SIGNIFICANCE OF CROP BIOLOGICAL YIELD TO MAINTAIN ECONOMIC BIOMASS IN UPLAND FINGER MILLET (ELEUSINE CORACANA L)

P. KUMAR¹*, A.K. THAKUR², A. SAO³, P.S. NETAM^4
1S. G. College of Agriculture and Research Station, Jagdalpur, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur, 492012, Chhattisgarh, India
²S. G. College of Agriculture and Research Station, Jagdalpur, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur, 492012, Chhattisgarh, India
³College of Agriculture, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur, 492012, Chhattisgarh, India
⁴S. G. College of Agriculture and Research Station, Jagdalpur, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur, 492012, Chhattisgarh, India
* Corresponding Author : prafull397@gmail.com

Received : 01-05-2020     Accepted : 13-05-2020     Published : 15-05-2020
Volume : 12     Issue : 9       Pages : 9828 - 9831
Int J Agr Sci 12.9 (2020):9828-9831

Keywords : Harvest Index, Rainfed agriculture, Physiological buffer, Nutricereal
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : Authors are thankful to ICAR-All India Coordinated Research Project on Small Millets and funded by PC Unit, GKVK, UAS, Bangaluru, ICAR-IIMR, Hyderabad, India at SGCARS, IGKV, Raipur, CG, India. Authors are also thankful to S. G. College of Agriculture and Research Station, Jagdalpur, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Raipur, 492012, Chhattisgarh, India
Author Contribution : All authors equally contributed

Finger millet is being popular among policy makers and implementers because of wider adaptability to weather instability, comparable major cereals regarding yield and medicinal potential for modern disease like Diabetes Type II and other cordial disorders. Field experiment was conducted with 33 finger millet genotypes to study inheritance pattern of yield complex under rainfed environments of Bastar plateau of Chhattisgarh. In present report, fodder yield (0.4622**), productive tillers per plant (0.4492**), ear length (0.3479**) were recorded as major yield contributing factors. Role of plant height is, however, imperative with respect to assimilate transport and sink strength by regulation of fingers per ear (0.2411**); blooming period (0.3750**); total crop growth period (0.2819**) and fodder yield (0.2361**) but it showed nonsignificant negative association with grain yield (-0.0163) because higher input response may associated with crop lodging. In cross confirmation statistical analysis established fodder yield (0.3735) as maximum contributor of grain yield, through physiologically fundamental traits namely number of productive tillers per plant (0.1056); main ear length (0.1014) and plant height (0.0882). The vise versa impact was recorded for number of tillers per plant (0.2823; direct effect) via main ear length fodder yield (0.1001 and 0.0798 respectively). The results ascertain, crop canopy index as key factor for grain yield improvement while reconsidering growth cycle with respect to blooming span in rainfed small millet programmes.

1. Gunashree B.S., Kumar R.S., Roobini R. and Venkateswaran G. (2014) International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Science, 3(7) 720-736.
2. Dida M.M., Srinivasachary S., Bennetzenn J.L., Gale M.D. and Devos K.M. (2008) Tropical Plant Biology, 1, 131-141.
3. Shibairo S.I., Nyongesa O., Onwonga R. and Ambuko J. (2014) IOSR Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Science, 7 (11), 06-12.
4. Anonymous (2007) UN Population Division. World food demand and need.
5. Welch R.M. (2005) Food and Nutrition Bulletin, 26, 419- 421.
6. Zuzana S., Edita G. and Ernest S. (2009) Acta Chimica Slovaca, 2(1),115- 138.
7. Mathanghi S.K. and Sudha K. (2012) International Journal of Pharmaceutical Chemical and Biological Science, 2(4), 431- 438.
8. Murtaugh M.A., Jacobs J.R., Steffen D.R., Jacob L.M. and Marquart L. (2003) Proceedings of Nutrition Society, 62,143-149.
9. Jacobs J.R. and Gallagher D.R. (2004) Current Atherosclerosis Reports, 6, 415-423.
10. Al-Jibouri H.A., et al. (1958) Agron. J., 50, 477-483.
11. Dwey D. and Lu K. (1959) Agronomy Journal, 51,515-18.
12. Abuali A.I., Abdelmulla A.A. and Idris A.E. (2012) American Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 2(3), 370-381.
13. Kumar Prafull, Dhillon S.K., Kaur J. and Sao A. (2014) Indian Journal of Ecology, 41(1), 135-138.
14. Kumar Prafull, Sao A., Mukherjee S.C. and Netam R.S. (2015) Asian Journal of Bio Science,10 (2), 164-168.
15. Bedis M.R., Patil H.S., Jangale G.D. and Patil V.S. (2006) Crop Research, 31 (2), 264- 266.
16. Kadam D.D., Kulkarni S.R. and Jadhav B.S. (2009) Journal of Research Maharashtra agricultural University, 34 (2), 131-134.
17. Shinde A.K., Jadhav B.B., Dalvi V.V., Yadav J.K. and Ban Y.G. (2010) Journal of Maharashtra Agricultural University, 35 (2), 221- 224.
18. Priyadharshini C., Nirmalakumari A., John Joel A. and Raveendran A. (2011) Madras Agricultural Journal, 98 (1-3), 18-21.
19. Suryanarayana L., Sekhar D. and Rao N.V. (2014) International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Science, 3(4), 937-941.
20. Kumar D., Tyagi V. and Ramesh B. (2014) International Journal of Advanced Research, 2 (8), 235-240.
21. Ravindran G.R., Rajagopalan R., Krishnomoorthy V.S. and Vijayan K.P. (1996) Crop Res. Hisar, 12, 359-361.
22. Daba C. (2000) M.Sc. thesis, Alemaya University (Ethiopia).
23. Misra R.C., Sahu P.K., Pradhan B., Das S. and Misra C.H.P. (2008) Environment and Ecology, 26 (1), 166-170.
24. Reddy K.R., Reddy C.R., Kumar C.V.S. and Sekhar M.R. (1994) Annals of Agricultural Research, 4, 428-431.
25. Premalatha N., Kumaravadivel N and Veerabadhiran P. (2006) Research on Crops, 7 (1), 187- 190.
26. Anantharaju P. and Meenakshiganesan N. (2005) Crop Research Hisar, 30 (2), 227-230.