ISSN : 0975-2862
EISSN : 0975-9158
S. MAGADUM1*, M. BALA2, P. SHARMA3, F. AZIZ4, R. KOUSER5, A. SHARMA6, L. DESKIT7, J. LAL8, S. SINGH9
1Regional Sericultural Research Station, Central Silk Board, Miran Sahib, Jammu, 181101, Jammu & Kashmir, India
2P.G. Department of Sericulture, Poonch Campus, University of Jammu, Poonch, 185101, Jammu & Kashmir, India
3P.G. Department of Sericulture, Poonch Campus, University of Jammu, Poonch, 185101, Jammu & Kashmir, India
4P.G. Department of Sericulture, Poonch Campus, University of Jammu, Poonch, 185101, Jammu & Kashmir, India
5P.G. Department of Sericulture, Poonch Campus, University of Jammu, Poonch, 185101, Jammu & Kashmir, India
6P.G. Department of Sericulture, Poonch Campus, University of Jammu, Poonch, 185101, Jammu & Kashmir, India
7P.G. Department of Sericulture, Poonch Campus, University of Jammu, Poonch, 185101, Jammu & Kashmir, India
8P.G. Department of Sericulture, Poonch Campus, University of Jammu, Poonch, 185101, Jammu & Kashmir, India
9Regional Sericultural Research Station, Central Silk Board, Miran Sahib, Jammu, 181101, Jammu & Kashmir, India
* Corresponding Author : santoshk.csb@gov.in
Received : 13-11-2020 Accepted : 22-12-2020 Published : 30-12-2020
Volume : 12 Issue : 12 Pages : 794 - 797
Genetics 12.12 (2020):794-797
Keywords : Leaf quality, Mulberry, Moisture content, Moisture retention capacity, Plantation system
Academic Editor : Dr Vipul N Kapadia, Dr. Doddabhimappa R. Gangapur
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : Authors are thankful to Regional Sericultural Research Station, Central Silk Board, Ministry of Textiles, Govt. of India, CSB Complex, Miran Sahib, Jammu, 181101, Jammu & Kashmir, India
Author Contribution : All authors equally contributed
Silkworm larval growth and development and cocoon crop yield are mainly influenced by yield and nutritional quality of mulberry (Morus spp.) leaf used as feed. The present study was conducted at Regional Sericultural Research Station, Central Silk Board, Miran Sahib, Jammu during Spring, 2019 to assess the impact of different plantation systems of mulberry on leaf quality parameters under sub-tropical conditions of Jammu. The data recorded on leaf quality parameters from three different plantation systems (3x3 ft., 8x8 ft. and 10x10 ft.) revealed that leaf moisture content was significantly higher in 8×8 ft. plantation system (80.54 %) followed by 10×10 ft. plantation system (75.03 %). However, significantly lowest moisture content (%) was recorded in 3×3 ft. plantation system (72.31 %). Lowest leaf moisture loss was found to be in 8×8 ft. plantation system at 3, 6, 9, 12 and 24 h after harvest (5.85 %, 7.53 %, 9.23 %, 11.60 % and 18.43 % respectively). Leaf moisture retention capacity was found to be higher in 8×8 ft. plantation system at 3, 6, 9, 12 and 24 h after harvest (92.74 %, 90.65 %, 88.54 %, 85.59 % and 77.12 % respectively). All the leaf quality parameters were found to be better in 8×8 ft. plantation system as compared to 3×3 ft. and 10×10 ft. plantation system. Mulberry leaf quality fed to silkworms plays a significant role and it is used as one of the important characters for evaluation of suitable mulberry varieties
1. Bongale U.D., Chaluvachari, Mallikarjunappa R.S., Narahari Rao B.V., Anantharaman M.N. and Dandin S.B. (1997) Sericologia, 37(1), 71-81.
2. Das B.C. and Sikdar A.K. (1970) Indian Journal of Sericulture, 9(1), 26-30.
3. Magadum S., Aziz F., Lal J., Bala M., Sharma P., Sharma A., Kouser R., Deskit L. and Singh S. (2019) International Journal of Agriculture Sciences, 11(24), 9354-9357.
4. Laskar N. and Datta M. (2000) Environment and Ecology, 18, 591-596.
5. Purohit K.M. and Pavan Kumar T. (1996) Sericologia, 36(1), 27-39.
6. Seidavi A., Bizhannia A.R., Sourati R. and Mavvajpour M. (2005) Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 14 (Supplement), 122.
7. Paul D.C., Subba Roa G. and Deb D.C. (1992) Journal of Insect Physiology, 38(3), 229-235.
8. Anantharaman K.V., Mala V.R., Magadum S.B., Sarkar A., Bajpai A.K. and Datta R.K. (1995) Environment and Ecology, 13(2), 263-268.
9. Bongale U.D. (1991) Indian Silk, 30(5), 7-12.
10. Singh R.K. and Choudhary B.D. (1977) Kalyani Publishers, New Delhi, India, 53-59.
11. Legacy J.M. (1958) Annual Review of Entomology, 3, 75-86.
12. HamamuraY., Nayashiya K., Naito K., Matsura K. and Nishida J. (1962) Nature, 183, 1746-1747.
13. Mandal L.N. and Krishnaswami S. (1965) In: The World Congress on Silk Production, Bairut.
14. Paul D.C., Subba Roa G. and Deb D.C. (1992) Journal of Insect Physiology, 38(3), 229-235.
15. Mallikarjunappa R.S., Venkateshaiah H.V., Bongale U.D., Chandrakala M.V. and Chaluvachari. (2000) Indian Journal of Sericulture, 39(2), 122-126.
16. Murthy Y.V.N., Ramesh H.L. and Munirajappa. (2013) Indian Journal of Applied Research, 3(8), 31-33.
17. Sujathamma P. and Dandin S.B. (2000) Indian Journal of Sericulture, 39(2), 117-121.
18. Tikader A. and Roy B.N. (2003) Indian Journal of Forestry, 26(1), 25-29.
19. Khan I.L., Malik G.N., Dar H.U., Baqual M.F., Malik M.A. and Raja T.A. (2007) Indian Journal of Sericulture, 46(2), 96-102.
20. Jalaja Kumar S. and Ram Rao D.M. (2008) Sericologia, 48(1), 85-93.
21. Shivashankar M. (2015) International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences, 4(6), 1200-1206.
22. Gokhale S.B., Kullkarni P.K. Dusane S.E., Halbe S.C. and Babar S.B. (1997) Indian Silk, 35(8&9), 17-20.
23. Rao P.A., Mallikarjunappa R.S. and Dandin S.B. (2000) Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 13(4), 882-886.
24. Susheelamma B.N. and Dandin S.B. (2006) Advances in Plant Sciences, 19(1), 23-28.
25. Ananya N.C. (2014) M.Sc. Thesis. University of Agricultural Sciences, Bengaluru, India.
26. Vanitha C., Narayanaswamy K.C., Amaranatha N. and Gowda M. (2019) International Journal of Chemical Studies, 7(3), 1384-1386.
27. Das B.C., Sahu P.K., Sengupta T., Misra A.K., Saratchandra B. and Sen S.K. (2001) Indian Journal of Plant Physiology, 6, 162-165.
28. Kumar R. and Vadamalai E. (2010) Asian Journal of Experimental Biological Sciences, 1(2), 303-310.