ESTIMATION OF FLORESCENCE (%) AND QUANTUM YIELD IN GAMMA RADIATED COWPEA VARIETIES (Vigna unguiculata L.)

SRIKANTH G.A.¹*, P.K. SHUKLA², R. MANU³, D. JAGADEESH⁴, Y.S. WAGH⁵, K.N. SHIVARANJINI^6
1Department of Plant Physiology, Sam Higginbottom Institute of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences, Naini, Prayagraj, 211007, Uttar Pradesh, India
²Department of Plant Physiology, Sam Higginbottom Institute of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences, Naini, Prayagraj, 211007, Uttar Pradesh, India
³Department of Plant Physiology, Sam Higginbottom Institute of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences, Naini, Prayagraj, 211007, Uttar Pradesh, India
⁴Department of Molecular Biology, Yuvaraja's College, Mysuru, 570005, University of Mysore, Mysuru, 570006, Karnataka, India
⁵Department of Plant Physiology, College of Agriculture, Kerala Agricultural University, Vellayani, Thiruvanthapuram, 695522, Kerala, India
⁶College of Horticulture, Yalachahalli, Mysuru, 571130, University of Horticultural Sciences, Bagalkot, 587104, Karnataka, India
* Corresponding Author : srikanthga648@gmail.com

Received : 04-01-2020     Accepted : 27-01-2020     Published : 30-01-2020
Volume : 12     Issue : 2       Pages : 9427 - 9430
Int J Agr Sci 12.2 (2020):9427-9430

Keywords : Cowpea, Growth, Gamma Radiation, Climate change
Academic Editor : Dr R R Acharya, Dr Zheko Radev
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : Authors are thankful to Department of Plant Physiology, Sam Higginbottom Institute of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences, Naini, Prayagraj, 211007, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Author Contribution : All authors equally contributed

The present study was an attempt to study the florescence (%) and quantum yield in gamma radiated cowpea varieties. Plant responses in terms of growth parameters were analyzed. The result indicated an improvement in growth performances of cowpea varieties under gamma radiation. There was a significant difference in QY and FT in all the varieties of cowpea under different treatments.

1. Ahmed Nabih, Zaki Rashed (2011) International Journal of Computational Engineering & Management, 14(1),1-8.
2. Artk C. and Peksen E. (2006) Journal of Horticulture Science, 21 (1), 95-104.
3. Awale S., Tezuka Y., Banskota A. H. and Kadota S. (2002) Bioorganic and Medicinal Chemistry, 13 (1), 31-35.
4. Dubey A.K., Yadav J.R. and Singh B. (2007) Progressive Agriculture, 7(1/2), 46-48.
5. Mishra M.N., Hina-Qadri and Shivali-Mishra (2007) International Journal of Plant Science, 2 (1), 44-47.
6. Shouse P., Dasberg S., Jury W.A., Stolzy L.H. (1981) Journal of Agronomy, 73,333-342.
7. Nwalozie M.C. (1991) CERAAS, 14.
8. Zombre G., Zongo J.D., Sankara E.T.P. (1994) Journal of African Crop Science, 2, 225-231.
9. Nwalozie M.C., Annerose D.J.M. (1996) Acta Agronomica Hungarica, 44, 229-236.
10. Pimentel C., Roy-Macauley H., Abboud AC. de S., Diouf O., Sarr B. (1999) Physiology of Molecular Biology of Plants, 5, 153-159.
11. Hamidou F. (2000) Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, 66.
12. Diallo A.T., Samb P.I., Roy-Macauley H. (2001) European Journal of Soil Biology, 37 (3), 187-196.
13. Ogbonnaya C.I., Sarr B., Brou C., Diouf O., Diop N.N., Roy-Macauley H. (2003) Crop Sci., 43, 1114-1120.
14. Passioura J.B. (1986) Australian Journal of Plant Physiology, 13, 1191-201.
15. Evans F.J., Gustafson L.A., O'Connell D.N., Orne M.T. & Shor R.E. (1969) Journal of Plant Physiology, 148, 467-476.
16. Farquhar G.D., Ehleriinger J.R. and Hubick K.T. (1989) Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Molecular Biology, 40, 503-537.
17. Richards R.A., Farquhar G.D., Hubick K.T., Condon A.G. (1988) Stable isotopes in ecological research, 21-40.
18. Hall A. E., Patel P. N. (1985) Wiley, 1, 137-151
19. Cissé M., Dornier M., Sakho M., Diaye A., Reynes, M. and Sock O. (2009) Fruits, 64 (3),179-193.
20. Shackel K.A., Hall A.E. (1979) Australian Journal of Plant Physiology, 6,265-276.
21. Stewart G.R., Turnbull M.H., Schmidt S. (1995) Australian Journal of Plant Physiology, 22 (1), 51-55.
22. Blum A. (2005) Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 56 (11), 1159-1168.