Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-42vt5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-12T18:51:16.126Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Growth Regulators on Fruiting and Yield of Black Gram (Phaseolus Mungo, Roxb.) in India

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

O. N. Mehrotra ,
H. K. Saxena ,
A. N. Roy  and
Shiva Nath
O. N. Mehrotra
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, India
H. K. Saxena
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, India
A. N. Roy
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, India
Shiva Nath
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, India
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

An experiment was conducted in 1964 and 1965 to study the effects of hormone sprays on pod setting, pod filling and grain yield of black gram. Sprays of 2-naphthoxyacetic acid and p-chlorophenoxyacetic acid, alone and in 'mixture, and gibberellic acid and 1-naphthaleneacetic acid increased pod setting, but grain filling in pods and grain size were only slightly improved. 2-naphthoxyacetic acid gave the highest yield, followed by p-chlorophenoxyacetic acid, 1-naphthaleneacetic acid and a mixture of the first two, which increased yield by 56, 39, 36 and 35 per cent respectively over the control and gave economic returns.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 4 , Issue 4 , October 1968 , pp. 339 - 344
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1968

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Crane, M. B. & Marks, E. (1952). Nature, Lond. 170, 1017.Google Scholar
Eaton, F. M. (1950). Bot. Gaz. 111, 313.Google Scholar
Emsweller, S. L. & Stuart, N. W. (1948). Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 51, 581.Google Scholar
Eyster, W. H. (1941). Science, 94, 144.Google Scholar
Maini, N. S. & Sindhu, S. S. (1959). Sci. & Cult. 25, 377.Google Scholar
Malkani, T. J. & Asana, R. D. (1958). Indian J. Plant Physiol. 1, 58.Google Scholar
Murneek, A. E., Wittwer, S. H. & Hemphill, D. D. (1944). Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 44, 428.Google Scholar
Negi, L. S. & Avatar, Singh (1956). Ind. Cott. Crow. Rev. 10, 153.Google Scholar
Pearson, C. H. (1929). Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 26, 34.Google Scholar
Randhawa, G. S. & Thompson, H. S. (1948). Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 52, 448.Google Scholar
Saxena, H. K., Wattal, P. N. & Singh, S. P. (1965). Ind. Oilseeds J. 9, 40.Google Scholar
Singh, S. & Greulach, V. A. (1949). Amer. J. Bot. 36, 646.Google Scholar
Wester, R. E. & Marth, P. C. (1949). Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 53, 315.Google Scholar
Wittwer, S. H. & Murneek, A. E. (1946). Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 47, 285.Google Scholar
Wort, D. J. (1959). Proc. IVth Int. Congr. Crop Prot., Hamburg 1957 1, 479.Google Scholar