1 V 2 V 3 Mean V 1 V 2 V 3 Mean D 1 : I FN of June D 2 : II FN of June D 3 : I FN of July D 4 : II FN of July S S Mean S S Mean S S Mean S S Mean Mean of S Mean of S Mean Sources S.Em+ CD (P = 0.05) S.Em+ CD (P = 0.05) Date of sowing (D) 0.02 NS Varieties (V) 0.02 NS DAP spray (S) 0.02 NS 0.04 NS D X V 0.04 NS D X S 0.04 NS 0.09 NS V X S 0.03 NS 0.08 NS D X V X S 0.06 NS 0.15 NS D = Date of sowing V= Varieties S= DAP Spray D 1 = First fort night of June (14th June) V 1 = DGGV-2 S 1 = 2 % DAP Spray D 2 = Second fort night of June (29th June) V 2 = IPM S 2 = without spray D 3 = First fort night of July (15th July) V 3 = SEL-4 NS= Non Significant D 4 = Second fort night of July (30th July) Contd

46 45 DAS 60 DAS Treatment Varieties Varieties Date of sowing (D) DAP spray V 1 V 2 V 3 Mean V 1 V 2 V 3 Mean S D S : I FN of June Mean S D S : II FN of June Mean S D S : I FN of July Mean S D 4 : II FN of July S Mean Mean of S Mean of S Mean Sources S.Em+ CD (P = 0.05) S.Em+ CD (P = 0.05) Date of sowing (D) Varieties (V) DAP spray (S) D X V D X S 0.07 NS 0.07 NS V X S 0.06 NS 0.06 NS D X V X S 0.12 NS 0.13 NS D = Date of sowing V= Varieties S= DAP Spray D 1 = First fort night of June (14th June) V 1 = DGGV-2 S 1 = 2 % DAP Spray D 2 = Second fort night of June (29th June) V 2 = IPM S 2 = without spray D 3 = First fort night of July (15th July) V 3 = SEL-4 NS= Non Significant D 4 = Second fort night of July (30th July)

47 5 30 DAS 45 DAS 60 DAS 4 Leaf area index D1 D2 D3 D4 V1 V2 V3 S1 S2 Dates of sowing Varieties Spray D1V1 D1V2 D1V3 D2V1 D2V2 D2V3 D3V1 D3V2 D3V3 D4V1 Interaction (date of sowing x variety) D4V2 D4V3 Days after sowing Fig. 6: Leaf Area Index of mungbean varieties at different growth stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Fig. 6: Leaf Area Index of mungbean varieties at different growth stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition

48 None of the interaction effects were significant except dates of sowing and variety. The interaction D 1 V 1 (first fort night of June and DGGV-2) recorded significantly higher leaf area index (3.39 dm 2 plant -1 ) as compared to others except D 2 V 3 (3.17 dm 2 plant -1 ) and lower leaf area index was recorded in D 4 V 3 (2.31 dm 2 plant -1 ) Leaf area duration (days) The data on leaf area duration (LAD) of mungbean as influenced by mungbean varieties dates of sowing and foliar nutrition and their interactions are presented in Table 9. At DAS, leaf area duration differed significantly. Among the dates of sowing, the crop sown on first fort night of June (22.96 days) recorded significantly higher leaf area duration over other dates of sowing second fort night of June (19.65 days), first fort night of July (18.76 days) and second fort night of July (16.40 days). Similarly, significant higher leaf area duration was recorded in DGGV-2 (21.43 days) over IPM (17.80 days) and SEL-4 (19.10 days) combinations. At DAS, leaf area duration differed significantly. Among the dates of sowing, the crop sown on first fort night of June (29.15 days) recorded significantly higher leaf area duration over rest of dates of sowing second fort night of June (26.59 days), first fort night of July (23.97 days) and second fort night of July (19.97 days). Among the mungbean varieties, significantly higher leaf area duration was recorded in DGGV-2 (28.29 days) over IPM (23.62 days) and SEL-4 (22.86 days) combinations. At DAS, leaf area duration differed significantly. Among the dates of sowing, the crop sown first fort night of June (39.54 days) recorded significantly higher leaf area duration over, first fort night of July (32.17 days) and second fort night of July (33.89 days) and on par with second fort night of June (37.76 days). Further significantly higher leaf area duration was recorded in DGGV-2 (38.65 days) over IPM (34.55 days) and SEL-4 (34.33 days). Likewise significant difference was observed in leaf area duration between 2 per cent DAP spray (38.10 days) and without DAP spray (33.58 days). None of the interaction effects were significant except dates of sowing and variety. The interaction D 1 V 1 (first fort night of June and DGGV-2) recorded significantly higher leaf area duration (43.46 days) as compared to others. However, the LAD was the least in D 4 V 3 (26.45 days) Crop growth rate (g dm 2 days -1 ) The data on crop growth rate (CGR) of mungbean as influenced by dates of sowing, varieties and foliar nutrition and their interactions are presented in Table 10. At DAS, CGR did not differed significantly among the dates of sowing, whereas varieties differed significantly. The variety DGGV-2 ( g dm 2 days -1 ) recorded significantly higher crop growth rate over IPM and it was on par with SEL-4 ( g dm 2 days -1 ). None of the interaction effect were found significant. Among the dates of sowing, the first fort night of June recorded significantly higher CGR ( g dm 2 days -1 ) over second fort night of June ( dm 2 plant -1 ) first fort night of July ( g dm 2 plant -1 ) and second fort night of July ( g dm 2 plant -1 ) at DAS. The crop growth rate of DGGV-2 was significantly higher ( g dm 2 plant -1 ) over IPM ( g dm 2 plant -1 ) and it was on par with SEL-4 ( g dm 2 plant -1 ). Likewise significantly higher CGR was observed at 2 per cent DAP spray ( g dm 2 plant -1 ) over no spray ( g dm 2 plant -1 ). None of the interaction effects were significant except dates of sowing and variety. The interaction D 1 V 1 (first fort night of June and DGGV-2) recorded significantly higher crop growth rate (0.054 g dm 2 plant -1 ) as compared to others and it was on par with D 1 V 2 ( g dm 2 plant -1 ), D 1 V 3 (0.053 g dm 2 plant -1 ), D 2 V 1 (0.050 g dm 2 plant -1 ), D 4 V 3 (0.050 g dm 2 plant -1 ). The CGR was least in D 4 V 2 (0.035 g dm 2 plant -1 ). At DAS, among the dates of sowing the first fort night of June recorded significantly higher crop growth rate ( g dm 2 days -1 ) over second fort night of July ( g dm 2 plant -1 ) and was on par with second fort night of June ( g dm 2 plant -1 ) first fort night of July ( g dm 2 plant -1 ). Significantly higher crop growth rate was recorded with mungbean variety DGGV-2 ( g dm 2 plant -1 ) over IPM ( dm 2 plant -1 ) and SEL-4 ( g dm 2 plant -1 ). Significant higher crop growth rate was observed in 2 per cent DAP spray ( g dm 2 plant -1 ) over no spray ( g dm 2 plant -1 ).

49 Table 9: Leaf Area Duration (days) of mungbean varieties at different growth stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Treatment DAS DAS DAS Varieties Varieties Varieties Date of sowing (D) DAP spray V 1 V 2 V 3 Mean V 1 V 2 V 3 Mean V 1 V 2 V 3 Mean S D 1 : I FN of June S Mean S D 2 : II FN of June S Mean S D 3 : I FN of July S Mean S D 4 : II FN of July S Mean Mean of S Mean of S Mean Sources S.Em + CD (P = 0.05) S.Em+ CD (P = 0.05) S.Em + CD (P = 0.05) Date of sowing (D) Varieties (V) DAP spray (S) D X V D X S NS 0.97 NS V X S NS 0.84 NS D X V X S 1.82 NS 1.60 NS 1.69 NS D = Date of sowing V= Varieties S= DAP Spray D 1 = First fort night of June (14th June) V 1 = DGGV-2 S 1 = 2 % DAP Spray D 2 = Second fort night of June (29th June) V 2 = IPM S 2 = without spray D 3 = First fort night of July (15th July) V 3 = SEL-4 NS= Non Significant D 4 = Second fort night of July (30th July)

50 DAS DAS Leaf Area Duration (days) D1 D2 D3 D4 V1 V2 V3 S1 S2 Dates of sowing Varieties Spray D1V1 D1V2 D1V3 D2V1 D2V2 D2V3 D3V1 D3V2 D3V3 D4V1 Interaction (date of sowing x variety) D4V2 D4V3 Days after sowing Fig. 7: Leaf Area Duration (days) of mungbean varieties at different growth stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nitrition Fig. 7: Leaf Area Duration (days) of mungbean varieties at different growth stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nitrition

51 Table 10: Crop Growth Rate (g dm 2 days -1 ) of mungbean varieties at different growth stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition DAS DAS Treatment Varieties Varieties Date of sowing (D) DAP spray V 1 V 2 V 3 Mean V 1 V 2 V 3 Mean D 1 : I FN of June D 2 : II FN of June D 3 : I FN of July D 4 : II FN of July S S Mean S S Mean S S Mean S S Mean Mean of S Mean of S Mean Sources S.Em+ CD (P = 0.05) S.Em+ CD (P = 0.05) Date of sowing (D) NS Varieties (V) DAP spray (S) NS D X V NS D X S NS NS V X S NS NS D X V X S NS D = Date of sowing V= Varieties S= DAP Spray D 1 = First fort night of June (14th June) V 1 = DGGV-2 S 1 = 2 % DAP Spray D 2 = Second fort night of June (29th June) V 2 = IPM S 2 = without spray D 3 = First fort night of July (15th July) V 3 = SEL-4 NS= Non Significant D 4 = Second fort night of July (30th July) Contd

52 Crop growth rate Net assimilation rate CGR and NAR D1 D2 D3 D4 V1 V2 V3 S1 S2 Dates of sowing Varieties Spray D1V1 D1V2 D1V3 D2V1 D2V2 D2V3 D3V1 D3V2 D3V3 D4V1 Interaction (date of sowing x variety) D4V2 D4V3 Date of sowing Fig. 8: Crop growth rate (g dm2 days-1) of mungbean varieties at different growth stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Fig. 8: Crop growth rate (g dm2 days-1) of mungbean varieties at different growth stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition

53 Table 11: Net Assimilation Rate (g dm 2 days -1 ) of mungbean varieties at different growth stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition DAS DAS Treatment Varieties Varieties Date of sowing (D) DAP spray V 1 V 2 V 3 Mean V 1 V 2 V 3 Mean S D 1 : I FN of June S Mean S D 2 : II FN of June S Mean S D 3 : I FN of July S Mean D 4 : II FN of July S S Mean Mean of S Mean of S Mean Sources S.Em+ CD (P = 0.05) S.Em+ CD (0.05) Date of sowing (D) NS NS Varieties (V) NS DAP spray (S) NS NS D X V NS NS D X S NS NS V X S NS NS D X V X S NS NS D = Date of sowing V= Varieties S= DAP Spray D 1 = First fort night of June (14th June) V 1 = DGGV-2 S 1 = 2 % DAP Spray D 2 = Second fort night of June (29th June) V 2 = IPM S 2 = without spray D 3 = First fort night of July (15th July) V 3 = SEL-4 NS= Non Significant D 4 = Second fort night of July (30th July) Contd

54 Treatment DAS 60 DAS- harvest Varieties Varieties Date of sowing (D) DAP spray V 1 V 2 V 3 Mean V 1 V 2 V 3 Mean S D 1 : I FN of June S Mean S D 2 : II FN of June S Mean S D 3 : I FN of July S Mean D 4 : II FN of July S S Mean Mean of S Mean of S Mean Sources S.Em+ CD (P = 0.05) S.Em+ CD (P = 0.05) Date of sowing (D) Varieties (V) DAP spray (S) D X V D X S V X S D X V X S D = Date of sowing V= Varieties S= DAP Spray D 1 = First fort night of June (14th June) V 1 = DGGV-2 S 1 = 2 % DAP Spray D 2 = Second fort night of June (29th June) V 2 = IPM S 2 = without spray D 3 = First fort night of July (15th July) V 3 = SEL-4 NS= Non Significant D 4 = Second fort night of July (30th July)

55 Table 12: Days to 50 % flowering of mungbean varieties at different growth stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Treatment Days to 50 % flowering Varieties Date of sowing (D) DAP spray V 1 V 2 V 3 Mean S D 1 : I FN of June S Mean S D 2 : II FN of June S Mean S D 3 : I FN of July S Mean D 4 : II FN of July S S Mean Mean of S Mean of S Mean Sources S.Em+ CD (P = 0.05) Date of sowing (D) Varieties (V) DAP spray (S) D X V D X S 0.27 NS V X S 0.24 NS D X V X S 0.48 NS D = Date of sowing V= Varieties S= DAP Spray D 1= First fort night of June (14th June) V 1= DGGV-2 S 1= 2 % DAP Spray D 2= Second fort night of June (29th June) V 2= IPM S 2= without spray D 3= First fort night of July (15th July) V 3= SEL-4 NS= Non Significant D 4 = Second fort night of July (30th July)

56 Table 13: Number of flowers before spray and number of flowers after spray of mungbean varieties at flowering stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Treatment No. of flowers before spray No. of flowers after spray Varieties Varieties Date of sowing (D) DAP spray V 1 V 2 V 3 Mean V 1 V 2 V 3 Mean S D 1 : I FN of June S Mean S D 2 : II FN of June S Mean S D 3 : I FN of July S Mean S D 4 : II FN of July S Mean Mean of S Mean of S Mean Sources S.Em+ CD (P = 0.05) S.Em+ CD (P = 0.05) Date of sowing (D) Varieties (V) DAP spray (S) 0.20 NS D X V 0.26 NS D X S 0.40 NS 0.25 NS V X S 0.34 NS 0.21 NS D X V X S 0.69 NS 0.43 NS D = Date of sowing V= Varieties S= DAP Spray D 1= First fort night of June (14th June) V 1= DGGV-2 S 1= 2 % DAP Spray D 2= Second fort night of June (29th June) V 2= IPM S 2= without spray D 3= First fort night of July (15th July) V 3= SEL-4 NS= Non Significant D 4= Second fort night of July (30th July)

57 4.1.8 Net Assimilation rate (g dm 2 days -1 ) The data on net assimilation rate (NAR) of mungbean as influenced by mungbean varieties, dates of sowing and foliar nutrition and their interactions are presented in Table 11. At DAS, NAR (g dm 2 days -1 ) was not significant. At DAS all the treatment effects were non significant. Significant difference in net assimilation rate was observed among the varieties. The SEL-4 maintained significantly higher NAR ( g dm 2 days -1 ), while the variety DGGV-2 ( g dm 2 days -1 ) had the least NAR. At DAS net assimilation rate differed significantly among the dates of sowing. The crop sown during the first fort night of June ( g dm 2 days -1 ) recorded significantly higher NAR which was on par with second fort night of June ( g dm 2 days -1 ), followed by first fort night of July ( g dm 2 days -1 ) and second fort night of July ( g dm 2 days -1 ). Among the varieties, significantly higher NAR was observed with IPM ( g dm 2 days -1 ) and it was on par with SEL-4 ( g dm 2 days -1 ) followed by DGGV-2 ( g dm 2 days -1 ). Significant difference was observed with respect to NAR between 2 per cent DAP spray ( g dm 2 days -1 ) and no DAP spray ( g dm 2 days -1 ). None of the interaction effects were significant except dates of sowing and variety. The interaction D 1 V 3 (first fort night of June and SEL-4) recorded significantly higher NAR ( g dm 2 days -1 ) than other treatment combinations. The lowest NAR was recorded in D 4 V 3 (g dm 2 days -1 ). At 60 DAS to harvest, there was no significant difference observed among dates of sowing. Among the varieties, significantly higher NAR was recorded with DGGV-2 ( g dm 2 days -1 ) and IPM ( g dm 2 days -1 ) over SEL-4 ( g dm 2 days -1 ). There was no significant difference observed in NAR between 2 per cent DAP spray and without DAP spray. None of the interaction effects were significant except dates of sowing and variety. The interaction D 1 V 1 (first fort night of June and DGGV-2) recorded significantly higher NAR ( g dm 2 days -1 ) than other interactions. It was on par with D 1 V 2 ( g dm 2 days -1 ), D 2 V 2 ( g dm 2 days -1 ), D 3 V 1 ( g dm 2 days -1 ), D 4 V 1 ( g dm 2 days -1 ), D 4 V 2 ( g dm 2 days -1 ) and D 4 V 3 ( g dm 2 days -1 ). The lowest NAR was recorded in D 1 V 3 ( g dm 2 days -1 ) as compared to other treatment combinations Days taken to 50 per cent+ flowering The data on days taken for 50 per cent flowering of mungbean as influenced by dates of sowing, varieties and foliar nutrition and their interactions are presented in Table 12. Days taken for 50 per cent flowering differed significantly. Among the dates of sowing, the crop sown on first fort night of June (34.50) took more days to attain 50 per cent flowering over first fort night of July (32.92), second fort night of July (32.89) and on par with second fort night of June (34.06). Among the varieties, IPM (34.06) took more days to attain 50 per cent flowering over SEL-4 (33.13) and was on par with DGGV-2 (33.58). Further, 2 per cent DAP (34.15) spray took more days to attain 50per cent flowering over no spray (33.03). None of the interaction effects were significant except dates of sowing and variety. The interaction D 1 V 2 (first fort night of June and IPM ) took more days to attain 50 per cent flowering (35.00) as compared to other treatment combinations and it was on par with D 1 V 3 (34.17), D 1 V 1 (34.33), D 2 V 1 (34.00), D 2 V 2 (34.33), D 2 V 3 (33.83) and D 3 V 2 (33.92). The least time was recorded in D 3 V 3 (31.17) to attain 50 per cent flowering Number of flowers before spray Significantly higher number of flowers were recorded in first fort night of June (24.20) which was on par with first fort night of July (23.78) and second fort night of June (23.36) followed by second fort night of July (22.70). Among the varieties, DGGV-2 (23.88) produced significantly higher number of flowers and was on par with IPM (23.67) and SEL-4 (22.98) (Table 13) Number of flowers after spray Significantly higher number of flowers were recorded in first fort night of June (24.11) with foliar application of 2 per cent DAP, which was on par with second fort night of July (23.96), and first fort night of July (24.04), followed by second fort night of June (23.10). Among the varieties IPM (24.15) produced significantly higher number of flowers and was on par with DGGV-2 (24.12) followed by SEL-4 (23.14). Significant difference was observed between 2 per cent DAP spray (24.43) and without DAP spray (23.17). None of the interaction effects were significant except dates of sowing and variety.

58 The interaction between the dates of sowing and varieties the D 4 V 1 (second fort night of July and DGGV-2) recorded significantly higher number of flowers (24.20) as compared to other treatment combinations. However, it was on par with D 1 V 2 (24.67), D 4 V 2 (24.50), D 3 V 1 (24.33), D 3 V 2 (24.23) and D 1 V 1 (24.20), followed by D 3 V 3 (23.57), D 1 V 3 (23.47) and D 2 V 3 (22.97). The number of flowers recorded in D 4 V 3 (22.57) treatment was the least (Table 13). 4.2 Yield and yield components of mungbean Number of pods plant -1 The data on number of pods plant -1 of mungbean as influenced by dates of sowing, varieties and foliar nutrition and their interactions are presented in Table 14. At 60 DAS, number of pods plant -1 differed significantly among the dates of sowing. The crop sown on first fort night of June (15.47) recorded significantly higher number of pods over first fort night of July (11.14) and second fort night of July (10.45) and it was on par with second fort night of June (13.84). Among the varieties, significantly higher number of pods plant -1 was recorded with DGGV-2 (13.38) over SEL-4 (11.46) and it was on par with IPM (13.34). Likewise significant difference was observed in number of pods plant -1 due to 2 per cent DAP spray (14.19) as compared to no spray (11.26). None of the interaction effects were significant except dates of sowing and variety. The interaction D 1 V 1 (first fort night of June and DGGV-2) recorded significantly higher number of pods plant -1 (17.42) as compared to other treatments except D 1 V 3 (15.67), D 2 V 1 (16.25). The least number of pods plant -1 was recorded in D 4 V 1 (7.90). At harvest, number of pods plant -1 differed significantly. Among the dates of sowing, the crop sown on first fort night of June (18.36) recorded significantly higher number of pods plant -1 over first fort night of July (14.14), second fort night of July (13.45) and it was on par with second fort night of June (16.84). Among the varieties, significantly higher number of pods plant -1 were recorded with DGGV-2 (16.53) over SEL-4 (14.46) and it was on par with IPM (16.11). Significant difference in number of pods plant -1 was also observed in 2 per cent DAP spray (17.22) over no spray (14.18). None of the interaction effects were significant except dates of sowing and variety. The interaction D 1 V 1 (first fort night of June and DGGV-2) recorded significantly higher number of pods plant -1 (19.92) as compared to other treatment combinations. It was on par with D 1 V 3 (18.67) and D 2 V 1 (19.25). The lowest number of pods plant -1 was recorded in D 4 V 1 (10.90) as compared to other treatment combinations Number of seeds pod -1 The data on number of seeds pod -1 of mungbean as influenced by dates of sowing, varieties and foliar nutrition of 2 per cent DAP and their interactions are presented in Table 15. At 60 DAS, number of seeds pod -1 differed significantly among the dates of sowing. The crop sown on first fort night of June (11.91) recorded significantly higher number of seeds pod -1 over second fort night of June (11.20), first fort night of July (10.23) and second fort night of July (10.14). Varieties, differed significantly in number of seeds pod -1. The Varity DGGV-2 gave significantly higher number of seeds over IPM (9.65) and SEL-4 (10.37). Significant difference was observed in number of seeds pod -1 in 2 per cent DAP spray (12.11) over no spray (9.63). None of the interaction effects were significant except dates of sowing and variety. The interaction D 1 V 1 (first fort night of June and DGGV-2) recorded significantly higher number of seeds pod -1 (13.60) as compared to other treatment combinations. There was no significant difference between other interactions except D 1 V 1 (first fort night of June and DGGV-2). The lowest number of seeds pod -1 was recorded in D 4 V 2 (8.88). At harvest, number of seeds pod -1 differed significantly among the dates of sowing. The crop sown on first fort night of June (13.20) recorded significantly higher number of seeds pod -1 over first fort night of July (12.18), second fort night of July (12.09) and it was on par with second fort night of June (12.76). Among the varieties, significantly higher number of seeds pod -1 was recorded with DGGV-2 (13.95) over IPM (11.52) and SEL-4 (12.20). Significant difference was also observed in number of seeds with 2 per cent DAP spray (14.06) over no spray (11.05). None of the interaction effects were significant except dates of sowing and variety. The interaction D 1 V 1 (first fort night of June and DGGV-2) recorded significantly higher number of seeds pod -1 (14.38) as compared to other treatment combinations. There was no significant difference between interactions except D 1 V 1 (first fort night of June and DGGV-2). The least number of seeds was recorded in D 4 V 2 (10.83).

59 Table 14: Number of pods of mungbean varieties at different growth stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Treatment 60 DAS At harvest Varieties Varieties Date of sowing (D) DAP spray V 1 V 2 V 3 Mean V 1 V 2 V 3 Mean S D 1 : I FN of June S Mean S D 2 : II FN of June S Mean S D 3 : I FN of July S Mean S D 4 : II FN of July S Mean Mean of S Mean of S Mean Sources S.Em+ CD (P = 0.05) S.Em+ CD (P = 0.05) Date of sowing (D) Varieties (V) DAP spray (S) D X V D X S 0.60 NS 0.61 NS V X S 0.52 NS 0.53 NS D X V X S 1.04 NS 1.05 NS D = Date of sowing V= Varieties S= DAP Spray D 1= First fort night of June (14th June) V 1= DGGV-2 S 1= 2 % DAP Spray D 2= Second fort night of June (29th June) V 2= IPM S 2= without spray D 3= First fort night of July (15th July) V 3= SEL-4 NS= Non Significant D 4= Second fort night of July (30th July)

60 DAS At harvest Number of pods D1 D2 D3 D4 V1 V2 V3 S1 S2 D1V1 D1V2 D1V3 D2V1 D2V2 D2V3 D3V1 D3V2 D3V3 D4V1 D4V2 D4V3 Dates of sowing Varieties Spray Interaction (date of sowing x variety) Days after sowing Fig. 9: Number of pods of mungbean varieties at different growth stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Fig. 9: Number of pods of mungbean varieties at different growth stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition

61 Table 15: Number of seeds of mungbean varieties at different growth stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Treatment 60 DAS At harvest Varieties Varieties Date of sowing (D) DAP spray V 1 V 2 V 3 Mean V 1 V 2 V 3 Mean S D 1 : I FN of June S Mean S D 2 : II FN of June S Mean S D 3 : I FN of July S Mean D 4 : II FN of July S S Mean Mean of S Mean of S Mean Sources S.Em+ CD (P = 0.05) S.Em+ CD (P = 0.05) Date of sowing (D) Varieties (V) DAP spray (S) D X V D X S 0.25 NS 0.23 NS V X S 0.21 NS 0.20 NS D X V X S 0.43 NS 0.40 NS D = Date of sowing V= Varieties S= DAP Spray D 1= First fort night of June (14th June) V 1= DGGV-2 S 1= 2 % DAP Spray D 2= Second fort night of June (29th June) V 2= IPM S 2= without spray D 3= First fort night of July (15th July) V 3= SEL-4 NS= Non Significant D 4= Second fort night of July (30th July)

62 15 60DAS At harvest Number of seeds D1 D2 D3 D4 V1 V2 V3 S1 S2 Dates of sowing Varieties Spray D1V1 D1V2 D1V3 D2V1 D2V2 D2V3 D3V1 D3V2 D3V3 D4V1 Interaction (date of sowing x variety) D4V2 D4V3 Days after sowing Fig. 10: Number of seeds of mungbean varieties at different growth stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Fig. 10: Number of seeds of mungbean varieties at different growth stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition

63 Table 16: Pod length (cm) of mungbean varieties at different growth stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Treatment 60 DAS At harvest Varieties Varieties Date of sowing (D) DAP spray V 1 V 2 V 3 Mean V 1 V 2 V 3 Mean S D 1 : I FN of June S Mean S D 2 : II FN of June S Mean S D 3 : I FN of July S Mean S D 4 : II FN of July S Mean Mean of S Mean of S Mean Sources S.Em+ CD (P = 0.05) S.Em+ CD (P = 0.05) Date of sowing (D) Varieties (V) DAP spray (S) D X V D X S 0.33 NS 0.32 NS V X S 0.29 NS 0.28 NS D X V X S 0.57 NS 0.55 NS D = Date of sowing V= Varieties S= DAP Spray D 1 = First fort night of June (14th June) V 1 = DGGV-2 S 1 = 2 % DAP Spray D 2 = Second fort night of June (29th June) V 2 = IPM S 2 = without spray D 3 = First fort night of July (15th July) V 3 = SEL-4 NS= Non Significant D 4 = Second fort night of July (30th July)

64 15 60DAS At harvest Pod length (cm) D1 D2 D3 D4 V1 V2 V3 S1 S2 Dates of sowing Varieties Spray D1V1 D1V2 D1V3 D2V1 D2V2 D2V3 D3V1 D3V2 D3V3 D4V1 Interaction (date of sowing x variety) D4V2 D4V3 Days after sowing Fig. 11: Pod length (cm) of mungbean varieties at different growth stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Fig. 11: Pod length (cm) of mungbean varieties at different growth stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition

65 4.2.3 Pod length (cm) The data on pod length of mungbean as influenced by dates of sowing, varieties and foliar nutrition of 2 per cent DAP and their interactions are presented in Table 16. At 60 DAS, pod length differed significantly. Among the dates of sowing the crop sown on first fort night of June (9.04 cm) recorded significantly higher pod length over first fort night of July (7.82 cm), second fort night of July (7.63 cm) and on par with second fort night of June (8.86 cm). Among the varieties, significantly higher pod length was recorded with DGGV-2 (9.19 cm) over IPM (7.69 cm) and SEL-4 (8.13 cm). Significant difference was observed in pod length at 2 per cent DAP spray (9.77 cm) over no spray (6.91 cm). None of the interaction effects were significant except dates of sowing and variety. The interaction D 1 V 1 (first fort night of June and DGGV-2) recorded significantly higher pod length (11.00 cm) and it was on par with D 1 V 3 (9.35 cm), D 2 V 1 (9.97 cm). The lowest pod length was recorded in D 4 V 3 (6.73 cm) as compared to other treatment combinations. At harvest, pod length differed significantly. Among the dates of sowing the crop sown on first fort night of June (10.78 cm) recorded significantly higher pod length over first fort night of July (9.34 cm), second fort night of July (9.15 cm) and it was on par with second fort night of June (10.54 cm). Higher pod length was recorded with DGGV-2 (11.00 cm) over IPM (9.21 cm) and SEL-4 (9.65 cm). Significant difference was also observed in pod length at 2 per cent DAP spray (11.48 cm) over no spray (8.43 cm). None of the interaction effects were significant except dates of sowing and variety. The interaction D 1 V 1 (first fort night of June and DGGV-2) recorded significantly higher pod length (13.19 cm) and on par with D 2 V 1 (11.99 cm). The lowest pod length was observed in D 4 V 3 (8.25 cm) as compared to other treatment combinations Thousand seed weight (g) The data on thousand seed weight (g) of mungbean as influenced by dates of sowing, varieties and foliar nutrition of 2 per cent DAP and their interactions are presented in Table 17. At harvest, there was no significant difference in thousand seed weight, among the dates of sowing on the contrary. Varieties differed significantly and higher thousand seed weight (g) was recorded with DGGV-2 (48.70 g) over IPM (44.94 g) and SEL-4 (45.52 g). Likewise, significant difference was observed in thousand seed weight at 2 per cent DAP spray (47.11 g) over no spray (45.66 g). All the interaction effects were significant. In any case the interaction D 1 V 1 (first fort night of June and DGGV-2) resulted in significantly higher thousand seed weight (49.63 g) as compared to others. It was on par with D 2 V 1 (50.68 g). The lowest thousand seed weight was recorded in D 2 V 2 (42.85 g) as compared to other treatment combinations Harvest index (%) The data on harvest index (HI) of mungbean as influenced by dates of sowing, varieties and foliar nutrition of 2 per cent DAP and their interactions are presented in Table 17. Harvest index differed significantly due to dates of sowing. Among the dates of sowing the crop sown on first forth night of June recorded significantly higher HI (28.95 %) over other dates of sowing. Among the varieties, significantly higher HI was recorded with IPM (27.63 %) over SEL- 4 (26.22 %) but on par with DGGV-2 (27.38 %). Significant difference in HI (%) was also observed in between 2 per cent DAP spray (27.25 %) and no DAP spray (26.90 %). None of the interaction effects were significant Seed yield (kg ha -1 ) The data on seed yield of mungbean (kg ha -1 ) as influenced by dates of sowing, varieties and foliar nutrition of 2 per cent DAP and their interactions are presented in Table 18. Mungbean seed yield differed significantly among the dates of sowing. The crop sown on first fort night of June (1268 kg ha -1 ) recorded significantly higher seed yield over second fort night of June (1114 kg ha -1 ), first fort night of July (1009 kg ha -1 ) and second fort night of July (898 kg ha -1 ). Among the varieties, significantly higher seed yield was recorded with DGGV-2 (1113 kg ha -1 ) over SEL-4 (1021 kg ha -1 ) and was on par with IPM ( kg ha -1 ). Significant difference was observed in seed yield between 2 per cent DAP spray (1094 kg ha -1 ) and without DAP spray ( kg ha -1 ). None of the interactions effects were significant except dates of sowing and varieties. The interaction D 1 V 1 (1353 kg ha -1 ) (first fort night of June and DGGV-2) was significantly superior to other interactions of dates of sowing and varieties.

66 Table 17: 1000 seed weight (g) and Harvest Index (%) of mungbean varieties at different growth stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Treatment 1000 seed weight (g) Harvest index (%) Varieties Varieties Date of sowing(d) DAP spray V 1 V 2 V 3 Mean V 1 V 2 V 3 Mean S S D : I FN of June Mean S S D : II FN of June Mean S S D : I FN of July Mean S D 4 : II FN of July S Mean Mean of S Mean of S Mean Sources S.Em+ CD (P = 0.05) S.Em+ CD (P = 0.05) Date of sowing (D) 0.65 NS Varieties (V) DAP spray (S) D X V 0.94 NS 0.53 NS D X S NS V X S NS D X V X S NS D = Date of sowing V= Varieties S= DAP Spray D 1 = First fort night of June (14th June) V 1 = DGGV-2 S 1 = 2 % DAP Spray D 2 = Second fort night of June (29th June) V 2 = IPM S 2 = without spray D 3 = First fort night of July (15th July) V 3 = SEL-4 NS= Non Significant D 4 = Second fort night of July (30th July)

67 seed weight (g) D1 D2 D3 D4 V1 V2 V3 S1 S2 Dates of sowing Varieties Spray D1V1 D1V2 D1V3 D2V1 D2V2 D2V3 D3V1 D3V2 D3V3 D4V1 Interaction (date of sowing x variety) D4V2 D4V3 Days after sowing Fig. 12: 1000 seed weight (g) of mungbean varieties at different growth stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Fig. 12: 1000 seed weight (g) of mungbean varieties at different growth stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition

68 Table 18: Seed yield (kg ha -1 ) and Haulm yield (kg ha -1 ) of mungbean varieties at different growth stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Treatment Seed yield ( kg ha -1 ) Haulm yield ( kg ha -1 ) Varieties Varieties Date of sowing (D) DAP spray V 1 V 2 V 3 Mean V 1 V 2 V 3 Mean S D 1 : I FN of June S Mean S D 2 : II FN of June S Mean S D 3 : I FN of July S Mean D 4 : II FN of July S S Mean Mean of S Mean of S Mean Sources S.Em + CD (P = 0.05) S.Em+ CD (P = 0.05) Date of sowing (D) Varieties (V) DAP spray (S) D X V D X S NS NS V X S NS NS D X V X S NS NS D = Date of sowing V= Varieties S= DAP Spray D 1 = First fort night of June (14th June) V 1 = DGGV-2 S 1 = 2 % DAP Spray D 2 = Second fort night of June (29th June) V 2 = IPM S 2 = without spray D 3 = First fort night of July (15th July) V 3 = SEL-4 NS= Non Significant D 4 = Second fort night of July (30th July)

69 1751 Seed yield Haulm yield Seed yield and Haulm yield (kg ha -1 ) D1 D2 D3 D4 V1 V2 V3 S1 S2 Dates of sowing Varieties Spray D1V1 D1V2 D1V3 D2V1 D2V2 D2V3 D3V1 D3V2 D3V3 D4V1 Interaction (date of sowing x variety) D4V2 D4V3 Days after sowing Fig. 13: Seed yield (kg ha -1 ) and Haulm yield (kg ha -1 ) of mungbean varieties at different growth stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Fig. 13: Seed yield (kg ha-1) and Haulm yield (kg ha-1) of mungbean varieties at different growth stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition

70 The seed yield of mungbean was significantly influenced by dates of sowing, varieties and foliar nutrition. Among the treatment combinations, the variety DGGV-2 sown on first fort night of June with 2 per cent DAP spray at 30 and 45 DAS gave significantly higher seed yield (1380 kg ha -1 ) over the other treatment combinations. It was on par with variety IPM sown on first fort night of June (1327 kg ha -1 ) with 2 per cent DAP spray. The lowest seed yield of mungbean was obtained (801 kg ha -1 ) from SEL-4 sown on second fort night of July without spray (Appendix 3) Haulm yield (kg ha -1 ) The data on haulm yield of mungbean as influenced by dates of sowing, varieties and foliar nutrition of 2 per cent DAP and their interactions are presented in Table 18. The haulm yield differed significantly, among the dates of sowing. The crop sown on first fort night of June (1910 kg ha -1 ) gave significantly higher haulm yield followed by second fort night of June (1777 kg ha -1 ), first fort night of July (1564 kg ha -1 ) and second fort night of July (1437 kg ha -1 ). Among the varieties, significantly higher haulm yield (kg ha -1 ) was recorded with DGGV-2 (1729 kg ha -1 ) over IPM (1622 kg ha -1 ) and on par with SEL-4 (1665 kg ha -1 ). Significant difference was observed in haulm yield between 2 per cent DAP spray (1708 kg ha -1 ) and without DAP spray (1636 kg ha -1 ). None of the interaction effects were significant except dates of sowing and variety. The interaction D 1 V 3 (first fort night of June and SEL-4) recorded significantly higher haulm yield (1976 kg ha -1 ) over other treatment combinations. And it was on par with D 1 V 1 (1951 kg ha -1 ), D 2 V 1 (1889 kg ha - 1 ), D 2 V 3 (1845 kg ha -1 ). The lowest haulm yield was observed in D 4 V 3 (1378 kg ha -1 ) as compared to other treatment combinations Grain protein content (%) The data on grain protein content (%) of mungbean as influenced by dates of sowing, varieties and foliar nutrition of 2 per cent DAP are presented in Table 19. There was no significant difference in grain protein content due to the dates of sowing. Among the mungbean varieties, significantly higher grain protein content was recorded with DGGV-2 (21.63 %) over IPM (21.19 per cent) and it was on par with SEL-4 (21.32 per cent). Significant difference was also observed in grain protein content between 2 per cent DAP spray (21.54 %) and without DAP spray (21.23 %). None of the interaction effects were significant. 4.3 Total nutrient uptake of mungbean (at flowering stage) Nitrogen uptake The data on nitrogen (N) uptake at flowering stage as influenced by dates of sowing, varieties and foliar nutrition of 2 per cent DAP and their interactions are presented in Table 20. There was significant difference in nitrogen uptake. Among the different dates of sowing, maximum nitrogen uptake was recorded in early sown crop, on first fort night of June (59.02 kg ha -1 ) followed by second fort of June (50.07 kg ha -1 ), first fort night of July (41.30 kg ha -1 ) and second fort night of July (35.10 kg ha -1 ). The variety DGGV-2 registered significantly higher nitrogen uptake (50.89 kg ha -1 ) over IPM (43.39 kg ha -1 ) and SEL-4 (45.30 kg ha -1 ) and were on par with each other. Significant difference was observed in nitrogen uptake in 2 per cent DAP spray (49.41 kg ha -1 ) over no spray (43.65 kg ha -1 ). None of the interactions effects were significant except dates of sowing and varieties. The interaction D 1 V 1 (64.28 kg ha -1 ) recorded significantly higher N uptake over the other treatment combinations. The lowest N uptake was observed in D 4 V 3 (30.66 kg ha -1 ) Phosphorous uptake (kg ha -1 ) The data on phosphorous uptake at flowering stage as influenced by dates of sowing, varieties and foliar nutrition of 2 per cent DAP and their interactions are presented in Table 20. There was significant difference in phosphorous uptake at flowering stage. Among the different dates of sowing maximum phosphorous uptake was recorded in early sown crop, on first fort night of June (11.90 kg ha -1 ) followed by second fort night of June (11.06 kg ha -1 ), first fort night of July (10.83 kg ha -1 ) and second fort night of July (9.03 kg ha -1 ). The treatments D 2 and D 3 were on par with each other (11.06 kg ha kg ha -1 ). The Mungbean varieties DGGV- 2 registered significantly higher uptake of phosphorous (11.24 kg ha -1 ) over IPM (10.29 kg ha -1 ) and SEL-4 (10.59 kg ha -1 ). Both the later varieties were on par with each other. Further a significant difference was observed in phosphorous uptake at 2 per cent DAP spray (11.36 kg ha -1 ) and without DAP spray (10.05 kg ha -1 ). None of the interaction effects were significant except dates of sowing and varieties.

71 Table 19: Protein content (%) of mungbean varieties at different growth stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Treatment Protein content (%) Varieties Date of sowing (D) DAP spray V 1 V 2 V 3 Mean S D 1 : I FN of June S Mean S D 2 : II FN of June S Mean S D S 2 3 : I FN of July Mean S D 4 : II FN of July S Mean Mean of S Mean of S Mean Sources S.Em+ CD (P = 0.05) Date of sowing (D) 0.11 NS Varieties (V) DAP spray (S) D X V 0.23 NS D X S 0.18 NS V X S 0.15 NS D X V X S 0.31 NS D = Date of sowing V= Varieties S= DAP Spray D 1= First fort night of June (14th June) V 1= DGGV-2 S 1= 2 % DAP Spray D 2= Second fort night of June (29th June) V 2= IPM S 2= without spray D 3= First fort night of July (15th July) V 3= SEL-4 NS= Non Significant D 4= Second fort night of July (30th July)

72 21 Protein content (%) D1 D2 D3 D4 V1 V2 V3 S1 S2 Dates of sowing Varieties Spray D1V1 D1V2 D1V3 D2V1 D2V2 D2V3 D3V1 D3V2 D3V3 D4V1 Interaction (date of sowing x variety) D4V2 D4V3 Days after sowing Fig. 14: Protein content (%) of mungbean varieties at different growth stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Fig. 14: Protein content (%) of mungbean varieties at different growth stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition

73 Table 20: N, P and K uptake (kg ha- 1 ) of mungbean varieties at flowering stage as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Treatment N uptake ( kg ha -1 ) P uptake ( kg ha -1 ) K UPTAKE ( kg ha -1 ) Varieties Varieties Varieties Date of sowing (D) DAP spray V 1 V 2 V 3 Mean V 1 V 2 V 3 Mean V 1 V 2 V 3 Mean S D S : I FN of June Mean S D S : II FN of June Mean S D S 2 3 : I FN of July Mean S D 4 : II FN of July S Mean Mean of S Mean of S Mean Sources S.Em+ CD (P = 0.05) S.Em+ CD (P = 0.05) S.Em+ CD (P = 0.05) Date of sowing (D) Varieties (V) DAP spray (S) D X V D X S 1.22 NS 0.27 NS 0.61 NS V X S 1.06 NS 0.23 NS 0.53 NS D X V X S 2.12 NS 0.46 NS 1.05 NS D = Date of sowing V= Varieties S= DAP Spray D 1 = First fort night of June (14th June) V 1 = DGGV-2 S 1 = 2 % DAP Spray D 2 = Second fort night of June (29th June) V 2 = IPM S 2 = without spray D 3 = First fort night of July (15th July) V 3 = SEL-4 NS= Non Significant D 4 = Second fort night of July (30th July)

74 N, P and K uptake (kg ha -1 ) D1 D2 D3 D4 V1 V2 V3 S1 S2 Dates of sowing Varieties Spray D1V1 D1V2 D1V3 D2V1 D2V2 D2V3 D3V1 D3V2 D3V3 D4V1 Interaction (date of sowing x variety) D4V2 D4V3 Days after sowing Fig. 15: N, P and K uptake (kg ha-1) of mungbean varieties at flowering stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Fig. 15: N, P and K uptake (kg ha-1) of mungbean varieties at flowering stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition

75 The interaction D 1 V 1 (13.13 kg ha -1 ) recorded significantly higher uptake over other treatment combinations and it was on par with D 2 V 3 (12.70 kg ha -1 ). The lowest P uptake was observed in D 4 V 3 (7.87 kg ha -1 ) Potassium uptake (kg ha -1 ) The data on Potassium uptake at flowering stage as influenced by dates of sowing, varieties and foliar nutrition of 2 per cent DAP spray are presented in Table 20. There was significant difference in potassium uptake at flowering stage among different dates of sowing. Higher Potassium uptake was recorded in early sown crop, on first fort night June (26.16 kg ha -1 ) followed by second fort night of June (23.88 kg ha -1 ), first fort night of July (20.39 kg ha -1 ) and second fort night of July (17.43 kg ha -1 ). The Mungbean variety DGGV-2 registered significantly higher potassium uptake (23.09 kg ha -1 ) at flowering stage over IPM (21.39 kg ha -1 ) and SEL-4 (21.42 kg ha -1 ).While V 2 (IPM-02-14) and V 3 (SEL-4) were on par with each other in K uptake. There was significant difference in Potassium uptake at flowering stage in treatment with 2 per cent DAP spray (23.08 kg ha -1 ), as compared to no spray (20.85 kg ha -1 ). None of the interaction effects were significant except dates of sowing and varieties. The interaction D 1 V 1 (29.14 kg ha -1 ) recorded significantly higher over the other treatment combinations. The K uptake was the least in D 4 V 3 (15.70 kg ha -1 ). 4.4 Total nutrient uptake of mungbean (at harvesting stage) Nitrogen uptake The data on nitrogen (N) uptake at harvesting stage as influenced by dates of sowing, varieties and foliar nutrition 2 per cent DAP are presented in Table 21. There was significant difference in nitrogen uptake among different dates of sowing. Maximum nitrogen uptake was recorded in early sown crop, on first fort night of June (56.44 kg ha -1 ), followed by second fort night of June (48.12 kg ha -1 ), first fort night of July (38.72) and second fort night of July (32.51 kg ha -1 ). The variety DGGV-2 registered significantly higher nitrogen uptake (48.31 kg ha -1 ) over IPM (40.81 kg ha -1 ) and SEL-4 (42.72 kg ha -1 ). There was a significant difference observed in nitrogen uptake at 2 per cent DAP spray (46.82 kg ha -1 ) as compared to no spray (41.07 kg ha -1 ). None of the interaction effects were significant except dates of sowing and variety. The interaction D 1 V 1 (first fort night of June and DGGV-2) recorded significantly higher nitrogen uptake (61.70 kg ha -1 ) as compared to other treatment combinations and it was on par with D 2 V 1 (57.04 kg ha -1 ). The lowest nitrogen uptake was recorded in D 4 V 3 (28.08 kg ha -1 ) Phosphorous uptake (kg ha -1 ) The data on phosphorous uptake at harvesting stage in relation to dates of sowing, varieties and foliar nutrition of 2 per cent DAP are presented in Table 21. There was significant difference in phosphorous uptake among different dates of sowing. Maximum phosphorous uptake at harvesting stage was recorded in the early sown crop, on first fort night of June (10.16 kg ha -1 ), followed by second fort night of June (9.32 kg ha -1 ), first fort night of July (9.09 kg ha -1 ) and second fort night of July (7.29 kg ha -1 ). The variety DGGV-2 registered significantly higher phosphorous uptake (9.49 kg ha -1 ) over IPM (8.54 kg ha -1 ) and SEL-4 (8.85 kg ha -1 ). There was a significant difference observed in phosphorous uptake at 2 per cent DAP spray (9.62 kg ha -1 ) and without DAP spray (8.31 kg ha -1 ). The interaction D 1 V 1 (first fort night of June and DGGV-2) recorded significantly higher phosphorous uptake (11.39 kg ha -1 ) as compared to other treatment combinations. However, it was on par with D 2 V 3 (10.95 kg ha -1 ). The least phosphorous uptake was recorded in D 4 V 3 (6.13 kg ha -1 ) Potassium uptake (kg ha -1 ) The data on Potassium uptake at harvesting stage as influenced by dates of sowing, varieties as and foliar nutrition of 2 per cent DAP are presented in Table 21. There was significant difference in potassium uptake among different dates of sowing. Maximum potassium uptake was recorded in the early sown crop, on first fort night of June (24.20 kg ha -1 ), followed by second fort night of June (21.91 kg ha -1 ), first fort night of July (18.42 kg ha -1 ) and second fort night of July (15.47 kg ha -1 ). The variety DGGV-2 registered significantly higher potassium uptake at harvesting stage (21.12 kg ha -1 ) over IPM (19.43 kg ha -1 ) and SEL-4 (19.45 kg ha -1 ).

76 Table 21: N, P and K uptake (kg ha -1 ) of mungbean varieties at harvest as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Treatment N Uptake ( kg ha -1 ) P Uptake ( kg ha -1 ) K Uptake ( kg ha -1 ) Varieties Varieties Varieties Date of sowing (D) DAP spray V 1 V 2 V 3 Mean V 1 V 2 V 3 Mean V 1 V 2 V 3 Mean D 1 : I FN of June D 2 : II FN of June D 3 : I FN of July D 4 : II FN of July S S Mean S S Mean S S Mean S S Mean Mean of S Mean of S Mean Sources S.Em+ CD (P = 0.05) S.Em+ CD (P = 0.05) S.Em+ CD (P = 0.05) Date of sowing (D) Varieties (V) DAP spray (S) D X V D X S 1.22 NS 0.27 NS 0.61 NS V X S 1.06 NS 0.23 NS 0.53 NS D X V X S 2.12 NS 0.46 NS 1.05 NS D = Date of sowing V= Varieties S= DAP Spray D 1 = First fort night of June (14th June) V 1 = DGGV-2 S 1 = 2 % DAP Spray D 2 = Second fort night of June (29th June) V 2 = IPM S 2 = without spray D 3 = First fort night of July (15th July) V 3 = SEL-4 NS= Non Significant D 4 = Second fort night of July (30th July)

77 Table 22: Percent Disease index (PDI) of mungbean varieties at flowering stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Leaf spot Powdery mildew Treatment Varieties Varieties Date of sowing (D) DAP spray V 1 V 2 V 3 Mean V 1 V 2 V 3 Mean D 1 : I FN of June D 2 : II FN of June D 3 : I FN of July D 4 : II FN of July S (16.97) 7.41 (15.79) 9.63 (18.08) 8.52 (16.95) 9.82 (18.26) 8.71 (17.16) (19.31) 9.82 (18.25) S (17.72) 7.78 () (18.08) 8.89 (17.33) (18.97) 9.08 (17.52) (19.31) (18.60) Mean 8.89 (17.34) 7.59 () (18.08) 8.70 (17.14) (18.62) 8.89 (17.34) (19.31) (18.42) S (19.64) () (21.95) (20.46) (20.81) (20.93) (23.02) (21.59) S (20.78) (19.78) (22.63) (21.06) (21.88) (20.93) (23.66) (22.16) Mean (20.21) (19.78) (22.29) (20.76) (21.35) (20.93) (23.34) (21.87) S (24.89) (22.28) (26.01) (24.39) (25.86) (23.33) (26.94) (25.38) S (24.64) (22.56) (26.83) (24.68) (25..61) (23.60) (27.75) (25.65) Mean (24.77) (22.42) (26.42) (24.54) (25.74) (23.47) (27.35) (25.52) S (28.14) (24.95) (35.28) (29.46) (29.03) (25.91) (36.07) (30.04) S (29.65) (25.77) (37.29) (30.90) (30.51) (26.71) (38.06) (31.76) Mean (28.89) (25.36) (36.28) (30.18) (29.77) (26.31) (37.06) (31.05) Mean of S (22.41) (25.33) (21.07) (22.81) (23.49) (26.34) (22.19) (23.89) Mean of S (20.70) (23.20) (26.21) (23.49) (21.84) (24.24) (27.19) (24.54) Mean (22.80) (20.89) (25.77) (23.87) (22.01) (26.76) Sources S.Em+ CD (P = 0.05) S.Em+ CD (P = 0.05) Date of sowing (D) Varieties (V) DAP spray (S) D X V D X S 0.32 NS 0.31 NS V X S 0.28 NS 0.26 NS D X V X S 0.56 NS 0.53 NS D = Date of sowing V= Varieties S= DAP Spray D 1 = First fort night of June (14th June) V 1 = DGGV-2 S 1 = 2 % DAP Spray D 2 = Second fort night of June (29th June) V 2 = IPM S 2 = without spray D 3 = First fort night of July (15th July) V 3 = SEL-4 NS= Non Significant D 4 = Second fort night of July (30th July)

78 40 35 Powdery mildew Leaf spot PDI D1 D2 D3 D4 V1 V2 V3 S1 S2 Dates of sowing Varieties Spray D1V1 D1V2 D1V3 D2V1 D2V2 D2V3 D3V1 D3V2 D3V3 D4V1 Interaction (date of sowing x variety) D4V2 D4V3 Days after sowing Fig. 16: Per cent Disease index (PDI) of mungbean varieties at flowering stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Fig. 16: Per cent Disease index (PDI) of mungbean varieties at flowering stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition

79 Potassium uptake at harvesting stage at 2 per cent DAP spray (21.12 kg ha -1 ) and without DAP spray (18.88 kg ha -1 ) differed significantly. The interaction D 1 V 1 (first fort night of June and DGGV-2) recorded significantly higher potassium uptake (27.17 kg ha -1 ) as compared to other treatment combinations. The lowest K uptake was observed in D 4 V 3 (13.74 kg ha -1 ). 4.5 Per cent disease index (PDI) Leaf spot The data on per cent disease index of leaf spot as influenced by dates of sowing, varieties and foliar nutrition of 2 per cent DAP and their interactions are presented in Table 22. The per cent disease index of leaf spot significantly differed among the dates of sowing. The crop sown on first fort night of June (8.70) recorded significantly lower PDI followed by second fort night of June (12.65), first fort night of July (17.35) and second fort night of July (25.56) which recorded the higher PDI. Among the varieties, significantly lower PDI was observed in IPM (13.01) followed by DGGV-2 (15.46) and higher disease index was recorded in SEL-4 (19.72). Further it was observed that the PDI differed significantly between 2 per cent DAP (15.62) spray and without DAP (16.51) spray. None of the interaction effects were significant except dates of sowing and variety and dates of sowing and DAP spray. The interaction between dates of sowing and variety the D 4 V 3 (second fort night of July and variety SEL-4) recorded significantly PDI (35.00) followed by D 4 V 1 (23.33), D 3 V 3 (19.81), D 4 V 2 (18.33), D 3 V 1 (17.59), D 3 V 2 (14.63), D 2 V 3 (14.44) and the lower PDI was recorded in the interaction D 1 V 2 (7.51). Whereas, dates of sowing and 2 per cent DAP spray in D 4 S 2 (26.67), followed by D 4 S 1 (24.44), D 3 S 2 (17.53), D 3 S 1 (17.16), D 2 S 2 (12.96) D 1 S 2 (8.9) and D 1 S 1 (8.52) (first fort night of June and 2 per cent DAP Spray) recorded significantly lower PDI (8.52) Powdery mildew The data on per cent disease index of powdery mildew as influenced by dates of sowing, varieties and foliar nutrition of 2 per cent DAP and their interactions are presented in Table 22. The PDI of powdery mildew significantly differed among the dates of sowing. The crop sown on first fort night of June (10.00) recorded significantly lower per cent disease index of powdery mildew, followed by second fort night of June (13.95), first fort night of July (18.65) and second fort night of July (26.86) which recorded the higher disease index. Among the varieties, significantly lower PDI of powdery mildew was seen with IPM (14.31) followed by DGGV-2 (16.76) and higher PDI was recorded in SEL-4 (21.02). The PDI of powdery mildew in the treatment of 2 per cent DAP (16.92) spray and without DAP spray (17.81) differed significantly. All the interaction effects were non significant except dates of sowing and variety and dates of sowing and DAP spray. The interaction between dates of sowing and variety D 4 V 3 (second fort night of July and variety SEL-4) recorded significantly higher PDI of powdery mildew (36.30) followed by D 4 V 1 (24.63), D 3 V 3 (21.11), D 4 V 2 (19.63), D 3 V 1 (18.89), D 3 V 2 (15.93), D 2 V 3 (15.74), D 2 V 1 (13.34), D 2 V 2 (12.78), D 1 V 3 (10.93), D 1 V 1 (10.19) and the lowest PDI of powdery mildew was observed in the interaction D 1 V 2 (8.89). 4.6 Economics The data on gross returns, net returns and B: C ratio are presented in Table Gross returns (` ha -1 ) The gross returns obtained in the crop sown during first fort night of June was significantly higher (` ha -1 ) followed by second fort night of June (`43136 ha -1 ), first fort night of July (` ha -1 ) and second fort night of July (`34761 ha -1 ). Among the mungbean variety DGGV-2 (`43060 ha -1 ) gave significantly higher gross returns over SEL-4 (` ha -1 ) and it was on par with IPM (`41846 ha -1 ). Significant difference in gross returns was observed at 2 per cent DAP spray (`42328 ha -1 ) as compared to no spray (` ha -1 ). The gross returns of mungbean were significantly influenced by dates of sowing, varieties, and foliar nutrition. Among the treatment combinations, variety DGGV-2 sown on first fort night of June with 2 per cent DAP at 30 and 45 DAS recorded significantly higher gross returns (` ha -1 ) over the other treatment combinations. However, it was on par with the crop sown on first fort night of June with DGGV-2 and without spray (`50119 ha -1 ) and variety IPM sown on first fort night of June of with 2 per cent DAP spray. The lower gross returns (` ha -1 ) was recorded in crop sown on second fort nigh of July with SEL-4 and without spray (Appendix 4).

80 Table 23: Gross Returns, Net returns, benefit cost ratio of mungbean varieties at flowering stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Treatment Gross Returns Net returns Benefit cost ratio Varieties Varieties Varieties Date of sowing (D) DAP spray V 1 V 2 V 3 Mean V 1 V 2 V 3 Mean V 1 V 2 V 3 Mean S D 1 : I FN of June S Mean S D 2 : II FN of June S Mean S D 3 : I FN of July S Mean S D 4 : II FN of July S Mean Mean of S Mean of S Mean Sources S.Em+ CD (P = 0.05) S.Em+ CD (P = 0.05) S.Em+ CD (P = 0.05) Date of sowing (D) Varieties (V) DAP spray (S) D X V NS NS 0.06 NS D X S NS NS 0.05 NS V X S NS NS 0.04 NS D X V X S NS NS 0.09 NS D = Date of sowing V= Varieties S= DAP Spray D 1 = First fort night of June (14th June) V 1 = DGGV-2 S 1 = 2 % DAP Spray D 2 = Second fort night of June (29th June) V 2 = IPM S 2 = without spray D 3 = First fort night of July (15th July) V 3 = SEL-4 NS= Non Significant D 4 = Second fort night of July (30th July)

81 Gross returns Net returns B:C ratio Gross and Net returns B:C ratio D1 D2 D3 D4 V1 V2 V3 S1 S2 D1V1 D1V2 D1V3 D2V1 D2V2 D2V3 D3V1 D3V2 D3V3 D4V1 D4V2 D4V3 Dates of sowing Varieties Spray Date of sowing Interaction (date of sowing x variety) Fig. 17: Gross Returns, Net returns, benefit cost ratio of mungbean varieties at flowering stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition Fig. 17: Gross Returns, Net returns, benefit cost ratio of mungbean varieties at flowering stages as influenced by dates of sowing and foliar nutrition

82 Table 24: Correlation of yield with other growth and yield parameters, growth indices and NPK uptake Growth parameters Correlation Values Yield 1.00 * Plant height 0.73* Number of branches 0.62* Dry matter production 0.49* Leaf area index 0.51* Number of nodules 0.61* NAR 0.51* Yield parameters Number of pods 0.60* Number of seeds 0.35* Pod length 0.42* Test weight 0.35* Disease index Leaf spot -0.79* Powdery mildew -0.79* Uptake at flowering stage Nitrogen (N) 0.88* Phosphorous ( P) 0.72* Potassium (K) 0.87* Uptake at harvesting stage Nitrogen (N) 0.88* Phosphorous ( P) 0.72* Potassium (K) 0.88* Note *= 1 % significance level

83 4.6.2 Net returns (` ha -1 ) Significantly higher net returns were recorded in first fort night of June (`32226 ha -1 ) followed by second fort night of June (` ha -1 ), first fort night of July (`21976 ha -1 ) and second fort night of July (`17659 ha -1 ). Among the varieties DGGV-2 (` ha -1 ) gave significantly higher net returns over SEL-4 (` ha -1 ) and were on par with IPM (`24891 ha -1 ). Further there was a significant difference observed in 2 per cent DAP spray (` ha -1 ) over no spray (`23697 ha -1 ) in terms of net returns. The net returns of mungbean were significantly influenced by the dates of sowing, varieties, and foliar nutrition. Among the treatment combinations tried, the variety DGGV-2 sown on first fort night of June with 2 per cent DAP spray at 30 and 45 DAS recorded significantly higher net returns (` 41954) over other treatment combinations. However, it was on par with the crop sown on second fort night of June with DGGV-2 and without spray (` 39634) and variety IPM sown on first fort night of June with 2 per cent DAP spray. The lowest net returns of mungbean noticed (` 38147) in crop sown on second fort night of July with SEL-4 without spray (Appendix 4) Benefit cost ratio Significant higher B: C ratio was recorded in first fort night of June (2.92) followed by second fort night of June (2.57), first fort night of July (2.29) and second fort night of July (2.03). Among the varieties DGGV-2 (2.55) gave significantly higher B: C ratio which was on par with IPM (2.47) over SEL-4 (2.34). The B:C ratio was also significantly different in 2 per cent DAP spray (2.50) over no spray (2.40). None of the interactions were significant. The B: C ratio of mungbean differed significantly due to different dates of sowing, varieties and foliar nutrition. The crop sown on first fort night of June with variety DGGV-2 and 2 % DAP spray recorded significantly higher B: C ratio (3.18) compared to other treatment interactions. It was on par with first fort night of June with variety DGGV-2 and without spray, first fort night of June with variety IPM and 2 % DAP spray. The lowest B: C ratio was recorded in SEL- 4 (1.82) sown on second fort night of July without spray (Appendix 4).

84 DISCUSSION Among the various factors affecting the growth, yield and quality of mungbean, selection of suitable genotype and date of sowing play a vital role. The present investigation was undertaken to identify suitable genotypes of mungbean for kharif season and to standardize the dates of sowing for obtaining maximum yield levels. The field trial was carried out to study the Response of Mungbean Genotypes to Dates of Sowing and Foliar Nutrition in kharif Season at Main Agricultural Research Station, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad. The study was successful to decipher certain useful results that are discussed in this chapter. 5.1 Weather condition and crop performance The crop growth to a large extent depends on interaction between genotype and environment in which it is grown. Fluctuations in environmental conditions greatly influence the crop dynamics and yielding ability. The annual rainfall received during 2012 was mm distributed over 47 rainy days (Tabe1). The rainfall during cropping period (June-October) was mm, which was 24 percent less than the normal average rainfall (713.8 mm). The rainfall received in the month of first fort night of June to second fort night of July ensured adequate stored moisture for germination, emergence and early establishment of seedlings at first two dates of sowing (I FN of June and II FN of June). However, the late sown (first fort night July and second fort night of July) crop did not get adequate moisture during crop growth stage for the present year, even though the maximum rainfall was received in the month of July (112.2 mm) followed by August (90 mm). The distribution of rainfall was erratic, hence crop suffered in delayed sowing dates (I FN of July and II FN of July) due to moisture stress during early growth stage of crop. The other parameters viz., maximum and minimum temperature and relative humidity did not have any adverse effect on crop growth and yield. The mean maximum temperature during the period of experimentation ranged from 30.6 o C (June) to 28 o C (September), while the minimum temperature ranged from 19.8 o C (September) to 21.5 o C (June). The mean relative humidity varied from 58 per cent in the month of November to per cent in the month of June Effect of dates of sowing Time of sowing plays an important role to exploit genetic potentiality of a genotype as it provides optimum growing condition such as temperature, light, humidity and rain fall. Sowing date determines the time available for vegetative phase before the onset of flowering which is mainly influenced by photoperiod. Among the agronomic practices of field crops, sowing at optimum time is an important non cash input that results in considerable increase in the yield. This means that a favorable soil and climatic conditions are made available to the crop for the expression of their genetic potentiality. Mungbean is normally sown between 1 st June to 20 th June under Zone 8 in Karnataka. However, in recent years due to erratic rainfall and climate change situations the sowing time is extended beyond the recommended time. Hence, there is a need to improve yield potentiality. Mungbean sown on first fort night of June recorded significantly higher seed yield (1268 kg ha -1 ) when compared to crop sown on second fort night of June (1114 kg ha -1 ), first fort night July (1009 kg ha -1 ) and second fort night of July (898 kg ha -1 ). The crop sown on first fort night of June registered per cent, per cent, per cent higher yield over second fort night of June, first fort night of July and second fort night of July. The higher seed yield obtained in early sown crop is attributed to higher soil moisture during cropping period due to receipt of mm rainfall during July. This coincides with the flowering and pod formation stage of early sown crop (Table 18). The higher seed yield in early sown crop (I FN of June) can also be related to higher values of yield components over the late sown crop. There was considerable increase in the values of yield attributing characters like number of pods plant -1 (18.36), number of seeds pod -1 (13.20), pod length (10.78 cm), and 1000 seed weight (47.71 g) in early sown crop on I FN of June as compared to late sown crop on II FN of June (16.84, 12.76, 10.54, 46.21), I FN of July (14.14, 12.18, 9.34 and 46.03) and II FN of July (13.45,12.09, 9.15 and 45.61, respectively). The value of growth parameters like leaf area index, total dry matter production plant -1 were also significantly high in early sown crop which were perhaps responsible for higher value of yield components ultimately resulting in increased seed yield ha -1.It is interesting to note that the leaf area index at 60 DAS in early sown crop was (3.03) significantly higher than the crop sown on second fort night of June, first fort night of July and second fort night of July (2.93, 2.64 and 2.57), respectively.

85 Date of Sowing : Date of Sowing : Plate 4: First fort night of June with variety Plate 6: First fort night of June with variety DGGV-2 + 2% DAP spray IPM % DAP spray Date of Sowing : (Rain Season 2012) Plate 5: First fort night of June with variety Plate 7: First fort night of June with variety DGGV-2 without spray SEL-4 + 2% DAP spray

86 Thus, the higher values of LAI in early sown crop resulted in increased production of photosynthates contributing to higher total dry matter production. The total dry matter production at harvest in early sown crop was g plant -1 which was significantly higher than crop sown on second fort night June, first fort night July and second fort night July ( 10.42, and 9.79 g plant- 1, respectively). These results are in conformity with the findings of Chaudhary et al. (1994), Singh and Singh (2000). They also observed that early sown crop (6 th July) significantly recorded higher leaf area index, dry matter production compared to late sown crop (20 th July, 5 th August and 20 th August, respectively). The performance of all the three varieties was exceptionally well in terms of flower production and pod setting (Table 13) when the crop was sown on first fort night of June compared to other sowing dates. There was a gradual decrease in the number of flowers and pods up to second fort night of July. Significantly higher number of flowers were produced in the genotype DGGV-2 (23.88), followed by IPM (23.67), and SEL-4 (22.98). It is also interesting to note that with decrease in the number of flowers in the four dates of sowing, there was a gradual increase in the number of sheded flowers from second fort night of June to second fort night of July. Percentage of flower retention also followed a similar pattern. There was significant difference among the genotypes in respect of grain yield in all the four dates of sowing (Table 13). The genotype DGGV-2 recorded the highest seed yield followed by the SEL-4 and IPM All the genotypes produced significantly higher number of flowers in early date of sowing. These results are similar to the findings of Kumari and Varma (1983) and Ogunbodede (1990). They have also noticed that the AAU-39 was a highest yielding variety in all the four dates of sowing fallowed by ML-131. In these varieties higher numbers of flowers were produced in all the four dates. Early sown crop in first fort night of June produced significantly higher pod length (10.78 cm) followed by second fort night of June (9.34 cm) sown crop and least pod length of 9.15 cm was observed in last sowing date i. e. second fort night of July (Table 16). The results are supported by Jaiswal, (1995) who reported that the crop sown during 25 th March produced significantly higher seed yield (14.5 q ha -1 ), seed pod -1, seeds plant -1 and number of pods plant -1 compared to crop sown during 5 th April and 15 th March. At flowering stage, significantly higher N (59.02), P (11.90) and K (26.16) uptake (Table 20) were observed in the early sown crop on first fort night of June over second fort night of June, first fort night of July and second fort night of July. This is mainly attributed to higher biomass production (seed and haulm yield) by the early sown crop over the late sown crop. These results are in agreement with the findings of Chaudhary et al. (1988). They reported that black gram sown on 6 th July recorded higher dry matter production and partitioning as compared to 20 th July 5 th august and 20 th August. 5.3 Performance of mungbean genotypes Genotypes play an important role in determining yield potentiality of a crop. The potential yield of genotypes within its genetic limit is set by its environment. The release of new short duration varieties of pulses is a major breakthrough in achieving higher productivity. Three varieties of mungbean (DGGV-2, IPM and SEL-4) were tried on vertisols transition tract Zone VIII of Karnataka during kharif Genotype DGGV-2 recorded significantly higher seed yield (1113 kg ha -1 ) compared to IPM (1082 kg ha -1 ) and SEL-4 (1021 kg ha -1 ). The increase in seed yield of DGGV-2 over IPM and SEL-4 was to an extent of 2.69 per cent and 8.20 per cent, respectively. This increase was due to more number of yield attributing characters with DGGC-2. Similar findings were reported by Lal Ahmad Mohammad et al. (1998) who observed varietal difference in yield. They noticed that the blackgram variety TAU-1 recorded higher growth and yield components besides seed yield (12.72 q ha -1 ) compared to Manikya. At harvest, differences in number of pods plant -1, number of seeds pod -1, pod length (Table 16) were also observed among the genotypes. The variety DGGV-2, recorded significantly higher number of pods (16.53), higher number of seeds pod - 1 (13.95), pod length (11.0) than SEL-4. These results have further been supported by findings of Hozayan (2007), (Anon., 2001). The higher seed yield of DGGV-2 over other genotypes is attributed to higher values of yield components (Number of seed pod -1 and test weight).

87 (Rain Season 2012) Rain Season 2012) Plate 8: Variety IPM % DAP spray Plate 10: Variety SEL-4 + 2% DAP spray Date of Sowing : Dae of Sowing : Plate 11: Variety SEL-4 + without spray Plate 9: Variety IPM without spray

88 The genotype DGGV-2 recorded significantly higher number of seeds pod -1 (13.95) and thousand seed weight (48.70 g) over IPM (11.52 and g ) and SEL -4 (12.20 and g), respectively. The higher values of above yield components in DGGV-2 was due to higher values of growth components such as total dry matter production compared to other two varieties. It is always essential for a genotype to produce sufficient dry matter during vegetative phase to achieve higher yields. The dry matter production in DGGV-2 was g plant -1 as compared to and g plant -1 in SEL-4 and IPM-02-14, respectively (Table 7). The leaf area index (Table 8) of DGGV-2 was also higher at 60 DAS. The findings of Swamy Rao and Konda (1988) and Lal Ahmad Mohammad et al. (1998) also support these results. Higher nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium uptake at flowering stage (50.89 kg, kg and kg ha -1, respectively) were recorded with DGGV-2 genotype over IPM (43.39 kg, kg, kg ha -1 ) and SEL-4 (45.30 kg, 9.78 kg and kg ha -1 ), respectively Table 21. This is mainly attributed to significantly higher seed and haulm yield (1139 and 1729 kg ha -1 respectively recorded with DGGV-2. Elayaraja and Angayarkanni (2005) also reported that application of 2 per cent DAP at 20, 30, 45 DAS resulted in higher NPK uptake in blackgram seed (43.03, 6.85 and kg ha -1 ), respectively. 5.3 Effect of DAP spray on growth and yield of mungbean Spraying of 2 per cent DAP at 30 and 45 DAS (Table 19) recorded significantly higher seed yield (1094 kg ha -1 ) over no spray (1050 kg ha -1 ). The increased seed yield with 2 per cent DAP spray was mainly due to the increased nutrient supply and reduced nutrient losses. Spraying of 2 per cent DAP at 30 and 45 DAS perhaps helped in quick absorption of nitrogen and phosphorous, at the time of reproductive stage where the nutrient demand is at the peak due to indeterminate growth habit of the crop. Hence it reduced the flower drop and ultimately enhanced the pod setting and resulted in higher seed yield. The results are corroborating with the findings of Revathy et al. (1997), Dixit and Elamathi (2007). The yield increase in DAP sprayed crop, was up to 3.96 per cent as compared to no spray (Table 18). The above result clearly indicates the importance of inorganic foliar nutrition in determination of yield potential in mungbean. The increased grain yield in mungbean due to beneficial effect of nutrients applied at proper time and stage was also reported by Barik and Rout (1990), Yakadri and Thatikunta (2002) in blackgram, and Srinivasan et al. (1992) in cowpea, where foliar application of nutrients at flowering and pod development stage might have been easily absorbed and better trasnslocated in the plant and maintained constant requirement of N and P at the reproductive stage of the crop. The lower yield was obtained with no spray, which attributed to lower availability of nutrients at critical stage i.e. flowering and pod setting stage of the crop, when crop needs more energy and nutrients for good and proper setting of flowers and pods. Barik and Rout (1990), also found beneficial effects of spraying DAP in black gram. Further, yield per hectare is determined by number of yield components. Spraying of 2 per cent DAP significantly increased the number of pods plant -1 (17.22), number of seeds pod -1 (14.06), pod length (11.48) and 1000 seed weight (47.11). Compared to no spray (14.18, 11.05, 8.43 and 45.66, respectively). The percent increase in the number of pods was to the tune of per cent compared to no spray (Table14, 15, 16, 17). This indicates that increase in pods plant -1 played a major role in increasing the total yield. Similarly Senthil Kumar et al. (2008) reported the increase in the yield in black gram with DAP at 2 per cent spray due to increased pod production. The difference in yield components could be traced back to differences in physiological characters both in vegetative and reproductive phases of the crop. The difference in dry matter production at various growth stages were mainly found responsible for difference observed in yield and yield components (Table 7). The total dry matter production at harvest was 3.66 per cent higher with 2 per cent DAP spray over no spray (Table 7). The increase in dry matter production due to foliar application of nutrients has also been reported by Manonmani and Srimathi (2009) in black gram. The significant improvement in dry matter due to better nutrition and higher availability of NPK which led into better uptake by the crop (Table 20 and 21). Dry matter production in various plant parts depends upon photosynthetic capacity of plants, which in turn depends on total leaf area, leaf area index throughout crop growth. The foliar application of 2 per cent DAP resulted in significantly higher production of leaf dry matter, leaf area and leaf area index (Table 8). Senthil Kumar et al. (2008), also reported higher dry matter production in leaf with 2 per cent DAP spray to black gram compared to no spray.

89 (Rain Season 2012) Plate 12: Variety DGGV-2 + 2% DAP spray (45 DAS) Plate 14: Spraying of 2% DAP (45 DAS) Date of Sowing : Plate 13: Variety DGGV-2 + without spray (45 DAS) Plate 15: Harvesting of crop